Supreme Court To Hear Lethal Injection Protocol Case, 5 Others In Nashville Oral Arguments

Monday, October 3, 2016

The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear six cases October 5 and 6 in Nashville, including a case concerning the constitutionality of Tennessee’s lethal injection protocol.

Stephen West, et al. v. Derrick Schofield, et al. – In this case concerning the constitutionality of Tennessee’s lethal injection protocol, 33 death-row inmates are suing various people and entities representing the State of Tennessee in the execution process. This case comes to the Supreme Court straight from the trial court, as the Court used a special provision in state law that allows them to assume jurisdiction “in cases of unusual public importance.” The Court will consider whether Tennessee’s execution protocol creates a substantial risk of a lingering death and serious harm that violates the Eighth Amendment; and whether execution under the protocol constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under Tennessee’s Constitution.

Joseph Brennan, et al. v. Board of Parole for the State of Tennessee – This case concerns parole for an inmate sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment for two counts of attempted rape of a child. The law provides that Joseph Brennan was eligible for a parole hearing after serving 30% of his sentence. After serving only 20% of his sentence, he was granted a hearing because of his good behavior. The parole board denied parole because of the nature of his offense and deferred his next parole hearing until he had completed 45% of his sentence. The Supreme Court will consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining Mr. Brennan was eligible for release on a fixed date and in holding that it was arbitrary for the Board of Parole to deny parole after an “early” parole hearing and then to defer petitioner’s next parole hearing beyond the 30% time served mark. The Court also will consider whether the Board of Parole acted illegally, fraudulently, or arbitrarily when it denied parole to the petitioner solely because he had committed a sexual offense.
Cassidy Lynne Aragon v. Reynaldo Manuel Aragon – In this parental relocation case, the father, who shared custody of a daughter with his ex-wife (the mother), sought to move out of state. The trial court concluded that relocation was not in the best interests of the child and the Court of Appeals agreed. The Supreme Court will consider whether the Court of Appeals wrongfully restricted the definition of ‘reasonable purpose’ as used in the Parental Relocation Statute.

Elizabeth Eberbach v. Christopher Eberbach – This is a post-divorce case in which there was a dispute over medical bills for the couple’s children. The trial court awarded the medical payments as well as attorney fees to the mother. The father appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, but declined to award additional attorney’s fees from the appeal to the mother. The Supreme Court will consider whether the Court of Appeals has the discretion to deny attorney’s fees on appeal when a party is awarded attorney’s fees in the trial court based on a Marital Dissolution Agreement requiring fees to be paid to the prevailing party in proceedings to enforce the agreement. The Court also will consider the general authority of the Court of Appeals in cases with similar fee arrangements.

Charles Grogan v. Daniel Uggla, et al. – This appeal involves a home inspector’s liability for a guest’s injury following the collapse of a homeowner’s second-story deck railing. Charles Grogan fell two stories when the railing on Daniel Uggla’s deck failed. Mr. Uggla had recently purchased the home and a home inspection did not reveal any deficiency with the railing. The trial and appellate court determined the inspector did not owe a legal duty to the guest. The Supreme Court will consider whether, under Tennessee law, a home inspector retained by a purchaser owes a duty to a third-party guest who suffers personal injuries as a result of an allegedly negligent inspection.

State of Tennessee v. Jerry Lewis Tuttle – The only criminal case on the docket concerns a defendant who was convicted of several drug-related charges including possession, money laundering and intent to sell or deliver. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions after it determined on appeal that the search of his property that led to the charges violated his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures because the affidavit in support of the search warrant did not provide probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be found on his property. The Supreme Court will consider whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in that finding and whether it was based on a ‘hyper technical’ reading of the warrant.

The Supreme Court will hear the six cases over two days at the Nashville Supreme Court Building, 401 7^th Avenue N., Nashville, 37219. The schedule is as follows:

Wednesday, October 5, 9:30 a.m.