TAM Bytes, May 20, 2013
Whether state rebutted presumption of prejudice when jury foreman was subject to improper outside influence, whether husband was entitled to reduction in alimony when wife became Medicare-eligible, whether state elections for aggravated sexual battery and child rape were effective insofar as describing discrete instances of criminal conduct, and more from the Tennessee appellate courts …
Content
TAM-BYTES May 20, 2013 Vol. 16, No. 20
2013 CLE CALENDAR Audio Conferences “Living in a Digital World: How Attorneys Can Effectively Use Digital Technology While Avoiding Ethical Pitfalls,” 60-minute webinar presented by Brian Faughnan, Memphis attorney, on Thursday May 30 at 2 p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern). Earn one hour of DUAL credit! “Creditors’ Rights in Tennessee: 10 Collection Strategies,” 60-minute audio conference presented by David Anthony, Nasville attorney, on Thursday, June 6 at 10 a.m. (Central), 11 a.m. (Eastern). “Dividing Specialty Retirement Plans: A Primer for Tennessee Attorneys,” 60minute webinar presented by James D. Helton, Brentwood attorney, on Thursday, June 6 at 2 p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern). “Liability of Insurance Agents: The Ins and Outs of Handling Claims in Tennessee,” 60-minute webinar presented by Chad Naffziger, Jackson attorney, on Tuesday, June 25 at 2p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern). “Slips, Trips, and Falls in Tennessee: Premises Liability and Defenses in Tennessee,” 90-minute audio conference presented by Bryan Moseley, Murfreesboro attorney, on Wednesday, June 26 at 10 a.m. (Central), 11 a.m. (Eastern). “Impact of the Greenbank Decision: Challenges to Foreclosure Sales in Tennessee,” 60-minute webinar presented by Sean Kirk, Nashville attorney, on Wednesday, June 26 at 2p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern). “Alimony in Tennessee: Recent Cases and Developments,” 60-minute audio conference presented by Kevin Shepherd, Maryville attorney, on Thursday, June 27 at 2p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern). For more information or to register for any of our CLE events, call (800) 2746774 or visit us at www.mleesmith.com
IN THIS WEEK’S TAM-Bytes Supreme Court affirms trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for new trial in first degree murder case based on juror misconduct when state was able to present sufficient evidence rebutting presumption of prejudice; Court of Appeals holds trial court did not abuse discretion in failing to reduce husband’s $1,300 per month alimony in futuro spousal support obligation when husband failed to prove substantial and material change in circumstances that would necessitate modification in his support obligation beyond that already received by substantial reduction in wife’s health insurance premiums due to wife becoming Medicare-eligible; Court of Criminal Appeals rules state’s election of defendant’s convictions for aggravated sexual battery in Counts 1 and 2, its election of convictions for child rape under Counts 6 and 7, and its election of convictions for aggravated sexual battery and assault under Counts 3 and 4 were ineffective insofar as describing two discrete instances of criminal conduct and violated double jeopardy; and Sixth Circuit finds defendant’s confession was coerced based on police impropriety that occurred and deplorable interrogation techniques that were used by investigator. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial court properly denied defendant’s request for new trial in first degree murder case based on juror misconduct when, although member of jury (foreman) was subjected to improper outside influence when discharged alternate juror left note for foreman in his hotel room during jury deliberations stating opinion of both alternate jurors that defendant was guilty of first degree premeditated murder, state presented sufficient evidence, i.e., overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, reb utting presumption of prejudice. State v. Adams, 5/16/13, Jackson, Wade, unanimous, 21 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/adamsprinceopn.pdf
COURT OF APPEALS COMMERCIAL LAW: Plaintiff brought suit for foreclosure and damages against borrower alleging default by failure to make scheduled principal and interest payments, by improperly allowing liens against mortgaged property in violation of loan agreements and by misapplication of rents collected from leasing mortgaged property, and plaintiff filed amended complaint seeking relief in nature of personal
liability against borrower’s owner under loan, trial court erred in granting plaintiff summary judgment and holding both borrower and “Key Principal” liable for deficiency following foreclosure sale and for damages; plaintiff failed to provide written notice as required by Security Instrument, and its filing of amended complaint alleging default and consequent personal liability was not effective notice under respective contract; because plaintiff failed to provide written notice as required by Security Instrument, there was no default resulting from liens on property under clear and express language of Security Instrument providing that “[a]n event of Default shall not be deemed to have occurred under this Security Instrument until the expiration of the applicable notice and cure period set forth above.” Federal National Mortgage Association v. TN Metro Holdings XII LLC, 5/14/13, ES at Nashville, Frierson, 10 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/fnma_vtn_metro_holdings_opn.pdf
FAMILY LAW: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying father's TRCP 60.02 motion to vacate default judgment in paternity case in which trial court awarded mother child support arrearage of $15,577 and ordered father to pay mother $100 per month toward arrearage as well as $1,287 per month in child support, when father's negligence in failing to appear and defend mother's petition to set child support of her two children was inexcusable; although father met his burden to assert defense that had possibility of succeeding at trial with regard to child custody issues, father placed all responsibility for delays in case on his prior attorney, who father claimed failed to inform him of proceedings while he was counsel of record and who failed to timely send father's file to his new attorney, and father disregarded his prior attorney's repeated advice in delaying to retain new attorney despite his knowledge that important litigation was pending regarding his children. Editor’s note: Original opinion issued on 4/15/13 was withdrawn on 5/13/13, and new opinion was issued with same date. Butler v. Vinsant, 4/15/13, WS at Nashville, Stafford, partial dissent by Kirby, 19 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/butlerh._opnsub.pdf http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/butlerh_opnsubpartialdissent.pdf
FAMILY LAW: Trial court did not abuse discretion in failing to reduce husband ’s $1,300 per month alimony in futuro spousal support obligation when husband failed to prove substantial and material change in circumstances that would necessitate modification in his support obligation beyond that already received by substantial reduction in wife’s health insurance premiums due to wife becoming Medicareeligible; although husband testified that he had only received approximately $20,000 per year from his insurance company, of which he was sole stockholder and principal insurance agent, since time of divorce in 2007, his previously reported income was almost entirely replaced by his social security and retirement benefits of $1,660 per month, and husband continued to loan himself money from company in
lieu of receiving higher salary, while, in contrast, wife’s ability to work had declined since divorce, and her social security benefits were not commensurate with her imputed income of $14,000 to $16,000 per year at time of divorce. Harkleroad v. Harkleroad, 5/10/13, ES, McClarty, 7 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/harkleroadopn.pdf
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CRIMINAL LAW: Trial court acted without legal authority in entering first degree murder judgment of conviction against defendant when judgment of convictions contains substantive errors that must be corrected – although defendant was convicted under TCA 39-2-202, which was in effective at time of offense in 11/87, judgment of conviction shows that he was convicted under TCA 39-13-202, which did not become effective until 11/1/89; judgment shows that defendant’s conviction offense was Class A felony, when in fact first degree murder was Class X felony at time of offense; and defendant’s conviction for first degree murder should have resulted in life sentence with release eligibility on that life sentence after service of 30 years pursuant to TCA 40-35-501(f), rather than sentence of 60 years with release eligibility of 60%, or 36 years, under TCA 40-35-501(g), which also did not become effective until 11/1/89; because defendant’s first degree murder judgment of conviction is incorrect, and errors are of substantive, rather than clerical, nature, defendant’s first degree murder judgment of conviction is reversed, and case is remanded for entry of corrected judgment. Taylor v. State, 5/15/13, Nashville, McMullen, 9 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/taylorjamesopn.pdf
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: In case in which defendant was convicted of two counts of rape of child, four counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of assault, state’s election of defendant’s convictions for aggravated sexual battery in Counts 1 and 2, its election of convictions for child rape under Counts 6 and 7, and its election of convictions for aggravated sexual battery and assault under Counts 3 and 4 were ineffective insofar as describing two discrete instances of criminal conduct and violated double jeopardy – state’s election was attempt to split single instance of criminal conduct into two separate instances of criminal conduct, and prosecutor’s suggestive phrasing and asking leading questions did not cure lack of specificity; defendant’s convictions under Counts 1 and 2 must be merged into single conviction of aggravated sexual battery, convictions under Counts 6 and 7 must be merged into single conviction for rape of child, and convictions under Counts 3 and 4 must be merged into single conviction for aggravated sexual battery; defendant’s convictions for aggravated sexual battery entered on Counts 3 and 8 are affirmed. State v. Guilfoy, 5/13/13, Nashville, Bivins, 39 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/guilfoytopn.pdf
SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CIVIL PROCEDURE: In case in which plaintiffs’ attorney electronically filed motion to alter or amend order of dismissal on last day of 28-day period, entered wrong docket information into electronic filing system (ECF), realized error on next day, and filed notice of ECF correction with another copy of motion attached but did not actually refile motion until six days later, district court erred in construing FRCP 59 motion as untimely filed; electronically-filed motions received by clerk of court within specified time period should be considered timely, even when they contain wrong docket number; plaintiff’s FRCP 59 motion effective ly tolled 30-day period for filing notice of appeal, which was, in turn, timely filed. Shuler v. Garrett, 5/6/13, Daughtrey, 5 pages, Pub.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0126p-06.pdf
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: In case in which defendant was arrested for probation violation, upon his arrival at police station, investigator began speaking with defendant about series of burglaries, specifically burglary on Hillcrest Drive where two rings, handgun, and watch were stolen, defendant asked investigator what would happen if he provided information about gun, and investigator was very clear that no one would be charged, that defendant did not need to “worry about it,” and that he was one who “wrote the warrants,” indicating that investigator influenced which cases prosecutors would pursue and whom police would arrest, and after defendant confessed to Hillcrest burglary and told investigator that he had sold gun to his nephew, investigator broke his promise and turned defendant over to federal prosecutors who charged him with weapons violation, totality of circumstances show that defendant’s confession was coerced; while weapons charges are usually brought in federal court, defendant should not have been charged because of police impropriety that occurred and deplorable interrogation techniques that were used by investigator; investigator’s repetitive promises that no one would be charged for gun were sufficient to spur defendant, even one with experience with criminal justice system, to make confession and certainly were not good investigator work. United States v. Siler, 5/15/13, Martin, 7 pages, N/Pub.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0489n-06.pdf
PUBLIC CHAPTERS GOVERNMENT: Photo identification card issued by county or municipality or any entity thereof, including public library, will not be evidence of identification for
purposes of verifying person’s identification for voting purposes. 2013 PC 178, effective 4/23/13, 2 pages.
http://www.tn.gov/sos/acts/108/pub/pc0178.pdf
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Criminal prosecution may be commenced by finding indictment or presentment or issuance of warrant identifying offender by DNA profile. 2013 PC 205, effective 7/1/13, 2 pages.
http://www.tn.gov/sos/acts/108/pub/pc0205.pdf
CRIMINAL LAW: Court may order any person convicted of “a DUI offense” to operate only motor vehicle equipped with ignition interlock device, so long as individual’s sentence is not enhanced due to certain conduct and individual is otherwise eligible for restricted license. 2013 PC 154, effective 7/1/13, 26 pages.
http://www.tn.gov/sos/acts/108/pub/pc0154.pdf
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation requiring production of evidence in animal cruelty case is constitutionally suspect under First Amendment; circumscribed, non-commercial use of images depicting cruelty to livestock during course of law enforcement investigation of crime amounts to fair use; persons who may receive images depicting cruelty to livestock through public records request to government would be subject to any applicable copyright restrictions regarding display, reproduction, or distribution of those images. Editor’s note: Gov. Bill Haslam vetoed this legislation (SB 1248/HB 1191). Attorney General Opinion 1339, 5/9/13, 10 pages.
http://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2013/op13-39.pdf
If you would like a copy of the full text of any of these opinions, simply click on the link provided or, if no link is provided, you may respond to this e-mail or call us at (615) 661-0248 in order to request a copy. You may also view and download the full text of any state appellate court decision by accessing the state’s web site by clicking here: http://www.tncourts.gov/
2013 CLE CALENDAR Audio Conferences “Living in a Digital World: How Attorneys Can Effectively Use Digital Technology While Avoiding Ethical Pitfalls,” 60-minute webinar presented by Brian Faughnan, Memphis attorney, on Thursday May 30 at 2 p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern). Earn one hour of DUAL credit! “Creditors’ Rights in Tennessee: 10 Collection Strategies,” 60-minute audio conference presented by David Anthony, Nasville attorney, on Thursday, June 6 at 10 a.m. (Central), 11 a.m. (Eastern). “Dividing Specialty Retirement Plans: A Primer for Tennessee Attorneys,” 60minute webinar presented by James D. Helton, Brentwood attorney, on Thursday, June 6 at 2 p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern). “Liability of Insurance Agents: The Ins and Outs of Handling Claims in Tennessee,” 60-minute webinar presented by Chad Naffziger, Jackson attorney, on Tuesday, June 25 at 2p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern). “Slips, Trips, and Falls in Tennessee: Premises Liability and Defenses in Tennessee,” 90-minute audio conference presented by Bryan Moseley, Murfreesboro attorney, on Wednesday, June 26 at 10 a.m. (Central), 11 a.m. (Eastern). “Impact of the Greenbank Decision: Challenges to Foreclosure Sales in Tennessee,” 60-minute webinar presented by Sean Kirk, Nashville attorney, on Wednesday, June 26 at 2p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern). “Alimony in Tennessee: Recent Cases and Developments,” 60-minute audio conference presented by Kevin Shepherd, Maryville attorney, on Thursday, June 27 at 2p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern). For more information or to register for any of our CLE events, call (800) 2746774 or visit us at www.mleesmith.com
IN THIS WEEK’S TAM-Bytes Supreme Court affirms trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for new trial in first degree murder case based on juror misconduct when state was able to present sufficient evidence rebutting presumption of prejudice; Court of Appeals holds trial court did not abuse discretion in failing to reduce husband’s $1,300 per month alimony in futuro spousal support obligation when husband failed to prove substantial and material change in circumstances that would necessitate modification in his support obligation beyond that already received by substantial reduction in wife’s health insurance premiums due to wife becoming Medicare-eligible; Court of Criminal Appeals rules state’s election of defendant’s convictions for aggravated sexual battery in Counts 1 and 2, its election of convictions for child rape under Counts 6 and 7, and its election of convictions for aggravated sexual battery and assault under Counts 3 and 4 were ineffective insofar as describing two discrete instances of criminal conduct and violated double jeopardy; and Sixth Circuit finds defendant’s confession was coerced based on police impropriety that occurred and deplorable interrogation techniques that were used by investigator. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial court properly denied defendant’s request for new trial in first degree murder case based on juror misconduct when, although member of jury (foreman) was subjected to improper outside influence when discharged alternate juror left note for foreman in his hotel room during jury deliberations stating opinion of both alternate jurors that defendant was guilty of first degree premeditated murder, state presented sufficient evidence, i.e., overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, reb utting presumption of prejudice. State v. Adams, 5/16/13, Jackson, Wade, unanimous, 21 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/adamsprinceopn.pdf
COURT OF APPEALS COMMERCIAL LAW: Plaintiff brought suit for foreclosure and damages against borrower alleging default by failure to make scheduled principal and interest payments, by improperly allowing liens against mortgaged property in violation of loan agreements and by misapplication of rents collected from leasing mortgaged property, and plaintiff filed amended complaint seeking relief in nature of personal
liability against borrower’s owner under loan, trial court erred in granting plaintiff summary judgment and holding both borrower and “Key Principal” liable for deficiency following foreclosure sale and for damages; plaintiff failed to provide written notice as required by Security Instrument, and its filing of amended complaint alleging default and consequent personal liability was not effective notice under respective contract; because plaintiff failed to provide written notice as required by Security Instrument, there was no default resulting from liens on property under clear and express language of Security Instrument providing that “[a]n event of Default shall not be deemed to have occurred under this Security Instrument until the expiration of the applicable notice and cure period set forth above.” Federal National Mortgage Association v. TN Metro Holdings XII LLC, 5/14/13, ES at Nashville, Frierson, 10 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/fnma_vtn_metro_holdings_opn.pdf
FAMILY LAW: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying father's TRCP 60.02 motion to vacate default judgment in paternity case in which trial court awarded mother child support arrearage of $15,577 and ordered father to pay mother $100 per month toward arrearage as well as $1,287 per month in child support, when father's negligence in failing to appear and defend mother's petition to set child support of her two children was inexcusable; although father met his burden to assert defense that had possibility of succeeding at trial with regard to child custody issues, father placed all responsibility for delays in case on his prior attorney, who father claimed failed to inform him of proceedings while he was counsel of record and who failed to timely send father's file to his new attorney, and father disregarded his prior attorney's repeated advice in delaying to retain new attorney despite his knowledge that important litigation was pending regarding his children. Editor’s note: Original opinion issued on 4/15/13 was withdrawn on 5/13/13, and new opinion was issued with same date. Butler v. Vinsant, 4/15/13, WS at Nashville, Stafford, partial dissent by Kirby, 19 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/butlerh._opnsub.pdf http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/butlerh_opnsubpartialdissent.pdf
FAMILY LAW: Trial court did not abuse discretion in failing to reduce husband ’s $1,300 per month alimony in futuro spousal support obligation when husband failed to prove substantial and material change in circumstances that would necessitate modification in his support obligation beyond that already received by substantial reduction in wife’s health insurance premiums due to wife becoming Medicareeligible; although husband testified that he had only received approximately $20,000 per year from his insurance company, of which he was sole stockholder and principal insurance agent, since time of divorce in 2007, his previously reported income was almost entirely replaced by his social security and retirement benefits of $1,660 per month, and husband continued to loan himself money from company in
lieu of receiving higher salary, while, in contrast, wife’s ability to work had declined since divorce, and her social security benefits were not commensurate with her imputed income of $14,000 to $16,000 per year at time of divorce. Harkleroad v. Harkleroad, 5/10/13, ES, McClarty, 7 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/harkleroadopn.pdf
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CRIMINAL LAW: Trial court acted without legal authority in entering first degree murder judgment of conviction against defendant when judgment of convictions contains substantive errors that must be corrected – although defendant was convicted under TCA 39-2-202, which was in effective at time of offense in 11/87, judgment of conviction shows that he was convicted under TCA 39-13-202, which did not become effective until 11/1/89; judgment shows that defendant’s conviction offense was Class A felony, when in fact first degree murder was Class X felony at time of offense; and defendant’s conviction for first degree murder should have resulted in life sentence with release eligibility on that life sentence after service of 30 years pursuant to TCA 40-35-501(f), rather than sentence of 60 years with release eligibility of 60%, or 36 years, under TCA 40-35-501(g), which also did not become effective until 11/1/89; because defendant’s first degree murder judgment of conviction is incorrect, and errors are of substantive, rather than clerical, nature, defendant’s first degree murder judgment of conviction is reversed, and case is remanded for entry of corrected judgment. Taylor v. State, 5/15/13, Nashville, McMullen, 9 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/taylorjamesopn.pdf
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: In case in which defendant was convicted of two counts of rape of child, four counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of assault, state’s election of defendant’s convictions for aggravated sexual battery in Counts 1 and 2, its election of convictions for child rape under Counts 6 and 7, and its election of convictions for aggravated sexual battery and assault under Counts 3 and 4 were ineffective insofar as describing two discrete instances of criminal conduct and violated double jeopardy – state’s election was attempt to split single instance of criminal conduct into two separate instances of criminal conduct, and prosecutor’s suggestive phrasing and asking leading questions did not cure lack of specificity; defendant’s convictions under Counts 1 and 2 must be merged into single conviction of aggravated sexual battery, convictions under Counts 6 and 7 must be merged into single conviction for rape of child, and convictions under Counts 3 and 4 must be merged into single conviction for aggravated sexual battery; defendant’s convictions for aggravated sexual battery entered on Counts 3 and 8 are affirmed. State v. Guilfoy, 5/13/13, Nashville, Bivins, 39 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/guilfoytopn.pdf
SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CIVIL PROCEDURE: In case in which plaintiffs’ attorney electronically filed motion to alter or amend order of dismissal on last day of 28-day period, entered wrong docket information into electronic filing system (ECF), realized error on next day, and filed notice of ECF correction with another copy of motion attached but did not actually refile motion until six days later, district court erred in construing FRCP 59 motion as untimely filed; electronically-filed motions received by clerk of court within specified time period should be considered timely, even when they contain wrong docket number; plaintiff’s FRCP 59 motion effective ly tolled 30-day period for filing notice of appeal, which was, in turn, timely filed. Shuler v. Garrett, 5/6/13, Daughtrey, 5 pages, Pub.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0126p-06.pdf
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: In case in which defendant was arrested for probation violation, upon his arrival at police station, investigator began speaking with defendant about series of burglaries, specifically burglary on Hillcrest Drive where two rings, handgun, and watch were stolen, defendant asked investigator what would happen if he provided information about gun, and investigator was very clear that no one would be charged, that defendant did not need to “worry about it,” and that he was one who “wrote the warrants,” indicating that investigator influenced which cases prosecutors would pursue and whom police would arrest, and after defendant confessed to Hillcrest burglary and told investigator that he had sold gun to his nephew, investigator broke his promise and turned defendant over to federal prosecutors who charged him with weapons violation, totality of circumstances show that defendant’s confession was coerced; while weapons charges are usually brought in federal court, defendant should not have been charged because of police impropriety that occurred and deplorable interrogation techniques that were used by investigator; investigator’s repetitive promises that no one would be charged for gun were sufficient to spur defendant, even one with experience with criminal justice system, to make confession and certainly were not good investigator work. United States v. Siler, 5/15/13, Martin, 7 pages, N/Pub.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0489n-06.pdf
PUBLIC CHAPTERS GOVERNMENT: Photo identification card issued by county or municipality or any entity thereof, including public library, will not be evidence of identification for
purposes of verifying person’s identification for voting purposes. 2013 PC 178, effective 4/23/13, 2 pages.
http://www.tn.gov/sos/acts/108/pub/pc0178.pdf
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Criminal prosecution may be commenced by finding indictment or presentment or issuance of warrant identifying offender by DNA profile. 2013 PC 205, effective 7/1/13, 2 pages.
http://www.tn.gov/sos/acts/108/pub/pc0205.pdf
CRIMINAL LAW: Court may order any person convicted of “a DUI offense” to operate only motor vehicle equipped with ignition interlock device, so long as individual’s sentence is not enhanced due to certain conduct and individual is otherwise eligible for restricted license. 2013 PC 154, effective 7/1/13, 26 pages.
http://www.tn.gov/sos/acts/108/pub/pc0154.pdf
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation requiring production of evidence in animal cruelty case is constitutionally suspect under First Amendment; circumscribed, non-commercial use of images depicting cruelty to livestock during course of law enforcement investigation of crime amounts to fair use; persons who may receive images depicting cruelty to livestock through public records request to government would be subject to any applicable copyright restrictions regarding display, reproduction, or distribution of those images. Editor’s note: Gov. Bill Haslam vetoed this legislation (SB 1248/HB 1191). Attorney General Opinion 1339, 5/9/13, 10 pages.
http://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2013/op13-39.pdf
If you would like a copy of the full text of any of these opinions, simply click on the link provided or, if no link is provided, you may respond to this e-mail or call us at (615) 661-0248 in order to request a copy. You may also view and download the full text of any state appellate court decision by accessing the state’s web site by clicking here: http://www.tncourts.gov/
