Attorneys for Byron Black, a man on Tennessee’s death row, are asking the Tennessee Supreme Court to order a lower court to consider whether he is mentally competent to be executed. Black was sentenced to death in Nashville in 1989 for the murders of his girlfriend and her daughters. He is scheduled to be executed on Aug. 5. In court filings, Black’s attorneys have said he has an intellectual disability, progressive dementia and brain damage, which leave him incapable of grasping why he is being put to death. They argue that the trial court and Court of Criminal Appeals erred when they declined to consider competency. Nashville Public Radio has more on the story. In 2022, Nashville District Attorney Glenn Funk agreed that Black should be removed from death row.

The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear an appeal of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) as it tries to protect its constitutional rights in a case connected to an inquiry by the SBC Credentials Committee. According to a press release from Baptist Press, Preston Garner, a longtime worship pastor and school music teacher, and his wife Kellie filed suit in 2023 against the SBC, Guidepost Solutions and others alleging defamation/libel and slander, defamation by implication, invasion of privacy and loss of consortium. The Garners claim the SBC defamed them in conversations after a confidential report was made to the SBC’s abuse hotline. The SBC argued in court that it was protected by the church autonomy doctrine, a First Amendment right which keeps courts from interfering in disputes within religious bodies that involve religious faith, doctrine or governance. Two lower courts have rejected that argument.

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued a decision in State of Tennessee v. Pervis Tyrone Payne affirming the trial court’s modification of Payne’s death sentences but vacating its order that the sentences be served concurrently instead of consecutively. Payne was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder in 1987 for the murders of Charisse Christopher and her 2-year-old daughter, and the attempted murder of Christopher’s 3-year-old son. The court ruled that while a 2021 law allowed the trial court to reduce Payne’s death sentences due to intellectual disability, it did not authorize the court to change the sentencing alignment. As a result, Payne’s life sentences must be served consecutively, delaying his eligibility for parole. Shelby County Criminal Court Judge Paula Skahan had ruled in February 2022 that Payne would serve his two life sentences concurrently, which would have made him eligible for parole in five years. His death penalty sentence was officially vacated in November 2021.

The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has provided a notice of intent to release a request for proposal (RFP) for a statewide court case management system and efiling solution for all of the state’s trial courts. According to the AOC, this initiative is a critical element of its strategic vision to modernize court technology and enhance data accessibility across the state's judicial system. The notice, which can be found here, provides early awareness of the RFP to "support broad and fair competition for this procurement and to allow vendors, including those who may desire to partner, adequate time to respond." Interested vendors are encouraged to monitor this link for the full RFP document and submission details, which is expected to be released in July.

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently adopted amendments to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 46. The change, which took effect immediately, allows attorneys to electronically file unsworn declarations with electronic signatures in lieu of printed notarized affidavits. The court said it took the action after the General Assembly approved a change to Rule 22 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, which allows the use of unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury in lieu of notarized affidavits if filed by licensed Tennessee attorneys in good standing. The change to the appellate rules was proposed jointly by the Tennessee District Public Defenders Conference, the Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office. Read the order and see a redline version of the changes.

The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases on May 28 before a group of rising high school seniors at the Tennessee American Legion Boys State in Cookeville. The event is part of the Court’s SCALES program, which educates students about the Tennessee legal system and the functions of the judicial branch. The court will hear arguments in State v. Ginny Parker and State v. Antonio Demetrius Adkisson. Then on May 29, beginning at 9 a.m. CDT, the court will hear three cases at the Tennessee Supreme Court building in Nashville. Those cases include Tinsley Properties LLC et al. v. Grundy County, Jo Carol Edwards v. Peoplease LLC et al., and Berkeley Research Group LLC v. Southern Advanced Materials LLC. A fourth case, Connie Reguli v. Board of Professional Responsibility, will be submitted to the court on the briefs. All oral arguments will be livestreamed to the court’s YouTube page.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that the Quality Improvement Committee (QIC) privilege under state law is waivable. The decision came in a negligence lawsuit brought by Payton Castillo against CHI Memorial Hospital and other health care providers following the death of her husband. After his death, the hospital formed a QIC to evaluate the care he received and later disclosed QIC-protected information to Castillo during a meeting. When she sought to obtain those statements in discovery, the hospital argued they were privileged under the QIC statute, which shields records and statements related to QIC activities from disclosure. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the information was discoverable, and the hospital appealed. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that while the disclosed information fell within the protections of the statute, the hospital waived its privilege by voluntarily sharing the information with Castillo.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has issued a request for comments on three rules change proposals. The first, proposed by the CLE Commission, makes a number of changes to the commission’s regulations. The changes are detailed in a red line document attached to the order. The second proposes changes to Rule 21 Section 4.05 to reflect the fact that the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners no longer prepares bar examination questions and replace “Tennessee or any of the sister states” with “any state” in a section dealing with earning CLE credit through service as a bar examiner. The third proposes changes to Rule 21, section 5.01(g)(10) to align it with the current version of section 4.08(a). The deadline for submitting comments for any of these proposals is June 27. Written comments should reference docket No. ADM2025-00453 and be emailed to appellatecourtclerk@tncourts.gov or mailed to James Hivner, Clerk, Re: Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 21, 401 Seventh Ave. N., Ste. 321, Nashville, TN 37219-1407.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has adopted amendments to Rule 9, Section 10.6; Rule 21, Section 7.07; and Rule 43, Section 15. The court said it was making the changes to “clarify and bring consistency” to rules dealing with the effective date of suspensions for non-payment of annual registration fees, non-compliance with requirements for Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA), and non-compliance with continuing legal education requirements. The amendments took effect immediately.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has found that a trial court could order a man who voluntarily dismissed his own lawsuit to pay his ex-wife’s attorney fees associated with that suit. The court said that under Tennessee law, “the challenger who forfeits, loses, and his opponent wins.” Even if the dismissal was voluntary, it held, the wife successfully kept her alimony and prevailed over efforts to end it. Justice Sarah K. Campbell wrote a separate opinion that concurred in the judgment and cautioned that the majority’s reasoning in the case should be limited to the family law context. She was joined in the concurring opinion by Justice Jeffrey S. Bivins. Read more about the case in a news release from the Administrative Office of the Courts or read the opinions.