invalid. See In re Estate of Elam, 738 S.W.2d 169, 173 (Tenn. 1987); see also Richmond v. Christian, 555 S.W.2d 105, 107 (Tenn. 1977). Furthermore, Mr. Burns would have had the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the deed was fair to the decedent. See Ralston v. Hobbs, 306 S.W.3d 213, 227-28 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). Significantly, however, the jury was not informed of the presumption that some improper advantage was taken of the decedent or that it was Mr. Burns’ burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the conveyance of the property was fair to the decedent. For these reasons, the trial court’s answer and the supplemental jury instruction failed to constitute a complete and correct charge of the law. See State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 390 (Tenn. 2011) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the answer and supplemental
recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights holding that the constitutional guarantee of a right to trial by jury includes the right to a complete and correct charge of the law so that each issue of fact raised by the evidence will be submitted to the jury on proper instructions recognizing that instructions must be correct and complete holding that the sixth amendments guarantee of a trial by jury requires the jury to base its verdict only on the evidence presented at trial holding that the constitutional right to a speedy trial includes the right to a reasonably prompt sentencing