There was a gag tied across her mouth, and strips of the blue terry cloth had been wrapped tightly around her neck. 729 F.2d at 260-61. For example, in Starusko, supra, the court found that the impeachment of a "key government witness" was material because "his credibility may well be determinative of guilt or innocence . Had the attorney done voluntarily what he was forced to do by the trial court in this case, there can be little doubt that he would be subject to a charge of incompetency and found to have rendered ineffective assistance of counsel much like the attorney in United States v. Hinton, supra, who opted to review a witness's statement while direct examination of that witness was being conducted. The majority opinion contains a brief history of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2 and its genesis in federal law, and a passing reference to State v. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d 387 (Tenn. 1989), the only reported decision of this Court directly interpreting Rule 26.2. ), cert. Sharon currently resides at 966 Pinkney Rd, Kenly, NC. As a result, defense counsel was not only prevented from gathering information that could have been developed from interviewing April Ward. The next day, the trial judge refused to recess trial following April Ward's testimony on direct examination, despite counsel's representation that he had not had adequate time to review her pretrial statements and was unprepared to cross-examine her. *529 Charles W. Burson, Atty. At trial, he testified that the Defendant appeared nervous and had a small cut on his face. The majority's recapitulation of the evidence in this case demonstrates that the testimony of the defendant's teenaged accomplice, April Ward, was not only crucial to the state's case against Gary Caughron, it was the state's case against him. Gary Caughroncurrently lives in Capitan, NM; in the past Gary has also lived in Ruidoso NM. He was 79. at 78. 1971). He was preceded in death by his parents Harmon and Alma Caughron, sisters Pauline,. The Defendant, Gary June Caughron, appeals directly to this Court his conviction of first degree premeditated murder and the sentence of death imposed by the jury, and his convictions of first degree burglary, and assault with intent to commit rape. In this case, prejudice is clear. This testimony, according to Defendant, would tend to show that the victim never had a chance to bring in her groceries before she died and thus was first attacked outside the house. Although there is no general right to discovery in a criminal trial,[2] the United States Supreme Court has held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Dr. Blake stated that these represented a "hard slap injury to the buttock" inflicted while the victim was still alive. Based on this evidence, presented over four days of trial, the jury found the Defendant not guilty of felony-murder, robbery, and larceny, but guilty of premeditated first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, and assault with intent to commit rape. [1] T.C.A. The purpose of Rule 26.2 is to enable counsel to examine a witness's statements in order to test the credibility of that witness at trial. The door had been made available to the defense attorney for examination on January 26, three days before his motion. Three witnesses testified that the Defendant was in the habit of spray painting his "junker" cars different colors. They used to work at Ruidoso Residential Properties. 24-1-101, no one is automatically barred from testifying simply because of *538 age or mental status. 5249 HWY 67W MOUNTAIN CITY, TN 37683. 804, Advisory Commission Comments. We find no reversible error in the court's conduct during McFadden's testimony. A purse and its contents lay strewn in the hall. It is axiomatic that a trial judge should exercise care not to express any thought that might lead the jury to infer that the judge is in favor of or against the defendant in a criminal trial. Only if the suppression prevents material exculpatory evidence from effectively being used at trial is there a due process violation. April testified that Caughron entered the house by himself and then summoned her inside. denied, 419 U.S. 864, 95 S. Ct. 119, 42 L. Ed. The court was also requested to have copies of all these files sealed and filed for any appeal. Sharon was born on 09.01.67. After allowing the Defendant to approach the bench prior to the testimony of Dr. Cleland Blake, April Ward, Jimmy Lynn Huskey, and Lettie Marie Cruze, when the State called witness Robert Yoakum, and defense counsel again approached the bench, the trial court refused to continue to "pre-review" the testimony, told defense counsel to object to questions as they were asked, and promised that it would then rule on the objections. 148, 458 S.W.2d 627 (1970). From the beginning, the police and the prosecution sought to shield April Ward and the information she had given them from the defendant's attorneys. However, they are treated in this opinion not as independent grounds for relief, but as due process violations that exacerbated the Jencks error in this case, making it obvious reversible error. The testimony concerning the pool stick, the table cloth material, and slapping women on the buttocks was relevant to connect Defendant to this crime and corroborate the accomplice's testimony. The phone lines to the house had been cut. Defendant was not precluded from developing his theory, although it was not done in the detailed, point by point manner his counsel preferred; and the court did not prohibit any testimony that was shown to be relevant. To this the trial judge responded: The jury was brought back to the court-room, and the district attorney continued his direct examination of April Ward. 2d 1103 (1957). The courts also consider the other information available to defense counsel, such as pretrial statements, and they look for such indicia of prejudice as requests for recesses and poorly prepared cross-examinations. The majority notes that the provisions of Rule 26.2 can be traced directly to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2, which in turn was based on the federal "Jencks Act," 18 U.S.C. She said that after the two of them undressed, Caughron rubbed the victim's blood on both their bodies as they engaged in sex on the floor beside the bed where Jones lay. denied sub nom. Under T.R.E. Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee - CourtListener.com Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee, 03C01-9707-CC-00301 (Tenn. Crim. 2d 30 (1977); State v. Brownell, 696 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tenn. Crim. When it became apparent that Dedrick would not be at trial, defense counsel expressly stated he did not want a continuance because of the stipulation. (Doc. Finally, Defendant complains that the judge told the jury that they did not have to look at Ogle's boot and a full-scale photograph of the footprint on the door when these items were passed as exhibits. ", Jimmy Lynn Huskey testified that in 1986, when he and the Defendant were friends, the Defendant had a pool stick that came apart like the one Ward had described and that Defendant kept light-colored lace table cloth or curtain material in his car similar to the sheer material used to tie up Jones. Boulder, CO. Jeff Conte. See generally United States v. Starusko, 729 F.2d 256 (3d Cir.1984). 2d 43 (1979). At trial the Defendant elicited from Christy Jones Scott the testimony that she had unloaded two or three bags of laundry detergent from her mother's truck after she had found her mother. He was a member of Maples Branch Baptist Church and was retired from the City of Pigeon Forge. In any event, the proof shows that in addition to inflicting the head injuries, the Defendant tied Ann Jones to the bed, attempted to rape her (probably anally), beat her with a pool stick, slapped her buttocks so hard that an imprint of his hand was left on her skin, gagged and strangled her, and drank her blood after smearing it on himself and his accomplice, with whom he had sex as the victim lay dying nearby. App. Our examination of the record shows at least five occasions when Defendant objected to the State's questioning of Ward as leading. Courts will find prejudice, however, when defendant's pre-trial preparation is hampered by the inability of counsel to assess the credibility of witnesses. In Dr. Pareau's opinion, Caughron had received inadequate parenting, and there had been no consistency in his relationships. The Defendant avers that the trial court's denial of counsel's request for sufficient time to review the statements under Rule 26.2(d) constitutes reversible error. He then struck her brutally and repeatedly about her head until, according to April Ward, she no longer moved. In United States v. Enright, 579 F.2d 980 (6th Cir.1978), the Sixth Circuit held that no due process Brady violation occurred because the failure to disclose material exculpatory evidence had been discovered in time for "full and adequate correction." In that case the Court held that defense counsel has a right to inspect prior statements or reports by a government witness, following *535 direct examination of the witness, to the extent that those reports or statements are related to the witness's testimony on direct examination, for the purpose of using them to prepare or conduct cross-examination. We therefore affirm the convictions and the sentences. The Defendant next avers that the trial court erred in unduly restricting his direct examination of T.B.I. Gammon v. State, 506 S.W.2d 188, 190 (Tenn. Crim. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d at 391. Gary Caughronwas born on 03/07/1955 and is 67 years old. The gag, bound so tightly that it cut a deep groove into the corners of the victim's mouth, combined with the hemorrhaging in the nasal passages, had caused her to suffocate. [Emphasis added.] Complaining that she had "tightened up on him," he then slapped the victim on the right buttock. App. It fails to take into account the fact that almost half this period of time, nine hours, was spent in court during the course of the trial. Also, the language of T.R.E. Put simply, the price of saving less than a half-hour of trial time turned out to be "penny wise but pound foolish.". 40-2441, enacted in 1963, permitted pretrial discovery of a confession or statement against interest made by the accused. 2d 215 (1963), or Rule 16, T.R.Cr.P. Ward testified that she and Caughron also sat on the floor and drank Jones' blood from shot glasses. To use a colloquialism that summarizes the situation most descriptively, Caughron's attorneys were effectively "stone-walled" by state officials involved in the investigation and prosecution of this case. v. He told McGaha that he had been drunk and partying the night of the murder. App. The State asserts, correctly under T.R.A.P. It should be emphasized that this case does not involve the denial of Rule 26.2 statements. App. 40-2044, enacted in 1968, permitted pretrial discovery of documents, photographs, and tangible objects. 2d 82; or where the statement is not exculpatory and there was no advantage to the government in non-production, United States v. Principe, 499 F.2d 1135 (1st Cir.1974). 1983), cited by Defendant, only indicates that an in camera inspection is necessary once it has been shown that there is material producible under Rule 16, in that case Jencks material. 669 F.2d at 11. The key witness in this case was April Marie Ward, who was 14 years old at the time of the killing. During the course of their investigation, the police directed April Ward's mother, Lettie Cruze, not to permit April to talk with defense counsel. There was no abuse of discretion here. The court in the present case, however, was unusually active in directing the form that questioning should take. The fact that the victim was tied and gagged, however, raises a question as to whether she was really unconscious during the subsequent abuse, as does the fact that she reportedly "tightened up" when the Defendant tried to achieve sexual penetration. at 770). In that 13-hour interval, he was called upon to confer with his client, to spend the patter part of two hours driving to and from his out-of-county office, to review the day's events with his co-counsel, to prepare his opening statement for the next morning, and to tend to such personal matters as eating, sleeping, and maintaining personal hygiene. 804. 601, see also T.C.A. The Defendant had also talked to Huskey about tying up women during sex and said that "slapping them on the butt really turned him on.". 2d at 1249 (citing Gallman, 195 So. These depictions are certainly not pleasant, but they are not shocking or gruesome. Id. The material consisted of "a stack of paper at least eight inches thick, including a thousand pages of testimony obtained from ten witnesses, a forty-five minute tape recording and other documents." Then, on June 22, 1988, they took the first of six statements they would obtain from April Ward. (Emphasis added.). We are of the opinion that this senseless, and brutal killing clearly warrants the imposition of the death penalty. The verdict and judgment are supported by material evidence, and the sentence of death is in no way arbitrary or disproportionate. App. The trial judge's actions were unnecessary but did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial or prejudice him in any way. But in February, the City Council rejected the Cavallis . [4] As to the remainder of Rule 26.2, subsections (b) and (c) set out the procedure for determining whether the entire statement of a witness, or only part of it, is producible; subsection (f) requires application of the rule to pretrial hearings in the criminal court; and subsection (g) defines what constitutes a statement under the rule. Without any realistic gauge with which to measure the extent of prejudice to the defendant as a result of the due process violations apparent in this record, I conclude that the only appropriate relief is to grant the defendant a new trial, at which the defense will have the benefit of the discovery and disclosure that it should have had prior to and during the first trial. The court stated: Id. The record reflects that "it took an experienced attorney twenty-four hours to read through this material once in preparation for this appeal."[5]Id. Dellinger v. United States, 474 U.S. 1005, 106 S. Ct. 524, 88 L. Ed. We are of the opinion that defense counsel, and his defense team, were given a reasonable opportunity to examine and prepare to use the statements in cross-examining April Ward. While the Defendant was staying at her house shortly after the murder, Cruze noticed that he had "an odd toothbrush for a man," a pink brush with a little rubber tip. MG100 Coach. The boot print on the victim's bedroom door established that someone other than the defendant had kicked in the door. 608 and 609, the trial court is given broad discretion in the timing of its decisions on the admissibility of evidence. See State v. Payne, 791 S.W.2d 10, 16 (Tenn. 1990); State v. James, 688 S.W.2d 463, 466 (Tenn. Crim. The proof is ambiguous as to whether the State gave Defendant this statement under Rule 16. The courts already demand much of attorneys appointed to represent indigent defendants, especially those who (like Caughron) face imposition of the ultimate penalty. It makes no provision for two hours of travel, for time that the attorney spent consulting with his colleagues and his client, for time devoted to planning trial strategy for the next day (including opening argument), or for a reasonable period of time for rest and sustenance. The first was his aunt, Gladys Green, who told how his mother and father had divorced when the Defendant was three or four years old. 1980); State v. Nelson, 603 S.W.2d 158, 168 (Tenn. Crim. 2. Of course, a witness has the right to refuse to be interviewed. Rule 26.2(a) states: "After a witness has testified on direct examination, the trial court, on motion shall order the attorney to produce, for the examination and use of the moving party, any statement of the witness that is in their possession and that relates to the subject matter concerning which the witness has testified." As they went down the hall to Jones's bedroom, April could hear her calling, "Who is it? (Another witness, Vicky Worth, testified that she had seen the Defendant drinking beer and smoking marijuana at a restaurant around 10 or 11 o'clock that night.) After drinking the blood, April said, she went to the bathroom to throw up, but did not. The Gregory court, therefore, found that the state had prejudiced the defendant's pre-trial preparation and thereby deprived him of a fair trial. The family will celebrate Mr. Caughron's life 11:30 a.m. Wednesday, June 2, 2010, at Woodberry Forest School's Johnson Stadium with Joe Coleman officiating. Christy Jones Scott testified that her mother's toothbrush, a pink Oral-B brush, was missing after the killing. Gary Allen Caughron, 51, of Cameron died Tuesday, June 2, 2015, in Fort Smith, Ark. Furthermore, the court's actions did not reflect the trial court's views on the Defendant's innocence or its opinion of the merit of Defendant's proof. The due process violation in this case began with a police directive to April Ward's mother, Lettie Marie Cruze, not to let April talk to the defendant's counsel during the investigatory stage of this case. George Edward Hardin. See, e.g., Freeman v. State of *546 Georgia, 599 F.2d 65, 69 (5th Cir.1979), cert. The time needed for a reasonable examination is necessarily related to the length and complexity of the statements. We find no error with regard to the trial court's refusal to instruct the jurors that they should presume that the sentence they assess will actually be carried out that if a life sentence is imposed, a life sentence will be served and, likewise, that if the death penalty is assessed, the Defendant will be executed. Hence, both the due process violation by police in directing April Ward's mother not to let her talk to defense counsel, and the extenuation of that due process violation by the prosecutor in wrongfully withholding Brady material, could have been overcome in this case, had the trial court given defense counsel an adequate opportunity to review that material at an appropriate point during the trial. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. The FBI developed no forensic evidence implicating Caughron, despite extensive testing on fingerprints, shoeprints, blood and other fluids, and fibers. View the profiles of people named Gary Caughron. When the trial judge refused to order a recess, as requested pursuant to Rule 26.2(d) or even more reasonably, to adjourn court for the day a mere half-hour earlier than scheduled he did so without justification. A careful reading would consume much more than the two-hour estimate given in the majority opinion. These were objections ordinarily made when and if the potentially objectionable testimony occurred. Caughron said that he stayed at his grandmother's house on the night of the killing and had been riding around with a friend and his wife at the time of the murder. The factual background of the state's case against Gary Caughron is set out in detail in the majority opinion. His father, whom Pareau described as "overtly psychotic," was an alcoholic and had physically abused his mother until their divorce. The Defendant avers that the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial because of a juror's comments. Her skull had been fractured and the cartilage in her nose displaced by the beating. Some of the questions objected to were leading, some were not. 3500 (1957), passed in response to the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S. Ct. 1007, 1 L. Ed. ), cert. Madison County JACKSON A Jackson man died yesterday morning in a single-vehicle accident in eastern Oklahoma, the Highway Patrol reported. Regarding the need to investigate persons named as suspects in certain statements given to the defense by the State on January 19, 1990, the Defendant failed to show the materiality and relevance of any evidence such an investigation would yield. April and the Defendant, who was working on a nearby construction project, met on the covered portico (commonly referred to as "the porch") of Settler's Village almost every day. lab, who was Defendant's first witness. Id. Subsection (d) states that the court "may recess proceedings in the trial for the examination of such statement and for preparation for its use in the trial." The Defendant next argues that Dr. Blake was not qualified to characterize the injuries on the victim's back as "whipping marks" and those on her buttock as a slap injury. When court resumed the next morning at 9:00 a.m., the defendant's lead attorney, Carl R. Ogle, told the trial judge even before the first witness was called that he appreciated having received copies of the witnesses' statements the night before, but that he had not had a chance to review all the material that had been turned over to him. However, the officers were not eyewitnesses; their testimony contained no surprises; counsel did not request a recess after the direct examinations; and cross-examination of the witnesses was thorough. The testimony involving drug use, "satanic" sketches and listening to rock music, while corroborating statements made by the accomplice, should not have been admitted but there is no harmful error under the facts of this record since April Ward's testimony had already presented these features of the Defendant's character. 111-129.) The most Caughron families were found in USA in 1880. At the very least, the majority should offer some guidance on the nature and extent of the trial court's discretion in this area of *550 the law and should set standards for determining when an abuse of that discretion has occurred. Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196-97. Defense counsel repeatedly asked to approach the bench prior to the testimony of certain State's witnesses to present motions in limine objecting to the admission of matters that might potentially come out during the witnesses' testimony. See State v. Jenkins, 733 S.W.2d 528, 532 (Tenn. Crim. The prosecution did, however, insist that she be kept at home and then took advantage of her vulnerability and fear of punishment by advising her mother not to let April discuss the case with the defendant's attorneys. 2d 137 (1986); State v. Coker, 746 S.W.2d 167, 171 (Tenn. 1987); State v. McKay, 680 S.W.2d 447, 450, 453-455 (Tenn. 1984). Moreover, the inconsistent statements of a witness are considered impeachment evidence favorable to a defendant. 1985). The sentencing phase of the trial was much briefer, primarily because the state presented no further proof and the Defendant called only four witnesses. Later that same morning, several witnesses saw the Defendant when he arrived at Settler's Village around 10:00-11:00 a.m. Caughron was wearing only cut-off jeans and tennis shoes; he had scratches on his back, stomach and face. These factors contribute to what inevitably becomes a subjective assessment of the damage likely to have been done by the state's misconduct. Paltorah testified that the print on the door was consistent with a smooth-soled shoe as opposed to the tennis shoe worn by the Defendant. Based on this authority, "the serious nature of [the] case," and the witness's testimony that the prosecutor's letter influenced his decision not to talk to defense counsel, the court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. 1999) Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Filed: February 5th, 1999 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: None known Docket Number: 03C01-9707-CC-00301 Author: Joseph Tipton Download Original Although the trial court told defense counsel that he could explore this situation "later at a proper time," counsel never did so. The Defendant asserts on appeal that the statements should have been admitted because of constitutional considerations and cites Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 35 L. Ed. Jones instructed him to stay away. 611(c) provides that "[l]eading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as to develop testimony." The record reveals, however, that the court was in the habit of telling the jurors that they did not have to look at potentially distasteful physical evidence, such as the cloth that had bound the victim, when it was passed to them. This is not a statutory aggravating circumstance although it is similar to the circumstance in T.C.A. The court quoted Gregory at length, as well as Gallman v. State, 29 Ala.App. [9] There is no way to know to what extent this aspect of April's testimony may have affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty. He picked her up sometime after midnight. When asked to decide whether suppressed evidence is material, the courts have generally held that "the materiality of the withheld evidence may depend on the closeness of the case." denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103 S. Ct. 770, 74 L. Ed. App. When a prosecutor deliberately conceals a material witness and the defense is thereby prejudiced, a due process violation results.
freitag funeral home,
frank prisinzano glasses,
sims 4 cc toddler clothes pack,