The court denied counsel's request for another night in which to review the statements. 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. [6] Following the conclusion of April Ward's testimony, the trial judge attempted to rescue defense counsel from a later charge of ineffectiveness by commenting on the fact that Ogle had been handed "yellow sheets" of "check lists" by his investigator and noting, "I find counsel's assistance has been full, complete, meticulous as reflected by the questions put, as by the notes you should retain in case some question is raised at some later time about competency of counsel." The Defendant presented evidence that, based on evidence gathered at the crime scene, none of the tests or analyses performed by forensic scientists from TBI and the FBI had connected him with the killing. He told April that he would return that night and that the two would go to the victim's house as planned. It is well-settled that the propriety, scope, manner and control of the examination of witnesses is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge, subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion. [2] T.C.A. The Defendant argues that the evidence about his purported drug use, sexual practices, attachment to rock music, and drawing pictures of demons is evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts, prohibited by T.R.E. 2d 100 (1974). App. Elizabeth T Caughron, Jack L Caughron, and four other persons are also associated with this address. The record does not support any allegation that the State has failed to comply with its duties under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. In State v. Groseclose, 615 S.W.2d 142 (Tenn. 1981), and State v. Strouth, 620 S.W.2d 467 (Tenn. 1981), in which the victims were unconscious for part of the time, death penalties rendered under this aggravating circumstance were upheld. Citing State v. Pritchett, 621 S.W.2d 127, 139 (Tenn. 1981), in which the victim died instantaneously from the first gunshot fired, the Defendant argues that the record does not support a finding that the Defendant tortured the victim before her death. When defense counsel appeared to be developing this theory by an unnecessarily detailed examination of the forensic scientist, the trial court began interrupting to curtail what it considered irrelevant and unnecessary testimony. During *540 cross-examination of April Ward, when defense counsel asked Ward why she had lied to law enforcement officers regarding whom she had told about the crime, a juror whispered loudly, "What's the difference?" (Emphasis added.). 1973); United States v. Matlock, 491 F.2d 504 (6th Cir. 1982). Defendant has not done this and we find no error. Testimony about April's emotional reaction to the murder tends to bolster her credibility, as does testimony about her continued contact with the Defendant. [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. The record shows that juror Jerry McGill was related to State's witness John Brown by marriage. Public records show that the phone number (478) 923-6928 is linked to Gary S Caughron, Jennae M Drane. In Nichols v. State, 581 So. April testified that she then hit the victim in the head two times. 2d 398 (1980). 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. The evidence was clearly favorable to the defendant as impeachment evidence and also material to the issue of guilt, given the fact that the witness's testimony was the "linchpin of the case." 378. Michael Gary Caughron, 59 - Port Lavaca, TX - MyLife.com NECX PO 5000 MOUNTAIN CITY, TN 37683. See State v. West, 767 S.W.2d 387 (Tenn. 1989); State v. O'Guinn, 709 S.W.2d 561 (Tenn. 1986); State v. Alley, 776 S.W.2d 506 (Tenn. 1989). App. [3] While Brady contemplates the suppression of many types of exculpatory evidence, the Supreme Court has specifically held that evidence impeaching a government witness's credibility may be exculpatory within the meaning of Brady. See T.R.E. 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. Put simply, the price of saving less than a half-hour of trial time turned out to be "penny wise but pound foolish.". It did not provide for the production of statements by witnesses under any circumstances. 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). Tennessee had the highest population of Caughron families in 1840. Select this result to view Gary Richard Caughron's phone number, address, and more. Atty. No. These were objections ordinarily made when and if the potentially objectionable testimony occurred. The statute, T.C.A. The first day was consumed by arguments and rulings on unfinished pretrial business, including defense counsel's request that the trial court order early production of witness statements, and by selection of the jury. The Defendant further complains that the trial court erred in admitting testimony *539 by Lettie Cruze that around the time of the murder, her daughter, April Ward, was having trouble in school and crying a lot. 757 F.2d at 1201. 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. Dr. Blake concluded that Jones had died as a result of asphyxiation while unconscious. App. 39-2-203(i)(5) requiring torture or depravity of mind and should define "cruel," "torture" and "depravity." The motion is . Taylor, of course, stands for the obvious proposition that on motion, "a[] statement of the witness that relates to the subject matter concerning which the witness has testified" must be "produce[d] for the examination and use of the moving party," but only "[a]fter [that] witness has testified on direct examination." The defense sought to show that, despite a thorough and meticulous investigation, there was absolutely no evidence connecting Defendant with the crime scene. There was a "patch" of "scraping type of injuries caused by some kind of slender linear object like whipping marks" on the left back side of her chest beneath her shoulder blades. In September 1986, he had broken into the victim's home and at knifepoint had pushed Teresa to the bed and attempted to tie her hands with strips of sheet. Gary is related to Gitta E Caughron and Marsha A Caughron. *533 Three inmates who had been incarcerated with the Defendant in the Sevier and Cocke County jails testified about statements that he had made to them concerning the victim and her death. Carter v. Rafferty, 826 F.2d 1299, 1308 (3d Cir.1987). Later that day, Caughron spray-painted his car silver, as he told April, to prevent anyone who might have seen it the night before from identifying it. 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." You can explore additional available newsletters here. What is not *551 included in the majority opinion is a recitation of the procedural background of the trial, putting in context the "Jencks motion" made by defense counsel at various points during the proceedings. The court stated: Id. Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 100 S. Ct. 1759, 1767, 64 L. Ed. In accordance with the mandate of T.C.A. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the Defendant to object when questions were actually asked. 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. 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. Sharon B Caughron. ROY CAUGHRON Obituary (2013) - Knoxville, TN - Knoxville News Sentinel This upset Caughron, who told April Ward that he would like to catch Ann Jones "out one night" and "slice her throat." Troy Gene Caughron, age 81 of Pigeon Forge, passed away Saturday, December 20, 2014. denied, 419 U.S. 864, 95 S. Ct. 119, 42 L. Ed. App. Defense counsel was in effect asking the court as a regular practice, to speculate on the admissibility of evidence, without any idea of the context in which the evidence would be presented. I am authorized to say that Chief Justice REID joins in this opinion. 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). Hence, under Tennessee law, as under federal law, a prosecutor's refusal to produce the statements prior to direct examination cannot be held to be prejudicial error, even though it is often extolled as "the better practice." 1981). Both this case and Gregory are examples of courts perceiving the obvious hindrance to defense counsel's trial preparation when the state instructs witnesses not to talk. Krilich v. United States, 502 F.2d 680 (7th Cir.1974). The trial court felt that the Defendant had failed to exercise due diligence in examining the door. Like the Tennessee rule, the Jencks Act and the federal rule require not only that the defendant be furnished with the prior statements of witnesses following direct examination, but also that defense counsel be afforded a reasonable opportunity to examine those statements and prepare for cross-examination based on their contents. 1984). The State asserts that the Defendant waived this issue. This is not a statutory aggravating circumstance although it is similar to the circumstance in T.C.A. Read More Obviously, whether any one of these provisions has been violated and what action must be taken to correct the error can only be determined on a case-by-case basis, in context both the evidence in the record and the procedure followed at trial. Sharon currently resides at 966 Pinkney Rd, Kenly, NC. The court found it "grossly unfair" to permit this kind of prosecutorial misconduct, which had "unfairly hampered the defendants' investigation." 2255"). Further, the Federal rule treats law enforcement officials as witnesses called by the state, but the commission elected not to adopt this provision. Rogers v. Carpenter | M.D. Tennessee | 03-25-2019 | www.anylaw.com She said that the Defendant instructed her to bring a towel and a knife "to gut" Ann Jones. We find no reversible error in the court's conduct during McFadden's testimony. Blausen Medical is a leading provider of illustration, animation and simulation for Health Care and related industries, providing . April Ward's mother, Lettie Marie Cruze, worked at the Turquoise Jewelry Shop in Settler's Village, a group of shops in Pigeon Forge. Federal case analysis on this point is compelling. The most Caughron families were found in USA in 1880. See State v. Henley, 774 S.W.2d 908, 913 (Tenn. 1989); State v. Sparks, 727 S.W.2d 480, 483 (Tenn. 1987); State v. Carter, 714 S.W.2d 241, 244-245 (Tenn. 1986). 39-13-204(d), specifically grants the State the right of closing. While we caution restraint in a trial court's interjections and comments *537 during trial, in the overall context of this case, the trial court's behavior in the cited instances did not so clearly violate the mandate of impartiality as to infringe upon the Defendant's right to a fair trial. Although instructing a witness not to talk with defense counsel may constitute a due process violation, some courts, emphasizing the requirement of prejudice, have found no constitutional error when the defendant does not appear to have been harmed by the misconduct. Gary June Caughron vs. State of Tennessee (03C01-9707-CC-00301) Sevier Criminal John K. Byers, Sr.J. It should be noted, however, that perhaps the most ghoulish aspect of April Ward's testimony, to the effect that she and Caughron drank the victim's blood out of shot-glasses as she lay dying nearby, nowhere appears in any of Ward's prior statements,[8] a fact of which counsel may have been totally unaware,[9] since he had not had an adequate opportunity to read and compare all the statements. The law is well-settled that prospective witnesses do not belong to either party, and for this reason neither side should suggest that a witness refrain from talking to opposing counsel. 2d 603 (1967). The trial court did not err in admitting the testimony. Gary Allen Caughron, 51, of Cameron died Tuesday, June 2, 2015, in Fort Smith, Ark. Casey Caughron - Manager, IT Operations - WaterOne | LinkedIn He was a member of Maples Branch Baptist Church and was retired from the City of Pigeon Forge. 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. Gen., Nashville, Al Schmutzer, Jr., Dist. Over 20 years of Infrastructure and Application Systems Design, Implementation, Upgrades and Maintenance. 1985); State v. Hardin, 691 S.W.2d 578, 581 (Tenn. Crim. He called the victim a "bitch." In Ingraldi, by failing to move for a continuance and then thoroughly cross-examining the witness, the defense counsel cured a potential Brady violation. Although the record does not show the exact time that court resumed following this recess, the hour must have been very close to 5:00 p.m., which was the trial judge's previously announced adjournment time. In order to clarify the purpose and timing of the production of witness statements at trial, the provisions formerly contained in Rule 16(a)(1)(E) and (F) were recast as Rule 26.2 in 1984. Moreover, appellate judges are in a poor position to second-guess counsel on the question of whether a recess to permit full utilization of the statements in this case would have been efficacious. On the right buttock were "three linear imprints, superficial bruises that fit perfectly with four fingers of a hand." [Emphasis added.] No abuse of discretion warranting reversal is shown in this case. We would strongly recommend early production of statements of witnesses in order to expedite the trial of the case and avoid lengthy recesses during trial. 1976). About. *542 The trial court held him in contempt. We find no error, although the relevance of this evidence is marginal. Although the complete non-disclosure of significant exculpatory evidence often makes an easy case for a due process violation, delayed disclosure requires an inquiry into whether the delay prevented the defense from using the disclosed material effectively in preparing and presenting the defendant's case. The trial court wished to proceed, apparently to allow April Ward to finish her testimony that day. George Edward Hardin. It was only the first in a series of efforts to thwart defense access to information about the case. In my judgment, the violation of subsection (d) in this case is so clear that the only remaining question concerns the relief that should be granted in light of this error. Gary June Caughron - Sex Offender in Mountain City, TN 37683 - TN00122094 PDF Supreme Court of Tennessee State List for Permission to Appeal Style Ogle, noting that it was 4:12 p.m., again asked for an overnight recess. Gary Caughron - Address & Phone Number | Whitepages The Defendant avers that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to ask leading questions of April Ward on direct examination. The Defendant next asserts that the trial court prejudiced Defendant's case by indicating to the jury throughout the trial that the court believed that the Defendant was guilty. A list of the contradictions in the six statements and the development of a strategy for their effective use on cross-examination would, of course, take even longer. Gary Caughroncurrently lives in Capitan, NM; in the past Gary has also lived in Ruidoso NM. 264, 195 So. 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. 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. Had April Ward been the State's first witness the morning of trial and had the State produced her statements after her direct examination, we are of the opinion that a two hour recess would have been adequate for counsel to properly prepare for cross-examination. 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. State v. Hartman, 703 S.W.2d 106, 116 (Tenn. 1985); Lillard v. State, 528 S.W.2d 207, 212 (Tenn. Crim. Over the Defendant's objection the trial court allowed the State to recall the victim's daughter, Christy Jones Scott, to testify that her mother owned a collection of shot glasses and a pink Oral B toothbrush. Tippens was unable to come to trial because of a back condition. Boulder, CO. Jeff Conte. They next drove to Dollywood, where they met several people, one of whom, Kevin Carver, threatened April with harm if she "got the Defendant in trouble.". The factual background of the state's case against Gary Caughron is set out in detail in the majority opinion. We therefore affirm the convictions and the sentences. 1980); State v. Nelson, 603 S.W.2d 158, 168 (Tenn. Crim. He then struck her brutally and repeatedly about her head until, according to April Ward, she no longer moved. When she returned to the bedroom, she saw the Defendant striking Jones's back with the pool stick. At the hearing, the trial judge asked Ward some general questions, some questions about how she was doing in school and how her counseling was proceeding, and some questions about her awareness of her testimony. 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. April further testified that after her mother went to sleep, she cut a blue terry cloth towel into strips and waited for Caughron to arrive. scientist Robert E. McFadden to the effect that the record was "full of proof" that the bedroom door had been knocked off its hinges. Phillips seemed to think that by testifying he would be risking a charge of perjury. Agent Davenport did not testify about the attempted suicide. There was, in short, no violation of Rule 26.2 and thus no error, in the majority's view. Finally, it must be emphasized that the majority's calculation that defense counsel had 22 hours in which to "study and reflect on the pretrial statements of April Ward" (and some 20 other witnesses) is purely illusory. He argues that Jones was unconscious during most of the acts that occurred that night. Further, our comparative proportionality review convinces us that the sentence of death is neither excessive nor disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the nature of the crime and the Defendant. 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. Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196-97. Grady B Caughron (1919 - 2007) - Johnson City, TN ), cert. This proposed instruction was rejected by the Court in State v. Payne, 791 S.W.2d 10, 21 (Tenn. 1990), and State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 367 (Tenn. 1982), cert. There is no merit to Defendant's assertion that the trial court's actions drew undue attention to this part of the charge. Dr. Blake's testimony was that the head injuries would have rendered her unconscious. As they went down the hall to Jones's bedroom, April could hear her calling, "Who is it? 2d 574 (1961), the Court said: Clancy, at 316, 81 S. Ct. at 648 quoting Jencks, supra, at 667, 77 S. Ct. at 1012-13 (citations omitted). Finally, in United States v. Moceri, 359 F. Supp. The phone lines to the house had been cut. Obviously, the error in this case could not be considered harmless under any of the foregoing formulations. A further complaint involves a bench conference at which the court urged the Defendant to get to the point before he exhausted the patience of the court and jury. That testimony is summarized below. He had conducted 2500 forensic investigations. He was 79. The majority then correctly identifies the question of first impression we face in this case: Given the provision in Rule 26.2(d) permitting a "recess in the trial for the examination of such statement and for preparation of its use in the trial", was counsel in this case afforded a reasonable opportunity to examine April Ward's prior statements and prepare for her cross-examination? Such statements may only be obtained under the limited provisions of existing law now contained in Rule 6(k)(2). The second best result is Gary Ray Caughron age 40s in Springfield, MO. They walked to the victim's house from the parking lot of a nearby nursing home, where they had left the Oldsmobile. 2d 297 (1973), and F.R.E. Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee - CourtListener.com 608 and 609, the trial court is given broad discretion in the timing of its decisions on the admissibility of evidence. Defendant's next objection was to the testimony of April's mother that the victim had told her that as a rule she did not get involved in other people's affairs but that she thought "April was a sweet little girl and she didn't trust Gary Caughron."
Woodford Reserve Vs Maker's Mark 46,
Who Owns Twin Oaks Restaurant,
Articles G