Gary June Caughron. Dr. Blake concluded that Jones had died as a result of asphyxiation while unconscious. 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. She had bled extensively from her mouth and nose. Gary Caughroncurrently lives in Capitan, NM; in the past Gary has also lived in Ruidoso NM. See Graves v. State, 489 S.W.2d 74, 81 (Tenn. Crim. However, the Tennessee rule applies to all pretrial motions under Rule 12(b). Defense counsel apparently did not know until he received these documents from the prosecutor that April Ward had made six separate statements to police. State v. Hartman, 703 S.W.2d 106, 116 (Tenn. 1985); Lillard v. State, 528 S.W.2d 207, 212 (Tenn. Crim. 757 F.2d at 1201. Further, the Federal rule treats law enforcement officials as witnesses called by the state, but the commission elected not to adopt this provision. 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. Defense counsel did not object to a corrected charge. The week before the murder, according to April, she and the Defendant began talking about going to the victim's house. The police department and the district attorney's office clearly understood April Ward's significance as a prosecution witness. Shortly before trial, the Defendant moved for a continuance on four grounds: (1) to take the testimony or deposition of George Tippens, an investigating officer who had moved to Florida; (2) to investigate additional suspects in the case whose names had been supplied to the defense on January 19, 1990; (3) to examine the door to the victim's bedroom; and (4) to permit FBI Agent Doug Dedrick to testify. 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. We therefore affirm the conviction of first degree murder and the sentence of death. When the trial judge responded *552 that he was "powerless to require the Attorney General to do something the rules and the law do not require," that is, to order early production of the statements, Ogle made the following, thoroughly reasonable response: The trial judge denied defense counsel's request for a recess on the ground that the "material is not that complex. 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). They were due back in court in Sevierville at 9:00 the next morning. 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. In the package were over 100 pages of typewritten and handwritten materials, comprising the statements of 20 different persons. Defense counsel then requested that the court also tell the jury that it had not changed the instruction simply to draw attention to that factor. There was no abuse of discretion here. The Defendant avers that the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial because of a juror's comments. 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. The reviewing court found an abuse of discretion amounting to a violation of the defendants' rights under the Jencks Act and ordered a new trial. United States v. Hinton, 631 F.2d 769, 771, 778-780 (D.C. Cir.1980). 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. The witness to be impeached cannot, however, be one whose credibility does not affect defendant's guilt or innocence, a limitation that is clearly met in this case. There was a gag tied across her mouth, and strips of the blue terry cloth had been wrapped tightly around her neck. 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. memorial page for Mary Ann Caughron (14 Jul 1939-21 Aug 2016), Find a Grave Memorial ID 175889745, citing Memorial Park Cemetery, Memphis, Shelby County . C. Robert Caughron 21 Aug 1925 Webb City, Jasper, Missouri, United States - 17 Dec 1989 Willis Caughron abt 1815 Kentucky, United States - abt 1861 managed by Larry Shelley last edited 30 May 2021 William Caughron abt 1784 Virginia, United States See generally United States v. Starusko, 729 F.2d 256 (3d Cir.1984). He was a member of Maples Branch Baptist Church and was retired from the City of Pigeon Forge. denied, 439 U.S. 873, 99 S. Ct. 207, 58 L. Ed. Today, for the first time, we address what constitutes a sufficient time to review Rule 26.2 statements. When Bentley had asked the Defendant why he wanted to paint the car, Caughron replied, "Well, the lady that got killed, somebody might recognize it and I need to paint it. Almost everything that the jury learned about Ann Jones's death, other than the description of the crime scene given by investigators, came from April's testimony. That testimony is summarized below. App. 40-2441, enacted in 1963, permitted pretrial discovery of a confession or statement against interest made by the accused. A plaster cast of a shoe print found outside the house was consistent with a boot owned by Kenneth Ogle. 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. The court was also requested to have copies of all these files sealed and filed for any appeal. The actual damage to defendant's trial preparation is incapable of qualitative assessment, but defense counsel's efforts to secure copies of April Ward's statement(s) prior to trial, as well as his repeated requests for time to review the statements provided to him the night before her direct examination, suggest that unlike the efforts of the attorneys in several of the cases discussed above, Caughron's counsel's efforts to defend his client were hampered by the complete lack of access to the state's crucial witness. What are you doing?" App. Unlike the government officials in Freeman and Lockett, the state prosecutor here did not physically conceal April Ward. The court denied counsel's request for another night in which to review the statements. He was 79. The Defendant specifically complains of the trial court's interruption of his cross-examination of Christy Jones Scott and of Officer Sam Owenby, both of which interruptions were apparently attempts to keep the examination moving along; and of the court's statements during the cross-examination of Dr. Cleland Blake that what the doctor had told the jury was "just what he's told them" and that questions about why the doctor took fingernail clippings were academic and the answer obvious to anyone who had watched the television show Quincy. See also Tenn. R.Evid. The cause may be different, but the result is the same. D. Paine, Tennessee Law of Evidence, 103.3 (2d ed. denied 429 U.S. 821, 97 S. Ct. 69, 50 L. Ed. George Cleveland Roach. 1980); State v. Nelson, 603 S.W.2d 158, 168 (Tenn. Crim. He was also denied discovery of her statements prior to trial, and he was forced to conduct cross-examination of the state's crucial witness without the benefit of adequate preparation. 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. For persons dying between 1940-1997, you can order a copy of the death certificate via Ancestry.com for a fee. In United States v. Darwin, 757 F.2d 1193 (11th Cir.1985), the Eleventh Circuit faced a situation in which the government had disclosed impeachment evidence after a witness had testified. 378. 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. 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 . The trial court rejected the Defendant's hearsay objections on the grounds that any statements of the victim described by Ward were not offered for their truth but to show Ward's state of mind and what provoked her to harm the victim. For example, in Gregory v. United States, 369 F.2d 185 (D.C. Cir.1966), remanded, 410 F.2d 1016 (D.C. Cir.1969), cert. 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. Lettie Marie Cruze, April's mother, testified that she had sold the Defendant a silver ring with turquoise and coral inlay and a thunderbird design. Both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have rejected this and similar arguments. 39-2-203(i)(5) requiring torture or depravity of mind and should define "cruel," "torture" and "depravity." App. If this were a routine case, and if the majority's description of the problem posed for defense counsel in this case were more complete, one might not quibble with the decision to assign the matter to that legal limbo known as "trial court discretion." App. specializing in shoe track analysis. 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. 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. He was a member of Millican Grove Baptist Church where he attended and taught Sunday school for many years. See Hale v. State, 198 Tenn. 461, 281 S.W.2d 51, 58 (1955); Mothershed v. State, 578 S.W.2d 96, 99 (Tenn. Crim. Gary R Caughron from Granite City, IL Also known as: Mr Gary R Caughron, Mr Gary Caughron Age: 61 years old Mobile number (618) 876-9480 Marital status Single Landline number (618) 344-4510 Gender Male Occupation ads view occupation Born June 21, 1961 Email addresses gcaughron@excite.com garyc2500@yahoo.com More about Gary R Caughron Contact Info 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. 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. 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. He was. [1] T.C.A. The District Attorney in this case provided defense counsel with April Ward's six statements at 7:15 p.m. on the evening before April Ward's testimony. Id. T.C.A. The trial of this case lasted four days. Elizabeth T Caughron, Jack L Caughron, and four other persons are also associated with this address. He picked her up sometime after midnight. Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 100 S. Ct. 1759, 1767, 64 L. Ed. Nos. State v. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d 387, 391 (1989). But in the wake of this initial ruling, the Court has set the threshold for determining harmlessness at a very high level. 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. Gary Caughron works at James M Russ II - Connect Realty, which is a Real Estate company. Unfortunately, in the name of expediency, that opportunity was not forthcoming. The court next defined "cruel," "torture" and "depravity" in accord with State v. Williams, 690 S.W.2d 517, 529-530 (Tenn. 1985). During the course of their investigation, the police directed April Ward's mother, Lettie Cruze, not to permit April to talk with defense counsel. The motion is . The sole issue is whether counsel was afforded a reasonable opportunity to examine the statements. In Tennessee the right to inspect pretrial statements of a witness called to testify at trial, for the purpose of effectively cross-examining that witness, did not exist prior to the adoption of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure in July 1978. The hearsay statements sought to be admitted, however, bore none of the "persuasive assurances of trustworthiness" present in Chambers, see 410 U.S. at 302, 93 S. Ct. at 1048-1049 (confession made spontaneously to a close acquaintance soon after murder, corroborating evidence present, statement was self-incriminatory and unquestionably against interest). The Defendant avers that the trial court erred in not permitting him to make the final closing argument at sentencing. MG100 Coach. The sentencing phase of the trial was much briefer, primarily because the state presented no further proof and the Defendant called only four witnesses. One night, two or three weeks before the murder, Ann Jones made the Defendant Caughron, who had been drinking, leave her shop because he was acting in a disorderly manner. Near the end of the direct examination, during a break in testimony taken to deal with an unrelated question, Ogle noted that it was 4:05 p.m.; he again reminded the trial judge that he had not had an opportunity to read all of April's prior statements; and he said, "I would ask the Court to allow me to start my cross-examination in the morning, because I am not prepared and there's no way in the world I can cross-examine this witness today." The trial judge did not abuse his discretion by completing April Ward's testimony that afternoon. 2d 641 (1980); Lockett v. Blackburn, 571 F.2d 309, 313 (5th Cir. To ask in addition that he read over 100 pages of witness *553 statements, including 64 pages of April Ward's statements, make a study of the many inconsistencies revealed in those statements, and devise a strategy for cross-examination based on his review, is simply unreasonable. Thus, a reviewing court must consider the materiality of the withheld evidence in light of the other evidence presented. To obtain an actual death certificate (and not just the index) for persons dying in Los Angeles County after July 1, 1905, contact the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, 12400 E. Imperial Hwy, Norwalk, CA 90650. Under caselaw interpreting this statute, discovery of statements by witnesses other than the defendant was not permitted. 148, 458 S.W.2d 627 (1970). 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. 264, 195 So. 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. It must be clearly shown that a trial court has abused its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance before that decision will be disturbed on appeal. Boulder, CO. Jeff Conte. He reminded the trial judge that he had not received the package of statements until after court adjourned the previous night. ", 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. 2d 1287 (1959). 801(c); State v. Coker, 746 S.W.2d 167, 173 (1987). The key witness in this case was April Marie Ward, who was 14 years old at the time of the killing. Then, on June 22, 1988, they took the first of six statements they would obtain from April Ward. A similar error occurred in this case. In the majority's judgment, two hours would have been sufficient time to comply with the requirements of Rule 26.2. See, e.g., State v. Jenkins, supra, 733 S.W.2d at 532; Pique v. State, 480 S.W.2d 546, 550-551 (Tenn. Crim. 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."
Marmon Employees Retirement Plan,
Uscga Admissions Decisions,
Thaddeus Stevens Reconstruction Speech Summary,
Fallout: The Frontier Companions,
Clarkstown Central School District Salaries,
Articles G
