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. There was a gag tied across her mouth, and strips of the blue terry cloth had been wrapped tightly around her neck. 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. Over 10 years of leadership and team building that collaborate to save . Of course, no post-hoc pronouncement of competency by the trial court can make up for the fact that counsel was hobbled in his representation of Caughron by the denial of his motion for a Rule 26.2(d) recess. During the summer of 1988, Caughron himself gave law enforcement officers various statements. 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. Christy Jones Scott testified that her mother's toothbrush, a pink Oral-B brush, was missing after the killing. Ogle, noting that it was 4:12 p.m., again asked for an overnight recess. A due process violation requires more than the suppression of significant exculpatory evidence, however. His stepfather, for example, had beaten him and humiliated him for bedwetting. See State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 368 (Tenn. 1982), cert. April then became upset with Ann Jones because of a conversation Jones had had with her mother that led to her mother's disapproval of the relationship. Public records show that the phone number (478) 923-6928 is linked to Gary S Caughron, Jennae M Drane. 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. The Goldberg court cited with approval Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 373, 79 S. Ct. 1231, 3 L. Ed. Gary June Concord, MA Barnes and Noble Education (BNED) VP--Head of Institutional Sales (Oct 2019 - Apr 2021) Florida State University Certificate (2001 - 2002) Media professional, angel investor, coach Gary June Columbus, Ohio Police Officer - Department of Gary June Portsmouth, OH Sales Director Gary & June Thompson Arlington, TX Gary June See also United States v. Peters, 732 F.2d 1004 (1st Cir.1984); United States v. Higgs, 713 F.2d 39, 44 (3d Cir.1983); United States v. Xheka, 704 F.2d 974, 981 (7th Cir.1983); United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321, 1346 (7th Cir. Despite assertions that he had been informed that the State had failed and refused to disclose certain material, Defendant never requested the court to examine any specific document or evidence. Gary is currently based in Ruidoso, New Mexico. No abuse of discretion warranting reversal is shown in this case. [1] This new production rule was initially included in Rule 16, which otherwise governs pretrial discovery and inspection, despite the fact that it involved "discovery" during trial and not before. Madison County JACKSON A Jackson man died yesterday morning in a single-vehicle accident in eastern Oklahoma, the Highway Patrol reported. He also asked April to watch Jones as she closed her shop and see where she put her money, and to find out if Jones was married and had a telephone or pets. In the early afternoon of July 11, 1987, Christy Jones Scott, the daughter of the victim, 42-year-old Ann Robertson Jones, discovered her mother's partially clothed body lying facedown on a bed in her home in Pigeon Forge. App. April also said that she had told the Defendant what Jones had done. 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. App. Brown was a patrolman with the Sevier County Sheriff's Department who had investigated the Defendant when he received a call on July 13, 1987, about Defendant's car being in a ditch. 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. Testimony about April's emotional reaction to the murder tends to bolster her credibility, as does testimony about her continued contact with the Defendant. The Defendant asserts that Phillips' recantation is a lie, pointing out that no reward was being offered on July 15, 1987. 94-626-II Joseph M. Tipton Affirmed Rule 11 Denied - Application of Gary June Caughron. MG100 Coach. He was a member of Maples Branch Baptist Church and was retired from the City of Pigeon Forge. 1985); State v. Hardin, 691 S.W.2d 578, 581 (Tenn. Crim. Defendant filed a pretrial motion for the court to conduct an in camera inspection of *541 the State's entire files, as well as the files of any agencies or individuals that had investigated the case for the State, and to determine if the State had failed to hand over anything that might be vital to the preparation of the defense. The court refused and pointed out that the district attorney general was aware of his ethical duties and stated that the court would look at anything the Defendant called to its attention but would not "plow" through all the files and evidence. Several witnesses saw what they described as dried blood on him. 1980); State v. Nelson, 603 S.W.2d 158, 168 (Tenn. Crim. The boot comment was one episode of this behavior. 24-1-101, no one is automatically barred from testifying simply because of *538 age or mental status. [2] Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 97 S. Ct. 837, 51 L. Ed. 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. 4 Samuel Frank Downey vs. State of Tennessee (03C01-9801-CR-00027) Hamilton Criminal Douglas Meyer 218154 Joseph M. Tipton Another time he said, "If I'm convicted of what I've done, someone will have to pay." In lieu of flowers, the family is . Although the trial court told defense counsel that he could explore this situation "later at a proper time," counsel never did so. Gary was born in Nevada, Mo., on Oct. 11, 1963, to Robert and Elizabeth (Wolf) Caughron. He was 79. State v. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d 387, 391 (1989). When the time came for Phillips to testify, he refused because, he said, his earlier statements were lies concocted to get a reward offered for any evidence that would help solve Jones's murder. 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. Because she knew that her mother would have disapproved of her relationship with the Defendant if she had known his true age, April had told her mother that the Defendant was 18. D. Paine, Tennessee Law of Evidence, 103.3 (2d ed. Troy Gene Caughron, age 81 of Pigeon Forge, passed away Saturday, December 20, 2014. App. 2d 537 (1969). 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. 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. Jerry Springer longtime syndicated talk-show host and former Cincinnati mayor died Thursday at his home in the suburbs of Chicago. 669 F.2d at 11. He told April that he would return that night and that the two would go to the victim's house as planned. A purse and its contents lay strewn in the hall. Carl R. Ogle, Jr., Jefferson City, for appellant. The remainder may then be disclosed at trial under the provisions of Rule 26.2(a).". 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. 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." 1980); see also State v. Taylor, 669 S.W.2d 694, 698-700 (Tenn. Crim. See Baxter v. State, 503 S.W.2d 226, 230 (Tenn. Crim. While federal authority is not binding on Tennessee state courts, it is obviously persuasive in resolving disputes such as the one now before us, not only because the drafters of the Tennessee rule opted to follow the federal model so closely, but also because of the thoroughness the federal courts have brought to the analysis of Jencks disputes. 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. The majority "emphasize[s] that this case does not involve the denial of Rule 26.2 statements." Join Facebook to connect with Gary Caughron and others you may know. 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. at 778. It is this latter possibility that should lead this Court to hold that the trial court's denial of counsel's request for a recess or a reasonable time to review the statements under Rule 26.2(d) constitutes reversible error. According to the Advisory Commission Comments: "The language of Rule 26.2 is substantially identical to the language in Rule 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the majority concludes, the prosecution's "advance production satisfied the State's duty under Rule 26.2 and avoided the needless delay of the trial," and the trial court's decision "to proceed, apparently to allow April Ward to finish her testimony that day" was not an abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the Defendant to object when questions were actually asked. George Edward Hardin. See separate dissenting opinion. The trial court responded by pointing out that the defense team, consisting of attorneys Carl Ogle, Jr., Stephen Ward, and an investigator, had "had the statements overnight." They developed several leads, but none of them panned out. The key witness in this case was April Marie Ward, who was 14 years old at the time of the killing. Gary J. Aguirre. He was. 2d at 1249 (citing Gallman, 195 So. "Second, Rule 26.2(f) now makes it clear that this rule applies not only to trial situations, but also to pretrial testimony such as might be given at a suppression hearing. 138.) His aunt testified that, on the Friday night after he bought a green and white Oldsmobile, he came to his grandmother's house around 11 or 12 o'clock and went to bed. denied, 444 U.S. 833, 100 S. Ct. 65, 62 L. Ed. At the beginning of trial the Defendant asked the court to inspect the files in camera to look for any possible exculpatory evidence. After working in a law firm briefly, he became a public defender, then worked as a trial lawyer in California. The evidence was relevant because of Ward's testimony about drinking the victim's blood from a shot glass and Cruze's testimony about the Defendant's pink toothbrush. See also Boone v. Paderick, 541 F.2d 447 (4th Cir.1976); United States v. Sutton, 542 F.2d 1239 (4th Cir.1976). He then struck her brutally and repeatedly about her head until, according to April Ward, she no longer moved. This provision is similar to language found in Rule 12(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure but the Tennessee Rules Commission elected to treat all witness statements in one rule. Of course, the prosecution might have overcome any prejudice caused by police interference with the defendant's efforts to prepare his defense, had the state produced April Ward's various conflicting statements in response to the defendant's motion for pretrial disclosure. Hence, courts have suggested that both the Sixth Amendment's right to compulsory process, Id., and the right to confrontation are implicated in the violation of the procedural guarantees of Rule 26.2. When asked why he had tried to kill himself after one of the interrogation sessions with police, he said that "he was depressed and had a lot on his mind." 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. Dr. Blake stated that these represented a "hard slap injury to the buttock" inflicted while the victim was still alive. At trial, he testified that the Defendant appeared nervous and had a small cut on his face. 39-2-203(i)(5) requiring torture or depravity of mind and should define "cruel," "torture" and "depravity." 02/14/94 STATE TENNESSEE v. VICTOR JAMES CAZES . The crucial evidence Defendant alleged Tippens possessed was his knowledge that there were groceries in the victim's truck when the body was discovered. In the past, Michael has also been known as Michael G Caughron, Michael Gary Caughron, Mike G Caughron, Michael Cauchron and Michael Coughron. Atty. 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. Nevertheless, if defense counsel had been given an opportunity to make effective use of the material, that is, time to review those contradictory statements and time to prepare for April Ward's cross-examination based on what was contained in those statements, the due process problem in this case might have been avoided. 855 S.W.2d 526 (1993) | Cited 4 times. 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. 1987); State v. Howell, 698 S.W.2d 84, 86-87 (Tenn. Crim. As April described the scene, the Defendant turned Jones on her stomach and tried unsuccessfully to have sex with her. The trial court refused to continue the case because Tippens' testimony would be cumulative in light of the fact that there were several other investigating officers who should have possessed the same knowledge. App. Even though the trial court explained to him that as long as he testified truthfully he would not be committing perjury, Phillips refused to testify. See State v. Payne, 791 S.W.2d 10, 16 (Tenn. 1990); State v. James, 688 S.W.2d 463, 466 (Tenn. Crim. The court was also requested to have copies of all these files sealed and filed for any appeal. It is true that defense counsel engaged in a vigorous cross-examination of April Ward, confronting her repeatedly with the fact that she had made contradictory statements to police. 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. 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. They walked to the victim's house from the parking lot of a nearby nursing home, where they had left the Oldsmobile. Noting the conclusions of the Seventh, Tenth, Third and Eighth Circuits, that court held that "[t]he point in the trial when a disclosure is made is not in itself determinative . In pertinent part, the Tennessee Rule reads as follows:[4]. Officer Tippens was one of the first officers on the scene the day the murder was discovered. 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. [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. App. App. April 29Los Angeles, CALong Story Short: Willie Nelson 90 at the Hollywood Bowl (SOLD OUT) April 30Los Angeles, CALong Story Short: Willie Nelson 90 at . See T.R.E. United States v. Ingraldi, 793 F.2d 408 (1st Cir.1986). [2] So long as a witness is of sufficient capacity to understand the obligation of an oath or affirmation, and some rule or statute does not provide otherwise, the witness is competent. Found email listings include: g***@ruidosohomesnland.com. The most Caughron families were found in USA in 1880. 16(a)(1)(A). Although April's testimony was confused as to exact chronology, it appears that at some point, Jones was gagged to stop her screaming and tied up with the strips of towel and sheer material. 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. It is not clearly established in the record that the State violated Rule 16(a)(1)(A); but, if the State did violate the Rule, the Defendant has not shown any actual prejudice caused by failure to comply with the discovery order which would require exclusion of this evidence. 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." [1] T.C.A. Because there were questions about the juror's objectivity and the Defendant was at "enormous risk," the court removed the juror. For example, in a case very close on its facts to the one now before us, the prosecution turned over Jencks material to defense counsel on a Sunday morning at 10:00 a.m., preceding the start of a three-day trial the next day, Monday. That testimony is summarized below. 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. 804. 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. ." He also objects to Cruze's testimony that the Defendant "sneaked around" her house for some period of time after the murder. After a recess, during which the jury went to lunch, the judge informed counsel that after reflection he had concluded that he should change the charge to conform more to the language of T.C.A. View the profiles of people named Gary Caughron. See also United States v. McCrary, 699 F.2d 1308 (11th Cir.1983). You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Another court recognized the potential for a due process violation when the state advised witnesses that they "couldn't or shouldn't" give statements to defense counsel. Courts will find prejudice, however, when defendant's pre-trial preparation is hampered by the inability of counsel to assess the credibility of witnesses. Jencks caused some controversy in the months after it was announced, centering on fears that it would force government prosecutors to turn over investigatory files, in their entirety, upon defense demand. 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. No hearsay was involved. See, e.g., Hudgins v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 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. He told McGaha that he had been drunk and partying the night of the murder. These depictions are certainly not pleasant, but they are not shocking or gruesome. After looking at a newspaper article mentioning the homicide, the Defendant told Haynes that he thought his girlfriend was "snitching" on him. denied, 396 U.S. 865, 90 S. Ct. 143, 24 L. Ed. 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.". 2d 215 (1963), or Rule 16, T.R.Cr.P. Under T.R.E. 1984). 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.