He is the linchpin of the prosecution's case." 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. 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. STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, *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. Gary Allen Caughron, 51, of Cameron died Tuesday, June 2, 2015, in Fort Smith, Ark. 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 . 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. View Gary June Caughron's Criminal Record Alias (es) Canghorn, Gary June Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 26.2(a) (emphasis added). The proof shows that while Jones was alive and conscious, see State v. Williams, supra, 690 S.W.2d at 529-530, the Defendant told her that she was going to die as she begged for her life. These were objections ordinarily made when and if the potentially objectionable testimony occurred. App. 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. He argues that Jones was unconscious during most of the acts that occurred that night. Michael Gary Caughron, 59 - Port Lavaca, TX - MyLife.com 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. She had bled extensively from her mouth and nose. Gary June's Instagram, Twitter & Facebook on IDCrawl The Defendant says that the court was disparaging the Defendant's evidence. Under T.R.E. We are of the opinion that this senseless, and brutal killing clearly warrants the imposition of the death penalty. The admission of expert testimony is largely in the discretion of the trial judge. 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. 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. Under State v. Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947 (Tenn. 1978), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting their introduction. "First, as formerly was evident in Rule 16, the Committee deliberately did not incorporate that provision of subdivision (e)(3) of the Jencks Act, which applies to statements of witnesses before a grand jury, and such statements are not meant to be obtainable simply because a grand jury witness testifies for the State. denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103 S. Ct. 770, 74 L. Ed. 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. At least one state court has applied harmless error analysis to the violation of production rule. Sometime within the following two or three weeks, Christy Jones Scott discovered a silver, turquoise and coral ring with a thunderbird design lying on the ground beside her mother's truck, which was still parked at her mother's house. 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. The trial court laid the blame for this predicament on the defendant's attorney. See, e.g., Hudgins v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. This was about 40% of all the recorded Caughron's in USA. Ogle said that he had turned over the package of witness statements to his investigator to review overnight, and that he had been able to read only one of April Ward's statements in the interim. 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. 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. 1983). App. That court found that "only in the context of either a complete deprivation of discovery or resulting prejudice" does a due process violation occur. United States v. Missler, 414 F.2d 1293, 1303-1304 (4th Cir.1969) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Byrnes v. United States, 327 F.2d 825, 832 (9th Cir.1964). It did not provide for the production of statements by witnesses under any circumstances. We find no reversible error. The trial judge's actions were unnecessary but did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial or prejudice him in any way. The court found it "grossly unfair" to permit this kind of prosecutorial misconduct, which had "unfairly hampered the defendants' investigation." Sharon is sixty years old. State v. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d 387, 391 (1989). The court next defined "cruel," "torture" and "depravity" in accord with State v. Williams, 690 S.W.2d 517, 529-530 (Tenn. 1985). He then declared her competent to testify. The Defendant told Haynes that when he woke up the next morning he had blood all over him and that he did not know whether or not he had killed the victim. 39-13-206(c)(1)(D) [formerly T.C.A. In turn, he denied knowing the victim, denied any involvement in her death, and denied his actions the day after the killing. State v. Caughron :: 1993 :: Tennessee Supreme Court - Justia Law Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 100 S. Ct. 1759, 1767, 64 L. Ed. Grady B Caughron (1919 - 2007) - Johnson City, TN This request was denied, and April Ward's direct examination followed immediately. 02/14/94 STATE TENNESSEE v. VICTOR JAMES CAZES . [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. The factual background of the state's case against Gary Caughron is set out in detail in the majority opinion. Finally, although the trial court denied the motion for continuance on the mistaken belief that FBI Agent Doug Dedrick would testify, Agent Dedrick's testimony was presented to the jury through stipulation. It should be emphasized that this case does not involve the denial of Rule 26.2 statements. There was no abuse of discretion here. 2d at 1249 (citing Gallman, 195 So. 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. Gary Caughroncurrently lives in Capitan, NM; in the past Gary has also lived in Ruidoso NM. 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. He raises numerous issues in this appeal; but, after careful review of the entire record and the law, we find these issues to be without merit. at 778. 2d 856 (1982), a state trooper instructed three witnesses, the correctional *547 officers present after a prison assault, not to discuss the case with the defense attorney. Facebook gives people the power to. That court noted that the witnesses were "particularly vulnerable to suggestion and anxious not to offend the prosecutors" because they were concerned that they, too, could be indicted. The Defendant avers that the trial court erred in not permitting him to make the final closing argument at sentencing. Obituaries in Los Angeles County | Los Angeles Public Library 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. Search Local Arrest Records The court was presented with a young girl who had participated in a brutal, ritualistic-type murder, who repeatedly cried on the witness stand, and who required several recesses in order for her to regain her composure. 1973). lab, who was Defendant's first witness. The court quoted Gregory at length, as well as Gallman v. State, 29 Ala.App. As to the latter right, the United States Court of Appeal has noted: Krilich, supra, at 682 (holding that a Jencks violation "presents an issue of sufficient constitutional dimension to warrant consideration under 28 U.S.C. Casey Caughron - Manager, IT Operations - WaterOne | LinkedIn Examination of the scene of the crime revealed that the door to the bedroom where the body was found had been forced open. After drinking the blood, April said, she went to the bathroom to throw up, but did not. 801(c); State v. Coker, 746 S.W.2d 167, 173 (1987). 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. 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. Gary R Caughron 1933 - 1993. Although, as previously noted, there have been few Tennessee cases interpreting Rule 26.2, there is a rich mine of federal case law involving the production of what is now universally referred to as "Jencks material." This upset Caughron, who told April Ward that he would like to catch Ann Jones "out one night" and "slice her throat." Gary June Caughron vs. State of Tennessee (03C01-9707-CC-00301) Sevier Criminal John K. Byers, Sr.J. But in the wake of this initial ruling, the Court has set the threshold for determining harmlessness at a very high level. Federal case analysis on this point is compelling. Testimony about April's emotional reaction to the murder tends to bolster her credibility, as does testimony about her continued contact with the Defendant.