State of Tennessee v. Terry Dean Sneed ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
JULY SESSION, 1998 November 5, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9702-CR-00076
)
Appellee, )
)
) UNICOI COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. ARDEN L. HILL
TERRY DEAN SNEED, ) JUDGE
)
Appe llant. ) (Aggravated Robbery, Aggravated
) Kidnapping, Aggravated Rape)
ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CRIMINAL COURT OF UNICOI COUNTY
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
RAYMOND C. CONKIN, JR. JOHN KNOX WALKUP
320 Cherokee St., Suite B Attorney General and Reporter
Kingsport, TN 37660
ELIZABETH B. MARNEY
Assistant Attorney General
425 5th Avenu e North
Nashville, TN 37243
DAVID CROCKETT
District Attorney General
STEVEN R. FINNEY
Assistant District Attorney General
Carter County Courthouse Annex
Elizabethton, TN 37643
LISA NIDIFFER
Assistant District Attorney General
Courthouse
Erwin, TN 37650
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
OPINION
The Defendant, Terry Dean Sneed, appeals as of right from a Unicoi
Coun ty jury verdict convicting him of aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping,
aggravated rape, and two counts of aiding and abetting aggravated rape.1 The
trial court sentenced him to a total of one hund red an d twen ty-four ye ars; wh ile
the sente nces for the ra pe co nviction s qua lify as R ange II, multip le offender, the
other sentences are Range III, persistent offend er. Th e Def enda nt app eals h is
conviction . We affirm the ju dgme nt of the trial co urt.
The Defendant argues eight issues on appeal: (1) that the evidence in the
record is n ot sufficient to supp ort a find ing tha t the D efend ant is guilty of aiding
and abetting aggravated rape beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) that the evidence
in the rec ord is n ot suffic ient to s uppo rt a findin g that th e Def enda nt is gu ilty of
aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping beyond a
reaso nable doubt; (3 ) that the trial co urt erred in allowing the victim’s pretrial
statement to be introduced as evidence and made an exh ibit which was
acce ssible to the jury during delibera tions; (4) that the trial court erred in allowing
the State to amend the indictment on the day of trial; (5) that the trial court erred
in overruling the D efenda nt’s motio n to dism iss two co unts of the indictme nt,
which he arg ues w ere err oneo usly drawn and d uplicito us in nature; (6) that the
trial court erred by instructing the jury on the issue of flight; (7) that the trial court
1
We note that both the indictment and the judgment form entered by the trial court
refer to this crime as “aiding and abetting aggravated rape.” Under the 1989 revision of our
criminal code, what was formerly the crime of “aiding and abetting” is now known as “criminal
responsibility for the conduct of another.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-402. However, on
appeal, Defendant does not raise as an issue any irregularity concerning terminology, and even
if he had done so, the error would not be fatal. For the sake of clarity, we will employ the
terminology used by the trial court for the remainder of this opinion.
-2-
erred in overr uling the Defendant’s motion for mistrial after a police officer
testified that the co-defendant had given statements which led the officer to
believe that the Defendant was guilty; and (8) that the trial court erred in finding
the D efend ant co mpe tent to s tand tria l.
The victim in this case was an employee at the Stop-In Market in Carter
County, where she generally worked the night shift from eleven o’clock p.m. u ntil
seven o’clock a.m. On No vemb er 29, 19 92 at ap proxima tely one-th irty a.m.,
shortly after the victim’s co-wo rker left fo r the nig ht, leavin g the vic tim alo ne in the
store, two males entered the market. The two men, who were captured on video
surveillance tape, were armed with knives. They approached the victim and
demanded that sh e get a bag a nd fill it with all the money in the cash registe r.
The victim testified that both m en threa tened to kill her if she did not cooperate,
and the victim a ccede d to their demands. The men then dragged her from the
store and forced her into a car, wh ere the co-de fenda nt, Billy Joe Smith, shoved
her head to the floorboard and held it there.
The victim testified that the Defendant drove the car to a cemetery. At the
cemetery, the Defendant and Smith began drinking Mad Dog 20/20, which they
also forced the victim to drink at one point during the night. Smith ordered the
victim to remove her clothes. At that time, the D efenda nt stated, “J ust kill her. .
. . [G]et it o ver with . I’m sick of hea ring he r cry.” Sm ith then raped the victim at
knifepoint on the gr ound o utside wh ile the De fendan t watche d from th e car. The
victim testified that immediately after the rape, the Defe ndant stated, “Give her
up to me, it’s my turn. Let m e have her . . . . Damn it, Billy Joe, you said if I drove
and did like you said that I could have her when you was done with her to do
-3-
whatever I wanted to.” The D efenda nt, arme d with a knife, n ext rap ed the victim
in the front seat of the car. He then attempted to force her to perform fella tio.
The victim testified that when she refused, the Defendant said, “I’d love to kill you
. . . . I can’t wait to see your b lood flo w . . . . I’m a son o f satan and it w ouldn ’t
bother me a bit. I ought to kill you . . . . I’ve put five women u p there in that grave
and it wouldn’t bother me to mak e you n umb er six . . . . I ble w one bitch’s brains
out for scream ing.” After the rape, the victim was sobbing, and the victim testified
that the Defendant threatened to “chop [her] up and fry [her] on the hood of the
car” if she did not quiet down.
Shor tly thereafter, the two men forced her to hold a cigarette lighter so that
they could se e to divide u p the m oney tha t they had taken fro m the S top-In
Marke t. Smith then raped the victim a second time on the ground outsid e, while
the Defendant again watched fro m the car. Th rough out the night a nd ea rly
morning, the two men threatened numerous times to kill the victim, and each one
told the victim that he had a gun. The victim also testified that she felt what she
believed to be a gun under the ba ck sea t of the c ar while she w as be ing he ld
down on the floorboard.
After the third rape, the three got back into the car, at which point the
Defendant asked Sm ith if he could have a second turn at raping the victim. Smith
refused. The victim testified that the three of them then sat in the car in silence
for an hour or two so that Smith could “think.” Finally, as the sun began to rise,
Smith started the car and drove to the Roadway Inn in Johnson City, claiming that
he and the Defendant would abduct the victim and have her help them rob banks.
-4-
According to testimony of the victim, Smith said, “We’re going to be Clyde and
you’ll be Bo nnie.”
When they arrived at the motel, Smith held a knife to the victim’s back
while the Defen dant, lean ing aga inst the op en doo r of the car, c alled to a motel
employee in the parking lot to ask whether there were any vacant rooms. The
employee refused them a room, citing their drunkenness, and while the
Defendant was arg uing with the employee, the victim slid out of the car and ran
to the motel office. The emplo yee la ter testified that he could identify the
Defe ndan t and S mith a s the m en he had s een th at mo rning a t the m otel.
The victim testified that while she was running to the motel office, she
heard the men running and she heard one of them say, “Let’s get the f__k out of
here.” The motel employee stated that the men were driving too fast for him to
get a license tag n umber.
Upon reaching the motel office, the victim called 911 and summoned the
police. The w hole ord eal had lasted ap proxima tely seven hours. W hen th e
police arrived, she wen t with them to the Jo hnson C ity Police Departm ent to give
a statem ent deta iling the eve nts of the n ight. While at the police department, she
identified not only the Defendant from a photo line-up, but also was shown and
identified the car driven by the perpetrators on the night of the crime. At the
Johnson City Hospital, she subm itted to medical testing, which was later
introduce d at trial in the fo rm of a ra pe kit.
-5-
At trial the State introduced evidence recovered from the cemetery,
including a Mad Dog 20/20 bottle, the cigarette lighter, and a knife. Although
DNA evidence linked Smith to the crime, the police were unable to link the
Defendant with the crime through DNA evidence.
Howeve r, with regard to the identity of the Defendant, the victim testified
that during the car ride, the Defendant called Smith by his first name, to which
Smith responded, “God damn it, Snuffy, you called me by my real name.” A
defense witness later testified that the Defendant has a tattoo that read s “Snuffy.”
The victim state d at trial that she did not re call see ing an y of the D efend ant’s
tattoos, but she also testified that h e never to ok off his long-s leeved jac ket. In
addition, she identified the men on the video surveillance tape as the Defendant
and Smith. Furthermore, although the Defendant appeared to have lost weight
and had shaved his beard and shortened the length of his hair since the time of
the crime, the victim, who testified that she had numerous chances to see the
perpetrators’ faces at close range during the night of her abduction, stated
uneq uivoca lly that the Defendant was the same man who abducted and raped
her.
I.
The Defendant first argues that the evidence is insufficient to support a jury
verdict that he was guilty of aiding and abetting aggravated rape beyond a
reaso nable doubt. Under Tennessee law, “[a] person is criminally responsible for
. . . the conduct of another if . . . [a]cting with intent to promote or assist the
commission of the offen se, or to benefit in the procee ds or res ults of the offense,
the person solicits, directs, aids o r attem pts to a id ano ther pe rson to com mit the
-6-
offense . . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-402. The Defendant argues that he was
not an active participant in the rapes of the victim by Smith. He argues that he
was merely present while Smith raped the victim and in no way offered any
assistance or aid to Smith during the rapes. He further argues that he did not
take any action that would manifest a desire or intent to carry out the rapes.
Tennessee Rule o f Appe llate Pro cedu re 13(e ) presc ribes th at “[findin gs]
of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the
evidence is insufficient to suppo rt the finding by the trier of fact beyond a
reaso nable doubt.” T enn. R . App. P. 1 3(e). “Qu estions c oncern ing the cre dibility
of the witn esse s, the w eight a nd valu e to be given th e evide nce, a s well a s all
factual issues ra ised b y the ev idenc e, are re solved by the tr ier of fac t, not this
Court.” State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) (citing
State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973)). Nor may this court re-weigh
or re-evalua te the evide nce in the record b elow. State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d
185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) (citing State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 836 (Tenn.
1978)).
A jury verdict approved by the trial judge accredits the State’s witnesses
and resolves all conflicts in favor of the State. (citing State v. Williams, 657
S.W.2d 405, 41 0 (Ten n. 1983 )). On a ppea l, the State is entitled to the strongest
legitimate view of the e vidence and all infere nces the refrom. State v. Tug gle, 639
S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) (citing Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d at 835). Because
a verdict of guilt removes the presumption of innocence and replaces it with a
presumption of guilt, the ac cuse d has the bu rden in this Court of illustrating why
the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict returne d by the trier o f fact.
-7-
McBee v. State, 372 S.W.2d 173, 17 6 (Ten n. 1963 ); see also Evans, 838 S.W.2d
at 191 (citing Grace, 493 S.W .2d at 476 ); Tug gle, 639 S.W.2d at 914.
In the case at bar, the evidence presented by the State clearly con tradicts
the Defendant’s assertion that he was not an active participant in the rapes
perpetrated by Sm ith. The Defe ndan t’s state men t, “[Y]ou s aid if I drove and d id
like you said that I could have her when you was done with her to do whatever
I wanted to,” shows that the perpetrators shared at least some pre-formed intent
to act in con cert in the c omm ission of th e rapes. Moreover, the Defendant
actua lly drove the car to the cemetery where all three rapes occurred, and the
Defendant remained arme d with h is knife d uring m uch o f the eve ning a nd ea rly
morning. In fact, the D efenda nt himse lf urged S mith to kill the victim on at least
one occasion. Therefore, viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the
prosecution, there is clea rly sufficient evid ence fo r the jury to have found the
Defendant guilty of aiding and abetting aggravated rape beyon d a rea sona ble
doubt.
II.
Second, the Defendant argues that the e vidence was insufficient to support
jury verdicts tha t he was guilty of agg ravated ra pe, agg ravated ro bbery, and
aggravated kidnapping beyond a reasonable doubt. The basis of his argument
is mistake n identity. He argues that no physical evidence links him to the scene
of the crime. He also contends that the victim’s identification of the Defendant is
suspect since the majority of the abduction took place at night in darkness, the
victim was in an exc ited state at the time o f the crime, and she failed to notice
tattoos on the D efendant’s bo dy.
-8-
As previously noted, because a verdict of guilt removes the presumption
of innocence and replaces it with a presumption of guilt, the accused has the
burden in this Court of illustrating why the evidence is insufficient to support the
verdict returned by the trier of fa ct. Tug gle, 639 S.W .2d at 914 ; see also Evans,
838 S.W.2d at 191 (citing Grace, 493 S.W .2d at 476). Th is Court will not disturb
a verdict of guilt due to the sufficiency of the evidence unless the facts in the
record and the inferences wh ich may be drawn from the facts are insufficient, as
a matter of law, for a rational trier of fact to find the accused guilty beyond a
reasonab le doubt. Ten n. R. App. P. 1 3(e).
Desp ite the lack of physical evidence linking the Defendant to the crime,
the victim positively identified the Defendant as her assailant. She spent
appro ximate ly seven hou rs with her two ass ailants, and a few o f those hours
were spent in b road da ylight. Additionally, she testified that sh e hea rd Sm ith call
the Defendant by both his first name and his n icknam e. The victim’s testimony
alone would be sufficient to convict the Defendant. However, in this case, the
victim’s testimony was coupled with images captured by a video surveillance
camera and an identifica tion ma de by the motel em ployee. This issue is without
merit.
III.
Third, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the
victim’s pretrial statement to be introduced and made an exhibit which was
acce ssible to the jury during deliberatio ns. The Defendant argues that although
the adm issibility of such a document is normally left to the discretion of the trial
-9-
court, the trial judge in this case abuse d his discr etion. In his brief, the Defendant
relies upon T ennes see Ru le of Evidence 803(5), the hearsay exception regarding
recorded recollections:
A memorandum or record concerning a matt er about which a
witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient re collection to
enab le the witness to testify fully and ac curately, shown to have
been made or adopted by the witnes s whe n the m atter w as fres h in
the witness’s mem ory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If
admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but
may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse
party.
Tenn. R . Evid. 803(5).
The docume nt in question is a statement by the victim taken by Officer
Donna Haynes on the morning following the crime. At trial, the officer had trouble
remembering portions of the victim’s state ment a nd was therefore allowed to
refresh her memory using the typed statement. The record reflects that the
document was first introduced by the State on direct and was subsequently used
during cross examination. The State published the document to the jury and later
move d to introdu ce it as an exhibit.
Although the document had already been published to the jury when the
Defendant objected, the trial court should not have entered the document as an
exhibit. Rule 803(5 ) plainly states that a memorandum or record used to refresh
a witne ss’s memory may be introduced as evidence but may not be introduced
as an exhibit unless offered by an ad verse pa rty. Id. Here, the State m oved to
have the statem ent introdu ced as an exhib it.
-10-
Howeve r, despite this apparent error by the trial court, the Defendant has
failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by use of the statement during jury
deliberations. For this reason, a ny error that the trial court may have made was
harmle ss. See Tenn. R . App. P. 36(b); T enn. R. Crim . P. 52(a).
-11-
IV.
Fourth, the Defendant argues that the trial court erre d in allowin g the Sta te
to amen d the indic tment o n the da y of trial. Spec ifically, the Sta te move d to
amend the aggravated kidnapping count to include the word s: “so as to
subs tantially interfere with the victim’s liberty.” The State also corrected the
statutory citation listed in the indictment. The amended count reads as follows:
And these same Grand Jurors upon their same oath further
present that BILLY JOE SMITH and TERRY DEAN SNEED, on or
about the 29th d ay of No vemb er, 1992, in the C ounty an d State
aforesaid, and b efore th e findin g of this Indictme nt, did u nlawfu lly
remove the victim fro m her p lace of em ployme nt, so as to
subs tantially interfere w ith the victim’s liberty, while the said BILLY
JOE SMITH and TERRY DEA N SNEED were armed with a dea dly
weapon, to-wit: a Knife, in vio lation of Section 39-13-304 of the
Tennessee Code Annota ted, all of wh ich is aga inst the peace and
dignity of the State of Tennessee.
(Em phas is added.) The Defendant argues that the amendments added an
essential element to the crime without prior notice to the Defendant and without
review of the gran d jury.
Rule 7(b ) of the Ru les of Crim inal Proc edure s tates that “[a ]n indictm ent,
presentment or information may be amended in all cases with the consent of the
defend ant. If no ad ditiona l or different offense is thereby charged and no
substantial rights of the defendant are thereby prejudiced, the co urt ma y perm it
an amendment without the defendant’s consent before jeopardy attaches.” Tenn.
-12-
R. Crim. P . 7(b). Thu s, at its discre tion, a court may allow any amendment to an
indictment that does not add an offense or substantially prejudice the rights of the
defend ant.
In the case at bar, it is our opinion that the Defendant did not experience
surprise as a re sult of th e am endm ents. T he im prope rly cited Tennessee Code
Annotated § 39-13-3 01 refers to the definitional portion of “Kidnapping and False
Impriso nmen t.” It should have been clear to the Defendant, from both the
impro perly cited section and the language of the count itself, that the charge
referred to aggravated kidnapping. Moreover, although inserting the language,
“so as to substantially interfere with the liberty of the victim,” does add an
essential element to the crime of aggravated kidnapping, as the Defendant
contends, we do not be lieve tha t the ad ditiona l langu age re sults in r evers ible
error.
Moreover, desp ite the fo regoin g discu ssion, the Defendant in this case
failed make an objection to the form of the indictment before trial. Rule 12(b)(2)
of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that “[d]efenses and
objections based on defects in the indictment, presentment or information” be
raised before trial. 2 Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2). Here, the Defendant raises the
issue on ly on app eal to this C ourt.
More approp riately, not having raised the issue pre-trial, the Defendant
could have moved for a continuance at the time opposing counsel presented the
2
With some exceptions, which are noted in the rule. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2).
-13-
amen dmen ts to the court. When a defendant experiences actual surprise at trial
resulting from an amendment to an indictment, a defendant sho uld move for a
contin uance so as to allow time to prepare a defense to the new charges.3
Here, the Defe ndant n either objected at the time of trial nor m oved for a
continua nce. More importantly, however, after review of the record, we are not
convinced that the Defendant experienced actual surprise as a result of the
amendments.
V.
The Defendant’s next argument also pertains to the indictment. He argues
that the trial court erred in overruling the Defendant’s motion to dismiss two
counts of the indictment, which the Defendant argues were erroneously drawn
and duplicitous in nature. T he first two counts to w hich Defen dant refers are
identic al:
The Grand Jurors of the State of Tennessee, duly summoned
and elected, empaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire in and for
the body of the County aforesaid, in the sta te afore said, u pon th eir
oath, present that BILLY JOE SMITH heretofore, to wit, on or about
the 29th da y of Nove mber, 1 992, in the Coun ty aforesaid, and
before the find ing of th is indictm ent, did unlaw fully sexu ally
penetra te the victim, by forcing her to h ave sexual inte rcourse with
him while the said BILLY JOE SMITH was armed with a deadly
weapon, to-wit: a knife, and did thereby cause bodily injury to the
said victim, a nd furth er, the s aid BILLY JOE SMITH, was aided and
abetted in com mitting this aggravated rape of the victim by another
person, Terry Dean Snea d [sic], contrary to Tennessee Code
Annotated, 39-13-502, and against the peace and dignity of the
State of Tennessee.
3
In addition, if the Defendant believed that the indictment did not adequately apprise
him of the charges against him, he could have moved for a bill of particulars pursuant to Rule
7(c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states: “Upon motion of the defendant the court
may direct the filing of a bill of particulars so as to adequately identify the offense charged.”
Tenn. R. Crim. P. 7(c).
-14-
Again we note that the Defendant failed to object to the form of the
indictment before trial, as required by Rule 12(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of
Criminal Procedure. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2). Nor did he move for a bill of
particulars pursua nt to Rule 7(c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Tenn. R.
Crim P. 7(c). 4 However, we will proceed to discuss the merits of this issue.
In arguing that the counts were erroneously drawn, the Defendant points
to the fac t that in c ounts one a nd two , initially Billy Joe Smith is charg ed with
aggravated rape, while the Defendant is mentioned only later in the count as the
person who aids and abets Billy Joe Smith in committing the rape. The
Defendant argues that this does not afford him sufficient notice of the charges
against him and therefore asserts that the indictment should be dism issed . Wh ile
we agree with the Defendant that the language of the counts does not provide the
clearest possible description of the crime, nor does it establish with com plete
precision the role of each perpetrator in the crime, we find that the language of
the counts is sufficient to apprise the Defendant of the charges against him.
The Defendant’s argument concerning the duplicity of the counts is less
manife st. Althoug h we are unable to ascerta in the thrust of th e Def enda nt’s
argum ent, we have exam ined b oth ind ictme nts an d are u nable to find e rror in
them. “[A]s in the case of rape, where it appears that two or more persons acted
together, aiding and assisting one another in the perpetration of successive
rapes, or that the one committed the act and the other did n ot, but such stood by
and aided and assisted the one in commission of such act, they m ay be jo intly
4
See supra note 3.
-15-
charged with the com miss ion of such act.” Wa tson v. Sta te, 197 S.W.2d 802,
804 (Tenn . 1946) (c iting 42 C .J.S. Indictm ents and Informations § 159).
Moreover, the facts clearly support the commission of two separate rapes by
Smith with assistance by the Defendant which were separated by both time and
the rape of the victim by the Defen dant. Fa cts such as tho se in the instant case
provide a dequa te groun ds for cha rging rap e in two se parate c ounts.
VI.
Sixth, the Defend ant contend s that the trial court erred by instructing the
jury on flight. He argues that no evidence of flight was introduced at trial and that
therefore, a jury charg e on the issue of flight was improp er.
The jury was pro vided with the followin g instructio n on flight:
The flight of a person accused of crime is a circumstance
which, when considered together with all the facts of the case, may
justify an infe rence of guilt. F light is th e volun tary with drawa l of
ones elf for the purpose of evading arrest or prosecution for the
crime charged. Whether the evidence presented proves beyond a
reaso nable doubt that the defendant fled is a question for your
determination.
The law ma kes no nice or refin ed distinc tion as to the manner
or metho d of flight; it may be open, or it may be a hurried or
concealed departure, or it may be a concealment within the
jurisdiction. However, it takes both a leaving the scene of the
difficulty and subsequent hiding out, eva sion, o r conc ealm ent in the
comm unity, or a leaving of the com munity fo r parts un known , to
constitute flight.
If flight is proved, the fact of flight alone does not allow you to
find that the de fenda nt is guilty of the crime alleged. However, since
flight by a defendant may be caused by a conscio usnes s of guilt,
you may co nsider the fact of flight, if flight is so pro ven, toge ther with
all of the other evidence when you decide the guilt or innocence of
the defendant. On the other hand, an entirely innocent person may
take flight and such flight may be explained by proof offered, or by
the facts and circumstances of the case.
Whether there was flight by the defendant, the reason s for it,
and the weight to be given to it, are questions for you to determine.
-16-
This instruction on flight is almost identical to that provided in State v.
Kendricks, 947 S.W .2d 875 , 885 (T enn. C rim. App . 1996). In Kendricks, this
Court noted that the instruction was “in sub stantial accord with o ur pattern jury
instruction, T.P.I.-- Crim. 42.18, which has been c ited with ap proval by o ur Cou rt.”
Id. at 886. Generally, the jury is “entitled to evalua te [evidence conce rning flight]
and determine whether flight was established and if so, whether an inference of
consciousness of guilt arose.” State v. Hill, 875 S.W .2d 278, 284 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1993) (citing Hall v. State , 584 S.W .2d 819, 821 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1979 )).
As stated in the facts, immediately after the victim escaped from the car at
the motel, on e of the m en was heard to say, “Let’s g et the f__k out o f here.”
They then got back into their car and exited the parking lot, driving too fast for the
motel employee to ta ke dow n a licens e plate nu mber. A t trial, Unicoi C ounty
Criminal Investigator Ron Arnold testified that he spent approximately seven
months interviewing the De fendant’s fam ily and searching for the D efend ant in
an attemp t to appre hend h im. We believe that this constitutes sufficient evidence
to warrant the flight instru ction. The language in the instruction provided allows
for a broad spectrum of methods of flight and appears to encompass the behavior
of the Defend ant. Thus, the jury instruction on flight was appropriate in the
instant case.
VII.
Seventh, the Defenda nt contends that the trial court erred in overruling the
Defe ndan t’s motion for a mistr ial after a police officer testified that the
Defe ndan t’s co-defendant had given statements which led the police officer to
believe the Defendant was guilty. The Defendant argues that the statement was
-17-
inadm issible hearsay and that in order to offer this statement into evidence, the
State should h ave called co-defe ndant S mith to te stify so as to satisfy the
Defen dant’s righ t to confron tation.
The exchange at issue took place during the cross examination of Unicoi
Cou nty Crim inal Inve stigato r Ron Arno ld by de fense coun sel:
Q. Now I believe you stated a moment ago somebody told you to be on
the lookou t for Terry Dean Sneed, or that Terry Dean Sneed might
be involved. Is that correct, sir?
A. Tha t’s correct.
...
Q. What somebody told you?
A. The co-defe ndant.
The Defendant immediately moved for a mistrial, arguing that a Bruton violation
had occurred.5 The trial court overruled the motion and gave the jury a curative
instruction .
W e find it unnecessary to delve into discussion of Bruton violations in the
instant case as this matter m ay be re solved on oth er grou nds: O fficer Ar nold’s
answer was elicited by counsel for the defense. Having elicited the objec tionab le
response, counsel for the defense cannot now be heard to complain. From a
reading of the record, we do not find here an intentional reference to the
Defendant in an attempt by the defe nse co unsel to c ompe l the court to grant a
5
See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). In Bruton, the United States
Supreme Court held that the admission of a co-defendant’s confession implicating the
defendant at a joint trial constituted prejudicial error. Id. at 126. The Court reasoned that
because the co-defendant did not take the stand for cross examination, the defendant’s
constitutional right to confrontation had been violated. Id. The Court determined that a curative
instruction to the jury did not serve to remedy the error. Id. at 137.
-18-
mistria l, as the S tate suggested at trial. The witness’s statement of what the co-
defendant told him was very general and vague. We find instead an error which
was rem edied w ith a curative instruction .
The decisio n of wh ether to grant a mistria l is within the sound discretion of
the trial court. State v. McKinney, 929 S.W.2d 404, 405 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996 ).
This Court will not disturb such a ruling absent a finding of an abuse of discretion.
State v. Adkins, 786 S.W .2d 642 , 644 (T enn. 19 90); State v. Williams, 929
S.W.2d 385, 38 8 (Ten n. Crim. A pp. 199 6). Furtherm ore, we presume that the
jury followe d the tria l court’s explicit instruction s not to co nsider the inappro priate
comm ent. State v. S mith, 893 S.W.2d 908, 923 (Tenn. 1994). In light of the
limited nature of the offending testimony an d the trial court’s prom pt curative
instruction, we find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to
grant a mistrial. See State v. Dick, 872 S.W.2d 938, 944 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1993). Although we are un able to find a ny erro r on the part of th e trial co urt, if
any error was made , it was clearly h armles s. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b); Tenn.
R. Crim. P. 52 (a).
VIII.
Finally, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in finding the
Defendant competent to stand trial. On the day of trial, Defendant filed a pro se
motion requesting “proper medication,” claiming that without his medication, he
was not competent to stand trial. The court conducted a hearing on the matter.
The court allowed the Defendant to testify on his own behalf outside the
presence of the jury. Th e court a lso delaye d proce edings to attem pt to find the
-19-
Defe ndan t’s docto r, who p roved to be u navaila ble. In the doctor’s stead, the
court called a pharmacist to testify, who testified that the anti-depressant
medications the Defendant had been taking were ge nerally use d for mild a nxiety
“due to everyday life stresses .” The record reflects that the Defendant had not
been taking his medication for at least two months preceding trial. The court
called to the stand a jailer from the Defendant’s place of incarceration, and the
jailer testified that the Defendant had not exhibited any form of abnormal behavior
since he had stopped taking his medication. The Defendant introduced a letter
from Assessment Services, dated November 8, 1994, stating, “It is important that
Terry continues to receive his medications on a regu lar bas is to m aintain his
comp etency.” However, the State also entered into evidence a letter, dated
August 3, 1995, from the Defend ant’s doctor, who wrote, “I do not feel that T erry
Sneed needs to be taking Loraze pam.” After ha ving heard all testimo ny and
having tried unsuccessfully to locate a presc ription fo r the D efend ant’s
medication, the court concluded that the Defendant’s pro se motion should be
denied:
Based upon what I’ve heard here today from the pharmacist and
from the jailer as to [the Defendant’s] actions lately and the motions
filed by Mr. Sne ed we re not tim ely filed, a ccord ing to th e . . . local
rules, therefore, we’re going to proceed with the trial without any
Lorezapam. It would delay the trial too much, in my opinion, to try
to get some doctor to prescribe Lorezapam for him, have it filled and
get it in his system, so- and, therefore, we’re going to go ahead
without any medication for Mr. Sneed.
The Defendant correctly cites the test for determining the competency of
a defend ant to stan d trial in Ten nesse e. In order to stand trial, a defendant must
(1) be able to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him,
(2) be able to consult with counsel, and (3) be capable of assisting in the
preparation of his defense. Macke y v. State, 537 S.W.2d 704, 707 (Tenn. Crim.
-20-
App. 1975); State v. Stacy, 556 S.W.2d 552 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1977). The
determination of compe tency is within the discretion of the trial court. State v.
Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 538 (Tenn. 1993). “The trial court’s determination
on competency will not be overturned absent a showing of an abuse of
discretion .” State v. Howa rd, 926 S.W.2d 579, 584 (Ten n. Crim. App . 1996).
After careful review of the record, we conclude that all three prongs of the
competency test have been met in the case before us. Furthermore, the
Defendant has failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from his being
denied medic ation on th e day of trial.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects.
_______________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
_______________________________
GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE
_______________________________
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE
-21-