According to Green, the Defendant's childhood had been very unsettled. The trial court felt that the Defendant had failed to exercise due diligence in examining the door. 1978). Obviously, the error in this case could not be considered harmless under any of the foregoing formulations. See, e.g., Bryant v. State, 539 S.W.2d 816, 819 (Tenn. Crim. Id. The court did not abuse its discretion here. 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." At the beginning of trial the Defendant asked the court to inspect the files in camera to look for any possible exculpatory evidence. 2d 215 (1963), governing the right to pretrial discovery of exculpatory evidence material to the issue of the defendant's guilt, discussed further in Section II, infra. 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. Respondent filed a reply in support of his motion on June 27, 2017 (Doc. Gary Caughroncurrently lives in Capitan, NM; in the past Gary has also lived in Ruidoso NM. Right now Gary is an Owner at Caurhon Gary. 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. Testimony about April's emotional reaction to the murder tends to bolster her credibility, as does testimony about her continued contact with the Defendant. [9] There is no way to know to what extent this aspect of April's testimony may have affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty. 2d 983 (1983). The court next defined "cruel," "torture" and "depravity" in accord with State v. Williams, 690 S.W.2d 517, 529-530 (Tenn. 1985). 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. 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. See, e.g., Freeman v. State of *546 Georgia, 599 F.2d 65, 69 (5th Cir.1979), cert. April also said that she had told the Defendant what Jones had done. 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. 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. Gary June Caughron vs. State of Tennessee (03C01-9707-CC-00301) Sevier Criminal John K. Byers, Sr.J. The Defendant asserts on appeal that the statements should have been admitted because of constitutional considerations and cites Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 35 L. Ed. [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 sentencing phase of the trial was much briefer, primarily because the state presented no further proof and the Defendant called only four witnesses. The Defendant avers that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to ask leading questions of April Ward on direct examination. 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. 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. 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. Moreover, it has been held that the failure of an attorney to seek a recess for the purpose of reviewing recently proffered Jencks material (instead the defense attorney tried to read through the documents while direct examination was in progress) constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, yet another Sixth Amendment deprivation. To insist on honoring the due process rights of the accused is an obligation imposed on courts and the judicial system by the state and federal constitutions. The two of them left the shops with Yoakum and went to April's mother's house, where the Defendant bathed. [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. Records show that Sharon has one phone number, (919) 242-4415 (Carolina Tel and Tel Co , LLC) Taylor, 771 S.W.2d at 391. When April's mother commented that "he looked like some sort of wild woman got a hold of him the night before," he "sniggered" and said, "No, I just got in a fight over a beer in a bar in Newport." When, later that day, the state called April Ward as its fourth witness, Ogle told the trial judge that he had had time to review only one of April's statements and asked that trial be adjourned until the next morning to permit him to examine the rest of her statements before she testified. [7] The federal courts have held a Jencks violation harmless only where the statement and the witness's testimony are consistent, United States v. Tashjian, 660 F.2d 829 (1st Cir.1981); where the statement is of marginal value, because the witness is not an integral part of the government's case, United States v. Weidman, 572 F.2d 1199 (7th Cir.1978); where the statement contains only cumulative material, i.e., it is the same as the information in grand jury transcripts that have already been disclosed, United States v. Anthony, 565 F.2d 533 (8th Cir.1977); where lost notes would have supported the prosecution's case, United States v. Miranda, 526 F.2d 1319 (2nd Cir.1975), cert. 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. 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. 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. United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 356, 89 S. Ct. 528, 533, 21 L. Ed. Gen. and Reporter, Merrilyn Feirman, Asst. 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. April 27, 2023. He picked her up sometime after midnight. Prior to trial, the court granted the Defendant's request for a competency hearing as to Ward, then seventeen, because she was a juvenile. Gary J. Aguirre is an American lawyer, former investigator with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and whistleblower . 2d 215 (1963), or Rule 16, T.R.Cr.P. Michael Caughron currently lives in Port Lavaca, TX; in the past Michael has also lived in Charleston SC. Crime Laboratory personnel. 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. 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. As they went down the hall to Jones's bedroom, April could hear her calling, "Who is it? 431, 438 (N.D.Ohio 1973), the court reviewed an order requiring the government to show cause why it should not make a witness's prior statements available to the defense before trial. Although the duty of the trial court to order a recess under subsection (d) is couched in permissive terms, the federal cases make it clear that failure to permit counsel reasonable time for review constitutes error. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. The court, finding "nothing that unfairly affected or handicapped appellants in preparation for trial," held that due process was not violated because defendant could show no prejudice to his case. Caughron, 27, accompanied by 14-year-old April Marie Ward with whom he was romantically involved, entered the home of Ann Robertson Jones and kicked in her bedroom door. What are you doing?" 801(c); State v. Coker, 746 S.W.2d 167, 173 (1987). Finally, April testified, Caughron insisted that they drink some of the victim's blood from shot glasses that he produced for the occasion. View Gary June Caughron's Criminal Record Alias (es) Canghorn, Gary June The courts already demand much of attorneys appointed to represent indigent defendants, especially those who (like Caughron) face imposition of the ultimate penalty. App. Create, edit, and maintain all scheduling . Federal case analysis on this point is compelling. 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. 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. 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. At 4:05 p.m. the next day, shortly before the conclusion of the direct examination of April Ward, counsel for Defendant asked the court to allow him to start his cross-examination the next morning. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the Defendant to object when questions were actually asked. The remainder may then be disclosed at trial under the provisions of Rule 26.2(a).". Thinkers 50. 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. 875 S.W.2d 253 (1994) | Cited 9 times . A plaster cast of a shoe print found outside the house was consistent with a boot owned by Kenneth Ogle. 3(e), that all of these alleged errors except that involving the Defendant's drawings of demons have been waived because of the failure to raise them in the motion for new trial. Again defense counsel indicated he would address any problem later but apparently failed to do so. [1] The action of the police in blocking pretrial access to the state's most crucial witness and the prosecution's failure to disclose summaries of her pretrial statements are not raised as discrete issues on appeal. It was only the first in a series of efforts to thwart defense access to information about the case. 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. The record in this case indicates that despite the defendant's timely motion for disclosure, the prosecutor did not produce the inconsistent statements of April Ward, *549 the key witness for the state, until the night before she testified at trial. 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. On the afternoon of Friday, July 10, around 3:00 or 4:00 p.m., the Defendant came by April's house in an older model green and white 442 Oldsmobile Cutlass that he had just purchased. The police department and the district attorney's office clearly understood April Ward's significance as a prosecution witness. (13th ed.) Likewise, in State v. Williams, 690 S.W.2d 517, 525 (Tenn. 1985), this Court held that "when the reliability of a witness may well *548 be determinative of guilt or innocence, the non-disclosure of evidence affecting his credibility may justify a new trial, regardless of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecutor." Beginning in June 1988 with the first statement she gave police, and ending with the sixth and last one she gave them in November 1988, April Ward made a total of six pretrial statements, no two of which were completely consistent with each other. 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. ), cert. Based on this authority, "the serious nature of [the] case," and the witness's testimony that the prosecutor's letter influenced his decision not to talk to defense counsel, the court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. The Defendant insists that certain testimony of April Ward and her mother, Lettie Cruze, concerning statements made by the victim was inadmissible hearsay. Nichols, 581 So. There is no merit to Defendant's assertion that the trial court's actions drew undue attention to this part of the charge. The boot comment was one episode of this behavior. 2d 1245 (Ala. Cr.App. According to the history given by the Defendant, his mother had started acting "quite wild" after the divorce, drinking and dating. 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. Agent Davenport did not testify about the attempted suicide. 1972). Another time he said, "If I'm convicted of what I've done, someone will have to pay." The Defendant alleges that the trial court erred in refusing to allow introduction of an extrajudicial statement made by one Kenny Phillips, an inmate at one of the state prison facilities, who was called as a witness for the defense. Their efforts are unappreciated by the public generally and undercompensated by the justice system they serve. There was a gag tied across her mouth, and strips of the blue terry cloth had been wrapped tightly around her neck. Over the course of these interviews, the Defendant became more and more nervous. Also, the point that Defendant wished to make, i.e., that the footprint on the door was not Defendant's, was explored during the testimony of Sandra Lee Paltorah, a forensic scientist at the T.B.I. To contact Judy, send them an email at judy.caughron@aol.com As April described the scene, the Defendant turned Jones on her stomach and tried unsuccessfully to have sex with her. denied, 439 U.S. 873, 99 S. Ct. 207, 58 L. Ed. Harold Stoffell, a minister, testified that the Defendant had accepted the word of God, was respectful and was "the finest young prisoner I've ever saw." Join Facebook to connect with Gary Caughron and others you may know. In 1840 there were 2 Caughron families living in Tennessee. Grady B Caughron of Johnson City, Washington County, Tennessee was born on December 25, 1919, and died at age 87 years old on May 19, 2007. The trial court found as a matter of fact that the attorney had received the witness statements at 7:45 p.m. on the first night of trial. April testified that she and the Defendant tried to wash the blood off their bodies in the river behind a store in Pigeon *532 Forge. 264, 195 So. There is therefore no merit to this part of the issue. Caughron then took April aside and warned her not to tell what had happened. Here, the statements were given to counsel the night before (7:15 p.m.) and cross-examination began at approximately 5 p.m., the next afternoon just short of twenty-two hours later. These statements certainly would not support a murder conviction in the absence of April Ward's testimony. 1999) Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Filed: February 5th, 1999 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: None known Docket Number: 03C01-9707-CC-00301 Author: Joseph Tipton Download Original Dr. Pareau felt that Defendant would not be a physical threat to society or other prison inmates. Gary R Caughron 1933 - 1993. App. This is one of the most brutal and sadistic killings this Court has reviewed. Id. It is clear from the record that the trial court's decision to deny a recess was not due to any misunderstanding on his part about the crucial nature of April Ward's testimony. It was April's testimony that it was only after the victim stopped moving that the other abuse occurred. The terry cloth strips around the victim's neck had been pulled so tightly that they had cut off the flow of blood to the victim's brain. The phone numbers associated with Judy: (478) 923-6928 (Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC), (478) 284-7727 (Sprint Spectrum LPBellsouth Telecommunications, LLC). [8] And, no bloody shot-glasses were found at the scene of the crime. In the past, Gary has also been known as Gary L Caughorn, Gary L Aughron and Gary L Caughron. This description matched that of the ring Christy Jones Scott had found in her mother's driveway after the killing. 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. This is not a statutory aggravating circumstance although it is similar to the circumstance in T.C.A. 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. In pertinent part, the Tennessee Rule reads as follows:[4]. Answering this inquiry in the affirmative, the majority postulates that because the defense "team" was given a copy of April's six statements "for overnight study and reflection," defense counsel had 22 hours in which to "study and reflect" on those 64 pages. 24-1-101, no one is automatically barred from testifying simply because of *538 age or mental status. 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. 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 Defendant has also failed to show that a different result would have been reached if the continuance had been granted. 2. The majority opinion contains a brief history of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2 and its genesis in federal law, and a passing reference to State v. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d 387 (Tenn. 1989), the only reported decision of this Court directly interpreting Rule 26.2. 1986), a court ordered the witnesses to submit to depositions in order to cure the problem. Falling somewhere along the continuum of cases illustrating prosecutorial interference with a defendant's right of access to witnesses are those cases in which a prosecutor has instructed a witness not to talk to defense counsel. It should be emphasized that this case does not involve the denial of Rule 26.2 statements. Paltorah testified that the print on the door was consistent with a smooth-soled shoe as opposed to the tennis shoe worn by the Defendant. 2d 603 (1967). The Defendant taunted the victim, despite her pleading, "Please don't hurt me," and told her she was going to die. Berating defense counsel for his repeated efforts to secure a recess, the trial judge said: Following the brief recess, the trial judge added: Before beginning an analysis of the legal principles applicable to these facts, two observations seem pertinent, both based on a careful reading of the transcript in this case. No. The State asserts that the Defendant waived this issue. 2255"). Because the original Jencks opinion was founded on the United States Supreme Court's supervisory powers, and not on constitutional grounds, a denial of that right does not, per se, result in constitutional error. Author of the National Bestseller INCLUSIFY. You're all set! 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?" Defendant requested no further action and did not request the court to declare a mistrial. Michael Caughron , 59. NECX PO 5000 MOUNTAIN CITY, TN 37683. 138.) April testified that she then hit the victim in the head two times. Obviously, Rule 26.2(c) applies to such pretrial motion hearings. Over 10 years of leadership and team building that collaborate to save . In Nichols v. State, 581 So. App. These were objections ordinarily made when and if the potentially objectionable testimony occurred. State v. Elliott, 703 S.W.2d 171, 176 (Tenn. Crim. The trial court did not err in admitting the testimony. Although this information would not affect the conviction, the jury's knowledge of the defendant's level of participation could have affected his punishment. Under caselaw interpreting this statute, discovery of statements by witnesses other than the defendant was not permitted. 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. 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? 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). The progenitor of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2 is the 1957 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Jencks v. United States, 77 S. Ct. 1007, 353 U.S. 657, 1 L. Ed. Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 100 S. Ct. 1759, 1767, 64 L. Ed. Its language was also incorporated into Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26. (Doc. Id. She had bled extensively from her mouth and nose. 804(b)(5). Arterburn v. State, 216 Tenn. 240, 391 S.W.2d 648, 655 (1965); State v. Taylor, 645 S.W.2d 759, 762 (Tenn. Crim. The statute, T.C.A. Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee - CourtListener.com Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee, 03C01-9707-CC-00301 (Tenn. Crim. Defendant has not done this and we find no error. 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. But, he did not cross-examine her with regard to the details of *557 those statements, perhaps as a matter of strategy, but more likely from ignorance of their contents. 1973); United States v. Matlock, 491 F.2d 504 (6th Cir. The State asserts that it did. 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. 669 F.2d at 11. App. The Caughron family name was found in the USA, and Canada between 1840 and 1920. *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. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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. Dellinger v. United States, 474 U.S. 1005, 106 S. Ct. 524, 88 L. Ed. See generally Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975). The admission of expert testimony is largely in the discretion of the trial judge. In that case the Court held that defense counsel has a right to inspect prior statements or reports by a government witness, following *535 direct examination of the witness, to the extent that those reports or statements are related to the witness's testimony on direct examination, for the purpose of using them to prepare or conduct cross-examination. Phillips seemed to think that by testifying he would be risking a charge of perjury. Id. Michael Caughron was born on 09/19/1963 and is 59 years old. For this reason, it would be necessary to hold that they constitute "plain error" in order to avoid a finding of waiver on the defendant's part and grant relief on either ground. However, the Tennessee rule applies to all pretrial motions under Rule 12(b). Gary Caughron works at James M Russ II - Connect Realty, which is a Real Estate company. denied, 444 U.S. 1013, 100 S. Ct. 661, 62 L. Ed. Facebook gives people the power to. These factors contribute to what inevitably becomes a subjective assessment of the damage likely to have been done by the state's misconduct. Oklahoma troopers said Henry L. Boren, 80, apparently fell. 1984). Moreover, the cumulative prejudice resulting from the due process violations in this case, in which the defendant has been convicted and sentenced to death, cannot be written off as harmless error. The court in the present case, however, was unusually active in directing the form that questioning should take. 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. 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 . But in February, the City Council rejected the Cavallis . Under State v. Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947 (Tenn. 1978), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting their introduction. Several witnesses saw what they described as dried blood on him. To this the trial judge responded: The jury was brought back to the court-room, and the district attorney continued his direct examination of April Ward. As one commentator has noted, once a Jencks statement is deemed producible, "the defendant's right to the statement is virtually absolute." 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. According to April, the Defendant dumped out the contents of Jones's purse as they left and took what appeared to be a large amount of money. See, e.g., United States v. Polisi, 416 F.2d 573 (2d Cir.1969); United States v. Shaffer, 789 F.2d 682, 689 (9th Cir.1986). Id. Ogle had been a boyfriend of Teresa Goad, one of the victim's daughters. Because April Ward was effectively under "house arrest" during the months immediately before trial, this directive cut off any access that defense counsel might have had to this crucial witness during his investigation of the case and preparation for trial. Leadership role overseeing approximately 40 technicians in a fast paced environment. 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. The phone lines to the house had been cut. In the majority's judgment, two hours would have been sufficient time to comply with the requirements of Rule 26.2. 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. 1990), the writers suggest that leading questions may be used to shorten the time needed for a witness to testify or to facilitate the direct examination of a young or otherwise impaired witness. Three witnesses testified that the Defendant was in the habit of spray painting his "junker" cars different colors. After looking at a newspaper article mentioning the homicide, the Defendant told Haynes that he thought his girlfriend was "snitching" on him. The trial of this case lasted four days. Billy Strings 2023 Tour Dates. He was an avid hunter and enjoyed making walking sticks. In D. Paine, Tennessee Law of Evidence, 611.6 (2nd ed. The trial court wished to proceed, apparently to allow April Ward to finish her testimony that day. The Defendant gave April a survival knife. 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).