 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Moore10/22/1999
The defendant, Gary Thomas Moore, appeals from his Warren County conviction and from the resulting sentence by the trial court. A jury convicted the defendant of aggravated assault with a weapon, a Class C felony, and two counts of reckless endangerment, a Class E felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a Range I sentence of five years confinement for the assault conviction and one year of confinement in each of the reckless endangerment convictions, to be served concurrently in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the statutory violations of the jury selection procedures violated the defendant's due process rights and resulted in prejudice to the administration of Justice; and (2) whether the trial court improperly sentenced the defendant. After a review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm.
In the early morning hours of November 22, 1995, at around 3:00 a.m., two police officers arrived at the defendant's home in an isolated area of Warren County. The officers went there to serve an arrest warrant against the defendant because, earlier that the evening, he had vandalized his wife's cousin's car. The defendant was drunk and thought that the police officers were his wife's cousin and friends coming to beat him up. Shots were fired. The defendant hit the officer's car with one shotgun blast and the officers shot at the defendant, hitting him twice. The defendant had one bullet wound to the neck and another to the right arm, near the wrist. The defendant was angry and belligerent. He had to be handcuffed after he backhanded the paramedic tending him.
The defendant was charged with attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault with a weapon, and two counts of reckless endangerment. After a jury trial, he was convicted of aggravated assault with a weapon and two counts of reckless endangerment. The defendant received an effective sentence of five years confinement.
I. Jury Selection Process
The defendant questions the validity of the jury selection process. He claims that the failure to follow statutory procedures denied him a fair trial and was prejudicial to the administration of Justice. We disagree. The statutory violations, while unnecessary, were not flagrant and unreasonable to the extent that the administration of Justice was prejudiced.
One of the jury commissioners in the case at bar had her 1984 oath but not her appointment spread upon the minutes of the court. The other two commissioners did not have either their appointments or oaths spread upon the minutes, although each had taken the oath. None of the commissioners had their reappointments spread upon the minutes. The clerk of the board of jury commissioners had not taken an oath and neither her appointment nor oath was spread upon the minutes. The trial court caused a nunc pro tunc order appointing the commissioners to be spread in the minutes, along with their oaths.
The defendant alleged in his motion to quash the indictment and the jury venire that the names on the venire list for one six-month period were weighted in favor of the residents of McMinnville, and almost all the names were of registered voters. The commissioners drew the venire from the jury box while the clerk was not present.
The clerk of the jury commissioners did not "post" the jury list but kept the list on a shelf, which required the public to ask to see it. Also, the list was not compiled until after the term of court began because the list was based on the jurors who actually appeared for jury duty.
In Tennessee, a board of jury c
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|