 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Polston8/19/2004
that the victim fell to the floor and bounced at least once. Dr. Timmons indicated that the victim sustained a fractured skull and brain damage as a result of hitting the floor, which qualifies as a serious bodily injury. The Defendant contends that the injury could have been caused when the victim's head bounced on the dance floor, but this explanation still would not break the causal chain of the Defendant's responsibility for making contact with the victim's face. See McClenahan v. Cooley, 806 S.W.2d 767, 775 (Tenn. 1991). We conclude that sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the Defendant's conviction for reckless aggravated assault. This issue is without merit.
B. Suppression of Undisclosed Evidence
The Defendant asserts that, because the State did not reveal until the trial was underway that it possessed notes from a conversation between the Defendant and Detective Wright, the trial court should have suppressed the evidence. Before the trial began, the Defendant filed a motion for discovery requesting that the State produce "any relevant written or recorded statements made by the Defendant or copies thereof as set forth in [Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure] 16(a)(1)(A)." Prior to the beginning of the trial, the State did not produce any statements made by the Defendant. Moments before he testified, Detective Wright approached defense counsel and told counsel that the Defendant made a statement to him on the phone. The Defendant objected to the admission of this testimony, and the trial court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury.
At the hearing, Detective Wright testified that he had mailed the Defendant a letter inquiring into the Defendant's whereabouts. The detective stated that the Defendant, responding via telephone, denied having been at Flashbacks in the past two years and claimed to be in Montana. Wright said that he typed a summary of this conversation into his records as the two talked. The detective stated that, although he did not advise the Defendant of his Miranda rights, he told the Defendant to contact a lawyer. The trial court held that the admission was spontaneous, and the conversation was admissible on cross-examination and rebuttal. However, the trial court held that testimony regarding this admission was "inappropriate" during the State's case-in-chief because the detective did not know for sure that the person on the phone was the Defendant. The trial court explained, "I think under the circumstances, it could be [admitted] under cross-examination later, it may become relevant and this witness may need to be called back in rebuttal." Following the State's case, the Defendant filed a motion to suppress Detective Wright's testimony regarding the Defendant's telephone admission to prevent the State from using the testimony "at any point" during the trial. The trial court denied that motion, stating that the testimony "could be used for cross-examination purposes." As a rebuttal witness, Detective Wright testified that the Defendant denied being at Flashbacks for the past two years. The detective testified that the Defendant said, "Hey me? Me, be involved in a crime? No, you got the wrong man. Not me, you know, I haven't even been to Flashbacks in two years."
During the hearing on the Defendant's motion for a new trial, the State told the trial court:
Regarding Officer Wright, the state takes exception to any inference that it did know about any statements that . . . Wright had from the defendant. The state learned that Officer Wright had spoken with the [defendant] moments before he testified, and . . . the state immediately advised Officer Wright to talk to defense counsel and tell him what[,] if anyth
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|