Arterburn v. State, supra, 391 S.W.2d at 657; State v. Braggs, 604 S.W.2d 883, 886 (Tenn. Crim. 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. The police made little progress in the investigation of the Jones homicide during the year after the homicide. 369 F.2d at 189. Both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have rejected this and similar arguments. Sharon is sixty years old. Nos. In turn, he denied knowing the victim, denied any involvement in her death, and denied his actions the day after the killing. Author of the National Bestseller INCLUSIFY. 39-2-203(i)(5) requiring torture or depravity of mind and should define "cruel," "torture" and "depravity." 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. In reaching this conclusion, I do not wish to minimize in any way the wholly reprehensible nature of the homicide committed in this case, against an innocent and ultimately helpless victim. Jones's legs and arms had been bound and tied to the bed with strips of blue terry cloth and pieces of sheer, off-white material like that used for table cloths and curtains. App. While neither state nor federal trial judges can require advance disclosure of statements, U.S. v. Algie, 667 F.2d 569 (6th Cir.1982) and State v. Taylor, supra, prosecutors *536 should nevertheless avoid needless delay by following the State's example here. The most Caughron families were found in USA in 1880. There is sufficient corroboration; e.g., Jimmy Huskey's and Tom Bentley's testimony about the fabrics (blue terry cloth and lacy material) in the Defendant's possession; testimony of Defendant's appearance and behavior the morning after the murder; the presence of the turquoise ring at the victim's house; and Defendant's statements to his cell-mates, Roy Haynes, Bobby Floyd, and Tim McGaha. App. denied, 396 U.S. 865, 90 S. Ct. 143, 24 L. Ed. And when, finally, the prosecutor turned over copies of witness statements to the defendant's *545 attorneys on the first night of trial, counsel was faced with the prospect of digesting over 100 pages, constituting the statements of 20 potential state witnesses, in the few hours before trial resumed the next morning. At the beginning of trial the Defendant asked the court to inspect the files in camera to look for any possible exculpatory evidence. 1985). At sentencing the trial court instructed as an aggravating circumstance: "The defendant allowed the victim to be treated with exceptional cruelty during the commission of the offense." App. The trial judge and a majority of this court apparently expect defense counsel to be able to prepare cross-examination from notes taken by an investigator (notes which the lawyer and the investigator may not have had a chance to discuss) while trial is actually in progress. STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, We find no reversible error. That testimony is summarized below. We are of the opinion that this senseless, and brutal killing clearly warrants the imposition of the death penalty. He was a member of Maples Branch Baptist Church and was retired from the City of Pigeon Forge. Caughron told another prisoner, Roy Haynes, that on the night of the murder, he and his girlfriend had driven to a house on Cove Road or Cove Mill Road (the victim lived on Cole Drive) in Pigeon Forge and that from that point "he couldn't remember nothing he was so messed up on cocaine." 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. 2d 481 (1985). He had conducted 2500 forensic investigations. 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. It points out the obvious that April Ward's testimony not only made her the prosecution's "linchpin witness," but also constituted virtually the entire case for the state. State v. Daniel, 663 S.W.2d 809 (Tenn. Crim. The crucial evidence Defendant alleged Tippens possessed was his knowledge that there were groceries in the victim's truck when the body was discovered. ), cert. 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. See also United States v. Peters, 732 F.2d 1004 (1st Cir.1984); United States v. Higgs, 713 F.2d 39, 44 (3d Cir.1983); United States v. Xheka, 704 F.2d 974, 981 (7th Cir.1983); United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321, 1346 (7th Cir. On the right buttock were "three linear imprints, superficial bruises that fit perfectly with four fingers of a hand." 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. Troy Gene Caughron, age 81 of Pigeon Forge, passed away Saturday, December 20, 2014. App. Several witnesses saw what they described as dried blood on him. 2255"). In United States v. Enright, 579 F.2d 980 (6th Cir.1978), the Sixth Circuit held that no due process Brady violation occurred because the failure to disclose material exculpatory evidence had been discovered in time for "full and adequate correction." Citing State v. Pritchett, 621 S.W.2d 127, 139 (Tenn. 1981), in which the victim died instantaneously from the first gunshot fired, the Defendant argues that the record does not support a finding that the Defendant tortured the victim before her death. 1990). Gary J. Aguirre. Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345, 362, 79 S. Ct. 1217, 1221, 1229-30, 3 L. Ed. Obviously, whether any one of these provisions has been violated and what action must be taken to correct the error can only be determined on a case-by-case basis, in context both the evidence in the record and the procedure followed at trial. The Defendant next avers that the trial court erred in unduly restricting his direct examination of T.B.I. They have also lived in Decatur, IL. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion by completing April Ward's testimony that afternoon. Shortly before trial, the Defendant moved for a continuance on four grounds: (1) to take the testimony or deposition of George Tippens, an investigating officer who had moved to Florida; (2) to investigate additional suspects in the case whose names had been supplied to the defense on January 19, 1990; (3) to examine the door to the victim's bedroom; and (4) to permit FBI Agent Doug Dedrick to testify. Without any realistic gauge with which to measure the extent of prejudice to the defendant as a result of the due process violations apparent in this record, I conclude that the only appropriate relief is to grant the defendant a new trial, at which the defense will have the benefit of the discovery and disclosure that it should have had prior to and during the first trial. But this is not a routine case it is a capital case, one in which the defendant was ultimately sentenced to execution, based entirely on the testimony of 16-year-old April Ward, an accomplice who had given police a total of six contradictory statements, all of which had been systematically withheld from defense counsel despite legitimate efforts, both informal and formal, to obtain them prior to and at the time of trial. 404(b). In this case, the trial judge's misguided decision not to adjourn court before 5:00 p.m., regardless of the circumstances, amounts to an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion, resulting in the necessity of retrial. As a result, defense counsel was not only prevented from gathering information that could have been developed from interviewing April Ward. The evidence fully supports the *544 jury's finding of the aggravating circumstance in 39-2-203(i)(5) (1982). Further, the Federal rule treats law enforcement officials as witnesses called by the state, but the commission elected not to adopt this provision. ." 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. This description matched that of the ring Christy Jones Scott had found in her mother's driveway after the killing. The question of competency is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Although April's testimony was confused as to exact chronology, it appears that at some point, Jones was gagged to stop her screaming and tied up with the strips of towel and sheer material. She said that he had been in special education classes, where he had done well. According to the state's forensic pathologist, Dr. Cleland Blake, Jones had suffered several "blunt traumatic contusions" to her head. He was. Our examination of the record shows at least five occasions when Defendant objected to the State's questioning of Ward as leading. April further testified that after her mother went to sleep, she cut a blue terry cloth towel into strips and waited for Caughron to arrive. 73 (D.Colo. Of course, the prosecution might have overcome any prejudice caused by police interference with the defendant's efforts to prepare his defense, had the state produced April Ward's various conflicting statements in response to the defendant's motion for pretrial disclosure. Because there were questions about the juror's objectivity and the Defendant was at "enormous risk," the court removed the juror. 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. denied, 444 U.S. 833, 100 S. Ct. 65, 62 L. Ed. Id. 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. Detective Bean did testify that on August 25, 1988, when he asked Defendant why he attempted to kill himself after Davenport had initially talked with him about Jones's murder, Defendant replied that he was depressed and had a lot on his mind. Gen. and Reporter, Merrilyn Feirman, Asst. However, the Tennessee rule applies to all pretrial motions under Rule 12(b). Leadership role overseeing approximately 40 technicians in a fast paced environment. He was an avid hunter and enjoyed making walking sticks. 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. The statute, T.C.A. 1980); see also State v. Taylor, 669 S.W.2d 694, 698-700 (Tenn. Crim. Create, edit, and maintain all scheduling . The courts also consider the other information available to defense counsel, such as pretrial statements, and they look for such indicia of prejudice as requests for recesses and poorly prepared cross-examinations. After drinking the blood, April said, she went to the bathroom to throw up, but did not. The sentencing phase of the trial was much briefer, primarily because the state presented no further proof and the Defendant called only four witnesses. First, there is no reasonable basis in fact for the trial court's allegation that defense counsel had not been diligent, either in his representation of his client or in the discharge of his duties as an officer of the court. A similar error occurred in this case. United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 356, 89 S. Ct. 528, 533, 21 L. Ed. Gary was born in Nevada, Mo., on Oct. 11, 1963, to Robert and Elizabeth (Wolf) Caughron. There was a gag tied across her mouth, and strips of the blue terry cloth had been wrapped tightly around her neck. It in no way minimizes the heinousness of the guilty party's conduct. 855 S.W.2d 526 (1993) | Cited 4 times. App. He was a member of Millican Grove Baptist Church where he attended and taught Sunday school for many years. The State asserts that this issue should be treated as waived because, as the State correctly points out, the Defendant has failed to cite to the location in the record of the specific questions of which he complains. No further mention was made of the episode until the next morning, when counsel indicated he would like to address it later that day; but no action was taken until just before the jurors began deliberations, when Van Helton, counsel's assistant, testified that the juror who had made the statement was Roy Hodge, an ex-constable, and that his manner was aggravated and "put out." John Wesley Caughron in MyHeritage family trees (Caughron Web Site) John Wesley Caughron in MyHeritage family trees (Hudson-Good Family) view all Immediate Family William B Caughron father Eliza A Caughron mother Elizabeth Ann Morris sister Emily Frances Wood sister Sarah Isabell Gooch sister Robert Lee Caughron brother Martha Jane Littleton sister Rule 26.2(a) states: "After a witness has testified on direct examination, the trial court, on motion shall order the attorney to produce, for the examination and use of the moving party, any statement of the witness that is in their possession and that relates to the subject matter concerning which the witness has testified." You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Although the complete non-disclosure of significant exculpatory evidence often makes an easy case for a due process violation, delayed disclosure requires an inquiry into whether the delay prevented the defense from using the disclosed material effectively in preparing and presenting the defendant's case. The Defendant had also talked to Huskey about tying up women during sex and said that "slapping them on the butt really turned him on.". GARY JUNE CAUGHRON. He reminded the trial judge that he had not received the package of statements until after court adjourned the previous night. The Defendant presented evidence that, based on evidence gathered at the crime scene, none of the tests or analyses performed by forensic scientists from TBI and the FBI had connected him with the killing. 2d 603 (1967). Over the course of these interviews, the Defendant became more and more nervous. Thus, the majority concludes, the prosecution's "advance production satisfied the State's duty under Rule 26.2 and avoided the needless delay of the trial," and the trial court's decision "to proceed, apparently to allow April Ward to finish her testimony that day" was not an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, no prejudice has been shown. 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. 2d 641 (1980); Lockett v. Blackburn, 571 F.2d 309, 313 (5th Cir. Knoxville, Tennessee. 2d 1245 (Ala. Cr.App. 793 F.2d at 413. Based on this evidence, presented over four days of trial, the jury found the Defendant not guilty of felony-murder, robbery, and larceny, but guilty of premeditated first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, and assault with intent to commit rape. Because she knew that her mother would have disapproved of her relationship with the Defendant if she had known his true age, April had told her mother that the Defendant was 18. In this case six statements, totaling 64 pages, were given to counsel for overnight study and reflection. 39-13-204(d), specifically grants the State the right of closing. 1976). The Fourth Circuit noted in United States v. Smith Grading & Paving, Inc., 760 F.2d 527, 532 (4th Cir. Dr. Blake's testimony was that the head injuries would have rendered her unconscious. Jerry Springer longtime syndicated talk-show host and former Cincinnati mayor died Thursday at his home in the suburbs of Chicago. 3500, known from the time of its passage in 1957 as the Jencks Act. 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. Hinton, supra, at 780. He picked her up sometime after midnight. 2d 104 (1972); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 87 L. Ed. 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. Gary R Caughron 1933 - 1993. George Edward Hardin. The jury, which had not begun deliberations, was called in; and the trial judge informed them that he was striking the charge on the first aggravating circumstance and inserting in place of it the instruction that "[t]he murder was especially cruel in that it involved torture or depravity of mind." [1] T.C.A. He then struck her brutally and repeatedly about her head until, according to April Ward, she no longer moved. The trial court felt that the Defendant had failed to exercise due diligence in examining the door. The State asserts, correctly under T.R.A.P. Allowing the recall of a witness is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will only be disturbed upon a showing of abuse of discretion. His aunt testified that, on the Friday night after he bought a green and white Oldsmobile, he came to his grandmother's house around 11 or 12 o'clock and went to bed. (13th ed.) "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. In Dr. Pareau's opinion, Caughron had received inadequate parenting, and there had been no consistency in his relationships. But in the wake of this initial ruling, the Court has set the threshold for determining harmlessness at a very high level. Gary June Caughron vs. State of Tennessee (03C01-9707-CC-00301) Sevier Criminal John K. Byers, Sr.J. Hence, courts have suggested that both the Sixth Amendment's right to compulsory process, Id., and the right to confrontation are implicated in the violation of the procedural guarantees of Rule 26.2. 1984). Jencks caused some controversy in the months after it was announced, centering on fears that it would force government prosecutors to turn over investigatory files, in their entirety, upon defense demand. These depictions are certainly not pleasant, but they are not shocking or gruesome. While federal authority is not binding on Tennessee state courts, it is obviously persuasive in resolving disputes such as the one now before us, not only because the drafters of the Tennessee rule opted to follow the federal model so closely, but also because of the thoroughness the federal courts have brought to the analysis of Jencks disputes. App. The witness to be impeached cannot, however, be one whose credibility does not affect defendant's guilt or innocence, a limitation that is clearly met in this case. See also Tenn. R.Evid. 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. 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. When the time came for Phillips to testify, he refused because, he said, his earlier statements were lies concocted to get a reward offered for any evidence that would help solve Jones's murder. [4] As to the remainder of Rule 26.2, subsections (b) and (c) set out the procedure for determining whether the entire statement of a witness, or only part of it, is producible; subsection (f) requires application of the rule to pretrial hearings in the criminal court; and subsection (g) defines what constitutes a statement under the rule. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S. Ct. 763, 766, 31 L. Ed. 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. Sharon was born on 09.01.67. But, at least initially, she was not a cooperative witness. Subsection (d) states that the court "may recess proceedings in the trial for the examination of such statement and for preparation for its use in the trial." 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. The material consisted of "a stack of paper at least eight inches thick, including a thousand pages of testimony obtained from ten witnesses, a forty-five minute tape recording and other documents." Examination of the scene of the crime revealed that the door to the bedroom where the body was found had been forced open. Sharon currently resides at 966 Pinkney Rd, Kenly, NC. The factual background of the state's case against Gary Caughron is set out in detail in the majority opinion. Id. She had bled extensively from her mouth and nose. Taylor, of course, stands for the obvious proposition that on motion, "a[] statement of the witness that relates to the subject matter concerning which the witness has testified" must be "produce[d] for the examination and use of the moving party," but only "[a]fter [that] witness has testified on direct examination." These factors contribute to what inevitably becomes a subjective assessment of the damage likely to have been done by the state's misconduct. Byrnes v. United States, 327 F.2d 825, 832 (9th Cir.1964). [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. United States v. Holmes, 722 F.2d 37, 40 (4th Cir.1983). Taylor, 771 S.W.2d at 391. In State v. Groseclose, 615 S.W.2d 142 (Tenn. 1981), and State v. Strouth, 620 S.W.2d 467 (Tenn. 1981), in which the victims were unconscious for part of the time, death penalties rendered under this aggravating circumstance were upheld. With nothing more to go on than these allegations, the trial court did not err in excluding the statements. For example, in Starusko, supra, the court found that the impeachment of a "key government witness" was material because "his credibility may well be determinative of guilt or innocence . Although the trial court told defense counsel that he could explore this situation "later at a proper time," counsel never did so. 39-2-205(c)(4)], we find that the sentence of death was not imposed in an arbitrary fashion, that the evidence supports the jury's finding of the statutory aggravating circumstance, and that the evidence supports the jury's finding of the absence of any mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to outweigh the aggravating circumstance so found. Noting the conclusions of the Seventh, Tenth, Third and Eighth Circuits, that court held that "[t]he point in the trial when a disclosure is made is not in itself determinative . Similar beating of a victim was held to support a finding of aggravating circumstance (i)(5) in State v. Barber, 753 S.W.2d 659, 668 (Tenn. 1988); State v. McNish, 727 S.W.2d 490, 494 (Tenn. 1987); and State v. Cone, 665 S.W.2d 87, 94-95 (Tenn. 1984). [3] While Brady contemplates the suppression of many types of exculpatory evidence, the Supreme Court has specifically held that evidence impeaching a government witness's credibility may be exculpatory within the meaning of Brady. When defense counsel appeared to be developing this theory by an unnecessarily detailed examination of the forensic scientist, the trial court began interrupting to curtail what it considered irrelevant and unnecessary testimony. In State v. Tanner, 175 W. Va. 264, 332 S.E.2d 277, 279 (1985), the Court held: "The question of whether the error was harmless or prejudicial hinges upon whether there was a substantial discrepancy between the contents of the prior statement or report and the witness's testimony during trial.". 1980); State v. Nelson, 603 S.W.2d 158, 168 (Tenn. Crim. 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. The evidence was relevant because of Ward's testimony about drinking the victim's blood from a shot glass and Cruze's testimony about the Defendant's pink toothbrush. The gag, bound so tightly that it cut a deep groove into the corners of the victim's mouth, combined with the hemorrhaging in the nasal passages, had caused her to suffocate. The Defendant, Gary June Caughron, appeals directly to this Court his conviction of first degree premeditated murder and the sentence of death imposed by the jury, and his convictions of first degree burglary, and assault with intent to commit rape. They were due back in court in Sevierville at 9:00 the next morning. The trial court wished to proceed, apparently to allow April Ward to finish her testimony that day. The photographs and the videotape taken at the murder scene are highly probative, in that they show the condition of the body and clarify oral testimony. After allowing the Defendant to approach the bench prior to the testimony of Dr. Cleland Blake, April Ward, Jimmy Lynn Huskey, and Lettie Marie Cruze, when the State called witness Robert Yoakum, and defense counsel again approached the bench, the trial court refused to continue to "pre-review" the testimony, told defense counsel to object to questions as they were asked, and promised that it would then rule on the objections. denied sub nom. Although the record does not show the exact time that court resumed following this recess, the hour must have been very close to 5:00 p.m., which was the trial judge's previously announced adjournment time. We find no error in the guilt phase or sentencing phase of this case. These injuries were consistent with those caused by a blunt or rounded object and would have rendered Jones unconscious at some point. No abuse of discretion warranting reversal is shown in this case. A plaster cast of a shoe print found outside the house was consistent with a boot owned by Kenneth Ogle. State v. Hartman, 703 S.W.2d 106, 116 (Tenn. 1985); Lillard v. State, 528 S.W.2d 207, 212 (Tenn. Crim. 601, see also T.C.A. 601 ("Every person of sufficient capacity to understand the obligation of an oath or affirmation is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute.") Over 10 years of leadership and team building that collaborate to save . Id. He was an oil field inspec Thinkers 50. The cause may be different, but the result is the same. App. Her skull had been fractured and the cartilage in her nose displaced by the beating. State v. Elliott, 703 S.W.2d 171, 176 (Tenn. Crim. April and the Defendant, who was working on a nearby construction project, met on the covered portico (commonly referred to as "the porch") of Settler's Village almost every day. Apr 2016 - Sep 20182 years 6 months. Again, the import of this testimony was that the conversation between April's mother and the victim occurred, not that the victim's statement was true. Jones instructed him to stay away. 2d 100 (1974). It was only the first in a series of efforts to thwart defense access to information about the case. Gen., Nashville, Al Schmutzer, Jr., Dist. denied, 444 U.S. 1013, 100 S. Ct. 661, 62 L. Ed. Gary June CAUGHRON, Appellant. Under caselaw interpreting this statute, discovery of statements by witnesses other than the defendant was not permitted. 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. Agent Davenport did not testify about the attempted suicide. Defense counsel did not object to a corrected charge. 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 . One time when asked who had killed Ann Jones, Defendant stated, "Whoever done it needs help." [The statements are] not that different [from each other]." Get free summaries of new Tennessee Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! To condone the trial court's action in the name of avoiding delay in the trial, or from some misplaced sympathy for the accomplice, is to make a mockery of the procedural guarantees expressed in our modern rules of procedure and in case law interpreting the reach of due process in criminal trials. The court next defined "cruel," "torture" and "depravity" in accord with State v. Williams, 690 S.W.2d 517, 529-530 (Tenn. 1985). The Defendant first avers that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance. The Defendant argues that questioning jurors about their beliefs on the death penalty biases the jury toward a finding of guilt and acceptance of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, 8 and 9, of the Tennessee Constitution.
