Sharon R. Hurt v. State of Tennessee

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2002-00900-CCA-R3-PC

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; March 13, 2003; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Sharon R. Hurt was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, receiving consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and twenty-four years. Her convictions were upheld on direct appeal. On September 4, 2001, she filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming new scientific evidence of her innocence. The State sought dismissal, and the trial court dismissed the petition, citing a lack of new evidence and a statute of limitations bar. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Factual background indicates that Hurt was married to Don Hurt but had an affair with Leonard Rowe, who provided her with financial support. Hurt expressed dissatisfaction with her marriage and discussed plans to secure financial advantage in the event of a divorce. Testimonies revealed discussions of violence against Don Hurt, including a conversation where Hurt allegedly offered money to have him killed. This context formed part of the evidence leading to her conviction.

Questions were raised regarding the timeline for receiving insurance proceeds and the claims process after a death. On June 11, 1991, Don Hurt was shot while driving near the Tennessee River by occupants of a vehicle resembling a 1979-81 Firebird or Camaro. The shotgun blast penetrated his truck, injuring him in the shoulder and neck. He was hospitalized for seven days following the incident. Rowe testified that Sharon Hurt claimed that "Marcie and Jimmy had messed the job up," implying a need for her to handle the situation personally. Marcie and James Murray later admitted to Rowe that they had shot Don Hurt and discussed plans to harm him further. Rick Hurt recounted Sharon's ominous statement that the shooter "would be back to finish it." 

On December 19, 1991, Sharon Hurt arranged a meeting with Rowe, during which James Murray borrowed Rowe's .38 pistol, though Rowe remained unaware of any plans to kill Don Hurt at that time. Later that evening, Mickey Dalton observed two parked cars near the scene of a crime, which led to the discovery of Don Hurt's body in his vehicle on December 20, 1991. An autopsy confirmed he had suffered two fatal gunshot wounds to the head, occurring between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. on December 19. Ballistics revealed that both shots were fired from different angles using .38 caliber ammunition. Additionally, toxicology reports indicated that Don had consumed alcohol and antidepressants shortly before his death, with the latter potentially contributing to sedation.

Don's blood was found to have Benadryl levels approximately twenty times the therapeutic amount, which combined with alcohol, would likely have caused drowsiness. Doctor Harlan confirmed the rapid onset of Benadryl's effects, reaching maximum effectiveness within an hour. Witness testimony revealed that after Don's death, Rowe contacted James Murray regarding a .38 pistol, which Murray had disassembled and discarded along the interstate. Furthermore, Murray and Marcie disposed of blood-soaked clothes in a river. Rowe recounted that Sharon Hurt expressed regret about participating in Don's murder upon learning the violent circumstances and later voiced her anger towards the Murrays for taking Don's valuables.

In July 1992, Rowe asked Murray about the night of the murder, and Murray confessed that they had drugged Don's drinks before both he and Marcie shot Don in the head. Subsequently, a post-conviction petition was filed after the Tennessee Supreme Court denied an appeal in 1999, with the petitioner filing for relief in 2001, well past the one-year statute of limitations defined in Tenn. Code Ann. 40-30-202(a). The petitioner argued for an exception based on new scientific evidence indicating actual innocence, specifically citing a letter from Pfizer stating that Benadryl was not available in liquid form until 1995, over three years post-crime. The determination of whether this constitutes "new scientific evidence" is crucial, with interpretations suggested by Justice Barker in Van Tran v. State, considering both the existence and availability of the evidence at the time of the original proceedings.

The statutory language is interpreted broadly to align with the General Assembly's intent. The Petitioner claims that "exculpatory proof" was unavailable at trial due to the denial of state funds for an expert, but this court upheld that denial. The Petitioner later obtained a letter regarding Benadryl's availability without state funds or expert assistance. It is determined that with due diligence, the Petitioner could have acquired this information earlier. The assertion that Benadryl was not available in a colorless, tasteless form at the time of the offenses is deemed not to be new scientific evidence. Even if considered new, it does not prove the Petitioner’s actual innocence. The Petitioner argues that the evidence contradicts the State's case, specifically that she could not have drugged her husband undetected, yet the victim died from gunshot wounds, not drugging. Therefore, the evidence could only challenge Dr. Harlan’s testimony regarding Benadryl’s form but does not provide grounds for relief. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.