State v. Donald Wayne Marshall

Citation: Not availableDocket: E1999-00922-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; February 17, 2000; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Donald Wayne Marshall appeals his conviction for aggravated rape, a Class A felony, resulting in a forty-year sentence as a Range II multiple offender. The appeal raises several issues: the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conviction; errors in denying motions to suppress a knife and DNA evidence; admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment; claims of due process violations due to allegedly untruthful witness testimony; the trial court's refusal to declare a mistrial over a sleeping juror; and ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the filing of a Rule 412 evidence motion.

The victim recounted events of August 10, 1996, detailing her prior relationship with Marshall's brother and her visit to a bar where she consumed alcohol. After receiving calls from Marshall, she went to a friend's house where the defendant and others were present. Following an incident where the victim resisted Marshall's advances, she attempted to contact help but was unsuccessful. Eventually, she left the house, only to be followed by the defendant, who assaulted her in a field, threatening her with a knife and ultimately raping her. The court affirmed the conviction.

The victim reported that after the defendant assaulted her, he left, questioning whether she would call the police. Out of fear, she stated she would not but later went to a bar called The Pub to find her friend, Irene Shipley. Upon arrival around 3:00 a.m., the victim, visibly distressed and injured, disclosed the assault to Shipley, who then assisted her in contacting the police. Shipley noted the victim appeared wet, covered in grass, and had visible cuts. 

Dr. Shane Adams from Holston Valley Hospital testified that when the victim arrived at approximately 4:30 a.m., she was disheveled and anxious, exhibiting bruises and abrasions. He conducted a rape kit examination that revealed no vaginal trauma, which he clarified does not exclude the possibility of rape. The following day, the victim showed additional bruises.

Officer Ray McQueen and Detective David Cole of the Kingsport Police Department corroborated the victim's distraught state and observed physical injuries including red scratch marks. Detective Cole also noted the discovery of purple cloth strips and a knife at the crime scene.

Forensic evidence was presented by Kelly Smith from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, who confirmed that DNA from the victim's vaginal swabs contained sperm matching the defendant’s profile, which is rare in the population. Linda Littlejohn, also from the TBI, found that the victim's bathing suit was missing cloth strips that matched those found at the scene.

The jury ultimately convicted the defendant of aggravated rape. The defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence but did not provide supporting arguments or citations. However, the court addressed the issue, applying the standard that evidence must be viewed favorably to the prosecution to determine if any rational juror could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury's findings are upheld, with the presumption that they resolved conflicts in testimony in favor of the state. Aggravated rape is defined as unlawful sexual penetration under specific conditions, including the use of force or coercion with a weapon. The victim testified that the defendant attacked her with a knife, and corroborating witness testimonies indicated she had visible injuries post-incident. A butcher knife was found at the scene, matching the victim's account, and DNA evidence from a rape kit matched the defendant's profile, supporting the conviction. 

The defendant's motions to suppress the knife and DNA evidence were denied. He argued the knife was improperly identified and irrelevant, but the victim confirmed its similarity to the weapon used in the assault, leading to its proper admission. The relevance of the knife was established as it corroborated the victim's testimony. Regarding DNA evidence, the defendant claimed it was irrelevant due to potential matches with others, and suggested contamination by Detective Cole, but these arguments were deemed meritless as the DNA was admissible and relevant to establishing the defendant's identity as the perpetrator. 

Additionally, the defendant contested the admissibility of his prior convictions for impeachment purposes, arguing they were prejudicial and some were over ten years old. However, under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 609, the trial court ruled these convictions could be presented if he chose to testify.

The trial court's ruling on the admissibility of the defendant's prior convictions was upheld, as the armed robbery and false income tax return convictions are deemed relevant to the defendant's credibility due to their nature as crimes of dishonesty. The aggravated assault conviction, while less relevant to honesty, still indicates the defendant's difficulty in adhering to legal standards. The court noted that these prior convictions are not considered unduly prejudicial since they differ significantly from the charged crime of aggravated rape. The defendant's argument regarding the age of the convictions was also rejected; the convictions were within the ten-year limit of Rule 609(b), as he was released from prison in 1990 and 1993, respectively.

The court dismissed the defendant's claim that the testimonies of state witnesses were untruthful, stating that witness credibility and the weight of their testimonies are matters for the jury to decide. The claim regarding a juror allegedly sleeping was also found to lack merit. The juror clarified that she was not asleep and had been attentive, leading the court to determine there was no demonstrated prejudice.

Additionally, the defendant raised issues concerning Rule 412, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for not adhering to procedural requirements, which resulted in the exclusion of evidence related to prior consensual sexual activity with the victim. He also contended that the trial court erred in redacting parts of the victim's medical records concerning her last consensual sexual encounter.

Rule 412 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence restricts the use of a victim's prior sexual behavior in sexual offense cases, with specific admissibility conditions. Evidence of such behavior is generally inadmissible unless: (1) required by constitutional law; (2) offered by the defendant to challenge the victim's credibility after the prosecution has presented evidence of the victim's sexual behavior, and only to the extent necessary for rebuttal; or (3) it involves sexual behavior with the accused relevant to consent. 

Procedural requirements include filing a written motion at least ten days before trial, serving all parties including the victim through the prosecutor’s office, and including a written offer of proof detailing the evidence and its purpose. The trial court must hold a nonpublic hearing to evaluate the evidence's admissibility, weighing its probative value against potential prejudice to the victim.

In the case at hand, the state objected to the introduction of the victim’s sexual history, citing the defendant's failure to follow procedural rules. The trial court ruled the evidence inadmissible due to noncompliance and determined it was not newly discovered. The defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that the procedural error inhibited his ability to assert consent as a defense. The state countered that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice under the Strickland standard, which requires showing both deficient performance by counsel and a likelihood that the trial outcome was affected. This standard is applicable under both federal and Tennessee law.

In Baxter v. Rose, the Tennessee Supreme Court established that attorneys must meet a general standard of competence in criminal cases, guided by criteria from Beasley v. United States and United States v. DeCoster. The court emphasized that evaluating attorney performance requires reconstructing the context of their actions without hindsight bias. If no prejudice is shown, a review of the attorney's conduct is unnecessary. In this case, although the attorney failed to file a motion under Rule 412(d), the defendant could not demonstrate prejudice, as he was able to present a consent defense and did not abandon trial strategies. The prosecution provided compelling evidence of aggravated rape, including the victim's testimony and corroborating physical evidence. The defendant's request for a mistrial or attorney withdrawal due to the failure to file the motion was denied by the trial court, which found no manifest necessity for a mistrial, a decision that falls within the trial court's discretion unless abused. Additionally, the trial court can allow an attorney to withdraw for good cause.

The trial court possesses broad discretion in appointing and relieving counsel, with appellate review limited to instances of demonstrated abuse of that discretion by the defendant. In this case, the defendant failed to demonstrate such abuse regarding the denial of his motions for mistrial and withdrawal of counsel, lacking both manifest necessity for a mistrial and good cause for withdrawal. Additionally, the defendant argued that the trial court improperly redacted portions of the victim's medical records, specifically regarding her last consensual sexual encounter. He cited Rule 412(d)(4)(ii) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence, which allows for limited admissibility of evidence concerning sexual activity with others to rebut medical evidence. The state contended that the defendant did not meet procedural requirements under Rule 412(d), leading to the trial court's decision to redact the records. The appellate court upheld the trial court's rulings, affirming the conviction.