State v. Daniels
| Decision Date | 29 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | E2021-00561-CCA-R3-CD |
| Citation | 656 S.W.3d 378 |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee v. Neal Scott DANIELS |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Eric Lutton, District Public Defender; Jonathan Harwell, Assistant District Public Defender (on appeal); and Carter Pack, Tyler Caviness, and Jonathan Harwell, Assistant District Public Defenders (at trial), Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Neal Scott Daniels.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Katherine C. Redding, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Greg Eshbaugh, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Timothy L. Easter, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which John Everett Williams, P.J., and Robert L. Holloway, Jr., J., joined.
During a time when the Tennessee judicial system was grappling with the lingering effects of COVID-19, a Knox County jury convicted Defendant, Neal Scott Daniels, of driving under the influence of an intoxicant ("DUI"); driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of 0.08 percent ("DUI per se"); simple possession of marijuana; driving on a revoked license; failing to provide evidence of financial responsibility; DUI per se fourth offense; and DUI by impairment fourth offense. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of two years to be suspended to four years on supervised probation after serving 150 days in jail. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that: 1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to continue on the grounds that courtroom procedures implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic interfered with his right to a fair trial; 2) his right to confrontation was denied when he was made to wear a face mask during trial; 3) his right to the effective assistance of counsel was denied by requiring trial counsel and jurors to wear masks; 4) the trial court erred by admitting the results of his blood alcohol test because a valid chain of custody was not established; 5) the judgments of conviction in counts 6 and 7 are invalid because the indictment failed to include the dates of Defendant's prior convictions; and 6) there was insufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction for simple possession of marijuana. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Defendant was charged by indictment on April 10, 2018. A series of trial dates were reset, which the trial court recognized was through no fault of the parties, commenting "cases get bumped." Defendant's trial was set to begin sometime after the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended all in-person court proceedings, including jury trials, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In Re: COVID-19 Pandemic , No. ADM2020-00428 (Tenn. Mar. 13, 2020) (Order) (suspending in-person court proceedings through March 31, 2020); In Re: COVID-19 Pandemic , No. ADM2020-00428 (Tenn. Mar. 25, 2020) (Order) (continuing the suspension of in-person court proceedings through April 30, 2020); In Re: COVID-19 Pandemic , No. ADM2020-00428 (Tenn. Apr. 24, 2020) (Order) (suspending jury trials through July 3, 2020). On May 26, 2020, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued an order directing that any jury trial commenced after July 3, 2020, "shall strictly comply with courtroom capacity and social distancing requirements applicable at the time of trial." In Re: COVID-19 Pandemic , No. ADM2020-00428 (Order). On July 9, 2020, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued an order mandating the use of face coverings, specifically requiring all persons entering a courthouse for the purpose of conducting court-related business to wear a face covering over the nose and mouth at all times while inside the building. In Re: COVID-19 Pandemic , No. ADM2020-00428 (Tenn. July 9, 2020) (Order).
At a pretrial status hearing on July 14, 2020, defense counsel indicated that he "would be filing a motion to continue to preserve some of our issues about trying to have a jury trial with the pandemic concerns and some of the Constitutional issues with that." The trial court stated that a plexiglass barrier would be installed around the witness stand prior to trial so that witnesses did not have to wear masks while testifying. Defense counsel asked whether attorneys would be required to wear masks during voir dire and opening statements, and the trial court answered, "Everybody else will be required to wear a mask, yes."
On July 15, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to continue, in which he asserted that a jury trial under the then-existing COVID-19 restrictions would 1) violate his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him; 2) violate his right to the effective assistance of counsel because face masks would prevent counsel from assessing the jurors’ facial expressions, building rapport with the jurors, and engaging and communicating with the jurors; and 3) deprive him of a fair and impartial jury because jurors would be rendered anonymous by their face masks and because jurors’ deliberations would likely be impacted by concerns for their health and safety. Defendant also filed a motion to establish trial procedures.
At the July 17, 2020 hearing on Defendant's motion to continue, the trial judge agreed that requiring witnesses to wear masks while testifying did not "align[ ] with the rights under the Constitution for the defendant to confront and cross-examine the witness." The trial court reiterated that witnesses would testify without masks behind plexiglass. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to continue. The trial court announced the anticipated trial procedures, including that the courtroom would be open to the public, including the media, and that 50 percent of the maximum capacity, or 94 people, would be allowed inside the courtroom. The court announced that all potential jurors would be screened for COVID-19 and that juror seating would be socially distanced.
On July 21, 2020, the first day of trial, Defendant objected to several trial procedures, including, as relevant to the issues in this appeal, the requirement that jurors wear face masks during voir dire and trial, that Defendant wear a face mask during trial, and that defense counsel wear face masks while addressing the court, witnesses, or jury. The trial court noted that it had two roles to perform, "a purely judicial function" and "an administrative function." The court emphasized that "one of the top administrative duties ... is to ensure the safety of those people who are participating." The court explained that it had consulted with the Administrative Office of the Courts and public health officials in determining how to conduct jury trials during the pandemic. The trial court found that Defendant's rights were not violated by the requirement that he wear a mask during trial and that he would "be able to see and confront the witnesses" against him. The court further stated that it would allow Defendant to remove his mask "at any point during the trial ... for a brief period" if either party requested it.
At around 5:47 p.m. on May 14, 2017, Knox County Sheriff's Deputy Donnie Shipley was dispatched to a motorcycle accident on East Bullrun Valley Drive. Deputy Shipley observed Defendant's motorcycle "laid over, slid into the guardrail." Defendant appeared to be injured and was leaning against the guardrail. Defendant's breathing was "very heavy, labored, so the smell of alcohol was protruding a lot more." Deputy Shipley also noticed a "pungent odor of marijuana about [Defendant's] person." When asked whether it was a smell of "raw" marijuana or "burnt" marijuana, Deputy Shipley answered, "burnt."
The officers checked Defendant for weapons and found a plastic bag containing marijuana in a cargo pocket on his pants. Defendant was transported to the University of Tennessee Medical Center for treatment of his injuries. While processing the scene, Deputy Shipley found "multiple" unopened cans of beer in storage compartments on Defendant's motorcycle. Deputy Shipley weighed the marijuana found in Defendant's pocket and placed it in a bag. He then placed the bag in a sealed envelope and later placed the sealed envelope in the narcotics locker. Deputy Shipley explained that the narcotics locker was a secure metal mailbox located in the sally port at the City County Building. Items can be put into the narcotics locker but cannot be removed until they are collected by the narcotics division and taken to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation ("TBI") for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hyatt v. Adenus Grp., LLC
-
State v. Boyd
...to continue trial based on the implementation of COVID-19 safety measures. Defendant here has presented no grounds for us to depart from Daniels and grant him relief without demonstration of actual prejudice. In light of the evidence, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court when i......