State v. McCaleb, E2017-01381-SC-R11-CD
Citation | 582 S.W.3d 179 |
Decision Date | 21 August 2019 |
Docket Number | No. E2017-01381-SC-R11-CD,E2017-01381-SC-R11-CD |
Parties | STATE of Tennessee v. Quintis MCCALEB |
Court | Supreme Court of Tennessee |
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrée S. Blumstein, Solicitor General; Courtney N. Orr, Assistant Attorney General; Neal Pinkston, District Attorney General; and Leslie Ann Longshore, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.
Steve E. Smith, District Public Defender, and Joseph Lodato, Assistant District Public Defender, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, Quintis McCaleb.
We granted permission to appeal to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals misapplied the standard of review applicable to trial court decisions to admit or exclude evidence. In this case, the trial court determined that the defendant’s statements during a post-polygraph interview were inadmissible pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403. On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the statements. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the matter for further proceedings. We granted the defendant’s application for permission to appeal. We now hold that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it concluded that the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Quintis McCaleb ("the Defendant") was charged with committing one count of aggravated sexual battery, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-504(a)(4) (2014), and two counts of rape of a child, id. § 39-13-522(a) (2014), all on or before October 2, 2014. These charges arose from allegations made by a minor female.
Upon learning of the allegations, the Defendant agreed to take a polygraph examination. The examination and ensuing interview, both conducted by Sergeant Malcolm Kennemore of the Chattanooga Police Department, were videotaped. In response to repeated assertions by Sergeant Kennemore that the polygraph indicated that his denials were false, the Defendant made some incriminating statements. The Defendant subsequently was indicted.
The Defendant filed a motion to suppress the video of the post-polygraph interview as well as any testimony "relating to" the interview. Evidence and argument on the motion were adduced at two hearings, the first in December 2016, and the second in March 2017.
At the first hearing, the Defendant and the State agreed that the video of the polygraph examination itself could not be shown to the jury. The State asserted that it intended to offer "the video of the post-polygraph interview" while acknowledging that "there may be a need for redaction of certain things," including the interrogating officer’s many references to the polygraph examination and its alleged results. The State claimed that "there are a couple of starting points [in the video] that the State believes would make sense, that we could start just at that point and go forward with minimal chopping up after that." However, the State made no proffer of a redacted version of the video recording. Rather, the video of the entire meeting between the Defendant and Sergeant Kennemore was made an exhibit to the hearing. Only that portion of the video memorializing the post-polygraph interview was viewed by the trial court, however.1 We summarize here those portions of the video reviewed by the trial court that are relevant to the issue before us.2
The Defendant responded to these assertions by saying, Sergeant Kennemore then said,
A short time later, Sergeant Kennemore stated, Sergeant Kennemore subsequently told the Defendant,
A short time later, Sergeant Kennemore said, Subsequently, Sergeant Kennemore said, "I can say for sure—because I just did this polygraph—I can say without any question that you remember touching her bare vagina.
I can say for sure that you remember her touching your bare penis, okay? I can say those without any question whatsoever." Sergeant Kennemore later warned the Defendant,
In total, Sergeant Kennemore spoke the word "polygraph" fifteen times during the course of the post-polygraph interview.3 Eventually, the Defendant admitted that the minor female had touched his penis and that he had touched her vagina.
In addition to repeatedly referring to the polygraph examination, Sergeant Kennemore referred numerous times to the alleged victim’s accusations and also spoke with the Defendant about past sexual abuse the Defendant had suffered.4
At the first hearing, the Defendant argued that allowing the jury to see only those portions of the interview that did not include the officer’s references to the polygraph would violate the "rule of completeness" and also, more significantly, would violate his constitutional rights. Defense counsel also speculated that the State would not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Miller
...minds can disagree with the propriety of the decision," the decision should be affirmed. Harbison , 539 S.W.3d at 159. State v. McCaleb , 582 S.W.3d 179, 186 (Tenn. 2019) (second alteration in original).Before we examine each of the defendant's contentions under the Wainwright standard (thr......
-
State v. Rimmer
...legal standard, reaching an illogical conclusion, or basing a decision on an erroneous assessment of the evidence. State v. McCaleb , 582 S.W.3d 179, 186 (Tenn. 2019) (citing Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher , 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010) ). In applying the abuse of discretion standard, appell......
-
State v. Miller
...minds can disagree with the propriety of the decision," the decision should be affirmed. Harbison, 539 S.W.3d at 159. State v. McCaleb, 582 S.W.3d 179, 186 (Tenn. 2019) (second alteration in original). Before we examine each of the defendant's contentions under the Wainwright standard (thro......
-
Davidson v. State
...does not permit this court to "second-guess" the trial court or substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. State v. McCaleb, 582 S.W.3d 179, 186 (Tenn. 2019). The supreme court further explained the standard of review: Discretionary decisions must take the applicable law and relev......