State v. Reid, No. M2001-02753-CCA-R3-DD (TN 12/29/2003)
| Decision Date | 29 December 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. M2001-02753-CCA-R3-DD.,M2001-02753-CCA-R3-DD. |
| Parties | STATE OF TENNESSEE v. PAUL DENNIS REID, JR. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
James A. Simmons and Thomas F. Bloom, Nashville, Tennessee for the appellant, Paul Dennis Reid, Jr.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Mark E. Davidson, Assistant Attorney General; John W. Carney, Jr., District Attorney General; and Arthur F. Bieber, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Jerry L. Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which David G. Hayes and Thomas T. Woodall, JJ., joined.
The appellant, Paul Dennis Reid, Jr., was found guilty by a jury of two counts of premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The felony murder convictions were merged into the premeditated murder convictions. Thereafter, the jury sentenced the appellant to death based upon the existence of three aggravating circumstances: the appellant had previously been convicted of one or more felonies, other than the present charge, the statutory elements of which involve the use of violence to the person; the murders were committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of defendant or another; and the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a violent offender to twenty-five years imprisonment for especially aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping, to run consecutively to his sentences for first degree murder and to a prior out-of-state sentence. On appeal, appellant presents forty-five issues. After an extensive review of the record and the applicable law, we find that none of these issues warrants a reversal of this case. Therefore, the judgments of the trial court are AFFIRMED.
On April 23, 1997, twenty-one year-old Angela Holmes and sixteen-year-old Michelle Mace were abducted and murdered while working at the Baskin-Robbins ice cream store on Wilma Rudolph Boulevard in Clarksville, Tennessee. Both Ms. Holmes's and Ms. Mace's bodies were found the following morning at the Dunbar Cave State Park in Clarksville. Appellant was indicted for the kidnapping and murders of Ms. Holmes and Ms. Mace on June 25, 1997. Prior to the return of the indictments in this case, the appellant was charged with committing robbery and murder at a Captain D's restaurant and a McDonald's restaurant in Nashville. Appellant was convicted of the murders at the Captain D's restaurant and sentenced to death prior to the trial in this case. Appellant's convictions and death sentences for these murders have been affirmed by the Supreme Court. See State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2002).
On September 3, 1999, eight days prior to trial, appellant filed a motion for the judicial determination of his competency to stand trial. In support of his motion, appellant filed the affidavit of his minister, Rev. Joe Ingle, and the opinions of psychologists Dr. Pamela Auble and Dr. Xavier Amador. The trial court held the competency hearing on September 8, 9 and 10, 1999. Dr. Pamela Auble and Dr. Xavier Amador testified on behalf of appellant. Appellant also sought to have Rev. Joe Ingle and social worker Mary Ann Hea testify. However, the trial court informed defense counsel that the testimony of those witnesses may violate the pastor-parishoner and attorney-client privileges. Thereafter, counsel for appellant withdrew these individuals as witnesses. Dr. William Bernet testified on behalf of the State, and Dr. Cynthia Turner-Graham testified as an independent psychiatrist.
Dr. Pamela Auble, a psychologist specializing in neuropsychology, first examined appellant in January 1998 as a result of the charges pending against him in the Captain D's murders. Since January 1998, Dr. Auble has examined the appellant on six occasions. In addition to her interviews of appellant, Dr. Auble has also interviewed appellant's mother and sister, reviewed appellant's medical records, school records, and prison records, and reviewed reports of interviews with appellant's family and friends.
According to Dr. Auble, appellant advised her in an interview in January 1999 that the federal government had been conducting surveillance on him for many years and attempted to control him. Appellant advised her that the government had "radiated" his body with some type of magnetic1 field and was able to then monitor him on a distant screen. In addition to monitoring him, appellant advised Dr. Auble the government had also attempted to control him. Appellant advised her that he had been under surveillance for thirteen years as a part of an experiment conducted by the CIA. Appellant further advised Dr. Auble that the surveillance program was actually developed by the Soviet Union. He concluded that no one from the government would come forward with the surveillance tapes of him because it may compromise national security. At the competency hearing, Dr. Auble testified that she saw letters appellant wrote to Texas officials in 1993 in which he espoused the same beliefs. When she questioned appellant about the letters, he responded that when he talks about the government surveillance, people think he is insane.
Dr. Auble testified that she actually became concerned about appellant's competency to stand trial during his trial for the Captain D's murders. On April 15, 1999, the day following his conviction of the Captain D's murders and the day prior to the commencement of the sentencing hearing, Dr. Auble interviewed appellant at the request of his counsel following appellant's decision not to present any mitigating proof at the sentencing hearing. Appellant advised her in that interview that there was no reason to present any mitigating proof because the outcome of the sentencing hearing had been predetermined. In the end, however, appellant allowed mitigating evidence to be presented, but stated it would not make a difference.
Following the appellant's conviction and sentence in the Captain D's murders, the jury consultant forwarded an unsolicited report to Dr. Auble expressing her concerns about appellant's mental capacities. The jury consultant advised Dr. Auble that appellant seemed consumed with irrelevant topics such as snacks and her accommodations at a bed and breakfast. The jury consultant also advised that the appellant would pass jokes to his attorneys and did not seem to conceptualize that he was on trial for his life. Dr. Auble related that she also received a memorandum from Ron Lax, a private investigator for the appellant, in July 1999. Mr. Lax summarized an interview he had conducted with appellant wherein appellant advised that the government had been trying to kill him for years. As examples, appellant advised: the government caused him to be in a car accident in November 1990; the government bombed the Murrah building on April 19, 1995, in Oklahoma City where he was scheduled to have an appointment; and the government framed him for the Captain D's murders. Dr. Auble confirmed that appellant was involved in a car accident in 1990 and that he lived in Oklahoma City at the time of the 1995 bombing. As for the 1995 bombing, appellant advised that he had overslept that morning and did not make his appointment. He further claimed that his apartment blew up the same day as the Murrah building bombing. Dr. Auble testified that she had documentation of a fire in his Oklahoma City apartment on that day. Additionally, Dr. Auble received information from Dr. Amador that appellant believed that all of the participants in the Captain D's trial, including the judge, jury and attorneys, were playing roles that had been scripted.
Dr. Auble also reviewed correspondence from appellant's lead counsel in the Captain D's case. According to counsel, following the Captain D's trial, appellant refused to discuss the case with him. Later when appellant agreed to discuss the case, he advised his attorney that the jurors had been trying to "mouth" comments to him during the trial. It was also his belief that one of his attorneys had advised him that she would work hard to ensure that he was convicted. Additionally, appellant determined that he would not present any mitigation proof in the trial for the Baskin-Robbins murders. As a result, Dr. Auble contacted appellant's counsel in the current matter and expressed concerns about appellant's competency.
Subsequently, Dr. Auble interviewed appellant. At the August 18, 1999, interview, appellant refused to discuss whether he believed his first trial had been scripted, but advised that he had been set up to be killed. He advised her in the interview that his fingerprint that was found on a movie card that had been used in the Captain D's murders had been planted as well as the blood on his shoes.
Dr. Auble concluded that appellant was not competent to stand trial. She opined that appellant had four problems in terms of his competency. First, he suffers from delusions — delusions of surveillance, monitoring, and control by the government. She explained that following his first trial, appellant's attorneys had become a part of the delusions. He now believed that his attorneys had no free will; they were merely acting out a part of the plot to kill him. Second, appellant has difficulty conceptualizing. He focuses on irrelevant details. She opined that this problem stemmed from a brain injury he sustained. Dr. Auble testified that appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial