State v. Rickman & Groseclose
| Decision Date | 17 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | W1999-01744-CCA-R3-CD |
| Parties | STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RONALD EUGENE RICKMAN AND WILLIAM EDWARD GROSECLOSEIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
The appellants, Ronald Eugene Rickman and William Edward Groseclose, appeal their convictions by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of, respectively, first degree murder and being an accessory before the fact to first degree murder. In this appeal, appellant Groseclose presents the following issues for our consideration: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to sever his trial from that of co-defendant Rickman; (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting at trial the former testimony of Barton Wayne Mount; (3) whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony by Gary King; and (4) whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt. Appellant Rickman solely challenges the introduction at trial of Mount's former testimony. Following a careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, we remand this case to the trial court for correction of the judgments to reflect the appellants' receipt of credit for time served in the Tennessee Department of Correction prior to trial. We affirm the judgments in all other respects.
Joseph S. Ozment (at trial and on appeal) and Steffen Schreiner (at trial), Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Ronald Eugene Rickman.
Gerald Skahan (at trial and on appeal) and Paula Skahan (at trial), Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, William Edward Groseclose.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; J. Ross Dyer, Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; and Edgar A. Peterson, IV, and J. Robert Carter, Jr., Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court are Remanded for
Correction and otherwise Affirmed.
NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T. WOODALL and ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JJ., joined.
OPINIONOn September 30, 1977, a Shelby County Grand Jury indicted appellants Groseclose and Rickman and co-defendants Barton Wayne Mount and Phillip Michael Britt for one count of first degree murder and further indicted Groseclose and Mount for one count of being accessories before the fact to first degree murder. The two-count indictment arose from the infamous murder-for-hire of Groseclose's wife, Deborah Lee Groseclose, in Memphis, Tennessee on June 29, 1977. Between February 18 and March 3, 1978, Groseclose, Rickman, and Britt were tried jointly by a jury in bifurcated proceedings in which the State ultimately sought the death penalty. State v. Groseclose, 615 S.W.2d 142, 144 (Tenn. 1981). The guilt/innocence phase of the trial resulted in the defendants' convictions of first degree murder. Id. At the conclusion of the sentencing phase, the jury imposed sentences of death upon Groseclose and Rickman and granted Britt a sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Id. Subsequently, on November 27, 1978, co-defendant Mount pled guilty to second degree murder in return for a sentence of ten years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Rickman v. Dutton, 864 F. Supp. 686, 696 (M. D. Tenn. 1994).
Following their convictions of first degree murder and the imposition of sentences of death, Groseclose and Rickman embarked upon a lengthy series of appeals and collateral proceedings culminating in the reversals of their convictions and sentences by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, see Groseclose v. Bell, 895 F. Supp. 935 (M. D. Tenn. 1995); Rickman, 864 F. Supp. at 686; Rickman v. Dutton, 854 F. Supp. 1305 (M. D. Tenn. 1994), which reversals were affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Groseclose v. Bell, 130 F.3d 1161 (6th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1132, 118 S. Ct. 1826 (1998); Rickman v. Bell, 131 F.3d 1150 (6th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1133, 118 S. Ct. 1827 (1998). Specifically, the Sixth Circuit appellate court approved the district court's conclusion that both Groseclose and Rickman had received ineffective assistance of counsel amounting to a violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Groseclose, 130 F.3d at 1162; Rickman, 131 F.3d at 1156. The United States Supreme Court denied the State's petition for writ of certiorari on May 18, 1998.
Approximately eight months later, Groseclose and Rickman were once again tried jointly by a jury in bifurcated proceedings in which the State sought their convictions and the imposition of sentences of death pursuant to the 1977 indictment. A jury was impaneled and sworn and the guilt/innocence phase of the trial commenced on February 1, 1999, resulting on February 12 in Rickman's conviction of first degree murder and Groseclose's conviction of being an accessory before the fact to first degree murder. Following the sentencing phase of the trial, however, the jury declined to sentence the appellants to death, instead granting them terms of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction.
At the time of Deborah Groseclose's murder in the summer of 1977, she and Groseclose had been married for approximately two or three years and resided in the Frayser neighborhood of Memphis. Deborah was twenty-four years old and employed as a receptionist in a medical clinic. Groseclose was twenty-nine years old and employed as a recruiter for the United States Navy. The Grosecloses had one son named Nathan who was almost one year old. Additionally, Deborah had a six-year-old daughter from a prior marriage named Tonya Foley, who was visiting her father in Mississippi. The Grosecloses had been experiencing marital difficulties punctuated by brief separations. Accordingly, Deborah had sought marriage counseling and, indeed, met with her marriage counselor on the evening of Tuesday, June 28, 1977, the day before her murder. At the appellants' trial, the State successfully posited to the jury that the Grosecloses' marital difficulties in addition to appellant Groseclose's status as the beneficiary of several insurance policies on Deborah's life motivated him to hire appellant Rickman and Phillip Michael Britt to murder his wife.
In support of its theory, the State presented the testimony of Doyle Scroggins that, in 1975, he was employed by the Howard Vaughn Agency in Memphis and sold the Grosecloses an insurance policy on Deborah's life amounting to $12,788 and naming Groseclose as the beneficiary. The State also presented the testimony of James W. Perkins that, in 1975, he was an employee of State Farm Insurance and sold to the Grosecloses an insurance policy on Groseclose's life amounting to $30,000 and naming Deborah as the beneficiary. Notably, a $20,000 "rider" on Deborah's life was attached to the principal policy and named Groseclose as the beneficiary. Perkins further recalled that, approximately one month prior to Deborah's murder, Groseclose contacted him and asserted that the $30,000 insurance policy on Groseclose's life had been written incorrectly and was in fact intended to insure Deborah's life, resulting in a $50,000 insurance policy on her life. Groseclose asked Perkins to amend the policy accordingly. Perkins, however, informed Groseclose that he could not amend the policy. Perkins explained: Perkins advised Groseclose against cancelling the current policy, and Groseclose ultimately agreed.
The State also presented a parade of five different witnesses who testified that, prior to Deborah's murder, Groseclose asked them if they would be willing to kill her for a fee or, alternatively, if they knew of anyone willing to do so. For example, John Shanks testified at trial that, in November 1976, Groseclose was both his Navy recruiter and his friend. During a conversation between Shanks and Groseclose at the Navy recruiting station, Groseclose spoke about his wife and remarked to Shanks that Shanks believed at that time that Groseclose was joking. Shanks observed that Groseclose "[w]as the kind of guy who joked around a lot."
Also, Alvin Bevell testified that he first became acquainted with Groseclose in late 1975 or early 1976 when he drove his friend, Jerry Cochran, to the Navy recruiting station. Groseclose later attempted to recruit Bevell into the Navy, but Bevell's application was rejected due to his poor eyesight. Subsequently, in July or August 1976, Groseclose telephoned Bevell and chatted with him for a while before mentioning "something about [his wife] becoming a bitch" and inquiring whether Bevell knew of anyone who would be willing to kill her. Bevell asserted at trial that, at the time of this telephone conversation, he did not believe that Groseclose was seriously contemplating killing his wife. One month later, however, Groseclose again telephoned and asked whether Bevell knew of anyone who would be willing to kill his wife. On this occasion, Groseclose sounded intoxicated.
Michael A. Blasco similarly testified that he first became acquainted with Groseclose when the appellant recruited him into the Navy in January 1975. Blasco remained in the Navy until March 1977, at which time he joined the Naval Reserve. In May 1977, he was living in Memphis and was enrolled as a student at Bailey Technical School. At that...
To continue reading
Request your trial