Sixth Circuit Finds No Error In Knoxville Accessory to Carjacking Case

• US. v. ERIC DEWAYNE BOYD

In this Sixth Circuit case from the Eastern District of Tennessee,  Eric Boyd appeals his jury conviction of being an accessory after the fact to a carjacking and misprision of a carjacking. (Misprision of a felony occurs when a person, “having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to a judge or other authority.) 


This case relates to Boyd's part in the help he rendered to Lamaricus Davidson. Davidson was one of the principal defendants convicted in the brutal rape and murder in Knoxville of Christopher Newsom and his girlfriend, Channon Christian. Boyd was not charged with actually committing the crime of carjacking which resulted in the death and serious bodily injury to another person.  Instead, he was charged with helping someone else try to avoid being arrested, prosecuted or punished for that crime.


Statements made between Davidson and Boyd were introduced at Boyd's trial and are among the things he chiefly complains about on appeal. Prior to his trial, Boyd moved to exclude the portions of his videotaped interview in which he discussed the things Davidson told him about the carjacking, rapes, and murders.  Boyd argued that Davidson’s statements were inadmissible hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause. Boyd’s recounting of Davidson’s statements presents a double hearsay issue, because it constitutes a statement within a statement.  There is no dispute that Boyd’s statements to police were admissible under the admission by a party-opponent exception. The issue is Davidson's statements.


The Sixth Circuit held that Davidson’s statements to Boyd were properly admitted as non-hearsay offered to prove Boyd’s knowledge of the carjacking and murders.  Both charges against Boyd required the Government to prove that he had knowledge of a crime.  And the Court found that as his state of mind is an element of the offense, this evidence is relevant.

Boyd also argues that the admission of Davidson’s statements violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because he had no opportunity to confront the witness Davidson. Here, the Court held that the statements are  non-testimonial.  Davidson made the statements to a companion, and a reasonable person in Davidson’s position would not have anticipated the use of the statements in a criminal proceeding like a trial. Lastly, the statements do not trigger the Confrontation Clause because they were offered as non-hearsay.  Sixth Circuit affirms his convictions of 180 months accessory after the fact to a carjacking and 36 months for misprision of a carjacking .

Aggravated Child Neglect Convictions Overturned By Court of Criminal Appeals

• STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WANDA ELAINE BROCK

The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed a Sullivan County jury verdict.  The court held that there is insufficient evidence to support the convictions of aggravated child neglect and dismissed those counts outright.  As to the two counts of aggravated child abuse, the court reversed those convictions and remanded them for a new trial. 


Judge Witt delivered the opinion of the court: "we reverse (aggravated child neglect) convictions and dismiss those charges. We further conclude that the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of the victim’s inconsistent statement that was admissible pursuant to Rule 806 and that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court’s error did not contribute to the verdict. In consequence, the remaining convictions of aggravated child abuse in counts one and two are reversed, and those counts are remanded for a new trial."


A Sullivan County grand jury charged the defendant with one count of aggravated child abuse causing serious bodily injury, one count of aggravated child abuse committed by the use of a deadly weapon, one count of aggravated child neglect causing serious bodily injury, and one count of aggravated child neglect committed by the use of a deadly weapon. All counts involved a single allegation that the defendant burned the palm of her eight-year-old daughter, with a cigarette.

Based upon the evidence introduced at trial, the jury convicted the defendant on all charges. At sentencing, the trial court entered judgments of conviction sentencing the defendant to 20 years to be served at 100 percent.


On appeal, the defendant raised several issues that attacked the sufficiency of the evidence. The court agreed as to the child neglect counts and dismissed those.  The court found there was enough evidence to convict on the aggravated child abuse counts, but because of a problem over excluded  testimony the case is reversed and a new trial granted.


Specifically, the defendant claimed that the trial court erroneously excluded the testimony of a forensic interviewer with the Children’s Advocacy Center who would have testified that the victim reported that another person burned her hand.


For context you should know that the victim did not testify in this case. The state introduced a hearsay statement of the victim made to a doctor in which she identified the defendant as the person who inflicted a cigarette burn to her hand.  This statement was admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay because the statement was made in the course of medical diagnosis and treatment of her injuries.


Once admitted, the credibility of the victim was then subject to attack through the use of any inconsistent statement made by the victim regardless of the victim's having an opportunity to deny or explain the inconsistent statement. See Tenn. R. Evid. 806. The offered inconsistent statement need not itself satisfy the terms of a hearsay exception. Because it is offered as impeachment evidence, it is not offered to show the truth of the matter asserted and, therefore, is not hearsay.  


By excluding this impeachment statement, the trial court erred by excluding the victim’s statement made identifying someone other than the defendant as the person who inflicted the burn to her hand. And, that is why the case is coming back for a retrial.