State v. Moon, M2019-01865-CCA-R3-CD

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM EUGENE MOON

No. M2019-01865-CCA-R3-CD

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

December 8, 2020 Session

February 12, 2021

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Coffee County

No. 44,905F

L. Craig Johnson, Judge

A Coffee County jury convicted William Eugene Moon, Defendant, of attempted second degree murder and unlawful employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing the improper impeachment of a defense witness, that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and that he was denied the right to a speedy trial. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, the judgments of the circuit court are affirmed.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit Court Affirmed

ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined.

Andrew Justice, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, William Eugene Moon.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Sophia S. Lee, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Craig Northcott, District Attorney General; and Jason Ponder, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

Factual and Procedural History

Pretrial Procedure and Hearings

On April 10, 2018, the Coffee County Grand Jury indicted Defendant for attempted first degree murder in count one, resisting arrest in count two, aggravated assault in count three, unlawful possession of a firearm with intent to commit or attempt to commit a dangerous felony in count four, and unlawful employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony in count five. Defendant was arraigned on April 17, 2018. The case was reset for May 9, 2018, to allow Defendant to obtain discovery. According to Defendant, on May 9th, he asked to set a trial date, but, because the prosecutor handling his case was not present, the case was reset to May 23, 2018. On May 23, 2018, the trial court set the case for trial on November 28, 2018.

On November 6, 2018, the State moved for a continuance of Defendant's trial due to a scheduling conflict with a multi-day rape trial set to begin November 29, 2018. The motion claimed that the other trial involved an alleged rape that occurred on September 7, 2015, and the case had been set by a different assistant district attorney. The motion also claimed that the rape case was "ready for trial," that the State did "not anticipate any resolution of that case," and that the sixteen-year-old victim had "mentally and emotionally prepared herself for trial . . . and very much wants and needs that matter to come to a conclusion."

By agreement, the motion to continue was heard on November 7, 2018, one day after the motion was filed. The State argued that Defendant's case "was less than a year old, so the speedy trial rights ha[d] not yet been implicated under Tennessee state law, whereas the other matter ha[d] been pending for three years." Defense counsel opposed the continuance, arguing that Defendant had been incarcerated since January 2018 and that defense counsel had filed a speedy trial demand shortly thereafter.¹

The trial court weighed the circumstances of the two cases set for the last week in November 2018, and concluded that the age of the cases was paramount and granted the motion to continue. Defense counsel estimated that Defendant's trial was "likely to take either two or three days, and three is . . . probably the most likely[.]" After discussing possible trial dates on the record, the transcript of the motion hearing states: "(A recess was taken, during which the trial date of February 1, 2019, was scheduled by the [c]ourt and counsel in chambers[.])"

On January 16, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for violation of the right to a speedy trial. On January 23, 2019, the trial court heard testimony and arguments on Defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant testified that, after the date of the offenses, he was transported to a hospital in Huntsville, Alabama, where he remained for three weeks. Defendant recalled that, after spending "a couple weeks" in the "Huntsville Jail," he was returned to Coffee County where he was "served with a warrant." He said that being incarcerated in the Coffee County Jail was "pretty bad" and that he was "locked up" fortwenty-two hours per day. He stated that he never got to go outside and see the sunlight. Defendant explained that he had no prior felony convictions.

Defendant explained that, on the night of the offenses, he was shot five times and had several medical issues. He stated that the medical treatment at Coffee County Jail was "not very good." Defendant said that he had to return to "medical" to receive additional stitches. Defendant testified that he worried about the charges in this case "every day" and that facing the prospect of years in prison made him "depressed." Defense counsel argued that Defendant was prejudiced by the delay because Mr. Donald Woods² agreed to testify at trial that Defendant did not have a gun during the encounter, but, during the delay, Mr. Donald Woods left the state and was missing.³

Following argument, a discussion took place involving the length of Defendant's trial. Defense counsel stated that he "was under the impression [the trial] would start on February 1st and then continue to the 4th[.]" The trial court noted that February 1st was a Friday and that he had a motion docket set on that day. The court asked the parties to look at their calendar, and after conferring with counsel, reset Defendant's trial for the first available date: February 11, 2019.

On February 7, 2019, the trial court issued a written order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. It explained:

When this Motion [to Dismiss] was argued, it had only been less than nine (9) months since [D]efendant was arraigned in this matter. The initial date of November [28, 2018,] for the first trial was set in the presence of both parties. In fact, the only trial continuance in the case was from the original trial date in November, which was only approximately two-and-one-half (2.5) months ago. The short two (2)-month delay for the resetting of a new trial date was necessitated by having to try another case that had been on the docket longer and dealt with just as sensitive facts. Being an attempted murder trial, this case is complicated, and therefore, would necessitate some months' preparation. However, [D]efendant argues that this case is comparable to a normal "street crime." This [c]ourt respectfully disagrees. Several months of preparation, a lengthy witness list, and a projection of three (3) days to try it show otherwise.

As to the assertion of the right, [D]efendant did file a Motion for Speedy Trial in the General Sessions Court. He also asked for a first-available trial date in May of 2018, which precipitated the early trial settings. As far as prejudice to the accused, again, the [c]ourt cannot ascertain when [D]efendant's witness went missing or the real efforts made in locating him. However, from reading the defense counsel's affidavit and the statement given by the witness at the time of the incident, it appears his testimony would be neutral at best for the defense. He stated at the time of the incident that he saw [D]efendant start to fumble around with the policeman and then heard shots fired. Defense counsel's affidavit basically states that the witness did not see [Defendant] try to shoot the officer. It is also important to note that [D]efendant argues that [D]efendant's bond is high, but the defense has not filed a motion to reduce bond in the Circuit case, and it appears his pre[]trial incarceration has been a relatively normal one, considering the circumstances.

Trial

State's Proof

On February 11, 2019, the State dismissed counts two, three, and four of the indictment and proceeded to trial on count one, attempted second degree murder, and count five, unlawful employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony.

Officer Michael Wilder testified that, in December 2017, he was employed with the Tullahoma Police Department ("TPD"). During his patrol around noon on December 17, 2017, he saw a black SUV outside some apartments where he had once executed a search warrant for drug trafficking. As he passed by the SUV, he noted that there were four individuals inside and that the windows were "spray painted." Officer Wilder recalled that he parked on a side alley and observed the SUV. He saw that the occupants of the SUV "kept getting in and out of the vehicle and walking over to the trailer park on the opposite side of the road." Officer Wilder decided to drive through the trailer park to try "to figure out what [wa]s going on." Once Officer Wilder was inside the trailer park, "one person lowered his head and ran through the crowd and ran up into the trailer." Officer Wilder spoke with the trailer park manager, Mr. Larry Woods, who told Officer Wilder that the man who just ran through the crowd was Defendant. Officer Wilder knew that there were "aggravated assault warrants" against Defendant and asked Mr. Larry Woods to ask Defendant to come out and speak with him. Mr. Larry Woods yelled for Defendant to come outside. When Defendant came outside, Officer Wilder asked Defendant his name. Defendant first lied about his identity before admitting his real name. Officer Wilder asked Defendant to come with him and Defendant stepped down from the porch. Officer Wilder recalled that Defendant began to "get kind of fidgety" and "nervous" and that his "breathingstart[ed] to pick up." Officer Wilder testified that Defendant's reactions were "signs [that] evasion [wa]s about to happen or violence, possible violence[.]" During the subsequent conversation, Officer Wilder noticed a plastic bag in Defendant's mouth...