State of Tennessee v. Darrell Glen Smith

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs July 22, 2003

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DARRELL GLEN SMITH

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Cocke County

No. 7923 Ben W. Hooper, II, Judge

No. E2002-01988-CCA-R3-CD

December 18, 2003

The defendant, Darrell Glen Smith, appeals as of right from his conviction by a jury in the Cocke

County Circuit Court for first degree murder. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment

with the possibility of parole. He contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s

rejection of his insanity defense and (2) the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial due to juror

misconduct. We affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

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

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which GARY R. WADE, P.J., and NORMA

MCGEE OGLE , J., joined.

Edward C. Miller, District Public Defender, for the appellant, Darrell Glen Smith.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; John H. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney General; Al

C. Schmutzer, Jr., District Attorney General; and James B. Dunn, Assistant District Attorney

General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

This case relates to the defendant’s killing his mother on June 2, 1998. Rose Dixon, a driver

for Quality Transportation, testified that her job was to transport medical and mental patients and

that she picked up the defendant from Peninsula Hospital on June 1, 1998. She said he refused to

engage in any conversation with her and when asked questions, he only replied with short responses.

On cross-examination, she testified that if she had known about the defendant’s condition, she would

not have transported him.

Ulyss Smith, the defendant’s brother, testified that he went to his mother’s home on June 2

to look for her after his aunt had told him that she could not find his mother. He said that when he

arrived at his mother’s home, he saw the defendant, who said that their mother was sleeping. He said

that he opened their mother’s bedroom door but did not see her and that the defendant told him that

he needed to leave. He said he did not see any blood on the defendant at that time. He said that he

returned to the victim’s home with his brother-in-law, Steve Taylor, but that the defendant was not

there. He said they went to the back bedroom and found his mother covered in blood. He said his

aunt then called the police. He said that he next saw the defendant when the defendant was arrested

and that the defendant had blood on his stomach at that time. On cross-examination, he said the

defendant looked dirty when he saw him on June 2.

Armondo Fontes, a police officer for the Cocke County Sheriff’s Department, testified that

on May 22, 1998, he was sent to the victim’s home to transport the defendant to an emergency room

to have him evaluated and that on June 2, he answered a domestic dispute call at the victim’s home.

He said that when he arrived, he first talked to Mr. Taylor, who told him “he’s killed her.” He said

he then knocked on the door at the victim’s home and the defendant came out with blood on his

stomach. He said that after handcuffing the defendant, the defendant stated, “I had to kill her, she

was trying to poison me.” On cross-examination, Fontes said that on May 22, the defendant

appeared to be normal and was cooperative. He said that on June 2, the defendant told him his

mother had forced him to castrate himself. He said there was nothing at the victim’s home indicating

the defendant tried to conceal evidence.

Danny Ray Reece, a police officer in the Cocke County Police Department, testified that on

June 2, he was the first officer to enter the victim’s home. He said the ceiling fan light was broken,

blood was on the ceiling, and there were fresh signs of a forced entry into the bedroom. He said that

while he was inside the victim’s home, he found an ax, a steel rod wrapped in electrical tape, and

two bloody knives. On cross-examination, Reece said the victim’s body did not appear to have been

moved since the killing and the weapons were in plain view.

Duane Johnson, a special agent for the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, testified that on

June 2, he saw an ax and a steel rod with electrical tape wrapped around it in the victim’s living

room. He said there were strands of hair and a reddish-brown stain on the electrical tape. He said

he saw what appeared to be blood on the following: the front porch, the living room floor, the

kitchen sink, the hallway floor, the doorknob of the back bedroom, the victim’s bed, the curtains and

walls of the back bedroom, two knives, a pair of glasses that belonged to the defendant, and in the

defendant’s bedroom. He said the victim’s head had been cut in multiple places and her right arm

had large areas of discoloration. On cross-examination, Johnson said that he had never investigated

a murder case where the weapons were left in plain view.

Dennis Ray Daniels, a special agent for the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, testified that

he interviewed the defendant at the hospital after the victim was killed. He said the defendant stated

that the victim forced him to kill her and that she previously forced him to castrate himself. He said

the defendant stated that on the night of June 1, he vomited after eating barbeque and potato salad.

He said the defendant stated his mother had poisoned him. Daniels said the defendant stated that he

was mad and afraid and that he snapped, first hitting his mother with a steel rod. He said the

defendant stated that he hit the victim with the ax multiple times because the victim “would not go

down.” He said the defendant stated that he stabbed himself in the heart three times to try and “get

-2-

it over with.” He said the defendant stated that he stabbed his mother and went to bed but did not

sleep more than five minutes that night. On cross-examination, Daniels testified that the defendant

was very alert during their interview but that he was not sure how aware the defendant was of his

surroundings.

Dr. Cleland Blake, a forensic pathologist, testified that he performed an autopsy on the

victim’s body and found multiple wounds to the head, a tear on the left middle finger, a deep bruise

on the left arm, a bruise on the right shoulder, and a tear in the skin on the right arm. He said some

of the cuts on the victim’s head were the result of a blunt object while others were the result of a

knifelike object. He said the electrical tape on the steel rod was likely used for a better grip. He said

the cause of death was blunt trauma to the head.

Regina Fine, the defendant’s sister, testified that when the defendant was young, he witnessed

his brother’s death when a car ran over him. She said that the defendant began to act peculiar in his

late teens and that he never moved out of his mother’s home. She said her husband had to take the

defendant to the emergency room in 1996 when he castrated himself with grass clippers. She said

the defendant had to go to the emergency room and mental facilities multiple times for his mental

problems. She said the defendant always stayed in his room and she did not remember him ever

leaving the home. She said the defendant called their mother the devil and a “son-of-a-bitch.” She

said that on June 1, 1998, she talked to her mother and her mother said the defendant was nervous

and pacing around the home. She said their mother did everything for the defendant and there was

no rational reason for him to kill her.

On cross-examination, Mrs. Fine testified that she was on friendly terms with the defendant

but that he would not visit with her. She acknowledged that the defendant was mad at their mother

and the rest of the family when no one would co-sign a loan in order that he could buy a motorcycle.

She denied telling an employee of Forensic Services that the defendant told her he could kill her

anytime he wanted. Billy Fine, the defendant’s brother-in-law, testified that he drove the defendant

to the hospital on May 14, 1996, after the defendant castrated himself. He said the defendant was

bleeding all over but showed no emotion.

Susan Janelle Dyer, the defendant’s sister, testified that the defendant began acting peculiar

during his senior year in high school and would isolate himself from the rest of the family, only

leaving his room at night when everyone else was in bed. She said that his personal hygiene was bad

and that he never combed his hair. She said there was no rational reason for him to kill their mother.

Tunney Moore, the former Sheriff of Cocke County, testified that he went to the same church

as the victim and that she told him she was afraid of the defendant. He said he helped the victim

send the defendant to a mental health facility on several occasions when the defendant scared or

assaulted her. He said that on June 2, when he asked the defendant why he had killed his mother,

he said she was trying to poison him. Pat Taylor, a deputy for the Cocke County Police Department

in 1998, testified that on May 22, he picked the defendant up at the victim’s home and drove him

to a mental health facility. On the way, the defendant said he was going to hurt his mother because

-3-

she had made him do bad things and had made him castrate himself. He said the defendant stated

that his mother was poisoning him and trying to kill him.

Eric S. Engum, a clinical psychologist specializing in neuropsychology and forensic

psychology, testified that the defendant suffers from paranoid schizophrenia “continuous with

prominent negative symptoms.” He said records from three separate mental institutions where the

defendant was evaluated confirmed this diagnosis. He said the defendant did not appreciate the

wrongfulness of his conduct when he killed his mother and still did not understand that killing his

mother was wrong. He said the defendant believed that his mother was the devil, that she poisoned

him, that she injected him with chemicals at night, and that she mentally forced him to castrate

himself.

Dr. Engum said that in a test to determine the defendant’s ability to function in a community,

the defendant’s score was at the bottom. He said records from Cherokee Health Systems reported

the defendant as having delusions about his mother as early as 1986. He said the reports indicated

the defendant had both visual and auditory hallucinations. He said the defendant was taken to

Lakeshore Mental Health Institute in 1986 because he met the emergency commitment requirement,

that he was a threat to himself or others. He said records indicated the defendant suffered from

extreme side effects due to the medications he used to control the schizophrenia.

Dr. Engum said that in May 1994, the defendant became depressed and exhibited violent

behavior, including beating his mother. He said the defendant was both homicidal and suicidal. He

said that in 1996, when the defendant castrated himself, he gave various reasons for his conduct,

including the following: (1) the people at Cherokee Mental Health Center told him that if he did this,

it would set him free; (2) his psychologist told him to do it; (3) it was his way of avoiding being sold

into white slavery; and (4) his mother told him it was the only way he could be free of sin.

Dr. Engum said that at Peninsula Hospital in 1998, nine days before the defendant killed his

mother, the defendant said that voices told him to kill his mother to avoid being sold into white

slavery. He said the report stated the defendant was delusional and angry. He said that on June 1,

1998, Peninsula discharged the defendant. He said that when he met with the defendant in 2001, the

defendant still had delusions about his mother. He said he had no doubt that on June 2, 1998, the

defendant was suffering from psychotic delusions as a result of his paranoid schizophrenia and that

the defendant was reacting honestly to his delusions when he killed the victim. He said that the

defendant believed that his mother was the devil, that he was saving the world from her, and that he

was the only person in the world who could perceive the victim’s true nature. He said he believed

the defendant could never function in society and needed permanent supervision to prevent the

defendant from hurting himself or others. He said that in 1998, the defendant was not in reality at

all. Dr. Engum said that he had been involved in over two hundred criminal cases and that this was

only the second time he had testified that a defendant could not understand the wrongfulness of his

actions.

-4-

On cross-examination, Dr. Engum testified that the defendant was not mentally retarded. He

acknowledged that his diagnosis was based, in part, on what the defendant told him. He said that

Peninsula Hospital’s records reflected that the defendant was still experiencing auditory

hallucinations when he was discharged on June 1. He admitted that being mentally ill does not

necessarily mean that a person cannot appreciate the difference between right and wrong. He stated

that people with mental illnesses can still add and subtract but that this goes to their IQ, not their

mental stability. He acknowledged that reports from 1999, 2000, and 2001 record the defendant as

having good hygiene and his thought process as being orderly and relevant. He stated, however, that

he questioned the accuracy of those reports. He agreed, though, that there were improvements when

the defendant was hospitalized and given medication. Dr. Engum denied there being a possibility

that the defendant was pretending to be delusional to avoid criminal responsibility. He admitted that

when the defendant told his brother that their mother was asleep, one possible inference is that the

defendant knew right from wrong. On redirect examination, Engum testified that the reports that

said the defendant had good hygiene and was orderly and relevant may be flawed because they were

not made by a psychiatrist or psychologist and were made by watching the defendant through a small

glass hole.

Dr. Rokeya S. Farooque, a psychiatrist, testified that although the defendant was not

competent to stand trial in 1998, he was competent at the time of his trial. She said that the

defendant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia but was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his

acts when he killed the victim. She said the defendant was given Haldol, a drug used to decrease

hallucinations and delusions, at Peninsula Hospital before being released on June 1, 1998. She said

that Haldol stayed in the bloodstream for three to four weeks.

On cross-examination, Dr. Farooque acknowledged that the defendant was a paranoid

schizophrenic, had been extremely psychotic at times, and had been having psychotic delusions

about his mother since 1986. She said reports indicated that the defendant was stable on medication

at the time of his discharge from Peninsula Hospital on June 1 and that he committed the killing just

hours later. She said that the defendant never claimed he heard voices during the incident telling him

to kill his mother which, in combination with the defendant taking medication, indicated there was

no hallucination or delusion that made the defendant unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his

actions. She admitted she would not have discharged a patient if she knew he was continuing to

have delusions and hallucinations. She said the defendant was given oral Haldol when he was

discharged, which would be used to supplement the injection of Haldol if the injection was

insufficient to stabilize him mentally. She admitted that if the injection was insufficient and the

defendant did not take his oral medication, he could become psychotic.

Sam Craddock, a psychologist, testified that in September 1998 the defendant was not

competent to stand trial but that he was competent by August 1999. He said he concluded the

defendant appreciated the nature of his actions when he killed the victim based on the following

factors: (1) the defendant told Mrs. Fine, his sister, that he could kill her anytime he wanted; (2) the

defendant sometimes got upset with his mother when he was not psychotic; (3) on June 1, the

attending physician, Dr. May, did not describe the defendant as being psychotic; and (4) when he was

-5-

diagnosed after the killing on June 2, the defendant did not say he killed his mother because she

poisoned him. Dr. Craddock said he believed it was just as likely that the defendant killed his

mother because he was upset with her as it was that he killed her because he was having a psychotic

delusion. On cross-examination, Dr. Craddock testified that he did not know for certain whether the

defendant was psychotic at the time of the victim’s killing and that if he was psychotic, he might

have been unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions.

The jury convicted the defendant of first degree murder. The defendant contends that he

should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity because he could not appreciate the

wrongfulness of his actions when he killed his mother. In the alternative, he contends that he should

receive a new trial because the jury improperly considered whether the defendant would spend a long

time in an institution if they found him not guilty by reason of insanity. We affirm the defendant’s

conviction.

I. INSANITY DEFENSE

The defendant contends that he proved by clear and convincing evidence that he was insane

at the time of the killing. With regard to the defense of insanity, T.C.A. § 39-11-501 provides as

follows:

(a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the

commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a

result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate

the nature or wrongfulness of such defendant’s acts. Mental disease

or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. The defendant has

the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing

evidence.

(b) As used in this section, “mental disease or defect” does not

include any abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or

otherwise antisocial conduct.

(c) No expert witness may testify as to whether the defendant was or

was not insane as set forth in subsection (a). Such ultimate issue is a

matter for the trier of fact alone.

With respect to appellate review of a jury’s rejection of a defendant’s insanity defense, our

supreme court has stated:

[A]ppellate courts in Tennessee should apply the reasonableness

standard when reviewing a jury’s rejection of the insanity defense.

Consistent with the expressed legislative intent of Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 39-11-501(c) and other Tennessee standards governing appellate

-6-

review of factual findings, this standard is properly deferential to the

finding of the trier of fact. On the other hand, this standard does not

totally insulate the jury’s finding from appellate review; rather, it

enhances appellate review by virtue of its similarity to the familiar

sufficiency standard which appellate courts are accustomed to

applying. Accordingly, appellate courts in Tennessee should reverse

a jury verdict rejecting the insanity defense only if, considering the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no reasonable

trier of fact could have failed to find that the defendant’s insanity at

the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing

evidence . . . . [W]e explicitly reject the notion that the State must

rebut defense proof of insanity with substantial evidence. The current

statute clearly does not impose such a burden of proof on the

prosecution. The statute places the burden of establishing this

affirmative defense squarely on the defendant. Once this defense has

been interposed, the prosecution likely will in most cases attempt in

some manner to counter the defense proof . . . . [D]efense proof can

be countered by contrary expert testimony, lay witnesses, or vigorous

cross-examination designed to undermine the credibility of the

defense experts. A reviewing court applying the reasonableness

standard should consider all the evidence in the record in the light

most favorable to the state in determining whether the jury

appropriately rejected the insanity defense.

....

The weight and value to be given expert testimony is a question for

the jury. [State v. Sparks, 891 S.W.2d 607, 616 (Tenn. 1995)].

Where there is a conflict in the evidence, the trier of fact is not

required to accept expert testimony over other evidence and must

determine the weight and credibility of each in light of all the facts

and circumstances of the case. Id. Questions concerning the

credibility of witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, as well

as all factual disputes raised by the evidence, are for the trier of fact;

appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence or reevaluate credibility

determinations. [State v. Holder, 15 S.W.3d 905, 912 (Tenn. Crim.

App. 1999)].

State v. Flake, 88 S.W.3d 540, 554 (Tenn. 2002).

Evidence existed to show that the defendant was not psychotic or suffering from delusions

and hallucinations at the time of the offense. The defendant had taken an injection of Haldol while

at Peninsula Hospital, a medication that is usually effective in preventing delusions and

-7-

hallucinations for three to four weeks. Dr. Farooque stated she believed that this medication should

have prevented the defendant from becoming psychotic after being discharged on June 1. Moreover,

after the killing, reports from the Cherokee Crisis Team indicated that the defendant did not claim

his mother was poisoning him when they interviewed him on June 2.

Evidence also existed to show that the defendant appreciated the wrongfulness of his actions

when he killed the victim. When the defendant’s brother came to the victim’s home, the defendant

lied and told his brother that the victim was sleeping and said he should leave. Although not

conclusive, this suggests that the defendant knew that he did something wrong because he did not

want his brother to discover that he had killed their mother. Moreover, the defendant had previously

been upset with his mother and the rest of the family when they did not co-sign a loan for him so that

he could buy a motorcycle. Although Mrs. Fine denied it, Dr. Craddock noted that the defendant told

his sister that he could kill her any time he wanted. The defendant told Mr. Daniels in their interview

after the killing that he was mad and afraid when he killed the victim. Dr. Craddock testified that

it was as likely that the defendant became upset with his mother for trying to convince him to take

his medication or for some other reason and decided to kill her. Dr. Craddock did not believe

delusions and hallucinations caused the defendant to kill the victim.

The evidence shows that the defendant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. Having this

mental disease, however, does not preclude the possibility that he could be found legally sane by a

jury. T.C.A. § 39-11-501(a) (1997). It was the jury’s responsibility to give the proper weight and

value to the expert and lay witnesses in determining whether the defendant was insane by clear and

convincing evidence. Flake, 88 S.W.3d at 554. Although the defendant argues that the jury erred

in not finding him insane at the time of the killing, the jury chose to accredit the witnesses who

supported the state’s theory of the case: that the defendant’s medication was effective; that he was

not psychotic and delusional at the time of the killing; and that he knew his actions were wrong when

he killed his mother. In the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could have failed

to find that the defendant’s criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and

convincing evidence. The evidence is sufficient to justify the defendant’s conviction.

II. JUROR MISCONDUCT

The defendant contends that he should receive a new trial because the jury improperly

considered how long the defendant would be institutionalized if they found him not guilty by reason

of insanity. The state argues that the defendant’s evidence of juror misconduct is not allowed under

Tennessee Rule of Evidence 606(b) and that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion

for a new trial. We agree with the state.

During deliberations, the jury submitted a question to the trial court asking whether the

defendant would be institutionalized for a long period of time if it found the defendant not guilty by

reason of insanity. The trial court told the jury that the court would not answer its question and that

the jury should remember the evidence and the law as it had been given. At the hearing for a new

trial, the defendant offered the trial court several questionnaires he sent to jurors after the trial and

-8-

notes he had taken during a phone conversation with one juror after the trial as evidence that the jury

improperly considered the question of how long the defendant would be institutionalized. In one

juror’s questionnaire, the juror stated that he or she would have found the defendant not guilty by

reason of insanity if assured that the defendant would have been treated for a long period of time.

In addition, defense counsel’s notes from a telephone conversation with a juror reflected that the

juror would have voted “guilty but insane” if that had been an option. The trial court refused to

consider the juror information.

Rule 606(b), Tenn. R. Evid., precludes a juror from testifying or offering an affidavit “as to

any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberations or to the effect of

anything upon any juror’s mind or emotion as influencing that juror to assent to or dissent from the

verdict.” Three exceptions to this rule are that a juror may testify or offer an affidavit as to (1)

whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention, (2)

whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror, or (3) whether the

jurors agreed in advance to be bound by a quotient or gambling verdict without further discussion.

Id.

As the Advisory Commission Comment notes, this rule is the codification of the supreme

court’s adoption of Rule 606(b), Fed. R. Evid., in State v. Blackwell, 664 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tenn.

1984). If the defendant shows that the jury has been subjected to extraneous prejudicial information

or improper influence, then we presume prejudice and the burden shifts to the state to rebut this

presumption by either explaining the exposure or proving that it was harmless. Id. at 689. The

information that the jurors provided the defendant cannot be offered in court unless it qualifies under

one of the three exceptions in 606(b). In the present case, unless the information is extraneous, it

is inadmissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 606(b). “Extraneous means ‘coming from without.’” State v.

Coker, 746 S.W.2d 167, 171 (Tenn. 1988) (holding that the jurors’ alleged discussion about the

possibility that the defendant would hire someone to kill them was inadmissible because the

defendant had not shown that the jury learned of the threat from an outside source). The trial court

in this case questioned whether the information was extraneous but ultimately found that it was not

in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The defendant bears the burden of showing that the jurors were exposed to extraneous

information and that their testimony is thereby permitted under Rule 606(b), Tenn. R. Evid. See

Blackwell, 664 S.W.2d at 689. In State v. Henley, a capital post-conviction case, the petitioner

sought to introduce an affidavit from one of the trial jurors in support of his claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997). The affidavit related to the jury’s mindset

concerning the refusal of the petitioner’s mother to testify during the sentencing phase of the trial.

The supreme court stated that “the juror’s affidavit related to the precise subject matter about which

a juror is strictly forbidden from testifying by Rule 606(b).” Id. at 581. The court held that this

evidence “violates the express terms of Rule 606(b) and should not have been considered” in the

post-conviction proceeding. Id. Likewise, in the present case, the defendant introduced exhibits

at the hearing for a new trial where the subject matter related to the jury’s mindset. Accordingly, this

-9-

information was not extraneous and not properly before the trial court. It cannot be used to show

juror misconduct.

In any event, even were we to consider the jury information submitted by the defendant, we

would still be unpersuaded that there was any juror misconduct. The juror in the questionnaire stated

that the jury decided unanimously that the defendant appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct.

Even if the jurors thought about what would happen if they found him not guilty by reason of

insanity, this does not negate their finding that the defendant appreciated the wrongfulness of his

actions.

Based upon the foregoing and the record as a whole, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

____________________________________

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE

-10-