# FILED
Ma y 3, 1996 Cec il Cr ow son , Jr . Ap p e l l a te C o u rt C l e rk IN T HE C OU RTOF C RI MI NA L A PPEA LS OF T EN NE SSEE

A T K N OXVI LLE MA RC H 1 996 SE SSIO N

STA TE OF T EN NE SSEE, ) ) C. C. A. N o. 03 C01 -9 410- CR -0 0454 Appel lee , ) ) Bradl ey C ounty V. ) ) Ho n o ra b le R. S te ven Be b b , J u d ge ) BA RR Y H UG HE S, ) ( Rule 10 - Denial of Pretrial Div ersion) ) Appel lan t. )

FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: Leonard "M ik e" C aputo Cha rl es W . Bu rs on Phillips & Capu to Atto rney General & Repo rter Atto rn ey s a t Law 3 1 2 V in e S t re e t Hu n tS
. B ro wn Cha ttano og a, TN 37403 Ass is tant Atto rn ey Gene ra l 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Jer ry N . Es tes Di str ic t Attor ney

Gene ra l G. Scott Ka nav os Ass is tant Di str ic t Attor ney Gene ra l 203 E. M adi son Av enue P.O. Box 647 Athens , TN 37371

OPIN ION F ILED :

_________ _________

_ A FF IR ME D PA UL G. SU MM ER S, Ju d ge-2- O P I N I O N The appel lan t, Bar ry

H ug hes, ch all eng es, by extraordin ar

y appeal , t he tr ial cour t' s j udg ment affirmi ng the dis tr ic t attor ney g eneral' s d eni al of his appl ic ati on for pretr ial di v ersi on. The appel lan t s oug ht t o di v ert tw o c ounts of off ic ial oppress ion , one co unt o f of fici al mis condu ct, and one c ount of fabr ic ati ng ev ide nce. The c harg es ste m from al leg ati ons that, w hil e per forming hi s d uti es as a po l i c e offi c er , he p l an te d c oc ai ne i n a c i v i l i an ' s c ar . W e affi r m.
An as si sta nt di str ict attor ney , and l ater the dis tr ic t attor ney

g eneral, deni ed pretrial diversion base d up on th e followi ng fin dings: 1. That the offense w as not i mpuls iv e butpl anned a nd ex ecut ed i n bot h a cons ci enti ous and repeti ti ous manner ov er a s ig nific ant p er iod of ti me, 2. T hatthe con ductsubsta ntially dep riv ed two or more citiz ens o f their rig hts to due process, 3
. T h a ta p p e ll a n t ' s a c t io n s su b s t a n t ia ll y u n d e rm in e d t h e in t e gr it y o f la w enforcem entof

f icials, 4. That the o ff ense caus ed rev iew of near ly

200 cr imi nal ca ses i n w hic h the a ppel lan t w as inv olv ed, 5. T hatg rantin g diversi on would und ermin e de terrence of othe r cr imina l act iv it ies , and 6. That the ac ti ons cons ti tuted v iol ati ons of publi c a nd pr iv ate t ru st.
A district atto rney's grantor denia l of pretrial div ersion is "pre sum ptively cor re ct" and t he dec is ion sh all onl y be rev ersed upon a show ing of a "pat ent o r g ro ss abus e of prosec utor ial di sc re ti on." Stat e v . Pe rr y , 882 S.W .2d 3 57, 3 59 (Tenn. C ri m. App. 1994)
. To find an abuse of dis creti on, t he record mustbe devoid of

"an y substa ntial evidence " sup portin g the district attorne y g ene ral's deci si on. Id.; Sta te v . H oust on, 9 00 S. W .2d 7 12, 7 14 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1995)
. W e may not suppl ant t he di str ic t attor ney 's j udg ment w it h tha t of our ow n. Id.-3- In as ses si ng w hether

a de fendant i s e nti tl ed to pretr ial di v ersi on, t he district atto rney g ene ral mustconside r: ( 1) the circumst ance s of the of fense , (2) the d efendant's cr imi nal record, ( 3) t he defendant' s s oci al his tor y , ( 4) t he defendant' s p hy si cal and mental co ndi ti on, ( 5) t he det er re nt effect of puni shment

upon other

cr imi nal ac ti v ity , ( 6) t he defendant' s a menabi li ty to cor re cti on, a nd ( 7) the li kel iho od th at pretr ial di v ersi on w il l ser v e the ends of jus ti ce and t he bes t i nterestof both the p ubl icand the d efendant. Id. The ci rc umstan ces of the o ff ense and t he need for d eter re nce may , i n an appropr iat e cas e, ou tw eig h al l other rele v ant fact ors. Id. at 715.

W e ag re e w it h the di str ic t attor ney 's as ses sment that the p lan ti ng of or fabri cat ion of ev ide nce cal ls i nto d oubt the i nteg ri ty of law enforc ement. Fabricatin g evidence n ot on ly strikes at the co re of

law enforcem entand police int eg ri ty , i t al so str ik es at t he "v er y hear t" of the jud ic ial proces s. See Per ry , 882 S.W .2d at 360 (af

f irming denia l of

div ersion no ting that pe rjury strikes at "very hear t of j udi ci al sy ste m"). Acts threateni ng the v it ali ty of our j udi ci al sy ste m shoul d nei ther

be c ountena nced nor

rew arded w it h remedia l measures suc h as pretr ial di v ersi on. W e, t herefore, conc lud e tha t t he c ircums tanc es of the offenses , t he need to deter si mil ar ac ts affect ing the int eg ri ty of both the c our

ts and law enforcem ent , and the ne ed to protectthe pu blic's interests ou tw eigh all factors i n fav or

of pretr ial di v ersi on. The tr ial co urt' s j udg ment i n findi ng thatthe prosec utor

di d notabus e hi s d is creti on i s a ff ir med.-4- _________ _________

_________

___ PA UL G. SUM ME RS , J u d ge CONCUR:

_________

_________

_________

_____ JO SE PH M. T IP T ON , J u d ge

_________

_________

_________

_____ CHA RL ES LE E, Sp e cia l Ju d ge