# FILED May 20, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appe llate Court C lerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE JANUARY 1999 SESSION
STATE OF TENNESSEE , * C.C.A. NO. 03-C-01-9801-CC-00034 APPELLANT, * SULLIVAN COUNTY VS. * Hon. Phyllis H. Mil ler, Judge CHRIS EUGENE ETTERS , * (Pretrial Diversi on) APPELLEE. *

For Appellant : For Appellee : John Knox Walkup David Overbay Attorney General and Reporter 1740 Euclid Avenue 450 James Robertson Parkwa y Bristol, VA 24203 Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Vincent Sikora Albert L. Partee, III P.O. Box 821 Senior Counsel Piney Flats, TN 37686 Enforcement Division 425 Fifth Avenue North, 2nd Fl oor Nashville, TN 37243-0494 Lewis Combs, Jr. Assistant District Attorney General Blountville, TN 37617 OPINION FILED: ____________________
AFFIRMED NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUD GE2 OPINION Th e d efe nd an t, C hris Eu ge ne Ette rs, w as ind icte d o n F eb rua ry 1 2, 1 99 7, o n o ne count of vandali sm in the amoun t of $10, 000 or more and on one count of viol ati ng the Tennessee W ater Q uality A ct. Th e de fend ant a pplied for pre trial divers ion. O n Ju ne 2 , 199 7, the Dis trict Attorn ey G en era l de nie d th e re qu es t. O n J an ua ry 7 , 19 98 , the C rim ina l C ou rt of S ulliv an C ou nty ov err ule d th e Distri ct Att orney General and granted the defendant pretri al diver sion. Accordi ngly, on February 10, 19 98 , the D istric t Att orn ey G en era l en tere d in to a m em ora nd um of u nd ers tan din g w ith th e d efe nd an t, se tting forth the co nd ition s o f the de fen da nt’s pre trial d ive rsio n. T he Sta te a dd ition ally ap plie d fo r permission to appeal the int erlocut ory order of the tr ial court pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9, which ap plic atio n w as gra nte d b y th e tria l co urt a nd by this co urt. I n th is a pp ea l, the Sta te a ss erts tha t the tria l co urt inc orr ec tly o ve rru led the D istri ct A ttor ne y G en era l's d en ial o f pr etr ial d ive rsio n.
Fo llow ing a re vie w of th e re co rd a nd the pa rties ’ brie fs, w e a ffirm the jud gm en t of th e trial c ou rt.
I. Factual Background In 1 99 3, th e d efe nd an t, C hris Eu ge ne Ette rs, le as ed a tra ct o f lan d o n R ive rpo rt R oa d in Kingsport , Tennessee, and began operating AZRO K Corporation (AZROK

). AZROK processed and distribu ted h ardw ood bark gen erate d by the lo cal M ead Pa per fa cility. Pre viou sly, M ead Pa per h ad be en dis po sin g o f ap pro xim ate ly 7 5,0 00 ton s o f ha rdw oo d b ark pe r ye ar in la nd fills. S eiz ing an op po rtun ity to turn w ha t ha d b ee n M ea d P ap er's w as te in to a via ble co m m erc ial p rod uc t, AZ R O K be ga n p roc es sin g th e le ftov er b ark into co m po st la nd sc ap e m ulc h fo r re sa le. A s a res ult, th e tw o co m pa nie s w on the 19 93 -94 Te nn es se e A ss oc iatio n o f Bu sin es s E xc elle nc e in So ld W as te M ana gem ent A wa rd for th eir joint e ffort to co nse rve la ndfill spa ce a nd find a be neficia l use for the bark material . At t his ti me, the defendant’ s business was thrivi ng, but t rouble was looming on the horizon.

Problems began for AZROK in August, 1993 when the def endant was inf ormed by the3 Te nn es se e D ep artm en t of E nv iron m en t an d C on se rva tion (T DEC ), D ivis ion of S olid W as te M an ag em en t (D SW M ), th at h e w as en ga ge d in the un au tho rize d p roc es sin g o f so lid w as te in vio latio n of th e S olid W as te D isp os al A ct. F rom Au gu st, 1 99 3 to Au gu st, 1 99 5 th e d efe nd an t m et w ith v ario us ag en ts o f D SW M on nu m ero us oc ca sio ns an d in itiate d e fforts to c om ply w ith th eir r eq uire m en ts. H ow ev er, h e w as un ab le to fully ex ec ute the req uire d m ea sures du e to the siz e a nd un fortu na te locati on of his busi ness.

AZ RO K w as lo cate d on a trac t of land adja cen t to a p ublic ro ad a nd th e H olston Arm y Am m un ition Pla nt (H AA P) pro pe rty a nd ne ar a slu ice of th e H ols ton rive r. F urth erm ore , un kn ow n to the de fen da nt a t the tim e h e le as ed the lot, th e A ZR O K b us ine ss w as on or a dja ce nt to a fo rm er c ity du m p s ite.
W

he n A ZR O K m ulc he d its ba rk a nd pla ce d th e m ulc h in pile s fo r th e p urp os e o f ag ing , the pile s o f m ulc h w ou ld o cc as ion ally sp on tan eo us ly c om bu st. W he n A ZR O K e m plo ye es sp ray ed the m ulc h w ith w ate r in a n a ttem pt to co ntro l the fires or w he n it ra ine d, ta nn ins w ou ld le ac h fro m the m ulc h, a nd an oth er c he m ica l (T EC ) w ou ld le ac h fr om the city 's o ld d um p s ite. T he de fen da nt b uilt ret ain ing po nd s a nd ex ca va ted a d itch in o rde r to co ntr ol th e le ac ha te, b ut h e c ou ld n ot c on tro l the flow of le ac ha te o ff-site . Pe rso nn el fro m the TD EC D ivis ion of W ate r P ollu tion C on trol in sp ec ted the site an d w itne ss ed lea ch ate flow ing ac ros s R ive rpo rt R oa d a nd dra inin g in to th e n ea rby slu ice of th e Ho lston R iver.
Mead Paper conducted tests of the mulch product and concluded that the mulch was not hazardous to t he public usi ng the product or t o AZR OK e mployees. Additi onally, the Tennessee D ep artm en t of H ea lth, E pid em iolo gy D ivis ion, co nc lud ed tha t the co nta m ina nts in th e m ulc h w ere no t a ha za rd to the pu blic an d th at th e c on tam ina nts in th e le ac ha te w ere no t hig hly co nc en trate d e no ug h to w arr an t pu blic co nc ern . H ow ev er, the St ate alle ge d th at b etw ee n 1 99 4 a nd 19 95 , the de fen da nt fa iled to c on tain the lea ch ate , faile d to co ntro l the ou tbre ak s o f fires on the site , faile d to co m ply w ith th e4 Pe rm it-b y-R ule req uire m en ts o f a s olid w as te p roc es sin g fa cility , faile d to file a de qu ate fina nc ial ass uran ce w ith the C om m ission er of T DE C, a nd fa iled to p ay th e an nua l ma intena nce fee re quire d of persons operati ng an approved solid waste processing f acil it y.

Th ere fore , on Au gu st 4 , 19 95 , the C om m iss ion er o f TD EC ord ere d th e d efe nd an t to im m ed iate ly c ea se ac ce ptin g w as te a t his fac ility a nd ord ere d h im to c los e th e fa cility . C los ing the fac ility e nta iled the rem ov al o f all s olid w as te a nd so lid w as te c on stitu en ts w ithin thirty da ys . In ad ditio n, th e C om m iss ion er o rde red the de fen da nt to pa y re stitu tion in th e a m ou nt o f $7 6,4 33 .27 . Th e d efe nd an t ce as ed op era tion of A ZR O K, bu t he did no t re m ov e th e b ark m ate rials fro m the site . A s a res ult o f the de fen da nt’s effo rts to c om ply w ith th e T DEC ’s re qu irem en ts, h is bus ines s ha d be com e ins olve nt. M oreo ver, th e de fend ant a nd M ead Pa per d isag reed ove r wh o w as res po ns ible for th e c lea nu p o f the site . M ea nw hile , the lea ch ate co ntin ue d to flow off-s ite. Over a period of ti me, the AZRO K operati on caused $4,000 damage to a fence on t he Army’s adjacent propert y. Moreover, t he leachate al legedly cont aminated soil on the Army’s property, requir ing the r emoval of the soil . The Army soug ht rest it uti on from the defendant f or these expenses.
M r. Je rry Fu lke rso n a nd M r. W alte r N at S m ith, a ge nts of T DEC , w ere res po ns ible for ins pe ctin g th e A ZR O K s ite a t va riou s tim es . In a ffida vits , bo th M r. S m ith a nd M r. F ulk ers on alle ge d tha t the de fen da nt h ad thre ate ne d th em w hile the y w ere vis iting the AZ R O K s ite.
How ever, Mr. Fulker son subm

it ted two inconsi stent ver sions of t he incident in which he w as thre ate ne d b y th e d efe nd an t. D urin g a n in terv iew w ith th e p rob atio n o ffice r w ho pre pa red the pre trial d ive rsio n re po rt, M r. F ulk ers on sta ted tha t “...d urin g th e in ve stig atio n th e d efe nd an t thre ate ne d him and ‘pul led a gun’ on him as well as ot her mem bers of t he Tennessee Department of Energy and Conservation.” In contr ast, i n his aff idavi t, Mr. Fulkerson did not all ege that t he defendant had ever5 “pulled a gu n” on him . Ra ther, h e sta ted th at he had onc e se en a gun in the defe nda nt’s truc k. M r. Fu lke rso n a ttes ted tha t, on tha t oc ca sio n, th e d efe nd an t did no t thr ea ten an y T DEC ag en ts. T he on ly thr ea t by the de fen da nt d es crib ed in M r. F ulk ers on ’s a ffida vit o cc urr ed du ring a te lep ho ne conversat ion.
M

r. S m ith s tate d in his affid av it tha t, on on e o cc as ion w he n h e w as ins pe ctin g th e AZRO K site and di scussing compli ance measures with the def endant, the def endant expressed disagreement with t he on-going enforcement acti on and stated that he had som ething t hat would take ca re o f the pro ble m . Th e d efe nd an t the n p lac ed his righ t ha nd on the sm all o f his ba ck . M r. S m ith inf erred that the defendant had a weapon concealed on his person.

As stated above, t he defendant was indict ed on one count of vandalism and on one co un t of v iola ting the Te nn es se e W ate r Q ua lity A ct. A cc ord ing to th e p retr ial d ive rsio n re po rt, the de fen da nt w as forty -fou r ye ars old , m arr ied, an d th e fa the r of fo ur c hild ren . His fa m ily w as su pp ortiv e. D es pite po or g rad es , the de fen da nt h ad gra du ate d fr om hig h s ch oo l in 1 97 3 a nd ha d s inc e d ev elo pe d a good wo rk hist ory. His cr iminal hi story consi sted of t hree speeding ti ckets. He had no histor y of alc oh ol o r dr ug ab us e a s a n a du lt. A s a juv en ile, th e d efe nd an t dr an k a lco ho l for a s ho rt p erio d o f tim e an d e xp erim en ted w ith m ariju an a tw ice on on e d ay w he n h e w as ap pro xim ate ly s ev en tee n y ea rs o ld.
Th e d efe nd an t w as ap olo ge tic a nd rem ors efu l for a ny ha rm he m ay ha ve ca us ed to oth ers as a re su lt of h is b us ine ss . H e m ain tain ed tha t M ea d P ap er w as res po ns ible for r em ov ing the waste ma teri al fol lowing the cl osing of t he AZR OK facili ty. Therefore, he cont ended that any damages ca us ed by the lefto ve r ba rk m ate rials an d th e le ac ha te w ere no t attrib uta ble to h im. Fu rthe r, he ass erted that, du e to h is bu sine ss’ ins olve ncy , he w as u nab le to p ay fo r the d am age s. A num ber o f frien ds an d fa m ily m em be rs w rote lette rs v ou ch ing for th e d efe nd an t’s g oo d c ha rac ter a nd co nc ern for the en viro nm en t.6 In a le tter de nyin g the defe nda nt’s req ues t for pre trial divers ion, the Dis trict Attorn ey G en era l sta ted tha t he ha d c on sid ere d “th e p retr ial d ive rsio n re po rt, a c lea n-u p e stim ate by H ols ton Defense, Affi davits f rom M

r. Nat Smith and Mr. Jerry Ful kerson, l etter s sent on behalf of Mr. Etters, and othe r inform ation fro m the file.” T

he D istrict Attorn

ey G ene ral the n listed the fo llowin g gro und s upon which his deni al res ted:

(1) The defendant was ordered by the Comm issi oner of t he De partm ent o f En viron m ent to cea se b usin ess at his lo cation by o rder da ted Au gu st 4 , 19 95 . Th e o ffen se s lis ted in th e P res en tm en t oc curre d, a t lea st p artia lly, a fter th e C om m iss ion er’s O rde r. T he alle ga tion of w ate r po llutio n w as liste d a s o cc urr ing ov er e igh t m on ths after the Order was entered. The Order also stat es a history of substanti al non-compliance wit h state r egulati ons during the course of the de fen da nt’s m ulc hin g o pe rat ion . (2) M r. W alte r N at S m ith a nd M r. Je rry Fu lke rso n b oth filed affid av its sta ting tha t the de fen da nt th rea ten ed the m du ring the ir w ork at th e de fen da nt’s w ork site . In b oth ins tan ce s, a ha nd gu n w as the pe rce ive d w ea po n in co nn ec tion w ith th e th rea ts. T he thre ats oc cu rre d o ve r a pe riod of tim e a nd w as ob vio us ly in res po ns e to the ir inv es tiga tion of th e d efe nd an t’s fa cility . (3) T he P rese ntm ent a lleges crim inal ac tivity wh ich o ccu rred o ver a n ex ten de d p erio d o f tim e a nd w hic h c au se d e xtra ord ina ry d am ag es to the vict im’s propert y. (4) Th e d efe nd an t do es no t ha ve a c rim ina l his tory , bu t do es ad m it to us ing an illeg al d rug on at le as t tw o o cc as ion s. (5) The educational histor y in the pr etri al diver sion report shows a po or a ca de m ic re co rd. H ow ev er, it w as no ted tha t the de fen da nt d id gra du ate hig h s ch oo l.
Th e C rim ina l C ou rt o f S ulliv an C ou nty ov err ule d th e D istri ct A ttor ne y G en era l an d gra nte d th e d efe nd an t pr etr ial d ive rsio n. T he tria l co urt he ld th at th e D istri ct A ttor ne y G en era l ha d ab us ed his dis cre tion. Sp ec ifica lly, th e tria l co urt h eld tha t the D istric t Att orn ey G en era l ha d fa iled to enume rate or assi gn due signif icance to al l rel evant fact ors and that, in any case, t here was no su bs tan tial e vid en ce in th e re co rd t o s up po rt th e p ros ec uto r’s d en ial o f pr etr ial d ive rsio n. T he tria l co urt ord ere d th at th e S tate en ter into a M em ora nd um of U nd ers tan din g w ith th e d efe nd an t, gr an ting pre trial d ive rsio n fo r a p erio d o f tw o y ea rs. In ad ditio n th e tria l co urt o rde red :7 1. T he de fen da nt s ha ll pa y re stitu tion to H AA P in the am ou nt o f $4 ,00 0 to reb uild the fen ce da m ag ed by the AZ R O K o pe rat ion . 2. The defendant shall pay TDEC $4,949. 55 in past due maintenance fees, i nterest , and penalt ies. 3. T he de fen da nt m us t pe rfor m thre e h un dre d h ou rs o f co m m un ity servi ce. 4. The defendant must pay a monthly supervi sion f ee of $30 and court cost s. II. Analysis A. Pretrial Diversion Ge nerally

Th e P ret rial D ive rsio n A ct p rov ide s a m ea ns of a vo idin g th e c on se qu en ce s o f a p ub lic pro se cu tion for th os e w ho ha ve po ten tial fo r re ha bilita tion. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-15-105 (1997 and Supp. 1998). The pretri al diver sion program all ows a distri ct att orney general t o suspend pro se cu tion ag ain st a qu alifie d d efe nd an t for a pe riod of u p to tw o y ea rs. Id. W hether t o grant ordeny an ap plic atio n fo r pr etria l div ers ion is in the dis cre tion of th e d istric t atto rne y g en era l. Id. ; State v. Pinkham , 95

5 S .W .2d 95 6, 9 59 (T en n. 1 99 7); State v. Ham

mersley , 650 S.W.2d 352, 353 ( Tenn. 19 83 ); State v. C arr , 86 1 S .W .2d 85 0, 8 55 (T en n. C rim . Ap p. 1 99 3); State v. Freeman, No. 03C01- 971 2-C C-0 052 3, 19 99 W L 96 272 , at *2 (T enn . Crim . Ap p. at K nox ville, Fe brua ry 22 , 199 9). In making the ini ti al deter mination ofwhether diverson i s warranted, t he distr ict atto rne y g en era l m us t co ns ide r (1 ) th e c ircu m sta nc es of th e o ffen se ; (2 ) th e d efe nd an t’s c rim ina l rec ord ; (3) the de fen da nt’s so cia l his tory ; (4) the de fen da nt’s ph ys ica l an d m en tal c on ditio n; (5 ) the de terr en t effe ct o f pu nis hm en t up on oth er c rim ina l ac tivity ; (6) the de fen da nt’s am en ab ility to co rre ctio n; (7 ) the like liho od tha t pre trial d ive rsio n w ill “se rve the en ds of ju stic e” a nd the be st in tere sts of the defe nda nt an d the pub lic; and (8) the defe nda nt’s “attitud

e, be hav ior sinc e arre st, prior re cord , ho m e e nv iron m en t, cu rre nt d rug us ag e, e m otio na l sta bility , pa st e m plo ym en t, ge ne ral rep uta tion , m arita l sta bility , fam ily re sp on sib ility, a nd attitu de of la w en forc em en t.” State v. Washington , 866 S.W.2d 950, 951 (Tenn. 1993) (ci ti ng State v. Markham , 755 S.W.2d 850, 852- 53 (Tenn. Cri m. App.8 19 88 )).
Th

e n atu re a nd circ um sta nc es of th e a lleg ed offe ns es are no t the on ly a pp rop riate fac tors to b e c on sid ere d u po n a pp lica tion for d ive rsio n b ut m ay alo ne pro vid e a su fficie nt b as is fo r de nia l. Ca rr , 86 1 S .W .2d at 8 55 ; State v. Sutton , 66

8 S .W .2d 67 8, 6 80 (T en n. C rim . Ap p. 1 98 4); State v. Cavnor , No. 02C01-9704-CR -00155, 1998 WL 148320, at *3 (Tenn. Cri m. App. at Jackson, March 31 , 19 98 ), perm to appeal deni ed , (Tenn. 1999). However, t he cir cumstances of t he case and a generali zed need for det errence “ cannot be gi ven controlling weight unless t hey are ‘of such ove rwh elm ing s ignifican ce th at the y [ne ces sarily] o utw eigh all othe r facto rs.’” Washington , 866 S.W.2d at 9 51 (em ph as is in ori gin al) (qu otin g Markham

, 755 S.W.2d at 853). Where there are no “such exceptional circumstances, ‘ the dist rict attor ney general must consider evi dence which tends to show tha t the ap plic an t is a m en ab le to co rre ctio n b y d ive rsio n a nd is n ot lik ely to c om m it fur the r cr im ina l acts .’” Id. ; see also Sta

te v . W ins ett, 882 S.W .2d 8 06, 8 10 (T enn . Crim . Ap p. 19 93).
W he n d ec idin g w he the r to e nte r into a m em ora nd um of u nd ers tan din g u nd er th e pre trial d ive rsio n s tatu te, a pro se cu tor s ho uld foc us on the de fen da nt’s am en ab ility to co rre ctio n. A ny factors wh ich ten d to a ccu rately re flect w heth er a p articula r defe nda nt w ill or will no t bec om e a re pea t offe nd er s ho uld be co ns ide red . Su ch fac tors m us t, of c ou rse , be cle arly artic ula ted an d s tate d in the rec ord in o rde r tha t a m ea nin gfu l ap pe llate rev iew m ay be ha d. Pinkham , 955 S.W.2d at 959- 960 (quoti ng Ham

mersley , 650 S.W.2d 355); see also State v. C urry , No. 02S01-9709- CC-00079, 1999 W L 11 51 13 (T en n. a t D ye rsb urg , M arc h 8 , 19 99 ). Furthermore, i f the di stri ct att orney general denies pr etri al diver sion, t he denial must be in w ritin g a nd m us t inc lud e “a n e nu m era tion of th e e vid en ce tha t w as co ns ide red an d a dis cu ss ion of the factor s co nsid ered and we ight ac cord ed e ach .” Pinkham , 955 S.W.2d at 960. This “r equirement enta ils m ore th an a n ab strac t statem ent in the re

cord that the district atto

rney gen eral h as c ons idere d thes e fac tors.” State v. Herron , 767

S.W .2d 1 51, 1 56 (T

enn . 198 9). Ins tead , the fac tors c ons idere d9 “m ust b e cle arly a rticulab le an d sta ted in the re

cord ... .” Id. The fact t hat a defendant bears the bu rde n o f de m on stra ting su itab ility fo r di ve rsio n d oe s n ot r elie ve the pro se cu tor ’s o blig atio n to ex am ine all o f the rele va nt fa cto rs a nd se t forth the req uire d fin din gs . Pinkham , 95

5 S .W .2d at 9 60 ; see also Cu rry, No. 02S01-9709- CC-00079, 1999 W L 115113, at * 3.
If the ap plic atio n fo r pr etr ial d ive rsio n is de nie d, th e d efe nd an t m ay ap pe al b y petition ing the trial cou rt for a w rit of certiora

ri. Ten n. C ode An n. § 4 0-15 -105 (b)(3) (199 7 an d S upp . 199 8). O n a p etition for c

ertiora ri, the he aring con duc ted b y the trial judg e is lim ited to tw o issu es: (1 ) w he the r th e a cc us ed is e ligib le fo r di ve rsio n; a nd (2) w he the r th e d istri ct a ttor ne y g en era l ab us ed his dis cre tion in re fus ing to d ive rt the ac cu se d. State v. Watkins , 60

7 S .W .2d 48 6, 4 88 -89 (T en n. C rim . Ap p. 1 98 0); State v. Cavnor

, N o. 0 2C 01 -97 04 -C R -00 15 5, 1 99 8 W L 1 48 32 0, a t *3 . M ore ov er, the on ly evidence that may be

considered by the t rial court i s the evidence that was considered by the dist rict atto rne y g en era l. W ins ett , 882 S.W.2d at 810. The tri al court may con duct a hearing onl y to resol ve an y fa ctu al d isp ute s ra ise d b y th e p ros ec uto r or the de fen da nt c on ce rnin g th e a pp lica tion, bu t no t to he ar a dd ition al e vid en ce tha t w as no t co ns ide red by the pro se cu tor. See Pinkham , 955 S.W.2d at 960.
In State

v. C urry , ou r su pre m e c ou rt an no un ce d th e s tan da rd o f rev iew tha t an ap pe llate co urt m us t ap ply in p retr ial d ive rsio n c as es : The action of t he prosecutor i s presumptively cor rect, and is subject to rev iew by th e trial co urt on ly for an abu se o f discre tion. T he re cord in th is re ga rd m us t sh ow an ab se nc e o f an y s ub sta ntia l ev ide nc e to su pp ort th e re fus al o f the dis trict a ttorn ey ge ne ral to en ter in to a m em ora nd um of u nd ers tan din g b efo re a rev iew ing co urt c an find an ab us e o f dis cre tion. The appellate court must dete rmine whether the trial court’s decision is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. N o. 0 2S 01 -97 09 -C C -00 07 9, 1 99 9 W L 1 15 11 3, a t *4 (em ph as is a dd ed ); see also Pinkham , 955 S.W.2d at 960.1 The defe nda nt pr oce ede d pro se o n ap pea l with only the a dvice of atto rney s Vin ce S ikora and Da vid O verb ay. The case was sub mitte d for a de cision on th e rec ord a nd th e ap pella nt’s b rief, w ith or al ar gum ent. 10 B. Application of the Law

On app eal, the Sta te arg ues that the trial cou rt erred by o verru ling the Dis trict Attorn ey G en era l’s d en ial o f pr etr ial d ive rsio n. 1 Th e S tate co nten ds th at the trial cou rt erred by tacitly rew eig hin g th e re lev an t fac tor s a nd de cid ing tha t the de fen da nt w as am en ab le to co rre ctio n.
Initia lly, w e c on cur in th e tria l co urt’s find ing tha t the D istric t Att orn ey G en era l faile d to en um era te o r as sig n w eig ht to all o f the fac tors rele va nt in pre trial d ive rsio n c as es . Alth ou gh the D istric t Att orn ey G en era l sta ted in h is d en ial le tter th at h e c on sid ere d th e p retr ial d ive rsio n re po rt an d the lette rs s en t on be ha lf of t he de fen da nt, th e p ros ec uto r di d n ot d isc us s th e d efe nd an t’s fa vo rab le soc ial history , lack o f crim inal rec ord, a nd p oten tial for reh abilitation. The

failure o f the D istrict Attorn

ey G en era l to c on sid er a nd artic ula te a ll of th e re lev an t fac tors co ns titute d a n a bu se of d isc retio n. See Cu rry, N o. 0 2S 01 -97 09 -C C -00 07 9, 1 99 9 W L 1 15 11 3, a t *6.
M ore ov er, a p rep on de ran ce of th e e vid en ce su pp ort s th e tr ial c ou rt’s de ter m ina tion that t he circumstances of t he case were not “‘of such overwhelming si gnifi cance that t hey [necessaril y] outw eigh [ed] a ll other fa ctors .’” Washington , 866 S.W.2d at 951 (cit ati on om it ted). The D

ist rict Attorn ey G ene ral de nied pretria l divers ion o n five g roun ds. O n ap pea l, the S tate co nten ds th at thre e of th e fiv e g rou nd s w ere ea ch a s uffic ien t an d in de pe nd en t gr ou nd to d en y d ive rsio n: (1) The defendant was ordered by the Comm issi oner of t he De partm ent o f En viron m ent to cea se b usin ess at his lo cation by o rder da ted Au gu st 4 , 19 95 . Th e o ffen se s lis ted in th e P res en tm en t oc curre d, a t lea st p artia lly, a fter th e C om m iss ion er’s O rde r. T he alle ga tion of w ate r po llutio n w as liste d a s o cc urr ing ov er e igh t m on ths after the Order was entered. The Order also stat es a history of substanti al non-compliance wit h state r egulati ons during the course of the de fen da nt’s m ulc hin g o pe rat ion . (2) M r. W alte r N at S m ith a nd M r. Je rry Fu lke rso n b oth filed affid av its sta ting tha t the de fen da nt th rea ten ed the m du ring the ir w ork at th e de fen da nt’s w ork site . In b oth ins tan ce s, a ha nd gu n w as the pe rce ive d w ea po n in co nn ec tion w ith th e th rea ts. T he thre ats11 oc cu rre d o ve r a pe riod of tim e a nd w as ob vio us ly in res po ns e to the ir inv es tiga tion of th e d efe nd an t’s fa cility . (3) T he P rese ntm ent a lleges crim inal ac tivity wh ich o ccu rred o ver a n ex ten de d p erio d o f tim e a nd w hic h c au se d e xtra ord ina ry d am ag es to the vict im’s propert y.
W ith resp ect to the first g

roun d, the Sta te cites four s epa rate in stan ces of disc harg e of po lluta nts by AZ R O K a fter th e S tate ha d w arn ed the de fen da nt a nd pre sc ribe d c ura tive m ea sures . Th e C om m iss ion er o f TD EC de sc ribe d th es e in sta nc es in h is A ug us t 4, 1 99 5, o rde r clo sin g th e AZ R O K f ac ility. T he St ate as se rts tha t the se ep iso de s d em on stra te th e d efe nd an t’s w illful v iola tion of sta te la w s a nd reg ula tion s. M ore ov er, th e S tate arg ue s th at a gra nd jury su bs eq ue ntly fou nd tha t the de fen da nt w ilfully an d k no w ing ly p ollu ted the H ols ten R ive r on Ap ril 21 , 19 96 . Ac co rdin g to the Sta te, the pro se cu tor w as en titled to r ely up on the C om m iss ion er’s ord er a nd the find ing of th e g ran d ju ry in de ny ing the de fen da nt p ret rial div ers ion . Th e tr ial c ou rt fo un d n o s ub sta ntia l ev ide nc e to su gg es t tha t the de fen da nt w illfully ign ore d th e T DEC ’s re qu irem en ts. T he co urt ob se rve d th at th e re co rd i s re ple te w ith th e d efe nd an t’s effor ts to comply wit h the requir ements, incl uding sprayi ng mu lch pil es to control fi res, bui ldi ng ditches an d p on ds to c atc h ru no ff, an d te stin g th e to xic ity o f the m ulc h a nd lea ch ate . In c on clu sio n, th e tr ial cou rt stated , “The Co urt do es n ot ac cep t the p rem ise tha t bec aus e the defe nda nt’s effo rts w ere un su cc es sfu l, he w illfully faile d to co m ply w ith T DEC ’s ru les an d re gu latio ns .”
Fu rthe rm ore , the trial c ou rt co nc lud ed tha t it co uld find no ev ide nc e th at th e d efe nd an t co ntin ue d h is m ulc hin g b us ine ss afte r A ug us t 4, 1 99 5. T he tria l co urt no ted tha t the rec ord w as de vo id of a ny offic er’s rep ort o r oth er d oc um en t ind ica ting tha t the po llutio n o f the rive r w hic h is alle ge d to have occurred on April 21, 1996, was caused by an ythi ng other than l eftoverbark material s and lea ch ate from the city du m p s ite.12 As to th e s ec on d g rou nd for d en ial o f pre trial d ive rsio n, th e S tate arg ue s th at th e thr ea ts m ad e b y th e d efe nd an t w ere sig nific an t en ou gh to w arr an t the pro se cu tor ’s d en ial o f pr etr ial div ers ion . T he St ate co nte nd s th at th es e th rea ts w ere cle arly de sig ne d to ch ill the reg ula tor y z ea l of M r. F ulk ers on an d M r. S m ith b y p lac ing the m in fe ar o f bo dily ha rm sh ou ld th ey co ntin ue the ir en forc em en t effo rts.
Th e tria l co urt fo un d n o s ub sta ntia l ev ide nc e to su pp ort th e S tate ’s b elie f tha t the de fen da nt th rea ten ed TD EC em plo ye es w ith a ha nd gu n. A s e xp lain ed ea rlier , M r. F ulk ers on ’s a ffida vit diffe rs m ate riall y fr om an inte rvie w he ga ve to th e p rob atio n o ffice r w ho pre pa red the pre tria l div ers ion repo rt. In his a ffidavit, M r. Fulk erso n rela ted o nly o ne a ctua l threa t by th e de fend ant w hich occ urred du ring a te lep ho ne co nv ers atio n. A dd ition ally , M r. S m ith d id n ot re late an y e xp licit threa t by the de fen da nt, n or d id h e e ve r w itne ss the de fen da nt in po ss es sio n o f a h an dg un. As to th e th ird g rou nd tha t the de fen da nt’s va nd alis m oc curre d o ve r an ex ten de d pe riod of tim e, th e S tate arg ue s th at th e d efe nd an t’s v an da lism co ntin ue d e ve n a fter th e A ug us t 4, 19 95 , ad m inis trativ e o rde r clo sin g th e A ZR O K fa cility . W ith re sp ec t to th e a m ou nt o f da m ag e to the Ar m y’s pro pe rty, th e S tate co nc ed es tha t the da m ag e e stim ate s c on tain ed in th e re co rd r efle ct a discrepancy.
Th

e tr ial c ou rt fo un d th at a ny da m ag e c au se d b y th e d efe nd an t’s o pe rat ion of h is bu sin es s o cc urr ed be tw ee n A pril 2 0, 1 99 5, a nd the clo sin g o f the AZ R O K fa cility on Au gu st 4 , 19 95 . Th e tr ial c ou rt re as on ed tha t fro m Au gu st 4 , 19 95 , to O cto be r 31 , 19 96 , an y d am ag e w as attr ibu tab le to r un off fr om the m ate rials rem ain ing on the pro pe rty an d le ac ha te fr om the city du m p s ite. T he tria l co urt co nc lud ed , “T he re i s n o e vid en ce tha t the de fen da nt a ctiv ely ca us ed an y d am ag e d urin g th is pe riod bu t tha t, ins tea d, h e w as em bro iled in a dis pu te w ith M ea d C orp ora tion ov er c lea nu p o f the site ; an d h is c om pa ny w as ins olv en t.”13 As to the exte nt of d am age to the Arm y’s pr ope rty, the tria l cou rt note d tha t the re cord reveals a prel iminary assessment of damages on Ju ly 22, 1996, of only $24, 000. Yet, on May 27, 199 7, w ith no exp lana tion or item ization of da m age s, the dam age ass ess m ent ro se to “2.1M .” M ore ov er, the tria l co urt rea so ne d th at th e le gis latu re h as pro vid ed tha t a p ers on w ho co m m its a C las s C felony is el igi ble forpretri al diver sion; t herefore, the Distr ict Attorney err ed in rel ying upon the fact tha t the da m ag es ex ce ed ed $ 1 0,0 00 . W e c on clu de tha t the rec ord co nta ins am ple ev ide nc e to su pp ort the tria l co urt ’s de cis ion to o ve rrule th e D istric t Att orn ey G en era l’s d en ial o f pre trial d ive rsio n. A cc ord ing ly, th e judg m ent o f the trial co

urt is affirm

ed.

__________________________________

Norma M cGee O gle, Judge CONCUR:

______________________________ James C urwood W it t, Jr., Judge

_______________________________ John K. Byers, Senior Judge