Opinion ID: 1057579
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: The Issuance and Service of the Subpoenas

Text: Mr. Hester filed many pretrial motions and set many of the motions for hearing on June 9, 2003. In preparation for this hearing, Mr. Hester caused subpoenas to be issued to many persons whose testimony was relevant to the substance of his motions. After the hearing was continued and rescheduled for September 9, 2003, Mr. Hester's lawyer again issued subpoenas to over sixty persons. The issuance and service of the subpoenas became an issue at the September 9, 2003 hearing. With specific regard to the subpoenas issued to the three jury commissioners, the State filed a motion to quash, asserting, among other grounds, that none of the subpoenas ... were lawfully issued or served. At the hearing, the State presented an affidavit of the deputy clerk stating that [n]o such subpoenas ever issued from the Circuit Clerks, nor did I receive any requests from Mr. Heinsman for such process. The State also argued that all of the disputed subpoenas had been generated over the office copier of Mr. Heinsman's office and faxed through fax machines to these folks [the subpoenaed witnesses]. In response to the State's motion, Mr. Heinsman stated that in the six capital cases he had tried, he had asked the clerks of the courts if I could copy the subpoenas that they are required to issue in blank to attorneys, because of the volume that need to be issued, and in this case, because of the remoteness of my office from here. He also asserted that the deputy clerk had given him permission to make final copies. Finally, Mr. Heinsman stated that I have served subpoenas by fax, by mail, by phone, by just about every method calculated to provide actual notice, and I've never in any case had a motion to quash; not one. The trial court granted the State's motion to quash the subpoenas of the jury commissioners without specifically addressing the State's arguments regarding the issuance and service of the subpoenas. [56] Tenn. R.Crim. P. 17(d) provides that [a] subpoena may order a person to produce the books, papers, documents, or other objects the subpoena designates. Subpoenas are issued by a clerk or other authorized court officer, who shall sign it but otherwise leave it blank. The party requesting the subpoena shall fill in the blanks before the subpoena is served. Tenn. R.Crim. P. 17(a). Subpoenas may be served by any person authorized to serve process, or the witness may acknowledge service in writing on the subpoena. Tenn. R.Crim. P. 17(f)(1). The person serving the subpoena shall deliver or offer to deliver a copy of the subpoena to the person to whom it is directed or leave a copy with an adult occupant of the person's usual residence. Tenn. R.Crim. P. 17(f)(1). A subpoena may be quashed or modified if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. Tenn. R.Crim. P. 17(d)(2). Reviewing courts review a trial court's decision regarding a motion to quash using the abuse of discretion standard. State v. Burrus, 693 S.W.2d 926, 929 (Tenn.Crim.App.1985); see also State v. Huskey, No. E1999-00438-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1400059, at  (Tenn. Crim.App. June 28, 2002), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 18, 2003). The record reflects that there may very well be technical errors in the issuance and service of the subpoenas to the jury commissioners. However, the record is not substantially developed on these points because the trial court did not base its decision to quash Mr. Hester's subpoenas on these technical grounds. Additionally, the State has not relied on these potential defects as a basis for affirming the trial court's decision to quash the subpoena issued to the jury commissioners. In light of the state of the record and the State's reliance on other issues, we will turn our focus from considering whether the trial court abused its discretion by quashing the subpoenas to whether Mr. Hester demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the alleged disqualification of two of McMinn County's three jury commissioners.