Opinion ID: 2788233
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Role of the Successor Judge

Text: The Defendant first contends that Judge Blackwood, as a successor judge, was obliged to grant the motions for new trial due to the death of Judge Wallace, the original trial judge. Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 25 sets forth the general circumstances under which a successor judge may be appointed to perform the duties of an original trial judge: (b) A FTER V ERDICT OF G UILT. — (1) IN G ENERAL. — After a verdict of guilty, any judge regularly presiding in or who is assigned to a court may complete the court’s duties if the judge before whom the trial began cannot proceed because of absence, death, sickness, or other disability. (2) G RANTING A N EW T RIAL. — The successor judge may grant a new trial when that judge concludes that he or she cannot perform those duties because of the failure to preside at the trial or for any other reason. The Defendant has challenged two of the duties performed by Judge Blackwood as a successor judge: (1) approving the verdict as thirteenth juror; and (2) ruling upon the various motions for new trial.
Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(d) provides that a “trial court may grant a new trial following a verdict of guilty if it disagrees with the jury about the weight of the evidence.” This procedural rule has been described as “the modern equivalent to the ‘thirteenth juror rule,’ whereby the trial court must weigh the evidence and grant a new trial if the evidence preponderates against the weight of the verdict.” State v. Blanton, 926 S.W.2d 953, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). The rationale behind the thirteenth juror rule is that “[i]mmediately after the trial, the trial court judge is in the same position as the jury to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and assess the weight of the evidence, based upon the live trial proceedings.” State v. Moats, 906 S.W.2d 431, 434 (Tenn. 1995). Although trial judges have a “mandatory duty to serve as the thirteenth juror in every criminal case,” a judge is not required to provide a specific statement on the record to indicate his or her approval of the jury’s verdict. State v. Carter, 896 S.W.2d 119, 122 (Tenn. 1995). In rare cases, a successor judge may be appointed after a verdict of guilt has been rendered by a jury but before the original trial judge has had an opportunity to issue a ruling -22- as the thirteenth juror.3 When this occurs, the successor judge, unlike the original trial judge, is not in the same position as the jury and did not have the advantage of evaluating the credibility of witnesses and assessing the weight of the evidence based upon live trial proceedings. See State v. Brown, 53 S.W.3d 264, 275 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (“[I]t is difficult to see how a trial judge who has not heard the evidence and who has not seen the witnesses can act as the thirteenth juror when weight and credibility are issues.”). In these circumstances, our Court of Criminal Appeals has held that the successor judge’s consideration of whether he or she is able to perform the duties of the original trial judge “must include an assessment of his or her ability to act as a thirteenth juror, including witness credibility.” State v. Nail, 963 S.W.2d 761, 765 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). This assessment requires the successor judge “to determine the extent to which witness credibility was a factor in the case and the extent to which he [or she] ha[s] sufficient knowledge or records . . . in order to decide whether the credible evidence . . . adequately supported the verdict.” Id. at 766. More recently, in State v. Ellis, this Court elaborated upon the standards for evaluating witness credibility. No. E2011-02017-SC-R11-CD, 2015 WL 154209 (Tenn. Jan. 13, 2015). Recognizing that “the cold record of a trial generally will reflect all but one of the components that comprise” witness credibility, id. at , we adopted a rebuttable presumption in favor of the successor judge ruling as thirteenth juror and held that “[o]nly if the record indicates that weighing the evidence would require an assessment of witness demeanor should the successor judge decline to act as the thirteenth juror,” id. at . In this instance, the Defendant contends that Judge Blackwood abused his discretion by determining that he could act as the thirteenth juror. The Defendant points out that Judge Blackwood, as the successor judge, did not hear the evidence or see the witnesses, and, therefore, could not make the necessary credibility determinations before deciding whether the original jury verdicts were supported by the evidence. Notably, the Defendant has not argued that Judge Wallace, as the original trial judge, failed to rule as thirteenth juror or otherwise erred in this regard. In our view, it was unnecessary for Judge Blackwood to act as the thirteenth juror at the time of the delayed appeal because that function had previously been performed by Judge Wallace immediately following the original trial. While Judge Wallace may not have specifically stated that he acted as the thirteenth juror, he was not required to do so. Moreover, it is clear from the record that Judge Wallace approved the verdicts rendered by the jury. Indeed, after Judge Blackwood stated that he was performing the court’s duties as thirteenth juror, he observed “that Judge Wallace also previously ruled as thirteenth juror in 3 Because the thirteenth juror rule contemplates that the trial judge will evaluate the evidence immediately after the jury has rendered its verdict, trial judges should act expeditiously in ruling as the thirteenth juror and should not delay this ruling until the hearing on a motion for new trial. -23- these cases.” In addition to his denial of the original motion for new trial, Judge Wallace approved the verdicts and sentences in the Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 12 report that was filed following the trial in this matter. Because the function of the thirteenth juror was performed by Judge Wallace after the trial, Judge Blackwood was not required to assess the evidence as thirteenth juror in this delayed appeal. Indeed, when this Court entered its October 30, 2009 “Corrected Order” granting the delayed appeal, we directed the Defendant to file a motion for new trial with the assistance of newly appointed appellate counsel; we did not give any indication that the trial court would also need to make a new thirteenth juror determination. In consequence, we will not disturb the thirteenth juror ruling made by Judge Wallace immediately following the trial, and, therefore, we need not determine whether Judge Blackwood was in a proper position to reconsider the thirteenth juror ruling in this delayed appeal.4
Initially, it is important to note that the Defendant has not asserted any claim as to the merits of Judge Blackwood’s decision to deny the various motions for new trial except as pertains to the alleged newly discovered evidence, which is raised in the coram nobis petition, and the use of shackles on the Defendant. Instead, the Defendant primarily attacks the procedures employed by Judge Blackwood in determining whether he was able to rule upon the motions as a successor judge. Specifically, the Defendant contends that Judge Blackwood “was required to grant [the Defendant’s motions for new trial] under the ex post facto clause of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee and the law regarding judging the credibility of the witnesses.” The first aspect of the Defendant’s argument is based upon a statute that governs the circumstances in which a successor judge may properly rule upon a motion for new trial. Tennessee Code Annotated section 17-1-305 currently provides as follows: When a vacancy in the office of trial judge exists by reason of death . . . , after verdict, but before the hearing of the motion for new trial, the trial judge’s successor shall rule on the defendant’s motion for new trial after the successor judge has reviewed the transcript and entire record of the trial. Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-1-305 (2009). At the time of the offenses and the trial of this case, 4 Although neither the State nor the Defendant has presented an argument as to the standard of appellate review that should apply to the evaluation of witness credibility by a successor judge when determining whether he or she is able to rule as thirteenth juror, this Court recently decided the issue as a matter of first impression in Ellis, 2015 WL 154209, at  (“[A]n appellate court should review a successor judge’s decision about whether he can act as the thirteenth juror under a de novo standard of review.”). -24- however, the statute provided that in such circumstances “a new trial shall be granted the losing party if the motion therefor shall have been filed within the time provided by rule of the court and be undisposed of at the time of such death.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-1-305 (1980) (emphasis added). The Defendant asserts that he has been prejudiced by this change in the law because a successor judge now has the discretion to consider whether he is able to rule upon a motion for new trial and is no longer required to grant a new trial after the death of the original trial judge. We need not address the argument by the Defendant that this “new law presents a prejudicial retrospective change . . . violating the ex post facto clause of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee.” Even if we were to conclude that the 1980 version of section 17-1-305 should apply to Judge Blackwood’s 2012 decision that he was qualified to rule upon the motions for new trial, the Defendant would not be entitled to relief under the terms of the prior statute. The 1980 statute required a successor judge to grant a new trial if a motion for new trial had been filed but remained “undisposed of at the time of [the original trial judge’s] death.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-1-305 (1980). In this case, Judge Wallace, the original trial judge, denied the Defendant’s original motion for new trial in 1992, nearly twenty years before his death. Thus, the only motion for new trial that was filed during the effective date of the prior statute was not “undisposed of at the time of [Judge Wallace’s] death.” Likewise, the new and amended motions for new trial, which were filed in November of 2009 and January of 2011, would not satisfy the plain language of the 1980 statute because those motions were not “filed within the time provided by rule of the court.” At the time of the Defendant’s trial, as now, Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b) required that a motion for new trial be filed “within thirty days of the date the order of sentence is entered.” The 2009 and 2011 motions were not presented to Judge Wallace within thirty days of the order of the Defendant’s sentences because these motions exist only by virtue of this delayed appeal. Because none of the Defendant’s motions for new trial fall within the scope of the prior statute, its terms are inapplicable and do not afford a basis for relief. Applying the current version of Tennessee Code Annotated section 17-1-305, the Defendant contends that Judge Blackwood should not have ruled upon the motions for new trial because he was unable to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. The determination by a successor judge when assessing whether he or she may perform the duties of the original trial judge necessarily includes an evaluation of the extent to which witness credibility is an issue. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-1-305 (2009); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 25(b)(2); State v. Blanton, No. M2007-01384-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 537558, at -10 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 4, 2009). Our Court of Criminal Appeals has explained that because a “successor judge was not at the trial to see any of the witnesses testify and would [be] unable to make a credibility determination from the written record[, a] successor judge cannot rule on a motion for a new -25- trial if witness credibility is an overriding issue.” State v. Biggs, 218 S.W.3d 643, 655 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006) (emphasis added); see also State v. Gillon, 15 S.W.3d 492, 502 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (“[A] judge whose first exposure to the case [is] presiding over the motion for new trial [may] rule on the motion if the record [is] available so long as witness credibility [is] not an overriding issue.”). Likewise, this Court has ruled that “[w]hen witness credibility is the primary issue raised in the motion for new trial, the successor judge may not approve the judgment and must grant a new trial.” State v. Cobbins, No. E2012-00448-SC-R10-DD, slip op. at 2 (Tenn. May 24, 2012) (per curiam order) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Defendant contends that credibility was “unequivocally an overriding issue in this case” and that Judge Blackwood erred by ruling otherwise. Initially, we make two observations. First, to the extent the Defendant has argued the issue of witness credibility as it relates to Judge Blackwood’s ability to approve the verdicts as thirteenth juror, we have already determined that the thirteenth juror ruling by Judge Blackwood was unnecessary. Second, to the extent the Defendant has challenged the credibility of the witnesses who testified at the post-conviction hearing, we again point out that the post-conviction proceedings have been stayed pending the resolution of this delayed appeal. Thus, as a general matter, the evidence presented at the hearing on the post-conviction petition is not within the scope of this appeal. The Defendant contends, however, that because Judge Blackwood agreed to consider some of the evidence from the post-conviction proceedings when ruling upon the motions for new trial, Judge Blackwood erred by determining that he could rule upon the motions without assessing the credibility of the testimony presented during the post-conviction hearing. The State responds that Judge Blackwood could not have erred because he relied upon the credibility determinations made by the post-conviction court—determinations that were affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals but are now being held in abeyance by this Court. In an order dated August 10, 2011, Judge Blackwood ruled that he would consider “[t]he testimony or deposition testimony of the following witnesses”: Ronnie Cauthern, Terry Lynn King, Celerino Quintero, Derrick Quintero, the Defendant, Zachary Pallay, Henry Clay Skeleton, and Officer Danny Warren, each of whom testified at the evidentiary hearing on the Defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief. It is clear from Judge Blackwood’s order that he intended to consider this evidence as part of the Defendant’s motions for new trial, which also re-asserted the petition for writ of error coram nobis. The post-conviction testimony of Cauthern, King, Celerino Quintero, Derrick Quintero, the Defendant, and Pallay was presented to establish the alleged newly discovered evidence to support an alibi defense. In consequence, their testimony was relevant only in relation to Judge Blackwood’s consideration of the coram nobis petition, and was not relevant to any of the other issues raised in the motions for new trial. Because we will address the coram nobis petition in a -26- separate section of this opinion, we need not consider whether the credibility of these witnesses was an overriding issue that could have affected Judge Blackwood’s ability to rule upon the motions for new trial. As for the remaining two post-conviction witnesses named in the August 10, 2011 order—Skeleton and Officer Warren—Judge Blackwood specified that he would consider their testimony as it related to the use of shackles on the Defendant. Because this is an issue raised in the Defendant’s new and amended motions for new trial that were filed as a part of this delayed appeal, we agree that this evidence was properly considered by Judge Blackwood when determining whether he could rule on the motions for new trial. The Defendant has also identified the testimony of several witnesses from the original trial in support of his claim that witness credibility was an overriding issue and, therefore, Judge Blackwood was precluded from considering the motions for new trial as a successor judge. Specifically, the Defendant contends that his trial testimony and that of Pallay, Murray Parker, Leroy Love, Thomas Pryor, Ben Spencer, and James Bruce present critical credibility issues. We have carefully reviewed the credibility arguments made by the Defendant in light of the issues raised in each of his motions for new trial. In our view, witness credibility was not presented as an overriding issue that might have rendered Judge Blackwood unable to rule upon the motions. The Defendant raised at least sixty issues for consideration by Judge Blackwood. In the original motion for new trial, the majority of the issues related to evidentiary and procedural rulings by Judge Wallace and the empaneling and instructing of the jury. The only issue that challenged the credibility of a witness was the allegation that Judge Wallace erred by not allowing the Defendant to impeach Pallay with prior bad act evidence. In addition to reiterating the issues raised in the original motion for new trial, the majority of the issues raised in the Defendant’s new and amended motions for new trial related to the sufficiency of the evidence, the ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the use of shackles on the Defendant, prosecutorial misconduct, and the constitutionality of the death penalty. The only additional issue raised for consideration in the delayed appeal that directly related to witness credibility was an allegation that Dr. Harlan had provided false and misleading testimony. We note, however, that the Defendant has not identified Dr. Harlan as one of the witnesses in support of his claim that credibility is an overriding issue. In any event, it is our conclusion that the few issues challenging the veracity of a witness’ testimony, when considered within the context of the three motions for new trial, are not sufficient to establish witness credibility as the overriding or primary issue presented on appeal. Rather, the bulk of the challenges raised by the Defendant are directed at the various procedural and evidentiary decisions made by Judge Wallace prior to and during the trial, the statements -27- made by the prosecutors, the ineffectiveness of trial counsel, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the constitutionality of the death sentencing scheme in Tennessee. In consequence, the Defendant has not established that witness credibility was such an overriding issue that Judge Blackwood was unable to consider the motions for new trial.5 We note, again, that in this delayed appeal the Defendant has not challenged the merits of Judge Blackwood’s decision to deny the motions for new trial on any basis other than the alleged newly discovered evidence, which we will address within the scope of the Defendant’s petition for coram nobis relief, and the use of shackles on the Defendant in the presence of the jury, which we will also address in a separate section of this opinion.