State of Tennessee v. Gary Lynn Harvey

Appellant, Gary Lynn Harvey, was found guilty by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and disorderly conduct, a Class C misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-101 & 39-17-305. The trial court sentenced Appellant to elevenmonths, twenty-nine days on probation for the assault conviction and to thirty days on probation for the disorderly conduct conviction, with the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by: (1) refusing to dismiss the disorderly conduct charge because the presentment  was insufficient; (2) refusing to dismiss the disorderly conduct charge because section 39-17-305(b) is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad; (3) finding the evidence sufficient to support his conviction for disorderly conduct; (4) finding the evidence sufficient to support his conviction for assault; (5) not declaring a mistrial due to an officer’s conduct during jury deliberations; (6) not finding prosecutorial misconduct after Appellant was charged with assaulting an officer who denied being assaulted; (7) not declaring a mistrial following the discharge of a juror during deliberations and the recall of an alternate juror who had already been discharged; (8) not providing Appellant with a written copy of the jury instructions before his closing argument; (9) incorrectly charging the jury on reasonable doubt; (10) incorrectly charging the jury on self-defense; (11) incorrectly charging the jury on lawful resistance; (12) denying him the right to present a complete defense by erroneously excluding newspaper articles as hearsay evidence; (13) violating his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses; (14) improperly conducting voir dire; (15) denying him the right to present a complete defense by erroneously excluding witness testimony and by granting the State’s motion to quash subpoenas against the Knoxville Sheriff and two chief deputy sheriffs; (16) refusing to grant a change of venue; and (17) denying his right to a speedy trial by delaying in ruling on his motion for new trial. Because Appellant was denied his constitutional right to a jury trial when the trial court substituted a discharged alternate juror for a disqualified original juror during deliberations, we reverse the judgments and remand the case for a new trial.