Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
DAVID C. DUNCAN
STATE OF TENNESSEE
Assigned on Briefs June 20, 2017
from the Criminal Court for Sumner County No. 2016-CR-802 Dee
David Gay, Judge
thirty-five years from the date Petitioner, David C. Duncan,
burglarized the home of, raped, and then killed a victim in
Sumner County, he appeals the summary denial of his petition
for writ of error coram nobis. Upon our review of the record,
not only is the petition untimely, it also fails to allege
any newly discovered evidence that may have affected the
outcome of Petitioner's trial. Therefore, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
R. app. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
C. Duncan, Nashville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Clark
B. Thornton, Senior Counsel; and Lawrence Ray Whitley,
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
Timothy L. Easter, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Alan E. Glenn and Robert H. Montgomery, Jr., JJ.,
TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE.
November 1984, Petitioner was convicted of second degree
murder, aggravated rape, and first degree burglary and was
sentenced to forty years to be served concurrently with a
separate case in which he received the death
penalty. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed
Petitioner's convictions. State v. David Carl
Duncan, No. 85-11-III, 1986 WL 5470 (Tenn. Crim. App.
May 13, 1986), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jul. 28,
1986). Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for
post-conviction relief, the denial of which was affirmed by
this Court on appeal. David C. Duncan v. State, No.
01C01-9203-CR-00089, 1992 WL 389641 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec.
31, 1992), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 1, 1993).
filed the present petition for writ of error coram nobis on
December 5, 2016, alleging that the grand jury that issued
the indictment in this case was tainted by the fact that the
foreman was related to the victim. See Tenn. R.
Crim. P. 6(c)(1)(D); T.C.A. § 22-1-104. Petitioner
claimed that he discovered this new evidence in January of
2016. On January 4, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to amend
in order to include as exhibits printouts from a website,
ancestry.com, purporting to show that the victim and the
foreman were second cousins. Petitioner also filed a motion
to be appointed counsel.
January 17, 2017, the trial court entered an order denying
coram nobis relief. In addition to determining that the
petition was untimely, the trial court found that the
evidence was not "newly discovered" because the
names of both the victim and the grand jury foreman, who
shared the same last name, were listed on the indictment and
were "part of the public record in this case from its
inception." The trial court also found that this alleged
newly discovered evidence would not have changed the result
of the jury verdict in this case because it had no bearing on
the evidence presented at trial.
January 24, 2017, the trial court filed an addendum to its
order denying coram nobis relief. The trial court found that
Petitioner was not truthful when he claimed that he only
recently became aware of the relationship between the grand
jury foreman and the victim. The trial court determined that,
as part of his earlier post-conviction proceedings,
Petitioner filed a pro se amended petition for
post-conviction relief on September 30, 1991, alleging that
the indictment was void due to the familial relationship
between the foreman and the victim as well as a motion for
the production of "genealogical" evidence to
support this claim. Because Petitioner had previously raised
this claim, the trial court determined that his present
petition for writ of error coram nobis was not well-taken.
filed a ...