### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON Se pte m be r 9, 200 3 S es sio n

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . QUINT ON SANDERS

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 00-04326-28 Jose ph P. Dailey, Judge

No. W2001-01927-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Janu ary 30, 2004

F oll ow inghis tr ans fe r f

ro m juve nil e c ourt , the a

pp e lla nt, Qu int on

Sand e rs , w a s c on vic te d o f f ir st deg ree felony

murder, attempted theft of proper ty over $1,000 but less than $10,000 in value, and theft of pr operty

over $10,000 but less than $60,000 in va lue. He re ce i v ed sentenc es of life i mp r i s o n m e n t , t w o ye ar s , an d f i v e ye ar s , r e s p e c t i v e l y. A l l s e n t e n c e s ar e t o b e s e r v e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y. I n th is a pp e a l, t he a pp e lla nt m a int a ins that the tri a l c ourt e rr e d in fa ili ngto i ns tr

uc t th e jur

y wi th respe ct to any lesser- included offe nses of fe lony murder. T he appe llant also maintains that the trial
court e rre d in exclud ing e vidence of the Memphis Police De partment’s policie s and proc edure s reg ardinghigh- speed c hases. The State maintains that the trial court proper ly excluded evidenc e of the hig h s pe e d ch a se po lic ie s and pr oc e dure s, but con c e de s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in de c lin ingto instruct the jury

with respec t to the lesser-inc luded offe nses of fe lony murder. A fter a

n exhaustive examination of the rec ord and a pplicable a

uthorities, w e conclude that the trial cour t did indeed er

r in declining to instruct the jury on the lesser -included of

fense s of fe lony

murder a nd the er ror is not harmless be y ond a re asonable doubt. We also co nclude that the tr ial court prope rly excluded

e vid e nc e of

the hig h s pe e d c ha se po lic ie s a nd pr oc e dure s o f t

he Me mph is Po lic e De pa rtme nt. Acc ording ly
, the appellant’ s conviction for f irst deg ree felony

murder is Reve rsed a

nd Remanded for a new trial in a ccor dance with this opinion. His re maining c onvictions for attempted the ft and theft as we ll as the sentenc es for those offe nses ar e af

firmed.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t he Tr ialCo ur t i s A ffirm e d in P ar t a nd Reve rsed and Rem anded i n Par t.

J ERR Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and J OE G. R I L EY , J ., joined.

JohnE. He rb iso n, Na sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lla nt, Qu int on

Sand e rs

.-2-

Pa ul G

. S um mer s, Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Kathy D. As lin g e r, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L

. Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; J err y Kitchen and Amy

Weirich, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

The proof at the appe llant’s trial established that on Oc tober 12, 1999, the a ppellant and thre e other Af rica n-Amer ican male s at t em p t ed to steal clothes value d at $5,200 from Goldsmith’s Depa rtment Store in the Raleig h S p ri n gs M all in Memphis. Bef ore the g roup could c omplete the theft, they wer e cha sed fr om the store by a secur ity g uard. Wit h the appe llant at the whee l of a g ree n C h ev ro l et M al i b u , wh i ch h e h ad s t o l en p re v i o u s l y , t h e y o u n g m en fl edt h e m al l p ark i n g l o tat a h i gh

rate of sp e e d. The Che vr ole t a lmo st s tr uc k a po lic e c ru ise r j us t c omi ngint o th e ma ll p ark inglot

. Th is i nc ide nt s e t of

f a po lic e purs uit

of the a pp e lla nt a nd his c omp a tr iot s.
Duringthe pursuit, in which s ever al police ve hicles we re involved, the appellant dr ove the stolen Chevrolet at spee ds up to 98 mil es per hour. One of the police ve hicles involved in attempting
to appre hend the appellant and his companions was drive n by Memphis Poli ce O ffice r Don Ove rton. As O f f ic e r O v e rto n a tt e mp te d a le f t h an d tu r n , th e a p p e ll an t’ s v e h ic le c r a s h e d into th e side of Over ton’s police cr

uiser. Of fice r Ove rton later die d of injuries re ceive d in the cra sh.

J ury I nstructions on L esser -Included Of fense s

Th e a pp e lla nt co nte nd s on app e a l tha t the tr ia l court e rr e d in fa ili ng to ins tr uc t th e jur y wi th

re sp e c t to the le sse r- inc lud e d o ff e ns es of fel ony

mur de r, i.e . s e c on d d e g re e mur de r, re c kle ss homicide and c riminally

neg lige nt homicide. See State v. Ely
, 48 S.W .3d 710, 721-22 (Te nn. 2001) (holding second de g ree murder, r eckle ss homicide, and cr iminally neg lige nt homicide to be lesser

included off

enses of felony first deg ree murder)

. The State c oncede s that the trial cour t did indeed

e rr in d e c lin ingto i ns tr

uc t on the le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e s o f f ir st d e g re e fe lony mur de r a nd that th is

e rr or is n ot h arm le ss b e y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. Th is Court ha s e xten siv e ly e xami ne d the a pp lic a ble body of law in this are a as w ell as the re cord pr esente d in this appeal. Having done so, we be lieve the State’s conc ession to be well-f ounded and that this case must be reverse d for a new tria l for the

rea sons that follow.

State’s Concession

At the outset we note that this Court is not require d to acc ept t he S tate’s concession of error

. State v. Rob e rt

Mic ha e l Win te rs , N o. E2 00 2- 00 16 0- CCA -R 3- CD , 2 00 3 WL 22 5 3 2 4 9 8 (T e nn . Cr im. App. at Knoxvill e, Nov. 7, 2003) ; State v. L eslie Thurma n Mitchell, No. E2002-01537-CCA-R3- CD, 2003 WL 21780977 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knox ville, Aug . 1, 2003), per m. to appeal de nied,T h i s i s n ot t o s ay t h at t h e at t or n ey g en er al may n ot adv oca t e f or a ch an g e i n t h e l aw wh en t h er e i s s ome r ea s on 1

t o bel i eve advocac y of

s uch a c han ge may be s ucc es s f ul

. T o s ug ges t t hat t he T enn es s ee Supre me C our t woul d re t r eat fro m the r e c e n tly e sta b lishe d le sse r-inc lud e d o ff e n se j u risp ru d e n c e th a t g o v e rn s the o u tc o m e o f t h is c a se is she e r fo lly.

-3- (Tenn. D ec. 1, 2003). I n this case, howe ver, the State’s conc ession is well-taken a nd the Off

ice of the Attor ne y Ge ne ra l of Te nn e sse e is to be c omm e nd e d fo r takin g the c or re c t le g a l po sit ion

in a c a se as trag ic as this one. As the a ppellate pr osecutors in c riminal case s in Tennessee , we be lieve the Attorney Gene ral ha s the responsibility not simpl y

to argue on appe al fo r t h e af fi rmanc e of a

c o n v ic ti o n , b u t a ls o to a dv o c a te th a t th e a c c u s e d b e a f f o r d e d a la w f u l an d f a ir tr ia l in accor dance wi th e sta bli sh e d p re c e de nt. 1

An a ly sis

I n State v. Bur

ns, 6 S.W .3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) , the supreme court a dopted a ne w def inition of lesser -included of

fense s. I d. at 466-67. The court also maintained that a trial court must inst ruct the jury on a lesser -included offense : (1) if any evidenc e ex ists that rea sonable minds could ac cept as to the lesser -included of fense and (2) if the evide nce is leg ally sufficie nt to support a conviction of the lesse r-include d offe nse. I d. at 469. “In making this determination, the trial cour t must vi ew the e viden c e lib e ra lly

in t he lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to t he e xiste nc e of

the le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e wi tho ut m a kin g any

jud g me nts on

the c re dib ili ty

of su c h e vid e nc e .” I d. Sin c e B ur ns , th e su pr e me court ha s stressed that it “did not hold in Bur ns that a lesser-included offense instruction is required wh e n r e a so na

ble min ds c ou ld a c c e pt t

hat on ly the l esser offe nse occurre d. Reasonable minds may

acc ept th e s ame e v id e n c e a s s u p p o rti n g th e e xis te n c e o f b o th th e g r e a te r

o f f e n s e an d th e le s s er offe nse.” State v. A llen, 69 S.W .3d 181, 188 (Tenn. 2002) (empha sis in the origina l). The c ourt maintained that the “trial court must provide an instruction on a lesser- included off

ense suppor

ted by the e v id e n c e e v e n if s u c h in s tr u c ti o n is n o t c o n s is te n t w it h th e th e o r

y o f th e St a te or of the defe nse. The e vidence , not the theories of the par ties, controls whethe r an instruc tion is required.” I d. at 187-88. F urthermor e, the co u rt asser ted that the dec ision to convict on a lesser- included

o f f e n s e m ay not

b e ta k e naw ay f r o m t h e ju r y e v e nw h e nth e p r o o f

s u p p o rti n g th e e le me nt distinguishing the g reater off ense f rom the lesser

offe nse is u n co n t roverted. I d. at 189. “I f a jury

c ou ld co nv ic t, no ma tte r how imp ro ba ble , it is er ro r not to c ha

rg e that le sse r- inc lud e d o ff e ns e .” State v. Richmond, 90 S.W .3d 648, 662 (Tenn. 2002)

. Applying the new definition of l esser -included offense s set forth in Bur ns to the offe nse of felony murder, the supreme court conc luded in State v. Ely , 48 S.W .3d 710 (Tenn. 2001) , that the offe nses of sec ond deg ree murder, r eckle ss homicide, and cr iminally neg lige nt homicide are lesserinc lud e d o ff

e ns e s o f f e lony mu rder un der pa

rt (b ) o f t he B ur ns te st. I d. a t 72 1- 22 . T he su pr e me

c ourt the n d e te rm ine d th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d b y fa ili ngto i ns tr

uc t on tho se le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e s, stating, “ I f the jury believed that Ely was present, i t may have r easona

bly conclude d that his actions in either re peate dly

striking the vic tim over the hea d with a brick, or assisting c o-def endant Car den as he did so, constituted at le as t criminally neg lige nt homicide, reckless hom icide, or second deg ree murder.” I d. at 724 (e mphasis in the orig inal). F urthermor e, the c ourt held that a de fenda n t’s constitutional right to trial by jury is violated when the jury is not permitted t o consider a ll offense s-4-

supported by

the evidenc e, and r ever sal is require d unless the fa ilure to instruct on lesser- included offe nses is harmless beyond a re asonable doubt. I d. at 727. In that case , the cour t concluded that the fa ilure wa s n ot h arm le ss b e y on d a re a so na ble do ub t:

[T] he jury in this case was g iven no option to convi ct o f a l esser offe n s e t h an felony

murder. A lthough the e vidence clea rly was

su ff ic ie nt t o su

pp or t a c on vic tio n f

or se c on d d e g re e mur de r, re c kle ss homicide, or criminally neg lige nt homicide, the jury was not g iven an op po rt un ity to r e a c h a

de c isi on on the se of fe ns e s. Un de r t

he se circ umsta n ce s , we c annot say the fa ilure to instruct on the lesser

inc lud e d o ff

e ns e s w a s h arm le ss b e y on d a re a so na ble do ub t.

I d.

As i n E l y , t h e j ury in this case wa s g iven no option to convict the appe llant of anylesserinc lud e d o f

f e n s e s o f f e l o n y f i r s t d e g r e e m u r d e r

. E v e n t h o u g h t h e e v i d e n c e i s c l e ar l y s u f f i c i e nt t o support a ver di ct o f fe l o n y murder, the appellant’ s conduct a lso constituted at l e as t c ri min a lly neg lige nt or rec kless homicide. Under these circ umstances, we cannot sa y the fa ilure to instruct the jur y on the le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e s o f s e c on d d e g re e mur de r, re c kle ss ho mi cide o r c ri min a lly neg lige nt homicide was harmless bey ond a rea sonable doubt. Ther efor e, we reve rse the a ppellant’s conviction for f

irst deg ree felony

murder a nd rema nd this case to the Shelby

County Criminal Court for a new tria l on that char g e whe rein the jury is instructed on lesser-included of fense s in acc ordanc e with this opi nion and the holding s of the Supreme Court of Tenne ssee discusse d here inabove.

Exc lus ion of Ev ide nc e Con c e rn ingthe Me mph is Police Depa

rtment’s Policy

and Proce dures Reg ardingHig h-Speed Chase s

The a ppellant claims that the trial c ourt err ed in excluding e vidence of the policies a nd proce dures of

the Memphis Police Depa rtment reg arding high- speed chase s. The appe llant sought to admit this evidenc e at tria l in an appar ent attempt to persua de the j u ry that an alleg ed violation of those poli cies and proce dures in this case wa s the ca use of Of fice r Ove rton’s death rather than the appellant’ s conduct. I n support of this c laim, the appellant c ites the Tenne ssee Supre me Court case s of State v. F arne r, 66 S.W.3d 188 (Tenn. 2001), and Hay nes v. Hamilton County
, 883 S.W .2d 606 (T e nn . 1 99 4) . T ake n to g e the r, the a pp e lla nt argue s, the se c a se s sta

nd fo r t he pr op os iti on

that a c ri me victim’s own neg lige nce may be considere d in de termining whether or not the def

endant’ s conduct

was a proxi mate cause of death. Howeve r, the appellant’ s rea ding of these case s is flawed. H ay nes is a civil case dealingwith the proper interpre tation of Tenne ssee Code An notated sec tion 55-8- 108(e) , which provide s civil imm unity to law enf

o rc em en t personnel e ng ag ed in a pur suit of a flee ing suspe ct. Hay

nes, 883 S.W.2d at 607-0 8

. An ex ce p tion to the statutory immunit y

occur s when the ne g lige nce of

the law e nforc ement i s a p ro x imate ca use of injuries to an innoc ent third person injure d during the pursuit. I d. at 612-13. Neither the statute nor Hay nes, howe ver, r elieve the fl e e ingsu sp e c t f

ro m c ivi l or c ri min a l lia

bil ity fo r t he ir ow n a c tio ns wh ic h a

re a lso a pr oximate

c a us e of the inn oc e nt t

hir d p art y ’s inj ur ie s.-5-

I n Fa rner the supreme court did hold that althoug h a crime vic tim’s contributory neg lige nce is not a complete de fense to a cha rg e of criminally neg lige nt homicide, s uch contr ibutory neg lige nce may be considere d in de termining whether or not the defe ndant’s conduct was a proxi mate cause of death, or whether the victim’s conduct was an independent i nterve ning cause of death. Fa rner , 66 S.W. 3d a t 20 3. Al th ou gh no t a llo we d to c ro ss- e xami ne po lic e of fi c e rs c on c e rn ingthe Me mph is Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt’ s h ig h- sp e e d p ur su it p oli c ie s, the a pp e lla nt w a s a llo we d w ide latit

ud e in c ro ssex am i n i n g t h e p o l i ce wi t n es s es co n ce rn i n g w h a t t h ey ac tu al l y d i d
, i

. e. , s p ee d

t h ey we re t ra v el i n g, traff ic conditions, etc. The jury was ther efor e fr ee to c onsider whe ther the police action of initiating and conduc ting a

high- speed purs u i t am o u nted to an indepe ndent, interve ning c ause of Offic er Over ton’s death. It should a l s o b e noted that ther e is no sug g estion in this record that Of fice r Over ton himself was eng ag ed in a hig h-spee d pursuit or any other a lleg edly

neg lige nt behavior. I ndeed, e x pert testimony established Of fice r Ove rton was tra

veling at only

35 miles per hour w hen he wa s struck by

the appe llant’s vehicle tr avelingat 98 miles per hour

.

Fina l l y , i t appears that this Court has reje cted the a ppellant’s ar g ument on this iss ue in a

rec kless endang erme nt and ag g ravated assault prose cution. See State v. J ason Morin, No. 02C01- 9512-CR-00370, 1997 WL 287648 (Tenn. Cr i m

. Ap p

. at J ackson, June 2, 1997). More over,

a pp e llate c ourt s in bo th Oh io and F lor ida have re je c te d the a

pp e lla nt’ s argume nt wi th re sp e c t to t his issue. Parker

v. State, 570 So. 2d 1048 (F la. Dis t. Ct. App. 1990); State v. L ovelac e, 738 N.E.2d 418 ( O h io Ct

. A p p

. 1 9 9 9 ) ; S tate v

. H o u s e , 7 8 2 3 9 2 0 0 1 WL 1 2 4 3 9 3 4 ( O h io Ct

. Ap p

. O c t. 1 8
, 2 0 0 1 )

. We conclude the trial cour

t did not err in deny

ing the appe l l an t ’s request to question police witnesses

a bo ut t he Me mph is Po lic e De pa rtme nt’ s h ig h s pe e d c ha se po lic ie s a nd pr oc e dure s.

Conclusion

Ba sed on the for eg oing, w e re verse the conviction for first deg ree felony murder a nd rema nd that c ha rg e fo r a ne w tri a l in

a c c or da nc e wi th t his op ini on . We a ff

ir m th e re ma ini ngc on vic tio ns

.

________________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE