The defendant is also k nown by the name “S andra Hen drick s F ranklin,” whic h is the n am e un der 1 whic h sh e w as indicted in this case. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

ATJAC KSON April 13, 201 0 S es sio n STATE OF TENNESS EE v . CASSANDRA HENDRICKS FRANKLI N

D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r T ipto n C o u n ty N o. 5975 Joe H . W al ker, I I I , Judge

N o. W 2009- 01087- C C A
- R 3- C D - F i l ed June 3, 2010

T he def endant , C as s andr a H endr i cks Fr ankli n, w as convi ct ed by a Ti pt on C ount y j ur y of 1 first d e g re e p re m e d itate d m u rd e r a n d se n ten c e d to life im p riso n m e n t. In a tim e ly a p p e a l to t hi s cour t , s he ar gues t hatt he evi dence w as i ns uf f i ci entt o s us t ai n her convi ct i on and t hatt he tr i al cour t err ed by denyi ng def ens e couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw f r om r epr es ent at i on. F o llo w in g o u r r e v ie w , w e a ffir m th e ju d g m e n t o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt

. T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C i rcui t C ourt A f

f i rm ed
A L AN E. G L ENN , J

. , del i ver ed the opi ni on of t he C our t , i n w hi ch N ORMA M C G EE O G LE and R OB ER T W. W EDE MEY ER , J J

. , j oi ned.
L y le A

. Jo n e s (a t trial an d o n a p p e a l) a n d D a v id S

. S to c k to n (a t trial), A ss ist a n t P u b lic D efe nder s , fort he appe l l ant , C as s andr a H endr i cks Fr ankl i n.
R ober tE

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or neyG ener al and R epor t er ; Ca m er on L

. H y der , A s s i s t antA t t or ney G en era l; D

. M icha el D u n av an t, D istri ct A tt o rne yG en era l; an d Jam es W alt er F ree lan d , Jr. and P. N eal O l dham, A s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA tt or ney s G ener al , fort he appe l l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee. OP I NI ON FACTS
T hi s cas e ar i s es out of t he def endant ’ s A pr i l 21, 2008, fat al s hoot i ng of herboyf r i end, M ar cus J acks on, w hi ch r es ul t ed i n her i ndi ct m ent forf i r s tdegr ee pr em edi t at ed m ur der

. T he-2-

d e fe n d a n t w a s tr ie d b e fo re a T ip to n C o u n ty C ir c u it C o u rt ju ry fr o m A p ri l 6 -7 , 2 0 0 9

. St at e’ s P roof
M ar y B al l ar d, t he vi ct i m ’ s aunt , w ho att he t i m e of t he s hoot i ng w as l i vi ng i n a Ti pt on C ount y hom e w it h the vi ct i m , t he def endant , t he def

endant ’ s daught er , and s ever al ot her in d iv id u a ls, tes tified th a t sh e w a s a w a k e n e d o n A p ril 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 , b y th e so u n d o f tw o g u n sh o ts fo llo w e d b y th e v ic tim ’s v o ic e c a llin g , “ A u n tie , th is b itc h d o n e s h o t m e . C o m e c a ll 9 -1 -1 .” W h e n sh e lef

t h e r b e d ro o m , sh e sa w th e v ictim in th e h a llw a y ly in g b e n t b a c k w a rd s w ith h is knees underhi m and hi s hands i n t he ai rand t he def endantw al ki ng dow n t he s tr eetout s i de.
A ccor di ng t o B al l ar d, t he def endantand the vi ct i m had f r equentverbal al t er cat i ons i nvol vi ng pr ofani t y and yel l i n g , b u ts he neve rs aw t he coupl e enga ge i n any phys i cal vi ol ence t ow ar d eac h ot her

. T w o ort hr ee da ys befor e the s hoot i ng, how ever , t he def endant as ked heri f

s he had e verbeen t o j ai l and, w hen she sa i d no, s ai d, “I ’ m goi ng. ” She as ked herw hy, and the defendant r epl i ed, “I ’ m goi ng t o ki l l yournephew

. ” B al l ar d s ai d t hatatt he t i m e the conve r s at i on “w enti n one ea r a n d o u tt he other ”bec aus e s he di d nott hi nk t he def endantw as s er i ous . O n cr os s - exam i nat i on, s he t es t i f i ed t hat s he had notr em em ber ed the c o n v e rs a tio n u n til th e T h u rs d a y b e fo re tr ia l w h e n s h e w a s in te rv ie w e d b y th e p ro s e c u to r. Shani tr a Fr eem an, a nei ghborof t he vi ct i m an d t he def endant , t es t i f

i ed thatt he def endantcam e t o herhom e on A pr i l 21, 2008, aw akene d t he w i t nes s ’ s m ot her , t ol d hert hat s he had j us ts hott he vi ct i m , and s how ed herw her e s he had pl ace d t he gun.
L or et t a W i l l i am s , Fr eem an’ s m ot her , t es t i f i ed thats he w as aw akene d on t he m or ni ng of t he s hoot i ng by t he sound of he rdoor bel l r i ngi ng. She s ai d t hatt he def endant , w ho w as r epea t edl y cal l i ng hernam e, cam e i nt o her bedr oom and t ol d hert hats he had j us ts hott he vict im

. T he def

endantt hen w al ked out s i de and s how ed hert hats he had pl ace d t he gun behi nd t he t i r e on W i l l i am s ’ van. W i l l i am s t es t i f i ed thats he t ol d t he def

endantnott o l eave t he gun ther e and i ns tr uct ed her t o unl oad t he w eapon. T he defendantcom pl i ed, r em ovi ng t he cl i p f r om t he gun and thr ow i ng i ton t he gr ound befor e pl aci ng the g u n o n the gr ound. T he def endantt hen as ked W i l l i am s t o w at ch herdaught er , D i am ond, butW i l l i am s r ef us ed and i ns t ead t el ephoned the def endant ’ s s i s t er . W i ll iam s tes t i f i ed thatt he def

endantw as dr es s ed i n a gow n but w as not w ear i ng a br a and t hat s he t ol d her , “Y ou know you’ r e goi ng to jail,” to w h ich th e d e fe n d a n t re p lied , “Y e a h .” W ill iam s s a id sh e to ld th e d e fe n d a n t to w a it w h ile s h e g o t h e r a sh irt an d th a t w h e n s h e re tu rn e d w ith th e g a rm e n t, th e d e fe n d a n t p u t it o n , p ic k e d u p th e u n lo a d e d g u n , a n d b e g a n w a lk in g to h e r s is te r’ s h o u s e . O n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , W ill iam s c lar ified th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w a s d re ss e d o n ly in paj am a bot t om s and a hous ecoa t w i t hout a br a. She al s o s ai d t hat t he def endant w as ner vous and di d notappea rt o be i n a “r i ghts t at e of m i nd. ”-3-

Ser geantD aw n W r i ght of t he M as on Pol i ce D epar t m ent , t he f i r s tof f i cert o arr i ve on t he s cene , t es t i f

i ed t hat t he vi ct i m w as gur gl i ng, butnotbr eathi ng, w hen s he gott o t he hous e. Ot h e r f i r s t r e s p o n d e r s a r r i v e d wi t h i n t wo mi n u t e s a n d s h e a s s i s t e d i n t h e i ra t t e mpt s a tCP R, b u t th e y w e re u n s u c c e s s fu l a n d th e v ic tim d ie d a t th e s c e n e . O f f i cer S p ec htof

t he M as on Pol i ce D epar t m entt es t i f i ed thathe r es ponded t o t he sc e n e to fin d th e d e fe n d a n t w a lk in g a c ro ss th e b a c k y a rd o f a n e a rb y re sid e n tial p ro p e rty carr yi ng a gun w i t h a bl ack c oatdr aped ove rherar m . H e s ai d he yel l ed athert o putt he gun dow n and t o getdow n and thats he dr opped t he gun and f el l t o t he gr ound i n one m ot i on. T he def endantl at eras ked hi m i f a . 40 cal i berw oul d ki l l s om ebody, and he r epl i ed thatany gun w oul d ki l l anybody. O n cr os s - exam i nat i on, he ac know l edged thatt he def endant adm i t t ed thats he had s hott he vi ct i m and t ol d hi m t hats he “w ant ed t o com pl y. ” Speci al A gentM ar k R eynol ds of t he Tenn esse e B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on ( “TB I ”) i dent i fi ed the s em i

- aut om at i c w eapon, t he cl i p t o t he w eapon, and the def endant ’ s bl ack j acke t , al l of

w hi ch he r ecove r ed f

r om t he cr i m e s cene and t ur ned overt o T B I Speci al A gent J ohn Sul l i van. T B I Speci al A gent J ohn Sul l i van t es t i f i ed t hat he s ubm i t t ed foranal ys i s t he Sm i t h & W e s s o n h a n d g u n a n d b l a c k h o o d e d j a c k e th e r e c e i v e d f r o m S p e c i a l Ag e n tRe y n o l d s , t wo s hel l cas i ngs r ecover ed f r om t he cr i m e s cene , and t w o s pentbul l et s r ecove r ed f r om t he vi ct i m ’ s body. H e des cr i bed t he vi ct i m ’ s body as bei ng i n an “a w kw ar d pos i t i on, ” s t at i ng t hat “[ i ]t a p p e a re d as t ho ug h h e had fal l en to hi s knees an d fel l back w ards. ” H e al so i dent i f i ed the def

endant ’ s A pr i l 21 s t at em ent , w hi ch w as adm i t t ed as an exhi bi tand r ead a lo u d to th e ju ry . T h e sta tem e n t re a d s in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

[ T he vi cti m ] w oke up ac t i ng s hi t t y. H e w as verbal l y abus i ve and y e l l i n g a tme . He wa s h i t t i n g o n me b e c a u s e I wa s s mo k i n g i n t h e b a t h r o o m. H e t o l d m e , “ Cl o s e t h e b a t h r o o m d o o ry o u s t u p i d b i t c h ! ” I t o l d h i m , “Y our m o m is a stup id b it ch !” H e c am e in th e b athro o m an d g rab b ed m e b y m y h air. H e hi tm e i n t he hea d w i t h hi s f i s tatl eas tt hr ee t i m es . H e k ep t cal l i ng m e a s t upi d bi t ch. A f

t er he beat m e he w ent i nt o t he l i vi ng r oom and s t ar t ed i r oni ng his cl othes. I w ent i nto o ur bedroo m and go tt he g un fr om un der t he m at tres s. I w enti nt o t he l i vi ng r oom w i t h the g u n and s t ar t ed s cr eam i ng “Fuck you! F u ck y ou! ” A f

t ert he f i r s t“f uck you” he t ur ned ar ound. A f t erI s ai d i tt he s e c o n d t i me h e s t a r t [ e d ] wa l k i n g t o wa r d s me . I wa s h o l d i n g t h e g u n wi t h t wo hands beca us e i ti s ver y pow er f ul

. I w as poi nt i ng i t at [ t he vi ct i m ]

. I fel tl i ke he w as com i ng t ow ar ds m e t o hi tm e. H e l ooked l i ke he di dn’ tt hi nk t he gun w a s lo a d e d

. I have n e v e rs h o th i s g u n b e fo r e . W h e n h e c a m e t o war d s m e I s hot-4-

once. H e f

el l t o t he f

l oor . I r an outt he door. W h en he f el l he s t ar t ed s c r e a mi n g i n p a i n . I d i d n ’ t wa n t h i m t o d i e . I l o v e t h i s ma n b u t h e ’ s p u tme t hr ough s o m uch bul l

. A f t erI s hothi m I w al ked t o m y s i s t er ’ s hous e. I had t he gun. I t ook t he cl i p out of t he gun and put t hem under m y s i s t er ’ s bar

- bque. T he pol i ce c am e and a r r es t ed m e. I w as n’ ttr yi ng t o hi de. I w as tr yi ng to g e t a w a y fr o m h is h o u s e . I ha d o n a blac k h o o d ie sw ea ter w h en I sho t [ the v ict im ]. W h en I l eft th e h o u s e I t o o k it o ff

to c o v e r t h e g u n u p . A few ni ght s ago [ t he vi ct i m ] w hi pped m y daught er D i am ond w i t h t he brow n cord I hid beh i nd t he dres ser . [Th e vict i m ] w hipped D i am on d b ecause s he at e s om e food of

hi s . L as tni ght[ t he vi ct i m ] t ol d D i am ond he w as goi ng t o w hi p her w hen he got back f r om hi s s i s t er s . M e and D i am ond hi d t he cor d. [ T he vi ct i m ] cam e bac k act i ng al l ni ce w i t h i ce c r eam . L ast years om et i m e, m aybe Sept em ber , [ t he vi ct i m ] s l apped D i am ond in the fac e and l ef ta hand p ri n t o n h e r c h e e k

. T h e r e h a s b e e n a l o to f

s t u f f g o i n g o n t h a tma k e s me t h i n k [ t h e v i c t i m] has been m ol es t i ng D i am ond. A few m ont hs ago D i am ond s ai d i thur tw hen s he pee d. O ne t i m e w hen I l ef t the bedr oom and ca m e bac k D i am ond w as l ayi ng nextt o [ t he vi ct i m ] i n t he bed under t he cover s . D i am ond j um ped up l i k e s o me t h i n g wa s g o i n g o n . S o me t i me s s h e ’ l l b e s i t t i n g o n h i s l a p a n d j u mp of f w hen I w al k i n l i ke s om ethi ng w as goi ng on. D i am ond nevert ol d m e [ t he vi ct i m ] w as m ol es t i ng her

. She w as m ol es t ed i n C al i for ni a w h en sh e w as th re e . A gentSul l i van t es t i f

i ed thathe obs er ved no br ui s i ng, abr as i ons , orot herm ar ks on t he def endant ’ s face orhead, des pi t e conduct i ng a car ef ul and cl os e exam i nat i on of her head a nd n e c k a re a . Sam antha O w ens , a f

r i end of t he vi ct i m , t es t i f

i ed thatt he vi ct i m br i ef l y i ntr oduced hert o t he def

endantappr oxi m at ely a w ee k befor e the s hoot i ng and, on A pr i l 20, 2008, br oughtt he def

endantand herdaught erby O w ens ’ hous e for a v isi t. O w ens s ai d t hather t hi r d encount erw i t h t he def endantt ook pl ace appr oxi m at el y tw o w eeks pr i ort o t he def endan t’ s tr i al , af

t erO w ens had bee n arr es t ed and t aken t o t he Ti pt on C ount y J ai l

. T he def endantas ked i f

s he r em em ber ed her , and she r epl i ed t hats he di d not

. T he def endantt hen t ol d hert hats he w as t he one w ho had ki l l ed t he vi ct i m and t hat s he had done i tbeca us e he h a d to u c h e d h e r d a u g h te r. R oder i ck Fl em i ng, t he vi ct i m ’ s cous i n, t es t i f i ed thata f

ew days befor e the s hoot i ng,-5-

he w as w i t h t he def

endant , t he vi ct i m , and M ar i o Fl em i ng w hen he he ar d t he def endants ay th a t if s h e e v e r c a u g h t th e v ic tim “ m e s s in g w ith ” S a m a n th a O w e n s s h e w o u ld k ill h im

. M a rio F lem in g tes tified th a t a fe w d a y s b e fo re th e sh o o tin g , th e d e fe n d a n t a sk e d h im i f th e v ict im had bee n “m es s i ng w i t h t hatw hi t e gi r l

. ” H e s ai d t hathe knew t he def endant w as r ef err i ng t o Sam antha O w ens beca us e t he vi ct i m had ea r l i ergi ven O w ens a hug i n f r ont of t he def endant

. H e s t at ed thathe ans w er ed the def endant , “N o, not t hat I know of

. ” T he next day, t he vi ct i m and t he def endant w er e aga i n athi s hom e w hen the def endants ai d t hat i f s he ca ughtt he vi ct i m m es s i ng w i t h O w ens , s he w oul d ki l l hi m . T he w i t nes s s ai d t hata day ort w o pr i ort o t he s hoot i ng, he w as at O w ens ’ hous e w hen t he vi ct i m , t he def endant , and the d e fe n d a n t’s d a u g h ter c a m e to v isit. T h e d e fe n d a n t d id n o t s a y a n y th in g a t th a t ti m e b u t, acc or di ng t o t he w i t nes s , exhi bi t ed “a n at t i t ude. ”
T in a S tah l tes tified th a t sh e a n d th e d e fe n d a n t sh a re d a ro o m a t th e T ip to n C o u n ty Ja il fo ra p p r o x i ma t e l y t h r e e mo n t h s a n d g r e w t o b e c l o s e . S h e s a i d t h a t a ft e rt h e y h a d k n o wn eac h ot hera f

ew w eeks , t he def

endantt ol d her t hat s he had m ur der ed the vi ct i m beca us e he had m ol es t ed herl i t t l e gi r l

. T w o ort hr ee w eeks l at er , t he def endantas ked heri f

s he knew how t o t al k t o s om eone t hr ough t he gl as s w i t houtus i ng t he t el ephone, beca us e conve r s at i ons o v e r th e tele p h o n e w e re re c o rd e d

. S ta h l s a id sh e su g g e ste d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t co u ld lip s y n c h th e w o rd s o r w ri te th e m e s s a g e o n a p ie c e o f p a p e r. L at ert hats am e ni ght , t he def endantt ol d St ahl t hat t he vi ct i m had notr eal l y m ol es t ed h e r d a u g h ter a n d th a t sh e h a d k ill e d h im b e c a u se h e w a n ted a n o th e r w o m a n . A c c o rd in g to S t a h l , t h e d e fe n d a n tr e l a t e d t h e fo l l o wi n g : t h a tt h e v i c t i m, wh o h a d b e e n o u ta l l n i g h t , c a me hom e and t ol d hert o gether“fatas s ” outof hi s hous e and t hat he di d not w ant t o be w i t h her anym or e; t hats he j um ped outof bed, pi cked up the gun, and shot hi m t hr ee t i m es as he w as t ur ni ng t o w alk outt he bedr oom door ; and thats he w oul d have ki l l ed eve r yone el s e i n t he hous e beca us e t hey w er e w i t nes s es , but t he gun j am m ed. St ahl t es t i f i ed thatt he def

endant as ked hert o go t o hers i s t er ’ s hous e w hen she got out of j ai l and as k t he def endant ’ s daught er t o pl eas e s ay that t he vi ct i m had m ol es t ed her s o t hat t he defendant w oul d nothave t o s pend t he r es tof

herl i fe i n j ai l

. St ahl s ai d t he def endant w r ot e her s i s t er ’ s cel l phone num beron a p iece o f p ap er an d g av e it to h er. S h e iden ti fi ed the scra p o f p ap er, w h ich s h e sa id w as p art o f a c o m m iss a ry re c e ip t w ith th e d e fe n d a n t’s s ig n a tu re , a n d th e p a p e r w a s s u b se q u e n tly a d m itte d in to e v id e n c e a s e x h ib it n u m b e r 2 2

.

St ahl furthe r t es t i f

i ed thatdur i ng t he t i m e thatt hey w er e r oom m at es , t he def endant s poke of t h e v ict i m ever y ni ght , s ayi ng “r eal l y ugl y thi ngs ” abouthi m and atone poi nt r el at i ng a dr eam i n w hi ch s he had c utt he vi ct im ’ s body i nt o s m al l pi ece s . St ahl s ai d t hat w hen s he s ugges t ed that the defendants houl d l ett he vi ct i m r es ti n peac e, t he def endant r es ponded, “R es t i n peac e, m y as s . H e ca n r es ti n pi s s . ” St ahl s t at ed thats he r epor t ed w hat-6-

s he knew t o l aw enfor cem enti n Sept em ber2008 beca us e she t hought i tw as t he r i ghtt hi ng t o d o. W hen asked w hy she had been i n j ai l , she expl ai ned t hat she had had “[a] w ort hles s chec k and a t am per i ng w i t h evi dence char ge t hat w as dr opped t o a t hef t under $500. ” S he d e n ied th a t sh e h a d b e e n p ro m ise d a n y th in g in e x c h a n g e fo r h e r te stim o n y o r re lea se d e a rly fro m jail, tes tify in g th a t s h e h a d “ fla tten e d ” h e r se n ten c e , s e rv in g fro m Ju n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 , u n til M a rc h 1, 20 09

. S he al so den i ed that any t hing had happ ened t o m ake her w ant t o re talia te a g a in s t th e d e fe n d a n t o r t h a t s h e h a d a n y “ a x to g ri n d ” a g a in s t h e r. O n cr os s - exam i nat i on, St ahl acknow l edged thatt he t am per i ng w i t h evi dence char ge ar os e as a r es ul tof

heract i ons as a conf

i dent i al i nfor m ant w hen s he w as s uppos ed t o m ake an under coverdr ug pur chas e buti ns t ead t ook t he count y’ s m oney and the dr ugs . She f ur t her acknow l edged thatherchi l dr en w er e t aken f r om heras a r es ul tof

heract i ons , buts he deni ed t hati t had anythi ng t o do w i t h herdeci s i on t o com e for w ar d w i t h t he i nfor m at i on aboutt he def endant

. Fi nal l y, s he s t at ed thatt he def endantw as obs es s ed w i t h death and agr eed thats he p ro b a b ly “ w a s h a v in g so m e k in d o f m e n tal iss u e s” d u rin g th e tim e sh e sh a re d a ro o m w ith h e r a t th e ja il.
Sandr a M i l l er , w ho s ai d t hats he and the def endantw er e ce l l m at es at t he Ti pt on C ount y J ai l fort hr ee m ont hs , t es t i f i ed thatone ni ght t he def endantw oke up s cr eam i ng t hat sh e h a d no tm eant t o k i l l t he v i ct i m and t hat he had been cheati ng on her. S he, l i ke S t a h l, t es t i f i ed thatt he def

endantr epor t ed thats he had dr eam ed of cut t i ng u p the vi ct i m ’ s body, s poke of t he vi ct i m ’ s r es t i ng “i n pi s s ” i ns t ead of “i n peac e, ” and r el at ed t hats he had i nt ended t o s hoot t he w i t nes s es t o t he m ur der , but her gun had j am m ed. O n cr os s - exam i nat i on, s he acknow l e d g e d t h a t s h e a n d St a h l h a d b e e n i n j a i l t o g e t h e r b u t d e n i e d t h a t t h ey had “s w ap[ ped] s t or i es . ”
Sh e l b y Cou n t y As s i s t a n t M e d i c a l Ex a m i n e r Dr

. M i g u e l La b o y , who p e r for m ed t he aut ops y of

t he vi ct i m ’ s body, t es t i f i ed thatt he c au se o f d eat h w as guns hotw ounds t o t he c h e st. T h e v ictim h a d th e fo llo w in g in ju rie s: a g u n sh o t w o u n d to th e c h e st o f in d e ter m in a te r ange thatper for at ed the hea r tand l ung and f r actur ed r i bs and t he t hor aci c s pi nes ; a guns hot w ound t o t he l ef

tel bow of

i ndet er m inate r ange; and a guns hotw ound t o t he l ef tches tof i ndet er m i nat e r ange, w hi ch coul d have been a r eentr ance of t he bul l ett hatcaus ed the guns hot w ound t o t he l ef

tel bo w , thatper for at ed the l i ver , t he s t om ach, and the s m al l bow el and l ace r at ed the l ef

tki dney. D r . L aboy es t i m at ed thats om eone w i t h t he t ype of guns hotw ound t o t he hea r ts us t ai ned by t he vi ct i m w oul d di e “w i t hi n s econds t o m i nut es . ” H e al s o s ai d t hat th e to x ic o lo g y re p o rt o n th e v ic tim w a s n e g a tiv e fo r d ru g s a n d a lc o h o l.
T B I Speci al A gentFor ensic S ci ent i s tJ am es R us s el l D avi s , I I , an expe r ti n guns hot r es i due, t es t i f

i ed thathi s anal ys i s r evea l ed the pr es ence of guns hotpr i m err es i due on the d e fe n d a n t’ s h o o d e d ja c k e t.-7-

T B I Sp ec ia l A gentA l ex B r odhag, an expe r ti n f i r ear m s exam i nat i on, i dent i f i ed the w e a p o n in v o lv e d in th e c a se a s a fu n c tio n in g S m ith & W e ss o n .4 0 c a li b e r se m iau to m a tic pi s t ol and t es t i f

i ed thatt he t w o car tr i dge cas es and t he t w o bul l et s s ubm i t t ed foranal ys i s had b e e n fi re d fr o m th a t g u n . D ef endant’ s P roof
T B I Speci al A gentJ ohn Sul l i van, r eca l l ed as t he f i r s t w i t nes s for t he def

ens e, t es t i f

i ed t hatas a resu l tof

hi s i nt er vi ew w i t h t he def endant ’ s daught er , D i am ond Fr ankl i n, he cont act ed the D epar t m entof C hi l dr en’ s Ser vi ces ( “D C S”)

. H e s ai d he di d notobs er ve any i nj ur i es on t he chi l d butdi d no t exam i ne her

. O n cr os s - exam i nat i on, he expl ai ned thathe w as r equi r ed t o not i f

y D C S w heneve r t her e w as any al l egat i on of chi l d abus e, r egar dl es s of th e p ro o f.
D i am o n d F ran k li n , the d efe n d an t’ s n ine-y ear - ol d daught er , t es t i f i ed thats he neve rs aw t he def endanthi tt he vi ct i m , butdi d s ee the vi ct i m hi tt he def endant

. Sh e fur t hert es t i f i ed t hat t h e v i c t i m h a d o n c e s p a n k e d h e r o n h e r a r m s a n d l e g s wi t h a g r e e n c o r d b e c a u s e s he w oul d n o tg o t o s l e e p a n d t h a tt h e s p a n k i n g l e f tm a r k s , whi c h s h e l a t e rs h o wed t o “[ t ] he s oci al s ecur i t y w or kerand [he r] teac her

. ” O n cr os s - exam i nat i on, s he s ai d s he di d not r em em berhavi ng t ol d A gentSul l i van thats he had ne vers een the vi ct im h it the defendant b u t h a d s e e n th e d e fe n d a n t h it th e v ic tim

. Shar on B r am l et t , t he defendant ’ s s i s t er , t es t i f i ed thats he had obs er ved on D i am ond “som e scar ri ng fr om som et hing t hat hi ther on h er l egs and on her ar m s. ” O n crossexam i nat i on, s he i dent i f i ed the phone nu m b er o n exhi bi tnum ber22 as herunl i s t ed phone n u m b er. M i aki a N athani el , a D C S c as e m anage r , t es t i f i ed on di r ectand cr os s - exam i nat i on t hat s he obs er ved s om e s cr at ches orw el t s on D iam o n d F ran kl i n’ s ar m s and l egs on A pr i l 21, 2008, w hi ch D i am ond i ni t i al l y expl ai ned as t he re s ul t of a str ay dog’s havi ng s cr at ched he r on herl egs . She s ai d t hatw hen s he s poke t o heragai n on A pr i l 25, D i am ond t ol d hert hat th e m a rk s w e re th e re su lt o f h a v in g b e e n sp a n k e d b y th e v ictim . N a th a n iel s tate d th a t sh e d id notknow i f

D i am ond had s poken t o t he defendant i n t he i nt er i m or w hy s he had c hanged he r s t or y.

C l audett e N el s on, t he def endant ’ s m ot her , t es t i f

i ed t hat s he once s aw t he vi ct i m t hr ow th e d e fe n d a n t o u t o f h is c a r, w h ic h le ft b ru is e s “ a ll o v e r [ th e d e fe n d a n t’ s ] a rm s a n d th in g s .” O n cr os s - exam i nat i on, s he s ai d t hatt he def endant n evert ol d hert hatD i am ond w as bei ng abus ed and thatif sh e h ad , she w oul d have i ns i s t ed thats he l eave t he vi ct i m ’ s hom e and c o m e s ta y w ith h e r.-8- St at e’ s R ebut t al P roof
T B I Speci al A gentJ ohn Sul l i van t es t i f i ed thatD i am ond Fr ankl i n t ol d hi m i n an in ter v iew th a t sh e h a d n e v e r se e n th e v ictim h it th e d e fe n d a n t b u t h a d se e n th e d e fe n d a n t h it th e v ic tim

. Fol l ow i ng del i ber at i ons , t he j ur y convi ct ed the defendantof t he f i r s tdegr ee p re m e d ita te d m u rd e r o f t h e v ic tim a s c h a rg e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. A N A L Y S IS
I . Suff i ci ency of

t he E vi dence
T he def endant f i r s t chal l enges t he s uf

f i ci ency of

t he convi ct i ng evi dence , ar gui ng t hat t her e w as i ns uf

f i ci entpr oof

t hats he pr em edi t at ed the ki l l i ng. W hen t he s uf f i ci ency of

t he ev iden ce is c h all en g ed o n ap p ea l, the re leva n t qu esti o n o f t h e re v iew ing co u rtis “w h ethe r, a ft e r v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e p ro s e c u tio n , any r at i onal tr i er o f fa c t co u ld h av e fo u n d the e ssen ti al elem en ts of the c ri m e b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t.” J acks on v. V i r gi ni a, 443 U

. S. 307, 319, ( 1979) ; s ee a l s o T enn. R

. A pp. P. 13( e) ( “Fi ndi ngs of gui l ti n cr i m i nal act i ons w hether by t he tr i al cour t or j ur y s hal l be s et as i de i f t he evi dence is in su ffic ien t to su p p o rt th e fin d in g s b y th e trier o f fa c t o f g u il t b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt

. ”) ; St at e v. E vans , 838 S. W

. 2d 185, 190- 92 ( T enn. 1992) ; St at e v. A nder s on, 835 S .W .2 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 4 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ).
A l l ques t i ons i nvol vi ng t he cr edi bi l i t y of w i t nes s es , t he w ei ght and val ue t o be gi ven t he evi dence , and al l factual i s s ues ar e r es ol ved by the tr i erof fact

. See St at e v. Pappas , 754 S. W

. 2d 620, 623 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1987)

. “A gui l t y ver di ct by t he j ur y, appr oved by the trial ju d g e , ac c re d its th e tes tim o n y o f th e w itn e ss e s fo r th e S tate a n d re so lv e s a ll co n flicts in favorof t he theor y of

t he St at e.” S t at e v. G r ace , 493 S. W

. 2d 474, 476 ( T enn. 1973)

. O ur s upr em e cour ts t at ed the r at i onal e fort hi s r ul e:

T hi s w el l

- s et t l ed rul e re s t s on a s ound foundat i on. T he tr i al j udge and th e ju ry se e th e w itn e ss e s fa c e to fa c e , h e a r th e ir tes tim o n y a n d o b se rv e th e ir d e m e an o r on the s tand

. T h u s the tr ial jud g e a n d jury are the p ri m ary i ns tr um ent al i t y of

j us t i ce t o det er m i ne the w ei ghtand cr edi bi l i t y t o be gi ven t o t he t es t i m ony of

w i t nes s es . I n t he tr i al for um al one i s t her e hum an at m os pher e and the t ot al i t y of t he evi dence cannotbe r epr oduced w it h a w ritten re c o rd in th is C o u rt.
B ol i n v. St at e, 219 T enn. 4, 11, 405 S

. W

. 2 d 7 6 8 , 771 ( 1966) ( ci t i ng C arr ol l v. St at e, 212 T e n n . 4 6 4 , 3 7 0 S .W .2 d 5 2 3 (1 9 6 3 ))

.-9-

A ju ry c o n v ictio n re m o v e s th e p re su m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e w ith w h ich a d e fe n d a n t is i ni t i al l y cl oaked a nd r epl ace s it w it h one of gui l t , s o t haton appea l , a convi ct ed def endant has t he bur den of

dem ons tr at i ng t hatt he evi dence i s i ns uf f i ci ent

. See St at e v. T uggl e, 639 S

. W

. 2 d 9 1 3 , 9 1 4 (T en n . 1 9 8 2 ).
Fi r s tdegr ee m ur der i s “[ a] pr em edi t at ed and i nt ent i onal ki l l i ng of another [

. ] ” Tenn. C ode A nn. § 39- 13- 202( a) ( 1) ( 2006)

. “Pr em edi t at i on” i s def i ned as

an ac tdone af

t ert he exe r ci s e of

r ef l ect i on and j ud g m en t. “Pr em edi t at i on” m e a n s th a t th e in ten t to k ill m u st h a v e b e e n fo rm e d p rio r to th e a c t it se lf. It i s notnece s s ar y t hat t he purpos e t o ki l l pr e- exi s t i n t he m i nd of t he ac cus ed for any def i ni t e per i od of

t i m e. T he m ent al s t at e of the ac cus ed att he t i m e the a c c used al l eged l y deci ded t o ki l l m ust be car eful l y consi dered i n ord e r to det er m i ne w hethert he ac cus ed w as s uf f i ci ent l y f

r ee f r om exci t em entand p a s s io n a s to b e c a p a b le o f p re m e d ita tio n . Id. § 3 9 -13 -20 2 (d).
T he pr es ence of

pr em edi t at i on i s a ques t i on of factfort he j ur y to d eterm ine base d upon a cons i der at i on of al l t he evi dence

. See St at e v. Sut t l es , 30 S. W

. 3d 25 2 , 2 6 1 ( T enn. 2000)

. Pr em edi t at i on m ay be i nferr ed f r om ci r cum s t ant i al evi dence s ur r oundi ng t he cr i m e, i ncl udi ng t he m annerand ci r cum s t ance s of t he ki l l i ng. See St at e v. Pi ke, 978 S. W

. 2d 904, 9 1 4 (T e n n . 1 9 9 8 ); S tate v . A d d iso n , 9 7 3 S .W .2 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 5 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). F a c ts f r om w hi ch the j ur y m ay i nferpr em edi t at i on i ncl ude the us e of a d ea d l y w eapon on a n u n arm ed v ict im ; th e lac k o f pro v o ca ti o n o n th e p art of the v ict im ; th e d efe n d an t’ s decl ar at i on s o f h is i nt entt o ki l l ; t he def endant ’ s fai l ur e t o r enderai d t o t he vi ct i m ; t he estab li sh m en t of a m o ti v e for the kill ing ; the pa rt icular crue lt y o f the kill ing ; the d efe n d an t’ s pr ocur em entof a w eapon, pr epar at i ons t o conce al t he cr i m e, and des tr uct i on ors ecr et i on of evi dence of

t he ki ll ing ; an d a def

endant ’ s cal m nes s i m m edi at el y af t ert he ki l l i ng. St at e v. T hacke r , 164 S. W

. 3d 208, 222 (T en n . 2 0 05) ; St at e v. L eac h, 148 S. W

. 3d 42, 54 ( T enn. 2 0 0 4 ); S tat e v . L ew is, 3 6 S

. W

. 3 d 8 8 , 9 6 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted).
C i t i ng her s t at em ent t o pol i ce and her daught er ’ s tr i al t es t i m ony, t he def endantar gues t hatt he evi dence w as i ns uf f i ci ent t o s how pr em edi t at i on and i ns t ead s uppor t s a f i ndi ng t hat s he w as s uf

f i ci ent l y pr ovoked by the def endant ’ s beat i ng of her daught er and her s el f t o act in a n ir ra tio n a l m a n n e r. W e re s p e c tf u lly d is a g re e . V i ew ed i n t he l i ght m os t favor abl e t o t he St at e, t he evi dence s how ed thati n t he days b efo re the sh o o ti n g the d efe n d an t exh ibit ed h er a n g er a n d jealou sy a t th e v ict im ’s re latio n sh ip w ith O w e n s an d sta ted to b o th R o d e ric k a n d M a rio F lem in g th a t sh e w o u ld k ill t h e v i c t i m i f s h e fo u n d o u t t h a t h e wa s c h e a t i n g o n h e r wi t h Ow e n s . Du r i n g t h i s s a me t i me-10-

f r am e, s he al s o t ol d t he vi ct i m ’ s auntt hats he w as goi ng t o ki l l t he vi ct i m . T he vi ct i m w as unar m ed att he t i m e of

t he s hoot i ng, and t he i nves t i gat or w ho i nt er vi ew ed t he def endantt hat s am e day w as unabl e t o det ectany s i gns of herhavi ng been r ece nt l y beat en, as s he cl ai m ed i n hers t at em ent

. T he def endantl at erconf

es s ed t o herce ll m ates t hats he had ki l l ed the vi ct i m notbeca us e he w as m ol es t i ng herdaught erbut , i ns t ead, beca us e he i nt ended t o l eave h e r fo r a n o th e r w o m a n . F in a lly , the d e fe n d a n t atte m p ted to e n list th e a id o f o n e c e ll m a te i n coac hi ng t he def

endant ’ s daught ert o corr obor at e t he defendant ’ s s t or y t hatt he vi ct i m had m ol es t ed the daught er . Fr om al l of t hi s evi dence , a r at i onal j ur y coul d have r eas onabl y found t hatt he def

endantw as notact i ng under p rov o cat i on att he t i m e s he s hott he vi ct i m but in ste a d p re m e d itate d th e k ill in g . W e c o n c lu d e , th e re fo re , th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s s u ffic ien t to su stai n the d efe n d an t’ s co n v ict ion for fir st de g ree p rem ed it ated m u rde r.

I I . De n i a l o f

Tr i a l Co u n s e l ’ s M o t i o n t o W i t h d r a w T he def endantnextcont ends t hatt he tr i al cour terr ed i n denyi ng hertr i al co u n sel’s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw f

r om r epr es ent at i on. O n M ar ch 17, 2009, def ens e counse l f

i l ed a m ot i on r eques t i ng t hatbot h he and the p u b l i c def ender ’ s of

f i ce be al l ow ed t o w i t hdr aw f r om re p re se n tatio n d u e to a c o n flict o f in ter e st. A m o n g o th e r th in g s, h e a ss e rte d th a t: th e S tate had j us ts er ved hi m w i t h not i ce of addi t i o n al w it nes s es , i ncl udi ng T i na St ahl ; t hathe had pr evi ous l y r epr es ent ed St ahl in b o th cri m i nal and j uveni l e cour tand w as i n pos s es s i on of i nfor m at i on gai ned dur i ng t he cour s e of hi s r epr es ent at i on t hat“w oul d gi ve r i s e t o a conf l i ct underR ul es 1. 6, 1. 7 and 1. 9 of t he R ul es of

Pr ofes s i onal C onduct ”; and thathi s conf l i ct im p u te d to th e e n tir e p u b lic d e fe n d e r’ s o ffic e . A t th e M a rc h 1 9 , 2 0 0 9 , h e a rin g o n th e m o tio n , the trial c o u rt n o ted th a t th e p u b lic def ender ’ s of

f i ce ha d a num berof

em pl oyees and a huge vol um e of cas es and w oul d not“be r epr es ent i ng m any peopl e” i f al l ow ed t o conf

l i ctout“j us tbeca us e atone t i m e t hey’ ve r epr es ent ed s om eone i n t he pas t t hat happens t o be a w i t nes s i n t he ca s e. ” D ef ens e couns el r es ponded thathi s conf l i ctof interest w entbeyond havi ng m er el y r epr es ent ed St ahl i n t he pas t , i n t hat he w as i n pos s es s i on of val uabl e i m peac hm ent i nfor m at i on t hat he had ga i ned dur i ng t he cour s e of

hi s r epr es ent at i on of

St ahl butw oul d be unabl e t o us e i n hi s def ens e of t he def endant

. H e dec l i ned, how ever , t o r evea l t he subs t ance orexac tnatur e of t he in fo rm a tio n , c itin g a tto rn e y -c lie n t p ri v ile g e . T h e d ec isi o n to allow co u n sel t o w ith d raw li es w ith in the d iscreti o n o f t h e tri al co u rt and w i l l notbe r ever s ed abs entan abus e of d iscreti o n . S ee St at e v. B r anam , 855 S. W

. 2d 5 6 3 , 5 6 6 (T en n . 1 9 9 3 ); S tat e v . G il m o re, 82 3 S

. W

. 2 d 5 6 6 , 5 6 9 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ). It i s unques t i oned that“an a ccus ed i s ent i t l ed t o zea l ous r epr esen tat i on by an att or ney u n fett ere d b y a c o n fl ict ing interest. ” S tat e v. T h o m p so n , 7 6 8 S

. W

. 2 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 5 (T en n . 1 9 8 9 ). “[ A ] n actual conf

l i ctof i nt er es ti ncl udes any ci r cum s t ance s i n w hi ch an a t t or ney ca nnot exer ci s e hi s or her i ndepende nt pr ofes s i onal j udgm ent f r ee of ‘ com pr om i s i ng i nt er es t s and-11-

l oyal t i es . ’ ” S t at e v. W hi t e, 114 S. W

. 3d 469, 476 ( T enn. 2003) ( ci t i ng St at e v. C ul br eath, 30 S .W .3 d 3 0 9 , 3 1 2 -1 3 (T e n n . 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o tin g T e n n . S u p . C t. R . 8 , E C 5 -1 ))

. I n St at e v. D avi d M i chae l C hubb, N o. M 2005- 01214- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2007 W L 258429 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. J an. 29, 2007) , ci t ed by t he def endant , t hi s cour t r ecogni zed t hata conf l i ct of i nt er es tm ay ar i s e notonl y i n s i m ul t aneous r epr es ent at i on cas es butal s o i n ca s es of successi ve represent at i on “w hen an at t orney w ho on ce repres ented a co-defendan tor w i t ness curr ent l y r epr es ent s t he ac cus ed. ” I d. at*14 ( foot not e and citat i ons om i t t ed)

. W e f ur t her r ecogni zed, how ever , t hatdem ons tr at i ng an ac t ual conf l i ctof i nt er es ti n t he l at t ers i t uat i on is g e n e ra lly d iffic u lt:
D em ons tr at i ng an ac t ual conf l i ctof i nt er es ti s gener al l y m o re d iffi cul ti n a s ucce s s i ve r epr es ent at i on cas e t han i n a s i m ul t aneous r epr es ent at i on cas e. See E noch v. G r am l ey, 70 F. 3d 1490, 1496 ( 7t h C i r . 1995) ; Sm i t h v. W hi t e, 815 F

. 2 d 1 4 0 1 , 1 4 0 5 (11 th C ir

. 1 9 8 7 ).
O ne of t he chi ef

conce r ns i n s ucce s s i v e rep r es ent at i on cas es “i s t he possibil it y t hatt he att or ney m ay us e ordi vul ge on beha l f of t he new cl i ent c o n fid e n tial o r p riv ileg e d in fo rm a tio n o b tain e d fro m th e fo rm e r c lien t.” [S tate v. ] C oul t er , 67 S. W

. 3d [ 3, ] 29 [ ( T enn. C r i m . A p p . 2001) ]

. Succes s i ve re p re se n tatio n m a y re su lt in a n a c tu a l c o n flict “‘if the c a se s a re su b sta n tially r el at ed ori f

t he att or ney r evea l s pr i vi l eged c om m uni cat i ons of t he for m er cl i entorot her w i s e di vi des hi s l oyal t i es . ’ A cor ol l ar y dangeri s t hatt he l aw yer w i l l fai l t o cr os s - exam i ne t he for m er cl i entr i gor ous l y forfearof r evea l i ng or m isu sin g p riv ileg e d in fo rm a tio n .” E n o c h , 7 0 F .3 d a t 1 4 9 6 (q u o tin g M a n n h a lt v . R e e d , 8 4 7 F .2 d 5 7 6 , 5 8 0 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 )). A c tu a l p re ju d ice c a n b e fo u n d if “( 1) couns el ’ s ear l i err epr es ent at i on of t he w i t nes s w as s ubs t ant i al l y and par t i cul ar l y r el at ed t o coun sel ’ s l at err epr es ent at i on of def endant , or( 2) couns el actual l y l earn ed par t i cul arconf i dent i al i nfor m at i on dur i ng t he pr i or re p re s e n ta tio n o f t h e w itn e s s th a t w a s re le v a n t to d e fe n d a n t’ s la te r c a s e .” S m ith , 8 1 5 F .2 d a t 1 4 0 5

. Id

. In th is c a se , the trial c o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n o n th e b a sis th a t co u n s e l h a d fa iled to sh o w a n y c o n flict o f in ter e st th a t w o u ld h in d e r h is z e a lo u s re p re se n tatio n o f th e d e fe n d a n t. T h e trial c o u rt’s r u lin g sta tes in p e rtin e n t p a rt: [ T ] he St at e al l eges t hat t he l ady you us ed t o r epr es ent , M s . T i na St ahl , gave a s w or n s t at em ental l egi ng t hatt he def end an t t ol d hert hats he had s hott he vi ct i m beca us e he w as chea t i ng on herand bec aus e he t ol d hert o g et h er fat-12-

a s s o u t o f h is h o u s e . So I can’ ti m agi ne w hat your conf l i ct r eal l y w oul d be bec aus e that ’ s not

- - t he fact t hat you had r epr es ent ed herbefor e, unl es s you’ r e w i l l i ng t o s ay, “I k n o w sh e ’s a liar an d y o u c a n ’t b e liev e a n y th in g sh e sa y s,” I m e a n , tha t co u ld b e th e o n ly c o n fl ic t th a t I c a n th in k o f.
W e fin d n o a b u se o f dis c re tio n in th e trial co u rt’s ru lin g . W e , lik e th e trial c o u rt, fail t o s ee how couns el ’ s ear l i err epr es ent at i on of St ahl on unr el at ed m at t er s cr eat ed a c onf l i ct o f i n terest th at w o u ld h av e p rev en ted c o u n sel from ad eq u ately re p rese n ti n g the d efe n d an t’ s i nt ere s t s . I n t hi s r es pect , w e not e thatcouns el conduct ed a vi gor ous cr os s - exam i nat i on of St ahl attr i al , ques t i oni ng herabout h er b eh avi ori n hert am per i ng w i t h evi dence cas e, her addi t i on t o cr ack c ocai ne and t he fa ct t hat s he had fai l ed a dr ug t es tw hi l e on pr obat i on, her m ot i vat i on for com i ng for w ar d w i t h t he i nfor m at i on, and the factt hatherchi l dr en had be en r em oved fr om her cus t ody. W e concl ude, t her efor e, t hatt he def endanti s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef o n th e b a s is o f t h is c la im

. CO NC L US I ON
B as ed on the for egoi ng author i t i es and r eas oni ng, w e af f i r m the j udgm ent of

t he tr i al c o u rt

.

_________________________________ AL AN E

. GL E NN, J UDGE