### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE D ec em be r 20, 200 5 S es sio n STATE OF TENNESS EE v . PAUL O. DICKENS , SR. Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Rutherford Coun ty No. F -55117 Jam es K . Clayton, Jr., Judge

No. M2005- 00571-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Fe bruary 15, 2006

The de fenda nt, Paul O. Dickens, Sr., wa s convicted by a R u t h er ford Count y

jury of attempted vo lun tary m an s l a u g hte r ( a Cla ss D fe lon y ), re c kle ss e nd a ng e rm e nt ( a Cla ss Efe lon y ), a ndtw o c ou nts of coe rcion of a

witness (a Class D f

elony ). On dire ct appea l to this court, the def endant c ontends that: (1) the evidenc e was insufficient to support the ver dict; and (2) his c onvictions for attempted vo lun tary ma ns laug hte r andre c kle ss e nd a ng e rm e nt v iol a te the c on sti tut ion a l pr oh ibi tio n a g a ins t double jeopar dy . Upon review of the record, briefs of the parties, and applica ble law, we aff

irm the jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of t h e court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined. Ger ald L . Melton, District Public Defe nder, and Russell N. Perkins, Assistant P ublic Def ender , for the appe llant, Paul O. Dickens, Sr. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Se th P . K e stn e r, As sis tan t Attorne y Ge ne ra l; Willi a m C. Whit e se ll, Jr., Di st ri c t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; a ndTr e vo r H . Ly nc h a ndTh oma s S. Sa nte l, J r., Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION F a c ts At trial, Dete ctive Phillip L oy d testified that he wa s employ ed with the Murf ree sboro Police De pa rt me nt andthat he wa s c a lle d to inv e sti g a te the su bje c t in c ide nt a ft e r a 91 1 c a ll r e po rt e d s ho ts fired at the location. Upon ar rival, he spoke with and took statements from the v i cti m, Richard (Rick) Robinson; the victim’s wife, Melinda Robinson; Ang ela Nea l; a nd Matthew Nea l. D etec tive L oy d stated t hat t he victim showed him wher e g unfire struc k the g ara g e and a metal g ate be hind the house. He also noticed tire trac ks in the g round, wher e it a ppear ed that someo n e h ad “s p u n out.”T he reco rd ref l ect s t hat t he p ho ne co nvers at i o ns were m ad e f rom t he R ut herfo rd Co unt y D et ent i o n C ent er and 1 were, pursuant t o po l i cy, s ub ject t o m o ni t o ri ng and record i ng. -2- Detec tive L oy d photogr aphed the are a and develope d a crime scene sketch the following day . He further noted that he did not find any shell casing s or buckshot upon a se arc h of the a rea . Detec tive L o y d t estified that the distanc e fr om the impact on the g ate to the impac t on the g ara g e wa s forty -six fee t, four inche s; that the distance f rom the g round to the impact on the g ate wa s fo rt y -f ou r i nc he s; a ndthat th e dis ta nc e fr om the g ro un d to the imp a c t on the g ara g e wa s b e tw e e n s ix a nda ha lf a ndse ve n f

e e t. D e te c tiv e L oy d e xpla ine d th a t th e tig ht p a tte rnof sh ot o n th e g a te indicated that the shoote r wa s standing in c lose proxim ity and that the pattern on t h e g ara g e wa s dispersed ove r a larg er area . He stated that he saw the vi ctim’s dog and the defendant’s dog on the scene and dete rmined that there was evidenc e of a dog fig ht; photog raphs take n of the victim’s dog documented injurie s it sust ained. De tective L oy d testified that during the cour se of the inve stigation, he re quested that the de fenda nt’s phone conve rsations be c opied. 1 On cr oss-exam i n at i o n , Detec tive L oy d testified that he did not re call re sponding to that addr ess pre viously . He a cknowledg ed that the g round wa s wet and that the spin marks did not nece s sarily

indicate that the driver of the vehicle le ft hurrie dly . He state d that “smaller shot” was fired at the g at e an d gar age but reiterated that he wa s unable to re cover any embedde d shot from either loc ation. Detec tive L oy d admitted that he wa s “unsure if there wer e one or two shots [ fired] beca use of the ang le [from the g ate to the c orner of the g ara g e]. ” On re direc t examination, he testified that he wa s u nable to dete rmine whe ther the w eapon wa s si ng le or

do ub le ba

rr e le d, or wh a t lo a d it

c on ta ine d b e c a us e it w a s n e ve r r e c ov e re d. On re c ro ssexamination, Detective L oy d testified that there was no e vidence to definitively prove w hether

one or tw o s ho ts w e re fi re d. On fu rthe r re dir e c t exam inatio n, he state d tha t th e bla st p a tte rnon the g a te ind ic a te d a

str a ig ht s ho t. An g e la Ne a l, the vic tim ’s sis te r, te sti fi e d that sh e a nd he r hu sb a nd we nt to v isi t th e vic tim and his w ife at 1208 Gra ntland Avenue in July 2003, in or der to pay a debt of money owed by them to the vic tim

. She state d tha t whe n the y arrive d, the de fe nd a nt, wh om the y ha d kno wn fo r t e n y e ars , was in an a

rg ument with the victim reg arding their dog s. Mrs. Nea l stated t hat the two men exchang ed wor ds and that the de fenda nt went to his car and retrie ved a g un from the trunk, stating that he would “just kill every one.” When the defe ndant beg an loading the g un, Mrs. Nea l took her nephew (the victim’s son), who was standing outside on the dec k, inside the house. She stated that she then he ard two shots and that the victim’s wife, who w as also in the house, phone d 911. When Mrs. Nea l looked outside, the defe ndant was attempting to back out of the driveway but was blocke d in by a vehic le owned by

the victim’s wife. The def endant y elled for

someone to move the truc k but when no one came outside, the defe ndant drove throug h the y ard and left. On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Mr s. Ne a l te sti fi e d tha t whe n s he a ndhe r h us ba ndarrive d, the vic tim was re pairing the fe nce w here his dog had escape d. She reiter ated that she m oved her nephew inside-3-

when the de fenda nt announced that he was g etting a g un, and that she he ard g unshots after she went inside the house. Mrs. Nea l te stified that she could see the def endant throug h the window and the storm door in the back of the house. She indicated that, bef ore the shots were fired, the defe ndant was making threatening statements to the victim, which the victim was ignoring

. Mrs. Nea l stated t h a ta f t e r t h e d e f

e n d a n t b a c k e d o u t o f

t h e d r i v e w a y, h e h e ar d s i r e n s ; p u l l e d b a c k i n t o t h e d r i v e w a y; y elled to t he victim ’s wife , “I know y ou called the police, y ou stupid bit ch”; a nd then left. Mrs. Ne al admitted that the def

endant did not attempt to come inside the house or g et out of his car ag ain. Matthew Ne al, the victim’s brother -in-law, te stified that he and his wife went to the victim’s home in J u l y 2 0 03. He state d that when they arrived they

saw the de fendant and victim arg uing about a dog fig ht and that they hear d the defe ndant threatening to kill the victim. The defe ndant then opened the trunk of his vehicle and re trieved a shotgun that was between e ighte en and twe nty -four inches in leng th. At that point, Mr. Ne al go t i n h i s vehicle and backe d out of the drivew ay as the defe ndant fire d one shot. When he saw the victim running be tween two h o u s es , h e s t opped and picked him up, and they

drove dow n the stree t and made a loop before returning to the house. On cr oss-examin at i o n , M r. Nea l testified that the def endant wa s standing in f

ront of the g ara g e wh e n he sh ot. Mr

. Ne a l state d that wh e n he sta rt e d his c ar, the ra dio wa s turne d of f a nda ll four windows were down. He further stated that he heard one shot and that the vi ctim sustained no injuries. On re direc t examination, he reca lled that befor e re trieving h i s g un, the def endant sa id, “Eve ry body is going to die.” The victim’s wife, Melinda Robinson, testified that her mother lived next door on Grantland Avenue and that Ang ela and Matthew Neal and the defendant were present at her home in J uly 2003 when s h e a n d h e r d a u g h te r c a me h o me . Sh e s tate d th a t a s s h e e xit e d th e v e h ic le , s h e hear d the defe ndant threatening to kill t he victim and indicating that he wa s g oing to g et a g un. Mrs. Robinson testified that she and her daug hter immediately went inside the house a nd that sh e sa w the de fe nd a nt s ho ot at th e vic tim . Sh e state d th a t he r f ou r c hil dr e n a ndMr s. Ne a l w e re a lso ins ide the ho us e wh e n th e g un wa s f ir e d a nd that sh e su bs e qu e ntl y ph on e d 9 11 to r e po rt the inc ide nt. Mrs. Robinson testified that the defe ndant made sever al attempts to leave befor e he w as succ essful and, wh en h e go t t o the end of the drivew ay , he stopped, y elled towar d the house, g ot back in the vehicle, and left. Finally , she identified the voices of the def endant; the de fendant’s ex-girlf riend, Fr ancine Wright; Wendell Webb, a frie nd of the de fendant; a n d t h e v i ct im on recor ded phone c on ve rs a tio ns be tw e e n th e pa rt ie s. On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Mr s. Rob ins on te sti fi e d that sh e sa w the de fe nd a nt loa d on e sh e ll i nto the g un and shoot once at the victim but a cknowledg ed that she did not know wher e the victim was when the g un was fired. She f urther a dmitted that neither Franc ine Wright nor Wende ll W ebb wa s prese nt at the time of the incident. Mrs. Robinson acknowledg ed that the de fendant’s only statement to her re g arding her te stimonywas made when she was li stening in on a conversation betwe en the de fe nd a nt a nd he r mothe r. On re dir e c t e xami natio n, sh e te sti fi e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt’ s st a te me nts to-4-

he r o n th e ph on e ind ic a te d th a t “ wh e n [the de fe nd a nt] did g e t out [of pr iso n], that he wa s g oin g to do something.” Th e vic tim , Ri c ha

rdRob ins on , te sti fi e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt came to Gr a ntl a ndAv e nu e in Jul y 2003 to leave his dog at the defe ndant’s g randmother ’s house, which w as next door to the victim’s home. The vic tim st ated that he was in the y ard w ith his y oung est son when the de fendant arrive d and that shortly there afte r, he hear d his dog fig hting with the de fendant’s dog and we nt around the fenc e to sepa

rate them. The de fenda nt said “a f ew c uss words” as the vi ctim retrieve d his dog, a nd the victim told the de fenda nt that he “[didn’t] appre ciate [t he defe ndant] coming up he re and doing that,” in appa

rent re fer ence to the defe ndant’s dog ’s atta ck

. T he def endant, in turn, said that “ he did n’ t do it, that he ha d had a bad da y a ndhe wo uldkic k [th e vic tim ’s ] as s, a nd[] sa id h e wo uld s h o o t [ the victim] .” During this time, Ang ela a nd Matthew Ne al ar rived at the house, as did the victim’s wife a nd daug hter. The de fenda nt walked to his vehicle , and Matthew Nea l y elled “g un” and be g an bac king out of the drive way

in his ve hicle. The victim sa w the defe ndant retrie ve the shotgun from his trunk and ran a s th e de fe nd a nt fi re d the we apo n. Th e vic tim te sti fi e d th a t he ran a

ro un d th e ne ig hb or ’s ho us e and onto the stree t where he met Matthew Nea l and g ot into the vehicle with him. He indicated that he did not see the d ef

en dant af ter he fired the g un but that he believe d the def endant wa s firing at him because he hit the g ate and wall near wher e the victim ha d been standing

. The victim state d that he r e c e iv e d a p h o n e c a ll f r o m th e d e f

e n d a n t a f te r th e in c id e n t a n d th a t h e w a s r e lu c tan t to te stify beca use he “ know[s] what kind of pe rson [the defendant] is, [ and] what he’s c apable of doing .” On cr oss-examination, the victim t estified that af t er he hea

rd the dog s fig hting he went aro un d th e ho us e , p ic ke d h is d og up , a ndtol d th e de fe nd a nt h e did no t app re c ia te him a llo wi ng his do g to atta c k. Th e vic tim stated th at th e def

e nd a nt g ot u ps e t a ndbe g a n th re a te nin g a s th e vic tim walked towa

rd him. When the defe ndant went to his vehicle to g et the we apon, the victim turned to run and he ard the impact of the s hot. He reiterated t hat he ran around the ne ighbor ’s house a nd g ot in the car

with Matthew Ne al. The victim ac knowledg ed that he ha d only one phone conver sation with the def endant a fter the incident and that the defe ndant did not threaten him during that conver sation. He a dmitted that he hea rd the re maining c onversations for the first time at the district attorne y ’s offic e. On re dir e c te xa m i n a t i o n , t h e v i c t i ms t a t e d t h at , a l t h o u g h t h e d e f e n d a n td i d n o tp e r s o n a lly thr e a te n h im d uring the ir ph on e c on ve rs a tio n, he le arn e d th a t th e defe nda nt h a d th re a te ne d h im befor e hea

ring the tapes at the district attorney ’s offic e. On r ecr oss-examination, the victim admitted that he did not sustain any injuries from the incident and that the def endant ne ver dire ctly

threatened him. The de fenda nt testified that he we nt to his mother’s house on the day of the incide nt to leave his dog f or a f ew day s. He stated that when he le t his dog out of the ve hicle, the vi ct i m ’s dog a tta c ke d h is d og . H e fu rthe r i nd ic a te d th a t he a tte mpt e d to g e t be tw e e n th e tw o d og s, bo th o ri g ina lly-5-

bred f or fig hting, a nd that he wa s able to separa t e t h em after about “ a minute and a half.” The de fe nd a nt s ta te d th a t he sa w the vic tim sta nd ing in the bac ky ard , to ld the vic tim to “ le a ve [him ] alone,” and proc eede d to chain his dog and walk back to the car to unload dog food fr om the trunk. He r eca lled that words were ex chang ed between him and the victim, that an arg ument ensued, a nd that he we nt t o h is v e hic le to g e t hi s sh otg un be c a us e he t ho ught th e vic tim “ wa s g oin g to c ome around a nd jump on [ him] .” He stated that the victim’s wife shouted that he ha d a gu n an d went inside the house, as the victim ran ar ound the north end of the house. The de fenda nt indicated that he shot birdshot at the ga rag e af ter the vic tim had gone around the corner of

the house a nd that he put the shotg un back i n t he trunk a nd attempted to leave there afte r. Afte r re alizing that his vehicle w as blocke d in by the victim’s wife’ s truck, the de fendant cut throug h the y ard a nd came out onto the street. Th e de fe nd a nt i de nti fi e d th e vo ic e s o n th e re c or de d p ho ne c on ve rs a tio ns a s Franc ine Wri g ht, Wendell Webb, the victim, and his mother. He a cknowledg ed that the thre at he a sked his mother to c on ve y “ [did n’ t] so un d g oo d” bu t state d that it is a “ fi g ur e of sp e e c h me a nin g that y ou ’r e re a lly mad.” He further

stated that whe n he stated that he would “shoot all of them” when he g ot out, he wa s “ jus t up se t,” a ndfu rthe r t e sti fi e d th a t he “ sa y [s] thi ng s w he n [he is] u ps e t th a t do n’ t me a n a hil l of be a ns .” Th e de fe nd a nt t e sti fi e d th a t w he n h e sp ok e wi th the vic tim he wa s try ing to g e t hi m to “tell the t ru t h .” He indicated that his intent in firing the g un “wa s to scare [t he victim] so he wouldn’t come around the house and jump on [ him] or g et in a fig ht.” The de fendant further rec alled that he did not point or fire the gun at any one in particula r. He admitted that the shotg un “g ot thrown a w a y” a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t

. F i n a l l y, h e a c k n o w l e d g e d p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s f

o r t h e f t o v e r $ 5 0 0 , b u r g l ar y, third deg ree burg lary , non-habitation burg lary , theft under $500, and criminal impersonation. On cr oss-examination, the defendant reiter ated that he wa nted the witnesses to tell the truth. He a dmitted that he was initially g oing to de ny

having a shotg un and say that he had f irewor ks. He stated that he ma de the thre ats on the phone beca use he was ang ry and was “talk[ing] cra zy .” The d e f e n d a n t t e s ti f

ie d th a t h e w a s n o t u n d e r th e imp r e s s io n th a t W r ig h t w a s g o in g to c o n v e y the m es s age t o t h e w i t n es s es . He s t at ed t h at t h e to l d W ri gh tan d W eb b t o t ak e t h e s h o t gu n “s wi m m i n g” or dispose of it, be cause he “didn’t need it to be around any wher e.” Finally , the def endant testified that he wa s thinking cle arly and knew what he w as doing while at the victim’s house.

An a ly sis I . Sufficienc y The de fenda nt contests the suffic iency of the e vidence t o s u p p o rt his convictions for two c ou nts of c oe rc ion of a

wi tne ss. Whe n a n a c c us e d c ha lle ng e s th e su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , th is c ou rt mus t r e vie w the re c or d to det e rm ine if the e vid e nc e a dd uc e d d uring the tr ia l w a s su ff ic ie nt “ to support the finding by

the trier of

fac t of g uilt bey ond a rea sonable doubt.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e)

. This rule is applicable to finding s of guilt predic ated upon direct evide nce, c ircumstantial evidenc e,-6-

or a c ombination of direct a nd circ umstantial evidenc e. State v. Br ewe r, 932 S.W .2d 1, 18 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). I n determining the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e, this court does not rew eig h or ree valuate the e vid e nc e . Sta te v. Ca

bb a g e , 571 S.W. 2d 83 2, 83 5 (T e nn . 197 8)

. No r ma y thi s cou rt su bs titute its infer en ce s fo r t hose dra wn by the trier of

fac t from circ umstantial evidence . L iakas v. State, 286 S.W .2d 856, 859 (Tenn. 1956)

. T o the contra ry , this court is require d to affor d the State the strong est leg itimate view of the ev i d en ce contained in the rec ord as we ll as all rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces w hich may be dra wn from the e vidence

. State v. Elkins, 102 S.W .3d 578, 581 (Tenn. 2003)

. Th e tr ie r o f fa c t, no t thi s c ou rt , re so lve s qu e sti on s c on c e rn ing the c re dib ili ty of the wi tne sse s, the weig ht and value to be g iven the evide nce, a s well as all fa ctual issues ra ised by the evidenc e. I d. I n State v. Gra ce, the Tenne ssee Supre me Court stated, “[a] guilty verdic t by

the jury , approve d by the tr ia l ju dg e , a c c re dit s th e te sti mon y of the wi tne sse s f or the State a ndre so lve s a ll c on fl ic ts i n favor of the theory

of the State.” 493 S.W .2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973)

. Be cause a ver dict of g uilt removes t h e p re s umption of innocence and re place s it with a pr e su mpt ion of

g uil t, the a c c us e d h a s th e bu rd e n inthi s c ou rt of ill us tr a tin g wh y

the evi de nc e is insufficient to support the ve rdict re turned by the trier of fac t. State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) ; Grac e, 493 S.W.2d at 476. The offe nse of c oerc ion of a witness is codified at Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 9- 16 -3 07 , a ndstate s th e fo llo wi ng in p e rt ine nt p art : A p e rs on c omm its a n o ff

e ns e wh o, by me a ns of c oe rc ion , in fl ue nc e s o r atte mpt s to in f l u e n c e a w i t n e s s o r p r o s p e c t i v e w i t n e s s i n a n o f f i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g w i t h i nte nt t o influence the witness to: ( 1 ) T e s t i f y f a l s e l y; (2 ) W i t h h o l d an y tru t h fu l t es t i m o n y , tru t h fu l i n fo rm at i o n , d o cu m en to r t h i n g; or (3) Elude leg al proc ess summoning the witness to te stify or supply evidenc e, or to be a bsent from a n officia l pr ocee ding to w hich the witness has be en leg ally summoned. Further, c oerc ion is statutoril y define d as “a

threat , howeve r communicated, to . . . [c] ommit any offe nse.” T.C.A. § 39- 11-106(a )(3) (A). Th e fo llo wi ng te le ph on e c on ve rs a tio ns we re re c or de d a ndpr e se nte d at tria l: Def endant: Uh, would y ou g ive [the victim] a messag e for me? Wright: Yeah. De fe nd a nt: Te ll h im, a nda ny of tho se oth e r m oth e r f

-- ke rs that say , a

re su pp os e d to be witnessing for him, if they don’t g o u p there and tell them it was-7- firew orks, that when I

do g et out in ten y ear s o r h o weve r long it is t hat I ’m coming afte r ‘e m. Wi ll y ou do that for me? Wri g ht: Ye a h, I ’l l te ll ‘ e m. Def endant: You tell him if h e get s up there and, uh, say s anything but fire works, I wi ll c ome a ft e r h im a nda ny of tho se oth e r m oth e r f

-- ke rs that’ s su pp os e d to be the wi tne sse s. W r i g h t : O k a y. [E n d o f r e c o r d in g ]. De fe n d an t : C al l an d l et [ t h e v i ct i m ] k n o w, u h , y o u t al k ed t o m e, u h , i f t h eyd o n ’t go up there and say

it wa s fi re - t hey

rea liz ed it wasn’t a

shotgun, it wa s fi re wo rk s. Wright: Yeah, ‘cause y ou don’t eve n own a shotg un. Def endant: That’s rig ht. Tell ‘em I had one of

those, uh , wa l l pistol s out and, uh, some M-80’s, tryin’ to scar e the dog s. You know. Wright: Yep. Def endant: So . . . it’s . . . I

don’t know, it’s f-- ked up. [E n d o f r e c o r d in g ]. D e f e n d a n t: H a v e y o u - y o u a in ’ t h a d a c h a n c e to h a v e a

li tt le talk w ith [t h e v ic ti m] , have y ou? Wright: No. Not y et. Def endant: Well, whe n y ou g o over the re, y ou know, to g ive Mom the title to ge t the car . . . Wright: Yeah. Def endant: I g uess she’s c omin’ in this afternoon, ain’ t she? Wright: Yeah.-8-

De fe nd a nt: Wel l, kind a

ha ve a ta lk with him. Te ll him, he y , if the y make y ou c ome up there , y o u te ll ‘ e m w h e r e y o u th o u g h t, u h , w a s a s h o tg u n b u t, u h , y ou do n’ t kn ow fo r s ur e . It mi g ht h a ve be e n, uh , f ir e wo rk s. W r i g h t : O k a y. Def endant: And, uh, tell him he better tell ‘em t hat, ‘cause when I g et out , he knows ho w I a m. He kn ow s I ’m c ra zy . I f I ha ve to d o s ome tim e ov e r this bu ll s hit , I -I ’ll be one of

the cr aziest mother f-- kers y ou ever seen. Wri g ht: I be t. De fe nd a nt: Yo u kno w that. H e kn ow s th a t. E ve ry bo dy that kn ow s me kn ow s th a t. Wright: Uh-huh. [E n d o f r e c o r d in g ]. Def endant: Did, uh, y ou happen to say anything to [the victim] about what I said? Wr ig h t: I h a v e n ’ t s e e n [t h e v ic ti m]

. Def endant: Oh. Wrig h t: B u t I

w il l h e r e in a

f e w mi n u te s , ‘ c a u s e w h e n I g e t o f f th e p h o n e w ith y ou I ’m g oin’ to see Gr anny , ‘cause I told her I ’d come over the re right a fter I g ot out of court with y ou. Def endant: Oh. Ah, but, uh, y eah. U h, y ou needin’ , uh, kind a s en t i t to Melinda, ‘c a us e Me lin da

wi ll t e ll h im. Wright: Oh, I

know. De fe nd a nt: Te ll ‘ e m it

wa s ju st f ir e wo rk s, a nd I do n’ t wa nt to he ar no shi t ou t of ‘e m. Wri g ht: Exa c tly . I

tol d G rann y

that. Def endant: Ye ah. Wri g ht: An d, uh , G rann y sa id, uh , tha t, we ll .

. . we ’l l talk abo ut wh a t G rann y sa id some other time. Def endant: Ye ah. Uh . . .-9-

Wright: But she said that, uh, she knew y a’ll had f irewor ks up here

. De fe nd a nt: Was . T ho se M- 80 ’s wa s b a d mo the r f

-- ke rs . Wright: Yep. Def endant: Excuse my

lang uag e, but they

are . Wright: (laug hing) Yep, they are . Def endant: Ye ah, I

was . . . kne w I

shouda just turned Tig er loose on th at s on of a bitch. No, I

shouldn’t of, ‘ca

use they ’d put him to sleep then. Wright: Yeah, they

definitely

woulda. Def endant: The n I ’d re ally

by pissed. Wright: Well, they

wouldn’t have put him to s leep a s . . . well, y eah . . . . Def endant: Ye ah. W ri gh t : . . . t h ey ’d cl ai mh e w as a v i ci o u s d o g. Def endant: (laug hing) Aw, he c an (unintellig ible). Wright: Only

toward me n. Def endant: (laug hing) Well . . . . Wright: A man shouldn’t have abused him. And [the victim] knows that. Every body kn ow s th a t. [E n d o f r e c o r d in g ]. De fe nd a nt: Uh , h a s [th e vic tim ] pla nn e d o n p re ssi n’ c ha rg e s o r w hat? Mother: He sa id he wasn’ t, but the State done, ah, told him that they was, ah, what the y wa s g on na

do , th e y ’dsu bp oe na

him to c ou rt

. Def endant: Aw, if

he’ll just tell ‘em it was fire works and stick at that they can’ t do nothin’.-10-

Mother: They ’ve g ot the buckshot, son. Def endant: It don’t matter if he ’ll, uh, still say , uh, what I done wa s, uh, fire . . . so, i n o t h e r w o r d s , I’ mg o n n a

w i n d u p w i t h t w e n t y y e ar s o u t o f t h i s s h i t , a i n ’ tI? Mother: Son, I

can’ t help ‘y a. Def endant: Well, that son of a bitch will whe n I g et out, and I can g uarantee y ou f-- kin ’ that. Mo the r: An d, uh , th e m pe op le a c ro ss the str e e t se e n it

. Def endant: What people? Mother: Over there , lived in that house across t he st ree t. They was out there in the y ard drinkin’ beer

. Def endant: Well they ’s so drunk they don’t know what they

seen. U h . . . . Mother: Matt and, uh, Ang ela. Def endant: I tell ‘y a what, uh, y ou can tell ‘ em, if I do any time, w hen I g et out I ’m g on na , ah, sh oo t a ll o f ‘ e m. Melinda Robinson: You ain’t g onna shoot no mother f--kin’ body ‘cause y ou’re the one who f --kin’ did it, Gibb! Def endant: F --k y ou, whore ! Me lin da Rob ins on : N o, my

kid s w e re ou t th e re g od da mmi t! Def endant: F --k y ou, whore ! Melinda Robinson: No, f--k y ou, Gibb! Def endant: Um . . . . [E n d o f r e c o r d in g ]. Wright: Go on over

there

. Def endant: Sis, uh, I

tell y ou what, uh, I

g et any time outta this, I ’m g onna . . .-11-

Wright: She was at Granny ’s when I called. Def endant: Ye ah. Wright: She just picked up the phone, too. Def endant: Oh, be ing nose y

. . . ag ain. M e l i n d a R o b i n s o n : N o , I w a s n ’ tb e i n g n o s e y. Def endant: Evidently

y ou are . Me lin da Rob ins on : N o I ’m

no t. Def endant: No, y ou - I ’ll tell y ou what . . . Melinda Robinson: This is my mother f--kin’ business ‘c ause my f-- kin’ kids were out there, G ibb! Def endant: No - y ou’d done took ‘e m in the house befor e I ’d done any thing. Now damn it, y ou know damn g ood and well they was already in the f-- kin’ house. Melinda Robinson: W hateve r, Gibb. I hope . . . Def endant: And [the victim’s] done around the g oddamn house. Melinda Robinson: . . . Ihope y ou spend the re st of y our f- -kin’ life in ther e! Def endant: I tell y ou what y ou littl e f- -kin’ bitch! Me lin da Rob ins on : What? Def endant: You be tter hope I don’t g et out no time soon! Melinda Robinson: Iain’t sca red of y ou, Gibb! Def endant: Okay . I

don’t want y ou to be sca red. Melinda Robinson: Iwish y ou would f-- kin’ kill me! Def endant: Uh- huh . . . okay . Momma . . . Melinda Robinson: W hat’s she g onna do, Gibb?-12-

De fe nd a nt: Mo m. Melinda Robinson: S he ain’ t takin’ up for y our ass no more ! Def endant: Mom . . . mom, y ou still there ? Hello? Wright: I hung them up. Def endant: Uh, I

tell y ou what - I ’m g onna f- -k ‘e m up. Wright: That don’t – no that don’t ne ed to be on the te lephone. Def endant: I ’m g onna f- -k ‘e m up. Wright: That’s why

I hung it up. Def endant: Well . . . . Wright: I didn’t know s he would pick up the phone and li sten. But she does have

. . . I didn’t even think about her havin’ that cordless she hooke d up over the re, ‘cause she ha d her c ell phone cut of f. Def endant: The re wasn’t even any body outside when that shit happened, Franc ine. I mean . . . I

knew what in the hell I

was doin’. Wri g ht: Se e Gr a nn y

te lls he r s he wa sn ’t

the re - s he a in’ t g o n oth in’ in i t. [E n d o f r e c o r d in g ]. De fe nd a nt: Mo m? Mo the r: Wha t? De fe nd a nt: Wha t is Me lin da ’s frig g in’ pr ob le m? Mother: I don’t know. Def endant: You ne ed to tell her to stay the hell off of

me, I will hurt her. Mother: Well . . . De fe nd a nt: I

lov e he r t o d e a th, bu t by

Go d I a in’ t g on na

pu t up wi th n o s hit

.-13-

M o t h er : (c o u gh i n g) Def endant: You know that. Hello? [E n d o f r e c o r d in g ]. Def endant: Well, tell him when he g oes up to the court to te ll the judge he does not want to pre ss char g es - that I did not shoot at him - that I shot at a g ate. W r i g h t : O k a y. De fe nd a nt: Th a t I

didno t sh oo t a t hi m. W r i g h t : O k a y. De fe nd a nt: Th a t a ’w a y the mos t the y c a n c ha rg e me wi th i s r e c kle ss e nd a ng e rm e nt. Wright: Yep. Def endant: The re’ s, uh, I ’m serious Fr ancine

. All the kids done bee n y anked inside the house. [E n d o f r e c o r d in g ]. Victim: Hello? Def endant: He llo. Victim: W hat’s up? Def endant: What’s g oin’ on, man? Victim: Ah, ridin’ them roads, man, w orkin’ deliverin’ these c ars, man. D e f e n d a n t : O k a y. Victim: W hat y ou up to? De fe nd a nt: Aw , s itt in’ he re in this ja il. Vi c tim : I he ardthat sh it.-14-

Def endant: He y

man, I want to apolog ize to y ou about that shit. Ah . . . Victim: That’s fine, man, I

. . . De fe nd a nt: I

ha d a ba d d a y that day - I did no t sh oo t a t y ou , man. I do n’ t w a ite d u nti l y o u ’s went ar ound the house, a nd then, I popped a c ap, okay ? I

mean, I didn’t shoot at y ou. You there ? Victim: Yeah, I ’m here . I ’m listening to y ou. Def endant: Huh? Victim: I ’m listening to y ou - g o ahea d. Def endant: B ut y eah - I

waited, I mean I , Melinda d o n e y an k ed all the kids off the damned patio out there, and y ou’d done stepped around the corne r of the house towards the front and I popped that g ate there , uh, ac ro s s y our backy ard. See , and as far as m e, uh, I didn’t put, uh, uh, Tig er on B arne y . I did n’ t kn ow B arn e y

wa s o ut o f the pe n. I wa s unlo a din ’ Tig e r to c ha in h im up back the re by

the ca r. Victim: Yeah. Def endant: And B arne y

came runnin’ ar ound there an jumped on Tig er, and y ou know Tig er - he just turned and, uh, and w ent eatin’ on, uh, Ba rney . And I g ot o ut the re a ndI

wa s kic kin ’ ‘ e m apa

rt a ndsh it. Victim: Yeah. Def endant: Now I

g ot ‘em apa

rt as quick a s I

could g et ‘e m apart. But, ah, I didn’t shoot at y ou, man. Victim: W ell , Idon’t know what y ou want to do, man, or w hat the f- -k to say . I talked to the dete ctive last nig ht, and he told m e that, he tol d me t hat, uh. I talked to him, I

said, what’ the deal with what’s g oin’ on rig ht now? He sa id, well y ou ain’t g onna have to do nothin’ - the State’s picked it up. The State’s g on na pr os e c ute him

. Def endant: Uh . . . Vi c tim : I sa id, so I ’m ou t of i t? He s a id, y e a h, he sa id f ar a s I ’m c on c e rn e d, I

a in’ t, I don’t eve n need y ou no more.-15-

Def endant: Thoug h, uh, they can’ t, w ithout y ou testify ing, they can’ t do that shit, I mean. Victim: Yeah. Def endant: I f t hey do make y ou testify , just say hey he didn’t - did not shoot at me. I might eve n call y ou up there for a witness say ing he y , he didn’t shoot at me. Uh , I me a n, the wo rs t th e y

c a n g e t me fo r i s a

re c kle ss e nd a ng e rm e nt. Victim: Yeah. De fe nd a nt: F or , u h, sh oo tin ’ a nd hittin ’ Ms. B e rry ’s ho us e ov e r the re . I g ue ss I hit h e r h o u s e , d i d n ’ tI? Victim: Yeah, y ou hit her house, g ara g e, window. Def endant: Da mn. Victim: Yeah. Def endant: I

. . . Victim: But, uh

. . . hell, I just did, I just stepped around that corne r and he ard a ll that shit hit the f-- kin’ side of that g ara g e, dude. Def endant: Well . . . Victim: I mean, I

just did, i f I

- if I had bee n a split second later y ou woulda g ot me. Def endant: Na w, I

seen ‘ y a when - I

watche d when y ou stepped a round that corner’ s when I pulled that trig g er . . . I , I mean . . . Victim: Yeah. B ut it was pretty g oddamn close. I t was enoug h to scar e the hell out of me - I ’l l pu t it

to y ou lik e that. Def endant: Aw, any

time y ou g et shot at it scare s the hell out of y ou. L ook how ma ny tim e s I be e n s ho t a t. [E n d o f r e c o r d in g ]. On appe al, the def

en d an tco n t en d s t h at t h e e v i d en ce i s i n s u ff i ci en tt o s u p p o rt h i s co n v i ct i o ns for two c ounts of coer cion of a witness beca

use it failed to e s t abli sh that the threats were communicated to the vic tim and the victim’s wife. Howeve r, t he re cord r efle cts that the victim’s-16-

wife ove rhea

rd a c onversation between the defe ndant and his mother, in which thedefe ndant said, “I tell ‘y a what . . . y ou can te ll ‘em, if I do any time, when I g et out I ’m g onna . . . shoot all of ‘e m.” Th is s ta te me nt, a lth ou g h n ot d ir e c te d at the vic tim ’s wi fe , wa s a c ommun ic a te d th re a t to c omm it an off ense. The t ape rec ording s further establish that the defendant directly threatened the vic tim’s wi fe in a la te r c on ve rs a tio n w he n h e said , “Yo u bet ter ho pe I do n’ t g e t ou t no tim e so on !” Th is state me nt, take n in c on te xt with th e c on ve rs a tio n a s a wh ole , was a lso su ff

ic ie nt t o s up po rt

his conviction for c oerc ion of a witness. Furthermore , althoug h the defe ndant did not direc tly threaten the victim in their sole phone conver sation, the victim testified that he lea rned of the def endant’ s threats prior

to hearing the c on ve rs a tio ns a t the dis tr ic t atto rn e y ’s of fi c e . Th e vic tim fu rthe r ind ic a te d the g ra vity of the thr e a ts when he stated that he w as re luctant to testi fy b ec ause he “[knew] what kind of per son [t he defe ndant was], [and] what he [was] capa ble of doing .” In our view, the m er e fa ct that the defe ndant utiliz ed a third pa rty to transmit the threats does not alter our conclusion that the threat was c ommunicated, albe it indirectly . There fore , it is our de termination that the evidenc e pre sented wa s su ff ic ie nt t o e sta

bli sh that the de fe nd a nt c ommun ic a te d thr e a ts to c omm it a n of fe ns e to b oth the victim and the victim’s wife

. I I . Double Jeopardy The de fenda nt also contends that his convic tions of attempted voluntary manslaug hter a nd re c kle ss e nd angerm e nt v iol a te c on sti tut ion a l pr oh ibi tio ns a g a ins t do ub le je op ard y . T he do ub le jeopar dy clause s of both the United States and Tenne ssee Constit utions state that no person will be tw ic e pu t in je op ard y

of lif e or limb f or the sa me of

fe ns e . U .S. Con st. a me nd . V; Te nn . Cons t. a rt

. I , § 10. I ncluded in its protections ar e the f ollowing: “( 1) protec tion ag ainst a sec ond prosec ution fo r the sa me of

fe ns e a ft e r a c qu itt a l; ( 2) pr ote c tio n a g a ins t a sec on d pro se c uti on fo r the sa me of fe ns e afte r convic tion; and (3) prote ction ag ainst multi ple punishments f or the same offe nse.” State v. Phill ips, 924 S.W .2d 662, 664 (Tenn. 1996) (citations omitted). The issue be fore us relate s to the la st o f the thr e e c a te g orie s as the de fe nd a nt co nte nd s th a t tw o c on vic tio ns re su lte d f ro m th e sa me act. Our supre me court set out a four- part test that must be ut i l ized in determining w hether a de fe nd a nt h a s r e c e ive d mu lti ple pu nis hme nts fo r the sa me a c t: (1) The statutory

elements of e ach of

fense ; (2) The evidenc e used to prove the offe nse; (3) Whether

there wer e multiple victims or discrete a cts; and (4 ) T he pu rp os e s o f the re sp e c tiv e statut e s. State v. Goodwin, 143 S.W .2d 771, 781 (Tenn. 2004) (citing State v. Denton, 938 S.W.2d 373, 381 (Tenn. 1996) ). Apply ing the test to the case at hand, we must first determine whether eac h offe nse re quires proof of an ele ment the other does not. See Bloc kburg er v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S. Ct . 180 (1932). The offe nse of attempted voluntary manslaug hter re quires that the de fendant-17-

intentionally

or knowing ly

attempt to kill the victim as a re sult of adequate provoc ation, sufficie nt to le ad a rea sonable person to a ct in an irrational manner . See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-211 (a ); 39-12- 10 1( a )- (b ). F e lon y

re c kle ss e nd a ng e rm e nt r e su lts wh e n a de fe nd a nt e ng a g e s in r e c kle ss c on du c t, with a dea dly

wea pon, that place s or may

place another

in immi nent da n ger of death or serious bodily injury . See T.C.A. § 39-13- 103. Certainly , attempted voluntary manslaug hter re quires proof that the def

endant intende d to kill t he victim and that the de fend an t ’s ac t was a r esult of pr ov oc a tio n, ne ith e r o f w hic h is re qu ir e d to pr ov e re c kle ss e nd a ng e rm e nt

. Furt her, r e c kle ss e nd a ng e rm e nt r e qu ir e s pro of of re c kle ss co nd uc t whil e a tte mpt e d volu nta ry ma ns laug hte r d oe s n ot. Th e re fo re , e a c h o ff

e ns e re qu ir e s p ro of

of a fa c t th a t th e oth e r d oe s n ot. Ne xt, w e are to d e te rm ine wh e the r the sam e evi den c e is r e qu ir e d to pr ov e bo th o ff e ns e s. See Duc hac v. S t at e, 5 05 S.W .2d 237, 239 (Tenn. 1973) . To prove the offe nse of attempted voluntary manslaug hter, the State ha d to prove that the defe ndant intentionally or knowing ly shot at t he v ict im aft er pr ov ocat io n, bel iev in g that th e con du ct w ou ld res ul t i n the v ict im ’s d eat h. By contra st, to prove fe lony

rec kless end an ger m en t , t h e State had to pr ove that a pe rson or c lass of persons wa s in the zone of dang er; that the de fendant placed those individual(s) in immi nent dang er of death or serious bodily injury ; and that the defendant used a deadly wea pon. There fore , differ ent evidenc e wa s nece ssary

to prove e ach of

fense

. Third, we must ana ly ze whether there wer e mul tiple victims or discrete a cts. Upon re view, we note that the indictment f or Count One (voluntary manslaug hter) lists Richard Robinson as the victim, while Count Two (rec kless endang erm en t ) did not name a specific victim. However , a revie w of the St ate’ s closing arg ument ref lects t hat t he victim s of t he felony rec kless endang erme nt char g e we re the individuals insi de the house at the time of the shooting , to w it: Melinda Robins on, An g e la Ne a l, andthe Rob ins on ’s fo ur c hil dr e n. Th e re fo re , th e of fe ns e s in vo lve d d if

fe ri ng vic tim s. As the fi na l st e p in ou r ana ly sis , w e are to lo ok to th e pu rp os e s o f the statut e s. F ir st, attempted voluntary

manslaug hter see ks to a ddress intentional or knowing conduct r esulting f rom pr ov oc a tio n, wh ic h c ou ld h a ve re su lte d in the vic tim ’s de a th. On the oth e r h a nd , th e fe lon y re c kle ss e nd a ng e rm e nt s ta tut e se e ks to d e te r r e c kle ss c on du c t that c re a te s a ri sk of de a th o r s e ri ou s b od ily injury to third parties. Upon consideration of the fore g oing fac tors, we conclude that the defendant’s c onvictions of attempted voluntary

manslaug hter a nd felony rec kless en d ang erme nt do not violate the pro h ibitions ag ainst double jeopar dy . I ndeed, the statutes are distinct; di ffe ring evidenc e is requir ed to p ro ve e a c h o ff

e ns e ; a nde a c h h a s se pa

rate vic tim s. Conclusion The c onvictions of the Rutherfor d CountyCriminal Court are a ffirme d.

________ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI LL I AMS, J UDGE