### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs S ep te m be r 11, 200 7
STA TE OF TE N N ES SE E v
. JAM ES D AV ID JOHN SON

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Tip ton County Nos. 5132, 5221 Joseph H. Walk er, III, Judge

No. W2006-01842-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Fe bruary 6, 2008

Th e defe nd ant , J ame s D avi d J oh ns on , wa s co nv ict ed o f pr eme di tat ed fi rst degree m urd er; fel on y fi rs t deg ree murder; a g g ravated robbe ry , a Class B felony ; and theft over $10,000, a C lass C felony . The felony first deg ree murder c onviction w as merg ed with the preme ditated first deg ree murder, and a life sentenc e wa s imposed. The def endant was sente nced to e ighte en y ear s as a multiple offe nder for a g g ravated robbe ry

and to fiftee n y ear s as a c are er of fende r fo r t h eft over $10,000. The the ft of fe ns e wa s set a s c on c ur

re nt t o th e a g g ra

vate d r ob be ry , b ut t

he tw o, tog e the r, we re c on se c uti ve to the lif e se nte nc e . T his re su lte d in an e ff e c tiv e se nte nc e of

lif e im pri sonme nt p lus e ig hte e n y e ars

. On appea l, the defe ndant submits three issues: ( 1) the evidenc e was insufficient to su p p o rt the convictions; (2) the trial court err ed in f ailing to suppr ess the defe ndant’s stateme nts; and (3) the tria l
c ourt e rr e d in a dmi tti nghe ars ay

te sti mony . A ft e r r e vie w, we a ff ir m th e c on vic tio ns

. 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 opi n ion of the cour t, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

Gar y F. Antr ican, District Public De fende r; and Juli e K. Pillow, Kari I . Weber, a nd W. R ay

Glasg ow, Assistant Publ ic Def

ender s, for the a

ppellant, J ames Da

vid J ohnson.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; L e sli e E. Pr ic e , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; and D. Micha el Dunava

nt, District Attorney

Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION

F lor e nc e Jean H a ll, the se ve nty -t hr e e -ye ar- old vic tim , wa s f ound de a d in he r g ara g e on

July 3, 2003. The victim owned se vera l residential and c ommercia l properties which she re nted. The victim’s purse was missing and was never r ecove red. H er son, Jack Ha ll, J r., stated that on the third of the month the victim would have been collecting renta l mone y and often would have one to ten thousand dollars ca sh in her purse. A diamond penda nt and a diamond r ing w ere the only jewelr y-2-

items known by

the victim’s family to have been removed. J ack Hall, J r., estim ated the value of the diamond ring was $25,000.

Dr . O . C. Smith, a

fo re ns ic patho log ist , te sti fi e d th a t th e vic timdie d f ro m mu lti ple inj ur ie s. She suffe red blunt trauma to the head a

nd was strang led wit h a shi rt used as a li g ature

. The lig ature was lef t on the victim’s neck.

Dar y l Grig g s, an employ ee of Hall’s Rental, st at ed that the de fenda nt had worke d for the victim in the past. The victim had terminate d the def endant in Apr il of 2003.

Th e dia mon d f ro m th e vic tim ’s dia

mon d r ingwa s r e c ov e red fro m a je we lr y sto re in Memphis. The owne r of the st o re s t at ed that the ringhad bee n purcha sed in J uly 2003 for thre e hundred to four

hundred dollar s. The seller produce d no identification and c laimed the ringhad bee n found.

The d ef

en d ant was inter

viewed by

office rs on seve ral oc casions. Dur ing two of the int e rv ie ws , th e de fe nd ant a dmi tte d b e inga t th e sc e ne of the mur de r b ut n a me d tw o o the r i nd ivi du a ls
as the perpe trators. I n both of these state ments, the defe ndant admitted to acquir ing posse ssion of the vic tim ’s ri ngand

se lli ngit.

Th e de fe nd ant w a s q

ue sti on e d a g a in o n Apr il 2 0, 20 05 , and adm it ted t o h is s ole
re sp on sib ili ty

fo r t he c ri me s. He state d th a t th e vic timc a ug ht h im in the g ara g e and sla pp e d h im. The de fenda

nt stated he choke d the victim with a shirt, struck her four or five times, and then pla ced a plasti c bag over her head. The defenda nt remove d the ring from the victim’s finge r and took he r purse. He stated the purse contained five hundred to six hundre d dollars. He sa id his cousin pawned the ringin Memphis and g ave him $300 af terwa rd.

Sufficienc y

of Evidenc e
Th e de fe nd ant c ha lle ng e s th e su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to c on vic t a s to a ll c on vic tio ns

. Whe n a n a c c us e d c ha lle ng e s th e su ffici ency of the c on vic tin g e vid e nc e , th e sta nd ard of re vie w i s “whe ther, a fter r eviewingthe evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, any rational trie r o f f a c t c o u ld h av e f o u n d th e e s s e n ti a l e le me n ts o f th e c r im e b e y o n d

a r e a s o n a b le d oubt.” Jac ks on v. Vi rg ini a

, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (e mphasis in origina l); State v. Goodwin, 143 S.W .3d 77 1, 77 5 ( Te nn

. 20 04 ); see also Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( e ). “ [T]he State is e nti tle d to the str on g e st leg itimate view of the e vidence and to a ll r easona ble and leg itimate infere nces that may be dra wn there from.” State v. Smith, 24 S.W .3d 274, 279 (Tenn. 2000) . Questions about the cr edibility of witnesses, the we ight a

nd value of

the evidenc e, as w ell as all factual is sues raised by the evidenc e are resolved by

the trier of

fac t, and an a

ppellate c ourt does not re weig h or re -eva luate the evidenc e. State v. Evans, 108 S.W.3d 231, 236 (Tenn. 2003). A j ur y ve rd ic t a pp ro ve d b y

the tr ia l c ourt

a c c re dit s th e State ’s w itn e sse s a nd re so lve s a ll conflicts in the evide nce in f avor of the State. State v. Gra ce, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973)

.-3-

“B eca use a ve rdict of guilt removes the pre sumption of innocence and imposes a pr esumption of g uil t, t he burd e n s hif

ts t o the de fe nd ant up on c on vic tio n to sh ow why the e vid e nc e is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o support the ver dict.” State v. Tha cker , 164 S.W .3d 208, 221 (Tenn. 2005) . These r ules are applicable to findings of

g uilt predicate d upon the direc t evidence , circ umstanti al evidenc e, or a combination of both direc t a nd circ umstantial e vidence

. State v. Penderg rass, 13 S.W .3d 389, 392- 93 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999)

. The standa

rd of r eview is the same for circ umstantial evidence as direc t evidence . State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 111 (Tenn. 1998). On appeal, t his court may not substit ute its own infere nces “for those drawn by

the trier of

fac t from circ umstantial evidence .” State v. Matthew s, 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

. Premedit at ed first deg ree murder is de fined a s “[a] premeditated and intentional killing of another .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202( a)( I ) (2003). An ac t is premeditated if the act is “done afte r the exercise of

ref lection and judg ment.” I d. at (d). “Preme ditation” means that the intent to kill must have been formed prior to the ac t itself. I t is not necessar

y that the purpose to kill pre- exis t in the m ind of the ac cused for a ny definite pe riod of time. The m en t al s t at e of the acc used at the time the
acc used alleg edly

decide d to kill m ust be ca ref ully considere d in order to de termine whether the ac cu s ed was suff

iciently fre e fr om excitement and passion as to be capa ble of pre meditation. I d. The ex istence of preme ditation is a question of fact for the jury to determine a

nd may be infe rre d fr om t he c ir c ums tanc e s su

rr ound ingthe of

fe ns e

. Sta

te v. Ros a , 9 96 S.W. 2d

83 3, 83 7 ( Te nn . Cr im. App. 1999) (c iting State v. B rown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 539 (Tenn. 1992))

.
F e lony mur de r i s “ [a] k ill ingof ano the r c omm itt e d in

the pe rp e tr a tio n o f o r atte mpt to p er p et ra t e a n y

fi rs td egr ee mu rd er , ac t o f t erro ri s m , ar s o n , rap e, ro b b ery , b u rgl ary , t h ef t , k i dn ap p i n g, ag g ravated child ab use, ag g ravated child neg lect or a ircra ft pirac y .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 202(a) (2). “Ag g ravated robbe ry

is robbery

as def ined in [Tennessee Code An n o t ated section] 39-13- 401: (1) Ac complished with a dea dly wea pon or by display of any article used or fashioned to lead the victim to reasona

bly believe it would be a dea dly wea pon; or (2) Where the victim suffer s serious bodily injury .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402. “ Robbery is the intentional or knowing theft of proper ty from the pe rson of a

nother by violence or putting the person in fea r.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401.

“ A p e r s o nc o mm it s th e f

t o f p r o p e rty if , w it hinte n t t o d e p r iv e th e o w n e r o f p r o p e rty , the person knowingly

obtains or exercises c ontrol over the pr operty without the owner’ s eff ective consent.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 14-103.-4-

Fr om our revie w of the evidence , we c onclude that the jur y was e ntirely

rational a nd justified in convicting the def

endant of pre meditated first de g ree murder, f elony first deg ree murder,
a g g ra vate d r ob be ry , a

nd the ft

.
T h e d ef en d an tad m i t t edgo i n g i n t o t h e v i ct i m ’s gar age wi t ht h e i n t en to f s t e a l i n g a lawnmower . The de fenda nt said he wa s confr onted by the vi ctim, who s lapped him. The de fenda nt choked the victim using a shirt, struc k the victim in the head s ev er al t i m es, and then choked he r ag ain. He then place d a plasti c bag over the victim’s head. The defenda nt stated he then r emoved the vic tim ’s ri ngand

too k h e r p ur se

. Th e de fe nd ant tol d his c ou sin of the se e ve nts , a nd the c ou sin sold the ringin Memphis. The defe ndant also provided c erta in details conce rning the murder scene which had not be en publicized. He a dmitted climbing i nto the truck be d to unplug the g ara g e door. A dusty footprint was lifted f

rom the bumper of

the truck, which was c onsistent with the sole of the defe ndant’s shoes, a lthough not conc lusive. The testimony of the for ensic pathologis t c o n f ir me d th at a rolled shirt was still in place on the victim’s nec k and that she die d from strangulation and blunt he a d in jur ie s.
There are sever al non-e x clusive fa ctors that ca n be used to infer pre meditation: a motive for t h e k i l l i n g; t h e us e of a de ad l y we ap o n u p o n an u n arm ed v i ct i m ; t h e pa rt i cu l ar cr u el t y o f ak i l l i n g; the def endant’ s threats or de clar ations of i ntent to kill; the defendant’s procure ment of a weapon; a ny prepa rations to conce al the cr ime undertaken bef ore the crime is committed; destruction or se cre tion of evide nce of

the killing; and a

defe ndant’s ca lmness after a killing. See State v. Davids on, 121 S.W .3d 600, 614 (Tenn. 2003) ; State v. Dell i n ger , 79 S.W .3d 458, 492 (Tenn. 2002) ; State v. Ni c ho ls, 24 S.W. 3d 29 7, 30 2 (T e nn . 2 00 0) ; State v. Ne sb it, 97 8 S. W.2 d 8 72 , 8 98 (T e nn . 1 99 8) ; State v. Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d 641, 660 (Tenn. 1997) . Additional fac to rs i ndicative of the exist ence of pr e me dit a tio n inc lud e a

la c k o f p ro vo c a tio n o n th e pa rt of a vic timand

the de fe nd ant’ s f

a ilure to rende r aid to a vic tim. S tate v. L ewis, 36 S.W.3d 88, 96 (Tenn. C ri m

. Ap p

. 2 0 0 0 ). Evidence of repe ated blow s is a ls o r e le v an t t o e s ta b li s hp r e me d it a ti o n

. St a te v
. Si ms , 4 5 S. W. 3 d 1 , 8 ( T e nn. 2001).

There was suff

icient evidenc e for the jury to f ind that the defe ndant committed the murder
a ft e r t he e xer c ise of re fl e c tio n and jud g me nt. Th e de fe nd ant ha d re c e ntl y be e n fi re d by the vic tim

. The de fenda

nt struck her

repe atedly

and choke d her at least twice, by his admission. The defe ndant then took time to place a

plastic bagover the victim’s head.

T h e d efe ndant’s entire course of ac tion just ified the c onvictions for fe lony first deg ree murder, a g g ravated robbe ry , and thef t and satisfied the e ssential elements of e ach c rime.

De fe nd ant’ s State me nts

I n his se cond issue, the defe ndant contends that his state ments g iven to of fi ce rs we re not
v o l u n t ar i l y g i v e n , w e r e t h e p r o d u c to f s t r e s s o r f e ar , an d w e r e i nr e s p o n s e t o p r o m i s e s o f l e n i e n c y. T h e t ri al co u rt re fu s edt o s u p p re s s t h e d ef

en d an t ’s s t at em en t s af

t er a h ea ri n g.-5-

I n revie win g a t rial cour t’s denial of a

motion to s uppress, this court must look to the evid en ce an d fa cts acc redited by the trial cour

t which ar e most favor able to the State, a s the preva iling party

. State v. Daniel, 12 S.W .3d 420, 423 (Tenn. 2000). The a ppealingparty

bear s the burden of demonstrating that the evidence preponder ates ag ainst the t rial court’s finding s. State v. Har ts, 7 S.W .3d 78, 84 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) . Finding s of fa ct made by t h e trial judge on a motion to s uppress a

re c onclusive and are aff

orded the weig ht of a jury verdic t, and this court may not se t a side the trial court’s decision unless the evidenc e conta ined within the rec ord pre ponderates ag ainst the trial cour

t’s finding s. State v. J ackson, 889 S.W .2d 219, 222 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)

. Questions of cr edibility

of the witnesse s, the weig ht and value of the evidence, and a re solution of conflicts in the evide nce a re matters entrusted to the t rial j udg e. State v. Odom, 928 S.W .2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996)

.
I n Miranda v. A rizona, the United States Supreme Court held that the prose cution cannot admit a st atement by the defendant stemmi ng from “custodial interrog ation” unless it demonstrates the us e of pr oc e dura l sa fe g ua

rd s e f f e c t i ve to s e c ur e the pr ivi le g e a g a ins t se lf -i nc ri min a tio n. 38 4 U .S. 436, 444, 86 S. Ct . 1602, 1612, 16 L . Ed. 2d 694 (1966). The Court define d “custodial interrog ation” as “ questioning initiated by law en fo rc em ent offic ers a fter a person ha s been taken into custody

or otherw ise deprive d of his fre edom of a ction in any signific ant way .” I d.

Be fore a custodial interr og ation can oc cur, la w enf orce ment must inform the person (a ) he or she ha s the rig ht to remain silent; (b) any statement made may b e u s ed as evidenc e ag ainst the person; (c ) t he person has t he right t o the presence of an attorney ; and (d) if the per son cannot a ffor d
an atto rn e y , o ne wi ll b e a

pp ointe d p ri or

to q ue sti on ing , if

the pe rs on

so de sir e s. Mir and a , 3 84 U. S.
a t 44 4. Un le ss t

hese wa rn ing s are g ive n, a

su bs e qu e nt s tate me nt b y

the ind ivi du a l is g e ne ra lly inadmissible as evidenc e. Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322, 114 S. Ct. 1526, 128 L . Ed. 2d 293 (1994).

The a ccuse d must be adequately apprized of the rig ht to rema in silent a nd the conse quence s of dec iding to aba

ndon that rig ht for the a ccuse d to e ffe ct a va lid waiver. State v. Stephe nson, 878 S.W .2d 530, 544 (Tenn. 199 4 ). T h e S t at e bea rs the burde n of provinga voluntary and knowing waiver by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. State v. Bush, 942 S.W .2d 489, 500 (Tenn. 1997) . The court must consider the totality of the c ircumstance s when determining whether the State has met its burden of proof

. I d. Although the defe ndant m ade statements to office rs on multiple occasions, only three of the statements wer e introduce d as evide nce by the State. These statements occ urre d on May 6, 2004; Marc h 30, 2005; a

nd April 20, 2005. The de fenda nt was g iven Miranda

war nings pr ior to eac h of these statements, and the de fenda nt executed a wr itten waiver of his rig hts. The trial cour t, at the motion to s uppre s s , fo u n d

t h att h e s t at em en t s we re k n o wi n gl y an d v o l u n t ar i l y

m ad e w i t h o u tco er cion or promises of le niency . The defenda nt contends he was under t he influence of drug s but has failed to support this claim. Further more, intox ication does not rende r a confe ssion invalid if the evidenc e shows that the def

endan t wa s ca p able of understandingand wa iving his rig hts. St ate v. B ell, 690 S.W .2d 879, 882 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985) . The e vidence does not preponde rate ag ainst the trial-6-

judge ’s finding s at t h e suppre ssion moti on, and we conclude that the def endant’ s motion was proper ly denied.

Hea rsay
I n his final issue, the def

endant c laims that the trial court err ed in ove rruling his objections to the testimony

of the victim’s son duringthe def endant’ s cross examination.

Th e su bje c t tes tim ony oc c ur

re d w hil e the de fe nd ant w a s q ue sti on ingthe vic tim ’s so n a s to wh e the r h e saw the vic timon July 3, 20 03 . T he ve rb a timc oll oq uy wa s a s f oll ow s: Q

. Y o ud i d

s e e h e r t h a td ay? A. No, I

didn’t see he r. Q

. I t h o u g h tyo us a i d yo uj u s tw e n ta

n d s aw h e r t h a td ay? A. No. I

went by there to see he r. She wa sn’t there

. Q. Ok ay . Ca

n you te ll m e a bo ut what ti me that w a s? A. I t would seem like to me – we ll, s h e h ad called me, I believe it wa s two nights be fore , and told me he ha d came over to he r house -

- M s

. P i l l o w : O b

j e c tt o h e ar s ay. A. – at – Mr. Glasg ow: Objection, Your Honor. A. – six o’cloc k that morning – The Court: Restate anothe r question, please

. Q. Can y ou just tell m e what time y ou went by the house on July

3rd? A. I t was about one o’cloc k. Q. I n the af

ternoon? A. Uh-huh. Q. An d you

sa id you ha d a tr e a tme nt t

wo da y s p ri or to t hat? A. Uh-huh. Q

. W a s t h e r e an y p art i c u l ar r e a s o nyo uw e n tb y? A. Well, she had told me he had c aug ht her outside and -

- Q. I t’s hear say ag ain. You ca

n’t testify to what she told y ou? A

. W e l l , yo us a i d w h y d i d I g o b y. Q

. I j u s ta s k e d yo uw h y yo uw e n tb y. A

. T h a tw a s t h e r e a s o nw h y. Q. Be cause she ca lled y ou? A. She called me and told me he ha d been ove r there threatening her. I

wanted to g o by

and see – Ms. Pil low: Objection, You Honor

. Mr. Glasg ow: Objection, Your Honor. M s

. P i l l o w : H e ar s ay. A. – h owit w a s. Mr. Glasg ow: Move to strike. The Court: The Court will allow the re sponse. State another question, please.-7-

Hea rsay is defined as “a statement, other tha n one made by

the dec lara

nt while testifying at the trial of he ar i n g , offe red in e vidence to prove the truth of the matter a sserted.” Tenn. R. Evid. 8 0 1 (c ). As a g ener al rule, he arsa y is not admissi ble at trial e x cept a s provided by the rules or otherwise by

law. Te nn. R. Evid. 802.

A cor rec tive instruction by

the trial cour

t to disreg ard the witness’ testimon y as t o the
v i ct i m ’s s t at em en t s wo u l d h av e b ee n ap p ro p ri at e. I ts h o u l d al s o b e n o t edt h att h e d ef

en d an t , t h ro u gh his qu e sti on ing , i nv it ed th e most e g re g iou s o f t he he ars ay

state me nts . Alit ig ant i s n ot e nti tle d to relief for the natural conse quence s of his own neg lect or misconduct. State v. Robinson, 146 S .W.3d 469, 493 (Tenn. 2004) . The fa ilure to take c orre ctive ac tion was harmless e rr o r i n light of the
overwhelming evidenc e of the defe ndant’s g uilt. The defe ndant is not entitled to r elief on this issue.

Conclusion

After revie w, the convic tions are a ffirme d.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI L L I AMS, J UDGE