### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 22, 200 8
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. QU INC Y D EAN GELO G AR DN ER
Appeal f rom the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2006-A- 391 Cheryl Blackbu rn, Judge

No. M2007- 01081-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jun e 10, 2008

The De fenda

nt, Quincy

DeAng elo Gar d ner, w as convic ted of fir st deg ree felony murder a

nd sentenc ed to life imprisonment. On appe al, the sing le issue pre sented for our re view is whethe r the
e vid e nc e wa s su ff

ic ie nt t o s up po rt

his c on vic tio n. He argues that th e pr oo f w a s in su ff ic ie nt t o ov ercome his claims of self- defe nse and intoxi cation at the time of the murder . After

a re view of the e vid e nc e in t

he re c or d, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined. David A. Collins, Nashville, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, Quincy

DeAng elo Gar dner. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., At torney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; Cameron L . Hy der, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral; Victor S. Johnson, I I I , Distr ic t Att o r n e y G e n e r a l; a

n d Br et Gunn, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral; for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound This case arises f

rom a shooting occur

ring in front of the L itton Ap ar t m en t s in Nashville. On Octobe r 18, 2005, the De fenda nt shot at a g roup of people who we re sitting on a porch, a nd an unintended victim was killed. As a result, a Davidson County g rand jury indicted t he Defenda nt and
c od e fe nd ant, Cor

ne liu s L a ve ll K ing , f

or fe lony mur de r d

ur ingthe pe rp e tr a tio n o f or a tte mpt to perpe trate f

irst deg ree murder. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202( a)( 2) (def ining f irst deg ree felony murder) . A jury

trial was he ld on March 5 a nd 6, 2007.
Vi e wi ngthe e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to t he State , th e pr oo f at tr ia l sh ow e d th a t, in October

2005, the Def

endant, along with his c odefe ndant and Car los Tillm an, we nt to the L ittonAt t r i al , M s

. B l anc har d i dent i f i ed t he codef

endan t as t he s hoot er

. H owever , j us t af t er t he s hoot i ng , s he was 1 sh o w n a p h o to g ra p h ic li n e -up a n d id e n tif ie d the D e fen d a n t as the sh o o te r.

-2- Apar tments to obtain marijuana. While there, the y had a conver sation with a man who later robbed them at g unpoint. As they wer e exit ing the apa rtment, the man pointed the gun at their he ads and order ed them to take off their c lothes, stating that he was sea rchingfor some lost drug s. The man returne d their clothes, taking some cash, and left. The Defenda nt, who had been obse rved c arr y ing a blac k semi-automatic .45- caliber pistol “a couple of times[ ,]” expressed a desire “ to go ba ck and g et them . . . .”

On Oc t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , t

h e D e fe nd ant, a lon g wi th h is b ro the r, Marq uis Ta lle y , h is c od e fe nd a nt,
and a “ y oungla dy ,” dr ov e thr ough L itt on Ap artme nts . T he g ro up wa s r idi ngin a bla c k T oy ota Cor oll a that be lon g e d to the De fe nd ant’ s g ir lf ri e nd

. Mr . T a lle y

state d th a t w he n th e y

fi rs t w e nt t o the apa rtment complex on October 18, the g roup wa s looking for “some wee d[.] ” He a lso confirmed that the Def

endant and his codefe ndant “mig ht have be en drinking that morning ” and “ may be doing some of that powde r” c ocaine . They additionally

“mig ht have” been smoking marijuana “on top of th a t[

. ]”

Acc ording to Mr. Talley , while driving throug h the apa rtment complex, the Defe ndant saw a man he rec og nized and then stated, “ There g o that dude that robbe d me.” They left and r eturne d to the Def

endant’ s g irlfriend’ s house, which took about ten minutes.
The De fenda

nt and code fenda

nt dropped off

Mr. Talley and the young lady at the re sidence , and the tw o me n the n re tur ne d to L itt on Ap artme nts

. Th e c ar sto pp e d ne ar a larg e g ro up of pe op le (a pp ro xima tel y eight to t e n p e rs on s, inc lud ingc hil dr e n) sittin g on the po rc h ta lki ng . T he vic tim , twenty -five- y ear -old Na t al ie Nicole Ma dison, was among this group. T he De fenda nt, who was “du ck i n g d o wn , ” go to u to f t h e v eh i cl e a n d s t ar t eds h o o t i n g.
Th e D e f e n d an t c h a s e d o n e i n d i v i d u a l , M ar k e i t h C a l l o w ay , d o w n a h a l l w ay , c o n t i n u ing to fi re . T he De fe nd ant r an be hin d the bu ild ing and the n re tur ne d to the c ar d

ri ve n b y his c od e fe nd a nt. When he was r eturning to the car , the Def endant obse rved the vict im ly ing on the g round. He stopped and a sked, “did she g et hit, did I hi t h er [ ? ] ” He then g ot in the car , and they drove a way f r o m t h e a p artm e n t c o mp le x. Ey ewitnesses, V ictoria S an fo rd and Markeith Calloway , identified the De fenda nt as the shooter at tria l. Acc ording to a nother ey ewitness, Nakkia Bla nchar d, the shooter state d, “nig g er, I bet y ou won’t rob nobody else” befor e he shot. Alfr eda B lancha rd hear d the shooter state simil ar 1 words: “[Y]ou won’t rob me ag ain, nig g er, or y ou won’t rob me a g ain . . . .”
About ten minutes after the shooting, the Def

endant a nd codef endan t re t u rn ed to the Def endant’ s g irlfriend’ s house, and the D efe ndant stated to Mr

. Talley that “he think he done killed somebody [; ] . .

. he thi nk he shot somebody .” The nex t day , Talley , the Defenda nt, and code fenda

nt went to L isa Her lein’s apa rtment in Ashland City , reque sting to st ay with her. Whil e ther e, the thre e-3-

men went f

or a walk. Mr. Talley stated that the Def endant did take his wea

pon with him to Ashl and City

. When the police arr ived at Ms. H erle in’s apar tment, she consente d to a sea rch, a nd office rs discovere d the Def

endant’ s wea

pon.
The victim died as a result of a g unshot wound t o the right side of her chest. Cartridg e ca ses re c ov e re d f

ro m th e c ri me scen e we re ma tc he d to the we a po n f ound a t Ms . H e rl e in’ s a

pa rtme nt i n Ashland City

. T h e D e f e n d an tr e l aye d

h i s v e r s i o no f

e v e n t s t o t h e j u r

y:
Iwas looking for some ma rijuana, a nd Ig et out the car . The c ar stopped. I g et out the ca

r, and I seen a person that I thought that robbed me. And whe n Iseen him reac hing in his coat, Ithought he was fixing to pull out the same big old nine milli meter in m y

fac e. So Ig ot scare d and I threw my

hand on my

fac e and I

fired
a sh ot.
Acc ording to the Def

endant, the pe rson who had r obbed him threatened to kill him if he ever saw the Def endant a g ain. The Def

endant claimed that he only had the g un for protec tion and chase d the individual do w nth e h a ll w ay b e c a u s e h e w a s a f

r a id an d d id n o t “ w an t h im

to s to p an d

ta k e a s h ot back at” him. When he shot the second time, he a imed at the individual’s leg s. He also stated that h e d i d n o tr e a l i z e h e h a d

“ h i t ” s o m e o n e e l s e an d

t h ath e g a v e t h e g u nt o M r

. T a l l e y. Following the conc lusion of the proof, the jury found the De fenda

nt guilty as cha rg ed. The tr ia l court se nte nc e d him to life imp ri so nme nt. F oll ow ing the de nia l of his mot ion fo r a ne w tri a l, the Def endant f iled a notice of

appea l to this Court. T h e ca s e is now prope rly befor e us for

our revie w.
AN AL YSI S Th e De fe nd ant’ s o nly

is su e is wh e the r t

he e vid e nc e is l e g a lly

su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

his conviction of fir st deg ree felony murder. T he De fenda

nt challeng es the suff

iciency of the e vidence citing disc repa

ncies be tween the evidenc e offe red by the State’s witnesses a nd claiming that he ac ted in self-de fense and that he w as too intox icated to f o rm t h e re q u i s ite mental intent for f irst deg ree murder.

Tenne ssee Rule of Appellate Proc edure 13(e) presc ribes that “[f]indings of guilt in criminal actions whe ther by

the trial court or jury

shall be set aside if the evide nce is insuffic ient to support the finding s by the trier of fac t of g uilt beyond a rea sonable doubt.” A convicted criminal def endant who cha lleng es the sufficiency of t he evide nce on a ppeal be ars the bur den of de monstrating w hy the evidenc e is insufficient to support the ve rdict, bec ause a verdic t of g uilt des t ro y s the presumption of innocen ce an d i m poses a pr esumption of g uilt. S tate v. Eva ns, 108 S.W .3d 231, 237 (Tenn. 2003); State v. Carruthe rs, 35 S.W .3d 516, 557-58 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) . This Court must re j ec t a convicted cr iminal defenda nt’s challeng e to the sufficie ncy

of the e vidence if, afte r consider ing the evidenc e in a lig ht mo st favora ble to the-4-

prosec ution, we deter

mine that any rational trier of fac t c ould ha ve found the e ssential elements of the c ri me be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. Jac ks on

v. Vi rg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 19 (1 97 9) ; State v. Ha ll, 8 S.W .3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999)

. On a pp e a l, t he State is e nti tle d to the str on g e st l e g iti ma te vie w o f t he e viden ce and

a ll
rea sonable a

nd leg itimate infere nces w hich may be dra wn there from. Carruthe rs, 35 S.W.3d at 558; Hall , 8 S

. W

. 3 d at 599. A g uilty verdic t by

the trier of

fac t acc redits the testimony of the State’s witnesses and r esolves all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the prosec ution’s theory . State v. Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). Questions about the cre dibilit y of witnesses, the weig ht and value of the evidenc e, as well as all fac tual issues raised by the evidenc e ar e re solved by the trier of fa ct, and this Court will not re-we igh or re- evaluate the evide nce. E vans, 108 S.W.3d at 236; Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d at 659. Nor w ill thi s Court substi tute its own infer ence s drawn f rom circ umstantial e vidence for those draw n by the trier of fac t. Evans, 10 8 S

. W

. 3 d at 2 36-37; Carruthe rs, 35 S.W.3d at 557.

Fe lony murder, f

or the purpose s of this ca s e, is “[a] killing of a nother c ommitt ed in the perpe tration of o r at t em p t to perpetrate any first deg ree murder . . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13- 202(a) (2). Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 39-13-202 also provides that “ [n] o culpable me ntal
s tate is r e qu ir e d

f o r c o n v ic ti o nu n d e r

s u b d iv is io n( a ) ( 2 )

. . . e xc e p t t h e in te n t t o c o mm it

the
enumer ated of

fense s or ac ts . . . .” Tenn. Code A nn. § 39-13-202( b).
The unde rly ing f

elony in this case wa s attempted first deg ree murder. F irst deg ree murder is defined a s “[a] premeditated and in t en t i onal killing of a nother . . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201( a)( 1). A pre meditated killing is one “done afte r the exercise of ref lection and judg ment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-202(d) . To be pre meditated, the intent to kill must have been f ormed befor e the a ct itself, and the acc used must be sufficie ntly fre e from excitement a nd passion. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 202(d). An intentional killing r equire s that the person ha ve the co n s ci o us ob je c tiv e or de sir e to c a

us e the de a th of the vic tim . T e nn . Co de Ann. § 3 9- 11 -1 06 (a )( 18 ); se e a lso State v. Pag e, 81 S.W .3d 781, 790 app. (Te nn. Crim. App. 2002). Whether pre meditation is present is a question of fa ct for the jury , and it may be deter mined from the circ umstances surr ounding the offe nse. B land, 958 S.W.2d at 660; S tate v. Ande rso n , 8 3 5 S

. W

. 2 d 600, 605 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). Our supr eme c ourt has noted the f ollowing non- exclusive factor s that d em o n strate the exis tence of pre meditation: the use of a de adly we apon upon an unarmed vic tim, the particular
crue lty of the killing, de clar ations by the defe ndant of an intent to kill, evide nce of procur ement of
a we a po n, pr e pa

ratio ns be fo re the kil lin g fo r c on c e a lme nt o f t he c ri me , a

nd c a lmn e ss i mme diate ly afte r the killing. B land, 958 S .W.2d at 660.

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 3 9 -12-101 outli nes the c rime of “ criminal attempt.” Criminal attempt is when:

A per son

. . . acting with the kind of c ulpability otherwise r equire d for the of fe ns e :T he j ur y i ns t r uct i ons ar e n ot i ncl uded i n t he r ecor d on appeal

. T he D ef endan t as s er t s i n h i s bri ef t ha t an 2 i nst ruct i o n on sel f

- d ef ense was gi ven. -5- (1) Intentionally

eng ag es in ac tion or cause s a result that would constitute an offe nse, if t h e circumstance s surrounding the conduc t were as the pe rson believe s the m to be ; (2) Ac ts with int ent to cause a re sult that is an element of the of fense , and believes the conduct will ca use the re sult without further conduc t on the person’ s part; or (3 ) A c ts w ithint e nt to c omp le te a c ours e of a c tio n o r c a

us e a re su lt that w ou ld constitute the offe nse, under the circumstances sur

rounding the conduc t as the per son believes the m to be, and the c onduct constitu t es a subst antial step towar d the commission of the offe nse. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 12-101(a ).
The De fenda

nt argues that the evidenc e showed he shot in self-de fense

. Thus, he ar g ues that 2 the killing wa s leg all y j u s tified. Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-11-611(a ) provides a s fo llo ws : A per son is just ified in threatening or using forc e ag ainst a n o th er pe rson when and to the deg ree the per son rea sonably believes the forc e is immediately nece ssary to protect a g ainst the other’ s use or attempted use of u n l aw fu l fo rce. The pe rson must have a re as o n ab l e belief that there is an imminent dang er of death or serious bo dil y inj ur y . T he da

ng e r c re a tin g the be lie f o f i mmi ne nt d e a th o r s e ri ou s b od ily injury must be rea l, or honestly

believed to be rea l at the time, and must be founded upon rea sonable g rounds. Ther e is n o d u t y to retre at bef ore a person thre atens or uses forc e. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 11-611(a ).

I t is well settled that whether an individual acte d in self-de fense is a fac tual deter mination to be made by the j ury as t he trier of fact. State v. Clifton, 880 S.W .2d 737, 743 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1 9 9 4 ) ; St a te v
. I v y , 8 6 8 S. W. 2 d 7 2 4 , 7 2 7 ( T e n n

. Cr im

. A p p

. 1 9 9 3 )

. A s s u c h , “ in th e c o n te x t of judicial revie w of the jury verdic t, in o rder

to preva il, the defe ndant must show that the evidenc e re la tiv e to j us tif

ic a tio n, su c h a s se lf

-d e fe ns e , ra ise s, a s a

ma tte r o f l aw, a

re a so na ble do ub t a s to his condu c t b e in g c r im in a l. ” Cl if to n , 8 8 0 S. W. 2 d a t 7 4 3

. M o r e o v e r , th e St a te h a s th e b u r d e n of neg ating any

defe nse if admissible evidenc e is introduced suppor ting the de fense . Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-201( a)( 3). I t is clearly within the prerog ative of the jury to rejec t a claim of self- defe nse. State v. Goode, 956 S.W.2d 521, 527 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).-6-

The De fenda

nt asserts that, base d upon the evidenc e of self-de fense prese nted at trial, he w as leg ally justified in shooting

. He f urther ur g es us to consider the discrepa ncies be tween the evidenc e offe red by

the State’s witnesses.

Ex amining the evidenc e in the l ight most favor able to the S tate, we conclude that there was sufficie nt evidence to sustain the Defe ndant’s convic tion for fe lony murder. The proof showed that the killing of the victim oc curr ed as a r esult of the De fenda nt’s shooting into a g roup of pe ople he believed inc luded the man who ha d previously robbed him. Ac cording

to test i m o n y p resented at trial, the De fenda

nt was riding throug h the apar tment c omplex and obser

ved the man he believed ha d
ro bb e d h im o n a

pr ior oc c a sio n. Th e re a ft e r, he re tur ne d to the a

pa rtme nts in a

c ar d ri ve n b y his codef endant a nd jumped out of the vehic le, made statements of reveng e, and starting firing upon the
crow d on the porc h. He c hased Mr . Calloway d o wn the hallwa

y , shooting a g ain. Prior to the
s h o o t i n g, t h e D ef

en d an ts t at edt h at h e d es i re d t o re tu rn t o t h e ap ar t m en tco mp l ex t o ex ac tre v en ge u p o nt h e r o b b e r

. F o l l o w i n g t h e s h o o t i n g , t h e D e f e n d an tt o o k

h i s w e a p o n an d w e n tt o A s h l an d

C i t y. The jury hear d testimony

surrounding the circumstances of the shooting a nd from two ey ewitnesses that the Def

endant wa s the shooter. As noted above, this Court will not re- weig h or re -eva luate the
e vid e nc e . Se e Ev ans , 1 08 S.W. 3d a t 23 6. F ur

the rm or e , q

ue sti on s a bo ut t he c re dib ili ty

of wi tne sse s, the weig ht and value of

the evidenc e, as we l l as fa ct ual issues raise d by the evidenc e ar e to be resolved by

the trier of

fac t. I d. The jury was not obligated t o acc ept t he Defenda nt’s testimony

as to self-de fense . The issue of self- defe nse in a murde r prose cution is alway s a question of fact to be de termined by the trier of fac t. I n summary , there was ample evidenc e to support the jury ’s finding in this case that the killing
occur red dur ing the attempt to pe rpetrate the first deg ree murder of Marke ith Calloway , whom the Def endant a ppare ntly believed to be the man who ha d previously robbed him at gunpoint. Finally , the Def

endant a sserts in his brief that Mr. Ta lley ’s testimony provided suff

i ci ent e vid e nc e of

vo lun tary

int oxic a tio n. Ou

r C od e pr ov ide s th a t, w hil e vo lunt ary in toxicatio n is no t a def e n s e to p r o s e c u ti o n f

o r an o f f e n s e , e v id e n c e o f s u c h in to xic a ti o n ma y b e a d mi tt e d to ne g ate a culpable me ntal state. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503( a); see also State v. Phipps, 883 S .W.2d 138, 148 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. Be cause the Def

endant ha s failed to include the jury instructions in the recor d on appea l, we cannot de termine whether an instruction on voluntary intox ication was give n. “When a pa rty seeks
a pp e llate re vie w the re is a d ut y to prep are a re c or d w hic h c on ve y s a

fa ir , a c c ur a te and

c omp le te acc ount of what tra

nspired with re spect to the issues for ming the ba sis of the appe al.” St ate v. Ba llard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Ten n

. 1993). I t is the duty of the a ppealingparty

to prepa re a n adequate re cord f

or appe llate re view. Te nn. R. App. P. 24(b).

Mo reove r, wh e the r a

de fe nd ant i s to o in toxic a te d to fo rm the re qu isi te me nta l st a te is a question rese rved f

or the jury

. State v. Br ooks, 909 S.W .2d 854, 859 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) . The jury hear d Mr. Talley ’s testimony and obviously

conclude d that the Def

endant wa s not so intox ic ated-7-

a s to be un a

ble to f or m th e re qu ir e d me nta l st a te . We con c lud e that the e vid e nc e wa s su ff ic ie nt t o establish the ce rtainty

of g uilt of the acc used.

CO NC LU SION Ba sed upon our r eview of rec ord, we conclude that the evidenc e is sufficie nt to support the De fe nd ant’ s c on vic tio n f or fi rs t de g re e fe lony

mur de r. Th e jud g men t of the Da vid so n Co un ty Criminal Court is aff

irmed.

______________________________ DAVI D H. WEL L ES, J UDGE