### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A pr i l 20, 2004 S e s s i on
STA TE O F TEN N ESSEE v
. M A R I O H ER N A N D EZ C A STI LLO

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Gr ainger County

No. 3621 O. Duane Slon e, Judge

No. E2003-01250-CC A-R3- CD May 21, 2004

A Grainge r County

jury convicted the defe ndant of preme ditated first deg ree murder, f elony murder, espec ially ag g ravated robbe ry , and thef t under $500. The trial court mer g ed the f elony murder conviction into the preme ditated first deg ree murder conviction and ordered the defe ndant t o serve an ef fec tive life sentenc e. The defe ndant raises the following issues on appea l: (1) whethe r the trial court e rre d in failing to suppress his statement to law enf orce ment officia ls; (2) whethe r th e trial court e rre d in failing to a llow the defe nse to introduc e proof that the victim reg ularly

dealt in illeg al dr ug s a ndfi re arm s; and(3 ) w he the r the e vid e nc e wa s su ff ic ie nt to sus ta in his mur de r c on vic tio ns

. We remand f

or entry of an or der me rg ing the theft convic tion into t he espec ially ag g ravated robbe ry c on vic tio n b ut o the rw ise a ff ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tria l c ou rt

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

the Circ uit Court Aff irm ed as Modif

ied

J OE G. R I L EY , J ., del i v ere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.

Edwar d C. Mill er, D istrict Publi c De fende r, for the appe llant, Mario Hernandez Castillo.

Paul G. Sum me rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Kathy D. As lin g e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; and Al C. Schmutz er, Jr., District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION Sp ec i al Age n t Carl Smith of the Tennessee Bur eau of I nvestig ation testified he wa s the head of the law e nforc ement tea m formed to investig ate the J an u ary 2000 shooting de aths of two individuals, including the victim in this case , J ackie Petitt. The shooting took plac e at the vic tim’s residenc e in Grai n ger C o u nty . Ag ent Smith t estified the body of a y oung Hispanic man f ound outside the victim’s residenc e was determined to be L eoncio Cantu. Ag ent S mith found the body of the victim just insi de the dining are a of the vi ctim’s residenc e. No weapons wer e found on the victim. Ag ent S mith found bul lets which had been fired from a .30 caliber g un, as we ll as ejec ted and unfi r e d s h e ll s f

r o m th e s a me c a li b e r w e ap o n

. T h is w e ap o n w a s n o t f o u n d a t th e s c e n e

. The-2-

victim’s vehicle wa s discovere d at t he end of the drivew ay . The victim’s wa llet, which containe d $8.00 and wa s stained with the def endant’ s blood, was found inside the ve hicle. Ag ent Smit h stated a nine milli meter handg un subsequently found at the sce ne had f ired, but
no t e je c te d, the sp e nt s he ll c a sin g fo un d inits c ha mbe r. Ag e nt S mith f urthe r e xpla ine d th a t Ca ntu was de termined to have died as a result of a

.22 caliber

bullet wound to the chest.

She lby B arn ard , th e vic tim ’s daug hte r, ide nti fi e d the vic tim ’s wa lle t and te sti fi e d th e vic tim
a l w a ys c arr i e d a tl e a s t$ 5 0 0 i n c u rr e n c y.
Dr. Cleland B lake, a

fore nsic patholog ist , p er fo rmed the autopsies on both the victim and Ca ntu . D r. B lake state d Cantu die d a s a re su lt o f a

.2 2 c a lib e r g un sh ot w ou ndto the chest . A s to the victim, Dr. B lake e numerated num erous blunt injuries to the vi ctim’s scalp and head, inc luding
on e blo w w hic h in de nte d th e vic tim ’s skull . H e te sti fi e d s uch a beat ing wo uldre su lt i n “conc ussional injury

to the brain [unt il the victim] would be stag g ering or ce rtainly not themselves and not be a cting normal.” D r. B lake stated t h e v i ct im rece ived g unshot wounds to the chest and he a d, bo th f

ro m a n in te rm e diate c a lib e r w e apo n. Dr . B lake te sti fi e d th e wo un d to th e vic tim ’s c he st would have be en lethal, but th e s econd g unshot wound entere d the bac k of the he ad and c aused immediate death. Special Ag ent Chad Smith of t he Te nnessee Bur eau of I nvestig ation testified the def endant’ s fing erprints and photogr ap h we re pla ced on the internet at the time of his inclusion in t he TB I ’s “Top Te n Fug itive List.” He testified the defe ndant’s fing erprints we re enrolled in law enf orce ment databa ses and state d he re ceive d a p h one ca ll in S eptember 2001 from the United States B order Patrol near L as Cruce s, New Me x ico. He w as able to provide the B order Patrol with finge rprint information, thus enabling the B order Patrol to identify

a subjec t being detained by that ag ency

as the def endant. Ag ent Chad Smith t estified Cantu wa s shot wi th a .22 ca liber we apon. He further d es cr i b ed h i s aw ar en es s o f v ar i o u s s ec u ri t y d ev i ce s p re s en tatt h e v i ct i m ’s re s i d en ce , i n c l u d i n g a video surveillanc e sy stem and an a larm devic e that woul d pag e the victim when some one ente red t h e p ro p er t y
. He t es t i fi ed t h e v i ct i m o wn ed a p age r an d a c el l p h o n e, an d p eo p l e w h o d ea l i n d ru gs conduct their

business with cell phones a n d / o r pag ers. He further stated drug dealing was known t o b e a d a n g e r o u s a c t i v i t y. Ag ent Andre w Wy lie of the United States B order Patrol testified reg arding the def endant’ s attempt to enter the United States illega lly in September 2001, the Bor der Patrol’ s appre hension of the def endant, a nd the s teps the Border Patrol took in an eff ort to identify

him. Age nt Wy lie testified that afte r discovering the defe ndant’s identity and his being wanted in Te nnessee , the B order Patrol turned him over to the N ew Me x ico State Police.

Offic er Felipe Gonzalez of t he New M exico St ate Police testified he informed the de fendant in Spanish of his c onstitut ional rig hts under Miranda , both orally and in writing

. Offic er G onzalez testified the def

endant indicated he wishe d to cooper ate a nd was willing to ta lk. O ffice r Gonzalez te sti fi e d th e de fe nd a nt s a id he wa s p ic ke d u p b y a frie nd[Ca ntu ], w ho ind ic a te d th e y we re g oin g to g o to a re sidence “to meet with someone reg arding a business deal.” The defe ndant and Cantu lef t Cantu’s van at the defe ndant’s residenc e and drove the defe ndant’s van to Cantu’s father ’s house, wher e Cantu re trieved a

rifle.-3-

Offic er G onzalez testi fied the de fendant said he and Cantu then dr ove to the victim’s residen c e

. T h e d e f

e n d a n t, Can tu a n d th e v ic ti m w e n t i n s id e th e v ic ti m’ s r e s id e n c e , w h e r e th ey discussed “pounds, meaning marijuana , cocaine.” Offic er Gonzalez testified t he defenda nt said he didno t kn ow wh a t w a s g oin g on a nd ste pp e d ou t of the re sid e nc e ; he the n h e ardtw o o r thr e e sh ots

. Offic er Gonzalez testified t he defenda nt said Cantu came out of t he door g rasping his chest, telling the def endant he had bee n shot. Cantu fell to the g round just outside of the door.

O f f ic e r G o n za le z t e s ti f

ie d th e d e f

e n d a n t s a idh e b e c a me “ r e a ll y u p s e t an d a n g r y ” a nd proce eded to g o inside and “make conta ct” with the victim. Officer Gonzalez testified the defe ndant said a fig ht ensued a nd the victim ha d a g un. Offic er G onzalez testi fied the de fendant said he and the victim eventually

fell on top of a be d, and the victim’s g un dis char g ed, striking the def endant in the torso. Offic er Gonzalez testified the defe ndant said he was a ble to take the w eapon f

rom the vic tim a ndbe a t hi m w ithit. Th e de fe nd a nt and the vic tim c on tin ue d to fig ht. Th e de fe nd a nt s a id he rea liz ed that the we apon he ha d taken a way from the victim did not have a ny more a mmuniti on; there fore , he retre ated from the bedroom are a and went outside. Offic er Gonzalez test i fi ed t he defe ndant said he thoug ht the victim was try ing to g et another wea pon.
Offic er G onzalez test i fi ed t h e d ef en d an ts ai d t h atwh en h e w en to u t s i d e, h e n o t i ce d C antu was dead. H e then took the rifle f rom underne ath Cantu’s arm. Office r Gonzalez testified the def endant said he a lso removed a

mag azine of ammuni tion from C antu’s pants. Offic er Gonzalez t estified the defe ndant said he w aited outside by the door until he saw the victim come out of the be droom are a with a g un, and then the defe ndant t ook three shots which st ruck the victim “somewher e ar ound the mid-section ar ea.” Offic er Go n zalez testi fied he asked the defe ndant appr ox imately three times wh e the r the vic tim

ha d a g un a t th e tim e the de fend ant sh ot him , a ndhe re sp on de d a ff ir ma tiv e ly
eac h time.

Offic er G onzalez testi fied the de fendant said he took the rifle as we ll as the handg un which the def endant ha d wre stled from the victim, drove the victim’s vehicle to whe re his own ve hicle wa s parke d, and drove away

from the sc ene. O ffice r Go n z alez testified the def endant sa id he ca lled Cantu’s fathe r to tell him that his s on had bee n shot and killed, drove to Atlanta w here he tre ated himself for his wounds, and pr ocee ded to Houston, Texas, where he disposed of the wea pons.
Offic er Jesse J arnig an of the Rutledge Police Depa rtment testified the victim had atonesounding de vi ce wh i ch emitted a tone when a vehicle pe netrated the perimeter of the residenc e. Offic er Jarnig an desc ri b ed t he video surve illance sy stem found within the victim’s residenc e and
narr ated the vide otape, whic h captur ed the shooting of the victim in the bac k of the he ad af ter he had been pr eviously

shot and while he w as wa lking a way from the de fendant. The videotape was play ed f o r t h e j u r y.
The victim’s home a nd g rounds wer e monitored by three came ras. As stated, the victim’s
mur de r w a s c aptu re d o n v ide ota pe . O nly on e of the c a me ra s re c or de d th e liv ing ro om o f h is h ome wher e the killing took plac e; there fore , the re sulting vi d eo ar ch i v e is sporadic . The videota pe reve als the following sequenc e of e vents.

T h e f i rs ti m age i s o f t h e v i ct i m , wa l k i n g al o n e a cr o s s h i s l i v i n g ro o m , ca rr y i n g a l ar ge ha nd g un . T he se c on d sc e ne sh ow s the vic tim , app are ntl y un arm e d, stand ing in h is l ivi ng ro om w ith-4-

the def endant a nd another man. The second m an, C antu, appears to be hidi ng a rifle under his long shirt. The third sce ne shows Cantu re treating a cros s t h e l i v i n g room toward the back door of the residenc e, ca

rrying t h e rifle and holding his stomach. The fourth scene shows the victim, who appea rs to have be en beaten, stag g ering in f ront of the de fendant. The def endant g estures w ith a g un in o n e h a n d , w h il e ja

b b in g th e v ic ti m in th e c h e s t w ith h is o th e r

. T h e f in a l s cene s show the defe ndant stride towar d the door and pick up the rifle which C antu carried e arlier . The stag g ering victim follows him. The defendant appea rs to be try ing to c hamber a shell into the rifle. The n the victim stagg ers a g ainst the wall, appa rent l y h av i n g been shot in the c hest. The victim then wa lks
away from the de fendant, and t he defenda nt raises the rifle and fires it into the back of t he victim’s h ea d

. T h e v i ct i mi m m ed i at el y co l l ap s es

. T h e n ex ts ce n e s h o ws t h e d ef en d an tru m m agi n g t h ro u gh the victim’s pants pocke ts, remove a n item, and place the item in his own pocket.

Offic er Jarnig an testified the vide otape did not support the defenda nt’s statement that he went outside and w as standing outside when Cantu wa s shot. Offic er J arnig an further testified the videotape did not support the def endant’ s statement that when he shot the victim, the victim was
c omi ng tow ardthe de fe nd a nt h old ing a pis tol

. Denise B ai ley

testified she pre viouslydated the vic tim. Bailey stated she lived with the victim for a total of thre e y ear s. Ba iley testified the victim “peddle d” in marijuana “occ asionally .”

I. SUP P RE SSIO N O F THE D EF EN DA NT ’S STA TEM EN TS

The de fendant contends statements he made to the New Mexi co State Police should have be e n e xclu de d f

ro m th e e vid e nc e a t tria l. Spe c if ic a lly , h e c on te nd s th e se state me nts we re the “ fr uit ” of his Miranda -poor state ments to the Bor der Patrol which indicated he had g unshot sc ars a nd was wanted in Te nnessee . We conclude the defe ndant is not entitled to relief on this issue.

A. The Suppr e ssi on H e ar ing

At the suppression hea

ring , Ag ent Wy lie of the United States B order Patrol testified the de fe nd a nt w a s in iti a lly

app re he nd e d b y

a g e nts of the B or de r Pat

ro l in Ne w M e xico a t app ro xima te ly 2:0 0 a .m. on Se pte mbe r 2 6, 20 01 , a ft e r atte mpt ing to e nte r the Un ite d St a te s il le g a lly . A g e nt Wy lie stated the de fendant identified himself as “Rube n Asuara -Tre jo.” Ag e nt Wylie state d th e de fe nd a nt w a s ta ke n w ith in m inu te s to the B or de r Pa tr ol Statio n in L as Cruce s for processing . Ag ents took the defe ndant’s fing erprints and ran them throug h law enfor ceme nt database s, which alerted the ag ents to do further rese arc h into the subject’s identity by calling a telephone number. Age nt Wy lie testified t he age nts knew only that the subject they wer e attempting to identify

was a possible wanted pe rson, and Ag ent Wy lie’s supervisor “ had had [a]
c on ve rs a tio n w ithso me bo dy so me wh e re e lse ” re g ard ing sc ars or oth e r p hy sic a l f

e a tur e s u niq ue to the fug itive. Ag e nt Wylie te sti fi e d h e didno t a dv ise the de fe nd a nt o f h is Miranda ri gh ts . Agen t Wylie te s ti f ie d th ea g e n ts asked the defe ndant if he had any scar s. Ag ent Wy lie stated that at the time he asked the defe ndant the questions about identifying phy sical cha rac teristics, “we had no idea it wasT h e re w a s n o tes tim o n y a t t h e su p p re ssio n he a rin g a b o u t t h e d e fen d a n t’s re sp o n se to A g e n t W ylie’s inq u iry. 1
H owever , hi s t r i al t es t i mo ny i ndi cat ed t he defendan t s t at ed he ha d a gu ns hot s car an d was wan t ed i n T enn es s ee. -5- a murde r. . . .” Ag ent Wy lie testified it was 5:55 a.m. bef ore the Bor der Patrol lea

rned that the 1 defe ndant was w anted in Tenne ssee for m urder

. The defenda nt was transported to the New Mexi co State Police.

Offic er F elipe Gonzalez, an off icer wi t h t h e Ne w Mexico St ate Police, testified at the suppression hea

ring that he int err og ated the defe ndant at the New Mexi co State Police station. The interview w as conduc ted in Spanish, the defe ndant’s native la ng u ag e. Of fice r Gonzalez testified he inf orme d th e de fe nd a nt o f h is c on sti tut io nal ri g hts , a lso in S pa nis h, prior to q ue sti on ing him

. Of fi c e r G on zal e z state d h e re a d th e de fe nd a nt h is rig hts a ndg a ve the de fe nd a nt an op po rtun ity to read th e ri gh ts h ims e lf . O ff ic e r G on zal e z te sti fi e d th e de fe nd a nt a sk e d q ue sti on s c on c e rn ing his rig hts, which wer e answ ere d. The defenda nt acknow ledg ed that he unde rstood his rights a nd wished t o s p ea k wi t h t h e N ew M ex i co S t at e P o l i c e

. Of fi ce r G o n z al ez i d en t i fi ed a S p an i s h -l an gu age

“ Ad vic e of

Rig ht s” for m si g ne d b y

the de fe nd a nt. Of

fi c e r G on zal e z’ i nte rv ie w o f the de fe nd a nt,
c on du c te d inSpa nis h, be g a n at app ro xima te ly 9:0 0 a .m. a ndla ste d a

pp ro xima te ly

on e to t wo ho ur s.
B. Trial Court’s F ind ings

The trial c ourt found the de fendant was lawf u l l y detained by

the B order

Patrol while they investigated whethe r or not he w as lawf ully in the United States. The court found the de fendant was fully apprised of

his rights unde r Miranda by the Ne w M e xico State Pol ic e prior to g ivi ng his statement to Off

icer Gonzales; the defe ndant questioned those rig hts and rec eived a nswers; a nd he voluntarily

chose to waive his constitutional rig hts. The court held t hat any statements made by

the defe ndant af

ter he was a dvised of his rights would be admissible into evidenc e. The court further he ld that a ny state me nts ma de by the de fe nd a nt t o th e B or de r P a tr ol r e g ard ing his sc ars wo ulda lso be admissible.
C. Standard of

Review The finding s of fact made by the t rial court at t he hearing on a motion to suppress are binding upon this court unless the evidenc e conta ined in the re cord pr eponder at es against them. State v. Say lor, 117 S.W .3d 239, 244 (Tenn. 2003). The trial court, as the trier of fa ct, is able to asse ss the
cre dibilit y

of the witnesse s, determine the weight and value to be afforde d the evidence a nd resolve
a ny c on fl ic ts in the e vid e nc e . Stat e v. Od om, 92 8 S. W.2 d 1 8, 23 (T e nn . 1 99 6) . T he pr e va ili ng pa rt y is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence and all re asonable infere nces dr awn f rom that evidenc e. State v. Hicks, 55 S.W .3d 515, 521 (Tenn. 2001) . Howeve r, this court is not bound by the trial court’s conclusions of law . State v. Randolph, 74 S.W .3d 330, 333 (Tenn. 2002) . The application of the law to the fa cts found by the trial court arequestions of law that this court re views de novo . State v. Daniel, 12 S

. W

. 3 d 4 2 0 , 4 2 3 (Tenn. 2000) . The de fendant has the burde n of establishing that the evidence contained in the record pr eponder ates a g ainst the finding s of fa ct made by the trial court. Bra ziel v. S tate, 529 S.W.2d 501, 506 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975).-6-

D. Ana lys is

The de fendant corr ectly asserts that “the prosecution m ay not use st atements . . . stemmi ng from custodial interrog ation of the defe ndant unless it de monstrates the use of proc edura l safeg uards eff ective to se cure the privileg e ag ainst self-incrimination.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S. Ct . 1602, 16 L . Ed. 2d 694 (1966). I f the initial confe ssion is i lleg ally obtained, eve n a later Mirandized

c on fe ssi on ma y , u nd e r c e rt a in c ir c ums ta nc e s, be ta int e d b y the ini tia l c on fe ssi on ; th us , the subsequent c onfession would be ina dmissibl e. State v. Smith, 834 S .W.2 d 9 1 5, 921 (Tenn. 1992).

Miranda warnings a

re not ne cessa

ry prior to asking routine booking questions, and they are not ne cessa

ry when a suspect mer ely

display s a phy sical cha

rac teristic. See Pe n n s y lv a n ia v
. M u n iz , 496 U.S. 582, 592, 110 S. C t. 2638, 110 L

. Ed. 2d 528 (1990); State v. Walton, 41 S.W .3d 75, 84 (Tenn. 2001) . The United States Supre me Court has held that “ the term ‘inter rog ation’ under Miranda ref

ers not only

to express questioning, but also to any words or a ctions on the part of the police (othe r than those normally attendant to ar

rest and c ustody ) that the poli ce s h o u l d know ar e rea sonably

likely to elicit an incriminating response from the s uspect.” Rhode I sland v. I nnis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S. C t. 1682, 64 L . Ed. 2d 297 (1980).

T h e record indicate s the Bor der Patrol’ s questions were intended mer ely to ide nti fy the defe ndant. The B order

Patrol had no re ason t o suspect that the r outine booking que stions they posed in an ef fort to identify t he def

endant would lea d to any incriminating response . The de fenda nt’s response that he had a

g unshot scar and was wanted in Tenne ssee r evea ls nothing i n reg ard to the
ev en t s s u rr o u n d i n g t h e s h o o t i n g.
Moreove r, eve n if we a ssume the def endant’ s re s p o n s es to the B order Patrol that he had g unshot scars a

nd was wa nted in Tenne ssee were in violation of Miranda , w ec on c lud ehis su bs e qu e nt, voluntary confe ssion to Officer

Gonzalez of the New Mexi co State Police wa s ad missibl e. Our supreme c ourt held that, pursua nt to the Tennesse e Constituti on,

e xtr a c ti o n o f a n il le g a l, u n w ar n e d c o n f e s s io n f r o m a d e f e n d a n t r a is e s a reb ut tab le p r e s u mp ti o n th a t a

s u b s e q u e n t c o n f

e s s io n , e v e n if

p r e c e d e d b y

p r o p er Mi randa
warnings, is tainted by the i nitial illega lity

. That pre sumption m ay be over come by the prosec ution, howeve r, i f t he S tate can establish “that the taint is so attenuate d as to justi fy admission of the subsequent c onfession.”

834 S.W .2d at 919 (e mphasis added) (citations omitted). Our inquiry in such situations is,

whether the eve nts and circ umstances surr ounding and following the initial, ill eg al
c on du c t of

the la w e nf

or c e me nt o ff

ic e rs pr e ve nte d th e a c c us e d f ro m su bs e qu e ntl y (1 ) m akin g a

fr e e a ndinf

orme d c ho ic e to w a ive the State c on sti tut ion a l r ig ht t o provide e vidence ag ainst one’s self, and (2) voluntarily confe ssing his involvement in the crime.

Id . In ma kin g thi s d e te rm inatio n, we mus t c on sid e r the fo llo wi ng fa c tor s:-7-

1. The use of

coer cive tac tics to obtain the initi al, illeg al confe ssion and the causal
connec tion between the illega l conduct and the challeng ed, subseque nt confe ssion; 2. The tempora l prox imityof the prior and subseque nt confe ssion;

3. The re ading and ex p l an at i o n of Miranda rig hts to the defendant before the subsequent confe ssion;

4. The c ircumstance s occur ring afte r the a

rre st and co n t i n u i n g u p until the making of the subsequent conf

ession including, but not limited to, the leng th of the dete nt i on and the de privatio n o f f

oo d, re st, a ndbathr oo m f a c ili tie s;
5. The coerc iveness of the atmos phere in which any questioning took place including, but not limi ted to, the place wher e the que stioning occ urre d, the identity of the interr og ators, the fo rm o f t h e q u es t i o n s , an d t h e r ep ea t ed o r p ro l o n ged n at u re o f t h e q u es t i o n i n g;
6. Th e pr e se nc e of i nt erveni ng fa c tor s in c lud ing , b ut n ot l imi te d to , c on su ltatio ns wi th counsel or f

amily members, or

the opportunity

to consult with counsel, if desire d;

7. Th e p s y c h o lo g ic a l e f

f e c t o f h a v in g a lr e a d y

c o n f e s s e d , a n d w h e th e r

th e d e f e n d a n t w as a dv ise d th a t th e prior

c on fe ssi on ma y

no t be a dmi ssi ble a t tria l;

8. Whether the de fendan t i n it ia te d th ec o n v e rsation that led to the subseque nt confe ssion; and

9. The de fendant’s sobriety , education, intelli g ence level, and experience with the law, as such fa ctors re late to the defe ndant’s ability to understand the a dminist ere d Miranda ri g hts

. Id . at 919-20.

We discern no e vidence in the rec ord that t he def endant wa s subjected to coe rcive tactics by the B order

P at ro l wh en he wa s asked whe ther he had any identify ing sc ars a nd whether he wa s wante d in Te nn e sse e

. Th e re app e ars to b e no c aus a l c on ne c tio n b e tw e e n th e de fe nd a nt’ s r e sp on se to the Bor der Patrol a nd the def endant’ s subsequent statement to the Ne w Mexico St ate Police. The defe ndant was be ing tr ansfe rre d t o t h e Ne w M exico St ate Police in any event, e ven had he not ide nti fi e d h ims e lf

truth fu lly ; hi s tr a ns fe r t o th e st ate aut ho ri tie s w a s th e re su lt o f the “ hit ” his fi ng e rp ri nts e lic ite d, no t an y st ate me nts he ma de to the B or de r P a tr ol. We c on c lud e that th e tim e lapse be tween the initial questioning by the Border Patrol and the defe ndant’s subsequent confe ssion to the New Me x ico State Police does not fa vor suppre ssion. Furthermore, the rec ord indicate s the defe ndant was apprised of his c onstitut ional rig hts under Miranda , b othor a lly a ndin w ri tin g , inhis native lang uag e. The defe ndant waived his rights. There is no evidenc e which would sug g est that the d ef endant wa s detained an unrea sonable time; there is no indication that he was de prived of fo od , r e st o r b a thr oo m f

a c ili tie s; andthe re is n o in dic a tio n o f any c oe rc ive ne ss. Additionally , it is clear that multipl e i n t er v en i n g fa ct o rs we re p re s en tb et we en t h e d ef en d an t ’s initial st atements to the B order Patrol and hi s subsequent stateme nt to the New Me x ico State Police, inc lud ing : a

laps e in t ime of

thr e e ho ur s, a

c ha ng e in l oc a tio n, a

c ha ng e in t he mann e r o f h is-8-

detention, and a chang e in the ac tual person( s) and g overnme nt ag ency doing the questioning. A lso, as noted e arlier , he wa s apprised of his rights a nd g iven the opportunit y to reque st counsel or de cline to answer questions altoge ther. We can discern no psy cholog ical ef fec t of having previously

made his brie f i de nti fying re sp on se to the B or de r Pa tr ol. Al tho ug h it app e ars the de fe nd a nt d id n ot i nit ia te the conve rsation which led to his ultimate confe ssion, there is no evidenc e in the re cord that the defe ndant lacke d the intellige nce or experience with the law to ma ke an inf ormed de cision to waive his c on sti tut ion a l rig hts

. I n short, our examination of the totality of the c ircum s t ances surrounding the def endant’ s initial questioni ng by

the B order

Patrol, his arr est and dete ntion, and his subsequent statement to the Ne w M e xico State Pol ic e le a ds us to the ine sc apa ble c on c lus ion that he kn ow ing ly a ndvo lun tari ly waived his r i ght ag ainst self-incrimination prior to making his statement. The prosec ution
succe ssfully

rebutted any

possible presumption that the defe ndant’s subseque nt statement was ta int e d b y the brie f q ue sti on ing by

the B or de r P a tr ol. Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.
II. EXCLUSIO N OF EVIDENCE

Th e de fe nd ant c on te nd s th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d ine xclu din g te sti mon y that th e vic tim

ke pt a larg e c a c he of

we apo ns a t hi s r e sid e nc e a ndthat th e vic tim re g ularly dealt in dru g s a ndwe apo ns , in support of the theory that the victim was the fir st ag g ressor. See State v. Ruane, 912 S.W.2d 766, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) ; Tenn. R. Evid. 404(a) (2). We re spectfully disag ree

. I n a jury -out hearing, the defe ndant proffere d the t estimony of Officer Dan Cox

. He testified he wa s employ ed in the Nar cotics and V ice Division of the City of Morristown, Te nnessee . Offic er Cox stated he pe rformed an investig ation into the illega l activities of the victim based upon information provided by

informants. Off

icer Cox testified he a lso purchase d wea pons from the victim and kept a file on the victim’s alleg ed dea lings in coc aine a nd/or marijuana . Offic er Cox testified he e x ecute d a sea rch w arr ant at the victim’s re sidence near the time of the victim’s death, at which time he disc overe d “some 50 plus fire arms , ” m o s t o f which were in a safe . Offic er Cox state d th a t pe rs on s w ho de a l indr ug s a ndwe apo ns or din ari ly c arry larg e a mou nts of

c a sh on the m, a n d t h a td e a l i n g i n d ru g s a n d f i r e ar m s i s a

d a n g e r o u s a c t i v i t y.
The de fendant arg ued to the trial c ourt that all of this tes t i m o n y wa s rele vant to show the victim was the “f

irst a g g ressor,” thus making it r eleva nt to the defe ndant’s self- defe nse cla im. The tr ia l c ou rt ru le d th a t “ c e rt a in e vid e nc e of dr ug de a lin g ac tiv ity

on the pa

rt of the a lle g e d v ic tim sh ou ld b e a dmi tte d in to this c a se .” Th e tr ia l c ou rt , h ow e ve r, de c lin e d to a llo w the de fe ns e to a sk Offic er Cox about information rec eived f rom informants, but did authorize Offic er Cox to t estify reg arding statements made dir ectly to him by the vi ctim. The trial court further rule d that evidenc e of we apons that the victim kept outside of the locked safe would be admissi ble, whil e evidence of
we apo ns the vic tim ke pt loc ke d in the sa fe wo uld no t be

. Af te r the tr ia l c ou rt ’s ru lin g , th e de fe ns e e l e c t e d n o tt o c a l l O f

f i c e r C o x a s a w i t n e s s b e f

o r e th e j u r y.
We conclude the defe ndant is not entitled to relief on this issue. The trial c ourt authorized evidenc e c o n c e r n in g th e v ic ti m’ s d ru g a c ti v it ie s

. A g e n t C h a d Sm ith te s ti f ie d ab o u t th e v ic ti m’ s surveillance sy stem and possession of a pa g er and cell phone, w hich ar e customarily used in the drug trade . He f

urther stated drug d ealing was a dang erous a ctivity . The de fendant’s statement-9-

made r efe renc e to a discussion with the vi ctim o f “ p o u n d s , me an in g ma rij u an a , c o c ain e

. ” Further, Denise B ailey , t h e v i ctim’s former g irlfriend, te stified the victim “peddled” marijuana . The statements made by

informants to Officer Cox about the victim’s alleg ed drug dealing would be hear say

. See Tenn. R. Evid. 802. To the extent Office r Cox ’s testimony might ar g uably

be admissible as reputation or opinion evidence under Te nnessee Rule of Evidenc e 405, the tria l court did not err in conc luding t h e p ro b at ive value of such testimony

was outwe ighe d by

its prejudicial eff ect a nd confusion of the issues. See Tenn. R. Evid. 403, 405(a) (3).

The trial court authorized testimony conce rning the wea pons found at the victim’s re sidence outside the locked box. W e conc lude the trial c ourt did not err in e x cluding testimonyabout
we apo ns in the loc ke d b ox. T he y ha ve no re al rel e va nc e to the de fe nd a nt’ s c la im o f s e lf -d e fe ns e under the fac ts and circ umstances of this case. See State v. Ste ve n T olb e rt , N o. 03 C01 -9 70 7- CR00325, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 1 0 3 8 , at * 1 5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 2, 1998) (noting the vic tim ’s prior

sa le s o f w e apo ns wa s n ot d ir e c tly re le va nt as to the pr ob abil ity of his us e of a de a dly
wea pon at the time of the of

fense ), perm. to app. denie d (Tenn. 1999) . Although thetrial court authorized the off

icer ’s testimony

about other w eapons, the defe ndant elec ted not to call the offic er to t e sti fy . T his iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t.
III. SUFF ICIENCY OF THE E VIDENCE

The de fendant contends the e vidence was insuffic ient to sustain his convictions for preme ditated first deg ree murder and felony murder. T he def

endant spe cifica lly

arg ues t hat (1) the prosec ution failed to prove be y ond a re asonable doubt that he d i d n o t ac t in self-de fense ; (2) the prosec ution failed t o es t ablish premeditation; and ( 3) the prose cution failed to e stablish that he intended to commit a fe lony at the time of the murd er

. T h e s t at e contends the evidenc e wa s sufficie nt to support the convictions. We ag ree with the state.
A. Standard of

Review

When an ac cused c halleng es the suff iciency of the c onvicting e vidence , o u r standar d of revie w is whether , afte r re viewing the evidenc e in a lig ht most favorable to the prosec u t ion, any
ratio na l trie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h a ve fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. J ackson v. Virg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L

. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). The trier of fac t, not this court, re solves questions conce rning the cr edibilityof the witnesse s, the we ight a nd
va lue to b e g ive n th e e vid e nc e a s w e ll a s a ll f a c tua l is su e s r a ise d b y

the e vid e nc e . St a te v. El kin s, 10 2 S. W.3 d 5 78 , 5 81 (T e nn . 2 00 3)

. No r ma y thi s cou rt re we ig h or re -e va luate the e vid e nc e . St a te
v. Ca bb a g e , 5 71 S.W. 2d83 2, 83 5 ( Te nn . 1 97 8) . O n a pp e a l, t he stat e is e nti tle d to the str on g e st leg itimate view of the evidence and all infere nces the ref rom. Id. Be cause a verdic t of g uilt removes the pre sumption of innocence and replace s it with a presumption of guilt, the accused has the burde n in this court of illustrating why the evidenc e is insufficient to support the verdict returne d by the trier of fa ct. State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).
B. Se lf- de fens e
The de fendant asserts that, having raised the theory of self- defe nse, the prose cution failed to succe ssfully

neg ate that de fense bey ond a re asonable doubt. We disagr ee.-10-

Se lf -d e fe ns e is d e fi ne d inTe nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 9- 11 -6 11 (a ), a s f oll ow s: A per son is just ified in threatening or usin g fo rce ag ainst another pe rson wh e n a nd to the de g re e the pe rs on re a so na bly be lie ve s the fo rc e is imm edi ate ly
nece ssary to protect ag ainst the ot her’ s use or attempted use of unlawful for ce. T he person must have a re asonable belief that there is an imminent d ang er of death or serious bodily

injury . The da ng er c reating t h e b el ief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be rea l or honestly believed to be rea l at the time, and mus t be founded upon r easona

ble g rounds. Ther e is no duty t o re t re at before a person threatens or uses f

orce

. Self-def ense is unavailable wher e the initial ag g ressor ha s cea sed the attack and the de fendant is no longe r endang ere d. State v. Rey nolds, 666 S.W.2d 476, 478 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). When selfdefe nse is fairly ra i s ed b y t h e evidence, the state has the bur den of ne g ating the def ense be y ond a
rea sonable doubt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-201( a)( 3); State v. Be lser, 945 S.W.2d 776, 782 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). Howe ver, it is ultimately for the jury to de termine whether the defe ndant ac ted in self-de fense . State v. Goode, 956 S.W.2d 521, 527 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).

The videota

pe cle arly depicts the de fendant was i n no dang er f rom the victim when the defe ndant shot the beaten, unarmed, s tag g ering victim in the back of the head w hile the victim was walking away

from him

. A reasonable juror could have f ound that the state ne g ated the de fenda nt’s claims of self- defe nse bey ond a re asonable doubt. This issue is wit hout merit.
C. P rem editated F irst De greeMurder

The de fendant contends that the e vidence is insufficient to support a ver dict of pre meditated first degree m urder . The a pplicable de finition of first deg ree murder is “ [a] preme ditated and intentional killi ng of anothe r.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-202(a )(1) . Premeditation nec essitates “a previou s l y fo rmed de sign or intent to kill ,” State v. West, 844 S.W .2d 144, 147 (Tenn. 1992) (citations omitted), and “ an ac t done afte r the exercise of ref lection and judg ment . . . [m eaning ] t hat the intent to kill m ust have be en formed prior to the act its elf.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-202(d)

. I t a lso re qu ir e s tha t the a c c us e d be “ su ff ic ie ntl y fr e e fr om exc ite me nt andpa ssi on a s to be c apa ble of pre meditation.” Id.

The e lement of preme ditation is a question of fac t to be determined by the jury from all the circ umstances surr ounding the killing. State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600, 6 1 4 (T en n . 2003). Although the jury

may not eng ag e in speculation, it may infer pr emeditation from the ma nner a nd circ umstances of

the killing. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 660 (Tenn. 1997); State v. B ordis, 905 S.W .2d 214, 222 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)

. Our supreme court delineate d sever al circ umstances that may be indicative of

preme ditation, including dec larations of the intent to kill , procur ement of a
weapon , th e u s e o f

a d e a d ly w e ap o n u p o n a n u n ar me d v ic ti m, th e f a c t th a t th e k il li n g was particularl y cr u el , infliction of multipl e wounds, the making of prepa rations bef

ore the killing for the pu rp os e of c on c e a lin g the c ri me , d e str uc tio n o r s e c re tio n o f e vid e nc e , a ndc a lmn e ss i mme diate ly afte r the killing. State v. N ichols, 24 S.W .3d 297, 302 (Tenn. 2000)

.-11-

I n Tenne ssee, whe n a homicide ha s been e stablished at trial, i t i s p re s u m ed to be sec ond de g re e mur de r, a ndthe bu rd e n is on the state to p rov e th e el e me nt o f p re me dit a tio n s uf fi c ie nt t o raise the offe nse to first deg ree murder . State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999); State v. L ong , 45 S.W .3d 611, 620-21 (Te nn. Crim. App. 2000).

We conclude the state has ove rcome the presumption of second deg ree murder. The re cord ind ic a te s th e de fe nd a nt u se d a de a dly we apo n on a

be a te n, un arm e d, de fe ns e le ss, wo un de d v ic tim

. T h e d e f e n d a n tw a l k e d a w a y f

r o m t h e v i c t i m t o r e tr i e v e t h e w e ap o n u s e d t o i n f l i c tt h e f a t a l i n j u r y, indicating a cool pur

pose and intent to kill formed prior to the act itself. The victim, at the time he was shot in the bac k of the he ad, wa s stag g ering and wa lking a way from the d ef

en d an t

. Viewing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the state, as we must, we co n cl u d e the e vidence was sufficie nt to support premeditated f irst deg ree murder.

D. F elony Murder

The defenda nt contends the evidenc e is insufficient to establish fe lony murder be cause the state fa iled to prove bey ond a reasonable doubt that he int ended to commit a fe lony at the time he kil le d the vic tim

. Spe c if

ic a lly , he c on te nd s the ho mic ide wa s me re ly c oll a te ra l to the ro bb e ry

/th e ft

. Be cause w e a f

f ir m th e c o n v ic ti o n f

o r p r e me d it a te d f

ir s t d e g r e e mu r d e r

a n d th e f

e lo n y mu rder conviction was me rg ed, the de fendant will st and convicted of first deg ree murder reg ardle ss of our a na ly si s of fe lon y

mur de r. Ne ve rthe le ss, we a dd re ss this iss ue in the e ve nt o f f urthe r a pp e llate revie w.
Th e de fe nd a nt c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e fails to e sta bli sh that he int e nd e d to ro b the vic tim prior to killing him ; he maintains, instead, the r obbery was mer ely

an af terthoug ht. The def

endant
corr ectly asserts that “the intent to commit the underly ing f elony must e x ist prior to or conc urre nt with the commission of the act causing the death of t he victim .” State v. Bug g s, 995 S.W .2d 102, 107 (Tenn. 1999). The killing may prec ede, c oincide with, or follow the f elony and still be in the perpe tration of the f

elony , so long a s there is a connec tion in ti me, p l ac e and continuity of ac tion. State v. Madden, 99 S.W .3d 127, 135 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (citing Bug g s, 995 S.W .2d at 106). Proof of the intention to commit the underlying felony and at what point it exis ted are questions for the jury afte r consider ation of all the fa cts and c ircumstance s. Bug g s, 995 S.W .2d at 107.

Th e e vid e nc e re fl e c ts the de fe nd a nt e nte re d the vic tim ’s re sid e nc e kn ow ing his frie ndCa ntu was a rmed with a rifle. It is undisput ed that the de fendant killed the victim and took property from him a ft e r h ewa s d e a d. Th evid e ota peof the kil lin g sh ow s the de fe nd ant sho ot t hevic tim , imme dia

te ly
sear ch the victim’s p o ck ets , remove property from the victim, and plac e the pr operty in his own pocket. The testimonyat trial fr om the victim’s daug hter indicated t he victim never car ried less than $5 00 in c a sh . T he vic tim ’s wa lle t c on ta ine d o nly $8 .0 0. Vi e wi ng the e vid e nc e in a lig ht m os t fa vo ra ble to the state , a re a so na ble jury c ou ld h a ve fo un d th e kil lin g wa s su ff ic ie ntl y c on ne c te d to the ro bb e ry

/th e ft sin c e the re c le arl y

wa s a c on ne c tio n intim e , p la c e a ndc on tin uity of a c tio n. Th is iss ue la c ks me ri t.-12-

E. Mer ger of Thef

t with E specially Aggravate d Robb ery Although not r aised by

the parties on appea l, we note the defe ndant’s dual c onvictions for
e sp e c ia lly a g g ra vate d ro bb e ry a nd the ft un de r $5 00 are imp ro pe r. Th e ft is a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e of espe cially

ag g ravated robbe ry

. See State v. Bow les, 52 S.W .3d 69, 79 (Tenn. 2001) (holding theft i s a l e s s e r
- i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e o f r o b b e r y)

. D u a l c o n v i c t i o n s f o r t h e s e o f f e n s e s v i o l a t e d o u b l e j e o p ar d y. See State v. Denton, 938 S

. W

. 2 d 3 7 3 , 3 8 2 (Tenn. 1996) . The prope r re medy is to merg e the convictions. Although it has no eff ect upon the effe ctive sente nce, w e re mand for e ntry of an or der merg ing the theft convic tion into t he espe cially ag g ravated robbe ry

conviction.
CO NC LU SION

After a car eful revie w of the rec ord and rele vant authority , we rema nd for entry of an or der merg ing the theft convic tion into t he convic tion for espe cially ag g ravated robbe ry . Otherw ise, we
a ff ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

.

______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ J OE G. RILEY, JUDGE