IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs July 18, 2018

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CLAUDE DELANORE MANEY, JR.

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 2013-C-2654 Cheryl A. Blackburn, Judge

___________________________________

No. M2017-01711-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

The Defendant, Claude Delanore Maney, Jr., was convicted by a jury of aggravated 

assault by strangulation and was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years 

of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we 

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES 

CURWOOD WITT, JR., and ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JJ., joined.

Jay Umerley (on appeal); Nicholas McGregor (at hearing); Loren Pardue and Ed Hastings

(at trial), Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Claude Delanore Maney, Jr.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner, Senior Counsel;

Glenn Funk, District Attorney General; and Leandra Varney, Lauren Spero and Sara Beth 

Myers, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Following an altercation with his girlfriend, the Defendant was charged with 

aggravated assault by strangulation, false imprisonment, and coercion of a witness. A

judgment of acquittal was entered for the coercion of a witness charge following the 

State’s case-in-chief, and the jury found the Defendant guilty of aggravated assault by 

strangulation and not guilty of false imprisonment. 

08/03/2018
- 2 -

On the evening of February 16, 2013, Ms. Megan Taylor, the victim, was four 

months pregnant and at the Defendant’s apartment with the Defendant and the 

Defendant’s friend. The Defendant and the victim had recently become romantically 

involved, and the Defendant was aware of the victim’s pregnancy. The Defendant had 

planned to take the victim home at 9:00 p.m., but the victim decided she wanted to leave

earlier. The Defendant became upset, and they began to argue. The Defendant grabbed 

the victim by the arm and pulled her onto a bed in the living room. When the victim got 

up to leave again, the Defendant “grabbed [her] by [her] neck” and laid her on the bed. 

The Defendant told the victim that she could not leave. He then threw the victim off the 

bed and onto the floor, causing her to land on the right side of her face. While the victim

was on the floor, the Defendant took the victim’s cellular telephone and photo 

identification out of her purse. The victim testified that she did not see where the 

Defendant placed the two items. The Defendant later told the victim that she could leave. 

When she tried to do so, he changed his mind, and they began to argue. The Defendant 

pushed her down again. The victim did not recall whether the Defendant was verbally 

threatening her during the encounter. The Defendant’s friend was sitting in the living 

room during the incident but did not become involved.

At some point, the victim and the Defendant went into a bedroom and continued to 

argue. After about five minutes, the Defendant fell asleep. The victim walked into the 

living room, where the Defendant’s friend was still sitting. She asked the friend whether 

it was dark outside, and as she opened the door to check, she ran out the door. She ran to 

another apartment building and began knocking on doors for help. 

Ms. Luella Boyd lived in one of the apartments and allowed the victim to use her 

telephone to call 9-1-1. She testified that the victim “was upset and crying.”

An audio recording of the victim’s 9-1-1 call was admitted into evidence. The 

victim told the operator that the Defendant was her ex-boyfriend and that he was trying to 

kill her. She said the Defendant became angry with her when she wanted to leave his 

apartment and took her cellular telephone. She stated that the Defendant had hit her, 

thrown her on a bed, and “choked [her] out.” She explained that she ran as soon as the 

Defendant fell asleep and that her head and jaw were injured. She reported that the 

Defendant said the victim “would be the next Tabitha Tudors [sic]” and that she would 

not be going home. 

Officer Jeremy Smith of the Metro Nashville Police Department was one of the 

officers who responded to the victim’s 9-1-1 call. When he arrived on the scene, the 

victim was acting “erratically” and was “very hysterical.” Once the officers calmed the 

victim, she stated that she had gotten into an argument with her boyfriend, that he would 

not allow her to leave his apartment, and that “he grabbed her around the throat and 
- 3 -

began to strangle her.” She also stated that she had either fallen or was pushed, causing 

her to hit her head on the floor. 

Officer Smith observed red marks on the victim’s neck, which he believed “looked 

like a handprint around her neck.” He could not determine whether there were one or 

two handprints, but he stated “it was very, very apparent that there were marks around 

her neck.” He considered the marks consistent with that of a person who was strangled. 

The victim reported to Officer Smith that she had trouble breathing and that she believed 

“she had lost consciousness for a minute.” Officer Smith did not recall whether the 

victim’s voice was raspy but did recall that she was “yelling and screaming” in a “very 

high pitched voice” when he arrived on the scene.

After speaking with the victim, Officer Smith and another officer went to the 

Defendant’s apartment. The Defendant allowed the officers inside and agreed to speak 

with them. The Defendant’s friend stated that he did not know what had occurred 

because he was asleep. The Defendant initially said he was asleep, as well, and that he 

had merely gotten into an argument with the victim. Officer Smith testified that the 

Defendant later “tr[ied] to say it wasn’t that serious or it wasn’t a big deal.” Officer 

Smith did not recall whether the Defendant had any injuries. He described the Defendant 

as calm and appearing as though he had just awoken. 

Detective John Timm of Metro Nashville Police Department’s Domestic Violence 

Division visited the victim while she was in the emergency room. He observed “a couple 

of marks on her neck, a gash on the top of her forehead, and ... a mark or something on 

one of her fingers.”

Photographs of the victim’s injuries were taken by Detective Timm while at the 

hospital and were entered into evidence. The victim viewed the photographs and 

identified a knot on her head and red marks on her neck, including a red mark that looked 

like a thumbprint. She testified that she received treatment for her injuries, that her baby 

was not injured, and that her jaw was “cracked” from where she was thrown from the bed 

to the floor. At the time of trial, she was still having issues with her cracked jaw.

The victim testified that she did not have trouble breathing when the Defendant 

was choking her. She explained that the Defendant was not squeezing her neck but was 

merely holding the front of her throat. She denied losing consciousness at any point. 

When asked what she meant when she told the 9-1-1 operator that the Defendant “choked 

[her] out,” the victim explained that she meant he was choking her. 

The victim also testified that she had been contacted by a woman identified only 

as “Pam,” who offered the victim $300 if she would not appear for court. The victim 
- 4 -

identified “Pam’s” voice and the Defendant’s voice in a recording of a telephone call 

made by the Defendant while he was in jail. During the conversation, the Defendant said 

that the victim “cannot come to court.” He asked “Pam” to tell the victim that he 

apologized and that he did not remember the night of the incident well. He instructed 

“Pam” to offer to pay the victim not to appear in court.

On cross-examination, the victim testified that she and the Defendant were 

pushing each other back and forth and yelling at each other during the incident. She did 

not recall how long she was choked by the Defendant. She agreed that it would be “safe 

to say” that she testified at the preliminary hearing that she was choked for five to ten 

seconds. She then later agreed that she testified at the preliminary hearing that she was 

choked for one minute. She acknowledged that she said the Defendant was not her 

boyfriend at the preliminary hearing. She explained that she was angry during the 

hearing. She stated that she did not recall whether she was threatened regarding her 

testimony. She agreed that she had not spoken with the Defendant since the night of the 

offense.

A judgment of acquittal was entered for the coercion of a witness charge, and the 

defense offered no additional proof. The jury found the Defendant guilty of aggravated 

assault by strangulation and not guilty of false imprisonment. After a subsequent 

sentencing hearing, the Defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to eight 

years for the aggravated assault conviction. The sentence was to run concurrently with a 

prior sentence in a separate case. The Defendant now appeals.1

ANALYSIS

The Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support 

his conviction. He argues that the State did not meet its burden of showing strangulation 

because the victim testified at trial that the Defendant did not squeeze her neck, that she 

did not have trouble breathing, and that she did not lose consciousness. The State 

responds that the evidence is sufficient, and we agree.

 

1 A delayed appeal was granted in this case on October 28, 2015. The Defendant’s 

motion for a new trial was filed on August 7, 2017, and was denied on August 25, 2017. The 

Defendant’s notice of appeal was filed August 29, 2017. The State filed a motion to dismiss on 

the ground that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. This court ordered that the notice be 

deemed timely and left open the question of whether the motion for a new trial was timely. 

Because the only issue on appeal is sufficiency of the evidence, which need not be raised in a 

motion for a new trial to be preserved on appeal, we need not determine the timeliness of the 

motion for a new trial. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e).
- 5 -

When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must 

determine whether the evidence is sufficient “to support the finding by the trier of fact of 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). The appellate court examines 

the relevant statute to determine the essential elements for the offense and analyzes the 

evidence admitted at trial to determine whether each element is adequately supported. 

State v. Stephens, 521 S.W.3d 718, 723-24 (Tenn. 2017) (citations omitted). The court 

determines “‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. at 724 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 

(1979)). 

The standard of review remains the same regardless of whether the conviction is 

based upon direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. (citing State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 

370, 379 (Tenn. 2011)). “‘[T]he State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the 

evidence and all reasonable or legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom.’” 

Id. (quoting State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (1992)). This court does not reweigh the 

evidence. Id. (citing State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992)). Instead, “‘a 

jury verdict, approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the 

State and resolves all conflicts’ in the testimony in favor of the State.” Id. (quoting 

Harris, 839 S.W.2d at 75). The conviction replaces the presumption of innocence with a 

presumption of guilt. Id. (citing Evans, 838 S.W.2d at 191). On appeal, the defendant 

has the burden of demonstrating why the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. 

Id. (citing State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982)). 

As charged against the Defendant, aggravated assault occurs when a person 

“[i]ntentionally or knowingly commits an assault” and “[a]ttempts or intends to cause 

bodily injury to another by strangulation.” T.C.A. § 39-13-102(a)(1)(A)(iii) (2012 

Supp.). Assault occurs when a person “[i]ntentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes 

bodily injury to another.” T.C.A. § 39-13-101(a)(1) (2010). Strangulation occurs by

“intentionally impeding normal breathing or circulation of the blood by applying pressure 

to the throat or neck or by blocking the nose and mouth of another person.” T.C.A. § 39-

13-102(a)(2) (2012 Supp.).

The Defendant argues that the victim’s testimony at trial does not establish that 

strangulation occurred. Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the victim 

testified that the Defendant put his hand around the front of her neck and choked her. 

Although the victim stated at trial that her breathing was not affected and that the 

Defendant did not squeeze her neck, she told Officer Smith at the scene that she had 
- 6 -

trouble breathing and had lost consciousness.

2

 She also told the 9-1-1 operator that the 

Defendant had “choked [her] out.” Photographic evidence showed red marks around the 

victim’s neck. The victim identified a red mark that looked like a thumbprint, and 

Officer Smith testified that the victim had a handprint around her neck, which he stated 

was consistent with someone who had been strangled. Based on this evidence, a rational 

jury could find strangulation beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Roderick Williams, 

No. W2015-00832-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 7664769, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 5, 

2016) (holding the evidence was sufficient to support an assault conviction where an 

officer testified about his observations of the victim’s injuries, even though the victim 

denied any recollection of the defendant’s hitting her), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 23, 

2016). The Defendant is accordingly denied relief.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

___________________________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, PRESIDING JUDGE

 

2

The Defendant notes in his brief that this statement was “inadmissible hearsay.” He 

acknowledges that no objection was made during the trial, and he does not include the admission

of the statement as a separate issue on appeal nor as a separate ground for relief. To the extent

that he is arguing the trial court erred in admitting the statement, this issue is waived for failure 

to object contemporaneously. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a) (“Nothing in this rule shall be 

construed as requiring relief be granted to a party ... who failed to take whatever action was 

reasonably available to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of an error.”).