M an y of t he wit ne sses i n the inst an t ca se sha re a surna m e. A cc o rd i ng l y, fo r clarit y, we wil l b e u si ng t he f i rst 1

na m es o f t he wit ne sses. W e intend no d i sresp ec t t o t he se ind i vid ua l s. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 3, 200 4 STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RIC KY JOE AWA TT
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty No. 02-170 Roy B. Mor gan, Jr., Judge

No. W2003-02680-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled October 18, 2004

The a ppellant was c onvicted in the Madison C ounty Circuit Court of the first deg ree preme ditated murder of J unecus B olden. The a

ppellant re ceive d a sente nce of life imprisonment in the Tenne ssee De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n. On app e a l, the app e lla nt raise s iss ue s re g ard ing the a dmi ssi on of c e rt a in testimonyand the pr opriety of the State’s rebuttal closing arg ument. Upon revie w of the r ecor d and the parties’ brief

s, we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t i s A ffirm e d.
N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion o f t h e co urt, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., joined.
Mic ha e l D . Ra sn ake , Jac ks on , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Ric ky

Joe A watt.
Paul G. Summ er s , At t o rn eyGe n er al an d R ep o rt er ; He l en a W

. Ya rb ro u gh , As s i s t an tDi strict Attorney Ge ne ra l; Je rry

Woo da ll, Di stric t Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l; a ndDa nie l J. Ru nd e a ndL a wr e nc e R. N ic ke ll, J r., Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION
I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
I n the light most favor able to the State, the pr oof at trial reve aled that one or two we eks prior to J anuary

16, 2002, Ernest Ontavious Richard W illiamson (“Ernest”) had a conver sation with the appellant. During the conve rsation, Ernest learned that there was “ bad blood” br ewing betwee n the

1 appellant a nd the victim, J unecus B olden. Acc ording to Ernest, t he appe llant claimed that B olden had thre atene d the appellant’ s brother, Elliot Awatt, and the appe llant was “g onna g et B olden bac k-2-

for thre atening . . . to kill hi s brother.” The a ppellant dec lare d that he wa nted to kill Bolden, and “[h] e said he could do it himself.”
A t ap p r o xim a te ly 8 :0 0 p
. m. o n Ja n u ar y 1 6 , 2 0 0 2 , th e ap p e ll a n t a c c o mp a n ie d E r n e s t to the home of Ernest’s brother , Anthony Wil l i am s o n (“ Anthony ”), be cause Anthony was g oing to g ive E rn es ta h ai rc u t

. W h i l e t h e t h re e m en we re t o get h er , t h e a p p e l l an taga i n t al k ed ab o u t“ge t t i n g” B old e n. Erne st a ndthe app e ll ant le ft An tho ny ’s ho us e a t a

pp ro xima te ly

10 :00 p. m., a ndErne st drove the appellant home.
Earlier that day , at appr ox imately 7:00 p.m., Bolde n went to the re sidence of brother s Corey Al e xan de r M oo re (“ Cor e y ” ) andJim Cot y Mo or e (“ Cot y ” ) f

or a ssi sta nc e ins ta lli ng a

c omp a c t di sc (CD) play er in his car
. Bolde n was at the Moore re sidence for se vera l hours. Whil e B olden was at the Moore r esidenc e, the a ppellant, who wa s the M oores’ cousin and nex t-door neighbor , arrived. Be cause of tec hnical diffic ulties, the men wer e unable to install t he CD pl ay er. The appellant pulled Corey aside a nd told him that Bolde n had stolen some g uns from him. Acc ording ly , the appe llant wanted to “ whoop” B olden. Corey ag ree d to help and advise d Cotyof the plan to be at B olden.
The a ppellant i nformed Bolden that he had a CD play er at an aba ndoned white house in the neig hborhood. Ther efor e, at a pprox i m ately

10:00 or 10:30 p.m., the Moores, the a ppellant, and Bolde n enter ed B olden’s ca r and r ode to t h e location. Once at the house, the Moore s and the ap p e l l a n tp r e t e n d e d t o l o o k f o r t h e C D p l a y e r

i n o r d e r t o l u r e B o l d e n o u to f

t h e c ar
. E v e n t u a l l y, Bolde n beca me frustrated with the sea rch a nd left the house. Once all four men w ere outside of the house, Coty announce d that it was “ taking too long” to beg in “teac h[i ng ] [ Bolde n] a lit tle lesson,” so he appr oache d Bolde n and beg an to strike him. Corey and the appellant also hit B olden. After a fe w minutes, the Moores de termined that they had hit Bolde n “enoug h,” and they g ot ba ck into the car , planning to leave B olden stranded at the location. Howeve r, af ter he aring five loud shots, the Moores turne d to see the a ppellant standing over Bolden, holding a twelve g aug e saw ed-of f shotg un with fire c oming f

rom the bar

rel. The appellant g ot into the backseat of the vehicle, and Coty drove them home. At approximately midnight on J anuary 17, 2002, the appe llant arrive d at Anthony Wil liamson’s house. He told Anthony that “they had beat somebody up,” and Anthony deduce d that the a pp e l l a n tw a s r e f

e rr i n g t o B o l d e n
. A n t h o n y s e n tt h e ap p e l l a n tt o E r n e s t ’ s h o u s e
. S ho rt ly there afte r, Erne st and the appe llant returne d to Anthony ’s house, and the appellant ag ain stated that he “did it.” The appellant told the W illiamsons that “him and his cousins, Cotyand Corey , had beat up Mr. Bolde n and then [t he appellant] shot him.” The appellant then insisted that the Wi lliamsons help him move Bolde n’s body . The Willi amsons reluc tantly complied.
Th e app e lla nt, dr ivi ng B old e n’ s c ar, dro ve th e Willi a mso ns to the aband on e d w hit e ho us e which wa s located a

pproxi mately

one-f ourth of a mile f

rom the appe lla n t ’s h o m e. Tog ether , the three men loaded B olden’s body into the trunk of his car , and they tucked a quilt that had been in the trunk around the body . Once the body was in the trunk, the appe llant reque sted that Anthony drive as the a ppellant did not have a

driver’ s license.-3-

Anthony drove Ernest and the a

ppell an t t o E rn est’s house so that Ernest could g et his car

. Ernest then drove behind Anthony and the appellant to the south for k of F orked D eer

River. Upon arrival at the rive r, Anthony and the a

ppellant slid Bolden’ s car off a boat ra m p into the river. There afte r, Erne st drove the trio home.
L a te r i n th e a ft e rn oo n, the app e lla nt r e turne d to the Mo or e ho us e ho ld anda sk e d Co re y to h e lp him and his brother Elliot g ather the shotg un shells from the sce ne of the crime. The men g ather ed the shells and disbursed the m on the side of the r oad as the y wer e driving home.
Bolde n’s ca

r and body wer e discove red at approxim ately 8:15 or 8:30 a.m. on J anuary 17, 2002. Police questioned t he appellant, the M oores, and the W illiamsons because the y wer e B olden’s friends. U ltimately , the Mo o res and the Will iamsons reve aled the story of B olden’s death. The appellant wa s arr ested, a nd a trial followe d.
Ba sed upon the for eg oing pr oof, the jury fo u n d the appe llant guilty of first deg ree preme ditated murder . The trial court sentenc ed the a ppellant to life imprisonment. On appe al, the appellant r aises the f

ollowing issues for

our re view: (1) Whether

the Honorable C ircuit Court err ed in allowing the State’s witnesses to view e x hibits create d in the co u rt ro o m by a pre vious State’s witness in violation of Rule 615 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Evidence ; and (2 ) Wh e the r the Ho no ra

ble Cir c uit

Cou rt com mi tt ed plai n e rr or in allowing the State’s attorne y to express his personal opinion about the g uilt of the appellant a nd vouch for the cr edibilityof witnesses during c los ing arg ume nts

. We will address ea ch of the se issues in turn.
II. Ana lys is
A. Tenne ssee Rule of E vidence 615
The a ppellant ar g ues that the trial c ourt “e rre d by allowing a Witness, Mr. An t h o ny Willi a mso n, to vie w e vid e nc e , sp e c if ic a lly dia g rams wi th sti c ke rs pla c e d b y prior Sta te ’s Witn e ss, Mr. Erne st W illiamson, during the subsequent witness’ testimony in violation of Rule 615 of the Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f E vid e nc e .” Te nn e sse e Rul e of Ev ide nc e 61 5 is the ru le of se qu e str a tio n a ndis “now c olloquiallyre fe rr ed t o as ‘The Rule.’” Ne il P. C ohen et a l., Tennesse e L aw of Evidence , § 6.15[2] (LEXI S publis hing, 4th e d. 2000). Rule 615 provides that “[a]t the request of a party the court shall order witnesses, including re bu tta l w itn e sse s, e xclu de d a t tria l or oth e r a dju dic a tory

he ari ng
. . . . Th e c ou rt

sh a ll ord er al l-4-

pe rs on s n ot t o d isc los e by a ny me a ns to e xclu de d w itn e sse s any li ve tr ial te sti mon y or e xhibi ts cre ated in the c ourtroom by a witness.” T enn. R. Evid. 615. The purpose of the Rule is to “pre vent on e wi tne ss f

ro m he ari ng the te sti mon y of a no the r a nd a dju sti ng his te sti mon y a c c or din g ly .” Sta te v. Har ris, 839 S.W .2d 54, 68 (Tenn. 1992) . The Rule may be invoked at any

time and is mandatory upon its invocation. See State v. Anthony , 836 S.W .2d 600, 605 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). Ther e is n o p re sc ri be d s a nc tio n f or vio la tio n o f the Rul e ; r a the r, a tr ia l c ou rt re ta ins dis c re tio n to i mpo se the appr opriate sa nction. See State v. Bla ck, 75 S.W .3d 422, 424 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). Furthe r,

“ [t]he de c isi on to e xclu de or a llo w the te sti mon y

is a ma tte r w ith in the dis c re tio n o f the tr ia l c ou rt , subject to a showing of abuse and pre judice to the complaining party .” I d. at 424-25.
The a ppellant’s complaint ce nters ar ound the testimony of Ernest and AnthonyWil liamson. Du ri ng dir e c t e xami na tio n, the Sta te a sk e d E rn e st t o e xami ne a dia g ram of

the aba nd on e d h ou se wher e B olden was killed, whic h diag ram wa s entere d i n t o ev i d en ce as Exhi bit 3. Therea fter, the Sta te re qu e ste d th a t E rn e st p la c e a sti c ke r on the dia g ram “ wh e re the c ar w a s p ark e d w he n y ou a ll pu l l ed u p t h ere [t o remove the body ].” This sti cker was labe led “EW 1.” Ne x t, Ernest plac ed a sticker, late r labe led “EW 2,” to indicate where the ca r “ultimately

end[ed] up” after

it was bac ked into the drivewa y . Finally , Ernest plac ed sticker “EW 3” to indicate the location of Bolden’s body wh e n h e arrive d at th e aba nd on e d h ou se
. Th e Sta te the n pr e se nte d Exhi bit 5, a dia g ram of

the so uth fork of For ked De er River

. T h e S tate aske d Ernest to plac e sticker “EW 4” to depict the loc ation wher e Erne st “parke d while the B olden vehicle went down towa rds the rive r.”
After Ernest’s testimony , the State called Anthony Wil liamson to testify

. Th e a ppellant ob je c te d to Anth on y vie wi ng the dia g ram bea ri ng the la be le d stic ke rs , ar g uin g that “th e ru le wo uld decla re tha t we have a clea n slate i n here so this witness isn’t influence d by anything that’ s alrea dy been sa id or alre ady been put in front of the jury .” The trial court r easone d that beca use the Rule had been r equeste d at the beg inning of trial, Anthony

“would have no indication that they wer e put up the re a s a re su lt o f the pr ior

te sti mon y .” Ho we ve r, the tr ia l c ou rt c a uti on e d th a t “ thi s w itn e ss s ho uld no t app ro a c h so c los e that he mig ht re a d a ny ini tia ls on the c ha rt bu t c ou ld sti ll po in t o ut at s ome distance, if a sked by

the State.” During direc t examination of AnthonyWil liamson, the State broug ht out Ex hibit 3, the diag ram of the abandone d house whe re Bolde n was killed. The State a sked Anthony if “y ou can put that sticker up [on Ex hibit 3] wher e y ou rec all the car being stopped, and I ’m g oing to put ‘A W1.’” Next, the St ate g ave A nthony another sticker, labe led “AW 2,” r equesting that he plac e the sticker on the diag ram to indicate wh er e h e re called seeing Bolde n’s body . Finally , the State display ed Ex hibit 5, the diagr am of the south fork of For ked Dee r River, and aske d Anthony to place a sticker indicating wher e he stoppe d on the boat ra mp prior to sliding B olden’s ca r into the river

. On appe al, the appe llant arg ues that “[a]llowing Mr. Anthony Wil liamson to approac h and view State’s Ex hibits Number s 3 and 5 was tantamount to a llowing Mr. A nthony Wil liamson to hear the testimony

of the prior

Wit ness, Mr. Erne st W illiamson.” I nitially , we note that, based upon the tr ia l c ou rt ’s ru lin g to the app e lla nt’ s o bje c tio n, An tho ny sh ou ld not

ha ve app ro a c he d th e dia g ra ms to personally

place the stickers on the exhibi ts. Rega rdless, whil e Anthony

may have vie wed sticke rs-5-

place d on the diag rams by Ernest, ther e is no indication that the sticker s impacted Ant hony ’s testimony . See Black, 75 S.W .3d at 425. Moreove r, our e x amination of the diag rams re veals that An tho ny ’s sti c ke rs we re no t pl a c e d in the sa me loc a tio n a s a ny of the sti c ke rs pla c e d b y

Ern e st. Moreove r, the State’s que stions re g arding the diag ram we re not identica l, further lessening any impact upon the appe llant. Accor dingly , we conclude that even if there wer e a violation of Rule 615, such violation is harmless. See Anthony , 836 S.W .2d at 605; see a lso Tenn. R. Crim. P . 52(a)

. B . Cl os ing Ar g ume nts Next, th e ap p el lant complains that the State made an improper closing arg ument by interjec ting its “pe rsonal opinion as to the appe llant’s g uilt as well as vouc hing f or the c redibility

of Sta te ’s wi tne sse s. ” Th e app e lla nt c on c e de s that he didno t ob je c t to a ny

of the fo re g oin g state me nts during the State’s closing arg ument. Ordina ri l y , absent such c ontemporane ous objection, the appellant would ha ve waived this issue. See Tenn. R. A pp. P. 36(a); State v. Little, 854 S.W .2d 643, 651 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992)

. Ho we ve r, the app e lla nt c on te nd s th a t
since the St at e’s case r ose or f ell upon the cr edibilityof the State’s witnesses, the [trial court] should have curtailed t h e prosecutor’s improper a

rg uments and issued cur at i ve instructions to the jury sua sponte. The [tri al court’s] failure to corr ect the pr osecutor and provide the jury

with curative instructions was “plain e rror .”
Tenne ssee Rule of Criminal Proce dure 52( b) provides that this court may addre ss “[a]n error whic h has af fec ted the substantial rig hts of an acc used

. . . at any time, even thoug h not raised in the motion f o r a n e w tria l .

. . w h e r e n e c e s s ar y to d o s u b s tan ti a l j u s ti c e
. ” Se e a ls o T e n n
. R. E v id

. 1 0 3 ( d )

. We ma y on ly c on sid e r a n is su e a s p la in e rr or wh e n a ll f

ive of the fo llo wi ng fa c tor s a

re me t: (a ) the re c or d mu st c le arl y e sta bli sh wh a t oc c ur

re d in th e tr ia l c ou rt ; (b) a clea r and une quivocal rule of law must have been br eac hed; (c ) a subst antial right of the a ccuse d must have bee n adver sely aff ecte d; (d) the a ccuse d d i d n o t waive the issue f or tac tical re asons; and (e ) consideration of the err or is “nec essary to do substantial just ice.”
Sta te v. Ad kis so n, 89 9 S. W.2 d 6 26 , 6 41 -4 2 (T e nn
. Cr im. Ap p. 19 94 ) (f oo tno te s omi tte d) ; se e a lso Sta te v. Smith, 24 S.W. 3d 27 4, 28 3 (T e nn . 2 00 0) (a do pti ng the Adkis so n te st f or de te rm ini ng plain err or). Furthermore , the “‘“ pl ain error” must be of such a g reat mag nitude that it probably chang ed the outcome of

the trial.’” Adkisson, 899 S.W .2d at 642 (quoting United S tates v. Ker ley , 838 F.2d 932, 937 (7 Cir. 1988) ). Upon our examination of the re cord, w e dec line to addre ss this i ssue as

th plain err or.-6-

I t is we ll- e sta

bli sh e d th a t c los ing arg ume nt is a n impo rt a nt t oo l f or bo th p art ie s d uring a

tr ia l; thus, counsel is g ener ally g iven wide latitude during closing arg ument, and the tria l court is g rante d wide discre tion in controlling closing arg uments. See State v. Carruthe rs, 35 S.W.3d 516, 577-78 (Te n n
. 2 0 0 0 ) ( ap p e n d ix)

. “ N o tw ith s tan d in g s u c h , ar g u me n ts mu s t b e te mp e r a te , b a s e d upon the evidenc e introduce d at trial, re levant to the issues being tried, and not otherwise improper under the fac ts or law.” State v. G oltz , 111 S.W .3d 1, 5 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003)

. Th e app e lla nt s pe c if

ic a lly c omp la ins that th e Sta te, during its re bu tta l c los ing arg ume nt, stated:
Poor Ricky Awatt’s been sitti ng in jail. That’s wher e Ricky

Awatt des er v es t o be. That’s why y ou need to f

ind him guilty

and send him to the penitentiary under f irst deg ree murder.

. . . . L adies a nd g entlemen, that a in’t how it works. And okay , y ou go t two vetera n detec tives who are working this case, a nd they ’re g onna g et fooled by

a couple of snot-nosed tee nag ers [the Moores a nd the Will iamsons] ? Detec tive L owery ’s ey es ar e g onna widen e very time some other little morsel is dropped i n his lap? No, that’s not ho w i nv e sti g a tio ns go. Th a t’ s n ot h ow int e rr og a tio ns g o. Yo u s it somebody

down, y ou ask them. You press them closely

. You g et at the inconsistencies. Y ou see w heretheir g oing from. You question them closely , and throug h close que stioning and g ood close de tective work, how did the finge r come to point? To Ricky Awatt bec ause he did it. He did it.
The a ppellant ar g ues that “[t] he prose cutor wa s cl early vouching for the c redibility of the State’s detec tives. The prosecutor was also vouching for the c redibility of the State’s w itnesses that wer e interviewe d by

the detec tives.”

“ I n d e te rm ini ng wh e the r s ta te me nts ma de in cl os ing arg ume nt co ns titute re ve rs ibl e e rr or , it is n e c e ssa ry to d e te rm ine wh e the r the state me nts we re imp ro pe r a nd , if so , w he the r the imp ro pr ie ty a f f ec t ed t h e ve rd i ct

. ” S t at e v. P u l l i am , 9 5 0 S

. W

. 2 d 3 6 0 , 3 6 7 (T en n
. C ri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 9 6 ). In c on ne c tio n w ith thi s is su e , w e mus t e xami ne the fo llo wi ng fa c tor s:

“(1) the conduc t complained of viewed in context and in light of the fa c ts a ndc ir c ums ta nc e s o f the c a se [;] (2) the c urative me asure s u n d er t aken by the court and the pr os e c uti on [;] (3 ) the int e nt o f the pr os e c uto r i n ma kin g the state me nt[; ]T h e a p p e llan t “ca rr ie s the b u rd e n o f en su rin g tha t t h e re c o rd o n a p p e a l co n v e ys a fair, a c c u ra te , an d c o m p le te 2

acco unt of what has t rans p i red wit h res p ect t o t ho se i ss ues t hat are t he b ases of ap p eal .” T e n n . R

. A p p
. P

. 24 (b). T h e re fo re , ge n e ra lly, “[i]n the a b se n c e o f an a d e q u a te re c o rd o n a p p e a l, this c o u rt m u st p re su m e th a t th e tr ia l co u rt’s rul i ngs were supp o rt ed by s uf f i ci ent evi d ence.” Stat e v. O o d y , 82 3 S.W

. 2 d 55 4 , 55 9 (T enn. C ri m
. A p p
. 19 9 1 ).

-7- (4) the cumulative effec t of t he im proper conduct a nd any other e rror s in the rec ord [; and] (5) the r elative stre ng th or wea kness of the c ase.”
I d. (quoting J udg e v. State, 539 S.W.2d 340, 344 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976)).
Our e x amination of the a lleg ed er ror is limited because the re cord doe s not include a transcript of the State’s initial closing a rg ument or the appellant’ s closing arg ument. Howeve r, the 2 be g inn ing of

the Sta te ’s re bu tta l arg ume nt ind ic a te s that the pr os e c uto r’ s c omm e nts are in r e sp on se to contentions made by

the appe llant in closing a rg ument. Notably , the State elucidated:
L earned counse l, to make his t h eo ryfly , do y ou know what he’s g ot to do betwee n the lines? I s convince y ou that these t wo people a nd the sy stem is corrupt. . . . [That] [t ]hey ’re our boy s. Corey and Coty are our boy s, the S tate’s boy s, these two fe llows’ boy s who broug ht this prosecution and who investig ated the c ase.
Acc ording ly , the State’s re buttal closing a rg ument appea

rs to be a r esponse to the a ppellant’s c on te nti on that th e Sta te ’s wi tne sse s w e re a c tin g to inc ri min a te the app e lla nt in or de r to p re ve nt the ir o w n p r o s e c u ti o n
. Se e St a te v
. T im o th y Wa y n e H o ll a n d , N o
. M 2 0 0 1

- 0 3 1 2 9

- CC A

- R3

- CD , 2 0 0 2 WL 31007428, at *6 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Sept. 4, 2002). We can discern no impropriety by the State in its closing.
III. Conclusi on Finding no reve rsible er

ror, we aff

irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE