### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON N ove m be r 15, 200 5 S es sio n

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. KELV IN JER MA INE D OWELL

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Tip ton County No. 4910 Joseph H. Walk er, Judge

No. W2005-00588-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Fe bruary 17, 2006

The de fendant, Kelvin J erma ine Dowell, was convicted by jury of first deg ree murder and abuse of

a cor pse, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39- 13-202(a )(1) , -17-312 ( 2003), for which h e re ce i v ed a life sentenc e. Ag g rieve d of his conv i ct i o n s , t he def endant brings the instant appea l challeng ing the sufficie ncy

of the e vidence and the tria l court’s de nial of his reque st for a c ontinuance. A fter a tho ro ug h r e vie w o f the re c or d a ndapp lic able la w, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nts of

the low e r c ou rt

.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt s o f theCi r c uit Co ur t a r e Affir m e d.

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J
., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which N OR MA M C G EE O G LE
a ndJ.C. M C LIN , J J ., joined.

Ga ry F . A ntric a n, Di stric t Pu bli c Defen de r; a ndDa vidS. St oc kto n, As sis ta nt D ist ri c t Pu bli c De fe nd e r, fo r the Ap pe lla nt, Ke lvi n Jerma ine Do we ll.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; J . Ross Dy er, A ssistant At t o rn ey General; and Eliz abeth T. Rice , District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

Be cause the jury ’s g uiltyver d i ct acc redited the state’s ve rsion of the e vidence , we summarize the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the state. State v. Cazes , 875 S.W .2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994)

. On April 28, 2004, James R u s s el l
, J r. (“ J unior”), Re g g ie “Pee Wee” Dow ell, J eff Mo sle y , Ra fa e l Wake fi e ld, Cou rt ne y “ Ti ny ” L e mon s a nd the de fe nd a nt, we re play ing ba sk e tba ll i n t h e W i l k i n s v i l l e T r a i l e r

P ark

. A ts o m e p o i n td u r i n g t h e b a s k e tb a l l g a m e , t h e v i c t i m , J a v i e r “ J a y” Demar co B rookins, interrupted the basketba ll ga me and ha d a conve rsation with the defe ndant, who

su pp lie d th e vic tim ’s c ra c k c oc a ine

. At the c on c lus ionof the c on ve rs a tio n, the vic tim re turne d to his trailer, and t he defenda nt and the other basketball play ers followed the vi ctim. Appar ently , the vic tim ha d off e re d to sel l his ste re o to the de fe nd a nt or g ive it to him as pa y me nt. Whe n the vic tim-2-

disappea red inside his trailer

and did not re- emer g e despite the defe ndant’s demands that he do so, the de fe nd a nt b e c a me a ng ry a ndre po rt e d th a t he wa s “ g oin g to g e t” thevic tim

.
Th eg ro up th en re su med th eirbas ket bal l gam e un ti l t hevic tim re tur ne d a pp ro ximate ly 30 to 45 minutes later ca

rrying e ither a br oken golf club or a metal baseball bat. J ames Rus sell, J r., who was a

rmed with a pistol, met the victim and beg an y elling and waving his pistol at him. Mr. Russell then put his pi stol away , and the victim and the de fendant had a less-heate d discussion. The victim th en h ea d ed across a nea rby field in the direc tion of his trailer with the def endant, Mr. Rus se ll, a nd“ Pe e Wee ” Do we ll. Mr . Dow e ll ove rh e ard Mr . Russ e ll tel l the de fe nd a nt “d on ’t le t hi m talk to y ’all like that. Do that n--

--- .” Mr. Russell then hea rd a g unshot and beg an to run fr om the fi e ld. As Mr . Ru sse ll l oo ke d o ve r his sh ou lde r, he sa w the de fe nd a nt s ta nd ing in f ro nt o f the vic tim
, who was kne eling . L ater , th e d ef en d an t told Mr. Dowell that the victim “had lost his life over something stupid.”

Ra fa e l Wake fi e ld, a

fe llo w r e sid e nt o f the Wilkins vil le Tr a ile r P ark , w a s w a lki ng to the de fe nd a nt’ s tr a ile r w he n h e ov e rh e ardMr . Ru sse ll i ns tr uct the de fe nd a nt t o s ho ot the vic tim

. Moments later, M r. Wakefield he ard g unshots and then saw Mr . Russell emerg e unarmed from b e hin d a tr a ile r l oo kin g sh oc ke d a ndfe arf ul. Se c on ds la te r, the de fe nd a nt a pp ro a c he d M r. Wak e fi e ld and informe d h im

th a t h e n e e d e d to u s e h is p ic k

- u p tr u c k

. M r

. Wak e f

ie ldc o mp li e d
, a n d the defe ndant and Mr. Russe l l l o ad ed t he victim’s body , which wa s wrappe d in a black ta rp, into the pick-up truck. Mr. Wakefield then drove to a landing by the Mississ ippi River where t h e group hoisted the victim over the g uardr ail, and the victim rolled into the Missi ssippi R iver. The rea fter, the g roup visited a ca

r wa sh wher e they

remove d the victim’s blood from Mr. Wakef ield’s vehicle

.
Mr. Wakefie ld hear d the victim snoring both w hen loading him into the pick-up truc k and whe n dumping him into the Mississ ippi River. Additionally
, the defe ndant told Mr. Dowell and Keith Russell that the vi ctim was sti ll breathing after he was shot. However , Medica l Ex aminer D r. Br uce L evy testified that he was unable to de termine whether the victim died of drowning but opined that the victim’s g unshot wounds were fata l and would have killed the victim reg ardle ss whether he was subseque ntly

place d in a river

. Doctor L evy further explained that the victim’s snoring r efle cted his comatose state.

After the victim’s body

was discove red f

loating in the Mississippi R iver, the subsequent investig ation and examination of the body reve aled the vic tim’s identityand re sidence in the Wil kinsv i l le Tra iler Park. The local police, a ssisted by Tenne ssee B ureau of Investig ation Special Ag ent Donna T urner , canva ssed the tra iler par k and intervie wed a ll residents. Ther eaf ter, investigators asked James Russell, J r., R afa el W akef ield, and the defe ndant t o come to the sheriff’ s office for que stioning. They did so and g ave sw orn statements in which e ach individual conf essed his r ole in the victim’s mur der and disposal of his body

. There afte r, all three wer e arr ested a nd char g ed with abuse of a c orpse, a nd the def endant wa s also char g ed with first degr ee mur der. The

s t at e l ater dropped the c harg es ag ainst Mr. Russell and Mr. Wakefie ld in ex chang e for their trial testimonyabout the def

endant’ s role in the victim’s murder

.-3- De sp ite his sw orn s ta te me nt i n w hic h th e de fe nd a nt a dmi tte d to sh oo tin g the vic tim when he believed the victim was g oing to hit him with the baseba ll bat he was c arry ing, the defe ndant later maintained his innoc ence , and his trial def ense the ory

was that James Russell, J r. had shot the victim.
Sufficiency of the E videnc e

I n his first issue on appea l, the defe ndant contends that the evidenc e is insufficient to s up po rt

his c on vic tio n f

or fi rs t de g re e mur de r. Ou r c on sid e ratio n o f that c la im is groun ded in leg al be d ro ck

. W h en an a ccuse d challeng es the suff iciency of the e vidence , an appe llate court i n s p ec t s t h e e v i d en t i ar y

l andsca pe, including t h e d i re ctan d ci rc u m s t an t i al co n t o u rs , fr o mt h e v an t age point most ag ree able to the pr osecution. The r eviewing court then decide s whether the evidenc e and the inf e re nc e s tha t flo w the re fr om pe rm it an y ratio na l f a c t- fi nd e r t o c on c lud e be y on d a re a so na ble d o u b t th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t is g u il ty o f th e c h arg ed cr ime. S ee Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( e ); Jack son v. Vi rg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 24 , 9 9 S. Ct . 2 78 1, 27 91 -9 2 ( 19 79 ); State v. Dunc an , 698 S.W .2d 63, 67 (Ten n. 19 85 ); State v. Dy kes , 803 S.W .2d 250, 253 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)
, o v e r r u le d o n other grounds by State v. Hoope r , 29 S.W .3d 1 (Tenn. 2000)

.

I n determining suff

iciency of the proof

, the appe llate court d o es not replay and

rew eig h the evidenc e. Se e St at e v. M att he ws , 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

. Wit ness cr edibility , the weig ht and value of the evidenc e, and fac tual disputes are entrusted to the finder of fac t. State v. Cabbage
, 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978) ; Lia k as v . S tate , 199 Tenn. 298, 3 0 5
, 2 8 6 S

. W

. 2 d 8 5 6 , 8 5 9 ( 19 56 ); Fa rm er v. S tate , 574 S.W .2d 49, 51 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978)

. Simp ly state d, the re vie wi ng c ou rt wi ll n ot s ub sti tut e its jud g me nt f or that of thetr ie r of fa c t. I nstead, the court ex tends to the State of Te nnessee the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence contained in the rec ord as well as all rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces that may be dra wn from the evidenc e. See Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d at 835.

Wit h these princ iples in mind, we must determine whe ther the evidenc e in this recor d is sufficient to support the jury ’s ver dict. We beg in with the definition of the conviction off ense. First degr ee murder is define d as the “ preme ditated and intentional killing of another .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202( a)( 1) (2003)

.

Premeditation “is an a ct done a fter the exercise o f re flec tion and judgme nt. ‘Premeditation’ means that the intent to kill m ust have be e n f orme d p ri or

to the a c t its e lf

. I t is no t ne c e ssa ry that th e pu rp os e to kill pre-exist in the mind of the ac cused f or any definite pe riod of time.”

Id . § 39-13-202( d). I ntentional “re fer s to a person who ac ts intentionallywith respec t to the nature of the c on du c t or

to a re su lt o f the c on du c t w he n it is the pe rs on ’s c on sc iou s o bje c tiv e or de sir e to eng ag e in the conduc t or cause the re sult.” Id. § 39 -1 1- 30 2( a ). Th e e xiste nc e of pr e me dit a tio n is a question for

the jury and may be infe rre d from the circumstance s surrounding the killing. Se e Sta te-4-

v. Ros a , 9 96 S.W. 2d83 3, 83 7 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 99 ); Sta te v . G e ntr y , 8 8 1 S. W. 2 d 1
, 3 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993).

The de fend an t arg ues that the e vidence is insufficient to support his first deg ree murder c onviction because the state’ s ey ewitnesses testimonyis riddled with inconsistencies and beca use their testimony

and the de fendant’s statement re flec t that the victim was armed and a cting in a thr e a te nin g ma nn e r w he n s ho t. I n su m, the de fe nd a nt a rg ue s th a t vi e we d inthe lig ht m os t favor able to the state , the evidenc e could only support a second deg ree murder c onviction and that the stat e did not meet its burden of proving preme ditation. The state counte rs that the evide nce introduced at trial demonstrates that the de fendant acted w ith premeditation; specific ally , the defe ndant threatened the vic tim, led the victim to the m urder scene wher e he shot the vic tim twice,

c a lml y e nli ste d h e lp t o d e stroy

e vid e nc e of

the mur de r, a nda dmi tte d th a t he sh ot the vic tim to friends.
We ag ree that the evidenc e introduced at trial supports the def endant’ s first deg ree murder c onviction. First, we note that any alleg ed discrepanc ies in ey e witness testimony do not undermine the sufficie ncy of t he supporting evidence because the j ury is the s ole finder of fa ct and there fore is entrusted with resolving all fac tual disputes. The def endant’ s g uiltyverdic t refle cts that the j ury resolved the se fa ctual discre pancie s in favor of the state, a nd we will not rew eig h or re play the evidenc e. See Cabbage , 5 71 S.W. 2da t 83 5; Liakas
, 199 Tenn. at 305, 286 S. W

. 2 d at 8 59; Farmer , 574 S.W .2d at 51.

Next, we hold that the evidence introduced at trial formed a reasonable basis for the jury to conclude that the defe ndant acted wit h preme ditation when shooting the victim. The state’s

e vid e nc e su g g e sts that th e de fe nd a nt s up pli e d c ra c k c oc a ine to the vic tim a ndthat on the day

of his murder, the victim took the def endant’ s cra ck coc aine to his trailer , promising to bring his stereo out in p a y me nt f

or the dr ug s. Ho we ve r, the victim didno t do so , w hic h a ng e re d th e de fe nd a nt. There afte r, the de fe n d an t re m ar ked to his friends that he would “g et” the vic tim. L ater that day du r in g a s u b s e q u e n t e n c o u n te r , th e d e f e n d a n t le d th e v ic ti m to w ar d s h is tr a il e r th r o u g h a fie ld. Whe n Jam e s Ru sse ll, Jr., ins truc te d th e de fe nd a nt to “ kil l th a t n-

-- -- ,” the de fe nd a nt s ho t th e vic tim using Mr . Russell’s pistol . The defendant then fired a second shot whe n the victim was knee ling be fo re him . A pp ro xima te ly thi rty se c on ds la te r, the c a lm- de me a no re d d e fe nd a nt s oli c ite d th e us e of Rafa el Wakefie ld’s pick-up truc k to dispose of the victim’s body . Whil e Mr. Wakef ield walked to his truck and drove into the field wher e the victim was shot, the de fendant wrappe d the victim’s snoring body

in a tarp and l o ad ed it into the back of Mr. Wakefie ld’s truck. The defe ndant then ins truc te d M r. Wak e fi e ld t o d rive to th e Mis sis sip pi R ive r w he rehe du mpe d th e vic tim ’s sti ll snoring body . The de fendant then p ro ce ed ed to destroy evidenc e of his crime by instructing Mr

. Wakefield to drive to a

car wash whe re he clea ned the victim’s blood from the pick-up truck be d. L a te r , th e d e f

e n d a n t to ld o th e r s , in c lu d in g la w e n f o r c e me n t o f

f ic e r s , th a t h e h a d s h o t th e v ic ti m. We ho ld that th is e vi den c e su ff ic ie ntl y su pp orts a

fi nd ing that th e de fe nd a nt a c te d w ithc oo l pu rp os e when shooti ng the victim. See State v . Bland
, 95 8 S.W. 2d 65 1, 66 0 (T e nn

. 19 97 ) (n oti ng that a defe ndant’s ca lmness immediately afte r the killing c an support a f inding of preme ditation).-5- Motion for Cont inuance

The de fendant contends that the trial court erre d by denying his motion to continue his trial date. A s t h e b as es fo r hi s motion, t he def endant c ites the state’s f

ailure to provide (a) a codef endant’ s statement, (b) the exculpatory statement of Courtney L emons who told investigators that he witnessed James Russell, J r. shoot the victim, and (c) the state’s e x pert witness’s ide ntityor
c op ie s o f h is r e po rt . A dd iti on a lly , th e defend ant c omp la ins that th e c ou rt e rr on e ou sly

re fu se d to continue the tria l date to allow testing of J ames Rus sell. J r.’s shoes for the pr esenc e of the victim’s blood.

Howeve r, the de fendant failed to include thi s issue in his motion for new t rial and has

acc ording ly waived it f

or consideration on a

ppeal. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e) (in jury case s, no err or may be pre dicated upon the admission of evidenc e unl ess the claim “was spec ifically stated in a motion for new trial; otherwise such issue[ ] will be treated as waived” ). More over, the defe ndant has fa iled to include a transcript of the continuance motion hearing in the appellate rec ord, there by hindering our re view. See T en n

. R . App. P. 24(b) (instruc ting that an appellant ha s the burden of prepa ring an ade quate r ecor d for a ppellate r evie w)

. Finally , without the benef it of review ing the hearing tr anscript, we see no basis for tre ating the claimed e rror as plain er

ror. See Te nn . R. Cr im. P. 52(b) (a llowing f

or plain er

ror r eview w hen the r ecor d clea rly establishes what occurred in the trial court) . Acc ording ly , this iss ue does not e ntitle the defe ndant to relief

.

Be cause we hold that the de fendant’s issues do not merit relief, w e ac cordi n g ly aff irm the jud g me nts of

the low e r c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE