IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned On Briefs November 10, 2009

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LANCE MURRAY

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 07-01811 James M. Lammey, Jr., Judge

No. W2009-00332-CCA-R3-CD - Filed March 19, 2010

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Lance Murray, of facilitation of robbery. On

appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction.

After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

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

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JOHN EVERETT

WILLIAMS and J.C. MCLIN, JJ., joined.

Scott Hall (at trial), Memphis, Tennessee, and Harry E. Sayle III (on appeal), Memphis,

Tennessee, for the Appellant, Lance Murray.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General;

Cameron L. Hyder, Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney

General; Pamela Fleming, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of

Tennessee.

OPINION

This case arises from the robbery of an Advanced Auto Parts store in October of 2006.

For this crime, a Shelby County grand jury indicted the Defendant on one count of

aggravated robbery. At the trial on this charge, the following evidence was presented:

Antonio Smith testified that, on October 16, 2006, between 11:00 and 11:45 a.m., he was

working at an Advance Auto Parts store waiting on a customer when the Defendant

approached him pointing a gun. Smith noticed the Defendant had a “distinctive voice,” a

“deep southern drawl type voice, cajun type.” He described the Defendant as a black male

wearing black pants, a jacket, a dark-colored bandana that covered his nose and mouth, and
-2-

a hat. Smith estimated that the Defendant was approximately 5'8" to 6' tall with a “medium”

build. 

The Defendant told Smith, “Get back, get back. I just want the money,” and then said

a few curse words. Smith immediately complied and backed up, and the customer fled to the

back room of the store. The Defendant grabbed the cash register drawer, ran out the front

door, and continued running to the left side of the building. Smith described the cash register

drawer as a two-and-a-half to three feet wide, detachable, beige box with a silver door and

estimated that the cash register drawer contained approximately $340 to $350. Smith

recalled that the Defendant also took the customer’s twenty dollar bill that was lying on the

counter. Smith stated that the entire incident was captured on the store’s video surveillance.

Smith testified that he immediately called police and told them what had happened.

Later that same day, the police brought a cash register drawer to the store, and the serial

number and the key to the cash register drawer matched the drawer that had been stolen.

Smith recalled that the police returned again a few days later with a video line-up, and, after

viewing the line-up, Smith identified the Defendant as the person who robbed the store.

Smith testified that, because he never saw the face of the person who robbed the store, he

made the identification based only upon the Defendant’s voice, which he was able to hear

on the video. He stated that, although the accent of the voice he identified was not as strong

as he recalled, he was able to identify the voice. 

Martha Strowder testified that she was at her home on 1300 Cummings, Memphis,

Tennessee, October 16, 2006, when she heard a noise outside. She looked out her bedroom

window, which faces the street, and saw a young man putsomething into her garbage can and

then clean off his hands. Strowder moved to the living room door, so she could get a better

look at the young man, who she saw get in a truck that had unusual markings, including a

plate with a painting of skeletons located where the license tag is normally hung. The truck

drove to her neighbor’s house and then stopped again. Strowder said the truck’s occupants

watched her as she stood in the doorway and seemed hesitant to leave but finally drove off

and turned onto Trigg Street. Strowder testified she then went outside and found a cash

register drawer in her garbage can, so she called the police. Strowder testified that police

detectives later showed her pictures of the Defendant’s truck, and she identified the truck as

the one she saw in front of her home. 

On cross-examination, Strowder testified that she saw three people in the truck, two

people in the front seat and one person in the back seat. She said that the person in the

passenger seat was the “young black man” with a “low hair cut,” wearing dark pants and a

dark shirt, who was standing over her garbage can. Strowder was shown a photographic line-
-3-

up, but she was only able to narrow the suspect down to two individuals. 

Officer Charles Cathey with the Memphis Police Department testified that, on October

16, 2006, he responded to a call at Strowder’s house where he recovered a cash register

drawer, which he took to Advance Auto Parts. Officer Cathey recalled that an Advance Auto

Parts employee identified the cash register drawer as the one stolen earlier that day. Officer

Cathey then turned the cash register drawer in to the Crime Scene Office to be processed for

fingerprints.

Robert Conner, an Advance Auto Parts employee, testified he was working on

October 16, 2006, when the robbery occurred. Conner said he was in an office set apart from

the rest of the store at the time of the robbery but could see what was going on through video

surveillance. Conner testified that $453.18 was taken from the cash register during the

robbery. 

Conner recalled that, after the police initially responded to the robbery, they returned

later in the day with a cash register drawer they had recovered. Conner testified that he was

able to open the drawer with the store’s key and that the drawer contained checks written to

Advance Auto Parts. 

Officer Anthony Morris, with the Memphis Police Department, responded to a call

to be on the look-out for a white truck bearing pictures of skull and bones. He located the

vehicle in the driveway of a house located on Trigg and Orleans. Officer Morris was advised

to continue patrolling the area, and, as he did, he heard over the dispatch radio that the white

truck had left the house on Trigg and Orleans and was now moving toward Walker and

Lauderdale. Officer Morris stated he went to Walker and Lauderdale where, the white truck

had been stopped by police, and verified that the vehicle stopped was the same vehicle he had

seen on Trigg and Orleans. 

Officer Joseph Poindexter, with the Memphis Police Department, testified he

interviewed the Defendant on the day of the robbery, and the Defendant said the white Ford

Explorer was his vehicle. The Defendant said he had personalized the vehicle by placing

stickers of various skulls and crossbones on the dashboard and the front mirror. He admitted

he was driving the vehicle when it was stopped at Lauderdale and Walker and that he had

been the only one driving the vehicle all day. 

Officer Poindexter stated the Defendant’s was carrying $186.06 in his pants pocket.

Officer Poindexter recalled that the Defendant had a “thick Cajun accent, very southern.”

The Defendant explained that he lived in New Orleans but was displaced due to Hurricane

Katrina. 
-4-

Officer Poindexter testified that it was approximately 4.6 miles from the Advance

Auto Parts store to Strowder’s house where police recovered the cash register drawer, and

the drive took him about ten minutes during rush hour traffic. Officer Poindexter stated that

the distance between Strowder’s house and where police first saw the truck in a driveway,

at Trigg and Orleans, was seven-tenths of a mile. The officer said it took him approximately

three minutes to drive this distance at the posted speed limit. 

Officer Poindexter testified that he created a video lineup that included the Defendant.

He explained that this was not the normal procedure but that, because the suspect’s face was

covered during the robbery, the most distinguishable feature was his voice. The video lineup

contained audio, so Smith could hear the subjects in the lineup speak. Officer Poindexter

said that Smith had described the Defendant’s voice as “Cajun style.” Officer Poindexter

recalled that the Defendant’s voice in the video lineup was not consistent with his voice

when they spoke during the interview. He recalled that, during the taping of the video lineup,

the Defendant “tried to soften [his accent] up quite a bit” and that “you didn’t hear that full

accent coming out” in the video. 

Officer Poindexter recalled that his partner’s cell phone, which rings to the theme of

“The Good, The Bad and The Ugly,” rang during the taping of the video lineup when the

camera was focused on the Defendant. Officer Poindexter explained that he did not stop the

video recording at this point because he had been advised that starting and stopping a

recording could suggest you are covering up something. The video was played for Smith,

who identified the Defendant as the perpetrator. A photographic lineup was shown to

Strowder, who was unable to positively identify one individual, but narrowed it down to two,

one of whom was the Defendant. 

Officer Poindexter testified that he collected a video surveillance tape from the

Advance Auto Parts store that confirmed the victim’s account of the robbery and description

of the perpetrator. The officer said the video first showed a white Ford Explorer, which

matched Strowder’s description, traveling west on the road that borders the north side of the

store. A few seconds later, the robber is seen entering the store from the north side of the

store. After the robber leaves the store, the same white Ford Explorer, with skull and

crossbone stickers, is seen going the opposite direction on Bluebird.

On cross-examination, Officer Poindexter agreed that, while Smith’s description of

the robber as a man with a thick, Cajun accent was the type of information he would

normally include in a supplement report, he had not included that information in his initial

report. Officer Poindexter agreed that his supplement report did not note the robber’s Cajun

accent until it described a meeting with Smith that occurred two days after the robbery. 
-5-

Based upon this evidence, the jury convicted the Defendant of the lesser-included

offense of facilitation of robbery.

II. Analysis

The Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Specifically, he claims that

the evidence is insufficient to establish his identity as the robber in this case. The State

responds that the following evidence, which was offered at trial, supports the jury’s finding

that the Defendant was the robber in this case: Smith’s identification of the Defendant based

on his thick Cajun accent; Strowder’s identification of the individual who discarded the

stolen Advanced Auto Parts cash register drawer in a garbage can in front of her house;

Strowder’s identification of the Defendant’s white Ford Explorer as the one she saw outside

her house; and the similarity between the Defendant’s white Ford Explorer and the white

Ford Explorer that appears on the surveillance video shortly before the robbery.

When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court’s standard of

review is whether, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,

“any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see Tenn. R. App. P.

13(e), State v. Goodwin, 143 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tenn. 2004) (citing State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d

247, 276 (Tenn. 2002)). This rule applies to findings of guilt based upon direct evidence,

circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both direct and circumstantial evidence. State

v. Pendergrass, 13 S.W.3d 389, 392-93 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). A conviction may be

based entirely on circumstantial evidence where the facts are “so clearly interwoven and

connected that the finger of guilt is pointed unerringly at the Defendant and the Defendant

alone.” State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 569 (Tenn. 1993). The jury decides the weight to

be given to circumstantial evidence, and “[t]he inferences to be drawn from such evidence,

and the extent to which the circumstances are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with

innocence, are questions primarily for the jury.” State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646, 662 (Tenn.

2006) (citations omitted). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court should

not re-weigh or re-evaluate the evidence. State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn.

Crim. App. 1990). Nor may this Court substitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier

of fact from the evidence. State v. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d 102, 105 (Tenn. 1999); Liakas v.

State, 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Tenn. 1956). “Questions concerning the credibility of the

witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the

evidence are resolved by the trier of fact.” State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn.

1997); Liakas, 286 S.W.2d at 859. “A guilty verdict by the jury, approved by the trial judge,

accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of the

theory of the State.” State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Grace,
-6-

493 S.W.2d 474, 479 (Tenn. 1973). The Tennessee Supreme Court stated the rationale for

this rule:

This well-settled rule rests on a sound foundation. The trial judge and the jury

see the witnesses face to face, hear their testimony and observe their demeanor

on the stand. Thus, the trial judge and jury are the primary instrumentality of

justice to determine the weight and credibility to be given to the testimony of

witnesses. In the trial forum alone is there human atmosphere and the totality

of the evidence cannot be reproduced with a written record in this Court.

Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tenn. 1996) (citing Carroll v. State, 370 S.W.2d 523

(Tenn. 1963)). This Court must afford the State of Tennessee the strongest legitimate view

of the evidence contained in the record, as well as all reasonable inferences which may be

drawn from the evidence. Goodwin, 143 S.W.3d at 775 (citing State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d

274, 279 (Tenn. 2000)). Because a verdict of guilt against a defendant removes the

presumption of innocence and raises a presumption of guilt, the convicted criminal defendant

bears the burden of showing that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty

verdict. State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 557-58 (Tenn. 2000). 

The Defendant in this case was convicted of facilitation of robbery. One is criminally

responsible for the facilitation of a felony, “if, knowing that another intends to commit a

specific felony, but without the intent required for criminal responsibility under § 39-11-

402(2), the person knowingly furnishes substantial assistance in the commission of the

felony.” T.C.A. § 39-11-403(a) (2006). Robbery, as applicable to the case at bar, is “the

intentional or knowing theft of property from the person of another by . . . putting the person

in fear.” T.C.A. § 39-13-401(a) (2006). Theft of property occurs when a person who intends

to deprive the owner of property “knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property

without the owner’s effective consent.” T.C.A. § 39-14-103 (2006). Fear as an element of

robbery involves fear of “present personal peril from violence offered or impending” and

must be a fear of “bodily danger or impending peril to the person which intimidates or

promotes submission to the theft of the property.” State v. Bowles, 52 S.W.3d 69, 80 (Tenn.

2001) (citations omitted). 

After a review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude

that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial for a rational trier of fact to find the

Defendant guilty of facilitation of robbery. Smith testified that a black man dressed in dark

clothing entered the store and, at gunpoint, demanded money and took the store cash register

drawer that contained $453.18. Smith testified that the robber spoke with a distinct, thick

Cajun accent. Upon reviewing a video lineup that included audio, Smith was able to identify

the Defendant as the robber based upon the Defendant’s accent. The Defendant’s vehicle,
-7-

a white Ford Explorer with skull and crossbone stickers and no license tag, was seen on

surveillance video just before the robbery driving in the same area from which the robber

entered the store. The same distinctive vehicle was seen leaving the area just after the

robbery. Shortly thereafter, near the area of the robbery, Strowder noticed the same white

Ford Explorer outside her home and a man dressed in dark clothing discard the stolen cash

register drawer in one of her garbage cans. Police found the Defendant in the area, driving

a white Ford Explorer, dressed in dark clothing, with $186.06 in cash on his person. The

Defendant admitted ownership of the white Ford Explorer, and he stated that he was the only

person who drove the car on that day.

The Defendant argues that the identification of the Defendant as the perpetrator in this

crime is flawed. He bases this argument on the fact that Smith could only identify him by

his voice. He further asserts that the line-up was tainted by a cell phone ring playing the

theme song from “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” while the camera was focused on him,

and Strowder could not positively identify the Defendant from the photographic lineup. We

agree that the identity of the perpetrator is an essential element of any crime, and therefore

must be proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Rice, 184 SW.3d 646, 662

(Tenn. 2006) (citing State v. Thompson, 519 S.W.2d 789, 793 (Tenn. 1975). We would also

note that issues of identity and credibility are classic jury questions. State v. Gregory

Mullins, No. E2004-02314-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 2045151, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App., at

Knoxville, Aug. 25, 2005), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. And, as stated above,

questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses are resolved by the trier of fact. Evans,

108 S.W.3d at 236. This Court does not second-guess the weight, value, or credibility

afforded to the evidence by the jury. Therefore, we conclude that the State presented

sufficient evidence of identity to support the Defendant's convictions. 

Based upon the evidence, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could find, beyond

a reasonable doubt, that the Defendant is guilty of facilitation of robbery. Thus, the

Defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue.

III. Conclusion

After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we conclude the record

sufficiently supports the Defendant’s conviction for facilitation of robbery. As such, we

affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

_________________________________

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE