IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs March 1, 2005

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. QAWI NUR, (a/k/a DARRIUS JAMES)

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 02-06231 Chris Craft, Judge

No. W2004-01259-CCA-R3-CD - Filed June 21, 2005

Defendant, Qawi Nur, a/k/a/ Darrius James, was indicted on one count of first degree felony murder

and one count of first degree premeditated murder. The State filed a notice of intent to seek the

death penalty. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree felony murder in count

one and second degree murder in count two. The trial court merged Defendant’s second degree

murder conviction into his first degree felony murder conviction. The jury sentenced Defendant to

life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for his first degree murder conviction. The sole

issue raised on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After a thorough review

of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

THOMAS T. WOODALL,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD WITT,JR.,

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

Robert Wilson Jones, District Public Defender; W. Mark Ward, Assistant Public Defender, Larry

Nance, Assistant Public Defender; and Diane Thackery, Assistant Public Defender, Memphis,

Tennessee, for the appellant, Qawi Nur, a/k/a Darrius James.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Jennifer L. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney General;

William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; Michelle Parks, Assistant District Attorney General;

and James Wax, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee. 

OPINION

Christie Lee Holmes was the girlfriend of the victim, David Romanoli. Immediately prior

to the shooting, Ms. Holmes, the victim, the victim’s younger brother, James, and his friend, Steven

Inglis, were sitting in a bathroom in the victim’s second floor apartment smoking marijuana. The

group heard someone kick the front door open. The victim left the bathroom, and Ms. Holmes heard

him call out, asking who the intruder was and what he or she wanted.
-2-

Ms. Holmes followed the victim as he ran down the stairs after the intruder. When she

reached the ground floor, Ms. Holmes saw a black car drive by with its doors open. A woman was

running after the car, trying to flag it down. Ms. Holmes chased the woman. The woman stopped,

and an African-American man stepped out of some bushes near the apartment building. Ms. Holmes

said that the woman told the man “to shoot [Ms. Holmes], shoot her, pop a cap in her ass, too.” Ms.

Holmes saw that the man was unarmed and demanded his name. The man and woman ran away.

Ms. Holmes identified Defendant and Melissa Swift from photo line-ups as the man and

woman she encountered outside the victim’s apartment building. Ms. Holmes said that Defendant

was wearing a white shirt, baggy jeans, and tennis shoes when she saw him. Ms. Holmes did not see

the shooting nor did she hear gunshots. 

David Barnwell, the victim’s neighbor, said that he heard gunshots and stepped out onto his

second floor patio. He saw a woman run past his apartment followed by an African-American man

wearing baggy jeans and a red baseball cap.

Officer Hope Bebout with the Memphis Police Department found a red cap in a bush next

to the apartment building. A pair of red nylon sweat pants and a bandana were also found behind

the building. Officer Robert Harris found a .38 caliber revolver in a bush next to the apartment

building’s back stairwell. Officer Sherman Bonds said that the .38 caliber revolver had four spent

casings and two live rounds. Heath Barker, a special agent with the Tennessee Bureau of

Investigation, testified that the bullet removed from the victim’s body during the autopsy was fired

from the .38 caliber revolver found at the crime scene.

Nina Sublette, a nurse practitioner, took a blood sample from Defendant for the purpose of

DNA sampling. Special Agent Lawrence James attempted to obtain a DNA sample from the clothes

found at the crime scene. Agent James was unable to secure a sample from the pants or bandana.

The DNA sample taken from the red cap contained DNA from two contributors, one of whom was

possibly Defendant. The DNA analysis indicated that the probability of obtaining that mixed profile

from the African-American population is approximately one in eight. Although the DNA sample

did not conclusively match Defendant’s, he could not be excluded as a contributor.

Dr. Teresa Allen Campbell performed the victim’s autopsy. Dr. Campbell said that the cause

of death was a gunshot wound to the right side of the chest. The bullet struck the victim’s left lung

and aorta and did not exit the body. There was no soot around the wound indicating that the shooter

was more than two feet from the victim when the gun was discharged.

Melissa Swift testified that she was indicted for first degree felony murder in connection with

the victim’s shooting, but pled guilty to the lesser included offense of facilitation of first degree

felony murder. On the afternoon of the shooting, Ms. Swift met Coty Childress and Jennifer

Mohrhoff at a gas station, and invited the women to her apartment to smoke marijuana. When the

marijuana was gone, Ms. Childress said that the victim had a supply of marijuana and suggested that
-3-

the group rob him. Ms. Swift called Defendant and asked him to go with the women. The three

women picked Defendant up at his apartment and then drove to the victim’s apartment building.

Ms. Swift said that she and Defendant went upstairs and knocked on the victim’s front door.

No one answered, and the two returned to the car. Defendant and Ms. Childress then went up the

stairs while Ms. Swift waited outside. Ms. Childress knocked on the door, and, once again, no one

answered. Defendant kicked the front door down. Ms. Childress and Defendant went inside the

apartment but ran back out in a few seconds. Defendant pushed Ms. Childress into Ms. Swift as he

ran down the stairs. Ms. Childress hurt her ankle and ran toward the car. Ms. Swift said a man came

down the stairs behind Defendant and Ms. Childress.

Ms. Swift ran around the corner of the apartment building. She saw Defendant coming

toward her with a gun in his hand. Ms. Swift said that she heard gunshots but did not see Defendant

shoot the victim. Defendant took off some of his clothes and hid the clothes and gun behind the

apartment building. Ms. Swift said that she and Defendant got back into the car and returned to Ms.

Swift’s apartment. When he got into the car, Defendant said, “I think I shot him.” Ms. Swift said

that she was not armed that afternoon.

On cross-examination, Ms. Swift said that she saw Ms. Holmes as she ran away from the

scene. Ms. Swift said she initially thought that the victim had fired a gun. She did not see

Defendant’s gun when he first got in the car prior to the incident. Defendant left Ms. Swift’s

apartment, and Ms. Swift and her friends ate dinner at a local restaurant.

Ms. Mohrhoff said that she was indicted for facilitation of first degree felony murder in

connection with the shooting. Ms. Mohrhoff generally confirmed Ms. Swift’s description of the

sequence of events that afternoon. Ms. Mohrhoff said that she and her friends, April Smith and Coty

Childress, saw Ms. Swift and her friend, Dara Wiginton, at a gas station, and the group went to Ms.

Swift’s apartment to smoke marijuana. Ms. Mohrhoff said that Ms. Childress told them where they

could get some more drugs. Ms. Mohrhoff drove Ms. Smith’s car first to Defendant’s apartment and

then the victim’s. Ms. Wiginton and Ms. Smith stayed behind at Ms. Swift’s apartment.

Ms. Mohrhoff said that Ms. Swift and Defendant went to the victim’s apartment on the

second floor and knocked on the door. When no one answered the knock, Ms. Swift and Defendant

came back downstairs. Ms. Childress and Defendant then went upstairs and knocked on the door.

Ms. Mohrhoff said that Defendant came running down the stairs followed by Ms. Childress. The

victim chased Ms. Swift and Defendant around a corner of the apartment building, and Ms.

Mohrhoff heard gunshots. She and Ms. Childress drove off. 

Ms. Mohrhoff said that she had trouble driving because she was so nervous, and pulled the

car over to the side of the street. She saw Ms. Swift and Defendant run up behind the car. Both of

them got in, and Ms. Swift directed Ms. Mohrhoff to drive back to Ms. Swift’s apartment.

Defendant said that he had fired his gun but did not know whether or not he had shot the victim.
-4-

Ms. Mohrhoff said that Defendant was wearing red pants and a tee shirt when he first got into

the car, but she did not remember whether or not he was wearing a hat. Ms. Mohrhoff remembered

seeing another woman at the crime scene that afternoon. Ms. Mohrhoff said that news of the

shooting was on television that night, but the license plate number of the car reportedly seen at the

scene was not Ms. Smith’s. The group ate dinner at a local restaurant and then returned to Ms.

Swift’s apartment. Ms. Mohrhoff’s next-door neighbor called and said that the police had Ms.

Smith’s license plate number. The police were waiting at Ms. Mohrhoff’s apartment when she, Ms.

Smith, and Ms. Childress arrived.

Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to identify him as the perpetrator of the

shooting. Defendant concedes that one eyewitness and the two accomplices identified him as the

shooter but contends that this evidence is not sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt.

When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, we must review the

evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution in determining whether a rational trier of fact

could have found all the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S.307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). Once a jury finds a

defendant guilty, his or her presumption of innocence is removed and replaced with a presumption

of guilt. State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 175 (Tenn. 1991). The defendant has the burden of

overcoming this presumption, and the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the

evidence along with all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from that evidence. Id.; State

v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). The jury is presumed to have resolved all conflicts

and drawn any reasonable inferences in favor of the State. State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547

(Tenn. 1984). Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be given

the evidence, and all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact and not this

court. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). These rules are applicable to findings of

guilt predicated upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both direct and

circumstantial evidence. State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). 

Defendant was convicted of first degree felony murder which, as relevant to the case sub

judice, is defined as “[a] killing of another committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate

any . . . burglary . . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. §39-13-202(a)(2). A burglary is committed when a person

enters a building without the consent of the owner with the intent to commit a felony. Id. § 39-14-

402(a)(1). Especially aggravated burglary is defined as a burglary of a habitation where the victim

suffers serious bodily injury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-404(a).

The State’s proof rested primarily on the testimony of Defendant’s two accomplices and the

corroboration of the eyewitness to identify Defendant as the perpetrator of the offense. It is well

settled that a conviction may not rest solely on an accomplice’s uncorroborated testimony. State v.

Shaw, 37 S.W.3d 900, 903 (2001). The proof necessary to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony

must include “some fact testified to, entirely independent of the accomplice’s testimony, which,

taken by itself, leads to the inference, not only that a crime has been committed, but also that the
-5-

defendant is implicated in it; and this independent corroborative testimony must also include some

fact establishing the defendant’s identity.” Id. (quoting State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 803 (Tenn.

1994)).

Ms. Holmes testified that she followed the victim down the stairs to the ground floor. When

she reached the bottom of the stairs, Ms. Holmes saw a woman and a man running away from the

apartment building whom she later identified as Defendant and Ms. Swift. Ms. Holmes said that Ms.

Swift told Defendant “to shoot [Ms. Holmes], shoot her, pop a cap in her ass, too,” but Defendant

was not armed at that time. Corroborating evidence need not be sufficient in and of itself to support

a conviction as long as it fairly connects the defendant with the commission of the crime. State v.

Gaylor, 862 S.W.2d 546, 522 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). Ms. Holmes corroborated Ms. Swift’s and

Ms. Muhrhoff’s testimony that Defendant was in the victim’s apartment building and later ran away

from the crime scene with Ms. Swift. Ms. Holmes’ testimony implicates Defendant in the shooting

and positively identifies him as a participant. Whether the testimony of an accomplice is sufficiently

corroborated is a question for the jury. State v. Heflin, 15 S.W.3d 519, 524 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).

Based on our review of the record, the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Ms. Swift’s

and Ms. Muhrhoff’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated.

Ms. Swift and Ms. Muhrhoff testified that they picked up Defendant and drove to the victim’s

apartment to steal marijuana. Defendant kicked down the victim’s door and soon came running back

down the stairs with the victim behind him. Both women heard gunshots. Ms. Swift rounded the

corner of the apartment building and saw Defendant with a gun in his hand. Ms. Swift saw

Defendant hide the gun at the back of the building. The gun later retrieved from a bush in this area

was determined to be the weapon which fired the fatal shot. Ms. Muhrhoff said Defendant was

wearing red pants when he joined the group, and a pair of red nylon sweat pants was found in a bush

behind the victim’s apartment building. Defendant told Ms. Swift and Ms. Muhrhoff that he had

fired his weapon but did not know whether he hit the victim.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we find that the evidence was

sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction of first degree felony murder beyonda reasonable doubt.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

___________________________________ 

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE