IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs September 15, 2020

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAVARIS WILSON

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 2018-C-1740 Steve R. Dozier, Judge

___________________________________

No. M2019-01317-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

The Defendant, Javaris Wilson, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury 

of first degree premeditated murder and second degree murder under alternate theories of 

guilt for the same killing. The second degree murder conviction was merged into the first 

degree murder conviction, for which the Defendant received a life sentence. The sole issue 

the Defendant raises on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish his 

identity as the perpetrator. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

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

ALAN E. GLENN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J. 

joined. THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., not participating. 

Jay Umerley, Nashville, Tennessee (on appeal) and Andrew Davidson, Nashville, 

Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, Javaris D. Wilson.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Ruth Anne Thompson, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General; Glenn. R. Funk, District Attorney General; and Jenny Charles, 

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

OPINION

FACTS

On September 4, 2016, sixty-seven-year-old Samuel Huff was shot and killed as he 

walked near a public housing apartment complex in Nashville. The Defendant was 

identified as the perpetrator by a fifteen-year-old girl who witnessed the shooting. Two 

other individuals identified the Defendant as the man they had seen talking with the victim 

06/16/2021
- 2 -

shortly before the shooting, and one of those two also identified him as the man he had 

seen running from the scene with a gun immediately after the shooting. In addition, a 

police detective familiar with the Defendant identified him on the housing complex’s 

motion-activated surveillance camera footage, which showed a man following the victim 

and bending down to pick up something from the victim’s body after the victim was on the 

ground. The Defendant was subsequently indicted for first degree premeditated murder, 

first degree felony murder, and attempted robbery. 

The State’s first witness at the Defendant’s March 4-5, 2019 trial was eighteen-yearold Destiny Beasley, who testified she was fifteen years old on September 4, 2016, and 

knew the Defendant by his nickname, “World.” At approximately 5:30 p.m. that afternoon, 

she was walking with some friends in the area of the Cheatham Place Apartments when 

the Defendant walked past her. Someone called her name, and she turned around and saw 

the Defendant “shoot the old man in his back.” She said she saw the victim fall and the 

Defendant “grab a gun and run back up the street.” 

Ms. Beasley testified that she spoke with a detective at her school on September 7, 

2016, and looked at a photographic array containing the Defendant’s photograph. She 

stated that she at first told the detective that she did not see the Defendant because she was 

afraid of getting involved. The detective asked her to look at the photographs again, and 

the second time she identified the Defendant by saying the number associated with his 

photograph aloud. She did not circle his photograph or sign the array because she did not 

want to put anything in writing. She was certain that the Defendant was the man she saw 

shoot the victim, and she made a positive courtroom identification of him as the shooter. 

On cross-examination, Ms. Beasley acknowledged that she did not know the 

Defendant’s real name and knew him only casually from seeing him once or twice each 

week in the neighborhood. She reiterated that she saw the Defendant shoot the victim in 

the back and then stoop down to pick up a gun from the victim before running from the 

scene. 

Keavan Morton, who was living out of his car in the area of the Cheatham Place 

Apartments at the time of the victim’s death, testified that he saw the Defendant, whom he 

knew only by his nickname, “World,” talking with the victim on the afternoon of 

September 4, 2016. He next heard a gunshot and then saw the Defendant running with a 

gun. He acknowledged that he had been drinking at the time but said he was certain it was 

the Defendant he saw. He identified the photographic array he had been shown by the 

police, from which he had identified the Defendant. He also made a somewhat tentative 

courtroom identification of the Defendant, explaining that he did not have his eyeglasses 

with him because he had broken them. 
- 3 -

On cross-examination, Mr. Morton acknowledged he knew the Defendant only 

casually and had not known his real name. He conceded that he had been drinking for a 

while on the day of the shooting and that he did not witness the shooting. He stated that 

he had been wearing his eyeglasses that day. 

Detective Stanley Truitt of the Nashville Metropolitan Police Department testified 

that he responded to the scene at approximately 7:00 p.m. on September 4, 2016. Based 

on the 911 call and his review of security camera footage, he determined that the victim 

had been shot at approximately 5:55 p.m. He identified various photographs of the crime 

scene as well as the video footage that had been captured by the housing project’s 

surveillance cameras. He explained that the cameras were motion-activated, which caused 

the videos to have “breaks or skips” in the recorded action. He identified a man who was

first recorded walking in an alley and then later running up behind the victim and, after a 

“skip” in the video, bending down to pick up something near the victim’s body. Detective 

Truitt also identified enlarged photographs of the suspect’s clothing and jewelry, testifying 

that the man, later identified as the Defendant, was wearing a necklace and a watch and 

was dressed in black shoes with white soles and a “Jordan” emblem, black socks with a 

Nike emblem, a black t-shirt with a white emblem on the front, and long shorts. He said 

he shared the security footage with Detectives Gary Shannon and Andrew Davis. Two 

days later, Detective Davis provided him with some photographs of the Defendant that he 

had pulled off the Defendant’s Facebook page, which showed that the Defendant was 

similar in physical build and was dressed in the same clothing as the suspect. 

Detective Truitt testified that he met with Ms. Beasley at her school on September 

7, 2016, where she identified the Defendant from a photographic lineup by saying aloud 

the number assigned to his photograph. She refused to write anything or sign the 

photographic array. He said Mr. Morton identified the Defendant on September 14, 2016,

by choosing his photograph from a photographic lineup he showed him during their 

meeting at the police department. Unlike Ms. Beasley, Mr. Morton hand-wrote his 

identification and signed the photographic array. 

On October 3, 2016, officers detained the Defendant at his home, located a few 

blocks from the crime scene. Detective Truitt testified that he took possession of the 

Defendant’s cell phone, obtained a search warrant, and submitted the phone to the Metro 

Nashville Police Department’s Surveillance and Investigative Support Unit (“SISU”) for 

analysis. He identified photographs and a “rap video” of the Defendant that had been 

extracted from the cell phone, which showed the Defendant wearing similar clothing and 

jewelry as the suspect in the security camera footage. He said the Defendant was eventually 

arrested for the murder of the victim on April 1, 2017. A single .40-caliber shell casing 

was found at the crime scene but the murder weapon was never recovered. 
- 4 -

On cross-examination, Detective Truitt acknowledged that the video of the 

Defendant walking in the alley was recorded at a much closer camera angle than the video 

of the suspect who ran up behind the victim. He further acknowledged that the enlarged 

frames that showed the suspect’s clothing and jewelry were taken from the footage of the 

Defendant walking in the alley ten minutes prior to the shooting. He conceded there did 

not appear to be anything hanging from the Defendant’s back pocket when the Defendant 

was walking in the alley, whereas there was a white spot visible on the rear pocket of the 

suspect who was recorded running after the victim. Finally, he acknowledged that no 

communications between the Defendant and the victim were found on the Defendant’s 

phone and that he never submitted the victim’s phone for analysis. 

On redirect examination, Detective Truitt agreed that the white spot visible on the 

back of the suspect’s shorts could have been caused by the rear pocket’s being turned inside 

out, exposing the white lining, when the suspect pulled a gun from the pocket. 

Metro Nashville Police Department Detective Andrew Davis testified that he sent 

still photographs from the surveillance videotape to Detective Gary Shannon, who was 

familiar with many of the individuals who lived in the area. Based on information he 

received from Detective Shannon, he searched for the Defendant’s Facebook page via the 

Defendant’s phone number and found an account under the profile name “CTN Varis” that 

contained photographs of the Defendant. He identified photographs of the Defendant 

pulled from the Facebook page that showed the Defendant wearing what appeared to be 

the same clothing and jewelry as the shooting suspect. The photographs were dated August 

31, September 2, and September 3, 2016. 

Dorothy Nelson testified that on September 4, 2016, she was living in the Cheatham 

Place Apartment complex in an apartment that overlooked Delta Avenue. She said she was 

familiar with the Defendant, who frequented the neighborhood, by his nickname, “World.” 

She was also familiar with the victim. At approximately 3:30 p.m. on the day of the 

shooting, she saw the Defendant, who was dressed in a black t-shirt, sitting on a ledge or 

wall outside her apartment. At approximately 5:30 p.m., she saw the Defendant and the 

victim sitting together on the same wall, which was approximately fifteen to twenty feet 

from her. She said there were other people congregated in the area as well and described 

the scene as “[j]ust a bunch of people over there drinking and talking and being loud.” She 

testified that she did not hear a gunshot, but she later went outside and saw the victim’s 

body lying in the street. On September 7, 2016, she met with Detective Truitt at the police 

station and identified the Defendant from a photographic array as the man she had seen 

talking with the victim. She also made a positive courtroom identification of the Defendant 

as the man she saw with the victim that afternoon. 
- 5 -

On cross-examination, she testified that the wall where she saw the victim and the 

Defendant was the spot where individuals regularly gathered to drink, including the victim, 

whom she saw almost every day. She estimated that on the afternoon of the shooting there 

were approximately eight to ten individuals in the area. 

Detective Gary Shannon of the Springfield Police Department testified that at the 

time of the shooting, he was employed as a detective with the Metro Nashville Police 

Department assigned to north precinct investigations and was familiar with the individuals 

who frequented the area around the Cheatham Place Apartments. On September 6, 2016, 

Detective Andrew Davis sent him two photographs of the shooting suspect. Detective 

Shannon testified that he immediately recognized the suspect as the Defendant. He had 

seen the Defendant “[m]ore than once” and was “100 percent positive” in his identification. 

He stated that he searched the Defendant’s publicly viewable photographs on the 

Defendant’s Facebook page, which was under the profile name “CTN Varis,” and retrieved 

a photograph of the Defendant holding a handgun with another individual who was also 

holding a handgun. He identified the photograph, which was dated August 14, without a 

year listed. He agreed that it is a common Facebook practice not to have a year listed if 

the item has been posted during the current year. He made a positive courtroom 

identification of the Defendant. 

Courtney Bouchie, a crime scene investigator with the Metro Nashville Police 

Department and the lead crime scene investigator assigned to the case, identified diagrams 

of the crime scene and photographs of evidence collected in the case. She testified that a 

single .40-caliber cartridge casing was in the street but no bullets or weapons were found. 

While she was still on the scene that night, an officer brought her the victim’s belongings 

from the hospital. Among the items inside the plastic hospital bag was the victim’s 

clothing, watch, cell phone, wallet, and $15.55 in cash. On cross-examination, she 

estimated that the distance from the surveillance camera that overlooked the street to the

victim’s body was approximately 100 feet. 

Dr. Thomas Deering, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy of the 

victim’s body, testified that the cause of death was a single gunshot wound to the back and 

the manner of death was homicide. On cross-examination, he testified that he did not make 

any assessment of the caliber of bullet that struck the victim. 

Videotaped deposition testimony was played of a crime laboratory technician who 

identified the gun the Defendant was holding in the Facebook photograph as one that 

appeared capable of firing a .40-caliber bullet. 

Metro Nashville Police Department Detective Chad Gish of the SISU unit, an expert 

in digital forensics, described his extraction and analysis of data from the Defendant’s cell 
- 6 -

phone and identified chat messages he found on the phone that the Defendant, via the “CTN 

Varis” profile name, had exchanged on Facebook messenger with a “Cory Wilson” on the 

day after the shooting. Those included a message in which the Defendant stated that “ugly 

sh**” was “piling up on [him]” based on something that had happened the previous day. 

Detective Gish also identified a “rap video” found on the phone that was filmed on 

September 18, 2016. After the State introduced the parties’ stipulated agreement that the 

video had been redacted to exclude irrelevant material, the video of the Defendant 

performing the rap song was played for the jury and admitted into evidence. Among the 

Defendant’s lyrics were ones about having “up it on him bust it on him,” and having 

“caught a body ‘bout three weeks ago” and not “giv[ing] a f***[.]” 

On cross-examination, Detective Gish acknowledged that he found no phone calls, 

texts, Facebook messages, or any other communications between the Defendant and the 

victim. 

Dr. Jeffrey Neuschatz, a cognitive psychologist who was accepted by the court as 

an expert in the field of eyewitness identification, testified on the Defendant’s behalf that 

high stress situations, limited “exposure time,” and the use of alcohol or drugs were all 

factors that impair an individual’s ability to make an accurate identification. He further 

testified that the lineup procedure that the detective employed with Ms. Beasley did not 

follow all the guidelines established by the United States Attorney General’s Office in 1999 

because it was not conducted by an individual who was “blind to the suspect” [160, line 9] 

or unaware of the suspect’s identity, and, to his knowledge, Ms. Beasley did not issue a 

“confidence statement” about her identification of the Defendant at the conclusion of the 

lineup. 

On cross-examination, Dr. Neuschatz acknowledged that Ms. Beasley told the 

detective during her interview that she was frightened and that her friends had admonished 

her not to identify the Defendant. He further acknowledged that a witness’s familiarity 

with a subject increases the likelihood of an accurate identification. 

The Defendant elected not to testify and rested his case without presenting any 

further witnesses. Following deliberations, the jury found him guilty of first degree 

premeditated murder as charged in count one, guilty of the lesser included offense of 

second degree murder in count two, and not guilty in count three. 

ANALYSIS

The Defendant argues on appeal that the evidence was not sufficient to establish his 

identity as the perpetrator of the crime. In support, he points out, among other things, that 
- 7 -

none of the three eyewitnesses who placed him in the company of the victim knew him 

well enough to know his real name, there was no surveillance footage of the shooting itself, 

and the video of the man who ran up behind the victim was filmed from a distance, with 

the suspect not clearly visible. The State argues that the evidence, which included 

eyewitness testimony of the shooting itself, was more than sufficient for the jury to find 

that the Defendant was the man who shot and killed the victim. We agree with the State.

In considering this issue, we apply the rule that where sufficiency of the convicting 

evidence is challenged, the relevant question of the reviewing court is “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.” 

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see also Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e) (“Findings 

of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the evidence 

is insufficient to support the findings by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt.”); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-92 (Tenn. 1992); State v. Anderson, 835 

S.W.2d 600, 604 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). The same standard applies whether the finding 

of guilt is predicated upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of 

direct and circumstantial evidence. State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. 

App. 1990).

All questions involving the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be given 

the evidence, and all factual issues are resolved by the trier of fact. See State v. Pappas, 

754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “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. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 

1973). “A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant 

is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal a convicted defendant 

has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient.” State v. Tuggle, 639 

S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was sufficient to 

establish the Defendant’s identity as the man who shot and killed the victim. The identity

of the perpetrator “is an essential element of any crime.” State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646, 

662 (Tenn. 2006). A perpetrator’s identity “may be established solely on the basis of 

circumstantial evidence.” State v. Lewter, 313 S.W.3d 745, 748 (Tenn. 2010). In this case, 

there was not just circumstantial evidence but direct eyewitness testimony by Ms. Destiny 

identifying the Defendant as the man she saw shoot the victim in the back. Mr. Morton, 

who did not witness the actual shooting, testified that he saw the victim and the Defendant 

talking just before he heard the gunshot and that he saw the Defendant fleeing with a gun 

immediately after the shooting. Ms. Nelson also offered eyewitness testimony that the 

Defendant, who was wearing a black t-shirt similar to the suspect in the surveillance video, 
- 8 -

was congregated with the victim and others in the area shortly before the victim was shot. 

All three of these witnesses testified that they were familiar with the Defendant from his 

regular appearances in the neighborhood. The fact that they did not know his real name 

does not lessen their ability to recognize him. 

In addition to the eyewitness testimony, the State provided surveillance footage of 

the seconds before and after the shooting, which showed a man running up behind the 

victim and then picking up something from the street near the victim’s fallen body. A

police detective familiar with the Defendant identified that man as the Defendant, and 

surveillance footage of the Defendant in the area ten minutes earlier showed that he was 

wearing similar clothing as the suspect. Finally, the State also presented images, chats, 

and videos pulled from the Defendant’s Facebook page that showed him holding a gun that 

appeared capable of firing a .40-caliber bullet, wearing similar clothing, and expressing 

what could be interpreted as consciousness of guilt. From all this evidence, a rational jury 

could reasonably find that it was the Defendant who shot and killed the victim. We 

conclude, therefore, that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we affirm the judgment of the 

trial court. 

____________________________________

ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE