IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs November 3, 2015

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KERVIN JACKSON

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 13-04457 J. Robert Carter, Jr., Judge

No. W2015-00134-CCA-R3-CD - Filed January 8, 2016

Defendant, Kervin Jackson, was convicted of first degree murder for the shooting death 

of his brother-in-law. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support 

the conviction because the State failed to establish premeditation. After a review of the 

evidence and authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JAMES CURWOOD 

WITT, JR., and ALAN E. GLENN, JJ., joined.

Monica A. Timmerman (on appeal) and Joseph McClusky (at trial), Memphis, 

Tennessee, for the appellant, Kervin Jackson.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Tracy L. Alcock, Assistant 

Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Paul Goodman and 

Muriel Malone, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of 

Tennessee.

OPINION

Factual Background

The victim, Taumarein Covington, was shot and killed on January 13, 2013, while 

standing in the kitchen of the home in which he lived with his wife‟s family, including 

Defendant, his brother-in-law. Defendant was arrested shortly after the shooting.
- 2 -

Pearlie Campbell, Defendant‟s mother, owned the house where the incident took 

place. The modest home was occupied by multiple members of Ms. Campbell‟s family: 

Ms. Campbell; Defendant; the victim; Dominique Covington,1 Defendant‟s sister and the 

victim‟s wife; and Defendant‟s sister Ashley Jackson and her child. Ms. Jackson and her 

child were not living at the residence permanently but were staying there on the day of 

the shooting. 

Tancer Covington, the mother of the victim, testified that, about a week prior to 

his death, she met the victim at a bank to give him money for the first month‟s rent at a 

new apartment. During that meeting, the victim told her that he was “fearful of 

Dominique‟s brother.”

The morning of the shooting, Ms. Campbell recalled sitting at the kitchen table 

“[w]aiting on Dominique and Ashley to get ready” to “go to the grocery store.” The 

victim was in the kitchen sitting behind Ms. Campbell. According to Ms. Campbell:

[Defendant] came in[,] stood by the sink[,] and asked me where I was 

fixing to go[,] and I told him the grocery store[,] and he asked me who was 

going with me[,] and I told him[,] and then he said, „Well, it just ain‟t right, 

mama. It just ain‟t right.‟” So you know he just kept talking so - - I mean 

when I bent to tie my shoe all I hear was pow, pow, and I just ran out the 

door.

Ms. Campbell did not actually see her son shoot the victim but “he was the only 

somebody in the room” other than her and the victim. She admitted that in her initial 

statement to police, she maintained that Defendant was responsible for shooting the 

victim. In fact, she described the gun that Defendant used to kill the victim as “black and 

may have had a little silver on it.” She explained that Defendant was employed as a 

security guard and routinely carried a gun.

The victim and his wife, Dominique, had been staying at the house for quite some 

time. They were saving money to move in to their own place. Ms. Campbell knew that 

the victim and Dominique were planning on moving out as soon as they were “stable.” 

While they lived at the house, Dominique and the victim slept on the floor in the living 

room on a blow up mattress. In order to make room for their bed, the couple had to 

rearrange some of the furniture in the living room. This often irritated Defendant, 

especially when the victim‟s gaming television was blocking the door. 

 

1 Because both the victim‟s mother, Tancer Covington, and the victim‟s wife, Dominique Covington, have 

the same last name, we will refer to the victim‟s wife as Dominique. No disrespect is intended. 
- 3 -

On the morning of the incident the victim and Defendant were “arguing.” 

Defendant was “telling him . . . he had to leave.” Dominique stated that Defendant never 

threatened to kill the victim but there was definitely tension between the two. She

admitted that in her statement to police, she commented that Defendant used the phrase 

“tick tock” when talking to the victim for several days prior to the incident. The victim 

reported to her that Defendant was “taunting [the victim] and threatening to shoot him.” 

Dominique later explained that Defendant often used the phrase “tick tock” when “you 

need to do something.” She did not perceive it as a threat toward her husband but 

thought that he was saying it because he wanted them to move out of the house. She 

described Defendant‟s normal demeanor as “mad” and opined that the victim was 

“afraid” of Defendant at the time of his death. 

On the morning of the incident, Dominique and the victim got up around 11:00 or 

12:00. After she arose that morning, Dominique was sitting in the living room listening 

to her iPod when she heard her mom say, “Kervin, no.” After that, she heard one shot. 

Dominique “hit the floor and [she] heard [her] mom scream and run out the front door.” 

Dominique ran to the front door to see where her mother was going but heard “the next 

couple of shots” and got back down onto the floor. After the shooting stopped, she ran in 

to the kitchen. She saw her brother standing there and her husband lying on the floor

with blood around him. Defendant “had a gun in his hand.” Dominique saw Defendant 

lay the gun down on the floor next to the victim‟s left hand. She picked the gun up and 

put it on the kitchen table.

Ashley Jackson was present at the home that morning but did not see anything 

happen. She heard the gunshots from her bedroom and dialed 911. 

Officer Charles Taylor of the Memphis Police Department and his partner, Officer

Jeremy Moore, responded to the shooting call the day of the incident. They received a 

report of a shooter, “male black, heavyset, with black pants and a black like a hoody or a 

sweatshirt.” On the way to the scene they found a male fitting the description “just 

standing in a driveway.” He identified himself as Defendant; his name matched that of 

the suspected shooter. During a pat down, officers located a .45 caliber handgun, three 

magazines loaded with eight rounds, eighteen loose rounds, and a towel in his right 

pocket. Defendant stated that he was “justified” while receiving the pat down. 

Officer Donald Cavatte responded to the scene with his partner, Officer Morris.2 

When they arrived, the victim was on the floor in the kitchen with visible gunshot 

wounds to the head. There were shell casings on the floor. David Smith, the crime scene 

investigator, recovered a .40 caliber handgun from the kitchen table and logged four 

spent .45 caliber shell casings from the kitchen into evidence. 

 

2 The first name of Officer Morris does not appear in the transcript.
- 4 -

The .40 caliber handgun was purchased by Defendant at Guns & Ammo in 

Memphis on December 31, 2011. At the time it was purchased, Defendant had a 

concealed carry permit.

Sergeant Marcus Berryman of the homicide bureau interviewed Defendant after 

his arrest. Defendant waived his rights and gave a statement in which he admitted that he 

shot and killed the victim. Defendant stated that he:

Woke up th[at] morning[,] went outside to smoke a cigarette, came back 

from outside, used the rest room, went to the kitchen, some words were said 

between him. [The victim] said I‟m going to kill you if you don‟t do this 

and I‟m going to stick if you don‟t that. My thoughts to myself is [sic] that 

it would be self-defense.3 I was trying to protect my life and the lives 

around me. I sat back on the kitchen counter, waited about three minutes to 

see what he was going to say next.

Defendant stated that he “shot him and that was it. He hit the stove and fell to the 

ground.” Defendant claimed that the victim was armed with a weapon in his left hand 

and was threatening Defendant with the weapon. Defendant said he “felt threatened”

before he shot the victim. Defendant thought that the victim was mad because he got 

“jumped” by several men. 

The victim died from two gunshot wounds to the head and a graze wound to the 

side of the head along with a gunshot wound to the right forearm shot from an 

“indeterminate range.”

Defendant testified at trial. At the time of the incident, Defendant was twentyeight years old and weighed about 245 pounds. At the time of trial he weighed less. He 

worked as a security guard for AmeriGuard. Defendant had worked as a security guard 

since he was eighteen years old. As part of his job, he had a concealed carry permit. 

Defendant admitted that he had quit his job prior to the incident. 

Defendant owned two guns at the time of the crime—a .40 caliber Smith & 

Wesson and a .45 caliber Ruger. Defendant reported the Smith & Wesson missing in 

May. He claimed that he had no idea where the gun was located until he saw the victim 

with the gun that day.

 

3 Out to the side in Defendant‟s handwriting it states “Protect yourself it is going to be.” We 

understand this to mean Defendant amended the sentence to read, “My thoughts to myself is that it would 

be protect yourself it is going to be self-defense.”
- 5 -

On the morning of the incident, Defendant got up, used the restroom, and 

encountered the victim, who told him he was “going to shoot [Defendant] and a family of 

stickers.”4 Defendant told his mother about what the victim said to him. Defendant 

testified:

She said don‟t worry about it. She walked in the kitchen and sat down. I 

was walking behind her. I leaned on the counter. I walked behind [the 

victim] to the cupboard. I went to the T.V. area[,] leaned back on the 

kitchen counter. He said it again but she didn‟t hear it. By the time she got 

up, he had jumped up with his gun out so I fired.

Defendant claimed that the victim was sitting with his arms crossed. He had his gun in 

his left hand.5 Defendant could not see the barrel; the gun was pointed toward the 

window. The victim “showed me the gun about two minutes before my mother walks 

out. She jumps up and runs. He jumps up and I shot him. He pulled his gun so I shot.” 

Defendant felt “[t]hreatened [like his] life was in danger” and the lives of the “people in 

[his] household‟s [sic] in danger” because the victim had already “threatened us.” 

Defendant admitted that the victim did not get “off a shot” and that he shot the victim 

four or five times. After the shooting, Defendant walked out of the room to put on his 

shoes. His sister Ashley and his mother told him to get out of the house. He walked “a 

block, . . . smoked a cigarette, used the restroom, and the police came.” He was arrested 

and went straight to jail. He told the police that it was “self-defense.” Defendant 

maintained that he was “skeptical” of what the victim was going to do but that he “felt 

threatened.”

On cross-examination, Defendant claimed that he had no idea that the victim had 

the gun that Defendant had previously reported missing. He denied handling the gun 

after the victim was shot. He saw the gun in the victim‟s left hand and claimed it 

remained in the victim‟s left hand after he was shot. Defendant admitted that no one else 

saw or heard the victim threaten him.

At the conclusion of the proof, the jury found Defendant guilty of first degree 

murder and employing a firearm during the commission of a felony, as charged in the 

indictment. The trial court dismissed the charge of employing a firearm during the 

commission of a felony because the charge only applied if the jury found Defendant 

guilty of a lesser included offense. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life 

imprisonment. Trial counsel filed a motion for new trial. In the motion, counsel 

 

4 While it is not entirely clear what is meant by a “family of stickers,” Defendant later testified 

that the victim stated he was going to “shoot or stick [the family].” 

5 The victim‟s mother testified on rebuttal that the victim was right-handed. Dominique testified 

on surrebuttal that her husband “could write with both hands.”
- 6 -

challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court‟s denial of the motion for 

judgment of acquittal. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant filed a timely notice 

of appeal.

Analysis

On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Specifically, he 

claims that there was insufficient proof that he “acted with premeditation” and that the 

“majority of the evidence presented supports [his] theory that he acted in self-defense, or 

at worst acted in a state of excitement or passion.” Defendant urges this Court to 

examine the factors set forth in State v. Jackson, 173 S.W.3d 401, 409 (Tenn. 2005), and 

State v. Nichols, 24 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Tenn. 2000), in reviewing the sufficiency of the 

evidence for premeditation. Defendant insists that the following proof supports his 

argument that the evidence is insufficient: (1) only one State witness recalled Defendant‟s

threatening the victim; (2) there was no proof that he procured a weapon to kill the 

victim; (3) it was disputed whether the victim was holding a gun at the time of his death; 

(4) the killing was not particularly cruel; (5) Defendant shot the victim four times but was 

arrested with multiple rounds of ammunition; (6) there was no proof that he made 

preparation prior to killing the victim with the purpose of concealing the crime; (7) there 

was no proof that Defendant attempted to destroy or hide evidence; and (8) Defendant 

testified that he was “really afraid” after the shooting. The State disagrees.

When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court is obliged 

to review that claim according to certain well-settled principles. The relevant question is 

whether any rational trier of fact could have found the accused guilty of every element of 

the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 

443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The jury‟s verdict replaces the presumption of innocence with 

one of guilt; therefore, the burden is shifted onto the defendant to show that the evidence 

introduced at trial was insufficient to support such a verdict. State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 

247, 277 (Tenn. 2002). The prosecution is entitled to the “strongest legitimate view of 

the evidence and to all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn 

therefrom.” State v. Goodwin, 143 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tenn. 2004) (quoting State v. 

Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 279 (Tenn. 2000)). The standard of review is the same whether 

the conviction is based upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination 

of the two. State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 379 (Tenn. 2011); State v. Hanson, 279 

S.W.3d 265, 275 (Tenn. 2009). 

Furthermore, questions concerning the “credibility of the witnesses, the weight to 

be given their testimony, and the reconciliation of conflicts in the proof are matters 

entrusted to the jury as the trier of fact.” State v. Wagner, 382 S.W.3d 289, 297 (Tenn. 

2012) (quoting State v. Campbell, 245 S.W.3d 331, 335 (Tenn. 2008)). This is because 

the jury has “the benefit of hearing witness testimony and observing witness demeanor.” 
- 7 -

State v. Robinson, 400 S.W.3d 529, 533 (Tenn. 2013). As the Tennessee Supreme Court 

explained almost half a century ago:

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. 1966) (citing Carroll v. State, 370 S.W.2d 

523 (Tenn. 1963)). Therefore, “[a] guilty verdict by the jury, approved by the trial court, 

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

the prosecution‟s theory.” Reid, 91 S.W.3d at 277 (quoting State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 

651, 659 (Tenn. 1997)). It is not the role of this Court to reweigh or reevaluate the 

evidence, nor to substitute our own inferences for those drawn from the evidence by the 

trier of fact. Id.; Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d at 379.

First degree murder is described as “[a] premeditated and intentional killing of 

another . . . .” T.C.A. § 39-13-202(a). Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-202(d) 

provides that:

“[P]remeditation” is an act done after the exercise of reflection and 

judgment. “Premeditation” means that the intent to kill must have been 

formed prior to the act itself. It is not necessary that the purpose to kill preexist in the mind of the accused for any definite period of time. The mental 

state of the accused at the time the accused allegedly decided to kill must be 

carefully considered in order to determine whether the accused was 

sufficiently free from excitement and passion as to be capable of 

premeditation.

An intentional act requires that the person have the desire to engage in the conduct or 

cause the result. T.C.A. § 39-11-106(a)(18). Whether the evidence was sufficient 

depends entirely on whether the State was able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the 

element of premeditation. See State v. Sims, 45 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Hall, 8 

S.W.3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999). Premeditation may be proved by circumstantial evidence. 

See, e.g., State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 541-42 (Tenn. 1992). Whether premeditation 

is present is a question of fact for the jury, and it may be inferred from the circumstances 

surrounding the killing. State v. Young, 196 S.W.3d 85, 108 (Tenn. 2006); see also State 

v. Suttles, 30 S.W.3d 252, 261 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Pike, 978 S.W.2d 904, 914 (Tenn. 

1998).
- 8 -

As pointed out by Defendant, our supreme court has identified a number of 

circumstances from which the jury may infer premeditation: (1) the use of a deadly 

weapon upon an unarmed victim; (2) the particular cruelty of the killing; (3) the 

defendant‟s threats or declarations of intent to kill; (4) the defendant‟s procurement of a 

weapon; (5) any preparations to conceal the crime undertaken before the crime is 

committed; (6) destruction or concealment of evidence of the killing; and (7) a 

defendant‟s calmness immediately after the killing. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 660 

(Tenn. 1997); Jackson, 173 S.W.3d at 409; Nichols, 24 S.W.3d at 302; Pike, 978 S.W.2d 

at 914-15. This list, however, is not exhaustive and serves only to demonstrate that 

premeditation may be established by any evidence from which the jury may infer that the 

killing was done “after the exercise of reflection and judgment.” T.C.A. § 39-13-202(d); 

see Pike, 978 S.W.2d at 914-15; Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 660. One well-regarded treatise 

states that premeditation may be inferred from events that occur before and at the time of 

the killing:

Three categories of evidence are important for [the] purpose [of inferring 

premeditation]: (1) facts about how and what the defendant did prior to the 

actual killing which show he was engaged in activity directed toward the 

killing, that is, planning activity; (2) facts about the defendant‟s prior 

relationship and conduct with the victim from which motive may be 

inferred; and (3) facts about the nature of the killing from which it may be 

inferred that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the 

defendant must have intentionally killed according to a preconceived 

design.

2 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 14.7(a) (2d ed. 2003); State v. Berry, 

141 S.W.3d 549, 566 (Tenn. 2004). 

Defendant characterizes his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as a 

challenge to the State‟s proof of premeditation; however, we perceive it as a challenge to 

the credibility of the witnesses. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the 

State, the proof at trial could lead a rational jury to conclude that Defendant shot the 

victim with premeditation. There were two versions of the events that occurred. 

Defendant insisted that he acted in self-defense because the victim was holding a gun in 

his left hand and pulled the gun on Defendant in a threatening manner. The State 

portrayed Defendant as an angry person who had threatened the victim prior to the 

shooting. The jury obviously rejected Defendant‟s claim of self-defense and accredited 

the State‟s version of the facts. The evidence was sufficient to establish premeditation. 

Dominique and the victim‟s mother testified that Defendant threatened to kill the victim 

prior to the shooting; the victim told his wife one week prior to his death that he was 

afraid of Defendant. The victim had been saving money so that he and Dominique could 
- 9 -

move out of the house. The morning of the victim‟s death, the victim told Dominique

that they needed to move out immediately because they had the money to do so. There 

was testimony that Defendant was mad at the victim on the morning of the incident, as 

evidenced by his saying “tick tock” to the victim and that he was upset that the door of 

the living room was blocked with furniture. Moreover, immediately before shooting the 

victim, Defendant told his mother, “It ain‟t right.” Dominique heard his mother say, 

“Kervin, no” right before gunshots were fired. Defendant admitted that he quickly shot 

four or five times toward the victim‟s head and chest. The victim was hit at least twice in 

the head. The jury could have inferred by Defendant‟s actions and statements that he 

exercised reflection and judgment in forming the intent to kill the victim. Defendant‟s 

actions after the killing could be interpreted as calm. Dominique testified that she saw 

Defendant wipe off the silver and black gun and place the gun on the floor beside the 

victim‟s left hand. The victim‟s mother testified that the victim was right-handed, 

whereas Dominique testified that she had seen the victim write with both hands. 

Defendant walked out of the kitchen, put on his shoes, left the home and walked outside 

where he smoked a cigarette and used the restroom. Defendant testified that he was 

afraid after the shooting but told police he was “justified” when he was arrested. We 

determine that the evidence is sufficient for the jury to determine that the Defendant acted 

with premeditation. Defendant is not entitled to relief.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

___________________________

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE