### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON O ct ober 6, 200 9 S es sio n STA TE OFTEN NES SEE v. CHARLES WIL LIAM S A p p ea l f ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. 07- 04461 D avi d G . H ayes , Speci al Judge

N o. W 2008- 02211- C C A - R 3- C D - F i l ed M ay 13, 2010

T h e D efe n d an t, C h arles W il li am s, w as c o n v ict ed b y a S h elby C o u n ty C ri m inal C o u rtjury of f i r s tdegr ee f

el ony m ur der and es peci al l y aggr avat ed r obber y, a C l as s A fel ony. Fol l ow i ng a s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he tr i al cour ts ent ence d t he D ef endantas a R ange I s t andar d of fender to c o n se c u tiv e se n ten c e s o f l ife a n d fifte e n y e a rs fo r th e fe lo n y m u rd e r a n d e s p e c ia lly aggr avat ed r obber y convi ct i ons , r es pect i vel y. I n t hi s appea l as of ri ght , t he D ef endant cont ends t hat( 1) t he tr i al cour terr ed i n denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence ; ( 2) t he tr i al cour terr ed i n denyi n g h is m o ti on forj udgm entof acqui t t al bas ed on the cons t r uct i ve a m e n d m e n t o f th e in d ictm e n t in h is c a se ; a n d (3 ) th e e v id e n c e w a s in su ffic ien t to su p p o rt h is con vict i on s. F o llo w in g o u r re v iew , w e a ffirm th e ju d g m e n ts o f th e trial c o u rt. T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent s of

t he C ri m i nal C ourt are A f f i r m e d. D. K ELLY T HO MAS , J R ., J

. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he cour t , i n w hi ch A LAN E. G LEN N and C AMI LLE R. M C M ULL EN , J J ., jo in e d

. R o b ert W il so n Jo n es, D istri ct P u b li c D efe n d er; H arry E

. S ay le, III (on ap p ea l) , Jen n if erC as e, and M ar y K athr yn K ent( a ttr i a l ) , As s i s t antPubl i c D ef ender s , at t or neys forappel l ant , C har l es W ill iam s. Rob e r tE. Coo p er , J r . , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; C am er on L

. H yder , A s s i s t antA t t or ney G eneral ; W i l l i am L

. G i bb on s, D istri ctA t t orney G eneral ; and D am on G ri ff i n an d T heresa M cC us ker , A s s i s t ant D i s tr i ct A t t or neys G ener al , at t or neys forappel l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee.

OP I NI ONSerge ant B utterick said that there may have been res idue on the sc ales b ut that it w as n ever tested. 1 -2- A tt r i al , Per cel l D ucket t t es t i f i ed t hat he w as w al ki ng hi s dog s om et i m e bef or e 7: 00 a. m . on Sunday, M ar ch 11, 2007, w hen he not i ced a carpar ked on t he n o rt h s i de of t he w al ki ng t r ai l b y t he W oodl and H i l l s nei ghbor hood. U pon f ur t heri nves t i gat i on, he di s cover ed thatt he ca rw as em pt y and t hatt he dr i ver ’ s s i de doorw as open. A s he cont i nued w al ki ng al ong hi s nor m al path he s aw a m an, l at eri dent i f i ed as C hr i s t opherSm i t h, l yi ng on hi s back of

f t he tr ai l neara pond. M r . D uckettas s um ed t hatM r . Sm i t h, t he vi ct i m , w as as l eep. A s he w al ked cl os er, h e obs er ved a gun on the gr ound “j us tt o t he r i ghtof [ t he v i c t i m] ” a n d wi t h i n t h e v i c t i m’ s r e a c h

. Af r a i d t h a th i s d o g mi g h tb a r k a n d s t a r t l e t h e v i c t i m, M r . D ucket t “s t ar t i ng w al ki ng ver y, ver y fas t ” unt i l he r eac hed hi s hom e, w her e he c al l ed 9- 1 -1

. D eput y W i l l i am Fr anks of t he Shel by C ount y Sher i f f ’ s O f f i ce t es t i f i ed t hat he w as on d u ty a s a p a tro lm a n w h e n h e re c e iv e d a c a ll reg a rd in g a n a rm e d m a n in th e W o o d lan d H ill s ar ea on M ar ch 11, 2007. H e ar r i ved at M r . D uckett ’ s hous e at t he sam e t i m e O f f i cerJ ohn T hom as of

t he Shel by C ount y Sher i f f ’ s O f f i ce a r r i ved. D eput y Fr anks and O f f i cerT hom as t al ked w i t h M r . D ucket tbefor e they bega n w al ki ng al ong t he t r ai l t o f i nd t he vi ct i m . A s t hey w er e wal k i n g , Dep u t y Fr a n k s n o t i c e d a “ l i t t l e g r a y v e h i c l e p a r k e d ” n e a r t h e a r e a . T hey con t i nu ed along t he p at h u nti l t he y sa w th e v i ct i m near t he p on d w i t h a w eapo n in cl ose p r o x i mi t y t o h i s b o d y . T h e o f f i c e r s a t t e mp t e d t o s p e a k t o h i m, b u th e d i d n o tr e s p o n d

. As t hey appr oache d t he vi ct i m , O f f i cer Fr anks m oved t he w eapon aw ay fr om t he vi ct i m ’ s r eac h. A s t hey gotcl os ert o hi m , t hey r eal i zed thathe w as nots l eepi n g b ec au se “[ t ] her e w as no r i s i ng orfal l i ng of

t he che s t

. . . [ and hi s ] l i ps w er e ki nd of as hy [ i n] col or . ” Ser geant B ut t er i ck of t he S hel by C ount y Sher i f f ’ s O f f i ce t es t i f i ed thathe arr i ved at t he cr i m e s cene at 9: 30 a. m . on M ar ch 11, 2007. O nce at t he cr i m e s cene , Ser geantB ut t er i ck t ook pi ct ur es and col l ect ed evi dence

. H e col l ect ed a bl ack c om pact di s c cas e w i t h a s etof di gi t al s cal es i ns i de t he cas e, a R uger9 m i l l i m et er , a m agaz i ne f r om t he 9 m i l l i m et er , and 1 t hr ee f i r ed . 380 s hel l cas ing s. Ser geantB ut t er i ck s t at ed t hatt her e w er e ni ne r ounds i n t he m agaz i ne, t hatt he s af

et y on t he 9 m i l l i m et er w as on, and t hat t he cham ber w as em pt y. U s i ng a p r oj e c t i o n r o d , Se r g e a n tBu t t e r i c k l o c a t e d t wo b u l l e t s i n t h e g r o u n d n e a rt h e v i c t i m. He al s o not i ced a gr ay O l ds m obi l e A l er o att he cr i m e s cene . A f t erl eavi ng t he cr i m e s cene , he te s te d th e 9 m illim e te r fo r p ri n ts b u t w a s u n a b le to fi n d a n y p ri n ts

. K evi n H el m s , w ho, at t he t i m e of t he i nves t i gat i on, w as em pl oyed w it h the S h el by C o u n ty S h e riff’s O ffic e a s S e rg e a n t o f th e S tre e t C rim e s U n it, w a s a lso a s s ig n e d to i nves t iga t e t he ca s e. M r . H el m s w as i ni t i al l y s entt o t he cr i m e s cene , w her e he w as l at er d ir ec ted to interview the v ict im ’s fam il y . A ft er talking w ith Jo n atha n S m ith , the v ict im ’s b ro th e r, M r. H e lm s le a rn e d th a t a p e rso n n a m e d T e rra n c e R o se m a y h a v e c a lled M r. S m ith as ki ng t o s peak w i t h t he vi ct i m on t he ni ght of M ar ch 10, 2007. A t t r i al , M r . Sm i t h s t at edWew il l ref er toAnth ony Jo hn so n as Mr. A

. J ohns onandB rand onJ ohns ona s Mr. B

. J ohns onin 2 order to av oid c onfusio n. -3- t hathe r ece i ved a c al l f

r om s om eone w ho i dent i f i ed hi m s el f as “M ar kes e” a nd as ked t o s peak w i t h t he vict i m . A ccordi ng t o M r. S m i t h, “M arkese” sound ed li ke M r. R ose. M r. S m i t h als o sta ted th a t th is s a m e p e rso n w h o so u n d e d lik e M r. R o se c a lled a g a in a fte r m id n ig h t an d sa id “t el l [ t he vi ct i m ] t o m eetus on t he tr ai l

. ” A ft er talking w ith M r. S m ith , M r. H e lm s p roc ee d ed to M r. R o se’s res iden ce w h ere h e l e a r n e d t h a t fo u r p e o p l e h a d j u s t l e f t t h e h o u s e i n a b l u e Dod g e Cha r g er t o go t o a barbeque i n N or t h M em phi s . M r . H el m s r et ur ned t o M r . Sm i t h’ s hous e and l ear n ed t hat S h u r o n d a Bu r k s n o r ma l l y d r o v e t h e Ch a r g e ra n d t h a ts h e l i v e d wi t h M r . Ro s e , h e rt wo br ot her s , A nt hony and B r andon J ohns on, and her p are n ts. M r . H el m s and hi s uni tt hen 2 dr ove t o N or t h M em phi s t o f i nd t hem

. U pon ar r i vi ng i n N or t h M em phi s , t hey i dent i f i ed the fo u r in d iv id u a ls a s M s. B u rk s, M r. A . J o h n so n , M r. B . Jo h n so n , an d M r. R o se . A fte r a p a tdow n s ear ch of M r . R os e r evea l ed s ever al bags of m ar i j uana, M r . H el m s arr es t ed M r . R os e. A l l fouri ndi vi dual s w er e then tr ans por t ed t o p o li ce h eadqua r t er s w her e t hey gave a s er i es o f s ta te m e n ts

. A f t err ece i vi ng i nfor m at i on f r om M r . R os e, of

f i cer s s ear ched M r . R os e’ s at t i c i n t he b ed roo m that h e sh are d w ith M r. B

. Jo h n so n an d fou n d a Je n n ing s . 3 8 0 au tom ati c re v o lver. Up o n r e c e i v i n g i n fo r ma t i o n f r o m Mr

. R o s e t h a tt h e De fe n d a n twa s a l s o i n v o l v e d , Mr

. He l ms a n d h is u n it b e g a n se a rc h in g fo r th e D e fe n d a n t o n M a rc h 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 . M r. H e lm s e v e n tu a lly l ocat ed t he D ef

endant , and as M r . H el m s w as arr es t i ng t he D ef endant , a pat

- dow n s ear ch for w eapons r evealed seve r al s m al l bags of m ar i j uana. M r . H el m s s t at ed t hathe al r eady ha d enough i nfor m at i on t o arr es t t he D ef endantand t hatt he di s cover y of t he m ar i j uana di d not im p a c t h is d e c is io n to a rr e s t th e D e fe n d a n t. A ttr i al , D r . M i guel L aboy of t he For ens i c M edi cal C ent ert es t i f i ed thatal t hough he d id n o t p e rfo rm th e a u to p sy , h e w a s a b le to d e ter m in e fro m th e a u to p sy re p o rt th a t th e v ictim di ed f r o m a “ g u n s h o t wou n d o f t h e t o r s o ” a n d t h a t t h e b u l l e t e n t e r e d t h e r i g h t b u t t o c k and t or e t hr ough t he “m us cl e of t he ant er i or abdom i nal w al l

. ” Ther e w er e no exi tw ounds as t he bul l etr em ai ned i n t he body unt i l t he aut ops y and w as r ecove r ed fr om t he upperabdom i nal w all

. D r. L ab o y stat ed that the b u ll et trav eled in an u p w ard p o sit ion from the righ t t o the left and f r om t he bac k t o t he f

r ont

. T he vi ct i m ’ s boxer s hor t s cont ai ned a bul l et hol e and bl ood s t ai ns ; how ever , t her e w as no m ent i on of a bul l et hol e or bl ood s t ai ns i n r egar ds t o t he j eans the v ict im w a s w ea ri n g . T h e c ri m e sc en e p h o tog rap h s sh o w that the v ict im ’s j ea n s w ere bu ckled bu tt hey w ere dow n aroun d h i s knees. C er vi ni a B r as w el l of t he Tennes s ee Bure au of I nves t i gat i on ( T B I ) t es t i f i ed r egar di ng t he f i r ear m s i nvol ved i n t hi s cas e. M s . B r as w el l t es t ed the R uger9 m i l l i m et erfound att heSpelledph onetically

. 3 -4- cri m e scene an d the Jennings . 38 0 au t om at i c revol ver fou nd atM r. R ose’s res i den ce. M s. B r as wel l was a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e t h a tt h e s a fe t y o n t h e Rug e r9 m i l l i m e t e rwas wor k i ng pr oper l y and thatt he di s char ged bul l et s at t he s cene w er e f i r ed f r om t he J enni ngs . 380 and nott he R uger 9 m i l l i m et er . M s . B r as w el l s t at ed t hat t he car t r i dge cas es found att he s cene w oul d have be en ej ect ed out of t he ri ght s i de of the w eapon a nd w oul d have onl y t r avel ed, i f notm ov ed b y a p ers on , fr om 7 t o 10 f eet aw ay f

rom t he w eapo n. M s. B ras w el l w as al so abl e t o det erm ine that t he bul l etr ecove r ed f r om t he vi ct i m ’ s body w as f i r ed f r om t he J e n n in g s .3 8 0 a n d n o t f ro m th e R u g e r 9 m illim e te r. Ser geantC hr i s H arr i s of t he Shel by C ount y Sher i f f ’ s O f f i ce t es t i f i ed t hathe w as a ss ig n e d a s th e c a se o ffic e r a n d th a t h e a rriv e d a t th e c rim e sc e n e a t ap p ro x im a tely 8 :0 0 in th e m o rn in g . E v e n tu a lly , h e lef t th e c rim e sc e n e a n d in ter v iew e d M r. S m ith . M r. S m ith to ld Ser geantH arr i s t hat he r ece i ved s om e cal l s f r om “M ar kes e” r egar di ng t he vi ct i m and t hatt he l as tt i m e thathe s poke w i t h t he vi ct i m w as af t erm i dni ght

. A t t hi s t i m e, t he vi ct i m w as on h is w a y to m e e t “M a rk e se .” S e rg e a n t H a rris th e n dis cusse d th e D e fe n d a n t’s s tate m e n ts w h ile th e y w e re p la y e d fo r t h e ju ry . Ser geantH arris too k t he D efe ndant ’ s fi r s ts t at ementon M ar ch 12, 2007. T he D ef en d an t sa id that M r. A

. Jo h n so n intr o d u ce d h im to M r. R o se a n d that h e h as k n o w n M r. R os e fors ever al m ont hs

. O n M arch 10, 2007, atappr oxi m at el ym i dni ght , t he D efe ndant w entt o M r . A

. J ohns on’ s hous e, w her e he s aw M r . R os e, t he Johns on br ot her s , and a man n a m e d M a rq u a v iu s. U p o n a rriv in g , M r. R o se a sk e d th e D e f e n d a n t if h e w a n ted to g o w ith 3 h im to b u yso m e m arij u an a f rom the v ict im

. A s the yw ere w alkin g to m ee t th e v ict im , M r. R os e gave t he D efe ndanta gun and sai d, “hol d t hi s . ” T he pai r w ent t o a w al ki ng t r ai l t hat w a s lo c a ted b e h in d th e n e ig h b o rh o o d a n d w a ited f o r th e v ictim . W h e n th e v ictim a rriv e d in a silv e r c a r, th e yn e g o tiate d a p ric e f o r so m e m a r ij u a n a . W h e n M r. R o se sa id th a t h e o n ly w ant ed t o buys om e of the mar i j uana, t he vi ct i m beca m e angryand tur ned hi s back. W hen th e v ictim tu rn e d b a c k a ro u n d , h e sh o w e d th e m h is g u n a n d a sk e d th e m to e m p tyth e ir pocket s . T he D efe ndantt hen pul l ed M r . R os e’ s gun outof hi s pocket

. W hen t he vi ct i m s aw t he gun, he fi r ed. T he D efe ndant r etur ned fi r e as he w as runni ng aw ay . W hen as ked w hether i tw as pos s i bl e i f the D efe ndant j us t t hought t hat t he vi ct i m fi r ed, t he D efe ndantadmi t t ed that it w a s p o s s ib le a n d s a id , “ I g u e s s s o , I d o n ’t k n o w , I w a s ju s t s c a re d .” Ser geantH arr i s t ook a s econd stat em ent fr om t he D efe ndanton M ar ch 13, 2007 at 2 :3 0 in th e a ftern o o n . T h is t im e, th e D ef en d an t sai d that h e a rri v ed at M r. A

. Jo h n so n ’s h o u se a ro u n d 8 :0 0 o r 9 :0 0 p .m . an d th a t th e y w e re sm o k in g a n d d rin k in g w h e n M r. R o se sa id h e k n ew w h ere h e c o u ld g et th em so m e m o re m arij u an a. A cc o rdin g to the D ef en d an t, M r. R os e s how ed hi m a gun and s ai d w e can do t hi s , “i tw i l l be ea s y . ” The pl an w as t o t ake theMr. B

. J ohns onto ldth e juryh is s is ter’ s ce llp ho nenumber. 4 -5- m ar i j uana byfor ce be caus e theydi d nothave e nough m oneyt o buyt he tw o ounces of m ar i j uana thatM r . R os e or der ed fr om t he vi ct i m . T he D efe ndants ai d t hatt w o ounces of m arij u an a w as w or t h appr oxi m at el yone hundr ed and f i ftydol l ar s . A ccor di ng t o t he D efe ndant , w hen the vi ct i m gave them t he m ar i j uana, M r . R os e s ai d t hatt heyw er e j us tgoi ng to tak e it w ith o u t p a y in g . T h e v ictim sa id , “ h e ll n o ” a n d sh o w e d th e m h is g u n . A t th is p o in t, t he D efe ndantbegan s hoot i ng as he w as runni ng aw ay . T he D efe ndantadmi tt ed thatt he vi ct i m m ayhave be en runni ng aw ay . W hen theygotback t o t he hous e, t he D efe ndantgave the g u n to M r. R o se an d left w ith ap p rox im atelyan o u n ce o f th e m arij u an a a fter tell ing M r. A

. J ohns on w hat happene d on t he t r ai l

. T he D efe ndant s ai d t hat he par ked hi s carbehi nd an a b a n d o n e d h o u s e th e n e x t d a yb e c a u s e h e k n e w th a t th e p o lic e w e re lo o k in g f o r h im

. M r . B

. J ohns on, M s . B ur ks , and M r . A

. J ohns on t es t i f i ed at t r i al t hat t hey di d nots ee th e D e fe n d a n t o n M a rc h 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 . O n th a t d a y , the y w e n t to th e ir g ra n d m o th e r’s h o u se w ith t hei rfam i l y and M r . R os e. M r . B

. J ohns on t es t i f i ed t hat t hey l ef

t t he hous e ar ound 8: 30 or 9 :0 0 in th e e v e n in g , an d w h e n th e y re tu rn e d h o m e , h e w e n t to th e ro o m th a t h e sh a re d w ith M r. R ose. A s M r. B . J o hn son w as going t o sl eep arou nd m i dn i gh t , he n oti ced M r. R ose get t i ng r eady f

or bed. W hen he w oke up on M ar ch 11, 2007, he obs er ved m ar i j uana on the dr es s erand s aw t hat M r . R os e w as i n t he bedr oom hol di ng a “pi s t ol

. ” M r . R os e t ol d hi m t hat “he ha d t o deal w i t h a [ n - - - a a - s ] l as tni ght

. ” M r . B

. J ohns on and M r . A

. J ohns on t es t i f i ed t hat t hey s poke w i t h M r . Sm i t h i n f r ont o f th e ir h o u se o n th e m o rn in g o f M a rc h 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 . A c c o rd in g to th e Jo h n so n s, d u rin g th is conver s at i on, M r . Sm i t h t ol d M r . R os e that the v ic t i m r ece i ved a c al l f r om s om eone w ho s ounded l i ke M r . R os e bef or e the vi ct i m w as found dead. A f t erM r . R os e deni ed ca l l i ng t he vi ct i m , M r . R os e w ent i n t he house. W hen M r . B

. J ohns on w ent i ns i de t o hi s bedr oom , he s a w M r. R o s e c o m in g o u t o f t h e a ttic th a t is lo c a te d in th e ir b e d ro o m . M s . B ur ks t es t i f

i ed at tr i al t hatt hey r et ur ned f r om t hei rgr andm ot her ’ s hous e ar ound 1 0 :3 0 o r 1 0 :4 5 in th e e v e n in g a n d th a t sh e w e n t to h e r ro o m , talk e d o n th e p h o n e , an d fe ll as l eep. W hen s he w oke up on M ar ch 11, 2007, hercel l phone w as m i s s i ng. L at ert hat 4 m orni ng , M r. R ose returned her c el l ph on e. M s. B urks w ent w i t h her fam i l y an d M r. R ose t o hergr andm ot her ’ s hous e on M ar ch 11, 2007. O n t he w ay, M r . R os e s ai d t hat“s om ethi ng hap pen ed o n the back of t he lake .

. . som e t hree shots w as f i red. ” A ccordi ng t o M s. B urks, befor e t he pol i ce a r r i ved t hat af t er noon, M r . R os e as ked hert o t el l t he pol i ce thats he l oaned h e r p h o n e to “ M a rq u e tte ” a t th e B e rr y h ill M a rk e t S to re . M r . A

. J ohns on t es t i f

i ed attr i al t hatt hey r etur ned hom e ar ound 10: 00 p. m . and that he w entt o hi s r oom and s l eptunt i l he w oke u p the n ex tm or ni ng. O n M ar ch 11, 2007, heMr. S mith testified that thevictim knewa man named “J-Mon ” w ho drovea motorcycle. 5 -6- not i ced thatt her e w as appr oxi m at el y t w o ounces of “w eed” i n t he hous e. H e t es t i f i ed that M r . R o se told h i m af

t erM r . Sm i t h l ef

tt hatt he vi ct i m “pul l ed hi s gun out ” dur i ng a dr ug d e a l. H e sa id th a t M r. R o se to ld h im th a t h e “ sh o t an d ra n ” a n d th a t h e th re w th e g u n in to th e la k e . M r . D am i an Todd, M r . C ar l J ow er s , and M r . Jef f r ey Fl aher t y al l t es t i f

i ed t hatt hey l i ved s om ew h at n ea rt he cr i m e s cene and t hatt hey w er e hom e on t he ni ghtof M ar ch 10, 2 0 0 7

. M r. T o d d stat ed that h e he ard so m e “p o p p ing so u n d s” at aro u n d 1 1 :30 that n igh t. M r. J ow er s s t at ed t hathe hea r d ar ound four guns hot s at appr oxi m at el y 11: 30 t hatni ghtand t hat he hea r d a m ot or cycl e l eavi ng t he ar ea a ta hi gh rate o f s peed a ppr oxi m at el y 30 s econds 5 a fte r h e h e a rd th e g u n sh o ts. M r. F lah e rty sta ted th a t h e h e a rd a p p ro x im a tely fo u r g u n sh o ts b e tw e e n 1 1 :1 5 a n d 1 1 :3 0 th a t n ig h t. Speci al A gent L aur a H odge of t he T B I t es t i f i ed fort he def

ens e t hats he r ece i ved thr ee guns hot residue ki t s f

r om Ser geantH arr i s . E ach ki tcont ai ned cl ot hi ng f r om ei t hert he D ef endant , M r . R os e, or t he vi ct i m . Speci al A gent H odge st at ed t hat guns hotr es i due “c an be depos i t ed f

r om ei t her handl i ng, f

i r i ng or bei ng neara gun w hen i tf i r ed. ” The r es i due m ay be r em oved f

r om cl ot hi ng and sk in by s oap and w at erorm ay s i m pl y be w i ped aw ay af t er a pe ri o d o f ti m e. I n r egar d t o t he guns hotr es i due ki tf r om t he D ef

endant , s he s t at ed that “[ e] l em ent s i ndi cat i ve of guns hotr es i due w er e abs ent ” m eani ng t hatt he “r es ul t s cannot el i m i nat e the pos s i bi l i t y t hatt he i ndi vi dual coul d have f i r ed, handl ed or w as neara gun w hen i tf i r ed. ” I n r egar d t o t he guns hot r es i due ki t s f r om M r . R os e and t he vi ct i m , s he s t at ed t hat “[ e] l em ent s i ndi cat i ve of guns hotr es i due w er e i nco n clus ive ” m eani ng t hatt he s he found “s om e l evel s ” of

t he el em ent s pr es ent i n guns hot r es i due; how ever , t he l evel s w er e nothi gh e n o u g h fo r h e r to sta te th a t g u n sh o t re sid u e w a s p re se n t. D et ect i ve Ser geantR aym ond W

. Si des of t he Shel by C ount y Sher i f f ’ s of f i ce t es t i f i ed t hathe pr oces s ed t w o vehi cl es i n t hi s cas e. O n M ar ch 11, 2007, D et ect i ve Si des pr oces s ed an A lero fo u n d at th e crim e sce n e. In side the c ar, he fou n d an U n cle M ike’s b lack h o lst er, t w o cel l phones , and t w o m agaz i nes - “[ o] ne w as l oaded w i t h t w o l i ve r ounds of W i nches t er R uger9 m i l li m et erand the otherone w as em pt y. ” O n M ar ch 12, 2007, D et ect i ve Si des p ro c e ss e d a F o rd T a u ru s th a t w a s in a b a c k y a r d “ b e h in d a n a b a n d o n e d h o u se in a n a re a in M em phi s and s t i l l r unni ng, dooropen. ” Ins i de t he T aur us , he found “hea dphones , [ com pact d isc s], ja c k e ts, b a ll c a p , c lo th in g , sk u ll ca p s a n d o th e r b a ll ca p s.” H e d id n o t fin d fin g e rp rin ts in e ith e r o f t h e tw o v e h ic le s . L i eut enantJ ohn M i l l s of t h e S h elby C ount y Sher i f f ’ s of f i ce t es t i f i ed t hathe in ter v iew e d M s. A n n ie H e ss , th e v ictim ’s m o th e r, o n M a rc h 1 1 , 2 0 0 7

. M s. H e ss to ld h im t hats om eone c al l ed her f r om a t el ephone num berm at chi ng M s . B ur ks ’ s t el ephone num berHer testimony at trial w as co nsistent with this statement. 6 -7- i n t he l at e m or ni ng of

M ar ch 10, 2007. L i eut enantM i l l s al s o s ear ched t he vi ct i m ’ s bedr oom 6 and found “an e m pt y gun box [ for ] a s t ai nl es s s t eel R uger , ” a tr af f i c t i cket , and ot her“m i nor i t em s . ” Speci al A gentJ am es R us s el l D avi s of t he TB I t es t i f

i ed thathe r ece i ved cl ot hi ng f r om Ser geantH arr i s i n r egar ds t o t hi s cas e. H e r ece i ved a w hi t e s hi r t , deni m pant s , and a bl ack b eltthat b elon g ed to the D efe n d an t. H e a lso rec e iv e d a stri p ed sh ir t th at be lon g ed to M r. R os e. Speci al A gentD avi s anal yzed the i t em s for guns hot r es i due. T he cl ot hi ng obt ai ned fr o m th e D e fe n d a n t “ d id n o t r e v e a l th e p re s e n c e o f p a rt ic le s o f g u n s h o t p ri m e r r e s id u e .” C onver s el y, t he cl ot hi ng obt ai ned f r om M r . R os e “r evea l ed t he pr es ence of par t i cl es uni que t o guns hotpr i m err es i due. ” S p ec ial A g en tD avi s al s o not ed t hatguns hotr es i due m ay be rem o v ed b y w ash ing the clothin g an d that g u n sh o t residu e m ay b e pre sen t o n s o m e o n e ’s c lo th in g if th e y w e r e m e r e ly n e a r th e w e a p o n w h e n it w a s fire d a n d n o t th e o n e a c tu a lly f i r i ng t he w eapon. T he St at e r eca l l ed D et ect i ve Si des as a r ebut t al w i t nes s . D et ect i ve Si des s t at ed t hat h e w a s p re se n t fo r a ll th re e in ter ro g a tio n s o f M r. R o se tak e n b y S e rg e a n t H a rris. T h e S tate th e n p la y e d th e e n tir e ty o f a ll th re e ta p e d s ta te m e n ts fr o m M r. R o s e . T he fi rs tst at em ent w as t aken on M a rc h 11 , 20 07 at8:30 i n the even i ng . M r. R ose cal l ed t he vi ct i m w i t h M s . B ur ks ’ s cel l phone and arr anged a m eet i ng w i t h t he vi ct i m t o buy a “qua r t erpounder ” of m ar i j uana, w hi ch i s w or t h appr oxi m at el y t hr ee hundr ed and t w ent yfiv e d o llars , b u t th e v ictim sa id h e h a d a b o u t a “ q u a rte r” o f m a riju a n a , w h ich is o n ly w o rth f i f t een dol l ar s . M r . R os e as ked the D ef endantt o go w i t h hi m forpr ot ect i on. T he D ef endant d r o v e t h e t wo o f

t h e m i n a r e d F o r d T a u r u s , a n d o n t h e i r wa y , t h e De fe n d a n t s h o we d h i m a gun and s ai d, “[ W ] el l i f he tr i es t o do s om ethi ng, you good. ” W hen the vi ct i m arr i ved, t hey not i ced thatt he vi ct i m had a gun i n hi s l ef t pocketand t he w eed i n hi s r i ghtpocket

. A f t er t he vi ct i m s how ed M r . R os e the m ar i j uana, t he vi ct i m r etr i eved the gun f r om hi s l ef

tpocket and f i r ed t he gun atM r . R os e’ s feetas t he vi ct i m w as b ac k i ng aw ay. T he D ef endantt hen s hot at t he vi ct i m t hr ee t i m es . T he t w o r an t o t he ca rand r et ur ned t o t he hous e, w her e they w ent i ns i de for t en m i nut es . M r . R os e di d not know w hat happene d t o t he g u n o r t he m a ri ju a n a . T h e m a ri

ju a n a h e h a d w h e n h e w a s a rr e s te d c a m e fr o m a “ d u d e o ff S p ri n g d a le .”

T he se c o n d stat em ent w as t aken l at er i n the day on M arch 11 , 20 07

. M r. R ose adm i t t ed thathe boughtt he gun fr om an “ol der head” for s i xt y dol l ar s . W hen he as ked the D ef endantt o go w i t h hi m “forpr ot ect i on, ” he ga ve t he D ef endant t he gun. D ur i ng t he dr ug deal , t he vi ct i m l ethi m s m el l t he m ar i j uana. A s M r . R os e w as s m el l i ng t he m ar i j uana, t he vi ct i m r eac hed fora w eapon a nd f i r ed one s hotw h il e bac ki ng aw ay. T he D ef endantf i r ed-8-

M r. R o se’s g u n three ti m es in resp o n se. T h e D efe n d an t dro v e h im b ac k to the h o u se, w h ere he hi d t he gun i n t he at t i c at t he t op of t he door under t he i ns ul at i on. H e di d notknow t hat th e v ic tim w a s d e a d b e c a u s e h e d id n o t s e e h im fa ll d o w n . T he thi rd st at em ent w as t aken on M arch 13 , 20 07 at 12 : 00 i n the af t ernoon . M r. R ose s ai d t hat he cal l ed t he vi ct i m ear l i er i n t he day t o s et up t he drug deal

. H e t ol d t he vi ct i m t hat h is na m e w as “ M a rq u ett e.” A t app rox im ately 1 1 :00 o n the n igh t of M arc h 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 , M r. R os e t al ked t o t he vi ct i m t he f i nal t i m e and agr eed t o m eet t o buy t w o ounces of m ar i j uana, w hi ch i s w or t h appr oxi m at el y one hundr ed an d tw en t y dol l ar s . M r . R os e onl y had f i f t een d o ll ars. A cc o rdin g to M r. R o se, w h en the D efe n d a n t v o lun teered to g o , h e g rab b ed M r. R os e’ s gun f

r om t he dr es s eri n t he hous e. T he D ef endantal so said that if t he vi ct i m had mo r e t h a n f

i f t e e n d o l l a r s wo r t h o f ma r i j u a n a , t h e n t h e y s h o u l d j u s tt a k e i tf r o m t h e v i c t i m. W hen M r . R os e w as hol di ng t he m ar i j uana, t he D ef

endants hott he vi ct i m . T he vi ct i m pul l ed ou t h is g u n a nd w as r un ning aw ay w hen t he D efendan tshot att he v i ct i m t w o m ore t i m es. M r. R ose sai d that he t ho ug ht t he D efendan t shot t he v i ct i m i n the l eg. T hey did not chase t he vi ct i m , butt hey di d s ee t he vi ct i m fal l dow n i n t he gr as s . W hen t hey arr i ved bac k att he J o h n s o n re s id e n c e , th e y s p lit u p th e m a ri ju a n a , a n d M r. R o s e h id th e g u n in th e a ttic

. A N A L Y S IS I. M oti on t o S up press T he pr oof

att he s uppr es s i on hear ing co ns i s t ed s ol el y of t he t es t i m ony of

Ser geant H e lm s a n d S e rg e a n t H a rris. S e rg e a n t H e lm s te stifie d th a t h e sp o k e w ith M r. S m ith w h o to ld hi m t hathe thoughtM r . R os e ca l l ed as ki ng fort he vi ct i m and t hatM r . R os e w as pr et endi ng to b e so m e o n e n a m e d “ M a rk e se .” S e rg e a n t H e lm s s tate d th a t af ter d riv in g to N o rth M em phi s t o f

i nd M r . R os e, he r ode back t o t he st at i on w i t h M s . B ur ks

. I n t he ca r , M s . B ur ks t ol d hi m t hats he l et a m an nam ed “M ar kes e” us e hercel l phone. U pon f ur t herques t i oni ng, M s. B u rk s fin a lly a d m itt e d th a t M r. R o se w a s th e o n e w h o to o k h e r c e ll p h o n e , tha t h e to ld hert o t el l t he pol i ce that“M ar kes e” us ed hercel l phone, and t hatM r . R os e al s o t ol d hert hat h e s h o t th e v ic tim

. A f t erM r . R os e w as i nt err ogat ed, Ser geantH el m s w as s entt o r ecove rt he J enni ngs

. 380 aut om at i c r evol verf r om M r . R o se’s a t t i c. A f t err ecove r i ng t he gun, he pr epar ed a re p o rt o n th e D e fe n d a n t, a n d th e n e x t m o rn in g , h e w a s se n t to fin d a n d a rre st th e D e fe n d a n t. H e di d notr em em beri f he t ol d t he D ef

endant that he w as char ged w i t h a cr i m e ort hathe w as arr es t ed. Ser geantH el m s s t at ed t hat he w as s entt her e t o arr es tt he D ef endantand that if th e D e fe n d a n t d id n o t co o p e r a te , h e w o u ld h a v e fo rc ib ly re stra in e d h im a n d p u t h im in handcuf f s . A f t erar r es t i ng t he D ef

endant , Ser geant H el m s br ought hi m t o a hol di ng cel l at appr oxi m at el y 4: 45 i n t he af t er noon. L at er i n the af

t er noon, at appr oxi m at el y 5: 30 p. m . , t he D efe n d an t w as bro u g h t to an i n terview roo m , w h ere h e si g n ed a M ir an d a righ ts w aive r form-9-

i n f r ontof S erg ea n t H el m s and Ser geantH arr i s . B efor e he s i gned t he w ai verfor m , t he D ef endantw as nott ol d t hat he w as f r ee t o l eave beca us e he w as notf r ee t o l eave . Ser geant H e lm s s tate d th a t th e D e fe n d a n t w a s u n d e r a rre st e v e n th o u g h h e m a y n o t h a v e sp e c ifica lly to ld th e D e fe n d a n t th a t h e w a s u n d e r a rr e s t. In r egard t o the D efendan t ’s i nv olvem ent, S ergeant H e l m s sai d thatM r. R ose im p lica ted th e D e fe n d a n t, bu t h e c o u ld n o t re m e m b e r w h o first im p lica ted th e D e fe n d a n t. S e r g e a n tHe l ms a d mi t t e d t h a th e wa s n o tp r e s e n tfo rt h e e n t i r e t y o f a n y i n t e r r o g a t i o n . He s t at ed t hathe bel i eved M r . B

. J ohns on s ai d t hatt he D ef endant w as w i t h M r . R os e w hen t he s hoot i ng happene d and t hat M r . B

. J ohns on w as t he per s on w ho f i r s ti dent i f

i ed t he D ef

endant by ph otograph. H e al so st at ed that M s. B urks t old t hem t hat t he D efendan tw as att heirho use th e n ig h t o f M a rc h 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 fo r a p a rt y . Ser geantH arr i s s t at ed t hathe w as as s i gned as t he ca s e officer to i nves t i gat e the vi ct i m ’ s m ur der

. I n t he cour s e of hi s i nves t i gat i on, he i nt er vi ew ed M s . B ur ks , t he J ohns on b roth ers, M r. R o se, an d the D efe n d an t. H e stated that M s. B u rks a n d the J o h n so n b roth ers t ol d hi m t hatM r . R os e adm i t t ed t o sh oot i ng t he vi ct i m . T he thr ee di d notm ent i on t he De fe n d a n t i n t h e i r s t a t e me n t s . M r . A. J o h n s o n t o l d S e r g e a n tHa r r i s t h a tM r . Ro s e h a d t wo ou nces of m ari

j uan a on M arch 11 , 20 07 and t hat this w as t he m ari j u a n a th a t M r. R ose
“ b o u g h t” fr o m th e v ic tim

. W h e n h e in ter ro g a ted M r. R o se , M r. R o se im p lica ted th e D e fe n d a n t. A c c o rd in g to Ser geantH arr i s , M r . R o se w as the onl y per s on w ho m ent i oned t he D ef endant

. Ser geant H arr i s s t at ed t hatt hey t ook t hr ee s t at em ent s f r om M r . R os e bec aus e he di d notbel i eve that he w as get t i ng t he f

ul l s t or y. M r . R os e t ol d t hem t hathe t hr ew t he gun i nt o t he l ake, buthe l at err eca nt ed thi s par tof hi s s t at em entand t ol d t hem , i n hi s s econd s t at em ent , t hatt he gun w as i n t he at t i c. I n r es pon se to M r. R o se’ s adm i s s i on of t he tr ue l ocat i on of

t he gun, Ser geantH arr i s s ent a t eam t o t he J ohns on hous e t o r ecove rt he gun, w hi ch w as found i n t he at t i c. M r . R os e al s o t ol d Ser geantH arr i s t hat t he D ef endant cam e t o hi s hous e and thatt hey w entt o m eett he vi ct i m “w i t h t he i nt entt o r ob [ t he vi ct i m ] of t he m ar i

j uana. ” A f

t er i nt errog at i ng M r . R os e, w ho w as bei ng hel d fort he cha r ge of m ur der , he “de vel oped [ t he D e fe n d a n t] a s th e s e c o n d s u s p e c t” a n d d ir e c te d h is u n it to fi n d th e D e fe n d a n t. Ser geantH arr i s s t at ed that , att hi s poi nti n the i nves t i gat i on, he had e nough i nfor m at i on t o char ge the D ef endantw i t h “m ur dert w o. ” H e di d not have a w arr ant fort he D e fe n d a n t’s a rre st b e c a u se h e “ w a s g o in g to g iv e [th e stre e t cr im e s u n it] so m e tim e to lo c a te [th e D e fe n d a n t] a n d if th e y h a d n ’ t lo c a ted h im th e n I w o u ld h a v e [o b tain e d a n a rre st] wa r r a n t

. ” On c e t h e De fe n d a n twa s b r o u g h tt o S e r g e a n tHa r r i s fo r q u e s t i o n i n g s o me t i me b e tw e e n 5 :0 0 a n d 6 :0 0 p .m . o n M a rc h 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , S e rg e a n t H a rris r e a d h im h is M ira n d a rig h ts a n d ma d e s u r e t h a th e u n d e r s t o o d h i s r i g h t s b e fo r e h e s i g n e d t h e r i g h t s wa i v e rfo r m. S e rg e a n t H e lm s w a s p re se n t fo r “ th e b e g in n in g o f th e in ter v iew p h a se .” S e rg e a n t H a rris-10-

s t at ed t hat the D efendantw as aw ake a nd al er tt hr oughoutt he i nt err ogat i on and t hathe vol unt ar i l y gave hi s s t at em ent

. T he D ef endantdi d t el l hi m t hathe w as dr i nki ng t he ni ghtof t he m ur der , butacc or di ng t o Ser geantH arr i s , t he D ef endantdi d notappea ri nt oxi cat ed w hen he w as i nt err ogat ed. I n hi s f i r s ts t at em ent , t he D ef

endan t adm i t t ed bei ng pr es entfort he rob b ery and shoot i ng t he w eapon, buthe w as par t i al l y bl am i ng M r . R os e fort he m urde r. A f t ert aki ng t he D ef

endant ’ s f

i r s ts t at em ent , Ser geantH arr i s f i l l ed outan af

fi d avi tof c o m p lain t fo r se c o n d d e g re e m u rd e r th a t w a s a p p ro v e d b y th e m a g istra te. S e rg e a n t H a rris t hen i nt err ogat ed M r . R os e a g ain an d conf r ont ed hi m w i t h t he di s cr epanc i es bet w een the D e fe n d a n t’ s a n d M r. R o s e ’s s ta te m e n ts

. A f t eri nt err ogat i ng M r . R os e fort he t hi r d t i m e, Ser geantH arr i s r etr i eved the De fe n d a n ta n d t o l d h i m t h a t t h e r e we r e s o me i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s b e t we e n t h e i r s t a t e me n t s . He r ead the D ef

endanthi s M i r anda r i ght s for a sec ond t i m e, and t he D ef endants i gned and da t ed t he r i ght s w ai verfor m . T he D ef endant ’ s s econd s t at em entw as t aken on M ar ch 13, 2007 at 1: 57 i n t he af

t er noon. T h e D efe ndantadm i t t ed t hatt hey w entt o m eett he vi ct i m w i t h t he i nt ent i on of

r obbi ng hi m and thathe s hot t he vi ct i m . A f t ert he D ef

endantgave hi s s econd s t at em ent , he w as char ged w i t h f i r s tdegr ee m ur deri n perpetr ati o n of a r obber y. Ser geant H arr i s char act er i zed the di s cr epanc i es bet w een M r . R os e’ s t hi r d s t at em entand t he D ef endant ’ s s econd s t at em entas “m i nor ” and “ uni m por t ant

. ” B as ed u p o n t h i s e v i d e n c e a n d b r i e f s s u b m i t t e d b y t h e St a t e a n d t h e Def e n d a n t , t he trial c o u rt d e n ie d th e D e fe n d a n t’s m o tio n to su p p re ss in a w ritten o rd e r, w h ich sta ted in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

T hi s [ c ] o u r ti s n o tp e r s u a d e d t h a t[ M r . Ros e ] i s a c r i m i nal info rm an t as co n tem p lat ed b y law

. . . ev en if [M r. ] R o se w ere cons i der ed a c r i m i nal i nfor m antforpur pos es of t hi s cas e the ar gum entw oul d s t i l l fai l

. [ M r . ] R os e obvi ous l y has per s onal kn o w ledg e aboutt he fact s of t he ca s e bec aus e he a dm i t t ed he w as pr es entand com m i t t ed t he cr i m e. Second, forpur pos es of deter m i ning prob able cause, his i nform at i on i s r el i able because i ti s a s t a t e me n ta g a i n s t[ M r . Ro s e ’ s ] p e n a l i n t e r e s t

. He im p lica tes h im se lf in a m u rd e r a n d a re a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld notbe l i kel y t o expos e hi m s el f t o s uch cr i m i nal l i abi l i t y i f t he s t at e m e n t wer e n o t t r u e . Th e r e fo r e i t h a s t h e i n d i c i a of tr ut hf ul nes s and as a r es ul ti s r el i abl e and c r edi bl e. A gai n, al t hough t he C our ti s notf i nd ing t hat[ M r . ] R os e s houl d be cons i der ed a c r i m i nal i nfor m ant , forpur pos es of t hi s ar gum ent i f he w er e t hi s al l egat i on w oul d have no m er i t

. A r evi ew of t he t est i m on y o f the o ff

i cers i nd i cat es t hat they had probab l e cause t o b el i eve the [ D ] ef

endantw as i nvol ved i n t he m ur derof t he-11- vi ct i m bas ed i n l ar ge par ton t he s t at em ent of [ M r . R os e]

. O t her w i t nes s es putt he [ D ] ef

endanti n t he com pany of [ M r . ] R os e and [ M r . ] R os e i m pl i cat es hi m s el f and t he [ D ] ef

endanti n a m ur der in p e rp e tra tio n o f a ro b b e ry . T h e re fo re , u n d e r e ith e r th e o ry th is C our tf i nds t hatt he of

f i cer s had pr obabl e ca u se t o arr es tt he [D ]e fe n d a n t fo r m u rd e r.

. . . N e x t, th e [D ]e fe n d a n t alle g e s th a t th e sta tem e n ts g iv e n b y h im w er e i nvol unt ar y and s hou ld b e s uppr es s ed. T he [ D ] ef endant di d nott es t i f

y t hathi s s t at em ent s w er e i nvol unt ar i l y gi ven. T he St at e i ntr oduced e vi dence t hatt he [ D ] ef endant w as advi s ed of hi s [ M i r anda] R i ght s and t hat he w ai ved t hos e r i gh ts an d gave hi s s t at em ent s f

r eel y and vol unt ar i l y w i t h f ul l know l edge of

t he i m pl i cat i on of

gi vi ng s ai d s t at em ent s . O f f i cer s t es t i f

i ed thatt he [ D ] ef endantneveras ked foran att or ney and thathe coope r at ed w i t h t hem and f

r eel y and vol unt ar i l y gave hi s s t at em ent s . . . T he C our tf i nds t hatt hi s all eg ati on has no m er i tand s houl d be d e n ie d

.

“ [A ] tria l c o u rt’s fin d in g s o f fac t in a su p p re ss io n h e a rin g [a re c o n c lu siv e o n a p p e a l] unl es s t he evi dence pr eponder at es ot her w i s e. ” St at e v. B i net t e, 33 S. W

. 3d 215, 217 ( T enn. 2000) ( quot i ng St at e v. O do m , 9 2 8 S

. W

. 2d 18, 23 ( T enn. 1996) )

. Q ues t i ons aboutt he

“ c re d ib ili ty o f th e w itn e ss e s, th e w e ig h t a n d v a lu e o f th e e v id e n c e , an d re so lu tio n o f c o n flicts i n t he evi dence are m att er s entr us t ed t o t he tr i al j udge as t he tr i erof fact

. ” O dom , 928 S. W

. 2d at23. B ot h pr oof pr es ent ed att he s uppr es s i on hear i ng and pr oof pr es ent ed att r i al m ay be c ons i der ed by an a ppel l at e cour t “i n deci di ng t he propr i et y of t he tr i al cour t ’ s r ul i ng o n a m o tio n to su p p re ss .” S tate v . P e rry , 1 3 S .W .3 d 7 2 4 , 7 3 7 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); S tate v. H enni ng, 975 S. W

. 2d 290, 299 ( T enn. 1998)

. H ow ever , t he pre vai l i ng par t y “i s ent i t l ed to th e stro n g e st le g iti m a te v iew o f th e e v id e n c e a d d u c e d a t th e su p p re ss io n h e a rin g a s w e ll a s a l l r e a s o n a b l e a n d l e g i t i ma t e i n fe r e n c e s t h a t ma y b e d r a wn f r o m t h a te v i d e n c e . ” Od o m, 928 S. W

. 2d at23. Fur t her m or e, an appe l l at e cour t ’ s “r evi ew of a t r i al cour t ’ s appl i cat i on of l aw t o t he fact s . . . i s conduct ed undera de novo s t andar d of r evi ew . ” St at e v. W al t on, 41 S .W .3 d 7 5 , 8 1 (T e n n . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). P roba ble C au se t o A rres t In suppo rt of h i s argu m ent that the tr i al cou rterr ed in den ying his m oti on t o sup press , t he D ef endantf i r s tcl ai m s t hathi s w arr ant l es s arr es tw as i l l egal beca us e of f i cer s di d nothave pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es thi m . H e cont ends t hat hi s arr es t w as bas ed on i nfor m at i on obt ai ned-12-

f r om M r . R os e, w ho s houl d have been char act er i zed as a cr i m i nal i nfor m ant

. A s a cr i m i nal i nfor m ant , t he D ef

endantar gues t hat t he S t at e m us t pr ove M r . R os e’ s “bas i s forknow l edge” and the “r el i abi l i t y” or“ver aci t y” of hi s know l edge pur s uant t o Spi nel l i v. U ni t ed St at es , 393 U .S

. 4 1 0 , 4 1 6 (1 9 6 9 ) a n d A g u ila r v . T e x a s , 3 7 8 U .S . 1 0 8 , 1 1 4 (1 9 6 4 ). T he D efen dan tal so c o n ten d s th a t b e c a u s e h is a rre st w a s illeg a l, th e trial c o u rt e rre d in f a ili n g to su p p re ss h is sta tem e n ts, a s w e ll a s th e m a riju a n a tak e n b yth e o f f ice r a t th e tim e o f

h is a rre st. T h e S tate r es ponds t hatM r . R os e w as pr oper l y char act eri ze d as a c i t i zen i nfor m ant , and i n t he alt ern ati v e , ev en if

M r. R o se w as a crim inal info rm an t, M r. R o se sa ti sfi es th e A g u il arS p in e lli te s t. In th is c a s e , th e D e fe n d a n t w a s a rr e s te d w ith o u t a w a rr a n t. A w arr ant l es s arr es t , l i ke a w arr ant l es s s ei zur e, “i s pr es um ed unr eas onabl e, and evi dence di s cover ed as a r es ul tt her eof i s s ubj ectt o s uppr es s i on unl es s the S ta t e demonstr at es t hatt he [a r r es t ] w as conduct ed pur s uant to one of the narr ow l ydefi ned exc ept i ons t o t he w arr antr equi r ement

. ” St at e v. B ri dg es, 96 3 S

. W

. 2d 48 7, 49 0 (Ten n. 19 97 ) ( ci t at i on s om i t t ed). In T enn essee, a w arr antl ess a rre st m a yb e m a d e in c e rta in in sta n c e s, in c lu d in g “ [ f ]o r a p u b lic o f

f e n se c o m m itt e d

. . . in t he off i cer ’ s pr es ence ” or “[w ] hen a fel ony has i n fac t been com m i t t ed, and t he offi cerhas r eas onabl e ca us e forbel i evi ng t he per s on arr es t ed has com m i t t ed t he fel ony . ” T enn. C ode A n n . § 4 0 -7 -1 0 3 (a )(1 ), (3 ). W h ile th e sta tu te d o e s n o t d e f in e “ re a so n a b le c a u se ,” o u r c o u rts have he l d t hat a w arr ant l es s arr es tm us tbe bas ed on “pr obabl e ca us e [that ] m us tbe more t han m ere su sp ici o n . ” S tat e v . M elso n , 6 3 8 S

. W

. 2 d 3 4 2 , 3 5 0 (T en n . 1 9 8 2 ). For pr obabl e ca us e t o exi s t , t he fact s and cir cu m s t ance s as t hey ar e know n t o t he of f i ceratt he t i m e of t he arr es t m us tbe “‘ s uf f i ci entt o w arr anta pr udentm an i n bel i evi ng t hat t he [ def endant ] had com m i t t ed or w as com m i t t i ng an of fens e. ’ ” B r i dges , 963 S. W

. 2d at491 ( quot i ng B eck v. O hi o, 379 U

. S. 89, 91 ( 1964) )

. “[ B ] efor e a f i ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e m ay b e b ase d u p o n an info rm an t’ s ti p , the b asis o f t h e info rm an t’ s k n o w ledg e a n d the in form an t’ s cr edi bi l i t y m us t al s o be es t abl i s hed. ” I d. ( ci t i ng St at e v. J acum i n, 778 S. W

. 2d 430, 432- 36 (T e n n . 1 9 8 9 ))

. W e m u st firs t n o te th a t w e re jec t th e trial c o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t M r. R o se w a s n o t a “cr i m i nal info rm an t as cont em pl at ed by l aw . ” Tennes s ee l aw r ecogni zes a di s t i nct i on betw een those w ho are “ci t i zen inform ants , or b yst and er w i t nesses, and cri m i nal i nform ants , ort hos e f

r om t he cr i m i nal m i l i eu. ” St at e v. C aul ey, 863 S. W

. 2d 411, 417 ( T enn. 1993) (in ter n a l cita tio n s a n d q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). A p e rso n fro m th e c rim in a l m ili e u is o n e w h o is

“ in tim a te ly in v o lv e d w ith th e p e rs o n s in fo rm e d u p o n a n d w ith th e ille g a l c o n d u c t a t h a n d .” St at e v. M el s on, 638 S. W

. 2d 342, 354 ( T enn. 1982) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons o m itted). Info rm ati o n p rov ided b y crim inal info rm an ts “ is n o t give n in the sp ir ito f a c o n c e rn e d c iti z e n , b u t o fte n is g iv e n in e x c h a n g e fo r so m e c o n c e ss io n , p a y m e n t, or sim p ly outof r evenge agai ns tt he s ubj ect

. ” St at e v. St evens , 989 S

. W

. 2 d 2 9 0 , 294 ( T enn. 1999) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed)

. I n contr as t , ci t i zen i nfor m ant s ar e ei t hert heMr. R os e w as als o in di ctedandtrie d fo r hi s in vo lv eme nt inth e vi ctim’ s mu rd er . 7 -13- “vi ct i m s of

t he cr i m e orhave other w i s e s een s om e por t i on of i t

. ” M el s on, 638 S. W

. 2d at354 ( i nt er nal ci t at ion s an d quot at i ons om i t t ed)

. I nfor m at i on pr ovi ded by know n ci t i zen in fo rm a n ts i s “p re su m e d to b e re liab le,” w h ile in fo rm a tio n p ro v id e d b y c rim in a l in fo rm a n ts does notcarr y any pr es um pt i ons of r el i abi l i t y and m us tbe t es t ed. St evens , 989 S. W

. 2d at 2 9 3

. A s a co- def

endant and the f

i r s tper s on i m pl i cat ed i n t he m ur der , M r . R os e w as not 7 “an or di nar y ci t i zen w ho r epor t [ ed] a cr i m e w hi ch [ w as ] com m i t t ed i n hi s pr es ence , ” and he c e rta in ly d id n o t ac t w ith th e “ in ten t to a id th e p o li c e in law e n fo rc e m e n t b e c a u se o f h is conce r n fors oci et y orforhi s ow n [ phys i cal ] s af et y. ” St at e v. St evens , 989 S. W

. 2d 290, 294 (Ten n. 19 99 ) (ci t i ng S t at e v. S m i t h, 86 7 S

. W

. 2d 34 3, 34 7 (T enn . C ri m . A pp . 19 93 ))

. T hu s,
“ it is pr o p e r t o d e m a n d th a t so m e e v id e n c e o f [h is] re liab ili ty a n d c re d ib ili ty b e sh o w n ” in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e A g u ila r- S p in e lli te s t. I d

. W e d o a c k n o w led g e th a t th e b a sis o f M r. R o se ’s k n o w le d g e w a s o v e rw h e lm in g ly e sta b lish e d b e c a u se h e a d m itt e d h is in v o lv e m e n t in th e c rim e . T h e se c o n d p ro n g o f th e tes t, hi s cr edi bi l i t y or r el i abi l i t y, i s l es s appar ent

. W hi l e ther e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatM r . R os e has pr evi ous l y gi ven re l i abl e i nfor m at i on t o t he pol i ce, M r . R os e neve rdeni ed hi s i nvol vem ent in th e m u rd e r. A d d iti o n a lly , all o f h is s tate m e n ts w e re a g a in s t h is p e n a l in ter e st. In h is se c o n d sta tem e n t, t a k e n b e fo re th e D e fe n d a n t w a s a rre ste d , M r. R o se to ld S e rg e a n t H a rris w h ere the m u rde r w ea p o n w as lo ca ted. O ffi ce rs re tr ieve d the w ea p o n from ex ac tl y w h ere M r . Ro s e s a i d i two u l d b e , i n t h e a t t i c u n d e rt h e i n s u l a t i o n . F o l l o wi n g o u rr e v i e w, we concl ude t hatSer geantH el m s had pr obabl e caus e t o arr es t t he D ef endant and t hatt he tr i al cour tdi d noter ri n denyi ng t he m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he s t at em ent s on t hi s ground. A ccor di ngl y, w e al s o uphol d t he deni al of t he m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he m ar i j uana obt ai ned as a r es ul tof the s ear ch i nci dentt o t he D ef endant ’ s l aw f

ul arr es t

. C hi m el v. C al i for ni a, 395 U .S . 7 5 2 , 7 6 2 -6 3 (1 9 6 9 ). St at em ent T h e D e fe n d a n t a lso c o n ten d s tha t th e trial co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o ti o n to su p p re ss h is s tate m e n ts b e c a u se th e D e fe n d a n t d id n o t “ g iv e e ith e r o f h is s tate m e n ts v o lu n ta ri ly .” T h e S ta te d o e s n o t r e s p o n d to th is a rg u m e n t. B ot h t he Fi f

t h A m endm entt o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i t ut i on and ar t i cl e I , s ect i on 9 of t he Tennes s ee Const i t ut i on pr ot ecta per s on agai ns tcom pel l ed s el f-i ncr i m i nat i on. T he S u p rem e C o u rth as h eld t h at “the p rose cu ti o n m ay n o t use stat em en ts, w h ethe r ex cu lpato ry ori ncul pat or y, s t em m i ng f r om cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on of t he def en d a n tu n l e s s i td e m o ns tr at es th e u s e o f p ro c e d u ra l s a fe g u a rd s e ffe c tiv e to s e c u re th e p ri v ile g e a g a in s t s e lf-i n c ri m in a tio n .”At some po int after the trial court deniedthe Defen dant’s mo t i on forj ud gm ent o f acquittal, the 8 (c o n tin u e d ...) -14- M i r anda v. A r i zona, 384 U

. S. 436, 444 ( 1966)

. Speci f i cal l y, “[ p] r i ort o any quest i oni ng, t he per s on m us tbe w ar ned thathe has a r i ghtt o r em ai n s i l ent , t hat any st at em ent he does m ake m ay be us ed as evi dence agai ns t hi m , and t hat he has a r i ght t o t he pr es ence of an at t or ney, ei t her r et ai ned or appo i nted. ” Id. A defend ant m ay w ai ve t ho se ri gh t s, bu tsuch w ai ver m ust be m ade “ vol unt ar i l y, know i ngl y, and i nt el l i gent l y. ” I d. T he St at e has t he bur den of pr ovi ng t he w ai verby a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence

. St at e v. B us h, 942 S. W

. 2d 489, 500 ( T enn. 1 9 9 7 ). T he D ef endant di d not t es t i f

y or s ubm i t any evi dence i n t he s uppr es s i on hear i ng t hat w oul d s ugges tt hathe w as coer ced i nt o gi vi ng a s t at em entort hathi s s t at em entw as i nvol unt ar y. I n contr as t , t he St at e pr ovi ded am pl e evi denc e thatt he D ef endants i gned M i r a n d a wa i v e r s a n d a g r e e d t o t a l k wi t h S e r g e a n tHa r r i s . Fo l l o wi n g o u rr e v i e w, we concl ude t hatt he evi dence does notpr eponder at e aga i ns tt he tr i al cour t’ s fi n d ing t hatt he D e fe n d a n t’ s s ta te m e n ts w e re g iv e n fr e e ly a n d v o lu n ta ri ly

. I I

. I ndi ct m ent T he D ef endantcont ends t hatt he tr i al cour t err ed i n denyi ng hi s m ot i on forj udgm ent o f ac q u ittal b ec au se th e ind ict m en t did n o t des cribe a crim e u n d er T en n esse e law

. M o reo v er, th e p ro o f su b m itt e d a t trial “d id n o t su p p o rt a c o n v ictio n o f th e c rim e p u rp o rte d ly a lleg e d in t he i ndi ct m ent , ” and the tr i al cour tcons t r uct i vel y am ended t he i ndi ct m entby char gi ng t he j ur y on fel ony m ur der

. T he St at e r es ponds t hat“t he i ndict m en t tr acks t he l anguage of t he f i r s tdegr ee m ur ders t atut e, nam es t he [ D ] ef endant , s t at es t he under l yi ng fel ony, pr ovi des t he dat e of t he of fens e, and i dent i f

i es t he nam e of

t he vi ct i m . ” T he i ndi ct m enti n t hi s cas e a l l eges t hatt he D ef endant“di d unl aw f

ul l y and w i t h t he i nt entt o com m i tFi r s tD egr ee M ur derki l l C H R I ST O PH E R SM I T H dur i ng t he perpetr at i on of E s peci al l y A ggr avat ed R obber y, i n vi ol at i on of T

. C

. A

. 39- 13- 202, agai ns t t he peac e and di gni t y of

t he St at e of

T ennes s ee. ” A tt he t i m e of t he of fens e, f i r s tdegr ee f

el ony m ur derw as d e fin e d a s “ [a ] k ill in g o f a n o th e r c o m m itt e d in th e p e r p e tr a tio n o f o r a ttem p t to p e rp e tra te any f i r s tdegr ee m ur der , actof t err or i s m , ar s on, r ape, r obber y, bur gl ar y, t hef t , ki dnappi ng, a g g ra v a ted c h ild a b u se , a g g ra v a ted c h ild n e g lec t o r a irc ra ft p ira c y ” w ith th e in ten t to c o m m it t he enum er at ed of

fens e. T enn. C ode A nn. § 39- 13- 202( 2) , ( b) ( 2006)

. C ons equent l y, i n t he D ef endant ’ s cas e, t he St at e had t o pr ove t hat t he D ef endanti nt ended t o com m i ta r obber y. I d. T hus , r obber y s houl d have be en l i s t ed i n t h e ind ict m en tw her e f i r s tdegr ee m ur der appea r s . T he D ef

endantdi d notbr i ng t hi s er r ort o t he tr i al cour t ’ s at tention u n t i l af t ert he cl os e of t he St at e’ s pr oof

w hen t he D ef

endant , ci t i ng t hi s er r or , m oved fora j udgm entof a c q u itt a l. 8(

. . . cont i nued) 8 w ords “ F ir st

D eg re e F el ony Murd er ” w ere marke d ou t andth e w ord “R ob bery ” w as in sertedinth e margi n w ith w hat app ears tob e a pe n. I t i s un cl ear w hodre w ali nethro ug h fi rs t d eg re e mu rd er andw ro teinr ob bery or w hen this ch ange occurred

. The Defen dant does not a ssert this as anissueonapp eal. -15- A l t hough m ot i ons al l egi ng def ect s i n t he i ndi ct m ent “m us t be r ai s ed befor e t r i al ” or t he cl ai m i s s ubj ectt o w ai ver , a par t y m ay ra i s e a cl ai m t hat t he i ndi ct m ent “fai l s t o char ge an o ffen se” at a n y ti m e. T en n . R

. C ri m . P

. 1 2 (b)(2 )(B ). T he overr i di ng pr i nci pl e governi ng i ndi ctm ent s i s t hat t he ac cus ed i s cons t i tut i onal l yguar ant eed the r i ghtt o be i nfor m ed of the natur e and c aus e of the ac cus at i on. U

. S. C ons t

. amend. 6, 14 ; T en n . C o n s t

. ar t

. I , § 9; s ee W y a tt v . S tate , 2 4 S .W .3 d 3 1 9 , 3 2 4 (T e n n . 2 0 0 0 ). O u r c o u r ts h a v e in terp re ted th is cons t i tut i onal m andat e t o r equi r e an i ndi ctm entt o “1) pr ovi de n o ti ce t o t he ac cus ed of the offe ns e cha r ged; 2) pr ovi de the courtw i t h an ade quat e gr ound upon w hi ch a pr operj udgm ent m a y b e e n tered ; and 3 ) pro v ide th e d ef en d an t w ith p rotec ti o n ag ains t do u b le j eo p ard y .” W y a tt, 24 S. W

. 3d at324 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. Fur t her , an ind ict m enti s s t atut or i l yr equi r ed to “ sta te th e f

a c ts co n stitu tin g th e o f

f e n se in o rd in a rya n d c o n c ise lan g u a g e , w ith o u t p ro lix ity or r epet i t i on, i n s uch a m anner s o as t o enabl e a pe r s on of comm on under s t andi ng t o know w hati s i nt ended and w i t h t hat degr ee of cert ai nt y w hi ch w i l l enabl e t he court , on convi ct i on, t o pr onounce the pr operj udgm ent

. ” Tenn. C ode A nn. § 40- 13- 202. T he qu esti on of the val i di t yof an i ndi ctm enti s one of l aw and, as s uch, ourr evi ew i s de novo

. S tate v . H ill , 954 S

. W

. 2 d 7 2 5 , 7 2 7 (T en n . 1 9 9 7 ).

“ A var i ance betw een a n i ndi ctm entora s u b s equentbi l l of part i cul ar s and the evi dence p re se n ted a t trial is n o t fa tal u n less itis bo th m aterial an d p rejud ici al. ” S tat e v . S h rop sh ir e , 4 5 S .W

. 3d 64 , 71 (Ten n. C ri m . A pp . 20 00 ) ( ci t i ng S t at e v. M oss , 6 6 2 S. W

. 2 d 5 90, 592 ( T enn. 1984) )

. “A var i ance betw ee n an indi ctm entand the pr oof i n a cr i m i nal cas e i s not m at er i al w her e the al l egat i ons and pr oof s ubs t ant i al l ycorr es pond, t he va ri ance i s notof a char act erw hi ch coul d have mi s l ed the def endantatt r i al and i s n o t su ch as t o depr i ve the accused of the ri gh tt o b e prot ect ed ag ai nst ano t her p rosecut i on for the sam e off ense. ” M oss , 6 6 2 S .W .2 d a t 5 9 2 . It i s n o t r ever s i bl e er ror w h en a de fenda nti s s uffi ci ent l yaw ar e of the ch arg e an d is ab le t o ad eq u atelyp rep are fo r tri al. Id

. C ont r aryt o t he D efe ndant ’ s as s er t i on, w e conc l ude thatt he i ndi ctm ent des cr i bed a c r i m e underT ennes s ee l aw i n t hati tr efe r ence d th e a p p ro p ria te s tatu te f o r f irst d e g re e f

e lo n ym u rd e r a n d p ro v id e d th e D e f e n d a n t w ith s u f f ic ie n t n o tic e to p re p a re f o r t ri a l. T h e D e f e n d a n t cite s S tate v . G o o d s o n in s u p p o rt o f h is s e c o n d c o n ten tio n th a t h is convi ct i on s houl d be r ever s ed bec aus e the pr oof att r i al di d notcorr es pond t o t he i ndi ctm ent o n w h ich th e D ef

en d an t w as c o n v ict ed

. 7 7 S

. W

. 3 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 4 (T en n . C rim

. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). W h ile w e a c k n o w led g e th e c o rre c tn e ss o f th e G o o d so n d e c isio n , the f a c ts d o n o t ap p lyto th is D efe ndant ’ s cas e. I n G oods on, t he def endant w as i ndi ct ed for dr i vi ng on a r evoked l i cens e;-16-

how ever , t he evi dence att r i al “es t abl i s hed the s epar at e off ens e of dr i vi ng on a s us pended l i cens e. ” I d. at241 -42

. T hi s cour thel d t hat“[t ] he pr oof i nt r oduced a tt r i al r egar di ng t he [d ef en d ant ’ s ] s us pended dr i vi ng s t atus cons t i tut ed a c ons t ruct i ve amendm entof the i ndi ctm entbybr oadeni ng t he gr ounds forconvi ct ion

. ” Id. at245. I n contr as t , w e bel i eve t hat the p roof at this D efen dan t ’s t ri al ov erw helm i ng l ycorr espon ded t o the i nd i ct ed o ffen se o f f e lo n ym u rd e r i n th e p e rp e tr a tio n o f a ro b b e ry. W e al s o r ej ectt he D efe ndant ’ s cont ent i on t hatt he tr i al cour tcons t ruct i vel yamended t he i ndi ctm entby i ns t ruct i ng t he j ur y on fel ony m ur der

. A gai n, t he i ndi ctm ent w as s uffi ci ent t o not i fyt he D efe n d an t tha the w as char ged w i t h fel onym ur deri n t he perpetr at i on of a ro b b e ry , a n d th e trial c o u rt’s ju ry c h a rg e c o rre sp o n d e d to th e c rim e c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t. St at e v. H am m onds , 30 S. W

. 3d 294, 300 ( T enn. 2000) ( ho lding that an i ndi ct m entt hat pr ovi des “not i ce t o t he acc us ed w i l l be cons i der ed s uf f i ci ent t o s at i s f

y both cons t i t ut i onal and s t at ut or y r equi r em ent s ”)

. A ccor di ngl y, w e conc l ude t hat t he t r i al cour t di d noterri n denyi ng th e D e fe n d a n t’ s m o tio n fo r j u d g m e n t o f a c q u itta l. I I I

. Suff i ci ency T he D efe ndantcontends t hatt he evi dence i s i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s convi ct i ons b ec au se th e D ef

en d an t’ s statem en ts, w h ich w ere o b tai n ed fo ll o w ing an il lega l arrest , w ere “the onl y evi dence pr es ent ed att r i al upon w hi ch the j ur ycoul d convi ct

. ” The St at e r es ponds t hatt he “e vi dence s uppor t s t he j ur y ’ s concl us i on t hatt he [D ] efe ndanti s gui l t yof fi r s tdegr ee m u rd e r a n d e s p e c ia lly a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry.” A n appel l at e court ’ s s t andar d of re vi ew w hen t he defenda ntques t i ons t he s uffi ci ency o f th e e v id e n c e o n a p p e a l is “ w h e th e r, af ter v iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le t o t he pr os ecut i on, anyr at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d h av e fo u nd t he es s ent i al el ement s of the c rim e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t.” J a c k so n v . V irg in ia, 443 U

. S. 307, 319 ( 1979)

. T he appel l at e courtdoes notr ew ei gh t he evi dence ; r ather , i tpr es um es t hatt he j ur yhas r es ol ved al l confl i ct s i n t he t es t i m ony and dra w n al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s fr om t he evi dence i n favor of the s t at e. See St at e v. Sheffi el d, 676 S. W

. 2d 542, 547 ( T enn. 1984) ; St at e v. C abbage , 571 S. W

. 2 d 8 3 2, 835 ( T enn. 1978) . Q u e stio n s re g a rd in g w itn e ss c re d ib ili ty , co n f licts in t es t i m ony , and the w ei ghtand val ue t o be gi ven t o evi dence w er e r es ol ved byt he j ur y . See St at e v. B l and, 958 S. W

. 2d 651, 659 ( T enn. 1997)

. “A ver di ctof gui l tr emoves the pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e and rep lace s i tw i t h a pr es um pt i on of gui l t , and [on a ppeal ] t he d ef en d an t has the b u rde n o f il lustrat ing w h y the e v iden ce is i n su ff ici en t t o su p p o rtthe ju ry ’s v e rd ic t.” Id .; S tate v . T u g g le, 6 3 9 S .W .2 d 9 1 3 , 9 1 4 (T e n n . 1 9 8 2 ). “T h is s tan d a rd a p p lies to fi ndi ngs of gui l t bas ed upon di r ect evi dence , ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , or a com b ination of [both] di r ectand ci r cumst ant i al evi dence

. ” St at e v. Pender gr as s , 13 S. W

. 3 d 3 8 9 , 392- 93 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ).-17-

T he D ef endant ’ s convi ct i on forf i r s tdegr ee m ur derr equi r ed pr oof t hatt he D ef

endant ki l l ed the vi ct i m “i n t he perpetr at i on of orat t em ptt o perpetr at e any . . . r obber y” and thathe i nt ended t o com m i tt he r obber y. T enn. C o d e A n n . § 39- 13- 202( a) ( 2) , ( b) ( 2006)

. T he D ef endant ’ s convi ct i on fores peci al l y aggr avat ed r obber y r equi r ed pr oof t hatt he D ef

endant com m i t t ed a “ r obber y as def i ned i n § 39- 13- 401 .

. . [ and t hatt he r obber y w as a] ccom pl i s hed w i t h a dea dl y w eapon; and .

. . t he vi ct i m s uf fer [ ed] s er i ous bodi l y i nj ur y. ” T enn. C ode A nn. § 3 9 -1 3 -4 0 3 (2 0 0 7 ). T h e D e fe n d a n t is c o rre c t in c o n ten d in g th a t h is “ c o n v ictio n c a n n o t b e fo u n d e d so lely upon [ hi s ] conf

es s i on. ” St at e v. Sm i t h, 24 S. W

. 3d 274, 281 ( T enn. 2000) ( ci t i ng A s hby v. St at e, 139 S. W

. 872, 875 ( T enn . 1 9 11) )

. H ow ever , t he convi ct i ons i n t hi s cas e w er e not bas ed s ol el y upon t he hi s conf es s i on. T he r ecor d r ef

l ect s t hatt he vi ct i m di ed f r om a guns hot w ound t o t he but t ocks and t hat M r . R os e’ s gun w as t he m ur der w eapon. M r . R os e and the D e fe n d a n t ad m itt e d th a t th e y s e t u p a m e e tin g w ith th e v ictim in o rd e r to ro b h im o f h is m ar i j uana. M r . R os e s t at ed t hatt he D ef endant br ought M r . R os e’ s gun t o t he m eet i ng and t hatt he D ef

endantopened f

i r e w hen M r . R os e w as hol di ng t he m ar i j uana. T he D ef

endant ad m itted th at he u sed M r. R o se’s g u n to sh o o t atthe v ict im

. W h en the D efe n d an t and M r. R o se w e re a rre ste d , th e y b o th h a d so m e m a riju a n a , w h ich in th e a g g re g a te c o rre sp o n d e d to th e a p p ro x im a te a m o u n t th a t w a s s to le n fr o m th e v ic tim

. W h ile w e d o n o te th a t a m a jo rity of the damagi ng ev idence w as s ubm i t t ed thr ough t he s t at ement s of M r . R os e, t he D efe ndant ’ s acc om pl i ce, M r . Ros e ’ s s t a t e me n t s wer e c o rr o b o r a t ed byt he othert es t i m onyand evi dence pr es ent ed att r i al

. A ccor di ngl y , w e concl ude t hatt he co n v ict ion w as notbas ed so lely u p o n th e D e fe n d a n t’s co n fe ss io n a n d th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s s u ffic ien t to su p p o rt h is con vict i on s. CO NC L US I ON I n cons i der at i on of the for egoi ng and the r ecor d as a w hol e, t he j udgm ent s of the tr i al c o u rt a re a f

f ir m e d

.

________________________________ D. KE L L Y T HOMAS , J R. , J UDGE