# FILED July 15, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Cle rk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSE E

AT JACKSON APRIL 1999 SESSION STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee, ) No. 02C01-9807-CC-00203

) ) Madison County v. ) ) Honorable Whit LaFon, Judge ) TARRAN KYLES, ) (Felony murder and especi ally aggravated ) robbery) ) Appellant. ) For the Appellant : For the Appellee : J. Colin Morris Paul G. Summers 112 W. Baltimore, Ste. 202 Attorney General of Tennessee Jackson, TN 38301 and J. Ross Dyer Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee 450 James Robertson Parkwa y Nashville, TN 37243-0493 James G. (Jerry) Woodall District Attorney Gener al and James W. Thompson Assistant District A

ttorney General 225 Martin Luther King Dr ., P.O. Box 2825 Jackson, TN 38302-2825

OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED Joseph M. Tipton Judge2 O P I N I O N
Th e d efe nd an t, Ta rra n K yle s, a pp ea ls a s o f righ t from his co nv ictio ns by a ju ry in the M ad iso n C ou nty C ircu it C ou rt for felo ny m urd er a nd es pe cia lly a gg rav ate d ro bb ery , a C las s A felo ny . H e was sentenced to lif e without parol e for t he felony murder and as a Range II , multi ple off ender to thi rty- fi ve years for t he especiall y aggravated robbery. The trial court order ed the sentences to be served co ns ec utiv ely in th e c us tod y o f the D ep artm en t of C orr ec tion. Th e d efe nd an t es se ntia lly ra ise s th e suffi ciency of t he evidence as his only i ssue. He argues that Roy Easley, who testi fi ed against hi m, was an ac co m plic e a nd tha t M r. E as ley ’s te stim on y w as ne ithe r cr ed ible no r co rro bo rate d. W e a ffirm the judgments ofconvict ion.

At trial, A lline Sa vag e tes tified that s

he h ad d ated the v ictim, H ow ard M oore , for thirty-o

ne ye ars . Sh e te stifie d th at o n J an ua ry 1 4, 1 99 5, s he ca lled the vic tim ’s h ou se se ve ral tim es bu t go t no an sw er. S he sa id th at s he an d th e v ictim ’s n iec e, E arlin e M oo re, w en t to th e v ictim ’s h ou se to fin d h im. Sh e s aid the y k no ck ed on the vic tim ’s d oo r an d g ot n o a ns w er. S he tes tified tha t sh e th en ca lled the police and that the y en tered the v ictim’s hou se w hen the p olice a rrived . Sh e sa id that s he a nd M s. M oore fou nd the vic tim lyin g o n th e b ed roo m floo r w ith b loo d o n h is n ec k a nd ch es t.
Ea rline M oo re t es tified tha t sh e a cc om pa nie d M s. S av ag e to the vic tim ’s h ou se . S he sa id tha t sh e fo un d th e v ictim ’s b loo dy bo dy lyin g o n th e flo or. S he sta ted tha t sh e n otic ed the vic tim ’s c loth es lyin g o uts ide his ho us e o n th e b ac k s ide of th e p rop erty . Sh e te stifie d th at s he late r w en t ba ck to th e vic tim ’s h ou se an d n otic ed tha t his tele vis ion an d c ab le c on ve rte r bo x w ere m iss ing . D r. T on y R . Em iso n, th e M ad iso n C ou nty M ed ica l Ex am ine r, tes tified tha t alth ou gh he w as no t the m ed ica l ex am ine r at th e tim e o f the vic tim ’s d ea th, h e w as the cu sto dia n o f the vic tim ’s re co rds . H e tes tified tha t the rec ord s re ve ale d n um ero us cu ts o n th e v ictim ’s fo ot, n ec k, c hin an d h an d. H e te stifie d3

tha t the vic tim ble d to de ath from the m ultip le c uts . D r. Je rry Fr an cis co , the pa tho log ist w ho pe rfor m ed the autopsy, concurred i n the cause of death.

M ike Tu rne r, an inv es tiga tor w ith th e J ac ks on Po lice D ep artm en t, tes tified tha t he surve ye d th e c rim e s ce ne an d to ok ph oto gra ph s. H e te stifie d th at th e v ictim ’s th roa t ha d b ee n c ut a nd tha t he saw blood everywhe

re. He said i t appeared that a struggl e took place i n the bedroom. He said he saw a c he st o f dra w ers w ith th e d raw ers pu lled ou t as if so m eo ne ha d ru m m ag ed thro ug h th em . H e s aid tha t he also saw an em

pty tel evisi on stand. He testi fi ed that he found a ci garett e butt i n the bathroom adjacent to th e v ictim ’s b ed roo m an d th at th e b utt w as sta nd ing up righ t on the sid e o f the ba thtu b. H e te stifie d th at he als o fo un d a kn ife o n th e k itch en co un ter. H e id en tified a te lev isio n a nd a c ab le b ox tha t w ere late r rec ov ere d b y th e p olic e, a nd he tes tified tha t the y fo un d n o u se ful la ten t fing erp rints on eith er ite m . Donna T urner, an i nvestigat or with t he Jackson Police Department, test if ied that she went to th e s ce ne an d g ath ere d a ny thin g th at m igh t ha ve a fin ge rpr int o n it to se nd to th e F BI. Sh e s aid tha t fifty-o ne late nt fin ge rpr ints an d s ev en late nt p alm prin ts w ere dis co ve red bu t no ne m atc he d th os e o f the de fen da nt o r R oy Ea sle y. O ffice r T urn er t es tified tha t sh e s en t nu m ero us item s to the FB I for ha ir a nd fibe r collec tion, alo ng w ith kno wn hair s am ples from the d efen dan t and M r. Ea sley. S he s aid tha t no h air fibers w ere fou nd on tho se item s. O ffice r T urn er s aid tha t du ring the tim e in w hic h th e F .B.I. w as an aly zin g th e ev ide nc e, s he lea rne d th at M r. E as ley w an ted to p lea d g uilty in th e c as e a nd giv e a sta tem en t. S he sa id she adv ised the F BI lab of M r. Ea sley’s plea , and they stop ped testing the s am ples for m atch es to M r. Easley. O

ffice r T urn er te stifie d th at s he sp ok e w ith th e d efe nd an t reg ard ing his ve rsio n o f the events. The defendant t old her t hat he and Mr. Easley went to the vi cti m’s house but that he stayed ou tsid e a nd sto od ne xt to a tre e w hile M r. E as ley w en t in th e h ou se . H e s aid he he ard a n ois e a nd the n sa w M r. E as ley co m ing ou t of th e h ou se . Th e d efe nd an t sa id th at w hile M r. E as ley w as in th e h ou se , he saw a light come on and assum ed that someone w

as using the bathr oom, getti ng a garbage bag in which to p ut th e te lev isio n, o r w as hin g th eir h an ds . H e s aid tha t w he n M r. E as ley ca m e o ut o f the ho us e, h e h ad4

a te lev isio n a nd a c ab le c on ve rter bo x. H e s aid he he lpe d M r. E as ley ca rry the tele vis ion an d c ab le b ox to D w igh t Pe ars on ’s h ou se . H e s aid the y p ut th e ite m s in an ab an do ne d c ar th at w as be hin d th e h ou se . Th e defe nda nt sa id that M r. Ea sley to ld him to sta y w ith the item s w hile M r. Ea sley w ent d ow n the stree t to try to s ell th em . T he de fen da nt to ld O ffice r T urn er t ha t w he n M r. E as ley ret urn ed , he too k th e te lev isio n a nd ca ble bo x to a h ou se do w n th e s tree t. H e s aid tha t w he n M r. E as ley retu rne d a bo ut th irty o r for ty m inu tes late r, M r. E as ley sa id h e s old the item s fo r for ty d olla rs. T he de fen da nt s aid tha t he did no t ge t an y o f the money. Office

r Tu rner te stified tha t the tree by w hich the d efen dan t claim ed to stan d w hile M r. Ea sle y w as in th e v ictim ’s h ou se w as ab ou t tw o h un dre d a nd eig hty -fou r fee t from the vic tim ’s h ou se . Sh e testi fi ed that t he defendant tol d her that he di d not go int o the vict im’s house. She testi fi ed that she recovered the cabl e box from Jessie Jacox and the televi sion fr om a repair shop.

On cross-exam

inati on, Offi cer Turner test if ied that Mr. Easley was charged w it h fir st de gre e m urd er f or t he vic tim ’s d ea th. S he sa id th at th e d efe nd an t tes tified ag ain st M r. E as ley at h is preli minary hearing. She said that Mr. Easley pl ed guilt y to faci li tati on of fi rst degree murder and received an approximate twenty-year sent ence on O ctober 16, 1996. She stated that one m onth lat er, she pre se nte d th e c as e a ga ins t the de fen da nt to the gra nd jury , an d th e d efe nd an t w as ind icte d. O n re dire ct e xa m ina tion, O ffice r T urn er te stifie d th at s he sa w blo od on M r. E as ley ’s b oo ts an d th at th e b oo ts w ere se nt to the FB I. S he sa id th e F BI r ep orte d th at th ere w as no t en ou gh blo od on the bo ots to p erfo rm a D N A te st. S he sta ted tha t sh e d id n ot k no w if the po lice ev er fo un d th e c loth ing the defendant was wearing on the ni ght of the of fense.

Jessie Jacox test if ied that on the night of the inci dent, Mr. Easley came to his house at m idnigh t and ask ed to borro w m one y. H e sa id that M r. Ea sley to ld him he c ould kee p a te levision for a week until Mr. Easl ey could pay him back. He said Mr. Easley told hi m that the tel evisi on was at “Blimp’s” ho us e. M r. Ja co x s aid he told M r. E as ley to g et th e te lev isio n s o h e c ou ld lo ok at it. M r. Ja co x s aid tha t5

M r. E as ley retu rne d w ith th e te lev isio n a nd a c ab le b ox an d th at h e lo an ed m on ey to M r. E as ley . H e tes tified tha t he ha d k no w n M r. E as ley for a lon g tim e a nd trus ted him . H e s aid he did no t kn ow tha t the tele vis ion an d c ab le b ox w ere sto len . H e te stifie d th at h e la ter he ard ab ou t a m urd er in w hic h a tele vis ion an d c ab le b ox w ere sto len , an d h e im m ed iate ly c alle d th e p olic e. H e te stifie d th at th e te lev isio n w as at a repair shop but that he got the tel evisi on and the cable box and turned them over to the pol ice. O n c ros s-e xa m ina tion , M r. J ac ox tes tified tha t he ne ve r qu es tion ed w hy M r. E as ley ne ed ed to b orr ow m on ey , no r did he qu es tion M r. E as ley ab ou t the tele vis ion tha t nig ht. H e s tate d th at h e w as no t afra id to refu se to lo an m on ey to M r. E as ley . H e s aid he did no t kn ow the de fen da nt.
R oy Ea sle y te stifie d th at h e h ad be en in ja il for tw o y ea rs a fter ple ad ing gu ilty to fac ilitatio n of firs t de gre e m urd er. H e s aid tha t he ha d n ot b ee n s en ten ce d b ut th at th e s tate ha d a gre ed to rec om m en d a tw en ty-y ea r se nte nc e if h e c oo pe rate d a nd tes tified truth fully at th e d efe nd an t’s tria l. H e stated that b efore this ca se, h e ha d no felony reco rd. H e ad m itted be ing a ddic ted to coc aine in Ja nua ry 19 95 . M r. E as ley tes tified tha t he w as at th e v ictim ’s h ou se w he n th e v ictim w as kille d, a nd he sa id th e de fen da nt k illed the vic tim . M r. E as ley tes tified tha t on the nig ht o f the inc ide nt, h e a nd the de fen da nt u se d fo rty doll ars worth of dr ugs at a dope house on E ast Chester Street . He said that when they ran out of money, he d ecid ed to borro w m one y from the v ictim. H e sa id he had wo rked with the v ictim a nd h ad b orrow ed m on ey from him m an y tim es . H e s aid tha t he an d th e d efe nd an t w en t to th e v ictim ’s h ou se tog eth er la te Fr ida y n igh t. M r. E as ley tes tified tha t as so on as the y a rrive d a t the vic tim ’s h ou se , he w en t to u se the ba thr oo m , lea vin g th e v ictim an d th e d efe nd an t tog eth er. H e s aid he did no t dis cu ss bo rro w ing m on ey from the vic tim be ca us e th e v ictim kn ew w hy he w as the re. H e s aid tha t he sm ok ed a c iga rette w hile in th e ba thro om an d p lac ed the bu tt up sid e d ow n o n th e b ath tub . H e s aid tha t w hile he w as in th e b ath roo m , he heard a noise and heard the vict im say, “Stop i t. I give you anythi ng you wan t. I give you anythi ng you w an t. D on ’t hit m e n o m ore .”6 M r. E as ley tes tified tha t w he n h e le ft the ba thro om an d w en t to th e v ictim ’s b ed roo m , he sa w the de fen da nt w rap pin g u p th e v ictim ’s c ab le b ox . H e s aid he sa w the vic tim lyin g o n th e flo or w ith blo od aro un d h is n ec k a nd on his sh irt, an d h e to ld th e d efe nd an t tha t the y h ad to g et o ut o f the ho us e. H e sa id th e v ictim ’s e ye s w ere op en, bu t he w as no t m ov ing. H e s aid tha t he he lpe d th e d efe nd an t ca rry the tele vis ion an d c ab le b ox to a w rec ke d c ar p ark ed be hin d th e d op e h ou se . H e s aid he left t he tele vis ion an d c ab le b ox w ith th e d efe nd an t w hile he w en t to M r. Ja co x’s ho us e. H e s aid tha t M r. Ja co x to ld h im tha t he w ou ld b uy the item s b ut n ot to bring an yo ne w ith h im . H e s aid tha t he too k th e te lev isio n a nd ca ble bo x to M r. Jac ox’s h ous e bu t got n o m one y for th em bec aus e the televis ion d id no t wo rk. H e sa id that M r. Jacox loaned hi m ten doll ars and that he and the defendant spent t he money on m ore drugs at the dope ho us e. O

n c ros s-e xa m ina tion, M r. E as ley tes tified tha t the vic tim did no t len d h im an y m on ey tha t nig ht. H e s tate d th at h e h ad w ork ed w ith th e v ictim at a sm all c on stru ctio n c om pa ny , bu t he co uld no t rem em ber th e na m e of th e co m pan y. H e sa id that th e de fend ant te stified ag ains t him at his p relim inary he arin g b ut th at th e d efe nd an t ha d lie d. M r. E as ley sa id th at h e c ou ld c arr y th e te lev isio n fro m the do pe ho us e to M r. Ja co x’s ho us e b ec au se it w as on ly a ha lf-blo ck aw ay . H e s aid he co uld no t ca rry the tele vis ion from the vic tim ’s h ou se to th e d op e h ou se alo ne be ca us e it w as a m uc h g rea ter d ista nc e. H e sa id h e p led gu ilty b ec au se his atto rne y to ld h im tha t it w as in h is b es t inte res t. H e s aid his atto rne y to ld him tha t he w as fac ing the de ath pe na lty o r life in p riso n. H e s aid his atto rne y d id n ot te ll him tha t the on ly w ay to e sc ap e th os e p os sib le s en ten ce s w as to p lea d g uilty to fa cilita tion. H e s aid tha t un til the defendant’ s tri al, he had only told hal f of t he trut h because he feared for hi s family’ s safety.

Ke nn y R ay C lark tes tified tha t he w as w ith th e d efe nd an t an d M r. E as ley on the nig ht o f the inc ide nt a t the do pe ho us e. H e s aid he sa w the de fen da nt a nd M r. E as ley lea ve to b orr ow m on ey . H e sa id th at M r. E as ley alw ay s b orr ow ed m on ey from the vic tim an d th at th e d efe nd an t sa id h e w as go ing w ith M r. E as ley tha t nig ht. H e s aid he late r dis cu ss ed the inc ide nt w ith b oth M r. E as ley an d th e d efe nd an t. H e sa id M r. E as ley told him tha t he ca m e o ut o f the ba thro om an d s aw the de fen da nt a nd the vic tim figh ting .7

H e s aid M r. E as ley told him tha t he sa w the vic tim fall b ut th at th e d efe nd an t sa id th e v ictim w as no t hu rt. H e s aid M r. E as ley told him tha t he ha d w itne ss ed the inc ide nt. On cros s-ex am ination , Mr. Cla rk tes tified that th

e de fend ant to ld him two or thre e differe nt ve rsio ns of w ha t ha pp en ed tha t nig ht. H e s aid tha t in o ne ve rsio n, th e d efe nd an t sa id h e s aw M r. E as ley kill th e v ictim an d s aid he w as in th e h ou se w he n th e v ictim w as kille d. M r. C lark sa id th at th is v ers ion ca m e a fter the de fen da nt s po ke w ith a n in ve stig ato r. H e s aid tha t in a no the r ve rsio n, th e d efe nd an t told him tha t he w as do w n th e s tree t an d h ea rd a sc uffle . U po n th e fo reg oin g p roo f, the jury co nv icte d th e de fen da nt o f felo ny m urd er a nd es pe cia lly a gg rav ate d ro bb ery . Th e d efe nd an t arg ue s th at th e e vid en ce is in su fficie nt to su pp ort h is c on vic tion s. H e co nte nd s th at M r. E as ley w as an ac co m plic e a nd tha t his tes tim on y w as ne ithe r cr ed ible no r co rro bo rate d. Th e s tate co nte nd s th at th e e vid en ce is s uffic ien t. Our standard of review w hen the sufficiency of the evi dence is questioned on appeal is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, anyrational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979). This means that we do not reweigh the evi dence but presume that the jury has resolved all conflicts in the testim ony and drawn all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the state. See State v. Sheffield , 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978) .

Th e d efe nd an t co nte nd s th at th e e vid en ce is in su fficie nt b ec au se M r. E as ley ’s te stim on y w as no t cre dib le. H e a rgu es tha t M r. E as ley lied in o rde r to p res erv e a fav ora ble se nte nc e fo r him se lf. Es se ntia lly, th e d efe nd an t is a sk ing us to re -w eig h th e e vid en ce , a d uty tha t is n ot th e fu nc tion of th is c ou rt. Th e ju ry w as en titled to a cc red it M r. E as ley ’s te stim on y. See Sheffi eld , 676 S.W.2d at 547 ( holdi ng that que stions of cre dibility of the

witne sse s are for the jury).8 Th e d efe nd an t als o c on ten ds tha t M r. E as ley w as an ac co m plic e a nd tha t his tes tim on y w as no t su fficie ntly co rro bo rate d. In Te nn es se e, a co nv ictio n m ay no t be ba se d u po n th e u nc orr ob ora ted tes tim on y o f an ac co m plic e. State v. Bigbee , 885 S.W.2d 797, 803 (Tenn. 1994). An accomplice is an ind ivid ua l w ho kn ow ing ly, v olu nta rily a nd w ith c om m on inte nt p artic ipa tes w ith th e p rinc ipa l offe nd er in the co m m iss ion of a n o ffen se . State v. Lawson , 794

S.W .2d 3 63, 3 69 (T enn . Crim . Ap p. 19 90). “M ere pre se nc e a t the sc en e o f a c rim e d oe s n ot m ak e o ne an ac co m plic e, n or d oe s th e m ere fac t tha t on e w as indicte d for th e sa m e offe nse as th e ac cus ed.” Le tne r v. S tate , 512 S.W.2d 643, 647 (1974). Accomplice tes tim on y is co rro bo rate d if “‘th ere is s om e o the r ev ide nc e fa irly te nd ing to c on ne ct th e d efe nd an t w ith th e co m m iss ion of th e c rim e, s o th at h is c on vic tion w ill no t re st e ntir ely up on the ev ide nc e o f the ac co m plic e.’” M ars ha ll v. S tate , 49 7 S .W .2d 76 1, 7 65 (T en n. C rim . A pp . 19 73 ) (q uo ting C lap p v . Sta te , 94 Tenn. 186, 19 5, 3 0 S .W . 21 4, 2 17 (T en n. 1 89 5)) . “It is n ot n ec es sa ry th at th e c orr ob ora tion ex ten d to ev ery pa rt of t he acc om plice’s e vide nce .” State v. Hawkins , 469 S.W.2d 515, 520 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1971). I n other words, co rro bo ratio n is su fficie nt if it re late s to so m e m ate rial fa ct o r fac ts fro m w hic h th e ju ry m ay ratio na lly in fer tha t the ac co m plic e is tes tifyin g tru thfu lly a bo ut th e d efe nd an t. M ars ha ll , 497 S.W.2d at 765.
View ing the evid enc e in th e light m ost fav orab le to the state, w e qu estion wh ethe r M r. Ea sle y c an ev en be ca lled an ac co m plic e. If the jur y b elie ve d h is te stim on y, h e w as no t kn ow ing ly inv olv ed in th e k illing . In a ny ev en t, w e c on clu de tha t his tes tim on y is su fficie ntly co rro bo rate d. T he de fen da nt to ld O ffice r T urn er t ha t he w as w ith M r. E as ley on the nig ht o f the inc ide nt a nd ac kn ow led ge d stayi ng with t he tel evisi on and cable box. The defendant t old Kenny Ray Clark t hat he and Mr. Easl ey were going to the vi cti m’s house to get money. He a lso tol d Mr. Clark that he was inside the house when the vict im was killed. W

e note as well t hat Offi cer Turner found a ci garett e butt on t he bathtub exactl y as M r. E as ley ha d d es crib ed it. Th e c orr ob ora tion of M r. E as ley ’s te stim on y s ho w ed tha t the de fen da nt w en t w ith M r. E as ley to th e v ictim ’s h ou se to o bta in m on ey , tha t the de fen da nt w as in th e h ou se w he n th e v ictim wa s killed, a nd th at the defe nda nt w atch ed th e sto len item s w hile M r. Ea sley s earc hed for a b uye r. Fro m this co rro bo rat ion , the jur y c ou ld r atio na lly c on clu de be yo nd a r ea so na ble do ub t tha t M r. E as ley tes tified truthfully a bou t the d efen dan t’s invo lvem ent a nd th at the defe nda nt w as g uilty of felo ny m urde r and especiall y aggravated robbery.9 In consider ati on of the f oregoing and the recor d as a whole, we affir m the judgmen ts of co nv ictio ns .

________________________________ Joseph M. Tipton, Judge CONCUR:

________________________ David G. Hayes, Judge

________________________ L.T. Laf fert y, Senior Judge