# FILED
July 29, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON MARCH 1998 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, * No. 02C01-9711-CR-00427

Appellee, * Shelby County
vs. * Hon. Bernie W einman, Judge CHRISTOPHER A. WILLIAMS, * (Attemp ted Aggrava ted Robb ery)

Appellant. *

For Appellant : For Appellee : James V. Ball John Knox Walkup Attorney at Law Attorney General & Repor ter 217 Exchange Avenue Memphis, TN 38105 Peter M. Coughlan Assistant Attorney Gener al 425 Fifth Avenue North Cordell Hull Buildi ng, Second Floor Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Patience Branham Assistant District A

ttorney General Criminal Justice Comple x 201 Poplar Street, Suite 301 Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED:___________________________
AFFIRMED GARY R. WADE, JUDGE2 OPINION The defendant, Christopher A. Williams, was indicted for first degree murder, felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery and tried as an adult. The first trial ended in a mist rial. In the second trial , the jury could not rea ch a verdict on either of the mur der indictments but found the defendant gui lty of attempted aggravated robber y. The defendant, fourteen years ol d at the time of the offense, was sentenced as a Range I offe nder to six years in the county workhouse and fined $1,000.00. In this appeal of ri ght, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.

We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial c ourt.
At about 9:30 P.M. on August 19, 1995, Michael Byrd w as walking to his Memphis apartment when h e saw the victim, J erry McNeal, ly ing motionless on the ground. Initially , Byrd thought the vi ctim was asleep but, as he walked nearer, noticed blood near the victim's mouth. Byrd then called the police and, upo n their arrival, led them to the victim. Officer Cham Payne determined that the b lack male victim had died, havi ng been shot twice in the back and once in the right calf.
At trial, James Hayes,who lived in a near by apartment, testified that he had heard three shots between 7:30 and 8:00 on the night of the ki lling. He went outside, looked through a fence, and saw the victim lying on the ground near a church where Byrd later discovered the body

.

Officer Edward Cash testified that he had been un successful in locating eyewitnesses to the shooting but had received a tip from Crime Stoppers implicating the defendant. Tw o days after the death of the vic tim, Officer Cash and3 Sergeant Nichols drov

e to the home of the defendant's mother, Glori a Williams. Officer Cash explained that the police were conducting a murder investigati on and that he wanted to talk w ith the defendant at his office. Ms. Williams and the defendant were transported to the police station in an unmarked car. According to the officer, neither Ms. Williams nor the defendant indicated any reluctanc e to cooperate in the investigation. Officer Cash recalled that Ms. Williams "wanted to find out herself." The defendant and his mother ac knowledged being informed of their rights and each si gned a waiver form. O fficer Cash testified that the defendant did not appear afraid to talk and that he made the following stat ement in the presence of his mother and brother: Cash: On Saturday, August 19, 1995 at approximately 8:30 PM,

while near the church l ocated at 3510 Millbranch di d you sho[o]t and kill a male black? Defendant: I shot him in the leg and then as he ran I fired three more

shots in the direction of him, t o scare him and he fell to the ground on the side of the church, but I didn't think I had killed h im. Cash: What type of weapon did you use when you shot this

male/black? Defendant: A silver with brown handles .25 semi-automatic. Cash: Where did you get this gun? Defendant: From a dud[e] named "Black." Cash: Who were you with when this incident occurred? Defendant: Same man, named "Black." Cash: Describe "Black." Defendant: Male/black, in his late teens, approximately 6' 5", slim build, approximately 160 pounds, with short jehrie curl combed toward the back, with one gold upper front tooth. He stays in the rear of the Kingsgate Apartments. Cash: What was " Black" wearing on th e night of the sh ooting? Defendant: Black kne e-length short pan ts, and a button- up short s leeve

dark colored shirt. I don't remember if he was wearing socks, but he had blac k tennis shoes o n. I believe he was wearin g a gold wrist wa

tch on his right arm. Cash: Where exactly did this shooting occur. Defendant: There is a path, know[n] as a "cut," that goes from the

Kingsgate Apartments tow ard the rear parking l ot of a church. *** Defendant: Me and "Black" were on the church parking lot comi ng from the

BP gas station at the corner of Winchester and Millbranch and as we got to the "cut," w e saw this male/black w alking from the "cut" towards us. Then "Black " said, "Let's rob that man." Then "Black" gave me the .25 semi- automatic and I called the male/black over to me and he c ame to me. Then I put the pistol4 up and pointed at this man's upper body. This male/black pushed the pistol in my hand do wn toward his legs, then I pulled the trigger and he was shot in the leg. Then this male/black started running towar

ds the church. I blasted the g un three (3) more times. Then the man was sti ll running and I ran out o f bullets and the man kept running to the side of the church and the male black fell face down i n the grass on the side of the church. I saw him on the ground crawling, then me and "Black" started walking thr

ough the "cut" towards the Kingsgate Apartments and went to the Honey -[Comb]. *** Cash: What happened to the pistol ...? Defendant: "Black" put the pistol in the bushes along side of a brick that was in the bushes. I w as with "Black" when he hid the gun there, and "Black" said, "This i s the stash spot." Cash: Did you take Sgts Ni chols and Cash along w ith your mother back to the "stash place" wh ich we learned was in the rear of 1828 Vic tory? Defendant: Yes I did, but the brick was there, but the [gun] was not there. (alteration in original). Cash: Do you know what h appened to this weapon? Defendant: No, sir. Cash: Did "Black" fire a weapon du ring this robbery attempt when the male/black was kill ed? Defendant: No, sir. Not at the time that I was with him. *** Cash: Did you or "Black" obtain any valuables from this male/black

that you attempted to rob and then s hot? Defendant: No, sir. *** Defendant: I didn't think I killed the man, I shot him in the leg, I am sorry .... Cash: We will ask you and your mother to read this ... and if you find it

to be true and corre ct and give n by you fre ely and volu ntarily, without any promises, threats, or coercion of any kind ... we will ask both of you to initial the bottom right hand corner of the f irst three pages and both of you to si gn your names along w ith the date and time of your signatur es on the lines provided below at the end of your statement on page four. On August 22, 1995, at 12:29 A.M., the defen dant and his mother initialed each page and signed on the last page of this statement.

Officer Cash testified that, after the interview, the defendant accompanied the officers to the place he claimed to have hidden the gun. He confirmed that none was ever found.
Officer Cash acknowledged that although the defen dant was only5 fourteen years old, he did not take the defend ant to juvenile court or to a juvenile court intake officer. He denied that the defendant had been sick just be fore the interrogation. Officer Cas h remembered being at the apartment for less than thirty minutes and denied handcuffing the defendant or placing him in a marked patr ol car. Officer Cash testified that the defen dant had neither a foreign accent nor a speech impediment but recalled th at Ms. Williams, who is from Jamaica, had an accent and expressed concer ned about the situation. He stat ed that she had never requested an attorney.

Officer Cash testified that ext ensive interview

s had been conducted but that no notes, video or audio tape recordings had been mad e. He acknowledged that a trans criptionist is gener

ally used for a formal wr itten statement, but that Sergeant Nichols had transcribed the statement i n this instance. Officer Cash maintained that the answ ers of the defendant were transcr ibed verbatim.

Officer Cash conceded that he had testif ied incorrectly on direct examination that the police looked for the murder weapon a fter rather than before the defendant's statement. He acknow ledged that the statement contained information about their search for the weapon. He also admitted that between the day of the shooting and taking the defendant into custody, he had dev eloped a list of five other possible suspects. Although he had attempted to locate the others, Officer Cash recalled inter viewing only

one of the five. Officer Cash acknow ledged that the defendant had not provided any facts that police did not know before the interview exc

ept for the identity of the shooter

.

On redirect examination b y the state, Officer Cash ex plained that the defendant did not become a suspect until after he had admitted shooting the v ictim.6 He also corrected his ear lier testimony about w

hen he had looked for the murder weapon and confirmed that the defen dant's mother was present during the entire interview. He al so testified that the defendant was allowed to eat during the interrogation.

Dr. Wendy Gunther, a forensic pathologi st with the Shelby C ounty Forensic Center, performed the autopsy. She testified that the cause of death was either of the two lethal g unshot wounds to the back. She characterized the gun shot wound to the leg as no more than a flesh wound.

Gloria Williams, a defense witness, t estified that she had lived i n the United States for eleven years but that she and her husband, Ba rry Joe Williams, were originally

from Jamaica. She stated she w as living at Kingsgate Apartments at the time of the arrest and that her son, who was in the s eventh grade, had failed some grades due to a speech probl em.

Ms. Williams maintained that the two officer s brought the defendant out of the bathroom, handcuffed him, and put him into an unmarked police car. She claimed that she never ask ed for an attorney and that the defendant s imply "agreed to everything that they was asking him." Ms. Williams contended that the of ficers demanded that she "sign [the w ritten statement] right her e, right now, rig ht there and that's what I did."

Ms. Williams, who could read English "a little bit," could not explain why she did not read th e statement before signing, s aying, "I just learn ed my lesson from that to always read. " She maintained that her son had pr omised her that he did not shoot the victim. She claimed that although she w as in the bedroom at the7 time, she believed he w as in a nearby room wat ching a Mike Tyson fig ht on television. On cross

-examination, she acknow ledged that the defendant had led officers to where the gun had been hidden but that it was not there.
The defendant, sixteen years of ag e at the time of trial, testified that he had difficulty reading and w riting. He claimed he was at home on the night of the shooting and had asked his mother to order the Tyson fight on pa y-per-view. He testified that the fight, schedul ed to begin at 7:30 P.M., came on at 8:00 P.M. and lasted only eight or nine seconds. The defendant denie d that he shot the victim. He maintained that he had instead gone directly to a place c alled the Honeycomb.

The defendant stated that he kn ew the other five suspects because they lived in Kingsgate Apartments. He denied k nowing "Black" and clai med that the police showed him a pic ture of a man named Mario, who w as supposed to be called "Black." He claimed that when he saw the photograph, he realized he did know him.
The defendant testified that when the poli ce arrived, he was throwing up in the bathroom because he had been dr inking that day. The defendant claimed that the officers placed him in handcuffs, searched his room and the bathroom, and then placed him in a marked poli ce car. He contended that a uniformed officer drove him to the station. H e testified that his mother had r idden in a separate car with Officers Cash and Ni chols. He claimed that he w as very nervous and thought he had been arrested when the officer s began their interrogation. He admitted that he signed the waiver o f rights f orm but cl aimed he had not re ad it and did not re alize that he could have had a law yer.8 The defendant asserted that he had told the officer s where a gun was supposed to be hidden and had taken them ther e. He insisted that the g un belonged to Brodie Moore, on e of the other suspects, and that he had seen it earlier that day. He stated that when they got to Kingsgate to look for the hidden gun, it was not there. The defendant denied tha t the written statement acc urately reflected his actual responses to the questions, maintaining that "I don't kno w all those words. ... I couldn't tell them that. " The defendant denied shooting the v ictim.

On cross-examination, the defendant claimed tha t he had been told what to tell officers by Brodie Moore and had done so only to protect his family. He denied knowing Brodie Moore well but did admit that he had seen him at the Honeycomb, a place wher e people go to drink, do dru gs, and have sex. The defendant admitted that he had smoked marijuan a, used cocaine and drunk alcohol with Brodie Moore in

the past. The defendant admitted that he w as familiar with the shortcut where the body was found but insisted that he had not been there on the day of the shooting.

In this appeal, the defendant contends tha t the proof did not show that the defendant shot and robbed the vic tim, only that the vic

tim was shot and killed

. He maintains that there is abs olutely no credible ev

idence that the victim w as robbed and maintains that his confess ion is inherently unr eliable. He argues that his statement, which was obtained in violation of Rule 12(c) of the Rules of Juvenile Procedure, should not be used ag ainst him. He also reli es on Tennessee Code Annotated, section 37-1-127(c) . Interestingly, the defendant does not challenge the trial court's pre-tr

ial ruling on the admiss ibility of his confession nor did he include the transcript of the hearing on the motion to suppress in the record on appeal.9 Initially, Rule 12(

c) pertaining to intak

e of juveniles in delinq uent or unruly cases, prov

ides that the officer "shall immedia tely" advise the chil d of his or her rights and obtain counsel for the child if the parents or guardian ref use or are unable to do so. Tenn. R. Juv.P. 12(c)(1), (2), ( 3). When a juvenile is taken into custody, the officers should "within a reasonable time" (1) release th e child to his parents or guardian or ( 2) take the child before the juv enile court. Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-115. Subsequent provisions provide that "[a]n extra-judicial statement, if obtained in the course of the vi olation of this part ... shall not be used against [a child]." Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1- 127(c). This rule has been i nterpreted to mean that "§ 37-1-127(c) guarantees only that a juveni le's statements taken in v iolation of § 37-1-115 will not be u sed against him or her in a proceeding in juveni le court." State v. Lundy , 808 S.W .2d 444, 446 (T enn. 1991) (citi ng Coyler v. State , 577 S.W.2d 460, 462 (Tenn. 1979)). Here, the defendant wa s tried as an adult. In consequence, the rule does not preclude use of the incriminati ng statement.

The defendant argues that the testimo ny of Officer Cash was so unreliable that no rational trier of fact could have retu rned a verdict of guilt. On appeal, of course, the state is entitled to the strongest l egitimate view of the evidence and all reasonabl e inferences which might be drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). 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 trier of fact. Byrge v. State , 575 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978). When the sufficiency of the evidence is challeng ed, the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, any rational trier of fact could have found the es sential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt

. State v. Willia ms , 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).10 Robbery is the "intentio nal or knowing theft of proper ty from the person of another by violence or putting the person in fear." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401. Robbery is aggra

vated when it is acc

omplished with a deadly weapon or serious bodily injury occ

urs. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402. A person commits criminal attempt who, "acting w ith the kind of culpability otherwise requir

ed for the offense: ... [a]cts with intent to complete a course of action or cause a result that would constitute the offense, under the cir cumstances surrounding the conduct as the person believes them to be, and the conduct constitute s a substantial step toward the commission of the offense." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 12-101(a)(3). The mental state of intentional is satis fied "when it is the person's conscious objective ... to engage in the conduct or c ause the result." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302(a). A person acts knowingly "when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result ." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302(b).

Here, the defendant confessed that he and "Bl ack" were walking through a shortcut near a c hurch when "Black" said, "Let's rob that man." The defendant admitted that he took the gun from "Bl ack," pointed the weapon at the victim and, when the v

ictim resisted by push ing the gun downwa rd, fired a shot into the victim's leg. In our view, each of the elements of attempted aggravated robbery was satisfied. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 (1979). The jury was fully aware of the controvers y surrounding the confess ion and, as was their pr erogative, resolved portions of the di spute favorably to the stat e and some favorably to the defense. This court may not rew eigh or reevaluate the proof. Liakas v. State , 286 S.W.2d 856 (Tenn. 1956).

Accordingly, the j udgment of the trial court is affirmed.11 __________________________________ Gary R. Wad e, Judge CONCUR:
(See Below) Joe B. Jones, Presiding J udge

________________________________ Jerry L. Smith, Jud ge

The Honorable Joe B. Jones died May 1, 1998, and did not pa rticipate in this opinion. We acknowledge his faithful ser vice to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, both as our colleag ue and as our Presiding J udge.