### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nua ry 11, 200 5

ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v

. A N TH ON Y D WA Y N E B R OW N

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Obi on Coun ty No. 3-338 William B. Acre e, Jr., Judge

No. W2004-01139-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled April 18, 2005

The de fenda nt, An t h o n y Dw ay ne B rown, wa s convicted by jury of one c ount of first deg ree preme ditated murder , two counts of felony murder, one count of e specia lly ag g ravated robbe ry , two counts of espec ially ag g ravated burg lary
, and theft of property valued at less than $500. The tr i al
court mer g ed the two f

elony murder c ounts into t he first de g ree p re m ed i t at ed murder c ount and
merg ed the thef

t offense into the count of especially ag g ravated robbery . The trial c ourt also merg ed the two counts of espec ially ag g ravated burg lary . The de fenda nt was sentenc ed to life without the
po ssi bil ity

of pa ro le fo r the fi rs t de g re e pr e me dit a te d mur de r. Th e de fe nd a nt wa s se nte nc e d to sixty
y ear s for e specia lly

ag g ravated robbe ry

and to thirty

y ear s for e specia lly

ag g ravated burg lary . The trial court or dere d all sentenc es to r un concur rent with the sentenc e of life without the possibili ty of parole . The de fenda nt raises two issues on appe al: (1) whether the evidenc e was suff icient to support his c on vic tio ns ; a nd(2 ) w he the r the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in excl ud ing the te sti mon y of a de fe ns e wi tne ss. F oll ow ing ou r r e vie w, we a ff irm th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

J.C. M C LIN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the c o u rt , i n wh ich D AVI D G. H AYES and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , JJ. , joined.

J oseph P. Atnip, District Publ ic Def ender , for the a

ppellant, Anthony

Dwayne B rown.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Kathy D. As lin g e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Thomas A. Thomas, District Attorne y Gene ral; and J am es C annon, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

I. F acts and P roce dural Hi story

On the morning of May

1, 2003, Hilon Pruitt
, t h e v i ct i m in this case, did not show up for work. Concerned, J erry Sherrill, Sr., and Willi am Crowell (“ Mustard”) , two co-w orker s and fr iends-2-

of the e ighty -one- y ear -old victim, went to his residenc e whe re the y discovere d his body

ly ing f ace up in the living room. A c onsole televisi on was turne d over a nd ly ing on his leg s, butcher knive s

wer e st icking out of hi s abdomen a nd neck, a nd an ice pick protrude d from the c enter of his neck. A p orta ble te le vis ion that ha d b e e n s ma sh e d d ow n o n h is h e a d w a s lying be sid e his bo dy . Sh e rrill and Mustard lifted the television off the vic tim’s legs a nd called the police.

Pol ic e of fi c e rs , T e nn e sse e B ur e a u of I nv e sti g a tio n (T .B .I .) Ag e nt Joe Walk e r, a ndthe c ou nty medical e x aminer, D r. Allen C. Gooch, soon a rrived at the scene

. I nside the home, Ag ent Walker

se arc he d f or fi ng e rp ri nts le ft

by the a ssa ila nt, fi nd ing a

blo od pa tte rn in the din ing ro om a nda pa lm print on the bac k of the tele vision. The pattern in the print on the television indicated that the assailant had w orn g loves. The unidentifie d assailant lef t the kitchen utensil draw er open and the victim’s billfold l y ing beside his body . Although the billfold contained no ca sh, approximately $900

wa s f ou ndin the vic tim ’s fr on t r ig ht s hirt po c ke t. A tr ig g e r g ua rd a nd a fi ri ng me c ha nis m a lso lie
next t o the victim’s body , but no gun w as eve r re cover ed.

B a se d u po n th e c on dit ion of the vic tim ’s bo dy , Dr . Goo c h d e te rm ine d th e tim e of de a th t o ha ve be e n b e tw e e n 7 :00 p. m. a nd12 :00 a .m. on the pr e vio us nig ht o f A pr il 3 0, 20 03

. An a uto ps y

reve aled that the c ause of death was the result of multipl e injuries, including e ight major stab wounds to the victim’s body

as we ll as blunt inj uries to his head a nd neck. Dr. O. C

. S m i t h
, who was responsible for

perf orming the autopsy , co u l d not determine w hether an unfound item may

have

cause d some of the injuries or whether more than one assailant per petra ted the crime.

Th e de fe nd a nt w a s c ha

rg e d wi th the c ri me s ba se d up on the te sti mon y of se ve ra l w itn e sse s. Ho we ve r, ini tia lly
, se ve ra l oth e r su sp e c ts we re c on sid e re d du e to the ir his torie s, inc ludin g Scott Hay nes. Ha y nes wa s stopped by police off

icer s for que stioning re g arding a sepa rate home invasion that oc c ur re d in Cr oc ke tt Co un ty

tw o n ig hts a ft e r the mur de r of the vic tim in thi s c a se . T his ho me invasio n a ls o in v o lv e d th e a s s a u lt o f a n o ld e r ma n

. Wh e n s to p p e d
, H a y n e s to o k o f f ru n n ing. A n inventory sear ch o f Ha y n es ’ vehic le uncove red a g love with a we ave pattern similar to the wea ve pa tte rn in the pr int

fo un d a t th e vic tim ’s ho me

. Ho we ve r, the g lov e wa s a c omm on “ sto c k v ari e ty g love,” a nd the palm print was ne ver c hecke d ag ainst that of Haynes. Be cause no phy sical evide nce

c on ne c te d H a y ne s to the c ri me , A g e nt Wa lke r ult ima te ly dis re g ard e d Ha y ne s as a p ote nti a l su sp e c t. Furthermore
, Hay nes had an alibi: his stepdaug hter, J oy ce Cavness, stated t hat Hay nes was having

a c oo ko ut the nig ht o f A pr il 3 0, 20 03 , a ndthat sh e wa s th e re un til 8:3 0 p .m. or 9:0 0 p .m.

At trial, the victim’s da

ug hter, L inda Br own, testified that her f ather would have be en asle ep by 9:0 0 p .m. a ndthat he didno t le a ve he r h ou se on the nig ht o f A pr il 3 0, 20 03 , u nti l a bo ut 7 :15 p. m. Milton S now t estified that he rece ived a call from his nephe w, the def endant, a round 8:40 p.m. on the eve ning of

the murder . Snow, who stated t hat he was baby sitti ng at t he time, testified that the defe ndant conf

essed to killing the victim. Snow st ated that the de fenda nt admitted to stabbing the victim and to pushing a

television onto his head. Snow stated t hat t he defenda nt showed him twelve dollars stained with blood which he stated that he ha d stolen from the victim.-3-

J oshua McElrath testified that he saw the defe ndant on the baske tball courts on Nash Stree t at about 8:30 p.m. on the nig ht of the vi ctim’s murder. Contrary to Snow’s testimonythat he wa s baby sitti ng , McElra th stated that Snow was at the basketball courts with him and the defe ndant. The defe ndant looked “like he had just g ot out of the shower or something . . . he wa s nervous.” McElra th testified that the def endant then confe ssed the crime to him, st ating that “the old man jumped on his back” and that he just “ snapped and he killed him.” At f irst McElrath did not believe the def endant, so he followed the de fenda nt over to the victim’s house a nd saw “ the old man lay ing on the floor with some knives in him.” McElr ath s tated that the def endant did not implicate any one else in the c rime.

Rob bie Wal ke r te sti fi e d tha t he sa w the de fe nd a nt co min g fr om the sid e of the vic tim ’s ho us e about four day s prior to the murder and that he a

ppear ed ner vous and sweating. She r emember ed overhe aring the def

endant r ecount the mur der w hile she pre tended to be a sleep. Walker sta ted that the def endant a dmitted that “he g ot high of f some pills, and he didn’t have nothing to do, so he we nt over the re an d h e beat the old man till his arms g ot tired, then he started sticking the old man.” Walker stated that the defe ndant refer red to the vi ctim’s blood as red “Kool-A id,” the def endant’ s favorite color. Contrary

to Walker’s belief

that the def

endant wa s speaking to Snow and “Tie D y e,” an alleg ed n i ck n ame for Stacey Parham, Parha m denied eve r being prese nt. Parham stated it was only later tha t he aske d the def enda n t ab o u t t he crime and wa s told “stay out of my

business.”

Du ri ng the c ou rs e of the tr ia l, the Sta te a lso int ro du c e d s e ve ra l w itn e sse s w ho te sti fi e d th a t, while in jail, the defe ndant admitted his involvement in the crime. Timothy McPherson, who state d that he wa s in the same jail pod with the def endant, testified tha t the defe ndant told other inmates that he ha d me sse d u p h is l if e be c a us e he kil le d a

ma n o ve r t we lve do lla

rs

.

J oseph I sbell testified that the def endant wa s showing c rime sce ne pic t u re s that he had

rec eived f rom his lawy er a

round in jail. I sbell stated that t he defenda nt admitted to the crime, but implicated a se cond assa ilant. I sbell testified t hat t he defenda nt admitted to ge tting the knives out of the victim’s dra wer

and that he w as re taliating beca use the “man w as ca lling the police and stuff on him say ing the y

was tra fficking and stuff, a lot of traff

icking .”

Jer ry Sul liv a n a lso te sti fi e d to ov e rh e ari ng the de fe nd a nt a dmi t to the mur de r w hil e in j a il. Sul liv a n s ta te d:

[The defe ndant] tol d about how they g ot toge ther, him and this dude g ot high, snorte d

so me po wd e r, smo ke d s ome we e d, a ndtol d th e du de the y wa s g oin g to g e t hi m. S o he s n u ck u p o n h im in his house, and dude was be nding ove r looking at the
t e l e v i s i o n , o r d o i n g s o m e t h i n g , a n d h e s n u c k u p o n t h e d u d e a n d t o l d t h e d u d e , “ H e y, what did I tell y ou about what I

was g oing to do to y ou? ” So when the dude turned around - - see, I didn’t know it wa s an old ma n at that time. I thought it was a y oung dude about like our

ag e, that he was try ing to interfe re with dude’s business out there on the stree t. . . . So when dude turne d around, he said, “Didn’t I tell y ou what I

was g oin g to d o to y ou ,” the old ma n s a id, “ Wha tc ha do ing he re ,” a ndhe sta

bb e d h im i n“R o b e rt K im m o n s” is o n e a n d the sa m e a s “R o b e rt K e m m o n s,” a s h is na m e is l a te r sp e lled in the re c o rd

. 1

-4- the stomach.

Sulli van also testified tha t the defe ndant implicated anothe r assa ilant in the crime.

TimothyCarr w as also in th e same jail pod with the defe ndant. Carr testified that the defe ndant “a dmitted to doing some of it, but he said he didn’ t act alone.” Car r stated that the defe ndant i mplicated McElrath as t he other assailant. Carr further testified that the def endant ha s t h r e a t e n e d h i m a n d a s k e dh i m t o e n s u r e t h a tS n o w a n d W a l k e r w e r e n o ta v a i l ab l e t o t e s t i f y. Acc ording to L ieutenant Rick Ke lly of the Union City Police Depa rtment, the defendant is af filiated wi th the Vi c e L or ds , w he re a s Ca rr is a ff ili a te d w ith a

ri va l g a ng , th e Ga ng ste r D isc ipl e s.

The defe nse ar g ued that T.B .I . fore nsic scientists, Darrin Shockey and Donna

Nelson, we re not a ble to ma tch any phy sical evidenc e from the scene to the defe ndant. The o n l y DN A p resent under the victim’s fing erna ils and at the sce ne wa s either the vic tim ’s own or ma tched to an unknown per son. The def ense ur g ed the jury

to consider the possibil i t y that the cr ime was

c omm itt e d by on e of the oth e r i nit ia l su sp e c ts. Ka y Pe rkins , w ho liv e d n e ar the vic tim , te sti fi e d to

s e e i n g H a yn e s a n d a n o t h e r m a n r i d i n g u p a n d d o w n t h e s t r e e t s i n t h e n e i g h b o rh o o d “ a c o u p l e o f d a ys to a we ek p ri o r to the murder .” Nolan Simms also testified to seeing Hay nes in the ar ea ne ar the
t i m e o f t h e m u rd er , at J er ry S h er ri l l ’s s al v age y ar d

. An n S el l er s , an o t h ern ei gh b o r, s aw a “ s t ra n ge

c ar” pu ll int o the ne ig hb or ho od on the nig ht of the vic tim ’s mur de r. Se lle rs te sti fi e d that tw o w hit e males “dr essed like wome ns” exited the car and then, about twenty or thirty minutes later, “le ft like they was in a hur

ry .”

The de fense also attempted to introduce the testimony of Pam B yrd, and the State r equeste d “a jury -out hea

ring on the re levanc e.” B yrd wa s stabbed about twe lve y ear s ag o by her e x -husband, Robert Kimmons, another initial suspect in this case

. The defense soug ht to introduce her testimony 1 beca use “it demonstra tes that one of the two suspects .

. . had a tendenc y to use a knife .” The trial jud g e su sta ine d the Sta te ’s ob je c tio n to the te sti mon y , statin g : “ sh e wi ll no t be a llo we d to te sti fy to something tha t Mr. Kimmons did 12 y ear s ag o. There ’s nothing to tie Mr. K immons t o this case.”

At the c on c lus ion of the e vid e nc e , th e jury fo un d th e de fe nd a nt g uil ty of pr e me dit a te d f

ir st de g re e mur de r; tw o c ou nts of fe lon y mur de r, e sp e c ia lly

a g g ra va te d r ob be ry , tw o c ou nts of e sp e c ia lly
ag g ravated burg lary , and thef t of property

valued a t under $500.

During the sentenc ing pha se of the tr ial, the State re quested the tria l court to impose a life

se nte nc e wi tho ut the po ssi bil ity of pa ro le . T he tr ia l c ou rt

state d:

Mr. B rown, y ou’ve be en convic ted of thre e d i fferent c ounts of first deg ree murder. Counts 2 and 3 shall be me rg ed into Count 1, which is premeditated murde r. I n acc ordanc e with the ver dict of the jury , y ou are sentenc ed to life imprisonment without the possibil ity

of par ole.In co ntrast t o t his s t atem en t , t he rec o rd refl ec t s t ha t t he d efen d an t wa s b eing senten ce d o n o nly o ne C l ass A 2

felo n y, e sp e c ia lly a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry. T h e se c o n d o ff e n se , e sp e c ia lly a g g ra v a te d b u rg la ry, is a C la ss B fe lo n y. H o w ev er, t he rec o rd refl ec t s t ha t t he jud gm en t s we re e ntere d p ro p erly an d i n a cc o rd an ce wit h the se nten cing guid eli ne s.

-5- A subsequent hearing for sentencing on the re maining c harg es wa s held on April 30, 2004. Th e tr ia l c ou rt

state d:

Mr. B rown, in addition to the homicide sentenc e, y ou have two Class A s entenc es - - two Class A feloni es to be sente nce[d]. The rec ord is clea r that y ou are a ca

ree r offe nder. The mandatory sentenc e for a car eer offe nder who has been convicted of a Class A felony is 60 y ear s. The only decision that the Court has a bout that is . . . whether to run them co n cu rr ently or conse cutively . I n view of y our life without parole rec ord, I

don’t see any

need to r un these c onsecutively . I

am g oing to r

un the
t w o s e n t e n c e s c o n c u rr e n t l y. 2

At t h e h earing , the def

endant’ s motion for new trial wa s also hear d. The trial c ourt denied the motion and, along side other g rounds pre sent ed in the motion, addressed both issues which the de fe nd a nt n ow pr e se nts on app e a l:

Ground No. 1 is that the evidenc e contained in the rec ord is insufficient, a s

a matter of law, to support the verdic t of g uilty - - of the jury finding the def endant
g uilty . The Court thinks that the evidence is sufficie nt, as a ma tter of law , to support the verdic t of g uilty

. There wer e a number of witnesses who testified in this case

. . . . Seven sepa

rate witnesses. All relat ed co nversa tions that they had with [the defe ndant] in which [ he] made admissions of g uilt. That is not t h e o n ly testimony in the rec ord of the g uilt of [t he defe ndant], but those are all people who [he] knew and talked w ith and admitted g uilt . . . . [F]rom the testimony of those witnesses, the evidenc e is more than suf ficient to convic t him bey ond a re asonable doubt.

. . . . The sec ond g round is, the Trial Court er red in not pe rmitting the testimony of Ms. Pam By

rd to be a dmitted into evidence. That testimonywas tende red to the Court. Ba sically
, her testimony was that she was previously marrie d to a man named Kemmons, that she wa s assaulted by him dur ing their marria g e. She was stabbe d a number of times. The signific ance of Mr. Kemmons is that the defense a rg ued that the jury might ought t o consider him as ha ving c ommitt ed the c rime ra ther than [the defe ndant], because he wa s a suspect at one time in the case. There was no e vidence wh a tso e ve r i n th e c a se that . . . M r. Kemmon s w a s in a ny wa y inv olv e d w ith thi s murder. T h e d efe nse wa s unable to produc e any evidenc e to tie him in other than

so me inv e sti g a tio n b e ing ma de at the fr on t- e ndof the c a se , o r rig ht a ft e r the c ri me

o c c u rr e d

. T h e C o u r td o e s n o tf i n d i tw a s e rr o r

t o [ n o t ] p e r m i t M s

. B yr d t o t e s t i f y, and I think it was completely

irrele vant.

. . . . The motion for ne w trial is denied. The de fenda nt then filed notice of appea l.-6- II. Ana lys is

Suf fi ciency of the Evidence

Th e de fe nd a nt c on te nd s tha t the e vid e nc e wa s insu ff ic ie nt to sup po rt a ny of

his c on vic tio ns

. When the sufficie ncy

of the c onvicting e vidence is challeng ed, the r eleva nt question of the re viewing court is “whe ther, a fter vie wing the evidenc e in the lig ht most fa v orable to the prosec ution, any

ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h a ve fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a

re a so na ble d o u b t

. ” J ac k s o n v

. Vi rgi n i a, 4 4 3 U. S

. 3 0 7
, 3 1 9 (1 9 7 9 ); s ee al s o T en n

. R

. Ap p

. P

. 1 3 (e ) ( “F i n d i n gs of g uil t in c ri min a l a c tio ns wh e ther by the tr ia l c ou rt

or jury sh a ll b e se t a sid e if

the e vid e nc e is insufficient to support the finding s by the trier of

fac t of g uilt bey ond a re asonable doubt.”). We do
not rewe igh the evidenc e but pre sume that the j u ry h as re solved all conflicts in the testimony and draw n all rea sonable infe renc es fr om the evidenc e in favor of the State. See State v. Sheff ield, 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984) ; State v. Cabbag e, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Que stions involving the c redibility of witnesses, the we ight a nd value to be g iven the evide nce, a nd all fac tual issues are resolved by

the trier of

fac t. State v. Pappas
, 7 5 4 S.W .2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “A g uiltyverdic t by the jury , approve d b y

the trial judg e, ac cre dits the testimonyof the wi tne sse s f

or the Sta te a ndre so lve s a ll c on fl ic ts i n f a vo r o f the the ory

of the Sta te .” Sta te v. Mo a ts, 906 S.W .2d 431, 433 (Tenn. 1995) (citation omitted). The Tenne ssee Supreme Court has stated the rationale for this rule:

This well-settled rule rests on a sound f ound at i o n

. T he trial judg e and the jury see the witnesses face to f ace , hear their testimony

and obser ve their de meanor

on the s tand. Thus t he trial judg e and jury are the primary

instrumentality

of justice
t o d e t e r m i n e t h e w e i g h t a n d c r e d i b i l i t y t o b e g i v e n t o t h e t e s t i m o n y o f w i t n e s s e s

. In the trial forum alone is the re human atmosphere and the totalityo f t h e e v i dence cannot be repr oduced w ith a written re cord in this Court.

Bolin v. State, 405 S.W .2d 768, 771 (Tenn. 1966) . “A jury conviction re moves the pre sumption of innocenc e with which a

defe ndant is initi ally

cloake d and re place s i t wi t h o n e of g uilt, so t hat on
appea l a convicte d defe ndant has the b u rd en of demonstra ting that the e vidence is insufficient.” State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).

First deg ree murder c an be de fined a s the “pre meditated and intentional killing of another .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-202(a )(1) (2003). P re m ed i t ation “is an a ct done a fter the exercise of ref lection and judg ment. ‘Premeditation’ means t hat t he intent to kill mus t have be en formed prior to the act itself. I t is not ne cessa ry that the purpose to kill pre- exis t in the mind of the ac cused f or any definite pe riod of time.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202( d). “‘Intentional’ refer s to a person who acts intentionally

with respec t to the nature of the conduc t or to a re sult of the conduct when i t is the person’ s conscious objec tive or desire to eng ag e in the conduc t or cause the result.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302( a) ( 2003).-7-

Whether an a ct was done with preme ditation is a question for the jury and may be infe rre d from the manne r and circumstanc es surrounding the killing. State v. Ge ntry , 881 S.W .2d 1, 3 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). Since the trier of fa ct ca nnot speculate as to what wa s in the defe ndant’s mind, the exist ence of fa cts of pre meditation must be determined f rom the defendant’ s conduct in li g ht of
t h e s u rr o u n d i ng circ umstances. See State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679, 704 (Tenn. 1997). Sever al rele vant circ umstances ha ve bee n held to provide the r equisite indicia of pr emeditation:

[T] he use of a deadly wea pon upon an unarmed vi ctim; the particular cruelty of the killing; decla

rations by the def

endant of an intent to kill; evidence of procur ement of

a we apo n; pr e pa

ratio ns be fo re the kil lin g fo r c on c e a lme nt o f the c ri me ; a ndc a lmn e ss i m m ed i at el y

af t ert h e k i l l i n g.

State v. Pike, 978 S.W .2d 904, 914 (Tenn. 1998)

.

Take n in the light most favor able to the St ate, the e vidence reve als that the def endant e ntere d the vic tim ’s ho me a ndkil le d th e vic tim wi th pr e me dit a tio n. Th e tr ia l c ou rt no te d th a t se ve n s e pa

rate witnesses “r elated c onversa tions that they had with [the defenda nt] in which [he] made a dmissions of g uilt.” The def

ense a rg ues that inconsistencie s in some of the witnesses’ testimonies shed doubt upon their validity and contends that some of the witnesse s are g ang -af filiated and the ref

ore bia sed. Howeve r, such questions involving the cr edibilityof witnesses and the fa ctual issues under ly ing the alleg ed inconsistencies are to be deter mined by the jury

. The jury acc redited the testimon y o f t he Sta te ’s wi tne sse s.

The fa ctors that provide the indicia for preme dit at i o n are established by the evidenc e and could be f ound by a rational trier of fac t. N o evidenc e indicate s that the elder ly victim was arme d at the time that he was b eaten and stabbe d. Ba sed upon the c ause of death a nd instrumentalities used, a jury

could have found that the na ture of this murder w as particularly crue l. Furthe rmore, a jury could find pre meditation after hearing the testimonyof I sbell: th e defenda nt was re taliating beca use the “ man was c alling the police and stuff on him sa y ing they was traff icking and stuff, a lot of traf ficking .” C onsequently
, the evidence is clea rly sufficie nt to sustain the defe ndant’s convic tion for f irst deg ree preme ditated murder

.

I n order to sustain the jury ’s finding s of g uilt for e ach of the def endant’ s two first deg ree felony murder c onvictions, we must first find that the evidenc e is sufficie nt to support the under ly ing felony convictions. Espec i ally

ag g ravated robbe ry

underlies the de fenda nt’s first felony murder convi c ti o n

. T e n n e s s e e Co d e A n n o tate d s e c ti o n 3 9

- 1 3

- 4 0 1 ( a ) ( 2 0 0 3 ) d e f in e s r o b b e r y a s “the intentional or knowing theft of pr operty from the person of

another by violence or

putting the pe rson in fea r.” Espe cially

ag g ravated robbe ry

is a robbery

“[ a] ccomplis hed with a de adly wea pon” and “[w]here the victim suffe rs serious bodily injury .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 403(a) (2003).

Especia lly

ag g ravated burg lary underlies the defe ndant’s second felony murder c onviction. A per son commits agg ravated burg lary when he or she e nters a ha bitation without t he ef

fec tive

c on se nt o f the ow ne r an d “c omm its or a tte mpt s to com mit a fe lon y , th e ft or a ssa ult ” or e nte rs wi th-8-

the “intent to commit a fe lony , theft or a ssault.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-402( a), - 403(a) (2003). E s p e c i a l l y a g g r a v a t e d b u r g l ar y i s t h e ab o v e a c c o m p a n i e d b y s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y t o th e vic tim

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 14-404 (2003)

.

The de fenda nt’s conduct obviousl y constituted espec ially ag g ravated burglar y beca use the jury conclude d that he ente red the victim’s home without consent a nd committed theft and a murder. T h e e v id e n c e is a ls o s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t a c o n v ic ti o n f o r e s p e c ia ll y a g g r a v a te d robber y . The victim’s billfold was found devoid of money ly ing ne ar his body . At trial, McPherson testified tha t the def endant ha d told people t h at he had me ssed up his life bec ause he killed a man over twelve dollars. S now s tated that the defenda nt showed him twelve dollars staine d with blood which he had stolen from the victim. A j u ry co u l d have e asily found that the de fenda nt insti lled fea r into the eig hty -one y ear

old victim and commit ted t he theft and murder using de adly

wea pons: knives and an ice pick. Thus, the evide nce supports the defe n d ant’s convictions for espec ially ag g rava ted robbery and espe cially

ag g ravated burg lary . Upon finding th at t h e e v id e n c e s upports the commission of the se fe lon ie s d ur ing the c ou rs e of the mur de r, we ho ld that the e vid e nc e wa s su ff ic ie nt to e na

ble

a rational trier of f

act to find the de fenda nt guilty of first deg ree felony

murder.

The fina l conviction that the jury imposed was for

theft of pr o p erty

valued a t under $500. T h e s am e a b o v e- s t at ed re as o n s t h at t h e ev i d en ce s u p p o rt s t h e es p ec i al l y aggr av at ed ro b b er y ch ar ge under w hich this offense was mer g ed support this conviction.

Exc lusi on o f the De fend ant ’s Wit ne ss

Th e de fe nd a nt r a ise s in his mot ion fo r n e w t ri a l a nd on app e a l th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in excluding the testimony

of Pam By

rd. During an off

er of proof a t tr ial, By

rd testified that Kimmons

wa s h e r e x-hu sb a nda nd

that he ha d s ta

bb e d he r abo ut tw e lve y e ars a g o. Th e de fe nd a nt s ou g ht t o introduce this evidenc e to show that Kimmons, who was onc e a suspect i n this case , had a history of stabbing and may

have c ommitt ed this murder.

I n T e nn e sse e , th e de te rm inatio n o f w he the r evide nc e is r e le va nt i n a c c or da nc e wi th T e n n e s s e e R u l e o f

E v i d e n c e 4 0 2 i s l e f

ti n t h e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e

. S t a t e v

. K e n n e d y, 7 S.W .3d 58, 68 (Tenn. 1999) . A trial court’s ruling on the admis sibili ty of evide nce w ill be disturbed only

upon a clear showing of abuse of discre tion. See State v. DuB ose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997) . An abuse of discre tion ex ists wh en t h e trial court “ applied an inc orre ct leg al standard, or

rea ched a

decision which is ag ainst logic or reas o ning tha t cause d an injustice to the party complaining .” See S t at e v. S huck, 953 S.W.2d 662, 669 (Tenn. 1997). I n deter mining admissibili ty , a trial c ourt must first decide if the evidenc e is r eleva nt. “ ‘Releva nt evidence ’ mea ns evidenc e having any

tendenc y to make the e x istence o f an y fa ct that is of conseque nce to the deter mination of the ac tion more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence .” Tenn. R. Evid. 401.

I n this case, the tr ial court followed the prope r proc edure of dete rmining w hether the evidenc e wa s releva nt befor e ex cluding the wit ness’ testimony . The trial c ourt conduc ted a jury -out-9-

h e ar i n g i n w h i c h i tc ar e f

u l l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e r e l e v a n c e a n d r e m o t e n e s s o f t h e p r o f f e r e d t e s t i m o n y. The trial c ourt conc luded, “she will not be able to testify to someth i n g t h at M r. Kimmons did 12
y e ars a g o. Th e re ’s no thi ng to t ie Mr . K imm on s to thi s c a se .” Whe n th e tr ia l c ou rt a dd re sse d th is issue at the hea

ring on the def

endant’ s motion for a new trial, i t s t at ed : “[ t] here was no e vidence wh a tso e ve r i n th e c a se that . . . K e mmo ns wa s in a ny wa y inv olv e d w ith thi s mu rd e r. Th e de fe ns e

was una ble to produce any

evidenc e to tie him in other than some investigation be ing ma de at the front-e nd of the c ase, or

rig ht after

the cr ime occur

red. . . . I think it was completely

irrele vant.”

Apply ing the fore g oing principles, we c onclude that the tr ial court did not abuse its discre tion by disallowing B yrd to testify at trial. The trial court conducte d a jury -out hearing and dete rmined the evidenc e to be irr eleva nt. Nothing in the r ecor d indicates that the trial court “ applied an inc orre ct le g a l sta nd ard
, or re a c he d a de c isi on wh ic h is a g a ins t lo g ic or re a so nin g that c a us e d a n in jus tic e to the pa rt y c omp la ini ng .” Ac c or din g ly , th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

III. Conclusi on
Following our re view of the rec ord, we aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I N, J UDGE