### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE Ma rc h 19 , 200 8 S es sio n
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JAM IEL D . WILL IAM S
Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Willi am son Coun ty No. CR08129 Tim othy L. Easter, Judge

No. M2007- 01666-CCA -R3-C D - F iled May 27, 2008

Th e de fe nd a nt, Jami e l D

. Willi a ms, a pp e a ls his Willi a mso n County Cir c uit Court c on vic tio n o f f

ir st deg ree murder, a lleg ing that there w as insufficie nt evidence to prove pre meditation. We hold that the evidenc e pre sented at trial was suff icient and a ffirm the judg ment of the trial court. The judg ment i s m o d i f i e d b e c a u s e i ti n c o r

r e c t l y c l a s s i f

i e s t h e s e n t e n c e a s a

C l a s s A f

e l o n y. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed as Modif

ied

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P.J ., and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., joined.

Rob e rt H. Ha sse ll a

nd Ge ne Ho ne a , F ra

nk lin Te nn e sse e , f

or the a pp e lla nt, Jami e l D . Wil liams.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., At tor

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; Pr e sto n Ship p, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; and De rek K . Smit h, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION On Aug ust 8, 2005, the Wi lliamson Count y Gra nd J ury indicted the def

endant on one char g e of f

irst deg ree preme ditated murder

. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202 ( 2003). A jury convicted the defe ndant of the c harg e on August 17, 2006, and on October 24, 2006, the trial cour t sentence d the defe ndant to life in prison to be ser ved in the De partment of Corr ection.

I n light of the fac t that the sole issue we address he re is the suff iciency of the e vidence of pre meditation, an eleme nt of first deg ree murder in this ca se, we summarize only the per tinent te sti mony fr om t he tr ia l.

J ohn Paul Tay

lor, a de tective with the Fr anklin Police Depa rtment, testified that on April 26, 2005, he was the on-ca ll detective f or the e vening . Detec tive Taylor rec eived a telephone call at 11:00 p.m. that someone ha d been shot on 9th Avenue a nd that the individual was beingtaken to the hospital. The individual was later iden t i fied a s Aaron Jones. Detec tive Taylor went to theM s. H a rd in is a lter n a te ly re fer re d to in the re c o rd a s “L o tti e H a rd im a n .” 1

-2- police station, picked up the “cr ime scene van,” an d we n t to the scene of the shooting . Severa l police off icer s were alre ady o n t h e s ce n e and had c losed the stree t. Shortly afte r ar riving on the
scene , Detec tive Taylor recei v ed a p hone ca ll informing him that the shooting victim had died. Detec tive Taylor testified that there wer e no witnesses at the scene

.

Detec tive Taylor testified he w as able to asce rtain whe re the shooting occurr ed by the “lar g e pool of blood” be hind 114 9th Avenue and “blood splatter” in the driveway leading to the rea

r of the house. A dditionally , five shell casing s wer e found at t hat l ocation and se nt to the Tennesse e Bur eau of

I nvestig ation (TB I ) cr ime lab for a naly sis. No gu n wa s recovere d from the sc ene. De te c tiv e Ta

y lor te sti fi e d th a t th e blo od

tr a il g a ve the ind ic a tio n th a t a ft e r b e ingsh ot t he vic tim trave led about 25 to 30 fee t to the back of the house befor e collapsing

. He testified that the police
re tr ie ve d sam

ple s of the blo od

fr om d if fe re nt a re a s, too k p ho tos , c oll e c te d c a sti ng s o f f oo tpr int s in the ar ea ne ar the shell casing s, and interview ed neig hbors.

Detec tive Taylor testified that the police rec eived tips that led them to rec over a g un at 1107 I nciner ator Road, an addr ess five to ten miles fr om the crime sc ene. T heir infor mation was that Tony a Thomas ha d acquir ed the gun. Ms. Thomas told police

[T]he nig ht of the sh oo tin g , she wa s at .

. . L ott ie Ha rd in’ s [] hom e

1 on Reddick Street whe n she hea rd a knoc k o n t h e b ack door. And Cory Esmon showed up and he had the we apon with h i m

. He then handed the wea

pon off to an individual by t he name of De rrick McLem o re . . . . [Derrick sa id to Cory ] he didn’t need to have that
w e a p o n

. . . . L a t e r

t h a tn i g h tD e r

r i c k w a s dr i v i n g a r o u n d

w i t h T o n ya and

. . . told he r that she neede d to hide the g un at her residenc e. He drove he r to that location and she then exited the ve hicle and hid the
wea pon in the back y ard by

a fe nce.
The re cover ed g un was photog raphe d and sent to the TB Ilab for a naly sis, where it was i d enti fied as a “ Hig h Point” .45 semi-automatic handgun. Detec tive Taylor testified that the TB Irepor t showed that two bullets removed f rom victim’s body

wer e fire d by

this gun.

Detec tive Taylor testified that af ter interviewi ng many

suspects the police appre hended the defe ndant at his g randmother ’s house within 48 hours of the shooting and that the d e f e n d a n th a d

“ n o d e m e a n o r ; h e b a s i c a l l y j u s ts a tth e r e ” w h e n t a k e n i n t o c u s t o dy.
Detec tive Taylor attende d the autopsy of t he victim , noting that the victim sustained a g unshot wound to the fac e and two w ounds to his chest.

Sha va lia Ra dle y te sti fi e d th a t sh e wa s th e vic tim ’s g ir lf ri e nd a nd ha d b e e n d a tin g him f o r a b o u t o n e y e a r

. O n A p r il 2 6 , 2 0 0 5 , M s

. Ra d le y g o t o f f w o r k a t a K r y s ta l restaur ant at-3-

approxim a te ly 8 :0 0 p

. m. , a n d s h e a n d th e v ic ti m w a lk e d to h e r g r a n d mo th e r ’ s h o u s e

. T hey wer e planning to g o to Re ddick Court w here their friend D emetria J ones lived. While on their way , they
ran into a g roup of people including J amal Pope, Cory Esmon, Par is “I don’t know her

last name,”
a nd the de fe nd a nt. Ms. Ra dle y te sti fi e d that “ Cor y a pp ro a c he d [th e vic tim ] an d w a nte d to sh a ke his hand, but [the victim] wouldn’t shake his ha nd.” This led t o an ar g ument with cursing and loud shouting, but no phy sical altercation occurre d despite Mr. Esmon’s g rabbinga stick and the victim’s having a knife

.

Th e sh oo tin g a

p p a r e n t l y o c c u r r e d a s h o rtt i m e l a t e r , w h e n t h e v i c t i m r e tu r n e d to confr ont Mr. Esmon. Ricky Br ice testified that he wit nessed the shooting of the victim. He w as ou tsi de a nd

saw the vic time ng a g e d in a fi g ht wit h Co ry Es mon in f ro nt o f T re nt C ov ing ton ’s ho us e while the def

endant remained on Mr. C ovington’ s porch . He testified that “[the victim] whooped Cory . I n the p ro ce ss of [the victim’s] whooping Cory , he had him down [on the g round] and he wh oo pe d h im. ” He te sti fi e d th a t Co ry tol d th e vic tim“ y e a h ma n, y ou wo n, ” and aft er the v ic tim backe d awa

y , the def endant steppe d off the porch a nd shot him. Mr. Brice testified that “the g un fired f ive times. And from the look of t he st rikes that the m otions that [t he victim ] went throug h, Ibelieve it hit him three times.”

Trent Coving ton testif

i ed t h at he lived at 144 9th Ave nue South and that on the eveningof April 26, 2005, “[s]om ebody g ot shot in my drivewa

y .” He testified that at the time of the fi g ht, “ [h]a lf of us wa s on th e po rc h, ha lf wa s in the y a rd ” a nd

that “ [f]r om m y

un de rs tand ingit
was ove r a f

emale.” He testified that the victim was winning the fig ht before it was stopped.

Do c tor F e ngL i, a n a ssi st a n t m e d i c a l e xa

m i n e r f o r D a v i d s o n a n d W i l l i a m s o n c ounti e s, testified that an a

utopsy was pe rfor

med on the victim ’s body on April 27, 2005. Doctor L i testified that the victim suf

fer ed one g unshot wound to the fac e, one to the le ft side of the c hest, a third to the rig ht side of t he chest, and gunshot g razing wounds on his rig ht upper a rm and lef t wrist. There was no evidenc e of “stippling” around the g unshot wounds, which indicated the shooter wa s more than tw o a n d o n e
- h a lf f e e t t o th r e e f

e e t f r o m t h e v ic ti m w h e n h e f

ir e d th e s h o ts

. D o c to r

L i t e s ti f ie d he
wa s una ble to d e te rm ine the or de r o f t he g un sh ots or

wh e the r t he sh oo te r s too d a

bo ve the vic tim

. Corzell “Cory ” Esmon testified that on April 26, 2005, he wa s hang ing out with the defe ndant, J amal Pope, and a man named Jarvis. They spent the day

walking around town, driving around, a nd drinking alcohol. Mr. Esmon testified that he first met the victim on that day and that the af ternoon a ltercation was the re sult of an ar g ument started by the victim over his g irlfriend. Mr

. Esmon noti ce d t h e v ictim had his hands in his pants so he asked him why . He testified that the victim became defe nsive and said “something about I stab y ou – he said, You talking to my g irl, I sta b y ou .” Mr . E smo n te sti fi e d th a t he c ou ld n ot h a ve be e n ta lki ng to the vic tim ’s g ir lf ri e nd be c a us e he wa s there with a

nother woman. He picked up a stick to defe nd himself from the victim, and the two of them we re se parated. Mr. Esmon and his gr o u p t h en lef t the scene and we nt to Trent Covington’s house.-4- Mr. Esmon testified that at Mr. Coving ton’s house he wa s told that the victim wanted to f ig h t h im o n e
- o n
- o n e

. H e a c c e p te d th e c h a ll e n g e a n d k e p t dr in k in g u n ti l th e v ic tim arrived. When the victim arrived Mr . Esmon told him h e wa s too drunk to fig ht him at that tim e. Af ter continued provoc ation, Mr. Esmon took his shirt off , t o o k a swing , missed, and fe ll down. Mr. Es mon te sti fi e d th a t th e vic timthe n “ fe ll o n to p o f m e a nd sta rt e d p ound ingme in m y

fa c e ; ju st pound me, pound me.” Mr. Esmon te stified that he conce ded defe at in the fig ht and that when he was g etting up, the shooting oc curr ed. He saw the de fenda nt sh o o t t h e v i ctim after

the def endant jumped off the porch. He testified he did not see the victim g et hit, but he saw the shots f ired a nd hear d “[a]t l east five – five to six shots.” He did see the victim run behind the h o u s e after the shooting. Mr. Esm on testified he retrie ved the g un from the defenda nt and ra n awa y with the intent to dispose of the we apon. He went to L ottie Hardin’s home , wh er e he smoke d cra ck coc aine a nd g ave the g un to Derr ick McL emore

.

On cr oss examination, M r. Esmon admitted to removing the mag azine from the g un but denied re moving a

ny bullets. He testified that no bullets re mained in the g un.
Antonio Brow n testified that he wa s a member o f t h e “B loods” g ang and wa s cu rr en t l y i n ca rc er at edfo r a p ar o l e vi o l at i o n fr o m a d ru g ch ar ge. On t h e a ft ern o o n o f t h e s h o o t i n g, Mr. B rown was driving around the city and happene d to dr ive by Mr. Esmon and the victim during their first alterc ation of the da y . He kne w the victim’s g irlfriend, Ms. Radley , beca use he kne w her family

. He testified that he asked Ms. Ra dley what was g oing on, and the victim responded that Mr. Esmons’ g roup wa s try ing to jump him. Mr. Br own g ot out of his c ar to ta lk to the people still at the
sc e ne . T he vic tim de pa

rt e d, a nd Mr

. Es mon tol d Mr

. B ro wn that th e vic timpu lle d a

kn if e on him

. He t es t i fi edt h at t h e d ef

en d an t t h en s t at ed , “I’m go i n g t o get m y fo l k s

– y o u kn o w wh at I ’m s ay i n g, we a in’ t g ot t ime to b e ta lki nga bo ut t hat. I ’m g oin g to g e t my

fo lk s and

we ’r e g oin g to h a ve thi s out.”

Mr. Br own testified that he g ot ba ck in his car and drove down the stree t, found the victim and Ms. Radley , and aske d them about the incident. The victim reporte d that “Cory supposedly

disrespec ted him or something. . . . Cory said a sma rt re mark to him; something like they ’re g oing to make me kill him, or something to that nature , y ou know.”

Mr. B rown testified that later that da y h e s aw t h e victim walking to Trent C o v i n gt o n ’s

. He p i ck ed t h e v i ct i m u p an d dro v e h i m t h er e w i t h t h e i n t en t i o n o f s t ra i gh t en i n g t h i n gs out. He testified, “ You had Cory ’s story , then y ou had [the victim’s] story , so we were just try ing to . . . let both o f t h em t alk [ to] . . . find out who be telling the truth, who would be ly ing.” Mr. Br own deter

mined that Cory was ly ing and “that he had been knowing this girl, or something , longe r than him.” He te stified that ever y one ag ree d that Mr. Esmon and the victim would fig ht. Mr. Esmon had a g un an d h e g a v e it to th e d e f e n d a n t b e f

o r e th e f ig h t b e g a n

. T h e y s ta

rte d th e f ig h t, a n d the victim started “whooping ” Mr. Esmon. He testified that af ter Mr. Esmo n ad m i tted defe at, “[the vic tim ] wa s g e tti ngre a dy to g e t up

. . . . [ a nd

the de fe nd a nt] j ump e d o ff the po rc h, man, a nd

jus t started shooting .”-5- The de fenda

nt chose not to testify

. When an ac cu s ed cha lleng es the suff iciency of the e vidence , an appe llate cour t’s standard of

review i s wh ether , afte r consider ing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, any

rational trier

of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime bey ond
a re a so na ble do ub t. Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( e ); J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324, 99 S. C t. 2781 (1 97 9) ; Sta te v . W

int e rs , 1 3 7 S

. W

. 3 d 6 4 1 , 6 5 4 (T en n

. C ri m

. Ap p

. 2 0 0 3 ). T h e r u l e ap p l i es t o fi n d i n gs of g u i l t based upon dire ct evidenc e, cir cumstantial evidenc e, or a combination of direc t and circ umstantial evidence

. W int e rs , 137 S.W .3d at 654.

I n deter mining the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e, this c ourt should neither re -we igh the
ev i d ence nor substitute its inferenc es for those draw n by

the trier of

fac t. Id. a t 6 5 5

. Q uestions
c on c e rn i n g t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s , t h e w e i g h t a n d v a l u e o f t h e e v i d e n c e , a s w e l l a s a ll fac tual issues raised by the evidenc e are resolved by the trier of

fac t. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 83 2, 835 (Tenn. 1 97 8) . Si g nif ic a ntl y , th is c ourt

mus t a ff or d th e Sta te of

Te nn e sse e the str on g e st le g iti ma te vie w o f t

he e vid e nc e c on ta ine d in the re c or d a s w e ll a s a ll r e a so na ble a nd le git imate infere nces w hich may

be dra wn from the e vidence

. Id.

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec t i o n 39-13-202( a)( 1) provides that “[f] irst deg ree murder is . . . [a] premeditated and intentional killing of another .” T.C.A. § 39-13-202( a)( 1) (2003)

. “‘[P] reme ditation’ is an act done afte r t he ex erc ise of re flec tion and judgme nt.” Id. § 39-13-202( d).

Pr oo f of pr e me dit a tio n is inh e re ntl y c ir c ums tanti a l. T he tr ie r o f f a c t c a nn ot s pe c ulate what wa s in the killer’s mind, so the exi stence of pre meditation must be determi n ed from the defe ndant’s conduct in lig ht of the circ umstances surr ounding the crime. See State v. Johnny W right , No . 0 1C0 1- 95 03 -C C- 00 09 3, sli p o p. a t 9 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. , N a sh vil le , Jan . 5 , 1 99 6) . T hu s, in evaluating the suf

ficienc y of proof of premeditation, the appellate cour t looks to t he cir cumstance s surrounding the killing. See, e .g. , State v. Bland , 9 58 S.W. 2d 65 1, 66 0 ( Te nn . 1 99 7) ; State v. Coulter , 67 S.W .3d 3, 72 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). Such circ umstances may include “the use of a deadly wea pon upon an unar

med victi m ; t h e particular c ruelty of the killing; de clar ations by the defe ndant of a

n intent to kill; evidenc e of pr ocure ment of a w eapon; pr epar ations befor e the killing for c oncea lment of the cr ime, and ca lmness immediately afte r the killing.” B land , 958 S.W .2d at 660.

Under

these c ircumstance s, it is our view that the e vidence was suff icient to support the conviction of premeditated first deg ree murder. After the confrontation betwee n the victim and Mr . E smo n, the de fe nd a nt m a de the state me nt, “ I ’m g oin g to g e t my fo lks ; we ’r e g oin g to have thi s out.” A jury

may infer pr emeditation from a defe ndant’s prior thr eats. See State v . Davidson , 121 S.W .3d 600, 615 (Tenn. 2003) . The de fenda nt pr o cu red the g un from anothe r individual, Mr. Esmon. He used that gun to shoot the victim multipl e times. Se e Sta te v . Ni c ho ls , 24 S.W .3d 297, 30 2 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( h o ld in g th a t in f li c ti o n o f mu lt ip le w o u n d s o n a v ic ti m ma y b e in d ic a tive of preme ditation). The def

endant f led the sce ne and le ft the g un with Mr . Esmon, who later c oncea led-6-

the evidenc e. The re w as ample e vidence to support the convic t i o n fo r premeditated first de g ree murder.

Acc ording ly , we af fi rm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Howe ver, the judgme nt inc or re c tly c la ssi fi e s th e of

fe ns e a s a Cla ss Afe lony . T he tr ia l cour t sh a ll ame nd

the jud g me nt t o re fl e c t th a t th e of

fe nse is c la ssi fi e d a s f

ir st d e g re e mur de r, a n o ff e ns e tha t oc c up ie s a

se pa rate
c on vic tio n c la ss.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE