# FILED

Jul y 26, 1996 Cec il Crow son , Jr . Ap p e l l a te C o u rt C l e rk IN THE CO UR T OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON MA RC H 1996 S ESSI ON
STATE OF TENN ESSEE , ) NO . 02C 01- 9509- CR -0 0264 ) Ap pe l l ee ) SH EL BY C OU N TY ) V. ) HO N. JO SEPH B. DA ILEY ) J U D G E W ILL IE D. ROBINSON, ) ) (Felony Murder) Appel lan t )
FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: James V. Bal l Cha rl es W . Bu rs on 217 Ex chang e Av enue Atto rn ey Gene ra l and R epor

ter Me mphis , Tennes see 38105 450 J ames R ober tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, Tenness ee 3724 3- 0493 W illiam Davi d Bridgers Ass is tant Atto rn ey

Gene ra l 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, Tenness ee 3724 3- 0493 John W . Pi erotti Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l Phillip Gerald Harri s Ass is tant Di str ict Attor ney Gene ra l Cr imi nal Ju sti ce Cen ter Third F loo r 201 Po pla r Av enue Me mphis , Tennes see 38103

OPIN ION F ILED : AFF IR ME D
W ill ia m M. B a rke r, Ju d ge2 OPIN ION T h e a p p e ll a n t , W il li e D. Ro b in s o n , wa s in d ic t e d o n two co u n t s o f m u rd e r b y a Shel by C ounty Grand J ur

y . The first countof the i ndi ctmental leg ed th at t he appe ll ant commi tted the murder

of Ma rt ha J ean F av ati dur ing the commi ss ion of a felony

. The
sec ond c ount of the i ndi ctmental leg ed th at t he appe ll ant c ommitt ed th e premedit ated and del ibe ra te murder

of Ma rt ha J ean F av ati

. The ju ry found the appel lan t g uil ty on countone (1 ), felony

murder

. The tr ial co urt s entenc ed hi m to l ife i mpri sonment

. On appeal , t he appe ll ant a rg ues onl y thatthe ev ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t as a matter of law to s uppor

t t he c onv icti on. W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. On t he ev eni ng of Dec ember 9, 1992, Ma rt ha J ean F av ati w as shotand ki ll ed
a s sh e u n lo a d e d h e r c a r wh il e p a rk e d in h e r m o t h e r’ s d ri ve wa y. Ms

. Fa va t i’ s ca r k e ys and a sac k o f items w ere tak en dur ing the ro bber y . W hen O ff ic er

D oreen Sh elt on of the Me mphis Pol ic e D epar tment ar ri v ed on the s cene after the s hooti ng , t he v icti m w as ly ing i n the dr iv ew ay w it h a b lan ketpl aced
ov er her body and the p ass eng er

door of her ca r w as open. Officer Shel ton t est ified that the a re a w as w ell l itby two near by

st re et l ig hts and by

the porch li g hts of
sur ro undi ng homes

. The off ic er tes ti fied th at du ri ng her preli minar

y i nv est ig ati on of the c ri me sc ene, the l ig hti ng co ndi ti ons w ere g ood eno ug h tha t s he di d notneed to
use her flas hli g ht. Sher i Ly nn Lei th D er ri ck l iv ed ac ro ss the street from w here M s. Fav ati w as shot

. Ms . D er ri ck

pl aced the a ppel lan t and hi s u nid enti fied ac compl ic e at the murder
sc ene w it hin se conds after the v icti m w as shot

. Ms . D er ri ck tes ti fied th at on the evening of

the m urde r, she w as sitting in her liv ing room w hen she he ard a car pu ll int o M s. Fav ati ’s mother ’s dr iv ew ay
. As w as her cu sto m, M s. Der ri ck

w ent t o the front door to see w ho i t w as and s aw thati t w as Ms . F av ati

. After re tur nin g to her l iv ing
room , Ms. Derr ick heard so me thing tha t soun ded “li ke a ba ckf ire” from the stree t. Ms.3

Der ri ck retur ned t o her

g las s front d oor

and saw

M s. Fav ati l y ing on t he g ro und. She the n saw the app ellantstand ing behind the car an d the app ellant ’s accom plice stan ding in the stree t hold ing a hand gun. Ms. Derr ick heard th e ap pellan t’s
acc ompli ce tel l the a ppel lan t t o “ come o n” and then w atc hed t he pai r ru n betw een her house and her

next- door

nei g hbor ’s hous e. Ms . D er ri ck

nev er w av ered i n her

tes ti mony

thatone of the two men s he s aw s t a n d in g n e xtt o t h e vic t im ’s ca r wa s t h e a p p e ll a n t

. Sh e a n d O f f ic e r S h e lt o n ga ve similar testim ony as to the lig ht con dition s on the night of the m urde r. Ms. D errick describe d the clothing w orn by the app ellantand w as ab le to see his fa ce clearly beca use th e streetw as lit by sev eral porch lig hts an d at lea st one streetlight. Just three days a fter t he murder , M s. Der ri ck i denti fied th e appel lan t from a phot o ar ra y as the man she saw f leeing the crime scene mom ent s af ter the shoo ting. She to ld investig ato rs that on the night of the sho oting the app ellant ’s hair w as sho rter than in the p hoto and t hat h e di d nothav e faci al hai r as he di d i n the phot o. W hen t he appel lan t w as ar re ste d and photog ra phed on D ecember 13, 1992 hi s h air

appeared significan tly

shorter tha n it did in the pho to use d in the array f rom which Ms. D errick ide nti fied hi m. H ow ev er , hi s fai nt mus tac he and g oatee appeared s imi lar i n bot h p h o t o s
. Ms

. De rr ic ka ls o re c o gn ize d t h e a p p e ll a n ta th is p re li m in a ry h e a ri n g. Fi n a ll y,
w hen M s. Der ri ck

i denti fied th e appel lan t dur ing her tes ti mony

at tr ial , s he s tated that she was “ abso lutely positiv e” thatthe ap pellan t w as on e of the two men she saw just
a f te r th e sh o o ti n g. Bel ind a J ohnso n, t he appe ll ant’ s g ir lfri end, and Tor ia Sl ater tes ti fied th at t he appel lan t w as w it h the m w atc hin g a mov ie on th e ev eni ng thatthe v icti m w as murde re d. The appel lan t di d nottes ti fy. T he a ppe llant’s sole argum entis that the ev iden ce w as insuf f icient to supp ort the c onv icti on. The appel lan t c ontends thatM s. Der ri ck ’s oppor tuni ty to v iew the
ass ail ants w as li mite d by ti me, di sta nce, and dar knes s, and t hat s he w as mis tak en4

about her

i denti ficat ion of the a ppel lan t as one of the two k il lers. The appel lan t cont end s thatw ithou t Ms. Derr ick’s unreliable te stimo ny the re w ould be no ev iden ce to s uppor

t t he c onv icti on. In es senc e, the a ppel lan t as ks thi s c our t t o rew eig h the
ev ide nce from the tr ial

. This w e may not do. It is w ell -s ettl ed th at q uest ion s conc er nin g the credi bil ity of w it ness es, the w eig ht an d v alu e to be g iv en th e ev ide nce, as w ell as factual i ss ues ra is ed by the ev ide nce are resol v ed by the tr ier of fact, n ot thi s C our

t. Stat e v . C abbag e, 57 1 S. W .2d 8 32, 8 35 ( Tenn. 1978 ). W here the su ff ic ien cy

of the e v ide nce is ch all eng ed, t he rele v ant q uest ion for thi s c our t i s w hether , after

rev iew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the prosec uti on, a ny

rati onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the es sent ial el ements of the
cr ime bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Jac ks on v . Vi rg ini a, 44 3 U .S. 307, 99 S. C t. 2781, 61 L . Ed. 2 d 56 0 (197 9); Sta te v. W illiams, 65 7 S.W .2d 405 , 410 (Ten n. 19 83); T.R. A.P. 13 ( e)

. A g uil ty v erdict, approv ed by

the tr ial j udg e, ac credi ts the t est imony of the
w it ness es for th e St ate a nd resol v es any co nflicts in fav or

of the S tate' s t heor

y . Stat e
v . H atc hett, 560 S.W .2d 6 27, 6 30 ( Tenn. 1978 ). O n appea l, the Stat e i s e nti tl ed to the strong estl eg it imat e v iew of the e v ide nce and t o al l re asona ble i nferenc es w hic h mi g ht be d raw n the ref rom. State v . Cabb age, 57 1 S.W .2d 832 , 836 (Ten n. 19 78). A v erdict ag ain st the d efendant remov es the p re sumpti on of i nnoce nce and repl aces i t w it h a presumpt ion of g uil t on appeal

. Stat e v . G ra ce, 493 S.W .2d 4 74 ( Tenn. 1973 ). The defendant has the burden of ov ercomi ng the presumpt ion of g uil t. Sta te v . Brow n, 55 1 S.W .2d 3 29 ( Tenn. 1977 ). The Stat e present ed unc ontrov erted p ro of that M artha J ean F av ati w as ki ll ed dur ing the commi ss ion of a robber y on D ecember

9,19 92 atapprox imat ely 7:45 p.m. There w as compel li ng ev ide nce that the a ppel lan t w as one of the tw o men s een by Ms . D er ri ck

on t he ev eni ng of the murder and that the tw o men robbed a nd k il led the
v icti m. The a ppel lan t’ s d efense w as that he w as at t he home of his g ir lfri end w atc hin gThe a ppellant re quested the United States v. Telfaire, 469 F .2d 552, 557 (D.C.Cir. 1972) 1 c ha rg e at tria l, whic h th e tria l c ourt de c lin e d to g ive . H ow e ve r, thea pp e lla nt h a s n ot raised a s an issue on appe al that the trial c ourt erred in re fusingto givethe Telfaire instruction. 5 a mov ie at t he ti me of the murder

. The ju ry obv iou sl y

found M s. Der ri ck ’s tes ti mony more credi ble than thatof the a ppel lan t’ s w it ness es, as w as it s p re ro g ati v e. C abbag e, 5 7 1 S

. W

. 2 d a t8 3 5 (T e n n
. 1 9 7 8 ). Aft e r r e vie win g a ll o f t h e p ro o f

in t h is ca s e we conc lud e tha t, v iew ed i n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the S tate, the ev ide nce est abl is hed bey ond a re asona ble doubtthatthe appel lan t par ti ci pated in the robber

y and ki ll ing of Ma rt ha J ean F av ati

. Ac cordin g ly , thi s i ss ue i s w it hout meri t.

Altho ugh notraised by the app ellantas an issue on ap pea l, w e de em it appropr iat e to re v iew

the suffici ency

of the t ri al cour

t’ s c harg e to the j ur

y on t he i ss ue of ey ew it ness i denti ficat ion

. In S tate v . D y le, 899 S.W .2d 6 07, 6 12 ( Tenn. 1995 ), 1 the S upreme C our

t s et forth t he foll ow ing ch arg e as the charg e to be g iv en by the tr ial
cour ts of this Sta te w hen i denti ty i s a mater ial i ss ue i n a c ase. One o f the i ss ues in thi s c ase is the ide nti ficat ion of the defendant as the person w ho c ommitt ed th e c ri me. The sta te ha s t he burden of prov ing i denti ty bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Ident ific ati on te sti mony i s a n ex press ion of beli ef or impress ion by the w it ness , and i ts v alu e may de pe nd u po n y ou r

c on s i de rat i on o f s ev eral facto rs
. So me of the factors w hic h y ou may co nsi der

are: (1 ) The w it ness ’ capac ity and oppor

tuni ty to obser v e the offender . Thi s i ncl udes, among othe r thi ng s, the l eng th of ti me av ail abl e for obser v ati on, t he di sta nce from w hic h the w it ness obs er

v ed, t he l ig hti ng , and w hether the person w ho commi tted the c ri me w as a pr ior ac q uai ntanc e of the w itness; (2) The degree of

certainty ex presse d by the w itness re g ardin g the ide nti ficat ion and the c ircums tanc es under w hic h i t w as made, i ncl udi ng w hether i t i s t he productof the w it ness ' ow n recol lecti on; (3 ) The occ asi ons, i f any , on w hic h the w it ness fail ed to make a n i denti ficat ion of the d efendant, o r made an ide nti ficat ion thatw as inc onsi ste nt w it h the i denti ficat ion at tr ial ; andIn Dyle, the cour t held that a trial c ourt’s failure to g ive the instruction when requeste d 2 by an ac cused is plain er

ror. I f not reque sted by

the def ense, thefailureto givethe new c h arg e i s s u

b j e c tt o h ar

m l e s s e r r o r an a l ys i s . Inth i s c a s e , th e a p p e l l antc o u l d

n o tp o s s i b l y have requeste d the Dyle cha rg e as thedecision had not be en re lease d at the time of trial. We theref ore do not hold the a

ppellant re sponsible for not re questingthis charg e. F or the same re ason, the trial c ourt could not haveknown to g ive the Dy le instruction. 6 (4 ) The occ asi ons, i f any , on w hic h the w it ness made an ide nti ficat ion thatw as cons is tent w it h the i denti ficat ion at trial, and the circum stan ces surroun ding such iden tif ication s. Ag ain , t he s tate has the b urden of prov ing ev er y el ement of the c ri me cha rg ed, a nd th is burden s peci fical ly i ncl udes the ide nti ty of the d efendant as the person w ho c ommitt ed th e cr ime for w hic h he or

sh e i s o n tr ial . I f af

ter co nsi der ing the ide nti ficat ion tes ti mony i n l ig ht of al l the p ro of y ou hav e a re asona ble doubtthatthe defendant i s t he person w ho commi tted the c ri me, y ou mus t find the d efendant not g uil ty

. 2 I d. The deci si on i n D y le had notbeen re lea sed at t he ti me of the t ri al in thi s c ase. How ev er , t he C our

t s peci fical ly

st ated that it s h old ing w as to be appl ied to cas es on appeal at the t ime the o pin ion w as re lea sed. Thi s c ase w as on appe al w hen D y le w as release d. As Dy le requires us to do, we have review ed th e prop rietyof the cha rg e in th is c a se an d ho ld th a t b e ca u se th e ch a rge w a s su b st a n ti a lly sim ila r to th e ch a rge promulg ated in Dy le, the tr ial co urt di d not co mmit re v ersi ble er ro r w hen i t g av e the follo w ing ch arg e. The cour t c harg es y ou th at t he i denti ty of the defend ant , W illie D . Robinso n, m ust be proven in the case on th e par

t of the Stat e to y our

sa ti sfacti on, b ey ond a reaso nab le dou bt. In o the r words, th e bu rden of proof is on th e Sta te to show tha t the defend antnow on trial be fore y ou i s t he i denti cal person w ho c ommitt ed th e al leg ed cr ime w it h w hic h he is ch arg ed. In c onsi der ing the q uest ion of the i denti ty of a person, the Jur

y may tak e i nto consid eratio n the mea ns an d op portu nity of ident if ication , if a n y; whe th e r itw a s ligh t o r da rk; th e di st a n ce in te rven in g; the d re ss or

cl othi ng w or n; t he c haract er and col or

of same; the s iz e, he ig ht, and c olo r of the i ndi v idu al; w hether know n to him, and if so , how l ong , and i f seen be fore, under w hat c ircums tanc es; w hether r unni ng or

mov ing rap i dl y , s ta nd i ng s ti l l , w al k i ng fas t or s l ow a t th e ti me cl aimed to t he person tes ti fyi ng ; t he c olo r of the hai r; hat w or n; faci al ex press ion or features and app earance; w hether w it h or w it hout mousta che and bea rd ; w hetherW h i l e w e c o mme n d t h e t ri a l c o u rti n t h i s ca se for gi v i n g s o c o mp l e te a c h a rge w i th o u t 3 ben efit o f

know in g that our Su preme Co urt woul d s hortl yho ld tha t the pa ttern in structi on f req uent ly

used by trial court s on the issue of identity i s inadeq uate , w e rem ind the tr ial courts of this stat e to g iv e the Dyl e charg e in its ent iret y w hen identity is a mat erial i ss u e
. 7

p e rs o n sa id t o b e id e n t if ie d wa s wh it e , b la c k , d a rk , ye ll o w, or l ig ht c olo r; mask ed or

not; the v oic e and speec h. Al l thes e thi ng s w hen s how n i n the proof maybe cons ide re d by

the jur y i n det er mini ng the q uest ion of ide nti ty

. The w ord i denti ty means the sta te or

q ual ity of bei ng i denti cal , or

the same; itmeans sa meness
. Ident ific ati on means the actof ide nti fyi ng or prov ing to be the s ame. The w ord “ Ident ify ” mans [ si c] to es tabl is h the ide nti ty or tho prov e to be th e s ame as so methi ng desc ri bed, cl aimed or

as ser ted. The Co urt c harg es y ou th at i f y ou are s ati sfied from the w hol e proof in thi s c ase, bey ond a re asona ble doubt , that the d efendant, W il li e D . R obi nson, co mmitt ed th e cr ime charg ed ag ain st him, and y ou are s ati sfied, bey ond a re asona ble doubt , t hat h e has been ide nti fied as the person w ho c ommitt ed th e c ri me cha rg ed, t hen i t woul d be y our duty to conv ict hi m. O n the othe r hand, if y ou are not sat is fied w it h the i denti ty from t he proof, or

y ou hav e a re asona ble doubtas to w hether he h as been i denti fied from the w hol e body

of the p ro of in t his ca se, then y ou shou ld return a verdict of not guilty . (Emp hasis ad ded ).
The undersc ored por

ti on of the abov e q uoted charg e reflect s t he es senc e of
w hat t he D y le ins tr uct ion co nv ey s t o the j ur y . As in Dy le, the tr ial co urt i nst ru cte d the jury thatey ewi tne ss ident if ication may be af fecte d by a v ariety of facto rs, and su ch factors mus t be tak en i nto a cc ount w hen as ses si ng the re li abi li ty of suc h tes ti mony
. Id. at 61 2. M s. Der ri ck

w as subj ect ed to a t horoug h and probi ng cross ex aminat ion ; how ev er , s he nev er

w av ered i n her

tes ti mony

i denti fyi ng the appel lan t as one of the tw o men s he s aw

fleei ng the murde r sc ene. C ru ci al to ou r deci si on i n thi s c ase is our det ermin ation thatthe trial court’s cha rg e ref lected the con cerns ad dresse d in the Dy le charg e. Acc ordin g ly , w e c oncl ude t hat t here w as no rev ersi ble er ro r in the i nst ru cti on g iv en to the jur

y on t he i ss ue of i denti ty , and the e v ide nce suppo rt s t he c onv icti on. 3 The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.8 W ILLIA M M. BAR KER , J UD GE
CONCUR:

JOE B. JON ES, PR ESID IN G J UD GE

GARYR . W AD E, J UD GE

.