Opinion ID: 2916030
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Degree Felony Murder During Kidnapping

Text: Our criminal code defines first degree murder as including “[a] killing of another committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any . . . kidnapping.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(2). “Kidnapping is false imprisonment as defined in § 39-13302, under circumstances exposing the other person to substantial risk of bodily injury.” Id. § 39-13-303(a) (2010). “A person commits the offense of false imprisonment who knowingly removes or confines another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially with the other‟s liberty.” Id. § 39-13-302(a) (2010). The proof in this case was sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that some sort of altercation occurred with the victim in the House, that the victim left the House by the back door, and that the victim subsequently was killed. A handgun replica found near a branch bearing hairs consistent with the victim‟s head hairs permitted the jury to infer that the victim left the house after being threatened with what she perceived to be a deadly weapon. Under our standard of review, this proof was sufficient to support the jury‟s conclusion that the victim was killed after being forced to leave her residence. Indeed, the Defendant does not contend that the evidence was not sufficient to support the elements of first degree felony murder during the perpetration of a kidnapping. Rather, he argues that the proof was not sufficient to establish that he was the perpetrator of this crime. Of course, the perpetrator‟s identity is an essential element of every criminal offense. See Rice, 184 S.W.3d at 662 (citing State v. Thompson, 519 S.W.2d 789, 793 (Tenn. 1975)). Whether the Defendant was the perpetrator of the felony murder of the victim during the perpetration of a kidnapping was a question of fact for the jury upon its consideration of all competent proof. See State v. Thomas, 158 S.W.3d 361 app. at 388 (Tenn. 2005). Proof of the Defendant‟s identity as the perpetrator was entirely circumstantial. The Defendant did not confess, and there were no third-party eyewitnesses. There was no physical evidence directly establishing that it was the Defendant who bludgeoned and 31 strangled the victim. Nevertheless, the circumstantial proof establishing the Defendant as the perpetrator was very strong. The Defendant admitted to being with the victim at the House and to speaking with Husband there after the victim dialed the landline phone and handed the headset to him. This phone call took place at 1:10 p.m. The victim sent her last text message to Block at 1:25 p.m. The victim spoke on the phone with Johnnie Phelps at 1:30 p.m. At 2:16 p.m., a FedEx employee delivered a package to the House and knocked loudly at the front door. No one answered. This proof permitted the jury to infer that the victim was abducted and assaulted between 1:30 p.m. and 2:16 p.m. The Defendant told Lt. Nessly that he left the House at approximately 1:30 p.m. on June 1, 2010. Tommy Redditt observed the Defendant in the immediate vicinity of the House at 1:30 p.m. Later that evening, McKell arrived home from work and discovered that the furniture in the area where the victim worked was in disarray and the back door was open. In an area behind the House, a branch was found bearing hairs that were consistent with the victim‟s. In the same (assault) location, a condom and the handgun replica were found, both of which bore DNA consistent with the Defendant‟s. There was semen in the condom. A “drag trail” led from the assault location to the place where the victim‟s body was found. The victim suffered from multiple blunt traumas and strangulation. This evidence permitted the jury to infer that, brandishing the handgun replica as a deadly weapon, the Defendant abducted the victim from her house after an encounter that left the victim‟s office in disarray, took the victim to the assault location where the branch, handgun replica, and condom later were found, engaged in some sexual activity that resulted in the Defendant‟s ejaculating inside the condom, and struck the victim in the head with the branch. Other injuries that the victim suffered suggest that the Defendant also may have kicked and stomped the victim. The Defendant inflicted sufficient injuries upon the victim to result in her death, although the record does not establish if all of these injuries were inflicted before she was dragged to the second (final) location. The Defendant argues that his mother‟s testimony established that he was home at 2:00 p.m. on June 1, 2010, thereby proving that he did not have enough time to commit the kidnapping and murder of the victim. He also argues that his lack of injuries on June 1, 2010, belied his participation in any struggle with the victim. However, even assuming that the jury found the Defendant‟s mother‟s testimony credible, the Defendant had ample time to commit these offenses. Assuming that the Defendant did not accost the victim until 1:35 p.m., five minutes after the victim spoke with Johnnie Phelps over the landline phone, and was home at 2:00 p.m., the Defendant had twenty-five minutes in which to engage in an altercation with the victim in the 32 House, abduct and force her to the assault location, engage in some sexual activity, kill or incapacitate the victim, drag her body to the final location, perhaps inflict additional injuries, and return home. Agent Sullivan testified that the Defendant could have walked home from the second location in seven minutes and thirty seconds.22 Accordingly, even assuming the Defendant walked rather than ran home from the final location, he still had over fifteen minutes in which to abduct the victim, engage in some sexual activity, kill the victim, and hide the victim‟s body. Likewise, the fact that the Defendant exhibited no physical injuries on the evening of the murder does not exonerate him. The police found the handgun replica at the assault location. This permitted the jury to infer that the Defendant forced the victim to accompany him to the assault location by displaying this item as a deadly weapon. The Defendant would not have needed to touch the victim in order to accomplish the abduction. Moreover, they jury could reasonably have inferred that the Defendant struck the victim in the head with the branch and incapacitated her soon after they reached the assault location, thereby avoiding any injuries to himself during his infliction of subsequent injuries to her. That the victim suffered a detached thumb nail does not prove that she touched the Defendant with that nail. It is entirely possible that the nail was detached while she was trying to fend off blows from the branch or as she was being dragged from the assault location to the final location. It is also noteworthy that the Defendant was wearing different clothes after he returned home than he had worn to the House and that there were wet clothes in the Defendant‟s washing machine. Under our standard of review for challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, we hold that the proof was more than sufficient to support the Defendant‟s conviction of first degree felony murder during the perpetration of a kidnapping. Accordingly, the Defendant is entitled to no relief on this basis.