Opinion ID: 1057701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: The Murder in the Perpetration of a Robbery Conviction

Text: Mr. Banks also contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for murder in the perpetration of a robbery. He argues that any robbery that occurred was a separate and distinct event from the shooting of Mr. Al-Maily. Additionally, Mr. Banks argues there was no evidence that he intended to rob Mr. Al-Maily and that ownership of the money and the red Jeep that were found in his possession was not conclusively established. Citing State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn.2000), Mr. Banks also points out that a conviction cannot be founded solely on a defendant's confession. The State contends that it presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for murder in the perpetration of a robbery. We agree. Under Tennessee law, first degree murder includes [a] killing of another committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any ... robbery. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(2). Robbery, under Tennessee law, is the intentional or knowing theft of property from the person of another by violence or putting the person in fear. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-401(a). The Tennessee General Assembly has expressly provided that [n]o culpable mental state is required for conviction under subdivision (a)(2) ... except the intent to commit the enumerated offenses or acts in that subdivision. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-202(b). It is a long-standing rule of Tennessee law that to fall within the definition of felony murder, a killing must have been done in pursuance of the unlawful act, and not collateral to it.... [In other words,] [t]he killing must have had an intimate relation and close connection with the felony ... and not be separate, distinct, and independent from it. State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646, 663 (Tenn.2006) (quoting Farmer v. State, 201 Tenn. 107, 115-16, 296 S.W.2d 879, 883 (1956)). In applying this requirement, this Court has concluded that [t]he killing `may precede, coincide with, or follow the felony and still be considered as occurring `in the perpetration of' the felony offense, so long as there is a connection in time, place, and continuity of action.' State v. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d at 223 (quoting State v. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d at 106). The defendant must have the intent to commit the underlying felony either prior to or concurrent with the act causing the victim's death. State v. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d at 223; State v. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d at 107. A defendant's actions immediately after the killing can provide a basis from which the jury may reasonably infer that the defendant, either prior to or concurrent with committing the act that caused the victim's death, had an intent to commit the underlying felony. State v. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d at 223; State v. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d at 108. We have long recognized that a conviction cannot be based solely on a defendant's confession and, therefore, that the State must present some corroborating evidence to establish the corpus delicti. State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d at 281. The corpus delicti refers to the body of the crimeevidence that a crime was committed at the place alleged in the indictment. Van Zandt v. State, 218 Tenn. 187, 202, 402 S.W.2d 130, 136 (1966). [32] The threshold for establishing the corpus delicti is low and requires only slight evidence, which can be met through reliance upon circumstantial evidence. State v. Housler, 193 S.W.3d 476, 490-91 (Tenn.2006). Thus, [a] confession may sustain a conviction where there is other evidence sufficient to show the commission of the crime by someone. State v. Jones, 15 S.W.3d 880, 891 (Tenn.Crim.App.1999) (quoting Taylor v. State, 479 S.W.2d 659, 661-62 (Tenn.Crim.App.1972)). After shooting Mr. Atilebawi, Mr. Banks entered Mr. Atilebawi's house and, along with Mr. Hilliard, searched through Mr. Atilebawi's living room and bedroom looking for items to steal. Having just shot Mr. Atilebawi and with the gun still in his possession, Mr. Banks took three hundred dollars in cash from Mr. Al-Maily. Messrs. Banks and Hilliard gathered packaged clothing, audio speakers, and cash and loaded them into the red Jeep. Mr. Banks then shot Mr. Al-Maily before leaving. Mr. Banks used violence and fear to rob Messrs. Atilebawi and Al-Maily. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the State, there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a connection in time, place, and continuity of action between the shooting of Mr. Al-Maily and the robbery. As for ownership of the property, Mr. Atilebawi testified that Mr. Banks stole his cash, silver key rings, and his red Jeep. Mr. Banks confessed that he stole the cash from Messrs. Atilebawi and Al-Maily as well as audio speakers, clothing, and a red Jeep. He was found in possession of all of the above when arrested by the police. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the State, this evidence provides a sufficient basis from which a reasonable juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was owned by Messrs. Atilebawi and Al-Maily. As for Mr. Banks's argument that a confession alone is insufficient evidence upon which to convict a defendant, he is correct insofar as there must be some slight evidence in addition to a confession in order to establish the corpus delicti. In this case, the discovery of Mr. Al-Maily's dead body with a gunshot wound in the back of his head and no firearm next to him would adequately meet this standard by providing evidence that a homicide occurred in a manner other than by accident. The evidence bolstering Mr. Banks's confession, however, extends significantly beyond the discovery of the body with a gunshot woundas does the evidence of his guilt in general. By way of illustration, Mr. Banks was arrested after the shootings in a vehicle stolen from Mr. Atilebawi with Mr. Atilebawi's property inside. C.