Opinion ID: 1057758
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant Lumpkin

Text: A jury convicted Defendant Lumpkin of one count of first degree premeditated murder; one count of attempted premeditated murder; and two counts of aggravated assault. A summary of the proof adduced at trial follows. Leland and Bishop Tatum [3] lived in the adjoining halves of a duplex at 895 Speed Street in Memphis, Tennessee. This duplex was located above street level and had a front porch with twelve steps leading down to the street level. Each side of the duplex had a door opening onto the front porch. Across the street lived Jerry Lumpkin, Defendant Eric Lumpkin's father. Jerry's residence also sat above street level and also had a front porch with several steps leading down to street level. Next door to Jerry lived Leland and Bishop's mother, Emma Tatum. Some years prior to the events giving rise to this trial, Bishop Tatum and Jerry Lumpkin quarreled. The feud had not been abandoned. On the evening of July 19, 2003, Leland and Bishop Tatum were conversing on their front porch. A short time earlier, Defendant Lumpkin had asked Leland if Leland knew where to obtain some dope for Defendant Lumpkin to smoke. Leland ignored this query. While Leland and Bishop were on their porch, Defendant Lumpkin was across the street on his father's porch. Leland testified that Defendant Lumpkin called out and told Leland to ask [Bishop] to come down the steps so [they] can fight. Leland and Bishop ignored him. Defendant Lumpkin repeated his challenge, adding because I don't like him and never have. The two men again ignored the taunts. Defendant Lumpkin then walked across the street and began walking up the porch steps to where Leland and Bishop were standing. When Defendant Lumpkin reached the second step, Leland told him that he was starting trouble and that he needed to turn around and go back to whatever [he] was doing, go back across the street. Jerry came across the street and grabbed [Defendant Lumpkin] and took him back over there. Emma Tatum then joined Leland and Bishop on their porch. One of the men called the police. While they were waiting for the police to arrive, a man Leland knew as Mr. Johnson came and picked Defendant Lumpkin up in a red car and drove him away. The police arrived and spoke with Bishop for a few minutes. Leland testified that soon after the police left, he heard Jerry Lumpkin say into his cordless phone, go get your gun. Jerry had walked down his porch steps and was passing by on his way up his driveway when Leland overheard Jerry's words. Hearing this alarmed Leland a little. Leland's wife joined the other three people on the Tatums' porch. While they were talking, Emma Tatum told them to look and pointed out that the same red car that had just left with Defendant Lumpkin was returning. Leland turned and looked and acknowledged that it was the same car. As the car drove down their street, Emma Tatum said, look out you-all, he's got a gun. Leland testified that, as he turned around and looked that's when the first shot was fired. And, the first shot was fired like near the driveway.... And the second shot was fired as though it's going almost near the house.... Then he fired the third shot.... But, that fourth shot, when he fired the fourth shot, my mother was trying to get into the house, she was pushing my brother inside the door then. According to Leland, the fourth shot hit Emma Tatum because after that shot, he heard her holler that she had been hit. A fifth shot was fired. The car got to the corner and made a right turn and stopped. Leland testified that, as he was looking at Defendant Lumpkin, who was in the passenger seat of the red car, Defendant Lumpkin fired a sixth shot. Leland was approximately twenty-five feet from Defendant Lumpkin at this time. Defendant Lumpkin was not wearing a mask and Leland got a good look at him. After firing the sixth shot, the car in which Defendant Lumpkin was riding proceeded on. And he left. Leland stated that, when he fired the first shot everybody was like in a panic,... trying to run. As his mother and brother were trying to get inside the house through one door, he had to push [his] wife down on the porch, push her down and hold the door open on [the other] side, holding the door so she could crawl inside the house. After he helped his wife get inside, he was trying to run over to [his] mom to push her inside ... but [he] just didn't get there fast enough. When asked where his mother was at the time she got shot, Leland testified: She was, my mother was going inside the door. The door was open and when she got hit from that bullet she was standing up, she was pushing my brother inside during that time. Pushing him inside the house. She was on her way through the door, trying to get in. That's where she was at. She was trying to get in, she wasn't directly in the house, she was trying to get inside the house. According to Leland, Defendant Lumpkin and his mother were on speaking terms and he knew of no problems she had ever had with Defendant Lumpkin. Leland also testified that he had had no problems with Defendant Lumpkin or Defendant Lumpkin's father. On cross-examination, Leland testified that he saw no gun out there other than the one he saw Defendant Lumpkin holding and shooting. He described its color as [c]hrome, silver chrome. The time was between 7:30 and 8:00 in the evening. He admitted that he had heard his brother Bishop refer to Jerry Lumpkin as a dope dealer. He also explained that, after Defendant Lumpkin initially crossed the street and told Bishop that he wanted to fight, Bishop told Defendant Lumpkin, you don't know who you're messing with and that he would whip [Defendant Lumpkin] like [his] mother should have whipped [him]. Bishop Tatum testified that, on the evening of the shooting, he saw Defendant Lumpkin fighting with one of his father Jerry's friends in Jerry's yard. After the fight, Defendant Lumpkin came over and told Bishop he wanted to fight Bishop. Leland intervened and said, no, ain't going to be none of this. Jerry Lumpkin crossed the street and retrieved his son. Jerry then asked a man named Johnson to take Defendant Lumpkin home, and Johnson picked Defendant Lumpkin up in a red four-door car. Bishop thought that Leland then called the police. The police arrived and took a report. After the police left, Bishop and Leland were standing on the sidewalk. Bishop heard Jerry tell someone over the cell phone to kill everybody on the porch. Bishop and Leland returned to their porch. A few minutes later, Bishop saw the red car at the corner of his street. His mother said, he got a gun. Bishop described the gun as black. Bishop testified that he saw Defendant Lumpkin pointing out the car and he started shooting. Bishop stated that Harry Johnson was driving the car. In an effort to avoid the bullets, Bishop pushed his mother down and she pushed him down. He said that there were about six shots. Bishop stated that the car in which Defendant Lumpkin was riding drove slow as it passed their house. Bishop saw Defendant Lumpkin in the front seat but laying back. He was shooting out the car. Defendant Lumpkin was on the right side of the car shooting out the right back window. Bishop testified that it was still daylight during the shooting and he saw Defendant Lumpkin's face clearly. When the first shot was fired, they ducked ... [and] pushed one another down on the porch. Bishop stated that he did not have a gun at the time and nobody on the porch shot at Defendant Lumpkin. Bishop Tatum acknowledged that he had had a disagreement with Jerry Lumpkin the first time they met several years previously. The problems continued over the years with Bishop calling the police about drug dealing on the street and Jerry threatening him after the calls. He did not have any problems with Defendant Lumpkin, however, prior to the July 19, 2003, shooting. Bishop testified that his mother was standing when she got shot but he also stated that she was bending during the shooting. He could not describe how she was bending because he was looking at Defendant Lumpkin the whole period of time when he was shooting. He stated, I pushed my mama down when the first shot up [sic], okay. My mother was trying to push me down, I was pushing her down. Essie Tatum, Leland's wife, testified that she and Leland arrived at the duplex between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m. Bishop was there when they arrived. She went inside and later saw the victim outside talking with Leland and Bishop. It was then between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. She went out on the porch and all of a sudden she heard Leland say they shooting. The next thing she knew, she was pushed down onto the porch and she crawled through the door. She heard the victim say she had been shot. She did not see the shooting but she heard the shots. Harry Johnson testified that he had known Jerry Lumpkin about forty years and Defendant Lumpkin about fifteen years. He arrived on Speed Street at about 7:00 p.m. on July 19, 2003. As he was driving by Jerry's house, Jerry beckoned for him. When he responded, Jerry asked Johnson to take Defendant Lumpkin home. When Jerry made this request, Jerry and Defendant Lumpkin exchanged some words, like a heated argument. As requested, Johnson took Defendant Lumpkin home. The time was between 7 and 8 p.m. Johnson took Defendant Lumpkin over to Olympic Street, about three streets over. The trip took three or four minutes. After he dropped Defendant Lumpkin off, a woman came out on the porch and hollered at him. He stopped and Defendant Lumpkin came out of the house and got back in the car. Defendant Lumpkin told him he wanted to go back to his father's house. Johnson complied; he did not see a weapon. Johnson described his car as a 1991 Cutlass Supreme, red, four-door with reclining seats in the front. Johnson stated that, when Defendant Lumpkin got back in the car, he immediately reclined the seats. Defendant Lumpkin's demeanor was tense and stressed out. The trip back to Speed Street took three to five minutes. The sun had set but there was still light. As Johnson was looking for a parking place on Speed Street, Defendant Lumpkin told him not to worry about parking. At that point, Johnson testified, gunfire erupted. Johnson did not initially realize where the gunfire was coming from; he ducked. Johnson testified: After about five shots [Defendant Lumpkin] sat up but didn't let the seat up and reached over and grabbed my steering wheel and said, pull off fool. Johnson described himself at this time as in somewhat of a panic. He saw that Defendant Lumpkin had a pistol when he brought his hand back in the window. Johnson described the gun as a large caliber revolver, blue steel with about a six inch barrel. He had not seen the gun previously and did not know that Defendant Lumpkin had a gun in his possession. Johnson testified that, when the shooting started, he like panicked, [he] was ducking and trying to determine where the shots were coming from. And, at which time [Defendant Lumpkin] grabbed the steering wheel, reached over and grabbed the steering wheel, stuck his foot on the accelerator and hollered, drive fool. And, that's when [he] seen [sic] the pistol in [Defendant Lumpkin's] hand. Both men struggled for control of the car. They reached the corner where there was a bunch of people. Defendant Lumpkin continued to press on the accelerator and the car almost ran into the people gathered at the corner. Their flight continued with Defendant Lumpkin steering and pressing the accelerator, running stop signs, and getting very close to striking pedestrians. After traveling down several streets, Defendant Lumpkin jumped out of the car. He told Johnson that Johnson don't know nothing and don't want to know nothing, forget about it. Johnson became fearful for his life because Defendant Lumpkin had been shooting on a crowded porch of people, that appeared to be someone out of control and don't care anything about anyone. On cross-examination, Johnson stated that his car was stopped in front of the duplex when the gunfire began. Then Defendant Lumpkin grabbed the steering wheel and pushed the accelerator down. They drove to the corner and turned; they did not stop at the corner and Johnson did not recall Defendant Lumpkin firing another shot at the corner. Officer Devin Rogers of the City of Memphis Police Department testified that he responded to the Tatums' first call to the police, which was made before the shooting. He spoke with both Leland and Bishop. He then left and returned to his regular patrol. He responded to the second call, made after the shooting, and arrived at 9:06 p.m. He found a lot of hysteria and pandemonium because Ms. Tatum had been shot. Leland told him Defendant Lumpkin had shot his mother; Bishop reiterated this information. Officer Rogers requested an ambulance. Emma Tatum was taken to The MED hospital where she underwent several surgeries. Emma Tatum remained in the hospital where she died on September 13, 2003. Sergeant Maurice Savage of the City of Memphis Police Department testified that he participated in the ongoing investigation of the shooting and arrested Defendant Lumpkin on July 22, 2003. Dr. O'Brian Cleary Smith, previously the medical examiner for Shelby County, testified that his office performed an autopsy on the victim, Emma Tatum. He opined that the victim died as a result of a gunshot wound to the pelvis. The autopsy revealed that the bullet entered the victim's body on the right buttock and lodged in the left hip joint. Dr. Smith testified that the bullet entered her body going slightly from back to front with up and down and right to left to lodge in the socket of her hip joint on the left side of her body. He explained that, assuming the perspective of a person standing upright when shot, [t]he bullet would have traveled first off from the right side of her body to the left side. It also would have descended in the body or going down in the body to a point lower than where it entered. And, it also would have gone from the back side of the body more forward towards the front but actually more like in line with the hip joint which is not fully to the front. On cross-examination, Dr. Smith was asked to hypothesize that the bullet that struck the victim was fired from a car driving along a street that was several feet below the level of the porch on which the victim was located when she was shot and that the victim was standing upright at the time she was shot. Dr. Smith responded that, [g]iven that description of circumstances it's difficult to resolve, referring to the trajectory of the bullet through the victim's body. He said that, if the bullet had been fired in an upward direction, she would have to be leaning over or canted over towards the right side, towards the bullet. Given a different hypothetical in which the bullet was fired from the porch across the street, and in which the victim was standing upright on both feet, Dr. Smith stated that it would be easier to achieve that trajectory of the bullet through her body by a person who's standing on that porch and shooting slightly downward. On redirect, Dr. Smith reiterated that it's very difficult to render an opinion as to what exact position a person was in at the time that they received the gunshot wound. He testified that [i]f a person is being pushed down or pushed off to the side, ... with the right side of the pelvis is lower and the left side of the pelvis is higher then it may be possible for a wound of that type to be produced by a shot fired from below. Dr. Smith also testified that it was possible for a gunshot fired from the street up toward the porch to have caused the path in the victim's body if the victim had been crawling on the palms of her hands and knees with her head a little bit angled towards the street and also have the left side of [her] pelvis higher than [her] right. Dr. Smith further acknowledged that it was possible for the bullet to have changed paths if the bullet had struck an object prior to hitting the victim's body. Defendant Lumpkin presented no proof. His defense theory focused on weaknesses in the prosecution's case, particularly the incongruities between the angle at which he allegedly fired the gunshots and the bullet's path through the victim's body. The jury convicted Defendant Lumpkin of the first degree murder of Emma Tatum; the attempted first degree murder of Bishop Tatum, a Class A felony; the knowing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon of Leland Tatum; and the knowing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon of Essie Tatum, both Class C felonies. Defendant Lumpkin was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder; to twenty-three years imprisonment for the attempted murder; and to five years imprisonment for each of the aggravated assaults. The trial court ordered the sentence for the attempted murder to run concurrently with the life sentence. The trial court ordered the sentences for the aggravated assaults to run consecutively to each other and to the other sentences, resulting in an effective term of life plus ten years. In ordering consecutive service, the trial court found Defendant Lumpkin to be a dangerous offender whose behavior indicates little or no regard for human life and no hesitation about committing a crime in which the risk to human life is high. The trial court further found that the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense are aggravated on the basis that it was a drive-by shooting in which four people could have been killed and that Defendant Lumpkin then took flight from the scene by taking control of the vehicle, running stop signs and ... almost ran over other people while he was in flight. In conjunction with finding Defendant Lumpkin to be a dangerous offender, the trial court determined that confinement for an extended period of time is necessary to protect society from [Defendant Lumpkin's] unwillingness to lead a productive life and [Defendant Lumpkin's] resort to criminal activity. Finally, the trial court found that the aggregate length of the sentences ... reasonably relate[s] to the offense which [Defendant Lumpkin] was convicted of. Defendant Lumpkin appealed, arguing that his convictions should be overturned on the basis of the physical facts rule and that the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences violated his federal constitutional rights. [4] The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Defendant Lumpkin's convictions and sentences.