State of Tennessee v. Jessie Dotson

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

April 9, 2013 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JESSIE DOTSON

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 0807688 James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge

No. W2011-00815-CCA-R3-DD - Filed June 25, 2013

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Jessie Dotson, of six counts of premeditated

first degree murder and three counts of attempted first degree murder. The jury sentenced

the defendant to death for each conviction of first degree murder. Following a separate

sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender

to forty years for each conviction for attempted first degree murder, to be served

consecutively to each other and to the first degree murder sentences. On appeal, the

defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2)

testimony regarding one of the victims’ statement to police was hearsay and its admission

violated the United States and Tennessee Constitutions; (3) the admission of the defendant’s

custodial statements violated his rights under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions;

(4) the admission of testimony that the defendant invoked his right to counsel violated his

due process rights; (5) the admission of testimony regarding the defendant’s history of

imprisonment violated his right to a fair trial; (6) the trial court’s treatment of defense

counsel in the jury’s presence violated his right to a fair trial; (7) the admission of the

pathologist’s testimony regarding autopsies that she did not perform violated the defendant’s

confrontation rights; (8) the trial court erred in admitting photographs of the victims; (9) the

trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to provide DNA analysis of all those who

came in contact with the crime scene; (10) the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s

motion for production of the statements of those not to be called as witnesses for the State;

(11) the trial court improperly defined “reasonable doubt” in instructing the jury; (12) the

trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on facilitation of first degree murder as a

lesser included offense; (13) the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to strike

aggravating circumstances; (14) the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for

a probable cause finding regarding the aggravating circumstances; (15) the trial court erred

in denying the defendant’s motion for disclosure of information regarding the proportionality

review; (16) the admission of victim impact evidence was improper; (17) the trial court erred

in denying the defendant’s motion to argue last during the penalty phase; (18) the State

committed prosecutorial misconduct during its argument to the jury; (19) the trial court erred

in allowing the death verdicts to stand; (20) the defendant’s sentences for his three

convictions for attempted first degree murder were excessive; and (21) cumulative error

requires reversal. Based upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the

judgments of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed

A LAN E. G LENN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which J OHN E VERETT W ILLIAMS

and J EFFREY S. B IVINS, JJ., joined.

Kathleen Morris, Nashville, Tennessee, and Marty Brett McAfee, Memphis, Tennessee, for

the appellant, Jessie Dotson.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Jeffrey Dean Zentner, Assistant

Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Damon Griffin, Reginald

Henderson, and Raymond Lepone, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee,

State of Tennessee.

OPINION

FACTS

The defendant was convicted of six counts of premeditated first degree murder for the

deaths of his brother, Cecil Dotson, Sr. (“Cecil”);1 Cecil’s fiancée, Marissa Williams; Hollis

Seals; Shindri Roberson; and two of Cecil’s sons. The defendant also was convicted of three

counts of attempted first degree murder of two of Cecil’s sons and his daughter. The

evidence presented at trial established that during the early morning hours of March 2, 2008,

while at Cecil’s home on Lester Street in Memphis, the defendant shot Cecil, Williams,

Seals, and Roberson multiple times, killing them. He then repeatedly stabbed and beat

Cecil’s four sons, C.D.1, age nine; C.D.2, age five; C.D.3, age four; and C.D.4, age two, and

Cecil’s daughter, C.D.5, age two months.2 C.D.3 and C.D.4 were killed, and C.D.1, C.D.2,

and C.D.5 were severely injured but survived.

1

Because Cecil Dotson, Sr. and some witnesses who testified at trial share the same last name, we

will utilize their first names in referring to them. We intend no disrespect by this procedure but do so to avoid

continually repeating the full names of Cecil Dotson, Sr. and these witnesses.

2

As is the policy of this court, we will refrain from identifying the child victims by their full names.

-2-

GUILT PHASE – STATE’S PROOF

The victims were discovered during the evening hours of March 3, 2008, when

Officer Randall Davis of the Memphis Police Department responded to a call to check on the

welfare of the residents at the Lester Street address. Officer Davis testified that when he and

another officer arrived and approached the house, he saw that the front door was open. Upon

entering the house, Officer Davis saw the body of an adult male lying beside a television.

As he rounded the corner, he saw three more adult bodies beside a couch. All four adults

were deceased.

Officer Davis testified that he and two other officers cleared the house while one

officer secured the door. Officer Davis said he entered a bathroom, saw someone in the

bathtub, and pulled back the shower curtain to find a male child, later identified as C.D.1,

with a knife stuck in his head. Officer Davis testified that he initially believed that C.D.1

was dead but then saw his eyes twitch. He alerted other officers and continued clearing the

house.

Officer Davis testified he next walked down a hallway to a bedroom on the left where

he saw a small child who was deceased. He then entered another bedroom where he saw two

children but found no signs of life in either child. Meanwhile, another officer had located

an infant, later identified as C.D.5.

Officer Davis testified that there was blood throughout the house but that none of the

blood appeared to be fresh. The firefighters arrived as Officer Davis was returning from the

back bedroom, and he alerted them to C.D.1 in the bathtub and continued to secure the area.

On cross-examination, Officer Davis testified that when he approached the house, he

detected the odor of deceased bodies. He looked into the house through the front door, saw

someone’s foot on the floor, and entered the house. Officer Davis did not check the adult

victims for vital signs because it was obvious to him that they were deceased. However, he

touched the children to see if any were still alive.

Herbert Henley, a firefighter with the Memphis Fire Department, testified that he

entered the house and saw the body of a male adult kneeling facedown on the couch. He also

saw two adult female bodies, one sitting on the floor against the sofa and the other propped

up on the sofa leaning toward the first female. After an officer informed him that someone

was in there, he entered the bathroom, pulled back the shower curtain, and saw C.D.1 in the

bathtub. He realized C.D.1 was alive after seeing him move his hand, told his fellow

firefighters that the child was alive, and obtained the assistance of Daniel Moore and Jason

Vosburgh in transporting C.D.1 to an ambulance. Henley observed cuts on C.D.1’s face and

-3-

a “sawzall blade” sticking out of the top of his head. He described the bathroom as “a mess”

with “blood everywhere.”

Daniel Moore, a firefighter/EMT with the Memphis Fire Department, testified that he

was instructed to check on the adults in the front room. It was obvious, however, that the

adults were dead, so he did not physically check each adult victim. He said that the victim

lying by the television appeared to have been there for some time, explaining, “Just by

looking at them and just the horrific scene that was there with all the blood and everything,

it was obvious that they had been down for a while.” The blood was “definitely old.”

Moore testified that he and Vosburgh next entered the bloody bathroom where Henley

had discovered C.D.1. As they looked in the bathtub, they saw C.D.1 turn his head and look

at them, exposing a knife stuck in his head. Moore described the horrific scene: “He turned

his head and the next thing we saw was one of the most horrible things I’ve ever seen, it was

a knife stuck embedded in his skull and it was just stuck there. And it absolutely is the worst

thing I’ve ever seen in my life.” In addition to the knife embedded in C.D.1’s skull, Moore

observed puncture wounds on the child’s abdomen and multiple superficial cuts to his neck.

Jason Vosburgh, a firefighter with the Memphis Fire Department, testified he

responded to a call of possibly seven dead individuals at a residence on Lester Street. Based

upon the call, Vosburgh initially believed that the deaths could have been the result of carbon

monoxide poisoning, so he put on his protective gear. However, upon arriving at the house,

he knew immediately that he did not need the protective equipment, explaining, “You could

smell the blood in the air. It was [a] thick, spoiled smell like it had been there a while.”

Vosburgh testified that when he approached the porch, he saw an officer to the right

of the door holding C.D.5. He walked inside and saw the bodies of the four adult victims to

his right. He and a paramedic then entered the back bedroom, where they saw the bodies of

two children. One of them was dead, while the other, C.D.2, was alive. Vosburgh stated that

as he and the paramedic were carrying C.D.2 down the hallway, someone informed him that

another deceased victim, whose throat had been cut, was in the front bedroom.

Vosburgh testified that as he and the paramedic were placing C.D.2 onto a stretcher,

someone told Henley that another deceased victim was in the bathroom. Henley checked on

that victim, C.D.1, and reported that he was alive. Vosburgh and Moore then entered the

bathroom and saw C.D.1, who had a knife embedded in the right side of his head, roll over

and look at them.

Patrick McDevitt, a firefighter/paramedic with the Memphis Fire Department, testified

he was in one of the last ambulances to arrive and that surviving victims had been removed

-4-

from the house by the time he reached the scene. He and his partner were instructed to

confirm the deaths of the victims who remained inside the home, so they ran an ECG strip

and touched each victim to confirm the absence of a pulse or other vital signs.

McDevitt testified he and his partner first confirmed the deaths of the children in the

bedrooms. They moved the children’s clothing to expose their skin in order to place the ECG

strips on the children. They then moved the clothing back to its original position. McDevitt

stated that he noted the absence of fresh blood and that the blood on each victim with which

he came into contact appeared to be dry.

Annette Mallory, Seals’s aunt, testified she last saw him a few days before his death.

Rosie Puryear, Roberson’s mother, testified that Roberson was twenty-two years old when

she was killed and that she had last seen her approximately one month before her death.

Ida Anderson, Williams’ mother, testified that Williams and Cecil were engaged and

had four children, C.D.1, C.D.2, C.D.3, and C.D.5. She said that the mother of C.D.4 was

Erica Smith, and Williams and Smith had tension as a result of their relationships with Cecil.

According to Anderson, in March 2008, Cecil, Williams, the five children, and Cecil’s other

daughter had been living at the Lester Street address for four or five months. Anderson

stated that Williams was twenty-seven years old and that C.D.3 was four years old when they

were killed.

Anderson testified that C.D.1 has undergone many surgeries and that additional

surgeries would be required. He and C.D.2 were in school. At the time of trial, C.D.5 was

almost three years old and doing “exceptionally well.”

Jessie Dotson, Sr. (“Jessie Sr.”), the father of Cecil and the defendant, testified that

in March 2008, he and the defendant were employed as painters, while Cecil performed

maintenance duties for various apartment complexes. Their family referred to the defendant

as “Junior.” The defendant was living with his sister, Nicole Dotson (“Nicole”), in an

apartment at Goodwill Village in Memphis. On Saturday, March 1, 2008, Jessie Sr. and the

defendant left work early because Jessie Sr. wanted to watch the University of Memphis

basketball game on television at Cecil’s house. Jessie Sr. arrived at Cecil’s house at

approximately 3:30 or 4:00 p.m. When he arrived, Cecil, the defendant, C.D.1, C.D.2, and

C.D.4 were there. Jessie Sr. was not able to watch the game because Cecil did not subscribe

to cable television. Instead, he went outside to his truck and listened to the game on the

radio.

Jessie Sr. testified that he saw a gun while at Cecil’s house and learned that it

belonged to the defendant. He described the gun as “kind of like a powder blue I guess you

-5-

could say a revolver, the kind with the thing that turn.” He said the gun did not eject shell

casings. Jessie Sr. stated that Cecil moved the gun from the top of the counter, commenting

that the children might think it was a toy. After moving the weapon, Cecil told the defendant

that he had moved his gun. Jessie Sr. said he left Cecil’s house around 6:00 or 6:30 p.m. and,

as he was leaving, saw Cecil on the porch cleaning his grill and preparing to barbecue. He

did not see Cecil or the defendant again that night.

Jessie Sr. testified that when he arrived at Nicole’s apartment to pick up the defendant

for work the next day, he was not there, and Nicole did not know where he was. The

defendant had not told Jessie Sr. that he was not coming to work, which surprised Jessie Sr.

because they had planned to complete the job on which they had been working. Jessie Sr.

stated that he instructed Nicole to tell the defendant to contact him if he wanted to continue

his employment. Later that evening, the defendant called him and said that his girlfriend had

hidden his cell phone following an argument. The defendant did not, however, tell him why

he had not come to work and never mentioned that anything had happened at Cecil’s home.

The next day, March 3, 2008, Jessie Sr. picked up the defendant for work just before

8:00 a.m., and they worked until 11:00 a.m. when they stopped due to rain. During that time

period, the defendant never mentioned that something had happened to Cecil and the other

people in his house. Later that same day, the defendant called Jessie Sr. and told him that

Nicole wanted him to drive by Cecil’s house because Erica Smith had been there to pick up

her son, discovered that the door was not closed, and was afraid that something was wrong.

When Jessie Sr. arrived at Cecil’s house, he saw one or two police cars parked in the

front and walked up to the door, but the officers turned him away. While he was there, a

neighbor told him that she had not seen Cecil and his family all weekend and that she had

been feeding the dog. He then went to his brother’s house, where he learned from a newscast

what had occurred at the house.

Jessie Sr. testified that the defendant later called him and said that he and other family

members were in protective custody. The defendant never told him what happened to Cecil.

A few days before trial, however, the defendant called and told him that he knew what had

occurred inside Cecil’s house.

Jessie Sr. said that Cecil was thirty years old, C.D.3 was four years old, and C.D.4 was

two years old when they died. He had heard that Cecil was a member of the Gangster

Disciples, and when he learned of the killings, he believed they were gang-related. Jessie Sr.

said that Cecil told him that he was attempting to leave the Gangster Disciples and was

worried about it to such an extent that he asked Jessie Sr. to live with him for a period of

time. He said that Cecil explained to him that gang members respected each other’s families

-6-

and that they were unlikely to bother Cecil because of their respect for Jessie Sr. Jessie Sr.

testified that, notwithstanding Cecil’s assurances of his safety, several of Jessie Sr.’s brothers

warned him that he would be killed by being in the midst of the trouble between Cecil and

the gang members, and they talked him into moving out of Cecil’s apartment after about a

month.

William Waddell, the brother of the defendant and Cecil, testified he was with Cecil

during the day on March 1, 2008. They visited “Doc Holiday,” who wanted Cecil to perform

some maintenance tasks for him. They then returned to Cecil’s house where they watched

a sports game and, later, picked up the defendant at Nicole’s apartment and returned to

Cecil’s house. Waddell, Cecil, the defendant, Jessie Sr., Williams, and the children watched

the University of Memphis basketball game.

Waddell testified that at some point that evening, he saw the defendant with a black

and silver gun. He said the defendant generally carried a blue revolver, but he was unsure

whether he saw the defendant with the gun that day. Waddell called Cecil numerous times

on March 2, but he did not answer. Waddell said he first heard that something had happened

to Cecil on March 3 at approximately 7:30 p.m. while he was at work. Smith had been

calling him all day and said she believed that something was wrong, so he told her to call the

police. Waddell went to the crime scene and met the defendant there. The defendant told

him that Cecil had driven him to his girlfriend’s apartment.

Willie Boyd Hill, Jr., Cecil’s best friend, testified that he had visited Cecil’s home on

Lester Street on several occasions. Hill said he knew “Doc Holiday,” “Cato,” “Dread,” and

Seals because he, Cecil, and those men were all members of the Gangster Disciples. He

stated that the defendant was a member of the Crips gang.

Hill testified that on March 1, 2008, Seals, Cecil, and the defendant came to his

apartment, located on Southern Avenue in Memphis, between 10:30 and 11:30 p.m. because

Seals, who had just been released from jail, had left a pistol in Hill’s care and wanted to

retrieve the gun. Hill described it as a “German P2 something” that said “9 millimeter” on

the outside of it and said it took .380 caliber bullets. He said he had loaded the bullets into

the gun, which was the “kind you put a clip in” and which ejected shell casings. Seals, the

defendant, and Cecil left his apartment with Seals saying that they were going to visit his

girlfriend. Seals took the loaded gun with him, and Hill did not see any of the men after they

left the apartment.

Hill testified that on March 3, he received a call from Waddell, who told him that

something had happened to Cecil’s family which he heard was a gas leak. Hill said he went

to the crime scene where he saw several police cars, news crews, and family members, and

-7-

he believed that the defendant also was there. When he saw the crime tape, he knew that it

likely was not a gas leak. Hill testified that he later heard that the Gangster Disciples were

involved in Cecil’s death and therefore called “Cato,” who denied the allegation.

Hill testified that he had a “falling out” with Cecil prior to his death and described

how on the evening of February 14, 2008, he, his girlfriend, Cecil, Williams, and Smith had

gone out drinking at a club before returning to Hill’s girlfriend’s apartment, where Cecil and

Smith began arguing. He said Smith ran upstairs and went into his girlfriend’s apartment,

and Cecil went after her and began beating on the doors and windows, cursing both Smith

and Hill’s girlfriend. Hill’s girlfriend called the police and when they arrived, Cecil told

them that marijuana was inside the apartment. Hill was angered by this because Cecil knew

that Hill also stayed at the apartment and that Gangster Disciples were not supposed to call

the police on each other.

Hill testified that he told “Cato” what had happened, and that “Cato,” in turn,

informed “Doc Holiday.” Hill then received a call from “Doc Holiday.” “Doc,” the

“coordinator” over the Orange Mound area, told Hill to explain to “Dread,” the chief of

security over the area, what he had reported to “Cato.” Hill was then summoned to an

apartment on Dwight Street in Memphis, where he, “Doc,” and “Dread” discussed the matter,

and “Dread” told him to “write [Cecil] up.”

Hill explained that a “write-up” is a disciplinary notice within the gang that results in

punishment. Possible punishments included “[p]unches to the chest, punches to the lip,

pumpkin head, three minutes to a DV” or “death violation.” He said that a death violation

generally was ordered only on that individual and not everyone associated with him. He did

not write Cecil up, and if the Gangster Disciples had wanted to kill Cecil, they easily would

have been able to get him alone and would not have waited until 2:00 a.m. Hill said that he

had never heard of gangs killing innocent women and children and that if the Gangster

Disciples were entering a home to kill someone, they would be armed and would not run out

of bullets. Also, because “Dread” and “Doc” were close friends with Cecil, Hill did not

believe they harmed him.

Hill acknowledged that he had heard that, when Cecil was contacted about his

discipline from the gang, he declined to accept the discipline. He also had heard that Cecil

had hung up on “Doc” and that “Doc” had slept with Williams. He further acknowledged

that he and Cecil, whom he described as “outspoken” and “arrogant,” had argued on other

occasions besides the Valentine’s Day incident and that Cecil and “Doc” had a disagreement

over drywall work that Cecil performed at “Doc’s” apartment.

Hill denied being a member of a gang at the time of the killings. He said, “None of

-8-

us was participating in any gang meetings or nothing like that but we still had love for it.”

He testified that he had contacted the police and cooperated with them, submitting both a hair

and a swab sample. He cooperated because Cecil was his friend, and Cecil’s family was like

his own.

Hill testified that until mid-February 2008, the overseer or head of the Gangster

Disciples in Memphis was “Big Easy,” or Eric Brown, and he was then murdered. Hill did

not know that Vernon Motley, whom the police believed had murdered Brown, was a

Traveling Vice Lord or that Motley’s girlfriend was Cecil’s first cousin.

Hill acknowledged he had prior convictions for manufacturing, delivering, and selling

a controlled substance, possession of cocaine with the intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver,

possession of marijuana, and being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun and was on

probation at the time of the defendant’s trial.

The parties stipulated that the gun that Hill gave Seals on March 1, 2008, was a P-232

Sig Sauer handgun, a .380 caliber pistol with a seven-round magazine capacity, which could

hold up to eight rounds if one round was in the chamber.

Stacey Young, a friend of Cecil, testified that at approximately midnight on March 2,

2008, Cecil, the defendant, and Seals came to her home in Cecil’s blue Lincoln. Cecil

introduced the defendant to Young, they talked “for a minute,” and then the three men left.

Cecil told Young that he was going to drop Seals and the defendant off and return. Young

called Cecil at approximately 1:00 a.m., and he said that he had not “made it off Pendleton”

and that he would return. He never returned, however.

Erica Smith, C.D.4’s mother, testified that although Cecil and his friends were

Gangster Disciples, she had never been a member of a gang. Smith described the Valentine’s

Day argument and conflict and the falling out between Cecil and Hill caused by Cecil’s

having informed the police that marijuana was in Hill’s girlfriend’s apartment. Smith also

described the dispute between Cecil and “Doc Holiday” over Cecil’s repair work at “Doc’s”

apartment and “Doc’s” failure to pay him.

Smith testified that at approximately 12:30 a.m. on March 2, 2008, Cecil, the

defendant, Seals, and Roberson came to her apartment located at 2848 Kimball Avenue, and

she went outside to talk to them. Cecil told her that he would return, but she told him not to

do so. She called Cecil at approximately 1:15 a.m. and spoke to him, called him again at

1:30 a.m. but he did not answer, called a third time at 2:00 a.m. and again spoke to him.

During that last telephone call, she heard Cecil and the defendant arguing and using

profanity.

-9-

Smith testified that because she and Cecil were supposed to attend church together on

Sunday morning, March 2, she called him at 7:00 a.m., but he did not answer. After

continuing to call and receiving no answer, she went to his house at approximately 3:00 p.m.,

blew the horn, exited her car, and knocked on the storm door. The wood door was cracked

open and the radio was playing, but she did not hear any of the children. She left without

entering the house.

Smith testified that she continued calling Cecil throughout the day and into the next

day, to no avail. She knew something was wrong when she went to his place of employment

and learned that he was not there, explaining that he never missed work. She began calling

Cecil’s relatives and, after learning that none of them had heard from him, returned to Cecil’s

house, calling the police en route. When she got there, she parked and waited for the police.

Smith said that the officers entered the house and then came outside, bringing with them a

baby with her neck cut and asking her if she was the baby’s mother. Smith testified that her

son, C.D.4, was killed in the house.

Charity Wright, an employee of Crickett Wireless, identified from Cecil’s cell phone

records the phone numbers of Cecil, Stacey Young, and Erica Smith. Wright testified that

Smith called Cecil’s number on March 2, 2008, at 12:59 a.m. and that the call lasted seven

minutes and ten seconds. Young called Cecil through a possible three-way call at 1:06 a.m.,

and the call lasted two minutes and ten seconds. Smith called again at 1:11 a.m., but Cecil

did not answer. She also called at 1:25 a.m., 1:30 a.m., and 1:37 a.m., but Cecil did not

answer. Smith called Cecil again at 1:37 a.m.; the call was answered and lasted twenty-eight

seconds. The next call came in at 3:11 a.m. and was sent to voicemail.

Keaira Jones (“Keaira”), the daughter of Sheila Jones (“Sheila”), whom the defendant

was dating in March of 2008, testified that, at that time, she was living with her mother at

1403 Silver Street. On Saturday, March 1, 2008, at 10:00 or 10:30 p.m., the defendant and

Cecil came to her home, and both appeared to be intoxicated. The defendant was looking for

Sheila, and Keaira told him that she had left earlier with her aunt. Cecil said that he wanted

to leave, but the defendant said he wanted to come inside. The defendant entered the

apartment and looked through the rooms and closets.

Keaira testified that the defendant returned at approximately 4:00 or 4:30 a.m., and

she allowed him to enter. Approximately five minutes later, he knocked on her bedroom

door and asked to talk to her. She was putting her son to sleep and told the defendant that

she would speak to him shortly. She fell asleep and never opened the door. Before falling

asleep, she heard water running in the bathroom. Keaira was asleep when her mother came

home. The defendant left the next morning.

-10-

Keaira testified that after the defendant and her mother left, she noticed bleach spots

on the brown rug in the bathroom. She also saw a bottle of Clorox bleach in the closet,

which was not where it was usually stored.

Sheila Jones testified she met the defendant through Nicole, with whom she had

worked. She knew that the defendant had been living with Nicole and had been released

from jail. On Saturday night, March 1, 2008, Sheila and a friend had a “ladies night out.”

When Sheila returned at approximately 5:00 a.m., she found the defendant lying in her bed,

which surprised her because she had told him that she planned a ladies night out that evening.

He told her that “ladies don’t come in at five o’clock in the morning.” She and the defendant

got up at approximately 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. on March 2, and she did not know whether the

defendant was supposed to be at work that morning.

On Monday, March 3, the defendant asked Sheila to pick him up at “Foxy’s” house,

but she explained to him that she had to take her grandson somewhere first and would pick

him up later wherever he was. When the defendant told her the Lester Street address, she

headed there, only to find that the street was blocked by ambulances, fire trucks, and police

cars. Sheila said the defendant, who was “kind of upset and shaking,” told her that

something had happened to his brother.

Sheila testified that the defendant never told her that he knew what had occurred on

Lester Street. After she learned that the defendant had been arrested, she spoke to him by

telephone and visited him. Approximately one to two weeks later, Sheila asked the defendant

why he would not assist the police in their investigation, and he replied that “they got to

figure it out.” Sheila said that she had seen the defendant with a gun on one or two

occasions. She said the gun had “a little blue on it” and a “wheel.”

Nicole Dotson, the sister of the defendant and Cecil, testified that Cecil and his family

had been living at the house for five or six months prior to their deaths. She considered both

Williams and Smith to be her sisters-in-law and referred to Hill as her brother. At one point,

Cecil and Hill had referred to themselves as Gangster Disciples but did not “mingle” on the

streets with gangs or gang members. The defendant was a member of the Kitchen Crips.

Nicole testified that the defendant moved in with her in August 2007 after he was

released from jail. She said that the defendant held a “grudge” against their family because

he believed they should have visited more often while he was in jail. According to Nicole,

the defendant expressed those feelings to her daily.

Nicole testified that on March 1, 2008, Cecil came to her apartment to pick up the

defendant for a barbecue at Cecil’s house, but the defendant had not yet returned from work.

-11-

Once the defendant returned from work, Cecil and two of his sons returned to the apartment

to pick up the defendant and drive him to the barbecue, which she did not attend. She next

saw the defendant on Sunday morning at approximately 10:00 or 11:00 a.m., after hearing

a car drive up and looking out the window to witness the defendant having a physical

altercation with his girlfriend, Sheila, in the front seat of Sheila’s car. Nicole did not see the

defendant again until he returned home Sunday night.

Nicole said that on March 3 at 6:30 p.m., she went to Cecil’s house with the defendant

and Tammy Randolph, their cousin. Ambulances, fire trucks, and police cars were at the

scene and the police would not allow her to enter the house. Nicole said she did not know

who had died and who had survived. She stated that the defendant instructed her not to talk

to the media because they would blame him due to his criminal background. He also told

her, while still at the scene, that he believed Hill and “Trell” had committed the homicides

and became angry when their family called those men to the scene.

Sometime after March 3, Nicole, her mother, her four children, her three brothers, and

her niece went to the home of Nicole’s sister, Christina Hill Waddell, and her cousin,

Sharhonda Lane, on Gayle Street in Memphis. While at their house, Nicole received two

calls on her cell phone from her telephone at her apartment. The defendant brought her cell

phone to her and asked if someone was in her apartment because the telephone number for

her apartment appeared when someone called her cell phone. The defendant told her that the

person who called sounded like a man but was disguising his voice. While the defendant was

explaining this to Nicole, the person called the cell phone again, and the defendant answered.

Nicole said she was “[t]errified” and called the police.

Nicole said that following the calls, she and Waddell drove to the police department.

At some point, she received a call from her sister’s house during which the caller related that

something was wrong and that it involved the defendant. Nicole then spoke to the defendant.

The defendant was “frantic” and said that “they going to put this on me. Just bury me and

put me with my brother.”

Nicole testified that she and the rest of the family were placed in protective custody.

During that time, police officers came to talk to the defendant and took him away in

handcuffs. Nicole said the defendant never told her that he was at Cecil’s home at the time

of the homicides or that he rode C.D.1’s bicycle away from the scene. Nicole said that Cecil

and the defendant were “gun fanatics.”

Sharhonda Lane, the cousin of the defendant and Cecil, testified that on either

Tuesday, March 4, or Wednesday, March 5, her family came to stay at her house. The next

morning, Nicole and Waddell went to the police department. While they were gone, Lane

-12-

was awakened by a “commotion” and the defendant threatening suicide. The defendant, who

held a gun belonging to Waddell to his head, said that he did not want to return to jail, that

they were trying to “pin” the offenses on him, and that he was not going to jail for something

he did not do. Lane said that during that time, the news on television was showing a story

profiling the defendant. A police car pulled up outside the house, and the defendant believed

that the officers were coming for him. Lane said she went outside to speak to the officers

and gave them her cell phone so they could speak to the defendant. The officers told the

defendant that they were not there to arrest him but were placing the family in protective

custody. On cross-examination, Lane testified that, prior to the defendant’s threatening to

commit suicide, the media had been discussing his background on television for “hours.”

Officer Laneeze Stepney of the Memphis Police Department testified that on March

6, 2008, he and his partner arrived in a marked police car and parked one house down from

an address on Gayle Street, with instructions to watch the house and not to let anyone enter

or leave. Officer Stepney said that he first spoke to a woman who eventually came outside

and reported that the defendant said that if the officers entered the house, he was going to

commit suicide. Officer Stepney then had the woman call the defendant, and he spoke with

him on her cell phone for five to seven minutes until he was able to convince him to allow

the officers to enter the house. Inside the home, the defendant told Officer Stepney,

“[E]verybody think[s] I did it. I’ve been all on the news and the police saying I did it.”

Officer Stepney said he tried to calm the defendant, who was acting “real nervous like he had

a lot on his mind.”

C.D.1 testified that, at the time of trial, he was in the fifth grade. He said that in his

bedroom he slept on the top bunk bed and his brothers, C.D.2 and C.D.3, slept on the bottom

bunk. His older sister had the other bedroom, and his parents’ bedroom was in the back of

the house. C.D.1 said that on the night of the attacks, he was watching television in his

sister’s room because the television in his room was not working. C.D.1 heard a gunshot and

walked out of his sister’s room and into the hallway. C.D.1 said he “peeked” into the living

room and saw the defendant pointing a gun at Cecil. He saw “some smoke and sparks come

out the gun.” The defendant was pointing the gun at Cecil’s face, who did not say anything.

C.D.1 testified, “I was looking and when I saw sparks out of the gun, I looked down on the

ground and I saw dude on the floor.” C.D.1 said “dude” was wearing a black shirt and black

pants.

C.D.1 testified that he heard another gunshot and “peeked” through the door. He

walked into the hallway and saw the defendant shooting at a woman who was on the arm of

the couch. He did not know who the woman was. The woman told the defendant that she

loved him, but he “just kept on shooting.”

-13-

C.D.1 said he then returned to his sister’s room and sat down on the bed. He heard

footsteps coming toward the door, turned, and saw the defendant holding a “handheld knife.”

C.D.1 described the knife as the type that opens and closes. He said the defendant cut him

on the neck, and he told the defendant he loved him, but the defendant replied, “[N]o, you

don’t.” C.D.1 then lay down on the bed, and C.D.4 began crying. The defendant told C.D.4,

“[D]on’t worry about it, you ain’t going to get hurt.”

C.D.1 testified that he tried to retrieve the telephone from the hallway to call the

police. He saw the defendant’s feet in the doorway, and the defendant asked him what he

was doing. When he said that he was going to call the police, the defendant said that if he

did, he would kill C.D.1’s parents and Cecil’s friends. C.D.1 said he asked the defendant if

he could use the restroom and noticed that the defendant had a “kitchen knife” in his hand.

He said the defendant “ma[d]e [him] put [his] head in the tub.” The defendant then tried to

stab him in the chest, but he put his hand up to block the blow and the knife went into his

head instead.

C.D.1 said he saw his mother, Williams, in the doorway saying that she did not want

to die. The defendant asked her for Cecil’s cell phone and car keys, and Williams replied

that the keys likely were in Cecil’s car. The defendant then said, “[S]orry because I ain’t let

your husband or your husband’s friends get away with it and the kids.” C.D.1 then heard a

“huge fall on the ground.”

C.D.1 testified that he next saw the defendant walking in the hallway with a garbage

bag and another kitchen knife. The defendant went into the bedroom of C.D.1’s sister, and

C.D.1 heard someone yelling and the defendant saying “shut up.” C.D.1 then heard C.D.3

ask to use the restroom and saw blood dripping from C.D.3’s head onto the rim of the toilet

seat. He said C.D.3 asked the defendant if he could return to his room, and the defendant

said that he could. Next, the defendant went into the kitchen, grabbed another knife, and

entered the bedroom of C.D.1 and his brothers. C.D.1 said he saw C.D.3 lying on the bed

and the defendant stab C.D.3, who then fell on the floor. C.D.1 said he heard “rambling” in

the hallway near the laundry room as if the defendant was attempting to move something out

of the way. C.D.1 said he then fell asleep in the bathtub.

C.D.1 testified that when he awoke, he saw firemen in his bedroom looking at C.D.3.

One of the firemen came into the bathroom and got C.D.1 out of the bathtub. C.D.1 was

transported to the hospital by ambulance. He said no one was with the defendant during the

attacks and the defendant acted alone.

C.D.1 testified that on the same night that the “bad thing” happened, a woman named

“Cassandra” knocked on the door and said that she needed to use the restroom. She and

-14-

some other people, including a man with a mask with “[a] little bit of blood” on it, entered

the house. C.D.1 had never seen the man before and said that Cecil called him “Roderick.”

C.D.1 did not recall who allowed “Roderick” to enter the house. He acknowledged,

however, that he told “Ms. Pat” that Cecil allowed “Roderick” to enter the house and that he

was mad at Cecil for doing so. C.D.1 testified that “Roderick” said something to Cecil about

the gang and also told Cecil, “[Y]ou got too big, boy.” “Roderick” fired a gun at Cecil and

said, “[N]ever stop playing with the gang boy, . . . you never know what would happen, boy.”

On redirect examination, C.D.1 identified the defendant as the person who stabbed

him in the head, shot his parents and their friends, and hurt his brothers and baby sister.

On recross-examination, C.D.1 testified that he saw a fight in the living room between

Cecil and the man in the mask and that the man was shooting at Cecil. He later met with

“Ms. Caroline” and “Ms. Pat” at “Ms. Pat’s” office. When they asked him how he knew

some of the things he told them, he replied that his “granny” had told him.

C.D.2 testified that, at the time of trial, he was eight years old and in the third grade.

He recalled living on Lester Street with his parents, brothers, and sister and said that he was

six years old when he moved there. He said that the defendant stabbed him on the nose,

forehead, and wrist and that no one else was with the defendant.

C.D.2 testified that the attacks occurred at night but before he had eaten dinner. He

did not recall hearing gunshots that night. He did not see the defendant shoot anyone, and

no one told him that the defendant shot anyone. C.D.2 said the defendant got the knife from

his car, but he could not remember the color of the defendant’s car. C.D.2 said that while he

did not see the defendant stabbing his parents, he recalled that his parents and their friends

were stabbed. C.D.2 said that when his parents were killed, all of the children, other than one

of his brothers and the baby, were locked in his sister’s bedroom. His brother told him that

Williams was injured while she was in the living room changing the baby’s diaper.

C.D.2 testified that he heard Smith on the telephone calling the police. “Auntie Foxy”

also was present when they were attacked. C.D.2 acknowledged that he told “Ms. Pat” that

his father never should have opened the door. He also discussed this with C.D.1. He said

the fight began after his father opened the door. C.D.2 also said that there were many people

fighting that night and that a man, whom he did not know, was fighting his father and his

father’s friends.

C.D.2 stated that after the defendant stabbed C.D.1, C.D.1 snuck out of the house, got

on his bicycle, and rode to his grandmother’s house. He said that when C.D.1 left, everyone

was still alive in the house and that they were talking, singing, and having fun.

-15-

On redirect examination, C.D.2 testified that he was in his sister’s room when the

defendant stabbed him. He told “Ms. Pat” that the defendant stabbed him. On recross-

examination, C.D.2 testified that he talked to “Ms. Pat” after he had been living with his

family for a period of time. People had discussed the events, and C.D.2 had listened to their

discussions.

Lieutenant Walter Davidson of the Memphis Police Department, who was assigned

as the case coordinator, testified that on March 3, 2008, he received a call at his home from

Lieutenant Toney Armstrong instructing him to go to the scene where four adults and two

children were dead. Lieutenant Armstrong also reported that three children were being

transported to the hospital and were not expected to survive.

Lieutenant Davidson testified that he remained at the crime scene until the medical

examiners removed the victims’ bodies and transported them to the morgue and that when

he left in the early morning hours of March 4, a uniformed officer remained behind on the

scene. Lieutenant Davidson said he was aware that a cameraman from the television show,

The First 48, was at the scene.

Lieutenant Davidson testified that he and Lieutenant Armstrong decided to quarantine

the children in the hospital to prevent contact with relatives, the media, or anyone other than

medical personnel. They did not know the identity of the perpetrator and wanted to ensure

that the perpetrator would not attempt to injure the children in the hospital. The identities

of the surviving children were not released. He said that the officers had information

regarding possible gang involvement and that Sergeant Terry Max was assigned to

investigate any possible gang involvement. Sergeants and detectives from the Safe Streets

Task Force and the Organized Crime Unit assisted in canvassing the neighborhood and

interviewing neighbors. Gang members were interviewed, as well as others who wanted to

provide information. Lieutenant Davidson said officers received numerous leads from

CrimeStoppers tips, including some from “crackpots” and “psychics” telling them “ridiculous

things.”

Lieutenant Davidson testified that when he learned that C.D.1 was awake, he sent

Sergeant Caroline Mason to the hospital to talk to him. He explained that officers decided

to attempt to speak with C.D.1 in the hospital early into the investigation due to the

possibility that C.D.1 might die. Sergeant Mason reported back to him that C.D.1 was “in

and out” of consciousness and was cursing, “talking crazy,” and screaming out names. C.D.1

mentioned Cassandra, Williams’ sister, but she was interviewed and it was “obvious” that

she was not involved. At some point, officers decided to send Pat Lewis with the Child

Advocacy Center to the hospital with Sergeant Mason to talk to C.D.1. Lieutenant Davidson

said that if C.D.1 said something that made sense, they attempted to investigate that lead.

-16-

Lieutenant Davidson said that on March 7, 2008, officers received a telephone call

from a nurse at the hospital informing them that C.D. 1 was now awake and rational, so he

sent Sergeant Mason back to talk to him. During that interview, C.D.1 reported that “Uncle

Junior,” whom officers identified as the defendant, was responsible for killing his family and

stabbing him and his siblings. In response, officers from the Tactical Unit retrieved the

defendant, who was in a safe house with the rest of his family.

Lieutenant Davidson explained that the victims’ family, including the defendant, was

in protective custody because members of the Gangster Disciples had learned that officers

were searching for them in connection with the case, were angry that they were being

implicated in the killing of children, and had reportedly kicked in the door of the house of

one of the victims’ relatives. Lieutenant Davidson testified: “We had a trillion Crime

Stoppers tips saying that we needed to look at [the defendant] but from my standpoint, he

was a family member, he wasn’t a suspect” until C.D.1 implicated him.

Lieutenant Davidson testified that the defendant was interviewed and remained in

custody for several hours. After Lieutenant Armstrong played the recording of C.D.1’s

interview during which he implicated the defendant, he confessed to shooting the adult

victims and stabbing the children. The defendant then asked for his mother. Officers

retrieved his mother from the safe house, and he confessed to her also. After the defendant

confessed, officers investigated whether the offenses could have occurred as stated by him.

Lieutenant Davidson said that the evidence was consistent with the information that the

defendant provided in his confession. He told his mother that following the homicides, he

rode C.D.1’s bicycle to 1403 Silver Street, the home of his girlfriend, Sheila Jones. Sergeant

Dave Parks and Sergeant Joe Stark went to that address, where they located C.D.1’s yellow

bicycle. The defendant told Lieutenant Armstrong that he committed the offenses alone and

told his mother, “I did it,” not that “we did it.”

On redirect examination, Lieutenant Davidson testified that on March 7, 2008, C.D.1

told officers who committed the homicides, and the person whom he identified confessed.

He said that as a result, “the gang issue was out” and that he considered the case to be solved.

Since March 7, C.D.1 has identified only the defendant as the perpetrator.

Sergeant James Terry Max of the Memphis Police Department testified that on March

4, 2008, Lieutenant Davidson requested that he and Sergeant Stark interview the defendant,

who had been brought into the office and placed in an interview room. Sergeant Max said

the defendant was not under arrest but was considered a possible witness at that point.

During that initial interview, the defendant told the officers that he left work at

approximately 3:00 p.m. on March 1 and went to Nicole’s apartment. Cecil arrived in his

Lincoln, along with two of his children. Cecil drove the defendant to Cecil’s house on Lester

-17-

Street, arriving at approximately 4:15 p.m., and found Williams, Cecil, Waddell, and Cecil’s

five children there. They had planned to watch a basketball game between the University of

Memphis and Southern Mississippi State University on television. Cecil’s television,

however, did not receive the channel on which the game was broadcast.

The defendant told officers that he, Cecil, and “E,” who had arrived later in the

evening, left Cecil’s house between 10:00 and 10:30 p.m. Sergeant Max testified that “E”

was later identified as Seals. The defendant said they went to “Frank’s” apartment in the area

of Highland Avenue and Spottswood Avenue. Officers later identified “Frank” as Willie

Boyd Hill. The defendant said that Seals went into Hill’s apartment. Shortly thereafter, a

man with a light complexion and wearing glasses exited Hill’s apartment, and Cecil got out

of the car and talked to the man for some time. Twenty to thirty minutes later, Seals exited

Hill’s apartment, and Seals, Cecil, and the defendant left.

The defendant further told the officers that he, Seals, and Cecil next went to an

apartment complex by the Clayborne Homes housing project to pick up Seals’s girlfriend.

The defendant, Cecil, Seals, and Seals’s girlfriend then went to the Kimball Cabana

Apartments to purchase marijuana, arriving there at approximately 11:30 p.m. or midnight.

Cecil then went into a downstairs apartment. When he came out, he went to the car and got

the defendant, and they went into the same apartment where there were four black men whom

the defendant did not know. Cecil introduced the defendant to the men as his brother and

told them that the defendant had just been released from prison. Cecil purchased a quarter-

ounce bag of marijuana, and the defendant purchased $20 worth of marijuana. After they left

the apartment, they saw Erica Smith in the parking lot and spoke with her. The defendant

said they then stopped at a woman’s house located off Lamar Avenue, talked to her for

approximately thirty minutes, and then left.

The defendant told officers that they next went to the Kansas Court housing project

to pick up his son. His son was not there, and they spoke to his son’s grandmother. They

remained there for approximately ten minutes, gave her money, and left. The defendant said

Cecil then dropped him off at Sheila’s apartment at approximately 2:15 or 2:30 a.m. Cecil,

Seals, and Seals’s girlfriend left. The defendant stated that Sheila was not at the apartment.

Keaira and her boyfriend were there. The defendant said he and Keaira argued because

Keaira was alone with her boyfriend. The defendant said that he went to bed and that Sheila

returned at approximately 5:05 a.m.

Sergeant Max testified that when the officers asked the defendant whether Cecil had

any enemies, the defendant related the conflict between Seals and Cecil that had occurred

approximately two weeks prior to Cecil’s death when Cecil, Smith, Seals, and Seals’s

girlfriend had returned to Seals’s apartment following a visit to a club, Seals’s girlfriend had

-18-

called the police after Cecil slapped Smith, and Cecil had informed the responding officers

that there were drugs in Seals’s apartment. The defendant told the officers that Seals had

written Cecil up for a violation through “Doc Holiday,” and that a meeting or jury trial with

the Gangster Disciples was supposed to have been held to determine Cecil’s guilt, but Cecil

never attended the meeting or trial.

Sergeant Max testified the defendant told officers that Cecil always carried a .45

caliber handgun, but he did not see it when he was with Cecil on March 1 and during the

early morning hours of March 2. Cecil also had an AK-47 assault rifle with two magazines

that he kept under a dresser, a sawed-off shotgun, and a nine-millimeter handgun that he

believed Williams had purchased recently. The defendant did not say that there had been an

altercation at Seals’s apartment on March 1 and did not provide a reason for going to Seals’s

apartment that night.

Sergeant Max testified that, up until that point, he had not been investigating any

involvement by the Gangster Disciples but that officers then began following leads regarding

the Gangster Disciples. Officers, however, later learned that one of the surviving children

had identified the shooter, and they then arrested the defendant and brought him back to the

homicide office, where he confessed to the attacks.

On cross-examination, Sergeant Max testified that he was unaware that C.D.1 told the

police that a man named “Roderick” committed the offenses. He said he was not present

when C.D.1 told officers that his “daddy opened the door, my daddy shouldn’t have opened

the door.” Sergeant Max stated that the defendant told them that, following the murders,

Waddell asked Seals to call someone and find out what had happened and that Seals called

“Doc Holiday” and asked him what had happened or who committed the offenses.

Sergeant Max testified that, during the course of his investigation, he also spoke to

Cedric Atkins about information he had received about Cecil’s having stolen $300,000 from

a drug dealer. In addition, on March 7, 2008, Lieutenant Armstrong instructed him to meet

with Deputy Bartlett of the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department to interview a confidential

informant, who told the officers that he had heard that Cecil had taken $50,000 in drug

money from “Doc Holiday.” Sergeant Max showed the informant colored copies of

photographs taken from Cecil’s home to determine whether the informant could identify

“Doc Holiday” and Cecil in order to verify that the informant knew fellow Gangster

Disciples. The informant was able to make such an identification. At that point in the

investigation, officers believed that they had identified “Doc Holiday.” They were able to

obtain a telephone number for him, and his name was mentioned as the governor of the

Gangster Disciples.

-19-

Lieutenant Caroline Mason of the Memphis Police Department testified that in March

2008, she was a sergeant in the Homicide Bureau. On Wednesday, March 5, she was

assigned to LeBonheur Children’s Hospital with instructions to assess the surviving children

and determine what information they could provide. She said C.D.1 was badly injured and

in “pretty bad condition” but improved every day. C.D.1 was “saying things,” and Lieutenant

Mason relayed those statements to Lieutenant Armstrong.

On March 7, Lieutenant Armstrong instructed Lieutenant Mason and Sergeant Stark

to speak to the defendant. The defendant, who was under arrest at that time, waived his

rights and agreed to speak with them. Lieutenant Mason testified that she explained to him

that they wanted to clear up some things and determine whether he wanted to add any

information to what he provided in his March 4 interview. She asked the defendant whether

he had any affiliation with a gang, and he replied that he was a Crip in prison. She then

asked the defendant whether he had any problems with Cecil and questioned him regarding

their relationship. The defendant stated that on one occasion, Cecil had called the police and

falsely reported that the defendant had committed a robbery.

Lieutenant Mason testified that she asked the defendant to tell them again about what

he did on March 1 and the last time that he saw Cecil alive. He then essentially repeated the

same account he had provided during the March 4 interview, with one or two differences.

Among those were that he, Cecil, and Seals had gone to Hill’s apartment for Seals to retrieve

a gun from Hill. The defendant also said that when Cecil called him into the home in which

he had purchased marijuana, he introduced the defendant to those inside the apartment as his

“bitch ass brother who just got out of prison.” Lieutenant Mason said that when the

defendant recalled this introduction, he “frowned.” The defendant told them that, after

purchasing marijuana, they went to pick up the defendant’s son, but he was not home. Cecil

then dropped him off at Sheila’s home, and he did not see Cecil again.

Memphis Police Department Deputy Director Toney Armstrong, who was a lieutenant

with the Homicide Bureau at the time of the murders, testified that, on March 3, 2008, he

received a call from the felony response lieutenant, who informed him of six deceased

victims inside a house on Lester Street and of three surviving children who had been

transported to the hospital. Upon arriving at the scene at approximately 6:30 or 7:00 p.m.,

he was briefed by Sergeant Anthony Mullins, obtained a search warrant, and then entered the

house, which presented “probably one of the most bizarre scenes [he] had ever seen,”

containing the bodies of four adults in the front of the home and the bodies of two children

in adjacent bedrooms in the back of the home.

Deputy Director Armstrong testified that a film crew from the television show, The

First 48, was at the crime scene when he arrived and that, while he did not approve of their

-20-

presence, he had no authority to limit their access or instruct them when to film. He

explained that “[t]he City approved for The First 48 to have all of the access and privileges

to go out on all homicides with us.”

Deputy Director Armstrong testified that because he did not know who committed the

crimes, he ordered that the children in the hospital be taken into protective custody and

guarded by officers in the Tactical Unit, with instructions that no one other than police

personnel approved by him be allowed access to them. To the best of his knowledge, no

family members were allowed contact with the children from March 3 through March 8. He

then dispatched Lieutenant Mason to the hospital to obtain any information that the children

might be able to provide.

Deputy Director Armstrong said that, in the meantime, officers were investigating

potential leads in the case, including tips from CrimeStoppers, some of which reported that

the killings were gang-related and many of which identified the defendant as a potential

suspect. He stated that Larry Godwin, who was then the Director of Police Services,

arranged for him to meet with the heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other law enforcement entities in the city. Prior to the

meeting, Lieutenant Mason called him to report that C.D.1 had implicated the defendant as

the perpetrator. He instructed Lieutenant Mason not to tell anyone of what she had learned

until his meeting was completed, because he wanted to listen to the tape recording of C.D.1’s

identification before informing other officers.

Deputy Director Armstrong testified that after listening to the tape recording of

C.D.1’s identification of the defendant as the perpetrator, he had the defendant transported

to the Homicide Bureau and assigned Lieutenant Mason and Sergeant Max to interview him.

At some point during that interview, however, the defendant refused to talk further with those

two officers, so he, therefore, decided to conduct the interview with the defendant himself.

Deputy Director Armstrong testified that he talked to the defendant about how horrific

the crimes were and watched the defendant’s body language. He said the defendant seemed

“really, really tight, like he was doing everything he could not to talk to me.” The defendant

gave one- or two-word answers to questions and would not engage in open conversation.

Deputy Director Armstrong said, “Most of the time if I asked him a question, he would nod

his head or shake his head. But you could tell he was doing everything he could not to

engage me in an open conversation as to where we had open dialogue back and forth with

each other.”

Deputy Director Armstrong said he knew that the defendant was very familiar with

the criminal justice system because he recently had been released from prison. He asked the

-21-

defendant whether he believed in God, and the defendant said that he did. He also asked him

whether he believed in heaven and hell, and the defendant said that he did. Deputy Director

Armstrong stated that the defendant was “struggling to try to maintain his composure.”

There were times in which the defendant leaned forward as if he wanted to make a statement,

but then he would lean back. Deputy Director Armstrong said he could tell that the

defendant was hiding something.

At one point, Deputy Director Armstrong allowed the defendant to grab his hands.

He explained that by doing so, he was telling the defendant that he knew something was

weighing heavily on the defendant’s mind. He said that it appeared that the defendant was

about to speak to him, but the defendant then refused to engage in conversation. The

defendant asked to use the restroom, and Deputy Director Armstrong allowed him to do so.

When the interview resumed, Deputy Director Armstrong asked the defendant what his

family called him, and the defendant replied, “Junior.” He asked the defendant if anyone else

in his family was referred to as “Junior,” and the defendant said, “[N]o.” Deputy Director

Armstrong asked the defendant if anyone else in his family looked like him or if anyone in

the family had ever confused him with someone else, and the defendant answered in the

negative to both questions. He then asked whether someone in his family would be referring

to him if the person said “Junior,” and the defendant said he or she would.

Deputy Director Armstrong testified that he then played the tape recording of C.D.1

stating that he had been stabbed by his “Uncle Junior,” and the defendant became visibly

upset to the point that he appeared to be about to cry. The defendant told Deputy Director

Armstrong that he and Cecil went somewhere to get a gun, began arguing, and continued to

argue during the drive back to Cecil’s house. When they returned to Cecil’s home, the

argument escalated, Cecil reached for a shotgun, and the defendant began shooting using

both his gun and Williams’ gun. The defendant said that he then attempted to “get rid” of

the children because they had seen him. The defendant stated that he “stuck them,” using the

knives from the kitchen drawer. Deputy Director Armstrong said that a silverware container

was found turned over in the kitchen.

Deputy Director Armstrong testified that the defendant began to cry and appeared

relieved because “he had gotten the weight of the world off his shoulders. But it was almost

like I’m defeated.” Deputy Director Armstrong testified that he questioned the defendant in

greater detail about what had occurred in the house based upon what the deputy director

knew from the crime scene. He said he noted that some of the women’s clothing had been

altered, but the defendant, at that point, stopped the interview and asked for an attorney and

to speak to his mother. The defendant’s mother was still in protective custody with other

family members and was brought to the police department.

-22-

Priscilla Shaw, the mother of Cecil and the defendant, testified that when the police

discovered the victims’ bodies, her nephew drove her to the scene. When she arrived, several

people were at the scene, including Nicole and the defendant. Nicole told her that three of

the children were alive but that the remaining victims were dead. Shaw did not know until

later which children had survived.

Shaw testified that while she and other family members were staying at a home on

Gayle Street, Nicole received a call on her cell phone from the telephone number of her

apartment. The defendant told Nicole that someone was calling from her home. Nicole

became frightened and called the police. Nicole and Waddell then went to the police

department to show officers the cell phone. Nicole called and said that a police officer was

being sent to the house to watch over them.

Shaw said that when someone announced that the officer had arrived, the defendant

began acting “real crazy.” The defendant said that the officers were there to get him and that

they were “going to put this on me, they going to put this on me.” The defendant believed

that Nicole and Waddell were at Nicole’s home and not at the jail as Nicole claimed when

she called. At one point, the defendant stated, “[J]ust bury me with my brother.” He pointed

a gun at his head and entered the bathroom. Shaw gathered her grandchildren and ran into

another bathroom. She said they came out when they did not hear a gunshot.

Shaw said that while they were in protective custody, officers took the defendant away

in handcuffs. During the early morning hours of March 8, officers drove Shaw to the

homicide office after they informed her that the defendant wanted to see her. Upon arriving,

she went into a room where she spoke to the defendant. No one else was in the room with

them. She took the defendant’s hands and asked him what was happening. She asked if the

police were “trying to put it on him.” The defendant did not respond and held his head down.

When he looked up, he told Shaw that he “did it.” Shaw asked him, “[W]hy the babies?”

The defendant said they saw him. He stated that he and Cecil had been arguing all day and

that Cecil had a gun. Shaw asked the defendant if Cecil had pointed the gun. The defendant

said Cecil did not but was “just talking and swinging it.” When Cecil laid down the gun, the

defendant began shooting and later rode the bicycle away from the scene. Shaw testified, “I

asked him [why] the kids and he said they saw me. And I said but the baby, the baby. He

didn’t say nothing, just shook his head. And I got up and told him I love him and left.”

Sergeant Anthony Mullins, a homicide investigator with the Memphis Police

Department who was admitted by the trial court as an expert in general crime scene

investigation and bloodstain pattern analysis, testified that when he arrived at the scene, he

and two felony response investigators walked through the house to ensure that no one else

was inside the home. Lieutenant Armstrong arrived, and Sergeant Mullins walked him

-23-

through the front rooms of the house to show him where the victims were found and to

provide an overview of the crime scene. They decided to obtain a search warrant for the

property in order to collect evidence, and Sergeant Mullins returned to the homicide office

and prepared a search warrant, which a judge later signed.

Sergeant Mullins testified that after obtaining the search warrant, he, Sergeants

Davidson and Parks, Lieutenant Armstrong, and two crime scene officers began processing

the scene. After they had completed their documentation that first night, eight people from

the Shelby County Medical Examiner’s Office arrived, including the medical examiner, two

death investigators, and several technicians who removed the victims’ bodies. By 2:30 a.m.

on March 4, 2008, all of the victims’ bodies had been transported to the morgue.

Sergeant Mullins testified that he and other officers returned to the secured scene at

around 10:30 or 11:30 a.m. on March 4 to continue their work. He described the living room

as very small with only five to ten feet of space available around the furniture and the bodies

of the four adult victims. He said Cecil was found in a kneeling position on the sofa, with

his upper body on the sofa cushion near the seam where the two cushions met. Roberson was

seated on the floor with her legs extended out and her head to the side between the sofa and

the loveseat. Williams was slumped over toward Roberson, and Seals was on the other side

of a large televison and could not be seen upon entering the room.

Sergeant Mullins testified that a plastic baggy with what appeared to be three to five

rocks of crack cocaine was found on the outer portion of Roberson’s vagina and a bag of

marijuana was found in Cecil’s left hand. He noted very thick coagulated blood, which he

described as arterial blood from a wound with extensive bleeding, on a sofa cushion near the

air conditioner and near the area where Roberson’s body had been found. Sergeant Mullins

stated that this area of blood was consistent with the wound that Roberson received on her

leg. There was not much blood on the floor where Roberson was found sitting, however.

He stated that Roberson’s pants were pulled down to the knees and were saturated with

blood, which was consistent with blood from an arterial wound as the blood was “gushing”

out with every heartbeat. Roberson also had holes in her pants corresponding to her wounds.

Sergeant Mullins testified that the crime scene appeared to have been staged, noting

that the position in which some of the victims’ bodies were found did not match their wounds

and some of the blood evidence. Based upon the blood and other physical evidence, he

believed that Roberson was shot on the couch and that her body was then moved and her

pants pulled down following the shooting. He said the bag of crack cocaine was slightly

touching Roberson and seemed to have been placed there. Williams was lying on Roberson,

but there were bloodstains on the carpet on the other side of Williams. Based upon this

evidence, he believed that Williams had also been moved.

-24-

Sergeant Mullins noted that Seals’s pants were pulled down below his knees to his

ankles and that a wallet was beside him. The officer stated that there was a pool of blood

near Seals’s body, with a “void” in it where no blood was on the carpet, indicating that there

had been an object had in the area that the blood had gone around. Based upon the blood

pools, Sergeant Mullins did not believe that Seals moved on his own.

Sergeant Mullins testified that while Cecil’s pants were pulled down, his pants were

more in line with the style in which he saw other men wear their pants. Cecil received

numerous gunshot wounds, including one to the bottom of his foot and several to his lower

legs. Once Cecil’s body was moved, officers found two spent projectiles underneath him.

Sergeant Mullins stated that Cecil also received several wounds to the front of his body,

which he could not have received had his body been in the position in which it was found.

Sergeant Mullins stated the wounds to the front of Cecil’s body were fatal. He explained that

he thought the bag of marijuana was placed in Cecil’s hand and that the bag was so large that

Cecil would have been unable to close his fingers around it. Sergeant Mullins said that the

bag would have come out of Cecil’s hand while he was being shot and that he would not

have been holding the drugs if he had been attempting to flee or defend himself.

Sergeant Mullins testified that spent projectiles were found on the sofa cushion, on

top of a piece of plastic from a window unit air conditioner, on the floor under Cecil, under

the sofa, inside the arm of the sofa, between two sofa seat cushions, from a wall behind the

sofa, and from the east wall of the living room. A total of eight spent shell casings from a

.380 caliber firearm and thirteen spent shell casings from a nine-millimeter firearm were

recovered in the living room. .380 caliber spent shell casings were recovered between the

seat cushion and back of the sofa, under the coffee table, under the sofa, and near a large

amount of clothing stacked in a corner. One nine-millimeter spent shell casing was

recovered on the floor near Cecil’s leg, and another nine-millimeter spent shell casing was

recovered under the coffee table near a .380 caliber spent shell casing. A sealed Ziploc bag

was found on the north end of the loveseat underneath a black jacket. The Ziploc bag

contained a total of sixteen spent shell casings, eleven of which were nine-millimeter spent

shell casings and five of which were .380 caliber spent shell casings.

Sergeant Mullins further testified that a 12-gauge, sawed-off shotgun, which was

loaded with four live rounds, was found on a stack of clothing in the corner of the living

room. Cecil’s body was found a little more than an arm’s length from the shotgun. Five

more live rounds of shotgun ammunition were found just under the sofa. A pellet gun air

rifle was recovered underneath the clothes, and containers of pellets were on the nearby

coffee table.

Sergeant Mullins testified that the quickest exit from the bathroom or the bedrooms

-25-

was through the living room and the front door. There were also exit doors in the laundry

room and the master bedroom, but to reach those doors from the bathroom or bedrooms

required walking through the living room. The door in the laundry room had a cord tied from

the outer storm door to the doorknob on the other side of the door, and it appeared it had not

been used for some time. Sergeant Mullins said that the door in the master bedroom,

however, was operable. He testified that if the children were in the bedrooms watching

television when the shots were fired, they would have had to go through the living room to

reach an exit. Most of the windows in the home had bars. If the perpetrator was standing

in the doorway, the children were trapped. Sergeant Mullins stated that of the more than 100

homicides involving gangs that he had investigated, none of them also involved killing

women and then killing children with knives.

Two pieces of broken wood were found in the hallway near a gas heater that was

affixed to the wall, and two larger pieces of wood that were broken were found inside the

bathroom next to the toilet. Three small pieces of broken wood were also found in the

bathroom. Two knife blades with the handles broken off were recovered from the bathtub

where C.D.1 was found. One of the knives had “Farberware” written on it. Two small

pieces of black plastic that appeared to be kitchen knife handles also were recovered from

the bathtub. There were bloodstains on the floor and bath mat and around the bathtub and

toilet. A bloody partial palm print on the tile wall was determined to belong to C.D.3. Three

green hair beads were recovered from the bathroom, two in the door jamb and one against

the wall east of the door. C.D.4 had been found wearing green beads in his hair.

Sergeant Mullins said that C.D.3’s body was discovered facedown on the floor in what

he designated as bedroom one. From the bedroom, officers also recovered two wooden

boards. Broken pieces of braided hair were scattered around the bedroom floor.

Sergeant Mullins testified that C.D.4’s body was in what he designated as bedroom

two. Officers also recovered seventeen green hair beads similar to those worn by C.D.4

scattered under the bed and against the wall. A wooden board and two knife blades were

located inside the bedroom. The wooden board appeared to have blood on it. One knife

blade was between a pillow and pillowcase, and the other blade was between the mattress

and the corner of the wall and almost on top of the box springs. Officers had to move the bed

in order to locate the second knife blade. Neither blade had a handle. A knife handle was

recovered from bedroom two. Sergeant Mullins noted blood on the bed, the window blinds,

the wall by the bed, and on the ceiling near the ceiling fan.

In the kitchen, officers discovered a gray plastic silverware tray overturned on the

floor, a spent projectile under a table, and a defect in the wall that appeared to have come

from the direction of the living room. A box with eleven or twelve rounds of nine-millimeter

-26-

ammunition was found in the dresser in the master bedroom. Officers collected a cordless

telephone that was on the floor between the dresser and the laundry room and another

cordless telephone that was further back in the bedroom.

Sergeant Mullins testified that a photograph of blood spatter on the bathroom wall

over the toilet tank showed “cast-off,” which is generated when the blood from a blunt force

object, a sharp object, or another weapon comes off the weapon during an attack and strikes

a nearby object. He stated that the photograph showed three distinct trails indicative of three

different blows. The top trail was almost horizontal on the wall, indicating that the victim

was close to the wall when struck. He was unable to determine whether a knife or a wooden

board was used on the victim resulting in the cast-off but said that because the cast-off was

“a fairly wide pattern,” his impression was that it was “from one of the boards.”

Sergeant Mullins identified impact spatter on top of the toilet tank and explained that

impact spatter results when a bloody object strikes another object. He also identified a

transfer stain toward the bottom of the toilet and explained that a transfer stain results when

a bloody object hits a second object leaving a stain on the second object. He stated that a

body part could have struck the toilet, resulting in the transfer stain, and that the blood from

the impact could have hit the top of the toilet tank, resulting in the impact spatter.

Sergeant Mullins noted a cast-off pattern on the wall over the bathtub and close to

where C.D.1 was found. He said either a knife or a board could have made the cast-off

pattern. Another cast-off pattern from a different blow was on the wall near the soap dish.

A “smeared type” transfer stain was further down in the bathtub.

Sergeant Mullins identified cast-off spatter on the bathroom wall next to C.D.3’s

bloody palm print. He stated the cast-off was not necessarily associated with the bloody

palm print. Rather, the cast-off could have been the result of a different blow or from the

blood of a different victim. Sergeant Mullins noted cast-off spatter on the wall above the

handles of the bathtub.

Sergeant Mullins testified that blood had dropped down the toilet tank and run down

the toilet bowl. He said the blood was from a victim who had been actively bleeding. He

also said that based upon the location and pattern on the dripped blood, someone had raised

up the toilet seat and put it down at some point.

Sergeant Mullins testified that in bedroom one, where C.D.3 was found, there was a

pool of blood where he was lying and numerous broken pieces of braided hair. He said the

force of a blow to the head would have broken off the weaker braids. Sergeant Mullins noted

large spots of dripped blood on the carpet indicating that C.D.3 may have aspirated some

-27-

blood. He explained, “I would expect to see more if that were the case but because it’s carpet

and it soaks up so much, it’s hard to say. But this indicates to me especially with the broken

pieces of braid that [C.D.3] may have received a blow while he’s laying on this carpet.”

Sergeant Mullins found multiple patterns of cast-off and impact spatter in bedroom

two where C.D.2 and C.D.4 were found. The patterns were in multiple directions, indicating

multiple blows. Sergeant Mullins also found overhead cast-off on the ceiling, which he

believed resulted from the use of a knife to stab in an overhead motion.

Sergeant Mullins testified that the blood spatter at the scene was consistent with a

“one-on-one struggle” rather than a “quick in-and-out execution” of the children. In the

bathroom, there were multiple blows and movement. C.D.1 was found in the bathtub in

which quite a bit of blood was pooled. Sergeant Mullins stated that based upon the cast-off,

at least one and up to three blows were delivered in the bathtub. Noting the dripped blood

and C.D.3’s bloody handprint in the bathroom, he stated that some of the blood in the

bathroom could have been from another victim. Sergeant Mullins also noted a large drop of

blood on the bathroom floor next to two green beads similar to those that C.D.4 had in his

hair. While acknowledging that the beads could have been on the floor prior to the attack,

the officer said that the beads also could have fallen out of C.D.4’s hair during the attack as

they were found next to the blood on the floor. Sergeant Mullins said, “There is a lot of

movement in the bathroom. There’s more than one blow being delivered in the bathroom.

You’ve got several pieces of broken wood that would be indicating at least one good blow,

but from the blood evidence there’s more than one and there’s movement within that scene.”

Sergeant Mullins testified that more than one assault occurred or more than one blow

was delivered in bedroom two. He noted the large amount of impact spatter on the wall, the

cast-off spatter on the ceiling, and the blood all over the bed. Sergeant Mullins did not

believe that the assault of C.D.3 occurred solely in bedroom one. He testified that “because

the wounds he had I would expect if he was assaulted in this room, there would be more

blood in this room instead of the pooling blood from where he laid.” Sergeant Mullins also

noted evidence that C.D.3 was in the bathroom at some point during the attacks.

Sergeant Mullins testified that officers did not recover a .380 caliber handgun or a

nine-millimeter handgun from the crime scene but that they collected five knife blades,

including the blade that was in C.D.1’s head. They also collected one knife handle and

broken pieces from another knife handle. Officers did not find the other three handles, nor

did they find any other set of intact kitchen knives at the scene.

Sergeant Mullins noted that paperwork, a telephone, lipstick or lip balm, a wrapped

condom, and business cards were on the living room floor. He said it appeared as if someone

-28-

had emptied the contents of a purse on the floor, but he did not locate a purse that he could

match with the contents. Officers located a purse next to Seals’s body with the contents

inside, which they later identified as belonging to Williams.

Sergeant Mullins testified that the knife blade found in the pillowcase in bedroom two

had blood on it and was bent. He found no evidence indicating that the blade had been

broken off inside a victim. He did not know if any of the victims had wounds indicative of

the assailant sticking the knife blade in the victim and then moving it back and forth to

remove the handle. Rather, he believed the handle of the knife had been removed following

the attacks. Officers had to move items around in order to discover the knife blades

recovered from bedroom two. Shell casings were gathered and placed in a Ziploc bag.

Sergeant Mullins said C.D.3 may have been moved from one room, placed in bedroom

one, and then received the final strike. He explained, “The level of violence delivered to

[C.D.3] couldn’t have happened in that room without some additional blood evidence. So

there has to be some movement after the fact.” Sergeant Mullins testified that the person or

persons responsible for the murders spent some time in the house following the murders. He

explained that Roberson was not petite and that it would have taken time to pull tight pants

off anyone who is deceased or nearly deceased. Once Roberson was pulled to the floor,

Williams’ legs were pulled across Roberson’s legs. The drugs were then placed on Roberson

and Cecil. He said that locating the sixteen shell casings that were found in the Ziploc bag

also would have taken some time.

Sergeant Mullins testified that officers collected fabric from Cecil’s chin and mouth

and from his left hand. He said the fabric from Cecil’s chin and mouth was possibly from

a pillow that had been placed over Cecil’s face when he was shot in an attempt to muffle the

sound. He stated that three hairs were collected from Roberson’s right leg, thigh, and

buttocks and sent to the FBI laboratory for testing. The hairs did not belong to the defendant

or anyone in the house. Sergeant Mullins did not, however, believe that the hairs were

significant due to their location on Roberson’s body. Roberson’s pants had been pulled

down, and the hairs were found in blood on her body.

Sergeant Mullins also said he was not surprised by any hair found in the house due

to the amount of traffic at the home during the five months in which Cecil lived there. He

said that because the defendant had been in Cecil’s home on prior occasions, he would not

have been surprised to have found the defendant’s DNA in the home. He stated that one of

the hairs found on Roberson was an Asian hair and explained his decision not to test the

Asian hair found against known heroin dealers:

After [the defendant] was identified by a surviving witness and

-29-

confesses to the crime and gives corroborating evidence to the crime scene and

we work on what he says and verified the things that he says, and continue our

investigation and what he says and what the witness says match, no sir, I’m not

going to go chase down heroin drug dealers to see if they could have been in

this house five weeks before this happened[.]

Sergeant Mullins testified that the same nine-millimeter handgun was used to shoot

Roberson and Seals and to shoot Cecil in the left thigh and Williams in the left calf. Bullets

from a .380 caliber handgun were recovered from Cecil’s scapula and neck and Seals’s back.

A .380 caliber bullet was also found at a house located behind 722 Lester Street. Testing was

insufficient to determine whether the .380 caliber bullet from that house and the .380 caliber

bullets recovered from the Lester Street house were fired from the same handgun.

Sergeant Mullins said that all of the adult victims except Seals were shot in the legs

at least once. He stated that Cecil likely was shot in the front first but acknowledged that he

could not make that determination based solely on the physical evidence. The gun used to

shoot Cecil in the leg was different from the gun used to shoot him in the neck. He could not

determine whether the adult victims were sitting or standing when the shots were fired.

Sergeant Mullins testified that officers seized a Magna bicycle that the defendant had

ridden from Cecil’s house on the night of the murders. They had hoped to find blood from

the victims on the bicycle to establish that the defendant had come into contact with the

victims’ blood and transferred it to the bicycle. Sergeant Mullins did not believe that any

blood from the victims was found on the bicycle. Genetic material from an unknown male

was found on the bicycle.

Sergeant Mullins testified that the position of the shotgun at the scene as it related to

the position of the blood reinforced his opinion that the scene was altered and that the

shotgun had been moved to the location where the officers found it. He explained that,

according to the defendant’s statement, Cecil kept the shotgun in the position in which it was

found and grabbed it at the time the defendant started shooting. Sergeant Mullins found the

defendant’s statement difficult to believe because blood was found at the end of the barrel

of the shotgun with C.D.5 as a minor contributor. The barrel would not have been exposed

to any blood spatter in the position in which it was found, and blood spatter was not on any

of the items on which the shotgun was found. Sergeant Mullins also noted that Cecil was

found holding a bag of marijuana and would not have attempted to shoot the shotgun while

holding the marijuana.

Sergeant Mullins believed the four adult victims were moved either close to death or

after death. The knife blades that were recovered had been placed where they were found.

-30-

Only one knife handle was located, and Sergeant Mullins did not know whether the handle

matched any of the knives that were used. Officers did not recover the handguns used; the

shotgun had been moved; the boards may have been placed in the location in which they

were discovered; and sixteen shell casings had been gathered and placed in a Ziploc bag.

Sergeant Mullins believed the two deceased children may have been moved either after death

or close to death. He also believed that C.D.3 may have been assaulted in another room and

that the fatal blow may have been delivered in the room where he was discovered.

Sergeant Mullins believed Seals was found in the same area in which he was shot.

He said Seals’s body was rolled from one side to the other because there were two different

blood pools on the floor near his body with a distinct distance between them. He also said

Seals’s body possibly was rolled to the other side when his pants were pulled down and his

wallet was removed.

Sergeant Mullins said blood evidence did not support a theory that Roberson was shot

in the legs and was then mobile for some time. He explained that a direct wound could have

resulted in arterial gushing, which is a distinct pattern. He believed that near or after

Roberson’s death, the perpetrator pulled her down onto the floor from the sofa, pulled down

her pants, and pulled up her shirt.

Sergeant Mullins testified that most of the assault of C.D.3 occurred in the bathroom

and that C.D.3 also may have been assaulted in the bedroom in which he was found.

Sergeant Mullins did not know if C.D.3’s body was moved. He said C.D.3 possibly could

have been placed in the bedroom before he died. Based upon the blood evidence in the

bedroom, Sergeant Mullins believed C.D.3 may have received a blow in the area in which

his body was found.

Sergeant Mullins said that the altering of the crime scene could have been completed

“fairly quickly” if the perpetrator was moving quickly. Collecting the evidence would not

have taken long if the perpetrator knew where it was. Regardless, Sergeant Mullins believed

someone spent considerable time at the scene. He explained, “My opinion is it took enough

time to alter things in this scene as opposed to boom, boom, stab, stab, out the door. There’s

a difference. If you consider all the movement in the scene after this is done, it’s going to

take a few minutes but not necessarily hours, I would not think.”

Sergeant Mullins acknowledged that the defendant’s DNA was not found on any of

the physical evidence tested, including the bicycle, although it had been ridden by a man

who, in his opinion, moved six bodies that had fresh blood on them.

-31-

Sergeant Mullins acknowledged that if the perpetrator shot Williams first in the thigh,

Cecil likely would have taken some action to prevent the perpetrator from shooting the next

person. He also acknowledged that Cecil might not have reacted if another perpetrator was

pointing a .380 caliber handgun at Cecil while the first perpetrator was shooting the women

in the legs with a nine-millimeter handgun. Sergeant Mullins testified that the location of the

bullet wounds was not consistent with the theory of multiple gunmen shooting Cecil’s legs

to obtain information. He did not know the sequence of the shots to Cecil’s legs. He

believed that several of the gunshot wounds may have been made post-mortem or close to

Cecil’s death.

On redirect examination, Sergeant Mullins testified that the theory of the offenses was

developed from interviews with C.D.1 and the defendant. In his view, the TBI report of the

results of testing of the physical evidence did not exonerate the defendant, and there was no

evidence at the crime scene that was inconsistent with the defendant’s admission to the police

regarding the offenses.

Sergeant Mullins testified that the weapons used came from inside the home. During

the course of the investigation, officers were able to place a nine-millimeter handgun

belonging to Cecil and Williams and a .380 caliber handgun belonging to Seals inside the

home. The knives were retrieved from the kitchen, and there was no evidence that the boards

were from any location other than the home. Sergeant Mullins said the person who

committed the offenses was familiar with the home and was comfortable enough to remain

in the home long enough to alter the crime scene. He also said that based upon his

experience, gang members would not have remained inside the home following the murders

and would not have arrived at the house unarmed. Sergeant Mullins believed the crime scene

was more consistent with the account provided by the defendant than with a “gang hit.”

Sergeant Mullins testified that four weeks prior to the attacks, Cecil called the police

on the defendant and threatened to have him sent back to jail. The defendant was a member

of the Kitchen Crips gang. Sergeant Mullins said that knowledge of gangs and drug activity

would be useful in staging a crime scene in the way in which this crime scene was staged.

Officer Ruth Horne of the Memphis Police Department testified that she was assigned

to the Crime Scene Investigation Unit in March of 2008 and was asked to go to 1403 Silver

Street to tag a bicycle, a rug, and a bottle of bleach. She said she found the bicycle, which

the parties stipulated belonged to C.D.1, in a shed behind the house.

Linda Otterstatter, a physical scientist forensic examiner in the Trace Evidence Unit

of the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, testified that she compared debris recovered

from the crime scene with hair samples from Cecil, Roberson, Williams, C.D.3, C.D.4, the

-32-

defendant, and Willie Boyd Hill, Jr. No head hair samples were submitted for Seals, C.D.1,

C.D.2, or C.D.5. She testified that head hairs similar to those of Roberson and C.D.4 were

recovered from Roberson’s back. She also identified two head hairs with Caucasian

characteristics and one hair with Mongoloid characteristics that were on Roberson’s back.

The hairs were dissimilar microscopically to the known head hair samples she received.

These hairs were submitted for mitochondrial DNA analysis.

Otterstatter testified that she identified debris recovered from Williams’ right hand as

a head hair similar to those of Williams. One body hair fragment was discovered on the left

side of C.D.3’s left hand. The hair was not suitable for microscopic comparison purposes

and was submitted for mitochondrial DNA analysis. Otterstatter identified hairs recovered

from the northwest bedroom as head hairs similar to those of C.D.3.

On cross-examination, Otterstatter explained that the hairs found on Williams were

not submitted for mitochondrial DNA analysis because she did not feel that such analysis was

important to the case as she would expect to find the victim’s hairs on the victim. Otterstatter

also said that she could not cannot “say for certain that that hair came from that person to the

exclusion of all others.” She compared head hair and pubic hair and was unable to conduct

a comparison of body hair. Otterstatter did not believe that such a conclusion could be

reached through mitochondrial DNA analysis either. She acknowledged that mitochondrial

DNA is passed through the mother from generation to generation. Otterstatter testified that

while nuclear DNA analysis results in an identification of the donor, the root of the hair and

the tissue on that root are required for such an analysis. She said that some of the hairs that

she analyzed had roots on them but that she did not submit those hairs for nuclear DNA

analysis because she “would not submit hairs that were similar to the victims that were

collected from the victims.”

Deborah Polanskey, a forensic mitochondrial DNA examiner in the mitochondrial

DNA unit of the FBI laboratory, testified that two types of DNA are found in the cells of the

human body: nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Nuclear DNA is inherited from both

parents and is unique to each individual except in cases of identical twins. Mitochondrial

DNA is inherited maternally and is not unique to an individual, as siblings with the same

mother share the same mitochondrial DNA type. She stated that the gender of the person

supplying the DNA cannot be determined through mitochondrial DNA analysis.

Polanskey testified that hair has little or no nuclear DNA but has thousands of copies

of mitochondrial DNA. Thus, a result is more likely to be obtained in analyzing

mitochondrial DNA than in analyzing nuclear DNA. Polanskey explained that when she

receives multiple reference samples from a maternal line such as a mother and her children,

she need not test each sample. Rather, she can test the sample from the mother, and the result

-33-

represents the mitochondrial DNA type of her children.

Polanskey conducted mitochondrial DNA testing on four hairs: two hairs with

Caucasian characteristics and one hair with Mongoloid characteristics recovered from

Roberson’s back and a fragment of a body hair recovered from C.D.3’s left hand. She had

known samples from Cecil, Roberson, Seals, the defendant, and Willie Boyd Hill, Jr. She

also had known samples from Erica Smith, the mother of C.D.4, and Williams, the mother

of C.D.1, C.D.2, C.D.3, and C.D.5.

The mitochondrial DNA sequence for the two hairs with Caucasian characteristics

were the same. Thus, Polanskey could not exclude the two hairs as coming from the same

source. The DNA sequence of the two hairs differed from the known samples that she

received. The hair with Mongoloid characteristics did not include sufficient mitochondrial

DNA to obtain a result. The mitochondrial DNA sequence from the hair found on C.D.3’s

hand was concordant with the mitochondrial DNA sequence of Williams. As a result,

Polanskey could not exclude Williams, C.D.1, C.D.2, C.D.3, and C.D.5 as the source. She

was able to exclude the defendant as the source.

Special Agent Lawrence James, a forensic scientist for the TBI who was allowed by

the trial court to testify as an expert in the field of forensic serology and DNA analysis,

testified at length regarding the numerous blood samples throughout the house that he

analyzed, all of which were matched to one of the victims. He said he obtained a partial

DNA profile from a bullet fragment recovered from the sofa in the living room. The gender

marker was consistent with a male, and Cecil could not be excluded as a contributor to the

DNA profile. He also analyzed the hair beads recovered from the crime scene, swabbing all

of the beads as one sample in the hope that the DNA obtained would be sufficient to result

in a DNA profile. He was able to obtain only a partial profile indicating that a male’s DNA

was present on the sample that he collected from all of the beads. After comparing that

partial profile with the DNA profile of the victims and the defendant, he concluded that none

of those individuals contributed to the DNA on the beads.

On cross-examination, Special Agent James testified that he analyzed clothing but was

unsure whether the clothing belonged to the defendant. He determined that the defendant’s

blood was on the pants. He did not find any of the victims’ blood on the clothing. Special

Agent James also did not find any of the victims’ blood on the bicycle. He did not find the

defendant’s DNA on the knife blades, the knife handles, the victims’ bodies, the wood

boards, the glass, the pillows, the shotgun, the shell casings, or the shoes. Roberson’s nail

scrappings revealed the DNA profile of an unknown female.

-34-

TBI Special Agent Forensic Scientist Cervinia Braswell, an expert in firearms and

firearms identification, testified that the following bullets were recovered from Cecil’s body:

a nine-millimeter bullet from the left thigh, a .380 caliber bullet from the right scapula, and

a .380 caliber auto bullet jacket fragment from the oral cavity which was part of the .380

caliber bullet recovered from his neck. She also analyzed a nine-millimeter bullet jacket

fragment recovered from Cecil’s clothes. A nine-millimeter bullet jacket and fragments were

recovered from Roberson’s left thigh, and a nine-millimeter bullet jacket and fragments were

recovered from Williams’ left calf muscle. A nine-millimeter bullet jacket and fragments

were recovered from Seals’s C-1 vertebra, and a .380 caliber bullet was recovered from the

left side of his back.

Special Agent Braswell testified that she received a nine-millimeter pistol recovered

from an address at 1985 Gayle and that she determined that the nine-millimeter bullets from

the crime scene were not fired from that pistol. She also analyzed a .45 automatic cartridge

case. Dirt was on the inside and outside of the cartridge case. Special Agent Braswell stated

that because dirt was caked on the cartridge case, it had been at the location where it was

recovered “for a little while.” She also concluded that the .380 caliber casings recovered

from the 719 Carpenter address were not fired from the same gun from which the other .380

caliber casings were fired.

Special Agent Braswell said a .380 caliber firearm typically holds eight cartridges,

with seven cartridges in the magazine and one cartridge in the gun. A nine-millimeter

firearm typically holds thirteen rounds with twelve rounds in the magazine and one round in

the gun. The agent said she analyzed a total of thirteen nine-millimeter cartridge casings and

eight .380 caliber cartridge casings. She concluded that the nine-millimeter casings were

fired from the same nine-millimeter firearm and that the .380 caliber bullets were fired from

the same gun. Special Agent Braswell testified it was possible for a single person to fire a

.380 caliber firearm in the living room, unload the firearm, fire a nine-millimeter firearm, and

unload the firearm in a quick amount of time.

On cross-examination, Special Agent Braswell acknowledged that she could not

determine whether there was one shooter or multiple shooters. She said a total of six .380

caliber bullets, nine nine-millimeter bullets, and ten .380 caliber cartridge casings were

submitted for testing. She tested two .380 caliber cartridge casings recovered from 719

Carpenter. She determined that the two casings were fired from an automatic weapon but

were not fired from the same weapon that fired the casings recovered in the living room of

the crime scene.

Special Agent Braswell testified that while a nine-millimeter firearm can fire .380

caliber rounds, she would be able to determine whether this occurred by examining the

-35-

cartridge case. She explained that a .380 caliber cartridge casing is shorter and has a slightly

smaller diameter so that when it is shot using a nine-millimeter firearm, the cartridge casing

will bulge out. Special Agent Braswell said that the .380 caliber casings recovered were not

fired using a nine-millimeter firearm.

Special Agent Braswell said a nine-millimeter firearm could hold fewer than twelve

cartridges in a magazine. Some nine-millimeter firearms only hold ten cartridges and one

cartridge in the chamber. A standard sized nine-millimeter firearm holds twelve rounds in

the magazine and one round in the chamber. The agent said .380 caliber firearms do not vary

as much as nine-millimeter firearms.

Special Agent Braswell testified that she did not find any gunshot residue on the

clothing of Cecil, Roberson, or Williams but found gunpowder particles on the holes of

Seals’s shirt. She said the lack of gunshot residue on the clothing of Cecil, Williams, and

Roberson meant either that the shooter fired the gun outside the maximum range in which

the gun would leave residue or that an intermediate object, such as a pillow, was between the

gun and the victim. Special Agent Braswell said that in cases of contact residue, tearing of

the clothing, singeing around the hole, and dark areas of soot and smoke are present. Contact

gunshot residue generally does not result when the firearm is fired more than eighteen inches

away. The agent acknowledged that she would be unable to provide an accurate measure of

the distance from which the gun was fired without testing the shooting patterns of the actual

gun used. Absent the gun used in shooting Seals, she could only estimate that the gun was

fired at a distance of at least two feet and no more than four feet away. She could not

determine the distance of the shooter from Cecil, Williams, and Roberson. She also could

not determine which of the two bullets recovered from Seals left the residue on his clothing.

Dr. Michael Muhlbauer, an expert in the field of adult and pediatric neurosurgery,

testified that he performed surgery on C.D.1, C.D.2, and C.D.5 on March 3, 2008. He said

that when C.D.1 arrived at LeBonheur Children’s Hospital, he was awake and moaning.

C.D.1 had trauma and swelling to his forehead and part of a steak knife sticking out of his

head. Dr. Muhlbauer noted C.D.1 had a laceration in his scalp that was six or seven inches

long and extended down his forehead. C.D.1’s skull was severely fractured, and large pieces

of his skull had been driven inward. C.D.1 also had either a “glancing” stab wound or two

separate stab wounds on the back of his arm and chest, a superficial laceration across his

neck, and a laceration on his left thumb. Dr. Muhlbauer said that C.D.1 would not have

survived the injuries absent medical intervention.

Dr. Muhlbauer testified that when C.D.2 arrived at the hospital, he was “essentially

semicomatose.” C.D.2 had injuries that were, in Dr. Muhlbauer’ opinion, consistent with

having been beaten with boards, including multiple fractures to his face, mid-face, and lower

-36-

portion of his skull, a fractured nose, and a small skull fracture with bruising on the back of

his brain. In addition, he had stab wounds on one of his eyes, his forehead, and his neck. Dr.

Muhlbauer testified that C.D.2 would not have survived without medical intervention.

Dr. Muhlbauer testified that C.D.5 arrived at the hospital with significant head trauma,

which included a large cut in her scalp that exposed her bone. He said that the right side of

C.D.5’s skull had been pushed or crushed in with a blunt object resulting in an “open-

depressed skull fracture.” He stated that the CT scan revealed that the covering of her brain

was “probably cut” and that her brain was mildly bruised. Dr. Muhlbauer testified that

C.D.5’s injuries were consistent with being struck with boards. She also had stab wounds

to her left lower extremity. Dr. Muhlbauer said that absent medical intervention, C.D.5

would not have survived.

Dr. Lisa Funte, a Shelby County medical examiner who was admitted by the trial court

as an expert in forensic pathology, testified regarding the victims’ autopsies, three of which

she had performed herself and three of which had been performed by another medical

examiner in the Shelby County Medial Examiner’s Office, Dr. Miguel Laboy.

Dr. Funte testified that Seals, whose autopsy had been performed by Dr. Laboy, died

as a result of multiple gunshot wounds. Seals had three gunshot wounds: one to the mouth,

in which the bullet fractured some of the teeth and the jaw and then continued into the neck,

fracturing the first and second cervical vertebrae; one to the midline upper chest area, in

which the bullet injured the left lung and exited from the back; and one to the side of the

chest near the right armpit, in which the bullet traveled through the right chest cavity,

injuring the right lung, and penetrated into the muscles of the back.

According to the toxicology report, Seals had marijuana and ethanol or alcohol in his

system. Dr. Funte testified that one of the products of decomposition is ethanol and that she,

therefore, was unable to determine whether the ethanol was the result of alcohol

consumption, a product of decomposition, or both.

Dr. Funte testified that Williams, whose autopsy she had performed, also died of

multiple gunshot wounds. Williams had five gunshot wounds: one to the left side of the

head that resulted in injuries to the skull and brain; one in which the bullet entered the right

side of the chest near the breast and exited the left side of the back, in the process causing

injuries to the lungs and vertebral column; one to the left leg, which resulted in injuries to the

muscles, tibia, and fibula; one to the right thigh, which resulted in injuries to the soft tissue

and muscle; and one to the left side of the abdomen, which resulted in soft tissue and muscle

injuries. The toxicology report indicated the presence of ethanol in Williams’ body.

-37-

Dr. Funte testified that Roberson, whose autopsy she performed, also died of multiple

gunshot wounds. Roberson had four gunshot wounds: one to the right thigh, in which the

bullet injured the soft tissue and muscle of the thigh, traveled through the femoral vein, and

continued through the soft tissue and muscle on the right side toward her back; one to the left

knee, in which the bullet injured soft tissue and muscle; one to the left calf in which the

bullet injured soft tissue and muscle; and one to the left thigh, which again injured soft tissue

and muscle. Dr. Funte testified that the gunshot wound to Roberson’s right thigh in which

the bullet passed through her femoral artery would have resulted in a great deal of blood loss

but would not have caused an immediate loss of life, as an individual with such an injury

could die in as little as five to ten minutes or survive up to twenty to thirty minutes,

depending on the circumstances. According to the toxicology report, no drugs or volatile

alcohol were present in Roberson’s system.

Dr. Funte testified that Cecil, whose autopsy was performed by Dr. Laboy, also died

of multiple gunshot wounds. Cecil had eight gunshot wounds: one to the head that fractured

his jaw; one to the neck, in which the bullet traveled through the soft tissues and muscles of

the neck and fractured and penetrated through cartilages in the trachea and larynx; one to the

chest, in which the bullet traveled through the muscle and soft tissue and into the back; one

to the right thigh, in which the bullet perforated through the thigh, injuring soft tissue and

muscle; two to the left thigh, in which the bullets injured soft tissue and muscle; one to the

left leg, in which the bullet injured soft tissue; and one to the left foot. Toxicology results

showed ethanol in Cecil’s system. Dr. Funte testified that fiber was found in the area around

the entry of the gunshot wound to Cecil’s head, consistent with a shooter putting a fiber-filled

pillow over Cecil’s face and firing the gun through the pillow.

Dr. Funte testified that two-year-old C.D.4, whose autopsy she performed, died of

multiple sharp force injuries. C.D.4 had multiple incised and stab wounds to the head, torso,

and extremities, including seven stab wounds that resulted in penetration of the skull with

associated skull fractures, injury of the right middle meningeal artery with epidural

hemorrhage, and edema of the brain with herniation. Among other injuries, C.D.4 had a

puncture-style stab wound to the right side of his head, two puncture-style stab wounds to

the left cheek, two incised wounds on the left side of his face near his eye, an incised wound

on his right ear beginning at the top of the ear and traveling along the inside of the orifice of

the ear, a group of incised wounds of varying lengths and an incised wound leading to a stab

wound on his torso, multiple incised and stab wounds on his back, and a mixture of sharp

force and blunt force injuries on the left side of his torso. Dr. Funte said that incised wounds

on C.D.4’s back and left wrist were parallel and equally spaced and were suggestive of a

serrated knife blade. C.D.4 also had an incised wound and a puncture stab wound on the

base of his right thumb.

-38-

Dr. Funte also identified abrasions and contusions on C.D.4’s body that she

categorized as blunt force injuries. C.D.4 had abrasions on the right side of his chin, the right

side of his lower lip, his cheek, the right side of his mouth, the right side of the upper lip, and

the right side of the head. Dr. Funte said the shape of the abrasion on the head almost formed

the outline of a rectangle, and was possibly consistent with the use of a board to strike C.D.4

on the side of the head. C.D.4 also had a combination of an abrasion and a bruise on the

right side of his neck behind his ear and bruises on the left side of his neck and on his elbow.

Dr. Funte also noted discoloration on C.D.4’s right eyelid and right cheek, which

could have been caused by impact to the eye or could have been related to the skull fractures

and impact to the right side of his head. She stated that the nature of C.D.4’s injuries was

not suggestive of the possibility that C.D.4 attempted to fend off his attacker and that the

initial head injury she described would have been fatal without medical intervention. Had

C.D.4 sustained only that wound, he could have survived for several minutes and up to one

day. Had he received medical treatment within an hour of receiving his injuries, he could

possibly have survived although it was not “necessarily probable.”

Dr. Funte testified that four-year-old C.D.3, whose autopsy was performed by Dr.

Laboy, died of blunt force and sharp force injuries. She said C.D.3 had blunt force trauma

to his head with lacerations and bruises, multiple linear depressed fractures of the calvarium

and base of his skull, deep scalp hemorrhage, multiple contusions to the brain, and

subarachnoid hemorrhage. Dr. Funte also noted that C.D.3’s head had areas of abrasions and

lacerations and an incised wound above his left ear that tore part of the scalp away from his

skull and reflected it over his ear.

In addition, C.D.3 had incisions to the head, neck, and right hand; a stab wound to the

chest in which the knife blade went all the way through his body, injuring the left lung, the

left hemidiaphragm, the stomach, spleen, and liver; linear abrasions and bruises on his left

arm; abrasions on his forehead; an abrasion and bruising on his right ear; a gaping incised

wound to his neck; abrasions on his right arm; a contusion and abrasions on his left arm; and

an incised wound on his ring finger that was possibly consistent with his having either held

his hand up to stop the attacker from stabbing him or with his having attempted to grab the

knife.

Dr. Funte testified that the injury resulting from blunt force trauma to the head alone

would have resulted in C.D.3’s death without medical intervention. Had C.D.3 sustained

only this injury, he could have survived several minutes to many hours. Dr. Funte said that

after C.D.3 was hit in the head, he likely would have been rendered unconscious. The stab

wound to C.D.3’s chest also would have resulted in death.

-39-

On cross-examination, Dr. Funte acknowledged that she could not determine the order

in which the wounds on each victim occurred. Several of the adult victims had wounds

below the belt and in their knees and legs. She said that a leg wound can be fatal. Roberson

had a wound to the right thigh that severed the femoral vein. Dr. Funte could not determine

exactly how long Roberson would have lived following the injury. She said that the wound

was fatal and that Roberson possibly could have lived thirty to forty minutes after sustaining

the injury.

Dr. Funte testified that C.D.4 had incised wounds and that C.D.3 had lacerations. She

said the majority of the incised wounds were superficial and not very deep. She also said the

wounds could have resulted from a slashing cut from a knife. Dr. Funte was not able to

determine whether a serrated or smooth-edged knife was used in each injury. She identified

two injuries that had a unique pattern of equally spaced incised wounds, which was indicative

of a serrated blade. Dr. Funte said that while a serrated blade may not always leave such a

pattern, it will do so if dragged across the skin.

Dr. Funte testified that a black hair and a white hair were collected from Williams’

hand and that hairs were collected from Roberson’s back. A white substance was collected

between Roberson’s labia and vulva. Dr. Funte could not determine whether Roberson was

carrying the substance there to hide it or whether the substance was placed there by someone

else. A green substance was collected from Cecil’s hand. The color of Cecil’s skin on his

hand just below where the green substance was found was tan or brown. Blood was below

the area of the hand.

On redirect examination, Dr. Funte testified that the hairs recovered on Roberson were

bilaterally on her buttocks and right thigh. On recross examination, she said Roberson’s

clothing was not removed at the scene. Her pants had been pulled down, and her shirt was

in disarray. Dr. Funte stated that it appeared from the wound pattern on Roberson’s legs and

the wound pattern on her jeans that she was wearing the jeans when she was shot.

GUILT PHASE – DEFENSE PROOF

Cedric Atkins testified that approximately one and one-half weeks before Cecil was

killed, he and Cecil had a conversation in a hotel room in which Cecil told Atkins that he

owed money to the “mob.” Atkins said the “mob” was a group of people who have money

and respect and sell narcotics or “whatever.” Atkins testified that following Cecil’s death,

he contacted an officer with the Memphis Police Department with whom he had previously

served as an informant and told him about his conversation with Cecil. Atkins said he

answered the officer’s questions truthfully, never demanded money from the officer or

anyone else, and was not promised anything in exchange for the information. Approximately

-40-

one week later, the officer contacted Atkins and informed him that the information he

provided was not useful. Atkins acknowledged that he had been convicted of theft during

the year prior to the defendant’s trial and that he did not want to testify and was doing so only

pursuant to a subpoena.

On cross-examination, Atkins testified that he did not recall asking the police what

was “in it for [him].” He told the officer that he had just met Cecil on the night in which he

and Cecil had the conversation and that that night was the first time he had an extended

conversation with Cecil. Atkins testified that he told the officer that he ran into Cecil at a

hotel and that Cecil told him that he owed $300,000 and that he should avoid owing people

money.

Sergeant Joseph Stark testified that he interviewed Waddell on March 4, 2008, at

approximately 8:00 p.m. Waddell stated that “Frank” had told him that those inside the

residence were tortured and that Cecil’s fingers were cut off. Waddell also stated that Cecil

and “Doc” had a “falling out.” Sergeant Stark said that Waddell informed him that Cecil and

“Frank” were Gangster Disciples.

William Carroll, an employee of AT&T, testified that an eight-second call was made

from the Lester Street residence on March 1, 2008 at 11:35 p.m. to number 8xx-xxxx.

Carroll was unable to determine whether anyone answered that call. He said that the next

activity on the telephone was on March 3 from a 589 number, which could have been a

telemarketer.

Thirty-four-year-old Markel Vester testified that he joined the Gangster Disciples in

1997 or 1998 when he was twenty-five or twenty-six years old. He knew “Doc Holiday” and

“Frank” but did not know whether “Doc Holiday” held any rank in the Gangster Disciples

in March of 2008. He stated that Cecil was a member of the Gangster Disciples when he met

him and that Cecil performed maintenance duties at the apartment complex where he lived.

Vester testified that “Frank” called him and told him about what had happened to Cecil and

the other victims. Vester said he last spoke to Cecil approximately two to three weeks before

his death. He did not recall whether he spoke to Cecil over the telephone on March 1 or

March 2. He said Cecil did not call him on the Saturday or Sunday prior to his death. Vester

stated that in March of 2008, his cell service was through Cricket Wireless and that his cell

phone number was 2xx-xxxx.

Charity Wright, who was recalled to testify regarding Cecil’s cell phone records from

Crickett Wireless, testified that the records showed that Smith called Cecil on March 2, 2008,

at 1:37 a.m. and that the call lasted approximately fifty-six seconds. She said the call either

was not answered or went to voicemail. She stated that Smith also called Cecil at 1:30 a.m.

-41-

and that the call lasted fifty-nine seconds but was not answered. Wright said that she was

mistaken if she had earlier testified that those calls had been answered.

Wright further testified that Cecil called Markel Vester’s number at 12:38 a.m., with

the call lasting for seventeen seconds. Wright said that the call could have been answered

but that there was no way of determining whether a conversation occurred. She stated that

Cecil called the same number again at 12:39 a.m., and the call lasted forty-four seconds.

Wright said that it was difficult to determine whether the call was answered.

Dr. Nancy Aldridge, a psychotherapist who was admitted by the trial court as an

expert in the forensic evaluation of children, explained the protocol for conducting a forensic

interview of a child and expressed her concern about the manner in which the interviews of

C.D.1 and C.D. 2 had been conducted, including the fact that C.D.1 was interviewed shortly

after being discovered, was interviewed on four or five occasions, and gave different

statements as to what had occurred. She also expressed concern at the fact that the forensic

interviews of the children did not occur until August 13, 2008, more than five months after

the incident.

Dr. Aldridge testified that she believed that the initial account provided by C.D.1 was

“possibly” reliable because C.D.1 appeared to have been reliving the trauma that he

experienced while providing that initial statement and was appropriately asked open-ended

questions by the interviewers. She explained that what actually occurred generally is

discovered during the initial interview of a child, as the child’s memories become more

unclear as he or she is repeatedly interviewed and is contaminated by information from

others. She elaborated that when a person continues to question a child after the child has

provided an answer, the child may believe that the initial answer was not acceptable and

provide a different answer.

Dr. Aldridge noted the importance of recording all statements from the beginning,

particularly when the child is severely traumatized, to learn the sequence of the child’s

memory and how the memory resurfaced. She said that some of the records she reviewed

referenced interviews where no transcripts or recordings existed, which meant that she did

not know who had spoken to C.D.1 or what C.D.1 was asked or told prior to the recorded

interviews.

Dr. Aldridge testified that she had concerns regarding the reliability of the information

obtained from the children during the August 2008 interview due to the length of time that

had elapsed and the fact that the children might have been exposed to other information

about the crimes from family members. The manner in which the children testified at trial

also gave her pause: “The concern that I had for these children is they seemed to be very,

-42-

very clear as to what questions were going to be asked each one of them and what their

answers were. So they were very prepared for the testimony.” Dr. Aldridge said that

although the reliability of C.D.1’s testimony was an issue for the jury, she could reason that

C.D.1 would agree with whatever question was asked of him. She also noted the potential

for contamination of the children’s memories during the two-and-one-half-year period that

elapsed from the time of the attacks to the trial.

On cross-examination, Dr. Aldridge acknowledged that she did not know whether

C.D.1’s identification of the defendant as the perpetrator was wrong but reiterated that she

had “concerns.”

The defendant testified that after he had completed work on Saturday, March 1, 2008,

Cecil and two of Cecil’s sons picked him up at the home of his sister, Nicole, to take him to

Cecil’s house on Lester Street for a barbecue, stopping en route from Nicole’s to Cecil’s

house to purchase some liquor. He said that his father, Waddell, and Seals arrived at Cecil’s

house a little later, where Williams and the other children were already assembled, and that

they listened to the basketball game on the radio. His father left after the game concluded,

but the defendant remained at Cecil’s house all evening where he, Cecil, and Seals drank,

smoked, and grilled. The defendant stated that Seals and Cecil discussed the gun that

“Frank” was holding for Seals and that Cecil told Seals to retrieve it. Seals asked Cecil for

clothes because he had just been released from jail. Cecil said that he had clothes for him,

and Seals said that he would clean up later.

The defendant testified that after dark, he, Seals, and Cecil left the house in Cecil’s

Lincoln, going first to visit “Frank” at the Barclay Apartments. The defendant said that

Cecil, Seals, and “Frank” were members of the Gangster Disciples and that he had joined the

Kitchen Crips in the 1990’s. At “Frank’s” apartment complex, both Seals and Cecil exited

the vehicle, and a man walked down the steps. They discussed “Frank” and the incident that

occurred on February 14 while the defendant remained inside the vehicle. Seals then walked

up to “Frank’s” apartment where he remained for thirty to forty minutes before the defendant

went to the apartment to get him. The defendant stated that Cecil remained in the parking

lot where he was arguing with the man who had walked down to talk to him. The defendant

said the man was attempting to calm Cecil. He explained that at that time, Cecil and “Frank”

were “into it.” The defendant said Cecil believed that the man should be on his side. Cecil

also had stated this to Seals, which was why Seals went to retrieve the gun from “Frank.”

The defendant stated Cecil commonly argued with others.

The defendant testified that the man attempted to hug Cecil and that Cecil asked him

why he was doing so. Cecil said he did not have anything on him and pulled up his shirt.

Cecil told the man that he wanted to fight “Frank” and instructed the man to get “Frank.”

-43-

Instead, the man got into his black Impala. Cecil yelled, “[Y]’all know where I stay at” and

returned to his car. The defendant said that he and Cecil laughed and that he told Cecil that

“Frank” had tried to call him. “Frank” called again, and Cecil answered the call. However,

it was Seals on the other end of the call asking them where they were, and the defendant told

him they were waiting on him. Cecil then told the defendant that he had “punk’d” the man.

The defendant said he told Cecil to get Seals, but Cecil refused. The defendant then went to

the door of “Frank’s” apartment and knocked. “Frank,” “Trell,” “Tammy,” and a man whom

the defendant did not know were there. The defendant told Seals that they were ready to

leave, and they left.

The defendant said he, Cecil, and Seals then went to the home of his girlfriend, Sheila

Jones. The defendant and Cecil entered the home looking for Sheila, but she was not there.

The defendant stated he caught the boyfriend of Sheila’s daughter in one of the bedrooms

with his pants halfway down. He said Sheila’s daughter began cursing him, and they left.

They next went to the home of “Marilyn,” the grandmother of the defendant’s son. They

were there for less than five minutes because his son was not there.

The defendant testified that they then went to an apartment complex near GE

Patterson to pick up Roberson, Seals’s girlfriend. Roberson asked whether they had any

marijuana, and Cecil said that he knew where to purchase some so they went to an apartment

at Kimball Cabanas where they purchased $45 worth of marijuana. Cecil got out of the car

and then returned, telling the defendant that he wanted to introduce him to “his folks.” The

defendant explained that “folks” referred to Gangster Disciples. Four people were inside the

apartment, and the defendant and Cecil remained for approximately five minutes. They also

saw Smith in the apartment complex. Cecil talked to her while the defendant remained inside

the vehicle. The defendant yelled out her name, and she came to the vehicle and spoke to

everyone inside. She and Cecil then continued to talk for approximately five minutes. When

Cecil returned to the vehicle, he was talking to Smith on his cell phone.

The defendant said that after they left the apartment complex, they went to another

woman’s home and stayed for thirty to forty minutes. They then returned to Cecil’s house

where Williams and the children were. The defendant stated he, Cecil, Seals, Williams, and

Roberson were in the living room. Williams was drinking a wine cooler while Roberson was

preparing a marijuana cigarette. According to the defendant, Cecil asked Williams to put

sheets on their bed. Cecil told Williams that he planned to allow Seals and Roberson to

sleep in their bedroom located in the back of the house and that he and Williams would sleep

in the living room.

The defendant said that he volunteered to put the sheets on the bed and that he was

beside the bed with a quilt in his hand when he heard two or three gunshots. He

-44-

acknowledged that he was carrying a blue .44 caliber handgun on him at the time. He said

he heard screaming and hid under the bed. He heard more noise which he later determined

to be the family’s dog that was in a nearby cage. The defendant said he heard a few shots

followed by other shots seconds later. He could not determine whether the shots came from

the same gun or different guns.

The defendant said he hid under the bed for several minutes. Based upon the sound

the dog was making, it appeared as if someone was walking around in the same bedroom

where he was hiding. He was unable to hear noise from other areas of the home and

eventually came out from under the bed and went into the living room. He asserted that he

believed all of the victims, including the children, were dead. The front door was open, and

he left the house riding a bicycle he found behind a door in the living room.

The defendant testified that he went to Sheila’s home where Keaira allowed him to

enter. He said he went into Sheila’s bedroom and then to the bathroom where he vomited.

The defendant stated he then cleaned the sink with bleach and brushed his teeth. He then

knocked on Keaira’s bedroom door, telling her that he needed to talk to her, but they never

had any conversation.

The defendant explained why he did not call the police: “Y’all done heard testimony

about the gangs. I’m in a gang. We don’t call the police. It’s just that simple. We don’t call

the police. It’s not part of what we do. If I call the police, I’ll be just like my brother.”

The defendant testified that officers interviewed him on March 5, 2008, and that the

interview was videotaped. He said that when he was interviewed by Lieutenant Mason and

Sergeant Stark on March 7, he told them that he worked from 8:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., that

Cecil picked him up and drove him to Cecil’s house, that they watched a game, and that Cecil

drove him back home. The defendant acknowledged that his statement that Cecil drove him

back home was untrue. The defendant said he did not tell the police what had occurred when

questioned on March 5 because “I don’t talk to police.”

The defendant testified that he spoke to Waddell, who had informed the defendant of

his conversation with “Frank.” The defendant said he asked Waddell if he knew “Doc’s”

actual name. The defendant stated that Waddell had spoken to a woman who said that the

defendant was being reported by the media as the killer. The defendant also stated he and

his family saw the news report. The defendant acknowledged that after seeing his face on

a news report, he put a gun to his head and threatened suicide, saying that he was not going

to return to prison for something he did not do and that he should have died with his brother.

He said that when the police officers came following his threats, they did not offer to take

him to a hospital or a mental health facility.

-45-

The defendant testified that before Lieutenant Armstrong interviewed him, he had

been in the Homicide Bureau for hours and was handcuffed. He said that Lieutenant

Armstrong played a tape recording of the defendant’s nephew identifying him, but did not

play the portion of the tape in which his nephew identified others. The defendant testified

that after playing the recording, Lieutenant Armstrong began screaming about the

defendant’s family and said that he was tired of “playing games.” According to the

defendant, Lieutenant Armstrong said he knew that the defendant was “bullshitting” and that

he was “sick of it.” The defendant said that Lieutenant Armstrong stated he wanted answers

now and that he began “pounding” on the table.

The defendant testified that he then told Lieutenant Armstrong that Cecil had reached

for a shotgun and that the defendant just started shooting. The defendant then asked for his

mother. He told his mother that he had a gun and that when Cecil sat his gun down, the

defendant began shooting. He also told her that he “stuck” the children.

The defendant testified that from the time his family was discovered until the

interview, he had not slept, had cried about what had happened, and was depressed. He

stated he requested to see his mother on approximately three occasions during the interview,

but Lieutenant Armstrong told him that he would not be allowed to see anyone until he told

the officer what he wanted to know. He said that, earlier on March 7, he had told different

officers that he did not kill the victims. He insisted that his statement to Lieutenant

Armstrong that he shot Cecil was not true, and he maintained that he did not kill Cecil or any

of the other victims.

The defendant testified that at the time the victims were killed, his cousin, Tammy

Randolph, was dating Vernon Motley. At some point prior to the deaths of the victims,

Randolph told the defendant that the police were looking for Motley for a charge of murder.

She gave the defendant a .44 caliber firearm to hold. At some point, Randolph also told the

defendant to give the gun to her other cousin, “Antonio.”

On cross-examination, the defendant testified that when he left Cecil’s house on the

bicycle, he believed nine people were dead inside the house. He acknowledged that he did

not call 9-1-1 for his family and that he went to Sheila’s home and went to bed. The next

day, he did not go to work or call anyone about the offenses and went to dinner with

Waddell. He also went to work Monday morning with his father but did not tell either of his

parents about what had occurred. The defendant acknowledged that he lied to his family

about the last time he saw Cecil.

The defendant said that he did not escape through the back door of the house because

a key was needed to do so. He also did not use the cordless telephone in the bedroom to call

-46-

9-1-1. The defendant said he remained under the bed for approximately thirty minutes. He

never heard the children screaming or anyone hitting the children with boards. He remained

under the bed while the killers gathered the shell casings and pulled down Roberson’s pants.

The defendant said that when he entered the living room, Roberson was in the position that

she appeared in photographs of the crime scene. He saw C.D.1 lying in the bathtub but did

not “pay attention” to the knife in C.D.1’s head. He did not check on C.D.1 to determine

whether he was alive and believed that everyone in the house was dead.

The defendant testified that he was in the interview room with Lieutenant Armstrong

for four to five hours, and he maintained he had confessed only after Lieutenant Armstrong

screamed at him and threatened him:

He didn’t pound on the table. It was he asked me when he played the

tape and after he played the tape, he played the tape what, 12, 13 times. And

after he played it 12 to 13 times, after I still told him I didn’t do it, that’s when

he said I’ll kill your mother f***ing ass myself, you cold-hearted murdering

killing mother f***er.

According to the defendant, Lieutenant Armstrong then said, “I got something for you. I’m

going to throw your ass on that 4th floor and I’m going to let them kill your mother f***ing

ass.”

The defendant acknowledged that his testimony at trial regarding the events was not

consistent with what he had told his mother. The defendant said he leaned across the table

and told his mother, “[T]hey trying to put this on [me].” His mother asked for the names of

those who were trying to do this so that she could get him help. The defendant said that he

told her he did not know their names and that they were watching him. He and his mother

then grabbed each other’s hands, and he told his mother not to worry and that he had

committed the offenses. The defendant acknowledged that he told his mother that he and

Cecil began arguing and that, after Cecil put down his gun, the defendant began shooting.

His mother asked how he got away from the house, and the defendant told her that he rode

a bicycle. The defendant believed he told his mother that he killed the children because they

saw him. The defendant insisted, however, that he lied to his mother and that his trial

testimony was the truth.

At the conclusion of the guilt phase, the jury convicted the defendant of six counts of

premeditated first degree murder for the deaths of Cecil, Williams, Seals, Roberson, C.D.3,

and C.D.4. The jury also convicted the defendant of three counts of attempted premeditated

first degree murder of C.D.1, C.D.2, and C.D.5. The trial then proceeded to the penalty

phase with regard to the defendant’s six first degree murder convictions.

-47-

PENALTY PHASE

During the penalty phase, the parties stipulated that the defendant previously had been

convicted of second degree murder, which was a violent felony. The State also presented the

victim impact testimony of Ida Anderson, Williams’ mother, and Annette Mallory, Seals’s

aunt.

Anderson testified that she was raising her grandchildren and, as a result, had lost her

job and was struggling financially. Her family also was in counseling as a result of the

offenses. Mallory testified that at the time of his death, Seals had three children whom he

loved and supported. She said Seals’s death “hit [her] hard.” He was like a younger brother

to her until his mother died, and then she became a mother figure to him.

Glori Shettles, a mitigation specialist, testified on the defendant’s behalf regarding his

family history and background. She said some of the defendant’s family members were

willing to provide information about him but were unwilling to testify on his behalf. From

her investigation, she learned the following about his history. The defendant’s parents were

married in 1972 when his mother, Priscilla Shaw, was fifteen years old and his father, Jessie

Dotson Sr., was nineteen years old. They soon had a daughter, Nicole. Jessie Sr. joined the

Army and was stationed in Florida where the defendant was born. At some point, Shaw and

Nicole returned to Memphis where Nicole became so ill that Jessie Sr. left his base and

returned to Memphis. Jessie Sr. was honorably discharged from the Army. He wanted to

keep his family in Florida but was unable to obtain employment, so the family returned to

Memphis.

Shettles testified that Jessie Sr. was jealous of Shaw, who went on a church trip to

New Orleans, returned with a boyfriend, and told Jessie Sr. that she no longer wanted to be

married to him. They remained married for some time after that incident, however. The

defendant’s parents argued often, and Jessie Sr. was physically abusive to Shaw on more than

one occasion, with the children witnessing the abuse. By this time, Cecil, who was three

years younger than the defendant, was born. Shaw wanted to leave Jessie Sr. and saved

money to do so, with the result that Jessie Sr. returned home one day to find Shaw and the

children gone. Shaw did not contact Jessie Sr. until four to five months later. The defendant

was six years old at this time, and the children did not know what had happened to their

father.

Shettles testified that the family moved often during the defendant’s childhood. The

defendant left school at the age of sixteen while in the eighth grade. By that time, he had

attended ten different schools. Shettles noted that a large number of moves was often one

of the risk factors for poor performance in school and in life. The defendant was diagnosed

-48-

with a learning disability in reading and math and was enrolled in resource classes. He also

had disciplinary problems at school and at home. School mental health records indicated that

he was provided with individual counseling. Counselors attempted to meet with Shaw, but

she either cancelled the appointments or did not attend them.

Shettles testified the defendant failed the fourth grade twice due to his large number

of absences from school. The defendant was teased for not having proper clothing and did

not attend school as a result. Thereafter, the defendant was socially promoted in school.

Shettles believed that the defendant was capable of performing better in school but did not

do so due to the number of absences and tardies. After the defendant left school, he was

employed for a brief period. Shettles said the only legitimate job that the defendant ever held

was as a security guard at the age of eighteen.

Shettles testified that by the time the defendant was fifteen years old, he became

involved in the juvenile court system and had several arrests and juvenile adjudications.

Shaw could not control the defendant and did not know what to do. She attended juvenile

court with the defendant on many occasions and when she could not attend, Nicole attended

on her behalf.

Shettles testified that the family did not have much money and that Shaw was not

home often. As a result, Nicole cared for her brothers. The food was locked up, and they

were not able to get to it. When the family went to the maternal grandmother’s house for

Sunday dinner, money went missing from their grandmother’s purse. Shettles said the

defendant and Cecil were taking the money to purchase food and were severely punished as

a result. In addition, their grandmother told Shaw that the defendant and Cecil were no

longer welcome in her home.

Shettles testified that at the age of nineteen, the defendant pled guilty to second degree

murder and was sentenced to eighteen years in prison. The defendant received many write-

ups when he first entered prison for refusing to participate, cursing at an officer, and other

offenses that did not involve weapons. He also received write-ups for violent activities. The

defendant completed fourteen of his eighteen-year sentence in prison. He was considered

for parole on two occasions before he actually made parole. The defendant’s mother and her

husband only visited him once while he was in prison, and he spoke to his father on a few

occasions by telephone. Shettles said that while in prison, the defendant participated in a

behavioral modification program and “thrived” in the program.

Shettles testified that the defendant has family who value his life but that it had been

difficult for them to attend trial and show their support. The defendant also had a son with

whom he was continuing a relationship. The defendant had a friend who was afraid to

-49-

appear at trial and a friend of his grandmother who was eighty-one years old and cared for

him.

On cross-examination, Shettles testified that the defendant was suspended from school

so many times that the Memphis City Schools refused to allow him to continue to attend. He

had more than one juvenile adjudication that involved the use of weapons. The defendant

fought often, and his school and juvenile records referenced problems with his brother.

Shettles was aware that the defendant joined the Crips gang while in prison and that he

received a violent write-up after he and four other inmates cut an inmate who was trying to

leave the Crips.

At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury unanimously found the presence of

the following three statutory aggravating circumstances with regard to the defendant’s

conviction for the first degree murder of Cecil Dotson, Sr.: (1) the defendant was previously

convicted of one or more felonies involving the use of violence; (2) the defendant

“knowingly created a great risk of death to two (2) or more persons, other than the victim

murdered, during the act of murder”; and (3) the defendant committed mass murder. See

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2), (3), (12) (2006). The jury unanimously found the

presence of the same three statutory aggravating circumstances with regard to each of the

defendant’s three convictions for the first degree murders of Williams, Seals, and Roberson,

as well as two additional statutory aggravating circumstances: (1) the murder was committed

for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing the lawful arrest or prosecution

of the defendant or another; and (2) the murder was knowingly committed while the

defendant had a substantial role in committing, or attempting to commit, or was fleeing after

having a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit any first degree murder. Id.

at (i)(6), (7). Regarding the defendant’s two convictions for the first degree murders of

C.D.3 and C.D.4, the jury unanimously found the presence of the same five aggravating

circumstances that it found for the first degree murders of Williams, Seals, and Roberson,

as well as two additional statutory aggravating circumstances: (1) the victim was less than

twelve years old and the defendant was eighteen years old or older; and (2) the murder was

especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. Id. at (i)(1), (5). The jury determined that these

aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances and imposed a sentence

of death for all six convictions.

SENTENCING HEARING

During the separate sentencing hearing to determine the defendant’s sentences for his

three attempted first degree murder convictions, Ida Anderson testified that she adopted her

grandchildren and now cares for them. She said that the children were “devastated,” that the

attacks “wrecked us, completely,” and that the entire family has been in counseling. She

-50-

stated that C.D.1 had undergone multiple surgeries and would require an additional surgery.

C.D.2 also had undergone multiple surgeries and had scarring. His eye was not “even,” and

he would also require an additional surgery. C.D.5 also had scarring on her leg that needed

surgery. Anderson had been terminated from her job because she missed so much work

following the attacks, and both she and the children received social security benefits. In

addition, other family members, as well as some friends, had contributed financially.

Anderson stated that her daughter had to give up her house and move in with her to help and

that she was not in a position to care for the children by herself.

At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant

to forty years for each of the attempted first degree murder convictions to be served as a

Range II multiple offender. The trial court ordered that each sentence run consecutively to

each other, as well as the death sentences, for an effective sentence of death plus 120 years.

ANALYSIS

We will review the issues raised on appeal by the defendant.

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

The defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions,

saying that it is insufficient to establish premeditation and his identity as the perpetrator and

that the physical facts rule requires the reversal of his convictions.

Once a jury finds a defendant guilty, his presumption of innocence is removed and

replaced with a presumption of guilt. State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992).

On appeal, the convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating to this court why the

evidence does not support the jury’s verdict. State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 557-58

(Tenn. 2000); State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). To meet this burden, the

defendant must establish that no “rational trier of fact” could have found the essential

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319

(1979); State v. Evans, 108 S.W.3d 231, 236 (Tenn. 2003); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). In

contrast, the jury’s verdict approved by the trial judge accredits the State’s witnesses and

resolves all conflicts in favor of the State. State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992).

The State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable

inferences which may be drawn from that evidence. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d at 558; Tuggle,

639 S.W.2d at 914. Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, conflicts in trial

testimony, the weight and value to be given the evidence, and all factual issues raised by the

evidence are resolved by the trier of fact and not this court. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651,

659 (Tenn. 1997). We do not attempt to reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Reid,

-51-

91 S.W.3d 247, 277 (Tenn. 2002); Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 659. Likewise, we do not replace

the jury inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence with our own inferences. See

State v. Elkins, 102 S.w.3d 578, 582 (Tenn. 2003); Reid, 91 S.W.3d at 277.

First degree murder is defined as the “premeditated and intentional killing of another.”

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1). An intentional act requires that the person have the

desire to engage in conduct or cause the result. Id. § 39-11-106(a)(18). A premeditated

killing is one “done after the exercise of reflection and judgment.” Id. § 39-13-202(d).

Premeditation means that

the intent to kill must have been formed prior to the act itself. It is not

necessary that the purpose to kill pre-exist in the mind of the accused for any

definite period of time. The mental state of the accused at the time the accused

allegedly decided to kill must be carefully considered in order to determine

whether the accused was sufficiently free from excitement and passion as to

be capable of premeditation.

Id.

Whether premeditation is present is a question of fact for the jury, and it may be

determined from the circumstances surrounding the killing. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 660; State

v. Anderson, 835 S.W.2d 600, 605 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). Circumstances that may be

indicative of premeditation include declarations of the intent to kill, procurement of a

weapon, the use of a deadly weapon upon an unarmed victim, the fact that the killing was

particularly cruel, infliction of multiple wounds, the making of preparations before the killing

for the purpose of concealing the crime, destruction or secretion of evidence, and calmness

immediately after the killing. State v. Jackson, 173 S.W.3d 401, 409 (Tenn. 2005); State v.

Nichols, 24 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Tenn. 2000). A defendant’s failure to render aid to a victim

can also indicate the existence of premeditation. State v. Lewis, 36 s.W.3d 88, 96 (Tenn.

Crim. App. 2000).

In cases where a defendant has been charged with the attempted commission of a

crime, there must be evidence that the defendant acted “with the kind of culpability otherwise

required for the offense” and acted “with intent to cause a result that is an element of the

offense, and believes the conduct will cause the result without further conduct on the

person’s part.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-101(a)(2). Criminal attempt also occurs when the

defendant “[a]cts with intent to complete a course of action or cause a result that would

constitute the offense, under the circumstances surrounding the conduct as the person

believes them to be, and the conduct constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of

the offense.” Id. § 39-12-101(a)(3).

-52-

A. Premeditation

The defendant argues that the evidence at trial established that he committed the

crimes while in a state of excitement and passion. In support, he points to his statement to

police in which he related how he and Cecil were arguing and that Cecil was waving a gun

around when the defendant grabbed his own gun and started shooting. The defendant argues

that there is no evidence that he was “sufficiently free of that ‘excitement and passion’ before

the children were assaulted, some of them fatally.” We respectfully disagree.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence established that the

defendant shot the adult victims multiple times and then repeatedly stabbed and beat the

young children, moving from room to room to do so. Although the defendant told police that

he first began shooting after Cecil reached for a shotgun, he told his mother that he began

shooting after Cecil laid down his gun and that he attacked the children because they had

seen him. We note that Sergeant Mullins testified that the shotgun appeared to have been

placed in the corner near Cecil, the position in which police discovered it, as part of the

staging of the scene.

Moreover, the killings and attempted killings were particularly cruel. Seals was shot

in the face and chest, and the gun was close enough to Seals’s face that it left stippling on his

face when fired. Williams was shot in the head, chest, leg, thigh, and abdomen. Roberson

was shot in both thighs and the left knee twice. Cecil had eight gunshot wounds, including

to the head, neck, chest, thigh, and foot, and there was material on his face consistent with

a pillow having been placed over his face and a gun fired through the pillow. The children

were repeatedly and violently stabbed with knives and beaten with wooden boards, and

C.D.1. was left in the bathtub with a knife sticking out of his head. In addition, the defendant

talked to some of the victims, rejecting their claims that they loved him and continuing with

his violent attacks.

The defendant altered the scene to make it appear as if the murders were drug or gang-

related, moved bodies, disposed of or hid kitchen knives and handles, and collected the

cartridge casings. He escaped on a bicycle and hid it in his girlfriend’s shed. Instead of

attempting to render aid or summon help, he went to a restaurant for dinner the next night

and reported to work on the Monday following the attacks, without telling anyone about the

crimes. He also lied to his family about the last time he had seen Cecil. This evidence was

more than sufficient to establish the element of premeditation in the defendant’s convictions

for first degree murder and attempted first degree murder.

B. Physical Facts Rule

-53-

The defendant also contends that the evidence against him was largely based o

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.