State of Tennessee v. Jamiel D. Williams

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

March 19, 2008 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAMIEL D. WILLIAMS

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County

No. CR08129 Timothy L. Easter, Judge

No. M2007-01666-CCA-R3-CD - Filed May 27, 2008

The defendant, Jamiel D. Williams, appeals his Williamson County Circuit Court conviction of first

degree murder, alleging that there was insufficient evidence to prove premeditation. We hold that

the evidence presented at trial was sufficient and affirm the judgment of the trial court. The judgment

is modified because it incorrectly classifies the sentence as a Class A felony.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed as Modified

JAMES CURWOOD WITT , JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOSEPH M. TIPTON , P.J.,

and JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., joined.

Robert H. Hassell and Gene Honea, Franklin Tennessee, for the appellant, Jamiel D. Williams.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Preston Shipp, Assistant Attorney General;

and Derek K. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

On August 8, 2005, the Williamson County Grand Jury indicted the defendant on one

charge of first degree premeditated murder. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202 (2003). A jury convicted the

defendant of the charge on August 17, 2006, and on October 24, 2006, the trial court sentenced the

defendant to life in prison to be served in the Department of Correction.

In light of the fact that the sole issue we address here is the sufficiency of the evidence

of premeditation, an element of first degree murder in this case, we summarize only the pertinent

testimony from the trial.

John Paul Taylor, a detective with the Franklin Police Department, testified that on

April 26, 2005, he was the on-call detective for the evening. Detective Taylor received a telephone

call at 11:00 p.m. that someone had been shot on 9th Avenue and that the individual was being taken

to the hospital. The individual was later identified as Aaron Jones. Detective Taylor went to the

police station, picked up the “crime scene van,” and went to the scene of the shooting. Several

police officers were already on the scene and had closed the street. Shortly after arriving on the

scene, Detective Taylor received a phone call informing him that the shooting victim had died.

Detective Taylor testified that there were no witnesses at the scene.

Detective Taylor testified he was able to ascertain where the shooting occurred by the

“large pool of blood” behind 114 9th Avenue and “blood splatter” in the driveway leading to the rear

of the house. Additionally, five shell casings were found at that location and sent to the Tennessee

Bureau of Investigation (TBI) crime lab for analysis. No gun was recovered from the scene.

Detective Taylor testified that the blood trail gave the indication that after being shot the victim

traveled about 25 to 30 feet to the back of the house before collapsing. He testified that the police

retrieved samples of the blood from different areas, took photos, collected castings of footprints in

the area near the shell casings, and interviewed neighbors.

Detective Taylor testified that the police received tips that led them to recover a gun

at 1107 Incinerator Road, an address five to ten miles from the crime scene. Their information was

that Tonya Thomas had acquired the gun. Ms. Thomas told police

[T]he night of the shooting, she was at . . . Lottie Hardin’s1 [] home

on Reddick Street when she heard a knock on the back door. And

Cory Esmon showed up and he had the weapon with him. He then

handed the weapon off to an individual by the name of Derrick

McLemore . . . . [Derrick said to Cory] he didn’t need to have that

weapon . . . . Later that night Derrick was driving around with Tonya

and . . . told her that she needed to hide the gun at her residence. He

drove her to that location and she then exited the vehicle and hid the

weapon in the back yard by a fence.

The recovered gun was photographed and sent to the TBI lab for analysis, where it was identified

as a “High Point” .45 semi-automatic handgun. Detective Taylor testified that the TBI report showed

that two bullets removed from victim’s body were fired by this gun.

Detective Taylor testified that after interviewing many suspects the police

apprehended the defendant at his grandmother’s house within 48 hours of the shooting and that the

defendant had “no demeanor; he basically just sat there” when taken into custody.

Detective Taylor attended the autopsy of the victim, noting that the victim sustained

a gunshot wound to the face and two wounds to his chest.

Shavalia Radley testified that she was the victim’s girlfriend and had been dating him

for about one year. On April 26, 2005, Ms. Radley got off work at a Krystal restaurant at

1

Ms. Hardin is alternately referred to in the record as “Lottie Hardiman.”

-2-

approximately 8:00 p.m., and she and the victim walked to her grandmother’s house. They were

planning to go to Reddick Court where their friend Demetria Jones lived. While on their way, they

ran into a group of people including Jamal Pope, Cory Esmon, Paris “I don’t know her last name,”

and the defendant. Ms. Radley testified that “Cory approached [the victim] and wanted to shake his

hand, but [the victim] wouldn’t shake his hand.” This led to an argument with cursing and loud

shouting, but no physical altercation occurred despite Mr. Esmon’s grabbing a stick and the victim’s

having a knife.

The shooting apparently occurred a short time later, when the victim returned to

confront Mr. Esmon. Ricky Brice testified that he witnessed the shooting of the victim. He was

outside and saw the victim engaged in a fight with Cory Esmon in front of Trent Covington’s house

while the defendant remained on Mr. Covington’s porch . He testified that “[the victim] whooped

Cory. In the process of [the victim’s] whooping Cory, he had him down [on the ground] and he

whooped him.” He testified that Cory told the victim “yeah man, you won,” and after the victim

backed away, the defendant stepped off the porch and shot him. Mr. Brice testified that “the gun

fired five times. And from the look of the strikes that the motions that [the victim] went through,

I believe it hit him three times.”

Trent Covington testified that he lived at 144 9th Avenue South and that on the

evening of April 26, 2005, “[s]omebody got shot in my driveway.” He testified that at the time of

the fight, “[h]alf of us was on the porch, half was in the yard” and that “[f]rom my understanding it

was over a female.” He testified that the victim was winning the fight before it was stopped.

Doctor Feng Li, an assistant medical examiner for Davidson and Williamson counties,

testified that an autopsy was performed on the victim’s body on April 27, 2005. Doctor Li testified

that the victim suffered one gunshot wound to the face, one to the left side of the chest, a third to the

right side of the chest, and gunshot grazing wounds on his right upper arm and left wrist. There was

no evidence of “stippling” around the gunshot wounds, which indicated the shooter was more than

two and one-half feet to three feet from the victim when he fired the shots. Doctor Li testified he

was unable to determine the order of the gunshots or whether the shooter stood above the victim.

Corzell “Cory” Esmon testified that on April 26, 2005, he was hanging out with the

defendant, Jamal Pope, and a man named Jarvis. They spent the day walking around town, driving

around, and drinking alcohol. Mr. Esmon testified that he first met the victim on that day and that

the afternoon altercation was the result of an argument started by the victim over his girlfriend. Mr.

Esmon noticed the victim had his hands in his pants so he asked him why. He testified that the

victim became defensive and said “something about I stab you – he said, You talking to my girl, I

stab you.” Mr. Esmon testified that he could not have been talking to the victim’s girlfriend because

he was there with another woman. He picked up a stick to defend himself from the victim, and the

two of them were separated. Mr. Esmon and his group then left the scene and went to Trent

Covington’s house.

-3-

Mr. Esmon testified that at Mr. Covington’s house he was told that the victim wanted

to fight him one-on-one. He accepted the challenge and kept drinking until the victim arrived.

When the victim arrived Mr. Esmon told him he was too drunk to fight him at that time. After

continued provocation, Mr. Esmon took his shirt off, took a swing, missed, and fell down. Mr.

Esmon testified that the victim then “fell on top of me and started pounding me in my face; just

pound me, pound me.” Mr. Esmon testified that he conceded defeat in the fight and that when he

was getting up, the shooting occurred. He saw the defendant shoot the victim after the defendant

jumped off the porch. He testified he did not see the victim get hit, but he saw the shots fired and

heard “[a]t least five – five to six shots.” He did see the victim run behind the house after the

shooting. Mr. Esmon testified he retrieved the gun from the defendant and ran away with the intent

to dispose of the weapon. He went to Lottie Hardin’s home, where he smoked crack cocaine and

gave the gun to Derrick McLemore.

On cross examination, Mr. Esmon admitted to removing the magazine from the gun

but denied removing any bullets. He testified that no bullets remained in the gun.

Antonio Brown testified that he was a member of the “Bloods” gang and was

currently incarcerated for a parole violation from a drug charge. On the afternoon of the shooting,

Mr. Brown was driving around the city and happened to drive by Mr. Esmon and the victim during

their first altercation of the day. He knew the victim’s girlfriend, Ms. Radley, because he knew her

family. He testified that he asked Ms. Radley what was going on, and the victim responded that Mr.

Esmons’ group was trying to jump him. Mr. Brown got out of his car to talk to the people still at the

scene. The victim departed, and Mr. Esmon told Mr. Brown that the victim pulled a knife on him.

He testified that the defendant then stated, “I’m going to get my folks – you know what I’m saying,

we ain’t got time to be talking about that. I’m going to get my folks and we’re going to have this

out.”

Mr. Brown testified that he got back in his car and drove down the street, found the

victim and Ms. Radley, and asked them about the incident. The victim reported that “Cory

supposedly disrespected him or something. . . . Cory said a smart remark to him; something like

they’re going to make me kill him, or something to that nature, you know.”

Mr. Brown testified that later that day he saw the victim walking to Trent

Covington’s. He picked the victim up and drove him there with the intention of straightening things

out. He testified, “You had Cory’s story, then you had [the victim’s] story, so we were just trying

to . . . let both of them talk [to] . . . find out who be telling the truth, who would be lying.” Mr.

Brown determined that Cory was lying and “that he had been knowing this girl, or something, longer

than him.” He testified that everyone agreed that Mr. Esmon and the victim would fight. Mr. Esmon

had a gun and he gave it to the defendant before the fight began. They started the fight, and the

victim started “whooping” Mr. Esmon. He testified that after Mr. Esmon admitted defeat, “[the

victim] was getting ready to get up. . . . [and the defendant] jumped off the porch, man, and just

started shooting.”

-4-

The defendant chose not to testify.

When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court’s

standard of review is whether, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond

a reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324, 99 S. Ct. 2781

(1979); State v. Winters, 137 S.W.3d 641, 654 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). The rule applies to findings

of guilt based upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of direct and

circumstantial evidence. Winters, 137 S.W.3d at 654.

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this court should neither re-weigh the

evidence nor substitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact. Id. at 655. Questions

concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, as well as all

factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d

832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Significantly, this court must afford the State of Tennessee the strongest

legitimate view of the evidence contained in the record as well as all reasonable and legitimate

inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. Id.

Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-202(a)(1) provides that “[f]irst degree

murder is . . . [a] premeditated and intentional killing of another.” T.C.A. § 39-13-202(a)(1) (2003).

“‘[P]remeditation’ is an act done after the exercise of reflection and judgment.” Id. § 39-13-202(d).

Proof of premeditation is inherently circumstantial. The trier of fact cannot speculate

what was in the killer’s mind, so the existence of premeditation must be determined from the

defendant’s conduct in light of the circumstances surrounding the crime. See State v. Johnny Wright,

No. 01C01-9503-CC-00093, slip op. at 9 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Jan. 5, 1996). Thus, in

evaluating the sufficiency of proof of premeditation, the appellate court looks to the circumstances

surrounding the killing. See, e.g., State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 660 (Tenn. 1997); State v.

Coulter, 67 S.W.3d 3, 72 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). Such circumstances may include “the use of a

deadly weapon upon an unarmed victim; the particular cruelty of the killing; declarations by the

defendant of an intent to kill; evidence of procurement of a weapon; preparations before the killing

for concealment of the crime, and calmness immediately after the killing.” Bland, 958 S.W.2d at

660.

Under these circumstances, it is our view that the evidence was sufficient to support

the conviction of premeditated first degree murder. After the confrontation between the victim and

Mr. Esmon, the defendant made the statement, “I’m going to get my folks; we’re going to have this

out.” A jury may infer premeditation from a defendant’s prior threats. See State v. Davidson, 121

S.W.3d 600, 615 (Tenn. 2003). The defendant procured the gun from another individual, Mr.

Esmon. He used that gun to shoot the victim multiple times. See State v. Nichols, 24 S.W.3d 297,

302 (Tenn. 2000) (holding that infliction of multiple wounds on a victim may be indicative of

premeditation). The defendant fled the scene and left the gun with Mr. Esmon, who later concealed

-5-

the evidence. There was ample evidence to support the conviction for premeditated first degree

murder.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, the judgment

incorrectly classifies the offense as a Class A felony. The trial court shall amend the judgment to

reflect that the offense is classified as first degree murder, an offense that occupies a separate

conviction class.

___________________________________

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

-6-