State of Tennessee v. Eric Williams

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs November 7, 2006

STATE OF TENNESSEE V. ERIC WILLIAMS

Appeal as of Right from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 04-00534 W. Otis Higgs, Jr., Judge

No. W2006-00349-CCA-R3-CD - Filed January 8, 2007

The Defendant, Eric Williams, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated robbery. On

appeal, he alleges there was insufficient evidence for any rational jury to convict him of that crime.

Finding no reversible error exists, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JERRY L. SMITH , J. AND

JAMES CURWOOD WITT , JR., JJ., joined.

Robert Felkner (at trial), and Garland Ergüden (on appeal), Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellant,

Eric Williams.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Rachel E. Willis, Assistant Attorney General;

William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; Stephen Crossnoe and Rachel Newton, Assistant

District Attorneys General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

I. Facts

This appeal arises from a conviction for aggravated robbery. The Defendant, Eric Williams,

contends there was insufficient evidence for a conviction. The following evidence was presented

at trial: the victim, Narvin Gray, testified that he was carjacked at gunpoint shortly after midnight

on August 15, 2003. He had just arrived at his home, which he was renovating, after getting

something to eat at Wendy’s. When he pulled into the driveway of his house, he got out and reached

over to get the food out of the passenger seat. He then heard a click, turned around and saw a man

standing there pointing a gun at him. He further described the incident and stated that the Defendant

told him to hand over the keys, which he did. The victim then asked the Defendant if he could get

his backpack out of the vehicle, because the victim’s medicine was in it. The Defendant responded,

“Would you prefer I just shoot you in the head?” The victim said, “Keep it.” The victim identified

the Defendant as the man who robbed him and a gun, which was later admitted into evidence, as the

gun used to assault him.

The victim testified that the Defendant backed the vehicle out of the driveway, almost hit a

light pole, and drove down Jackson Avenue. The victim testified that, at one point, the Defendant

got within two feet of him, and because of a street light that was close by, the victim could clearly

see the Defendant. The victim focused on the distinctive features of the Defendant, including

“slashes” in his eyebrows and a tattoo on his neck.

The victim testified that he did not own the vehicle; it was his sister’s. The victim, however,

could drive the vehicle whenever he wanted as he had a set of keys. After the Defendant drove off

in the vehicle, the victim ran to a gas station which was about one-quarter of a mile from his home.

The store clerk called the police.

Later, on August 25, the victim was sitting at his desk at work, when he received a call from

his sister. His sister told him that her fiancé had found the vehicle, so they called the police. He

went to pick his sister up, and they drove out to the apartment building where the vehicle had been

spotted. The police instructed them not to go anywhere near the vehicle, so they parked far enough

away to see the vehicle, but not to be spotted themselves. The police sent an unmarked police car

to the scene, and within an hour, they all saw a woman walk out to the vehicle, open the door and

get in. The unmarked police car pulled up behind the vehicle, and the police detained the woman.

The next thing the victim saw was the Defendant in the back of a squad car. The victim testified he

had never met the Defendant before, and the Defendant had never been in his house.

On cross-examination, the victim testified he was out that night getting his keys back from

a friend who had borrowed his car for a doctor’s appointment. The victim was preparing to stay at

his house instead of his mother’s because it was so late. This was despite the fact that there was no

air conditioning and it was mid-August. The street light was not blocked by any trees, but despite

it being a well lit area, the victim did not see the Defendant when he pulled into the driveway. The

victim admitted that the gun which he was shown and identified was clearly not silver, but he

claimed it appeared silver because of the light reflecting off of it. The victim stated he had planned

on staying at the home, despite there being no air conditioning or a working bathroom. The victim

did not normally keep the lights on when he was away, so it was unlikely that someone would know

the layout of the home if he had merely passed by it at night. The home had hardwood floors, a

stainless steel kitchen sink, but no cushions on the floor to sit on.

On re-direct examination, the victim testified that his backpack was a medium sized black

backpack. His home had four windows on the front of the house with nothing covering the windows.

Officer Patrick Jones testified that he received a call from dispatch that a black male had been

robbed of his vehicle at gunpoint. He met with the cooperative victim that night, and he entered the

-2-

information into a database, which other officers access, that tells the officers that the vehicle has

been stolen and to approach with caution. Officer Jones never went to the scene of the crime. On

cross-examination, Officer Jones testified that he did not recall whether the victim described the

Defendant or the weapon that was used. On re-direct, Officer Jones testified that uniformed officers

do not investigate robberies, the robbery bureau does that.

Eric Hollowell testified that he had been dating the victim’s sister for about six months at the

time of the robbery. At that time he was very familiar with the vehicle as he had ridden in it, driven

it, and worked on it numerous times. On August 25, 2003, at about 7:30 in the morning, he was

driving from work to his mother’s house, when he spotted the vehicle at Greenbriar Apartments.

Hollowell called his sister, who called the police while he remained at the scene. On cross-

examination, Hollowell testified that spotting the vehicle was just a coincidence, and he was not sent

to these apartments. The route he took was a short-cut to his mother’s house.

Karen Gray, the victim’s sister, testified that she had owned the vehicle for a few years, and

it was a light green-gray colored Ford Expedition. The victim had permission to drive it. On August

25, 2003, she was called by her boyfriend, who stated that he believed that he had found the vehicle.

Hollowell specifically noticed a few dents and a scratch across the back window. Gray called the

victim at work, and they conference called 9-1-1. She and the victim went to the location where they

found Hollowell waiting for them. They waited until they saw a woman get into the vehicle, when

a small black pickup pulled up behind it. Police officers exited the pickup and detained the woman.

Gray was called over to identify the vehicle, which she stated was hers. There was nothing wrong

with the vehicle except for it being “stinking and dirty.” After two weeks she got her vehicle back.

On cross-examination, Gray testified that she did not remember anything specific about what

she and her brother were doing the night of August 15, 2003. However, she did state that the victim

took her vehicle instead of his because her vehicle was parked behind his in the driveway. The

victim stayed at the house he had recently bought on occasion, and he bathed and showered there.

Gray owed roughly ten thousand on the vehicle at the time of trial. After further questioning, Gray

did remember that the victim took her vehicle because he could not find his keys. She remembered

that the victim’s friend actually had the keys. Gray could not recall specifically what time the victim

left their mother’s house.

Officer Lucas McNair testified that he was called to the Greenbriar Apartments on the

morning of August 25, 2003, after a vehicle was spotted that was reportedly taken in a carjacking.

He went to that location in a brown pickup and parked about one hundred yards away from the

vehicle. After about ten or fifteen minutes, he saw a woman approach the vehicle, pull out keys, and

get in the driver’s seat. He pulled up behind the vehicle so as to block it in, and he detained the

woman. The woman stated that the vehicle belonged to someone in the apartment directly in front

of the vehicle, which officers were directed to.

Angelic Thornton testified that she had been staying with her sister for about three months

at 3171 Madewell, Apt. E. Thornton had known the Defendant for about three years, and he would

-3-

come and go. This time, he had come in the Expedition and claimed it belonged to a friend of his.

Thornton stated that when the Defendant arrived at the home, he had a backpack with him which was

possibly blue or gray. Thornton took her kids to school the morning of August 25, 2003, in the

Expedition. Afterwards, she went out to the vehicle to go to south Memphis when a small pickup

pulled up behind her, and a man jumped out with a gun. She was thrown to the ground and

handcuffed. She stated that the person who owned the vehicle was inside the apartment. The

officers entered the apartment and came out with the Defendant. Thornton was taken to the

downtown police station where she gave a statement and was allowed to leave.

Officer Charles Teeters testified that he was in an unmarked police car monitoring the scene

on August 25, 2003, when Officer McNair told him to approach because he had seen someone

getting into the vehicle. When he arrived, Officer McNair stated that the person responsible for the

carjacking was inside a close-by apartment. Officer Teeters knocked on the door and was met by

Eric Williams, the Defendant. When the door was opened, he noticed what appeared to be a fully

automatic tech nine handgun sitting on the couch behind the Defendant. He entered the apartment,

did a protective sweep and secured the handgun. He attempted to unload the gun, which he was

unable to do. He then called a member of the SWAT team to come unload the gun, and that person

was successful. The gun was then passed to Officer Monistere. The Defendant was not given any

Miranda warnings. On cross-examination, Officer Teeters testified he had no personal knowledge

of the alleged carjacking; he was merely involved to the extent he previously testified to.

Officer Monistere testified he was called to the Greenbriar Apartments in order to possibly

provide transportation. When he arrived, officers were entering the apartment. The Defendant was

handcuffed and placed in the back of his squad car. Officer Monistere was given the weapon that

was found at the scene, and he tagged it and placed it into an evidence box.

Sargent Joe Stark testified that he investigated a robbery and interviewed the Defendant

concerning it. After initially asking for an attorney, the Defendant stated he wanted to talk with

Sargent Stark. The Defendant described the encounter with the victim as follows: the Defendant was

walking along Park Avenue when the victim pulled up and stopped. The victim asked the Defendant

if he “wanted to party,” after which they went to buy beer. The two drove to the victim’s home and

went inside. The victim asked the Defendant to have sex, which the Defendant refused. The victim

then got drunk and passed out. The Defendant then took the keys to the victim’s vehicle. The

Defendant then described the victim’s house as having shiny wood floors, stools with wheels on

them, and a working toilet. It was a one story house but did not have a stove. The Defendant also

called the victim by the name “Lynn.”

Sargent Stark then went to interview the victim, who stated his name was “Lynn.” He toured

the house and stated that the bathroom did not have any walls or bathroom fixtures. There was no

stove, as the Defendant claimed, but the hardwood floors were not shiny and the bar stools did not

have wheels on them. Sargent Stark also stated that there were big, open windows on the front of

the house through which one could see different parts of the house. This information was provided

to Sargent Wong, who decided to bring charges against the Defendant.

-4-

On cross-examination, Sargent Stark stated that if one attempted to look through the windows

at night, without any lights on, the house would be difficult to see into. There were certain things

which the Defendant was correct about, including that there were hardwood floors, a stainless steel

sink, and paint buckets in the dining room. Sargent Stark did not take any pictures or talk to any

neighbors. The house appeared to be vacant.

Lieutenant Kam Wong testified that he was in the robbery bureau in 2003, and he was the

case coordinator for the present case. He had other officers obtain statements, and he interviewed

Thornton himself. Lieutenant Wong determined the Defendant should be charged because the victim

identified the Defendant, the vehicle was recovered, and there was information indicating the

Defendant was not credible.

On cross-examination, Lieutenant Wong testified he never went to the scene of the

carjacking, and he never asked anyone to photograph the scene or interview the neighbors. No one

was sent to the home to take photos or fingerprints of the inside of the home. He never wondered

how the Defendant would know so much about the inside of the home.

Upon this evidence, the jury convicted the Defendant of aggravated robbery.

II. Analysis

The Defendant asserts that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to convict him of

aggravated robbery. When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court’s

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

“any 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); see Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); State v.

Goodwin, 143 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tenn. 2004) (citing State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 276 (Tenn.

2002)). This rule applies to findings of guilt based upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence,

or a combination of both direct and circumstantial evidence. State v. Pendergrass,13 S.W.3d 389,

392-93 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court should not re-weigh or re-evaluate

the evidence. State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Nor may this

Court substitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact from the evidence. State v. Buggs,

995 S.W.2d 102, 105 (Tenn. 1999); Liakas v. State, 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Tenn. 1956). “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. Bland, 958 S.W.2d

651, 659 (Tenn. 1997); Liakas, 286 S.W.2d at 859. “A guilty verdict by the jury, approved by the

trial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflicts in favor

of the theory of the State.” State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Grace, 493

S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973). The Tennessee Supreme Court stated the rationale for this rule:

This well-settled rule rests on a sound foundation. The trial judge and the jury see

-5-

the witnesses face to face, hear their testimony and observe their demeanor on the

stand. Thus the trial judge and jury are the primary instrumentality of justice to

determine the weight and credibility to be given to the testimony of witnesses. In the

trial forum alone is there human atmosphere and the totality of the evidence cannot

be reproduced with a written record in this Court.

Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tenn. 1966) (citing Carroll v. State, 370 S.W.2d 523 (Tenn.

1963)). This Court must afford the State of Tennessee the strongest legitimate view of the evidence

contained in the record, as well as all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence.

Goodwin, 143 S.W.3d at 775 (citing State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 279 (Tenn. 2000)). Because

a verdict of guilt against a defendant removes the presumption of innocence and raises a presumption

of guilt, the convicted criminal defendant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was legally

insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 557-58 (Tenn. 2000).

In this case, the Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery. Robbery is the “intentional

or knowing theft of property from the person of another by violence or putting the person in fear.”

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401(a) (2003). A robbery becomes aggravated when the defendant

“display[s] . . . any article used . . . to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a deadly weapon.”

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402(a) (2003).

The victim testified the Defendant approached the victim from behind and took the vehicle

he was driving at gunpoint. The victim stated he was afraid. Days later, the vehicle and a gun

substantially similar to the one described were discovered, and the Defendant was arrested. This is

ample evidence upon which to convict the Defendant of aggravated robbery.

The Defendant argues that one would not be able to describe the inside of the victim’s home

if the victim’s story were to be believed. Instead, the Defendant claims his story is more plausible.

However, this Court is not in a position to make credibility determinations. The Defendant’s

allegation of error is without merit.

III. Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing reasoning and authorities, we affirm the judgment of the

trial court.

___________________________________

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE

-6-