State of Tennessee v. Dennis Cedric Woodard, Jr.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

November 19, 2002 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DENNIS CEDRIC WOODARD, JR.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bedford County

No. 14912 Charles Lee, Judge

No. M2002-00122-CCA-R3-CD - Filed January 24, 2003

The Defendant, Dennis Cedric Woodard, Jr., was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated

murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. In this appeal as of right,

the Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial is not sufficient to sustain his conviction.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

DAVID H. WELLES , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOE G. RILEY and ALAN E.

GLENN, JJ., joined.

Jack Dearing, III and Mike Collins, Assistant Public Defenders, Shelbyville, Tennessee, for the

appellant, Dennis Cedric Woodard, Jr.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner, Assistant Attorney General;

Mike McCown, District Attorney General; and Michael Randles, Assistant District Attorney

General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

The Defendant, Dennis Cedric Woodard, Jr., was convicted by a jury of first degree

premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. He now

argues on appeal that the evidence presented at trial is not sufficient to support his conviction.

The proof offered by the State demonstrated that on the night of April 13, 2001, the homicide

victim, Scott Shafer, was shot near Derry Street in Shelbyville. Earlier that day, at around four

o’clock, the victim had been visiting the home of LaShawn Nunnally. Ms. Nunnally testified that

sometime later the Defendant arrived at her house carrying a gun. The Defendant pointed the gun

at the victim and said, “Nigga, are you real or are you fake?” The victim responded to the

Defendant, who was commonly referred to as “Junior,” by saying, “Junior, man, quit playing. I’m

fucked up.” The Defendant, still pointing the gun at the victim, then repeated his question. At that

point, Ms. Nunnally requested that the two men leave the front of her house. The Defendant and the

victim went to the rear of the house, and Ms. Nunnally followed. She asked the Defendant for the

gun, and he gave it to her. Immediately thereafter, Jarmaine Hill, Ms. Nunnally’s boyfriend, and

Mike Jones arrived. Mr. Hill inquired what Ms. Nunnally was doing with the Defendant’s gun. She

responded that she was trying to “prevent trouble.” Mr. Hill then demanded that she return the

Defendant’s gun, which she did, but she kept the clip that contained the bullets and went back around

to the front porch of her house. A few minutes later, the four men came to the front of the house,

and the Defendant’s mouth was bleeding. When Ms. Nunnally asked what had happened, the victim

replied, “I dunked him on his head.” The Defendant then said to the victim, “Man, you fucked up

my grill.” Then the Defendant smiled at the victim and added, “You are going to remember this

tonight.” However, Ms. Nunnally testified that the Defendant and the victim then hugged, made up,

and left together in the victim’s car. After all the men left, Ms. Nunnally wrapped the pistol clip in

toilet paper and tossed it into a creek.

About two hours later, Ms. Nunnally had gone to another house to visit with friends.

Jarmaine Hill and Mike Jones arrived; then a few minutes later, the Defendant and the victim drove

up. As the day got later, Ms. Nunnally, her two daughters, and the victim decided to walk back to

Ms. Nunnally’s house to get their jackets. As they returned from getting their coats, the Defendant

walked up, pointed the gun at the victim, and said, “Nigga, are you ready to die?” The Defendant

then shot the victim, who fell down. He pulled the trigger several more times, but the gun would not

fire because the clip had been removed. The Defendant, who then ran away, was wearing a yellow

shirt, black denim shorts, black Nike shoes, and black socks. Ms. Nunnally ran to a pay telephone

and called 911. She then located the victim, who had run a short distance and fallen down, and she

applied a blanket to his wound.

On cross-examination, Ms. Nunnally said that the Defendant appeared intoxicated while he

was at her house. She said that his speech was slurred and he was staggering. He also appeared to

be intoxicated when she left her friend’s house to get the jackets from her house. She said that when

the police arrived, she was beside the victim, rendering aid.

Thomas Thompson testified that on the evening of April 13, 2001, he was in his house at 101

Byrd Street. At around 7:40 that night, he heard what sounded like a gunshot. He then looked out

his window and saw a white man run between 714 and 716 Derry Street, fall down on the ground,

and yell that he had been shot. Then Mr. Thompson looked behind Smith’s Food Town on Derry

Street and saw a black man in a yellow shirt run behind the store.

James Wheeler testified that at around nine o’clock on the night of April 13, 2001, a young

black man, whom he identified as the Defendant, knocked on his door. Mr. Wheeler testified that

the Defendant was bleeding from his mouth, and he initially thought that the Defendant had been in

a car accident. However, the Defendant said that he had been beaten up, and he asked to use the

telephone. While Mr. Wheeler was inside his house retrieving a cordless phone for the Defendant,

he decided to call 911 to have an ambulance come render aid to the Defendant. When Mr. Wheeler

-2-

went outside to give the Defendant the telephone, he observed a car drive up with a young man and

woman inside. Mr. Wheeler recognized the driver of the car as a man named Matt Kelly. The

Defendant, who Mr. Wheeler said was “fidgety” and “obviously wanting to leave,” got in the car

with Mr. Kelly and drove away. On cross-examination, Mr. Wheeler testified that the Defendant was

having difficulty breathing and speaking because of the condition of his mouth.

David Williams, an officer with the Bedford County Sheriff’s Department, testified that he

accompanied the ambulance to Mr. Wheeler’s residence in response to Mr. Wheeler’s 911 call. As

he was driving, he passed a white Honda Accord. Upon speaking with Mr. Wheeler, he learned that

the subject had left in that car. Officer Williams then followed the Accord to the emergency room

parking lot, where he stopped the vehicle. The Defendant was in the back seat, and Officer Williams

noticed that he had injuries to his face, he had blood down the front of his body, and he was not

wearing a shirt. When the officer asked for his name, the Defendant replied that his name was

Simms. However, the driver of the car, Matt Kelly, told the Defendant to tell the truth, and the

Defendant then told the officer that his name was Junior Woodard. Officer Williams asked another

officer, D’Angelo Inman of the Tennessee Highway Patrol, to pat down the Defendant for weapons.

Officer Inman located a Taurus .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol in the Defendant’s pocket. The

weapon had no clip in the grip. Officer Williams then placed the Defendant in his patrol car and

called for the city police. Officer Williams testified that he smelled alcohol on the Defendant, but

that the Defendant was coherent and had no trouble walking. Officer Inman, on the other hand,

testified that he did not notice an odor of alcohol about the Defendant.

Back at the scene of the shooting, Rod Stacey was the patrolman with the Shelbyville Police

Department who first arrived. He testified that he located a white male, whom he recognized as the

victim, Scott Shafer, lying on the ground in between 714 and 716 Derry Street. Officer Stacey

observed an entrance wound and an exit wound in the victim’s left arm and an entrance wound in

the victim’s abdomen. Officer Stacey testified that the victim did not tell him who shot him or the

circumstances surrounding the shooting.

Detective Eric Ely of the Shelbyville Police Department arrived on the scene after other

officers had already secured the area and begun searching for evidence. He was directed to an area

where David Williams of the Bedford County Sheriff’s Department had located a shell casing earlier

that evening. Detective Ely photographed the cartridge and took it into evidence. He testified that

it was the casing of a .40 caliber bullet. At around 10:25 that evening, Detective Ely went to the

hospital where other officers had the Defendant in custody. There he received the Taurus pistol that

Trooper Inman had found in the Defendant’s pocket. Detective Ely stated that he read the Defendant

his rights. Noticing that the Defendant had blood on his lip and some of his teeth were dislodged,

he asked him, “What happened to your mouth?” The Defendant replied, “I didn’t shoot anybody.”

The detective testified that he did not smell alcohol on the Defendant during this conversation. Later

in his investigation, Detective Ely went to the office of the state medical examiner, where he

received the bullet that had been removed from the body of the victim.

-3-

Teri Arney is a forensic scientist with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. She examined

the shell casing found at the scene of the shooting, the bullet extracted from the victim’s body, and

the handgun found in the Defendant’s pocket. She testified that the gun was a Taurus model PT140

.40 caliber semi-automatic pistol. She determined that the bullet and shell casing had been fired and

ejected from the Defendant’s gun.

Jeff Long is the EMT worker who administered medical aid to the victim. Mr. Long testified

that when he encountered the victim, he was pale and sweating. The victim’s lack of color indicated

blood loss, and the perspiration indicated that he was beginning to go into shock. These signs

suggested that the victim was bleeding internally and needed to be flown via helicopter to Nashville

for surgery.

Jeffery Guy is a surgeon at Vanderbilt Hospital who treated the victim. He testified that the

victim had extremely low blood pressure when he arrived at Vanderbilt. Despite the efforts of the

surgical team, Scott Shafer died from blood loss as a result of gunshot wounds to the spleen,

pancreas, and intestines.

Feng Li of the state medical examiner’s office performed an autopsy on the victim’s body

on April 14, 2001. He testified that the victim died of gunshot wounds to different internal organs,

and that all of the wounds had been caused by a single bullet. He also testified that no alcohol or

drugs were detected in the victim’s blood.

Rhonda Hill testified that her son Chris received a letter in May of 2001. She recognized the

return address on the envelope as being the Bedford County Jail; so she decided to read the letter.

The letter was dated May 23, 2001, the day after the Defendant’s preliminary hearing. The letter was

from the Defendant, who referred to himself as “Juvy.” In the letter, the Defendant stated that a girl

named Shawn is “running her mouth.”1 The Defendant’s letter asked Chris to prevent Ms. Nunnally

from making the June 18 court date, which is the date on which the Defendant’s case was presented

to the grand jury. Finally, the Defendant requested Chris to “hook up with Mickey and burn this

bitch house down.” After reading the letter, Ms. Hill went to the police station and gave the police

the letter. Henry Young, who was in jail with the Defendant, testified that he observed the

Defendant writing the letter. Mr. Young testified that after his preliminary hearing on May 22, 2001,

the Defendant mentioned LaShawn Nunnally’s testimony and that it “needed to be taken care of.”

After the State rested its case, the Defendant testified on his own behalf. He stated that, on

the afternoon of April 13, 2001, he had been out riding with the victim, Scott Shafer. The Defendant

had drunk three quarts of Budweiser beer in thirty minutes when he first joined the victim. After the

Defendant left the victim’s car, the Defendant decided to walk to LaShawn Nunnally’s house. When

he arrived, the victim was already there. The two men exchanged words regarding whether the

victim had tried to “holler” at the Defendant’s girlfriend. At this point, the Defendant testified that

his gun was in his pocket. He handed the gun to Ms. Nunnally, and the argument between the

1“Shawn” re fers to LaSha wn N unnally.

-4-

Defendant and the victim escalated into a fight. The victim punched the Defendant in the mouth,

and the two wrestled on the ground. During the fight, the Defendant suffered a busted lip and lost

a tooth. After the fight, the two men apologized to each other, hugged, and left in the victim’s car.

The Defendant stated that when they left, Ms. Nunnally still had the gun.

The Defendant and the victim then went to a store, where the Defendant bought another quart

of beer. After riding around for awhile, the two men returned to Ms. Nunnally’s house. When they

arrived, Ms. Nunnally and Mike Jones were there. The group was sitting on the front porch talking,

when Jarmaine Hill showed up. Mr. Hill and Ms. Nunnally went inside the house for fifteen to thirty

minutes. When Mr. Hill came back onto the front porch, he told the Defendant that he wanted to

speak with him. The two men walked down the street and talked. The Defendant testified that when

they returned, he sat back down on Ms. Nunnally’s front porch. Then the Defendant looked up and

observed Mr. Hill pointing a gun at the victim. The Defendant stated that Mr. Hill shot the victim.

Mr. Hill ran away, but the Defendant remained on the porch. At that time, Ms. Nunnally approached

the Defendant, said “Here,” and handed him the pistol. The Defendant took the gun and ran. The

Defendant said that he ran past Smith’s Food Town, and he stopped and knocked on the door of

James Wheeler because he did not know how to get to his friend Matt Kelly’s house. While he was

at Mr. Wheeler’s house, Matt Kelly drove up, and the Defendant got in his car. The Defendant

testified that they drove to the hospital because he was concerned about the victim. Later on in his

testimony, the Defendant admitted writing the letter to Chris Hodge asking him to burn down the

house of LaShawn Nunnally “to make her stop lying on [him].”

The defense called Jarmaine Hill as a witness, but he asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege

against self-incrimination. Therefore, the trial court declared Mr. Hill unavailable, and the defense

called Randall Lottie. Mr. Lottie testified that, while he was incarcerated with Mr. Hill, he heard Mr.

Hill say that he killed Scott Shafer. Mr. Hill said that Mr. Shafer owed him money for drugs, and

that another person was in jail for his crime.

Based upon this evidence, the jury found the Defendant guilty of first degree premeditated

murder. The Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support his

conviction. Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(e) prescribes that “[f]indings of guilt in

criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the evidence is insufficient to

support the findings by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Evidence is sufficient

if, after reviewing 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. See Jackson

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 278 (Tenn. 2000). In addition,

because conviction by a trier of fact destroys the presumption of innocence and imposes a

presumption of guilt, a convicted criminal defendant bears the burden of showing that the evidence

was insufficient. See McBee v. State, 372 S.W.2d 173, 176 (Tenn. 1963); see also State v. Buggs,

995 S.W.2d 102, 105-06 (Tenn. 1999); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992); State v.

Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).

-5-

In its review of the evidence, an appellate court must afford the State “the strongest legitimate

view of the evidence as well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn

therefrom.” Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d at 914; see also Smith, 24 S.W.3d at 279. The court may not “re-

weigh or re-evaluate the evidence” in the record below. Evans, 838 S.W.2d at 191; see also Buggs,

995 S.W.2d at 105. Likewise, should the reviewing court find particular conflicts in the trial

testimony, the court must resolve them in favor of the jury verdict or trial court judgment. See

Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d at 914. All questions involving the credibility of witnesses, the weight and

value to be given the evidence, and all factual issues are resolved by the trier of fact, not the appellate

courts. See State v. Morris, 24 S.W.3d 788, 795 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620,

623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).

“First degree murder is . . . [a] premeditated and intentional killing of another.” Tenn. Code

Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1).

“[P]remeditation” is an act done after the exercise of reflection and judgment.

“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. § 39-13-202(d).

The Defendant argues that the proof of premeditation is lacking, especially in light of the

testimony regarding the Defendant’s intoxication at the time of the shooting. Our supreme court

has held that:

The element of premeditation is a question of fact to be resolved by the jury.

Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 660. It may be established by proof of the circumstances

surrounding the killing. Id.; State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 539 (Tenn. 1992). As

we stated in Bland, there are several factors which tend to support the existence of

premeditation which 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. See State v.

Pike, 978 S.W.2d 904, 914 (Tenn. 1998); Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 660; Brown, 836

S.W.2d at 541-42; State v. West, 844 S.W.2d 144, 148 (Tenn. 1992).

State v. Suttles, 30 S.W.3d 252, 261 (Tenn. 2000).

-6-

In this case, the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for first degree

premeditated murder. Eyewitness LaShawn Nunnally testified that the Defendant pointed a gun at

the victim and asked him, “Nigga, are you real or are you fake?” During the ensuing fistfight, the

victim injured the Defendant’s mouth by punching him in the face. Ms. Nunnally testified that after

the fight, the Defendant told the victim, “You are going to remember this tonight.” She testified that

later that night, after the Defendant and the victim had made up and been out riding together in an

automobile, she watched as the Defendant approached the victim, asked, “Nigga, are you ready to

die?” and shot him. The Defendant attempted to shoot the victim several times, but the gun

contained only one bullet.

Officer David Williams testified that when he apprehended the Defendant in the parking lot

of the hospital, the Defendant was carrying a Taurus .40 caliber pistol in his pocket. Officer

Williams stated that although the Defendant smelled of alcohol, he had no difficulty walking and was

able to communicate — understand and respond — appropriately. Teri Arney of the Tennessee

Bureau of Investigation testified that the bullet removed from the body of the victim and the shell

casing found at the scene of the shooting had been fired and ejected from the gun found on the

Defendant.

Based on this evidence, a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the

Defendant killed Scott Shafer intentionally and with premeditation. Accordingly, this issue is

without merit.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

___________________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

-7-