The opinion
FILED
DEC 27 2024
ae the Appellate Co
y
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
Assigned on Briefs December 17, 2024
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KEITH LAMAR MARCH
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County
No. 125116 Hector Sanchez, Judge
No. E2024-00672-CCA-R3-CD
The defendant, Keith Lamar March, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury
of unlawful possession of a weapon after having been convicted of a felony crime of
violence, failure to drive on the right side of the roadway, and evading arrest. Following a
sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of fourteen years in the
Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is
insufficient to sustain his convictions. Upon our review of the record and the parties’
briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed
J. Ross DYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J.,
and D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., S.J., joined.
Richard C. Stooksbury, III, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Keith Lamar March.
Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Abigail H. Rinard, Assistant Attorney
General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Takisha M. Fitzgerald, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION
Facts and Procedural History
As a result of his interaction with deputies from the Knox County Sheriff's Office
during the morning hours of January 8, 2023, the defendant was indicted for unlawful
possession of a weapon after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence,
possession of drug paraphernalia, driving on a suspended or revoked license,' failure to
drive on the right side of the roadway, evading arrest, possession of cocaine, and possession
of heroin.
The proof at trial showed that on January 8, 2023, Deputy Kaleb Lee was driving
on Maryville Pike on his way to work to start his 6:00 a.m. shift when he noticed that a car
turning onto Maryville Pike was “about to . . . r[u]n the stop sign.” Deputy Lee turned
around and began following the vehicle and observed it “cross the double yellow line in
the center of the road.” “[L]ess than a hundred yards” down the road, the vehicle “crossed
the solid white line on the edge of the road which is . .. commonly refer[red] to as the fog
line.” Deputy Lee initiated his blue lights, and the car pulled over.
Deputy Lee approached the vehicle and observed a “cut straw in the center console.”
Deputy Lee noted that such item was often used to snort narcotics. The driver of the
vehicle, the defendant, seemed “very nervous” and “kind of shaken.” The defendant gave
Deputy Lee an “identification only” card, rather than a valid driver’s license. Deputy Lee
asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle and explained he was going to conduct a pat
down for weapons. When Deputy Lee patted the defendant’s waist area, the defendant
“pushed off of the car” and “fled” on foot down Maryville Pike. Deputy Lee chased the
defendant, yelling commands for the defendant to stop, but the defendant ignored the
commands. Deputy Lee tased the defendant in the back, and the defendant “fell to the
ground on his face.” Deputy Lee explained that the taser cycle lasted for five seconds, and
when it stopped, the defendant “took his hands and placed them back into his waistband.”
Worried about what the defendant might have in his waistband, Deputy Lee ordered the
defendant to show his hands. When the defendant did not comply, Deputy Lee tased him
again. According to Deputy Lee, the defendant “would place his hands out during the
cycling of the taser, and as soon as it would stop[,] he would continue to try to put his hands
back in his waistband.” This pattern continued for a total of six taser cycles. By the third
taser round, Deputy Lee also drew his weapon, afraid that the defendant might try to hurt
him. Around that time, Deputy Lee also called for help on the radio, stating “I need another
officer here now.” After the sixth taser round, the defendant “complied and kept his hands”
visible. Deputy Lee handcuffed the defendant and stood him up. At that point, Deputy
Lee found that “a 9mm handgun had slid down into [the defendant’s] boxer-briefs.”
As Deputy Lee walked the defendant to the patrol car, his partner, Deputy Joshua
Bowers arrived at the scene. Deputy Bowers had been on his way to a different call when
he heard Deputy Lee “screaming for help” over the radio. Deputy Bowers had never heard
1 The driving on a suspended or revoked license charge was dismissed.
2 The cut straw was not confiscated, rather Deputy Lee noted that such items were usually disposed of in a
controlled environment.
_2-
Deputy Lee “that excited on the radio” and “thought that he was either losing a fight or he
was fixing to have to kill somebody.” Deputy Bowers “gave up on the alarm call” to which
he had been dispatched and “drove as fast as [he] possibly could” to Deputy Lee’s location.
When Deputy Bowers arrived, Deputy Lee was walking the defendant towards the patrol
car, holding a gun in his hand and exclaiming, “He tried to get an fg gun on me.”
Upon returning to the patrol car with the defendant, the deputies began to search
him. The officers found two bags of what appeared to be drugs in the defendant’s pants
pocket, one a white powdery substance and the other a brown rock substance. Based on
their training and experience, the deputies believed the powdery substance to be cocaine
and the rock substance to be heroin. However, no field or lab tests were performed on the
drugs. Deputy Bowers thought the drugs had to be of a felony amount before the narcotics
division would send the drugs to be tested. Deputy Lee removed the magazine from the
gun, finding that it contained nine rounds, and he also found a “round chambered inside
the firearm” that was “ready to fire and be used.” Deputy Lee “ejected that round, secured
it, and sat it on the trunk of [his] patrol car.” Deputy Bowers could tell that Deputy Lee
was “super amped up,” so he “took over” and “ran the gun through our records division to
make sure it wasn’t stolen.” Deputy Bowers learned the gun was not stolen.
While Deputies Lee and Bowers processed the scene, other officers arrived and
helped treat the defendant, who had a “large cut on his forehead” from “where he hit the
gravel when he was tased.” Thereafter, the deputies took the defendant to the hospital and
then to the detention facility. Deputy Lee later determined that the defendant had a prior
felony for a crime of violence. The parties stipulated at trial that the defendant “had
previously been convicted of a felony crime of violence which would have prevented him
from lawfully possessing a firearm.”
Footage from both deputies’ body cameras was played for the jury, starting from
when Deputy Lee was walking the defendant back to the patrol car. Deputy Lee thought
he had turned on his body camera sooner, after the first time he tased the defendant, but it
did not start. Therefore, Deputy Lee turned the camera on when he got back to the patrol
car, and no footage was captured of the tasing. Deputy Bowers explained that it took “a
long time for [body cameras] to boot” in the morning because “[i]t has a lot of processes
that it goes through before you can actually hit the record button.” Neither of the officers’
patrol cars had an “in-car cruiser cam.”
Following the conclusion of the proof, the jury convicted the defendant of unlawful
possession of a weapon after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence, failure
to drive on the right side of the roadway, and evading arrest. The jury acquitted the
defendant of possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of cocaine, and possession of
a Ole
heroin. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of fourteen years’ confinement, and
the defendant appealed.
Analysis
On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his
convictions. The defendant asserts that there was no evidence supporting Deputy Lee’s
testimony and “ifthe jury needed more proof about the drugs and paraphernalia beyond the
mere testimony of a patrol officer, then it stands to reason that a reasonable jury would
need videographic evidence to corroborate what Deputy Lee claimed to be the events
leading up to [the defendant]’s arrest.” The State responds that the defendant’s “claims
amount to nothing more than a challenge to witness credibility and the weight of the
evidence[, and] [the defendant] is not entitled to relief.” We agree with the State.
When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, the relevant question of the
reviewing court is “whether, after viewing 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.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see also Tenn.
R. App. P. 13(e) (“Findings 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.”); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-92 (Tenn.
1992); State v. Anderson, 835 S.W.2d 600, 604 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). 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. See State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620,
623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “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. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973). Our Supreme
Court has stated the rationale for this rule:
This well-settled rule rests on a sound foundation. The trial judge and the
jury see 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, 212 Tenn. 464,
370 S.W.2d 523 (1963)). “A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with
which a defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal a
-4-
convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient.”
State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).
“A person commits an offense who unlawfully possesses a firearm... and... [h]as
been convicted of a felony crime of violence, an attempt to commit a felony crime of
violence, or a felony involving use of a deadly weapon[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-
1307(b)(1)(A).
In addition, Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-115(a) provides that “[uJpon
all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the
roadway” unless one of four exceptions applies: (1) When overtaking and passing another
vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement; (2)
When the right half of a roadway is closed to traffic while under construction or repair; (3)
Upon a roadway divided into three (3) marked lanes for traffic under the applicable rules
thereon; or (4) Upon a roadway designated and signposted for one-way traffic. Jd.
Moreover, “it is unlawful for any person to intentionally conceal themselves or flee
by any means of locomotion from anyone the person knows to be a law enforcement officer
if the person... [k]nows the officer is attempting to arrest the person” or “[h]as been
arrested.” Jd. § 39-16-603(a)(1).
In the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that Deputy Lee
observed the defendant’s vehicle “cross the double yellow line in the center of the road,”
and “less than a hundred yards” down the road, the vehicle “crossed the solid white line on
the edge of the road which is . . . commonly refer[red] to as the fog line.” Deputy Lee
pulled the defendant over and approached the vehicle. Deputy Lee observed an item
considered drug paraphernalia in the center console and noted that the defendant appeared
“very nervous” and “kind of shaken.” After the defendant failed to provide a valid driver’s
license, Deputy Lee removed the defendant from the vehicle and told the defendant he was
going to conduct a pat down for weapons. When Deputy Lee got to the defendant’s waist
area, the defendant “pushed off of the car” and “fled” on foot. A chase ensued, and after
to the defendant’s repeated failures to stop, Deputy Lee invoked the use of his taser. The
defendant repeatedly tried “to put his hands back in his waistband” in between tasing
cycles, but he eventually “complied and kept his hands” visible. Deputy Lee found a 9mm
handgun “slid down into [the defendant’s] boxer-briefs.” The parties stipulated at trial that
the defendant “had previously been convicted of a felony crime of violence which would
have prevented him from lawfully possessing a firearm.” This evidence was sufficient for
a rational trier of fact to find that the defendant committed the offenses of unlawful
possession of a weapon after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence, failure
to drive on the right side of the roadway, and evading arrest.
-5-
The defendant’s suggestion that the evidence is insufficient because the incident
was not captured on Deputy Lee’s body camera and Deputy Bowers did not witness the
offenses does not entitle the defendant to relief, as those essentially amounts to a challenge
to Deputy Lee’s credibility which was determined by the jury. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d at 623.
The defendant is likewise not entitled to relief based on his assertion that “[i]f the [S]tate
did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the allegations of drugs and paraphernalia without
corroborating evidence, then neither should a reasonable jury find proof beyond a
reasonable doubt” for the other charges. The evidence concerning the drug charges was
different: the cut straw was never collected, and the apparent drugs were not tested.
Therefore, the jury might not have been convinced of the defendant’s guilt without
scientific evidence. In any event, even if the verdicts were inconsistent, “inconsistent jury
verdicts are not a basis for relief.” State v. Davis, 466 S.W.3d 49, 77 (Tenn. 2015).
“Consistency in verdicts for multiple count indictments is unnecessary. ... This Court will
not upset a seemingly inconsistent verdict by speculating as to the jury’s reasoning if we
are satisfied that the evidence establishes guilt of the offense upon which the conviction
was returned.” Wiggins v. State, 498 S.W.2d 92, 93-94 (Tenn. 1973). The defendant is
not entitled to relief.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we affirm the judgments of the
trial court.
S/ J. ROSS DYER
J. ROSS DYER, JUDGE