# State of Tennessee v. Leigh Katherine Littleton

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · April 4, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10839511

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
- **Decided:** April 4, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Camille R. McMullen
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10839511

## Opinion text

04/04/2025
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
Assigned on Briefs November 19, 2024

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LEIGH KATHERINE LITTLETON

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Johnson County
No. 18-CR-81 Lisa N. Rice, Judge
___________________________________

No. E2023-01329-CCA-R3-CD
___________________________________

The Johnson County Grand Jury charged the Defendant, Leigh Katherine Littleton, and
two codefendants by presentment with first degree felony murder, especially aggravated
kidnapping, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated kidnapping, extortion, conspiracy
to commit extortion, and aggravated assault. Following trial, a jury convicted the
Defendant of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, conspiracy to
commit especially aggravated kidnapping, extortion, and conspiracy to commit extortion,
and the trial court imposed an effective life sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues (1)
the evidence is insufficient to sustain her convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying
the motion to suppress her first statement; (3) the trial court erred in allowing her character
to be defamed; (4) the trial court improperly excluded a pre-trial plea offer; and (5) the trial
court imposed an unconstitutional condition on her right to present a defense by not
allowing her to present proof of her codefendants’ criminal histories. After review, we
affirm the trial court’s judgments.

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

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN W.
CAMPBELL, SR., and TOM GREENHOLTZ, JJ., joined

Cameron L. Hyder (on appeal); Lawrence Scott Shults and Steven R. Finney1 (at trial),
Johnson City, Tennessee, for the appellant, Leigh Katherine Littleton.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Abigail H. Hornsby, Assistant Attorney
General; Steven R. Finney, District Attorney General; and Dennis Brooks and Robin Ray,
Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

1
Steven R. Finney withdrew after he was elected as the District Attorney for the First Judicial
District of Tennessee, which includes Carter, Johnson, Unicoi, and Washington Counties.
OPINION

Trial. Haley Coley testified that she knew Robert Littleton and his wife, Defendant
Leigh Katherine Littleton. On January 18, 2018, Coley2 agreed to get Robert3 and the
Defendant a quarter ounce of methamphetamine for $250. Coley met with a seller.
However, this seller was unable to get the full amount of methamphetamine and “was
acting crazy,” so Coley stole the drugs from the seller’s home and left. Coley gave the
stolen drugs to Robert.

Coley noted that Carlton Edmondson, the victim in this case, had been messaging
her “all day,” claiming that he could get the drugs. That night, Coley, Robert, and the
Defendant met the victim, but when they arrived, the victim did not have the quarter ounce
of methamphetamine, and they waited for a different seller to bring the drugs to the victim.
When this individual arrived, Robert gave the victim the money, and the victim got into
the seller’s car and then got out and quickly ran into his house. Coley said that the victim
ran inside because he did not have the full amount of drugs and was trying to “stretch” the
drugs with “fake stuff.”

Coley said that after some discussion, Robert and the victim decided that “it would
be best” for the victim to go back with them to the Littletons’ camper in Boone. Coley
offered to stay with the victim in Drexel, but Robert and the Defendant did not like that
option. Coley admitted that she was using drugs heavily at the time and could not recall
everything that occurred during that period.

When Robert, the Defendant, Coley, and the victim got close to the Littletons’
camper in the early hours of January 19, 2018, Robert and the Defendant put a blindfold
on the victim so “he couldn’t see where they lived.” Coley had been to the Littletons’
residence earlier that day, so they did not blindfold her. When they arrived at the camper,
Robert made dinner, and the Defendant went to the bedroom to watch television. Robert,
Coley, and the victim talked until Robert received a phone call. Robert then instructed
Coley and the victim to go to a “little bedroom” in the camper that had bunk beds. As they
sat in that bedroom, a man and a woman came to the camper, who were later identified as
James Combs and Valerie Dollar. Coley said she could not see Combs and Dollar from
where she was, although she could hear their voices. After a while, Robert had the victim
come out, and Combs told the victim that he would have handled being ripped off “a lot
differently than Robert had.” Combs and Dollar left the camper, and Robert, the

2
We will refer to the witnesses by their last name for efficiency purposes, and we intend no
disrespect to these individuals.
3
We will refer to Robert Littleton by his first name throughout this opinion, as he and the Defendant
have the same last name.
-2-
Defendant, Coley, and the victim all consumed drugs at the camper. During this time,
Coley noticed that Robert had some brass knuckles. She noted that after Robert got high
from the drugs, his “anger level increased[.]”

Coley stated that later that morning, the victim set up a drug deal with Elizabeth
Folsom at a hotel. The Defendant drove the group to Folsom, but Folsom did not have the
drugs either. After that, the Defendant drove everyone back to Coley’s home in Valdese.
When they arrived, Robert got out of the car to let Coley out of the backseat, but he refused
to let the victim out of the Defendant’s car. Coley asked the victim if he was coming with
her, and Robert “said no.” Coley went inside her home, and the Defendant, Robert, and
the victim left. Later, Coley called Robert to ask where the victim was, and Robert told
her they had dropped off the victim in Morganton.

On cross-examination, Coley said the victim robbed Elizabeth Folsom at the hotel
and that the victim’s uncle, Larry Jenkins, was contacted to “pocket check” the victim to
determine whether he had hidden drugs on his person. Coley admitted that Robert was in
control of the situation and that the Defendant did not want Coley and the victim to come
with them to the camper.

On redirect examination, Coley asserted that the Defendant suggested that Coley
and the victim stay in Drexel, but Robert refused. She said Robert wanted the victim to
come with him and the Defendant so that the victim could meet Elizabeth Folsom to get
the drugs, since the victim had taken Robert’s and the Defendant’s money, and the victim
“needed to make it right” with them. Coley said the Defendant was “very quiet” and “went
along with” everything. When Robert and the Defendant gave the victim the money for
the original drug deal, the Defendant had the money “in her bra.” Coley added, “I just
assumed they are husband and wife[,] so it was their money, their situation.”

Irea Uebele testified that on January 19, 2018, at approximately 7:30 a.m., she began
receiving phone calls from an unfamiliar phone number. When Uebele answered one of
these calls, the victim, who was her cousin, told Uebele that they were “going to kill him.”
Initially, Uebele thought that it was a joke, but the victim told her, “I’m not playing, it’s
real, this is really happening[.]” A man, later identified as James Combs, took the phone
from the victim and said “they wanted back what [the victim] had taken from them.” She
described Combs as “abrupt” with a “stern” voice. Uebele could hear other people talking
in the background and then Combs asked her for $700.

The next time she received a phone call, Uebele spoke to another person, later
identified as Robert, who told her he knew where she lived and had her house surrounded.
Uebele said she received several phone calls, wherein the victim was “begging” and
“crying” that he “want[ed] to come home” and for her to “please help” him. During one
-3-
of these calls, the person on the phone told her “they were going to kill [the victim] if [they]
didn’t get the money.” During these calls, she could hear people “beating” the victim, and
she heard “female . . . higher pitched voices” saying, “[H]it that n[-----], kick him again,
kick him again.” During this conversation, which was the last time she spoke to the victim,
the victim told Uebele he was “going home” and “sounded like he was dying.” After
Uebele received these calls, she contacted the victim’s parents, Lanisha Kincaid and Robert
Pearson, asked them to call the police, and gave them the assailants’ phone number.

Uebele said she conducted her own investigation and found the Facebook pages
belonging to the codefendants within a day of this incident. She explained that the victim
had logged into his Facebook messenger on her cellphone, so she was able to see his
messages. Uebele asserted that the Defendant left several messages on the victim’s
Facebook page, including voice messages. She could tell these messages were from the
Defendant based on her name and the photographs on her Facebook page. Uebele said that
because the codefendants posted on each other’s pages, she was able to determine their
names based on “what they were posting and what time they were posting it[.]” She
claimed she “knew they were together because they were talking about killing a n[-----].”
Uebele said she gave the investigating officers the assailants’ phone number as well as all
the information she gathered from Facebook.

On cross-examination, Uebele acknowledged that her trial testimony was the first
time she asserted that these messages were coming from the Defendant. However, she
insisted that the Defendant was the person who sent the messages to the victim because the
Defendant’s “face was on that Facebook page.”

Lanisha Kincaid, the victim’s mother, testified that she called the number Uebele
had given her and asked if they had the victim. Combs responded, “[Y]es, ma’am.” Combs
told Kincaid that the victim owed them $700, so they had “roughed him up a little bit.”
She then asked to speak to the victim, who told her that he had “f[-----] up” because he was
supposed to have acquired some drugs for these people, and now they were going to kill
him. Although Kincaid initially thought it was a joke, the victim insisted, “Momma, it is
not a joke, they are going to kill me.” She could tell the victim “was scared.”

Kincaid spoke to Combs on the phone several times, noting that Combs had a “real
calm” voice that she did not recognize. During these calls, Combs “offered to write a
receipt” for the victim, to “drop him off at the hospital,” to “give him back to [Kincaid] at
McDonalds,” and to meet Kincaid at various locations. At the time of these calls, Kincaid
could hear other people in the background, including women laughing. Once the police
arrived at Kincaid’s home, they asked her to go to the station, where Kincaid received
approximately three phone calls that she put on speakerphone. She said the last phone call
she received was that afternoon, and the victim asked if she was at home, and Kincaid,
-4-
without thinking, said she was at home even though she was at the police station. At that
point, a man with a different voice took the phone away from the victim and said she was
not at home, that they had “eyes” on her; this man then told the victim that his mother did
not love him. When Kincaid screamed that she and her family did love the victim, the man
on the phone said, “I’m done.” Kincaid said she never heard from the victim again after
that phone conversation.

Robert Pearson, the victim’s father, testified that the victim called him on January
19, 2018. The victim said, “I’m sorry, help me, I need seven hundred dollars.” When
Pearson replied that he and the victim’s mother did not have seven hundred dollars, he
heard someone in the background say, “[O]h, that’s all I needed to hear” before hanging
up. Pearson said he tried to call and text that number several times, but no one ever
responded. At the time, Pearson knew Kincaid had also received phone calls from someone
stating that they would hurt the victim if they did not get money and claiming that they had
surrounded Kincaid’s home. Pearson called the police because Kincaid was too scared.
He said he never heard from the victim after January 19, 2018.

Michael Branch, a sergeant with the Valdese Police Department in North Carolina,
testified that when he got to Kincaid’s house, Kincaid received another phone call from
Combs’ cellphone, and a male voice stated that “he needed seven hundred dollars for the
safe return of [the victim][.]” This man said he would call her back with a meeting location
so she could give him the money. After this conversation, Sergeant Branch took Kincaid
to the police department. He said a second phone call came in from the same number,
wherein a male voice stated that he needed to meet Kincaid at McDonald’s off I-40 in
Mountain City, Tennessee. During this call, Sergeant Branch heard the victim saying,
“[M]omma, this is real, . . . do what they say.” Kincaid then received a third phone call at
approximately 3:00 p.m. while at the police station. During this call, Kincaid said that she
was on her way, and the male voice said, “[N]o, you are not, I have got eyes on you” and
then could be overheard telling the victim, “[T]hey don’t care about you[.]” Sergeant
Branch asserted that during these calls, he could hear people in the background, including
a female’s voice.

Jeremy Brown, an investigator with the Johnson County Sheriff’s Department,
testified that officers obtained an arrest warrant for Robert Littleton, who was found with
the Defendant in a two-door car around 3:00 a.m. on January 20, 2018, in Mountain City,
Tennessee. Investigator Brown said officers arrested Robert and took him to the police
department. The officers also took the Defendant to the police department. Officers found
brass knuckles in the backseat of the police cruiser, where Robert had been transported.
Investigator Brown stated that the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation
interviewed the Defendant at the station. Following this interview, the Defendant went
with Investigator Brown to an area in Johnson County at the base of Stone Mountain where
-5-
the victim was last seen. Investigator Brown noted some disturbances in the leaves and
vegetation in this area and observed a reddish-brown substance, possibly blood, that was
collected and sent to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation for testing. He said he was at
the Stone Mountain location at 6:49 a.m. and that the temperature gauge on his vehicle
stated that it was fourteen degrees outside at that time.

Matthew Cress, an investigator with the Johnson County Sheriff’s Department,
testified that he searched for the victim on the ground and from the air but was unable to
locate the victim. Investigator Cress also helped process and collect evidence from the
crime scene at the base of Stone Mountain.

Scott Lott, a Special Agent for the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, testified that
he executed a search warrant on the Defendant’s “small sedan type car” with two doors.
He stated that a wallet containing the Defendant’s driver’s license was found in the car. In
addition, officers found a cellphone with a purple case underneath the car on the passenger
side. Special Agent Lott conducted an extraction on this cellphone and found two videos
on it that were made on January 19, 2018, at 7:35 a.m. and 3:53 p.m., respectively. He also
extracted a call log from this cellphone.

Nathan Anderson, an Assistant Special Agent in Charge at the North Carolina State
Bureau of Investigation, was accepted as an expert in the field of digital forensic analysis.
Special Agent Anderson testified that he conducted a data extraction of Combs’s cellphone.
He stated that the data showed that Combs had deleted sixty text messages. In addition,
Combs had deleted his calls to Kincaid, Uebele, and Pearson from his call log. In addition,
this data showed calls between Robert and Combs around 4:30 a.m. on January 19, 2018.
It also showed that Combs called Dollar twice around 7:30 a.m. on January 19. Special
Agent Anderson was also able to extract a photograph from Comb’s cellphone that depicted
the victim standing upright in front of a house with trash on the ground.

On cross-examination, Special Agent Anderson stated that he did a physical
extraction, the highest level of data extraction, on Combs’s cellphone because that would
retrieve all data, including deleted information, from that phone. He did not recall using a
Faraday bag to preserve this data while he was doing the extraction.

Mary Holder, an investigator for the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation,
testified that she assisted Special Agent Ronald Crawley with this case. Agent Holder said
she and Agent Crawley went to the Valdese Police Department to meet with Lanisha
Kincaid, the victim’s mother, who informed them of the phone calls she had received
concerning the victim. They discovered that Haley Coley had been with the victim, and
they interviewed Coley. The information provided by Coley led law enforcement to start
looking for Robert. Agent Holder said they also obtained some video footage from
-6-
Walmart in Boone taken at approximately 10:30 p.m. on January 19, 2018, which depicted
the Defendant, Robert, and another woman, later identified as Brittany Arnold, inside the
store.

Agent Holder said they began looking for a 2005 Dodge Dakota pickup truck driven
by Valerie Dollar. She noted that a truck matching the description of Dollar’s truck was
captured on video surveillance near the North Carolina and Tennessee state line.

On cross-examination, Agent Holder confirmed that Elizabeth Folsom, who was not
charged in this case, had sent some threatening messages to the victim’s Facebook account.
She agreed that Folsom had sent the victim messages threatening to kill the victim after
Coley and the victim robbed her at the motel in Boone.

Ronald Crawley, a Special Agent with the North Carolina State Bureau of
Investigation, testified that after speaking to the victim’s mother at the Valdese Police
Department, he and Agent Holder began trying to identify the owner of the phone who had
been calling the victim’s mother.

Investigator Crawley obtained the phone records from Combs, Dollar, May, Robert,
Pearson, Kincaid, and Uebele. These records confirmed that Combs’s phone called
Kincaid, Uebele, and Pearson. These records also confirmed that the last call on January
19, 2018, at 2:49 p.m. to Kincaid was from Robert’s phone. Investigator Crawley said that
Dollar’s Facebook records showed numerous messages and calls between Robert and
Dollar, including some messages around 1:00 p.m. on January 18, 2018, when Robert
asked Dollar if she had a $100 to “throw down” with them, and at 1:05 a.m. on January 19,
2018, when Robert asked Dollar to go to his house.

Investigator Crawley also obtained the Defendant’s Facebook records. On January
18, 2018, at 1:58 p.m., the Defendant messaged someone called “Joshie Squashie,” wherein
the Defendant stated, “Waiting, . . . Need a $100 to get something. U wouldn’t happen to
have a 100 I can borrow. We’ll make it worth it or give your money right back[.]”
Approximately one minute later, the Defendant messaged Squashie again, stating “Lol
nevermind [sic] we got it.” On January 19, 2018, at 6:17 p.m., Lizzie Isaac messaged the
Defendant, asking, “Y’all ever get good?” After some messaging back and forth, the
Defendant replied to Isaac: “Not tonight. We had a situation that we had to fix[,] and it
took all day long[.]” On January 23, 2018, the Defendant messaged Tychella Ervin, who
said she was the victim’s cousin. In these messages, the Defendant told Ervin that the
victim had “f[--]k[ed]” them over, and that they wanted to teach the victim “a lesson.”

Investigator Crawley said he and Agent Chris Munden with the North Carolina State
Bureau of Investigation interviewed the Defendant at approximately 3:30 a.m. on January
-7-
20, 2018, and this interview, which was audio recorded, lasted over two hours. He said the
Defendant agreed to talk with them, and her interview took place in a “fairly large room”
with “multiple desks” in the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office. The Defendant sat in a chair
“closest to the door” while the officers sat “further back” in the “corner of the room.”
Investigator Crawley said they spoke to the Defendant from a few feet away and told the
Defendant that “she was free to leave” and that “she could come and go as she pleased.”
During this interview, the Defendant was wearing a hoodie that “she kept pulling over her
mouth,” which made it difficult to hear her at times.

An audio recording of the Defendant’s interview was admitted at trial and played
for the jury. At the beginning of this recording, the officers asked the Defendant if she
knew why they wanted to speak to her. The Defendant replied, “[The victim] stole money”
from her and her husband. She said she and Robert had been with Coley, and they planned
to buy seven grams of methamphetamine from the victim for $200. However, the victim
only got 2.5 grams of the drug, and then the victim tried to cut it with salt to make it look
like the full seven grams. The Defendant said they caught the victim before he could do
that and informed him that they “either wanted the rest of the dope or the money.” They
asked the victim if he wanted to go back to their camper with them or to stay. The
Defendant claimed the victim voluntarily went with them to their trailer “to make things
right.” At that point during the interview, an officer informed the Defendant that if she
needed to use the bathroom, “the door’s right there, you’re welcome to leave.” The officer
then said, “Obviously, you’re not in handcuffs, you’re not under arrest or anything like
that, and like I said, I appreciate you[r] being willing to talk.”

The Defendant continued to answer questions, stating that she and Robert had
already paid $200, and the victim used it to get the 2.5 grams, so that money was gone.
She told the officers about driving to their camper, the other unsuccessful drug transactions,
and dropping off Coley at home. The Defendant said the victim remained with them
because he had not provided the drugs or money he owed them. She stated that they later
met with Dollar, Combs, and May. The Defendant and Dollar went to Combs’s house,
while Robert, May, and Combs took the victim somewhere. After a short time, the
Defendant messaged Robert asking him where he was. Fifteen to twenty minutes later,
Robert, May, and Combs arrived at Combs’s home with the victim.

The Defendant stated that they had called the victim’s family to ask for $700. She
claimed the victim’s debt had gone from $200 to $700 to account for their time and gas as
well as the street value of seven grams of methamphetamine. She also told the officers that
the missing 4.5 grams was the debt to be paid, not the $200. The Defendant claimed that
nothing was going to happen to the victim if they did not get the money, but she later
admitted they told the victim they would not take him home until he supplied the drugs.

-8-
She also admitted she was present when Robert sent photographs of the victim to his
family.

The Defendant said that although the victim’s mother agreed to deliver the money,
she never showed up. By then, Brittany Arnold had joined them to go to Mountain City.
After waiting a while for the victim’s mother, they drove down a back road near Boone.
The Defendant admitted that they were trying to leave the victim in the middle of nowhere
around 4:00 p.m. While the Defendant initially claimed she did not know whether the
victim had a cellphone, she eventually admitted that someone had taken the victim’s phone.
When they stopped, Robert told the victim to “get the f[--]k out.”

During this interview, the Defendant alternatively claimed that no one hit the victim;
that Arnold shoved the victim; that May pushed the victim away from the truck; that Robert
pushed and slapped the victim; that Arnold hit and kicked the victim in the face; that Robert
hit the victim in the face; and that Robert and Arnold used the brass knuckles to hit the
victim a couple of times. She also asserted that, at most, the victim suffered a black eye, a
bloody lip, and a “knot” on his forehead. The Defendant acknowledged that Arnold and
the victim “got into it” earlier that day, explaining that Arnold pushed the victim, and the
victim responded by punching Arnold.

The Defendant also told the officers that Robert and Arnold made the victim
apologize to her and Robert for not delivering the full amount of the drugs. She said she
asked the group not to kill the victim or beat him up badly. She admitted her group left the
victim, who was lying down on his stomach in the fetal position. She noted that the victim
was “not very much a fighter.” The Defendant claimed the victim was moving and sobbing
as they drove away. Later that night, the Defendant, Robert, and Arnold went to Walmart
to cash a check. At the conclusion of the interview, the Defendant agreed to show the
officers where they had left the victim. When they got to the Stone Mountain location, the
officers noted that there were no footprints leading away from the area with the reddish-
brown stains, which led the officers to question whether the group really left the victim
there. The Defendant acknowledged that Robert videoed the victim being beaten up on his
cellphone. She said the cellphones belonging to her, Robert, and the victim should be in
her car.

After the audio recording on the Defendant’s interview was played for the jury,
Investigator Crawley’s testimony continued. On cross-examination, he confirmed that
Combs’s cellphone called Lanisha Kincaid around 7:40 a.m. on January 19, 2018, and that
Robert’s cellphone called Kincaid at 2:42 p.m. on the same date. Investigator Crawley
agreed that it was a male voice that spoke to Kincaid during the 2:42 p.m. phone
conversation. He also said that the Facebook records showed that on January 19, 2018, at
7:58 a.m., the Defendant asked Robert, “Where are you?”
-9-
Investigator Crawley stated that during her interview, the Defendant disclosed that
Robert hit the victim with his brass knuckles twice and then Brittany Arnold hit the victim
with brass knuckles and then kicked the victim in the face. The Defendant claimed she
asked them not to kill the victim and not to beat him badly. Investigator Crawley said that
based on the context of the Defendant’s admissions, this took place at the Stone Mountain
location where the second video was filmed. The Defendant also stated that the group left
the victim lying down, which was consistent with what the second recording depicted.
Investigator Crawley stated that he drove the Defendant to an area at the base of Stone
Mountain at approximately 6:30 a.m. on January 20, 2018.

Jillian Welker, a Special Agent Forensic Scientist at the Tennessee Bureau of
Investigation, was accepted as an expert in the field of forensic analysis. Agent Welker
stated that she tested the swab submitted from the access road and concluded that the
substance contained human blood with DNA from an unknown male. She stated that she
conducted additional testing, comparing this sample to DNA from Pearson and Kincaid,
the victim’s parents, and concluded that the blood from the access road likely came from
the victim.

The State recalled Investigator Brown. He stated that Dollar’s truck was captured
by a security camera going over the state line between Mountain City, Tennessee and
Boone, North Carolina around 4:00 p.m. on January 19, 2018. He also identified two
photographs from the cellphone in the purple case that were found underneath the
Defendant’s car. One photo depicted Robert and another photo depicted the Defendant.
Investigator Brown also identified the victim’s shoes, which were found by officers at the
residence of Stacey May after May was questioned. In addition, he identified a photograph
of the victim that was extracted from Combs’s cellphone. Based on his investigation,
Investigator Brown believed that the victim had picked up trash from the May residence
on January 19, 2018, after May’s mother had been cited for improper disposal of garbage
around her home.

Investigator Brown said that when he went with the Defendant to the area in Johnson
County at the base of Stone Mountain where the victim was last seen, he noticed two sets
of tire tracks. He said that despite receiving multiple tips and investigating every lead, they
were never able to locate the victim’s body.

The two videos that were extracted from Robert Littleton’s phone were played for
the jury. The first video recording, which was made on January 19, 2018, at 7:35 a.m. on
Joe Wallace Road off US 421 near Combs’s residence, depicted the victim lying on the
ground in the snow, curled up. Investigator Brown identified the voices of Robert, May,
Combs, and the victim on the first recording. During this video, the victim apologized and
pled with the other men. The men tried to call Uebele, but it went to her voicemail. The
- 10 -
victim then told the men to text Uebele that “this is Lovii,” referring to himself. Uebele
called back a minute later, and the victim told her that he needed to borrow money to pay
a bill before going to work. The victim told the men Uebele would not provide the money
if he did not go talk to her. After this call ended, Robert told the victim, “One stupid thing
goes wrong, . . . auntie is going to be laying out here because I don’t f[--]king play games
and neither do my home boys.” Robert then said, “This is my home boys, this is what the
f[--]k we do . . . Lucky your ass ain’t dead yet, . . . going to be a long day, son.” The men
called Uebele back, with the cellphone on speakerphone. Combs talked to Uebele and then
handed the phone to the victim, who told Uebele that he stole money and was in trouble.
Then Combs took the cellphone back and gave Uebele directions for delivering money.
During this video recording, all three men were heard laughing and threatening the victim.

The second video recording was made at 3:53 p.m. on January 19, 2018, in the Stone
Mountain area where the officers found the reddish-brown stains. Investigator Brown
identified the voices of Arnold, Robert, Dollar, and the victim. The recording depicted the
victim crouched on the ground, with a spot of blood in the snow beside him. The victim
had blood on his forehead, his face appeared bruised, and he had blood caked on the back
of his head. The victim apologized and told the Defendant that he was “thankful” for her,
but then Arnold kicked the victim in the face, and he fell backward. Arnold then threatened
the victim, stating, “Disrespect her and her husband again, and I swear . . . you and your
momma both will die.” Then Arnold stated, “Now, y’all ready? Let the son of a bitch
walk outta [sic] here.” As footsteps walking away were heard, Dollar said, “Felt good,
didn’t it?” Near the conclusion of this recording, Robert stated, “Don’t f[--]k with us again,
boy. You understand me?” The recording depicted the victim lying on the ground, not
moving. At the very end of this recording, the camera showed the license plate of Dollar’s
truck.

Three still shots taken from this second recording were admitted into evidence. One
of these still shots depicted trauma to the top of the victim’s head as well as bruising to his
face. The second still shot depicted Brittany Arnold delivering a kick to the victim’s face.
The third still shot showed the victim falling backward after receiving the kick from
Arnold.

Investigator Brown stated that he interviewed the Defendant at her camper on
January 22, 2018. An audio recording of this interview was played for the jury. During
this interview, the Defendant reiterated that it was the victim’s decision to get in their car.
She said Robert, Combs, May, and the victim showed up at Combs’s home, and they said
the victim’s family was going to send money for the victim. Then they all went to May’s
mother’s home and had the victim clean up the yard. The Defendant said Arnold showed
up with another girl in a green Mustang, and Arnold decided to hang out with them. The
group told the victim’s mother to bring money to Mountain City around 3:00 p.m. on Friday
- 11 -
if she wanted to get the victim back, but the victim’s mother never showed up. The
Defendant said the group discussed leaving the victim in the middle of nowhere. At that
point, Arnold said the victim hit her and suggested they take the victim to property owned
by Arnold’s family. Then the Defendant, Robert, Arnold, Dollar, May, and the victim went
to Arnold’s property, which was near Grove Reece Road. Combs said that he was going
to help the girl with the green Mustang bail her boyfriend out of jail and then meet them
there. Once they got to Arnold’s property, Arnold and Robert beat up the victim, and
Arnold kicked the victim in the face around 4:00 p.m. The victim remained conscious and
was either crying or talking to them. The Defendant said they left the victim on the gravel
road and then returned to Combs’s house, but he was not there. The Defendant said that
Combs would have been able to find the spot where they left the victim. She said Combs
was the most likely to go to the location where they left the victim. The Defendant showed
the officers the first video showing Robert, May, and Combs taking the victim somewhere
earlier in the day and the second recording showing the group leaving the victim on the
mountain. The Defendant said the group went back to Mountain City around 5:00 p.m.
and then went back to May’s home. She said they then returned to Combs’s home.

Investigator Brown confirmed that on January 19, 2018, at 6:17 p.m., Lizzie Isaac
sent the Defendant the Facebook message, “Y’all ever get good?” He explained that
Isaac’s message was “indicative of drug trafficking” because it referred to whether the
Defendant had “a certain product or quantity of product.” He said that on January 19, 2018,
at 8:06 p.m., the Defendant replied to Isaac, “Not tonight. We had a situation that we had
to fix[,] and it took all day long[.]” He confirmed that the Defendant sent this reply prior
to Robert’s arrest.

On cross-examination, Investigator Brown acknowledged that around the same time
as the first video was taking place with Combs, Robert, and May, the Defendant sent a
message to Robert asking, “Where are you?” He also acknowledged that the Defendant
told him during her interview that she had asked Robert not to hurt the Defendant and that
she was “scared” of Robert, Combs, and May. He admitted that although the Defendant
was only four feet, eleven inches tall and weighed 130 pounds, Robert was six feet tall and
168 pounds; Combs was six feet tall and 268 pounds; and May was five feet, ten inches
tall and 210 pounds. Investigator Brown agreed that the Defendant, despite her fear, still
solidified the State’s case against all the codefendants when she spoke to law enforcement,
took them to the location on Canter Road where the victim’s blood was found, and agreed
to a search of her car and the cellphone containing the videos. He acknowledged that the
victim in one of the videos said to the Defendant that he was “thankful for [her], actually.”

Investigator Brown opined that the victim was not free to leave from the moment
he got into the car in Drexel with Coley, the Defendant, and Robert. He believed things
“escalate[d]” when the victim was blindfolded and when James Combs appeared at the
- 12 -
camper. However, he acknowledged that Combs was not present during the second video
recording. He noted that after Combs was arrested, a search of his car revealed a rolled-up
carpet, bleach, and carpet cleaner inside.

The defense presented Sara Petty, a scientist with Archer Hall Forensics, who was
accepted as an expert in the field of forensic digital examination. Petty reviewed the “call
detail records” for James Combs and Stacey May, but she never received these same call
records for Robert Littleton because the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation never
requested them within the cellular provider’s retention period.

Based on these records, Petty determined the estimated location of May’s phone on
January 19. She stated that the second video recording was made at 3:53 p.m. on January
19, 2018 and that from approximately 4:30 p.m. to 5:50 p.m., May’s phone was in the
Mountain City area and then it traveled south. Petty was unable to get the same GPS data
for Combs’s cellphone or Robert Littleton’s phone based on the prior data extractions for
these devices.

Petty had concerns about Special Agent Anderson’s extraction methods for the
cellphones, claiming Anderson should have performed “each extraction method that is
supported for a device” to ensure that all data was extracted. She asserted that Anderson
should have used a Faraday bag for the extractions, which would have ensured that no
network or wireless signals could connect to the device.

Petty reviewed the Defendant’s and the victim’s Facebook accounts. She “did not
find any communications” between the Defendant and the victim.

On cross-examination, Petty said she did not realize that Special Agent Lott did the
original data extraction from the cellphones. She acknowledged that Lott had not been
asked whether he used a Faraday bag to avoid losing evidence on the cellphones; however,
she claimed that a Faraday bag should have been used for each extraction of data. Petty
stated that the Defendant, during her interview, had placed herself with May during that
period from approximately 4:30 p.m. to 5:50 p.m.

The defense also presented testimony from Larry Jenkins, the victim’s uncle, who
testified that he saw the victim the night of January 18, 2018, in Drexel. He noted he also
saw the Defendant and Robert Littleton there but insisted that the environment was calm
and not hostile. Jenkins said he overheard something about drugs being “short.” He
smoked some marijuana while he was there and asked the victim if he wanted to leave with
Robert and the Defendant. Jenkins claimed he never would have left the victim with them
if he did not think the victim would be safe. On cross-examination, Jenkins admitted he
never saw the victim after he left the victim in the company of Robert and the Defendant.
- 13 -
The Defendant testified on her own behalf. She stated that she was married to
Robert Littleton. She said that prior to this incident, she had been incarcerated for drug
use, entered a drug rehabilitation program in prison, and had gotten clean. However, when
Robert began using methamphetamine after being required to wear an alcohol monitor
following his DUI conviction, the Defendant began using methamphetamine again.

The Defendant stated that on January 17, 2018, Haley Coley told Robert that Coley
“could get cheaper dope off the mountain where she was from.” On January 18, 2018,
Robert lined up a drug deal with someone else, but it fell through. Robert went to Coley’s
home and talked to her about setting up a drug deal with someone she knew. The first deal
Coley arranged was with a guy who claimed he had seven grams of drugs but only had
three grams. Coley brought the drugs to the Defendant and Robert in their car, and then
Coley robbed that guy of his drugs.

The Defendant said Coley then set up a drug deal with the victim, who claimed he
could give them a quarter ounce of methamphetamine for $200. They went to the trailer
of the victim’s friend in Drexel, and the victim said he no longer had the drugs, but his
cousin could get the drugs for them. The victim later obtained a smaller amount of drugs
from someone else, but he attempted to cut the drugs with salt to make it look like a larger
amount, which was discovered by Robert and the Defendant. After that, Coley called the
victim’s uncle, Larry Jenkins, to ensure that the victim was not hiding any more drugs on
his person.

The Defendant said that initially the victim was going to call them the next morning
to tell them whether he would be “able to make it right” by getting the rest of the drugs,
but Coley suggested that the victim either go with the Defendant and Robert or stay with
Coley. Although Robert wanted the victim to go with them, the Defendant wanted Coley
and the victim to stay behind in Drexel. The Defendant said the victim “made the final
decision” to go to Robert and the Defendant’s camper in Fleetwood, North Carolina. She
said they blindfolded the victim so he would not know how to get to their home but did not
blindfold Coley, who had already been to their camper. The Defendant noted that by the
time they got to their camper, Robert was “mad.”

When they arrived, Robert cooked dinner for everyone, and they all used drugs. The
Defendant was not hungry because she had been using methamphetamine, so she went
back to her room, and later Valarie Dollar and James Combs arrived at their camper. The
Defendant did not go out to talk to them, and she was not “paying attention to what was
going on out there.” The Defendant explained that the plan was that once the victim’s
phone was charged, he would make some calls trying to obtain more methamphetamine for
them. Later, Robert informed the Defendant that Combs said Robert was “handling the
situation better than he would have.” A short time later, Combs and Dollar left the camper.
- 14 -
Once his phone was charged, the victim set up a meeting with Elizabeth Folsom to
get more methamphetamine. Robert, the Defendant, Coley, and the victim met Folsom at
a motel, and the victim stole the drugs from Folsom. Then they went to Coley’s home,
where Robert realized that the methamphetamine was mixed with sugar and became angry.
Robert asked Coley to get out of the car, and then had the Defendant drive him and the
victim to meet Dollar, Combs, and May. When they got there, Robert asked the Defendant
to go with Dollar. The Defendant said, “I knew that my husband was really mad and . . . I
couldn’t really talk him out of anything at that point in time. But I did ask him not to kill
[the victim].” The Defendant claimed she told Robert that “somebody’s life was not worth
money or drugs,” and she explained that she had “lost a cousin that way.” Robert assured
the Defendant that he “wouldn’t let it go that far” and encouraged the Defendant to get into
Dollar’s truck.

The Defendant stated that she and Dollar went to Combs’s home to wait for the
others, while the victim went with Robert, Combs, and May. She claimed she did not know
what the men were doing or where they went. After the men were gone for a while, the
Defendant messaged Robert to ask where he was. Approximately thirty minutes later, the
men returned with the victim, who was “shaken up.” Robert told the Defendant that the
victim had “asked his family for money to pay back what he owed[.]” However, the
Defendant claimed to not know about the extortion. The Defendant believed that this issue
with the victim was going to end soon because the money would arrive, and everyone
would go their separate ways.

The Defendant noted that the victim and either Robert, Combs, or May would step
outside to make phone calls, which made her wonder what was going on. The Defendant
said she later “nagged and pestered” Robert about what was going on after she saw that
Robert took a photograph of the victim. At that time, the Defendant was not aware that the
first video recording of the victim had been made by the men. Robert claimed the
photograph was so that the victim’s family would know the victim was “okay.”

The Defendant said that the group later took the victim to May’s home, which was
within walking distance of Combs’s house. While there, the victim was forced to pick up
trash in May’s yard. The Defendant said Brittany Arnold joined them and knew where to
get drugs, so they all got in Dollar’s truck and went to Mountain City. Prior to going to
Mountain City, the Defendant heard that Brittany Arnold and the victim had gotten into a
physical altercation earlier that day.

At that point, Dollar, Arnold, the Defendant, the victim, May, and Robert were
together, and Arnold and Robert began talking about taking the victim to Arnold’s property
to beat him up. Arnold persuaded Robert to go to her property, so they all drove there in
Dollar’s truck. The Defendant described the ride to Arnold’s property as hostile, and she
- 15 -
was concerned about what Robert and Arnold might do to the victim when they got there,
so she reminded Robert about not hurting the victim too badly. The Defendant said that
no one in the truck listened to her, and she did not feel in control of the situation. She said
the victim was aware that she did not want him hurt badly or killed.

When they arrived at Arnold’s property on Canter Road, Arnold and Robert got out
of the truck, and Robert instructed the victim to “get the f[--]k out..” They exited the truck,
and Robert and Arnold “beat down” the victim with some brass knuckles. Robert and
Arnold took turns hitting the victim, and then Arnold “superman punched” the victim “in
the back of the head.” During this time, the victim apologized to the Defendant and told
the Defendant that he was “thankful” for her. Someone in her group suggested that they
make the victim walk out of the area, so they left him there.

The Defendant said that she became aware of the first video recording after her
husband was arrested. However, she was present when the second video recording of the
victim was made. The Defendant said that Combs was not present for the second recording
and that Combs was not present when they returned to Combs’s home after abandoning the
victim. She was not aware of what Combs was doing at the time.

The Defendant said that she, Robert, and Arnold stopped at a few other places before
going to Walmart at 10:00 p.m. that night so she could cash a check. They made a couple
of other stops to make drug deals, and then they drove back to Mountain City, where Robert
was arrested. The Defendant allowed the officers to search her car and their cellphones,
and then she agreed to talk to Investigator Brown at the sheriff’s department. At
approximately 6:45 a.m. on January 20, 2018, the Defendant agreed to take officers to
Canter Road, where the second video recording of the victim was made and where they
had left the victim. While there, the Defendant pointed out the location of the victim’s
blood on the ground.

The Defendant asserted that Robert and Dollar had given the money for the initial
drug deal with the victim. She stated that she was afraid of Combs, May, and Robert. She
also noted that, at times, her husband Robert could be “pretty scary.”

On cross-examination, the Defendant said that although she told officers that the
victim had “ripped off” her and Robert, she claimed she only included herself because they
were “a couple.” The Defendant insisted that the victim had only taken Robert’s and
Valerie Dollar’s money, not hers.

The Defendant stated she “tried to discourage” Robert from hurting the victim at
various times. She added, “There was not much I could do except maybe I could have
argued more.” The Defendant said that when they dropped off Coley at her home and
- 16 -
Robert refused to allow the victim to go with Coley, she knew the victim was not free to
leave. She claimed she was “scared” of her husband at that time, so she tried to convince
him not to kill the victim.

The Defendant admitted that at the end of the second video, she and her group left
the victim lying on the ground, not moving, and not crying, in cold temperatures and miles
away from civilization. She asserted, “I didn’t want them to do any[]more harm to [the
victim] than they had already done.” The Defendant maintained that she did not want the
victim to be severely beaten, that she wanted the victim to fight back, and that she did not
like it when the victim was being held down and kicked. She claimed she was “very sorry”
about what happened to the victim. The Defendant acknowledged that she knew something
was wrong when she brought the officers to the scene where the victim had been
abandoned, and they did not see the victim’s body or the victim’s footprints leading away
from the scene.

At the conclusion of trial, the jury convicted the Defendant of first degree felony
murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated
kidnapping, extortion, and conspiracy to commit extortion, and the trial court imposed an
effective life sentence. The Defendant timely filed a motion for new trial, alleging that the
trial court erred in failing to suppress her first statement to police; that her character was
incurably defamed when Irea Uebele testified that the Defendant “levied a specific racial
slur at the victim via Facebook messenger”; that the trial court denied her right to present
a defense when it excluded evidence of the pre-trial plea offers to all codefendants, which
provided for a dismissal of the murder charge for anyone who could provide the location
of the victim’s body; that the trial court denied her right to present a defense and placed
unconstitutional conditions on her rights when it excluded the codefendants’ violent or
criminal histories; that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal;
and that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the
motion for new trial on August 21, 2023, and the Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal
on September 19, 2023.

ANALYSIS

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence. The Defendant argues that the verdict was contrary
to the weight of the evidence presented at trial and that the trial court erred in failing to
grant her motion for judgment of acquittal because the proof was insufficient to sustain her
convictions. Specifically, she asserts that the State’s case relied on the testimony of
codefendants, who were motivated to implicate her in exchange for favorable pleas deals;
that the physical evidence did not conclusively establish her involvement in the crimes;
that there was substantial proof suggesting that another codefendant was the principal actor
- 17 -
in the crimes and that the Defendant’s involvement in the crimes was minimal. In response,
the State contends that the Defendant is not entitled to relief because the codefendants did
not testify and there was ample proof establishing the Defendant’s involvement in the
crimes. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain all her convictions.

Initially, we must address the Defendant’s claim that the jury’s verdict was contrary
to the weight of the evidence in this case. Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(d)
states that “the trial court may grant a new trial following a verdict of guilty if it disagrees
with the jury about the weight of the evidence.” See State v. Carter, 896 S.W.2d 119, 122
(Tenn. 1995) (holding that the trial court has a duty to serve as the thirteenth juror). Only
if the record contains statements by the trial judge indicating disagreement with the jury’s
verdict or evidencing the trial judge’s refusal to act as the thirteenth juror may an appellate
court reverse the trial court’s judgment. Id. Otherwise, appellate review is limited to the
sufficiency of the evidence pursuant to Rule 13(e) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate
Procedure. State v. Burlison, 868 S.W.2d 713, 718-19 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). If the
reviewing court finds that the trial judge has failed to fulfill his or her role as thirteenth
juror, the reviewing court must grant a new trial. State v. Moats, 906 S.W.2d 431, 435
(Tenn. 1995). Here, the record clearly shows that the trial court agreed with the jury’s
verdict as the thirteenth juror. The transcript shows the trial court explicitly stated, “As the
thirteenth juror, approving the verdict of the jury in this case, the Court finds that there is
sufficient proof to substantiate the jury’s verdict.” Accordingly, the Defendant is not
entitled to relief on her claim that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence in
this case.

The Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion
for judgment of acquittal because the proof was insufficient to sustain her convictions. To
appeal a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case-in-
chief, a defendant must stand on the motion and decline to present any evidence. State v.
Collier, 411 S.W.3d 886, 892 (Tenn. 2013). If the defendant fails to stand on his motion,
the issue is waived on appeal. Finch v. State, 226 S.W.3d 307, 316 (Tenn. 2007). Because
the Defendant presented proof following the denial of her first motion for judgment of
acquittal, she has waived her right to appeal the trial court’s denial of her first motion. See
id. at 317 (refusing to revisit the waiver rule); see also State v. Ball, 973 S.W.2d 288, 292
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that “[t]his court may not return to the midpoint of the
trial and then order the trial court to direct a judgment of acquittal upon the basis of the
record as it then existed.”).

Next, we consider whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment
of acquittal at the close of all proof. We recognize that “[t]he standard by which the trial
court determines a motion for judgment of acquittal at the end of all the proof is, in essence,
the same standard which applies on appeal in determining the sufficiency of the evidence
- 18 -
after a conviction[.]” State v. Thompson, 88 S.W.3d 611, 614-15 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000);
Ball, 973 S.W.2d at 292; State v. Blanton, 926 S.W.2d 953, 957-58 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1996). Because the standard of review is the same for the Defendant’s claim that the trial
court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and her claim that the evidence
is insufficient to sustain the convictions, we will analyze these issues at the same time.

“Because a verdict of guilt removes the presumption of innocence and raises a
presumption of guilt, the criminal defendant bears the burden on appeal of showing that
the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict.” State v. Hanson, 279
S.W.3d 265, 275 (Tenn. 2009) (citing State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992)).
“Appellate courts evaluating the sufficiency of the convicting evidence must determine
‘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.’” State v. Wagner, 382 S.W.3d 289, 297 (Tenn. 2012) (quoting Jackson
v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)); see Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). When this court
evaluates the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest
legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that
evidence. State v. Davis, 354 S.W.3d 718, 729 (Tenn. 2011) (citing State v. Majors, 318
S.W.3d 850, 857 (Tenn. 2010)).

Guilt may be found beyond a reasonable doubt where there is direct evidence,
circumstantial evidence, or a combination of the two. State v. Sutton, 166 S.W.3d 686,
691 (Tenn. 2005); State v. Hall, 976 S.W.2d 121, 140 (Tenn. 1998). The standard of review
for sufficiency of the evidence “‘is the same whether the conviction is based upon direct
or circumstantial evidence.’” State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 379 (Tenn. 2011)
(quoting Hanson, 279 S.W.3d at 275). The jury as the trier of fact must evaluate the
credibility of the witnesses, determine the weight given to witnesses’ testimony, and
reconcile all conflicts in the evidence. State v. Campbell, 245 S.W.3d 331, 335 (Tenn.
2008) (citing Byrge v. State, 575 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978)). Moreover,
the jury determines the weight to be given to circumstantial evidence, and the inferences
to be drawn from this evidence, and the extent to which the circumstances are consistent
with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, are questions primarily for the jury. Dorantes,
331 S.W.3d at 379 (citing State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646, 662 (Tenn. 2006)). When
considering the sufficiency of the evidence, this court “neither re-weighs the evidence nor
substitutes its inferences for those drawn by the jury.” Wagner, 382 S.W.3d at 297 (citing
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997)).

At trial, the State presented the theory that the Defendant was guilty of the charged
offenses under a theory of criminal responsibility. Criminal responsibility is “‘not a
separate, distinct crime’” but “‘a theory by which the State may prove the defendant’s guilt
of the alleged offense . . . based upon the conduct of another person.’” State v. Davidson,
- 19 -
509 S.W.3d 156, 214 (Tenn. 2016) (quoting State v. Lemacks, 996 S.W.2d 166, 170 (Tenn.
1999)). An individual is criminally responsible for the conduct of another person if,
“[a]cting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, or to benefit in the
proceeds or results of the offense, . . . solicits, directs, aids, or attempts to aid another person
to commit the offense[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-402(2). Therefore, criminal
responsibility for the actions of another person “requires that a defendant act with a
culpable mental state, specifically, the ‘intent to promote or assist the commission of the
offense or to benefit in the proceeds or results of the offense.’” State v. Carson, 950 S.W.2d
951, 954 (Tenn. 1997) (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-402(2)). “A person acts with
intent as to the nature or result of conduct when it is that person’s conscious objective or
desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.” Id. (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-
302(a); State v. Maxey, 898 S.W.2d 756, 757 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)).

In the theory of criminal responsibility, “an individual’s presence and
companionship with the perpetrator of a felony before and after the commission of an
offense are circumstances from which his or her participation in the crime may be inferred.”
State v. Watson, 227 S.W.3d 622, 639 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006) (citing Ball, 973 S.W.2d
at 293). In this situation, “[n]o particular act need be shown, and the defendant need not
have taken a physical part in the crime in order to be held criminally responsible.” Id.
(citing Ball, 973 S.W.2d at 293). There is no requirement that the State “elect between
prosecution as a principal actor and prosecution for criminal responsibility[.]” State v.
Hodges, 7 S.W.3d 609, 625 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (citing State v. Williams, 920 S.W.2d
247, 257-58 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)).

The Defendant claims that there is insufficient evidence to sustain her convictions
for first degree felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, conspiracy to commit
especially aggravated kidnapping, extortion, and conspiracy to commit extortion. First
degree felony murder is “[a] killing of another committed in the perpetration of or attempt
to perpetrate any . . . kidnapping[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(2). Therefore, to
sustain the Defendant’s conviction for felony murder in this case, the State was required to
prove that the Appellant killed the victim in the perpetration of a kidnapping. See id.

Especially aggravated kidnapping is defined as false imprisonment “[c]ommitted to
hold the victim for ransom or reward[.]” Id. § 39-13-305(a)(3). Kidnapping is defined as
false imprisonment “under circumstances exposing the other person to substantial risk of
bodily injury.” Id. § 39-13-303(a). The crime of false imprisonment is committed by one
“who knowingly removes or confines another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially
with the other’s liberty.” Id. § 39-13-302(a). The offense of conspiracy is committed “if
two (2) or more people, each having the culpable mental state required for the offense that
is the object of the conspiracy, and each acting for the purpose of promoting or facilitating
the commission of an offense, agree that one (1) or more of them will engage in conduct
- 20 -
that constitutes the offense.” Id. § 39-12-103(a). “No person may be convicted of
conspiracy to commit an offense, unless an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy is
alleged and proved to have been done by the person or by another with whom the person
conspired.” Id. § 39-12-103(d).

As pertinent in this case, “a person commits extortion who uses coercion upon
another person with the intent to . . . [o]btain property[.]” Id. § 39-14-112(a)(1).
“Coercion” is defined as “a threat, however communicated, to . . . [c]ommit any offense[.]”
Id. § 39-11-106(a)(3)(A). The Defendant was also charged with conspiracy to commit
extortion. See id. §§ 39-12-103(a), -103(d).

The evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to
establish the Defendant’s guilt for the conviction offenses under a theory of criminal
responsibility. Regarding her first degree felony murder conviction, there was abundant
proof that the victim was killed during the Defendant’s perpetration of the especially
aggravated kidnapping. In addition, there was sufficient proof that the Defendant was
guilty of especially aggravated kidnapping and conspiracy to commit especially aggravated
kidnapping. The proof showed that the Defendant gave the victim the money for the
original drug deal. While the Defendant testified at trial that the money for this drug deal
came from Robert and Valerie Dollar, the Defendant admitted to officers during her
interviews that the victim “stole money” from her and her husband. During her interviews,
the Defendant provided various justifications for the harsh increase in the victim’s debt
from $200 to $700, acknowledged that she and Robert told the victim that he could not go
home until he either gave them the money or the missing drugs, and admitted that Robert
and Brittany Arnold made the victim apologize to her regarding the drug transaction. The
evidence also established the Defendant was aware that the victim was confined in her car,
that the victim was forced to perform yard work at May’s residence, and that the victim
was restricted to the bunk bed area of her camper because of the drug transaction. The
Defendant was aware that Combs and Robert had demanded a ransom from the victim’s
family members in exchange for the victim’s release. The Defendant rode in a truck with
the victim and most of the other codefendants to a remote mountain location where Arnold
and Robert brutally beat the victim and abandoned him in freezing temperatures. The
Defendant admitted that she was present during this brutal assault and was present when
the victim was abandoned on the mountain. The Defendant made no attempt to separate
herself from the other codefendants or to aid the victim. The victim was never found
following this incident, and the proof is sufficient to show that the victim died during the
kidnapping.

The Defendant’s Facebook messages also established her involvement in the
victim’s especially aggravated kidnapping, which led to the victim’s death. Prior to
obtaining drugs from the victim, the Defendant sent a message to “Joshie Squashie” asking
- 21 -
if he had $100. At 8:06 p.m. on January 19, which was after they abandoned the victim
but before Robert was arrested, the Defendant messaged Lizzie Isaac, “We had a situation
we had to fix[,] and it took all day long.” In addition, the Defendant also sent messages to
Tychella Ervin, the victim’s cousin, stating that the victim had “f[--]k[ed]” them over, and
that they wanted to teach the victim “a lesson.”

Based on the Defendant’s involvement in the victim’s kidnapping, her presence at
the drug transaction through the victim’s assault and abandonment, her failure to render
aid to the victim after the assault, and her companionship with the codefendants before and
after this incident, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant
was criminally responsible for the kidnapping offenses as well as the felony murder of the
victim. See State v. Dollar, No. E2023-00531-CCA-R3-CD, 2024 WL 2353940, at *8
(Tenn. Crim. App. May 23, 2024) (concluding that Dollar was criminally responsible for
the kidnapping of the victim because she communicated with and was present with the
codefendants during the kidnapping, was present when the victim was being confined,
threatened, and ordered to perform yard work, was aware that the victim was being held
for ransom, assisted the codefendants by providing a truck to take the kidnapped victim to
a location where he was assaulted and left unconscious, and accompanied the codefendants
to the location and encouraged codefendant Arnold in assaulting the victim as the victim
pleaded for his life); State v. Patton, No. E2013-01355-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 1512830,
at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 16, 2014) (concluding that the evidence was sufficient to
sustain the defendant’s convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and criminally
negligent homicide under the theory of criminal responsibility where the defendant was
with the group who kidnapped the victim and remained at the location where the victim
was being held for ransom).

As for the Defendant’s convictions for extortion and conspiracy to commit
extortion, the jury could have reasonably found that the Defendant was guilty of both
offenses. The Defendant observed Robert taking photographs of the victim to send to his
family. In addition, the Defendant was present when the second video was made, where
several codefendants, including Robert and Brittany Arnold, brutally beat the victim and
abandoned him on the mountain in freezing temperatures. During her second interview
with law enforcement, the Defendant repeatedly stated that the plan was to have the
victim’s family meet “them” with money and that she agreed with the other codefendants
regarding this plan. Therefore, a rational jury could also find beyond a reasonable doubt
that the Defendant was criminally responsible for the extortion and conspiracy to commit
extortion offenses.

Significantly, the Defendant does not argue that the State failed to prove specific
elements for each conviction offense. Instead, she claims that the codefendants in this case
had strong motivations to implicate her in exchange for favorable plea deals, which raised
- 22 -
serious questions about the reliability of their testimonies. She also asserts that the trial
court should have considered the codefendants’ bias when assessing the sufficiency of the
evidence. See Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959) (“[T]he jury’s estimate of the
truthfulness and reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or
innocence, and it is upon such subtle factors as the possible interest of the witness in
testifying falsely that a defendant’s life or liberty may depend.”). Ultimately, the
Defendant asserts the verdicts were not supported by the weight of the evidence, given the
questionable credibility of the codefendants’ testimonies. However, because the trial
transcript shows that none of the Defendant’s codefendants testified at trial, the Defendant
is not entitled to relief on this claim. To the extent that the Defendant argues that the
codefendants’ statements were not reliable because they were motivated to implicate her
to receive favorable plea deals, we conclude that the codefendants’ statements were not
presented at trial and that there was abundant proof showing the Defendant’s guilt of the
conviction offenses.

The Defendant also claims that the lack of corroborating physical evidence in this
case further undermines the sufficiency of the evidence against her, specifically noting that
forensic analysis and other physical proof failed to directly link her to the actions that led
to the victim’s death. See State v. Crawford, 470 S.W.2d 610, 613 (Tenn. 1971) (“In order
to convict on circumstantial evidence alone, the facts and circumstances must be so closely
interwoven and connected that the finger of guilt is pointed unerringly at the defendant and
the defendant alone.”). However, we recognize that “the defendant need not have taken a
physical part in the crime in order to be held criminally responsible.” Watson, 227 S.W.3d
at 639 (citing Ball, 973 S.W.2d at 293). As noted above, there was abundant proof that the
Defendant was criminally responsible for the conviction offenses.

Finally, the Defendant contends there was reasonable doubt about her guilt because
the defense presented substantial evidence suggesting another codefendant was the
principal actor in the crimes. As we outlined above, there was abundant proof of the
Defendant’s guilt in this case, particularly under the theory of criminal responsibility.

We reiterate that it was the jury’s duty to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, to
determine the weight given to testimony, and to resolve all conflicts in the evidence. See
State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996). We will not reweigh the evidence nor
substitute our inferences for those drawn by the jury. See Wagner, 382 S.W.3d at 297.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment
of acquittal at the close of the defense’s proof because the evidence was sufficient to sustain
all the Defendant’s convictions.

II. Suppression of Statements. Next, the Defendant contends that the trial court’s
admission of her statements to police violated her Fifth Amendment rights and severely
- 23 -
impacted the fairness of her trial. She claims that the officers’ failure to administer Miranda
warnings rendered her statements inadmissible and that the circumstances surrounding her
interrogation indicated a coercive environment that likely influenced her statements. In
particular, the Defendant argues that the arrest of her husband created “significant
psychological pressure.” The State responds that because the Defendant waived this issue
by failing to provide an adequate record for review, this court must presume that the trial
court properly denied her suppression motion. Alternatively, the State asserts that based
on the limited appellate record, the Defendant failed to prove she was in custody when she
gave her first statement to police. We conclude that the Defendant has waived this issue
and is not entitled to plain error review.

We note that the Defendant failed to include a transcript of the suppression hearing
in the appellate record and that the trial court’s written order stated only that the
suppression motion was denied “[f]or reasons stated on the record.” The appellant has a
duty to prepare a record that conveys “a fair, accurate and complete account of what
transpired with respect to those issues that are the bases of appeal.” Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b).
“Where . . . the record is incomplete, and does not contain a transcript of the proceedings
relevant to an issue presented for review, or portions of the record upon which a party
relies, this Court is precluded from considering the issue.” State v. Roberts, 755 S.W.2d
833, 836 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (citing State v. Groseclose, 615 S.W.2d 142, 147 (Tenn.
1981); State v. Jones, 623 S.W.2d 129, 131 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981)). “In the absence of
an adequate record on appeal, we must presume that the trial court’s ruling was supported
by the evidence.” State v. Bibbs, 806 S.W.2d 786, 790 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (citing
Smith v. State, 584 S.W.2d 811, 812 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979); Vermilye v. State, 584
S.W.2d 226, 230 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979)). Because of the absence of an adequate record
here, we must presume that the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s suppression motion
was supported by the evidence.

Finally, we note that the Defendant never filed a reply brief addressing the State’s
allegation of waiver regarding the suppression issue and never asked for plain error review
of this issue. Therefore, we conclude that the Defendant is not entitled to plain error review
of this issue. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b); State v. Bledsoe, 226 S.W.3d 349, 355 (Tenn.
2007).

III. Defamation of the Defendant’s Character. The Defendant also asserts she
was defamed by Irea Uebele, who falsely testified that the Defendant used a racial slur
against the victim via Facebook messenger. She claims the trial court’s delayed limiting
instruction, which was given in response to this false testimony, resulted in a violation of
the Defendant’s right to a fair trial. She claims the damage to her character caused by this
false testimony was irreparable, and the jury’s perception of her was unduly influenced by
this error. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the prosecution had an obligation to
- 24 -
immediately correct the record and ensure that the jury was not misled by the false
testimony. See Napue, 360 U.S. at 269 (“[T]he principle that a State may not knowingly
use false evidence, including false testimony, to obtain a tainted conviction, implicit in any
concept of ordered liberty, does not cease to apply merely because the false testimony goes
only to the credibility of the witness.”); Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)
(“[T]he United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a
controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling
as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is
not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.”). In response, the State argues
that the Defendant waived this claim by agreeing to the trial court’s remedial actions after
this testimony, by failing to appropriately cite to the record, and by failing to develop her
argument. We conclude that the Defendant has waived this claim on multiple grounds and
is not entitled to plain error review.

Near the end of her testimony at trial, Uebele stated that the victim had previously
logged into his Facebook Messenger account on her phone, so she was able to see his
messages. She noted the Defendant had left several messages on his Facebook page,
including several voice messages. Uebele stated that she knew the messages were from
the Defendant based on her name and the photographs on her Facebook page. She claimed
she had discovered the Defendant’s name, as well as the other codefendants’ names, and
was able to identify them based on “what they were posting and what time they were
posting it.” Uebele said she knew the Defendant and codefendants were together because
they posted on one another’s Facebook pages, so she “knew they were together because
they were talking about killing a n[-----].” On cross-examination, Uebele acknowledged
that her trial testimony was the first time she asserted that the messages were coming from
the Defendant. There was no objection during Uebele’s testimony.

The morning of the second day of trial, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
discovery, arguing that the messages sent by the Defendant, which were referenced by
Uebele during her testimony the prior day, had not been disclosed in discovery. The
prosecutor replied that the messages had been previously provided in discovery, but Uebele
“got the two females mixed up,” and Elizabeth Folsom had sent these messages, not the
Defendant. The prosecutor explained that Folsom testified during Robert’s trial and
suggested that defense counsel explore this issue during his cross-examination of Agent
Holder because Agent Holder was “the one who obtained” the Facebook records and would
be able to clarify that Folsom sent the messages, not the Defendant.

The trial court asked counsel if this issue could be remedied with a written
stipulation that Uebele’s testimony on this issue was inaccurate because the Defendant did
not send any messages to the victim. Defense counsel expressed his concern that in this
jury trial charging the Defendant with “first degree murder involving an African[]American
- 25 -
male victim,” Uebele had pointed at the Defendant and had accused the Defendant of
stating, “[W]e are going to get that n[-----].” The trial court asked if a written stipulation,
read to the jury, would clarify Uebele’s testimony because it did not know how else to fix
this issue. When the trial court questioned whether Uebele could be recalled, a prosecutor
replied that Uebele had left following her trial testimony and was currently in Indiana. A
second prosecutor asserted that Agent Holder would be testifying for the State and could
explain on cross-examination that the person who sent those messages was Elizabeth
Folsom and not the Defendant. The trial court asserted, “I think it needs to be made
abundantly clear that [the] testimony [on this point] was incorrect because [Uebele] did say
it was [the Defendant’s] picture on these messages[.]”

Defense counsel asserted he needed to have a discussion with the Defendant about
how to proceed and about whether she wanted to move for a mistrial, and he was given a
few moments to talk to the Defendant. Thereafter, defense counsel announced that he and
co-counsel talked to the Defendant about the possibility of moving for a mistrial and about
“how [in]credibly damning [Uebele’s] testimony was to the jury,” but the Defendant had
decided that she did not want them to make a motion for a mistrial on her behalf. Defense
counsel also talked to the Defendant about a potential curative instruction regarding
Uebele’s testimony. He then summarized defense counsels’ conversation with the
Defendant and asked the Defendant on the record, “Is it your desire for us not to make that
motion for mistrial and proceed with this case?” The Defendant responded affirmatively.
Thereafter, the trial court drafted a brief curative instruction to be read to the jury at that
time.

When the jury returned to the courtroom, the trial court provided the following
curative instruction:

Ladies and gentlemen, I need to address a matter that came up
yesterday. All of you will remember the State’s first witness, Ms. [Irea]
Uebele . . . Do you remember, all of you remember the first witness, [the]
small lady testified first that she was referred to as auntie but was actually a
cousin to the alleged victim in this case, [and she referred to the victim]
frequently . . . yesterday as Lovii? . . . Do you recall Ms. Uebele referencing
messages that she received or that she saw or [were] accessed by her on [the
victim’s], Lovii’s Facebook? Alright. All of you remember that testimony.
She clearly testified that those messages came from [the Defendant], do you
all recall that? Do you also recall that the messages were of a threatening
nature and had racial slurs involved? That has been reevaluated and
investigated over the evening[,] and it has been determined and checked with
the investigators that were pertinent to that part of this case that those
messages did not come from [the Defendant] in any respect. All right. Those
- 26 -
messages were sent from another person by the name of Elizabeth Folsom.
[The Defendant] had nothing to do with those messages. Ms. Uebele’s
testimony was wrong or incorrect. You can judge her credibility in all other
respects[,] but it has been agreed by both [the] State and defense that her
testimony in that respect was wrong[,] and those messages are in no way to
be attributed to [the Defendant]. She did not draft them, send them[,] or have
anything to do with them[.]

Does that satisfy the inquiry? We will likely do a written stipulation
that part of her testimony would be redacted. Thank you.

The trial court then asked if there was anything else from the State or the defense or any
questions from the jury, and no one responded. During a bench conference, defense
counsel asked that the trial court also inform the jury that Elizabeth Folsom was not one of
the six codefendants charged in this case and that Folsom would not be testifying at the
Defendant’s trial.

The trial court then instructed the jury:

You also recall the names of the other people who are charged in this
case that are involved in separate proceedings from [the Defendant]. Ms.
Folsom is not one of those charged individuals. She was involved in
extraneous matters on this case, [and] she will likely not even be a witness.
So she is not one of the defendants charged.

When one of the jurors asked if Elizabeth Folsom accessed the Defendant’s Facebook, the
trial court replied:

No, No. It was not [the Defendant’s] Facebook, it had nothing to do
with [the Defendant]. [The Defendant] had no contact with those messages
whatsoever. There is no proof and the State does not assert in any way that
[the Defendant] authored those messages, authorized them, sent them or that
it came even by an unauthorized means through her messenger or her
Facebook. I am not very . . . social media savvy, so I’m not good at that kind
of thing. Basically[,] the messages that Ms. Uebele referenced did not come
from [the Defendant] and she had nothing to do with them nor did any of her
social media have anything to do with it, it was not her picture as testified to.
Okay.

The trial court asked if this prior instruction satisfied the defense, and Defendant’s attorney
replied, “Yes, Your Honor, thank you.”
- 27 -
Later, defense counsel stated that it had sent the written stipulation regarding
Uebele’s testimony to the prosecution, and the prosecutor announced that it had agreed to
this stipulation. The trial court stated that it would include it in the jury instructions as an
agreed stipulation. Copies of this stipulation were read to and provided to both parties.
The following stipulation was given to the jury during the jury charge and included in the
written jury instructions:

State and Counsel for Defendant stipulate that the testimony of Irea
Suionne Uebele regarding the sending of Facebook calls or messages by [the
Defendant] Leigh Katherine Littleton to [the victim] Carlton Edmondson
(Lovii’s) Facebook account, accessed by Ms. Uebele, was wrong. It is
agreed and stipulated by State and Defense that any such messages were sent
by Elizabeth Folsom.

[Irea] Uebele testified on 7/19/2022 concerning messages sent to the
Facebook account of Carlton Edmondson (aka Lovii).

Uebele stated she had access to Carlton Edmondson’s personal
Facebook account because Mr. Edmondson previously logged into his
personal Facebook account using Uebele’s phone.

Uebele testified these messages contained threats and racial slurs
directed at Carlton Edmondson. She stated she was certain these messages
came from Ms. Leigh Katherine Littleton.

After evaluation and investigation, it has been determined that those
messages did not come from Ms. Littleton in any respect.

Those messages were sent by another person named Elizabeth
Folsom[]. Elizabeth Folsom[] is not one of the individuals charged in this
case. Elizabeth Folsom[] sent those messages from her own Facebook
account to Carlton Edmondson’s Facebook account.

Leigh Katherine Littleton had nothing to do with those messages.
Those messages are in no way to be attributed or connected to Ms. Littleton.
Ms. Littleton did not draft them, send them, or have anything to do with those
messages.

Therefore, Uebele’s testimony was wrong or incorrect. The jury is to
judge her credibility in all other respects.
- 28 -
The Defendant claims Uebele’s false testimony that the Defendant used a racial slur
against the victim was unexpected and highly prejudicial because it portrayed the
Defendant as a “person of vile character, capable of racial animus.” She claims that
although she objected to Uebele’s false testimony and requested an immediate curative
instruction, the trial court delayed its response until the next morning, which left the jury
with the false impression that the Defendant had made the racial slur against the victim
overnight. The Defendant also claims the prosecution did not correct the record, which
further compounded the prejudicial against the Defendant.

While the Defendant asserts that the prosecutor failed to correct the record in this
case, which caused additional prejudice, we disagree. When the parties originally
discussed the issue the morning prior to the second day of trial, the prosecutor immediately
acknowledged that Uebele was mistaken when she testified that the Defendant sent the
messages. The prosecutor later agreed to the stipulation. In addition, Agent Holder
acknowledged on cross-examination that Elizabeth Folsom was the individual who sent the
messages, including the racial slur, to the victim over Facebook. Finally, Sara Petty
testified that she had reviewed the Facebook messages for both the victim and the
Defendant and determined that there had been no communication between them.

Despite her claims to the contrary, the record shows the Defendant did not
immediately object to Uebele’s testimony and that the defense first raised the issue the
morning prior to the second day of trial. The parties addressed the issue, and the trial court
gave the Defendant and her attorneys time to decide how to proceed. Ultimately, the
Defendant stated on the record that she wanted to continue with the trial and did not want
her attorneys to move for a mistrial. Thereafter, the Defendant, through counsel, ultimately
agreed to the trial court’s suggestion of a stipulation the next day. Thereafter, the trial court
provided an oral curative instruction, which was agreed to by both parties. The court then
included a written stipulation in the jury charge, which was also agreed to by the
prosecution and the defense. Because the record clearly showed that the Defendant agreed
to both the curative instruction and the stipulation, she has waived this issue. See Tenn. R.
App. P. 36(a) (“Nothing in this rule shall be construed as requiring relief be granted to a
party responsible for an error or who failed to take whatever action was reasonably
available to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of an error.”).

The Defendant also waived this issue by failing to make any references to the record
regarding this issue. “Issues which are not supported by argument, citation to authorities,
or appropriate references to the record will be treated as waived in this court.” Tenn. Ct.
Crim. App. R. 10(b); see Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7) (A brief shall contain “[a]n argument . .
. setting forth . . . the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and
the reasons therefor, including the reasons why the contentions require appellate relief,
- 29 -
with citations to the authorities and appropriate references to the record . . . relied on[.]”).
Failure to comply with this basic rule will ordinarily constitute a waiver of the issue. State
v. Schaller, 975 S.W.2d 313, 318 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (citing State v. Hammons, 737
S.W.2d 549, 552 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)).

Lastly, the Defendant never filed a reply brief addressing the State’s allegation of
waiver and did not ask for plain error review of this issue. Accordingly, we conclude that
the Defendant is not entitled to plain error review. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b); Bledsoe,
226 S.W.3d at 355.

IV. Denial of Right to Present a Defense. The Defendant asserts that the trial
court improperly excluded the State’s pre-trial plea offer to the codefendants, which would
dismiss the felony murder charge in exchange for information about the victim’s remains.
She claims the court’s exclusion of this plea offer evidence violated her constitutional right
to present a complete defense because the plea offer was “essential to demonstrate the
potential bias and motivations of the codefendants who testified against her at trial.” See
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 (1973) (“Few rights are more fundamental
than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense.”). The Defendant also
asserts that the exclusion of this evidence prevented her from presenting a defense and
challenging the credibility of her codefendants’ testimony. The Defendant also claims that
although the trial court relied on Tennessee Rule of Evidence 408 to exclude the evidence
of the plea offer, Rule 408 should not be applied in a manner that infringes on a defendant’s
constitutional right to present a complete defense. United State v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303,
308 (1998) (quoting Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 56 (1987)) (State rules excluding
evidence from criminal trial “do not abridge an accused’s right to present a defense so long
as they are not ‘arbitrary’ or ‘disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to
serve.’”). In response, the State argues that the Defendant has waived this claim by failing
to support her argument with appropriate references to the record, by failing to include the
relevant standard of review, and by failing to include a transcript of the motion hearing
where the parties addressed the admissibility of this plea offer. Waiver notwithstanding,
the State asserts the Defendant is not entitled to relief. We conclude that the Defendant
has waived this claim on multiple grounds and is not entitled to plain error review.

The record shows the State filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude “any
evidence” or “reference” to unaccepted plea offers. The record does not show a response
from the Defendant. However, the record does show that the trial court entered an order
noting that this motion was heard on March 17, 2022, and granting this motion in limine
“[w]ithout objection.”

Initially, the Defendant has waived this issue by failing to include a transcript from
the March 17 hearing and by failing to include the transcript of the motion for new trial
- 30 -
hearing in the appellate record. See Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b) (The appellant has a duty to
prepare a record that conveys “a fair, accurate and complete account of what transpired
with respect to those issues that are the bases of appeal.”); Roberts, 755 S.W.2d at 836
(“Where . . . the record is incomplete, and does not contain a transcript of the proceedings
relevant to an issue presented for review, or portions of the record upon which a party
relies, this Court is precluded from considering the issue.”); see also Dollar, 2024 WL
2353940, at *9; State v. Sims, 45 S.W.3d 1, 15 (Tenn. 2001). Because the Defendant failed
to include the transcripts relevant to this issue, we must presume that the trial court’s grant
of this motion in limine was supported by the evidence. Bibbs, 806 S.W.2d at 790 (citing
Smith, 584 S.W.2d at 812; Vermilye, 584 S.W.2d at 230).

In addition, the Defendant waived this issue because the trial court’s order shows
that the State’s motion in limine was granted “without objection” from the defense.
Because the record clearly shows that the Defendant failed to object regarding the State’s
motion and failed to make an offer of proof, she also has waived this issue on this ground.
See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a) (“Nothing in this rule shall be construed as requiring relief be
granted to a party responsible for an error or who failed to take whatever action was
reasonably available to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of an error.”).

We also agree with the State that the Defendant has waived this claim by failing to
support her argument with appropriate references to the record and by failing to include
the relevant standard of review. “Issues which are not supported by argument, citation to
authorities, or appropriate references to the record will be treated as waived in this court.”
Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 10(b); see Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7) (A brief shall contain “[a]n
argument . . . setting forth . . . the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues
presented, and the reasons therefor, including the reasons why the contentions require
appellate relief, with citations to the authorities and appropriate references to the record . .
. relied on[.]”). Failure to comply with this basic rule will ordinarily constitute a waiver of
the issue. Schaller, 975 S.W.2d at 318 (citing Hammons, 737 S.W.2d at 552).

Lastly, the Defendant never filed a reply brief addressing the State’s allegation of
waiver and never asked for plain error review of this issue. Therefore, we conclude that
the Defendant is not entitled to plain error review. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b); Bledsoe,
226 S.W.3d at 355.

V. Unconstitutional Condition. As her final issue, the Defendant argues that the
trial court erroneously held that she could not present evidence of her codefendants’ violent
and criminal backgrounds until she testified and confirmed her knowledge of the
codefendants’ backgrounds, which created an unconstitutional condition forcing her to
choose between her right to remain silent and her right to present a defense. See
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978) (“To punish a person because he has
- 31 -
done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic
sort[.]”); Chambers, 410 U.S. at 294 (“[T]he right of an accused in a criminal trial to due
process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State’s
accusations.”). The Defendant asserts that the trial court’s ruling infringed on her right to
present a complete defense and impacted the fairness of her trial because this evidence was
crucial to establishing that one of her codefendants was the principal actor in the crimes.
In response, the State asserts that the Defendant waived this claim by abandoning it at trial,
by not supporting her argument with appropriate references to the record, and by not
including a standard of review. We conclude that the Defendant has waived this claim on
multiple grounds and is not entitled to plain error review.

Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine to exclude “proof of convictions of
co-defendants.” Attached to this motion was an email from the Defendant’s attorney,
stating that he intended to elicit testimony on cross-examination regarding the criminal
convictions of Stacy May, James Combs, and Robert Littleton, codefendants in this case.
The defense filed a response to the State’s motion, arguing that exclusion of this evidence
would deny the Defendant’s right to present a defense.

The State’s motion in limine was addressed at the end of the first day of trial.
Defense counsel said he intended to elicit prior convictions of Robert, Combs, and May
during his cross-examination of Investigator Brown because Brown “looked into the
criminal backgrounds” of the codefendants as a part of his investigation. He asserted that
this criminal conviction evidence was relevant because it helped determine whether the
Defendant could do anything “to control these individuals[.]” He noted that at the time of
the offenses, the Defendant was less than five feet tall and weighed 130 pounds while the
codefendants were “full grown men” with “violent histories[,]” which dramatically
impacted the Defendant’s ability to “to control or persuade” these men.” After the State
suggested that the Defendant would have to show some knowledge of the codefendants’
criminal histories before this evidence should be admitted, defense counsel replied,

. . . I don’t think we should condition [the Defendant’s] right to remain silent
with her right to a defense. To say that she would have to testify to talk about
what she knew about [the codefendants’] history before we are able to even
bring this up, we are conditioning one constitutional right on another.

After hearing the parties’ arguments as to this issue, the trial court held that the
Defendant’s knowledge about her Codefendants’ criminal backgrounds was relevant and
would not confuse the jury. The trial court then stated:

I think it is proper cross[-]examination fodder to ask any witness that the
State puts on about what [the Defendant] knew about [the codefendants], if
- 32 -
the State’s witnesses know, and what [the Defendant’s] familiarity with those
individuals [was]. If she had seen [the codefendants] beat up other people,
if she had seen them engage in violent behavior to others or to herself, you
know, if she was abused as a wife[, these things] would be relevant to the
amount of control that would be exercised by Mr. Robert Littleton over this
[D]efendant. So those things can become material based upon the
development of the proof.

However, the trial court reserved ruling on the defense’s use of the codefendants’ specific
convictions until it could see how the proof developed.

The Defendant asserts that her attorney sought to introduce proof of her
Codefendants’ criminal backgrounds not only to illustrate the Defendant’s state of mind
but also to suggest that another Codefendant was the principal actor in the crimes in this
case. She claims the trial court’s exclusion of this evidence prevented the jury from fully
considering the defense’s theory, which resulted in an unfair trial.

Initially, we conclude that the Defendant waived this issue by abandoning it at trial.
Here, the trial court ruled in the Defendant’s favor and allowed her to cross-examine any
witness about the Defendant’s knowledge of her codefendants’ criminal histories. Because
the record shows that the Defendant never sought to introduce proof of the codefendants’
criminal histories at trial, other than a brief mention of Robert’s prior DUI, and never made
an offer of proof regarding the specific evidence she sought to admit, she has waived this
issue. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a) (“Nothing in this rule shall be construed as requiring
relief be granted to a party responsible for an error or who failed to take whatever action
was reasonably available to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of an error.”).

The Defendant has also waived this claim by failing to support her argument with
appropriate references to the record and with appropriate citations and argument regarding
the standard of review. “Issues which are not supported by argument, citation to
authorities, or appropriate references to the record will be treated as waived in this court.”
Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 10(b); see Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7) (A brief shall contain “[a]n
argument . . . setting forth the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues
presented, and the reasons therefor, including the reasons why the contentions require
appellate relief, with citations to the authorities and appropriate references to the record . .
. relied on[.]”). Failure to comply with this basic rule will ordinarily constitute a waiver of
the issue. Schaller, 975 S.W.2d at 318 (citing Hammons, 737 S.W.2d at 552).

Lastly, the Defendant never filed a reply brief addressing the State’s allegation of
waiver and never asked for plain error review of this issue. Therefore, we conclude that

- 33 -
the Defendant is not entitled to plain error review. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b); Bledsoe,
226 S.W.3d at 355.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

S/ Camille R.
McMullen____________
CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, PRESIDING JUDGE

- 34 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10839511. Public record. Not legal advice.