State of Tennessee v. Gerald TyShawn Henry

11/25/2025

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs November 18, 2025

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GERALD TYSHAWN HENRY

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County

No. 115686 G. Scott Green, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2024-01548-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

The Defendant, Gerald Tyshawn Henry, was convicted by a Knox County jury of second

degree murder and various other gun-related crimes, for which he received an effective

sentence of fifty years in confinement. In this appeal, the sole issue presented for our

review is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction of second

degree murder. Upon our review, we affirm.

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

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W.

WEDEMEYER, P.J. and MATTHEW J. WILSON, J., joined.

Gerald L. Gulley, Jr., Knoxville, Tennessee (on appeal); Julia Anna Trant, Knoxville,

Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, Gerald Tyshawn Henry.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Garrett D. Ward, Assistant Attorney

General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Nate Olge and Kaitlyn

Nussbaum, Assistant District Attorneys General for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

The following proof was adduced at the Defendant’s two-day jury trial, which

occurred February 22-23, 2022.

Destiny Dozard Ellison, the victim’s niece, testified that the victim, Jerry Dean Holt,

was forty years old on April 30, 2019. She identified a photograph of the victim, which

was admitted into evidence.

Michael Mays, the keeper of records for Knox County Emergency Communications

District 911, testified regarding one compact disc (CD), which contained five 911 calls that

were made on April 30, 2019, the day of the offense. The CD and the computer aided

dispatch (CAD) written report were admitted into evidence as exhibits. One of the callers

described the shooter as a black male, approximately six feet two or six feet three inches

tall and wearing a white T-shirt.

William Steinke, a military veteran, testified and admitted that he had previously

been convicted of a felony. He said that on the day of the offense he was passing out water

from his car to the homeless in the area of KARM and Salvation Army, toward Depot

Street. As he entered the left lane approaching a stop light, he heard some “commotion”

near a dumpster between two gentlemen who were gesturing back and forth between each

other. He described where he was on a map, which was admitted into evidence. He further

stated

I heard commotion as I was still moving down that, that lane. I slowed down

knowing I had a red light. There was nobody in front of me, and as I started

looking over my shoulder I saw a large, tall, athletic black man, white T-shirt

and blue jeans and a mid-size, heavy set white guy and they were gesturing

back and forth.

And before I even came to a compete stop, I heard gunfire; five shots,

bam, bam, bam, bam and I know the sound of gunshots. And the white man

stumbled back.

The tall, athletic black man, he had his hand up I mean I couldn’t

identify from that far away if it was a pistol or something else, but I know

the sound of a pistol and there wouldn’t have been any other reason he would

be just raising one hand . . . . I saw the black man head between those

buildings and the white man was coming towards my car stumbling, falling

down. He eventually wound up on the curb over here and several people

came to him[.]

Steinke said that as the white man stumbled and ran away from the black man, he

could still hear gunfire. He agreed that although the two men were initially facing each

other during the verbal argument, the victim was running away from the shooter when

Steinke heard gunfire. He spoke with police when they arrived on the scene and later went

to the police station where he participated in a photographic lineup. He did not identify

the Defendant as the shooter during the first photographic lineup, and he explained that he

was only 60% or 70% sure of the individual he selected. However, on the next day, he

participated in another photographic lineup and said, “it was very clear who the shooter

was” based on the Defendant’s broad shoulders and height. He also identified the

Defendant in court as the shooter on the day of the offense.

-2-

On cross-examination, Steinke characterized the commotion he heard as “yelling[.]”

He repeated that the two men were being aggressive toward each other. He agreed that he

did not observe what occurred prior to the commotion and that he did not see the Defendant

with a gun in his hand. He also did not know whether the victim had a gun in his hands.

Raymond Persaud, the owner of a market and deli at the intersection of Broadway

and Depot Street, testified that his store had outside camera surveillance which faced the

lot where the incident occurred. Upon police request, he provided a copy of the video taken

from the date of the offense, which was admitted into evidence. The video, a little over

five minutes in duration, does not have sound. It depicts the shooting; however, it does not

clearly show the identity of the shooter. The shooter, a black male, can be seen wearing a

white, sleeveless type of T-shirt and dark pants.

Lieutenant Tracy Hunter of the Knoxville Police Department testified that she was

the supervisor of the forensic unit at the time of the offense. Upon her arrival, the victim

had been transported from the crime scene. She took photographs of the scene, which were

admitted into evidence. One of the photographs taken near the dumpster area showed a

clear plastic bag containing a white substance. The only items removed from the victim’s

body by the medical examiner when the victim was taken into custody included a green

cigarette lighter, a black, folded pocket-knife, and a handwritten note on yellow paper. No

gun was recovered from the victim’s personal belongings. On cross-examination, she

agreed that the victim’s body had been removed before she arrived and that she could not

be certain of what was on the victim’s body before the shooting.

Investigator Robert Cook of the Knoxville Police Department’s Violent Crime Unit

testified that he responded to the scene on the day of the offense. The victim’s body had

already been transported from the scene. He agreed that no shell casings were recovered

from the scene. Eventually, the Defendant’s “name came up as a suspect.” Investigator

Cook explained that after taking the statement of William Steinke, he took the statement

of the victim’s brother, Tommy Holt, who was standing next to the victim when the victim

was shot. The victim’s brother provided Investigator Cook with a “full account” of what

happened and identified the Defendant by his street name of “Brother Ellison” as a suspect.

After taking Holt’s statement, Investigator Cook showed Steinke the second photographic

lineup during which Steinke identified the Defendant as the shooter.

Investigator Cook explained that he attempted to locate the victim’s brother, an

apparent drug user, for trial; however, he had been unsuccessful. The day after the

shooting, Investigator Cook recovered the video from the market. As the video played for

the jury, at the 4:25 mark, Investigator Cook identified the victim and the Defendant near

the dumpster. Investigator Cook stated the video was helpful to the investigation because

it showed where and how the victim had been shot. He identified a “freeze-frame”

-3-

photograph taken from the video showing the victim turning to run and the Defendant

pointing a gun at him. After the interviews and reviewing the video, Investigator Cook

returned to the crime scene. He eventually learned that the Defendant had discarded his

white T-shirt behind a building near the crime scene. Investigator Cook located the T-shirt,

which was admitted into evidence. A warrant was later issued for the Defendant, and he

was arrested on May 3.

The Defendant provided a recorded statement to Investigator Cook concerning the

shooting, which was admitted into evidence. The recording showed that the Defendant

was advised of and waived his Miranda rights before speaking with Investigator Cook. The

Defendant told Investigator Cook, in relevant part, that he had been in the area of the crime

scene on the day of the offense talking with friends. He observed the victim, who he did

not know, “beating” on another individual named “Woody.” The Defendant said the victim

“pulled a gun out [on Woody] and . . . then he put it back [in his hoodie].” He said the

victim turned to him and started “running off at the mouth” with his hands in his hoodie

the whole time. The Defendant said the victim was being “disrespectful,” and the

Defendant did not understand why because he had never met the victim before. The

Defendant said, “I just pulled my gun and I shot, you feel me.” The Defendant explained

that he had been through some “sh**[,]” and he had been shot before, so he “shot. Boom.”

He agreed that he and the victim did not fight and the victim did not “swing” at him. The

Defendant felt threatened by the victim because his hands were in his pockets. The

Defendant said the victim acted as if he was going to pull the gun out and the Defendant

observed the handle of the gun.

After the recorded statement was played for the jury, Investigator Cook reviewed

the video from the market and identified a black car in the left turning lane traveling in a

southern direction as belonging to William Steinke. Investigator Cook said his review of

the market video did not show the victim pulling out a weapon and it did not reveal anyone

taking a weapon from the victim’s body.

Darinka Mileusnic Polchan, the Chief Medical Examiner for Knox and Anderson

County, testified regarding the autopsy report of the victim in this case. The doctor who

conducted the victim’s autopsy had retired, and Dr. Polchan reviewed the report, confirmed

the findings, and explained them to the jury. She said the victim’s cause of death was a

gunshot wound to his back that involved chest organs, and the manner of death was

homicide. No bullet was recovered from the victim’s body because the gunshot was

“through and through” or entered the left back and exited the right front chest. The autopsy

report was admitted as an exhibit at trial. Several photographs and a diagram of the

victim’s injuries were also admitted as exhibits to show the bullet trajectory, the lack of

soot or gunpowder residue, and the extent of the victim’s injury in this case. A toxicology

report examining the victim’s blood, eye fluid, and urine revealed a blood alcohol level of

-4-

.007 grams percent or just below the legal limit, 0.42 micrograms per milliliter of

methamphetamine and the breakdown product of amphetamine, and 10.9 grams per

milliliter of fentanyl. On cross-examination, she confirmed that the bullet trajectory in

this case was upper shoulder to the lower chest. She explained that the bullet trajectory

would not necessarily be “straight” if the victim was turned away from the shooter. She

said the bullet trajectory would depend on various factors including any movement of and

the height of the shooter and decedent. She confirmed that the toxicology report noted the

presence of cocaine in the victim’s urine.

Sheila Meltabarger, an employee of the Knox County Criminal Court Clerk’s

Office, testified as the keeper of records of criminal convictions in that office. She

identified a certified judgment of conviction, admitted as an exhibit, showing that the

Defendant had been previously convicted of possession with intent to sell cocaine less than

.5 grams, a Class C felony, on November 2, 2007.

As relevant to the issues presented in this appeal, the jury convicted the Defendant

as charged of second degree murder. On May 13, 2022, the trial court imposed an effective

sentence of fifty years to be served in confinement. On June 30, 2022, the trial court

entered an order via minute entry to reflect that the Defendant had not filed a timely motion

for new trial and that his convictions were therefore final. On July 10, 2023, an order was

entered appointing new counsel for the Defendant “for the purpose of motion for new

trial.”1 On November 14, 2023, a hearing was conducted by the trial court to discuss the

status of the Defendant’s case and an order via minute entry was entered denying the

Defendant’s motion for new trial. At this hearing, the trial court inquired whether a petition

for post-conviction relief had been filed, and trial counsel said that it had. Trial counsel

further noted that the trial court had granted a delayed appeal and held all other post-

conviction issues in abeyance.

On February 5, 2024, a written order was entered noting that the Defendant’s motion

for new trial “came to be heard on February 2, 2024[,]” and that said motion was denied.

On October 10, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to allow his late-filed notice of appeal

in this court. In his motion, defense counsel explained that he represented the Defendant

in another case (no. 123509), in which he had filed a petition for post-conviction relief

seeking a delayed appeal and for the trial court to hold the matter in abeyance pending the

determination of the motion for new trial in the instant case. Defense counsel alleged that

the motion for delayed appeal was granted orally by the trial court; however, no written

order was entered. On October 15, 2024, this court entered an order waiving the timely

1

The original trial judge was appointed to this court, and all subsequent hearings were conducted

by the successor trial judge.

-5-

filing of the notice of appeal in the interest of justice. This case is now properly before this

court for review.

ANALYSIS

The Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support his second degree

murder conviction because it did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he was aware

that shooting the victim was reasonably certain to cause the victim’s death. The Defendant

argues the evidence was consistent with voluntary manslaughter and showed that he acted

in a state of passion produced by adequate provocation sufficient to lead a reasonable

person to act in an irrational manner. The State argues the proof was sufficient to support

the Defendant’s conviction. We agree with the State.

“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 Majors, 318 S.W.3d

at 857).

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.’” Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d at 379 (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)). An appellate court “neither re-weighs the evidence nor

-6-

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)).

The Defendant asserts that he should have been convicted of voluntary

manslaughter rather than second degree murder. Second degree murder is defined as “[a]

knowing killing of another[.]” T.C.A. §39-13-210(a)(1). It is well established that second

degree murder is a result-of-conduct offense. State v. Brown, 311 S.W.3d 422, 432 (Tenn.

2010); Page, 81 S.W.3d at 787. Therefore, as pertinent in this case, a person acts knowingly

“when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.”

T.C.A. § 39-11-302(b). Whether a defendant acts knowingly in killing another is a

question of fact for the jury. Brown, 311 S.W.3d at 432; State v. Inlow, 52 S.W.3d 101,

104-05 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). On the other hand, voluntary manslaughter is defined as

“the intentional or knowing killing of another in a state of passion produced by adequate

provocation sufficient to lead a reasonable person to act in an irrational manner.” T.C.A.

§ 39-13-211(a).

Although the Defendant claims that the evidence presented at trial established

adequate provocation, the proof, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, shows

that he knowingly killed the victim in this case. William Steinke, a military veteran,

observed the two men arguing with each other in an aggressive manner. He observed the

Defendant with something in his hand and immediately thereafter heard gunfire. As the

victim turned and ran toward Steinke’s direction, Steinke heard additional gunfire, which

was consistent with the victim being shot in the back. The Defendant admitted to police

that he and the victim were involved in a verbal altercation and that the victim did not

swing at him, and they were not engaged in a physical fight. The Defendant also conceded

that the victim did not pull a gun on the Defendant before the Defendant shot him.

Although the Defendant insisted the victim had a gun that he had displayed while beating

another individual immediately preceding the shooting, the video of the shooting does not

show the victim with a gun, and it does not show anyone attempting to remove a gun from

the body of the victim after the shooting. Finally, the medical examiner confirmed that the

victim sustained a fatal gunshot wound with the bullet entering his back and exiting his

right chest area. Based on all of this evidence, a rational jury could have found beyond a

reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed a knowing killing rather than a killing due

to adequate provocation. See Williams, 38 S.W.3d at 539 (stating that the jury’s decision

to reject the notion of adequate provocation was within its prerogative); State v. Johnson,

909 S.W.2d 461, 464 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (“Whether the acts constitute a ‘knowing

killing’ (second degree murder) or a killing due to ‘adequate provocation’ (voluntary

manslaughter) is a question for the jury.”). Accordingly, we conclude that there was

sufficient evidence to sustain the Defendant’s conviction for second degree murder. The

Defendant is not entitled to relief.

-7-

CONCLUSION

Based on the above reasoning and authority, we affirm the judgment of the trial

court.

S/ Camille R.

McMullen____________

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JUDGE

-8-