State of Tennessee v. Jayshawn Edward Williams

04/14/2026

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs March 25, 2026

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAYSHAWN EDWARD WILLIAMS

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County

No. 125934 G. Scott Green, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2025-00542-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

Jayshawn Edward Williams, Defendant, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder

for the shooting death of Travis Brown in Knoxville. The trial court sentenced Defendant

to a thirty-six-year sentence. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant appealed,

arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because the proof did

not establish his identity and because he acted in self-defense. Because we determine the

evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J. ROSS DYER and

TOM GREENHOLTZ, JJ., joined.

Jackson M. Fenner, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jayshawn Edward Williams.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Senior Assistant

Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Jeannine Guzolek and

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

OPINION

On May 3, 2023, at around 2:45 p.m., two employees of Balter Beerworks in

Knoxville were on a smoke break in a car in the parking lot of the restaurant. As they sat

in the car smoking, they saw two men walk down a set of nearby steps that led to a gravel

parking lot near Summit Towers. From their vantage point, the men appeared to be talking

and laughing. When the men reached the bottom of the steps, they crossed the street and

headed toward Broadway. One of the men was wearing a ball cap, and the other had his

hair in “dreads or twists.” One of the employees went back to work while the other finished

her cigarette. She heard a “couple of pops” before going back inside, but she thought the

noise came from the train tracks nearby.

Knoxville 911 dispatchers received two calls around 2:56 p.m. to report a shooting.

Specifically, the callers reported a man with a gunshot wound to the head lying on the

sidewalk of the Broadway Bridge near Depot Avenue.

Officer Jason Kalmanek of the Knoxville Police Department was assigned to the

central district including South Knoxville and downtown Knoxville on May 3, 2023. He

received a “call that there was a shooting on the bridge just south of the mission.” He

responded to the call, and when he arrived at around 3:00 p.m., there were “a couple of

bystanders on the east side sidewalk and then a body.” Officer Kalmanek was accompanied

by two other officers, including his sergeant and partner. They arrived at the scene at about

the same time. Officer Kalmanek did not find a weapon or any shell casings. Travis

Brown, the victim, was deceased. The victim died from a single gunshot wound to the

head, likely from a .38 caliber revolver. The gun appeared to have been fired from between

a few feet to a few inches away.

The victim had a cell phone in his right hand and a torn latex glove in his left hand.

There was a second cell phone on the ground near the victim’s right elbow, a piece of torn

latex a few feet away in the street, and a ball cap about two feet away from the victim’s

head. A backpack was also next to the victim.

Surveillance footage from Balter Beerworks showed a red Jeep driving up

Broadway toward the bridge in the direction of the crime scene at 2:55 p.m. The driver of

the Jeep, Robert Keys, testified that he heard a loud noise as he was driving. He looked up

and saw two people standing on the bridge. One person had the other person in a headlock.

When the person released the person in the headlock, the man who was headlocked fell to

the ground. Mr. Keys saw the person walk south wearing a blue jacket and black pants

with a white stripe. The man was carrying a red bag on his right shoulder. The surveillance

footage showed the Jeep pull away, and a person walked into the frame of the camera and

walked east on Jackson before crossing the sidewalk and ascending a set of stairs up the

side of the hill into a gravel lot near Summit Towers. Surveillance footage from Lincoln

Memorial University Law School showed what appeared to be the same person walking

south through the area down Summit Hill. Mr. Keys identified the man in the Lincoln

Memorial University Law School footage as the same person he saw leave the scene of the

shooting.

Surveillance footage from Ray’s Market on Broadway near Depot Avenue showed

a black Mercedes making a U-turn at the intersection of Broadway and Depot just before

-2-

3:00 p.m. The driver of the Mercedes, John Mitchell, explained that he heard a “couple of

pops” as he approached the intersection. He turned around to avoid the “situation.”

Kendra Caldwell, a nurse and employee of the Knoxville Area Rescue Mission, was

driving behind Mr. Mitchell’s Mercedes in her Lexus SUV that day. She saw the victim

on the east side of the Broadway bridge fall to the ground. She drove to the victim, got out

of her vehicle, and tried to help him. When she arrived at the scene, the victim’s eyes were

fixed and dilated, so she called 911. Ms. Caldwell did not see anyone else on the sidewalk.

Shortly after the shooting, a “be on the lookout” was issued for the man depicted in

the surveillance footage. Officer Coleman Paul of the University of Tennessee Police

Department recognized the red and blue jacket depicted in the footage. A few days earlier,

Officer Paul was patrolling an area known as “the strip” on Cumberland Avenue between

17th and 22nd Street. He stopped a pair of jaywalkers. The encounter was captured on

Officer Paul’s body camera. One of the men was the same man that was depicted in the

video. Officer Paul identified that person as Defendant at trial.

On May 10, 2023, Officer Anthony Brinkley of the Knoxville Police Department

responded to a call of a disturbance at a Citgo gas station by an intoxicated man. When

Officer Brinkley arrived at the gas station, he found Defendant, who appeared to be under

the influence of narcotics, “laid out” next to the gas station. Defendant had outstanding

warrants, so Officer Brinkley took him into custody. Defendant had a backpack with him

at the time of his arrest. Inside the backpack, there was a receipt to a pawn shop. Officer

David Ogle went to the pawn shop and reviewed the surveillance footage. In the footage,

Defendant is depicted engaging in a transaction. The transaction took place on April 23,

2023. During the transaction, Defendant sold a birthstone ring for $100.

Defendant testified at trial that the victim and someone he knew as “Jas” were

planning to “rob and kill” him. Defendant claimed that on the day of the victim’s death,

the men were on the bridge, and the victim robbed him of his backpack and held him at

gunpoint. Defendant testified that the victim put the gun in the waistband of his pants to

put on latex gloves. Defendant stated that he took the gun from the victim “off his waist”

and immediately shot him. Defendant testified that he left the gun at the scene and that he

saw “a person . . . coming down in all black” as he left the scene of the shooting. Defendant

initially claimed that he did not know the victim was going to rob and kill him until they

got to the bridge but later testified that before they walked to the bridge, he and the victim

were at a house with ten people who had guns and would not let him leave. Defendant

stated, “When they left, I left with [the victim] because he’s supposed to finish the deed or

whatever.” Defendant insisted that the victim escorted him to the bridge at gunpoint.

Defendant admitted on cross-examination that he cut his hair and fled to Nashville

-3-

immediately after he shot the victim. Defendant did not mention the ten armed people in

his statement to police.

The jury found Defendant guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced Defendant

to an effective sentence of thirty-six years. Defendant appealed.

Analysis

On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his

conviction for second degree murder. Specifically, he argues that the proof failed to

establish his identity as the perpetrator of the offense and that he acted in self-defense. The

State disagrees.

When examining whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a

conviction, several well-settled principles guide our analysis. We 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.”

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in original); see also Tenn. R.

App. P. 13(e). A guilty verdict removes the presumption of innocence and replaces it with

a presumption of guilt. State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992). The defendant

bears the burden on appeal to demonstrate that the evidence is insufficient to support his

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

“[A] jury verdict, approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the

witnesses for the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of the theory of the State.” State

v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). The State is entitled on appeal to “the strongest

legitimate view of the evidence and to all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be

drawn therefrom.” State v. Elkins, 102 S.W.3d 578, 581 (Tenn. 2003). As such, this Court

is precluded from re-weighing or reconsidering the evidence when evaluating the

convicting proof. State v. Morgan, 929 S.W.2d 380, 383 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); State

v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Moreover, we may not

substitute our own “inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact from circumstantial

evidence.” Matthews, 805 S.W.2d at 779. Questions as to the credibility of witnesses and

the weight of the evidence, as well as factual issues raised by such evidence, are resolved

by the trier of fact, not this Court. State v. Pruett, 788 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990).

These principles guide us “‘whether the conviction is based upon direct or circumstantial

evidence.’” State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 379 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting State v.

Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265, 275 (Tenn. 2009)).

Identity is an essential element of every crime. State v. Bell, 512 S.W.3d 167, 198

(Tenn. 2015). The State has the burden to prove the identity of the defendant. State v.

-4-

Sneed, 908 S.W.2d 408, 410 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). The identification of the perpetrator

of a crime is a question of fact for the jury. State v. Thomas, 158 S.W.3d 361, 388 (Tenn.

2005), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Miller, 638 S.W.3d 136, 150 (Tenn. 2021).

In resolving questions of fact, such as the identity of the perpetrator, “‘the jury bears the

responsibility of evaluating the conflicting evidence and accrediting the testimony of the

most plausible witnesses.’” State v. Pope, 427 S.W.3d 363, 369 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting

State v. Hornsby, 858 S.W.2d 892, 897 (Tenn. 1993)). Circumstantial evidence may

establish identity. Bell, 512 S.W.3d at 198-99 (concluding circumstantial evidence that the

defendant was the perpetrator was sufficient to uphold the verdict). Second degree murder

is the “knowing killing of another.” T.C.A. § 39-13-210(a)(1). 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).

Defendant argues on appeal that “[b]ecause the evidence was insufficient to prove

that [Defendant] killed [the victim] at the close of the State’s proof, the trial court erred by

denying the [motion for judgment of acquittal].” This is not a correct statement of the law.

Because Defendant chose to offer proof after the denial of the motion for judgment of

acquittal, our review includes not only the State’s proof, “but must also necessarily include

proof offered by the defendant.” State v. Gilley, 297 S.W.3d 739, 763 (Tenn. Crim. App.

2008).

Here, Defendant is insistent that because there was no eyewitness that identified him

as the shooter, the evidence is insufficient. As stated above, eyewitness testimony is not

necessary. Identity can be established by circumstantial evidence alone. Surveillance

footage and testimony from an employee of Balter Beerworks established that Defendant

walked from Summit Towers with the victim toward the bridge just moments prior to the

victim’s death. Additional surveillance footage showed Defendant walking back toward

the direction from which he came moments after the murder. Moreover, Defendant

admitted that he shot the victim. While Defendant claimed self-defense, he certainly placed

himself at the scene of the murder with the gun in his hand. The evidence was sufficient

to establish Defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the crime. Further, the jury was well

within its purview to reject Defendant’s self-defense claim. State v. Goode, 956 S.W.2d

521, 527 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (citing State v. Iby, 868 S.W.2d 724, 727 (Tenn. Crim.

App. 1993)). The only evidence that Defendant acted in self-defense was his own

testimony. The jury, by its verdict, did not believe Defendant’s testimony. We will not

reweigh this decision. Plus, even if the jury believed Defendant’s version of the events,

the jury could have still rejected Defendant’s self-defense claim because his testimony was

that he took the gun from the victim’s waistband and shot the victim in the head. Thus, by

Defendant’s own account there was no immediate threat that required him to use deadly

force. Finally, Mr. Keys, who witnessed the shooting, testified that the shooter had the

-5-

victim in a headlock immediately before the shots were fired. The evidence is sufficient

to support the verdict. Defendant is not entitled to relief.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

S/Timothy L. Easter

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE

-6-