State of Tennessee v. Edward Brown

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs February 5, 2014

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. EDWARD BROWN

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 1006282 W. Otis Higgs, Jr., Judge

No. W2012-02573-CCA-R3-CD - Filed March 19, 2014

The defendant, Edward Brown, was convicted of attempted second degree murder, a Class

C felony, and reckless endangerment, a Class A misdemeanor. The defendant was sentenced

to eight years at thirty percent as a Range I offender for his attempted second degree murder

conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the reckless endangerment

conviction. On appeal the defendant argues that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain

a conviction for attempted second degree murder and that the trial court erred in admitting

photographs of the crime scene and of the injuries to the female victim. Having reviewed

the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for

attempted second degree murder and that the trial court did not err in admitting the

photographs. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

J OHN E VERETT W ILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which A LAN E. G LENN

and C AMILLE R. M CM ULLEN, JJ., joined.

Terita Hewlett Riley, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Edward Brown.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Leslie E. Price, Senior Counsel; Amy

P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Carla Taylor, Assistant District Attorney General,

for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

The defendant was originally indicted for one count of attempted first degree

premeditated murder and one count of aggravated assault. The charges against the defendant

stem from an incident that occurred on April 14, 2010, between the defendant and two

victims: his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend. However, following a jury trial, he was

found guilty of the lesser included offenses of attempted second degree murder and reckless

endangerment.

Facts

The charges against the defendant arose from his involvement in an attack on his ex-

girlfriend and her new boyfriend, the male and female victim. The defendant and the female

victim had been in a relationship for over ten years, but five or six months prior to the April

14, 2010 incident the female victim had ended the relationship. However, she continued to

allow the defendant to reside in the downstairs portion of her apartment on the condition that

he did not bring other women to the house. While the defendant did not pay rent per se, he

did contribute financially “when he got something.”

The female victim testified that, on the evening in question, she discovered that the

defendant had brought a woman into the apartment, and an argument ensued between her and

the defendant. The female victim told the defendant to leave “because he ain’t [sic] supposed

to have no woman in my house.” When she told the defendant that he needed to leave, he

responded that “you’ll be dead in about 30 minutes anyway.” The female victim believed

that the defendant was “just talking” because he had threatened her life with words “many

times before.”

The female victim went to unplug the defendant’s washing machine “[s]o he could

take everything that he had with him,” but she was unable to disconnect the machine. She

summoned the male victim for assistance. The two went into the kitchen where the

defendant and female victim continued to argue. The female victim asked the male victim

to leave, and he exited the apartment. The defendant closed and locked the door, but the

male victim observed him pull two knives out of his pocket.

The female victim was able to unlock the door, allowing the male victim back into the

apartment. The male victim witnessed the defendant holding the female victim by her belt

as he “hit [] her up under the arm” with one of the knives. As the male victim retreated, he

tripped over the couch, and the defendant “stuck him” in the arm. The female victim pulled

the defendant back and told him to stop. The male victim kicked the defendant under his

chin, briefly stopping the attack. Once the defendant fell to the floor, the defendant stabbed

the male victim a second time in the abdomen. The male victim exited the apartment at this

point.

The defendant pushed the female victim over a table onto the couch, stepped over the

table, got on top of her, and started “sticking” her while she was on the couch. At this point,

the female victim and her daughter were alone in the apartment with the defendant. The

female victim’s daughter was screaming at her mother as the defendant was stabbing the

-2-

female victim with the knife. The female victim tried to hold off the defendant begging him

to “please stop. You [‘re] killing me. Please stop.”

The female victim, fearing that the defendant would stab her daughter as well, urged

the girl to “run and call the police and get help,” which her daughter did. The defendant

continued stabbing the female victim, but he eventually stopped. The female victim said,

“[H]e just stood over me looking at me for a while. And then he got up and he went to the

door and he went out of the door.” The female victim went to the porch and saw that the

defendant remained on the porch looking “like he was fixing to come back at me but he

turned around and ran.”

The female victim saw her daughter across the street and walked over and rejoined

her daughter prior to returning to her apartment. Upon her return, she “made it right there

to the door. When I stepped - - as soon as I stepped in the door, I leaned up against the wall

and I went down the wall and then I just went over to the side and I fell out the door. My

back was outside on the porch and my legs was [sic] in the house.” After the ambulance

arrived, the female victim was rushed to the hospital where she received extensive treatment

for her stab wounds. When the female victim’s mother arrived at the hospital, she was

informed to “start making funeral arrangements cause [sic] they thought” that the female

victim was going to die. The victim underwent multiple surgeries and remained hospitalized

for a little over two weeks.

The male victim, who had returned to the scene shortly after the defendant left, was

also taken to the hospital for treatment of his wounds. He also underwent surgery.

Based upon these events, the defendant was indicted for attempted first degree

premeditated murder and aggravated assault. A jury trial was held at which multiple

witnesses testified. The male and female victims testified as to the above described events.

The State also called the female victim’s daughter who testified that she witnessed the

defendant stabbing the male victim and her mother.

Officer James Walton of the Memphis Police Department (“MPD”) responded to the

scene, and he stated upon arrival he observed the female victim in the doorway with

“multiple, multiple, stab wounds.” He testified that he witnessed the female victim leaned

up against the frame of the door with one of her legs inside the doorway and the other one

of her legs outside the doorway. He further stated that he did not need to ask the victim

where she had been stabbed because “I could see . . . I mean, everywhere I looked I saw stab

wounds.”

The State then called Andrew Hassler, who was employed by the MPD and testified

-3-

that he attended to the female victim at the scene. He stated that when he arrived “I observed

a female laying in the doorway facedown stating that she had been stabbed. And I noted she

had several stab wounds to her back. And during my evaluation and patient care, when we

rolled her over to the other side we noted several more stab wounds to the abdomen and

chest. And we provided patient care and transported her to the hospital.” Mr. Hassler further

testified that when the female victim was transported to the hospital the ambulance was

utilizing its lights and sirens because she was in critical condition.

Anthony Hillard, with the Memphis Fire Department, testified that he tended to the

male victim and observed that he had two stab wounds and noticed blood on his clothes. He

testified, “[m]y report says that he had a stab wound to his left biceps area and the right upper

quadrant of his abdomen.” He further stated that he treated the two stab wounds and started

an IV on the male victim. He did not think that the male victim was transported to the

hospital with emergency lights and sirens but that the male victim did go into the shock

trauma room at the hospital.

Officer David Payment, a crime scene officer with the MPD, stated that he went to

the scene and that his duties were to collect evidence and do an investigation for a possible

assault. He stated that protocol required crime scene officers to do a rough sketch of a scene

if a victim was transported in critical condition. He testified that he made a rough sketch of

the scene, and the prosecution entered this sketch into evidence. While at the scene Officer

Payment photographed a silver-colored knife with a black handle on the northwest bed. This

knife appeared to have a broken tip. Officer Payment also photographed a three-inch blade

in the living room. Officer Payment further testified that there was “a bunch of red substance

on the ground and spattered portions, possibly blood.”

After the State’s proof, the defendant testified on his own behalf. The defendant

testified that he was getting ready to “retire” around midnight of April 14, 2010, when both

victims entered the apartment. He stated that the female victim entered the apartment

shouting and using profanity and demanding money. He further testified that both the female

and male victims threatened him, and that the male victim dismantled the defendant’s bed

upon request of the female victim. He stated that the female victim then began to attempt to

destroy his washing machine. The defendant stated that he had a “run-in” with the male

victim before; that the male victim had entered his apartment several times and tried to

intimidate the defendant, making sure that the defendant saw the weapons that the male

victim had. He testified that “[e]ach time he [the male victim] came into the apartment he

had a pistol or a sawed-off shotgun.”

The defendant stated that the female victim started throwing his clothes out of the

apartment and ordered him to leave. The defendant testified that he was willing to comply

-4-

and went to charge his cellular telephone in order to call his daughter to come pick him up.

He stated that the female victim prevented him from making this call by pulling out a knife,

cutting the phone charger cord, and throwing the phone on the ground. In the process she

cut the defendant across the nose.

The defendant stated he began wrestling with the female victim for possession of the

kitchen knife and that they fell onto the couch. He testified that he fell on top of the female

victim and that the male victim was hitting him from behind. The defendant stated that the

female victim was attempting to push the knife into his chest and that he was attempting to

keep the knife down.

The defendant testified that the male victim “went into his [the male victim’s] pocket”

and that he assumed the male victim was reaching for a weapon. He further testified that he

told both victims that in “a matter of time I would be, you know, doing -- you know, living

well.” He testified that both victims told him that he might not be living. He stated that

eventually he was able to leave the scene, and he was in fear of his life.

On cross-examination, the defendant testified that the female victim received her

injuries while wrestling for the knife. The defendant stated that he was attempting to prevent

the female victim from stabbing him and that the female victim was attempting to rob him.

He testified that neither of the knives were his, and that, while he did not see the male victim

with a gun that night, he had seen him with guns several times prior to the incident.

After hearing the evidence, the jury convicted the defendant of the lesser included

offenses of attempted second degree murder and reckless endangerment. He received an

effective sentence of eight years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction.

Following the denial of his motion for new trial, the defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Analysis

The defendant raises two issues for consideration on appeal. First, he argues that the

weight of the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a conviction for attempted second degree

murder. Second, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting prejudicial

photographs into evidence.

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

This court shall set aside a verdict of guilty only “if the evidence is insufficient to

support the findings by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tenn. R. App.

P. 13(e). On appellate review, the relevant inquiry is “whether, after viewing the evidence

-5-

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).

In determining the sufficiency of evidence this court may not re-weigh or re-evaluate

the evidence. Nor may this court substitute its own inferences drawn from circumstantial

facts for those drawn by the trier of fact. State v. Goodwin, 143 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tenn.

2004). Courts instead must afford the State “the strongest legitimate view of the trial

evidence and all reasonable or legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom” because

“all conflicts in testimony, upon a conviction by a trial court, are resolved in favor of the

State.” State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).

A trial court’s approval of a verdict of guilty by a jury “accredits the testimony of the

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

v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973).

A guilty verdict “removes the presumption of innocence and replaces it with a

presumption of guilt” and places the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that the

evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of the jury. State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247,

277 (Tenn. 2002). A finding of guilt may be supported by direct evidence, circumstantial

evidence, or a combination of both direct and circumstantial evidence. State v. Pendergrass,

13 S.W.3d 389, 392-93 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). This standard of review applies “‘whether

the conviction is based on 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)).

Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-210(a)(1) defines second degree murder as

“[a] knowing killing of another.” “A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of the

person’s conduct when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause a

result.” T.C.A. § 39-11-302(b) (2012). A person commits criminal attempt who, acting with

the kind of culpability otherwise required for the offense:

(1) Intentionally engages in action or causes a result that would constitute an offense,

if the circumstances surrounding the conduct were as the person believes them to be;

(2) Acts with intent to cause a result that is an element of the offense, and believes the

conduct will cause the result without further conduct on the person’s part; or

(3) Acts with intent to complete a course of action or cause a result that would

constitute the offense, under the circumstances surrounding the conduct as the person

believes them to be, and the conduct constitutes a substantial step toward the

-6-

commission of the offense.

T.C.A. § 39-12-101.

The defendant argues that while it is undisputed that both victims were stabbed, the

State did not prove that he knowingly attempted to kill the female victim. Specifically, he

argues that the trier of fact did not find the essential elements of the crime because nothing

exists in the record to prove that the defendant knowingly attempted to kill the female victim.

The jury heard testimony from both victims and the female victim’s daughter that the

defendant first stabbed the male victim and next stabbed the female victim. The jury also

heard the defendant’s version of events; that the female victim attacked him first and that she

was stabbed as a result of the defendant attempting to defend himself. The jury weighed the

testimony and chose not to accredit the testimony of the defendant. The trier of fact resolves

all questions of witness credibility, the weight and value to be given to the evidence, as well

as all questions of fact. State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).

This court will not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. Id.

Both of the victims and the female victim’s daughter testified that the defendant first

stabbed the male victim and next stabbed the female victim. Photographic evidence was

introduced to demonstrate the extent of the female victim’s injuries. Both victims were

transported to the hospital via ambulance after paramedics arrived on the scene. The

evidence in this case, viewed in a light most favorable to the State, is more than sufficient

to support a conviction of attempted second degree murder. The defendant is not entitled to

relief on this claim.

B. Admission of Photographs

The admissibility of photographs lies within the sound discretion of the trial court

whose ruling will not be overturned on appeal except upon a clear showing of an abuse of

discretion. State v. Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Lacy, 983 S.W.2d

686, 694 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “Tennessee courts follow a policy of liberality in the

admission of photographs in both civil and criminal cases.” State v. Morris, 24 S.W.3d 788,

810 (Tenn. 2000). Nevertheless, the photograph must be relevant to an issue at trial with its

probative value outweighing any prejudicial effect that it may have upon the trier of fact.

State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 102 (Tenn. 1998); State v. Braden, 867 S.W.2d 750, 758

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1993).

We, therefore, must first determine whether the photographs were relevant. Relevant

evidence is evidence “having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of

consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would

-7-

be without the evidence.” Tenn. R. Evid. 401. However, a trial court may exclude relevant

evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,

confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by consideration of undue delay, waste of

time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Tenn. R. Evid. 403. Evidence is

unfairly prejudicial if it has “an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis,

commonly, though not necessarily an emotional one.” Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947 at 951.

The defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing multiple

photographs into evidence that depicted blood on the front porch of the apartment where the

incident occurred and photographs of the female victim’s injuries. Specifically, the

defendant objected to the photograph of blood on the porch on the grounds that it was

cumulative and objected to the photograph of the injuries as prejudicial. After carefully

reviewing the record, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing

the photographs to be entered into evidence. The trial judge examined the photograph and

determined that it was not cumulative. The photograph was the second photograph admitted

into evidence that showed blood on the front porch. The second photograph was taken from

a closer distance. The photograph was relevant to supplement and corroborate the testimony

of the female victim and to help illustrate the extent of her injuries.

The photographs of the injuries to the female victim were not unfairly prejudicial.

The trial court determined that the probative value of the photographs outweighed the

prejudice to the defendant. The first photograph depicted an injury to the victim’s right arm,

and the second showed a wound on the victim’s stomach. The wound to the stomach was

large and had been treated with stitches. However, both of these photographs were taken at

the hospital, and very little blood was visible. The photographs were not unnecessarily

gruesome or gory. The photographs were relevant to illustrate the extent of the female

victim’s injuries and to corroborate her testimony that the defendant stabbed her. Further,

it does not affirmatively appear that the outcome of the trial was affected by the admission

of the photographs. See Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947 at 953. Thus, the defendant is not entitled

to relief on this issue.

Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support a

conviction for attempted second degree murder and that the trial court did not abuse its

discretion by admitting the photographs into evidence. Accordingly, the judgments and

conviction and sentences are affirmed.

_________________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE

-8-