State of Tennessee v. Maurice Blocker

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2016

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MAURICE BLOCKER

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 12-03071 W. Mark Ward, Judge

No. W2015-00053-CCA-R3-CD - Filed May 18, 2016

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Maurice Blocker, as charged

of one count of first degree premeditated murder and one count of theft of property

valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202(a)(1); 39-14-

103, -105(3) (Supp. 2011). Blocker1 was sentenced to consecutive sentences of life

imprisonment and eight years, respectively. His sole argument on appeal is that the

evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgments

of the trial court.

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

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT

WILLIAMS and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined.

Stephen C. Bush, District Public Defender; Tony N. Brayton, Assistant Public Defender,

Memphis, Tennessee (on appeal); and Amy G. Mayne, Robert H. Gowen, and Anna

Benson, Assistant Public Defenders, Memphis, Tennessee (at trial) for the Defendant-

Appellant, Maurice Blocker.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Jeffrey D. Zentner, Assistant

Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Patience R. Branham,

and Glenda Adams, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the Appellee, State of

Tennessee.

1

We acknowledge that we do not use titles when referring to every witness. We intend no

disrespect in doing so. Judge John Everett Williams believes that referring to witnesses without proper

titles is disrespectful even though none is intended. He would prefer that every adult witness be referred

to as Mr. or Mrs. or by his or her proper title.

OPINION

Trial. The Defendant-Appellant, Maurice Blocker, and Laticia Bodie,2 the victim,

had a tumultuous relationship spanning several years. The victim told several individuals

that she was “very afraid” of Blocker and was trying “to get away from him” shortly

before her death.

During the late night hours of April 14, and the early morning hours of April 15,

2012, Jerome Nettles was watching a movie with his girlfriend, Octavia Greer, and her

mother, Katie Greer, at the Greers‟ home. Earlier that day, Blocker stopped by the

Greers‟ home and asked Katie3 to do some laundry for him. Blocker returned later that

evening with the victim in a maroon truck, and they sat on the porch with Katie and drank

alcohol, although no one was severely intoxicated. Although Blocker and the victim

appeared to have been drinking when they arrived at Katie‟s house, the couple was calm

and sociable and did not appear to be arguing. At one point, the victim went inside the

home, ostensibly to use the bathroom. Once inside, she asked Nettles and Octavia to call

the police because Blocker had beaten her earlier that night and had forced her to come

with him to the Greers‟ home. Octavia informed her mother of what the victim had told

her and asked her if she should call the police. Katie, who had seen Blocker beat the

victim in the past, told Octavia not to call the police because she was going to take the

victim to a safe place. A short time later, Blocker came inside the house to use the

bathroom. When he returned to the living room, he could tell that Katie, Octavia, Nettles,

and the victim had been talking about him. Katie said that she was going to take the

victim on a beer run, and Blocker replied that the victim was not going anywhere. Katie

then physically placed herself between Blocker and the victim. When Katie told Blocker

that the victim could stay at her house but that he had to leave, Blocker became angry and

violent and began swearing at the victim. He then brandished a knife and demanded that

the victim leave with him. The victim declined, and when Nettles tried to push Blocker

out the door, Blocker got angry and pulled a second knife on Nettles, which resulted in

Octavia going outside to call 9-1-1. As Nettles got out of Blocker‟s way, Katie begged

Blocker to leave her property, but he refused.

After Nettles removed himself from the altercation, Blocker walked toward the

victim, who dropped to the floor and began begging for her life. Blocker started

punching the victim and kicking her with his work boots as she was lying on the floor.

2

Although the victim‟s name is spelled “Leticia Boddie” in the trial transcript, we use the

spelling “Laticia Bodie,” as reflected in count 1 of the indictment.

3

Because two of the witnesses share the same last name, we will sometimes refer to them by their

first names for clarity. We intend no disrespect in doing so.

-2-

The victim did not try to fight Blocker. As Blocker was beating the victim, Nettles

headed to the kitchen to get a stool he could throw at Blocker. Katie screamed for the

victim to run, and although the victim tried to escape, she fell as she was running down

the hallway. Blocker immediately jumped on the victim and stabbed her several times,

saying, “[N]ow, bitch, you can go.” Before he left, Blocker told Katie, “Done now,

bitch.” Then he calmly walked out of the house and got into the maroon truck before

quickly driving away. Blocker never attacked Octavia, Katie, or Nettles during the

incident and directed his anger and violence only at the victim.

Octavia, who had been on the line with the 9-1-1 dispatcher, had given the maroon

truck‟s license plate number to the dispatcher as she was waiting for the police to arrive.

This license plate belonged to a truck that had been recently reported stolen.

Although Katie attempted to administer first aid to the victim as they waited for

the ambulance, the victim died from her injuries. The autopsy established that she

sustained four stab wounds to her neck as well as a stab wound to her face and a cut to

her right forearm. The victim bled to death from the three fatal stab wounds she received

to her neck.

Blocker had acted violently toward the victim prior to the stabbing incident. On

September 14, 2009, the police responded to a call and encountered the victim, who was

shaking and had a laceration over her eye and bruises and swelling to her head. The

victim told the officers that Blocker had hit her with a vodka bottle. She also told them

she was scared of Blocker and was trying to get away from him. On November 30, 2011,

the police responded to a call in which the victim said that Blocker had been standing on

her porch with a gun, threatening to kill her and her current boyfriend. When the police

arrived, the victim appeared scared and upset.

At around 10 a.m. on April 12, 2012, a couple of days prior to the victim‟s

stabbing, Sergio Arellano was laying bricks at a gas station on Third Street in Memphis

when he saw an African-American man get into his truck, crank it, and drive away in it

without his permission. Arellano‟s truck was a maroon 1997 Ford F-150 with Tennessee

tags that was worth approximately $3,000. Arellano contacted the police to report his

truck as stolen and provided responding officers with the color, make, model, year, and

either the VIN number or license tag number for his truck. The truck‟s description was

then placed into a national database for stolen vehicles. On April 26, 2012, a truck with a

VIN number matching the truck stolen from Arellano was found in Little Rock,

Arkansas. Although the truck‟s original license plate had been replaced with another

plate, the VIN number for the truck came back as the stolen truck that had been driven by

Blocker when he left the scene of the stabbing.

-3-

Officers traced Blocker‟s Electronic Benefits Transfer card and discovered that the

card had been used at a Walgreen‟s pharmacy in Chicago just after the stabbing, and

photographs from the pharmacy confirmed that Blocker had used the card to purchase

items. The card was then used in Los Angeles, where Blocker was finally detained by

law enforcement on June 15, 2012.

Dr. James Walker testified as an expert in the field of forensic neuropsychology.

He reviewed Blocker‟s school, medical, jail, police, and criminal records as well as Dr.

Murray Smith‟s reports before interviewing Blocker and giving him a variety of tests.

Dr. Walker determined that Blocker‟s IQ was 75, which meant that Blocker was unable

to think and reason as effectively as the average person. He added that Blocker‟s years of

alcohol and drug abuse, which permanently damaged his brain, further impaired his brain

functioning.

Dr. Walker said that Blocker had told him that in the three or four days prior to the

stabbing, he and the victim had been drinking, using large amounts of cocaine, and

sleeping very little. As a result, Dr. Walker opined that at the time of the stabbing,

Blocker was unable to make decisions effectively or to consider the consequences of his

behavior. Dr. Walker also opined that Blocker would have been unable to form intent or

to premeditate the victim‟s murder, explaining that Blocker “got very angry and he acted

out impulsively, without thinking, without reasoning, in a very horrific way.” Dr. Walker

admitted that he did not observe Blocker on the night of the offense and did not know his

alcohol level or whether Blocker had consumed any cocaine at the time he stabbed the

victim. He also admitted that he did not perform a CAT scan on Blocker to determine

whether there were physical signs of brain damage. Dr. Walker acknowledged that

Blocker beat the victim before stabbing her several times and that he did not injure the

other individuals that were present, even the ones who were trying to get him to leave the

property.

Dr. Murray Smith, a specialist in internal medicine, testified as an expert in the

field of addiction medicine. He consulted with Dr. Walker and reviewed Dr. Walker‟s

reports before personally evaluating Blocker. Dr. Smith determined that Blocker suffered

from the disease of addiction and that he had sustained brain damage due to his

prolonged abuse of drugs and alcohol. Dr. Smith opined that Blocker was unable to

premeditate or control his behavior the night of the offense in light of his brain damage,

his intellectual dysfunction, and the alcohol and drugs in his system.

Dr. Smith acknowledged that he did not observe Blocker at the time of the offense

and did not know how many drinks or how much cocaine he had consumed prior to the

stabbing. Although he admitted that he did not perform a CAT scan on Blocker to

determine if there were physical signs of brain damage, he claimed that Dr. Walker‟s

-4-

tests more accurately determined whether a person‟s brain was functioning normally. He

admitted that Blocker‟s compromised brain function did not prevent him from asking

Katie Greer to do his laundry, arming himself with knives, going over to Katie Greer‟s

home, or deciding not to stab Nettles.

ANALYSIS

Blocker contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for

first degree premeditated murder and theft. The State responds that the evidence

established the elements of each offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 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)).

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)). The standard of review applied by this

court in sufficiency challenges is “whether „any rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.‟” State v. Parker, 350 S.W.3d

883, 903 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)); see Tenn.

R. App. P. 13(e).

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 shall not substitute its inferences

for those drawn by the trier of fact. Id.

-5-

As to the conviction for first degree premeditated murder, Blocker argues that the

State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted intentionally and with

premeditation when he killed the victim. He asserts that he made no declarations of an

intent to kill the victim, did not engage in any planning activity to kill the victim, did not

procure the knife for the purpose of killing the victim, and made no effort to conceal the

crime. He adds that his cognitive deficits and his use of alcohol and cocaine prior to the

crime prevented him from forming the intent to kill or engaging in premeditation.

Moreover, he asserts that his assault on the victim “was completed in less than a minute

and without the intervening or dispassionate reflection required for premeditated

murder.” Blocker claims that if he formed any intent to kill the victim, it was formed in

the heat of passion when he lost his temper. While recognizing that he did not have

adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter, see State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530,

543 (Tenn. 1992), he asks this court to reduce his conviction to second degree murder

and to remand the matter for a new sentencing hearing.

First degree murder is the premeditated and intentional killing of another person.

T.C.A. § 39-13-202(a)(1). An individual acts intentionally “when it is the person‟s

conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.” Id. § 39-11-

302(a). Premeditation is defined as “an act done after the exercise of reflection and

judgment.” Id. § 39-13-202(d). This section further defines premeditation:

“Premeditation” means that the intent to kill must have been formed prior

to the act itself. It is not necessary that the purpose to kill pre-exist in the

mind of the accused for any definite period of time. The mental state of the

accused at the time the accused allegedly decided to kill must be carefully

considered in order to determine whether the accused was sufficiently free

from excitement and passion as to be capable of premeditation.

Id. The existence of premeditation is a question of fact for the jury to determine and may

be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the offense. State v. Young, 196 S.W.3d

85, 108 (Tenn. 2006); State v. Suttles, 30 S.W.3d 252, 261 (Tenn. 2000). Factors that

may support the existence of premeditation include, but are not limited to, declarations by

the defendant of an intent to kill, preparations before the killing for concealment of the

crime, evidence of procurement of a weapon, the use of a deadly weapon upon an

unarmed victim, lack of provocation by the victim, the particular cruelty of the killing,

the infliction of multiple wounds, failure to aid or assist the victim, destruction and

secretion of evidence of the killing, and calmness immediately after the killing. State v.

Kiser, 284 S.W.3d 227, 268 (Tenn. 2009); State v. Leach, 148 S.W.3d 42, 53-54 (Tenn.

2004); State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600, 615 (Tenn. 2003); State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d

651, 660 (Tenn. 1997). In addition, a jury may infer premeditation from any planning

activity by the defendant before the killing, from evidence concerning the defendant‟s

-6-

motive, and from proof regarding the nature of the killing. State v. Bordis, 905 S.W.2d

214, 222 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (citation omitted).

Although Blocker presented expert testimony from Dr. Walker and Dr. Smith to

show that he lacked the mens rea required for first degree premeditated murder based on

his intellect, brain injuries, and intoxication by alcohol and drugs, both of these experts

admitted that they did not observe Blocker the night of the stabbing and did not know

how much alcohol or cocaine he had consumed at the time of the offense. Dr. Walker

acknowledged that Blocker beat the victim before stabbing her several times and that he

did not injure the other individuals present, even those who were trying to get him to

leave the home. Dr. Smith admitted that Blocker‟s compromised brain function did not

prevent him from asking Katie Greer to do his laundry, arming himself with knives,

going over to Katie Greer‟s home, and deciding not to stab Nettles. It was the jury‟s

prerogative to reject the testimony provided by these experts.

The remaining proof at trial established that Blocker and the victim had an

extremely tumultuous relationship. On occasions prior to the stabbing, Blocker had

beaten the victim and threatened to kill her. See State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 574

(Tenn. 1993) (“[V]iolent acts indicating the relationship between the victim of a violent

crime and the defendant prior to the commission of the offense are relevant to show

defendant‟s hostility toward the victim, malice, intent, and a settled purpose to harm the

victim.”). On or about April 14, 2012, Blocker armed himself with two knives before

going with the victim to the Greers‟ home. Although Katie Greer pleaded with Blocker

to leave her home that night when she realized there was a problem between Blocker and

the victim, Blocker refused. Several witnesses testified that Blocker punched and kicked

the victim, who was begging for her life and did not fight back. Blocker then stabbed the

unarmed victim multiple times in the neck, face, and chest before saying, “[N]ow, bitch,

you can go.” Although Blocker drew a knife on Nettles when he tried to intervene on the

victim‟s behalf, he did not injure anyone at the scene other than the victim. After Blocker

repeatedly stabbed the victim, he remained calm and told Katie Greer as he was walking

out of the house, “Done now, bitch.” Blocker fled the crime scene and traveled through

several states before he was ultimately detained by law enforcement in California. Given

this evidence, a rational jury could have found that Blocker intentionally and with

premeditation killed the victim.

Before addressing the merit of the sufficiency of the evidence of the theft

conviction, we are compelled to address the somewhat unorthodox methodology of how

that charge was presented to the jury. Although Blocker apparently acknowledged his

guilt of the theft charge in open court outside the presence of the jurors, the record shows

that the theft charge was also submitted to the jury. The trial court made the following

comments regarding this issue: “I‟m going to submit the issue of the guilt or innocence

-7-

of the defendant on the theft to the jury . . . [f]or their consideration unless the defendant

is willing to enter into a regular guilty plea right now outside the presence of the jury.”

The court added, “[W]hen [a defendant] plead[s] guilty to something, I still let the jury

decide whether he‟s guilty unless between now [and when the appropriate documents

regarding the guilty plea are signed].” Later, during the motion for judgment of acquittal,

defense counsel acknowledged that he had an agreement with the State that he “wasn‟t

really going to contest [the theft charge]” and noted that he “didn‟t ask any questions

about the truck[,]” but asserted that he did not “think there‟s any proof to even send it to

the jury.” The trial court ultimately held that the evidence was sufficient to support a

guilty verdict on the theft charge when viewing it in the light most favorable to the State,

“especially in light of the fact that [Blocker] pled guilty to it in open court[.]” When the

State asked if defense counsel was intending to argue the insufficiency of the evidence on

the theft charge to the jury in its closing argument, defense counsel replied that he would

not make that argument during his closing, and the trial court said that it would allow

both charges to go to the jury. Significantly, during its instructions to the jury after the

close of proof, the trial court stated, “The Defendant pleads not guilty to the first count

and guilty to the second count [charging him with theft].” The verdict form and the

judgment of conviction show that the jury found Blocker guilty of the theft charge, and

no transcript showing a plea colloquy or order regarding a guilty plea to this charge are

included in the record on appeal.

We outlined the above to cautions the trial court that its decision to inform the jury

of a defendant‟s partial or incomplete guilty plea to a charge before submitting that same

charge to the jury is fraught with peril, and we discourage this practice in the future.

However, because neither party raises this issue on appeal, we will not consider it further.

Blocker contends that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he

was the individual who took Sergio Arellano‟s truck or that the truck recovered in Little

Rock, Arkansas belonged to Arellano. Consequently, he asks this court to reverse this

conviction and dismiss this count. The State provides insufficient analysis regarding this

issue.4

“A person commits theft of property if, with intent to deprive the owner of

property, the person knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the

owner‟s effective consent.” T.C.A. § 39-14-103(a). As relevant in this case, the term

4

In this case, the proof of the theft, while sufficient to sustain the conviction, was not

overwhelming. The State‟s analysis of the theft in this case was rather flippant and illogical. While the

record indicates that Blocker acknowledged his guilt of the offense in open court outside the presence of

the jury, the theft charge was nevertheless submitted to the jury, and the sufficiency of the evidence is

raised as an issue on appeal. While we recognize the time limitations placed on all State attorneys, we

urge the State to submit more thoughtful and complete work to this court in the future.

-8-

“deprive” means to “[d]ispose of property or use it or transfer any interest in it under

circumstances that make its restoration unlikely[.]” Id. § 39-11-106(a)(8)(C) (Supp.

2011). Theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000 is a Class D

felony. Id. § 39-14-105(3).

Blocker claims that the State failed to establish that he was the individual who

committed the theft offense. “The identity of the perpetrator is an essential element of

any crime.” Rice, 184 S.W.3d at 662 (citing State v. Thompson, 519 S.W.2d 789, 793

(Tenn. 1975)). The State has the burden of proving the identity of the defendant as the

perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 779 (Tenn.

1998). Identity may be established by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a

combination of the two. Thompson, 519 S.W.2d at 793. “The credible testimony of one

identification witness is sufficient to support a conviction if the witness viewed the

accused under such circumstances as would permit a positive identification to be made.”

State v. Radley, 29 S.W.3d 532, 537 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (citing State v. Strickland,

885 S.W.2d 85, 87-88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)). The identification of the defendant as

the perpetrator is a question of fact for the jury after considering all the relevant proof.

State v. Thomas, 158 S.W.3d 361, 388 (Tenn. 2005) (citing Strickland, 885 S.W.2d at 87).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence showed that on April

12, 2012, Sergio Arellano observed an African-American man get into his maroon 1997

F-150 truck, crank it, and drive away from the gas station without his permission.

Arellano reported his truck stolen and provided officers with the color, make, model,

year, and either the VIN number or the tag number for the truck. The truck‟s description

was placed into a national database for stolen vehicles. On April 15, 2012, Octavia Greer

told a 9-1-1 dispatcher that Blocker left the scene of the stabbing in a maroon truck and

provided the license plate of this truck, which was found to be stolen. On April 26, 2012,

a truck with a VIN number matching the truck stolen from Arellano was found in Little

Rock, Arkansas. Although the truck‟s original license plate had been replaced with

another plate, the VIN number was traced to the stolen truck that Blocker had driven

when he left the scene of the stabbing. Because there was sufficient proof that Blocker

was the perpetrator of the theft of Arellano‟s truck and that the truck recovered in Little

Rock belonged to Arellano, we conclude that the evidence is also sufficient to support

Blocker‟s theft conviction.

-9-

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Blocker‟s convictions for

first degree premeditated murder and theft. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

_________________________________

CAMILLE R. McMULLEN, JUDGE

-10-