State of Tennessee v. Ethan Alexander Self

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

November 17, 2015 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ETHAN ALEXANDER SELF

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hawkins County

No. 13CR154 Jon Kerry Blackwood, Senior Judge

No. E2014-02466-CCA-R3-CD – Filed August 29, 2016

The Defendant, Ethan Alexander Self, was found guilty by a Hawkins County Criminal

Court jury of first degree premeditated murder. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202 (2014). He was

sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court

erred in denying his motion to suppress, (2) the State improperly exercised a peremptory

challenge to a prospective juror for a race-based reason, (3) the evidence is insufficient to

support the conviction, (4) the court erred in denying the Defendant‟s motions for a

mistrial based upon the State‟s failure to disclose evidence, (5) the court erred in denying

his motions for a mistrial based upon the State‟s eliciting evidence in violation of the

court‟s pretrial evidentiary rulings, (6) the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial

based upon the State‟s failure to preserve alarm clocks from the victim‟s bedroom, (7) the

court erred in admitting evidence of the Defendant and the victim‟s good relationship and

lack of abuse, (8) the court erred in the procedure by which the jury inspected the gun

used in the victim‟s homicide, (9) prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the State‟s

rebuttal argument, (10) the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense, (11)

cumulative trial error necessitates a new trial, and (12) the trial court improperly

sentenced the Defendant. We conclude that there is no reversible error, and we

accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROGER A.

PAGE, SP.J., joined. ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., J., concurred in part and dissented in

part.

John T. Milburn Rogers, Greeneville, Tennessee (at trial and on appeal); Jenny Coques

Rogers, Greeneville, Tennessee (at trial and on appeal); Herbert S. Moncier, Knoxville,

Tennessee (at trial and on appeal); and Jonathan P. Harwell, Knoxville, Tennessee (on

appeal), for the appellant, Ethan Alexander Self.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Nicholas W. Spangler, Assistant

Attorney General; Anthony Clark, District Attorney General Pro Tempore; Dennis

Brooks, Assistant District Attorney General Pro Tempore, for the appellee, State of

Tennessee.

OPINION

The Defendant‟s conviction relates to the killing of his father, Roger Self, who

was a sergeant with the Greeneville Police Department.1 The victim was shot in the back

of his head with his service revolver while lying in bed. The Defendant did not dispute

that he shot the victim but contended the shooting was accidental.

At the trial, Greeneville Police Captain Michael Crum testified that he worked as a

shift lieutenant on March 24, 2010. He said the victim had been the shift sergeant, which

involved working in and maintaining the office, taking calls, dispatching calls, and

assisting Captain Crum. He said that the shifts were twelve hours and that the shift

lieutenant and sergeant arrived fifteen minutes early to obtain information from the staff

of the previous shift.

Captain Crum testified that the victim did not arrive for work at 6:45 p.m. on

March 24, 2010, which he said was unusual because the victim normally was punctual.

Captain Crum said Captain Beth Dyke brought the victim‟s absence to Captain Crum‟s

attention. A few minutes after 7:00, Captain Crum called the victim‟s home telephone

and cell phone but received no answer. Captain Crum said that he decided to contact the

Defendant but that because he did not have the Defendant‟s contact information, he

called the Defendant‟s grandmother, Ms. George, who gave him the Defendant‟s cell

phone number.

Captain Crum testified that, due to his working relationship with the victim, he

was previously acquainted with the Defendant. Captain Crum said he called the

Defendant but did not want to worry the Defendant about the victim not being at work.

Captain Crum asked the Defendant if the Defendant had talked to the victim, and the

Defendant stated that he had not talked with the victim since morning. Captain Crum

told the Defendant that the victim was not at work. Captain Crum said the Defendant

stated that he did not think the victim was coming to work and that the Defendant said he

and his father had not discussed with which grandparent the Defendant would stay that

night while the victim worked. Captain Crum said the victim‟s custom was to arrange for

1

The trial court granted a change of venue from Greene County to Hawkins County.

-2-

a place for the Defendant to go when the victim was working. Captain Crum said the

Defendant did not appear to be concerned or fearful during this call.

Captain Crum testified that he asked the Defendant to call “the farm,” which was

the victim‟s parents‟ house. Captain Crum told the Defendant he was concerned the

victim might have had a wreck. Captain Crum said the Defendant called him later and

told him the victim was not at the farm. Captain Crum asked the Defendant to check on

the victim to see if the victim had overslept. Captain Crum testified that the Defendant

responded that he was going to a restaurant to get food and to Fellowship of Christian

Athletes (FCA) and that the Defendant asked if Captain Crum minded if the Defendant

went to check on the victim after those activities. Ultimately, the Defendant told Captain

Crum that he had become concerned after Captain Crum mentioned a wreck and was

going to drive home to check on the victim. Captain Crum gave different estimates for

the time this conversation took place, stating it was around 7:39, 7:40, or 7:49 p.m. He

denied that the Defendant cried during this conversation.

Captain Crum testified that he decided to go to the victim‟s house. He said that

while he was on his way, the Defendant called and was crying and upset. Captain Crum

said the Defendant stated the Defendant was at home and had found the front door open,

the alarm activated, and the house ransacked. Captain Crum said that the Defendant

asked him to come to the house and that the Defendant said he “did not want to go in and

find his dad.” Captain Crum said the Defendant started to say something about his

mother being dead and about being scared, but Captain Crum told the Defendant to

“hush” and that he would be right there. He agreed it was obvious the Defendant thought

something might have happened to the victim.

Captain Crum testified that when he arrived within a couple of minutes, he heard

an alarm and saw the Defendant standing near the front steps. He said he went into the

house and called out to the victim that he and the Defendant were there in order to avoid

startling the victim. He said the Defendant pointed him to the victim‟s bedroom. He said

that he asked the Defendant if the victim slept with a gun and that the Defendant stated he

did not know where the victim kept the gun. He said he entered the bedroom with the

Defendant behind him. Captain Crum said he and the Defendant continued to announce

their presence to try to wake the victim, who was in bed six to ten feet from the door.

Captain Crum said he could hear an alarm clock and a notification sound from a cell

phone.

Captain Crum testified that as he approached the victim, he saw a wound on the

back of the victim‟s head. He said he was “within inches” when he noticed the victim‟s

wound. He said a blanket or sheet was pulled around and over the victim but did not

entirely cover the victim‟s head. He said he left the bedroom. He said that the

-3-

Defendant, who stayed in the hallway and did not enter the room, asked if the victim was

okay and that Captain Crum indicated the victim was not. Captain Crum said he did not

check the victim for signs of life because he was concerned about the Defendant‟s seeing

the victim. He said he thought the victim was dead.

Captain Crum testified that he and the Defendant went outside the house. Captain

Crum agreed his notes said he had to force the Defendant outside but explained that he

tried to get the Defendant to move faster than the Defendant wanted to go. Captain Crum

said the Defendant never stated he wanted to stay inside the house. Captain Crum said

the Defendant cried and appeared upset. He said the Defendant stated he did not know

what he was going to do because both of his parents were dead. He agreed he had written

in his notes that the Defendant “basically collapsed” in Captain Crum‟s arms. He said

that the Defendant wanted to call the Defendant‟s grandmother but that the Defendant

had been unable to dial his cell phone. Captain Crum said he called the Defendant‟s

grandmother at 7:40 p.m. and told her that the Defendant needed her to come to the

house. He agreed that the Defendant appeared distraught when he told the Defendant the

victim was dead.

Captain Crum testified that Captain Dyke arrived and went inside the house but

that he did not go inside with her. He said that EMS responded and that neighbors and

other deputies arrived. Captain Crum said that after the police chaplain arrived, Captain

Crum introduced the Defendant to the chaplain. He said the Defendant stated he did not

have anything to say to the chaplain and to get the chaplain away from him. Captain

Crum said that within an hour, the Defendant left with the Defendant‟s girlfriend‟s father.

Captain Crum testified that he had someone notify the sheriff‟s department about

the homicide and that the sheriff‟s department asked the Tennessee Bureau of

Investigation (TBI) to take over the investigation. He said he had no involvement in the

investigation.

Captain Crum testified that he considered the victim his friend. He said the victim

and the Defendant had a close, good relationship. He said that after the Defendant

obtained a driver‟s license, the Defendant came to the office frequently to see the victim

and to get money. He said that the victim and the Defendant always parted by saying, “I

love you,” and that the victim often hugged the Defendant or kissed the Defendant‟s

cheek. He said that children were welcomed in the office and that “we all somewhat

raised our kids in the office.” He said the Defendant, the victim, and the Defendant‟s

mother had been to his house for the police department‟s Christmas dinner during the

Defendant‟s mother‟s lifetime. Captain Crum said he never had any indication the victim

abused the Defendant.

-4-

Captain Crum testified that the Defendant was not employed. He later said he did

not know whether the Defendant performed paid labor on the family farm.

Captain Crum testified that he and the victim had not worked the night before

March 24, 2010.

Greeneville Police Captain Beth Dyke testified that the victim became a reserve

officer in 1992 and a full-time officer in 1996. At the time of the victim‟s death, she was

his shift captain. She said he had last worked the day shift on Monday, March 22, 2010,

which ended at 7:00 p.m. She said he was next scheduled to work the Wednesday,

March 24 evening shift and should have arrived at 6:45 p.m. She said that she realized he

was not there around 7:00 and that she checked the records and with other officers but did

not obtain any information about why he was not there. She said she had Captain Crum

call the victim‟s house. She had Captain Crum call the Defendant‟s maternal

grandmother to get the Defendant‟s telephone number. She said the victim always had

the Defendant stay with one set of the Defendant‟s grandparents when the victim worked

overnight. She said that she overheard Captain Crum‟s conversation with the Defendant

and that the Defendant mentioned going to a restaurant and FCA. She said the Defendant

thought the victim was not supposed to work that night. She said Captain Crum told the

Defendant to call his paternal grandparents to see if the victim was at the farm.

Captain Dyke testified that she told Captain Crum to go to the victim‟s house to

make sure nothing was wrong. She said that after Captain Crum left, he contacted her by

radio and told her she should go to the victim‟s house because the Defendant had found

the door open, had seen personal property on the floor, and had been afraid to go inside.

She said that when she arrived, Captain Crum was crying and the Defendant was

“somewhat crying.” She said she went inside and knew immediately that something was

wrong because the house was in disarray, which was not its usual state. She said she

went to the victim‟s bedroom and found the body on the bed with the comforter over the

victim‟s head. She saw a hole in the comforter where it covered the back of the victim‟s

head. She heard an alarm clock blaring and alerts from two cell phones, all of which she

saw on a bedside table. She acknowledged she stated in a written report that the alarm

was sounding and that cell phones and the home telephone were ringing. She said she

did not turn off the alarm or answer the telephones. She said she walked around to the

other side of the bed and saw massive amounts of blood and the victim‟s disfigured face.

She recognized the wound as having been inflicted by a gunshot. She said the door was

three to four feet from the body. She searched the room for a gun but did not find one.

She saw jewelry that had belonged to the Defendant‟s deceased wife in a case on the

dresser. She said “stuff” was on the floor.

-5-

Captain Dyke testified that she saw an earring in the hallway and “stuff” on the

kitchen floor. She saw a credit card and a billfold on the kitchen floor. She said she went

outside and “whispered and mouthed” to Captain Crum that the victim was dead. She

said the Defendant stood five to six feet away and could not have heard her. She notified

Chief Terry Cannon that an officer had been killed. She also called the Greene County

sheriff because the victim lived in the county. She said deputies Jimmy Morgan and

Eddie Yokley arrived, followed by Detective Mike Fincher and another detective. She

was not involved in the collection and preservation of evidence.

Captain Dyke testified that she had known the victim since high school, thirty to

thirty-five years. She said they had visited in each other‟s homes and had gone out to eat

with a group. She said they had seen each other on vacation when their respective

families stayed at the same hotel. She said she had seen the Defendant come to the office

to bring food to the victim, get money, and borrow the victim‟s debit card. She said she

never saw any signs of abuse in the Defendant, the victim, and the Defendant‟s mother‟s

relationship. She said that before the victim‟s death, the Defendant‟s mother, who was

married to the victim, died unexpectedly at work.

Captain Dyke testified that she was a firearms training officer. She identified a

document that reflected the victim had been assigned a “full size Glock model []22 forty

caliber” and the weapon‟s serial number, CXB684. She was unaware of the victim‟s

service weapon having two serial numbers and agreed it would be unusual. She

identified a photograph of a holster assigned to officers on desk duty. She said the

holster required “a couple of maneuvers” in order to remove the weapon. She said that

she had previously examined the holster depicted in the photograph and that it worked

properly. Captain Dyke also identified a holster and said it had been assigned to the

victim.

Captain Dyke testified that if the victim‟s service weapon were malfunctioning in

a manner that caused it to “stovepipe,”2 the information would have been noted on the

firearms sheet during the certification Captain Dyke made relative to the weapon in 2009.

She agreed the firearms sheet contained no notes of such a malfunction. She was

unaware of any stovepiping problem with the victim‟s service weapon.

Captain Dyke acknowledged that she wore a bracelet memorializing the victim

and that she had ordered the memorial bracelets for all Greene County law enforcement

officers. She acknowledged she was emotional about the case.

2

According to other proof, a “stovepipe” occurs when a weapon malfunctions when it is fired, preventing

a casing from ejecting properly before the next round of ammunition slides into the chamber.

-6-

Captain Dyke testified that the victim did not seem dissatisfied with his job at the

time of his death and that he was not having any problems at work. She agreed that in

2009, Greeneville Police Detective Vericki called for a welfare check on an individual

when the victim was working as the dispatcher. She agreed that the victim did not

dispatch an officer, that an officer was not dispatched until the next morning, that the

individual was found deceased, and that the victim was disciplined for the incident. She

agreed that the victim was normally punctual but that he had been tardy for work a few

times.

Captain Dyke testified that the Defendant seemed “normal” and did not have any

apparent problems before the victim‟s death. She said the victim and the Defendant went

to the family farm frequently, that the Defendant helped the victim on the farm, and that

she did not know whether the victim paid the Defendant for the labor. She said the

Defendant was an only child and that he been close to both of his parents. When asked

how the Defendant coped with his mother‟s death, she said she had not seen him cry at

his mother‟s wake. She said that after the Defendant‟s mother‟s death, the Defendant

was friendly and spoke to her when he came to the police department. She said she did

not see any changes in the Defendant after his mother died.

Washington County/Johnson City Emergency Medical Service Field Paramedic

Mark Copus testified that he worked as a paramedic for Greene County/Greeneville

Emergency Medical Service on March 24, 2010. He said that in the latter capacity, he

responded to the scene of a shooting at 7:46 p.m. on that date. He said the paramedics

were escorted inside by a police officer and that the house appeared to have been

ransacked. He said that to the best of his knowledge, a blanket covered the victim‟s body

but not the victim‟s head. He said that a gunshot wound to the back of the head was

apparent when he and the officer removed the blanket and that the victim was deceased.

He said the victim appeared to have been sleeping when the victim was shot. Mr. Copus

said that based upon the victim‟s lack of cardiac activity and the extent of the victim‟s

injuries, no resuscitation was possible. He did not recall hearing an alarm or ringing

telephones in the bedroom.

Chuck Jeffers testified that he and the victim had been friends since Chuck Jeffers

was a high school freshman and that they were like brothers. He said that he had known

the victim‟s deceased wife since kindergarten, that he had introduced them, and that he

had been in their wedding. Chuck Jeffers said that he had known the Defendant since the

Defendant‟s birth and that the Defendant had been close to the Defendant‟s parents.

Chuck Jeffers testified that on March 24, 2010, he received a call from the

Defendant‟s maternal aunt, that she told him the victim was dead and the Defendant

-7-

needed him, and that he went to the Defendant‟s maternal grandmother‟s house around

9:20 to 9:25 p.m.

Chuck Jeffers testified that Ms. George, who was the Defendant‟s maternal

grandmother, the Defendant, the Defendant‟s girlfriend, and the Defendant‟s Aunt Beth

were present. Chuck Jeffers said that when he arrived, the Defendant was crying and

shaking uncontrollably and that the Defendant stated, “Momma‟s gone and now Daddy‟s

gone, what am I gonna do?” Chuck Jeffers said that he asked the Defendant what

happened and that the Defendant stated he had gone home after practice and found the

victim asleep and snoring. Chuck Jeffers said the Defendant was taking deep breaths.

Chuck Jeffers said the Defendant stated that the Defendant left to eat and that when the

Defendant returned, the police were looking for “him” and that something was not right.

Chuck Jeffers said the Defendant stated he found the door open when the Defendant went

home, that the Defendant looked in and saw the house in disarray, and that the Defendant

“got scared and went back out.” Chuck Jeffers said the Defendant lost control of his

emotions and did not say anything else about what had happened. He said they both

cried. He said Captain Crum arrived at some point but did not recall when. Chuck

Jeffers called his father, a retired Greeneville police officer, who came to Ms. George‟s

house about twenty minutes after Chuck Jeffers arrived. He said that after forty-five to

fifty minutes, his father drove himself, the Defendant, and the Defendant‟s Aunt Beth to

the sheriff‟s department to give statements. He said that the Defendant was in the back of

the sheriff‟s department for a long time, that they waited for him in a waiting area, and

that he was released “well after midnight.” He thought the Defendant left with the

victim‟s sister and the sister‟s friend. He agreed that he and his father gave statements.

Chuck Jeffers testified that on March 25, 2010, the Defendant‟s Aunt Beth called

him because the investigators wanted to take the Defendant through the victim‟s house to

establish the timeline of events. Chuck Jeffers said he went to the victim‟s house and

waited outside during the process. He said the Defendant showed no emotion. He said

that the Defendant went into the house twice, that the Defendant brought some of the

Defendant‟s personal items from the house to Chuck Jeffers, that the Defendant said, “I

love you,” that the Defendant could not look Chuck Jeffers in the eye, and that he had not

spoken to the Defendant since then. Chuck Jeffers said the personal items included some

cologne and shirts. He said the Defendant‟s retrieving the cologne “kind of bothered”

him.

Chuck Jeffers testified that he noticed a difference in the Defendant‟s behavior

after the Defendant‟s mother died, that Chuck Jeffers never saw the Defendant cry after

the death, that Chuck Jeffers had been alarmed by the Defendant‟s lack of emotion about

the death, and that Chuck Jeffers talked to the victim because Chuck Jeffers thought the

-8-

Defendant might need help. Chuck Jeffers was unaware of the victim‟s having taken the

Defendant to counseling but said the Defendant improved over time.

Chuck Jeffers testified that the victim sometimes talked to the Defendant by

telephone when Chuck Jeffers and the victim were together and that the victim always

ended the call by saying, “I love you.” Chuck Jeffers said the Defendant and the victim

worked together on the family farm. Chuck Jeffers said that shortly before the victim‟s

death, the Defendant and the victim had gone to an amusement park and that they had a

good time. Chuck Jeffers thought the victim and the Defendant were financially secure

because they had the proceeds of the Defendant‟s mother‟s life insurance policy and the

victim‟s salary.

Chuck Jeffers testified that in his opinion, the victim overindulged the Defendant.

Chuck Jeffers said the Defendant always had the latest video gaming consoles. Chuck

Jeffers said the victim purchased a car for the Defendant and purchased a Jeep for the

Defendant after the car was involved in a wreck. Chuck Jeffers said he received training

in identifying child abuse in his capacity as a Sunday school teacher and that he never

saw evidence the Defendant was abused.

Chuck Jeffers testified that the Defendant wanted to go to college in Chattanooga

because the Defendant‟s girlfriend would be attending college there and that the victim

preferred for the Defendant to stay closer to home. Chuck Jeffers said that the victim had

asked Chuck Jeffers‟s opinion and that Chuck Jeffers expressed his support of the

Defendant going to school in Chattanooga. Chuck Jeffers said he was unaware of

disagreements about other matters between the victim and the Defendant, but he also said

the Defendant and the victim had argued about the Defendant‟s wanting to be with the

Defendant‟s girlfriend. Chuck Jeffers said the Defendant lied to the victim about the

girlfriend.

Charles Jeffers, Chuck Jeffers‟s father, testified that he worked for the Greeneville

Police Department for thirty-five years before his retirement. He said that he had worked

with the victim but that they did not see each other often because they were on different

shifts. Charles Jeffers said he had known the victim but was not around the Defendant

often. Charles Jeffers said that after he learned of the victim‟s death from his son, he

went to Ms. George‟s house because he was concerned about Chuck Jeffers. Charles

Jeffers said he knew Chuck Jeffers and the victim had been close friends.

Charles Jeffers testified that when he arrived at Ms. George‟s house, he saw the

Defendant standing at the top of the steps, went inside to console the Defendant, and then

went outside. Charles Jeffers said that he did not see the Defendant express any emotion

-9-

and that the Defendant would not look at him. Charles Jeffers said Chuck Jeffers was no

longer crying when he arrived.

Charles Jeffers testified that he took the Defendant, Chuck Jeffers, and an

unknown woman to the sheriff‟s office. He said he waited “quite a while” as the

Defendant gave a statement.

Angie Weems, the Greene County Sheriff‟s Department evidence technician crime

scene processor, testified that she took custody of a gun retrieved by a “dive team.” She

said the gun was attached with plastic ties to a brick. She identified three bullets she

received from the evidence laboratory, a “cartridge and stovepipe in action,” a plastic tie,

a bullet found near the victim‟s body, metal fragments recovered from the victim‟s brain

during the autopsy, metal fragments recovered from a pillow, and a “for sale” sign from

the victim‟s living room couch.

Ms. Weems testified that in the early morning hours of March 25, 2010, she

obtained cell phones from the Defendant and C.P.3 She said she and Detective Fincher

photographed text messages stored in the cell phones. The cell phones were received as

exhibits.

Karen Cline-Parhamovich, D.O., an expert in forensic pathology, testified that she

conducted the victim‟s autopsy. She said that the cause of death was a gunshot wound to

the head and that the manner of death was homicide. She said the shot entered the back

of the victim‟s head and exited the left forehead. She said the range from which the shot

was fired was indeterminate, meaning it could have been “a few feet to distance.”

Although she did not find stippling, the presence of which would indicate a shot fired

from “within a few feet,” Dr. Cline-Parhamovich stated that a quilt over a person‟s head

could filter out gunpowder residue that might otherwise cause stippling. She

acknowledged she could not determine the distance from which the shot had been fired at

the victim. She identified remnants of ammunition she removed from the victim‟s head.

Greene County Sheriff‟s Detective Mike Fincher, the lead detective in the case,

testified that he had known the victim but had not known him well. Detective Fincher

said he had not known the Defendant before the victim‟s death. Detective Fincher said

he responded to the scene around 8:15 p.m. on March 24, 2010. He said that law

enforcement officers and others were in the yard and that he moved them to the street to

enlarge the area being preserved for investigation.

3

The record reflects that C.P. was a high school student at the time of the relevant events. Although the

record does not reflect whether she was a minor at the time, we elect to refer to her by her initials.

-10-

Detective Fincher testified that the house was in disarray with items from cabinets

on the floor and jewelry in the hallway. He said that the victim was in the bedroom and

that he heard noise from an alarm clock and two ringing cell phones. He said that the cell

phones, one of which belonged to the Greeneville Police Department and one of which

was the victim‟s personal cell phone, were removed from the house and examined. He

said that relative to the missed calls on March 24, 2010, the cell phones showed calls

from several individuals whose names were listed in the call log and from a restricted

number. Detective Fincher said the victim‟s cell phones both had alarms set for 2:00

p.m.

Relative to the bedroom, Detective Fincher testified that dresser drawers were

opened, clothes had been thrown on the floor, and a jewelry box was opened. He said

they found medication and the victim‟s wallet in the kitchen. He was unaware of the

victim‟s taking testosterone supplements. He said that they searched for weapons and

found a gun but that it was not the gun from which the shot that killed the victim had

been fired. He said they found the victim‟s police gun belt on a coat rack in a computer

room. He identified photographs taken inside the home, which were received as exhibits.

Detective Fincher testified that the Defendant revealed the location of the gun

involved. Detective Fincher said that on March 26, 2010, a law enforcement dive team

recovered the gun, which was attached to a brick, from a pond in a Greeneville park. He

said that the slot on the weapon was “partially pushed back” and that a “stovepipe” round

was stuck in the action. He identified the weapon as a .40-caliber, Model 22, semi-

automatic handgun and said it was the standard weapon issued by the Greeneville Police

Department and the Greene County Sheriff‟s Department.

Detective Fincher testified that he went to Ms. George‟s house to talk to the

Defendant around 10:00 p.m. on March 24, 2010. He said he wanted to talk to the

Defendant because the disarray at the victim‟s house appeared staged, the victim did not

appear to have struggled, and the Defendant lived with the victim. Detective Fincher said

the Defendant had just taken a shower, which Detective Fincher thought was unusual.

Detective Fincher said a person might shower to remove evidence such as gunshot

residue, trace hair evidence, or blood spatter, but he acknowledged that a person might

shower after vomiting or crying. He said that the police collected and examined the

clothing the Defendant had worn before the shower and that the clothing did not contain

visible bodily fluids. Detective Fincher said that the Defendant was polite and “very

removed” and that he did not see the Defendant cry. Detective Fincher said that he asked

the Defendant to come to the sheriff‟s office to be interviewed and that family members

brought the Defendant to the office. Detective Fincher said the interview lasted several

-11-

hours, beginning sometime after 10:00 p.m. and ending around 2:00 a.m. Detective

Fincher agreed that the Defendant was free to leave after the interview.

Detective Fincher testified that they asked the Defendant to meet them the next

morning to walk through the victim‟s house. Detective Fincher said they had questions

about the missing firearm and any other items that might have been missing. He said that

although it was difficult to describe the Defendant‟s demeanor, the Defendant was not

“terribly upset,” did not cry, and would not look at the officers much. Detective Fincher

said the only item other than the gun that the Defendant identified as missing was an iPod

from the Defendant‟s bedroom. Detective Fincher said the Defendant gathered some

clothing and other items to take with him.

Detective Fincher testified that he had heard officers talk about the victim‟s having

failed to dispatch an officer to respond to a call for a welfare check but said he never had

any conversations about the matter with the victim or the family members of the person

who was the subject of the welfare check.

Detective Fincher testified that the gun was loaded when it was recovered from the

pond. He said the slide was “back” and that the gun contained a shell casing “sticking up

out of it.” He said that if the stovepipe round had been removed, the gun would have

been ready to fire. He explained that a stovepipe occurred when an individual did not

hold the gun properly when firing it or when ammunition with insufficient firepower was

used.

TBI Special Agent Forensic Scientist Melanie Carlisle testified that she led the

Violent Crime Response Team that processed the crime scene for evidence. She

identified a bullet she collected from a pillow underneath the victim’s body. She said that

when the team arrived around 12:20 a.m. on March 25, 2010, no alarm clock was

sounding in the bedroom where the victim’s body was located. She said that they later

noticed two alarm clocks in the bedroom, that the clock on the right side of the bed if

standing at the foot of the bed was set for 3:30 p.m, and that the clock on the left side of

the bed if standing at the foot of the bed was set for 4:30 p.m. She said she did not

collect the alarm clocks as evidence because they did not have any forensic value. She

acknowledged she did not look for a second alarm on the clocks. She said that although

she collected two cell phones from a nightstand, she did not look at them to determine the

time and frequency of any alarms set on the phones, whether any text messages had been

received, and whether any incoming calls had been received by the phones.

Agent Carlisle testified that she was told the police who arrived on the scene

before her had pulled down the bedcovers from the victim’s body to look for a weapon

and that the bedcovers were pulled down when she arrived. She agreed she had been told

-12-

the bedcovers had been over the victim’s head previously. She agreed she took custody

of a comforter and a sheet that had reddish-brown stains but did not recall if she saw two

holes in the comforter. She agreed that the location of the reddish-brown stain on the

comforter could be consistent with the location of the victim’s head before the comforter

was pulled down. When shown a photograph of the comforter, she noted reddish-brown

stains and two holes. She said that no testing was done to determine if the holes were

made by a bullet and that no testing was done to determine whether the reddish-brown

stain was blood.

Agent Carlisle testified that she did not recall seeing bodybuilding nutritional

supplements in the kitchen. She said that she did not consider pills or supplements to

have forensic value and that she and her team would not have collected them. She said

the supplements shown in photographs of the scene would have been at the scene when

she left.

TBI Special Agent Scotty Ferguson, the agent in charge of the investigation,

testified that he was contacted by Greene County Sheriff’s Captain John Huffine around

8:45 p.m. on March 24, 2010, regarding a death requiring TBI investigative assistance.

Agent Ferguson said he responded to the scene around 9:30 p.m., where he met with

Captain Huffine and the sheriff. Agent Ferguson said Detective Fincher, Angie Weems,

and Jeff Morgan were inside the house. He did not see the Defendant. After viewing the

scene, he determined that the TBI crime laboratory should be called to the scene to

collect evidence, and he left the scene before they arrived.

Agent Ferguson testified that he and Detective Fincher went to the sheriff’s office

and interviewed the Defendant, who had been transported to the office by family and

friends. He said that initially, he wanted to gather information, such as time lines and

other relevant information, that could help with the investigation. He noted that the

Defendant was the person who found the victim. Agent Ferguson said the Miranda

warnings document reflected it was signed at 10:59 p.m. and that the interview began

around 11:00 p.m. He described the Defendant as “very cooperative.” Agent Ferguson

said he wrote a statement that the Defendant reviewed and signed.

Agent Ferguson read from the written statement he prepared from the interview.

Agent Ferguson testified that the Defendant stated the following: The Defendant had

been at track practice until 4:50 or 4:55 p.m., and when he arrived home, he heard the

victim snoring. The Defendant took twenty dollars from the victim’s wallet in the

kitchen and did not go into the victim’s bedroom. The Defendant looked for headphones

in his bedroom but could not find them. He watched television, did laundry, and

exchanged text messages with his girlfriend. He was at the house for about forty-five

minutes before he went to his grandmother’s house. When he left, he first tried to leave

-13-

in the victim’s Jeep but could not get it out of the driveway and, instead, left in the

Defendant’s Jeep. The Defendant stayed at his grandmother’s house until about 6:15 to

6:20 p.m. The Defendant drove around after leaving his grandmother’s house. Around

7:00 p.m. when the Defendant was on his way to a restaurant, he received a call from

Captain Mike Crum regarding the victim’s whereabouts. The Defendant called the

victim’s telephone numbers but did not receive an answer. He called his paternal

grandparents to see if the victim was at the farm, but the victim was not. The Defendant

went home.

Agent Ferguson testified that the Defendant also stated: The Defendant arrived

home around 7:12 p.m. The front door was open, and he heard the victim’s alarm

sounding. The house was “a wreck,” and the Defendant became scared. The Defendant

did not look into the hall toward the victim’s bedroom, and the Defendant went outside

and called Captain Crum, who came to the house. They entered the house. Captain

Crum went into the victim’s bedroom then took the Defendant outside. Captain Dyke

and EMT personnel arrived.

Agent Ferguson testified that the Defendant stated a homeless Caucasian man with

a beard and a hat used to walk on the street in front of the house. The Defendant stated

that their dog had been beaten about one month earlier and that after the beating, the

homeless man was not seen again.

Agent Ferguson testified that the Defendant stated the Defendant’s mother died

about two and one-half years earlier, shortly before the Defendant’s sixteenth birthday.

The Defendant stated that the victim had been dating a married woman and that the

Defendant had looked at the victim’s cell phone and seen calls and text messages. The

Defendant had met the woman but could not recall her name. He said that the woman

had been at the house earlier in the month and that he had eaten in restaurants with the

victim and the woman. The Defendant also stated that the victim dated a woman from

Kentucky. The Defendant said the victim dated “quite a bit” but did not want a serious

relationship. The Defendant stated that a woman had been at the house “around

Monday” and that he could smell perfume.

Agent Ferguson testified that the Defendant stated the victim had experienced

stress and “a lot of problems” at work recently. The Defendant stated that the victim had

been upset about promotions at work and that the victim had difficulty sleeping due to the

twelve-hour shifts the victim worked.

Agent Ferguson testified that the Defendant stated the Defendant and the victim

had not had problems recently and had been talking about colleges. The Defendant stated

that the victim wanted the Defendant to go to East Tennessee State University or Carson-

-14-

Newman University but that the Defendant wanted to go to University of Tennessee at

Chattanooga (UTC). The Defendant said that Mike Knapp had called the victim the

previous Saturday and said the Defendant had been drunk at a movie theater but that the

Defendant and the victim talked about it when the Defendant came home and that the

victim appeared to believe the Defendant.

Agent Ferguson testified that the Defendant stated that the victim usually left the

victim’s “duty belt” on the couch “or somewhere” and that the victim put his service

weapon elsewhere, although the Defendant did not know where the victim kept the gun.

Agent Ferguson testified that the Defendant was calm and cooperative, did not cry,

did not show a lot of emotion, and answered all of the questions the Defendant was asked

during the interview. Agent Ferguson said the Defendant appeared concerned but did not

seem scared. Agent Ferguson said that the Defendant requested seven changes to the

statement and that the Defendant initialed the changes after they were made. Agent

Ferguson said the Defendant appeared to know what he was doing when he made the

statement.

Agent Ferguson agreed that although the Defendant denied killing the victim,

Agent Ferguson did not write this in the statement. Agent Ferguson said that he returned

to the scene after taking the statement and that he interviewed other family members and

friends during the investigation.

Agent Ferguson testified that the police wanted the Defendant to look at the house

for missing items and that the Defendant wanted some items from the house. Agent

Ferguson said he talked to the Defendant the day after the homicide when they were both

at the house. Agent Ferguson said that he had no conversations with the Defendant other

than during the interview and at the house on March 25, 2010.

Agent Ferguson acknowledged a report created during the investigation which

noted that the television had been on a cartoon show when investigators were at the

house.

TBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge of Upper East Tennessee Shannon Morton

testified that on March 25, 2010, he met with investigators at the scene as the Violent

Crime Response Team was finishing its processing of the scene. Agent Morton said that

Agent Ferguson took him through the house, that the house was in disarray, and that it

appeared cabinets had been opened and contents raked out onto the floor and thrown

about.

-15-

Agent Morton testified that at Agent Ferguson’s request, he spoke with the

Defendant at the sheriff’s office on March 25, 2010, after having reviewed the written

statement the Defendant had given the previous evening. He identified a Greene County

Sheriff’s Department waiver of rights form the Defendant signed and said either he or

Greene County Detective Morgan read the rights waiver to the Defendant. He identified

a second rights waiver form the Defendant signed, which he said was used by the TBI

and contained slight wording variations from the Greene County form. Agent Morton

said the Defendant’s oral account of the relevant facts was largely consistent with the

Defendant’s prior statement.

Agent Morton testified that after a break, he took a written statement from the

Defendant around 5:30 p.m. Agent Morton said the Defendant stated: On Tuesday

before the victim’s death, the Defendant and the victim had a disagreement about towels

the Defendant had used after his shower. The Defendant stated that the victim had

awakened the Defendant at 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. and had yelled and cursed at him. The

Defendant stated that the victim called him stupid and worthless, rubbed the towels in his

face, and threw the towels on the floor. The Defendant stated that he woke the next

morning, showered, and asked the victim for money for breakfast because there was no

food in the house. The Defendant stated that the victim said the Defendant was stupid

and worthless and did not have a job. The Defendant stated that the victim said he “did

all this stuff” when he was the Defendant’s age and that the victim threw ten dollars in

the floor and told the Defendant to “make do with it.” The Defendant stated that he left

for school, picked up his girlfriend, went to McDonald’s, and sent a text message to the

victim that the Defendant would do laundry, make coffee, and fix the victim’s uniform

when the Defendant got home. The Defendant stated that the victim would not send him

text messages when the victim was mad. The Defendant stated he did not call the victim

after school in order not to wake the victim. The Defendant stated he and his girlfriend

went to her house to get her running gear and went to track practice. The Defendant

stated that after track practice, he went home around 4:40 p.m. The Defendant stated the

victim was in the shower but told the Defendant after coming out of the shower that the

Defendant needed to do laundry. The Defendant stated the victim told him the victim

was going to bed and to wake him at 5:45 p.m. The Defendant stated he forgot to wake

the victim. The Defendant stated the victim woke around 5:55 p.m. and cursed at him,

asked why the Defendant did not wake the victim, and shoved the Defendant’s head into

a recliner and said the victim was going to lie down.

Agent Morton testified that the Defendant stated he was going to show the victim

“who the bigger man was” and that he went to the computer room to get the victim’s gun.

The Defendant stated that he went into the victim’s bedroom, that he turned on the light,

that the Defendant had his finger on the gun’s trigger, and that the Defendant had never

shot the gun but thought it had a safety. The Defendant stated that the victim stopped

-16-

snoring, that he thought the victim was awake and aware of the Defendant’s presence,

that the Defendant was startled when the victim snored again, and that the gun went off.

The Defendant stated that he had intended to wake the victim and ask if the victim

thought it was “cool” to yell at and beat the Defendant. The Defendant stated he was six

to eight feet from the victim when the shot was fired. The Defendant stated that when he

entered the room, the victim had bedcovers over his head and faced away from the

Defendant. The Defendant stated he panicked because he did not mean for this to

happen, that he almost became sick, that he turned off the light and left the room, and that

he decided to try to make it appear someone had broken into the house.

Agent Morton testified that the Defendant stated he went to his grandmother’s

house and stayed for about fifteen minutes before driving to a park and disposing of the

gun, which he had tied to a brick to prevent it from floating. The Defendant stated that he

drove around to think and that Captain Crum called him. The Defendant stated he

stopped to zip down the windows in his Jeep because he knew the victim would be mad if

the victim saw them up. The Defendant stated he did not know how the victim was, that

he went home and went inside the house, that he wanted to see if the victim was okay,

and that he could not go to the back of the house. The Defendant stated that Captain

Crum arrived shortly thereafter and that they went into the house. The Defendant stated

that Captain Crum went into the bedroom, came out, and took the Defendant outside.

The Defendant stated that Captain Crum asked the Defendant about the Defendant and

the victim’s relationship, that the Defendant said it was “crappy,” and that the Defendant

said he was yelled at or physically struck if he did not do things exactly right.

Agent Morton testified that the Defendant recounted several incidents involving

the victim’s using physical and verbal discipline or force. The Defendant recalled an

incident in which he had an empty twenty-four pack of beer in his Jeep. The Defendant

told Agent Morton that it was from a party, that he had not consumed any, and that he

forgot to throw it away. Defendant stated that the victim found it when the Defendant

was not home and would not believe it was not the Defendant’s. Agent Morton said the

Defendant stated that he had been afraid to go home and that when he did, the victim had

cursed at him, grabbed him, threw him against a wall, and smacked him. Agent Morton

said the Defendant stated that on another occasion, he had been at a movie theater, that

Michael Knapp told the victim that the Defendant had been drinking, and that when the

Defendant arrived at home, the victim was outside waiting and smacked him. Agent

Morton said the Defendant stated that on another occasion, the victim poked the

Defendant in the chest and that when the Defendant poked the victim’s chest in response,

the victim kneed the Defendant in the groin. The Defendant stated that his testicle

swelled but that the victim would not let him see a doctor and told the Defendant he

would do it again if the Defendant told anyone. The Defendant stated that the victim had

rubbed the victim’s face in chocolate the Defendant spilled and that he told the Defendant

-17-

it would teach him to make a mess. The Defendant stated that the victim claimed he had

never loved the Defendant’s mother, that it was the Defendant’s fault she died, and that

the victim should have been the last one to talk to the Defendant’s mother. Agent Morton

said the Defendant stated that if the Defendant lost a wrestling match, the victim held the

Defendant to the ground and that the Defendant had to beg the victim to get off him. The

Defendant claimed he told a girlfriend about the victim’s verbal abuse. Agent Morton

said the Defendant stated the victim grabbed the Defendant’s finger and bent it after the

victim caught the Defendant making an obscene gesture. The Defendant stated he

thought the finger was broken but was not permitted to seek medical treatment. The

Defendant stated that the victim stomped the Defendant’s big toe and broke it and that the

Defendant later told an emergency room doctor he had hit his toe on a door. The

Defendant stated that if he had a bruise or a black eye, he had to say it was from

wrestling. The Defendant’s March 25, 2010 statement was received as an exhibit. Agent

Morton said he and TBI Agent Mike Hannon were the only individuals present when the

statement was taken.

Agent Morton acknowledged that notes he created on March 26, 2010, the day

after he took the Defendant’s statement, stated that the Defendant had said the shooting

was an accident. Agent Morton acknowledged he had not used the word “accident” in

the Defendant’s written statement. He agreed that before the written statement was

taken, the Defendant asked hypothetical questions about an accidental or justifiable

shooting and that the Defendant then said the shooting had been an accident and that the

Defendant did not mean for it to happen. Agent Morton said his notes reflected what the

Defendant had said at a certain point and that when the written statement was created

thereafter, the Defendant had not used the words “accidental shooting.” Agent Morton

said the written statement was taken from approximately 2:53 until 6:53 p.m.

William Storm Wilson, a UTC student, testified that he and the Defendant were

high school classmates and friends. Mr. Wilson said he and the Defendant became

acquainted in a weightlifting class at the beginning of their senior year. Mr. Wilson said

he and the Defendant played video games at Mr. Wilson’s house and went out to eat

together. Mr. Wilson said the Defendant was not employed but had money when they

did anything that required money. Mr. Wilson said he and the Defendant were both

interested in physical therapy. Mr. Wilson thought the Defendant was interested in

attending UTC. Mr. Wilson thought the Defendant’s then-girlfriend was also interested

in attending UTC, although he could not recall if he and the Defendant discussed it. Mr.

Wilson did not see any indication the Defendant had been abused or beaten. Mr. Wilson

thought the Defendant mentioned a past wrist injury from wrestling. Mr. Wilson said the

Defendant did not wrestle his senior year but may have wrestled in middle school or as a

freshman. Mr. Wilson said the Defendant did not participate in extracurricular activities

and was “just working out.” Mr. Wilson said the Defendant did not talk about the victim

-18-

and that his only exposure had been when the Defendant spoke to the victim by

telephone. Mr. Wilson said the Defendant had been respectful to the victim on the

telephone. Mr. Wilson said the Defendant usually went home around 9:00 or 10:00 p.m.

and sometimes received calls to come home. He agreed the Defendant kept personal

matters to himself. He agreed the Defendant sometimes stepped out of the room during

telephone conversations with the victim. He agreed he never heard about the Defendant

and the victim’s disagreeing about where the Defendant would attend college. Mr.

Wilson agreed that he never saw the Defendant angry or aggressive and that the

Defendant was a good student.

Knox County Sheriff’s Deputy Timothy Belcher, a diver for the underwater

recovery team, testified that on March 25 or 26, 2010, the team went to Greeneville to

recover a weapon bound to a brick. He was the primary diver and recovered a Glock

pistol from a pond in the location in which he had been instructed to look. Deputy

Belcher said he had been advised that the weapon had a stovepipe round in it, meaning

the weapon had malfunctioned when it fired and had a casing that had not ejected

properly before the next round slid into the chamber. He said the weapon he recovered

was in this condition. He said they kept the weapon in water and stored it in a container,

which was in accord with the team’s training. He agreed the weapon he recovered was a

brand used by law enforcement and that he carried the same type of Glock 22, .40-caliber

weapon. He agreed that this type of Glock weapon had an external safety but would fire

if the trigger were pulled. He agreed the weapon was designed not to fire if dropped or if

trauma occurred to it.

Detective Mike Fincher was recalled and identified photographs of the

Defendant’s Jeep taken at the victim’s house during the crime scene investigation.

Detective Fincher said that photographs depicted a duffel bag in the Jeep’s floorboard

and twenty-one dollars in the Jeep’s center console. He identified a photograph of a for

sale sign that said “2007 low miles, soft top, 620-4198.” He said the sign had been on the

victim’s living room couch. He said the investigation showed that the vehicle described

in the sign was the Defendant’s Jeep and that the telephone number was that of one of the

victim’s cell phones.

Detective Fincher testified that the Defendant and the Defendant’s girlfriend, C.P.,

signed consent forms to allow the police to inspect their cell phones. He said he and

Angie Weems reviewed and photographed the text messages stored on the cell phones.

Detective Fincher read the text messages into evidence. The messages indicate the

Defendant and C.P. sent and received messages to each other on March 24 and 25, 2010,

which included the following: At 4:09 p.m. on March 24, the Defendant indicated in a

text message that he was at home doing the victim’s laundry and that he planned to visit

C.P. They discussed that they both had leg pain and that the Defendant got mad about

-19-

people “clapping and laughing.” They also discussed the girlfriend’s employment duties

that day and a dress she received. At 5:56 p.m., the Defendant apologized for the amount

of time he was taking and said he had to “do dad’s uniform.” At 6:38 p.m. the Defendant

stated in a text message that the victim was going to work late and was going to let the

Defendant “drive the Jeep.” At 6:44 p.m., the Defendant stated in a text message that he

was “on [his] way.” At 7:40 p.m., C.P. sent the Defendant a text message stating she had

asked her father to call an emergency room for the Defendant. At 7:41 p.m., the

Defendant sent her a text message stating, “Dad is gone.” The text messages reflect that

the Defendant and C.P. continued to send messages to each other later in the evening, that

they professed their love for each other, and that an unidentified person called C.P.’s

house about taking her cell phone.

Detective Fincher testified that a photograph of the victim’s bedroom showed an

alarm clock that displayed 1:49. He did not recall having seen an alarm clock on the

other side of the room. He agreed that no alarm clocks were collected as evidence. He

agreed that shortly after the victim’s death, the victim’s sister, Becky Self, received

permission to take items from the home and that the items from the house were sold at an

auction.

Detective Fincher testified that the information about the gun’s specific location in

the pond was not in the Defendant’s written statements. Detective Fincher agreed the

information was important.

Detective Fincher agreed that the Defendant’s jail telephone calls were monitored,

including calls to the Defendant’s grandmother and C.P. in which the Defendant

explained what happened to the victim. He agreed the telephone calls were recorded.

Detective Fincher agreed his written statement that he had recounted the Defendant’s

having “stated that he shot his father by accident.”

C.P. testified that she was a nursing student at Tennessee Technology Center but

that she previously attended UTC after graduating from high school. She agreed that she

was the Defendant’s girlfriend beginning in January or February of their senior year. She

said they had spent time together with a group of mutual friends before they became

involved romantically. She said they talked daily and sent frequent text messages. She

said she ate at a restaurant with the Defendant and the victim and that they were different

from her family because they ate in silence. She agreed the victim made fun of the

Defendant during the dinner for being pale and that the victim “took it,” was quiet, and

kept his head down. She never suspected the Defendant suffered abuse at home. She

said that the Defendant had injuries that were consistent with wrestling and that the

Defendant wrestled in middle school and high school. She could not recall if the

Defendant was a member of the wrestling team his senior year. She said the victim

-20-

blamed and accused the Defendant of things the Defendant did not do. Regarding the

case of beer the victim found, she said she told the Defendant to tell the truth and blame it

on her but that the Defendant would not because he did not want the victim to be mad at

her. She agreed that the victim thought she and the Defendant had been drinking at a

movie theater but said they had not.

C.P. testified that she was employed in March 2010 as a lifeguard at the YMCA.

She said the Defendant had been a good boyfriend. She said he visited her at work and

brought her dinner and drinks. She said the Defendant had a Jeep and had other vehicles

previously. She was unaware of the Defendant’s having to work to pay for the Jeep and

did not know who paid for it. She agreed the Defendant worked for the victim on a farm.

C.P. testified that on March 24, 2010, she saw the Defendant between classes, at

lunch, and after school. She did not sense anything unusual. She said that the Defendant

took her home after school to change clothes and that they went to track practice. She

said that before practice, the Defendant and another student backed into each other in a

parking lot, causing minimal damage. She said that the Defendant was upset because he

had been in wrecks previously and that they were in a hurry because they would have to

run extra for being late to practice. She said that the baseball team saw the accident and

that they yelled and made fun of them. She said she left practice before the Defendant

because she had to be at work at 4:00 p.m.

C.P. testified that she worked in the YMCA “child watch” area that day and that

she and the Defendant exchanged text messages while she worked. Regarding a text

message she received from the Defendant at 6:38 p.m., she said she assumed “he is fixing

mine” referred to the Defendant driving the victim’s Jeep. She agreed the collision that

occurred earlier had not affected the driveability of the Defendant’s Jeep.

C.P. testified that the victim was very strict with the Defendant. She said the

Defendant was not permitted to drive in snow and had to do the laundry at home and

keep the house clean.

C.P. testified that after she began dating the Defendant, she toured UTC with her

parents and the Defendant. She said she decided she wanted to attend college there. She

said her parents got along with the Defendant and were supportive of her relationship

with him. She was unsure if the Defendant had decided fully that he wanted to attend

UTC but said the Defendant and Storm Wilson discussed being roommates at UTC.

C.P. testified that the Defendant enjoyed working out. She did not know whether

he used “muscle builders” or nutritional supplements.

-21-

C.P. testified that in addition to communicating via text messages, she and the

Defendant spoke by telephone on March 24, 2010. She said that after the Defendant

called her and said he did not know where the victim was, she had her father, a surgeon,

call the emergency room to see if the victim was a patient.

C.P. testified that later in the evening of March 24, 2010, she went to the victim

and the Defendant’s home and that the Defendant was crying hysterically and dry-

heaving. She agreed she and her father took the Defendant to his grandmother’s house

and that he cried and gripped her hand on the way.

C.P. agreed that the Defendant told her the victim changed a lot after the

Defendant’s mother died. C.P. agreed the Defendant told her the victim blamed the

Defendant for the Defendant’s mother’s death.

C.P. agreed that after the Defendant was in jail, they talked. She agreed he told

her that he did not understand what happened, that it had been an accident, and that the

victim abused and hit the Defendant. She agreed she had asked the Defendant why he

had not told her sooner. She agreed the Defendant said it was humiliating. She

acknowledged the Defendant had told her the victim “smacked the s--- out of” the

Defendant before the victim went to bed, that the Defendant said he had never shot a gun

and thought the victim’s gun had a safety, and that the Defendant said he had gone to the

victim’s bedroom to confront the victim. She acknowledged the Defendant told her that

the victim had been snoring, that the victim stopped snoring, that the Defendant thought

the victim knew the Defendant was there, that the victim snored, and that the gun went

off. She agreed the Defendant said he had ruined his life and had hurt her and everyone

else. She agreed that she asked the Defendant why he had hidden what was happening at

home, he had said he did not know what to do and was scared. She agreed the Defendant

professed he had not meant to shoot the victim.

C.P. agreed she gave a statement to the police a few days after the victim’s death.

She acknowledged her memory would have been better at that time but said some things

did not “stick out” in her memory until later.

TBI Special Agent Forensic Scientist Steve Scott was accepted without objection

as an expert. Agent Scott said he had testified previously as an expert in the areas of

firearms identification, “fracture match for specific cases or in headlamp analysis,” crime

scene processing, and muzzle-to-garment distance processing.

Agent Scott testified that relative to this case, he examined a handgun, cartridge

case, ammunition, and a magazine identified as having come from a pond. He also

examined items identified as having come from the victim’s house: a bullet from a

-22-

pillow, a pistol from the master bedroom, and magazines and cartridges from a different

bedroom.

Relative to the handgun recovered from the pond, Agent Scott testified that he

received the weapon packaged in water from the pond. He said the weapon was tied with

plastic zip-tie cables to a brick. He said that because a weapon will rust once it is

removed from water, he had advised the police that the item should be submitted in water

from the pond in which it had been found and that he received the weapon in water. He

identified a fired cartridge case that had been “stovepiped in the action of the pistol.” He

identified unfired cartridges that were removed from the magazine.

Agent Scott testified that when a handgun of the same type as the one recovered

from the pond was fired, if the slide did not move far enough to the rear, the cartridge

case of the fired bullet could become trapped in the action, often sticking straight up from

the ejection port. He said this was referred to as a stovepipe. He said a stovepipe might

occur if the shooter did not grip the gun firmly, the shooter held the gun in a way that did

not provide a firm platform for the slide to move to the rear, if the shooter’s thumb was

against the slide, or if the slide came into contact with the shooter’s clothing.

Agent Scott testified that he determined the stovepipe round had been fired from

the handgun recovered from the pond. He said he could not determine if the fired bullet

recovered from the pillow had been fired from the handgun recovered from the pond. He

said it was often difficult to match fired ammunition with Glock weapons such as the one

recovered from the pond due to the rifling of this type of weapon.

Agent Scott testified that he did not find anything wrong functionally with the

handgun that would cause a stovepipe. He said his examination did not reveal anything

wrong with the handgun that would cause it to discharge on its own. He said the gun had

three safeties, all of which were working properly. He said the three safeties were

defeated by the pull of the trigger. He demonstrated the trigger safety to the jury and said

the safety’s lever had to be pressed into the face of the trigger in order to fire the gun. He

said the two remaining safeties consisted of the firing pin block and a “drop safety.” He

said that all three safeties worked properly when he fired the gun eleven times and that he

did not have a stovepipe or other difficulty when he fired the gun. He said that in his

opinion, the gun was functioning properly and that he could not determine the intent of a

shooter.

Agent Scott testified that he tested the handgun recovered from the pond to

determine the amount of force required to pull the trigger, which he said was eight and

three-fourths pounds. He said that Glock pistols with a “New York” trigger had a

definitive stopping point once a trigger was pressed and that beyond this point, additional

-23-

pressure caused the gun to fire. He said the New York trigger was not necessarily harder

to fire but removed a stop in the middle, creating a smoother trigger pull. He said,

however, the handgun from the pond did not have a New York trigger. He said that

although no good definition for a “hair trigger” existed, he had used the term to refer to a

trigger pull force of one to one and one-half pounds. He said the handgun from the pond

did not have a hair trigger. He said the trigger pull on Glock pistols would feel the same

without regard to whether the gun was loaded with ammunition.

Agent Scott testified that he examined the comforter from the victim‟s bed. He

said that published studies showed that a pistol such as the one recovered from the pond

would leave gunshot residue on target material from a distance of approximately four feet

or less. He said he found “a very few stray gunpowder particles” on the comforter but

that the number was too minimal to allow him to form an informed opinion about how

they were deposited. At defense counsel‟s request, Agent Scott read a portion of his

report for the jury. The report stated that no gunpowder residues were found with respect

to one hole in the comforter, which precluded further “muzzle to garment testing,” and

that “lead residues consistent with the passage of a bullet” were present with respect to a

second hole. Agent Scott agreed that he was unable to determine, due to the miniscule

amount of gunpowder residue present, whether the weapon had been fired from within or

beyond four feet. He said he was unable to form an opinion about the distance from

which the shot was fired. He agreed that if the shot had been fired within four feet, a

sufficient pattern of gunshot residue “could” exist for him to conclude that the shot had

been from within four feet. He had no opinion of the distance beyond four feet from

which the weapon had been fired. He agreed it was possible the particles could have

been transferred onto the comforter due to the way the comforter had been packaged. He

agreed the comforter was submitted to the TBI Laboratory on April 1, 2010 but that

testing did not begin until February 2011.

Agent Scott testified that gunshot residue testing would reveal more residues for

shots fired from a closer distance. With respect to lead residues, he said the residues

dissipated and would no longer be deposited on target material after a distance of

eighteen to twenty-four inches. With respect to gunpowder residues, he said they were

detected up to a distance of about four feet. He said his testing included three tests which

developed a pattern of gunpower residues and one which developed a pattern of lead

residues.

Agent Scott testified that he had attended the deposition of Dr. Bryce Anderson

relative to the Glock pistol recovered from the pond. Agent Scott said that he had been a

TBI assistant firearms instructor and that he was familiar with the training for a Glock

pistol. He demonstrated the proper technique for holding a Glock pistol and said he

learned the technique in his TBI training. He agreed that improper holding technique,

-24-

which he referred to as “limp wristing,” was a cause of stovepiping. He agreed that he

had been trained to keep his finger outside of the trigger guard because if the weapon

were loaded, it would be ready to fire. He agreed that police officers were trained to keep

their Glock pistols cocked, loaded, and ready to fire. He agreed that TBI agent training

included having a cartridge loaded in the agent‟s gun chambers and to have a full

magazine inserted. He agreed that having a bullet in the chamber ready to fire was what

he would have expected for a law enforcement officer‟s gun.

Agent Scott testified that an unintended discharge of a firearm occurred when an

individual pulled the trigger and the gun functioned as it was intended, yet the person had

not intended to discharge the firearm. He said that twice he had caused an unintended

discharge of a firearm. He agreed that a sympathetic reflex involved an involuntary

reaction such as when a person was startled. He agreed that if a person had the person‟s

hand on the trigger of a Glock pistol and had already begun to take up slack almost to the

point of firing, it would be possible for the pistol to fire when the hand squeezed in a

sympathetic reflex. He agreed this could be categorized as an unintended discharge. He

agreed that he was aware of cases involving police officers and unintended discharges.

He agreed that a stovepipe might occur if a person did not hold a Glock pistol properly

without regard to whether the person intended to pull the trigger.

Using three handguns provided by the defense, Agent Scott demonstrated their

operation. All of these weapons had external safety mechanisms, unlike the Glock pistol

recovered from the pond.

Rebecca Self, the victim‟s sister, testified that the Defendant was the victim‟s only

child and her mother‟s only grandchild. She said that her father was deceased but that

her mother was still alive. She said the victim came to the family farm as often as he

could to help. She said the Defendant did some work on the farm but had not done a

significant amount because prior to her death, the Defendant‟s mother had been afraid

that the Defendant would get hurt by the machinery. She said the Defendant was allowed

to pick calves to raise and received money from his grandparents when they sold the

livestock. She said that when the Defendant was young, he had stayed with his maternal

grandmother on weeknights and that his paternal grandmother picked him up from school

on Fridays in order for him to stay at the farm on the weekend.

Ms. Self testified that she saw the Defendant almost every weekend. She said that

he spent time at her house and that they shopped and did things together. She said he

played football in middle school, was on the wrestling team in middle and high schools,

and was on the track team. She said he had bruises which resolved after wrestling

season. She never saw him with any injuries that alarmed her.

-25-

Ms. Self testified that on the day of the victim‟s death, she was notified by a

manager at her workplace that her brother had been shot. She said that her Uncle Jim and

Aunt Shirley came to her workplace and that they looked for the Defendant at his

grandmothers‟ houses, although he had already gone to the sheriff‟s office. She was

concerned about the Defendant because he had lost both parents.

Ms. Self testified that she did not see the Defendant until 2:00 a.m. the following

morning. She said that the Defendant wanted to stay with his maternal grandmother

rather than going to her house, that she took him to his grandmother‟s house, and that he

was “real quiet.” She said the Defendant called around 10:00 or 11:00 a.m. and stated

that the police wanted him to go to the victim‟s house. She said she and her parents

picked up the Defendant and took him to the victim‟s house. The Defendant‟s maternal

grandmother and maternal aunt also went to the victim‟s house. She said the family

waited outside while Detective Fincher took the Defendant through the house. She said

that the Defendant brought out a cat for his maternal grandmother to take to her house,

that he fed a dog, and that Detective Fincher allowed the Defendant to retrieve some

clothing.

Ms. Self testified that the Defendant stated the house was “really messed up” but

that he did not specify if the Defendant meant the house had been messed up by the TBI

or burglars. She said the Defendant stated that he did not want the house and that he

guessed they could title his Jeep in his name.

Ms. Self testified that as an only child and only paternal grandchild, the Defendant

“pretty much got what he wanted[.]” She said that after the Defendant‟s mother died, the

victim asked her to take the Defendant shopping for school, that the victim told her to

buy whatever the Defendant wanted, that the victim reimbursed her, and that the clothing

bill each of the two or three times was $400 to $500. She said the Defendant was not

employed. She agreed the Defendant helped with household chores. When asked if the

victim said anything untoward or alarming to the Defendant in her presence, she said,

“not really.” She thought the victim had been a good father.

Ms. Self testified that she did not like the victim‟s dating after the Defendant‟s

mother‟s death. She thought the victim should have spent more time with the Defendant.

She said, though, that the Defendant was not upset and did not understand her

displeasure.

Ms. Self testified that on the day of the victim‟s memorial service, which was

three or four days after the victim‟s death, the Defendant called her from jail. She said

that she was aware of the abuse allegations the Defendant made about the victim and that

she asked him in the telephone conversation on the day of the memorial service why he

-26-

had not told someone about the alleged abuse. She said the Defendant had not answered

her. She said the Defendant could have stayed with her if necessary.

Ms. Self agreed that the Defendant and the victim discussed the Defendant‟s

desire to go to UTC but did not recall the victim‟s objecting to the Defendant being

Storm Wilson‟s roommate. She recalled the victim‟s thinking beer he found in the

Defendant‟s Jeep belonged to Mr. Wilson but did not recall any discussion of the

Defendant and Mr. Wilson living together at UTC. She thought C.P. planned to go to

UTC, as well. She agreed that other than a ticket for running a red light, the Defendant

had not had any legal problems.

Abraham Brietstein, Ph.D., an expert in psychology, testified for the defense that

he examined the Defendant at the State‟s request on July 5, 2013, about a month before

the trial. His examination included taking the Defendant‟s personal history. He said the

Defendant provided a detailed history of the victim‟s physical and emotional abuse of the

Defendant and the Defendant‟s mother. Dr. Brietstein read from his report, which stated

that the Defendant‟s account was believable despite the fact that no one close to the

victim was aware of any abuse because it was not uncommon for abuse of this nature to

be unknown to anyone outside the immediate family. Dr. Brietstein stated in the report

that the detailed history of abuse was consistent with the type of abuse perpetrated by

someone who presents a different image in public than at home. Dr. Brietstein also stated

in the report that the escalation of the abuse the Defendant reported as having occurred

after the Defendant‟s mother‟s death was consistent with the likelihood that the

Defendant‟s mother had been a buffer between the victim and the Defendant. Dr.

Brietstein‟s report noted that the Defendant reported escalating abuse before the victim‟s

death, resulting in the Defendant‟s desire to stand up to the victim and show the victim

who was the bigger man. The report stated, “Thus, Ethan, being a victim of abuse, felt as

if he had had enough, took matters into his own hands and decided to confront his father

with the gun, the outcome being all but inevitable.” When asked on cross-examination to

explain his statement that the outcome had been all but inevitable, Dr. Brietstein

responded, “Well, what I mean is what I go on to say and explain is that I do not believe

this to have been an accident.” Upon defense objection, the trial court struck the

response from the evidence and instructed the jury to disregard it.

A video recording of Dr. Brietstein‟s interview of the Defendant was played for

the jury.4 In the recording, the Defendant recounted that on the day before the victim‟s

4

The trial court instructed the jury that the Defendant‟s statements in the recorded interview were not

substantive evidence and should be considered for the limited purposes of evaluating (1) the effect, if any,

of the Defendant‟s statements had upon Dr. Brietstein‟s expert opinions and (2) the Defendant‟s

-27-

death, the Defendant told the victim that the Defendant was going to live with the

Defendant‟s maternal grandmother, that the victim became angry and kneed the

Defendant in the groin, that the victim later woke the Defendant and smothered him with

a towel the Defendant had used without permission, and that the victim eventually

stopped the assault.

In the recorded interview with Dr. Brietstein, the Defendant said that on the

morning of the victim‟s death, the Defendant asked the victim for money to buy

breakfast. The Defendant recalled that the victim called the Defendant lazy and threw

$10 on the floor. The Defendant said in the interview that he had been unable to

participate fully in track practice because his testicle was swollen and sore from the

victim‟s assault the previous day. The Defendant recalled that he was scared to tell the

victim about a minor wreck in which his and another student‟s bumpers collided and that

he knew the victim would find out from the police officer assigned to the school if the

Defendant did not tell him that day. The Defendant stated in the interview that after he

went home, he failed to wake the victim at the appropriate time and that the victim

grabbed the Defendant‟s head and slammed it into a recliner. The Defendant said that the

victim went back to bed and that the Defendant decided to tell the victim he was unhappy

with the way the victim treated him. The Defendant said in the interview that he was

scared, that he got the victim‟s gun, and that he never meant to hurt the victim. The

Defendant stated that after he opened the victim‟s bedroom door, the victim‟s irregular

snoring startled the Defendant and caused the gun to fire, and that the shooting had been

an accident. The Defendant stated that he turned on the light to check on the victim and

saw that the victim appeared dead. The Defendant said in the interview that he did not

know how to handle the loss of his father, whom he loved despite the abuse, that he was

scared and did not think anyone would believe him, and that he panicked and staged the

house to look like a break-in had occurred. The Defendant stated that he went to his

maternal grandmother‟s house for about fifteen minutes before going to a park and

throwing the gun into a small pond. He said that he took zip ties from his and the

victim‟s house and that he used them to attach the gun to a brick.

Dr. Brietstein testified that it was important to receive truthful information from a

person he evaluated. He agreed that a person charged with first degree murder might

have a motivation to tell him things that were untrue. He said he typically did collateral

interviews or reviewed records in conducting court-related evaluations. He agreed that

he did not have any evidence to corroborate the Defendant‟s abuse claim and that he

nevertheless found it believable. He said that in his opinion, the Defendant‟s claim was

truthful but acknowledged he could not say definitively it was true.

demeanor.

-28-

Paul Kelley, M.D., an expert in psychiatry, testified that at defense counsel‟s

request, he evaluated the Defendant on December 3, 2010. His evaluation consisted of a

three-hour interview and reviewing the psychological testing performed by Dr. Eric

Engum.

Dr. Kelley testified that the Defendant stated he felt safer in jail than he had at

home because the Defendant did not have to worry about the victim hitting him or

screaming at him. Dr. Kelley said the Defendant admitted struggling with anxiety, guilt,

sadness, and remorse since the Defendant‟s mother‟s death and later, his father‟s death.

Dr. Kelley said the Defendant spoke tearfully of the Defendant‟s mother, whom the

Defendant said he missed daily. Dr. Kelley said the Defendant described his mother as

his shield and protector. Dr. Kelley said the Defendant described the constant threat of

inmate violation and predation in jail, yet the Defendant said he felt safer in jail than he

had at home with the victim. The Defendant said that he had made friends in jail who

cheered him up, supported him, and liked him. Dr. Kelley said the Defendant mentioned

nightmares of being chased by monsters and criminals and nightmares about his father

rising from death and trying to harm the Defendant. Dr. Kelley acknowledged that the

report of another mental health professional, Dr. Eric Engum, who met with the

Defendant three times, stated that the Defendant denied insomnia and that the Defendant

reported normal dream activity without traumatic activity.

Dr. Kelley testified that the Defendant stated his mother had tried to protect the

Defendant from the victim. Dr. Kelley said the Defendant stated he had been told by his

mother never to make the victim mad. The Defendant related to Dr. Kelley that he woke

several times to hear his parents fighting. The Defendant told Dr. Kelley he had seen the

victim smack the Defendant‟s mother “sometimes.” Dr. Kelley said the Defendant

recounted hearing the victim say repeatedly that he would do as he wanted because he

was the ruler of the household and “the king of the castle.” Dr. Kelley said the Defendant

described an incident in which the Defendant heard a sound like a slap that made him

think the victim was hurting the Defendant‟s mother. The Defendant told Dr. Kelley that

he investigated but was sent to his room by his mother, who came to his room a few

minutes later and said, “[L]et‟s go right now.” The Defendant told Dr. Kelley that he had

been terrified and that they drove away from the house with the victim trying to open the

car door. The Defendant described an incident in which the victim hit the Defendant in

the face and broke the Defendant‟s nose but would not allow medical treatment. The

Defendant said that in another incident, he made a gesture behind the victim‟s back after

the victim yelled at him, but the victim saw a reflection and broke the Defendant‟s finger.

The Defendant said that the victim would not allow him to seek medical treatment and

that the Defendant told his friends he had a wrestling injury. The Defendant also

recounted an incident in eighth grade in which the Defendant popped his toes, which

-29-

annoyed the victim. The Defendant told Dr. Kelley the victim stomped the Defendant‟s

foot while the victim wore police boots, which broke the Defendant‟s big toe. The

Defendant said he eventually received medical treatment after developing an infection, at

which point the Defendant‟s mother took him to a hospital. The situation was beyond the

capability of a Greeneville hospital, and the Defendant was hospitalized for several days

in Knoxville. Dr. Kelley said the Defendant described his family life as being a continual

and sometimes desperate struggle to avoid being beaten, terrorized, and humiliated. Dr.

Kelley said this description was significant because it was typical of children abused

within their families.

Dr. Kelley testified that the Defendant said he tried to make the victim proud of

him by participating the same things the victim had done, such as football and wrestling.

The Defendant described the victim as being a “man‟s man.” The Defendant told Dr.

Kelley that the victim had come to four to six of the Defendant‟s matches and that the

Defendant had participated in over 100 matches. Dr. Kelley said the Defendant stated

that when the Defendant lost wrestling matches, the victim held down the Defendant, got

on top of him, struck him, and told him he was pathetic and a loser. Dr. Kelley said the

Defendant described occasional affection from the victim. Dr. Kelley said that witness

accounts of the victim‟s expressing love at the end of conversations with the Defendant

could be explained by the difference in the public and private images presented by an

abusive family member in cases of child abuse. Dr. Kelley said the Defendant reported

that the victim expressed his love for the Defendant only if another person were present.

The Defendant told Dr. Kelley that most of the time, the victim treated the Defendant

with disdain and as if the Defendant were a nuisance. Dr. Kelley said that the Defendant

stated he “wanted a dad” and that the Defendant was overcome with emotion.

Dr. Kelley testified that in his opinion, the Defendant‟s mother‟s death had a

profound impact on the Defendant. Dr. Kelley said that the Defendant lost his protector

and confidante and that the Defendant was vulnerable to the victim‟s temper and

mistreatment. Dr. Kelley said the Defendant related that the victim had not arranged

counseling for the Defendant after the Defendant‟s mother‟s death, even after the

Defendant‟s grandmother asked the victim to send the Defendant to counseling to help

the Defendant deal with the loss. The Defendant told Dr. Kelley that the victim did not

“believe in” counseling and that the victim thought a man should not cry or complain.

Dr. Kelley said that in his professional opinion, the failure to provide the Defendant with

counseling was significant. Dr. Kelley said that counseling would provide a child in a

situation such as the Defendant‟s with the means to work through his grief in a healthy

way and to move beyond it. Dr. Kelley said the Defendant related that the victim both

criticized him for not appearing to miss the Defendant‟s mother and ridiculed him as not

being “manly” when he cried or tried to talk about his mother‟s death. Dr. Kelley said

-30-

the Defendant described a period of depression after the death. The Defendant related

that he felt like his life was over after his mother died.

Dr. Kelley testified that the Defendant stated the abuse escalated after the

Defendant‟s mother‟s death. The Defendant told Dr. Kelley that the victim hit the

Defendant at least weekly and that the Defendant had black eyes or bruises he explained

as being from falls or wrestling.

Dr. Kelley testified that the Defendant said he made a decision on March 23, 2010,

that he had to move out of the victim‟s house and that he was going to live with his

grandmother. Dr. Kelley said the Defendant stated he told the victim, who laughed and

said something like, “[Y]ou think you can do this to me.” The Defendant said the victim

grabbed the Defendant‟s shoulders and kneed him in the groin, causing the Defendant to

drop to the ground. The Defendant said the victim called the Defendant a profane name

and told him to go to his room. The Defendant told Dr. Kelley that the victim stated,

“You aren‟t leaving so get over it.” The Defendant told Dr. Kelley he eventually fell

asleep but woke around 10:30 p.m. and showered. The Defendant used a “forbidden

towel” he knew he was not supposed to use, and he hid it afterward. According to the

Defendant‟s account to Dr. Kelley, around 3:00 a.m. the victim woke him by yelling

about the Defendant‟s disposing of a forbidden towel. The Defendant said that the victim

began smothering him with the towel, that the Defendant was desperate and unable to

breathe, that the victim called him a “worthless piece of s---,” and that the victim

eventually stopped. The Defendant told Dr. Kelley he had been fearful and unable to

sleep the rest of the night.

Dr. Kelley testified that the Defendant said he asked for money for food on the

morning of March 24, 2010, and that the victim said something derogatory and threw $10

on the floor. Dr. Kelley said the Defendant described the victim as “ranting” about the

Defendant‟s not having a job and the victim‟s being the sole provider. The Defendant

told Dr. Kelley he had been unable to complete track practice that afternoon due to

residual groin pain.

Dr. Kelley testified that the Defendant said that when he went home on the

afternoon of March 24, 2010, the victim told him to wake the victim in about an hour.

The Defendant watched cartoons and was a few minutes late to wake the victim. The

Defendant told Dr. Kelley that the victim stormed into the room, called him worthless

and an idiot, banged the Defendant‟s head on the back of a recliner, said he was going

back to bed, and instructed the Defendant to wake him in twenty minutes. The Defendant

told Dr. Kelley that he realized he had to get out and that he decided to tell the victim he

was leaving and would not be hit by the victim again. The Defendant told Dr. Kelley he

knew the likely response and thought his only hope was to have a weapon for protection.

-31-

The Defendant told Dr. Kelley he took the victim‟s police weapon and went to the

victim‟s bedroom. The Defendant told Dr. Kelley that the room was dark and that the

Defendant could not really see the victim. The Defendant said the victim had sleep apnea

and snored loudly. The Defendant told Dr. Kelley that he was scared, that he felt dizzy or

“in a fog,” that he thought the victim stopped breathing, that the victim snorted or made a

sound, that this terrified the Defendant, that the Defendant thought he saw the bedcovers

move, that the Defendant had a “flash” and thought the victim was about to “come at”

him, and that the gun went off.

Dr. Kelley testified that the Defendant said he did not know what to do after the

gun went off. The Defendant told Dr. Kelley that he turned on the light and saw the

victim had what appeared to be a mortal wound to the back of the head. Dr. Kelley said

the Defendant had difficulty putting into words what had happened. Dr. Kelley thought

the Defendant had said the Defendant turned off the light because he could not stand to

see the victim in this state and that the Defendant felt nauseated. Dr. Kelley said the

Defendant stated that he had been terrified, that he thought no one would believe him if

he said what actually happened, and that he decided to make the home appear as if a

break-in had occurred. Dr. Kelley said the Defendant stated the shooting had been an

accident.

Dr. Kelley testified that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was “a way to

organize the chaos of what happens when somebody has undergone an incredibly

traumatic experience.” He said that in his opinion, the Defendant was abused as a child

and developed PTSD as a result. He said PTSD was characterized by a severe trauma,

avoidance of circumstances that remind the person of the trauma, an exaggerated startle

response, and “intrusive recollections” of the trauma. In Dr. Kelley‟s opinion, all of these

characteristics were present in the Defendant. Dr. Kelley did not think the Defendant‟s

PTSD was a result of shooting the victim and being charged criminally but said the PTSD

“very possibly” might have worsened as a result of the events of the shooting. He

acknowledged that shooting one‟s father could be a sufficient stressor to cause PTSD.

Relative to the bedroom shooting scenario the Defendant described, Dr. Kelley

testified that a person with PTSD going into a confrontation with the abuser would be

scared and in a state of “hyper arousal.” He said a person with PTSD in this situation

would have an exaggerated startle response and would not be in a “normal state of mind.”

Dr. Kelley said that in his opinion, the Defendant was incapable of rationalizing what he

was doing. He said a person with PTSD in such a situation would be unable to think,

would act on instinct, and would be in a dream-like state. He said the Defendant‟s

account of being startled and the gun going off had a “ring of genuineness” based upon

Dr. Kelley‟s experience in talking with PTSD patients. He thought the change in what

-32-

the Defendant heard relative to the victim‟s breathing had caused the Defendant‟s

exaggerated startle response.

Dr. Kelley testified that one of his psychiatric specialties was in detecting

malingering, or lying about a psychiatric illness. In his opinion, the Defendant was

truthful with him. Dr. Kelley noted that the Defendant‟s presentation was consistent with

that of a child who had been abused in the manner described by the Defendant. He said

the Defendant‟s nonverbal behavior was consistent with the Defendant‟s verbal

statements. Dr. Kelley did not see evidence of mood swings or issues with impulse

control or temper in the Defendant. Dr. Kelley said the Defendant did not appear

unusually anxious or nervous.

Dr. Kelley testified that children the age of the Defendant commonly were afraid

to disclose abuse by a family member. He said it was common, in circumstances such as

those described by the Defendant, for a person not to disclose long-term child abuse. Dr.

Kelley said it was particularly common for a person with PTSD not to disclose child

abuse. He said that many abuse victims fled the relationship but that the Defendant‟s fear

of retaliation or losing the relationship with the victim probably rendered the Defendant

unable to flee. Dr. Kelley said PTSD impacted a person‟s ability to think through

problems and choose reasonable solutions. In Dr. Kelley‟s opinion, the Defendant‟s

PTSD-related fear prevented the Defendant from fleeing, which Dr. Kelley said was

supported by psychiatric literature. In Dr. Kelley‟s opinion, the Defendant‟s PTSD

would have affected the Defendant‟s post-shooting conduct in attempting to make it

appear as if a break-in had occurred. Dr. Kelley said that a person with PTSD received

inaccurate messages from the brain and that a person with PTSD reacted differently than

a person who did not have PTSD. In Dr. Kelley‟s opinion, the Defendant‟s going into the

victim‟s bedroom with a gun was due to PTSD. Dr. Kelley said that a person with PTSD

due to long-term abuse might be capable of having intent for an action but that the

person‟s nervous system would create a different emotional response and reaction. He

agreed that the fear could overtake and supplant any intent and said that a person with

PTSD might act due to a nervous system response without the response having gone

through the “thinking brain.” Dr. Kelley said that in his opinion, the Defendant‟s account

of the events of the shooting were consistent with the psychiatric profession‟s

understanding of PTSD and with the startle response having caused the gun to misfire.

Dr. Kelley acknowledged he had not seen text messages sent between the

Defendant and C.P. on the March 24, 2010. He acknowledged that he had not reviewed

witness statements relative to the Defendant‟s death or interviewed teachers, friends, or

family members and that he had not reviewed the Defendant‟s jail telephone calls. He

was unaware of a for sale sign for the Jeep that was in the victim‟s house. Dr. Kelley

said he had reviewed the recording and the transcript of the interview Dr. Brietstein

-33-

conducted of the Defendant in recent weeks but that the information had not been a factor

in his report.

Bryce Anderson, Ph.D., testified through a video deposition which was played for

the jury. In the deposition, the defense offered Dr. Anderson as a firearms expert,

although the defense did not obtain a ruling at the trial regarding Dr. Anderson‟s

qualifications. We note that Dr. Anderson stated in his deposition that he had never

previously testified as a firearms or ballistics expert. The State did not object at the trial

to Dr. Anderson‟s qualifications as an expert.

Dr. Anderson testified that he examined the Glock weapon in this case and that he

reviewed photographs and documents relevant to the case. Using a Glock G22, .40-

caliber pistol that he said was a former law enforcement weapon similar to the gun used

in this case, he demonstrated the gun‟s operation. He said that Glocks did not have

external safety mechanisms and that they had three internal safety mechanisms. He said

that if a round were in the chamber of a Glock and the trigger were pulled, the gun would

fire. He said no button or lever had to be manipulated to make a Glock fire. He said that

with a weapon of this nature, a person experienced with firearms could tell whether a

round was in the chamber by recognizing an extractor pushed out a few one-thousands of

an inch. He said training was critical with Glock weapons.

Dr. Anderson testified that the main causes of accidental discharge of a weapon

were carelessness and ignorance. He said that firearms training included the principle of

keeping one‟s finger off the trigger until the person was ready to fire. He said that a

potential for accidental discharge existed if an untrained person handled a weapon with

the person‟s finger on the trigger. He said an accidental discharge might also result from

something causing a person‟s grip to tighten and finger to pull in while holding a gun.

He said research had shown that sympathetic movement could result in various ways.

First, if one side of the body moved, the corresponding body part on the other side might

also move. Second, sympathetic movement could result from loss of balance. Third, it

could result from a startle reflex, which he said was typically from auditory stimulation.

Dr. Anderson testified that typical adult male hand grip strength was 125 pounds

and that for the index finger, the median value was around fifty-six pounds. He said

research showed that with involuntary actions, the “pull” strength could be 25% of these

figures, which he said was twelve to fourteen pounds.

Regarding the gun he examined in this case, Dr. Anderson testified that it

functioned correctly but that it failed the recoil spring test. His testing showed the trigger

pull on this gun was in the range of about eight to nine pounds. He said the Glock

standards for this weapon specified that the distance the trigger was required to be pulled

-34-

before the gun discharged was one-half inch. He said that with this type of weapon, the

magazine was not readily visible when it was loaded into the grip.

Regarding the stovepipe found in the gun in this case, Dr. Anderson testified that

the causes of stovepiping included mechanical failure and limp-wristing, which he said

was failing to hold the gun without locking the wrist and being unprepared for the recoil.

He said Glocks were reliable weapons and that the cause of a stovepipe was usually firing

by an inexperienced shooter. He said his examination was inconclusive regarding

whether the stovepipe in the weapon in this case occurred from incorrect handling by the

shooter. He said Glocks could also stovepipe in the presence of a weak recoil spring. He

said that a weak recoil spring was not obvious and that a Glock with a weak recoil spring

could be operated without malfunction by an experienced shooter. He said that the gun

he examined was dirty with evident corrosion on the slide, slide lock, trigger safety pin,

trigger pin, and other parts and that it was in poor condition. He acknowledged he did

not know the condition in which the Glock had been delivered to the TBI. He agreed that

despite its condition, the weapon worked properly when he fired it forty-seven times.

When asked to identify the best evidence of the claim of accidental shooting in this case,

he said it was the stovepipe malfunction.

Gary Schaffer, a retired Knoxville Police Department officer, testified as an expert

witness in training for the use of Glock weapons. He said that keeping one‟s finger out of

the trigger area until the sights are aligned and the person determined he or she wanted to

shoot the target was the only method specified in training to prevent unintentional firing.

He said the operator was the only person who could prevent an accidental misfire of a

gun without an external safety. He said police officers were trained to keep the trigger

finger extended along the slide above the trigger guard.

Mr. Schaffer described the methods for holding a firearm that were part of law

enforcement training. He demonstrated the proper holding technique. He said that the

weapon involved in this case could be fired through repeated trigger pulls as quickly as

three to four times per second. He said the weapon in this case would shoot where it was

pointed.

Mr. Schaffer testified that a Glock in the hands of someone untrained was a

“disaster” and involved the “potential loss of human life every time.” He agreed that

Glock handguns were point-and-shoot weapons. In Mr. Schaffer‟s opinion, Glock

weapons were inferior to Sig Sauer weapons for police use. He said police departments

often chose Glocks because they were less expensive.

-35-

V.Q.5 testified that she dated the Defendant from the end of her sophomore year

until her senior year. She described the Defendant as respectful, decent, helpful, and

peaceful. She said that she met the victim about a year into her relationship with the

Defendant. She said the victim was arrogant, not talkative, and did not care about

another person‟s life unless the person affected the victim‟s life. She said that during

telephone conversations she had with the Defendant, she often heard the victim yell and

scream at the Defendant and that the Defendant sometimes ended the calls abruptly. She

said that she had visited the victim‟s house and that the victim was particular about

cleanliness. She thought the victim had to “nitpick” the Defendant in order to deal with

the victim‟s anger and said that every time she was around the Defendant and the victim,

the victim found fault with the Defendant. She said the victim and the Defendant did not

have a normal parent-child relationship.

V.Q. testified that the Defendant helped his grandparents at the family farm

without pay. She said that she tried to get the victim‟s approval, that she gave him a hug

on one occasion, and that the victim had tensed when she hugged him. She said that the

Defendant was required to have the victim‟s uniform and coffee ready before the victim

went to work and that the victim was particular about the details. She said that when the

victim came to her parents‟ house for photographs before the prom, he did not talk to her

parents and appeared not to want to be there.

V.Q. testified that the Defendant appeared ashamed of the victim‟s verbal abuse.

She said that the Defendant cried about the victim but that the Defendant told her the

victim did not hit him. She said she had related the Defendant‟s bruises to wrestling.

When asked if, in her opinion, the victim had a reputation for violence, she responded

affirmatively. When asked if, in her opinion, the Defendant had a reputation for

peacefulness, she said he did. She acknowledged she never saw the victim abuse the

Defendant physically. She said that although she saw the victim “yell” at the Defendant,

she never witnessed a full argument. She said that although she witnessed the Defendant

tell the victim that the Defendant loved the victim, she never witnessed the victim‟s

expressing love for the Defendant.

Beth Amis, the Defendant‟s maternal aunt, testified that the victim and the

Defendant‟s mother had always had a rocky relationship, even before they married. She

said they argued frequently, even when they dated. She said the victim was controlling

and rigid about how the Defendant‟s mother presented herself, with whom she was

allowed to talk, and places where she was allowed to go. She recalled an incident when

the Defendant‟s mother and the victim dated in which the Defendant‟s mother came

5

It is the policy of this court to refer to minors by their initials to protect their identity.

-36-

home with a bruise under her jaw. Ms. Amis said the Defendant‟s mother told their

parents that she fell at work. Ms. Amis said, however, that the victim had hit the

Defendant‟s mother. Ms. Amis said the Defendant‟s mother did not confide in her about

any abuse after this incident.

Ms. Amis testified that although the victim could be charming in short

conversations, he was prejudiced against people due to race or sexual preference. She

said he did not seem to like anyone and spoke poorly of his coworkers. She recalled that

at the Defendant‟s birthday party, the victim took Ms. Amis‟s husband into another room

and showed him pornography. She recalled that the Defendant‟s mother‟s having a

hysterectomy and that the victim told the Defendant‟s mother in the hospital that he

might as well have sex with a man because she was no longer a woman. She said that

over the course of the victim and the Defendant‟s mother‟s marriage, the victim liked Ms.

Amis less and that by the time of the Defendant‟s mother‟s death, the Defendant‟s mother

only called Ms. Amis from work. Ms. Amis said that over time, the victim allowed the

Defendant to visit Ms. Amis‟s children less and that the Defendant was not around Ms.

Amis‟s family at all after the Defendant‟s mother‟s death.

Ms. Amis testified that the victim had a violent temper and that she had witnessed

violent incidents at his home. She said the Defendant‟s mother did all the housework and

yard work and took care of the Defendant. Ms. Amis said that the victim worked and

slept in his recliner and that if the household was not in suitable order, “[T]here was h---

to pay.”

Ms. Amis testified that in her opinion, the Defendant had a peaceful reputation.

She said that he played vigorously with her children but that they never scuffled or

caused trouble. She said the Defendant was sweet, good natured, and agreeable.

Ms. Amis testified that the Defendant had been the Defendant‟s mother‟s “life.”

Ms. Amis agreed the Defendant‟s mother was protective of the Defendant. She agreed

that the Defendant‟s mother had been a nurse and that the Defendant‟s mother had taken

care of the Defendant‟s childhood injuries.

Ms. Amis acknowledged that she had allowed one of her children to go on

vacation with the victim, the Defendant, the Defendant‟s mother and noted that the

victim‟s sister had also been present. Ms. Amis said that the Defendant never talked to

her about his family and that she did not feel comfortable talking to him about his family.

She said the Defendant told her that he thought the victim blamed the Defendant for the

Defendant‟s mother‟s death and that the victim hated the Defendant because the

Defendant was the last person to speak with the Defendant‟s mother before she died.

-37-

Kim Shelton testified that she was the Defendant‟s sophomore and senior English

teacher. She said the Defendant was sweet, reserved, pleasant, and polite. She said he

smiled often. She described him as a good student who worked hard, completed

assignments, and made As and Bs. She did not recall his acting out or having problems.

She agreed he seemed to be composed and level-headed. When asked about the

Defendant‟s reputation for peacefulness, she described him as “calm.”

Alice Limna testified that she and the Defendant‟s mother attended nursing school

together and worked together for twenty years. Ms. Limna said that she and the

Defendant‟s mother usually worked the same night shifts at Laughlin Memorial Hospital.

Ms. Limna said the Defendant‟s mother loved him, would have done anything for him,

and talked about him frequently.

Ms. Limna testified that she met the victim just before he and the Defendant‟s

mother married and that she knew the victim over the years. She sometimes interacted

with him in the hospital emergency room due to his employment as a police officer. She

described the victim as a “closed[-]in person” who did not speak, was not friendly, and

was short and curt when she dealt with him professionally. She said that she visited in

the Selfs‟ house frequently until she received a message from the victim through the

Defendant‟s mother that they were not to be friends anymore, that Ms. Limna was not to

come to the house, and that the Defendant‟s mother was not to talk to Ms. Limna. She

said that when she visited the Selfs‟ house, it was meticulously clean, with the carpet nap

all facing the same direction and compact discs and detergents kept in alphabetical order.

Ms. Limna testified that she saw the victim and the Defendant‟s mother argue at

the hospital. She said the victim was not violent but was very aggressive with the

Defendant‟s mother, who did nothing to respond. When asked if, in her opinion, the

victim had a violent temper, she said, “[Y]es, he had been loud and obnoxious with me

on a professional level.” Ms. Limna recalled an incident in which an emergency room

patient used a false name and false insurance information. She said that she called the

police and that the victim was the dispatcher. She said that when she related the facts to

him, he responded, “[W]hat the f--- do you want me to do about it?” She said no officer

came to the hospital to take a report. She said she knew the Defendant‟s mother was

afraid of the victim. She said the hospital had a memorial service for the Defendant‟s

mother that was separate from the family‟s service. She said the victim declined to come

to the hospital‟s service.

When Ms. Limna was asked about the Defendant‟s reputation for peacefulness,

she said she was unaware of his having social or school problems other than normal

teenage behavioral issues.

-38-

Joyce Kassen, the daytime nursing supervisor at Laughlin Memorial Hospital,

testified that she and the Defendant‟s mother had worked together for about nineteen

years and that they were on opposite shifts, although sometimes their shifts overlapped.

She said the Defendant‟s mother was the nighttime nursing supervisor. Ms. Kassen said

that the Defendant was his mother‟s “whole world” and that the Defendant‟s mother

loved him “more than anything.”

Ms. Kassen testified that the victim had a dry personality and a temper. She said

that when she and the Defendant‟s mother worked together, the Defendant‟s mother

answered the phone because if the victim knew Ms. Kassen was also at work, he thought

the Defendant‟s mother was “up to something.” She recalled an occasion when the

Defendant‟s mother called Ms. Kassen crying and asked Ms. Kassen to cover for her to

give the Defendant‟s mother time to go home to change clothes. Ms. Kassen said the

victim called the Defendant‟s mother repeatedly and expressed his displeasure that the

Defendant‟s mother was wearing perfume. Ms. Kassen said the Defendant‟s mother was

embarrassed and asked her not to tell anyone at the hospital.

When asked about the Defendant‟s reputation for peacefulness, Ms. Kassen

testified that he was nice, polite, and quiet. She said she rarely had an opportunity to see

the Defendant and the victim together.

Nicole Waddell, a registered nurse, testified that she was previously employed in

the emergency department of Laughlin Memorial Hospital. The Defendant‟s mother had

been Ms. Waddell‟s supervisor. Ms. Waddell met the Defendant through his mother and

had seen them both at work and in public. Ms. Waddell said the Defendant was his

mother‟s “world” and described their relationship as close and loving. Ms. Waddell was

aware the Defendant‟s mother was prohibited by the victim from going to the emergency

room.

Ms. Waddell testified that she interacted with the victim professionally because

police response was sometimes needed in the emergency department. She said that if she

or other emergency department personnel called for help, the victim made them feel as if

they were bothering him. She described him as curt and unfriendly during these

interactions. She said that other officers with whom she interacted at the hospital did not

say nice things about or seem to like the victim. In Ms. Waddell‟s opinion, the victim

had a violent temper.

Ms. Waddell testified that the victim called the hospital multiple times during a

shift to speak to the Defendant‟s mother. Ms. Waddell said that after an unspecified

hour, telephone calls were routed through the emergency department. She was aware that

the victim called multiple times but was unable to reach the Defendant‟s mother on the

-39-

night the Defendant‟s mother died. Ms. Waddell said that after the victim became irate

with the person who was answering the calls that night, Ms. Waddell had the call

transferred to Ms. Waddell. Ms. Waddell said she saw the Defendant and the victim that

night after the Defendant‟s mother died. She described the Defendant as lost and crying

softly.

Rhonda Johnson, an emergency room reception clerk at Laughlin Memorial

Hospital, testified that her job duties included answering the hospital‟s telephone calls

after 11:00 p.m. She said that the victim called once or twice nightly and that if he did

not reach the Defendant‟s mother, he sometimes came to the hospital. She said that if the

victim came to the hospital, he walked in without speaking and went to the emergency

room to see if the Defendant‟s mother was there. Ms. Johnson said the victim sounded

aggravated if he called a second time. Ms. Johnson was aware the victim did not want

the Defendant‟s mother in the emergency room at night, even though the Defendant‟s

mother‟s supervisory duties covered the entire hospital. Ms. Johnson said she knew not

to transfer the victim‟s calls to the emergency room. She understood that the victim

thought the Defendant‟s mother was “hanging around with one of the EMS guys.”

Ms. Johnson testified that, in her opinion, the victim had a reputation for violence.

She recalled an occasion when she saw the victim arrest someone in the emergency room.

She said that the arrestee was drinking beer, that he needed a place to stay, and that he

was not violent. She said the Defendant‟s mother had called the victim to see if he would

take the person to “Opportunity House.” Ms. Johnson said that the victim jerked the

arrestee up from a chair, that the victim turned the person around, that the victim roughly

twisted the person‟s arms, that the victim handcuffed the person, that the victim said, “I

know where you are going tonight,” and that the victim took the person to jail. Ms.

Johnson said hospital personnel never understood the victim‟s actions during the incident.

Melissa Britton testified that she worked at Laughlin Memorial Hospital and that

she had worked with the Defendant‟s mother for about thirteen years. She described an

incident in which the emergency room needed additional nursing staff. She called the

Defendant‟s mother, who initially said she could not come to the emergency room but

eventually did. Ms. Britton said the victim came to the emergency room, saw the

Defendant‟s mother, and confronted her. Ms. Britton said the victim asked the

Defendant‟s mother what she was doing there and accused her of only being there to “w--

-- around.” Ms. Britton said the Defendant‟s mother asked the victim repeatedly not to

do this at her workplace. Ms. Britton said that the victim and the Defendant‟s mother

went down a hall and that Ms. Britton could hear the victim yelling. Ms. Britton said that

as the victim‟s confrontation took place, emergency room personnel were busy treating

patients who had come in by ambulance on backboards. Ms. Britton said that the

Defendant‟s mother did not reappear or call to check on the emergency room staff. After

-40-

one and one-half to two hours, Ms. Britton called the Defendant‟s mother. Ms. Britton

said that when she asked whether the Defendant‟s mother was okay, the Defendant‟s

mother said only that she was okay.

Ms. Britton described another incident in which the Defendant‟s mother was

frantic to leave work and get home before the victim. Ms. Britton said that according to

the Defendant‟s mother, the Defendant had forgotten his wrestling gear and would be in

trouble with the victim if the victim knew. Ms. Britton said that in her opinion, the

victim had a violent temper.

Rev. Carolyn Isley, rector of St. James Episcopal Church, testified that the

Defendant had been active at the church since she came there in 2005 and that records

showed he had been involved in Sunday School and other activities before she arrived.

When asked if he had a reputation as a peaceful person, he said, “Oh, yes, he‟s [a]

marvelous kid, great kid, everybody loves him. He is helpful and cooperative and just a

splendid young man.”

On rebuttal, Greeneville Assistant Police Chief Craig Fillers testified he had

worked on the same shift with the victim. When they worked on the same shift, Chief

Fillers had been the desk sergeant, and the victim had been a patrol officer. Chief Fillers

said he and the victim became good friends and spent a lot of time together. Chief Fillers

said that after he was promoted in 2008, he saw the victim less frequently at work. Chief

Fillers said that he had seen the Defendant visit the victim at work frequently and that

they appeared to have a normal father-son relationship. Chief Fillers said that the victim

was well-liked in the department, that the victim was a good officer, and that the victim

was fun to be around.

Chief Fillers agreed that the desk sergeant was a critical position in the police

department. He agreed that the desk sergeant dispatched officers to emergencies, which

could be life-or-death situations. He acknowledged that in 2009, the victim had failed to

dispatch an officer to conduct a welfare check on an individual who was later found dead

and that the victim had been reprimanded. Chief Fillers said the victim had been the

supervisor in charge of the shift, although he did not know if the victim had been the

person who received the welfare check request. Chief Fillers said, however, this incident

did not change his opinion of the victim. When asked about the victim‟s conduct as the

desk sergeant during the telephone call Ms. Limna described making to the police

department regarding a patient using a false name and false insurance information and

about the emergency room confrontation with the Defendant‟s mother that Ms. Britton

described, Chief Fillers said these incidents did not change his opinion because he had

not received complaints about them and had no way to know if they occurred.

-41-

Rhonda Craft, the Greene County Juvenile Court Youth Services Officer, testified

that she knew the victim professionally and as a neighbor. She recalled that shortly after

she moved to the neighborhood, she saw the Defendant and the victim riding bicycles

together.

Ms. Craft testified that the victim had been quiet and reserved. She was unaware

of any issues involving the victim in the neighborhood. She was unaware of the victim‟s

having any reputation for temper or anger issues and said he had a good reputation for

peace and quietude.

Regarding the night of the homicide, Ms. Craft testified that she had gone to the

scene after she saw an ambulance in the neighborhood. She saw the Defendant and heard

him ask someone about his cat.

Greeneville Police Officer David Thacker testified that he had known the victim

since Officer Thacker began work in 1997. Officer Thacker said that they had both a

professional relationship and a friendship and that they had socialized together. He said

he had been to the victim‟s home around thirty times. Officer Thacker had observed the

Defendant at the home on about half of Officer Thacker‟s visits. Officer Thacker

described the Defendant as quiet and shy.

Officer Thacker testified that when the victim bought himself something new, the

victim thought he should buy the same thing for the Defendant. In his opinion, the victim

had a reputation as a peaceful person. He said he did not see a change in the victim in the

time he knew the victim. He acknowledged that after the Defendant‟s mother‟s death, the

victim talked about dating women he met online but said he did not see “much change”

when he was around the victim after the death. Officer Thacker said the victim did not

tell him the victim blamed the Defendant for the death. He denied that the victim ever

told him the Defendant had psychological problems after the death. He was unaware of

Chuck Jeffers ever telling the victim that the Defendant needed psychological help after

the death. When asked if he saw any differences in the Defendant after the death, Officer

Thacker said he was not around the Defendant often after the death.

Officer Thacker said he and the victim discussed working out and machinery for

working out. He was aware the victim worked out and tried to lose weight through diet

and exercise but was unaware of the victim‟s taking any dietary supplements.

Rebecca Self was recalled and testified that when she cleaned the victim‟s home

after his death, she found an eighteenth birthday card from the victim to the Defendant.

She said the Defendant turned eighteen on January 18, 2010. The card was received as

an exhibit. She identified the handwriting in the card as the victim‟s. The handwritten

-42-

portion of the card stated, “Ethan I am so very proud of you Love Daddy.” She agreed

that the distance from the floor to the top of victim‟s mattress was two to three feet.

The jury found the Defendant guilty of first degree premeditated murder. This

appeal followed.

I

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

The Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress

his statement during a custodial interrogation that he shot his father. He also contends

that the interrogation continued after he invoked his right to counsel. The State contends

that the Defendant was not in custody and that, alternatively, he initiated further

conversation with the police after mentioning counsel. We conclude that the court

properly denied the motion to suppress.

A trial court‟s findings of fact on a motion to suppress are conclusive on appeal

unless the evidence preponderates against them. State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23

(Tenn. 1996); State v. Jones, 802 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Questions

about the “credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, and

resolution of conflicts in the evidence are matters entrusted to the trial judge as the trier

of fact.” Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23. The prevailing party is entitled to the “strongest

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

drawn from that evidence.” State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998); see State

v. Hicks, 55 S.W.3d 515, 521 (Tenn. 2001). The trial court‟s application of the law to its

factual findings is a question of law and is reviewed de novo on appeal. State v. Yeargan,

958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997).

At the hearing, the evidence showed that TBI Agent Shannon Morton and Greene

County Sheriff‟s Detective Jeff Morgan interviewed the Defendant at the sheriff‟s office

on the afternoon of April 25, 2010, the day after the victim‟s death. Earlier on April 25,

during a walk-though at the crime scene, Detective Mike Fincher asked the Defendant to

come to the sheriff‟s office later to review the Defendant‟s previous statement. A family

member drove the Defendant to the sheriff‟s office.

The evidence at the hearing showed that the Greene County Sheriff‟s office was

inside a multi-use facility that contained both law enforcement offices and the Greene

County Jail. Detective Fincher testified that the door to the office area where the

Defendant was interviewed on April 25 was locked. He said, however, that a person who

wished to leave the office area could push a marked exit button to open the door from the

-43-

inside. He said that this door was in the lobby on the first floor and that the Defendant

was initially interviewed on the third floor but was later moved to the second floor for a

polygraph examination. Detective Fincher said that other than the door of the “main

jail,” all doors within the sheriff‟s office were secure from the outside but were marked

inside with exit signs and were not locked from the inside.

When the Defendant arrived, Detective Fincher walked him to the room where he

was questioned, which was on the third floor of the office area. The Defendant signed a

waiver of his Miranda rights at 1:29 p.m., and Agent Morton and Detective Morgan

reviewed the Defendant‟s previous statement with him. Agent Morton testified that, for

the most part during the interview, the Defendant maintained the accuracy of the previous

statement. Agent Morton said the Defendant agreed to take a polygraph examination and

said he would like to clear his name.

Agent Mike Hannon had the Defendant sign a Miranda waiver and then conducted

a polygraph examination, after which Agent Morton offered the Defendant a drink and

showed him the restroom‟s location. Agent Morton thought he gave the Defendant some

water.

Agent Morton and Agent Hannon then questioned the Defendant further about his

previous statements and about areas of concern from the polygraph examination. Agent

Hannon advised the Defendant that the Defendant had problems with his polygraph

responses about the victim. Agent Morton testified that the Defendant was emotionless

when asked about the victim and that Agent Morton thought they were “getting

nowhere.” Agent Morton said he began asking more stern and direct questions, including

whether the Defendant killed the victim. Agent Morton said the Defendant nodded

affirmatively but answered no. Agent Morton said he told the Defendant he thought the

Defendant either killed the victim or knew what happened. Agent Morton said that at this

point, the Defendant became “somewhat agitated” and said, “[I]f you‟re going to accuse

me then I think I need an attorney.” Agent Morton said that he and Agent Hannon

stopped questioning the Defendant at this point. Agent Morton said, “I told Mr. Self if

that‟s what he wanted, if he needed an attorney, that we would stop right then and he

would have an attorney.” When asked what happened next, Agent Morton explained:

He kept talking. He started asking questions from myself and Agent

[Hannon]. They were kind of hypothetical questions. What if this was

accidental or what, you know, what would happen to someone if this – if it

was an accidental shooting, or what would happen if it was a justified –

what would happen to – and got to the point what would happen to him or

would he go to jail, could he get out of jail, just general questions, you

-44-

know, as to what – what would occur if this was the set of facts, if it was

accidental or justifiable or whatever.

Agent Morton said that the Defendant continued to ask questions and that he and Agent

Hannon did not interview the Defendant. Agent Morton said that after the Defendant was

advised of his right to an attorney, the Defendant continued to ask hypothetical questions.

Agent Morton said he told the Defendant that the district attorney, not he and Agent

Hannon, made decisions regarding the charges that would be placed. Agent Morton

advised the Defendant that until they knew what happened, they did not know what

charges, if any, the district attorney would pursue. Agent Morton said the Defendant

stated, “I‟ve ruined my life. I‟ve killed my father.” Agent Morton said he asked the

Defendant if he would tell them what happened, and the Defendant agreed. Agent

Morton said the Defendant did not say anything else about an attorney and denied he

threatened or coerced the Defendant into giving a statement. Beginning at approximately

5:30 p.m. and lasting until 6:53 p.m., the Defendant gave a written statement in which he

detailed the relevant events, including the victim‟s physical and verbal abuse of him and

his shooting the victim.

Agent Morton testified that the Defendant was free to leave at any time during the

questioning and that he told the Defendant this. Agent Morton said that during the

process, he showed the Defendant the bathroom‟s location, that the Defendant went to the

bathroom alone, and that the Defendant “could have walked out the door if he had wanted

to.”

After receiving the proof, the trial court denied the motion to suppress. In its order

denying the motion, the trial court found that the Defendant invoked his right to counsel

during the interview but that he later waived the right by initiating further conversation

with Agents Morton and Hannon. The court found that the Defendant knew his rights

and that ultimately, he knowingly and intelligently waived them.

We begin with the question of whether the Defendant was in custody for purposes

of Miranda at the time he gave the inculpatory statement. The United States and

Tennessee Constitutions dictate that a person shall not be compelled to give evidence

against himself. U.S. Const. amend V; Tenn. Const. art. 1, § 9; see State v. Berry, 141

S.W.3d 549, 576 (Tenn. 2004). As a predicate to admissibility of a confession, the police

are required to inform an individual in custody and subject to State-initiated questioning

of his Fifth Amendment rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Miranda

protections apply to a custodial interrogation, which is “questioning initiated by law

enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of

his freedom of action in any significant way.” Id. at 444. “[T]he term „interrogation‟

under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on

-45-

the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the

police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the

suspect.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980). This court has said, however,

“[Q]uestioning initiated by the accused is not interrogation in the Innis sense.” State v.

Land, 34 S.W.3d 516, 524 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000); see Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S.

477, 484 (1981). Once a person in custody has made an unequivocal request for an

attorney, questioning must cease until he has had the opportunity to confer with counsel,

unless the person initiates further conversation with the authorities. Edwards, 451 U.S. at

484-85.

In determining whether a person is in custody for Miranda purposes, a court must

look to the totality of the circumstances to determine whether “a reasonable person in the

suspect‟s position would consider himself or herself deprived of freedom of movement to

a degree associated with a formal arrest.” State v. Anderson, 937 S.W.2d 851, 855 (Tenn.

1996). Our supreme court has said that in making this determination

Some factors relevant to that objective assessment include the time and

location of the interrogation; the duration and character of the questioning;

the officer‟s tone of voice and general demeanor; the suspect‟s method of

transportation to the place of questioning; the number of police officers

present; any limitation on movement or other form of restraint imposed on

the suspect during the interrogation; any interactions between the officer

and the suspect, including the words spoken by the officer to the suspect,

and the suspect‟s verbal or nonverbal responses; the extent to which the

suspect is confronted with the law enforcement officer‟s suspicions of guilt

or evidence of guilt; and finally, the extent to which the suspect is made

aware that he or she is free to refrain from answering questions or to end

the interview at will.

Anderson, 937 S.W.2d at 855; see State v. Dailey, 273 S.W.3d 94, 102 (Tenn. 2009).

In the present case, the trial court did not make an explicit finding about whether

the Defendant was in custody. As we have noted, the court determined that the

Defendant invoked but later waived his right to counsel. We infer from this

determination that the court considered the Defendant in custody because inquiry into

whether the Defendant invoked but eventually waived his right to counsel was pertinent

only if the Defendant was in custody and afforded Miranda protections. As we have

stated, we must defer to this factual determination unless the evidence preponderates

against it. Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23.

-46-

We note that the Defendant went to the sheriff‟s office voluntarily and that he was

transported by a relative. The Defendant was questioned first by Agent Morton and

Detective Morgan before being given a polygraph examination by Agent Hannon and

eventually being questioned by Agent Morton and Agent Hannon. The Defendant gave

the first statement around 1:29 p.m., and the second statement concluded around 6:53

p.m. During this time, the Defendant was offered a drink, was shown the restrooms, and

was permitted to wander at will when he went to use the restroom. The office area where

the interviews occurred was inside a secure area, but the doors were unlocked from the

inside and marked by exit signs. Although the victim was a Greeneville police officer,

the officers who questioned the Defendant were a Greene County Sheriff‟s detective and

TBI agents, and the Defendant was questioned at the Greene County Sheriff‟s office.

The defendant was made aware that he was free to leave at any time. Agent Morton

acknowledged asking stern and direct questions after the polygraph examination about

whether the Defendant killed the victim, but the evidence does not show that the

Defendant was the subject of threatening, coercive, or overbearing interrogation. Agent

Morton testified that after the Defendant made the statement about needing an attorney,

Agent Morton told the Defendant that if the Defendant wanted an attorney, questioning

would stop and the Defendant would have an attorney. The Defendant asked

hypothetical questions about his culpability depending upon the circumstances of the

offense. The agents did not ask questions, and the Defendant eventually admitted that he

had ruined his life and had killed the victim.

In view of the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the evidence

preponderates against the trial court‟s implicit finding that the Defendant was in custody.

The evidence shows that the Defendant went to the sheriff‟s office of his own accord, that

he agreed to talk to the authorities, that he was allowed to go to the restroom

unaccompanied, that he was made aware that he was free to leave at any time, that the

exit doors were unlocked from the inside, and that he was not subject to coercive or

overbearing interrogation techniques. We conclude, further, that because the Defendant

was not subject to custodial interrogation, the Miranda requirements did not apply. The

trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, and the Defendant is not entitled

to relief on this basis.

II

EXERCISE OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE

The Defendant contends that the State improperly exercised a peremptory

challenge to a prospective juror for a race-based reason, in violation of Batson v.

-47-

Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1985), because she expressed an interest in the “Trayvon Martin

case.”6 The State contends that the trial court did not err in overruling the Defendant‟s

Batson challenge because the prosecution provided race-neutral explanations for its

exercise of a peremptory challenge.

Batson held that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the prosecution from

excluding potential jurors based solely upon race. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 89; see also

Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 59 (1992) (extending the prohibition against race-

based peremptory challenges to those made by a defendant). When a party raises a

Batson claim, the party must establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination.7

Batson, 476 U.S. at 96. A defendant establishes a prima facie case of purposeful

discrimination by showing that the State “excluded members of a cognizable racial group

from the jury pool.” State v. Echols, 382 S.W.3d 266, 281-82 (Tenn. 2012); State v.

Ellison, 841 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tenn. 1992); see also Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 416

(1991). Next, the party that exercised the peremptory challenge is allowed the

opportunity to rebut the prima facie showing by offering a race-neutral reason for its

peremptory challenge. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97. The court must then determine whether

the objecting party has established purposeful discrimination. Id.

6

In a case that received significant media attention and public interest, Trayvon Martin, an unarmed

seventeen-year-old African-American, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a Hispanic adult,

during a confrontation that began after Mr. Zimmerman followed Mr. Martin in the Florida neighborhood

in which Mr. Zimmerman served as a neighborhood watch member. See Campbell Robertson & John

Schwartz, Shooting Focuses Attention on a Program That Seeks to Avoid Guns, New York Times (Mar.

22, 2012) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/trayvon-martin-death-spotlights-neighborhood-watch-

groups.html?_r=2 (last visited July 29, 2016). Mr. Zimmerman was charged with and acquitted of second

degree murder. David G. Savage & Michael Muskal, Zimmerman Verdict: Legal experts say prosecutors

overreached, Los Angeles Times (July 14, 2013) http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/14/nation/la-na-

zimmerman-legal-20130715 (last visited July 29, 2016). Following an acquittal, public outcry led the

NAACP to petition the United States Department of Justice to conduct a civil rights investigation. Nearly

450K sign NAACP petition calling for DOJ investigation into Trayvon Martin shooting, Orlando Sentinel

(July 14, 2013) http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-07-14/news/os-thousands-sign-tayvon-martin-

petition_1_naacp-petition-doj (last accessed July 29, 2016). We note that Mr. Zimmerman‟s acquittal

occurred on July 13, 2013, and jury selection in the present case occurred approximately one month later,

on August 12, 2013. Greg Botelho & Holly Yan, George Zimmerman found not guilty of murder in

Travyon Martin’s death, CNN (July 14, 2013), http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-

trial/index.html (last accessed July 29, 2016).

7

We note that although Batson required the defendant raising a claim of purposeful discrimination to be

of the same race as the prospective juror against whom the State exercised a peremptory challenge,

Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 415 (1991), later held a defendant had third-party standing to raise an

equal protection claim on behalf of the excluded juror even if the juror is not of the same race as the

defendant.

-48-

A party‟s race-neutral explanation in response to a Batson claim that consists

merely of a denial of discriminatory motive or an assurance of good faith is insufficient.

See id. Rather, the race-neutral reason must be “related to the particular case to be tried.”

Id. at 98. However, at this stage, the trial court need not find that the explanation itself is

“persuasive, or even plausible.” Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-68 (1995). “Unless a

discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor‟s explanation, the reason offered will

be deemed race neutral.” Id. at 768 (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 360

(1991)). If the prosecution is able to offer any race-neutral reason for the strike, the trial

court must then examine the proffered race-neutral explanation in light of all the evidence

and assess whether the explanation is plausible. Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 251-

52 (2005); see Woodson v. Porter Brown Limestone Co., 916 S.W.2d 896, 906 (Tenn.

1996). In this regard, the opponent of the peremptory strike bears the burden of proving

purposeful discrimination. Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768. In making its determination,

The trial judge must carefully articulate specific reasons for each finding on

the record, i.e., whether a prima facie case has been established; whether a

neutral explanation has been given; and whether the totality of the

circumstances support a finding of purposeful discrimination. The trial

court‟s factual findings are imperative in this context. On appeal, the trial

court‟s findings are to be accorded great deference and not set aside unless

clearly erroneous.

Woodson, 916 S.W.2d at 906; see State v. Hugueley, 185 S.W.3d 356, 374 (Tenn. 2006).

The record reflects that the prospective juror was an African-American woman.

She was questioned individually by the defense about her employment and her affinity

for the television program “Law & Order.” She was asked if it was correct she liked the

program and whether she understood the trial would take more than one hour, the length

of an episode of the program. She was not asked any other individual questions, and

none of the questions posed to the group pertained to the Trayvon Martin case.

The State exercised a peremptory challenge to the prospective juror, and the

defense objected on the basis that the challenge was race-based and that the State‟s

challenge was the second peremptory strike to a black prospective juror. When asked by

the court if the challenge was race-based, one prosecutor stated:

Well, we debated on her for a great deal at the table. She had made

multiple references to the Trayvon Martin case and basically we took it that

she expressed dissatisfaction with the verdict. And we had some question

about whether she might base her decision on emotion rather than rule of

-49-

law. We didn‟t get into the questioning. We didn‟t want to embarrass her.

She‟s worked at Eastman for a considerable amount of time. So there were

things that made us [think] she would be a good juror but with challenges

still out there we felt that it was better to not risk having someone that

would base it on emotion rather than the rule of law . . . .

Defense counsel interjected that both the President and the United States Attorney

General had expressed dissatisfaction with the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case and

argued that allowing the State to exercise a peremptory challenge to this juror was a

“blatant Batson violation.” The second prosecutor responded:

Your Honor, the defense very thoroughly questioned the jury about

passing judgment on news articles, what‟s in the media instead of what

happens in the court of law. And right there we have got proof of someone

on the jury who makes reference that we believe showed she was concerned

that justice wasn‟t carried out. She wasn‟t in that trial.

The first prosecutor added:

That is not only the answer to a question on our questionnaire that

concerned us. Her brother had been convicted of a robbery case. There

was also mention of fairness about people being wrongfully – justice not

being done in cases. And that concerned us. We knew the situation of

race, but looking at all those questions it was not just solely based on the

Trayvon Martin case. There [are] several different factors in answers on

the questionnaire.

The second prosecutor added, “I forgot about the armed robbery.” The court stated,

“Based on the representations of counsel on that,” the State had shown a “reasonable

excuse” and the prospective juror would be excused.

“[D]etermination of the prosecutor‟s discriminatory intent or lack thereof turns

largely on the evaluation of the prosecutor‟s credibility, of which the attorney‟s demeanor

is often the best evidence.” State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908, 914 (Tenn. 1994). The trial

court is particularly suited to assessing an attorney‟s credibility. State v. Kiser, 284

S.W.3d 227, 256 (Tenn. 2009); see Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 365 (1991)

(plurality opinion). The reviewing court gives great deference to these findings and will

not set them aside unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Kiser, 284 S.W.3d 227, 256

(Tenn. 2009). We conclude that the trial court‟s decision to base its ruling on the

“representations of counsel” was a finding that the prosecutors‟ statements were credible.

-50-

The record reflects that the Defendant established a prima facie case of race-based

discrimination. The State‟s explanation of its peremptory challenge to the juror includes

two components: that she expressed dissatisfaction with the verdict in the Trayvon

Martin case and might decide the present case on emotion rather than the law and that her

brother had been convicted of armed robbery and she questioned whether “justice [was]

being done.” The Supreme Court has said, “[A] peremptory strike shown to have been

motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent [cannot] be sustained based upon

any lesser showing [than that the factor was not determinative] by the prosecution.”

Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 485 (2008). Because the record reflects that the

State‟s concern about the prospective juror‟s thoughts about the Trayvon Martin case

were a substantial motivating factor in its decision to exercise a peremptory strike, we

focus on this component of the State‟s proffered explanation.

In that regard, we note that the prosecution‟s concerns that the prospective juror

was dissatisfied with the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case and that she might decide the

present case based upon emotion, not law, is not addressed by her responses during voir

dire. We likewise note that the prosecutors‟ statements about their concerns do not

specify the basis in the questionnaire responses that formed the basis for the concerns.

The record does not reflect, however, that the trial court reviewed and considered the

prospective juror‟s questionnaire, and it likewise does not reflect the full contents of the

questionnaire. We acknowledge that one of the defense attorneys, after the trial, filed an

affidavit in which she set forth selected contents of the juror questionnaire. The affidavit

does not represent these excerpts as reflective of every question and answer that might be

considered relevant to the Trayvon Martin case. We also acknowledge that after the case

was pending in this court, we denied the Defendant‟s motion to supplement the record

with several juror questionnaires, including the one completed by the prospective juror in

question. The State opposed the motion, which was addressed at the oral argument of the

appeal. We denied the motion to supplement, citing Tennessee Rule of Appellate

Procedure 24(g) and State v. Rogers, 188 S.W.3d 593, 608-11 (Tenn. 2006) (holding that

the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in supplementing appellate record with material that

was never considered by the trial court). As with the juror questionnaire itself, without

some indication that the trial court considered the juror questionnaire in ruling on the

Batson challenge, we do not view the later-filed affidavit regarding partial contents of the

questionnaire to be relevant to our review of the propriety of the trial court‟s ruling.

To the extent that the record reflects the trial court‟s knowledge, at the time the

Batson challenge was made, of the prospective juror‟s responses to the questionnaire, this

knowledge consists of the prosecutors‟ explanation of the reason for the peremptory

challenge. As we have noted, the prosecutors expressed concern that the prospective

juror made multiple references to the Trayvon Martin case. They interpreted her

questionnaire answers as showing dissatisfaction with the verdict in that case and were

-51-

concerned she would decide the present case on emotion and not the law. The trial court

overruled the Baston challenge “[b]ased on the representations of counsel,” and as we

have noted, discriminatory intent is largely determined based upon the prosecutor‟s

credibility, typically evidenced by the attorney‟s demeanor, an assessment for which the

trial court is particularly suited. Smith, 893 S.W.2d at 914; Kiser, 284 S.W.3d at 256.

We have afforded great deference to the trial court‟s finding that the prosecutors‟

race-neutral explanations were credible, and upon review, we cannot conclude that the

court‟s finding was clearly erroneous.8 See Woodson, 916 S.W.2d at 906. We cannot

presume from a silent record that the court reviewed and considered the prospective

juror‟s questionnaire responses as an adjunct to assessing the prosecutors‟ credibility, nor

can we presume what the contents of the questionnaire are, given its absence from the

record. We, again, note that the affidavit filed by defense counsel contained only

excerpts of the questionnaire and the prospective juror‟s responses and does not purport

to be a complete representation of all of the questions and responses that might be

considered relevant to the Trayvon Martin case.

In reaching our conclusion, we are mindful of the Defendant‟s argument that the

prospective juror‟s having recently “engaged in an online debate regarding a recent issue

of racial controversy in America” was not a race-neutral justification. We acknowledge

that the Trayvon Martin case involved race-related issues; however, the record before us

does not show whether the prosecutors perceived that the prospective juror‟s purported

dissatisfaction with the Trayvon Martin verdict was for race-based reasons. We also

8

We distinguish this case from the Supreme Court‟s recent decision in Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct.

1737 (2016). In Foster, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution‟s race-neutral explanations

were not credible in light of evidence from the record that the prosecutor misrepresented his reasons for

striking African-American jurors and in light of extensive documentation that the race of the jurors was a

primary consideration in the prosecution‟s use of its peremptory strikes. Id. at 1744, 1750, 1752-54

(recounting evidence of the prosecution‟s seeming obsession with race, including that the prosecution‟s

venire lists highlighted the names of African-American jurors and marked them with the letter “B”; that

the first five names on a document entitled “definite NO‟s” were the names of the only remaining

African-Americans on the panel; that one document contained a notation reading “No Black Church”; and

that someone had circled the response to race on the questionnaires of several black prospective jurors).

In Foster, the Supreme Court noted that the evidence showed that many of the reasons given for striking

black panelists applied to white panelists who were chosen to serve in the jury and that “the shifting

explanations, the misrepresentations of the record, and the persistent focus on race in the prosecution's

file” led to the conclusion that there was discriminatory intent. Id. at 1754. Unlike Foster, the case

before us does not present a record that suggests that the proffered race-neutral reasons were flagrantly

pretextual.

-52-

reject the notion that concern about racial justice is an issue unique to black Americans

such that we should infer, as the defense suggests, that the only logical conclusion to be

drawn from the State‟s exercise of a peremptory strike against a black prospective juror

who was interested in a well-publicized criminal case involving race issues is that the

strike was exercised with racial animus. Perhaps the Defendant‟s argument captures one

conclusion that might be drawn, but given the state of the record, we cannot conclude that

the trial court erred in accepting the State‟s explanation as a race-neutral justification for

the peremptory challenge. The Defendant is not entitled to relief on this basis.

III

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

The Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction

because the State failed to prove the killing was premeditated. The State contends that

the evidence is sufficient. We agree with the State.

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, the standard of review is “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); see State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514,

521 (Tenn. 2007). The State is “afforded the strongest legitimate view of the evidence

and all reasonable inferences” from that evidence. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d at 521. The

appellate courts do not “reweigh or reevaluate the evidence,” and questions regarding

“the credibility of witnesses [and] the weight and value to be given the evidence . . . are

resolved by the trier of fact.” State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997); see

State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984).

“A crime may be established by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a

combination of the two.” State v. Hall, 976 S.W.2d 121, 140 (Tenn. 1998); see also State

v. Sutton, 166 S.W.3d 686, 691 (Tenn. 2005). “The standard of review „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 State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265,

275 (Tenn. 2009)).

As relevant to this case, first degree murder is the unlawful, intentional, and

premeditated killing of another. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-201 (2014), -202 (2014). In the

context of first degree murder, intent is shown if the defendant has the conscious

objective or desire to cause the victim‟s death. State v. Page, 81 S.W.3d 781, 790-91

(Tenn. Crim. App. 2002); T.C.A. § 39-11-106(a)(18) (2010) (amended 2011, 2014)

-53-

(defining intentional as the “conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or

cause the result”). A premeditated act is one which is

done after the exercise of reflection and judgment. “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 preexist 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 c

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.