# State of Tennessee v. Ethan Alexander Self

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · August 29, 2016

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4029534

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
- **Decided:** August 29, 2016
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge John Everett Williams
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4029534

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the obligation to disclose evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), extended to evidence not in the prosecution‟s possession but known to others -62- acting on behalf of the prosecution, including the police
- concluding that evidence that the defendant may have fired on the victim prior to the killing was improper and irrelevant as evidence of the victim‟s reputation for peacefulness under Rule 404(a
- concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion in permitting police officers to reenact the defendant‟s demonstration to them of his commission of the offense
- holding that appellate review was waived of issue related to trial court‟s denial of defendant‟s request for an intoxication instruction because the request was not made in writing

## Opinion text

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 Offic

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4029534. Public record. Not legal advice.