State of Tennessee v. Steven Jeffrey Pike

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs September 20, 2016

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. STEVEN JEFFREY PIKE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County

No. 97142 Bob R. McGee, Judge

No. E2015-02357-CCA-R3-CD – Filed January 25, 2017

The Defendant, Steven Jeffrey Pike, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court

jury of first degree premeditated murder. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202(a)(1) (2014). He

received a life sentence. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to

support his conviction and (2) the trial court erred by admitting his statements to the

police. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS

T. WOODALL, P.J., and ALAN E. GLENN, J., joined.

J. Liddell Kirk (on appeal) and Gregory P. Isaacs and Andrea Mohr (at trial), Knoxville,

Tennessee, for the appellant, Steven Jeffrey Pike.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Senior Counsel;

Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Leslie Nassios, Assistant District

Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

This case relates to the January 15, 2011 killing of Angelo Gradillas, who was

beaten to death at the home of Alma Pike, the Defendant‘s grandmother.

Morgan Savage testified that on January 15, 2011, she lived across the street from

Ms. Pike. She said that she arrived home at about 3:00 a.m., that she heard a door open,

and that she saw someone entering Ms. Pike‘s house. Ms. Savage stated that she went

upstairs and got into bed and that she heard ―a lot of ruckus and yelling.‖ Ms. Savage

said that she looked out the window and saw the Defendant yelling and holding a cell

phone. Ms. Savage heard the Defendant say, ―‗N-----, I‘m gonna kill you.‘ And

something about you don‘t do that to a girl, or you don‘t treat a girl that way.‖

Ms. Savage testified that she watched the Defendant for a while, that she returned

to her bed, and that she heard the Defendant yelling again, possibly a woman‘s voice, and

a car driving away. Ms. Savage said that she looked out the window again and saw a

―shadow‖ pacing at the house. Ms. Savage stated that she thought a woman was driving

the car leaving Ms. Pike‘s house. Ms. Savage said that she had seen the Defendant with

his girlfriend at the house previously. Ms. Savage said that she heard a truck without a

muffler pass the house two or three times within ten minutes. She stated that when she

awoke, police cars were parked outside her house.

On cross-examination, Ms. Savage testified that she thought only the Defendant

was home because only two or three cars were parked in the driveway and that she heard

cars coming and going that night.

A recording of a 2:27 a.m. 9-1-1 call was played for the jury. In it, an unidentified

man told the dispatcher that his friend Angelo ―beat the s--- out of me‖ and that Angelo

was beside him. The man told a second man in the background, ―You don‘t do me like

that,‖ and the two men argued loudly. The man said, ―Look at me, look the f--- at me,

dude,‖ and the second man responded, ―I didn‘t do it.‖ The speaker said, ―Then who the

f--- did it?‖ The second man responded, ―I don‘t know, you did it, I didn‘t do it.‖ The

man told the dispatcher that he did not require medical attention, that he wanted Angelo

to leave, that no weapons were in the house, and that they had been drinking ―a little bit.‖

The man began arguing with the second man and told him he was ―lucky as f---, I don‘t

give a f--- . . . . Bring all your n------ . . . . I will kill your a---.‖ The second man said

that the man was not going to kill him, and the man reiterated that he was going to ―kill

you, b----.‖ The man told the second man that he got blood on his carpet and that he

should leave the man‘s house. The dispatcher hung up because the man was not

responding to questions.

A recording of a 2:46 a.m. 9-1-1 call was played for the jury. In it, the Defendant

identified himself and told the dispatcher that Angelo ―came over here . . . [and] beat my

a--.‖ The Defendant said that he did not need an ambulance and that he wanted Angelo

―picked up.‖ The Defendant stated that he wanted to file charges against Angelo, that

Angelo had left his location, and that he knew where Angelo lived. The Defendant

confirmed that he was at his home and said that he had already reported the assault in a

previous 9-1-1 call. The Defendant said that no deputies had responded to his first call

-2-

and that he wanted the police to respond more quickly. The Defendant stated that he

knew his call was not important because it was ―just a fight,‖ that he had been drinking

earlier in the evening, and that he did not deserve to be beaten.

A recording of a 3:35 a.m. 9-1-1 call was played for the jury. In it, an unidentified

woman, who reported living across the street from Ms. Pike, told the dispatcher that she

heard a disturbance involving multiple vehicles in her subdivision. She said that a

―truckload‖ of young men drove down the street and took off their shirts, that the men

were driving and walking in the neighborhood‘s driveways, and that the truck was a

―silver-ish‖ Ford. She said that the young men were leaving the neighborhood and that

one of them went into a house across the street from her house. She referenced a group

of young men who were ―juniors and seniors‖ and who had previously caused

disturbances in the neighborhood.

A recording of an 8:17 a.m. 9-1-1 call was played for the jury. In it, the Defendant

identified himself and told the dispatcher without emotion that he was at a Krystal

restaurant and requested that the police come to arrest him. When asked why he wanted

to turn himself in, the Defendant said that he would rather not discuss it. The dispatcher

told the Defendant that the police would not arrest him without an outstanding warrant,

and the Defendant responded that he had killed someone earlier in the day. The

Defendant told the dispatcher that he was wearing blue jeans covered in blood and a

black hooded sweatshirt, that he knew the location of the victim‘s body, and that he was

unarmed.

Knox County Sheriff‘s Deputy Jeff Monroe testified that about 3:00 a.m. on

January 15, 2011, he and another deputy responded to a disturbance complaint at Ms.

Pike‘s house. Deputy Monroe stated that he noticed that the complainant, the Defendant,

had a cut over his left eye and a knot on his forehead. The Defendant was intoxicated

and told the deputies he and a friend had fought. Deputy Monroe said that although the

Defendant initially seemed confused as to why his friend hit him, the Defendant later told

the deputies he and his friend liked the same woman. The Defendant refused medical

attention and requested to make a report in order to prosecute his friend. Deputy Monroe

said that he told the Defendant he could call the deputies the next day when the

Defendant was sober, that the Defendant refused to take Deputy Monroe‘s telephone

number and said he would not call back the next day, and that the deputies left. Deputy

Monroe stated that the Defendant was ―pretty angry‖ and upset but was polite. Deputy

Monroe said that the Defendant understood the deputies‘ questions and instructions and

that he seemed to be aware of what was going on around him.

-3-

A video recording from Deputy Monroe‘s police cruiser camera was played for the

jury. The recording depicted the interaction between Deputy Monroe, his partner, and the

Defendant and was consistent with Deputy Monroe‘s testimony. Deputy Monroe

testified that he returned to the Defendant‘s neighborhood around 3:46 a.m. due to a noise

complaint from a neighbor and that the neighborhood was quiet. Deputy Monroe said he

noticed a silver car in the Defendant‘s driveway that was not present during his first visit.

On cross-examination, Deputy Monroe agreed that the Defendant was injured

when he spoke to the deputies and that the Defendant told them the victim had beaten

him. Deputy Monroe acknowledged that he was concerned about the Defendant‘s being

intoxicated. Deputy Monroe agreed that a few minutes after he left the Defendant, a

neighbor made a noise complaint about individuals at Ms. Pike‘s house. Deputy Monroe

identified a photograph of a cut on the Defendant‘s forehead and the photograph was

received as an exhibit.

On redirect examination, Deputy Monroe testified that the Defendant was able to

open the door for the deputies, that the Defendant refused medical attention, and that the

deputies accompanied the Defendant inside to ensure no one else was in the house.

Deputy Monroe said that the house was ―pretty neat‖ and that the Defendant

characterized the person who hit him as his friend. Deputy Monroe said that he did not

have a reason to think the Defendant and the victim were in a romantic relationship.

Deputy Monroe stated that he did not feel the Defendant was in danger because he told

the deputies the victim had left the area. Deputy Monroe said that the Defendant never

expressed fear to the deputies. Deputy Monroe stated that when he returned to the

neighborhood, he was there to determine whether several males in a silver truck were

screaming and yelling as they drove through the neighborhood. He said that when he

arrived, the neighborhood was quiet and that he did not think he needed to knock on the

Defendant‘s door.

Knox County Sheriff‘s Deputy Roger Morgan testified that he went to a Krystal

restaurant around 8:24 a.m. in response to the Defendant‘s 9-1-1 call in which he said he

had killed someone and wanted to surrender himself. Deputy Morgan said that when he

arrived, the Defendant stood in a grassy area beside the parking lot, that the Defendant

wore blue jeans, a black hooded sweatshirt, and tennis shoes, and that the Defendant‘s

blue jeans and shoes were covered in blood. Deputy Morgan stated that Deputy Capley

restrained the Defendant, that the Defendant was cooperative, and that the Defendant‘s

demeanor was calm. Deputy Morgan said that the Defendant appeared to understand the

deputies‘ questions and did not appear intoxicated. Deputy Morgan stated that he spent

between fifteen and twenty minutes with the Defendant before driving the Defendant to

-4-

Ms. Pike‘s house. Deputy Morgan said that the Defendant cried ―a little bit‖ when they

left Krystal but otherwise remained calm.

Deputy Morgan identified four photographs of the Defendant and the clothing he

wore at the time of his arrest. The Defendant‘s blue jeans and his shoes were heavily

splattered with blood. The Defendant had a cut on the left side of his forehead and a few

small scratches on his hands. Deputy Morgan testified that the Krystal restaurant to

which he responded was about one mile from Ms. Pike‘s house.

Knox County Sheriff‘s Deputy Chad Capley testified that he responded to Krystal

with Deputy Morgan. Deputy Capley said that when the deputies arrived, the Defendant

stood under a sign, that the Defendant turned his back to the deputies and put his hands in

the air, and that the Defendant had a ―significant amount of blood‖ on his clothing.

Deputy Capley stated that he asked the Defendant if he was injured, that the Defendant

said the blood was not his, and that the deputies handcuffed the Defendant and

―Mirandized him at that time.‖ Deputy Capley said that the Defendant had a visible head

injury and was calm, although ―he was a little reluctant . . . [and] didn‘t want to tell us

what he had done.‖ Deputy Capley stated that the Defendant was placed in Deputy

Morgan‘s car, that the deputies met with their supervisors, and that the group went to Ms.

Pike‘s house. Deputy Capley said that Deputies Morgan and Sharp went inside the house

while Deputy Capley supervised the Defendant. Deputy Capley stated that the Defendant

did not cause any trouble.

Joseph Merrell testified that he considered the victim to be his best friend, that he

had known the victim for ten years, and that he met the Defendant on the night before the

victim‘s death. Mr. Merrell said that he picked up the victim around 4:00 p.m., that they

planned to go to the Southbound nightclub later in the evening, that they shopped and ate

dinner, that Mr. Merrell drove his mother‘s silver Kia Rio, and that while they were at a

restaurant, the victim spoke to the Defendant on the telephone. Mr. Merrell stated that

the Defendant ―very adamantly said . . . my grandma‘s out of town, we could all crash [at

her house] and hang out[.]‖ Mr. Merrell said that at about 9:30 p.m., he, the victim, and

another friend, later identified as Jordan Kuzne, drove to Ms. Pike‘s house and that Mr.

Kuzne drove a truck. Mr. Merrell stated that he, the victim, the Defendant, Mr. Kuzne,

and Blake Wallace ―hung out and drank a little bit,‖ that they left and went to Brittany

Covington‘s apartment, and that they went to Southbound. Mr. Merrell stated that about

11:30 p.m., he became separated from the victim and the Defendant, that the victim had

Mr. Merrell‘s car keys, that the victim and the Defendant left without him, and that Mr.

Merrell, Mr. Kuzne, and Mr. Wallace obtained a ride to ―the strip,‖ where the three men

went to two other bars and looked for a ride to Ms. Pike‘s house. Mr. Merrell later said

that the victim and the Defendant left Southbound about 2:00 a.m. Mr. Merrell noted that

-5-

it was not unusual for the victim to drive Mr. Merrell‘s car. Mr. Merrell said that they

rode to Ms. Pike‘s house in the bed of a man‘s white Ford pickup truck around 3:30 a.m.

Mr. Merrell stated that the truck was noisy. He said that the driver of the truck dropped

off the men and ―peeled out and left.‖

Mr. Merrell testified that when they arrived, the house was as they had left it and

that the Defendant and the victim were present. Mr. Merrell said that ―the night was

pretty much over,‖ that the men prepared to go to sleep, that he and Mr. Wallace decided

to stay the night at Mr. Wallace‘s house, and that the group, apart from the Defendant,

acted normal. Mr. Merrell stated that the Defendant had a ―big knot on his head,‖ that

―they‖ had already been in a fight, and that the Defendant was adamant that Mr. Merrell

and Mr. Wallace leave and the victim stay because the victim had plans to meet the

victim‘s girlfriend in the morning. Mr. Merrell said that the Defendant put his hands on

Mr. Merrell‘s and Mr. Wallace‘s shoulders and separated them from the victim, that the

men could not talk to the victim about why he and the Defendant fought, and that the

Defendant said, ―He busted my head. We‘re friends. It‘s no big deal.‖ Mr. Merrell

stated that he asked the Defendant two or three times whether the Defendant and the

victim would fight if he and Mr. Wallace left and that the Defendant assured Mr. Merrell

they would not fight. Mr. Merrell said that the Defendant ―was very normal about it. He

was just very cool and collected . . . and just wanting me and [Mr. Wallace] to leave.‖

Mr. Merrell stated that at the last moment, the victim decided to stay because his

girlfriend planned to pick up the victim from Ms. Pike‘s house.

Mr. Merrell testified that when he left the house, the Defendant did not seem

intoxicated ―past the point to where he was slurring his words . . . or stumbling or

anything like that . . . . [He] did not seem to be completely inebriated or intoxicated at

that time. He was not any more intoxicated than anybody else.‖ When asked whether the

Defendant seemed angry, Mr. Merrell said, ―Not at all, which was very weird and just did

not seem right . . . he didn‘t seem angry, but he was very loud and he continued to not

want [the victim ] to speak . . . . [It] was a very weird, eerie feeling[.]‖ Mr. Merrell

stated that the victim did not indicate he wanted to talk to Mr. Merrell and that the victim

―seemed like he was trying to hide it, whatever had happened . . . because [the

Defendant] would not give him the space for him to be able to speak to us to tell us what

had happened.‖ Mr. Merrell said that the victim did not have a car or a cell phone.

Mr. Merrell testified that to his knowledge, the victim and the Defendant were

acquaintances but were not ―good friends.‖ Mr. Merrell said that the victim‘s girlfriend

was pregnant and that the victim dated multiple women simultaneously. Mr. Merrell

stated that the victim‘s demeanor was normal when they were at Southbound and that

when the victim was at Ms. Pike‘s house, he was quiet and calm but acted uneasy. Mr.

-6-

Merrell said that the victim stated he was going to sleep and that the victim walked Mr.

Merrell and Mr. Wallace to the door. Mr. Merrell agreed that the victim shaved his body

hair and said the victim was ―metrosexual.‖ Mr. Merrell denied that the victim was

homosexual and said that the victim was not homophobic.

On cross-examination, Mr. Merrell testified that the victim would often ―crash‖

with various friends, including Mr. Merrell. Mr. Merrell stated that when he arrived at

Ms. Pike‘s house, he drove the group to a liquor store, that he bought a ―handle‖ of vodka

and a ―large magnum‖ of wine, and that the group drank moderately. Mr. Merrell did not

see anyone drinking at Ms. Covington‘s house. Mr. Merrell agreed that he, the

Defendant, and the victim drank vodka and that Mr. Merrell smoked marijuana. Mr.

Merrell said that the victim acted normal and that he did not notice the victim‘s being

especially intoxicated. Mr. Merrell acknowledged that he continued drinking at

Southbound and at the other bars he visited. Mr. Merrell estimated that he had about ten

drinks over the course of six hours and said that for him, it was a moderate night of

drinking.

Mr. Merrell testified that he remembered the night‘s events in spite of his drinking

and that he thought the victim ―was definitely [with]holding information from us.‖ Mr.

Merrell stated that he had heard the recording of the Defendant‘s first 9-1-1 call and that

he recognized the victim‘s voice in the background. Mr. Merrell said that when he

returned to the house, the Defendant was less intoxicated than he was in the 9-1-1

recording. Mr. Merrell maintained that he did not consider the Defendant intoxicated

because he did not stumble or slur his words, although Mr. Merrell later said that the

Defendant was not sober. Mr. Merrell stated that the Defendant told him the victim had

―busted my head‖ a few times.

Mr. Merrell testified that he and Mr. Wallace were not permitted to talk to the

victim and denied that the victim expressed fear of being arrested because the Defendant

called the police. Mr. Merrell said that the victim and the Defendant never told Mr.

Merrell and Mr. Wallace about the argument or about the 9-1-1 calls. Mr. Merrell denied

that his intoxication affected his perception of the Defendant‘s level of intoxication.

Mr. Merrell testified that he, the victim, and all of their friends shaved their body

hair. Mr. Merrell said that there was ―very little‖ of the victim‘s life of which he was not

aware. Mr. Merrell denied that he was equally or more intoxicated than anyone in the

group. On redirect examination, Mr. Merrell said that on the evening of January 14, the

victim drank an average amount of alcohol based upon his usual habits.

-7-

Blake Wallace testified that he considered the victim to be his best friend, that he

had known the victim for six or eight years, and that although Mr. Wallace had seen the

Defendant previously, he did not know him personally. Mr. Wallace said that he saw Mr.

Merrell at Southbound, that he and Mr. Merrell were good friends, and that Mr. Wallace

saw the victim come in briefly and leave. Mr. Wallace said that a friend gave them a ride

to another bar between 12:30 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. Mr. Wallace stated that the friend left

and that he, Mr. Merrell, and two other men obtained a ride to Ms. Pike‘s house with

some ―bar friends‖ in a large red truck. Mr. Wallace did not remember whether Jordan

Kuzne rode with them.

Mr. Wallace testified that when they arrived at Ms. Pike‘s house, the Defendant

met them outside, that the Defendant was shirtless and had a gash over his eye, and that

the Defendant said he and the victim ―got into a scuffle.‖ Mr. Wallace said that he asked

the Defendant, ―[A]re you all cool,‖ and that the Defendant told him everything was fine.

Mr. Wallace stated that he went into the house and asked the victim whether he punched

the Defendant and that the victim said he punched the Defendant because the Defendant

―kept like poking him . . . when he was asleep[.]‖ Mr. Wallace said that no one seemed

angry and that he thought everything was all right. Mr. Wallace stated that after about an

hour, he and Mr. Merrell left together, that the victim and the Defendant were not arguing

or angry, and that Mr. Wallace felt comfortable leaving the victim there.

Mr. Wallace testified that although the group had been drinking, none of them

were ―extremely intoxicated,‖ and that they drank almost every weekend. He said that

the Defendant was able to understand what was happening, that the Defendant knew Mr.

Wallace‘s name, that the Defendant was not stumbling, and that the victim also acted

normal.

On cross-examination, Mr. Wallace testified that he arrived at Southbound around

11:30 p.m. and that he did not drink before he arrived. Mr. Wallace denied that his

memory was hazy or foggy, although he said that his memory was not as good as it was

on the date of the incident. Mr. Wallace stated that he was at Southbound for no more

than two hours and that he briefly saw the victim between 12:15 and 12:30 a.m. Mr.

Wallace agreed that the victim drank heavily and that it was apparent the victim had been

drinking. Mr. Wallace said, though, that the victim drank every day, that the victim had a

high alcohol tolerance, and that Mr. Wallace had never seen the victim extremely

intoxicated, vomiting, or unconscious as a result of drinking. Mr. Wallace agreed that he

saw Mr. Merrell but denied that Mr. Merrell appeared intoxicated. Mr. Wallace said that

he drank beer at Southbound and that he did not see Mr. Merrell drink there. Mr.

Wallace stated that he did not see the Defendant until he arrived at Ms. Pike‘s house. Mr.

Wallace said that after he left Southbound, he did not accompany the group to another

-8-

bar. Mr. Wallace stated that the bars closed at 3:00 a.m. and that he went to Ms. Pike‘s

house between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m.

Mr. Wallace testified that everyone at the house acted normal and seemed ―kind of

sober . . . it was just kind of one of those nights.‖ Mr. Wallace said that he felt sober and

thought he could have driven. Mr. Wallace stated that the victim did not appear to be

intoxicated. Mr. Wallace remembered telling a police officer that the Defendant acted

―the most intoxicated, but he was just acting weird all the way around. He was . . .

patting [the victim] on the leg . . . getting all close to him and s---, that stuff normal guys

don‘t do[.]‖ Mr. Wallace said, though, that he would not say the Defendant was the most

intoxicated person in the room and that he saw the Defendant as ―the strangest and doing

things that I‘m normally not used to doing[.]‖ Mr. Wallace denied that he characterized

the Defendant‘s actions as affectionate and said that he characterized the actions as

―homosexual.‖ Mr. Wallace recalled telling the police that he speculated the cause of the

fight between the Defendant and the victim was that the Defendant made a sexual

advance toward the victim. Mr. Wallace stated that when he lived with another man, the

victim stayed overnight once and that Mr. Wallace had never seen the Defendant at the

man‘s house. Mr. Wallace said that he told the police about an incident two years before

the victim‘s death in which ―a guy [at a bar] slapped [the victim] on the a--.‖ Mr.

Wallace said that the victim hit the man and that the only time Mr. Wallace saw the

victim fight was when a man made a sexual advance toward him.

On redirect examination, Mr. Wallace testified that at Ms. Pike‘s house, the victim

did not appear angry when the Defendant touched him. Mr. Wallace stated that

―everybody was being friends‖ and that no one was arguing when he left the house.

Ashley Maner testified that she had previous romantic relationships with the

Defendant and the victim, that she remained friendly with both men, and that she

believed the men were friends. Ms. Maner estimated that the victim and the Defendant

had known each other between six and eight months before the victim‘s death. Ms.

Maner said that on the evening of January 14, she went to Southbound and that she saw

the victim and the Defendant together. She stated that she spoke briefly with the victim,

that their conversation was friendly, and that the victim and the Defendant seemed to be

having a good time. Ms. Maner agreed that the men appeared to have been drinking, that

they were coherent, and that they behaved normally.

Ms. Maner testified that when she arrived home around 3:30 a.m., she returned a

call from the Defendant and that she thought the victim answered. She said that the

conversation was friendly until suddenly, the victim called her a ―whore.‖ Ms. Maner

stated that she thought he referred to her relationship with the Defendant, that she told the

-9-

victim she wanted to speak to the Defendant, that the victim handed the telephone to the

Defendant, that the Defendant asked her if everything was okay, and that she told the

Defendant everything was fine. Ms. Maner said that at one point, Mr. Wallace was

handed the telephone and said hello. She stated that the conversation lasted about fifteen

minutes and that she heard music and male voices in the background. She said that it

sounded as though the men were having a party and a good time. Ms. Maner denied that

the victim and the Defendant argued or sounded angry. Ms. Maner said that ―at some

point‖ in the early morning, the victim stopped by her house when she was not there and

that she thought he wanted to stay overnight with her. Ms. Maner stated that her friend

was at the house with Ms. Maner‘s daughter and that Ms. Maner did not know whether

the victim was alone when he came to her house. Ms. Maner said that the victim did not

own a car or a cell phone and that she did not know how he traveled to her house. Ms.

Maner denied the victim was homosexual.

On cross-examination, Ms. Maner testified that her romantic relationship with the

Defendant occurred ―recently‖ before the victim‘s death. Ms. Maner said that she was

aware the Defendant and the victim were roommates for an unknown period of time. Ms.

Maner agreed that the Defendant and the victim talked frequently, were friendly, liked to

drink alcohol, and ―looked out for each other as friends would[.]‖ Ms. Maner stated that

although she and the Defendant were physically intimate for a time, they were not

―dating,‖ and that after she and the Defendant ended their relationship, she started dating

the victim. Ms. Maner said that she knew the victim well, that she knew he had another

girlfriend who was pregnant with his child, and that if the victim had been homosexual or

bisexual, he would have told Ms. Maner.

Ms. Maner testified that the victim was upset during the telephone conversation

and said that although she knew he and the Defendant had been drinking, they did not

sound intoxicated. Ms. Maner said that the Defendant invited her to Ms. Pike‘s house

during the telephone conversation and that she did not get the impression the Defendant

wanted the other people at the house to leave. Ms. Maner agreed that if the Defendant

told someone he and the victim fought over a woman that night, she would have assumed

she was the woman. On redirect examination, Ms. Maner said that when the Defendant

invited her to his house, he told her he was having a party, that she told him she had to

work the next morning, and that the conversation ended shortly thereafter.

Jordan Kuzne testified that he attended high school with the Defendant and that he

knew the victim through a mutual friend, although he was not close with either man. Mr.

Kuzne said that on January 14, he met the victim and Mr. Merrell at a restaurant for

dinner and that they went to Southbound later in the evening. Mr. Kuzne denied drinking

alcohol that evening and seeing anyone else drinking, although he acknowledged it was

-10-

possible they were drinking. Mr. Kuzne said that his maroon truck was parked at Ms.

Pike‘s house and that he rode back to Ms. Pike‘s house in a ―lifted jacked up truck,‖

which he thought was white. Mr. Kuzne stated that they were alone when he, Mr.

Merrell, and possibly Mr. Wallace arrived at Ms. Pike‘s house and that the victim and the

Defendant arrived in a car about two minutes later. Mr. Kuzne said that the Defendant

was not wearing a shirt and had a lump on his head. Mr. Kuzne said that the Defendant

may have been intoxicated but was able to communicate and stand up. Mr. Kuzne stated

the Defendant told them ―at the very beginning‖ that the house did not belong to the

Defendant and that he did not want a ―ruckus in his house to make the neighbors upset.‖

Mr. Kuzne said that the Defendant ―tried to say‖ the victim caused his injury. Mr. Kuzne

stated that once everyone returned to Ms. Pike‘s house, the men had a push-up contest

and were ―goofing around,‖ that they spent time on a computer, that everyone was

friendly, and that when Mr. Kuzne left around 4:00 a.m., everything seemed fine and no

one was upset. Mr. Kuzne said that he was the first to leave.

Brittany Covington testified that the Defendant, the victim, Mr. Kuzne, and Mr.

Merrell visited her apartment on January 14, that they spent between one and two hours

there, that it was a pleasant visit without disagreements between the men, that the men

drank alcohol and smoked marijuana, and that the men left around 11:00 p.m. Ms.

Covington said that they asked her to accompany them and that she declined and stayed

home. Ms. Covington stated that she received a telephone call around 2:00 or 3:00 a.m.

from the Defendant or the victim, that she spoke to the victim, that the victim wanted to

stay overnight at her apartment, and that she declined because she was going to bed. Ms.

Covington said that she did not hear from the victim or the Defendant after this call. Ms.

Covington stated that she considered the victim and the Defendant acquaintances, that

she had known both of them for about three months, and that she was not in a romantic

relationship with either man.

On cross-examination, Ms. Covington testified that the men arrived between 8:00

and 9:00 p.m. She denied that the group was ―partying hard‖ and said that they played

cards. Ms. Covington denied ever seeing the Defendant be violent or act inappropriate

with her or others. Ms. Covington agreed that the Defendant was polite and soft-spoken.

Knox County Sheriff‘s Sergeant McKenzie Alleman testified that she responded to

Ms. Pike‘s house and that Lieutenant Brad Park and Captain Terry Lee assisted her in

processing the crime scene. Sergeant Alleman identified photographs of Ms. Pike‘s

house, which were received as exhibits. The photographs showed the exterior of the

house, an overturned potted plant beside the front door, overturned living room furniture

and many items on top of or near a sofa, and living room walls with blood spatter. A

bloodstained human arm was visible protruding from beneath the items on the sofa. The

-11-

photographs depicted the victim‘s body on the sofa, partially wrapped in a comforter and

covered with various household items. A large amount of blood was visible around the

victim‘s head and on the sofa. Blood spatter and bloody footprints were present on the

living room carpet. White shards of an unidentified material and a large amount of blood

were present on the carpet near the victim‘s head. A bloody shoeprint was present on the

cover of a magazine. The interior of a red cooler located beside the sofa was coated in

blood and sediment. One photograph depicted a large dumbbell covered in blood. Other

photographs showed the dining room and kitchen, which were in similar states of

disarray, and a bloodstained bathroom sink faucet handle. Additional photographs

showed blood smeared on the exterior of a door, a pair of bloodstained blue jeans with a

cell phone, wallet, and the Defendant‘s driver‘s license, and a second pair of blue jeans

with a white belt, a gray necktie, a men‘s shirt, and tennis shoes. Photographs of the

driveway showed tire tracks and shoeprints in patches of snow.

Sergeant Alleman testified that the victim was wrapped in a comforter. She stated

that bloody shoeprints were found throughout the house and on papers on the floor.

Sergeant Alleman said that the blood-covered dumbbell weighed twenty pounds. She

noted that in areas other than the bedding on the sofa, which was saturated with blood,

the blood had dried. She stated that a pillow was present on top of the victim‘s legs and

that the underside of the pillow was saturated with blood. She said that she did not see

any injuries to the victim below his chest and that no injuries corresponded to the blood-

soaked pillow that was found on top of his legs. Sergeant Alleman stated that blood had

permeated through the comforter and the sofa and had dripped onto the floor.

Sergeant Alleman testified that no windows were broken in the house. She said

that swabs of the blood in the house matched the victim, with the exception of blood

found on the door between the kitchen and the garage, which matched the Defendant.

She stated that a pair of ripped boxer shorts wrapped around a set of artificial flowers was

collected as evidence and that the shorts had a shoe impression on them. She said that the

victim was found wearing a white shirt, lime green boxer briefs, and ankle socks.

Sergeant Alleman stated that the shoeprints found throughout the house had the same

―zigzag‖ tread. She said that a bloodstained t-shirt was collected from one of the

bedrooms. She stated that the cooler contained blood and smelled like vomit. She said

that red gel candles were broken near the victim‘s head and that shards of a white ceramic

candle holder were found near the body. Sergeant Alleman stated that two barbells were

found near the victim‘s head in the ―void‖ at the corner of the reclining sofa.

Sergeant Alleman identified a twenty-pound dumbbell recovered from the floor in

front of the sofa, a twelve-pound dumbbell recovered near the victim‘s head on the sofa,

and a twenty-pound dumbbell and a twelve-pound dumbbell recovered from under the

-12-

victim‘s head. She said that the dumbbells had reddish-brown stains when she collected

them. Sergeant Alleman identified items found under the overturned coffee table,

including a pair of blue jeans with a white belt, two cell phones, and a wallet. She stated

that the wallet contained the victim‘s identification. She said that the blue jeans had

reddish-brown stains on the front left leg and that they had not been neatly placed on the

floor. She also identified a pair of red and white Nike tennis shoes found near the

victim‘s clothing. Sergeant Alleman identified a pair of blue jeans with a brown belt, a

wallet, loose change, and a key from the floor in front of a loveseat. She said that the

wallet contained the Defendant‘s identification and that both sides of the blue jeans had

reddish brown stains. Sergeant Alleman identified a gray button-up shirt and a gray

thermal shirt, which were found on the floor in front of the sofa.

Sergeant Alleman identified a pair of boxer shorts recovered from the hallway and

noted a ―zigzag pattern‖ present on the boxer shorts that matched bloodstains found

throughout the house. She also identified a gray shirt recovered from the back bedroom

three days after the police initially searched the house. She stated that the shirt had

reddish-brown stains on the shoulders, on the lower side, and on the back. Sergeant

Alleman identified drug paraphernalia recovered from a night stand, including a broken

glass pipe, a metal pin, a portion of an ink pen, plastic wrap, and aluminum foil.

Sergeant Alleman identified DNA swabs taken from blood spatter on the living

room walls, the headrest on the sofa, the wall behind the front door, the bathroom door,

and the door between the kitchen and the garage. She said that the swabs were sent to the

Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) for analysis. She also identified eight pieces of

paper with bloody shoeprints, which were recovered inside the house. She noted that the

shoeprints all had the same zigzag pattern.

Sergeant Alleman identified a pair of Nike tennis shoes, a tie, a ―face warmer,‖ a

―hood,‖ a pair of blue jeans, a pair of socks, and a jacket taken from the Defendant after

his arrest. Sergeant Alleman said that the jacket had reddish-brown stains on the rear left

shoulder and that the blue jeans had ―substantial staining‖ on the front and rear sides.

She also identified a shirt taken from the victim. Sergeant Alleman noted that the shirt

had significant amounts of bloodstains and footprints with a zigzag pattern on the center

and right shoulder. Sergeant Alleman identified an air purifier heater that was recovered

from the hallway entrance, which was broken into several pieces and covered with a

reddish-brown stain.

Sergeant Alleman testified that she collected several ceramic and glass fragments

from around the victim‘s head, that the victim was transported to the hospital wrapped in

the comforter, and that the medical examiner recovered ceramic and glass fragments from

-13-

inside the comforter. Sergeant Alleman said that bloodstains on the comforter were

concentrated on the area near the victim‘s head and shoulders.

On cross-examination, Sergeant Alleman testified that the victim was dressed in a

white t-shirt, boxer briefs, and ankle socks and that due to the location of the victim‘s

blood and his being wrapped in the comforter, the victim did not appear to have been

moved. She agreed that blood was present on a door about twenty feet from the sofa.

Sergeant Alleman agreed that the blood on the door matched the Defendant‘s blood

sample and that the victim‘s hand was swollen and had blood on it.

Sergeant Alleman testified that the house was an unusual crime scene, that she had

never seen ―debris and the objects fashioned in that manner,‖ and that the house

contained a variety of household objects ―just piled in the middle of the room.‖ She

agreed that the Defendant‘s jeans contained bloodstains running down from the

waistband, that a sweatshirt found near the sofa had a ―limited stain‖ on the side, and that

a grey shirt found near the sweatshirt was not bloodstained. She said that the boxer

shorts found at the entrance to the bathroom had been ―significantly ripped‖ at the front

center waistband and horizontally across the front of the thighs on both sides. Sergeant

Alleman agreed that the Defendant was not wearing underwear when he was arrested.

On redirect examination, Sergeant Alleman said that nothing about the crime scene

indicated objects had been moved after the victim was attacked, other than the blood-

soaked sham pillow on the victim‘s legs.

TBI Special Agent Linda Littlejohn, an expert in forensic impression evidence,

testified that she analyzed the Defendant‘s tennis shoes and the victim‘s t-shirt, that she

found two partial shoeprints on the shirt, and that the shoeprints matched the Defendant‘s

shoes.

TBI Crime Lab Agent Dr. Laura Boos, an expert in forensic biology, testified that

she performed tests to determine the presence of blood and DNA on items from the

house. Dr. Boos said that she tested the dumbbell found in front of the sofa, the

Defendant‘s tennis shoes, the Defendant‘s jacket and blue jeans, the victim‘s t-shirt, and

the victim‘s fingernail clippings, and that all the items were positive for the victim‘s

blood. She stated the victim‘s DNA was found on swabs taken from the walls, sofa, and

bathroom door. She said that the Defendant‘s blood and DNA were found on a swab

taken from the door between the kitchen and the garage.

Dr. Boos testified that anal swabs taken from the victim tested positive for the

presence of semen, but not sperm cells, and that no DNA profile other than the victim‘s

was obtained from the swabs. She said that sometimes semen was void of sperm cells

-14-

because of a vasectomy or because a period of time had passed such that any sperm cells

had degraded. Dr. Boos said that in the absence of an additional DNA profile with which

to compare the sample, she could not exclude the possibility that the semen on the anal

swab belonged to the victim. She stated that in her experience, it was possible for a

victim‘s DNA profile to ―overwhelm‖ another DNA sample due to the presence of the

victim‘s DNA on a swab.

Knox County Sheriff‘s Detective Krystal Gibson testified that she was the lead

detective at the crime scene and that she interviewed the Defendant. She said that the

Defendant was in a police cruiser, that he was calm and polite, that he was disheveled,

that ―a lot of blood‖ was on his clothing, that he used a necktie as a belt, and that he had a

cut on his head. Detective Gibson denied that the Defendant smelled of alcohol. She

said that she interviewed the Defendant between forty-five and sixty minutes, that he

understood and answered her questions, that he clarified his answers when necessary, and

that he gave her directions and information to assist the investigation. Detective Gibson

stated that Detective Cowan also participated in the interview.

Detective Gibson testified that the Defendant became uncomfortable with being

seen by neighbors and was embarrassed on his grandmother‘s behalf and that, as a result,

the deputies moved the police cruiser from the street to the driveway. Detective Gibson

said that the Defendant was handcuffed for safety reasons, that the police cruiser‘s door

was open during the interview, and that the Defendant remained in the police cruiser,

with the exception of stepping outside to allow the police to take his photograph.

Detective Gibson denied that the Defendant complained about the cut on his head.

Detective Gibson testified that she read the Defendant his constitutional rights and

that he did not sign the waiver form because he was handcuffed. Detective Gibson said

that the Defendant was willing to speak to her at the scene and that she audio recorded

the conversation. A waiver of rights form was received as an exhibit. The form

contained a handwritten notation reading, ―K. Gibson read to Δ 1.15.11 Apx. 0905. Read

to Δ outside of 10-62 location. Δ in Rear of Cruiser. Also present (Lt. Cowan).‖ The

form reflected that the Defendant had a twelfth-grade education and was literate.

An audio recording of the interview was played for the jury. In it, Detective

Gibson asked the Defendant if he understood his rights and he replied affirmatively.

When asked if he was willing to talk to Detective Gibson, the Defendant answered,

―[B]riefly.‖ Detectives Gibson and Cowan discussed interviewing the Defendant with

the police cruiser‘s door open, and the Defendant asked if they could leave the area.

Detective Cowan replied that they would ―get [the Defendant] out of here just as quick as

we can‖ and asked the Defendant if he understood his rights. The Defendant said, ―Yes

-15-

sir.‖ When asked what happened, the Defendant said that ―me and the gentleman inside

and two other people‖ went out and were drinking alcohol, and then ―you see the mark on

my face? The bump . . . . He apparently . . . hit me a couple times.‖ The Defendant said

that he believed the victim hit him at Ms. Pike‘s house. The Defendant did not remember

where the group went and said that he thought it was in ―the Old City‖ or ―the strip.‖

When asked about the police‘s coming to Ms. Pike‘s house earlier in the morning, the

Defendant responded that the police had not come to the house ―that I know of.‖ The

Defendant asked Detective Cowan if the police had come to the house, and Detective

Cowan responded that his information indicated deputies had received a ―domestic‖ call.

When asked whether the Defendant lived at Ms. Pike‘s house, the Defendant said that he

and his grandmother lived there. The Defendant identified the victim as ―Angelo,‖

although he noted that the victim‘s ―real name‖ was Angel. The Defendant thought the

victim‘s last name was Ratliff, although he was not sure. When asked how he knew the

victim, the Defendant responded that he was a friend the Defendant had met through

mutual friends about six months previously.

Relative to his conflict with the victim, the Defendant said that he and the victim

―got into it‖ at the house and that the victim hit him. The Defendant said that the victim

left the house, returned, and went to sleep, ―and I did what I did.‖ When asked what the

Defendant meant when he said ―I did what I did,‖ the Defendant said that he threw a

twenty-pound dumbbell at the victim‘s head, that the dumbbell was the first object he

threw, and that he thought the dumbbell killed the victim. The Defendant said that the

victim was asleep on the couch and that he killed the victim because the victim beat him

up. When asked whether the Defendant left the house after the victim went to sleep, the

Defendant responded that it was his house and that he stayed there. The Defendant said

that neither he nor the victim owned a car.

When asked whether the Defendant and the victim had a romantic or sexual

relationship, the Defendant repeatedly stated that they had not. The Defendant said that

the victim was just visiting and did not live at Ms. Pike‘s house. The Defendant stated

that he wanted to leave the area because the neighbors were ―so nosy‖ and that he was

concerned for Ms. Pike because ―she has to live here‖ and because everyone would know

what happened. The Defendant began to cry and said he felt bad for her. When asked

where Ms. Pike was, the Defendant said that she was babysitting for the Defendant‘s

younger siblings and that she was not present during the incident.

The Defendant stated that the victim lived in a condominium, that his mother lived

with him most of the time, and that the victim‘s mother‘s cell phone number was possibly

in the Defendant‘s cell phone call history. The Defendant said that the victim was age

twenty-seven or twenty-eight and that the Defendant was age twenty-four. The

-16-

Defendant denied having taken anything out of the house and said that he ―made a wreck

out of the house.‖ The Defendant said, ―This is not me. I‘m not a f------ killer . . . . I

was just so upset, just so distraught.‖ The Defendant stated that he hit the victim

―numerous times‖ with different objects, starting with the dumbbell. The Defendant said

that the dumbbells had been in the living room beside the television. The Defendant

noted that he was ―in a rage.‖ When asked when it happened, the Defendant said that he

did not know but that it was very late the previous night or early that morning around

3:00 a.m. The Defendant did not remember whether he stayed in the house after he killed

the victim. He said that he remembered thinking he could not stay there, that he walked

to Krystal, and that he used the restaurant‘s telephone to call the police and surrender

himself. The Defendant began to cry.

Detective Cowan said that he was going to move the police cruiser into the

driveway where the Defendant was not as visible. The Defendant said that his friends,

Jordan and Joey, went out with him the previous night, that their telephone numbers were

in his cell phone call history, and that the Defendant‘s cell phone was inside the house.

He stated that he did not ―mind‖ if Detective Gibson searched his cell phone. The

Defendant said that he could not find the cell phone and that the house was ―a mess.‖

The Defendant said that he and the victim had ―not really‖ had problems before

the previous night and that they had never fought. The Defendant stated that they were

both intoxicated at the time of the fight, that they were ―just drunk and being stupid,‖ and

that the victim punched him for an unknown reason. He denied that he and the victim

used drugs and said that he drank vodka. The Defendant said that the victim left, that the

Defendant did not know where the victim went, and that the victim had the Defendant‘s

cell phone. The Defendant remembered calling his cell phone, telling the victim that he

did not care about the fight, and asking the victim to return to the house. The Defendant

said that when he spoke with the victim on the telephone, the Defendant did not have any

intent to kill the victim. The Defendant stated that he had a bad temper and that he was

upset with the victim. When asked whether the Defendant would ―get back‖ at people

who upset him, the Defendant said, ―Yeah, pretty much, I guess.‖ The Defendant said

that although he was angry with the victim before the victim went to sleep, the Defendant

did not show it. The Defendant remembered mentioning the fight to the victim

repeatedly. The Defendant said that he ―went crazy‖ inside the house. The Defendant

did not remember which shirt he wore during the attack.

When asked how he knew the victim had died, the Defendant responded, ―I mean,

I like, I made sh—. . . I killed him . . . . I threw a dumbbell right through his head.‖

When Detective Cowan asked the Defendant whether he was speaking to them of his own

-17-

free will, the Defendant answered that he was and that Detective Gibson read him his

rights.

When asked whether he intended to kill the victim when he initially threw the

dumbbell, the Defendant responded, ―Yes. Yes. I mean . . . I was mad because he beat

me up . . . . I was bleeding, and I don‘t play games like that.‖ The Defendant did not

remember if the victim hit him with his hands or with an object, whether anyone else was

present, or when the fight happened. The Defendant said that he did not remember

because he was intoxicated at the time. The Defendant said that the group drove Mr.

Merrell‘s Kia and that he did not know if the police could have spoken to another

member of the group when they responded to the assault call. The Defendant did not

remember if he intended to sleep on the loveseat. The Defendant identified his cell phone

and said that when he walked to Krystal, he left a voicemail message for his girlfriend.

He said that in the message, he told her he loved her and that he was going away for a

long time.

The Defendant stated that earlier in the evening, he ate dinner at a restaurant with

a friend and his mother, that the friend‘s mother dropped off the Defendant after dinner,

that Mr. Merrell, Mr. Kunze, and the victim joined him, and that the four men went to

Ms. Covington‘s house. The Defendant did not remember calling a woman identified as

Ashley and said that after they left Ms. Covington‘s house, everything was ―a daze.‖ He

did not remember walking in front of the house and talking on the telephone. He said

that Mr. Kuzne‘s truck did not have a loud muffler.

Detective Gibson testified that the Defendant gave her his cell phone, that his call

log corroborated his statement, and that the call log reflected several calls from Ms.

Pike‘s house to his cell phone after the 2:27 a.m. 9-1-1 call but before 4:00 a.m.

Detective Gibson said that based upon her investigation, the victim was killed between

4:00 a.m. and 5:37 a.m., when the Defendant called his girlfriend and left her a voicemail

message saying that he had killed someone. Detective Gibson stated that according to the

Defendant‘s jail intake records, he was not sent to the hospital after booking, that the

Defendant reported a head injury, and that the Defendant reported drinking alcohol and

using marijuana the previous day.

On cross-examination, Detective Gibson testified that the Defendant had walked

one mile from Ms. Pike‘s house to Krystal. She agreed that the Defendant openly stated

he was involved in a homicide and that the Defendant had a large ―pump knot‖ on his

forehead, indicating he had been involved in a struggle. She agreed that the Defendant

was compliant and agreed to speak to her after being read his Miranda rights.

-18-

Detective Gibson testified that the Defendant did not ―appear too impaired to talk

to me‖ at the time of the interview. She agreed that the Defendant did not remember a

―big chunk‖ of what happened and that she decided to proceed with the interview. She

agreed that the Defendant was unsure about his memory of the initial altercation with the

victim and said that she was not concerned by the Defendant‘s memory lapse. When

asked whether the Defendant‘s statement about the victim‘s leaving the house, returning,

and going to sleep was consistent with Mr. Wallace‘s and Mr. Merrell‘s statements about

the victim‘s and the Defendant‘s returning to the house together at 3:40 a.m., Detective

Gibson said that Mr. Wallace and Mr. Merrell stated that the Defendant was on the lawn

shirtless and that the victim had pulled up in Mr. Merrell‘s car. Detective Gibson agreed

that the Defendant did not mention going somewhere with the victim after the initial

altercation and that there was a ―significant and material‖ discrepancy between the

Defendant‘s and the witnesses‘ statements.

Detective Gibson agreed that the Defendant stated he killed the victim around 3:00

a.m., which was untrue, and that the Defendant did not remember the cause of his fight

with the victim or what happened between his killing the victim and his walking to

Krystal. Detective Gibson agreed that the Defendant admitted he and the victim were

intoxicated and that when Detective Cowan asked the Defendant if he intended to kill the

victim when he threw the barbell, the Defendant answered, ―Yes, I mean,‖ and that

Detective Cowan interrupted him before he could finish the thought. She disagreed that

it would have been a good idea to stop the interview due to the Defendant‘s memory

lapses and head injury and denied that the Defendant‘s statements were unreliable due to

his memory lapses. Detective Gibson said that she thought the Defendant ―was

remembering what was convenient‖ in his statement, although she acknowledged nobody

could know what was happening in the Defendant‘s mind.

On redirect examination, Detective Gibson testified that the Defendant

remembered ―hanging out‖ with a group of people, drinking alcohol, having a problem

with the victim, the victim‘s ―real name,‖ the victim‘s leaving, returning, and going to

sleep, and the Defendant‘s killing the victim. Detective Gibson said that according to a

witness interview, the victim knocked on the witness‘s door late at night, which indicated

that he left Ms. Pike‘s house after the fight. Detective Gibson stated that the Defendant‘s

cell phone call history also corroborated the victim‘s having left the house. She said that

the Defendant remembered calling the victim, who had the Defendant‘s cell phone, to ask

the victim to return to the house. She stated that the victim was dressed as if he were

prepared to sleep, was covered with a comforter, and had a pillow. Detective Gibson

stated that the Defendant consistently identified the victim‘s punching him as the reason

he killed the victim and that the Defendant remembered what he threw at the victim.

Detective Gibson said that the Defendant remembered his age and Ms. Pike‘s not being at

-19-

home because she was babysitting. Detective Gibson stated that the Defendant

remembered he hit the victim with only objects, not his hands, and that the Defendant‘s

friends‘ telephone numbers were in his cell phone call history.

Detective Gibson testified that when the Defendant was asked how he knew the

victim was dead, the Defendant began a sentence in which he ―sounded like . . . he was

going to say I made sure.‖ She said that the Defendant noted he ―threw a dumbbell right

through [the victim‘s] head.‖ She stated that the Defendant answered affirmatively when

asked whether he intended to kill the victim when he threw the dumbbell. She said that

when Detective Cowan noted the cut on the Defendant‘s head, the Defendant said, ―I was

bleeding – it was bleeding and like I don‘t play games like that.‖ Detective Gibson said

that the Defendant stated he had a ―bad temper‖ and that the Defendant agreed with

Detective Cowan that he ―[got] back‖ at people who did ―things‖ to him. She stated that

the Defendant said he was ―mad but I wasn‘t showing it‖ before the victim fell asleep and

that the Defendant mentioned having talked to the victim about the initial fight.

Detective Gibson testified that in Ms. Pike‘s house, the living room mantle,

photographs hanging on the walls, family photo albums, and ―little trinkets and . . .

porcelain‖ were not disturbed. On recross-examination, Detective Gibson said any part

of the Defendant‘s statement could be considered in the context of the entire statement

and that the Defendant‘s statement about the sequence of events comprising the homicide

was ―very vague.‖

Dr. Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan, an expert in anatomic and forensic pathology,

testified that she performed the victim‘s autopsy and that she documented multiple cuts

and abrasions on the victim‘s head, including deep lacerations to the forehead that

exposed bone, bruises and a deformity of the nose and nasal bridge, fractures on the

forehead under one laceration that exposed the brain, and stretch lacerations on the head.

She noted that bruises were present in many of the injuries, indicating the victim was

alive when the injuries were inflicted, and that some of the injuries did not show bruises,

indicating that the injuries were inflicted as the victim became comatose and died. Dr.

Mileusnic-Polchan said that she documented petechia on the eyelids, which could have

been caused by blunt force trauma, and that the upper and lower jaws and upper palate

were broken. She stated that she documented forty-four injuries to the victim‘s face and

that the injuries were caused by different objects.

Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan testified that the victim‘s left arm contained cuts and

abrasions, including a ―pattern lesion‖ that showed some evidence of healing, which

could have occurred hours or one day prior to the victim‘s death. She said that the hands

showed defensive injuries to the forearms and hands, including abrasions and bruises,

-20-

that the right shoulder had ―substantial‖ contusions, and that the lower extremities

showed a cluster of minor contusions. Autopsy photographs of the victim were received

as an exhibit.

Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan testified that the victim was sixty-eight inches tall and

weighed 214 pounds. She said that fragments of ceramic, porcelain, and wood were

found in the ―head area‖ of the comforter in which the victim was transported, and that

she removed some fragments from the head and neck lacerations. She noted that due to

the severity of the trauma to the victim‘s head, visual identification was impossible and

that the victim was identified by his fingerprints. Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan said that the

injuries were concentrated on the left side of the head and the right shoulder and arm,

which could indicate movement from the victim or the attacker. She stated that the sides

of the brain ―had multiple impacts,‖ that the top of the brain was not injured, that the top

of the head contained some cuts and abrasions, and that the back of the body was

uninjured. She said blood coming from the ears indicated that the base of the skull was

fractured. She stated that the injuries were consistent with the victim‘s lying on his back

when he was assaulted. She said that any of the head lacerations could have produced the

amount of blood necessary to result in blood spatter on the walls and that the blood

spatter would have come from the assailant moving an object, not directly from the

injuries.

Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan testified that the bloodstained dumbbell could have caused

some of the victim‘s injuries. She said that based upon the amount of blood on the pillow

sham, she concluded that the victim could not have placed the pillow on top of his legs.

She said that the cause of death was cranial cerebral injuries and that the manner of death

was homicide.

Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan testified that the victim‘s urine was positive for

amphetamines, that his blood was negative for drugs, and that the absence of drugs in the

victim‘s blood indicated the amphetamines were taken up to one day before the victim‘s

death. She said that his blood alcohol content was 0.21%. On cross-examination, Dr.

Mileusnic-Polchan stated that she collected anal swabs from the victim and sent them to

the TBI for analysis. She said that she was aware the victim and the Defendant had an

altercation and that she was not told the Defendant had significant injuries such that some

of the bruises on the victim‘s hand could have been caused by striking the Defendant.

She agreed that the combination of an assault and the presence of semen inside the victim

raised concerns about a possible sexual assault. She agreed that she documented a one

and one-half inch superficial contusion on the victim‘s penis and that the injury occurred

around the same time as the other injuries, but she said that in the context of the victim‘s

cranial injuries, it was not important.

-21-

Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan testified that a person would attempt ―mechanically‖ to

protect his head and that there were different states of being awake. She said that the

distance blood spatter traveled depended upon a number of variables, that the blood

spatter on the end of the couch farthest from the victim‘s head came from an object, and

that other evidence indicated the victim did not move from the couch during the attack.

Upon this evidence, the jury found the Defendant guilty of first degree murder.

The Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. This appeal followed.

I

Sufficiency of the Evidence

The Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his first degree

premeditated murder conviction. The Defendant does not dispute the evidence

establishing that he killed the victim and only argues that the evidence is insufficient to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt he acted with premeditation. He argues that the act of

killing the victim was a ―spontaneous eruption of violence‖ resulting from the

Defendant‘s rage at having been assaulted by the victim earlier in the evening. The State

responds that the evidence is sufficient. We agree with the State.

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, the standard of review is ―whether,

after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier

of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.‖

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514,

521 (Tenn. 2007). The State is ―afforded the strongest legitimate view of the evidence

and all reasonable inferences‖ from that evidence. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d at 521. The

appellate courts do not ―reweigh or reevaluate the evidence,‖ and questions regarding

―the credibility of witnesses [and] the weight and value to be given to the evidence . . .

are resolved by the trier of fact.‖ State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997); see

State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984).

―A crime may be established by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a

combination of the two.‖ State v. Hall, 976 S.W.2d 121, 140 (Tenn. 1998); see also State

v. Sutton, 166 S.W.3d 686, 691 (Tenn. 2005). ―The standard of review ‗is the same

whether the conviction is based upon direct or circumstantial evidence.‘‖ State v.

Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 379 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265,

275 (Tenn. 2009)).

-22-

Relevant to this case, first degree murder is the unlawful, intentional, and

premeditated killing of another. T.C.A. §§ 39-13-201 (2014), 39-13-202(a)(1) (2014). In

the context of first degree murder, intent is shown if the defendant has the conscious

objective or desire to cause the victim‘s death. State v. Page, 81 S.W.3d 781, 790-91

(Tenn. Crim. App. 2002); T.C.A. § 39-11-106(a)(18) (2010) (amended 2011, 2014)

(defining intentional as the ―conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or

cause the result‖). ―It is not necessary that the purpose to kill preexist in the mind of the

accused for any definite period of time.‖ T.C.A. § 39-13-202(d) (2014). ―The element of

premeditation is a question for the jury which may be established by proof of the

circumstances surrounding the killing.‖ State v. Young, 196 S.W.3d 85, 108 (Tenn.

2006). As a result, the jury ―may infer premeditation from the manner and circumstances

of the killing.‖ State v. Jackson, 173 S.W.3d 401, 408 (Tenn. 2005); see State v. Vaughn,

279 S.W.3d 584, 595 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). Our supreme court has provided a list of

factors which ―tend to support the existence‖ of premeditation and deliberation. See

Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 660. The list includes the use of a deadly weapon upon an

unarmed victim, the particular cruelty of the killing, declarations by the defendant of an

intent to kill, evidence of procurement of a weapon, preparations before the killing for

concealment of the crime, and calmness immediately after the killing. Id. (citing State v.

Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 541-42 (Tenn. 1992); State v. West, 844 S.W.2d 144, 148

(Tenn. 1997)).

The Defendant argues that he acted out of rage provoked by the earlier assault and

should have been convicted of voluntary manslaughter. He states in his brief, ―Despite a

temporary calming of that anger, the rage lingered on and then erupted into an act of

spontaneous irrational violence.‖ We note that a person commits voluntary manslaughter

when the person kills another ―in a state of passion produced by adequate provocation

sufficient to lead a reasonable person to act in an irrational manner.‖ T.C.A. § 39-13-

211(a) (2014). In contrast, premeditation is ―an act done after the exercise of reflection

and judgment.‖ Id. § 39-13-202(d) (2014).

In the light most favorable to the State, the record reflects that after a night of

heavy drinking, the Defendant and the victim fought and that the victim punched the

Defendant in the face, leaving a knot on his forehead and a small gash. The Defendant

called 9-1-1 at 2:27 a.m. seeking the victim‘s removal from Ms. Pike‘s house and while

speaking to the dispatcher, the Defendant shouted at the victim that he would kill him.

The Defendant called 9-1-1 again at 2:46 a.m. and told the dispatcher the victim had left

the house. The Defendant spoke with sheriff‘s deputies around 3:00 a.m., and Deputy

Monroe testified that the Defendant was polite but angry about the fight. At some point,

the Defendant called the victim and urged him to return with the Defendant‘s cell phone.

When Mr. Kuzne, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Merrell returned to the house about 3:30 a.m.,

-23-

the victim was present. They asked the Defendant about the fight, and the Defendant did

not allow them to speak to the victim. The Defendant assured them that he was not angry

and would not fight with the victim when they left. Mr. Kuzne testified that the men

spent time using a computer and had a push-up contest. According to Mr. Merrell, the

Defendant urged all of the men but the victim to leave and insisted that the victim stay

overnight. The men left the house around 4:00 a.m., and at 5:37 a.m., the Defendant left

a voicemail message for his girlfriend stating that he had killed someone and was going

away for a long time. At 8:17 a.m., the Defendant called 9-1-1 from Krystal and stated

that he had killed someone and wanted to turn himself in to the police. The Defendant

told Detectives Gibson and Cowan that he killed the victim by throwing a barbell

―through his head‖ and that he killed the victim because the victim had hit him. The

victim was unarmed, was dressed for sleeping, and was wrapped in a comforter on the

sofa when his body was found. Dr. Milusenic-Polchan testified that the victim was killed

due to cranial cerebral injuries, that she documented defensive wounds and forty-four

injuries to the victim‘s face, and that the evidence indicated the victim had not moved

from the sofa during or after the attack. The crime scene photographs depicted a brutal

and bloody killing that disfigured the victim to the point that identification was made by

fingerprints. In addition, the Defendant stated that after he killed the victim, he destroyed

Ms. Pike‘s house in a rage, but the crime scene photographs show that he left certain

items like the china cabinet and family photographs untouched.

The evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that after the Defendant and

the victim fought, a cooling-off period occurred between the victim‘s leaving the house

after the 2:27 a.m. 9-1-1 call and 4:00 a.m., when Mr. Wallace and Mr. Merrell left. The

Defendant declared during the 9-1-1 call that he would kill the victim. The Defendant

stated that he called the victim and asked him to return to the house. The Defendant

acted normal when the other men arrived at Ms. Pike‘s house around 3:30 a.m. and

assured them that he did not intend to fight with the victim after they left. The Defendant

insisted that the other men leave and that the victim stay. The Defendant waited for the

victim to lay down to go to sleep and then beat him to death with various household

items. The victim sustained forty-four injuries to his face alone. See State v. Sims, 45

S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tenn. 2001) (noting that evidence of repeated blows ―evidencing the

particularly brutal nature of the killing‖ are relevant to establishing premeditation,

although such evidence, standing alone, is not dispositive). The Defendant said that he

destroyed his grandmother‘s house because he was ―so distraught,‖ but the crime scene

photographs showed that he left items of particular sentimental value undamaged. The

arresting deputies and Detectives Gibson and Cowan described the Defendant as calm,

and the recording of the 8:17 a.m. 9-1-1 call was consistent with their testimony. The

Defendant told the detectives that he meant to kill the victim and that he ―[got] back‖ at

people who upset him. The jury, by its verdict, rejected the defense theory that the

-24-

Defendant was in a continuous state of passion after the fight with no opportunity to cool

off and to reflect before killing the victim. We note that the jury was provided an

instruction on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of first degree murder.

The evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to have found beyond a reasonable doubt

that the Defendant acted with premeditation. The Defendant is not entitled to relief on

this basis.

II

Motion to Suppress

The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to

suppress the evidence of inculpatory statements he made to Detectives Gibson and

Cowan, arguing that the Defendant was questioned after he invoked his right to remain

silent. The State responds that the Defendant did not unequivocally invoke his rights and

that as a result, he effectively waived his rights by speaking to the detectives.

A trial court‘s findings of fact on a motion to suppress are conclusive on appeal

unless the evidence preponderates against them. State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23

(Tenn. 1996); State v. Jones, 802 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Questions

about the ―credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, and

resolution of conflicts in the evidence are matters entrusted to the trial judge as the trier

of fact.‖ Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23. The prevailing party is entitled to the ―strongest

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

drawn from that evidence.‖ State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998); see State

v. Hicks, 55 S.W.3d 515, 521 (Tenn. 2001). A trial court‘s application of the law to its

factual findings is a question of law and is reviewed de novo on appeal. State v. Yeargan,

958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997). In reviewing a trial court‘s ruling on a motion to

suppress, this court may consider the trial evidence as well as the evidence presented at

the suppression hearing. See State v. Henning, 975 S.W.2d 290, 297-99 (Tenn. 1998);

see also State v. Williamson, 368 S.W.3d 468, 473 (Tenn. 2012).

At the suppression hearing, Deputy Capley provided testimony similar to his trial

testimony. He said that he did not hear the Defendant‘s stating he did not want to answer

questions, that Deputy Capley asked the Defendant whose blood was on his clothes, and

that the Defendant answered him. Deputy Capley stated that he did not ask the

Defendant further questions. Deputy Capley said that the Defendant was nervous, shy,

and ―wasn‘t sure how to approach us with the information that he needed to tell us.‖

Deputy Capley stated that the Defendant answered questions and did not seem to be

-25-

intoxicated or impaired. Deputy Capley said that other deputies entered Ms. Pike‘s home

because they were concerned a possible victim needed medical attention.

On cross-examination, Deputy Capley testified that he did not give the Defendant

a waiver of rights form when he and Deputy Morgan arrested the Defendant. On redirect

examination, Deputy Capley said that he was not responsible for interrogating the

Defendant and that he asked the Defendant questions in order to ascertain whether a

victim needed medical attention.

Deputy Morgan provided testimony similar to his trial testimony. He said that he

did not carry waiver of rights forms in his police cruiser and that generally, he did not

have people sign waiver of rights forms when he arrested them in the field. He agreed

that he generally recited the Miranda rights verbally when he arrested someone. Deputy

Morgan said that when he approached the Defendant, he was already handcuffed and that

after Deputy Morgan recited the Miranda rights and asked if the Defendant wanted to

talk to the deputies, the Defendant ―stated, no . . . it was a real quiet no, like he wasn‘t

really sure what he wanted to do.‖ Deputy Morgan stated that due to the amount of blood

and ―biological matter‖ on the Defendant‘s clothes, the deputies were concerned about a

potential victim. Deputy Morgan said that he helped perform a security sweep of Ms.

Pike‘s house, that no one other than the victim was present, and that the deputies left the

house and secured it as a crime scene. Deputy Morgan stated that he transported the

Defendant to the police station, that the Defendant was quiet and shy during the drive,

and that Deputy Morgan did not question the Defendant.

On cross-examination, Deputy Morgan testified that in the police cruiser

recording, Deputy Morgan stated, ―You‘re not willing to talk to me?‖ after the Defendant

responded to Deputy Morgan‘s reading his Miranda rights. Deputy Morgan did not

remember whether he told other responding deputies that the Defendant said he did not

want to answer questions. Deputy Morgan agreed that informing other deputies would

have been important. On redirect examination, Deputy Morgan stated that at the time he

spoke with the Defendant, any questioning was done to determine the welfare of the

Defendant and a potential victim.

Detective Clyde Cowan provided testimony similar to his trial testimony. When

asked whether the Defendant had been read his Miranda rights, Detective Cowan

responded that Detective Gibson read them to the Defendant. On cross-examination,

Detective Cowan denied speaking to Deputies Capley and Morgan before interviewing

the Defendant. Detective Cowan agreed that if another officer would have told him the

Defendant was read his Miranda rights and said he did not want to speak to the police,

Detective Cowan would not have questioned the Defendant. Detective Cowan denied

-26-

that the Defendant posed no flight risk when he was interviewed. Detective Cowan said

that the Defendant did not have to sign a waiver of rights in order to be informed of his

Miranda rights. Detective Cowan stated that he did not have contact with Deputies

Morgan and Capley at the crime scene. Detective Cowan said that when he was at the

crime scene, he did not attempt to contact the deputies who had responded to the

Defendant‘s assault call earlier in the morning because the deputies were off duty.

Detective Cowan stated that the Defendant ―didn‘t remember the most important parts of

the night, but he did have memory of other parts.‖ Detective Cowan denied that the

Defendant said the victim had sexually assaulted him and said that although the

Defendant stated, ―[The victim] f----- me,‖ Detective Cowan interpreted the Defendant‘s

meaning to be non-sexual. Detective Cowan did not know that the victim had semen in

his anus. Detective Cowan agreed that the Defendant told him he had been intoxicated

the previous night. Detective Cowan said that the Defendant‘s statements relative to his

memory were contradictory, that the Defendant‘s stating he could not remember the

night‘s events did not concern Detective Cowan, and that ―[it] gave me some pause as to

whether or not he was being truthful.‖

Detective Cowan testified that he did not smell alcohol on the Defendant, that he

was aware of the Defendant‘s previous 9-1-1 call, and that he did not remember which

deputy told him about the 9-1-1 call. Detective Cowan said that he did not think the

Defendant needed medical attention for the cut on his head and that the cut was not

bleeding. On redirect examination, Detective Cowan agreed that the Defendant said he

did not think he had been read his rights.

Detective Gibson gave testimony consistent with her trial testimony. She said that

she had worked previously as a jail intake officer, that a medical evaluation was always

performed at intake, and that if a person were injured, intoxicated, or in the process of

alcohol detoxification, the person would be sent to the hospital and not accepted by the

jail. She stated that the Defendant was not hospitalized after his arrest. She said that in

her opinion, the Defendant‘s statement was voluntary.

On cross-examination, Detective Gibson testified that she wrote on the waiver of

rights form and that she asked Detective Cowan at the time of the Defendant‘s interview

whether they should have the Defendant sign the form. She said that when she asked

Detective Cowan if they should ―still‖ have the Defendant sign the form, she referred to

the general policy of keeping people restrained in the back of police cruisers, not to a

previous conversation. She stated that she was aware Deputy Morgan read the Defendant

his rights earlier in the morning and that she was unaware the Defendant had stated he did

not want to speak to the police.

-27-

Recordings from Deputy Capley‘s and Deputy Morgan‘s police cruisers were

received as exhibits, and the trial court noted that it had reviewed the recordings.1 In the

recordings, Deputy Capley pulled up to a Krystal restaurant and a man standing near a

large pole turned around and put his hands up. Deputy Capley approached the man and

asked if he was injured and if he had any weapons. The man responded that he did not,

and Deputy Capley handcuffed him. Deputy Morgan and another deputy approached,

and Deputy Morgan read the Defendant his Miranda rights. Deputy Morgan asked the

Defendant if he was willing to talk to him, and although the Defendant‘s answer was not

audible, Deputy Morgan said, ―You‘re not willing to talk to me?‖ When asked whether

the Defendant wanted to tell the deputies what happened, the Defendant said, ―Not

really.‖ Deputy Morgan said that it would be better for the Defendant if he told them

what happened. A female deputy asked if the Defendant had something to show them.

The Defendant said he had nothing to show them. One of the deputies stated that the

Defendant had called 9-1-1 saying he had something to tell them and that if another

person‘s blood was on his clothing, the person likely needed help. Deputy Capley asked

the Defendant if the blood was his, and the Defendant responded that it was his friend‘s

blood. The Defendant told the deputies that he had gotten into a fight with his friend and

that his friend was dead. The police cruisers drove to Ms. Pike‘s house, and the

Defendant cried during the drive.

The recording from Deputy Morgan‘s police cruiser reflects that the Defendant

was handcuffed and read his rights at 8:24 a.m., that the Defendant said he did not want

to talk at 8:25, and that the Defendant was asked questions at 8:25, 8:27, and 8:29

relating to the identity and location of the victim and Ms. Pike. The audio temporarily

ended at 8:33 a.m., and when the sound is heard again at 8:34 a.m., the Defendant was

speaking about the location of the victim‘s body. The Defendant asked Deputy Morgan

if they would be at the crime scene long. At Deputy Morgan‘s supervisor‘s request, the

Defendant was questioned briefly at 8:41 a.m. about his relationship with the victim. At

8:48 a.m., the Defendant was asked about Ms. Pike‘s location. The audio temporarily

ended again, and when the sound is heard at 8:56 a.m., the Defendant was answering

questions about his having used the telephone at Krystal. When Deputy Capley pulled up

to Ms. Pike‘s house, a female voice was audible stating that the Defendant had what

appeared to be brain matter on his clothing. The deputies‘ supervisor arrived and after

Ms. Pike‘s house had been secured, the supervisor asked the deputies what happened

when they encountered the Defendant. One of the deputies told the supervisor the

Defendant had been read his Miranda rights.

1

The prosecutor noted that she did not intend to introduce these videos or the Defendant‘s statements to

Officers Capley and Morgan as trial exhibits.

-28-

In the recordings, Detective Cowan arrived at 9:00 a.m. and asked a group of

deputies who made first contact with the Defendant. Deputies Capley and Morgan

responded that they had and that the Defendant said he did not want to talk to them.

Detective Cowan asked the deputies to recount how they encountered the Defendant, and

they told him that the Defendant raised his hands, the deputies handcuffed him, and they

had ―[M]irandized‖ him.

The trial court denied the motion to suppress. The court found that the Defendant

initiated the encounter with the police, that the Defendant told the 9-1-1 dispatcher that

he had killed a man and wanted to turn himself in to the police, and that ―[it‘s] difficult to

conceive of how more clearly he could waive his right to remain silent.‖ The court found

that the Defendant‘s telling Deputy Morgan he did not want to talk to him was not a clear

and unequivocal assertion of the right to remain silent. The court noted, ―We all do

things we don‘t want to do. We do them because we know they‘re right and we should

do them.‖ The court found that the Defendant was not compelled to give his statement

but was ―impelled by his own sense of what he had to do because of what he had done.‖

The court found that the Defendant ―clearly showed that it was his will to be taken into

custody. He asked for it.‖ The court found that the State had proven by clear and

convincing evidence that the Defendant‘s rights were not violated.

The United States and Tennessee Constitutions dictate that a person shall not be

compelled to give evidence against himself. U.S. Const. amend V; Tenn. Const. art. 1, §

9; see State v. Berry, 141 S.W.3d 549, 576 (Tenn. 2004). As a predicate to admissibility

of a confession, the police are required to inform an individual in custody and subject to

state-initiated questioning of his Fifth Amendment rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.

436 (1966). Miranda protections extend to custodial interrogations, which is

―questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into

custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.‖ Id. at

444. ―[T]he term ‗interrogation‘ under Miranda refers not only to express questioning,

but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally

attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit

an incriminating response from the suspect.‖ Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301

(1980). This court has said, however, ―[Q]uestioning initiated by the accused is not

interrogation in the Innis sense.‖ State v. Land, 34 S.W.3d 516, 524 (Tenn. Crim. App.

2000); see Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484 (1981). Once a person in custody

indicates ―in any manner‖ that he wishes to remain silent, questioning must cease unless

the person initiates further conversation with the authorities. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 474;

see State v. Crump, 834 S.W.2d 265, 269 (Tenn. 1992).

-29-

We conclude that the trial court erred by applying an incorrect standard of law in

rendering its decision. No legal authority supports the trial court‘s assertion that the

Defendant waived his right to remain silent by calling 9-1-1 and surrendering to the

police. Likewise, the Defendant‘s calling 9-1-1 and confessing to killing a person did not

make his later refusal to waive his right under Miranda per se equivocal, as the court‘s

reasoning suggests. Miranda established that once the required warnings are given, a

defendant has the right to invoke his right to remain silent at any time before or during

custodial questioning. See Miranda 384 U.S. at 473-74; Crump, 834 S.W.2d at 269. No

legal distinction exists when a defendant surrenders to the police. Moreover, waiver of

one‘s liberty interest cannot reasonably be said to imply waiver of the right against self-

incrimination.

In addition, we note that the trial court did not explicitly credit the witness

testimony in its findings; however, the testimony of the deputies and Detective Cowan

conflicted with the police cruiser recordings relative to the amount of questioning that

occurred and whether Detective Cowan knew the Defendant had previously invoked his

right to remain silent, facts relevant to the suppression issue. The deputies testified that

after the Defendant said he did not want to talk to them and they ascertained the location

of the victim, they stopped asking questions. The recordings reflect that the Defendant

was questioned every two to eight minutes between the time he was arrested and the time

Detective Cowan began his interview. The recordings also contradict Detective Cowan‘s

suppression testimony that he did not interact with Deputies Morgan and Capley upon his

arrival at the crime scene. Moreover, the police cruiser recordings reflect that Detective

Cowan was told the Defendant had been read his Miranda rights and had told the

deputies he did not want to talk to the police. Nevertheless, Detective Gibson, in

Detective Cowan‘s presence, advised the Defendant of his Miranda rights again, and

Detectives Cowan and Gibson questioned the Defendant about the killing. Detective

Gibson‘s lack of knowledge of the Defendant‘s invoking his right to remain silent is

irrelevant to whether the Defendant did, in fact, previously invoke his right. See Crump,

834 S.W.2d at 269 (holding that questioning was improper even though the questioning

officer was unaware of a defendant‘s previous invocation of the right to remain silent).

Once a law enforcement officer has knowledge that a defendant has been read his

Miranda rights and has declined to speak with the police, that officer should not

participate in the questioning of that defendant or allow another officer to do so.

Although the Defendant did not remember whether he had been read his Miranda rights,

no legal authority states that it is an accused‘s burden to inform law enforcement that he

has invoked his right to remain silent.

We conclude that the record preponderates against the trial court‘s finding that the

Defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent. We note that the

-30-

court‘s finding was based primarily upon the Defendant‘s surrendering himself to the

police voluntarily, which we have addressed above. The record reflects that after being

read his Miranda rights, Officer Morgan asked the Defendant, ―Do you want to talk to

me?‖ Officer Morgan testified at the suppression hearing that the Defendant answered,

―No.‖ Although at the hearing, Officer Morgan characterized the Defendant‘s tone as

―uncertain,‖ at the crime scene, Officer Morgan told Detective Cowan that the Defendant

said he did not want to talk to the police. The critical inquiry is whether the Defendant

did, in fact, invoke his right to remain silent.

Two cases, Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975), and State v. Crump, 834

S.W.2d 265 (Tenn. 1992), are instructive. In Mosley, the defendant was arrested in

connection with a robbery and read his Miranda rights, and he told the police he did not

wish to speak to them. At least two hours later, a different police officer took the

defendant to a different floor of the police station, read his Miranda rights again, and

questioned him about a separate killing. The defendant sought to suppress incriminating

statements he made during the second interrogation. The United States Supreme Court

concluded that ―the admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has

decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether his ‗right to cut off

questioning‘ was ‗scrupulously honored.‘‖ Id. at 104 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479).

The Court held that the defendant‘s rights were scrupulously honored when, upon

request, the first officer immediately ceased interrogation and did not resume questioning

or try to persuade the defendant to change his mind, an interval of more than two hours

passed, and the second officer took the defendant to a different location and, after giving

a new set of Miranda warnings, questioned the defendant about a ―crime different in

nature and in time and place of occurrence[.]‖ Id. at 104-05. The Court noted,

This is not a case, therefore, where the police failed to honor a decision of a

person in custody to cut off questioning, either by refusing to discontinue

the interrogation upon request or by persisting in repeated efforts to wear

down his resistance and make him change his mind. In contrast to such

practices, the police here immediately ceased the interrogation, resumed

questioning only after the passage of time and the provision of a fresh set of

warnings, and restricted the second interrogation to a crime that had not

been a subject of the earlier interrogation.

Id. at 105-06.

In Crump, our supreme court held that a defendant‘s rights were not scrupulously

honored when ―[t]hirty minutes after responding to Miranda warnings with ‗I don‘t have

anything to say,‘ [the defendant] was taken on a 30 to 45-minute drive and questioned

-31-

while retracing the route of his escape.‖ Crump, 834 S.W.2d at 269. The court

determined that although the questioning officer was unaware of the prior invocation of

the right to remain silent and the defendant agreed to accompany the officer on the drive,

the questioning was an ―impermissible resumption‖ of the interrogation and that the

statements should have been suppressed. Id.

The present case bears more resemblance to Crump than to Mosley. The

Defendant said he did not want to talk to the deputies, the deputies continued asking

questions about the blood on the Defendant‘s clothing, and the Defendant said that the

blood belonged to a friend with whom the Defendant fought and that the friend was dead.

The deputies drove the Defendant back to the crime scene. The police cruiser recordings

reflect that every two to eight minutes, the deputies asked the Defendant further

questions.2 Although most of the questions pertained to public safety—the location of

the victim and Ms. Pike—some of the questions did not, and no sustained cessation of

questioning occurred. After Deputy Morgan told Detective Cowan that the Defendant

had been read his Miranda rights and said he did not want to talk to them, Detective

Cowan and Detective Gibson questioned the Defendant. The interrogation at the crime

scene occurred approximately forty minutes after the Defendant invoked his rights, and

the questions pertained to the subject matter the Defendant did not wish to discuss.

Although there is no evidence the police intentionally prolonged questioning in an

attempt to ―wear down his resistance,‖ the Defendant‘s right to remain silent was not

scrupulously honored.

When a violation of Miranda occurs, this court must decide whether the violation

―merely violated Miranda’s procedural rules or violated the defendant‘s constitutional

rights.‖ Crump, 834 S.W.2d at 270 (citing Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 306 (1985),

and State v. Smith, 834 S.W.2d 915 (Tenn. 1992)). If a constitutional violation occurred,

this court must determine the voluntariness of subsequent statements and whether the

statements were ―fruit of the poisonous tree‖ obtained as a result of the violation. Crump,

834 S.W.2d at 270 (citations omitted). ―Once an individual invokes his right to remain

silent and the police fail to honor that invocation by continuing to interrogate him, that

violation, by definition, is of constitutional magnitude.‖ Id. (citations omitted). When

determining the voluntariness of a confession, this court considers the totality of the

circumstances and ―whether the conduct of the law enforcement officers was such to

undermine the accused‘s free will and critically impair his capacity for self-determination

so as to bring about an involuntary confession.‖ Id. (citing Elstad, 470 U.S. at 318, State

2

We acknowledge that the Defendant asked Deputy Morgan how long they would be at the crime scene;

however, this is not sufficient to conclude that the Defendant indicated he wished to waive his right to

remain silent.

-32-

v. Kelly, 603 S.W.2d 726, 728-29 (Tenn. 1980), Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568,

602 (1961)). In Crump, our supreme court applied the factors set out in Smith to

determine whether the defendant‘s statements after he invoked his right to remain silent

were voluntary. Id. The Smith factors were articulated in the context of an initial,

unwarned confession, subsequent Miranda warnings, and a second confession. See

Smith, 834 S.W.2d 915. As applied in Crump, the factors generally consider the

following:

1. The use of coercive tactics . . . the causal connection between the illegal

conduct and the challenged, subsequent confession;

2. The temporal proximity of the prior and subsequent confessions;

3. The reading and explanation of Miranda rights to the defendant[;]

4. The circumstances occurring after the arrest and continuing up until the

making of the . . . confession including, but not limited to, the length of the

detention and the deprivation of food, rest, and bathroom facilities;

5. The coerciveness of the atmosphere in which any questioning took place

including, but not limited to, the place where the questioning occurred, the

identity of the interrogators, the form of the questions, and the repeated or

prolonged nature of the questioning;

6. The presence of intervening factors including, but not limited to,

consultations with counsel or family members, or the opportunity to consult

with counsel, if desired;

7. The psychological effect of having already confessed, and whether the

defendant was advised that the prior confession may not be admissible at

trial;

8. Whether the defendant initiated the conversation that led to the . . .

confession; and

9. The defendant‘s sobriety, education, intelligence level, and experience

with the law, as such factors relate to the defendant‘s ability to understand

the administered Miranda rights.

Smith, 834 S.W.2d at 919-20; See Crump, 834 S.W.2d at 270.

-33-

In this case, the Defendant‘s statement to the detectives was a direct result of

Detective Cowan‘s failure to scrupulously honor the Defendant‘s prior invocation of his

right to remain silent. The inculpatory statement was made to the detectives about forty

minutes after the Defendant invoked his right to remain silent. Detective Gibson read the

Defendant his Miranda rights again before the Defendant made the statement. The

questioning took place at the crime scene when the Defendant was handcuffed in the back

of a police cruiser and lasted for about forty-five minutes. We note that the Defendant‘s

requests for the questioning to be brief and to move to a more private location were

respected and that Detectives Cowan and Gibson asked the Defendant whether he

understood his rights. The Defendant did not have access to family members until after

the questioning was finished, and he did not request counsel. The Defendant had already

admitted in response to the deputies‘ questions that the victim was dead, and although the

Defendant said he did not want to talk to the deputies, he had been asked questions every

two to eight minutes. The Defendant did not initiate the conversation that led to his

statement to the detectives. The Defendant had a high school education, was literate, and

stated that he understood his rights.

We conclude that the Defendant‘s confession was not voluntary. After the

Defendant invoked his right to remain silent, no sustained cessation of questioning

occurred. The deputies questioned the Defendant every two to eight minutes, including

evidence-gathering questions about his relationship with the victim and about his using

the telephone at Krystal. As a result of the questions, the Defendant said that he and a

friend fought and that the friend was dead. The interview with the detectives occurred

about forty minutes after the Defendant invoked his right to remain silent. Detective

Cowan was told that the Defendant had been read Miranda rights and had said he did not

want to talk to the deputies, but Detective Cowan allowed Detective Gibson to administer

Miranda warnings a second time, and Detective Cowan asked the majority of the

questions during the interview. Although Detective Gibson read the Defendant Miranda

warnings a second time and the Defendant said that he understood his rights, the

Defendant‘s first invocation of his right to remain silent had not been honored, and a

cumulative coercive effect existed based upon the deputies‘ and detectives‘ actions. As a

result, the State did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant

voluntarily waived his right to remain silent, and his statement to the detectives should

have been suppressed. See State v. Bush, 924 S.W.2d 489, 500 (Tenn. 1997) (holding

that at a suppression hearing, the State must prove a valid waiver of Miranda rights by a

preponderance of the evidence.)

However, we conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in

light of the overwhelming evidence of the Defendant‘s guilt. ―The erroneous admission

of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Miranda rights is a non-structural

-34-

constitutional error, and as such, is subject to . . . harmless error analysis.‖ State v.

Climer, 400 S.W.3d 537, 569-70 (Tenn. 2013). The State bears the burden of

demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that a non-structural constitutional error did not

contribute to the guilty verdict. Id. (citing State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361, 371

(Tenn. 2008)). Even if the Defendant‘s statement to the detectives had been suppressed,

the record reflects that the Defendant said in the 2:27 a.m. 9-1-1 call that the victim had

hit him and that he argued with the victim and threatened to kill him. Mr. Merrell, Mr.

Kuzne, and Mr. Wallace testified that the Defendant and the victim had fought before

their arrival at Ms. Pike‘s house, that the Defendant acted strange and calm about the

fight, that the Defendant urged the men to leave and the victim to stay, and that the

Defendant stated he would not fight the victim after the men left. The Defendant and the

victim were alone beginning at 4:00 a.m. when Mr. Merrell and Mr. Wallace left. The

victim was found lying on his back on the sofa. Dr. Milusenic-Polchan testified that the

victim was wrapped in a comforter, that he was dressed for sleeping, and that no evidence

indicated he had moved during the attack. Multiple objects found around the sofa,

including a heater and twenty- and sixteen-pound dumbbells, were covered in the

victim‘s blood. The victim sustained forty-four injuries to his face and had defensive

wounds on his hands. See Sims, 45 S.W.3d at 8. No evidence indicated that the victim

was armed. The Defendant called 9-1-1 reporting that he had killed someone. Detective

Gibson testified that the Defendant left a voicemail message for his girlfriend stating he

had killed someone. The arresting deputies testified about the Defendant‘s calm

demeanor, and the 9-1-1 recording supports the testimony. When the Defendant was

arrested, his clothing was covered in the victim‘s blood. Based upon this evidence, a

rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed

first degree premeditated murder. The Defendant is not entitled to relief on this basis.

In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

____________________________________

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JUDGE

-35-