State of Tennessee v. Corbyn Davis

01/26/2018

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs December 5, 2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CORBYN DAVIS

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County

No. 16-204 Donald H. Allen, Judge

___________________________________

No. W2017-00141-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Corbyn Davis, of first degree

premeditated murder and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. The trial

court sentenced the Defendant to life in prison for the murder conviction and to four

years for the firearm conviction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of

the evidence to support each conviction. Upon reviewing the record and applicable law,

we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

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

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ALAN E.

GLENN and J. ROSS DYER, JJ., joined.

George Morton Googe, District Public Defender; Gregory D. Gookin, Assistant Public

Defender, for the appellant, Corbyn Davis.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Jonathan H. Wardle, Assistant

Attorney General; Jody Pickens, District Attorney General; and Aaron J. Chaplin and

Shaun Brown, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The evidence presented at trial established that in the early morning hours of June

8, 2014, the victim, Mr. Jamar Rogers, was shot from behind while getting into an

occupied vehicle in a parking lot outside a night club (“the night club”) located by the

Omni Center in Jackson, Tennessee. The victim was rushed to the hospital but died as a

result of a single gunshot wound to his back.

The State’s Proof

Ms. Marlisa Smith testified that she was the fiancée of the victim and was with

him at the time of the shooting. On the night of the shooting, Ms. Smith went to the night

club with Ms. Brittney Wilson, Ms. Krystal Williams, and another woman identified as

“Jenna” to meet the victim and one of the victim’s friends. Ms. Smith stated that she

arrived with the other women around midnight and that the victim arrived at the same

time. The group stayed at the club for about three hours until Ms. Smith’s friends

decided they wanted to leave. Ms. Smith, the three friends with whom she arrived, and

the victim all exited the club and began walking toward the vehicle the women had

driven to the club. Video surveillance confirmed that Ms. Wilson, Ms. Williams, and

“Jenna” left the club at 2:55 a.m. and that Ms. Smith and the victim left the club

approximately forty-five seconds later. Ms. Smith stated that her three friends were

walking about ten feet in front of Ms. Smith and the victim.

Ms. Smith stated that as she and the victim were walking toward the vehicle and as

the other three friends were getting inside the vehicle, a man approached the victim and

Ms. Smith. She stated that the man was wearing “a khaki or a yellowish Polo hat” with a

matching shirt. The man said, “What’s up, Jamar?” to the victim and attempted to shake

the victim’s hand. The victim looked at the man as if he was “shock[ed] that [the man]

was speaking,” and the victim “just walked through him.” Ms. Smith and the victim then

continued to the vehicle. By this time, the other three friends were already seated in the

vehicle, and Ms. Smith got into the middle of the backseat. Ms. Smith said, “Come on,

Jamar,” but the victim stood next to the car looking into the window. The victim said he

was going to go back inside and then said, “Never mind.” The victim was opening the

door when Ms. Smith heard three to four gunshots. The victim said, “Bae, I’m hit.” The

victim leaned on Ms. Smith, so she grabbed him, laid him down, and started performing

CPR as Ms. Wilson drove the vehicle to the hospital. Ms. Smith stated that she was

“screaming and hollering” both when she arrived at the hospital with the victim and when

an officer took her statement.

Ms. Smith stated that immediately after hearing the gunshots, she saw another car

leaving the area down a road that ran adjacent to the parking lot and behind the parked

vehicle. She described the car as a brown or tan large vehicle, similar to a “Grand

Marquis.” She could determine the car’s make by its headlights and taillights. The

vehicle in which Ms. Smith was sitting when the shooting occurred had a shattered rear

windshield as a result of the shooting.

-2-

Ms. Smith testified that although she had never seen the man who approached

them prior to the night of the shooting, she found a picture of the Defendant the following

day on Facebook. The picture showed the Defendant sitting with another man, whom she

did not recognize, on top of a car that fit Ms. Smith’s description of the car she saw

leaving the area immediately after the shooting occurred. She stated that she recognized

the Defendant in the picture as the man who approached them that night because she

would “never forget that face.” Ms. Smith also identified the Defendant in court as the

man who approached her and the victim prior to the shooting.

On cross examination, Ms. Smith acknowledged that she had two to three mixed

drinks that night and that she was “at least pretty buzzed.” She stated that the victim had

not been drinking and that she was not aware of any drug use by the victim that night.

She further acknowledged that when giving a statement to police at the hospital, she did

not tell the police about the man who approached them prior to the shooting. She told

police in her initial statement that she did not see a car leaving the scene. Ms. Smith said

that at the time of the questioning, however, she was “panicked.” She also acknowledged

that she was never shown a photographic lineup by the police to identify the man who

approached them prior to the shooting. However, Ms. Smith maintained that she was

certain that the Defendant was the man who approached them.

Ms. Brittney Wilson testified that she had gone with Ms. Smith, Ms. Williams, and

“Jenna” to the night club. Ms. Wilson drove the group in her own vehicle and backed it

into a parking spot, with the rear end of the vehicle toward the road. She testified that she

did not see the Defendant approach the victim and Ms. Smith when they were leaving the

club. Ms. Wilson did see Ms. Smith get into the backseat of the vehicle. Ms. Wilson had

turned to look at her phone when she heard three or four gunshots coming from behind

the vehicle. She turned around and saw that the victim had been hit, and that the rear

windshield had been shattered. Ms. Wilson said that the victim “fell” into the backseat of

the vehicle and Ms. Wilson drove to the hospital.

Ms. Wilson testified consistently with Ms. Smith’s testimony that when she turned

around after hearing the gunshots, she saw a vehicle driving on the road behind her car.

Ms. Wilson described the car as a beige or tan “Grand Marquis or Crown Vic,” based on

the style of the car. She described the damage to her own vehicle as a shattered rear

windshield, blood in the backseat, and a bullet hole in the backside of the vehicle. On

cross examination, Ms. Wilson stated that she did not have anything to drink that night

but that the other women had “[m]aybe a drink or two.”

Officer Curtis Patrick Cozart of the Jackson Police Department (“JPD”) testified

that he was at the hospital when the women arrived with the victim. Officer Cozart stated

that he tried to keep the occupants of the vehicle calm but that they were “very, very,

-3-

very upset.” Officer Cozart identified photographs of the shattered windshield of Ms.

Wilson’s vehicle, specifically noting where a round was shot through the windshield.

Officer Wesley Smith of the JPD testified that he responded to a call for a loud

noise disturbance around 3:10 a.m. and was stopped by several individuals who said that

shots had been fired at the Omni Center. He searched the area and found two shell

casings on the road where Ms. Wilson and Ms. Smith testified seeing a car driving

immediately after the shooting had occurred.

Mr. Demarcus Triplett testified that he was with the Defendant on the night of the

shooting. He stated that the Defendant was driving a “[g]ray Crown Vic or Marquis” that

belonged to the Defendant’s girlfriend. Mr. Triplett viewed the picture Ms. Smith found

on Facebook and identified the car in the picture as the one that they were in on the night

of the shooting. The Defendant picked up Mr. Triplett from work around midnight and

drove him home to change clothes. They then met Mr. Josh Cobb at a different club

located on North Parkway. The three men then went to the night club. They parked the

car and sat in the parking lot for a few minutes until another man, whom Mr. Triplett did

not know, got into the car with them. Mr. Triplett stated that the unidentified man was

drunk and immediately fell asleep in the backseat of the car. While they were in the car,

Mr. Triplett smoked marijuana with Mr. Cobb and the Defendant. Mr. Triplett testified

that he did not feel intoxicated, that he could remember what happened that night, and

that he was not drinking alcohol. The Defendant then asked Mr. Triplett to take the

drunk man home. The Defendant and Mr. Cobb got out of the car, and Mr. Triplett then

left the parking lot and started to drive the drunk man home. Mr. Triplett was unable to

wake the drunk man to find out where the man lived, however, so he turned around and

went back to the parking lot of the club. Mr. Triplett estimated that he was gone for

fifteen to twenty minutes. He parked the car when he returned, and Mr. Cobb and the

Defendant got back into the vehicle.

When the group decided to leave, Mr. Triplett drove the car in a circle through the

parking lot again and then pulled out onto the street that ran behind the parking lot. The

Defendant then told Mr. Triplett to stop the car, and Mr. Triplett did so. The Defendant

got out and walked around the car back to the parking lot. Mr. Triplett saw the victim

and two females walking through the parking lot and heard the Defendant say, “What’s

up, Jamar?” Mr. Triplett then saw the Defendant raising a black and silver weapon in the

air. Mr. Triplett turned his head away from the Defendant, and about five to seven

seconds later, Mr. Triplett heard a gunshot. Mr. Cobb encouraged Mr. Triplett to leave

without the Defendant. Mr. Triplett put the car into gear but the Defendant was already

running back around the car before Mr. Triplett could drive away. The Defendant got

back into the car and said, “Just drive.” Mr. Triplett drove the car in a direction that was

consistent with the testimony of Ms. Smith and Ms. Wilson. He drove the car to a

-4-

friend’s house in an area called the “Backwoods,” and Mr. Cobb, the Defendant, and the

drunk man drove away in the car, leaving Mr. Triplett at his friend’s house.

Mr. Triplett described the weapon with which he saw the Defendant that night as a

“small gun” like a “[.]25 automatic.” He stated that he did not see that gun again until he

and the Defendant were robbed “a couple of weeks” later. Mr. Triplett stated that he and

the Defendant were in a car together with another man identified as “Fanbo” and that

they drove to an area where about thirty individuals were standing. Mr. Triplett stated

that he did not know if there was a meeting occurring or if it was a setup. “Fanbo” and

the Defendant got out of the car and walked to the group of people. Mr. Triplett then got

out of the car and was patted down by Mr. Lewis Dotson. Mr. Dotson took Mr. Triplett’s

cellular phone and a couple of dollars from him. The group also took approximately

$200 and a gun from the Defendant. Mr. Triplett stated that the gun appeared to be the

same gun he saw the Defendant waving in the air on the night of the shooting. At trial,

Mr. Triplett was shown a picture of a Bryco pistol that was later introduced into

evidence. He stated that the gun in the picture looked like the gun that the Defendant had

the night of the shooting and that Mr. Dotson took from the Defendant the day of the

robbery.

Mr. Triplett testified that he did not see the Defendant again after the robbery

occurred. He did not go to the police after the shooting or after the robbery. He stated

that he was “scared” and that everyone he knew who had previously testified in a trial

“end[ed] up getting killed afterwards.” Mr. Triplett only spoke to police about the

shooting after he was arrested for an unrelated offense in January, 2016. Mr. Triplett

stated that no promises were made to him by the State in exchange for his testimony.

On cross examination, Mr. Triplett acknowledged that he never reported the

robbery to the police. When asked why his initial statement to the police was that Mr.

Cobb joined them while they were at the night club, Mr. Triplett explained that there

must have been a typo when the investigator entered the report because Mr. Cobb joined

the group when they were still at the Parkway club. Mr. Triplett also stated that he was

afraid of guns and did not like guns but acknowledged that he had one previous gun

charge. He also identified pictures of himself posted on a social media website under the

name “Rashad Woods.” The pictures showed Mr. Triplett holding a gun with the

caption, “Hit me up if you want to buy it.” Mr. Triplett testified that after speaking to the

police about the Defendant’s involvement in the shooting, Mr. Triplett received

unsupervised probation for driving on a suspended license. Mr. Triplett was not charged

in connection with the shooting.

Mr. Matthew Price testified that he was incarcerated with the Defendant from

December of 2015 to March of 2016. Mr. Price stated that he interacted with the

-5-

Defendant every day and described the Defendant as “pretty shaky.” He stated that the

Defendant “wouldn’t give specifics at first” regarding his charges but that the Defendant

became more specific over time. Mr. Price testified that the Defendant would ask

questions “like how long can a camera keep video,” “can you find fingerprints on spent

shells,” and “can they get DNA off a gun.” Mr. Price said that the Defendant also asked

Mr. Price to look up first degree murder in the law books for him. Mr. Price testified,

“[W]ithout coming out and telling me, … [the Defendant] kind of told me that … he had

shot somebody at a club.” Mr. Price could not recall the name of the person whom the

Defendant shot. Mr. Price stated that the Defendant told him that after the shooting, the

Defendant got into a vehicle and “drove to the woods or Back Woods or something along

those lines.” Mr. Price testified that when the Defendant spoke about the shooting, he did

so “discre[et]ly,” in that he would not say the word “kill.” Instead, the Defendant would

spell or whisper the word. The Defendant also told Mr. Price that at some point another

person was arrested with the same gun that the Defendant had used and that the

Defendant’s questions about DNA evidence then followed.

Mr. Price testified that around March of 2016, he and the Defendant were both in

city court. The Defendant was there for his preliminary hearing and Mr. Price was there

for a drug possession case that was pending at the time. Mr. Price said they saw the

driver of the vehicle in which the Defendant was riding on the day of the shooting. The

driver testified at the Defendant’s preliminary hearing, and the Defendant told Mr. Price

that the driver was not credible, that the driver was there when the shooting occurred, and

that the driver was “just as guilty as [the Defendant] was.” Mr. Price testified that prior

to the Defendant’s preliminary hearing, Mr. Price had submitted “numerous request

forms” to talk to the police about the Defendant’s case. After getting no response, Mr.

Price was able to talk to the police the day of the hearing by “flagging” down

investigators. Mr. Price testified that he was no longer being held in the same pod as the

Defendant at the time of the hearing.

On cross examination, Mr. Price acknowledged that he was serving three years on

probation for a previous felony conviction at the time of the trial. He also acknowledged

that he was arrested again for failure to report to the probation office and that the court

ordered him to rehabilitation rather than revoking his probation. Mr. Price claimed that

receiving rehabilitation rather than revocation was not connected to the statements he

gave to the police about the Defendant. He agreed that at the time of trial, he still had

pending charges. Mr. Price also claimed that what defense counsel described as a “low

bond” of $5,000 was not related to his statements to the police. He testified that he did

not have an agreement with the State in exchange for his testimony, but that he was

getting “consideration” for his testimony. Mr. Price also noted that at the time he spoke

with the police, he had not spoken to anyone about receiving any consideration.

-6-

Further evidence introduced by the State established that on August 15, 2014, a

search warrant was executed on a residence with eight to ten members of the Vice Lords

street gang inside of it at the time. While searching the residence, law enforcement found

a .25 caliber Bryco pistol in a bathtub, with one round inside of it. Investigator Kelly

Schrotberger, of the JPD Gang Enforcement Team, was familiar with the Vice Lords

street gang and interviewed the members who were inside the residence. He testified that

Mr. Lewis Dotson and Mr. William Curry-Anthony were two of the individuals in the

residence at the time. No one was charged with possession of the Bryco pistol that was

found.

Dr. Erin Carney, a medical examiner who performed an autopsy on the victim,

testified that the victim had a gunshot wound on the left side of his back. Dr. Carney

stated that the bullet had injured one of his ribs, went through his lung, and entered his

pulmonary vein. The blood in the vein then carried the bullet into the victim’s heart, and

the bullet was retrieved from the victim’s heart during the autopsy. Dr. Carney

concluded from the wound that the gun was more than two or three feet away from the

skin when it was fired, but she could not determine how much further away it was. She

testified that the cause of death was the gunshot wound to the back and that the manner of

death was homicide. She stated that death would not have been instantaneous but would

have taken “seconds to minutes.” Dr. Carney stated that in her opinion, the victim would

have been able to enter a car and say that he had been shot and that the victim might have

survived a three-mile drive to the hospital.

Special Agent Samantha Spencer, a forensic scientist with the Tennessee Bureau

of Investigation (“TBI”) DNA and Serology Unit, testified that she performed DNA

analysis on the Bryco pistol. Special Agent Spencer used standards obtained from the

individuals who were in the residence where the gun was found, including Mr. Dotson

and Mr. Curry-Anthony, to determine if their DNA was present on the Bryco pistol. She

was unable to obtain a DNA profile from the pistol due to insufficient or degraded DNA.

Special Agent Eric Warren, a forensic scientist with the TBI Firearms

Identification Unit, testified that he examined the two shell casings that were found on

the road where the shooting occurred. He determined that the two shell casings were

fired from the same unknown firearm. He analyzed the Bryco pistol and determined that

there were similar class characteristics between the pistol and the shell casings but that

the mechanical fingerprint was insufficient to conclude that the shell casings had in fact

been fired from the Bryco pistol. Special Agent Warren also examined the bullet that

was retrieved from the victim’s heart and concluded that the bullet had been fired from

the Bryco pistol.

-7-

Defense Proof

Mr. William Curry-Anthony testified that he was in the residence that was

searched in August, 2014. He testified that the police confiscated the Bryco pistol and

that he told the police that his name was “Anthony Williams.” He also told the police

that he found the gun in an alley in Humboldt. In July of 2015, Mr. Curry-Anthony gave

the police a second statement and said that he actually purchased the gun from “D.

Triplett” in July of 2015 for approximately $50. When giving this second statement, Mr.

Curry-Anthony identified two photographs of Mr. Demarcus Triplett as the person from

whom he purchased the pistol.

On cross examination, Mr. Curry-Anthony initially denied being a member of the

Vice Lords street gang, but later acknowledged his membership after the State questioned

him about the tattoo on his face. Mr. Curry-Anthony acknowledged that all except one of

the other individuals in the residence on the day of the search were members of the Vice

Lords gang. He acknowledged that he made his initial statement to the police after he

had been in jail for a week with the other gang members who were arrested. He claimed,

however, that they did not speak to each other about their pending cases. The State then

asked, “And then what happened was, you guys split up the guns to the non-felons;

right?” Mr. Curry-Anthony answered, “Right,” but then maintained that he would not lie

for Mr. Dotson, who was another gang member in the residence at the time of the search.

Mr. Curry-Anthony also agreed that since he was not a convicted felon, it was not illegal

for him to have possession of the pistol. He further acknowledged that he had had a

probation violation at the time in addition to the pending charges that resulted from the

search of the residence. Mr. Curry-Anthony acknowledged that he lied about his name

and about how he obtained the pistol in his initial statement to the police. He maintained

at trial that he actually received the gun by buying it from Mr. Triplett. He stated that

Mr. Triplett arrived in a car with another person, whom Mr. Curry-Anthony would not

identify, and that Mr. Triplett then sold the pistol to Mr. Curry-Anthony.

The defense introduced evidence to establish that Mr. Price was incarcerated with

the Defendant from December 7, 2015, until January 5, 2016, whereas Mr. Price had

testified that he was with the Defendant from December of 2015 to March of 2016. The

defense also introduced a consent form into evidence, which showed that the Defendant

had given consent to the State to obtain his DNA sample. However, the Defendant’s

DNA was not used as a standard when Special Agent Spencer conducted the DNA

analysis on the Bryco pistol.

The jury returned verdicts of guilty for Count 1, first degree premeditated murder,

and Count 2, being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. The Defendant received

-8-

consecutive sentences of life in prison on Count 1 and four years in prison on Count 2.

The Defendant’s timely appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

The Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his

convictions. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this court

must determine whether the evidence is sufficient “to support the finding by the trier of

fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). The appellate court

examines the relevant statute to determine the essential elements for the offense and

analyzes the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether each element is adequately

supported. State v. Stephens, 521 S.W.3d 718, 723-24 (Tenn. 2017) (citations omitted).

The court determines “‘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.’” Id. at 724 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.

307, 319 (1979)).

The standard of review remains the same regardless of whether the conviction is

based upon direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. (citing State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d

370, 379 (Tenn. 2011)). “‘[T]he State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the

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

Id. (quoting State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (1992)). This court does not reweigh the

evidence. Id. (citing State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992)). Instead, “a jury

verdict, approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State

and resolves all conflicts in the testimony in favor of the State.” Id. (quoting Harris, 839

S.W.2d at 75) (internal quotations omitted). The conviction replaces the presumption of

innocence with a presumption of guilt. Id. (citing Evans, 838 S.W.2d at 191). On appeal,

the defendant has the burden of demonstrating why the evidence is insufficient to support

the verdict. Id. (citing State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982))

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

T.C.A. § 39-13-202(a)(1). Conduct is intentional when the actor has the “conscious

objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.” T.C.A. § 39-11-302(a).

A premeditated act is one “done after the exercise of reflection and judgment.” T.C.A. §

39-13-202(d). Premeditation requires a finding that “the intent to kill must have been

formed prior to the act itself.” Id. “It is not necessary that the purpose to kill preexist in

the mind of the accused for any definite period of time.” Id. The statute also specifies

that “[t]he mental state of the accused at the time the accused allegedly decided to kill

must be carefully considered in order to determine whether the accused was sufficiently

free from excitement and passion as to be capable of premeditation.” Id. Factors that

support a finding of premeditation include but are not limited to: the use of a deadly

-9-

weapon upon an unarmed victim; the particularly cruelty of the killing; the nature of the

killing; the firing of multiple shots; evidence establishing motive; declarations by the

defendant of an intent to kill; evidence of procurement of a weapon; lack of provocation

by the victim; failure to render aid; preparations before the killing for concealment of the

crime; the destruction or secretion of evidence; and calmness immediately after the

killing. State v. Adams, 405 S.W.3d 641, 663 (Tenn. 2013); State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d

651, 660 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Larkin, 443 S.W.3d 751, 815-16 (Tenn. Crim. App.

2013); State v. Halake, 102 S.W.3d 661, 669 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).

Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1307(b)(1)(B) makes it an offense to be

convicted of a felony drug offense and possess a firearm. Firearm is defined as “any

weapon designed, made or adapted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or

any device readily convertible to that use.” T.C.A. § 39-11-106(a)(11).

The Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions

because the testimony from Mr. Triplett and Mr. Price was not credible and because the

remaining evidence was circumstantial. The Defendant specifically maintains that the

State failed to show motive for the killing and that there was no physical or DNA

evidence that linked the Defendant to the Bryco pistol.

When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the proof established that the

Defendant attempted to speak to the victim by saying, “What’s up, Jamar?” moments

before the victim was shot. Two witnesses testified to seeing a car leaving the crime

scene, and their descriptions of the car matched that in which the Defendant was riding

the night of the shooting. Ms. Smith identified a photograph of the Defendant as the man

who approached Ms. Smith and the Defendant moments before the shooting occurred.

The driver of the car, Mr. Triplett, testified that the Defendant shot the victim. Although

Mr. Triplett did not see the Defendant pull the trigger, he saw the Defendant approach the

victim, wave a pistol in the air, and run back to the car immediately after shots were fired.

Mr. Triplett further testified that he and the Defendant were robbed by Mr. Dotson, who

took the Defendant’s pistol. Later testimony established that Mr. Dotson was in the Vice

Lords street gang and was inside a residence with other gang members when the Bryco

pistol was found by law enforcement. A TBI expert testified that the shell casings found

at the crime scene had similar characteristics to test shots fired from the Bryco pistol.

Additionally, the expert concluded that the bullet that was retrieved from the victim’s

heart had in fact been fired from the pistol found at the residence. Mr. Triplett’s

testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Price. Mr. Price testified that the

Defendant spoke to him about the shooting while they were incarcerated together. The

Defendant asked incriminating questions to Mr. Price and essentially confessed his

involvement in the shooting. Mr. Price knew that the Defendant had shot someone

outside of a club, that the Defendant then got into a car, and that they drove to an area

- 10 -

described as the “woods or Back Woods,” which was consistent with Mr. Triplett’s

testimony.

The jury’s finding of premeditation was supported by the evidence presented at

trial. The victim was unarmed when he was killed. See Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 660. The

Defendant did not render aid and immediately fled the scene after firing shots at the

victim. See Larkin, 443 S.W.3d at 815-16. According to eyewitness testimony, three to

four shots were fired without any provocation from the victim. See id.; Halake, 102

S.W.3d at 669. The evidence also established that the victim was shot in the back. See

State v. Joe Edward Daniels, No. M2015-01939-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 1032743, at *8

(Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 16, 2017) (noting that a shot from behind is sufficient to support

a finding of premeditation). Thus, the State met its burden in establishing premeditation.

As noted above, the jury’s guilty verdict, approved by the trial court, accredits the

testimony of the State’s witnesses and resolves all conflicts in favor of the State.

Stephens, 521 S.W.3d at 724. The rationale behind this rule is that “[t]he trial judge and

the jury see the witnesses face to face, hear their testimony and observe their demeanor

on the stand.” Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tenn. 1966). Here, the jury heard

the testimony of both Mr. Triplett and Mr. Price, as well as the evidence presented by the

defense in an effort to discredit their testimony. By returning guilty verdicts, the jury

clearly resolved the issue of credibility in the State’s favor. We may not now reconsider

the jury’s assessment of credibility. See State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 558 (Tenn.

2000).

Additionally, “a criminal offense may be established exclusively by circumstantial

evidence.” Dorantes, 331 S.W.2d at 379 (citing Duchac v. State, 505 S.W.2d 237, 241

(Tenn. 1973); Marable v. State, 313 S.W.2d 451, 456-58 (Tenn. 1958)). Here, physical

evidence established that the bullet that killed the victim was shot from the Bryco pistol.

Witness testimony established that the Bryco pistol was consistent with the one the

Defendant had on the night of the shooting, that was taken from the Defendant by Mr.

Dotson, and that was found in the residence with Mr. Dotson. The Defendant points to

the fact that Mr. Curry-Anthony claimed ownership of the pistol. Although the testimony

of Mr. Curry-Anthony regarding how he obtained the pistol was inconsistent with the

testimony of Mr. Triplett, the jury heard the testimony of each witness and settled the

conflict in favor of Mr. Triplett by returning guilty verdicts. See Stephens, 521 S.W.3d at

724.

We also note that although the Defendant argues that the State failed to show

motive for the killing, motive is not an essential element of first degree premeditated

murder that must be proven by the State. See State v. Bell, 512 S.W.3d 167, 191 (Tenn.

2015) (noting that motive is not an element of first degree murder).

- 11 -

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to

support the convictions and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

________________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE

- 12 -