The opinion
03/19/2024
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
Assigned on Briefs February 6, 2024
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ADRIAN MOORE
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County
No. 20-03903 Chris Craft, Judge
___________________________________
No. W2023-00664-CCA-R3-CD
___________________________________
The Defendant, Adrian Moore, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of
second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, especially aggravated robbery, and two
counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and received an effective sentence
of forty-six years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is
insufficient to support his convictions of second degree murder and especially aggravated
robbery. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed
JOHN W. CAMPBELL, SR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J. ROSS DYER and
KYLE A. HIXSON, JJ., joined.
Joseph McClusky (on appeal) and Michael Campbell and Eric Mogy (at trial), Memphis,
Tennessee, for the appellant, Adrian Moore.
Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Abigail H. Rinard, Assistant Attorney
General; Steve Mulroy, District Attorney General; and Jose Leon, Assistant District
Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION
FACTS
This case relates to the Defendant’s shooting the victim, Jeremy Jerdine, on May
21, 2020. The victim died from his injuries four days later. In December 2020, the Shelby
County Grand Jury returned a five-count indictment, charging the Defendant with first
degree murder committed during the commission of or the attempt to commit robbery in
count one; first degree premeditated murder in count two; especially aggravated robbery
in count three; and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in counts four and five.
The Defendant filed a pretrial motion to bifurcate counts four and five from the remaining
counts, and the trial court granted the motion. The Defendant went to trial in January 2023.
At trial, Kenya Jerdine testified that the victim was her husband and that they had
four children who ranged in age from six to eighteen years old at the time of the shooting.
In March 2020, Mrs. Jerdine and the victim managed an automobile dealership, Vehix, on
Covington Pike. They bought vehicles for the business at auction or from other local
dealers and advertised them on Facebook Marketplace. Interested customers would come
to the dealership to inspect and purchase the vehicles.
Mrs. Jerdine testified that on May 12, 2020, the Defendant purchased a 2009 Nissan
Altima. The Altima had 200,000 miles on the odometer, and the Defendant paid $2,700
for the car. On May 20, the Defendant returned to the dealership because the car was
having mechanical problems. Mrs. Jerdine said she “immediately got scared” when she
saw the Defendant arrive because he was wearing a red bandana around his neck and was
“very . . . distraught.” The victim invited the Defendant into his office, told the Defendant
to calm down, and “insinuated” that he was going to return $600 or $700 to the Defendant.
The Defendant and the victim shook hands, and the Defendant left. Mrs. Jerdine stated,
“In my mind, I just kind of knew it wasn’t like the end. It just didn’t look like it was a
done situation.”
Mrs. Jerdine identified a video recorded at the dealership on May 20, 2020. The
video showed a silver Lexus pull into the parking lot about 3:00 p.m. A man wearing blue
jean shorts, a white tank top, and a red bandana around his neck got out of the front
passenger seat of the Lexus and went into the dealership. The man returned to the Lexus
about eighteen minutes later, and the Lexus left the dealership.
Mrs. Jerdine testified that the next morning, she and the victim went to a vehicle
auction. They returned home after the auction, and the victim went to Vehix. Mrs. Jerdine
did not want him to go to the dealership because she thought the Defendant was supposed
to return for the $700 that day. When the victim left home, he had his wallet and cash to
pay for a vehicle he had won at the auction. He also had a Ruger handgun that he carried
for protection. The gun was black and “very small.”
Mrs. Jerdine testified that she later received a telephone call from the victim’s niece,
“Zandra,” who worked at Vehix. Zandra was screaming and told Mrs. Jerdine that “this
guy came up here and shot Uncle Jeremy.” Mrs. Jerdine and her children went to the
hospital, and Mrs. Jerdine spoke with a police officer. The victim had lost a lot of blood
and was unconscious, and hospital personnel told Mrs. Jerdine “that he might not wake
up.”
-2-
Mrs. Jerdine testified that she last saw the victim alive on the morning of May 25,
before his time of death was announced. She later went to the dealership to get his
belongings but never found his wallet, cellular telephone, or handgun. On June 9, 2020,
Mrs. Jerdine reported the gun stolen.
On cross-examination, Mrs. Jerdine acknowledged that the victim would carry large
amounts of cash and his handgun on his person. However, he did not carry his handgun
all of the time. On May 20, the Defendant’s and the victim’s conversation “escalated”
because the Defendant was upset about his car, but they did not fight or argue. They came
to an agreement, and the Defendant left without incident. The victim was supposed to
return some money to the Defendant the next day, and Mrs. Jerdine did not feel the need
to contact the police.
On redirect-examination, Mrs. Jerdine acknowledged that she did not know if the
victim’s handgun was on his person at the time of the shooting. She said that he carried
the gun in his pocket sometimes but that he usually kept the gun in a drawer or on his desk.
Lance Freemon testified that he worked at a dealership across the street from Vehix
and that he knew the victim. On May 21, 2020, Mr. Freemon was at work when someone
ran inside and said there had been a shooting across the street. Mr. Freemon went outside
and saw a man running. The man had a brown gun in his right hand and was wearing black
and white shorts, blue underwear, and a white tank top. The man jumped over a fence, so
Mr. Freemon got into his car and drove in that direction. He saw the man “nonchalantly
walking down the street.” The man was holding a cellular telephone to his ear, so Mr.
Freeman used his own cellular telephone to photograph the man. Mr. Freemon identified
the photograph for the jury. The man ran between two houses, and Mr. Freemon showed
the police where he last saw the man. On cross-examination, Mr. Freemon testified that
he saw the man run out of Vehix.
Wesley Williams testified that on May 20, 2020, he drove the Defendant to Vehix
in Mr. Williams’s silver Lexus. The next day, the Defendant asked Mr. Williams to drive
him to buy a new cellular telephone. Mr. Williams drove the Defendant to In and Out
Wireless, a barbershop, and a Kroger grocery store. The Defendant said he needed to return
to Vehix, so Mr. Williams drove him to the dealership. The Defendant went inside while
Mr. Williams waited briefly in the car. Mr. Williams then went into the dealership. He
did not see anyone in the lobby or office area but heard the Defendant and the victim
arguing in the garage in the back of the dealership. Mr. Williams did not know the victim.
Mr. Williams testified that he walked into the garage and stood next to the
Defendant. He did not see anything in the Defendant’s hands, and the victim was not
holding a weapon. Mr. Williams did not know what the Defendant and the victim were
-3-
arguing about, but the Defendant suddenly shot the victim. Mr. Williams was scared, so
he ran to his Lexus and drove away. He said he later returned to the dealership because he
did not have anything to do with the shooting.
On cross-examination, Mr. Williams testified that he waited in the Lexus while the
Defendant went into Vehix on May 20. When the Defendant returned to the car, Mr.
Williams did not suspect anything was wrong. The next day, the Defendant bought
groceries at Kroger and did not seem upset or angry. Mr. Williams did not know the
Defendant had a gun or that a shooting was going to occur.
Mr. Williams testified that when he entered Vehix on May 21, he heard the victim
and the Defendant yelling at each other. The Defendant’s car was not at the dealership, so
Mr. Williams did not know why the victim and the Defendant were in the garage. Three
or four people were in the garage with the Defendant and the victim. The Defendant was
not holding a gun, but Mr. Williams saw the Defendant pull a gun out of his shorts and
shoot the victim. Mr. Williams said he did not know if the victim had a gun or if the victim
threatened the Defendant. On redirect-examination, Mr. Williams testified that he saw the
Defendant fire two shots.
Amber Byrd testified that the victim was like a father figure to her and that she knew
him through her girlfriend, “Zan.” In May 2020, Ms. Byrd worked at Vehix “detailing”
cars. She had been working there four or five months and cleaned the cars for resale. On
May 20, Ms. Byrd saw the Defendant at the dealership. The next day, Ms. Byrd was
detailing a car when she saw two men arrive. She heard the victim say, “[F]irst of all,
you’re coming in here hostile. And why you got your hands in your pants like you holding
something[?]” One of the men responded, “I’m not holding anything. I’m just scratching
my balls.” The victim stated, “I told you I was going to give you the $700.”
Ms. Byrd testified that Zan came and stood beside her. Fifteen seconds later, they
heard gunshots and ran. Ms. Byrd heard three shots before she ran and one shot after she
ran for a total of four shots. She saw a silver car leave the dealership and saw the Defendant
run away, so she and Zan returned to the garage to check on the victim. Ms. Byrd said that
prior to the shooting, she saw the victim in his office with “a wad of cash.”
The State showed Ms. Byrd a photograph of a man running in the parking lot after
the shooting. He was wearing black and white shorts and a white tank top, and he was
holding a gun. Ms. Byrd acknowledged that the man was the Defendant.
On cross-examination, Ms. Byrd testified that the shooting occurred about 4:00 p.m.
She was outside the garage when she heard the altercation between the victim and the
-4-
Defendant. She did not see the victim or the Defendant with a gun, and she did not witness
the shooting.
Officer Marcus Tolbert of the Memphis Police Department (“MPD”) testified that
he responded to the scene and that an African-American man was lying on the garage floor
in a pool of blood. Officer Tolbert’s partner began rendering aid to the victim while Officer
Tolbert spoke with witnesses, including Amber Byrd, Zandra Buckner, and Lance
Freemon. The suspected shooter was described as an African-American male with
dreadlocks; wearing a red bandana and a white tank top; and running from the scene. A
second suspect drove away from the dealership but returned. On cross-examination,
Officer Tolbert acknowledged that the witnesses did not inform the police that money had
been taken from the victim.
Lieutenant Steven Foglesong of the MPD testified that he arrived at Vehix about
one hour after the shooting and that he became the lead investigator for the case. Blood
and two or three cartridge cases were on the floor in the garage. Lieutenant Foglesong
spent two hours walking the path the Defendant took after the shooting. He was looking
for evidence and video cameras that could have recorded information. Another police
officer found a cellular telephone on a street near the dealership.
Officer Tristan Brown of the MPD testified that he went to the dealership to
photograph the scene and collect evidence. A pool of blood, several spent cartridge cases,
and bullet fragments were on the garage floor.
Alexis Williams testified that in July 2020, she lived on Christyshire Drive and that
a man mowing her lawn found a gun in her yard. At that time, Ms. Williams was three or
four months pregnant with the Defendant’s child. Ms. Williams did not know how the gun
ended up in her yard and turned it over to the police. She said that she did not know Wesley
Williams but that he had been to her home several times.
On cross-examination, Ms. Williams testified that her lawn had not been mowed in
more than a month when the gun was found and that the gun was located after the
Defendant was arrested for shooting the victim. On redirect-examination, Ms. Williams
acknowledged that the Defendant was arrested at her home.
Lieutenant Shayne Tarena of the MPD’s Homicide Bureau testified that the police
initially investigated the shooting as an aggravated assault with the Defendant and Mr.
Williams as suspects. The shooting became a homicide case when the victim died on May
25. A cellular telephone found by a police officer turned out to be the Defendant’s
telephone, and the serial number on the gun found in Ms. Williams’s yard matched the
serial number on the victim’s gun.
-5-
On cross-examination, Lieutenant Tarena testified that the victim’s gun was loaded
when it was found. Mrs. Jerdine had reported that the victim’s gun and wallet were
missing, but she did not report that a specific amount of cash was missing.
Dr. Katrina Van Pelt of the Tennessee Regional Forensic Center testified as an
expert in forensic pathology that she performed the victim’s autopsy. The victim sustained
one indeterminant-range penetrating gunshot wound to his right arm. The bullet traveled
through his armpit, struck his eighth rib and right lung, and lodged in one of his vertebral
bones. The victim was thirty-three years old at the time of his death and was otherwise
healthy. Dr. Van Pelt did not see any soot or stippling on his skin, and she did not receive
his clothing for analysis. She said the victim died of a gunshot wound to his right arm and
chest. According to the victim’s autopsy report, his manner of death was homicide.
Special Agent Kasia Lynch of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation testified as an
expert in firearms identification that she received a Ruger .380-caliber pistol and a
magazine containing three .380-caliber cartridges; three .40-caliber Smith & Wesson
cartridge cases; and bullet fragments for analysis. The Ruger .380-caliber pistol was in
normal operating condition. The three .40-caliber cartridge cases all showed the same
pattern of microscopic markings, meaning all of them were fired from the same gun.
However, they were too large to have been fired from the Ruger pistol. Most of the bullet
fragments were too small for Special Agent Lynch to determine their caliber, but one
fragment was large enough for her to determine that it was consistent with a .40-caliber
bullet. Special Agent Lynch also was able to determine that none of the bullet fragments
was fired from the Ruger pistol. On cross-examination, Special Agent Lynch testified that
the Ruger appeared to be rusty. At the conclusion of Special Agent Lynch’s testimony, the
State rested its case.
The Defendant testified that he met the victim via Facebook Marketplace. The
Defendant explained that he saw a Nissan Altima on the website, so he telephoned the
victim about the car. The Defendant looked at the car in person and bought the car for
$2,700. A few days later, the car started “smoking” and having other issues. The
Defendant took the car to a mechanic, and the mechanic told him that the radiator needed
to be replaced. The Defendant bought a new radiator at AutoZone, and the mechanic
installed it. The mechanic then told the Defendant that “the motor had locked up on the
car,” so the Defendant contacted the victim. The victim told the Defendant to come to the
dealership to talk with him about the car.
The Defendant testified that on May 20, 2020, he went to Vehix to speak with the
victim. The Defendant had a gun on his person for protection, and he was wearing a red
bandana that he used as a mask due to the Covid pandemic. The Defendant and the victim
talked in the victim’s office, and the victim said that he would pay half the cost of a new
-6-
motor, that he had a mechanic to do the work, and that he would loan the Defendant a car
while the Altima was being repaired. The Defendant was satisfied with the agreement and
left the dealership.
The Defendant testified that the next day, Mr. Williams drove him to Vehix. The
Defendant still had a gun on his person for protection and entered the front of the
dealership. The victim was talking on the telephone in his office, so the Defendant waited
in the lobby. When the victim finished talking on the telephone, he waved the Defendant
into his office. The Defendant and the victim began discussing their agreement, and the
victim “got frustrated.” The victim said that he would pay half the cost of a new motor and
loan the Defendant a car but that the Defendant would have to repair the Altima himself.
The Defendant accepted the new agreement and asked when the victim could loan him a
car. The victim told the Defendant to follow him, so the Defendant followed the victim
into the garage.
The Defendant testified that he thought the victim was going to loan him a car and
that he jokingly asked, “Mr. Jerdine, the car you’re fixing to loan me, [it’s] not going to be
like the car you sold me[?]” The victim began yelling at the Defendant. The victim’s shirt
was moving so that the Defendant could see a gun on the victim’s hip. The victim reached
for the victim’s gun, so the Defendant reached for the Defendant’s gun. The Defendant
fired one shot, which traveled through his shorts and struck the floor. He then fired two
more shots. He said that he did not know which shot struck the victim and that the victim
fell to the floor. The Defendant saw the victim’s gun on the floor, so he picked up the gun
and ran. He said he took the victim’s gun because it was close to the victim, other people
were in the garage, and he did not want anyone to get the gun.
The Defendant testified that he “lost” his gun while he was running because “it came
off [his] hip.” The Defendant went to Ms. Williams’s house and threw the victim’s gun
out the back door. After the Defendant’s arrest, he telephoned his father from jail. The
Defendant acknowledged telling his father “that this didn’t happen.” The Defendant said
he lied to his father because “I didn’t want him to have that type of impression about me
or look at me like that or nothing like that.” The Defendant acknowledged shooting the
victim but said he did so because the victim was angry, yelling, and reached for the victim’s
gun. The Defendant said he thought his life was in danger.
On cross-examination, the Defendant testified that he did not recall seeing Mrs.
Jerdine at the dealership on May 20, and he denied that the victim offered to pay him $700.
The Defendant did not recall seeing Ms. Byrd at the dealership on May 21. A female was
present at the time of the shooting; however, she had her back to him, so he could not
identify her. The Defendant bought a cellular telephone at In and Out Wireless on May
20, and he had the new telephone with him at the time of the shooting. The Defendant said
-7-
that he did not realize Mr. Williams came into the garage prior to the shooting and that Mr.
Williams was not standing beside him at the time of the shooting. The Defendant
acknowledged that the victim asked why the Defendant’s hands were in his pants. The
Defendant said he did not remember telling the victim that he was “scratching his balls.”
The Defendant testified that he saw the victim reach for the victim’s gun, so he shot
the victim. The Defendant requested to demonstrate his motions for the jury, and the trial
court allowed him to stand and do so. The Defendant said he reached into his pants and
fired three shots “all in one motion, like, bam, bam, bam.” The first shot went through the
Defendant’s shorts and struck the floor. The Defendant fired the remaining shots in the
“general direction” of the victim. The Defendant’s gun was a .40-caliber handgun and was
working properly. The Defendant saw the victim on the floor, saw a woman running, and
heard the victim’s gun fall onto the floor. He picked up the gun because other people were
present. He acknowledged that he panicked and that he did not summon help for the victim.
The Defendant testified that he did not go into the victim’s pockets after the
shooting. At that point, the State showed the Defendant the same photograph the State had
shown to Ms. Byrd. The photograph showed the Defendant running from the dealership
after the shooting. In the photograph, the Defendant could be seen holding a gun and what
appeared to be a green bag. The State asked the Defendant, “What’s in that green bag?”
The Defendant responded that he did not know and stated that “it don’t look like a bag to
me.” He acknowledged that he was not holding the green item when he entered the
dealership. The Defendant also acknowledged having a prior conviction of theft of
property valued one thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars. He denied
taking any money from the victim.
Officer Michael Harber of the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office testified on rebuttal
for the State and identified a recording of the jailhouse telephone call the Defendant made
to his father. The State played the recording for the jury. During the call, the Defendant
said, “I ain’t shot nobody.”
During the final jury charge, the trial court instructed the jury on self-defense. The
jury rejected that defense and convicted the Defendant of second degree murder, a Class A
felony, as a lesser-included offense of first degree felony murder in count one; voluntary
manslaughter, a Class C felony, as a lesser-included offense of first degree premeditated
murder in count two; and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, as charged in
count three of the indictment.
After the verdicts, the Defendant entered open guilty pleas to possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, a Class B felony, in counts four and five. During the factual basis for
the pleas, the State advised the trial court that the Defendant was convicted of aggravated
-8-
assault on October 31, 2016. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on March 6, 2023,
and sentenced the Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to forty-six years for second
degree murder, fifteen years for voluntary manslaughter, and forty-four years for especially
aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him as a Range III, career offender to thirty
years for each conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The trial court ordered
that the Defendant serve the sentences concurrently for a total effective sentence of forty-
six years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is
insufficient to support his convictions of second degree murder and especially aggravated
robbery.
ANALYSIS
When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, the relevant question
of the reviewing court 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 also
Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e) (“Findings of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or
jury shall be set aside if the evidence is insufficient to support the findings by the trier of
fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-92 (Tenn.
1992); State v. Anderson, 835 S.W.2d 600, 604 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).
Therefore, on appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the
evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it. State v. Williams, 657
S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). All questions involving the credibility of witnesses, the
weight and value to be given the evidence, and all factual issues are resolved by the trier
of fact. State v. Pruett, 788 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990). “A jury conviction removes
the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it
with one of guilt, so that on appeal a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating
that the evidence is insufficient.” State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).
The guilt of a defendant, including any fact required to be proven, may be predicated
upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both direct and
circumstantial evidence. State v. Pendergrass, 13 S.W.3d 389, 392-93 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1999). The standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence is the same whether the
conviction is based on direct or circumstantial evidence or a combination of the two. State
v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 379 (Tenn. 2011).
I. Second Degree Murder
The Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of
second degree murder because the proof did not show that he knew his actions would result
-9-
in the victim’s death. The Defendant asserts that the proof shows only that he “fired wildly
in a panic” after his confrontation with the victim, noting that the first gunshot went through
his shorts and struck the floor and that the jury also found him guilty of voluntary
manslaughter. The Defendant contends that second degree murder and voluntary
manslaughter are inconsistent verdicts and that, while such inconsistent verdicts are
permissible in Tennessee, “they should at the very least give cause for review.” The State
argues that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and that the Defendant is
not entitled to relief based on inconsistent verdicts. We agree with the State.
Second degree murder is the knowing killing of another. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-
210(a)(1). Our supreme court has determined that second degree murder is a result-of-
conduct offense. See State v. Ducker, 27 S.W.3d 889, 896 (Tenn. 2000). “A person acts
knowingly with respect to a result of the person’s conduct when the person is aware that
the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302(b).
In contrast, voluntary manslaughter is “the intentional or knowing killing of another in a
state of passion produced by adequate provocation sufficient to lead a reasonable person to
act in an irrational manner.” Id. at § 39-13-211(a). The principal distinction between the
two crimes for purposes of this appeal is the existence of adequate provocation.
Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that on May 20,
2020, the Defendant went to the dealership to speak with the victim about mechanical
problems the Defendant was having with his newly-purchased Altima. The victim said he
would return $700 of the Defendant’s money due to the car’s mechanical issues. The
Defendant and the victim shook hands, and the Defendant left. The next day, the
Defendant, who had a .40-caliber pistol in his shorts, returned to the dealership for the
money. He and the victim argued in the garage, and the victim noticed that the Defendant
had his hands in his shorts. Ms. Byrd testified that she heard the victim say he was going
to return $700 to the Defendant while the Defendant testified that the victim reneged on
their agreement to have a mechanic repair the Altima. Regardless of the reason for their
argument, the Defendant and the victim were yelling at each other when the Defendant
suddenly pulled his gun out of his pants and fired shots at the victim, striking the victim’s
right arm. The victim fell to the floor, and the Defendant took the victim’s gun and wallet.
From the proof, a reasonable jury could have concluded that the Defendant was angry with
the victim about the car, the money, or both and that he knowingly shot the victim.
As for the jury’s verdicts of second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter
being inconsistent, our supreme court has considered whether inconsistent verdicts entitle
a defendant to relief and has concluded that “the overwhelming authority supports the rule
that consistency between verdicts on separate counts of an indictment is not necessary.”
State v. Davis, 466 S.W.3d 49, 76 (Tenn. 2015) (quoting Wiggins v. State, 498 S.W.2d 92,
- 10 -
93 (Tenn. 1973)). The court reasoned that inconsistent verdicts may be allowed to stand
because
[t]he most that can be said in such cases is that the verdict shows that either
in the acquittal or conviction the jury did not speak their real conclusions, but
that does not show that they were not convinced of the defendant’s guilt.
....
That the verdict may have been the result of compromise, or of a mistake on
the part of the jury, is possible. But verdicts cannot be upset by speculation
or inquiry into such matters.
Id. (quoting Wiggins, 498 S.W.2d at 93). Therefore, the court held that “[c]onsistency in
verdicts for multiple count indictments is unnecessary. . . . This Court will not upset a
seemingly inconsistent verdict by speculating as to the jury’s reasoning if we are satisfied
that the evidence establishes guilt of the offense upon which the conviction was returned.”
Id. (quoting Wiggins, 498 S.W.2d at 93-94).
As discussed above, the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction
of second degree murder. The Defendant does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence
regarding his conviction of voluntary manslaughter. Accordingly, we conclude that he is
not entitled to relief on the basis of inconsistent verdicts.
II. Especially Aggravated Robbery
The Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of
especially aggravated robbery because the proof did not show that the theft was
accomplished by violence or putting the victim in fear. The Defendant acknowledges that
violence preceded the theft but contends that the act of violence and the subsequent theft
were not causally connected because “[a]ny theft occurred after the homicide was
completed.” The State argues that the Defendant is “wrong as a factual matter” because
the victim lived for several days after the shooting. We conclude that the evidence is
sufficient to support the conviction.
Especially aggravated robbery is defined as robbery “[a]ccomplished with a deadly
weapon” and “[w]here the victim suffers serious bodily injury.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-
13-403(a)(1), (2). Robbery is the “intentional or knowing theft of property of another by
violence or putting the person in fear.” Id. at § 39-13-401(a). A firearm is a deadly weapon,
and “[s]erious bodily injury means bodily injury that involves . . . [a] substantial risk of
death[.]” Id. at § 39-11-106(6)(A), (37)(A).
- 11 -
In support of his argument that the theft was not accomplished by violence or putting
the victim in fear, the Defendant cites State v. Owens, 20 S.W.3d 634 (Tenn. 2000). In that
case, the defendant grabbed an article of clothing from a store and left without paying.
Owens, 20 S.W.3d at 637. Two store employees chased him for several blocks. Id. When
one of the employees approached the defendant, the defendant dropped the clothing,
“brandished a box cutter,” and walked away. Id. The defendant was subsequently
convicted of robbery. Id. However, our supreme court reversed the robbery conviction
and imposed a theft conviction. Id. at 641. The court held that in order to constitute the
offense of robbery under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-401, “the use of
violence or fear must precede or be contemporaneous with the taking of property from the
person.” Id.
Again, taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the
victim was going to return $700 to the Defendant on May 21. The Defendant, armed with
a handgun in his shorts, returned to the dealership to get the money but got into a dispute
with the victim. The Defendant had his hand on his gun during the dispute. The Defendant
pulled out the gun and shot the victim, took the victim’s wallet and Ruger pistol, and fled
the scene. The Defendant discarded the victim’s pistol in Ms. Williams’s yard, but the
victim’s wallet was never found. Unlike the facts in Owens, the violence in this case
preceded the taking of the victim’s property. Moreover, to the extent the Defendant is
arguing that the theft was an afterthought to the shooting, this court has held that “the intent
to steal need not exist prior to or concurrently with the shooting in a case in which the
defendant is charged with especially aggravated robbery.” State v. Tucker, No. M2001-
02298-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1574998, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 17, 2002). In any
event, we think a reasonable jury could infer from the proof that the Defendant intended to
take the victim’s property when he shot the victim. See id. (stating that “when the assault
precedes the act of theft, a jury may reasonably infer from a defendant’s actions
immediately after an assault that the defendant intended to commit the theft prior to, or
concurrently with, the assault”) (citing State v. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d 102, 108 (Tenn. 1999)).
Thus, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction of
especially aggravated robbery.
CONCLUSION
Upon review, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s
convictions and affirm the judgments of the trial court.
_________________________________
JOHN W. CAMPBELL, SR., JUDGE
- 12 -