Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State of Tennessee v. Robert Jason Burdick
Citation: Not availableDocket: M2012-01071-CCA-R3-CD
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; June 11, 2013; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Robert Jason Burdick was convicted by a Williamson County Circuit Court jury of rape, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary, leading to a total effective sentence of thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He appealed, contesting the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions, and the jury instructions regarding the kidnapping charge based on the precedent set in *State v. White*. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee upheld the trial court's judgments. During the trial, the victim, referred to as K.A., provided a detailed account of the events from the night of November 3, 2004, when she was attacked in her home. She testified that she had fallen asleep on the couch while her family was in bed. The perpetrator entered through unlocked doors, covered her eyes, and ordered her to follow him outside. Under duress, she complied, fearing for her family's safety. The assailant led her away from the house into a remote area, where he sexually assaulted her, first forcing her to perform oral sex and then engaging in further sexual acts while wearing a ski mask. The victim's testimony highlighted the coercive and violent nature of the attack, which was central to the jury's convictions. The victim was assaulted by the perpetrator, who penetrated her vaginally while she was restrained and frightened. During the assault, he demanded affection and coerced her into compliance, fearing further violence. After approximately five to six minutes, the perpetrator stopped due to a barking dog, ordered the victim to dress, and guided her towards her home while she was still blindfolded with duct tape. Upon her arrival inside, she secured the doors, checked on her daughter, and informed her husband of the assault. They moved to a more secure area of the house, where the husband contacted the police. The victim refrained from washing or changing clothes to preserve evidence. Emergency responders arrived promptly, and she was taken to the hospital, where a rape kit was performed. The victim reported the incident to Detective Adrian Breedlove, stating she did not know her assailant. The victim exhibited physical signs of the assault, including bruises. Her husband noted her disheveled appearance and debris on her nightgown upon her return home. Additionally, Al Dean Ketner, a neighbor, witnessed the situation around 1:00 a.m. and described the victim on the ground with a male figure over her. Ketner's dog was agitated and barking, prompting his attention to the scene. Ketner observed police at the victim’s house the morning after an incident and concluded that the man he saw previously was not the victim's husband, prompting him to inform detectives. Detective Adrian Breedlove, following instructions from Lieutenant Campsey, interviewed the victim at the hospital and collected evidence, including a rape kit, for testing at the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) crime laboratory. Detective John Wood, designated as the lead investigator, noted the absence of significant fingerprints at the scene and observed that lights beneath the deck were unscrewed. He discovered cigarette butts with DNA from an unknown individual and, following DNA analysis of swabs taken from the victim, identified a profile of the perpetrator, though no match was established at that time. In April 2008, the appellant emerged as a suspect, leading to the collection of his DNA sample. During cross-examination, Detective Wood mentioned that while the ground was wet, he found a poor-quality muddy shoe print but it did not contribute to the investigation. A stipulation was made regarding adherence to protocols during the DNA sample collection in May 2008. Dr. Ronald Hagan, who treated the victim, noted a bruise on her abdomen, performed a rape examination, and collected various samples, including vaginal and oral swabs, as well as swabs from the victim's breasts based on her account. Nurse Victoria S. Knotts assisted in the examination and ensured the preservation of evidence by collecting the victim’s nightgown and sheets used during the ambulance transport. Forensic scientist Michael Turbeville examined the victim’s nightgown, discovering dirt but no semen, and adhered to TBI policy that prioritized examining items most intimate to the victim before halting further analysis. Agent Turbeville's examination of the victim's vaginal swabs revealed no semen, which he attributed to several possible reasons, including the lack of ejaculation, condom use, or ejaculation elsewhere. The swabs contained only the victim's DNA. No semen was found on the oral swabs, but the swabs from the victim's breasts tested positive for the appellant's DNA. DNA from cigarette butts collected at the crime scene did not match the appellant's. Following the State's presentation of its case, the appellant chose not to present evidence, resulting in a jury conviction for rape, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary, with sentences totaling thirty years served consecutively. On appeal, the appellant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, and the jury instructions related to the kidnapping charge. Prior to trial, he argued that evidence was obtained from an unlawful stop, claiming police lacked reasonable suspicion. The appellant's evasiveness and lies during questioning led officers to suspect him of multiple rapes. The State contended that the officers did have reasonable suspicion, supported by Officer Elliott Hamm's testimony regarding a suspicious individual reported in the area, coinciding with previous rapes attributed to a suspect known as "The Wooded Rapist." Officer Hamm noted the unusual presence of a parked vehicle in the vicinity, which contributed to the decision to investigate further. The warm hood of the gray 2001 Jeep Grand Cherokee indicated it had not been parked long, prompting further inquiry. A black duffle bag was found in the rear cargo area of a vehicle registered to the appellant, with a red baseball cap visible on the back seat and drinks in the center console. Officer Hamm conducted a computer search using the vehicle’s license plate, confirming the appellant’s identity and address in Davidson County. After an hour of searching the area, Officer Hamm observed the Jeep, driven by the appellant, on Meadow Lake Road during early morning hours, which he deemed unusual. He activated his lights, prompting the appellant to stop. Officer Hamm approached the appellant, who was dressed in camouflage pants and a gray t-shirt, to identify him and inquire about his activities related to a prowler call in the area. The appellant claimed he had not seen any suspicious behavior and stated he had been at a gathering at a friend's house. After taking the appellant's contact information for a field interview card, Officer Hamm asked for permission to search the vehicle, which the appellant declined. The interaction lasted about three to five minutes, after which Officer Hamm continued his search for another 45 minutes to an hour. The following day, Officer Hamm visited the friend's residence and confirmed no gathering had occurred the previous evening. During cross-examination, Officer Hamm noted that the prowler description did not include height details and stated the appellant was not wearing a ski mask or carrying a flashlight. The appellant's physical description matched his driver's license, and Officer Hamm did not arrest or cite him during the stop. He admitted the significance of the appellant's alibi depended on verification, and without the stop, there would have been no story to confirm. Officer Hamm stated he would have stopped anyone who appeared out of place that night. The trial court accepted his testimony, determining that sufficient articulable facts supported reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop, noting that failure to act would have been neglectful of his duties. The appellant challenges this ruling. In suppression hearings, the trial court evaluates witness credibility and evidence weight, with findings upheld unless evidence strongly contradicts them. However, appellate courts review the legal application to facts de novo. The State, as the prevailing party, is entitled to favorable interpretations of evidence. Courts may consider evidence from both suppression hearings and trials to assess pretrial motion correctness. Both the Fourth Amendment and the Tennessee Constitution safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures, with warrantless actions presumed unreasonable unless an exception applies. One exception, established in Terry v. Ohio, permits brief investigatory stops based on reasonable suspicion supported by specific facts indicating potential criminal activity. This standard applies to vehicle stops as well. Reasonable suspicion is defined as an objective basis for suspecting criminal activity, assessed by an objective standard rather than the officer's subjective beliefs, with the totality of circumstances taken into account. In United States v. Sokolow, the court highlighted the factors that contribute to establishing reasonable suspicion, which include an officer's observations, information from other law enforcement or citizens, and patterns of offenders. The court emphasized that reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause and can be based on less reliable information. In this case, Officer Hamm had been alerted to be watchful for activity linked to "The Wooded Rapist" and responded to a report of a person peeping into cars on a rainy night in a wooded area. He observed a warm Jeep parked unusually in the subdivision and later saw the appellant driving it. After stopping the appellant for a brief inquiry, the trial court determined that Officer Hamm had reasonable suspicion justifying the stop, which was upheld by previous court decisions. Additionally, the appellant challenged the sufficiency of evidence for his convictions of rape and aggravated burglary. The court noted that a jury conviction presumes guilt, placing the burden on the appellant to demonstrate that no reasonable jury could find the evidence sufficient to support the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from it, as established in Jackson v. Virginia and reaffirmed in Tennessee case law. Credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence are determined by the trier of fact, not appellate courts. The definition of rape under Tennessee law includes unlawful sexual penetration through force or coercion, with "unlawful" generally indicating non-consensual acts. The appellant was specifically charged with vaginal rape. Aggravated burglary is defined as entering a habitation without consent with intent to commit a felony, theft, or assault. In this case, the evidence indicated the victim was forcibly removed from her home by a man wearing gloves, taken to a wooded area, and subjected to sexual acts, including vaginal penetration. DNA evidence linked the appellant to the crime. The evidence was deemed sufficient to uphold convictions for both rape and aggravated burglary. Regarding aggravated kidnapping, the appellant requested a new trial, arguing the jury was not instructed according to a precedent set in State v. White. The State contended any instructional error was harmless. Aggravated kidnapping is defined as false imprisonment committed to facilitate a felony. False imprisonment involves unlawful removal or confinement that substantially interferes with a person's liberty. There is an ongoing legal debate concerning the validity of kidnapping convictions when the acts occur during the commission of another felony. In State v. Anthony, the Tennessee Supreme Court established that for a separate kidnapping conviction to be valid, it must be determined whether the confinement, movement, or detention was merely incidental to another felony or significant enough to warrant independent prosecution. This analysis was refined in State v. Dixon, which introduced a two-pronged test: first, assessing if the movement or confinement exceeded what was necessary for the accompanying felony; second, determining if the additional actions hindered the victim's ability to seek help, reduced the risk of the perpetrator's detection, or increased the risk of harm to the victim. In State v. White, the court overruled Anthony and Dixon, asserting that the sufficiency of evidence for a kidnapping conviction should be reviewed based on whether the jury, properly instructed, found beyond a reasonable doubt that all statutory elements of kidnapping were met. The court emphasized that trial courts must ensure kidnapping convictions are only obtained when the victim's removal or confinement surpasses what is necessary for the accompanying felony. To guide this determination, the court provided a jury instruction focusing on the degree of interference with the victim's liberty, considering various factors including the nature and duration of confinement, its occurrence relative to the separate offense, and its effect on the victim's ability to seek help or the defendant’s risk of detection. The appellant's trial took place before the White decision, and the jury was instructed according to the then-current pattern instruction for aggravated kidnapping. Thus, the applicability of the White ruling to the appellant's case must be assessed. To establish the Defendant's guilt, the State needed to prove two essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) the Defendant knowingly removed or confined the victim unlawfully, significantly interfering with the victim's liberty; and 2) this action was taken to facilitate the commission of rape or subsequent flight. A removal or confinement is deemed unlawful if executed by force, threat, or fraud. The court referenced a case, White, which was filed on March 9, 2012, and noted that the appellant filed a timely motion for a new trial on March 16, 2012, claiming trial court error. The appellant argued that his situation was procedurally similar to that in White, asserting that while White does not allow for a collateral attack on a conviction, it should apply retroactively to cases pending direct appeal at its filing. The State countered that White's ruling does not articulate a new constitutional law or require retroactive application. The court sided with the appellant, noting that it had previously concluded that the White ruling intended retroactive application for cases on direct appeal at the time of its decision. Additionally, the jury instruction given in this case closely mirrored that in White, which failed to adequately define the crucial element of substantial interference with the victim's liberty, as it did not clarify that such interference must not be incidental to the felony offense. This instructional error was also present in related cases. The court addressed the impact of this error, categorizing it as a non-structural constitutional error, which requires assessing whether it contributed to the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. During the motion for a new trial hearing, the trial court acknowledged that a different charge would be given if the case were tried today but deemed the original charge proper at the time. Nevertheless, the court concluded that any potential error was harmless. The review of the White case reveals that multiple factors outlined in the new opinion and supported by evidence apply to the current case. Key points include that the victim was removed from her home, effectively preventing her from seeking assistance from her family who were asleep. The evidence indicates that the removal was intended to evade detection of the crime, as moving her to the backyard significantly reduced the risk of being discovered. Furthermore, the act of removal posed an additional risk of harm beyond the immediate threat of rape. The trial court found overwhelming proof that the appellant's actions, including disabling motion-activated lights, entering the victim's home, and forcing her outside, constituted confinement that exceeded what was necessary for the rape and aggravated burglary. The court concluded that any error in jury instruction regarding aggravated kidnapping was harmless, affirming that the evidence sufficiently supported the appellant's convictions and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.