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. Andre Harris
Citation: Not availableDocket: W2011-02440-CCA-R3-CD
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; June 5, 2013; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Andre Harris was convicted by a Shelby County jury for first degree murder in the perpetration of theft, first degree premeditated murder, and theft of property valued under $500. The trial court merged the murder convictions and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the first degree murder and eleven months, twenty-nine days for theft, to be served concurrently. On appeal, Harris raised three issues: the admissibility of a videotaped interrogation from 'The First 48,' the admission of autopsy photographs, and the sufficiency of evidence to support his murder convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgments after a thorough review. The case stemmed from the April 2008 homicide of Ronald Paige, whose wife testified about his declining health and the circumstances surrounding his death, including her efforts to contact him when he failed to attend church services. Mr. Brandon was the last known person to see the victim while repairing a leak in the kitchen, having not entered the bedroom. On April 22, 2008, he was informed by the apartment manager that the victim's family requested a welfare check. After receiving no response at the victim's door, Mr. Brandon used his pass key to enter and immediately detected the odor of decay, discovering the victim's body just inside the door. He closed the door, re-locked it, and instructed the manager to call authorities. When paramedics arrived, he facilitated their entry and provided a statement to police. Officer Bryant Brooks was the first officer on the scene, securing the apartment and confirming the victim's death, while also noting that the victim's blue Mercedes was missing and had neither been towed nor repossessed. Sergeant Connie Justice, the case coordinator, observed the victim's decomposed body on the living room floor, noting blood spatters that indicated the victim bled initially on the bed before moving to the living room. A kitchen knife was found in a glass decanter, with its blade bent, and broken pieces of the decanter were located near the body. Sergeant Anthony Mullins, an expert in blood stain pattern analysis, testified that the blood patterns suggested the victim was stationary on the bed for a time and was stabbed at least three times while lying there. He described various blood stains, including cast-off stains indicating the victim was upright as he moved, and medium velocity impact stains near the victim's head, suggesting he was struck during the incident. The evidence indicated the victim was neither crawling nor being dragged during the attack. Velocity of blood spatter is influenced by the force applied to a person, with gunshot wounds causing high-velocity spatter and blunt force trauma resulting in low to medium velocity spatter. Sergeant Mullins observed that the spatter on the wall near the victim's head suggested the victim was struck while in a lying position. He noted the absence of a 'void' area on the wall, which would have indicated the victim was grabbing someone's leg at the time of the strike. Evidence collected from the crime scene included various items and fingerprints, which were analyzed by Nathan Gathright, a fingerprint expert. Gathright confirmed that the fingerprints matched those of both the victim and the appellant, with the appellant’s fingerprints identified through the Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Following this discovery, police located the appellant at a gas station, where he was arrested. An EBT card belonging to the victim was later found in the patrol car but was subsequently lost. During an interview, appellant initially denied any connection to the victim but became nervous upon being informed of the fingerprint match and ultimately confessed to killing the victim. He recounted meeting the victim at a gas station and staying with him, with the victim later returning to the apartment with another individual. Appellant recounted an altercation with the victim, stating that during a struggle, the victim tried to choke him while also attempting to expose himself. Appellant picked up a knife from a bedside table but dropped it, injuring himself. After retrieving the knife, he stabbed the victim in the neck multiple times, claiming the victim continued to grapple with him. They fell out of bed and into the living room, where appellant struck the victim with a bottle, causing the victim to stop moving. Following the incident, appellant changed clothes, cleaned up blood, and took the victim's car keys and cash before leaving the scene. He drove to Forrest City, Arkansas, where he attempted to make purchases at a Walmart but was unsuccessful. Surveillance footage captured appellant at the store, confirming his presence. Law enforcement confirmed the victim's car was located in the Walmart parking lot, and further investigation established the distance from the victim's residence to the Walmart. Appellant’s physical description matched that on his driver's license application. Dr. Lisa Funte, a medical examiner, conducted an autopsy on the victim on April 23, 2008, finding the body in moderate decomposition. The victim sustained multiple injuries, including 66 stab wounds and 25 incised wounds, with sharp force injuries primarily affecting the face, neck, and torso. The jugular vein was the only vital structure involved, which could lead to death from blood loss without immediate medical intervention. Dr. Funte noted that the maximum stab wound depth was 5.125 inches and attributed the lack of vital organ penetration to the victim's morbid obesity. She classified injuries to the hands and wrists as defensive wounds and identified fatal blunt force trauma to the skull, including at least 18 strikes resulting in cranial hemorrhage and multiple fractures. The victim was approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall and weighed 251 pounds at autopsy, with weight affected by decomposition. Dr. Funte determined the cause of death as "homicidal violence" from multiple lethal injuries but could not ascertain the exact order of injury occurrence. The appellant, who was homeless, described meeting the victim and staying at his apartment. He recounted an altercation where the victim began choking him, leading him to grab a knife and stab the victim during their struggle. The appellant could not recall all details of the confrontation, which involved wrestling and continued fighting as they moved through the apartment. Appellant attacked the victim with a bottle, claiming he chose it over a knife he deemed ineffective, and did not intend to stab the victim multiple times. He described a mutual rage during the altercation and expressed fear for his life. Appellant acknowledged that he continued to strike the victim after he stopped moving, ceasing only when the bottle broke. Following the incident, he contemplated calling the police for about five to ten minutes but ultimately chose to wash his hands, change clothes, and drive to Arkansas with only the car keys, leaving other belongings behind. In Arkansas, he briefly considered turning himself in while sitting in a Walmart parking lot but instead attempted to use gift cards found in the car to purchase a cellular phone, without success. Concerned about driving the Mercedes back to Memphis, he opted to take a bus instead and returned to Memphis, where he remained until his arrest. Appellant had a prior criminal history of misdemeanor thefts and passing bad checks. The jury found him guilty of first-degree murder during the commission of theft, first-degree premeditated murder, and theft of property valued under $500, with the murder convictions merging by law. He received a life sentence for the first-degree murder and an eleven-month, twenty-nine-day concurrent sentence for theft. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court improperly admitted a segment of "The First 48" showing his police interview, arguing the court failed to adhere to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) procedural requirements and wrongfully decided he opened the door to this evidence. The State counters that appellant opened the door through his cross-examination of Sergeant Quinn, where he referenced the edited interview shown on the program. The State noted that during direct examination, Sergeant Quinn had described appellant as calm during the interview, while on cross-examination, he clarified that appellant was initially nervous. The State sought to introduce the video segment to prevent the jury from being misled about the existence of a video-recorded interview that had not been presented. The State argued it had not specifically referenced what was recorded in a video of appellant's interview. Appellant countered that he had not intended to allow the video's admission and only addressed it due to the State's comments during voir dire. The trial court conducted a jury-out hearing for the State to present the interview segment, during which appellant objected to references to a "stolen Blazer" in the video. He did not request a hearing under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), which governs the admissibility of evidence related to other crimes, wrongs, or acts. The court ruled the video from "The First 48" was admissible to counter inferences raised during the cross-examination of Sergeant Quinn, asserting that appellant's questioning misrepresented the interview context and could mislead the jury regarding the accuracy of Quinn's testimony. Citing Tennessee Rule of Evidence 106 (the rule of completeness), the court allowed the video to be shown, instructing the jury that it was not admitted for the truth of its contents but to clarify appellant's demeanor during the interview. Appellant appealed, claiming the trial court erred in allowing the video, arguing it did not follow the procedural requirements of Rule 404(b), which necessitates a jury-out hearing and a determination of the probative value versus unfair prejudice of such evidence. The trial court did not meet the procedural standards outlined in Rule 404(b) regarding the mention of the stolen Blazer. Appellant objected to the jury hearing about an accusation of stealing a Blazer but did not specify his objection under Rule 404(b) or request a hearing on it. Consequently, he waived the argument that the trial court erred by not holding a 404(b) jury-out hearing, as per Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 36(a). Although the mention of the Blazer was deemed irrelevant and should have been redacted, its inclusion was classified as a harmless error since it did not significantly affect the judgment. The appellant had already admitted to killing the victim and had prior convictions, which mitigated the prejudicial impact of the Blazer mention. The jury was instructed that the video was not for the truth of the assertions made. Further, the trial court ruled that the appellant opened the door for the introduction of 'The First 48' video due to his cross-examination, which created a misleading impression about his interview. This decision was within the trial court’s discretion. Regarding the admission of twenty autopsy photographs, the appellant contended that their probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice. However, the State argued successfully that the photographs were necessary to establish premeditation and were not excessively gruesome. The court upheld their admissibility under Tennessee Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403, confirming that a knowledgeable witness must authenticate photographs for evidence admission. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 402. Relevant evidence, defined by Tenn. R. Evid. 401, is evidence that makes a consequential fact more or less probable. When a photograph is deemed relevant, the trial court must assess if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, as per Tenn. R. Evid. 403. Unfair prejudice refers to the tendency of evidence to lead to a decision based on an improper basis, often emotional. The court should evaluate the accuracy and clarity of the photograph, its evidentiary value, how it represents the scene, the adequacy of testimonial evidence, and its necessity in establishing guilt or addressing the defendant’s claims. The trial court has discretion in admitting photographs, and its decisions are upheld unless there is clear evidence of abuse of discretion. Tennessee courts generally allow liberal admission of photographs in civil and criminal cases, provided they serve a relevant purpose and are not solely meant to inflame the jury against the defendant. Autopsy photographs can be admitted in murder cases even if they are graphic, as long as they are relevant, and not rendered inadmissible due to being cumulative or describable in words. In this case, the photographs were deemed highly probative, contradicting the appellant's claims about the stabbing and bludgeoning of the victim. They were significant in demonstrating the number and location of wounds and were relevant to proving premeditation, which can be inferred from factors like the use of a deadly weapon on an unarmed victim or multiple wounds. Ultimately, the trial court's admission of the photographs was justified as their probative value outweighed any potential prejudicial effect, particularly since the images were not gruesome and the victim's body had been cleaned. The appellant did not contest the admissibility of crime scene photographs that were more graphic. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the autopsy photographs, and the appellant has no grounds for relief on this issue. Appellant argues that the evidence was inadequate to support his convictions for premeditated murder and murder during a theft, claiming it only warranted a conviction for voluntary manslaughter. He does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence for his theft conviction. The appellate review standard assesses whether any rational fact-finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence favorably for the prosecution. The appellant must demonstrate that no reasonable jury could have reached such a conclusion based on the evidence presented. This standard applies equally to both direct and circumstantial evidence. During a jury trial, issues of witness credibility and the value of evidence are determined by the jury, which is presumed to have drawn all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution. The burden of proof shifts to the appellant at the appellate level, requiring him to show that the evidence is insufficient to uphold the jury's verdict. Specifically regarding premeditated murder, defined under Tennessee law as a deliberate and intentional killing, the concept of "premeditation" involves actions taken after reflection and judgment, indicating that the intent to kill must exist prior to the act. The mental state of the accused at the time of the act is crucial to evaluating whether premeditation was present. The court must determine if the State proved the element of premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. Premeditation is a factual determination for the jury, which can infer it from the circumstances surrounding a killing. A defendant's state of mind is essential for establishing the offense's elements, and premeditation can be proven through circumstantial evidence. Factors indicating premeditation include using a deadly weapon on an unarmed victim, cruelty in the killing, declarations of intent to kill, weapon procurement, preparations for concealment, and the defendant's calmness post-killing. In this case, the evidence indicated sufficient premeditation and intent for a conviction of premeditated murder. The appellant argued that he acted under provocation following a sexual attack by the victim; however, evidence countered this claim by showing the victim was in poor health and unarmed, while the appellant was physically imposing and used multiple weapons. Blood spatter analysis revealed the victim was upright when moving away from the scene, contradicting the appellant's narrative of being attacked. The medical examiner noted the victim suffered numerous stab and blunt force injuries, and had the appellant sought medical help after injuring the jugular vein, the victim might have survived. The brutality of the attack supported the jury's finding of premeditated murder. Additionally, the jury found the appellant guilty of murder during the perpetration of a theft, as defined under Tennessee law. A person is guilty of theft if they intend to deprive the owner of property and knowingly obtain or control that property without the owner's consent. The timing of the theft in relation to a killing is not strictly necessary, provided there is a connection in time, place, and continuity of action. However, the intent to commit theft must exist either prior to or concurrently with the act causing the victim's death. The determination of the defendant's intent is a factual issue for the jury, which can infer intent from the defendant's actions after the killing. In this case, evidence supported the appellant's conviction for murder during the commission of theft. The appellant, who was homeless, encountered the victim who owned a luxury vehicle. After killing the victim, the appellant took the keys and a money clip containing an EBT card and $23. Despite claiming he found the money clip in the victim's car, he initially told a police officer that he took it from the victim's apartment. The appellant subsequently stole the victim's car, drove it to another state, and used the victim’s cash to buy a bus ticket back to Memphis. This demonstrated a clear connection between the killing and the theft, justifying the jury's inference that the murder occurred during the theft. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.