State of Tennessee v. Deangelo M. Moody and Martez D. Matthews

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2011-01930-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; May 9, 2013; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Appellants Deangelo M. Moody and Martez D. Matthews were convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison by the Davidson County Criminal Court. They appealed, questioning the sufficiency of evidence supporting their convictions. Matthews specifically raised issues regarding the trial court's decisions, including the admission of hearsay evidence linked to a severed co-defendant, the introduction of gang-related language and witness testimony, evidence of personal history among witnesses, a crime scene photograph showing blood, and his prior handgun conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the record and upheld the trial court's judgments but remanded for correction of the indictment dismissal for Matthews regarding firearm use and the acquittal of Moody on the same charge. The case arose from a shooting incident on April 25, 2009, where the victim, a sixteen-year-old girl, was killed by a stray bullet while at home. Testimony indicated she was shot during a gunfight outside her residence, prompting her mother to attempt emergency aid. Upon police arrival, the victim was found severely injured and later succumbed to her injuries.

Officer Cote described the arrival of Officer Brian Eaves at the crime scene, where a witness provided a hat found near the victim's house. Officer Eaves placed the hat in an evidence bag for crime scene investigators. Cote also noted the recovery of multiple shell casings of varying calibers. Crime scene investigator Lynne Mace testified about her examination of the scene, including a diagram showing the locations of cartridge casings. She collected two .45 caliber casings and six 9mm casings and documented a bullet strike mark on the victim's house.

Witness Christopher Bridges recounted an incident on April 25, 2009, around 4:00 p.m., when he and Deandre Williams were shot at by occupants of a vehicle. Bridges recognized a photograph of the vehicle involved and described the shooting coming from the driver's side. Although he observed the vehicle closely, he initially claimed he did not see any individuals associated with it and was reluctant to speak with police, stating he was pressured to go to the precinct. He denied knowing the appellants prior to the trial and mentioned that he was previously affiliated with the 107 Underground Crips but claimed he was no longer involved.

Deandre Williams corroborated Bridges' account, stating he was with him during the incident and heard multiple gunshots, but did not see the source. He described a small blue or green vehicle resembling a Honda seen earlier but did not observe anything specific during the shooting. Williams denied any gang affiliation and stated he only testified because he felt coerced by the State. Neither witness could explain the motive for the shooting directed at them.

Evan Bridges, the grandfather of Christopher Bridges, testified about events on April 25, 2009, while he was in his backyard at 3648 Chesapeak Drive. He heard gunshots and observed a small green car driving down the street from which the shots originated. Although he recognized the vehicle as similar to a Honda, he later noted that a photograph showed a blue car. He saw three African-American males in the vehicle, described them as "some young guys," and recalled speaking to police but denied telling Officer Eaves he witnessed two occupants shooting at 3652 Chesapeak Drive. After the incident, he found a black cap in the street, suspected it belonged to one of the shooters, and reported it to the police. On cross-examination, he clarified that he did not see anyone shoot and had not witnessed the cap fall from the vehicle.

Quontez Caldwell, who is related to appellants Moody and Ortego Thomas, recounted being picked up by them on the same day in Moody’s vehicle. He identified Moody's car from a photograph and noted two unidentified males were also present, one of whom was appellant Matthews. Caldwell stated that as they drove along Chesapeak Drive, they encountered someone they had a conflict with and shot at him, with Thomas indicating the target. He did not recall previously stating that any of the occupants had firearms but acknowledged that if he had, it was true. After the shooting, they dropped Caldwell off in the street, and he initially refused to cooperate with police inquiries about the incident. He denied gang affiliation with the Hoover Deuce Crips and any prior testimony confirming such affiliation. On cross-examination, Caldwell refuted claims regarding a detective's questioning about a murder confession and denied having a new tattoo or changing his story about being in an Impala with someone named 'T.O.'

Mr. Caldwell testified that appellant Moody picked him up and later another individual took over driving the vehicle. He recounted witnessing 'C. Trigger' during an incident where guns were drawn and shots were fired. In a subsequent interview with assistant district attorney Kathy Morante, Caldwell denied any awareness of his brothers' issues with 'C. Trigger' and downplayed his own conflict with him, attributing it to minor 'child issues' unrelated to his child's mother. Caldwell could not recall any prior animosity or threats from 'C. Trigger' and declined to review his prior statements. 

Morante, assigned to handle juvenile transfers, noted that it was common for witnesses with pending charges, like Caldwell, to testify for the State under 'use immunity.' This immunity allowed Caldwell to provide information without it being used against him in prosecution, provided he was truthful. Caldwell faced serious charges, including attempted homicide unrelated to the current case, and had pled guilty to aggravated assault and vandalism, resulting in commitment to a secure facility. He had an unresolved robbery charge and had just been released from DCS when the incident occurred.

Detective Gene Davis conducted a traffic stop on May 15, 2009, where he discovered a loaded 9mm Glock pistol in the vehicle, which appellant Matthews claimed ownership of. Detective Cody O’Quinn later executed a search warrant on a vehicle registered to Moody and identified a valid temporary tag from the time of the incident on April 25, 2009.

Detective O’Quinn identified the Kia automobile in the exhibit as green during cross-examination. Detective Lawrence Brown obtained buccal swabs from both appellants on February 9, 2011, for DNA analysis at the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI). TBI Agent Mark Dunlap, an expert in forensic chemistry, analyzed a black cap and found a DNA profile indicating that appellant Matthews was the major contributor, although three of thirteen testing sites were inconclusive and did not indicate any DNA from appellant Deangelo Moody. Agent Robert Daniel Royse, an expert in firearms, explained how he identifies firearms based on unique markings. He confirmed that two 9mm cartridge casings were fired from a weapon he analyzed, which had been provided to him in January 2011.

Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Amy McMaster reviewed the autopsy report of the victim, detailing the bullet's entry wound and its path, concluding that the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the torso and the manner of death was homicide. The State rested its case after her testimony. The defense presented William Jackson, a former MNPD officer and lead detective in the investigation. He arrived at the crime scene shortly after the incident, secured it, and collected the bullet from the victim's body, initially unsure if it was a .45 or .40 caliber. Detective Jackson also discussed his interviews with Quontez Caldwell.

Detective Jackson conducted two interviews with Mr. Caldwell regarding a shooting incident: the first on April 30, 2009, where Caldwell denied involvement, and the second on June 12, 2009, during which he began cooperating and identified appellant Matthews in a photo array. Caldwell later provided details about the shooting, implicating both appellants as participants. Consequently, the jury convicted the appellants of first-degree felony murder related to an attempted first-degree murder, resulting in life sentences.

In analyzing the sufficiency of evidence for the convictions, the appellate standard requires that, when viewing the evidence favorably to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof lies with the appellants to demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could have reached such a conclusion. This standard applies equally to direct and circumstantial evidence. The jury is responsible for resolving witness credibility and factual disputes, and the appellate court presumes the jury made reasonable inferences from the evidence. The State must prove that the appellants killed the victim during the commission or attempt of first-degree murder, as specified in the indictment.

First degree premeditated murder is characterized as a deliberate and intentional killing. The jury was instructed that 'attempt' involves acting with intent to achieve a result that constitutes the offense, believing the conduct will independently yield that result. Evidence presented supports the appellants’ convictions. Officer Cote responded to a report of a shooting, finding a sixteen-year-old female victim. At the scene, officers collected a black cap, two .45 caliber shell casings, and six 9mm shell casings. Witness Christopher Bridges testified to seeing a car with multiple occupants firing shots, confirming he had a clear view as it passed by. Another witness, Mr. Williams, described noticing a small blue or green Honda before the gunfire began. Evan Bridges heard gunshots and identified a small green car as the source. After the shooting, he found the black cap in the street and turned it over to police, suspecting it belonged to a shooter. Quontez Caldwell identified a vehicle as belonging to appellant Moody and noted that he and others fired shots at someone with whom they had a conflict. Following a traffic stop, Detective Davis discovered a loaded 9mm Glock pistol claimed by appellant Matthews. Detective O’Quinn seized a green Kia registered to appellant Moody and his mother, and DNA analysis of the black cap indicated that appellant Matthews was the primary contributor. Additionally, spent shell casings linked to the case were matched to a weapon received for comparison in 2011.

Detective Jackson testified that Mr. Caldwell identified appellant Matthews in a photo array as involved in a shooting incident on April 25, 2009, where Caldwell provided seating positions of the individuals in the vehicle. The evidence allowed the jury to convict both appellants of felony murder during an attempt at first degree murder. Premeditation, as defined by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(d), does not require a prolonged intent to kill before the act. The jury could infer that the appellants formed intent after passing 'C. Trigger,' leading them to turn around and confront him. Their actions, intending to kill 'C. Trigger' but instead shooting into the victim's home, constituted first degree felony murder, as established in Millen v. State, 988 S.W.2d 164, 167-68 (Tenn. 1999). 

Regarding the admissibility of Mr. Caldwell’s testimony, he recounted that co-defendant Mr. Thomas indicated the presence of someone they had a dispute with, prompting the driver to turn the vehicle around to shoot. Appellant Matthews argued this was inadmissible hearsay and violated his confrontation rights. While the State contended Matthews had acquiesced to the trial court's ruling on the testimony, the transcript suggested his agreement was limited to not discussing the underlying dispute. Matthews did not object contemporaneously to the statement, having previously filed a motion in limine concerning his right to confront witnesses. The trial court deemed the evidence admissible, and whether a contemporaneous objection is required is assessed on a case-by-case basis. However, an objection in the form of a motion in limine is considered contemporaneous if a ruling is obtained, per State v. Alder, 71 S.W.3d 299, 302 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).

The issue was preserved for appellate review concerning Mr. Thomas's statement, which Mr. Caldwell repeated in court. Appellant argues this statement implicated him and violated his confrontation rights under Bruton v. United States, which prohibits using a co-defendant's confession to implicate another co-defendant. However, the court clarified that a non-hearsay statement by a co-defendant does not raise Confrontation Clause issues. The crucial determination is whether the statement is hearsay. Statements used to demonstrate their effect on the listener are not considered hearsay. The court concluded that Mr. Thomas's statement was not hearsay since it was offered to illustrate its effect on the listeners' actions (turning the vehicle and firing weapons) rather than to establish the truth of the matter asserted (the disagreement with Mr. Bridges). Therefore, the trial court's ruling did not violate the appellant's confrontation rights.

Additionally, appellant Matthews sought to exclude references to gang affiliation, specifically related to the terms "homeboy" and "homie," which were used in testimony. The trial court denied this motion, stating there was no evidence linking these terms to gang activity. Appellant's challenge to the trial court's ruling was insufficiently supported with authorities or record references, leading to waiver of the issue under Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 10(b). However, the court addressed the issue due to the severity of the offenses. The admissibility of evidence is at the trial court's discretion, which will not be overturned absent clear abuse of that discretion.

A trial court may abuse its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard or making an illogical decision that results in injustice. In this case, the trial court found no evidence that the terms “homie” or “homeboy” indicated gang affiliation, noting their common usage, and thus did not abuse its discretion in denying Matthews’ motion in limine regarding these terms. 

Prior to trial, a hearing addressed the admissibility of evidence about gang involvement of two State witnesses. The court decided to limit jury consideration of any gang references to their potential impact on the witnesses' willingness to cooperate with law enforcement. Witness Caldwell denied gang involvement, while Bridges acknowledged past affiliation but claimed he was no longer involved. Although Matthews argued that this testimony was prejudicial, he did not object at trial, although he raised the issue in a pretrial motion, preserving it for appeal.

The court found no error regarding Caldwell's testimony, while any error related to Bridges' admission was considered minor. Matthews asserted that evidence of gang affiliation was prejudicial; however, the court noted that it was the State, not Matthews, that was potentially prejudiced by this evidence. The testimony aimed to explain the witnesses' reluctance to cooperate, not to undermine Matthews' credibility. The trial court provided jury instructions to mitigate any potential prejudice, and juries are presumed to follow such instructions. Consequently, Matthews is not entitled to relief.

Appellant Matthews asserts the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce an audiotaped statement from Mr. Caldwell referencing his disagreement with Mr. Bridges, claiming it was not admissible. The State contends the evidence was relevant to establish intent and motive related to an ongoing conflict over child parentage. Although Matthews did not object during trial, he preserved the issue through a pre-trial motion, and the court ruled the evidence admissible, allowing for appellate review. The court evaluated the statement and found it cumulative since it echoed Mr. Caldwell's trial testimony and was relevant to his motive. 

Regarding the admissibility of a crime scene photograph, Tennessee Rules of Evidence require that evidence must be relevant and not unduly prejudicial. The trial court must determine if the photograph’s probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The court considered various factors, including the clarity and accuracy of the photograph and its relevance to the case. The trial court deemed the photograph non-prejudicial and integral to corroborating witness testimony about the crime scene. The photograph showed a significant amount of blood but did not depict the victim's body. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to admit the photograph, affirming that Matthews is not entitled to relief on this issue.

Appellant Matthews contends that the trial court improperly admitted evidence regarding his juvenile adjudication for illegal handgun possession. The case details that during a traffic stop on May 15, 2009, Detective Davis discovered a Glock 9mm pistol in a vehicle where Matthews was a passenger, which he claimed as his. This weapon was linked to a murder by matching shell casings found at the crime scene. The State sought to introduce Matthews's juvenile adjudication as it was deemed an admission under oath, and the trial court permitted this evidence. Matthews argues that the admission violated Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), which generally limits evidence of past crimes to prevent unfair prejudice. However, the court determined that Matthews's possession of the murder weapon shortly after the crime was relevant for establishing his identity as a perpetrator. The court found that the probative value outweighed any potential prejudice, affirming Matthews's first-degree murder conviction. The case is remanded only for the entry of judgment forms to address the indictments related to firearm use, noting a lack of such documentation for both Matthews and co-defendant Moody.