State of Tennessee v. Justin Ellis

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2011-02017-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; March 22, 2013; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Justin Ellis was convicted by a Knox County jury of aggravated burglary, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, aggravated assault, and aggravated robbery, with the aggravated assault conviction merged into the aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him to an effective nineteen years in prison. On appeal, Ellis contended that the successor judge incorrectly assumed the role of the thirteenth juror. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee found that the successor judge lacked the authority to act in this capacity, resulting in the reversal of the trial court's judgments and the ordering of a new trial. The case arose from an armed home invasion on December 29, 2009, involving victims Isiah Cobb and Jessica Greene. A grand jury initially indicted Ellis on multiple counts, including aggravated burglary and robbery. During the trial, Cobb testified about the events of the home invasion, detailing how he and Greene were confronted by Ellis, who was armed and demanded their belongings after breaking into their home.

Mr. Cobb and Ms. Greene were victims of an armed home invasion on December 29, 2009. Mr. Cobb described the gunman as wearing gloves and a black hoodie, armed with a black 9mm gun, which he pointed at both victims while demanding money and personal items. The gunman ordered Mr. Cobb not to move, threatening to kill him, and also confronted Ms. Greene, asking for money hidden in her bra. The intruder instructed the couple to undress but they refused. Mr. Cobb, terrified, remained crouched against a wall, while the gunman collected various items from around the home, including jewelry and approximately $1,100 in cash intended for bills.

The gunman demanded the couple's car keys and took Ms. Greene's purse, continuing to ransack their belongings. Mr. Cobb noticed items belonging to his son, including clothing and toys, were also missing. After attempting to start their other vehicle without success, the gunman returned to the bedroom, threatening the couple and demanding more money. He exhibited erratic behavior, leaving and returning multiple times while continuing to point the gun at them. Eventually, he left the premises, and the couple remained hidden until Ms. Greene’s brother arrived and they called 911.

Mr. Cobb testified that he did not grant the gunman permission to enter his home, and he confirmed that another resident, Mr. Woodruff, had moved out that same day. Mr. Cobb received his car back in May 2010, but none of the other stolen items were recovered. On cross-examination, Mr. Cobb stated the total value of the stolen items was about $9,000, which were either purchased or received as gifts. He also confirmed that he complied with some demands, like giving up his wallet and chain, but did not allow the gunman to forcefully remove their clothing.

Mr. Cobb was compelled to remain in a bedroom during a home invasion due to a gunman threatening him with a firearm. He reported that the gunman, who was wearing gloves, forced him back into the room but did not discharge the weapon. Mr. Cobb stated he had never seen the Defendant at his residence before and thought Mr. Woodruff would have informed him if the Defendant had visited while he was out. 

Ms. Greene, Mr. Cobb's girlfriend, testified about their Christmas gifts and their possessions, including two vehicles parked in the driveway during the incident. She indicated she recognized the Defendant's face but did not know him personally. The couple had just returned home from Wendy’s when they heard a disturbance. The gunman entered their bedroom, demanded valuables, and ordered them to the ground. Ms. Greene complied by throwing items into the gunman's backpack while he threatened her and took various belongings, including their car keys and her phone. 

The gunman intermittently left and returned, further intimidating them, before stealing their Grand Marquis. Ms. Greene described the weapon as a "black and chrome" firearm resembling a 9mm. She did not authorize the Defendant's entry into her home. After her brother arrived shortly after the incident, she used his phone to call 911, expressing fear yet attempting to remain composed. In her 911 call, she initially misidentified the color of the gunman’s gloves but later corrected herself, noting the door had been kicked in, which was evident from the broken lock. Furthermore, she mentioned that after the invasion, they had spoken with Samantha Ellis, the Defendant’s cousin, who suggested the Defendant might head to Green Hills Apartments. Ms. Greene clarified that Mr. Cobb communicated this information through Mr. Woodruff.

Mr. Cobb and Mr. Woodruff conversed before calling 911 regarding a home invasion involving a gunman. Ms. Greene, during her call to 911, inaccurately stated the gunman did not force entry, which Mr. Cobb corrected. She requested a description of the gunman’s clothing, which was provided. Ms. Greene refused to comply with instructions to remove her clothing or pick up change from the floor. Officer John David Lawson of the Knoxville Police Department responded to the scene, meeting the victims in their front yard. They reported being robbed, and Officer Lawson took their statements, noting the disarray of the home and recording the stolen items. He observed that the door had been damaged and lacked a reliable lock, corroborating the victims' account. Despite attempts to locate the Defendant that evening, officers were unsuccessful. Officer Lawson's interactions with the victims were recorded, capturing details similar to their trial testimony, including Mr. Cobb indicating the Defendant had visited their home before. The jury convicted the Defendant on multiple charges: aggravated burglary, employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, and aggravated robbery, while finding him guilty of aggravated assault as a lesser-included offense and acquitting him of especially aggravated kidnapping. Judge Richard Baumgartner presided over the trial and later pled guilty to official misconduct, resigning without formally approving the verdict as the thirteenth juror. Senior Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood conducted the Defendant’s sentencing on February 18, 2011, merging the aggravated assault and aggravated robbery convictions.

The judge sentenced the Defendant to a total of nineteen years in the Department of Correction: five years for aggravated burglary, nine years for employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, and ten years for aggravated robbery. The five-year and ten-year sentences are to be served concurrently, while the nine-year sentence runs consecutively. Following the sentencing, the Defendant filed a motion for a new trial and a renewed motion for judgment of acquittal, later amended to question the successor judge's ability to serve as the thirteenth juror. Judge Bob McGee was assigned to consider these motions, ultimately denying them and affirming the jury's verdict. Judge McGee clarified that the precedent set in *State v. Biggs* is applicable only in situations where witness credibility is the sole issue, which was not the case here; the victims' testimonies were credible and uncontradicted. The jury found no dispute regarding the Defendant's presence and actions during the crime, and thus the judge supported the jury's decision. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by not recognizing the issue of witness credibility and that the judge, acting as the thirteenth juror, should have assessed the credibility of the State's witnesses regardless of the defense's lack of evidence.

The successor judge did not err in acting as the thirteenth juror, as the State argues that witness credibility was not a significant issue in this case. The State contends the judge correctly recognized that the testimony was unchallenged and that the defense's position was that the Defendant entered by invitation and took items unnoticed. Under Rule 33(d) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a new trial may be granted if the trial court disagrees with the jury regarding the evidence's weight, which aligns with the thirteenth juror rule requiring the court to assess evidence and potentially overturn a verdict. The Tennessee Supreme Court mandates that trial judges must serve as the thirteenth juror in all criminal cases, and their approval of the jury's verdict is essential for a valid judgment. If the original judge is unable to fulfill post-verdict duties, Rule 25(b)(1) allows any assigned judge to take over. Furthermore, Rule 25(b)(2) permits a successor judge to grant a new trial if they determine they cannot perform the necessary duties. The successorship assessment includes the judge's ability to evaluate witness credibility and the extent of their knowledge or available records to support the verdict. If the successor judge cannot make these evaluations, the verdict cannot be validated, necessitating a new trial. The Defendant cites State v. Biggs, where the court mandated a new trial due to unresolved credibility issues and ambiguity from the original judge regarding verdict approval. The successor judge's ability to familiarize himself with the record to act as thirteenth juror was questioned, especially since the original judge had not directly addressed credibility and weight of evidence concerns.

When a trial judge reviews evidence as the "thirteenth juror," their ability to assess the weight and credibility of that evidence is equivalent to that of an appellate court. Appellate courts do not possess independent authority to act in this capacity. In the case of Biggs, a new trial was mandated because the presiding judge failed to address unresolved credibility issues, particularly given the lack of physical evidence and the conflicting testimonies of the victim and the defendant. In the present case, the court found that witness credibility was similarly crucial. The defendant's failure to present evidence against the state's witnesses did not negate the importance of credibility. The validity of the defendant's convictions hinged on the jury's assessment of the victims' testimonies regarding the alleged forced entry, gun use, and theft. The victims claimed that the defendant broke into their home and stole items while holding them at gunpoint, yet no corroborating evidence, such as a weapon or physical proof of the burglary, was presented. The defense's argument that the defendant was invited into the home lacked evidentiary support, as the victims did not testify to this effect. Consequently, the successor judge could not fulfill the role of thirteenth juror due to the overriding credibility issues, leading to the decision to reverse the trial court's judgments and remand the case for a new trial.