Lawrence Key appeals his jury convictions for two counts of aggravated robbery, arguing that the trial evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the convictions. The Defendant, along with his cousin, was indicted by a Shelby County Grand Jury. Prior to trial, the State indicated its intention to seek enhanced punishment under Tennessee law due to Key's prior convictions. The trial, held from October 24-27, 2011, was bifurcated to first establish guilt and then determine sentencing as a repeat violent offender.
Key's conviction stemmed from an incident on May 31, 2010, where Devin Terry reported being robbed at a park after picking up a friend. The robbery involved three individuals who broke the windows of Terry's car and demanded his belongings, taking items such as his phone and car keys. Terry described the suspects' actions and noted that they had objects in their hands during the robbery, although he could not clearly identify them. The robbery lasted around five minutes, and the suspects fled in a Chevrolet Tahoe upon the arrival of another vehicle. The trial evidence, including Terry's testimony and photographs of the crime scene, ultimately supported the jury's verdict. The court's opinion was authored by Judge Jeffrey S. Bivins, with concurrence from Judges James Curwood Witt, Jr. and Roger A. Page.
Nicolette Henderson testified that on May 31, 2010, she and Terry were in a vehicle at a park in Shelby County when two men and a woman approached them. The men smashed the vehicle's windows and forced Terry into Henderson's lap, demanding that they close their eyes. Henderson noted that one man was armed with a bat and the woman had a three-inch knife, which she pointed at Henderson while searching her, taking her shorts and shoes. Henderson sustained scratches from the broken glass. After the incident, police arrived, and she provided a statement and identified two of the suspects in a photographic lineup, including the younger man who had searched Terry and touched her inappropriately.
Sergeant Glen Barber, the lead investigator, testified that three suspects emerged: the Defendant, his cousin Andrea Key, and his nephew Octavius Key. During a police interview on June 1, 2010, the Defendant admitted his involvement in the robbery, identifying his accomplices in a lineup. He claimed he was unarmed but mentioned that Octavius had a stick. The Defendant recounted the robbery, stating that he and his accomplices planned the attack after seeing a car pull up. He admitted to breaking the windows and searching the vehicle, while Andrea instructed the victims to flee. He stated that Andrea had possession of the stolen items, including keys and CDs.
The Defendant detailed the roles of all participants in a robbery, stating he broke a window and searched for CDs, while Octavius also broke a window and Andrea rummaged through the vehicle. The Defendant claimed he did not keep any stolen items as Andrea took them all. He expressed remorse for his actions, attributing his behavior to being in difficult situations without understanding why. During cross-examination, Sergeant Barber noted that the Defendant’s initial account was less credible compared to information from other witnesses. Although the Defendant denied using a weapon, Sergeant Barber indicated he believed a rock was used.
Octavius Key, then 16, testified about his involvement with the Defendant and Andrea in planning and executing the robbery on May 31, 2010. He confirmed that they waited for a car at a park, where he threw a brick at the window at the Defendant's instruction. Octavius searched the car and the occupants alongside the Defendant and Andrea, resulting in the theft of a cell phone and CDs. He noted that he did not keep any stolen items. After the robbery, both he and the Defendant were arrested by police shortly after returning home.
Octavius admitted to initially downplaying his involvement, claiming he only threw a rock and carried a stick for protection, which he described inaccurately to police. Following the State's case, the Defendant's motion for acquittal was denied, and he chose not to testify. Ultimately, the jury found him guilty of two counts of aggravated robbery. In the subsequent phase of the trial, Sonia Rogers confirmed the Defendant's fingerprints matched those on file, and Stephanie Herbin verified the Defendant's prior convictions for aggravated robbery, which included three counts resulting in a nine-year sentence.
The Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery on March 19, 2007, and served eight years of incarceration. Following the State's presentation of evidence and the defense's lack of proof, the jury found the Defendant guilty of at least two prior aggravated robbery convictions. Consequently, the trial court sentenced him to two concurrent life terms without parole under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-120. The Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied, prompting his appeal on the grounds of insufficient evidence to support his convictions.
The standard for reviewing evidence sufficiency requires that the evidence be viewed favorably for the prosecution, determining if any rational jury could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Once a jury convicts, the presumption of innocence is replaced by a presumption of guilt, placing the burden on the Defendant to demonstrate the insufficiency of evidence on appeal. The appellate court respects the jury's credibility assessments and does not reevaluate the evidence or substitute its own inferences.
Robbery is defined as the intentional or knowing theft of property through violence or intimidation, with aggravated robbery occurring when a deadly weapon is involved. The Defendant argues the evidence does not support his aggravated robbery convictions, while the State asserts sufficient evidence exists, including the Defendant's actions and the actions of others for which he is criminally responsible. The jury was instructed on criminal responsibility, which states that a person may be held accountable for an offense committed by their own actions, the actions of others, or both.
A defendant is criminally responsible for an offense committed by another if they act with intent to promote or assist in the crime, such as by soliciting, directing, or aiding the principal actor. Mere presence at the scene does not constitute liability; however, encouragement can establish it. A person convicted under criminal responsibility is treated as a principal offender. In this case, the evidence showed that the Defendant and an accomplice discussed and planned a robbery before approaching the victims in a park. During the robbery, the Defendant admitted to breaking a car window and searching for valuables, while other accomplices brandished weapons. Testimonies confirmed the robbery involved threats and the taking of personal items from the victims. The jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that the Defendant aided in the aggravated robberies, leading to the affirmation of his convictions. The court denied any relief for the Defendant.
