State of Tennessee v. Michael W. Hunter

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2011-00535-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; July 17, 2012; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Michael W. Hunter was indicted for aggravated robbery following an incident on November 9, 2009, at the Ramada Inn in Dickson, where he allegedly brandished a gun and demanded money from the hotel clerk, James Church. A security camera recorded the robbery, capturing the perpetrator filling a garbage bag with cash before fleeing in a vehicle. Witness Alverto Munioz observed a gray or “dirty white” car and a passenger in a hooded jacket at the scene.

Detective Chad Fussell executed a search warrant on Hunter's vehicle, which was not the getaway car, and discovered a black garbage bag and a tan jacket, neither of which linked Hunter to the robbery. The gun used in the robbery and the driver of the getaway car were never found. 

During trial, the jury convicted Hunter, sentencing him to 10 years in prison. Hunter appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting the garbage bag into evidence and that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing arguments by citing facts not supported by evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court's judgment, finding no errors in the proceedings.

Mr. Cochran testified about having a Kroger receipt but did not bring it to court. The Defendant denied being the person in motel security photos and claimed he was at Mr. Chisholm's house during the robbery timeframe. He did not recall a garbage bag in his car and speculated a coworker may have placed it there. The Defendant acknowledged prior convictions for aggravated assault, evading arrest, and reckless driving.

The Defendant challenged the admission of a garbage bag found in his vehicle, asserting it lacked relevance. Detective Fussell, who testified about the bag, confirmed it was a typical garbage bag sold in multiple stores and that nothing indicated it was used in the robbery. Despite the objection, the trial court admitted the garbage bag into evidence, citing its potential probative value.

Under Tennessee law, relevant evidence is admissible unless otherwise restricted, and irrelevant evidence is not allowed. The court reviews evidence admission decisions for abuse of discretion. Although the garbage bag's connection to the robbery was not strong, its presence in the Defendant's vehicle after the crime was deemed relevant to his identity as the perpetrator. The trial court's decision to admit the bag was not considered an abuse of discretion, and the Defendant was not entitled to relief on this issue. Additionally, the Defendant claimed he was denied a fair trial due to alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.

The State claims that the Defendant has waived objections to all but two alleged improper comments made by the prosecutor due to a lack of contemporaneous objections at trial. The court agrees, noting that appellate relief is typically unavailable if a party fails to act to prevent or mitigate the impact of an error, as per Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a). Citing past rulings, including State v. Killebrew, the court affirms that waiver applies when no contemporaneous objection is made. Although the court has occasionally reviewed prosecutorial misconduct as "plain error" without an objection, it concludes that the plain error doctrine does not provide relief for the statements to which no objection was raised. 

The court acknowledges the importance of closing arguments and grants wide latitude to both the prosecution and defense when addressing juries. However, arguments must remain temperate, evidence-based, relevant, and lawful. While a prosecutor is permitted to present vigorous arguments, they must not engage in improper conduct. The test for reversible error due to improper argument hinges on whether such conduct significantly affected the verdict against the defendant. Factors to evaluate the prejudicial impact include the case's facts and circumstances, any remedial actions taken, the prosecution's intent, cumulative effects of misconduct, and the overall strength of the case. The court references the American Bar Association Standards as a guideline for professional conduct, which have been incorporated into the state's legal precedents.

Five key areas of prosecutorial misconduct are identified: 1. Intentionally misstating evidence or misleading the jury is unprofessional. 2. Prosecutors should not express personal beliefs about the truth of testimony or the defendant's guilt (citing State v. Thornton and Lackey v. State). 3. Arguments aimed at inflaming jury passions or prejudices are inappropriate (referencing Cauthern and State v. Stephenson). 4. Prosecutors must avoid diverting the jury's focus from the evidence pertinent to the case, including making predictions about the consequences of their verdict (citing Cauthern and State v. Keen). 5. It is improper to reference facts outside the record unless they are common public knowledge (citing State v. Goltz).

In a specific instance, the prosecutor argued that a garbage bag found in the defendant's car was used in a robbery. The defense objected, citing a lack of evidence linking the bag to the robbery, but the court ruled that the argument was permissible as it was based on reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence presented. The court noted that both the prosecution and defense can argue facts and reasonable inferences during closing arguments, supported by prior case law. The evidence included testimony that a garbage bag was used to collect cash during the robbery, and the bag found in the defendant's car was relevant to this inference. The trial court's discretion in allowing the prosecutor's argument was upheld, and the defendant's claim of improper argument was rejected. Additionally, the defendant claimed that the prosecutor improperly argued that an alibi witness was the getaway driver.

The Assistant District Attorney compared the credibility of two competing narratives regarding the defendant's whereabouts during a robbery, suggesting that the evidence supporting the claim of Mr. Chisholm as the getaway driver was as weak as that supporting the defendant's alibi. The defense objected, claiming the prosecutor was discussing matters outside the record, but the court overruled the objection. Upon review, it was determined that there was no evidence to support the assertion that Mr. Chisholm was the getaway driver; rather, the prosecutor aimed to question his credibility. Despite this, the prosecutor's comments did not constitute reversible error, as it was interpreted that he did not claim Mr. Chisholm was actually the driver but merely suggested the alibi's credibility was questionable. The court noted the strength of the state's case, including witness identification of the defendant, and emphasized the jury instruction that statements by attorneys are not evidence. Ultimately, the court found no improper conduct by the State that would have affected the verdict, affirming the trial court's judgment.