Marcus D. Bell was convicted by a Montgomery County Circuit Court jury on two counts of possessing a firearm as a felon, specifically a Class E felony related to prior drug offenses. He received a four-year concurrent sentence as a Range II offender, which would run consecutively to existing sentences. In his appeal, Bell contended that the evidence did not support his convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgments after reviewing the case.
The facts indicate that on October 11, 2008, law enforcement received reports of individuals arming themselves in the Oak Lane area. Agent Lon Chaney, part of a major crimes unit, responded and, upon arrival, heard a gunshot. He observed a shadowy figure fleeing the scene toward a nearby building. Following the sound of the gunshot, Chaney described seeing a male suspect, dressed in black, jumping over fences in the vicinity. Despite his efforts to pursue the suspect and establish a perimeter, the individual eluded capture. The case involved the recovery of a Taurus .38 revolver, an SKS assault rifle, and a Mossberg shotgun in the area where the suspect was seen.
The porch area of a house was the scene where individuals had gathered, featuring two chairs, a beer bottle, and two cell phones: a black AT&T and a maroon Blackberry. Agent Chaney received a radio report that Sergeant Durham had detained the defendant on Daniel Street. The defendant's clothing matched the description given to Agent Chaney, and he wore a thick gold chain. Agent Chaney instructed Sergeant Durham to transport the defendant to the major crimes office.
After returning to the house, Agent Chaney discovered a loaded SKS rifle near the corner and a Mossberg tactical shotgun concealed between two yards. Additionally, a loaded .38 Taurus pistol and a phone card were found in the mailbox. A blue duffel bag containing ammunition and another cell phone was located near a fence. The SKS rifle was found within three feet of where Agent Chaney first observed a shadowy figure. No spent cartridge casings were found nearby.
During an interview, the defendant claimed the cell phones did not belong to him and stated he had given them to an unnamed individual. He denied being present at the scene despite Agent Chaney's observations. A receipt for an AT&T prepaid cell phone was found on the defendant, who explained he had been helping a neighbor, Delbra Berrios Petty, by moving her plants. When questioned about the weapons, the defendant denied ever being at the location, suggesting that guns could be found throughout the area. Agent Chaney later obtained surveillance footage from a local store showing the defendant purchasing the phone card, linking it to the black AT&T cell phone found at the scene.
Evidence at the scene included fingerprint processing, but DNA testing was not conducted due to budget constraints. Agent Chaney did not perform a gunshot residue test on the defendant, believing it would not yield significant results given the type of firearm involved. The investigation revealed that 912 Oak Lane was vacant, while 914 Oak Lane was occupied by the defendant's parents. Chaney noted that the defendant had previously lived near his parents. He identified two cell phones found near the firearms, linking the maroon AT&T Blackberry to the defendant, who had acquired it earlier that day. A surveillance photo showed the defendant purchasing an AT&T phone receipt around 2:00 p.m. on the day of the incident.
Chaney confirmed that the firearms, an SKS assault rifle and a Mossberg shotgun, were loaded. Additional ammunition, including SKS rounds, was found in a duffel bag nearby. He tracked a "shadowy figure" from the gunshot scene, estimating the distance to Petty's house was about seventy-five yards. Although Chaney noted other potential witnesses at 912 Oak Lane, he only chased one individual dressed in black.
On cross-examination, Chaney acknowledged that fingerprint comparisons from the firearms and other items did not match the defendant, and no gunshot residue was collected. He also stated that the sound of the gunshot appeared to be from a rifle. Multiple officers were in the vicinity during the incident, and several individuals matched the defendant's description. Chaney lost sight of the figure he pursued, and another officer apprehended the defendant. He confirmed that the surveillance footage did not indicate what the defendant received at the counter. After the incident, the defendant's mother stated that he and two friends were in the area and ran when the police arrived.
Agent Steven Hamilton of the Clarksville Police Department's Major Crimes Division testified about his interactions with the defendant and Alto Parnell on October 11, 2008, during which he observed Parnell hand the defendant a red or maroon Blackberry phone. Parnell subsequently accompanied the officers for questioning related to another case. At trial, Hamilton identified a red Blackberry phone as the one he saw exchanged, but acknowledged he did not verify its serial number, noting that the phone model was common and could have multiple copies.
Agent Joey Williamson, also from the Major Crimes Division, corroborated Hamilton's account, stating he witnessed Parnell give a red phone to the defendant. He similarly admitted to not checking the serial number and acknowledged the potential for numerous similar-looking phones.
Agent Frederick McClintock testified about his activities later that day, including assisting in a search for individuals fleeing the Oak Lane area. During this search, he discovered a Warrior .357 caliber pistol hidden in plastic bags nearby. He also collected a blue duffel bag containing ammunition and further evidence from 912 and 914 Oak Lane, including a Taurus revolver in a mailbox, an SKS rifle, two cell phones (a maroon Blackberry and a black phone), and a shotgun found in the yard. The cell phones were located near the porch of 912 Oak Lane, about ten to fifteen feet apart. McClintock confirmed that fingerprint analyses conducted on the firearms and cell phones yielded no matches and that he had spoken to residents at 914 Oak Lane regarding evidence recovery.
Agent Chaney testified about the investigation involving a black cell phone, which was fumed for fingerprints and subsequently turned on to identify the phone number. He searched the phones of individuals arrested in the area and found the number listed under the defendant’s name or street name, M-B. A similar process with a maroon Blackberry led to the identification of Alto Parnell, known by several nicknames. Chaney noted that while other individuals were involved in the case, the defendant did not provide information about them. On cross-examination, he stated that no other suspects were apprehended that night and expressed doubt that the shadowy figure seen was not the defendant.
Dabney Kirk, a forensic scientist, examined various items for fingerprints but did not find any matching the defendant. She explained that frequently handled items, like guns, often lack identifiable prints. However, she successfully lifted prints from a beer bottle and other items, which did not match the defendant or anyone in the fingerprint database. Kevin Warner, another TBI forensic scientist, confirmed that the firearms examined were functional.
Sergeant Robert Durham detailed his response to a foot pursuit call on October 11, 2008. He encountered an individual matching the suspect's description sitting on a deck, who was sweating heavily. The individual provided ID confirming he was the defendant and claimed to have been at a relative's house. When asked about his sweating, the defendant attributed it to wearing black clothing. After failing to get a response from the house, Sergeant Durham detained the defendant for further investigation, noting he was dressed in black with a gold chain. Remnants of plants were observed on the deck where the defendant was found.
Delbra Berrios-Petty testified regarding her residence at 1234 Daniel Street, close to Oak Lane, and her familiarity with the defendant over approximately ten years. She indicated that while she had not specifically asked the defendant to care for her plants, it was common for neighborhood young men to look after her house when she was away for business. Petty confirmed that the defendant lived with his mother on Oak Lane at the time of the incident. On October 11, 2008, upon returning home around 9:00 p.m., she found police present and learned from an officer that her plants had been moved, though she was unsure as she had been away since Friday. Petty stated she did not believe her plants had been disturbed and had not checked her garage due to darkness. She described her son as a good friend of the defendant and noted she had interacted with him occasionally.
Agent Greg Beebe from the Clarksville Police Department testified he spoke with Petty that evening, during which she claimed not to know the defendant and stated she handled her own yard work, except for occasional hedge trimming by another individual. Beebe described the plants on Petty's porch as potted with dead leaves around them but did not inspect her garage.
The defendant's father, Dennis Smith, stated he was living at 914 Oak Lane at the time but noted the defendant visited him weekly. On the day of the incident, he remembered potentially seeing the defendant with friends while driving a cab. Smith observed police searching the area and reported that they discovered a shotgun in his yard and a pistol in a nearby mailbox. He arrived home around 5:20 p.m., noticing police activity underway.
Smith identified the defendant by the nickname “M-B” and stated he did not hear a gunshot on the night of the incident. He noted that a shotgun was accessible from the neighboring property at 912 Oak Lane, where the cooler was placed on his property at 914 Oak Lane. Smith confirmed that the defendant was not living with him and his mother at that time, although he had previously stayed with them at another address.
Dorothy Bell, the defendant’s mother, testified that in October 2008, she and Smith were living at 914 Oak Lane. While the defendant did not live there, he frequently visited, often with several friends. On October 11, he was with her throughout the day until the evening, accompanied by friends dressed in dark clothing. Bell observed many young men congregating around 912 Oak Lane, which was vacant, but did not see the defendant with a firearm. Earlier that morning, she had reported seeing suspicious individuals to the police but did not recall discussing the defendant with them later that day.
The defendant claimed he was not residing with his parents but visited them multiple times a week. On the day of the incident, he arrived around 1 or 2 PM after being released from questioning related to another incident. He spent time with his mother until the evening, then went out for dinner and visited friends. While walking down Daniel Street, he returned a neighbor's potted plants to her porch, believing they might be stolen. When police arrived, they stopped him for identification, and he explained his actions. The defendant denied hearing gunshots that night, though he mentioned a prior night of gunfire in the area, and he claimed he was arrested because he matched a suspect description, having no knowledge of any firearms found.
The defendant could not recall his friends' clothing on the day of the incident, noting they shared similar tastes and wore gold chain necklaces daily. During cross-examination, he acknowledged receiving a maroon Blackberry cell phone from Alto Parnell in the presence of major crimes officers earlier that day, after purchasing a cell phone card at Jordan’s Market. He also confirmed owning two additional phones, a black and gray one and a black one, and that he wore the same outfit at the market as when he was arrested later that evening. He identified himself by the nickname "M-B," while stating there were three individuals with that nickname from different locations. The defendant denied frequenting 912 Oak Lane, claiming he and his friends congregated on the street outside the house. The jury convicted him of possession of a firearm as a felon concerning two firearms, the SKS assault rifle and the Mossberg shotgun, but acquitted him regarding a Taurus .38 revolver.
The defendant contested the sufficiency of the evidence, asserting it was entirely circumstantial and did not eliminate every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The reviewing court must determine if any rational trier of fact could find the crime's essential elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The standard for sufficiency applies equally to direct and circumstantial evidence. A conviction can be based entirely on circumstantial evidence, with the jury tasked to assess the weight of such evidence and its consistency with guilt versus innocence. The State is not required to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to secure a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, and all credibility determinations and factual issues are reserved for the trier of fact.
The supreme court emphasized the importance of the trial judge and jury's direct interaction with witnesses in assessing the credibility and weight of testimony, noting that the trial setting provides a unique human context that cannot be replicated in written records. A jury conviction shifts the presumption of innocence to guilt, placing the burden on the convicted defendant to prove the insufficiency of evidence on appeal. According to Tennessee law, possessing a firearm after a felony drug conviction constitutes an offense. The defendant does not dispute his prior felony status but questions the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence regarding his possession of firearms.
Evidence presented includes multiple officers responding to reports of individuals arming themselves in a Clarksville neighborhood. Agent Chaney heard a gunshot and observed a figure fleeing. After a brief pursuit, he found the defendant sweating on a porch, claiming to have been moving plants without the owner's consent. The homeowner, Delbra Petty, denied any knowledge of the defendant helping her and expressed surprise at finding him on her porch.
Officers later discovered an SKS assault rifle and a Mossberg shotgun near the location of the initial sighting. Additionally, a blue duffel bag containing ammunition was found along the chase route. Two cell phones, linked to the defendant, were located on the porch near the firearms. Earlier that day, a witness observed another individual handing the defendant a maroon Blackberry before being taken in for questioning, and the defendant had purchased minutes for the black AT&T phone found on the porch.
Agent Chaney discovered two phone numbers linked to the defendant: one for a black AT&T phone and another for a maroon Blackberry, the latter registered to Parnell. The defendant claimed to have given both phones to an undisclosed individual. The defendant’s mother informed Agent Chaney that he and two friends were at 912 Oak Lane during the incident but fled upon police arrival. This circumstantial evidence, when viewed favorably to the State, supported the defendant's guilt. The jury considered and ultimately dismissed the defendant’s explanations regarding his presence on Petty’s porch and his knowledge of the cell phones, leading to the conclusion that he fled from a stash of weapons as law enforcement converged on the area. The evidence presented was deemed sufficient for a rational juror to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court's judgments were affirmed by Judge Alan E. Glenn.
