State of Tennessee v. Aaron Malone

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2009-02047-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; March 22, 2011; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Aaron Malone was convicted of first-degree murder by a Shelby County jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed the conviction, raising three main issues: 

1. The trial court's denial of a motion to suppress his statement to police, arguing that his waiver of Miranda rights was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent due to being under the influence of marijuana, and that his statement should be excluded under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine due to an illegal arrest.
   
2. The admission of the victim’s teeth into evidence.

3. The testimony of a state witness, an expert in crime scene investigation, regarding blood spatter analysis.

The court reviewed the suppression hearings, during which Memphis Police Officer Joe Stark identified Malone as a suspect based on witness statements and video evidence. Stark admitted to not securing a search or arrest warrant. Sergeant Anthony Mullins, who interviewed Malone, testified that Malone was alert and lucid during the interview, despite having smoked marijuana a few hours prior. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Testimony revealed that it took Sergeant Mullins six and a half hours to document the defendant’s statement due to the defendant's “elaborate” lies, breaks taken during the process, and the need to verify information. Mullins indicated that sharing known information with the defendant was crucial to demonstrate police awareness of his involvement. Detective Jason Bartlett from the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office recounted being requested by the Memphis Police Homicide Unit to assist in locating the defendant. His investigation led him to a residence on Auburn Road, where a young adult male identified as knowing the defendant indicated the defendant was inside. Upon entering, officers found the defendant on a bed and handcuffed him, without conducting a search of the residence. During cross-examination, Bartlett acknowledged not having asked the individual at the door for identification or consent to enter.

Geraldine Maldrough, a resident of the house, testified that she inquired about a warrant, to which an officer responded that one was not needed. She observed multiple officers taking the defendant out of the house. The defense also called Bartlett, who could not recall discussing the defendant's potential drug influence and noted that the defendant had claimed the officers were “ruining his high.” Edna Elrod, a friend of the defendant, confirmed he had stayed with her for about a week before his arrest. The court ultimately denied the defendant’s motion to suppress his statement, finding the arrest illegal based on the absence of a warrant, valid consent, or exigent circumstances, yet ruled the statement admissible due to probable cause not being a result of the unlawful entry, referencing New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990).

In July 2009, evidence was presented at the trial of the defendant regarding the victim's death, which occurred in September 2007. Joseph Zeller, owner of Tiger Truck Lines, testified that the victim had worked for him for six to seven years and was delivering appliances in Memphis on September 16-17, 2007. Zeller identified the victim's truck parked outside a warehouse and confirmed that a picture of the truck was his, having purchased it from the victim's widow after his death. He noted that the truck's windows were too high for someone on the ground to see inside and identified Comcheck cards linked to the victim.

Ricky Cole, an employee at Serpro warehouse, recounted discovering the victim's body in the truck after noticing a broken window. He reported finding no signs of blood and immediately called 911. Officer Shaun Tucker of the Memphis Police described responding to the homicide scene, securing it, and gathering witness information until further investigators arrived.

Hardin Edwards, a fellow truck driver, testified about observing a suspicious car with a broken rear window parked near the victim's truck at 1:20 a.m. on September 17, 2007. He noted the car remained parked there when he went to bed at 1:50 a.m. Theresa Rucker, an employee at Federal Express, confirmed seeing a turquoise car speeding through the lot around the same time, almost colliding with her. She reported seeing a black male driving and a passenger whose gender she could not identify.

Crime scene investigator Officer Charles Cathey described the scene upon his arrival, noting the victim's truck had a broken driver’s side window, blood on the inside of the door, and broken glass inside the cab.

A substance resembling blood was observed on the outside of the driver’s door and steps of a truck, alongside a large pool of blood found between the front seats and a smaller pool with broken glass under the driver’s seat. Officer Cathey discovered two human teeth inside the truck, one on the floor and another under a seat cover. The victim's body was located on the floorboard. After towing the vehicle for fingerprint processing, no usable prints were found on the exterior; the interior's processing was not recalled by Officer Cathey. 

Suleman Shamsuddin, the owner of a BP service station, confirmed that the surveillance system was operational on September 17, 2007, though the ATM was out of cash. Sheila Dixon testified about her interaction with the defendant on the same date, where he confessed to accidentally shooting a truck driver and offered her the victim's credit cards. Although she initially declined the cards, they ended up in her purse. She noted that the defendant had various items, including a CB radio, and that another individual expressed interest in the CB. The police later found the credit cards in Dixon's purse after searching her apartment. 

Dixon also recounted a previous ride with the defendant and a co-defendant, during which a sawed-off shotgun was present, and stated that the co-defendant drove while the defendant sat in the passenger seat. Cross-examination revealed that Dixon had informed police about the defendant's alleged confession while he was held in custody. Scarlett Renee Banks witnessed the defendant driving a burgundy truck and the co-defendant in a turquoise car near the Wooddale Condominiums. She recounted an incident where the co-defendant handed her a gun, which she subsequently hid in her home.

Ms. Banks described a short shotgun covered in plastic and tape, stating she witnessed the defendant and co-defendant in an empty apartment, both covered in blood and washing blood-stained money. She consented to a police search of her apartment on September 20, 2007, during which the gun was not found, but it was later discovered elsewhere. Marcus Nelson, the co-defendant's uncle, testified that he gave the co-defendant a sawed-off shotgun on a Saturday, the 15th of an unspecified month, and identified the weapon for police on September 20. Forensic expert Agent Cervinia Braswell examined the recovered shotgun, noting it was a single-shot, 12-gauge model manufactured between 1898 and 1917, and explained its firing mechanisms and the necessary force to trigger it. She stated that shotgun wads found in a victim would indicate close range. Memphis Police Sergeant Anthony Mullins, involved in the case, identified the shotgun found on Boxdale Street, which was located in a plastic bag behind a boarded-up building. He testified that the co-defendant claimed to have given the gun to Ms. Banks, and after not finding it in her apartment, police were led to its location by her. Sergeant Mullins also recounted interviewing the defendant on September 24, after actively searching for him for several days. He confirmed the defendant was read his rights and signed a waiver. The defendant stated he was in Nashville on September 16 with a friend for a probation-related appointment, returning to Memphis afterward. During the interview, the defendant recognized only one individual from a series of photographs shown to him, and he identified a vehicle in a still image taken from a local gas station.

Sergeant Mullins could not remember how the defendant recognized a specific vehicle. During an interview, the defendant acknowledged his presence in a BP station on September 17, 2007, at 2:26 a.m., and admitted he had not been in Nashville the previous night. He described meeting a man named Unk at the BP station and participating in a scam involving stolen credit cards. After a break in questioning, the defendant expressed a desire to tell the truth, identifying the co-defendant as Unk and recounting an incident where he drove the co-defendant to a truck stop. He observed the co-defendant approach a truck and then heard what he believed was a gunshot. Upon further questioning, the defendant admitted to being the passenger in the car and firing a shotgun, claiming it was meant to intimidate the victim but discharged accidentally. 

Subsequently, he acknowledged in a written statement that he was responsible for the victim's death during a robbery attempt, detailing how he and the co-defendant arrived in a stolen blue-green car. The defendant reported taking items from the victim and changing his clothing afterward. Forensic pathologist Dr. Lisa Funte testified that the victim was shot with a shotgun from a close range and that the trajectory indicated the shooter was likely standing on the truck's steps. The defendant presented Tennessee Bureau of Investigation reports indicating no blood was found on his clothing. In rebuttal, Sergeant Mullins, qualified as an expert, suggested that a person could have entered the victim's truck without staining their clothes if they moved the body.

The jury convicted the defendant of the charges against him, resulting in a life sentence as a violent offender in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Prior to the trial, the defendant filed two motions to suppress his statement to police, claiming it was not made voluntarily due to being under the influence of marijuana and that it stemmed from an improper arrest. The court held multiple suppression hearings in August and October 2008 but ultimately denied the motions. 

On appeal, the defendant argues this denial was erroneous. The appellate court applies a de novo review for the trial court’s legal conclusions while presuming the correctness of its factual findings unless contradicted by the evidence. The burden lies with the defendant to show that the evidence does not support the trial court's findings.

Both the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions protect against compelled self-incrimination, requiring that defendants be informed of their rights prior to custodial interrogation. The waiver of these rights must be assessed based on the totality of circumstances, with coercive police conduct necessary to establish involuntariness. A confession is considered voluntary unless the actions of law enforcement have overborne the defendant's will. Importantly, intoxication does not automatically render a confession involuntary; the defendant must demonstrate significant impairment that negates the ability to provide a rational account of events or participation in the crime.

The testimony from the suppression hearing revealed that the defendant smoked marijuana shortly before his arrest, with an estimated interval of three to five hours prior to the police interview. Law enforcement officers testified that the defendant did not appear intoxicated and was capable of narrating past events, ultimately detailing the shooting of the victim during a robbery. The defendant failed to provide evidence indicating that drug influence compromised his ability to confess freely. Consequently, the court concluded that he did not meet the burden of proof for relief regarding this issue.

The document also discusses the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine under the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Both the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions safeguard the privacy of individuals against arbitrary governmental actions. Searches without a warrant are generally deemed unreasonable, with specific exceptions. Tennessee law allows overnight guests to challenge searches based on a legitimate expectation of privacy. The trial court determined that the defendant's arrest was illegal due to a lack of consent from a minor who answered the door, making the police search unlawful. However, the court ruled that the defendant's statement did not need to be excluded because the police had probable cause for the arrest and did not exploit it improperly. The defendant argued for broader protections under the Tennessee Constitution and claimed that the police exploited his condition at the time of arrest to obtain his confession.

In New York v. Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not prevent the use of a statement made by the suspect outside their home, even if the arrest was made unlawfully within the home. In Harris, police entered the suspect's home without a warrant, arrested him, and later obtained a confession at the station after reading him his rights. The Court determined that because the police had probable cause, the confession obtained at the station was not a result of their illegal entry and therefore need not be suppressed. 

Subsequent rulings in Tennessee, such as State v. Jenkins and State v. Steven John Chromik, III, adopted the Harris reasoning, allowing for admission of statements made outside the home when police had probable cause, regardless of the legality of the entry into the residence. In the current case, the defendant challenges the application of Harris, arguing for greater protections under the Tennessee Constitution and citing alleged intoxication as a reason to disregard the ruling. The court, however, found no merit in the defendant's arguments, noting that police had sufficient information to establish probable cause and that the defendant did not prove he was too intoxicated to waive his rights voluntarily. Thus, the court concluded that the exclusionary rule does not necessitate suppression of the defendant's statement taken outside his residence.

The defendant challenges the trial court's admission of the victim's teeth as evidence, arguing that the court failed to apply the appropriate balancing test for admissibility and that the state did not sufficiently demonstrate the teeth's probative value. The state counters that the teeth were relevant and highly probative, asserting that the trial court has broad discretion in such determinations, which should not be overturned without clear evidence of abuse. According to Tennessee law, evidence is considered relevant if it makes a fact of consequence more or less probable (Tenn. R. Evid. 401) and is generally admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risks of unfair prejudice or confusion (Tenn. R. Evid. 403). In this case, the state introduced photographs showing the victim's teeth, arguing that the teeth indicated a close-range shooting and the victim's position. The defendant argued that the photographs alone were sufficient, but the state maintained that the photographs were unclear. The court ultimately ruled to admit the teeth, finding that the state effectively articulated their relevance and probative value, thus upholding the trial court's discretion.

Additionally, the defendant contests the trial court’s decision to allow Sergeant Mullins to testify as a crime scene investigation expert, asserting that he was initially called solely for blood spatter analysis. The state argues that the court properly qualified Mullins as an expert, which included blood spatter analysis. Under Tennessee law, a qualified expert may offer opinions that assist the trier of fact (Tenn. R. Evid. 702), and their opinions can be based on facts or data not admissible in court if they are typically relied upon by experts (Tenn. R. Evid. 703). If the foundational data lacks trustworthiness, the court must exclude the expert's testimony based on it. The court found no abuse of discretion in allowing Mullins' testimony.

Evidence and expert testimony must be relevant and reliable for admission in court. The trial court holds broad discretion in determining the qualifications and admissibility of expert testimony, and appellate courts will not overturn these decisions unless there is an abuse of discretion. In this case, Sergeant Mullins, a Memphis Police Department officer with twenty-one years of experience, including six in the homicide bureau, provided expert testimony on blood spatter analysis. He received specialized training through a certification course and had been qualified as an expert in blood spatter and crime scene investigation multiple times in Shelby County courts. The trial court qualified him as an expert in crime scene investigation, which encompassed his blood spatter analysis training. The court also noted that his qualifications allowed him to address how the defendant could enter the victim’s truck without getting blood on his clothes, countering the defendant's appeal argument. Consequently, the court found no abuse of discretion in qualifying Sergeant Mullins as an expert, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's judgment.