Deadrick Eugene Garrett was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of first-degree premeditated murder for the shooting death of Dyishun Foust, resulting in a life sentence with the possibility of parole. Garrett appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for conviction; however, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment. Key testimony came from Kelly Green, who witnessed the shooting while working at Smoothie King, noting the victim's collapse and the fleeing car. Police discovered Foust's body with a gunshot wound and found two cartridge cases at the scene. Garrett's fingerprints were identified on a vehicle registered to the victim's mother. Further investigation revealed recent communications between the victim and Beverly Spears, who had a relationship with both the victim and Garrett. Spears testified about her living situation with Garrett and her intimate relationship with the victim, which culminated in her attempting to arrange a meeting with him on the night of the murder.
The victim's response to Ms. Spears was dismissive, indicating a familiarity in their exchanges. Ms. Spears informed the defendant, who was present at her home, that she planned to go out with friends. Later, she discovered her cellular phone was taken by the defendant when he left. After attempting to contact the victim without success, Ms. Spears visited the defendant’s mother’s house, where she encountered the defendant, who had a gunshot wound on his forearm. She drove him to Walgreens for a first aid kit, treated his wound at her home, and then they stayed overnight at a motel. While at the motel, she learned of the victim's death. The next morning, they left together, and the defendant returned her phone, but messages had been erased. Ms. Spears was pregnant, believing the victim was the father, but she later miscarried. She disclosed to Officer Day that the defendant mentioned, "I think I killed dude."
Security camera footage from various locations captured critical events: a yellow Volvo parked at Regions Bank at 6:10 p.m., with two individuals exiting and heading toward Shoney’s. The victim entered Shoney’s at 6:08 p.m., appearing to search for someone, and left shortly after. A scuffle was recorded between the victim and another man, after which the victim fell to the ground around 6:19 p.m., with a black male seen looking back at him from the Volvo. The Volvo was identified as belonging to the defendant’s brother, Dyron Isom. Emmanuel "Sting" Fine, the defendant's cousin, testified he received a call from the defendant to meet at Avalon West, where they discussed a confrontation with the victim. Fine noted the defendant's intent to "mess [the victim] up bad" and acknowledged the presence of a handgun in the vehicle. After following the victim to Shoney’s, the defendant exited the car, prompting Fine to feel uneasy and request to be taken back to his own vehicle.
On May 2, 2009, Christopher Gouge, a cashier at Shoney’s, interacted with a victim seeking a large party at the restaurant. After confirming no parties were present, Gouge allowed the victim to search the premises. Later, the victim returned, inquiring about his car keys, which Gouge could not help him find. The defendant, Dyron Isom's brother, requested a ride to the Avalon West apartment complex, where they met two individuals, Mr. Fine and Mr. Mell. During the ride, the defendant used a cellular phone to send text messages. At Avalon West, the defendant revealed his intention to use a black pistol and subsequently took the victim's car keys after returning from the Shoney's parking lot, where he shot the victim. Isom testified to hearing gunshots and seeing a struggle, after which the defendant returned to the car, claiming he had been shot. Isom noted that the defendant expressed an intention to fight, not to murder. Phone records confirmed extensive text message exchanges between the victim, the defendant (using the phone of Ms. Spears), and Ms. Spears, coordinating a meeting prior to the victim's death. Notably, these exchanges indicated the defendant's attempts to arrange a meeting at Avalon West, with messages detailing their locations and intentions in the moments leading up to the incident.
The victim attempted to call Ms. Spears, but the defendant did not answer. Investigator Jeff Day linked the defendant to the murder through phone records and obtained a search warrant for the defendant's residence, but did not find the murder weapon or the victim's car keys. Two days later, the defendant's lawyer informed Officer Day that the defendant would surrender and disclose the weapon's location, though he would not answer questions. The defendant led Officer Day to Fort Loudon Lake, where dive teams failed to recover the weapon.
Dr. Stephen Cogswell, the Knox County Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, conducted the autopsy and found the victim died from a gunshot wound to the chest, which traveled through the heart and left lung. The entrance wound was centrally located, with an abrasion nearby suggesting the victim's arms were positioned in a way that deepened the chest cavity. The victim lived for two to three minutes after being shot and had superficial injuries consistent with hitting the pavement or struggling.
Dr. Cogswell also examined the defendant's arm wound and noted it was likely caused by the same bullet that killed the victim, fired from close range. During cross-examination, he suggested the injuries to the victim's hands were consistent with a struggle. An audiotape of a call from the defendant in jail revealed him discussing the premeditated nature of the crime, admitting to taking the victim's keys, and mentioning that he "w[h]acked somebody in public."
The 21-year-old defendant testified about being awakened by a text message on Ms. Spears's phone, revealing his relationship with her as "close" and referring to himself as her "baby daddy." He acknowledged reading messages that upset him, taking her phone, and intending to confront the victim at Avalon West apartment complex, using the phone to lure the victim for a fight.
The defendant admitted to arming himself with a nine millimeter Ruger before leaving his mother's house. He observed the victim while at Avalon West and opted to follow him instead of confronting him there. Initially, during a visit to Shoney’s, the defendant considered yelling at the victim but chose not to initiate trouble due to the presence of cameras. He later took the victim's keys as a joke, indicating a change of mind regarding confrontation. After seeing the victim exit Shoney’s while driving past, the defendant instructed his companion, Mr. Isom, to enter the parking lot. The defendant exited the vehicle to confront the victim, claiming he intended to "shake him up" and assert seriousness about his relationship with Ms. Spears. A struggle ensued over the gun, resulting in a shot being fired, after which the victim fell. The defendant then took the gun, got back in the car, and left, realizing he had been shot.
During cross-examination, the defendant admitted to using Ms. Spears’s phone to lure the victim for confrontation and acknowledged that he had asked a minor, Mr. Isom, to drive him instead of using his own vehicle. He confessed to searching the victim's car for weapons and admitted he did not seek medical treatment for his gunshot wound to avoid police involvement. He also wrote a letter to Ms. Spears’s mother expressing remorse for killing the victim over his feelings for her daughter.
The defense rested after the state's rebuttal witness, James Mell, testified about the defendant showing him the handgun. Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, the defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for premeditated murder. The State contended that evidence supported the conviction, and the court affirmed this, applying the standard of review that considers the evidence in favor of the prosecution to determine if a rational jury could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
The standard for establishing guilt can rely on direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or both. While a criminal offense can be proven solely by circumstantial evidence, it must be compelling enough to eliminate any reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt. A "web of guilt" must surround the defendant, allowing the jury to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court should not re-evaluate the evidence or witness credibility, instead allowing the trier of fact to determine these aspects and interpreting the evidence in the State's favor.
In cases of first-degree murder, which involves a premeditated and intentional killing, "premeditation" is defined as a deliberate act following reflection. It does not require a long-standing intent to kill, but the defendant’s mental state at the time of the act must indicate a capacity for premeditation, free from passion and excitement. Evidence of premeditation is often circumstantial, inferred from the defendant's actions and the surrounding circumstances of the crime.
In evaluating premeditation, courts may consider factors such as the use of a deadly weapon against an unarmed victim, cruelty of the act, statements of intent to kill, weapon procurement, and post-incident calmness. In the case discussed, the evidence showed that the defendant, motivated by jealousy over the victim's relationship with Ms. Spears, lured the victim to a location for an attack by sending deceptive text messages. The defendant armed himself, gathered accomplices, and took actions to disarm the victim, ultimately stranding him and preparing for the assault.
The defendant, while driving with Mr. Isom, spotted the victim leaving Shoney’s and instructed Mr. Isom to stop at the restaurant's parking lot. Armed with a gun, the defendant exited the vehicle and engaged in a brief struggle with the victim before shooting him in the heart. Following the shooting, the defendant fled the scene. Evidence indicates premeditation on the defendant's part, including using Ms. Spears’s phone to impersonate her and lure the victim, opting to be driven rather than using his own vehicle, and gathering accomplices instead of approaching the victim alone. Additionally, the act of stranding the victim in the parking lot and procuring a weapon prior to the encounter further demonstrate the defendant's forethought and intent for violence. The brief struggle before the shooting does not negate the findings of premeditated murder. Consequently, the trial court's judgment is upheld.
