Lorenzo Myrick was convicted by a Shelby County jury of reckless homicide, a Class D felony, and facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced him to three years for reckless homicide, to be served concurrently with a ten-year sentence for facilitation of robbery, both in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Myrick appealed, raising three main arguments: insufficient evidence to support his convictions, improper comments by the trial court regarding the evidence, and denial of probation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgments.
The indictment against Myrick included first-degree murder related to felony perpetration, first-degree premeditated murder, and especially aggravated robbery. During the trial, evidence was presented, including testimony from Tammy Vaughn regarding her brother Darius Mann's shooting during a robbery on July 15, 2005. Vaughn identified Nicholas Bedford as a friend of the victim but was unaware of his connection to the crime scene. Officer Ricky Davison, a crime scene investigator, detailed his arrival at the shooting scene, where he collected evidence, including a cell phone and a bloody t-shirt. He also lifted fingerprints from the victim's car, with one matching the victim and another unidentified. The trial court admitted these pieces of evidence.
The second print found at the crime scene did not match either the defendant or Carnelious Cunningham. Eyewitness Matthew Kinney testified to witnessing a gunman shoot the victim in July 2005 near the Raleigh Community Center. Although he did not see the shooter clearly, he identified a second man in the victim's car and provided details about the shooter, including a small black gun and a scorpion tattoo on the gunman's right bicep. Kinney identified photo arrays from police on two separate occasions, initially circling different individuals but later stating he was "positive" about his identification of the man who fled the scene.
Following Kinney's testimony, the defendant revealed his tattoo to the jury. Sergeant Caroline Mason of the Memphis Police Department, involved in the homicide investigation, confirmed Kinney's identification of Cunningham and the defendant as suspects based on cell phone records. The defendant voluntarily contacted the police on September 14, 2005, offering to locate the weapon. Although he initially misled the officers about its location, he later guided them to find the weapon's magazine in a wooded area. The gun, missing a grip on one side, was recovered by Sergeant Mason and admitted as evidence. After the recovery, the defendant provided a formal statement without implicating himself in the crime, clearly understanding his rights as they were read to him.
The defendant voluntarily spoke with law enforcement officers without legal representation, signing a consent form. Sergeant Mason testified that the defendant did not request an attorney and was not coerced into making statements. Initially, the defendant denied involvement in the victim's death, claiming that Carnelious Cunningham, a friend in custody for the murder, was responsible. He mentioned seeing Cunningham with a chrome .45 caliber pistol the day before the shooting and recounted Cunningham's admission of robbing an elderly woman and possessing cash and marijuana at the time. The defendant indicated that Cunningham planned to dispose of the gun near Scenic Hills Elementary School, which he later took officers to search for.
The defendant claimed he was not a member of the gang "Just Us Brothers" (J.U.B.) but had previously associated with them. He acknowledged that the victim was part of the Gangster Disciples and the organization Network, but was unaware of any conflict between the two groups. During a second statement on September 16, 2005, the defendant admitted to being present when the victim was shot. He recounted that Cunningham had arranged a meeting to buy marijuana, during which Cunningham shot the victim while the defendant was a few feet away. After the shooting, the defendant fled to Cunningham's house and later disposed of the gun at the school the night before speaking with detectives. He claimed the gun belonged to his cousin and was in his possession prior to the shooting. The defendant described Cunningham's intent to rob the victim, asserting that Cunningham called the victim's cell phone afterward to check if he was alive. Sergeant Mason confirmed that the defendant voluntarily came to the homicide office and expressed willingness to assist in locating the murder weapon. Subsequently, the defendant was arrested and charged with first-degree murder.
The defendant was taken to jail at 12:20 a.m. on September 15 and later, with Detective Hutchison, went to Scenic Hills Elementary School, where a weapon was discovered at 11:48 a.m. They returned to the homicide office, where the defendant began his first formal statement at 3:56 p.m. and signed it at 6:10 p.m. A second statement was given at 1:44 a.m. on September 16. On September 14, Sergeant Mason spoke briefly with the defendant's mother but could not recall the details or whether the defendant requested to contact her. On September 15, Matthew Kinney was interviewed and could not identify anyone in a photospread that included the defendant.
Officer Stacy Milligan from the Crime Scene Unit recovered a gun with serial number DEA1244 from the school, which was processed for fingerprints but yielded none, and was noted to be clean and free of rust. Detective Hutchison, who became the lead investigator in late August, recounted a prior shooting incident he responded to on July 15, where the victim was shot in the head. He eliminated Nicholas Bedford as a suspect and stated that Kinney was the sole witness, describing seeing two black males near a car, one of whom had a dragon tattoo. Hutchison indicated the defendant's tattoo matched Kinney's description, while another suspect, Carnelious Cunningham, did not have a tattoo on his upper arm.
Hutchison examined the victim's cell phone records, which led him to Cunningham and subsequently to the defendant. The defendant called Hutchison on September 13, suggesting Cunningham might be responsible for the homicide. Hutchison noted continuous calls between the defendant and Cunningham on the night of the shooting and stated they detained the defendant to create a photospread for Kinney. The defendant then indicated he could provide the weapon used in the crime, prompting the search at the school.
Detective Hutchison testified that the defendant was eager to assist in the investigation. Initially, the defendant directed officers to search a softball field area, where they did not find evidence. While leaving, the defendant requested another search in a wooded area, where he claimed to have found a gun magazine by luck and demonstrated familiarity with the gun, noting a missing grip.
Later, the defendant provided a formal statement indicating that he and Cunningham had planned to rob the victim. He detailed that Cunningham hid in the woods with a gun while the defendant waited in a car. When the victim arrived, Cunningham shot him in the back of the head, after which the defendant stole marijuana and money from the victim.
Detective Hutchison explained that a bullet was recovered from the victim and compared to a gun found at Scenic Hills Elementary School. He also investigated phone records between the Cunningham brothers, which appeared suspicious. After interviewing Casey Cunningham, he cleared up any concerns.
Hutchison noted that the defendant's mother had been advised to seek legal counsel for her son, as charges were forthcoming. He clarified discrepancies in the defendant's statements, including a denial of involvement in the shooting and various versions of his account.
Agent Teri Arney from the TBI testified that she matched the bullet recovered from the victim to a .45 caliber pistol, which was missing parts that affected its operation. Dr. Marco Ross, the medical examiner, confirmed the cause of death as a gunshot wound, detailing the bullet's trajectory and recovery process.
The victim's toxicology report revealed marijuana presence but no alcohol or other drugs. Dr. Ross concluded that the gunman fired from a distance of over three to four feet due to the absence of stippling around the wound. The defendant claimed he was not present during the victim's death and had no specific recollections of July 15, 2005. He had known the victim, Carnelious Cunningham, since eighth grade, and testified that Cunningham borrowed a gun left in his car by his cousin, Antonio, days before the shooting. The defendant asserted he was unaware of Cunningham's intentions with the gun. Prior to the defendant's arrest, Cunningham returned the gun and mentioned having robbed someone, instructing the defendant to dispose of it. The defendant concealed the gun at Scenic Hills Elementary School with a friend, Chris Tucker, expressing fear that it might be linked to a crime. The defendant learned from Cunningham’s brother that police were interested in speaking with him and was informed that police believed his phone calls with Cunningham pertained to plans to visit a mall.
On September 14, 2005, the defendant voluntarily went to the homicide office, where he waited for approximately thirty minutes to speak with Sergeant Mason. He identified a tattoo on his right arm, described in detail, and denied having any other tattoos. During interrogation, he was shackled and faced aggressive questioning, during which he maintained his lack of knowledge about the case. He requested to speak with his mother and later sought a lawyer but was denied both. After being booked, he mentioned the gun to Detective Hutchison while in jail. The following day, he participated in a search for the gun but could not recall where he had discarded it. The defendant stated that his police statements were not entirely truthful, reiterating that he did not kill the victim and was uncertain if Cunningham had done so. Christy Williams, the defendant's mother, testified that she reached out to Detective Hutchison several times on the day her son was questioned.
After speaking with Detective Hutchison, Ms. Williams was informed that her son, the defendant, was being questioned and could not speak with her. The defendant called her between 2:00 and 2:30 a.m. on the day of questioning. Upon visiting the homicide office on September 15, Sergeant Mason indicated there was no evidence against the defendant, suggesting he did not need a lawyer. Ms. Williams later spoke with Detective Hutchison, who noted that her son was over eighteen and had not requested her presence, dismissing her claims of coercion. Following the trial, the jury found the defendant not guilty of premeditated murder but guilty of reckless homicide (Class D felony) and facilitation of especially aggravated robbery (Class B felony). The trial court sentenced him to three years for the reckless homicide charge and ten years for the robbery, to be served concurrently. The defendant's motion for a new trial was denied, and he appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions based on inconsistencies in eyewitness identification, discrepancies in tattoo descriptions, and claims of police coercion. On appeal, the defendant carries the burden to demonstrate that no rational jury could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, with the appellate court maintaining deference to the jury's credibility assessments and factual determinations. The court emphasizes that it does not reweigh evidence or draw its own inferences from circumstantial evidence.
To uphold the defendant’s conviction for reckless homicide, the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant or someone for whom he was criminally responsible recklessly killed the victim, as defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-215(a). Recklessness involves awareness and conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, which must be a gross deviation from what an ordinary person would do in similar circumstances (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302(c)). Criminal responsibility for another's actions arises if the defendant, with intent to assist or benefit from the offense, aids in its commission (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-402(2)). This concept is not a separate crime but a legal theory for establishing guilt based on another’s conduct (State v. Mickens).
For the facilitation of especially aggravated robbery conviction, the state needed to demonstrate that the defendant was aware of another's intent to commit robbery and knowingly provided substantial assistance without the level of intent required for criminal responsibility (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-403(a)). An especially aggravated robbery involves intentional or knowing theft through violence or intimidation, using a deadly weapon, and resulting in serious bodily injury (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-401(a), 403(a)).
The evidence presented favored the state, showing that the defendant recklessly killed the victim and facilitated the robbery. Eyewitness Matthew Kinney identified Cunningham as fleeing the scene but not as the shooter, describing the shooter as having a tattoo that did not match the defendant's. The defendant's testimony implicated him further, as he admitted to providing a weapon, participating in the robbery, and failing to assist the victim afterward. Forensic evidence linked the weapon to the victim’s fatal injury. The jury resolved conflicting testimonies in favor of the state's case, affirming the sufficiency of evidence for the convictions.
Additionally, the defendant contended that the trial judge made inappropriate comments regarding the evidence during cross-examination and closing arguments, which he claimed constituted reversible error concerning the admissibility and constitutionality of his police statements.
The state contends that the trial judge's instructions during cross-examination did not constitute a comment on the evidence and argues that the defendant waived his second assignment of error regarding the court's closing instructions by not making a contemporaneous objection. The court agrees that the judge's instructions were appropriate but disagrees on the waiver issue. According to the Tennessee Constitution, judges are prohibited from instructing juries about factual matters, allowing only the presentation of testimony and legal declarations. Care must be taken to avoid imparting any bias or influencing the jury's perception of evidence. The defendant challenges two specific interjections made by the trial judge: one during cross-examination of Detective Hutchison and another during closing arguments.
In the first instance, while questioning about the defendant's request to speak to his mother, the judge interrupted to clarify the admissibility of the statements made by the defendant, emphasizing that the jury should not question the constitutional validity of evidence already admitted. The judge instructed the jury on how to weigh the credibility of witness statements, including those of the defendant. He reiterated that he had ruled on the admissibility of these statements prior to the jury's deliberations and explicitly stated he was not indicating any belief regarding witness credibility. During the state’s closing arguments, the prosecutor asserted that the defendant's statements were not coerced.
Defense counsel objected to the prosecutor's comments regarding attorneys’ opinions and requested a curative instruction. The court instructed the jury that while attorneys could discuss reasonable inferences from the evidence, they could not express opinions. The court clarified that jury nullification and the suppression of evidence were legal decisions made prior to trial, thus not for jury consideration. The admission of evidence was not a reflection on the truthfulness of statements or witness credibility. The defendant did not waive his second assignment of error by failing to object contemporaneously, as established legal precedent allows for one objection to suffice for appeal purposes.
Regarding the merits, the trial court's comments were legally accurate and did not improperly comment on evidence. The judge maintained that he would determine the admissibility of evidence, while the jury would assess witness credibility and weight of evidence, consistent with the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. The court's statements were deemed not to undermine the evidence's weight or credibility.
In addressing the defendant's request for full probation, the court denied it, asserting that the defendant's social history and lack of prior criminal conduct did not outweigh the seriousness of his actions. The victim's mother testified to the impact of her son's death and requested the maximum sentence. Although character witnesses spoke positively of the defendant's past behavior, the court found that he did not meet the burden of proving his suitability for full probation.
The defendant's girlfriend, Shamira Innis, testified to his non-violent character and expressed confidence in his compliance with probation rules, noting she had never seen him use drugs or alcohol. The defendant's aunt supported this view, disputing claims about his gang affiliation, while his mother acknowledged a past arrest for disorderly conduct but denied any gang involvement. The defendant himself clarified that he was familiar with “Just Us Brothers,” describing it as a non-criminal group. He completed one semester at Southwest Community College and intended to graduate and marry Innis.
The trial court classified the defendant as a Range I standard offender due to his criminal history, specifically noting marijuana use since age fifteen, which it considered as an enhancement factor but assigned little weight. The court deemed the criminal conduct "egregious" and sentenced him to ten years for facilitation of especially aggravated robbery and three years for reckless homicide, with both sentences running concurrently. The court rejected his request for full probation, citing the seriousness of the offenses, lack of rehabilitation potential, and concerns about public safety due to his dishonesty and past behavior involving firearms.
Appellate review of the sentence is conducted de novo, with a presumption of correctness for the trial court’s findings. The defendant bears the burden of proving any impropriety in the sentence. Probation eligibility requires a sentence of ten years or less, barring certain exclusions, and a total effective sentence over ten years may still qualify if individual sentences meet probation criteria.
A defendant seeking full probation must demonstrate on appeal that the sentencing was improper and that full probation serves both the defendant's and public's best interests. The trial court's decision to deny probation is reviewed solely for abuse of discretion, which occurs when there is insufficient evidence supporting its conclusion based on statutory criteria and Tennessee Supreme Court precedents. Key factors for a trial court to consider in probation decisions include the offense's circumstances, the defendant's criminal and social history, deterrence needs, and rehabilitation potential, as outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103. Additionally, the defendant's credibility is relevant to assessing rehabilitation potential. A sentence must not exceed what is warranted for the offense and should be the least severe necessary to fulfill sentencing purposes. Confinement may be warranted to protect society, prevent trivialization of the offense, or due to prior unsuccessful less restrictive measures. Probation may be denied based solely on the offense's circumstances if they are notably severe. In this case, the defendant, eligible for probation due to a ten-year sentence stemming from a Class B felony, must prove the sentence's impropriety. The trial court recognized the defendant's positive social history but expressed concerns regarding his rehabilitation potential and public safety, citing the defendant's deceptive behavior and his failure to assist a victim of a violent crime he witnessed.
The court determined that while the defendant's lack of prior probation was a mitigating factor, granting full probation would undermine the seriousness of the offense. Substantial evidence supported the trial court's decision to deny full probation. The defendant argued that the court's finding of untruthfulness was inadequate for the denial; however, the defendant's truthfulness was relevant to assessing his rehabilitation potential. The trial judge, as the best evaluator of credibility and rehabilitation, considered various factors beyond truthfulness, including the defendant's potential for rehabilitation, the nature of the offense, and the risk of minimizing its seriousness, which outweighed the defendant's positive social history and absence of criminal records. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's sentencing decision and concluded that full probation was not in the best interest of the defendant or the public. Consequently, the judgments of the trial court were affirmed.
