State of Tennessee v. Cassandra Hendricks Franklin

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2009-01087-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; June 3, 2010; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Cassandra Hendricks Franklin was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder for the fatal shooting of her boyfriend, Marcus Jackson, on April 21, 2008, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In her appeal, she contested the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's denial of her defense counsel's motion to withdraw. The appeal was heard by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.

During the trial, witnesses provided crucial testimony. Mary Ballard, the victim's aunt, recounted hearing gunshots and the victim's cry for help immediately after he was shot. She noted that while the couple often argued, she had never observed any physical violence between them. A few days prior to the shooting, the defendant had ominously implied to Ballard that she intended to kill Jackson, though Ballard initially dismissed it. 

Neighbor Shanitra Freeman testified that the defendant confessed to the shooting shortly after it occurred, while Freeman's mother corroborated that the defendant had entered their home, stated she had shot the victim, and showed them where she had hidden the gun. This evidence contributed to the jury's conviction of the defendant. The appellate court upheld the conviction, agreeing with the trial court's ruling.

Williams testified that she instructed the defendant not to leave a gun behind and to unload it, which the defendant did by removing the clip and discarding it on the ground. Afterward, the defendant requested Williams to watch her daughter, Diamond, but Williams declined and called the defendant’s sister instead. Williams noted that the defendant was dressed in pajama bottoms and a housecoat without a bra, and she warned the defendant that she would go to jail, to which the defendant acknowledged. When Williams returned with a shirt, the defendant put it on, picked up the unloaded gun, and walked toward her sister’s house. During cross-examination, Williams described the defendant as nervous and not in a “right state of mind.”

Sergeant Dawn Wright from the Mason Police Department arrived first on the scene to find the victim gurgling but not breathing. Despite attempts at CPR by first responders, the victim died at the scene. Officer Specht, also from the Mason Police Department, encountered the defendant in a nearby backyard carrying a gun. He commanded her to drop the weapon, which she did, then fell to the ground. The defendant later inquired whether a .40 caliber gun could kill someone, to which Specht affirmed that any gun could be lethal. During cross-examination, it was revealed that the defendant admitted to shooting the victim and expressed a desire to comply with the officers.

Special Agent Mark Reynolds from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) identified and recovered the semi-automatic weapon, the clip, and the defendant’s black jacket from the crime scene. TBI Special Agent John Sullivan analyzed the recovered items, including two shell casings and two spent bullets taken from the victim’s body. Sullivan noted that the victim's body was positioned awkwardly as if he had fallen to his knees and then backward.

The defendant's statement from April 21 was presented as evidence and recounted significant details of an altercation with the victim. The defendant described the victim as verbally abusive, recounting instances of physical violence where he hit her and called her derogatory names. After feeling threatened, she retrieved a gun from under the mattress and confronted the victim while screaming. When the victim approached her, she shot him once, resulting in his injury. She expressed love for him despite the abuse and detailed prior incidents of violence against her daughter, Diamond, suggesting potential molestation. Witness testimonies included Agent Sullivan, who found no visible injuries on the defendant, and Samantha Owens, who recalled the defendant confessing to the shooting due to concerns over her daughter. Roderick Fleming and Mario Fleming added that the defendant had previously expressed intentions to harm the victim if he were found to be involved with Owens.

The defendant threatened the victim, stating she would kill him if she caught him with another man, Owens. A witness noted that the defendant displayed a hostile attitude during a prior visit to Owens’ house. Tina Stahl, a fellow inmate, testified that the defendant confessed to murdering the victim, initially claiming it was because he had molested her daughter. Later, she retracted this, stating she killed him because he wanted to leave her for another woman. The defendant described the incident, stating she shot the victim three times as he was leaving and expressed intent to kill others present, but the gun jammed. She solicited Stahl to persuade her daughter to falsely claim molestation to mitigate her own legal consequences. Stahl identified a piece of paper with her sister’s number, which the defendant had provided, as evidence. Throughout their time together, the defendant frequently expressed violent sentiments towards the victim and shared disturbing dreams about him. Stahl reported the defendant's admissions to law enforcement in September 2008, maintaining that her testimony was not motivated by any promises or personal grievances. On cross-examination, she acknowledged her own criminal past, including a charge of tampering with evidence, but denied this influenced her decision to testify. Stahl indicated that the defendant exhibited an obsession with death and suggested that the defendant may have been experiencing mental health issues during their incarceration.

Sandra Miller, a former cell mate of the defendant at Tipton County Jail, testified that the defendant, during a night of distress, expressed remorse over not meaning to kill the victim, claiming the victim had been cheating on her. Miller relayed that the defendant described dreams about dismembering the victim and indicated an intention to shoot witnesses, mentioning her gun had jammed. Under cross-examination, Miller denied collaborating on their stories with another witness, Stahl.

Dr. Miguel Laboy, the Shelby County Assistant Medical Examiner, conducted the victim's autopsy and confirmed that gunshot wounds to the chest were the cause of death. The victim suffered multiple injuries, including a gunshot wound that perforated the heart and lung, and additional wounds that impacted the liver and kidney. Dr. Laboy stated that death from the heart injury would occur within seconds to minutes and noted the toxicology report showed no drugs or alcohol in the victim’s system.

James Russell Davis, II, a TBI Special Agent Forensic Scientist, testified that gunshot primer residue was found on the defendant's jacket. Another TBI Special Agent, Alex Brodhag, identified the firearm used as a Smith & Wesson .40 caliber semiautomatic pistol, confirming that bullets and cartridge cases analyzed were fired from it.

For the defense, TBI Special Agent John Sullivan recounted his interaction with the defendant’s daughter, Diamond Franklin, leading to a report to the Department of Children’s Services (DCS). He did not observe any injuries on Diamond. Diamond testified that she never witnessed the defendant hit the victim but had seen the victim strike the defendant and described an incident where the victim spanked her with a cord, leaving marks.

Sharon Bramlett, the defendant’s sister, noted she observed scarring on Diamond’s arms and legs. Miakia Nathaniel, a DCS case manager, confirmed seeing scratches on Diamond, which she initially attributed to a dog but later clarified were from being spanked by the victim. Claudette Nelson, the defendant's mother, testified to witnessing the victim physically assault the defendant but stated the defendant never reported any abuse toward Diamond.

TBI Special Agent John Sullivan testified that Diamond Franklin claimed she had never witnessed the victim hitting the defendant but had seen the defendant strike the victim. The jury subsequently convicted the defendant of first-degree premeditated murder. The defendant contests the sufficiency of the evidence, asserting a lack of proof of premeditation. In appellate review, the court examines whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence favorably for the prosecution. If evidence is insufficient to support a guilty finding, it can be overturned. The jury and trial judge resolve issues of witness credibility and evidence weight, with the jury’s verdict affirming the State's theory and accrediting its witnesses. The rationale for this deference is the unique ability of the jury to observe witness demeanor and context, which cannot be replicated in written records. A jury conviction shifts the presumption of innocence to one of guilt, placing the burden on the defendant to prove insufficient evidence on appeal. First-degree murder requires a premeditated and intentional act, defined as a decision made after reflection. Premeditation does not require a prolonged intention to kill but must demonstrate a mental state free from excitement and passion at the time of the act. Ultimately, the determination of premeditation is a factual question for the jury based on the totality of the evidence.

Premeditation in a crime can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including the circumstances and manner of the killing. Key factors indicating premeditation include: using a deadly weapon on an unarmed victim, absence of provocation, declarations of intent to kill, failure to assist the victim, established motive, cruelty of the act, preparations to conceal the crime, destruction of evidence, and the defendant's demeanor post-crime. In this case, the defendant claimed insufficient evidence for premeditation, arguing she was provoked by the victim’s actions against her daughter. However, evidence presented showed the defendant expressed threats to kill the victim due to jealousy and anger over his relationships, particularly in the days leading up to the shooting. The victim was unarmed, and the defendant's claims of being beaten were not substantiated by investigators. Further, she confessed to cellmates that her motive for killing was the victim's infidelity, not the alleged molestation of her daughter. This evidence led to the conclusion that a rational jury could find the defendant acted with premeditation, affirming her conviction for first-degree premeditated murder.

Regarding the trial counsel's motion to withdraw, the defendant argued the court erred in denying the motion based on a conflict of interest. The defense attorney cited prior representation of a potential witness, Tina Stahl, which he believed created a conflict under the Rules of Professional Conduct. At the hearing, the trial court expressed concern about the implications for the public defender's office if conflicts were recognized based solely on past representations. The defense attorney maintained that he possessed critical impeachment information from his prior work with Stahl, which he could not disclose due to attorney-client privilege, complicating his ability to represent the defendant effectively.

The trial court has the discretion to permit counsel to withdraw, and its decision will not be overturned unless there is an abuse of discretion. Defendants are entitled to representation that is free from conflicting interests. An actual conflict of interest arises when an attorney cannot exercise independent judgment due to compromising loyalties. Such conflicts can occur in both simultaneous and successive representations, particularly when an attorney previously represented a co-defendant or witness. However, proving an actual conflict in successive representation cases is generally more challenging. Concerns include potential misuse of confidential information from prior clients and the risk that the attorney may not rigorously cross-examine former clients due to this information.

In this case, the trial court denied a motion based on a lack of demonstrated conflict that would impede zealous representation. The court noted that the previous representation of a witness, Tina Stahl, did not present a conflict, as her statements did not contradict the defense's position. The trial court observed that counsel effectively cross-examined Stahl on various issues affecting her credibility. The appellate court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling and affirmed its judgment.