State of Tennessee v. Lance Murray

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2009-00332-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; March 19, 2010; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Lance Murray was convicted by a Shelby County jury for facilitation of robbery related to an incident at an Advance Auto Parts store in October 2006. On appeal, he argued that the evidence was insufficient for his conviction. The court reviewed the evidence, which included testimony from Antonio Smith, an employee who described the robbery in detail, including the assailant’s distinctive voice and clothing. Smith indicated that the robber, who had a gun, demanded money and fled with a cash register drawer containing approximately $340-$350. The robbery was captured on video surveillance, and Smith later identified Murray based on his voice from the footage, although he did not see the robber's face. Additionally, Martha Strowder testified she witnessed a young man behaving suspiciously outside her home around the time of the robbery, noting he placed something in her garbage and drove away in a truck with unusual markings. The appeals court upheld the trial court's judgment, affirming the conviction.

A truck approached Strowder's home, where its occupants observed her from the vehicle before leaving and turning onto Trigg Street. Afterward, Strowder discovered a cash register drawer in her garbage and reported it to the police. On being shown photographs, she identified the truck as the one seen at her home and described three occupants: two in the front seat and one in the back, specifically noting a young black man in dark clothing near her garbage. During cross-examination, she narrowed the suspects down to two individuals from a photographic lineup.

Officer Charles Cathey responded to Strowder's call on October 16, 2006, recovered the cash register drawer, and took it to Advance Auto Parts, where an employee confirmed it was stolen. The employee, Robert Conner, witnessed the robbery via video surveillance and reported that $453.18 was taken. He identified the recovered drawer as containing checks made out to Advance Auto Parts.

Officer Anthony Morris located a white truck with skull and bones stickers in a driveway on Trigg and Orleans. After it left, he followed the vehicle and confirmed it was stopped at Walker and Lauderdale. Officer Joseph Poindexter interviewed the Defendant, who claimed ownership of the truck and described personalizations, including skull and crossbones stickers. He admitted to driving the vehicle all day and had $186.06 in his pocket. Poindexter noted that the Defendant had a thick Cajun accent and had been displaced from New Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina. He measured the distance from the Advance Auto Parts store to Strowder's house as 4.6 miles, taking about ten minutes in rush hour, and noted the truck's location was only seven-tenths of a mile from Strowder's home, which he drove in approximately three minutes. Poindexter created a video lineup including the Defendant.

The procedure for identifying the suspect deviated from the norm due to the suspect’s masked face during the robbery, making his voice the most recognizable feature. The audio portion of the video lineup allowed Smith to hear the suspects speak, and he described the Defendant’s voice as having a "Cajun style." Officer Poindexter noted discrepancies between the Defendant's voice in the lineup and during their interview, mentioning that the Defendant attempted to soften his accent in the recording. While filming, a cell phone rang, but the officer chose not to stop the recording to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Smith identified the Defendant in the video, although Strowder could only narrow her identification down to two individuals, including the Defendant.

Additionally, Officer Poindexter retrieved surveillance footage from Advance Auto Parts that corroborated the victim's account, showing a white Ford Explorer matching Strowder’s description associated with the robbery. On cross-examination, Poindexter acknowledged that he had not included Smith's description of the robber's accent in his initial report, only mentioning it in a later supplement after a meeting with Smith. The jury ultimately convicted the Defendant of facilitation of robbery.

In analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence, the Defendant contended that it was insufficient to establish his identity as the robber. The State countered, citing Smith’s identification of the Defendant’s accent, Strowder’s identification of the individual who discarded stolen property, her recognition of the Defendant's vehicle, and the similarity to the one seen in the surveillance video. The Court's standard of review states that evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State, assessing whether a rational juror could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, applicable to both direct and circumstantial evidence. A conviction based on circumstantial evidence is valid if the evidence distinctly points to the Defendant as the perpetrator.

The jury is responsible for assessing the weight and relevance of circumstantial evidence, including drawing inferences regarding guilt or innocence. The court cannot re-evaluate or re-weigh evidence or substitute its inferences for those drawn by the jury. Credibility of witnesses and the value of evidence are determined by the jury, which also resolves factual issues. A guilty verdict implies that the jury and trial judge have accredited the State's witnesses and favored the State's theory in any conflicts. The rationale for this is that the trial court observes witness demeanor and testimony directly, which cannot be replicated in a written record. The appellate court must interpret evidence in the light most favorable to the State and draw reasonable inferences accordingly. A conviction negates the presumption of innocence and places the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that the evidence was insufficient. In this case, the defendant was convicted of facilitating robbery, defined as providing substantial assistance to another committing a felony, knowing their intentions. Robbery involves intentionally or knowingly stealing from another by instilling fear. The fear must relate to imminent personal peril. The evidence presented, particularly testimony of a robbery at gunpoint, was deemed sufficient for a rational jury to find the defendant guilty of facilitation of robbery.

Smith identified the robber as the Defendant based on his distinct Cajun accent after reviewing a video lineup. Surveillance footage showed a white Ford Explorer, matching the Defendant's vehicle, in the vicinity before and after the robbery. Witness Strowder observed the same vehicle outside her home, where a man in dark clothing discarded a stolen cash register drawer. Police subsequently found the Defendant nearby, in dark clothing, driving the same vehicle, and possessing $186.06 in cash. The Defendant claimed sole ownership of the Explorer. He contended that the identification was flawed since Smith recognized him only by voice, the lineup was compromised by a distracting ringtone, and Strowder could not definitively identify him in photographs. The court emphasized that establishing the perpetrator's identity is critical and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, acknowledging that issues of identity and witness credibility are typically for the jury to decide. The court affirmed that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's conviction for facilitation of robbery, concluding he was not entitled to relief on this matter.