State of Tennessee v. Terrence Gardner

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2008-01089-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; October 5, 2009; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Terrence Gardner was convicted of first-degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault, receiving a life sentence for the murder, ten years for the robbery, and four years for the assault, with the murder and robbery sentences running concurrently and consecutive to the assault, totaling life plus four years. On appeal, Gardner contended that the evidence was insufficient to uphold his convictions and that the trial court incorrectly denied him the opportunity to impeach a witness. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments after reviewing the case.

The incident involved Gardner and two accomplices robbing a gas station, during which Gardner fatally shot the clerk and injured a former owner. Key witness Robert Malone testified that he was present with Gardner and another individual when they discussed robbing the gas station. Although initially reluctant, Malone accompanied them and witnessed Gardner brandishing a gun upon entering the store. After hearing a gunshot, he fled the scene, later going to Gardner's house where Gardner admitted to the murder and robbery, changed his clothes, and counted the stolen money. Malone did not report the crime due to fear of Gardner.

Malone spent the night at the defendant’s house before returning to Raynor’s house the next morning, where Raynor informed him that the police wanted to speak with him. Raynor then took Malone to a barber shop, where his mother picked him up and relayed the same information. On June 21, 2006, Malone provided a statement to the police, claiming he knew the defendant committed the murder, stating the defendant shot a clerk at the BP station with a chrome and black .380 handgun after being locked inside. Malone mentioned that the defendant kept the gun in his room's top drawer. However, he later admitted to inaccuracies in his initial statement, explaining that his mother was upset with him for lying. He later clarified that he and Ward had accompanied the defendant to the BP station and heard three shots while fleeing. The defendant reportedly concealed the gun under a shed and retrieved it the following day, although Malone was unaware of the firearm's fate and maintained he did not know the defendant intended to rob the store.

Ward testified that he played basketball with Malone and Raynor on June 12, 2006, then met the defendant at Raynor's house, where the defendant showed them a .380 gun. That evening, he accompanied the defendant and Malone to the BP gas station, where the defendant brandished the gun. Ward noted that the defendant had stated he "put the gun up" before entering the station, and he and Malone managed to escape when the defendant was locked inside. Ward recalled hearing a gunshot as they left, and upon the defendant's emergence, he noticed blood on the defendant's shoes. The defendant confessed to killing the clerk because he felt threatened. Afterward, they returned to the defendant's house, where he counted the stolen money and distributed some to Ward and Malone. Ward later disclosed the events to his mother and identified the defendant as the shooter in a police statement on June 21, 2006, despite being recently indicted for an unrelated robbery.

Raynor confirmed being in a car with the defendant, Malone, and Ward on June 12, where the defendant displayed a .380 handgun. After working that night, Raynor searched for Malone, ultimately visiting the BP station. The following morning, the defendant confessed to Raynor that he had robbed the station and killed the clerk, claiming Malone was involved and that he acted out of fear. Raynor provided a statement to the police on June 22, identifying the defendant in a photographic lineup.

The former owner of the gas station, referred to as Victim Two, testified that on the night of the incident, he was shot in the hand through the window by a man with something covering his face but could not identify the defendant in a photographic lineup, although he believed the shooter was African-American.

Victim Two, after being shot, returned to the Citgo to call the police and then went back to the BP gas station, where he found the door had been damaged but was locked. Upon police arrival, he informed them that the BP was being robbed and the perpetrator was still inside. Officers observed the victim bleeding on the floor, an open cash register, bloody footprints, and broken windows. Evidence collection by Officer David Galloway revealed four spent .380 caliber casings at the scene. 

Special Agent Shelly Betts confirmed that all cartridge cases were fired from the same .380 auto caliber firearm. The defendant's mother testified that a week before the shooting, the defendant returned home with two unknown individuals, whom she later told to leave. Police visited her home on June 21, 2006, seeking the defendant and collected shoes, cell phones, and a notebook from his room, noting the shoes were not his size and the notebook's writing appeared different from his.

Officer Kevin Lundy, the homicide coordinator, learned of the defendant's potential involvement and noted that the defendant was initially evasive until pressured by his mother. A search warrant executed on June 22, 2006, led to the collection of blood-stained shoes and a notebook containing a note about killing a man. Officer Demar Wells confirmed the collection of these items. DNA analysis by Special Agent Qadriyyah Debnam matched the blood on the shoes to that of the victim. The Chief Medical Examiner determined that the victim had gunshot wounds to his neck and arm, indicating the gun was fired from a distance of three feet or less.

The victim died from a gunshot wound to the neck, potentially inflicted by a bullet that passed through his arm. Al Pritchard, a prison inmate, testified that the defendant confessed to robbing a store in North Memphis, killing the clerk with an automatic handgun, and taking $1,600. The defendant claimed he shot the clerk in self-defense when the clerk reached for a gun, and mentioned he had blood on his shoes, which were later found at his house but belonged to someone else. 

The defendant stated he had been playing basketball with others on June 12, 2006, and denied having a gun. He recounted that after playing, they went to Raynor’s house, smoked marijuana, and later claimed that Ward, one of his companions, admitted to robbing and shooting a drug dealer. The defendant observed blood on Ward's shoes, which Ward borrowed to leave the bloody pair at the defendant's house. The group later went to Kroger, where Ward and Malone had a large amount of money, which the defendant found suspicious given their story about the robbery. 

The defendant turned himself in on June 23, 2006, after hearing police were looking for him. He claimed the size 10.5 shoes found in his closet belonged to Ward, as he wore a size 12. He denied any involvement in the robbery or murder. The jury convicted him of first-degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault, resulting in a life sentence for murder, ten years for robbery, and four years for assault, with the life and robbery sentences running concurrently and the assault sentence consecutively. 

On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, citing the lack of physical evidence at the crime scene, absence of money in his home, and the discrepancy in shoe sizes. The appellate court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence and that jury verdicts are upheld if there is any reasonable basis for them, affirming the requirement that the defendant must demonstrate that the evidence is legally insufficient for a rational jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

In State v. Brewer, the appellate court affirmed the conviction based on the sufficiency of the evidence, as mandated by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(e). The court referenced standards established in Jackson v. Virginia, emphasizing that credibility and evidentiary weight are determined by the trier of fact, not the appellate court. In the case, the evidence, viewed favorably to the State, demonstrated that the defendant committed felony murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. 

Felony murder involves a killing during a robbery attempt (T.C.A. 39-13-202(a)(2)), while robbery is defined as the violent or fear-based theft of property from another (T.C.A. 39-13-401). Aggravated robbery includes the use of a deadly weapon or resulting serious bodily injury (T.C.A. 39-13-402(a)), and aggravated assault occurs when serious injury is inflicted or a deadly weapon is displayed (T.C.A. 39-13-102(a)(1)). 

At trial, evidence showed the defendant went to a gas station to rob it, fatally shooting the clerk and injuring a former store owner. Two accomplices witnessed the defendant brandishing a gun and fled the scene, hearing gunshots. The former owner identified the defendant, who shot at him through a window. The police found an empty cash register and spent shell casings at the scene. The defendant later admitted to the robbery and murder, and forensic evidence linked him to the crime via bloody shoes and cash counting in his bedroom. The court concluded that a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant shot a second victim in the arm during the crime and was convicted of first-degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. He claimed the trial court erred by not allowing a private investigator's testimony to impeach witness Manuel Raynor's statements. The State acknowledged this was an error but argued it was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Raynor testified he could not recall speaking to the investigator, who would have contradicted his testimony regarding the defendant's possession of a gun and the presence of another individual, Malone, after the shooting.

Tennessee Rule of Evidence 613(b) allows the introduction of extrinsic evidence for impeachment only if the witness has a chance to explain or deny the statement, or if justice requires it. A witness's prior inconsistent statement can only be used for credibility, not as substantive evidence. The trial court determined the investigator's testimony was inadmissible because Raynor did not remember talking to her, even though extrinsic evidence can be used if a witness denies or cannot recall a statement.

The court ruled the trial court's exclusion of the testimony was erroneous, but the error was deemed harmless due to substantial evidence against the defendant, including eyewitness accounts and physical evidence. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.