State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Fletcher

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2007-02118-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; June 25, 2009; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Nicholas Fletcher was convicted of first degree felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault after a jury trial in Shelby County, Tennessee. He received a life sentence for the felony murder, eight years for the robbery, and three years for the assault, all to be served concurrently, allowing for the possibility of parole. On appeal, Fletcher raised three issues: (1) the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, (2) alleged prosecutorial misconduct during the cross-examination of a witness, Cordareyes Torry, and (3) the cumulative effect of these errors that he claimed violated his right to a fair trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgments.

Testimony revealed that the victim, Ali Alothmani, was shot during an attempted robbery at a convenience store owned by his brother, Abdo Ahmed. On the night of the incident, two masked men entered the store, one brandishing a gun. Despite the rapid nature of the events, Mr. Ahmed recognized Fletcher from previous visits to the store but could not definitively identify the assailants due to their masks. The court ultimately upheld Fletcher's convictions and sentences.

Larry Jones, a daily shopper at Linc Minimart, testified he left the store around 9:00 p.m. on August 23, 2005, and observed three men running past him, one of whom brandished a gun. He described the men as teenagers but could not identify them and did not hear gunshots that night. Antonio Lampkins, who had known the defendant, stated he was at Lamario Hill’s apartment and heard Hill suggest robbing the Minimart, to which the defendant agreed. Lampkins left the group before any robbery occurred, citing his employment as a reason for not participating. He did not see the men again that night and was not charged with any offenses. Dr. Marco Ross, a forensic pathologist, determined the victim died from a gunshot wound to the chest, inflicted by a medium-caliber bullet. Officer Tim Monistere was the first to arrive at the scene, finding the victim unresponsive and an open pocket knife within reach. Sergeant Ronald Collins later interviewed Lampkins, who implicated Hill and the defendant in the incident after being read his Miranda rights. Lampkins provided a written statement that he confirmed and signed. Collins noted they learned about Lampkins from another individual present at the scene.

Sergeant Collins testified that Mr. Torry was brought to the police station on the night of the incident, where he identified Mr. Hill and the Defendant as participants. Collins could not recall any additional names provided by Mr. Torry, who mentioned seeing four individuals headed toward the store but did not know the names of two. Sergeant T. J. Helldorfer, the case coordinator, confirmed that Mr. Torry implicated Mr. Hill and the Defendant. The Defendant, a juvenile, was arrested on August 25, 2005, and was accompanied by his mother, Paula Fletcher, when he was taken to the police station around 6:00 p.m. Prior to his interview, the Defendant was read his Miranda rights, which he and his mother waived in writing.

During the investigation, Mr. Hill and Mr. Lampkins were interviewed separately. The Defendant provided multiple inconsistent accounts of the events, with his statement being documented at about 8:00 p.m. and later presented at trial. In his statement, the Defendant claimed he was present at the Linc Minimart when Mr. Hill shot the victim. He described Mr. Hill's clothing, the firearm involved, and the sequence of events leading to the robbery attempt, which he attributed to a plan devised by Mario. The Defendant noted that he and Treyvaughn had also concealed their faces and recounted fleeing the scene after hearing gunshots. He expressed remorse for the shooting and stated that it was unintended. Sergeant Helldorfer denied any threats made to the Defendant during the interview.

Sergeant Helldorfer confirmed he informed the Defendant of his arrest during the interview. Initially skeptical of Mr. Lampkins’ claims of non-involvement, Helldorfer later accepted that Lampkins was not present at the scene of the shooting, based on statements from Mr. Hill and the Defendant. He noted inconsistencies in Lampkins' accounts before he provided a written statement. Helldorfer indicated that a bullet found in the victim was not tested due to the absence of a weapon, and that no DNA evidence linked to the Defendant was found, with fingerprints from the store not matching the Defendant’s. 

He acknowledged that Defendant's father, Charles Dale, was at the police station during the interview but only one parent was allowed in the interview room. Helldorfer denied any request from Ms. Fletcher, the Defendant's mother, to allow Mr. Dale to participate in the interview. After the written statement was given, Dale was permitted to visit the Defendant. 

Ms. Fletcher testified that her son was seventeen at the time of the alleged offenses and described her anxiety during the police encounter, stating she was not allowed to speak with her son privately before the interview. She claimed that her request for Mr. Dale to join the interview was denied, and despite the Defendant asserting his innocence multiple times, Helldorfer did not believe him. On cross-examination, Ms. Fletcher admitted to signing the Miranda waiver and acknowledged that she felt pressured when initialing the statement pages, though she did not claim any threats were made. 

Charles Dale corroborated that he was denied entry during the interview and was only allowed to see his son afterward. Cordareyes Torry, currently incarcerated, testified that on the night of the incident, he was walking with the Defendant and others toward a liquor store.

Three men entered the Linc Minimart while Mr. Torry and the Defendant remained outside, where Torry overheard discussions about robbing the store. Approximately five minutes later, gunshots were heard, and the three men fled the scene while Torry and the Defendant ran in the opposite direction. Torry returned to the store shortly after and spoke with police officers, who later interrogated him at the station. During this interrogation, officers suggested that Torry and Defendant were involved, pressuring him to implicate Defendant. Torry provided a written statement at around 3:00 a.m., claiming Defendant was involved in the shooting, but later recanted this statement during trial, asserting that it was untrue and a result of coercion.

On cross-examination, Torry did not recall specific comments attributed to him regarding the incident and acknowledged discussing his fears with the prosecutor, referencing threats from Mr. Hill's brother. He denied lying to police but claimed that his statements were misrepresented. Torry confirmed his acquaintance with Mr. Hill, though Hill's name was not mentioned in his original statement. Officer William D. Merritt, a rebuttal witness, testified that Torry voluntarily provided his statement without being read his Miranda rights, as he was considered a witness, not a suspect. Merritt read Torry’s statement to the jury, noting that Torry did not mention Mr. Hill. On redirect, Merritt revealed that Mr. Hill admitted to being the shooter during his interview.

The Defendant argues that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence, claiming that police had no probable cause for his warrantless arrest, that he did not knowingly waive his Miranda rights, and that his statement was coerced. At the suppression hearing, Sergeant Helldorfer indicated that Defendant was identified as a suspect based on Torry's and another witness's statements.

Defendant was read his Miranda rights by Sergeant Helldorfer after his arrest, voluntarily waived those rights, and signed a waiver. His mother, Paula Fletcher, was present during this process, and both reviewed and signed Defendant’s statement, initialing each page without making changes. On cross-examination, Sergeant Helldorfer noted that Defendant provided multiple inconsistent versions of events before finalizing his written statement, which eventually aligned more closely with other witnesses' accounts. The primary inconsistency involved Defendant identifying Mr. Hill as the shooter, while another witness, Mr. Torry, implicated Mr. Lampkins, who denied being at the scene.

Defendant was arrested without a warrant and transported separately from his mother. Sergeant Helldorfer admitted that Defendant likely did not speak to Ms. Fletcher prior to the interview and noted Defendant’s educational background (ninth grade), confirming he could read and understand his rights. The policy allowed only one parent to accompany a minor suspect, and while Sergeant Helldorfer was unsure if Mr. Dale had arrived during the interview, he stated that he would have allowed Mr. Dale in had Defendant requested it. The interview lasted two hours, with Defendant's statements evolving throughout.

Ms. Fletcher testified that police initially searched her home without a warrant, returned later when she was home, and demanded she come to the police station without allowing contact with other family members. She asserted that Sergeant Helldorfer did not inform them of Defendant’s right to counsel before the interview and described how Sergeant Helldorfer left the room frequently, asserting that a witness had identified Defendant. She also indicated she was unaware of the incidents in question until the interview began.

Sergeant Helldorfer did not initially advise Defendant of his Miranda rights, although Ms. Fletcher acknowledged that both she and Defendant ultimately signed a waiver and that he read from the form. Ms. Fletcher expressed confusion during the process, stating that Sergeant Helldorfer rushed them. 

Regarding the standard of review, a trial court’s factual findings during a suppression hearing are generally presumed correct unless contradicted by overwhelming evidence. Issues of witness credibility and evidence weight are determined by the trial judge, while legal applications are reviewed de novo.

Defendant claims the arrest was made without probable cause, arguing that Sergeant Helldorfer’s motivations were pretextual, as indicated by his skepticism towards witness statements. Warrantless arrests are permissible when a felony has occurred and there is reasonable cause to believe the arrestee committed it. The terms 'reasonable cause' and 'probable cause' are often treated interchangeably in legal contexts. Probable cause is assessed based on the officer's knowledge at the time of arrest, and identification at the crime scene is a contributing factor. Despite discrepancies in witness statements, both identified Defendant at the scene and described his clothing. The court found no evidence to overturn the trial court’s conclusion that probable cause existed for the arrest.

Lastly, Defendant contends his waiver of Miranda rights was not made knowingly or voluntarily, citing his age of seventeen and the pressure from repeated interrogations that led him to provide a written statement admitting guilt.

Defendant claims he was isolated from Ms. Fletcher for two hours prior to being Mirandized and was not permitted to speak with his father during the interrogation. Ms. Fletcher testified she felt "pressured" and "rushed" and did not fully understand the waiver form, despite her signature. The Supreme Court in *Miranda v. Arizona* established that police must inform defendants of their rights to remain silent and to counsel before custodial interrogation, with valid waivers requiring that they be made "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently." The State bears the burden of proving such waivers by a preponderance of the evidence. Courts assess the validity of waivers based on the totality of circumstances, including the juvenile’s age, experience, intelligence, understanding of the warnings, and potential influences such as intoxication or mental health issues. While parental presence is considered, it is not strictly necessary for the confession's admissibility if full Miranda warnings are understood. Sergeant Helldorfer testified that Defendant was brought to the station about two hours before the interview, during which he could not speak to Ms. Fletcher, and noted the timeline of Defendant’s arrest and interview. He stated that Defendant read the waiver aloud and that both signed it, although Ms. Fletcher expressed confusion and felt coerced into signing without fully grasping the waiver's implications.

Defendant did not testify regarding his emotional state during the suppression hearing, and the trial court found no evidence that he or his mother expressed a desire to consult a lawyer or to stop the interrogation. The court concluded that Defendant understood his rights and voluntarily waived them, with the evidence supporting this finding. Regarding Defendant's written statement, he claimed that coercive police tactics during the interview made his statement involuntary, citing Sergeant Helldorfer's repeated questioning despite his denials, interruptions with information from other witnesses, restrictions on speaking with his father, and threats of confinement. Under Tennessee law, for a confession to be deemed voluntary, it must not result from threats, promises, or improper influence. The court emphasized the need to assess the totality of circumstances in determining the admissibility of confessions. Sergeant Helldorfer testified that the interview was conducted quickly but did not involve threats or promises, aside from informing Defendant he would be held in jail post-interview. The court found no evidence of threats or deceptive practices in the interrogation, concluding that the methods used were appropriate investigative techniques.

At the suppression hearing's conclusion, the trial court determined that Defendant’s statement was given freely and voluntarily, affirming its denial of the motion to suppress. The appellate review found no evidence contradicting this determination, denying Defendant relief on this matter.

Regarding prosecutorial misconduct, Defendant claimed that the prosecutor improperly questioned defense witness Cordareyes Torry during cross-examination. Torry testified he did not see Defendant enter the Linc Minimart, but during re-cross-examination, the prosecutor referenced prior statements made by Torry, leading to objections from defense counsel, who argued this made the prosecutor a witness. The trial court, however, allowed the questions, stating they did not constitute improper conduct and expressed that any potential error did not affect the verdict. 

Defendant argued that the prosecutor's actions undermined Torry's credibility, which was crucial given the reliance on witness statements in the State’s case. The State countered that impeaching Torry’s credibility through prior inconsistent statements was permissible. The court noted that the examination of witnesses falls within the trial judge's discretion, confirming that impeachment using prior inconsistent statements is allowed under Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Ultimately, the prosecutor's questioning was deemed proper as it aimed to address inconsistencies in Torry’s testimony.

Defendant contends that the prosecutor's use of inconsistent witness statements for impeachment violates the prohibition against prosecutors expressing personal opinions on witness credibility. However, the court found that the prosecutor's questioning was permissible and did not constitute improper conduct. The court referenced prior case law, noting that even if the prosecutor's approach was erroneous, it did not affect the verdict. During cross-examination, when the witness, Mr. Torry, denied making a statement to the prosecutor, the line of questioning was abandoned, and Mr. Torry was allowed to clarify his earlier responses. Additionally, Mr. Torry's credibility was challenged during rebuttal testimony, and Defendant's own police statement acknowledged his presence at the crime scene while omitting Mr. Torry's involvement. Consequently, the court ruled that Defendant was not entitled to relief on these grounds. 

Regarding the cumulative effect of errors, Defendant argued that they undermined his defense. However, the court concluded there were no significant errors, including the denial of the motion to suppress and any harmless errors during re-cross-examination. Thus, the court determined that no cumulative errors existed that would deny Defendant a fair trial. After a thorough review, the trial court's judgments were affirmed.