State of Tennessee v. Stanley Blue

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2007-00292-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; March 19, 2009; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Stanley Blue was convicted by a Shelby County jury of facilitation of premeditated first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, and reckless endangerment, receiving an effective sentence of forty years. In his appeal, Blue raised several issues: (1) objection to the trial court allowing the State to define premeditated murder and felony murder during voir dire, (2) denial of a juror's excusal for cause, (3) challenges to the jury instructions on facilitation, (4) exclusion of expert testimony, and (5) claims of insufficient evidence for the attempted second-degree murder conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's judgments.

The case stemmed from a shooting incident on March 11, 2003, at Brown's Barbecue, where Mareco Robinson was killed, and Jessie Lewis was wounded. Witness Toya Sanders, a friend of Robinson, recounted events leading to the shooting. After encountering Blue and another individual, Eddie Partee, at a club, she and her friends went to the restaurant where the shooting occurred. Sanders observed a confrontation between Robinson and Partee, followed by Partee shooting Robinson in the back of the head. Blue then exited the bathroom and also fired a weapon. Sanders noted that Robinson did not threaten or display a weapon during the incident, although she could not confirm whether he retrieved anything from his car.

Jessie Lewis testified that on the night of March 11, 2003, while at Brown's Barbecue, he spoke with Robinson, who indicated that something was wrong with Partee. Before Robinson could elaborate, Partee entered and shot Robinson. Lewis, having turned his back to Robinson, turned upon hearing the gunfire and saw Partee standing over Robinson with a gun. After firing the initial shot, Partee shot twice more as Robinson lay on the ground. Lewis described being paralyzed by shock, unable to flee as the defendant walked from the bathroom, bumped Partee, and then shot Lewis in the groin as Partee kicked open the door. Lewis identified the defendant later and confirmed he did not see Robinson with a gun.

Kevia Taylor, who was with her cousin Toya Sanders at the restaurant, corroborated the events leading to the shooting. She observed Partee retrieve and load a pistol from a vehicle before returning inside, interpreting a glance between him and the defendant as a signal. Anticipating trouble, she began to leave when she heard gunfire and ran behind a building, not witnessing the departure of the two men. Following the shooting, she saw Lewis and Robinson had been shot and later identified the defendant in a photo lineup. Taylor noted seeing Robinson open his car hood and trunk but could not confirm if he retrieved anything.

Officer Kimberly Houston responded to the scene and found a man shot in the head and another with a leg wound. She noted the head-wounded man was conscious but ceased breathing before paramedics arrived. Houston secured witnesses until more officers could take their statements. Lieutenant Daniel Parris documented the crime scene, noting eight items, including evidence of gunfire. Kcbena Cash from the Memphis Police Department testified that the defendant emerged as a suspect within a week. After a warrant was issued, the defendant contacted Officer Cash, who informed him of the warrant and requested him to come in voluntarily.

The defendant did not agree to turn himself in, prompting ongoing phone communications with Officer Cash, who noted that their conversations centered around his surrender. A tip eventually led Officer Cash to a residence where the defendant was absent, but a .40 caliber handgun was found and secured by the Memphis Police Department. Following another tip, the defendant was apprehended at a different location while attempting to escape through a window, where additional firearms and .40 caliber ammunition were discovered.

During cross-examination, Officer Cash acknowledged that the defendant was not located at the initial search site and that the ownership of the found handgun was unknown. Sergeant William D. Merritt coordinated the case, sending several firearms and shell casings to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) for analysis, including a Keltec .40 caliber handgun linked to the crime scene, and a Ruger 9mm found nearby. TBI Special Agent Steve Scott confirmed that the Keltec was definitively linked to the scene, while the Ruger showed no matching shell casings found at the location. The bullet that killed the victim was determined to have come from a revolver, not either of the semi-automatic weapons tested.

Dr. O’Brian Smith, the Shelby County Medical Examiner, performed the victim's autopsy, identifying a lethal gunshot wound to the head and noting a moderately elevated blood alcohol content with no drugs present. The State also presented prior testimony from Mario Broadnax, who described being at the Hard Luck Café during the incident and witnessing an argument involving the victim. He recounted hearing gunshots and finding the surviving victim, Jessie Lewis, on the ground before checking on Mareco Robinson, who was still alive, and alerting restaurant staff to call the police.

Broadnax, a witness, reported that he was informed the victim possessed a weapon, prompting him to remove the gun from the victim’s belt and hide it behind a restaurant. Rachel Geiser, from Inquisitor, Inc., testified she could not locate Broadnax for trial, leading the court to deem him an unavailable witness under Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Consequently, his prior testimony from a mistrial was read into evidence with minimal objection regarding the reading process. Broadnax corroborated that he removed the gun to prevent police from misattributing it to the victim. He identified the defendant as present during the incident but admitted he could not see the shooting as he hid. 

Daryl Powell testified he was asleep at Brown’s Barbecue when an argument awakened him. He recognized the victim as "C-Murder" and saw him return to the restaurant with a black gun, after which chaos ensued and shooting began. Powell did not know the shooter but noted two individuals fled in a Cadillac. His omission of the victim’s gun in his police statement was addressed, with Powell suggesting it might not have been recorded. 

Calandra Shaw, a long-time employee at the restaurant, recounted a prolonged argument involving the victim and another man, followed by gunfire. She witnessed the victim fall and saw a man in a yellow shirt take a gun from the victim's pocket after the shooting. Officer Danny James, a crime scene officer, documented the scene and photographed a gun found outside the restaurant.

The defendant alleges that the trial court erred by permitting the State to define premeditated murder and felony murder during jury selection, claiming this led to confusion. The State argues that its comments aimed to clarify the applicable law for prospective jurors and were accurate representations of the law, which the trial court later reinforced with proper instructions. The trial court overruled the defendant's objections, affirming the State's right to engage with jurors’ understanding of the law. The court found that discussing felony murder was relevant to a juror's comments about planning a robbery and that defining criminal responsibility was appropriate under Tennessee law. The court noted that the ultimate goal of voir dire is to ensure juror competency and impartiality, and upheld the trial court’s discretion in this regard, concluding that the issue had no merit.

Additionally, the defendant argued that a juror should have been dismissed after realizing he knew a State witness, Sergeant Merritt. The State countered that the defendant did not demonstrate that this acquaintance warranted dismissal, as jurors can only be discharged if deemed unable or disqualified. The defendant bears the burden to prove bias or prejudice, which was not established here. The record lacked contemporaneous objections or motions to excuse the juror during the trial, indicating no immediate concern was raised at the time of the witness's testimony.

A renewed motion to disqualify a juror was overruled by the trial court, which found no issues with the juror’s service despite the juror's son playing soccer with a witness's son. The juror affirmed he could be impartial. The trial court concluded that the juror's distant acquaintance with the witness did not indicate bias sufficient for disqualification, stating there was no basis to excuse the juror simply due to this recognition. Consequently, the defendant failed to demonstrate juror bias, rendering this issue meritless.

The defendant argued that the trial court improperly omitted sequential instructions on facilitation as a lesser included offense. The State responded that the jury was properly instructed despite the lack of sequential repetition. A complete and accurate jury charge is required, and the instruction should be evaluated as a whole. The trial court acknowledged the defendant's request but opted for a single facilitation instruction applicable to all offenses, with the verdict form listing offenses in sequential order. The court first explained each charge, then provided a general facilitation instruction, followed by specific instructions. The jury ultimately convicted the defendant of facilitation of premeditated murder and attempted second-degree murder, indicating they understood the facilitation concept. Therefore, the jury instructions were deemed accurate and not misleading, rendering this issue meritless as well.

Lastly, the defendant claimed the trial court erred by excluding expert testimony from Dr. Joseph Angelillo, a forensic psychologist, intended to demonstrate that the defendant had a mental disease or defect that impaired his ability to form intent for first-degree murder and other charges.

The trial court excluded Dr. Angelillo's testimony on the grounds that he could not definitively establish that the defendant had a mental disease or defect affecting his ability to form the necessary mental state for the offense. The State's position aligns with Tennessee law, which mandates that a defendant's culpable mental state must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction. The law recognizes that negating an element of a crime is a valid defense, and relevant psychiatric evidence must meet both general relevancy standards and specific evidentiary rules for expert testimony. While Tennessee law presumes sanity, it does not presume the existence of mens rea, requiring the prosecution to prove all elements of the offense.

Relevant evidence, defined by Tennessee Rule of Evidence 401, can be excluded if its probative value is significantly outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice or confusion. Expert testimony, as per Rule 702, must offer specialized knowledge that substantially assists the jury and must be based on reliable information. The trial court has discretion over the admissibility of such evidence, which can only be challenged on appeal if the discretion is misused.

Dr. Angelillo's testimony was pertinent to assessing the defendant's capacity to form the required mental state, but for it to be admissible, it must demonstrate that the defendant lacked this capacity due to a mental disease or defect. Dr. Angelillo identified the defendant as suffering from a delusional disorder along with features of schizotypal and paranoid personality disorders.

Dr. Angelillo testified that the defendant's mental impairments would affect his planning and ability to think, but he clarified that this did not prevent the defendant from formulating intent or premeditating actions. The court referenced the standard from Hall, which requires that a mental disease or defect must completely incapacitate a defendant from forming the necessary mental state for a crime. The trial court correctly excluded Dr. Angelillo's testimony since it did not meet this standard.

The defendant claimed insufficient evidence to support his conviction for attempted second degree murder, arguing that he had exited the restaurant before Partee shot Lewis, and thus should not be deemed criminally responsible. However, the State argued that evidence showed the defendant nudged Partee to alert him to move Lewis, indicating involvement in the crime. The appellate court reviewed the evidence under the standard that requires viewing it in the light most favorable to the prosecution, determining if a rational jury could find the essential elements of the crime established beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the jury had the authority to resolve conflicts in testimony, assess witness credibility, and the weight of the evidence. 

The court confirmed that a guilty verdict replaces the presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt, placing the burden on the defendant to demonstrate insufficient evidence. The definition of second degree murder involves knowing the conduct is likely to result in death, and a person is criminally responsible for another's actions if they intend to promote or assist in the commission of the offense.

A person can be held criminally liable for an offense committed through their own actions, the actions of another for which they are responsible, or a combination of both, as stated in Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-401(a). All individuals involved in the offense can be charged (Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-401(b)). Evidence presented at trial revealed that Lewis witnessed Partee standing over Robinson with a gun after hearing a gunshot. Subsequently, the defendant emerged from the bathroom and fired two shots at Robinson, who was on the ground. Lewis recounted being in shock and unable to move while the defendant and Partee exited the scene. As they left, the defendant nudged Partee, which alerted him to Lewis's presence, leading to Partee shooting Lewis in the leg as they exited. The injury resulted in a gunshot wound to Lewis’s groin, exiting through his hip. The court concluded that the evidence was adequate to support a conviction for attempted second-degree murder, affirming the trial court's judgments.