State of Tennessee v. Justin Mathis

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2005-02903-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; July 20, 2007; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Justin Mathis was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder in Shelby County and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed, arguing that the trial court made several errors: (1) permitting expert testimony regarding his potential gang affiliation; (2) allowing a photo of a gun from a witness's cellphone into evidence; (3) admitting a photograph of the victim's heart; (4) instructing the jury on criminal responsibility for another's conduct; and (5) asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. 

The case involved the shooting of 17-year-old Vernon Edwards on April 5, 2004. Chan Martin, the victim's best friend, testified that prior to the shooting, there had been a fight involving Mathis's friend, leading to retaliation fears. On the evening of the incident, Martin observed Mathis and a group of males at a Wendy's restaurant, which heightened his concern for his safety. After calling the victim to warn him, Martin heard gunshots shortly thereafter and witnessed the victim injured and bleeding. Martin later identified Mathis as the driver of the vehicle involved in the shooting.

On April 5, Martin discovered damage to his car but had no prior conflict with the appellant, although he had encountered some of the appellant’s friends. Initially, Martin did not recall informing police that Jeremy Love was in the Mazda with the appellant during the shooting but later confirmed identifying Love in a photographic lineup and acknowledged Love's presence in the vehicle. Martin clarified that he, the victim, and Walker were not gang members and admitted he did not see the Mazda post-shooting as his focus was on the victim.

Andiea Walker, working at Wendy’s that night, noted six males, including the appellant and Love, seeking Martin, which she found unusual. After failing to reach Martin by phone, she witnessed flashes and heard gunshots upon leaving to her car. She saw a dark-colored car leaving and the victim lying shot in the parking lot. Walker recalled the group of males as all African-American but did not know the appellant or Love's names at that time.

Shaun Bullock testified he was at Handy's house with the victim and others before driving them to Wendy’s. Upon arrival, he noticed a male leaning into Martin’s car, prompting the victim and Johnson to confront him. Shortly after, a green Mazda 626 drove away, followed by gunshots. Bullock could not identify the shooter but noted the shots came from the front of the Mazda. He confirmed the victim and Johnson were unarmed and stated he could not definitively determine where the shots originated.

Dante Johnson, also at Handy's house, was driven by Bullock to Wendy’s where he observed the green Mazda next to Martin’s car and saw a male interacting with it. Johnson and the victim confronted the male before the shooting occurred.

Johnson reported that the victim questioned an individual in a Mazda, leading the male to enter the vehicle, which then drove away. Johnson heard the driver say, "Get you one," before he and the victim approached the Mazda, at which point six to nine gunshots were fired. He ducked for cover and later saw the victim, who was bleeding, collapse after taking a few steps. Johnson described the firearm used as a small, black semi-automatic. During cross-examination, he clarified his seating position in the vehicle driven by Bullock, stating he was in the rear passenger seat and did not witness the shooting, nor did he know the victim's gang affiliations.

Shontae Handy, a friend of the victim, testified that she was with friends when they decided to go to Wendy’s. As they entered the parking lot, she heard individuals in a green Mazda mention the victim and heard the driver tell him to "come get you one," implying a threat. Handy witnessed the driver shoot the victim as he approached the Mazda. Under cross-examination, she denied making several statements to police about her knowledge of the shooting dynamics and the victim's gang status.

Scotty George recounted being at Handy's house and later hearing gunfire while inside Wendy’s. He saw a black Mazda with flames coming from the driver’s side but could not identify the occupants. He confirmed seeing shots fired from the driver’s side but did not see who fired them. During cross-examination, he affirmed that he and his companions did not belong to a gang.

Tommy Walker, a friend of the victim, mentioned receiving a call from Chan Martin about a disturbance, which prompted their trip to Wendy’s. Upon arrival, he observed the victim running toward Martin’s car when the appellant began shooting.

Walker was a backseat passenger in Smith’s car during a shooting incident, observing George in front of him and confirming George never entered Wendy's. He reported seeing a Mazda 626, hearing multiple gunshots, and identified four or more occupants in the Mazda, including Jeremy Love in the front passenger seat and the appellant as the driver. Walker mentioned that he, the victim, and Shaun Bullock were not gang members and had no prior issues with the appellant. 

Officer Leslie Lynn of the Memphis Police Department responded to a shots-fired call at Wendy's on April 5, finding the victim shot in the chest. He secured the scene and interviewed upset witnesses, including Chan Martin, who accused the appellant of the shooting, and a girl named Tammy, who claimed to have witnessed the confrontation and shooting. Officer Lynn could not recall Tammy's last name during cross-examination.

Officer Ricky Davison recovered bullet casings and evidence from the scene, including bullet holes in various locations and bloodstains in the parking lot. Dr. Thomas Deering, the Chief Medical Examiner, conducted the autopsy, determining the victim died from a gunshot wound to the chest, with the bullet damaging vital organs.

Servera Brown, the victim's mother, testified that her son was not a gang member despite past school issues. Officer Louis T. Hall, Jr. assisted with the investigation on April 6, discovering a green vehicle at the appellant's home and later finding a holster and bullet holder in a storm drain linked to a suspicious vehicle report. 

Gregory Mathis, Jr., the appellant's brother, confirmed police interest in the appellant while at their mother’s home, noting that the appellant was not present, and the police towed a green Mazda 626 from the property.

Gregory Mathis stated there was nothing wrong with his black Nissan pickup truck's bumper and asserted he did not recall being instructed by the appellant to search his bedroom. Instead, Mathis searched his mother's home, finding a notebook, a bandana, a bullet container, and a plastic bag for a holster. He initially denied telling police about finding these items in the appellant's bedroom but later admitted to it. Mathis placed some items in a storm drain, believing it would assist the appellant. He allowed police to search his phone, which contained a picture of his licensed Smith and Wesson .45 caliber handgun. Mathis testified he had no direct knowledge of a shooting that occurred on April 5, 2004, and claimed the appellant never possessed his gun.

Officer Jimmy Chambers from the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department Gang Unit provided expert testimony on gangs, noting that blue typically symbolizes the Crips gang and that gang members often carry bandanas. He identified the blue bandana found as a gang "flag" with writing indicating affiliation with the "Rollin 20's Gangster Crip." He also mentioned that the notebook contained gang-related information. 

Officer Stacy Milligan of the Memphis Police Department documented bullet holes in a Mazda 626, concluding one bullet came from behind the driver’s side mirror, although he was not a ballistics expert. Special Agent Forensic Scientist Steve Scott from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation examined bullet fragments from the crime scene but could not definitively identify them, although he noted that the bullet recovered from the victim was consistent with a 9 mm. He confirmed that eight shell casings found at the scene were fired from the same weapon. Sergeant Connie Justice coordinated the investigation following the shooting at Wendy's and noted that police confiscated the Mazda 626 from the appellant’s garage the following day.

A bullet hole was found in the driver’s side mirror of a car involved in a shooting linked to a prior fight. Witness statements and photographic identifications led to the appellant becoming a suspect, culminating in his arrest and charging with first-degree murder. Sergeant Justice testified that Tommy Walker identified the appellant as the shooter, while she acknowledged that other witnesses also made similar identifications. Officer T. Alexander provided testimony that Shontae Handy reported hearing a male in a green Mazda making aggressive remarks and indicated that the shooting originated from the car's passenger seat. However, Alexander admitted he did not directly interview Handy and was not an investigator. Tamara Burrows, another witness, described the incident, confirming the shots came from a green Mazda but could not positively identify the shooter or where the shots originated from in the vehicle. The jury ultimately convicted the appellant of first-degree premeditated murder.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial court improperly allowed evidence of his alleged gang membership, claiming it was irrelevant and prejudicial. The State defended the admission of this evidence, asserting it was pertinent to the case. The appellate court noted that the appellant did not adequately support his arguments against the gang evidence or object to its introduction during the trial, leading to the conclusion that he was not entitled to relief.

The appellant has waived any objections to gang-related evidence as per Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36(a). However, he contested Officer Chambers’ testimony, who has extensive experience working with gangs since 1991, including formal training and participation in numerous seminars. Officer Chambers’ current role involves identifying gang activities in schools, and he has delivered over four hundred gang seminars. The State sought to qualify him as an expert in gang-related matters, arguing that his testimony would assist the jury in understanding the appellant's intent. The defense countered that the relevance of Officer Chambers’ testimony was limited to gang membership rather than the identity of the killer. 

The trial court ruled that Officer Chambers possessed sufficient specialized knowledge to qualify as an expert and that his testimony would be beneficial for the jury. On appeal, the appellant contended that gang activity is not a recognized area of expertise and questioned Officer Chambers’ qualifications, asserting that his testimony lacked substance. Tennessee Rule of Evidence 702 states that expert testimony must assist the trier of fact in understanding evidence or determining facts, and it allows for opinions based on the expert's knowledge and experience. Expert testimony must also be relevant and reliable, with the trial court holding discretion over its admissibility. The court found no merit in the appellant’s claims regarding the recognition of gang expertise and affirmed that Officer Chambers was qualified to testify based on both formal education and life experience.

In State v. Reid, the court addressed the qualifications of Officer Chambers as a gang expert witness, noting his extensive experience since 1991 and formal and informal training related to gang activities. The court upheld the trial court's decision to qualify Officer Chambers as an expert, emphasizing that his testimony was relevant to establish the appellant’s motive and intent to commit the shooting as gang-related retaliation, a key aspect of the prosecution's case for first-degree murder. Although the appellant claimed the primary issue was the identity of the shooter, the court reiterated the necessity for the State to prove premeditation, which the gang affiliation evidence supported. 

Additionally, the appellant contested the admissibility of a photograph from Gregory Mathis' cellular phone showing a handgun, arguing it was irrelevant and prejudicial. While the court found the photograph irrelevant, it determined that the error in admitting the evidence was harmless. Mathis confirmed the handgun belonged to him and that he had a permit to carry it, with no police action taken against him regarding the weapon. The court underscored that relevant evidence is that which makes any consequential fact more or less probable. Ultimately, the court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to relief on these grounds.

The State failed to present evidence linking the gun in question to the victim’s murder, and while Gregory Mathis testified that the gun was his and he was licensed to carry it, no evidence established a connection to the crime. Consequently, the trial court's admission of evidence related to the gun was deemed irrelevant, though it was concluded that this error did not influence the jury's verdict. 

Regarding the admission of a photograph of the victim's heart, the appellant argued that it was unnecessary for resolving any disputed issues and was inflammatory. The State countered that the photograph aided in explaining the victim's cause of death and was not gruesome. The trial court initially found the photograph admissible, though it acknowledged the decision was close. However, the conclusion was that the photograph had no significant probative value, especially since other evidence already demonstrated the victim's gunshot wound. The defense did not contest the cause of death, and Dr. Deering's testimony sufficiently described the injuries without needing the photograph. Ultimately, while the trial court erred in admitting the heart photograph, this error was determined to be harmless.

The trial court erred in admitting a photograph into evidence, as it did not contribute to the testimony; however, this error was deemed harmless because the photograph was not gruesome and unlikely to have influenced the trial's outcome. The appellant also challenged the jury instruction on criminal responsibility for the conduct of another, arguing it was improper since no other individuals were charged. The court upheld the trial court's decision, asserting that a person can be criminally responsible for an offense committed by another if they acted with intent to assist or benefit from the crime. The appellant's intent can be inferred from their presence and actions surrounding the offense. Criminal responsibility is not a separate crime; an indictment for the principal offense encompasses this theory. The trial judge has a duty to provide a complete and correct charge on the law relevant to the case, and the jury must receive instructions that accurately reflect the legal issues as supported by the evidence. The court concluded that the instruction on criminal responsibility was appropriate given that the evidence indicated the appellant drove accomplices to the crime location.

The group involved in the incident was armed and sought to retaliate against Chan Martin and the victim due to a prior altercation on April 3. During the trial, the appellant implied that a passenger in the Mazda shot the victim. Evidence suggested that the appellant not only assisted in the shooting but also intended to harm the victim alongside the other males in the Mazda. The trial court correctly provided a criminal responsibility instruction. 

The appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and a lack of established premeditation. However, the State maintained that the evidence met the necessary threshold. The appellate standard for reviewing evidence sufficiency is whether, when viewed favorably to the prosecution, a rational jury could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence or substitute its own inferences for those made by the jury. 

To convict the appellant of first-degree premeditated murder, the State needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intentionally killed the victim with premeditation. Premeditation, defined as an act following reflection and judgment, does not require a prolonged intent prior to the act. Tennessee courts consider various factors to infer premeditation, such as the appellant's relationship with the victim, any declarations of intent to kill, planning activities, the manner of the killing, and the appellant's demeanor before and after the act.

On April 3, 2005, the victim and Chan Martin engaged in a fight with the appellant’s friend, Karin. In retaliation for this altercation, on April 5, the appellant and five associates went to a Wendy’s to confront Martin and the victim. Martin, perceiving a threat, called the victim for assistance. In response, two vehicles filled with young men arrived at Wendy’s. Upon arrival, the victim and Dante Johnson noticed the appellant’s green Mazda parked next to Martin’s car, with an unidentified male leaning into Martin's vehicle. Shontae Handy, in a nearby car, overheard a comment from the Mazda referring to the victim, indicating they were aware of his approach. Witnesses testified that the appellant provoked the victim with the phrase "Come get you one" before opening fire, resulting in the victim's death from a gunshot wound to the heart. The court determined that the evidence demonstrated premeditation on the appellant's part, as he arrived armed and initiated the confrontation. Although there were inconsistencies in the witness testimonies, the jury resolved these in favor of the State, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's judgment.