State of Tennessee v. Larry J. Noel

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2005-01958-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; August 4, 2006; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Larry J. Noel was convicted by a Lauderdale County jury on charges of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault, retaliation for past action, unlawful possession of a weapon, and driving on a revoked license, stemming from the shooting of Norma Noel on April 13, 2004. In his appeal, Noel contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted first-degree murder. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee reviewed the record and upheld the trial court's judgment, affirming the conviction. 

During the trial, testimony revealed that Noel had marital issues and a restraining order against him regarding Norma Noel. A friend, Keith Chaney, testified that Noel had expressed intentions to harm Norma if court proceedings did not go in his favor, specifically stating that she would be "dead before lunchtime." Chaney also confirmed that Noel owned several firearms, including a Colt .45 handgun. Although Chaney could not pinpoint the exact timing of when he saw Noel with the firearm, he indicated it was shortly before the incident. 

Marshall Ricks, a former employee of Noel, testified about their court appearance on the day of the shooting, noting that the judge had issued a stay-away order between Noel and Norma, to which Noel reacted without visible distress. The Court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment, maintaining Noel's convictions based on the evidence presented.

Ricks recounted an event following a court appearance where he and the defendant returned to an auto-body shop. After a brief stay, Ricks started a beige Riviera, which he believed belonged to the defendant. The defendant suggested they go out for lunch, and he drove the Riviera toward City Hall, where Ricks spotted Mrs. Noel turning left near Cowboy Cleaners. Ricks noted the defendant was driving unusually fast, exceeding the thirty-mile-per-hour limit, and stopped at a three-way stop to let other cars pass. When Ricks questioned the delay, the defendant did not respond. As Mrs. Noel entered the intersection, the defendant cut her off, prompting Ricks to caution him not to engage with her, as they had just left court. Ricks observed the defendant acting erratically, including yelling at Mrs. Noel and expressing feelings of love toward her.

During this encounter, Ricks saw the defendant pull out a pistol from his pants before firing two shots in Mrs. Noel's direction, with the second shot occurring as they drove away. Ricks quickly exited the vehicle to check on Mrs. Noel, who claimed she had been shot and couldn't move her legs. He called 911 from a nearby flower shop and returned to assist her; she later gave him money for her son. Ricks later witnessed the defendant being booked at jail, where he claimed, in the presence of law enforcement, that "he didn’t shoot his wife, the judge did." Ricks testified that earlier, the defendant had boasted about having a gun in court, although Ricks had not seen it. On cross-examination, Ricks recalled the defendant saying Mrs. Noel didn't need to lie about their relationship. He also noted that on April 12th, the defendant had asked him to retrieve a Colt .45 from a cabinet at the shop, a gun Ricks had not seen the defendant use before.

Tawanna Smith testified that on the morning of April 13th, she observed a two-door cream car, resembling a Cadillac, at a stop sign. The driver hesitated to proceed, allowing two other vehicles to pass before finally pulling out in front of a white Grand Am and alongside it.

Smith witnessed the driver of a Cadillac engage with the driver of a Grand Am before pulling a gun and firing two shots, noting that the shooter adjusted his position before the second shot. She only noticed a passenger in the Cadillac when he jumped out after the shooting, identified as Ricks, who fled toward the Grand Am. Officer James Drake responded to the shooting incident at 11:30 a.m. on April 13th. While he did not interrogate the defendant during transport, he reported that the defendant spoke extensively, expressing feelings of being misunderstood by others and showing no concern for Mrs. Noel, stating, "I wouldn’t have shot her if I did." 

Corporal Rhonda Mack, the booking officer, recalled the defendant discussing Mrs. Noel, claiming he shot her and mentioning the use of a .44 caliber handgun. He dismissed concerns for her safety, asserting that if he wanted her dead, she would be. During booking, the defendant indicated that a metal detector had gone off due to his gun, which he initially attributed to his belt buckle. Corporal Mack noted a personal connection with the defendant as he was the brother-in-law of a friend. 

Corporal Paige corroborated that he, Corporal Mack, and Ricks were present during the defendant's booking. He recalled the defendant claiming he could have killed his wife when he entered the courtroom and suggesting that the judge was to blame for the situation due to the restraining order. Mrs. Noel testified that she was still legally married to the defendant at the time of the shooting, having filed for divorce and obtained a restraining order shortly before the incident, which was the reason for their court appearance on April 13th. She recounted the defendant's comments to the judge about salvaging their marriage at the hearing's conclusion.

Mrs. Noel testified that after attending a hearing, she drove home and encountered the defendant’s car on Main Street, where he obstructed her turn onto Highland Street and brandished a gun. She witnessed him pull up alongside her vehicle and, while lying down for safety, heard two gunshots, one of which struck her, resulting in immediate paralysis. She spent over a month in the hospital, where doctors were unable to remove the bullet. Mrs. Noel noted an active order of protection against the defendant from April 13, 2004, which mandated he refrain from any abuse or threats. During cross-examination, she acknowledged a history of an on-and-off relationship with the defendant, including a previous order of protection, and admitted to having contact during the expiration of that order. She denied calling the defendant on the night before the shooting and refuted claims that she believed he did not intend to kill her. Mrs. Noel confirmed seeing the gun in his hand and heard Ricks, a passenger, yell at the defendant not to shoot her. 

Lieutenant Steve Sanders of the Ripley Police Department recounted an incident on April 13, 2004, where the defendant approached him with a handgun, claiming he had just shot Norma and expressing frustration with her and the judicial system. Sanders instructed the defendant to park his car and wait at the station while he investigated the scene, where he found two gunshot impacts on Mrs. Noel's vehicle. The defendant mentioned to Sanders that Mrs. Noel had obtained an order of protection against him but hoped for reconciliation. The defendant's brother, Kenneth Stowe, testified about the tumultuous nature of the defendant and Mrs. Noel's relationship, while Marcy Rhea provided testimony regarding the defendant's previous lease from her father and occasional conversations with him.

Rhea testified about an existing order of protection against the defendant concerning Mrs. Noel during his lease of an apartment. She observed the two together despite the order and had a phone conversation with Mrs. Noel the night before her court appearance, which led her to believe the defendant and Mrs. Noel had communicated. Additionally, Dr. Pamela Auble, a psychological expert, revealed that the defendant had a history of mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder, panic attacks, and major depression, stemming from a traumatic event in 1989. Dr. Auble concluded that the defendant's emotional state on the day of the shooting was one of distress, and he was prone to explosive behavior when under stress, although he would likely not remember the specific events clearly. During cross-examination, it was noted that the defendant had found suspicious items on his wife’s phone the day before the incident. Dr. Auble was unaware of the restraining order prior to the shooting and maintained that her opinion on premeditation would not change even with additional context about the defendant waiting armed at a stop for Mrs. Noel. She noted that the public nature of the shooting indicated strong emotions rather than premeditated planning. The defense referenced Stowe's testimony, where Mrs. Noel expressed disbelief that the defendant intended to kill her. Ultimately, the jury convicted the defendant of several charges, resulting in a twenty-three year sentence and a fifty dollar fine.

The defendant argues that the evidence supporting his conviction for attempted first-degree murder is insufficient, claiming he lacked the ability to reflect and exercise judgment necessary for premeditation. Once a jury finds a defendant guilty, the presumption of innocence is replaced by a presumption of guilt, placing the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that no rational jury could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, granting the state the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and resolving all conflicts in favor of the state. 

Premeditation requires that the intent to kill is formed before the act, free from excitement and passion, and may be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as intent declarations, weapon procurement, and the use of a deadly weapon against an unarmed victim. The state needed to prove that the defendant acted with reflection and judgment in his attempt to kill. Evidence presented included the defendant's statement to a friend about killing the victim, the retrieval of a gun the night before the shooting, threats made in court, and the actual shooting incident. The jury found that the defendant possessed the necessary ability for premeditation based on these circumstances. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the conviction.