Defendant Mike Edwards was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to seventeen years as a Range II, multiple offender. He does not contest the sentence length but raises three arguments on appeal: (1) insufficient evidence to support his conviction, (2) the indictment's failure to state an offense, and (3) lack of proof that the crime occurred before the indictment was returned. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, after reviewing the record, affirmed the trial court's judgment.
The background involves an incident on August 6, 2003, when Defendant and an accomplice, Christopher Wilson, visited the home of Cheryl Ann Webber and her husband, Henry Webber. Despite being informed that repairs to their roof were already arranged, Wilson later returned under the pretense of needing to use the telephone. He brandished a knife, instilling fear in the victims, and demanded money. During the encounter, Wilson expressed anxiety about the situation and requested forty dollars, ultimately receiving thirty-two dollars from the Webbers before cutting their telephone line. The court's opinion concluded that the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction.
Mr. Wilson exited the house, prompting Mr. Webber to follow him onto the porch, where Mr. Wilson requested Mr. Webber to return inside. Mr. Wilson then fled to the alley. Mr. Webber called 911, describing Mr. Wilson as unthreatening, despite his possession of a knife. Mr. Webber indicated familiarity with Defendant, who frequently asked him for money, but he did not know Mr. Wilson, who often expressed paranoia about being targeted by others.
Mr. Wilson claimed to be Defendant's cousin, stating they had spent the day consuming drugs and alcohol. After exhausting their drugs, they drove to the Webbers’ house in Defendant’s vehicle, where Defendant handed Mr. Wilson a knife and instructed him to demand money from Mr. Webber, threatening consequences for failure to comply. Feeling intimidated, Mr. Wilson complied, knocking on the door and ultimately robbing Mr. Webber of money while expressing remorse and fear for his safety.
Following the robbery, Mr. Wilson discarded the knife in the Webbers' backyard and returned to Defendant, who then fled the scene. Both were arrested shortly thereafter at a location connected to Mr. Wilson’s mother. During their arrest, Defendant allegedly urged Mr. Wilson to flee and influenced his initial testimony in court to protect himself. Mr. Webber's 911 call described the robbery, specifying the suspect's appearance and intoxication level, and mentioned that the assailant claimed threats from individuals in a car. Subsequent calls to 911 from Ms. Edwards, Defendant’s wife, indicated that she recognized the suspects and reported their vehicle's details to the police.
Ms. Edwards initially informed Officer Myrick that the Defendant was driving a vehicle involved in a robbery, but requested discretion due to her familial ties. She later identified a second suspect, Christopher, as Larry Bowden’s step-son. Officer Burns, while taking a statement from Mr. Webber, learned that two suspects had been arrested nearby. Mr. Webber identified Mr. Wilson as the assailant, and both suspects were read their Miranda rights. Mr. Wilson admitted to the robbery, stating he coerced the Defendant to help him due to his own physical limitations. He also mentioned changing clothes afterward, claiming the Defendant planned to destroy the garments worn during the crime. The details provided by Mr. Wilson largely matched Mr. Webber's account of the incident. Upon arrest, Mr. Wilson discarded approximately twenty dollars, which matched the amount found on the Defendant.
Ms. Edwards discovered a white tee-shirt and blue cap linked to the robbery on their property and reported this to the police. During cross-examination, it was revealed that a knife used in the robbery was never recovered, and Mr. Wilson was the only witness to connect the red Blazer to the crime scene. Defense witnesses, including Defendant’s mother, testified that the Defendant was with them on the night of the robbery, noting he had gone to pick up a check and later left with Mr. Wilson to discuss a roofing job. Ms. Jennifer Edwards recounted hearing the robbery report and seeing Mr. Wilson enter their home wearing the described clothing, prompting her to call the police for his apprehension. She denied stating to Officer Taylor that both men had committed the robbery. Officer Taylor corroborated that Ms. Edwards identified the clothing linked to Mr. Wilson during his visit following her report.
Ms. Brenda Faye Lee testified as a rebuttal witness, stating that she is Mr. Wilson’s aunt and the Defendant’s cousin. She recounted an incident on August 6, 2003, when Defendant and Mr. Wilson arrived at her apartment around 11:30 p.m., claiming their car had broken down and requesting to use the phone. Noticing Mr. Wilson appeared distressed, Ms. Lee described him as 'blue around the mouth' and frightened, while Defendant urged Mr. Wilson to stop crying. After making a call to his wife, Defendant mentioned that "the law" was on the way. Subsequently, both men fled before the police arrived, with Defendant allegedly warning Mr. Wilson to remain silent.
In a surrebuttal, Ms. Delores Edwards testified that she did not overhear Ms. Jennifer Edwards inform Officer Taylor that Defendant and Mr. Wilson had committed a robbery.
The Defendant contended that the evidence against him was solely circumstantial and insufficient to establish his involvement in the robbery of Mr. and Mrs. Webber, particularly arguing that there was no proof of his presence at the crime scene. He noted discrepancies in Mr. Wilson's statements, which referred to 'they' threatening him, rather than implicating Defendant directly. Additionally, while the State proved Mr. Wilson committed aggravated robbery, the Defendant claimed it did not demonstrate that he was intentionally or knowingly involved with a deadly weapon.
In evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, the court must view it favorably for the prosecution, determining if a rational jury could find all elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Once a jury renders a guilty verdict, the presumption of innocence shifts to a presumption of guilt, which the Defendant must overcome. The jury is expected to resolve conflicts and draw reasonable inferences in favor of the State, while credibility and factual issues are for the jury to decide. The definition of aggravated robbery involves robbery with a deadly weapon, and a defendant can be held responsible for crimes committed by another if they are criminally accountable.
Criminal responsibility for an offense committed by another requires intent to promote or assist the offense, or to benefit from its proceeds, and includes actions such as solicitation, direction, or aiding. Tennessee law allows for inference of participation based on presence with the perpetrator before and after the crime. Physical involvement is unnecessary; mere encouragement suffices. Convictions cannot rely solely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony; independent corroborative evidence must establish both the commission of a crime and the defendant's identity. In this case, Mr. Wilson's testimony implicated the Defendant while victim testimony corroborated Mr. Wilson's account of threatening the victims with a knife during a robbery. Ms. Edwards and Ms. Lee provided additional details linking the Defendant to the crime scene, including his presence with Mr. Wilson before and after the offense. The act of driving the perpetrator to and from the crime scene is considered aiding and participating in the crime. The Defendant's actions, including warning Mr. Wilson about police and possessing twenty dollars upon arrest, supported a conviction for aggravated robbery under the theory of criminal responsibility. The Defendant also contended that the indictment for aggravated robbery was defective, claiming it failed to state an offense, contained contradictory language, and combined elements of multiple offenses.
On March 1, 2004, the Henry County Grand Jury indicted Mike Edwards for aggravated robbery, alleging that on August 6, 2003, he intentionally aided Christopher Wilson in stealing money from Henry and Ann Weber using a knife, thereby instilling fear in the victims. Edwards contended that the indictment was flawed because it included language regarding criminal responsibility, which he argued constitutes a separate offense from aggravated robbery. He asserted that under both the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions, an indictment must clearly inform the accused of the nature of the charges, and he cited Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-13-202, which mandates clarity and conciseness in indictments.
The court, referencing State v. Lemacks, clarified that criminal responsibility is not a distinct offense but a theory to establish guilt based on another's conduct. It concluded that the language concerning criminal responsibility in Edwards' indictment was surplusage and did not invalidate the charge of aggravated robbery, which was sufficiently articulated with a proper statutory citation. The court ruled that an indictment can still be valid even if surplus language is removed, provided the essential elements of the offense remain clear.
Additionally, Edwards argued that he was not given a preliminary hearing for aggravated robbery, although he acknowledged having one for criminal responsibility. He claimed the trial court erred in not allowing a new preliminary hearing. However, the court noted that he failed to provide legal authority or references to the record to support this claim, leading to the conclusion that this issue was waived.
Defendant is not entitled to relief even if his issue is considered on the merits. The right to a preliminary hearing is governed by Rules 5 and 5.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, which require a hearing when a defendant is arrested before a grand jury can determine probable cause. The State cannot evade this requirement through bad faith actions, as established in prior cases. There is no evidence in this case suggesting the State acted in bad faith when upgrading the charge from facilitation of aggravated robbery to aggravated robbery.
On appeal, Defendant claims the State failed to prove that the aggravated robbery occurred before the indictment was returned, asserting this constitutes plain error under Rule 52(b). This rule allows the appellate court to notice substantial rights violations at any time, even if not raised in earlier motions. For plain error review, five factors must be assessed: clarity of trial court records, breach of a clear legal rule, adverse effect on substantial rights, absence of tactical waiver, and necessity for substantial justice.
Tennessee law requires that a conviction can only occur if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed prior to the formal charge. Defendant argues that the indictment does not specify the timing of the offense. However, the indictment indicates the offense occurred on or about August 6, 2003, prior to its return on March 1, 2004. Notably, the indictment was not read to the jury, which the State concedes.
If the indictment is not presented to the jury, the State can fulfill its burden of proof by questioning a relevant witness about whether the defendant's actions occurred before the charges were filed. Officer Burns testified about taking Mr. Webber to the location where the defendant was apprehended shortly after the August 6, 2003 robbery. He confirmed that the initial charge against the defendant was for criminal responsibility for the facilitation of a felony, which was later amended to aggravated robbery after discussions with the District Attorney’s Office. The court found that the State demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense occurred prior to the formal charges being made, concluding there was no plain error and denying the defendant relief. The trial court's judgments were affirmed by Judge Thomas T. Woodall.
