State of Tennessee v. Lorenzo Malone

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2003-02770-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; June 27, 2005; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Lorenzo Malone was convicted of first-degree felony murder by a Wilson County jury, which found him guilty under the theory of criminal responsibility. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole. Malone's appeal raised three main issues: 1) the trial court’s refusal to strike a potential juror for cause; 2) the admission of victim photographs and a videotape into evidence; and 3) the denial of a mistrial due to alleged impropriety in the State’s closing argument. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. 

The facts indicate that in August 2001, Malone, along with co-defendants Harvey Baker and Richard Porter, entered the home of 83-year-old Robbie Jones with the intent to commit a robbery. Baker killed Jones using the butt of a shotgun while Malone, armed with a shotgun, attempted to break into a gun case. After the robbery, they fled but later returned to retrieve a shell casing. The investigation led to Malone’s arrest, during which he admitted his involvement and was found in possession of stolen items from Jones' home, including a shotgun and various stolen firearms discovered at the residences of his relatives.

A prospective juror, formerly a clerk at the District Attorney’s office, was deemed impartial by the trial court after questioning, leading to the court's refusal to dismiss her for cause. The defendant used a peremptory strike instead. During the trial, the State sought to introduce post-mortem photographs of the victim, prompting a jury-out hearing where Dr. Bruce Levy, the medical examiner, testified that the photographs were relevant to his testimony. The trial court ruled the photographs admissible, finding their probative value outweighed any prejudicial impact. The defendant did not present any evidence and moved for a mistrial after closing arguments, citing improper argument scope, but the motion was denied. The jury convicted the defendant of first-degree felony murder under the theory of criminal responsibility, resulting in a life sentence with the possibility of parole. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in not dismissing the juror for cause, claiming prejudice due to the necessity of using a peremptory challenge. The State contends the trial court's decision was correct or, alternatively, harmless. Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure allow challenges for cause based on juror qualifications and exposure to prejudicial information, though trial courts have broad discretion in these matters. The defendant’s argument hinges on the potential juror's earlier statement indicating discomfort with her prior association, but she ultimately affirmed her ability to evaluate the evidence impartially.

The trial court assessed a potential juror's impartiality, considering her prior relationship with the prosecutor. Although the juror expressed potential discomfort, the court determined she could remain impartial. The defendant argued that the juror should have been struck for cause, but the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, noting it is in a better position to evaluate juror demeanor. The defendant claimed the trial court's questioning hindered the juror's ability to disclose bias, yet the defense had the opportunity to further question her, and no manifest error was shown. The court emphasized that any juror exclusion error is harmless unless a fair jury was compromised, which was not demonstrated here.

Regarding evidentiary issues, the defendant contested the admission of photographs of the victim and a videotape as prejudicial and irrelevant. The court found the photographs relevant to the cause of death and noted that the defendant waived the appeal of the videotape's admissibility by failing to include it in the record. The trial court's discretion in admitting evidence is respected unless an abuse of discretion is proven, which the defendant did not establish. The admission of the photographs was deemed appropriate and aligned with legal standards.

A trial court must first assess the relevance of a photograph before admitting it as evidence, as outlined in State v. Cole and Tenn. R. Evid. 401. Following this, Rule 403 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence allows for exclusion if the probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, placing a heavy burden on the party seeking exclusion. The defendant argues that photographs of the victim are irrelevant since the cause of death was uncontested and his conviction was based on criminal responsibility, which does not require proof of intent or state of mind. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court's ruling in State v. Robinson counters this, stating that a defendant's characterization of evidence as undisputed does not limit the prosecution's right to present its case. Photographs can demonstrate the brutality of the attack, providing context for malice, as supported by precedent in State v. Bush and State v. Brown. The Supreme Court emphasizes a liberal policy in admitting photographs, and the trial court, having considered the objections and medical examiner testimony, determined the photographs were relevant to explaining the cause and manner of death, despite their limited relevance to the defendant's state of mind. The prosecution retains the right to present its case comprehensively.

Dr. Levy selected photographs to support his testimony regarding the cause and manner of death, which the trial court deemed relevant and compliant with Rule 403. The court found no error in its legal standard or the admission of the photographs, concluding there was no abuse of discretion. 

The defendant contended that the State's closing argument included improper remarks beyond the evidence presented. The State argued that the defendant waived this claim by not objecting during the trial and asserted that any errors would not have affected the verdict due to the substantial evidence against the defendant. 

In response to the defendant's motion for a mistrial, he argued the prosecutor made statements not supported by evidence, including comments about the victim's character and referring to the defendant and his co-defendants in derogatory terms. For appellate relief on claims of prosecutorial misconduct without contemporaneous objections, the remarks must meet the 'plain error' standard, which requires the establishment of five specific factors. After evaluating these factors, the court determined that the remarks did not undermine the trial's fairness or outcome, leading to the conclusion that the issue was without merit. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.