Ricky Joe Awatt was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder of Junecus Bolden in the Madison County Circuit Court and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, Awatt contested the admission of certain testimony and the State's rebuttal closing argument. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment after reviewing the record and briefs.
The factual background indicates that, weeks before the murder on January 16, 2002, Awatt expressed a desire to kill Bolden due to a perceived threat to his brother, Elliot Awatt. On the night of the incident, after a failed attempt to install a CD player at the Moore residence, Awatt conspired with the Moore brothers to lure Bolden to an abandoned house under the pretense of finding the CD player. Once outside, the Moores and Awatt physically assaulted Bolden. Shortly thereafter, Awatt shot Bolden with a sawed-off shotgun, leading to his death. Following the incident, Awatt informed Anthony Williamson about the assault on Bolden.
Anthony instructed the appellant to visit Ernest's house, after which they returned to Anthony's residence, where the appellant confessed to killing Mr. Bolden. He claimed that he and his cousins, Coty and Corey, had assaulted Bolden before the appellant shot him. The appellant then urged the Williamsons to assist in moving Bolden's body, which they reluctantly did. Driving Bolden's car, the appellant, accompanied by the Williamsons, transported the body to an abandoned white house nearby, loaded it into the trunk, and covered it with a quilt. Lacking a driver's license, the appellant asked Anthony to drive them to the south fork of Forked Deer River, where they disposed of Bolden's car by sliding it into the river. Ernest then drove the group home.
Later, the appellant sought help from Corey to collect shotgun shells from the crime scene, which they later discarded on the roadside. Bolden’s car and body were discovered early on January 17, 2002, prompting police investigations involving the appellant, the Moores, and the Williamsons, as they were friends of Bolden. Ultimately, the Moores and the Williamsons disclosed details of the incident, leading to the appellant's arrest and subsequent trial, where he was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
On appeal, the appellant raised two issues for consideration: (1) the trial court's alleged error in allowing State witnesses to view courtroom exhibits created by a previous witness, in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 615, which mandates sequestration of witnesses to prevent them from being influenced by others' testimony; and (2) the claim of plain error by the trial court allowing the State’s attorney to express personal opinions on the appellant's guilt and vouch for witness credibility during closing arguments. The appeal will address these issues, with a focus on the application of Rule 615 and the trial court's discretion in handling witness testimony.
The appellant's complaint involves the testimony of Ernest and Anthony Williamson regarding the events surrounding Bolden's death. During Ernest's direct examination, he identified locations on a diagram of the abandoned house (Exhibit 3) using stickers labeled 'EW 1,' 'EW 2,' and 'EW 3' to indicate where the car was parked, where it ultimately ended up, and where Bolden's body was located. Additionally, on a diagram of the south fork of Forked Deer River (Exhibit 5), Ernest placed sticker 'EW 4' to show where he parked while Bolden's vehicle moved towards the river.
When Anthony Williamson was called to testify, the appellant objected to him viewing the diagram with previously placed stickers, citing concerns about influencing his testimony. The trial court allowed Anthony to approach the diagrams but cautioned against him reading the initials. During his examination, Anthony placed stickers labeled 'AW 1' and 'AW 2' on the same diagrams to indicate where he recalled the car stopped and where he saw Bolden's body. He also placed a sticker on Exhibit 5 to denote where he stopped on the boat ramp.
On appeal, the appellant argued that allowing Anthony to approach the diagrams was akin to him hearing Ernest's prior testimony. Although the court acknowledged that Anthony should not have approached the diagrams, it found no evidence that the prior stickers influenced his testimony, as the placements differed and the questions asked were not identical. Thus, any potential violation of Rule 615 was deemed harmless.
Furthermore, the appellant challenged the State's closing argument, claiming it improperly expressed personal opinions on his guilt and vouched for the credibility of its witnesses. The appellant admitted to not objecting during the closing argument, which typically waives the issue. However, he argued that the trial court should have intervened and provided curative instructions due to the significance of witness credibility in the case.
The trial court did not correct the prosecutor or provide the jury with curative instructions, constituting 'plain error' under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b). For an error to be considered plain, five factors must be satisfied: 1) the trial record must clearly establish what occurred; 2) a clear rule of law must have been breached; 3) a substantial right of the accused must have been adversely affected; 4) the accused did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and 5) addressing the error is necessary for substantial justice. However, the court declined to address this as plain error.
Closing arguments are important, and counsel typically has significant latitude. Arguments must be temperate, evidence-based, relevant, and lawful. The appellant contended that the prosecutor's statement during rebuttal—implying the defendant deserved to be in jail—vouched for the credibility of the State's detectives. To determine if this constitutes reversible error, the court assessed the context, curative measures, intent of the prosecutor, cumulative effects of other errors, and the overall strength of the case.
The record lacked transcripts of the initial closing arguments, but the prosecutor's comments were deemed a response to the appellant's claims of corruption among State witnesses. The court found no impropriety in the State's rebuttal and affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that the appellant bears the burden of providing a complete record on appeal, which was not adequately met in this case.
