Dewayne Jordan was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first-degree premeditated murder of Christopher Burchette, first-degree felony murder of Leandre Maclin, and aggravated robbery of Timothy Woods. He received two consecutive life sentences for the murder convictions and a concurrent ten-year sentence for the robbery. On appeal, he raised three primary issues: sufficiency of evidence for his convictions, the admissibility of his statement as evidence, and the trial court's decision to impose consecutive life sentences. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
The underlying facts reveal that on October 28, 1996, Jordan, along with Anthony Phillips and Eric Chambers, visited the home of Michael Lawrence, initially to check a car's brakes and subsequently to acquire marijuana. After contacting cocaine dealer Timothy Woods, the group went to Leandre Maclin's home. Upon arrival, Chambers brandished a gun at Woods, leading to a chaotic scene where Woods fled, hearing gunshots as he escaped. Meanwhile, Jordan forced Maclin into the car, where Lawrence observed Jordan with a gun and expressed his desire to avoid involvement in any violence.
The Defendant in this case sought information from Maclin regarding Woods’ location, leading to a drive to Woods' apartment with Lawrence. Following this, Woods discovered his car was missing and reported it stolen after being taken to his grandmother's home by his cousin, Terry Jones. Upon returning to his apartment, Woods found his roommate, Christopher Burchette, dead on the floor, and the apartment ransacked, with cocaine missing from a safe. Two weeks later, on November 11, 1996, the Defendant and Phillips were arrested. During interrogation, the Defendant was read his rights multiple times and provided a written statement admitting his involvement in the murders of Burchette and Maclin.
The Defendant later filed a motion to suppress this statement, claiming it was coerced, violating his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Tennessee Constitution. The court ruled against the motion, affirming that the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant's statements were voluntary. The trial court evaluated the totality of circumstances surrounding the confession, ensuring it was not obtained through threats, violence, promises, or improper influence, and determined that the law enforcement's conduct did not overbear the Defendant's will.
A trial court’s findings at a suppression hearing are presumptively correct and should only be overturned if the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts them. The prevailing party on appeal is entitled to a favorable interpretation of the evidence. However, the appellate court is not bound by the trial court's legal conclusions. In this case, the Defendant was informed of his rights and voluntarily made a statement to police after being advised of his Miranda rights on the day of his arrest. Despite a clerical error in the statement regarding the Defendant’s name, he initialed and signed the statement, affirming its accuracy. Testimony from the interviewing officers indicated that the Defendant was not coerced into making his statement, and the trial court found their accounts more credible than those of the Defendant and his brother, who claimed interference during the interrogation. Consequently, the trial court's determination that the Defendant’s statement was given voluntarily was upheld.
Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the Defendant contended that the evidence presented at trial was inadequate for a conviction of first-degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and aggravated robbery. The appellate court applies a standard that considers whether a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing evidence favorably for the prosecution. This standard applies to both direct and circumstantial evidence, and the appellate court cannot re-evaluate or substitute its inferences for those drawn by the jury. The court must give the strongest legitimate view to the evidence in favor of the State.
Credibility of witnesses, the weight of evidence, and factual issues are determined by the trier of fact. A guilty verdict removes the presumption of innocence and places the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that the evidence was legally insufficient for conviction. Sufficient evidence was presented to convict the Defendant of aggravated robbery, felony murder, and first-degree premeditated murder. Michael Lawrence, an accomplice, testified that the Defendant participated in all crimes. The Defendant contends there was insufficient corroboration of Lawrence's testimony, which is required for conviction. However, corroborating evidence does not need to independently support a conviction but must connect the Defendant to the crime. Lawrence’s testimony was adequately corroborated by the Defendant's own admissions and testimony from Timothy Woods regarding the robbery of his car. Woods described how the Defendant and others confronted him, leading to a robbery that set the stage for the subsequent murders. The Defendant admitted to participating in Maclin's murder, stating it was necessary to prevent Maclin from being alive. The evidence supported the conviction for felony murder during the aggravated robbery. For the first-degree murder of Christopher Burchette, the prosecution needed to prove premeditation, which is defined as an act done after reflection. Premeditation requires that the intent to kill is formed before the act, with the mental state assessed at the time of the incident. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for both murder charges.
Premeditation in murder cases is determined by the jury and can be inferred from circumstances, such as the use of a deadly weapon on an unarmed victim and the defendant's intent to kill, as illustrated in the case of State v. Brown. In this instance, evidence indicated the defendant, who participated in the murder of Christopher Burchette, had premeditated the act, as he admitted to discussing the need to kill Burchette and Maclin to avoid potential repercussions. Burchette was unarmed and was tortured before being shot, which supported the conclusion of premeditated first-degree murder.
The defendant's claim of being outside the apartment during the murder does not absolve him of responsibility, as he intended to facilitate the crime. The law allows for criminal responsibility when a person aids or promotes the commission of an offense.
Regarding sentencing, the trial court has discretion to impose consecutive sentences if the defendant is classified as a dangerous offender, which applies when the behavior shows little regard for human life. The court found the defendant to be a dangerous offender due to the nature of the killings, which involved torture and execution-style shootings of unarmed victims. The trial court justified consecutive sentencing based on the need to protect the public and the calculated nature of the crimes, affirming that such sentences were necessary given the defendant's conduct, including threats made against a witness. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
