State of Tennessee v. Quawn L. Lillard

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2001-02136-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; November 14, 2002; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Quawn L. Lillard appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault in Davidson County Criminal Court. He argues that the evidence was insufficient for conviction and challenges the admissibility of a victim's identification testimony. The court affirms the trial court's judgments. The incident occurred on August 20, 1999, during a neighborhood block party in West Nashville, where Dalton Pitts was visiting his girlfriend, Fatima Jones, at her home. Pitts asked Jones to get change for a $100 bill, but upon her return, she informed him that the store was closed. Later, two men, one identified as “Melvin” and the other as Lillard, entered the bedroom. Initially, they invited Pitts to go to the store, but upon returning with a sawed-off shotgun, they demanded money. Lillard fired a shot that narrowly missed Pitts, prompting him to surrender the $100 bill. After the incident, Jones identified the suspects to the police as “Melvin” and “Quawn,” and Pitts was shown photographs to identify the assailants.

Pitts identified the defendant as one of the assailants in a robbery, noting that the other robber lacked hair, while all men in the second set of photos had hair. At the preliminary hearing and trial, Pitts consistently recognized the defendant. Ms. Burns testified that on August 20, the defendant and Melvin Waters visited her home, where she requested their departure. To prevent their return, she sought help from Shawn Lillard, the defendant's sister. While they conversed, a gunshot was heard, prompting Ms. Burns to enter her home, where she saw Melvin Waters flee and confronted the defendant, who was armed. After the defendant escaped, she checked on Pitts, who was distressed and located in a bedroom with a bullet hole in the bed. Ms. Burns reported the incident to the police and identified the defendant as “Quawn Lillard.” Shawn Lillard, who had been drinking that night, testified she was about 30 feet from the Burns residence and denied seeing the defendant there. She described hearing someone scream but did not approach the incident. Although initially reluctant, she eventually acknowledged the defendant's presence that evening when he approached her for a drink. During police questioning, Shawn Lillard denied seeing the defendant exit the Burns residence and claimed she faced threats from officers to cooperate. She transported Pitts, Jones, and Ms. Burns to the police department for photographic identification but asserted she did not identify Melvin from the pictures.

Detective William Stewart led the investigation into a robbery, where Shawn Lillard identified her brother Quawn as involved, noting he carried a shotgun. Detective Stewart confirmed he made no threats or promises to Lillard. Detective Jeff Ball conducted photographic lineups; Lillard provided information on a suspect named Melvin, leading to an identification from a compilation of 53 images. Both Jones and Pitts identified the co-defendant, while Jones and Pitts did not initially recognize the defendant. Jones recounted a robbery incident involving both defendants, stating she saw a gun and fled to find her mother, after which the gun discharged. Lillard reportedly informed the police about her brother’s involvement upon their arrival. The police arrested both the defendant and co-defendant Waters, who faced multiple charges including aggravated robbery and assault. They were tried together, resulting in Waters' conviction for facilitation and related charges, while the defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery and assault. The defendant received a fourteen-year sentence for aggravated robbery and six years for aggravated assault, to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and a lack of thorough police investigation. The appellate court's standard allows for conviction only if evidence supports the jury's findings beyond a reasonable doubt, giving deference to the jury's credibility assessments of witness testimony.

The appellate court reviews evidence favorably towards the state following a conviction, allowing all reasonable inferences from the evidence. Issues regarding witness credibility and testimony weight are determined by the trier of fact and not subject to appellate review. A conviction removes the presumption of innocence and creates a presumption of guilt, which the defendant must overcome. Robbery is defined as the theft of property from another through violence or fear, with aggravated robbery occurring when a deadly weapon is involved or serious bodily injury is inflicted. Assault involves causing fear of imminent bodily injury, and it is aggravated when a deadly weapon is used or displayed.

In this case, sufficient evidence supported the conclusion that the defendant committed aggravated robbery and aggravated assault against Mr. Pitts. The defendant, along with an accomplice, threatened Pitts in a bedroom, and the defendant fired a shotgun near him, leading Pitts to surrender his money. Witness Jones, who was present, testified to hearing demands for money and seeing the gun, prompting her to flee in fear. The evidence was overwhelming, justifying the jury's findings, and the failure to instruct on additional lesser-included offenses was deemed harmless error due to the clarity of the evidence.

The defendant also contested his convictions based on the claim that Jones’s pretrial identification was influenced improperly. The trial court, after a hearing, upheld the identification, and the appellate review is limited to affirming the trial court's factual findings unless they are contrary to the evidence. The trial judge is responsible for assessing witness credibility and resolving evidence conflicts.

Testimony presented at trial can influence the review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, with a de novo standard applied for legal application to facts. For an identification to be admissible, it must not be impermissibly suggestive, creating a substantial risk of misidentification. The Supreme Court established five reliability factors for assessing identification: the witness's opportunity to view the perpetrator, degree of attention, accuracy of prior description, certainty at confrontation, and the time elapsed between the crime and identification. These factors have been adopted in Tennessee case law. 

In this case, the trial court found no evidence suggesting that Detective Ball's photographic lineup was conducted in a suggestive manner, noting the similarity of the individuals’ physical characteristics and that the lineups were not included in the appellate record. The defendant did not contest the trial court's characterization of the lineup process, and there were no grounds to challenge how the lineups were presented. 

The trial court evaluated Jones's identification of the defendant, acknowledging her prior opportunities to view the assailants and her testimony regarding lighting conditions. Jones recognized the defendant upon entry into the bedroom and described the weapon he carried. She identified the defendant's photograph immediately after the robbery, which occurred shortly before the lineup. The trial court found that the reliability factors favored the identification, leading to its admissibility at trial. The reviewing body affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the correct legal standards were applied and that the evidence supported the ruling on the identification's reliability.