State of Tennessee v. Michael Cammon

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2001-00592-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; October 25, 2002; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Michael Cammon was convicted by a jury of robbery, aggravated assault, possession of over 300 grams of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and felony possession of a weapon, receiving concurrent sentences of three, three, twenty-two, and two years, respectively, to run consecutively to any prior sentences. In his appeal, Cammon raised three issues: insufficient corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony, a trial court error in jury instruction regarding the required amount of controlled substance, and failure to instruct on the lesser-included offense of simple assault. The court affirmed the convictions for narcotics and aggravated robbery but reversed the aggravated assault conviction, remanding for a new trial. 

The factual background details an incident on February 17, 1998, where Deputy Gregory Tillman stopped Cammon's vehicle for a traffic violation. Suspicious behavior led Tillman to suspect drug possession, prompting a request for a search, which Cammon denied. As Tillman attempted to detain him, a struggle ensued over Tillman's weapon, resulting in a shot being fired. Following the incident, Cammon's accomplice, Antonio McCray, fled and disposed of firearms and cocaine, which were later recovered by police.

McCray's testimony for the prosecution was challenged by the appellant, who argued that it lacked sufficient corroboration. In Tennessee, a defendant cannot be convicted solely on an accomplice's uncorroborated testimony. Corroborative evidence can be either direct or circumstantial and does not need to independently support a conviction but must connect the defendant to the crime. In this case, Deputy Tillman testified that the appellant gained control of an officer's pistol and fled. Additionally, an eyewitness saw a man resembling McCray dispose of items at a dumpster where weapons and drugs were later discovered, corroborating McCray's statements. Thus, McCray's testimony was deemed sufficiently corroborated.

The appellant also argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on how to assess accomplice testimony. However, since the defense did not request such an instruction, the court's omission was not considered an error.

Furthermore, the appellant contended that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it needed to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed over 300 grams of cocaine, which is an essential element of the charged offense. It is established that such an instruction is necessary, and its absence constitutes an error. Nonetheless, this error can be subject to harmless error analysis. In this instance, the appellant did not dispute the evidence regarding the cocaine amount or the chain of custody, and the indictment explicitly charged him with possession of over 300 grams. Precedent established in a similar case found such an error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and so it was concluded here as well.

Lastly, the appellant claimed that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple assault in the context of his conviction for aggravated assault. This necessitates an examination of the elements of both offenses under Tennessee law.

A person commits aggravated assault in Tennessee if they intentionally or knowingly cause serious bodily injury or use/display a deadly weapon during an assault, or if they recklessly commit an assault resulting in serious bodily injury or using/displaying a deadly weapon (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102). Assault is defined as intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury, instilling reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury, or causing offensive physical contact (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-101). Assault is generally a Class A misdemeanor, but it becomes a Class B misdemeanor under certain conditions.

Aggravated assault is considered a lesser-included offense of assault, necessitating jury instructions on simple assault if evidence supports it. In this case, Deputy Tillman suffered bodily injuries during a struggle with the appellant, providing sufficient evidence for potential convictions for simple assault under sections 39-13-101(a)(1) and (a)(2). However, the appellant’s actions did not fall under the offensive or provocative category outlined in section 39-13-101(a)(3).

The trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offenses of simple assault. The potential harmlessness of this error was examined, considering the evidence and the appellant's defense, which claimed he did not use Tillman’s pistol to assault him. Given the circumstances, it was determined that a reasonable jury might have convicted the appellant of one of the variations of simple assault if properly instructed. Consequently, the conviction for aggravated assault was reversed, and a new trial was ordered, while convictions for aggravated robbery and possession of cocaine were affirmed.