Robert Lee Pattee was convicted of first-degree murder for the shooting death of his wife’s boyfriend, Dennis Wayne Cope. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. Pattee raised three issues on appeal: (1) the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter; (2) the exclusion of his suicide note as evidence; and (3) the sufficiency of evidence regarding premeditation for the murder charge. After a comprehensive review, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment.
The case details reveal that on February 5, 1999, Ronald David Cope, the victim's brother, became concerned when Dennis did not show up for work. After failing to reach him by phone and learning his fiancée was still away, Ronald visited Dennis's home, where he found unusual circumstances such as Dennis's truck parked in the driveway and the garage door locked. After attempting to gain entry and discovering the house unlocked, he left a note for Dennis and checked with neighbors for any unusual activity.
Ronald contacted the police after noticing suspicious signs at his brother Wayne's residence, including potential blood stains on Wayne's truck and drag marks leading to a crawl space under the house. Ronald and an employee named Junior discovered Wayne's body concealed beneath a styrofoam cushion in the crawl space. Ronald informed the police of the discovery. He testified that Wayne did not keep firearms at his home, only a .22 caliber rifle and a shotgun stored at their parents' house. Wayne was described as six feet one inch tall and weighing 190 pounds, with a black belt in martial arts, though Ronald was unsure of the specific discipline.
Officer Robert Fohrd of the Hendersonville Police Department was dispatched to Wayne's home on a suspicious incident call. Ronald reported Wayne missing, leading to a search of the residence, which initially yielded no evidence of foul play. After Ronald's subsequent call reporting Wayne’s body, Fohrd returned to secure the crime scene, where he found the body wrapped in purple cloth and tied with a yellow extension cord, hidden under carpet padding.
James Lee Pattee, the son of the Defendant Jennifer, testified about his parents' separation and noted that after their split, Jennifer expressed fear when the Defendant visited her. He revealed that Jennifer had been involved with Wayne Cope, whom he never met. James stated that the Defendant owned a .38 caliber revolver, a .22 rifle, and a shotgun, the last sighting of the revolver being in late 1998. After learning of Wayne's death, James asked the Defendant if he killed Wayne, to which the Defendant denied. Brian Scott Smith, a colleague of the Defendant, testified about a phone call from the Defendant requesting an address related to a jet ski sale, noting that he had no reason to distrust him.
Larry Stevens, a systems analyst at NES, testified regarding a request for data on Dennis Wayne Cope around February 3, 1999, initiated by NES’s emergency line department. A system check revealed that this data was accessed at 11:15 p.m. on that date while Brian Scott Smith was on duty. James Edgar Spearman, a security manager at BellSouth, indicated that a call was made to Jennifer’s number at 11:38 p.m. on February 4, 1999, but no answer was received; Jennifer had relocated to Franklin, Kentucky by the time of the homicide.
Detective Shirley Forrest, the lead investigator in Wayne Cope's homicide case, arrived at the crime scene on February 5, 1999. She noted signs of disturbance and reddish-brown stains resembling blood both outside and inside the residence, particularly leading to the basement crawl space where Cope's body was found. The victim was wrapped in a purple velour bedspread, with a yellow electrical cord around his neck and body. His head and face exhibited multiple injuries, and he had gunshot wounds in the abdomen, indicating close contact at the time of discharge.
Forrest discovered additional blood-like stains and bullet holes in various locations within the home, including the dining area, where a bullet hole had been concealed by a decorative plate. The investigation required assistance from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation due to its complexity. Defendant's name emerged early in the investigation as a potential person of interest linked to a motive. When interviewed at the Gallatin Marina, Defendant claimed ignorance of any recent events in Hendersonville but mentioned discovering love letters from Wayne to his wife, which led to a confrontation with her.
Defendant moved into a houseboat after Christmas 1998 and received divorce papers on January 19, 1999, leading to significant depression. Concerned for his safety, he disposed of his .38 caliber handgun on January 24, dismantling it and discarding the pieces in various trash cans, while also throwing bullets into a lake to prevent access by children. The following day, he sought psychiatric help. During an interview with investigator Forrest, Defendant displayed signs of distress, such as a tremor in his left hand and injuries on his right thumb and hands. He recounted his activities during the week of Wayne's death, mentioning a psychiatrist appointment on February 4 and an injury while working on his boat. Despite being questioned about Wayne’s death, he initially claimed ignorance of the victim. However, on February 11, he recalled a conversation with a neighbor on February 4 and others on February 5. Defendant signed a statement summarizing this information, and he permitted a search of his boat, which uncovered gloves similar to those found at the crime scene and clothing with reddish-brown stains. On February 23, an arrest warrant led to a second search revealing a .38 caliber handgun and ammunition hidden in the kitchen. Testimony from Larry Braddon confirmed that Defendant purchased a .38 caliber pistol on February 16, 1999, twelve days post-murder. Forensic scientist Ray DePriest, part of a specialized TBI crime scene unit, processed evidence from the victim's house. DNA analysis revealed that blood stains found on the victim’s truck matched Defendant’s profile.
DePriest testified that the likelihood of another individual sharing the same blood profile as the Defendant was less than one in six billion. Blood samples from various items, including a glove tip, a vacuum cleaner, a belt from the victim, carpet, and clothing from the Defendant's boat, all matched the Defendant’s blood. TBI forensic chemist Teri Arney examined bullets from the crime scene and the victim's body, identifying them as fired from a .38 caliber revolver, though she could not confirm if they came from the same gun due to their damaged state. The victim’s stomach wound indicated a contact or near-contact shot, while a back wound was inflicted from a distance of at least five feet. TBI expert Oakley McKinney found a palm print from the Defendant on the basement door where the victim was found. Forensic pathologist Dr. Charles Harlan conducted the victim's autopsy, determining the cause of death to be gunshot wounds. The victim sustained three gunshot wounds—two from separate shots, one being fatal due to internal bleeding and damage to the small intestine, while the other lodged in the spinal canal. Additionally, abrasions on the victim suggested he was dragged after being shot. Robert Lee Pattee, Jr. (the Defendant) recounted that after moving to Franklin, Kentucky, his wife, Jennifer, began distancing herself, leading him to feel their marriage was ending. Following an injury in August 1998 and subsequent surgery, their house burned down in December of that year.
Defendant moved into a houseboat he purchased in June 1998 and discovered in late December that his wife, Jennifer, was involved with a man named Wayne. While assisting Jennifer in her move back to Franklin, Kentucky, he found love letters and a photo of Wayne. After confronting Jennifer about Wayne, Defendant received divorce papers in January 1999, leading to a moment of suicidal contemplation, which he overcame upon seeing a photo of his grandchildren.
On February 4, 1999, after failing to reach Jennifer by phone and believing she was out of town, Defendant drove to Wayne's residence at 146 Luna Lane to discuss his concerns about Jennifer. Upon arrival, Wayne questioned Defendant about weapons, and after patting him down, allowed him inside. During their conversation, Defendant expressed his love for Jennifer and requested Wayne to stop seeing her, which angered Wayne. Wayne then showed Defendant compromising photographs of Jennifer, further upsetting him.
In a sudden confrontation, Wayne brandished a pistol at Defendant, threatening to resolve the situation. A struggle ensued over the gun, which discharged during the scuffle. Defendant managed to free himself from Wayne’s grip and perceived an opportunity to escape.
Wayne confronted the Defendant in the hallway, striking him in the back of the head with a pistol and subsequently kicking him in the ribs. Despite the assault, the Defendant managed to push Wayne off and attempted to escape, but Wayne threatened to shoot him if he did not stop. Wayne then pointed the gun at the Defendant, stating his intention to kill him and frame the situation as self-defense by claiming the Defendant had broken into his home. Wayne also indicated plans to mislead authorities about the gun's ownership, stating it belonged to the Defendant due to its serial numbers being removed.
As Wayne raised the gun towards the Defendant, he fell after stepping on a cat, prompting the Defendant to throw an object at him, which caused the gun to discharge, narrowly missing the Defendant. Wayne then attacked the Defendant again, who managed to take control of the gun. Despite the Defendant's pleas for Wayne to stop, Wayne retrieved a knife and lunged at him. During the struggle, the Defendant shot Wayne, resulting in a back wound. After Wayne fell motionless into the garage, the Defendant checked for a pulse, found none, and did not call the police due to fear. He concealed Wayne's body in a bedspread and attempted to clean the scene, believing he had merely knocked down a plate covering a bullet hole due to his impaired vision from broken glasses.
The Defendant described the blood found at the scene as his own, resulting from a thumb injury. He moved Wayne's truck to drag the body to a crawl space, which took about an hour. After leaving Wayne's house around 3:30 a.m., the Defendant disposed of the gun and knife in the Cumberland River. He claimed he had no weapon when he initially approached Wayne and only purchased a gun later due to receiving threatening anonymous calls.
Defendant experienced disturbances at night when individuals drove up to his boat and shone headlights into the cabin, leading him to believe someone was targeting him regarding the incident involving Wayne. He chose to visit Wayne in person for a conversation he deemed necessary, denying any intent to confront his wife or find Jennifer. Following the killing, Defendant behaved normally, meeting friends for breakfast and falsely claimed ignorance about the incident to police and his son.
In the analysis of jury instructions, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter. He claimed sufficient evidence supported such an instruction under State v. Burns. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that while voluntary manslaughter is indeed a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder, the trial court is not obligated to instruct on all lesser-included offenses. The court applied a two-step analysis: first, it assessed whether any evidence supported the lesser-included offense, and second, whether that evidence was legally sufficient for a conviction. After hearing arguments, the trial court concluded that the evidence did not reflect the passionate response necessary to warrant a voluntary manslaughter instruction.
Defendant did not express being upset at any point and claimed he visited the victim to discuss a matter. When asked about his feelings the day after the killing, he stated he felt "no different." The trial court determined that finding Defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter would require a "strained interpretation" of the evidence, agreeing that there was insufficient evidence to support such a charge. Defendant's testimony aimed to substantiate his self-defense claim, but he failed to demonstrate "adequate provocation" for voluntary manslaughter. His reaction to a sexually explicit photo of his wife did not indicate he was in a "state of passion." Even if the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on voluntary manslaughter, this error was deemed harmless, as the jury's conviction for first-degree murder indicated they would not have found for voluntary manslaughter.
Concerning evidence admissibility, Defendant argued the trial court erred by not allowing the introduction of his suicide note. He claimed the State's impeachment transformed the note from a "self-serving" hearsay statement to an admissible prior consistent statement for rehabilitation. However, the court maintained that trial courts have broad discretion in evidentiary rulings, which are typically not reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion. Generally, out-of-court statements are hearsay and thus inadmissible unless they meet certain exceptions, such as when a witness is impeached by a prior inconsistent statement. The witness's testimony must have been sufficiently attacked to warrant rehabilitation, and any prior consistent statement must predate the inconsistent one. Initially, Defendant denied knowledge of the crime to the police.
Police gathered evidence against the Defendant, resulting in an arrest warrant. While incarcerated on April 27, 1999, the Defendant wrote a suicide note detailing the events leading to the homicide, including a fight with the victim and a claim of self-defense. The State filed a motion in limine to prevent the introduction of this note at trial, to which the Defendant acquiesced. The trial court granted the motion. During trial, after cross-examination, the Defendant sought a jury-out hearing to argue for the note's admissibility, claiming the State’s questions had opened the door to its introduction. He asserted that the State implied he had not previously claimed self-defense, thus necessitating the note to rebut that implication. The State countered that its questioning merely highlighted the Defendant's actions following the homicide, which did not suggest recent fabrication of the self-defense claim. The trial court supported the State's position and ultimately denied the Defendant’s request to admit the note, finding no basis for its introduction as rebuttal evidence. It was determined that the Defendant's prior consistent statements about self-defense could not counter his earlier inconsistent alibi claims, as they were made after the alibi statements. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the note.
Additionally, the Defendant challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding premeditation for first-degree murder and argued that the evidence raised the issue of self-defense, claiming the State did not meet its burden to disprove it.
The State's failure to prove premeditation and negate the Defendant's self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt has been challenged, but the appellate court disagrees. The court emphasizes that the review standard for sufficiency of evidence requires examining it in the light most favorable to the prosecution, allowing any rational trier of fact to find essential crime elements beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury's guilty verdict, supported by the trial court, affirms the credibility of State witnesses and favors the prosecution's narrative. Issues of witness credibility and evidence weight are to be resolved by the jury, not the appellate court, which also cannot replace jury inferences derived from circumstantial evidence. The appellate review standard applies equally to direct and circumstantial evidence, where a conviction may solely rely on circumstantial evidence if it unequivocally points to the Defendant's guilt. A conviction revokes the presumption of innocence, placing the burden on the Defendant to demonstrate insufficient evidence for the jury's verdict. Conversely, the State is entitled to the most favorable perspective of trial evidence and reasonable inferences.
Premeditated first-degree murder requires an intentional killing after reflection, with intent formed prior to the act and the accused being free from excitement or passion. Premeditation lacks direct evidence but can be established through circumstantial evidence, and it is a factual question for the jury, which may infer it from the circumstances surrounding the killing.
The supreme court has identified several factors indicative of premeditation and deliberation in murder cases: 1) the defendant's declarations of intent to kill, 2) procurement of a weapon, 3) use of a deadly weapon against an unarmed victim, 4) cruelty of the killing, 5) infliction of multiple wounds, 6) preparation for crime concealment, 7) destruction of evidence, and 8) calmness post-killing. Although deliberation is no longer a component of first-degree murder in Tennessee, it shares similarities with premeditation, particularly in the timing of mental processes involved. Evidence presented at trial suggested at least three factors supporting premeditation: the use of a deadly weapon against an unarmed victim, multiple wounds inflicted on the victim, and the defendant's calm demeanor after the incident. Additional actions by the defendant, such as stalking the victim and verifying his identity, further indicated intent to kill. The evidence was deemed sufficient for the jury to infer the defendant's intent. The question of premeditation ultimately rests with the jury, and the defendant did not demonstrate that the evidence was insufficient to uphold their decision.
Regarding self-defense, the defendant argued that evidence at trial warranted consideration of self-defense, claiming the State failed to disprove this justification beyond a reasonable doubt. However, under Tennessee law, self-defense is justified only when there is a reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, based on real or honestly believed threats. The court found that the State successfully met its burden in disproving the self-defense claim.
A conviction requires the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the negation of any admissible defense, such as self-defense. The trial court allowed the jury to consider self-defense, indicating that the defense was fairly raised. The primary question was whether the State successfully negated the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence suggested that the Defendant did not act in self-defense, including the careful planning of the attack, the timing of the visit, the nature of the victim's wounds, destruction or concealment of evidence, and providing false statements. The jury received instruction that the State bore the burden of proof regarding self-defense, which they are presumed to have followed. While there were circumstances supporting the Defendant's self-defense claim, credibility issues are for the jury to decide. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
