Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Deborah Graham & Denice Smith
Citation: Not availableDocket: E1999-02248-CCA-R3-CD
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; November 21, 2000; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Deborah Graham and Denice Smith were found guilty of first-degree murder following a jury trial in Cocke County, resulting in life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. They appealed the decision, raising several issues: (1) alleged errors by the trial court in not dismissing the indictments due to a lack of a speedy trial; (2) the failure to allow the Defendants a chance to contest the State's decision not to consolidate a related case due to potential Bruton issues; (3) the court's decision not to sever Smith’s case from Graham’s; (4) the consolidation of their cases; and (5) sufficiency of the evidence for their convictions. Upon review, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The opinion was delivered by Judge Thomas T. Woodall, with other judges concurring. The case included testimony from Harry Smith, the victim's father, about the victim's troubled marriage, the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the victim's body, and evidence suggesting potential motives linked to financial matters. On cross-examination, Smith stated he did not see anyone enter or exit the campgrounds on the day of the murder. The day after, Defendant Smith called to inquire about the victim but spoke to Agent Davenport from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI). Chief Detective Robert Caldwell investigated the murder of Aaron Smith at Camprite Acres Campground, where he found the victim's body on the walkway. Caldwell requested an autopsy, performed by Dr. Cleland Blake, who identified three gunshot wounds: two to the head (one fatal) and one to the torso. Dr. Blake noted the fatal wound destroyed the victim's brain, while the other two were not lethal. Forensic scientist Kelly Smith, part of the TBI Violent Crime Response Team, documented the crime scene. She noted that the victim's body was removed before her team's arrival and that evidence was marked and collected, including blood stains, a spent bullet, a handgun, and handcuffs found in the living room. Sketches and photographs of the scene were introduced as evidence. Harry Smith testified he did not recognize the handcuffs and confirmed they did not belong to his family. Latent fingerprint examiner Hoyt Phillips examined the .357 magnum and handcuffs but found no readable prints on either item; only four identifiable prints belonging to the victim were recovered. Lastly, Sharon Jarvis, who cared for Defendant Smith's children, testified about the divorce and custody issues between Defendant Smith and the victim. Defendant Smith allegedly made threats to Jarvis on three occasions, stating she would kill Aaron or have him killed if he gained custody of their children. Jarvis recounted these conversations, noting Smith's emotional intensity and determination to prevent Aaron from obtaining custody. Despite believing Smith's threats, Jarvis did not report them and expressed doubt about Smith's willingness to act on them. The last interaction between Jarvis and Smith involved a refund request for daycare and a request for testimony in a divorce hearing. Separately, Charles Jack Snyder, a postal worker, received a call from Carl Sanders, who claimed to be from North Dakota and warned of an express mail package containing drugs intended for Aaron Smith. Upon the package's arrival, Snyder alerted his supervisor, and postal inspector Russell Fallis initiated an investigation. Fallis found the package contained two small Ziploc bags with a yellowish-whitish powder labeled with a message directed at Aaron Smith. The substance was later identified as cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance. Fallis delivered the package to Aaron Smith, who reacted by claiming he had been set up when approached by narcotics agents. Despite the discovery of drugs, Aaron Smith was not arrested, and efforts were made to test the package for fingerprints. Ewing found no readable fingerprints on the package but identified five usable prints on the package label, which he confirmed belonged to Defendant Deborah Graham. He also found six latent fingerprints on the inner envelope attributed to Graham. During cross-examination, Ewing clarified that while there were other smudges present, only Graham's prints were valuable for identification. Witnesses Melanie Hearst and Christen Latham, co-workers of Defendant Smith, testified about her troubled marriage to victim Aaron Smith, including claims of past abuse and threats made by Smith regarding his custody of their children. They noted that Smith was increasingly distressed leading up to the custody hearing and reported seeing bruises on her caused by Aaron. However, they did not believe Smith would act on her threats to kill him. Twelve-year-old Brittany Smith testified about a trip to Florida shortly after a custody ruling favored Aaron. During this trip, they met with Defendant Graham and two men, one named Alex, during which Defendant Smith purchased a new car. Brittany recalled being awakened by a conversation among the adults, where she heard phrases indicating someone had been harmed. She noted that Alex had handcuffs during the trip but later did not have them. Brittany also observed that both Alex and Defendant Graham were wearing personal items belonging to her family. Two days later, Defendant Smith took her and her brother to stay with relatives in Michigan. Aunt Marian returned Brittany and Joshua to Tennessee, where they live with their grandparents, Harry and Cleta Smith. Brittany testified during cross-examination that their stay in Florida lasted about five days, during which Defendant Graham was frequently present. She recounted some activities, including renting a car with Defendant Smith but struggled to provide details. Brittany learned of her father’s death while in Michigan. The parties agreed that Defendant Smith rented a 1996 Buick Regal from Alamo Rentals in Miami from July 21 to July 28, 1997, with odometer readings of 25,734 miles at pickup and 28,210 miles at return. Defendant Smith provided her Tennessee Driver’s License and addresses to Alamo employees. Vernon Brown, who owns a lot at Camprite Acres, testified that he was present at the campground on the day of Aaron Smith's murder. Around 4:00 p.m., he saw Harry Smith leaving his home and noticed two individuals at a picnic table. After returning from the pool, he heard three gunshots around 4:30 to 5:00 p.m. Brown was certain of the time due to a dinner engagement. He noted that gunshots were common in the area and initially thought nothing of it. Later, he learned of the murder when police arrived. He described a man he saw knocking at the Smiths' door as a "skinny white male with long dark hair" and mentioned a white car that appeared to leave quickly around 5:00 p.m. State Trooper Eddie Pulley issued a ticket to David Antonio Rivera on July 23, 1997, for driving a white 1996 Buick but could not recall specific details about Rivera or his passengers. Special Agent Ron Raccioppi testified about a follow-up investigation initiated by Agent Davenport regarding a homicide. They sought information on individuals named Alex and Deborah Graham, leading to surveillance of LaShawn Taylor in Miami, which eventually connected them to Rivera. Rivera was found to be using false identification, linking him to the investigation. Raccioppi confirmed that the Martin Luther King Post Office in Miami is located 300 yards west of Rivera and Taylor’s residence, from which agents surveilled Taylor’s home. Raccioppi testified that the investigation indicated Defendant Graham was taken to the airport, where she boarded a flight to New York. Criminal Investigator David Hutchison traveled to New York to locate and arrest Defendant Graham on August 22, 1997. Upon arrest, Graham was advised of her Miranda rights, which she waived, providing a signed statement that Hutchison read at trial. In her statement, Graham detailed that she and Alex borrowed a rental car from Defendant Smith to visit Michigan, intending to stop in Tennessee to confront Aaron Smith, whom Alex believed was abusive to Defendant Smith and her children. Graham described how they used Smith's gate card to access the campgrounds, where they briefly stayed before Alex drove her back to Gatlinburg. Alex later revealed he returned to the Smith residence, encountered Aaron Smith unexpectedly, and shot him three times. After the incident, Alex attempted to stage the scene to look like a burglary, disposed of two handguns, and kept one. Following this, Graham claimed she could not continue to Michigan, and they returned to Florida. Upon arriving at the Driftwood motel in Miami, Graham learned her father, Defendant Smith, and Smith’s children had returned to Tennessee to surrender to the police. Graham returned the rental car and reported to Hutchison that Alex threatened her family if she disclosed his actions. She mentioned receiving a bag of gold jewelry from Alex, which he intended to give to LaShawn Taylor. Graham also noted that Alex received a speeding ticket en route back to Florida and last saw him on August 2, 1997, when LaShawn Taylor took her to the Miami airport. During cross-examination, Hutchison acknowledged inconsistencies in Graham's initial claims of innocence and indicated he falsely informed her someone had seen her at the campground pool, which led her to modify her account. LaShawn Taylor testified about her relationship with Alex and her brief acquaintance with Defendant Graham before Alex and Graham's trip to Tennessee. Taylor testified that she overheard Alex instruct Graham to remove a car, leading to a two-night stay at her home where Graham and Alex were secretive and frequently used pay phones. During this stay, Graham made numerous calls to her father. Afterward, Taylor drove Graham to the airport for a flight to New York. Later, Taylor and Rivera were stopped by police, and it was revealed that Rivera possessed a Florida driver's license with his brother's name but his own picture. Taylor also accompanied Alex to a pawn shop, where he redeemed several items including a Noah’s Ark bracelet. Robert Latta from the Cash In Pawn Shop confirmed that Alex pawned various items, including an Elgin pocket watch and a Nikon camera, retrieving them on August 7, 1997. Detective Paul Dosler, assisting Tennessee investigators, arrested Graham at Martin Giovi's home in New York, recovering a bag containing 11 pieces of costume jewelry, which Cleta Smith identified as belonging to her home, stolen on the day of Aaron's murder. Giovi testified that Graham had asked him multiple times to kill Aaron, which he refused. While living together, Graham exhibited nervous behavior and confessed to Giovi that "it is finally done" regarding Aaron's death, stating that she and her father had paid someone to kill him. Graham claimed they shot Aaron at his home. Following this conversation, Giovi witnessed police at his residence and later provided them with a bag of jewelry left by Graham. In jail, Shannon Jarnigan recounted that Defendant Smith admitted to hiring her twin sister’s boyfriend to kill her husband due to abuse allegations. Jarnigan also heard Graham say that Alex accidentally shot Aaron and expressed fear of Alex's controlling behavior post-shooting. On cross-examination, Jarnigan acknowledged her own felony charges and a guilty plea related to unrelated crimes but denied making deals with the State. Finally, Detective Caldwell testified that charges against Jarnigan were reduced due to the absence of an autopsy and the unavailability of the key witness. Sandra Strange testified that she met Defendant Smith through Smith’s visits to Tanfastic Tanning Salon. During one encounter, Smith inquired if Strange knew someone who could kill her husband, Aaron Smith, whom she described as abusive. Smith expressed intentions to either flee with the children or have Aaron killed if he were granted custody. Strange noted she did not take Smith's comments seriously. The prosecution rested after her testimony. Diane Levy, Executive Director of Safe Space, indicated that Smith reached out in 1996 concerning her children's safety and again after a court ruling in her custody battle. During a conversation on July 25, 1997, Smith mentioned plans to return to Tennessee to surrender to police, to which Levy advised her to contact a public defender. Judy Laws recounted an incident in February 1998 at Cocke County Jail where she overheard Shannon Jarnigan discussing seeking a deal with authorities by providing information about Smith. After the State presented its case, Detective Robert Caldwell testified about Jarnigan’s claim that Smith had hired her twin sister’s boyfriend to murder her husband. The jury was charged with options of first and second degree murder and facilitation, ultimately convicting both Defendants of first degree murder. During sentencing, the jury denied the State’s enhancement factor, sentencing both to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. In their appeal, the Defendants argued that their right to a speedy trial was violated, citing both the U.S. and Tennessee constitutions and state law. The State acknowledged the need to examine the trial delay but contended it was not caused by improper actions on their part and did not prejudice the Defendants. The court found no violation of the speedy trial right due to insufficient record details. Appellate review was limited, as pleadings and counsel statements are not evidence. Without a complete trial record, including a transcript, the court could not consider the Defendants' claims regarding the speedy trial issue. Additionally, exhibits not formally entered into evidence could not be reviewed on appeal. In the absence of a complete record on appeal, the appellate court must assume the trial judge's ruling was correct. In this case, the record lacked a transcription of the relevant trial court proceedings regarding the Defendants' motion for a speedy trial. The Defendants did not provide evidence from any hearing that addressed the trial court's denial of their motion. The record only included an order denying Defendant Smith's motion for a speedy trial and comments from the trial court during a pre-trial motion hearing, which did not clarify the court's findings about the motion. The trial court indicated it had previously dealt with the speedy trial issue and would not revisit it. Therefore, without adequate proof, the appellate court presumes the trial court acted correctly regarding the Defendants’ right to a speedy trial. Regarding the Defendants' claim of a procedural due process violation related to a potential Bruton problem, which concerns the joint trial of co-defendants, the court noted that the Defendants waived this issue by not including it in their motions for a new trial. Even if it had not been waived, the record showed that defense counsel did not request a hearing on the Bruton issue. During pretrial motions, defense counsel advocated for either a joint trial or separate trials for all defendants, while the State sought consolidation of Graham and Smith’s cases, acknowledging a Bruton issue with Graham's statement implicating Rivera. The trial court accepted the State's view and consolidated Graham and Smith’s cases, indicating that Rivera's case was not sought to be joined with theirs. Defendants challenge the State's decision to consolidate their cases while excluding Rivera, arguing that the consolidation violated their rights. Under Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, a request to consolidate must be made before trial, and the trial court has the discretion to consolidate cases if the State could have indicted the defendants together. The State chose to consolidate Smith and Graham's cases, citing a Bruton violation that necessitated keeping Rivera's case separate. The Defendants were present during the ruling on the Bruton issue but did not contest the State's argument or request a hearing on the consolidation. Consequently, there was no due process violation. Defendant Smith claimed the trial court erred by denying her motion to sever her case from Graham's, arguing that the stronger evidence against Graham led to prejudicial spill-over effects. However, the State argued that the cases involved a common scheme, justifying consolidation. The trial court's decision to deny the severance was reviewed for abuse of discretion; without clear evidence of prejudice, the decision was upheld. The applicable legal standards indicate that consolidation is permissible under Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the trial court acted correctly in its rulings. The Supreme Court emphasized the state's right to protect its interests in joint trials for defendants charged with the same crime, stating that a single trial is preferred unless it severely prejudices the defendants. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate clear prejudice warranting severance of their case. In this instance, severance was not deemed necessary for a fair determination of guilt or innocence, as indicated by Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 14 (c)(2)(ii). The trial court consolidated the cases of Defendants Smith and Graham because they could have been joined in a single indictment due to shared accountability for the murder of Aaron Smith and evidence of a common scheme. The court found no abuse of discretion in refusing severance, as Defendant Smith failed to prove she was prejudiced by the consolidation, and there was substantial evidence of her involvement. Defendant Graham's objections to the consolidation, based on a perceived lack of motive and weaker evidence against her compared to Smith, were also rejected. Joinder of cases is permissible when defendants are accountable for the same offense, and severance may only be granted if necessary for a fair determination of guilt or innocence. The trial judge has broad discretion to grant severance in cases, which will not be reversed without a clear showing of prejudice. In this instance, the Defendants were charged with the murder of Aaron Smith, making the consolidation of their cases permissible. Defendant Graham did not demonstrate any prejudice from this consolidation. The trial court mitigated potential prejudice by issuing clear jury instructions, emphasizing the need for the jury to consider each case and piece of evidence separately. The court presumes jurors follow these instructions. The record indicates no prejudice arose from the joint trial, and the court justified the consolidation based on a shared plan between the Defendants. Both Defendants argued that the evidence was insufficient to support their murder convictions. However, the appellate court affirmed that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could find the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A guilty verdict by the jury, endorsed by the trial court, validates the State's witness testimony and resolves conflicts in favor of the prosecution. The credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence are determinations for the jury, which the appellate court will not reassess. The court cannot replace the inferences made by the trier of fact with its own, particularly in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. Appellate review standards are identical for convictions based on either direct or circumstantial evidence. A conviction can be supported solely by circumstantial evidence if the facts clearly point to the defendant's guilt. A guilty verdict replaces the presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt, placing the burden on the defendant to demonstrate insufficient evidence for the jury's decision. Conversely, the state is entitled to the most favorable interpretation of the evidence. Under Tennessee law, first-degree murder requires a premeditated and intentional killing, with intent defined as a conscious objective to cause a result. Premeditation involves reflection and judgment prior to the act, and while intent does not need to exist for a specific duration, it must be inferred from surrounding circumstances. Indicators of premeditation include using a deadly weapon against an unarmed victim, motive, and calmness post-killing. Accomplice liability applies to defendants Graham and Smith, necessitating proof of an intentional mental state, as knowledge or recklessness is insufficient. To uphold a conviction under this theory, there must be evidence showing that the defendants intended to aid in the offense and actively engaged in doing so. Intent can be inferred from the defendants' presence and conduct around the time of the offense. In the case of Graham, evidence suggests her intent to kill was reflected in her actions, such as asking another individual to kill the victim and bringing an accomplice to assist in the act. Graham drove a vehicle rented by Defendant Smith from Florida to Tennessee, where she showed Rivera the victim's residence. After the murder, Graham and Rivera returned to Florida without notifying authorities. Witness LaShawn Taylor noted their nervousness upon return. Graham then fled to New York, retaining possession of Cleta Smith’s jewelry, and confided to Giovi that Smith and her father had paid someone to kill the victim and that she had accompanied the shooter to Tennessee. Subsequently, Graham was arrested and confirmed these details in her statement, suggesting her intention to assist in the murder of Aaron Smith. In reviewing Defendant Smith's actions, there is evidence indicating her intent to kill the victim, especially if he gained custody of their children. Testimony from Shannon Jarnigan, Smith’s cellmate, revealed Smith's admission of hiring Graham's boyfriend, Rivera, to commit the murder. Smith's actions, including traveling to Florida to collaborate with Graham, renting the car used in the murder, discussing the crime in proximity to her daughter, and fleeing to Michigan afterward, support the inference of her intent to promote the murder. The evidence was deemed sufficient to establish that Smith solicited Graham and Rivera for the first-degree murder of Aaron Smith. The court affirmed that the jury's verdicts were supported by the evidence and that credibility assessments were appropriately resolved in favor of the State, denying the Defendants any relief. The trial court judgments were upheld.