Dana Louise Solomon was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for her role in the murder of her estranged husband, Clyde Milton Solomon, orchestrated by her boyfriend, Thomas Chambers. On appeal, Solomon raised multiple issues; however, she waived all but her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence due to her failure to timely file a motion for new trial and a notice of appeal. The court, despite these procedural defaults, chose to examine the sufficiency of the evidence and concluded that it overwhelmingly supported her conviction. The trial court's judgment was affirmed, as the appellant's late filing of her motion for new trial exceeded the mandatory thirty-day limit set by Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b), which is jurisdictional. Consequently, the appellate court could not consider any issues not properly presented in a timely manner.
The court has the discretion to recognize errors affecting a defendant's substantial rights to ensure justice, as noted in State v. Smith. However, the court decided not to exercise this discretion after reviewing the appellant's issues and the record. The primary issue remaining is the appellant's challenge regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellant's notice of appeal was filed late, beyond the 30-day requirement following the judgment entered on January 13, 1999, as the motion for new trial was not filed timely. Despite this, the court chose to address the sufficiency challenge, acknowledging that the notice of appeal is not jurisdictional and may be waived for justice.
In Tennessee, appellate courts give considerable deference to jury verdicts; a conviction implies guilt, shifting the burden to the appellant to prove that no reasonable juror could find the evidence sufficient. The prosecution must establish that the appellant's boyfriend, Mr. Chambers, intentionally and premeditatedly killed Mr. Solomon. Premeditation does not require a prolonged intent but must exist prior to the action. The court must assess whether the accused was free from emotion at the time of intent formation; a subsequent emotional state does not negate premeditation if the intent was established beforehand.
The State can establish first-degree murder through direct or circumstantial evidence. Circumstances surrounding the killing can demonstrate premeditation, supported by factors such as the defendant's prior relationship with the victim, declarations of intent to kill, planning activities, the nature of the killing (including the use of a deadly weapon against an unarmed victim or the victim's attempted escape), and the defendant’s demeanor before and after the act. While repeated shots or blows alone do not prove premeditation, they can contribute to the overall assessment.
Additionally, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was criminally responsible for the murder committed by Mr. Chambers. This entails showing that the appellant intended to promote or assist the murder, or to benefit from it, by soliciting, directing, or aiding Mr. Chambers. Common law principles require that a defendant must associate with the criminal act, have knowledge of the offense, and share the principal’s intent.
On appeal, the appellant does not contest that Mr. Chambers committed the murder but claims the State did not prove her criminal responsibility. The trial evidence showed that the appellant and the victim were married, then separated, with the appellant moving in with Mr. Chambers. Following the separation, she expressed a desire for her husband to die, supported by letters and journal entries found in her trailer, including one addressed to Mr. Chambers that mentioned a wish for her husband, Mr. Solomon, to die.
A letter dated December 6, 1996, addressed to Mr. Chambers, reveals the author’s desire for proof of Clyde's death as a birthday gift. The author expresses mixed feelings about Clyde's potential death, indicating both pain and happiness. The appellant, born on December 7, 1975, is linked to drawings of hearts with Mr. Chambers' name in letters and journal entries.
On December 26, 1996, Mr. Solomon visited the appellant's trailer, seeking to see his son, Adrian. The appellant informed Mr. Solomon that Adrian was not home but assured him he could return later. Adrian was actually staying with Mr. Chambers' mother due to plumbing issues. However, the appellant did not retrieve Adrian and instead conspired with Mr. Chambers to kill Mr. Solomon, discussing a plan to claim self-defense by staging an attack.
In her confession, the appellant stated that Mr. Chambers threatened her life, compelling her to follow his instructions, which included removing drug paraphernalia in anticipation of police arrival. Sean Collier, a friend of Mr. Solomon, accompanied him to the trailer. Upon arrival, the appellant insisted that Mr. Solomon enter her trailer to speak with Mr. Chambers, claiming Adrian was being bathed in a neighboring trailer.
While Mr. Solomon was inside, Collier heard an argument between him and Mr. Chambers. The appellant then returned from the neighboring trailer, stating Adrian was asleep. Shortly after, Collier heard two gunshots, and Mr. Solomon emerged from the trailer.
Mr. Chambers shot Mr. Solomon twice in the chest with a twelve-gauge shotgun at close range, resulting in Mr. Solomon's death. After the shooting, Mr. Chambers remained in the trailer, watching television, with the shotgun nearby. Witness Carol Lewis testified that Mr. Chambers arrived at her trailer with a wrapped item, asking to leave it there due to impending police arrival. She refused to keep the item but allowed him to use her phone. Shortly after, she heard gunshots and saw Mr. Solomon lying outside the trailer, with Mr. Chambers watching him. Ms. Lewis confirmed that the appellant's baby was not present in her trailer that day. Police later found drug paraphernalia wrapped in a baby’s blanket in a vehicle near the appellant's trailer. Both Mr. Collier and Ms. Lewis reported they did not see anything in Mr. Solomon's hands during the incident, despite a box cutter being found beside him, which had no fingerprints and only blood on one side. Dr. Neff testified that Mr. Solomon would have been unable to hold anything in his right hand after sustaining his injuries. The evidence indicated that the appellant was aware of and participated in the murder plan, aiding Mr. Chambers. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.
