State of Tennessee v. Brian Lackland

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2015-02313-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; January 17, 2017; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Brian Lackland was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury on charges including aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The indictments were consolidated for trial, resulting in a jury conviction for simple assault, aggravated burglary, attempted first degree murder, and employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, while the aggravated assault charge was dismissed. Lackland received a total effective sentence of twenty-three years. Following the trial, the victim, Corey Selmon, recanted his testimony via an affidavit, but the trial court found this recantation not credible and denied Lackland's motion for a new trial. On appeal, Lackland challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's decision on the motion for a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, determining that the evidence supported the convictions and that there was no abuse of discretion in denying the new trial. The opinion was delivered by Judge Timothy L. Easter, with Judges Alan E. Glenn and Camille R. McMullen concurring.

The victim experienced a five-minute ordeal during which he was instructed to flee. After gathering his belongings, he ran to a nearby gas station, taking about seven minutes to arrive due to concerns about a car he saw in the neighborhood that appeared to be looking for him. He hid until the coast was clear and realized he had picked up a dead iPhone but was unable to use it to call the police. Upon police arrival, Officer Ricky Gray noted the victim was partially clothed and had visible bruising from running barefoot. The police returned him to the crime scene, where no evidence of the robbery was found, and the apartment's occupants did not answer the door. The victim later attempted to identify suspects on Facebook but acknowledged the potential for error in his identifications.

A few weeks later, the victim was at home when he was awakened by someone kicking in his back door, leading him to arm himself with a bat. He encountered the Defendant, who appeared to reach for a weapon and subsequently fired six or seven shots at the victim. Fearing for his safety after the previous robbery, the victim had stored his belongings, including a gun, at a neighbor’s house. After retrieving an assault rifle from the neighbor, he pursued the intruder and called the police. However, he did not inform them that he had chased the Defendant with the rifle. The victim later identified the Defendant as both the intruder and the individual responsible for the earlier robbery, though he could not recall if he conveyed this suspicion to the police at the time of the break-in.

Officer William Forrester responded to a shooting incident on July 11, where he observed the back door of a residence had been tampered with, alongside five shell casings and bullet strikes on the walls. Notably, Officer Forrester did not document a prior robbery, the victim’s identification of the shooter as the robber, or the victim retrieving a gun from a neighbor. Sergeant Kevin Brown coordinated the case and met with the victim, who initially believed he had photos of two suspects on an iPhone taken from the scene; however, these individuals were later confirmed to be uninvolved. The iPhone was traced to Ms. Hardrick and contained images and a message from 'Duke,' identified as the Defendant, alongside images of both Ms. Hardrick and Defendant together. The victim indicated that the Defendant could have found his address through a text message sent from the stolen phone. Described as 'very scared' and 'shaken up,' the victim identified the Defendant and Ms. Hardrick in a photo lineup. Despite prior incorrect identifications, Sergeant Brown found the victim’s identifications credible, supported by additional evidence. In September 2012, Defendant and Ms. Hardrick were indicted for aggravated robbery related to a separate incident, while Defendant faced additional charges for aggravated burglary, attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and using a firearm during a felony for the July 11 incident. Their indictments were consolidated for trial. The jury convicted Defendant of simple assault for the robbery incident and found him guilty of aggravated burglary, attempted first-degree murder, and firearm use in the home incident, while the aggravated assault charge was dismissed. Post-trial, the victim submitted an affidavit recanting his testimony, stating he misidentified Defendant and had encountered the actual perpetrator. The victim expressed certainty that Defendant was not the shooter. At sentencing, testimony was presented from David Willis, the attorney who notarized the affidavit, and Mario Bradley, a friend of the victim who assisted with the notarization.

James Johnston, a criminal investigator, testified about a conversation with the victim post-trial. The victim claimed to have seen the perpetrator at Walmart but was unable to provide a description immediately. Johnston noted the victim appeared reluctant to discuss potential threats. Eventually, the victim described the perpetrator as wearing shorts, a long-sleeved hoodie, and a cap, which Johnston found unusual given the 92-degree weather. Later, the victim contradicted himself by stating he saw the perpetrator outside Walmart. When questioned about recanting his trial testimony, the victim invoked the Fifth Amendment, leading the trial court to conclude he may have been threatened. The court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-three years and denied his motion for a new trial, which argued the victim's recantation warranted a reversal of convictions. The trial court believed the victim’s trial testimony was sincere but suspected his recantation stemmed from coercion. On appeal, the Defendant argued the evidence linking him to the robbery was weak, claiming post-recantation, there was no remaining evidence against him. The State contended that the jury had assessed witness credibility and determined the Defendant's guilt. The appellate court emphasized that it must evaluate whether any rational jury could have found the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, maintaining that the jury's credibility assessments and verdicts are not subject to reevaluation on appeal. The Defendant did not specifically challenge the sufficiency of the evidence regarding any crime elements, primarily asserting the victim's lack of credibility.

Defendants are consistently reminded that appellate courts do not assess witness credibility or the weight of their testimony. Even significant inconsistencies in testimony do not undermine a jury's verdict on appeal unless they create reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's guilt. The defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying a motion for a new trial based on a victim's recantation of testimony, which he claims should negate evidence against him under the 'cancellation rule.' The State contends that the trial court found the recantation to be not credible and that the issue is waived due to the absence of a transcript from a hearing where the victim was questioned about his recantation. 

During sentencing, the trial court expressed that it believed the victim was coerced into recanting his testimony. Although the appellant is responsible for providing a complete record for review, the existing record, including the trial transcript and related affidavits, is deemed sufficient for review. The court emphasizes that granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, such as recanted testimony, is at the trial court's discretion and requires the court to be reasonably convinced of the falsity of the original testimony and the truth of the new evidence. Additionally, specific criteria must be met for a new trial to be granted, including the defendant’s diligence in uncovering the new evidence and the possibility that the jury's verdict may have differed had the true facts been presented.

The trial court deemed the victim's recantation of testimony as not credible, noting the victim's sincerity during the trial and suggesting potential coercion behind the recantation. The assessment of witness credibility and conflicting evidence is within the trial court's purview. The defendant's request for relief was denied. The court referenced *State v. Matthews*, which involved a case where contradictory witness statements were analyzed under the rule of cancellation, stating that contradictions must be unexplained and unsupported by corroborative evidence to apply the rule. In *Matthews*, the defendant was not granted relief as inconsistencies were explainable. In this case, the victim consistently identified the defendant as the perpetrator during the trial, and the recantation occurred post-trial without being presented to the jury, meaning no contradictory testimony existed during the trial. Therefore, the cancellation rule was not applicable. The trial court's judgments were affirmed.