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 of Tennessee v. Andrew Bernard Beverly
Citation: Not availableDocket: E2017-00056-CCA-R3-CD
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; December 13, 2017; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Andrew Bernard Beverly was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, attempted first-degree murder, and possession of a firearm during a dangerous felony after a jury trial in Sevier County. Beverly appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish the mens rea necessary for his convictions and that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress three statements made post-arrest, arguing his Miranda waiver was invalid. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments. The case stems from a September 24, 2014 incident where Beverly shot and killed his estranged wife, Angela Beverly, and attempted to kill Jabari Dial. Following the shooting, Beverly was arrested in Harlan County, Kentucky, and made three statements regarding the incident—two to law enforcement and one to the media. Beverly's motion to suppress these statements was based on his claim that he did not properly waive his right against self-incrimination before the initial statement, asserting that the later statements should also be suppressed as they were derived from the first. The State contested this assertion, providing evidence supporting the validity of the statements during the suppression hearing. Deputy Will Pope testified about Beverly’s arrest, which led to charges of first-degree murder. Deputy Pope and Officer Boggs did not interview the defendant upon his arrest, but media presence was noted at the Harlan County jail on September 25, 2014. Captain Stephanie Hodges and Detective Jeff McCarter from the Sevier County Sheriff’s Office conducted the defendant's initial interview in a chapel at the jail on that date. During her testimony, Captain Hodges submitted the audio recording and transcript of the interview into evidence. She explained that due to an echo in the chapel, the initial part of the interview was not recorded; however, she began recording after five minutes. Upon entering the chapel, the officers introduced themselves, explained their purpose, and read the defendant his Miranda rights. Captain Hodges confirmed the defendant understood these rights, despite him not signing a waiver during this initial interview. He did sign a waiver during a second interview conducted after his extradition on September 26, 2014. Hodges testified that the defendant verbally waived his rights and expressed readiness to make a statement. During the interview, the defendant indicated a desire to speak to someone, which followed an exchange where he stated he felt the officers were being harsh. Despite this, he continued to cooperate and ultimately confessed to shooting his wife, Ms. Beverly, and expressed intent to shoot Mr. Dial the previous day. Before the interview ended, the defendant also signed consent forms for searching his car, phone, and home. Chief McCarter testified about the defendant's initial interview in Harlan County, Kentucky, stating that Captain Hodges provided the defendant with Miranda rights, although this was not recorded. During the interview, McCarter suggested that confessing could help the defendant avoid the death penalty, specifically when the defendant claimed ignorance of Ms. Beverly's death. McCarter clarified that his comment aimed to elicit a response and was not intended as a promise of leniency. While in jail, the defendant agreed to speak with the media, and McCarter advised him against it, stating he was not his attorney and suggesting it might not be wise to talk to the press. Chief Derrick Moore confirmed that the defendant willingly participated in the media interview, emphasizing that the defendant could have declined. The defendant ultimately confessed to shooting Ms. Beverly and admitted to intending to shoot Mr. Dial during the media interview, which was later admitted into evidence. Additionally, McCarter detailed a third recorded interview on September 26, 2014, where the defendant signed a Miranda waiver and demonstrated how he shot Ms. Beverly. This statement was consistent with his earlier accounts. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress all three statements, concluding he knowingly waived his rights. The trial then proceeded with these statements as evidence. During the trial, Jabari Dial recounted events from September 24, 2014, describing Ms. Beverly's actions at her home shortly before the shooting. Mr. Dial observed Ms. Beverly go outside before hearing her scream. He looked out to see the defendant holding a gun over her. Dial described Ms. Beverly backing away, holding a trash bag in one hand and the defendant's hand with the gun in the other, while trying to resist him. Dial confronted the defendant, who threatened to shoot both Ms. Beverly and him. After a moment of hesitation, the defendant pointed the gun at Ms. Beverly and shot her in the head, causing her to fall face-first to the ground. Dial noted that the struggle lasted about seven to eight minutes, during which the defendant tried to overpower Ms. Beverly. Following the shooting, Dial ran to a neighbor's house for help, observing the defendant's vehicle parked in a concealed area. The neighbor called 911, and Dial returned to find Ms. Beverly dead. Dial had stayed at her home for protection, denying any sexual relationship with her. Charles Moffett, a coworker of the defendant, testified that three weeks before the shooting, the defendant had asked to borrow a firearm for self-protection after being allegedly assaulted by his wife’s boyfriend. Moffett provided him with a .22 revolver, which the defendant did not return. Several neighbors, including Christy Sellars and Leslie Carl Parsons, reported seeing a red Pontiac parked near the Beverlys' home on the day of the incident. Parsons heard two screams followed by what he identified as a gunshot around 11:05 a.m. and saw a red vehicle leaving the area quickly. Donna and Gary Tarwater also heard screams and observed the defendant's vehicle making erratic movements to exit the driveway, maneuvering around Ms. Beverly's body. Troy Sellars did not hear the screams or gunshot but encountered Mr. Dial, who was visibly upset, at his door. At the victim’s home, he found Ms. Beverly lying face down with significant head injuries. Mr. Sellars called 911 and remained at the Beverlys' residence until law enforcement arrived. Deputies Aaron Foster, Ryan Cleveland, and Robert Stoffle of the Sevier County Sheriff’s Office responded to the scene, where Deputy Foster found Ms. Beverly face-down with a head injury. Deputy Stoffle noted her body was in the driveway, and the deputies secured the area, with Deputy Foster filing an initial report and Deputy Cleveland creating a crime scene log. Mr. Dial was interviewed by Deputy Foster, who recorded a written statement from him. Although Deputy Stoffle attempted to locate the defendant, he was unsuccessful. Tom Weekly, a chaplain accompanying Deputy Foster, observed Ms. Beverly deceased with a gunshot wound and described Mr. Dial as agitated and sorrowful. Ambulance personnel David Walker and Michael Beningo also confirmed the gunshot wound upon arrival and noted obvious signs of death, leading them not to attempt resuscitation before transporting her body to the hospital. Captain Hodges processed the crime scene later, documenting evidence and taking photographs, but could not find the murder weapon. The following day, Captain Hodges interviewed the defendant in custody, after reading him his Miranda rights, which he waived. Initially, the defendant feigned ignorance about the situation, but later admitted to driving to the Beverlys’ home and waiting for Ms. Beverly to come outside. He detailed his knowledge of her routine and described parking his vehicle out of sight. When Ms. Beverly exited the house, he approached her with a gun, shot her, and afterwards expressed shock at what occurred, stating he tossed the gun and left the scene. The defendant claimed ignorance of where he shot Ms. Beverly, insisting he only fired the gun once before discarding it and fleeing. He obtained the gun and ammunition from Charles Moffett, a coworker. The defendant expressed a desire to "hurt" and "shoot" Mr. Dial on September 24, 2014, and mentioned discovering Ms. Beverly in an intimate situation with another man on August 8, 2014. Although he denied intending to shoot Ms. Beverly, Captain Hodges noted the defendant appeared remorseful for her death. During his initial police interview, which was recorded and later shown to the jury, the defendant signed consent waivers for searches of his car, cell phone, and home. Captain Hodges testified that the defendant was agitated about Mr. Dial living with his wife and that he spoke to the media despite being advised against it by Chief McCarter. In the media interview, the defendant reiterated his admissions about shooting Ms. Beverly and his intent to harm Mr. Dial. Following extradition to Sevier County, the defendant participated in a second interview on September 26, 2014, where he demonstrated how he fired the weapon and clarified his intentions were to confront Ms. Beverly and hurt Mr. Dial, not to kill anyone. He described the positioning of the gun at the time of the shooting and claimed he parked his car out of Ms. Beverly's sight. The defendant denied threatening Mr. Dial and expressed that he had been assaulted prior to the incident. He acknowledged that someone loaded the gun for him and revealed he informed his mother about the shooting after it occurred. Chief McCarter confirmed that appropriate Miranda warnings were given before both interviews. Chief McCarter recounted a conversation with the defendant in which the defendant admitted to his mother that he accidentally shot Ms. Beverly, despite her admonitions against possessing a gun. The defendant claimed he attempted to discuss Mr. Dial living in his house with Ms. Beverly before the incident, and during this encounter, the gun discharged as he grabbed her. Dr. Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan conducted the autopsy on Ms. Beverly, determining the cause of death to be a contact gunshot wound to the head, with gunpowder found on her scalp indicating close-range shooting. The bullet's trajectory was described as unusual, entering from a steep angle. Testimonies from Steve Trout, a work associate of the defendant, and Litton Cochran, a colleague of Ms. Beverly, portrayed both individuals positively. Glenn Parton testified that while incarcerated, the defendant confessed to intentionally shooting Ms. Beverly and attempted to solicit Parton to kill a witness. During cross-examination, Parton’s credibility was questioned due to his prior unconfirmed information to law enforcement and his housing status in jail, which contradicted his claims about being in maximum security. The defense introduced evidence from the Sevier County Sheriff’s Office to challenge Parton’s reliability. Captain Hatcher acknowledged during cross-examination that Mr. Parton may have been incorrectly documented as housed in maximum security at times. Mr. Parton later testified about his conversations with the defendant in a common area, revealing that the defendant discussed driving an SUV, marital infidelity, obtaining a gun from a coworker, and shooting Ms. Beverly in the head. The defense presented further testimony from Captain Hatcher, who clarified that while maximum security and general population inmates use separate kiosks, interaction is possible in the booking area. Following the trial, the jury convicted the defendant of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and possession of a firearm during a dangerous felony. The court merged the murder convictions and sentenced the defendant, as a Range I offender, to life imprisonment with parole eligibility, a concurrent fifteen-year sentence for attempted murder, and a consecutive three-year sentence for firearm possession. The defendant's motion for a new trial was denied, leading to a timely appeal. On appeal, the defendant raises two issues: the denial of his motion to suppress three statements made post-arrest and the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions. He claims he did not knowingly waive his Miranda rights, arguing the statements should be suppressed. The State contends that the trial court's denial was justified, asserting that the defendant properly waived his rights, thus the subsequent statements were not tainted. The appellate review of suppression issues upholds the trial court's factual findings unless evidence strongly contradicts them, while legal applications of these facts are reviewed de novo. The appellate court is to consider the entire record, granting the prevailing party the most favorable interpretation of the evidence. In *State v. Henning*, the defendant contests the constitutionality of his waiver of Miranda rights prior to his initial statement to law enforcement. The Fifth Amendment, applicable via the Fourteenth Amendment, protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves, a principle mirrored in the Tennessee Constitution. Police must inform a suspect of their rights when in custody or significantly deprived of freedom for any confession to be admissible. The U.S. Supreme Court mandates that suspects must be warned of their right to remain silent, that statements can be used against them, and that they have the right to an attorney. These rights may be waived if done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Miranda requirements arise only when a suspect is both in custody and being questioned. The custody determination assesses whether a reasonable person would feel deprived of freedom akin to a formal arrest. The defendant's initial statement, made while incarcerated, was deemed a product of custodial interrogation and thus must be voluntary to be admissible. A confession is involuntary if it results from threats, promises, or improper influence. The assessment of voluntariness focuses on whether a suspect's will was overborne due to coercion, with coercive police actions, such as promises of leniency, potentially influencing this determination. However, not all promises of leniency render confessions involuntary; it is only those that compel confessions that violate the Fifth Amendment. Ultimately, the key question is whether law enforcement's conduct overbore the defendant's will, leading to a confession that was not freely self-determined. When assessing the voluntariness of a statement, courts analyze the totality of circumstances, which includes the accused’s characteristics and the interrogation details. Relevant factors include the accused's age, educational background, prior police experience, the nature and duration of questioning, the timing of constitutional rights advisements, delays in presenting the accused to a magistrate, and the physical and mental state of the accused during the interrogation. In this case, the defendant claimed he did not waive his right against self-incrimination during his initial interview, asserting that subsequent statements were derived from an unconstitutional statement. The court found that the defendant had indeed waived his Miranda rights before the initial interview, making that statement admissible. The court also determined that a second statement given to the media was voluntary and free from state coercion. A third statement made later was likewise deemed valid due to a proper Miranda waiver. The trial court confirmed that Captain Hodges had adequately advised the defendant of his rights during the initial interrogation. Although the defendant argued the lack of recorded evidence suggested otherwise, the court ruled that the officers’ credibility supported that the rights were communicated as required. The court also noted that if the defendant had requested an attorney, questioning must cease, indicating the importance of this factor in evaluating confession validity. Overall, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the statements. The court determined that the defendant did not unequivocally request an attorney during the interrogation and was satisfied that he did not wish to terminate the conversation or seek legal representation. The court found that the taking of the statement complied with constitutional standards, affirming that the defendant received and waived his Miranda warnings prior to the initial statement. Testimony from Captain Hodges and Chief McCarter confirmed that the defendant was read his rights, and he acknowledged understanding them before the interview continued. The trial court deemed their testimony credible, and there was no contrary evidence in the record. Regarding the voluntariness of the statement, the court evaluated the totality of circumstances, including the defendant's mental capacity. Although the defendant displayed below-average intelligence in some tests, the court observed no indications that his mental state impaired his understanding during the interrogation. The court noted that officers are not required to conduct mental evaluations unless blatant issues arise. The defendant, a high school graduate in his forties with a successful managerial career, demonstrated awareness and willingness during the interviews. Consequently, the court upheld the trial court's findings regarding the voluntariness and admissibility of the defendant's initial statement. Captain Hodges and Chief McCarter testified that the defendant received Miranda warnings before questioning, although these warnings were not recorded. The trial court found the officers' testimony credible. Captain Hodges confirmed that the defendant understood his rights before the recording began and received a positive acknowledgment from the defendant. The record shows no evidence of injury, intoxication, or health issues affecting the defendant, nor any deprivation of food, sleep, or medical care, or threats of abuse during the interview. Consequently, the trial court determined that the defendant's initial statement was voluntary and not coerced. The defendant claimed that psychological coercion influenced his will, specifically referencing Chief McCarter's comments about the death penalty. However, the trial court concluded that the defendant was cooperative and understood his rights prior to making his statement. The court noted that while the mention of the death penalty raises concerns, it did not believe this impacted the defendant’s willingness to cooperate or coerced his statements. The court emphasized that there was no evidence of misconduct by law enforcement and found the comments regarding the death penalty not coercive. Following these statements, the defendant shared details about his relationship with Ms. Beverly, including a verbal altercation prior to her death, and mentioned his subsequent actions, such as staying in hotels and purchasing an engagement ring for another woman. The defendant described marital struggles, including infidelity, leading up to a confession of murdering Ms. Beverly. Chief McCarter’s comments regarding the death penalty did not compel the confession, as there was no indication of a specific promise of leniency made to the defendant. The trial court found that the confession was voluntary and free from police coercion, a conclusion upheld by the reviewing court. The defendant's statements to the media and a subsequent statement made on September 26, 2014, were also deemed admissible. The trial court noted that the media interview was conducted without state action and that the third statement followed a signed Miranda waiver. Despite the unusual nature of defendant interviews, no impropriety was found in the officers' conduct, and they advised the defendant against speaking to the media, reinforcing the voluntariness of his statements. The trial court's assessments regarding the admissibility of these statements were affirmed. Officers did not initiate a media interview request, which the defendant accepted. For a confession to be classified as involuntary, it must arise from coercive state action, as established in State v. Downey. The media confession was not state-driven; moreover, Chief McCarter and Chief Moore informed the defendant that he was not obligated to speak to the media and recommended against it. The defendant executed a valid Miranda waiver before giving a statement on September 26, 2014, with no evidence suggesting the waiver was improperly obtained. Thus, the trial court appropriately denied the motion to suppress the defendant’s statements to the media and on that date, affirming that all statements complied with Fifth Amendment requirements. The court found no constitutional basis for exclusion and deemed all statements as voluntarily given. Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence for the defendant's first-degree, premeditated, felony, and attempted murder convictions, the defendant contended that the State did not adequately prove the necessary mental state. However, upon reviewing the evidence favorably towards the prosecution, the court found that a rational trier of fact could have established the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, as per Jackson v. Virginia. The credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence are determined by the trier of fact, and a guilty verdict, endorsed by the trial judge, supports the State’s case. The court emphasized that the trial judge and jury are best positioned to assess the testimony and demeanor of witnesses, which cannot be fully captured in a written record. A jury conviction shifts the defendant's status from presumed innocent to guilty, placing the burden on the convicted defendant to prove the insufficiency of evidence on appeal. In this case, the defendant was convicted of first-degree, premeditated murder of Ms. Beverly and attempted first-degree murder of Mr. Dial. First-degree murder is defined as a premeditated and intentional killing, with premeditation requiring that the intent to kill be formed prior to the act, though not necessarily for a specific duration. The jury assesses premeditation based on circumstances surrounding the killing, with factors indicating premeditation including the use of a deadly weapon against an unarmed victim, cruelty, declarations of intent to kill, procurement of a weapon, preparations for concealing the crime, and calmness post-killing. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence for premeditation by arguing that Ms. Beverly's death resulted from emotional turmoil due to an extramarital affair and witnessing sexual activity in their home. However, the evidence, including three confessions from the defendant, contradicts this claim, indicating that he consciously planned the act by parking in a spot where Ms. Beverly could not see his car before the incident. The defendant borrowed a gun from his co-worker, Mr. Moffett, three weeks before the shooting and stored it in his car. He parked outside his home and waited for about an hour, listening to Ms. Beverly and Mr. Dial's morning activities. Aware of Ms. Beverly's routine, he exited his car with the gun when she came outside to take out the trash, grabbed her, and threatened to shoot both her and Mr. Dial, who had just come outside. The defendant then shot Ms. Beverly in the head and fled the scene after discarding the gun. Evidence indicates the defendant premeditated the murder, as he had knowledge of the victims' routine and waited in an area where they could not see him. He acted with intent, planning the attack when Ms. Beverly was unarmed and alone. His claim of acting in the heat of passion due to jealousy over Ms. Beverly’s relationship with Mr. Dial was rejected, as the evidence supported a finding of premeditation. Additionally, the defendant's argument regarding the sufficiency of evidence for his conviction for the attempted first-degree murder of Mr. Dial was also addressed. Under Tennessee law, a person commits criminal attempt if they act with the intent to complete an action that constitutes the offense and take a substantial step toward it. The conduct of the defendant, as established in the record, corroborated the intent to commit the offense. Thus, the jury's finding of premeditation and the attempted murder conviction were upheld, and the defendant is not entitled to relief on these issues. Premeditation is characterized as an act executed after reflection and judgment. In evaluating attempts, the Supreme Court allows a jury to determine if an individual has taken a "substantial step" toward committing a crime based on their possession of materials for that crime near the scene, particularly if such possession serves no lawful purpose. In this case, evidence shows the defendant made a substantial step toward killing Mr. Dial on September 24, 2014, as he confessed his intent to shoot him and devised a plan to carry it out. The defendant waited outside Mr. Dial's home, concealed from view, with a loaded gun acquired weeks prior. He threatened both Mr. Dial and Ms. Beverly, ultimately shooting Ms. Beverly in the head. Following his arrest, the defendant reiterated his intention to shoot Mr. Dial to law enforcement and in a media statement. The jury subsequently convicted the defendant of first-degree felony murder of Ms. Beverly, as this occurred during the attempted murder of Mr. Dial. According to Tennessee law, a killing during the perpetration or attempt of first-degree murder is classified as first-degree felony murder. The definition of intentional acts in this context indicates that the defendant's conscious objective need not target a specific individual but rather the intent to kill someone. This reinforces that the defendant's actions constituted a significant step toward murder, affirming that he is not entitled to relief on this issue. Evidence indicates the defendant intended to cause death, demonstrating premeditation and deliberation, which qualifies the act as first-degree murder, even if the victim was not the intended target. On September 24, 2014, the defendant's actions—including acquiring a gun, lying in wait, and attacking Ms. Beverly—showed a clear intention to kill both Ms. Beverly and Mr. Dial. The defendant explicitly stated his intent to kill Mr. Dial to law enforcement and the media. This provided sufficient grounds for the conviction of first-degree attempted murder of Mr. Dial and first-degree felony murder of Ms. Beverly, as her death resulted from the defendant's actions. The trial court's judgments are affirmed.