Jody Alan Hughes was convicted in the Bradley County Criminal Court of first-degree premeditated murder, kidnapping, tampering with evidence, and conspiracy to commit tampering with evidence, receiving an effective sentence of life plus fourteen years. On appeal, Hughes raised several issues: (1) insufficient evidence for the convictions; (2) denial of his requests to represent himself; (3) exclusion of defense commentary on co-defendants' potential prison sentences in the opening statement; (4) improper wording of a jury curative instruction; (5) limitations on cross-examination of a co-defendant regarding a false statement in another case; (6) restrictions on a detective’s testimony about inconsistent statements from co-defendants; and (7) refusal to allow testimony about a co-defendant’s pretrial statement for impeachment purposes. The court found no reversible errors in these matters and affirmed the trial court’s judgments. The factual background includes the discovery of the victim, Tyler Worth, whose body was found in a ravine, with evidence indicating he was shot. A grand jury indicted Hughes and several others for various charges related to the murder and evidence tampering, with Hughes tried separately from his co-defendants in May 2017. Testimony revealed the victim had been missing since late September 2015, raising concerns from his father.
On October 15 or 16, the victim's father reported his son missing to 911, but police later informed him that the victim was deceased. Savannah Sullivan, a family friend of the victim and a methamphetamine user, testified that the victim had come to her house weeks before his death with an ounce of methamphetamine he claimed to have stolen from the Appellant. The victim later called Sullivan, expressing fear and mentioning he had "stolen more stuff," but when Sullivan arrived to pick him up, he was gone. Sullivan informed the Appellant and another person, Ashley, about the theft, but they were skeptical. Jonathan Sivley, also a friend of both the victim and the Appellant, testified that the victim had stolen drugs from the Appellant and that the Appellant retaliated by beating the victim in a basement, causing injury. Sivley stated that the victim disappeared shortly after this incident and noted it was widely known that the Appellant was dangerous. On October 11, 2015, Sivley was lured to a location known for drug use, where he encountered the Appellant, who threatened him with a knife. Nicholas Parker, who had prior misdemeanor theft convictions and was selling methamphetamine at the time, testified that on October 11, the Appellant demanded firearms from him, which Parker provided to avoid conflict. In March 2017, the Appellant allegedly offered Parker $10,000 to falsely claim that another individual had taken one of the firearms. R.L. Jerger, who had known the victim for about a year and had a history of methamphetamine addiction and criminal convictions, testified regarding his acquaintance with the Appellant.
Jerger testified that he stole bookbags from Jonathan Sivley, who had previously stolen them from the Appellant. On October 11, Jerger intended to return the bookbags to the Appellant in exchange for methamphetamine. After a phone call with the Appellant, Jerger agreed to hold Sivley at the compound for $500 until the Appellant arrived. Jerger informed Sivley to come to the compound, where the Appellant physically assaulted Sivley, prompting him to flee. Jerger and the Appellant pursued Sivley, who broke into a nearby house, leading a neighbor to call the police.
Jerger, along with the Appellant and driver Ashley Hughes, searched for Sivley in the Appellant's Nissan Xterra. They encountered police at the house Sivley entered. The victim, Tyler, texted Jerger for a ride, prompting Ashley to drive to his location. Inside the apartment, the Appellant threatened Tyler while he packed a bookbag. They all returned to the Xterra, where Tyler appeared frightened.
Upon arriving at the Econo Lodge, the Appellant and Hawkins went into a room and returned with two pistols, which the Appellant brandished while threatening the group. He demanded their cell phones and ordered Ashley to drive to a wooded area. The victim was visibly distressed as the Appellant threatened to shoot anyone who screamed.
After reaching a secluded dirt road, the Appellant directed everyone to exit the vehicle and lined them up behind it while holding a gun. He separated Tyler from the others, and the victim pleaded for mercy as the situation escalated.
Jerger witnessed a gunshot incident in which the victim fell, attempted to flee while pleading for help, and ultimately succumbed to injuries. After the shooting, the Appellant instructed Jerger and Hawkins to search for shell casings, which they did not find. The Appellant and Jerger moved the victim's body, wrapped it in a blue tarp, and disposed of it in the woods. Jerger destroyed the victim's phone as they left the scene. The Appellant contacted his mother, expressing concern about being in trouble and requesting clothes. Jerger disassembled the gun and handed parts to the Appellant during the drive to Taco Bell, where they met the Appellant’s mother and friend, Jeff Crumley. The Appellant transferred gun parts and the victim's belongings to his mother before they all left.
The group then went to a storage unit for shovels, purchased a mattock from Ace Hardware, and discussed burying the body. Crumley drove them to a location on Lead Mine Valley Road, suggesting it was suitable for digging a grave. Jerger, the Appellant, and Crumley dug a hole, hid the Xterra, and then went to Hardee’s for food. Jerger identified photos from the outing, including one showing shovels in Crumley’s truck. They returned to the scene of the murder but left due to darkness. Eventually, they switched vehicles to a silver Chevrolet Impala, where Jerger and Hawkins contemplated fleeing. However, the Appellant intervened, and Ashley took over driving.
Jerger testified about the events leading to and following the shooting of the victim by the Appellant. He recounted that he, along with Hawkins, drove to a dollar store and later to a location where the victim's body was left. During the drive, Jerger expressed fear that the Appellant intended to harm them, but Ashley reassured him they would be safe if they complied with the Appellant's demands. Upon reaching a dirt road, they retrieved the victim's body, which was wrapped in a tarp, and placed it in the trunk of the Impala after adjusting the back seat due to rigor mortis.
Afterward, the group traveled to a hole dug on Lead Mine Valley Road. The Appellant offered Jerger and Hawkins money for a hotel room and drugs to keep them occupied while he dealt with the situation. Jerger accepted, and they were dropped off at a motel. Following the incident, Jerger and Hawkins spent three days hiding from the Appellant.
On October 15, Jerger contacted Detective Brandon Edwards and disclosed the events, including the location of the victim's body and the hole where it was buried. He confirmed that only the Appellant was armed during the incident and that the Appellant fired three shots at the victim, who was initially thought to be picked up for a scare rather than harm. Jerger described the victim as a target for robbery and noted that he did not know the Appellant intended to kill him. He clarified that while there was no initial coercion, once the Appellant brandished a gun, he felt hostage. Jerger also indicated that neither Ashley nor Crumley were armed, and he characterized Ashley as indifferent after the shooting.
Jerger and Hawkins were alone in a BP gas station and an Impala shortly after a shooting but did not seek help or flee due to the Appellant’s threatening presence with a gun. Jerger reported the incident to others after the Appellant left them but felt disbelieved. The victim was killed on a Sunday, and the Appellant was arrested the following day for assaulting Sivley, but Jerger did not report the shooting to the police, believing the Appellant would be bailed out. Four days later, after learning the Appellant was still in jail, Jerger still did not contact law enforcement.
Lieutenant David Shoemaker, involved in the investigation, learned on October 15, 2015, that Jerger claimed to have witnessed a murder, prompting officers to locate him that night. Jerger directed them to a potential murder site on Hughes Lake Road, a difficult terrain area. On October 19, 2015, Jeff Crumley took Detective Dewayne Scoggins and Lieutenant Shoemaker to the same location.
Emily Dennison, an Assistant Medical Examiner, performed the victim’s autopsy on October 18, 2015, revealing the victim was clothed, wrapped in a blue tarp, and significantly decomposed. The autopsy indicated the victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds, including one to the chest that traveled to the neck and another to the back of the shoulder. Toxicology tests showed the presence of amphetamine and methamphetamine in the victim's system, and no soot or stippling was found, suggesting the gun was fired from a distance. Dr. Dennison concluded the death was a homicide and noted the potential for blood in the victim's mouth post-shooting.
Gus Hawkins, who testified he had a head injury affecting his memory, had sold a nine-millimeter handgun to Nick Parker shortly before the shooting. On October 11, Hawkins, the victim, and the Appellant left an apartment together, with Hawkins and the victim getting into the Appellant's Xterra, driven by Ashley, with Jerger seated behind the Appellant.
Hawkins testified that he and the Appellant went to Parker’s motel room, where the Appellant borrowed two handguns—a nine-millimeter and a .40-caliber. Afterward, they returned to the Xterra, where the Appellant and the victim argued about stolen items, during which the Appellant acted aggressively and threatened that “someone’s gonna die today.” Hawkins reported that the Appellant then forced him, Jerger, and the victim out of the vehicle, lined them up, and pointed the nine-millimeter handgun at them. As the victim expressed a desire to go home, the Appellant threatened to kill him. When the victim attempted to flee, the Appellant shot him three times in rapid succession, resulting in the victim falling and bleeding.
Following the shooting, the Appellant and Jerger wrapped the victim's body in a tarp and disposed of it down an embankment. The Appellant then threatened Hawkins regarding his younger brother to ensure silence about the incident. They met the Appellant's mother at Taco Bell, where the Appellant placed a backpack in her trunk, then traveled to various locations to procure shovels and other supplies for body disposal. Eventually, they returned to Hughes Lake Road, loaded the victim's body into an Impala, and traveled to Jeff Crumley’s family home to dig a grave. The Appellant later provided accommodations for Hawkins and Jerger at a motel.
Hawkins expressed feelings of fear for his life after witnessing the shooting and stated he never claimed to have shot the victim nor believed Jerger was involved, characterizing Jerger's actions as unrelated to the incident. On cross-examination, Hawkins admitted to initially recalling little about the shooting but later gained clarity after discussions with Dusty Cox while in jail. He noted the victim appeared frightened before the shooting and did not recall specific statements made by others following the incident. The Appellant fired three shots, with the last two being closer together than the first.
Hawkins and Jerger entered a BP gas station after a shooting without seeking assistance, with Hawkins admitting he did not report the incident to the police due to fear for himself and his brother. Jeff Crumley, a friend of the Appellant, testified about his interactions with the victim, Sivley, and the Appellant, noting a prior altercation where the Appellant physically assaulted the victim. On October 11, 2015, the Appellant contacted Crumley, requesting help and a truck. Crumley retrieved items from the Appellant’s vehicle, which included a computer and a black handgun, and later met the Appellant at a gas station where the Appellant urged Sivley not to press charges against him.
Crumley, unfamiliar with Hawkins and Jerger, drove them and the Appellant to Lead Mine Valley Road to hide the Appellant’s Xterra. They took shovels into the woods, where Crumley sensed something serious had occurred. During the drive, the Appellant confessed to shooting someone, while Hawkins claimed responsibility, which Crumley doubted. The group then acquired a silver Impala, and after stopping at various locations, Jerger and Hawkins returned from the woods with a body wrapped in a blue tarp, which they placed in the trunk of the Impala. They drove both the Impala and the Xterra back to Lead Mine Valley Road, where the Impala became stuck in the mud. They subsequently switched vehicles, taking the Xterra to a motel and then returning to Crumley’s house in different vehicles.
Crumley transported the victim's body from the Impala's trunk to the Blazer's back seat. He cut the Impala's trunk carpet and poured bleach inside. At 5:00 a.m., Crumley, the Appellant, and Ashley went to Walmart, purchasing a chain, a dolly, shower curtains, and Gorilla Tape before returning to Crumley's house. Crumley then drove to Greasy Creek to attempt to carry the victim down a slope, where he fell and prayed over the body, intentionally leaving a Chevrolet hat at the scene. Afterward, Crumley washed the Blazer and it remained at his home for about a day before Ashley returned it to their former residence. Approximately three days later, the Appellant's mother and another man retrieved the Blazer, where Crumley gave the mother a gun that the Appellant had left in his car. Crumley later led police to the victim's body and various scenes related to the incident. During cross-examination, he noted that Jerger and Hawkins appeared to be close friends with the Appellant and showed no remorse for the victim's death. He admitted ignorance about who shot the victim and acknowledged that he would have charges against him dismissed for truthful testimony.
Ashley Hughes, the Appellant's wife, testified about her fear of the Appellant due to his abusive behavior. At the time of the trial, she was pregnant and had been sober from methamphetamine for nearly a year. She described the victim as a drug user who had stolen meth from the Appellant, which angered him. Ashley recounted a violent incident involving the victim just days before his death. On October 11, while in Chattanooga, the Appellant received a call from Jerger, leading to an altercation involving Sivley and the victim. Ashley drove them to an apartment where they forcibly made the victim get into the Xterra, indicating he was cornered with no choice.
Ashley provided detailed testimony regarding a series of events involving the Appellant, Hawkins, Jerger, and the victim. She described driving to the Econo Lodge with the Appellant in the front passenger seat, Hawkins behind him, and Jerger behind her, with the victim positioned between Jerger and Hawkins. Upon returning from Nick Parker's room, the Appellant was in possession of two firearms—a silver gun and a black gun—while expressing anger towards the victim for allegedly stealing methamphetamine. The Appellant instructed Ashley to drive to her grandfather's house and threatened the victim with one of the guns, asking him which he preferred to be killed with.
When they arrived at her grandfather's house, they left quickly. Ashley recounted previous conversations where the Appellant had mentioned shooting the victim. The group later drove to Hughes Lake Road, where the Appellant directed Ashley to stop and ordered Jerger, Hawkins, and the victim to hand over their phones. He then instructed them to exit the vehicle while Ashley remained inside. The Appellant, holding the silver gun, yelled at the victim, who was visibly upset and crying. Ashley heard the victim scream followed by a gunshot. The victim attempted to escape but was shot twice by the Appellant while lying on the ground.
After the shooting, the Appellant ordered Jerger and Hawkins to wrap the victim's body in a tarp and drag it into a nearby wooded area. They returned to the vehicle, and Ashley drove away. Hawkins disassembled the Appellant’s gun, and they later met the Appellant’s mother at Taco Bell before retrieving shovels from the Appellant’s storage unit. They traveled to Lead Mine Valley Road to dig a grave for the victim's body.
Ashley corroborated accounts from Jerger, Hawkins, and Crumley regarding subsequent activities, including visiting various locations such as Hardee's and Home Depot, where she identified herself in surveillance footage. They purchased bleach at Dollar General before leaving Hawkins and Jerger at a motel. The Appellant and Crumley transferred the victim’s body from one vehicle to another, and Ashley recognized photographs of them buying supplies at Walmart. The last sighting of the victim's body in the vehicle occurred at Crumley’s house, where Crumley indicated he would dispose of the body. Ashley concluded her testimony by affirming that the Appellant shot the victim and that her testimony was not influenced by any promises.
During cross-examination, Ashley admitted that both Jerger and Hawkins were complicit in retrieving guns from Nick Parker at the Econo Lodge, and she did not witness the Appellant click the guns together in the parking lot. She failed to inform police that the Appellant asked the victim which gun he preferred to be killed with and denied making a statement post-shooting that “it couldn’t have happened to a better person.” Ashley clarified that it was Jerger, not Hawkins, who disassembled the Appellant’s gun and acknowledged opportunities to escape after the shooting but chose not to. Charged with crimes related to the victim’s death, she spent several months in jail before being released on bond, during which she violated bond conditions by contacting the Appellant and using illegal drugs, yet her bond was not revoked. Ashley described the Appellant as “a very angry person” and admitted she did not discourage him from harming the victim, stating her motivation for testifying was to reveal the truth.
On redirect, Ashley confirmed the Appellant wore a GPS monitor on October 11, 2015, and on recross, she stated she never saw him tamper with it. Beryl Paul, Jr. testified that officers from the BCSO questioned him about a Chevrolet Blazer belonging to the Appellant, which Paul had borrowed from the Appellant's mother and contained a mattock and two shovels. He clarified that he was not asked by the Appellant’s mother to conceal evidence.
Special Agent Laura Hodge from the TBI Crime Laboratory testified that two bullets recovered from the victim were fired from the same nine-millimeter firearm. Additionally, TBI Forensic Scientist Michael Turbeville provided DNA analysis, confirming that DNA from a cigarette butt matched Crumley and a Gatorade bottle matched Hawkins. Furthermore, DNA on cigarette butts from the Impala matched the Appellant, Ashley, and an unknown female, while the victim's blood was found on a seat belt buckle in the Blazer. Crime scene investigator Monica Datz discussed fingerprint evidence, matching prints from Crumley’s truck to Ashley and Jerger, and those in the Appellant’s Blazer to multiple individuals, including the Appellant and Paul. Notably, the Impala's trunk had a strong bleach smell, and carpeting had been removed. Shane Clark, a crime scene technician, described the recovery of the victim's body, which was wrapped in a tarp and found down a ravine, alongside a baseball cap with a “Chevy bow tie” nearby.
Detective Brandon Edwards from the BCSO testified about the investigation following the murder of a victim reported missing on October 15, 2015. He received information implicating the Appellant and learned that a witness, Jerger, claimed to have seen the killing. Jerger, who was frightened, provided detailed accounts to the police, including leading them to the location where he alleged the shooting occurred and directing them to a silver Impala with the victim's body purportedly in the trunk.
On October 16, police located and interviewed Hawkins, Crumley, and Ashley, while also reviewing surveillance footage. The investigation revealed the Appellant's use of his bank debit card at various locations on October 11. When confronted by Detective Edwards, the Appellant acknowledged knowing the victim but insisted the victim was alive.
The Appellant was under a GPS ankle monitor, which provided a timeline of his movements. On October 11, the Appellant traveled from Chattanooga to Cleveland, with GPS indicating he was near key locations around the time of the alleged murder. Specific movements included being at the compound, making brief stops at various sites, and the GPS going offline temporarily.
Detective Edwards also presented evidence from surveillance videos showing the Appellant and others at locations like Hardee’s and Dollar General, where purchases included items like bleach and latex gloves. Despite searching Hughes Lake Road for evidence such as shell casings and the victim's phone, no items were found.
Detective Edwards, during cross-examination, acknowledged that Jerger claimed he was coerced into participating in the events leading to the victim's death, stating that both Jerger and Hawkins considered themselves "hostages." Despite this, neither appeared distressed in various locations, including Hardees and Dollar General. Hawkins initially stated he was with Nick Parker at the Econo Lodge on October 11 but later changed his account, claiming to have been with the victim at an apartment. His timeline was found to be incorrect, and he suggested the Appellant used a gun to force the victim into a vehicle, although the Appellant did not possess a gun at that time. Hawkins struggled with memory recall and required prompting to remember certain events but was able to recount major details.
Detective Edwards also testified regarding consistency among the statements of witnesses Jerger, Hawkins, Crumley, and Ashley, emphasizing their unwavering assertions about the Appellant having both a chrome and a black gun, that he was the sole gunman on Hughes Lake Road, and that he shot the victim three times. The State rested its case after this testimony.
Stephanie Anderson, a friend of Ashley Hughes, testified that Ashley did not deny shooting the victim when Anderson mentioned the allegation. On cross-examination, Anderson acknowledged her previous communication with the Appellant’s mother while in jail.
The Appellant, a twenty-eight-year-old with prior convictions, testified about his long-standing friendship with the victim, which evolved into a drug-selling relationship after his release from jail in 2015. He recounted an incident where he confronted the victim about stolen drugs, leading to a physical altercation, but stated he was not angry afterward. On October 11, he claimed to have been in Chattanooga when he received a call from Jerger, whom he knew through the victim and had sold drugs to.
Jerger informed the Appellant that Sivley was at his house with two backpacks of electronics. Jerger offered to protect Sivley, leading Ashley to drive the Appellant back to Cleveland. Upon arrival, the Appellant confronted Sivley, who attempted to flee but was struck by Jerger, causing him to drop the backpacks and escape into a nearby house. The Appellant and Jerger ceased their pursuit when they heard police sirens. After retrieving the backpacks, they left the scene with Ashley driving.
The Appellant testified that the victim had contacted Jerger for a ride and was in possession of the Appellant's firearms. They subsequently went to the victim's apartment, where Hawkins revealed he had sold one of the Appellant's guns. The group then traveled to an Econo Lodge, where the Appellant retrieved two guns from Parker—one was tucked into his waistband, and the other was given to Hawkins.
Tensions escalated when Jerger accused the victim of theft. After stopping on a dirt road, Jerger brandished a gun at the victim, who fled in fear. Jerger shot the victim twice in the back, leading to the victim's collapse. The Appellant, unaware that Jerger would shoot, took Jerger's gun, unloaded it, and returned it. Concluding the victim was dead, the Appellant, who was under GPS monitoring, expressed concern about their impending legal troubles.
Following the shooting, Jerger and Hawkins concealed the victim's body in a tarp and disposed of the gun by disassembling it and discarding the parts. The Appellant took leadership in moving the body, borrowing a truck from Crumley and giving him one of his guns while instructing his mother to take the bags he had retrieved. The Appellant emphasized the need to relocate the body away from his GPS location, leading them to retrieve shovels from his storage unit for burial.
The Appellant purchased gloves and a mattock at Ace Hardware before meeting Crumley at a BP gas station, where he disclosed that he wanted to move a body after a shooting. Crumley agreed to assist, and they drove to Lead Mine Valley Road to dig a hole, but the Appellant decided against burying the body there due to his GPS monitor. Crumley suggested disposing of the body in a location unknown to them. They plotted to deceive Jerger and Hawkins into believing the burial would occur at Lead Mine Valley Road.
The Appellant then procured a car, placed the body in the trunk, and they made stops at Hardee’s and Dollar General before returning to Lead Mine Valley Road. He provided drugs to Jerger and Hawkins and rented them a motel room. The Appellant, along with Ashley and Crumley, transferred the body from the Impala to his Blazer, with Crumley cutting out the trunk carpet and cleaning it with bleach before leaving the Impala behind. After running errands, the Appellant returned to Crumley’s house, denying any involvement in the shooting.
During cross-examination, the Appellant conceded that much of the State's witnesses' testimony was accurate, including claims about drug theft and an assault on the victim. He stated that Ashley urged him to retrieve his belongings following the shooting, and he claimed that Jerger, not he, shot the victim. The Appellant also mentioned that he helped dispose of the body to protect himself and aimed to keep Crumley as the only person aware of its location. On redirect, he refuted allegations of forcing the victim from the apartment and asserted that the shooting occurred out of Ashley’s view.
The jury ultimately convicted the Appellant of first-degree premeditated murder, kidnapping (a Class C felony), tampering with evidence (a Class C felony), and conspiracy to commit tampering with evidence (a Class D felony).
The Appellant was sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder and received additional sentences of six years for kidnapping, eight years for tampering with evidence, and eight years for conspiracy to commit tampering with evidence. The trial court ordered the two eight-year sentences to run concurrently, while the life sentence, six-year, and one of the eight-year sentences were to be served consecutively, resulting in a total effective sentence of life plus fourteen years.
The Appellant contends that the trial court improperly denied his motion for judgment of acquittal, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. He also argues that the trial court erred by not classifying certain witnesses as accomplices, claiming their testimony lacked sufficient corroboration. The State maintains that the evidence is adequate and that the trial court acted correctly regarding the accomplices' status.
The appellate review standard requires evaluating whether, when viewing the evidence favorably to the prosecution, a rational jury could have found the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court will not reassess witness credibility or reweigh evidence, adhering instead to the jury's interpretations and inferences. The burden lies with the Appellant to demonstrate the insufficiency of evidence post-conviction.
Convictions may be based on direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination thereof, with the jury tasked with determining the weight and implications of circumstantial evidence. The definition of first-degree murder includes the premeditated and intentional killing of another, while kidnapping is defined as false imprisonment under conditions that expose the victim to significant risk of bodily injury.
False imprisonment, as defined by Tennessee law, occurs when a person unlawfully confines another, substantially interfering with their liberty. The Appellant contested the sufficiency of evidence supporting his convictions, arguing that witness testimonies regarding the shooting were inconsistent and lacked credibility. He claimed the evidence did not support the kidnapping charge, asserting the victim entered the vehicle voluntarily and no witnesses testified to his being held against his will.
On October 11, 2015, the Appellant confronted the victim, who had stolen from him. After the victim texted for a ride, the Appellant, along with Jerger and Ashley, went to confront him. Although Jerger indicated the victim thought he was just getting a ride, he also recounted the Appellant's aggressive demand for the victim to enter the car. Ashley described the victim as "cornered" and "basically forced" into the vehicle. Once inside, the Appellant threatened the victim and later pointed a gun at him, restricting the victim's freedom. Testimonies from Jerger, Hawkins, and Ashley indicated that the victim was frightened and expressed a desire to go home, but instead, they drove to another location where the Appellant shot the victim.
The jury was tasked with assessing the credibility of the witnesses, ultimately crediting at least one account implicating the Appellant as the shooter. The evidence presented was sufficient to support both the murder and kidnapping convictions, as it demonstrated substantial interference with the victim's liberty. Regarding claims that the witnesses were accomplices, the trial court left the determination to the jury, which was instructed to evaluate whether the testimonies were corroborated by additional evidence. An accomplice is defined as someone who voluntarily participates in the crime, and if the facts of a witness's involvement are clear, the court may rule on their status as a matter of law.
Disputed facts regarding a witness's status as an accomplice are to be determined by the jury. The trial court instructed the jury that Crumley was an accomplice in tampering with evidence and conspiracy to commit tampering. In Tennessee, a witness's status as an accomplice is assessed based on whether they could have been indicted for the charged offense. A felony conviction cannot rely solely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony; one accomplice cannot corroborate another. Corroboration requires independent evidence suggesting a crime occurred and implicating the accused, which can be either direct or circumstantial and does not need to be sufficient alone to support a conviction. The jury typically decides if adequate corroboration exists.
In this case, Jerger, Hawkins, and Ashley were present during the victim's death, all claiming the Appellant acted alone in the shooting due to fear of him. The court found Ashley's status as an accomplice legally ambiguous, as she had prior knowledge of the Appellant's intent to confront the victim and assisted him by driving him to various locations. Despite her claims of fear, her involvement raised questions about her accomplice status. Testimony from others indicated the Appellant was dangerous, further complicating the clarity of the witnesses’ roles. Thus, the trial court concluded that whether they were accomplices was a factual issue for the jury.
Nevertheless, even if some witnesses were deemed accomplices, their testimony was strongly corroborated by other evidence. Parker confirmed he provided the Appellant with two handguns before the shooting, one matching the bullets found in the victim. Additionally, the Appellant's GPS ankle monitor verified his locations on the relevant dates, aligning with witness accounts of events surrounding the shooting.
On October 11, the monitor ceased transmission at two critical times: when the victim was killed on Hughes Lake Road and when the Appellant, Jerger, Hawkins, Ashley, and Crumley returned to retrieve the victim's body. The State presented various videos and photographs depicting the Appellant and witnesses in multiple locations, which sufficiently corroborated the testimonies of Jerger, Hawkins, and Ashley, supporting the Appellant's convictions.
The Appellant argued that the trial court erred in denying his requests to represent himself. The State contended that only two instances could be interpreted as such requests, which the trial court properly denied. The Appellant had a contentious relationship with his defense counsel, frequently voicing complaints about counsel's preparedness and approach during the trial. On the third day, the Appellant inquired about the possibility of self-representation, but the court deemed this request untimely. On the fifth day, he expressed a desire to represent himself, which was again ruled untimely, and the court did not address the self-representation request.
Both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions guarantee the right to counsel for indigent defendants, along with the alternative right to self-representation. However, this right requires a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel assistance, as established in case law. Three essential prerequisites for self-representation include: timely assertion of the right, a clear and unequivocal request, and a knowing waiver of counsel. Additionally, Tennessee Rule 44(b)(2) mandates that indigent defendants execute a written waiver of counsel.
The trial court's discretion regarding the timeliness of the Defendant's self-representation request is upheld, as seen in State v. David G. Jenkins. The Defendant's initial inquiry about self-representation was vague and made after seven witnesses had already testified on the third day of trial, leading the court to deem it untimely. A subsequent clear request on the fifth day, after twenty-two witnesses, was also ruled untimely, denying the Appellant any relief on this matter.
Regarding comments made during opening statements, the Appellant argued that the trial court improperly barred defense counsel from discussing co-defendants' potential prison sentences. The trial court sustained the State's objection, emphasizing that references to punishment are outside the jury's purview. The trial court later ruled that counsel's comments violated Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-201(b), which was upheld on appeal, as the comments suggested the jury consider the Appellant's punishment indirectly. The appellate court reinforced that trial courts possess broad discretion in managing counsel's arguments, including during opening statements, and affirmed that no abuse of discretion occurred in this instance.
The right to cross-examine witnesses for bias is fundamental and protected under the Sixth Amendment and the Tennessee Constitution. However, Tennessee law, specifically Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-201(b), prohibits judges from instructing juries or allowing attorneys to comment on potential penalties in contested criminal cases. Courts have upheld this restriction, stating that limiting cross-examination to prevent jurors from learning about a defendant's possible sentences is within a trial court's discretion. Previous cases illustrate this principle: in *State v. Larreal Brown*, the court upheld a trial judge's decision to limit questioning that could reveal a co-defendant's sentencing exposure, while in *State v. Nehad Sobhi Abdelnabi*, questioning about a co-defendant's original sentence length was also restricted. In *State v. Jereco Tynes*, the court similarly restricted defense inquiries to prevent jurors from learning about the defendant's potential punishments.
In the current case, the defense's strategy involved arguing that witnesses accused the defendant to mitigate their own culpability. The defense counsel's comments did not violate the statute, as the witnesses were not charged with the same crimes as the defendant, and no specific sentencing exposure was mentioned. Consequently, the jury could not infer the defendant's potential punishment from these comments, particularly as the relevant charges had already been presented to the jury.
Defense counsel's opening statement informed the jury that the Appellant faced charges of first-degree murder, kidnapping, conspiracy to tamper with evidence, and tampering with evidence, while the codefendants were charged only with the latter two offenses. The court found that defense counsel's comment regarding the lesser potential prison time for the codefendants was not a direct reference to punishment as defined by statute, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by upholding the State’s objection. However, this error was deemed harmless as defense counsel could still investigate potential bias during witness cross-examinations, leaving the Appellant without grounds for relief.
Additionally, the Appellant argued that defense counsel should have been allowed to disclose that witness Jerger had given a false statement in a prior homicide case. The State contended that the trial court acted correctly in limiting the scope of this inquiry. The court permitted questioning about Jerger’s prior false statement but ruled that the details of the homicide case were irrelevant. On appeal, the Appellant asserted that the jury needed to understand the seriousness of Jerger's willingness to lie in a homicide context. Evidence is relevant if it influences the probability of a consequential fact, but even relevant evidence can be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice or confusion. The trial court has discretion regarding evidence admissibility, and appellate courts will not intervene unless a clear abuse is evident. Tennessee Rule of Evidence 608(b) allows for cross-examination about specific instances of conduct affecting a witness's truthfulness, provided a hearing is held to establish probative value and factual basis.
Conduct relevant to the prosecution must have occurred within ten years before the commencement of the case, per Tennessee Rule of Evidence 608(b). The trial court's ruling under this rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The State contends the Appellant waived the issue by not specifically questioning a witness about a prior homicide case and failing to object to a clarification that allowed questioning only about a previous false statement made by the witness. The trial court properly permitted this questioning as it was relevant to the witness's character for truthfulness. However, the court ruled that the specifics of the homicide case were not pertinent to the current trial, denying the Appellant relief on this point.
Regarding a curative instruction, the Appellant argued that the trial court's wording was flawed after inadvertently disclosing the homicide context during cross-examination. The trial court acknowledged this error and provided an instruction to the jury to disregard any information not presented by witnesses. The State requested a stronger instruction, which the trial court proposed, stating that only credible evidence from the witness stand should be considered. The Appellant objected to the use of the term "credible," expressing concern about its impact on his image, but the trial court maintained the terminology to align with jury instructions on evidence admissibility. The Appellant was also found in contempt for his outburst during the proceedings.
The trial court instructed the jury to consider only testimony from the witness stand, emphasizing that any words not spoken from the witness stand should be disregarded during deliberation. The Appellant argued that the inclusion of the term "credible" in this instruction implied a lack of credibility on his part. The State countered that the instruction was not intended to comment on his credibility and properly directed the jury to disregard non-testimonial statements. Under the Tennessee Constitution, judges must avoid commenting on evidence but can clarify testimony and the law. Although it would have been preferable for the trial court to simply instruct the jury to disregard the Appellant's comments, the instruction given did not specifically address the Appellant and did not suggest a judgment on his credibility. The trial court had previously instructed the jury on assessing the credibility of all witnesses, including the Appellant, and typically, juries are presumed to follow such instructions. Consequently, the Appellant was denied relief on this point.
Regarding the limitation on cross-examination, the Appellant claimed the trial court erred by preventing him from questioning Detective Edwards about inconsistencies in statements made by accomplices. He argued he should have been able to highlight these inconsistencies during cross-examination. The State maintained that while the trial court restricted the playing of recorded excerpts under the pretense of refreshing the detective’s memory, it did not prevent the Appellant from effectively cross-examining Detective Edwards. The agreement with the State suggests that the trial court’s actions did not constitute an error affecting the Appellant's rights.
On October 16, police located and interviewed Hawkins, Crumley, and Ashley. Detective Edwards revealed that Jerger provided him with two statements, while Hawkins gave three, starting with his first on October 16. During cross-examination, defense counsel pointed out inconsistencies in both Jerger's and Hawkins's statements, questioning whether Hawkins claimed that the Appellant used a gun to coerce the victim into a vehicle. Edwards indicated uncertainty about recalling Hawkins's specific claims. The defense sought to play a recorded excerpt from Hawkins's interview to refresh Edwards's memory, which the State objected to, arguing it was an attempt to impeach Hawkins. The trial court supported the defense's request, allowing the excerpt to be played. Afterward, Edwards acknowledged that Hawkins did mention the Appellant using a gun in his initial statement. The defense continued to question Edwards about Hawkins's claims, leading to further excerpts being played despite State objections, which asserted that such actions were inappropriate for impeachment since Hawkins had already testified. The trial court advised that refreshing Edwards's memory must align with rules of evidence, permitting the defense to inquire about inconsistencies while clarifying that prior statements by Hawkins could not be directly used to impeach him through Edwards. The court encouraged the defense to summarize evidence effectively within procedural constraints.
Impeachment of testimony is restricted unless the witness contradicts prior statements. The Appellant aimed to question Detective Edwards about Hawkins’s inconsistent statements to refresh his memory, not to impeach him. The trial court allowed some leeway for this inquiry but ultimately restricted the continuous playback of Hawkins's prior interviews. The court determined that the Appellant was not denied a fair cross-examination opportunity, leading to the conclusion that he is not entitled to relief.
Regarding the suppression of attorney Randy Rogers's testimony, the Appellant argued it was necessary to impeach witness Ashley. The State contended that the court correctly denied this request, as Ashley’s statements were not entirely inconsistent with her earlier statement to Rogers and she had not been given a chance to clarify any inconsistencies. The court found no error in this decision, noting that Ashley's testimony indicated that she felt some pressure to testify, which aligned with the court's notes. Defense counsel claimed that Ashley had denied feeling pressured and that Rogers’s testimony would contradict this; however, the trial court maintained that Ashley's acknowledgment of possible jail time if she did not testify was evidence of pressure.
The trial court determined that there was no basis for impeachment regarding Ashley's testimony. However, it permitted defense counsel to present Rogers's testimony as an offer of proof. Rogers, who had represented the Appellant’s mother in connection with the victim’s death, testified that Ashley claimed she felt pressured by the District Attorney General’s office to testify in a certain manner. Despite finding Rogers credible, the trial court ruled that his testimony aligned with Ashley's and could not be used to impeach her. Under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 613(b), extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements is admissible only if the witness is given a chance to explain or deny the statement, and the opposing party can interrogate the witness. In this case, since defense counsel did not specifically inquire whether Ashley had indicated she was being pressured to testify, Rogers's testimony could not be used for impeachment. The trial court's ruling was affirmed, with no reversible error found.
