State of Tennessee v. Marcus Davis

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2021-01147-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; November 13, 2022; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Marcus Davis was convicted by a Shelby County jury of attempted first degree premeditated murder and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, receiving a combined sentence of twenty-one years. He appealed, claiming insufficient evidence of premeditation and a denial of a self-defense jury instruction. The Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the conviction. The case arose from a shooting incident on October 18, 2019, where Davis shot his unarmed co-worker, Cordell Jeffries, during a physical altercation. The victim was shot twice while retreating, and Davis left the scene calmly, later surrendering to police. Evidence presented at trial included police testimony about the shooting scene and the victim's account of their prior work relationship, which had deteriorated due to work-related conflicts. Prior to the incident, there was no history of personal conflict or physical altercations between Davis and Jeffries.

The victim identified a surveillance tape of the shooting, which was shown to the jury and admitted as evidence. He noted that the surveillance camera locations were well-known among bakery employees. During the tape, after following the Defendant out of view, the Defendant punched him, prompting the victim to back away. The victim then struck the Defendant twice before the Defendant pulled out a gun and shot him in the chest. The victim attempted to escape as the Defendant shot at him again. The victim confirmed that the tape showed the Defendant dropping the gun, the victim fleeing, and the Defendant retrieving the gun to aim it at him before leaving the warehouse. The victim reported that the Defendant fired two or three shots and displayed scars from the gunshot wounds, detailing that the bullet in his chest remained lodged while the bullet in his arm exited, causing scars on both sides. He emphasized he had no weapon and that bringing guns to the facility was against company policy, supported by signage. On cross-examination, the victim revealed that the Defendant had previously threatened him at work, leading to a schedule change to separate them. He reiterated the Defendant had threatened to kill him before and after delivering flowers for the victim's mother's wake. The victim described the fight as unprovoked, stating the Defendant only mentioned wanting to talk before unexpectedly attacking him. He refuted the idea that his injuries resulted from one bullet passing through both limbs, asserting he felt the chest impact first. The victim had never seen the Defendant with a gun prior to the shooting. Detective Alfreda Harper testified that police found a shell casing near bread racks at the scene and noted it was possible other casings were lost upon hitting the concrete floor. An employee present during the incident, Cedric Duckett, did not provide useful information. Harper confirmed she obtained a warrant for the Defendant's arrest on October 21, 2019.

Detective Harper testified during cross-examination that the charges against the Defendant were based on the victim's statement and surveillance footage, which suggested the Defendant fired at the victim twice—once while pointing a gun at the victim's face and again as the victim fled. She admitted uncertainty regarding who initiated the conflict. In her investigation, she noted the cluttered state of the warehouse hindered the search for shell casings. The State presented evidence that the Defendant surrendered to the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office Fugitive Division on October 30, 2019.

The Defendant described the victim as a long-time employee of Bimbo Bakeries who had no supervisory authority over him. He claimed the victim's jealousy grew after the Defendant was promoted to a permanent position. The Defendant recounted an incident prior to the shooting where he reported the victim clocking him out early. On the day of the shooting, the victim arrived early and confronted the Defendant, who was unaware the victim was following him. The altercation began when the victim struck the Defendant, prompting him to draw his firearm and shoot once, asserting it was in self-defense against a perceived threat. 

During cross-examination, the Defendant acknowledged the surveillance video showed him turning to look at the victim, who was backing away before he fired. He conceded that the victim never brandished a weapon and that he did not see anything in the victim's hands. The Defendant admitted to pursuing the victim after firing, dropping his gun, and then retrieving it, while denying he fired a second shot despite video evidence suggesting otherwise. He also acknowledged leaving the warehouse calmly without contacting authorities or seeking medical attention until he turned himself in weeks later.

The jury convicted the Defendant of attempted first-degree premeditated murder, leading to a twenty-one year sentence in the Department of Correction. After his motion for a new trial was denied, the Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence regarding premeditation and claiming the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on self-defense. 

The Defendant argued that evidence did not support premeditation, highlighting that the victim pursued him with a blunt object, he only drew his gun after being punched, did not express intent to kill, and did not plan the act beforehand. The State countered that the evidence, viewed favorably, sufficiently demonstrated premeditation. The court noted that appellate review of sufficiency requires determining if any rational trier of fact could find the crime's essential elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt, referencing key legal precedents.

In criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution once a conviction is made, and the jury resolves issues of witness credibility and evidence weight. Convictions can be based on direct, circumstantial, or a combination of evidence. The definition of first-degree premeditated murder includes intentional killing after reflection, with premeditation being determined by the jury from the evidence and surrounding circumstances.

The supreme court outlines several factors that a jury may consider to infer premeditation in a murder case, such as the defendant's intent to kill, weapon procurement, use of a weapon on an unarmed victim, cruelty, infliction of multiple wounds, preparation to conceal the crime, destruction of evidence, and calmness post-killing. Additionally, establishing a motive for the killing can support a finding of premeditation. In this case, evidence indicated a history of conflict between the Defendant and the victim, including prior threats and an incident that led to the shooting. On the day of the shooting, the Defendant initiated a confrontation with the victim, resulting in a physical altercation where the Defendant shot the victim twice. Despite the Defendant's claims of self-defense, the court found the evidence sufficient to conclude that a rational jury could find premeditation, thus upholding the conviction for attempted first-degree premeditated murder.

Regarding the self-defense instruction, the trial court ruled that the evidence did not warrant such an instruction, which the Defendant contested. The court affirmed that a defendant is entitled to a complete and accurate legal charge based on the evidence presented. The standard for reviewing jury instructions is de novo, and self-defense is only required to be submitted to the jury if it is "fairly raised by the proof." In this instance, the court agreed with the State that the evidence did not sufficiently support a self-defense claim.

The quantum of proof required to fairly raise a general defense is lower than that needed to establish a proposition by a preponderance of the evidence. Courts must evaluate evidence favorably for the defendant, drawing reasonable inferences in their favor. If a general defense is fairly raised, the trial court must present it to the jury, shifting the burden to the prosecution to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In Tennessee, for self-defense to justify the use of deadly force, three conditions must be met: a reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, that the danger is real or honestly believed to be real, and that this belief is based on reasonable grounds. The trial court denied the Defendant's request for a self-defense instruction, ruling that the evidence did not fairly raise the defense. The court found no error in this decision, noting that although the victim was armed and struck first, the Defendant fired shots only after the victim was backing away and fleeing. There was no evidence of the victim having a weapon or that the Defendant suffered serious bodily injury. The Defendant's assertion of feeling threatened was insufficient to distinguish his case from precedent, as his situation only raised the issue of justification for non-lethal force. The trial court's refusal of the self-defense instruction was upheld. The judgments of the trial court were affirmed.