State v. Donald Wallace ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
JULY SESSION, 1998 FILED
September 30, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
Appellate Court Clerk
) No. 01C01-9711-CC-00526
Appellee )
) STEWART COUNTY
vs. )
) Hon. Leonard W. Martin, Judge
DONALD WALLACE, )
) (Premeditated First Degree Murder)
Appellant )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
Shipp R. Weems John Knox Walkup
District Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter
Richard D. Taylor, Jr. Lisa A. Naylor
Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
(ON APPEAL) 450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Thomas Meeks
Attorney at Law Dan M. Alsobrooks
137 Franklin Street District Attorney General
Clarksville, TN 37040
Jake Lockert
(AT TRIAL) Asst. District Attorney General
105 Sycamore Street
Ashland City, TN 37016
OPINION FILED:
REVERSED AND REMANDED
David G. Hayes
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Donald Wallace, was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment
following his conviction by a Stewart County jury for the premeditated first degree
murder of Melinda Sue Perrin. In the appeal of this conviction, the appellant
contends that :
I. The evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for premeditated
first degree murder;
II. The trial court erred in admitting statements made by the victim
regarding the victim’s state of mind;
III. The trial court erred in admitting photographs of the victim;
IV. The trial court erred in denying the jury the opportunity to examine,
during its deliberations, a demonstrative exhibit introduced by the
State.
After a review of the record and the applicable law, we find the evidence
insufficient to support a conviction for premeditated first degree murder.
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial
court. However, we find the evidence sufficient to establish that the appellant
knowingly killed Melinda Perrin and, accordingly, modify the judgment to reflect a
conviction for second degree murder. This case is remanded to the trial court for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Background
Sometime on the afternoon of June 8, 1996, the appellant, accompanied by
his girlfriend, Melinda Sue Perrin, traveled to the home of the appellant’s life-time
friend, Charles Morgan. Shortly after the couple’s arrival, the appellant asked
Morgan if he could borrow Morgan’s twelve-gauge pump shotgun. Both the stock
2
and the barrel of this particular shotgun had been shortened.1 The weapon was
described as being “sawed-off,” approximately fourteen to sixteen inches in overall
length with “a pistol grip handle.” Although Morgan stated that he would not loan the
appellant the shotgun, the appellant continued in his request, explaining to Morgan
that he needed the shotgun for protection because somebody was threatening to kill
him. Although hesitant, Morgan eventually agreed to sell the weapon along with two
shells of number six shot to the appellant for one hundred dollars. Melinda Perrin
paid for the weapon with a hundred dollar bill.
After the sale was completed, Melinda mentioned that she was going to stay
at Morgan’s residence. Irritated by this comment, the appellant left the residence,
got into his car, and began to back out of the driveway. Before the appellant got out
of the driveway, Melinda caught up with him and got into the car.
After leaving Morgan’s mobile home, the couple traveled to Clarksville,
arriving at the residence of Norman and Linda Wallace around 3:00 p.m.2 Melinda
carried a six pack of Zima, an alcoholic beverage, into the Wallaces’ home. Thirty to
forty-five minutes after they arrived, the appellant and Norman left in the appellant’s
car. Norman insisted on driving because the appellant had been drinking beer.
They first drove to the home of the appellant’s mother, and, then, the appellant
asked Norman to drive him to Indian Mound. The appellant stated that he needed to
talk to a man named “Red.” He explained that he owed Red some money. As a
result of this debt, Red had made threats against the appellant’s mother and
Melinda. The appellant hoped to make arrangements with Red to pay him back and
to stop the threats to his mother and Melinda.
1
Additionally, Morgan testified that, in order to fire the gun, the safety catch must be off,
the chamber must be loaded, and the shotgun pumped and fired.
2
Nor ma n W allace is the appe llant’s third o r fou rth co usin and h as k now n the appe llant h is
entire life.
3
Just prior to reaching the Stewart County line, one of the tires on the
appellant’s dark blue Chrysler Fifth Avenue went flat. While the appellant was
changing the tire, Norman noticed the shotgun, a box of ammunition, and a .22
target pistol in the car. The appellant stated that he and Melinda had just bought the
gun. Once the tire was changed, the two continued to Indian Mound. Before
reaching Red’s house, the appellant asked Norman where the safety was on the
shotgun. At trial, Norman testified that it was during this time that he believed the
appellant loaded the weapon.
When they arrived at Red’s house, the appellant instructed Norman to turn
the vehicle around so that the passenger side was facing the front of Red’s house.
He told Norman that he was afraid that Red would come out shooting. However,
Red was not at home. Norman then drove the appellant to the residence of Junior
Shepard in Big Rock. Junior’s wife, Beverly, came out to the car and told the
appellant to leave or she would call the police.
Meanwhile, Melinda remained in Clarksville with Linda Wallace. Linda, a
former beautician, cut Melinda’s hair while the two women visited. Linda testified at
trial that, during this visit, Melinda told her that she was afraid of the appellant
because he had previously pulled a gun on her. Linda stated that, although Melinda
had consumed one Zima in her presence, she did not appear intoxicated.
The two men were gone approximately two hours before returning to Norman
Wallace’s residence. The two couples sat outside talking for approximately forty
minutes before the appellant and Melinda left around 6:00 p.m, headed in the
direction of Stewart County. The Wallaces testified that there did not appear to be
any discord between the appellant and Melinda at any point during the visit. In fact,
the appellant frequently called Melinda “baby” or “honey” and he told Norman that
he and Melinda “got along real good together” and that “he wanted him and Melinda
4
to take off and go someplace and move out of the country and be together the rest
of their lives.”
Shortly after 7:00 p.m., several customers at J.T.’s Bait Shop in Stewart
County noticed a dark blue or black Fifth Avenue or LTD approaching from the
direction of Clarksville. The vehicle drove onto the parking lot at a high rate of
speed and then came to a sudden stop. The door on the driver’s side of the vehicle
opened and a man’s foot emerged. The man leaned into the vehicle and appeared
to have a shotgun in his hand. One witness, Heather Spiceland Stevens, testified
that, when the car came to a halt, she observed the man slap his female passenger.
A loud boom then reverberated from the vehicle and smoke came out the windows.
Several bystanders described what appeared to them to be the head of the female
passenger exploding. The driver of the vehicle backed the car out of the parking lot
and drove in the direction of Dover. When the car was approximately three hundred
yards from the parking lot, the bystanders heard another loud noise. At trial, the
witnesses at the bait shop/convenience store identified the appellant as the male
driver of the vehicle and Melinda Perrin as the female passenger.
Stewart County Deputy Kenny Anderson responded to the dispatch
regarding the shooting at J.T.’s Bait Shop. Once at the scene, Deputy Anderson
found pieces of human flesh scattered on the ground, as well as pieces of bone and
parts of a denture plate.
That same evening, Ronald Buchanan had observed a dark colored vehicle
leave from a secluded area on Riversbend Road in Stewart County between 6:30
p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and, later, had learned of the shooting incident at J.T.’s Bait
Shop. The next afternoon, at around 3:00 p.m., Ray Richardson, Ronald Buchanan,
and Harold Chester decided to ride their four wheelers in the Wilson Hollow area of
Riversbend Road in search of the dark blue vehicle. The men had ventured onto an
5
old logging road about one hundred and fifty yards off of Riversbend Road. They
noticed fresh tire tracks on the road and Ray Richardson spotted an area where it
appeared that something had been dragged through the weeds. The men decided
to investigate. They found a body approximately fifty-six feet off of the logging road
in the weeds. They notified the sheriff’s department and led the authorities to the
scene.
Dr. Robert Lee, the Stewart County Medical Examiner, and Tennessee
Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Mike Breedlove arrived at the scene and
discovered the body of a female, subsequently identified as Melinda Perrin, whose
face had been obliterated by a shotgun blast. The body was sent to Dr. Charles
Harlan, the chief medical examiner, who would conduct the autopsy.
Dr. Harlan determined that the thirty-nine year old victim had sustained a
shotgun wound to the left side of the neck which was consistent with a near shotgun
wound. As a result of the injury, the victim suffered multiple skull fractures, fractures
of the jaw bone and the bone connecting the upper teeth, bruising to the brain, and
a collapsed right eye. He opined that, after being struck by the shotgun blast to the
head, the victim would have ceased being functional, and, most likely would have
been rendered unconscious. The victim could have lived from between five to ten
minutes from the delivery of the injury. Dr. Harlan determined that, based on the
distance and angle of the gunshot wound, it would have been very difficult for the
wound to have been self-inflicted. He was also able to determine that, at the time of
death, the victim had a blood alcohol level of .12 per cent and that there were traces
of Fluoxtenine (a form of Prozac), Norpropoxyphene (the metabolic breakdown of
Darvon, a painkiller), Dihydrocodeinone (a synthetic opiate) and
ephedrine/pseudoephedrine (cold medicine) in her bloodstream.
On June 26, eighteen days after the homicide, the appellant turned himself in
6
to authorities. That evening during visiting hours, Deputy Anderson overheard the
appellant tell one of his visitors that he could not understand why he was a suspect
because he was not even with the victim that day or at the time of the murder.
Neither the appellant’s vehicle nor the murder weapon were ever recovered.
At his subsequent trial, the appellant pled not guilty to the charge of
premeditated murder, and, in defense suggested that the fatal wound had been self-
inflicted. The jury rejected this theory and returned a guilty verdict as to the charge
of premeditated first degree murder.
I. Waiver of Evidentiary Issues
The judgment of conviction was entered against the appellant on January 31,
1997. A timely, but, pro se motion for new trial was filed by the appellant on
February 6, 1997. On this date, the appellant was still represented by retained trial
counsel. For this reason, the trial court was not obligated to consider the pro se
motion for new trial, since a defendant is not entitled to representation by counsel
and to simultaneously proceed pro se. State v. Clark, No. 9 (Tenn. Crim. App. at
Jackson, May 7, 1986), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Sept. 8, 1986) (citing State
v. Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365, 371 (Tenn.1976)).
On May 20, 1997, trial counsel filed a belated motion for new trial on the
appellant’s behalf. A motion for new trial “shall be made . . . within thirty days of the
date the order of sentence is entered.” Tenn. R. Crim. P. 33(b). This provision is
mandatory, and the time for filing may not be extended. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 45(b). A
trial judge does not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the merits of a
motion for new trial that has not been timely filed. State v. Dodson, 780 S.W.2d
778, 780 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989). Moreover, this court does not have the authority
7
to waive the untimely filing of a motion for new trial. Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a).
Nonetheless, this court may consider alleged errors which affect the sufficiency of
the evidence, or sentencing, as well as plain errors affecting the substantial rights of
the defendant where it may be necessary to do substantial justice. Tenn. R. App. P.
3(e); 13(b); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Thus, the appellant’s issues, other than those
which relate to the sufficiency of the evidence, are deemed waived in this case. See
State v. Martin, 940 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tenn. 1997).
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The appellant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
enable a rational juror to find him guilty of premeditated first degree murder.
Specifically, he asserts that there is no evidence to show premeditation. He argues
that, at best, the evidence supports theories of accidental shooting or a shooting in
the heat of passion. The State contends that the appellant’s procurement of a
weapon, the victim’s statements to Linda Wallace, and the appellant’s actions after
the homicide establish the appellant’s preconceived intent to kill Melinda Perrin.
A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a
defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal a
convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is
insufficient. State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). It is the appellate
court’s duty to affirm the conviction if the evidence viewed under these standards
was sufficient for any rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317, 99
S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994), cert.
denied, -- U.S.--, 115 S. Ct. 743 (1995); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). On appeal, the
State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all legitimate or
8
reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d
54, 75 (Tenn. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 954, 113 S. Ct. 1368 (1993).
Once a homicide is established it is presumed to be second degree murder.
State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 543 (Tenn. 1992). The State, then, has the
burden of proving the element of premeditation to elevate the offense to first degree
murder.3 Id. Premeditation necessitates “the exercise of reflection and judgment,”
requiring a “previously formed design or intent to kill.” State v. West, 844 S.W.2d
144, 147 (Tenn. 1992).
The element of premeditation is a question for the jury and may be inferred
from the circumstances surrounding the killing. State v. Gentry, 881 S.W.2d 1, 3
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1993), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1994). because the trier of
fact cannot speculate as to what was in the killer’s mind, the existence of facts of
premeditation must be determined from the appellant’s conduct in light of the
surrounding circumstances. State v. Wright, No. 01C01-9503-CC-00093 (Tenn.
Crim. App. at Nashville, Jan. 5, 1996). Although there is no strict standard
governing what constitutes proof of premeditation, several relevant circumstances
are helpful, including: the use of a deadly weapon upon an unarmed victim; the fact
that the killing was particularly cruel; declaration by the defendant of his intent to kill;
and the making of preparations before the killing for the purpose of concealing the
crime. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 660 (Tenn. 1997), cert. denied, -- U.S. --,
118 S. Ct. 1536 (1998) (citing Brown, 836 S.W.2d at 541-542). Additional factors
from which a jury may infer premeditation include planning activities by the appellant
prior to the killing, the appellant’s prior relationship with the victim, and the nature of
the killing. Gentry, 881 S.W.2d at 4-5 (citation omitted).
3
First degree murder, not committed in the perpetration of a crime, requires the
“premeditated and intentional killing of another.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13 -202(a)(1) (1995 Supp.).
9
Again, taken in the light most favorable to the State, the proof established
that the appellant and the victim were involved in a close relationship. On the day of
the homicide, the appellant, accompanied by the victim, went to the home of
Charles Morgan where he purchased a shotgun, allegedly for his protection. The
couple then proceeded to the residence of Norman and Linda Wallace.
Notwithstanding Melinda’s revelation to Linda Wallace that she was fearful of the
appellant, there is no indication that Melinda did not voluntarily accompany the
appellant on his excursions that day. Indeed, the proof shows that, on this evening,
the appellant called Melinda “honey” and “baby” and that the relationship between
the two appeared amiable. Witnesses confirmed that both the appellant and the
victim had been drinking alcohol throughout the day.
After careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this
homicide, we are unable to conclude that the element of premeditation was
established. Indeed, the appellant’s erratic driving onto the parking lot of a business
premises where he proceeded to slap the victim in the face and then shoot her in
the presence of numerous witnesses is not indicative of the “exercise of reflection
and judgment.” As evidence of premeditation, the State contends that the
appellant’s procurement of a weapon, the victim’s state of mind, and the appellant’s
subsequent concealment of evidence of the crime support their theory of a
previously formed intent to kill. Moreover, the State asserts that, “[m]ost importantly,
numerous eyewitnesses implicated the defendant as the shooter.” First, although
proof of identity is important in establishing guilt, identity of the shooter is not
evidence of premeditation. Second, the proof does not support the proposition that
the appellant obtained the weapon to use against the victim. Rather, the only proof
as to this issue indicates that the appellant purchased the weapon in order to defend
himself, Melinda, and his mother from the threats of an irate creditor. Third,
testimony that the victim was fearful of the appellant is not indicative of
premeditation, rather, it was introduced solely to refute the otherwise overwhelming
10
proof of their harmonious relationship. Cf. State v. Roe, No. 02C01-9702-CR-
00054 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Jan. 12, 1998). Finally, the fact that the
appellant concealed the body of the victim in an isolated area and that the car and
the murder weapon were never recovered is not prima facie evidence of a
premeditated homicide. “Although concealment of evidence may itself be evidence
of guilt . . . [t]he concealment of evidence may be associated with the commission of
any crime and the accompanying fear of punishment.” State v. Bailey, No. 01C01-
9403-CC-00105 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Jul. 20, 1995), perm. to appeal
denied, (Tenn. Jan. 8, 1996) (citing Cagle v. State, 507 S.W.2d 121, 129 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1973)). “The fact that evidence is subsequently hidden from the police
reveals nothing about a criminal’s state of mind before the crime.” Id. (citation
omitted) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the concealment of evidence may not
be used to prove the element of premeditation. West, 844 S.W.2d at 148. See also
State v. Schafer, No. 03C01-9702-CR-00057 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Dec. 9,
1997). In sum, the absence of motive, the absence of planning activity and the
circumstances surrounding the manner of the killing, i.e., in the public’s view, all
militate against proof of premeditation or that the appellant killed according to a
preconceived design. Absent the element of premeditation, the appellant’s
conviction for first degree murder cannot stand.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, again, a homicide is presumed to be second
degree murder. Brown, 836 S.W.2d at 543. Second degree murder is a knowing
killing of another. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-210(a)(1) (1995 Supp.). Under the
facts of this case, we find that the proof establishes that the appellant acted
“knowingly” with an awareness that his discharge of a sawed off shotgun less than
two feet from the victim’s head was reasonably certain to cause death. See Tenn.
Code Ann. § 39-11-106(20) (1995 Supp.). We conclude that there is evidence to
support “knowing” conduct, and, therefore, a conviction for second degree murder.
11
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the appellant’s conviction for
premeditated murder and vacate the accompanying sentence. This cause is
remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment of conviction in accordance with
this opinion and for re-sentencing consistent with the principles of sentencing.
____________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
CONCUR:
_________________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge
_________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, Judge
12