State v. Laconia Lamar Bowers

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
FILED
AT KNOXVILLE
January 11, 2000
OCTOBER SESSION, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, *
* No. E1999-00170-CCA-R3-CD
Appellee, *
* KNOX COUNTY
vs. *
* Hon. Richard Baumgartner, Judge
LACONIA LAMAR BOWERS, *
* (Second Degree Murder)
Appellant. *
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
William C. Talman Paul G. Summers
Attorney for Appellant Attorney General and Reporter
P. O. Box 506
Knoxville, TN 37901-0506 Elizabeth B. Marney
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
425 Fifth Avenue North
2d Floor, Cordell Hull Building
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Randall E. Nichols
District Attorney General
Sally Jo Helm
Asst. District Attorney General
City-County Building
Knoxville, TN 37902
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
David G. Hayes, Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Laconia Lamar Bowers, appeals his conviction by a Knox
County jury finding him guilty of second degree murder. The trial court imposed a
sentence of twenty-four years to be served in the Department of Correction. The
appellant raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether second degree murder is a
lesser included offense or a lesser grade offense of felony murder; (2) the
sufficiency of the evidence for second degree murder; and (3) the “excessive”
sentence.
Following review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Background
On April 21, 1996, Peter Whatmough and Stacy Yessler were traveling
through Knoxville en route from Florida to Ohio. Early that afternoon, Whatmough
and Yessler had driven to the Walter P. Taylor housing project and purchased three
rocks of crack cocaine. After smoking these rocks at their motel, they returned to
the housing project to purchase more crack cocaine. While driving slowly in the
area, Yessler recognized the person, Artis Bonner, whom she had bought crack
cocaine from earlier that day. Bonner was summoned to the vehicle to discuss the
contemplated drug transaction. In furtherance of the arrangement, Bonner left the
vehicle and entered one of the apartments to obtain the cocaine.
A few minutes later, Bonner returned running to the van, got into the vehicle,
and told Whatmough and Yessler to “hurry up and get on out of there.” As
Whatmough started the engine and placed the vehicle in drive, he was fatally shot in
the head. Yessler and Bonner were both grazed by the bullet. During the homicide
investigation, Bonner gave the police a statement that the appellant, who he knew
by the name of Coney, was the person who shot the victim. At trial, Bonner
identified the appellant as the person that he saw at the window of the van at the
2
time Whatmough was shot. Bonner related that he was in a hurry because he
feared that someone else would “get his sale.” At trial, Bonner recanted substantial
portions of his testimony during further examination and denied memory of providing
a prior statement to the police that “Coney” had shot them. Bonner admitted that he
was originally charged with murder in this case and explained that he implicated the
appellant in order to get out of jail. At the time of trial, Bonner was serving a
sentence in the Department of Correction.
Another witness, Regina Chatham, testified that she saw the appellant in the
area when the shooting occurred but recanted an earlier statement to the police that
she saw the appellant running away from the scene with a gun. Chatham, who lived
in the housing projects, claimed that she was mad at the appellant when she
provided police with the earlier statement.
The appellant was charged in a two-count indictment with alternative counts
of felony murder, i.e., murder in the perpetration of a robbery and murder in the
perpetration of a theft. At the conclusion of the State’s proof, defense counsel
moved for a judgment of acquittal for felony murder in perpetration of a robbery and
for felony murder in perpetration of a theft upon grounds that no underlying felony
had been proven. The State conceded and the trial court properly granted dismissal
of both counts of felony murder. The defense presented no proof. The trial court
instructed the jury on second-degree murder, reckless homicide, and criminally-
negligent homicide as lesser included offenses. The jury returned a verdict of guilty
of second degree murder.
I. Lesser-Included/Grade Offense
The appellant argues that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the
3
offense of second degree murder. Specifically, the appellant contends that second
degree murder is not a lesser offense of felony murder. At the time of the
appellant’s indictment, the issue of lesser included/ lesser grade offenses was
controlled by State v. Trusty, 919 S.W.2d 305 (Tenn. 1996). Under State v. Trusty,
second degree murder was a “lesser grade” offense of felony murder. However, we
are required to revisit this issue in light of our supreme court’s recent decisions in
State v. Brenda Anne Burns, W1996-00004-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. Nov. 8, 1999) (for
publication) and State v. Terry Allen Dominy, M1995-00001-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. Nov.
8, 1999) (for publication).
Finding the rationale utilized in reaching its decision in Trusty was unsound
and “unworkable,” our supreme court in State v. Brenda Anne Burns and State v.
Terry Allen Dominy, overruled the language in Trusty that purported to require jury
instructions and to allow convictions for lesser “grades” or “classes” of offenses in
addition to “lesser included” offenses.” See State v. Brenda Anne Burns, No.
W1996-00004-SC-R11-CD at 20; State v. Terry Allen Dominy, No. M1995-00001-
SC-R11-CD at 2. In addition to eliminating lesser grade offenses as lesser
offenses, the supreme court adopted a three part test for determining whether an
offense is a lesser included offense of that charged in the indictment. Specifically,
the supreme court provided:
An offense is a lesser-included offense if:
(a) all of its statutory elements are included within the statutory
elements of the offense charged; or
(b) it fails to meet the definition in part (a) only in the respect that it
contains a statutory element or elements establishing
(1) a different mental state indicating a lesser kind of
culpability; and/or
(2) a less serious harm or risk of harm to the same
person, property or public interest; or
(c) it consists of
(1) facilitation of the offense charged . . . ; or
(2) an attempt to commit the offense charged . . .;or
4
(3) solicitation to commit the offense charged . . . .[1]
State v. Brenda Anne Burns, No. W1996-00004-SC-R11-CD at 22-23.
We in turn examine Sections (a) and (b) for determination of the lesser
included issue presented.
Section (a)
This test, sometimes referred to as the statutory elements approach, requires
a strict comparison between the statutory elements of the offense charged in the
indictment with the elements of the lesser offense at issue. State v. Brenda Anne
Burns, No. W1996-00004-SC-R11-CD at 18. Under this approach, an offense is not
“necessarily included” in another unless the elements of the lesser are a subset of
the elements of the charged offense. Id. Comparison of the elements of the
indicted offense, felony murder, and the lesser offense, second degree murder,
reveals that they are incongruent and therefore the latter is not a subset of the
former. Second degree murder is “[a] knowing killing of another.” Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 39-13-210(a)(1) (1995 Supp.). Felony murder, at the time of the offense, was
defined as the “killing of another committed in the perpetration of or attempt to
perpetrate” a specifically enumerated felony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202.
Accordingly, second degree murder is not a lesser included offense of felony murder
within the definition of section (a) of the Burns/Dominy test.
Section (b)
Section (b) of the Burns test permits the finding of a lesser included offense
when the elements of the lesser establish (1) a differing mental state indicating a
1
It is obvious that second degree murder, a knowing killing of another, is a completed
offense and, as such, does not constitute the offenses of facilitation, attempt or solicitation under
part (c) of the Burns/Dominy test. See State v. Brenda Anne Burns, No. W1996-00004-SC-R11-
CD at 22.
5
lesser kind of culpability and/or (2) a less serious harm to the person than that of the
greater offense. Clearly, in all crimes of homicide, the harm is the same, i.e., the
death of another person. Thus, the test for determining lesser included offenses
within a homicide prosecution is whether the elements of the lesser homicide
establish that the culpability is of a lesser degree than that of the greater homicide.
State v. Brenda Anne Burns, No. W1996-00004-SC-R11-CD at 21-22. In this case,
the question posed is whether second degree murder constitutes a lesser kind of
culpability than is required for felony murder.
What separates all homicide offenses is the level of culpability that they
reflect; indeed, Tennessee has divided homicide offenses into degrees and the
punishments are graded to meet the circumstances of the particular case, including
particular mitigating elements that distinguish a lower degree homicide from a
higher. Our legislature has assigned the offense of felony murder, along with
premeditated murder, the highest degree of penal sanction. This state has but one
first degree murder statute. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202. Premeditated
murder, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a), and felony murder, Tenn. Code Ann. §
39-13-202(b), are not denominated in our code as separate and distinct offenses,
but rather as alternative means by which criminal liability for first degree murder may
be charged and prosecuted. The distinction between a charge of first degree
premeditated murder and felony murder is a difference in the State’s theory of how
the defendant committed the offense of first degree murder.
In Farmer v. State, 296 S.W.2d 879 (1956), our supreme court, while
rejecting the argument that a conviction for felony murder did not constitute first
degree murder, held:
[I]t is not necessary that the State prove an intention to kill or that it
was committed willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and with malice
6
aforethought. The statute supplies the elements necessary to a
conviction of murder in the first degree. In other words, “the
premeditated intent to commit a felony or other criminal acts is, by
implication of law, transferred from that offense to the homicide
actually committed, so as to make the latter offense a killing with
malice aforethought constituting murder in the first degree.”
“The perpetration of the felony, during which a homicide occurs, is the legal
equivalent of premeditation, deliberation and malice.” State v. Beasley, 699 S.W.2d
565, 567 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985) (citing Sullivan v. State, 173 Tenn. 475, 121
S.W.2d 535 (1938)). This concept of transferred intent remains embodied in our
felony murder statute which provides that “no culpable mental state is required for
conviction under subdivision (a)(2) [felony murder],” except the intent to commit the
enumerated offenses or act in such subdivision. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(b).
In this state, it is well-settled that once a homicide is established it is
presumed to be second degree murder. See State v. Gentry, 881 S.W.2d 1, 4
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). In order to elevate the offense from second degree
murder to first degree murder, the State must prove either that the homicide was
committed with premeditation or that the homicide was committed during the
perpetration of a statutorily enumerated felony. See Gentry, 881 S.W.2d at 4. The
culpable mental state for murder in the second degree is that of “knowing.” Tenn.
Code Ann. § 39-13-210 (a)(1). This differing mental state obviously indicates a
lesser kind of culpability than required for felony murder. Accordingly, the offense
of second degree murder is a lesser included offense of first degree murder,
including commission of the homicide during the perpetration of a statutorily
enumerated offense.
Having concluded that second degree murder is a lesser offense of felony
murder, we nonetheless address the appellant’s argument that his conviction for
second degree murder cannot stand because his indictment for felony murder failed
to provide “fair and reasonable notice [to him]” that he would be required to defend
upon a charge of second degree murder. Initially, we note “that as a matter of law
7
and pleading practice before the wholesale changes in our criminal code in 1989,
proof of a killing in the perpetration of a statutorily enumerated felony (felony
murder) supported and sustained a conviction for first degree murder even though
the allegations of the indictment were in terms of a premeditated and deliberate
murder (known as the common law form of murder).” Rickman v. State, 972 S.W.2d
687, 699 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (Tipton, J., concurring) (citing State v. Johnson,
661 S.W.2d 854, 860-61 (Tenn. 1983); Tosh v. State, 527 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1975); Sullivan, 173 Tenn. 475, 121 S.W.2d at 537. Moreover, for
purposes of notice, as a general rule, an indictment which charges any one of the
various degrees of criminal homicide is deemed to include all lower grades or
degrees of homicide. See State v. Henderson, 424 S.W.2d 186, 188 (Tenn. 1968).
Accordingly, we find the appellant’s “notice” argument without merit.
II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In this case, the State proceeded to trial under the theory of felony murder.
In order to convict, the State was required to prove: (1) the appellant committed the
underlying felony and (2) the appellant caused the death of the victim. Because no
underlying felony was proven at trial, the trial court entered a judgment of acquittal
for felony murder. Thus, the remaining factual issue for the jury was to determine
whether the appellant caused the death of Whatmough, and, if so, the degree of
homicide committed. As such, we review for a determination of whether the
evidence supports the appellant’s conviction for second degree murder.
In State v. Brenda Anne Burns, No. W1996-00004-SC-R11-CD at 26-27, the
supreme court provided a two part test for determining when a lesser included
instruction should be given:
First, the trial court must determine whether any evidence exists that
reasonable minds could accept as to the lesser-included offense. In
making this determination, the trial court must view the evidence
liberally in the light most favorable to the existence of the lesser-
included offense without making any judgments on the credibility of
such evidence.
8
Second, the trial court must determine if the evidence, viewed in this
light, is legally sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser-included
offense.
In his sufficiency argument, the appellant contends that the State presented
“no credible witness who actually saw [the appellant] raise or fire a weapon.” The
appellant discredits Bonner’s testimony as that of an admitted drug dealer and “an
obvious liar who spun a tale to save his own skin when he was charged with this
murder and sitting in jail.” Moreover, he contends that Chatham’s testimony should
be disregarded because “she is a drug user who most likely had a stash in her
home” and was admittedly angry with the appellant because the police were in her
home and because the appellant kept her boyfriend out late at night. Finally, he
contends that since the gun was not found and no motive for the shooting
uncovered, no physical evidence links him to the crime.
When a challenge is made on appeal to the sufficiency of the convicting
evidence, Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(e) provides that findings of
guilt “shall be set aside if the evidence is insufficient to support the finding by the
trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” See also Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307, 317, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979). The jury conviction removes the
presumption of innocence from the defendant and replaces it with one of guilt; thus,
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).
Moreover, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and
all reasonable or legitimate 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). This court may not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Cabbage,
571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). These principles are applicable to findings of
guilt predicated upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of
both direct and circumstantial evidence. State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). However, if a conviction is based purely on circumstantial
9
evidence, the facts and circumstances must be so overwhelming as to exclude any
other explanation except for the defendant's guilt. State v. Tharpe, 726 S.W.2d 896,
900 (Tenn.1987).
The appellant's assault upon the veracity of the witnesses, Bonner and
Chatham, is, in effect, a "jury argument" and would require us to assess witness
credibility. A jury verdict accredits the testimony of the State’s witnesses and
resolves all conflicts in favor of the State’s theory. State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d
405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). The weight and credibility of witnesses’ testimony are
exclusively within the province of the jury as the trier of fact. State v. Locust, 914
S.W.2d 554, 558 (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1995). In
conducting a sufficiency review, we consider only that evidence which is favorable to
the State. The proof established that Bonner identified the appellant as the person
he saw at the window of the van at the moment the driver, Whatmough, was fatally
shot.2 Although his testimony was equivocal, it remained the jury’s prerogative to
disregard his recantation. Moreover, Chatham’s original statement implicated the
appellant in the shooting and again the jury disbelieved her recantation. The
credible testimony of one identification witness is sufficient to support a conviction if
the witness viewed the accused under such circumstances as would permit a
positive identification to be made. See State v. Strickland, 885 S.W.2d 85, 87-88
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). Further, although inconsistencies or inaccuracies may
2
Q: (Prosecutor) Now, you saw somebody at the window of that van, didn’t you?
A:(Bonner) Right
Q:(Prosecutor) W ho was that? W ho was it, Mr. Bonner?
A:(Bonner) I don’t know his name.
Q:(Prosecutor) You don ’t know his name. You rem ember --
A:(Bonner) I just knew him by his nickname.
Q:(Prosecutor)Well, what is his nickname?
A:(B onn er) C one y.
...
Q:(Prosecutor) After you saw him at the window of the van, what did you hear?
A:(Bonner) When we was [sic] pulling off, I heard a gunshot. I just seen him for a second when
we was pulling off. . . .
...
[The w itness the n identified th e appe llant as the p erson h e saw a t the windo w.]
10
make the witness a less credible witness, the jury’s verdict will not be disturbed
unless the inaccuracies or inconsistencies are so improbable or unsatisfactory as to
create a reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt. The verdict of the jury in this case
is supported by the evidence. The positive identification testimony of the witness,
Artis Bonner, sufficiently supports the appellant’s conviction; his testimony is not so
improbable or unsatisfactory as to create a reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt.
Again, once a homicide is established, it is presumed to be second degree
murder. Gentry, 881 S.W.2d at 4. Second degree murder is a knowing killing of
another. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-210(a)(1). Under the facts of this case, we find
that the proof establishes that the appellant acted “knowingly” with an awareness
that the discharge of a gun into the vehicle containing three passengers was
reasonably certain to cause death. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106 (20). We
conclude that there is evidence to support “knowing” conduct, and, therefore, a
conviction for second degree murder.
III. SENTENCING
The appellant contends that the trial court’s misapplication of mitigating factor
(6) resulted in the imposition of an erroneous sentence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-
35-113(6) (“[t]he defendant, because of his youth. . . , lacked substantial judgment in
committing the offense.”). 3 Initially, we note that the trial court ordered a
presentence report; however, at the time of the sentencing hearing, the presentence
report was not prepared. The trial court offered to postpone the sentencing hearing
but appellant’s counsel, after consultation with the appellant, urged the court to
proceed in its sentencing decision without the benefit of the statutorily mandated
report. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-205(a); 210(b)(2) and (g).
3
The appellant also argues that the trial court’s failure to consider non-enumerated factors
under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(13), based upon the appellant’s stepfather’s testimony at the
hearing suggesting amenability of the appellant for rehabilitation, was error. However, because
the appe llant was c onvicted of a felony re quiring inca rceration , rehabilitation is n ot at issue .
11
In lieu of the presentence report, the trial court allowed the appellant to
present any information regarding his family background and history. The trial court
attempted to gain this information from the appellant; however, he refused to testify.
The appellant’s stepfather did testify that the appellant had a “good raising up,”
completed the tenth grade, has never worked, and has two children. The court also
permitted the stepfather to make a statement on behalf of the appellant. The trial
court noted the appellant’s three juvenile adjudications for possession of marijuana,
assault, and theft, as well as, three probation revocations.
This court’s review of the length, range, or manner of service of a sentence is
de novo with a presumption that the determination made by the trial court is correct.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d) (1997). See also State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d
448 (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1995). This presumption is
only applicable if the record demonstrates that the trial court properly considered
relevant sentencing principles. State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991).
The record reflects that the trial court considered the relevant principles of
sentencing; accordingly, the presumption is afforded. Additionally, the appellant
bears the burden of demonstrating that the sentence imposed was improper.
Sentencing Commission Comments, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d).
Initially, we note that the appellant concedes application of the following
enhancement factors: (1) prior criminal history; (3) the crime involved more than one
victim; (8) a previous history of unwillingness to comply with conditions for release
into the community; and (12) defendant willfully inflicted bodily injury upon someone
other than the victim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114. Notwithstanding, the
appellant contends that the trial court misapplied Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(6)
by applying the appellant's age at the time of sentencing and not at the time of
crime. Thus, he argues that because he was merely sixteen at the time of the
offense, that he lacked substantial judgment while committing the offense.
12
However, the trial court declined to consider this mitigator finding, “[the appellant] is
young. . . . [H]e is eighteen years old. . . . I am afraid that [the appellant] has a good
deal of experience in his life, which puts him in a position much different from those
of many other eighteen year old individuals.”
The application of this mitigating factor is not determined simply by the
chronological age of the offender but, rather, upon the offender’s “youth in context”
of various pertinent circumstances tending to demonstrate his or her ability or
inability to appreciate the nature of his or her conduct. State v. Adams, 864 S.W.2d
31, 33 (Tenn. 1993); see e.g., State v. Antonio D. Mason, No. 01C01-9607-CC-
00315 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Oct. 24, 1997). W e conclude, that even if
the trial court had considered the age of the appellant at sixteen instead of eighteen,
the application of the mitigator would not have changed. Thus, in view of the four
enhancement factors, we find the trial court’s sentence of twenty-four years
appropriate in this case.
Based upon the foregoing, the judgment of conviction and accompanying
sentence for second degree murder is affirmed.
____________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
CONCUR:
__________________________________________
GARY R. WADE, Presiding Judge
13
__________________________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, Judge
14