WPCy  X.`ϓc1s $]c*%/3ARQّs(xIV8f>d=pT)"yJP S $6+ #ңRD*i8yݸBtuӝqf(Ҳ3)x y=iVWME5OPIgX;Z12xPbӠ8Ff#wiK[lqøK"#θ{c> "ofͪ8L64l$&T4X7Gj .۸-3@V0J"G1XwrKLnpAR!=͟}=pX'I` sU緫v<ۆW32AMݻ-T=ZLNM mILa p8twG8ng<|>|TL"I?dI~k#oE*l5U=l)UN> % 0(U:w@44HU:W'U: AQK 0D 0DU 0D D/ B B) D3F (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,  AZ"Arial Regular hiEjUkelEmnEopӀ|n~<$3|x|,  AZ"Arial Regular  !"   XIXXX 1X XI   Ad FILED XIX 1   August31,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr. |X XIAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd !  kkkkXIXXX  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7  ќ|ppr (<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$ r||t (>.*jx:` `@E` ttx$ tߛ|@  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATJACKSON@CC%JULY1998SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE, @-)  ` @-) p NO.02C019707CR00274   L   ` Appellee,@-)  8  @-) p SHELBYCOUNTY     VS. @-)   @-) p HON.L.T.LAFFERTY,   SAMUELF.HOWARD,III, @-) p JUDGE    @-)   ` Appellant.@-) p (FelonyMurder,Especially d  `     h   )AggravatedRobbery)(  @(#(#( FORTHEAPPELLANT: 2 CHRISTOPHERL.NEARN(TrialandAppeal) 243ExchangeAvenue  Memphis,TN38105 BILLANDERSON,JR. D (TrialOnly) 138NorthThirdStreet  l Memphis,TN381032007 !R  FORTHEAPPELLEE: 2 JOHNKNOXWALKUP   ! AttorneyGeneralandReporter PETERM.COUGHLAN  r$ AssistantAttorneyGeneralCordellHullBuilding,2ndFloor425FifthAvenueNorthNashville,TN372430493 WILLIAML.GIBBONS  !,* DistrictAttorneyGeneral J.ROBERTCARTER,JR.  $-  ROSEMARYANDREWS  % . AsstDistrictAttorneysGeneral201PoplarAve,Suite301Memphis,TN381031947 )n$2 (  @( OPINIONFILED:򀀀 N0+8 AFFIRMEDJOEG.RILEY,JUDGE  83A   OPINION      ` Thedefendant,SamuelF.Howard,III,appealsasofrighthisconvictionsbyaShelbyCountyjuryofmurderintheperpetrationofafelonyandespeciallyaggravatedrobbery.Hereceivedconcurrentsentencesoflifeandtwenty(20)years.Thedefendantraisesthefollowingissuesforreview:  (1)whethertheevidencewassufficientforajurytoconvictthedefendantofmurderintheperpetrationofafelonyandespeciallyaggravatedrobbery;(2)whetherthedefendantwasdeprivedofafairtrialbecausethejurywasnotindividuallyquestionedinvoirdire;  (3)whetherthetrialcourtimproperlydismissedaprospectivejuror;(4)whetherthetrialcourterredbyadmittingaphotographofthevictim;and(5)whetherthetrialcourterredbyfailingtograntamistrialafterthestatemadeimproperremarksduringclosingargument.  Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED.  FACTS &2"&     ` Thevictim,RoyTate,wasdrivinginMemphiswithhisfriend,RicoKing,ontheeveningofJuly24,1995.HepulledintoanAmocostationtouseapayphoneafterhisgirlfriendpagedhim.Asthevictimspokeonthetelephone,thedefendantandCedricSolomonapproachedhimfrombehind.Solomondrewanine(9)millimeterhandgunandsaid, dontmove.Kingtoldthepair, wellgiveyouwhateveryouwant...justdontkillus. ` Thevictimturnedtofacethepair.Kingtestifiedthatatthispointheranaway.Thevictimattemptedtorunaswell,butwasshottwicefrombehind.The 864: defendantandSolomonthengotinthevictimscaranddroveaway.ItisuncontrovertedthatSolomon,notthedefendant,shotthevictim. ` EricDentontestifiedattrialthatthedefendantandSolomonwereridinginDentonsvehicleimmediatelypriortothekilling.HestatedthatastheydrovearoundSolomonstatedheandthedefendantneededtorobsomeoneinordertopaythedefendantslawyer.DentontestifiedthathestoppedatastoreneartheAmocotopurchasebeerandusetherestroom.Dentontestifiedthatasheexitedthestoreheheardtwo(2)gunshotsandobservedSolomonstandingbytheAmocopayphonewithapistolinhishand.Laterthatnight,DentonsawthedefendantandSolomoninthevictimscar.SolomonaskedDentonforhelpinremovingthecarsstereocomponentstosellthem.ThedefendantandSolomonaskedDentonifheknewofanyoneinterestedinbuyingthecaroritscontents. ` AnthonyEvanstestifiedthatthedefendantandSolomonapproachedhimthenightofthemurderandsoldhimacarspeakersystemknownasa kickbox.Evanstestifiedhegavethedefendant$100forthespeakers.Evansfurthertestifiedthatseveraldaysafterthemurder,heheardthedefendantsayingthathebeatamurderchargewhenthepolicereleasedhimafterquestioning.  SUFFICIENCYOFTHEEVIDENCE h+&*    XzXXXz ` Whenanaccusedchallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidence,thisCourtmustreviewtherecordtodetermineiftheevidenceadducedduringthetrialwassufficient"tosupportthefindingsbythetrieroffactofguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt."Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).Thisruleisapplicabletofindingsofguiltpredicatedupondirectevidence,circumstantialevidenceoracombinationofdirectandcircumstantialevidence.Statev.Brewer,932S.W.2d1,19(Tenn. `838 Crim.App.1996). 8:5: Ї ` Indeterminingthesufficiencyoftheevidence,thisCourtdoesnotreweigh  orreevaluatetheevidence.Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835  (Tenn.1978).NormaythisCourtsubstituteitsinferencesforthosedrawnbythetrieroffactfromcircumstantialevidence.Liakasv.State,199Tenn.298,305, 8  286S.W.2d856,859(1956).Tothecontrary,thisCourtisrequiredtoaffordthestatethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidencecontainedintherecordaswellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferenceswhichmaybedrawnfromtheevidence.Statev.Tuttle,914S.W.2d926,932(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).    ` Becauseaverdictofguiltremovesthepresumptionofinnocenceandreplacesitwithapresumptionofguilt,theaccusedhastheburdeninthisCourtofillustratingwhytheevidenceisinsufficienttosupporttheverdictreturnedbythetrieroffact.Statev.Tuggle,639S.W.2d913,914(Tenn.1982);Statev.   Grace,493S.W.2dat476.   ` Further,adefendantwhoaidsandabetsacodefendantinthecommissionofacrime,suchasaggravatedrobbery,isliableforanycrimecommittedbythecodefendantasanaturalandprobableconsequenceoftheoriginallyintendedcrime.Statev.Carson,950S.W.2d951,956(Tenn.1997). %0!$  ` ThedefendantcontendsthatalegitimateinterpretationoftheevidencewouldbethatthedefendantwasforcedbySolomontoparticipateinthiscriminaladventure.Further,thedefendantcontendsthatheneverhadtheintenttoharmthevictim.#XzXXXzӦ# /h*.  ` TestimonyattrialrevealedthatthedefendantandSolomonwerelookingforapersontorobtheeveningthevictimwaskilled.Solomonstatedtheyneededtostealinordertopayforthedefendantslawyerinanunrelatedcase.Furthertestimonyshowedthedefendantwasactivelyinvolvedinsellingstereocomponentsfromthevictimscar.Thedefendantalsobraggedthathebeata (:x5: murderchargewhenthepoliceinitiallyreleasedhimafterquestioning. ` Takingtheevidenceinalightmostfavorabletothestate,thejuryclearlycouldhaveconcludedthedefendantwasawillingparticipantintheoffensescharged. ` Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  VOIRDIRE p     ` Thedefendantcontendsthetrialcourterredindenyinghispretrialmotionforindividualvoirdire.Therecordisdevoidofanymotionorrequestfor X individualvoirdire.Nordoesthetrialtranscriptreflectanydiscussionofthis 0 issuepriortovoirdire.Theissueis,therefore,waived.Tenn.R.App.P.36(a).   ` Regardless,thecontrolofvoirdirerestswithinthesounddiscretionofthe h  trialjudge.Statev.Stephenson,878S.W.2d530,540(Tenn.1994).In @"  Tennessee,theprevailingpracticeistovoirdireprospectivejurorscollectively, $h" ratherthanindividually.Statev.Oody,823S.W.2d554,563(Tenn.Crim.App. %@!$ 1991).WhileTenn.R.Crim.P.24(a)givesthetrialcourttherighttoindividuallyquestionprospectivejurors,itisonlynecessarytodosowhenthereisasignificantpossibilitythatthejurorhasbeenexposedto potentiallyprejudicialmaterial.Statev.Claybrook,736S.W.2d95,100(Tenn.1987)(quoting P-(, Sommervillev.State,521S.W.2d792,797(Tenn.1975)).Thetrialcourts (/x*. exerciseofitsdiscretionwillnotbedisturbedunlessthereisanabuseofthatdiscretion.Statev.Irick,762S.W.2d121,125(Tenn.1988). 2(.2  ` Thedefendantdoesnotsuggestthatanyjurorhadbeenexposedtoprejudicialinformation.Assuch,wefindnoerrorintheuseofacollectivevoir `838 dire.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. 8:5: Ї   DISMISSALOFnWITNESSnoJURORoFORCAUSE      ` Thedefendantallegeshewasprejudicedbythetrialcourtsdismissalofapotentialjuror.Thejurorexpresseddoubtregardinghisabilitytofollowthelawofcriminalresponsibility.Atonepointthejurorstatedhecouldnotbefairtobothsides.Atanotherpointhesaid, Iguesssowhenaskedifhecouldfollowthelaw.Overthedefendantsobjection,thetrialcourtdismissedthejuror. ` Thedecisionofatrialcourtexcusingalwitnesslmjurormforcauseissubjecttoanabuseofdiscretionstandard.Statev.Kilburn,782S.W.2d199,203(Tenn. X Crim.App.1989).Thetrialcourtexcusedtheprospectivejurorbecausehewasequivocalinhisanswerregardinghisabilitytofollowthelaw.Thetrialcourtwaswellwithinitsdiscretiontodismissthejuror. ` Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  PHOTOOFVICTIM @"      ` Thedefendantcontendsthetrialcourtimproperlyadmittedaphotographofthevictimtakenatthecrimescene.Thedefendantarguesthephotographisinflammatory,anditsprobativevaluewasfaroutweighedbyitsprejudicialeffect. ` Theadmissibilityofphotographslieswithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourtwhoserulingwillnotbeoverturnedonappealexceptuponaclearshowingofanabuseofdiscretion.Statev.Banks,564S.W.2d947,949(Tenn. 1`,0 1978);seealsoStatev.Stephenson,878S.W.2dat542;Statev.Bordis,905 28.2 S.W.2d214,226(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).Nevertheless,thephotographsmustberelevanttoanissueattrialwithitsprobativevalueoutweighinganyprejudicialeffectthatitmayhaveuponthetrieroffact.Statev.Braden,867 p838 S.W.2d750,758(Tenn.Crim.App.1993);Statev.JenniferCollins,C.C.A.No. H:5: 03C019704CR00143,HamiltonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedMarch3,1998,atKnoxville).̀ ` Wemust,therefore,firstdeterminewhetherthephotographwasrelevant.Relevantevidenceisevidence havinganytendencytomaketheexistenceofanyfactthatisofconsequencetothedeterminationoftheactionmoreprobableorlessprobablethanitwouldbewithouttheevidence.Tenn.R.Evid.401. ` ThephotographshowedthevictimlyingonthepavementoftheAmocolot.Thephotographwasusedbythestatetocorroboratethetestimonyofitswitnesses.Inlightoftheevidencepreviouslyintroduced,theadmissionofthephotographofthevictimpresentsaclosequestion.Arguably,thisinformationcouldhavebeenproperlyrelayedtothejurywithtestimonyratherthanthephotograph.Althoughthephotographdidshowthevictimsbloodonthepavement,thetrialcourtfoundthatthephotographwasnotinflammatory.Weconcludetherewasnoabuseofdiscretionbythetrialcourtinadmittingthisevidence. ` Furthermore,evenifthephotographwasimproperlyadmitted,itsadmissionconstitutedharmlesserror.Tenn.R.App.P.36(b).ItcertainlywasnotoftheprejudicialmagnitudeofthoseutilizedinStatev.JenniferCollins, )$( supra(numerousphotographsof bruised,bloodied,nude,infantvictim). h+&*   IMPROPERCLOSINGARGUMENT /h*.     ` Thedefendantsfinalissuerelatestoallegedimproperstatementsmadebytheprosecutorinclosingargument.Thedefendantclaimsthecumulativeeffectoftheseargumentsrenderedhistrialunfair. 8:5:   A.      ` Thefirstargumentsaidtohaveprejudicedthedefendantconcernedallegedgangactivity.Theprosecutorstated:   8LadiesandGentlemen,RoyTatediedonJuly24,1995,becauseSamuelHowardisawannabe.Hesagangsterwannabe...Hewantedtobeagangmember...SamuelHowardwasmorethanglad,thatshispossibleinitiationintoagangmembership...  8Thedefenseobjectedtothisstatement,andthetrialcourtruledtherewasnoindicationthatthemurderwaspartofaganginitiation.Thetrialcourtthengavethejuryaninstructiontodisregardanycommentsaboutgangactivities. ` Althoughtheprosecutor'sremarkswereimproper,wemustdeterminewhetherthedefendantwasprejudiced.ThisCourthassetoutfivefactorswhichmustbeconsideredinmakingthedeterminationwhetheraprosecutor'simproperconductcouldhaveaffectedtheverdicttotheprejudiceofthedefendant.Thesefactorsareasfollows:'4X <XX'8 ` 1. theconductcomplainedofinlightofthefactsand %T # circumstancesofthecase; ` `  8 ` 2. thecurativemeasuresundertaken;'#&` `  8 ` 3. theintentoftheprosecutorinmakingtheimproperremarks;)$(` `  8 ` 4. thecumulativeeffectoftheimproperconductandanyother x+&* errorsintherecord;and ` `  8 ` 5. therelativestrengthorweaknessofthecase.<.)-` `  Satatev.aPhilpott,882S.W.2d394,408(Tenn.Crim.App.1994)(citingJudgev. 0d+/ State,539S.W.2d340,344(Tenn.Crim.App.1976). 1<-1  ` Thetrialcourtadmonishedthejurytodisregardanycommentsaboutgangactivities.Jurorsarepresumedtofollowthecourtsinstructions.Henleyv. t727 State,960S.W.2d572,581(Tenn.1997);Statev.Blackmon,701S.W.2d228, L949 233(Tenn.Crim.App.1985). ` Basedupontheaboveprinciples,weconcludetheprosecutorsremarksdidnotaffecttheverdicttotheprejudiceofthedefendant.Certainly,theprosecutorsreferencetogangactivitiesdidnotrisetothelevelcondemnedinStatev.WilliamCharlesJones,C.C.A.No.01C019512CC00402,Maury  8  County(Tenn.Crim.App.filedJune30,1997,atNashville)bb(numerous gangreferencesalongwithotherinflammatoryarguments). ` Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  B.  H    ` Thesecondprosecutionargumentallegedtohavebeenimproperconcernedthedefendantspartner,CedricSolomon.  LadiesandGentlemen,Mr.AndersonwantstoknowwhythestatedidnotcallCedricSolomon.Whydidntthey?  Theprosecutionmadethisrebuttalargumentinresponsetothefollowingclosingargumentofthedefendantscounsel:  IsubmittoyouthatthestatedidnotproveanyintenttorobonthepartofSamuelHowardthroughawitnessthattheycouldhaveputupthereandwhomighthaveclearedthisentirethingup.CedricSolomon.Whydidntthey?Whydidntthey?  Thedefendantclaimstheprosecutorsstatementrequiresareversalofhisconvictionbecauseitimpliedthedefendanthadaburdentoputonproof.Werespectfullydisagree. ` Thewitness,CedricSolomon,wasequallyavailabletotestifyforeither L949 side.SeegenerallyStatev.Middlebrooks,840S.W.2d317,334(Tenn.1992);  Statev.Francis,669S.W.2d85,88(Tenn.1984).Defensecounselfirstraised  theissueofSolomonsfailuretotestifyinhisclosingargument,insinuatingthestatewashidingsomethingbyfailingtocallSolomon.TheprosecutorcounteredbystatingthedefensecouldhavecalledSolomon. ` Counselforthedefendantmadeanallegationthatthestatewasattemptingtokeepexculpatoryinformationfromthejury.BothsideshadtheabilitytoprocureSolomonstestimony.Weagreewiththetrialcourtsrulingthatitwasappropriateforthestatetoapprisethejuryofthatfactinlightofthedefendantsargument. ` Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  CONCLUSION      ` Afterareviewoftherecordandthebriefs,wefindnoreversibleerrorandAFFIRMthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.cc `     h      p _________________________ ($'  `     h      p JOEG.RILEY,JUDGEddih\hijjCONCUR:ggeeff________________________CURWOODWITT,JUDGE________________________ROBERTW.WEDEMEYER,SPECIALJUDGE  9,59