STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEROME SANDERS - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Amelia Ferrell Knisely on Dec 23, 2015

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Andre C. Wharton, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jerome Sanders.

Attorneys 2:

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Caitlin Smith, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Glen Baity and Stacy McEndree, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): EASTER

Defendant, Jerome Sanders, was indicted for first degree murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery for his role in the robbery and shooting death of Martin Webster in Memphis in 2010. A jury found Defendant guilty as charged. The trial court merged the first degree murder conviction with the felony murder conviction and sentenced Defendant to life in prison for the felony murder conviction and to twenty- five years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. In this direct appeal, Defendant raises twelve issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying a motion to dismiss the indictment based on the State?s failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying the motion to suppress Defendant?s statement; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to recuse; (4) whether the trial court improperly admitted evidence of admissions made by Defendant; (5) whether the trial court improperly prevented a psychological expert from testifying at trial; (6) whether the trial court improperly admitted evidence of Defendant?s prior bad acts in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (7) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to admit evidence of an alleged oral statement of Defendant that was not provided to Defendant in discovery; (8) whether the trial court?s actions resulted in a violation of Defendant?s right to confrontation; (9) whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in its closing argument; (10) whether the trial court erred by refusing to grant a new trial when there was a juror asleep during trial; (11) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and (12) whether cumulative error requires the reversal of his convictions. After a review of the evidence and authorities, we determine Defendant is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Attachments: