State v. Guy

679 S.W.3d 632

STATE of Tennessee

v.Joel Michael GUY, Jr.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, AT KNOXVILLE.

November 15, 2022 Session

FILED April 28, 2023

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County, No. 110145, Steve Sword, Judge

Eric Lutton, District Public Defender; Jonathan Harwell (on appeal and at trial), and John Halstead (at trial), Assistant District Public Defenders; and Mark Stephens (at trial), Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Joel Michael Guy, Jr.

Jonathan Skmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Garrett D. Ward, Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Leslie Nassios and Hector Sanchez, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

James Curwood Witt, Jr., P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Timothy L. Easter, and John W. Campbell, Sr., JJ., joined.

The defendant, Joel Michael Guy, Jr., appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of two counts of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder, and two counts of abuse of a corpse, challenging the denial of various motions to suppress evidence, the admission of certain evidence, the constitutionality of the statute prohibiting abuse of a corpse, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions of abuse of a corpse and arguing that the cumulative effect of the errors entitles him to a new trial. Because the defendant did not have standing to challenge the warrantless entry into the house where the murders occurred, we affirm the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from the crime scene on grounds different than those upon which the trial court relied. Even if the defendant had standing to challenge the entry into the house, the entry was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and the evidence was in the officers’ plain view. The trial court correctly concluded that the search of the backpack was an appropriately-conducted inventory search. The trial court did not err by refusing to suppress surveillance video obtained using the receipts discovered from the unlawful search of the defendant’s Louisiana residence because the trial court correctly concluded that the police would have inevitably discovered the surveillance video during the course of the investigation. The trial court did not err by admitting evidence that the victims intended to stop providing financial support to the defendant. The proscriptive statute criminalizing the abuse of a corpse is not void for vagueness, and the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions of these offenses. Finally, because we conclude that the trial court did not commit any error, no error obtains to accumulate. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Knox County Grand Jury charged the defendant with two counts of premeditated first degree murder, two counts of felony murder, and two counts of abuse of a corpse related to the deaths and dismemberment of his parents, Joel and Lisa Guy, inside their Knoxville home on Goldenview Lane in November 2016.

According to the evidence presented at the defendant’s September 2020 trial, the victims were planning to retire and sell their home in Knoxville, and they had purchased Mr. Guy's family home in Surgoinsville. Angela Crain, the daughter of Mr. Guy and the step-daughter of Mrs. Guy, testified that on November 17, 2016, Mr. Guy informed the family via text message that the victims sold their Knoxville home and had to be out of the home by December 13th. Jennifer Whited, Mrs. Guy’s supervisor, stated that Mrs. Guy submitted her resignation notice on November 21st and that her last day of work was scheduled to be December 2nd.

Multiple witnesses testified that either Mr. Guy or Mrs. Guy expressed that due to their retirement, they would no longer be able to financially support the defendant. Ms. Crain testified that Mrs. Guy told her that "it was time for [the defen- dant] to stand on his own two feet." Michelle Dennison Tyler, the daughter of Mr. Guy and the step-daughter of Mrs. Guy, stated that in late October 2016, the victims informed her of their retirement plans and told her that the defendant would need to find employment because they would no longer be able to financially support him. Robin White, Mr. Guy’s sister, said that Mrs. Guy informed her that upon retirement, she could no longer be able to financially support the defendant and that he "needed to be on his own." Renee Charles, Mr. Guy’s sister, testified that one week before Thanksgiving 2016, Mr. Guy told her that he and Mrs. Guy planned to tell the defendant at Christmas that he would be responsible for paying his own bills. Ms. Whited testified that when she and Mrs. Guy discussed the victims’ retirement plans, Mrs. Guy stated that she would no longer be able to financially support the defendant.

Ms. Tyler testified that she went to the victims’ home for Thanksgiving with her three sons and that the family, including the defendant, were together from approximately 10:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The defendant was staying at the victims’ house. Ms. Tyler said that the defendant typically remained in the bedroom and did not spend time with the rest of the family, but that "Thanksgiving was completely different. The moment that I arrived, [the defendant] was talking to us." She said that Mrs. Guy had kept everything that the defendant had collected and had memorialized "his entire life in boxes upstairs." The defendant and Ms. Tyler’s sons brought the boxes downstairs, and the defendant gave his toys and games to Ms. Tyler’s sons, which she believed to be "odd."

Ms. Tyler brought her laundry to do at the victims’ house because her dryer had broken. When she parked her car near the home so that she could easily take all of her clothes to the laundry room located upstairs, she saw "big totes" in the back of the defendant’s vehicle. One tote was inside the other, and the lids were on them. She went upstairs at the victims’ house to do laundry and to check on her children because she found it odd that they were interacting with the defendant. The defendant was staying in the bedroom near the top of the stairs, and Ms. Tyler said that every time she went upstairs, the defendant was "right behind" her, which she found to be strange.

While upstairs, Ms. Tyler entered the victims’ bedroom and noticed nothing out of the ordinary, recalling that the bed was made and that the bathroom was clean. The upstairs area also included a bathroom attached to the victims’ bedroom, another bathroom located down the hallway and to the right from the bedroom where the defendant was staying, and a laundry room located across from the second bathroom. She said that the victims had a dog that they "pampered" and would never lock inside a room. Ms. Tyler testified that Mr. Guy owned a large number of guns that he kept loaded, but she did not see any guns lying out over Thanksgiving. Mr. Guy also had security cameras inside the house, which were present over Thanksgiving but were missing when Ms. Tyler returned to the residence with police after the victims’ deaths.

Ms. Charles testified that on Friday, November 25, 2016, which was the day after Thanksgiving, she spoke with Mr. Guy, who stated that the victims planned to go to Surgoinsville and to return to Knoxville at approximately 3:00 p.m. Ms. White spoke to Mr. Guy via telephone at approximately 1:00 p.m., and Mr. Guy stated that he and the defendant had brought Mr. Guy’s boat to Surgoinsville and that they planned to leave soon. Ms. Charles called and sent text messages to Mr. Guy on Saturday and Sunday, but he did not respond. The victims also did not respond to Ms. Tyler’s calls and text messages over the weekend. Chandise Fink, the daughter of Mr. Guy and the step-daughter of Mrs. Guy, testified that although she spoke to Mr. Guy almost every weekend, she did not hear from him on Saturday or Sunday, which surprised her because Sunday was her birthday.

Ms. Whited testified that Mrs. Guy was scheduled to begin work at 7:00 a.m. on Monday, November 28th but never arrived. At approximately 7:15 a.m., Ms. Whited began sending her text messages, but Mrs. Guy did not respond, which Ms. Whited believed was "highly unusual." Ms. Whited continued sending text messages to Mrs. Guy, as well as Mr. Guy, and she called but did not receive a response. Ms. Whited said that it was unusual for Mrs. Guy to miss work without notice, and, concerned for Mrs. Guy's wellbeing, Ms. Whited called the police and requested a "welfare check." After some time had passed and Ms. Whited was still unable to contact either of the victims, she contacted the police again and asked what officers found during the "welfare check." Ms. Whited was told that "everything seemed to be fine, that nothing looked out of place." She asked the police to return to the victims’ home because she "knew that something was not right." She said that Mrs. Guy had plans for a retirement lunch with co-workers that day and that she would not have canceled or "just blown them off" without calling. Approximately 30 minutes later, a detective contacted Ms. Whited and asked additional questions about Mrs. Guy, but Ms. Whited was unaware of anything that occurred.

Ms. Whited said that Mrs. Guy’s employment benefits included a $500,000 life insurance policy and that Mrs. Guy had elected to split the payout of the policy evenly between her designated beneficiaries, Mr. Guy and the defendant. Ms. Whited did not know whether the defendant was aware that Mrs. Guy had designated him as a beneficiary for her life insurance policy.

Ms. Tyler testified that on the Monday after Thanksgiving, she planned to go to the victims’ house after work to check on them if she did not hear from them that day. That afternoon, Ms. Whited told her that "there’s something wrong" and that she needed to contact the detectives. Ms. Tyler met with...