Sign Up for Vincent AI
State v. Hawkins
Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County
Defendant, James Hawkins, appeals from his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of premeditated first degree murder, see T.C.A. § 39-13-202(a)(1); initiating a false report, see id. § 39-16-502, a Class D felony; and abuse of a corpse, see id. § 39-17-312, a Class E felony. The jury sentenced Defendant to death for the first degree murder conviction based upon its findings that the defendant was previously convicted of one (1) or more felonies whose statutory elements involve the use of violence to the person, see id. § 39-13-204(i)(2); and that the defendant knowingly mutilated the body of the victim after death, see id. § 39-13-204(i)(13); and that these aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. For the remaining felonies, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of 18 years' incarceration to be served consecutively to the death sentence. On appeal, Defendant alleges that (1) the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statements given to the police; (2) the trial court erred by refusing to accept Defendant's guilty pleas to counts two and three of the indictment; (3) the trial court erred by admitting statements made by the victim through the victim's children, through Melvin Gaither, and through an application for order of protection; (4) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of other acts in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (5) the trial court erred by admitting photographs of bone fragments taken from the victim;(6) the trial court erred by admitting crime scene photographs that had not been provided during pretrial discovery; (7) the trial court erred by permitting improper closing argument by the State; (8) the evidence is insufficient to support Defendant's conviction of first degree murder; (9) the trial court erred by not requiring the State to provide discovery concerning an ongoing investigation of sexual abuse committed by Defendant's father against Defendant's sisters for use in the penalty phase of the trial; (10) the trial court erred by denying Defendant's special jury instruction request to charge the jury on the presumption that any sentence imposed for the first degree murder conviction would be carried out according to the laws of this State; (11) myriad aspects of Tennessee'sdeath penalty statutes and procedure are unconstitutional in general and as applied to Defendant; (12) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence in both length and manner of service relative to the sentences for filing a false report and abuse of a corpse; and (13) the cumulative effect of these errors violated Defendant's right to due process. As an additional issue, Defendant alleges that the trial court erred by denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Following oral argument at the Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law at the University of Memphis and this court's full consideration, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Steven C. Bush, District Public Defender; Phyllis Aluko and Barry Kuhn, Assistant Public Defenders (on appeal); Gerald Skahan, Larry Nance, and Kindle Nance, Assistant Public Defenders (at trial), for the appellant, James Hawkins.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; James E. Gaylord, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; Patience Branham, Marianne Bell, Jennifer Nichols, and Danielle McCollum, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINIONOn September 11, 2008, the Shelby County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, James Hawkins, for the premeditated first degree murder of his girlfriend, Charlene Gaither, for initiating a false report relative to her disappearance, and for abuse of a corpse. The State filed a notice of its intention to seek the death penalty as to the first degree murder charge, relying upon two aggravating circumstances: that Defendant was previously convicted of felonies involving the use of violence, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(i)(2), and that Defendant knowingly mutilated the victim's body after death, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(i)(13). On June 10, 2011, a Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted Defendant of premeditated first degree murder, initiating a false report, and abuse of a corpse. On June 11, 2011, the jury sentenced Defendant to death for the first degree murder conviction, finding beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of both aggravating circumstances and that the aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.Following the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion for new trial, Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal to this court.
While the appeal was pending before this court, Defendant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court, alleging that newly discovered evidence warranted the reversal of the conviction and death sentence. This court stayed all appellate proceedings pending the resolution of the petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court. See State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999). On April 25, 2014, the trial court denied coram nobis relief. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the denial of coram nobis relief and, on June 2, 2014, this court consolidated the appeals with this case becoming the primary case number for appellate review. State v. James Hawkins, W2012-00412-CCA-R3-DD, W2014-00981-CCA-R3-ECN (Order) (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, June 2, 2014).
On February 12, 2008, Officer Kimberly Houston of the Memphis Police Department (MPD) interviewed Defendant at an apartment, referred to as Prince Rupert No. 4, concerning a missing person report he had made regarding his girlfriend, Charlene Gaither. Ms. Gaither was the mother of Defendant's three children, K.T., J.W.I., and J.S.I. (we will refer to child witnesses by their initials). K.T., a daughter, was 12 years old at the time of the victim's disappearance. J.W.I., an older son, was 11 years old, and J.S.I., a younger son, was 9 years old. Officer Houston recalled seeing mothballs scattered near the entrance to the apartment at the time of her initial interview of Defendant. Defendant explained that the mothballs were to repel cats. Officer Houston noticed a very strong odor of ammonia emanating from the apartment, so strong that her eyes watered as she stood in the open doorway to interview Defendant. Defendant explained that one of the children had spilled bleach inside the apartment. Regarding his girlfriend's disappearance, Defendant told Officer Houston that Ms. Gaither left the apartment at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 9, 2008, after the two had "an altercation." Officer Houston recalled that Defendant's daughter, K.T., seemed angry during the interview with Defendant. She said that K.T. did not divulge any information when asked by Officer Houston if there was a problem. Officer Houston recalled that Defendant seemed "calm but just confused" during their conversation.
On the afternoon of February 14, 2008, Lance McCallum, an employee with the Mississippi Department of Transportation, was patching holes on the Coldwater River bridge on Highway 78 when he glanced down the embankment below the bridge and saw "[a] body with the hands cut off above the wrist, both feet cut above the ankles, and the head and neck removed." He determined that the body, which was nude and lying on itsback, was an adult female. Mr. McCallum and his coworkers immediately telephoned 9-1-1. The authorities arrived within minutes.
Detective Mike Pate of the DeSoto County Mississippi Sheriff's Department responded to the call of the body's discovery. Detective Pate recalled that the body appeared to have been dropped from the top of the hill and rolled down the embankment. He observed that the body had three very deep cuts "to the bone" on the thigh, knee, and mid-shin of the right leg. An examination of the body revealed no stab or gunshot wounds. DeSoto County authorities searched the area for the missing body parts but were unable to locate them. Because of the condition of the body, Detective Pate was unable to make an initial identification. On February 15, 2008, after speaking with MPD investigators concerning the missing person report filed by Defendant, Detective Pate collected a buccal swab from Ms. Gaither's mother, Jerilene Irvin. Deoxyribonucleic analysis (DNA) later confirmed the body to be that of the victim, Charlene Gaither.
On February 15, 2008, then-Lieutenant Toney Armstrong of the MPD contacted the DeSoto County Sheriff's Department concerning the discovery of a body and determined that the body fit the description of the missing person in the report filed by Defendant. Lieutenant Armstrong contacted Defendant to ask him to come to the police station for an additional interview. Lieutenant Armstrong recalled that Defendant became "very defensive" and told Lieutenant Armstrong that he could not come to the station until he completed his shift at the Nike Store. Lieutenant Armstrong and other investigators decided to locate Defendant at his apartment later that afternoon. He testified at trial that when they spoke to Defendant at the apartment complex that day, Defendant "seemed extremely agitated to talk to us, almost to a paranoid state." He recalled a strong odor of bleach emanating from the apartment and Defendant's explanation to investigators that he had been cleaning. While...
Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting