Case Law State v. Teats

State v. Teats

Document Cited Authorities (30) Cited in (17) Related

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal by Permission from the Court of Criminal Appeals Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2009D2955 Steve R. Dozier, Judge

Patrick T. McNally, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jerome Maurice Teats.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Joseph F. Whalen, Acting Solicitor General; Jeffrey D. Zentner, Assistant Attorney General; Torry Johnson, District Attorney General; and Rachel Sobrero and Pamela Anderson, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

******UNPUBLISHED TEXT FOLLOWS******

******END OF UNPUBLISHED TEXT******

SHARON G. LEE, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which CORNELIA A. CLARK and HOLLY KIRBY, JJ., joined. GARY R. WADE, J., filed a separate dissenting opinion. HOLLY KIRBY, J., filed a separate concurring opinion. JEFFREY S. BIVINS, J., not participating.

OPINION

SHARON G. LEE, C.J.

We granted review in this case to determine whether a trial judge is required to give a jury instruction based on our decision in State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn.2012), when a defendant is tried on charges of kidnapping and robbery of different victims. The defendant and an accomplice forced their way into the back door of a restaurant, threatened the employees at gunpoint, and ordered them into a back storage area. While the accomplice guarded these employees, the defendant forced the restaurant manager to take him to the cash drawer, where he took the restaurant's money. The defendant was indicted for aggravated robbery of the store manager and four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping of the other four employees. A jury convicted the defendant of all charges. On appeal, the defendant asserted that the trial judge's failure to give the White jury instruction was reversible error. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions. We hold that a White jury instruction is not required when a defendant is charged with the offenses of kidnapping and robbery of different victims.

I. Facts and Procedural History

Shortly before six o'clock on the morning of May 18, 2009, Jerome Maurice Teats(“the Defendant) and Tirrone Akillia Simpkins (“the accomplice”) forced their way into the back door of a Shoney's restaurant in Nashville. Armed with guns, they threatened four employees in the kitchen area, forced them to gather in a storage area in the back of the kitchen, and told them to put their heads down and not to move. As the accomplice guarded these employees, the Defendant forced the Shoney's manager to take him to the restaurant's money drawer. After taking the money, the intruders fled on foot but were soon apprehended by police. A grand jury indicted the Defendant for aggravated robbery of the Shoney's manager and four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping of the four Shoney's employees.1

During a four-day trial from October 31 to November 3, 2011, fourteen witnesses testified for the State. Francisco Carrizosa Perez, a cook and food preparer at Shoney's, testified that on the morning of May 18, 2009, as he opened the restaurant's back door to take out some trash, two men came to the door. One man, later identified through trial testimony as the Defendant, was wearing a mask and had a pistol. The Defendant, pointing the pistol at Mr. Perez's head, told Mr. Perez not to look at him and to close his eyes and walk down the hallway leading to the storage area. Mr. Perez followed his orders. Meanwhile, the other intruder, who was not wearing a mask and was later identified as the accomplice, brought the other employees, Dora Delacruz Moreno, Arcelia Ruiz, and Teresa Diane Cline, to the storage area.2 Later the store manager came to the area, where the group sat and waited with their heads down until the intruders left the store.

Arcelia Ruiz, a food preparer at Shoney's, testified that the morning of May 18, 2009, was the worst day of her life. She was in the kitchen preparing food, when she heard Mr. Perez make a noise as if he were scared. She turned around and saw two men enter the back of the restaurant. One of the men, identified at trial as the Defendant, had his face covered, and both men were carrying guns. She saw the Defendant put a gun to Mr. Perez's head while his accomplice pointed a gun at her. The accomplice screamed at Ms. Ruiz not to look at him and asked where the office was located. When she told him the manager was in the office, the Defendant led Mr. Perez to the back storage area and then proceeded to the office. The accomplice led Ms. Ruiz to the storage area where Mr. Perez was waiting. Pointing the pistol at Ms. Ruiz and Mr. Perez, the accomplice asked how many people were in the restaurant. As other employees arrived in the kitchen, the accomplice ordered them at gunpoint to the storage area. Continuing to guard the four employees, the accomplice told them “not to move.” Eventually, the manager came back and told the employees that the men were going to leave. Ms. Ruiz then heard a voice tell them all to “bow down,” and the Defendant and his accomplice left.

Dora Delacruz Moreno, a Shoney's employee, testified that on the morning of May 18, 2009, she was in the front of the restaurant preparing the buffet when theintruders entered the restaurant. As she was heading toward the back, she saw the Defendant taking the manager toward the restaurant's safe. The man was speaking strongly to the manager, but Ms. Moreno could not understand what he was saying. Ms. Moreno then walked to the kitchen, where the accomplice pointed his gun at her. She could not understand what the man was saying, so she stood there until another employee, Ms. Cline, came and led her to the back with the others. Ms. Moreno's head was down, but she could see the man's feet. He was standing by the back door, blocking their exit, and was waving a gun back and forth. Eventually, the manager arrived and gestured for all of the employees to get down, and the two intruders left. Ms. Moreno estimated that they were in the storage area for a total of about eight minutes, staying there four or five minutes after the men were gone.

Jack Liev, a frequent patron of Shoney's, testified that on May 18, 2009, he arrived at the restaurant a couple of minutes before it opened for business. When he attempted to enter, he noticed that the inner doors of the foyer were locked, which he thought was unusual. He was then met by the manager who frantically explained that the restaurant had just been robbed and asked Mr. Liev to call the police. Mr. Liev called 911 from the parking lot. While waiting for the call to be answered, the manager pointed out one of the suspects, who was walking down the street, wearing a black hoodie. As Mr. Liev talked to the 911 operator, he got into his truck and followed the person, attempting to keep him in his sight. When officers arrived, Mr. Liev directed them to the area he last saw the suspect and returned to Shoney's.

Officer Derek Smith, a patrol officer with the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (“MNPD”), was the first officer to arrive at the scene. He testified that he received the call around 6:00 A.M. and arrived three or four minutes later. Officer Smith obtained a description of the two suspects from the manager and broadcast the description to other officers in the area. The Shoney's manager then led Officer Smith around the restaurant, describing what had happened. Officer Smith noticed that the manager had a small laceration on the top of his head and that the drawer from the cash register was lying on the floor in the front of the restaurant, along with the register's contents and a black garbage bag.

Also responding to the call and testifying at trial were Officers Patrick Ragan and Paul Sorace, Sergeant Vernon Teague, Detectives Diana McCoy and William Stokes, and Tim Matthews, a crime scene investigator. According to these officers, the accomplice was apprehended in a field near the Bellevue Mall, and the Defendant when he emerged from a crawl space beneath a nearby house. While searching for the suspects, police found a white vehicle belonging to the Defendant parked across the street from Shoney's. Inside the vehicle, police found the Defendant's wallet and a “large black plastic garbage bag” full of loose bills and coins. Police also recovered a loaded .357 magnum revolver, a black pair of pants, a black sweatshirt, and a black hoodie. Lorita Marsh, an expert in latent fingerprint examination, testified that she matched the accomplice's and the Defendant's fingerprints to a number of prints collected from the Defendant's vehicle.

At the police station, the Defendant gave a statement to Detective Stokes and Detective McCoy.3 An audio recording of this statement was played at trial and a transcription provided to the jury. In the statement, the Defendant claimed that his accomplice approached him a few days before the robbery and convinced him to participate. The Defendant told him “yeah, I will go ahead and be involved in on it, but ... hopefully whatever plan you got[,] I won't be caught.” The Defendant explained that on the morning of May 18, 2009, he and his accomplice took the Defendant's vehicle to a parking lot near the Shoney's restaurant. After parking the vehicle, they walked to the back of the restaurant and then waited, trying to decide what to do. The Defendant told his accomplice “whatever you do that's what I'm gonna do.” When the back door of the restaurant opened, they rushed in. The Defendant was armed with a .357 magnum revolver, and his accomplice was carrying a BB gun. The Defendant said that he was the one who “made the guy put ... the money in the bag.” His accomplice “secured” the other employees:

[H]e started pulling them towards him. And he was, he's like put all the women, like I guess it's a, it's like cooler or—or...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee – 2022
Teats v. Phillips
"... ... 3:19-cv-00841 United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division March 23, 2022 ... MEMORANDUM ... WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ... Petitioner ... Jerome Maurice Teats, a pro se state prisoner, filed a ... petition for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § ... 2254 (Doc. No. 1) with supporting facts and legal argument ... (Doc. Nos. 4, 5). Respondent filed an Answer (Doc. No. 16) ... and Petitioner filed a Reply. (Doc. No. 23). [ 1 ] Petitioner ... "
Document | Vermont Supreme Court – 2021
State v. Kuhlmann
"... ... 5 Like Vermont, most states do not permit separate convictions for kidnapping or unlawful restraint and another crime where the kidnapping or restraint was merely incidental to that other crime. See Goodhue , 2003 VT 85, ¶ 16, 175 Vt. 457, 833 A.2d 861 ; State v. Teats , 468 S.W.3d 495, 504 n.13 (Tenn. 2015) (collecting cases). Some jurisdictions view this as a factual question to be decided by the jury. Teats , 468 S.W.3d at 504 (noting that Tennessee, some California courts, Connecticut, and Texas use jury instruction to determine if kidnapping is incidental); ... "
Document | Vermont Supreme Court – 2021
State v. Kuhlmann
"... ...          5. Like Vermont, most states do not permit separate convictions for kidnapping or unlawful restraint and another crime where the kidnapping or restraint was merely incidental to that other crime. See Goodhue , 2003 VT 85, ¶ 16; State v. Teats , 468 S.W.3d 495, 504 n.13 (Tenn. 2015) (collecting cases). Some jurisdictions view this as a factual question to be decided by the jury. Teats , 468 S.W.3d at 504 (noting that Tennessee, some California courts, Connecticut, and Texas use jury instruction to determine if kidnapping is incidental); ... "
Document | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals – 2017
State v. Fleming
"... ... The holding of White "was intended to address the due process concerns that arise when a defendant is charged with kidnapping a victim and other crimes, such as robbery, rape, or assault, that involve some inherent confinement of that victim." State v ... Teats , 468 S.W.3d 495, 503 (Tenn. 2015). The White court held: [T]he legislature did not intend for the kidnapping statutes to apply to the removal or confinement of a victim that is essentially incidental to an accompanying felony, such as rape or robbery. This inquiry, however, is a question for the ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee – 2016
Porter v. Johnson
"... ...         The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v ... Porter ("Porter I"), No. M2009-02443-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 915673 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. March 14, 2011), perm ... appeal denied (Tenn. May 25, ... (ECF No. 65, at 5 (citing State v ... Teats , 468 S.W.3d 495 (Tenn. 2015).) The respondent is correct.         In Teats , the Tennessee Supreme Court held that, where a defendant was ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

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 a free trial

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

vLex

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

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee – 2022
Teats v. Phillips
"... ... 3:19-cv-00841 United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division March 23, 2022 ... MEMORANDUM ... WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ... Petitioner ... Jerome Maurice Teats, a pro se state prisoner, filed a ... petition for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § ... 2254 (Doc. No. 1) with supporting facts and legal argument ... (Doc. Nos. 4, 5). Respondent filed an Answer (Doc. No. 16) ... and Petitioner filed a Reply. (Doc. No. 23). [ 1 ] Petitioner ... "
Document | Vermont Supreme Court – 2021
State v. Kuhlmann
"... ... 5 Like Vermont, most states do not permit separate convictions for kidnapping or unlawful restraint and another crime where the kidnapping or restraint was merely incidental to that other crime. See Goodhue , 2003 VT 85, ¶ 16, 175 Vt. 457, 833 A.2d 861 ; State v. Teats , 468 S.W.3d 495, 504 n.13 (Tenn. 2015) (collecting cases). Some jurisdictions view this as a factual question to be decided by the jury. Teats , 468 S.W.3d at 504 (noting that Tennessee, some California courts, Connecticut, and Texas use jury instruction to determine if kidnapping is incidental); ... "
Document | Vermont Supreme Court – 2021
State v. Kuhlmann
"... ...          5. Like Vermont, most states do not permit separate convictions for kidnapping or unlawful restraint and another crime where the kidnapping or restraint was merely incidental to that other crime. See Goodhue , 2003 VT 85, ¶ 16; State v. Teats , 468 S.W.3d 495, 504 n.13 (Tenn. 2015) (collecting cases). Some jurisdictions view this as a factual question to be decided by the jury. Teats , 468 S.W.3d at 504 (noting that Tennessee, some California courts, Connecticut, and Texas use jury instruction to determine if kidnapping is incidental); ... "
Document | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals – 2017
State v. Fleming
"... ... The holding of White "was intended to address the due process concerns that arise when a defendant is charged with kidnapping a victim and other crimes, such as robbery, rape, or assault, that involve some inherent confinement of that victim." State v ... Teats , 468 S.W.3d 495, 503 (Tenn. 2015). The White court held: [T]he legislature did not intend for the kidnapping statutes to apply to the removal or confinement of a victim that is essentially incidental to an accompanying felony, such as rape or robbery. This inquiry, however, is a question for the ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee – 2016
Porter v. Johnson
"... ...         The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v ... Porter ("Porter I"), No. M2009-02443-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 915673 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. March 14, 2011), perm ... appeal denied (Tenn. May 25, ... (ECF No. 65, at 5 (citing State v ... Teats , 468 S.W.3d 495 (Tenn. 2015).) The respondent is correct.         In Teats , the Tennessee Supreme Court held that, where a defendant was ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

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

vLex

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

vLex