State v. Hawkins
| Citation | 406 S.W.3d 121 |
| Decision Date | 20 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. W2010–01687–SC–R11–CD.,W2010–01687–SC–R11–CD. |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee v. Ledarren S. HAWKINS. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Tennessee |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Joseph A. McClusky, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Ledarren Hawkins.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; William E. Young, Solicitor General; Sophia S. Lee, Senior Counsel; James G. Woodall, District Attorney General; Jody S. Pickens, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
The defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court for Madison County of first degree murder and tampering with physical evidence. On this appeal, the defendant seeks reversal of his first degree murder conviction on the ground that the trial court declined his request for a jury instruction on defense of a third person. He also seeks reversal of his evidence-tampering conviction on the ground that his abandonment of the murder weapon did not amount to tampering with physical evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeals upheld his convictions and sentences. State v. Hawkins, No. W2010–01687–CCA–R3–CD, 2012 WL 543048 (Tenn.Crim.App. Feb. 16, 2012). Based on this record, we have determined that the trial court properly denied the defendant's request for an instruction on defense of a third person. However, we have also determined that the defendant did not tamper with physical evidence in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 39–16–503(a)(1) (2010) by tossing the murder weapon over a short fence where it could be easily observed and recovered. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence for first degree murder and reverse his conviction and sentence for tampering with physical evidence.
Ledarren Hawkins lived in Memphis and was a member of the Bloods gang. Because several of his friends were enrolled at Lane College in Jackson, Tennessee, he decided to visit the campus on January 27, 2009. In preparing for his trip, Mr. Hawkins packed a number of items of red clothing.1 He also brought along “for protection” a 12–gauge, single-shot Springfield Model 107 shotgun with silver duct tape on the grip and the barrel sawed off.
On the evening of January 28, 2009, Mr. Hawkins and his friends drove to the Jackson Family Fun Center, a sprawling facility housing a myriad of modern amusements, including a bowling alley, a miniature golf course, and a karaoke lounge. Without his friends' knowledge, Mr. Hawkins brought along his shotgun and hid it in his friend's truck while the remainder of the group entered the bowling alley.
While Mr. Hawkins and his friends were bowling, their use of gang signs associated with the Bloods caught the attention of another group of bowlers who were members of a rival gang called the Crips. The two groups exchanged some hostile epithets, and the dispute spilled out into the Fun Center's parking lot. When Mr. Hawkins came outside, he walked to his friend's truck to drive it closer to the crowd gathered in the parking lot. When he emerged from the truck, he was carrying his shotgun. As Mr. Hawkins walked toward the crowd, he leveled his shotgun at one of the fighters, nineteen-year-old Jerome Ellington, and pulled the trigger. Mr. Hawkins did not know Mr. Ellington, who was unarmed.
Mr. Ellington staggered through the side door of the karaoke lounge with blood gurgling from the gunshot wound in his chest. He collapsed behind the wet bar and was never revived. Meanwhile, Mr. Hawkins sprinted across the parking lot toward the miniature golf course. Mr. Hawkins tossed his shotgun over a short metal fence, where it landed near the tenth hole of the miniature golf course, surrounded by a light dusting of snow.
The police arrived minutes after the shooting, which occurred around 10:20 p.m. They began interviewing witnesses and even stopped and questioned Mr. Hawkins. However, the police permitted Mr. Hawkins to leave with his friends. The police reviewed the Fun Center's security recordings and began a thorough search of the area.
When the Jackson Police Department's crime scene technician arrived at the scene, he found an officer standing guard over something near the northeast corner of the miniature golf course. The fence around the miniature golf course was four feet tall with wide spaces between the thin metal rails. When the technician approached the other officer, he saw Mr. Hawkins's shotgun lying on the snow in plain view, as can be seen in the following two photographs taken on the night of the murder.2
Information obtained at the scene led the police to Mr. Hawkins. Less than three hours after the fatal shooting, the police found Mr. Hawkins hiding in a closet at a friend's apartment. They arrested him and charged him with the murder of Mr. Ellington. On May 4, 2009, a Madison County grand jury indicted Mr. Hawkins for first degree premeditated murder in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 39–13–202 (2010) and tampering with evidence in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 39–16–503 (2010).
Mr. Hawkins's trial took place in the Circuit Court for Madison County from March 29 to March 31, 2010. The State presented twenty-four witnesses. The only witness for the defense was Mr. Hawkins himself. Prior to trial, Mr. Hawkins's counsel requested the trial court to instruct the jury on both self-defense and defense of a third person. The trial court postponed its decision on these requests until after Mr. Hawkins testified.
Mr. Hawkins testified that he was in his friend's truck when the fight broke out and that he was preparing to pick up his friends and leave. He also testified that, from inside the truck, he saw a young man in a dark shirt retrieve something from a nearby car. He stated that he feared for his friends because he thought the young man in the dark shirt had armed himself with a gun. Accordingly, Mr. Hawkins parked the truck under the bowling alley's canopy and emerged holding his shotgun.
Mr. Hawkins testified that he intended to approach the melée and to fire a warning shot to stop the fighting. However, he stated that he was suddenly gripped by fear when a tall, muscular young man in a dark shirt—Mr. Ellington—approached him while appearing to be reaching toward his waistband. Mr. Hawkins stated that, acting in self-defense, he aimed his shotgun at Mr. Ellington and pulled the trigger. Mr. Hawkins also testified that he “just took off running” after shooting Mr. Ellington because he did not know whether someone else in the crowd might have a gun and a desire to retaliate. He explained that Mr. Hawkins soon found himself on the other end of the miniature golf course, where he tossed his shotgun over the fence.
The defense rested after Mr. Hawkins testified. At that point, the trial court granted Mr. Hawkins's motion for an instruction on self-defense but found no factual basis for instructing the jury on defense of a third person. Thereafter, the jury convicted Mr. Hawkins of first degree premeditated murder and evidence tampering. Mr. Hawkins received a life sentence for the murder conviction and a concurrent three-year sentence for the tampering conviction.
On appeal, Mr. Hawkins challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the tampering conviction and the trial court's denial of the jury instruction on defense of a third person. He argued that he merely abandoned the shotgun without actually concealing it and that his use of the weapon was actually motivated by his concern for his friends. The Court of Criminal Appeals found no error in the jury instructions and found that the evidence supported Mr. Hawkins's tampering conviction. State v. Hawkins, No. W2010–01687–CCAR3–CD, 2012 WL 543048, at *14–16 (Tenn.Crim.App. Feb. 16, 2012). We granted Mr. Hawkins permission to appeal. We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that the evidence did not warrant a jury instruction on defense of a third person. However, based on our interpretation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 39–16–503, we reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals and vacate Mr. Hawkins's conviction for tampering with physical evidence.
We turn first to the trial court's refusal to charge the jury on defense of a third person. Mr. Hawkins asserts that the trial court erred by declining to give this charge because his testimony reflects that he retrieved his shotgun from the truck and shot Mr. Ellington in an effort to protect his friends, who were embroiled in a gang fight. We find little merit in this argument.
The question of whether the facts in a criminal case require the jury to be instructed regarding a particular defense is a mixed question of law and fact. We review these questions de novo, with no presumption of correctness. See State v. Rogers, 188 S.W.3d 593, 628–29 (Tenn.2006); State v. Thacker, No. E2011–02401–CCA–R3–CD, 2012 WL 4078440, at *8 (Tenn.Crim.App. Sept. 18, 2012) (No Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application filed). Errors in jury instructions are generally subject to a “harmless error” analysis. State v. Williams, 977 S.W.2d 101, 104–05 (Tenn.1998). However, when the jury instructions mislead the jury as to the applicable law or fail to “fairly submit” the relevant legal issues, such as available defenses, we hold such deficiencies to be prejudicial error. State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 101 (Tenn.1998).
Self-defense is a complete defense against a murder charge. See 11 David L. Raybin, Tennessee Practice: Criminal Practice and Procedure § 28:36, at 54 (rev. ed.2008) (hereinafter Criminal Practice and Procedure). To prevail on the theory of self-defense, a defendant must show that he or she was “not engaged in unlawful activity” and was “in a place where the person has a right to be.” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39–11–611(b)(1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bush v. State
...statutory scheme, the legislative history, and other sources, including the established canons of statutory constructionState v. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121, 131 (Tenn.2013) (internal citations omitted); see also Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 526–28 (Tenn.2010). We must therefore b......
-
Culbertson v. Culbertson
...first impression, we often review the decisions of other states, as well as other authorities, to assist our analysis.” State v. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121, 131 (Tenn.2013) ; see also State v. Munn, 56 S.W.3d 486, 495 (Tenn.2001). Given the holding in Culbertson I, we give more weight to decis......
-
State v. Teats
...which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. See State v. Clark, 452 S.W.3d 268, 295 (Tenn.2014) (citing State v. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121, 128 (Tenn.2013)). This is an area of law that needs some clarity. A number of panels of the Court of Criminal Appeals have reached differ......
-
Thornton v. State
...a public servant who is or may be engaged in such proceeding or investigation. Model Penal Code § 241.7 (1962). 3.State v. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121, 133 (Tenn.2013). 4.Id. 5. John F. Decker, The Varying Parameters of Obstruction of Justice in American Criminal Law, 65 La. L.Rev. 49, 51–52 (2......