State v. Hoskins, E2020-00052-CCA-R3-CD
| Decision Date | 15 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. E2020-00052-CCA-R3-CD,E2020-00052-CCA-R3-CD |
| Parties | STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ALONZO HOSKINS |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Alonzo Hoskins, of six counts of felony murder of the victim, based upon six underlying felonies, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the Defendant's convictions for felony murder and imposed a life sentence plus twenty years for especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) all counts of the presentment failed to allege an offense; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the cell phone records; (3) the trial court erred by preventing defense counsel from making an inquiry or proper record into the competency of a juror; (4) the prosecutor's closing argument was improper; and (5) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which NORMA MCGEE OGLE and ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JJ., joined.
Keith Lowe, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Alonzo Hoskins.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Cody N. Brandon, Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Ta Kisha Fitzgerald, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINIONI. Facts
This case arises from the May 30, 2017 shooting death of the victim, Jack McFall. For his role in the victim's death, a Knox County grand jury indicted the Defendant for felony murder in the perpetration of an attempted robbery (count one), felony murder in the perpetration of a robbery (count two), felony murder in the perpetration of an attempted burglary (count three), felony murder in the perpetration of a burglary (count four), felony murder in the perpetration of an attempted theft (count five), felony murder in the perpetration of a theft (count six), and especially aggravated robbery (count seven).
The Defendant filed a motion to suppress the cell phone records involved in this case because the trial court lacked authority to issue the search warrant. At the hearing on the motion, the Defendant testified that the cell phone number he owned at the time of this killing ended in -0769. The State and the Defendant stipulated that the Defendant had a cell phone in his possession at the time of his arrest. The Defendant argued that the trial judge who signed the search warrant lacked authority to issue a warrant for property located outside of his jurisdiction because the business address of AT&T, listed on the search warrant, was in North Palm Beach, Florida, rather than in Tennessee. The Defendant further argued that the search warrant did not establish a nexus between the cell phone data and the crime.
The State argued that the affidavit of Lieutenant Heather Reyda was sufficient to establish a nexus between the cell phone data and the crime. The State further contended that the search warrant was sent to the AT&T office in North Palm Beach, Florida (the address listed on the search warrant) because AT&T preferred to receive all subpoenas and search warrants in one centralized location. The State noted that AT&T conducted business and maintained data through its office in Knox County, Tennessee.
After hearing the arguments of the parties, the trial court denied the Defendant's motion to suppress. It found that although the search warrant was issued in Knox County for cell phone records stored digitally in Florida, the Knox County judge was not compelling disclosure in Florida. The trial court further found:
It is simply the way the business has asked for the matter - - for this process to occur, wherein a [S]tate of Tennessee search warrant can be honored even though they digital - - digitally stored materials may be in a different state. At any rate, I don't see that this is a search conducted in violation of the service provider's rights or the [D]efendant's rights.
At the Defendant's trial, the parties presented the following evidence: the victim's wife, Sandra McFall, testified that the victim's cell phone number at the time of his death ended in -7367. Ms. McFall testified that she first saw the Defendant, whom she knew as "T," in January or February 2017, as he was walking around in her yard having a conversation with the victim. She said that the two were accompanied by another, darker complected, African-American man. Ms. McFall testified that the Defendant wore his hairin "corn rows," and the other man had a "small afro" hairstyle. Ms. McFall testified that the victim walked with a cane due to a stroke that affected the left side of his body.
Ms. McFall said that she saw the Defendant a second time in April 2017 when he knocked on the door of her residence and asked for the victim. She said that the victim allowed the Defendant into the residence, but she did not hear their conversation. Ms. McFall testified that she returned from vacation on May 22, 2017, to accompany the victim to a doctor's appointment scheduled for the following day. She noted that the victim was upset when she arrived home about some pain pills that he had purchased from the Defendant. Ms. McFall explained that the victim purchased the pills from the Defendant to resell. She said that the victim called the Defendant many times, and he became irate that the Defendant did not answer the phone. She identified the receipt from Rocky Hill Family Physicians as the payment that the victim made for the May 23 appointment. Ms. McFall testified that at some point after 4:15 p.m. on May 30, 2017, the victim left home after receiving a communication from "someone."
On cross-examination, Ms. McFall admitted that she did not approve of the victim selling pain pills, and she attempted to separate herself from his activities. She did not think that any threats were exchanged between the victim and the Defendant.
On redirect examination, Ms. McFall read into evidence several text messages from the victim's cell phone records. She identified an exchange, occurring on May 24, 2017, between the victim's cell phone number and "T's new number," meaning the Defendant's cell phone number which ended in -0769. On that day, the Defendant texted the victim: One minute later, the Defendant texted the victim: The victim then replied: "You gave me 105 instead of 110 and 35 of them are fake."
Three days later, on May 27, 2017, the Defendant texted the victim: "What's up, Jack." The victim replied: "When are you going to be coming in?" The Defendant replied: The victim texted the Defendant: "The 40 you owe me, plus 60." On May 30, 2017, the victim sent a text message to the Defendant asking: "What happened to Monday?" A short time later, the victim received a text message from a cell phone number ending in -0853, which was entered into the victim's phone as also belonging to "T." The message read: "What's up, Jack?" To which the victim replied: "Who is this?" The Defendant texted: "T." The Defendant next asked: "You ready?" At 4:39 p.m. the victim replied: "Sure." Ms. McFall noted that the victim then left the house soon after. The Defendant next texted the victim: The victim replied: "I can't remember the room number." The Defendant and the victim exchanged several more texts, and the Defendant said: "The same room you took me to at the Red Roof Inn, Strawberry Plains." The Defendant then texted: "It's 109total." To which the victim replied: "I'm on my way." The Defendant texted: "Okay call me when you're outside[]" and "$4,140."
Lieutenant Heather Reyda of the Knox County Sheriff's Office, Major Crimes Unit, testified that on May 30, 2017, she received a call informing her that the victim had been shot in the parking lot of the Red Roof Inn located near the Strawberry Plains Pike Exit on Interstate 40. Lieutenant Reyda responded to the scene as the lead investigator and saw that the victim was in his van still buckled in by the seat belt. The responding officers informed her that the shooting had been captured on the hotel's video surveillance camera. She reviewed the surveillance video and saw what appeared to be one, darker complected, black male and one lighter-complected black or Hispanic male ("the shooter"). From reviewing the video, Lieutenant Reyda said that the shooter stepped out of the back of the victim's van, raised a weapon, and fired. In the video, another man, who wore a red shirt, appeared unarmed but carried what appeared to be a white envelope. Lieutenant Reyda also saw what appeared to be a light blue car with a black convertible top, possibly a Chrysler Sebring, in the video.
Lieutenant Reyda testified that she obtained the victim's cell phone and looked at the last phone numbers to communicate with him, opining that the victim's last contacts would be the suspects in his murder. Lieutenant Reyda testified that with the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), she began "pinging" the cell phone numbers associated with the victim's phone. She said that still photographs were immediately taken from the surveillance video and released to the media. This led to a tip from a caller, who identified himself as Tim Wells, for a possible suspect, and Lieutenant Reyda interviewed Mr. Wells. He showed her a...
To continue reading
Request your trial