State v. Lalone

• Decision Date: 25 May 2017
• Docket Number: No. E2016-00439-CCA-R3-CD,E2016-00439-CCA-R3-CD
• Parties: STATE OF TENNESSEE v. NATHAN BERNARD LALONE
• Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. NATHAN BERNARD LALONE

No. E2016-00439-CCA-R3-CD

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs November 16, 2016

May 25, 2017

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County

No. 284472

Rebecca J. Stern, Judge¹

Defendant, Nathan Bernard Lalone, was convicted of one count of first degree murder and one count of attempted first degree murder.He raises the following issues on appeal: (1)the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress his statement to police because he had invoked his right to remain silent; (2)the trial court erred in denying a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal of the suppression issue; (3)the trial court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial because the accomplice testimony was not sufficiently corroborated; (4)the trial court erred in allowing the State to play a videotaped interview of a witness as a prior inconsistent statement; and (5) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions.Upon our review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress and that the error was not harmless.Furthermore, we conclude that the trial court committed plain error in admitting a witness's recorded statement into evidence without following the Rules of Evidence with regard to prior inconsistent statements.For these two reasons, we reverse Defendant's convictions and remand the case for a new trial.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Reversed and Case Remanded

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., and ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JJ., joined.

Amanda B. Dunn(on appeal); Kevin L. Loper and Jeffrey S. Schaarschmidt(at trial), Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, Nathan Bernard Lalone.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Katherine C. Redding, Assistant Attorney General; Neal Pinkston, District Attorney General; and Brian Finlay and Kristin Spires, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

Factual and Procedural History

On the night of November 16, 2011, Christian Sosa and his girlfriend, Meghan Bennett, were shot at the tennis courts in Apison, Tennessee, a suburb of Chattanooga.Mr. Sosa died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds.In July of 2012, Defendant was indicted for one count of first degree murder and one count of attempted first degree murder.

I.Motion to Suppress Hearing

On May 5, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to suppress a statement he gave to police on November 17, 2011, on the ground that his statement was obtained after he invoked his right to remain silent.²At the hearing, no witnesses were called to testify on the suppression matter.The video-recorded interrogation of Defendant was played for the trial court and was entered as an exhibit to the hearing.Defendant did not contest whether he was subject to a custodial interrogation and conceded that he was advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436(1966), and that he initially waived those rights.The parties agreed that anything Defendant said prior to being advised of his rights would be excluded.However, Defendant argued that he later invoked his right to remain silent and that any statements he made thereafter should also be suppressed.

In the video, a detective³ entered the interrogation room, told Defendant that "the case is put together," and encouraged Defendant to admit that he"messed up."Defendant initially believed that he was being questioned about drugs and was confused about the detective's reference to a gun.After being read and signing his Miranda rights, Defendant denied any involvement in anything that happened to Mr. Sosa.Defendant stated that Tyler Conrad had a problem with Mr. Sosa over stolen guns and drugs.Defendant admitted also having a "beef" with Mr. Sosa over a gun that had been stolen a couple of months prior.Defendant stated that Mr. Conrad and Defendant's roommate, Blake Adams, had recently been talking about "getting" Mr. Sosa and "were really getting hot about that stuff."Defendant denied owning a gun and stated that Mr. Conrad had a "40 Glock."Defendant stated that he was with other people during the past couple of days who could verify his whereabouts.Defendant stated, "That's really all I can tell you about that," and that he felt "like a f---ing snitch" for talking about it.

The detective asked Defendant, "Do you really think you're fooling anybody?"Defendant told the detective to talk to the peoplehe had been with over the past three days "since I didn't do anything."The detective responded, "Yeah, you did."Defendant continued to deny doing anything, and the detective asked "Do you think you're here by accident?"Defendant stated that "obviously something went down" and that Mr. Conrad and Mr. Adams were "trying to put it on me because they're best friends."Defendant explained that they probably decided to put the blame on Defendant because they knew he also had problems with Mr. Sosa, that he had "a rap sheet," and that he was aggressive.Defendant said that if Mr. Conrad and Mr. Adams were saying he did it, "there is nothing else I can do" except get witnesses to prove he did not do it.

The detective said that he was there to "hear [Defendant's] side of [the story]," and Defendant responded, "I just told you my side.It's not even my side, it's just a story . . . that's the best of my knowledge that I can tell you of any knowledge that I can have at all of anything that would have to do with anything like that."After reiterating that Mr. Conrad had a gun, had a problem with Mr. Sosa, and had been "talking about doing stuff" in the past couple of days, Defendant stated that he was "telling you everything I know to the best of my knowledge.So I don't know what else you want me to tell you, but you keep trying to talk to me like I'm a fool, like I'm just trying to play you, like I'm trying to play games."The detective responded, "Yeah, I am."Defendant said, "OK then, well, then I ain't got nothing else to say 'cause I done told you whatever I know."The detective responded, "Take you a rest, I'll be back in a little while," and left the room.Just over nine minutes later, a second detective⁴ entered the interrogation room and, without giving new Miranda warnings, resumed questioning Defendant by asking him to "establish where you were yesterday."⁵

After the video was played, the trial court stated that it did not "hear him say I don't want to talk about it" and that it may have "missed that."The last minute or so of Defendant's conversation with the first detective was played again.As defense counselwas presenting his argument, the trial court stated that it did not interpret Defendant's statement "I ain't got nothing else to say" as an invocation of the right to remain silent.Instead, the trial court interpreted the statement to mean "[t]here's nothing more I can tell you about it" or "that's my story and I'm sticking to it."Defense counsel and the trial court disagreed about what the first detective was thinking when he said "take a rest" and left the room.⁶The trial court stated that it was concerned about the first detective leaving "then another officer tag-team comes in," but that it did not "hear a clear invocation of [Defendant's] rights."The trial court agreed to take the matter under advisement and read the case law submitted by the parties but stated that "the way I'm reading it right now" was that Defendant did not invoke his right to remain silent.

According to a minute entry, the trial court denied the motion to suppress on May, 19, 2014; there is no written order in the record detailing the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.Defendant filed a second motion to suppress his statement arguing that Defendant did not acknowledge that he was waiving his rights when he signed the rights waiver form.On June 2, 2014, the trial court overruled the second motion to suppress as well as Defendant's request for an interlocutory appeal of the first motion to suppress.⁷The case proceeded to trial on June 3, 2014.

II.Trial

Around 10:00 p.m. on November 16, 2011, Meghan Bennett and her boyfriend, Christian Sosa, drove to the tennis courts in Apison to meet Tyler Conrad.Ms. Bennett backed her car into a parking space.The next thing she knew, Mr. Sosa was telling her to leave and "bullets start[ed] flying in [her] car."Ms. Bennett ducked and was eventually able to drive out of the parking lot towards her parents' house.

At 10:26 p.m., Hamilton County 911 received a report that nine gunshots had been fired at the county park and that a small dark-colored Honda fled the parking lot with its lights off.At 10:30 p.m., William Bennett, Ms. Bennett's father, called 911 to report that his daughter and her boyfriend had been shot.Mr. Bennett reported that his daughter had been shot in the arm and that her boyfriend had sustained several gunshot wounds and was deceased.Ms. Bennett can be heard in the background identifying the shooter as Mr. Conrad because he was the person who had arranged the meeting at the tennis courts.

When Ms. Bennett testified at trial, she described the shooter as a "bigger person" dressed in black and wearing a black mask; she expressed disbelief that it was Defendant.Ms. Bennett was asked to identify individuals in still photographs taken from a Walmart security video.She identified Mr. Conrad as well as Blake Adams in two photographs.Mr. Adams is shown wearing a white shirt and khaki shorts, and Mr. Conrad is shown wearing a black t-shirt and dark-colored jeans.In one photograph, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Adams, and a third person later identified as Sabrina Lovett are seen entering the store at 10:35 p.m.In the other photograph, the group is seen leaving the store at 10:50 p.m.In a third...