State v. March

Decision Date27 January 2011
Docket NumberNo. M2007–00053–CCA–R3–CD.,M2007–00053–CCA–R3–CD.
Citation395 S.W.3d 738
PartiesSTATE of Tennessee v. Perry Avram MARCH.
CourtTennessee Court of Criminal Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Denied by Supreme Court

July 14, 2011.

John E. Herbison, Nashville, Tennessee; William D. Massey and Lorna S. McClusky, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Perry Avram March.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Mark A. Fulks, Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. Johnson, III, District Attorney General; Tom Thurman, Assistant District Attorney General; and Katrin Miller, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.

OPINION

THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JERRY L. SMITH and ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JJ., joined.

THOMAS T. WOODALL, J.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Perry Avram March, was convicted of second degree murder, a Class A felony, abuse of a corpse, a Class E felony, and destruction of evidence, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twenty-five years for his murder conviction, two years for his abuse of a corpse conviction, and five years for his destruction of evidence conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve his sentences for his Class C and Class E felonies consecutive to his sentence for his murder conviction, and his murder conviction in this case consecutive to his sentence in case no. 2005–D–2854 of twenty-four years for his conviction of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, for an effective sentence of fifty-six years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence (1) his statements to Detective Postiglione on August 12, 2005; (2) his taped conversations with Nathaniel Farris while Defendant was housed in the Davidson County Jail awaiting trial; (3) Leigh Reames' testimony concerning Defendant's prior conduct; and (4) the draft of a novel written by Defendant. Defendant also contends that the State's prosecution of the offenses of abuse of a corpse and tampering with evidence are time-barred and, alternatively, that the tolling of the statute of limitations in criminal cases violates his constitutional right to travel and denies him equal protection under the law. Defendant submits that the cumulative effect of these errors denied him his constitutional right to due process. After a thorough review we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I. Background

The murder victim in this case was Defendant's wife, Janet March. Carolyn Levine, the victim's mother, testified that Defendant and the victim met while they were both students at the University of Michigan. The couple married on June 14, 1987, and were married when the victim disappeared on August 15, 1996. Ms. Levine identified Defendant at trial as her daughter's husband. Ms. Levine said that the victim, who was thirty-three years old when she disappeared, was five feet, three or four inches tall and weighed approximately one hundred pounds. At trial, Ms. Levine identified the victim from a photograph.

After graduation, Defendant and the victim moved to Nashville so that Defendant could attend Vanderbilt Law School. The Levines paid Defendant's law school tuition and supported the couple for three years while Defendant was in school. After graduation, Defendant joined a Nashville law firm. In July 1995, the victim and Defendant moved into a newly built house located at 3 Blackberry Road in Forrest Hills.

Ms. Levine said that the victim's son, Samson March, was born on August 27, 1990, and her daughter, Tzipora March, was born on May 17, 1994. Ms. Levine described the victim as a “very attentive” and “very nurturing” mother. Ms. Levine and the victim talked on a daily basis, and the victim never left town without providing Ms. Levine her itinerary and other pertinent information concerning the children's care and schedules.

Ms. Levine stated that she first became aware that the victim and Defendant were undergoing marital problems in 1993, but she did not feel the problems were insurmountable. Ms. Levine said that she had a good relationship with Defendant, and both Defendant and the victim came to her individually for advice. The couple went to marriage counseling in 1991 or 1992, and Defendant began to see a psychiatrist. The victim joined Defendant during his individual counseling sessions in 1996.

Ms. Levine said that the couple's situation deteriorated further. Defendant told Ms. Levine in the spring of 1996 that he was afraid the victim was going to divorce him and take the children away from him. The victim and Defendant began arguing in front of the children, and Ms. Levine told Defendant that he needed to leave the residence because the children were upset by the couple's arguments. Defendant found a house to rent, but he did not immediately move out of the marital residence. Ms. Levine said, however, that Defendant stayed in a hotel for approximately six to eight nights before the victim disappeared.

Ms. Levine planned to accompany the victim to her appointment with a divorce attorney on Friday, August 16, 1996. However, around midnight on August 15, 1996, Defendant called the Levines and told them that the victim had left the house after an argument. Ms. Levine said that to her knowledge, the victim had never done that before. Ms. Levine told Defendant to call her when the victim returned.

Ms. Levine talked to Defendant several times by telephone on August 16, 1996. During one conversation, Defendant said that one of his son's schoolmates had arrived for a play date, and Ms. Levine instructed Defendant to let the child play with Samson. Defendant told Ms. Levine that he had explained to the children and the children's part-time babysitter that the victim had left early that morning to work on a large art project.

Defendant told Ms. Levine that the victim had taken two small shopping bags, a small, gray suitcase, her passport, and $1,500 with her when she left. The Levines drove to the airport to search for the victim's vehicle but were unsuccessful. Defendant initially said that the victim was wearing khaki shorts and a navy short-sleeved, collarless top when she left, but later told Ms. Levine that the victim had changed into blue jeans before leaving.

Defendant said that the victim had handed him a typewritten note entitled “Janet's 12–day vacation” when she left which contained a list of chores for Defendant to do while the victim was gone. Ms. Levine stated that the victim often made lists, but they were always hand-written. When she helped Defendant put the children to bed on August 16, 1996, Ms. Levine noticed a yellow-lined legal pad by Defendant's computer in his office which contained a handwritten list of similar chores. Ms. Levine said that the words “two weeks” in Defendant's handwriting were circled at the top of the list. Ms. Levine stated that the victim never used capital letters in her notes, and she dated the notes at the top of the page. Ms. Levine stated that the typed note entitled “Janet's 12 day vacation” used capitalizations and was dated at the bottom.

Ms. Levine initially believed Defendant's explanation for the victim's absence. By Sunday night, however, she grew increasingly concerned because the victim had never left the children before without telling someone where she was going. The Levines wanted to contact the police, but Defendant and his brother, Ron March, convinced them to wait for twelve days. Ms. Levine agreed because she still believed the victim would return, and Ms. Levine did not want to embarrass her by getting the police involved.

The victim had planned a birthday party for her son for Sunday, August 25, 1996, and the invitations had been mailed before the victim's disappearance. Ms. Levine found it “unbelievable” that the victim would not return for her son's birthday party which went on as planned. Ms. Levine stated that Samson started school on the following Monday, August 26, 1996, and the victim had planned to take cupcakes to her son's classroom on his birthday on August 27, 1996. Ms. Levine found it “inconceivable” that the victim would miss these events in her child's life.

Ms. Levine said that Defendant's father, Arthur Marsh, who lived in Mexico, came to Nashville to attend Samson's birthday party, but he left the next day for Chicago. Defendant explained, “My dad has a big mouth, he tells everything.” Ms. Levine said that around this time, Defendant also said, [T]hat f– – –ing Janet has ruined my life.” Ms. Levine was “shocked and horrified” because Defendant had never used this kind of language in front of her before.

The Levines told the police about the victim's disappearance on August 29, 1996. The victim's grey Volvo was found backed into a parking space at the Brixworth Apartments on September 7, 1996. At trial, Ms. Levine identified the vehicle as the victim's from a photograph. The victim's purse, three dresses, two pairs of shorts and a child's car seat were in the vehicle. A gray suitcase which Defendant told Ms. Levine the victim was carrying when she left was not in the car.

Ms. Levine stated that Defendant's demeanor and attitude changed after the victim's vehicle was found. Ms. Levine was concerned about the children during this period, and she and Defendant spoke with a child psychologist for guidance in answering the children's questions about the victim. Defendant was angry, however, when Ms. Levine spoke to one of Samson's teachers, and he told Ms. Levine not to call the school again.

Ms. Levine stated that Defendant took the children to Chicago for Rosh Hashana on Saturday, September 14, 1996. Arthur March remained in Nashville because Defendant said that it was too expensive for his father to travel to Chicago. Defendant and the children returned home on September 15, 1996, but Defendant would not let Ms. Levine see the children. Defendan...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • State v. Willis
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 6 Julio 2016
    ...See State v. Downey , 259 S.W.3d 723, 732–33 (Tenn.2008) ; State v. Huddleston , 924 S.W.2d 666, 669 (Tenn.1996) ; State v. March , 395 S.W.3d 738, 767–68 (Tenn.Crim.App.2011). The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches after the initiation of formal charges. Maine v. Moulton , 474 U.S. ......
  • State v. Bell
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 10 Septiembre 2015
    ...women before and after his wife's death was relevant to the couple's relationship and admissible to show motive); State v. March, 395 S.W.3d 738, 783–84 (Tenn.Crim.App.2011) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant's prior infatuation ......
  • March v. Sexton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 19 Junio 2013
    ...downstairs the next morning, his mother was gone. Ms. Klepak described Samson as "very traumatized and sad."March v. State, 395 S.W.3d 738, 745-61 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. 2011), perm. appeal denied (Tenn. July 14, 2011).II. DISCUSSION The issues raised in March's petition, as amended,2 are as......
  • State v. Bell
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 10 Septiembre 2015
    ...women before and after his wife's death was relevant to the couple's relationship and admissible to show motive); State v. March , 395 S.W.3d 738, 783–84 (Tenn.Crim.App.2011) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant's prior infatuation......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT