State v. Moran

Citation621 S.W.3d 249
Decision Date29 October 2020
Docket NumberNo. W2019-00837-CCA-R3-CD,W2019-00837-CCA-R3-CD
Parties STATE of Tennessee v. Joseph MORAN
CourtTennessee Court of Criminal Appeals

Jessica Wiseman (on appeal) and Arthur Quinn (at trial), Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Joesph Moran.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Katharine K. Decker, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Holly Palmer and Jeff Jones, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

J. Ross Dyer, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which John Everett Williams, P.J. and Camille R. McMullen, J., joined.

J. Ross Dyer, J.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Joseph Moran, of two counts of sexual battery and one count of domestic assault by provocative contact. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of two years, suspended to supervised probation after serving sixty days in confinement. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Upon our review of the record, arguments of the parties, and pertinent authorities, we agree the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress, but given the otherwise overwhelming evidence presented at trial, this error was harmless. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Facts and Procedural History

On April 13, 2017, the defendant was indicted for rape (count 1), aggravated sexual battery (count 2), kidnapping (count 3), and domestic assault (count 4) stemming from actions committed against the victim, the defendant's girlfriend. Prior to his arrest, the defendant gave a statement to responding officers regarding his involvement in the crimes. The defendant subsequently filed a motion to suppress this statement, and the trial court conducted a pre-trial hearing on April 20, 2018.

I. Motion to Suppress

In his motion to suppress, the defendant argued he did not waive his Miranda rights prior to giving the statement to police, thus rendering it involuntary.1 The State disagreed and presented the following evidence supporting its position at the suppression hearing.

Officer Sam Lin with the Memphis Police Department ("MPD") testified he and his partner, Officer D'Andre Johnson, responded to a criminal assault call at the defendant's residence on July 17, 2016. When they arrived at the defendant's apartment building, Officer Lin saw the victim sitting outside on the curb. The victim told the officers she had been raped and informed them that the defendant was inside the residence. Officer Lin knocked on the front door, and the defendant answered, identified himself, and told the officers that the victim was his girlfriend.

At that point, Officer Lin placed the defendant in handcuffs and escorted him to the back seat of his police car. Although no decision had been made as to whether the defendant should be placed under arrest, Officer Lin testified, once the defendant was handcuffed and placed in the police car, he was detained for further investigation. Officer Lin then asked the defendant "what happened," and the defendant "told [the officers] his side of the story." Though he could not recall the defendant's entire statement, Officer Lin specifically remembered the defendant stating that he was unable to maintain an erection and began rubbing his penis on the victim's vagina. Regarding Officer Lin's demeanor during their conversation, he testified that he spoke in the same volume and tone that he used during the hearing. Additionally, Officer Lin agreed the defendant remained calm and was not aggressive or defensive during their interaction.

Following the defendant's statement, Officer Lin went back and forth between the defendant and victim several times to see if their stories were similar and agreed their stories matched. Although he probably asked the defendant additional questions during this time, at the hearing, Officer Lin could not recall what those questions were. At some point, the defendant asked to speak with the victim, and Officer Lin brought the victim over to the police car. However, while he remained close by, Officer Lin did not listen to their conversation. Additionally, Officer Lin testified the door to the police car remained open throughout his conversation with defendant, but it was closed when the defendant was speaking with the victim.

Following his initial investigation, Officer Lin requested backup, and Lieutenant Charles Mowery arrived and made the decision to place the defendant under arrest. Officer Lin acknowledged, because he was a new officer at the time and had just completed training, he did not include any information regarding the defendant's statement in his report. On cross-examination, Officer Lin agreed the defendant was not free to leave once he was handcuffed, and he did not Mirandize the defendant prior to speaking with him.

Officer D'Andre Johnson with the MPD testified he was patrolling with Officer Lin on the day in question. However, because Officer Lin was the investigative officer on the case, Officer Johnson could only recall "bits and pieces" of what happened. After speaking with the victim outside of the residence, Officers Johnson and Lin knocked on the front door, and the defendant came outside. Officer Johnson recalled the defendant being placed in the back of the police car but could not remember whether the defendant was handcuffed at that time. Officer Johnson then sat in the front seat of the police car while Officer Lin went back and forth between the defendant and victim.

Officer Johnson was listening to the defendant's conversation with Officer Lin and recalled hearing the defendant make the following statement:

The defendant advised that his girlfriend came home from a trip. They took a shower together. Once they got out of the shower he wanted to have sex with her so he asked her not to put her clothes on. But before they initiated the sex, heshe advised him that she actually had sex with someone else while she was out of town. I guess he became upset at that point and he pulled her outside in an attempt to embarrass her. And eventually they went back in the house and tried to have sex with her again at that point but he couldn't get an erection. So eventually I think her brother or brother-in-law came and they called the police afterwards.

Officer Johnson testified the defendant was calm and forthcoming during his conversation with Officer Lin and acted "as if he did [not do] anything wrong." Officer Johnson agreed it is important to include any statements made on the scene in the police report and acknowledged he did not review Officer Lin's report prior to it being filed.

On cross-examination, Officer Johnson testified the defendant was detained when he was placed in the police car and was not free to leave. He also agreed the defendant was not Mirandized prior to speaking with Officer Lin.

After its review, the trial court issued an order denying the defendant's motion to suppress the statement finding the defendant did not carry his burden of proving the defendant was in custody at the time the statement was made. The defendant then proceeded to trial.

II. Trial

The evidence produced at trial showed on July 17, 2016, the victim returned home to the apartment she shared with the defendant, her boyfriend at the time, and Travis Emmons, their roommate, following a week-long cruise. After a brief discussion about her trip, the victim and defendant went upstairs and showered together. The defendant then intimated that he wanted to have sex. However, the victim put on a t-shirt and underwear and told the defendant that she had cheated on him during her cruise. The defendant calmly told her that she "should probably go stay with [her] mom for a few days" and went downstairs.

The victim called her mother to let her know that the victim would need to stay with her for a few days. Suddenly, the defendant reentered the bedroom and began screaming at the victim that she needed to "get the f*** out." The victim's mother heard "some scuffling and some thuds and then [the victim] screamed and the phone went dead." The defendant then pushed the victim onto the bed and removed her clothing. He grabbed her by the wrists, pulled her downstairs, and took her outside onto their back patio. Although the victim did not see any neighbors outside, the defendant loudly asked if anyone else "want[ed] to come f*** [his] w**** girlfriend." The victim attempted to pull away from the defendant but was unable to escape his grasp.

After several minutes, the defendant pulled the victim back inside the apartment and into their bedroom. He then pushed the victim onto the bed and got on top of her. The victim was crying and tried to cover her face with her hands, but the defendant pulled her hands away and told the victim to look at him. He then digitally penetrated the victim's vagina and attempted to penetrate her with his penis. However, because he was unable to maintain an erection, the defendant could not fully penetrate the victim and instead rubbed his penis on her vagina.

Meanwhile, the victim's mother, who had tried to call the victim back several times, was "very afraid" for the victim's safety and called her son-in-law, Zach Seals, who was at her other daughter's home. Because Mr. Seals was closer to the victim's apartment, the victim's mother asked him to check on the victim.

Mr. Seals drove to the victim's apartment and rang the doorbell, which effectively stopped the assault. The defendant quickly put on some clothes and went downstairs to answer the door. The victim heard Mr. Seals’ voice, got dressed, and went downstairs. She grabbed her suitcase, which was still packed from the cruise, and began filling it with additional clothing. After leaving the apartment, Mr. Seals walked the victim to his car and asked her what happened. The victim told Mr. Seals that she had been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Crowson
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 27 Mayo 2022
    ... ... questions or to end the interview at will ... Id. The defendant bears the initial burden of ... proving custody for the purposes of Miranda before ... the burden shifts to the State to prove the voluntariness of ... the statement. State v. Moran , 621 S.W.3d 249, 258 ... (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020), appeal denied (Mar. 23, ... 2021) ...          Here, ... the defendant has failed to meet his burden of proving ... custody for the purposes of Miranda concerning the ... statement he made to ... ...
  • State v. Sparks
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 23 Noviembre 2022
    ... ... questions or to end the interview at will ... Id. The defendant bears the initial burden of ... proving custody for the purposes of Miranda before ... the burden shifts to the State to prove the voluntariness of ... the statement. State v. Moran , 621 S.W.3d 249, 258 ... (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020), appeal denied (Mar. 23, 2021) ...          Here, ... the defendant has failed to meet her burden of proving ... custody for the purpose of Miranda concerning the ... statement she made to Special Agent ... ...

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