State v. Taylor

Decision Date19 December 2007
Docket NumberNo. M2005-01060-SC-R11-CD.,M2005-01060-SC-R11-CD.
Citation240 S.W.3d 789
PartiesSTATE of Tennessee v. James Edward TAYLOR.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Dwight E. Scott, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, James Edward Taylor.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General & Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Benjamin A. Ball, Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. Johnson III, District Attorney General; and Pamela S. Anderson, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

CORNELIA A. CLARK, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM M. BARKER, C.J., and JANICE M. HOLDER, GARY R. WADE, and WILLIAM C. KOCH, JJ., joined.

A jury convicted the Defendant, James Edward Taylor, of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions. We granted permission to appeal and address two issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by allowing the jury to watch a videotape in which the Defendant appears in custody and wearing jail attire; and (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony about the Defendant's familial relationship with Sabrina Lewis. We hold that the trial court did not err in admitting the videotape but did err in admitting the hearsay testimony. We conclude, however, that the trial court's error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Factual and Procedural Background

Gary and Linda Finchum owned and operated the Always Antiques store in Madison, Davidson County, Tennessee. They kept the business's money in a cash register in the store, and Mr. Finchum also kept cash in his front pants' pockets and in his billfold. In June 2001, a woman visited the store to inquire about selling two vases, one of which she had with her. Ms. Finchum told the woman that she would have to return at a time when Mr. Finchum could evaluate the items. The woman left and took the vase with her. The woman returned to the store in early July without the vases but with a female companion. She walked around the store and asked Ms. Finchum "kind of off-the-wall questions." Ms. Finchum told Mr. Finchum, who was also in the store during this visit, that this woman was "the lady with the vases"; the woman told them she would return later.

About a week later, on July 13, 2001, Mr. Finchum was in the store and Ms. Finchum was home preparing to join him. Mr. Finchum called and told her that "the woman with the vases is coming in." Ms. Finchum left for the store shortly thereafter.

Mary Ann Fisher was stopped at a red light in front of Always Antiques headed north on the morning of July 13, 2001. The shop was on her right. Ms. Fisher testified that she saw a black man come out of the store "and was standing there swaying back and forth and he had something black in his hand going from one hand to the other with it." The man was wearing a red short-sleeve shirt, blue jeans, and tennis shoes. Ms. Fisher stated that he was about six feet tall, "real skinny," and had very short hair. As she watched the man, he left the front of the store and ran behind her car; she lost sight of him at that point.

Ms. Fisher testified that just as the red light turned green for her lane of traffic, a car came out of the side street bordering Always Antiques. This car ran its red light, went through the intersection, "almost hit" Ms. Fisher's car, and turned left/south. Ms. Fisher saw the woman driver and later identified her from photographic arrays as Sabrina Lewis. Ms. Fisher also identified the Defendant from photographic arrays as the man she had seen in front of Always Antiques. She again identified this man at trial as the Defendant.

Brenda Farmer and Judith Summers worked in the business adjacent to Always Antiques. On July 13, 2001, they heard some loud noises that sounded like boxes falling. To investigate the cause of the noise, Ms. Summers went to the rear of her store and looked out the back door into the parking lot. She saw a car with its motor running, its front passenger door open, and someone sitting in the front passenger seat. It appeared that as many as three people may have been in the front seat. Ms. Summers described the car as "longer than the way they build cars now" and testified that it may have been gray in color.

Still mystified about the source of the noise and thinking it may have originated in Always Antiques, Ms. Summers and Ms. Farmer finished assisting their customers and then went next door to check on Mr. Finchum. It was quiet when they entered the store, and they did not see anyone. When they called out, Mr. Finchum replied, "Help me, help me." The women found Mr. Finchum lying on his stomach in one of the store aisles. He said, "Help me, I've been shot." Ms. Farmer ran back to her business and instructed the other employees to call 911.

When Ms. Summers inquired as to his assailant, Mr. Finchum said, "It was a black man." When Ms. Farmer returned to the victim she saw a hat lying on the floor nearby. Mr. Finchum told her the hat did not belong to him. When Ms. Farmer inquired who had shot him, Mr. Finchum replied, "a black man in blue jeans." When the women asked if he had been robbed, he said, "They tried." At his request, Ms. Summers recovered Mr. Finchum's wallet from his back pants' pocket and handed it to Ms. Farmer. Ms. Farmer later turned it over to Ms. Finchum.

Metro police officer James Chastain was the first officer on the scene. As he attended to Mr. Finchum, Mr. Finchum told him that he had been shot three times. Officer Chastain asked if Mr. Finchum had been robbed, and Mr. Finchum responded, "He tried to." The victim described his assailant as an African-American male, young, but older than a teenager. Mr. Finchum also told Officer Chastain that the hat on the floor belonged to his attacker. As he was being attended to by paramedics, Mr. Finchum told Officer Chastain that "the lady's information is on the desk." When the officer asked what lady he was talking about, Mr. Finchum responded, "the lady that was in here earlier, the lady with the vases." Mr. Finchum told Detective William Stroud, a personal friend who also reported to the scene, that the woman's name was "on the counter." Det. Stroud walked over to the desk and retrieved a piece of paper that had Sabrina Lewis' name and driver's license number written on it along with the words "two vases." Officer Chastain asked Mr. Finchum if the woman was connected to the attack, and Mr. Finchum said, "I know she is."

Ms. Finchum arrived at the store after the shooting but before Mr. Finchum was taken to the hospital. Ms. Farmer gave her Mr. Finchum's wallet; the money was still inside. Ms. Finchum accompanied her husband to the hospital where he died during surgery. Ms. Finchum did not recover any cash from her husband's clothes.

Ms. Finchum subsequently identified the woman with the vases as Sabrina Lewis. She also reviewed a photograph of two vases that the police had taken in the store after the shooting and stated that the vases looked like the one that Ms. Lewis had brought to the store in June.

Crime scene officers collected two bullets from the shop and took custody of the hat found on the floor near the victim. A third bullet was recovered from the victim's body, who, according to medical testimony, had been shot twice. Testing revealed that the two bullets recovered from Always Antiques and the third bullet recovered from the victim had all been shot from the same weapon, a .38, .357, or .9mm handgun. The murder weapon was not recovered. The victim's cause of death was determined to be multiple gunshot wounds.

Metro Police Officer Gary Smith testified that he had seen the Defendant previously at Sabrina Lewis' sister's house. Officer Smith's half-sister, Tori Renfro, told Officer Smith that the Defendant and Lewis were cousins. Officer Smith stated that Sabrina Lewis' mother was Renfro's aunt and that Renfro and Lewis were first cousins.

Melvin Harding testified that in the fall of 2001, he was serving a ninety-day sentence in the Davidson County Jail for domestic violence. The Defendant was his cellmate in November 2001. One night, the Defendant told Harding that he had something on his mind and wanted to talk about it. The Defendant told Harding, "I'm the one who committed the crime [at Always Antiques]." The Defendant then told Harding the following: the Defendant's cousin had gone to the antique store and "cased out some lamps." She came back to the Defendant and told him that the victim had a lot of money in his wallet. She later drove him and his aunt to the store. The Defendant, who was wearing a large sombrero and sunglasses and had shaved his head, went into the store. The Defendant had a sock over his arm so that he would not leave fingerprints on the door. The Defendant lured the victim to the back of the store, pulled out a .38 revolver, and ordered the victim to lie down. The Defendant shot the victim in the shoulder and the stomach and then shot the victim a third time. The Defendant got three hundred dollars out of the victim's front pocket but got scared and did not get "the big money . . . in his wallet." The Defendant ran outside to his aunt and cousin, who were waiting in the car, and told them that he had shot the victim three times. According to the Defendant, the police went to his cousin's house later that day because she had left some identification at the store.

Harding testified that he told his attorney about the Defendant's confession and that the police contacted Harding. The police moved the Defendant and Harding into a holding cell equipped with audio and visual recording equipment, hoping that Harding could get the Defendant to confess to shooting the victim. Harding testified that, although he tried to get the Defendant to talk about the crimes, the Defendant was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Trice v. Biter
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • September 10, 2014
    ...F.3d 1121, 1133.) Other states have found no prejudice arising from the brief sight of a defendant in jail garb. (E.g.,State v. Taylor (Tenn.2007) 240 S.W.3d 789, 794-796; State v. Schaller (Wis.App.1995) 544 N.W.2d 247, 256-257; but see Ex parte Clark (Tex.Cr.App.1977) 545 S.W.2d 175, 176-......
  • The PEOPLE V. NICHOLS.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 2010
    ...1121, 1133.) Other states have found no prejudice arising from the brief sight of a defendant in jail garb. (E.g., State v. Taylor (Tenn. 2007) 240 S.W.3d 789, 794-796; State v. Schaller (Wis.App. 1995) 544 N.W.2d 247, 256-257; but see Ex parte Clark (Tex.Cr.App. 1977) 545 S.W.2d 175, 176-1......
  • Deal v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • September 24, 2020
    ...is different because Deal did preserve his objection to admitting the challenged video depicting him in jail garb and shackles.69 240 S.W.3d 789 (Tn. 2007).70 Id. at 793.71 Id. at 794–97. The defendant in Taylor also argued that the video violated his constitutional rights because the State......
  • Commonwealth v. Gallaway
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • September 29, 2022
    ...However, as both Appellant and the Commonwealth observe, a number of our sister states have addressed these issues.In State v. Taylor , 240 S.W.3d 789 (Tenn. 2007), for example, the appellant appealed his judgment of sentence for first-degree murder, alleging that the trial court erred in a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Hearsay Rule
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2017 Testimonial evidence
    • July 31, 2017
    ...McHoney v. South Carolina , 518 F.Supp.2d 700 (D.S.C., 2007); State v. Saucier , 283 Conn. 207, 926 A.2d 633 (2007); State v. Taylor , 240 S.W.3d 789 (Tenn., 2007); Callaham v. U.S. , 937 A.2d 141 (D.C., 2007); State v. Brown , 285 Kan. 261, 173 P.3d 612 (2007); State v. Scott , 285 Kan. 36......
  • Hearsay Rule
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2014 Part I - Testimonial Evidence
    • July 31, 2014
    ...McHoney v. South Carolina , 518 F.Supp.2d 700 (D.S.C., 2007); State v. Saucier , 283 Conn. 207, 926 A.2d 633 (2007); State v. Taylor , 240 S.W.3d 789 (Tenn., 2007); Callaham v. U.S. , 937 A.2d 141 (D.C., 2007); State v. Brown , 285 Kan. 261, 173 P.3d 612 (2007); State v. Scott , 285 Kan. 36......
  • Hearsay rule
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Is It Admissible? Part I. Testimonial Evidence
    • May 1, 2022
    ...McHoney v. South Carolina , 518 F.Supp.2d 700 (D.S.C., 2007); State v. Saucier , 283 Conn. 207, 926 A.2d 633 (2007); State v. Taylor , 240 S.W.3d 789 (Tenn., 2007); Callaham v. U.S. , 937 A.2d 141 (D.C., 2007); State v. Brown , 285 Kan. 261, 173 P.3d 612 (2007); State v. Scott , 285 Kan. 36......
  • Hearsay Rule
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2016 Part I - Testimonial Evidence
    • August 2, 2016
    ...McHoney v. South Carolina , 518 F.Supp.2d 700 (D.S.C., 2007); State v. Saucier , 283 Conn. 207, 926 A.2d 633 (2007); State v. Taylor , 240 S.W.3d 789 (Tenn., 2007); Callaham v. U.S. , 937 A.2d 141 (D.C., 2007); State v. Brown , 285 Kan. 261, 173 P.3d 612 (2007); State v. Scott , 285 Kan. 36......
  • 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