State v. Washington

• Docket Number: W2022-01201-CCA-R3-CD
• Decision Date: 27 December 2023
• Parties: STATE OF TENNESSEE v. AMBREIA WASHINGTON
• Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals

1

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
AMBREIA WASHINGTON

No. W2022-01201-CCA-R3-CD

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

December 27, 2023

Session October 3, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. 22-187 Roy B. Morgan, Jr., Judge

The Defendant, Ambreia Washington, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, a Class B felony; resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor; and driving with a canceled, suspended or revoked license (second offense), a Class A misdemeanor, for which he received an effective fifteen-year sentence. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-1307 (2018) (subsequently amended) (unlawful possession of weapon), 39-16-602 (2018) (resisting arrest), 55-50-504 (2020) (canceled, suspended or revoked license). On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, failing to dismiss the indictment due to missing evidence, admitting certain photographs into evidence at trial, and denying a motion for a mistrial as a result of prosecutorial misconduct. The Defendant also contends that the cumulative nature of the errors warrant relief. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit Court Affirmed

Jeremy Epperson, District Public Defender; Brian D. Wilson and Brennan M. Wingerter (on appeal), Assistant Public Defenders-Appellate Division; and Parker O. Dixon (at trial), Assistant Public Defender, for the Appellant, Ambreia Washington.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Katherine C. Redding, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jody S. Pickens, District Attorney General; Brad Champine, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Robert H. Montgomery, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Camille R. McMullen, P.J., and J. Ross Dyer, J., joined.

2

OPINION

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JUDGE

The Defendant's convictions relate to a police officer's encounter with the Defendant when the officer responded to an automobile accident call and found the Defendant in a car with a handgun. When the officer noticed the handgun in the front passenger seat of the car, he asked the Defendant to step out of the car. Once the Defendant was outside the car, he answered affirmatively when asked if he were a convicted felon. When the officer tried to handcuff the Defendant, the Defendant broke free and ran toward the passenger side of the car where the handgun was located. The officer used his taser on the Defendant and then placed the Defendant into custody without giving a Miranda warning. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress both his statement and the handgun seizure.

The Defendant was first indicted by the Madison County Grand Jury in Case No. 21-593. A copy of the indictment is not in the record. On February 28, 2022, the Grand Jury issued a superseding indictment as Case No. 22-187, and on April 7, 2022, Case No. 21-593 was dismissed and all of its previous filings were transferred to Case No. 22-187.

The trial court held a February 7, 2022 hearing on the Defendant's motion to suppress. At the suppression hearing, Jackson Police Officer Joshua Keller testified that on November 6, 2020, at 3:20 a.m., he was dispatched to an "auto accident" and was advised that a car was "on the wrong side of the road and was off the roadway and struck a mailbox." When he arrived, he parked his patrol car along the street facing the Defendant's car but did not turn on his emergency lights. Officer Keller said the Defendant's car's engine was still running, and it appeared the car had run off the road and into a yard, where it hit a mailbox. Officer Keller stated that he approached the driver's side of the car, shined his flashlight toward the driver, and saw the Defendant, who "appeared to be waking up." Officer Keller said that as he reached the car's passenger door, the Defendant began getting out of the car. Officer Keller asked the Defendant to stay in the car until Officer Keller noticed a handgun lying on the front passenger seat. Officer Keller said that he then told the Defendant to get out of the car. Officer Keller stated that as the Defendant was getting out, Officer Keller asked the Defendant if he were a convicted felon, and the Defendant replied that he was. At that point, Officer Keller stated that he intended to detain the Defendant.

Officer Keller testified that the Defendant attempted to flee, that Officer Keller used his taser to stop the Defendant, and that Officer Keller took the Defendant into custody and checked the Defendant's criminal history. He charged the Defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm, driving on a revoked license, and resisting arrest. Officer Keller also seized the handgun.

3

On cross-examination, Officer Keller testified that he activated his body camera during the incident but that he was unable to locate the video for the hearing. Officer Keller said that body camera recordings must be properly classified in order to be electronically retained. Officer Keller stated that because he did not turn on his patrol car's emergency lights, the dash camera was not activated. Officer Keller said that the Defendant was not free to leave because Officer Keller was investigating the car accident. Officer Keller said that he completed a report regarding damage to the mailbox in the event the homeowner wanted to file a property damage claim. Officer Keller estimated that it took two minutes from the time he arrived until he used his taser on the Defendant. He also confirmed that he was the only officer at the scene.

The trial court credited Officer Keller's testimony and found that he had a public safety responsibility and a duty to investigate because the car was parked in the road, on the wrong side of the road, at 3:20 in the morning, and it appeared to have hit a mailbox. The trial court concluded that Officer Keller had a duty to investigate pursuant to the community caretaking doctrine, granted the Defendant's motion to suppress the statement that he was a convicted felon, but denied the motion to suppress the handgun because the handgun was in plain view.

On February 28, 2022, the Monroe County Grand Jury returned the superseding indictment charging the Defendant with four counts of unlawfully possessing a firearm, one count of resisting arrest, and two counts of driving on a canceled, suspended or revoked license.

The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion for a jury instruction regarding Officer Keller's lost or destroyed body camera recording. See State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999). The Defendant contended that the missing recording was exculpatory and necessary for a fair trial because it would show the location of the handgun when Officer Keller first approached the car. The State countered that the recording would not have been exculpatory or necessary for a fair trial. The State noted that Officer Keller had copied a portion of the recording on his cell phone and that the cell phone recording was consistent with Officer Keller's testimony and other evidence.

On May 9, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on the motion. At the hearing, Officer Keller testified that he activated his body camera at the scene but was unable to locate the recording in the Jackson Police Department computer system. Officer Keller said that he typically used his cell phone to copy body camera recordings in cases in which a defendant resisted arrest or in which Officer Keller used his taser. The court received the cell phone recording as an exhibit, and it was played for the court. Officer Keller agreed that the recording did not contain his initial encounter with the Defendant.

4

On cross-examination, Officer Keller testified that he made the cell phone recording the evening after he arrested the Defendant. Officer Keller stated that he did everything he normally would do to preserve the body camera recording and does not know what happened to it. Officer Keller identified the mailbox that he believed had been damaged by the Defendant's car. Officer Keller also noted that the cell phone recording depicted the Defendant's car facing the wrong direction along the street and parked partly in the road and partly in a yard. Officer Keller acknowledged that the recording was consistent with his prior testimony.

The twenty-three second cell phone recording begins with a close-up image of the Defendant's hands as Officer Keller is trying to handcuff the Defendant. The mailbox and orientation of the Defendant's car, consistent with Officer Keller's testimony, can be seen. The recording shows the Defendant running away from Officer Keller, and the officer using his taser on the Defendant.

The trial court credited Officer Keller's testimony and noted that a significant amount of the missing body camera recording was preserved on Officer Keller's cell phone. However, the court found that the missing recording was potentially exculpatory and granted Defendant's motion for a jury instruction regarding the State's duty to preserve evidence.

On the morning of the trial, the trial court held a hearing regarding eight accident-scene photographs taken by Officer Keller. The Defendant alleged the State violated discovery rules by making the photographs available only six days before trial, by not providing notice that the photographs were available, and by not producing the photographs at the preliminary hearing. The State responded that the photographs were discussed during the preliminary hearing, that they were referenced in Officer Keller's incident report, that the photographs were uploaded to the electronic discovery portal six days before the trial, that the discovery software automatically sent defense counsel a notice when discovery is posted to the portal, and that defense...