State of Tennessee v. Alex Goodwin and Joey Lee aka Joey Currie, W2015-00813-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Victim met Goodwin on Facebook, told him she had cashed an income tax check (~$6,500); the next day she drove him around and stopped where two men (one later identified as Lee) approached and robbed her at gunpoint, taking money, purse, jacket, and phone.
Goodwin was detained at the scene, transported to the station to give a statement, waived Miranda, and voluntarily (per officers) gave his phone to police after officers could not charge it; officers later obtained a warrant and searched the phone.
Texts between Goodwin and Lee from the day showed coordination (e.g., “bring her to the back,” “hit the lick”); victim’s phone was recovered from Lee’s bedroom two days later along with cash and other property.
At suppression hearing Goodwin argued his detention was an arrest without probable cause and that his consent to search the phone was coerced; the trial court found the encounter ripened into probable-cause arrest before the phone was seized and denied suppression.
At trial jury convicted both defendants of aggravated robbery; appeals raise challenges to suppression, jury instructions (facilitation), admissibility of a BB gun, admissibility/interpretation of texts, confrontation clause, expert qualification, and cumulative error.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to suppress texts (seizure/consent)	Initial encounter was consensual and by the time Goodwin was taken to the station officers had probable cause to arrest; phone was lawfully obtained and later searched under warrant	Goodwin was seized/arrested without probable cause; consent coerced after threat of detention; texts are fruit of illegal seizure	Denied: court found encounter consensual and that probable cause existed by the time phone was taken; suppression denied
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated robbery	Texts, victim ID, recovery of her phone and property from Lee, coordinated conduct support guilt beyond reasonable doubt	Defendants assert victim credibility problems; Goodwin claims he was a victim and texts were misinterpreted	Affirmed: evidence (direct and circumstantial) sufficient for convictions
Lesser-included instruction: facilitation (Goodwin)	Evidence showed active participation and direction of victim to location; more than mere facilitation	Goodwin sought facilitation instruction arguing lack of intent to promote robbery	Denied: no reasonable view of evidence supported facilitation instruction; Goodwin did more than furnish assistance
Admission of BB gun (Lee)	Weapon found in Lee’s bedroom shortly after robbery is relevant circumstantial evidence of an armed robbery	BB gun remote in time/place and not connected to the crime; admission unfairly prejudicial	Admitted: trial court did not abuse discretion under Rules 401/403; not like Eric Williams where demonstrative expert evidence was misleading
Confrontation clause re: texts (Lee)	Texts were non-testimonial statements made in furtherance of a conspiracy; admissible	Claimed Crawford/Bruton problems and inability to cross-examine Goodwin about texts	Admitted: texts considered non-testimonial (conspiracy/furtherance), so no confrontation violation
Expert/lay interpretation of slang (“hit a lick”) (Lee)	Officer’s interpretation was admissible and, even if error in qualifying as expert, harmless because testimony was cumulative and cross-examined	Officer not qualified as expert; his interpretation exceeded permissible lay opinion and invaded jury function	Error to admit without expert qualification, but harmless: cross-examined, multiple possible meanings, and overwhelming independent evidence of guilt
Cumulative error (Lee)	Individual errors harmless; aggregated did not deprive fair trial	Argued cumulative effect of errors warrants reversal	Denied: only one non-prejudicial error found; cumulative-error doctrine not triggered

Key Cases Cited

State v. Williamson, 368 S.W.3d 468 (Tenn. 2012) (court may consider suppression and trial proof together)
State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 (Tenn. 1996) (suppression hearing findings of fact afforded deference)
State v. Day, 263 S.W.3d 891 (Tenn. 2008) (de novo review of legal application at suppression)
State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420 (Tenn. 2000) (three tiers of police-citizen encounters)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements under Confrontation Clause)
State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2008) (standards for lesser-included offense instructions)
State v. Hester, 324 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2010) (doctrine and analysis for cumulative error)