State of Tennessee v. Alonzo Hoskins, E2020-00052-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Defendant Alonzo Hoskins was indicted on seven counts arising from the May 30, 2017 killing of Jack McFall: six felony‑murder counts (each tied to a different underlying felony) and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the felony‑murder convictions and sentenced Hoskins to life plus 20 years for the robbery.
Police used the victim’s phone and surveillance video from a Red Roof Inn to investigate; surveillance showed two men (one who fired and one holding a white envelope) and a light‑colored convertible. Victim phone records showed recent text messages arranging a drug sale for $4,140 between the victim and a contact identified as “T.”
Law enforcement obtained cell‑site/location and message records for numbers associated with Hoskins (including numbers ending in ‑0769 and ‑0853). A Knox County judge signed the warrant; the warrant was served to AT&T’s centralized online service address in North Palm Beach, Florida—raising a jurisdictional challenge.
At trial the State introduced surveillance video, text messages, location data, a fingerprint of Hoskins on a receipt from the victim’s van, a receipt showing Hoskins had stayed at the hotel, and other circumstantial evidence (shoes, shorts, keys, travel between Detroit and Knoxville). Hoskins was arrested in Detroit after his phone was pinged.
Hoskins appealed, raising (1) presentment/indictment sufficiency, (2) suppression of cell‑phone records (jurisdiction and nexus), (3) denial of juror‑competency inquiry, (4) improper prosecutorial closing argument, and (5) insufficiency of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hoskins)	Held
1. Sufficiency of presentment / notice	Presentment tracked statutes and provided constitutionally adequate notice; any challenges waived for counts 1–6	Presentment failed to allege the specific acts/ property or burglary theory, so it was vague and could permit double jeopardy	Waiver as to counts 1–6; on merits presentment was sufficient—felony‑murder need not plead details of underlying felony or exactly what was taken
2. Motion to suppress cell‑phone records (jurisdiction / nexus)	Warrant was facially valid; AT&T’s Florida service address was a service point only and records were accessible/used in Knox County; affidavit established nexus	Knox County judge lacked authority to compel records stored/served in Florida (citing Frazier); warrant lacked sufficient nexus to the crime	Denial of suppression affirmed. Case distinguished from Frazier; affidavit established nexus; any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
3. Juror hearing complaint / competency inquiry	Jury could continue; trial court appropriately offered practical remedies (speak up, reminders) and was not required to question juror about missed testimony	Trial court prevented counsel from questioning juror about missed testimony; request to make record denied—violated right to unanimous verdict	Issue waived (defense did not pursue post‑trial). No abuse of discretion; no showing juror incapacity or prejudice
4. Prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal (comment on silence / addressing defendant)	Arguments were fair comment on evidence and reasonable inference; not an impermissible comment on silence	Prosecutor addressed defendant directly while he did not testify and argued defendant should have taken property without killing—improper comment on right not to testify	Statements were improper (addressing defendant and implying his silence), but harmless given overwhelming evidence and curative jury instructions
5. Sufficiency of evidence (robbery, burglary, theft, felony murder)	Circumstantial and direct evidence (texts, video, location data, fingerprint, money missing) established guilt and criminal responsibility for accomplice acts	State failed to prove attempted/successful taking or nonconsensual reentry into vehicle for burglary/theft counts	Evidence sufficient on all counts under theory of criminal responsibility; jury could infer taking of money/keys and reentry without consent after shooting

Key Cases Cited

State v. Frazier, 558 S.W.3d 145 (Tenn. 2018) (a Tennessee judge lacks authority to issue search warrants for property located outside the judge’s judicial district absent proper interchange/authority)
State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 (Tenn. 1996) (standard of review for suppression findings: factual findings upheld unless preponderance, legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997) (indictment/presentment sufficiency judged by common sense; form should not defeat notice)
State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850 (Tenn. 2010) (indictment may track statutory language; specific elements of underlying felony not required in felony‑murder presentment)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (seizure occurs when there is a meaningful interference with possessory interests)
United States v. Guerrero, 768 F.3d 351 (5th Cir. 2014) (Stored Communications Act supplies exclusive remedies for certain nonconstitutional violations)
State v. Sexton, 368 S.W.3d 371 (Tenn. 2012) (framework and categories for analyzing prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument)
State v. Jackson, 444 S.W.3d 554 (Tenn. 2014) (two‑part test for determining whether prosecutor’s remarks impermissibly comment on defendant’s right not to testify)