State of Tennessee v. Anthony Thompson
W2016-00077-CCA-R3-CD
Tenn. Crim. App.Mar 9, 2017Background
- On May 26, 2014, Barris Jones was shot multiple times at Country Oaks Apartments; he identified “Anthony Thompson” to an officer at the scene and died hours later.
- Anthony Thompson was indicted and tried for first-degree premeditated murder; co-defendants included Keron Cowan and Thelron Richards (a.k.a. “Twin”).
- Key eyewitnesses: Marquitta Covington (girlfriend, identified Thompson as the shooter), Lemarcus Rhodes (heard/observed three attackers), and co-defendant Cowan (testified for the State about events and that Thompson pointed a gun at him).
- Physical evidence included crime-scene photos, bloodstained clothing, shell casings, autopsy photos, x‑rays showing bullets, and forensic ballistics linking casings to a single 9mm weapon.
- Trial court admitted the victim’s out‑of‑court identification of Thompson as a dying declaration, limited portions of defense cross‑examination of Cowan, and admitted autopsy/crime‑scene photos over Thompson’s objection.
- Jury convicted Thompson of first‑degree premeditated murder; Thompson appealed raising issues about the dying‑declaration admission, limits on cross‑examination, admission of photos, and sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Thompson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victim’s out‑of‑court statement as a dying declaration | Statement was made while victim was gravely wounded and drifting in/out of consciousness; circumstances support belief death was imminent | Victim did not show a certain belief that death was inevitable; statement was therefore inadmissible hearsay | Affirmed: court found belief of impending death could be inferred from wounds/condition; admission proper under Tenn. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) |
| Limits on cross‑examination of co‑defendant Cowan | Court properly curtailed repetitive and argumentative questioning; scope of cross rests within trial court discretion | Trial court improperly restricted follow‑up questions probing Cowan’s expectations and inconsistencies | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; limitations addressed repetition/argumentativeness and preserved core impeachment |
| Admission of crime‑scene and autopsy photographs | Photos were neither grotesque nor cumulative; relevant to show severity and corroborate dying‑declaration and injuries | Photographs were inflammatory, prejudicial, and cumulative given uncontroverted injury descriptions | Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion under Rules 401/403; photos were probative and not unduly prejudicial |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (reliance on accomplice testimony) | Multiple corroborating sources: eyewitness ID, Cowan’s testimony, Rhodes/Covington corroboration, forensic evidence, dying declaration | Conviction rested on uncorroborated co‑defendant testimony and was therefore insufficient | Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, rational jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136 (Tenn. 2007) (sets elements for dying‑declaration admission)
- State v. Hampton, 24 S.W.3d 823 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (discusses inferences of belief of impending death)
- State v. Lunsford, 603 S.W.2d 745 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980) (example of dying‑declaration admission where circumstances indicated belief of death)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Pylant, 263 S.W.3d 854 (Tenn. 2008) (trial court discretion in admissibility of photographic evidence)