State of Tennessee v. Anthony J. Harris
E2016-01952-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- On July 4, 2008 William Wheeler Jr. was driven, confined, assaulted, shot, and later died after his vehicle was set on fire; three people were present: Anthony J. Harris (defendant), Michael Olebe (co-defendant), and Syeisha Kilby (witness).
- At trial the parties gave competing narratives: Kilby testified Harris produced the gun and shot the victim; Harris testified Olebe had the gun and fired while Kilby later shot; several other witnesses corroborated aspects of forcible confinement, beating, and post-shooting disposal of the vehicle.
- Physical and forensic evidence: three close-range gunshot wounds (one contact), two bullets recovered, ballistics linked characteristics consistent with a Skyy 9mm; a recovered firearm was not the murder weapon.
- Harris sought to introduce an accident-reconstruction expert to opine on firing from the driver’s seat; the trial court excluded the expert as unreliable under Rule 702/McDaniel.
- Jury convicted Harris of two counts of facilitation of felony murder (underlying felonies: kidnapping and theft) and one count of facilitation of attempted second-degree murder; effective sentence 22 years.
- On appeal Harris raised insufficiency of evidence, speedy-trial/due-process attack on superseding indictment timing, exclusion of expert testimony, failure to preserve vehicle evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct in closing. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Harris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/timing of superseding indictment (speedy trial/due process) | Record inadequate to review; trial court rulings presumed correct | 19‑month delay prejudiced preparation and federal jail credits; tactical advantage | Waived for inadequate appellate record; no plain‑error relief granted |
| Failure to preserve vehicle evidence | Record deficient (no hearing transcript); State decisions not reviewable | Vehicle could have provided exculpatory ballistic/trajectory evidence | Waived for inadequate record; plain‑error review unavailable |
| Exclusion of proffered expert on firing/trajectory (Rule 702/McDaniel) | Expert unreliable under McDaniel factors; testimony would not assist jury | Expert should have been allowed; trial court improperly applied credibility instead of legal standard | Affirmed — trial court properly applied McDaniel and excluded testimony as unreliable |
| Prosecutorial remarks in closing (improper vouching/credibility attacks) | Remarks were based on evidence and proper credibility argument | Remarks improperly vouched for witness and denigrated defendant | Waived (no contemporaneous objection) and not plain error; no reversible misconduct |
| Sufficiency of evidence for facilitation convictions | Evidence (Kilby, witnesses, conduct) supports knowledge and substantial assistance for facilitation of felony murder (kidnapping/theft) and facilitation of attempted second‑degree murder | Insufficient proof of intent for underlying felonies and of attempt distinct from felony murder | Affirmed — viewed in State’s favor, rational juror could find elements beyond reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- McDaniel v. CSX Transp., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997) (factors for assessing reliability of expert testimony under Rule 702)
- Draper v. State, 800 S.W.2d 489 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (appellate record requirement; pleadings not substitute for transcript)
- Ballard v. State, 855 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1993) (failure to provide adequate record waives issue)
- Smith v. State, 24 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2000) (plain‑error test and requirement that record clearly establish what occurred)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (trial court as gatekeeper for expert methodology)
- Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., 181 S.W.3d 268 (Tenn. 2005) (gatekeeping requires intellectual rigor similar to expert practice)
- Bigbee v. State, 885 S.W.2d 797 (Tenn. 1994) (scope of closing argument within trial court’s discretion)
- Goltz v. State, 111 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) (limits on prosecutorial argument: must be temperate and based on evidence)
- Wiggins v. State, 494 S.W.2d 92 (Tenn. 1973) (will not disturb jury verdicts by speculating how jurors reached inconsistent conclusions)