State of Tennessee v. Brandon Taliaferro, W2015-01840-CC-R3-CD

Defendant Brandon Taliaferro was charged with first-degree felony murder (killing in the perpetration/attempted perpetration of a robbery) and attempted especially aggravated robbery for the August 7, 2012 killing of Jernario Taylor.
Multiple witnesses placed Taliaferro at the victim’s apartment that night; he entered the apartment three times, and co-defendant Daniel Nesbitt shot the victim during the third visit. Witnesses saw Nesbitt search the victim and both men leave together.
A fingerprint matching Taliaferro was found on a candle holder from the living room; a neighbor and an eyewitness minor described a white car leaving with multiple occupants, one having dreads.
Taliaferro’s voice was recorded on a call to Detrica Peeples in which he said, “It was me and [Nesbitt]…[Nesbitt] did it, but I assisted him,” and made threatening statements to Peeples about reporting the matter; the State played the full four‑minute recording at trial.
At trial Taliaferro testified he went only to buy marijuana, denied planning a robbery, claimed he was surprised by Nesbitt’s actions, and said his recorded statements were slurred and made while intoxicated.
The jury convicted Taliaferro as charged; he received life for felony murder and eight years concurrent for attempted especially aggravated robbery. He appealed, challenging (1) admission of the full audio recording and (2) sufficiency of the evidence to prove intent/criminal responsibility.

Issue	State's Argument	Taliaferro's Argument	Held
Whether the full four‑minute recorded phone call was admissible (after first 43 seconds)	Entire recording was relevant because it included admissions of assistance and threats to the witness, and was not unfairly prejudicial	Remainder after 43 seconds contained no admissions, was irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, and meant only to inflame the jury	Trial court did not abuse discretion; full recording admissible (probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice)
Whether evidence was sufficient to support convictions for felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery (as principal or under criminal‑responsibility theory)	Physical presence, fingerprint, eyewitness identifications, defendant’s recorded admission and threats, and flight/association with Nesbitt supported conviction as principal or aider/abettor	He only intended to buy marijuana; he did not plan a robbery and was not criminally responsible for Nesbitt’s independent act; recorded admission was unclear/poor quality	Evidence sufficient for a reasonable juror to convict as principal or under criminal‑responsibility theory; convictions affirmed

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542 (Tenn. 1984) (deference to jury credibility determinations)
State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. 1978) (appellate review principles for sufficiency)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (presumption of guilt after verdict; appellant’s burden to show insufficiency)
State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1982) (appellate standard on insufficiency challenges)
State v. Pendergrass, 13 S.W.3d 389 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (direct and circumstantial evidence treated alike)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (analysis of circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences)
State v. Sisk, 343 S.W.3d 60 (Tenn. 2011) (draw reasonable inferences in favor of the State)
State v. Lemacks, 996 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1999) (criminal responsibility is a theory of liability, not a separate offense)
State v. Maxey, 898 S.W.2d 756 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (proof required to show defendant united with principal in commission of crime)
State v. Foster, 755 S.W.2d 846 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988) (criminal responsibility principles)