State of Tennessee v. Demarco Cortez Taylor, M2016-01436-CCA-R3-CD

Background

On March 27, 2014, Brittany Lovell testified that an assailant (identified as Demarco "Coco" Taylor) entered her apartment, forced her and her children into a closet, and took cash, electronics, shoes and other items while pointing what she believed was a gun. She identified Taylor in a photo lineup and at trial.
Taylor voluntarily went to the police station the next day, waived Miranda, and gave a recorded statement admitting entry, disguise, concealing an object in his sleeve, and taking property; he claimed the object was mace and said he had taken Lortab/Xanax and was tired.
Taylor was indicted and tried for aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony; a jury convicted him on all counts.
Trial court denied Taylor’s pretrial motion to suppress his statement (finding the waiver knowing and voluntary), excluded the victim’s recorded interview as substantive evidence (no adequate offer of proof), and refused a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication.
Original sentencing totaled 15 years but was corrected to an effective 10-year sentence after the court fixed the consecutive/concurrent structure; Taylor appealed raising suppression, leading questions, exclusion of recording, intoxication instruction, sufficiency, jury bias, sentence excess, and cumulative error.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Taylor's Argument	Held
Motion to suppress statement	Waiver was knowing/voluntary; statement coherent and detailed	Taylor was too intoxicated/sleep-deprived to knowingly waive Miranda	Denied — totality showed voluntary, knowing waiver; trial court factual findings upheld
Leading questions about a firearm	Questions were within court’s discretion; victim already told 911 about a gun	State used impermissible leading questions that prejudiced the jury	No reversible error — some questions were leading but not manifestly prejudicial; court did not abuse discretion
Admission of victim’s recorded interview (substantive)	Exclusion proper because no adequate offer of proof and recording not made part of the record	Recording contradicted trial testimony (finger vs gun) and should be admitted under Rule 803	Waived — Taylor failed to make the recording part of the trial record or offer proof, so issue not preserved for appeal
Jury instruction on voluntary intoxication	Not warranted because evidence did not negate specific intent	Intoxication (Lortab/Xanax + tiredness) warranted instruction on specific-intent negation	Denied — insufficient proof of intoxication reaching level that negated specific intent; instruction not required
Sufficiency of evidence re: aggravated robbery and firearm-use enhancement	Victim and 911 established weapon shown/pointed; jury credited testimony	Object may have been mace; no actual firearm was produced so evidence insufficient	Affirmed — reasonable juror could find a deadly weapon was displayed; credibility for jury to weigh
Motion for new trial — jury bias (news of nearby police beatings)	No prima facie showing of juror bias; no witnesses/affidavits offered	Events during trial created a presumption of bias needing new trial	Denied — Taylor failed to show actual bias or non-disclosure; no presumption triggered
Sentence excessive (total 10-year effective after correction)	Sentence within-range and court properly considered factors; victim input considered	Court failed to weigh mitigation (cooperation, rehab, victim preference) and sentence is excessive	Affirmed — within-range, trial court considered statutory factors and did not abuse discretion
Cumulative error	N/A	Combined trial errors require reversal	Denied — no individual errors meriting relief, so cumulative-error claim fails

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bell, 429 S.W.3d 524 (Tenn. 2014) (standard for appellate review of suppression findings)
State v. Climer, 400 S.W.3d 537 (Tenn. 2013) (totality test for voluntariness of confessions)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (standard and presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215 (Tenn. 2000) (appellate review deference to trial court factual findings)
State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666 (Tenn. 1996) (factors relevant to voluntariness of confession)