State of Tennessee v. Edward Sample, W2016-00175-CCA-R3-CD

Background

On April 4, 2012, Edward Sample allegedly carjacked a Chevrolet Impala, ordered the owner into the trunk, and shot at him as he ran; several days later the vehicle was seen and identified leading to Sample’s arrest. A police chase and foot pursuit followed; Officer Josh Shearer was shot during the struggle with Sample and was hospitalized. A .380 pistol and shell casings were recovered and ballistically linked to the scene.
Sample made a recorded jailhouse telephone call in which, according to the State’s summary, he discussed charges and said he would act “retarded” at trial; the recording (not included in the appellate record) was played for the jury and a portion was admitted into evidence.
At trial Sample was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, attempted second degree murder, employing a firearm during the commission of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, intentionally evading arrest in a motor vehicle, and evading arrest. He received maximum in-range sentences and the trial court found him a dangerous offender, ordering consecutive service for a total effective sentence of 27 years, 11 months, 28 days.
On appeal Sample raised issues about admissibility of the jailhouse call, the jury instruction on admissions/confessions, double jeopardy as to the firearm enhancement, the propriety of sentencing (including classification as a dangerous offender and consecutive sentences), and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed: it found the jail-call challenge waived/record inadequate; the jury instruction on admissions adequate and not timely objected to; the firearm conviction did not violate double jeopardy under controlling precedent; the sentencing and dangerous-offender/consecutive sentences were supported by the record; and the alleged closing argument error was not prejudicial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of jailhouse telephone call	State: call was relevant, showed consciousness of guilt/adoptive admission	Sample: statement involuntary and prejudicial (profanity, tone); recording context missing	Waived on appeal and record inadequate (recording/transcript not in appellate record); trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting; issue waived
Jury instruction on confession/admission	State: given instruction (TPI §42.11) adequately states law	Sample: needed instruction that admission alone is insufficient for conviction	No reversible error; defendant failed to timely object and instruction was adequate under precedent
Double jeopardy for firearm enhancement	State: statute permits separate punishment for firearm offenses committed during dangerous felony	Sample: conviction for attempted murder and employing a firearm during its commission violates double jeopardy	Rejected — statute and precedent permit separate convictions and punishment for firearm offense (no Blockburger bar)
Sentencing and consecutive sentences (dangerous offender)	State: trial court properly applied sentencing factors and statutory standards; Bise standard applies	Sample: trial court erred in enhancement and ordering consecutive sentences	Affirmed — record supports maximum in-range sentences, dangerous-offender finding, necessity to protect public and relation to offense severity; consecutive sentences proper
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument	State: closing remarks were within wide latitude and predicated on evidence including the jail call played at trial	Sample: prosecutor misstated facts outside record and argued matters not admitted	Not prejudicial; defendant acquitted of carjacking and appellate review finds no reversible misconduct given curative context and case strength

Key Cases Cited

State v. Leach, 148 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2004) (issue-preservation and limits on raising new grounds on appeal)
State v. Martin, 505 S.W.3d 492 (Tenn. 2016) (statute permits separate punishment for firearm offenses committed during dangerous felonies; no double jeopardy)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review and presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentencing)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (applying Bise standard to consecutive sentencing review)
State v. Leath, 461 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013) (requirement that jury-instruction motions be submitted in writing)
State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456 (Tenn. 1999) (requirements for consecutive sentencing when classifying a defendant a dangerous offender)
State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (consecutive sentencing and standards for dangerous-offender findings)
State v. Middlebrooks, 995 S.W.2d 550 (Tenn. 1999) (standards for prosecutorial misconduct and prejudice review)