State of Tennessee v. Jabriel Linzy, Alias, E2016-01052-CCA-R3-CD

Background

On Oct. 3, 2014, gunfire at the Walter P. Taylor Homes killed Dominique "Domo" Johnson and wounded Devonte Blair; defendant Jabriel Linzy was indicted for first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and employing a firearm during a dangerous felony.
Eyewitnesses (Blair and Daesha Johnson) placed Linzy in the vicinity during the incident; Blair identified Linzy as the shooter in a photo lineup and at trial.
Investigators recovered shell casings at the scene, a .40-caliber was implicated by a firearms examiner, and the medical examiner ruled the death a homicide by gunshot.
Social-media evidence: witnesses testified about Twitter/Facebook accounts (usernames RGLOCO and DOMO400), screenshots, and posts suggesting animosity between Linzy and the victim; the State also subpoenaed Twitter records.
Pretrial and trial objections focused on authentication and admissibility of social-media content; the trial court admitted witness testimony and Twitter records over Linzy's objections.
Jury convicted Linzy on all counts; on appeal he challenged sufficiency of the evidence and admission/authentication of social-media evidence. Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Linzy)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict of first-degree murder and attempted murder	Eyewitness ID (Blair), testimony placing Linzy with a gun nearby (Daesha Johnson), post-shooting statements, cell-phone/alibi contradictions, and physical evidence support conviction and premeditation	Blair and Johnson were not credible; insufficient proof of identity and premeditation; even if Linzy was present, no proof he knew victim's location or intended to kill	Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, a rational juror could find identity, intent, and premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt
Authentication of social-media posts and records	Circumstantial corroboration (witness familiarity with accounts, profile photos, screenshots, subpoenaed Twitter records, investigator verification) suffices under Rule 901; challenges to authorship go to weight, not admissibility	Social-media posts cannot be reliably tied to Linzy; screenshots and online accounts can be created or posted by others, so records are unauthenticated	Affirmed: sufficient circumstantial evidence to authenticate tweets and permit jury to weigh authorship credibility
Admissibility under Rule 403 (unfair prejudice) of social-media evidence	Posts were highly probative of motive, gang affiliation, and premeditation; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice	Social-media evidence was unduly prejudicial and inflammatory (gang-related content) and should have been excluded	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; relevance and probative value outweighed risk of unfair prejudice
Proper foundation for investigator to introduce Twitter records	Investigator subpoenaed records and identified usernames/photos; court limited him from interpreting technical data but allowed foundation testimony	Records could not be tied to Linzy; investigator lacked specialized qualifications to authenticate	Affirmed: trial court properly admitted records on circumstantial foundation; challenges went to weight and cross-examination

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542 (Tenn. 1984) (appellate deference to jury credibility determinations)
State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832 (appellate review does not reweigh evidence)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (jury resolves witness credibility; premeditation inferences)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (treat direct and circumstantial evidence equally)
State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600 (premeditation is factual question for jury)
State v. Jackson, 173 S.W.3d 401 (factors from which premeditation may be inferred)
State v. Nichols, 24 S.W.3d 297 (factors relevant to premeditation)
State v. Leach, 148 S.W.3d 42 (motive may support inference of premeditation)
Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstantial evidence can authenticate social-media postings)