State of Tennessee v. John Alfred Waters, M2016-00522-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Defendant John Alfred Waters was charged with multiple offenses after two incidents at his ex-girlfriend Annette Hill’s apartment complex on June 23–24, 2014; he pled guilty pretrial to one violation of an order of protection and aggravated stalking but proceeded to jury trial on remaining counts.
First incident (June 23): Waters allegedly attacked Kimberly Simpson with a metal tool, Simpson defended herself, and Waters then tried to pry into Hill’s apartment door; Hill was frightened and an order of protection already existed.
Second incident (early June 24): Waters returned carrying a large crowbar, advanced toward Hill and three women while shouting threats; two officers ordered him to stop, Waters ignored commands, officers deployed a taser, and Waters was arrested.
Jury convicted Waters of six aggravated assaults (including Counts 6–8 based on the June 24 incident), attempted aggravated burglary, and one violation of an order of protection; acquitted on one aggravated assault charge from June 23.
Trial rulings at issue on appeal: sufficiency of evidence as to aggravated assault counts 6–8 (victims’ reasonable fear), admission of Waters’s June 23 guilty plea for violating an order of protection under Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b), and admission of Officer Loewen’s statement that Hill was "the most terrified" victim he had seen.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Waters's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault of Hill, Simpson, Armstrong (Counts 6–8)	Victims reasonably feared imminent bodily injury: Waters advanced with a raised crowbar, shouted threats, ignored police, and was tased	Victims’ fear was not reasonable and evidence was insufficient to prove aggravated assault	Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to the State, a rational jury could find the element of reasonable fear beyond a reasonable doubt
Admission of prior conviction (June 23 violation of order) under Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b)	Prior conviction was admissible to show motive/intent and was proven by clear and convincing evidence; probative value outweighed prejudice	Prior conviction was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 404(b)	Affirmed — trial court complied with Rule 404(b) requirements and did not abuse discretion admitting the conviction for motive/intent
Admission of Officer Loewen’s testimony that Hill was "the most terrified" victim he had seen	Testimony described victim demeanor and was relevant to the element of fear; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice	The remark was irrelevant, inflammatory, and unfairly prejudicial under Rules 401/403	Affirmed — statement admissible as relevant demeanor evidence and not unfairly prejudicial
Harmlessness / cumulative effect of contested evidence	Any contested evidence was probative and not so prejudicial as to require reversal	Combined admission of challenged evidence warrants reversal	Affirmed — errors not shown or not prejudicial; convictions stand

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (jury credibility and appellate deference)
State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542 (Tenn. 1984) (appellate scope of review)
State v. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2005) (Rule 404(b) analysis and abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (direct and circumstantial evidence treated equally in sufficiency review)
State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649 (Tenn. 1997) (consequences when a court fails to comply with Rule 404(b) procedures)