State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Gutierrez
M2015-01235-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | May 24, 2017Background
- Jonathan Gutierrez (then 17) was tried separately and convicted of first-degree premeditated murder (Lucio Garcia) and four counts of aggravated assault; sentenced to life plus 16 years.
- Prosecution theory: Gutierrez participated in a drive-by pursuit from his driveway in a white Ford Escape; Hector Lopez (accomplice) testified Gutierrez passed and later fired a 9mm after Alvin Gutierrez fired earlier.
- Eyewitnesses in the Mustang (victim’s passengers) described being followed, shot at, and the victim collapsing on I-65; one passenger identified Jonathan outside his house before the chase.
- Forensic evidence: a 9mm pistol recovered behind Gutierrez’s house matched bullet jacket from the victim; blood/DNA linked victim to the Escape.
- Defense challenges on appeal: insufficiency of evidence (actual shooter and two aggravated assaults), discovery failure (codefendant’s statement), improper prosecutorial closing, erroneous consecutive sentencing, and claim that life sentence violates Miller for juvenile offenders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder and two aggravated assaults | State: testimony, physical evidence, and criminal-responsibility instruction support conviction | Gutierrez: conviction rests on uncorroborated accomplice testimony; girls didn’t testify/may have been unaware | Affirmed — evidence (accomplice corroborated by witnesses, physical/DNA/firearms evidence, and criminal-responsibility theory) sufficient |
| Discovery — failure to produce codefendant’s pretrial statement | State: no Rule 16(a)(1)(D) obligation here because severance was granted and statement not Brady material | Gutierrez: trial court committed plain error by not declaring mistrial for nondisclosure | Waived; no plain error — Rule 16 provision for codefendant statements applies to joint trials and no clear breach shown |
| Prosecutorial closing argument | State: argued gang context and relied on trial evidence (Hector, History Channel interview) | Gutierrez: prosecutor appealed to gang bias, inflamed jury, urged conviction for gang membership | No plain error — argument was supported by record (gang evidence and defendant’s own interview); not prejudicial given strong evidence |
| Consecutive sentencing and Miller challenge | State: trial court properly applied enhancement factors and found defendant a dangerous offender; court considered youth | Gutierrez: court erred in ordering consecutive terms and life+effectively life without parole violates Miller | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion in consecutive sentencing; court considered youth and Miller not violated on these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Bigbee v. State, 885 S.W.2d 797 (Tenn. 1994) (uncorroborated accomplice testimony requires independent corroboration)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles and required youth-based sentencing consideration)
- State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard and review of sentencing)
- State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (criteria for imposing consecutive sentences as a dangerous offender)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (confrontation limits on admission of a non-testifying codefendant’s statement)