State of Tennessee v. Justice Ball
W2016-01358-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jun 7, 2017Background
- Early morning July 8, 2014: victim was carjacked, robbed, and confined at gunpoint while forced to drive to ATMs; four men entered his 1996 Toyota Rav4 and assaulted him.
- Defendant Justice Ball was identified as one of the four, admitted turning off the victim’s phone and fleeing when police approached, and gave a statement admitting presence and some participation.
- Police located the stolen vehicle, followed it, observed occupants bail, and chased; Officer Garrett testified he saw Ball exit and run; a show‑up identification occurred at a Kroger parking lot within about 30 minutes.
- Forensic evidence: Ball’s palm print on the victim’s cell phone; other prints on the vehicle.
- Ball was tried jointly with co‑defendant Kennith Kimble; jury convicted Ball of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, carjacking, employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, and evading arrest; trial court imposed an effective 15‑year sentence at 100% service.
- Ball appealed raising challenges to sufficiency (criminal responsibility), constitutionality and jury instruction on criminal responsibility, suppression of the show‑up, denial of a mistrial, jury outside research instruction timing, and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ball) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence under criminal‑responsibility theory | Evidence (victim ID, Ball’s statement admitting knowledge of robbery plan, prints, flight) permits conviction as a principal | Ball was merely present, did not actively participate or possess the gun, so criminal‑responsibility instruction and convictions were unwarranted | Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, a rational juror could find Ball solicited/aided and thus was criminally responsible for charged offenses |
| Legality of show‑up identification / motion to suppress | Show‑up was within one hour and in vicinity of crime; permissible under Tennessee precedent | Show‑up was inherently suggestive and should have been suppressed as unreliable | Denied: trial court properly found the show‑up permissible as an on‑scene investigatory procedure shortly after the crime |
| Jury instruction on criminal responsibility and statute’s constitutionality | Pattern instruction correctly states law; evidence fairly raised criminal‑responsibility theory; statute is constitutional | Instruction should not have been given; statute and pattern instruction are unconstitutionally vague | Denied: instruction proper; criminal‑responsibility statute upheld as constitutional per precedent |
| Motion for mistrial based on Officer Garrett’s testimony (implied prior knowledge of Ball) | Officer’s clarification showed familiarity arose from community policing, not prior arrests | Testimony suggested prior contacts/arrests making ID suggestive and prejudicial | Denied: no manifest necessity for mistrial; officer clarified basis for recognition and defendant failed to show prejudice |
| Failure to instruct early against juror outside research | Court later instructed jury on day two; no evidence jury accessed extraneous information | Court erred by not instructing on day one, risking exposure to outside research | Denied: defendant produced no admissible evidence of jury exposure; presumption jurors followed instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Little, 402 S.W.3d 202 (Tenn. 2013) (criminal responsibility may be submitted if fairly raised; encouragement suffices)
- State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (same standard of review for circumstantial and direct evidence)
- State v. Thomas, 780 S.W.2d 379 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989) (show‑ups are suggestive but permissible when on‑scene shortly after the crime)
- State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 (Tenn. 1996) (standard of review for suppression hearing factual findings)