State of Tennessee v. Kerry Granderson
W2016-01687-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jul 5, 2017Background
- Victim met Nakayla Evans via Facebook; on Jan. 10, 2015 he went to 4583 Addington Dr. to give her $20 and was led inside to use the restroom.
- Inside, Kerry Granderson (defendant) confronted the victim, displayed a gun, threatened him, and ordered Evans to retrieve money from the victim’s car; Evans returned with over $100.
- Victim fled, reported the robbery, and identified Granderson and Evans from photo arrays eight days later; Evans initially gave a signed police statement implicating Granderson.
- At trial Evans (then 17) recanted much of her police statement, claiming coercion and poor memory; the State sought to admit her prior written statement under Tenn. R. Evid. 613(b) and 803(26).
- The State also introduced recorded jailhouse phone calls by Granderson suggesting efforts to influence witnesses and referencing paternity of Evans’ child; court admitted them after a Rule 404(b) hearing.
- A jury convicted Granderson of aggravated robbery; he appealed challenging admission of Evans’ prior statement, admission of jail calls, and sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grander son) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Evans’ prior written statement | Statement is admissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 613(b) and 803(26) as a prior inconsistent statement given under trustworthy circumstances | Trial court failed to confront Evans about each part of the statement; statement contains consistent portions that must be redacted | Court admitted statement after a jury‑out hearing; any failure to redact benign consistent portions was harmless error |
| Admission of jailhouse phone calls | Calls are relevant to Evans’ credibility/bias and show possible motive/influence; admissible under Rule 404(b) after hearing | Calls unfairly prejudicial; referenced possible statutory rape (paternity) and other crimes not probative of robbery | Trial court conducted 404(b) hearing, found material issue (Evans’ credibility), clear and convincing proof of other act, and probative value outweighed prejudice; calls admitted |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated robbery | State: testimony showed Granderson used a gun and caused Evans to take money from victim’s car while victim was threatened — meets robbery statute | Granderson: did not physically take property from the victim or from his person; at most directed others to take property from vehicle | Viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, jury could find Granderson intentionally used force/fear and a deadly weapon to assert control over victim’s property; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Davis, 466 S.W.3d 49 (Tenn. 2015) (prior statement about events claimed forgotten is inconsistent for Rule 803(26))
- State v. Nix, 922 S.W.2d 894 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (robbery can be committed by asserting control over property without asportation)
- State v. Dotson, 450 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014) (abuse of discretion review for admission of Rule 404(b) evidence when procedures followed)
- Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1966) (trial court and jury are primary fact‑finders and resolve witness credibility)