State of Tennessee v. Lashawn Shannon, W2020-00501-CCA-R3-CD

Background

On March 19, 2016 in Memphis, Briana Smith drove her cousin Cameron Smith to a suspected drug transaction; both were abducted at gunpoint by multiple people, including Lashawn Shannon.
Per the victim’s testimony, Shannon drove the victim’s vehicle to an abandoned house, pointed a gun at the victim, and held her at gunpoint while others removed her purse, phone, clothing and the vehicle. The victim later escaped and identified Shannon in a photographic lineup. Shannon’s fingerprints were found on the victim’s vehicle.
Cameron Smith was stripped, confined in a shed, and escaped; police recovered the victim’s belongings in the shed.
Shannon was charged with especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery; the jury convicted him of aggravated robbery and facilitation of aggravated kidnapping (a lesser-included offense). He received concurrent sentences (nine years effective).
On appeal to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Shannon challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for both convictions, arguing (1) lack of intent/participation in the robbery and an inconsistent verdict, and (2) that the kidnapping was incidental to the robbery.
The Court affirmed: viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, Shannon was either a principal or criminally responsible for aggravated robbery, and the confinement had independent criminal significance under White, supporting facilitation of aggravated kidnapping.

Issues

Issue	State's Position	Shannon's Position	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated robbery	Evidence showed Shannon exercised control over the victim’s vehicle, pointed a gun at the victim, and held her while others removed property; guilty as principal or under criminal responsibility.	Shannon did not intentionally/knowingly participate in the theft; conviction inconsistent with acquittal on kidnapping/weapons.	Affirmed. Evidence sufficient; inconsistency is not a basis for relief.
Sufficiency for facilitation of aggravated kidnapping / whether kidnapping was incidental	Removal/confinement exceeded what was necessary for the robbery (duration, travel, prevention of summoning help, increased risk). Jury properly instructed under White.	Kidnapping was incidental to the robbery and cannot support a separate conviction.	Affirmed. Confinement had criminal significance beyond the robbery; facilitation conviction supported.
Validity of inconsistent verdict argument	Inconsistent verdicts do not require vacatur if evidence supports the conviction.	An acquittal on kidnapping/weapons requires overturning the aggravated robbery conviction.	Affirmed. Per Davis, inconsistent jury verdicts are not grounds for relief if evidence supports the conviction.
Standard of review on sufficiency	Apply Jackson v. Virginia; view evidence in light most favorable to the State; do not reweigh credibility.	(Implicit) Appellate court should not defer wholly to jury when contradictions exist.	Affirmed. Jackson standard controls; appellate court will not reweigh evidence or credibility.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012) (test and factors for determining when kidnapping is more than incidental to a related felony)
State v. Davis, 466 S.W.3d 49 (Tenn. 2015) (inconsistent jury verdicts do not automatically provide relief)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (circumstantial-evidence sufficiency and criminal responsibility principles)
State v. Dickson, 413 S.W.3d 735 (Tenn. 2013) (criminal responsibility explained and applied)
State v. Lemacks, 996 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1999) (criminal responsibility as a theory for proving guilt)