State of Tennessee v. Lenardo Dewayne Spencer, Reginald Tyrone Baxter, Jr., and Deandre Jajuan Dean, M2016-01219-CCA-R3-CD

On Oct. 25, 2012, three men (Spencer, Baxter, Dean) stole Luminox watches and bracelets from Platinum Jewelers; Dean threatened the lone clerk during the taking (“If you move, we’ll beat your ass”).
Employees and police evidence: clerk’s testimony of fear, surveillance/photographs, recovered watches and display board in the getaway car, high-speed chase, and the three suspects found hiding together with a trail of jewelry leading to them.
Recorded police interviews: Dean confessed to stealing (saying he viewed it as theft), Baxter made inculpatory statements and surrendered a bracelet, Spencer placed a watch on the interview room table.
Jury convicted each defendant of robbery and theft; conspiracy acquittal; theft merged into robbery; sentences imposed (multiple-offender enhancements for Spencer and Baxter).
Defendants appealed claiming (1) insufficient evidence for robbery and concert, (2) prosecutorial misconduct in closing, and (3) improper admission of Detective Green’s expert testimony about the “21-foot rule.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Robbery sufficiency (use of fear/violence)	State: Dean’s contemporaneous threat and clerk’s fear elevated the taking to robbery.	Defs: Threat was incidental and did not bring about the taking; clerk thought theft would occur regardless.	Convictions affirmed — threat was contemporaneous with taking and sufficient to put victim in fear.
Acting in concert	State: Evidence showed coordination and shared flight/possession of proceeds; all were present and aided.	Defs: Baxter and Spencer didn’t intend to promote or assist a robbery.	Affirmed — presence, common flight, shared possession and admissions support concert liability.
Prosecutorial misconduct	State: Closing argument responded to defense theory; any remarks did not affect outcome.	Defs: Prosecutor misstated law (secrecy element), improperly commented on silence, and asserted guilt.	No relief — claims waived for failure to object; plain-error review denied given overwhelming evidence.
Expert testimony ("21-foot rule")	State: Expert testimony was responsive rebuttal to defense cross-examination and permissible; no pretrial notice required.	Defs: Testimony irrelevant and defendants lacked notice/qualification objection preserved.	No relief — relevance not contested at trial, objections withdrawn, Rule 16 does not require pretrial notice for this rebuttal expert.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review: any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Owens, 20 S.W.3d 634 (Tenn. 2000) (robbery requires violence or putting the person in fear; timing matters)
State v. Swift, 308 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2010) (temporal proximity between taking and violence/fear is the controlling factor)
Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1966) (appellate deference to jury's credibility determinations)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda rights and admissibility of custodial statements)