State of Tennessee v. Leon Denton and Devan Denton
W2016-00910-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Aug 21, 2017Background
- On Oct. 16, 2011, five men (Antonio Howard, Leon Denton, Devan Denton, James Kerrigan, Brian Norwood) assaulted three women in an apartment: crimes included sexual assaults and robbery with a firearm. Victims: K.W., L.G., and C.C.
- At trial the victims and two co-defendants (James and Brian) testified that Antonio wielded a gun, assaulted victims, and directed some conduct; the jury heard conflicting testimony about whether Leon and Devan acted under duress or willingly participated.
- Physical evidence included DNA from Leon matching L.G.’s rape kit; statements from Devan described events and acknowledged the gun and sexual acts but did not claim forced participation by Leon or Devan.
- Leon and Devan were convicted by a jury of multiple counts: three counts of aggravated rape (specific counts), facilitation of aggravated rape, facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, and facilitation of aggravated robbery; each received an effective 15-year sentence.
- Defendants appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence because duress negated criminal responsibility; (2) denial of speedy trial due to severance of co-defendant Antonio; and (3) Leon separately argued double jeopardy from Antonio’s earlier severed trial.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed: it held the State negated duress beyond a reasonable doubt, defendants waived/failed to show speedy-trial prejudice, and Leon’s double jeopardy claim failed (no standing to challenge severance and jeopardy did not attach to Leon from Antonio’s trial).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / duress | State: evidence, including victims’ testimony and DNA, proves guilt and rebuts duress beyond a reasonable doubt | Leon & Devan: acted under duress from Antonio’s threats and gun, so State failed to disprove duress | Affirmed: jury could find duress was rebutted; testimony and evidence support convictions |
| Speedy trial (severance) | State: delays were largely due to defense requests; defendants did not assert right or show prejudice | Defendants: severance of Antonio violated their speedy-trial rights because Antonio was tried earlier | Affirmed: defendants waived by not asserting speedy-trial, delay attributable to defense, no prejudice shown |
| Standing to challenge severance | State: only party who moved to sever has standing; co-defendants who did not move lack standing | Defendants: severance was improper and harmed them | Affirmed: neither Leon nor Devan moved to sever, so they lack standing to challenge Antonio’s severance |
| Double jeopardy (Leon) | Leon: Antonio’s prior trial/conviction under same indictment precludes subsequent trial of Leon | State: jeopardy attaches to the defendant tried; Antonio’s trial did not preclude later trial of Leon | Affirmed: no double jeopardy; Leon had no standing to attack severance and jeopardy did not attach to Leon when Antonio was tried |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
- Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1966) (deference to jury on witness credibility)
- State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (appellate courts will not reweigh credibility determinations)
- State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1982) (burden on convicted defendant to show insufficiency on appeal)
- State v. Simmons, 54 S.W.3d 755 (Tenn. 2001) (adoption of Barker test in Tennessee)
- Etter v. State, 205 S.W.2d 1 (1947) (jeopardy begins when defendant is tried before competent jurisdiction)
- Grace v. State, 493 S.W.2d 474 (Tenn. 1973) (jury verdict accredits State witnesses)