State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Rico Durant
M2015-00564-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jan 18, 2017Background
- Defendant Nicholas Rico Durant admitted shooting and killing his wife, Shardae Wright, in their apartment one week after marriage; they had an acrimonious relationship and had been drinking that night.
- Witnesses observed Durant with a gun, heard rapid gunfire, and saw him walking away from the scene; the victim was found in a bathtub with multiple gunshot wounds and a handgun nearby that was registered to Durant.
- Crime-scene evidence recovered spent casings, a loaded magazine, the victim’s blood on car items, and Durant’s identification in the apartment; forensic testing showed all casings were fired from the victim’s/defendant’s 9mm and gunshot residue on the defendant’s clothing.
- Durant testified he was intoxicated, awoke after the victim threw water on him, kicked in doors, fired numerous shots (claiming he reacted in rage and fear), then left and was later stopped in North Carolina; he asserted lack of premeditation.
- A Montgomery County jury convicted Durant of first-degree premeditated murder; the trial court imposed life imprisonment. On appeal Durant challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence as to premeditation and (2) the jury instruction’s readability/adequacy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Durant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove premeditation | Evidence (multiple shots, use of deadly weapon on unarmed victim, repeated firing while victim fled/begged, calm conduct like clearing jam and walking away) supports inference of premeditation | Shooting was a drunken, impulsive loss of control in response to being awakened/assaulted; no intent to kill formed beforehand | Affirmed. Reasonable jury could find premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Adequacy/readability of jury instruction on premeditation | Instruction correctly stated the law; no timely objection at trial; any claim waived | Instruction was too complex for average jurors and violated due process/trial-by-jury rights | Waived for failure to object; no plain error shown; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review on appeal)
- Tuggle v. State, 639 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1982) (jury conviction replaces presumption of innocence on appeal)
- Dorantes v. State, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (standard for reviewing circumstantial and direct evidence)
- Nichols v. State, 24 S.W.3d 297 (Tenn. 2000) (factors from which jury may infer premeditation)
- Leach v. State, 148 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2004) (motive and multiple weapons may support premeditation inference)
- Davidson v. State, 121 S.W.3d 600 (Tenn. 2003) (premeditation is a question of fact for the jury)
- Pendergrass v. State, 13 S.W.3d 389 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (convictions may rest on direct, circumstantial, or combined evidence)
- Pruett v. State, 788 S.W.2d 559 (Tenn. 1990) (credibility and weight of evidence are jury functions)
- Adkisson v. State, 899 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (plain-error test for appellate consideration of waived issues)
- Smith v. State, 24 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2000) (adoption of plain-error framework and appellate relief criteria)
- Bowman v. State, 327 S.W.3d 69 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009) (jury-instruction objections and preservation principles)