State of Tennessee v. Patricia Ann Bingham, a.k.a. Patricia Ann Starnes, M2017-02059-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Defendant Patricia Ann Bingham and co-defendant Quartez Dryden were tried for aggravated robbery after an incident at a Nashville gas station in December 2015 in which the victim was wrestled, items taken from his wallet, and a utility/box cutter and a larger knife were displayed or found on the floor.
Surveillance video with sixteen camera angles was recovered; only a subset of angles was played to the jury at trial, but the entire disc was admitted into evidence.
Witnesses (victim and two cashiers) identified both defendants, testified they saw weapons (cashiers said Bingham held a knife; one observed a box cutter fall), and said the defendants picked up the victim’s items and fled; some stolen items were later found in the defendants’ vehicle.
Jury convicted Bingham of aggravated robbery; she received a 10-year sentence.
On appeal Bingham challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence (denying she personally assaulted or directed co-defendant and disputing deadly-weapon use), and (2) the trial court’s procedure and authentication related to jurors viewing the full surveillance disc during deliberations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bingham)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated robbery	Evidence (victim, cashiers, video, recovered items) supports conviction as principal or under criminal-responsibility theory; weapons were displayed	Bingham argued she did not personally assault or direct co-defendant and did not use a deadly weapon to accomplish the theft; box cutter blade was retracted	Affirmed: viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational jury could find guilt as principal or under criminal responsibility; sufficient proof both displayed/used deadly weapons
Jury review of full surveillance disc during deliberations — procedure	Trial court permissibly admitted the disc and, under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 30.1, jurors may take exhibits to deliberations; video could be viewed in jury room	Objected that jury was allowed to focus on parts of video without court supervision and requested instruction on how to view multiple angles	Affirmed: procedural objection waived (not timely); court did not abuse discretion allowing viewing in jury room
Authentication / admission of unplayed camera angles	Portions of the recording were played and the entire disc was admitted into evidence; those unplayed portions were therefore in evidence and available to jurors	Argued certain camera angles shown in deliberations were not authenticated during trial and thus exposed jury to unauthenticated extraneous information	Affirmed/no reversible error: defendant failed to make adequate record/offers of proof about which angles were played; any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence
Harmless-error / record development	State: record shows disc admitted and witnesses identified footage; absent developed record, appellate relief not required	Defense: jurors viewed an angle suggesting a sharp object in Bingham’s hand that defense did not address at trial and that could have been mitigated by presenting other angles	Affirmed: appellate review finds the record incomplete, issues waived where counsel did not timely object or make offer of proof; any error harmless

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence) (1979)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (circumstantial evidence and criminal-responsibility principles)
State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542 (Tenn. 1984) (appellate deference to jury on credibility)
State v. Ball, 973 S.W.2d 288 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (presence/companionship as circumstance supporting participation)
State v. Jenkins, 845 S.W.2d 787 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992) (trial court discretion on rehearing testimony; ABA standard adopted)
State v. Davidson, 509 S.W.3d 156 (Tenn. 2016) (jury viewing evidence that cannot be examined in jury room should occur in courtroom)
State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1982) (burden on defendant on sufficiency review)
State v. Maxey, 898 S.W.2d 756 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (criminal intent/shared intent requirement)
State v. Walls, 537 S.W.3d 892 (Tenn. 2017) (appellate review limits where record is underdeveloped)