State of Tennessee v. Ray Armstrong
W2016-01996-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Ray Armstrong was arrested June 13, 2014 after two MPD officers on bicycle patrol observed a hand-to-hand exchange; officers later saw plastic baggies in Armstrong’s mouth, struggled with him as he tried to chew/swallow them, and recovered one torn bag with residue and one bag containing crack cocaine (1.25 g net).
- Officers recovered $237 on Armstrong; no drug paraphernalia was found on him; two accompanying males left the scene and were not identified or called as witnesses.
- Armstrong made recorded jail calls referring to “dope,” customers, and admitting police “know for sure I’m selling dope”; he testified that he was a user who bought about a gram that day and denied selling or swallowing drugs.
- Indictment alleged four counts of possession of ≥0.5 g cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within drug-free school zones (two schools – private school and daycare), one count of destroying evidence (tampering) for allegedly swallowing drugs, and one count of resisting arrest.
- Jury convicted on all counts; trial court merged the four drug convictions, sentenced Armstrong to an effective 50.5 years (40 years merged drug sentence + 10 years tampering + 6 months resisting, some consecutive). Armstrong appealed asserting insufficiency, suppression error, improper prior-bad-acts evidence, refusal to instruct attempt as lesser-included, improper missing-witness comment, and double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Armstrong) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to show intent to sell/deliver | Evidence of observed hand-to-hand transfer, baggies in mouth, $237, expert testimony that amount/behavior indicated dealing; jury entitled to credit officers | Armstrong argued proof only showed possession for personal use, not intent to sell | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for intent to sell/deliver and for destroying evidence (swallowing/torn baggie) |
| Motion to suppress (warrantless stop/arrest) | Officers had reasonable suspicion from observed hand-to-hand exchange in high-crime area and Daugherty’s prior contacts; seeing baggies in mouth provided probable cause to arrest | Armstrong argued seizure lacked reasonable suspicion and stop was invalid | Affirmed: stop was a valid investigatory seizure supported by reasonable suspicion; viewing baggies provided probable cause for arrest |
| Admission of officer testimony about informants (prior bad acts / hearsay) | Testimony offered to explain officers’ focus in the area and not for truth; probative on intent | Armstrong argued the officer recounted inadmissible hearsay and propensity evidence under Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b) | Court: testimony was inadmissible under 404(b)/hearsay, but error was harmless given strong independent evidence of dealing |
| Lesser-included instruction (attempt to destroy evidence) | State opposed; court found no adequate proof supporting attempt instruction | Armstrong requested attempt instruction (argued evidence supported attempt rather than completed tampering) | Waived: issue not raised in new-trial motion so waived on appeal; court declined plain-error review because argument not developed |
| Prosecutor comment on missing witness (Staley) | Prosecutor responded to defense argument that State should have called the two males; argued their absence resulted from Armstrong’s assault on officers | Armstrong argued this invoked missing-witness rule and was improper | Affirmed: comment was invited rebuttal explaining why those witnesses were unavailable and did not improperly invoke missing-witness inference |
| Double jeopardy from multiple drug-zone counts | State prosecuted alternative theories tied to overlapping drug-free zones | Armstrong argued overlapping zone counts duplicate punishment (enhancement) | No relief: trial court merged the four drug convictions; convictions as charged implicated potential overlap but merger cured double jeopardy concern |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (investigatory stop/seizure and frisk framework)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (probable cause standard for arrest)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (totality-of-the-circumstances for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (reasonable-suspicion analysis under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 (deference to trial court findings at suppression hearing)
- State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832 (appellate review gives State strongest legitimate view of evidence)
- State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (jury’s role in weighing credibility and evidence)
- State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (circumstantial-evidence sufficiency standard)
- State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913 (defendant’s burden on appeal after jury conviction)