State of Tennessee v. Shanthony Tywon Mays, W2016-01390-CCA-R3-CD

Background

On May 15, 2014 two men robbed 3J’s Food Mart; witnesses described two Black males, one armed with a black gun; a cash bag containing about $1,050 was taken.
Minutes later police found Defendant Mays and co-defendant Jimal Williams hiding behind a retainer wall ~300 yards from the store; discarded clothing, gloves, a red money bag, and loose currency were recovered nearby; a rusty chrome-plated gun was found the next morning in a ditch near the scene.
Surveillance video showed one robber jumping the counter and the other holding a gun; officers recovered clothing and shoes allegedly matching the video; Williams’ DNA was found on two gloves and one glove yielded a partial profile not excluding Mays.
Williams testified at trial that he and Mays committed the robbery (Williams jumped the counter and took the money; Mays held the gun), and he received a plea-related sentencing recommendation in exchange for his testimony.
Mays testified he was innocent, disputed the clothing/shoe chain-of-custody, and claimed he was arrested while merely walking behind the school; the jury convicted Mays of aggravated robbery, three counts of aggravated assault, and unlawful possession of a weapon.
On appeal Mays challenged: (1) the jury venire (no Black jurors), (2) the trial instruction on possession of recently stolen property, (3) sufficiency of the evidence (identity), and (4) denial of a new trial based on Williams’ alleged recantation letters. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury venire composition	State: selection used Tennessee Dept. of Safety list and neutral procedures; no proof of systematic exclusion	Mays: venire had no Black jurors; under-representation of African-Americans showed unfair cross-section	No prima facie showing of improper venire; under-representation not shown to be due to systematic exclusion; claim denied
Instruction on possession of recently stolen property	State: instruction warranted because money and clothing were hidden near where defendants were found, supporting an inference of joint possession	Mays: money was yards away and no direct proof he possessed it, so instruction was unwarranted	Instruction was proper; jury properly instructed that inference is permissive and burden remains with State
Sufficiency of the evidence (identity)	State: circumstantial evidence, Williams’ eyewitness/co-defendant testimony, items and DNA linked defendants to scene, surveillance and shoe evidence supported identity	Mays: identity not proven; evidence circumstantial and challenged chain-of-custody/DNA inconclusive	Evidence—direct and circumstantial—was sufficient; jury credited State’s witnesses including Williams; convictions affirmed
New trial based on newly discovered evidence (recantation letters)	Mays: Williams’ letters recanted trial testimony and would likely change outcome	State: letters were unreliable and Williams reaffirmed trial testimony under oath	Trial court accredited Williams’ sworn trial testimony and found letters not credible; no new-trial relief granted

Key Cases Cited

Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1975) (jury must be drawn from source fairly representative of community)
Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1979) (three-part test for prima facie violation of fair-cross-section requirement)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503 (Tenn. 1997) (approving use of driver’s license rolls and discussing fair representation in venire selection)
State v. James, 315 S.W.3d 440 (Tenn. 2010) (permissible inference from possession of recently stolen property; need for corroboration)
State v. Harvey, 749 S.W.2d 478 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) (no constitutional right to jury of one’s own race)