State of Tennessee v. Travis Lindsey, M2015-01954-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Travis Lindsey was tried and convicted in Maury County for two sales of crack cocaine (April 12 and April 26, 2012): sale of ≥0.5 g (Class B) and sale of ≥0.5 g within 1,000 feet of a school (Class A enhancement).
Undercover cooperating informant Kevin Odie (with pending drug charges whose bond had been reduced) made controlled buys from Lindsey; both buys were video-recorded and the recovered bags tested positive for cocaine base (2.13 g and 1.74 g).
Officer Brian Grey identified transaction locations from the videos, measured distance to Horace Porter School with a calibrated measuring wheel and mapping software, and testified the April 12 sale was ~441 feet from the school fence.
Defense objected at trial to portions of a recording in which a third party (Darnell Sharp) said the Defendant was "wide open;" trial counsel’s objections were limited and did not preserve Rule 404(b) or Confrontation Clause arguments fully.
The trial court admitted the recordings and Odie’s testimony; Lindsey was convicted by jury and received concurrent sentences totaling an effective 20 years. This appeal followed.

Issue	State's Argument	Lindsey's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that the sale occurred within 1,000 ft of a school	Video ID, officer’s familiarity with area, measured distance (441 ft) and lab results show sale and amount; viewed in light most favorable to State supports conviction	Measurement and school-property boundary not proved beyond reasonable doubt (no deed/legal description; officer stopped measuring short of sale site)	Affirmed — evidence sufficient to prove sale and school-zone enhancement (Jackson standard applied)
Admission of "wide open" statements (other-bad-acts / Rule 404(b))	No timely request for 404(b) hearing; defense failed to take reasonable action to preserve the issue	Statement was propensity evidence of prior bad acts and should have been excluded under Rule 404(b)	Waived — trial record undeveloped; issue not preserved for appellate review
Confrontation Clause (admission of Sharp’s out-of-court statements on video)	Statements were non-testimonial or issue not preserved; State also argues harmless given other evidence	Statements were testimonial, declarant unavailable and Defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine, so admission violated Crawford	Waived for appellate review; court notes the statements were irrelevant and should have been redacted but any error harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statement rule under the Confrontation Clause)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (distinguishing testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic statements and confrontation rights)
State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (appellate sufficiency standard context)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (factfinder resolves credibility and weight of evidence)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (circumstantial-evidence sufficiency principles)
State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649 (Tenn. 1997) (Rule 404(b) procedural requirements and review)