State of Tennessee v. Demetrius Robinson
This text of State of Tennessee v. Demetrius Robinson (State of Tennessee v. Demetrius Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED JANUARY 1999 SESSION March 8, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9712-CC-00549 ) Appellee ) BLOUNT COUNTY ) v. ) HON. D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., ) JUDGE DEMETRIUS ROBINSON, ) ) (Delivery of cocaine) Defendant/Appellant )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Gerald C. Russell John Knox Walkup 125 E. Broadway Avenue Attorney General & Reporter Maryville, TN 37804 R. Stephen Jobe Assistant Attorney General Criminal Justice Division 425 Fifth Avenue North 2d Floor, Cordell Hull Building Nashville, TN 37243-0493
OPINION FILED
AFFIRMED JOHN K. BYERS SENIOR JUDGE OPINION
On October 15, 1997, the defendant was convicted of delivering cocaine and
he was sentenced to serve four years in the penitentiary.
The defendant was tried along with a co-defendant Reggie Barton. In the
course of the trial, statements made by Barton implicated the defendant.
The defendant raises the following issues:
1. Whether the defendant’s Motion To Sever the trial should have been granted?
2. Whether the co-defendant’s statement to the confidential informant should have been excluded or redacted?
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The evidence presented by the State and accredited by the jury shows that
on June 11, 1997 Jake Cleveland, an undercover drug buyer, went to the Howe
Street Park area in Blount County to attempt to develop a case specifically involving
Robinson. The officer drove through the area once without making contact. He
drove through a second time and the defendant yelled to Barton, the co-defendant,
to stop Cleveland and see what he wanted.
Cleveland stopped and Barton got into his car and informed him that
Robinson was selling “two for forty,” which meant two twenty dollar rocks of crack
cocaine for $20 total. Cleveland told Barton he wished to buy four rocks, but Barton
told him Robinson did not have that much cocaine. Cleveland then gave Barton the
money to buy two rocks, and Barton approached Robinson. Robinson reached into
his clothing and retrieved a bag that he gave to Barton. Barton delivered the money
to Robinson, took possession of the bag, and delivered it to Cleveland. The bag
contained cocaine.
This transaction was tape recorded and the recording was played to the jury.
Of course, it contained Barton’s statements about Robinson. Additionally,
Cleveland testified about the statements made to him by Barton about Robinson.
-2- The defendant asserts that the trial of him and Barton together violated his
right to cross examine Barton because Barton did not testify. It is Robinson’s
position that this procedure violates the rule in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S.
123, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1968), which prohibits the use of a non-
testifying co-defendant‘s statements which implicate a co-defendant.
The use of co-defendant statements may not be generally admitted against
another at trial in defiance of the confrontation right of an accused. However, if it is
shown that the defendants conspired with each other or others to commit the crime
being prosecuted, the Bruton rule is not applicable.
A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons to do a criminal act.
State v. Lequire, 634 S.W.2d 608 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981). The facts in this case
clearly show Barton and Robinson were acting in concert to sell cocaine. This being
the case, the statement of one of the conspirators was admissible in the case
whether that defendant testifies or not. Tenn. R. Evid. 803(1.2)(E). The trial judge
did not err in refusing to sever the two defendants for trial or for not redacting
Barton’s statements.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. It appearing that the defendant is
indigent, costs of the appeal are taxed to the State.
John K. Byers, Senior Judge
CONCUR:
James Curwood W itt, Jr., Judge
Norma McGee Ogle, Judge
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Tennessee v. Demetrius Robinson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-demetrius-robinson-tenncrimapp-1999.