State of Tennessee v. Roddarrius Eugene Jenkins

07/21/2026 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 12, 2025 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RODDARRIUS EUGENE JENKINS Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2017-D-2856 Jennifer Smith, Judge No. M2024-01446-CCA-R3-CD Roddarrius Eugene Jenkins, the Defendant, was convicted of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, a Class B felony, by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury. See T.C.A § 39-13- 202 (2018) (subsequently amended) (first degree murder); § 39-13-403 (2025) (especially aggravated robbery); § 39-17-1307 (2018) (subsequently amended) (felon in possession of a firearm). On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) violating his Equal Protection rights by denying his motion to appoint a second attorney, (2) denying his motions to suppress his pretrial statements, (3) admitting the Defendant’s uncorroborated statements as evidence, (4) denying, at the close of the State’s proof, the Defendant’s request for a self-defense instruction, (5) restricting the scope of the codefendant’s cross-examination, and (6) finding enhancement factors applied to the Defendant’s sentence. The Defendant also contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions for felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined. Manuel B. Russ (on appeal), and Jodie Bell and Caleb Cassell (at trial), Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Roddarrius Eugene Jenkins. Jonathan Skermetti, Attorney General and Reporter; William C. Lundy, Assistant Attorney General; Glenn R. Funk, District Attorney General; Paul D. DeWitt and Abby L. Taylor, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.  OPINION The Defendant’s convictions arose from a fatal shooting and robbery committed by the Defendant and the codefendant, Taurus Williams, on May 11, 2017. The Defendant sat outside K building at Dellway Villa Apartments (Dellway) when James Welch, the victim, approached. The Defendant and the victim were in a dispute about both men’s relationship with Chasity Hassell. The Defendant had a firearm and testified that the victim reached for the victim’s firearm, that both men wrestled for control of each other’s firearms, and that the victim was shot four times. The Defendant was interviewed by police on May 22, 2017, and July 8, 2017, but gave no incriminating statements. The Defendant was indicted on December 15, 2017, and he was served with the indictment during a December 20, 2017 interview. After the interview, he made a jail telephone call in which he implicated himself as shooting the victim and taking the victim’s firearm. Ballistic evidence testimony and autopsy evidence were consistent with the Defendant’s telephone call statements. The codefendant testified that the Defendant shot the victim. The Defendant testified that he shot the victim in self- defense. I. Pretrial A. Pretrial Motion to Appoint a Second Attorney The Defendant was represented by private appointed counsel who filed a motion to have a second attorney appointed to represent the Defendant, and the trial court held multiple hearings on the Defendant’s motion. The parties stipulated that the Defendant’s case was a “complex” first degree murder case, that the Defendant was originally represented by the public defender’s office, but that the office withdrew from representing the Defendant due to a conflict of interests. The court then appointed a private attorney to represent the Defendant, but the Defendant asserted that he was entitled to have two attorneys appointed because indigent defendants charged with first degree murder who were represented in the judicial district by the public defender’s office were assigned two attorneys while indigent defendants who were appointed private counsel received only one attorney. The Defendant contended that those represented by the public defender’s office in the judicial district received state and local funds for their defense while private appointed counsel only received state funds, thereby creating an Equal Protection violation because two groups of similarly situated defendants were being treated differently by the government. At the hearing, the Defendant’s appointed attorney offered to withdraw from her appointment and to serve as a pro bono attorney along with whomever the court appointed to represent the Defendant. -2-  The State supported allowing the appointed attorney to withdraw and serve as a pro bono attorney alongside the attorney appointed to represent the Defendant but rejected the Defendant’s Equal Protection claim. The court denied the Defendant’s motion to appoint a second attorney but allowed the appointed attorney to withdraw and serve as a pro bono attorney and appointed another attorney to represent the Defendant. B. Pretrial Motion to Suppress Hearing The Defendant moved to suppress his statements made during police interviews on May 22, July 8, and December 20, 2017. The Defendant claimed that his Miranda rights were violated in each interview because the Defendant could not voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly waive his Miranda rights because of his intellectual capacity. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 445 (1966). The Defendant asserted that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated during his December 20 interview because the Defendant had been indicted and because Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (MNPD) Detective Jesse Holt interviewed the Defendant when the Defendant’s counsel on federal charges had informed the detective that the Defendant did not want to speak with police. The Defendant contended that Detective Holt’s December 20 interview violated the Defendant’s constitutional right to an attorney and tainted the Defendant’s jail telephone call, which he argued could not be attenuated from the unconstitutional interview because of the brief time between the two events. The State responded that the Defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were not violated during his police interviews. At a pretrial suppression hearing, the State called several officers who interviewed the Defendant before the current case occurred and had advised him of his Miranda rights. MNPD Officer Harrison Nearn testified that he interviewed the Defendant on July 25, 2012, and advised him of his Miranda rights. He testified that he had no independent memory of the interview but that his police report reflected that the Defendant was advised of his rights, spoke to police, and confessed that he fled from police and resisted arrest. MNPD Sergeant Lawrence Brown testified that he interviewed the Defendant on September 24, 2012, and advised the Defendant of his Miranda rights using “the standard MNPD Miranda warning.” Sergeant Brown said that he determined that the Defendant could read and that the Defendant gave Sergeant Brown no indication that the Defendant was incompetent or incapable of understanding his Miranda rights. Sergeant Brown testified that after the Defendant signed a Miranda waiver form, the Defendant did not incriminate himself. On cross-examination, Sergeant Brown acknowledged that he filled out the Miranda waiver form and that he left blank the box indicating the Defendant’s level of education. He said that he left blank the box indicating whether the Defendant was intoxicated or -3- mentally impaired because he was “looking at him and speaking with him, if I don’t smell alcohol on him, that’s not relevant to me.” MNPD Officer Wesley McClellan testified that he arrested the Defendant after a January 4, 2016 traffic stop. He recalled advising the Defendant of his Miranda rights and the Defendant’s voluntarily answering his questions. Officer McClellan stated that nothing in his encounter with the Defendant indicated that the Defendant was mentally “incompetent” or did not understand his Miranda rights. Officer McClellan said that he smelled marijuana coming from the car but that he could not remember the odor emanating from a particular person. Officer McClellan testified on cross-examination that he “believe[ed]” he advised the Defendant of his Miranda rights during the traffic stop. Officer McClellan believed that the Defendant showed signs of intoxication and stated that he did not remember how much time elapsed between his administering the Miranda warning and the Defendant’s providing a statement. MNPD Detective Jesse Holt testified that he interviewed the Defendant regarding this incident on May 22, 2017, at the East Precinct in Nashville, and on July 8, 2017, at the Davidson County Jail. Detective Holt stated that the May interview occurred when the Defendant was arrested for an unrelated outstanding warrant. He said that he advised the Defendant of his Miranda rights before questioning the Defendant about the victim’s shooting. Detective Holt testified that he did not see any indication that the Defendant was intoxicated. A video recording of the May interview was received as an exhibit. Detective Holt stated that the Defendant explicitly affirmed that he understood his Miranda rights and that he waived them. The waiver form the Defendant signed was received as an exhibit. Detective Holt said that the Defendant provided an alibi in the May interview, which later proved to be false. Detective Holt testified that in the Defendant’s July interview, he advised the Defendant of his Miranda rights, that the Defendant appeared to understand his rights, and that the Defendant showed no signs of intoxication. The waiver form the Defendant signed was received as an exhibit. Detective Holt testified that the interview ended when the Defendant walked away from the detective. Detective Holt testified that he contacted federal prosecutors about the Defendant’s unrelated federal charge in June 2017, as the Defendant had been transferred to federal custody in Crittenden, Kentucky. Detective Holt stated that he interviewed the codefendant, Taurus Williams, who implicated the Defendant as having shot the victim. Detective Holt said that the Defendant and the codefendant were indicted for their -4- involvement in the victim’s death.1 Detective Holt stated that he interviewed the Defendant and the codefendant separately on December 20, 2017. Detective Holt acknowledged that he knew the Defendant was represented by counsel on the federal charge and an unrelated state charge. Detective Holt said that he advised the Defendant of his Miranda rights during their December 20 interview and that the Defendant did not indicate that he did not understand his Miranda rights. Detective Holt said that he told the Defendant that he was being charged with murder. Detective Holt testified that the Defendant admitted he lied about his alibi but did not make any incriminating statements. Detective Holt said that he played for the Defendant an excerpt of his interview with the codefendant, in which the codefendant implicated the Defendant as the victim’s shooter. The audio recording of the Defendant’s interview and the signed Miranda waiver form were received as exhibits. Detective Holt testified he listened to recordings of the Defendant’s jail telephone calls that occurred after the December interview. Detective Holt stated that he did not say or do anything to prompt the Defendant to make jail telephone calls after the interviews. Detective Holt said the Defendant made incriminating statements in calls using another inmate’s personal identification number. Detective Holt testified that the Defendant made one undated call that occurred after the Defendant’s December interview. He noted that he knew the Defendant’s phone call occurred after this interview because the Defendant stated in the call that the codefendant identified him as the shooter, information that Detective Holt only told the Defendant in the December interview. On cross-examination, Detective Holt testified that the Defendant’s name was mentioned by others in early interviews that were conducted when Detective Holt investigated the victim’s death. He acknowledged that Shantorianna Forte provided a description of the victim’s shooter that matched the codefendant. Detective Holt stated that the Defendant did not call a lawyer before the May interview because the Defendant was sequestered after his arrest and before being booked. Detective Holt admitted that he wanted to interview the Defendant before the Defendant obtained a lawyer or made a telephone call. Detective Holt said that he learned the Defendant’s phone number before he informed the Defendant of his Miranda rights. Detective Holt said that the Defendant admitted that he was “high on Percocets” during his May interview. Detective Holt stated that the Defendant made remarks that he was being asked “trick questions” and that Detective Holt was attempting to “confuse” him. Detective Holt said that he knew that the Defendant was represented by a lawyer for his probation proceedings that were pending in an unrelated case when he interviewed the Defendant in July. Detective Holt admitted that he did not request permission from the Defendant’s probation violation attorney to interview the Defendant. Detective Holt said that he told the Defendant that “there are no downsides to making this statement.” Detective Holt stated that he knew when he 1 The record reflects that the Defendant’s indictments were returned on December 15, 2017. -5- interviewed the Defendant in December, that the Defendant had been charged in an unrelated federal case and had assigned counsel for that case. Detective Holt denied that he told the Defendant’s jailers to tell the Defendant that his lawyer was meeting him as a ruse to have the Defendant come to the interview room. Detective Holt said that he accused the Defendant of shooting the victim in the interview. Detective Holt testified that he sent an email to the jail after the interview and requested that the jail send him the Defendant’s jail telephone call recordings from December 20 to December 30. Detective Holt’s summaries of the Defendant’s jail phone calls were received as an exhibit. Dr. Pam Auble, an expert in neuropsychology, testified that she examined the Defendant on December 6, 2017, to evaluate his competency for a federal trial. She said that she evaluated him for six hours and determined that he had an IQ score of seventy- four. Dr. Auble noted that the Defendant’s IQ meant that ninety-six out of one hundred people were “smarter” than the Defendant. She said that his low cognitive function made him think rigidly about events and that he was unable to perceive changes in testing conditions. She testified that he understood his charges, the basics of the legal system, and that he trusted his lawyer. She stated that she interviewed the Defendant a second time on November 14, 2018, to evaluate whether the Defendant could understand his Miranda rights. She administered three tests to determine the Defendant’s ability to comprehend his Miranda rights. She said that, based on the tests results, the Defendant believed that if he did not sign the Miranda warning, he would receive additional charges and that the refusal would be evidence of guilt. She said he also believed that the Miranda warning waiver signing was required before he received further information about the circumstances of his case. Dr. Auble agreed that the Defendant would be easily misled by the language of a Miranda warning. She stated that the Defendant’s December 20, 2017 meeting with Detective Holt would have been hard for him to understand because he was expecting his attorney and that his rigid thinking would have predisposed him to sign the Miranda waiver to hear the information the police had about his case. She said that the Defendant would have been upset to learn he was being charged with murder and that his cognitive function would have worsened because he could not contact his attorney after the interview. When asked whether the Defendant understood his Miranda rights, Dr. Auble responded: I mean, I think he understands the words in them, and I think sentence by sentence he understands -- he understands what his lawyer is and those sorts of things. But he doesn’t – it’s more of a high-level thing. He doesn’t understand that he doesn’t have to sign them. At some level he believes that’s what he has to do. And he also sees them as ways of getting information from the law enforcement people. She testified that the Defendant could understand Miranda warnings in some circumstances, but not during his interviews with police. She stated that the Defendant -6- could not understand the Miranda warnings due to his intellectual limitations, mental rigidity, and his belief that not signing the waivers would lead to additional charges and prevent him from receiving information about his case. She said the Defendant could not understand that the evidence-gathering process would be used against him. Dr. Auble’s report regarding the Defendant’s intellectual capacity was received as an exhibit. On cross-examination, Dr. Auble testified that the Defendant gave her clear evidence that he understood his federal charges. She stated that the Defendant understood the difference between incarceration and probation. She acknowledged her belief that he was competent to stand trial. She said that the Defendant reported that he finished the eighth grade. She acknowledged that a person’s ability to function socially was impacted by the person’s environment. She agreed that the Defendant demonstrated his knowledge that he did not have to continue his interview with Detective Holt on July 8, 2017, when the Defendant voluntarily ended the interview. She acknowledged that the Defendant could have waived his Miranda rights to gain information about the police investigation. On redirect examination, Dr. Auble testified that the Defendant did not understand all parts of the Miranda waiver he signed and misunderstood that the waiver was a condition precedent to his receiving information from the police. Davidson County Criminal Court records clerk Toya Randolph testified that the Defendant pled guilty to a charge of being a felon in possession of a weapon on April 14, 2016, and received a sentence of probation. She stated that a probation violation warrant was served on the Defendant on May 22, 2017. She said that the Defendant was represented by counsel in this case. She testified that the Defendant was found to have violated the conditions of his probation and that his two-year probationary sentence restarted on July 12, 2017. She stated that the Defendant posted a bond for the probation violation and that he continued to be represented by counsel until his case was “nullified” by the court on December 13, 2017. At a second hearing on the motions to suppress on May 28, 2019, Detective Robert Anderson testified that he arrested the Defendant on December 21, 2013, and advised the Defendant of his Miranda rights. Detective Anderson said he used one of the department’s standardized Miranda waiver forms, which the Defendant signed. Detective Anderson testified that the Defendant voluntarily ended the interview. Detective Holt testified that the Defendant’s cell phone was seized before the Defendant’s May interview, after the Defendant had been arrested on an unrelated warrant. Detective Holt said that he showed the Defendant the cell phone, that the Defendant voluntarily unlocked it at Detective Holt’s request, and that the Defendant instructed Detective Holt on how to locate the cell phone’s number. Detective Holt said he told the Defendant that “some of this might be cleared up real quick” if the police were allowed to -7- search the Defendant’s cell phone and that the Defendant “responded yeah and shrugged his shoulders.” Detective Holt testified that he understood the Defendant’s response as consent for a warrantless search of the cell phone. Detective Holt stated that the Defendant explicitly authorized him to search the Defendant’s text messages. Detective Holt also searched the Defendant’s cell phone at a later date pursuant to a search warrant. On cross-examination, Detective Holt testified that he wanted the Defendant’s cell phone number so he could reach the Defendant once the Defendant was released from jail. Detective Holt stated that he questioned the Defendant about unlocking the cell phone before the Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights. Detective Holt acknowledged that the MNPD’s policy regarding informing a suspect of Miranda rights did not require a written waiver form. He testified that he did not tell the Defendant that he wanted to search the Defendant’s cell phone, and he never specifically asked the Defendant for consent to search the cell phone. He stated that he realized the evidentiary value of the cell phone once the Defendant showed him his contact list. Detective Holt said that he had asked the Defendant for his cell phone number and address while asking the Defendant questions to fill out the Miranda waiver form. The State contended that the motion to suppress the evidence derived from the cell phone should be denied. The State argued that the Defendant orally consented to the search of his cell phone, and that written consent was not required. The Defendant countered that the recording of the interview demonstrated that Detective Holt asked incriminating questions about the Defendant’s phone number, address, and name before the Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights. The Defendant argued that all evidence obtained from the cell phone must be suppressed. Detective Holt was recalled and testified that he could not determine what information was derived from the search of the cell phone, from the Defendant’s cell phone network provider’s records, and from the search of the cell phone pursuant to a warrant. He said that if he had been unable to search the cell phone during the May interview, he would have asked a court to issue subpoenas to all major cell phone providers for any records belonging to the Defendant. He admitted he could have interviewed other witnesses to obtain the Defendant’s cell phone number. On recross-examination, Detective Holt admitted that the Defendant’s cell phone was a “Tracfone” and was not registered in anyone’s name. He stated that the cell phone number he used to request a judicial order for the Defendant’s cell phone records from his network provider was determined during the Defendant’s May interview. The State reasserted that the trial court should deny the Defendant’s motions to suppress because the Defendant waived his Miranda rights and consented to the search of his cell phone. The State posited that no evidence showed that Detective Holt intentionally -8- provoked the Defendant to make incriminating telephone calls from the jail. The State argued that the Defendant’s request to suppress the jail calls should be denied because the Defendant failed to show any connection between the alleged constitutionally insufficient Miranda warning and the Defendant’s jail telephone calls. The Defendant responded that the Defendant’s incriminating statements should be suppressed under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. He argued that under the Fifth Amendment he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently sign the Miranda waivers during his three interrogations because he signed the waiver under the belief that police officers would provide him information about his case. The Defendant supported his contention by relying upon Dr. Auble’s testimony of the Defendant’s low IQ, mental rigidity, and his inability to understand that his statements to detectives would be used as evidence against him. The Defendant contended that under the Sixth Amendment, his statements should be suppressed because his right to counsel was violated. The Defendant argued that the Defendant’s right to counsel attached when the Defendant’s probation violation warrants were issued. The Defendant asserted that because the interviews occurred while the Defendant was on probation, all of his statements to Detective Holt could have been the basis of a probation violation and that the interviews could not be solely about investigating a separate offense. Because the Defendant already had appointed counsel for his probation violation proceedings, and the interviews about other criminal activities could result in an admission that he violated his probation, the Defendant argued that the Defendant’s right to counsel was violated when he was interviewed while on probation. The Defendant argued that police intentionally “upset” him by informing him of the first degree murder charge so that he would make a jail telephone call that would contain incriminating information. The Defendant posited that because his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached by the time of his December interview, the Defendant’s right to counsel was violated by Detective Holt’s interviewing the Defendant without his counsel. The trial court issued a written order denying the Defendant’s motions to suppress. The court found that the Defendant was informed of his Miranda rights during his May and July interviews. The court found no coercion in the Defendant’s interviews. The court discredited Dr. Auble’s testimony that the Defendant could not understand the implications of waiving his Miranda rights when weighed against the State’s witnesses that testified to the multiple times the Defendant encountered Miranda warnings and waived his Miranda rights. The trial court found that police did not use “trickery, deceit[,] or deception” during the Defendant’s December interview. The court determined that the Defendant was not coerced or forced to make a jail telephone call. -9-  The trial court found that the Defendant voluntarily gave Detective Holt his cell phone in the May interview when the Detective asked if the Defendant would unlock the cell phone. The court determined that the Defendant consented to the search of the cell phone and that Detective Holt only obtained the Defendant’s cell phone number before he informed the Defendant of his Miranda rights. C. Pretrial Motion Regarding Scope of Cross-Examination The Defendant argued at a hearing on the scope of cross-examination of the codefendant, that he had a right under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions to question the codefendant about the codefendant’s sentencing exposure for related pending charges. The Defendant contended that because the codefendant had not pleaded guilty to his charges before the State elicited his trial testimony, the Defendant was deprived of a fair trial when the court barred his questioning of the codefendant about his sentence exposure. The State responded that the United States and Tennessee constitutions did not entitle the Defendant to question any witness about the potential length or manner of service of a potential sentence. The State conceded that the Defendant could question codefendant Williams about a potential sentence to probe for bias. The trial court ruled that the Defendant could ask Mr. Williams if he faced a “substantial prison sentence.” The court also ruled that the Defendant could not ask further questions regarding whether Mr. Williams was eligible for parole, probation, or any other manner of service. The court relied on Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-35-201(b), which the court viewed to prohibit questioning of witnesses about their possible sentences in other criminal proceedings and the court’s conclusion that Tennessee caselaw was “unduly deferential to the statute.” II. TRIAL A. State’s Proof Bridgette Welch, the victim’s mother, testified that the victim was in a romantic relationship with Chasity Hassell.2 She stated that she did not know whether her son sold drugs and did not believe he owned a firearm. She admitted that she had seen a photograph of her son holding a firearm. She stated that Chasity informed her of her son’s death, that she received the victim’s cell phone from Chasity, and that she gave the victim’s cell phone to the police. Ms. Welch believed that Chasity was involved with her son’s death. Ms. Welch stated that she did not believe the victim knew the Defendant or the codefendant. 2 To avoid confusion, Chasity Hassell will be referred to as Chasity to distinguish her from her mother, Tracy Hassell. No disrespect is intended. -10-  On cross-examination, Ms. Welch testified that she discouraged the victim’s relationship with Chasity because Chasity was older than the victim. Chasity Hassell testified that she was the victim’s girlfriend at the time of the shooting. She stated that the victim’s nickname was “Boosie.” She said she knew the Defendant as “Rudy.” She testified that she had no relationship with the Defendant. She stated that the Defendant approached her mother the day of the shooting at Dellway because the Defendant had seen her mother at her place of work. Chasity said the victim sent her a text message stating that he was angry that the Defendant approached her mother. Chasity testified that she saw the victim on the night of the shooting. She stated that she spoke with the victim that night and that she took her children to a neighboring apartment. She said that she returned to the apartment in which she was staying to prepare to go to work and that she was inside K building when she heard gunshots. She stated that someone told her that the victim had been shot, that she ran to the victim, and that he lay on the ground. She testified that she did not find a firearm on the victim and that she did not see the victim with a firearm earlier in the day. She admitted that she had seen the victim with a firearm before that night. Chasity stated that she went to the hospital where the victim was transported and that she gave the victim’s cell phone to his mother. Chasity said that she did not see the Defendant the night of the shooting and that she did not go behind K building. On cross-examination, Chasity testified that the victim’s mother and others confronted her at Dellway one to two weeks after the shooting. She stated that two or three people punched and kicked her. Chasity agreed that she sent the victim a text message before the shooting that read “I feel like I am letting a n---- come between our bond and I ain’t feeling it.” She testified that she possessed Facebook messages with the Defendant dating back to April 1, 2017, that she regularly sent messages to the Defendant before the shooting, and that she did not remember deleting her Facebook messages with the Defendant. She stated that she told Detective Holt that the victim was the “jealous type” and that he suspected her of having intimate relationships with other men. She agreed that she and the victim argued about text messages on May 10, 2017, and acknowledged that she and the victim argued about the Defendant’s sending text messages to her. She said she and the victim argued about the nature of her relationship with the Defendant and that she told the victim that the Defendant merely wanted to talk to her mother in the Dellway parking lot. She stated that she lied to the victim when she told him that she had deactivated all her social media accounts. She said the victim had insecurities regarding his relationship with her. She testified that she referenced her children’s deceased father when she sent a text message to the victim on May 11, 2017, stating, “I already lost the love of my life to BS. I can’t and won’t go through it no more.” She stated that the victim was referencing the Defendant when he sent her a text message that said, “Buddy is on a thin line in Dellway.” She said that on the day of the shooting, she saw the victim shortly after -11- she arrived at Dellway. She recalled that she did not see any individuals moving evidence after the victim’s shooting. On redirect examination, Chasity testified that she stayed with Ms. Peterson at Dellway. She stated that she did not call for an ambulance or the police after Ms. Welch “ganged” up on her because “[e]veryone grieves different.” She said that she had sent a Facebook message to the Defendant that she thought the victim was coming “between our bond.” She testified that she had no intention of ending her relationship with the victim. Tracy Hassell, the mother of Chasity Hassell, testified that her daughter lived with her but would occasionally stay at Dellway.3 She stated that she knew her daughter was dating a man nicknamed “Boosie,” the victim. She said she knew another man nicknamed “Rudy,” who she identified as the Defendant. She recalled that the Defendant approached her at Dellway before the victim’s shooting when she picked up her grandchildren from Chasity. Athena Hayes testified that she worked as an employee for the Crittenden County, Kentucky, Sheriff’s Department. She stated that the Crittenden County jail recorded the Defendant’s jail telephone call on December 21, 2017. A recording of the call was received as an exhibit. Davidson County Medical Examiner Dr. Feng Li testified that he performed the victim’s autopsy. He determined that the victim died from four gunshot wounds. He said he recovered one bullet from the victim’s body, that the bullet wounds indicated the bullets were fired from three feet away or greater, and that the penetration angles indicated that the shooter fired the bullets from a prone position. The victim’s toxicology results were positive for marijuana. MNPD Crime Laboratory firearms expert Ryan Kent testified that he examined a .40-caliber cartridge casing recovered from the scene of the shooting. He said that a 9- millimeter bullet would not function in a firearm that shot a .40-caliber bullet. On cross-examination, Mr. Kent testified that he did not attempt to match the cartridge casing found at the scene with the bullet fragment recovered from the victim’s body because such an analysis was not requested. Detective Holt testified that he investigated the victim’s death. He stated that he located the back of a phone case, a cell phone battery, and a cartridge casing at the crime scene. He determined that the Defendant and the codefendant were potential suspects 3 To avoid confusion, Tracy Hassell will be referred to as Tracy to distinguish her from Chasity Hassell. No disrespect is intended. -12- based on a witness statement. Detective Holt testified that, during the Defendant’s May interview, the Defendant provided an alibi saying that he left Dellway to go to the Arabian Palace before the shooting occurred. Detective Holt stated that the Defendant ended the July interview when Detective Holt accused the Defendant of shooting the victim. Detective Holt said that he interviewed the codefendant on May 19, 2017, and that the codefendant denied any knowledge of the shooting. Detective Holt testified that he interviewed the Defendant and the codefendant separately on December 20, 2017. Detective Holt testified that he requested recordings of jail telephone calls made by the Defendant after the Defendant’s December interview in Kentucky. Detective Holt said he located the December 21, 2017 telephone call that the Defendant made to Shametria Vargus, the Defendant’s then-girlfriend. A redacted recording of the telephone call was received as an exhibit and played for the jury. In the recording, the Defendant asked Ms. Vargus if she had seen the “news” on Facebook about the shooting. The Defendant claimed that he “did not do that s---.” The Defendant stated that he did not shoot the victim and that the codefendant had implicated him in the victim’s death. The Defendant said that he asked “Ra-Ra” for a firearm because he feared the victim would shoot him and that Ra-Ra gave him one. The Defendant stated that he approached the victim, that he told the victim “Don’t reach for your gun,” that the victim reached for a firearm, and that the Defendant and victim grabbed each other’s firearms. The Defendant stated that the victim shot first and that the Defendant shot at the ground. The Defendant stated that “Cha-Cha” shot the victim. Other testimony reflected that Cha-Cha was the codefendant’s nickname. The Defendant said that he and Cha-Cha fled the scene and that “we threw the gun and s--- like that and then he threw his gun.” The Defendant stated that he knew that the codefendant shot the victim because he was aware that the codefendant sold his firearm after the shooting. The Defendant admitted that “at first I thought I shot him.” The Defendant stated that he had a .40-caliber firearm and that he believed the victim was stuck by a 9-millimeter bullet. He said the codefendant admitted to the police that he implicated the Defendant so that the codefendant would not receive jail time. Detective Holt testified that the Defendant’s jail telephone call corroborated physical evidence at the scene. Detective Holt stated that the Defendant’s saying that he had a .40-caliber firearm was consistent with the .40-caliber cartridge casing found near where the victim was shot. Detective Holt said the Defendant’s admission that he took the victim’s firearm and threw it away explained why no firearm was recovered. On cross-examination, Detective Holt admitted that the physical evidence also corroborated the Defendant’s assertion in the call, and the statements by Shantorianna Forte, that the codefendant shot the victim. Detective Holt stated that he was present for two of the codefendant’s four interviews. Detective Holt said that the informant who told him about the Defendant and the codefendant being involved in the shooting also named Bryon Shannon, Markell Moore, Tytiana Brown, Tyrell Flanoy, Devonta Hall, and Shakita -13- Williams as being present. Detective Holt testified that the shooter was described as having multi-colored dreadlocks. Detective Holt stated that although Chasity minimized her relationship with the Defendant, Facebook messages reflected that the two knew each other well. Detective Holt said he conducted a “phone dump” of Chasity’s cell phone. He submitted multiple DNA samples for testing, and the Defendant’s DNA did not match any of the blood samples collected from the victim or at the scene of th