State of Tennessee v. Antonio Demetrius Adkisson a/k/a Antonio Demetrius Turner Jr.

05/29/2026 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON May 28, 2025 Session Heard at Cookeville1 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTONIO DEMETRIUS ADKISSON A/K/A ANTONIO DEMETRIUS TURNER JR. Appeal by Permission from the Court of Criminal Appeals Circuit Court for Gibson County No. 19840 Clayburn Peeples, Judge ___________________________________ No. W2022-01009-SC-R11-CD ___________________________________ Seventeen-year-old Antonio Demetrius Adkisson (a.k.a. Antonio Demetrius Turner, Jr.) (“the Defendant”) was charged with two counts of first-degree murder for the fatal shooting of two victims. The Gibson County Juvenile Court (“the juvenile court”) held a transfer hearing and found it appropriate to transfer the Defendant to the Gibson County Circuit Court (“the trial court”) to be prosecuted as an adult. After a jury trial, during which the Defendant’s videotaped statements were admitted into evidence, the Defendant was convicted of two counts of the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder. On direct appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. See State v. Adkisson, No. W2022-01009- CCA-R3-CD, 2024 WL 1252173 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 25, 2024), perm. app. granted, (Tenn. Aug. 14, 2024). The Defendant requested permission to appeal to this Court, alleging (1) the juvenile court lacked probable cause to believe he committed the charged offenses, as required for transfer by Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-134(a)(4)(A), and (2) the trial court erred in admitting his confession at trial because he did not validly waive his right to remain silent and his confession was involuntary. We hold that the Defendant was properly transferred to the trial court. We further hold that the Defendant validly waived his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, but his confession was unlawfully coerced in violation of the Due Process Clause and thus inadmissible at trial. Having found reversible error on that basis, we vacate the Defendant’s convictions of second-degree murder and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Tenn. R. App. P. 11 Appeal by Permission; Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part; Case Remanded to the Circuit Court 1 Oral Argument was heard in this case on the campus of Tennessee Technological University as part of the Tennessee American Legion Boys State S.C.A.L.E.S. (Supreme Court Advancing Legal Education for Students) project. JEFFREY S. BIVINS, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which HOLLY KIRBY, DWIGHT E. TARWATER and MARY L. WAGNER, JJ., joined. SARAH K. CAMPBELL, J., filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Claiborne H. Ferguson, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Antonio Demetrius Adkisson. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; J. Matthew Rice, Solicitor General; Ronald L. Coleman, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Garry Brown, District Attorney General; Jason C. Scott, Assistant District Attorney General; and Scott G. Kirk, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. Jason Gichner and Jessica Marie Van Dyke, and Lauren Gottesman, for the Amici Curiae, The Tennessee Innocence Project and The Innocence Project. Jonathan P. Harwell, Sean P. Day, and Martha Dinwiddie, for the Amicus Curiae, Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. OPINION I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Shooting and Subsequent Investigation The Defendant’s convictions arose from the murder of Dearrious2 Young and Troy Whitmore (“the victims”). At approximately 9:00 p.m. on September 26, 2017, the victims were fatally shot at the Meadows apartment complex (“the Meadows”) in Milan, Tennessee. Officer Dexter Huddleston of the Milan Police Department was off duty on the night in question and heard the gunshots as he was leaving his apartment near the Meadows. He immediately retrieved his weapon for protection and drove to the scene in his patrol car. As he was pulling up to the Meadows, he saw a group of people3 standing over two individuals on the ground. Officer Huddleston radioed the Milan Police Department dispatch and requested two ambulances. Upon exiting his patrol car, Officer Huddleston discovered the victims lying on the sidewalk with gunshot wounds. Each victim had been shot four times. Officer Huddleston saw no weapons on or around the victims’ bodies. One 2 We note that, in the grand jury indictment, Mr. Young’s first name is spelled “De’Airrious”. For consistency, we use the spelling reflected in the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion below. 3 Officer Huddleston testified at the Defendant’s transfer hearing that he saw two people standing over the bodies. At trial, however, he stated that he saw a crowd of people. -2- of the victims, Dearrious Young, was deceased. The other victim, Troy Whitmore, was breathing but unresponsive. Thereafter, Whitmore was transported to Milan Hospital via ambulance, where he was pronounced dead. Investigator Jason Williams and other on-duty police officers responded to the scene within minutes. Police “canvassed the whole area” for physical evidence using a metal detector and professional lighting equipment. Nevertheless, they recovered only three 10- millimeter shell casings and no weapons. In fact, no weapons associated with this case were ever recovered. Based on the ballistics evidence from the scene, police determined that two firearms were used in the shootings: a revolver, which would not eject spent shell casings, and some type of pistol that would eject spent shell casings. While officers were investigating the scene, the Milan Police Department dispatcher received several anonymous, unverified tips identifying seventeen-year-old Antonio Demetrius Adkisson (“the Defendant”) and seventeen-year-old Justice Walton (“the Co- Defendant”) as the perpetrators. Onlookers at the scene also implored law enforcement officers to investigate the Defendant and the Co-Defendant. Based on this information, the police identified the Defendant and the Co-Defendant as suspects. Police contacted the Defendant at his home later that same night at approximately 2:00 a.m. As shown by the body camera footage of the encounter, Milan Police Sergeant Joe Fountain and Officer Allen Alexander arrived first and began speaking to the Defendant on the front porch of his home with his mother standing behind him. The officers asked the Defendant where he had been that night, and the Defendant’s mother advised him that he did not have to answer. Against his mother’s advice, the Defendant responded that he had been at the Meadows around 7:00 p.m. Sergeant Fountain informed the Defendant that he was not under arrest and verbally informed him of his Miranda rights. When Sergeant Fountain asked the Defendant if he understood his rights, the Defendant nodded affirmatively. Investigator Williams arrived a short time later. He asked the Defendant if he had seen the Co-Defendant, and the Defendant responded that he had been with him earlier. Investigator Williams told the Defendant’s mother that he would like to speak with the Defendant at the police station and would bring him home when they were done. When the Defendant’s mother asked if she could come, Investigator Williams replied that she was “more than welcome.” Investigator Williams explained to the Defendant’s mother that her son’s name had come up alongside the Co-Defendant in connection with a double homicide. The Defendant’s stepfather, who had walked onto the porch during the encounter, noted that the Defendant was seventeen and asked the officers if the Defendant’s mother would be able to sit in on the questioning. Investigator Williams assured him that she would. After again assuring the Defendant’s mother that her son was not under arrest, -3- police transported the Defendant to the police station in the back of a marked patrol car. The Defendant’s mother stated that she would be “right behind” them. The Interrogation At approximately 2:20 a.m., the Defendant arrived at the police station and was placed in an interrogation room. Prior to the interrogation, the Defendant sat by himself in the interrogation room with the door open. During this time, he made small talk with two officers standing in the hallway. The Defendant told the officers he was a senior at Milan High School and was taking classes like economics, Spanish II, and history. From the hallway, an officer stated, “This is Mother. She is welcome back.” Another officer interjected, “Hold off on that. Hold up.” Although she remained in the lobby of the police station, the Defendant’s mother was never permitted to enter the interrogation room or speak to her son during the following seven hours. At 2:30 a.m., Detective Nick Glenn, a Milan Police Department officer who was also the Defendant’s school resource officer, entered the room and began to question the Defendant. The Defendant explained to Detective Glenn that he and the Co-Defendant had run into victim Dearrious Young while at the Meadows earlier that night around 7:00 p.m., that Young and his friends had flashed guns at them and threatened to beat them up, and that he left around 7:05 p.m. because he did not feel safe. The Defendant also told Detective Glenn that he was not around when the shootings occurred and he did not see anybody who got shot. Although the Defendant initially said he did not know the victims, he later admitted he had been in a prior altercation with Young. Suspecting that the Defendant was lying, Investigator Williams entered the room and took over the interrogation at approximately 2:40 a.m. Investigator Wiliams began by noting that the Defendant already had been advised of his Miranda rights and asking the Defendant if he would like to go over them again. The Defendant shook his head negatively. Nevertheless, Investigator Williams once again clearly advised the Defendant of his Miranda rights. Thereafter, the following exchange occurred: [Investigator Williams:] Anything we discuss right now I can talk with the DA about in the future. Okay? I’ve had numerous phone calls. Okay? I’ve probably got enough to charge you with two counts of first-degree murder. Okay? [Defendant:] (nods affirmatively) [Investigator Williams:] But, first of all, before we get that far. I heard some of the conversation you had with Nick. I was in the next door over here doing some paperwork. And evidently you’ve had some beef with these guys. If you’re scared of them or if they, you know if you was in fear for your life, or if you and [the Co-Defendant] was in fear for your lives . . . . Now, right now is the time to tell me the truth. Because if you don’t . . . I don’t know if you -4-  realize how much trouble that ya’ll [sic] are in. Okay? I mean, you’re looking at possibly the death penalty. You understand what I’m saying? [Defendant:] Yes sir. [Investigator Williams:] But, if you’ll be honest with me, I’ll try to help you all I can. But if you’re not, I can’t help you. Okay? I mean, I can’t, Garry Brown, the District Attorney in this area has already been on the phone, within the last 30 minutes. Okay? I mean, it’s serious. And I feel like you’ll be honest. But I just want to let you know how serious it is if you’re not. It’s serious either way, but you have to be honest, okay? Investigator Williams later testified that he was unaware at the time of the Defendant’s questioning that the law precludes the imposition of the death penalty on juvenile offenders. See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 578 (2005) (“The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed.”). Following the above exchange, the Defendant explained to Investigator Williams that he and the Co-Defendant walked to the Meadows before the shootings, a group flashed their guns at them near the dumpster area, and he split off from the Co-Defendant and left around 7:05 or 7:15 p.m. because he did not feel safe. He claimed that his father picked him up by the highway near the Meadows around that time and that he knew nothing of the shooting until he arrived home later that night. To this, Investigator Williams replied “Well, I would believe that if I didn’t see you [on] video. The Meadows has got video . . . pointing towards the shooting.” In fact, no such video existed. Investigator Williams explained that he did not believe the Defendant was being “straight” with him and asked if he would be willing to take a polygraph test. Gesturing to the door, the Defendant replied, “Ask my mama.” Investigator Williams retorted, “You would fail it.” He explained that numerous callers had reported seeing him and the Co-Defendant on the scene. At 2:52 a.m., Investigator Williams asked the Defendant who shot the victims if not him. The Defendant replied, “I don’t know who shot . . . can you get my mamma in here?” Investigator Williams replied, “No, I’m not getting your mamma in here . . . I mean this is grown up shit.” The Defendant reiterated that he was not present at the shooting and claimed that he was with his father. Investigator Williams told the Defendant that he was going to get his father’s phone records to determine if they “pinged” at the location where the Defendant claimed his father picked him up. Investigator Williams stated, “When I prove . . . you ain’t going nowhere. You gonna sit right there. And when I prove the first lie . . . the first lie that I catch you in I’m gonna charge you with two counts of first-degree murder. Okay? Now if you tell me what happened and tell me the damn truth, we can deal with that and you might not be up here all night long.” -5-  At 2:58 a.m., the Defendant recounted the evening again, but this time he admitted to being at the Meadows with the Co-Defendant at approximately 9:00 p.m. when the shooting took place. However, he insisted that he and the Co-Defendant had run away together after hearing gunshots in the distance. Investigator Williams again stated that he was not buying the Defendant’s story. The Defendant asked to start over. This time, he identified the Co-Defendant as the shooter. The Defendant claimed that he and the Co-Defendant had left the Meadows together after the encounter with Young, but that they returned later to retrieve the Co- Defendant’s phone. He admitted he was “right there” when the Defendant pulled the trigger but denied having fired a weapon himself. The Defendant drew a diagram to show Investigator Wiliams the route he and the Co-Defendant took to flee the scene. Investigator Williams asked the Defendant if his hands would test positive for gunshot residue. The Defendant insisted they would not. At 3:19 a.m., as Investigator Williams was getting up to leave, the Defendant asked, “Is my mama here?” Investigator Williams confirmed that she was at the station and told the Defendant that he was going to talk to her. The Defendant asked if he could speak to her too. Investigator Williams replied, “Yea. We’ll let you talk to her in just a second.” After Investigator Williams exited the room, the Defendant crossed his arms on the table in front of him and laid his head in his arms. At 3:23 a.m., the Chief of Police, Bobby Sellers, entered the interrogation room. After Chief Sellers explained to the Defendant that he was the police chief, the following exchange occurred: [Chief Sellers:] . . . Do you understand how much trouble you’re in? [Defendant:] Because I was with him when it happened? [Chief Sellers:] [nods affirmatively] [Defendant:] [nods affirmatively] [Chief Sellers:] You’re just as guilty as he is. [Defendant:] I didn’t know he was going to do it though. [Chief Sellers:] I understand. But do you think twelve men and women in a jury box are gonna believe that? [Defendant:] [shrugs his shoulders] Chief Sellers asked the Defendant if he wanted to be in prison at age seventeen, clarifying that he was referring to the state penitentiary, not a juvenile detention center. He asked, “You know what they do to seventeen-year-olds in the [penitentiary]?” When the Defendant shook his head no, Chief Sellers said, “I don’t think you want to know.” The Defendant stated, “And [Investigator Williams] said I might get the death penalty.” Chief Sellers replied, “I don’t know about that. We don’t know about that. But you’re in a lot of damn trouble. What you’ve got to do right now is help yourself. Where is [the Co- -6- Defendant] at?” The Defendant said he did not know. Chief Sellers told the Defendant that when he ends up in court, how much he helped police will have a bearing on what happens to him. During the conversation, Chief Sellers positioned himself directly in front of the seated Defendant and leaned forward with his hands braced on the table. Chief Sellers exited the room at 3:26 a.m. Thereafter, the Defendant tightly gripped his hair and began rocking back and forth in his chair, repeatedly whispering, “I’m gonna go to jail.” He placed his head on the table in front of him and repeatedly hit it there. He appeared to cry for several minutes. He tried to sleep but could not get comfortable. Investigator Williams returned 20 minutes later to resume questioning. The Defendant once again recounted the events of the prior night. Although he added additional details, he largely stuck to his most recent story. At 3:54 a.m., the Defendant told Investigator Williams what Chief Sellers had said about how he could get in trouble for being at the scene even though he was not the shooter and that a jury would not believe him innocent. Investigator Williams replied that, although he believed the Defendant was not the shooter, he was “on the verge of proving” that he was standing by the Co-Defendant when he pulled the trigger. When the Defendant again insisted that he stayed back, Investigator Williams stated that this “show[ed] how cooperative” he was being. The Defendant asked if he was being good or bad at cooperating, and Investigator Williams stated that he was somewhere in the middle. He told the Defendant that if he wanted him to “whisper in [the district attorney’s] ear” that the Defendant was cooperative, scared, remorseful, and just a kid, he needed to tell the truth. At 4:03 a.m., as Investigator Williams was getting up to leave, the Defendant again asked if he could speak to his mother. Investigator Williams replied, “Yeah, I think they’re talking to her. But we’ll get her in a minute.” When Investigator Williams left, the Defendant put his head down on the table. Approximately one minute later, an officer opened the door and asked the Defendant if he wanted a biscuit. The Defendant declined but asked for water, and officers brought him a bottle of water. At 4:31 a.m., Investigator Williams re-entered the room, accompanied by Detective Kelvin Whitney of the Milan Police Department. The Defendant continued to claim that he was only nearby when the Co-Defendant fired the shots. He used the diagram he had drawn to explain the direction he ran in after the shootings. The officers left at 4:47 a.m. At approximately 5:00 a.m., an officer entered the interrogation room and asked the Defendant about the clothing he was wearing the night before and whether he needed more water. The Defendant was alone for the majority of the following three hours. He took two brief trips to the restroom but otherwise remained in the interrogation room alone. -7-  At 6:02 a.m., the Defendant knocked on the door and asked, for a fourth time, if he could speak to his mother. Detective Whitney confirmed that she was still at the station and told the Defendant he could “talk to her in a minute.” Around 6:40 a.m., the Defendant knocked on the door again and asked for a blanket or a towel because he was cold. An officer informed him that they did not have any. Approximately 15 minutes later, the Defendant knocked on the door again and asked to speak to Detective Whitney. Detective Whitney reentered the interrogation room at 6:57 a.m. The Defendant told him that he did not want to “take the charge” for the Co-Defendant. Detective Whitney replied, “we don’t want to charge you with something that you didn’t do . . . that’s why we’re trying to work all this stuff out.” The Defendant then told Detective Whitney that the Co-Defendant had two guns but denied having held either gun. He emphasized that he was willing to take a gunshot residue test and asked if he “ha[d] to stay here still” after taking it. Detective Whitney replied, “I don’t know man. We’re still trying to figure everything out.” At 7:02 a.m., Detective Whitney left the room. The Defendant put his head down on the table. He tried but failed to sleep. At 8:08 a.m., an officer brought him food from McDonald’s, which the Defendant did not eat. At 8:34 a.m., Detective Whitney returned. He explained that police were about to run a search warrant on the Defendant’s home and stated, “We know you had a gun.” Detective Whitney asked whether the Defendant shot out of fear or to kill somebody, and the Defendant confessed that he shot out of fear. The Defendant explained that the Co- Defendant gave him a revolver for protection after the initial encounter with Young and that he dropped the gun while running away from the scene. He claimed that, upon encountering Young again, someone had pulled out a gun and he had pulled the trigger because he “felt like it was [his] life or their life.” Detective Whitney ultimately left the room at 8:51 a.m. The Defendant sat alone in the interrogation room for the next 40 minutes. The recording of the interrogation ends at 9:38 a.m., with the Defendant alone in the interrogation room. Thereafter, the Defendant was arrested. Juvenile Court Proceedings The Defendant and the Co-Defendant were each subsequently charged with two counts of premeditated first-degree murder. The State filed notice of its intent to transfer both juveniles to the Gibson County Circuit Court to be tried as adults. Prior to the transfer hearing, the Defendant moved to suppress his incriminating statements made to investigators on September 27, 2017. 4 4 The Defendant’s motion to suppress filed in the juvenile court is not in the record. -8-  The juvenile court held a joint transfer hearing for the Defendant and the Co- Defendant on October 13, 2017. At the transfer hearing, Officer Huddleston testified that he was off duty on the night in question and was leaving his home near the Meadows around 9:10 p.m. when he heard four gunshots. He immediately drove to the Meadows in his patrol car. Although he activated his emergency blue lights, he forgot to turn on his headlights in his rush to get to the scene. When he pulled up to the scene, he observed “two people standing over two bodies.” Because the area was poorly lit and he had failed to turn his headlights on, he could not clearly see the people standing over the bodies. By the time he exited the vehicle and approached the bodies, the people he had seen standing around them had disappeared. Officer Huddleston remained at the scene while it was being processed and did not see any weapons recovered from the victims’ bodies. Witness Quavion Lipscomb, cousin of the Defendant and classmate of the Defendant and the Co-Defendant, testified that he was with the Defendant and the Co- Defendant earlier on the night of the shootings. He testified that they came to his house between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m. A short time later, they asked Lipscomb if he wanted to smoke marijuana with them at the Meadows and another nearby apartment complex, the Villas. Lipscomb declined but agreed to drop them off. A couple of nights after the shootings, Lipscomb spoke to law enforcement officers and told them that the Co-Defendant’s pants had been sagging and seemed unusually heavy. The Defendant’s pants, on the other hand, were not sagging. Lipscomb drove the Defendant and the Co-Defendant to the Villas and dropped them off around 7:00 p.m. While in the car on the way to the Villas, Lipscomb saw a silver gun in the waistband of the Co-Defendant’s shorts. He did not see the Defendant with a gun. Witness J’Lon Dance, cousin of the Defendant and the Co-Defendant and friend of the victims, testified that his aunt picked him up from work at approximately 8:00 p.m. on the night of the shootings and dropped him off at the Meadows, where he lived with his mother. Upon arrival, Dance ran into Young and two other friends and began speaking to them outside of his apartment near a dumpster. Not long after, the Defendant and the Co- Defendant walked by. Before he and the Defendant walked away, the Co-Defendant said something unintelligible and “raised up his shirt” to show “something silver” that Dance thought was a gun. Thereafter, Dance and two friends went back to Dance’s apartment to play video games. The victims joined them around 9:00 p.m. At some point thereafter, Dance walked the victims to the door, and they left the apartment. Moments after they left, Dance heard gunshots. Upon hearing shots fired, Dance and the others immediately ran outside and saw the victims on the ground. Dance testified that he did not see anyone else near the victims’ bodies. Witness Michael Williams testified that, on the night in question, he was preparing to go to his godbrother’s home when he heard on a police scanner app that someone had been shot in the area. Approximately 10 to 15 minutes later, he drove to his godbrother’s home located near the Meadows. After he pulled into the back driveway, but while he was -9- still sitting in his car, he observed two young men “speed-walking” through “the cut” behind his godbrother’s home—a pathway that leads from the Villas to a nearby road. He testified that the young men appeared spooked, scared, and sweaty. He asked the young men what was going on and whether someone had been shot. They replied that they did not know and that they were running because they heard gunshots. Mr. Williams testified that he believed it was possible for two young men in good shape to travel on foot from the Meadows to his godbrother’s home in 10 to 15 minutes. Investigator David Burton testified that he assisted in the investigation of the murders and interviewed Dance and Williams in the days following the shootings. Based on information the Milan Police Department received regarding the Defendant’s and the Co-Defendant’s involvement in the shootings, Investigator Burton compiled a photographic array using photographs from the Milan High School yearbook. Three days after the shootings, Investigator Burton presented the array to Michael Williams, who went through each photo one-by-one before choosing the photos of the Defendant and the Co- Defendant and signing them. Investigator Burton asked Mr. Williams if the individuals pictured in the photos were those who he had seen on the night of the shootings, and Mr. Williams responded in the affirmative. Mr. Williams told Investigator Burton that he knew one of the subjects and recognized the other from the street. However, Mr. Williams did not indicate which individual he knew. Although Mr. Williams changed his tune at the transfer hearing and testified that ‘it was dark” and he was unsure whether the Defendant and the Co-Defendant were the individuals he saw, Investigator Burton testified that Mr. Williams was positive about the identification at the time he was presented with the photo array. And while Mr. Williams stated that he had not been threatened for testifying against the Defendant, Investigator Burton testified that Williams previously indicated to him that he had concerns for his safety over testifying. Investigator Jason Williams, who responded to the scene minutes after the shooting and conducted the majority of the Defendant’s interrogation, was last to testify at the transfer hearing. Investigator Williams testified that each victim was shot four times but that law enforcement recovered only three 10-millimeter shell casings from the crime scene. Comparing the number of bullet wounds to the number of recovered shell casings, Investigator Williams theorized that two firearms had been used in the shootings, one being a revolver that did not eject spent shell casings, and the other being some kind of pistol. He testified that he did not see any weapons at the crime scene. After hearing an offer of proof from the State regarding the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s interrogation, the juvenile court granted the Defendant’s motion to suppress and did not consider the Defendant’s statements for purposes of the transfer decision. At the close of the hearing, the juvenile court found that (1) both juveniles were seventeen at the time of the alleged murders; (2) both juveniles were provided with - 10 - timely notice of the hearing; and (3) there were reasonable grounds5 to believe each juvenile committed two counts of first-degree murder as alleged in the petition, that they were not committable to a mental health facility, and that the interests of the community required they be legally restrained or disciplined. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-134(a)(4) (2017). In determining whether transfer was appropriate, the juvenile court considered the statutory transfer factors.6 The juvenile court acknowledged that the Defendant had no prior criminal record or past treatment and that there was no evidence presented of the murders “involving gangs,” but found that the offense was against two persons, “was a violent offense[,]” “done in a premeditated manner[,]” and was “an aggressive crime.” Emphasizing the “nature of the charge that [the Defendant and the Co-Defendant were] facing and their age,” the court concluded that it did not have “any procedures, services or facilities that could adequately address rehabilitation with these juveniles.” Based on the totality of all the transfer factors, particularly factors three, four, and five, the juvenile court found it appropriate to transfer the Defendant and the Co-Defendant to the trial court to be prosecuted as adults. Trial Court Proceedings Following transfer, a Gibson County Grand Jury indicted each juvenile on two counts of premeditated first-degree murder In May 2018, Defendant moved to suppress his incriminating statements, arguing that “the circumstances surrounding his interrogation 5 The terms “reasonable grounds” and “probable cause” “ha[ve] been used interchangeably” in the juvenile transfer analysis. State v. Reed, No. M2009-00887-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 3432663, *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 31, 2010). The language of the transfer statute has changed over time; the General Assembly originally used the term “reasonable grounds” to describe the standard of proof required under Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-134(a)(4) but later replaced “reasonable grounds” with “probable cause”. Compare Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-134(a)(4) (2016) with Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-134(a)(4) (2017). For ease of reference, this opinion uses “probable cause” when discussing Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-134(a)(4), which aligns with the statutory language at the time of the offenses. 6 At the time of the alleged offenses, these included: (1) The extent and nature of the child’s prior delinquency records; (2) The nature of past treatment efforts and the nature of the child’s response thereto; (3) Whether the offense was against person or property, with greater weight in favor of transfer given to offenses against the person; (4) Whether the offense was committed in an aggressive and premeditated manner; (5) The possible rehabilitation of the child by use of procedures, services and facilities currently available to the court in this state; and (6) Whether the child’s conduct would be a criminal gang offense, as defined in section 40-35-121, if committed by an adult. Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-134(b)(1)–(6) (2017). - 11 - were in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Article I, section IX of the Tennessee Constitution, and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).” The State responded in opposition. In December 2018, the trial court held a suppression hearing during which it reviewed in camera the body camera footage from the Defendant’s encounter with law enforcement at his home and the first hour of the recording of the Defendant’s interrogation.7 Thereafter, the trial court denied the Defendant’s motion to suppress, finding in its order denying relief that the Defendant was seventeen (17) years old at the time of the interview and the Court was impressed from a viewing of the interview with the intelligence of the Defendant and it was clear the Defendant understood Miranda warnings and the consequences of waiving the rights set forth in the warnings; and, no proof was presented regarding the extent of the Defendant’s education and there was no indication of intoxication or drug influence or retardation; and, the Defendant’s parents were not present in the room during the interview but their absence does not render the confession involuntary; and, the interrogation was only one (1) hour in duration such that the Defendant did not appear to be fatigued or beaten down; and, despite the fact that the investigator informed the Defendant at the beginning of the interview that he could possibly be facing the death penalty. The trial court concluded that based on all the circumstances present at the Defendant’s home and the police station, the Defendant’s incriminating statements were voluntary and admissible at trial. The case proceeded to a jury trial.8 At trial, portions of the Defendant’s interrogation were admitted into evidence, including his confession to shooting the victims. Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Kyle Osborne, an expert in gunshot residue, determined that there was gunshot residue on pants police obtained from the Defendant’s bedroom in the days after the shootings. Agent Osborne testified that the presence of gunshot residue indicated that the person wearing the pants fired a gun, was near a gun 7 The almost seven-hour recording of the Defendant’s interrogation is split into seven parts. Because the parties agreed that the remainder of the video was not relevant to the issues raised in the Defendant’s suppression motion, the trial court reviewed only the first portion of the recording at the suppression hearing. Specifically, the court reviewed footage from approximately 2:20 a.m. to 3:20 a.m., during which the Defendant was interviewed by Detective Glenn and Investigator Williams. All seven video files, as well as the body camera footage from the Defendant’s encounter with police at his home, are in the record. We have meticulously reviewed them all in full. 8 Although the Defendant and the Co-Defendant were transferred together, they were tried separately. - 12 - when it was fired, or came into contact with a gun soon after it was fired. The trial court also heard testimony from Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Kasia Lynch. Special Agent Lynch confirmed Investigator Williams’s theory that two firearms had been used in the shootings, specifically, a revolver and a pistol. The State also introduced evidence of the Defendant’s cell phone records placing him at the Meadows at the time of the shooting. The remaining proof at trial was consistent with the testimony at the juvenile transfer hearing. The jury ultimately convicted the Defendant of two counts of the lesser included offense of second-degree murder. Pursuant to an agreement made between the State and the Defendant whereby the Defendant would testify against the Co-Defendant, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty years of imprisonment. Appellate Proceedings The Defendant appealed. See Adkisson, 2024 WL 1252173. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Id. at *1. The majority found that the juvenile court acted within its discretion in transferring the Defendant to the trial court, reasoning that it “considered the statutory factors [in Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-134] and made appropriate findings, which are supported by the record, in determining whether transfer was appropriate.” Id. at *6. As is relevant to this appeal, the majority found that the evidence at the transfer hearing supported the juvenile court’s finding of “reasonable grounds to believe the defendant committed the offense.” Id. The majority further found no error in the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s suppression motion. Id. at *9. At the outset, the majority concluded that Miranda warnings were not necessary in this case because the Defendant “was not under arrest or in custody at the time he spoke with officers and ultimately confessed.” Notwithstanding this determination, the majority considered the factors for juvenile waiver set forth in State v. Callahan, 979 S.W.2d 577 (Tenn. 1998), and determined that they weighed in favor of valid waiver. Id. at *6–7. The majority next considered the factors for voluntariness set forth in State v. Climer, 400 S.W.3d 537, 568 (Tenn. 2013), and concluded that, “under the totality of the circumstances, it is clear the defendant’s statement to law enforcement was voluntary and was not a product of coercion.” Id. at *7–9. Judge Camille McMullen dissented, concluding that the juvenile court erred in transferring the Defendant to the trial court and the trial court improperly denied the Defendant’s motion to suppress. Id. at *9 (McMullen, P.J., dissenting). On the suppression issue, the dissent disagreed with the majority’s “sua sponte” determination that Miranda warnings were unnecessary, noting that “neither party disputes that the Defendant was in custody [for Miranda purposes] at the time of his statement” and that no colorable argument could be made to the contrary. Id. at *15. After summarizing in detail the evidence presented at the transfer hearing, the dissent disagreed with several of the m