Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Colvett

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

December 19, 2014

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
KENNETH PAUL COLVETT

         Session September 9, 2014.

Page 173

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 174

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 175

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marshall County. No. 2012-CR-64. F. Lee Russell, Judge.

         Walter W. Bussart, Lewisburg, Tennessee (at trial and on appeal); and Jason Charles Davis, Lewisburg, Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, Kenneth Paul Colvett.

         Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Senior Counsel; Robert Carter, District Attorney General; Weakley E. Barnard and Michael David Randles, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

         D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

Page 176

         D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., J.

          Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Kenneth Paul Colvett, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the jury erred by rejecting the defense of insanity; (2) that the trial court erred by not allowing defense counsel to take home prior written statements made by a witness and by not admitting extrinsic evidence of the statements of two witnesses during trial; (3) that the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); (4) that the trial court erred by refusing to provide the Defendant with a transcript of a prior hearing in this case; (5) that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during the cross-examination of the Defendant's expert witness; (6) that the trial court erred by questioning the Defendant about his decision not to

Page 177

testify at trial; (7) that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its closing argument by commenting on the Defendant's decision not to testify; and (8) that the Defendant is entitled to a new trial based upon cumulative error.[1] Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         OPINION

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND[2]

         I. Evidence Regarding the Offense

         This case arises from the murder of the Defendant's wife, Kay Clark Colvett, during the evening of April 7, 2012. At trial, the victim's daughter, Jennifer Coward, testified that her mother and the Defendant had been married for approximately three years and that they both had adult children from previous relationships. The victim owned several rental properties and worked as a nurse who " sat with old people." Ms. Coward testified that she was close to her mother and spoke to her several times a day.

         Ms. Coward testified that she went to the victim's house on April 5, 2012, to visit with her. At some point that morning, the victim needed to move her car, but her car keys were missing. The victim then noticed that her cellular telephone and its charger were missing as well. Ms. Coward testified that the victim " looked all over the house" and " started crying." According to Ms. Coward, the victim " was really hurt" and " didn't know what to do." The victim was scared that the Defendant had taken her keys and cell phone. The victim told Ms. Coward that on April 9, 2012, she " was going to move in with" Ms. Coward and leave the Defendant. The victim said that she " didn't want to . . . argue any more" with the Defendant. Ms. Coward was unsure if the Defendant knew about the victim's plan to move out.

         Ms. Coward testified that she next saw the victim on April 7, 2012. The Defendant and the victim dropped off a birthday card for Ms. Coward's son that afternoon. The two did not stay long and did not come inside Ms. Coward's house. Ms. Coward testified that everything seemed " basically okay" and that there was nothing unusual about the Defendant that afternoon. Later that afternoon, the victim called Ms. Coward. Ms. Coward testified that the victim sounded " real sharp" and " maybe a little bit scared." The victim told her that the Defendant had said " that he was going to pen [sic] [the victim] up underneath a white house." Ms. Coward told the victim she would call her back and hung up.

         The victim immediately called Ms. Coward back and repeated what the Defendant had said. Ms. Coward took the Defendant's comment to mean " that he was going to kill" the victim and bury her " underneath the white house." Ms. Coward testified that she spoke to the victim again later that afternoon. Ms. Coward called the victim to ask " how things were going," and the victim said that she and the Defendant " were fixing to grill out and after [the Defendant] had got something to eat, she thought he would be fine." Ms. Coward testified that the next day was Easter and that she and the victim had made plans for an Easter dinner at the victim's house.

         The victim's other daughter, Rhonda Gooch, testified at trial that she was not as

Page 178

close to the victim as Ms. Coward but that she spoke to the victim several times a week. Ms. Gooch testified that on April 6, 2012, her daughter was playing in a softball tournament. Ms. Gooch saw the Defendant and the victim at the tournament. Ms. Gooch testified that they both seemed to be in " a good mood" and happy. Ms. Gooch described the Defendant and the victim as " cutting up with each other" and laughing. Ms. Gooch testified that the victim did not say anything that day about leaving the Defendant or moving in with Ms. Coward.

         The next day, Ms. Gooch and her daughter went to the victim's house after the second day of the softball tournament had ended. Ms. Gooch explained that her daughter " wanted to play a joke" on the victim. Ms. Gooch also wanted to ask the victim " what [she] needed to bring" for Easter dinner. Ms. Gooch testified that they arrived at the victim's house around 5:00 p.m. and knocked on the back door. According to Ms. Gooch, the victim answered the door in a towel and said she had been in the bedroom with the Defendant. Ms. Gooch spoke briefly to the victim and found out what she needed to bring and when to be at the victim's house for Easter dinner. Ms. Gooch testified that when she and her daughter left the victim was in a good mood and seemed happy.

         James Colvett[3] testified that he is the Defendant's cousin and lived in Mount Pleasant, Tennessee, some thirty to forty minutes away from the Defendant's home. James testified that he had worked with the Defendant in the past but that he was not very close to the Defendant and had never been to the Defendant's house. James recalled that prior to April 2012, the Defendant had called and left a message that he " was having trouble" with the victim and that " it would probably wind up in a divorce." The Defendant then left James a message on April 3, wanting to see him. On April 7, 2012, the Defendant called James around 3:00 p.m. but did not leave a message.

         James testified that the Defendant showed up at his house around 8:00 p.m. that night. According to James, the Defendant told him that he was " going to be rich" and asked him to help remodel " some houses." The Defendant also told James that the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) " had ran [sic] him up and down the streets of Alabama all day." The Defendant explained to James that the TBI wanted " answers, but [he was] not telling them." The Defendant also told James that his employer was thinking of promoting him to " plant manager" but that " some people at work" were trying to prevent the promotion.

         The Defendant then asked James " to help him clean up some blood" at the Defendant's house. The Defendant told James that he had killed " a lady he knew that knew a lot about real estate" and that he had been waiting to kill her " until he learned what she knew about real estate." The Defendant said that he had taken " a knife and started cutting" but that the knife was dull so " [h]e got another one." James testified that the Defendant told him that the body " was laying [sic] close to a door and [they] could move it a little bit." The Defendant planned to " drive in" and get the body in his truck. The Defendant wanted James to clean up the blood while he hauled the body away. The Defendant also told James that he wanted to lure his

Page 179

daughter, his son-in-law, and " some other people" to his house to " show them what he had done."

         James testified that the Defendant left around 8:20 p.m. According to James, the Defendant was clean and dressed in t-shirt and blue jeans. However, James testified that the Defendant " never stopped" talking while he was there and that he would go from " one subject to the next, but you don't know where something is starting and something is ending." James testified that he thought the Defendant was " not on his medication" and " [o]ut of touch with reality." After the Defendant left, James called some of the Defendant's relatives and told them about his behavior that night. Eventually, one of the Defendant's relatives called the Lewisburg Police Department (LPD) to request a " welfare check" on the Defendant.

         Steve Sanders testified that on April 7, 2012, he was a Corporal in the LPD and received a dispatch to perform a welfare check on the Defendant around 10:00 p.m. Cpl. Sanders testified that he was told the Defendant " had reportedly made threats to harm or kill his psychiatrist." When Cpl. Sanders arrived at the Defendant's house, he was able to see into the house through the front windows. Cpl. Sanders saw that the lights were on inside the house, but he did not see anyone inside. Cpl. Sanders also did not hear any noise while he approached the house. When he knocked on the front door, Cpl. Sanders saw the Defendant walking down a hallway with a pair of keys in his hand. The Defendant was the only person Cpl. Sanders saw in the house.

         Cpl. Sanders testified that when the Defendant answered the door, he was wearing a dress shirt tucked into khaki pants. Cpl. Sanders further testified that the Defendant was " groomed" and that he did not see any blood on the Defendant or his clothes. Cpl. Sanders also testified that he did not see any blood inside the Defendant's house. Cpl. Sanders told the Defendant why he was there and asked the Defendant if he " had harmed anybody." The Defendant responded, " No." Cpl. Sanders then asked the Defendant if " he had harmed himself or had any thoughts of harming himself." The Defendant again responded, " No." Finally, Cpl. Sanders asked the Defendant if " he had any intentions of harming anybody" or if he had made any threats. The Defendant said, " [N]o, he was just sitting in his chair trying to relax." Cpl. Sanders testified that the Defendant answered his questions without hesitation and made eye contact with him. Cpl. Sanders testified that he was satisfied with the Defendant's answers and concluded the welfare check.

         At approximately 1:30 a.m. on April 8, 2012, the Defendant went to the Lewisburg Walmart. Surveillance video from the store was played for the jury during the trial. The Defendant drove a white pickup truck and parked in the back of the parking lot. The Defendant was wearing a white t-shirt and black jeans. The Defendant waited in the checkout line and purchased sponges, two mops, and bleach. The Defendant then walked back to his truck and drove away. There was nothing odd or unusual about the Defendant's behavior on the Walmart surveillance video.

         Around 11:00 a.m. that morning, Ms. Coward, along with her husband and her son, went to their church for an Easter service. When they arrived, the Defendant was there, but the victim was not. Ms. Coward testified that this was unusual because the victim was " a pretty frequent attender" of the church. Ms. Coward sat down next to the Defendant and asked him about the victim. The Defendant told Ms. Coward that she was " at home, sick." The Defendant then said, " Oh, yeah, we won't

Page 180

be having Easter." Ms. Coward testified that the Defendant was dressed " appropriately for church" wearing brown slacks, a dress shirt, and a tie. Ms. Coward also testified that the Defendant slept through most of the service. When the service was over, the Defendant " left really quick." Ms. Coward testified that she thought this was odd because the Defendant and the victim would typically linger after church to speak to their friends.

         After church, Ms. Coward tried calling the victim's home and cell phones, but the victim did not answer. Ms. Coward, her husband, and her son then went to the victim's house. The Defendant was already there when they arrived, and the victim's car was parked in the garage. Ms. Coward went inside the house and went through the house looking for the victim. When Ms. Coward asked the Defendant where the victim was, he said she was at a neighbor's house. Ms. Coward saw the victim's purse and cigarettes on the kitchen counter. Ms. Coward testified that this was unusual because the victim " always had those items with her." As she went through the house, Ms. Coward noticed in the master bedroom that only one side of the bed appeared to have been slept in and that the sheets were missing from the bed in the guest bedroom.

         Ms. Coward's husband, Jon Coward, testified that after Ms. Coward had gone through the house, the Defendant asked him if he would " ride . . . around the neighborhood to look for" the victim. Mr. Coward testified that he and the Defendant took the Defendant's truck and drove around the neighborhood for ten to fifteen minutes with the windows down while the Defendant " call[ed] her name out." Unable to find the victim, they returned to the victim's house. Ms. Coward testified that they decided to go out to eat lunch. The Defendant wrote a note for the victim stating where they were going and asking her to call them.

         Ms. Coward testified that the Defendant slept while they drove to lunch and that he did not eat very much at the restaurant. Mr. Coward testified that during lunch, the Defendant said that the TBI and his daughter were " trying to kill" him and that he " needed to kill [his daughter] before she had him killed." Ms. Coward asked the Defendant if he wanted to bring some food back for the victim and he said no. Ms. Coward testified that the Defendant slept during the drive back to the victim's house. Mr. and Ms. Coward testified that the Defendant's sleeping at church and in the car was not unusual because the Defendant " slept all the time."

         When they got back to the victim's house, the Defendant asked Ms. Coward to " call the TBI." Ms. Coward told the Defendant that she could not because it was Sunday. The Defendant then told Ms. Coward he would give her $1,000 if she would write a statement to the TBI for him. Ms. Coward testified that she could not recall what she wrote down for the Defendant. As this was happening, Mr. Coward went to the kitchen sink to wash his hands. At the sink, Mr. Coward noticed " a fine mist" of blood spatter on the kitchen counter. As he looked closer he saw, " it was on the curtains, the window, [and] the side of the refrigerator." Mr. Coward showed the blood to Ms. Coward, and she called Ms. Gooch.

         Ms. Gooch testified that Ms. Coward was " frantic" when she called and told her about the blood in the victim's kitchen. Ms. Gooch went immediately to the victim's house. Ms. Gooch testified that she saw blood spattered " on the curtains, the window[,] . . . [t]he side paneling of the cabinet next to the sink, and the cabinets up underneath the kitchen sink." Ms. Gooch " went through the house hollering

Page 181

for" the victim. Ms. Gooch then asked the Defendant where the victim was and the Defendant " just looked at [her] and shook his head . . . [a]s if saying he didn't know." After going through the house, Ms. Gooch called the police and went outside.

         Ms. Gooch testified that there was a shed behind the victim's house where the Defendant and the victim kept yard tools and other items. Ms. Gooch further testified that she had a key to the shed because she would do lawn work for the victim and the Defendant. When Ms. Gooch went to open the shed, she found that the padlock on the door had been changed and that her key no longer worked. Ms. Gooch also noticed that there was a towel hung by duct tape covering the shed's only window. Ms. Gooch testified that she went back inside the house and asked the Defendant where the keys to the shed were but that he did not answer.

         Corporals John Christmas and Tracy Teal of the LPD were the first officers to arrive at the victim's house on April 8, 2012. Cpl. Christmas testified that they arrived around 3:30 p.m. Ms. Coward, the Defendant, and Mr. Coward were in the driveway while Ms. Gooch was by the shed. After speaking to Ms. and Mr. Coward, Cpl. Christmas asked the Defendant if he knew where the victim was. The Defendant responded that he did not know where the victim was and " that he hoped that [the officers] could find her because they had sure had some good times together." Cpl. Teal asked the Defendant if they could enter the house and the Defendant responded, " Sure, come on in."

         Cpl. Teal testified that in the kitchen he saw " a few knives in the sink" and " blood spatter on the kitchen cabinets, curtains, and windows." Cpl. Teal asked the Defendant if he had " checked with the local emergency rooms," and the Defendant said that he had not. Cpl. Teal stepped outside and called the local hospitals to see if the victim had been admitted at either of them. While Cpl. Teal did this, Ms. Gooch asked Cpl. Christmas to check the shed. Cpl. Christmas asked the Defendant where the keys to the shed were. The Defendant told Cpl. Christmas that the keys were " in a closet in an office area of the house." Cpl. Christmas testified that he went with the Defendant to get the keys and that the Defendant said they were " in a pair of shorts in the closet on a shelf."

         At the same time, Cpl. Teal learned that the victim was not at either of the local emergency rooms. Cpl. Teal then " asked everybody to vacate the house." When Cpl. Teal did this, Cpl. Christmas told the Defendant not to " worry about the keys" and to exit the house. The victim's family was upset and started " making accusations" about the Defendant. Cpl. Teal asked the Defendant to sit in the back seat of the patrol car, and the Defendant complied. The Defendant was not handcuffed, and Cpl. Teal rolled the window down so the Defendant could get out of the car if he wanted to. Cpl. Teal told the Defendant that he did not want the Defendant to feel like he was " being incarcerated." Video from the patrol car was played at trial. In the video, the Defendant sat calmly in the backseat, occasionally blinking his eyes and looking around.

         Cpl. Christmas then asked the Defendant to step out of the patrol car so he could ask him some questions about the victim. The Defendant was able to give biographical information about himself, the victim, and their families. The Defendant told Cpl. Christmas that he last saw the victim at 9:40 a.m. that morning and that she was still in bed when he left for church. The Defendant said that the victim complained she had a stomach virus but that she was planning on having Easter dinner at 2:00 p.m. When asked if he

Page 182

and the victim had argued recently, the Defendant responded that they had the night before. The Defendant said, " Well, she'd been running through the house chasing me some and using psychology on me." Cpl. Christmas asked the Defendant what he meant, and the Defendant responded, " Trying to mix my thoughts up. Going round from room to room. She'd do that sometimes and sometimes she'll sit down." The Defendant explained that they had been in an argument " concerning that" in the last week.

         Cpl. Christmas asked the Defendant if there had ever been a report of domestic violence at the house, and the Defendant admitted that he had " an assault charge on domestic violence" the previous year but said they were only " arguing." Cpl. Teal then asked the Defendant if they could search the shed. The Defendant said they could, and Cpl. Teal asked where the keys were. The Defendant told Cpl. Teal that the keys were in the office closet. Then the Defendant said, " You all might as well go ahead and handcuff me" and put his hands behind his back. Cpl. Teal asked, " Why's that, is [the victim] in there," and the Defendant responded, " She's in there, go ahead." Cpl. Teal asked, " What's wrong with her," and the Defendant responded, " She tried to kill me using psychology and reverse psychology." The Defendant was asked again what was wrong with the victim, and he responded, " She works for the TBI." Cpl. Christmas asked the Defendant, " How long [had] she been in there," and the Defendant responded, " A couple of days."

         At that point, Cpl. Teal stopped the Defendant and told him not to say anything else until he had been read his rights. The Defendant was handcuffed and placed in the backseat of the patrol car. The Defendant was asked again where the keys to the shed were, and he told the officers that they were in the pocket of a pair of shorts in his office closet. Cpl. Christmas testified that the Defendant seemed to understand all of his questions, cooperated with him, answered his questions appropriately, and made eye contact when speaking to him. Cpl. Christmas went back into the house and retrieved the keys to the shed. Cpl. Christmas testified that the keys were where the Defendant said they would be.

         While Cpl. Christmas was getting the keys, the Defendant said to Cpl. Teal, " Now, my wife and me was in bed having sex and I can tell you the whole thing." Cpl. Teal told the Defendant not to say anything until a detective could speak to him. Cpls. Christmas and Teal then unlocked the shed and saw the victim's body lying " on the floor." Her body was " partially clothed" and wrapped " in a blanket or comforter" bound by " rope or twine." The body was " face up," and " [t]here was discoloration" of the body. Cpl. Christmas also testified that " [t]here was blood [and] [a]pparent stab wounds." The Defendant was then transported to the local police station by LPD Officer Kevin Clark. Officer Clark testified that while he was with the Defendant, there was nothing " peculiar or bizarre" about the Defendant's behavior.

         Detective Sergeant David Henley of the LPD testified that he arrived at the victim's house shortly after the Defendant had been taken to the police station. Det. Henley testified that he searched the house as well as the shed and collected several pieces of evidence. No identifiable finger prints were found on any of the items collected by Det. Henley. Det. Henley observed and photographed blood spatter, a pattern of blood " usually from some type of injury," in the kitchen. Det. Henley testified that there was blood spatter on the refrigerator, the stove, the back

Page 183

splash behind the stove, the dishwasher, the kitchen cabinets, the window frame and curtain, the door leading from the kitchen to the garage, the door frame " on the floor of the garage," and " the door casing that led to the living room." Det. Henley also found " a small blood droplet" on " the metal security door" leading to the back patio.

         In the kitchen sink, Det. Henley found " a large kitchen knife submerged in water" along with some other dishes. Subsequent forensic analysis by the TBI revealed the presence of blood on the knife, but the blood did not belong to either the Defendant or the victim. Det. Henley testified that he found a plate of food on the dinning room table and that he thought it was " odd . . . to find a meal on the table" after seeing all the blood in the kitchen. Det. Henley found a " black plastic trash bag" in the closet of a bedroom used as an office. Inside the trash bag was a " blood-soaked towel, a mop head[,] . . . some sponges," and " other pieces of trash and some empty water bottles." Det. Henley testified that everything in the bag was " [v]ery wet." Subsequent forensic analysis by the TBI revealed the presence of blood on the towel, mop head, five wash cloths, and a Walmart bag found in the garbage bag. The Walmart bag and two of the wash cloths tested positive for the victim's DNA.

         Det. Henley found a pair of black jeans and a gray t-shirt " on the office chair in the office." In the bathroom, Det. Henley found red stains on the faucet handles of the sink. Subsequent forensic analysis by the TBI revealed that the handle labeled " hot" had the victim's blood on it. In the guest bedroom, Det. Henley found that there were " no comforters, no quilts, no sheets" on the bed. Det. Henley also found in the guest bedroom a spinning wheel with a " green fiber rope" on it. In the living room, Det. Henley found a Walmart receipt for the purchase of cleaning supplies. Det. Henley testified that he found a wet towel on the floor of the laundry room and " a pair of black jeans, t-shirt, and some other clothing" in the dryer. Det. Henley also observed that the washing machine appeared to have been recently used.

         In the garage, Det. Henley found a pair of " rubber boots on top of [a] gun cabinet." Det. Henley testified that the boots were " very clean" and did not appear to have " been sitting on top of the gun cabinet for a long time." Det. Henley also noted that the kitchen floor was clean and that there was no blood on it. Det. Henley testified that the concrete steps leading from the door to the back patio were " exceptionally clean." Det. Henley further testified that the grass from the patio to the door of the shed " was bent towards . . . the shed, kind of like a trail." Det. Henley noted that the bricks used as steps to the door of the shed appeared to have been cleaned and that the lock on the shed looked new.

         Inside the shed, the victim's body was lying near the door of the shed with the head pointing toward the door. The victim's body " was wrapped in bedding" that was tied " to the body" at the ankles and knees " with what appeared to be the same green fiber rope" that was found in the guest bedroom. The victim's shirt was " rolled up . . . [t]oward her shoulders," suggesting to Det. Henley that her body was " drug feet first" from the back patio to the shed. Det. Henley testified that he also found " a towel and a pillow case . . . hung above the window" inside the shed. The victim's body was removed from the shed and taken to the medical examiner for an autopsy.

         Doctor Adele Lewis, an expert in forensic pathology, testified that she performed an autopsy on the victim's body. Dr. Lewis opined that the victim's cause of death

Page 184

was " multiple sharp and blunt force injuries." Dr. Lewis testified that the victim suffered " multiple blunt force injuries to her head." According to Dr. Lewis, there was " a large area of bruising over the left side" of the victim's head, two cuts over her left eyebrow, and " bleeding into her left eye." On the right side of the victim's head there were " multiple line-shaped bruises." Dr. Lewis opined that these injuries were " consistent with having been struck in the head . . . with a fist."

         Dr. Lewis testified that the victim also suffered " numerous sharp force injuries to her body." There were a total of fifty-two stab wounds to the victim's torso over her chest, abdomen, hips, and back. Dr. Lewis testified that some of these stab wounds were superficial while others were significant and caused injuries to the victim's lungs, intestines, right kidney, pancreas, and liver. The victim also suffered stab wounds to her left arm, left wrist, and right wrist. Dr. Lewis testified that the victim further suffered bruises and scrapes to her right and left arms. Dr. Lewis opined that the injuries to the victims arms and hands were consistent with having been " defensive-type wound[s]." The victim also had an injury to her back consistent with her body having been dragged after death.

         While Det. Henley searched the victim's house, LPD Detective Scott Braden interviewed the Defendant at the police station. Det. Braden's initial interview with the Defendant was recorded and played for the jury at trial. Det. Braden advised the Defendant of his constitutional rights and reviewed a waiver form with the Defendant. The Defendant waived his rights and signed the waiver form. Det. Braden asked the Defendant if he was on any medication. The Defendant responded that he took lithium " for bipolar" and that he had taken some at 8:00 a.m. that day. The Defendant was able to answer clearly and concisely biographical questions about himself, the victim, his family, and her family.

         Det. Braden asked the Defendant if he knew why he had been arrested. The Defendant responded by telling Det. Braden about an incident that occurred the previous May when he had been admitted to a hospital for psychiatric treatment because the victim had " lied" and said his " medicine was off." Det. Braden then asked the Defendant about what happened with the victim. The Defendant told Det. Braden that the victim was an assassin working with the TBI as part of a conspiracy to kill him.

         The Defendant stated that everything began when he met two or three TBI agents at a local bar and agreed to work as an informant. However, a few weeks later, one of the TBI agents " started stroking [his] penis" and told him " that's part of law enforcement." The Defendant claimed that he then refused to help the agents any more and that they threatened that they were " sending somebody after" him to kill him. The Defendant also claimed that he was told by several people that he was going to be killed because he was " too smart to be in law enforcement."

         The Defendant told Det. Braden that he met the victim at his church and that he knew she was part of the TBI conspiracy to kill him. The Defendant explained as follows:

I worked with her so hard because I was told that she was trained better than anybody else in the TBI and they was going to send her after me. And I kept that thought to myself, and I thought that if her and me got together that we'd have the best sex in the world. And as long as she wouldn't doing them mind games we did. It was something else.

Page 185

          The Defendant claimed that the victim " trained" others " in law enforcement," including his ex-girlfriend, Patsy McFarland. The Defendant told Det. Braden that the victim had told him she was retired from " law enforcement," but " she'd [still] mess with" him.

         The Defendant explained to Det. Braden how the victim would " mess with [his] head" :

She would start messing with my head. She's been doing this for awhile. We'd have sex two or three nights a week then she wouldn't let me have none for two or three nights, just messing with my head. And some nights, when I be really tired, she would try to get me to think about the white house with a green valley and I'd tell her, " Don't do that, Kay. I might quit breathing." That's what the TBI uses with their assassins to try to kill somebody. If you don't close your eyes, fast, and blink with your left eye, it will kill you 'cause your heart will slow down. And she tried that with me for hours.
The Defendant explained further how the victim would " mess with [his] head" :
[The victim would] start trying to mess with my head, confuse me on my thoughts. Start yelling, walking up and down the hall. Sometimes she'd get knives and put them in her bed, lay down with them in bed. Walk up to me with a knife in her hand, look at me, and I got to where I'd look her right in the eyes . . . I reckoned she [was] just playing with me, but I watched her.

         When asked how long and how often the victim had " mess[ed] with [his] head," the Defendant stated that it had occurred throughout his relationship with the victim. The Defendant explained further,

Sometimes she would start in two or three nights of being with me in the bedroom . . . I begged her to stop, she went wild and crazy. The way we had sex, it was worth more to me than any amount of money. We could talk thirty or forty minutes about something and still be having sex. That's how she'd erase your mind. I had to watch her when she started that stuff. Sometimes I had to . . . wink right quick.

         The Defendant also claimed that the victim's " mind control" was so strong she " could look at your d--k and make it dance up and down" and that he was scared of her power.

         The Defendant told Det. Braden that the victim and his ex-girlfriend, Ms. McFarland, " worked together" and that Ms. McFarland would " come running" if the victim told her to. The Defendant explained that when he was arrested the previous May, he was afraid that the victim and Ms. McFarland were " going to gang up" on him. The Defendant stated to Det. Braden,

Kay told me the night I was arrested . . . " It's all over for you now, Pat is on the way." And knowing what Pat can do in psychology and slowing your heart down and what Kay could do, I was pacing the floor, sweating, wanting to jump out the window, wanting to just run like crazy down the street. Next thing I know, I couldn't even hardly talk. I don't know why they do me like that.

         Despite this, the Defendant stated that he " wanted to keep [the victim] because she was the best lover [he] ever had" and because he was " a Christian [and] . . . didn't want to go to Hell for adultery." The Defendant told Det. Braden that the victim was very smart and knew a lot about the " business world" and " real estate" because her parents were millionaires. The Defendant believed that if he and the victim could join together, they

Page 186

could make millions of dollars in " real estate" and rental properties. The Defendant stated that he repeatedly told the victim that " [r]egardless [of] what the TBI [had] paid [her] to kill [him], [she] could have more money with [him]." The Defendant told Det. Braden that telling the victim this would cause her to stop " mess[ing] with [his] head" for " two or three days and then [she would] start right back doing it."

         The Defendant told Det. Braden that, before the murder, he was driving with the victim when " she got [him] so relaxed [he was] trying to keep from falling out of the seat." The victim asked him to have sex, and he said he could not because he would die. Then the victim said she was " gonna give [him] a blowjob" that night, and he knew " she was trying to set [him] up." The Defendant told Det. Braden that despite his concerns he got the victim " to talk to [him], to save [his] life" and that he liked " her that way, but she [was not] always that way."

         The Defendant said that on Thursday, April 5, he got off from work early and went home to spend time with the victim. The Defendant told Det. Braden that they " laughed and cut up and talked and had a good time." The Defendant said that he " had a lot of sex" with the victim on Thursday night and that her " eyes [were] glowing and [he] thought [he had] gotten through to her." The Defendant said that he and the victim also " had a great time" on Friday and Saturday. The Defendant told Det. Braden that he was unsure if the murder happened on Friday or Saturday because the victim " was messing with [his] head so much [he could] hardly remember what day it [was]."

         The Defendant told Det. Braden that things changed when he and the victim were interrupted during sex by a knock on the door. The Defendant stated that Ms. Gooch and her daughter came into the house and were " laughing, cutting up, and talking" even though he told the victim to tell them not to. After they left, the victim got " in one of her moods again, walking up and down the hallway, looking back and forth, and twisting around right quick and fussing at" him. The Defendant said that the victim was trying to get " in [his] head using that psychology and reverse psychology and strategy." The Defendant explained that she was " trying to mess [him] up, just left and right, left and right."

         Det. Braden asked the Defendant what he meant by " reverse psychology" and the Defendant responded,

When you stick it to one word and you got your mind on it, she'll reverse to another word and by the time you get it here she'll reverse it to another one. Just back and forth, back and forth, different words. And then she'll start with the strategy and then she'll start back with the psychology.

         The Defendant said that he was naked and that the victim " was on the floor when she started it," and then she " got to just stomping." The Defendant continued, " Then she spins around and starts it, then points her finger at me, and then raises her head back and yells at me and then she won't let up." The Defendant said that the victim " start[ed] talking that crazy talk." ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.