Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
September 9, 2014.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
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.
W. Bussart, Lewisburg, Tennessee (at trial and on appeal);
and Jason Charles Davis, Lewisburg, Tennessee (at trial), for
the appellant, Kenneth Paul Colvett.
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
KELLY THOMAS, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ.,
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
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. Following our review, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
Evidence Regarding the Offense
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.
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.
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.
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.
victim's other daughter, Rhonda Gooch, testified at trial
that she was not as
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.
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.
Colvett 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.
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
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
daughter, his son-in-law, and " some other people"
to his house to " show them what he had done."
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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."
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
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
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."
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
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."