Angel Bumpass was thirteen years old when she participated in a murder that left a man dead. According to court documents the victim, a sixty eight year old man Franklin Bonner was tied up and beaten to death. The crime went unsolved for a decade. Angel Bumpass who was a five foot eighty pound eighth grade student at the time of the crime would ultimately be convicted of the murder as her fingerprint was found on the tape that bound the victim. Mallory Vaughn who confessed to a cellmate that he murdered Franklin Bonner and would later state never knew Angel Bumpass was found not guilty of the murder. Angel Bumpass the alleged teen killer would be sentenced to serve sixty years in prison
A Criminal Court jury on Thursday night ruled Angel Bumpass guilty of a murder that happened in 2009 when she was 13 years old.
The verdict in the Cold Case for her was guilty of first-degree felony murder and guilty of attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery.
Her arrest came after a new detective on the case decided to have the fingerprints once again checked from duct tape that was used to tie up the victim. Two of the prints came back to Angel Bumpass.
The jury found that Mallory Vaughn was not guilty, though Federal inmate Nicholas Cheatom told the jury that Vaughn had confessed to him that he killed 68-year-old Franklin Bonner.
Judge Tom Greenholz set the sentencing date for Ms. Bumpass for Nov. 21 at 1:30 p.m.
Cheatom said Vaughn told him he was going to “put a lick on someone named the lottery man.” Cheatom, who was in federal prison when he initially told investigators this information, said he had picked up Vaughn from a hotel when the defendant allegedly spoke about the murder.
“He told me he messed up,” said Cheatom,“ (he said) he duct-taped someone up like a mummy, and it went wrong.” The witness told the court Vaughn would occasionally cut his grass or do chores around his house for some extra money.
Defense attorney Kevin Loper grilled the witness, focusing on the way Cheatom’s story changed from one interview to the next. At one point, Cheatom said he did not know about the murder until investigator Karl Fields told him about it. Another time, the witness said he learned about the murder from the television news the next day. And up until a later interview, a female accomplice was not mentioned by the witness.
The defense also pointed out that the testimony he gave would lessen Cheatom’s sentence in Federal Court. He is currently serving a sentence for a bank robbery. Cheatom accused the defense of omitting several key statements, and at times even going as far as to say the defense was making up things.
“Are you calling me a liar?” asked attorney Loper.
“Yes, I am,” replied Cheatom.
One point of contention occurred when attorney Loper repeatedly asked Cheatom about whether or not he knew someone named Bumpass. Cheatom said he did, and attorney Loper said the transcript showed that in an earlier interview, he said he did not. As the prosecuting attorney pointed out, in the transcript, Cheatom was answering the question of whether or not he had a relative named Bumpass.
After the state rested its case, both Vaughn and Ms. Bumpass declined to testify. TBI agent Jennifer Shipman said the organization did not test a hair follicle found on the tape. The defense attorney argued it may have belonged to someone other than Angel Bumpass, and possibly to someone not identified who had fingerprints on the tape as well. In Wednesday’s testimony, it came to light that there were nine unidentified fingerprints on the tape aside from just Angel Bumpass’.
Her grandfather said Ms. Bumpass was a very creative child, and enjoyed arts and crafts. He said she would use duct tape in certain crafts, and that he would then bring his tools and equipment to Franklin Bonner’s house when he would work on things at that residence. The grandfather said he did not recall his granddaughter ever going over to Mr. Bonner’s house though.
A private investigator produced documents showing Ms. Bumpass had been counted present at school on that day. However, she was only in school until early afternoon, and he could not verify how reliable those documents were.
After a lunch break and a lengthy set of jury instructions, the defense and prosecution gave their closing arguments.
Prosecutor Cameron Williams focused on the evidence found at the scene, especially Angel Bumpass’ fingerprints. He also asked the jury to consider Cheatom’s testimony, saying that it was logical that a criminal such as Vaughn would confide in a fellow criminal like Cheatom.
“There is no justification for what these two individuals did to Franklin Bonner. They tied him up in his kitchen, cut off his air supply, and let him suffocate,” said prosecutor Williams, “You have an awesome opportunity to make sure there is closure for the Bonner family.”
Vaughn’s attorney, Loper, refuted this assertion, and questioned the credibility of the prosecution’s star witness. At one point, a very emotional Loper pled with the jury to consider the facts of the case and find his client innocent of murder.
“This case is about lies, assumptions, and a blatant disregard for the facts,” he said. “I don’t know why they would put an innocent man in prison for life.”
Bumpass’ attorney, Andrea Hayduk, had a similar message for the jury. She focused on the complete absence of evidence of Ms. Bumpass and Vaughn ever knowing each other. No phone calls, texts, emails, or pictures were found that could link the two. Attorney Hayduck also repeatedly reminded the jury of Ms. Bumpass’ age. At the time of the 2009 slaying, Angel Bumpass was only 13 years old.
“Convicting a 13-year-old girl of murder is not perpetuating the wheels of justice,” said the attorney, while also saying that a female accomplice, not even specified to be Ms. Bumpass, was not mentioned by Cheatom until years after the fact.
Joseph Wielzen was seventeen years old when he brutally murdered Kelsey Burnette in Tennessee. According to court documents Joseph Wielzen would attack Kelsey Burnette with a baseball bat before sexually assaulting and murdering the eighteen year old woman. This teen killer would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Supervision Status: INCARCERATED Assigned Location: SOUTHCENTRAL CORRECTIONAL CENTER Combined Sentence(s) Length: LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE Supervision/Custody Level: MEDIUM Sentence Begin Date: 11/27/2019
Joseph Wielzen More News
Joseph Wielzen was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole Thursday after being convicted of first degree murder, first degree premeditated murder and aggravated rape.
The charges stem from the 2017 murder of Etowah teen Kelsey Burnette and Wielzen was found guilty of that murder on Wednesday.
Tenth Judicial District Attorney Steve Crump led the opening statement for the prosecution by informing the jury of what they should expect to see during the sentencing.
“You will hear what we call victim impact proof,” said Crump. “You will hear from the mother and father of Kelsey Burnette, who will tell you how their lives have changed since she died.”
Crump asked the jury for the maximum penalty against Wielzen.
“At the end of the day we will come back and ask you to impose the only sentence that we believe … that Joseph Wielzen should receive — a life sentence without the possibility of ever creating another Kelsey,” said Crump.
Defense Attorney William Brown stood before the jury reminding them to make a fair and impartial judgement.
“The law requires you to balance, to think,” said Brown.
The defense attorney noted that there were several witnesses ready to speak to Wielzen’s character.
“You will hear testimony from his father and his grandmother about what he was really like,” said Brown. “You will hear from this DCS (Department of Children’s Services) counselor who helped (Wielzen).”
Brown ended his opening statement by talking about Wielzen’s life before and after June 30 to July 1, 2017 as being “not worthy of being sentenced for life without parole”
“You have to weigh it,” said Brown. “This young man’s life is going to be thrown away forever with no ability to rebuild himself.”
Virginia Burnette, the mother of the victim, was called to the stand and discussed her daughter and how things have changed since her death.
“She was a provider for everybody that came across her,” said Burnette. “It feels like an elephant is sitting on your chest every day.”
David Burnette, the victim’s father, stated the loss of their daughter had an impact on their marriage.
The defense then took its turn, calling Harry Wielzen, the defendant’s father, to the stand.
He spoke about the difficulties his son faced throughout his childhood
He also told the jury that he never witnessed his son lay a hand on another woman and how he was “always respectful to women.”
The next witness was Donna Hitchcock, the defendant’s grandmother, who spoke about how Wielzen’s mother would “pop in and out” of the family to ask for money.
After the defense rested, the state called on the defendant’s ex-girlfriend, who claimed that she was 14 years old when she and Wielzen first started dating and that he would allegedly become “hypersexual” when he was drunk and “if he wanted something he would do whatever he could to get it.”
Crump then opened the closing arguments by referencing back to the expert witnesses.
“During the trial you heard the testimony of Dr. (Darinka) Mileusnic and Dr. (Murray) Marks. They described in detail the damage that was done by Mr. Wielzen when he beat Kelsey Burnette to death,” said Crump. “That testimony leads you … that this murder was seriously heinous, vicious and cruel. I am going to ask you to return a verdict of life without the possibility of parole.”
Brown then ended his argument by asking the jury to give Wielzen a second chance.
“When we began this trial, Mr. Wielzen’s defense never suggested that this was not a horrible murder,” said Brown. “To do that would be to ignore all of the evidence and all of the horribleness described.”
He argued that Wielzen’s troubled past was enough to allow him that second chance.
“In my mind, he was let down,” said Brown. “He was let down by everybody and everything.”
Crump, however, pointed back to the ending of Burnette’s life.
I stand here for Kelsey Burnette because she can’t, thanks to (Wielzen),” said Crump.
He pointed toward the defendant as he continued to make his argument.
“We started this with a young man’s life will be thrown away,” said Crump. “It wasn’t a young man’s life thrown away, it was a young woman whose life (Wielzen) threw away. He raped and beat to death an 18 year old woman. Life without parole is the only just sentence in this case.”
Howard Willis was sentenced to death by the State of Tennessee for the murders of a teenage married couple. According to court documents the bodies of Adam Chrismer, 17, and Samantha Leming Chrismer, 16 were found dismembered. Howard Willis would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to death.
New photographs of the victims, not previously shown by the prosecution, were introduced during the sentencing phase of the Howard Hawk Willis trial.
Already found guilty on the three counts of first degree and felony murder, Willis now faces the death penalty as one option for his punishment. The autopsy photos were so gruesome that one juror became physically ill, necessitating Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood to call for a recess until the jury, as a whole, felt well enough to continue.
Assistant District Attorney Dennis Brooks later apologized for the necessity of having to show the photographs.
District Attorney Tony Clark told the jury that, “Howard Hawk Willis made a decision about human life, we are now asking you to make a decision concerning the life of another human being.” He continued, “Mr. Willis chose death, we are asking you to do the same.”
Willis could face the death penalty, life without parole or life in prison.
ADA Brooks presented the aggravating factors for the victims. These are required to support the request of the death penalty. In the case of Adam Chrismer, the state put forth that the defendant knowingly mutilated the body of the victim after death.
In the case of Samantha Leming Chrismer, the state assigned the following aggravated factors: (1) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death; (2) the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with or preventing the lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another; (3) The murder was knowingly committed while the defendant had a substantial role in committing the first-degree murder of Adam Chrismer; and, (4) The murder was knowingly committed by the defendant while the defendant was knowingly committing the kidnapping of Samantha Chrismer.
Retaining the same impassive demeanor, Willis continued to show no emotion at all following the jury making its verdict known. He either stared straight ahead or was in conference with his “elbow counsel,” Attorney Jim Bowman. When it came time for him to make his own statement, Willis said, “I waive my statement, your Honor.”
Earlier, the mothers of the two teenagers took the stand to speak to the jury regarding the state of their lives following the deaths of their children. Both are under the care of physicians and on medication to help them deal with the depression and anxiety they have felt since learning the news that their youngest had been found murdered. Both had been listed as missing prior to their bodies being found in Johnson City.
Teresa Chrismer referred to her son Adam as “my baby,” saying that his death had left her unable to trust anyone or to hold down a job. She said used to be a wordsmith and write poetry; however, “I can no longer find the words.”
Samantha’s mother, Patty Leming, went to the stand clutching a handkerchief as family members could be heard sniffling loudly in the gallery. She took the witness stand with a somber and extremely sad expression on her face, as she turned to speak to the jurors.
Her sadness was heard in her voice as she described how family members have had to keep check on her for fear of her taking her own life. “My life has been changed forever,” she said, “(Samantha) was my only daughter.”
“She wanted to be a vet or a lawyer, but now we’ll never know,” she sobbed, breaking into tears. As she left the stand, more than half of the jurors were openly crying themselves.
After being thoroughly briefed by Judge Blackwood regarding his right to submit mitigating circumstances in open court, Willis declined to do so, saying, “I’ll let the record speak for itself, your Honor.” The now-convicted murderer did, however, submit several mitigating factors to the jury in writing.
The first was First Judicial Circuit District Attorney Tony Clark who took immediate exception with, asking the judge if the prosecution would the opportunity would have the opportunity to rebut those written circumstances.
The fact that Willis had submitted the written document caused the court to be held in further recess as the charge to the jury concerning the death penalty had to be re-written to include the new information from the defendant.
Willis had submitted that he had no prior criminal activity in his report to the jury when, in fact, he had been arrested and served time in the state of New York on a drug-related charge.
The jury heard their charge and the explanation of the sentences in play and exited through the door they had routinely used all week. This time, however, they were walking through it with a man’s life in their hands.
Heck Tran was sentenced to death by the State of Tennessee for a triple murder during a robbery. According to court documents Heck Tran would enter a restaurant where he worked with the intention of robbing it. Heck Tran would shoot and kill Arthur Lee, 24; his grandmother, Kai Ying Chuey, 70; and Lee’s sister-in-law, Man Yin Huang “Amy” Lee, 23. Heck Tran would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to death
On the afternoon of October 20, 1987, Arthur Lee, Amy Lee, and Kai Yin Chuey were found dead in the Jade East Restaurant in Memphis. The restaurant had not yet opened for business that day, and the victims had apparently been inside making preparations for the evening. Jewelry with a wholesale value of $25,000 had been taken from the restaurant. The State’s critical proof included: a statement taken from the Defendant in which he admitted his involvement in the crimes; Defendant’s fingerprint on one of the jewelry cases taken during the robbery; and the eyewitness identification of the Defendant by a survivor of the robbery.
The victims were all related and worked in the restaurant, which had been owned and operated by the Lee family for years. The family had emigrated from China. Arthur Lee, 24, managed the restaurant for his father, the owner. Amy Lee, 24, was married to Arthur’s brother, Chester Lee. Kai Yin Chuey, 74, was Arthur’s maternal grandmother. Ging Sam Lee, 75, Arthur’s paternal grandmother, survived the robbery. She had been beaten and knocked unconscious; and two diamond rings, a necklace and a watch were taken from her.
The Defendant, Heck Van Tran, was born on November 8, 1966. His mother was Vietnamese; and his father, an American serviceman, died in Vietnam in 1968. The Defendant started school when he was six years old but stopped when Saigon fell. In 1983 a Catholic relief agency resettled the Defendant and his mother in Memphis. The Defendant briefly attended school before dropping out in 1984.
After his arrest by the Houston, Texas, police, Defendant gave a statement in which he acknowledged his role in the robbery and murders. He stated that he had worked briefly at the Jade East Restaurant a month or two before the crimes and that Mr. Lee had fired him because “he didn’t like me” and “said I cooked too many egg rolls.” The Defendant implicated Hung Van Chung, Kong Chung Bounnam and Duc Phuoc Doan in the robbery. He stated that the four men entered the back door of the restaurant and he talked to Arthur Lee “for about ten minutes before there was any shooting.” The Defendant had a .22 revolver, Bounnam a .44, Chung a .22 and Doan a .25.
The Defendant described what happened after the group pulled out their guns:
Mr. Lee grabbed Nam’s [Bounnam’s] hand with the gun and elbowed him in the chest. Nam fell back and hit the old lady. The old lady fell on me and when she hit me it caused the gun to go off. I don’t know what I hit that time. Mr. Lee then kicked Hung . I heard Hung Chung shoot one or two times and then Mr. Lee tried to grab the gun and Hung Chung shoot him. While Mr. Lee was trying to get Hung [Chung’s] gun, I told him not to or I would have to hurt him. He turned and tried to get my gun and I shot him. He fell and was moving around and I shot him in the face somewhere. Then I walk through the door where they kept the money and gold. I looked up and saw the old lady roll over. I thought she had something in her hand. I shot her in the back of the head.
While the Defendant was in the office collecting the jewelry, he heard more shots. He stated that he did not know “who was shooting or what” or who had shot “the young girl,” Amy Lee. Upon leaving the office, the Defendant saw Bounnam holding Ging Sam Lee. The Defendant told Bounnam not to hurt her. Bounnam hit Mrs. Lee on the back of the head, and all the assailants left.
Outside the restaurant, the Defendant discovered that Bounnam had been shot in the left leg near the groin. Bounnam claimed the Defendant had shot him. The group fled in Bounnam’s Camaro to an acquaintance’s apartment. From there, the Defendant, Bounnam and Chung drove Chung’s car to Washington, D.C. Bounnam’s Camaro was left in Memphis. Doan remained in Tennessee.
From Washington, the trio drove to Houston, Texas. Once in Houston, the Defendant went to the Saigon Pool Hall and talked with a Vietnamese man about selling some gold. The man took the gold and returned in about ten minutes with $4,000.00. The Defendant paid the man $200 and divided the rest three ways. Later, Bounnam flew to North Carolina and Chung went to Dallas with a friend.
On April 28, 1988, almost six months after the robbery, the Defendant was arrested in Houston. At this time, he was advised of his Miranda rights. When asked if he knew why he was being arrested, he replied, “For a shooting in Memphis.” He was taken to the main police facility and later to a municipal court Judge who read Defendant the statutory Miranda warning required by the Texas Code. His written statement was taken May 2, 1988, after he had been advised of his rights a third time. On his return to Memphis the Defendant was fingerprinted. The print of his left ring finger matched a latent fingerprint found on one of the jewelry cases. A TBI firearms examiner testified that two .22 lead bullets, one recovered from Mrs. Chuey’s head, the other from Mr. Lee’s brain, could have been fired from the revolver used by the Defendant in the robbery. The two bullets were so mutilated and damaged, however, that the examiner could not positively state that they had been fired from that weapon.
Jerry Lee, Arthur Lee’s brother and grandson of Mrs. Chuey and Mrs. Lee, arrived at the restaurant after the robbery and triple murders. He testified that he ran a jewelry business out of the restaurant. On the day of the robbery uninsured jewelry with a wholesale value of about $25,000.00 was stolen from the restaurant office. At trial, Jerry Lee identified certain jewelry cases taken in the robbery, one of which had Defendant’s fingerprint on it. He identified the Defendant as a former cook who had worked in the restaurant for a week, approximately one month before the robbery. He stated that Defendant had no occasion to go inside the vault and touch any of the jewelry cases while employed at the restaurant.
Ging Sam Lee was 77 years old at the time of trial and had lived in the United States for thirty years. She was the only surviving eyewitness to the robbery-murders. She testified, through a translator, that three or four oriental men had robbed the restaurant and identified Heck Van Tran as one the robbers. She also identified Hung Van Chung as another of the men involved. She stated that Chung, while not an employee, had helped out at the restaurant. She was beaten and robbed. She heard gunfire but did not see anyone being shot. She was knocked unconscious; and, when she awoke, she saw a body lying in the restaurant.
One of the State’s witnesses testified that on October 20, 1987, he was driving his automobile into the parking lot of the Jade East Restaurant when he saw a blue 1970 Camaro leaving the parking lot. The Camaro was four to five feet away from him, and he identified Bounnam as the driver. He also noticed at least two passengers in the car.
Bounnam’s brother testified that at eight o’clock on the morning of the robbery his brother and the Defendant drove him to work in his brother’s blue Camaro. He further testified he had not seen his brother since that time.
Another State witness testified that he knew the Defendant, Bounnam, Doan and Chung. He stated that Bounnam owned a blue Camaro and further testified that on the day of the Jade East robbery, he saw jewelry boxes like those taken from the restaurant in the dumpster outside his apartment. Another witness testified he was at a friend’s apartment and saw the Defendant trying to get a bullet out of Bounnam’s leg. Chung and Doan were also present at the apartment.
During their investigation the police discovered small pieces of jewelry scattered on the floor of the restaurant and in the rear parking lot. They also collected six spent .22 caliber cartridges from the restaurant floor. One of the officers videotaped the entire inside and outside of the Jade East Restaurant. Another officer took photographs showing the location of the three bodies, and the exterior of the restaurant, and the parking lot.
The State’s final witness was Dr. O. C. Smith, an expert in the field of forensic pathology. He had performed autopsies on the three victims. He testified that Amy Lee died as a result of a contact gunshot wound to the head. He described a contact wound as one in which the muzzle of the weapon is up against the skin surface at the time it is fired. The bullet entered Amy Lee’s right forehead about a half inch below the top of her head and was recovered in the left back of the head after going through the brain. After being qualified as an expert in firearms and firearms identification, Dr. Smith gave his opinion that the recovered projectile was a .22 caliber bullet.
Dr. Smith testified that Kai Yin Chuey had bruises under the right collarbone, over the right chest and breast region, on the left upper arm, at the left elbow, and over the knees, all of which were made while she was alive. She died as a result of being shot twice: once through the jawbone and neck thereby severing her windpipe (this wound was six inches or less from the muzzle of the gun) and once through the back of the head through the brain (this was a contact wound).
Dr. Smith stated that Arthur Lee died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds. There were eight wound tracks on his body: to the back of the right hand, to the right chest, to the right side of the jaw, a grazing wound to the left side of the neck, a wound to the back left shoulder at the neck, a near wound to the right back, a wound to the back of the upper right arm and a contact gunshot wound to the right temple. He identified one of the recovered projectiles as being a .22 caliber bullet. He also testified that there was no way to determine the sequence in which these wounds had been inflicted.
The Defendant was indicted for felony (robbery) murder and premeditated murders of Kai Yin Chuey, Amy Lee and Arthur Lee and also for robbery with a deadly weapon of Ging Sam Lee. Based upon the above-described evidence, the jury found Heck Van Tran guilty on three counts of felony murder and fixed his punishment at death for each offense. The same two aggravating circumstances were found in all three cases: (1) the murder was especially cruel in that it involved depravity of mind; and (2) the Defendant committed “mass murder.” T.C.A. § 39-2-203(i)(5) and (12) (1982).
The Defendant was also convicted of robbery by use of a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to 30 years imprisonment as a standard of fender, Range I, to be served concurrently with the above sentences.
Dennis Suttles was sentenced to death by the State of Tennessee for the murder of his ex girlfriend. According to court documents Dennis Suttles angered over a recent breakup would chase down his ex girlfriend, Patricia Gail Rhodes, and proceeded to stab her to death. Dennis Suttles would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to death.
The proof introduced at the guilt phase of the trial showed that the defendant and the victim met and began dating in April of 1995. The relationship progressed, and in October 1995 the defendant asked the victim to marry him. The victim’s divorce was not final at that time, so the engagement was delayed. In December 1995, the defendant purchased a house, and the defendant, the victim, and her fifteen-year-old daughter, Christina, moved into the house together. At Christmas, the defendant gave the victim an engagement ring.
However, in February 1996, the victim moved out of the defendant’s house after the two argued. Around the time of this argument, the victim’s co-workers had noticed deep bruises on the victim’s neck that looked like fingerprints. In his testimony, the defendant admitted that during the argument he tried to take the engagement ring from the victim’s finger and broke the victim’s necklace.
The defendant was distraught at the breakup of the relationship. He repeatedly sought to convince the victim to return to him. He called her repeatedly at work, sometimes waited for her at work, left cards on the windshield of her car, and attempted to speak with her whenever he saw her in public.
The victim appeared afraid of the defendant and tried to avoid him. She did not speak with him on the telephone when he called, and the victim’s co-workers escorted her to her vehicle in the evening. In addition, the victim kept secret the location of her new residence and carried important personal papers, such as a deed to her burial plot, in her purse so that the papers could be easily located should something happen to her. The victim knew that in 1986, the defendant had pled guilty to one count of felonious assault with bodily injury and three counts of assault with intent to commit first degree murder. She also knew that these convictions arose out of an incident where the defendant attempted to force his estranged former wife and his three-year-old son to return home with him. When his former father-in-law intervened, the defendant shot him. The defendant also assaulted a police officer who tried to apprehend him during this episode. The victim knew the circumstances of the previous convictions because she had accompanied the defendant on his monthly visit to his parole office on October 3, 1995. The parole officer told the victim the circumstances of the offenses and advised her to call if “anything unusual occurred.”
On March 13, 1996, about one month after the break-up, the defendant, who was a foreman for a roofing company, worked his regular job. His co-workers testified that he was not angry or upset that day, did not make threatening remarks about the victim, and seemed his usual self. As he was driving home from work, he saw the victim drive by in her car with her daughter and her daughter’s friend, Arlisa Tipton, but he lost her car when she drove into a residential neighborhood. The defendant then drove to his mother’s house, where he was invited to eat supper. He accepted the invitation but decided that he would go to his own home first and shower and change clothes before supper. The defendant left his mother’s home around 5:30 p.m., and he did not appear angry or upset at the time he left, nor did he say anything about the victim. The defendant’s step-father operated a small engine repair shop and had repaired the motor in a piece of equipment, a leaf blower, that the defendant used on his roofing jobs. The defendant loaded the leaf blower in his car when he left his mother’s home and said that he intended to use it on his roofing job the next day.
In the meantime, the victim, who had been aware that the defendant was following her and had deliberately eluded him, drove to a nearby Taco Bell restaurant to eat with Christina and Arlisa. According to Christina, the victim parked her car in the back of the restaurant so the defendant would not see the car if he drove past the front of the restaurant on Chapman Highway.
Unfortunately, on the way to his home, the defendant stopped at Wal-Mart on Chapman Highway which is located in the same shopping mall area as the Taco Bell where the victim was eating with Christina and Arlisa. The defendant intended to purchase some roofing supplies. The defendant was unable to find the products he needed, so he left Wal-Mart. As he was driving away from Wal-Mart toward Chapman Highway, he drove past the back of the Taco Bell and pulled into the restaurant when he noticed the victim’s car. Parking his automobile beside the victim’s vehicle, the defendant went inside the restaurant and attempted to speak with the victim. The two argued, and the defendant followed the victim and the girls outside.
The argument continued as the victim and the defendant stood beside the victim’s automobile. Finally, the defendant grabbed the victim to prevent her from getting into her car. Placing one arm around the victim’s neck, the defendant held a lock blade pocket knife to her throat. When Christina approached, the defendant said, “Get back or I’ll kill her.” Christina stepped back, and the victim told the defendant to put the knife away and she would go with him. The defendant put the knife in his pocket, apologized, and released the victim. When the victim fled toward the restaurant, the defendant followed, tackled the victim, pulled out his knife, slashed her throat and stabbed her multiple times. Christina, who witnessed the attack on her mother, testified:
He cut her on her neck. He slit her neck all to pieces. And he stabbed her in the face and cut her lip and he cut her hair and he cut her body; he stabbed her. And I saw him flip her over and he stabbed her in the back.
I was about three feet back because she kept telling me to get back and she kept screaming.
When he was finished, the defendant arose, wiped off his knife, returned it to his pocket, nonchalantly got into his car, and drove away. Christina testified that the defendant smiled at her as he drove by.
Amanda Reagan, an employee of Taco Bell, and Shawn Patrick Kane, a man who had just left the grocery store across the parking lot from Taco Bell, also witnessed the stabbing. According to these witnesses, after stabbing the victim, the defendant nonchalantly got into his car and drove away as if nothing of any great import had occurred. Both of these witnesses noticed the defendant’s license plate number and gave it to police.
While they waited for an ambulance, Reagan, Kane, and an unidentified nurse, tried to help the victim as she lay helpless and bleeding in the parking lot. Attempting to stop or slow the bleeding, they applied pressure using towel and napkin compresses. The victim complained of choking and, when she tried to move, witnesses testified that the wound on her neck gaped open and she started gurgling blood. Although Kane did not hear her say anything further after she complained of choking, he said she was still trying to move when she was being loaded into the ambulance. Reagan testified that as she was holding the stretcher while the victim was being loaded onto the ambulance, she heard the victim call out her daughter’s name and saw the victim stretch out her hand as she was placed in the ambulance. The victim arrived by ambulance at the hospital at 6:26 p.m. and was pronounced dead at 6:35 p.m.
Around 7 p.m., the defendant called a friend, Donna Rochat. He told Rochat that he thought he had killed the victim after an argument in the parking lot of the Taco Bell. The defendant told Rochat that he had stabbed the victim in the back, cut her throat, and stabbed her in the chest. Rochat advised the defendant to surrender to police, but he said he could not do that. Rochat said the defendant seemed calm, but he commented that he would kill himself if he had a gun. The defendant also called his mother at some point after the stabbing and asked her to drive to the Taco Bell and determine if he had killed the victim.
Later that same evening, the police arrested the defendant as he approached his house on foot. The defendant had parked his car at a church parking lot about one mile from his home. The police described the defendant as cooperative and unemotional at the time he was apprehended. A knife with a wooden handle and approximately a three inch blade was found in the defendant’s pocket at the time of his arrest.
Dr. Sandra K. Elkins, the Knox County Medical Examiner and a forensic pathologist, testified that the victim had suffered twelve major wounds inflicted with a sharp instrument such as a knife. These wounds included three stab wounds to the left side of her neck, a large gaping slash wound to the right neck, one stab wound just beneath her left breast, one stab wound to her left front shoulder, six stab wounds in her back. The victim also sustained an incise wound to the left side of her lips, defensive wounds to both hands and her right wrist, and superficial wounds underneath her chin. Dr. Elkins opined that the cause of death was multiple knife stab wounds. The immediate cause of death according to Dr. Elkins was bleeding from the jugular vein and external carotid artery, which were cut by the slash wound to the right neck. The other major wounds would have also potentially caused death given enough time and no medical treatment. Dr. Elkins also opined that the victim was alive when the wounds were inflicted, that she remained able to speak, because the injury to her larynx from the slash wound to the right side of her neck did not damage her vocal cords, that she would have fallen unconscious in about five to six minutes, and that she would have bled to death within ten minutes as a result of the slash wound to the right side of her neck. However, Dr. Elkins opined that application of pressure to the wound on the right side of the victim’s neck may have extended consciousness and delayed the time of death by five minutes.
The defendant testified at trial. According to the defendant, while he and the victim were talking beside her car, the victim told him that, if he did not stay away, she would have him killed. He then grabbed her and told her not to threaten him. While admitting that he put a knife to the victim’s throat, he denied that he intended to hurt her and claimed that he was only reacting to the victim’s threat. The defendant testified that, when he released the victim and apologized, she told him he was a dead man. The defendant testified he did not remember anything that happened after the victim threatened him the second time. He claimed that he did not regain his memory until weeks after the murder.
During the defendant’s testimony it was revealed that he had previously pled guilty to one count of felonious assault with bodily injury and three counts of assault with intent to commit first degree murder. As previously stated, the victims of these offenses were his former father-in-law, his ex-wife, his three-year-old son, and a police officer who was attempting to apprehend him. The offenses occurred when the defendant tried to force his former wife, who had left him, to return home. The victim was aware of the defendant’s prior convictions.
The defendant’s stepfather testified that during the years that he had known the defendant he had never seen him angry or upset, and he described the defendant as a calm and easygoing person. Dr. Jerry Matthews, a clinical psychologist who had evaluated the defendant on three separate occasions, in 1991 and 1993 for the Tennessee Board of Paroles and in 1996 for the defense, testified about the defendant’s mental condition. According to the history related to Dr. Matthews, the defendant had been a “blue baby” when he was born. His older brother died of suffocation at the age of five. His father left the family when the defendant was four, and the defendant was raised by his paternal grandparents, who were strict, religious people. The defendant dropped out of school in the tenth grade and went to work. His one marriage lasted twelve years and produced one child.
In 1991, Dr. Matthews concluded that the defendant presented a substantial risk of violent behavior if released on parole, particularly if he was involved in a heterosexual relationship. Dr. Matthews described the defendant as someone who acts impulsively, without thought or reflection, and who, frightened of being alone, becomes anxious and potentially violent when unable to control his environment. According to Dr. Matthews the defendant’s behavior was attributable to the oxygen deprivation he suffered as a “blue baby” and to his abandonment as a child. Between 1991 and 1993, the defendant attended anger management classes in prison. He was released on parole in 1994.
Dr. Matthews opined that at the time of the homicide the defendant was in a state of heightened emotional arousal, that he put the knife to the victim’s throat to convince her to come back to him, and that he released her when she reassured him. Accepting the defendant’s version of the offense, Dr. Matthews said that the victim’s threat to have the defendant killed was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” Dr. Matthews opined that the killing was not premeditated and was instead “an impulsive and explosive act of violence” caused by “basic, primitive emotions of anger and fear and hurt, all mixed together.”
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
