State of Tennessee v. Tony Thomas and Laronda Turner (Brady Issue; Sufficiency of Evidence Issue)

Style: State of Tennessee v. Tony Thomas and Laronda Turner

TSC Docket Number: W2019-01202-SC-R11-CD

Link to Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion: https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/thomastonyturnerlarondaopn.pdf

Court of Criminal Appeals Summary:

The Defendants, Tony Thomas and Laronda Turner, were convicted of three counts of first-degree premeditated murder and received life sentences on each count. On appeal, they raise the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions, specifically whether the co-defendant’s testimony was reliable and sufficiently corroborated; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the indictment due to the State’s Ferguson violation by failing to preserve the photographic lineups shown to the witnesses and the co-defendant’s cell phone taken upon his arrest; (3) whether the trial court erred by not granting a new trial because the State committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose all inconsistent statements made by the co-defendant during proffer sessions; (4) whether the trial court committed error when it sua sponte prohibited the introduction of the printout of the co-defendant’s message to his girlfriend implicating himself in the murders, and in so doing, made an improper comment on the evidence; and (5) whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury by including the language “or either of them” throughout the jury instructions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Issues to be Considered by TSC:

1) Whether the prosecution breached its constitutional duty of production under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to produce statements made by a codefendant in proffer conferences, which were allegedly inconsistent with the codefendant’s formal statement to law enforcement.

2) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Laronda Turner’s convictions for first-degree murder.

Permission to Appeal Granted: April 14, 2022

Appellants’ Briefs Filed: May 17, 2022 ; June 14, 2022

Appellees’ Briefs Filed: August 3, 2022

Appellants’ Reply Brief Filed: September 2, 2022

Appellees’ Reply Brief Filed:

Amicus Briefs Permitted: 

Oral Argument Date: April 5, 2023

Link to Oral Argument Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxB4Ew1AoEE

Date of TSC Opinion: March 7, 2024

Opinion of the TSC: https://tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/SCT%20-%20Majority%20Opinion%203-7-24.pdf

TSC Summary of the Opinion:

A jury convicted two defendants, Tony Thomas and Laronda Turner, of three counts of first-degree premeditated murder. Those convictions stem from a triple homicide that occurred in Memphis, Tennessee, in 2015. Another co-defendant, Demarco Hawkins, was also implicated in the killings. However, his trial was severed from the other defendants, and he testified against Mr. Thomas and Ms. Turner. After Mr. Thomas and Ms. Turner were convicted, they appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, raising five issues for review. The intermediate appellate court ruled unanimously on three of the issues, but one judge dissented on the other two. Mr. Thomas and Ms. Turner sought permission to appeal, and we accepted the appeal only as to the two issues on which the intermediate appellate court was divided. First, we agreed to consider whether the prosecution breached the requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to produce statements made by Mr. Hawkins at proffer conferences, which were allegedly inconsistent with Mr. Hawkins’ formal statement to law enforcement, before trial. Second, we agreed to address whether the evidence was sufficient to support Ms. Turner’s murder convictions. Based on our review, we conclude that the State did not breach its obligations under Brady with regard to Mr. Thomas. Additionally, we determine that the evidence is insufficient to sustain Ms. Turner’s convictions because Mr. Hawkins’ testimony was not adequately corroborated. 1 As a result, we affirm the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals in part and reverse in part. Additionally, in this opinion, we abrogate Tennessee’s common law accomplice-corroboration rule. However, we apply that change on a prospective basis only, and, thus, it has no bearing on the outcome of this case.