Background
On September 22, 2019, James Ledford and Jacklyn Markcloud were shot to death in Cleveland, Tennessee. Ledford’s body was later found stuffed inside a cedar chest in the bed of his own pickup truck at Fort Hill Cemetery; Markcloud’s body was found two days later along McCann Road, partially concealed beneath furniture and other items. Investigators traced both killings to 135 High Street, the residence of defendant Alfonvo Johnson, where Ledford’s DNA was found on a bullet lodged in the back door and a blood trail led from the kitchen toward the driveway. The apparent motive was a dispute over a stolen motorcycle: co-defendant Christopher Roberson believed Ledford had taken it and was actively hunting him.
A Bradley County grand jury indicted Johnson and Roberson on charges including first-degree premeditated murder of both victims, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, evidence tampering, and abuse of each victim’s corpse. After a four-day jury trial in August 2022, Johnson was convicted of facilitation of first-degree murder (Ledford), facilitation of second-degree murder (Markcloud), conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, evidence tampering, abuse of Ledford’s corpse, and attempted abuse of Markcloud’s corpse. As a career offender, he received an effective ninety-year sentence. Johnson appealed, challenging the sufficiency of several convictions and raising a plain-error claim regarding the State’s failure to elect a specific act underlying the single evidence-tampering count.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Johnson’s convictions for facilitation of second-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and evidence tampering, but reversed and dismissed the convictions for abuse of a corpse and attempted abuse of a corpse. On the facilitation count, the court found sufficient evidence that Johnson knew Roberson intended to harm Ledford, allowed or alerted Roberson to Ledford’s presence at the residence, and then actively participated in disposing of Markcloud’s body — satisfying the “knowing substantial assistance” standard. On conspiracy, the court agreed that the agreement itself cannot serve as an overt act, but held that Johnson and Roberson’s joint trip to the site where Markcloud’s body was dumped constituted a qualifying overt act under the statute’s explicit extension of conspiracy objectives to include measures for concealing the crime.
The corpse-abuse convictions fell because the State charged — and the trial court instructed the jury — only on disposal in violation of littering or trespass statutes, and the evidence was insufficient to establish either. The court declined to read human remains into Tennessee’s litter definitions (which turn on garbage, refuse, and rubbish measured by weight and volume), citing the principle that the human body should not be classified as waste. On trespass, because neither Fort Hill Cemetery nor the McCann Road roadside were posted, fenced, or otherwise closed to the public, the State presented no basis to find unlawful entry. On the election issue, the court applied plain-error review and denied relief because no Tennessee court has ever squarely held that a single evidence-tampering charge requires an election among multiple alleged acts, meaning no “clear and unequivocal rule of law” was breached.
Key Takeaways
- When the State charges abuse of a corpse under the “disposal in violation of law” theory, it must prove the specific predicate violation alleged — here, littering or trespass — and generic unlawfulness is not enough; the State’s failure to charge under a theory it could actually prove was fatal to those counts.
- Tennessee’s conspiracy statute explicitly extends the conspiracy’s objectives to include post-offense concealment and obstruction, so a defendant’s overt act in hiding evidence or a body after the killing can support a conspiracy conviction even after the substantive crime is complete.
- Plain-error relief for failure to elect among multiple acts supporting a single evidence-tampering count is unavailable unless a defendant can point to a clear Tennessee precedent requiring election for that offense — a question the court declined to decide on plain-error review alone.
- Reversal of both corpse-abuse convictions had no effect on Johnson’s effective ninety-year sentence, illustrating that merged or concurrent lesser counts sometimes carry no practical sentencing weight.
Why It Matters
This decision draws a firm line for Tennessee prosecutors charging abuse of a corpse under the “disposal in violation of law” subsection: the predicate statute — littering, trespass, or otherwise — must be capable of proof on the specific facts, and courts will not stretch definitions that plainly do not fit human remains. Defense practitioners can use this ruling to challenge similarly pleaded corpse-abuse counts wherever the State relies on statutes whose elements (weight of litter, exclusion from public property) cannot be satisfied in context.
The conspiracy holding reinforces the breadth of Tennessee’s post-offense conspiracy theory, confirming that participants who take active steps to conceal a completed murder remain within the conspiracy’s scope. Combined with the court’s refusal to resolve the election question on plain-error review, the decision underscores that defendants must lodge timely objections and request jury-instruction elections at trial to preserve those issues for meaningful appellate scrutiny.