Background
Travis Cohens armed himself with two handguns, borrowed a tinted-window car, and waited outside the Memphis apartment of his estranged girlfriend, Teonka Gunn. When Gunn arrived with her cousin, Terrance Cooper, and Cooper’s four-year-old son, Cohens opened fire. He shot toward Cooper’s vehicle, chased Gunn through the apartment complex, and fired his final shots into the back of her head after she fell.
A jury convicted Cohens of first degree premeditated murder, attempted second degree murder, reckless endangerment, two counts of employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, and being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun. On appeal, he challenged the admission of earlier incidents involving Gunn, the sufficiency of the evidence of premeditation, the instructions concerning intentional and knowing conduct, and the prosecutor’s descriptions of those mental states during closing argument.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgments. It held that evidence Cohens had broken into Gunn’s apartment, damaged and stolen her property, and later rammed her vehicle was properly admitted under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). Those incidents were relevant to his hostility toward Gunn, the abusive nature of their relationship, and his motive, intent, and settled purpose to harm her; their probative value was not outweighed by unfair prejudice. Cohens waived review of the separate forfeiture-by-wrongdoing issue by failing to develop an argument with record references and supporting authority.
The evidence was sufficient to establish premeditation. Cohens obtained a concealed-looking vehicle, armed himself, waited for Gunn, pursued her as she fled, repeatedly shot an unarmed victim, and fired into the back of her head at close range after she fell. He then discarded the guns and fled the state. The court also held that any error in the instruction defining the knowing element of second degree murder was moot because the jury, following sequential instructions, convicted Cohens of first degree murder and therefore never reached that lesser offense. The prosecutor’s challenged mens rea statements did not warrant reversal, particularly given the trial court’s instruction that the jury must follow the law as charged by the court.
Key Takeaways
- Prior violence or abuse against a homicide victim may be admitted to prove hostility, motive, intent, and a settled purpose to harm rather than propensity.
- Planning conduct, pursuit of a retreating victim, repeated shots, close-range execution-style wounds, disposal of weapons, and flight supported the jury’s finding of premeditation.
- An alleged defect in an instruction for a lesser-included offense may be moot when sequential instructions required the jury to stop after convicting on the greater offense.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates how Tennessee courts distinguish admissible relationship evidence from prohibited character evidence in domestic-violence homicide prosecutions. Earlier abusive acts can supply important proof of motive and premeditation even when the defendant did not expressly threaten to kill the victim.
It also underscores the importance of fully briefing evidentiary issues and shows how a first degree murder verdict can foreclose relief based on an asserted instructional error concerning a lesser-included offense.