State of Tennessee v. Bashan Murchison

Defendant, Bashan Murchison and his Co-Defendant, Garrick Graham, were convicted by a Sullivan County Jury of numerous drug offenses. Specifically, Defendant Murchison was convicted of delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school zone (count 9), sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school zone (count 10), delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a daycare (count 11), sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a daycare (count 12), facilitation of the delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine (count 13), sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine (count 14), sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (count 15), delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 of a school (count 16), conspiracy to sell more than 26 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (count 21) and conspiracy to deliver more than 26 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (count 22). Count 10 charging Defendant Murchison with sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school was dismissed by the trial court upon motion by the State. The trial court merged counts 11 and 12, counts 13 and 14, counts 15 and 16, and counts 21 and 22. Defendant Murchison received twelve-year sentences for counts 11, and 14. He received twenty-five-year sentences for counts 9, 15, and 21. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences for counts 11, 14, 15, and 21 to be served consecutively to the twenty-five-year sentence in count 9 for an effective fifty-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant Murchison raises the following issues: (1) that the trial court erred by admitting laboratory reports prepared by the TBI forensic scientists and forensic drug chemists concerning testing on the substances purchased by Mr. Dukes from Defendants Murchison and Graham; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant Murchison's convictions; (3) the trial court erred in denying Defendant Murchison's Batson challenge; (4) the trial court erred in denying Defendant Murchison's request to determine the competency of the CI; (5) the trial court erred by allowing the State to “repeatedly” show the CI his statement to refresh his recollection; (6) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct; (7) the trial court erred by not severing the offenses; and (8) the trial court incorrectly sentenced Defendant Murchison. Defendant Graham also filed an appeal which is addressed in a separate opinion of this court. Following our review of the parties' briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.