Robert Leach

Case overview

Robert L. Leach, Jr. was convicted in a capital case of two counts of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of first degree felony murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated rape. The trial court merged the felony murder convictions with the premeditated murder convictions, and the jury imposed death sentences for the two murder convictions. The trial court also imposed two consecutive sentences of twenty-five years for the especially aggravated robbery and aggravated rape convictions, ordered to be served consecutively to the death sentences. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, and on automatic appeal the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the judgment and remanded the case for correction of clerical errors in the judgment for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and the aggravated rape conviction.

Timeline

• July 8, 1999 — Leach murdered Jean Poteet and murdered and raped Sarah McBride at their home on Haywood Lane in Nashville.
• July 12, 1999 — Detective Jim Reed talked with Leach’s sister, Cathy, who lived in Missouri.
• July 13, 1999 — Leach called Detective Jim Reed and denied knowing anything about the murders; he threatened to “blow up a whole city block” and described he had snapped.
• December 1999 (late) — Joseph Walker met Leach while they were housed together in the Davidson County Jail in the same pod.
• August 2000 — Leach was convicted of reckless aggravated assault.
• February 16, 2001 — Leach was sentenced to death.
• June 1, 2004 Session — The Supreme Court of Tennessee heard the automatic appeal.
• September 8, 2004 — The Supreme Court of Tennessee filed the opinion affirming convictions and sentences; remand was ordered for correction of clerical errors.
• April 12, 2005 — The death sentences were set to be carried out as provided by law unless otherwise ordered by the Court or other proper authority.

Background

Leach arrived by bus in Nashville in June 1999. He had left Missouri to pursue a career in music and to avoid revocation of his parole on a Texas burglary conviction. By early July 1999, he was working as a server at a Denny’s restaurant in south Nashville and was living at a nearby Econo Lodge hotel.

Leach testified about his life before the murders. He stated that his parents separated when he was an infant and that he rarely saw his father, whom he described as a “cattle rustler.” He said his father sometimes took him with him to commit burglaries. Leach said his mother had a drinking problem and “hung out at the tavern.” Leach also testified to a history of sexual abuse by several people, including his babysitter, a neighbor, a stranger, and a stepbrother.

Leach testified that until he was fourteen, he had a bowel problem and would defecate in his pants almost every day. Leach said his mother would punish him by rubbing his nose in his feces and that other children would tease him. He admitted that when he was a child he set fires and was generally disruptive.

Leach said that he was placed in state custody at ten or eleven and eventually transferred to a state hospital school at twelve. He quit school after the eighth grade. At fourteen, he burglarized the same gas station four nights in a row and was sent to reform school for two years. After his release, he stayed with his father for only a month, traveled with a carnival for three months, and then moved back with his mother and grandmother. He returned to reform school for a year and was again released.

Leach testified that when he set fire to a laundromat, he was placed in a mental hospital for evaluation and received a year in jail. When he was released, he broke into a house and set fire to it, but he testified that he never burned anything after that incident.

In his late teens, Leach testified that he went to Texas, then to New Orleans, and back to Missouri to his mother. He said he became a Christian and worked at a Christian camp for a year and one-half. He said he left the camp at nineteen after he “fell away from God.” After moving back to Missouri, he testified that he committed a robbery and served two years in prison before being paroled. He said he went to Texas where he was convicted of burglary and sentenced to seven years on probation. He testified that he violated probation and was sent to a Texas prison, where he said he was gang raped.

Leach testified that he was on parole from 1988 until 1992. He said that during that time he bought a house and worked in the heating and air conditioning business. He testified that in 1993 he was in an automobile accident and had a metal plate put in his head. He said he violated parole and returned to prison for three and one-half years. He testified that while incarcerated he was transferred from prison to prison and that he described the Texas prisons as violent places full of beatings, killings, and rapes.

In February 1997, he testified he was again released on parole and lived with his sister in Missouri until he felt that he was about to “snap” and went to live alone in the woods. He testified that he claimed to have won Star Search in 1997 and then to have gone to Branson, Missouri, where he said he was doing well until December 1998 when he was arrested for assault and resisting arrest. He said he was threatened with revocation of parole unless he participated in alcohol treatment. He testified that he successfully graduated from treatment, but continued to have trouble with his parole officer, leading to a parole violation warrant.

Frightened of returning to prison in Texas, Leach testified that he hid in the woods and took a bus to Nashville in June 1999.

The offence

Attack on Dorianne Brown at the Econo Lodge

Around 3:00 a.m. on July 8, 1999, Leach forced his way into the room of Dorianne Brown, an Econo Lodge employee who lived at the hotel, and started to choke her. When someone knocked on the door, Leach pulled out a knife and told Brown not to say anything. After the person at the door left, the telephone rang and distracted Leach. Brown ran out of the room to the hotel office and asked for the police to be called. When the police arrived, Leach was gone.

Murder of Jean Poteet and killing of Sarah McBride on Haywood Lane

Around 7:00 a.m. on July 8, 1999, Louise Howard telephoned her sister, Sarah McBride, a sixty-nine-year-old widow who lived about a mile from the Econo Lodge. McBride’s cousin, seventy-year-old Jean Poteet, was staying with McBride. Howard explained that because of a stroke suffered at birth, Poteet had diminished mental capabilities and her right hand and right leg were partially paralyzed. Poteet wore a leg brace from her knee to her ankle.

McBride indicated on the telephone that there was a man in her kitchen drinking coffee while he waited for his sister to pick him up. Howard told McBride, “Sarah, get that man out of the house, and put him on the patio.” McBride responded, “Okay. I’ll call you later.” Howard left to go shopping.

When Howard returned, she was unable to reach McBride by telephone and went to McBride’s house around 1:00 p.m. The garage door was up, and McBride’s 1982 Dodge truck was missing. The back door to the house was open. Howard went inside and discovered the bodies of Poteet and McBride.

Poteet’s wig and a pair of scissors were on the kitchen floor next to the table. A trail of blood led from the kitchen to the doorway of the master bedroom where Poteet was lying face down with her blouse pulled up and knotted around her throat. A pair of black jeans was next to Poteet’s head. McBride was lying on her back on the bed. She was naked from the waist down, and her legs were open and bent up over her body. A belt was tightened around her neck. Both women had been stabbed and showed signs of blunt trauma to the head.

A jury found Leach guilty of premeditated first degree murder as to Jean Poteet and Sarah McBride. The jury also found him guilty of felony murder as to both victims. The felony murder convictions were merged into the premeditated murder convictions. The jury additionally found him guilty of especially aggravated robbery and aggravated rape.

Investigation

Dr. Bruce Levy, the Davidson County Medical Examiner, was called to the scene by police and performed autopsies on the victims the following day. Dr. Levy determined that both women died as a result of ligature strangulation. Dr. Levy opined that the ligature had been placed around Poteet’s neck in the kitchen and that she had been dragged to the bedroom while she was still alive. Dr. Levy testified that congestion in her upper chest and face indicated that someone was sitting on her lower chest or abdomen when tying the ligature around her throat. Poteet had defensive wounds and also suffered blunt force injuries to her face. She had been hit at least twice with enough force to cause bleeding to her brain.

Dr. Levy also stated that McBride suffered defensive wounds and had two sets of paired puncture wounds consistent with her being stabbed with scissors. McBride had multiple blunt force injuries to her head, including a laceration over her left eyebrow. Her nose, the bone between her eyes and brain, her breast bone, and three of her ribs had been broken. She suffered a laceration to her vaginal wall. Dr. Levy determined that McBride had been sexually assaulted and had died during the attack. Dr. Levy stated that bruising on her ankles indicated that her legs were held during the rape.

The police investigation showed that someone had rummaged through the house. Chest drawers were pulled out, closet doors were open, a mattress had been moved, and jewelry boxes lay open. Bloody footprints were on the floor in the entrance hall and living room. A pair of socks was found in the sink in the bathroom off the master bedroom. A pair of men’s underwear was later retrieved from the sewer line running from the toilet. McBride’s purse and jewelry were missing as was the Dodge truck.

Forensic testing showed that Leach’s left palm print was on a wall in McBride’s house and that Leach’s fingerprints were on a coffee mug on the kitchen table. After Leach’s arrest, it was determined that bloody footprints from the floor in McBride’s house matched Leach’s tennis shoes and that sperm on the vaginal swab from McBride matched Leach’s DNA.

Arrest and custody

Around 8:00 p.m. on July 8, 1999, Leach appeared in the area of Greenville, Missouri, driving McBride’s truck. Leach went to the home of a friend, Harold Winberry, and announced that he had just come from Nashville. Leach, Winberry, Winberry’s wife, and her sister, Becky Allen, went to the Friendly Tavern in Greenville, where they drank, danced and socialized until 2:00 a.m. Leach and Allen slept together that night and the next. Leach gave Allen a pair of McBride’s earrings.

Leach stayed at the home of his aunt, to whom he offered McBride’s leaf blower. During this time, Leach behaved normally, visited with other people, played his guitar and sang, and showed off the Dodge truck, claiming it was his own vehicle.

After Leach’s identification had been confirmed by fingerprint evidence, Detective Mike Roland contacted Leach’s sister, Cathy Watson, who lived in Missouri. Watson in turn contacted Leach, who called Detective Roland on July 13. During the telephone call, Leach blamed all his problems on the Texas prison and parole system and threatened to go to Texas and “blow up a whole city block.” Detective Roland traced the call to a pay telephone in Wayne County, Missouri, where law enforcement officers were put on alert for McBride’s truck. Shortly thereafter, the truck was located outside the Friendly Tavern. Leach was inside playing guitar on the stage.

After fingerprint evidence confirmed his identification, Sergeant Larry Wayne Plunkett, Jr. located the truck at the Friendly Tavern in Greenville, Missouri. Plunkett and Deputy Larry Bruce entered the tavern and located the owner, who identified Leach as the person driving the pickup truck. At the time of arrest, Leach was on stage playing a guitar. Leach denied driving the truck and insisted that he had walked to the tavern. The pickup truck was secured and Leach was transported to the local jail. Leach later admitted to Deputy Bruce that he was driving the truck and that he was sorry he did it but that something just snapped. Leach told Deputy Bruce that he had been trying to get help for three years.

While Deputy Bruce was at the tavern securing the pickup truck, a couple stopped and asked why Deputy Bruce was at Leach’s truck. After discussion with the couple, Deputy Bruce went to their residence and recovered clothing supposedly belonging to Leach and lawn equipment that Leach had given the couple from the back of the truck.

Trial

Guilty findings

Based upon the evidence, the jury convicted Leach of:

• first degree premeditated murder of Jean Poteet,
• first degree premeditated murder of Sarah McBride,
• first degree felony murder (during the perpetration of robbery) of Jean Poteet,
• first degree felony murder (during the perpetration of robbery) of Sarah McBride,
• especially aggravated robbery of Sarah McBride,
• aggravated rape of Sarah McBride.

The trial court merged the felony murder convictions with the premeditated murder convictions.

Prosecution evidence at trial and penalty phase

At the penalty phase, the State presented proof that Leach was convicted in August 2000 of reckless aggravated assault and in May 1983 of robbery in the second degree. The State recalled Dr. Levy, who testified that Poteet was conscious when the ligature was applied and that the victims would have remained conscious for thirty to forty seconds until they died three to four minutes later. Dr. Levy testified that strangulation was a very painful form of death, and he also testified that scissor stab wounds suffered by both victims would have been painful.

Dr. Levy further testified that although McBride may have been unconscious when the belt was placed around her neck, she was conscious when beaten and would have suffered pain from the vaginal tear and injuries to her head and chest.

The State presented three victim impact witnesses. McBride’s older sister, Louise Howard, testified that McBride enjoyed working in her yard, that McBride was her best friend, that they did things together almost daily, and that she expressed deep grief at losing her sister. William Harris, Poteet’s cousin and legal guardian, described his relationship with Poteet as almost that of a brother. He testified that Poteet had the mental capacity of a very bright child and had gone to school through the sixth or seventh grade, and that despite handicaps she was an excellent housekeeper and had faithfully cared for her parents and his mother until they passed away. The last witness for the State was Robert McBride, McBride’s stepson, who testified that his father and McBride had been married for twenty-seven years until his father’s death in 1992. He testified that although McBride grieved for her husband, she eventually came to enjoy life again and that the murder had a horrible impact on him, including that his youngest daughter wanted to avoid going near McBride’s house.

Defense evidence and mitigation

In mitigation, the defense presented testimony corroborating aspects of Leach’s account of his life before the murders. Leach’s aunt, Jane Henson, testified that Leach’s father had been a womanizer who cared nothing for his children and that Leach’s mother was mean to Leach because he resembled his father. Another aunt, Judy Waltz, stated that Leach came to live with her when he was twenty-six or twenty-seven and that he was very courteous, but she had to ask him to leave because of his drinking and his infatuation with her daughter. She testified that after moving out, Leach had a successful roofing business but lost it because of his drinking.

Leach’s childhood friend, Richard Bennett, testified about Leach’s childhood, including that Leach’s mother would beat Leach and punish him by putting him in a closet. Bennett described Leach as a troubled child, tortured by other children because he was passive and soiled his pants, and testified that Leach frequented the home of a known pedophile when he was a child.

Leach’s sister, Cathy Watson, testified that when Leach was paroled from the Texas prison in 1997 he had changed and was paranoid and scared. She testified that on the morning of July 8, 1999, she had heard her telephone ring but did not answer it because she was sick.

Carol Duma and Reverend Harry Duma testified about their contact with Leach. Carol Duma taught Leach in kindergarten and described him as fearful and apprehensive. Both testified about positive experiences with Leach when he worked at a Christian camp in his late teens. Leach seemed to do well, but at times he would “snap” and frighten people. Reverend Duma described Leach as “very, very lonely.”

Another mitigation witness was Ann LaPoint, a nurse and licensed social worker from Texas, who counseled Leach for seven to eight years while he was on parole. LaPoint characterized Leach as immature, depressed, angry, needy, delusional, and suffering from low self-esteem. Describing him as “a five-year-old in a twenty or thirty-year-old body,” she testified she taught Leach how to dress appropriately and comb his hair. She testified that Leach was afraid of going back to prison because he had been beaten and sexually assaulted there. LaPoint testified about suicidal tendencies, including that she said Leach tried to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge, hanging himself, and running his car into a bridge embankment. On cross-examination, LaPoint admitted that Leach had played mind games with her “like a typical substance abuser,” had attempted to falsify a urinalysis, had trouble with authority, and “wanted to blame the world and society for his shortcomings instead of accepting responsibility for his actions.”

Leach was the only witness for the defense and testified at length about his life before the murders.

Leach’s testimony about the July 8, 1999 events

Leach testified that before the murders he suffered from headaches and depression until he felt “just like exploding.” He testified he went out to drink after work, became intoxicated, and returned to the motel where he saw Brown. He testified he knocked on her door and went into her room, where they talked for several minutes, and that “something controlled” him; he said the next thing he knew he was on top of Brown. He testified that Brown pleaded with him not to hurt her and that he promised he would not. He testified a man knocked on the door, he pulled out his pocket knife, and he fled until he came to an apartment complex where he spent the rest of the night sleeping in the shrubbery. When he awoke, he was angry and stressed. He testified he went to a pay telephone at a convenience store to call his sister but left when a police officer arrived.

He testified that he walked along and saw McBride watering flowers in her yard. Leach said he told McBride his car had broken down and asked to use her telephone to call his sister. He testified that when his sister did not answer he wanted to “buy time” and made up a story that his sister was on her way to get him. He testified he drank coffee with McBride on the front porch and that when the telephone rang McBride told him to go into the kitchen and get another cup of coffee while she answered the call. He testified he saw Poteet sitting in the kitchen.

Leach testified, I don’t know what happened. I – I – the same thing at the hotel. It’s something came over me. I heard a loud bang. The next thing I know I had Ms. Poteete [sic] in my arms. When I realized what had happened, I let go of her as she dropped to the floor. And I freaked out. I didn’t understand it because I didn’t plan it. And I heard a slam of a door. And I turned around and it was Ms. McBride, or that’s her name, I think. And I just – I went blank.

Leach testified he woke up in the shower with water hitting his face. He testified he did not know where he was and was horrified to see the victims’ bodies. He testified he changed out of his bloody clothes, took McBride’s jewelry box and purse, thought about setting the house on fire but “just blew it off,” and left in McBride’s truck. He testified that he blacked out again and awoke under a bridge on the Kentucky-Missouri border, drove several miles in the wrong direction, and then headed to Greenville, Missouri.

On cross-examination, Leach denied ever talking with Walker about the facts of the case and said Walker approached him with the idea of an insanity defense.

Leach also provided testimony about his prior convictions and parole history including that he violated parole and was returned to prison multiple times, and he described physical and sexual abuse in prison.

Sentencing

Capital sentencing

At the penalty phase, the jury sentenced Leach to death for the murders of Jean Poteet and Sarah McBride.

For victim Jean Poteet, the jury found four aggravating circumstances:

• Leach had previously been convicted of one or more violent felonies.
• The murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death.
• The murder was knowingly committed by Leach while he was committing or attempting to commit robbery or aggravated rape.
• The victim was seventy years of age or older or was particularly vulnerable due to a significant handicap or significant disability, physical or mental.

For victim Sarah McBride, the jury found three aggravating circumstances:

• The murder was knowingly committed by Leach while committing or attempting to commit robbery or aggravated rape.

Additional sentences

The trial court subsequently sentenced Leach to consecutive sentences of twenty-five years for the especially aggravated robbery and aggravated rape convictions. Those sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to the death sentences.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee noted that the judgment for the especially aggravated robbery conviction in Count 5 incorrectly referred to Count 6, and the judgment for the aggravated rape conviction in Count 6 incorrectly referred to Count 5. The case was remanded to the trial court for correction of these clerical errors.

Appeals

Automatic appeal issues

On automatic appeal, the Supreme Court of Tennessee designated issues including:

1. whether the evidence was insufficient to support convictions for premeditated murder and felony murder,
2. whether the trial court erred in prohibiting Leach from presenting a witness to discredit the testimony of Joseph Walker,
3. whether the trial court committed reversible error in instructing the jury to consider evidence of Leach’s attack on Dorianne Brown to “complete the story,”
4. whether the death penalty is precluded because aggravating circumstances were not set out in the indictment under Apprendi v. New Jersey,
5. whether the sentences of death are disproportionate or invalid under the mandatory review statute.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee concluded that these issues did not warrant relief and affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Sufficiency of evidence

Leach challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting convictions for first degree premeditated murder and first degree felony murder. The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of premeditation, citing that Leach inflicted multiple wounds using scissors and a ligature on unarmed victims, attempted to dispose of evidence by flushing his underwear down the toilet, and exhibited calmness after the murders by showering, changing his clothes, looking for valuables, and then driving to Missouri where he socialized with friends at a tavern that night. The Court also discussed Leach’s statements about “a secret fantasy of committing multiple rapes and homicides” and that the jury could infer he killed to obtain means for facilitating his flight and to prevent victims from alerting the police.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee also held that the evidence supported felony murder because intent to commit robbery existed prior to or concurrent with the killings. The Court reasoned that Leach was evading police because of his attack on Brown, lied to McBride about the success of the telephone call “to ‘buy time,’” and after the murders he had the truck and money needed to flee.

Evidence to discredit Joseph Walker

Leach argued the trial court erred in prohibiting him from presenting a witness to discredit Joseph Walker. The Supreme Court of Tennessee explained that Walker was a convicted felon who testified about incriminating statements made by Leach in jail. The Supreme Court described that Leach sought to call Dr. Joseph Mount, a psychologist at MTMHI, to impeach Walker with evidence that he lied to evaluators about his criminal record and personal information and to testify Walker was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and was malingering.

The trial court had ruled extrinsic evidence was precluded under Rule 608(b) and additionally excluded under Rule 403. On appeal, Leach abandoned the Rule 608 argument and contended admissibility under Rules 613 and 616, but the Supreme Court of Tennessee held the Rules 613 and 616 theories were waived because they were not presented to the trial court or in his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court also concluded that even if properly preserved, exclusion under Rule 403 was proper and any error would be harmless because the remaining evidence was sufficient.

Jury instruction regarding “complete the story” for the Brown attack

The trial court admitted evidence of Leach’s attack on Dorianne Brown under Rule 404(b) to show motive. The Supreme Court of Tennessee considered whether the jury instruction allowing consideration of this evidence for “the complete story of the crime” was erroneous.

The trial court had instructed:

If from the proof you find that the defendant has committed a crime other than that for which he is on trial, you may not consider such evidence to prove his disposition to commit such a crime as that on trial. This evidence may only be considered by you for the limited purpose of determining whether it provides: (a) the complete story of the crime; that is, such evidence may be considered by you where the prior crime and the present alleged crime are logically related or connected, so that proof of the other tends, or is necessary to prove the one charged, or is necessary for a complete account thereof. (b) motive; that is, such evidence may be considered by you if it tends to show a motive of the defendant for the commission of the offense presently charged. Such evidence of the other crime, if considered by you for any purpose, must not be considered for any purpose other than that, specifically, stated.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee held no error occurred regarding admission of the evidence because it was offered and properly admitted to show motive, a material issue. The Court also held that the instruction portion allowing consideration for “the complete story of the crime” was superfluous because proof of motive completed the story. The Court further held the instruction did not invite propensity reasoning because the charge specifically directed the jury not to consider such evidence to prove Leach’s disposition to commit the charged crimes, and the jury was presumed to follow the instruction.

Aggravating circumstances not charged in the indictment

Leach contended that Apprendi v. New Jersey, Tennessee rules of criminal procedure, and Tennessee constitutional and statutory provisions required the indictment to reflect the grand jury’s finding of one or more statutory aggravating circumstances. The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that its existing rulings required rejecting this argument and that no error occurred in the case.

Mandatory review

In mandatory review, the Supreme Court of Tennessee stated it was bound by statute to determine whether the death sentence was imposed arbitrarily, whether the evidence supported the statutory aggravating circumstances and the finding that aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances, and whether the death sentence was excessive or disproportionate. The Court concluded that:

• there was no indication the sentence was imposed arbitrarily,
• the State presented sufficient proof to uphold the jury’s finding of statutory aggravating circumstances,
• the evidence supported that aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt,
• the death sentence was not excessive or disproportionate compared to similar cases after a comparative proportionality review.

The Supreme Court cited that evidence showed Leach brutally beat, stabbed, and strangled two elderly women; Leach raped Sarah McBride as she was dying; the other victim, Jean Poteet, was mentally and physically disabled; the murders occurred during a robbery at McBride’s home; and the murders were motivated by Leach’s desire to obtain the means for fleeing Nashville and to prevent victims from alerting the police. The Court also cited Leach’s prior criminal history and his age at the time of the murders, and it discussed mitigating evidence such as low self-esteem, depression, suicidal tendencies, childhood neglect and torment, and testimony that he claimed physical and sexual abuse.

Outcome

The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed Leach’s convictions and death sentences and affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision. The Court remanded the case for correction of clerical errors in the judgment relating to the Count 5 and Count 6 references for the especially aggravated robbery and aggravated rape convictions. Costs of the appeal were taxed to the State of Tennessee because Leach was indigent. The death sentences were set to be carried out on April 12, 2005 unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court or other proper authority.