Court hears identity-focused appeal in Dollar General aggravated robbery case

An appellate panel heard oral argument in the appeal of a conviction for aggravated robbery linked to a robbery at a Dollar General in Hamilton County. Defense counsel John McDougall, of the Hampton County Bar, and Garrett Ward, representing the State of Tennessee, argued whether the record supports the jury’s finding of the defendant, identified in court as Mr. Forte, as one of two masked perpetrators.

The dispute centered on identity, not on other elements of aggravated robbery. Ward told the court, “this court must affirm Mr. Forte's conviction for aggravated robbery, because the evidence support this conviction.” He said the state’s case rests on two main sets of circumstantial evidence visible in the record: (1) a getaway vehicle captured on surveillance and later stopped after a chase, and (2) similarities between clothing and physical markings seen on the surveillance video and on the defendant when he was stopped.

Ward described the vehicle evidence: surveillance showed a black SUV with distinctive features, including roof racks and a rear passenger-side window that did not glint like the others. He said a vehicle matching those features was seen about a quarter mile from the robbery site the next day, was pursued for about six minutes, and was stopped with the defendant driving. Ward also noted a white surgical mask was hanging from the defendant’s rearview mirror when he was stopped, and that the surveillance video shows a perpetrator wearing a white surgical mask. “The defendant admits in a statement to police that he was the only driver of that car on the day he was pulled over, and the only driver of that car on the day of the robbery,” Ward told the court.

McDougall, arguing for the defendant, conceded the case is an identification case but pressed differences and gaps in the state’s chain of proof. He pointed out that a clerk who watched the car drive away recalled Tennessee license plates, whereas the car stopped with the defendant had Florida plates. McDougall also noted there were no proceeds from the robbery or a weapon found in the stopped vehicle, and that no witness in the record positively identified the defendant as one of the perpetrators. “There was nothing to go ahead and show that, that specifically,” McDougall said, arguing the physical and documentary evidence does not definitively tie the defendant to the robbery.

The transcript of the trial record discussed at argument shows the jury deliberated for two days before returning a guilty verdict; the defendant was sentenced to 11 years. The defense noted some potentially distinguishing features (a silver backing on a window and different license plates) and contested the probative weight of clothing similarities and the presence of masks during the COVID period. The state emphasized matching features of the vehicle and clothing, including testimony about a white stain on the right leg of gray sweatpants seen on video and on the clothing observed on the defendant after his arrest.

After oral argument, the court said, “Well briefed. We'll take it under advisement,” and recessed the session. The hearing record does not contain a ruling resolving the appeal.

The proceeding was confined to appellate argument on identity; no new evidence was taken and the court did not issue a decision at the hearing.