 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Durham7/26/1999
this court why the evidence will not support the jury's findings. State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). The appellant must establish that no "reasonable trier of fact" could have found the essential elements of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).
Accordingly, on appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). In other words, questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight and value to be given the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence, are resolved by the trier of fact, and not the appellate courts. State v. Pruett, 788 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990).
At the time of the offense in this case, the relevant statute defined first degree murder as " premeditated and intentional killing of another." Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1) (1996). However, in the indictment, the State charged the appellant with first degree murder as defined prior to July 1, 1995. Prior to that date, first degree murder required deliberation in addition to intent and premeditation. Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1) (1994). Before trial, the trial court noted the State's error and also noted that the error benefitted the appellant by placing a greater burden of proof upon the State. Because the State had failed to submit a motion to amend the indictment, the court concluded that it would instruct the jury according to the old statute. Defense counsel proffered no objection and does not challenge the indictment on appeal.
Thus, at trial, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant killed Joyce Durham with intent, premeditation, and deliberation. A person acts intentionally "with respect to the nature of the conduct or to a result of the conduct when it is the person's conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result." Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(18) (1994). Additionally, premeditation necessitates "a previously formed design or intent to kill," State v. West, 844 S.W.2d 144, 147 (Tenn. 1992), and "the exercise of reflection and judgment," Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(2) (1994). Deliberation requires a "cool purpose" and the absence of "passion or provocation." Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(1); Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-13-201, Sentencing Commission Comments. However, "the [mere] presence of agitation or even anger . . . does not necessarily mean that the murder could not have occurred with the requisite degree of deliberation." State v. Gentry, 881 S.W.2d 1, 5 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993).
In State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 540-541 (Tenn. 1992) (citation omitted)(emphasis in original), our supreme court further defined premeditation and deliberation and explained the distinction between the two terms:
"`Premeditation' is the process of simply thinking about a proposed killing before engaging in the homicidal conduct; and `deliberation' is the process of carefully weighing such matters as the wisdom of going ahead with the proposed killing, the manner in which the killing will be accomplished, and the consequences which may be visited upon the killer if and when apprehended. `Deliberation' is present if the thinking, i.e., the `premeditation,' is being done in such a cool mental state, under such circumstances, and for such a period of time as to permit a `careful weighing' of the proposed decision."
In this case, the jury considered both direct and circumstantial evidence in reaching a verdict. The State may prove the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|