State v. Durham7/26/1999
necessary elements of first degree murder with either or both categories of evidence, Brown, 836 S.W.2d at 541, and the standard of appellate review is the same. State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872, 898 (Tenn. 1998), cert. denied, U.S. , 119 S.Ct. 1359 (1999); State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 111-112 (Tenn. 1998), cert. denied, U.S. , 119 S.Ct. 1467 (1999). As in the case of direct evidence, the weight to be given circumstantial evidence and "` he inferences to be drawn from such evidence, and the extent to which the circumstances are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, are questions primarily for the jury.'" Marable v. State, 313 S.W.2d 451, 457 (Tenn. 1958)(citation omitted). However, this court has also observed that circumstantial evidence of a defendant's state of mind will not support a jury verdict of premeditated and deliberate murder unless the proof of premeditation and deliberation is so strong and cogent as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt every other reasonable hypothesis. State v. Schafer, 973 S.W.2d 269, 273 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
Accordingly, while the jury may not engage in speculation, State v. Bordis, 905 S.W.2d 214, 222 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995), the jury may infer premeditation and deliberation from circumstances surrounding the killing. Gentry, 881 S.W.2d at 3. These circumstances include planning activity by a defendant prior to the killing; the defendant's prior relationship with the victim; and the manner of the killing. Bordis, 905 S.W.2d at 222. See also Schafer, 973 S.W.2d at 273. More specifically, our supreme court has observed that the requisite premeditation and deliberation may be inferred from the defendant's use of a deadly weapon upon an unarmed victim; the cruelty of the killing; declarations by the defendant of an intent to kill; the defendant's procurement of a weapon; a defendant's preparations prior to a killing for concealment of the crime; and calmness immediately after the killing. State v. Pike, 978 S.W.2d 904, 914 (Tenn. 1998), cert. denied, U.S. , S.Ct. (1999).
In this case, the appellant did not deny that he killed his wife on October 1, 1996. The sole issue at trial was the appellant's mental state at the time of the killing. We conclude that the record amply supports the jury's finding of an intentional, premeditated, and deliberate killing. As noted earlier, the record reflects that the appellant and the victim had a troubled marital relationship and were in the midst of a separation at the time of Mrs. Durham's death. The appellant believed that his wife was having an affair and, several weeks prior to the killing, had threatened his wife. The appellant himself testified that he decided to kill his wife and himself at least forty-five minutes before fatally shooting his wife eight times. In preparation for the killing, he removed a rifle and a single shot shotgun from the wall of his home and loaded both guns. He placed both guns in his car and drove to his wife's workplace, where he quietly watched his wife for fourteen seconds. He then selected from his car the rifle with its high capacity magazine and what he believed to be hollow point bullets. Returning to the store, the appellant announced his intention before he began firing the rifle at Mrs. Durham. Afterwards, he departed calmly. Compare State v. Kendricks, 947 S.W.2d 875, 880 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996)(this court upheld the jury's finding of premeditation and deliberation when the defendant drove to the gas station where his wife worked, calmly asked her to come outside, shot his wife, and left without rendering assistance).
Despite this overwhelming evidence, the appellant argued at trial that, at the time of the killing, his intoxication with alcohol and Valium
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|