 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Rhyan1/27/2003
Ann. §§ 39-13-201, -210(a)(1). A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of the person's conduct when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302(b).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the evidence shows that the defendant unlawfully and knowingly killed the victim. Mr. Yancy testified that the victim was sitting on the retaining wall and cursing the defendant. The victim made a comment about the defendant's having a rusty knife and stated that he was going to take it away from him. However, Mr. Yancy, who was sitting an arm's-length from the victim, did not see the victim make any gestures toward the defendant and did not see the victim get off the retaining wall. We believe that a rational jury could have found that the defendant was angry with the victim as a result of their arguing and that he shot the victim knowing that his conduct was reasonably certain to cause the victim's death. We note that the trial court instructed the jury as to voluntary manslaughter, but the jury believed that the defendant knowingly killed the victim without adequate provocation. "Whether the acts constitute a `knowing killing' (second degree murder) or a killing due to `adequate provocation' (voluntary manslaughter) is a question for the jury." State v. Johnson, 909 S.W.2d 461, 464 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.
II. SELF-DEFENSE INSTRUCTION
Next, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. He claims that a self-defense instruction was warranted because the jury could have inferred from the evidence that the victim possessed a knife and that the defendant was attempting to prevent the victim from robbing him. The state argues that the trial court was not required to give a self-defense instruction because the evidence shows that the defendant possessed the knife and that he could not have reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. We conclude that the trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense.
In Tennessee, the law of self-defense is fundamental to a case when the evidence fairly raises it as an issue. See Myers v. State, 185 Tenn. 264, 268, 206 S.W.2d 30, 32 (1947). To determine whether self-defense is fairly raised by the proof and must be instructed to the jury, "`a court must, in effect, consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, including drawing all reasonable inferences flowing from that evidence.'" State v. Bult, 989 S.W.2d 730, 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998), app. denied (Tenn. 1999) (quoting State v. Shropshire, 874 S.W.2d 634, 639 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)). A person is justified in using force against another person when he or she reasonably believes (1) that death or serious bodily injury is imminent and (2) that the force used is immediately necessary to protect against the other person's use or attempted use of unlawful force. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-611(a).
In this case, self-defense was not fairly raised by the evidence. Although a knife was recovered from the crime scene, the evidence did not reveal to whom it belonged or if it was related to the shooting. In any event, Mr. Yancy testified that before the shooting, he did not see anything in the victim's hands and heard the victim say to the defendant, " can go on and pull out that rusty ass knife." Thus, if a knife was involved in this case, the evidence indicates that the defendant, not the victim, possessed it. Even assuming arguendo that the victim had a knife, Mr. Yancy testified that he did not see the vict
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|