 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Payne11/20/2002
at where sufficiency of the convicting evidence is challenged, the relevant question of the reviewing court is "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 573 (1979); see also State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-92 (Tenn. 1992); State v. Anderson, 835 S.W.2d 600, 604 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e) ("Findings of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the evidence is insufficient to support the findings by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.").
All questions involving the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be given the evidence, and all factual issues are resolved by the trier of fact. See State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). "A guilty verdict by the jury, approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of the theory of the State." State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973). Our supreme court stated the rationale for this rule:
This well-settled rule rests on a sound foundation. The trial judge and the jury see the witnesses face to face, hear their testimony and observe their demeanor on the stand. Thus the trial judge and jury are the primary instrumentality of justice to determine the weight and credibility to be given to the testimony of witnesses. In the trial forum alone is there human atmosphere and the totality of the evidence cannot be reproduced with a written record in this Court. Bolin v. State, 219 Tenn. 4, 11, 405 S.W.2d 768, 771 (1966) (citing Carroll v. State, 212 Tenn. 464, 370 S.W.2d 523 (1963)).
A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal, a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient. See State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).
A. Second Degree Murder
The defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to negate beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted either in self-defense, which would make him not guilty of the offense, or in a state of passion produced by adequate provocation, which would make him guilty of voluntary manslaughter rather than second degree murder. As support for his claim of self-defense, he argues that the jury's failure to find him guilty of either premeditated or felony murder makes it "apparent that the jury accredited testimony on the material events leading up to this killing"; namely, that he shot the victim, after a struggle, as the victim was reaching for his gun. As support for his claim of voluntary manslaughter, he argues that his low serotonin level, which severely impairs his ability to resist impulses, combined with evidence the victim confronted him over the "stolen" drug sale and that they engaged in a struggle, provides "compelling evidence that acted in a state of passion produced by adequate provocation."
The State responds that the evidence was more than sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for second degree murder. Citing Wiggins v. State, 498 S.W.2d 92, 93 (Tenn. 1973), the State argues that the seemingly inconsistent verdicts, in which the jury found the defendant not guilty of felony murder but guilty of second degree murder and criminal attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery, do not permit the defendant to infer that the jury did not accredit the testimony of the State's wit
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|