 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Willis6/30/2003
made those earlier statements because they were taken right after the victim was killed.
Sufficiency
The fact that the defendant was with the victim on the night she was murdered seems uncontroverted. The crime scene was a relatively short drive from the Golden Jukebox, the last place the victim was seen alive. The victim's body was found near Port Royal Bridge close to Port Royal State Park. The defendant enjoyed Port Royal State Park and often took his girlfriends there. One of the accesses to Port Royal State Park was across the Port Royal Bridge, where the victim's body was found. The Port Royal Bridge was closed to the general public because of construction, yet travelable to those who were willing to drive around the barricades. Greenfield Trucking, the defendant's employer , was laying a road near the Port Royal Bridge, and several pieces of their equipment were present at the site. The victim's body was found 21 feet off the roadway, near the Port Royal Bridge and the Greenfield paving site.
A rational jury could infer from the evidence above that the defendant was familiar with the area where the victim's body was found and that he would have particular knowledge that the area was closed to the general public because of the barricades.
The victim's mother testified that the defendant acted calm when she confronted him with the fact that her daughter was missing, while everyone else had acted very concerned. A search of the defendant's truck shortly after the murder found no latent prints, and the truck was described as very clean and recently washed. It is unusual to find no latent prints in a vehicle. A search of the defendant's apartment and his father's home failed to recover the clothing the defendant was said to be wearing on the night of the murder. Moreover, before the search of his apartment, his neighbor testified to hearing water running throughout the night. A search of the apartment revealed a very scrubbed, clean shower. The defendant's landlord testified that the shower had been painted around five times, yet when she inspected it, the shower was stripped down from paint and you could see the cement. The landlord also said the defendant moved out of the apartment after the victim's body was found.
From the above evidence, a rational jury could infer the defendant's behavior was consistent with that of a guilty individual covering his tracks; specifically, the defendant was cleaning both his truck and his apartment to cover up or destroy evidence of the crime.
The victim was known to wear a particular black onyx ring. A similar looking ring was later observed being worn by the defendant's girlfriend. A proper inference could have been made that the defendant took the ring from the victim and then later gave it to his girlfriend.
Several experts determined that the death was cause by puncture wounds and that a Torx screwdriver could have inflicted those wounds. The defendant had access and knowledge of that type of tool. A size 15 Torx screwdriver was recovered from the defendant's apartment. The defendant appeared visibly shaken when confronted with the fact that the police determined a Torx screwdriver was the murder weapon. The inference that this was a crime of opportunity where the defendant grabbed the nearest available weapon, namely a Torx screwdriver, is a rational one for a jury to make.
There were a number of inconsistencies in the defendant's explanations to law enforcement in areas such as his whereabouts on the night in question. While the defendant explained this as being scared about the investigation, the jury was free to reject his explanation. Three specific inconsistencies
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|