 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Standridge9/30/2003
evidence will not support the jury's findings. See 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 the offense 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. See 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. See State v. Pruett,788 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990).
"A person commits theft of property if, with the intent to deprive the owner of property, the person knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner's effective consent." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103 (1997). In the instant case, Sparkman testified that the appellant had loaded merchandise belonging to Wal-Mart into his truck without paying for the items. After being confronted by Sparkman and unloading the items, the appellant "took off." Shortly thereafter, over the course of two hours, the appellant repeatedly returned and left the shopping center, driving closer to Wal-Mart on each occasion. See State v. Stephanie Renae Person, No. W2000-02859-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1200661, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Oct. 10, 2001). Sparkman noticed a lawn mower in the back of the truck and knew that the appellant had not bought it at the Sparta Wal-Mart. When Officer Gooch apprehended the appellant, he was in possession of a Murray push mower of the type sold exclusively by Wal-Mart. Pendleton identified the lawn mower as being similar to the two lawn mowers missing from the Sparta Wal-Mart. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the jury could have reasonably found the appellant guilty of the theft of the mower.
Additionally, we likewise conclude that the State established the appellant's guilt of resisting arrest. Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-602(a) (1997) provides that
t is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct anyone known to the person to be a law enforcement officer, or anyone acting in a law enforcement officer's presence and at such officer's direction, from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the defendant, by using force against the law enforcement officer or another.
"`Force' means compulsion by the use of physical power or violence and shall be broadly construed to accomplish the purposes of this title." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(12) (1997).
Officer Gooch testified that he was in uniform and was driving a marked police cruiser. He parked the cruiser next to the appellant's vehicle and approached the appellant. After the appellant refused to keep his hands where the officer could see them, Officer Gooch informed the appellant that he was under arrest. When the appellant struggled with the officer, he was put in a "pain compliance hold." Ultimately, with the help of three firefighters, Officer Gooch was able to restrain the appellant. We conclude that a jury could have reasonably found the appellant guilty of resisting arrest.
C. Jury Instructions
Next, the appellant contends that the trial court "improperly instructed the jury concerning the definition of `intentionally' and `knowingly.'" Initially, we note that the appellant did not complain
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.
|
|