 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bush4/14/2004
njury" involving the other elements of the serious bodily injury definition. Id. at 49. Because the proof did not show the type of extreme physical pain required for serious bodily injury, the defendant's conviction was modified from especially aggravated robbery to aggravated robbery. Id. at 50. Unlike the victim in Sims, Mr. Lopez suffered a gunshot wound that entered and exited his left thigh and required the use of pain medicine. Taken in the light most favorable to the state, we conclude that a rational jury could have found that Mr. Lopez suffered extreme physical pain sufficient to establish serious bodily injury.
As to the defendant's claim that the evidence is insufficient to support all of his convictions because his co-defendants exaggerated his role in the crimes and were biased against him, the jury obviously accredited their testimony, as is its prerogative. See State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983) (holding that " jury verdict approved by the trial judge accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of the State's theory"). The evidence is sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault.
II. OTHER BAD ACTS
The defendant claims that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to hear about his other bad acts because such evidence was inadmissible pursuant to Rule 404(b), Tenn. R. Evid. He contends that even if the evidence fell under one of the rule's exceptions, it still was inadmissible because the trial court failed to follow Rule 404(b)'s mandatory procedural requirements. The state claims that because the evidence was not introduced for the purpose of showing the defendant's character, Rule 404(b) was not implicated. Moreover, the state argues that the trial court properly instructed the jury as to the evidence's limited purpose. We conclude that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to hear about the defendant's bad acts. However, we hold that the error was harmless.
During the state's opening remarks, the prosecutor tried to explain to the jury how Cordell Nelson ended up with the 9mm pistol that the defendant used during the robbery. The prosecutor stated as follows:
And then Mr. Tigg is going to tell you what happened. Mr. Bush and Mr. Tigg got together, and they say that [Cordell Nelson] has got some drugs, and they want the drugs because they know they can take that and sell it. An ounce of cocaine is worth several thousand dollars.
So there's a plan hatched between Tigg and Bush four days after the robbery, and the plan is that Tigg will change his clothes. He puts on a mask, and he takes a can of Mace. And he runs up to this car that Nelson is in. Nelson is a passenger in the car. There are four people in that car. And he sprays all of them with this Mace, and they can't see Tigg.
Well, Bush comes over. He's been dealing with Nelson, and Bush becomes Nelson's friend and says let's go get those so and so's. This shouldn't be happening to you. You're my man. You're my buddy, and I'm going to help you get them. And Mr. Bush- -
At that point, the defense objected on the basis that the state was telling the jury about the defendant's being involved in a drug deal and other bad acts. The defense also requested a mistrial. The state told the trial court that it was explaining to the jury how the defendant transferred the 9mm pistol to Nelson four days after the robbery. The prosecutor then said, "Judge we probably ought to just have a 404(b) hearing and establish the parameters of this." However, the trial court ruled that the state could "tie in the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|