 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Polston8/19/2004
y on flight; (4) the trial court erred by failing to charge the defenses of necessity and duress; (5) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's application for judicial diversion; and (6) the trial court erred by ordering the Defendant to serve sixty days in jail.
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for a rational trier of fact to find him guilty of reckless aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt. When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, our standard of review is whether, after considering 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. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979); State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 278 (Tenn. 2000). This rule applies to findings of guilt based upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both direct and circumstantial evidence. State v. Pendergrass, 13 S.W.3d 389, 392-93 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court should not re-weigh or re-evaluate the evidence. State v. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d 102, 105 (Tenn. 1999); State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Nor may this Court substitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact from the evidence. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d at 105; Liakas v. State, 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Tenn. 1956). Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact. Liakas, 286 S.W.2d at 859. This Court must afford the State of Tennessee the strongest legitimate view of the evidence contained in the record, as well as all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992). Because a verdict of guilt against a defendant removes the presumption of innocence and raises a presumption of guilt, the convicted criminal defendant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. Id.
A person commits aggravated assault who " ecklessly commits an assault as defined in § 39-13-101(a)(1), and . . . auses serious bodily injury to another. . . ." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(a)(2)(A) (1997 & Supp. 2002). A person commits assault who " ntentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another. . . ." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-101(a)(1) (1997 & Supp. 2002). "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury which involves: a substantial risk of death; protracted unconsciousness; extreme physical pain; protracted or obvious disfigurement; or protracted loss or substantial impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(34) (1997).
The Defendant argues that insufficient evidence exists to support his conviction of reckless aggravated assault because "no rational trier of fact could have found that [the Defendant] caused the serious bodily injury to [the victim] beyond a reasonable doubt." We cannot agree with the Defendant's assertion. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of reckless aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt.
The evidence was undisputed that, in the late evening and early morning between September 6 and September 7, 2002, the Defendant and the victim were on the Flashbacks dance floor. The Defendant testified that he made contact with the victim's face. One witness stated
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|