 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Pyburn8/16/2004
d placing the knife in the victim's hand.
Based upon the foregoing testimony, the jury convicted the appellant of first degree murder. The trial court imposed a life sentence with the possibility of parole. On appeal, the appellant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the admission of his prior conviction of aggravated robbery for impeachment purposes; (3) the admission of certain photographs of the crime scene; (4) the expert testimony of Dr. Charles Harlan; and (5) the trial court's charge to the jury.
II. Analysis
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict of first degree premeditated murder. In a separate issue, the appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal. Upon denying the appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case-in-chief, the trial court found, "I believe there is sufficient evidence that a jury could use in this case. I'm not saying it's likely, but I'm saying there is sufficient evidence at this time to withstand the motion . . . , so I deny your motion . . . ." The appellant contends that the language, "I'm not saying it's likely," implied that the trial court found the State's evidence to be insufficient to support a conviction of first degree murder. However, the trial court explicitly stated that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to consider the charge of first degree murder.
In any event, this court has previously observed that " he standard by which the trial court determines a motion for judgment of acquittal at the end of all the proof is, in essence, the same standard which applies on appeal in determining the sufficiency of the evidence after a conviction." State v. Thompson, 88 S.W.3d 611, 614-15 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). Moreover, " motion for a judgment of acquittal made at the conclusion of the proof by the state is waived when the defendant elects to present evidence on his own behalf." State v. Ball, 973 S.W.2d 288, 292 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (citing Mathis v. State, 590 S.W.2d 449, 453 (Tenn. 1979)); see also Tenn. R. Crim. P. 29(a). Accordingly, we will address the appellant's complaint regarding the denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the standard for review by an appellate 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 (1979); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). The State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable or legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). 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. Id. This court will not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973). Because a jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is initially cloaked at trial and replaces it on appeal with one of guilt, a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating to this court that the evidence is insufficient. State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).
First degree murder is defined in pertinent part as the "premeditated and intentional killing of another." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1) (20
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|