 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Pyburn8/16/2004
03). Premeditation is defined as "an act done after the exercise of reflection and judgment." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(d).
"Premeditation" means that the intent to kill must have been formed prior to the act itself. It is not necessary that the purpose to kill pre-exist in the mind of the accused for any definite period of time. The mental state of the accused at the time the accused allegedly decided to kill must be carefully considered in order to determine whether the accused was sufficiently free from excitement and passion as to be capable of premeditation.
Id.
The element of premeditation is a question of fact for the jury. State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600, 614 (Tenn. 2003). Although the jury may not engage in speculation, it may infer premeditation from the manner and circumstances surrounding the killing. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 660 (Tenn. 1997). Our supreme court has delineated several circumstances from which a jury may infer premeditation, including, but not limited to, declarations of the intent to kill, the procurement of a weapon, the use of a deadly weapon upon an unarmed victim, the particular cruelty of the killing, preparations before the killing for the purpose of concealing the crime, and calmness immediately after the killing. Id. In Tennessee, once a homicide has been proven, it is presumed to be second degree murder, and the burden is on the State to prove the element of premeditation sufficient to raise the offense to first degree murder. State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence demonstrated that on the day of the murder, the appellant and the victim were arguing as they left Moore's residence. Moore subsequently telephoned the appellant at home, and the appellant informed her that he and the victim "w into it" and he was "fixing to kill the little MF." The appellant then laid down the telephone, ending their conversation. Approximately fifteen minutes later, the appellant telephoned Moore and told her that he had killed the victim. The appellant told Moore that he had shot the victim between the eyes.
In his statement to police, the appellant claimed that when he observed the victim coming out of his room with a knife held above his head, he picked up the rifle from behind the living room door and it "went off." However, Baggett testified that she kept the rifle loaded and locked in the gun cabinet. She further related that she did not observe the weapon behind the living room door when she left the mobile home the morning of the murder. Moreover, Agent Royce testified that the 30/30 lever action rifle had various safety features and the rifle would not fire without the hammer being manually cocked and the lever being held against the stock. The evidence also demonstrated that the victim was shot in his room. Blood spatter and brain tissue were observed in the bedroom near the victim's body, and bullet fragments were recovered from the wall behind the bed. Contrary to the appellant's assertion that the victim was five to six feet away when the rifle discharged, Dr. Harlan testified that the muzzle of the rifle was no more than twelve inches from the victim's head. A knife was discovered in the victim's left hand, but Alice Rheal testified that the victim was right-handed. The jury could have reasonably inferred that the appellant retrieved the rifle, entered the victim's room, and shot the victim in the head at close range. The appellant's statement that he was "fixing to kill the little MF," the procurement of a deadly weapon, and the failure of the appellant to seek help for the victim support the finding of premeditation. We conclude that the evidenc
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.
|
|