 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Henry9/29/2004
lex. The boys were yelling for the defendant to come outside of the apartment. The defendant did come out of the apartment and started swinging a large stick at the boys. The boys ran to their car and left. The victim continued to yell at the defendant. Ms. Wolfe then saw the defendant run toward the fence, and the victim yelled that the defendant hit her and took her purse.
The defendant was arrested the night of April 12, 2002. He was tried on April 30 and May 1, 2003. At the conclusion of proof, the jury found the defendant guilty of theft of property valued at less than $500, possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance, and tampering with evidence. The trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for both the theft and possession convictions and sentenced the defendant to six years for the tampering with evidence conviction. The theft and tampering with evidence convictions were run concurrently with each other and the possession conviction was to run consecutively to the other convictions. The jury also levied a fine of $750.00 for the possession conviction. The defendant appealed his convictions.
ANALYSIS
The defendant's sole issue on appeal is that there was not sufficient evidence to support his convictions for tampering with evidence and theft of property valued at less than $500. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court is obliged to review that claim according to certain well-settled principles. A verdict of guilty, rendered by a jury and "approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the" State's witnesses and resolves all conflicts in the testimony in favor of the State. State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994); State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). Thus, although the accused is originally cloaked with a presumption of innocence, the jury verdict of guilty removes this presumption "and replaces it with one of guilt." State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). Hence, on appeal, the burden of proof rests with the defendant to demonstrate the insufficiency of the convicting evidence. Id. The relevant question the reviewing court must answer is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the accused guilty of every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Harris, 839 S.W.2d at 75. In making this decision, we are to accord the State "the strongest legitimate view of the evidence as well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn therefrom." See Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d at 914. As such, this Court is precluded from re-weighing or reconsidering the evidence when evaluating the convicting proof. State v. Morgan, 929 S.W.2d 380, 383 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Moreover, we may not substitute our own "inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact from circumstantial evidence." Matthews, 805 S.W.2d at 779.
The defendant first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for tampering with evidence. The elements of tampering with evidence is found at Tennessee Code Annotated section 39- 16-503. Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-503 states, "(a) It is unlawful for any person, knowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, to: (1) Alter, destroy, or conceal any record, document or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding . . . ." The defendant argues that he could not be guilty of tampering with evidence because, the defendant "having possession of the necklace at the time of the arrest cannot fall within the d
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.
|
|