 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Williams4/17/2002
Defendant's I.Q. would be more "suggestible" and "inclined to accept whatever they are told just at face value and not question it." Dr. Battle stated that he reevaluated the Defendant in April 2000. He testified that his second evaluation revealed that the Defendant was within the normal range of intelligence, with a verbal I.Q. between 89 and 99, a performance I.Q. between 79 and 93, and a full scale I.Q. between 86 and 94. Dr. Battle stated that the discrepancy in the Defendant's two scores could be attributed to fatigue or emotional stress at the time of the first test. He also stated, "I found that [the Defendant] is an individual who one could say when emotion occurs in him, it's not so much that he has the emotion, but the emotion has him. . . . And that is one of his greatest weaknesses as far as his personality operation is concerned, and it would adversely affect his relationships with other people and ability to get along in general."
On cross-examination, Dr. Battle clarified his findings. He stated that the Defendant was not mentally ill and reported that the Defendant was no longer borderline mentally retarded. Dr. Battle also agreed that psychological stressors could greatly affect one's performance on an intelligence test. Finally, he stated that a person with motive to exaggerate his or her condition could deceive a test administrator.
I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
The Defendant contests the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court's 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. Duncan, 698 S.W.2d 63, 67 (Tenn. 1985). 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. 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. State v. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d 102, 105 (Tenn. 1999); 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.
The Defendant was convicted of second degree murder, which is defined as " knowing killing of another . . . ." Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-13-210(a)(1). In a second degree murder case, "`knowing' refers to a person who acts knowingly with respect to the result of the person's conduct (death to the victim) when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result." Id. § 39-11-302(b). Second degree murder is a "result of conduct" offense. See State v. Ducker, 27 S.W.3d 889, 896. (Tenn. 2000).
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|