 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Farrar4/16/2002
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, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 573 (1979). See also State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-92 (Tenn. 1992); State v. Anderson, 835 S.W.2d 600, 604 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e) ("Findings of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the evidence is insufficient to support the findings by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."). All questions involving the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be given the evidence, and all factual issues are resolved by the trier of fact. See State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). "A guilty verdict by the jury, approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of the theory of the State." State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973). A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal, a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient. See State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).
The defendant was convicted of reckless aggravated assault. To convict for this offense, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant either recklessly committed an assault causing serious bodily injury to another, or recklessly committed an assault using or displaying a deadly weapon and causing bodily injury. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-101(a)(1), -102(a)(2) (1997). The jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts of the indictment, finding the defendant guilty of reckless aggravated assault resulting in serious bodily injury and reckless aggravated assault by the use of a deadly weapon. However, the trial court merged the two counts into a conviction for reckless aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. The defendant did not object to this merger.
The defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because none of the witnesses, with the exception of the victim, saw him with a knife. Asserting that " n the course of this fight, it would have been impossible for the victim to have seen the knife[,]" he argues that the victim's testimony about the knife should not have been credited. He makes no argument on the issue of whether the victim sustained serious bodily injury in the assault. However, the conviction being appealed is reckless aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury.
The evidence clearly was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the victim sustained serious bodily injury in the attack. Serious bodily injury includes a "cut" that involves a substantial risk of death, or protracted or obvious disfigurement. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(2), (34)(A) & (D) (1997). The proof established that the victim sustained a major laceration to his torso which extended over ten inches in length; penetrated his interior abdominal wall and three layers of skin, muscle, and fat, narrowly missing his lung and/or spleen; required over 120 stitches and staples to close; and resulted in a permanent scar. The distinction between bodily injury and serious bodily injury is generally a question of fact for the jury to determine. See State v. Barnes, 954 S.W.2d 760, 765-66 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Dr. Clark testified that the wound was "large deep," and, at one point, he "had both hands fully inside the wound." We conclude, therefore, that the evidence was more than sufficient to support the jury's verdict finding the defendant guilty of reckless aggrav
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|