 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Reed6/25/2002
xhibit, but stated the following:
Ladies and gentlemen, the tape that you've heard would be what you are to consider. The Court will allow a copy of what purports to be a transcription of the tape to be marked as an exhibit for your aid and benefit, but if you find that the transcription differs with what you recall on the tape, you're to go by your memory of what was on the tape.
At the conclusion of Chandler's testimony, the State rested its case in chief. The defendant elected not to testify.
The defendant's mother, Sharon Reed, was the only witness testifying for the defense. She testified that the defendant had been receiving psychiatric counseling since 1994 and had been prescribed five or six different types of medication. She could tell if the defendant had been taking his medication by the way he acted. Reed said the defendant's attitude and personality had changed during the weeks prior to March 11, 1997. She said that she had pled guilty to forgery in Mississippi in 1998.
The trial court instructed the jury as to first degree murder and the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. The jury found the defendant guilty of second degree murder.
ANALYSIS
Sufficiency of the Evidence
The defendant appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial. In his appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to convict him of second degree murder, saying that he did not knowingly kill the victim since "he had no understanding of what he was doing or what was going on around him." Alternatively, he argues that his conviction should be reduced to voluntary manslaughter.
Where sufficiency of the convicting evidence is challenged, the relevant question of the reviewing 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, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 573 (1979). See also State v. Pike, 978 S.W.2d 904, 914 (Tenn. 1998); 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).
Jury verdicts in criminal cases are given considerable weight by the reviewing court. A guilty verdict that is approved by the trial judge accredits the testimony of the State's witnesses and resolves all conflicts in favor of the theory of the State. State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 803 (Tenn. 1994). Our supreme court stated the rationale for this rule:
This well-settled rule rests on a sound foundation. The trial judge and the jury see the witnesses face to face, hear their testimony and observe their demeanor on the stand. Thus the trial judge and jury are the primary instrumentality of justice to determine the weight and credibility to be given to the testimony of witnesses. In the trial forum alone is there human atmosphere and the totality of the evidence cannot be reproduced with a written record in this Court. Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tenn. 1966) (citing Carroll v. State, 370 S.W.2d 523, 527 (Tenn. 1963)).
A guilty verdict remov
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|