 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Raines4/17/2002
-13-210(a)(1) (1997). "`Knowing' refers to a person who acts knowingly with respect to the conduct or to circumstances surrounding the conduct when the person is aware of the nature of the conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of the person's conduct when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(20). In contrast, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-211 (a) provides that " oluntary manslaughter is the intentional or knowing killing of another in a state of passion produced by adequate provocation sufficient to lead a reasonable person to act in an irrational manner." Finally, the self-defense statute provides that " person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-611(a).
In this case, the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, supports the finding by the jury that the defendant committed second-degree murder. Evidence was presented that the defendant was upset because the victim refused to return his cigarette lighter. The defendant drove to his home and went inside to retrieve his gun. While inside, the defendant's father tried to dissuade him from going outside with the gun and even offered to buy him a new cigarette lighter. Notwithstanding his father's pleas, the defendant went outside with the loaded gun to confront the victim. When the victim saw the defendant with the gun, he "staggered" towards the defendant and threatened to kill the defendant if the defendant pointed the gun at him. In response, the defendant raised the gun and fired a single shot into the victim's chest. The victim was unarmed at all times. These actions were more than sufficient to show that the defendant committed a knowing (i.e., was aware that his conduct was reasonably certain to result in a death) killing of another.
The defendant contends that the victim provoked fear and anger by stealing the defendant's cigarette lighter and bragging about being in prison for murder. Such provocation led the defendant to retrieve his gun in order to scare the victim into returning his lighter and to protect himself if attacked by the victim. When the defendant walked outside with the weapon at his side, the victim moved towards the defendant and threatened to kill him if he pointed the gun at the victim. The victim continued to move forward after making the threat, and the defendant alleges that he fired the gun while under the honest belief that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. As such, the defendant claims that he was acting in "necessary" self-defense or at the most, he was guilty of voluntary manslaughter because "any irrational behavior on the part of [the defendant] was a direct result of deliberate and adequate provocation by the [victim]." However, the jury was instructed on voluntary manslaughter and self-defense, as well as first and second-degree murder, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. Whether adequate provocation exists, so as to support a conviction for voluntary manslaughter, is a question for the jury. See State v. Johnson, 909 S.W.2d 461, 464 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). Likewise, the question of whether a criminal defendant has acted in self-defense is one for the jury's determination. State v. Clifton, 880 S.W.2d 737, 743 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); State v. Ivy, 868 S.W.2d 724, 727 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). By convicting the defendant of second-degree murder, the jurors obviously rejected the defendant's contention that he wa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|