 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hawkins11/4/2005
ment her husband made in her presence to police;
(3) whether the trial court erred in ordering the appellant to disclose information regarding the appellant's mental evaluation;
(4) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion for a pretrial subpoena duces tecum for the victim's medical records;
(5) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the State had a duty to preserve evidence;
(6) whether the trial court erred in finding Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-18-110 (2003) was constitutional; and
(7) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction.
We will address these issues in an order different from that in which they were raised.
II. Analysis
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
On appeal, the appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for premeditated first degree murder, saying that "the evidence of premeditation . . . is entirely circumstantial and does not exclude the reasonable theory the intent to kill was formed during an altercation that was not planned in advance."
On appeal, a jury conviction removes the presumption of the appellant's innocence and replaces it with one of guilt, so that the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating to this court why the evidence will not support the jury's findings. See State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). The appellant must establish that no reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).
Accordingly, on appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. See State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). In other words, questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight and value to be given the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence, are resolved by the trier of fact, and not the appellate courts. See State v. Pruett, 788 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990).
The appellant was convicted of premeditated first degree murder, which is defined as "the premeditated and intentional killing of another." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1) (2003). Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-202(d) defines "premeditation" as "an act done after the exercise of reflection and judgment."
"Premeditation" means that the intent to kill must have been formed prior to the act itself. It is not necessary that the purpose to kill pre-exist in the mind of the accused for any definite period of time. The mental state of the accused at the time the accused allegedly decided to kill must be carefully considered in order to determine whether the accused was sufficiently free from excitement and passion as to be capable of premeditation.
Id.
The element of premeditation is a question of fact for the jury. State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600, 614 (Tenn. 2003). Although the jury may not engage in speculation, it may infer premeditation from the manner and circumstances surrounding the killing. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 660 (Tenn. 1997). Our supreme court has delineated several circumstances from which a jury may infer premeditation, including, but not limited to, declarations of the intent to kill, evidence of the procurement of a weapon, the use of a deadly weapon upon an unarmed victim, the particular cruelty of the killing, preparations before the killing for the purpose of concealing the crime,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|