 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hawkins11/4/2005
and calmness immediately after the killing. Id.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence at trial established that the appellant had the Gentrys drive him to the victim's camper on the night of April 20, 2002, and told them to wait for him at a nearby church. The appellant returned to the Gentrys' van a short time later with blood on his face, saying that he had left the victim "for dead and that it was gruesome as hell." Detectives recovered from the woods near the victim's camper a fifty-two-inch hewn tree limb. The limb bore blood, hair, and brain matter. The blood was identified as being the victim's. Dr. Stephens testified that the victim died as a result of blunt trauma to the head and had sustained numerous blows to the head and upper torso, wounds which were consistent with being repeatedly struck by the tree limb. Dr. Stephens noted that some of the blows came when the victim had his back turned from his attacker and some of the blows occurred while the victim was braced against a wall "or even more likely on the ground." Moreover, there was evidence that the appellant was upset with the victim for assaulting Booher, and he was angry that the victim called him a "snitch." Further, the appellant told his sister, Garrett, that he killed the victim because he was bored. We conclude that from the foregoing evidence the jury could have reasonably determined that the appellant committed the first degree premeditated murder of the victim.
B. Admissibility of Evidence
The appellant raises two issues relating to the admissibility of evidence. First, the appellant argues that the trial court should have allowed him to introduce telephone calls which were made by the victim during his February 2002 incarceration. Second, the appellant contends that the trial court should have allowed him to cross-examine Mrs. Gentry regarding statements her husband made to police while she was present.
1. Telephone Calls
The appellant argues that the trial court erred in excluding the tape recordings of telephone calls made by the victim while he was incarcerated in February 2002. Specifically, he contends that these telephone calls were relevant to establish the victim's animosity toward the appellant and the victim's status as the aggressor.
"`Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Tenn. R. Evid. 401; see also State v. Kennedy, 7 S.W.3d 58, 68 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). Tennessee Rule of Evidence 402 provides that " ll relevant evidence is admissible except as [otherwise] provided . . . . Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible." However, even relevant evidence "may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Tenn. R. Evid. 403.
The appellant sought to introduce tape recordings of nine telephone calls the victim made to his sister in February 2002 while he was incarcerated in the Sullivan County Jail. In the first telephone call made on February 4, 2002, the victim asked his sister to take care of his dog and asked about posting his bond. The victim made a vague reference to the appellant being at Booher's residence shortly prior to his arrest. The victim called his sister again later that day but did not mention the appellant.
On February 8, 2002, during the third conversation with his sister, the victim again asked his siste
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.
|
|