 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Wilson8/2/2001
R>
We find that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on the natural and probable consequences rule, as the rule was not applicable to this case. In the case at bar, the target crime was the robbery of the victim and no collateral crimes were committed by the Defendant's confederate, Jared Christein. Thus, the especially aggravated robbery was not the natural and probable consequence of some other crime.
In order for the rule to apply in the present case, the Defendant would have to have shown that the murder was the target crime, and that the robbery was the natural and probable consequence of the murder. Then, this would require the state to prove all the elements of the murder, the Defendant's criminal responsibility for the robbery and that the robbery was the natural and probable consequence of the murder.
However, the facts of this case were not presented in this manner and we find no error by the trial court's declining to charge the natural and probable consequences rule. The Defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue.
III. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
The Defendant also contends that evidence at trial was insufficient to convict him of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. We disagree.
When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Keough, 18 S.W.3d 175, 180-81 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979)). We afford the prosecution the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in the record as well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. State v. Keough, 18 S.W.3d at 181 (citing State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997)). Questions regarding the credibility of the witnesses; the weight to be given the evidence; and any factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997).
To convict the Defendant of first degree felony murder, the State was required to prove that the Defendant killed the victim in the perpetration of a felony, which in this case was robbery. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(2). The intent to commit the underlying felony must exist prior to or concurrent with the killing in order for a defendant to be convicted of felony murder. See State v. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d 102, 107 (Tenn. 1999). Additionally, especially aggravated robbery is "robbery as defined in Section 39-13-401: (1) accomplished with a deadly weapon; and (2) where the victim suffers serious bodily injury." See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401.
The Defendant asserts that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had a prior intent to rob the victim. He argues that it is not reasonable to infer that he agreed to rob the victim, when he had known Christein less than twenty-four hours and had offered to purchase gas for the victim, who had little money.
Taken in light most favorable to the State, the evidence showed that Brandon Alford heard the Defendant and Christein talking about attacking and robbing the victim, while they were riding in the car with the victim and Ms. Bolling. The Defendant testified that he knew of Christein's intent to rob the victim. The Defendant admitted to stabbing and killing the victim. Afterwards, Christein turned the victim over and took his wallet. Later, the Defendant helped Christein dispose of the victim's wallet. From the evidence presented, we conclude that a rational juror could have
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|