 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Henderson3/7/2001
utton and that the records included a photograph and rolled fingerprint impressions of Gary Wayne Sutton. The documents were then admitted into evidence. One of the documents is a judgment of conviction which indicates that Gary Dewayne Sutton had entered a guilty plea to the charge of aggravated assault as charged in indictment number 82-2313.
Crime Scene Technician Larry Muncy testified that he had previously prepared a card that contained the fingerprints of Appellant Gary Wayne Sutton. Muncy then testified that he had compared the fingerprint card that he had prepared with the fingerprint card obtained from the Cobb County Sheriff's Department and he had concluded that the fingerprints on both cards were from the same individual.
We conclude that the above evidence is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that both Appellants had previously been convicted of felonies involving violence to the person. First, the evidence was clearly sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant Dellinger had previously been convicted of first degree murder in Sevier County. Greene identified Dellinger, identified the judgment of conviction that he had prepared which showed that James Dellinger had been convicted of first degree murder in Sevier County, and testified that Appellant Dellinger was the same James Dellinger named in the judgment of conviction. Second, the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant Sutton had previously been convicted of first degree murder in Sevier County. Greene identified Sutton, identified the judgment of conviction that he had prepared which showed that Gary Wayne Sutton had been convicted of first degree murder, and testified that the defendant who was named in the judgment form was Gary Wayne Sutton. Appellant Sutton is correct that Greene did not specifically testify that Appellant Sutton was the same Gary Wayne Sutton named in the judgment of conviction. However, it is obvious from Greene's prior identification of Appellant Gary Sutton, his testimony that he was present in the Criminal Court of Sevier County on February 24, 1993; his testimony that he had prepared the judgment of conviction, and his testimony that the defendant named in the judgment of conviction was Gary Wayne Sutton that Greene was indicating that Appellant Sutton is the same individual that was named in the judgment of conviction for first degree murder in Sevier County. Third, the evidence was clearly sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant Sutton had previously been convicted of aggravated assault. The State introduced the judgment of conviction and Muncy testified that he had examined the fingerprints and determined that the individual convicted of aggravated assault was Appellant Sutton. This issue has no merit.
XXIX. INSTRUCTION ON REASONABLE DOUBT DURING SENTENCING
Appellants contend that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury about reasonable doubt during the sentencing phase of trial. We disagree.
In its charge to the jury during the sentencing phase, the trial court instructed the jury that
The burden of proof is upon the state to prove any statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in this case, and is an inability after such investigation to let the mind rest easily.
It is not necessary that the aggravating circumstance or circumstances be proved beyond all possible doubt, as absolute certainty is not demanded by the law.
A reasonable doubt is just
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|