 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Davidson5/12/2000
rt, see State v. Walker, 910 S.W.2d 381, 396-97 (Tenn. 1995). This issue is therefore without merit.
Sufficiency of Evidence
We now review the evidence from the jury verdict, consistent with our well-established standard, in a light most favorable to the state to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value to be given the evidence, and all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact, not this Court. See State v. Tuttle, 914 S.W.2d 926, 932 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). This Court neither reweighs nor re-evaluates the evidence. See State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). On appeal, the state is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all inferences therefrom. Id. Because a verdict of guilt removes the presumption of innocence and replaces it with a presumption of guilt, the accused has the burden in this Court of illustrating why the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict returned by the trier of fact. See State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).
The defendant was with the victims the last time either was known to be alive. Cosby, the defendant's father, testified that he heard two shots and saw the defendant with the bodies. Ricky, the defendant's nephew, testified that Cosby told Billy about the shooting. The bodies were positioned such that one could drive the vehicle with the bodies, consistent with the theory that the victims were slain at the farm and driven to their location site. Although the remains were greatly damaged by the fire, evidence was provided consistent with Hill's demise from a gunshot. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient for the jury's finding guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant does not satisfy the burden required for our overturning the verdicts. This issue is therefore without merit.
Fair and Impartial Jury
Under several theories, the defendant next asserts that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. See State v. Akins, 867 S.W.2d 350, 354 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). Specifically, he asserts that the trial court:
(1) did not strictly comply with statutory requirements for jury selection procedure;
(2) denied his motion for change of venue;
(3) denied his motion for individual voir dire;
(4) allowed the state too many peremptory challenges;
(5) admitted jurors who were likely not fair and impartial; and
(6) as a consequence of the enumerated assertions in their totality, committed cumulative error that entitles the defendant to a new trial.
Selection of the Jury Venire
Tennessee Code Annotated § 22-2-304 requires that either a child, less than ten years of age, or a securely blindfolded person draw the names of prospective jurors from the jury box. The trial court conceded that these statutory guidelines were not strictly followed: The commissioner drawing names was not blindfolded. The trial court concluded, however, that the deviation did not constitute prejudice.
Under circumstances where a "trial court flagrantly, unnecessarily, and substantially deviated from the statutes for selecting a special jury venire," proof of actual prejudice may be unnecessary. See State v. Bondurant, 4 S.W.3d 662, 666-70 (Tenn. 1999); see also State v. Lynn, 924 S.W.2d 892 (Tenn. 1998). Generally, however, absent a showing of fraud or prejudice, the deviations render neither the jury nor it's ve
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.
|
|