 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bondurant3/20/1998
ufficient for a rational juror to conclude that the defendant was guilty of premeditated and deliberate murder.
In a related issue, the defendant contends that the jury instructions regarding the elements of first-degree murder violated the dictates of Brown, and that such error was not harmless due to the insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation. We find this issue to be of no merit.
The trial court gave the following jury instruction on premeditation and deliberation to the jury:
A premeditated act is one done after the exercise of reflection in judgment. Premeditation means that the intent to kill must have been formed prior to the act, itself. Such intent or design to kill may be conceived and deliberately formed in an innocent . It is not necessary that the purpose to kill pre-exist in the mind of the accused for any definite period of time. It is sufficient that it preceded the act, however short the interval, as long as it was the result of reflection and judgment.
The mental state of the accused, at the time he allegedly decided to kill, must be carefully considered in order to determine whether the accused was sufficiently free from passion. If the design to kill was formed with deliberation and premeditation, it is immaterial that the accused may have been in a state of passion or excitement, when the design was carried into effect.
Furthermore, premeditation can be found, if the decision to kill is first formed during the heat of passion, but the accused commits the act after the passion has subsided.
(Emphasis added).
Initially, and preemptively, we note that, since Brown was decided after the trial in the present case, it does not apply to the instructions given to the jury. See Lofton v. State, 898 S.W.2d 246, 249-50 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); James Rines v. State, No. 03C01-9606-CC-00210, slip op. at 7 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Jan. 28, 1997), perm. spp. denied (Tenn. 1997). However, we note, parenthetically, that had Brown applied, the jury instruction in the present case would have been in compliance. In Brooks, 880 S.W.2d 390, this court held that the jury instruction failed to distinguish and separate premeditation and deliberation as required by Brown. Brooks, 880 S.W.2d at 393. As argued by the state, although the jury instruction given in this case was similar to the one given in Brown, the trial court included saving language to ensure that the jury separated the elements of premeditation and deliberation. Specifically, the trial court instructed the jury that "t is sufficient that it preceded the act, however short the interval, as long as it was the result of reflection and judgment." We find no reversible error in the jury instruction.
The defendant also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of arson. He points out that according to Denise's testimony, Pete acknowledged he was the one who burned the victim's house, and the defendant was working at the time of the fire. Accordingly, the defendant submits that the trial court should have granted a judgment of acquittal or, alternatively, it should have granted a new trial because the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. We disagree.
Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-3-202 (1982) defines arson as:
Any person who willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns, causes to be burned, or who aids, counsels or procures the burning of any house or outhouse, or any building, or any other structure, the property of himself or of another, shall be guilty of arson.
In reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, we find tha
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 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|