 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Harris5/23/2005
vidence are matters entrusted to the trial judge as the trier of fact." State v. Lawrence, 154 S.W.3d 71, 75 (Tenn. 2005) (quoting State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996)). Moreover, the prevailing party is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. State v. Hicks, 55 S.W.3d 515, 521 (Tenn. 2001).
From our review of the record, we initially note that the defendant's argument regarding the suppression of his journal is moot. The journal was never introduced at trial. Thus, there is no error to review on appeal. With respect to the defendant's statements admitted at trial, the evidence in the record does not preponderate against the trial court's findings. The record in this case shows that the defendant gave inconsistent testimony regarding whether he was medicated or intoxicated at the time he waived his Miranda rights. Moreover, the defendant offered no evidence of any police coercion. In contrast, the State's evidence and the defendant's own admissions support the trial court's findings that the defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights before making statements to police. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress.
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The defendant argues that the evidence does not support the jury's verdict. Specifically, the defendant asserts that he lacked the mental state to be guilty of second degree murder. While not entirely clear, the defendant seems to base this argument on testimony from his sentencing hearing.
Our review begins with the well-established rule that once a jury finds a defendant guilty, his or her presumption of innocence is removed and replaced with a presumption of guilt. State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992). Therefore, on appeal, the convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating to this Court why the evidence will not support the jury's verdict. State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 557-58 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). To meet this burden, the defendant must establish that no "reasonable trier of fact" could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Evans, 108 S.W.3d 231, 236 (Tenn. 2003); Tenn. R.App. P. 13(e). In contrast, the jury's verdict approved by the trial judge accredits the States' witnesses and resolves all conflicts in favor of the State. State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). The State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from that evidence. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d at 558; Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d at 914. Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, conflicts in trial testimony, the weight and value to be given the evidence, and all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact and not this Court. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). We do not attempt to re-weigh or re-evaluate the evidence. State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 277 (Tenn. 2002); Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 659. Likewise, we do not replace the jury's inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence with our own inferences. See State v. Elkins, 102 S.W.3d 581, 582 (Tenn. 2003); Reid, 91 S.W.3d at 277.
Initially, we note that the defendant's sufficiency argument based upon evidence not introduced at trial is inadequate. It is well-established that a defendant who intends to introduce expert testimony relating to a mental disease, defect, or any other mental condition bearing upon the issue of guilt must provide written no
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|