 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Wilson6/16/2005
ndant wrecked the Pontiac. Defendant fled once again on foot, and Officer MacLeod unleashed the police dog. The police dog latched onto Defendant's arm and brought him to the ground. The officers were able to handcuff Defendant at this point.
On cross-examination, Officer Moyer said that he did not see a weapon on Defendant during the chase. He agreed that the Pontiac's open car door did not hit him hard enough to cause the door to close. Officer Moyer said that he did not seek medical treatment after the chase was over. Officer Moyer conceded that he did not actually see Defendant start the Pontiac but assumed he did so because Mr. Burr was holding up both of his arms when the car started.
Mr. Burr testified that he was sitting in his mother's Pontiac listening to music when Defendant came up to his car. Mr. Burr said that he had heard of Defendant but did not personally know him. The key was in the ignition because Mr. Burr had turned on the car's electrical system so that he could operate the CD player. Mr. Burr said Defendant got into the Pontiac through the driver's side, and Mr. Burr got out of the car on the passenger side. Mr. Burr said that Defendant started the car.
On cross-examination, Mr. Burr said that he was not pushed out of the car but rather exited "on his own free will." Mr. Burr said that he did not see the police dog bite Defendant. He said that he was not scared of the police dog and just hoped that the dog did not bite him during the incident. Mr. Burr denied that he was scared of Defendant, denied that he said anything to Officer MacLeod, and denied that there was another car parked next to the Pontiac.
On redirect, Mr. Burr denied that he told the prosecutor before trial that someone had put "pressure" on him about his testimony, and he denied that he talked about the case with anyone. Mr. Burr said that he did not know Officer MacLeod.
The defense offered two witnesses who had been part of the crowd at the crime scene. Brandon Northington said that he was standing on the corner of Childress Street and Central Street when Defendant stopped his red car and began running. Mr. Northington said the police dog was very aggressive, and he saw Defendant fight with the dog. Mr. Northington said that Defendant did not pull Mr. Burr out of the Pontiac. He said that Defendant walked up to the Pontiac's driver's side, and Mr. Burr got out of the car from the passenger side. Mr. Northington said that the officers were not standing close to the Pontiac when Defendant drove away.
On cross-examination, Mr. Northington estimated that he was standing about sixty feet away from the Pontiac. He admitted that he knew Mr. Burr, but denied, on redirect examination, that he and Mr. Burr had discussed Mr. Northington's testimony prior to trial
Clark Moffett said he was standing across the street when Defendant drove off in the Pontiac. He said that Defendant was running to get away from the police dog. Mr. Moffett said that he did not see the Pontiac's car door strike Officer Moyer, and he did not see the car drag the police dog.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for carjacking and reckless endangerment. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, we must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution in determining whether a rational trier of fact could have found all the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1979). Once a jury finds a defendant guilty, his or her presumption of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|