 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Wilson6/16/2005
innocence is removed and replaced with a presumption of guilt. State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 175 (Tenn. 1991). The defendant has the burden of overcoming this presumption, and the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence along with all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from that evidence. Id.; State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). The jury is presumed to have resolved all conflicts and drawn any reasonable inferences in favor of the State. State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984). Questions concerning the credibility of 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 and not this court. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). These rules are applicable to findings of guilt predicated upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both direct and circumstantial evidence. State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).
A. Carjacking Conviction
Defendant was convicted of the offense of carjacking which is defined as "the intentional or knowing taking of a motor vehicle from the possession of another by use of: (1) deadly weapon; or (2) orce or intimidation." Tenn. Code Ann. * 39-13-404(a). Defendant does not dispute that he intentionally took Mr. Burr's car from his possession, and neither party contends that Defendant was armed during the incident. Defendant argues, however, that the evidence does not support a finding that he used force or intimidation to take Mr. Burr's car. Defendant argues that Mr. Burr testified that he got out of his car "on own free will," and that he was not scared of Defendant. Mr. Burr said that he was just trying to get out of the way. The State, on the other hand, argues that Officer Moyer testified that Mr. Burr appeared to be "excited" and "upset." Officer MacLeod described Mr. Burr as "frantic" and "scared." Both officers said that Defendant slid under Mr. Burr until Mr. Burr was "sitting" in Defendant's lap, and that Mr. Burr was pushed up against the driver's side door as the police dog lunged at Defendant through the open door. Officer Moyer said that Mr. Burr managed to get out of the car by crawling out of the passenger side door.
The determination of whether Defendant used force or intimidation to steal Mr. Burr's car rested with the jury's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. Based on its verdict of guilty, the jury obviously accredited the testimony of Officers Moyer and MacLeod that Defendant forced his way into Mr. Burr's car, that Mr. Burr was in the front seat of the car while the police dog attacked Defendant, and that Mr. Burr escaped from the car by crawling out of the passenger side door. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed the offense of carjacking by force and intimidation. Defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue.
B. Reckless Endangerment
Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of reckless endangerment because there was no proof that he knew that Officer Moyer was anywhere near the Pontiac when Defendant drove the car away. In other words, Defendant contends that there was no evidence that he consciously disregarded a substantial risk of injury to others by his driving.
"A person commits an offense who recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another person in imminent danger of death or bodily injury." Tenn. Code Ann. * 39-13-103(a). "`Reckless' refers to a person who acts recklessly with respect to circumstances surrounding
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.
|
|