### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d onBr ie fs F eb ru ar y 13, 200 7
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . ERIC MI CHAEL G OLDMAN
Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Marshall County No. 16345 Robert

Crigler , Judge

No. M2006- 01239-CCA -R3-C D - F iled May 9, 2007

The Appe llant, Eric Micha el Goldm an, wa s convicted by a Mar shall County

jury of misdemeanor
r e c k l e s s e n d an g e r

m e n tan d p u b l i c i n t o x i c a t i o nan d r e c e i v e d s e n t e n c e s o f e l e v e nm o n t h s an d

t w e n t ynine day s and thirty

day s, respe ctively

. On appeal, t he Appellant raises the single issue of suffic iency of the e vidence . After

revie w, the judg ments of the trial c ourt are aff irmed.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt s o f the Ci r c uitCo ur t A ffirm e d

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he cour t, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

Mic ha e l J

. Co lli ns , A ssi sta nt P ub lic De fe nd e r, She lby vil le , T e nn e sse e , f

or the Ap pe lla

nt, Er ic Michae l Goldman.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l a n d R e p o r t e r ; Da vid H. F ind le y , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; W. Mi chae l McCown, District Attorney Gene ral; an d W eakle y

E. Ba rnar d, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound The Appe llant’s convictions stem from his involvement in an af fra y , which occ urre d on a public street in L ewisburg , betwee n two sparr ing w omen over one’s c hoice of a male c ompanion. Hostilit ies wer e ig nited by the ac cusations of one of t he women that the other w oman was “ g iving [her ex-husband] bl ow jobs a nd stuff.” The fig ht quic kly esca lated into a melee a fter r elatives a

nd
c urre nt b o y f r i e n d s j o i n e d

i nt h e f r a c a s

. T h e t w o w o m e nw h o s t art e d t h e f i g h tw e r e , a to n e po int , se pa rate d; h ow e ve r, the fo u

r t e e n- y e ar- old

da ug hte r o f o ne of

the wo me n e nte re d th e fi g ht, a pp are ntl y as a r ep l ac em en tfo r h er m o t h er

. T h e fi gh t p ro ce ed ed wi t h “p aw i n g, p u n ch i n g, fi gh t i n g an d ro l l i n g”
a bo ut t he str e e t and

surr ound ingpr op e rt

y . D ur ingthi s p has e of

the fi g ht, the fo ur

te e n- y e ar- old
v ictim observed the A

ppellant, who wa s the boy friend of the woman she was fig hting, moving-2-

quickly towards he r with a knife in his hand. The Appe llant approa ched the victim and, with one
sw ingof the kn if e , c ut t hr ou g h th e “ tank

top ” the vic timwa s w e ari ng , w iththe bla de g ra zingthe sk in of the victim’s a

bdomen. The Appellant was arr ested at the scene minutes later by the police who had bee n aler

ted t o the fight. A pat-down sear ch of the Appellant reve aled a blue foldi ng razor-bla de knife in his pocket. The arr esting office r t estified that the Appellant was very intox icated, “ swing ing back a nd forth” a

nd that on an intox ication l ev el of “1 to 10 [he] was pushing ove r a 10.” Ba sed upon these fa cts, the Ap pellant was c onvicted by a Mar shall County

jury of the misdemea

nor offe nses of re ckless enda

ng erme nt and public intox ication.

Ana lys is The Appe llant asserts ther e is insufficient e vidence t o support his conviction for misdemeanor r eckle ss endang erme nt beca use “[ he] never pulled the kni fe on a ny one, nor did he cut anyone.” Fur

ther, he argues that there is insufficient evidenc e of public intoxi cation bec ause “ [he] was not enda

ng eringhimself, anyone else , or the prope rty of anyone else .” We apply the rul e t h at wher e the suff iciency of the e vidence is challeng ed, the r eleva nt qu e sti on fo r t he re vie wi ngc ourt

is “ wh e the r, a ft e r v ie wi ngthe e vid e nc e in t he light m os t f

avo ra ble to the [S tate], a

ny rational trier of fac t c ould ha ve found the essential elements of the crime be y ond
a re asonable doubt.” J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 30 7, 31 9, 99 S. Ct . 2 78 1, 27 89 (1 97 9) ; se e als o Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e) . All questions involving the c redibility of witnesses, the w eig ht and value to be g iven to the evidenc e, and a ll factua l issues are r esolved by the trier of fac t. State v. Pappas , 754 S.W .2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). A g uilty verdic t by

the jury , approve d by

the trial judge , acc redits t he testi mony of t he witnesses for the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of the theory of the State. State v. Grac e , 493 S.W .2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973) . A jury conviction re moves the pre sumption of innocence with which a de fenda nt is ini tially

cloake d an d re p l ace s it with one of guilt, so t hat on appe al, a c onvicted def endant ha s the burden of demonstrating that the evidenc e is insufficient. Sta te v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982)

. Th e jur y c on vic te d th e Ap pe lla

nt o f m isd e me ano r r e c kle ss en da ng e rm e nt, wh ic h is committed when “[a pe rson] recklessly eng ag es in c onduct that place s or may place another person in i m minent dang er of

death or serious bodily

injury .” T.C.A. § 39-13- 103(a) (2006). The Ap pe lla nt’ s argume nt o n a

ppeal th at the pr oo f i s in su ff ic ie nt t o c on vic t be c a

us e “ [the Ap pe lla

nt]
never pulled a knife on anyone, nor did he cut anyone,” while a viable a rgument at the trial leve l, was repudiated by

the jury ’s ver dict. We emphasize that the scope of our examination of the evidenc e on a pp e a l is no t e qu iva le nt to that of the jur y ’s

. I n a c ha lle ng e to the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , th is court doe s not re try

the def endant. Tw o important distinctions are noted in an appe llate re view. F ir st, our e xami natio n in

a su ff ic ie nc y re vie w i s n ot t o r e vis it i nc on sis te nt, c on tr a dic tin g , im p l a u s i b le
or non-c redible pr oof, as these issues are resolved sole ly by the jury

. Pappas , 754 S.W .2d at 623. Se c on d, the State is e nti tle d to the str on g e st l e g iti mate vie w o f t he e vid e nc e and

a ll r e a so na

ble infere nces which may

be dra wn from it. Sta te v . H

arris , 839 S. W

. 2 d 5 4, 75 (Tenn. 1992) . The question of leg al suffic iency require s us to determine whe ther the r ecor d contains evi d ence from which the jury

could have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt.-3-

At trial, the victim testified that the Appellant approa ched her with a knife in his ha nd and cut her with the blade of

the ra zor knife which g razed her s kin. The victim’s mother testified that she saw the Appellant approa ching her daug hter with a blue knife or box cutter in his hand and that sh e saw the Ap pe lla

nt “ sw ing the kn if

e ” a t he r d a

ug hte r. With in m inute s a ft e r t he vic tim ’s a ssa

ult , the police arr ived and observe d a “mar k on [t he victim’s] mid-section or bell y ” w h i ch was “consistent with a cut.” The poli ce rec overe d a blue “folding razor blade knife” from the Appe llant’s pa nt p oc ke t. F ro m th e se fa c ts, a ratio na l t ri e r o f f

a c t c ou ld h ave c on c lud e d, be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t, t hat th e Ap pe lla

nt w a s guil ty

of mis de me ano r r e c kle ss e nd ang e rm e nt. Next, th e A

p p e ll a nt c h a ll e n g e s th e e v id e n c e supporting his c onviction for public intox ication. This offense is committ ed whe n “[a person] appea rs in a public plac e under the influenc e of [any intox icating ] subs tance to the deg ree that . . . (2) ther e is enda ng erme nt to other persons or proper ty .” T.C.A. § 39-17- 3 1 0 (a )( 2 ) (2006). The victim testified she wa s on McClure Stree t in L ewisburg when the A

ppellant attac ked her . He “ was stumbling a ll over the plac e.” T h e ar re s t ing of fice r testified that the Appe llant was “ve ry intox icated” and “swing ing back a nd forth.” Clea

rly , a rational tr ie r o f f a c t c ou ld h ave c on c lud e d that the Ap pe lla nt wa s un de r the inf

lue nc e of a lc oh ol, in a

pu bli c pla c e , a nd that he po se d a

da ng e r t o o the rs , a s e vid e nc e d b y his a c tio ns a g a ins t th e vic tim

. CO NC LU SION

Ba sed on the for eg oing, the Appellant’s judg ments of conviction ar e af firmed.

___________________________________ DAVI D G. HAY ES, J UDGE