### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Novem ber 19, 200 2 Session
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DENNIS CEDRI C WOODARD, JR.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bedford County

No. 14912 Charles Lee, Judge

No. M2002-00122-CCA-R3-CD - F iled January 24, 2003

The Defendant, Den n is Cedric Woodard, Jr., was convicted by a jury of first deg

ree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of par ole. In this appeal

as of rig ht, the Defe ndant ar gues tha t the evid ence pr esented at trial isnot suffic ient to sust ain his conviction. We affir m the judg ment of the

trial cou rt. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed

D AV ID H. W ELLE S , J ., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J OE G. R ILEY and A LAN E. G LENN , JJ., joined.

Jack Dearing, I

II and Mike Collins, Assistant Public Defen ders, Shelbyville, Tennessee, f or the appellant, Dennis Cedric Woodard, Jr.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Rep orte

r; Re nee W

. Turner, Assistant Attorney Genera l; Mike McCown, District Attorney Ge neral; and Michael Randles, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Te nnessee.
OPINION

The De f endant, Dennis Cedric Woodard, Jr., was convicted by a jury of fir st degree premeditated

murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parol e. He now argues on appeal that the evidenc e presented at trial is not sufficient to support his conviction.

The proof offered

by the State demonstrated that on the night of April 13, 2001, the homicide victim, Scott Shafer, was shot ne ar Derry

Street in Shelbyville. Earlier that da y, at around f

our o’clock, the victim had been visiting the home of LaShawn Nunnally . Ms. Nunnally testified that sometime later the Defendant arrived at her house carry

ing a gun. The Defendant pointed the g un at the victim and said, “Nigga, are you real or

are you f

ake?” The victim responde d t o the Defend ant, who was commonly re ferred to as “Junior,” by say ing, “Junior, man, quit playing. I ’m-2-

fucked up.” The Defendant, still pointing the gun at the victim, then repe ated his question. At that point, Ms. Nunnally requeste d that the two men leave the front of her house. The Defendant and the victim went to the rear of the house, and Ms. Nunnally followed. She asked the Defendant for the gun, and he g ave it to her. Immediately thereafter, Jarmaine Hill, Ms. Nunnally ’s boyfriend, a n d Mike Jones arrived. Mr. Hill inquired what Ms. Nunnally was doing

with the Defendant’s gun. She responded

that she was trying

to “prevent trouble.” Mr. Hill then demanded tha t sh e return the Defendant’s gun, which she did, but she kept the clip that contained the bulle ts and went back around to the front porch of her house. A few minutes later, the four men came to the front of the house, and the Defend ant’s mou

th was blee ding. Whe

n Ms. Nunna

lly a sked wha

t had happ ened, the

victim replied, “I d

unked him

on his head.” The Defendant then said to the victim, “Man, y ou fucked up my grill.” Then the Defendant smiled at the vic tim and ad ded, “Yo u are g oing to r

emember this tonight.” However, Ms. Nunnally testified that the Defendant and the victim then hugged, made up, and left together in the victim’s car. After a ll the men l eft, Ms. Nunna lly w rapped t he pistol c lip in toilet paper and tossed it into a creek.

About two hours later, Ms. Nunnally ha d go ne to anot

her house

to visit with

friends

. Jarmaine Hill and Mike Jones arrived; then a few minutes later, the Defendant and the victim drove up. As the day g ot later, Ms. Nunnally, her two daughters, and the

victim dec ided to wa

lk back to Ms. Nunnally ’s house t

o get the ir jackets. As they r

eturnedfrom getting their coats, the Defe ndant walked up, pointed the gun at the victim, and said, “Nigga, are y

ou ready to die?” The Def endant then shot the victim, who fell down. He pulled the trigger sever al more times, but the gun would not fire because the clip had been removed. The Defendant, who then ran away , was wearing a yellow shirt, black de

nim shorts, bl ack Nike

shoes, and black so cks. Ms. N unnally ran toa pay tele

phone and called 911. She then located the victim, who had run a short distance and fallen down, a nd she applied a blanket to his wound.

On cross-examination, Ms. Nunnally said that the Defendant

appeared intoxicated while he
was at her house. She s aid that h is speec h was slur

red and h e was sta gger ing. He also appear

ed to be intoxicated when she left her friend’s house to get the jackets from her house. She said that whe n the police arrived, she was beside the victim, render ing aid.

Thomas Thompson testified that on the evening of April 1 3, 2001, he

was in his house at 101 Byrd Street. A

t around 7 :40 that nig

ht, he heard what sounded like a gunshot. He then looked out his window and saw a

white man run between 714 and 716 Derry

Street, fall down on the ground, and yell that

he had been shot. Then Mr. Thompson looked behind Smith’s Food Town on Derry Street and saw a black man in a y ellow shirt run behind the store.

James Wheeler

testifie d that at a

round nine

o’clock on the nig

ht of Apri l 13, 2001, a young black man, whom

he identi fied as th

e Defe ndant, knocked on his door. Mr. Wheeler testified that the Defendant was bleeding from his mouth, and he initially thought t hat the De

fendant had bee n in
a car accident. However, the D efendant said that he had been beaten up, and he asked to use the telephone. While Mr. Wheeler was inside his house retrieving a cordless phone for the D efenda nt, he decided to call 911 to have an ambulance come render aid to the De fendant. When Mr. Wheeler-3-

went outside to give the Defendant the telephone, he observed a car drive up with a young

man and
woman inside. Mr. Wheeler recognized the drive r of the car as a man named Matt Kelly . The Defend ant, who Mr. Wheeler said was “fidgety ” and “obviously wa nting to leave,” got in the car withMr. Kelly

and drov e away . On cros s-examina tion, Mr. Wheeler te stified th at the Defendant was having difficulty

breathing and speaking bec ause of the condition of his mouth.

David Williams, an officer with the Bedford County Sheriff’s Department, testified that he accompanied

the ambul ance to

Mr. Wheeler’s residence in response to Mr. Wheeler’s 911 call. As he was driving, he passed a white Honda Accord. Upon speakingwith Mr. Wheeler, he learned that the subject had left in that car. Officer Williams then followed the Accord to theemergency room parking lot, where he stopped the vehicle. The Defendant

was in the

back sea t, and Of ficer Wil liams noticed that he ha

d injuriesto his fac e, he ha d blood dow n the fro nt of his body, and he wa s not wearing a shirt. When the officer asked for his name, the Def endant replied t

hat his na me was Simms. However , t he driver of the car, Matt Kelly , told the Defendant to tell the truth, and the Defendant

then told the office

r that his name was Junior Woodard. Officer Williams asked another officer, D’Angelo I

nman of the Tennessee Highway Patrol, to pat down the Defendant for wea pons. Officer Inman locat ed a Taurus .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol in the Defenda nt’s pocket. The
we apon had no clip in the grip. Officer Williams then placed the Defe ndant in his patrol car and calledfor the city police. Off icer Williams testified that he smelled alcohol on the Defendant, but that the Defendant was coherent and ha d no trouble walking . Offi cer Inman, on the other hand, testifie d that he d

id not notic e an odor

of alcoh ol about th

e Defe ndant.

Back at the scene of theshooting, Rod Stacey wa s the patrolman with the Shelbyville Police Department

who first arrived. He

testified that he located a white male, whom he recognized as the victim, Scott Shafer, lying on the ground in between 714 and 716 Derry Street. Offi cer

Stacey observed an entrance wound and

an exit wound in the victim’s leftarm and a n entrance wound

in the victim’s abdomen. Officer Stacey testified that the victim did not tell him who shot him or the circum stanc es sur round ing th e shoo ting.

Detective Eric Ely

of the She

lby ville Polic e Depar

tm ent arr iv ed on the scene after other officers had already

secured the area and

begun searching for

evidence. He was directed to an a rea where David Williams of the Bedford County Sheriff’s Depa

rtment had located

a shell casing earlier that evening. Detective Ely

photographed the cartridge and took it into evidence. He testified that it was the c asing of

a .40 ca liber bull e t. At around 10: 25 that evening, Detective Ely went to the hospital where other officers had the De fendant in custody. The

re he received the Taurus pistol that Trooper Inma n had found inthe Defendant’s pocket. Detective Ely stated that he read the Defendant his rights. Noticing that the D efenda nt had bloo d on his lip a

nd some of

his teeth were dislodged, he asked him , “What ha

ppened to your mouth?” The

Defendant replied, “I

didn’t shoot anybody .” The detective testified

that he di d not smell

alcohol on the Defendant during this conversation. L ater in his investigation, Detective Ely went to the office of the state medical exam iner, where he receiv ed the bullet that ha d been re moved fr om the body

of the vic tim.1 “Sha wn” re fers to L aSha wn N unna lly.
-4-

Teri Arney

is a fore nsic scie ntist with the Tennessee Bureau of I nvestigation. She examined the shellcasing found at the scene of the shooting, the bullet extracted from the victim’s body , and the handgun found

in the Defendant’s pocket. She testified that the gun wa s a Taurus model PT140 .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol. She determined that the bullet and shell casing had be en fired and ejected from the Defendant’s g un.
Jeff Long is the EMT worker who administered medical aid to the victim. Mr. Long testified that when he encountered the victim, he was pale a nd sweating. Thevictim’s lack of color indicated blood loss, and the perspiration indicated that he wa s begin ning to go into shock. These signs suggested that the victim

was blee ding inte

rnally and nee ded to be f

lown via helicopt er to Nas hville for surgery

. Jeffery Guy is a surg eon at

Vander bilt Hospital who treated the victim. He testified that the victim had extremely low blood pressure when he arrived at Vanderbilt. Despite the efforts of the surgical team, Scott Shafer died from blood loss as a result of gu nshot wounds to the spleen, pancreas, and intestines. Feng Li of the state medical examiner’s off i ce perf ormed an autopsy on the

victim’s body
on April14, 2001. H e testifi ed that the victim di ed of gunshot wou nds to diff

erent in ternal o rgans, and that all of the wounds had been caused by a single bullet. He also testified that no alcohol or drugs were detected in the victim’s blood.

RhondaHill testified thather son Chris received a letter in May of 2001. She recognized the return address on the envelope as being the Bedford County

Jail; so she decided to read the letter. The letter was dated May

23, 2001, the day af

ter the Defendant’s preliminary hearing. The letter was from the Defendant, who referre d to himself as “Juvy.” I n the letter, the Defendant stated that a girl named Shawn is “running her mouth.” 1 The Def endant’ s letter a sked Christo prevent Ms. Nunna

lly from making the June 18 court date, which is the date on which the Defendant’s case w as presented to the gra nd jury . Finally , the Def

endant r equeste d Chris to “hook up wit h Mickey and burn this bitch house dow n.” Afte

r readi ng the le

tter, Ms. H

ill went to the police station and gave the police the letter. Henry

Young, who was in jail with the Defendant, t estified that he observed the Defendant

writing the letter. Mr. Young testified that after his preliminary

hearing on May

22, 2001, the Defendant mentioned LaShawn Nunnally’s testimony and that it “needed to be taken care of .”

After the State rested its case, the Defendant testified on his own behalf. He stated that, on the afternoon of April 13, 2001, hehad been out riding with thevictim, Scott Shafer. The Defendant had drunk three quarts of Budweiser beer in thirty minutes when he first joined the victim. After the Defendant

left the victim’s car, the Defendant decided to walk to L aShawn Nunnally’s house

. When he arrived, the victim was already there. The two men exchanged words re g ar ding whether the victim had tried to “holler” at the Defendant’s g irlfriend. At this point, the Defendant testified that his gun was in his pocket. He handed the gun to Ms. Nunnally , and the argument between the-5-

Defendant

and th e vict im esc alate d int o a figh t. The victim punched the Defendant in the mouth, and the two wrestled

on the ground. During the fight, the De fendant suffer ed a buste d lip and lo st a tooth. After the fight, the two men apolo gized to each other, hugged, a

nd left in the victim’s car. The Defendant stated that when they left, Ms. Nunnally still had the gun.

The Defendant and the victim then went to a store, where the Defendant bought another quart of beer. After ridingaround for awhile, the two men returned to Ms. Nunnally ’s house. When they arrived, Ms. Nunnally and Mike Jones were the re. The group was sitting

on the fr ont p orch t alkin g, when Jarmaine Hill showed up. Mr. Hill and Ms . Nunnall y w ent inside

the house for fift een to thi rty minutes. When Mr. Hill came back onto the front porch, he told the Defenda n t that he wante d to speak with him. The two men walked down the street and talked. The Defendant testified that when they returned, he sat back

down on Ms. Nunnally’s front porch. Then the Defendant looked up and observed Mr. Hill pointing a gun at the victim. The Defendant stated that Mr. Hill shot the victim. Mr. Hill ran away , but the Defendant remained on the porch. At that time, Ms. Nunnally approached the Defend ant, said “Here,” and handed him the pistol. The Defe ndant took

the gun and ran. The Defendant

said that he ran p ast S mith’s Food Town, and he stopped and knocked on the door of James Wheeler because he did not know how to get to his friend Matt Kelly’shouse. While he was at Mr. Wheeler’s house, Matt Kelly drove up, and the Defendant got in his car. The Def endant testified that they

drove to t

he hospita

l becaus e he was concer

ned abou t the victi m. La

ter on in h

is te st im on y, the Defend ant admitt ed writing the letter to Chris Hodge asking him to burn down the house of LaShawn Nunnally “to make her stop lying

on [him].”

The defense

called Jar maine Hil l as a witne ss, but he a sserted his Fifth Amend ment p rivil ege agains tself-incrimination. Therefore, the trial cou rt decla red Mr. H ill unava ilable, a nd the def ense calledRandall

Lottie . Mr. L

ottie test ified tha t, while he

was inca rcera ted with Mr. Hill, he heard Mr. Hill say that he killed Scott Shafer. Mr. Hill sa id that Mr. Shafer o wed him money for drug s, and that another person was in jail for his crime.

Based u pon this evidence, the jury found the

Defend ant guil

ty of first degree premeditated murder. The Defendant argues tha t the evidence presented at tria l is insuff

icient to s upport his conviction. Tennessee Rule of App ellate Proc edure 13 (e) pre scribes that “[f]ind ings of g uilt in criminal actions whether

by the trial court or jur

y shall be set aside if the

evidenceis insuffi cient to support the findings by the

trier of fact of guilt bey

ond a reasonable doubt.” Evidence is sufficient if, after reviewing the evidenc e in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rat io nal trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime bey ond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson
v. Virgini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Smith , 24 S.W.3d 274, 278 (Tenn. 2000). In addition, because conviction by a trier of fa ct destro ys t he presu mption of in

nocenc e and impo ses a presumption of guilt, a

convictedcriminal defendant bears the burden of showing that the evidence
was insufficient. See McBee v. State , 372 S.W.2d 1 73, 176 (T enn. 1963 ); see also Statev. Buggs , 995 S.W.2d 102, 1 05-06 (T enn. 1999 ); State v. Evans , 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992); State v. Tuggl e , 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).-6-

In its review of the e

vidence , an appe

llate cou rt must af ford the State “the strong est leg itimate view of the evidence as well as all reasonable and legitimate inference s that may be dra wn therefrom.” Tuggl e , 639 S.W.2d at 914; see also Smith , 24 S.W.3d at 279. The court may not “re

weigh or re-evaluate the

evidence” in the record below. Evans , 838 S.W.2d a t 191; see also Buggs , 995 S.W.2d at 105. Likewise, should the reviewing court fi nd particular conflicts in the trial te st im on y, the cour

t must reso lve them in

favor of the jury ver

dict or trial court judgment. See T uggle , 639 S.W.2d at 914. All questions involving the credibility of witnesses, the weight an d value to be given the evidence, and all factual issues are resolved by t he trier of fact , not the a

ppellate courts. See State v. Mo

rris , 24 S.W.3d 788, 7 95 (Tenn . 2000); State v. Pappas , 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).

“First degree murder is . . . [a] premeditated and intentional killing of a nother.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1).
“[P]remeditation” is an act don e after the exerc ise of re

flection and judg ment. “Premeditation” means that the intent to kill must have been formed prior to the act itself. It is n ot neces sary

that the p urpose to

kill pre-exist in the mind of the accused for any definite pe

riod of time. Th e mental stat e of the accused at the time the accused allegedly decided to kill must be carefully considered in order to determine whether the ac cused was sufficiently f ree from excitement and passion as to be capable of premeditation.

Id. § 39-13-202(d). The Defendant argues tha t the proof of premeditation is lacking, especially in light of the testimony reg arding the Defendant’s intoxication at the time of the shooting. Our supre me court has held t hat:

The element of

premeditation is a

qu es ti on of

fa ct to be re so lv ed by t he ju ry. Bland , 958 S.W.2d at 660. It may be established by proof

of the circumstances surrounding the killing. Id. ; State v. Brown , 836 S.W.2d 530, 539 (Tenn. 1992). As
we stated in Bland , there a re seve ral fac to rs which tend to support the existence of premeditation which include: the use of a deadly weapon u

pon an una

rmed vic tim; the particular cruelty

of the killing; d

eclara tions by the defe ndant of a n intent to kill;
e vidence of procurement of a weapon; prepa rations before the killing for
concea lment of the crime , and c almne ss im media tely after the ki llin g. See State v. Pike , 97 8 S.W.2d 904, 914 (Ten n. 1998); Bland , 958 S.W.2d a t 660; Brown , 83 6 S.W.2d at 54 1-42; State v. We st , 844 S.W.2d 144, 148 (Tenn. 1992).

State v. Suttles , 30 S.W.3d 252, 261 (Tenn. 2000).-7-

In this case, the evidence is sufficient to support the Defenda nt’s conviction for first degree premeditated

murder. Eye

witness LaShawn Nunnally testified that the Defendant pointed a gun at the victim and askedhim, “Nigga, are y ou real or are you fake?” During the ensuing fistfight, the victim injured the Defendant’s mouth by punching him in the face. Ms. Nunnally testified that after the fight, the Defendant told the victim, “You are g oing to remember this tonight.” She testified that later that night, after the Defenda nt and the victim had made up and been out riding together

in an automobile, she watche d as the D efenda nt approa ched the victim, as ked, “Ni gga, are y ou ready to die ?” and shot him. The De fendant atte mpted to shoot the victim several times, but the gun containe d only

one bulle t.
Officer David Williams testified that when he apprehended the Defe ndant in the parking lot of the hospital, the Defend ant was carrying a Taurus .40 caliber pistol in his pocket. Officer Williams s ta

ted that although the Defendant smelled of alcohol, he ha d no difficulty walking

and was able to communicate — understand and respond — appropriately . Teri Arney of the Tennessee Bureau of I

nvestigation testifie d that the bullet re moved fr om the body

of the vic tim

and the sh

ell casing found at the scene of the shooting had been f ired and ej ected from the gun found on the Defend ant.
Based on this evidence, a rational jury could have found bey ond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant

killed Scot t Shafer i ntentiona lly a nd with pre

meditatio n. Accor

dingly , this issue

is without me

rit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WEL

LES, JUDGE