### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 7, 2000 Session
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CRISS WILLIA MS
Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 97-07226 Chris Craft, Judge

No. W1999-00823-CCA-R3-CD - Filed March 9, 2001

A Shelby County jury

convicted the Defendant, Criss Williams, of the second degree murder of Jerry Washington. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty -five years of i nc arceration. The Defendant challenges his conviction arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient

to convict him, because the state failed to prove his identity as the shooter, and (2) that the trial court erred in not granting his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

T HOMAS T. W OODALL , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D AVID H. W ELLES and J AMES C URWOOD W ITT , J R ., JJ., joined. James V. Ball, Memp

his, Tennessee, f

or the appellant,

Criss Williams.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & R eporter; Luc

ian D. Geise, Assi

stant Attorney

General; William L. Gibbons, District Attor ney Gen eral; and Glenn C. Baity, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION

On February 16, 1997, Jerry Washing ton (the victim) attended Prentiss on the Hill nightclub in Memphis, Tennesse

e with his cousin, Do

nald Taylor, and Taylor’s

friend, Brandon Hawkins. The three drove Taylor’s 1986 Explorer to the nightclub and arrived at approximately 11:00 p.m. Taylor testified that sometime before the club’s normal closing hour, he walked out to his truck and waited for Washington and Hawkins. As Taylor waited, he saw Washingtonhurriedly walking toward the truck. Washington got in the vehicle and sat in the passenger seat. Tay lor attempted to leave, but
a car was blocking him from the rear. Shooting erupted, but Taylor testified that he did not hear the first shot, but he saw people getting down, which made him open his door and get dow n on the ground. Wa shington rem ained in the truck , but Taylor

did not know what ha

d happened to Washington until the shooting stopped. As Taylor stood up, he noticed that the right rear passenger-2-

window of his truck was busted and Washington was sitting up and looking out of the s un roof. Taylor testified that Washington was not saying anything , but he was breathing and his eyes were open. Taylor did not see

any blood, until he moved Washington’s jacket. Taylor did not see who fired the shots and did not know exactly how many shots were fire d.

On cross-examination, Taylor testified that, on the night of

the shooting, the club parking lot
was not lit and approximately 500 to 800people were at the club. Also, Taylor testified that he was awarethat Washington’s car had been shot-up about a month before this shooting , but Taylor was not aware of the

details surroundi

ng that incident.

Officer Mervin Jo nes testif ied that he was patroll ing the area s urroundin g Prentiss on th e Hill, at approximat ely 3:00 a.m., when he heard shots fired. Due to the number of people at the c lub, Officer Jones could not drive his patrol car up to the club, so he responded on foot. A club security guard told him that the perpetrator had run through the parking lot of the bank next door. Officer Jones attempted to pursue the suspect, but was unable to catch him. Then, t he security guard informedOfficer Jones that a passenger in a two-tone Ed die Bauer Ford Explorer had

been shot. Officer Jones radioed the police dispatcher and asked for an ambulance.

WillieFarrow testifie

d that he was at Prentiss o n the Hill o n the night o f the shoot ing. Farrow stated that

he was in the lobby

of the club, when t

wo men walked by

him and Farrow heard
one man say, “I

’m fixi ng to kill this n----r.” At that point, Farrow and his friend decided to leave the club. Approximately three to four minutes later, Farrow was walking out of the club when he
saw a young ma

n with a gun in his ha

nd come from behind a Ford

Explorer and shoot the passenger sitting in the Exp

lorer. In court , Farrow identified the Defendant as the man who had made the previous statement. Farrow told the jury that, at the time of the shooting, the Defendant’s ha irstyle
was a jheri curl and Defendant’s hair was long. Farrow further stated that, on that night, the Defendant

was with two other men, who had on top hats and dress clothes. Farrow also testified that the Defendant and the other man the Defendant spoke to, looked like brothers or cousins, but the other man was taller and darker than the Defendant.

Farrow further testified that he was no more than 15 to 20 feet away from the Defendant when the shooting started. He explained that th e lighting in the

parking lot of the

club was decent, which permitted him to see that the Defendant had a long gun and that the Defendant shot

into a Ford Explorer. Farrow testified that after the shooting, the Defendant got into a “burgundy -like” car with
a light-skinned la

dy, but when

the car could not l

eave the parkin

g lot, the Defendant

got out of the
car and ran. Two days later, Farrow gave the police a statement and picked the Defendant’s picture out of a photo line-up. Farrow identified the Defendant as, “B.M., . . . 33, brown complexion, .

. . about six feet, 190/200 pounds. He’s built. Jheri curled . . . ”

Frederick Hayes testi

fied that, on the ni

ght o f th e shooting, he wa s working as a se

curity guard in the parking lot at Pre

ntiss on the Hill. Hay

es stated that he s

aw the Defenda

nt, Defendant’s brother, another mal e and a female arrive at th e club in a be ige and maroo n or burgu ndy Ch rysler convertible. Later, the Defendant walked by Hayes with a brownish and wooden-like object hidden-3-

under a green

and beige jacket. Based upon the top of the object, Hay es thought it was a ba

seball bat, but was not alarmed by Defendant’s appeara nce, be cause Defendant’s brother also worked security at the club. Hayes also testified that the distinguishing factor between the Defendant and his “twin-like” brother was the length of their hair, because the Defendant had longer

and stringier hair. Hayesfurther testified that, as the club was closing around 3:00 a.m., he saw the Defendant pull a gun from his coat and five or six seconds l

ater, he heard

two shots fired. Af

ter two shots

were fired, Hayes saw

the Defendant r

unning through

the parking lot w

ith a long-barre

led gun in his hand. Hayespointed the responding officers in the direction in which he saw the Defendant fleeing. The next day , Hayes g

ave the police a s

tatement and iden

tified a photogr

aph of the Defen

dant from a photo lineup. Hayes also admitted that he w as nearsighted and could not remember if he was wearing his glasses, contact lenses, or neither, on the night of the shooting. Hay es also denie d having any type of c

onfrontation with the Defendant several years earlier at a different club.

Officer Robert G. Moore testified that he collected evidence and too k photos of the crim

e scene involved in this

case. He testified that

the police recov

ered a loaded “

SKS 7.62” assault ri

fle from behind the vacant

service station located next to the club. They also recovered a spent bullet from the dashboard of theEx plorer, a spent bullet from the ambulance and a bullet from Washington’s body. The parties stipulated that the spent bullet recovered from the dashboard of the vehicle had been fired through the barrel of the Norinco 7.62 X 39 SK S rifle found at the

crime
scene. However, the bullet from the victim’s body was too damaged to be of value for comparison. Officer Shan Allen Tracy testified that he brushed the Explorer and the rifle for fingerprints. Officer Tracy found no prints on the rifle, but found a print on therifle’s magazine. The parties stipulated that prints processed from the magazine of the rifle were of no value for comparison. Add iti ona lly, Dr. Wendy Gunther, a

medical examiner and forensic pathologist, testified that the victim’s body h adtwo gunshot wound

s--one in the bac

k and one in the che

st. The gunshot in t

he victi m’s bac k was the fatal wound.

The State then rested its case-in-chief.

Antonious Beaty testified for the defense. He stated that, on February

14, 1997 (the Friday before the shooting), he gave the Defendant a haircut, which left the Defenda nt bald. Beaty told the jury that it was his practic

e to only cut h

air on Friday

s. He also testified that the Defendant asked him to testify, a

nd that D efendant had reminded him of the month and day that he cut the Defendant’s hair. He further admitted that he was drinking on the day he c ut the Defendant’s hair. How ever , he sta ted tha t he “vi vid ly” r ecal led cut tin g the Defe nda nt’ s ha ir o n th at d ay.
Tarsha Echols testified that she and the Defendant were dating at the time of this incid

ent. She testified that, on the night of February 15, 1997, the Defendant called her at approximately 11:30 p.m. Later, the Defendant called Echols at 3:19 a.m. from the Discovery Inn. Echols acknowledged that she did not speak with the Defendant when he called the second time, however her caller I .D. box displayed the time and place of the cal

l. Echols told the jury that she assumed the last call was-4-

from the Defendant,

because Defendant’s earlier call ha d also come from th

e Discovery

Inn. Echols further testified that the

last time she saw the Defendant was Thursday, before the shooting, and the Defendant’s hairstyle was a jheri curl with a V-shaped c ut in the back. Wayne Williams, the Defendant’s younger brother, testified that he w

ears a little

ponytail in the back of his head and has worn one for four ye

ars. He stated tha

t, on the eveni ng of the sho oting, he rented a maroon and tan Chrysler convertible, which he drove to

the club alone. He arrived at the club at 10:45 p.m. and saw Frederick Hayes, as he parke d near the front of the club. About fifteen (15) minutes later, Wayne saw the Defendant (who was bal dhe aded fro m ha vin g his hai r cut Frid ay) andthe two talked brie

fly. Way ne did not see the D

efendant aga

in that evening. After

the shooti ng, Wayne said he left the club alone and did not see his brother running on the club’s parking lot. Also, Wayne testified he never saw the Defendant with an assault rifle. He further testified that nei ther he nor the Defendant were wearing top hats that night, and

that he does not own a top hat. Wayne also testified tha

t neither he nor th

e Defendant we

re wearing ja

ckets that night.

The Defendant testified that, on Fr iday, February 14, 1997, A ntonious Beaty shaved Defendant’s head bald. On Saturday, Defendant got a r oo m at the Discovery

Inn. That nig

ht, Defendant

drove to Prentiss on the Hill alone, in his 1985 Lincoln Continental and arrived between 10:00 and 10:15 p.m. Defendant parked in the Piggly Wiggly pa

rking lot next to the club. While at the club, Defendant saw his brother Wayne and the two spoke briefly . Defendant stayed at

t he club for another 20 to 2

5 minutes and then le

ft alone. He retu

rned tohis room at

the Discovery Inn, calledTarsha Echols

and then went to bed at approximately 11:35 p.m. During the night, Defendant
was awakened by someone knocking on his window. He decided to ca ll Echols at

about 3:09 a.m., butshe did not answer. On Sunday, Defendant checked out of the hotel and went to stay with a friend. On Monday, Defendant rece ived a call from Wayne Williams, who stated that the police
were looking for the D

efendant. Defe

ndant furt her testified that, on the night of the shooting, he
was wearing brown

corduroy pants, a sweater and a black flat leather hat. Defendant also testified that he did not know the victim and that he did not shoot the victim. Also, Defendant asserted that several years ear

lier, he and Fre

derick Hay

es had a confron

tation at another

club, which led to a

fist fight.
I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

The Defen dant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder. We disagree.

The proper inquiry

for an appellate

court determining the sufficiency of evidence to support
a conviction, is whether, considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elementsof the crime bey ond a reasonable

doubt. See Jackson v. Virgini

a , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. E d. 2d 560 (1 979); State v. Hall , 8 S.W.3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999). “A guilty verdict by the jury, approved

by the trial c

ourt, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all

conflicts in favor of the prosecution’s-5-

theory.” State v. Bland , 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). Questions a bout the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be given the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved

by the trier of fact, and this Court does not reweigh or reeva luate the evidence. Id. Nor may this Court substitute its inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence for those dra wn by the trier of fact. See Liakas v. S tate , 199 Tenn. 29 8, 305, 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (1956). The standardfor appellate review is the same whet her the conviction is based upon direct or circumstantial evidence. See State v. Vann , 976 S.W.2d 93, 111 (Tenn. 1998). A conviction may be based entirely on circumstantial evidence where the facts are "so clearly interwoven and connected that the finger

of guilt is pointed unerringly at the Defendant and the Defe ndant alone." Statev. Smith , 868 S.W. 2d 561, 569 (Tenn. 1993 ) (quoting State v. Duncan , 698 S.W.2d 63, 67 (Tenn.1985)). A verdict of g uilt rem oves the presumption of innocence and replaces it with a presumption of guilt, and on a ppeal the defen

dant has the burde

n of il lustrat ing why the evidence is ins uff ici ent to s upp ort the verd ict rend ered by th e ju ry. Id. ; see also State v. Tuggle , 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 198

2). In contra

st, the State on appea

l is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the trial evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferen ces that m ay be drawn from the evidence. See Hall , 8 S.W.3d at 599; Bland , 958 S.W.2d at 659.

We find that the Defendant has failed to show that a rationa l trier of fact could not have found him

guilty beyond a reasona

ble doubt of second degree murder. Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-210 (1997) defines second degree murder as a "knowing killing of another.”

Before the State can convict a defendant, the law requires the State to pr ove beyond

a reasonable

doubt thatthe defendant was the person who committed the crime in question. State v. Sneed , 908 S.W.2d 408, 410 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (citing White v. State , 533 S.W.2d 735, 744 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975)). Whether the State carried its burden of pro of, as to the identity of the defendant,

is a question of fa ct solely for the jury. See State v. Vaughn , 29 S.W.3d 33, 40 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1999)).

The Defendant argues that the evidence preponderates ag ainst and is incons istent wi th a conviction for second degree murder. The evid

ence here, whe

n viewed in

the light most favo

rable to the State, shows the following: 1) Willie Farrow saw the Defendant

shoot the victim and then run, 2) Frederick Hayes saw the Defenda nt flee the scene of t

he crime with

a long-barre

led gun in his hand, 3) both

Farrow and Hay

es chose the Def

endant from a pho

to line-up (which a

lso included a picture of Defendant ’s brother) and 4) Farrow and Hayes ga ve similar descriptions of th e car in which Defendant tried to escape.

The jury co uld have reasona bly inferr ed from this evide

nce that the Def

endant was at t

h e scene of the crime, had a weapo n and used that weapon to shoot the victim. Yet, the Defendant argues that

his, Tarsha

Echols and Wayne Williams’ testimonies show that he was either not present during the shooting or that he was not the shooter, and that he had a bald h ead, not a j heri curl hairstyle as described by the State’s two eye witnesses. Howev er, the jury chose to accredit the testimonies of Farrow and Hayes, and it found that the State had met its burden of proof

in showing that the Defendant was the person who knowingly shot and killed the victim. “[T]he credibility of-6-

the witnesses, the weight to be g iv en their testimony, and the reconciliation of conflicts in the evidence are matters entrust ed exclusively to the jury as the triers of fac t.” State v. Cribbs , 967 S.W.2d 773, 793 (Tenn. 1998). We find that there was sufficient evide nce from which a

reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the Defendant knowingly shot the victim. Defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue. II. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL

Defendant

contends that the trial court erred when it refused to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal. We disagree. When the trial court is presented with a motion for judgment

of acquittal, the only co ncern is the legal sufficiency, as opposed to the weig ht, of the evidence. State v. Campbell , 904 S.W. 2d 608, 611 (Tenn. Cri m. App.199 5) (citing State v. Hall , 656 S.W.2d 60, 61 Tenn. Crim. App. 1983)). “To determine whether the evidence is insuffi cient to sus tain the conviction, the trial court mus t consider th

e evidence introduced by both parties, disregard any evidence introduced by

the accused tha

t conflicts with the evidence adduced by the State, and afford the State the stronge

st le gitimate vie

w of the evidence, including all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence.” Id. at 611( Hall , 656 S.W.2d at 61). As discus sed above , the evidence in this case was cl early suff icient to support Defendant’s conviction. Thus, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is AFFI RMED.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE