### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on

Briefs A pril 1, 200 3 STATE OF TENN ESSEE v. DARR ELL M. ANDER SON Appeal from the Criminal Court for Madison County No. 01-572 Roy B. Morgan, Jr., Judge

No. W2002-01269-CCA-R3-CD - Filed May 15, 2003

The defendant, Darrell M. Anderson, was convic ted of aggravate d assault and simple assault. The trial court imposed a Range I II , ten-yea

r sentence for the agg

ravated assault and a concurrent 11- month, 29-day sente

nce for the assault. In this appe al of right, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support either conviction. The judgments are a ffirmed. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgments of the Trial Court Affirmed G ARY R. W ADE , P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D AVID G. H AYES and T HOM AS T. W OODA LL , JJ., joined. Marcus M. Reaves, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appe llant, Darrell M. Anderson. Paul G. Summers , Attorne y General & Reporter ; J. Ross Dyer, Assistant Attorney General; and Jody S. Pickens, Assistant District Attorney Gener al, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION On April 5, 2001, Yulanda Hol lis resided with the defendant, who was her fiancé . After informing the defe

ndant tha t s he planned to see a movie at Hollywood Cinema with her cousin, Shamika Anderson, she left the residence. When Ms. Anderson could not join her, Ms. Hollis went to the movie with the victim, Troy Holloway , who was a co-worker. Accord ing to the victim, wh

ile the two were waiting for the movie to begin, the defendant entered the theater, at which p oint Ms. Hollis remarked, "That's my boyfriend." The defendant then left but returned approximately ten minutes later. T

he defe ndant, who was carry

ing a tire iron, ran towards the victim. The defendant swung the tire i

ron at the victim but m

issed and the two me

n bega n to scuff le. Ms. Hollis intervened, separated the two men, andthe three left. As Ms. Hollis was driving the victim to his residence, the victim noticed that the defendant was following in his car. F earful that the defendant

intended t o ram his vehicle into hers, Ms. Hollis pulled into the parking lot of a shopping center, stepped out of her car, an d walked

towards t he defe ndant. The defen

dant, ar med with a

"pipe," walked p ast Ms.-2-

Hollis towards t

he victim and threw the pipe, barely missing the victim's head. The defendant then returned to his car and drove away

. Madison County

Constable Bobby Perr

y, who was inside the shopping center when he was told that there was a fight in the parking lot, observed the defendant arguing with the victim. The defendant had a sma

ll plastic tube in his hand. Cons table Perry picke d up the tube from the parking surface after the defendant threw it. By the time police

arrived, the defendant was no longe r at the scene. Office

r Gary Jones, who i nvestig ated, dr ove to the Hollywood Cinema and found a tire iron located under a seat. By the time of trial, Ms. Hollis had married the defendant. Called as a defense witness, she testified that

as the defendant approached the victim inside the movie theater , "[The victim] jumped up and both of them got into each other." She stated that she r an to the conc ession stand fo r assistance and that b y the time she returned, "There was no a ltercation . . . [and the two men] were coming down the stairs." Ms. Hollis denied that the defendant had entered the theater more than once. She claimed that she did not see a weapo n in the defendant 's posse ssion. With regard to the second encounter, Ms. Hollis confirmed that the defendant had followed her into the shopping center parking lot but contended that he had approached her ve hicle only to take posses sion of s ome personal belongings he had left in her ca r. Ms. Holl

is acknowledged that the two men exchang ed words and stated that "they were like just chasing each other a round the car . . . [with] no blows or anything." She reca

lled th at Constable

Perry interve ned and th

e defen dant lef

t. Upon cr

ossexamination, Ms. Hollis acknowledged that she met the victim at the post office and ate with him at a restaurant before going to the movie theater. She also acknowledged that the defendant took a "black and long" stick from bene ath her seat during the second altercation. She conceded that the defenda nt threw t he stick b ut had misse d the vict im.
Th e defendant, who did not testify a t trial, argues that there was no proof that the victi m feared imminent bodily injury

during the initial altercation. The defendant also arg ues that b ecause the evidenc e was insufficien t on each charg e, the tr

ial cour t should ha

ve gra nted his motio n for judgment of acqu ittal. SeeTenn. R. Crim. P. 29 . He submit s that bec ause the state fa iled to establish that his prints were on the tire iron or to otherwise adequately

link him to the weapon, the evidence was insuff

icient to support the felony conviction. As to the misdemeanor assault, the defendant argues that he was provoked by the victim, who, he claims, said, "It' s not over, I'm g oing to get you," just before the plastic tube was thrown. On appeal, of course, the state is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences which mig htbe draw n theref

rom. Stat e v. Ca bbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Ten n. 1978). The credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony , and th e reconciliation of conflicts in the proof are matters entrusted to the jury as the trier of fact. Byrg e v. State , 5 75 S.W.2d 2 92, 295 (T enn. Crim. App. 1978 ). When the sufficie ncy of the ev idence i s challenged, the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidenc e in the lig ht most fav orable to the state, any r

ational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime bey ond a reasona ble doubt. Te

nn. R. App. P. 13(e); State v. Will iams , 657 S.W.2d 40 5, 410 (Tenn. 1983).-3-

Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evide nce, as w ell as all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact. Liak

as v. State , 199 Tenn. 298, 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (1956). Because a verdict of g ui l t against a defendant removes the presumption of innocence and raises a presumption of g uilt, the convictedcriminal defendant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty ve rdict. State v. Evans , 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992).
One co mm it s a n a ggr av at ed as sa ul t b y in te nt io na ll y or knowing ly ca using an other re asonable fear of imminent bodily injury by the use or display of a

deadly we apon. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 102(a)(1)(B). When the st ate est ablis hed th at the defend ant sw ung a tire iron at the victim and that the victim ducked in order to avoid the blow, that was sufficient to estab lish each of the statutory elements

. That Officer Jones found a tire i ron in the movie theater shortly a fter the altercation corroborated

the testim

ony of the vic tim. Bec ause

Ms. Hollis had claimed she left the inside of the theater to get help during the altercation, there was no testimony which directly co ntr adicted the accoun t provide d by

the victim

. An assault o ccurs when one in tentiona lly o r knowin gly c aus es another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury

. Tenn . Code Ann. § 39-13-101(a)(2). The state established that the defendant followed the vehicle driven by Ms. Hollis, approached

the victim

with a pipe in his hand, and threw the

pipe at the victim, b arely mis sing his head. It wa s the pre rogati ve of the

jury to accre dit the testim

ony of the vic tim. Under

these ci rcumstan ces, it is our view that the evidence is sufficient to support the misdemeanor assault conviction. Accordingly , the judgments are affirmed.

___________________________________ GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE