FILED

March 15, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

DECEMBER SESSION, 1998

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9803-CR-00096

)

Appellee, )

) SHELBY COUNTY

V. ) 

)

) HON. BERNIE WEINMAN, JUDGE

GEORGE BROOKS, )

)

Appellant. ) (AGGRAVATED ROBBERY) 

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

A.C. WHARTON JOHN KNOX WALKUP 

District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter

WALKER GWINN PETER M. COUGHLAN

Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General

Criminal Justice Center, Suite 201 2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building

201 Poplar Avenue 425 Fifth Avenue North

Memphis, TN 38103 Nashville, TN 37243

JOHN W. PIEROTTI 

District Attorney General 

P. T. HOOVER

Assistant District Attorney General

Criminal Justice Center, Suite 301

201 Poplar Avenue 

Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED 

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
-2-

OPINION

The Defendant, George Brooks, appeals as of right following his conviction in

the Shelby County Criminal Court. This was Defendant’s second trial surrounding

an incident which occurred on March 25, 1994. Following Defendant’s first trial, he

was convicted of aggravated robbery. In an appeal to this court, Defendant argued

that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense

of aggravated assault. This court reversed the Defendant’s conviction and

remanded for a new trial on that basis. State v. George Brooks, No. 02C01-9602-

CR-00050, Shelby County (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 14, 1997). Defendant

was again convicted of aggravated robbery in the second trial. He appeals now on

the basis of insufficiency of evidence regarding proof of Defendant’s identity as the

perpetrator and that the victim’s injuries constitute “serious bodily injury.” We affirm

the judgm ent of the trial court.

When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the

standard is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and

all inferences therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).

Because a verdict of guilt removes the presumption of innocence and replaces it with

a presumption of guilt, the accused has the burden in this court of illustrating why the

evidence is insufficient to support the verdict returned by the trier of fact. State v.

Tuggle, 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982); State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476

(Tenn. 1973).
-3-

Questions concerning the credibility of the 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, not this court. State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623

(Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. to appeal denied, id. (Tenn. 1987). Nor may this court

reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d at 835. A jury verdict

approved by the trial court accredits the State’s witnesses and resolves all conflicts

in favor of the State. Grace, 493 S.W.2d at 476.

The Defendant and the victim, Terry Howell, were co-workers at a plant,

United Liquor, in Memphis. On March 25, 1994, the Defendant asked the victim to

borrow twenty dollars ($20.00), but the victim refused. Following work that day, the

victim went to a friend’s home. Around 8:00 p.m., the victim left his friend’s home

and began to walk towards his home. As the most direct route to his home was

through an alley behind the Defendant’s home, the victim walked through the alley

and was approached by the Defendant. The Defendant again asked the victim to

borrow twenty dollars ($20.00), but the victim still refused. Defendant then hit the

victim in the face with an unidentifiable black object. Following the attack, the victim

noticed that sixty dollars ($60.00) was missing from his pocket.

The victim testified that he was nearly knocked unconscious by the assault.

He was able to “stagger” home, where he attempted to recover. When the swelling

and pain persisted, the victim went to the hospital. The victim had sustained two (2)

broken bones to his lower jaw in addition to a broken nose. The victim had to have

surgery at a later date to insert a metal plate under his left eye. The victim was

under a physician’s care for approximately one (1) month. He stated that at the time
-4-

of trial his teeth were still numb and he still had pain in his eye. This testimony of the

victim’s injuries was unrefuted by the Defendant.

Jerome Smith, a supervisor to both the Defendant and the victim, stated that

on Monday following the incident between these employees, the Defendant arrived

early for work. When the Defendant came in, he said, “You all looking for Terry. . .

Terry won’t be in this morning because I put this on him . . . I’ll bet you anything he

won’t be here this morning.” When asked to describe what that statement meant to

him, Smith explained that meant that Defendant had “whipped [the victim] up.” The

victim did not show up for work that day and they later found out that he had been

beaten. The Defendant constantly bragged about doing it at first, but later recanted

after he found out he was going to trial. 

Billy March was working with both the Defendant and the victim in March 1994

at United Liquor. On March 28, 1994, Defendant came to work and stated that the

victim would not be there because he “messed him up.” The victim did not show up

for work that day, but did return later that sam e week. 

Paul Gray, also an employee of United Liquor, stated that on March 28, 1994,

the Defendant advised him that the victim would not be coming in to work because

he “took him out.” The victim did not come to work that day. 

This concluded the State’s case-in-chief.

Aquilla Sorrell testified for the defense that she was living with the Defendant

and her four (4) children in March 1994. Sorrell knew of the victim because he lived
-5-

in the same neighborhood. On March 25, 1994, Sorrell recalled that she was not

working and was at home. After working that day, the Defendant came home and

then returned to the store. Defendant was gone approximately five (5) minutes and

returned home. She and Defendant stayed home the remainder of the evening. The

victim came over for about ten (10) minutes later that night, and she recalled that he

had not been beaten up or anything when he was there. The next time that the

Defendant left their home was on Saturday morning, March 26, 1994. 

The Defendant testified that he was living with Aquilla Sorrell in March 1994.

He was working at United Liquor as a truck driver and knew the victim as a coemployee. On March 25, 1994, he got off work around 6:30 p.m., then went home.

Defendant went back out to the store, but was only gone a few minutes. He

described that he was really tired and went to sleep after returning home. Defendant

did not recall the victim coming over that evening. When Defendant got to work on

the following Monday morning, another employee told him that he had been accused

of robbing the victim. Defendant denied robbing or beating the victim.

Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, Defendant contends that the State

failed to prove his identity in the attack upon the victim. In addition to the victim’s

identification of the Defendant as the perpetrator of the offense, three (3) other coworkers of both the Defendant and the victim testified that the Defendant bragged

that the victim would not be at work on Monday, March 28, 1994, because Defendant

had “messed up” the victim. The Defendant argues that his denial of these events

and the testimony of his former girlfriend, Aquilla Sorrell, verifying his whereabouts

on the evening of the attack, do not allow for a rational trier of fact to have found him

as the perpetrator of the crime against the victim. However, given the overwhelming
-6-

testimony by the victim and three (3) others who heard the Defendant brag about

committing the crime, there is more than sufficient evidence whereby a rational trier

of fact could have found Defendant as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt.

Any questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given

the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact, and we will not reweigh the evidence

on Defendant’s behalf. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d at 623; Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d at 835.

Defendant argues that the injuries sustained by the Defendant do not

constitute “serious bodily injury.” Aggravated robbery requires that a robbery be

accomplished with a deadly weapon or by display of any article used or fashioned

to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a deadly weapon or that the victim

suffer serious bodily injury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402. Tennessee Code

Annotated section 39-11-106(a)(34) defines “serious bodily injury” as “bodily injury

which involves:” (A) a substantial risk of death; (B) protracted unconsciousness; (C)

extreme physical pain; (D) protracted or obvious disfigurement; or (E) protracted loss

or substantial impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ or m ental faculty.

The evidence at trial, unrefuted by the Defendant, demonstrated the injuries

the victim suffered included permanent damage to his left eye requiring the insertion

of a metal plate which still causes the victim pain. In addition, he has a loss of

feeling in his mouth. This evidence sufficiently m eets the definition of a victim

suffering “a protracted loss or substantial impairment of a function of a bodily

member, organ or mental faculty.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(34)(E). From

the evidence, the jury could have rationally concluded that the Defendant committed

aggravated robbery. This issue is without merit.
-7-

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

____________________________________

THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________

GARY R. WADE, Presiding Judge

___________________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, Judge