### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs S ep te mb er 1, 200 9 STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RIC KY LEE HATC HEL
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu itC o u rt fo r T ipto n C o u n ty N o. 5671 Jos eph H . W al ker, I I I , Judge

N o. W 2008- 01030- C C A - R 3- C D - F i l ed F ebruary 5, 2010

T he D ef endant

- A ppel l ant , R i cky Lee H at chel , w as convi ct ed by a Ti pt on C ount y j ur y of aggr avat ed as s aul t , a C l as s C fel ony and or i gi nal l y s ent ence d t o t hr ee ye ar s i n t he Tennes s ee D epar t m ent of C or r ecti on. T he j ur y al s o i m pos ed a $10, 000 f i ne, w hi ch w as r educe d by the tr i al cour tt o $5, 000. Fol l ow i ng a s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he tr i al cour t s ubs equent l y found that H at chel qual i f

i ed for al t er nat e s ent enci ng, and or der ed H at chel t o com pl et e one year of c o m m u n ity c o rre c tio n s b e fo re b e in g tra n sfe rre d to su p e rv ise d p ro b a tio n . In th is a p p e a l, H at chel cl ai m s : ( 1) t he i ns uf f i ci ency of t he evi dence ; and ( 2) t he tr i al cour t err ed by al l ow i ng t he St at e t o i ntr oduce phot ogr aphs of t he vi ct i m ’ s i nj ur i es . U pon rev iew , w e af f i r m the ju d g m e n t o f th e trial c o u rt. T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm entof

t he C i rcui tC ourt A f

f i r m e d
C AMI LLE R. M C M ULL EN , J

. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he cour t , i n w hi ch D AV I D H. W ELLE S , and A LAN E. G LEN N , J J

. , j oi ned.
G a ry F . A n trica n , D istric t P u b lic D e fe n d e r, S o m e rv ill e , T e n n e ss e e , fo r th e D e fe n d a n tA p p e lla n t, R ic k y L e e H a tc h e l.
R ober tE

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; R enee W

. T ur ner , A s s i s t antA t t or ney G e n e ra l; D . M ich a e l D u n a v a n t, D istric t A tt o rn e y G e n e ra l; an d R ich a rd D . C a rtw rig h t, A s s i s t antD i s tr i ctA t t or ney G ener al , forthe A ppel l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee. OP I NI ON
T ri al

. T he fol l ow i ng t es t i m ony w as pr es ent ed atH at chel ’ s tr i al on M ar ch 19, 2008. T he vi ct i m , M egan H ol s apf el , t es t i f i ed thats he dat ed H at chel fora coupl e of m onths begi nni ng in F eb ruar y of 2007. She s t ayed ove r ni ghtathi s hous e on A pr i l 16, 2007, al t hough s he s ai d t hey w er e no l ongerdat i ng atthatpoi nt
. H at chel gave hera r i de hom e the fol l ow i ng m or ni ng. L at er t hat day, s he re cei ved a phone cal l f r om H at chel w ho s ai d he w as-2-

d ri v in g to h e r p la c e to p ic k h e r u p . H e a rr iv e d a t 3 :0 0 o r 4 :0 0 p .m . a n d a p p e a re d “ n o rm a l.” S h e g o t in to h is v e h ic le , a n d th e y d ro v e a w a y . T h e v ict im test if

ied th at H atch el pick ed u p h is be st f ri en d , Jo e C o o p er, a n d C o o p er’s gi r l f r i end, E m i l y K och, befor e dr i vi ng t o t he hous e of J am es and W i nt erPugh. T hey arr i ved a t ar o u n d 5 :0 0 p .m . an d so c ializ e d in th e liv in g ro o m fo r a b o u t a n h o u r . T h e v ictim sa id H a tch e l th e n w e n t to a b a c k ro o m b e fo re re tu rn in g “ m a d a s h e ll. ” H a tch e l ac c u se d th e v ictim of br eaki ng i nt o hi s hous e and s t eal i ng m oney and m ar i j uana. H e al s o dem anded thats he r etur n t he s t ol en i t em s . T he vi ct i m deni ed t he acc us at i ons , butH at chel cont i nued t o dem and hi s s t uf f back. A ts om e poi nt , H at chel “ca m e bac k w i t h a gun. ” She s ai d H at chel poi nt ed the gun atherhead. T he vi ct i m des cr i bed the gun as one w i t h the t op por t i on t hatcan be pul l ed back l i ke a s em i aut om at i c. H at chel pus hed h er, a n d she fel l t hr ough a baby ga t e that encl os ed the ki t chen. T he vi ct i m s ai d s he w as “t err i f i ed. ” She t es t i f

i ed thatH at chel “putthe gun d ow n af

t er , l i ke, t en, f

i f t een m i nut es , and then he w al ked aw ay, and he di dn’ ts ay n o th in g to m e a ft e r t h a t.”
T he vi ct i m t es t i f

i ed thatC ooper , K och, and J am es and W i nt erPugh w er e pr es ent t hr oughoutt he al t er cati on. T he vi ct i m bel i eved Ja m es Pugh gr abbed the gun af t erH at chel set i t do w n . S h e stated that d u ri n g the a lt erc ati o n , C o o p er “just k ep t n ag g ing an d say ing o fft he- w al l , cr azy s t uf

f , m aki ng m e s car ed. ”. A f t erH at chel putthe gun dow n, the vi ct i m and t he othergues t s began t o l eave t he Pugh’ s hom e. T he vi ct i m hear d C oopers ay “s om ethi ng about‘ t aki ng hert o t he bot t om s and s hoot i ng her ’ or s om ethi ng. ” She s ai d s he w as for ced to lea v e a n d w a s n o t allo w e d to m a k e a p h o n e c a ll. S h e w a lk e d o u tsi d e a n d g o t in to H at chel ’ s vehi cl e w i t h H at chel , C ooper , and K och. A f t er r evi ew i ng the s t at em entthats he had gi ven t o t he pol i ce, s he re cal l ed t hat befor e ent er i ng t he vehi cl e, H at chel s ai d, “i f [ s he] di dn’ tt el l hi m w her e hi s s t uf f w as orw ho had anyt hi ng t o do w i t h i t , he w as goi ng t o s hoot [ her ]

. ”
T he vi ct i m t es t i f

i ed t hat H at chel dr ove t he vehi cl e, and she r ode i n t he fr ontpas s enger s eat
. H at chel r em ai ned ups et but di d not s ay anythi ng; how ever , af t er t he vi ct i m r evi ew ed h e r sta tem e n t to th e p o lice , s h e re c a lled H a tch e l s tatin g , “ ‘It’s o n n o w , b itch . I’m g o in g to f uck you up. ’ ” T he vi ct i m al s o s ai d C ooper r epea t edl y t hr eat ened t o t ake her t o “t he bot t om s ” and s hoother

. C ons equent l y, s he j um ped out of t he vehi cl e once s he s aw a fam i l i ar ro a d . S h e sta ted th a t th e v e h icle w a s tra v e lin g fifty -fiv e m iles p e r h o u r. T h e v ictim ra n to a nea rby h ous e and the pol i ce w er e cont act ed. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed thats he and H at chel d a ted a g a in so m e tim e a fte r th e a lterc a tio n . S h e sa id h e a p o lo g ize d to h e r o n m u lti p le occasi on s. W i nt erPugh t es t i f

i ed that s he ent er ed herhous e ar ound 5: 00 p. m . on the ni ghtof the of fens e, and found t he vi ct i m and H at chel ar gui ng i n t he l i vi ng r oom . H at chel “had the gun, l i ke, dow n by hi s s i de, and he w as j us tl ooki ng at her , you know , up i n herface , and yel l i ng-3-

an d scre am ing at he r. ” S h e d id n o t see H a tc h e l p o int th e g u n at th e v ict im

. W inter he ard H at chel s ay, “‘ I know you di d i t
. Y ou j us tneed t o com e out , you know , com e on outand adm i tt o i t
. ’ ” W i nt ers ai d C ooperand Pugh w er e al s o pr es enti n the l i vi ng r oom . W i nt er w entt o herbedr oom w her e s he found herhus band, J am es , and t ol d hi m t hatH at chel w as hol di ng a gun. W i nt ert hen re t ur ned t o t he l i vi ng r oom and saw C ooper gr ab t he gun fr om Ha t c h e l

. W i n t e rd i d n o th e a rC o o p e rs a y a n y t h i n g t o t h e v i c t i m. W i n t e rs a i d t h e v i c t i m, H a tc h e l, C o o p e r a n d P u g h le fts h o rt ly th e re a ft e r a t th e re q u e s t o f h e r h u s b a n d

. J a me s P u g h t e s t i f

i e d t h a t h e me tHa t c h e l th r o u g h h i s f r i e n d s h i p wi t h J o e Co o p e r . He d id n o t k n o w th e v ictim p rio r to th e n ig h t o f th e o ffe n se . H e o b se rv e d H a tch e l an d th e v ictim i n hi s l i vi ng r oom on t he ni ghtof t he of fens e ar gui ng about a robbe r y. J am es w entt o another ro o m b e c a u se h e w a s tire d o f liste n in g to th e a rg u m e n t. H e d id n o t h e a r a n y d e a th th re a ts d u rin g th e a rg u m e n t, a n d h e d id n o t se e a n y o n e w ith a g u n ; h o w e v e r, Ja m e s re c a lled th a t h is air pist o l w as lay ing o n the c o u n ter. Jam es to ld ev ery o n e to lea v e h is ho u s e a ft er h is w if e a rr iv e d

. C oopert es t i f

i ed that h e sp o k e w i t h H at chel on the phone be for e they w entt o the P u g h ’s ho u se. In th is co n v ersa ti o n , H atch el said th at “ h e h ad fi g u red o u t [ that the v ict im ], you know , had br oken i nt o hi s hous e and .

. . he w as goi ng t o conf r ont her

. ” C oopert es t i f i ed t hatt hey w er e att he P ugh’ s hous e foraboutan hourbefor e H at chel and the vi ct i m l ef tthe hous e. T hey w er e gone for for t y- f i ve m i nut es t o an hour

. U pon r etur n, H at chel w as qui et butobvi ous l y ups et
. E ventual l y, he s t ar t ed yel l i ng at t he vi ct i m and ac cus ed herof s t eal i ng f r om hi m . C oopers ai d H at chel had caught t he vi ct i m s t eal i ng f r om hi m i n t he pas t
. H at chel and t he vi ct i m s hoved eac h ot her , and the vi cti m fel l dow n and hi ta baby ga t e. H at chel w ent out s i de t o cool of

f ; how ever , h e return ed w i th a pi s t ol i n hi s hand. C oopers ai d t he gun lo o k e d lik e a p e lle t g u n . C o o p e r in itia lly tes tified th a t H a tch e l n e v e r p o in ted th e g u n a t th e v ictim . H e sa id H at chel hel d t he gun t o t he s i de of the vi ct i m ’ s h ea d

. U p on f ur t herques t i oni ng, C ooper adm i t t ed H at chel di d poi ntt he gu n at th e v ic t i m ’ s head, and thatt he vi ct i m s ai d s he w as s car ed. C ooperacknow l edged thathe gave t he fol l ow i ng s t at em ent t o t he pol i ce: “[ H ] e put t he gun t o herhead; s he kepts l appi ng the gun aw ay, t el l i ng hi m s he w as s car ed. ” D ur i ng the al t er cati on, C ooperadm i t t ed t el l i ng t he vi ct i m t hat i f s he di d nott el l the tr uth he w oul d t ake h er to “the bott om s , ” t ake he rs hoes of f , and m ake he rw al k hom e. H e t es t i f i ed, how ever, t hats he chos e t o r i de i n H at chel ’ s vehi cl e by her ow n f r ee w i l l

. W hi l e i n H at chel ’ s vehi cl e, th e v ictim a sk e d to b e d ro p p e d o ff at a frien d ’s h o u se . T h e v ictim w a s to ld th a t sh e w o u ld b e d ro p p e d o ff

w h e re s h e w a s p ic k e d u p . H a tch e l w a s th e so le w itn e ss fo r th e d e fe n se . H e d e n ied th re a ten in g th e v ictim w ith a gun, butconce ded he w as “pr et t y aggr es s i ve” w i t h her

. H e t es t i f i ed thathe di d not r em em berhavi ng a gun dur i ng t he al t er cati on. L at er , he s ai d he coul d notr em em berthe-4-

al t er cati on beca us e he “ bl acke d out

. ”. H e sai d bl ackout s r un i n hi s fam i l y, and he w as not dr unk orhi gh t hat eveni ng. H e bel i eved t hat dur i ng t he al t er cati on, t he vi ct i m w as ups etbut n o t af ra id . H a tch e l sa id sh e g a v e h im o n e o r t w o n a m e s o f in d iv id u a ls in v o lv e d in th e th e ft. H e tes tified th a t th e v ictim w a s n o t fo r c e d to rid e in h is v e h icle . H a tch e l d id n o t re c a ll apol ogi zi ng aboutt he al t er cati on. T he Stat e cal l ed O ff

i cer S t even B row der of t he T i pton C ou nty S heri ff ’s O ff i ce as a r ebut t al w i t nes s . O f

f i cerB r ow derques t i oned H at chel w hi l e i nvest i gat i ng the aggr avat ed as s aul t
. H e s ai d H at chel neverm ent i oned thathe bl acke d outdur i ng the al t er cati on. A N A L Y S IS
I . Suff i ci ency of

t he E vi dence . H a tch e l cla im s th e e v id e n c e w a s in su ffic ien t to s uppor thi s convi ct i on for aggra vat ed as s aul t
. Speci f i cal l y, he ar gues t he evi dence w as in su ffic ien t to p ro v e h e u se d o r d isp lay e d a d e a d ly w e a p o n o r c a u s e d th e v ictim to b e in r eas onabl e f

earof i m m i nentbodi l y i nj ur y. T he St at e cont ends t he evi dence w as s uf f i ci ent to sh o w th a t H a tch e l as sa u lted th e v ictim w ith a d e a d ly w e a p o n . U p o n re v iew , w e a g re e w ith t he St at e. T he St at e, on appea l , i s ent i t l ed t o the s tr onges tl egi t i m at e vi ew of t he evi dence and al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s w hi ch m ay be dr aw n f r om t hatevi dence. St at e v. B l and, 958 S. W

. 2d 651, 659 ( T enn. 1997)

. W hen a de fendantchal l enges the s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence , th is c o u rt m u st c o n sid e r “ w h e th e r, a fte r re v iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , a n y r a t i o n a l tr i e r o f fa c t c o u l d h a v e fo u n d t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of t he cr i m e beyond a re as onabl e doubt

. ” J acks on v. V i r gi ni a, 443 U

. S. 307, 319, 99 S. C t
. 2781, 27 89 (1979 ). S i m i l arl y, R ule 13(e) of the T enn essee R ules of A pp e llate P ro c edu re s t at es,
“ F in d in g s o f g u iltin c rim in a l ac tio n s w h e th e r b y th e trial c o u rt o r j u ry sh a ll b e se t as id e if t he evi dence is insuf

f i ci entt o s uppor ta f

i ndi ng by t he tr i erof

factof gui l tbeyond a re a so n a b le d o u b t. ” T h e re q u ire m e n t th a t g u iltb e fo u n d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t is appl i cabl e i n a ca s e w her e ther e i s di r ect evi dence , ci r cum s t ant i al evi dence , or a com bi nat i on o f th e tw o . S tate v . M a tth e w s, 8 0 5 S .W .2 d 7 7 6 , 7 7 9 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) (c iti n g S tate v. B r ow n, 551 S. W

. 2d 329, 331 ( T enn. 1977) and Far m erv. St at e, 343 S. W

. 2d 895, 897 ( T enn. 1961) )

. T he tr i erof fact m us t eval uat e t he cr edi bi l i t y of the w i t nes s es , det er m i ne the w e ig h t g iv e n to w itn e ss e s’ te stim o n y , an d m u st re c o n c ile a ll co n flicts in th e e v id e n c e . S tate v . O d o m , 9 2 8 S .W .2 d 1 8 , 2 3 (T e n n . 1 9 9 6 ).
W hen r evi ew i ng i s s ues r egar di ng t he s uf f i ci ency of t he evi dence , thi s cour ts hal l not

“ r e we i g h o rr e e v a l u a t e t h e e v i d e n c e . ” S t a t e v . P h i l p o t t , 8 8 2 S

. W

. 2 d 3 9 4 , 3 9 8 ( T e n n . C r i m. A pp. 1 9 9 4 ) ( ci t i ng St at e v. C abbage , 571 S. W

. 2d 832, 836 ( T enn. 1978) , s uper s eded by statu te on o ther g ro u n d s as s tat ed in S tat e v . B aro n e, 85 2 S

. W

. 2 d 2 1 6 , 2 1 8 (T en n . 1 9 9 3 )). T hi s co u rt h as o ft en s t at ed that“[ a] gui l t y ver di ctby t he j ur y, appr oved by the tr i al j udge,-5-

acc r edi t s t he t es t i m ony of t he w i t nes s es fort he St at e and r es ol ves al l conf l i ct s i n favorof

the theo ry o f the S tat e.” State v

. B land , 9 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 9 (T en n . 1 9 9 7 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). A gu i l t y v e r d i c t a l s o “ r e m o v e s t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f i n n o c e n c e a n d r e p l a c e s i tw i t h a p re su m p tio n o f g u ilt , an d th e d e fe n d a n t h a s th e b u rd e n o f illu stra tin g w h y th e e v id e n c e is insu ffi cien t t o su p p o rtthe ju ry’s v erd ict

. ” Id

. (cit ati o n o m itted).
H atch el w as c o n v ict ed u n d er T en n esse e C o d e A n n o tat ed sec ti o n 3 9 -13 -10 2 (a)(1)(B ), w hich st at es: ( a) A per s on com m i t s aggr avat ed as s aul tw ho: ( 1) I nt ent i onal l y orknow i ngl y com m i t s an as s aul tas def i ned i n § 39- 13- 101 and: (B ) U ses o r disp lays a d ea d ly w ea p o n [. ] In defi ning “assaul t , ” T enn essee C od e A nn otat ed sect i on 39 -13-101 (a) (2) st at es: ( a) A per s on com m i t s as s aul tw ho: (1 ) In ten tio n a lly , k n o w in g ly o r re c k les sly c a u se s b o d il y in ju ry to an o ther; ( 2) I nt ent i onal l y orknow i ngl y caus es anotherto rea s onabl y fear i m m i nentbodi l y i nj ur y; or ( 3) I nt ent i onal l y orknow i ngl y caus es phys i cal cont actw i t h anotherand a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d r egar d t he cont actas extr em el y of fens i ve or pr ovocati ve. H er e, s uf f i ci ent evi dence w as pr es ent ed thatH at chel as s aul t ed the vi ct i m t hr ough the u s e o rd i s p l a y o f a d e a d l y we a p o n . Mu l t i p l e wi t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d th a tHa t c h e l b e c a me extr em el y ups etw i t h t he vi ct i m , acc us ed her of s t eal i ng f r om hi s hom e, and dem anded that s he r etur n t he s t ol en i t em s . T he vi ct i m and C oopert es t i f i ed thatH at chel poi nt ed a gun a tthe vi ct i m dur i ng t he ar gum ent
. W i nt er Pugh a l s o s t at ed t hat H at chel di s pl ayed a gun dur i ng the a lterc a tio n . M u lti p le w itn e ss e s tes tified th a t H a tch e l s h o v e d th e v ictim , c a u sin g h e r to fa ll t hr ough a baby gat e i n t he ki t chen. T he vi ct i m s ai d s he w as “t err i f i ed, ” and Cooperr eca l l ed t he vi ct i m s ayi ng s he w as s car ed. B as ed on the pr oof attr i al , a ra t i onal j ur y coul d have found t hatH at chel i nt ent i onal l y orknow i ngl y caus ed t he vi ct i m t o be i n r eas onabl e f earof i m m i ne n t b o d i l y i n

j u r y . A r a t i o n a l j u r y c o u l d h a v e a l s o c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h i s a s s a ul t w as a g g ra v a ted b y th e u se o r dis p lay o f a de a d ly w e a p o n . H a tch e l is no t en tit led to re lief o n th is is s u e .-6-

I I . A dm i s s i bi l i t y o f

Phot og r aphs

. H at chel cl ai m s a ne w tr ial m us tbe gr ant ed becau se the tr i al cou rti m properl y a llo w e d ph otographs of the v i ct i m ’s i njur i es. T hese i nj ur i es w er e i ncurr ed af t ers he j um ped outof

H at chel ’ s m ovi ng vehi cl e. H at chel ar gues the phot ogr aphs w er e i r r el evantand m or e pr ej udi ci al than pr obat i ve. T he St at e con t ends the tr i al c o u rtd id n o t e rr in a d m ittin g th e p h o to g ra p h s . U p o n re v ie w , w e a g r e e w ith th e S ta te
.

T he tr i al cour thas di s cr et i on r egar di ng t he adm i s s i bi l i t y of phot ogr aphs , and a rul i ng on t hi s i s s ue “w i l l notbe over t ur ned on ap p ea l ex ce p tupon a cl ears how i ng of abus e of dis cret i on . ” S t at e v. B a n k s, 5 6 4 S

. W

. 2d 94 7, 94 9 (T enn . 19 78 ). F i rs t , a ph otograph m ust be “ve r i f i ed and a ut hent i cat ed by a w i t nes s w i t h know l edge of the fact s ” bef or e i tcan be ad m itted in to ev iden ce . Id. S ec o n d , a p h o tog rap h m u st be relev an t t o an issue that the ju ry m us tdet er m i ne befor e i tm ay be a dm i t t ed. St at e v. V ann, 976 S. W

. 2d 93, 102 ( T enn. 1998) ( ci t i ng St at e v. St ephens on, 878 S. W

. 2d 530, 542 ( T enn. 1994) ; St at e v. B anks , 564 S. W

. 2d 9 4 7 , 9 5 1 (T en n . 1 9 7 8 )), ce rt
. d en ied, 6 7 U

. S

. L

. W

. 3 6 4 1 (U

. S

. A p r. 1 9 , 1 9 9 9 ) (N o . 9 8 -76 6 1 ). E vi dence i s r el evanti f

i thas “any t endenc y t o m ake the exi s te nce of any factt hati s of c o n se q u e n c e to th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th e a c tio n m o re p ro b a b le o r les s p ro b a b le th a n it w o u ld be w i t houtt he evi dence

. ” Tenn. R

. E vi d. 401

. H ow ever , i f the phot ogr aph’ s “pr ej udi ci al ef fectout w ei ghs i t s pr obat i ve val ue, ” i ts houl d not be adm i t t ed. See T enn. R

. E vi d. 401 and 403; B anks , 564 S. W

. 2d at 951. A r el evantphot ogr aph “m ay be e xcl uded i f i t s pr obat i ve value i s subst anti al l y o utw ei gh ed b y t he d ang er of un fai r pr ej ud i ce, con fusi on of the is sues, or m i sl eadin g th e ju ry, or by co nsi derat i on s of undu e delay, w ast e of t i m e, or need l ess pr es ent at i on of

cum ul at i ve evi dence

. ” S ee Banks, 564 S. W

. 2d at951. U nfai rpr ej udi ce ha s been de f i ned by t he T ennes s ee Supr em e C our tas “an undue t endenc y t o s ugges tdeci s i on on an i m pr operbas i s , com m onl y, t hough notnece s s ar i l y an em ot i onal one. ” I d. Phot ogr aphs m u s t n e v e r b e u s e d “ s o le ly to in fl a m e th e ju ry a n d p re ju d ic e th e m a g a i n s t th e d e fe n d a n t.” Id

. H er e, t he tr i al cour tal l ow ed the St at e t o i ntr oduce t hr ee phot ogr aphs w hi ch s how the i nj ur i es i ncurr ed by the v ict im aft ers he j um ped outof H at chel ’ s m ovi ng vehi cl e. T he p h o tog rap h s rev ea l con side rab le i n juri es to the v ict im ’s ha n d s, sca lp, left sh o u lder, a n d left ar m . T he def

ens e obj ect ed t o t he i ntr oduct i on of t hes e phot ogr aphs attr i al

. I tar gued the phot ogr aphs w er e notr el evantt o t he al l egati ons i n the i ndi ct m ent , w hi ch cha r ged H at chel w i t h assaul t i ng t he vi ct i m by ho l ding and poi nti ng a pis t ol t o the v i ct i m ’s head

. T he d efense al s o as s er t ed t hat t he phot ogr aphs w er e i nt ended t o i nf l am e the pas s i ons of

t he j ur y, and thus w er e over l y pr ej udi ci al. T he St at e ar gued the phot ogr aphs w er e r el evantt o w hetherthe v ictim w a s in re a so n a b le fe a r o f im m in e n t b o d ily in ju ry w h e n H a tch e l th re a ten e d h e r w ith a g u n . T h e trial c o u rt o v e rru led th e o bjec tio n w ith o u t ad d iti o n a l co m m e n t.
W e ho l d that t he tri al cou rt did no t abu se i t s dis cret i on i n ad m i t t i ng t he p ho t og raphs. T h e v ictim ’s d e c isio n to ju m p o u t o f H a tc h e l’s v e h icle d e m o n stra ted th a t sh e re a so n a b ly-7-

fear ed i m m i n en tbodi l y i nj ur y w hen H at chel t hr eat ened he rw i t h a gun. T he phot ogr aphs co rr o b o rate the v ict im ’s t esti m o n y that sh e jum p ed o u t of th e v eh icl e, an d w ere there fore r el evant
. A cl os er ques t i on i s w hethert he phot ogr aphs w er e m or e pr ej udi ci al t han pr obat i ve underT ennes s ee Rul e of E vi dence 403. W e ac know l edge thatt he p rob at i ve val ue of the phot ogr aphs w as s om ew h at di m i ni s hed by the t es t i m ony of H at chel and C ooper , w hi ch corr obor at ed the victi m ’s test i m ony t hats he j um ped outof the m ovi ng vehi cl e. T he p h o tog rap h s w ere also p o tential ly p rejud ici al, as th ey sh o w injuries to the v ict im that w ere no t the di r ectr es ul tof H at chel ’ s acti ons atthe Pugh’ s hous e. N onethel es s , w e ca nnot concl ude thatt he tr i al cour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n adm i t t i ng the p h o togr aphs

. T he phot ogr aphs w er e r el evantt o a key i s s ue i n t he ca s e, and thei rpr obat i ve val u e w as not out w ei ghed by any unfai rpr ej udi ce s uf fer ed by H at chel

. A ccor di ngl y, H at chel i s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef on t hi s i s s ue. CO NC L US I ON
B a s e d o n th e fo re g o in g , th e ju d g m e n t o f t h e tr ia l c o u rtis a ffir m e d

.

_____________________________ CA M I L L E R. M c M UL L E N, J UDGE