### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 5, 200 4

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. LEM ARJ. WHITE

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 01-11077 Car olyn Wad e Blackett , Judge

No. W2004-00276-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Fe bruary 11, 2005

The Appe llant, L emar

J

. Whit e, was convicted by a S helby County jury of first degr ee pr emeditated murder a nd sentenc ed to a term of life imprisonment. On appe al, White rai s es t h e si ng le issue of sufficie ncy

of the e vidence . Specifica lly , he cha lleng es the proof with reg ard to the e lement of
preme ditation. After r eview of the re cord, w e find the e vidence sufficie nt to support the verdict a nd aff irm the judg ment of convic tion.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

D AVI D G. H A YES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and J AME S C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

Robert Wils on J ones, Chief Public Defen d er ; Tony N. B rayton, Assistant P ublic Def ender (on

app e a l) ; L arry

Na nc e a nd Di a nn e Th a c ke ry , A ssi sta nt P ub lic De fe nd e rs (at tr ia l) , M e mph is, Tenne ssee, f

or the Appe llant, L emar

J . Whit e.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Ra c he l E . Wil lis , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Gene ra l; Wil liam L

. Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; Tom Hoover

and Ga il Vermaa s, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

On Marc h 3, 2001, the victi m , T i m m y Wil liams, was g unned down in his front y ard a fter returning to his North Memphis residence with severa l friends. F ollowing a b arr ag e of approximately

fiftee n to twenty

g unshots, W illiams was struc k by a bullet in the nec k, which seve red his c aro tidart e ry

a ndjug ula

r ve in, pr od uc ing de a th. Se ve ra l of the g un sh ots str uc k th e c ar Wi lli a ms had just left, and other s ricoche ted off the front of Wil liams’ house. Whil e no one sa w the shooter, Willi a ms’ frie nd s to ld p oli c e that th e sh ots we re fi re d f ro m a n a re a be hin d a fe nc e , w hic h w a s a c ro ss-2-

the str e e t f

ro m Will ia ms’ ho us e . U po n in sp e c tio n o f the fe nc e d a re a , p oli c e fo un d a

g re e n p la sti c

c h a i r n e ar a n o p e n i n g i n t h e f

e n c e , w h i c h p e r m i t t e d a

c l e ar v i e w o f t h e v i c t i m ’ s h o u s e

. A d d i t i o n a l l y, twelve she ll casing s were found on the g roun d ar o und the cha ir. Fing erprint ex perts with the Memphis Poli ce D epartment rec overe d five latent fing erprints from the g ree n chair which matche d those of the Appe llant. The police lear ned that the Appe llant was cur rently residing with his mot her. The Appe llant’s mother g ave w ritten consent to a se arc h of her house, which resulted in the seizure of a SKS 7.62 rifle hidden in the cra wlspace underne ath the porc h. Ba llist ics testing r evea led that the twelve spe nt shell casing s found at the sc ene ha d been f ired from the r ifle re cover ed fr om the Appellant’s r esidenc e.
The Appe llant was arrested and subsequently interviewe d by

police. He initiallydenied a ny knowledg e of the murder but, whe n confr onted with the evidenc e ag ainst hi m , gave a written statement admitting tha t he had shot Will iams. He stated tha t he had g one to the are a, taken a lawn chair from a por ch, and w aited in a ba cky ard a cross the stre et from Willia m s ’ h o m e. He further stated that he did not know Willi ams but that a m an named Chris had ag ree d to pay him $6,000.00 to shoot the victim. Aft er s ee i n g a man matching the desc ription give n by Chris, the Appellant be g a n f ir ing . A ft e rw ard s, he dr ov e to a Wal -M art pa

rking lot a nd aba nd on e d the c ar, re turnin g to his home by

bus. He a lso admitted hiding the we apon in the cr awlspac e under his home.

On Se pte mbe r 20
, 20 01
, a She lby Cou nty g ra ndjury

re turne d a

tw o- c ou nt i nd ic tme nt a g a ins t the Appellant, c harg ing a lternative the ories of f irst deg ree premed i t ated murder and f irst deg ree felony murder. T he Appe llant’s jury trial beg an November 17, 2003, afte r which he wa s convicted of first deg ree preme ditated murder. Following the penalty phase, he was sentenc ed to life in prison. T h e A p p el l an t ’s m o t i o n fo r ne w tri al wa s o v er ru l ed o n J an u ar y 1 2
, 2 0 0 4
, wi t h t h i s ap p ea l fo l l o wi n g.

Ana lys is

O n ap p e a l
, t h e A p p e l l a n t r a i s e s t h e s i n g l e i s s u e o f s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e

. S p e c i f i c a l l y, he cha lleng es the e vidence with reg ard to the e lement of pre meditation.

When an appe llant challeng es the suff iciency of the e v i d en ce, this court must determine “whe ther, a fter vie wing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favor able to the [ State], any rational trier of fac t could have found t he essential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt.” Jack son v. Vi rg ini a , 443 U. S. 307 , 3 19 , 9 9 S. Ct. 27 81 , 2 78 9 ( 19 79 ); see also Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( e ); State v. Duncan , 698 S.W .2d 63, 67 (Tenn. 1985). The State is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of th e e v id e n c e a n d a ll r e a s o n ab le in f e r e n c e s th a t may b e d r a w n th e r e f r om. S t a t e v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978)

.

Th e c re dib ili ty of wi tne sse s, the we ig ht of the ir te sti mon y , a ndthe re c on c ili a tio n o f c on fl ic ts in the evidenc e ar e matter s entrusted e x clusively to the trier of

fac t. Sta te v . G e ntr

y , 881 S.W .2d 1, 3 (T en n

. C ri m

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 3 ) ( ci t i n g By rg e v . S tat e , 575 S.W .2d 292, 295 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978) ). A j ury ve rd ic t f or the Sta te a c c re dit s the te sti mon y of the Sta te ’s wi tne sse s a nd re so lve s a ll c on fl ic ts in favor of

the State. State v. W

illiams , 6 57 S.W .2 d 40 5, 41 0 ( Te nn . 1 98 3) . M or e ov e r, g uil ty-3-

verdic ts remove the pr esumption of innocenc e enjoy ed by defe ndants at trial and r eplac e it with a presumption of g uilt. S ta te v

. Grace
, 4 93 S.W .2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973) . Thus, an appe llant challeng ing the sufficie ncy of t h e ev i d en ce c arries the burde n of illustrating to this court why the evidenc e is insuff

icient to support the ver dict. State v. Free man , 9 43 S.W. 2d25 , 2 9 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1996).

The Appe llant was convic ted of fir st deg ree murder, w hich is defined in pe rtinent part by Tennes s ee Code Annotated se ction 39-13-202( a)( 1) (2003) as “[a] premeditated a nd intentional kil lin g of a no the r. ” Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 9- 13 -2 02 (d ) p ro vid e s:

As used in subd i v i s i o n (a) (1) “ preme ditation” is an ac t done af ter the e x erc ise of ref lection and judg ment. “Preme ditation” means that the intent to ki ll must have be e n f or me d pr ior to the a c t its e lf . It is no t ne c e ssa ry that th e pu rp os e to kill pr e -e xist in the mind of the accu s ed fo r an y definite pe riod of time. The me ntal state of the

acc used at the time the a ccuse d alleg edly decide d to kill must be ca ref ully considere d in order to de termine whe ther the ac cused w as suffic iently fre e fr om excitement and passion to be ca

pable of preme ditation.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-202(d) . There fore , in order to c onvict the Appe l l an t o f t he indicted of fe ns e , th e Sta te wa s requ ir ed to p ro ve be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t th a t he kil le d Wil lia ms w ith “pre meditation.” W hether preme ditation is present is a question of fac t f or the jury
, and it may

be inferr ed fr om the circ umstances surr ounding the commiss i o n o f t h e crime. Sta te v . B e rry , 141 S.W. 3d54 9, 56 5- 66 (T e nn . 2 00 4) ; State v. Suttles , 3 0 S. W.3 d 2 52 , 2 61 (T e nn . 2 00 0) ; State v. Pike
, 978 S.W .2d 904, 914 (Tenn. 1998)

.

Th e Ap pe lla nt doe s not co nte st the fa c t tha t he wa s the pe rs on wh o sho t a ndkil le d th e vic tim

. Mo re ov e r, he a c kn ow le dg e s th a t hi s mo tiv e fo r the sh oo tin g wa s th e pr omi se that he wo uldbe pa id $6,000.00. We f

ind it difficult to pe rce ive of any murder- for- hire or c ontrac t killi ng which does not

nece ssarily

involve the ac t of preme ditation, i.e.
, t h at t h e killing oc curr ed af ter the e x erc ise of ref lection and judg ment. Furthermore , proof a t trial established that the Appe llant’s intent to kil l was formed prior to the act itself. The Appellant, arme d with a high caliber rifle, prep ar ed fo r t he ho mic ide by po sit ion ing him se lf be hin d a fe nc e a nd lying in wa it f or thi rt y -f ive to f orty min ute s u nti l
prese nted with the opportunity to kill t he unarmed victim. The Appe llant co n t i n u ed to fire a s the victim f led for his life . Following the homicide, the Appe llant’s actions re flec ted a c erta in deg ree of ca lmness. The Appe llant’s planning activities, the nature of t he kil ling, secre tion of the we apon, and ca lmness after the murder support the exis tence of pre meditation. Se e Be rry , 141 S.W .3d at 566; Pike , 9 78 S.W. 2da t 91 4- 15 ; State v. Bland
, 958 S.W .2d 651, 660 (Tenn. 1997) . After revie w of the evidenc e, we conclude that a ra tional trier of f act c ould have f

ound the essen t i al el em en t s of the crime of first deg ree murder be y ond a re asonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).-4- CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, w e find the e vidence leg ally sufficie nt to support the Appellant’s conviction for f

irst deg ree murder. A ccor dingly , the judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

___________________________________ DAVI D G. HAY ES, J UDGE