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

Briefs F ebruary

26, 2002
STATE OF TENN ESSEE v. FREDD IE DEAN BLEDSOE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Cum berland County No. 5614 Lillie Ann Sells, Judge

No. E2001-02085-CCA-R3-CD September 25, 2002
The appellant was convicted by a jury of the of

fense of aggravated assa

ult. He was sentenced

to a termof six years incarc eration and the jury assessed a $10,000 fine. On appeal he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. After a caref ul review of the record we find that the evidenc e is suffi cient to su pport the verdict and we a ffirm the judgmen t of the tr ial cour t. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appe al as of Right ; Judgme nt of the Cr

iminal Court is Affirm

ed.
J ERRY L. S MITH , J., d elivered the opinion of the court, in which J AMES C URWOOD W ITT , J R . and R OBER T W. W EDEMEYER , JJ., joined. G. Earl Patton, Crossville, Tennessee, for appellant, Freddie Dean Bledsoe.
Paul G. Summers , Attorne y G eneral & Repor ter; Kat hy D . Asl inger, As sistant Att orney Genera l; Bill Gibson, District Attorney Gene ral ; and Anth ony

Craighead, Ass istant Dist rict Attor ney Genera l, for appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION
This case ar

ises out of

a fight that took p lace out side of Sis co’s Ba r in Cu mb er la nd Co un ty, Tennessee. As accredited by the jury’s ver

dict the record shows that at some point on the night of Jun e 15, 1999, the appellant hit an individual named Andrew Kemmer in the face resulting in the victim suffer ing fac ial abra sions/lac eration s, severe head injury and unconsciousness. The appellant made statemen

ts to the effect that he had knocked Kemmer out with one punc h and that he had done
so because K emmer owed him mo ney . As a re sult of the head inju ry , Mr. Kemm

er now ha s only short te rm me mo ry, his personality has bee n altered, and he has lingering phy sical problems. He has undergone multiple surgeries bec ause of the attack. According to the appellant, Mr. Kemmer p honed an d asked f

or the ap pellant to meet him in the bar parking lot. When Kemmer arrived, he w as “real high” an d tried to s ell cocaine to the appellant as well as attemptin g to rec ruit the a ppellant to sell coc aine for

him. When the appellant-2-

refuse d and turned to go back in the bar, Kemmer g rabbed the appellant’s arm. The appellant testified that he did not know what Kemmer was going to do so he hit Kemmer o ne time, no t meaning to hurt him. The appellant then returned to the bar where he drank beer, danced and then left. Evidence is sufficient if, after reviewing “the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any r

ational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime bey ond
a reasonable doubt.” See Jackson v. V irginia , 443 U.S.3 07, 319 (1 979); State v. Smith , 24 S.W.3d 274, 278 (Tenn. 2000). Conviction by a trie r of fact destro ys the presumption of innocenc e and imposes a presumpt ion of gu ilt; thus, a convicted criminal defendant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was insuffic ient. ; See Stat e v. Buggs , 995 S.W.2d 102, 105-06 (Tenn. 1999); State
v. Evans , 838 S.W.2d 1 85, 191 (T enn. 1992 ); State v. Tuggl e , 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982); See McBee

v. State , 372 S.W.2d 173, 176 (Tenn. 1963)
In its revie w of the e

vidence , an appe

llate cou rt must af ford the State “the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence as well as all reasonable and leg itimate inferences that may be drawn therefrom.” Tuggl e , 639 S.W.2d a t 914; see also Smith , 24 S.W.3d at 279. The court may not “re

weigh or re-e

valuate the evidence” in therecord below. Evans , 838 S.W.2d a t 191; see also Buggs , 99 5 S.W.2d at 105. Likewise, should the reviewing cour t find particular conflicts in the tri a l te st im on y, the court must resolve them in favor of the jury verdict and trial court judgment. Tuggl e , 639 S.W.2d at 914. All questions involving “the credibility of witnesses, the we ight to be given the evidence, and any fa

ctual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact”, not the appella te courts. State v. Mo

rris , 24 S.W.3d 788, 795 (Tenn. 2000); See also Statev. Pappas , 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). Aggravated

assault is defined at Tennessee Code Annotated sec tion 39-13-102 . The methods by which a person may

commit this o ffense

include intentionally or knowing ly assaulting a nother person causing that person to suffer serious bodily injury. See , Tenn . Code An n. § 39-13- 102(a)(1)(A). In thi s case the appell ant does not dispute that he assaulted Mr. Kemmer or that Kemmer suffered serious bodily injury. He

does argue that

the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence to establi sh bey ond a rea sonable d oubt th at the appe llant’s assault caused Kemmer’s injuries. The appellant points to other possible explanations for Kemmer’s injuries such as another person attacking Kemmer after the appellant or that a vehicle ran over him. Howeve

r, there is ample evidence in the record from which a jury c ould find beyond a re asonable doubt that the appellant’s assault c aused Mr . Kemmer ’s injurie s. According to bar patr on Frederick Aulich, on June 15, 1999, the appellant stated that Kemmer owed him money and that he would “do whatever he ha d t o d o” to co ll ec t t ha t m on ey. Sometime

later, the appellant came back into the bar with wha t appeared

to be blood on his hands, and he told Mr. Aulich, “I smacked him.” Mr. Aulich found Kemmer outside only “moments” from the time the appell ant went t o wash the

blood off his hands.-3-

Michael Gann, another patron, testified that he observed

the appellant come inside the bar on June 15 after Mr. Kemmer had been discover ed outside. The appellant announced, “I knocked him out in one punch.” Jenny Lance testified

that the appellant went

outside of Sisco’s to meet Kemmer and when the appellant returned, he told her that he and Kemmer had bee n in a fight. The appellant wanted Lance to take him home.
Alth ough the appellant asserted that he only hit the victim once, he admitted assaulting Kemmer. He claimed that he hit Kemme r becau se Kem mer was “houn ding” h im and “aggravat ing” him.
When found, Mr. Kemmer was unconscious, and he looked as though he

had been hit in the face. According to the paramedic, Ke mmer had facial lacerations or abra sions and was exhibiting side ef fe ct s o f a he ad in

ju ry. Kemmer

went through two surgeries and wa s unconscious for over a week. A s of the tim

e of the t rial, he was still e

xperienc ing prob lems due to the assa ult.
From this evide

nce, a r ational ju ry could hav e found b ey ond a rea sonable d oubt th a t the appellant’s assault cau sed serious bodily injury to the vic tim. Ther

efore, the evide

nce is am ply sufficient to support the appellant’s conviction.
Conclusion
For the for egoing reasons we find that the a ppellant’s issue lacks merit. Accordingly , the judgment of the trial court is AFFI RMED.

___________________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE