IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs December 3, 2013

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROOSEVELT BRICE, JR.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County

No. 12-282 Donald H. Allen, Judge

No. W2013-00349-CCA-R3-CD - Filed January 16, 2014

Roosevelt Brice, Jr. (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of attempted premeditated

first degree murder and aggravated assault. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court

sentenced the Defendant to twenty-five years’ incarceration for his attempted premeditated

first degree murder conviction and fifteen years’ incarceration for his aggravated assault

conviction. The trial court ordered that the two sentences be served concurrently for a total

effective sentence of twenty-five years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for attempted premeditated first degree

murder. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments

of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments

of the Circuit Court Affirmed

JEFFREY S.BIVINS,J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS T. WOODALL and

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JJ., joined.

Gregory D. Gookin, Assistant Public Defender, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant,

Roosevelt Brice, Jr.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley, Senior Counsel;

James G. Woodall, District Attorney General; and Brian Gilliam, Assistant District Attorney

General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION

Factual and Procedural Background

A Madison County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant on one count of attempted

premeditated first degree murder and one count of aggravated assault. The Defendant

proceeded to a jury trial on October 2, 2012.

Alma Brice testified that she was married to the victim, Roosevelt Brice, Sr., and that

they lived together in their home in Madison County. She identified the Defendant as her

stepson. Alma testified that the Defendant spent the night at her home on January 6, 2012.

1

The Defendant lived in Nashville and was in Jackson visiting family. On January 7, 2012,

the Defendant had been gone all day and had not yet arrived home by the time Alma went

to bed between 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Alma testified that she was awakened by the sound

of Roosevelt Sr. and the Defendant arguing. Alma heard Roosevelt Sr. say, “Well, you’re

going to leave. You are going to leave. I done told you about coming in here trying to run

my house.” According to Alma, the Defendant responded, “I’m not going nowhere [sic]

because this is my house too.” At that point, Roosevelt Sr. went into the kitchen. When

Roosevelt Sr. attempted to exit the kitchen back into the den,

[The Defendant] jumped up and met him in the doorway and he told him he

said, “If you call the police on me tonight, you old so-in-so [sic], I’m going to

kill you.” [The Defendant] said, “You’re the only one left and I’m going to

take you out tonight.” Meaning all the rest of [Roosevelt Sr.’s] sisters and

brothers.

At that time, the Defendant pushed Roosevelt Sr., and, when Roosevelt Sr. pushed the

Defendant back, the Defendant “took [Roosevelt Sr.] down to the floor . . . and [the

Defendant] was chocking [sic] [Roosevelt Sr.] out.” Alma testified that Roosevelt Sr. was

positioned on top of the Defendant when the Defendant was choking him. While he was

choking Roosevelt Sr., the Defendant “told [Roosevelt Sr.] that he was going to kill him.”

Eventually, Alma was able to get Roosevelt Sr. loose from the Defendant. At that point, the

Defendant “attacked [Roosevelt Sr.] again and threw him through the wall . . . that’s when

[the Defendant] got down on [Roosevelt Sr.] and proceeded to beat him and beat him and

beat him.” Alma “begged” the Defendant to stop, and the Defendant “just kept telling

[Roosevelt Sr.] that he was going to die tonight and he hadn’t never [sic] cared anything

Because more than one witness has the same surname, we will refer to these witnesses using their 1

given names. We intend no disrespect.

-2-
about him anyway.” Alma clarified that by “beat him” she meant that the Defendant was

“beating [Roosevelt Sr.] with his fists and his hands and stomping him and kicking him.”

Alma stated that, when the Defendant “came up off” Roosevelt Sr., she could see that

the Defendant had a knife in his hand. According to her testimony, that was the first time

Alma saw anybody with a knife. She noted that the knife was “bent,” and she saw blood on

it. She recognized the knife as one that they normally kept in the kitchen. She “kept asking

[the Defendant] to give [her] the knife and he wouldn’t.” According to Alma’s testimony,

“[F]inally, [the Defendant] just threw [the knife] on the table and I picked it up and put it in

the garbage can.” She stated that she threw the knife in the garbage can because she “didn’t

want [the Defendant] to get it again.” At that point, Alma identified the knife.

Alma testified that, during the incident, she was afraid to call the police because the

Defendant had threatened to “do the same thing” to her and her son if she did. Alma’s son

was a “special needs child,” and he was present during the incident. Eventually, Alma went

into a bedroom and called 911. She testified that she called and hung up immediately as she

“didn’t want [the Defendant] to hear” her talking to the 911 dispatcher because she was

“afraid of what [the Defendant] might do.” When the police arrived, the Defendant met the

officers at the front door and told them “everything is all right.” Alma gave the officers

permission to come inside the house and was “trying to give them the signal” to direct their

attention toward the back of the house. Alma stated that, when the officers questioned the

Defendant about the blood on his clothes, the Defendant responded, “Well, me and my dad

got into it tonight and my mom called me and told me to come on over here.” When the

officers asked the Defendant where his dad lived, he responded, “Over on Stonewall

[S]treet.”

Alma testified that the officers “finally caught [her] hint” and moved to the back of

the house, where they discovered Roosevelt Sr. lying on the floor in the den. According to

Alma, the Defendant “had picked [Roosevelt Sr.] up from the kitchen and threw him in the

floor in the den.” Alma testified that she thought Roosevelt Sr. was dead at that point.

Roosevelt Sr. was not able to speak or move. She tried to wipe some of the blood off of

Roosevelt Sr.’s face, but the Defendant “wouldn’t let” her, telling her to quit “babying him.”

On cross-examination, Alma acknowledged that, in herstatement to police on January

9, 2012, she stated that Roosevelt Sr. “had the knife in his hand prior to [the Defendant]

attacking him.” The statement was reduced to writing by officers, and Alma identified her

signature at the bottom of the written statement. She acknowledged that this statement was

contrary to her testimony at trial that the Defendant was the only one she saw with the knife.

-3-
Alma clarified that when she testified that the Defendant threw Roosevelt Sr. “through

the wall” in the kitchen, she meant that “when [the Defendant] threw [Roosevelt Sr.] through

the wall in the kitchen, it made a big hole in the wall. . . . [Roosevelt Sr.’s] head was in the

hole in the wall and that’s where [the Defendant] proceeded to beat him.”

Alma testified that, at the time of the incident in question, Roosevelt Sr. was in an

“early stage of dementia.”

On redirect-examination, Alma clarified her statement contained in the police report

regarding Roosevelt Sr. having the knife: “I said [Roosevelt Sr.] may have picked it up when

he was in the kitchen by mistake or whatever. He was in the early stages of dementia.”

When asked if she ever saw Roosevelt Sr. with the knife, she replied that she did not.

According to Alma, “The first time I saw the knife was when [the Defendant] had the knife

when he was standing up over [Roosevelt Sr.] when he had him down on the floor in the

kitchen.”

When asked whether she remembered the Defendant making any threats toward

Roosevelt Sr. during the incident, Alma remembered, “Oh, yeah. While [the Defendant] was

beating [Roosevelt Sr.], [the Defendant] kept on telling him to die and he was going to kill

him.”

Officer Joseph Mitchell with the Jackson Police Department (“JPD”) testified that he

was working as a patrol officer on the night of the incident in question and responded to a

911 hang-up call at Alma and Roosevelt Sr.’s home. When Officer Mitchell arrived, Officer

Buddy Crowell of the JPD was already there. Officer Mitchell spoke with the Defendant at

the door. According to Officer Mitchell, the Defendant stated that “there was nothing going

on and that they didn’t need the police there.”

However, Officer Mitchell noticed blood on the Defendant’s shirt, and, after Officer

Mitchell expressed his concern, they were given permission to come into the house. At that

point, Officer Mitchell noticed that Alma was “motioning [him] with her eyes,” and he

proceeded toward the back of the house. When he saw blood in the kitchen, he continued

to the den where he found Roosevelt Sr. lying “in a puddle of blood on his back.” Officer

Mitchell described Roosevelt Sr.’s condition: “He was in horrible condition. I mean, just

beat. It’s unbelievable. His eyes were all swollen and blood was all on his shirt and it was

kind of almost looked like somebody outlined his head to his belt line in blood.” Roosevelt

Sr. had “barely any strength” to move his arms, and he was not able to speak except for

“mumbling a little.” Officer Mitchell identified several pictures that he took of the scene and

of Roosevelt Sr.’s wounds. Officer Mitchell also identified the knife that he collected from

the scene.

-4-
According to Officer Mitchell, the Defendant stated that he and Roosevelt Sr. “had

gotten into an altercation at another location and came back to the house to, you know, calm

down to air it out and stuff. . . . [T]hen an altercation came and one way or another [the

Defendant] got [Roosevelt Sr.] down on the floor and started kicking and stomping him.”

Officer Mitchell identified a pair of shoes he collected from the scene. One of the

shoes was retrieved from the kitchen, and the Defendant was wearing the other shoe at the

time he was arrested. Officer Mitchell noted that there was blood on the shoes. According

to Officer Mitchell, the Defendant explained that “Roosevelt Sr. was on the ground, [and the

Defendant] kicked and stomped him. So that’s how the blood got on his shoes.” Officer

Mitchell testified that he did not notice any bruises, cuts, or any other kind of injuries on the

Defendant at the time he was arrested.

On cross-examination, Officer Mitchell testified that the Defendant had a “strong

odor” of alcohol coming from his body.

Officer Buddy Crowell with the JPD testified that he also was working as a patrol

officer on the night of the incident in question and responded to the 911 hang-up call at Alma

and Roosevelt Sr.’s home. Officer Crowell arrived at “approximately the same time” as

Officer Mitchell. Officer Crowell testified that he spoke with Alma at the front door.

Officer Crowell remembered that Alma “kind of had the look on her face like something was

wrong,” and “kind of looked back over her shoulder.” According to Officer Crowell, “I

interpreted [Alma’s body language] as something was going on that was not in my sight, so

I asked if I could come in.” Alma gave the officers permission to enter the house. Once in

the house, Officer Crowell noticed blood “all over” the Defendant’s clothes. When asked

about the blood, the Defendant, “advised [Officer Crowell] that him and his father had been

in a fight at a different location, and [the Defendant] had come to [Alma’s] house to calm

down.”

Eventually, Officer Mitchell drew Officer Crowell’s attention to the den where

Officer Crowell could see Roosevelt Sr. lying on the ground. At that point, Officer Crowell

arrested the Defendant. When asked about Roosevelt Sr.’s condition, Officer Crowellstated,

“He was in very bad shape. He wasn’t able to talk or respond to me or anything. He was

able to move his head and that was about it.” Officer Crowell did not remember the

Defendant complaining of any injuries, and he did not see any signs of injury on the

Defendant. Officer Crowell testified that the Defendant smelled of alcohol.

On cross-examination, Officer Crowell admitted that nothing in his report mentioned

Alma looking over her shoulder or signaling the officers toward the back of the house.

-5-
Lisa Headen, an investigator with the domestic violence unit of the JPD, testified that

she interviewed the Defendant following the incident in question. Investigator Headen

testified that she hand-recorded the Defendant’s statement, and, after having a chance to

review the written statement and make any necessary changes, the Defendant signed it. In

this statement, the Defendant claimed, “I don’t really know what happened. I don’t

remember how it started. My daddy hit me too.”

On cross-examination, Investigator Headen clarified that her involvement with this

case ended “probably the next day” following her interview with the Defendant because the

case was transferred to the violent crimes unit “as it became more apparent how horrific the

injuries were.”

Aubrey Richardson, an investigator in the violent crimes unit of the JPD, testified that

she was assigned as the investigator in this case after it was transferred from the domestic

violence unit. Investigator Richardson testified that no evidence was submitted to the

Tennessee Bureau of Investigation for any kind of scientific testing in this case because she

“felt like there was nothing to be discovered” by doing so.

The State also entered without objection medical records from Jackson Madison

County General Hospital pertaining to Roosevelt Sr.’streatment there immediately following

the incident in question. The medical records showed that Roosevelt Sr. was admitted to

treatment between 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. on January 8, 2012, and was discharged on

January 16, 2012. The medical records noted that Roosevelt Sr.suffered “blunt trauma” with

a diagnosis of “[t]raumatic intracranial hemorrhage,” “[c]losed fracture of the facial bones,”

“[c]ontusion of the chest wall,” “left nasal bone fracture,” and “left orbital floor fracture.”

At the conclusion of the State’s proof, the defense moved for a judgment of acquittal,

and the trial court denied the motion.

The Defendant chose to testify on his own behalf. The Defendant testified that he

lived in Nashville and occasionally took trips to visit his family in Jackson. Regarding how

much alcohol he had consumed prior to the incident in question, the Defendant testified that

he only had consumed “a beer earlier that day” and denied having had any liquor on the night

of the incident.

On the night in question, the Defendant arrived at the house around 10:30 p.m. and

let himself in using a key Alma had given him. The Defendant first encountered Roosevelt

Sr. in the kitchen. According to the Defendant, “[Roosevelt Sr.] was asking me where was

I coming from and how did I get into the house. The whole ordeal started over because I

-6-
wouldn’t give him the door key to the house.” At that point, the Defendant testified, their

argument became physical:

[Roosevelt Sr.] pushed me and I pushed him back. When he pushed me again,

I reached down and [Roosevelt Sr.] stuck me in my right arm with that steak

knife that we’ve got in here now as the weapon. So after he stuck me, that’s

when I pushed him over there in the corner [of the kitchen]. I pushed him

down on the floor trying to get the steak knife away from him. . . . So, from

there on that’s where I scuffled with him trying to get the knife from him and

I couldn’t get the knife. That’s when Alma came in . . . . When she came in

the room, she reached down to pull [Roosevelt Sr.] from up under me, so I got

up off [Roosevelt Sr.] thinking that she was going to get the knife away from

him, but he still didn’t give up the knife. I was determined I wanted the knife

because he didn’t have no business sticking me with the knife and that’s when

I pushed him over the den couch and he fell down between the couch and the

living room table . . . that’s where the officer found him. I didn’t get the knife

away from him until after I got around there. True enough, I stomped him.

That’s how I got him to release the knife. Other than that, after I got the knife

from [Roosevelt Sr.], by that time the police was at the back . . . . So that’s

when we went to the door and opened the door.

According to the Defendant, he never used the knife to cut or stab Roosevelt Sr. Rather,

when he gained control of the knife, the Defendant placed it on the living room table before

Alma retrieved it and put in the garbage can. The Defendant testified that he was just “trying

to leave. That was it.” He testified, “I wasn’t trying to kill my father. . . . I was trying to get

the knife.”

On cross-examination, the Defendant admitted, “[I]t was to where after [Roosevelt

Sr.] stuck me with the knife I was upset and I lost it. That’s the reason I stomped him.” The

Defendant also testified that, on the night of the incident, the Defendant told the officers that

Roosevelt Sr. had stabbed him with the knife. The Defendant stated that he was “sorry about

anything else.” When the State asked the Defendant what he was sorry about, the Defendant

replied, “I’m sorry that my daddy got stuck.” However, when pressed by the State, the

Defendant continued to deny that he had stabbed Roosevelt Sr.

When asked why he initially told the officers that he had been in a fight at another

address, the Defendant responded, “[B]ecause I was trying to keep from going to jail, sir,

because the police was there.” The Defendant testified that he never pushed Roosevelt Sr.

into the kitchen wall. He denied making any statements the night of the incident that he was

-7-
going to kill Roosevelt Sr. or that Roosevelt Sr. was going to die. He also denied threatening

to attack Alma if she called the police.

After the Defendant’stestimony, the defense rested its proof. The jury deliberated and

found the Defendant guilty as charged of attempted premeditated first degree murder and

aggravated assault. The trial court later sentenced the Defendant to twenty-five years for his

attempted premeditated first degree murder conviction and to fifteen years for his aggravated

assault conviction, to be served concurrently. The Defendant filed a motion for new trial,

which the trial court denied. The Defendant then filed a timely notice of appeal. In this

direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence at trial was not sufficient to support his

conviction for attempted premeditated first degree murder.

Analysis

Our standard of review regarding sufficiency of the evidence is “whether, after

viewing 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); see also Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). After a jury finds a

defendant guilty, the presumption of innocence is removed and replaced with a presumption

of guilt. State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992). Consequently, the defendant

has the burden on appeal of demonstrating why the evidence was insufficient to support the

jury’s verdict. State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).

The appellate court does not weigh the evidence anew. Rather, “a jury verdict,

approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves

all conflicts” in the testimony and all reasonably drawn inferences in favor of the State. State

v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). Thus, “the State is entitled to the strongest

legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable or legitimate inferences which may be

drawn therefrom.” Id. (citation omitted). This standard of review applies to guilty verdicts

based upon direct or circumstantial evidence. State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 379 (Tenn.

2011) (citing State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265, 275 (Tenn. 2009)). In Dorantes, our supreme

court adopted the United States Supreme Court standard that “direct and circumstantial

evidence should be treated the same when weighing the sufficiency of such evidence.” Id.

at 381. Accordingly, the evidence need not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except

that of the defendant’s guilt, provided the defendant’s guilt is established beyond a

reasonable doubt. Id.

The weight and credibility given to the testimony of witnesses, and the reconciliation

of conflicts in that testimony, are questions of fact. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659

(Tenn. 1997). Furthermore, it is not the role of this Court to reevaluate the evidence or

-8-
substitute its own inferences for those drawn by the jury. State v. Winters, 137 S.W.3d 641,

655 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) (citations omitted).

The Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the State’s evidence supporting his

conviction for attempted premeditated first degree murder. Specifically, the Defendant

assertsthat “the argument only started when [Roosevelt Sr.] confronted [the Defendant]” and

that the Defendant only “stomped and kicked [Roosevelt Sr.] in an attempt to wrest control

of the knife.” Therefore, the Defendant argues, the “proof demonstrates that [the Defendant]

had no intention to kill his father and that he did not commit his crimes with premeditation.”

The definition of first degree murder applicable in the instant case is the

“premeditated and intentional killing of another.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1)

(2010). In order to prove attempted premeditated first degree murder, the State must prove

that the Defendant acted with the intent to commit premeditated first degree murder and that

the Defendant’s “conduct constitute[d] a substantialstep toward commission of the offense.”

Tenn. Code Ann. 39-12-101(a) (2010).

A premeditated act is one done “after the exercise of reflection and judgment.” Tenn.

Code Ann. § 39-13-202(d). Therefore, the premeditated killing of another “means that the

intent to kill must have been formed prior to the act itself. It is not necessary that the purpose

to kill pre-exist in the mind of the accused for any definite period of time.” Id. Furthermore,

the accused must be “sufficiently free from excitement and passion as to be capable of

premeditation.” Id. In a trial for first-degree murder, “[t]he existence of the element of

premeditation is a question of fact to be resolved by the jury.” State v. Davis, 354 S.W.3d

718, 730 (Tenn. 2011); State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 660 (Tenn. 1997) (“The elements

of premeditation and deliberation are questions for the jury.”). Premeditation “may be

established by proof of the circumstances surrounding the killing.” Bland, 958 S.W.2d at

660. Circumstances that support a finding of premeditation include: “the use of a deadly

weapon upon an unarmed victim; the particular cruelty of the killing; [and] the declarations

by the defendant of an intent to kill.” State v. Suttles, 30 S.W.3d 252, 261 (Tenn. 2000); see

also Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 660.

In the instant case, Alma testified that, while he was choking Roosevelt Sr., the

Defendant declared “that he was going to kill him.” According to Alma, there was a brief

break in the action when she was able to separate the two, but the Defendant attacked

Roosevelt Sr. again, throwing him “through the wall,” and proceeding to “beat him, and beat

him, and beat him.” While he was beating Roosevelt Sr., the Defendant again “told

[Roosevelt Sr.] that he was going to kill him,” and the Defendant just kept telling [Roosevelt

Sr.] that he was going to die tonight.” Alma testified that she saw a bloody bent knife in the

Defendant’s hand and that she never saw Roosevelt Sr. with a knife. Furthermore, the

-9-
testimony of Alma and the two responding officers, the crime scene photographs, and

Roosevelt Sr.’s medical records all show the severity of the injuries Roosevelt Sr. sustained.

Alma testified that she thought Roosevelt Sr. was dead. Officer Mitchell testified that

Roosevelt Sr. was in “horrible condition” and that he was covered in blood and unable to

speak. The medical records entered without objection show that Roosevelt Sr. required an

eight-day hospitalization and suffered intracranial hemorrhaging along with multiple

fractures to his face.

This evidence was sufficient to lead the jury to conclude that the Defendant used a

deadly weapon on an unarmed victim, that the Defendant made declarations of his intent to

kill Roosevelt Sr. during the attack, and that the attack was particularly brutal. Although the

Defendant’s own testimony contradicted some of this evidence, “the weight and credibility

given to the testimony of witnesses, and the reconciliation of conflicts in that testimony, are

questions of fact” for the jury. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 659. The evidence was clearly

sufficient to persuade a rational trier of fact to conclude that the Defendant had the requisite

premeditation to support his conviction for attempted premeditated first degree murder.

Thus, the Defendant is entitled to no relief on this basis.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

_________________________________

JEFFREY S. BIVINS, JUDGE

-10-