### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs M

ay 8, 2002 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICKY R AY REED, JR., aka “RICCO” Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Tipton County No. 3428 Joseph H. Walker, III, Judge

No. W2001-02155-CCA-R3-CD - Filed June 25, 2002

The defendan t was indi cted for first degree murder and convicted by the jury of second degree murder. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief, and was permitted to make a delayed motion for a new trial, whic

h ultimately was de

nied by the tr

ial cou rt. The defenda

nt appeals the den

ial, arguing that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder. After a review of therecord, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of second degree murder and that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal and a

new trial. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed
A LAN E. G LE NN , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D AVID G. H AYES and J ERRY L. S MITH , JJ., joined. Gary F. Antrican, District Public Defende r, and David S. Stockton, As sistant District Publ ic Defender, for the appellant, Ricky Ray Reed, Jr. Paul G. Summers, Attorne y General and Re

porter; Thomas E.

Williams, III, Ass

istant Atto

r ney General; Elizabeth T. Rice, District Attorney General; and James W. Freeland, Jr., Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION On November 3, 1997, the defendant, Ricky Ray Reed, Jr., was indicted for first degree murder for the March 11, 1997, killing of the victim, Tony Terrell Moss. A jury convicted him of seconddegree murder, a Class A felony, on May 5, 1998, and assessed a $50,000 fine. T he trial court sentenced

him as a violent offender to twenty years at 100% in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant did not file a motion for a new trial or a notice of appeal. On August 16, 1999, the defendant , utilizing a United States District Court form, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the State violated his constitutional rights by failing-2-

to disclose favorable evidence to him. The trial court dismissed the petition on September 9, 1999, andno appeal was filed. On June 25, 2001, thedefendant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, requesting a dela

yed appeal of his

conviction and ar

guing that he was denied his rig ht to appellat e review und er Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(d) and (e), that he received in effective assis tance of counse l, and that he was d

enied due proce

ss. On July 5, 2001, th

e postconviction court allowed the defendant to file a delayed motion for a new trial within thirty days and appointedthe public defend er’s office to r

epresent the def

endant. The defe

ndant time

ly fil ed a motion for judgment of ac quittal and new tri

al, arguing th

a t (1) the elements of second degree murder were not

proven beyond re

asonable doubt,

(2) the evidence

was insufficient

to support his conviction for second degr ee murder, (3) t

he verdict of the

ju ry was contrary to the law and the evidence, and (4) the sentence imposed by the court was excessive. The court denied this motion on August 9, 2 001, and th e defendant time ly appealed. We

conclude that the

trial court prope

rly deniedthe defendant’s motion and the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of second degree murder. FACTS
On March 11, 1997, the defendant and his cousin, Billy Gra ndberry, we re driving around Covington, Tennessee, when the defendant pulled up be hi nd Corey Dean’s parked car. The defendan tpointed a shotgun a t Dean, and once

Dean saw the gun,

he got in his car an

d tried t o escape. The defendant followed Dean for a few minutes

and then saw the vi

ctim, Tony Moss, and Dwayne Draine drive by. At that point, the defendant stopped following Dean and started following the victim and Draine. The def endant flashedmoney at the two men in an attempt to get t

hem to stop. The defendant, shotg un in hand, yelled a

t the victim and Dra

in e to give him all

of their money. Grandberry tried unsuccessfully to get the defendant to calm down. Because of t he defendant’s violent behavior, Grandberry exited the defendant’s car at the next stop sign. The victim andDraine drove off, thinking that they finally had gotten away from the defendant. However, when the victim and Draine

parked outsi

de their home a few minutes

later, the defe

ndant suddenly appeared, pulled up beside their vehicle, stuck his shotgun out of the passenger window of his car, and shot the victim in the mouth.
At trial, the State’s

first witness was Ro

sie Williams,the victim’s mother, who testified that the victim was 23 years old at the time of his d

eath on March 11, 1997. She said he had two surviving children, one of whom was born one month after he was killed. Billy Lee Grandberry, the defendant’s first cousin, testified that on March 11, 1997, he and the defendant were

rid ing around Covington in the defendant’s mother’s car, with the defendant driving and Grandberry riding in the passenger seat. Grandberry noticed that the defendant had bloods hot eyes and onl y talked to him when he asked him a direct question. Grandberry said the defendant began talking “crazy” and retrieved a shotgun from the backseat asthey pulled up behind Corey Dean’s vehicle . The defendant p ointed the gun at Dea n. When Dean realized a gun was-3-

aimedat him, he drove away, and the defendant followed him. The victim and Dwayne Draine then drove by. When the defendant saw these two men, he stopped following Dean and started following the victim and Draine . The defendant s aid nothing to

Grandberry as he followed the victim’s car up Hill Street and down Simonton Street. The defendant flashed money at the victim, and the victim signaled to the defe ndant that he had drugs f or sale. The def

endant followed t

he victim’s car to Simonton Street, where the two cars pulled up next to one another. The defendant yelled at th

e victim and Draine to give him all of the ir “cheese,” which is slang for money. Grandberry said the defendant was “talking in his own world” by then, and he e nco uraged the defendant to leave the victim and Draine alone. The

defendant

replied that he “

didn’t give a fuck

,” and Grandber

ry told him to let him out of the car. As Grandberry got out of the car at the stop sign on Simo

nton Street, he noticed that the defendant had the shotgun in his hand. Grandberry went to a friend’s house on Hill Street where hetried to call to the defendant’s mother. As he was leaving his friend’s house, Grandberry heard a gunshot. Grandberry said that the defe ndant usually listen

ed to what h e said, but, on the day of the shooting, “[the de

fendant] wasn’ t his self [sic].” Grandberry des

cribed the defe

ndant as follows: “[H]is eyes were just – they were wide open and was red, and he was just sitting there, and he was staring. He wasn’t – he wa s just th ere, l ike he wasn’t – you know, if you’d say something, he wouldn’t – he didn’t hear nothing you was saying.” Pearlie Currin testified that

on March 11, 1997, she had par ked her car on Cr

aig Street while waiting for

her granddaughter to pick up her school pictures. Currin described what happened after her granddaughter got out of the car:

Well, I was just sitting the re waiting on my granddaughter, andthere was two guys in the car. Another car pulled up along side this car, and I thought maybe they was going to talk, until I seen something stick out of the wind ow, and then I hea

rd a shot. And my granddaughter r

an to the car, she started screaming, and I got out of the car, screaming

for her. And the c

ar pulle d off and liked [sic] to hit mine. Currin could not identify t

he shooter beca

use she did

not see his face. However, she did say that the shooter was a black male. She said she never went to the car to see who had been shot. John Terrell Sales testified that he learned that the vict im had been shot, and he, Frank lin Wil liams, and Eddie Poindexter were on their way to the hospital to see the victim whe n the y encountered

the defendant. Sales said the defendant, who was alone in his car, pointed a shotgun at them near the Midway Market at Mount Carmel. T h e defendant followed Sales’s car from the Midway Market to Maple Street, a distance of abou t two or three miles. Sales did not know the defendant but thought that Willi

ams and Poindexter

knew him. Sales sai

d that they were able to get away from

the defendant when they stopped an officer on the road, and the defendant fled the scene. The three men told the officer that they were being chased by the defendant, who had a gun. Sales,-4-

Williams, and Poindexter immediately went to the police station and gave statements aboutthe incident. Dwayne Draine testified

that he was with

the victim the day he died. Draine admitted that he had pled guilty to

aggravated robbery

in the Tipton County Circuit Court on December 2, 1994. The victim was driving the victim’s mother’s car, and Draine was riding in the passenger

seat when they saw the defenda

nt and Billy

Grandberry on the afternoon of March 11, 1997. Draine said the defendant was hanging out of the window of his car and pointing a .12 gauge shotgun at them, which they initially thought was a toy gun. Draine described the actions of the defendant and Grandberry:

[T]hey was flagging us down. They had like $10 or some thing in their hand, and they was flagging, try ing to flag us down. And me and[the victim], we stopped on S imonton Street. And when we stopped on Simonton Street, [the defendant] and Billy [Grandberry] pulled up, and he was like, “Give me a ll y our money.” And [the victim] just looked a

t him. And he was like, “I’m for real.” And he pulled the .12 gauge up, and he was like, “

I’m for real. Give me all your money,” said, “Go to your house and get your money right now.”
At that point, Grandberry told them not to listen to the defendant because he was “high” anddrunk. Hearing this, the victim did not take the defendant’s threats ser iously, a nd they turned onto Craig Street to go home. Draine then described what happened as they approached their house:

A. [A]s soon as we pulled in to park, [the defendant] just pulled up out of nowhere an

d stuck the .12 gaug

e out the window an

d shot. Q. All right. Now, where were you in the car?
A. On the other side. On the passenger’s side. Q. And [the victim] was the driver?
A. Yeah. Q. N ow, the car that [the defendant] was

driving, was it p

ullin g towards you from an opposite direction or did it pull by you?
A. It pulled right up be

side us, by us. Q. All right. So the shotgun would have been put out which window of [the defendant’s] car?-5- A. The passenger’s side. Q. All right. And how many shots were fired?
A. One. Q. And where did tha

t shot hit?
A. It hit [the victim] in the mouth, right about here. Q. Okay. Well, what did you do?
A. I ducked. See, I didn’t know if he had hit [the victim]. I ju st heard the shot, you know. When I ducked – I seen him shoot, and I ducked, and [the victim] took off. The car just took off, and it hit the b ack of my brother’s car. And that’s when I knew [the v ictim] ha d been shot, because

the car kept rolling back down the street with [the victim] in it when hi s foot was still on the gas. And I put the c

ar in gear. [The de fendan t] didn’t pull off – he didn’t speed off or anything. He just looked for a second, and then pulled off. After the shooting, Draine said that he was not able to talk to the victim before he died. Draine left the scene of the shooting but later gave a statement to Investigator Chandler and another officer at the Covington Police Department. Drainesaid that less than five minutes had elapsed between the time that the defenda

nt first pointed the

gun at t hem on Simonton Street and the time that he shot the victim on Craig Street. The defendant said nothing before or after he shot the victim. After shooting the victim, the defendant waited for a few minutes before

slowly driving awa

y. Draine said that the defendant was not out of control that day and was not weaving or driving recklessly.
Dr. Thomas Deering, a forensic pathologist, testified that the cause of

the victim’s death was a shotgun wound to the head. He described the findings that led him to this conclusion:

In general, it

hit on the left side of the face, adjacent to and near the mouth. It went from his left side tow ards his right side, and basically from the front towards the back. So all of the structures that are in the are a wer e affected. The jaw was broken. The maxillary bone, or the cheek bone, was bro ken. The tongue was lacerated, inside of the mouth was lac erated. The bone

that holds the brain , calledthe base of the sku ll, was fracture

d because of the

blast of the shotgun wound.-6-

Dr. Deering stated that the victim’s blood-alcohol level was .03 grams per deciliter at the time of the autopsy and that the victim’s body tested negative for drugs. A copy of the autopsy report was entered into evidence. Ricky Chandler, an investigator for the Covington Police Department, testified that on March 11, 1997, he was calle

d into the station on h

is day off to invest

igate the shooting d

eath of the victim. Investigator

Chandler said he was unable to visit the scene but started collecting information from witnesses about

the identity of the shooter and what had happened. Between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m. that afternoon, Chandler received a call concerning the shooter’s whereabouts. At about 6:00 p.m., he went to the defendant’s girlfriend’s residence on Gillespie Street. When the police approached her house, the defendant ran out the back door, and

the officers were unable to apprehend him. Chandler andother officers searched the area around the house and discovered the car used by the defendant in the sho oting. Inside the car, which was located about seventy-five yards from the defendant’s girlfriend’s house, was a .12 gauge shotgun matching the d escription of the murder weapon. Chandler identified the shotgun that he recovered from the backseat of the car, and a photograph of the shotgun was entered into evidence. Chandler said he found four unspent ro unds of number 5 shot in the weapon, and these four shells were also entered into evidence. Investigator

Chandler further

testified that at

approximately 11:00 p.m. on March 11, 1997, the defendant’s father brought the defendant to the p

olice station. The

defendant appe

ared to be in good physical condition and appeared to be acting normal emotionally. Chandler said the defendant didnot appear to be under the influence of any alcohol or drugs at that time. Chandler advised the defendant of his Miranda

rights, and the defendant signed an admonition and waiver of rights form at 10:58 p.m. Chandler said the defendant appeared to understand his rights at the time he signed the waiver. Chandler said the defenda

nt then gave a stat

ement, which was r

ecorded on audio

tape. This tape was played to the jury and entered into evidence. In the defendant’s taped statement, he admitted shooting the

victim on Craig Stre

et: Chandler: All

right Ricky, I want

you to go over the circumstances aroundthe situation that happened this evening about . . . right around 5:00 this evening with the incident that happened on Crai g Street. Tell me what

was going on and what your intentions were and what was going on. Defendant: He was a drug dealer. Chandler: So . . . and what h appened? Because he was a drug dealer, what did you do? Defendant: He g

ot shot.-7- Chandler: Did you sh

oot him? Defendant: Yes. Chandler: What did you shoot him with? Defendant: A .12 gauge. Chandler: All right, tell me what happened. What did you do? How did it happen? . . . Were you in your car? Defendant: I pul

led up beside him. Chandler : Okay . Did you shoot through your, the driver’s door or did you shoot through the passenger window? Defendant: The passenger window. Chandler: So you pulled up on the driver’s side of his car, going the same direction, then? Defendant: Yep. Chandler: You put the shotgun in the driver-passenger window and pulled the trigger? Defendant: Yes. Chandler: What did

you do after that? Defendant: I left.

. . . . Chandler: Are you on any kind of medication now, Ricky? Do you take any medicine? Defendant: The medicine’s at home. Chandler: Have y

ou been taking it? Defendant: Off . . . every now and then.1 Although the defen dant’s statem ent conta ins addition al inform ation abo ut his actions on Ma rch 11, 1 997, this inform ation is not re levant to th e issue on a ppeal. -8-

Chandler: Have you had any today? Defendant: No. Chandler: How long has it been since you had any? Defendant: Proba

bly about two or thr

ee days. Chandler: How com

e you quit taking it? Defendant: I don’t like taking medicine. Chandler: What’s it for? Defendant: My nerves and when I got shot and stuff. 1
After the tape was played for the jury, Chandler testified that during his questioning of th e defendant, he recovered six number 5 shot shotgun shells f rom the defendan

t’s jacket pocke

ts. These six shells were entered into evidence. Investigator Chandler said that hehad been in law enforcement for eleven years, and eight of those eleven years he had focused on drug trafficking. Hestated that the victim had never been arrested for dealing drugs by the Covington Police Department. During cross-examination, Chandler stated that Dwayne Draine’s and Corey Dean’s names hadcome up several times when the police department had conducted drug investigations in the

past. Chandler also stated that Franklin Williams, Eddie Poindexter, and John Terrell Sales had current drug cases pending ag

ainst them. Chandler said he first met the defendant when he was arrested for drugs as a juvenile. Chandler next saw the defendant when he was arrested on a felony drug charge

. The police departme

nt offered the de

fendant a chanc

e to be a confide

ntial informant so t

hat he could reduce his felony drug charge. Chan dler sa id that the police department used the defendant as an informant only one time:

Q. W hen you said you “had h im hooked up,” that

was a situ atio n where he was wearing a transmitting device, wired u p as an agent; would that be corr

ect? A. Correct.-9- Q. And what was it about his remarks that caused you concern for continuing to employ

him?
A. Well, after the intended target [Franklin Williams] was a noshow on it, he was riding aro und, and I was a lit

tle piece behind h

im in my vehicle listenin

g, and he made the

remark if I got him a gun, he would go kill Gangster Al. Q. And who would Gangster Al be?
A. That’s a subject, Edison Williams, that we’ve had some dealings with in the past on drug trafficking. At that point, I put the blue lights on him, got him out of the car, took the Kel set, which is the transmitting device, off of him. I had g iv en him $60 to make a pur chase. I took $40 o

f that back, let hi

m keep $20 of it for gas money, and told him I didn’t needhis services anymore. Chandler said he terminated the defendant’s confidential informant services on January 17, 1997. Chandler later ta

lked tothe defendant again when the defendant asked to be an informant a secondtime. Chandler denied his request. During that conver sation, the defendant sa id that if Chandler would get him a weapon, he would kill T.J. Hurt, another drug d ealer in th e Covington area. Defense

counse l then re quested that Chandler’s transcription of the defendant’s statement be entered into evidence. The court allowed it to be admitted asan exhibit, but stated the following:

Ladies and gentlemen, the tape that you’ve heard would

be what you are to consider. The Court will allow a copy of what purports to be a transcription of the tape to be marked as an exhibit for your aid andbenefit, but

if you find that the transcription differs with what you recall on the tape, you’re to go by your memory of what was on the tape. At the conclusion of C

handler’s testimo

ny, the State reste

d its case in

chief. The defendant elected not to testify. The defendant’s moth

er, Sharon Reed,

was the only

witness testifying for the defense. She testified that the defenda nt had been rece

iv ing psychiatric counseling since 1994 and had been prescribed

five or six different types of medication. She could tell if the defendant had been taking his medication by the way he acted. Reed said the defendant’s attitude and personality

had changed-10-

during the weeks prior to March 11, 1997. She said that she had pled guilty to forgery in Mississippi in 1998. The trial court instructed the jury as to first degree murder and the lesser-included offenses of second degree m

u rder, voluntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. The jury found the defendant guilty of second degree murder. ANALYSIS Sufficiency of the Evidence The defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial. In his appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to convict him of second degree murder, saying that he did not knowingly kill the victim since “he had no understanding of what he was doing or what was going on around him.” Alternatively, he argues that his conviction should be reduced to voluntary manslaughter. Where sufficiency of the convicting evidence is challenged, the releva nt q uestion of the reviewing court is “whethe r, a fter viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have

found the essentia

l elements

of the crime

beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virgini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 573 (1979). See also State v. Pike , 978 S.W.2d 904, 914 (Tenn. 1998); Tenn. R. App. P . 13(e ) (“Findings of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the evidence is insufficient to s upport the findings by the trier of fa

ct of guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt.”). All questions involvi ng the credibility

of witnesses, the w

eight and value to

be given the evidence, and all factual issues are resolved by the trier of fact. See State v. Pappas , 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). Jury verdicts in criminal cases are given considerable weight by the r e viewing court. A guilty verdict that is approved by thetrial judge accredits the testimony of the State’s witnesses and resolves all conflicts in

favor of the theory of the State. State v. Bigbee , 885 S.W.2d 797, 803 (Tenn. 1994). Our supreme court stated the rationale for this rule:

This well-settled rule rests on a soun d fo undation. The trial judge and the jury see the witnesses face to face, hear their testimony andobserve th

eir demeanor on the stand. Thus the trial judge and jury are the primary instrumentality of justiceto determine the weight andcredibility to be given to the testimony of witnesses. In the trial forum alone is there human atmosphere and the to tality of the evidence canno

t be reproduced

with a written rec

ord in this Court.
Bo lin v. State , 405 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tenn. 1966) (citing Carroll v. State , 370 S.W.2d 523, 527 (T enn. 1963)). A guilty verdict removes the defendant’s initial presumption of innocence and-11-

replaces it with a presumption of guilt, so that on appeal, a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient. See State v. Grace , 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973). First, the defendant a rgues that he did

not knowingly kill

the victim, claiming that he had not taken his medication “for his nerves” for several days prior to the shooting. As additional proof of his mental state at the time of the shooting, he points to Billy Grandberry’s testimony that he was talking and acting crazy the day of the shooting and to Dwayne Draine’s testimony that he just sat there after shooting the victim instead of quickly fleeing the scene.
Tennessee Code Annota

ted sect ion 39-13-210(a)(1) defines second degree murder as “[a] knowing killing of a

nother.” “Knowi

ng” is defined as f

ollows: “Knowing” refers to a per son who acts

knowingly with

respect to the conduct or to c ir cumstances surrounding the conduct when the person is aware of

the nature of the con

duct or that the ci

rcumstances exi

st. A person acts knowingly with r esp ect to a result of the person’s conduct when the per son is aw are that the cond uct is reasonably certain to cause the result[.]
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(20) (1997). Voluntary manslaughter, which the defendant argues that he committed, is “the intentional or knowing killing of another in a state of passion produced by adequate provocation sufficient to lead a reasonable person to act in an irrational manner.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-211(a) (1997).
In order to establish second degree murder, the State must prove that

a killing was knowing beyondreasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 573. Substantial ev

idence was pres

ented at the defe

ndant’s t rial to prove beyond a re asonable doubtthat he knowingly ki lled the victim. Billy Grandberry, the defendant’ s first cousin, testified that the defendant first aimed his shotgun at Corey Dean before brandishing the gun and yelling at the victim and Dwayne

Draine to give him

all of their money. Grandberry stated that the defendant was holding the shotgun in his hand when Grandberryexited the car. A few minutes after leaving the car, Grandberry heard a gunshot and never saw the victim alive again. Dwayne Draine, who was in the passenger seat of the victim’s car when the victim

was shot, testified that the defendant aimed a shotgun athim and the victim and demanded their money. Minutes later, as Draine and the victim were about to park outsid e their house on Cr

aig Street, the de

fendant s u ddenly appeared, pulled beside their car, and shot the victim in the face. Draine’s testimony is supported by the testimony of Pearlie C urrin, anot her eyewitness to the shooting. Currin stated that she saw a black male fire a shotgun into a car carrying two individuals

on Craig Street. Jo

hn Terrell Sales testified that on March 11, 1997, he encountered the defendant,

who aimed a shotgun at him and the passengers in his car and chased after them as they2 The transcript of the trial show s that the bo th the State and defen se counsel agr eed with the

trial court that

the jury should be instructed on the following offenses: first degree murder, second degree m urder, voluntary manslaughter, reckless ho micide, a nd crim inally neg ligent hom icide. -12- were en route

to the hospital wher

e the victim

had been taken. Dr. Thomas Deering testified that the victim died as a result of a shotgun wound to the head. Investigator

Chandler testifiedthat at about 6:00 p.m. on March 11, 1997, he saw the defendant run from his girlfriend’s house in an effort to escape from the police. A short time later, Chandler and other officers found the defendant’s car, with the shotgun locked inside. At trial, the audiotape of the defendan t’s statement,

in which he confessed to shooting the victim, was played for the jury. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to show that the defendant

knowingly killed the victim. Alternatively, the de fendan t argues that even though the jury concluded that he acted knowingly, he should have been convicted of voluntary mans la ughter instead of second degree murder because he killed the victim as a result of the victim’s provocation. The defendant highlig

hts evidence showing that he was infuriated with drug dealers and that the victim’ s signal to him that he had drugs for sale was an act of provocation sufficient to sustain a conviction for v oluntary manslaughter. However, the transcript of the trial reflects that the jury was instructed on the elementsof first degree murder and the elements of the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. 2 Thus, the jury had the option of convicting the defendant of the lesser-included offense of vo luntary manslaughter

but chose to convict him of second degree murder. In making this decision, the jury rejected the defendant’s argument that he shot the victim in an act of passion resulting from adequate provocation. The jury had every ri ght to reject this argument. See State v. Williams , 38 S.W.3d 532, 539 (Tenn. 2001) (citing State v. Johnson , 909 S.W.2d 461 , 464 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); Wilson v. State , 574 S.W.2d 52, 55 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978)). Based on the evidence in the record andconsidering the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have foun d the elements of second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for second degree murder. CONCLUSION Basedon the foregoing reasoning and authorities, we conclude that the re was more than sufficient evi denc e to convict the defendant of second degree murder, and affirm the judgment of conviction.

___________________________________ ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE