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

Briefs J uly 9, 2003 STATE OF TENN ESSEE v. JOHNNY KEY Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County Nos. 01-03107, 01-12746 Bernie Weinman, Judge

No. W2002-03018-CCA-R3-CD - Filed Nove mber 7, 2003

The defendant was foun d guil ty of ag gravated assault and of being a felon in possession of a handgun. He co ntends on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for aggravated

assault. After vi ewing t

he evide nce in the light most

favora ble to the State, we conclude that a ration al trier

of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime bey ond a rea sonable doubt. We a

ffirm the judgmen ts of the tr

ial cour t. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed J OHN E VERE TT W IL LI AMS , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which G ARY R. W ADE , P.J., and R OBER T W. W EDEMEYER , J., joined. Robert Wilson Jones, District Public Defender; Mary Ka thryn Kent and Ga

rland Ergüden, Assistant Di st ri ct Pu bl ic De fe nd er s, fo r t he ap pe ll an t, Jo hn ny K ey. Paul G. Summers , Attorne y General and Repor

ter; P. Robin Dixon, Jr., A ssistant A ttorney Genera l; and William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Te nnessee.

OPINION The defendant, Johnny Key , was convicted of aggra vated assault (a Class C felony ) and of being a felon in possession of a handgun (a Class E felony). He

was sentenced to six year s on the aggravated

assault conviction and two yea rs on the felon in possession of a handgun conviction, to be served c oncurre

ntly in the Ten

nessee D epartme

nt of Corr ection. T his ap peal timely followed. He contends on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for aggrava ted assault, but does not contest t he other convicti on. We aff

irm the jud

gments o f the tria

l court.-2- Facts Upon a rrivi ng hom e from work o ne even ing, t he vic tim, Peggy Todd, found the defendant and her cousin, Marquel Clark, watching television in her daughter’s bedroom. She asked Clark to walk to the babysitter’s house a cross the street and pick up her child. Clark left, and the def endant came into the living room and sat down. Clark returned with the child approximately five

minutes later and returned to the bedroom to watch television. The defendant became upset with the victim when she commented that he resembled hi s sister. The defendant pulled out a gun and grabbed her by the neck. She w as holding h er infa nt child at the time. While still holding the victim by the neck, he pointed the gun at her

and her child, and they walked in

to the bed room. The

victim tes tified tha

t she was in fear for

her life . Clark tr

ied to calm the defendant. H owe ver, the defendant pointed the gun at Clark a nd fired. The bullet went throu gh the wall

and into the kitchen, missing Clark. The defendant pointed the gun at Clark a gain. Eventually, the def

endant surrendered his gun to Clark. The police arrived

a few minutes later, and the defendant ran. Office r Ellason Flagg chase d the defendant onfoot and apprehended him a short time later. Office r Flagg saw the de

fendant drop a gun b efore she caught him. Upon returning to the victim’s house, Officer Flagg found a spe n t casing in the bedroom and a bullet hole in the wall. The defendant testified that he never pointed the g un at anyone. H e denied that he grabbed the victim by the neck. He stated that

he does not know how the gun was discharged. T he defendant said that he saw the gun on the floor in the bedroom and picked it up with the intention of returning it to the rightful owner

(Clark’s brother). The defendant testified that he left the house with the gun. He ran w hen he sa w the polic e becau se he had just been releas ed from ja

il. The jury found the defenda nt guilty on both ch arges . This appeal timely followed. He now appealsonly

the convi ction for

aggr avated a ssault. Analysis The defendant contends on appeal that the eviden ce was insufficien t to support the conviction for aggravate d assault. When a defendant challenges the suf ficiency of

the evidence, the standard of review i s whether , after

viewing the evide nce in the light most

favora ble to the State, any ra

tional trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the c rime beyond a

reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13( e); Jackson v. V irginia , 443 U.S. 307, 3 19, (1979 ); State v. Evans , 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-91 (Tenn. 1992). On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable or legitimate inferenc es which may be drawn therefrom. Sta te v. Elk ins , 102 S.W.3d 578, 581 (Tenn. 2003). This Court will not re-weigh the evidence, r eevaluate the evidence, or substitute

its evidentiary infe

rences for those reached by the jury. State v. Carey , 914 S.W.2d 93, 95 (Tenn. Cr

im. App. 19 95). Fur

thermore , in a cri minal trial, great we ight is g iven to the result reached by

the jury. State v. Johnson , 910 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).-3-

Once approve d by

the trial court, a jury verdict accre dits the witnesses p

resente d by

the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of the State. State v. Will iams , 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). The credib il ity of witnesses, the weig ht to be given their testimony, a nd the reconciliation of conflic ts in the proof are matters entrusted exclusively to the jury

as trier of fact. State v. She

ffield , 676 S.W.2d 542, 54 7 (Tenn. 1 984); State v. Brewer , 932 S.W.2d 1, 19 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). A jury’s g uilty verdict removes the pr esumption of innocence enjoy ed by the defe ndant at trial and raises a presumption of guilt. State v. Tu ggle , 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). The defendant then bears the burden

of overcoming this presumption of guilt on appeal. State v. Black , 815 S.W.2d 166, 175 (Tenn. 1991). In support of his argument, the defend ant d enies physically assaulting the victim. The defendant also argues that Clark was not in fear of the defendant and that the discharge of the gun was accide

ntal. In order to be

convicted of aggra

vated assault, the evidence must establish that the defendant inten tion ally or knowing ly committed an assault, as def ined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-101, and

either c aused se

rious bodi ly

injury to anothe r or used or displa ye d a dead

ly weapon. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(a)(1)(A)-( B). An assault may

be committed, among other way s, when the defendant “[i]ntentionally or knowingly ca uses another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury .” Id. at -101( a)(2). One act s intention ally “with respect to the nature of the conduct or to a result of t he conduct when it is the person’s conscious objective or desire to e ngage in the conduct or cause the result.” Id. at -11-302(a). A person acts knowingly when, with respect to a result of the person’s conduct, “the person is aware that the conduct i s reason ably certain to cause the result.” Id. at (b). It was not necessary

for the defendant to phy sically assault the victim for the jury to find him guilty of aggravated a ssault. It was only necessary

that he cause the victim to “reasonably fear imminent bodily

injury” and that he display a deadly w eapon. The victim tes tified tha t she was in fear for her life. Her fear was cer

tainly reasona

ble. Clark

was not the victim in this case. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether he was in fear of the defendant. Additionally , it was not necessary that the gun be fire d in order

for the d efenda nt to be g uilty of agg ravate d assault

. It was only required that he “used or

displayed a dea

dly weapon.”The victim and Clark presented almost identicaltestimony as to this incident. After viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the State, we find that a rationa l trier of fact could have f

ound the e ssential e

lements of

the crime

bey ond a rea sonable doubt. Thi s issue is w ithout mer it. Conclusion Based on the foregoing and the recordas a whol e, we af firm the j udgmen

ts of the tr ial cour t.

___________________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILL

IAMS, JUDGE