### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nuary 11, 200 5

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JERR Y WA YN E P ATT ERS ON

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Henry County

No. 13581 Julian P . Guinn, Ju dge

No. W2004-00397-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Jul y 6, 2005

The de fenda nt, J erry W ay ne Patterson, wa s convicted by jury of attempted f

irst deg ree murder, a C l as s A fe l o n y , an d s en t en ce d t o fo rt y y ea rs i n t h e T en n es s ee De p ar t m en to f C o rr ec t i o n as a R an ge I I , multipl e off

ender . On appe al, the def

endant presents t hree issues for review: (1) whether the trial
court e rre d by

deny ing the defe ndant’s motion to suppress his confe ssion; (2) whether the trial court

err ed by deny ing the def

endant’ s motion for judgme nt of ac quittal; (3) whether the evidenc e wa s sufficie nt to support a g uiltyverdic t for attempt to commit first deg ree murder. U pon revie w of the

re c or d a ndapp lic able la w, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

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

J.C. M C L IN , J
., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., concur red in the result and D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., filed a se parate conc urring opinion.

W. J eff ery Fa g an, Assistant District Public Defe nder, f or the a ppellant, J erry

Way ne Patterson.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Re ne e W. Turne r, As sis ta nt Att orne y Ge ne ra l; Robert Radfor d, Di s t ri ct Attorney Gene ral; and Steve n L . Gar rett, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

I . F a c ts

Th e pr oo f at tria l r e fl e c ts that one e ve nin g John ny Ra y Sin g le tonwa s sh ot w hil e in h is bedroom. The defe ndant was subse q u en t l y indicted for attempted second de g ree murder. Aplea barg ain offe red by the State resulted in the no lle pros e qu i of the orig inal indictment. Howeve r, plea neg otiations broke down and the defe ndant was r e-indicte d for attempted first deg ree murder.

At trial, I nvestig ator Damon L owe of the Henry

CountySheriff’ s Depa

rtment testified that he was assig ned to inve stigate the shooting of Singleton. During the cour se of his investig ation, he-2-

interviewe d the def

endant twice

. At the first interview, I nvestig ator L owe asked the def endant if he was involved in the shooting and if he would submit t o a test for g un re s idue. I n response , the defe ndant told Investig ator L owe that he wa s not involved and submitted to the gun r esidue test. At the sec ond interview, the defe ndant continued to deny involvement

. A c c o r d in g to In v e s ti g ator L owe, the def endant state d that he had be en over at his girlfriend’s sister’s house with his girlfriend, Tina B ou ie , b ut l e ft

a ft e r a rg uin g wi th h e r. Af

te r l e a vin g , the de fe nd a nt sto pp e d at Ru sse ll B arr e tt’ s h ou se wher e both men sat a

round and dr ank. The defe ndant told I nvestig ator L owe that he and B arr ett left the house a

round 2:00 a.m. to purcha se drink mix . So o n af t er , t hey wer e stopped by

police and

arr e s t e d f o r D U I.

Howeve r, I nvestig ator L owe testif ie d th at t h ed e f e n d an t l ater

c o n f e s s e d to s h o oting Sing leton. I nvestig ator L owe e x plained, that af ter lea ving c ourt one day
, the defendant confessed to him i n the prese nce of

the def endant’ s attorney

and the defe ndant’s mother. Ac cording to I nvestig ator L owe, the def endant state d that afte r lea ving his g irlfriend, he picke d up Ba rre tt, stopped at Pocket’s g as station to g et something to drink, and drove out to Si ng leton’s re sidence . Once there , the def endant

wa lke d a ro un d th e ba c k o f Sing le ton ’s re sid e nc e , wa lke d up th e ba c k s te ps to the po rc h, loo ke d in to Sin g le ton ’s be dr oo m w ind ow , s a w Si ng le ton ’s sil ho uet te th ro ug h th e c urta in, a ndfi re d o ne sh ot. After firing the shot, the defe ndant ra n up a dirt hill behind the reside nce, g ot back into the ca r, and drove to his g irlfriend’s h o use. The de fendant didn’t stay long and drove to Scott Mart whe re he called his mom from a pay phone to see if he could come out to her house. I nvestig ator L owe state d that th e de fe nd a nt’ s c on fe ssi on wa s in te rr up te d at th is p oin t.

I nv e sti g a tor

L ow e test if

ie d th a t he ob ta ine d th e vid e o s ur ve ill a nc e tape s f ro m Po c ke t’ s. Acc ording to the videotapes, the defe ndant was at Pocket’s at 12:06 a.m. not 2:00 a.m. I nvestig ator L owe a lso testified that he obtai n ed the phone rec ords from the pay phone at Scott Mart a nd discovere d that a phone c all had bee n made f rom the pay phone to the def endant’ s mother at 2:08 a.m. I nvestig ator L owe state d that from his investigation, he believed only one round ha d been f

ired from the g un. Howeve r, I nvestig ator L owe admitted that other than the bullet, no casing or we apon

was e ver f

ound. I nvestig ator L owe de scribed the we at h er conditions that night as r ainy and described the g round around Singleton’s residenc e as wet and muddy

. Consequently , I nvestig ator L owe state d that he wa s unable to obtain any phy sical evide nce f

rom the crime scene

.

On cr oss-examination, I nvestig ator L owe a dmitted that other possible s u spects we re identified during his investigation. F irst, I nvestig ator L owe stated that when Sing leton was shot, he

was in the bedroom having sex with Tammy Hollingsworth. Tammy Hollingsworth was the e x -wife of Tommy Hollingsworth. I nvestig ator L owe stated that he was awa re of the fac t that Tommyand Tammy had bee n in court over

domestic assault charg es si nce being divorce d. Second, Investig ator L ow e a c kn ow le dg e d tha t Sing le ton ha d thr e a te ne d to kil l D ionChe nil wo rth a ndpo lic e of fi c e r D a vid Pike. Accor ding to Investig ator L owe, a ll three of the s e m en h ad either dated or we re a ssociated with Singleton’s ex-wife, Tina Bouie – the same Tina Bouie who was also the defe ndant’s g irlfriend. I nvestig at o r L o we al s o noted that an unidentifie d male had be en re ported to have stopped by S i n gl et o n ’s re s i d en ce ea rl i eri n t h e e v en i n g.-3-

During cross-e x amination, I nvestig ator L owe stated that he wa s able to dete rmine that the

wea pon used in the shooting of Singleton belong ed to Russell Bar rett. I nvestig ator L owe a lso stated that B arr e tt, a frie nd of Sin g le ton , kn e w the la y ou t of Sin g le ton ’s re sid e nc e . Inv e sti g a tor L ow e a lso

a dmi tte d that wh e n the de fe nd a nt a nd B arr e tt we re arr e ste d f or DU I he on ly a sk e d th e de fe nd a nt t o

su bmi t to a

g un re sid ue te st. I nv e sti g a tor L ow e re ite rated the fa c t th a t th e de fe nd a nt, in h is
statem en t s , twice de nied shooting Sing leton. I t was only afte r the pre liminary

hearing did the defe ndant conf

ess to shooting Sing leton.

Acc ording to I nvestig ator L owe’ s cross-e x amination, Ba rre tt’s first statement conf irmed the defe ndant’s story

that he and t h e d ef

en dant had hung out at Ba rre tt’s place, drinking a nd play ing video g ames; we nt to Pockets for some drink mix ; and wer e eve ntually stopped by

police. At the time of the statement, B arr ett denied a ny involvement in the s hooting of Singleton, and stated that he and the defe ndant had not g one over to Singleton’s house. Also, when asked about owning a g un, Ba rre tt stated that he had r ece ntly sold his g un back to the origina l owner the day befor e Single ton was shot. I n a sec ond statement, B arr ett told I nvestig ator L owe that the de fendant asked to borr ow his gun but the g un was not loade d. Ba rre tt ag ain denied go i n g wi t h the def endant to Single ton’s house. B arr ett g ave a third statement which w as tape d. I n Ba rre tt’s third statement, he admitted that he wa s at S i n gl eton’s re sidence in the backy ard and saw the de fendant shoot the gun. H oweve r, Ba rre tt’s subsequent written stateme nt was found to be incomplete and inconsistent with his taped
state me nt, the re fo re , h e wa s to ld t o g o h ome a ndc or re c t it

.

On re -d ir e c t e xa

m i n at i o n , In v e s ti g at o r

L o w en o t e d th a t th e vid e ota peof the de fe nd a nt’ s a

rr e st for DU I compar ed with the videotape from Pocket’ s, showed the defe ndant wearing a diffe rent set of clothes. Ac cording to I nvestig ator L owe, the videotapes corr oborate d Ba rre tt’s statement that the defe ndant chang ed clothes afte r shoot ing Singleton. I nvestig ator L owe a lso indicated that all other suspects we re inve stigated and c o u l d n o t be linked to the crime. I nvestig ator L owe f urther stated that h e c o u ldn o t f

in d a n y mo ti v e f

o r B arr e tt s h o o ti n g Si n g le to n

. O n r e

- c r o s s e xa mi n ation, I nvestig ator L owe a dmitted that the defendant’s chang e of clothes could also be e x plained by the fa ct that th e c ar g ot s tuc k in the muda ndthe de fe nd a nt g ot mud dy a s a re su lt.

Dana Ba rre tt, ex -wife of Russell Ba rre tt, testified that the defen d an t had bee n dating her sister, Tina B ouie. Dana

stated that on the e vening of F ebrua ry 21, 2003, Bouie , her son Dylan, and the def endant c ame ove r to her house to watch movies. Ac cording to Dana, Sing leton called his son Dy la n. Af

te r t a lki ng to Dyla n, Sin g le ton sp ok e wi th B ou ie fo r a bo ut f if te e n mi nu te s. Whil e B ou ie was on the phone, the defendant told Dy lan that “he was g oing to kill his daddy .” Af ter B ouie g ot

o f f th e p h o n e , s h e a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t b e g a n ar g u i n g ab o u t t h e f a c t t h a t s h e w a s t a l k i n g t o h e re xhusband, Single ton. After the arg ument, the def endant lef

t in Bouie’s bla ck Thunde rbird. No n et h el es s , Da n a s t a t e d t h at Bo u i e w as n o tco n ce rn ed b ec au s e t h e d ef en d an two u l d t yp i ca l l y

go somewher e to cool off

and would come back.

Dana testified that to her know ledg e, B arr ett did no t have any motive to shoot S ingle ton. Acc ording to Dana, B arr ett and Singleton wer e g ood friends. Dana further testified that she ha d not dated or had any romantic re lationship with S ingle ton. On cross-e x amination, Dana admitted that-4-

oth e r tha n th e nig ht i n q ue sti on , s he ha d n e ve r h e ardthe defend ant thr e a te n a ny on e . D a na a lso

a dmi tte d th a t he r s ta te me nt t o Inv e sti g a tor L ow e ind ic a te d th a t sh e hear d the de fe nd a nt l e a ve in Bouie ’s T h u n d e r

b ir d ; w h e r e a s , h e r

d ir e c t t e s ti mo n y

in d ic a te d th a t s h e d idn o t h e ar th e d e f endant leave

.

John ny

Ra y Sin g le ton te sti fi e d th a t on the nig ht o f F e br ua ry 21 , 200 3, he ha d ta lke d w ithhis ex-wife, Tina Bouie, on the phone for a bout thirtyto forty -five minutes a nd the conve rsation was not arg umentative. L ater

that evening , he wa s shot while in his bedroom with a lady friend. T he bullet hit his up pe r c he st c a us ing him to fa ll ba c kw ard s. Af

te r b e ing sh ot, Sin g le ton stu c k h is f ing e r i n h is wound an d ca l l ed 911. Singleton stated that he was f irst treate d at the county

hospital and later
treated at the Jackson hospital. Singleton testified that he and B arr ett we re fr i en d s and could not think of any

rea son why

Ba rre tt would want to shoot him. On cr oss-examination, S ingle ton stated that he did not see w ho shot him. S ingle ton also stated that he knew the defe ndant and did not have

a c or dia l r e la tio ns hip wi th h im. Ac c or din g to S in glet on , the de fe nd a nt h a d n e ve r thr e a te ne d h im be fo re , b ut the y

ha d c on fr on te d e a c h o the r i n th e pa st.

Russell Bar

rett testified that he was g ood friends w ith both the defe n d an t and Singleton. B arr e tt r e c ou nte d th a t th e de fe nd a nt c a me to his ho us e Fri day e ve nin g sa y ing , “ I ’m

g oin g to kill him

. I ’m g oing to kil l h i m

. ” Ba rr ett told the defe ndant to calm down a nd have a drink. When the defe ndant decide d to le ave, Ba rre tt lef t w ith the defe ndant. The two men drove to Pocket’s. Afte r buy ing two drinks and g etting g as for Bouie ’s ca

r, the t wo m en h ea ded out to Pury ear wher e Singleton re sided. Acc ording to Ba rre tt, he beg an to black out a fter ha ving too much alcohol, but

reme mbere d that the def

endant dr ove into a driveway to the rig ht of Singleton’s house and par ked the ca r. The de fenda nt then asked B arr ett to lead him around to the ba ck o f S i ng leton’s house. Ba rre tt testified that as he was c limbing over a fe nce, he saw that the de fendant had his g un. When asked w hat he wa s g oing to do, the de fendant responded, say ing that he was not rea lly sure but wa s g oing to put the f

ear of God in Singleton. Ba rre tt stated that he thoug ht his gun wa s unloaded a nd the de fe nd a nt w a s ju st g oin g fl a sh it i n f ro nt o f S ing le tona ndsta

rt a fi g ht.

Ba rre tt testified that while on Singleton’s deck, the defe ndant asked him which window was Singleton’s window. A fter pointing to th e wi n d o w, Ba rre tt walked over to an ar ea c lose to the woods in the bac k of Sin gl et o n ’s y ar d t o sit down because he w as “pr etty messed up.” A t that moment, Ba

rre tt saw a “ flash and he ard a bang .” According to Ba

rre tt, the next thing he knew, he was running in the woods towards Bouie ’s car

. Once in the car , the defe ndant informed him that he “g ot him.” After stopping by Dana ’s house fir st, the defe ndant then drove to Ba rre tt’s house wher e both men chang ed clothes. A fter c hang ing c lothes, Ba rre tt and the def

endant de cided to g o to the d e f e n d a n t ’ s m o t h e r ’ s h o u s e

. A s t h e y w e r e l e a v i n g , B o u i e ’ s T h u n d e r b i r d g o t s t u c k i n t h e d r i v e w a y. Whil e e n r ou te , th e de fe nd a nt s top pe d at Sc ott Ma rt wh e re he ph on e d h is m oth e r, te lli ng he r “ I did it.” As both me n drove to the de fenda nt’s mother’s house, the y wer e pulled over

by the police. The police questioned B arr ett about the mud on his clothing so Ba rre tt took the pol ice to his house and

s h o w e d t h e mw h e r e t h e c ar h a d g o t t e n s t u c k

i n h i s d r i v e w a y.-5-

Ba rre tt testified t hat he c ame to own a g un afte r taking it as partial payment for a car he had

so ld. Ac c or din g to B arr e tt, the g un wa s u nlo a de d a ndsi tt in g o n hi s cou nte r t op ins ide his ho us e when the de fenda nt came ove r.

On c ro ss- e xami natio n, B arr e tt s ta te d th a t he ha d be e n ch arg e d with a tte mpt to c omm it f ir stdeg ree murder and was out on bond. He also admitted that the g un used in the shooting of Singleton

wa s h is g un , a ndthat he kn e w the la y ou t of Sin g le ton ’s re sid e nc e

. B arr e tt f urthe r a dmi tte d th a t hi s state me nts to Inv e sti g a tor L ow e ha d b e e n in c on sis te nt.

L aura Jan e Hodg e, for ensic scie ntist wit h the Tenne ssee B ureau of I nvestig ation testified that afte r the de fenda n t ’s h an d s were tested for g unshot residue, the r esults were inconclusive. Nonethele ss, Hodg e stated that she found some tra ce e lem ents of g un residue on the defe ndant’s hands; there fore , she could not eliminate the possibilitythat the def endant f ired a g un.

David Andr ew B oy le, a patrol office r with the He nry CountySheriff’ s Depa

rtment, testified that shortly

afte r midnight on F ebrua ry 22, 2003, he wa s on patrol in the Pury ear are a whe n he

answe red a

dispatch conc erning a g unshot fired. As he pull ed onto the s tate highway , he observed a blac k Thunderbir d with tinted windows run a stop sig n. Be cause of the e merg ency nature of the dispatch, he pr ocee ded towar ds the reside nce of the re ported shooting . Howeve r, he told his partne r, Offic er Wilson, to remember the black Thunde rbird bec ause it was the only vehicle the y

had passe d while hea ding to the c rime sce ne. B oy le furthe r testified that a fter le arning that this vehicle had be en stopped by

another police off

icer , he drove over to that a rea and identified the black Thunde rbird as the one he had pre viouslyseen. B oy le stated that the de fendant and B arr ett wer e the oc cupants of the Thunder

bird.

At the close of

the State’s proof, the defe ndant moved for judgme nt of acquittal. Af ter the trial court de nied the def

endant’ s motion for judgme n t of ac quittal, the defe ndant pre sented thre e witnesses.

As a de fe ns e wi tne ss, Of

fi c e r S ta nle y Ra y Pin so n of the He nry Cou nty She ri ff ’s De pa

rt me nt, testified that he pulled the defe ndant over for driving while intox icated in the early morning hours of F ebrua ry 22, 2003. Offic er Pinson stated that he obse rved mud on B arr ett’s pants and shoe s, but

no ne on the de fe nd a nt.

Tina B ouie testified that she never hea rd the de fendant threate n Singleton. B ouie testified that her sister, Dana
, at one time, aske d for pe rmission to date Singleton. Ac cording to Bouie, she and the de fenda nt had ar g ued af ter spea king w ith Si ng let o n o n t he phone on F ebrua ry 21, 2003. Af te r l e arn ing that Sin g le ton ha d b e e n s ho t, B ou ie we nt ov e r to the ho sp ita l to vis it. L a te r, B ou ie inf orme d th e po lic e of

the e ve nts that tr a ns pir e d b e tw e e n h e r andthe de fe nd a nt.

Ta mmy Re ne Ho lli ng sw orth t e sti fi e d th a t sh e wa s w ith Sin g le tonwh e n h e wa s sh ot. Ta mmy Hollingsworth rec ounted t hat before Si ng leton was shot, she heard a loud truck pass by and thoug ht it w a s h e r e x- h u s b a n d
, T o mm y

H o ll in g s w o r th

. T a mm y

H o ll in g s w o r th f

u r th e r e xp lain e d th a t h e r

e x-D u e to fau lty e q u ip m e n t t h e tap e d sta te m e n t wa s n o t re c o rd e d

. 1

-6- hu sb a ndha d th re a te ned to ki ll he r o n F e br ua ry 21 , 2 00 3. On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Ta mmy Hollingsworth denied telling the police that the de fendant shot S ingle ton. Office r P inson was then

rec alled by the State and testified that Tammy Hollingsworth told him that the def endant ha d shot Singleton and w as driving Bouie ’s ca r.

Th e de fe nd a nt d id not te sti fy a t tria l. Th e jury fo un d the de fe nd a nt g uil ty of a tte mpt e d f

ir st deg ree murder. After a sentenc ing hearing, the trial court ordere d the def endant to serve an e ffe ctive forty -y ear sentenc e in the De partment of Corr ection.

I I . A na ly sis

A. Mo tio n to Sup pr e ss

The fir st issue raised by

the def endant is whe ther the tria l court er red by deny ing the motion
to s up pr e ss h is c on fe ssi on . Sp e c if icall y , th e de fe nd a nt a sse rt s th a t hi s c on fe ssi on wa s g ive n to I nvestig ator L owe in exchang e for a bond reduc tion a nd with the understanding that his confession would only

be used a g ainst him if Russ ell Ba rre tt was unable to testify

.

Acc ording to the arg uments o f counsel at the suppression hea ring , the def

endant a nd the prosec utor enter ed into plea ne g otiations in Gene ral S essions Court. The State off ere d the def

endant twelve y ear s at 30% for

attempt to c ommit sec ond deg ree murder in e x chang e for the def endant’ s g uiltyplea. The defe ndant ac cepte d the State’s offe r and was indicted on attempted sec ond deg ree murder. It was also ag ree d that the def endant would r ece ive a bond r eduction in exchang e for a confes s i o n

. The de fenda nt ga ve I nvestig ator L owe a statement which w as tape d and in re turn

rec eived a

bond reduc tion. After being rele ased on bond, the defendant refused to acc ept the plea 1
ag ree ment. There afte r, t he defenda nt was re-indicted for attempt to commit first deg ree murder. At the suppression hea

ring , the def

ense c ounsel cl aimed that the State told him that the confe ssion would only be used if something happene d to Ba rre tt. As a result, the de fendant was misinformed when the de fense counsel re lated this information to the defe ndant. The State maintained that it had

acc epted the de fenda nt’s confe ssion with the condition that it would use t he confession if something happene d to Ba

rre tt or if the defe ndant backe d out of the plea a g ree ment. Following the suppression hearing, the trial court f ound that the def

endant’ s confe ssion was fre ely and voluntarily

g iven primarily to obtain the bond reduc tion.

Whe n r e vie wi ng the tr ia l c ou rt ’s de c isi on on a mot ionto s up pr e ss, thi s Cou rt c on du c ts a

de

novo revie w of the tria l court’s c o n cl u s i o n s of law and application of la w to fac ts. See State v. Walto n , 4 1 S. W. 3 d 7 5
, 8 1 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 1 )

. H o w e v e r , th e tria l c o u r t’ s ru li n g is b in d in g u n le s s the evidenc e conta ined in the record preponder ates ag ainst it. See S tate v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Tenn. 2000) . Moreov er , the pre vailing pa rty is entitled to the stronge st leg itimate view of the

e vid e nc e a nd a ll re a so na

ble a nd le g iti ma te inf

e re nc e s that may

be dr a wn fr om that e vid e nc e . St a te v. Hicks, 55 S.W.3d 515, 521 (Tenn. 2001).-7-

I n determining whe ther a confe ssion was voluntary and knowing , th e t o t al ity of the circ umstances must be ex am i n ed . See State v. B ush, 942 S.W .2d 489, 500 (Tenn.1997) . “A de fe nd a nt’ s su bje c tiv e pe rc e ption alo ne is n ot s uf fi c ie nt t o ju sti fy

a c on c lus ion of

inv olu nta

ri ne ss in the constitutional sense. Rather, coerc ive pol ice activity is a necessary predic ate to finding that a conf ession is not volunt ary .” State v. Smith, 933 S .W. 2 d 4 5 0 , 455 (Tenn.1996) (citations and intern al quot ations omitt ed). A confe ssion resulting f rom a state of

ficial’s pr omises are not

a uto ma tic a lly

c on sid e re d in vo lun tary . I d. Th e c ru c ia l qu e sti on is wh e the r the be ha vio r o f the state officia ls was such a s to overbea r the a ccuse d’s will to resist and trig g er an involuntary confe ssion. I d.

Our ex amination of t he circumstance s surrounding the def endant’ s confe ssion establish that the def endant wa s approximately thirty -three y ear s old and had prior ex p er i en ce with the judicial sy ste m. A t th e tim e the de fe nd a nt g a ve his c on fe ssi on , bo th his a tto rn e y a ndmothe r w e re pr e se nt. As part of

a prop o s ed p lea a g ree ment, the def endant wa s offe red a

bond reduc tion. I n return, the State as k ed the defenda nt for a c onfession in order to preserve its evidenc e in the eve nt that the defe ndant, once rele ased on bond, de cided to re nder the ir prim ar y wi tness unavailable . The defe ndant re ceive d th e b o n d re d uction and wa s relea sed on bond. Onc e re lease d, the def endant de c ide d to re

je c t th e ple a a g re e me nt the re by c omp e lli ng the Sta te to re -i nd ic t a nd take the ma tte r t o trial. Apply ing the above sta ndard, the re is no pre ponderance of evidenc e that, at the time of the confe ssion, the defe ndant’s will wa s overborne by coer cive police behavior . There fore , we c onclude that the trial court properly denied the de fendant’s motion to s uppress.
B. Motion for judg ment of ac quittal

The de fenda nt claims that the trial cou rt er re d b ydenying the defe ndant’s motion for a judgme nt of ac quittal

. Be cause “[t] he standa rd by which the tria l court dete rmines a motion for judgme nt of ac quittal at the end of all the proof is, in essence , the same standa rd which a

pplies on appea l in determining the suffic iency of the e vidence afte r a c onviction,” this c laim w ill be inc luded wi th the de fe nd a nt’ s c ha lle ng e to the su ff ic ie nc y of the c on vic tin g e vid e nc e fo r atte mpt to c omm it first deg ree murder. State v. T hompson, 88 S.W .3d 611, 614-15 (Te nn. Crim. App. 2000).

B. Suff iciency of the Evidenc e

The de fenda nt challeng es the suff iciency of the c onvicti n g evidenc e. Specif ically , the defe ndant asserts that the ev i d en ce was insuffic ient beca use: (1) no phy sical evide nce w as found implicating the defe ndant; (2) some of t he S tate’s witnesses wer e shown to be inc onsistent and not

cre dible; (3) and the testimonyof some witnesses pointed to possible suspects other than the defe ndant.

Ou r r e vie w be g ins wi th the we ll- e sta bli sh e d ru le that on c e a jury fi nd s a de fe nd a nt g uil ty , h is or her p r e s u mp ti o n o f

in n o c e n c e is r e mo v e d a n d r e p la c e d w ith a p r e s u mp ti o n o f

g u il t. St a te v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992). The ref ore, on a ppeal, the c onvicted defe ndant has the burden of demonstrating to this C ourt why the evidenc e will not support the jury ' s verdict. State v.-8-

Carruthe rs, 35 S.W.3d 5 16, 557-58 (Te nn. 2000); State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). To mee t this burden, the defe ndant must e stablish that no rea sonable trier of fa ct could have fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. Ja c ks on v. Vi rg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 307, 319 (1979); Eva ns, 108 S.W .3d 231, 236 (Tenn. 2003); Tenn. R.App. P. 13(e)

. I n contra st, the jury ' s v e rd ic t app ro ve d b y the tria l ju dg e a c c re dit s th e Sta te s’ wi tne sse s a nd re so lve s a ll c on fl ic ts i n favor of the State. St at e v. Ha rris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). The State is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of t h e ev i d ence and a ll reasona ble infer ence s which may be fr om that evidenc e. Carr

uthers, 35 S.W.3d at 558; Tugg le, 639 S.W.2d at 914. Questi o n s concerning the

cre dibilit y

of the witnesse s, co n fl i ct s i n trial testimony , the weig ht and value to be g iven the

e vid e nc e , a nda ll f

a c tua l is su e s r a ise d b y

the e vid e nc e are re so lve d b y the tr ie r of fa c t a ndno t th is Court. State v. Bland, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) . We do not attempt to re-we igh or

re- evaluate the evide nce, nor do we substitute our infer ence s drawn f rom the circ umstantial evidence for those dr awn by

the trier of

fac t. State v. Elkins, 102 S .W.3d 581, 582 (Tenn. 2003); State v. Reid, 91 S.W .3d 247, 277 (Tenn. 2002) ; Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 659.

First deg ree murder is the pr emeditated and intentional ki lling of another pe rson. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 202( a)( 1). Ther efor e, to convict the de fendant of attempted fir st deg ree murder, the State was require d to pr ove that the defe ndant, acte d with the kind of culpability otherwise r equire d fo r f ir st d e g re e mur de r. Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 9- 12 -1 01 (a )( 2). Tha t is , th e de fe nd a nt a c te d “ wi th int e nt to caus e a re su lt tha t is a n e le me nt o f the of fe ns e , a ndbe lie ve [d] th e c on du c t [wo uld ] caus e the re sult without further

conduct on [his] part . . . .”

Th e pr oo f e sta

bli sh e s th a t th e de fe nd a nt tol d Sing le ton ’s so n tha t he wa s g oin g to “ kil l hi s daddy .” The defe ndant then obtained a g un and shot S i n g leton in the chest. B efor e shooting Singleton, the defe ndant told B arr ett that he was g oing to kill Singleton. Af ter shooting Singleton, the de fe nd a nt w a s h e ard mak in g t he stat e me nts “ I g ot h im” a nd“ I

didit. ” Th is e vid e nc e c le arl y supports the eleme nts nece ssary to prove c riminal attempt to commit first degr ee mur der.

Wit h respe ct to the def

endant’ s arg uments reg arding the cr edi b i lityand contr adictions of witness testimony , it is t he jury ’s pre rog ative to ac cre dit witness testim ony and weigh the evidenc e. Her e, the testimony

of the State’s w itnesses not only independe ntly established that the def endant committed the offe nse, but also cor roborated the def

endant’ s own co n fe s s i o n

. I n addition, the inc o n s is te n t s tate me n ts a n d c r e d ib il it y is s u e s w e r e e ith e r b r o u g h t o u t o n c r o s s

- e xa mi n a tion or prese nted throug h the testimony of th e d ef

ense w itnesses. The we ight a nd cre dibilit y of the testimonyof a w itness and the reconc iliation of conflicts in testimony
, if any , are matters entr usted

e xclu siv e ly to the jury

. B y the ir ve rd ic t, the jury e xer c ise d th e ir

pr e ro g a tiv e a ndc ho se to a c c re dit
t h e t e s t i m o n y o f

t h e S t a t e ’ s w i t n e s s e s o v e r t h e t e s t i m o n y o f

t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s w i t n e s s e s

. A c c o r d i n g l y, the de fe nd a nt’ s su ff

ic ie nc y arg ume nts are wi tho ut m e ri t.

I I I . Conclusion-9-

We affirm the trial court’ s suppression of the defe ndant’s confe ssion a nd conclude that the evidenc e wa s sufficient to support the de fendant’s convictions . Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial court is af

firmed.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I N, J UDGE