IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs March 13, 2024

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TERRY L. GRAGG

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Robertson County

No. 74CC4-2022-CR-483 Robert Bateman, Judge

___________________________________

No. M2023-00777-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

The Appellant, Terry L. Gragg, appeals his conviction of aggravated assault for which he 

received a sentence of four years’ probation. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is 

insufficient to support his conviction because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that he did not act in self-defense. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES 

CURWOOD WITT, JR., and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined.

Joseph Atnip, District Public Defender, and Jessica F. Butler (on appeal) and Dan 

Dalrymple (at trial), Assistant District Public Defenders, for the appellant, Terry L. Gragg.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Brooke A. Huppenthal, Assistant 

Attorney General; Robert J. Nash, District Attorney General; and Jason White, Assistant 

District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

On October 18, 2021, employees of Keith’s Tree Service were removing a large tree 

from the Appellant’s neighbor’s yard. The employees placed their trailer at least partially 

in the Appellant’s yard, believing that the neighbor had received permission from the 

Appellant to do so. The Appellant had not given his permission, so he chained the trailer 

to a tree and sat down on it. When one of the employees, Joshua Moore, attempted to 

retrieve the trailer using a skid steer, the Appellant pointed a gun at him and told him to 

“get off his F’ing yard.” The Appellant was charged and convicted of aggravated assault.

04/04/2024
- 2 -

At trial, Joshua Moore testified that he worked as an operator for Keith’s Tree 

Service. On the day of the offense, he was removing a large tree at a home in Robertson 

County. The removal was difficult and involved “top[ping] the tree off as far as [they] 

could” and “pull[ing] the rest of it down with a machine.” Mr. Moore brought the machine, 

a skid steer, to the home using a gooseneck trailer. Photographs of the skid steer and trailer

were admitted into evidence. The skid steer is a four-wheeled vehicle with a grapple bucket 

for moving materials attached to the front. Mr. Moore explained that the skid steer was 

“open cab,” meaning that it had a roof but not doors. The trailer has a flat surface for 

materials, with a long arched piece resembling a goose’s neck that attaches the trailer to 

the bed of a truck.

Mr. Moore initially placed the trailer on the property where the tree was located. 

Later, however, he had to move it toward the back of the property so the tree would not fall 

on it. At the time, he did not realize the trailer was on the neighboring property. Later in 

the day, Mr. Moore saw the Appellant come out of the neighboring house and speak to his 

boss, Brad Keith. Mr. Moore was operating the skid steer and could not hear the 

conversation over its engine, but he “could tell they were kind of getting loud.” Then, the 

Appellant approached Mr. Moore with his small dog and asked how he was doing. He said 

“pretty good, sir” and asked how the Appellant was doing. The Appellant responded “not 

too good,” and Mr. Moore said he was sorry to hear that. The Appellant said, “[N]o, you’re 

not. . . . [Y]ou are on my property and you need to get off of it.” Mr. Moore told the 

Appellant that he and his dog needed to get out of his way so he could get off the property. 

Mr. Moore moved the skid steer and continued working.

Mr. Moore said the Appellant disappeared, then came back outside and sat down on 

the trailer “[f]or a while.” The trial court admitted a photograph of the Appellant sitting 

on the trailer when the police arrived. After they finished removing the tree, Mr. Keith 

asked Mr. Moore to get the trailer and hook it back to the truck so they could load the skid 

steer. Mr. Moore drove the skid steer toward the trailer, and opened the grapple bucket 

slightly so he could lift the trailer. As he was starting to “get under the trailer to lift it up,”

the Appellant got off the trailer, came toward him, pulled a gun from a holster on his right 

side, and pointed it at him. The Appellant was four to five feet from Mr. Moore and told 

him to “get off his F’ing yard.” Mr. Moore feared the Appellant would shoot him. He 

lowered the grapple bucket and backed up. He got out of the skid steer, grabbed his phone, 

and called 911. The police arrived shortly after.

On cross-examination, Mr. Moore said the gooseneck trailer was twenty feet long 

and twenty-four inches tall. The gooseneck piece was about five and a half to six feet tall. 

The skid steer could reach twelve feet tall and weighed eight to nine thousand pounds. Its 

maximum speed was around eight to ten miles per hour. On redirect examination, Mr. 
- 3 -

Moore clarified that when he was approaching the trailer on the skid steer, he was driving 

slowly.

Jeffrey Brad Keith testified that he owned Keith’s Tree Service and serviced 

residences in Robertson County. Mr. Moore had been working for him for approximately 

a year and a half to two years. On the day of the offense, they were removing a large oak 

tree from the Appellant’s neighbor’s property. The property was very small. He knew 

they might have to get on the Appellant’s property to remove the tree, and he was under 

the impression that the homeowner had gotten permission from the Appellant to do so. 

They parked the trailer in the back corner of the yard to ensure the tree would not fall on 

it. Mr. Keith believed that “a few feet” of the trailer may have been on the Appellant’s 

property. At some point, the Appellant complained. Mr. Keith “tried to get everything 

smoothed over with him,” but the Appellant was “very aggravated.” Mr. Keith asked Mr. 

Moore to move the trailer, but the Appellant went in his house, got a chain, and chained 

the trailer to a tree so they could not move it. Mr. Keith walked to the front of the yard 

and, when he came back, he heard a commotion and learned that the Appellant had pointed 

a gun at Mr. Moore. He did not see the Appellant point the gun at Mr. Moore, but he did 

see the Appellant refusing to get off the trailer and chaining the trailer to the tree.

Officer Alyssa Giannantonio, a patrol officer for the Springfield Police Department, 

testified that she and Officer Tyler Edwards arrived on scene after 6:00 p.m. and spoke 

with Mr. Moore and the Appellant. The Appellant was sitting on the trailer and explained 

that he chained it to a tree because it was on his property. He told her he had a firearm and 

lifted his shirt to show her. He said he had pointed it at Mr. Moore because he was on his 

property. She arrested the Appellant and seized the firearm, which was loaded. The 

firearm was admitted into evidence. 

Officer Giannantonio’s body camera footage was played for the jury and admitted 

into evidence. The footage shows Officer Giannantonio approaching the Appellant, who 

is sitting on the trailer. The Appellant says that the man in the orange shirt tried to sneak 

up behind him and hit him in the head a large pole. The Appellant admits he is carrying a 

gun and refuses to give it to the officers because he believes he is permitted to have it. 

When an officer says he cannot point it at the employees, the Appellant says, “Yes, I can 

when they come on my property because they done been told that they would be trespassing 

if they come on this property[.]” The Appellant explains that the workers had their machine 

on his property, damaging his yard, and did not have the “common courtesy” to ask for his 

permission first. He says he told the owner he did not want them on his property, and that 

the man in the orange shirt said he was going to kill the Appellant’s dog. He says he 

pointed a gun at the man who came on his property to try to get the trailer, after he had 

already told the man to stay off his property earlier. An officer tells the Appellant he is 

going to jail because he pointed a gun at someone, and the Appellant responds, “I was on 
- 4 -

my property.” When the officer says it does not matter, the Appellant appears shocked and 

asks, “When they was running at me with a damn backhoe?” After the Appellant is 

handcuffed, he repeatedly insists that the employees are not permitted to come on his 

property to get the trailer. The Appellant questions why he cannot protect his own property 

and dog. The officer says that he can if his life is in danger, and the Appellant responds, 

“Well hell, the man was coming at me with a damn backhoe.”

Officer Giannantonio testified that she was not sure who the Appellant was referring 

to as the man in the orange shirt. The footage shows Mr. Moore in an “brownish orange 

color” shirt and another employee in a clearly orange shirt. 

Aden Miller testified that he was previously employed by Keith’s Tree Service and 

was working with Mr. Moore and Mr. Keith the day of the offense. Toward the end of the 

day, the Appellant approached them about the trailer being in his yard, though Mr. Miller 

did not believe it was in his yard. The Appellant and Mr. Moore, who was in the skid steer, 

were arguing. Mr. Moore tried to move the trailer, and the Appellant pointed a gun at him. 

Mr. Miller thought the Appellant was going to shoot Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore and the 

Appellant continued to argue, and Mr. Miller told Mr. Keith what was happening.

On cross-examination, Mr. Miller said the Appellant was sitting on the trailer at one 

point, but he walked up to the skid steer as Mr. Moore approached the trailer. Mr. Miller 

did not hear the conversation between the Appellant and Mr. Moore because he was twenty 

to twenty-five feet away. He acknowledged that when the Appellant pointed the gun at 

Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore was not “frozen with fear” but was yelling back angrily. On redirect 

examination, he said Mr. Moore looked tense. 

Devin Truelove testified that he was also previously employed by Keith’s Tree 

Service and was working the day of the offense. He saw the Appellant point a gun at Mr. 

Moore. Mr. Truelove was right next to Mr. Moore, who looked shocked. Mr. Truelove 

did not hear the Appellant say anything to Mr. Moore.

The State concluded its proof and the Appellant testified as the sole witness for the 

defense. Around lunchtime on the day of the offense, the Appellant heard Mr. Keith’s 

crew working. The Appellant’s neighbors had told him several weeks before that the crew 

“might drop some limbs on the property but they would make sure to clean them up.” He 

did not, however, mention anything about parking equipment on the Appellant’s property. 

The Appellant spoke with Mr. Keith and requested that they leave his property. The 

Appellant later saw Mr. Moore driving the skid steer on his property and “tearing the yard 

up.” He told Mr. Moore he was trespassing and needed to leave. Mr. Moore “just sat 

there” and the Appellant said, “[W]ell I don’t hear it starting up and leaving.” Mr. Moore 
- 5 -

responded, “[W]ell, I might run over you or your dog,” which the Appellant thought was 

“sort of threatening.” Mr. Moore left his property.

The Appellant went back inside his house, but returned outside and sat on the trailer, 

which was entirely on his property, for “[m]aybe an hour” playing games on his phone. 

The trailer started moving, and he turned around and saw a skid steer “picking the tongue 

up of the gooseneck.” He jumped off because the gooseneck piece was “moving south 

towards [his] head,” though it was not moving very fast. The skid steer was about five or 

six feet from him and was also moving in his direction. He stepped around where Mr. 

Moore could see him and “pulled [his] pistol.” The Appellant believed his life was in 

danger. When asked why, he responded, “Well, earlier he had said that he might run over 

me and he came back, I mean – I told him he was trespassing and not to come back and if 

somebody tells me that, I ain’t going to come back unless it is for ill something, you know?” 

The Appellant never intended to shoot Mr. Moore and only wanted to “[a]lleviate the 

threat.” 

On cross-examination, the Appellant said he was not armed the first time he went 

outside and spoke to Mr. Keith. He was armed when he returned outside because he had 

gotten dressed and “put [his] pistol on like [he] always [does].” He acknowledged he 

chained the trailer to a tree and claimed he did so because he wanted to see what would 

happen when they tried to pull it off. When he pointed his gun at Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore 

dropped the trailer and backed up the skid steer. He said that the man in the orange shirt 

that he mentioned on the body camera footage trying to hit him with a pole was not Mr. 

Moore. When asked whether he could have walked away when he jumped off the trailer, 

he said he could not outrun the skid steer.

The jury convicted the Appellant as charged of aggravated assault. The trial court 

imposed an agreed upon sentence of four years’ probation. The Appellant filed a motion 

for new trial challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, which the trial court denied. This 

timely appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

The Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction 

because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in selfdefense. He contends that the proof at trial established that he drew his weapon based upon 

a reasonable belief that Mr. Moore returned to his yard with an intent to harm him. The 

State responds, and we agree, that the evidence is sufficient.

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must determine 

“whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime 
- 6 -

beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Parker, 350 S.W.3d 883, 903 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting 

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). Because a guilty verdict removes the 

presumption of innocence and imposes a presumption of guilt, the Appellant bears the 

burden of showing why the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. Id. (citing State 

v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646, 661 (Tenn. 2006)). The State is entitled to the strongest legitimate 

view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. 

State v. Davis, 354 S.W.3d 718, 729 (Tenn. 2011) (citing State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850, 

857 (Tenn. 2010)). The jury evaluates the credibility of witnesses, determines the weight 

given to witnesses’ testimony, and reconciles all conflicts in the evidence. State v.

Campbell, 245 S.W.3d 331, 335 (Tenn. 2008) (citing Byrge v. State, 575 S.W.2d 292, 295 

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1978)). This court “neither re-weighs the evidence nor substitutes its 

inferences for those drawn by the jury.” State v. Wagner, 382 S.W.3d 289, 297 (Tenn. 

2012) (citing State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997)).

As convicted in this case, aggravated assault occurs when a person “[i]ntentionally 

or knowingly causes another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury” and the act

“[i]nvolved the use or display of a deadly weapon.” Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-101(a)(2), 

39-13-102(a)(1)(A)(iii). Because the trial court found that self-defense was fairly raised 

by the proof, the State was also required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

Appellant did not act in self-defense. State v. Benson, 600 S.W.3d 896, 903 (Tenn. 2020). 

The applicable statute provides:

(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in conduct 

that would constitute a felony or Class A misdemeanor and is in a place 

where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or 

using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of 

death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse;

(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury 

is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-611(b)(2) (2021). “[W]hether an individual acted in self-defense 

is a factual determination to be made by the jury as the sole trier of fact.” State v. Goode, 

956 S.W.2d 521, 527 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (citing State v. Ivy, 868 S.W.2d 724, 727 

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)).
- 7 -

The evidence is sufficient to support the Appellant’s convictions because a rational 

jury could have rejected the Appellant’s self-defense claim. Viewed in the light most 

favorable to the State, the evidence established that the Appellant did not honestly believe 

that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The evidence clearly 

established that the Appellant was angered by the employees and their trailer being on his 

property. After confronting both Mr. Keith and Mr. Moore, he chained the trailer to a tree, 

sat down on it, and waited. When Mr. Moore tried to retrieve the trailer, the Appellant 

pointed a gun at him and told him to “get off his F’ing yard.” Though the body camera 

footage shows the Appellant mentioning Mr. Moore coming at him with the skid steer, it 

also shows the Appellant repeatedly emphasizing that he was trying to protect his property. 

When officers told him he could not point the gun at the employees, he responded, “Yes, I 

can when they come on my property because they done been told that they would be 

trespassing if they come on this property[.]” Based on this evidence, a rational jury could 

have found that the Appellant did not point his gun at Mr. Moore because he was in danger, 

but because he was angry that Mr. Moore was on his property.

Even if the Appellant honestly believed that he was in imminent danger of death or 

serious bodily injury, a rational jury could have found that his belief was not reasonable. 

The Appellant testified that the skid steer was moving toward him and the tongue of the 

gooseneck trailer was moving toward his head. Given Mr. Moore’s threat to run him over 

earlier in the day, he believed his life was in danger. This testimony, however, conflicted 

with Mr. Moore’s testimony. Based on Mr. Moore’s testimony, the Appellant was not in 

any danger. Mr. Moore testified that he had not threatened the Appellant earlier, he had 

just told him that he needed to get out of the way so he could drive the skid steer off of the 

Appellant’s property. Mr. Moore said when the Appellant pointed the gun at him, he was 

driving the skid steer toward the trailer but had not yet begun to lift it. Therefore, the trailer 

was not moving. Mr. Moore also testified that though the skid steer was moving toward 

the trailer, where the Appellant was sitting, it was moving slowly. The jury resolved this 

conflicting testimony in favor of the State, and we will not disturb its credibility 

determinations. See Campbell, 245 S.W.3d at 335. The evidence is therefore sufficient to 

support his conviction of aggravated assault.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above reasoning and authority, we affirm the judgment of the trial

court.

___________________________________________

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, PRESIDING JUDGE