### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 11, 2003 Session
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LOUIS G. TURNER Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 2000-D-2235 Seth Norman, Judge

No. M2002-01000-CCA-R3-CD - F iled March 7, 2003

The defend ant ch allen ges the suffi ciency of t he evi dence a fter b eing co nvicted by a Da vidson County jury of preme ditated first degree murder and se ntenced to life imprisonment. We affirm the judgmen t of the tr ial cour t. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed
J OE G. R ILEY , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J OSEPH M. T IPTON and T HOM AS T. W OODA LL , JJ., joined. Cyn thia M. Fort (on appeal) and G. Way ne Davis (at trial), Nashville, Tennessee, for the appe llant, Louis G. Turner. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter; Helena Walton Yarbrough, Assistant Attorney Genera l; Victor S. Joh

nson, I II , Distric t Attorne

y General ; and Jason W. Lawless and L isa Naylor, Assistant District Attorneys Gener al, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION
FACTS
It is undisput

ed that on Septembe

r 4, 2000, the defe

ndant kill ed the victim, Troy Be nder, after shooting him ten times with a pistol. The defendant knew the victim prior to the homicide. They had seve ral conf rontation s prior to t

his date a nd were not on fri endly

terms.
The state’s proof indicated that Jenika Woodruff, her brother, and Clifford Jackson were at the Texaco sta

tion on Ga

llatin Pike

in Davidso n County

at appro ximately

6:00 p.m. on September 4 th

. They wer

e aw aiting the arrival of Woodruff’s boy friend, Jason Wilson. The defendant, who knew Woodruff

and Jackso n, arriv ed at the station in a

vehicle along w ith h is passenger, Troy Stanton. Jackson then got into the defendant’s vehicle.
Thomeka Howard, victim Troy Bende r’s girlfriend, was driving her black Camaro in which Bender was a passenger. The black Camaro was similar to a black Camaro customarily driven by-2-

Jason Wilson. Howard parked her vehicle in front of the Texaco station andentere d the stati on to purchas e bread. U

pon her r eturning to the veh

icle, Be nder, sti ll in the pa ssenge

r seat, requested that she go b ack into

the station and purchase cigarettes. How ardtestified that while she was bending down o n the driver’s side getting money from Bender, she heard numerous shots. B ender, who never got out of the passenger seat, wa s struck by ten bullets in the back and side and died as the result of his wounds. Bender did not have a weapon. Subsequently, two one dollar bills were found by an offic er in the floorboard of the vehicle.
Woodruff testifie d that just

prior to the shooting, she observed the defendant “c reep” around the back of Howard’s vehicle “in a slow walk” and approach the passenger side. Woodruff, Texaco customer Jaquelyn Mullin, a nd defendant’s passenger Tr oy Stanton testified the defenda nt then pulled his shirt up over his face prior to firing numerous shots into the vehicle. Thes e sho ts shattered the glass of the passenger window. The witnesses stated the defendant then ran to his own vehicle, which at that time was being driven by Clifford Jackson. The vehicle fled the scene.
Accord in g t o the testimony

of Troy Stanton, th

e defendant and S tanton we re to pur chase marijuanafrom Cliff

ord Jackso n at the Te

xaco statio n. Stanton s aid that w hen Howa

rd’s veh ic l e pulled onto the lot, the defendant told Stanton , “there go dude right there.” The de fendant then instructed Stanton to get into the back seat; the defendant secur ed a pistol from the front seat; and Jackson sat in the driver’s seat. Th e defen dant then proceeded to Howard’s vehicle and fired numerous shots. Upon returning to his vehicle, the defendant told Stanton he gave the victim a “dome shot,” meaning a shot to the head. When Stanton asked the defendant why he shot Bender, the de fe nd an t s ta te d B en de r h ad pr ev io us ly tried to ro b him. The defendant made a similar state ment t o Woo druff w hen sh e saw hi m lat er that eveni ng. The defendant testified, contrary to Stanton’s testimony, he and Stanton were to meet Jason Wilson at the Texaco station to buy marijuana. The defendant testified

that when he observed the black Camaro a

t the Texac o sta

tion, he mi stakenly thought it was the black Camaro driven by Wilson. He stated he tapped on the window, was startled to see B ender, thought Bender had a weapon in his hand, and, therefore, shot Bender in self-de fense. The defendant stated he threw the pistol out of the car after leaving the Texaco station.
The defenda

nt denied securin g the pis tol from hi s front seat and stated he alway s carried the pistol in his waistband. He testified he feared Bender because of a prior robbery attempt approxima

tely on e yea r earlier in which Bender pistol-whipped the def endant. The defendant further testified that he had other confrontations with Bender a nd Bender had previously assaulted the defendant’s grandfather. Other defense witnesses testified as to prior violent incidents in which Bender assaulted and/or threatened the defendant as well as his grandfa ther.
The jury rejecte d the defendant’s claim of self-defense and convicted the defendant of premeditated first degree murde r.-3-

STANDARD

OF REVIEW
The defendant contends the evidence was insuff i cient to support his conviction for premeditated

first deg ree mur der. Spe cifically, he conte n ds the evi dence w as insuff icient to establi sh th e eleme

nt of pre meditatio n. The sta

te, on the other ha nd, conte nds the jur

y pr operly found premeditation. We agree with the state.
In Tennessee, great weig

ht is given to the result re ached b y th e ju ry in a cr iminal trial. A jury verdict accre dits the sta

te’s witnesses and resolve s all conf licts in favor of the state. Statev. Bigbee , 885 S.W.2d 797, 803 (T enn. 1994 ). On app eal, the state is e

ntitled to t

he strong est legitima te view of the evide nce and all reas onable

inferences which may

be drawn therefrom. Id. ; Statev. C a bbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Moreover, a guilty verdict removes the presumption of innocence which the appellant enjoyed at trial andraises a presumption of guilt on appeal. State v. Grace , 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973). The appe llant has the burden of overcoming this presumption of guilt. Id.
ANALYSIS
The applicable definition of first degree murder

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

. Premeditation necessitates “a previously formed design or intent t

o kill,” State v. We st , 844 S.W.2d 144, 147 (Tenn. 1992) (citations omitted), and “an act done after

the exerc ise of re

flection and judg ment . . . [me aning] th at the inte nt to kill must have been formed prior to the act itself.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 202(d). It also requires that the accused be “sufficiently

free from excitement and passion as to be capable of premeditation.” Id.
The element of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. State v. Suttles , 30 S.W.3d 252, 2 61 (Tenn . 2000). A lthough t he jury may not eng age in s peculat

ion, it may infer premeditation from the manner and circumstances of the killing. State v. Bland , 958 S.W.2d 651, 660 (Ten

n. 1997); State v. B ordis , 905 S.W.2d 214, 222 (Te nn. Crim. App . 1995). Our supreme court delineated several circumstance s that may be indicative of premeditation, including declarations of the intent to kill, procurement of a weapon, the use of a de adly wea pon upon a n unarmedvictim, the

fact tha t the killin g was pa

rticular ly cruel, i n fliction of multiple wounds, the making of preparations bef ore the k illi ng for the purpose of concea ling the crime, destruction or secretion of evidence, and calmness immediately af

ter the killing. State v. N

ichols , 24 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Tenn. 2000).
We must view t

he evide nce in the light most

favora ble to the state. The defendant harbored an imosity tow ard Be

nder as t he resul t of prior confron tations. U

pon obser ving How ard’s c ar in which Bender

was a passenger, the defendant immediately secured a weapon, arrange d for Jackson to drive the

defenda nt’s vehi cle, cr

ept up to H oward’ s car, pulled his shi rt o ve r his face, and shot the victim ten times in the back and side while

the victim

was turned away

from him a

ttempting to hand money to Howard. T he victim was unarmed

and, view ing the e

vidence in the lig

ht most favora ble to the state, never saw the defendant prior to the defendant’s shooting him. The defendant fledand later d isc arded the pistol. It was the jury ’s prerogative to reject the def endant’s claim of self-defense. See State v. Goode , 956 S.W.2d 521, 527 (Tenn. Crim App. 1997). Furthermore, the-4-

degree of homicid

e is generally

a questio n for the

jury ’s deter mination. State v. Shelton , 854 S.W.2d 116, 119 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). There was ample evidence to support the conviction for premeditated first degree murde r. Accord ingly , we aff

irm the jud

gment of the trial court.

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE