### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHARLES WILLIAM YOUNG
Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marshall County

No. 13972 Charles Lee, Judge

No. M1999-01240-CCA-R3-CD - Decided June 16, 2000

The Defendant, Char

les William You ng, was indicted by the Marshall County Grand Jury for the offense of aggravated assault. He was subsequently convicted of that offense after a jury trial. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We hold that the evidence was suf

ficient to support t

he conviction, an

d we affirm the ju

dgment of the trial

court. Tenn. R. App. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment o

f the Trial Court A

ffirmed.

W ELLES , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which W ADE , P.J., and R ILEY , J., joined. Gregory D. Smith, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Charles William Young.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Generaland Reporter, Clinton J. Morgan, As sistant Attorney Ge neral, Mike McCowen, District Attorney General, Weakley E. Barnard, As sista nt District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

Charles William Young, the D efendant, appe

als as of right fro

m his conviction pur

suant to
a jury ver dict of a ggravated assault. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and we affirm the judgment of the tria

l court.

The evidence at

trial established

that on December

8, 1998, the Defe

ndant's wife, Jen

nie Lee Young, obtained an order of protection restraining the Defen dant from "abusing , threatening to abuse, or committing acts of violence upon" Ms. Young. This order of protec

tion was subsequen

tly extended to March 19, 1999.

Ms. Young testified that on December 28, 1998, her husband came to her trailer, and they gotinto an argument. While arguing, the Defendant put his hand on her throat and shoved her back against the dresser. Ms. Youn

g was not injured, b

ut she said that she

found this conduct offensive.-2-

S he said that she was afraid of the Defendant. She testified that after this conduct, the Defe ndan t threatened to kill her and her daughter and burn their house down.

After this altercation,

Ms. Young drove the De fendant to his parents' home, but was denied
access. She returned with the Defendant to her home. She testified that she and her daughter went to her mother's trailer, which was in front of her trailer on the same property, and locked the door. The Defendant began banging on the door of the trailer, attempti ng to get in. Ms. Young

became frightened and called the police. The police responded and arrested the Defenda nt. Ms. Young admitted o

n cross-examina

tion that she had pr

eviously been convicted

of theft and passing worthless check s. She also said that

she and the Defe

ndant spent some time

together after she had taken out t

he order of prote

ction. The Defen

dant and his parents came over for Christmas dinner, a

nd the Defendan

t was at her traile

r on other occas

ions as well.

Carrie Walker, Ms . Young's fifteen -year-old daug

hter, testified th

at she heard Ms

. Young an d the Defendant arguing in the bedroom on December 28, 1998. She said that she heard a noise that sounded like something bein g thrown. At first Ms . Walker said that she did not remember anything else, but then, in

order to refresh her memory, the prosecutor showed her a statement that she had made after the incident. After reviewing the statement, Ms. Walker said that she remembe re d looking in the bedroom door and that she saw her mother up against the dresser with the Defendant's hands on her throat. She said that the Defendant pushed her mother, but she did not know whether he choked her. Ms. Walker left the room and

went to look for the telephone number for the police. Her mother and the Defendant came out of the bedroom, and Ms. Walker said they left to take the Defendant

to his parents' hous

e so that they did

not have to call the

police. The Defe

ndant's parents' would not l et them in, so they returned to t he trailer. Ms. W

alker and Ms. Youn

g went to Ms. Young's mother's trailer, where they locked the door. The Defendant began banging on the door and saying that he would burn the trailer down if they did not let him in. They then called the police.
Deputy Chris Bowden testif

ied that he respon

ded to a domestic violence call at Ms. Young's residence and observed the Defendant running from the trailer where Ms. Young's mother lived. The Defendant

ran around the second trailer and crawled underneath. He eventually ca me out at Deputy Bowden's request. Deputy Bowden testified that the Defendant's body language and his language usage were abusive and hostile, but the Defendant calmed down after being threatened with

pepper spray. Ricky Ragsdale, a dispatcher with the Marshall County Sheriff's Department, testified that he r eceived a call f

rom Ms. Young aroun

d 4:04 p.m. on Dece

mber 28, 1998. Mr. R

agsdale dispatched Deputy Bowden to the scene, but he kept Ms. Young on the telephone. He said that he could hear a man's voice "scre

aming and cussing to

let him in." Mr. Ragsdale could hear someone beating on the doors and windows trying to get in.

The Defendant testified in his own defense. He admitted that he and Ms. Young got into an argument on December 28, 1998, but he denied hitting her or grabbing her by the throat. He said that all he physically

did was “push cloth

es” back at Ms. Yo

ung after she pus

hed them towards h

im.-3-

He said that he had a problem with drugs and alcohol and that he was on medication on the d

ay in question. He admitted running from the police and hiding under the trailer when the police arrived because he was afraid they would arrest him for violating the order of protection. He a

lso admitted that he had previo

usly been convict

ed of theft.

On appeal, the Defendant

argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(e) prescribes that “[f]indings of

guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the evidence is insufficient to support the findings by

the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). Evidence is sufficient if, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a n y rational trier of fact co

uldhave found the essentia l elements of the c

rime beyond

a reasonable do

ubt. Jackson v. Virginia

, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (19 79). In addition, because conviction by a trier of fact des tro ys the presumption of innocence and im

poses a presumptio

n of guilt , a convicted criminal de fendantbears the burden of showing that the evidence was insufficient. McBee v. State , 372 S.W.2d 173, 176 (Tenn. 196 3); see also State v. Evans , 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) (citing Statev. Grace , 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1976), and State v. Brown , 551 S.W.2d 329, 331 (Tenn. 1977)); State v. Tuggle

, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (T

enn. 1982); Holt v. State , 357 S.W.2d 57, 61 (Tenn. 1962).

In its review of the e vidence, an appe

llate court must af

ford the State “th

e strongest leg

itimate view of the evidence as well as all reasonable a nd legiti mate inferences that may be drawn therefrom.” Tuggle , 639 S.W.2d at 91 4 (citing State v. Ca bbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978)). The court may

not “re-weigh

or re-evaluate

the evidence” in the record below. Evans , 838 S.W .2d at 191 (citin g Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d at 836). Likewise, should the reviewing court find particular con fli cts in t he t ria l te sti mon y, the court must resolve them in favor of the jury verdict or trial court judgment. Tuggle , 639 S.W.2d at 914.

The Defendant was charged with aggravated a ssault by intentionally

or knowingly causing offensive physical contact with Ms. Young while an or der of protectio

n against him was

in effect. The relevant sta

tute provides as f

ollows:

A person commits aggravated assault who, after havi ng been enjoined or rest ra ined by an order , diversion or probation agreement of a court of competent jurisdiction from in any way causing or attempting to cause bodily injury or in any way committing or atte

mpting to commit an a ssault a gainst an individual or individuals, intentionally

or knowingly

attempts to cause

or causes bodily

injury or commits or attempts t

o commit an assault

against such ind

ividual or individua

ls.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-102(c) (e mphasis added). An assault occurs when a person "[i]ntentionally

or knowingly c

auses contact wi

th another and a r

easonable person would regard the contact as extremely offensive or provocative." Id. § 39-13-101(a)(3).-4-

Here, the Defendant admits that an order of prot ection wa s in effect. He argues that the evidence was insufficient because he deni

ed that he intentio

nally assaulted any

one and because

the testimonyof Ms. Young and Ms. Walker contained "blatant contradictions." As previously stated, any conflicts in the tr

ial testimony

must be resolved in

favor of the jury verdict. Tuggle , 639 S.W.2d at 914. Also, the Defendant does not cite to any evidence in the record of "blatant contra

dictions" in the testimony of Ms. Young and Ms. Walker . Issues which are not supp orted by ap

propriate references to the record will be treated a s waived in this Court. Tenn. Crim. App. R. 10(b). Our review o f the re cord revels that both witnesses test

ified that the Def

endant put his hand

on Ms. Young's throat and pushed her against the dresser. Although Ms. Walker at first testified that she didnot remember what

happened, she subsequently had her recollection refreshed by her previous statement. Neither Ms. Young nor Ms. Walker ever testified that the incide nt did not occur. We believe that a rational jury could conclud e beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant intentionally

or knowingly touched Ms. Young on the throat and th at a reasonable person would find this contact of

fensive . Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of aggravated assault, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.