### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jul y 12, 200 6

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. TIMOT HY HUT SON

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 05-02606 John P. C olton, Jr., Judge

No. W2005-01812-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Novem ber 3, 2006

Timothy Hutson, the defe ndant, appea ls his jury conviction for preme ditated first d egr ee m u rder

. He wa s sentence d to life imprisonment. On appea l the defe ndant pre sents a s i n gl e is sue, that the evidenc e does not support the jury ’s finding of pre meditation

. Our review r evea ls that sufficient evidenc e wa s prese nted, and we aff irm the defe ndant’s judg ment of convic tion.

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

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

Rob e rt Wils on Jone s, Di str ic t Publi c De fe nd e r, a nd To ny N. B ra y ton a nd Jim Ha le , A ssi sta nt P ub lic Def ender s, for the a

ppellant, Timothy

Hutson.

Pa ul G. Sum me rs , At tor ne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Da vid H. F ind le y , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Jim L ammey and De nn i s J ohnson, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

This case conce rns the killing of L isa Hudspeth on J anuar

y 18, 2003, in Shelby County

. The victim was shot at close ra ng e in the hea d with a h i gh v el o ci t y rifle while in the f ront y ard of

a residenc e occ upied by J immy Smit h. The fac ts sur rounding the shooting wer e supplied at trial by witnesses present at t he scene and a neighbor who was the onl y individual who witnessed the ac tual

s h o o t i n g.

Charles Stidmon, an Oklahoma re sident, was stay ing at the Smit h house on J anuary 18. He
t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e v i c t i m w a s h i s g i r l f r i e n d a n d w a s p l a n n i n g t o r e t u r n w i t h h i m t o O k l a h o m a t h a td a y. He state d that the def

endant an d t he victim came to the Smit h residenc e ea rly that morning afte r being at the casinos the night befor e. The defe ndant acc used the victim of taking his cell phone a nd-2-

some rock c ocaine , which the victim denied. Stidmon hear d a g u n s h o t while he wa s in the b a th r o o m. H e lo o k e d o u ts id e a n d s a w th e v ic ti m ly in g in th e y a r d a n d th e d e f e n d a n t leaving the

scene in his truck.

Jimmy Smit h te sti fi e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt’ s a nd vic tim ’s re tur n f ro m th e c a sin os wo ke him about 7:30 on J anuary

1 8

. He did not reca ll any conver sation that took place. H e stated tha t the defe ndant left afte r approximately thirty minutes. Smit h was outside when the def endant r eturne d and pulled his truc k into the y ard. Smit h was occupie d with jump-starting his vehic le and did not wi t n es s t h e s h o o t i n g.

Trac y Gre en wa s also a gu es t at t h e S mith house on J anuary 18. He he ard the defe ndant

acc use the victim of taking his cell phone. Gr een sa id the defe ndant see med to be mad a s he left the residenc e. When the defendant returned, Gree n was a ssisti ng Smit h in starting his ve hicle. He hear d the g unshot and saw the vic tim drop to the gr ound. The de fenda nt then pl ace d a long wea pon in the ba c k o f h is t

ru c k, kic ke d th e vic tim ’s bo dy
, and rem a rk e d th a t sh e wa s d e a d b e fo re le a vin g in h is truck.

Eric Wallace witnessed the events fr om outside his house, which is directly acr oss the street from S mith’ s r e s id e n c e

. Wa ll a c e k n e w th e v ic ti m a n d th e d e f e n d a n t f r o m s e e in g th e m i n the neig hborhood. On t he morning of J anuary 18, Wallace had seen the defe ndant’s silver Dodg e truc k coming and g oing f

rom the Smith residence . The de fenda nt returne d to Smi th’s about 9:00 a.m. and pulled his truck into the y ard. The defe ndant unloaded two puppies and turned them loose. He then walked to the f

ront door and y elled inside. The defe n d ant re turned to his truck a nd took a long object fr om behind the sea t. The def endant sa t i n t h e d ri v er ’s seat with his leg propping the door open. The victim came out of the house and a pproac hed the de fenda nt. Wallace saw the de fenda nt aim direc tly

at the victim’s hea d and fire the wea pon. The victim f

ell to the g round within the span of the de fenda nt’s open truc k door. The de fenda nt “ nonchala ntly ” kicked the victim’s body twice and then ba cked the truck up approximately fifty fee t. The defenda nt then got out and looked at the victim’s body

once mor e bef

ore dr iving a way

from the sc ene.

Scott Br own, a detec tive with the Horn L ake, Missi ssippi Police Depa rtment rela ted t hat the defe ndant had made a complaint to his office on January 15, 2003. The de fenda nt reporte d a thef t of his de bit c a rda nd na me d th e vic tim a s a susp e c t. Th e de fe nd a nt fu rn ish e d a pic tur e of the vic tim and a pr inted form of a ctivity conce rning the debit ca

rd. Detec tive Br own i nitiated an investig ation but closed the c ase upon le arning of the victim’s dea th.

Serg eant Scott Evans of the Horn L ake Police D epartment participate d in a sea rch of the de fe nd a nt’ s r e sid e nc e a nd ve hic le on Janu a ry 18 . Se rg e ant Ev ans de sc ri be d f ind ing blo od , b ra in matter, a nd hair on the i nside and outs ide of the defendant’s truck. A rifle w as found r esting on a g un rac k inside the defe ndant’s re sidence

. Ag e nt S te ve Sc ott

of the Te nn e sse e B ur e a u of I nv e sti g a tio n te sti fi e d a s a n e xpe rt in f ir e a rm s identification. He tested the rif le seized from the de fenda nt and found it to be in proper opera ting-3-

c on dit ion wi th al l saf

e ty fe a tur e s inta c t. Ag e nt Sco tt de sc ri be d the we a po n as a Rug e r h ig h v e loc ity hunting r ifle.

Dr. O. C. Smith, an expert in forensic pa thology , testified that the autopsy revealed the

v i ct i m ’s ca u s e o f de at h wa s a hi gh v el o ci t y gu n s h o t wo u n d t o t h e he ad

. He al s o ex p l ai n ed t h at h i gh

ve loc ity wo un ds c a n r e su lt i n a c a vit a tio n e ffect
, causing tis su e s to be pr op e lle d a wa y a t a considera ble distance

.

The de fenda nt, after

voir dire, opted to rema in silent. No def ense pr oof wa s prese nted. The jury returne d a ver dict of g uilt as to first deg ree preme ditated murder

.

An a ly sis

Th e de fe nd a nt, in h is s ole a pp e lla te iss ue , c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nce wa s in su ff ic ie nt t o support a pre meditated killing. Af ter re view, we respe ctfully disag ree

.

Our re v i ewing standard w hen conside ring a suff iciency challeng e is “whe ther c onsidering the evidenc e in a light most fa vorable to the prosec ution, any rational trier

of fa ct could have found the essential e lements of the c rime bey ond a re asonable doubt.” State v. Reid, 91 S.W .3d 247, 276 (Tenn. 2002). The pre sumption of innocence is removed by a g uiltyverdic t and a pr esumption of
g uil t is imp os e d, thu s sh if tin g the bu rd e n to the de fe nd a nt t o d e mon str a te wh y the evi de nc e is insufficient. See State v. Evans

, 108 S.W .3d 231, 237 (Tenn. 2003). On appe al, the State is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the evidenc e and to a ll r easona ble and leg itimate infere nces tha t

ma y be dr a wn the re fr om. Sta te v. Smit h, 24 S.W. 3d 27 4, 27 9 (T e nn . 2 00 0) . T he jury re so lve s a ll questions about the cr edibilityof witnesses, the w eig ht and value of t h e evidenc e, and a ll factua l issues. Evans, 108 S.W.3d at 236.

First degr ee murder is “a premeditate d and intentional killing of a nother.” T.C.A. § 39-13- 202(a) (1) ( 2003). “‘ [P ]remeditation is an act done afte r the exercise of ref lection and judg ment” and “mea ns that the intent to kill must have bee n formed pr ior to th e ac t i t s el f. ” I d. § 39-13-202( d). “‘I ntentional’ re fer s to a person who ac ts intentionallywith respec t to the nature of the conduc t or to a re s ult of the conduc t when it is the person’s c onscious objective or desire to e ng ag e in the conduct or

cause the re sult.” I d. § 39-11-106( a)( 18) (2006)

.

The de termination of the e x istence of preme ditation is a question of fac t to be resolved by the jury from the c ircumstance s surrounding the killing. State v. Suttles, 30 S.W .3d 252, 261 (Tenn. 2000). Sever al non-e x clusive circ umstances have been identified that would justify a jury ’s finding of pre meditat io n : th e u s e o f a d e a d ly w e a p o n u p o n a n u n a r me d v ic ti m; th e p a r ti c u la r c r u e lt y of a killing; a d e f

e n d a n t’ s th r e a ts o r d e c la

r a ti o n s o f in te n t to k il l; th e d e f e n d a n t’ s p r o c u r e me n t of a

wea pon; any prepa

rations t o conce al t he crime undertaken bef ore the killing; destruction or se cre tion

o f ev i d en ce of the killing; and a defe ndant’s ca lmness immediately afte r a killing . See State v. Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d 651, 660 (Tenn. 1997) . A j ury is not limit ed to any specific evidenc e in finding or infer ring preme ditation, but it may be established by any evidenc e fr om which a r ational jury may-4-

infer tha t the killing occ urre d afte r the e x erc ise of re flec tion and judgme nt. State v. Davidson, 121 S.W .3d 600, 615 (Tenn. 2003)

.

Evidence in this case provide d ample support for the jury ’s finding of the e lem ent of
pr e me dit a tio n. Th e re wa s pro of tha t the de fe nd a nt ha d fil e d a for ma l c omp la int a g a ins t th e vic tim for thef t of his debit car d three day s befor e the killing. O n the morning of th e s h o o t i ng , the defe ndant ac cused the victim of stealing his cell phone a nd a qu an t i t y o f cocaine. The defe ndant used a hunting rifle to shoot the unar med victim. As the victim’s body lay prostrate , the def

endant kic k e d h e r a n d c o mm e n te d
, “ y e p , s h e ’ s d e a d

. ” T h e d e f e n d a n t’ s c a ll o u s c o n d u c t supported an infere nce tha t he intended to kill the victim and was satisfied w ith her dea th.

Conclusion

After revie w of the rec ord, we conclude that the verdic t w as the product of a rational jury

and was supporte d by

sufficie nt evidence . The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI L L I AMS, J UDGE