### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec embe r 16, 200 8

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. TIMOT HY TYL US SOR REL LS

Direc t Appeal from the Cr iminal Cou rt f or Hamilton County No. 259840 Don W. Poole, Judge

No. E2008-00791-CC A-R3- CD - Filed Nove mber 5, 2009

Following a jury trial, Defe n d an t, T im o th y T y lu s Sor rells, was c onvicted of f

irst degre e pre meditated

mur de r a ndabu se of

a c or ps e . D e fe nd a nt wa s sen te nc e d to life imp ri so nme nt with th e po ssi bil ity of parole for his murder conviction and one year as a Range I off

ender for a buse of a corpse , to be

se rv e d concu rren tly . O n a pp e a l, D e fe nd a nt a

rg ue s th a t th e e vid e nc e is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his convictions. Following our review of the re cord, w e af

firm the judgments of the tria l court.

Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Cr iminal Cou rt A ffirm ed

T H O M A S T. W OOD ALL , J., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which J OS EP H M. T I P TO N , P.J., and N OR MA M C G EE O GLE , J., joined.

Da nie l J. Rip pe r, Chatta no og a , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Ti mothy Ty lus Sor re lls

.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr
., At torne y G e ne ra l a ndRe p o r t e r ; R e n e eW . T urne r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y G e ne ra l; W ill ia m H

. Cox
, Di stric t At torne y Ge ne ra l; a ndNe a l Pin ks ton , A ssi sta nt D ist ri c t A tto rn e y G e ne ra l, for the a ppellee, the State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

I. Bac kgr ound

On May 23, 2006, ar o u n d 11:00 p.m., Office r Zac hary Fuller a nd other off icer s of the Chattanooga Police De partment re sponded to a c all at the Fast Food and Fuel busin es s located at 2727 Rossvil le Boulevard in Chattanooga rega rding a prostitute that had gotten into the car with two males. Whe n the offic ers a rrived at th e s ce n e, a p rostitute was there and told them that she knew wh e re to f

inda de a d b od y. She ro de in the ba c k of Of fi c e r Ful le r’ s patr ol c ar anddir e c te d h im t o the dea d end of A sbury P ark Drive. Offic er Ful ler found the body of an Afric an American woma n lying under a pa llet. He did not disturb anything a nd notified the major crimes unit. A day or two befor e the b o d y wa s d i s cover ed, Of fice r Fuller and other

office rs had be en brie fed on a missing pe rs on by the na me of

Vi rg ini a Kn igh t.-2-

Br idg e t Mc Curty t e sti fi e d th a t V ir gin ia Kn igh t, the vic tim , w a s h e r m oth e r. Ms. Mc Curty

saw the victim on May 20, 2006, at McCurty’s daughter’s high school gr aduation. Af ter gra duation, the fa mily, including the vi ctim, went to Ms. McCurty’s house on Ta lladega A venue w here they sat around a nd talked. The victim later left and me ntioned that she wa s going to James Cordell’s house. Ms. McCurty testified that she l ast saw the victim around 8:15 to 8:30 the next morning, May 21, 2006, in front of Mr. Corde ll’s residenc e. It a ppear ed that she had been drinking. The victim was supposed to be at Ms. McCurty’s home later tha t evening, but she ne ver a rrived.

On the e ve nin g o f M a y 2 1, 20 06
, Ms. Mc Curty re c e ive d a c a ll fr om Ja me s Cor de ll, wh o to ld her tha t the victim ha d left with some one named “Tim,” and he was worrie d beca use they had not
returne d. She said that Cordell called severa l other ti mes during the evening of May 21, 2006, and the e arl y mo rn ing ho ur s of Ma y 22
, 20 06

. He r frie nd
, Le on ard La ne , a ns we re d the c a lls

. At so me point, Lane lef

t to go to Mr. Cordell’s house to look for the victim’s car

. Ms. Mc Curty te stified that Lane returne d home, and they later we nt out looking for the victim but did not find her. Seve ral people told them that t hey had se en the victim and De fenda nt together, a nd one per son saw the vic tim wi th D e fe nd a nt a nd a wh ite ma le

. Ms. Mc Curty e ve ntu a lly fi le d a mis sin g p e rs on ’s re po rt

. She later r ece ived a c all that the victim’s body had bee n found.

Offic er D ennis Pedigo of the Chattanooga Pol i ce De p ar tment testified that he pulled Def endant ove r sometime af

ter 2:00 p.m

. on May 21, 2006, at the inter section of Dodds A venue a nd Bailey Avenue . Def

enda n t h ad an unopened twe lve-pa ck of be er in the ba ck floorboa rd. Off icer Pedigo testified that there was a black female passenger in the vehicle, and she told Off icer Pedigo that the ca

r belonge d to her.

Brenda A llen testified that she we nt to James Cordell’s house afte r work on the night of May 21, 2006. She arrived sometime betwe en 10:00 and 11:00 p.m., and Mr. Cordell and “T ina” we re the on ly two pe op le the re

. Ms. Al le n tes tif ie d tha t De fe nd a nt sto pp e d by the ho us e aro un d 1:00 a .m.
on Ma y 2 2, 20 06 , a ndsaid tha t he ha d r e turne d th e vic tim ’s c ar an d ke ys

. Th e vic tim wa s n ot w ith him. She said Defe ndant re mained at the residence for a while, and a w hite male showe d up at the door. He and De fenda nt got into a n alterc ation, and the man left. Mr. Corde ll then telephoned the victim’s daughter ’s hous e and spoke with Leonar d Lane . While La ne wa s on the phone, De fenda nt spoke to him and said that the victim had gotten into an eightee n-whe eler at the Fast Tra ck gas station, and he ha d to sit i n the ca r and w ait for he r to return. Def endant sa id that he got tired of waiting and brought the vic tim’s car a nd keys t o Cordell. He a lso said something about getting a ticket.

Ms. Allen testified that she, Def endant, Mr. Cordell, and Tina later got into the victim’s car and drove to the gas station on Third S tree t to buy gas, ice, a nd cigar ettes. They a rrived ba ck at Mr. Cordell’s re sidence twenty minutes later, a nd Def endant r emained at the re sidence for a couple of hours. H e th e n le f

t a n d r e tu r n e d o n e a n d o n e

- h a lf to tw o h o u r s late r a n d s a id th a t th e v ic ti m w as dead. Ms. Allen te stified that Def endant a ppear ed to be ve ry upset, and he said that he c ould take them to the victim’s body. Def endant pulled his shirt off and then put it back on. Def endant wa s at the re sidence for a

pproximately fifte en minutes, and Mr. Corde ll told hi m to lea ve and c all police. Def endant r eturne d around twe nty minutes later and sa id that he had called poli ce and t hat they we re on the sce ne. De fenda nt then left Cordell’s house a gain by walking aw ay.-3-

Leona rd Lane testified that he r ece ived sever al calls during the e arly morning hours of May 22, 2006. He said that James C ordell called more than once, and he also spoke with Def endant who

sa id “ so me thi ng abo ut he r b e ing wi th a gu y in a n 1 8- wh e e le r. ” De fe nd a nt s ou nd e d h igh ly u ps e t. He a lso said, “I a in’t done sh** to that lady.” Mr. La ne we nt to Mr. Cordell’s residenc e ar ound 6:30 to 7 :00 a .m. , a nd he
, Ms. Al le n, a nd Mr

. Cor de ll we nt loo kin g fo r De fe nd a nt, bu t the y w e re un able to f indhim or the vic tim

.

Detec tive Joe Shaw of the Major Crimes Division, Missi ng Persons Unit, test ified that he worke d on the victim’s case with D etec tive Jeff Dea n. On May 22, 2006, he assisted Dete ctive De an with interviewing De fenda nt. At the time, the victim’s body had not been f ound. Def

endant wa s very calm and said that he was unawa re of the victim’s w here abouts. He also den i ed a sexual relationship wit h her. O n the eve ni n g o f M ay 2 4
, 2006, Detec tive Shaw was pr esent whe n De fe nd a nt w a s lo c a te d at Ka nku’ s ser vic e statio n an d tak e n into c us tod y. In ve sti gator Ja me s T a te

was also prese nt. The victim’s body had been found the previous day. D etec tive Shaw testified that

a fe ma le of fi c e r a rrive d to tr a ns po rt

De fe nd a nt, a nd De te c tiv e Sha w ro de in the pa tr ol c ar w ith the m. Def endant be gan yelling, cur sing, and kicking the door f rame of the c ar. The fema le offic er pulled over, got out of the patrol car , and a male office r took he r place

. Once the fema le office r got out the

c ar, De fe nd a nt c a lme d d ow n. De fe nd a nt w a s th e n ta ke n t o th e po lice se rv ic e c e nte r andfo rm a lly

arr ested.

Investigator Steve Wiertel of the c rime sce ne unit testified that on the evening of May 22, 2006, he collec ted clothing and DNA from Def endant. He also took photogr aphs. Def endant’ s shirt

wa s tu rn e d in sid e ou t w he n I nv e sti ga tor W ie rt e l took

it. He the n tu rn e d a ll o f the e vid e nc e ov e r t o Investigator G reg Ma

rdis.

Investigator G reg Ma

rdis of the c rime sce ne unit testified that on the morni n g of May 22, 2006, he wa s dispatched to 1213 Ea st Thirteenth Street. He talked with De tective De an and photographe d the location. He also looked over the victim’s car

and saw stains on the back se at that appea red to be dried blood. The vic tim’s purse was o n the front right floorboard of the vehicle

. Investigator Ma

rdis testified that the car was then towe d to the crime sc ene unit proc essing bay. He

c oll e c te d sa mpl e s fr om the se a t c ov e r that te ste d po sit ive fo r blo od

. Th e sa mpl e s we re the n s e nt t o the Tenne ssee Bure au of I nvestigation (TBI) f or further testing.

On May 23, 2006, In v es tigator Mardis re sponded to the crime scene at Asbury Par k. The

are a appe are d to be a local illegal trash dump. He sa w the victim’s body with a pallet a nd board on top of her. N ear

the body, he f

ound a pair

of women’ s underwe ar a nd blue jean shorts. I nvestigator Mardis and other officer s remove d the pallet and board from the top of t he victim ’s body. S he wa s lyi ng fa c e do wn a nd

we ari ng on ly a

wh ite sh irt. Ba se d on the ins e c t a c tiv ity , I nv e sti gator Ma rd is

c on c lud e d th a t th e vic tim had been de a d f or so me tim e . H e r b od y w a s a lso in f ull ri go r m ortis

. Investigator Ma

rdis noticed scr atch mar

ks on the victim, and her pe lvis appear ed to be f lattened.

Shana Mills is employed as a DNA analyst II and fore nsic biologist for Bode T ec h n ology in Lo rt on , Vir gin ia

. In 20 06 a nd20 07 , th e TBI se nt e vid e nc e to b e pr oc e sse d f or DN A. Th e ite ms in this case we re te sted for the prese nce of blood and semen. Ms. Mills testified that blood was found on the right rea

r bac k seat c o v er o f the victim’s ca r and in thre e ar eas on the right rea r seat cover

.-4-

Semen was de tected but not conf irmed in two are as on De fenda nt’s pants. Ms. Mills t estified that the r e w e r e f

o u r ar e a s o f b lo o d f o u n d o n D e f

e n d a n t’ s s h irt, a n d s e me n w a s f o u n d o n th e v ic ti m’ s vaginal and a nal swabs. Blood was a lso indicated on a slee veless shirt.

Sarah Shi elds is a DNA Analyst III and forensic biol ogist for Bode Tec hnology. She tested the samples in the pre sent ca se for DNA pr ofiles. She determined that the right rea r back seat c over from the victim’s ca

r conta ined the victim’s complete D NA prof ile, and the r ear

seat c over c ontained a par tial profile tha t i n cluded a male contributor. Ms. Shi elds testified that the DN A profiles on De fe ndant ’s sh irt w e re c on sis te nt w ith bo th D e fe nd a nt andthe vic tim . O n o ne are a of the sh irt, which conta ined a mixture of DNA from both D efe ndant and the victim, Ms. Shi elds determined that in the “U.S. African- Americ an population, 99.99972 per cent of the U.S

. p o p u lation can be exclude d.” Ms. Shields testified that the “sperm frac tion” on the victim’s vaginal swa b contained Def endant’ s complete DN A pro f il e , an d th e“ s p e rm f

r a ction” fr om the victim’s rec tal swab c ontained

a partial profile consistent with D efe ndant. She also said that one of the blood spots on De fenda nt’s shirt contained a

“mixture” that i n cl u d ed both a DNA pr ofile fr om a sec ond male and D NA consistent with Defe ndant.

The Ha mil t o n C ounty Medical Exa miner, Dr. Fra nk King, perf ormed a n autopsy on the victim. He determined that the cause of de ath was man u al s t ra ngulation. The victim also had multipl e blunt forc e injuries consisting of contusions or bruises on both side s of the front pe lvis and the ri gh t th igh , a ndthe vic tim ’s pe lvi s w a s fr a c tur e d in e igh t pl a c e s. Th e fr a c tur e s o c c ur re d w hil e the victim was alive. Dr. King found contusions on the skin of the victim’s right hip, left arm, lef t elbow, lef t dorsal wrist, right arm, left thigh, a nd left leg. The re w as also a bite c ontusion where the victim’s teeth had c linched aga inst and bitten into her tongue. The tissue on the inside of the victim’s upper lip was torn beca use her lip had been pulled a way f rom the gum. Dr. King testified that there was a

fre sh contusion on the inner wall of the victim’s va gina consistent with penetration, and ther e we re m u l t i ple hemorr hages unde r the victim’s sca lp indicating points of impact. There

wer e also injuries to he r neck. He felt that the victim would have bled f rom her nose , mouth, and

rec tum.
Dr. King found a

brasions on the victim’s bac k and right leg. The abra sions on the victim’s back had a post-mortem appea ranc e, and the patterns we re c onsistent with her body being dra gged. Dr. King testified tha t the pelvis is a very strong structure , and it would require an exc essive amount of f o r c e , s u c h a s a tr a f

f i c a c c i d e n t , f

a l l f r o m a s i g n i f

i c a n t h e i g h t , o r a v e r y a g g r e s s i v e be a tin g, to brea k the bones. He said that the fr actur es could ha ve bee n cause d by stomping, and the victim’s injuries would have c aused a significant amount of pain. Dr. King testified that the pelvic f rac tures and manua l stra ngulation oc curr ed close together. He estimated that the fra cture s cause d a twentyperc ent loss of blood volume, which took sever al minutes a nd was enough to c ause death. Dr. King testified that the victim’s blood contained 0.171% ethyl alcohol. He explained t h at bacte ria fr om de c omp os iti on of

the vic tim ’s bo dy wo uldc a us e “ ro ug hly ha lf ” of the a mou nt o f et hy l a lc oh ol i n the victim’s blood. The drug sc ree n was ne gative. Dr . King testified that the decomposition of the victim’s body was consistent with her de ath occ urring on May 21, 2006.

II. Ana lys is-5-

Def endant a rgues that ther e we re insuff icient fa cts and circ umstances from which the jury could find beyond a

rea sonable doubt that he was t he perpetrator of t he charge d offe nses in this case. He fu rthe r c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e wa s in su ff ic ie nt to es ta

bli sh pr e me dit a tio n withre sp e c t to his first degre e murde r convic tion.

When a defe ndant challenges t he sufficiency of the convicting evidenc e, we must review the evidenc e in a light most favora ble to the prosec ution in determining whether a rational trier of fac t could have found all the e ssential elements of the crime be yond a re asonable doubt. Jackson v. Vi rg ini a, 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 19 , 9 9 S. Ct. 27 81 , 2 78 9, 61 L. Ed . 2 d 5 60 (1 97 9) . O nc e a jury f ind s a defe ndant guilty, his or her pre sumption of innocence is removed a nd repla ce d on appea l with a presumption of guilt. St ate v. Blac k, 815 S.W.2d 166, 175 (Tenn. 1991) . The de fenda nt has the burden of overc oming this presumption, and the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the e vid e nc e a lon g w ith a ll r e a so na ble inf e re nc e s w hic h may b e dr a wn fr om that e vid e nc e . I d. ; State

v. Tu gg le
, 63 9 S.W .2 d 91 3, 91 4 (T e nn . 1 98 2) . T he jury is pr e su me d to ha ve re so lve d a ll c on fl ic ts and dra wn any rea sonable inferenc es i n favor of t he st ate. State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984) . Questions conce rning the cre dibilit y of witnesses, the weight and value to be given the e vid e nc e , a nda ll f

a c tua l is su e s ra ise d by the e vid e nc e are re so lve d by the tr ie r of fa c t andno t th is court. State v. Bl and, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) . These r ules are applicable to findings of guilt predicate d upon direc t evidence
, circ umstantial evidenc e, or a combination of both direct and circ umstantial evidence . State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1990).

The identity of the pe rpetrator is an essential e lement of an y crime. State v. Rice , 184 S.W.3d 646, 662 (Tenn. 2006) (citing State v

. T h o m p s o n , 519 S.W.2d 789, 793 (Tenn. 1975) ). Sufficient proof

of the pe rpetrator’s identity may be e stab l i s h ed t h rough circ umstantial evidence alone. Rice
, 184 S.W.3d at 662. The c ircumstantial evidenc e, howe ver, must be not only consistent with the guilt of the a ccuse d, but it mus t also be inconsistent with innocenc e and must exc lude eve ry other re asonable t h eo ry o r hypotheses exc ept that of guilt. State v. Tharpe , 726 S.W.2d 896, 900 (Tenn. 1987) . In additi on, “‘it m ust establish such a ce rtainty of guilt of the ac cused a s to convince the mind beyond a r easona ble doubt that [the de fenda nt] is the one who c ommitt ed the c rime.’” Id. (quoting Pruitt v. S tate, 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 256, 460 S.W.2d 385, 390 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970))

.
“ A c on vic tio n may b e ba se d e nti re ly o n c ir c umsta nti a l e vid e nc e wh e re the fa c ts a re ‘s o c le arl y interwove n and conne cted that the f inger of guilt is pointe d unerringly at the Def endant a nd the Def end a n t a lo n e

. ” St a te v

. Re id
, 9 1 S. W

. 3 d 2 4 7
, 2 7 7 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o ti n g St a te v

. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 569 (Tenn. 1993) ).

De fe nd a nt w a s c on vic te d o f a bu se of a c or ps e . A per so n co mmi ts this of fe ns e by kn ow ing ly physically mistreating a corpse “in a manner offe nsive to the sensibiliti es of a n ordinary pe rson” or disposing of a corpse in a manner known to be in violation of a law. T.C.A. § 39- 17-312 (2006) . He

was a lso convicted of f

irst degre e pre meditated murde r, whic h is a preme ditated and intentional kill in g o f a n o th e r

. T

. C. A

. 3 9

- 1 3

- 2 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 )

. A n a c t is p r e me d it a te d if th e a c t is d o n e a f te r the

exer cise of r efle ction and judgment. Id. at (d). Furthermor e,

Premeditation means that the intent to kill must have bee n fo rm ed prior to the ac t itself. It is not necessa

ry that t he purpose to kill pre- exist in the mind of the acc used for a ny definite pe riod of time. The me ntal state of the a ccuse d at the time the-6-

acc used allege dly decided to kill must be care fully considere d in order to de termine whether the ac cused w as suffic iently free from exc itement and passion as to be capa ble of pre meditation.

Id.

The e lement of pre meditation is a question of fac t for the jury to de t er m i n e b as ed upon

c on sid e ratio n o f a ll o f the e vid e nc e . St a te v. Sut tle s, 30 S.W .3 d 2 52 , 2 61 (T e nn . 2 00 0) (c iti ng Sta te

v. Bla nd , 958 S.W .2 d 6 51 , 6 60 (T e nn . 1 99 7) ). Be c a us e pr e me dit a tio n in vo lve s th e de fe nd a nt’ s st a te of mind, conce rning which ther e is often no dire ct evidenc e, Te nnessee case s have long re cognize d that preme ditation may also be proved by circ umstantial evidence . State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600, 614-616 (Te nn. 2003) (c iting S tate v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 54 1 (T en n . 1992)). Our supreme c ourt has provide d a list of non-exc lusive circumstanc es that would justify a jury in finding

or inf e rring pr e me dit a tio n: the us e of a de a dly we apo n o n an un arm e d vic tim ; the pa rt ic ula r c ru e lty of a killing; the defe ndant’s thre at s o r decla rations of intent to kill the victim; the def endant’ s pr oc ur e me nt o f a

we apo n; p re pa

ratio ns take n to c on c e a l th e c ri me un de rt ake n b e fo re the c ri me is committed; de struction or secr etion of evidenc e of the killing; and the de fenda nt’s calm deme anor immediately afte r the killing. St ate v. Pike, 978 S. W. 2 d 904, 914-15 (Te nn. 1998); Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 660. A jury, howeve r, is not limit ed to any specific evidenc e whe n determining whether a def endant intentionally killed the victim after the exer cise of ref lection and judgment. See T .C.A. 39-13-202( d). All of the c ircu ms ta n c e s of the off

ense a nd the def

endant’ s conduct may be considere d in determining whethe r the a ct was pr emedita t ed

. Da v i d son, 121 S.W.3d at 615 (citing State v. LaChanc e, 524 S.W.2d 933, 937 (Te nn. 1975)).

Viewing the e vidence in a light most favor able to the State, the proof clea rly established that Def endant wa s the perpetrator of t he offenses in this case. The victim left James Cordell’s re sidence with Defe ndant, and whe n she wa s last seen a live, sh e wa s with him on May 21, 2006. This was consistent with the medical e xaminer’ s t es t i m ony conce rning time of death. When De fenda nt

re turne d th e vic tim ’s c ar a ndke ys to M r. Cor de ll’ s re sid e nc e , h e sa id that th e vic tim ha d g ott e n in to an eighteen-whe eler with someone at the Fast Track ga s station. However , he later came back to the residenc e and sa id that the victim was d ea d an d t hat he c ould take Mr. Corde ll and others to her body, which wa s later f

ound in an illegal trash dump with a boa rd and pa llet on top of it. The victim’s blood was found on Def endant’ s shirt, and his semen was found on the vaginal a nd rec tal swabs take n from the victim.

Likewise, the p ro o f clearly esta blished that Defe ndant ac ted with preme ditation when he killed the victim. T h e k i l l i n g in this case wa s particular ly crue l. The victim died of manua l strangulation. She also had multiple blunt forc e inj uries and contusions, and her pelvis was fr actur ed in eight places. The fra cture s occur red w hile the vi ctim was alive, and the medical examiner te stified that it would have re quired a n exce ssive amoun t of for ce to br eak the bones. He said that the fra cture s could have been c aused by stomping, and the victim’s injuries wo u ld have c aused a significant amount of pa in. H e al s o t est ified that the manua l strangulation and pelvic f rac tures

occur red c lose together. The victim’s uppe r lip ha d been pulled awa y from the gum, and the re w ere multipl e hemor

rhage s under he r sca lp indicating points of impact. There was also a fr esh contusion on the inner w all of the victim’s vagina consistent with penetration.-7-

There was some evidenc e that Def endant a cted with calmness immediately after the killing. As state d abo ve , De fe nd a nt re turne d the vic tim ’s c ar andke ys to M r. Cor de ll’ s r e sid e nc e a ndsa id that the victim ha d gotten into a n eighteen- whee ler with some one at the Fast Tr ack g as s t at ion. Howeve r, he la ter c ame ba ck to the residenc e and said that the victim wa s dead. Although there w as some testimony that Defe ndant was upse t, Detec tive Joe Shaw testi fi ed that Defenda nt was very calm during a n interview on Ma y 22, 2006, befor e the victim’s body was found. Def endant sa id that he wa s unawa

re o f the victim’s whe rea bouts, and he de nied a se xual re lationship with her. De fe nd a nt atte mpt e d to se c re te or dis po se of th e vi cti m’s b od y b y d ra gg ing it t o a n il le ga l tr a sh du mp i n a se c lud e d a

re a on a de a d- e ndstr e e t a ndpla c ing a pa lle t a ndbo ardon top of it.

Th e se c ir c ums ta nti a l fa c ts ar e “ so c le arl y inte rw ov e n an d co nn e c te d tha t the fi ng e r o f g uil t is pointed at t he Defenda nt and the Def endant alone.” Reid, 91 S.W.3d at 277. We conclude that

a rational trier of f

act c ould find beyond a r easona ble doubt that Def

endant wa s the perpe trator of the offe nses of fir st degree murder a nd abuse of a cor p s e. S i m ilarly, we c onclude that De fenda nt acte d with premeditation with respe ct to his first degre e murde r convic tion.

CO NC LU SION

For the fore going rea sons, the judgments of the trial court are aff irmed.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WO ODALL, JU DGE