### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma rc h 4, 200 8 STATE OF TENNESS EE v . SPENCER LOUI S LARK, J R.
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Tip ton County No. 5137 Joseph H. Walk er, III, Judge

No. W2007-00684-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled March 5, 2009
Following a jury

trial with co-de fenda

nt Maurice Nash, De fenda nt, Spen cer

L ouis L ark, Jr., was fo un d guil ty

of tw o c ounts of

a g g rav a te d a ssa

ult , a Cla ss C fe lony , a

nd on e c ount o f r e c kle ss e n d an g e r me n t w it h a d e a d ly w e a

p o n , a Cl a s s E f

e lo n y . F o ll o w in g a s e n te n c in g h e ar in g , the trial c ourt se nte nc e d D e fe nd ant a s a Rang e I I , mu lti ple of

fe nd e r, to s ix y e ars fo r e a c h a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult conviction, and two y ear s for his felony rec kless endang erme nt conviction. The trial c ourt order ed Def endant to ser

ve his sentenc es conc urre ntly for a n eff ective sentenc e of six y ear s. Defe ndant does not appea l the leng th or manner of service of his sentenc es. I n his appea l, Defe ndant cha lleng es the sufficie ncy

of the c onvicting e vidence

. After a thorough review, we affirm the j udg ment of t he trial c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which N OR MA M C G EE O GL E and D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J J ., joined. J ames E. Thoma s, Memphis, Tennessee (on appeal); and Fra nk Deslaur iers, Coving ton, Tennesse e (at trial) for the a

ppellant, Spence r L ouis L ark, Jr. Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; De sh e a

Du lany , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; D. Michae l Dunavant, District Attorne y Gene ral; James W al t er F ree land, J r., Assistant District Attorney Gene ral; and P. Ne al Oldham, Assistant District Attorn ey Gene ral, for the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee. OP IN ION I. Bac kgr ound Kathe ri ne Smith te sti fi e d th a t sh e liv e d a t 50 5B Simo nto n St re e t in Cov ing ton . M s. Smith
sa id t hat sh e and

he r f a mil y we re havin g a

ba rb e qu e on Sun da y a ft e rn oo n, Ap ri l 17 , 2 00 5. Whil e-2-

the family was sitting in the y ard, Ms. Smith heard the sound of g unshots. She looked up and saw
a g re e n or g old c ar cl os e ly fo llo we d by a wh ite c ar dr ivi ng“ re a l f a st. ” Ms. Smith to ld h e r f a mil y to
ru n b e c a us e sh e wa s a fr a id t

he ve hic le s w ou ld t

ur n aro und a

nd dr ive ba c k d ow n h e r s tr e e t. M s. Smith sai d tha t she c ou ld not ide nti fy the dr ive rs of

the ve hic le s, bu t sh e ha d s e e n c o- de fe nd ant N a sh dr ivi ngthe wh ite c ar be fo re the inc ide nt. Ms. Smit h be lie ve d that sh e he ard a bo ut t hr e e g un sh ots

. Ms. Smi th acknowled ged t h at she told the investigating of fice rs that co- defe ndant Nash w as the driver of the white ca

r, but she said that she w as only repe ating what other

people ha d told her.

Ga ry Wor tha m te sti fi e d th a t he dr ov e fr om H ay wo od County to C ov ing ton

to v isi t hi s c hil d
and th e chi ld’ s mo the r, Sha

nta Ma so n, on

Ap ri l 17 , 2 00 5. Mr . Wo rt ham sa id t

hat he arr ive d in Covington betwe en 12:30 p.m. and 1:00 p.m., in his g old B uick Reg al. Mr. Wortham stopped at an intersec tion, and a bur gundy four- door Cutlass pulled up beside him. Mr. Wortham identified De fe nd ant a s th e dr ive r o f t he Cut la ss but c ou ld not ide nti fy the tw o pe op le wh o we re in the c a r w ith Def endant. Mr. Wortham said that De fenda nt j u m p ed o u t of the Cutlass, pulled off his shirt, and y elled at Mr. W o rt h am , “What’s this sh__ y ou g oing a round telling y ou g oing to do to me? ” Mr. Wortham said that he did not know what Def endant wa s talking a

bout and that he ha d not had any disag ree ments with D efe ndant. Ms. Ma son and a friend came up to the intersec ti o n an d p u l led Def endant ba ck fr om Mr. Wortham’s car . Def endant told Mr. Wortham to leave Covington.

Mr. Wortham drove down Pee ler Stree t, an d De fe n dant followed him, “r iding up on [Mr. Wortham’s] bum per.” Mr. Wortham stopped at a red lig ht, and one of the passeng ers in De fenda nt’s vehicle tr ied to g et into the back seat of Mr. W ortham’s vehicle. Mr. W ortham ra n the re d light and
w a s a b l e t o dr i v e aw ay.

Mr. Wortham said that he we nt to the house of his cousin, Anthony Powell. Mr. Wortham tol d M r. Pow e ll a

bo ut t he inc ide nt a

nd a sk e d Mr. Pow e ll to dri ve wi th him to M s. Ma so n’ s h ou se beca use Mr. W ortham needed to g ive M s. Mason s ome disposable diape rs for the child. The re turn trip was uneve ntful, and Mr. Wortham and Mr. Powe ll visi ted wit h Ms. Mason for awhile. L ater ,-3-

Mr. Wortham, Mr. Powell, a nd Ms. Mason’s brother , Michae l Mason, left to drive to the store in Mr. Wor tha m’ s v e hic le . M r. Pow e ll w a s in the fr on t pas se ng e r se a t and Mr . Mas on wa s in the ba c k s e a t.

Mr. Wortham stated that he wa s driving dow n Be st St ree t when he sa w co- defe ndant Nash, Defe nd ant, and

tw o o the r i nd ivi du a ls a

pp ro a c hin g in a

wh ite B uic k L e Sa

br e fr om t

he op po sit e direc tion. Mr. Wortham identified co-de fenda nt Nash in court a s the driver of the ve hicle. Mr. Wortham said that D efe ndant was r iding in the ba ck seat behind co-de fenda nt Nash. Mr. Wortham did not know the other two men in the car. Co-de fenda nt Nash turned his c ar a

round and dr ove up behind Mr. Wortham. Co-defe ndant Nash pulled his c ar up to the driver’ s side of Mr. Wortham’s vehicle a nd tried to make Mr . Wortham stop. Mr. W ortham drove betwee n two parke d car s, and codefe ndant Nash a g ain followed him for approximately two blocks. Mr. Wortham said that he he ard g unshots when he a

pproac hed a stop sign in front of a housing de velopment projec t. Mr. Wortham said there wer e other people driving and walking in the area. Mr . Wortham acknowle dg ed that the tw o v e hic le s w e re dr ivi ngfa st.

Mr . Wo rt ham he ard

a bu lle t hi t th e tr

un k o f h is c ar. He du c ke d do wn and dr ov e of f. At tr ia l, Mr. Wortham identified a photog raph of his vehicle wit h five bullet holes in the vehic le’s trunk, taillight, and bumper . Mr. W o rtham said that one of the bullets pierce d the trunk and struc k a speake r behind the backse at wher e Mr. Mason was sitti ng . Mr. Wortham sa id that he drove down L ong Street with co-de fenda nt Nash behind him and turned rig ht on Sim onton Street. Mr. Wortham hear d more gunshots. Mr. Wortham said that co-de fenda nt N ash pulled awa

y from his vehicle whe n Mr . Wo rt ham turn e d o nto B e st St

re e t.

On cr oss-examination, Mr. W ortham denie d that he off ere d to drop the c harg es if De fenda nt paid for the repa irs to his vehicle. Mr. Wortham sa id that instea d, Def endant initiated the of

fer afte r Def endant wa s relea sed fr om jail. Mr. Wortham sa id that the investigating office rs told him that codefe ndant Nash be lieved that the r ims on Mr. W ortham’s ve hicle belong ed to co- defe ndant Nash.-4-

Offic er A llen Wil son, a dete ctive with the C ovington Pol ice De partment at the time of the shooting, testified that he photog raphe d Mr. Wo rt h am ’s vehicle on A pril 18, 2005. He re trieved some bullet fra g ments from the ve hicle’s taillig ht and the spea ker in the trunk.

Shanta L ashay

Mason testified that she lived on P ee l er Road in Coving ton and that Mr. Wortham was her

child’s fathe r. Ms. Ma son said she saw Mr. Wortham driving down Be st St ree t wi th D e fe nd ant be hin d him

. De fe nd ant pu lle d his ve hic le up be sid e Mr . Wo rt ham’ s v e hic le . M s. Mason said that De fenda nt got out of hi s v eh i cl e, pulled his shirt off, and be g an y elling at Mr. Wortham. Ms. Mason and her f riend, Joy anna White, ra

n up to the car s beca

use t h ey thought the
men wer e g oing to f

ight. Ms. White pushed Def endant a way from the car s. Ms. Mason s aid t hat Mr. Wor tha m dr ov e awa

y wi th D e fe nd ant’ s v e hic le fo llo wi nghim

. Ms. Mason said that two day s later, c o-def endant Na sh drove by

her house at a fast spee d while Def endant hungout of the window with a g un in his hand. On c ross-examination, Ms. Mason
c lari fi e d th a t D e fe nd ant f ir st d ro ve by he r hou se a lon e . Mr . Wortham wa s beh ind De fe nd ant o n h is way to visit Ms. Mason. Def endant dr ove on p as t M s . Mason’s house a nd then re turned with code fe nd ant N a shdr ivi ngDe fe nd ant’ s v e hic le . M r. Wor tha m and Ms. Ma so n w e re si tt ingon Ms. Mason’s front porch when co-de fenda nt N ash drove by . Ms. Mason acknow ledg ed that De fenda nt liv e d in he r ne ig hb or

ho od

. Ms. Ma so n sai d tha t she re po rt e d the inc ide nt to the po lic e bu t no a rr e sts
wer e made

.
Michae l Mason testified that he wa s living with his sister, Shanta Mason, in Covington at the time of the offe nses. Mr. Mason said that he assisted Ms. Ma son in tr y ing to stop a

potential fig ht betwee n Def

endant a nd Mr. Wortham be fore the shooting incident. Mr. Mason said that De fenda nt told Mr. Wortham that he had hea rd that Mr. Wortham wa s go i n g t o d o something to him. Mr. Mason said that af

ter the a ltercatio n at t h e st op sign, Mr . Wortham drove off in one direc tion and Def endant in anothe r.-5-

Mr. Mason drove with Mr. Wortham to the store later that evening

. Mr. M ason spotted codefe ndant Nash’ s vehicle at the end of B est Street. Mr. Mason said that he did not see D efe ndant i n t he ca r but identified the two other passeng ers in the ve hicle as Stanley Nash a nd Fr ed Mason. Mr . M a so n pr ov ide d a sim ila r de sc ri pti on of the e ns uin g c ha se . M r. Ma so n s a id t hat th e g un sh ots
commence d when Mr. Wortham pulled up at a stop sign. Mr. M ason l ooked bac k and sawa man leaningout of the open front passeng er side car window, pointing a g un at Mr. Wortham’s vehicle

. Mr . M a so n id e nti fi e d St a

nle y Na sha s th e pe rs on

wh o w a s si tti ng in the fr on t pa sse ng e r s e a t and sa id that there was only

one more person in the c ar.

On cr oss-examination, Mr. M ason acknowledg ed that he told the investigating office rs that Stanle y Na shand F re d M a so n w e re the sh oo te rs . Stanley Nash testified on behalf

of co- defe ndant Nash. Mr . Nash a cknowledg ed that he ha d enter ed a plea of g uilty

to char g es ar ising out of the shooting incident. He stated that he testified at the g uilty plea submi ssion hear ing that Fr ed Mason was the only one in the ca

r with him when the shooting oc curr ed.

On cr oss-examination, Mr. Nash acknowledg ed that he gave a stateme nt to the investigating office rs deny

ing his invol v ement in the shooting but insist ed that the state ment was not true. Mr

. Nash said that F red Ma son did not know that Mr. Nash wa s go i n g t o s h oot at Mr. Wortham. Mr. Nash said that he and Mr. Wortham had eng ag ed in a n alterc ation at a nig ht club sometime befor e the inc ide nt. Mr . Na sh de nie d tha t Fr e d M a so n w a s f oll ow ingMr . Wo rt

ham’ s v e hic le . M r. Na sh
sa id t hat a ft e r he sh ot a

pp ro xima te ly

six tim e s, F re d M a so n ma de him g e t out of

the c ar. Mr . N a sh de nie d th a t he ta lke d to Ke ith B ro wn a bo ut the inc ide nt wh e n th e y we re bo th i nc arc e ra

te d in the ja il. Mr. Nash sa id that Mr. Br o wn l ied when he said that Mr. Na sh told him that Mr. Nash a nd Fr ed Ma so n w e re the sh oo te rs .
II. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence-6-

Def endant a rg ues that the e vidence wa s i n s u fficie nt to support a findingthat he wa s criminally

responsible for

the offe nses. Def

endant submits that neither Mr. N ash nor M ic h a e l Mason testified that he wa s even in the ve hicle whe n the s hootings occurr ed, nor was there any proof that he pr ov ide d any e nc oura g e me nt to Mr

. Na sh wh o te sti fi e d th a t he wa s th e sh oo te r. De fe nd ant a lso p o i n t s o u tt h at t h er e w as n o ev i d en ce t h at h e w as ar m edo r t h at h e w as i nan y p o s i t i o nt o d i s ch ar ge
a we apon at Mr. Wortham’s ve hicle.

I n r e vie wi ngDe fe nd ant' s c ha lle ng e to t he su ff ic ie nc y of the c on vic tin g e vid e nc e , w e mus t revie w the evidenc e in a light most fa vorable to the prosec ution in determining w hether a rational tr ie r o f f a c t c ou ld h ave fo un d a ll the e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a reas on a ble do ub t. J ackson v. V irg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979). Once a jury finds a def

endant g uilty , his or her presumption of innocenc e is r emoved and re place d on appea l with a presumption of g uilt. S tate v. B lack, 815 S.W.2d 166, 175 (Tenn. 1991). The defe n d an t has the burde n of
overc oming this presumpti o n, and the State is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the
e vid e nc e a lon g wi th a ll r e a sonab le in fe re nc e s w hic h ma y be dr awn fr om t hat e vid e nc e . I d. ; State
v. Tu g g le , 6 39 S.W. 2d

91 3, 91 4 (T e nn . 19 82 ). Th e jur y is p re su me d to have re so lve d a ll c on fl ic ts and dra wn any rea sonable infe renc es in favor of the State. State v. S heff ield, 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984) . Questions conce rning the credibility of wit nesses, the weig ht and value to be g iven the e vid e nc e , a

nd a ll f a c tua l is su e s r a ise d b y

the e vid e nc e are re so lve d b y the tr ie r o f fa c t and

no t th is court. State v. B land, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). These rules ar e applica ble to finding s of g uilt predicate d upon direc t evidence , circ umstantial evidenc e, or a combination of bot h direc t and circ umstantial evidence . State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).

Def endant wa s char g ed with the ag g ravated assault of G ary Wortham and Michae l Mason. As re le va nt h e re , a pe rs on c omm its a g g ra vate d ass a

ult wh o “[i]nt e nti on a lly or kn ow ing ly

c omm its
an assa ult as define d in § 39-13-101 and

. . . uses or display s a deadly wea pon.” T.C.A. § 39-13-102. “A pe rson commits a ssault w ho . . . [i ]nt entionally or knowing ly

cause s another to r easona bly fea r imm ine nt b od ily

inj ur y .” I d. § 3 9- 13 -1 01 (a )( 2) . D e fe nd ant wa s als o ch arg e d w ithfe lony re c kle ss endang erme nt which is the rec kless eng ag ement “in c onduct which p l ac es or may place another-7-

person in imminent da

ng er of death or serious bodily injury ” by use of a deadly wea pon. I d. § 39-13- 103.

Th e Sta te purs ue d D e fe nd ant’ s c on vic tio ns of a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult and fe lony re c kle ss
e nd ang e rm e nt u

nd e r a the or y of c ri min a l r e sp on sib ili ty . T e nn e sse e law p ro vid e s th at a person i s “cr iminally

responsible for

an off ense c ommitt ed by the conduct of anothe r if: [A] cting with intent to pr omote or assist the commission of the offe nse, or to the be nefit in the proc eeds or results of the offe nse, the pe rson solicits, directs, aids, or attempts to aid another person to commit the offense .” T

. C

. A

. § 3 9

- 1 1

- 4 0 2 ( 2 )

. C r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s n o t i t s e l f a s e p ar a t e c r i m e ; r a t h e r , i ti s “ s o l e l y a theory by which the State may

prove the defe ndant' s g uilt of the allege d offe nse . . . based upon the conduct of

another person.” State v. L emac ks , 996 S.W .2d 166, 170 (Tenn. 1999)

.
Un de r a the or y of c ri min a l r e sp on sib ili ty , a de fe nd ant' s p re se nc e and c omp anio ns hip wi th the perp et ra t o r of a

felony befor e and a fter the commission of the offe nse ar e cir cumstance s from which that def

endant' s participation in the cr ime may be inferre d. State v. Ba ll, 973 S.W .2d 288, 293 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) . No particula r act need be shown, and the de fenda nt need not have play ed a phy sical role in the c rime in order to be held cr iminally

responsible for

the cr ime. State v. Caldwell, 80 S.W .3d 31, 38 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) . Rather, to be held criminally responsible for t h e a ct s o f an o t h er , t h e d ef en d an t n ee d o n l y “a s s o ci at e h i m s el f wi th t h e v en tu re , ac twi t h kn o wl ed ge that t he off

ens e is t o b e c omm itt e d, and sh are in t

he c ri min a l in te nt o f t

he pr inc ipl e in t

he fi rs t deg ree .” State v. Maxey , 898 S.W .2d 756, 757 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

.
Al tho ug h M ic ha e l Ma so n and Sta nle y Na sh te sti fi e d th a t D e fe nd ant w a s n ot i n th e ve hic le wh e nt h e s h o o t i n g o c c u r r e d , M r . W o rt h a m ’ s t e s t i m o n y c l e ar l y p l a c e d D e f e n d an ti nt h e v e h ic le during the incident. Inconsistencies a nd co n fl i cts in the evidenc e ar e lef t to the jury

to resolve. Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d at 6 5 9

. Vi ew i n g the evidenc e in a lig ht most favorable to the State, Michae l Mason, Shanta Mason, a nd Mr. Wortham testified th at Def endant attempted to eng ag ed Mr. Wortham in an alterc ation hours bef ore the shooting incide nt. Mr. Wortham testified that later that day , co-de fenda

nt Nash, with Def

endant in the vehicle, f

ollowed Mr. Wortham’s vehic le for a period-8-

of time and attempted to force Mr. W o rt ham to stop. W hen Mr. Wortham mana g ed to elude c odefe ndant Nash’ s vehicle, c o-def endant Na sh caug ht up with him and someone in co-de fenda nt Nash’s ve hicle beg an to dischar g e a w eapon. One of the bul lets pierc ed the trunk of Mr. W ortham’s vehicle a nd lodge d in a speaker dire ctly behind the vehic le’s bac k seat whe re Micha el Mason wa s sitti ng . Ms. Ma son testified that co-de fenda nt N ash drove by her house two day s lat er wh i l e Mr. Wor tha m w a s v isi tin g he r, and

De fe nd ant l e ane d o ut o f a n o pe n w in do w di sp lay inga g un in h is hand.

Ms. Smi th testified that her f amily , including her gra

ndchildren, w ere in the y ard w hen the two vehicles dr ove by , and that she hear d the sound of g unfire. Ms. Smith instructed the childre n to run bec ause she was afr aid they would be struck by a bullet. Mr. Wortham acknowle dg ed that the two vehicles wer e speeding when the g unshots we re fired, a nd that there wer e pede strians and other dri v er s i nt h e v i ci n i t y

o f t h e s h o o t i n g.

Ba sed on the fore g oing, a rational trier of fac t c ould f ind be y ond a rea sonable dou b t t hat Def endant a cted with intent to promote or assist in the commission of the ag g ravated assaults and
re ck l es s en d an ger m en to ff en s es , t h at De fe n d an tas s o ci at edh i m s el f w i t h t h e o ff en s es b ef o re , d u ri n g, and af ter their commission, that Def endant acted with knowledg e that the offenses were goingto be
c omm itt e d, and

that D e fe nd ant w a s thus c ri min a lly re sp on sib le fo r th e co nd uc t of the oth e rs . Def endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.

CO NC LU SION

Af te r a tho ro ug h r e vie w, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL L , J UDGE