### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on

Briefs D ecem

ber 2, 2003
STATE OF TENN ESSEE v. DERRY LAVELLE LOVINS Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dyer C ounty

No. C02-40 Lee Moore, Judge

No. W2003-00309-CCA-R3-CD - Filed F ebruary 4, 2004

A Dy er County

jury found the Defend ant, Der ry Lave lle Lovins, guilty

of second degree murder , and the trial cou

rt senten ced the D efenda

nt to twenty-three

years in prison. The

Defendant now

appeals , contending that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support his conviction. Finding that sufficie nt eviden ce exists, we affir

m the judg

ment of the

trial cou rt. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed
R OBERT W. W EDEMEYER , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J AMES C URWOOD W ITT , J R ., and A LAN E. G LENN , JJ., joined.
Charles M . Agee , Jr., Dy

ersburg , Tennes see, for

the appe llant, De

rry Lave lle Lovins.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter; Michael Moore, Solicitor General; J. Ross Dy er, AssistantAttorney

Genera l; and C. Phillip Biv ens, District A ttorney Genera l, for the appelle e, State of Tennessee.
OPINION I. Facts
A Dyer County Grand Jury

indicted the Defendant, Derry Lavelle L ovins , on the charge of premeditated

first degree murder. A jury found the Defendant guilty of second degree murder , and the trial cou

rt senten ced him to twenty-three

years in prison. The

Defendant appeals contending that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support his conviction.
The following evidence was presented a t the Defendant’s trial: Ashunn Harris testified that he knew the Defendant for about three or four y ears an d knew the

victim, Geoffrey

Burnett, for about one year a

t the date of the killing, December 4, 2001. H arris te stified th at he wa s outside o f his home, whichwas in close proximity to the murder scene , and noticed that the Defendant drove by his house in a green minivan four or five times during the day. H a rris stated that both he and the victim were ou tside Har ris house togethe r when th e Defe

ndant drove by

in his miniva

n. Harr is-2-

testified that he and the victim left Harris house at 6:00 or 6:30 p.m. and that, whe n they left, it was dark outside. Harris stated that he and the vi ctim left H arris ho use in the victim’s car and that the victim was driving while Harri s sat i n the front passenger’s seat. Ha rris testified that he and the victim picked up James “Splat” Barr, who got in the victim’s vehicle and sa t behind Harris. Harris stated that he did not see a gun in the vehicle.
Harrissaid that

the three men were headed bac k to Harris house when they noticed the green minivan the Defendant was driving ear lier. Harris stated that

both cars stopped

at a stop sign and rolled down the w

indows, and the victim and the Defendant “exchange d words.” Harris stated that the Defendant asked the victim for “some chang e” and the victim said that “h e didn’ t h av e [ an y] change for him . . . .” Harris testified that the two kept repeating

these words with raised voices and the Defendant again asked the victim for “change” and the victim said, “The only wa y y ou’re go[ing to] get the change is [if] you

put a bulle

t in my head.” Harris t estified that, af ter the victim made

this statemen t, he h eard the Defendant’s door open and the n heard one shot, after which Harris “got down,” and then he heard another shot. Harris stated that right after the shots were fired he heard the minivan pull away “r

eal fast.”
Harrisstated that

when he raise d his head

back up h e notice d that the victim wa s “laid ou

t” an d bleeding . Harris

opened h is door, th e window o f which w as “buste d out,” an d ran and call e d an ambulance. Harris stated that he did not see a g un in the victim’s possession at any time.
Oncross-e

xamination, Harris s tated tha t, immediately prior

to the shooting, the victim “was about to open the

door. He had cra cked it op en a little

bit.” Harris testified that he did not see the Defendant

make any g esture towards the victim prior to the victim opening his car door. Ha rris also agreed that it was common knowledge in the community that the victim had acted violently towa rds other people in the past. Harris stated that he he ard abou

t an incid ent in November 2001 when the victim went into an apartment and shot someone. Billy Buck, an officer with the Dy ersburg Police De

partmen t, testified that he was on patrol on December 4, 2001, and was the first officer to arrive on the scene of this shooting. The officer stated that, when

he got to the scene, several people were surrounding the vehicle and the passeng er window of the car was “shot out.” The officer stated that blood

covered the victim’s face and it was apparent that he suffered a “serious wound.” The officer stated that

the passenger’s sidedoor was op enand the dr

iver’s si de door w as shut. The offic er state d that he c hecked the victim ’s c ar fo r weapons and did no t find a g un, but he did find a

cell phone in

the victim’s hand. The offi cer sai d that there were no passenge

rs in the victim’s ca

r when he

arriv ed. Officer Buck stated that the Defendant

called the police depa

rtment sh ortly after the

shooting and reported that someone was chasinghim in a vehicle. The officer noted that the description given by the Defendant matched

the victi m’s ve hicle , whic h was p arked a t the s cene of the sh ooti ng. Oncross-examination, the officer admitted that he did notsee any passeng ers in the

vehicle w henhe got to the crime scene and that it was possible that either pa ssenger could have remove d items fro m inside the

car, inc luding a

weapon, when the

y le ft.1 The re was som e confusion as to whether this man’s nam e was Antho ny Goo ch or An thony W illiams. -3- Jim Gray, a

n investigating officer with the Dy ersburg Police Department, testified that on December

4, 2001, he received a call to investigate a s hooting. The officer stated that, when he arrived at the scene, he saw a maroon Pontiac with the victim inside. Officer Gray state d that there was a bullet hole in the center of the driver’s side door, which was closed. The officer stated that the driver’s side window was rolled down and the passeng er’s side door was open and the glass in the window was broken. The officer testified that he did not see any weapon in the victim’s car but that he did see a cell phone ly ing in the victim’s lap.
Officer Gray testified tha

t he heard from the dispatcher that the Defe ndant advised

the police that he had been in an altercation and shooting. The officer testified that he found the van that the Defendant

was driving during the shooting and, af ter searching it, found three .357 live rounds and one glove. The officer testified that his investiga tion revealed that

there w ere four men in the minivan with the Defendant at the time of the shooting: Josh Garrett, Dennis Akins, Billy Thompson, Jr., and Anthony Gooch. 1 The officer testified that

he also de

termined that ther e were two men in the car with the victim at the time of the shooting: James Barr and Ashunn Harris. On cross

examination, Officer Gray testified that

the bullet hole in

the door was about three or four feet be low the victim’s head. Cyn thia Gardner , an e mployee with the medica l examiner’s office, testified that she examined the victim’s body and swabbe d the victim’s hands for gunshot residue. Gardner testified that the victim’s gunshot wound was located just above his left ear. Ga rdner stated

that, fromthe entrance wound, she determined that the gun was more than two fe et away from the victim at the time that it was fired . Gardner determined that when the victim was shot he was looking straight ahead, and the bullet came from a perpe ndicular direction, entering the side of the victim’s hea d.
Laura Hodge, a spe cial agent forensic scientist for the Te nnessee Bureau of I

nvestigation, testified that the gunshot residue test performed on the victim was neg ative, indicating that there was no gunshot residue on the victim’s hands.
John David Fisher, a bail bondsman, testified that he was familiar

with the Defendant. Fisher stated that the Defendant called him at around one o’clock on the afternoon prior to the murd

er to ask if Fisher would be in town that evening because “he thoug ht there may

be a little trouble a nd just might need to make bond.” F isher tes tified tha t the Def endant to ld him

that he mig

ht get in trouble for anassault and would call him if he needed him. Fisher stated that the Defendant called him later that day , around

six or seve

n o’clock in the ev ening, and told hi m t hat he was on his way to turn himself in because someone had been shot.
Oncross-examination, Fisher stated that the Defendant rented property

from Fisher and that some of that property was subleased to the victim. Fisher testified that he was due some rent money on the property tha

t was subleased by the

victim. Fisher

also stated

that the Defendant told him that he was going to the police station because he had shot

someone’s door, but that he did not use the-4-

words murder or homicide.
Mark Rey nolds, an officer with the Dy ersburg Police Department, testified that he was called to the shooting scene on December 4, 2001, and tha t he tried t o locate any

witnesses among the people gathered there. Offic er Reynolds testified that, later in the investigation, he lear ned that Jos h Garret twas a pa ssenge

r in the De fendant ’ s miniva n at the time of the shooting. Garrett took the officer to a location where Garrett said h e dis posed of the murder weapon, and, there, the of ficer located a .357 handgun in a ditch. Officer Rey nolds stated that

the gun had one spent round in the chamber and that he found a “live” ca rtridge on the road near whe re the weapon was found. Billy Williams, an

office r with the Dyersbur

g Police Department, testified that he was called to assist in investigating the shooting. Officer Williams stated that he interviewed the Defendant at eight o’clock on the evening of the shoot ing. The officer testified that he noticed that the Defe ndant was “very upse

t, very ner

vous, and jus t basical ly . . . shaken up.” The officer informed the Defend ant of his Miranda rights, after which the Def endant told the officer that “he had been into it with [the victim]” and that he stopped his minivan next to the victim’s car and words were exchanged. The officer

stated that the Defendant told him that he was asking the victim for money and that the victim

said, “The only

way you ’ll get some money

out of me is to shoot me in the head.” Officer Williams testified that the Defendant stated that he thought the door was about to open “or he saw [the victim] move, and he fired two shots” and then “sped off.” The off icer stated that the Defendant told him that he never saw the victim with a gun.
The officer testified that

the Defe ndant told

him that Josh G arrett a

nd Billy Thompson, Jr., were in the car with him at the time of the shooting. Officer Williams tes tified tha

t Garre tt told him that Garrett had a

9-millimeter handgun, and the investigation also revea led that the Defendant had a weapon. The officer

testifie d that, once Garrett was released, he retrieved his 9-millimeter gun and turned it into the police. On cross-examination, the officer stated that he knew from the be ginning of the investigation that there was an allegation that the victim began to open his door prior to the shoot ing. The offi cer als o admitted that th e Defe ndant told him that the victim’s car “cut us off” prior to the two cars stopping at the stop sign and that the Defendant told him that there wer e two guns, “a 9 [millimeter] and a .357,” in the car at the time of the shooting. Officer Williams testified that the Defendant

told him that he saw the victim reach for something prior to the shooting. The officer testified that the Defendant told him that the victim was making threats to hi s life. The offi cer also stated that he was aware that two Dy ersburg residents complained to police that the victim broke into their apartment and threatened them with a g un on December 12, 2000. Officer Williams testified that he knew the victim’s mother because she wa s an office r with the Ripley Police De partmen t. The Defendant called Tammy Denise Smith who testified that she knew the Defendant from a business that he own ed and oper ated. Smith testified that she also knew the victim for approxima

tely two years

prior to his death. Smith stated thatthe victim told her on the day of the murder that, when he found the Defendant, he was going to kill him. She testif

ied that the victim had a reputation for violence in the community . Smith testified that she told the Defendant that she-5-

heard the victim

threate n the Def endant’ s life. Smit

h stated that, on one oc casion, she saw th e victim pull a gun on

the Defe ndant’s brother a

nd “just poin[t] the gun athim . . . .” On cross-examination, Smith admitted that she did not mention her conversation with the victim, in which he thre aten ed the Defe ndant’s l ife, whe

n she test ified on the Defe

ndant’s b ehalf a

t any previous hearing s. Natasha Spain, the victim’s girlfriend, testified that she knew the Defendant and

that she was living with the victim at the time of his death. Spain testified that she was work ing at the time of the murder and that the victim had driven her to work. She stated that the victim told her on the day of the murder that he was going to go to Ripley and g et a gun, and Spain understood the victim to mean that he wa s going

to get t he gun “to take care of a pr oblem” that he was having with the Defend ant. Spain stat

ed that sh e told the

victim to sta

y away from the Defe

ndant. On

crossexamination, Spain admi

tted that, shortly after

the murder, she told investigators that the Defendant called her prior to the shooting, while she was with the victim, and asked her to “[p]ut your b**** a** n**** on th e phone, ” refe rring t o the vict

im. She sta

ted that t he victim spoke with the Defend ant, who was asking the victim for money , and he told the Defendant to subtract the money that he owed the Defendant from the money the Defendant owed h im and then inform him of the balance.
Kim Floyd testified that she told the De fendant that the victim was a violent and dangerous perso n prio r to th e night of the shoot ing. Billy Ray Thompson testified that he was a passenger in the minivan driven by the Defendant on the night of the shooting. He testified that he was sitting behind the driver in the back seat and that, in additi on to the Defendant, two other men, Josh Garrett and Dennis Akins, were in the minivan. Thompson testified that the Defendant did not mention the victim while they were in the car together prior to the shooting. Thompson stated that they saw the victim’s car

at a four-way

stop and that the Defendant backed the van up to the victim’s car and the two men started talking. H e said that the Defendant asked the victim for money and the victim responded, “If y ou can do your math, then you would know that I don’t owe you [any

thing],” and the victim got upset and “started hollering.” Thompson stated that the Defendant was not upset at all. Thompson testified that he saw the victim reaching “on the side of him like he was [ge tting ready

to] get a gun.” Thompson said that the victim opened his driver’s side door halfway and looked as if he was goi ng to get out of his car. Thompson testifie d that he t hought that the victim was about to “talk crazy , or shoot at us, or some th ing.” He testified that the victim previously “ pulled a gun” on him one week prior to the shooting.
Oncross-examination, Thompson testified that he heard the victim tell the Defendant, “To get your money

, you’re go[ing to] have to putone in my head” and that, shortly therea

fter, he heard two gunshots and the Defendant drove awa y. Thompso n stated that the Defendant fired the gun. Thompson s tated that the Defendant then immediately called the police and said, “I just shot someone and I need f

or y’all to come me et me on the highway because he’s still chasing me.”
The Defend

ant next ca

lled Off icer Jim Gr

ay to testify ag ain. Officer Gray stated that, when-6-

he examined the victim’ s vehicle at the cr ime scen e, it was i

n park. T he offic er testif

ied th at the bullethole in the driver’s side door was significantly lower than where the victim’s torso would have been loc ated had

he been sitting be hind the st

eering wheel. Carey Brown Hay

nes testified

that he wa s familia

r with both

the Defe ndant and the victim

. Haynes testifie d that the

victim shot

him in the left ea r and the head and that the Defendant wa s aware of this. Haynes stated tha t, when the victim shot him, he was sitting at his house and the victim “came and kicked in the door of the house” and then shot

him. On cross-examination, Haynes testified that he told the police that the victim shot him.
Officer Billy Williams was called ag ain to testify and stated that he interviewed Hay

nes when Haynes was shot o n Decem

ber 12, 2 000. He st

ated tha t Hay nes neve r told him that the victim shot him, and only

told him tha

t the indivi dual who shot him had on a mask and that Hay nes did not know who that indivi dual was . Office r Williams st

ated tha t, during the inves tigation , th e victim was a possible suspect a nd was inte

rviewed , but ther

e was insu

fficien t e vi dence to charge him with the crime. The officer stated

that when Hay

nes was shot he was living with both the Defendant and the victim. Of

ficer Wil liams testified

that he did not execute a search warrant in that ca se and denied that it was because he had a good wor king relationship with the Defendant’s mother.
The Defendant testified on h is own beh alf that he owned a nd opera ted a busi ness name d Auto Source for several y

ears and that he owned it on the day of the shooting. The Defendant testified that he knew the victim for approximately thre e years pr ior to the shooting. The Def endant st ated tha t, prior to t he sho oting, th e victim w as “havi ng word s and disa

greements” wit

h at leas t six of their mutual acquaintances. The Defendant testified that, before the shooting, he learned from “quite a fewpeople” that the victim was making threats ag ainst his life. Specifically, the Defendant

was told that th e vi cti m s aid , “If

he s[aw] me, he was g o[ing to] kil l me.” The Defend ant testif ied that these threats concerned him and he felt that the victim really was going to kill him. The Def endant sa id that, on the day of the shooting , Tammy Smith told him that the victim told her that the victim

was going to kill the Defendant. The Defe ndant testifiedthat he had been told that the victim was involved in previous shootings. The Defendant testified that, on the night of the murder , the victim’s vehicle was blocking his vehicle

and that he put his vehicle in reverse. The Defendant said that the victim then backed up the victim’s v ehicle s o that the two cars were sid e by side. The

Defend ant testif ied that, after the victim blocked his car, the Defendant knew ther e was “going to be trouble.” The Defendant testified that the v ictim

aske d him, “Wh at’ s up” and did not appear “upset or any thing.” The Defendant stated that he wanted to see what was “going on” because pe ople had been telling him that the victim was going to try

to kill him, but he hadseen the victim multiple times that evening and he did not attempt to stop the Defendant. The Defendant stated that the victim the

n “got r eal upse t” but that he did not know why. He testified that the victim did not say any thing about putting a

bullet in the victim’s head as the other witness said but said that there was “g o[ing to] be some killin[g].”
The Defendant stated that the victim app ear ed to be excited and “started reachin[g]” for a-7-

gun, so the De fendant

reache d for his g

un. The D efenda

nt s tated that he nev er saw a gun in the v ictim’s hand but knew that he regularly carried a weapon. The Def endant stated t

hat, after h e reached for his gun, the Defendant immediately fired a shot and, as he was driving off, he fire d another shot. He s aid that h e fired his gun at the victim ju st to warn him and tha

t he did not know that the victim

had been shot when he drove away . The Defendant testified that he then called the police and

told them that he thought that he might have shot someone and that someone m

ight still be following him. The Defendant said that he told police that he had two guns in the minivan and that he left the guns in

the miniva

n. The De fendant

stated tha

t he car ried a g un with him b ecause he often carried large

sums of money from his store.
Oncross-e

xamination, the Defe

ndant sta ted that h e and the

victim for

me rl y lived in c lose proximity to each other. The Defendant stated that, five days prior to the murde

r, he and the vi ctim drove to Jackson, T ennesse e, toge ther and did not hav e any

problems

. The Def

endant te stified th at, on the day of the mur

der, he picked up his cousin, Josh Garrett, and that Garrett had a gun “on him.” The Defendant stated that the two men saw the victim a couple of times while driving around and, since the victim did not stop them, the y a ssumed tha

t there w as not go ing to be a problem, so they placed both guns on the floor of the minivan. The Defendant testified that, when he and the

victim were in their r

especti ve vehic les next to each other, the victim stated that he did not have a problem with the Defendant and then told the Defendant that he was friends with Officer Williams and

could notget in tr

ouble. Th e Defe

ndant sta ted th at, d uring this time, he “wasn’t say ing a word.” The Defendant

admitted that there was some discussion about money , stating, “I asked h im about the money after

he was starting to get riled up.”
The Defendant stated that he asked the victim for money beca

use “[a]t that point in time, I didn’tthink he had a gun.” The Defenda nt testified

that the victim

then said “somethin

g about some kill[i ng]” and the victim reached down inside his car. The Defendant stated tha

t the victi m put his ce ll phone on the dash, put the car in park, opened the door a nd was reaching down wh en th e Defendant

fired the first shot. The Defendant explained that he did not know where the victim was when he fired the second shot because he wa s driving off as he fired it. The Defe ndant testified that he did not know if there was any thing that prevented him from driv ing off prior to shooting the victim. The Defendant stated that, when he left the sce ne of the shooting, he dr ove th e opposite direction from the sheriff’s department. The Defenda nt testified that he left the minivan and asked someone to come pick him up be cause he thought that someone was following the minivan. He stated that he left

his cousin and another man in the minivan and that he left the guns in the minivan.

The State ca

lled one r ebuttal w itness, Rita

M. Burnett, who was the victim ’s mother and is anofficer with the Ripley Police Department. Officer Burne tt testified that she had

known Officer Williams since 1999 and that he called her one time because he r son, the victim, was implicate d in a shooting. Officer Burnett stated that she has four sons, two of whom are in prison, the victim, and a fifteen ye ar

old son. Th e offic er testif ied that the victim w ould “phy sically figh[t],” but that she had never known him to be charged w ith using a weapon.-8-

Based upon this e

vidence , the jury

convicte d the Def

endant of second d egree murder, as a lesser- inclu ded off

ense of premeditated first degre e murder. The Defendant appea ls, contending that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. II. Analysis
The Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his second degree murder convictionbecause

the proof shows tha

t he acte d in

self-defense. The State arg ues that the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. We agree with the State.
When an accused challenges the sufficiency

of the evidence, “‘the standard for review by

an appella te court is whether, after considering the evidence in the light most favo r able to the prosecution, any r

ational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Smi th , 24 S. W.3d 274, 2 78 (Te nn. 20 00) (q uoti ng State v. Buggs , 995 S.W.2d 102, 105 ( Tenn. 199 9)); see Tenn. R. A pp. P. 13(e ); Jackson v. Virgini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979). In determining the sufficiency

of the ev idence, this Court s hould not r e-weig h or re- evaluat

e the evidence. Smith , 24 S.W.3d a t 279. Nor

may this Court s

ubstitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact fro m the ev idence. Buggs , 995 S.W.2d at 105 . Questions concerning the credibi lity

of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidenc e, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact. Liak

as v. State , 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Tenn. 1956). This Court must afford the State of Tennessee the stronge st legitimate view of the evidence contained in the re cord, as

well as a ll reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. State v. Evans , 838 S.W.2d 1 85, 191 (T enn. 1992 ). Bec ause a ve rdict of g uilt against a defendant removes the pres

umption of

innocenc e and ra

ises a pr esumptio n of guilt, the convicted criminal defendant bears the burden

of showin

g that th e eviden

ce was le gally

insuffic ient to sust

ain a gu ilty verdict. Id.
A convicti on for se cond deg ree mur der req uires pr oof that the defen

dant unlawf

u lly and knowing ly

killed another. See Tenn. Code An n. §§ 39-13-201, - 210(a)(1) (1997 & Supp. 2002). A person a

cts knowin

gly with respect to a

result of the person’s conduct when the person is awa re that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39 -11-302( b) (1997 & Supp. 2002). Tennessee’s self-defense statute, Te nnessee Code Annotated, section 39-11-611(a) (1997 & S upp. 2002) , provide s as follow s:

A person is

j ustif ied in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person rea sonably believes the f orce is immediately ne cessary to protect agains t t he other’s us e or attempted use of unlawful force. The pe rson must have a r easonab le belief

that ther e is an immi

nent danger of dea

th or serious bodily injury . The dan

ger cr eating the belie f of immine

nt death or seriou s bodily injury must be real, or

honestly believed

to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reas onable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threa tens or uses force.-9-

The State has the burden of negating any defense raised by

supporting evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-201(a)(3) (1997 & Supp. 200 2). Itis well-settled that whether an individual acted in selfdefense is a factual determination to be made by the jury as the sole trie

r of fact. State v. Ivy , 868 S.W.2d 724. 727 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). It is within the prerogative of the jury to reject a claim of self-defense. State v. Goode , 956 S.W.2d 521, 527 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
The Defendant contends that the evidence shows that he a cted in self-defense because he reasona bly be li ev ed th e f

or ce he us ed wa s n ec es sa ry to prote ct himself from the victim, who he believed had thre atened t

o kill him, who had assaulted others, and who he thought was reaching for a gun at the time the

Defend ant shot hi

m. In r esponse, the State

points to the abundance of evidence refutingself-defense, including: that the Defe ndant called his bail bondsman and told him that there would be trouble that evening in the form of an assault; that the Defendant and his passenger we re both armed; that the victim was unarmed; that the Defendant could have driven away

prior to the shoot ing; that the Defendant requested money from the v

ictim and, aft er the vi ctim ref

used, the shots were fired; and that the Defenda nt shot at the victim twice.
We believe the evidence is sufficient to warra nt the jury’s conclus ion that the Defendant acted “knowingly .” “‘A person can act knowingly

irrespective of his or her desire that the conduct or result will occur.’” State v. Kelley , 34 S.W.3d 471, 478 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (quot ing State v. Gray , 960 S.W.2d 598, 604 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State v. Rutherford , 879 S.W.2d 118, 120 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)). Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence show s that the Defend

ant stoppe d next to the

victim’s c ar and a sked him for money. As the

argument escalated, both th e D ef en da nt an d t he vi ct im be ca me an gr y. The Defendant reached to the f loor, picked up

his gun and fired twice at the victim, who was unarmed. The victim’s car was far enough a way fr om the Defend ant th at he co uld h ave dri ven awa y prior to the sh ooti ng. One bullet hit the side of the car and the second one hit the victim in his head. Accordingly , we find that the jury did not er r when it fo un d t ha t t he De fe nd an t a ct ed kn ow in gl y. Furthermore, there wa s ampleevidence for the jury to reject the Defendant’s claim of selfdefense. The credibility and w eight to be given to a witness’s t estimony are issues to be r esolved by the trier of fact

. State v. Pappas , 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). The evidence presented showed that Defendant did no t have a reasonable be lief that force w as immedia

tely necessary to protect himself. The Defendant admitted that he did not know if t here was any thing blocking his ability to leave the potentially dangerous situation

prior to the shooting. The evidence is sufficient

for a jury to r

eject the Defendant’s claim of self-defense and to support the Defenda nt’s conviction of second degree murde r. III. Conclusion
Inaccord ance wi ththe foregoing, we conc lude that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the Defendant’s convicti on for se cond degre e murder . There fore, th e judgme nt of the tr

ial cour t is AFFIRMED.-10- ___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE