### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE Jul y 18, 200 6 S es sio n

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. LESL IE A. PR YOR

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for P ickett C ounty No. 816 Leon Burns , Jr., Judge

No. M2005- 01429-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Augu st 31, 2006

Th e de fe nd a nt, L e sli e A. P ry or, wa s c on vic te d o f t wo c ou nts of a g g ra va te d a ssa

ult wi th a de a dly

wea pon, one count of

theft over $10,000, one count of attempted volunt ary manslaug hter, one count of fe lony evading arr est, one count of reckless endang erme nt with a dea dly wea pon, three counts of

re c kle ss e nd an g e rme nt, a ndon e c ou nt o f c ri min a l impe rs on a tio n. Th e tr ia l c ou rt me rg e d th e re c kle ss endang erme n t an d att empted voluntary manslaug hter c onvictions with the gr eate r cha rg e of
ag g ravated assault, and the defe ndant wa s gi v en an effe ctive sente nce of forty -two y ear s in the De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n. On app e a l, the de fe nd a nt a rg ue s th at th e evi den c e is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o support his convictions for ag g ravated assault. We af firm the judg ments of the trial c ourt.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt Aff irm ed

J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., delivere d the o p i n i o n o f t he court, in which A L AN E. G L EN N , J., a ndJ.S. D ANI EL , S R

. J ., joined.

J ohn E. Appman, Jamestown, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, L eslie A. Pry or.

Pa ul G

. S u m m e r s , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d R e p o r t e r ; P r e s t o n S h i p p , A s s i s t a n tA t t o r n e y G e n e r a l; Wil li a m E d w ar d G ib s o n , D is tric t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l; a n d O w e n G

. B u r n e tt , A s s is ta n t D istrict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

This case rela tes to the defe ndant’s driving a sto l en v eh i cl e and attempting to flee f rom Tenne ssee Hig hway

Patrol troopers a t a driver ’s l icense roadbloc k. On M ay 30, 2003, the def endant was driving a stolen Ford F-350 truck when he encountere d Tenne ssee Highway Patrol troopers at

a ro a db loc k o n H ig hw a y

11 1 in Pic ke tt Co un ty . T he de fe nd a nt wa s q ue sti on e d, pr od uc e d a fa lse identification, and, a fter be ing de tained, dec ided to flee the sce ne i n the truck. In the proc ess of flee ing, the defe ndant’s vehic le made c ontact with two hig hway patrolmen. Gunshots we re f ired, a vehic le cha se ensue d, and off icer s detained the defe ndant in Kentu ck y , afte r he ha d suffe red
g unshot wounds. A Pickett County g rand jury indicted the def

endant on two c ounts of ag g ravated-2-

assault with a dea dly

wea pon, one count of theft of property over $10,000, four counts of attempted

seco n d d egr ee murder, one count of e vading arr est, one c ount of rec kless endang erme nt, and one count of c riminal impersonation. After a trial o n al l t h e char g es, a Picke tt Count y jury found the defe ndant g uilty o f t wo counts of a g g ravated assault with a de adly wea pon, a Class C felony ; one count of thef

t over $10,000, a

Class C felony ; one count o f at t em p t ed voluntary manslaug hter, a Cla ss D fe lon y ; on e c ou nt o f f e lon y e va din g arr e st, a

Cla ss D fe lo ny ; on e cou nt of re c kle ss endang erme nt with a deadly wea pon, a Class E fe lon y ; t h re e counts of re ckless enda ng erme nt, a Class A misdemeanor; a nd one count of criminal impersona tion, a Class B misdemea nor. At
sentenc ing, the trial court mer g ed the c o n v ic ti o n s f o r r e c kle ss endang erme nt and attempted voluntary

ma ns laug hte r w ith the tw o c on vic tio ns fo r a g g ra va te d a ssa ult . T he de fe nd a nt was se nte nc e d a s a Rang e I I , multipl e off

ender to an ef fec tive total of forty -two y ear s in the Department of Correction, i n c l u d i n g t e n ye a

r s f o r e a c h o f t h e t w o a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l tc o n v i c t i o n s , t o b e s e r v e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y.

At trial, twelve witnesses testified for the s tate, including the five Te nnessee Hig hway Patrol troopers pr esent a t the scene of the incide nt on May 30, 2003. Trooper

J eff Cook testified that he, L ieutenant Ottie Shoupe, Ser g eant Micha el All en, Trooper Da rry l Wi nningha m, and Troope r Alan L ee ha d set up the roa dblock at mile marke r 11 on Hig hway 111 around 8:30 p.m. Trooper Cook

was c hecking vehicles in the northbound lane when t he defenda nt approa ched at approximately 8:45 p.m. in a 2001 For d F- 350 “dually ” pick-up truck. Trooper Cook explained that a dually truck is one with dual rea

r tires on eac h side, and he described the truck a s a “he avy truck.” When Trooper

Cook asked to see the def

endant’ s identification, the def endant pr ovided an Ohio driver’s lice nse bea ring the name K evin J ohnson. Trooper Cook noticed that the tag s on the t ruck were expired, and whe n he ra n a computer

chec k on the t ruck, he rec eived information that it was possi bly a stolen vehic le. Trooper Cook informed Troope r Alan L ee of the situation and that he wa s waiting for c onfirmation on whether

the truck w as stolen.

T ro o p erC o o k

t es t i fi ed t h at wh i l e w ai t ing f or the c onfirmatio n , h e h ea rd gu n s h o t s an d y el l i n g. He sa w the F or d tr

uc k s pe e din g pa st him an d tow ardLt. O tti e Sho up e , w ho wa s c he c kin g tr a ff ic in the so uth bo un d la ne of

the hig hw a y . H e state d, “Th e truc k a pp e are d to be g oin g tow ardhim

. L ieutenant Shoupe ha d traff ic bac ked up on that side of the road, he had nowhere else t o g o . . . .” He state d th a t he sa w L

t. S ho up e dr a w h is w e apo n a s the truc k c on tin ue d no rthb ou nd a t a hig h r a te of speed. Trooper Cook estimated t hat t he truck was going in excess of ninety miles per hour. H e testified that the def

endant did not reduc e his speed as he took a lef t turn at a stop sig n onto Highw ay 127 toward K entucky . Trooper Cook followed the def

endant in his own vehic le, and the defe ndant was soon deta ined in Kentucky , afte r having fled the ve hicle on foot.

Serg eant Micha el Allen testified that he was assisting with the roadbloc k when Tr ooper L ee informed him that the def endant wa s driving a

possiblystolen vehicle. Ser g eant Allen sta ted that he and T rooper

L ee approa ched the defe ndant’s truck to conduc t an investig ation. He testified that in addition to the defenda nt, there w ere two passeng ers in the truck. H e said he opened the driver’ s door and a sked the defe ndant to tur n off the ve hicle and ste p outside. The def endant initially

did turn off the ve hicle but then quickly g rabbe d the door, slammed it shut, and re started the tr uck. Serg eant Allen stated that whe n the defe ndant shut the door, he steppe d up on the running board of the truck,-3-

rea ched thr oug h the window, and attempted to r estrain the de fenda nt. The def endant dr ove onto the roadw ay and beg an ac cele rating the vehicle while Sgt. Allen was on the running board. He testified that he jumped off

the running board be cause he fe lt he was in dang er.
Serg eant Allen te stified th at he saw the truck g oing towa rd Troope r L ee a nd that he saw Troope r L ee f

alling ba ckwa

rd while discha

rg ing his we apon. He said he did not see w hether the
tr u c k h it T r o o p e r L e e

. H e s a id th a t h e s a w th e tr u c k a c c e le r a ti n g to w ar d Lt. Sh o u pe and tha t he
y elled to Lt. Shoupe to ge t his attention. S erg eant Allen de scribed the truck as being “at maximum

acc eler ation.” He stated that the truc k passed Lt. Shoupe and that he went to c heck on Trooper L ee and the other s. He then w ent wit h Trooper L ee in pursuit of the defe ndant. On cr oss-examination, Sgt. Allen testifie d t h at i t was a “ matter of se conds” be tween the time the defe ndant beg an

a c c e le ratin g wh ile on the sh ou lde r o f the ro a d a ndthe tim e he tr a ve le d to the loc a tio n w he re Lt. Shoupe was standing in the middle of the road. On re- direc t e x amination, Sgt. Allen testified that he believe d that the def

endant pose d a thre at of serious bodilyinjury to the office rs and other s.

L ieutenant Ottie Shoupe testifie d t hat he wa s the troop commande r in cha rg e of the roadbloc k. He testified that he was c hecking vehicles in the southbound lane when he hear d a commotion that drew his attention to the northbound lane. He said he he ard y elling, g unfire, a nd a vehicle a cce lera ting. He stated that whe n he turne d around, he saw a truck c oming dire ctly toward him . H e te sti fi e d th a t he ha d n ow he re to g o a ndthat he le a ne d h is b a c k a s f ar a s h e c ou ld a g a ins t the vehicle in the southbound la ne. L ieutenant Shoupe state d, “I felt I was g oing to die right then. I just couldn’t go now here .” While leaning ag ainst the vehicle , Lt. S h o u p e d rew his weapon a nd fi re d s ho ts at th e de fe nd a nt. He state d th a t th e truc k str uc k his le ft thi g h a nd kn e e a s it pa sse d h im. After the truck pa ssed him, he ran to T rooper L ee, w hom he had se en on the g round. He then g ot into his patrol car a nd followed Tr ooper Cook, who wa s pursuing the def endant.

On cr oss-examination, L t. Shoupe testified that he wa s standing in the middle of the roa d,

on the y ellow l ine di viding the two lanes, and that the def endant pa ssed him in the northbound lane without hitting the car ag ainst which he was lea ning. H e also testified tha t the injury to his leg a nd knee w as not sever e and tha t it did not aff ect his ability

to wal k

. On re -d irec t examination, when asked why he fired s hots at t he defenda nt, Lt. Shoupe stated, “I felt m y life wa s in jeopardy . I didn’t h a v e a n y p la c e to g o a n y w a y

. A n d I k n e w th a t o n e o f

my o f f ic e r s w a s d o w n

. . . . I

h a d to n e u tr a li ze the threat to other people on up the road . . . .”

Trooper Dar ry l Wi nningha m testified t h at he wa s working at the Hig hway 111 roadbloc k. He testified tha t he had just issued a c itation and was putt ing his ticke t book back in his patrol ca r “whe n every thing ha

ppened.” He state d that he saw Sgt. Allen on the r unning boa

rd of the truck and

rea ching into the truck whe n the vehicle drove onto the roa dway . He sa id that he saw Tr ooper L ee ly ing on the g ro un d a nd that he tho ug ht the de fe nd a nt ha d ru n o ve r T ro op e r L e e . H e sa id the ve hic le was “ acc eler ating fast” northbound in the direction of L t

. Shoupe. He testified that the defe ndant
p r o c e e d e d n o r t h i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e r o a d b e t w e e n t h e v e h i c l e s s t o p p e d o n b o t h s i d e s o f t h e h i g h w a y. Af te r the truc k p a sse d Lt. S ho up e , T ro op e r Winn ing ha m we nt to his ve hic le to f oll ow the de fe nd a nt.-4-

Tr oo pe r A la n L e e te sti fi e d th a t he wa s o n his wa y to as sis t L t. Sho up e wi th s ou thb ou ndtr a ff ic when Tr ooper Cook informed him that the defe ndant was driving a possibly stolen vehicle. Tr ooper L ee informed Sgt. Allen, and the two of them walked toward the defe ndant. Trooper L ee te stified that he wa s standing be hind Sgt. Allen while Sg t. Allen instructed the de fenda nt to turn off the truck a nd
ste p o uts ide . H e state d th a t he sa w the de fe nd a nt g ra b th e do or , shu t it, and re sta rt the e ng ine wh ile Sgt. Allen steppe d onto the running board a nd rea ched thr oug h the window of the truck. He sa id the
t ru ck ac ce l er at ed s u d d en l y an d s t ru ck h i m , ca u s i n g h i m t o fa l l i n t h e p at h t h at t h e t ru ckwa s m o v i n g. He te sti fi e d th a t he fe ll o nto the pa ve me nt a ndre a c he d for his g unwi th h is rig ht h a nddu ri ng the fa ll. He sa w Sgt. Allen ste pping of f the running board a s the truck ga ined m omentum. He testified that he fe are d that the truck w ould run over him and that he t ri ed t o ro ll away from the dire ction of the truck. He said he fir ed sho t s at t he truc k. He state d that the truck ma de a sha rp left turn onto the roadw ay and proc eede d in the direc tion of L t. Shoupe. The state introduc ed into e vidence Trooper L e e ’s du ty

be lt, wh ic h w a s d a ma g e d a s a re su lt o f h is f

a ll o nto the ro a d, a ndpic tur es of in ju rie s to Tr oo pe r L e e ’s arm

a nde lbo w f

ro m impa c t wi th th e tr uck an d th e pa ve me nt. Tr oo pe r L e e a lso
te sti fie d th a t th e re wa s a

g ra ssy e mba nk me nt o ff

the sh ou lde r o f the ro a d th a t th e de fe nd a nt c ou ld have driven throug h to flee the scene and avoid the c rowde d roadw ay

.

Se rg e a nt B ob by

L y nn B e ard
, ana c c i d e n t

r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t w i thth e T e n n e sse e Hi g hw a y Pa tr ol, testif ie d a s to a c c e le r a ti o n ma rk s a n d s c u f

f ma rk s f o u n d d u r in g h is in v e s ti g a ti o n o f th e s c e n e. Serg eant B ear d said that the ac cele ration marks indicated that the def end ant m ade a

sharp lef t turn and that they

would have been caused by “mashing on the g as peda l.” He a lso testified that the truck weig hed appr ox imately

7500 pounds.

Th e de fe nd a nt t e sti fi e d th a t he didno t in te ndto h arm anyof the of fi c e rs a ndthat hi s o nly

conce rn wa s fleeing . He a dmitted that he knew the t ruck had been f raudule ntly

obtained and that he
g a ve Tr oo pe r C oo k a

fa lse ide nti fi c a tio n in the na me of Ke vin John so n. He sa id h e a lso ha d w arr a nts out for his arr est in Kentucky and had se vera l aliases. He said he wa s stopped by Trooper Cook, who asked him to pull over to the side of the road. He said he beca me nervous as he saw Trooper Cook
ta lkin g to T r o o p e r L e e a n d th e n T r o o p e r L e e ta lkin g to Sg t. A ll e n

. H e s tate d th a t w h e n Sg t. Allen
approa ched him and a sked him to turn off the tr uck and ste p outside the vehicle , he debated whethe r he should stay

or flee

. He stated that he decide d to f lee but that “the re r eally

wasn’t no time to think. I t was all j u s t re ac t i o n

. ” He shut the door, started the truck, turne d the steering w heel a s far as he

c ou ld, a nd a tte mpt e d to sh if t the truc k int o g e ar wi th his fo ot on the g as p edal . He succ e ssf ull y shifted the truc k into ge ar on the third try
, while Sgt. Allen was rea ching in the truck. He testified that as he turne d the truck into the roa d, the side of the tr u ck h i t Trooper L ee. H e said that no one was standing in front of the truck and that he did not intend to hit Trooper L ee. T he def

endant state d that as Sg t. Allen was stepping off the r unning boa

rd of the tr

uck, Troope r L ee be g an firing at him. The de fe nd a nt r e ite rate d th a t he didno t in te ndto h it Tr oo pe r L e e : “ L ike I sa id, the re wa s n o in te nti on to hit or run over

him, and if I wanted to do that, I had the opportunity rig ht then. He wa s a sitting duck. I f that wa s my

intentions, Icould have done that.”

Th e de fe nd a nt te sti fi e d that wh e n he dr ov e on to the ro a d, Lt. Sho up e wa s app ro xima te ly fi ft y to seventy -five y ards a way

. He testified that he drove the t ruck down the center of the l ane, and not-5-

direc tly toward L t. Shoupe. He st ated that Lt. Shoupe beg an firing at him and that he neve r intended to hit L t. Shoupe: “I f my intention wa s to kill that man, all I had to do was r un into that truck [behind Lt. Shoupe] , or side-swipe that truck, a nd he would have been a paint job on the side of that truc k. . . . I could have hit him. But I ain’t try ing to hurt nobody . I ’m try ing to g et away .”

On cross-examination, the defendant ag ree d that the t ruck could be used a s a dea dly wea pon and that either Trooper L ee or L t. Shoupe could have been killed by the truck. He also stated that he knew he had hit Trooper

L ee but that he did not think he had run over him. He also said he be lieved that he did not hit L t. Shoupe. He stated tha t he had hoped when he fled to drive the four- whee l drive truck up a hill that the officer s could not follow. He stated that he was not driving nine ty miles per hour t hroug h an int erse ction but that he was trave ling between f ifty and seve nty

miles per hour. The defe nd ant admi tte d th a t he re c kle ssl y e nd a ng e re d th e lif

e of Sg t. A lle n w he n h e dr ov e wh ile Sg t. Allen was standing on the running board, tha t he used a false i dentifica tion, that he knew the truck was stolen, and that he evade d arr est. He maintaine d, howeve r, that he ha d no intention to assault or hu rt the tr oo pe rs . T he de fe nd a nt a lso a dmi tte d th a t he ma de his liv ing “ by do ing fr a ud s a ndc on s” and that he w ould lie if he knew it would keep him out of prison. He a dded, howe ver, tha t he was not ly ing in his testimony

. The jury found the de fenda nt guilty of ag g ravated assaults with a de adly wea pon of Lt. Shoupe

a ndTr oo p e r

L e e , o f atte mpt e d v olu nta

ry ma ns laug hte r o f T ro op e r L e e , o f r e c kle ss e nd a ng e rm e nt w ith a dea dly wea pon of Sg t. Allen, of two counts o f reckless enda ng erme nt of Lt. Shoupe, and of one count of rec kless endang erme nt of Trooper L ee. I n addition, the j ury found the de fenda nt guilty of theft of pr operty

over $10,000, f

elony evading arr est, and c riminal impersonation.

The de fenda nt contends that the e videnc e i s i n s ufficie nt to support his convictions for
ag g ravated assault. Our

standard of

revie w when the defe ndant que s t i o ns the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e on appe al is “whe ther, a fter vie wing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the
prosec ution, a ny rational trier of fac t c ould ha ve found the essential elements of the crime bey ond a

rea sonable doubt.” J ackson v. Virg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979). We do not

rew eig h the evidenc e; ra ther, we presume that the jury has re solved all conflicts in the testimony and draw n all rea sonable infe renc es fr om the evidenc e in f avor of the state. See State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); State v. Cabbag e, 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 19 7 8 ). Questions
reg arding witness cre dibilit y , conflicts in te stimony
, and the weig ht and value to be g iven to evidenc e

wer e re solved by

the jury . See State v. B land, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997).

I n r e le va nt p art , o ur

c od e de fine s a g g ra va te d a ssa ult a s f oll ow s: “ A p e rs on c omm its
ag g ravated assault who: (1) I ntentionally or knowingly commits an assault as defined i n § 39-13-101 and: (A) Causes serious bodily injury to another ; or (B) Uses or di splay s a deadly wea pon.” T.C.A. § 3 9 -1 3 -1 0 2 (a ). S ec t i o n 3 9 -1 3 -1 0 1 d ef i n es as s au l tas , i n p ar t , “Int en t i o n al l y o r k n o wi n gl y

ca u s [ i n g]

a no the r t o r e a so na

bly fe ar imm ine nt bo dil y inj ury .” Th e ind ic tme nt c ha rg e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt “ did unlawfully

and intentionally

or knowing ly cause ” Lt. Shoupe a nd Trooper L ee “ to rea sonably

fea r imminent bodil y

injury while utiliz ing a

deadly wea pon, to wit: a motor vehicle.”-6-

The de fenda nt contends that the e vidence is insufficient to prove a g g ravated assaults, and he
arg ues that his intention was to evade arr est, not to assault or injure a ny one. He also arg ues that he did not use the truck a s a d ea dly wea pon and that neither

L t. Shoupe nor Troope r L ee sustaine d serious bodily

injury . The state c ounters that the e vidence was suff icient to convict the de fenda nt of

a g g ra va te d a ssa

ult wi th a de a dly we apo n b e c a us e a

mot or ve hic le c a n c on sti tut e a de a dly we apo n, Lt. Shoupe and Troope r L ee f ear ed for their saf et y , an d t h e def

endant ha d, at least, a

knowing mental
state.

We co nc lud e that the e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at tri a l is su ff ic ie nt to es ta

bli sh be y on d a

re a so na ble doubt that L t. Shoupe and Troo p er L ee re as o nably fea red imminent bodily

injury as a r esult of the d ef en d an t ’s o p er at i o n o f t h e t ru ck

. Bo t h v i ct i m s t es t i fi ed t h at t h eyfe ar ed fo r t h ei r s af et y as t h e l ar ge truck a pproac hed and hit them. The extent of their injuries is irreleva nt because the c harg es we re based on the ir rea sonable fe ar of imminent bodil y

injury

. We also ag ree with the state t hat a motor vehicle c an be a “dea dly wea pon” for purposes of committing an a g g ravated assault. “D eadly wea pon” is defin ed
, i n part, a s, “Anything that in the

manner of its use or intended use is capa ble of causing death or serious bodily injury .” T.C.A. § 39- 11-106(a )(5) (B ). This court ha s held that a motor vehic le ca n be conside red a “dea dly wea pon.” See State v. Tate, 912 S.W.2d 785, 787 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). The defe ndant does not deny that the truck wa s capa

ble of c ausing death or

serious bodily

injury . The defenda nt misapprehe nds the law when he arg ues that if he did not intentionally use the truck to harm any one, it cannot be considere d a dea dly wea pon. Rather, if t h e d efe ndant is char g ed with intentionally or knowing ly

committing
ag g ravated assault, the state must show that the use of a motor ve hicle as a deadly wea pon was e ither intentional or knowing . Tate, 912 S.W.2d at 787.

Th e de fe nd a nt’ s primary

arg ume nt i s th a t th e state didno t pr ov e that he ha d th e re qu isi te mental state to be c onvicted of a g g ravated assault. To c onvict the def endant f or the c rime cha

rg ed, the state mus t ha ve p rove n th a t th e de fe nd a nt a c te d in te nti on a lly or kn ow ing ly

wh e n h e c a us e d Lt. Sh o u p e a n d T r o o p e r L e e to f e ar im mi n e n t b o d il y in

ju r y b y h is o p e r a ti o n o f th e tr u c k

. Our c ode

e xpla ins :
“Knowing ” re fer s to a person w ho acts knowing ly with respec t to the

c on du c t or c ir c ums ta nc e s su rr ou nd ing the c on du c t wh e n the pe rs on is

awa re of the nature of the conduct or that the circ umstances e x ist. A
person a cts knowing ly with respe ct t o a result of t he person’s conduc t wh e n th e pe rs on is a wa

re that th e c on du c t is re a so na bly c e rt a in t o

c a us e the re su lt.

T.C.A. § 39-11-106( a)( 20). The de fenda nt admitted that he knew T rooper L ee w as standing near

by when he suddenly

acc eler ated the tr

uck and attempted to make a sharp turn to e nter the r oadwa y . He said he kne w the leng th and size of the truck w ould make the turn difficult. He a dmitted that he knew Trooper L ee “ was a

sitti ng duck” w hen he sta rted to pu l l o n to the road. A lthough the de fenda nt testified that he did not aim t he truc k toward L t. Shoupe after

he pulled onto the roa d, five-7-

ey ewitnesses te stified for the sta te that the d e f e n d an t’ s v ehicle w as hea ded dire ctly toward L t. Shoupe. Lt

. S h o u p e t es t i fi ed t h at t h e t ru ckwa s co m i n g t o wa rd h i m an d b ar el y p as s ed h i m as i tgra z ed h i s l eg. Th e state ’s e vid e nc e c ou ld e sta bli sh that th e de fe nd a nt k ne w tha t he wa s d ri vin g a n a pp ro xima te ly 7 5 0 0 -p o u n d t ru ck at a

high r ate of

speed, in a

crow ded ar ea, a nd in such a manne r that could ha ve seriously injured or killed someone

. Even if the de fenda nt acted w ith the primary intent of flee ing and not of assaulting the t rooper s, a reasonable jury could have found bey ond a re asonable doubt that the def endant knowing ly

used the truc k as a de adly weapon and knowing ly cause d L t. Shoupe and Trooper L ee to f ear imminent bodil y injury

. We hold that the evidence wa s sufficient to support the defe ndant’s convic tions for ag g ravated assault.

B a se d o n th e fo re g oin g a ndthe re c or d a s a wh ole
, we a ff

ir m the jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE