State v. Alton Waller

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: January 27, 1998
• Docket: 01C01-9611-CC-00479
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED DECEMBER 1997 SESSION January 27, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9611-CC-00479 Appellee, ) ) Williamson County V. ) ) Honorable Donald P. Harris, Judge ) ALTON WALLER, ) (Rape of a Child) ) Appellant. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

John H. Henderson John Knox Walkup District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter 407 C Main Street P.O. Box 68 Janis L. Turner Franklin, TN 37065-0068 Counsel for the State Criminal Justice Division 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Joseph D. Baugh District Attorney General

Jeff P. Burks Assistant District Attorney General P.O. Box 937 Franklin, TN 37065-0937

OPINION FILED: ___________________

AFFIRMED

PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge OPINION

A Williamson County jury found the appellant, Alton Waller, guilty of the

rape of a child. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence of the

culpable mental state for the offense is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.

After reviewing the evidence, we affirm the jury’s verdict.

The victim testified that on June 12, 1995, she and some friends went to

Kelly Cunningham’s residence to watch a video. The appellant, who was twenty-

one years old and a friend of one of the victim’s friends, was among those

present. During the evening, various people left the living room where the video

was playing. Eventually the victim and the appellant were left alone on the

couch. The victim testified that she and the appellant went to one of the

bedrooms and had sexual intercourse. In a statement given to the police, the

appellant admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the victim. At the time of

the offense, the victim was twelve years old.

On appeal, the appellant argues that the evidence of the culpable mental

state required for the offense is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. When

an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must

determine whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of

a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979);

Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); State v. Duncan, 698 S.W.2d 63 (Tenn. 1985). The

weight and credibility of a witness’ testimony are matters entrusted exclusively to

the jury as the triers of fact. State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542 (Tenn. 1984);

Byrge v. State, 575 S.W.2d 292 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978). On appeal, the state

is entitled to both the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all

reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571

S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. 1978). Moreover, guilty verdicts remove the presumption of

innocence, enjoyed by defendants at trial, and replace it with a presumption of

-2- guilt. State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474 (Tenn. 1973). Appellants, therefore, carry

the burden of overcoming a presumption of guilt when appealing jury

convictions. Id.

Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-522 (Supp. 1994), child

rape is defined as the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or

the defendant by the victim and the victim is less than thirteen (13) years of age.

The definition does not set forth the culpable mental state. The culpable mental

state of an offense is sufficiently established by either intent, knowledge or

recklessness if the definition of the offense does not plainly dispense with the

mental element. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-301(c) (1991). Therefore, the

requisite mental state for the offense of rape of a child may be established by

evidence of intent, knowledge, or recklessness.

‘Knowing’ refers to a person who acts knowingly with respect to the conduct or to circumstances surrounding the conduct when the person is aware of the nature of the conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of the person’s conduct when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(20) (1991).

‘Reckless’ refers to a person who acts recklessly with respect to circumstances surrounding the conduct or the result of the conduct when the person is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person’s standpoint.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(31) (1991).

The state contends that the evidence of recklessness, if not knowledge, is

sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. We agree. Detective Ricky Hagan

testified that the appellant said that one of the victim’s friends had told the

appellant that the victim wanted the appellant to be her first. The appellant said

that he told the victim’s friend that he could not do it because the victim was too

-3- young. Detective Hagan testified that the appellant made these statements

during an interview but admitted that he, the detective, did not make these

statements part of the written statement signed by the appellant. The appellant

did not testify at trial.

The appellant contends that the evidence establishes that Detective

Hagan was unaware that the appellant’s I.Q. was in the retarded range and that

the appellant had several other mental, emotional, or psychological problems.

An expert called by the defense testified about the appellant’s problems. The

jury has the duty of evaluating the weight of evidence and the credibility of

witnesses. Detective Hagan’s testimony that the appellant said that the victim

was too young is sufficient evidence of the culpable mental state required for

rape of a child to support the jury’s verdict.

__________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge

CONCUR:

______________________________ JOSEPH B. JONES, Presiding Judge

-4- ______________________________ WILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge

-5-