State v. Ricky Tucker

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: July 10, 1997
• Docket: 02C01-9606-CR-00196
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON APRIL SESSION, 1997

RICKY TUCKER, ) ) No. 02C01-9606-CR-00196 Appellant ) ) SHELBY COUNTY vs. ) ) Hon. W. FRED AXLEY, Judge STATE OF TENNESSEE,

Appellee ) ) ) (Post-Conviction) FILED July 10, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. For the Appellant: For the Appellee: Appellate C ourt Clerk

RICKY TUCKER, Pro Se CHARLES W. BURSON Register Number 99302 Attorney General and Reporter Rt. 1, Box 330 Tiptonville, TN 38079-9775 CLINTON J. MORGAN Assistant Attorney General Criminal Justice Division 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493

WILLIAM GIBBONS District Attorney General

ALANDA HORNE Asst. District Attorney General Criminal Justice Complex Suite 301 201 Poplar Street Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED:

AFFIRMED

David G. Hayes Judge OPINION

The appellant, Ricky Tucker, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s

denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The appellant asserts that the trial

court’s jury instruction on reasonable doubt was unconstitutional.

After a review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The appellant contends that the reasonable doubt instruction provided by

the trial court is constitutionally invalid due to the use of the term “moral

certainty” combined with the “mind rest easy” language. He argues that these

phrases together could have allowed a reasonable juror to find him guilty based

on a lower standard of proof than that required for guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt. Although the Tennessee Supreme Court has recently held such jury

charges to be constitutional, the appellant argues that those decisions do not

apply to his case because the court did not specifically address the “mind rest

easy” phrase. See State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722, 734 (Tenn. 1994) and

Pettyjohn v. State, 885 S.W.2d 364, 365 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). This

argument, however, is erroneous. In Nichols, the Tennessee Supreme Court

held constitutionally valid an instruction which allowed “moral certainty” to be

considered in conjunction with an instruction that “[r]easonable doubt is that

doubt engendered by an investigation of all the proof in the case and an inability,

after such investigation, to let the mind rest easily upon the certainty of your

verdict,” Id. (emphasis added). The appellate courts of this state have

repeatedly found this jury instruction constitutionally valid. See State v. Sexton,

917 S.W.2d 263, 265-266 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) and Covington v. State, No.

01C01-9606-CC-00250 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Sept. 30, 1996). This

claim is without merit.

2 Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

____________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Judge

CONCUR:

_____________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge

_____________________________ WILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge