State v. John Kuhlman ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
MARCH 1998 SESSION
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) NO. 01C01-9702-CC-00059
Appellee, )
) WILLIAMSON COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. DONALD P. HARRIS,
JOHN WILLIAM KUHLMAN, ) JUDGE
)
Appellant. ) (Assault)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
JOHN WILLIAM KUHLMAN, Pro Se JOHN KNOX WALKUP
341 Stable Drive Attorney General and Reporter
Franklin, TN 37064
DARYL J. BRAND
Assistant Attorney General
Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
JOSEPH D. BAUGH, JR.
District Attorney General
JEFFREY P. BURKS
Assistant District Attorney General
Williamson County Courthouse
Suite G-6
P.O. Box 937
Franklin, TN 37065-0937
OPINION FILED:
CONVICTION AFFIRMED;
REVERSED AND REMANDED AS TO FINE
JOE G. RILEY,
JUDGE
OPINION
The defendant, John William Kuhlman, was convicted by a Williamson
County jury of assault, the Class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to
six (6) months in the county jail and approved the jury’s assessment of a fine of
$2,500. On appeal, defendant presents several issues for our review, including:
(1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict; (2) whether the
state proved his sanity at the time of the offense; (3) whether his preliminary hearing
was held in violation of Tenn. R. Crim. P. 5; (4) whether the trial court erred in
refusing to strike hearsay evidence; and (5) whether he was denied his right against
self-incrimination when he was compelled to testify at his sentencing hearing. We
affirm defendant’s conviction; however, because the jury imposed a fine that
exceeds the statutory maximum for a Class B misdemeanor, we remand so that a
new jury may be empaneled on the sole issue of fixing a fine.
FACTS
The state’s proof revealed that on May 12, 1996, Roland Penaloza, the
victim, was shopping at Kroger grocery store in Franklin when he noticed a man
watching him. The man, later identified as the defendant, began following him in
the store. Penaloza turned to face the defendant and said, “how are you doing,
sir?” Suddenly, without provocation, and much to the surprise of Penaloza, the
defendant kicked him in the groin. Predictably, Penaloza perceived prodigious pain.
When the victim asked defendant why he would do such a thing, defendant
reached into his coat and responded that he would kill the victim. Penaloza, fearing
that defendant was reaching for a weapon, went to tell the store clerk to call the
police. Defendant replied, “I am the police.” One of the clerks then watched
defendant leave the store from a side exit.
The incident was witnessed by another Kroger customer, Keith Vaughn.
Vaughn testified that Penaloza did nothing to provoke defendant’s actions. He also
2
feared that defendant was grabbing a weapon when defendant reached into his
coat.
The police arrived within minutes. After apprehending defendant in front of
the store, they were unable to locate any kind of weapon on his person. Defendant
denied any involvement in the incident to the police. When asked why Penaloza
would fabricate the incident, defendant referred to the victim using a racial slur.
The defendant did not testify or offer any proof at trial.
The jury returned a guilty verdict for assault, the Class B misdemeanor, and
assessed a fine of $2,500. The trial court approved the $2,500 fine and sentenced
defendant to six (6) months in the county jail. From this conviction, defendant
brings this appeal.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In his first issue, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. He
argues that he effectively impeached the eyewitnesses to the incident, Penaloza
and Vaughn. He maintains that both witnesses were untruthful, and the jury should
have been instructed accordingly. Therefore, he contends that the evidence is
insufficient to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court does not reweigh
or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).
A jury verdict approved by the trial judge accredits the state's witnesses and
resolves all conflicts in favor of the state. State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 803
(Tenn. 1994); State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). On appeal, the state
is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all legitimate or
reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d at 803;
Harris, 839 S.W.2d at 75. This Court will not disturb a verdict of guilt due to the
sufficiency of the evidence unless the defendant demonstrates that the facts
contained in the record and the inferences which may be drawn therefrom are
insufficient, as a matter of law, for a rational trier of fact to find the accused guilty
3
beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Brewer, 932 S.W.2d 1, 19 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1996). Accordingly, it is the appellate court's duty to affirm the conviction if the
evidence, viewed under these standards, was sufficient for any rational trier of fact
to have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317, 99 S.Ct. 2781,
2789, 61 L. Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994).
The defendant was convicted of Class B misdemeanor assault, which is
defined as intentionally or knowingly causing “physical contact” with another that a
“reasonable person” would regard as “extremely offensive or provocative.” Tenn.
Code Ann. § 39-13-101(a)(3). The state’s proof at trial showed that defendant
approached the victim and made physical contact by kicking him in the groin without
provocation. The proof further shows that the victim was extremely offended by this
action. We are further satisfied that any reasonable person would regard such
physical contact as extremely offensive. The state proved the elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
As for defendant’s contention that he effectively impeached the state’s
witnesses, the weight and credibility of the witnesses' testimony are matters
entrusted exclusively to the jury as the triers of fact. State v. Brewer, 932 S.W.2d
at 19; State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984). The jury resolved any
inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimony in favor of the state.
This issue is without merit.
INSANITY
In a related issue, defendant argues that the state did not prove that he
possessed the requisite criminal intent to commit the offense. He alleges that he
suffers from a “certified brain disorder . . . to wit, bipolar disorder (manic depression)
and probably atypical seizure disorder.” He insists that he was “not of sound mind”
on the day of the incident. Therefore, he argues that the state cannot prove that he
is guilty of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt because he lacks culpability.
4
A defendant must give written notice of an intent to rely upon the insanity
defense. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.2(a). No such notice appears in the record. Insanity
is an affirmative defense which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing
evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-501(a). At trial, defendant presented no proof
on the issue of insanity. 1 Moreover, there is no evidence in the record, other than
defendant’s allegation, that he was suffering from any type of psychological
disorder. Therefore, this issue has no merit.
WAIVER OF REMAINING ISSUES
As to the remaining issues, we must note that defendant did not file a motion
for new trial after the judgment was entered. Failure to file a motion for new trial
within thirty days from the date the order of sentence is entered results in defendant
losing the opportunity to argue on appeal any issues that should have been
presented in the motion for new trial. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e); see also State v.
Martin, 940 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Clinton, 754 S.W.2d 100, 103
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). These issues, therefore, have been waived.
These issues have also been waived for failure to make appropriate citations
to the record and for failure to cite authority to support his argument. Tenn. Crim.
App. Rule 10(b); State v. Turner, 919 S.W.2d 346, 358 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995);
State v. Hill, 875 S.W.2d 278, 283-84 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993); State v. Killebrew,
760 S.W.2d 228, 231 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988); see also Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7)
and (g).
Furthermore, the issues are waived on other grounds as well. Firstly,
defendant complains of the procedure surrounding his preliminary hearing in that
it was not held in conformance with Tenn. R. Crim. P. 5. However, the transcript of
defendant’s preliminary hearing is not in the record before this Court. When no
evidence is preserved in the record for review, we are precluded from considering
1
Although admittedly bizarre, evidence of kicking another in the groin without
provocation is insufficient, in and of itself, to place an insanity defense properly before the
court and jury.
5
the issue. State v. Roberts, 755 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). In
addition, we fail to see how such preliminary hearing allegations are material since
the defendant was subsequently indicted.
Secondly, defendant alleges that the trial court refused to “strike hearsay
evidence in trial.” However, defendant points to no specific portions of testimony
that should have been stricken as hearsay. This issue is much too broad in scope;
therefore, it is waived. Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(4); State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250,
254 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).
Lastly, defendant claims that he was denied his right against self-
incrimination when he was called to testify at his sentencing hearing. When the
state called defendant to testify, the trial court informed him that he did not have to
answer any questions regarding the subject offense. Additionally, defendant
refused to answer many of the assistant district attorney’s questions claiming, “I
don’t know.” We find that defendant’s rights against compulsory self-incrimination
were not violated.
This issue has no merit.
FINE
Although defendant does not raise this as an issue, we note that the jury
imposed a fine of $2,500 for the offense. This fine was approved and imposed by
the trial court. However, the maximum fine provided by statute for a Class B
misdemeanor is $500. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(e)(2). Article VI, Section 14
of the Tennessee Constitution provides that every citizen has the right to have a jury
of his peers assess any fine in excess of $50. This Court may not, therefore,
reduce defendant’s fine to correct this error. State v. Martin, 940 S.W.2d at 570-71.
However, it is permissible to remand the case for a determination on the issue of
the fine alone, so that defendant may have a jury assess a fine within the statutory
limits. Id. It is not constitutionally required that “the same jury fix the fine that finds
the defendant guilty.” Id. at 570. Therefore, we remand this case to the trial court
6
where a new jury shall be empaneled to fix the fine. The issue of guilt has already
been properly determined by a jury.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm defendant’s conviction. However,
because the jury fixed a fine in an amount which exceeded the statutory limit for a
Class B misdemeanor, we remand for a new jury to fix the amount of the fine.
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
7