State v. George Fitzpatrick ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
OCTOBER 1998 SESSION
November 4, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9709-CR-00398
Appellee, )
) Davidson County
V. )
) Honorable Cheryl Blackburn, Judge
)
GEORGE D. FITZPATRICK, ) (Rape)
)
Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Carlton M. Lewis John Knox Walkup
Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter
Petway, Blackshear & Cain
208 Third Avenue, North Michael J. Fahey, II
Nashville, TN 37201-1604 Assistant Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Victor S. (Torry) Johnson III
District Attorney General
Dan Hamm
Sharon Brox
Assistant District Attorneys General
200 Washington Square, Suite 500
Nashville, TN 37201-1619
OPINION FILED: ___________________
AFFIRMED
PAUL G. SUMMERS,
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, George D. Fitzpatrick, was convicted by a jury of rape and
assault. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the evidence at trial was
sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We find that it
was and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The evidence showed that the appellant agreed to drive the victim and her
male friend, Chris, to a nearby store to buy some beer. The victim asked Chris
to get her purse and went on to the appellant’s vehicle ahead of him. W hile
Chris was delayed, the victim got into the rear seat of the vehicle, a small two-
door Toyota, and the appellant and another man got into the front seats, thereby
trapping the victim in the car. The appellant then drove away before Chris could
join them.
Rather than go for beer, the appellant drove the victim around for about
twenty minutes. He then stopped the car in a desolate area, reached into the
back seat and grabbed the victim’s leg, and ordered her to take off her pants.
The victim began to scream and cry but did not disrobe. The victim testified that
the appellant then pulled her head forward and forced her to preform oral sex on
him. She unequivocally stated that the victim’s penis penetrated her mouth and
that she did not consent.
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. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,
319 (1979); State v. Duncan, 698 S.W.2d 63, 67 (Tenn. 1985); Tenn. R. App. P.
13(e). The appellee is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence
and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. See State v.
-2-
Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Moreover, a guilty verdict
removes the presumption of innocence enjoyed by defendants at trial and
replaces it with a presumption of guilt. See State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476
(Tenn. 1973). Thus, an appellant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence
carries the burden of illustrating to this Court why the evidence is insufficient to
support the verdict. See State v. Freeman, 943 S.W.2d 25, 29 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1996).
The appellant is convicted under Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-
503, which provides that rape is the “unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by
the defendant or of the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the
following circumstances . . . [f]orce or coercion is used to accomplish the act.”
The appellant argues that the credibility of the victim is “highly questionable” and
advances a theory as to the victim’s motive to wrongly accuse him. These
issues are not proper inquires for this Court. The credibility of witnesses, the
weight of their testimony, and the reconciliation of conflicts in the evidence are
matters entrusted exclusively to the trier of fact. See State v. Sheffield, 676
S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); State v. Gentry, 881 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1993). A jury verdict for the state accredits the testimony of the state’s
witnesses and resolves all conflicts in favor of the state. See State v. Williams,
657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). We look only to see whether there was
sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found that
the appellant committed each element of the crime for which he was convicted.
In the present case, the victim’s uncontradicted testimony was clearly sufficient.
The jury’s verdict indicates that they accredited her testimony, and it was their
prerogative to do so.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
__________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge
-3-
CONCUR:
_____________________________
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge
_____________________________
JOE G. RILEY, Judge
-4-