State v. Alton Waller

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-