ÿWPC …#†VUNÜ %* 0(04Xl{ 0lƒ 0Dï 0J3 0T} 0^Ñ 0h/ 0r— 0| 0†… 0 1u› U, 0d< U,  U>Ì U* B)4 B]DCz AM½I v~SvÓÑ D3¤ 0@× AOÆf 0D, 0Dp D/´ Bã˜HP LaserJet 4LHPPCL5E,,,,0®ØP ×>^ I¶ P(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡3x2ppppdp3|xÔ ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ?Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òJanuary€31,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÑ7€6SXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °‚Xª ¸ ™XÓÔ€"ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙßL€&'%;+'h|` Å `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALSÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌà@ àOCTOBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNO.€02C01„9503„CC„00083Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àCARROLL€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€C.€CREED€McGINLEYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌTERESA€ANN€COLEMAN,à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€(Second„Degree€Murder)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à àÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌGuy€T.€Wilkinson€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌBilly€R.€Roe,€Jr.à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€à àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌAssistant€Public€DefenderÌP.O.€Box€663à àà àà àà àà àJohn€Patrick€CauleyÌCamden,€Tennessee€38320à àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€RadfordÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àEleanorÏCahillà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€General€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.ÏBoxÏ686à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHuntingdon,€Tennessee€38344ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóà àÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÓÓòòÌÌÓ Ð Óà@ àOPINIONóóÌThe€appellant,€Teresa€Ann€Coleman,€was€indicted€by€a€Carroll€County€GrandÏJury€of€murder€in€the€first€degree.€€She€was€found€guilty€of€second„degree€murder€byÏa€jury€of€her€peers.€€It€is€from€that€conviction€that€she€appeals€pursuant€to€Rule€3(b)€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€ÌOn€appeal€the€appellant's€sole€contention€is€that€the€evidence€presented€atÏtrial€was€not€sufficient€to€support€the€jury's€finding€of€guilt€of€murder€in€the€secondÏdegree.€€ÌThere€is€no€dispute€that€the€appellant€did€shoot€and€kill€her€husband,ÏKenneth€Coleman,€with€a€single€gunshot.€€The€Stateððs€primary€evidence€against€€theÏappellant€was€the€statement€she€gave€to€police€on€the€night€of€the€shooting.€€TheÏstatement€was€introduced€through€the€testimony€of€Buck€Gately,€an€investigator€withÍthe€Carroll€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€€The€substance€of€the€statement€was€that€theÏappellant€shot€her€husband€after€they€quarrelled,€€but€that€it€was€an€ð ðaccidentðð€andÏshe€did€not€mean€to€shoot€him.€€ÌThe€appellantððs€testimony€at€trial€was€substantially€the€same€as€the€statementÏshe€gave€police€on€the€night€she€shot€her€husband.€€She€testified€that€she€and€theÏvictim€got€into€a€verbal€argument€that€began€inside€a€grocery€store€in€Camden,ÏTennessee,€on€October€26,€1993,€€and€continued€until€after€they€arrived€home€atÏapproximately€7:50€p.m.€€€€ÌThe€appellant€testified€that€once€inside€the€house€the€argument€escalatedÏand€the€victim€threw€her€against€the€bedroom€wall€and€then€walked€into€the€kitchen.€ÏThe€appellant€retrieved€a€gun€from€the€bedroom,€walked€into€the€kitchen,€held€theÏgun€next€to€her€husband's€head€and€pulled€the€trigger.€€She€testified€that€she€did€notÏknow€that€the€gun€was€loaded€and€that€she€only€wanted€to€scare€the€victim€and€makeÏhim€leave€her€alone.€ÌImmediately€after€the€shooting,€the€appellant€called€911€and€told€them€thatÏshe€had€shot€her€husband,€that€she€did€not€mean€it,€and€she€was€afraid€that€sheÏwould€be€arrested.€€The€appellant€was€questioned€and€ultimately€placed€under€arrestÏfor€the€murder€of€her€husband.€€ÌThe€defense€proof€at€trial€presented€the€jury€with€alternate€theories€of€theÏcase€which,€if€believed,€would€have€negated€the€intent€element€of€the€crime.€TheyÍwere:€1)€the€shooting€was€accidental,€and€2)€the€appellant€acted€in€self€defense.€€InÏsupport€of€the€self„defense€theory,€the€appellant€sought€to€have€the€jury€believe€thatÏat€the€time€of€the€shooting,€she€suffered€from€what€is€known€as€battered€spouseÏsyndrome.€€ÌThe€defense€painted€a€picture€of€a€marriage€marred€by€emotional€andÏphysical€abuse.€€€As€part€of€her€defense€that€she€was€suffering€from€battered€spouseÏsyndrome,€Mr.€Gary€Smithson,€a€licensed€psychological€examiner,€€testified€that€afterÏthe€shooting,€he€had€begun€treating€the€appellant€for€major€depression€with€mildÏpsychotic€features€and€post„traumatic€stress€disorder,€specifically€battered€spouseÏsyndrome.€€Mr.€Smithson€also€testified€that€in€his€opinion€the€appellant€did€not€haveÏthe€mental€capacity€to€form€the€intent€to€murder€the€victim€in€this€case.€€He€testifiedÏthat€the€appellantððs€IQ€is€72€and€that€a€score€of€69€is€considered€mildly€retarded.€€€€ÏBesides€her€own€testimony,€there€was€very€little€evidence€presented€to€support€theÏappellantððs€claim€that€the€victim€abused€the€appellant.€€Two€(2)€employees€from€aÏbank€located€directly€across€from€the€appellantððs€home€testified€that€the€appellantÏspent€almost€all€of€her€day€outside€holding€her€baby.€€The€appellantððs€testimony€wasÏthat€the€victim,€a€local€truckdriver,€ordered€her€to€stay€outside€with€the€baby€while€heÏwas€at€work€so€that€he€could€drive€by€any€time€during€the€day€to€determine€that€theÏbaby€was€okay.€€€One€of€the€bank€employees€testified€that€on€one€occasion€sheÏwitnessed€a€conversation€between€the€victim€and€the€appellant€in€which€it€appearedÍas€though€the€victim€attempted€to€strike€the€appellant€but€she€jumped€back€andÏavoided€the€blow.€€€Additionally,€one€of€the€victimððs€ex„wives€testified€that€during€herÏmarriage€to€the€victim,€€he€was€abusive€towards€her.€ÌDr.€Bernard€Hudson,€a€psychiatrist€with€the€Carey€Counseling€Center€inÏHuntington,€Tennessee,€testifying€as€a€rebuttal€witness€for€the€State,€said€theÏdefendant€was€not€insane€at€the€time€of€the€crime€and€that€she€was€competent€toÏstand€trial.€€ÌWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€weÏmust€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€inÏdetermining€whether€"any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€reevaluateÏthe€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏproof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferencesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€As€the€challenger€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof,€the€appellant€has€the€burdenÏof€illustrating€to€this€Court€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdictÏreturned€by€the€trier€of€fact€in€her€case.€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€forÏlack€of€sufficient€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€anyÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€facts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€aÍrational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€appellant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.ÏTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).ÌThe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was,€at€most,€sufficient€to€sustain€aÏconviction€for€voluntary€manslaughter€and€was€as€a€matter€of€law€insufficient€to€findÏher€guilty€of€second„degree€murder.€€€In€order€to€lawfully€convict€the€appellant€ofÏsecond„degree€murder,€the€State€was€required€to€prove€that€the€appellant€knowinglyÏkilled€the€victim.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210(a)(1)€(1995€Supp.)€€Criminal€intent€isÏa€matter€to€be€determined€by€the€jury€from€all€of€the€surrounding€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòWebster€v.€Stateóó,€544€S.W.2d€922,€924€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1976).€€ÌIt€appears€after€our€full€review€of€the€record€that€the€jury€did€not€believe€muchÏof€the€testimony€presented€by€the€defense€in€its€case.€€€It€is€well„settled€that€questionsÏconcerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€to€theÏevidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€ofÏfact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835.€€Ì€As€the€trier€of€fact,€the€jury€was€entitled€to€completely€disregard€theÏappellant's€contention€that€she€did€not€mean€to€shoot€the€victim,€that€she€did€notÏknow€the€gun€was€loaded.€€As€this€court€has€consistently€stated,€ð ðoneððs€òòactionsóó€areÏcircumstantial€evidence€of€his€[her]€intent.ðð€òò€State€v.€Barkeróó,€642€S.W.2d€735,€737Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982)€(emphasis€added);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòPoag€v.€Stateóó,€567€S.W.2d€775,Í778€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€€If€the€jury€disregarded€the€appellant's€testimony€as€toÏher€intent,€there€was€sufficient€evidence€that€the€appellant€knowingly€killed€herÏhusband.€€The€undisputed€proof€in€this€case€is€that€the€appellant€and€the€victim€wereÏengaged€in€an€argument.€€The€victim€left€the€appellant€in€the€bedroom€adjoining€theÏkitchen,€turned€his€back€to€the€appellant,€and€while€the€victim€stood€at€the€kitchenÏsink€eating€a€bowl€of€spaghetti,€the€appellant€walked€up€behind€him,€held€the€gunÏinches€from€his€head€and€pulled€the€trigger.€Ì€A€person€acts€knowingly€ð ðwhen€he€or€she€is€aware€of€the€conduct€or€isÏpractically€certain€that€the€conduct€will€cause€the€result...€.ðð€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€!ÔððÔ€"Ô€39„11„302(b)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€(1991€Repl.).€€ÌThe€jury€could€properly€have€concluded€that€despite€her€testimony€otherwise,Ïthe€appellant€was€aware€that€by€holding€a€gun€to€her€husband's€head€and€pulling€theÏtrigger€his€death€would€be€a€practically€certain€event.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Rutherfordóó,€876ÏS.W.2d€118,€120€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€ÌThe€appellant€argues€that€the€jury€was€not€justified€by€law€in€disregarding€theÏ"unrefuted"€testimony€of€the€expert€witness€who€testified€on€behalf€of€the€defense€thatÏthe€appellant€was€suffering€from€battered€woman€syndrome€and€that€she€did€notÏhave€the€mental€capacity€necessary€to€form€the€requisite€intent€to€commit€secondÏdegree€murder.€€It€is€entirely€possible€that€the€jury€believed€that€the€appellant€sufferedÏfrom€battered€spouse€syndrome€but€did€not€accept€the€theory€that€she€acted€in€selfÍdefense.€€In€òòState€v.€Elizabeth€Smithóó,€No.€01C01„9211„CC„00362€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏAt€Nashville,€March€2,€1995),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995),€€our€Court€statedÏthat,€ÌÓÓà8 à[t]his€court€does€not€discredit€the€existence€of€the€batteredÏspouse€syndrome€described€by€the€defense€expert.€TheÏexistence€of€such€a€syndrome,€however,€does€not,€byÏdefinition,€exculpate€one€who€suffers€from€its€symptoms.ÏNor€is€one€who€is€diagnosed€as€suffering€from€batteredÏspouse€syndrome€automatically€entitled€to€an€acquittal€onÏthe€basis€of€self„defense€or€defense€of€others.€ThoseÏdefenses€are€factual€ones.€In€this€case,€after€hearing€theÏfacts,€having€the€benefit€of€psychological€opinions,€andÏbeing€advised€of€applicable€law,€the€jury€rejectedÏappellant's€defense.€The€facts€support€that€decision.€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àIt€is€clear€however,€that€the€jury€did€not€accredit€the€expertððs€testimony€concerningÏthe€appellantððs€ability€to€form€the€intent€required€for€second€degree€murder.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€jury€acted€within€the€law€in€disregarding€that€testimony.€€TheÏappellant€misapprehends€the€law€with€regard€to€expert€witness€testimony€in€thisÏState.€€The€trial€court€correctly€instructed€the€jury€that€it€was€under€no€obligation€toÏaccept€as€true€the€testimony€of€any€expert€testifying€at€the€trial.€€In€òòState€v.€Goodeóó,€No.Ï01C01„9108„CR„00221€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€January€31,€1992),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóóÏòòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1992),€€this€Court€stated€that€"the€evaluation€and€accreditationÏof€expert€testimony€are€matters€within€the€sole€province€of€the€jury€as€triers€of€fact."€ÏThe€jury€was€free€to€disregard€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Smithson.€€We€hold€that€the€juryÍwas€presented€with€sufficient€evidence€to€support€its€finding€that€the€appellant€wasÏguilty€of€the€crime€of€murder€in€the€second€degree.€€Ìà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGE€€ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGE