WPC_/ MM $us^94>5P۪@@to *j(wPǟc"sL$sѰC5N M`Oݕ_gHf2ζ juxe( {Դ6>~F^ 9qgE(*+aS]b )Ꙍ˂ |&CF>K.8<~hn5B\s|Ie^fQ5DrYoz8qV{M&*O\j]ۈy'5Qcbae v>!XHy\yW}j#)6=6)~S$8f@QM&P 7| JT S1ӛwJ^UFRiY@q*ZU LHvdb&r>JN*!jm+W«.#~ z{MtY$C͛^3:-Ln5b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a 'U NN;=EbG+r=Pz  #Fu$%A(7)7)7)?)?)?)?)?)?)?)bR*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R*R* 0Z*Z*Z*Z* BE+E+ 0b+ D5, D-;, 0Kh,h, AS,- 0- 0Dp. A.HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0Yi+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularm~g+=Br C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  Rf$      1  h   _ԀThevictimslastnameisspelled Adkinsinsomeportionsoftherecordand Atkinsinothers.Becausethis  Courtutilizedtheformerspellinginitspostconvictionopinionrelatedtothiscase,wewillcontinuetousethatspelling t here. Rf$      2  h   _ԀAdditionaldetailwillbeprovidedintheanalysisofthedefendantsissue. X Rf$      3  h   _ԀAdditionaltestimony_established___Ԁthatthewhite_tennis_Ԁshoeshadpinktrimon_them. _ = Rf$      4  h   _ԀAngushadbeenwithhergrandmotherwhenhergrandmotherhadpurchasedthepantsandhadbeenwiththe  victimwhenthevictimhadpurchasedtheshoes. _ This_ԀwitnessandDalton_Adkins_Ԁalsostatedthatthevictimhadworn t size7shoes,andtheshoesrecoveredwiththeremainsweresize7._ _ԀInaddition,Angusand_Adkins_Ԁidentifiedas : belongingtothevictimvariousitemsfoundinthegeneralvicinityofthelakefromwhichthebodyhadbeenrecovered._ _  Rf$      5  h   _ԀEmilyCraig,aPh.D.candidateinForensicPathologyandagraduateassistanttoDr.WilliamBass,also  testifiedconcerningtheraceoftheindividualrecoveredfromthewater.Craigsspecialtyinvolvedmaking t determinationsaboutapersonsracebaseduponknee/femoralremains.Whileadmittedlythestudysheusedinreaching 8 herdeterminationinthiscaseonlydistinguishedbetweenwhiteandblackindividuals,Craigwasoftheopinionthatthe L kneejointsandfemursshehadexaminedbelongedtoawhite/Caucasian_person. _  Rf$      6  h   _ԀThiswitnessactuallyerrantlytestifiedthatthevictimwouldhavebeenfortythreeorfortyfouryearsold.  However,hehadprovidedherbirthdayasJanuary15,1949,andagreedthatherageatthetimeofherdisappearance t wouldhavebeenthetimewhichhadpassedfromthisdateuntilDecember30,1990.Assuch,thevictimwouldhavebeen 8 lessthanonemonthshortofherfortyfirstbirthdaywhenshe_vanished. _Ԁ 3 Rf$      7  h   _ԀTheitemsincludedphotographsoffamily,acalculator,anaddressbook,awallet,_a_Ԁdriverslicense,_etc. _  Rf$      8  h   _ԀNobloodwasavailablefortestingfromtherecoveredportionofthebody,andtissuefromtheremainswere  _no_Ԁlonger_suitable___Ԁforuseinsuch_testing. _ p Rf$      9  h   _ԀTed_Tarpley_,aninvestigatorforthelocaldistrictattorneygeneralsoffice,indicatedthatthedefendanthad  shakenvisiblyduringhis_interview. _  Rf$      10  h   _ԀThis_witness_Ԁalso_stated_ԀthattheuseofthegloveswithaWeedEater couldproducethesamesmell._ _Ԁ  Additionally,JerrySwift,thedefendantsemployertestifiedthattherehadbeenhundredsofloggersintheareaatthe t timeoftheoffenseandthatloggerstypicallyranthroughnumerouspairsofthesegloveswhileworking.Headdedthat 8 theloggersoftenthrewtheglovesonthegroundwhentheglovesbecame_worn. _ Rf$      12  h   _ԀA.25automaticwithfivebulletsintheclipwas,however,_taken. _ < Rf$      13  h   _ԀThedefendantdidpresentawitnesswhoallegedthatthequiltinvolvedwasnotliketheonethedefendant  hadkeptinhis_truck. _Ԁ  | Rf$      14  h   _ԀAsaforementioned,aStewartCountygrandjuryhadchargedthedefendantwithfirstdegreemurder,buthe  _was_Ԁconvicted___of_Ԁseconddegreemurder.TheStatenotesthatahomicide,onceestablished,ispresumedtobesecond t degreemurderaccordingtolongestablished_caselaw_.SeeStatev.Brown,836S.W.2d530,543(Tenn.1992). Rf$      15  h   _ԀThedefendantattemptedtoexplainthatthesehadbeenmadeby_briars. _   Rf$      11  h   _ThesamplewasnotlargeenoughtoallowforsuccessfulDNAtesting;thus,thiswitnessdidnotseek_such._- -(|G2f$ !.8\dd d 8         0  1 d(|3$ !.8\dd d 8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8\dd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8I|d d8     _   @8'XXdd 8 X@tt@INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#@#Ԉ &    @  @` January17,2001Session L XX@ #@XX$#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.KENNETHLEEPIPKINXX@  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforStewartCounty  J @@No.4190CR92RobertE.Burch,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199900870CCA_OT_ԄPCFiledNovember9,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     AStewartCountygrandjuryindictedthedefendantononecountoffirstdegreemurderinvolving x  MarilynJuneAdkins  #  1      ׀death. Followingajurytrial,hestoodconvictedofseconddegreemurder.  d ForthisoffensehereceivedfifteenyearsasaRangeI,standardoffender. Thereafterthedefendant T electednottofileanewtrialmotionandwaivedhisrighttobringadirectappeal. Nevertheless,he D laterfiledapostconvictionpetitionallegingfivegroundsforrelief. Findingthattrialcounselhad 0 providedineffectiveassistanceinadvisingthedefendantregardingwaivingdirectappeal,thisCourt l allowedhimtofileadelayedappeal.SeeKennethLeePipkinv.State,No.01C019608CC00328, X 1997WL749441at*1,89(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,Dec.4,1997.)Asnonewtrialmotion D hadbeenbrought,thedefendantwasalsoallowedtofilesuchmotion.Seeid.at*9.Throughthis 0 motionthedefendantunsuccessfullyallegedthattherewasinsufficientevidencetosupporthis  conviction. HenowbringsthesameissuebeforethisCourt.However,afterreviewingthematter,  wefindittolackmeritandaffirmtheactionofthelowercourt.#@XX䜞#XX@   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmed.     #@X #XX.@JerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.WellesandRobertW. X  Wedemeyer,JJ.,joined. D!  KennethR.Goble,Jr.,Clarksville,Tennessee,forappellant,KennethLeePipkin. #l" PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;DavidH. $D $ Findley,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;DanAlsobrooks,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andGeorgeSexton, %0!% DistrictAttorneyGeneral,forappellee,StateofTennessee. &"&   )$) Ї@@OO& OPINION #@XX #XX@    @!FactualBackground       Indecidingthedefendantscaseonpostconvictionappeal,thisCourtsummarizedthefacts ` asfollows:  #  2       L  __8   ` MarilynJuneAdkinsdisappearedonDecember30,1990andlaw 8  enforcementofficialsfoundphysicalevidencetoindicatethatfoulplaywasinvolved. $ t Authoritiesdiscoveredherabandonedcarattheendofadesertedroadandit  ` appearedthatsomeonehadtriedtorunitoveranembankment.Nottoofaraway,the  L  contentsofAdkins'pursewerefoundstrewnonthesideoftheroadinaloggingarea.  8  Afewmilesawayinapinethicket,theyfoundapoolofbloodonthegroundanda $  watchbelongingtoAdkins.NeartheParisLandingBridgeinStewartCounty,   authoritiesfoundaquilt,stainedwithblood,andapairofbrownjerseyworkgloves   thathadbeenthrownoveranembankment.Despiteextensivesearchesandefforts,   theywereunabletolocatethevictim'sbody.InSeptemberof1992,appellantwas   indictedforthefirstdegreemurderofAdkins.Herbodyhadnotbeenrecovered.p   8   ` [Thedefendants]trialwassetinAugustof1993,butwascontinueddueto \ defensecounsel'sdifficultiesininterviewingwitnesses.Afterthecontinuance,rather H unexpectedly,acommercialfishermandiscoveredtheremainsofabodyinthe 4 TennesseeRiveronAugust23,1993.Onlythelowerportionofabody,fromthe  p waistdown,wasrecovered.At[thedefendants]trialinMarchof1994,theState  \ offeredproofthattheremainswerethatofawhitefemale,betweentheagesof37 H and42,approximately5'5"tall.Thiswasconsistentwiththephysicaldescriptionof 4 thevictim.Testimonyalsoindicatedthatbaseduponthedegreeofdecomposition,   thebodyhadlikelybeensubmergedforonetofiveyears.Inaddition,someofthe   victim'sfamilymembersidentifiedthepantsandshoesthatwerefoundonthe  remains.Thecauseofdeathcouldnotbeascertainedduetotheincompleteremains.   8   ` Inimplicatingthe[defendant],testimonyreflectedthatawitnesshadseenthe  victimand[thedefendant]togetherin[thedefendants]truckataboatdockseveral l hoursbeforeshedisappeared.TheStateallegedthatthetwowerehavinganaffair. X  Experttestimonydemonstratedthatthebloodfoundonthegroundandthequiltwas D! consistentwiththatofthevictim.TheStateallegedthequiltbelongedtothe 0"  [defendant],introducingtestimonythatheoftencoveredtheseatofhistruckwitha #l! patchworkquilt,similartotheonediscovered.Thebrownworkglovesfoundwith $X" thequiltwereshowntobeofthekind[thedefendant]usedinoperatingachainsaw $D # inhisloggingwork.Theysmelledofgasolineandsimilargloveswerealsofoundin %0!$ asearchof[thedefendants]home.&"%   Id.at*1(footnoteomitted). (#'  )$(    Sufficiency     Asaforementioned,thedefendantassertsthattheevidencepresentedattrialisinsufficient  tosupporthisconvictionforseconddegreemurder.Specifically,thedefendantallegesthereare t deficienciesintheproofrelatedtotheidentificationofthebody,thecauseofdeath,andthe ` defendantsinvolvementinaknowingkilling. L    A.StandardofReview $ t     Whenadefendantchallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidence,thisCourtisobligedtoreview  L  thatclaimaccordingtocertainwell-settledprinciples.Averdictofguilty,renderedbyajuryand  8   approvedbythetrialjudge,accreditsthetestimonyoftheState'switnessesandresolvesall $  conflictsinthetestimonyinfavoroftheState.Statev.Cazes,875S.W.2d253,259(Tenn.1994);   Statev.Harris,839S.W.2d54,75(Tenn.1992).Thus,althoughtheaccusedisoriginallycloaked   withapresumptionofinnocence,thejuryverdictofguiltyremovesthispresumption andreplaces   itwithoneofguilt.Statev.Tuggle,639S.W.2d913,914(Tenn.1982).Hence,onappeal,the   burdenofproofrestswiththedefendanttodemonstratetheinsufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence. p Id.Therelevantquestionthereviewingcourtmustansweriswhetheranyrationaltrieroffactcould \ havefoundtheaccusedguiltyofeveryelementoftheoffensebeyondareasonabledoubt.SeeTenn. H R.App.P.13(e);Harris,839S.W.2dat75.Inmakingthisdecision,wearetoaccordtheState the 4 strongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceaswellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferencesthatmay  p bedrawntherefrom.SeeTuggle,639S.W.2dat914.Assuch,thisCourtisprecludedfromre  \ weighingorreconsideringtheevidenceinevaluatingtheconvictingproof.Statev.Morgan,929 H S.W.2d380,383(Tenn.Crim.App.1996);Statev.Matthews,805S.W.2d776,779(Tenn.Crim. 4 App.1990).Moreover,wemaynotsubstituteourown inferencesforthosedrawnbythetrierof   factfromcircumstantialevidence."Matthews,805S.W.2dat779.Ofcourse,acriminaloffense   maybeestablishedexclusivelybycircumstantialevidence.Statev.Tharpe,726S.W.2d896,  899-900(Tenn.1987);Statev.Jones,901S.W.2d393,396(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).However,the  trieroffactmustbeableto determinefromtheproofthatallotherreasonabletheoriesexceptthat  ofguiltareexcluded.Jones,901S.W.2dat396;seealso,e.g.,Tharpe,726S.W.2dat900;. l   Withtheseguidelinesinmind,weturntothedefendantsfirsttwoallegations.Essentially, X  throughtheseheassertsthattheStatefailedtoprovethecorpusdelictiofseconddegreemurder.To D! generallyestablishthecorpusdelictiofacrime,theStatemustprove twoelements:(1)[t]hata 0"  certainresulthasbeenproduced,and(2)[t]hattheresultwascreatedthroughcriminalagency."State #l! v.Ervin,731S.W.2d70,71-72(Tenn.Crim.App.1986).Whendealingwithahomicide,theState $X" mustestablishbeyondareasonabledoubt: (1)thedeathofahumanbeingand(2)criminalagency $D # inproducingthatdeath.Statev.Shepherd,902S.W.2d895,901(Tenn.1995). %0!$   B.IdentityoftheVictim '#& .  ThedefendantbeginsbycontendingthattheStatedidnotmeetitsburdenregardingthe )$( identificationofthevictimsbody.Whileittruethattosustainthedefendantsconviction,theState |*%) musthaveproventhatthedefendantmurderedtheindividualnamedintheindictment,identification h+&* maybeprovenbycircumstantialevidence.InBerryv.State,523S.W.2d371(Tenn.Crim.App.  1974),thisCourtstated:8   __8  Identificationofadecomposed,burned,ormutilatedbody,orportionthereof,is t frequentlyestablishedbyevidenceshowingasimilaritybetweenthephysical ` characteristicsoftheremainsandofthevictim,coupledwithevidencethatthe L  clothing,orfragmentsthereof,foundonorneartheremainswasthesameas,or 8  similarto,clothingwornbythevictim.$ t   __ԀId.at374.TheCourtaddedthat [c]ircumstantialevidenceoftheidentityofabodymaybefound  L  inthecorrespondenceofpeculiarphysicalcharacteristics,orinclothing,orarticlesfoundin  8  connectionwiththeremains.Id;seealso,e.g.,Statev.HenryLeeBerry,No.E199900704CCA $  R3CD,2000WL1100330at*5(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,August3,2000).     Intheinstantcase Dr.CharlesHarlan,themedicalexaminerwhoanalyzedtherecovered   lowerportionofthebody,testifiedthatthespecimenhehadreceivedhadonblackpantsandwhite   tennisshoes. DaltonAdkins,thevictimshusband,recalledthatshehadbeenwearingaredblouse,   blackslacks,andwhitepinkish  #  3      ׀tennisshoesonthenightofherdisappearance. Furthermore,Sherry t Angus,thevictimsdaughter,identifiedtheblackpantsandwhitetennisshoesrecoveredasthose d whichhadbelongedtohermother.T  #  4      ׀ Fromviewingtheremainsofthebodyitself,Harlanconcluded P thattheindividualhadbeenawhite.  #  5      ׀female. Alsointhecourseofhisexamination,Harlan @ determinedthatthebodyhadbeeninthewaterfromonetofiveyears. Othertestimonyindicated ,| thatthevictiminthiscasehadbeenmissingforapproximatelytwoyearsandeightmonthswhen l theseremainswererecovered.  X   Dr.WilliamBass,the_director_ԀoftheUniversityofTennesseeatKnoxvillesforensic D anthropologycenter,providedfurtherinformationconcerningtheavailableportionofthebody.  0 Fromhisanalysisofthebonesprovided,Bassconcludedthattheremainshadbelongedtoathirty    seventofortytwoyearoldwomanwhohadstoodfivefoottwoinchestofivefooteightinchestall.     Asrevealedthroughthetestimonyofherhusband,thevictimhadbeenalmostfortyoneyearsofage  #  6         andfivefootfivetofivefootsixinchestall. Moreover,herdriverslicensestatedthatherdateof  birthwas1/15/49andherheightwasfivefootfiveinches.     ViewingthesefactsinthelightmostfavorabletotheState,wefindthatthereisample x evidencefromwhichajurycouldconcludetheremainsrecoveredwerethoseofthevictim. d _   `     h      p _  __  C.CauseofDeath <  ?  Thedefendantnextchallengesthesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidencebecausethemedical  d examinercouldnotdetermine theactualcauseofdeath.Inmakinghisclaim,thedefendant  P  acknowledgesDr.Harlanstestimonythatthedeathresultedfromahomicide,butthedefendant  <  aversthatthisislegallyinsufficient. (    We,therefore,considerwhethertheStatehasproventhatcriminalagencyproducedthe   victimsdeath.Ourstatesupremecourthasheldthattheevidencemustshowthatthedeathdidnot   resultfromanaccidental,asuicidal,oranaturalcause.SeeSeagrovesv.State,281S.W.2d644,645,   198Tenn.633(Tenn.1955);Davisv.State,445S.W.2d933,935(Tenn.Crim.App.1969).   Furthermore,thisCourthasheldthat althoughthecauseofdeathcouldnotbeshown,criminal t agencycouldstillbefound.Statev.Driver,634S.W.2d601,606(Tenn.Crim.App.1981).Thus, ` wemustdetermineiftherecordreflectsbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthevictimdiedasaresult L ofacriminalhomicide. 8   DuringhistestimonyDr.Harlanstatedthattheremainsthathehadreceivedhadaligature $t madeofclothandbalingwireattachedtothebelt. Headdedthatfromhisexperienceligatureslike ` thishadweightsattachedtothemwithoutwhichabodywouldfloattothesurface. Inhisopinion P theperson,whoselowerportionofthebodyhehadexamined,haddiedbyhomicidalmeans. @   Turningmorespecificallytothevictimsdisappearance,wefindmoresupportforthis , conclusion.Accordingtoherhusbandthevictimhadtakenfoodfromthefreezertothawbefore  leavingthehouseforthelasttime. Afterthevictimhadbeenreportedasmissing,adeerhunter  namedJerryLeediscoveredablueThunderbirdorCougarinaremoteareaofStewartCounty. The  driversdoorwasopen,andnotracksfromtheautomobilecouldbeseenintherecentsnowfall.   FollowingLeesreportofthisvehicle,StewartCountySheriffDavidHickswenttotheareawhere | ithadbeenfoundandsubsequentlydeterminedthatthecarhadbelongedtothevictim. Duringa h  searchbegunthenextmorning,variousitems_  #  7      _Ԁfromthevictimspursewerelocatedaroundonehalf T! tothreequartersofamilefromthecar. Theitemswerestrewnalonganapproximately two @"  hundredyardstretchofOldHighway79. Additionalsearchesofthegeneralvicinityrevealeda 0#! sampleofbloodontheground,awomans_watch,_Ԁandabloodstainedquilt. Thewatchandthe  $p" bloodonthegroundwerediscoveredaboutthirtyfivefeetapart,andthegrassbeyondthewatchwas %` # matteddownasifsomethinghadbeendraggedacrossit. Subsequenttestingofthe %L!$ grass/straw/broomsagefromthepatchofblooddisclosedthatthebloodhadcomefromahuman.  Asforthequilt,asampleofthebloodfromitwaslatertestedagainstasampleofmenstrualblood  fromanightgownofthevictim.  #  8      ׀ ThisDNAtestingrevealedthatthepossibilitythatthesesamples  werenotfromthesamepersonwasoneinsixmillion.  x   Baseduponthesefactsandusingtheaboveoutlinedstandards,weagainconcludethatthe d evidenceislegallysufficienttosupportaconclusionthatthevictimwaskilledinacriminal P  homicide.Thus,thisportionofthedefendantsargumentalsolacksmerit. <    D.TheDefendantsInvolvement  d Q  NextthedefendantaversthattheStatedidnotsufficientlyprovethathehadkilledthevictim.  <  Morespecifically,thedefenseallegesthatthebest anywitnesscoulddowastoplacethedefendant (  andthevictimtogetherbrieflypriortotheperiodoftimetheybelievetheactionoccurred._Before_Ԁ__   examiningthiscontention,wenotethatcircumstantialevidencemaycertainlybesufficienttoprove   thedefendant'sidentity.SeeStatev.Darnell,905S.W.2d953,961(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).     Afterreviewingtherecord,wefindnumerouspiecesofevidencetyingthedefendanttothe   murder.Wefirstnotethatthedefendantdeniedhavingbeenwiththevictimonthedayofthe t victimsdisappearancebutlateracknowledgedthathehadpreviously_met_ԀherattheDyersCreek ` boatramp. Onthedateofthevictimsdisappearance,afishermanhadseenanewermodelred L pickuptruckandablueThunderbirdparkedbesideoneanotherattheboatramp. Atthetime,the < defendanthadsuchapickup,andthevictimdroveaThunderbirdmatchingthisdescription. This (x witnessaddedthatnoonehadbeenintheThunderbirdwhenhehadseenthevehicles,butamanand h womanhadbeensittinginthetruck. Thewomanwasonthepassengersside. Therewasalso T testimonythatthedefendantandthevictimhadbeenhavinganaffair.Onthedaythevictim D vanishedthedefendanthadbeenuncharacteristicallylateinpickingupfromworkthewomanhehad 0 beendatingandlatermarried. 򀀀 Inaddition,aroundthetimeofthevictimsdisappearance,the  defendantmadehislivingrunningachainsawasalogger. 򀀀 Afellowloggerobservedthatthe   defendanthadseemednervousaroundthistime.  #  9      Glovesusedbyloggersandsimilartothosefound  inthedefendantshomewererecoveredintheareaoftheaforementionedbloodstainedquilt. These  gloveshadwhatappearedtobewoodchipsinthem. Accordingtothe_abovereferenced___Ԁcoworker   theglovessmelledliketheyhadbeenusedwithachainsaw,h  #  10      ׀andtestingrevealedthatthesegloves t  hadhumanbloodon_them. '  #  11      _ԀFurthermore,multiplewitnessesstatedthatthedefendanthadkepta   quiltinhistruck,yetwhenthepolicesawthetruckwithinafewdaysafterthevictims  disappearance,noquilthadbeeninit. Thesubsequentsearchofthedefendantshomewithindays  ofthedisappearancealsorevealednoquilt. T  #  12      However,relativelydistinctfiberslatertakenfromhis x truckandfromtherecoveredbloodstainedquiltwereconsistentwithoneanother.!  #  13       d   FromtheevidencepresentedwefindthattheStatehasmetitsburdenofproofwithregard P  tothedefendantsinvolvementinthevictimsdeath.Thiscontention,therefore,alsolacksmerit. <    E.KnowingKilling  d 9a  Finally,thedefendantassertsthatevenifsufficientproofexistsconnectinghimwiththe  <  victimsdeath, therewaslittleornoevidencethatthiswasaknowingkillingofanother. (  TennesseeCodeAnnotated3913210(a)doesrequireproofofaknowingkillinginorderto   convictadefendantofsecond-degreemurder."2  #  14      ׀Ourcodefurtherprovidesthat:   __8  Knowingreferstoapersonwhoactsknowinglywithrespecttotheconductorto   circumstancessurroundingtheconductwhenthepersonisawareofthenatureofthe   conductorthatthecircumstancesexist.Apersonactsknowinglywithrespecttoa t resultoftheperson'sconductwhenthepersonisawarethattheconductisreasonably ` certaintocausetheresult.L   __Tenn.CodeAnn.3911106(a)(20). $t   Inevaluatinganattemptedseconddegreemurderconviction,thisCourtstatedthat"[i]ntent, L whichcanseldombeprovenbydirectevidence,maybededucedorinferredbythetrieroffactfrom 8 thecharacteroftheassault,thenatureoftheactandfromallthecircumstancesofthecasein $ evidence."Statev.Elder,982S.W.2d871,876(Tenn.Crim.App.1998).Thisanalysisisalso  appropriateforthequestioncurrentlybeforetheCourt.Moreover,whetherthedefendant  "knowingly"killedthevictimisaquestionoffactforthejury.SeeStatev.FredrickDewayne  Rollins,No.03C019706CR00200,1998WL18205at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Jan.  20,1998).ThisCourthasalsoprovidedthat thedeterminationofwhetherallreasonabletheories p areexcludedbythecircumstantialevidenceisprimarilyaquestionoffactforthejury.Statev. \   HenryLeeBerry,2000WL1100330at*5.Furthermore,weareagainremindedthatthisCourtmay H! notsubstituteitsowninferences"forthosedrawnbythetrieroffactfromcircumstantialevidence."  Matthews,805S.W.2dat779.      Asdiscussedinpreviousissues,theproofintheinstantcaseestablishedthatthevictimdid  notdiefromaccidental,suicidal,ornaturalmeansandthatthedefendantwasinvolvedinherdeath.  t Inaddition,therewasanobviousattempttohideherremains.Furthermore,theabsenceofbloodin ` thevictimsandthedefendantsvehiclesandthebloodpatchlocatedoffofanoldloggingroad L  allowaninferencethatthedefendantmayhavetakenthevictimtoasecludedwoodedareainorder 8  toaccomplishthemurder. Thewatchrecoverednearthebloodpatchhadabrokenband, andthe $ t transcriptrevealsthatthedefendanthadscratchesonhisfaceshortlyafterthedisappearance.#  #  15      This  ` evidenceismorethansufficientforarationaltrieroffacttoconcludethatthedefendant  L   knowinglykilledthevictim.  8     Conclusion    o  Fortheforegoingreasonswefindthatthedefendants_contentions___Ԁdonotmeritrelief.   Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED.#@XX#XX@   _#@XXXq#XX@_   `     h     ___________________________________  p    `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE