IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON FILED
DECEMB ER SESSION, 1998 March 15, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9803-CR-00096
)
Appellee, )
) SHELBY COUNTY
V. )
)
) HON. BERNIE WEINMAN, JUDGE
GEORGE BROOKS, )
)
Appe llant. ) (AGGR AVATED ROB BERY )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
A.C. WHARTON JOHN KNOX WALKUP
District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
WALKER GWINN PETE R M. C OUG HLAN
Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Justice Center, Suite 201 2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building
201 Poplar Avenue 425 Fifth Avenu e North
Memphis, TN 38103 Nashville, TN 37243
JOH N W. P IERO TTI
District Attorn ey Ge neral
P. T. HOOVER
Assistant District Attorney General
Criminal Justice Center, Suite 301
201 Poplar Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
OPINION
The Defendant, George Brooks, appeals as of right follo wing h is conv iction in
the Sh elby C ounty Crim inal Co urt. Th is was Defendant’s second trial surrounding
an incident which oc curred o n Marc h 25, 19 94. Following Defendant’s first trial, he
was convicted of aggra vated rob bery. In an appea l to this court, Defendant argued
that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense
of aggravated assault. This court reversed the Defendant’s conviction and
remanded for a new trial on that ba sis. State v. George Brooks, No. 02C01-9602-
CR-00050, Shelby County (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 14, 1997). Defendant
was again convic ted of a ggrav ated ro bbery in the second trial. He appeals now on
the basis of insufficiency of evidence regarding proof of Defendant’s identity as the
perpetrator and th at the vic tim’s injuries constitute “serious bodily injury.” We affirm
the judgm ent of the tria l court.
When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the
stand ard is w hethe r, after re viewing the evid ence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reaso nable d oubt. Jack son v. V irginia, 443 U.S. 307, 31 9 (1979).
On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and
all inference s therefro m. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn . 1978).
Because a verdict of guilt rem oves th e pres ump tion of in noce nce a nd rep laces it with
a presumption of guilt, th e acc used has th e burd en in this court of illustrating why the
evidence is insufficient to support the ve rdict returned by the trier of fact. State v.
Tug gle, 639 S.W .2d 913 , 914 (T enn. 19 82); State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476
(Tenn. 19 73).
-2-
Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value to
be given the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evide nce, are
resolved by the trier of fact, no t this court. State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623
(Tenn. Crim. A pp.), perm. to appeal denied, id. (Tenn. 198 7). Nor ma y this court
reweig h or reevalu ate the ev idence . Cabbage, 571 S.W .2d at 835. A jury verdic t
approved by the trial court accredits the State’s witnesses and resolve s all conflicts
in favor of the State. Grace, 493 S.W.2d at 476.
The Defendant and the victim, Terry Howell, were co-workers at a plant,
United Liquor, in Memphis. On March 25, 1994, the Defen dant as ked the victim to
borrow twenty dollars ($2 0.00), bu t the victim re fused. Following work that day, the
victim went to a friend’s ho me. Arou nd 8:00 p.m ., the victim left his friend’s home
and began to walk towards his home. As the most direct route to his home was
through an alley behind the Defendant’s home, the victim walked through the alley
and was approached by the De fendan t. The D efenda nt again a sked the victim to
borrow twenty dollars ($20.00), but the victim still refused. Defendant then hit the
victim in the fa ce with an un identifia ble bla ck ob ject. Fo llowing the atta ck, the victim
noticed th at sixty dollars ($60.00 ) was m issing from his pock et.
The victim testified that he was ne arly knoc ked un conscio us by the assau lt.
He was a ble to “stagger” home, where he attempted to recover. When the swelling
and pain p ersiste d, the vic tim we nt to the hosp ital. The victim had sustained two (2)
broken bones to his low er jaw in addition to a b roken nos e. The victim ha d to have
surgery at a later date to insert a metal plate under his left eye. The victim was
under a phys ician’s c are for appro ximate ly one (1) month. He stated that at the time
-3-
of trial his teeth were still numb and h e still had pain in his eye . This testimony of the
victim’s injurie s was u nrefuted by the De fendan t.
Jerome Smith, a supervis or to both the Defendant and the victim, stated that
on Monday following the incident between these employees, the Defendant arrived
early for work. When the Defendant came in, he said , “You all look ing for Te rry. . .
Terry won’t b e in this m orning beca use I p ut this o n him . . . I’ll bet you anything he
won’t be he re this morning.” When asked to describ e what th at statem ent me ant to
him, Smith e xplained that me ant that D efenda nt had “w hipped [the victim] u p.” The
victim did not show up for work that day and they later found out that he had been
beaten. The Defendant constantly bragged about doing it at first, but later recanted
after he fou nd out h e was g oing to trial.
Billy March was wo rking with both the Defendant and the victim in March 1994
at United Liquor. On March 28, 1994, Defendant came to work and stated that the
victim would not be there because he “messed him up.” The victim did not show up
for work th at day, bu t did return la ter that sam e week .
Paul Gray, also an employee of United Liquor, stated that on March 28, 1994,
the Defendant advised him that the victim would not be com ing in to work because
he “took him ou t.” The victim did not co me to w ork that da y.
This co nclude d the Sta te’s case -in-chief.
Aquilla Sorrell testified for the defense that she was living with the Defendant
and her four (4) childre n in Ma rch 19 94. So rrell kne w of the victim because he lived
-4-
in the sam e neigh borhoo d. On M arch 25 , 1994, S orrell recalle d that she was not
working and was at home. After working that day, the Defendant came home and
then returned to the store. Defendant was g one a pprox imate ly five (5) minutes and
returned home. She and Defendant stayed home the remainder of the evening. The
victim came over for about ten (10) minutes later that night, and she recalled that he
had not been beaten up or anything when he was there. The next time that the
Defen dant left the ir home was on Saturda y morn ing, Marc h 26, 19 94.
The Defendant testified that he was living with Aq uilla So rrell in March 1994.
He was working at United Liquo r as a truck driver and knew the victim as a co-
employee. On March 25, 1994, he got off work around 6:30 p.m., then went home.
Defendant went back out to the store, but was only gone a few minutes. He
described that he was really tired and went to sleep after returning home. Defendant
did not recall the victim coming over that evening. When Defendant got to work on
the following Monday morning, another employee told him that he had been accused
of robbing the victim. Defendant denied robbing or beating the victim.
Regarding the sufficien cy of the ev idence , Defend ant con tends tha t the State
failed to prove his identity in the attack upon the victim. In addition to the victim’s
identification of the Defendant as the perpetrator of the offense, three (3) other co-
workers of both the Defendant and the victim testified that the Defendant bragged
that the victim would not be at work on Monday, March 28, 1994, because Defendant
had “messed up” the victim. The Defendant argues that his denial of these events
and the tes timon y of his fo rmer girlfriend , Aquilla Sorrell, verifying his wher eabou ts
on the evening of the attack, do not allow for a rational trier of fact to have found him
as the perpetrator of the crime against the victim. However, given the overwhelming
-5-
testimony by the victim and three (3) others who heard the Defendant brag about
committing the crime, there is m ore than sufficient evide nce where by a rational trier
of fact could have found Defendant as the perpetrator beyond a reaso nable d oubt.
Any questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given
the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact, and we will not reweigh the evidence
on Defen dant’s be half. Pappas, 754 S.W .2d at 623 ; Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d at 835.
Defendant argues that the injuries sustained by the Defendant do not
constitute “serious bodily injury.” Aggravated robbery requires that a robbery be
accom plished w ith a deadly weapon or by display of any article used or fashioned
to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a deadly weapon or that th e victim
suffer serious bodily injury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402. Tennessee Code
Annotated section 39-11-106(a)(34) defines “serious bodily injury” as “bodily injury
which involves:” (A) a substantial risk of death; (B) protracted unconsciousness; (C)
extreme physical pain; (D) protracted or obvious disfigurement; or (E) protracted loss
or substan tial impairm ent of a fun ction of a bodily mem ber, organ or m ental faculty.
The evidence at trial, unrefuted by the Defendant, demonstrated the injuries
the victim suffered included permanent damage to his left eye requiring the insertion
of a metal plate which still causes the victim pain. In addition, he has a loss of
feeling in his mouth. This evidence su fficiently m eets th e defin ition of a victim
suffering “a protracted loss or substantial impairment of a function of a bodily
mem ber, organ or mental faculty.” Te nn. Co de Ann . § 39-11-106(a)(34)(E). From
the evidence, the jury could have rationally concluded that the Defendant committed
aggrava ted robb ery. This iss ue is witho ut merit.
-6-
We affirm the ju dgme nt of the trial co urt.
____________________________________
THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge
CONCUR:
___________________________________
GARY R. WA DE, Presiding Judge
___________________________________
JOHN EVERET T WILLIAMS, Judge
-7-