IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
JANUARY 1998 SESSION FILED
January 29, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9702-CR-00081
Appellee, )
) Shelby County
V. )
) Hon. James C. Beasley, Sr., Special Judge
)
RICKY JACKSON, ) (Aggravated Rape; Aggravated Robbery)
)
Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
A C Wharton, Jr. John Knox Walkup
Shelby County Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
Edward G. Thompson Sarah M. Branch
Assistant Public Defender Counsel for the State
616 Adams Avenue 450 James Robertson Parkway
Memphis, TN 38103 Nashville, TN 37243
William L. Gibbons
District Attorney General
Lee Coffee
Assistant District Attorney General
201 Poplar Avenue, Third Floor
Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED: ___________________
AFFIRMED
PAUL G. SUMMERS,
Judge
OPINION
The appellant Ricky Jackson was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County
Criminal Court of aggravated rape and aggravated robbery. The trial court
denied the appellant’s motion for a new trial. On appeal, the appellant raises the
sole issue of whether the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. After
reviewing the record, we find that the evidence is sufficient and affirm the
appellant’s convictions.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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). Jury verdicts accredit
the state’s witnesses and resolve all evidentiary conflicts in the state’s favor.
State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983); State v. Banes, 874
S.W.2d 73, 78 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). 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 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.
EVIDENCE
The victim, seventeen years old at the time of the offense, testified that on
-2-
December 1, 1995, she and her nephew went to a neighborhood store around
10:00 p.m. After the victim and her nephew left the store, she was paged by a
friend; she walked to a nearby phone booth and returned the call. While the
victim was on the phone, four people left a bar down the street and walked
toward the victim. One of the four people, the appellant, walked over to the
phone booth and told the victim to ask her friend on the phone if she wanted to
buy a gun. Neither the victim nor her nephew knew the appellant. While the
victim was on the phone, the appellant told the victim’s nephew to be quiet. The
area around the phone booth was well lit. The nephew identified the appellant’s
Nike tennis shoes as the shoes worn by the man at the phone booth.
After the victim finished her phone conversation, she crossed the street to
walk home with her nephew. Both the victim and her nephew testified that the
appellant walked with them and that he moved closer to the victim despite her
efforts to move away from him. The appellant grabbed the victim and placed a
gun to her side. The appellant told the victim that he would “blow her ass off” if
she ran or screamed. To prevent injury to her nephew, the victim told him to go
on home without her. As the victim’s nephew walked home, he saw the
appellant and the victim go behind a white house. Behind the house, the
appellant took six rings, a beeper, and $35.00 from the victim.
Then, the appellant took the victim across the street and raped her behind
an auto parts store. The victim testified that the appellant told her to undress
and get on the ground. The appellant then forced the victim at gunpoint to have
oral, vaginal, and anal sex with him. The appellant told the victim that he would
kill her and her family if she told the police. After the rape, the victim ran to her
sister’s house and told her what happened. The victim’s sister testified that the
victim was “nervous, shaking and praying” when she returned from the store.
The victim described her assailant to the police and went to the rape crisis
center. She testified that she could clearly see the perpetrator’s face during the
rape as well as when she was at the phone booth. The examining nurse testified
that the victim was bleeding slightly from the rectum and that tests of the anal
-3-
area revealed sperm. The amount of the sperm found was insufficient to
conduct DNA analysis. The appellant was not apprehended.
On January 30, 1996, the victim saw the appellant. He was walking
behind her and asked if she had seen a certain individual. W hen the victim
turned, the appellant saw her face and ran. The victim ran to Ada Odum’s house
and told Ms. Odum that she had seen the man who robbed and raped her. Ms.
Odum testified that the victim was visibly upset and shaken. Ms. Odum told the
vicitm the appellant’s name and where he lived. The victim called the police.
When the police went to the appellant’s house to arrest him, the appellant was
on the phone calling the fugitive squad to see if or why he was wanted by the
police. The appellant was taken into custody. The victim later identified the
appellant in a photographic lineup.
The appellant testified at trial that he did not rob or rape the victim. His
defense was that the case was one of mistaken identity. On appeal, the
appellant cites testimony to support his claim that the evidence is insufficient to
support the convictions. The appellant testified that he could not remember
where he was on the night of the offense. In essence, he argues that the jury
should have found him a credible witness because he admitted that he could not
remember where he was on December 1, 1995, instead of fabricating an alibi.
The appellant reasons that most people cannot remember where they were on a
particular date. The appellant also argues that the jury should not have believed
a police officer’s testimony that most people call the fugitive squad to make
themselves look innocent. The appellant contends that it is much more
reasonable to believe that an innocent man, as opposed to a guilty man, would
call to ask why he was a suspect. The appellant reasons that the police would
be the last person that a guilty man would contact. Lastly, the appellant cites his
own testimony in which he denied owning Nike tennis shoes on the date of the
offenses, as identified by the victim’s nephew.
LAW AND CONCLUSION
-4-
As applicable to this case, aggravated robbery is defined as the
intentional or knowing theft of property from a victim accomplished with a deadly
weapon. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402(a)(1) (1991). The appellant intentionally
or knowingly deprived the victim at gunpoint of six rings, worth approximately
$350.00; a beeper; and $35.00.
Aggravated rape can be defined as unlawful sexual penetration of a victim
by the defendant or the defendant by a victim when force or coercion is used to
accomplish the act and the defendant is armed with a weapon. Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 39-13-502(a)(1) (Supp. 1995). The victim testified that the appellant pointed a
gun at her and told her to undress and perform fellatio on him. The appellant
then vaginally and anally penetrated the victim at gunpoint with his penis.
The argument offered by the appellant is essentially that the jury should
have believed his testimony and not that of the victim and her nephew. As
previously stated, the jury resolves questions of credibility. The record contains
ample evidence upon which to affirm the appellant’s convictions. The area
around the phone booth was well lit. Both the victim and the victim’s nephew
identified the appellant as the perpetrator. The victim testified that she could
see the appellant’s face while he raped her. The victim’s identification of the
perpetrator after the rape matched the appellant’s description. The victim
unequivocally identified the appellant in the photographic lineup as the person
who robbed and raped her.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
__________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge
CONCUR:
-5-
___________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
___________________________
JOE G. RILEY, Judge
-6-
| State v. Ricky Jackson
Combined Opinion