State v Beeler
| Decision Date | 22 November 2000 |
| Docket Number | 99-01417 |
| Parties | STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JASON THOMAS BEELERIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Obion County, No. 7-588
The defendant appeals from jury trial convictions for reckless homicide, felony murder, aggravated burglary, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. In this appeal, the defendant alleges insufficient evidence, errors in admitting certain evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, improper instructions, and error in denying his writ of error coram nobis. Concluding that it was reversible error to not instruct on the lesser-included offenses of felony murder, we remand for a new trial on the felony murder count. We affirm the remaining convictions.
James Curwood Witt, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Jerry L. Smith and Robert W. Wedemeyer, JJ., joined.
Charles S. Kelly, Sr., Dyersburg, Tennessee, and L. Lee Harrell, Trenton, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jason Thomas Beeler.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter, Mark E. Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas A. Thomas, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINIONThe defendant, Jason Thomas Beeler, appeals from his Obion County Circuit Court convictions of reckless homicide, a Class D felony; first degree felony murder, a Class A felony; aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, Class A felonies. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-215 (1997) (reckless homicide); § 39-13-202 (1997) (felony murder); § 39-14-403 (1997) (aggravated burglary); § 39-13-305 (1997) (especially aggravated kidnapping). After being convicted by a jury, the defendant was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to two years for the reckless homicide, life for the first degree murder, three years for the aggravated burglary, and 20 years for each especially aggravated kidnapping. The reckless homicide conviction was merged into the first degree murder conviction. The sentences were to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant makes the following allegations:
15. The trial court erred by giving the jury written instructions that had portions crossed out, and
16. The trial court erred by denying the petition for writ of error coram nobis.2
Following a review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we reverse the felony murder conviction because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses, and we affirm the remaining convictions.
In the light most favorable to the state, the evidence at trial demonstrated that the defendant and his then-wife, Jeanne Beth, were having marital difficulties. The turning point in their relationship occurred after the birthday party for their five-year-old daughter in late February 1998. Before the end of that month, the defendant and his wife separated with Jeanne Beth caring for their daughter.
On Friday, March 7, Jeanne Beth and her daughter were staying at Jeanne Beth's father's house. She expected her father, a truck driver, to return late that night. Also sharing the house that night were Jamie Boane, the homicide victim, and Chucky Minnick. These two men worked for Jeanne Beth's father and roomed in his house.
Throughout that Friday evening, the defendant called Jeanne Beth on the telephone. The defendant asked to speak with his daughter on the first call. He also spoke with his wife, during that call and later ones, about their getting back together. He told her that life was not worth living without her. After one of those calls, Jeanne Beth called the defendant's mother and told her that the defendant had threatened suicide. During the defendant's last telephone call to Jeanne Beth, he told her that if she did not hear from him in ten minutes, it would be because he had killed himself.
After making the last call, the defendant drove to Jeanne Beth's father's house. He parked off to one side of the house. Carrying a pump action shotgun, he walked to the front of the house, stood on a plastic bucket and peered into a bedroom window. He saw someone sleeping in the bed. He continued walking around the house until he came to the back door.
Inside the house, Jeanne Beth and Jamie Boane were in the kitchen. Jeanne Beth saw a shadow through the backdoor window, and Boane went to the door. As Boane reached for the door knob, the defendant shot through the lock to open the door, striking Boane in the left hand. With his other hand, Boane pushed Jeanne Beth, who had come up behind him, back and away from the door. A second shotgun blast through the backdoor window struck Boane in the left side of his neck. He fell to the floor and cried out, "I'm dying."
Jeanne Beth ran from the kitchen into the room where Chucky Minnick was sleeping and then into her father's bedroom where her daughter was sleeping. Minnick woke up when he heard the shots, and after Jeanne Beth ran through the room yelling that Boane had been shot, he hid in the closet. When Jeanne Beth entered the bedroom she locked the door behind her. Moments later, the defendant kicked down the bedroom door and Jeanne Beth jumped on her daughter to cover and protect her. Still carrying the shotgun, the defendant told Jeanne Beth to come with him and bring his daughter. He escorted them to his parked car, and he drove them away.
After hearing the defendant leave, Minnick left the closet and saw Jamie Boane, who had crawled from the kitchen to the living room. Minnick tried to use the telephone to call for help, but the line was dead. He then drove to the victim's mother's house, where they called the sheriff and an ambulance.
During this time, the defendant's family was searching for him. Remembering that the defendant had his wife's cellular telephone, the defendant's father called the defendant, who was driving around with Jeanne Beth and his daughter. He told his father, "Somebody told me that I shot somebody." The defendant agreed to meet his father in a field near his grandparents' home. When the defendant's parents got to the field, they found the defendant and his wife outside the car. The defendant's daughter was in the backseat of the car, and the shotgun was still in the car. The defendant's father took the child to his house, and the defendant's mother stayed with the defendant and his wife. The three walked to the defendant's grandparents' home, where the defendant finally gave himself up to the police.
The defendant was indicted and charged with one count of first-degree premeditated murder, one count of murder in the perpetration of burglary, one count of aggravated burglary, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. At the conclusion of the proof at trial, the trial court granted a judgment of acquittal only on the charge of first-degree premeditated murder; on that count of the indictment the trial court submitted to the jury the charge of second-degree murder and the lesser-included offenses of voluntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of reckless homicide, felony murder, aggravated burglary, and the two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping.
The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court's standard of review is whether, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2791-92 (1979); State v. Duncan, 698 S.W.2d 63, 67 (Tenn. 1985); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). This rule applies to findings of guilt based upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250, 253 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).
Moreover, a criminal offense may be established exclusively by circumstantial evidence. Duchac v. State, 505 S.W.2d 237 (Tenn. 1973); State v. Jones, 901 S.W.2d 393, 396 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); State v. Boling, 840 S.W.2d 944, 947 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992); State v. Lequire, 634 S.W.2d 608 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). However, before an accused may be convicted of a criminal offense based upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial