State v. Buggs

• Decision Date: 28 June 1999
• Citation: 995 S.W.2d 102
• Parties: STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Steven B. BUGGS, Appellant.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 102

995 S.W.2d 102

STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v.Steven B. BUGGS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Tennessee at Jackson.

June 28, 1999.

A.C. Wharton, District Public Defender, W. Mark Ward, Asst. Public Defender, Memphis, for Appellant.

John Knox Walkup, Attorney General and Reporter, Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General Daryl J. Brand, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.

OPINION

BARKER, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from the judgment of the intermediate appellate court affirming his conviction for felony murder in the perpetration of a robbery.The sole issue is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish intent to commit robbery at the time of the murder.

The defendant contends that the evidence does not support a finding that he intended to rob the victim, Karen Beasley, at the time he killed her.Instead, he asserts that his taking of Ms. Beasley's money occurred as an "afterthought," and that the evidence was therefore insufficient to support a conviction for felony murder.We conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant killed Ms. Beasley because she stood in his way of retrieving money from their joint funds to buy cocaine.The use of force and violence to take the property of another which results in the death of the victim, whether or not that death was originally intended, will support a conviction of felony murder in the perpetration of robbery.Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.

BACKGROUND

The defendant and Ms. Beasley, lived together in a duplex located at 2425 Shasta Street in Memphis.Both were employed as certified nursing assistants at the Overton Park Health Care Center, a nursing home.

On June 21, 1994, the defendant and Ms. Beasley received their biweekly paychecks from the nursing home.The defendant testified that the amount of his paycheck was approximately $500.00; Ms. Beasley's paycheck amounted to approximately $270.00.After work, they cashed their checks, and the defendant gave Ms. Beasley $150.00 towards his share of the living expenses.Before going home, they paid an unspecified amount on Ms. Beasley's car note and bought a tire for her car.They also stopped by the defendant's sister's house where the defendant gave his sister an unspecified amount of money.From there, they stopped by Ms. Beasley's mother's house to visit with Ms. Beasley's children before returning home.

While Ms. Beasley left to run some errands, the defendant stayed at home drinking beer and smoking marijuana.When solicited by a drug dealer, he purchased a $25.00 rock of crack cocaine.After Ms. Beasley returned home, they agreed that the defendant would go out and purchase fried chicken for dinner.The defendant took Ms. Beasley's car.He did not return home until over five hours later, at approximately 11:30 p.m. or 12:00 a.m.

During the time the defendant was gone, he associated with a prostitute and spent $150.00 on crack cocaine and a substance he referred to as "ice."When he ran out of drugs, he returned home.According to him, his purpose in returning home was to get money to purchase more cocaine.

Not surprisingly, when the defendant returned home five hours late and without fried chicken, there was a confrontation between him and Ms. Beasley.He did not specify the subject matter of Ms. Beasley's ire.However, he admitted that during the confrontation he"snapped."He went into the kitchen and obtained a "big" knife, then stabbed Ms. Beasley with the knife until she stopped resisting.¹After washing the blood from his hands and changing clothes, the defendant went back into the bedroom where his and Ms. Beasley's remaining cash was located.He took all of the money and left the apartment, proceeding to purchase and use cocaine for the rest of the night.

The next morning, the defendant returned to the house.To prevent anyone from looking inside and seeing Ms. Beasley's body, he dragged the body into a hallway.He then gathered his clothes, along with several items belonging to Ms. Beasley, including two (2) television sets, a hair dryer, and a lamp.Using Ms. Beasley's car, the defendant drove to the American Loan Pawn Shop in Memphis, where he pawned the two (2) televisions.The next day, he pawned the hair dryer and the lamp.With the money he received from the pawned items, the defendant bought and smoked more crack cocaine.Realizing that he would have to leave Memphis to avoid arrest for Ms. Beasley's murder, the defendant drove Ms. Beasley's car, first to Victoria, Mississippi, and later to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where he stayed with an aunt.The defendant was ultimately arrested at his aunt's house in Milwaukee.

Two competency and sanity evaluations were conducted upon the defendant by Dr. Wyatt Nichols, a clinical psychologist with the Midtown Mental Health Center in Memphis.Based upon what the defendant told Dr. Nichols about his use of cocaine on the night of the murder, Dr. Nichols concluded that the defendant's judgment and ability to understand the consequences of what he was doing were impaired at the time of the murder.Nevertheless, Dr. Nichols concluded that this impairment did not rise to the level of legal insanity.He found that the defendant was sane at the time of the offense and competent to stand trial.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury received the following instruction concerning the evidence necessary to convict for murder committed in the perpetration of a robbery:

Any person who commits murder in the perpetration of a robbery is guilty of a crime.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following essential elements:

(1) that the defendant unlawfully killed the alleged victim; and

(2) that the killing was committed in the perpetration of or the attempt to perpetrate the alleged robbery; that is, that the killing was closely connected to the alleged robbery and was not a separate, distinct and independent event; and

(3) that the defendant intended to commit the alleged robbery; and

(4) that the killing was the result of a reckless act by the defendant.

Robbery was defined in the instructions as well:

Any person who commits the offense of robbery is guilty of a crime.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following essential elements:

(1) that the defendant knowingly obtained or exercised control over property owned by Karen D. Beasley; and

(2) that the defendant did not have the owner's effective consent; and

(3) that the defendant intended to deprive the owner of the property; and

(4) that the defendant took such property from the person of another by the use of violence or by putting the person in fear; and

(5) that the defendant took such property intentionally or knowingly.

Following the jury's deliberation, the defendant was convicted of felony murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.We affirm.

DISCUSSION

The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction of felony murder.Specifically, he alleges that there is no evidence to support a finding that he formed the intent to rob prior to, or concurrent with, the murder.He alleges that without such proof, a conviction of felony murder cannot be sustained.He also argues that because the jury did not receive a specific instruction that a killing is not "in the perpetration of" a robbery if the design to steal is first formulated after the homicide, the jurors were deprived of an opportunity to reach a decision on the merits of the substantive question, a fundamental error requiring reversal of his conviction.

When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, the standard for review by an appellate court is whether, after considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.SeeJackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89, 61 L.Ed.2d 560(1979);State v. Burns, 979 S.W.2d 276, 286-87(Tenn.1998);Tenn. R.App. P. 13(e).On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and to all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn therefrom.State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835(Tenn.1978).In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court does not reweigh the evidence, id., or substitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact.Liakas v. State, 199 Tenn. 298, 305, 286 S.W.2d 856, 859(1956).A guilty verdict rendered by the jury and approved by the trial judge accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State, and a presumption of guilt replaces the presumption of innocence.Burns, 979 S.W.2d at 287;State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476(Tenn.1973).On appeal the appellant bears the burden of proving that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury verdict.State v. Pike, 978 S.W.2d 904, 914(Tenn.1998);State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914(Tenn.1982).

The statute under which the defendant was convicted defined felony murder as "a reckless killing of another committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate any ... robbery...."Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(2)(1991).²The key question in this case is the meaning of the phrase "in the perpetration of."

This Court has previously given guidance regarding the meaning of this phrase.In Farmer v. State, 201 Tenn. 107, 296 S.W.2d 879(1956), the Court said that in order for an offense to constitute first-degree murder under the felony-murder rule,

it must have been done in pursuance of the unlawful act, and not collateral to it.In other words, "[t]he killing must have had an intimate relation and close connection with the felony ..., and not be separate, distinct, and...