Daniel Wade Wilson appeals his jury convictions for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, resulting in consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and twenty-three years, respectively. He argues that the evidence was insufficient for both convictions and that the trial court improperly ordered consecutive sentences. The court affirms the trial court's judgments. The case involves the death of David Vestal at Steele’s Creek Park on April 5, 1999, where witnesses reported finding the victim's body and observed signs of a struggle, including blood trails and disturbed gravel. Detective testimony indicated the presence of blood on the victim, the trail, and a beer bottle, but not all blood samples were tested for identification. Additionally, a witness testified about his interactions with the defendant and another individual prior to the incident, indicating they purchased alcohol and marijuana on the day before the murder.
Ms. Lingerfelt drove Mr. Alford, Mr. Christein, and the defendant to Big Creek, agreeing to return in two to three hours. While at Big Creek, they consumed marijuana and beer, with the defendant using a knife to gig frogs. Ms. Lingerfelt did not return, prompting Mr. Alford to seek a ride home from Kim Bolling, who was with the victim, someone he recognized from high school. On the return trip, the victim drove erratically, leading to tensions where Mr. Christein and the defendant threatened to fight him if they were hurt. Ms. Bolling intervened, ultimately taking the wheel after an argument with the victim.
At Lake View Marina, they continued drinking and smoking. Afterward, they stopped at a convenience store where the victim bought Busch beer, while Mr. Christein and the defendant suggested leaving the victim behind and discussed fighting him for his wallet, with the defendant holding his knife. Mr. Christein then asked the victim for a ride to Steele’s Creek Park to retrieve hidden marijuana. Mr. Alford requested to be dropped off at Ms. Lingerfelt’s trailer first, going to bed around 2:30 a.m.
Later, Mr. Christein knocked on his door, and the following morning, Mr. Alford noticed Mr. Christein with thirty dollars, which he had not had the night before. Mr. Alford described the defendant's attire on April 4 and mentioned that Mr. Christein had bragged about past crimes. It was Mr. Alford’s first interaction with the defendant, who provided money to buy marijuana and purchased all the beer that day. Mr. Alford stated he was intoxicated at Big Creek, and the defendant used his knife to stir marijuana but did not threaten anyone. He clarified that discussions of fighting the victim were merely drunken talk and that he was more concerned about Ms. Lingerfelt's absence. He mentioned Mr. Christein's need for thirty dollars before witnessing him take that amount from his sock.
Bristol Police Lieutenant Jack Necessary testified that on April 5, 1999, at 7:20 a.m., he was jogging at Steele’s Creek Park when he observed disturbed gravel, beer bottles, and tire marks on the trail. Mr. Smith approached him to report a body, which led to Necessary speaking with the defendant, who displayed signs of tension and clenching his fists. During their initial interview, the defendant denied being at the park on April 4, attributed scratches on his left hand to work, and claimed to be wearing the same clothes as the previous night. Upon inspecting the defendant’s trailer, Necessary discovered a tie-dyed shirt and jeans with blood on them. On cross-examination, Necessary noted that the tire marks could not have come from a public vehicle due to a locked access gate. He confirmed eight officers responded to the scene and acknowledged varying responses from individuals during police questioning. He also stated that the defendant did not attempt to flee or hide his knife when approached at work, did not test the defendant for intoxication during their interview, and failed to document the meeting. He was unaware of any photographs taken of the defendant’s head or neck and later returned a bandana from the trailer to the defendant’s girlfriend.
Lieutenant Jerry Smelser testified that Mr. Alford directed him to the defendant and reacted violently upon learning the victim had been killed. In his interview with the defendant, the defendant recounted that he, Mr. Alford, and Mr. Christein bought beer and were dropped off at Big Creek by Ms. Lingerfelt. After consuming alcohol and smoking marijuana, they sought a ride from two acquaintances. The male driver, who was intoxicated, drove recklessly, leading to an argument with a female passenger who eventually took control of the vehicle. Mr. Christein suggested they confront the driver at Steele’s Creek Park, where they stopped for more beer. The male driver was misled into believing there was marijuana at the park, which escalated tensions. When the driver realized he was deceived, he became aggressive, prompting a physical confrontation with the defendant, who attempted to escape but was restrained by the driver, resulting in scratches on his wrist.
Mr. Christein observed a struggle and intervened by using a knife, ultimately causing the victim to collapse. He took the victim's wallet, discarded the body over an embankment, and fled with Mr. Alford to a trailer, where they attempted to destroy the wallet. The defendant claimed to have known about the robbery plan but asserted he only intended to retrieve marijuana. He acknowledged wrongdoing but denied taking any money. Lieutenant Smelser, during his investigation, noted the defendant had minor scratches and did not record conversations or conduct a blood-alcohol test despite the defendant admitting to drinking prior. Smelser also failed to document certain details, such as whether the defendant felt fear during the incident. Detective McCulley found the victim’s wallet, which contained identification but no cash, and noted the defendant did not report any injuries. Detective Thomas confirmed the absence of visible injuries and observed metal in the defendant's mouth, assuming he had braces. Forensic Pathologist Dr. Harlan examined the victim's body, indicating signs consistent with being dragged and noting the victim's high blood alcohol level. She also reported the victim's amputation history.
Dr. Harlan testified that the victim suffered multiple injuries, with the fatal wound located on the left side of the neck, measuring three inches deep and potentially inflicted by the defendant's knife. Other wounds included injuries to the lip, chin, right neck, right buttock, and upper back, along with bruises and scrapes on the knee, forearm, and head, which were consistent with a fall. The victim died from blood loss, not drowning, approximately seven to thirty minutes after the neck injury. Blood spatter patterns suggested the victim had been running. Dr. Harlan noted that the victim's intoxication would have impaired his ability to react during an attack and that bruising on his knuckles indicated he may have been in a fight, although this could also result from hitting a solid object. The absence of defensive wounds raised the possibility that the victim could have been the aggressor. Dr. Harlan stated that while it was challenging for the defendant to inflict the fatal wound from behind, it was not impossible. The struggle might have lasted over four minutes. Testimonies from Gracie Oliver, the defendant's mother, and Dwight Lacy, a Registered Nurse, confirmed the defendant had visible braces and an old jaw injury at the time of the victim's death but did not report any head or facial injuries. Sissy Lingerfelt, the defendant’s cousin, testified about driving the defendant and his friends to Big Creek on the day of the incident; they were intoxicated at that time, and she was not consuming alcohol or drugs due to her pregnancy.
The defendant argues that the evidence does not adequately support his convictions for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. The state counters that the evidence is sufficient, which the court agrees with. The standard of review for sufficiency of evidence on appeal is whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes proved beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence favorably to the prosecution. The court does not reweigh evidence or question the jury's resolution of witness credibility.
First degree felony murder involves an unlawful killing during the commission of a robbery, while especially aggravated robbery requires the use of a deadly weapon and the victim suffering serious bodily injury. The defendant initially lied about his involvement but later admitted to threatening the victim and discussed plans with an accomplice to assault and rob him. Testimony indicated the defendant possessed a knife and ultimately stabbed the victim. Expert testimony revealed that the victim's physical condition and blood alcohol level would have hindered his ability to defend himself. The defendant acknowledged participating in the theft of the victim's wallet.
Given the evidence, a rational juror could conclude that the defendant and his accomplice intended to rob the victim, leading to the stabbing and theft. Thus, the court concludes that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the defendant guilty of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant argues against the trial court's decision to impose consecutive sentences for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, claiming it unjustly labels him a dangerous offender. He points out that even with concurrent sentences, he would not be eligible for parole until age seventy and questions the evidence of his future danger. The state defends the consecutive sentences, supported by the trial court's findings of the defendant's extensive criminal history, characterized by a lack of regard for human life and a propensity for violent crime.
The court applies a de novo review, presuming the trial court's determinations are correct unless it fails to consider relevant sentencing principles. The defendant, at twenty-four years old, has multiple prior felony convictions and disciplinary infractions in prison, including possession of a weapon. The trial court's classification of him as a dangerous offender is justified by his violent actions and ongoing criminal behavior, indicating that consecutive sentences are necessary for public safety. The effective seventy-four year sentence is deemed proportionate to the severity of his offenses, including a fatal stabbing. The defendant's argument regarding his age at release lacks legal support. Thus, the court affirms the trial court's decision on consecutive sentencing.
