Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State of Tennessee v. David Lunsford
Citation: Not availableDocket: E2000-01572-CCA-R3-CD
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; March 5, 2001; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
David Lunsford was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary and sentenced to seven years as a Range II offender. He appealed the conviction, claiming the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(e), a conviction should only be set aside if the evidence does not support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court highlighted that evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and that a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime proven. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate insufficiency of the evidence, and the appellate court cannot re-evaluate or re-weigh the evidence presented at trial. During the trial, Christiana Upton testified that she was awakened by a loud noise at approximately 2:00 a.m. on September 18, 1999, and found her air conditioner outside the window. As she investigated, she saw Lunsford attempting to enter her apartment through that window, with his upper body inside and legs outside, thereby establishing the act of burglary. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Ms. Upton encountered a man near her apartment who only muttered, "It broke, it fell, it broke." Alarmed, she fled with her two young cousins to a neighbor's house, where she called the police. Upon their arrival, she provided a description of the man, identifying him as a white male in his thirties with long hair in a ponytail, a mustache, and wearing a blue and gray striped shirt. Police later located a suspect matching this description 1.5 to 2.5 miles from her apartment. Although the Defendant denied being near her apartment, he was brought back for identification. At around 5:00 a.m., with the patrol car's dome light on and a flashlight illuminating him, Ms. Upton identified him as the intruder, noting his shirt visible beneath a green pullover jacket. During the trial, Ms. Upton reaffirmed her identification of the Defendant as the person who entered her apartment. The Defendant claimed he was at a bar and later dropped off at an Exxon station, denying any involvement in the burglary. The indictment charged him with aggravated burglary, alleging he entered Ms. Upton’s residence with intent to commit theft. Although he acknowledged entering the apartment, he contested the sufficiency of evidence proving his intent to steal. However, the court ruled that circumstantial evidence could establish specific intent, affirming that a jury could reasonably infer intent from the act of breaking and entering a property containing valuable items. Evidence included the Defendant's removal of Ms. Upton’s air conditioner and his entry into her home at an unusual hour without justification. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.