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 v. Benito Gomez
Citation: Not availableDocket: M1998-00096-CCA-R3-CD
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; May 12, 2000; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Benito Gomez was convicted of voluntary manslaughter by a Bedford County jury, as affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee on May 12, 2000. He was sentenced to five years and three months as a range I offender. Gomez appealed, arguing the evidence presented by the State was insufficient, particularly challenging the credibility of its key witness. The case stemmed from an incident on May 27, 1991, where eyewitness Benito Ybarra reported a murder at Gomez's apartment, leading to the discovery of the victim, Alphonso Martinez. After an unsuccessful search for Gomez, he was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1997 and extradited back to Tennessee. Key trial witnesses included Zina Diane Love and Luis Anchando, both present during the altercation. They testified that Gomez and Martinez argued over unpaid rent, which escalated into physical confrontation. After leaving the bathroom, Gomez shot Martinez multiple times with a pistol, which was later recovered from the yard, confirming its use in the murder through ballistics tests. The jury ultimately found Gomez guilty of voluntary manslaughter. The appellant contests the sufficiency of evidence leading to his conviction, specifically challenging the credibility of Ms. Love, the State’s primary witness. He claims Ms. Love had a strong motive to lie to avoid becoming a suspect in the death of Martinez should Benito Gomez be acquitted. The appellant's argument implicates witness credibility, asking the court to reassess the jury's evaluation of Ms. Love's testimony. However, the court reiterates that credibility assessments and the weighing of evidence are exclusively within the jury's domain, as established in relevant case law. The court cannot overturn the jury’s decision based on differing judgments regarding witness credibility. Under the standard set by Jackson v. Virginia, the court must evaluate evidence favorably towards the State without delving into witness motives or implausible theories. The testimonies of Love and Anchando, who both witnessed the appellant shoot the victim at close range, provide sufficient evidence to uphold the conviction for voluntary manslaughter. Consequently, the court affirms the appellant’s conviction.