State v. Durham

Summary

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Raymond W. Durham's convictions for second-degree murder and driving on a revoked license arising from a fatal automobile collision. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish intoxicated driving and malice, and that the defendant's remaining claims were largely waived because they were not raised in the motion for a new trial or contemporaneously at trial. The court also concluded that the indictment amendment and evidentiary ruling were proper.

Holdings

1. A challenge that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict remains reviewable even when it was not included in the motion for a new trial because a finding of insufficiency would require dismissal rather than a new trial.
2. The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Durham guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of second-degree murder.
3. The evidence was more than sufficient to support the jury's verdict finding Durham guilty of driving on a revoked license.
4. The amendment correcting the date in the driving-while-intoxicated indictment was proper because it was made before jeopardy attached.
5. Testimony that Lowe reported Durham's statement that there was a car on their side of the road did not prejudice Durham and therefore did not warrant relief.
6. The challenged prosecutorial comment was not improper, and the claim was additionally waived because Durham failed to make a contemporaneous objection.
7. Claims concerning trial error that were not specifically stated in the motion for a new trial were waived under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(e), although the court also determined that the claims lacked merit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support convictions for second-degree murder and driving on a revoked license.
2. Whether Durham's challenges to the admission or exclusion of evidence, jury-related matters, trial conduct, and prosecutorial argument were waived because they were not stated in his motion for a new trial or preserved by contemporaneous objection.
3. Whether the State properly amended the indictment charging driving while intoxicated to allege the correct date before jeopardy attached.
4. Whether testimony that another witness reported Durham's statement that there was a car on their side of the road prejudiced Durham.

Disposition

affirmed