jury conviction removes presumption in Tennessee

2026“A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal a -4- convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient.” State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).

2026“A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient.” State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).

2019Davis, 354 S.W.3d at 729 (quoting State v. Sisk, 343 S.W.3d 60, 65 (Tenn. 2011)).

2016Because a jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence that appellant enjoyed at trial and replaces it with one of guilt at the appellate level, the burden of proof shifts from the State to the convicted appellant, who must demonstrate to this court that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s findings: Davis, 354 S.W.3d at 729 (citing State v. Sisk, 343 S.W.3d 60, 65 (Tenn.2011)).

2015Davis, 354 S.W.3d at 729 ; State v. Sisk, 343 S.W.3d 60, 65 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265, 275 (Tenn. 2009)).

2014Davis, 354 S.W.3d at 729 ; State v. Sisk, 343 S.W.3d 60, 65 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265, 275 (Tenn. 2009)).

2026“On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom.” State v. Wilson, 211 S.W.3d 714, 718 (Tenn. 2007) (citing State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999)).

2026“On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom.” State v. Wilson, 211 S.W.3d 714, 718 (Tenn. 2007) (citing State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999)).

2026“On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom.” State v. Wilson, 211 S.W.3d 714, 718 (Tenn. 2007) (citing State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999)).

2026“On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom.” State v. Wilson, 211 S.W.3d 714, 718 (Tenn. 2007) (citing State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999)).

2026“A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient.” State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982); see also State v. Thomas, 687 S.W.3d 223 , 249 (Tenn. 2024) (citing State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 557-58 (Tenn. 2000)).

2026“A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient.” State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982); see also State v. Thomas, 687 S.W.3d 223 , 249 (Tenn. 2024) (citing State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 557-58 (Tenn. 2000)).

2020Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tenn. 1966) (citing Carroll v. State, 370 S.W.2d 523 (1963)). - 17 - “A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient.” State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).

2018Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768, 771 (1966) (citing Carroll v. State, 370 S.W.2d 523 (1963)). -7- “A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient.” State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).

2021“The identity of the perpetrator is an essential element of any crime.” State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646, 662 (Tenn. 2006) (citing State v. Thompson, 519 S.W.2d 789, 793 (Tenn. 1975)).

2019“A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient.” State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). -5- “The identity of the perpetrator is an essential element of any crime.” State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646, 662 (Tenn. 2006) (citing State v. Thompson, 519 S.W.2d 789, 793 (Tenn. 1975)).

2026State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim.

2021State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim.

2021“The identity of the perpetrator is an essential element of any crime.” State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646, 662 (Tenn. 2006) (citing State v. Thompson, 519 S.W.2d 789, 793 (Tenn. 1975)).

2019“A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient.” State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). -5- “The identity of the perpetrator is an essential element of any crime.” State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646, 662 (Tenn. 2006) (citing State v. Thompson, 519 S.W.2d 789, 793 (Tenn. 1975)).

2020“In a bench trial, the verdict of the trial judge is entitled to the same weight on appeal as a jury verdict.” State v. Holder, 15 S.W.3d 905, 912 (Tenn. Crim.

2019“In a bench trial, the verdict of the trial judge is entitled to the same weight on appeal as a jury verdict.” State v. Holder, 15 S.W.3d 905, 911 (Tenn. Crim.

2018“An accomplice is defined as a person who knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of the crime.” State v. Anderson, 985 S.W.2d 9, 16 (Tenn. Crim.

2016“An accomplice is defined as a person who knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of the crime.” State v. Anderson, 985 S.W.2d 9, 16 (Tenn. Crim.

2007See State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982); State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973).

2001See State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982); State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973).

2022“In order to convict a defendant of attempted second-degree murder, the state is required to prove that the [defendant] acted with the intent to cause the knowing killing of another, believing his conduct would cause the result without further conduct on his part.” State v. Inlow, 52 S.W.3d 101, 104 (Tenn. Crim.

2020A. Attempted Second Degree Murder “In order to convict a defendant of attempted seconddegree murder, the state is required to prove that the [Defendant] acted with the intent to cause the knowing killing of another, believing his conduct would cause the result without further conduct on his part.” State v. Inlow, 52 S.W.3d 101, 104 (Tenn. Crim.

2020State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850, 857 (Tenn. 2010).

2018State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850, 857 (Tenn. 2010).

2023See State v. Pendergrass, 13 S.W.3d 389, 392-93 (Tenn. Crim.

2022As our supreme court has stated, “When the jury returns guilty verdicts on multiple offenses that eventually will be merged, the best practice is for the trial court to impose a sentence on each count and reflect the sentence on the respective uniform judgment document.” State v. Berry, 503 S.W.3d 360, 365 (Tenn. 2015) (order).

2021“The identity of the perpetrator is an essential element of all crimes and may be established solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence.” State v. Lewter, 313 S.W.3d 745, 748 (Tenn. 2010).

2020This Court has previously said that “[i]n dealing with a motion for a judgment of acquittal, unlike a motion for a new trial, the trial judge is concerned only with the legal sufficiency of the evidence and not with the weight of the evidence.” State v. Hall, 656 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Tenn. Crim.

2015Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d at 379 ; Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d at 835 ; see State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984). -4- Because a jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence that appellant enjoyed at trial and replaces it with one of guilt at the appellate level, the burden of proof shifts from the State to the convicted appellant, who must demonstrate to this court that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury‟s findings.

2015State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). “[A] conviction may not be based solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.” State v. Stout, 46 S.W.3d 689, 696 (Tenn. 2001), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Odom, 137 S.W.3d 572, 580-81 (Tenn. 2004).

2015State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). “[A] conviction may not be based solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.” State v. Stout, 46 S.W.3d 689, 696 (Tenn. 2001), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Odom, 137 S.W.3d 572, 580-81 (Tenn. 2004).

2014“A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal, a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient.” State v. Biggs, 211 S.W.3d 744, 747-48 (Tenn. Crim.

2012In State v. Toomes, this Court held that DNA evidence, without corroboration, was sufficient to support a conviction for aggravated rape. 191 S.W.3d 122, 130-31 (Tenn. Crim.