State v. Lee - 969 S.W.2d 414 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)

Rule:

First degree murder. (a) First degree murder is defined as: (2) A reckless killing of another committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate any first-degree murder, arson, rape, robbery, burglary, theft, kidnaping or aircraft piracy. Factors to be considered in determining whether there has been a break in the chain of circumstances include the relationship between the underlying felony and the homicide in point of time, place, and causation.

Facts:

The appellant Donald C. Lee entered the Super-X drug store. He forced the pharmacist to open the safe and give him all Schedule II, III, and IV narcotics. A witness saw him leaving the in a white truck, and the police immediately apprehended the driver of the truck. He informed the police that the appellant left in a brown Ford containing one passenger. Approximately 25 minutes later, appellant was spotted by the police and a high-speed chase ensued. Appellant struck the side of the police car in an effort to get away, and erratically cut in front of other motorists. He slammed on his brakes causing the police car to slam into the rear of his car. The appellant eventually swerved into the oncoming lane of traffic and struck a Jeep. The appellant's passenger and the driver of the Jeep were killed in the head-on collision. The circuit court convicted defendant of felony murder, robbery, reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, and vehicular homicide. On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the plaintiff State's rebuttal witness was improperly allowed to express his opinion regarding the driver of defendant's vehicles, and that his sentence was improper. 

Issue:

Was the defendant’s conviction proper?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that the homicide was clearly a result of the high-speed chase necessitated by defendant's attempt to flee the area of the crime. The court ruled that defendant's flight was an integral part of the crime. Since asportation was an element of robbery, the felony was still in progress while defendant was fleeing from the scene with the stolen property. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. Since based upon the evidence supplied by several witnesses, a rational trier of fact could have concluded that defendant was driving the vehicle when the deadly collision occurred. Finally, the court concluded that the trial court correctly interpreted and applied Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 in ordering defendant's sentences run consecutively.