State vs. Kelvin Young
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON AUGUST SESSION, 1999 FILED October 6, 1999 STATE OF TENNESSEE, Appellee, VS. KEL VIN LE E YO UNG , JR., Appe llant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9809-CC-00287 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk MADISON COUNTY HON. WHIT LAFON, JUDGE (First Degree M urder) ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: BILL ANDERSON, JR. 142 North Third Street, Third Floor Memphis, TN 38103 PAUL G. SUMMERS Attorney General and Reporter J. ROSS DYER Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashville, TN 37243 JERRY W OODALL District Attorney General JAMES W. THOMPSON Assistant District Attorney General Lowell Thomas State Office Building Jackson, TN 38301 OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE OPINION The Defendant, Kelvin Lee Young, Jr., was tried before a jury and convicted of first degree mu rder. 1 He was sentenced to imp risonm ent for life . He ap peals as of right, arguing that the evidence presented at trial is ins ufficien t to sup port his conviction . We disagree and affirm the judgm ent of the tria l court. Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(e) prescribes that [f]indings of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the evidence is insufficient to support the finding s by the trier of fac t of guilt beyond a reasona ble doubt. Tenn . R. App. P. 13(e). In addition, because conviction by a trier of fact destroys the presumption of innocence and imposes a presumption of guilt, a convicted criminal defendant bears the burden of showing that the evid ence w as insufficie nt. McBe e v. State, 372 S.W.2d 173, 176 (Tenn. 1963); see also State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) (citing State v. Grace, 493 S.W .2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1976), and State v. Brown, 551 S.W.2d 329, 33 1 (Ten n. 1977 )); State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982); Holt v. State , 357 S.W .2d 57, 61 (T enn. 1962 ). In its review of the evidence, an appellate court must afford the State the strongest legitim ate view of the e videnc e as w ell as all reaso nable and legitim ate inferences that ma y be draw n therefro m. Tug gle, 639 S.W.2d at 914 (citing State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978)). The court may not re-weigh or re-evalua te the evidence in the reco rd below . Evans, 838 S.W.2d at 191 (citing 1 Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 39-13-202. -2- Cabbage, 571 S.W .2d at 836 ). Likewise, shou ld the reviewing co urt find particular conflicts in the trial testimony, the cou rt must resolve the m in favor of the jury verdict or trial co urt judgm ent. Tug gle, 639 S.W.2d at 914. The State s proof showed that the Defe ndan t and h is co-de fenda nt, Ce dric White, were upset with the victim because the previous evening the victim had robbed co-defendant White. White testified that the victim had taken his jewelry, money and dru gs. W hite had o btained the drug s from th e Defe ndant fo r the purpose of resale . When W hite told the Defendant about the robbery, the Defen dant told W hite, Rob bing you is just like robb ing me . Wh ite testified that the Defen dant arm ed hims elf with a 9 mm . sem iautom atic pistol and provided White with a .380 pistol. Thus armed, the two men proceeded in the Defe ndan t s vehic le to the A llenton Heigh ts hou sing co mple x in Jackson, to look for the victim. They found the victim walking near a parking lot. Wh ite testified that he shot the victim in the leg and the victim began running and slid under a parked van seeking cover. The Defendant had also fired his gun at the victim. The Defendant s gun had then jammed but the Defe ndant w as able to get it unjammed. White testified that when the victim crawled under the van, Wh ite tried to persu ade the Defen dant to leave because they had already done enough, He said the Defe ndant re spond ed ma n, he ain t d ead, he ain t dead . The Defendant immediately ran over to the van under which the victim was laying, got down on the ground and fired several shots at the victim. T he Defen dant next went around to the other side of the van and shot again. The two men then fled the scene. -3- Another witness, Carna Bruce, testified th at she was a t her m other s apartment in Allenton Heights when she heard gunshots. She immediately went outside where she saw the victim fall to the ground and crawl under a van. She then saw the Defen dant on the grou nd sho oting up u nder the van. She saw Ced ric Wh ite standing near the van. She said she heard multiple shots and that the Defendant was the only one on the ground by the van. On cross-examination, this witness stated that sh e did n ot actu ally see the gun in the Defendant s hand, but that she saw the Defendant on the ground looking up under the van while the shots were being fired. Dr. J.T. Franscisco performed the autopsy on the victim. He stated that the cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds. He described multiple bullet wounds to the body of the victim, so numerous that he could not tell exactly how many times the victim had been s hot. Although several of the wounds would have been life-threaten ing, one b ullet entere d at the ba ck of the victim s head and exited out of the front of the head . That bullet tore the b rain stem an d in Dr. Fran scisco s opinion, this wound was an instantly fatal wound. . . life would be extinguished very rapidly. He sta ted tha t after this wound, the victim would not have been able to run, limp or crawl under a van. Not surprisingly, the jury returned a verdict finding the Defendant guilty of the first degree premeditated murder of the victim. Although the Defendant argues that the evidence presented is insufficient to support the finding by the jury of guilt beyon d a rea sona ble do ubt, we conc lude th at the e videnc e is clea rly sufficient. -4- The Defendant argues that the conviction cannot stand because the verdict is based on the uncorroborated testimony of the co-defendant, Cedric White. Although the Defendant acknowledges that White s testimony was corroborated to a large ex tent by the tes timon y of Ca rna B ruce, h e argu es tha t Ms. B ruce s testimony was so inconsistent and contradictory that it must be totally disregarded. Of cours e, the ru le is well established in Tennessee that a defendant cannot be convicted on the uncorro borated testimon y of an ac comp lice. See Sherrill v. State, 321 S.W.2d 811, 814 (Tenn. 1959). To corroborate the testimony of an accomplice, there should be some fact testified to, entirely independent of the acco mplic e s evidence, which, taken by itself, leads to the inference, not only that a crime has been committed but also that the defendant is implicated in it. Clapp v. State, 30 S.W.214, 217 (Ten n. 1895). The corroboration must consist of some fact or circumstance which affects the identity of the defen dant. In add ition, it is for the jury to determine the degree of evidence necessary to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice, and it is sufficient if there is some other evidence fairly tending to conne ct the defenda nt with the com mission of the c rime. Id. As the Defendant concedes, the testimony of Ms. Bruce clearly corroborates the testimony of co-defendant and accomplice Cedric White. Although the Defendant argues that Ms. Bruce s testimony is entitled to no credibility and that the tes timon y shou ld be re jected in its entir ety, we again point out that this court may not re-weigh or re-evalua te eviden ce in the re cord. As we have also note d, if there are conflicts in the trial testimony, we must resolve them in favor of the jury verdict. -5- Because we find no merit to the Defendant s appeal, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ____________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE CONCUR: ___________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE ___________________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR. JUDGE -6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
