State of Tennessee v. Fred Birchfield, E2016-00493-CCA-R3-CD

On May 29, 2010 Fred Birchfield shot and killed John C. Robbins and Melissa Norris; Birchfield was charged and tried in Morgan County. At trial he claimed self‑defense, mutual combat, or passion provocation.
At the scene and on a recorded 9‑1‑1 call Birchfield described a confrontation, said he and Robbins were both armed, that Robbins displayed a .44, Birchfield fired his .22 then fired Robbins’s .44 until empty, and that both victims were dead.
Physical and forensic evidence: a .44 magnum found on Robbins’s lap (fired six times) and a .22 revolver in Birchfield’s truck (fired eight times); autopsy showed Robbins suffered numerous close‑range wounds from both calibers and two fatal large‑caliber wounds; Norris died from a small‑caliber wound inflicted from several feet.
Paramedic and deputies testified Birchfield had gunpowder residue and a torn/abrasion on his left hand but no clear evidence a gun was fired at him; toxicology and scene evidence showed victims had drugs and alcohol.
Verdict and sentence: jury convicted Birchfield of second‑degree murder (Robbins) and reckless homicide (Norris); trial court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 21 years.
Procedural: Birchfield appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence for second‑degree murder (claims of self‑defense/mitigation), and (2) trial court erred by denying a change of venue based on pretrial publicity and community ties; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for second‑degree murder	State: evidence (shots from both guns, number and nature of wounds, ballistics) supports a knowing killing	Birchfield: acted in self‑defense or in heat of passion / mutual combat	Affirmed — evidence sufficient; jury reasonably found defendant acted knowingly and not justified once he controlled Robbins’s .44
Sufficiency for reckless homicide (Norris)	State: defendant’s multiple shots into truck foreseeably caused death	Birchfield: did not contest this conviction on appeal	Affirmed — evidence supports reckless homicide conviction
Change of venue (pretrial publicity and community ties)	Birchfield: extensive local publicity and victims’ community ties required venue change; trial judge refused pretrial hearing	State: motion lacked supporting affidavits and defense failed to renew during voir dire; empaneled jurors were not biased	Affirmed — motion waived (no affidavits, not renewed); empaneled jury had no exposure or bias; trial court did not abuse discretion
Trial court’s pretrial procedure re: venue (Davidson/Hoover factors)	Birchfield: court’s practice of waiting for voir dire violated precedent and denied proper consideration of venue factors	State: court explained local practice and invited voir dire; defense had opportunity to renew	Affirmed — court’s procedure permissible here; record shows no prohibition on presenting evidence and no demonstrated juror prejudice

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (credibility and weight of evidence are jury functions)
State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542 (Tenn. 1984) (appellate courts do not reweigh evidence)
State v. Hall, 976 S.W.2d 121 (Tenn. 1998) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (same standard for direct and circumstantial evidence)
State v. Page, 81 S.W.3d 781 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (second‑degree murder/knowing mental state)
State v. Crenshaw, 64 S.W.3d 374 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (abuse of discretion review for venue denial)
State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993) (venue/pretrial publicity discretion)
State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342 (juror bias required to overturn venue ruling)
State v. Bates, 804 S.W.2d 868 (juror exposure to publicity does not automatically establish prejudice)
State v. Kyger, 787 S.W.2d 13 (defendant must show actual juror prejudice to prevail on venue claim)
State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600 (Tenn. 2003) (factors for evaluating change of venue)
State v. Hoover, 594 S.W.2d 743 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979) (consideration of venue factors)