State of Tennessee v. Johnny Mack Powell, E2025-01126-CCA-R3-CD

Background

A Knox County jury convicted Johnny Mack Powell of attempted voluntary manslaughter, three aggravated assaults, marijuana and paraphernalia possession, and trespassing after a January 28, 2018 altercation with Darron Blackwell. 1
911 calls and multiple eyewitnesses described Powell holding a gun to Blackwell’s head, threatening to kill him, and later cutting Blackwell’s throat with a knife or box cutter. 2
Blackwell testified that Powell approached him armed, threatened him, and cut his throat, causing surgery and lasting facial numbness. 3
Police recovered a Ruger .22 pistol from a witness, found a .40 caliber shell casing, and searched Powell, recovering marijuana, pipes, a scale, and a box cutter. 4
The trial court merged the aggravated assault convictions and imposed an effective ten-year sentence, and Powell appealed only the sufficiency of the evidence for attempted voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault. 5

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction 6	State argued Powell tried to shoot Blackwell and acted in passion after provocation.	Powell claimed Blackwell was the aggressor and he acted in self-defense.	Evidence sufficient; jury could reject self-defense and find attempted voluntary manslaughter. 7
Sufficiency of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury 8	State argued Powell’s throat-cutting caused serious bodily injury.	Powell argued Blackwell initiated the fight and self-defense applied.	Evidence sufficient to support aggravated assault. 9
Sufficiency of aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon 10	State argued the box cutter was a deadly weapon used to cut Blackwell.	Powell challenged the proof and self-defense finding.	Evidence sufficient to support aggravated assault. 11
Sufficiency of aggravated assault by causing fear with a deadly weapon 12	State argued Powell held a gun to Blackwell’s head and caused fear.	Powell denied criminal liability and asserted self-defense.	Evidence sufficient to support aggravated assault. 13

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (constitutional sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard 14)
State v. Goodwin, 143 S.W.3d 771 (Tenn. 2004) (Tennessee sufficiency standard and strongest legitimate view of evidence 15)
State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2002) (cited in sufficiency standard discussion 16)
State v. Pendergrass, 13 S.W.3d 389 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (sufficiency standard applies to direct and circumstantial evidence 17)
State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (circumstantial-evidence sufficiency authority 18)
Duchac v. State, 505 S.W.2d 237 (Tenn. 1973) (circumstantial evidence alone may establish a crime 19)
State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646 (Tenn. 2006) (jury decides weight and inferences from circumstantial evidence 20)
Marable v. State, 313 S.W.2d 451 (Tenn. 1958) (jury decides consistency of circumstantial evidence with guilt 21)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (same sufficiency standard for direct and circumstantial evidence 22)
State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265 (Tenn. 2009) (quoted for sufficiency standard 23)
State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (appellate courts do not reweigh evidence 24)
State v. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d 102 (Tenn. 1999) (appellate courts do not substitute inferences for the jury's 25)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the jury 26)
State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474 (Tenn. 1973) (jury verdict accredits State witnesses and resolves conflicts 27)
Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1966) (explains why appellate review defers to jury and trial judge 28)
Carroll v. State, 370 S.W.2d 523 (Tenn. 1963) (quoted in explanation of deference to live testimony 29)
State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2000) (State receives strongest legitimate view and reasonable inferences 30)
State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516 (Tenn. 2000) (convicted defendant bears burden to show insufficiency 31)
State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1982) (conflicts in testimony are resolved in favor of the verdict 32)
State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. 1978) (conflicts in proof are resolved for the State's verdict 33)
State v. Ivy, 868 S.W.2d 724 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (self-defense is a factual question for the jury 34)