State of Tennessee v. Robert Charles Atkins, E2020-00351-CCA-R3-CD

A Monroe County jury convicted Robert Charles Atkins of first-degree premeditated murder for the stabbing homicide of his father, Charles Taylor; the trial court sentenced Atkins to life imprisonment.
The victim was found in a remote ditch on Griffith Branch Road with multiple stab wounds; animal activity degraded the remains but the medical examiner concluded death was a homicide by multiple sharp‑force injuries.
Witness Jacob Smith (driver) testified he drove Atkins and the victim to a remote location, saw Atkins put the victim in a headlock and strike him, then observed Atkins return to the car bloody, dispose of clothing, later show a pocketknife he said he used, and remove the victim’s magnetic bracelet.
Investigators recovered a pocketknife from sweatpants in Smith’s vehicle; forensic testing found the victim’s and Atkins’s DNA on the knife handle and victim’s blood smeared on the passenger‑side window.
The victim’s girlfriend (Gibson) saw a hooded man (not Smith’s large build) at her door the night the victim disappeared; Smith initially lied to police out of fear but later gave a statement consistent with his trial testimony.
On appeal Atkins argued (1) insufficiency of the evidence—identity and premeditation—and (2) trial court error in admitting Smith’s testimony about pre‑trial threats; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed and found the threats issue waived for appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Atkins)	Held
Sufficiency — identity of perpetrator	Evidence (Smith’s eyewitness account, Atkins’s statements to Smith, pocketknife with Atkins’s DNA and victim’s blood, blood in Smith’s car, knife consistent with wounds) proves Atkins was the killer	Proof points to Smith as killer; testimony is unreliable and circumstantial; State failed to exclude reasonable doubt	Conviction affirmed: evidence viewed in State’s favor supports identity beyond a reasonable doubt
Sufficiency — premeditation	Aggravating circumstances (luring victim, using a knife on an unarmed victim, disposing of identifying items, post‑attack statements and calm demeanor) permit inference of premeditation	No proof of prior intent; killing could have been impulsive during an altercation	Conviction for first‑degree premeditated murder affirmed: jury could infer premeditation from circumstances
Admission of testimony about threats to Smith	Admission was relevant to explain Smith’s courtroom demeanor and credibility	Testimony was hearsay, not relevant, and prejudicial	Issue waived on appeal for failure to raise in motion for new trial; court did not reach merits

State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1982) (appellate review standard after jury verdict)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405 (Tenn. 1983) (appellate view of evidence and inferences)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (circumstantial and direct evidence treated identically for sufficiency review)
State v. Pike, 978 S.W.2d 904 (Tenn. 1998) (factors permitting inference of premeditation)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (premeditation factors and manner of killing)
State v. Thomas, 158 S.W.3d 361 (Tenn. 2005) (identity as fact question for jury)
Thompson v. State, 958 S.W.2d 156 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (failure to raise issues in motion for new trial waives appellate review)