## Facts

- George Kelly drove a car at night while intoxicated.
- He was traveling on a two-lane road.
- On a curve marked as a no-passing zone, Kelly attempted to pass another vehicle.
- Kelly entered the lane for oncoming traffic and collided head-on with an approaching car.
- A passenger in the oncoming car died from injuries sustained in the collision.
- Kelly was convicted of second-degree murder based on the fatal crash and appealed, arguing the proof supported only vehicular homicide.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find second-degree murder (a knowing killing) rather than only vehicular homicide when an intoxicated driver attempted to pass on a curve in a no-passing zone and caused a death.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals held the evidence was sufficient to support the second-degree murder conviction.
- The court rejected Kelly’s claim that the facts limited the State to vehicular homicide.
- The conviction was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- On appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency, the question is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the proof in the light most favorable to the State.
- Tennessee second-degree murder is a result-focused offense: the State must prove the defendant acted knowingly with respect to the victim’s death.
- “Knowing” conduct may be proven by circumstantial evidence; a jury may infer the defendant’s mental state from the manner of driving and surrounding circumstances.
- Extremely dangerous driving while intoxicated—such as attempting to pass in a marked no-passing zone on a curve on a two-lane road—can support an inference that the driver was aware death was reasonably certain to occur.
- The existence of a vehicular-homicide statute does not bar a prosecution for second-degree murder when the proof supports the higher mens rea and elements.
- An appellate court does not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the jury’s findings on competing inferences about mental state.

## Conclusion

In *State v. Kelly*, the court affirmed a second-degree murder conviction arising from an intoxicated nighttime crash where the defendant attempted to pass on a curve in a no-passing zone and struck an oncoming car, killing a passenger; the court concluded the circumstances allowed a rational jury to find a knowing killing rather than only vehicular homicide.


State v. Kelly, 1998 WL 712268 (1998)