## Facts

- Mario Lamont Wilson had neighborhood disputes involving Kenneth Hodges and Hodges’s friend/neighbor Lamont Johnson.
- After an argument with Johnson, Johnson fired a weapon at Wilson as Wilson drove down the street.
- Later the same day, Wilson returned in a car with two accomplices and fired weapons at Hodges’s house from the car.
- Hodges was not home, but three people were inside the house, including Hodges’s cousin, who had looked out the front door shortly before the first shots.
- No occupant was physically injured.
- Based on the drive-by shooting, Wilson was charged with offenses including multiple counts of aggravated assault tied to the occupants inside the residence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove aggravated assault by use or display of a deadly weapon, specifically that Wilson intentionally or knowingly caused the alleged victims to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury.
2. Whether firing into a dwelling, without proof Wilson knew people were inside and without proof the occupants actually perceived and feared imminent injury, satisfies aggravated assault as charged.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Wilson’s aggravated assault convictions.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to prove Wilson intentionally or knowingly caused another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury by his use or display of a weapon.
- The felony reckless endangerment conviction remained affirmed.
- The dismissal of the weapon-possession-with-intent-to-commit-a-felony conviction was not reviewed because the State did not seek further review of that dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- For aggravated assault premised on causing fear by use or display of a deadly weapon, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally or knowingly caused the victim to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury.
- Proof of gunfire into a residence, standing alone, does not establish aggravated assault under the “fear” theory absent proof of the required mental state and proof that victims actually experienced reasonable fear.
- Sufficiency review requires viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and asking whether any rational trier of fact could find each essential element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Reckless endangerment and aggravated assault by fear require different proofs; reckless endangerment may be supported by risk-creating conduct even where proof is lacking that the defendant intentionally or knowingly caused a specific victim’s fear.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that, although firing into an occupied dwelling supported reckless endangerment, the aggravated assault convictions could not stand because the proof did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson acted intentionally or knowingly to cause, and did cause, the occupants to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury.


State v. Wilson, 924 S.W.2d 648 (Tenn. 1996)