State v. Tim Rathers ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
JULY 1998 SESSION
FILED
September 14, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. No: 02C01-9710-CR-00392
Appellee, )
) Shelby County
VS. )
) Hon. Bernie Weinman, Judge
)
TIMOTHY RATHERS, ) (Possession of Cocaine & Marijuana
) with Intent to Sell or Deliver)
Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Charles E. Waldman John Knox Walkup
147 Jefferson, Suite 1102 Attorney General & Reporter
Memphis, TN 38103
(At Trial & On Appeal) Peter M. Coughlan
Assistant Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenue North
2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
William L. Gibbons
District Attorney General
Thomas Hoover
Assistant District Attorney General
201 Poplar Avenue, Third Floor
Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER,
Special Judge
OPINION
The appellant was indicted on four counts of dealing with controlled substances.
Specifically, he was charged in one count each of possession of cocaine with intent to
deliver, possession of cocaine with intent to sell, possession of marijuana with intent to
deliver, and possession of marijuana with intent to sell. On July 16, 1997, a jury
convicted the defendant on the two possession with intent to deliver counts. In this
appeal, his sole complaint is that the evidence was insufficient to support these
convictions. Having reviewed the evidence, we affirm the trial court.
FACTS
The testimony at trial revealed that on July 19, 1996, Sergeant Ernest Long of
the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department received information from a confidential
informant that the defendant was conducting drug sales from his vehicle. The informant
described the defendant’s vehicle and gave a specific street on which the car would be
found. Upon traveling to the specified location, Sergeant Long observed a car
matching the description of the defendant’s vehicle. A license plate check confirmed
that it belonged to the defendant. A passenger, later identified as Irish Banks, was also
in the vehicle. Long saw a male subject he believed to be the defendant walking
across the street to a pay telephone.
Once Sergeant Long had positioned himself for continued surveillance of the
defendant, he radioed for assistance and requested that a narcotics dog be brought to
the scene. When the other officers arrived, they approached the defendant at the
telephone booth, identified themselves and asked permission to search his vehicle.
When the defendant refused to consent to such a search, he was detained for
approximately ten minutes to await the arrival of the narcotics dog.
When the narcotics dog was brought to the defendant’s vehicle, it alerted on the
trunk of the vehicle. The officers obtained the keys from the defendant and opened the
trunk where the dog alerted on a gym bag. Upon opening the gym bag, Detectives
Tarwater and Beasley discovered a bag containing what was later confirmed to be 456
grams of marijuana and two bags containing what was later confirmed to be 52.62
grams of crack cocaine. A set of postal scales was also discovered in the trunk of the
2
defendant’s vehicle. Sergeant Long testified that a .1 to .2 gram rock of cocaine would
sell for $20 and the street value of the marijuana would have been $900 to $1300.
The defendant was arrested and taken to the police department where he was
interviewed by Scott Campbell of the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department. In his
statement, captured on video, the defendant admitted that the “narcotics that were
found belonged to me.” However, he insisted that he had been set up because he did
not have to take the drugs and deliver them. According to the defendant’s statement,
someone called him and asked that these specific amounts of narcotics be delivered to
him.
Irish Banks, the defendant’s girlfriend, testified on behalf of the defendant.
Banks testified that she was a passenger in the defendant’s vehicle on the day of the
drug search. Ms. Banks said that she had not seen the defendant open the trunk that
day. Further, she testified that the defendant’s brother had driven the car on occasion.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The defendant’s sole issue is that the evidence was insufficient to support his
convictions. He insists that the jury should have found him guilty of the lesser included
offense of simple possession.
When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, the standard of review is
whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, any rational
trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318 (1979); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185,
190-91 (Tenn. 1992). On appeal, the state is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of
the evidence and all reasonable or legitimate inferences which may be drawn
therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). This Court will not
reweigh the evidence, reevaluate the evidence, or substitute its evidentiary inferences
for those reached by the jury. State v. Carey, 914 S.W.2d 93, 95 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1995).
In a criminal trial, great weight is given to the result reached by the jury. State v.
3
Johnson, 910 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). Once approved by the trial
court, a jury verdict accredits the witnesses presented by the state and resolves all
conflicts in favor of the state. State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). A
jury’s guilty verdict removes the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the defendant at
trial and raises a presumption of guilt. State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn.
1982). The defendant then bears the burden of overcoming this presumption of guilt on
appeal. State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 175 (Tenn. 1991).
In the instant case, the defendant was convicted of one count of possession of
cocaine with the intent to deliver and one count of possession of marijuana with the
intent to deliver. Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17-417 provides that (a) it is
an offense for a defendant to knowingly: (4) possess a controlled substance with intent
to manufacture, deliver or sell such controlled substance.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, the jury heard
evidence that a confidential informant reported to Sergeant Long that the defendant
was conducting drug sales from his vehicle. The informant went further to describe the
vehicle and its current location. This information was confirmed by Sergeant Long
when he arrived on the scene and saw both the vehicle and the defendant. After a
narcotics dog alerted on the trunk of the defendant’s vehicle and a gym bag inside the
trunk, the officers removed large quantities of crack cocaine and marijuana from the
gym bag. A set of postal scales was also found in the trunk.
According to his statement given at the police station, the defendant admitted
that the drugs belonged to him. He added that he “was called to bring someone some
drugs in exchange for money. It was a set up, because I didn’t have to do it.” Sergeant
Long testified as to the street value of both the marijuana and crack cocaine.
The defendant argues that no evidence existed to show that he had an intent to
deliver the cocaine and marijuana. However, the amount of drugs and other relevant
facts and circumstances allow the inference that the defendant possessed the intent to
deliver the cocaine and marijuana. State v. Bledsoe, 626 S.W.2d 468 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1981). Here, not only did the officer testify to the large amount of cocaine and
marijuana and its street value, the testimony also indicated that a set of scales was
4
found in the trunk of the vehicle.
In further support of his argument, the defendant points to testimony that he told
Officer Campbell that it was a “setup,” that the informant really wanted the defendant’s
brother to bring him the drugs,” and that he did give officers consent to search the
vehicle. The defendant also added that he implicated himself in the statement only to
insure the release of his girlfriend who was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the
arrest. Additionally, the defendant wanted the jury to believe that, based on the
testimony of Ms. Banks, others drove the vehicle. However, none of these assertions
are convincing.
Each of these assertions constitutes a credibility challenge. As cited above,
issues of credibility are a function of the jury. This Court will not usurp that function.
This sufficiency of the evidence argument, in its entirety, is without merit.
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the record and submitted briefs, this Court concludes that the
decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, Special Judge
CONCUR:
JOE G. RILEY, Judge
CURWOOD W ITT, Judge
5