State of Tennessee v. Charles R. Smith ( 1999 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON FILED
MAY 1999 SESSION
July 7, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) NO. 02C01-9810-CC-00308
Appellee, )
) HARDEMAN COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. JON KERRY BLACKWOOD,
CHARLES R. SMITH, ) JUDGE
)
Appellant. ) (Aggravated Burglary and Theft)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
C. MICHAEL ROBBINS PAUL G. SUMMERS
(On Appeal) Attorney General and Reporter
46 North Third Street
Suite 719 J. ROSS DYER
Memphis, TN 38103 Assistant Attorney General
Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor
GARY F. ANTRICAN 425 Fifth Avenue North
District Public Defender Nashville, TN 37243-0493
RICKEY W. GRIGGS ELIZABETH T. RICE
(At Trial) District Attorney General
Assistant District Public Defender
P.O. Box 700 JERRY W. NORWOOD
Somerville, TN 38068-0700 Assistant District Attorney General
302 Market Street
Somerville, TN 38068
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
JOE G. RILEY,
JUDGE
OPINION
A Hardeman County jury convicted defendant of aggravated burglary, a
Class C felony, and theft of property valued at $500, a Class A misdemeanor. The
sole issue in this appeal as of right is sufficiency of the evidence. We find the
evidence sufficient to support the convictions and AFFIRM the judgment of the trial
court.
FACTS
On the night of October 16, 1997, a home owned by Radye and Virgie
Morphis in the Pocahontas community was burglarized. Law enforcement found
signs of forced entry and the inside of the house in disarray. A microwave oven was
left on the floor in front of the kitchen door. Items missing from the house included:
a deer rifle, compound bow, microwave oven, weed trimmer, kerosene heater, and
tool belt. These items were not recovered. Radye Morphis valued these items at
$1500.
Grace Short, a next-door neighbor, disturbed by the barking of a dog at about
10:00 p.m., looked out her window and saw an individual moving about the Morphis’
property and observed a dim light inside the home (from a match or a lighter). Her
husband saw the individual leave the house, put a box-like object on the handlebars
of a bicycle and ride south on Main Street over the railroad tracks. The husband
saw the individual return to the house a few minutes later.
Grace Short alerted another neighbor, Lynn Hudson, to the suspicious
activity. Hudson saw a man in the Morphis’ front yard get on a bike with something
on the handlebars and ride past her house. The rider went south on Main Street
and over the railroad tracks. Like Mr. Short, Hudson witnessed the man’s return.
2
She knew it was the same person because she recognized the squeaking sound
made by the bicycle. Upon the man’s return, Hudson observed his shadow moving
between the house and the garage until law enforcement patrol cars arrived.
Hardeman County Sheriff’s Deputy Rick Chandler responded to the burglary
call. Upon his arrival at the scene, Chandler saw Grace Short gesturing toward the
back of the Morphis’ house. As he approached the house and came near the
detached garage, he saw a bicycle leaning against the garage door. He eventually
came upon a pile of scrap materials under which he saw the defendant.
Chandler ordered the defendant to come out from under the scrap materials
and placed him under arrest. The defendant behaved belligerently and protested
his arrest. In response to the deputy’s investigative questioning, defendant claimed
to be in the house for a legitimate purpose 1 and said he hid for fear of being in
trouble solely because of his reputation.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to support his
convictions for aggravated burglary and theft of property. Specifically, he claims
that the evidence is purely circumstantial in nature and only establishes his
presence in the garage, not the house.
Although the evidence of the defendant’s guilt is circumstantial in nature,
circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to support a conviction. State v.
Tharpe, 726 S.W.2d 896, 899-900 (Tenn. 1987); State v. Gregory, 862 S.W.2d
574, 577 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993); State v. Buttrey, 756 S.W.2d 718, 721 (Tenn.
1
Defendant claimed to be seeking a labor-for-rent arrangement and was looking at
the house with that purpose in mind. However, at the time of the offense, defendant was
on house arrest and in violation of his community correction’s curfew.
3
Crim. App. 1988). However, in order for this to occur, the circumstantial evidence
must be consistent with the guilt of the accused, inconsistent with innocence, and
must exclude every other reasonable theory or hypothesis except that of guilt.
Tharpe, 726 S.W.2d at 900.
While following the above guidelines, this Court must remember that the jury
decides the weight to be given to circumstantial evidence and that “[t]he inferences
to be drawn from such evidence, and the extent to which the circumstances are
consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence are questions primarily for the
jury.” Marable v. State, 313 S.W.2d 451, 457 (Tenn. 1958)(citation omitted); see
also Gregory, 862 S.W.2d at 577; State v. Coury, 697 S.W.2d 373, 377 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1985). Great weight is given to the result reached by the jury in a
criminal trial. A jury verdict accredits the state's witnesses and resolves all conflicts
in favor of the state. State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 803 (Tenn. 1994); State v.
Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992).
The eyewitness testimony in this case established that a male individual
entered the Morphis’ property and took several items out of the house. He left on
a bicycle with some of the property and returned a few minutes later. When law
enforcement arrived on the scene, they found a bicycle leaning against the garage
and discovered defendant hiding under a scrap pile. Defendant offered an
incredible explanation for his presence on the property at approximately 10:00 p.m.
(i.e., his desire to make rental arrangements with the homeowners.)
Defendant fails to overcome the presumption of guilt established by the jury
verdict in this case. The evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s convictions
for aggravated burglary and theft of property.
CONCLUSION
4
Based upon the foregoing, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
____________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
____________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE
____________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
5