State v. Michelle Franze ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
December 1, 1999
OCTOBER SESSION, 1999
Cecil CROWS ON, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, *
* No. 03C01-9812-CC-00417
Appellee, *
* BLOUNT COUNTY
vs. *
* Hon. D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., Judge
MICHELLE FRANZE, *
* (Theft of Property Over $10,000)
Appellant. *
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
John E. Herbison Paul G. Summers
Attorney for Appellant Attorney General and Reporter
2016 Eighth Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37204 Erik W. Daab
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
(ON APPEAL) 425 Fifth Avenue North
2d Floor, Cordell Hull Building
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Mack Garner
District Public Defender
419 High Street Michael L. Flynn
Maryville, TN 37804 District Attorney General
(AT TRIAL) Edward P. Bailey, Jr.
Asst. District Attorney General
363 Court Street
Maryville, TN 37804
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
David G. Hayes, Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Michelle Franze, was found guilty by a jury of theft of property over $10,000.
The Blount County Criminal Court imposed a split confinement sentence of three years with 210 days
confinem followed by two years, 5 months supervised probation. At trial, the appellant defended
ent
upon the affirmative defense of “claim of right.” O appeal, she contends that “the trial court’s failure to
n
instruct the jury on the meaning of the phrase ‘claim of right’ constitutes plain and prejudicial error.”
After review of the record, we affirm.
Background
On Decem 24, 1996, the appellant rented a 1996 Dodge Intrepid fromNational Car R
ber ental
at the McGhee-Tyson Airport in Alcoa. By written contractual agreem the appellant was to return
ent,
the vehicle on Decem 27, 1996. At this time, she provided the agent on duty with her name as
ber
listed on her driver’s license, her telephone number, and a Visa credit card. The vehicle was not
returned as provided by the rental agreement.
At no time after Decem 27, 1996, did National Car R
ber ental or its agents extend permission
to the appellant to retain possession of the vehicle. Soon after January 1, 1997, the Knoxville area
manager of National Car Rental attempted to contact the appellant by telephone regarding the 1996
Intrepid. H attem however, were futile as the telephone num provided by the appellant
is pts, ber
belonged to another person and the address on the appellant’s driver’s license was not a valid
address for her. After an exhaustive investigation, the manager w able to locate a post office box in
as
Jefferson City registered in the appellant’s nam National Car R
e. ental mailed the appellant two
certified letters pertaining to her failure to relinquish the vehicle. These were returned unclaimed.
On March 11, 1997, a Trenton, Georgia, police officer stopped a 1996 Dodge Intrepid for
reckless driving. The vehicle was driven by a seventeen year old male. After conducting a registration
check, the officer discovered that the car w stolen from National Car R
as ental. Frominformation
provided by the juvenile, the officer was able to locate the appellant at a farm house. The appellant
told the officer that “[s]he rented a vehicle and the brakes messed up, so on Christmas Eve, she left
the rental car at the airport . . . and rented another car with her credit card.” She informed the officer
2
that she had not returned the Intrepid because “she was still using the vehicle to go to work.” She also
stated that “she assumed that [National Car Rental] would just take what she owed out of her credit
card.” She advised that she had given the seventeen year old permission to drive the vehicle.
At the appellant’s subsequent trial, in her own defense, she testified that she did not steal the
car. She offered explanations for the false telephone num and address that she provided National
ber
Car Rental. Moreover, despite her admissions to the police officer at the time of her arrest, she
maintained that she had contacted National Car Rental and extended her rental agreem with them
ent .
Furthermore, because “[she] really liked the car, it w [her] intent to purchase the car w [she] went
as hen
back.”
Analysis
In her only issue on appeal, the appellant alleges error based upon the trial court’s failure to
provide a specific instruction on the definition of “claim of right.” Specifically, she alleges that the trial
court’s mere recitation of the statutory language instead of defining this “phrase of art” term invited the
jury to speculate as to its meaning. Initially, we note that the appellant failed to object to the jury
instruction at the tim of trial and in her m
e otion for new trial. Moreover, she concedes that she failed to
make a request for such specific instruction to the trial court. It is well established in Tennessee that,
generally, a failure to object to the omission of a jury instruction waives that issue for appellate review.
State v. Reece, 637 S.W.2d 858, 861 (Tenn. 1982). See also State v. Haynes, 720 S.W.2d 76, 85
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). Moreover, Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a) provides: "Nothing in this rule shall be
construed as requiring relief to be granted to a party responsible for an error or who failed to take
whatever action w reasonably available to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of an error."
as
Accordingly, this issue has been waived. See State v. Killebrew, 760 S.W.2d 228, 235 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1988); see also Tenn. R.App. P. 36(a); Tenn. R.App. P. 3(e).
Notwithstanding waiver, the trial court instructed the jury:
Included in the defendant’s plea of not guilty is her defense of claim of right.
It is a defense to prosecution of this offense:
(1) that the defendant acted under an honest claim of right to the property involved;
3
or
(2) that the defendant acted in the honest belief that she had the right to obtain or
exercise control over the property as she did.
“Property,” “obtain,” “effective consent,” and “deception” have previously been defined
in the court’s previous instructions.
The burden of proof on this issue is upon the defendant to prove the defense by a
preponderance of the evidence. If, from all the facts and circumstances in the case,
you find that the defendant acted under a claim of right, then you m find the
ust
defendant not guilty.
In criminal cases, it is the duty and obligation of a trial judge, without request, to instruct the
jury as to the law applicable to the evidence as well as to any issues which the jury m ultim
ust ately
decide. Poe v. State, 212 Tenn. 413, 370 S.W.2d 488, 489 (Tenn. 1963); see also State v. Harbison,
704 S.W.2d 314, 419 (Tenn. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1153, 106 S.C 2261 (1986); State v.
t.
Thompson, 519 S.W.2d 789, 792 (Tenn. 1975). The jury has the duty to apply the law contained in the
charge of the trial judge to the ultim facts which it determines exist. See Ford v. State, 101 Tenn.
ate
454, 458, 47 S.W. 703, 705 (1898). Due to the importance of the charge on the role of the jury
reaching its decision, the accused is entitled to have the law pertaining to his case stated plainly to the
jury in a manner which enables themto comprehend the principles involved. See Lancaster v. State,
43 Tenn. (3 Cold.) 339, 343 (1866) (emphasis added).
In the present case, the trial court correctly charged the jury as to the defense of “claim of
right” as defined in Tenn. Code Ann. §39-14-107. The terms of the charge in its entirety are easily
understood by the average layperson and the law was clearly articulated in the charge. The fact that
the instructions could have been m detailed does not render the instructions as given to be
ore
improper, and absent a special request for an additional charge, a trial court will not be held in error.
Haynes, 720 S.W.2d at 85.
Moreover, even assum that greater clarity should have been provided by an instruction, the
ing
appellant suffered no prejudice by the omission. The appellant defended at trial upon the theory that
she had a right to exercise control over the vehicle, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-107(2), as opposed
to a “claim of right.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-107(1). Subsection (1) of the statute, “claimof
right,” addresses the situation where the accused claims an honest belief that the property belongs to
him or her and that it does not belong to another. See generally MODEL PENAL CODE § 223.1
(1980). Subsection (2), as claimed in the present case, is applicable to those situations where the
accused m know that the property belongs to another but acts in the honest belief that he or she is
ay
4
entitled to exercise control over the property. See generally MODEL PENAL CODE § 223.1.
Accordingly, this issue is without merit.
For the above reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
____________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
CONCUR:
_________________________________________
GARY R. WADE, Presiding Judge
_________________________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, Judge
5