# FIL ED

A ug ust1, 1996 Cecil W. Crow son A pp ellat e C ou rtC lerk IN THE CO UR T OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NA SH VILLE DE CE MB ER1995 SESSI ON

STATE OF TENN ESSEE , ) ) APP ELLEE, ) ) No. 01- C- 01- 9505- CC -0 0158 ) ) Bedford Cou nty v . ) ) W . Ch a rle s L e e , J u d ge ) ) (Theft Ov er

$1,0 00) T ERRY BOW EN, ) ) AP PE LL AN T. )

FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: Bi ll R . Ba rron Cha rl es W . Bu rs on J. Ma rk Jo hnson Atto rn ey Gene ra l & R epor

ter 124 Ea st Cou rtSq uare 450 J ames R ober tso n Par kw ay Trent on, TN 38382 Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 (A p p e a l O n ly) Rut h A. Thompson Rob ert L. M ar low Ass is tant Atto rn ey Gene ra l Ass is tant Publ icD efender 450 J ames R ober tso n Par kw ay P.O. Box 1119 Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Fay ettev il le, TN 37334 W

. Mi c h a e l M c Co wn Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l OF C OU NS EL: P.O. Box 904 Fay ettev il le, TN 37334 John H. D ic key Di str ict Pu bli c D efender Gar y M . J ones P.O. Box 1119 Ass t. Di str ict Attor ney Gene ra l Fayettevil le, T N 3733 4 Bed ford Coun ty Courth ouse Shel byv il le, TN 37160

OPIN ION F ILED :______

_________

_________

_____ AFF IR ME D
Jo e B. Jo n e s, Pre sid in g Ju d ge O P I N I O N1 T h e a p p e ll a n t , T e rry B o we n , wa s co n vic t e d o f t h e f to ve r $ 1 , 0 0 0 , a Cl a s s D fe lo n y, by a jur y of hi s peers. The tr ial cour t found t hat t he appe ll ant was a mul ti ple offender and impos ed a Ran g e II se ntenc e c onsi sti ng of con f in ement for ei g ht ( 8) y ears i n the Dep artment of Cor re cti on. This sent ence is to be s er v ed c onsec uti v ely

w it h the se ntenc es imp osed in three prior case s. In t his appeal as of

rig ht, the a ppel lan t c ontends thatthe ev ide nce cont ain ed i n the
re cord i s i nsuffici ent, as a m atter of law , to suppor

t a findi ng bya ra ti onal tri er of factthat he i s g uil ty

of theft ov er

$1,0 00 beyond a re asona ble doubt. He al so cont ends thatthe tr ial court com mitt ed e rr o r o f p rejudicial dim ensio ns by ( a) ruling tha t he cou ld notintrodu ce ev ide nce that a pr ior

burglar y ca se had bee n di smi ss ed and (b ) ins tr uct ing the jur y on “recently stolen prop erty” af ter the st ate o pte d to see k a conviction for the u nlawfu l ex ercise of control of prope rty . The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med. On t he ev eni ng of Oct ober 14, 1993, Lamber

t’ s J e we lr

y Sto re , l ocat ed i n Shel byv il le, Tenness ee, was burg lar iz ed. Pol ic e off ic ers found t hat t he g las s i n the frontdoor had been broken. I n s i d e , t h e g l a s s d i s p l a y c a s e s h a d b e e n b ro k e n . W h e n t h e b u rg l a rs l e ft , t hey too k w ith the m th ree w atch es, on e brace let, o n e p e n dan t w ith gold chain, and a gold d o m e d rin g. T he a ppe llant w entto the hom e of Jam es Farrar shortly af ter the burglary

. He told F a rra r t h a th e h a d it e m s o f je we lry h e wa n t e d t o s e ll h im

. He sh o we d Fa rra r t h e je we lry. The li ber ty co in pendantand chai n w ere in a box bear ing the name “ Lamber t’ s J ew elr

y .” Far ra r g av e the appell ant $35 and tol d him he woul d g et more money l ater

. The appel lan t le f twit h t h e j e we lry. He g o tin t o a m o t o r ve h ic le o c c u p ie d b y two o t h e r p e o p le a n d d ro ve aw ay w it h th e j e wel ry . Far ra r subs eq uentl y ca ll ed th e Shel byv il le pol ic e. He tol d the off ic ers w hat o cc ur re d. He ag re ed to purchas e the j ew elr y from t he a p p ell ant a nd
sur re nder

i t t o the pol ic e. O n O c t o b e r 16 , 1 9 9 3 , t h e a p p e ll a n t re t u rn e d t o F a rra r’ s re s id e n c e wit h t h e je we lry. Far ra r g av e the appel lan t an addi ti onal $255 for th e three w a tc h e s, bracel et, and l ibe rty coi n penda nt w it h g old ch ain

. Far ra r subs eque n tl y su rrendered th e i tems he purchas ed to t he pol ic e.2 The appel lan t s old the g old domed ri ng to Caroly n Far ra r for $50. Sh e tes ti fied th at she h ad p urcha sed a dditio nal item s f rom th e ap pellan t. It app ears the latte r items w ere t a k e n in a n o t h e r b u rg la ry. The ow ner of t he jewelr y sto re ide nti fied the proper ty re cov ered by

the pol ic e. She tes ti fied th at t he bracel et was v alu ed at$235, the pendant and chai n w ere w orth $1 ,195, the r ing w as v alu ed at$469, one w atc h w as v alu ed at $395, another w atc h had a v alu e of $195, and t he th ird w atc h w as w orth $1 10.

I.

The a p p e l l a n tc o n t e n d s t h a tt h e e v i d e n c e i s i n s u ffi c i e n tt o s u p p o rth i s c o n v i ct i o n. He a rg u e s : “ Unde r these se t [sic] of facts, th ere is no proo f the de fend antknowi ngly obtai ned or

ex cl usi v ely

ex erci sed cont ro l of prope rty he k new t o b e stol en. The nex us b e twe e n the burg lar

y and the d efendant’ s p oss ess ion of the j ew elr y i s i nsuffici ent t o susta in the conviction of the f t of prop erty.” T he state arg ues th at “any rational trier of fact coul d hav e found the [app ell ant] g uil ty of [thi s o ffense] beyond a re asona ble doubt .”

A.

W hen an accu sed challenges the suf f iciency of

the con v icting ev iden ce, th is Court
mu st rev iew

the reco rd t o det ermin e if t he evidence add uced a t trial is suf f icient "t o sup port the f inding of

the trier of

fact of g uilt beyond a reaso nab le dou bt." Ten n. R. App . P. 13 (e). This r ule i s a ppl ic abl e to findi ng s o f gui ltbas ed upon d ire ct ev ide nce, ci rc umstan ti al
ev ide nce, or

a com b ina ti on of di re ct and c ircums tanti al ev ide nce. St ate v . D y kes , 803 S.W .2d 250 , 253 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p.), pe r. app. den ied (T enn . 199 0). In de ter mini ng the suffi cie n cy o f the c onv icti ng ev ide nce, thi s C our t doe s n ot
rew ei g h or

ree v al ua te the ev i de nc e. St at e v . M atth ews , 80 5 S. W .2 d 77 6, 7 79 ( Ten n. C r i m. App .), per. app. denie d (Te nn. 199 0). Nor ma y this Court sub stitute its infe rence s for those draw n by

the tr ier of fact from c ircu mstant ial ev ide nce. Li akas v . St ate, 199 Tenn. 298, 305 , 286 S .W .2d 8 56, 859 , cert. de nied , 352 U.S. 845 , 77 S. Ct. 39, 1 L.Ed .2d 49 (195 6).3

T o the contrary, this Court is required to a f ford the State of

Te nne ssee th e strongest leg it imat e v iew

of the e v ide nce cont ained i n the record as w ell as al l re asona ble and leg it im a te i n fe re nces w hic h may be d ra w n from t he ev ide nce. St ate v . C abbag e, 57 1 S.W .2d 832 , 835 (Ten n. 19 78). Ques ti o n s conc er nin g the credi bil ity of the w it ness es, the w eig ht an d v alu e to be g iv en th e ev ide nce, as w ell as all factual i ss ues ra is ed by the ev ide nce are resol v ed by the tr ier of fact, n ot thi s C our

t. C abbag e, 57 1 S. W .2d a t 835

. In S tate v . G ra ce, 493 S.W .2d 474, 476 ( Tenn. 1973 ), our Supreme Cou rtsa id: "A g uil ty v erdict by

the jur y , app ro v ed by th e t ri a l ju d ge, accredits th e test imo ny of the wi tne sses for the St ate and resolv es all confli cts i n fav or

of the t heor

y of the S tate. " Si nce a v erdict of g uil t remov es the presumpt ion of inn ocenc e and re pla ces i t w it h a pre s u mp t i o n o f g u i l t , t h e a c c u s e d , a s t h e a p p e l l a n t , h a s t h e b u rd e n i n t h i s C o u rtof il lus trati ng w hy

the ev ide nce is i nsuffici ent t o s uppor t t he v erdicts re tur ned by the tr ier of fact. St a te v. Tug g le, 639 S.W .2d 9 13, 9 14 ( Tenn. 1982 ). Thi s C our t w il l not d is tur b a
v erdict o f

gu iltd u e to the s uff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce unl ess the facts cont ain ed i n the
re cord are i nsuffici ent, as a matter of l aw , for a ra ti onal tr ier of fact to find t hat t he ac cus ed is g uil ty bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Tugg le, 639 S.W .2d a t 914

.

B.

Before an accuse d can be conv icted of theft over the v alue of

$1,0 00, the sta te m ust prov e beyond a re asona ble doubtthat : a) t he ac cus ed ( 1) kn owinglyobta ine d the proper ty of another , ( 2) w it hout the
o wn e r’ s e f

fe c t ive co n s e n t , a n d (3 ) wi t h t h e in t e n tt o d e p ri ve t h e o wn e r o f t h e p ro p e rt y, Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 14- 103, or (b ) the acc used (1 ) know ing ly ex erci sed cont ro l ov e r th e p roperty of another , ( 2) wit h o u tt h e o wn e r’ s co n s e n t , a n d ( 3 ) wit h t h e in t e n tt o d e p ri ve t h e o wn e r o f t h e p ro p e rt y, Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 14- 103; and (c ) the v alu e of the proper ty i n q uest ion ex ceeds $1,0 00. In t his ca se, the sta te i ntroduce d ev ide nce that pla ced the s tol en pro p e rt y i n the4

han ds of the ap pellan t short ly a ft e r t he b urglary and again the n ext day . He certainly
ex erci sed cont ro l ov er

the proper

ty bec ause he personal ly sh ow ed th e j ew elr

y to Far ra r and l ater so ld the p ro per

ty to him and ano ther

person. H e w as in p oss ess ion of the proper ty w it hout the o w ner ’s consent

. It is obv iou s t hat t he appe ll ant h ad ev er y i ntentof d e p ri vin g t h e o wn e r o f

t h e p ro p e rt y b e c a u s e h e so ld t h e p ro p e rt y. T h e re is su f

f i c i e n te v i d e n c e co n t a in e d in t h e re c o rd t o su p p o rta f in d in g b y a re asona ble tr ier

of fact th at t he a p pel lan t was g uil ty of theft ov er

$1,0 00 beyond a
re asona ble doubt

. Tenn. R . Ap p. P . 13( e) ; Jac ks on v . Vi rg ini a, 44 3 U .S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 27 81, 278 9, 61 L.Ed .2d 560 , 573 (1979 ).

II.
The appel lan t c ontends that the tr ial co urt c ommitt ed er ro r of prej udi ci al dimens ion s by c ha rg i ng t he j ur

y o n th e l aw

reg ardi ng “rec en tl y

st ol en prop er

ty .” H e c i te s an A l ab am a cas e to suppo rthi s t heor y thatthe ins tr uct ion sh ifted t he burden of proof to th e defendant to prov e hi s i nnoce nce. The appel lan t ov er loo ks thattri al coun sel soug ht this inst ru cti on. Mo re ov er , it w as dis cus sed by

co unsel and the t ri al cour t reg ardin g its effect

. The foll ow ing co ll oq uy took pla ce: M R

. M AR LO W : On e th i ng I am g oi ng to as k is in this

par ti cul ar ca se, i s t he C our

t goi ng to g iv e i n i ts ins tr uct ion s t he inferen ce of

posse ssion of

recently stolen p ro p e rty since this is a theor

y based upon ex erci se and c ontrol v ersus the act ual obtai n? I s t he C our

t i ncl ine d to g iv e tha t i nst ru cti on or not? THE C OU RT: Y es. As yo u m igh t recal l the i nst ru cti ons on re centpos ses si on c an g o two w ay s. One is thatthe jur y ca n infer that that w as the person that took it , or they may i nfer t hat he had know led g e i t w as tak en throug h theft w hic h g oes to t he inten t required for the th eory of e x ercising control. Now , t h e i n structi ons do read, how ev er , not- - “I f y ou find beyond a re asona ble doubt from t he ev ide nce that the proper ty i n q uest ion had been recent ly st ole n and soon t h e re a f t e r t h e sa m e p ro p e rt y wa s d is c o ve re d i n t h e e xc lu s ive posse ssion of

the de fend ant , t his posse ssion, u nless satisfacto rily

ex plaine d, i s ordinarilya circumsta nce f rom which y ou may re asona bly draw an inference that the d efendant had know led g e tha t t he proper ty had been s tol en.”
The fall acy

i n the appel lan t’ s a rg ument i s t hat a par ty canno t as k t he tr ial co urt t o5

g iv e an ins tr uct ion and lat er ch all eng e the i n st ru ct io n o n appea l. In other words, the appel lan t c annot, from hi s v iew poi nt, inv it e the tr ial cour t to g iv e an er ro neous i nst ru cti on and, as here, c hal len g e the v er y inst ru cti on that w as soug ht by the par ty

. Stat e v . Thi en DucLe, 743 S.W .2d 199, 202 (Tenn. Cr im. App.) , per . app . den ied ( Tenn.1987) ; s ee St ate
v . D ic kerson, 885 S.W .2d 9 0, 91 ( Tenn. C ri m. App.) , per . app. deni ed (Tenn. 1993) ; St ate
v . Ba n e s , 8 7 4 S .W .2d 73, 82 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 93), pe r. app. den ied (T enn . 199 4). Thus, thi s i ss ue has been w aiv ed. This C our

t parenthet ic all y

notes that the app ell ate c our ts of this st ate h av e hel d tha t thi s i nst ru cti on i s c onst it uti onal

. See B ale s v . St ate, 585 S. W .2d 6 10 ( Tenn. 1979 ); Sta te
v . H aw k, 68 8 S .W .2d 4 67, 4 73- 74 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1985) ; St ate v . R atl iff, 673 S. W .2d 884, 885- 86 ( Tenn. C ri m. App) , per . app . den ied ( Tenn. 1984 ); Sta te v . C ra ig , 655 S.W .2d 186 , 191 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 83). This i ss ue i s w it hout meri t.

III . During the cross-ex am inatio n of Ja me s Fa rrar, de fense co unse l a sked the w itness if he o r any

member of his family had been “p ro mis ed” anythi ng for t he te sti mony thathe
w as giv ing fo r the stat e. T he followi ng collo qu y o c curred be tw een Farrar and de fense coun sel: Q

. Mr . F a r ra r , h a v e y o u b e e n p ro mi s e d a n yt h i n g fo r y o ur t e s t im o n y h e re t o d a y? A. No, sir. Q. Has a ny member of y our family been promis ed anythi ng fo r yo u r t e s t im o n y h e re t o d a y? A. No. Q

. No co n s id e ra t io n fo r yo u r t e s t im o n y? A. No , s ir. Ain ’tno b o d y pro m ise d m e no th in g. Q. Oka y . Hav e they promis ed somebody els e anythi ng for yo u r t e s t im o n y t o d a y? A

. No. Th e o n e t h i n g I k n o w i s Te r r y B o w e n a n d myso n broke in a hous e, bu t I didn’ t testi fy for him. Both of them w as6 guilty , w entin on tho se poo r, o ld peo ple on tha t hou se an d tore ital l to pi eces . Poor

ol d l ady fix ing to hav e a baby . Theyw ent in there and ri ddl ed her house

. I’ m not t aki ng up for hi m or the man. Q

. A ll ri gh t

. No w th a tyo u h a ve b ro u gh tt h a tu p so gra c io u s ly, the l ady ca me i nto t his co urtroom, di d s he not , and poi nted out somebody

el se as the man w ho c a m e in? D id not p oin t out thi s d efendant, b ut po int ed outyour so n, di dn’ t s he? Yes or N o. An d explain y our an sw er. A

. W h e n t h e l a d y

c o me i n h e re , t h e l i tt l e gi rl w as k i n d o f a little retarde d. Ano the r colo red guy walked in back here , butit w a s Te r r y B o w e n a n d my s o n b ro k e i n t h a t h o u s e w it h the m peopl e. And went i n the re an d r idd led the poor ol d peopl es stuf f , and they ain’t g ot a dim e. T hey thou ght they had a pill. Theyw ent in there to ro b them for pi ll s. Gotthei r TV and t ook itout and s et i t ov er

i n the fiel d. Q. Now , your

so n i s s ti ll faci ng thos e c harg es, i sn’ t he? A. Both of them are facing them charg es as far as I know

. I ain ’ttak ing up for

my so n, be caus e he’ s a do p e a d d ict. The bestthi ng thatboy

needs - - he need s h elp or i n j ail , one .
Defense co unsel so ug ht t o i mpeach Far ra r’ s t est imo n y t o the extent that the burg lar y ch arg es w ere sti ll pending agai nstthe appel lan t. H e c all ed th e c ler k o f the c our t. T h e clerk testif ied that the w arrants against the app ellant had bee n dism issed af ter a probabl e c ause hear ing

. The w ar ra nts agai nstFarrar ’s son had been ret ired on moti on of the s tate. W hen defense co unsel att empted t o m ov e the war ra nts i nto e v ide nce, the
ass is tant dis tr ict attor ney g eneral obj ect ed. The tr ial courtrul ed that t he w ar ra nts co uld not b e m o ved in to evid e n ce . T h e tri a l co u rtsa id in rul in g:

THE CO URT: I f it is rele v ant, iti s s o remotel y rele v ant t o inc lud e th is line of inq uir y i t woul d, i n the C our t’ s o pin ion , confuse the j ur

y on t he tr ue i ss ues here. Und er R ule 404, the Cou rtw il l ru le th a t the prej udi ci al effecti n tha t i t mig ht confuse the j ur y as to w hat i s t he rele v ant is sue here outw eig hs the p ro bati v e v alu e.
A.
T he e v iden ce tha t the app ellantatte mp ted to introd uce was collateral to the principle
ma tter in dispu te. A collate ral fa ct is def ined as “one wh ic h a f fo rd s no reaso nab le infe re n ce a s to the pr inc ipl e matt er i n di sput e.” St ate v . M ar low , 665 S.W .2d 4 10, 4 127

(Tenn. C ri m. App. 1983) ; per . app . den ied ( Tenn. 1984 ) (c it ing Saund ers v . C ity and Sub urba n R. Co., 99 Te nn. 130 , 41 S. W . 103 1 (189 7)). Pr ior to the e nact ment of

the Tenness ee Rul es of Ev ide nce, a pa rty w as not e nti tl ed to i nq uire aboutco ll ateral facts dur ing cross -e x aminat ion

. See Frankl in v . F ra nkl in, 90 Tenn

. 4 4 , 4 9 , 1 6 S

. W

. 5 5 7 , 5 5 8 ( 1 8 9 1 ) ; M a r l o w , 6 6 5 S

. W

. 2 d a t 4 1 2 ; S t a t e v . H i ll , 598 S.W .2d 815, 820 (Tenn. C ri m. App. 1980) ; H oney cutt v . St ate, 544 S. W .2d 9 12, 9 15- 916 (Tenn. Cr im. App. 1976)

. Howev er , if couns el w as per mitt ed to inq uire in to a co llateral matte r d ur ing cross -e x aminat ion , c ounse l w as bound b y the w it ness ’s ans w ers; and
couns el coul d notca ll othe r w it ness es in re butta l to p rov e facts w hic h w ere i ncons is tent
w it h the ans w ers g iv en bythe w it ness duri ng cros s- ex aminat ion

. See M cGo w en v . St ate, 2 2 1 T e n n . 4 4 2 , 4 5 1 , 4 2 7 S

. W

. 2 d 5 5 5 , 5 5 9 ( 1 9 6 8 ); L ive rm o re Fo u n d ry & Ma c h in e Co

. v. Compress C o ., 1 0 5 T enn. 187, 201, 58 S. W . 270 , 273 ( 1900) ; F ra nkl in, 90 Tenn. at 49, 16 S. W . at558; M ar low , 665 S.W .2d a t 412

. The Tenness ee R ule s o f Ev ide nce do notmenti on th e c oll ateral facts ru le. Mo re ov er , i t i s u nknow n i f this r ule w il l con ti nue t o be re cog niz ed. See N eil P. Coh en et al., T enn essee Law of

Ev iden ce, § 61 3.5 (3rd ed. 19 95).

B.

The col lat eral facts ru le shoul d be maint ain ed to as si st tr ial co u rt s i n ex cl udi ng ev ide nce that is irrele v ant, Tenn. R. Ev id. 402, or ev ide nce that is ti me-c onsumi ng and has little, if an y, p roba tiv e v alue . Te nn. R. Ev id. 40 3. In th is case, the trial court prope rly
ex cl uded t he c erti fied j udg ments that the a cc used a tt e mpted t o i ntroduce i nto e v ide nce. Howev er , t he tr ial co urt s houl d hav e re li ed upon Tenn. R. Ev id. 403 ra ther than Rul e 404. In sho rt, the trial cou rt reache d th e r ig h tr esult, but for the wrong reason . Th is issue is
w it hout meri t.

_________ _________

_________

_________

_ JO E B. JO NE S, P RE SID IN G J UD GE8

CONCUR:

_________

_________

_________

_________

___ PAU L G. SU MM ER S, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

_________

___ JOS EPH M . TIPTON , J UD GE