# FILED

November 25, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION
STATE OF TENNESSEE, * C.C.A. # 02C01-9706-CR- 00207 Appellee, * SHELBY COU NTY VS. * Hon. Bernie W einman, Judge RONNIE LAUDERDALE, * (Possession of a Controlled Substance Appellant. * with Intent to Deliver)

For Appellant : For Appellee : James V. Ball, Att orney John Knox Walkup 217 Exchange Avenue Attorney General and Repor ter Memphis, TN 38105 Deborah A. Tullis Assistant Attorney Gener al 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243 Glen Bait y Assistant District A

ttorney General Criminal Justice Comple x, Ste. 301 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED:__________________________

AFFIRMED

GARY R. WADE, JUDGE2 OPINION The defendant, Ronnie Lauderdale, was convicted of the unlawful possession of marijuana, in ex cess of 14.175 grams, with the intent to deliver. The trial court imposed a Range II, workhouse sentence of thr ee years and assessed a fine of $2,000.00.

In this appeal of right, the s ingle issue is w hether the evidence at tri al was sufficient to support the v erdict. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

.
At about 10:00 A.M. on April 27,1996, Detective Terry Bishop of the Narcotics Divis ion of the Shelby County Sher iff's Department received a te lephone report from an anonymous female call er who claimed to have seen a large amount of narcotics in the possession of a black male driving a white Chevrolet pickup truck with Texas tags. The caller described the individual as in his mid-30's, approximately six

feet tall, and having a muscular build. The caller i nformed the detective that the drugs were in the truck at the Hampton Inn at Perkins and American Way.

Detective Bishop found the v ehicle and learned that the reg istration was in the name of the defendant. A dog trained to detect illeg al narcotics was transported to the scene and in dicated a conf irmation of th e presence of drugs inside the truck. Shortl y after Detective Bis hop inquired about the defendant at the registration desk, he s

aw a man meeting the descri ption he had been provided walking across the parking lot toward the motel.

When questioned, the defendant identified himself, acknow ledged ownership of the Chevrol et truck and, after being adv ised of the anonymous tip,1 By the tim e of trial, the ca sh was returned to the pers on claim ing owne rship. 3 consented to a search. The officers, who described the defendant as "very cooperative," found three pounds of mar ijuana and a black bag contai ning $5,600.00 in cash in the locked cab of the vehicle. Three bags containing marijuana residue and seeds were found in the bed of the truck. 1

The defend ant, who was placed under arrest, de nied any knowledge of the marijuana. He claimed that he had loaned the truck to someone the night before, but did not know his na me. Later, the toxicolog y laboratory at the U niversity of Tennessee was able to confirm that the seized substance w as marijuana.

Under cross-examinati on at the ensuing trial, Detective Bishop admitted asking the defendant, w ho was on parole for a federal na rcotics conviction, to become an informant. The def endant declined, protesting his innocence on this charge.
Xavier Avery hart, called as a witness for the defense, testified that he had seen an acquaintance from his high school, Virgil Cook, walking from his black Audi car toward the defendant's truck about an hour before the anony mous call was made to the po lice. Averyhart claim ed that he saw Coo k, who was holding a bag, open the door to the defendant's truck.He conceded that he was unaw are of whether Cook had permissi on to enter the truck.

The defendant, a thirty-nine-y ear-old construction site lab technician for Maxim Technology and Engineering of Texas, ack nowledged that he had one prior drug convic

tion in the state court and one i n the federal court He testified that he was in Memphis on a family matter and had been asked by his employer to4 purchase two trucks w

hile in this state. He r

ecalled contacting Av

eryhart and Cook just after his arriva l on the evening prior to the arrest. He clai med that Cook, who accompanied h im to a bar, b orrowed hi s truck at about 1:30 A.M . to move som e tires and returned within thirty minutes. The defendant contended that he never saw Cook again. He testified that he met Averyhart for br eakfast the next morning at a Shoney's located across the street from the Hampton Inn. He met Detective Bishop upon his return to the motel. The d efendant conceded that, when confronted by the officer, he signed a form consenting to a search of the truck. He contended that he was shocked to learn of the pr esence of the drugs.
The principles that gov ern our review of a j ury verdict are w ell settled. On appeal, the state is entitl ed to the strongest legi timate view of the evi dence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, the relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable t o the state, any rational t rier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime bey ond a reasonable doubt. State v. Evans , 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-91 (Tenn. 1992); State v. Shelton , 851 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tenn. 1993); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).

The weight and credibility of the witnesses' testimony are matters entrusted exclusive ly to the jury as the trier of fact. State v. Sheffield , 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984). A jury verdict, approved by

the trial judge, accr

edits the testimony of the state's w itnesses and resolves a ll conflicts in favor of the state. State v. Willia ms , 657 S.W.2d 405, 41 0 (Tenn. 1983).

The state may use direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a5 combination of both to prove the r equisite elements of a crimi nal offense. State v. Tharpe , 726 S.W.2d 896, 899-900 (Tenn. 1987). The weight to be given circumstantial evidenc

e, and any inferences to be draw n therefrom, "are questions primarily for the jur

y." Marable v. State , 313 S.W.2d 451, 457 (Tenn. 1958).
Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-417(a) (4) prohibits the possession of a controlled subs tance with the intent to manufactur e, deliver, or sell

. Possession, which may be either actual or constr uctive, can be establish ed by evidence that the defendant has the abi lity and the intent to ex ercise dominion or control of the substance. State v. B rown , 823 S.W.2d 576, 579 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). Marijuana, of course, qualifies as a controlled substance. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-415(1). Our statut ory law permits j uries to infer possession for resale or delivery "from the amount of [the] controlled substan ce ... possessed by an offender, along with other rel evant facts surrounding the arrest...." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 17- 419; see Lee v. State , 498 S.W.2d 909, 911 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1973). A v iolation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417, as to mar ijuana, a Schedule VI control led substance, may qualify as a Class E felony if "not less than one-half (1/2) ounce (14.17 5 grams) nor more than ten pounds (10 lbs.) (4535 grams)." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17- 417 (g)(1).

In our view, the jur

y was well w

ithin its prerogativ

e by determining that the defendant had possession of the marijuana with the intent to resell. This court is simply not authorized to reweigh the evi dence or to assess the credi bility of the defendant's insistence that Cook was the real culprit . The large amount of cash, the large amount of the illegal drug, the manner of storage, and the marijuana residue found in the bed of the defendant's truck all lend credence to the verdi ct. A rational basis existed for the jur y's conclusion that the defendant possessed the marijuana6 with the intent to deliv

er.
Accordingly, the j udgment is affirmed.

________________________________ Gary R. Wade, Judge CONCUR:

_____________________________ David G. Hayes, Judge

_____________________________ Joe G. Riley, Judge