IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs March 6, 2012

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CURTIS BLACKMON 

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

Nos. 10-01211-12 W. Mark Ward, Judge

No. W2011-00963-CCA-R3-CD - Filed May 10, 2012

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Curtis Blackmon, was convicted in the Shelby County

Criminal Court in case number 10-01211 of the November 18, 2009 unlawfulsale of cocaine,

possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, and possession of cocaine with the intent to

deliver, and in case number 10-01212 of the November 19, 2009 unlawful sale of cocaine,

possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, and possession of cocaine with the intent to

deliver. The trial court subsequently merged counts two and three with the first count of the

indictment in each case and sentenced the defendant to two concurrent terms of eight years.

The sole issue the defendant raises on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to

sustain his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed

ALAN E. GLENN,J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JOSEPH M. TIPTON, P.J., and

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., joined.

Harry E. Sayle, III (on appeal) and Jennifer Johnson (at trial), Assistant Public Defenders,

for the appellant, Curtis Blackmon.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Clarence E. Lutz, Assistant Attorney

General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Kate Edmands and Jose Leon,

Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

FACTS

This case arises out of a Memphis police officer’s November 18 and 19, 2009

undercover purchases of crack cocaine from the defendant in the New Chicago neighborhood
of Memphis. Memphis Police Officer Geremy Moore, who was assigned to the Organized

Crime Unit (“OCU”) in November 2009, testified that on November 18 and November 19,

2009, he went to 823 Ayers to purchase drugs in his capacity as an undercover officer. He

was familiar with the home because he had bought drugs there from John King and one other

individual on at least five previous occasions. On the afternoon of November 18, 2009, he

drove to the house in a Chevrolet pickup truck with a pressure washer in back, parked one

house down, and walked to the door. The defendant, whom he had seen at least three times

before, opened the door, let him in, and asked him what he wanted. He first asked the

defendant if John was there. When the defendant answered that he was not, he asked the

defendant for “a dime,” meaning $10 worth of crack cocaine. He then handed the defendant

two five-dollar bills and the defendant took some crack cocaine from his pocket and handed

it to him. At that point, he returned to his truck and placed the cocaine in an evidence

envelope, which he later brought to the secure lockbox at the OCU. The entire transaction

with the defendant took approximately a minute and a half. Although he was not certain, he

believed that there may have been other individuals in the back of the house at the time the

sale took place.

The next afternoon he returned to the home and repeated the procedure, with the

exception of asking the defendant for $20 worth of crack cocaine instead of the $10 worth

he had bought the day before. There were “[m]aybe a couple” of other men in the house at

the time. Officer Moore testified that the defendant took some crack cocaine from his pocket

and handed it to him and that he, in turn, handed the defendant two ten-dollar bills. He then

left the house, returned to his truck, and placed the cocaine in an evidence envelope, which

he later brought to the OCU’s secure lockbox. Officer Moore said he later identified the

defendant as the man who had sold him the drugs by picking his photograph from a sixperson photographic array prepared by another Memphis police officer. He identified in the

courtroom the videotape of his two transactions with the defendant, which was played for the

jury. Officer Moore explained that the defendant was not visible in the second video

transaction, although his voice was audible, because the hidden camera he wore during the

transaction had fallen down into his clothing.

Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Forensic Scientist John Scott, Jr.,

testified that he determined from his analyses of the substances that the substances Officer

Moore bought consisted of .1 and .2 grams of cocaine base.

The defendant testified that in November 2009 he was employed as a driver with a

medical transport company and sharing 823 Ayers, a duplex, with four roommates, all of

whom sold drugs out of the home. In addition, John King, a man from the neighborhood,

frequently sold drugs from the home as well. The defendant admitted that he was present

during his roommates’ drug sales and was in the home during the November 18 and 19, 2009

-2-
undercover drug transactions with Officer Moore. He denied, however, that he sold drugs

to Officer Moore on either November 18 or 19, 2009. He claimed, in fact, that he never sold

any drugs from the home and that Officer Moore was lying in retaliation for his having filed

a complaint in January 2010 with the Memphis Police Department’sInternal Affairs Division

against the OCU, in which he alleged that they used excessive force while executing a search

warrant at his residence. The defendant was convicted on all charges.

ANALYSIS

The sole issue the defendant raises on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient

to sustain his convictions. In considering this issue, we apply the rule that where sufficiency

of the convicting evidence is challenged, the relevant question of the reviewing court is

“whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, 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, 319 (1979); see also Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e)

(“Findings of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if

the evidence is insufficient to support the findings by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt.”); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-92 (Tenn. 1992); State v.

Anderson, 835 S.W.2d 600, 604 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).

All questions involving the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be given

the evidence, and all factual issues are resolved by the trier of fact. See State v. Pappas, 754

S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “A guilty verdict by the jury, approved by the

trial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflicts in

favor of the theory of the State.” State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973). Our

supreme court stated the rationale for this rule:

This well-settled rule rests on a sound foundation. The trial judge and

the jury see the witnesses face to face, hear their testimony and observe their

demeanor on the stand. Thus the trial judge and jury are the primary

instrumentality of justice to determine the weight and credibility to be given

to the testimony of witnesses. In the trial forum alone is there human

atmosphere and the totality of the evidence cannot be reproduced with a

written record in this Court.

Bolin v. State, 219 Tenn. 4, 11, 405 S.W.2d 768, 771 (1966) (citing Carroll v. State, 212

Tenn. 464, 370 S.W.2d 523 (1963)).

“A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is

initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal a convicted defendant has

-3-
the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient.” State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d

913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).

The defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find him

guilty of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt because “neither the video nor audio account

of the meetings unequivocally support[ed]” that he actually sold the cocaine to Officer

Moore, which left only the testimony of Officer Moore that the defendant sold him crack

cocaine on November 18 and 19, 2009. The defendant also cites his own testimony in which

he admitted he was present but denied having sold any cocaine to Officer Moore. However,

by its guilty verdicts, the jury obviously accredited the testimony of Officer Moore over that

of the defendant, which was within its province as the trier of fact. We conclude, therefore,

that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s convictions.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we affirm the judgments of the trial

court.

_________________________________

ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE

-4-