# FILED December 1, 1999 Cecil CROWS ON, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE OCTOBER SESSION, 1999
STATE OF TENNESSEE, * * No. 03C01-9812-CC-00417 Appellee, * * BLOUNT COUNTY vs. * * Hon. D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., Judge MICHELLE FRANZE, * * (Theft of Propert y 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 D ivision (ON APPEAL) 425 Fifth Avenue North 2d Floor, Cordell Hul l Building Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Mack Garner District Public Def

ender 419 High Street Michael L. Flynn Maryville, TN 37804 District Attorney Gener al (AT TRIAL) Edward P. Bailey, Jr. Asst. District Attor

ney General 363 Court Street Maryville, TN 37804
OPINION FILED: AFFIRMED David G. Hayes, Judge2 OPINION
Th e a pp ella nt, M ich elle Fr an ze , w as fou nd gu ilty b y a jury of th eft o f pro pe rty o ve r $1 0,0 00
. The Blount County Criminal Court i mposed a split confinement sentence of t hree years with 210 days co nfin em en t follo w ed by tw o y ea rs, 5 m on ths su pe rvis ed pro ba tion. At trial, th e a pp ella nt d efe nd ed up on the affirm ativ e d efe ns e o f “cla im of rig ht.” O n a pp ea l, sh e c on ten ds tha t “the trial c ou rt’s fa ilure to ins truc t the jury on the m ea nin g o f the ph ras e ‘c laim of rig ht’ c on stitu tes pla in a nd pre jud icia l err or.” After re view of the reco rd, w e affirm
.
Background O n D ec em be r 24 , 19 96 , the ap pe llan t ren ted a 1 99 6 D od ge Intre pid from N atio na l C ar R en tal at the M cG hee -Ty son Airpo rt in Alc oa. B y w ritten co ntrac tual ag reem ent, the app ellant w as to return the v ehic le on De cem ber 2 7, 19 96. A t this tim e, sh e pro vide d the age nt on duty with her n am e as li sted on her dri ver’s l icense, her telephone number, and a Visa credit card. The vehicl e was not retu rne d a s p rov ide d b y th e re nta l ag ree m en t.
At no tim e a fter D ec em be r 27 , 19 96 , did N atio na l C ar R en tal o r its ag en ts e xte nd pe rm iss ion to the app ellant to retain pos ses sion of the veh icle. So on a fter Ja nua ry 1, 1 997 , the K nox ville are a m an ag er o f N atio na l C ar R en tal a ttem pte d to co nta ct th e a pp ella nt b y te lep ho ne reg ard ing the 19 96 Intr ep id. H is a ttem pts , ho w ev er, w ere futile as the tele ph on e n um be r pr ov ide d b y th e a pp ella nt be lon ge d to an oth er p ers on an d th e a dd res s o n th e a pp ella nt’s dr ive r’s lic en se w as no t a v alid ad dre ss for he r. A fter an ex ha us tive inv es tiga tion , the m an ag er w as ab le to loc ate a p os t offi ce bo x in Je ffers on C ity re gis tere d in the ap pe llan t’s n am e. N atio na l C ar R en tal m aile d th e a pp ella nt tw o ce rtified lette rs p erta inin g to he r failu re to relin qu ish the ve hic le. T he se w ere retu rne d u nc laim ed
. O n M arc h 1 1, 1 99 7, a Tr en ton, G eo rgia , po lice offic er s top pe d a 19 96 D od ge Intre pid for rec kle ss dri vin g. T he ve hic le w as dri ve n b y a se ve nte en ye ar o ld m ale . A fter co nd uc ting a r eg istra tion ch ec k, th e o ffice r di sc ov ere d th at th e c ar w as sto len fro m N atio na l C ar R en tal. F rom info rm atio n pro vid ed by the juv en ile, th e o ffice r w as ab le to loc ate the ap pe llan t at a far m ho us e. T he ap pe llan t told the offic er th at “[s ]he ren ted a v eh icle an d th e b rak es m es se d u p, s o o n C hris tm as Ev e, s he left the rent al car at the air port . . . and rent ed another car wit h her credit card.” She inf ormed the offi cer3

that she had not r eturned the I ntrepi d because “she was still using the vehi cle to go t o work.” She also sta ted tha t “s he as su m ed tha t [N atio na l C ar R en tal] w ou ld ju st ta ke w ha t sh e o w ed ou t of h er c red it ca rd. ” S he ad vis ed tha t sh e h ad giv en the se ve nte en ye ar o ld p erm iss ion to d rive the ve hic le.
At th e a pp ella nt’s su bs eq ue nt tria l, in h er o w n d efe ns e, s he tes tified tha t sh e d id n ot s tea l the ca r. S he offe red ex pla na tion s fo r th e fa lse tele ph on e n um be r an d a dd res s th at s he pro vid ed N atio na l Car Rental. Moreover, despit e her admissions to t he police of fi cer at t he time of her arr est, she m ain tain ed tha t sh e h ad co nta cte d N atio na l C ar R en tal a nd ex ten de d h er r en tal a gre em en t w ith th em . Fu rthe rm ore , be ca us e “[s he ] rea lly like d th e c ar, it w as [he r] inte nt to pu rch as e th e c ar w he n [s he ] w en t ba ck .”

Analysis
In h er o nly iss ue on ap pe al, th e a pp ella nt a lleg es err or b as ed up on the trial c ou rt’s fa ilure to pro vid e a sp ec ific in stru ctio n o n th e d efin ition of “ cla im of r igh t.” S pe cific ally , sh e a lleg es tha t the tria l co urt’s m ere rec itatio n o f the sta tuto ry la ng ua ge ins tea d o f de finin g th is “p hra se of a rt” te rm inv ited the jury to s pec ulate a s to its m ean ing. Initially, w

e no te tha t the a ppe llant failed to ob ject to th e jury ins truc tion at th e tim e o f trial a nd in h er m otio n fo r ne w trial. M ore ov er, s he co nc ed es tha t sh e fa iled to m ak e a req ue st fo r su ch sp ec ific in stru ctio n to the tria l co urt . It is w ell e sta blis he d in Te nn es se e th at, ge ne rally , a fa ilure to o bje ct to the om iss ion of a jury ins truc tion w aiv es tha t iss ue for a pp ella te re vie w . State v. Reece

, 63 7 S .W .2d 85 8, 8 61 (T en n. 1 98 2). See also State v. Haynes , 720 S.W.2d 76, 85 (T en n. C rim . A pp . 19 86 ). M ore ov er, Te nn. R . A pp . P. 36 (a) pro vid es : "N oth ing in th is ru le s ha ll be construed as requi ring r eli ef to be grant ed to a party r esponsible f or an error orwho failed t o take wh ateve r action w as re aso nab ly ava ilable to pre

ven t or nullify the h

arm ful effect of an

error." Ac co rdin gly , this iss ue ha s b ee n w aiv ed
. See State v. Kill ebrew

, 76 0 S .W .2d 22 8, 2 35 (T en n. C rim
. Ap p. 1 98 8); see also

Te nn. R .Ap p. P . 36 (a) ; Te nn . R .Ap p. P . 3(e ).
Notwithstandi ng waiver, t he tri al court instr ucted the j ury: Inc lud ed in th e d efe nd an t’s p lea of n ot g uilty is h er d efe ns e o f cla im of rig ht. It is a defense t o prosecuti on of thi s offense: (1) t hat the def endant acted under an honest clai m of right t o the propert y involved;4 or (2) tha t the de fen da nt a cte d in the ho ne st b elie f tha t sh e h ad the rig ht to ob tain or ex erc ise co ntr ol o ve r th e p rop ert y a s s he did
. “P rop ert y,” “ob tain ,” “e ffec tive co ns en t,” a nd “de ce ptio n” h av e p rev iou sly be en de fine d in the court ’s previ ous instr ucti ons. The burden of proof on thi s issue is upon t he defendant to prove t he defense by a preponderance of the evi dence. If , fr om all the f acts and cir cumstances in the case, yo u fin d th at th e d efe nd an t ac ted un de r a c laim of rig ht, th en yo u m us t find the defendant not gui lt y. In c rim ina l ca se s, it is the du ty a nd ob liga tion of a trial ju dg e, w itho ut re qu es t, to in stru ct th e jury as to th e la w ap plic ab le to the ev ide nc e a s w ell a s to an y is su es w hic h th e ju ry m us t ultim ate ly de cid e. Po e v . Sta te, 21 2 T en n. 4 13 , 37 0 S .W .2d 48 8, 4 89 (T en n. 1 96 3); see also State v. Harbison , 70 4 S .W .2d 31 4, 4 19 (T en n. 1 98 6), cert. denied , 47

6 U .S. 1 15 3, 1 06 S.C t. 22 61 (19 86 ); State v. Thompson , 51 9 S .W .2d 78 9, 7 92 (T en n. 1 97 5). T he jury ha s th e d uty to a pp ly th e la w co nta ine d in the ch arg e o f the trial ju dg e to the ultim ate fac ts w hic h it d ete rm ine s e xis t. See Fo rd v . Sta te , 101 Tenn. 454 , 458 , 47 S .W . 703 , 705 (189 8). D ue to the im porta nce of the cha rge o n the role o f the jury rea ch ing its d ec isio n, th e a cc us ed is e ntitle d to have the law pertai ning to hi s case stat ed plai nly t o the jury in a m an ne r w hic h e na ble s th em to c om pre he nd the prin cip les inv olv ed
. See La nc as ter v . Sta te , 43 T enn . (3 C old.) 3 39, 3 43 (1 866 ) (em pha sis ad ded ).
In th e p res en t ca se , the tria l co urt co rre ctly ch arg ed the jur y a s to the de fen se of “ cla im of righ t” a s d efin ed in T en n. C od e A nn. §3 9-1 4-1 07 . T he ter m s o f the ch arg e in its e ntir ety are ea sily un de rsto od by the av era ge lay pe rso n a nd the law w as cle arly artic ula ted in th e c ha rge . Th e fa ct th at the ins truc tion s c ou ld h av e b ee n m ore de taile d d oe s n ot re nd er th e in stru ctio ns as giv en to b e im pro pe r, an d a bs en t a s pe cia l req ue st fo r an ad ditio na l ch arg e, a trial c ou rt w ill no t be he ld in err or. Haynes , 72 0 S .W .2d at 8 5.
M ore ov er, e ve n a ss um ing tha t gre ate r cla rity s ho uld ha ve be en pro vid ed by an ins truc tion , the ap pe llan t su ffere d n o p reju dic e b y th e o m iss ion . Th e a pp ella nt d efe nd ed at tria l up on the the ory tha t sh e h ad a rig ht to ex erc ise co ntro l ov er th e v eh icle , see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-107(2) , as opposed to a “c laim of righ t.” See Te nn. C od e A nn. § 3 9-1 4-1 07 (1) . S ub se ctio n (1 ) of the sta tute , “c laim of righ t,” ad dre ss es the situ atio n w he re th e a cc us ed cla im s a n h on es t be lief th at th e p rop erty be lon gs to him or h er a nd tha t it do es no t be lon g to an oth er. Se e g en era lly M ODEL P ENAL C ODE § 2 23 .1 (19 80 ). S ub se ctio n (2 ), as cla im ed in th e p res en t ca se , is a pp lica ble to th os e s itua tion s w he re th e ac cu se d m ay kn ow tha t the pro pe rty be lon gs to a no the r bu t ac ts in the ho ne st b elie f tha t he or sh e is5

en titled to e xe rcis e c on trol o ve r the pro pe rty. Se e g en era lly M ODEL P ENAL C ODE § 2 23 .1. Ac co rdin gly , this iss ue is w itho ut m erit.
Fo r the a bov e rea son s, the judg m ent o f the trial co

urt is affirm

ed.

____________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Judge CONCUR:

_________________________________________ GARY R. WADE, Presidi ng Judge

_________________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, Judge