# FILED

Oct ob er 1 7, 19 96 Cec il Crow son , Jr . Ap p e l l a te C o u rt C l e rk IN THE CO URT OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON MA RC H 1996 S ESSI ON

STATE OF TENN ESSEE , ) ) APPEL LEE, ) No. 02- C- 01- 9510- CR -0 0291 ) v . ) Shel by C ounty ) JI M R. HOL L IN GS W OR T H, ) W . Fre d Axle y, Ju d ge MI CH AEL G . D ON ATO, ) T HOMAS G. HAMMOND, ) (Cri min al Tre spass) and BET T Y L. HAMMOND, ) ) APPEL LAN TS. )

FO R THE A PPELLA NTS: FO R THE A PPELLE E: Han del R . D ur ham, J r. Cha rl es W . Bu rs on 200 J efferson Av enue, Sui te 75 0 Atto rn ey Gene ra l & R epor

ter Me mphis , TN 38103- 2335 500 C har lotte Av enue (F or Appel lan t H oll ing sworth) Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0497 Ste phe n R. Lef

f ler W illiam Davi d Bridgers 50 N orth F ro nt S treet, Sui te 10 75 Ass is tant Atto rn ey Gene ra l Me mphis , TN 38103 450 J ames R ober tso n Par kway (F or Appel lan t D onato) Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 James V. Bal l John W . Pi erotti 217 Exchang e Av enue Di str ict Attor ney Gene ra l Me mphis , TN 38105 201 Po pla r Av enue, Sui te 30 1 (F or Appel lan t Thomas G. Hammond) Me mphis , TN 38103- 1947 Betty L. Hammond, pro s e C. Al anda H or ne P. O . Bo x

707 Ass is tant Di str ict Attor ney Gene ra l Senato bia , M S 3866 8 201 Po pla r Av enue, Sui te 30 1 Me mphis , TN 38103- 1947 Juds on W . Ph il li ps Ass is tant Di str ict Attor ney Gene ra l 201 Po pla r Av enue, Sui te 30 1 Me mphis , TN 38103- 1947

OPIN ION F ILED : ___

_________

_________

_________

__ AFF IR ME D
JO E B . J ON ES , P re sid in g Ju d ge O P I N I O N1 The appel lan ts, Ji m R. H oll ing sw orth, Mi chael G. D onato, Thomas G . H ammond, and Bett y

L. Ham mo nd, w ere ea ch foun d guilty of criminal trespa ss, a Class C
m is d e m e a n o r, b y a ju ry of t h e ir p e e rs . T h e t ri a l co u rt s e n t e n c e d e a c h a p p e ll a n t t o p a y a fine of $50 a nd s er

v e thi rt y (30)days i n the Shel by C ounty W or khous e. The appel lan ts
c o n t e n d t h a tt h e e vid e n c e i s i n s u f f ic ie n t , a s a m a tt e r o f

la w, t o su p p o rta f in d in g b y a ra ti onal tr ier

of fact th at t hey

are g uil ty

of cr imi nal trespas s b eyon d a r e a so nabl e doubt

. After a tho ro ug h rev iew of the record, t he br iefs of the partie s, and the au thor it ies that go v er n th e i s s ue , i t i s t he o pi ni on o f t hi s C ou rt th att he j ud g me nto f t he t r i al c ou rt s ho uld be affirmed. The M emphis Area M edi cal C enter fo r W o m en ( cl ini c)i s l ocat ed at29 S outh Bel lev ue Boulev ard in Memphi s, Tenness ee. The bui ldi ng that hous es the c li nici s s it uated on th e no rthw est corne r of Bellevue Bou levard a nd Mon roe Avenue . Th e clinic of fers medic al ser

v ic es to women. Howev er , i t i s k now n as an a bor ti on c li nic

. A cl ini c e mploy ee describe d the busine ss in the followi ng man ner: “It’s an a bortio n clinic. It’s also a w ellw omen c li nic .” A hi g h, c hai n l ink

fence s ur ro unds the c li nic

. Raz or w ire is aff ixed to the t op of the fence. T here are three ent ra nces thatper mit ing re ssand eg re ss to the c li nicpar ki ng facil it ies

. The main entrance to the cl ini c’ s front par ki ng lot is on B e lle vue . Ase cond ent rance to the f ront parking lo t is o n Monroe

. T he parking lot in the b ack of the clinic is als o ac ces sed from M onroe. At t he ent ra nces , g ates sl ide open behi n d t h e chain li nk fence on each si de of the dr iv ew ay . The fence a n d gate s a re l ocat ed ei g hteen inc hes ins ide of the p ro per

ty line s. In other

w ords, there is eig hteen inc hes between the fenci ng a n d gat e s a n d th e sid e walk s o n bo th sid e s o f th e bu ild in g. On Sa turda y , April 10, 19 93, pro-life activ ists staged a prote st at the clinic. Before the c li nicopened , the appell ants , w ho w ere part of the prot est , chai ned themsel v es to t he g ate c ov er ing the Bel lev ue ent ra nce to t he c li nicw it h heavy duty bi cy cl e l ock s. Tw o men als o u s e d t h e l o c k s t o c h a i n t h e ms e l v e s t o g e t h e r a tt h e n e c k , a n d o n e o f t h e m e n w as chai ned t o the g ate. The appel lan ts w ere as ked by a c li nicempl oy ee to remov e the loc ks and l eav e theT he clinic em ployee test if ied th at th e repa irs to the g ate cost $55 0. A check 1 int ro duced i nto e v ide nce ind ic ates the cos t of repai rs w as $1,514. 2 prem ises. Th ey ref used t o eithe r un lock the lo cks o r leav e the prem ises. Th e po lice w ere summoned. A pol ic e off ic er al so ask ed th e appel lan ts to re mov e the l ock s a nd l eav e the premis es. The officer

adv is ed th e appel lan ts that they woul d be ar re ste d and transpo rt ed to j ail i f they

di d notunc hai n the msel v es and l eav e. Theyi g nored th e off ic er ’s req uest

. The pol ic e s ummoned the Memphis F ire D epar tment to c ut t he bi cy cl e l ock s. W hen the f ireme n ar ri ve d , t hey attem pte d to cutthe locks w ith the “jaws of life ” tool, a de v ice used to c ut away

metal and re mov e peopl e trapped i n a w re ck ed motor v ehi cl e. The tool coul d notcu t t hroug h the bi cy cl e l ock s. Subseq uentl y , t he firemen c ut t he fence w here the loc ks w ere attache d. The appel lan ts w ere remov ed from t he premis es, pl aced in a paddy
w ag on, a nd transpo rt ed to j ail

. It cos t t he c li nic$550 to repai r the g ate. 1 W hen an accu sed ch allenges the su f f iciency of

t he convicting evidence , this Court
mu st rev iew

the reco rd to de term ine if t he evidence add uced a t trial is suf f icient "t o sup port the f inding by the t rier of fact of guilt beyond a rea sona ble dou bt." T enn . 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 di recte vidence, c ircums tanti al
ev i d e n c e , o r

a c o mb i n a t i o n o f d i re cta n d c i rc u ms t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . S t a t e v . D y k e s , 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 suffici ency of the c onv icti ng e vide n ce, thi s C our t doe s n ot
rewei g h or ree v al ua te th e 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. ap p. de nied (Te nn. 199 0). Nor ma y this Court substitute its inferen ces for those d raw n by

the tr ier of fact from c ircums tanti al ev ide nce. Li akas v . St ate, 199 Tenn. 298, 305 , 286 S.W .2d 856 , 859 , cert. denied , 352 U.S. 845, 77 S.Ct. 39, 1 L.E d.2 d 49 (19 56). 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 ev ide nce cont ain ed i n the record as w ell as al l re asona ble and leg it imat e i n fe re n c e s w h i c h ma y b e d ra w n fro m t h e e v i d e n c e . S t a t e v . C a b b a g e , 571 S.W .2d 832 , 835 (Ten n. 19 78). Ques ti ons conc er nin g the credi bil ity of the w it ness es, t h e weig ht an d v alu e to be g iv en th e ev ide nce, as w ell as all factual is sues ra is ed by the ev ide nce are re sol v ed by the tr ier of fact, n ot t his C our

t. C abbag e, 57 1 S. W .2d at 83 5. In S tate v . G ra ce, 493 S.W .2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973) , our Supreme C our

t s aid : "A g uil ty

v erdict by

the jur y , app ro v ed by3

the trial j u d ge , a c c re dits the testim ony 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

gui ltremov es the pres umpti on of innoce nce and repl aces it w it h a presumpt ion of g uil t, the a cc used, as the appel la n t, has the burden i n thi s C our t of 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. Stat e v . T u ggle , 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 of g uil t due to the s uff ic iency o f t h e e videnc e unl ess the facts cont ain ed i n the
re cord are i nsuffici ent, as a matt er of law , for

a ra ti onal tri er

of factto find that the ac cus ed is g uil ty beyond a re asona ble doubt

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

. Before an ac cus ed can be conv icted o f cr imi nal trespas s, the S tate of Tennessee must prov e bey ond a re asona ble doubtthat( a) the acc used entered or remaine d on the p ro p e rt y, o r a p o rt io n o f t h e p ro p e rt y, o f

a n o t h e r p e rs o n , a n d ( b ) t h e a c c u s e d d id n o th a ve the o w ner ’s effect iv e c onsen t before ent er ing the proper ty

. Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 14- 405 (a). The term “en ter,” as used in the sta tute , is def ined as an “intrusi o n o f t h e entire body .” Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 39 -1 4- 405( c)

. The acc used’ s know led g e that he or sh e di d not hav e the “ effect iv e c onsen t” to enter the proper

ty may be i nferred from “ (1 ) personal
com mu nicatio n to th e [accu sed] bythe owner o r by so me one w ith ap pare nt au tho rity to act for th e ow ner ,” and (2 ) “[f]enci ng or othe r encl osure obv iou sl y des ig ned t o ex cl ude int ru der s. ” T enn. Cod e Ann. § 39 -1 4- 405( a) (1 ) and ( 2)

. In t his ca se, the Stat e of Tenness ee es tabl is hed eac h el ement of the offense bey ond a re asona ble doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13( e)

. The appel lan ts entered the p re mis es of the c li nic

. Each appel lan t had hi s o r her torso w it hin the area ow ned by the cl ini c. W hil e the appel lan ts’ l eg s extended bey ond t he prop erty line, th eir legs w ere w ithin th e dr ivew ay lead ing from the stree t to the clinic’s par ki ng l ot. Iti s a n el ementar y r ule of law

thatthe ow ner

of proper

ty has an e asementof access b etween th e prop erty and an ab uttin g street

. T his Court ho lds tha t w hen a person ’s body i s w it hin the ow ner ’s eas ement, deny ing the ow ner i ng re ss and eg re ss , t here has been an “ int ru si on of the enti re body” w it hin the meanin g of the s ta tu te. H ere, t he appel lan ts’ enti re bodi es w ere b lo ck in g the dr iv ew ay l eadi ng i nto t he mai n par ki ng l ot. Neithe r th e owners of

the pro perty nor the pa tient s seeking assistan ce at th e clinic could4

enter or l eav e the premis es throug h the mai n ent ra nce to t he frontpar ki ng l ot. The ev ide nce makes i t cl ear thatthe appel lan ts did not hav e the “ effect iv e c onsen t” to “ enter” the p ro per

ty of the c li nic

. Fi rs t, the fence and g ates topp ed w it h ra z or w ire made itcl ear the ow n e rs d id not w ant t he appe ll ants to “e nter” the p re mis es. Se cond, an emp l o y e e o f t h e c l i n i c t o l d t h e a p p e l l a n t s t o l e a v e . A l s o , a p o l i c e o ffi c e r , w h o h ad been summoned by

an o w ner

of the c li nic , i nst ru cte d the appell ants to lea v e. Theyrefused to lea v e. In summary , the ev ide nce cont ain ed in t he record i s s uff ic ien t t o s uppor t a findi ng by a rati onal tr ier

of fact th at t he appe ll ants w ere gu ilt y o f cri minal trespas s b ey ond a
re asona ble doubt

. Tenn. R . Ap p. P . 13( e) ; J ack son v. Vi rg ini a, 44 3 U .S. 307, 99 S. Ct

. 278 1, 61 L.Ed .2d 560 (1979 ).

_________ __________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ J OE B . J ON ES, PR ESID IN G J UD GE
CONCUR:

_________

_________

_________

________ GARYR . W AD E, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

________ W ILLIA M M. BAR KER , J UD GE