IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SONNY YARBRO

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hardin County

No. 7811 C. Creed McGinley, Judge

No. W1999-00770-CCA-R3-CD - Decided June 30, 2000

The defendant appeals his conviction by a Hardin County jury of possession of cocaine with intent

to sell. The defendant now contends that the evidence was insufficient for a rational trier of fact to

find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense. We affirm the judgment

of the trial court. 

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

RILEY, J. delivered the opinion of the court, in which TIPTON and GLENN, JJ. joined.

Guy T. Wilkinson, District Public Defender; and Richard W. DeBerry, Assistant District Public

Defender, Savannah, Tennessee, for the appellant, Sonny Yarbro.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Clinton J. Morgan, Assistant Attorney General;

G. Robert Radford, District Attorney General; and John W. Overton, Assistant District Attorney

General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

FACTS

On July 11, 1998, at around 10:50 p.m. the defendant was pulled over after failing to stop

at a stop sign. When the officer approached the defendant’s car, the officer smelled alcohol on the

defendant’s breath. After giving the defendant a sobriety test, the defendant was arrested for driving

under the influence. A search of the defendant was conducted, at which time $1,177 in cash and $65

in food stamps were found on the defendant. When the officer began to put the defendant in the back

of the patrol car, the officer saw a brown prescription container fall out of the defendant’s pant leg

and onto the ground. Another officer also heard the prescription container fall to the ground and

picked it up. Upon looking in the prescription container, the officers saw a substance that was later

tested and found to be 2.4 grams of crack cocaine.
-2-

The defendant testified at trial that he earned the money from work. He further testified that

the crack cocaine did not fall from his pant leg and was not his. The defendant, however, was

convicted by a Hardin County jury of possession of cocaine with intent to sell. 

This case now comes to this court on direct appeal. The defendant contends that the evidence

presented at trial was insufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt of possession of cocaine with intent to sell. We reject the defendant’s contention.

 

 

ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court does not reweigh or reevaluate the

evidence. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). A jury verdict approved by the trial

judge accredits the state's witnesses and resolves all conflicts in favor of the state. State v. Bigbee,

885 S.W.2d 797, 803 (Tenn. 1994). On appeal, the state is entitled to the strongest legitimate view

of the evidence and all legitimate or reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. Id. This

Court will not disturb a verdict of guilt due to the sufficiency of the evidence unless the defendant

demonstrates that the facts contained in the record and the inferences which may be drawn therefrom

are insufficient, as a matter of law, for a rational trier of fact to find the accused guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. State v. Brewer, 932 S.W.2d 1, 19 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly, it is

the appellate court's duty to affirm the conviction if the evidence, viewed under these standards, was

sufficient for any rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a

reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781,

2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994).

B. Sufficiency of the Evidence

During trial the defendant testified that the crack cocaine found at the site of his arrest was

not his. However, an officer testified that he saw the brown prescription container containing crack

cocaine fall from the pant leg of the defendant and hit the ground. A second officer, who was also

present when the prescription container fell out of the pant leg of the defendant, testified that he

heard the container fall, picked it up and discovered crack cocaine in the container. The same officer

also testified that he confiscated $1,177 in cash and $65 in food stamps from the defendant. The

money confiscated from the defendant was primarily in denominations of ten, twenty and fifty dollar

bills, and a couple of one hundred dollar bills. Testimony was presented that crack cocaine is sold

in ten, twenty, fifty and one hundred dollar rocks, and that drug dealers will sometimes accept food

stamps as payment for drugs. Finally, testimony was presented that no one else was with the

defendant when he was stopped, and no one else was in the immediate area where the officers

arrested the defendant. 

The jury rejected the defendant’s testimony, as was their prerogative. After a review of the

record, we find that sufficient evidence was presented for the jury to find the defendant guilty of
-3-

possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The conviction was proper. 

CONCLUSION

Based upon our review of the trial record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.