### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE Ja nua ry 13, 200 4 S es sio n
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . JEFFERY A. PACK

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Dickson Coun ty No. CR- 5854 RobertE. Bu rch, Judge

No. M2003- 01431-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Fe bruary 24, 2004

Th e de fe nd a nt a

pp e a ls h is c on vic tio n f

or fa lse re po rt in g o n th e ba sis of ins uf fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to support the ver dict. After revie w, we c onclude th e ev i d ence to be suff icient to support the
c on vic tio n a

nd a ff ir m th e jud g me nt f

ro m th e tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

J OHN E VERE TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J OS EP H M. T I P TO N and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

Willi a m B . ( Jake ) L oc ke rt , I I I , D istri c t Pu bli c De fe nd e r, and

C. Wa de B ob o, As sis t a

nt D i s t ri c t Pu bli c Def ender , for the a

ppellant, J eff

ery A. Pack. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Eliz abeth

T

. Ry a n , Senior Counsel; Dan Mitchum Alsobrooks, District Attorney Gene ral; and Kim G. M enke, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

The de fenda

nt, J eff ery A. Pack, was char g ed in a two-count prese ntment with: (1) making
a fa lse re po rt , a

nd (2 ) a ssa ult . A jury c on vic te d the de fe nd ant fo r f a lse re po rt ingand

a c qu itt e d h im of a ssa ult . In atta c kin gthe su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , th e de fe nd ant c la ims that th e State fa ile d to pr ov e a c tua l kn ow le dg e by the de fe nd ant o f t

he fa lsi ty of his state me nt t o th e of

fi c e rs

.
F acts Patrolman Shane Dunningof t he Dickson Police Depa rtment was instructe d to go to Pete’ s Tr a ile r P ark

in D ic ks on

County on Au g us t 31 , 2 00 1, to f

ind and se rv e pr ob a tio n v iol a tio n w a rr a nts
on Cha rl e s Ra y burn . A t a

pp ro xima te ly

3:0 0 p .m. , D un nin g , a c c omp ani ed by De pu ty De re k Wa ll of the Dic kson County Sheriff’ s Depa rtment, went to tr ailer 4 in Pete’ s Trailer Park. Dunning stated-2-

that the offic ers e ncounter ed the defe ndant and three other males he did not know. Dunning knew f r o m p a s te x p e r i e n c e t h att h e d e f e n d an tan d

R ayb ur nw e r e f r i e n d s an d

w e r e t o g e t h e r

r e g u l ar l y.
The de fenda

nt was aske d if he ha d seen or hear d from Charle s Ray burn that day . The defe ndant re sponded that he ha d not seen or he ard f rom Ray burn in a c ouple of months. The other individuals were que stion ed b y W al l. The off icer s, having rec eived no infor mation conce rning Ray burn, left the immediate are a but did not leave the t railer park. The off icer s were then notified by dis patc h th a t a

c a lle r h a d s e e n a

ma le , matc hin g Ray

burn ’s de sc ri pti on , r

un nin g fr om a

bu sh be hin d tr a ile r 4 and

int o tr a ile r 5 . T ra ile r 4 and tr a ile r 5 we re po sit ion e d p ara lle l to e a c h o the r, wi th the cove red por ch on tra iler 4 fa cing trailer 5, w hich was oc cupied by the def endant.

The office rs immediately returne d to the site of trailers 4 and 5. There , bo t h o ffice rs questioned the de fenda

nt whether

he had se en R ay

b u rn

. The de fenda

nt stated he ha d not. The defe ndant told them that trailer 5 be longe d to him and, upon reque st, allowed the of fice rs to enter

. De pu ty Wal l c a lle d o ut f

or Ray burn , a nd Ray bu rn ca me out of

a be dr oo m in

a “ so a kin g we t” condition, wiping himself with a towel. Dunning had pre viously testified that it was ra ining on that da y

. Dunn ing the n a

rr e ste d th e de fe nd ant f

or fa lse re po rt inga

nd pla c e d h im i n th e ba c ks e a t of his p at ro l ca r w i t h R ay

b u rn

. On t h e w ay

t o t h e p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t , t h e d ef en d an ts p at o nDu n n i n g, resulting in the assault cha rg e.
On cr oss-examination, Dunning aff irmed that on the off

icer s’ first visit, he had che cked the back door of trailer 5 and found it l ocked. After war ds, the defendant maintained to Dunning that he did not know Ray

burn wa s hiding in trailer 5.

On re direc t, D unning stated that the view fr om the cover ed porc h on trailer 4 towa rd trailer 5 was unobstruc ted and that any person crossing from trailer 4 to trailer 5 would be visible from the porch on tra iler 4. Dunning also testified that whe n the office rs re turned on their se cond visit, the defe ndant was coming off the porch of trailer 5. When questioned then, the de fenda nt ag ain denied any knowledg e about Ray

burn’s location. Dickson County

Sheriff’ s Deputy

Der ek Wall next testified concerning the events at Pete’s Trailer Park. Wall knew both the defendant and Charles Ray burn and ha d often see n them toge ther. He state d that on the office rs’ initial ar rival at trailer 4, he saw the de fenda nt, Wi lliam Cathey , J r., and Da nn y He dg e , a nd that he be lie ve d the re wa s ano the r p e rs on pr e se nt. I n r e sp on se to t

he of fi c e rs ’ querie s conce rning Ray

burn, the defe ndant and the others said they had not see n him or he wa s not there at that time. The two office rs walked around the trailers to see if Ray burn wa s hiding in the bushe s o r c lo s e to th e tr a il e r

. A f te r le a v in g th e s it e , th e o f f ic e r s r e c e iv e d a d is p a tc h report that “Ray burn had just run into Tra iler 5.” The y returne d immediately

and we nt to tra i l er 5. The defe ndant came from tra iler 4, ac cording to Wall, and announced that trailer 5 was his. Wall asked the de fe nd ant t o c ome ov e r t o tr a ile r 5 . T he de fe nd ant a llo we d the of fi c e rs e ntr y and wa s a sk e d if he had se en Ray

burn ente r trailer

5. The de fenda

nt stat ed , “I h av en ’t s een him. I f he is in her e, I don’t know.”-3-

Upon entry , Wall noti ced e vidence of re modeling inside tra iler 5. He called out f or Ray burn, who emer g ed fr om a bedr oom, soaking wet and wiping himself with a towel. Deputy Wall st ated that any on e g oin g fr om t

ra ile r 4 to t

ra ile r 5 wo uld be vis ibl e fr om t he po rc h o f t

ra ile r 4 . O n c ro sse xami na tio n, he e sti ma te d th e dis tanc e fr om t he po rc h o f t

ra ile r 4 to t

ra ile r 5 a s 2 0 to 25 y ard s. Wal l
sa id t he de fe nd ant w a s th e on ly pe rs on he qu e sti on e d o n th e of

fi c e rs ’ s e c on d v isi t. Danny J oe He dg e, a de fense witness, stated that he lived at trailer 4 in Pete’ s Trailer Park wi th h is m oth e r a

nd ste p- fathe r, Willi a m Cathe y . Ch arl e s Ra y burn liv e d th e re on

an ir re g ula r b a sis

. The de fenda

nt was re siding ther e while his trailer , number 5, wa s under r epair s. Ray burn had spe nt the nig ht of Aug ust 30-31, 2002, at trailer 4.

Acc ording to Hedg e, Ray burn left the tr ailer at 6:30 a.m. He also stated that the def endant
arr ived at 7:00 a.m. and that Hedg e and the defe ndant went to King ston Springs to perf orm roofing work until noon. Upon their re turn to the trailer , they left to investigate buy ing some truck tires. The g roup included H edg e, Willi am C athey , Dan Revere, a nd the def endant. When the g roup ca me bac k to trailer 4, the of

fice rs ar rived simultaneously

. He state d that the offic ers talke d to eac h individual prese nt and asked about Charles Ray burn. Mr. Cathey

invited them to searc h inside trailer 4, but the office rs dec lined. The de fenda nt, who had g one inside trailer 4 to prep ar e a s an d wi ch and te a, rema ined there until the officer s returne d on their sec ond visit. Cathey stated he remained outside on the porc h of trailer

4 during the t ime when the of fice rs left the sc ene. A t no time did Hedg e see Ray burn ente r trailer

5.

On the off

icer s’ re turn, the def

endant g ave them permission to enter tra iler 5. Afte r finding Ray burn, the off

icer s arr ested the de fenda nt for “ha rboringa fug itive.” During cross-e x amination, Hedg e esti m at ed the distanc e betwe en tra ilers 4 and 5 a s a pp ro xima te ly

15 y ard s. He de nie d k

no wi ngho w R ay

burn g ot i nto tr a ile r 5 oth e r tha n “ he we nt i n there without permission, because nobody knew that he was e ven ther e.”

Wil liam Cathey , J r., testified that he lived in tr ailer 4. H e said the de fenda nt had also bee n living there for three or four months while repa iring trailer 5. I n ref ere nce to R ay

b u rn , C at hey testified as follows: “[a]s soon as [ Ray burn] ge ts out of jail, he comes stra ight to my house. And that’s wher e ar e his clothes and that’s wher e he lives. A t my house.” Cathey stated Ray

burn had be en broug ht to his trailer at 9:00 or 10:00 a.m. on the morning of Au g us t 31 , 20 01 , to g e t so me c lot hin g and the n le ft

. Ca the y ’s te sti mony wa s c on tr a dic tor

y a s to wh e the r t he de fe nd ant w a s p re se nt at th a t ti me . O ne se qu e nc e of te sti mony

wa s a s f oll ow s: [Defense Counsel] :

. . . Do y ou reme mber about what time it was that [R ay burn]
wa s o v er t h er e t h at p ar t i cu l ar

m o rn i n g? [C athey ]: No, sir. [Defense Counsel] : Do y ou know i f t he defenda nt was there whe n he ca

me over t h at m o rn i n g? [C athey ]: No, sir.-4-

[Defense Counsel] : You don’t know or . . . [C athey ]: Are y ou talking a bout J eff ? [Defense Counsel] : Yea h -- [C athey ]: Yea h. [Defense Counsel] : -- Mr. Pac k. [ C a t h e y] : Y e ah , h e w a s t h e r e a l l d ay.
On cross-e x amination by the assistant district attorney , Cathey testified in the fo l l o wi ng manner : [As sis tant Di str ic t Attor

ne y ]:

. . . -- L et’ s s tar t i n t he m orn in g

. I t’ s six- thi rt y (6:30), whe re is Charle s Ray burn? [C athey ]: Idon’t know wher e he w as at at six o’cloc k (6:00) in the morning

. He didn’t g et over there t o the house until, probably

-- I t was around nine or ten o’cloc k (9:00 or 10:00). Susie broug ht him by

there and, then, she ne eded him with her, and he g ot back in the c ar w ith her
and le ft

. [Assi stant District Attorney ]: All rig ht, so y ou wer e there at nine o’c lock (9:00) when he g ot there? [Ca the y ]: Ye s. [Assi stant District Attorney ]: All rig ht. And J eff Pack was there at nine o’c lock (9:00) whe n he g ot there? [Ca the y ]: Ido n’ t kn owif he wa s th e re or

no t. [A s s is ta n t D is tr ic t A tt o r

n e y ]: Well, y ou j u s t s ai d a while ba ck that J eff was there all day ? Now, is he not there all day , now? [ C a t h e y] : W e l l , h e w a s n ’ tar o u n d m e a l l d ay. Mr. Cathey

testified that he, the de fenda nt, Danny J oe He d ge, and an individual name d Delmar had spent pa

rt of the day at Har dy Osborne’ s looking at tires for a truck. The g roup ar

rived back at Cathey ’s trailer at approximately the same time a s the office rs’ initial ar rival. Cathey

denied
any pe rs on a l c on ve rs a tio n w iththe of fi c e rs and state d he wa s in sid e tr a ile r 4 duri ngthe of fi c e rs ’ f ir st visit. He claimed that he saw the of fice rs g o into trailer 5 on two sepa rate o cc asi ons. On the office rs’ second vi sit, Cathey stated the de fenda

nt was in trailer

4, prepa ring a g lass of tea , until the de fe nd ant w a s c a lle d o uts ide by the of fi c e rs

. Mr. Cathey

testified that while he w as in a group of five or six people on the porc h of trailer 4, he sawa woman in a

n adjoining tr ailer on the telephone, laug hing, and l ooking out the window. He surmised that she had reported seeing Ray burn run into trailer 5 and was making a police r eport beca use the two off

icer s immediately

returne d to the scene . The witne s s admitted that Ray burn would be visible in crossing from the bush by trailer 4 to the ba ck door of t ra i l er 5

. Ho we ver, he denied se eing Ray

burn bec ause he was talking to the others on the por ch. Mr. Cathey ’s version of-5-

ev en t s o n Au gu s t 3 1 , 2 0 0 1 , wa s i nap p ar en tco n fl i ct wi t h Da n n y J o e H ed ge’ s t es t i m o n y

t h at He d ge an d t h e d e f e n d an th a d

g o n e t o K i n g s t o nS p r i n g s o na r o o f i n g j o b t h a td ay.
The de fenda

nt electe d not to testify , and the de fense conclude d its proof.

Ana lys is

I n deter mining sufficie ncy , this Court does not r ewe igh or re evaluate the evide nce. State v. Cabbag e, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Our standard of

revie w is, after

revie wi ng the evidenc e in a lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, to determine whe ther a ny rational trier

of fa ct could have found the essential elements of the criminal offe nse bey ond a rea sonable doubt. Jackson v. Virg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. C t. 2781, 2789, 61 L

. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). This Court may not substitut e its own infer en ce s for those dr awn by the trier of

fac t from circ umstantial evidence

. L iakas v. S tate, 199 Tenn. 298, 305, 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (1956). A g uilty verdic t, approve d by

the trial judg e, ac cre dits the testimony of the witnesses for the State a nd resolves a ll conflicts in favor of t he th e o r

y o f th e St a te

. St a te v

. G r a c e , 4 9 3 S. W. 2 d 4 7 4 , 4 7 6 ( T e n n

. 1 9 7 3 )

. A g u il ty v erdic t
remove s the presumption of innocence a nd raises a

presumption of g uilt, thus casting the burde n of
overc oming this presumption on the def endant. I d.

The de fenda

nt was charg ed with violation of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-16- 50 2( a )( 2) , w hic h p ro vid e s a s f oll ow s: (a) I t is unlawful for a

ny person to: (2 ) M a k e a r e p o rt o r s tate me n t in r e s p o n s e to a le g it im a te in qu ir y by a law enfor ceme nt office r conc erninga material fac t about an off ense or incident wi thi n th e of

fi c er’s conce rn , k

no wi ngthat su c h r e po rt

or state me nt i s f

a lse
and wi th t he int e nt t o o bs tr

uc t or hin de r t he of fi c e r f ro m: (A) Pre venting the offe nse or incide nt from occ urringor continuing to occur ; or (B ) Ap prehe nding or

locating another

person suspec ted of c ommitt ing a n offe nse.
The e vidence , in the light most favo ra b l e t o t he State, esta blished that the offic ers we re seekingto appre hend Charles Ray burn on char g es of pr obation violation. The defe ndant’s witnesses stated that both Ra

y burn and the defe ndant wer e living, at least part-time, at Wil liam Cathey ’s trailer , identified as number 4. Ray burn had be en at Cathe y ’s trailer on the morning of August 31, 2001, and by one ac count of Cathey , the def endant wa s also there . By Hedg e’s a ccount, Ray

burn had spe nt the n ig h t th e r e

. O n th e ir f ir s t v is it , th e o f

f ic e r s a s k e d th e d e f

e n d an t if h e h a d s e e n o r

hear d from Ray burn on that date

. T he def endant r esponded that he had not see n or hea rd fr om Ray

burn in a couple of months. The office rs left the immediate are a but, a fter rec eiving a repor t that Ray burn had just entered the defe ndant’s tra iler, the off icer s returned . Deputy

Wall tol d the def

endant of the repor t they had re ceive d, and the defe ndant s tated that he had not seen Ray burn and that if he wa s in the defe ndant’s tra iler, he did not know it. This w as i m m ed i at el y prior to the discove ry

of R ayb u r nh i d i n g i nt h e d e f

e n d an t ’ s t r a i l e r

. R ayb u r

nw a s s t i l l v e r

y w e t , i n d i c a t i n g h i s r e c e n te n t r y.-6-

Th e re wa s unc on tr a dic te d ev ide nc e that the de fe nd ant an d the fu g iti ve , Ray burn , w e re c los e associate s and wer e, on that date, living at trailer 4 with William Cathey . There was testimony that bo th Ray burn and the de fe nd ant w e re bo th at Cathe y ’s tr a ile r t he mor nin g of the de fe nd ant’ s arr e st. There was also evidenc e from which a rational jury could infer

that the def

endant kne w Ray

burn wa s hid i n g i n t he def

endant’ s trailer. It is undisput ed that the de fenda nt disavowed a

ny knowledg e of Ray burn ’s wh e re a

bo uts in r e sp on se to t

he of fi c e rs ’ i nq

uir ie s. The jury was e minently

entitled to acc ept the State’s e vidence that the d e f endant’ s responsive statements to the offic ers’ inquiries wer e knowing ly false a nd wer e intended to hinder the appre hension of the fug itive, Ra y burn. The evidenc e amply supports this finding, and w e af firm the conviction.

__________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI L L I AMS, J UDGE