### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE D ec em be r 15, 200 4 S es sio n STATE OF TENNESS EE v . MARY MAR GARET B OYD Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2003-B-990 SteveDozier , Judge

No. M2004- 00580-CCA -R3-C D - F iled April 15, 2005

The de fendant was involved in an automobile a ccide nt. When office rs ar rived, she ma intained that she had be en the driver of the vehicle. Howeve r, the actua l driver was later appre hended. When an office r attempted to plac e the d ef en dant under

arr est, she phy sically

resisted ha ndcuff

ing. T he Da vid so n Co un ty

Gr a nd Jury ind ic te d the de fe nd a nt fo r makin g a fa lse re po rt a ndre sis tin g arr e st. She was found g uiltyof both cha rg es in a be nch trial. The trial court sentenced the defe ndant to an eff ective se ntence of eightee n (18) months with periodic confinement on we ekends f or twenty (20) day s and the rema inder on probation. On appea l, the defe ndant arg ues that there wa s i n s u ff i cient e vid e nc e to s up po rt

he r c on vic tio ns . We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt s o f the Tr ial Co ur t a r e Affir m e d.
J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opi n i o n o f the c ourt, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I LLI A M S and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.
J ay Norman, N ashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Mary

Marg are t Boy d.
Paul G . Su mme rs , Attorne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Ric ha rdH. Du na va nt, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S

. J ohnson, District Attorney Gene ral, a nd Amy

Eisenbec k, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION
Fa ctual B ackg round On May 24, 2002, Metro Na shville Pol ice Of fice r L ewis Scott Roberts was on patrol and responde d to an automobile ac cident on Old Hickory Boule vard in Da vidson Co unty . Offic er Rob e rt s fou nd th e de fe nd a nt s itt ing on the g ro un d c ur sin g a ndthr e a te nin g wi tne sse s if the y tol d police that she w as not driving . The de fendant was visibly intox icated. When Office r Roberts aske d the defe ndant who was driving , she replied that she had been driving

. Offic er Roberts noticed fr om-2-

the condition of the ve hicle that the driver’s he ad had hit the windshield. The de fendant however did not have head injuries consistent with hitti ng the windshield. Wit nesses at the scene informed Offic er Roberts that a male ha d been driving the c ar. The a ctual drive r of the c ar ha d fled on foot. The driver w as re turned to the sce ne by another office r. The driver did have injuries consistent with hitting t he windshi eld of the vehicle. After the driver w as re turned a nd Offic er Roberts was satisfied that the de fendant was not the driver of the vehicle, he told the defe ndant to stand up and put her hands behind he r bac k. I n res p o n s e to the office r’s re quest, the def

endant responde d, “F uck y ou.” When he aske d the def endant he r name , she responde d, “Mary

Marg are t, and that’s all y ou’re g onna g et, mother fuc ker.”
When O ffice r Roberts attempted to a rre st and handcuf

f the defe ndant she bec ame be lliger ent a ndthe de fe nd a nt andth e off ice r “ wa llo we d a

ro un d a ll o ve r the g ro un d. ” Th e de fe nd a nt t ri e d to strike the off

icer with her fist, but was unsuc cessf ul. The def

endant “ actively resisted the arr est by twisting, turning and pulling a way .”
The de fendant was indicted for making a fa lse report to an o ff i ce r and resisting. The trial c ou rt he ld a be nc h tria l onDe c e mbe r 16 , 20 03

. Th e tr ia l c ou rt fo un d th e de fe nd a nt g uil ty on bo th counts. On January

30, 2 0 0 4 , t h e t rial court sentence d the def endant to an e ffe ctive sente nce of eig hteen ( 18) months with periodic conf inemen t o nw e ekends f

or twenty (20) day s and the re mainder on probation. The de fendant filed a notice of appe al on Fe bruary 27, 2004.
AN AL YSI S On appe al, the def

endant a rg ues that the e vidence was insuffic ient to find her g uiltyof making a fa lse report and re sisting ar rest. When a de fendant challeng es the suff iciency of the evidenc e, this Court is obli g ed to re view that claim ac cording to certain well-settled principles. A verdic t of g uilty , rende red by a jury and “a pproved by the trial judge , acc redits the testimony of the” State’s witnesses and resolves all conflicts in the t estimony in favor of

the State. State v. Cazes, 875 S

. W

. 2 d 2 5 3 , 2 5 9 (T en n
. 1 9 9 4 ); S t at e v
. Ha rr i s , 8 3 9 S

. W

. 2 d 5 4 , 7 5 (T en n
. 1 9 9 2 ). T h u s , al t h o u gh the accused is orig inally cloake d with a pre sumption of innocence , the jury verdic t of g uiltyremove s this presumption “and re place s it with one of g uilt.” State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). He n c e , o n ap p e a l, th e b u r d e n o f p r o o f r e s ts w ith th e d e f

e n d a n t t o d e mo n s tr a te the insufficienc y

of the c onvicting e vidence . I d. The re levant question the re viewing court must answer is whether any

rational trier

of fa ct could have found the a ccuse d g u i l t y o f every element of

the offe nse bey ond a re asonable doubt. See Te nn. R. App. P. 13(e); Ha rris, 839 S.W.2d at 75. I n making thi s d e c isi on , w e are to a c c or d th e Sta te “ the str on g e st l e g iti ma te vie w o f the e vid e nc e a s we ll a s a ll rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces that may be draw n there from.” See Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d at 914. As such, this Court is precluded f rom re- weig hing or

rec onsidering the evidenc e wh en eva luating the convicting proof. State v. Morg an, 929 S.W .2d 380, 383 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) ; State v. Matthews, 8 05 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) . Moreove r, we may not substit ute our own “infe renc es for

those draw n by

the trier of

fac t from circ umstantial evidence .” Matthew s, 805 S.W .2d at 779.-3- Making a False Re port
Th e de fe nd a nt s ta te s in he r b ri e f that sh e do e s n ot c on te st the tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t, but rather the trial court’s construction of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-502(a )(2) (B ), makin g a fa lse re po rt

to a la w e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic e r. Th a t st a tut e re a ds :

(a) I t is unlawful for a ny

person to: (2) Make a r eport or statement i n response to a leg itimate inquiry by a law enfor ceme nt office r conc erning a materia l f act about an offe nse or incident within the office r’s c oncern, knowing that such re port or statement is false a nd with the intent to o bs truc t or

hin de r the of

fi c e r f ro m: (B ) Appre hending or locating a nother pe rson suspec t ed of committing a n offe nse . . . .

Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 9- 16 -5 02 (a )( 2) (B ). Th e de fe nd a nt a rg ue s th a t to ob tai n a c on vic tio n inthi s case , “the State must prove that law enfor ceme nt of fice rs wer e try ing to loc ate a per son suspected of committing a crime and that the [defendant] made the state ment with the specific intent to obstruct or hinder O ffice r Roberts fr om appre hending or locating that person. That person, ac cording to the defe ndant, must be a specific person ‘suspec ted of commit ting a n offe nse.’” The de fendant goe s on to arg ue that the tria l court e rr ed wh en i t denied the de fendant’s motion for judgme nt of ac quittal be c a us e t h e tr i a l c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t “ t h e S t a t e o n l y n e e d e d t o p r o v e t h a t t h e ap p e l l a n t i nte nd e d to obstruct or hinder

Offic er Roberts.” This interpretation of the statute is techni ca l ly incorre ct. The “ intent” in the statute is not direc ted at the a ct i on of making a fa lse report, but rather at the g oal of interf ering with the appre hension of anothe r suspec t. Nevert h el ess, the proof that the def

endant intende d to thwart of fi c e rs in the pu rs uit

of the a c tua l drive r is ma nif e st. Al tho ug h Of

fi c e r Rob e rt s him se lf wa s no t in pu rs uit of the drive r o f the ve hic le , o the r o ff ic e rs we re . T he de fe nd a nt’ s st a te me nt t o O ff ic e r R ob e rt s was c lear ly

intended to hinde r Offic er Roberts from appre hending the ac tual driver. In fac t, when Of fi c e r Rob e rt s arrive d a t th e sc e ne , h e he ardthe de fe nd a nt thr e a te nin g wi tne sse s th a t sh e wo uldkil l them if they

did not say

she wa s the driver

. Cle arl y , th e re is s uf

fi c ie nt e vi den ce to sup po rt the de fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio n f or fa lse re po rt

. Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.
Re sis ti ng A r r e st
The de fendant was also convic ted of re sisting ar rest. The defe ndant arg ues that the evidenc e was insuffic ient to support this co n v i ct i o n beca use the intention of the leg islature in dra fting the statute was to “prohibit the us e of forc e against a law enforc ement off icer .” The defe ndant ar g ues-4-

“ that f or c e no t di re c te d at or

a g a ins t a

la w e nf or c e me nt o fficer is no t su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

a conviction. The twisting , turning and pulling a way of the a ppellant in this c ase was not f orce
. . . .”
Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-16-602 sets out the elements of resisting ar rest. That statut e s st a te s:

I t is an offe nse for a person to intentionally

preve nt or obstruct any one known to the person to be a law enfor ceme nt office r, or a ny one ac ting in a la w enf orce ment of fi c e r’ s p re se nc e a nda t su c h o ff ic e r’ s d ir e c ti on , fro m e ff

e c tin g a sto p, frisk , h a lt, arr est or sea

rch of any person, including the defe ndant, by using f orce ag ainst the law enfor ceme nt office r or a nother.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602( a). Forc e is define d as “c ompulsion bythe use of phy sical powe r or violence and s hall be broadly construed to acc omplish the purposes of this ti tle.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106( a)( 12)(e mphasis added)

. The evidence at t rial showed that Offic er Roberts told the defendant to stand up and put he r hands behind her back. He advised the defe ndant she was unde r ar rest. The defe ndant said, “Fuck y ou,” and be came bellige rent. The office r t estified, “We wallowed a round all over

the g round, try ing t o t ak e h er i n t o cu s t o d y
. ” Of fi ce r R o b er t s t h en t es t i fi ed , “S h e ac t i v el y re s i s t ed t h at arre s tb y t wi s t i n g, turning , pulling aw ay .” He then stated that the de fendant was trying not to be handc uffe d and that the def endant attempted to hit him with her fist. The de fendant arg ues that her “twisting, turning and pulling aw ay ” fr om Office r Roberts does not c onstitut e for ce a s contemplated by the statute.
Whe n th is C ou rt

ha s p re vio us ly

a dd re sse d th is i ssu e , w e ha ve held th at st ru g g lin g wi th of fi c e rs a ndfl a ili ng on e ’s arm s w hil e of fi c e rs are a tte mpt ing to h a nd c uf f a n arr e ste e is s uf

fi c ie nt u se of for ce by

the ar restee to sustain a conviction for re sisting ar rest under Tenne ssee Code A nnotated section 39-16- 602. State v. Daniel M. Tidwe ll, No. 01C01-9807-CC-00288, 1999 WL 436840, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, J une 30, 1999). We ha ve made other ruling s that are consistent with Daniel M. Tidwell. See State v. T imothyWay ne Gr i mes, No. M2001-02385-CCA-R3-CD, 20 02 WL 18 85 05 3, a t *4 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. , at N a sh vil le , A ug . 1 6, 20 02 ) ( up ho ldi ng re sis tin g arr e st conviction in which def

endant locke d his arms, threw his arms back and “bowe d up” on poli ce a s th e y a tt e mp te d to arr e s t h im ) ; S tate v
. Ro n a ldD a v idL e e, No. 03C01- 9 4 1 0

- CR

- 0 0 3 9 , 1 9 9 5 WL 395840, at *5 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Ju l y 6, 1995) (upholding conviction wher e off icer had to wre stle defe ndant in an attempt to handcuf f him). Thesefac tual situations are ve ry simil ar to the fac ts in the case sub judice. There fore , we find that there is sufficie nt evidenc e to s upport the de fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio n o f r e sis tin g arr e st.
Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.-5- CO NC LU SION
F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE