# FILED
July 11, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NA SHVILLE JAN UA RY SESSION , 1997
STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) C.C.A . NO. 01C01-9 605-CC-00198 ) Appellee, ) ) ) BEDFORD COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. WILLIA M CHA RLES LEE TERRY WAY NE FARRA R, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Direct A ppeal)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : ANDREW JACKSON DEARIN G, III CHARLES W. BURSON 117 South Main St reet Attorney Gen eral and Repor ter Suite 101 Shelbyv ille, TN 37160 SARAH M. BRANCH Assistant Att orney Gener al 450 James Roberts on Parkway Nashvil le, TN 37243 M I K E M C C O WN Distric t Attorney General ROBERT C. CR IGLER CHARLES CRAW FORD Assistant D istrict A

ttorney Bedford County Courthouse Shelbyv ille, TN 37160

OPINION FILE D ________________________ AFFIRMED JERRY L. SMITH, JUDG E-2- 

## OPINION
A Bedford County

Criminal Court jury

convicted Appellant Terr y Wayne Farrar of failure to appea r and theft of pro perty valued at more than $500 but less than $1,0 00. A s a Ran ge II m ulti ple o ff end er, A ppe llan t rece ived c onse cuti ve sentences of three years and eight months for the the ft conviction and three years and ten months for the fail ure to appear co nviction. In this dir ect appeal, Appel lant presents the following issue for review: whether the evidence presented at trial is legally sufficient to sust ain a convi ction for theft of proper ty val ued at more than $500.

After a revi ew of the recor d, we affirm the j udgment of the tri al court.

I. FACTUA L BACKGROUND
As accredited by the jury’s verdict, the record reflects that at approximate ly 4:37 p.m. on Octobe r 11, 1994, Marjorie Jane Parker and her son , Dustin, had just finished shopping at Wal-Mart and were on their way to Sonic to buy somethi ng to eat for dinner. As Mrs. Par ker exit ed the parking lot of Wal-Mart, she saw Appellant and Greg Greer enter the par king lot. Although Mr s. Parker w

as not acquai nted with the passenger , Mr. Greer , she recog nized Appell ant as he drove past. Furth ermore, Mrs. Parker noticed that nothing appeared to be in the vehicle and that the trunk of the car w as closed.

Shor tly af ter Mr s. Pa rker p urch ased foo d fro m Son ic, he r att enti on was drawn to Appellant’s

car as it came “zooming ” out of the Wal-Mart parki ng lot. At this time, Mrs. Parker saw a lawn mow er and a weed eater in the ope n trunk of the vehicle. As she drove past the veh icle, Mr s. Parker furt her discovered that another-3-

weedeater was inside the car between Appellant and Mr. Greer. As a result, Mrs. Parker became s uspicious and made a phone call t o the Sheriff’s Depa rtment.
After informing C hief Deputy D ale Elliot of her suspicio n, Mrs. Par ker proceeded to Appellan t’s residence on Fay Creek Road. As she slowly drove past Appellant’s r

esidence, she s aw both Appel lant and Mr. Greer standi ng outside of the vehic le. Sh e als o saw t hat t he tr unk o f th e car was em pty an d tha t bot h the lawn mower and weedeater were on the ground.
Pursuant to Mrs. Parker’s phone call, Chief Deputy Elliot drove to Appellant’s residence on F ay Creek Road to investigate. H owever , prior to h is arriv al, he passed a car th at fit the descri ption whic h Mrs. Par ker had giv en him over the phone. Conseque ntly, Chi ef Deputy Ell iot turned his vehicle around and followed Appellant’s v

ehicle. As A ppellant turned into a priv ate drivew

ay, Chief De puty Elli ot turned on his bl ue lights. At that time, A ppellant got out of the car, and C hief Deputy Elliot informed him why he was stopped and read him his rights.
Chief Deputy Elliot aske d Appellant about t he merchandise i n an effort to locate it. I n response, Appel lant opened the tr unk of his car an d showed Chi ef Deputy Ell iot the tw o weedeaters . Appellant furth er indicated that the law n mower was at the F ay Creek Road residenc e. Appellant the n directed Ch ief Deputy El liot to the location of the lawn mower. Thereafter, Appellant a nd Mr. Greer were escorted down to the Sheriff ’s Department and arrested f or theft of prope rty in violatio n of Tennessee Code Annotate d Section 39-14- 103. Appellant w as tried before a jury

in the Bedford Coun ty Cri minal Court. At trial, Appellant all eged that he did not have the knowledge required to be convicted of this theft and that th ere was insuffici ent evidence showing that the val ue of the merchandise was greater than $500.-4- At the conclusi on of the trial, the jury found Appellant gui lty of theft of property a nd failure to appear . On November 20, 1995, the tri al court impos ed a sentence of three years and eight months for the the ft conviction and three years and ten months for the fail ure to appear co nviction. Appellant appeal s the theft of property conviction.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Appellant all eges that the ev idence presented at trial i s legall y insufficient to sustain a conviction for thef t of property. W hen an appeal challenges th e sufficiency of the evidence, the standard of rev iew is whether, after view ing the ev idence in the light most favorable to th e State, any r ational tri er of fact could have found the essential el ements of the crime bey ond a reasonable do ubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318 ( 1979); State v. Ev ans , 838 S.W .2d 185, 190-91 (Te nn. 1992); Tenn. R. App. P. 13( e). On appeal, the State is enti tled to the str ongest leg itimate view of the evidence an d all reasonabl e or legi timate inferences which may be drawn therefrom. State v. Ca bbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn . 1978). This Court will not reweigh the evidence, re-evaluate the evidence, or substitute its evidentiary inferences for thosereached by the jury. State v. Ca rey , 914 S.W.2d 93, 95 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). Furthermore, in a crimina l trial, great weight is given to the result reached by t he jury. State v. John son , 910 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Tenn. Crim. App

. 1995).
Once approved by the tri al court, a j ury verdict accr edits the w itnesses presented by the State and reso lves all conflicts in favor of the State. Stat e v. Williams , 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). The cr edibility of witnesses , the weight to be given their testimony, and the reconciliation of con flicts in the proof are-5-

matters entrust ed exclusi vely t o the jury as trier of fact. State v. Sheffield , 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984). A jur y’s gu ilty verdict removes the presumpti on of innocence enjoyed by the defendant at trial and r

aises a presu mption of guilt. State v. Tuggle , 639 S.W.2d 913, 194 (Tenn. 1982). The defendant t hen bears the burden of overcoming this pr esumption of guil t on appeal. State v. Black , 815 S.W .2d 166, 175 (Tenn . 1991).

In order to sustain a conviction for thef t of property in this case, the evidence must show that Appellant know ingly obtained or contr olled the proper

ty wi thout the owner’s effective consent. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 14-103. Tennessee C ode Annotated Section 39 -11-302(b) p rovides t he following with respect to the mental element of “knowing”:

“Knowing ” refers to a p erson who a cts knowi ngly w ith respect to the conduct or to c ircumstances surrounding the conduct w hen the person is aware of the nat ure of the conduct or t hat the circu mstances exi st. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of the person’s conduct when the person is aware that the con duct is reasonably certain to ca use the result

. Appellant arg ues that he did not possess the required know ledge to be co nvicted of this theft. The record reveal s that, whi le at Wal-Mart, Mr. G reer was the indiv idual who stole the items contai ned in the indic tment. Further more, Mr. Gr eer testified that Appellant returned to the car after exiti ng Wal-Mart and had no idea that the property h ad been stolen.
Although there is conflicti ng testimony as to wheth er Appellant ac tually k new that Mr. Greer was going to commit a theft at W al-Mart, the record reflects that Mr. Gre er i nfor med A ppel lant that the m erc hand ise was

sto len shor

tly after they left Wal-Mart. Notwit hstanding Appel lant’s protest to Mr. Greer’s actio ns, Appellant continued to dri ve the v ehicle aw ay from the scen e and to other par ts of the county

.-6-

Furthermore, Appellant’s awareness of the theft is supported by the fact that he told Chief Deputy Elliot that he was trying to help Mr. Greer “get the stuff at W al-Mart and was going to help him get rid of it.” Thus, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, we find that th e evidence presented at trial was suff icient to support Appellant’s conviction for theft.
Appellant further

argues that there is ins ufficient evidenc e to prove be yond a reasonable doubt tha t the value of the property was greater than $500. App ellant’s father testified that

he purchased the exact same merchandise at Wal-Mart for approximatel y $384. However, the store manager at Wal-Mart testified that the merchandise cos t approximat ely $504 on th e day of the theft. The r econciliati on of conflicts in t he proof are matters entrusted exclusivel y to the jur y as tri er of fact. Sheffield , 676 S.W .2d at 547. Here, the jury apparently chose to believe the store manager reg arding the v alue of the stolen pr

operty. We will not disturb thefactual findings of the ju ry.
Accordingl y, the judg ment of the trial court is affirmed.

____________________________________ JER RY L

. SMI TH, JUD GE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY , JUD GE

___________________________________ JOE G. RI LEY , JUD GE