### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 21, 200 5
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . JO HN THO MAS BI NGHAM

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Bedf ord County No. 15515 Lee R ussell, Ju dge

No. M2005- 00162-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Septem ber 22, 2005

Th e d e f e n d a n t, Jo h n T h o ma s B in g h a m, w a s c o n v ic te d b y ju r y o f p o s s e s s io n o f

c o n tr ab a nd (marijuana ) in a pe nal institut ion, a Class C felony

. The trial court sentenced the defe ndant to five y e ars six mo nth s f

or thi s c on vic tio n. Th e tr ia l cou rt or de re d this se nte nc e to be se rv e d c on se c uti ve ly to a pre viouslyimposed sentence . On appe al, the def endant c hall en ges t h e sufficie ncy of the
c on vic tin g e vid e nc e . B a se d u po n o ur re vie w, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

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

J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

An dr e w Jac ks on De ari ng , I I I , As sis ta nt Pub lic De fe nd e r, She lbyvil le , Te nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, John Th oma s B ing ha m.

Paul G . Su mme rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; W. Mi chae l McCown, District Attorney Gene ral; and Micha el D. Randles a nd Ann Filer , Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

Th e pr oo f at tr ia l e sta

bli sh e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt w a s a n in ma te a t th e B e df or d Co un ty

Jail

. On De c e mbe r 1 7, 20 03 , a ft e r 9:0 0 p.m. , Ser g e a nt Rob e rt Ov e rs tr e e t and oth e r c or re c tio na l of

fi c e rs , conducte d a sea

rch of three inmates, one of whom was the defe ndant. The se arc h took place in the jail’s “chow hall” as the i nmates were leaving from an Alcoholics Anony mous (AA) meeting . The defe ndant, wea

ring a jail-issued orang e jac ket, was the last inmate to be sea rche d.

As the of fi c e rs be g a n sea

rc hin g the de fe nd a nt, the y a sk e d h im t o r e mov e his ja c ke t. Wh ile Serg eant Ove rstree t searc hed the jac ket, a pack of cig are ttes fell out of the jac ket onto the floor of the chow ha ll. Si multaneously , the offic ers a nd the def endant reac hed for

the cig are tte pack, but the defe ndant re ache d it first and quickly g rabbe d it of f the floor. The de fendant then attempted to flee-2-

the ar ea w ith the cig are tte pack. While running aw ay fr o m the office rs, the def endant r emoved a cig are tte and at t em p t ed to eat it. By this ti me, howeve r, the off icer s tackled the defe ndant to the fl oo r andre str a ine d h im w ithhand c uf fs

. After restraining the de fendant, the office rs took the cig are tte pack from t he def endant a nd fo un d tw o c ig are tte s in the pa c k. Th e of fi c e rs a lso fo un d a thir d cig are tte la y ing un de r the de fe nd a nt. The ha ndcuff

ed def endant a lso noticed the t hird cig are tte and attempted to r eac h it with his mouth. Th e c ig are tte s we re c on fi sc a te d a ndla te r s ub mit te d to the Te nn e sse e B ur e a u o f Inv e sti g a tio n c ri me laboratory

for testing . The c iga

rettes teste d positive for marijuana

.
Acc ording to the defe ndant’s testimony , he wa s set-up by another inmate, B obby Heil. The defe ndant stated that he and Heil had a problem in the past whe n Heil tried to take his fan and extension cord. Heil’s attempted procur ement of the defendant’s possessions cause d an alter cation. Heil was the n transfe rre d to the jail’s main fac ility while t he defenda nt rema ined in the jail’s anne x are a. L ater

on, howeve r, t he defenda nt and Heil re conciled the ir diffe renc es and w ere on speaking terms for a

bout a month prior to Dec ember 17th.

The e vening of De cembe r 17th, the def endant wa s transported f

rom the annex to the “new jail” ar ea in or der to attend the AA mee ting. As the defe ndant explained, a fe w m inutes befor e the AAme e tin g , H e il a

pp roached him , s tuc k a

pa c k o f c ig are tte s in his po c ke t a nda sk e d h im t o h old it. After the AA meeting ended, the defe ndant observe d corr ectional of fice rs transporting most of the inmates bac k to their ce ll blocks. The def endant notice d Heil, as he was being ushere d out of the meeting are a, whisper something to one of the officers. At this time, the defendant c hecke d the pac k of cig are ttes and discover ed thre e marijuana “joints” in the pack. Realizing he was in trouble a nd g oing to be sear ched, the defe ndant stuck the c iga rette pa ck up in the slee ve of his jac ket. When the pack of cig are ttes fell out of his sleeve during the sear ch, he g rabbe d it, took off, and tried to e at one of the ciga

rettes. He was then t ackle d by the officers. On c ross-examination, the defe ndant admitted that typically the onl y rea son an inm ate would ask another i nmate to hold an other wise leg al pac k of cig are ttes was if ther e wa s something i l l ega l i n s i d e. The defe ndant also admitted that he w as caug ht with the marijuana c iga rettes in his possession.

On app e a l, the de fe nd a nt c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e wa s i ns uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his conviction for posse ssion of contra band in a penal fac ility

. Specifica lly , the def endant a rg ues that th e ev i d en ce was circumstantial and be fore he could be convicted of this offense ba sed upon
c ir c ums ta nti a l e vid e nc e a lon e “ the fa c ts andc ir c ums ta nc e s mu st b e so str on g a ndc og e nt a s to exclude every

other re asonable hypotheses save the g uilt of the defe ndant.”

Ou r re vie w be g ins wi th the we ll- e sta bli sh e d ru le that on c e a

jury fi nd s a de fe nd a nt g uil ty , h is or her presumption of innoce nce is re moved and re p lace d with a pre sumption of guilt. State v. Evans, 838 S.W .2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) . There fore , on appea l, the convicted de fendant has the burden of demonstrating to this C ourt why the evidenc e will not support the j ury ’s ver dict. State v. Carruthe rs, 35 S.W.3d 516, 557-58 (T en n. 2000); State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). To mee t this burden, the defendant must establish that no “rational trier of f act” could have-3-

fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t. Jac ks on v. Vi rg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; S t a t e v

. E v a n s , 1 0 8 S

. W

. 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 6 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 3 ) ; T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 1 3 ( e )

. In contra st, the jury ’s ver dict approve d by the t rial j udg e accr edits the State’s witnesses and resolves
a ll c on fl ic ts i n f

a vo r o f the Sta te . St a te v. Ha rris, 83 9 S. W.2 d 5 4, 75 (T e nn . 1 99 2) . T he State is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence and all rea sonable infe renc es which ma y be draw n fr o m t h at evidenc e. Carr uthers, 35 S.W.3d at 558; Tugg le, 639 S.W.2d at 914. Questions
conce rning the cr edibilityof the witnesse s, conflicts in trial testimony , the weig ht and value to be g iven the evide nce, and all fac tual issues raised by the evidenc e ar e re solved by the trier of fac t and
n o tt h i s C o u rt

. S t at e v

. Bl an d , 9 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 7 ). W e d o n o tat t em p tt o re -w ei gh
or re -eva luate the e vidence . State v. Reid, 91 S.W .3d 247, 277 (Tenn. 2002) ; Bl and, 958 S .W.2d at 659. Likewise, we do not replac e the jury ’s infer ence s drawn from the circ umstantial evidence with our own infer ence s. See State v. Elkins, 102 S.W .3d 581, 582 (Tenn. 2003); Reid, 91 S.W .3d at 277.

To c on vic t th e de fe nd a nt , th e S tate wa s r e qu ir e d to pr ov e that th e de fe nd a nt kno wi ng ly possessed contr aband suc h as marijuana while inside a pe nal institut ion where prisoners a re qu art e re d o r und e r c us tod ia l su pe rv isi on . Se e Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 9- 16 -2 01 (a )( 2) . A pe rs on “ a c ts knowing ly

with respec t to the conduct or to c ircumstance s surrounding the conduct when the pe rson is awar e of the nature of the c onduct or that the c ircumstance s exi st.” I d. § 39-11-302( b).

I nitially , we note that the g uilt of the defe ndant as well as any fac t r equire d to be proved ma y be e sta bli sh e d b y

dir e c t e vid e nc e , b y c ir c ums ta nti a l evi de nc e , or by a c omb inatio n of b oth . Se e Sta te v. Penderg rass, 13 S.W.3d 389, 392-93 ( Tenn.Crim.App., 1999). I n fac t, a criminal offense may be established exclusivelyby circ umstantial evidence so long a s the evidenc e excludes all other
rea sonable theories except that of t he defenda nt’s g uilt. See S tate v. Crawf ord, 470 S.W .2d 610, 612 (1 97 1) . In a dd iti on , th e we ig ht o f the c ir c ums ta nti a l e vid e nc e is f or the jury to d e te rm ine a ndthi s Court may

not substit ute the jury ’s infer ence s drawn f rom the circ umstantial e vidence with our own infere nces. See Pruitt v. S tate, 460 S.W.2d 385, 391 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970).

Nonethele ss, contrary

to the defe ndant’s ar g ument in brief, the defe ndant’s conviction was not solely based upon “ highly ” cir cumstantial evidenc e. Circumstantial evidenc e mea ns “evide nce based on infe renc e and no t o n persona l knowledg e or obse rvation.” B lack’ s L aw Dic tionary 595 (8th. ed. 2004). In t he instant ca se, the proof at trial pre sented by

ey ewitness testimony

and the defe ndant’s own a dmissions established that the de fendant w as in possession of three cig are ttes containing marijuana

while he wa s an inmate at the Be dfor d C o u n t y J ail. When searc hed by
corr ectional of

fice rs, the def

endant attempted to hide the pac k of cig are ttes in his jac ket sleeve , but the pac k fell out. The de fendant gra b b ed the pa ck of c iga rettes a nd took off running . He then opened the pack, r emoved a marijuana cig are tte and attempted to eat it. After being restrained, the defe ndant ag ain tried to reac h the cig are tte with his mouth. There fore , the direc t e vidence , via the
e y e wi tne ss t e sti mon y

of the c or re c tio nal off

ic e rs a ndthe de fe nd a nt’ s o wn a dmi ssi on s, c le arl y established that the de fendant was caug ht with marijuana c iga rettes in his possession.-4-

Moreove r, the de fendant’s knowledg e of his possession of marijuana is typically proven by circ umstantial evidence and the infe renc es that can be re asonably draw n from that evide nce. See Hall v. State, 490 S.W .2d 495, 496 (Tenn. 1973). Ag ain, t he evidence at trial established that the defe ndant tried to d es t ro y t h e marijuana cig are ttes by attempting to e at them. I n addition, the defe ndant admitted on cr oss-examination that he knew he wa s i n p o s s ession of the marijuana cig ar et tes prior to the sea rch and attempted to hide then de stroy the cig are ttes because he did not want to be c aug ht with the cig are ttes in hi s p o ssession. Clearly , the evidenc e pre sented at trial demonstrat ed t h e defe ndant’s knowing mental state. The ref ore, ba sed upon the dire ct and circ umstantial ev id e n ce pr esente d, we c onclude that the jury could re asonably

find that the def

endant knowing ly

possessed contr aband ( marijuana ) in a penal instit ution. Accor dingly , the judg ment of conviction is aff

irmed.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I N, J UDGE