### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on

Briefs N ovembe

r 5, 2002
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MIC HAEL E. BIKREV
Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 2000-D-1984 Seth Norman, Judge

No. M2001-02910-CCA-R3-CD - F iled June 24, 2003

The Defendant was ch ar ge d w it h a nd co nv ic te d o f b ur gl ar y. The trial court sentenced him to three ye ars’ incarc eration . In th is direct appeal, the Defe

ndant ar gues (1 ) that the trial cour t erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and (2) that the State did not establish a proper chain of custody conce

rning the stolenproperty in this case

. Having reviewed the rec ord, we conclude that legall y sufficient evidence was presented a t the Defendant’s trial to support his conviction and thus that the trial court did not err by denying the Defendant’s motionfor judgmen t of acqu ittal. We a

lso conclude that a proper chain of evidence was established for the recovered property in this case

and thus that the trial cou rt did no t abu se itsdiscr etion by admit ting the prope

rty into e vide nce. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

R OBERT W. W EDEMEYER , J., deliver ed the opinion of the

court, in which G ARY R. W ADE , P.J., and N ORMA M C G EE O GLE , J., joined.
Kurt O. Kosack, Brentwood, Tennessee , for the appellant, Michael E. Bikrev.

Paul G. S um mer s, A tt orn ey Gen era l an d R epo rte r; J enn ife r L. Bledsoe , Assistan t Attorne y General ; Victor S. Johnson, III , District Attorney Gene ral; and Jason W. Lawless, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Te nnessee.
OPINION

In November 2000, the Davidson County G rand Jury indicted the Def endant, Michael E. Bikrev, wi th bu rg la ry. Followin g a tria l, a David son County

jury found the De

fendant guilty

of the crime charged. The trial court sentenc ed him to three y ears’ incarc eration and ordered that the sentence be served concurrently with a sentence for

a Williamson County conviction. In this appe al
as of right, the Defendant arg

ues (1) that the trial court erred by denying his motion forjudgment of
a cquittal and (2) t

hat the Sta

te did not e stablish a

proper c hain of custody

concer ning th e stole n propert y in this case . Having

reviewed the rec ord, we a ffirm the judgmen t of the tr ial cour t.-2-

The following evide nce wa s presented at the trial in this case: Darcy Elizabeth Rowe testified that she was the manager of a Nashville are a Stor-N-Lok facility located in B ellevue. She reported that in Ju ly 2 00 0, Ba rb ar a a nd Br yan Ma is li n, wh o w er e r en ti ng a s to ra ge un it at th e f ac il it y, reported a burglary

to her. Rowe stated that

she called

the police to report the burglary , repaired the door to the Maislins’ unit, and printed out “activity logs”to determine when the Maislins had last entered their unit . Rowe tes tified tha t su rveillance tapes recorded by cameras on the Stor-N-L ok property showe d “people walking into the facility and . . . a camera being

moved toward the sky.” She explained that the people captured on the tapes were Bry an Maislin accompanied by a male and
a female. The surveillance tapes wer e shown to the jury. Rowe also re ported that a photograph was obtained from the surveillance video which showed a hand pushing the surveillance camera up, and she stated a distinctive ring could be seen on the hand. She testified that the hand moved the camer a on Friday even ing, one minute and fifty-se ven seconds after the people seen on the video e ntered the storage facility

. On cross-examination, Rowe testified that a sectionof the security g ates around the Stor-NLok was down at the time of the burglary because of nearby

construction. She stated tha t the temporary

opening in the gates was g enerally bl ocked wi th construction equipment, that the area aroundthe opening was muddy , and that vehicl es could not pass through the opening. However, Rowe s tated that i t was p ossi ble fo r a pers on to walk t hrough the op ening. Officer Ry an Lockwood

of the Nashville Metropolitan Police Department testified that on July 30, 2000, he responded to a burglary scene at a storage facility

in Nashville. Lockwood reported that he spent approximately an hour with the Maislins, w

ho perfo rmed a vi sual inve

ntory of the ite ms taken fr o m their storage unit. He also stated that he believed that the lock ha d been broken off of the door to the unit. Brya n Maislin testified that he and his wife owneda home-based computer business which they operated from the Stor-N-L ok facility in Be

llevue. He statedthat shortly before the burglary in this case , he had p laced a n ad in th e ne wspaper to sell a used computer, and the Defe ndant and his wife, Myra

Bikrev, responded to the ad. Maislin testified that he set up an appointment with the Defendant

and the Defendant’s wi fe to see the computer at the storage fa cility on Friday , July 28, 2000. He recalled that when the Defe ndant and his wife arrived at the storage facility , another customer arrive d shortly

thereafter, and the Defenda nt and his wife elected that the Maislins serve the other customer first so that they could “look ar ound.” Maislin stated that while he showed the computer to the other customer, he saw the Defendant and his wife pass by and proceed to the rear of the facility.

Maislin testified that after the other customer left, the Defendant and his wife r eturned, and he showed them

the computer, which he described as “an olde r model”Dell computer with a Dell monitor, a new key

boardand a mouse. He recalled that the Defendant indicated that the c omputer was for his wi fe to use

for business purposes and that the Defendant told him that he and his wife lived in Franklin. Maislin stated that after viewing the computer, the De fendant and his wife decided to buy it and asked if he w ould accept less thanthe asking price of $300. Maislin reported that he-3-

agreed to accept $275, and

the Defendant and his wife handed Maislin three one-hun dred doll ar bills. Maislin stated that although heattempted to write a receipt for the purchas e, the De

fendant and his wife were “ extremely

relucta nt” to sha re any persona l informa tion, such as their add ress and

last name, and told him that they did not need a receipt. He told the couple that if the Defenda nt’s wife plannedto use the computer for business, she would need a rece ipt for tax purposes, butthe couple still refused to accept a rece ipt. Maislin stated that they also ref used to accept the change due f rom their pa yme nt. He re ported th at after

the sale , he tran sported t

he comput

er to their car, closed and locked hi s rental u

nit, and le ft.

Maislin testified that after the sale, the Defendant and his wife called more than once about
a problemthey were

having with the computer monitor that they had purchased from the

Maislins. He stated that the Defendant first called on the evening of the sale. He t estified that when the Defendant

called, he told the

Defend ant that h

is wife wo

uld be “be st suited to

answer his questio ns” and asked if

she could

return th e call, but the Def

endant to ld Maislin t

hat he would call

back. The following day , the Def

endant c alled ag ain with the same qu estio n, but B arbara Maislin was not availab le to answer

his question. Maislin ag ain aske d the Def endant if his wife c ould retu

rn the ca ll, butthe Defendant

declined to give Maislin his phone number. Although the Defend ant told Ma

islin that he would call back, he did not initially do so.

Maislin te stified t hat on the Sunday eve ning following the sale of the computer to the Defendant

and his wife, the Maislins discoveredthat their storage unit had been broken into. They contacted the police and reviewed surveillance tape s at the storage facility . Maislin testified that while watching thetapes , his wife n otice d “a sp ecifi c ring” on the hand which pu shed the s ecurity camera up, and when he watche d the tapes, he recalled seeing the ring on the Defendant’s hand.

Maislin stated that aft er he noticed the ring, he rec eived another call from the Defenda nt regarding the same computer problem. Maislin stated that he f elt that the D efenda

nt was ca lling “to find out . . . if [Maislin] kn[e]w anything,” but he did not mention the burglary to the Defendant on the phone. I

nstead, M aislin and

his fami ly dr ove to Franklin, and while there, he called the Defendant

at home, using the number he had retrieved f rom his caller ID. He told the Defendant that he and his family we

re in Franklin to seea movie a nd that the

y w ished tostop by the Defe ndant’s hometo correct the computer problem. The Defe ndant initially did not wa

nt the Mais lins to come to his house, telling M ais lin “n ot even hi s mother k new whe re he liv ed,” but h

e then tol d Maislin that he needed

to speak to his wife, who was not home. However, Maislin stated that he hea rd the Defendant

put the phone down and that he next heard the Defendant speaking to his wife. The Defendant then agree d that the Maislins could come to his home.

Maislin testified that when he arrived at the Defenda nt’s home, the De fendant, w ho was waiting in the driveway, dir ected him regarding whe

re to park. Bry an and Barbara Maislin then got outof their van, leaving their children inside, and conve rsedwiththe Defendant for a while so as not to appear suspiciou s. Maislin

recalled that when he entered the D efendant’s home, all of the rooms
were closed off

except one room, where the computer he and his wife had sold the Defendant was setting “on a newspaper over . . . to the side.” Maislin also noticed “a ve ry elab orate” computer-4-

system nearby . Mais lin testified that when they turned on the computer that he had sold the Defend ant, the monitor screen was black, and Bar bara Maislin suggested that they use the monitor from the other computer to determine what was wrong with the monitor. Maislin stated that as the Defendant

switched the monitors, Maislin noticed a box of speakers in an adjacent room that was identical to abox that had been taken from his storage unit. He stated that the box was emblazoned witha distinct

ive logo , and he e

xplained th at the spe akers in the box were not “normally in the general circul ation ” becau se the y were disc onti nued; he repo rted t hat he had bo ugh t the boxes o f speakers from a liquidator. Maislin testified that when the Defendant saw him looking into the adjacent room, the

Defend ant “ quickly . . . grabbed the monitor and ushered [Maislin] out of the area.” He stated that they the n hooked up the other monitor, and when the computer was turned on,
a screen saver in a different lang uage came on the monitor. Maislin recal led tha t the Defendant quickly deleted the sc

reen saver, as if he did not want the Maislins to see it.

Maislin stated that while they

were working on the

computer, his children came to the door and asked if they c ould look at the Defendant’s pool behind the house, and the Defendant told them that they could. Howe

ver, according to Maislin, the Defenda nt’s wife became very

agitated and
nervous at this point and told them that there were “bad dogs in the back.” Maislin told his children to get bac k into the v an. Maislin stated that he then noticed the Defendant’s ring , which was identical to the one in the video. He testified that the Defendant’s wife sa w him staring at

the ring and be ca me “v er y, very ner vous and tense.” Maislin stated that he and his wife then left, and as they
were leaving, his wife mentioned that their storage unit had been “broken into.” Maislin t estified that they also chec

ked for dogs as they

left, but never saw any

dogs in or around the home and never heard d ogs bar king.

Maislin testified that the Defendant later called the Maislins once or twic e to find out “how the police investigation was going.” He stated that the Defenda

nt did not men tion the computer monitoragain. Maislin re ported th at the De

fendant next calle d him, appa

rently after the police had visited the Defendant ’s home, to find out “ what [Mais lin’s] prob lem was w ith him.” Ma islin testified that

before he hung up on the D efenda

nt, he told the Defendant, “I know what you g

uys did.

. . . I don’t want y

ou calling here. I

have nothing further to say to you. The police ar

e handling it.” Maislin reported that the Defendant

then called back three more times, and eac h time, they eng aged in basically the same

conversation, wh ich beca me more “ heated” during e ach subse

quent ca ll. Maislin told the Defendant each time not to call back. Maislin stated that he got

the impression that the Defendant

kept calling to intimidate Maislin, and Maislin testified that the Defendant never deniedbeing involved in the burglary during the calls. Maislin also testified that during one of the calls, the Defe

ndant’s wife got

on anothe

r phone e xtension an d told

Maislin that she knew where he lived. He stated that she also told him, “The police were out here. The y . . . couldn’t find

a turd in
an ou th ou se . T he y d idn’ t find your sh_t. You never will either.” Maislin testified that the Defendant

then told his wif

e to “shut up.” Mais lin testifi ed that a fter the third ca ll, the Defendant again attempted to call back, but Maislin did not answer the phone.

Maislin reported that in mid-October, he received a phone call from a detective, who indicated that the police had found the stolen computers. He and his wife went to the Williamson-5-

County Sheriff’s Department, where they identified the stolen items. He stated that he was able to identify the recovered

items as items taken from his storage unit because they were identical to the stolen equipment, because many of the recovered items were still marked with stickers that he and his wife had placed on them, and because e xtra memory that had b een added t o some of the equipment was marked “Barb’s Computer Works” with indelible ink.

Maislin reported that he and

his wife had estimated that a total of nineor ten computers, three printers, five sets of speakers, four subwoofer s, and five monitors had been stolen. He also stated that o ther smal ler items were ta ken, suc h as mice , key

boards, a nd elect rical wi ring. Ma

islin estimated that the wholesale cost of the stolen items was $3,474.65 and that the retail value of the equipment

was $7,17 1.00. He t

estified that only some of the stolen equipment was recovered and that all of the recovered equipment was damag ed. He e stimated tha t the value of the recovered equipment was approximately $1,370.00.
On cross-examination, Maislin testified that after heand his wife identified the equipment recovered by the police, the police

asked him

to take the equipment home to “dry [it] out.” He stated that they did so becau se th e police did not have the proper facilities to store the equipment. The police told the Maislins that if the y no ti ced any thing “significant” with rega rd to the computer equipmen t, they should contact the police . Maislin reported that the equipmen t was in his possession for approximately a twenty-four hour period before he re turned it to the police. He statedthat he and his wife returned the equipment to the police because once they were able to dry

out the equipmen

t, he and his wife noticed “information” on the computers and c alled the police.

Detective Tommy Jarrell of the Nashville Metropolitan Police Department testified that he workedin the Prop erty

CrimeSection and stated that he investigated the burglar y in this case. He reported that in August 2000, he accompanied other detectiv es to William son County to talk to the Defendant

and his wife, who were suspects. Jarrell recalled tha twhen they a

rrived at the residence of the Defendant and his wife, they knocked on the door several times, but no one answered the door. However, he sta

ted th at he

saw “ [s]ome one r

aise [] a blind up” on a window next to the door, look out, and close the blind. Jarrell testified that he and the other de tectiv es left and returned approxima

tely thirty minutes la

ter to knock again. On this occasion, the Defenda nt’s wife opened the door.

Jarrell stated that

the detectives explained why the y were there, a nd the Defendant ’s wife t

old themthat her husband was in the shower. When asked where she had beenwhen they ha d knocked pr ev io us ly, the Defendant’s wife told the detectives that “they were out picking blackberries. . . . up on the hill

. . . out in front of the house.” The Defendant soon emerg ed, and the detectives walked outside to speak with him. When asked where he had been ear lier, the Defendant

responded that

he
was “out walking around the property and his wife was at home.” When aske d if they had been picking blackberries, the Defe ndant responded that they had not. Upon questioning, both the Defend ant an d his wife d enied knowl edge of th e s to le n p ro pe rt y, and th ey t old the detect ives that they wer e “welcome to look around.” After the couple signed a-6-

consent to search form, the detectives looked through pa rt of the house. Jarrell testifiedthat some of the rooms in the home hadlocks on them, and the Defendant and his wife told the detectives that other people li ved in the

rooms and that they did not have ac cess to the rooms. T he detectives did not find any of the stolen prope rty in the part of the house to which they had a

ccess.
Detective William B. Cothran of the Na shville Metropolitan Police Department testified that he was assigned to the Criminal Investig ation Division in the Property Crimes Section. He state d that he invest igated the burg lary

in this case. He stated that he visited the Bellevue Stor-N-L ok, where the crime occurred, and viewed the surveillance tapes, noticing a distinctive ring on the hand that moved the surveillance camera. He state d that he met with the Maislins on August 1, 2000, at his office. The Maislins told him that they had been to the Defendant’s residence, whe re they sa w items that appeared to have been taken fr om their storage unit.

Cothran state d that on th e foll owing m ornin g, he an d other detectives went to the Defendant’s residence. He te st if

ie d t ha t t he y k n ocked on

the door o f the home

for appr oximately ten minute s. He recalled seeing one of

the blinds on a nearby

window “raise[] up and drop[] real quick.” Cothran stated that they

then knocked again and announce d themselves as police officers, but there was no response. He reported that he and the other detectives next drove to apark near the home and waited there for approximately thirty minutes while watching the house. He explained that they wanted to see if any one tried to leave. He stated, “We knew somebody

was in the

house; the

y ju st wouldn’t come to the door.”

Cothran testified that when they r eturned to the home and knoc ked, the D efendant’s wife answered the door within minutes. Cothran recalled that she told the detectives that her husband was in the shower and that

she and her husba

nd had be en on the h

ill near t heir home picking blackberries earlier that d ay. He me nt ioned to the Defendant’s wife that the ring she was wearing had been captured by t he surve illance c amera o n the Stor- N-Lo k proper ty, but the De

fendant ’s wif

e den ied moving the camera. Cothran testified that the Defenda nt then wa lked o utside to speak to the detectives and to ld th em tha t prio r to ta king a shower, he had been walking on his p roperty , but his wife was at home. When told that one of the blinds had been ra ised, the Defendant said, “Well, I have a cat tha

t does tha t sometime s, ” although Cothran testified that he did not recall seeing a cat at the Defendant’s home.

Cothran stated that he also asked the Defendant about moving the surveillance camera at the Store-N-Lok

facility, and the De

fendant told Cothran, “I was just g oofing off. I jumped up and pushed the came

ra up.” C othran te stified that he challenged this assertion, pointing out that the
surv eillance camera was positioned twelve to fifteen fee t off of the ground, and the Defendan t responded, “I p la yed

athletics in high school.” Cothran testified that on a later occasion whe n he askedthe Defendant about moving the came

ra, the D efenda

nt stated t hat he ha d climbed a concr ete pole to reach the camera and de nied having said that he jumped up to reach the ca mera.
Cothran testified that he asked to loo k around the Defendant’s home, and the Def endant signed a consen t to searc h form. Pr

ior to conducting the search, Cothran told the Defendant’s wife-7-

that the Defendant had claimed that they had not bee

n together when the detectives had visited the homethirty minutes earlier, but the Defendant’s wife mer ely reiter ated that they ha

d been picking blackbe rries. Cothran reported that the detectives performed a cursory se arch of the home, but did notfind any

thin g matchin g the description of the property stolen from the victims. However, he stated that he did notice that the Defendant and his wife were we aring rings which matched the ring seen on the surveillance video.

Cothran testified that on Oc tober 10, 2000, he w as notified that some computer equipment had been recovered not

far from the Defendant’s home. He de termined through serial numbers that the computers were those stolen from the Maislins and contacted the Maislins. He stated that because of limited storage spa ce a t the Williamson County Sheriff’s Department and bec ause the computer equipmen

t was damp , law enf

orceme nt person nel rele ased the

equipmen

t to the Maislins
so that the Maislins could repair the equipment. On the following aft ernoon, Cothran r

eceive d a call from Brya n Maislin, who reported

that he a nd his wife

had foun d some

evidenc e on the c omputers

. T he Maislins then returned to Cothran’s office, where the detectives retrieved several items of evidence from

the computers, including a fax cover sheet containing the Defendant’s wife’s name, address , and phone number. Cothran stated that the detectives then obtained warrants and presented the case to the grand jury

. Barbara Maislin testified that she and her husband had rented a storage unit that was burglarized in July 2000. She stated that when she and her husband discovered the burg lary, they first attempted to contact the storage facility management

and then called the police. She reported that the polic e responded to the scene, w here the y to ok photog

raphs and dusted f

or fing erprints

. Barbara Maislin testified thatshe and her husband initially e stimated for the police how many items
were missing and later discovered that at least one more item than i niti ally sus pected was mi ssin g.
Barbara Maislin further testified that she and the manager of the storag e facility noticed a “trail o f foot prints that led out . . . onto the parking lot” on the rear side of the prope rty where the fence was down. She described one set of the prints as medium-sized tennis shoe prints, another as
a very small set of tennis shoe pr ints, and the third set as larger bo ot prints. She stated that the people who had created the footprints had made “m ult iple pass es” to and from the storag e unit. When she and the manager followed the footprints, they noticed that a surveillance camera on the premises had been moved. Barbara Ma islin and the manager therefore vie w ed the surve

illance t apes. She stated that they slowed the ta pes down “frame-by -frame” and saw a hand pushing the camera up approximately two minutes after the Defendant and his wife entered the stora ge facility . She reported that when she went to the Defendant’s home with her husband, she saw the Defendant and his wife wearing rings which matc hed a ring seen on the video.

Barbara Maislin testified that she and her

husband were later contacted by Detective Ricky Hagan, who told them that the police had recove red some of their stolen property

. She stated that they went to Ha

gan’s o ffice, where th

ey saw par t of the mis sing com

puter eq uipment, w

hich th e y were able to identify by

sight, by stickers the

y had placed on the equipment, by marks showing her company’sname whic

h they had plac ed on par

ts of the co mputers’ memory , and by serial nu mbers.1 The record reveals that the Defendant is Ukranian.
-8- She stated tha

t the polic e allowe d them to ta ke the eq uipme nt, which

was w et, home so that they could dry out the equipment. Barbara Maislin stated that at home, she allowed the equipment to dry for approximately twenty -four hours and then booted up the computers. When she did, she found
new files and screen s avers that had been created; the na mes “Mishoon,” “Mishka,” and My ra; “[t] hings call ed L

ubof . . . , [ and] Nef sata”; and other items that “weren’t in a lang uage [she] understood.” 1 She stated that a total of twenty-eight new file s had bee n added to

the compu

ters’ memory during July and Aug

ust 2000, while the com puters were not in the Maislins’ possession. She reported that

one of the computers, from which the serial number had been r emoved, contained
a file which included

a fax cover sheet that listed information pertaining to the Defe ndant’s wife. In addition, Barbara Maislin stated that the keyboar

d which she had sold the Defendant and his wife was recovered with the stolen items. Johnny Tally, an employ

ee of Bridgestone and

a minister, testified that during October 2000, he lived at

3610 Nort

h Chapel Road in Franklin, Tennessee. He stated that on Octobe r 7, 2000, he
was “bush-hogging [his] property” when he noticed three cardboard boxes at the edge of his fenc e line at the very bac

k of his p ropert y. He stat ed tha t the b oxes had be en cov ered wi th garb age bags which were tightly

taped and that they

appeared to have

been there for some time. He explained that he had not seen them before because the a rea where he found them was over grown with weeds , grass, and blackbe

rry bushes. T ally

stated tha

t he opened one of th

e boxes and

noticed t hat i t containedcomputer

equipmen

t. He wen

t to his neig

hbor’s ho use to find out if the boxes belonged to his neighbor, but the neighbor did not claim the boxes. Tally then called the police. While he was waiting for the police to arrive, he noticed six more boxes at the ba ck of his property, a

ll of which
were se aled shut . When polic e offic ers arr ived, the y lo aded the

boxes into pa

trol car s. Deputy Tomeka Sa

nders of the Williams on County Sheriff’s Department testified that on October 7, 2000, she was dispatched to a “f ound-pro perty call” a t 3610 Nor

th Chapel Road. There, she met Johnny Tally , who showed her the boxes he had found on hi s p ro pe rt y. She stated that the cardboard boxes we re so ggy , wrapped in plastic, and taped with duct tape. She testified that she openeda box and saw computer equipment inside. She then loaded all of the boxes into her patrol
car and tran sported t

hem to Detective Ricky H agan at the Sheriff’s Depar tment. Sanders reported that she did n ot open an y ot her boxes b ecause

she had b een told t

hat a bur glary investig ati o n involving some computers was ongoing, and she did not wa nt to disturb any phy sical evidence.

Det ective Ri cky Hag an of the Williamson County Sheriff’s Depar tment testified that he participated

in the burglary

investigation in thi s case. He stated that on August 2, 2000, he accompanied

Detective Cothran to the Defendant’s residenc e, which was located on North Chapel Road in Franklin. He reported that he later rece ived word from Deputy

Sanders that she had located computer equipmen

t on North C hapel Roa

d, a little over a te nth of a mil e from the Defe ndant’ s dr iv ew ay, and he advised her to recover the items and mee t him at the Sheriff’ s Department. He stated that when she arrived, they secured the property

in a locked room.-9-

The following Monday , he opened some of the boxes containing computer equipment and noted that the equipment was “very wet, water-damaged.” He then contacted Detective Cothran and informedCothran th at they had loca ted compu

ter equi pment. Cothran inspecte d the equi pment, matchedsome of the seria l numbers to his rep orts of the missing it

ems, and conta

cted the victims. Hagan reported that after the equipment was inventoried, De tective Cothran and the victims signed for the property, a

nd the property w as turned over to the victims one or two day s after it had been placed in the locked room. He reported that the computer equipment wa s never activated before

it
was releas ed to the victims because the equipment was wet. Haga n stated that he to ld the vic tims to dry out the eq

uipment a nd bring it back so

that he c ould chec

k the computer fil e s for evidence. He testified that the victims returned the computers the following day

. Hagan testified that he had been trained reg arding computer forensic data analysis, and he stated that he had handled all of the computer crime and internet investigations for the Williamson County Sheriff’s Department for six y ears. When Hagan checked the computer files, he found the
name “Myra” listed on one of the files and the name “Mishka” on an oth er. He s tated tha t he also found a fax cover sheet containing the name and addressof the Defendant’s wife, which was c reated
on August 2, 2000, at 2:57 a.m. Hagan testified that the registry files for the computers he examined
were activated on July 30, 2000, and he reported

that the last date of activity on the computers was August 2, 2000, although he noted that the computers had been mere ly turned on on the day

prior to his investigation of

the computer files in October 2000. He explained that the computers had bee n booted up the previous day w hile in the possession of the Maislins. However, he stated no registry file changes had occurr

ed while the computers were in the Maislins’ possession.

On cross-exam ination, H agan explained that registry files, which are activated when a comp uter is first tur

ned on, c reate a log insid e the com puter sof tware th at shows w

hen file s a

r e activated. He stated that the internal computer clock is set by the factory

which man u factures the computer. He explained that the time on a registry file can be changed by

changing the clock. He stated that in order to change the t ime on th e regi stry

files, the hard dri ve must be

wiped cle an, it must be refo rmatted, and all f

iles must then be reloade d using th

e original fac tory

softwar e sold with the computer. He testified that this is called a “full restore,” and he stated that new c omputers are usually sold with full restore d i sk. However, he stated that the software for the stolen computer equipment

was never recovered, a

nd he rep orted that the Maislins could not have changed the information stored in the recovered computers beca use they did not have the pr oper software to do
so. I. JUDGMENT OF ACQUI TTAL

The Defendant first argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal. See ge

nerally Tenn. R . Cri m. P. 29. He contends that to transport the property from the Maislins’ storage unit to Franklin would have required more than one trip, and he argues that no evidence was presented to show that the Defendant transportedor could have transported the stolen property in more tha

n one trip.-10-

This Court has noted that “[i]n dealing with a motion for a judgment of acquittal, unlike a motion for

a new tri al, the tr

ial judg e is concerned only with the legal sufficiency of the evidence and not with the weight of the evidence.” State v. H all , 656 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983)

. The standard for reviewing the denial or grant of a motion for judgment of acquittal is analogous to the standard employe d when reviewing the sufficiency of the convicting evidence after a conviction has been imposed. See State v. B all , 973 S.W.2d 288, 292 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998 ); State v. Adams , 916 S.W.2d 47 1, 473 (Te nn. Crim. A

pp. 1995) . An appe

llate cou rt must app ly th

is same standard when reviewing the denial of a motion for

judgment of acquittal. Adams , 916 S.W.2d at 473.

When an accused challenges the sufficiency

of the evidence, an appellat e cou rt’s standard of review is whether, after considering the evidence in the lig

ht most fav orable

to the prosecution, any rational trie

r of fact could have

found the esse

ntial ele ments of th

e crime b ey ond a rea sonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13 (e); Jackson v. V irginia , 443 U.S. 30 7, 324 (19 79); State v. Duncan , 698 S .W.2d 63, 67 (Tenn. 1985). This rule applies to findings of guilt based upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both direct and cir cumstantial evidence. State v. Penderg rass , 13 S.W.3d 389, 392-93 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court should not re-weigh or re-eva luate the evidence. State v. Matthews , 805 S. W .2d 776, 77 9 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). No r may this Courtsubstitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact from the evidence. State v. Buggs , 995 S.W.2d 102, 1 05 (Tenn . 1999); Liak as v. State , 199 Tenn. 298, 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (1956). Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidenc e, as well
as all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact. Liakas , 286 S.W.2d at 859. This Court must afford the State of Tennessee the st ronge st legitimate view of the evidence containedin the record, as well as all reasonable inferences w hich may be dra

wn from the evidence. Statev. Evans , 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) . Because a verdict of g uilt against a defendant
removes the presumption of innocence and raises a presumption o f guilt, the convicted criminal defendant bears the burden of showing that the evidenc e was leg ally insuffic ient to sust

ain a gu ilty verdict. Id.

The Defendant was indicted for entering a “building other than a habitation or any portion thereof of Barb’s Computer Works, not open to the public, with the intent to c ommit a thef t” and withoutthe effective consent of the property owne

r. See Tenn . Code

Ann. § 39- 14-4 02(a

)(1) . We concl ude t hat leg ally

sufficie nt evidence was p

resente d at the De

fendant ’s trial to

support a conviction for burglary . The Maislins testified that when they

showed the computer to the Defendant and his wife at

their storage unit, the Defendant and his wife acted suspiciously, in part because they refused to reveal any

personal information for a receipt. Bry an Maislin also saw the Defendant and his wife looking around the storage f acility and

proceeding to the back of the fa cility, where

a gate was temporarily down. I n addition, he testified that after the sale of the computer, the De fendant calledsevera

l times, but

refuse d to leave a number for Barbara Maislin to return his ca ll. Bryan Maislin testified that

he bel ieved the Defendant was calling to de termine whether the Maislins “kn[e]w anything.”-11-

Further evidenc e was pr

esented indicating that when the D efenda nt went to t

h e Mais lins’ stora ge unit to view the computer that the Maislins wished to sell, he moved the surveillance camera at the storage facility

towards the sky, and, in fact, the Defendant himself admitted that he had done
so. Ba rb ar a M ai sl in te st if ie d t ha t a ft er th e b ur gl ar y, she noticed three sets of footprints leading from her storag e unit to a

portion of

the secu rity fence a round the sto rage f acility that was down at the time of the burglary , and she stated that the people who had made the prints ha d made “m

ultip le passes” from the storage unit to the fence

. Brya n Maislin testified that when he a nd his wife later visited the Defendant’s home, he noticed a box containing speakers which was identical to a box that had been taken from

his s torage unit, and he testified that the Defendant an d h is wi fe ag ai n a ct ed su sp ic io us ly. Sp ec if ic al ly, Brya

n Maislin described the Defendant’s wife a s “very, ve ry nervous a

nd tense.” He further testified that after he reported the Defendant’s and his wife ’s behavior to the police, the Defendant called several times and attempted to threaten him. He report ed that during one of these conversations, the Defendant’s wife stated, “[The police] didn’t find y our sh_t. You never will either.”

Lawenforcement officers, who went to the Def

endant’ s home to sp eak to the Defendant and his wife, testifiedthat a ltho ugh someone appeared to be home when they first knocked on the door,
no one answered the

door. They re

ported that the Defendant and his wife later provided conflicting
accoun ts of wher

e they were wh en the of ficers f irst knocked on the

ir door. O ne detective also testified that the Defendant provided conflict ing rep orts regarding how he ha d moved the surveillance camera on the storag e facility prope rty.
Fi na ll y, evidence was presented that a large amount of the stolen items were recovered from
a location very

near the Defendant’s home. Personal information concerning the Def endant’s wife was retrieved from a computer, and information in a language other than English was noted in the computer files. Detective Hagan

testifie d that the

last activity on the rec overed computer equipment occurred on August 2, 2000, while the computers were not in the Maislins’ possession. He further testified that the Ma

islins coul d not have changed the computer files during the brief time that they took the rec overed e

quip ment home beca us e t he y di d n ot ha ve th e s of tw ar e t o d o s o. Fi na ll y, Barb ara Maislin testified that the keyboard w hich she had sold the Defendant and his wife w a s among the rec overed c omputer equipment. Becau se we co nclu de that this evide nce is le gally sufficient to support the jury ’s c onclusion that the D efenda

nt enter ed the Ma

islins’ sto rage u nit withouttheir co nsent and withthe inten

t to commit

a theft, we conclude that the trial court did not err by deny ing the D efenda

nt’s motion

for judgment of a

cquittal.

II . CHAIN OF CUSTODY

The Defendant next argues that the State failed to establish an unbroke n chain of c ustody withregard

to the recovered computer equipment. He conte nds that the chain of custody w as broken when the Williams on County Sheriff ’s Depa rtment all owed the vi ctims to take the recovered propert y home overnight. “As required by Rule of Evidenc e 901(a) , it is ‘well-established that as
a condition precedent

to the intr

oduction o f tangi

ble evide nce, a w itness must be able to identify the-12-

evidence or establish an unbroken chain of cus tody.’ ” State v. Sc ott , 33 S.W.3d 746, 760 (Tenn. 2000) (quot ing State v. Holbrooks , 983 S.W.2d 697, 7 01 (Tenn . Crim. App. 1998)). The requirement

of proving an unbroken chain of custody is to demo nstrate that there has been no tampe ring, loss, substitution, or mistake regarding the evidence. Statev. Braden , 867 S.W.2d 750, 759 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “The identity of tangible evidence

. . . need not be proven beyond all possibility

of a rea sonable

doubt, an d the State

is not req uired to e stablish

facts which exclude every possibility

of tampering.” Scott , 33 S.W.3d at 760 (citations omitted). Moreover, the State’s failure to call all witnesses who handled the evidence does not necessarily pr

eclude the introduction of the evidence. State v. John Way ne Gray , No. M1999-01615-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 585, at *13 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, July 28, 2 000) ( citi ng Braden , 867 S.W.2d at 758-59; State v. Holloman , 835 S.W.2d 42, 46-47 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992); State v. Johnson , 673 S.W.2d 877, 88 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982)). Instead, e vidence may

be admitted “when the circumstances surround ing the evide nce rea sonably

establish the ident ity o f the evi dence a

nd its integrity.” Scott , 33 S.W.3d at 760. Thus, the prerequisite for admission of evide nce is re asonable assurance, rather than absolute assurance. State v. Leon Hurd , No

. E1999-01341-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 262, at *49 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Apr. 10, 2001). Whether the chain of

custody is suffic iently

establish ed to justif

y itsadmission i s a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the trial court’s determination in this regard will not be overturned absent a clearly

mistaken exercise of that discretion. State v. Beech , 744 S.W.2d 585, 587 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987); Ritter v. St ate , 462 S.W.2d 247, 249 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970).

In this case, Johnny Tally testified that

he found the stolen computer equipment, which was boxed andsealed, on his property and c alled the police. Deputy Tomeka Sanders of the Williamson County Sh eriff’s Department responded to the ca ll and transported the boxes of computer equipment , most of which were unopened, to the Sheriff’s Depar tment. Detective Ricky Ha gan testified that he helpedDe pu ty Sanders secure the property in a locked room at the Sheriff’s Department. Hag an t estifie d that he then contacted Detective William B. Cothran, who inspected the c omputer equipmen t, matc hed some of the seria l numbers on the com

puters to his repor ts of missin g items, and contacted the victims. Th e victims were able to identify the recovered equipment by sight, by serial number, and by sticke rs and marks which

they had plac ed on parts of the equipment. Hagan reported that Detective Cothran and the victims signed for the proper ty, and the proper

ty, which was wet, was released to the victims so that the victims could dry it out.

The Maislins testified that they transported the

computer equipment home, dried it out, and noticed evidenc e in the c omputer f iles. Sp ec if

ic al ly, Ba rb ar a M ai sl in te st if ie d t ha t s he fo un d t we nt yeight new computer file s that had been cr eated while the c omputers were no t in the Mai sl ins ’ possession and a fax cover sheet containing information re garding the Defenda nt’s wife. B rya n Maislin testified that approximately twenty-four hours after he and his wife received the computer equipment

from the Wi lliamson County Sheriff ’s Depa rtment, th

ey returne d the equi

p ment to Detective Cothran. Detective Cothran ve rified t hat he received t he equipm

ent from t he Maislin s, and Detect ive Ha gan veri fied t hat th e Mais lins retur ned th e equi pment on th e day foll owing i t s release. Nothing in the record sugge sts that the eq uipmen t was removed from the custody of the-13-

Williamson County

Sheriff’s Department between the time the Maislins returned the equipment and the time of trial. Detective Hagan testified that he c hecked the computer files and noted the fax cover sheet and file names initially found by Barbara Maislin. He also testified that aside from anindication that the computers had been merely activated on the day

prior to h is analysis of the files, while the computer s were in

the Maislins’ posse ssion, the last date of a ctivity on the com

puters wa s August 2, 2000.

We conclude

that the Sta

te established a sufficient chain of custody of the recovered stolen propert y to ju st if y it s a dm is si on in to ev id en ce . It pr es en te d t es ti mo ny b y eac h witness who had possession of the pr

operty from the t

ime of its r

ecover y un til the time of

trial. Alt hough the victims possessed the rec overed p roperty for appr oximately twent y-four hour s, there is no indication of tampe ring, loss, substitution, or mistake regarding the re co ve re d p ro pe rt y. See Braden , 867 S.W.2d at 759. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not err by allowing the

property into evidenc e. Accordingly , we AFFI

RM the judgment of the trial court.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE