# FIL ED Nov . 19, 1996 Cec il Crowson , Jr . A ppell ate Court Clerk I N THE COURT OF CRI M I NA L A PPEA LS OF TE NNESSEE A T J A CK S ON SE PT EM B ER SE SS I O N , 1996 ST A TE O F TE N N ES SE E, ) C . C . A . N O . 02C01- 9510- C R - 00316 ) Appel l ee, ) ) ) SH ELB Y CO UN TY V S . ) ) HO N. CH RI S CR A FT W I L L I E H. J OHNS ON, ) J UD GE ) A p p e ll a n t. ) (B u rg l a ry)

ON A PP EA L F ROM T HE J UDGM EN T OF T HE CR I M I NA L CO UR T OF SH ELB Y CO UN TY FOR THE APPEL L ANT: FOR THE APPEL L EE: A
. C
. W HA RT ON CH A RL E S W
. B UR S ON Publ i c Defender At t or neyG ener al W AL KER GW I NN CY RI L V. F RASER Assi st antPubl i c Defender Assi st antAt t or neyG ener al 201 Popl arSui t e 2- 01 450 J am es R obert son Par kway M em phi s, T N 38103 N ashv i l l e, T N 37243- 0493 J OHN W
. P I ER OTTI D i st r i ctAt t or neyG ener al T E R R E L L H A R R IS Assi st antD i st r i ctAt t or neyG ener al T hi r d Fl oor , C r i m i nal Ju st i ce C om pl ex 201 Popl ar M em phi s, T N 38103
O PI N I O N FI LED ________________________ AFF I RMED DA V I D H. W E L L E S , J UD GE-2- 

# OP IN ION

T hi s i s a n appeal as of r i ghtpursuantt o R ul e 3 o f t he T ennes see R ul es of Appel l at e Pr ocedu r e. A Shel byC o u n t yj uryfound t he Defendantgui l tyof burgl ary . The t r i al j udge found t he Defendantt o b e a c a ree rof fenderand s e n te n c e d h im to tw e lve y e a rs in t h e D e p a rt m e n t o f C o rr e c tio n . In th is a p p e a l, he argues t hatt he ev i dence pr esent ed att r i al was i nsuf f i ci entt o s upportt he j ury ’ s f i n d i n g o f g u i l t b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t
. W e d i s a g r e e a n d a f f i r m t he ju d g m e n t o f t h e tri a l c o u rt.
W hen an acc used chal l enges t he s u ff i ci encyof t he c onv i ct i ng ev i dence , th e s ta n d a rd is w h e th e r, a fte r re v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le t o t he prosec ut i on, anyr at i onal t r i erof factco ul d h a ve fo und t he es sent i al e l e m e n t s o f

t h e c r i m e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t
. J a c k s o n v . Vi r g i n i a , 4 4 3 U. S. 307, 319 (19 7 9 )
. Q uest i ons conc er ni ng t he c r edi bi l i tyof t he wi t ness es, t he wei ghtand v al ue t o be gi v en t he ev i dence , as wel l as al l fact ual i ss ues r ai sed by t he ev i dence , ar e r esol v ed byt he t r i erof fact , not t hi s c ourt
. St at e v . Pappas, 754 S .W .2d 6 2 0 , 6 2 3 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p .) , p e rm . t o a p p e a l d e n i e d , i d
. (T e n n . 1 9 8 7 ). N orm ayt hi s c ourtr ewei gh orr eev al uat e t he ev i dence
. St at e v . C abbage, 571 S .W .2 d 8 3 2 , 8 3 5 (T e n n . 1 9 7 8 ). A j uryv er di ctapprov ed byt he t r i al j udge ac cr edi t s t he St at e’ s wi t ness es and resol v es al l co nf l i ct s i n fav orof t he St at e. St at e v . G r ace, 493 S. W
. 2d 474, 4 7 6 (T e n n . 1 9 7 3 ). O n a p p e a l, th e S ta te i s e n ti tle d to th e s tro n g e s t l e g it im a te v i ew of t he ev i dence and al l i nfer ences t her ef r om . C abbage, 571 S. W
. 2d at835.-3-

Because a v er di ctof

gui l tr em ov es t he pr esum pt i on of i nnoce nce and repl aces i twi t h a p r esum pt i on of gui l t , t he ac cus ed has t h e b u rde n i n t hi s c ourtof i l l ust r at i ng whyt he ev i dence i s i nsuf f i ci entt o s upportt he v er di ct r et ur ned byt he t r i erof fact
. St at e v. T uggl e, 639 S. W
. 2d 913, 914 ( T enn. 1982) ; G r ace, 493 S. W
. 2d at476.
W e wi l l br i ef l ysu m m ar i ze t he ev i dence pr esent ed on behal f of t he St at e. Ear l yone Sunday m o rni n g t he pol i ce r espon ded t o a b urgl aral ar m whi ch had bee n act i v at ed a ta b usi ness l ocat ed o n R i v er si de D r i v e i n do wn t ow n M em phi s, T ennes see. The f i rstof f i cert o ar r i v e att he bui l di ng obs erv ed t hata wi ndow had been broken out
. The of f i cerl ooked i nt o t he bui l di ng t hrough a n o t h erwi ndow and s aw t he D efendant i nsi de. T he of f i cer i dent i f i ed hi m sel f as a po l i cem an and t he D e fe n d a n tr an t owar d t he bac k o f t he bui l di ng. The of f i cerr adi oed for ass i st ance and ot her of f i cers r espon ded. T hey sec ur ed t he bui l di ng and one of t he owners o f

t he bui l di ng ar r i v ed and unl ock ed t he door
. An of f i cerent er ed t he b u ild in g a n d , w ith th e a s s is ta n c e o f a p o lic e d o g , lo c a te d th e D e fe n d a n t h id in g in a c lo s e t. A lth o u g h th e D e fe n d a n t s tr u g g le d w ith th e o ffic e r, th e o ffic e r w a s a g a in a s s iste d b y th e d o g a n d th e D e fe n d a n t w a s r e s tra in e d a n d p la c e d u n d e r a rre s t. T he ownerof

t he bus i ness t est i f i ed t hat num erous i t em s had been rem ov ed f r om th e ir u s u a l lo c a ti o n in th e b u il d in g a n d h a d b e e n s ta c k e d u p in s u c h a fa s h io n to i ndi cat e t hatt heywer e goi ng t o be r em ov ed f r om t he bui l di ng. Phot ogr aphs of t hese i t em s a nd phot ogr aphs of t he broken wi ndow were i nt r oduce d as ev i dence
. T hr ee pol i ce of

f i cers i dent i f i ed t h e D efendantas t he person t heyapprehended in th e b u rg la riz e d b u il d in g th a t m o rn in g .-4- Faced wi t h t hi s r at herov erwhel m i ng ev i dence , t he Defendantt est i f i ed t hat he was wal ki ng al ong t he s t r eett hatm or ni ng when two pol i ce of f i cers i n a pat r ol carpul l ed up and as ked hi m i f he knew any t hi ng abou ta bu r gl ary . He sai d t hat h e to ld th e p o lic e m e n th a t h e d id n o t a n d th a t th e y th e n p u lle d th e ir g u n s o n h im a n d fo rc e d h im , a t g u n p o in t, to c lim b th ro u g h t h e b r o k e n w in d o w to fin d h is

“ part ner ” and t o persuade hi s “ part ner ” t o com e out of t he bui l di ng. He sai d t hat short l yaft erhe e nt er ed t he bui l di ng t he pol i ce cam e t hrough t he door , handc uf fed h im , a n d th a t a p o lic e m a n th e n “s ic s th e d o g o n m e a n d trie s t o m a k e m e s a id th a t I b u rg la riz e d th is b u ild in g w ith m yp a rt n e r a n d a ll th is .” H e s a id th a t th e o n ly r eason he e nt er ed t he bui l di ng was becau se t he of f i cers for ced hi m t o do so at g u n p o in t.
T he Defendantargues t hat“ no rat i onal t r i erof factco ul d hav e found t he D e fe n d a n t’s c o n te n tio n s s o u n fo u n d e d in th is re c o rd o r s o u n re a s o n a b le th a t it c o u l d h a ve fo u n d h i m g u i l ty o f b u rg l a ry be yo n d a rea s o n a b l e d o u b t.” W e re s p e c tfu lly r eje c tt h is a r g u m e n t. W e b e lie v e th a t a ra tio n a l trie r o f fa c t c o u ld hav e c r edi t ed t he t est i m onyof t he pol i ce of

f i cers and di sc r edi t ed t he t est i m ony of t he Defendant
. Thi s i s o bv i ousl ywhatt he j urydi d.
W e c oncl ude t hatt he ev i dence i s s uf f i ci entt o s upportthe fi n di ng byt he t r i erof factof gui l tbey ond a r eason abl e doubt
. T h e refo re, thi s a ppeal has no m er i t
. The j udgm entof t he t r i al co urti s a f

f i r m ed.

____________________________________ DA V I D H. W E L L E S , J UD GE CONCUR:-5-

___________________________________ J OE B
. J ON E S , P RE S I DI NG J UD GE

___________________________________ J E RR Y L
. S MI TH , J UD GE