# FILED
January 12, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE MAY 1997 SE SSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee, ) No. 03C01-9610-CR-00387

) ) Hawkins County v. ) ) Honorable ) WILLIAM JAMES LOGAN, ) (Possession of cocaine with intent to ) sell and tamper ing with evidenc

e) Appellant. ) For the Appellant : For the Appellee : Heiskell Winstead John Knox Walkup 205 Highway 66 South Attorney General of Tennessee Rogersville, TN 37

857 and

Peter M. Coughlan Assistant Attorney Gener al of Tennessee 450 James Robertson Parkwa y Nashville, TN 37243-0493 C. Berkeley Bell, Jr. District Attorney General 113J W. Church Street Greeneville, TN 37743 and Douglas Godbee Assistant District A

ttorney General Hawkins County Courthouse Rogersville, TN 37

857

OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED Joseph M. Tipton Judge2 O P I N I O N

The defendant, W illiam James Logan, appeals as of right from his convictions by a jury in the Criminal Court for Hawkins County for possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell and tampering with evidence, both Class C feloni es. As a Ran ge I, stan dard off ender, t he defe ndant re ceived con current s ixyear sentences. He contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. We affirm the judgment of the tria l court.

Detective Dan Quille n of the Kingsport Police D epartment testified that he and four other officers executed a s earch warrant on the defendant’ s residence at around 8:00 a.m. on April 12, 1996. He said that officers knocked on the back door of the home and that for over a minute, there was no answer. He said that eventually he heard a m an and a wo man’s voic e from in side the h ouse yell, “just a min ute.” Det ective Quillen said that a woman a nswered the door and that Ser geant Anderson announced that the officers were from the pol ice department and had a search w arrant.

Detective Quillen sai d that officers found the defendant sitting on a toilet in a bathroom. The officers asked the defendant to get off of the toilet, and the defendant refused and told them to let him fini sh using the bathroom. Detec tive Quillen said that the officers removed th e defendant from the toilet and found sixtee n small ziplock bags containing w hite powder. Detectiv

e Quillen testified that all of the bags had a white powder in them and that there was also a l arger zip-lock bag floating in the toilet

. Officer Quillen said that w hile the defendant was being h andcuffed, the defendant admitted that all of the cocaine in the toilet was his. Officer Quillen said that he w ent outside and retrieved hi s camera. He took two phot ographs of the white pow der in the zip-lock bags before r

emoving it from the toilet.3 Detective

Quillen al so testified

that officers

recovered

money from a bedroom in the house. He expl ained that $2,400.00 was found in a s hoe in the closet of the bedroom, $330.00 was found on top of a tel evision, and $94.00 was found in a vase in the bedroom. Pictur es of the money and the toilet contai ning plastic bags of white powder wer

e introduced into evidence along with the money, plastic bags, and white powder.

On cross-examination, Detective Quillen admitted that the defe ndant told him that the cocaine was for h is own personal use becau se he was a cocaine addict

. Although officers did not find any drug paraphernalia f or ingesting cocaine, they also did not find any small zip- lock bags other than those t hat were found in the toilet.

David Holloway , a forensic chemist wit h the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, te stified that h e determined that the powder th at was in the zip-lock b ags contained cocaine. He expl ained that it was difficult to determine the weight of the powder because the powder was very w

et when he received it. After the powder dried, he determined that it weig hed .11 grams. Agent Holl oway said that sev eral of the plastic bags did n ot have any powder in t hem but that a pproximately fo ur of the bags did.
Sergeant Wayne Anderson testified that he and hi s drug dog, Ike, helped search the defendant’s residence. Sergeant Ande rson said that he yelled, “search warrant” very loudly when the defendant’s wife answered the door to the house. He said that he found the defendant sitting on the toilet and ordered the defendant to show his hands. Sergeant Anderso n said that the defendant loudly g runted twice and then reached toward the handle on the back of the toilet. As the defendant w as reaching toward the handle, Sergea nt Anderson grabbed him by his right shoulder and p ulled him off of the toilet. Sergeant Anders on said that the defendant never flushe d the toilet.4 Sergeant Anderson explai ned that his drug dog, Ik e, is trained to find drugs and money that has been i n or around drugs. He sa id that he took Ike into a bedroom in the house and tha t Ike ran around the room and quic kly ran over to a large vase that had money in it and a lamp on top of it. Sergeant Anderson said that Ike knocked the lamp off of the vase before he coul d get Ike stopped. Sergeant Anderson said that the dog went i nto the closet and tried to pus h a pair of shoes across the cl oset floor. He said that he pulled the dog out of the closet and told o ther officers that the dog alerted that there w as something in the corner of the closet. Sergeant Anders on explained that the dog als o tried to stand up near the tel evision. He said that the dog tried to get his nose under the tongue of a shoe that was neatly placed against the wall of the room and that the dog alerted t hat something was near the dryer in the house but that nothing was found in thos e places.

Detective David St reet of the Kingsport Polic e Department testified that he followed Sergeant Anderson and Ike as they searched the def endant’s residence. He said that he recovered $94.00 out of a vase in the bedroom, $2,400.00 from a shoe in the bedroom closet and $400.00 under a bo x on the television. Detective Street also testified that he found papers relati ng to the defendant’s social sec urity disability benefits and Eyvelda Logan’ s approved application for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The AFDC application shows no monthly income and no accountable resources. Detectiv

e Street also found a check stub tha t indicated that Eyvel da Logan received public assi stance. Detective Str eet identified various rec eipts he found in the home, some of which show that the defendant paid cash for items and services.

Deborah Hale, a friend of the defendant’s, testified that she shared a checking account with the defendant and received his s ocial security checks. She explained that the defendant had to hav e a named representative pay ee due to his drug5

addiction. She said that the defendant used some of the money in the account t o buy and sell automobiles. Ms. H ale said that in January 1996 she withdrew $2,000. 00 from the account and gave it to the defendant because he was going to buy a car. Ms. Hale said that she never saw the defendant buy or sell coca ine.

I First, the defendant contends that t he state failed to prove bey ond a reasonable doubt that he had an intent to sell the cocaine. The defendant ar gues that, at most, the proof at trial es tablishe d that he possesse d the coca ine for h is own personal use.

Our standard of review when the sufficiency of the ev idence is questioned on appeal is "whether, after v iewing the evidenc

e in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements o f the crime beyond a reasonable doubt ." Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979). This means that we may not reweigh the evidence, but must presume that the jury has resolved all conflicts in the testimony and drawn all reasonable inferences from the evi dence in favor of the state. See State v. Sheffield , 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).
When viewed in this light, the e vidence shows that the defendant possessed several small bags of cocaine. Although t he defendant was not workin g because he was disabled and t he woman living w ith him reported to AFDC t hat she had no income, police found over $2,80 0.00 in the defendant’s residence. A dog trained to detect traces of drugs on money alerted police to three different places where the money was located. Under these circumstances, the ju ry was justified i n concluding that the defendant possessed the cocaine with the intent to sell it.6 II Next, the defendant contends that there is insuf ficient evidence to support his conviction for tamperi ng with evidence bec ause the state failed to prove that he knew that an investigation was pending agai nst him and failed to prove that he tried to alter or destroy ev

idence. The defendant asserts that becaus e he did not flush the toilet, he did not take any steps to alter or destroy the cocaine found in the bags in the toilet. In support of his argument, he cites State v. Patton , 898 S.W.2d 732 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), in whi ch this court held that mere abandonment of evidence does not constitute evidence tamperi ng within the meaning of T.C.A. § 39-16-503.

Under T.C.A. § 39-16-503, the offense of tampering with evidence is defined as follows:

(a) It is unlawful for any person, k nowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progres s, to: (1) Alter, destroy, or conceal any record, document or thing with intent to impair i ts ve rity, legibili ty, or availabili

ty as evidence in the invest igation or official proceedi ng . . . . The indictment in this case char ges the defendant with know ingly destroyi ng cocaine with the intent to impair the investigation that

he knew was in prog ress.
Initially, we agree with the defendant that mere abandonment of evidence does not amount to tampering under the statute. The defendant in Patton was charged with throwing d own a bag of marijuana w hile he was fleeing from l aw enforcement officers. This court affirmed the tri al court’s dismissal o f the indictment, concluding th at mere abandonment of evidence does not amount t o tampering under the statute.

Unlike Patton , though, the defendant in the present case did not merely abandon the cocaine. The defendant altered th e cocaine by throwi ng it into water and then concealed the cocaine by sitting on the toilet. However, we ar e mindful that the defendant was not charged w ith altering or conceal ing the cocaine. The indict ment7

alleges that he tampered with evidence by destroying the cocaine. Thus, we must determine whether the state p roved that the defendant “destroy ed” cocaine.
As a starting point, w

e note that the term “destroy ” is neither defined in the criminal code nor i n the case law interpr eting T.C .A. § 39-1 6-503. Ho wever, we recognize that the provisions of the criminal code are to be construed by the fair import of their terms. See T.C.A. § 39-11-104. This incl udes relying upon the nat ural and ordinary meaning of the lang uage used. See , e.g ., State v. Willia ms , 690 S.W.2d 517, 529 (Tenn. 1985). "Destroy" i s a verb that means to ruin or to put out of existence. See Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 314 (10th ed. 1996); American Herita ge Dictionary 196 (1975). For something to be destroyed withi n the context of T.C.A. § 39- 16-503, its evidentiary

value must be ruined. See Spector v. State , 746 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. Ct. App. 1988) (interpreting “destroy” in a similar statute).

When viewed in the light most favorable to the state , the evidence sufficiently establishes t hat the defendant destroyed cocaine while he knew that an investigation wa

s in progress. The proof show s that the officers knocked on the defendant’s door several times . The officers eventually hea rd the defendant and a lady yell, “just a minute.”

Once the lady answer ed the door, Sergeant Anderson notified the defendant that an investigatio n was in progress by loudly yell ing, “search warr ant.” The officers found the defendant sitting on a toi let that had sixteen small zip-lock bags in

it. Detective Quillen tes

tified that each of the bags contained white powder. The photographs in evidence c orroborate this testimony . The defendant admitted to the police that the cocaine in the toilet was his.

Detective Quillen tes

tified that he removed the bags and placed them into an evidence bag. The defendant sti pulated to the chain of custody of the zip-lock bags. However, Agent H olloway testified that only four of the bags contained a white powder8

when he received them. F rom this proof, the jury w as justified in concluding that the defendant successfully destroyed the contents of twelve of the bags by placing them in the toilet. That is, the ev identiary value of the c ontents of those bags was dest royed.
In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole , the defendant’s convictions for pos session of cocaine with th e intent to sell it and tamper ing with evidence are affirmed.

Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
CONCUR:

Joe B. Jones, Presiding J udge

Curwood Witt, Judge