# FIL ED M arch 25 , 200 8 Cec il Crow son , Jr . A ppell ate Court Clerk IN T HE C OU RTOF C RI MI NA L A PPEA LS OF T EN NE SSEE A T NASHVILLE MA RC H SESSI ON , 199 5

STA TE OF T EN NE SSEE , ) ) No. 01C 01- 9410- CC -0 0369 Appel lee ) ) M AU RYC OU N TY v s . ) ) H o n . Jim T. Hamil ton , J u d ge JA MES POLK , ) ) (A ggr a va t e d Ro b b e ry) Appel lan t )
For the Appel lan t: For the Appel lee : Dana C. Hollow ay Charles W. Burson 810 S. Garden St re et Atto rn ey Gene ra l and R epor

ter PostOffice B ox

339 Col umbia, TN 38402- 0339 Sharon S. Se lby Ass is tant Atto rn ey

Gene ra l Cr imi nal Ju sti ce Di v is ion 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 T. M ich ael B otto ms Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l Jesse D ur ham Ass t. Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l PostOffice B ox

1619 Col umbia, TN 38401

OPIN ION F ILED : AFF IR ME D
Dav id G. H ayes Ju d geAt t ri al, Li g htfoot te sti fied th at he had infor med Officer Goat s t hat "h e w as 1 probabl y w ro ng " aboutthe ro bber's w eig ht. H e s tated that"I did n'ttak e i nto acc ount his hei g ht, . . . I k new hi s w eig ht woul d hav e been more bei ng tal ler ." Lig htfoot al so sta ted a t t ri al that he des cr ibe d the robber as w eig hin g about170 pounds . The pre- sent ence re por t rev eal s t hat t he appe ll ant i s s ix feet, s ix i nches tall and w eighs 215 pou nds. 2 OPIN ION The appel lan t, James Pol k, appeal s from a c onv icti on for ag g ra v ated ro bber y ente re d i n the C ircui t C our t of M aur y C ounty . The appel lan t c ontends that the t ri al cour

t s houl d hav e ordered a new tr ial pursuantto Rul e 33( f) of the Tenness ee R ule s o f Cr imi nal Procedu re . After a rev iew

of the record, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. On S eptember

8, 1993, Jac k L ig htfoot, a par t- ti me empl oy ee of the Four Si x es li q uor

st ore i n M t. Pl easan t, obser v ed a y oung bl ack

mal e ent er

the sto re . Lightfoot , a forme r principal at a Mt. Plea santschoo l, recogniz ed th e pe rson's face but "coul dn'tput a name t o i t." The young mal e w alk ed pas t Li g htfoot to a cool er w here the st ore k ept h alf- pin ts and pi nts of li q uor , pi ck ed up a bottl e of v odka, w alk ed up to t he reg is ter , and se t t he bottl e dow n on the c ounter . Lig htfoot rang up t he purchas e and announc ed th e purchas e pr ic e. W hen t he re g is ter draw er opened , t he y oung mal e s aid , "G iv e me y our money ," and dis pla y ed a smal l semi -a utomati c w eapon i n hi s r ig ht ha nd. Lig htfoot c ompli ed, and t he robber

l eft the s tore, t aki ng approx imat ely $1,1 25.00. Lig htfoot c all ed th e pol ic e, an d s hor tl y thereafter, Officer

TommyGoat s o f the M t. Pl easan t Po li ce Dep artment ar ri v ed atthe sc ene. Li g htfoot to ld Off ic er Goa ts tha t he ha d be en rob bed bya black ma le in his early tw ent ies, app rox ima tely six

feet , three inches ta ll, and weig hing abo ut 15 0 to 16 0 po und s. 1 Lig htfoot al so tol d Officer Goat s t hat h e w as sure tha t he re cog niz ed th e robberA ta pe made of the preli minar y hear ing w as ina udi ble . 2 3 as a forme r pupil, bu t he cou ld notrecall his nam e. T he followi ng w eek, Lightfootw entto the police stat ion an d examine d a bo ok of pho tograph s. W hile looking throu gh the ph oto graph s, he ide ntif ied th e ap pellan t's picture as a photog ra ph of the man w ho had ro bbed hi m. A few day s l ater , O ff ic er

Goat s ar ra ng ed a photog ra phi c l ine up, w hereby he s how ed s ev eral photog ra phs to Lig htfoot and ask ed hi m to i denti fy the man w ho had ro bbed t he s tore. Lig htfoot sel ect ed a photog ra ph of the appel lan t. Bas ed upon thi s i nformati on, O ff ic er Goa ts talked to f riends an d relatives of the ap pellan t. Th e ap pellan t eventua lly came t o the st ati on v olu ntar il y . Off ic er Goat s t est ified thatthe follo w ing transpi re d w hil e he w as tal ki ng to the a ppel lan t: I adv is ed hi m he had been ide nti fied i n a robber y . He made the s tatement- - I am t ry ing to find i t i n my repor t w here I can -- he m ade the sta tem entto the ef fect th at he said, "well, wh a t ' s t h e cl e rk ' s n a m e a tt h e st o re [ ? ] [ H] e p ro b a b ly k n o ws me from s chool ."
At t he appe ll ant' s t ri al, Li g htfoot i denti fied th e appel lan t as the man w ho had robbed t he s tore. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , t he appe ll ant' s c ounse l all eg ed that Lig htfoot had been un abl e to posi ti v ely i denti fy the a ppel lan t atthe pre- tr ial hear ing . Li g htfoot deni ed th is al leg ati on.

2 Hoyt Ph il li ps, a forensi c s ci enti st for th e Tennes see Bureau of Inv est ig ati on, was cal led by the defense t o tes ti fy. Ph il li ps tes ti fied th at he had proces sed the b ottl e of v odka handl ed by the ro bber

for fin g er pr int s. H oyt w as abl e to dev elo p four ide nti fiabl e and one uni denti fiabl e l atentfing er pr int s, none of w hich m atch ed th e ap pellan t's f ingerprints.

Rick Osburn, an atto rney w ho rep resen ted the ap pellan t at the prelimina ry hea ring, also testif ied for the d efense . Osburn te stif ied th at, to the be st of hisThe "thi rt eenth juror r ule " w as abandoned i n thi s s tate in 1978, see Stat e 3 v . C abbag e, 57 1 S. W .2d 8 32 ( Tenn. 1978 ), but w as re ins tated w it h the 1991 promulg ati on of sub secti on ( f) of Tenn. R . C ri m. P. 33. See Sta te v . Ba ro ne, 852 S.W .2d 216 (Ten n. 19 93). 4 re col lecti on, L ig htfoot had not b een abl e to conc lus iv ely i denti fy the a ppel lan t as th e rob b e r atth e pre lim in a ry he a rin g. At t he c oncl usi on of the proof, the jur y retur ned a v erdict of g uil ty . The trial court sent ence d the app ellantto tw elve y ears con f inem entas a stan dard of fend er. Subse quently, the ap pellan t f iled a m otion for new trial unde r Rule 33( f). A hear ing on t he moti on w as hel d on Jul y 29, 1994. The tr ial co urt den ied the a ppel lan t' s mot ion . The appel lan t c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n fail ing to g ra nt t he appel lan t' s mot ion for a new tr ial on t he g ro und t hat t he v erdict w as cont ra ry to the w eig ht of the ev ide nce. I n s uppor t of thi s p ro posi ti on, t he appe ll ant a rg ues tha t the State 's only eyew itness, Jack Lightfoot , "ad mitt ed a t the prelimina ry hear ing thathe c oul d notpos it iv ely i denti fy the d efendant as the person w ho ro bbed hi m. H e al so faile d to g iv e a s imi lar phy si cal des cr ipt ion of the defend ant ." T he a ppe llant also point s to the fact th at th e "b ottle thatw as directly han dled bythe susp ect, a nd f rom which identif iable f ingerprints w ere take n, did not i ndi cat e a mat ch w it h the fing er pr int s o f James Pol k." Rule 33 (f ) of

the T enn essee Rules of Cri min al Proced ure is the m ode rn eq uiv ale nt t o the co mmon la w "thi rt eenth juror

r ule ". The "t hir

teent h j uror

r ule " 3 all ow s t he tr ial co urt, after a j ur y v erdict of g uil ty , t o g ra nt a new tr ial i f the tr ial cour t di sag re es w it h the j ur y aboutthe w eig ht of the ev ide nce. Tenn. R. C ri m. P. 33(f ); Curran v . Stat e, 15 7 T enn . 7, 4 S.W .2d 957 , 958 (1928 ).
Pursuantto Rul e 33( f), a tr ial j udg e has the mandator y duty to ser v e as5

the t hir teent h j uror

i n ev er y cr imi nal ca se. St ate v . C arter , 896 S.W .2d 1 19, 1 22 (Te nn. 199 5). Th e trial judge's app rov al of the jury's v erdict is a nece ssary prereq uis it e to impos it ion of a v ali d j udg ment. Id. See als o M ess er v . St ate, 385 S.W .2d 9 8, 10 1 ( Tenn. 1964 ); Sta te v . Bu rl is on, 8 68 S. W .2d 7 13, 7 19 ( Tenn. Cr im. App. 1993) . Notw it hst andi ng thi s mand ator y duty , R ule 33( f) does not re q uire the tr ial j udg e to make a n ex pli ci t s tatementon t he record. Car ter , 896 S.W .2d a t 122 . Mo re ov er , an order by the tr ial j udg e deny ing a mot ion for n ew tr ial prov ide s t his co urt w it h the presumpt ion thatthe tr ial j udg e has se rv ed as the thirteen th juror and app rov ed th e jury 's v erdict. Id. If su ch an order is entered by

the tr ial j udg e, he may be rev ersed onl y

i f the record demons trates the t ri al jud g e's di ss ati sfacti on or di sag re ement w it h the j ur y 's v erdict or

the w eig ht of the ev ide nce. I d. S ee al so Hel ton v . St ate, 547 S. W .2d 5 64, 5 66 (Tenn. 1977) ; M ess er , 385 S.W .2d a t 98.

In t he c ase now

before us, the tr ial j udg e deni ed th e appel lan t' s mot ion for a new tr ial . The tr ial j udg e ex press ly st ated his approv al of the j ur y 's v erdict by sta ti ng : "M r. Pol k t old [t he officer ] ' I g uess he recog niz ed me fro m myhi g h s chool day s.' I mean, that to me, thatdi d i t. That na il ed th e c off in shut , s o, I am g oin g to ov er ru le the mot ion ." W e find that the t ri al jud g e proper ly fulfil led hi s d uty

to act as th e thirtee nth juror and ap prove the verdict of the jury. T his issue is w it hout meri t. The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

_________

_________

_________

_________ Dav id G. Hayes, Judge CONCUR:6

_________

_________

_________

_______ Jer ry Scott, Presi ding Judge

_________

_________

_________

_______ Jose ph M. Tipton, Judge