### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ary 16, 200 5
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . WI LLI AM O. EWE RLI NG
Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2002-B-1164 Seth Nor m an, Jud ge

No. M2003- 00595-CCA -R3-C D - F iled April 13, 2005

T h e A p p el l an t , W i l l i am O. E we rl i n g, p ro ce ed i n g pro s e , appea ls his mi sdemea nor convic tions by the Davidson County

Criminal Court for possessing a wea pon in a public par

k , p o s s es s i o n of a handg un while under

the influenc e of a lcohol, and criminal trespass. On appe al, Ewe rling arg ues the trial court erre d as follows: (1) imprope rly admitted hear say

statements; (2) a dmitted nonrele vant evidenc e; (3) pe rmitted introduction of evidenc e fr o m a wi t n es s who had no pe rsonal kn ow le dg e of

the ma tte r; (4 ) i mpr op e rl y ins truc te d th e jury ; a nd (5 ) imp os e d e xce ssi ve se nte nc e s. Additionally , Ewerling arg ues t hat t he evidence was i nsufficie nt to support his convictions. After
re vie w, we c on c lud e that is su e s ( 1) , ( 2) , (3 ), (4 ), a nd(5 ) a rewaive d a s th e re c or d is ins uf fi c ie nt t o permit a re view of the se i ssues. Wit h reg ard to Ewerling’ s sufficienc y arg ument, we c onclude that the evidenc e is leg ally

sufficie nt to support his convictions for possessing a wea pon in a public par

k and possession of a

handg un while u n d er t he influenc e. Howe ver, w e conc lude that the evide nce is leg ally insufficient to support his conviction for c riminal trespass. Ac cording ly , the convictions and sente nces f

or possessing a wea

pon in a public park and possession of a handg un while under

the influence are aff

irmed; the convic tion for criminal trespass is reve rsed a nd dismiss ed.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed in Par t; Re verse d in P art

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in w hich G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and T HOMAS T. W O O D A LL , J ., joined.

Wil liam O. Ewerling, Pro Se

.
Paul G. Sum me rs , Attorne y Ge ne ra l a nd 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; Victor S. J ohnson I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; and Rog er Moor e, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.W e h ave i ncl uded onl y t hos e port i ons o f the R ul e 24, T enn

. R. Ap p. P

. , s t at ement of t he evi dence , wh i ch 1
ref l ect s t he grand jury ’ s act i o n and an acco unt o f what t rans p i red at t ri al

. T he p ers o nal co m m ent s o f t he A p p el l ant and

n o n -re le v a n t m a tter s, w h ic h sh o u ld h a v e b e e n d e le te d a t t h e trial le v e l, a re no t i n c lud e d

. See T enn. R

. A p p

. P

. 24 (e), (f ).
-2- OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

A t t r ia l th e A p p e ll a n t c h o s e to p r o c e ed pro s e . No stenog raphic report or rec ording of the evidenc e wa s taken at trial. The Appe llant filed the following narr ative re cord of the evidenc e: 1

Def endant Wil liam O

. Ewerling was indicted by the Davidson County

Gra nd J ury on the 28 day of J une, 2002 for three misdemeanor[s] which the State alleg ed

th

o c c u rr e d o n Ju ly 2 2 , 2 0 0 1 in D a v id s o n Co u n ty , T e n n e s s e e

. Co u n t 1 of the I nd i ct m en t char g ed Mr. Ew erling with possessing a handg un on the g rounds of a public park in violation of Te nn. Code Ann. § 3 9 -1 7-1311. Count 2 of the I ndictment char g ed Mr. Ew erling with possessing a handg un while under

the influence of alc ohol or an int ox icant in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1321. Cou nt 3 of

the I nd ic tme nt c ha

rg e d M r. Ew e rl ing wi th c ri min a l tr e sp a ss f or a lle g e dly entering or

remaining on pr operty belong ing to the United States of America without the owner ’s ef

fec tive consent in violation of Tenn. Code A nn. § 39-14-405.

The State’s w itness list was c omposed of t hree Metropolitan Nashville Police Offic ers a nd a civilian witness, Da vid Sharber, w ho alleg edly saw Willi am Ewe rling sittin g in h is v e hic le wh ic h w a s p ark e d ina lot a t J. Pe rc y Pr ie st D a m du ri ng thee arl y morning hours of J uly 22, 2001, loading bullets in a mag azine. Mr. Sharbe r wa s not prese nt during the jury

trial. [end of pag e one]

STATE’S FIRST W I TNESS - DI RECT EXAMINATI ON: The f irst office r testified that on J uly

22, 2001 at appr ox imately 3:00 a.m. he was called by the police dis patc he r andinf

orme d th a t a

ma n wa s in theup pe r l e ft

pa rking lot of J. Pe rc y Pr ie st Dam with a g un. He arrived at the parking lot of J. P erc y Priest Dam and sa w a r ed van with the personalized Tenne ssee license pl ate “OK L ETS”. He and the two other office rs surrounde d the van a nd ordered t h e male white subjec t, later identified a s Willi a m O . E we rl ing , o ut o f the va n. Mr . E we rl ing wa s f ou ndto h a ve a fi re arm

in
a pu bl ic pa

rk a ndwa s a

rr e ste d f or the sa me c ha

rg e . H e state d th a t he c ou ld s me ll alcohol on the br eath of Mr. Ewe rling . The S t at e produce d a .45 ca liber semiautomatic pistol, two magaz i n es and appr ox imately 20 rounds of .45 c aliber
ammu n it io n , w h ic h th e o f f ic e r te s ti f ie dw e r e ta

k e n f r o m M r

. E w e r li n g ’ s v a n tha t morning and they

wer e admitted into evidenc e over Mr. Ewe rling ’s objection.-3- STA TE ’S F I RST WI TN ESS - CRO SS EX AM INA TI ON : When Mr. Ewerling asked the office r i f he was a fede ral e mploy ee, hestated that he wa s no t

. Objection wa s made by Gene ral Moore and the Court inquired of Mr. Ewe rling what he w as trying to prove. Mr. Ewerling replied, “ jurisdiction” and the Court sustained the objec tion of the State.

Mr. Ewerling then prese nted pictures of J

. Percy Priest Dam prope rty which display ed a sig n that the prope rty was owned by the Corp of Eng ineer s to the Court reque sting pe rmission to show them to the witness office r. The Court a llowed Mr. Ew e rl ing to sh ow the pic tur e s to the of fi c e r wh o a dmi tte d that a t the tim e of the arr e st of Mr. Ewerling ther e we re no sig ns indicating the hours which the park w as opene d. He a lso admitted that the sig n was late r plac ed at the pa rking lot of the property . He state d th a t the re a so n th a t Mr . E we rl ing wa s c ha rg e d w ithtr e sp a ssi ng wa s b e c aus e he wa s in the lot

a ft e r p ark

ho ur s.

Mr. Ewe rling asked the office r who retrie ved the firea rm from his van a nd he stated t hat he didn’t know. Mr. Ewerling then asked him i f the va n was locke d and he stated that h e d i d n ’t know. Mr. Ewe rling then aske d the offic er if he (Mr. Ewerling) was drunk and the offic er [ end of pag e two] replied, “I smelled alcohol on y ou r b re a th” . M r. Ew e rl ing the n a sk e d if he (M r. Ew e rl ing ) w a s a

rr e ste d f or pu bli c int oxic a tio n a ndthe of

fi c e r r e pli e d th a t he wa s n ot.

The State c alled two other Metro Police Of

fice rs whose te stimonywas basica lly the same. TheState rested a fter the testimonyof the other two office rs.

DEF ENSE’S SOLE WI TNESS - WI LL I AM O. EWERL ING: Mr. Ewerling took the s tand as his only witness and testified that he had bee n o u twi t h fr i en d s t h e e v en i n g b ef o re h i s arre s td an ci n g, s h o o t i n g p o o l an d h av i n g a fe w b ee rs

. M r. E we rl i n g we n tt o h i s h o m e la t er t h at ev en i n g an d go th i s b el o n gi n gs t o gether for a canoe trip he had pla nned with a f riend, Ga ry Honea which wa s schedule d for the morning of the ar rest. Mr. Ew erling also pac ked his .45 ca liber semiautomatic pis t o l , t wo mag azines and ammunition which he wa s taking in the event of snakes at the ca noe trip. Mr. Ewe rling then went to McD onalds Restaurant and orde red f

ood throug h the drive throug h and took the food and other items to the pa rking lot of J. Pe rc y Pr ie st D a m a waiti ng the c a no e trip. Mr . E we rl ing sat a nda te his food and then be g an loading the t wo m aga z ines for the pistol. Mr. Ewerling further testified that he wa s not drunk. Mr. Ewe rling testified that he did not see any signs indicating hour s open to the public in the par king lot which he en t er ed

. Mr. Ew e rl ing fu rthe r t e sti fi e d th a t th e rewe rese ve ra l othe r c ars pr e se nt in the pa rking lot

. He fi na lly te sti fi e d th a t no on e e ve r t old him no t to e nte r the pa

rking lot or a sk e d h im t o l e a v e t h e p r o p e r t y.A l s o i ncl uded i n t he appel l at e r ecor d w er e t hr ee t r i al ex hi bi t s , wh i ch wer e n ot au t hen t i cat ed by t he t r i al j udge. 2

-4- DEF ENSE WI TNESS - CROS S-EXAMINATI ON: Gene ral Moore asked Mr . Ewer l i n g if the par king lot he e ntere d was fr e qu e nte d by ho mos e xua ls. Mr . Ewe rl ing ob je c te d to the qu e sti on a ndthe Cou rt did
no t r e sp on d to the ob

je c tio n. Mr . Ewe rl ing a g a in ad mitte d tha t he c on su me d s ome beer the eve ning be fore the ar rest but that he wa sn’t drunk.

At the end of

the proof, Mr . Ewerling asked the Court to dismi ss the case and the Cou rt de nied hi s re qu e st. Th e jury la te r r e turne d w itha

g uil ty ve rd ic t ona ll counts of the indictment.

The trial c ourt imposed a sentence of eleve n months and twenty -nine day s and assessed a fine of $250.00 for possession of a wea pon in a public park, a class A misdemeanor. F or the c onviction for possession o f a handg un while under the influenc e, a c lass A misdemeanor , the trial court imposed a sentenc e of e leven months and t we n t y -n i n e day s and asse ssed a $250.00 f ine. For criminal trespa ss, a class C misdemeanor , the trial court imposed a thirty -day sentenc e and a ssessed a $50.00 fine . All of the sentenc es we re or dere d to be s er v ed co n cu rr en tly . The judg ments of conviction indicate that the Appellant’s se ntence s weresuspended, and he wa s place d on probation for e leven months and twe nty -nine day s for the two c lass A misdemeanor convictions . On Dec ember

12, 2002, the Appellant f iled a motion for new trial, which was d en ied. This appea l followed.
Following the filing of the notice of appea l, the Appellant filed the above statement of the
e vid e n c e w i t h t h e tr i a l c o u r tc l e rk

. T h e S t a t e f i l e d a n o b j e c t i o n t o t h e a c c u r a c y

o f t h e sta te me nt. Te nn e sse e Rul e of

Ap pe llate Pr oc e du re24 (e ) r e qu ir e s th a t un de r the se c ir c ums ta nc e s:

I f any ma tte r p ro pe rl y

inc lud able is o mitte d fr om the re c or d, is i mpr op e rl y included, or is misstated there in, the rec ord may be corr ecte d or modified to conf orm to the truth. Any differ ence s reg arding whether the re cord a ccur ately

discloses what
occur red in the tria l co u rt shall be submitted to and settled by the trial court reg ardle ss of whethe r the re cord ha s been transmitt ed to the appe llate court. . . .

The trial c ourt cler

k forwa rded the trial rec ord to this court for f iling. The trial rec ord included the Appellant’s statement of t he evidence, absent t he approval of the t rial j udg e, as require d by Tenn. R. A pp

. P. 2 4( f)

. Th e State fi le d a mot ionto d ism iss in this c ou rt du e to an in a de qu a te re c or d. Th is 2

c ou rt de nie d th e State ’s mot iona ndre ma nd e d th e matte r t o th e tria l c ou rt to f ile a ndfo rw ardto this
c ou rt a su pp le me nta l re c or d co ntaini ng a state me nt o f the e vid e nc e a s r e qu ir e d b y Te nn e sse e Rul e of Appe llate Proce dure 24(c) and (e)

. On Octobe r 12, 2004, the trial c ourt supplemented the r ecor d by filing the following “Corre ction of Statement of Evide nce” :T h e A p p e llan t, fo r a b rie f t im e , w a s re p re se n te d o n a p p e a l b y G re g o ry D . C la yto n , w h o is no w d e c e a se d

. 3

T enn

. R. Ap p. P

. 24(e) cont emp l at es t he f i l i ng of a s i ng l e r ecor d of t he s t at ement of evi dence f r om t he t r i al 4

cour t procee di ng s

. I n t hi s ca s e, t wo r ecor ds wer e s ubmi t t ed, o ne f r om t he A pp el l ant an d one f r om t he t r i al cour t , wh i ch

r equ i r e r ec on ci l i at i on

. Al t h ou g h t h i s cou r t di r ec t ed t h e t r i al cou r t t o for wa r d a s u ppl eme n t al r ec or d cont ai ni ng a
s t at eme n t of

t h e e v i den ce , we n on et h el es s pr oce ed t o r ev i ew t h e i s s u es r ai s ed on a ppea l f r om t h e r ec or d a s pr es en t ed. M or eov er , w e mu s t pr es u me t h at t h os e por t i on s of t h e Appel l an t ’ s s t at eme n t of t h e ev i den ce , w h i ch a r e n ot s t r i ck en or
c o rr e c te d b y the trial c o u rt’s su p p le m e n t t o the re c o rd , ar e d e e m e d a p p ro v e d b y the trial c o u rt. See Te n n

. R. A p p

. P. 2 4 (f ).
-5- Pursuant to Tennesse e Rules of Appe llate Proce d u re 2 4 (c ) and (e ) the Court has examined the Statement of the Evidenc e as submitted by the attor ney

for the
app e lla nt a ndma

ke s th e fo llo wi ng c or

re c tio ns : 3

Para g ra ph fo ur on pa g e on e is s tr ic ke n init’ s [si c ] en tir e ty be c aus e it i s a s t a t e m e n to f

a n o p i n i o n a n d w a s n o ts u b m i t t e d t o t h e tr i a l j u r y. The last par ag raph on pa g e 2 of the Statement of evidenc e is incorr ect in that the wit n e s s r e p li e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w a s “ u n d e r th e in f lu e n c e ” w h e n a s k e d if

the defe ndant was dr

unk.

The Statement of Evidence is inc omplete beca use it makes no mention of the te sti mon y of the State ’s oth e r two wi tne sse s, Of fi c e r Os bo rn a nd Sg t. R a g a ins , b oth of whom testified that the de fendant was “unde r the influenc e”.

Th e p ar a g r ap h o n p a g e 3 h e a d e d D E F E N S E W I T N E S S

- C RO SS EXAMINATI ON is incorr ect in that the defe ndant, acting as his own counse l, asked him se lf abo ut the ho mos e xua l a c tiv ity in t he pa rk wh e rethe inc ide nt o c c ur

re d. Th is section does not re flect t h at t h e defe ndant testified that he did not have a handg un pe rm it. 4

Ana lys is

I. Waiver Due t o Incom plete Re cord

Th e Ap pe lla nt c on te nd s th a t the tr ia l cou rt e rr e d by imp ro pe rl y

a dmi tti ng he ars a y

state me nts , admitting non-r eleva nt evidence , and permitti ng the introduction of evide nce f rom a witne s s who had no per sonal knowledg e of the matter. The rec ord bef ore us i s v o i d o f any

proof or fac tual de ve lop me nt o f the se a lle g e d e rr or s at tria l. S peci fi cal ly , th e state me nt o f the e vid e nc e fails to identify the witnesses who pur portedly prese nted the inadmissible evidenc e, the spe cific nature of the alleg ed er

roneous testim ony , whether a contemporane ous objection t o the t estimony was e ntere d at trial, and if ob

jected to, the trial court’s r uling on the obje ction. I f a ve rbatim transc ript of the evidenc e is not available as in this case, the Appellant is requir ed to pr ep are a stateme nt of the
e vid e nc e that “ c on ve y [s] a fair , a c c ur a te , a ndc omp le te a c c ou nt o f w hat tr a ns pir e d w ithre sp e c t toT h e sta te m e n t o f ev id e n c e d o e s n o t re flec t t h a t th e A p p e llan t w a s “tra n sp o rting a fi re a rm un d e r lo c k a n d ke y.” 5
A rg u m e n ts c o n ta ine d in a n a p p e llate b rie f d o no t sub stitute fo r sta te m e n ts o f ev id e n c e

. S ta te v . R o b e rts , 755 S. W

. 2d (c o n tinu e d ...)
-6- tho se iss ue s w hic h a

re th e ba sis of

app e a l.” Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 2 4( c ). “ Whe rethe re c or d is incomplete and doe s not contain a tra nscri p t of the proc eeding s relevant to an issue prese nted for revie w, or portions of the r ecor d upon which the party relies, a n appellate court is pre cluded f rom considering the issue.” Sta te v . B all ar d , 855 S.W .2d 560, 561 (Tenn. 1993) ( citing Sta te v . R ob e rts , 75 5 S.W. 2d83 3, 83 6 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 88 )) . T hu s, the Ap pe llant h a s w a ive d r e vie w o f the se issues on appea l.
The Appe llant also arg ues that his sentenc es “of one y ear probation” a re e x cessive and that the trial court improperly instructed the jury . The Appe llant has failed to include in the rec ord a transcript or statement of the e vidence reg arding the proof at the sentenc ing he aring or the trial
c ou rt ’s ins truc tio ns a s su bmi tte d to thejury . A s su ch, we c on c lud e that th e Ap pe llant h a s a g a in faile d to pr e se rve t hes e is su e s f or app e llate re vie w p ur su a nt t o T e nn e sse e Rul e of Ap pe llate Pr o c e d u r e 2 4 ( b )

. M o r e o v e r , w h e n th e r e c o r d o n ap p e a l c o n s is ts o f le s s th a n a ll of the ac tions
oc c ur ri ng in the tria l c ou rt

that w e re re le va nt t o a n is su e raise d b y a n a pp e a lin g pa

rty , w e mus t presume that the trial court’ s fac tual finding s are supported by the full rec ord and a

re, the ref ore, corr ect. See, e .g., State v. Be ech , 744 S.W .2d 585, 588 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)

. II. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence

F inal ly , th e Ap pe lla nt c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e in this c a se is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his convictions. When an Appe llant challeng es the suff iciency of the evidence , the re levant question for the r eviewing court is “whe ther, a fter vie win g t h e evide nce in the lig ht most favorable to the [S tate], a ny rational trier

of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond a
rea sonable doubt.” J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 33 U. S. 30 7, 31 9, 99 S. Ct. 27 81 , 2 78 9 ( 19 79 ); se e als o Tenn. R. A p p

. P. 1 3 ( e )

. M o r e o v e r , th e St a te is e n ti tl e d to th e s tr o n g e s t l e g it im a te v ie w o f the evidenc e and all rea sonable infe renc es which may be dra wn there from. Sta te v . H ar ris , 839 S.W .2d 54 , 7 5 ( Te nn . 1 99 2) . A ll q ue sti on s in vo lvi ng the c re dib ili ty of wi tne sse s, the we ig ht andva lue to be g iven to the evidenc e, and all fac tual issues are resolved by the trier of fac t. State v. Pappas , 754 S.W .2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). This court will not rew eig h or re evaluate the evide nce prese nted. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978)

. Wi th r e g a

r d to th e A p p e ll a n t’ s c o n v ic ti o n f o r p o s s e s s in g a w e ap o n in a p u b li c p ark, our criminal code provides, “it is an off en s e fo r an y

person to possess or c arry , whether openly or c on c e a le d, wi th the int e nt to g o arme d, a ny we apo n pro hib ite d by § 39- 17 -1 30 2( a ), no t us e d s ole ly for instructional, display

or sanc tioned cer emonial purposes, in or i n the grounds of any public park

. . . o wn ed, usedor

op e rate d b y

a ny mun ic ipa l, c ou nty , o r s ta te g ov e rn me nt, or ins trume nta lit y there of, for

rec reation al p u rp o s es.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17- 1311(a) (2003). The Appellant
co n t en d s t h att h e S t at e d i d n o tp ro v e t h ath e w as i n p o s s es s i o n o f “ a w ea p o n w i t h t h e i n t en tt o go arme d” as he was “ not car ry ing or bearing a firea rm but transporting a firearm under lock and key .” 5(

. . . con t i n u ed) 5
8 3 3 , 8 3 6 (T en n. C rim. A p p

. 1 9 8 8 ). T he i ssue i s, t hu s, ad d resse d b ase d up o n the re co rd b efo re u s.
-7- This arg ument is mispl ace d. The Appellant was indicted for possessing a handg un on the g rounds of a public pa

rk not “ca rrying or bearing a fire arm.” As evidenc ed by the statute, our law provides that it is a crime for

“any person to possess or carry , whether openly or conc eale d, with the intent to go a rmed.” Id . (empha sis added). The statement of e vidence rec ites that the police we re c alled to the public are a bec ause a man was in the pa

rking lot with a gun. T he nar rative al s o s t at es that “Mr. Ew erling was found to have a firearm in a publi c park” and that the fire arm wa s “take n from [t he Appe llant’s] van.” The f ac t s o f an indivi dual ca se and the circ umstances surr ounding the
car ry ing of the wea pon may establish the nec essary

intent. Col e v . S tate , 539 S.W .2d 46, 49 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976) ( quoting Hi ll v . S tate , 298 S.W .2d 799 (Tenn. 1957)). The issue of whe ther the Appellant possessed a

wea pon for the pur

pose of g oing a

rm ed, or whether he possessed the .45
c a lib e r s e miauto ma tic pis tol wi th twe nty ro un ds of a mmu nit ion to pr ote c t himse lf a g a ins t sn ake s, was a question of fa ct for the jury to determine. Certainly

the jury was not oblig ated to ac cept the Appellant’s testimony

on this question. Based upon the proof, we conclude that a re asonable jury
co u l d h av e f

o u n d t h e Ap p el l an t gu i l t y o f p o s s es s i n g a w ea p o n i n a p u b l i c p ar k wi t h t h e i n t en tt o go arme d.
The Appe llant was also convic ted of possession of a handg un while under the influence of alcohol. Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 39-17-1321 (2003) provides “notwithstanding whether a per son has a pe rmit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39- 17-1352, i t is an offense for a pe rson to possess a handg un while under the infl u en ce of alcohol or any controlled substanc e.” T he Appellant ar g ues that the State “of fer ed insuffic ient or no proof conce rning Def

endant be ing unde r the influenc e.” T his claim is without m erit. The trial court’s c orre ction of the statement of evidenc e provides that an of

fice r testified the Ap p el l an t was “ under the influence ,” in addition to the Appellant’s na

rrative, which provide s that the offic er c ould smell alcohol on the Appellant’s br eath. Moreove r, the re cord e stablishes that the Appellant admitt ed that he had consumed bee r the e vening befor e his arr est. Thus, viewing the evidenc e in the lig ht most fa vorable to the State, we c onclude the of fi c e r’ s d e te rm inatio n th a t th e Ap pe llant w a s “ un de r the inf lue nc e ” wa s su ff

ic ie nt f or a jury to find the Appe llant guilty

of the off ense a s char g ed.
The Appe llant was convic ted under count three of the indictment for criminal t respa ss. Our law provides that befor e a de fendant can be convicted of criminal trespa ss, as indicted in this case, the State is require d to prove that the de fendant know ingly enter ed or r emained on the property of another wit h o u t t h e o wner ’s conse nt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 14-405(a ) (2003) . Knowledg e of a defe ndant’s lac k of conse nt can be inferr ed fr om notice g ained throug h:
(1) Per sonal communication to the person by the owner or by someone with appa

rent authority to act for the owner ; (2) F encing or other e nclosure obviously desig ned to exclude intruders; or (3) Posting r easona

bly likely to come to the attention of intrude rs.-8-

Id

. T h e A p p e l l a n ta s s e r t s t h a tt h e p ark i n g l o to f J

. P e r c y P r i e s tD a mw a s o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c t w e n t yfour hour s a day . The stateme nt of evidenc e does not dispute this fact. At trial the Appellant testified that, at the time of his ar rest, no sig n or posting indicated the hours that the par king lot wa s op e n to the pu bli c a ndthat othe r v e hic le s w e repa rk e d in the sa me are a

. I nd e e d, the pr oo f r e fl e c ts that the police we re c alled to the ar ea be cause another visitor at the par

king lot saw the Appellant wi th a g u n

. T h e s tate me n t o f e v id e n c e r e c it e s th a t a n o f f ic e r c a ll e d b y th e St a te a lso testified on
cross-e x amination that no such si g ns wer e present at the tim e of the Appellant’s a rre st but admitt ed
a sign had since been pla ced in the pa rking lot. I n order

to convict, the State wa s require d to prove that th e Ap pe lla nt d id n ot h a ve the Un ite d St a te s o f A me ri c a ’s e ff e c tiv e c on se nt t o en te r o r r e ma in on the par

king lot. This could have been a chieve d by pos ting a

notice of the hours in which admittance onto the public a rea wa s p ro h i b i t ed. We find nothing in the rec ord bef ore us whic h would establish that the Appellant knowing ly enter ed the parking lot with notice that his entra nce was prohibited. As such, the State has failed to e stablish a n essential element o f t h e c ri me. Acc ording ly , the Appellant’ s conviction for c riminal trespass is re verse d and dismissed.

CO NC LU SION

For the fore g oing r easons, weaff ir m t h e Appellant’s convictions and sentenc es for the offe nses of posses s i n g a we ap o n in a public par k and possession of a

handg un while under

the influence of alc ohol. The Appe llant’s conviction for c riminal trespass is reverse d and dismissed.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE