Opinion ID: 6107769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is the proof in this case sufficient to support a conviction for theft of real property?

Text: Having concluded that the Tennessee theft statute encompasses theft of real property, we acknowledge that this is a case of first impression for this Court. Historically, the more typical case of theft of real property involves a fraudulently induced transfer of title to real property. See e.g. , State v. Toney , 81 Ohio St. 130 , 90 N.E. 142 (1909) (affirming a theft conviction where the defendant forged documents of title and sold the fraudulent[ly] obtain[ed] real property to third-parties); People v. Rabe , 202 Cal. 409 , 261 P. 303 (1927) (affirming a theft conviction where defendant received real property for preorganization stock in a company based on misrepresentations as to the assets and activities of the company). We recognize that this case is unique in many ways, both factually and legally, but our obligation is simply to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for theft of property valued at over $250,000.  Here, the State presented proof showing that Defendant entered the East Memphis house, posted signs indicating it belonged to her, padlocked the gate to the property, changed the locks on the doors, and told a reporter attempting to enter the property that it belonged to her. Before Defendant ever occupied the house, she had already filed papers with the Register of Deeds Office by which she sought to obtain record ownership of the property. This action, coupled with her physical occupation and seizure of the house, is sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Defendant obtained and/or exercised control over the real property. These facts, particularly Defendant's filing with the Register of Deeds Office, are also sufficient to support the jury's finding that Defendant had the intent to permanently deprive the Bank of the property. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106 (a)(8)(A). The damage to the East Memphis home was minimal, and the duration of Defendant's physical seizure and occupation of the real property short lived, but sufficient evidence supports the jury's findings on these issues. Defendant also argues that theft of real property is too severe a criminal offense to charge under the circumstances of this case and that other less severe criminal charges, such as criminal trespass, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405 (2014 & 2017 Supp.), vandalism, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-408 (2014 & 2017 Supp.), or filing a transfer document without a legal or equitable basis, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-116 (2014), were more appropriate on these facts. Even assuming that Defendant's conduct could have supported less severe charges, with penalties more proportionate to the actual harm that Defendant caused, we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that decisions about whether to prosecute and for what offense are matters of prosecutorial discretion. Gentry , 2016 WL 4264266 , at  (quoting Dearborne v. State , 575 S.W.2d 259 , 262 (Tenn. 1978) ). Although the facts of most squatter cases would not support a conviction for theft, certain fact scenarios do qualify. Despite Defendant's argument, this is not a case where a squatter temporarily occupies an abandoned property and takes no action that evidences any intent to deprive the owner of the property. This is also not a case where a tenant holds over or fails to pay rent and questions of proof as to the intent to deprive the owner of any ownership interest in the property would similarly be difficult. Under these scenarios, if the State cannot prove an essential element of theft, it would be limited to charging a defendant with a less serious offense such as criminal trespass or vandalism, if at all. However, we reiterate that this is not a typical case. And Defendant was not a mere squatter. The purported deed that she filed with the Register of Deeds Office, along with the other facts demonstrating her intent to exclude the Bank from accessing the property and her intent to deprive the bank of its entire interest in the house, distinguish this case.