Court Opinion

ID: 9675741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:04:24.468814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:16.059432
License: Public Domain

HENRY, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
If mere presence or opportunity will provide sufficient evidence upon which to convict, then this conviction should stand. If it will not, it should be reversed.
I.

Presence of Accused

In view of the fact that this conviction rests solely on presence and is based upon the proposition that Sam Delk could or might have committed the murder, we look to the character of the neighborhood to ascertain whether it could or might have been committed by others.
This murder occurred in Gipson’s Wayside Market in Centerville, the county seat of Hickman County. According to the Tennessee Blue Book, 1977-1978, Centerville had a population of 2,697 persons. Gipson’s Market is located on the east side of Columbia Avenue, a few blocks from the public square.
Examination of the exhibit pictures reveals that it is located in a thickly settled neighborhood, diagonally across the street from two churches. To the south of the market, on the east side of Columbia Avenue, there are six houses in the first block, including a beer joint owned by the deceased, but not including a trailer-parked behind one of the houses. On the other side of the street, within the same block there are three houses and a Methodist church. Behind, and in immediate proximity to the church, on a road circling the church, there are six houses. On a side street or road just north of the market there are four houses, one of which appears to have been vacant. On the north side of the market, on Columbia Avenue before the road forks and within a block, there are four houses. On the opposite side of the road there are five houses and a Nazarene church.
In summary, within one block of the market there are twenty-eight houses, two churches and one trailer. These mundane figures take on significance in the face of a conviction based on the presence of the accused. Had this murder taken place at an isolated country store, the conviction based on the circumstance of presence would be more soundly based. But this murder took place in a busy market and “hanging out” place, located in a populous area within a county seat town, where customers and loafers are coming and going.
A criminal conviction may not be supported by suspicion alone because we are *443governed by a standard that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Carter, 173 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 522 F.2d 666 (D.C.Cir.1975). It is well settled that the mere presence of the accused at the scene of a crime does not, standing alone, justify drawing an inference of his participation or guilt. Bailey v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 416 F.2d 1110 (D.C.Cir.1969); Araujo-Lopez v. United States, 405 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1969); Newsom v. United States, 335 F.2d 237 (5th Cir. 1964); Glenn v. United States, 271 F.2d 880 (6th Cir. 1959).
This conviction rests wholly on circumstantial evidence. The rule in Tennessee, as approved in Overton v. State, 521 S.W.2d 229, 232 (Tenn.Cr.App.1975), is that:
[T]he evidence must be not only consistent with the guilt of the accused but it must also be inconsistent with his innocence and must exclude every other reasonable theory or hypothesis except that of guilt, and it must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused as to convince the mind beyond a reasonable doubt that he is the one who committed the crime. 521 S.W.2d at 232 quoting from Pruitt v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 256, 460 S.W.2d 385, 390 (1970)
See also T.P.I.Crim. 37.06.
As this Court held in State v. Crawford, 225 Tenn. 478, 470 S.W.2d 610 (1971):
In order to convict on circumstantial evidence alone, the facts and circumstances must be so closely interwoven and connected that the finger of guilt is pointed unerringly at the defendant and the defendant alone. (Emphasis supplied). 470 S.W.2d at 613
This casé is pregnant with the possibility that this defendant was an innocent victim and that someone else committed this murder. There was nothing conclusive about the State’s proof; it did not exclude every other reasonable theory or hypothesis except that of guilt. In short, the defendant was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
The fundamental nature of the governing reasonable doubt standard was eloquently articulated by the Supreme Court in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970):
“Due process commands that no man shall lose his liberty unless the Government has borne the burden of . convincing the factfinder of his guilt.” (citation omitted)
******
Moreover, use of the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable to command the respect and confidence of the community in applications of the criminal law. It is critical that the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned. It is also important in our free society that every individual going about his ordinary affairs have confidence that his government cannot adjudge him guilty of a criminal offense without convincing a proper factfinder of his guilt with utmost certainty. 397 U.S. at 364, 90 S.Ct. at 1072-1073
The philosophy expressed in Crawford, supra, is pertinent:
“We cannot, in law or in conscience, affirm a judgment, when, after making all due allowance for the superior advantages of a jury, we can yet see that the jury were not warranted upon the facts in finding him guilty.”
Thus, the Court cannot and will not sit idly by and, in effect, commit this defendant to the penitentiary when there remains a reasonable doubt that such judgment might be in error, and if upon a careful reading of the record of the trial court there is any doubt as to the guilt or the innocence of the defendant, such doubt must be weighed in favor of the defendant. 470 S.W.2d at 612-13 quoting from Stuart v. State, 60 Tenn. 178 (1873)
After having read this record en toto, twice,* with painstaking care, reading parts of it on numerous occasions, after having *444prepared a written digest of the proof, and based upon many years of experience at both sides of the counsel table, I am impelled to the conclusion that the evidence presented in this case is insufficient to take this case to the jury and will not support a conviction.
II.

The Standard of Review

While I question the continuing relevance of our standard of appellate review in view of recent developments, I recognize in passing that under that standard, a jury verdict approved by the trial judge in a criminal prosecution thrusts upon the convicted defendant the burden of proving that the evidence preponderates against his guilt, Martin v. State, 542 S.W.2d 638 (Tenn.Cr.App.1976), and that this rule applies in circumstantial evidence cases, State v. Townsend, 525 S.W.2d 842 (Tenn.1975).
This standard, however, does not relieve the State from proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the first instance.- Moreover, it “presupposes record proof presenting a factual basis for consideration and determination by the jury.” Hughes v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 602, 465 S.W.2d 892, 896 (1970). Here there was none.
Under any standard of review, this defendant has stood trial and the State’s proof is insufficient.
The full implications of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Jackson v. Virginia, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), must await further development and refinement. In the meantime, it is clear that the teaching of In re Winship, supra, that “[t]he constitution prohibits the criminal conviction of any person except upon proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” Jackson v. Virginia, supra at 2784, has taken on new vitality and added significance. It requires that we take a fresh look at our present standard of review.1
The crux of the Court’s holding with respect to appellate review is as follows:
After Winship the critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction must be . to determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But this inquiry does not require a court to “ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Citation omitted) Instead the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, (citation omitted). This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Once a defendant has been found guilty of the crime charged, the factfinder’s role as a weigher of the evidence is preserved through a legal conclusion that upon judicial review all of the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The criterion thus impinges upon “jury” discretion only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law. Jackson v. Virginia, 99 S.Ct. at 2789-90
This does not, in my view, require an abandonment of our established standard of review; but it does demand a meaningful and critical analysis of the record on appeal to insure that the evidence supports a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Any lesser standard would not protect against a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which, under Win-ship and Jackson, invalidates any conviction not based on evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
We can, and must, on appellate review, consider “all of the evidence” in a light *445most favorable to. the State; we cannot, and must not, accord the convicting evidence any presumption. Such would trespass upon the right of appellate review and would strip it of vitality and validity.
Pragmatic considerations demand this approach. Jackson v. Virginia, supra, was directly concerned with the correct standard to be used by federal courts in reviewing state court convictions. After noting that “[a] challenge to a state conviction brought on the ground that the evidence cannot fairly be deemed sufficient to have established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt states a federal constitutional claim,” the Court held that when the conviction is not based on sufficient evidence, “the applicant is entitled to habeas corpus relief if it is found that upon the record evidence adduced at the trial no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 2791-92.
As pointed out in the concurring opinion, “the Court’s broader standard may well require that the entire transcript of the state trial be read . . . .” Id. at 2799 (Stevens, J., concurring).
As a practical proposition our standard of review must harmonize with the federal standard in habeas corpus cases, lest the result be to “undermine the morale and the esteem of the State Judiciary” by having the decisions of this Court vacated by a single federal trial judge.
In the instant case, we solicit this precise result. It requires little prescience to predict that competent counsel for Sam Delk will seek the remedy of federal habeas corpus in this case wherein his conviction has no evidentiary support.
III.
This entire section and so much of the ensuing section as relates to the failure of Dan Delk to be produced as a witness were written after the remaining portions were tendered to my colleagues as a dissent. Section VI of the main opinion was prepared as a “response.” Because it brings forward new matter, and because of a modification in Section III of the main opinion relating to the discovery of certain business-related papers and documents belonging to Harry Gipson, it is now necessary that I respond.
The majority finds, without evidentiary support in the record, that “beyond a reasonable doubt . . the taking occurred at the time of the murder.” Perhaps so. In an apparent effort to tie their taking to Sam Delk, the majority suggests that the “jury could have found that the defendant owed Gipson money for cigarettes, groceries, beer or the door that was damaged in the altercation.” It could; however, the finding would have been without evidentiary support. The record shows that Sam Delk had paid for the door repairs; there is a vague suggestion that he owed Harry Gipson an undetermined amount of money at an unspecified time. The majority opinion offers no explanation for taking these papers to remove evidence of a small indebtedness, if such there were, and leaving over $1,100.00 in money on the person of Harry Gipson or in the cash register.
The majority opinion, in seeking to place a sinister connotation on the discarded papers, overlooks significant facts.
The State called as its witnesses two passengers in Dan Delk’s car.
First, the State called Sheryl Weaver. On direct examination she gave this testimony:
Q. Now did you see Dan Delk doing anything when he went off the road?
A. Yes, he said he was getting a pack of chewing gum.
Q. And that’s all?
A. Yes, sir.
On. cross-examination she testified that Dan did not stop after the right wheels got off on the right-hand side, that he just pulled back into the road and kept going.
The second witness, Martha Overton, on direct, testified as follows:
Q. Well did you see him doing anything at that time besides driving?
*446A. No, he was driving, he had a beer can in one hand and he was driving with the other hand.
On cross-examination, the questioning was even more specific:
Q. Did he throw anything out of the car or anything like that?
A. No, he handed the beer can to Sheryl Weaver and the wind was blowing where he had it taped around the little window and anyway he was pushing up against it, as I remember and I told him to quit it if he couldn’t drive to let me drive.
By further testimony she established that it was a cold night and the windows were up in the car.
It was this witness the majority apparently had in mind when it charged that one of these two women passengers was living with Dan Delk. The record shows her to be the wife of a man named Overton. She is identified in the record as Martha Dansby Overton.
The testimony of these two witnesses was conspicuously convincing and unequivocal.
It must be borne in mind that it was the State that called these witnesses to the stand and vouched for their credibility. They stand in this record unimpeached and uncontradicted. The State having certified to their credibility and worthiness of belief cannot now attack their veracity — nor can this Court. It would be grievously unfair to permit a party to have the benefit of his witnesses’ testimony if favorable and to reject it if unfavorable. Moreover, there is a fixed presumption of law — as charged in this case — that “every witness has sworn to the truth.” Nothing in this record refutes that presumption.
The matter of these papers was of controlling significance in the Court of Criminal Appeals. It may seem, at first blush, that I am being unduly critical of that Court’s finding of sufficiency. I do not so intend. But for these papers, it is my judgment that the Court of Criminal Appeals would have reversed this conviction.
On page 2 of its opinion, the Court of Criminal Appeals said:
During the evening, following the death of Harry Gipson, the appellant and his brother, Dan Delk, who lived in Dicken-son [actually Dickson] were together at a party at a home in Centerville. During this time they were seen conversing together and at one time left Centerville and drove to Nashville, along the roadway where papers of the deceased were found, to bring a man from work. (Emphasis supplied).
With utmost deference, the Court of Criminal Appeals was in plain error in this factual finding. Highway 100 does lead from Centerville to Nashville and it was on this heavily traveled highway that the papers were found. They were found on the north side of the Duck River bridge. The town of Centerville, including the local General Shoe Plant where Sam and Dan went to bring an employee home, lies south of the Duck River. This mistake was natural and understandable, but unfortunate since it accounts for an affirmed conviction.
Elsewhere in its opinion the Court of Criminal Appeals notes that the appellant “traveled that highway that evening.” There is simply no record support for this finding.
It is true, as suggested by the majority, that the defendant and the deceased had had some trivial previous difficulty; however, as found by the Court of Criminal Appeals, “this did not appear to be serious.” Defendant and a brother, while scuffling in a beer joint owned by the deceased, had broken a door and, as found by the Court of Criminal Appeals, he “paid to fix the door on demand.”
It is true that defendant on several occasions sent other people into Harry Gipson’s Market to make purchases for him. But it is also true that he went in the market from time to time. As a matter of fact he was in the store at 11:30 a. m. the day of the murder, at 5:15 p. m. on the day of the murder, and again around 6:00 p. m. There is no credible proof of ill will between the deceased and Sam Delk. As a matter of *447fact, the proof is that upon hearing of Harry Gipson’s murder, Sam Delk was in “a mourning-like stage” or “a grieving state,” and went immediately down to the market to see about him.
Without explaining its significance, the majority asserts that there was evidence that the defendant did not arrive at Gip-son’s Tavern until approximately 6:20 p. m. The record shows that Tom Gray went to the tavern and told those present that Harry Gipson had been shot. When Gray learned of the murder he was at his home nearby; he stayed there about ten or fifteen minutes; he then went to Harry’s Market and from there to the tavern where he told the patrons of the murder. Sam Delk had been there fifteen to twenty minutes at the time. From this it would appear that Sam Delk left the market and went immediately to the tavern. This, however, is of no significance.
The majority, in its revised opinion, proceeds upon the assumption that because various people saw no one enter or leave Harry Gipson’s Market this fact operates to establish that no one came in behind Delk and, therefore, he was the culprit.
First, the majority says:
Louise Chavers went to her front door, hearing Floyd Stone’s horn blow. The well lighted front of Gipson’s Market was fully visible to her from that vantage point
Louise Chavers lives on the same side of the street as Harry Gipson’s Market. Her front door is approximately 140 feet from the front door of Gipson’s Market. At first blush the majority’s assertion of visibility would appear valid. Upon examination however, a person standing in the front door of Louise Chavers’ house cannot see the front door of Gipson’s Market. Her front door appears to be in the dead center of her house.
Columbia Avenue makes a pronounced curve approximately midway between Louise Chavers’ house and Gipson’s Market. Both are located on the “inside” of the curve. The front of each structure appears to parallel the long axis of the road. The result is that a person standing at the front door of Louise Chavers’ house cannot see the front door of Gipson’s Market — with or without two trucks parked in front of the intervening building where they have been for more than two years. Exhibit pictures 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 17 make this clear. There is a utility pole directly across the street from Gipson’s Market. A line extended from the front line of Louise Chav-ers’ house runs almost exactly to this pole across the street. See Exhibit pictures 10, 11, 13 and 14.
We know that Chavers did not leave the house when she heard the horn blow for she says, “I just walked to the front door and pulled the shades down and looked out.” Where did she look? Obviously, to her left front, toward the sound of the horn, and not hard right toward the front of Harry Gipson’s store.
Next the majority says that those outside the Walker house, along with Floyd Stone and '‘Goon” Gilbert in or approaching the parked car, had a clear view of the front door of Gipson’s Market. Floyd Stone was parked with the long axis of his car at an angle of more than 90 degrees from a line drawn from the respective front doors. Had he looked over his right shoulder he could have seen. Vorgerine Walker and “Goon” Gilbert could have looked straight ahead some 250 feet and they could have seen.
By parity of reasoning, it may be argued that Sam Delk was not in the store. No one saw him enter; no one saw him leave. The fact that these witnesses did not testify to seeing anyone enter or leave the store is of no probative value.
In Section I of its opinion, the majority states the time interval at “seven minutes and twelve seconds . . . for the killer to accomplish the act and escape before discovery of the body.” In the revised opinion, the majority reduces the time to “less than three minutes or perhaps even only two.” I have not dealt in time intervals because I regard them, at best, as only approximations. Were I to follow the same *448reasoning as the majority, I would comment on the fact that Floyd Stone and “Goon” Gilbert were in the store “at least three to five minutes” after they say they discovered the body and no one saw them enter or leave. Further, they too were present. Very little differentiates their position from that of Sam Delk.
The majority’s effort to shore up this case only serves to dramatize its inherent deficiencies.
We are dealing with the liberty of a human being.
IV.

Conclusion

My dissent is aimed at the remand. I regard the errors cited as grounds for reversal as being trivial.
I am in disagreement with the rationale of the majority’s ruling with respect to the comment of the District Attorney General on the failure of the defendant to call his twin brother, Dan Delk. As I understand the holding of the majority, this comment was improper because there was no direct proof that Dan Delk was available.
I cannot agree that where a lawyer identifies a witness sitting in the courtroom, during the proceedings conducted at a public trial, and without contradiction or dispute as to identity, that availability has not been fully demonstrated. I find nothing improper or unfair on the part of the Assistant Attorney General, in this respect.
It is the general rule in this jurisdiction that while the State may not comment on the failure of the defendant to take the stand, this prohibition does not extend to comment on his failure to offer other witnesses in explanation and rebuttal of incriminating facts and circumstances. Hays v. State, 159 Tenn. 388, 19 S.W.2d 313 (1929). See also, McCracken v. State, 489 S.W.2d 48 (Tenn.Cr.App.1972).
Normally, the failure of a party to produce an available witness who is in a position to know the facts, and who is apparently favorable to him, gives rise to presumption or inference, permissive and rebuttable in nature, that the testimony of such witness would not sustain the contention of such party. Wooten v. State, 203 Tenn. 473, 314 S.W.2d 1 (1958); National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Eddings, 188 Tenn. 512, 221 S.W.2d 695 (1949); Kidd v. Tennessee Gas Co., 33 Tenn.App. 302, 231 S.W.2d 793 (1950); Craig v. Marquette Cement Mfg. Co., 190 Tenn. 234, 229 S.W.2d 148 (1950); Waller v. Skeleton, 31 Tenn.App. 103, 212 S.W.2d 690 (1948).
But this presumption or inference does not apply where the plaintiff fails to make out a case, for in such a case it is not incumbent upon the defendant to introduce any evidence. St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Finley, 122 Tenn. 127, 118 S.W. 692 (1909).
In 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, Sec. 180 (1967), the exception to the rule is stated thusly:
The rule applicable to a party who fails to call witnesses exclusively in his control does not apply to a defendant who introduces no evidence at all. A defendant, if so advised, may well let the case go to the jury on weakness of the evidence presented by a plaintiff, who had the burden of proof, without being taken to task for failure to call certain witnesses, or have an adverse inference drawn which would not follow from an entire failure to refute the evidence introduced.
Thus, it was not the matter of availability that makes the remarks by the Assistant Attorney General objectionable; but the entitlement of the defendant, as a matter of law, to take the position that the State had not made out a case and decline to offer proof.
Therefore, I reach the same conclusion as the majority, but by different reasoning process. I view the comment as being erroneous, but harmless. I cannot bring myself to believe that it came as any startling revelation to the jury that Dan Delk, the defendant’s twin brother who was “here all week,” was, in fact, present in the courtroom at that time.
On June 14, 1978, the Supreme Court decided Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19, 98 *449S.Ct. 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 15, and Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1. These cases stand for the proposition that when a criminal conviction is reversed for evidentiary insufficiency, the double jeopardy clause precludes a second trial. See Overturf v. State, 571 S.W.2d 837 (Tenn.1978).
It has been widely suggested that appellate courts would frustrate the import of these cases by the simple expedient of finding some ground of reversal not involving evidentiary sufficiency. I cannot bring myself to believe that appellate courts in general, or my colleagues in particular, would follow such a practice. However, irrespective of purity of motive, this case can only lend credence to this unfortunate line of thinking. This is regrettable.
The State is not entitled to two bites at the apple. Every trial lawyer knows that there are some cases that simply cannot be won because the proof is not there. This is such a case.
In reading the record of trial I am impressed that the young Assistant Attorney General who conducted the entire prosecution did so with conspicuous ability. His presentation of his case, and more particularly his marshalling of the proof, were superb. He milked the case dry. It is a tribute to his painstaking prosecution that he obtained a conviction in spite of a deficiency of evidence. His “lawyering,” however, does not alter the failure of the State to make out a case.
I would reverse and dismiss.

 Since the revision and recirculation of the main opinion, I have reread the entire record.

. I reserve for another day a consideration of Rule 13(e), Tenn.R.App.P. and the evident change it makes in our standard of appellate review.