IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED MARCH 1998 SESSION May 20, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9710-CR-00443 Appellee, ) ) HAMILTON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. GARY D. GERBITZ, CHRISTOPHER BENARD ERVIN, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Aggravated Robbery)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
A. CHRISTIAN LANIER, III JOHN KNOX WALKUP 615 Lindsay St., Suite 150 Attorney General & Reporter Chattanooga, TN 37403 (On Appeal) TODD R. KELLEY Asst. Attorney General ARDENA J. GARTH John Sevier Bldg. District Public Defender 425 Fifth Ave., North Nashville, TN 37243-0493 MIKE ACUFF HALLIE McFADDEN WILLIAM H. COX Asst. District Public Defenders District Attorney General 701 Cherry St. Chattanooga, TN 37402 DAVID DENNY (At Trial) Asst. District Attorney General Court Bldg., Suite 300 Chattanooga, TN 37402
OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge OPINION
The defendant was charged in the indictment with aggravated robbery, and
the jury found him guilty of this offense. The defendant now appeals as of right from his
conviction, arguing that his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence. After
reviewing the record, we find the defendant’s argument to be without merit and affirm his
conviction.
At the defendant’s trial, Ferris Witcher, a codefendant who pled guilty to
aggravated robbery, testified against the defendant. According to Witcher’s testimony,
he, the defendant, and the defendant’s brother had talked about robbing a store, and the
defendant proposed robbing a Revco drugstore. The defendant also suggested using a
gun during the robbery, and he supplied Witcher, who would actually enter the Revco and
demand the money from the Revco cashier, with a .22 caliber revolver.
Witcher testified that they decided to use the defendant’s brother’s car, a
white 1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass sedan, as transportation to and from the Revco. On the
way to the Revco, Witcher and the defendant dropped off the defendant’s brother at his
girlfriend’s house. W hen they arrived at the Revco, the defendant remained in the car
while Witcher entered the Revco with the .22 caliber revolver wrapped in scarves and
tucked in his coat pocket. Witcher wandered around the store, picking up a bag of chips
and some other items. He took those items to the cashier, and when the cashier opened
the cash register, he began to pull the scarf-wrapped .22 caliber revolver from his coat
pocket and demanded the money from the register. The cashier complied. Witcher
quickly returned with the money to the white Oldsmobile, where the defendant was
waiting, and Witcher gave the .22 caliber revolver back to the defendant. They left the
2 Revco parking lot, picked up the defendant’s brother, and split the money among the
three of them.
The State presented several other witnesses at trial, including witnesses
who were in the Revco store during the robbery and police officers who were involved in
the defendant’s arrest and the collection of evidence. These witnesses’ testimony
showed that police officers responded to the scene of the robbery within minutes of the
Oldsmobile leaving the Revco parking lot. The Revco manager told police that one
hundred twenty-three dollars ($123) in small bills had been taken by the robber, and an
eyewitness gave the police a description of the Oldsmobile in which the robber left. The
police officers then left the Revco to search for the suspect car, and a few minutes later,
they saw a white Oldsmobile in the vicinity of the crime scene that matched the
eyewitness’s description. The officers stopped the Oldsmobile, which was driven by
Witcher with the defendant and his brother as passengers. From the Oldsmobile, the
police officers recovered a .22 caliber revolver and several items reported by Revco as
stolen during the robbery, including a bag of chips, furniture polish, and potpourri air
freshener. The money recovered from the person of the defendant, his brother, and
Witcher totaled one hundred twenty-one dollars ($121) in small bills. From this evidence,
the jury convicted the defendant of aggravated robbery.
The defendant argues that this Court should reverse his conviction because
the weight of the evidence is contrary to the jury’s verdict and his “mere presence” at the
crime scene was insufficient to establish he participated in the robbery. In so arguing, the
defendant ignores W itcher’s testimony, which shows the defendant planned many of the
details of the robbery, contending that Witcher’s testimony is insufficiently corroborated
and thus cannot itself serve as the sole basis for his conviction. The core dispute, then,
3 is whether the record evidence sufficiently corroborates Witcher’s testimony.
When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, we
must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution in determining
whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We do not
reweigh or re-evaluate the evidence and are required to afford the State the strongest
legitimate view of the proof contained in the record as well as all reasonable and
legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d
832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).
Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to
be given to the evidence, and factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the
trier of fact, not this Court. Id. A guilty verdict rendered by the jury and approved by the
trial judge accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State, and a presumption of
guilt replaces the presumption of innocence. State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476
(Tenn. 1973).
The rule is well settled in Tennessee that a defendant cannot be convicted
on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Sherrill v. State, 204 Tenn. 427, 321
S.W.2d 811, 814 (1959). To corroborate the testimony of an accomplice, “there should
be some fact testified to, entirely independent of the accomplice’s evidence, which, taken
by itself, leads to the inference, not only that a crime has been committed, but also that
the defendant is implicated in it.” Clapp v. State, 94 Tenn. 186, 30 S.W. 214, 216 (1895).
This corroboration must consist of some fact or circumstance which affects the identity
of the defendant. Furthermore, the jury is to determine the degree of evidence necessary
4 to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice, and it is sufficient “if there is some other
evidence fairly tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.” Id.
at 217.
Here, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, W itcher’s testimony was
more than sufficiently corroborated by other evidence at trial. Witcher testified that he
and the defendant used the defendant’s brother’s car, a white 1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass
sedan, as transportation to and from the scene of the robbery. An eyewitness who was
shopping in the Revco during the robbery testified that the robber left the Revco parking
lot in a white late-model Oldsmobile sedan, and the police officer who arrested the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED MARCH 1998 SESSION May 20, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9710-CR-00443 Appellee, ) ) HAMILTON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. GARY D. GERBITZ, CHRISTOPHER BENARD ERVIN, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Aggravated Robbery)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
A. CHRISTIAN LANIER, III JOHN KNOX WALKUP 615 Lindsay St., Suite 150 Attorney General & Reporter Chattanooga, TN 37403 (On Appeal) TODD R. KELLEY Asst. Attorney General ARDENA J. GARTH John Sevier Bldg. District Public Defender 425 Fifth Ave., North Nashville, TN 37243-0493 MIKE ACUFF HALLIE McFADDEN WILLIAM H. COX Asst. District Public Defenders District Attorney General 701 Cherry St. Chattanooga, TN 37402 DAVID DENNY (At Trial) Asst. District Attorney General Court Bldg., Suite 300 Chattanooga, TN 37402
OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge OPINION
The defendant was charged in the indictment with aggravated robbery, and
the jury found him guilty of this offense. The defendant now appeals as of right from his
conviction, arguing that his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence. After
reviewing the record, we find the defendant’s argument to be without merit and affirm his
conviction.
At the defendant’s trial, Ferris Witcher, a codefendant who pled guilty to
aggravated robbery, testified against the defendant. According to Witcher’s testimony,
he, the defendant, and the defendant’s brother had talked about robbing a store, and the
defendant proposed robbing a Revco drugstore. The defendant also suggested using a
gun during the robbery, and he supplied Witcher, who would actually enter the Revco and
demand the money from the Revco cashier, with a .22 caliber revolver.
Witcher testified that they decided to use the defendant’s brother’s car, a
white 1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass sedan, as transportation to and from the Revco. On the
way to the Revco, Witcher and the defendant dropped off the defendant’s brother at his
girlfriend’s house. W hen they arrived at the Revco, the defendant remained in the car
while Witcher entered the Revco with the .22 caliber revolver wrapped in scarves and
tucked in his coat pocket. Witcher wandered around the store, picking up a bag of chips
and some other items. He took those items to the cashier, and when the cashier opened
the cash register, he began to pull the scarf-wrapped .22 caliber revolver from his coat
pocket and demanded the money from the register. The cashier complied. Witcher
quickly returned with the money to the white Oldsmobile, where the defendant was
waiting, and Witcher gave the .22 caliber revolver back to the defendant. They left the
2 Revco parking lot, picked up the defendant’s brother, and split the money among the
three of them.
The State presented several other witnesses at trial, including witnesses
who were in the Revco store during the robbery and police officers who were involved in
the defendant’s arrest and the collection of evidence. These witnesses’ testimony
showed that police officers responded to the scene of the robbery within minutes of the
Oldsmobile leaving the Revco parking lot. The Revco manager told police that one
hundred twenty-three dollars ($123) in small bills had been taken by the robber, and an
eyewitness gave the police a description of the Oldsmobile in which the robber left. The
police officers then left the Revco to search for the suspect car, and a few minutes later,
they saw a white Oldsmobile in the vicinity of the crime scene that matched the
eyewitness’s description. The officers stopped the Oldsmobile, which was driven by
Witcher with the defendant and his brother as passengers. From the Oldsmobile, the
police officers recovered a .22 caliber revolver and several items reported by Revco as
stolen during the robbery, including a bag of chips, furniture polish, and potpourri air
freshener. The money recovered from the person of the defendant, his brother, and
Witcher totaled one hundred twenty-one dollars ($121) in small bills. From this evidence,
the jury convicted the defendant of aggravated robbery.
The defendant argues that this Court should reverse his conviction because
the weight of the evidence is contrary to the jury’s verdict and his “mere presence” at the
crime scene was insufficient to establish he participated in the robbery. In so arguing, the
defendant ignores W itcher’s testimony, which shows the defendant planned many of the
details of the robbery, contending that Witcher’s testimony is insufficiently corroborated
and thus cannot itself serve as the sole basis for his conviction. The core dispute, then,
3 is whether the record evidence sufficiently corroborates Witcher’s testimony.
When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, we
must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution in determining
whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We do not
reweigh or re-evaluate the evidence and are required to afford the State the strongest
legitimate view of the proof contained in the record as well as all reasonable and
legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d
832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).
Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to
be given to the evidence, and factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the
trier of fact, not this Court. Id. A guilty verdict rendered by the jury and approved by the
trial judge accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State, and a presumption of
guilt replaces the presumption of innocence. State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476
(Tenn. 1973).
The rule is well settled in Tennessee that a defendant cannot be convicted
on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Sherrill v. State, 204 Tenn. 427, 321
S.W.2d 811, 814 (1959). To corroborate the testimony of an accomplice, “there should
be some fact testified to, entirely independent of the accomplice’s evidence, which, taken
by itself, leads to the inference, not only that a crime has been committed, but also that
the defendant is implicated in it.” Clapp v. State, 94 Tenn. 186, 30 S.W. 214, 216 (1895).
This corroboration must consist of some fact or circumstance which affects the identity
of the defendant. Furthermore, the jury is to determine the degree of evidence necessary
4 to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice, and it is sufficient “if there is some other
evidence fairly tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.” Id.
at 217.
Here, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, W itcher’s testimony was
more than sufficiently corroborated by other evidence at trial. Witcher testified that he
and the defendant used the defendant’s brother’s car, a white 1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass
sedan, as transportation to and from the scene of the robbery. An eyewitness who was
shopping in the Revco during the robbery testified that the robber left the Revco parking
lot in a white late-model Oldsmobile sedan, and the police officer who arrested the
defendant testified that the defendant, Witcher, and the defendant’s brother were
apprehended in a white 1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass in the vicinity of the scene of the
robbery. Both of these witnesses, as well as another police officer who collected
evidence at the scene of the defendant’s arrest, identified the car they saw from
photographs of the white 1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass sedan in which the defendant was
apprehended. Moreover, the items Witcher testified he took during the robbery were the
same items recovered from the Oldsmobile, and the .22 caliber revolver Witcher testified
was given to him by the defendant to use during the robbery was also found in the
Oldsmobile. Further, Witcher’s testimony that he, the defendant, and the defendant’s
brother split the money he stole from Revco was corroborated by the Revco manager’s
testimony that the robber stole one hundred twenty-three dollars ($123) in small bills and
the police officer’s testimony that a total of one hundred twenty-one dollars ($121) in
small bills was found on the three men (approximately one-third of the total on each)
when they were arrested.
Notwithstanding this evidence, the defendant briefly takes issue with the
5 Revco cashier’s testimony that the object Witcher began to withdraw from his coat pocket
was perhaps gold-colored, even though the .22 caliber revolver recovered from the
Oldsmobile was silver-colored. In this small respect, the Revco cashier’s testimony may
not corroborate Witcher’s testimony, but that does not erase the plethora of evidence that
certainly corroborates Witcher’s testimony. Even without the Revco cashier’s testimony,
more than sufficient evidence to corroborate Witcher’s testimony remains in the record.
This corroborative evidence sufficiently indicates that a robbery was committed, and it
identifies the defendant, who was arrested in the Oldsmobile described and identified by
several witnesses, as a participant in the robbery. See State v. George Campbell, No.
02C01-9408-CR-00165, Shelby County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed June 28, 1996, at
Jackson). Moreover, this evidence, coupled with Witcher’s testimony, is sufficient to
support the jury’s verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at
319.
In sum, the issue raised by the defendant lacks merit. Accordingly, we affirm the
defendant’s conviction for aggravated robbery.
_______________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
CONCUR:
______________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge
______________________________ CORNELIA A. CLARK, Special Judge