State v. Frank Bradford
This text of State v. Frank Bradford (State v. Frank Bradford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
DECEMB ER SESSION, 1997 FILED January 29, 1998 STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9701-CR-00042 ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk Appellee, ) ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. CHRIS CRAFT FRANK E. BRADFORD, ) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (Direct Appe al-Disorde rly Conduc t)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
EDWARD THOMPSON JOHN KNOX WALKUP Assistant Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter Shelb y Cou nty Pu blic De fende r’s Office CLINTON J. MORGAN Memphis, TN 38103 Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243
WILLIAM L. GIBBONS District Attorney General
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE OPINION
Appe llant, Frank E. Bradford, was convicted of the o ffense of diso rderly
conduct in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17-305. He was
sentenced to serve thirty days in the Sh elby C ounty Corre ctiona l Cente r. In this
appea l he allege s that the e vidence is insufficient to suppo rt the verdict.
After a review of the reco rd we find there is su fficient evidence to sup port
the verdic t and we affirm the ju dgme nt of the trial co urt.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On May 16, 199 5, Memp his Police Officer G regory Quinn and his partner
Officer Tracy McDonald were on patrol in Jefferson Davis Park located in
downtown Memphis. Around 5:00 p.m. Quin n and McD onald observed appellant
lying on a park bench with a bottle of beer and a backpack. The officers advised
Appe llant he could not drink in the park and that he had to leave. Appellant
responded with an ob scenity and the officers informe d him h e was u nder arre st.
As Officer McDonald attempted to handcuff Appellant, he punched her in the
chest. Quinn grabb ed Ap pellan t while McD onald sprayed him with pepper sp ray.
Appe llant wa s finally h andc uffed a nd tran sporte d to jail.
The beer b ottle Appellant had been holding had been opened and part of
the contents we re missing. Althou gh Ap pellan t sme lled of a lcoho l the offic ers did
not think he w as drun k. Officer Quinn stated that although the park was op en to
the public at th e time A ppellant w as app roache d by the o fficers, there is a city
ordinance which prohibits drinking in the park.
-2- SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence,
this Court must review the record to determine if the proof adduced at the trial is
sufficient to support the findings by the trier of fact o f guilt be yond a reaso nable
doubt. T.R.A.P. 13(e). We do no reweigh o r re-evaluate the evide nce and a re
required to afford the State the strongest legitimate view of the proof contained
in the rec ord as well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences which may be
drawn therefrom . State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 197 8).
Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be
given to the evidence , as well as factual issue s raised by the evid ence are
resolved by the trier of fact, not this C ourt. Cabbage, 571 S.W .2d 832 , 835. 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 innocen ce. State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 197 3).
Although this case involved a bench trial, the findings of the trial judge who
conducted the proceedings carry the same weight as a jury verdict. State v. Tate,
615 S.W .2d 161, 162 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1981 ).
Disorderly conduct is defined as follows at Tennessee Code Annotated
Section 39-17-305:
(a) A pers on co mm its an o ffense who, in a pub lic place an d with inten t to cause public annoyance or alarm: (1) Engag es in fighting or in violent or threa tening beha vior; (2) Refuses to obey an official order to disperse issued to ma intain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, hazard or other emergency; or (3) Creates a hazardous or physic ally offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose. (b) A person also violates this section who makes unreasonable nois e which prevents others from carrying on lawful activities. (c) A violation of this section is a C lass C misd emean or.
-3- The State in dicted Appe llant in a three c ount in dictm ent for v iolation of this
statute. The indictment alleged that Appellant with the requisite intent to cause
public annoyance did:
Coun t 1: “. . . engag e in threate ning be havior . . .” Count 2: “ . . . create a physically offensive condition by acts that served no legitim ate purp ose. . .” Count 3: “. . . make unreasonable noise which prevented others from carrying o n lawful ac tivities . . .”
This case is rem arkab ly similar to the case of State v. Creasy, 885 S.W.2d
829 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). In that case, as well as the one sub judice, the
defendant claimed the use of obscenity directed at police officers cannot standing
alone form the basis of a disord erly cond uct charg e. Id. at 831. This C ourt found
that obsce nity which does not amount to the use of “fighting words” is protected
speech under the federal and state constitutions and cannot therefore be
proscribed by the d isorde rly condu ct statute. Id. Howe ver, the us e of obsc enity
coupled with phys ically threate ning or viole nt beha vior may fo rm the b asis of a
conviction for disorde rly condu ct. Id. at 832.
In the instant case, as in Creasy, the record re flects that Ap pellan t not on ly
cursed the police officers, but actually struck Officer McDonald. Such behavior
is clearly sufficient to sustain a verd ict of gu ilty to the c harge of diso rderly
condu ct.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
____________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
-4- CONCUR:
___________________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
___________________________________ J. CURWOOD WITT, JR. JUDGE
-5-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Frank Bradford, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-frank-bradford-tenncrimapp-1998.