State v. George Raudenbush

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: October 18, 1999
• Docket: 03C01-9811-CR-00409
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE FILED AT KNOXVILLE October 18, 1999

AUGUST 1999 SESSION Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9811-CR-00409 Appellee, ) ) Polk County v. ) ) Honorable R. Steven Bebb, Judge GEORGE JOSEPH RAUDENBUSH, III, ) ) (Speeding) Appellant. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

George Joseph Raudenbush, III, pro se PAUL G. SUMMERS P. O. Box 261 Attorney General & Reporter Ducktown, TN 37326 MICHAEL J. FAHEY, II Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

JERRY N. ESTES District Attorney General

DANIEL RAY SWAFFORD Assistant District Attorney General 130 Washington Avenue, N.E. P. O. Box 647 Athens, TN 37371-0647

OPINION FILED: ________________________________

AFFIRMED

ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE OPINION

Using Doppler radar, Copperhill Police Officer Karl Helcher clocked the defendant,

George Joseph Raudenbush, III, traveling 47 miles per hour in a 25 miles per hour zone.

The defendant appeared in Copperhill Municipal Court on June 23, 1998 and was found

guilty of speeding. Upon appeal to the Polk County Criminal Court, a bench trial was held.

The court found the defendant guilty of speeding. The defendant timely appealed. Based

upon our review of this matter, we affirm the decision of the Polk County Criminal Court.

I. CERTIFICATION OF ARRESTING OFFICER

The defendant contends that, because Officer Karl Helcher was not a certified

peace officer in Tennessee, the arrest in this case was illegal.

Private citizens have the authority to effectuate warrantless arrests for

misdemeanors committed in their presence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-7-109(a)(1) (1997).

This statute has been interpreted to cure a defective, warrantless arrest by a law

enforcement officer acting outside his jurisdiction. State v. Johnson, 661 S.W.2d 854, 859

(Tenn. 1983); State v. David C. Doyal, No. 03C01-9712-CR-00552, 1998 WL 597081, at

*2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Sept. 10, 1998); State v. Horace Durham, No. 01C01-

9503-CC-00056, 1995 WL 678811, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Nov. 16, 1995). For

this reason, the trial court found the status of the officer’s certification to be immaterial and

instead focused on the reliability of the proof presented. Based on our review of the

evidence presented, we find the trial court did not err in finding the defendant guilty of the

offense charged.

II. DENIAL OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS

The defendant complains the trial court erred in refusing his request for a subpoena

duces tecum. Although the defendant has included a copy of the subpoena as an exhibit

to his brief, the document is not included in the record or with the exhibits to the trial court

proceedings. Further, no discussion of the subpoena is found in the transcript of the court

proceedings. From the record before us, we have no indication that the matter was ever

2 brought to the trial court’s attention. Because the defendant did not raise the issue in the

trial court, he has waived this issue for purposes of this appeal. State v. Davis, 751

S.W.2d 167, 171 (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1988); Tenn. R. App. P.

36(a).

III. JURISDICTION

The defendant also complains the Polk County Criminal Court did not have personal

or subject matter jurisdiction. However, the offense occurred in Polk County and the Polk

County Criminal Court has jurisdiction over appeals from General Sessions Court. Tenn.

Code Ann. § 27-5-108 (1980). For this reason, this assignment has no merit.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Polk County Criminal Court.

______________________________________ ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE

CONCUR:

____________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE

____________________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE