IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED JANUARY SESSION, 1997 July 11, 1997
Cecil W. Crowson STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9605-CC-00198 Appellate Court Clerk ) Appellee, ) ) ) BEDFORD COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. WILLIAM CHARLES LEE TERRY WAYNE FARRAR, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Direct Appeal)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
ANDREW JACKSON DEARING, III CHARLES W. BURSON 117 South Main Street Attorney General and Reporter Suite 101 Shelbyville, TN 37160 SARAH M. BRANCH Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243
MIKE MCCOWN District Attorney General
ROBERT C. CRIGLER CHARLES CRAWFORD Assistant District Attorney Bedford County Courthouse Shelbyville, TN 37160
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE OPINION
A Bedford County Criminal Court jury convicted Appellant Terry Wayne
Farrar of failure to appear and theft of property valued at more than $500 but less
than $1,000. As a Range II multiple offender, Appellant received consecutive
sentences of three years and eight months for the theft conviction and three years
and ten months for the failure to appear conviction. In this direct appeal, Appellant
presents the following issue for review: whether the evidence presented at trial is
legally sufficient to sustain a conviction for theft of property valued at more than
$500.
After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
As accredited by the jury’s verdict, the record reflects that at approximately
4:37 p.m. on October 11, 1994, Marjorie Jane Parker and her son, Dustin, had just
finished shopping at Wal-Mart and were on their way to Sonic to buy something to
eat for dinner. As Mrs. Parker exited the parking lot of Wal-Mart, she saw Appellant
and Greg Greer enter the parking lot. Although Mrs. Parker was not acquainted with
the passenger, Mr. Greer, she recognized Appellant as he drove past. Furthermore,
Mrs. Parker noticed that nothing appeared to be in the vehicle and that the trunk of
the car was closed.
Shortly after Mrs. Parker purchased food from Sonic, her attention was drawn
to Appellant’s car as it came “zooming” out of the Wal-Mart parking lot. At this time,
Mrs. Parker saw a lawn mower and a weed eater in the open trunk of the vehicle.
As she drove past the vehicle, Mrs. Parker further discovered that another
-2- weedeater was inside the car between Appellant and Mr. Greer. As a result, Mrs.
Parker became suspicious and made a phone call to the Sheriff’s Department.
After informing Chief Deputy Dale Elliot of her suspicion, Mrs. Parker
proceeded to Appellant’s residence on Fay Creek Road. As she slowly drove past
Appellant’s residence, she saw both Appellant and Mr. Greer standing outside of the
vehicle. She also saw that the trunk of the car was empty and that both the lawn
mower and weedeater were on the ground.
Pursuant to Mrs. Parker’s phone call, Chief Deputy Elliot drove to Appellant’s
residence on Fay Creek Road to investigate. However, prior to his arrival, he
passed a car that fit the description which Mrs. Parker had given him over the
phone. Consequently, Chief Deputy Elliot turned his vehicle around and followed
Appellant’s vehicle. As Appellant turned into a private driveway, Chief Deputy Elliot
turned on his blue lights. At that time, Appellant got out of the car, and Chief Deputy
Elliot informed him why he was stopped and read him his rights.
Chief Deputy Elliot asked Appellant about the merchandise in an effort to
locate it. In response, Appellant opened the trunk of his car and showed Chief
Deputy Elliot the two weedeaters. Appellant further indicated that the lawn mower
was at the Fay Creek Road residence. Appellant then directed Chief Deputy Elliot
to the location of the lawn mower. Thereafter, Appellant and Mr. Greer were
escorted down to the Sheriff’s Department and arrested for theft of property in
violation of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-14-103. Appellant was tried
before a jury in the Bedford County Criminal Court. At trial, Appellant alleged that
he did not have the knowledge required to be convicted of this theft and that there
was insufficient evidence showing that the value of the merchandise was greater
than $500.
-3- At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of theft of
property and failure to appear. On November 20, 1995, the trial court imposed a
sentence of three years and eight months for the theft conviction and three years
and ten months for the failure to appear conviction. Appellant appeals the theft of
property conviction.
II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Appellant alleges that the evidence presented at trial is legally insufficient to
sustain a conviction for theft of property. When an appeal challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence, the standard of review is whether, after viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the State, 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, 318 (1979); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-91 (Tenn. 1992);
Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate
view of the evidence and all reasonable or legitimate inferences which may be
drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). This Court
will not reweigh the evidence, re-evaluate the evidence, or substitute its evidentiary
inferences for those reached by the jury. State v. Carey, 914 S.W.2d 93, 95 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1995). Furthermore, in a criminal trial, great weight is given to the result
reached by the jury. State v. Johnson, 910 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1995).
Once approved by the trial court, a jury verdict accredits the witnesses
presented by the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of the State. State v.
Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). The credibility of witnesses, the
weight to be given their testimony, and the reconciliation of conflicts in the proof are
-4- matters entrusted exclusively to the jury as trier of fact. State v. Sheffield, 676
S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984). A jury’s guilty verdict removes the presumption of
innocence enjoyed by the defendant at trial and raises a presumption of guilt. State
v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 194 (Tenn. 1982). The defendant then bears the
burden of overcoming this presumption of guilt on appeal. State v. Black, 815
S.W.2d 166, 175 (Tenn. 1991).
In order to sustain a conviction for theft of property in this case, the evidence
must show that Appellant knowingly obtained or controlled the property without the
owner’s effective consent. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103.
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 NASHVILLE FILED JANUARY SESSION, 1997 July 11, 1997
Cecil W. Crowson STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9605-CC-00198 Appellate Court Clerk ) Appellee, ) ) ) BEDFORD COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. WILLIAM CHARLES LEE TERRY WAYNE FARRAR, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Direct Appeal)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
ANDREW JACKSON DEARING, III CHARLES W. BURSON 117 South Main Street Attorney General and Reporter Suite 101 Shelbyville, TN 37160 SARAH M. BRANCH Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243
MIKE MCCOWN District Attorney General
ROBERT C. CRIGLER CHARLES CRAWFORD Assistant District Attorney Bedford County Courthouse Shelbyville, TN 37160
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE OPINION
A Bedford County Criminal Court jury convicted Appellant Terry Wayne
Farrar of failure to appear and theft of property valued at more than $500 but less
than $1,000. As a Range II multiple offender, Appellant received consecutive
sentences of three years and eight months for the theft conviction and three years
and ten months for the failure to appear conviction. In this direct appeal, Appellant
presents the following issue for review: whether the evidence presented at trial is
legally sufficient to sustain a conviction for theft of property valued at more than
$500.
After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
As accredited by the jury’s verdict, the record reflects that at approximately
4:37 p.m. on October 11, 1994, Marjorie Jane Parker and her son, Dustin, had just
finished shopping at Wal-Mart and were on their way to Sonic to buy something to
eat for dinner. As Mrs. Parker exited the parking lot of Wal-Mart, she saw Appellant
and Greg Greer enter the parking lot. Although Mrs. Parker was not acquainted with
the passenger, Mr. Greer, she recognized Appellant as he drove past. Furthermore,
Mrs. Parker noticed that nothing appeared to be in the vehicle and that the trunk of
the car was closed.
Shortly after Mrs. Parker purchased food from Sonic, her attention was drawn
to Appellant’s car as it came “zooming” out of the Wal-Mart parking lot. At this time,
Mrs. Parker saw a lawn mower and a weed eater in the open trunk of the vehicle.
As she drove past the vehicle, Mrs. Parker further discovered that another
-2- weedeater was inside the car between Appellant and Mr. Greer. As a result, Mrs.
Parker became suspicious and made a phone call to the Sheriff’s Department.
After informing Chief Deputy Dale Elliot of her suspicion, Mrs. Parker
proceeded to Appellant’s residence on Fay Creek Road. As she slowly drove past
Appellant’s residence, she saw both Appellant and Mr. Greer standing outside of the
vehicle. She also saw that the trunk of the car was empty and that both the lawn
mower and weedeater were on the ground.
Pursuant to Mrs. Parker’s phone call, Chief Deputy Elliot drove to Appellant’s
residence on Fay Creek Road to investigate. However, prior to his arrival, he
passed a car that fit the description which Mrs. Parker had given him over the
phone. Consequently, Chief Deputy Elliot turned his vehicle around and followed
Appellant’s vehicle. As Appellant turned into a private driveway, Chief Deputy Elliot
turned on his blue lights. At that time, Appellant got out of the car, and Chief Deputy
Elliot informed him why he was stopped and read him his rights.
Chief Deputy Elliot asked Appellant about the merchandise in an effort to
locate it. In response, Appellant opened the trunk of his car and showed Chief
Deputy Elliot the two weedeaters. Appellant further indicated that the lawn mower
was at the Fay Creek Road residence. Appellant then directed Chief Deputy Elliot
to the location of the lawn mower. Thereafter, Appellant and Mr. Greer were
escorted down to the Sheriff’s Department and arrested for theft of property in
violation of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-14-103. Appellant was tried
before a jury in the Bedford County Criminal Court. At trial, Appellant alleged that
he did not have the knowledge required to be convicted of this theft and that there
was insufficient evidence showing that the value of the merchandise was greater
than $500.
-3- At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of theft of
property and failure to appear. On November 20, 1995, the trial court imposed a
sentence of three years and eight months for the theft conviction and three years
and ten months for the failure to appear conviction. Appellant appeals the theft of
property conviction.
II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Appellant alleges that the evidence presented at trial is legally insufficient to
sustain a conviction for theft of property. When an appeal challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence, the standard of review is whether, after viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the State, 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, 318 (1979); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-91 (Tenn. 1992);
Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate
view of the evidence and all reasonable or legitimate inferences which may be
drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). This Court
will not reweigh the evidence, re-evaluate the evidence, or substitute its evidentiary
inferences for those reached by the jury. State v. Carey, 914 S.W.2d 93, 95 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1995). Furthermore, in a criminal trial, great weight is given to the result
reached by the jury. State v. Johnson, 910 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1995).
Once approved by the trial court, a jury verdict accredits the witnesses
presented by the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of the State. State v.
Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). The credibility of witnesses, the
weight to be given their testimony, and the reconciliation of conflicts in the proof are
-4- matters entrusted exclusively to the jury as trier of fact. State v. Sheffield, 676
S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984). A jury’s guilty verdict removes the presumption of
innocence enjoyed by the defendant at trial and raises a presumption of guilt. State
v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 194 (Tenn. 1982). The defendant then bears the
burden of overcoming this presumption of guilt on appeal. State v. Black, 815
S.W.2d 166, 175 (Tenn. 1991).
In order to sustain a conviction for theft of property in this case, the evidence
must show that Appellant knowingly obtained or controlled the property without the
owner’s effective consent. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103. Tennessee Code
Annotated Section 39-11-302(b) provides the following with respect to the mental
element of “knowing”:
“Knowing” refers to a person who acts knowingly with respect to the conduct or to circumstances surrounding the conduct when the person is aware of the nature of the conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of the person’s conduct when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
Appellant argues that he did not possess the required knowledge to be convicted of
this theft. The record reveals that, while at Wal-Mart, Mr. Greer was the individual
who stole the items contained in the indictment. Furthermore, Mr. Greer testified
that Appellant returned to the car after exiting Wal-Mart and had no idea that the
property had been stolen.
Although there is conflicting testimony as to whether Appellant actually knew
that Mr. Greer was going to commit a theft at Wal-Mart, the record reflects that Mr.
Greer informed Appellant that the merchandise was stolen shortly after they left
Wal-Mart. Notwithstanding Appellant’s protest to Mr. Greer’s actions, Appellant
continued to drive the vehicle away from the scene and to other parts of the county.
-5- Furthermore, Appellant’s awareness of the theft is supported by the fact that he told
Chief Deputy Elliot that he was trying to help Mr. Greer “get the stuff at Wal-Mart
and was going to help him get rid of it.” Thus, when viewed in a light most favorable
to the State, we find that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support
Appellant’s conviction for theft.
Appellant further argues that there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the value of the property was greater than $500. Appellant’s
father testified that he purchased the exact same merchandise at Wal-Mart for
approximately $384. However, the store manager at Wal-Mart testified that the
merchandise cost approximately $504 on the day of the theft. The reconciliation of
conflicts in the proof are matters entrusted exclusively to the jury as trier of fact.
Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d at 547. Here, the jury apparently chose to believe the store
manager regarding the value of the stolen property. We will not disturb the factual
findings of the jury.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
____________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE
___________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
-6-