ÿWPCú …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0l 0Dt w@¸ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕ U>9U*wB)¡ BÊDCç AM*wv~‘vÓ D3â 0@ AOUƤ 0Dj D/® BݘHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡·‚^!ppppdp3|xŒ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó xyDzT{E|E}~DD€DÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òNovember€6,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ € Ñ›Ñ7€öNXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °‚Xª ¸ ™XÓÔ€"ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€&'%;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›Ìà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àDECEMBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNO.Ï03C01„9505„CR„00145Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àSEVIER€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€REX€HENRY€OGLEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGE€ÌBARBARA€BYRD,à àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€(Theft€„€Over€$1,000.00)Ìà àà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à à€€ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌEdward€C.€Millerà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€416€à àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌDandridge,€Tennessee€37725à àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€à àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAl€Schmutzer,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àG.€Scott€GreenÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Atty.€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSevier€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à125€Court€Avenue,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSevierville,€Tennessee€37862ÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóà àÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÓÓòòÌÌÓ Ð Óà@ àOPINIONóóÌThe€appellant,€Barbara€Ann€Byrd,€appeals€as€of€right€the€judgment€ofÏconviction€entered€against€her€by€the€Sevier€County€Criminal€Court€for€theft€ofÏproperty€valued€at€over€one€thousand€dollars€œ($1,000.00).›€€On€appeal€she€presentsÏthree€issues€for€review.€ÌÓ#` °‚Xª ¸ ˜ h—X#ÓÓÓ1)à8 àWhether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€theÏconviction.ÌÌ2)€€à8 àWhether€the€indictment€was€duplicitous€and,€therefore,Ïshould€have€been€dismissed.ÌÌ3)à8 àWhether€the€State€failed€to€provide€the€appellant€withÏexculpatory€evidence€in€violation€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó.ÌÌÓÓWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€Ìà@ àò òFACTSó óÌThe€appellant€and€three€others,€Robbie€Poole,€Janie€Carlton,€and€RichardÏDevon€Ewing€journeyed€from€Hickory,€North€Carolina,€to€Pigeon€Forge,€Tennessee,Ïto€implement€their€plan€to€systematically€steal€merchandise€from€various€SevierÏCounty€outlet€malls.€€This€case€concerns€the€appellantððs€involvement€in€the€theft€ofÏ$2,644.92€worth€of€merchandise€from€nine€merchants€located€in€the€Tanger€OutletÏMall€in€Pigeon€Forge.€€ÌThe€undisputed€proof€at€trial€was€that€on€April€28,€1993,€nine€merchants€hadÏa€total€of€$2,644.92€in€property€stolen€from€them,€all€of€which€was€recovered€that€dayÏin€a€gray€1976€Oldsmobile€Delta€88€in€the€parking€lot€of€the€Tanger€Outlet€Mall.€€TheÏcar,€owned€by€Richard€Devon€Ewingððs€father,€was€the€same€car€in€which€theÏappellant€and€her€companions€drove€from€North€Carolina€to€Pigeon€Forge.€€RobbieÏPoole€testified€that€he€and€the€three€others,€including€the€appellant,€engaged€in€aÏsystematic€scheme€of€stealing€from€the€nine€merchants€involved€in€this€case.€€TheÏbasic€strategy€employed€was€that€once€inside€a€store,€two€of€the€four€would€distractÏthe€sales€staff€while€the€other€two€would€place€merchandise€into€a€shopping€bag€andÏthen€leave€the€store€without€paying€for€the€goods.€€The€stolen€goods€were€thenÏroutinely€placed€in€the€trunk€of€the€Delta€88.€€The€appellant€was€seen€by€at€least€oneÏmerchant€placing€shopping€bags€into€the€car.€€The€foursome€used€this€basic€strategyÏin€nine€different€shops€with€the€pairings€changing€and€occasionally€using€only€threeÍof€them€to€steal€merchandise.€€€Poole€testified€that€the€stolen€merchandise€was€to€beÏdivided€equally€between€the€four.€€ÌWhen€several€merchants€caught€onto€the€scheme€of€the€appellant€and€herÏcompanions,€the€police€were€called€and€located€the€stolen€merchandise€in€the€DeltaÏ88€automobile.Ìò òà@ àSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌThe€appellant€claims€that€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€trial€was€insufficient€toÏsupport€the€juryððs€finding€of€guilt.€ÌWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€we€must€reviewÏthe€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€in€determining€whetherÏ"any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€61€L.ÏEd.€2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€and€are€requiredÏto€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€œproof›€contained€in€the€recordÏas€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€ÏòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.€2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€Ì€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€beÏgiven€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolvedÏby€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòId.óó€€A€guilty€verdict€rendered€by€the€jury€andÏapproved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State,€andÍa€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€of€innocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493ÏS.W.€2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€ÌThere€was€no€question€that€the€property€in€the€vehicle€was€stolen€and€thatÏthe€fair€market€value€was€over€$1,000.00.€€Robbie€Poole€testified€that€he,€theÏappellant,€and€two€others€embarked€on€a€deliberate€plan€to€steal€and€did€steal€theÏmerchandise€recovered€from€the€car.€€Sometimes€the€appellant€was€activelyÏengaged€in€the€takings€and€sometimes€she€was€not.€€The€appellant€claims€thatÏbecause€she€was€not€linked€to€the€taking€of€each€stolen€item€she€cannot€be€foundÏguilty€of€theft.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„402(2)€€provides€that€anÏaccused€is€criminally€responsible€for€an€offense€of€another€if€he€or€she€acts€with€theÏð ðintent€to€promote€or€assist€the€commission€of€the€offense,€òòor€to€benefit€in€theÏproceeds€or€results€of€the€offense€óó.€.€.€.ðð€(emphasis€added).€€Poole€testified€thatÏalthough€the€appellant€actively€participated€in€the€taking€of€only€some€of€theÏmerchandise,€she€was€to€share€equally€in€the€proceeds€of€all€merchandise€stolen€onÏthe€day€in€question.€€€Several€witnesses€testified€that€the€appellant€and€herÏcompanions€entered€their€shops,€created€distractions,€and€that€shortly€after€theirÏdepartures€from€the€store,€the€shopkeepers€noticed€that€merchandise€had€beenÏstolen.€€At€least€one€witness€saw€œthe›€appellant€place€œbags›€of€merchandise€into€theÏDelta€88€automobile.€€œThere›€was€no€dispute€that€the€merchandise€was€stolen€or€thatÏthe€value€exceeded€$1,000.00.€€€ÌRobbie€Pooleððs€testimony,€coupled€with€that€of€various€shopkeepers€as€to€theÏsuspicious€behavior€of€the€appellant€and€her€cohorts€shortly€before€they€discoveredÏthat€items€had€been€stolen€from€each€shop,€provided€the€jury€with€ample€evidenceÏthat€the€appellant€was€guilty€of€theft€of€property€valued€at€over€$1,000.00.€ÏAccordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€œ›Ìœà@ àò òVALIDITY›€OF€THE€INDICTMENTó óÌ€The€appellant€asserts€that€the€prosecution€was€required€to€charge€her€withÏnine€separate€offenses€because€the€stolen€property€belonged€to€nine€differentÏowners.€€She€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€dismissed€the€one€countÏindictment€on€grounds€that€it€was€duplicitous.€€We€disagree.€€ÌOur€analysis€of€this€issue€begins€with€the€well„settled€principle€that€as€officersÏof€the€executive€branch,€the€district€attorneys€general€for€this€State€have€broadÏdiscretionary€authority€in€the€control€of€criminal€prosecutions.€€òòState€v.€Gilliamóó,€901ÏS.W.2d€385,€389€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€A€prosecutor€has€broad€discretion€toÏdetermine€whether€to€prosecute€an€individual€and€what€charge€or€charges€to€file€orÏbring€before€a€grand€jury,€provided€he€or€she€has€probable€cause€to€believe€that€theÏindividual€committed€an€offense€defined€by€statute.€€òòId.óó€ÌTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„14„103€states:ÌÓÓà8 àA€person€commits€theft€of€property€if,€with€intent€to€deprive€theÏowner€of€property,€the€person€knowingly€obtains€or€exercisesÍcontrol€over€the€property€without€the€ownerððs€effectiveÏconsent.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àWith€the€passage€of€this€statute,€the€legislature€eliminated€the€traditional€distinctionsÏbetween€various€unlawful€takings€in€favor€of€one€general€theft€statute.€€€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€39„14„101€and€the€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÏthereto€provide€that€the€present€general€theft€statute€ð ðembracesðð€the€principles€of€theÏformer€theft€crimes€including€ð ðreceiving€or€concealing€stolen€propertyðð€andÏð ðshoplifting.ððÌThe€facts€of€this€case€support€the€prosecutorððs€decision€to€charge€theÏappellant€with€one€count€of€theft€of€property€valued€at€over€$1,000.00.€€SheÏparticipated€directly€and€indirectly€in€the€activities€which€culminated€in€the€policeÏrecovering€over€$1,000.00€worth€of€stolen€property€from€the€automobile€in€which€theÏappellant€had€ridden€to€Pigeon€Forge€and€into€which€she€had€been€seen€placingÏbags€of€merchandise.€€She€clearly€had€access€to€and€control€over€the€stolenÏmerchandise€in€the€car.€€Additionally,€the€police€investigation€of€the€activities€of€theÏappellant€and€her€cohorts€established€that€they€had€a€pattern€of€entering€a€store,€andÏwhile€one€or€two€of€the€four€distracted€the€sales€staff,€the€other€one€or€two€would€stealÏmerchandise€by€placing€it€in€large€shopping€bags.€The€bags€of€stolen€merchandiseÏwould€then€be€taken€to€the€car€and€the€process€repeated€in€another€store.€€In€otherÏwords,€at€the€time€the€indictment€was€œobtained,›€the€prosecutor€œhad€probable€cause€toÍbelieve›€that€the€four€individuals,€including€the€appellant,€were€involved€in€a€schemeÏto€steal€merchandise€from€the€Tanger€Outlet€Mall.€€Additionally,€the€appellant€was€toÏshare€equally€in€the€proceeds€of€the€criminal€conduct.€œ›€These€facts€all€support€theÏcharging€of€one€count€of€theft.ÌWe€find€analogous€support€for€this€conclusion€from€cases€prosecuted€underÏthe€former€receiving€or€concealing€stolen€property€statute.€€The€appellant€herselfÏacknowledges€that€under€the€former€receiving€or€concealing€statute,€the€state€wasÏpermitted,€indeed€required,€€to€charge€one€offense,€notwithstanding€the€number€ofÏvictims€involved€in€the€theft.€€In€€òòState€v.€Goinsóó,€705€S.W.€2d€648,€651„52€(Tenn.Ï1986),€our€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€state€could€not€ð ðdivide€a€cache€of€stolenÏproperty€.€.€.€by€the€number€of€the€victims€of€the€thefts€and€thereby€obtain€that€numberÏof€indictments€absent€some€other€evidence€that€identified€goods€have€been€receivedÏor€concealed€separately.ðð€€The€appellant€acknowledges€the€rule€of€law€from€òòGoinsóóÏbut€argues€that€this€theory€of€theft€was€not€available€to€the€prosecutor€because€theÏstate€could€not€prove€that€the€appellant€received€or€concealed€stolen€€property€from€aÏthird€party€rather€than€directly€from€the€victim.€€While€we€agree€that€this€was€anÏelement€under€the€old€receiving€or€concealing€statute,€we€do€not€agree€that€the€stateÏwas€required€to€prove€the€elements€of€that€former€crime€merely€because€its€theory€ofÏthe€case€was€similar€to€the€former€crime€of€receiving€or€concealing€stolen€property.€€€ÌWhile€the€general€theft€statute€prohibits€the€same€conduct€as€œdid€the›Ïreceiving€or€concealing€œstatute,›€the€state€is€not€required€to€prove€the€elements€of€theÏreceiving€or€concealing€statute€in€order€to€gain€a€conviction€under€the€current€theftÏstatute.€€In€òòState€v.€Youngóó,€904€S.W.2d€603,€604€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€this€courtÏrecognized€that€with€the€enactment€of€the€new€theft€statute€the€legislature€changedÏthe€elements€of€the€crime€of€œtheft›€while€continuing€to€prohibit€the€criminal€conduct€ofÏthe€former€theft€statutes.€€To€hold€as€the€appellant€requests€would€be€to€restore€theÏð ðantiquated€and€confusingðð€requirements€of€common€law€theft€crimes€in€directÏcontravention€of€the€legislatureððs€intent.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„101,ÏSentencing€Commission€Comments.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€prosecutor€actedÏwithin€his€discretion€in€charging€the€appellant€with€one€count€of€theft€of€propertyÏvalued€at€over€$1,000.00.€œ›Ìà@ àò òBRADY€VIOLATIONó óÌFinally,€€the€appellant€contends€that€the€indictment€should€have€beenÏdismissed€because€the€State€failed€to€preserve€and€furnish€to€the€appellant€signedÏstatements€of€the€co„defendants.€€Robbie€Poole€testified€that€he€gave€a€writtenÏstatement€to€police€in€which€he€stated€that€the€appellant€and€Janie€Carlton€were€notÏinvolved€in€the€theft.€€The€arresting€officer€testified€that€he€had€no€recollection€ofÏtaking€a€written€statement€from€Poole€and€had€been€unable€to€find€such€a€statementÍin€any€files.€€Further,€the€district€attorney€informed€the€court€that€he€had€never€seen€aÏwritten€statement€from€Poole,€although€he€had€made€a€thorough€search.€€ÌIn€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.€Ct.€1194,€œ10›€L.€Ed.€2d€215€(1963),Ïthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that,€upon€request,€the€prosecution€has€a€dutyÏto€furnish€the€accused€with€all€exculpatory€evidence€pertaining€to€the€accusedððs€guiltÏor€innocence€or€the€punishment€which€may€be€imposed.€€Further,€suppression€by€theÏprosecution€of€evidence€favorable€to€the€accused€subsequent€to€a€proper€requestÏviolates€the€accusedððs€right€to€due€process€if€the€evidence€is€material.€€òòId.óó€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoÏBranch€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€164,€469€S.W.2d€533€(1969).€€The€ultimateÏquestion€in€determining€whether€there€has€been€a€òòBradyóó€violation€is€whether€in€theÏabsence€of€the€suppressed€evidence€the€defendant€received€a€fair€trial.€€òòKyles€v.ÏœWhitleyóó,›€___€U.S.€___,€115€S.€Ct.€1555,€1566,€131€œL.€Ed.€2d›€490€(1995).€€ÌWe€are€confident€that€the€verdict€in€this€case€reflects€a€fair€trial€for€theÏappellant.€€The€information€contained€in€the€alleged€written€statement€was€known€toÏthe€appellant€prior€to€trial.€€In€addition,€Mr.€Poole€testified€to€the€substance€of€theÏwritten€statement€he€claims€to€have€given€the€police.€€Ultimately,€the€appellant€wasÏable€to€cross„examine€Mr.€Poole€regarding€the€statement.€€Mr.€Poole€admitted€thatÏwhen€he€made€the€statement€he€was€lying€and€reiterated€his€testimony€that€theÏappellant€was€fully€involved€in€the€plan€to€steal€merchandise€from€the€merchants€atÏthe€Tanger€Outlet€Mall.€€The€appellant€had€the€full€benefit€of€the€alleged€statementÍalthough€the€State€was€unable€to€find€either€the€document€or€any€record€of€itsÏexistence.€€ÌAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is,€in€all€respects,€€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÓ  ÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ