ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ U,- 0dY U,½ U>é U*'B)QDCz AM½ B J'v~qvÓï D3 0@õ AO5Æ„ 0DJ 0DŽ D/Ò B˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- \]E^_`ea[b[cdeEU_A 3|xf2 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òFebruary€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€!ÔÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€ÖXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÙ€€ÙßL€$&#;+'h|` Å `€€LßAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌDECEMBER€SESSION,€1995ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.ÏNO.€03C01„9504„CR„00126Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSULLIVAN€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€FRANK€L.€SLAUGHTERó óÌò òVICTOR€D.€MCMILLER,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal€„€Sufficiency€ofÏEvidence)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJ.D.€HICKMANà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ803€Liberty€Driveà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌBlountville,€TN€37617à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€P.€CAULEYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGREELEY€WELLSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àEDWARD€E.€WILSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€37617ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  Óò òòòÔ€!„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€!XÔÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€ Ôà àAppellant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€burglary€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€œðð€39„14„403›Ï(1991)€and€theft€of€property€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€œðð€39„14„103›€(1991).€€He€was€sentencedÏto€ten€(10)€years€in€the€Department€of€Corrections€and€fined€five€thousand€dollars€($5,000.00).€ÏIn€this€appeal,€Appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€at€trial€was€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€toÏsustain€the€convictions.€€Specifically,€Appellant€asserts€that€the€testimony€at€trial€was€soÏcontradictory€that€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€not€have€believed€the€Stateððs€theory€of€the€case.€ÏAfter€viewing€the€evidence€under€the€applicable€standard€of€review,€we€find€that€a€rational€trierÏof€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€TheÏconvictions€are€affirmed.ÌÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€standard€of€review€isÏwhether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rationalÏtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€318€(1979);€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€910€S.W.2d€897,€899Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€The€weight€and€the€credibility€of€theÏtestimony€of€witnesses€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.ÏSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€A€verdict€against€a€defendant€removes€theÏpresumption€of€innocence€and,€on€appeal,€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639ÏS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€defendant€then€bears€the€burden€of€overcoming€thisÏpresumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€175€(Tenn.€1991).€€Furthermore,€aÏjury€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€prosecutionððs€witnessesÍand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.òò€€òòóóState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.Ï1983).€€As€a€result,€the€appellate€court€affords€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€and€all€reasonable€evidentiary€inferences.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageòòóó,€óó571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ï(Tenn.€1978).€€An€appellate€court€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€re„evaluate€the€evidence,€orÏsubstitute€evidentiary€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838ÏS.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌà àAt€trial,€Officer€Ralph€Cline€of€the€Kingsport€Police€Department€testified€that€heÏinvestigated€the€report€of€a€burglary€at€220€Dunbar€Street€in€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€the€home€ofÏMr.€James€Peters.€€In€the€course€of€his€investigation,€Officer€Cline€learned€that€the€followingÏitems€of€personal€property€were€missing:€two€televisions,€a€video€cassette€recorder,€a€stereoÏamplifier,€two€stereo€speakers,€and€a€digital€cable€radio.€€Mr.€Peters€testified€that,€on€theÏmorning€of€November€26,€1993,€he€returned€home€to€find€that€his€kitchen€door€was€brokenÏopen€and€that€some€of€his€possessions€were€missing.€€Mr.€Peters€further€testified€that,€on€theÏday€before€the€burglary,€Appellant€made€a€visit€to€his€home€in€order€to€sell€him€a€small€colorÏtelevision.ÌÌà àMr.€Freddie€Skaggs,€an€across„the„street€neighbor€of€Mr.€Peters,€testified€that,€on€theÏmorning€of€the€burglary,€he€observed€Appellant€and€a€white€male,€identified€only€as€John,Ïwalk€around€the€corner€of€Mr.€Petersðð€house.€€Soon€thereafter,€Mr.€Skaggs€observed€AppellantÏand€the€white€male€exit€the€house€carrying€stereo€equipment.€€According€to€Mr.€Skaggs,ÏAppellant€and€the€white€male€loaded€the€equipment€into€their€truck€and€drove€away.€€The€recordÏreflects€various€inconsistencies€in€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Skaggs,€such€as€which€of€the€twoÍburglars€was€driving€the€truck,€what€items€Appellant€carried€from€the€house,€and€whetherÏSkaggs€phoned€the€police€immediately;€however,€he€consistently€testified€that€he€observedÏAppellant€leave€the€house€carrying€equipment.€€Mr.€Skaggs€testified€that€Mr.€Peters€offeredÏhim€money€to€testify€but€that€he€was€never€paid.€€Mr.€Skaggs€later€testified€that€Mr.€PetersÏoffered€him€fifty€dollars€($50.00)€to€tell€the€œtruth›€and€that€Mr.€Peters€never€asked€him€to€lieÏabout€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€burglary.ÌÌà àMrs.€Marion€Harold,€a€visitor€in€the€home€of€Mr.€Skaggs€on€the€morning€of€theÏburglary,€testified€that€she€observed€him€carry€a€television€from€the€home€of€Mr.€Peters.€ÏHowever,€Mrs.€Harold€signed€a€statement€saying€that€Mr.€Peters€paid€her€and€her€husband,ÏMr.€Charles€Harold,€to€tell€the€police€that€Appellant€had€committed€the€burglary.€€The€statementÏalso€said€that€Mrs.€Howard€intended€to€let€it€be€known€that€Appellant€was€not€guilty.€€TheÏstatement€concluded€by€saying€that€Mrs.€Harold€had€neither€been€threatened€nor€rewarded€forÏthe€statement€and€that€the€statement€was€true€and€accurate.€€€Mrs.€Harold€later€testified€thatÏAppellant€had€asked€her€to€sign€the€pre„prepared€statement€and€that€she€had€not€read€theÏstatement€before€signing.€€She€disavowed€the€truthfulness€of€the€statement€and€testified€thatÏAppellant€had€indeed€burglarized€the€home€of€Mr.€Peters.ÌÌà àMr.€Harold€testified€that,€during€his€visit€to€the€home€of€Mr.€Skaggs€on€the€morning€ofÏthe€burglary,€he€never€saw€Appellant.€€Mr.€Harold€stated€that€Mr.€Peters€offered€him€twenty„five€dollars€($25.00)€to€testify€and€that€Appellant€asked€him€to€sign€a€statement€to€that€effect.€ÏDuring€the€police€investigation€of€the€burglary,€Mr.€Harold€signed€a€statement€saying€that€heÏhad€seen€Appellant€carry€stereo€equipment€from€Mr.€Petersðð€home.€€However,€Mr.€HaroldÍtestified€that,€at€the€time€he€gave€the€statement€to€the€police,€he€was€not€in€his€right€mind€due€toÏdrug€use.€€He€later€testified€that€he€had€seen€Appellant€walking€around€on€the€morning€of€theÏburglary€but€that€Appellant€was€not€carrying€anything.€€Mr.€Harold€admitted€that,€at€the€time€ofÏtrial,€he€was€in€custody€for€violation€of€parole€from€a€burglary€conviction.ÌÌà àIt€is€clear€that€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Peters€and€Officer€Cline€allowed€the€jury€toÏconclude€that€an€aggravated€burglary€and€a€theft€of€property€had€occurred.€€The€testimony€ofÏMr.€Skaggs€and€Mrs.€Harold€and€the€signed€statement€of€Mr.€Harold€identified€Appellant€asÏthe€perpetrator€of€these€crimes.€€€Although€conflicting€and€inconsistent€testimony€came€out€atÏtrial,€the€task€of€resolving€the€conflicts€and€inconsistencies€remained€exclusively€within€theÏprovince€of€the€jury.€€In€doing€so,€the€jury€obviously€reconciled€these€inconsistencies€in€favorÏof€the€Stateððs€theory€of€the€case.€€This€Court€is€not€free,€under€such€circumstances,€toÏsubstitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€jury.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmedÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€!Ôà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGE