ÿWPCá U,´ 0Jà 0T* 0^~ 0hÜ 0rD 0|¶ 0†2 0¸ 1uH %½ 0Àà 0BƒU6Ūû“¥U>8Æv AI< U*… ᯠv~ vÓ < Œ 9p`(Geneva2 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)XPp ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓÑ\R€€\Ñ("ÿÿ$¡¡Ý ƒ ÿÝÝ  Ý< Œ 9p`(Courier New  Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ y ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ ` 4ŽXÓÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÌÓ  ÓÔ€ôÔÌ ‰Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ y ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÔ€Ô€Ô€ôÔÌÌ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Romanƒ 1 2 3 4 5Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ×Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ ! ÒÒ ! ÒÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌJuly€2,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  t MT Geneva ÒÒ  t MT Geneva ÒÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ y ÒÖ€ÖÖ€ÖÓ  ÓÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÔ€ŠÔßD€5%!`|` ç `€DßIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌAPRIL€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€,à àà àà à€€€ððÌà àà àAPPELLEEà àà àà à€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€ððÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€à àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9705„CC„00195Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€ððà àLEWIS€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€à àHONORABLE€CORNELIA€CLARKÌLARRY€FRANKS€ANDà àà àà à€€€ððÌWILLIAM€TURNERÌà àà àAPPELLANTSà àà à€€€ððà à(INSURANCE€FRAUD)ÌÌÌÌÌòòÌFOR€THE€APPELLANTóóà àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEÌÌóóBobby€McGeeà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌAttorney€at€lawà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.€O.€Box€327à àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue,€NorthÌ122€East€Main€St.à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌLinden,€TN€€37096Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDeborah€A.€TullisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue,€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€378243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€D.€BaughÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDonald€W.€SchwendimanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHohenwald,€TNÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àð!ðð!ðð!ðð!ðð!ðÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€_______________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ F ÒÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€ÔÔ€¼Ôò òOPINIONÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€defendants,€Larry€Franks€and€William€Turner,€were€foundÏguilty€of€insurance€fraud€in€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„133Ïby€a€Lewis€County€jury.€€Following€the€over„ruling€of€a€motion€for€aÏnew€trial,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant,€Franks,€to€threeÏ(3)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€and€a€fine€of€$2,500.€ÏFranks€was€placed€on€probation€for€four€(4)€years€and€as€a€conditionÏof€probation€was€ordered€to€serve€45€days,€day€for€day.€€TheÏdefendant,€Turner,€received€a€sentence€of€two€(2)€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction€and€a€fine€of€$1,200.€€Turner€was€placedÏon€a€three€(3)€year€probation€term€and€was€ordered€to€serve€25Ïdays,€day€for€day.€€In€this€appeal€of€right,€the€appellants€raise€theÏfollowing€issues:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓ ` ‹XÓÓÓà à1.€Whether€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€wasÏsufficient€to€find€the€defendants€guilty€of€violating€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€Ìðð€39„14„133€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà à2.€Whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€toÏconvict€either€defendant€of€insurance€fraud€over€$1,000,Ïbut€less€than€$10,000.ÌÌà à3.€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€grantingÏdefendants€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€because€the€verdictsÏwere€inconsistent.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ F ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÓÓà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record€and€the€applicable€law,€we€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÓ  Óò òBackgroundó óÌÓ  Óà àIn€count€one€of€indictment€no.€5625€the€defendants,€LarryÏFranks€and€William€Turner,€were€indicted€by€the€Lewis€CountyÏGrand€Jury€of€presenting€a€false€or€fraudulent€claim,€in€December,Ï1995,€in€an€amount€of€$1,000€but€less€than€$10,000€on€a€contract€ofÏinsurance€between€Larry€Franks€DBA€Kwik€Lube€and€theÏHohenwald€Insurance€Agency€and€Haulerððs€Insurance€Company.€€InÏcount€two,€the€indictment€alleges€that€Larry€Franks€and€MargaretÏBailey,€in€December,€1995,€presented€a€false€or€fraudulent€claim€onÏa€contract€of€insurance€between€Larry€Franks€DBA€A„1€PerformanceÏand€Hohenwald€Insurance€Agency€and€Haulerððs€InsuranceÏCompany€in€the€amount€of€$1,000,€but€less€than€$10,000.€€à àÌà àThe€evidence€at€trial€established€that€in€December,€1995,€theÏdefendant,€Larry€Franks,€operated€a€garage€in€Hohenwald,ÏTennessee€called€Kwik€Lube.€€Also,€on€the€same€premises,€LarryÏFranks€operated€an€auto€parts€store€called€A„1€Performance.€€BothÍbusinesses€had€an€insurance€property€liability€policy€with€the€HaulerÏInsurance€Company€of€Columbia,€Tennessee,€issued€by€theÏHohenwald€Insurance€Agency.€€Also,€Larry€Franks€and€WilliamÏTurner€were€operating€Kar„Mart,€a€car€lot,€on€the€same€premises.€ÏThis€business€was€insured€with€the€same€insurance€agency.€€OnÏDecember€20,€1995,€the€defendant€Franks€called€the€HohenwaldÏInsurance€Agency€and€reported€a€burglary€of€his€office€and€the€theftÏof€his€truck.€€At€a€later€date€the€defendant€Franks€furnished€theÏinsurance€agency€with€two€lists€of€items€stolen€from€Kwik€Lube,€A„1ÏPerformance€and€Kar„Mart.€Ìà àRicky€Joe€Odem,€testifying€for€the€State,€informed€the€jury€thatÏhe€and€his€uncle,€Tim€Fisher,€drove€to€Hohenwald€from€LawrenceÏCounty€on€the€night€of€December€19th€and€the€early€morning€ofÏDecember€20th,€1995,€to€commit€a€burglary.€€Odem€admitted€toÏbreaking€into€the€business€of€Kwik€Lube,€A„1€Performance,€and€Kar„Mart.€€From€the€office€of€Kwik€Lube,€Odem€stole€a€20.20€rifle€withÏscope,€a€camera,€a€phone€and€some€cash€from€a€desk€drawer.€€AfterÏplacing€these€items€outside,€Odem€broke€into€the€garage€(A„1ÏPerformance).€€From€the€garage€office,€Odem€took€a€little€bit€of€cash,Ïa€Holly€carburetor,€8€in„take€manifolds,€an€oil„cooler,€2€pistols€and€aÏset€of€rocker€arms.€€Odem€placed€these€items€outside,€watching€forÍhis€uncle,€who€had€been€detained€by€the€Hohenwald€PoliceÏDepartment€for€a€traffic€offense.€Ìà àSince€his€uncle€failed€to€reappear,€Odem€returned€to€theÏscene€of€his€first€entry€and€obtained€a€set€of€keys€to€some€U„HaulÏtrucks€in€the€car€lot.€Before€taking€the€keys,€Odem€admitted€toÏlooking€inside€a€race€car€trailer,€seeing€some€car€parts,€but€notÏtaking€anything.€€After€loading€the€stolen€items€in€a€Toyota€U„HaulÏtruck,€Odem€drove€to€Iron€City,€hiding€the€truck€in€some€woods.€ÏSome€of€the€stolen€items€were€taken€to€Odemððs€home€and€the€restÏwere€left€in€the€truck.€€After€Odemððs€arrest,€he€gave€a€writtenÏstatement€of€the€burglary€and€assisted€the€Hohenwald€PoliceÏDepartment€in€recovering€the€stolen€items.€Ìà àIn€late€December,€1995,€Franks€presented€two€lists€of€stolenÏitems€to€his€insurance€agency.€€Kwik€Lubeððs€loss€was€$7,860.72,Ïwhich€included€a€ðð"€drive€socket€set€(Snap„On€brand)€valued€atÏ$1,205.40.€€A„1€Performanceððs€loss€was€$7,598.26.€€Franks€andÏTurner,€in€behalf€of€Kar„Mart€tendered€a€list€of€three€stolen€items,€aÏHonda€generator€($1,429),€a€Snap„On€battery€charger€($3,74.95),Ïand€a€sand€bag€($25.99)€for€scoping€a€rifle.€Ìà àThe€items€stolen€by€Ricky€Odem€and€recovered€by€theÏHohenwald€Police€are:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòKar„MartóóÌ22€interarm€caliber€rifle€with€scopeÌÌòòA„1€PerformanceóóÌ6€Wyman€aluminum€intake€manifoldsÌ1€transmission€coolerÌÌòòKwik€LubeóóÌColt€mustang€380€blue€pistolÌRL€38€caliber€revolverÌ3€aluminum€intakesÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àAlso€recovered€was€a€camera€and€an€AT&T€phone.€Ìà àOn€December€20,€1995,€Sgt.€Greg€Wise,€Investigator€for€theÏHohenwald€Police€Department,€interviewed€the€defendant,€Franks,Ïand€verified€a€burglary€had€occurred€at€these€premises.€€Franks€andÏMs.€Margaret€Bailey,€an€employee,€advised€Sgt.€Wise€what€wasÏmissing„„some€cash,€phone,€rifle,€pistols,€etc.€€Ricky€Odem€wasÏarrested€December€28,€1995.€€On€December€29,€1995,€Sgt.€WiseÏobtained€a€copy€of€the€two€lists€of€stolen€items€submitted€by€theÏdefendants€to€the€Hohenwald€Insurance€Agency.€€On€DecemberÏ29th,€Sgt.€Wise€specifically€questioned€Franks€and€Ms.€Bailey€aboutÏthe€camera€on€the€insurance€list€valued€at€$307.66.€€Franks€statedÏhe€bought€the€camera,€a€Pentax,€with€cash€and€it€had€no€serialÏnumber.€€Although€he€and€Ms.€Bailey€stated€the€camera€was€used€inÏthe€business,€they€had€no€receipts€to€support€the€purchase€of€thisÏbusiness€item.€Ìà àAlso,€on€December€20,€1995,€Sgt.€Wise€talked€to€theÏdefendant,€William€Turner,€about€the€burglary.€€Turner€neverÏcomplained€about€any€Snap„On€tools€being€taken€in€this€burglary.€ÏOn€the€29th,€while€talking€to€Larry€Franks,€Sgt.€Wise€inquired€aboutÏthe€ðð"€socket€set€of€Snap„On€tools€on€the€insurance€list.€€FranksÏadvised€Sgt.€Wise€the€tools€belonged€to€Turner.€€Subsequently€Sgt.ÏWise€talked€to€Turner,€showed€him€the€insurance€list,€and€inquiredÏabout€the€socket€set.€€Turner€became€nervous€and€agitated.€€Sgt.ÏWise€asked€Turner€where€and€when€he€bought€the€set,€but€TurnerÏwould€try€to€change€the€subject.€€Finally,€Turner€stated€that€heÏpurchased€the€set€from€a€Snap„On€dealer€in€Lexington,€Kentucky,€aÏyear€earlier.€Sgt.€Wise€advised€Turner€he€would€contact€Snap„OnÏand€verify€the€sale€in€Lexington.€€At€5:00€PM€on€December€29th,ÏTurner€appeared€at€the€Hohenwald€Police€Department€and€afterÏbeing€advised€of€his€rights,€said€he€had€had€a€change€of€mind€as€toÏof€how€he€obtained€the€Snap„On€tools.€€Turner€stated€that€he€hadÏbought€the€tools€from€an€individual€he€did€not€know€and€it€was€not€aÏfull€set€of€tools.€€Turner€advised€Sgt.€Wise€he€and€Franks€came€upÏwith€the€value€of€$1,200€for€the€tools.€Ìà àOn€January€24,€1996,€Sgt.€Wise€reinterviewed€Franks€andÏFranks€informed€Sgt.€Wise€that€he€had€a€couple€of€more€items€toÍreport€missing€and€a€couple€of€items€he€had€found€since€the€break„in.€Ìà àThe€total€value€of€items€taken€by€Ricky€Odem€from€Kwik€LubeÏand€recovered€by€law€enforcement€was€$487.00.€€The€items€takenÏfrom€A„1€Performance€and€recovered€were€valued€at€$2,100.50.€ÏThe€lists€submitted€to€the€insurance€company€of€stolen€items€wereÏvalued€at€$15,000.00Ìà àIt€is€obvious€from€the€record€the€defendants€vigorouslyÏattempted€to€establish€that€no€witnesses€had€personal€knowledgeÏthat€any€of€the€property€claimed€on€the€proofs€of€loss€of€theÏbusinesses€did€not€exist€and/or€was€not€on€the€premises€prior€to€theÏburglary.€€However,€the€jury€found€to€the€contrary€and€resolvedÏthese€questions€in€behalf€of€the€State.Ìà àBased€on€the€evidence€in€this€trial,€the€jury€found€theÏdefendants,€Larry€Franks€and€William€Turner,€guilty,€in€count€one€ofÏindictment€Ì#5625€of€insurance€fraud€greater€than€$1,000,€but€less€thanÏ$10,000.€€In€count€two€of€the€same€indictment,€the€defendants,€LarryÏFranks€and€Margaret€Bailey€were€found€not€guilty.€ÌÓ  Óò òSufficiency€of€EvidenceÌÓ  Óó óà àWhen€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€judgment,€the€appellate€courtÍwill€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilty€unless€the€facts€of€the€record€andÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€it€are€sufficient€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendant€or€defendantsÏguilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13€(e).€òòState€v.ÏTuggle,€óó639€S.W.2d€913€(Tenn.€1982).€€òòState€v.€Brewer,€óó932€S.W.2dÏ1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Initially,€a€defendant€is€cloaked€withÏthe€presumption€of€innocence.€€òòState€v.€Tuggle,€óóat€914.€€However,€aÏjury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replacesÏit€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal€a€convicted€defendant€has€theÏburden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòIdóó.€€InÏdetermining€the€sufficiency€of€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweighÏor€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbage,€óó571€S.W.€2d€832,Ï835€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€legitimate€or€reasonableÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harris,€óó839ÏS.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€It€is€the€appellate€courtððs€duty€to€affirmÏthe€conviction€if€the€evidence€viewed€under€these€standards€wasÏsufficient€for€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.ÏVirginia,€óó99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazes,€óó875€S.W.2dÏ253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guiltÍpredicated€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€aÏcombination€of€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.ÏMatthews,€óó805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ìà àIn€their€first€issue,€the€defendants€contend€the€convictions€inÏcount€one€were€predicated€solely€upon€conjecture,€guess€andÏspeculation€and€that€the€evidence€was€not€sufficient€to€support€theirÏconvictions.€€In€support€of€this€claim,€the€defendants€argue€that€noÏwitnesses€of€the€State€could€testify€that€the€items€on€the€submittedÏlist€to€the€insurance€agency€did€not€exist€or€were€disposed€of€by€theÏdefendants.€€Also,€the€jury€could€not€have€given€any€weight€orÏcredence€to€Ricky€Odemððs€testimony€since€they€(jury)€found€theÏdefendant,€Larry€Franks,€not€guilty€in€count€two.€Ìà àThe€weight€and€credibility€of€the€witnessesðð€testimony€areÏmatters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.ÏSheffield,€óó676€S.W.2d€542€(Tenn.€1984)€at€547.€€Franks€presented€aÏclaim€of€loss€on€his€insurance€contract€with€Haulerððs€Insurance€Co.Ïthat€included€several€items€that€Ricky€Odem€denied€stealing.€€Thus,ÏRicky€Odemððs€credibility€became€a€clear€issue€in€this€trial.€€The€juryÏobviously€accredited€his€testimony€despite€the€defendantððs€efforts€toÏdiscredit€him.€€Based€on€circumstantial€evidence,€the€jury€certainlyÏinferred€the€defendants€intentionally€presented€a€fraudulent€claim.€Ìà àAlthough€the€defendant,€William€Turner,€owned€the€ðððð€Snap„On€socket€set,€it€was€reported€stolen€on€Franksðð€claim€of€loss.€€BasedÏon€Turnerððs€different€statements€about€the€purchase€and€value€ofÏthe€socket€set,€a€jury€could€certainly€conclude€that€both€wereÏcriminally€responsible€for€submitting€a€fraudulent€claim.€€Therefore,Ïthe€evidence€is€more€than€Çsufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict€that€the€defendantsÏintentionally€presented,€or€caused€to€be€presented,€a€false€orÏfraudulent€claim€for€the€payment€of€loss€upon€a€contract€ofÏinsurance€coverage,€or€prepared€a€false€or€fraudulent€account€withÏthe€intent€that€the€same€be€presented€or€used€in€support€of€suchÏclaim,€for€an€amount€over€$1,000,€but€less€then€$10,000.€€There€isÏno€merit€to€defendantsðð€first€issue.€€It€is€dismissed.Ìà àIn€their€second€issue,€the€defendants€contend€the€evidenceÏwas€insufficient€to€convict€them€of€insurance€fraud€over€$1,000,€butÏless€than€$10,000.€€Since€the€Stateððs€five€witnesses€could€not€say€theÏdefendants€did€not€own€or€possess€the€equipment€submitted€to€theÏinsurance€company,€the€defendants€argue€that€no€fair€marketÏvalues€were€established€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€However,€theÏdefendants€do€concede€that€witness€Ricky€Odem,€testified€he€tookÏapproximately€$400€in€cash.€€The€State€established,€through€theÏtestimony€of€Sgt.€Wise,€the€recovered€stolen€items€from€Ricky€OdemÏamounted€to€$2,587€in€value.€€The€defendant€is€correct€in€that€theÏState€did€not€prove€the€individual€values€of€each€stolen€item.€€TheÏtrial€court€in€its€charge€instructed€the€jury€they€must€determine€theÏrange€of€value€of€the€property€claimed€to€be€stolen€from€theÏdefendants€in€the€burglary.€€The€jury€had€three€options,€based€on€theÍproof,€to€establish€the€values€at€$1,000,€but€less€than€$10,000€orÏmore€than€$500,€but€less€than€$1,000€or€at€$500€or€less.€€The€jury,Ïby€its€verdict,€was€satisfied€that€the€State€provided€sufficientÏevidence€to€fix€the€value€at€more€than€$1,000€and€this€Court€believesÏthat€there€was€sufficient€evidence€for€the€jury€to€so€conclude.€ÏDefendantsðð€second€issue€is€without€merit€and€is€dismissed.Ìà àIn€issue€three€the€defendants€complain€the€trial€court€was€inÏerror€for€failing€to€grant€a€new€trial€because€the€verdicts€wereÏinconsistent.€€The€defendants€contend€that€the€jury€in€finding€FranksÏand€Bailey€not€guilty€in€count€two€of€the€indictment€could€not€haveÏbelieved€the€testimony€of€Ricky€Odem€as€the€facts€in€count€one.€ÏUnfortunately€for€the€defendants,€juries€sometimes€do€that€veryÏthing€after€listening€to€multiple€offenses€arising€in€the€same€set€ofÏfacts€or€circumstances.€€Also,€that€does€not€mean€a€juryððs€verdictsÏare€inconsistent.€€The€trial€court€in€ruling€on€the€merits€of€the€motionÏfor€new€trial€on€this€issue€stated:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ K ÒÓ ` ‹XÓÓÓà àð ðSecondly,€as€to€each€individual,€Mr.€McGeeÏhas€made€an€interesting€and€well€thought€out€argumentÏabout€the€inconsistencies€of€the€verdicts€in€Count€1€andÏCount€2.€€Each€of€them€charged,€essentially,€the€sameÏoffense,€but€as€to€the€two€different€business€operationsÏthat€existed€in€these€combined€quarters.€€Particularly€asÏto€Mr.€Franks,€I€guess,€who€was€charged€in€both€of€them,Ïthere€is€some€argument€that€can€be€made€that€if€youððreÏsimply€relying€on€the€burglarððs€testimony€and€you€donððtÍbelieve€him€in€Count€2€about€what€was€taken„„or€youÏdonððt€believe€him€in€Count€1,€that€you€should€not€believeÏhim€in€Count€2€either.€Iððm€not€sure€that€works€quite€as€wellÏfor€the€co„defendant.ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ  Òà àBut,€once€again,€it€is€my€judgment€that€theÏmotions€must€be€denied€on€this€ground,€because€I€donððtÏfind€them€to€be€automatically€inconsistent.€And€once€I€gotÏstraight€in€my€mind€which€items€were€which„„I€think€a€lot€ofÏthis€case,€or€a€lot€of€the€proof,€focused€on€the€socket€set€inÏparticular,€and€some€of€the€other€items,€there€was€moreÏproof€presented€about€some€of€the€items€on€Count€1,€KwikÏLube€list,€as€to€values€after€the€fact€than€there€were€on€theÏCount€2€A„1€list.€€I€think€a€lot€of€the€testimony€or€a€lot€ofÏwhat€the€jury€may€have€relied€on€is€the€testimony€aboutÏthe€socket€set.ððÌÌÒ  ÒÒ F ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÓÓà àBased€on€the€evidence€in€this€record,€we€believe€the€trial€courtÏwas€correct€in€itððs€decision.€€In€òòWiggins€v.€State,€óó498€S.W.2d€32Ï(Tenn.€1973),€the€Supreme€Court€stated€as€to€inconsistent€verdictsÏin€a€case€involving€different€verdicts€for€petit€larceny€and€concealingÏstolen€property:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ž ÒÓ ` ‹XÓÓÓà àð ðBut,€as€the€instant€factual€situation€isÏunique,€and€so€that€there€can€be€no€question€as€regardsÏthe€subject,€we€specifically€adopt€the€reasoning€andÏresult€of€òòDunn€v.€United€States€óó52€S.Ct.€189€(1932).€ÏConsistency€in€verdicts€for€multiple€count€indictments€isÏunnecessary€as€each€count€is€a€separate€indictment.€ÏTherein€lies€the€essential€reasoning.€An€acquittal€on€oneÏcount€cannot€be€considered€res€judicata€to€anotherÏcount€even€though€both€counts€stem€from€the€sameÏcriminal€transaction.€€This€Court€will€not€upset€aÏseemingly€inconsistent€verdict€by€speculating€as€to€theÏjuryððs€reasoning€if€we€are€satisfied€that€the€evidenceÏestablishes€guilt€of€the€other€offense€upon€which€theÏconviction€was€returnedðð.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ F ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÓÓSee€òòState€v.€Gennoe,€óó851€S.W.2d€833,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);ÏòòState€v.€Tony€Scott€Walker,€óóNo.€02C01„9704„CC„00147€at€Jackson,Ïfiled€December€3,€1997,€Judge€David€G.€Hayes.€€Ìà àWe€find€the€trial€courtððs€analysis€correct€and€the€judgments€ofÏconviction€for€both€defendants€are€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àL.€T.€Lafferty,€Special€JudgeÌÌÓÓò òCONCUR:ÌÓÓó ó__________________________òòÌóóGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌ__________________________ÌThomas€T.€Woodall,€JudgeÌÔ€XÔÔ€Ô