WPC :[j "8eaܭH '. a 9{aP>:yEi*AcwZ+30Jwǥ٬l⨨k(y<!FˆZ@GZQjJ5C&x0g`wi%bhqW?`HU\\g"6So6G̀̑)=UU0dųJL^\lm9Y+xG&6X@ORC[)!Bl܀6P7@J6ץ~c# E;I/CF>vHk]fn w$v`+kh;+`I?< 3tHcqČz0K#ؽK 䳲Y{*A})A LR*_|>0g8YxM fp,GiTu/,܊=ѓ {;6 }(;Ob %\UNb 0UN8^ w4 z$   m #   s99NEb 0     B 0 D5 D- 0K ASd 0} 0D! Ae(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularmW/ y.:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2$ !.8΁dXXd8         0   d(|3$ !.8΁dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8΁dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8΁dd8     __   ΁8_XXdd8@hh0΁INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#΁0#Ԉ #    @  @` March4,2003Session F X_X΁ #΁XX_!#STATEOFTENNESSEEv._THADDAEUS_ԀMEDFORDX_X΁  ? @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforLauderdaleCounty  9 @@No.6962JosephH.Walker,III,Judge  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200200226CCAR3CDFiledOctober21,_2003_   AV) ` dE<]` A ^   #΁XX_#X_X΁XbNXXX_  DavidH.Welles,J.,dissenting. h  ?   Irespectfullydissentfromthemajoritysholdingthattheevidenceisnotsufficienttosupport a theDefendantsconvictionofpossessionofcocainewithintenttodeliver.Whiletheproofinthis J caseislessthanoverwhelming,Iwouldholdthatthecircumstantialevidenceissufficientfora 3 reasonablejurortoconcludebeyondareasonabledoubtthattheDefendantwasthesourceofthe  cocainefoundbythepoliceofficers.Theonlyotherexplanationforthecocainespresenceonthe  roadsideisthatsomeunknownpersonplaceditthere,eitherintentionallyoraccidentally.WhileI  agreethatanaccusedsmereproximitytodrugsisnotalonesufficienttosupportafindingthatthe  accusedpossessedthem,thereareadditionalcircumstancesinthiscasewhichareindicativeofthe p Defendantsguilt.Asacknowledgedbythemajority,thefactsandcircumstancessupportinga Y convictionbasedsolelyoncircumstantialevidence mustbesostrongandcogentastoexclude B everyotherreasonablehypothesissavetheguiltofthedefendant.Statev.Crawford,470S.W.2d +{ 610,612(Tenn.1971)(emphasisadded).Idonotthinkthatanyotherreasonablehypothesis d explainsthepresenceofthecocainefoundinthiscase,otherthantheDefendantspossessionofit. M   Moreover,IbelievethatthisCourtshouldtakeintoaccounttheimprobabilityofthe !! Defendantstestimonywhenweighingthesufficiencyoftheevidence.Thiscasepresentedthejury "" withaverynarrowquestion:whethertheDefendantwasthesourceofthecocainefoundbythe ## policeofficersonthesideoftheroad.TheStatehadnodirectproofthattheDefendanthadbeen $$ inpossessionofthedrugs.Rather,theStateaskedthejurytodrawaninferencefromentirely s% % circumstantialevidencethattheDefendanthadthedrugsbutdispossessedhimselfofthemby \&!& throwingthemouthiscarwindowwhilefleeingfromthepolice.TheDefendanttestifiedthathe E'"' didnosuchthing.IfthejuryhadbelievedtheDefendant,itwouldhaveacquittedhimofthe .(~#( possessioncharge.Obviously,thejurydidnotbelievetheDefendant.Thatis,thejurorsconcluded )g$) thattheDefendantwaslyingwhenhetoldthemthathedidnotthrowthecocaineoutofhiscar. *P%*   Onquestionsofcredibility,ajuryisentitledtoconcludethatawitnessisnottellingthetruth. +"', Furthermore,ajury hasarighttoconsiderthedefendantslackofcredibilityinreachingits , (- verdictandadefendants incrediblestory[is]anothercircumstancethatthejury[is]entitledto -(. _consider.UnitedStatesv.Tyler,758F.2d66,69(2ndCir.1985).Inferencesgleanedfroma  criminaldefendantsowntestimonymayberelieduponbythefactfinderinreachingaguilty  verdict,andanappellatecourtwilllikewiserelyuponsuchinferencesinconductingareviewofthe  sufficiencyoftheevidence.See,e.g.,Statev.Hall,958S.W.2d679,app.705(Tenn.1997).On k appeal,theStateisentitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceandallreasonableand T legitimateinferenceswhichmaybedrawntherefrom.SeeStatev.Carruthers,35S.W.3d516,558 =  (Tenn.2000).Onereasonableandlegitimateinferencethatmaybedrawnfromthejurysverdict & v inthiscaseisthatitdeterminedthatthecontraryoftheDefendantstestimonywas,infact,thetruth.  _ Onaquestionassimpleaswhetherornotapersonhadsomethinginhiscar,theansweriseither  H  yes,hedidor no,hedidnot.Thereisnograyarea.Ifthepersontestifies Ididnotandthe  1  juryconcludesthatthetestimonyisalie,thenecessaryimplicationisthatthepersondid.Ibelieve    thatthenecessaryimplicationdrawnbythejuryinthiscase"thattheDefendanthad,indeed,   thrownthecocaineoutofhiscar"shouldbeconsideredbythisCourtinitsanalysisofthe   sufficiencyoftheevidence.Further,Iwouldholdthat,underthefactsandcircumstancesofthis   case,theStatesproofcombinedwiththenecessaryimplicationderivedfromtheDefendants n  testimonyissufficienttosupporttheDefendantsconvictionofpossessionofthecocaine. W    ThiscaseisdistinguishablefromStatev.WilliamEarlRamsey,C.C.A.No.03C019203 )y CR00070,1993WL155693(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,May13,1993).InRamsey,the b defendantwasaccusedofmurderingthevictimbyinflictingtenstabwounds.Thedefendantdid K nottestify,butastatementhemadetothepolicewasadmittedintoevidence.Inhisstatement,the 4 defendantdeniedkillingthevictimandblamedanintruderforthehomicide.TheStatesoughtand  obtainedaconvictionforfirstdegreepremeditatedmurder.Ondirectappeal,thisCourtoverturned  theconvictiononthegroundsthattheevidencewasnotsufficienttosupporttheessentialelement  ofpremeditation.Importantly,thisCourtdidnotoverturnthejurysdeterminationthatthe  defendanthadkilledthevictim;rather,thisCourtreducedthedefendantsconvictiontosecond q degreemurder.ThisCourtfoundonlythattheevidencewasinsufficienttosupporttheelementof Z premeditation,aboutwhichthedefendanthadofferedabsolutelynostatement,andinsupportof C whichtheStateapparentlyofferednomoreproofthanthenumberofstabwounds.Asrightly ,| recognizedbythisCourt,thenumberofamurdervictimswoundsisnot,inandofitself,sufficient e circumstantialevidenceuponwhichtodrawaninferenceofpremeditation.SeeStatev.Brown,836 N S.W.2d530,543(Tenn.1992).  7   Insum,thejuryheardtheDefendanttestifythathedidnotthrowthecocaineoutofhiscar. " ! ThejuryfoundtheDefendantstestimonynotcredibleandconcludedthathedidthrowthecocaine #" outofhiscar.Thejurywasentitledtoreachthisconclusion.IbelievethatthisCourtshould,in $# reviewingthesufficiencyoftheevidence,takeintoconsiderationthejurysdeterminationthatthe t% $ Defendanttestifieduntruthfullywhenhedeniedanyknowledgeofthecocaine.Insodoing,Iwould ]&!% findtheevidencesufficienttosupporttheDefendantsconvictionofpossessionofcocainewith F'"& intenttodeliver. /(#' 󀀀#X_XXXbN##΁XX_#X_X΁ )h$(    `     h      +#'+ Ї   `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE