ÿWPC¦ 7# UN %k 0(qb™w@¡4áõ 0l 0Dp 0J´þ 0T 0^Z 0h¸ 0r  0|’ 0† 0” 1u$ 0d™ 0@ý D3= U>p B® U *Ë AQõ ÆF 0D 0DP D/” Bà B)à DC AML 4™ õÍ“Âv~UvÓÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- 2D345D67D89D:Ó€FB\J#"|xF((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd* 0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òOctober€13,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ëÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„14„301;€€39„14„133.Ì ‰Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔThe€Defendant€has€appealed€from€both€convictions.€€His€argument€concerning€the€sufficiency€of€à0 àthe€convicting€evidence€appears€to€address€only€the€conviction€of€arson.€€Because€no€arguments€areÏmade€concerning€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€for€the€insurance€fraud€conviction,€and€becauseÏno€references€to€the€record€are€made€pointing€out€alleged€evidentiary€shortfalls€for€that€conviction,€theÏissue€would€normally€be€waived.€€Nevertheless,€we€have€examined€the€evidence€presented€concerningÏthe€conviction€for€presenting€a€false€or€fraudulent€insurance€claim€(Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„15„133)€and€weÏconclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€finding€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ŠÔÔ€(ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ŒïXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÙ€*ÙßR€120A1-j|„ü` Å `€€@ÿRßÌSEPTEMBER€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9608„CC„00289Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àTIPTON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOE€H.€WALKERó óÌò òJAMES€EARL€SOMERVILLE,ó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(Arson€and€Presenting€FraudulentÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àInsurance€Claim)ò òÌó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCIRCUIT€COURT€OF€TIPTON€COUNTYó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌBRETT€B.€STEINà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ100€N.€Main,€#3102à àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€38103Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDARYL€J.€BRANDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àELIZABETH€RICEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWALT€FREELANDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à302€Market€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSomerville,€TN€38068ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÑ , ÑÑ Ë, ÑÑ  ÑÑ€/ §u` ÑÓ  ÓÔ€(°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€(ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Ó›à àThe€Defendant€was€convicted€on€a€jury€verdict€of€one€count€of€arson€andÏone€count€of€presenting€a€false€or€fraudulent€insurance€claim€in€excess€of€oneÏthousand€dollars.œ× ƒ3 ××  ×›€€He€appeals€from€his€convictions€as€of€right€pursuant€to€RuleÏ3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€Defendantððs€convictions€came€as€the€result€of€the€destruction€by€fireÏof€a€house€which€he€owned€in€Covington,€Tennessee.€€In€the€arson€charge,€itÏwas€alleged€that€the€Defendant€burned€his€house€without€the€consent€of€theÏbank€which€held€a€mortgage€on€the€house.€€In€the€making€of€a€false€orÏfraudulent€insurance€claim€charge,€it€was€alleged€that€the€Defendant€made€aÏclaim€with€his€insurance€company€for€items€which€were€not€in€fact€located€in€theÏhouse€at€the€time€the€house€burned.ÌÌà àIn€this€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€three€issues:€€(1)€€That€the€evidenceÏpresented€at€trial€is€insufficient€to€support€the€finding€of€guilt€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€instructions€to€the€juryÍconcerning€the€defense€of€alibi;€and€(3)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€instructionsÏto€the€jury€concerning€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àWe€first€address€the€issue€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.œ× ƒ4 ××  ×›ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïthe€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorableÏto€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€theÏweight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raisedÏby€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.ÏPappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€courtÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ï(Tenn.€1978).€€Ìà àA€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnessesÏand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,Í476€(Tenn.€1973).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€atÏ835.€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÏreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€courtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€byÏthe€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòGraceóó,€493ÏS.W.2d€at€476.à àÌÌÌà àA€crime€may€be€established€by€circumstantial€evidence€alone.€€òòState€v.ÏTharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899„900€(Tenn.€1987).€€However,€before€an€accusedÏmay€be€convicted€of€a€criminal€offense€based€only€upon€circumstantialÏevidence,€the€facts€and€circumstances€ð ðmust€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€toÏexclude€every€other€reasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€225€Tenn.€478,€482,€470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(1971).€€In€otherÏwords,€a€ð ðweb€of€guilt€must€be€woven€around€the€defendant€from€which€heÏcannot€escape€and€from€which€facts€and€circumstances€the€jury€could€draw€noÏother€reasonable€inference€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.ðð€€œ225€Tenn.€at›€484,€œ470€S.W.2d€at€613.›€€à àà àà àà àà à̛̜à àœThe€Defendantððs€former€wife€testified€that€a€couple€of€months€before€theÏhouse€burned,€she€had€asked€the€Defendant€to€pay€her€some€child€support€forÏtheir€children.€€She€said€the€Defendant€told€her€not€to€worry€about€child€supportÏmoney,€because€he€was€going€to€burn€his€house€down€and€he€would€give€herÏsome€money€from€the€insurance€proceeds.€€She€also€testified€that€he€had€madeÏa€prior€statement€about€burning€the€house.ÌÌà àJerry€Lee€Hall,€whose€nickname€was€ð ðTojoðð€testified€that€around€dark€onÏthe€night€€that€the€house€burned,€he€helped€one€Bobby€Smith€move€furniture€outÏof€the€house.€€He€testified€that€while€they€were€moving€the€furniture,€theÏDefendant€came€by€the€house€and€talked€to€Bobby€Smith.€€The€witnessÏtestified€that€he€did€not€know€why€they€were€moving€the€furniture€but€that€heÏwas€paid€to€help€Bobby€Smith€move€the€furniture.€€He€further€testified€that€theÏday€before€the€trial€the€Defendant€came€to€him€and€asked€him€to€change€hisÏtestimony.€€ÌÌà àPearllie€Lois€Hoover€testified€that€she€was€a€neighbor€who€lived€near€theÏhouse€that€burned.€€Early€in€the€evening€of€the€night€that€the€house€burned,€sheÏsaw€people€moving€furniture€out€of€the€house.€€One€of€the€people€he€saw€wasÏð ðTojo.ðð€€The€truck€she€saw€moving€the€furniture€was€Bobby€Smithððs€truck.ÌÌà àCaptain€Tommy€Dunavent,€the€arson€investigator€for€the€Covington,ÏTennessee€fire€department,€was€qualified€as€an€expert€witness€and€testifiedÏthat€the€fire€was€ð ðan€arson€fire.ðð€€He€stated€that€he€found€three€separate€pointsÏof€origin€of€fire€and€found€no€evidence€to€indicate€a€natural€or€accidental€cause€ofÏthe€fire.€€He€testified€that€the€fire€department€had€responded€to€the€fire€at€1:38Ïa.m.€€ÌÌà àThe€day€after€the€fire,€the€Defendant€filed€a€claim€with€his€insuranceÏcompany€showing€a€loss€totaling€thirty„five€thousand€one€hundred€and€forty„fiveÏdollars€($35,145.00).€€The€amount€of€insurance€coverage€was€thirty„fiveÏthousand€dollars€($35,000.00).€€The€tenant€who€was€renting€the€house€from€theÏDefendant€at€the€time€of€the€fire€testified€that€numerous€items€listed€on€theÏinsurance€claim€filed€by€the€Defendant€were€not€in€fact€in€the€house€at€the€timeÏof€the€fire€and€had€not€been€for€some€period€of€time.€€He€testified€regarding€otherÏdiscrepancies€between€the€items€listed€on€the€insurance€claim€form€and€theÏitems€destroyed€in€the€fire.€€This€witness€also€testified€that€the€Defendant€toldÏhim€some€four€to€six€months€before€the€fire€that€the€Defendant€wanted€to€burnÏthe€house€down€so€he€could€build€another€one.€€The€witness€said€that€heÏthought€the€Defendant€was€joking€when€he€made€that€statement.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€did€not€testify.€€His€girlfriend€testified€that€at€the€time€of€theÏfire€the€Defendant€lived€with€her.€€She€said€that€on€the€night€of€the€fire,€theÏDefendant€was€at€her€home€when€she€got€in€from€work€at€about€10:20€or€10:30Ïthat€night.€€She€stated€that€the€Defendant€spent€the€rest€of€the€night€with€herÏand€that€he€did€not€leave€during€the€night.ÌÌà àIn€arguing€against€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€theÏDefendant€primarily€argues€that€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€because€the€juryÏshould€not€have€believed€the€testimony€presented€by€the€Stateððs€witnessesÏand€should€have€believed€the€testimony€of€the€Defendantððs€girlfriend€whoÏð ðfurnished€a€legitimate€and€believable€alibi€for€the€Appellant.ðð€€It€is€clear€from€theÏverdict,€however,€that€issues€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€and€theÏweight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€were€resolved€by€the€jury€againstÏthe€Defendant.€€As€we€have€stated,€this€Court€may€not€reweigh€or€reevaluateÏthe€evidence€once€the€jury€has€done€so.€€We€conclude€that€the€evidence€isÏsufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€jury€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€its€instructions€toÌÌthe€jury€concerning€the€defense€of€alibi.€€The€court€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:€ÌÌÌà8 àThe€Defendant€presented€evidence€of€an€alibi€in€this€case.€€An€alibiÏis€defined€as€evidence€which,€if€believed,€would€establish€that€theÏDefendant€was€not€present€at€the€scene€of€the€alleged€crime€whenÏit€allegedly€occurred.€€If€the€Defendant€was€not€present€when€theÏcrime€was€committed,€then€he€cannot€be€guilty€òòunless€you€find€theÏDefendant€procured€someone€else€to€commit€arsonóó.ÌÌà àÌÓÓà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€underlined€portion€of€the€above€chargeÏamounts€to€a€direct€comment€on€the€evidence€by€the€judge€and€thus€violatesÏArticle€VI,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€We€disagree.€€The€trial€courtÏproperly€instructed€the€jury€that€the€burden€was€on€the€State€to€prove€theÏelements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€judge€instructed€theÏjury€that€the€State€must€prove€that€the€Defendant€was€at€the€scene€of€the€crimeÏwhen€it€was€committed.€€The€judge€had€also€instructed€the€jury€concerning€theÏlaw€of€criminal€responsibility€for€the€conduct€of€another.€€We€believe€that€the€trialÏjudge€recognized€the€apparent€contradiction€resulting€from€these€properÏinstructions€and€that€the€underlined€portion€of€the€instruction€was€a€reasonableÏprecaution€made€in€an€attempt€to€avoid€or€alleviate€jury€confusion€regarding€theÏinstructions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€764€S.W.2d€217,€218€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988).€€We€do€not€believe€that€the€underlined€portion€of€the€instruction€had€theÏeffect€of€giving€the€jury€any€impression€as€to€the€trial€judgeððs€feelings€concerningÏthe€credibility€of€the€witnesses€or€the€evidence€in€the€case.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà àAs€his€final€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€inÏinstructing€the€jury€concerning€the€meaning€of€ð ðreasonable€doubtðð€because€theÏinstruction€told€the€jury€that€ð ðabsolute€certaintyðð€is€not€required€to€convict.€€TheÏcourtððs€instruction€on€reasonable€doubt€was€as€follows:ÌÓÓà àà8 àà àA€reasonable€doubt€is€a€doubt€based€uponÏreason€and€common€sense€after€careful€and€impartialÏconsideration€of€all€the€evidence€in€the€case.€€Itððs€notÏnecessary€that€the€defendantððs€guilt€be€provenÏbeyond€all€possible€doubt,€as€absolute€certainty€ofÏguilt€is€not€demanded€by€the€law€to€convict€of€anyÏcriminal€charge.€€A€reasonable€doubt€is€just€that,€aÏdoubt€that€is€reasonable€after€an€examination€of€allÏthe€facts€in€the€case.€€If€you€find€the€State€has€notÏproven€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt,€then€you€should€find€the€defendantÏnot€guilty.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€by€including€the€ð ðabsolute€certaintyðð€language,Ïthe€instruction€could€be€construed€as€the€judgeððs€commenting€upon€the€evidenceÏin€the€case€and€also€dilutes€the€importance€of€the€Stateððs€burden€of€proving€guiltÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àWe€note€that€the€Defendant€neither€objected€to€this€portion€of€the€chargeÏnor€requested€additional€instructions€concerning€the€meaning€of€ð ðreasonableÏdoubt.ðð€€As€the€State€points€out,€this€Court€has€previously€examined€a€nearÏidentical€charge€concerning€reasonable€doubt.€€While€we€expressed€someÏconcerns€regarding€the€instruction,€we€were€unable€to€conclude€that€use€of€theÍinstruction€constituted€reversible€error.€€òòState€v.€Derek€Dentonóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ï02C01„9409„CR„00186,€Shelby€County,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Aug.€2,Ï1996).€€In€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€we€also€conclude€that€the€trial€judgeððs€instructionÏconcerning€reasonable€doubt€does€not€constitute€reversible€error.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ìà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE