Meeks v. State
| Decision Date | 17 July 1974 |
| Citation | 519 S.W.2d 410 |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | Steve MEEKS and Charles E. Meeks, Plaintiffs-in-Error, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendant-in-Error. |
Quinton Horton, McMinnville, for plaintiffs-in-error.
David M. Pack, Atty. Gen., Alex B. Shipley, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, J. Wm. Pope, Jr., Dist. Atty. Gen., Pikeville, Mike Lynch, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Winchester, for defendant-in-error.
The defendants Steve Meeks, Charles Edward Meeks and Harold Lecil Nolan represented by their Attorney Honorable Quinton F. Horton, were convicted of concealing stolen property over the value of $100.00 at their joint trial on July 31, 1973 in the Circuit Court of Grundy County, Tennessee. The jury fixed the punishment of each defendant at three years in the penitentiary upon which the Trial Judge Honorable Paul A. Swafford pronounced judgment of not less than three nor more than three years in the state penitentiary.
After the new trial motion of the defendants had been heard and overruled, the trial judge suspended the three years sentence imposed upon Harold Lecil Nolan and placed him on probation under the supervision of the probation officer.
The defendants Steve Meeks and Charles Edward Meeks appealed and assigned errors.
On February 20, 1973, Cecil R. Perkins, who was then employed by the Tennessee Valley Authority, lived at Mimosa Trailer Park on Highway 27 in the Soddy-Daisy, Red Bank area, between Chattanooga and Dayton.
On the night of the above mentioned date Mr. Perkins' 1972 Chevrolet Fleetside pickup truck was stolen from the place where he and his wife had parked and locked it, in front of his house. Mr. Perkins had bought the truck new in April 1972 at the price of $4,465.70 from Bobby Mitchell of Florence, Alabama. The owner had installed a camper on it worth $200.00, and he had $2,000.00 worth of tools in the truck when it was stolen.
Mr. Perkins reported the loss of the truck to the Daisy police and called the sheriff of Grundy County.
Mr. Perkins introduced his bill of sale or invoice which was given him at the time he bought the truck, which showed the identifying number and purchase price, as well as the value of the vehicle which he 'traded in' on the purchase at the time he acquired the truck.
His truck when found had been stripped of the windshield, two doors, front bumper and fenders, transmission, air-conditioner, power steering, motor and front wheels.
This truck in its stripped condition was found by the Grundy County Sheriff, who on February 26, 1973, in response to a call, went with Officer Fults to the vicinity of the house of the defendant Steve Meeks. The Sheriff and his officers saw and observed physical evidence indicating the truck had been dragged from the rear of Steve Meeks' house across part of a stubble bean field into a woods nearby.
The wife of Charles Meeks warned the defendants of the presence of the Sheriff and his officers and yelled to them to run. The defendants ran but Charles Meeks was found lying down near the creekbank. Steve Meeks went under a barbed wire fence and escaped into the woods.
The Sheriff saw two doors, which had been removed from the truck, laying at the rear of Steve Meeks' house, at the point from which the truck had been dragged.
The owner of the stolen truck identified two large gasoline cans, of the army salvage type, stolen with the truck and shown in the picture filed as an exhibit in the case. These cans were found by the officers, on the property of the defendant Steve Meeks, from which the defendants had dragged the remains of the truck.
The defendant Charles Edward Meeks made a voluntary statement to Criminal Investigator Charles Hopson at the office of Honorable Quinton F. Horton, counsel for the defendants, on March 3, 1973, as follows:
'Monday February the 26th, 1973, my brother Steve Meeks told me he wanted me to move a truck for him from the back of his house, and that I would have to get someone to help me. I then went to Harold Lecil Nolan's house and got him. This was late in the afternoon, still daylight. Nolan was at his mother-in-law's house. When we got to my brother's house, I found a truck that had been stripped, the cab, one seat, battery and running gear was there. Back wheels still there and the front wheels were gone. Steve and Nolan hooked a chain to the truck and my car, which I had backed up to the truck. After it was hooked up, and I pulled out from the house and I started back out, Sheriff Winton blocked the road and stopped me. At this time Steve and Nolan ran off.
This statement is true and given of my free will and my attorney present. Signed Charles Edward Meeks and Harold Lecil Nolan.'
The defendant Charles Meeks testified that on February 26, 1973 his brother Steve Meeks the co-defendant, asked him to get somebody to help move the truck from behind his house. At Charles Meeks' request the co-defendant Harold Lecil Nolan consented to help them move the truck and went with Charles Meeks to the place where the truck was found.
Charles Meeks testified they hooked the truck to the rear bumper of his car. That with the help of his brother Steve and Nolan, they pulled the truck across the bean field and into the woods a distance of about 250 yards from Steve's house. That they unhooked from the truck, and he started back out. That he jumped out and ran when the sheriff blocked the road on him and he was the only one that was caught that day.
Charles Meeks testified he and his brother Steve were afraid the officers of the law would not believe that he and Steve found the truck, so they just pulled it off the property.
We quote from the bill of exceptions a part of the testimony of Charles Edward Meeks:
'Q. Now you heard the Sheriff and the deputies tell the story about they came on to the scene and your wife was up there in the field somewhere?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, what was she doing up there?
A. Well, she was, I don't know, she got afraid or something and came up there.
Q. What was she afraid of?
A. She was afraid they might, you know, get the wrong idea and stuff. Afraid that they might think that we might have done it.
Q. And so then is it fair to say that you think she came to warn you that the Sheriff was coming?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when did you first become aware that the Sheriff was coming?
A. Well, when he blocked the door, I mean blocked the road and I heard them slam the door and I just happened to look and there he was.
Q. And then did you jump out and run?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you wife yell and tell you to jump out and run?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And of course the Sheriff did catch you?
A. He didn't catch me, I run down there and stopped. I could see him and I run down there and stopped and just waited there.
Q. Well, now, you heard him testify here and am I correct in saying that you're version of this story essentially agrees with what the Sheriff says happened?
A. Yes, sir, all except he said that I had greasy hands and I did not have greasy hands.'
We quote a part of the defendant Charles Meeks' cross-examination:
'Q. Now coming down to the line of questioning that Mr. Horton asked you about, it didn't strike you as strange that here was this vehicle up there behind your brother's house and you didn't ask any questions why he wanted you to come up there and move that vehicle?
A. Well, he's afraid the law wouldn't . . ..
Q. What was he afraid of?
A. He's afraid the law wouldn't believe that he found it.
Q. That he found it?
A. Yeah.
Q. Or that he stole it?
A. No, he found it, that's what he said.
Q. He's afraid that the law would not believe that he found it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were afraid that the law would not believe that he found it or that you were found with him and that's why you ran?
A. Yes, sir.'
Charles Edward Meeks in his flight ran out of his jacket. He said that while he was running 'a limb kind of grabbed it.'
The defendant Steve Meeks age 26, testified he was a driver of a lumber truck. That he and his wife were separated at the time they dragged the stolen truck from the rear of his house to the woods. That he had not been staying in his house for several weeks. On the morning of February 26, 1973, for no particular reason, he walked up to his house which was the shape of an L. That there in the L corner of the house he saw this truck. It had been disassembled and everything was gone from it except the bed, the running gear, can and doors. The doors were there but had been removed from the truck and there were some papers in the bed of the truck. (These papers apparently were the personal documents of the owner Cecil R. Perkins which he had hanging on a wire in the back of the truck.) We here quote from the bill of exceptions part of the testimony of the defendant Steve Meeks:
'Q. Do you remember seeing the papers that they've shown here that where on that hook, in and about that truck?
A. Yes, sir, they were laying in the bed of the truck.
Q. All right, after you discovered this, what did you think, what was your reaction up there at that time?
A. I just wanted to get the truck and go on, and just get off the property, that's all I cared about.
Q. Had you ever seen the truck before?
A. No, sir.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I went down to my mother's and I's talking to her about it and I told her I'd found it up there and she wanted me to call Sheriff Lewie Winton and have him send a wrecker out there and get it. And I thought about it a few minutes, and it was sitting right behind my house three, and it was pretty hard to believe. I admit that myself and I didn't figure the law would believe it. I just went and asked Ed if he could find somebody to help me move it.
Q. Was his wife there when you asked him?
A. Yeah, I believe so.
Q. Do you specifically remember that she was present when you asked him to get somebody?
A. Yes,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrell v. State
...S.W.2d 62 (1949); Laird v. State, 565 S.W.2d 38 (Tenn.Cr.App.1978); Russell v. State, 556 S.W.2d 92 (Tenn.Cr.App.1977); Meeks v. State, 519 S.W.2d 410 (Tenn.Cr.App.1974). The evidence that Harrell had participated with McKelvey in another armed robbery the day before tends to establish guil......
-
State v. Logue
...testify about the value of that property. See also Reeves v. State, 523 S.W.2d 218, 220 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975); Meeks v. State, 519 S.W.2d 410, 421 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1974). Presumably, he can testify about either the fair market value at the time of the offense or the replacement Theft is ......
-
State v. Johnson
...the court may have to say to the jury in regard to the principles of law applicable to the case and to the evidence. Meeks v. State, 519 S.W.2d 410 (Tenn.Cr.App.1974). The instruction given was not in regard to a principle of law applicable to the case or applicable to the evidence. It was ......