Patterson v. State

• Decision Date: 26 October 1971
• Citation: 4 Tenn.Crim.App. 657,475 S.W.2d 201
• Parties: Robert W. PATTERSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 201

475 S.W.2d 201

4 Tenn.Crim.App. 657

Robert W. PATTERSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendant in Error.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

Oct. 26, 1971 Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court Jan. 3, 1972.

Edwin C. Harris, Eugene Pennington, Madisonville, for plaintiff in error.

David M. Pack, Atty. Gen., Thomas E. Fox, Deputy Atty. Gen., Nashville, Tom Taylor, Dist. Atty. Gen., Athens, for defendant in error.

OPINION

OLIVER, Judge.

By his duly perfected appeal in the nature of a writ of error to this Court, the defendant challenges the validity of his Monroe County Criminal Court conviction of unlawful possession of legend drugs and the jury-assessed sentence of one year and one day in the State Penitentiary and a $1000 fine, which the court approved by entering judgment accordingly.

About 2:00 a.m. on March 27, 1970 a Sweetwater policeman found the defendant slumped over the steering wheel of his truck which was parked in front of an all- night restaurant. When aroused and taken out of his truck, the defendant was unable to stand alone and plainly appeared to be drunk and was arrested. A capsule was in plain view on the floor of the truck. The defendant was searched for a weapon at the time of his arrest, and in a thorough search at the city jail a plastic container of capsules was found in one of his socks and a number of loose capsules in his other sock. Those capsules contained amphetamine and the barbiturate amobarbital, drugs dispensed only upon a prescription (T.C.A. § 52--1206).

As a witness in his own behalf, the defendant testified about being arrested and that he transferred the capsules from his pocket to his socks enroute to the jail because 'I had been booked for having pills once and I was scared that they would book me again for having them on me again'; that 'I got them through a drug store through a doctor's prescription'; that he had a prescription from Dr. Miller in Madisonville and one from a doctor at Morristown; that he had Dr. Miller's prescription filled at the Wilson Drug Store in Madisonville, and that he got these particular capsules on a prescription from a drug store in Morristown; that he could not remember the name of either the prescribing physician in Morristown or the drug store there where he got the prescription filled; that his prescriptions were retained by the store filling them; and that the bottle in which he had the capsules was a 'chew gum bottle' which was not the original container.

The defendnat called the proprietor of the Wilson Drug Store in Madisonville for the purpose of showing that he had obtained similar drugs there under a prescription. Defense counsel conceded that the capsules which the defendant was carrying in his socks were not obtained under that prescription. Consequently, the trial judge correctly held that any testimony by druggist Wilson regarding that particular prescription would be inadmissible.

We must reject the Assignments contending that the search of the defendant was illegal and that the fruits of the search--the capsules of drugs--was inadmissible. He testified that these capsules were his and gave a detailed explanation of his possession in an effort to establish his contention that he purchased the drugs under a doctor's prescription and that his possession thereof was not unlawful. By so testifying the defendant waived all objections to the search and seizure of the drugs and their admission in evidence. Lester v. State, 216 Tenn. 615, 393 S.W.2d 288; Batchelor v. State, 213 Tenn. 649, 378 S.W.2d 751; Burks v. State, 194 Tenn. 675, 254 S.W.2d 970; 29 Am.Jur.2d., Evidence § 416.

In considering the defendant's Assignments challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant and sustain the verdict of the jury, we are bound by the well-settled law in this State that a guilty verdict by the jury, approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of the theory of the State. Such a verdict removes the presumption of the innocence of the accused which stands as a witness for him until he is convicted, and raises a presumption of his guilt upon appeal, and he has the burden upon appeal of showing that the evidence preponderates against the verdict and in favor of his innocence. Gulley v. State, 219 Tenn. 114, 407 S.W.2d 186; Jamison v. State, 220 Tenn. 280, 416 S.W.2d 768; Webster v State, Tenn.Crim.App., 425 S.W.2d 799; Brown v. State, Tenn.Crim.App., 441 S.W.2d 485; Palmer v. State, Tenn.Crim.App., 435 S.W.2d 128; Morelock v. State, Tenn.Crim.App., 460 S.W.2d 861.

The crucial question in this case was and is whether the defendant's possession of the proscribed drugs was unlawful. Manifestly, this conviction rests entirely upon circumstantial evidence. However, considering the totality of the circumstances shown in this record, including the defendant's inability to name the Morristown prescribing physician and the Morristown drug store where he claimed he obtained these drugs by prescription, his unexplained transfer of the drugs from the alleged original container to a 'chew gum bottle,' his carrying some of the capsules loose upon his person, and his concealment of all the drugs in his socks after he was arrested, we are of opinion that...