State v. Jones
| Citation | 802 S.W.2d 221 |
| Decision Date | 03 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. C,C |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Larry J. JONES, Appellant. C.A. 2. 802 S.W.2d 221 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Tennessee. Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee |
Marcus M. Reaves, Dist. Public Defender, Jackson, for appellant.
Charles W. Burson, Atty. Gen. & Reporter, Gordon W. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen Nashville, Paul G. Summers, Dist. Atty. Gen., Somerville, and Paul E. Dew, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Ripley, for appellee.
Larry Jones appeals of right from his conviction in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court of possessing a controlled substance, cocaine, with intent to sell. The trial court sentenced appellant to ten years imprisonment as a Range II offender with a fine of $15,000.
The facts of the case will be briefly summarized from our review of the record. Ken Nelson, a police officer with the Lauderdale County Sheriff's office, testified that on January 15, 1989 he received information from a reliable police informant that the appellant would be driving a canary yellow Buick LeSabre with tinted windows and a Dyer County license plate on Highway 51 South into Ripley, Tennessee for the purpose of selling cocaine. The informant also advised that appellant might be armed. Officer Nelson testified that the informant in question had given accurate information on twenty previous occasions to police officers concerning drug-type violations which led to arrests and convictions.
The record reflects that the officer, acting on the provided information, stopped an automobile matching that description with appellant behind the wheel. The officer asked if he could search the vehicle and the appellant responded in the affirmative. The ensuing search led to the discovery of over thirty small rocks of cocaine, with a street value estimated at $20 each.
Appellant did not testify and offered no proof.
There are three issues presented for review on this appeal. The first of those challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting appellant's conviction.
A jury verdict approved by the trial judge accredits the testimony of the State's witnesses and resolves all conflicts in favor of the State's theory. State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn.1983). The conviction removes the presumption of innocence and raises a presumption of guilt. Id. at 410.
On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from it. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn.1978). This Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, setting aside a conviction only if the evidence is insufficient to support such a finding. Rule 13(e), Tenn.R.App.P.; Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
After a careful review of the evidence, we find that there was more than sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The appellant consented to the search of his car with the resulting discovery of the drugs. Accordingly, the issue is without merit and is overruled.
Appellant's second issue urges that the court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a mistrial. During appellant's cross-examination of Police Officer Joe Hardy, counsel asked him if he had drawn his weapon when he approached the vehicle and asked to search it. The officer replied that he had the weapon out because of appellant's lengthy criminal history. The trial court immediately instructed the jury to disregard the answer. The appellant requested a mistrial, which was denied. He reasons that the denial constituted an abuse of discretion.
In Tennessee, it is well established that the granting or denial of a mistrial is a matter well within the sound discretion of the trial court. Frazier v. State, 566 S.W.2d 545, 551 (Tenn.Crim.App.1978). This Court will not disturb that action absent a finding of abuse of discretion. Id. at 551.
We find no abuse of discretion here. The trial judge immediately gave a proper limiting instruction to the jury to disregard the police officer's unresponsive answer. This prompt action of the court cured the error. See Strickland v. State, 575 S.W.2d 957 (Tenn.Crim.App.1978). Accordingly,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rimmer
...the sound discretion of the trial court." State v. McKinney , 929 S.W.2d 404, 405 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) ; see State v. Jones , 802 S.W.2d 221, 222 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). This court will only disturb that decision if the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Adkins , 786 S.W.2d 642......
-
State v. Huskey
...on appeal unless the evidence preponderates against them. State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Jones, 802 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). The application of the law to the facts as determined by the trial court is a question of law which is reviewed de novo on ap......
-
State v. Huskey
...conclusive on appeal unless the evidence preponderates against them. State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn.1996); State v. Jones, 802 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tenn.Crim.App.1990). Questions about the "credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, and resolution of conflicts i......
-
State v. Watkins
...on appeal unless the evidence preponderates against them. State v. Odom , 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996) ; State v. Jones , 802 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Questions about the "credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, and resolution of conflicts in th......