State v. Pritchett
| Decision Date | 02 June 1975 |
| Citation | 524 S.W.2d 470 |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee, Petitioner, v. Arthur T. PRITCHETT and Johnny Green, Respondents. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
William C. Koch, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for petitioner; R. A. Ashley, Jr., Atty. Gen., Nashville, of counsel.
J. Pope Dyer, John W. Murrey, III, Chattanooga, for respondents.
Respondents were jointly indicted by the Grand Jury of Hamilton County, Tennessee for the burglary of a warehouse and also for receiving and concealing ten automobile tires belonging to the warehouse. Upon the trial of the case the jury acquitted the respondents of the charges of burglary, but found them guilty on the charges of receiving and concealing. Pursuant to the provisions of T.C.A. § 39--4218, the jury were instructed that there could be a conviction only on one of the two charges of receiving and concealing, and the jury then found the defendants guilty of receiving stolen goods of a value in excess of one hundred dollars pursuant to T.C.A. § 39--4217(A). Each defendant was sentenced to serve not less nor more than three years in the state penitentiary.
Upon appeal of this conviction, the majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals found the evidence insufficient to establish ownership of the ten tires in question, and remanded the case for a new trial. This Court granted certiorari to consider the sufficiency of the evidence, and thereafter counsel for one of the respondents also assigned errors pursuant to the provisions of T.C.A. § 27--823.
There is little dispute as to the material facts. A warehouse owned by Cherokee Warehouses, Inc., situated on Eighth Avenue in Chattanooga, Tennessee, was equipped with a silent burglar alarm. On Sunday afternoon, May 6, 1973, at a time when the warehouse was closed for business, this alarm was tripped at 5:18. Charles W. Hill, an employee of the alarm company, and his supervisor noticed the signal in the offices of the company, American District Telegraph, and Mr. Hill immediately drove to the burglarized warehouse, while his supervisor telephoned the police. A member of the Chattanooga Police Department received the alert from the alarm company at approximately 5:20 p.m. and arrived at the warehouse within a very few moments. Upon turning into a large parking lot on the south side of the warehouse, he observed a white Chevrolet automobile bearing a Georgia license plate parked within 35 to 50 feet from the warehouse. Respondent Green was sitting in the automobile on the passenger's side and respondent Pritchett was standing close to the right side of the vehicle. The officer observed six new automobile tires with tags still attached, in the back seat of the automobile. The officer was alone, and he arrested both men and placed them in his automobile. He proceeded to examine the warehouse and discovered that a sliding door had been broken open, approximately 70 feet from the automobile of respondents. It was the breaking of this door which had tripped the silent alarm.
When the officer returned to his automobile he was told by respondent Green that the two men had purchased the automobile tires in their car from an unidentified Negro man, who was supposed to meet the respondents at the location where their car was found.
Four additional new automobile tires were found in the trunk of the automobile of respondents. All of the tires had a manufacturer's label still attached to them. Mr. Hill, the employee of the alarm company, and Mr. Robert E. Troutman, Jr., manager of the warehouse, arrived at the scene. Both of them saw the tires in the automobile belonging to respondents, and heard the respondents state that they had purchased the tires from two unidentified Negro men.
Mr. Troutman, the warehouse manager, stated that the warehouse would normally have been closed since Friday afternoon. He was not sure whether any work had been done at the warehouse on Saturday, but he said that only authorized personnel of the warehouse company would have been allowed to enter the warehouse when it was closed, and that they would have had to have clearance from the alarm company. The warehouse was not open on Sunday, and he said that neither of the respondents was an employee of the company or had any authority to enter the warehouse.
Mr. Troutman said that the automobile tires in question were Uniroyal tires. He said that the manufacturer of these tires stored many types of tires in the commercial warehouse. He said:
Mr. Troutman stated that there were tires in the respondent's automobile containing a number of different codes. He then testified:
'I inventoried control Monday after that and, for instance, there was one-inch 33083502.
'Q And now many were in the warehouse--there were, supposed to be 34--
'A (Interposing) Thirty-four of that particular tire was stored in that warehouse at that time.
'Q All right, and one of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Braggs
...crimes were alleged to have been committed. Taking the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in the state's favor, State v. Pritchett, 524 S.W.2d 470 (Tenn.1975), we are unable to say that there is insufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of fact in finding guilt beyond a reaso......
-
State v. Moore
...2 Tenn.Cr.App. 552, 455 S.W.2d 612 (1970). Taking the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in the state's favor, State v. Pritchett, 524 S.W.2d 470 (Tenn.1975), we are unable to say that there is insufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of fact in finding guilt beyond a reason......
-
State v. Bray
...State v. Hatchett, 560 S.W.2d 627 (Tenn.1978). Taking the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in the State's favor, State v. Pritchett, 524 S.W.2d 470 (Tenn.1975), there is sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence to support the conclusion that Butch Bray acted in concert with hi......
-
State v. Moore
...permission to appeal denied 1980. Taking the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in the State's favor, State v. Pritchett, 524 S.W.2d 470, 474 (Tenn.1975), there is sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence to support the conclusion that Moore was an aider and abettor to the sale ......