IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
FILED
AT KNOXVILLE August 12, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
JULY 1999 SESSION Appellate C ourt
Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) NO. 03C01-9808-CR-00299
Appellee, )
) ROANE COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. E. EUGENE EBLEN,
DONALD SCHWEITZER, ) JUDGE
)
Appellant. ) (Fraudulent Insurance Claim)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
CHARLES B. HILL II PAUL G. SUMMERS
P. O. Box 852 Attorney General and Reporter
Kingston, TN 37763
MARVIN S. BLAIR, JR.
Assistant Attorney General
Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
CHARLES E. HAWK
District Attorney General
DENNIS W. HUMPHREY
Assistant District Attorney General
P. O. Box 703
Kingston, TN 37763-0703
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
JOE G. RILEY,
JUDGE
OPINION
Defendant, Donald Schweitzer, was convicted by a Roane County jury of the
offense of filing a fraudulent insurance claim under $500 in value, a Class A
misdemeanor. In this appeal as of right, the sole issue is whether the evidence was
sufficient to support the verdict. We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.
FACTS
The state’s proof revealed that on September 5, 1996, the trailer in which
defendant resided was deliberately set on fire and damaged. A neighbor testified
that defendant’s girlfriend left the trailer shortly before the defendant left the trailer.
The neighbor heard an “explosion sound” between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. almost
immediately after the defendant left the trailer, and she saw a “reddish-orange glow”
in the trailer window. She observed the defendant remain in his truck just outside
his driveway.
Another neighbor testified that she passed the defendant while defendant
was leaving the neighborhood at approximately 3:00 p.m. She observed him
looking back toward the trailer which was smoking.
One of the neighbors reported the fire to the authorities. The first person to
respond was a deputy/volunteer fire chief who arrived at approximately 3:15 p.m.
The insurance investigator and an investigator from the state fire marshall’s
office testified that the fire was caused by a flammable liquid poured on the floor
which was ignited at the back door. It is undisputed that the fire had been
deliberately set.
2
The local insurance agent testified that the defendant came to his office,
reported the loss, and filed a claim. The local agent then filed the claim with a
claims representative.
The defendant testified that he left the residence at 2:00 or 2:30 p.m. and did
not set the fire. Other witnesses testified that the defendant was at the Bane
residence, a considerable distance from the defendant’s trailer, at approximately
3:00 p.m. Another neighbor saw the defendant at approximately 2:30 p.m. at her
residence just down the street from the defendant’s trailer.
The defendant’s expert witness agreed that the fire had been intentionally set
but believed the point of origin was different from that described by the other two
expert witnesses.
Based upon the evidence introduced at trial, the jury acquitted the defendant
of arson but convicted him of filing a fraudulent insurance claim valued at $500 or
less.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support the guilty verdict.
We respectfully disagree.
In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court does not reweigh
or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).
A jury verdict approved by the trial judge accredits the state's witnesses and
resolves all conflicts in favor of the state. State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 803
(Tenn. 1994); State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). On appeal, the state
is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all legitimate or
reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. Id. This Court will not disturb
3
a verdict of guilt due to the sufficiency of the evidence unless the defendant
demonstrates that the facts contained in the record and the inferences which may
be drawn therefrom are insufficient, as a matter of law, for a rational trier of fact to
find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Brewer, 932 S.W.2d
1, 19 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly, it is the appellate court's duty to affirm
the conviction if the evidence, viewed under these standards, was sufficient for any
rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317,
99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 259
(Tenn. 1994).
Any person who intentionally presents or causes to be presented a false or
fraudulent insurance claim for the payment of a loss commits the offense of filing
a fraudulent insurance claim, which is punishable as in the case of theft. See Tenn.
Code Ann. § 39-14-133. Looking at the evidence in a light most favorable to the
state, as we are required to do, the evidence is more than sufficient to support the
guilty verdict. It was undisputed that the fire was deliberately set. The defendant
was seen leaving the trailer just prior to an “explosion.” He remained in his vehicle
outside his driveway for a time and was seen looking back toward the smoking
trailer as he drove from the community. He reported the loss and filed a claim with
the local insurance agent. It was for the jury to determine the credibility of the
witnesses. The jury, by its verdict, accredited the state’s theory that the defendant
intentionally presented or caused to be presented a fraudulent insurance claim.
This was the jury’s prerogative. Furthermore, the jury’s acquittal of arson is
irrelevant. There is no requirement of consistency in a jury verdict. Wiggins v.
State, 498 S.W.2d 92, 93-94 (Tenn. 1973).
For these reasons, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the
verdict of guilt and AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.
4
____________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
_______________________________
GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE
_______________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
5