IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
JANUARY 1999 SESSION
March 24, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, * C.C.A. No. 03C01-9711-CR-00495
Appellee, * SULLIVAN COUNTY
VS. * Honorable Phyllis H. Miller, Judge
ARTHUR IRESON, * (Facilitation of aggravated burglary)
Appellant. *
For Appellant: For Appellee:
Thomas R. Bandy, III John Knox Walkup
Attorney for Appellant Attorney General and Reporter
P.O. Box 1127
555 E. Main Street, Suite 102-F Ellen H. Pollack
Kingsport, TN 37660 Assistant Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Edward Wilson
Assistant District Attorney General
P.O. Box 526
Blountville, TN 37617
OPINION FILED:__________________
AFFIRMED
GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE
OPINION
The defendant, Arthur Ireson, was convicted of facilitation of
aggravated burglary, a Class D felony. The trial court imposed a Range II sentence
of eight years in the Department of Correction to be served concurrently with a prior
unserved sentence. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency
of the convicting evidence and the sufficiency of the charging instrument.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On February 21, 1996, Detective Tim Smith of the Sullivan County
Sheriff's Department investigated a burglary at the residence of the victim, Gerald
Clark. Upon his arrival at the scene, Detective Smith discovered evidence of forced
entry through the rear door of the residence; while inside, he found several guns
wrapped in a blanket behind a couch. The glass of a gun case had been shattered
and the case was empty. Detective Smith found jewelry behind a displaced couch
cushion. The victim identified the defendant and Timothy Henry as suspects. Henry
was arrested on the same date of the burglary.
On November 1, 1996, the defendant was arrested. In his statement
to Detective Smith, the defendant admitted that he had accompanied Henry to the
victim's residence. He told Detective Smith that he saw Henry walk around the side
of the house. When the defendant followed after Henry, he saw that the door had
been kicked ajar and that Henry was inside. The defendant confirmed that he
entered the residence even though he knew it was wrong. He maintained that he
went no further than the living room. While the two men were inside the residence,
the victim and his son, Jeffery, arrived. The defendant, who said he did not know
either of the victims, claimed that he and Henry left in his Camaro, taking nothing.
2
At trial, the victim recalled that as he and his son returned home the
day of the offense, he noticed a black Camaro parked across the street. While his
son walked over to inspect the vehicle, the victim discovered that the back door of
the house was open. He testified that when he entered his residence, he saw
Henry, whom he had known for at least ten years, standing in the living room; when
he heard noise from another bedroom, he turned to see the defendant. The victim
remembered telling the defendant and Henry to wait while he called the sheriff but
the two men fled in the Camaro. Afterward, the victim located his guns wrapped in a
comforter behind a couch. The gun case had been smashed. The victim testified
that neither the defendant nor Henry had permission to be in his residence.
Jeffery Clark testified that he and the victim returned to their residence
at approximately 3:00 P.M. He explained that when he saw the door to his Jeep
was open and walked across the street to check on it, he heard the victim yell and
saw the defendant and Henry emerge from the rear door of his house. Jeffery
recognized both the defendant and Henry whom he had known from grade school.
When the victim went inside to call the sheriff, the defendant and Henry fled the
scene.
At trial, the defendant testified that he worked for Helping Hands as a
Certified Nurse's Aide. He explained that on the day of the offense, a patient he
attended was in the hospital so he decided to visit Henry on his way home. He
admitted that he drove Henry to the victim's residence but claimed that he did not
know his intentions. The defendant contended that he waited while Henry walked
around the house and that he walked into the living room only after Henry called
him. At that point, he heard someone ask, "[W ]hat are you doing in my house?" He
claimed that he turned to the victim and replied that he did not know and that he had
3
only driven Henry there. The defendant then saw Henry emerge from the back
bedroom, remove jewelry from his pocket, and place it under a couch cushion.
When the victim picked up the telephone to call "the law," the defendant overheard
Henry threaten to kill the victim if he placed a call to the sheriff. The defendant
admitted that he left the scene with Henry and acknowledged, because he feared
the consequences of the incident, he and his wife left the state that very night. The
defendant admitted that he had four prior felony convictions, three for aggravated
burglary and one for aggravated robbery.
Tim Henry, an inmate with the Tennessee Department of Correction,
admitted prior convictions for two attempted murders, aggravated burglary of the
victim's residence, auto burglary, and theft under five hundred dollars. He testified
that he asked the defendant to accompany him to the victim's residence to look at a
Jeep. Henry maintained that the defendant knew nothing of his intentions. He
claimed that the defendant waited in the car while Henry kicked in the back door,
entered the house, and removed guns from the gun cabinet. He explained that he
called for the defendant only when he realized he could not carry the guns by
himself. He admitted that the defendant entered the residence, followed shortly
thereafter by the victim and his son. Henry testified that the defendant never
touched anything in the house and was unaware that a theft was in process.
I
The defendant has challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. On
appeal, of course, the state is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the
evidence and all reasonable inferences which might be drawn therefrom. State v.
Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). The credibility of the witnesses, the
weight to be given their testimony, and the reconciliation of conflicts in the proof are
4
matters entrusted to the jury as trier of fact. Byrge v. State, 575 S.W.2d 292, 295
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1978). When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, the
relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the state, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn.
1983); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).
The defendant was convicted of facilitation of aggravated burglary. "A
person commits [aggravated] burglary who, without the effective consent of the
property owner," enters a habitation "with intent to commit a felony or theft." Tenn.
Code Ann. §§ 39-14-401, -402 & -403. A person commits facilitation of a felony
when
knowing that another intends to commit a specific felony,
but without the intent required for criminal responsibility
under [Tenn. Code Ann.] § 39-11-402(2), the person
knowingly furnishes substantial assistance in the
commission of the felony.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-403(a).
"Knowing" refers to a person who acts knowingly with
respect to the conduct or to circumstances surrounding
the conduct when the person is aware of the nature of
the conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person
acts knowingly with respect to a result of the person's
conduct when the person is aware that the conduct is
reasonably certain to cause the result.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302(b).
It is uncontested that the defendant drove Henry to the victim's
residence and waited. The defendant entered the residence when Henry called
even though he admitted to Detective Smith that he knew it was wrong to enter the
house. By his own testimony, he watched Henry remove jewelry from his pocket
and hide it between the couch cushions. The defendant admits that he drove Henry
5
home and that he fled to South Carolina to hide from the authorities. From these
facts, it was entirely reasonable for the jury to have concluded that the defendant
was aware of circumstances as soon as he entered the house and that he knowingly
furnished substantial assistance to Henry. That is sufficient to support every
element of the offense.
II
Next, the defendant claims that the presentment was fatally deficient
because it failed to fully state the crime. The state responds that the presentment
fully satisfies the statutory and constitutional requirements of notice and form.
The presentment charged as follows:
[T]hat [the defendant] on or about February 21, 1996 ...
did unlawfully and feloniously enter the habitation of
Gerald Clark without the effective consent of the owner
... and with the intent to commit a theft therein, contrary
to T.C.A. Section 39-14-403 ....
The presentment includes the essential elements of aggravated burglary and makes
reference to the relevant statutory section. See State v. Carter, ___ S.W.2d ___,
No. 02S01-9705-CR-00045 (Tenn., at Jackson, Feb. 1, 1999). Moreover, the
presentment is sufficient to put the defendant on notice of all lesser offenses,
including facilitation of aggravated burglary. See State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). Facilitation of aggravated burglary was fairly raised by the
evidence. In consequence, we conclude that the presentment was sufficient.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
_________________________________
Gary R. Wade, Presiding Judge
6
CONCUR:
________________________________
James Curwood W itt, Jr., Judge
________________________________
John K. Byers, Senior Judge
7
State v. Arthur Ireson
Combined Opinion