IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
APRIL SESSION, 1998
April 23, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9707-CR-00254
)
Appellee, ) WILSON COUNTY
)
VS. ) (No. 96-0580 Below)
)
THOMAS CONGDON, ) The Hon. J. O. Bond
)
Appellant. ) (Vandalism under $500)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
J. ROBERT HAMILTON JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Stallings, Hamilton & Fox, P.A. Attorney General and Reporter
225 East Main Street
Lebanon, TN 37087 GEORGIA BLYTHE FELNER
Assistant Attorney General
Cordell Hull Building, Second Floor
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
TOM P. THOMPSON, JR.
District Attorney General
ROBERT N. HIBBETT
Assistant District Attorney General
111 Cherry Street
Lebanon, TN 37087
OPINION FILED _______________________
AFFIRMED
TERRY L. LAFFERTY, SPECIAL JUDGE
OPINION
The defendant, Thomas Congdon, appeals as of right pursuant to T.R.A.P.
3 from his conviction for vandalism under $500. On appeal, the defendant argues that the
evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that the trial court erred by denying his
motion to sever offenses. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
The proof showed that the defendant’s ex-wife, Connie Hay, and her father-
in-law, Paul Hay, were standing inside the criminal justice center in Lebanon, Tennessee,
looking down at the parking lot on March 20, 1996. Both saw the defendant walk over to
Connie Hay’s 1994 Nissan Centra, which was parked next to Paul Hay’s vehicle, check the
license plate on Connie Hay’s vehicle, and then walk closely up the side of the vehicle on
the passenger side. Connie Hay testified that the defendant had an object in his hands.
When Connie Hay and Paul Hay went down to the parking lot, they discovered a long
scratch along the passenger side of the vehicle. Connie Hay estimated the damage at
approximately $500. According to the local newspaper, it had snowed most of that day.
Based on this proof, the jury convicted the defendant of vandalism under $500. Although
a second indictment is not included in the record, it appears that the defendant was also
indicted for vandalism under $1000. The proof regarding this offense concerned damage
to Michael Hay’s vehicle on December 26, 1995. The jury found the defendant not guilty
of this offense.
On appeal, the state is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the
evidence and to all reasonable inferences which might be drawn therefrom. State v.
Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 836 (Tenn. 1978). When the sufficiency of the evidence is
challenged, the relevant question for the appellate court is whether, after reviewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405,
410 (Tenn. 1983); T.R.A.P. 13(e). In the present case, the proof overwhelmingly supports
1
the jury’s verdict.
The defendant also argues that the offenses should have been severed and
he should have been tried separately for each offense. Although the jury acquitted the
defendant of vandalism under $1000, he argues that the “carry-over effect” of the other
charge seriously affected his right to a fair trial and an impartial jury. We disagree.
Pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 14, (b)(1), if two or more offenses have been
joined or consolidated for trial pursuant to Rule 8(b), the defendant shall have a right to a
severance of the offenses unless the offenses are part of a common scheme or plan and
the evidence of one would be admissible upon the trial of the others. A trial court’s denial
of a motion for severance does not constitute reversible error unless a defendant shows
that he was clearly prejudiced. State v. Hodgkinson, 778 S.W.2d 54, 61 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1989). In the present case, the trial court instructed the jury that the defendant was
charged in two separate indictments, that each indictment was a separate and distinct
offense, and that the jury must decide each crime charged separately on the evidence and
law applicable to it. Although the defendant argues that the carry-over between the
indictments seriously prejudiced him, the jury instructions were clear and comprehensive.
Moreover, given the jury's not guilty verdict on the offense of vandalism under $1000, it is
clear that the jury understood their instructions and gave individualized consideration to
each offense. See State v. Wiseman, 643 S.W.2d 354, 362-63 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.
TERRY L. LAFFERTY, SPECIAL JUDGE
CONCUR:
GARY R. WADE, JUDGE
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
2