Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
November 29, 2005 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOSHUA SCHAEFFER
Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamblen County No. 04-CR-273 James Edward Beckner, Judge

No. E2005-00085-CCA-R3-CD - Filed December 27, 2005

The defendant, Joshua Schaeffer, was convicted of aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of eight years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant alleges (1) that the evidence is insufficient; (2) that the trial court provided an incorrect definition of the term "deadly weapon" in its instructions to the jury; (3) that the trial court committed plain error by giving the "result-of-conduct" definition of "knowingly" in its instructions to the jury; (4) that the trial court improperly allowed into evidence a newspaper headline related to the offense; (5) that a detective impermissibly referred to the crime as "robbery" during his testimony; (6) that the prosecutor's closing argument was improper; and (7) that the cumulative effect of the errors deprived him of the right to a fair trial. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed GARY R. WADE, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOSEPH M. TIPTON and THOMAS T. WOODALL, JJ., joined. Paul Whetstone, Mosheim, Tennessee, for the appellant, Joshua Schaeffer. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Blind Akrawi, Assistant Attorney General; and Victor Vaughn and Paige Collins, Assistant District Attorneys General for the appellee, State of Tennessee OPINION At approximately 3:00 a.m. on June 16, 2004, the defendant walked into the Fast Stop Number Seven in Hamblen County, sought assistance from the clerk, Eva Darlene Pearson, threatened her with a knife, and then demanded money from the register. According to Ms. Pearson, the defendant said, "I'm not going to hurt you, I just want the money." He then directed her to empty the money from the cash register and then walk outside along the road. When the defendant left, Ms. Pearson returned to the market to telephone 911 and reported the robbery. She described the knife used by the defendant as having a seven inch blade and a black handle.

Later that day, Ms. Pearson was in a vehicle with her family when she noticed that a car similar to that driven by her assailant had been stopped by police near a Baskin-Robbins. When she recognized the defendant, she told her husband, who stopped the car and informed the officer of this information. Detective Todd Davidson of the Morristown Police Department, who responded to the robbery call, interviewed Ms. Pearson, who described the defendant's vehicle as a "champagnecolored vehicle that . . . [was] beat up all over." He also recovered a videotape from the store's security camera. Later that day, Detective Davidson drove to the Baskin-Robbins to arrest the defendant. The defendant had in his possession a newspaper with the headline "Bandit Robs Market at Knifepoint," and approximately $200 in cash. After being taken to the police station, the defendant waived his rights and admitted having committed the robbery. In a statement to Detective Davidson, the defendant acknowledged that he drank some beer to "build [his] nerve up," placed the kitchen knife in his pants pocket, and then drove to the Fast Stop Number Seven. The defendant admitted asking the victim for help finding some medication before displaying his knife and demanding money. The defendant told the detective that he took the money from the register, ordered the victim to walk along the roadway, and then left in his car. He also informed the detective that he threw the knife into the median as he drove away. Patrol Officer Brian Rinehart testified that he stopped the defendant near a Baskin-Robbins for making an improper lane change. He recalled that he was checking the defendant's identification and proof of insurance when he was approached by the victim's husband, who identified the defendant as having committed the robbery. At that point, Officer Rinehart contacted Detective Davidson. The twenty-year-old defendant, who testified on his own behalf, apologized to the victim, explaining that he never intended to hurt her and did not realize that she would be so frightened by the incident. The defendant claimed that he never threatened the victim and, in fact, had emphasized that he would not hurt her. He acknowledged using a knife in the robbery, stating, "It is robbery . . . . I did go down there to steal money." He also admitted spending a small amount of the robbery money on a can of smokeless tobacco and a newspaper. I The defendant first asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. He asserts that because the indictment named two victims, the Fast Stop Number Seven Market and its clerk, Eva Darlene Pearson, he should have been found guilty of the theft of the market and the assault of Ms. Pearson. The state submits that the evidence is sufficient to support the single conviction for aggravated robbery. 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 -2-

(Tenn. 1978). The credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony, and the reconciliation of conflicts in the proof are matters entrusted to the jury as the 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. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact. Liakas v. State, 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (1956). Because a verdict of guilt removes the presumption of innocence and raises a presumption of guilt, the convicted criminal defendant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992). Aggravated robbery, as charged in the indictment, is "robbery . . . [a]ccomplished with a deadly weapon or by display of any article used or fashioned to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a deadly weapon." Tenn. Code Ann.

Download SchaeffOPN.pdf

Tennessee Law