Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
Assigned on Briefs May 14, 2003 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICKY LYNN LITTRELL
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bedford County No. 14840 Lee Russell, Judge

No. M2002-01298-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 27, 2003

The defendant, Ricky Lynn Littrell, was convicted by a Bedford County Circuit Court jury of theft of property valued more than $1,000 but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a career offender to twelve years in the Department of Correction. In this delayed appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by allowing the stolen merchandise into evidence because a chain of custody had not been established; and (3) the trial court erred by allowing a list of the stolen merchandise into evidence because the testifying witness did not properly authenticate the list pursuant to Rule 901, Tenn. R. Evid. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed JOSEPH M. TIPTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID H. WELLES and ALAN E. GLENN, JJ., joined. Donna Leigh Hargrove, District Public Defender; and Michael J. Collins, Assistant District Public Defender, for the appellant, Ricky Lynn Littrell. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; P. Robin Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; William Michael McCown, District Attorney General; and Andrew Jackson Dearing, III, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION This case relates to the theft of ink pens from Sanford Corporation. Neville C. Adolf testified that in June 2000, he was Sanford's Shipping Manager and responsible for Sanford's shipment of products to retail stores. He said that he was very familiar with Sanford's products and retail prices and that Sanford sold and shipped all types of writing instruments, including mechanical pencils, highlighters, and ink pens. He said that Sanford's cost for producing the ink pens was referred to as the "cost price" and that the price Sanford charged retail stores was referred to as the "wholesale

price." He said that when retail stores received Sanford's products, they marked up the prices thirty to forty percent and sold the products to customers. Mr. Adolf testified that in 2000, the defendant and Kenneth Western lived at the Tony Rice Center, a halfway house for people with drug and alcohol problems, and worked part-time for Sanford's distribution center in Bedford County. He said that on June 22, 2000, a man from the Tony Rice Center told him that the defendant and Mr. Western had stolen property from Sanford. He said he telephoned Jim Metler at the Tony Rice Center and asked Mr. Metler to search the defendant's and Mr. Western's rooms for Sanford products. He said that about ten minutes later, Mr. Metler telephoned and told him that ink pens had been found in the rooms. He said that he telephoned the police and met them at the Tony Rice Center. He said that he verified the ink pens belonged to Sanford Corporation and that he took the stolen pens back to the distribution center. He said that he asked another Sanford employee to prepare an inventory list of the recovered pens and that the price of the stolen pens ranged from $1 to $60 each. He said that some of the more expensive pens were worth $40 to $60 each, that the total wholesale value of the stolen pens was $1,100 to $1,200, and that the total retail price of the pens would have been higher. He said he put the stolen items into a box, put the box into an empty cubicle at the distribution center, and told other employees to stay away from it. On cross-examination, Mr. Adolf testified that Sanford Corporation kept ink pens worth more than $15 in a security cage at the distribution center and that the defendant did not have access to the cage. He said that at the time of the thefts, the defendant had worked at Sanford for about six months and that he had thought the defendant was a good employee. He said that after Mr. Metler found the stolen pens in the defendant's and Mr. Western's rooms, Mr. Metler put the items into one bag and gave the bag to him. He said that he was not present during Mr. Metler's search of the rooms and that he did not actually see stolen pens in the defendant's room. He said that Sanford routinely gave damaged and discontinued pens to employees but that damaged or discontinued pens kept in the security cage were always returned to the manufacturer. Jim Metler, the Director for the Tony Rice Center, testified that residents of the Center were required to be employed and that Sanford had employed residents before. He said that in June 2000, the defendant and Mr. Western were residents at the Center and that he received a telephone call from someone at Sanford. He said that as a result of the call, he suspected that the defendant and Mr. Western had stolen ink pens worth $50 to $60 each and searched the defendant's and Mr. Western's rooms. He said that he found eight or nine of the expensive ink pens in a black bag in Mr. Western's closet and that the pens were still wrapped in packing material. He said he found about eighteen expensive pens in the defendant's room under the defendant's roommate's bed. He said he telephoned Sanford Corporation and returned the ink pens. He said that the next day, he discharged Mr. Western and the defendant from the Tony Rice Center. He said the men denied taking the pens but told him that other employees had stolen the pens and given them to the defendant and Mr. Western. He said the defendant admitted putting the stolen pens under his roommate's bed.

-2-

J.B. Broadous, Sanford's Distribution General Manager, testified that he oversaw Sanford's daily operations and was familiar with Sanford's products and prices. He said he asked Linda Black, Sanford's Inventory Control Coordinator, to inventory and make a list of the recovered items. He said that after Ms. Black prepared the list, he "spot [checked]" it to make sure it was accurate. He said that the total wholesale value of the pens recovered from Mr. Western's and the defendant's rooms was $1,189.11. On cross-examination, Mr. Broadous testified that after Mr. Metler returned the stolen pens to Sanford, the pens were kept in a sealed box in a training room. He said that the room was secure but that six or seven employees had keys to the room. He said that he did not personally inventory the stolen items. He said that the stolen items were inventoried twice, once in June 2000 and more recently for trial. He said that the old and new inventory lists showed the same items and the same wholesale values. The jury found the defendant guilty of theft of property valued more than $1,000 but less than $10,000. I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE The defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the state failed to prove that the value of the ink pens found in his room was more than $1,000. Specifically, he argues that because Jim Metler placed the pens found in his room into a bag with the pens found in Mr. Western's room, it was impossible to determine the value of the pens that were under the defendant's control. He argues that because the state did not prove the value of the pens found in his room, the evidence only supports a misdemeanor conviction for theft of property valued less than $500. The state claims that the evidence is sufficient. We agree with the state. Our standard of review when the defendant questions the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal is "whether, after viewing the evidence in the 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, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979). We do not reweigh the evidence but presume that the jury has resolved all conflicts in the testimony and drawn all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the state. See State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Questions about witness credibility were resolved by the jury. See State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). As charged in the indictment, a person commits theft of property "if, with intent to deprive the owner of property, the person knowingly . . . exercises control over the property without the owner's effective consent." Tenn. Code Ann.

Download littrell.pdf

Tennessee Law