State of Tennessee v. Jason Goolsby

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2002-02985-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; November 6, 2006; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jason Goolsby was convicted of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and multiple Class D felonies, including burglary and two counts of theft over $1000. He received concurrent sentences: four years and six months for aggravated burglary, and three years and six months for each Class D felony, with nine months to be served in confinement and the remainder on probation. Goolsby appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in its jury instructions. The appeal was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, which noted the absence of a trial transcript, relying instead on the indictment's allegations for factual context. The indictment charged Goolsby with unlawfully entering Jiffy Auto Sales and a residence, stealing items valued over $1000 and $1500, respectively, with a minor accomplice. The appeals court observed that despite the trial court's order for a transcript due to Goolsby's indigency, the court reporter failed to comply, leaving inadequate records for a thorough review of the jury instructions. The court emphasized the defendant's responsibility to ensure an adequate record for appeal.

An incomplete record typically prevents review of issues presented for appeal. In this case, both parties accept the accuracy of the typewritten jury instructions. The defendant argues the trial court erred by allowing the jury to find him guilty of burglary based on a mental state of "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly," asserting that the burglary statute (Tenn. Code Ann. 39-14-402) requires an intentional mental state only. The statute outlines four actions constituting burglary, with subsections (1), (2), and (4) requiring intent to commit a felony, theft, or assault, while subsection (3) does not specify a mental state, focusing instead on the act of committing a crime upon entry. The trial court's instructions were based on this subsection, which does not necessitate a defined level of mental culpability. Under Tennessee law, when a statute does not specify a mental state, the general provision (Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-301(c)) allows for intent, knowledge, or recklessness to establish culpability. Therefore, the defendant's claim regarding the jury instructions was deemed without merit. Additionally, the defendant challenged the jury instructions on theft charges related to property over $1000, which are defined as knowingly obtaining property without the owner's consent with the intent to deprive the owner.

The defendant claims the trial court inadequately instructed the jury on the mental elements required for theft, specifically asserting that the court failed to clarify that he needed to knowingly obtain the property and intend to deprive the owner of it. However, the jury instructions did state these requirements. The defendant also contends that the court erred by not instructing on lesser-included offenses. He waived this issue on appeal by not submitting written instructions despite being given the opportunity, as per Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-18-110(c). Without a written request, the omission cannot be grounds for relief. Although the appellate court may review such omissions under the plain error doctrine, the absence of a trial transcript prevents this court from determining if the omission constituted plain error, necessitating a presumption of no error. Furthermore, the defendant argues against the jury instruction on flight, claiming it was unsupported by evidence. A flight instruction requires proof of leaving the scene and evasion, but without a complete record, the court must presume the instruction was justified. Consequently, the appellate court affirms the trial court's judgments.