Jimmy Bernard Clark was convicted by a Madison County jury of attempted aggravated burglary, categorized as a Class D felony, and was sentenced to twelve years as a career offender. On appeal, Clark contested the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress a police statement and argued that the evidence against him was insufficient. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee reviewed the record and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
In the factual background, after a series of burglaries, a residence at 548 East Main Street had an intrusion alarm installed with two sensors. On June 30, 2004, both sensors were triggered shortly before midnight, prompting a police response. Officer Shane Richards, using a helicopter equipped with thermal imaging, spotted two individuals fleeing from the residence. Officer Susan Hemby pursued one suspect on foot, leading to the arrest of co-defendant Marty Clark. Meanwhile, Officer Mike Jenkins identified a second subject matching a given description and coordinated a search for him. Officer Richards recognized the second subject, identified as Jimmy Bernard Clark, during the pursuit. After a brief chase, Clark was apprehended and arrested.
During transport to the police station, the Defendant inquired how the police identified him as a suspect. After the apprehension of two suspects, the homeowners found their residence had been tampered with, noting that they did not know the Defendant or his co-defendant and had not authorized their entry. Helicopter footage, which captured the suspects fleeing and the subsequent police pursuit, was presented as evidence at trial. On October 4, 2004, a grand jury indicted the Defendant and co-defendant Marty Clark for aggravated burglary; they were later convicted of attempted aggravated burglary. The Defendant received a twelve-year sentence as a career offender, to be served consecutively with a prior sentence for especially aggravated robbery. His motion for a new trial was denied, leading to this appeal.
In the appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court wrongly denied his motion to suppress statements made to Officer Jenkins during transport. He argues the arrest lacked probable cause, as officers had only a vague description and he was not fleeing when apprehended. The trial court, however, concluded there was reasonable suspicion and probable cause to justify the stop, affirming its ruling based on the totality of the circumstances. The appellate court is bound by the trial court's factual findings but reviews the legal conclusions de novo. The trial judge has discretion over witness credibility and evidence weight, and the prevailing party is entitled to the most favorable view of the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.
Evidence from both the suppression hearing and the trial can be used to review a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress. Under Tennessee law, an officer may arrest without a warrant if a felony has occurred and there is reasonable cause to believe the suspect committed it. In this case, the activation of intrusion alarms at a residence indicated a probable burglary, a felony. The determination of probable cause hinges on whether the police reasonably believed the Defendant had committed the offense, supported by circumstances suggesting illegal activity.
Probable cause is assessed based on all available information at the time of arrest. Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 4(b) states that probable cause for warrants can be based on credible hearsay. This principle applies equally to warrantless arrests. On the night in question, police were alerted to alarms at the residence and observed two individuals fleeing. Officer Richards pursued one suspect from a helicopter, while Officer Hemby chased the other on foot. Officers communicated descriptions of the suspects, both identifying the second suspect as a black male in dark pants and a light-colored T-shirt.
After capturing one suspect, Officer Richards and others continued the pursuit and located the Defendant, who matched the description provided. The Defendant's clothing corroborated the officers’ descriptions, and there was no other foot traffic in the area at that time. Thus, police had probable cause to believe the Defendant committed or attempted a burglary.
The arrest was deemed lawful, and the Defendant's statement made during transport was voluntary and admissible, regardless of whether Miranda warnings were given. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress was upheld.
The Defendant contests the sufficiency of evidence for his conviction of attempted aggravated burglary, arguing key points against the prosecution's case. Firstly, there is no evidence directly linking him to the entry or attempted entry of the residence, as the only indications of disturbance were an opened door and window, with no proof that the Defendant opened them. Additionally, two individuals were observed near the residence without clear identification of either as the Defendant. Secondly, the lack of positive identification of the Defendant as the person fleeing from the scene further weakens the case.
The Defendant's statement, “How did y’all know it was me?” after his apprehension, is argued to be irrelevant since it was made in the context of a different incident, reducing its significance as an admission related to the burglary. Furthermore, the absence of fingerprint evidence and the fact that no items were taken from the residence, nor found on the Defendant, contributes to the lack of physical connection between him and the attempted burglary.
Under Tennessee law, a conviction must be set aside if the evidence does not support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is on the Defendant to demonstrate insufficiency of evidence, while the appellate court must view evidence favorably towards the prosecution. A guilty verdict affirms the credibility of the State’s witnesses and resolves conflicting evidence in favor of the prosecution. The court will not reassess witness credibility or re-evaluate evidence weight.
Attempted aggravated burglary involves an intentional act to enter a habitation without consent to commit a felony. The evidence, viewed favorably to the State, indicates that security sensors were triggered at the residence shortly before police arrived, suggesting a potential attempted break-in.
Officers spotted two individuals fleeing from a residence, and although they briefly lost sight of the Defendant when the subjects separated, he was located shortly thereafter. Upon being found, the Defendant attempted to evade officers again. Officer Richards identified him as the individual initially seen fleeing. Additionally, Officer Richards noted that the Defendant was the only person present in the area at that time. The residence owners confirmed that both the front window and rear door were open, and items inside were disturbed. The Defendant's claim that his statement, "How did y’all know it was me?" referred to a different incident raised questions of credibility for the jury. The absence of physical evidence supported a conviction for a lesser-included offense of attempt. The trial evidence was deemed sufficient to uphold the jury's guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant's request for relief was denied, leading to the affirmation of the Madison County Circuit Court's judgment by Judge David H. Welles.
