Reese L. Smith Jr. was convicted of two counts of impersonating a licensed private investigator and sentenced to two years for each count, to be served concurrently on probation. On appeal, Smith argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee found no reversible error and affirmed the trial court's judgments.
The case arose from Smith's involvement in assisting individuals facing criminal charges. During the trial, which he conducted pro se, evidence was presented by Donna Hancock, the Executive Director of the Tennessee Private Investigation Polygraph Commission. She testified about the licensing requirements for private investigators in Tennessee, as outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 62-26-202. This statute defines a private investigator and specifies that licensed investigators must meet certain criteria, including being at least 21 years old, passing an exam, undergoing a background check, and completing ongoing education. Hancock noted that there are around 1,400 licensed private investigators across approximately 1,000 companies in Tennessee, and she provided details about the regulatory framework governing this profession.
Hancock testified about her investigation into the licensing status of Reese L. Smith Jr., the Defendant, and FAI Investigative Facts, revealing that neither was licensed as a private investigator. Her inquiry was prompted by a complaint against the Defendant, leading her to issue a cease and desist letter after confirming his unlicensed status. As of the trial date, neither the Defendant nor FAI had obtained a license. On cross-examination, Hancock noted that she hadn't received complaints from Nashville courts but acknowledged a complaint from Chief Mike Wilhoite of the Springfield Police Department. She clarified that her role did not include swearing out a warrant against the Defendant, and she did not investigate his business license.
Laurie Pack, the Springfield Police Department office manager, recounted her interaction with the Defendant in April 2003, where he sought access to personnel files. Although he presented himself as an investigator, Pack stated he did not explicitly identify himself as such. The Defendant requested copies of any reprimands or suspensions found in the files. Chief Mike Wilhoite corroborated that the Defendant claimed to be affiliated with FAI and was investigating personnel records due to allegations of false accusations against him and others. The chief permitted the Defendant to access the records, provided he complied with Tennessee law.
Chief Wilhoite testified that the Defendant possessed a leather case with a business card for FAI on one side and what appeared to be a military ID on the other. When asked if he was working for an attorney or independently as an investigator, the Defendant claimed to be working on his own. Wilhoite provided the Defendant with a form to request personnel files; however, the Defendant was hesitant to provide his home address and instead offered a post office box. The Defendant filled out the form on April 7th but did not collect the personnel file until April 11th. Wilhoite learned the Defendant’s actual address on Maple Street before his return and questioned him about it, to which the Defendant expressed reluctance to disclose his correct address due to the nature of his work. Wilhoite noted that the Defendant carried handcuffs, leading him to conclude that the Defendant was presenting himself as an investigator. He took complaints against his officers seriously and acknowledged that suspensions can occur based on complaints. On cross-examination, Wilhoite stated he did not pursue a warrant against the Defendant and received two complaints about him, noting the Defendant never claimed to be an investigator. Wilhoite also filed a complaint referencing the Defendant's ID card, which he initially misidentified.
Lieutenant William Watkins, who oversees the criminal investigation and narcotics divisions, testified that he met the Defendant in April 2003, when the Defendant inquired about an arrest related to Jeffery Farmer. The Defendant claimed to have been hired by the Farmer family and stated he was the owner of Falsely Accused Investigative Services, which he took over after the previous owner’s death. Watkins confirmed that the Defendant identified himself as an investigator.
Sergeant Robert Murray described an encounter with the Defendant near a Federal Housing Authority property, where he was instructed to prevent disturbances. Murray observed the Defendant with a gold badge displayed on his person. When questioned about his identity, the Defendant was evasive and attempted to conceal the badge, which bore the words "wrongfully accused." The Defendant claimed to be conducting an investigation involving certain officers.
Sergeant Murray wrote a memo about his interaction with the Defendant on October 17, 2000, during which the Defendant claimed to be investigating a matter, leading Murray to infer he was an investigator. Murray did not file a warrant against the Defendant nor testify before the Grand Jury regarding the case. In May 2003, Sergeant Rita Heatherly of the Robertson County Sheriff’s Department encountered the Defendant at the jail, where he sought to visit inmate Jeffery Farmer. Heatherly informed the Defendant that he needed to make an appointment, which he had not done. Despite the Defendant's claims of prior visits and approval from the Sheriff and Chief, Heatherly verified with Lieutenant Jones that no appointment existed. The Defendant presented a Tennessee ID and a business card but was denied access to Farmer and instructed to return the following Monday. Heatherly concluded that the Defendant represented himself as a licensed investigator; she subsequently filed a warrant against him as directed by her superiors. Following her investigation, she found outstanding charges against the Defendant for impersonating a licensed professional, leading to an arrest warrant served on January 9, 2004. James H. Taylor, the Defendant's father-in-law, testified that the Defendant had never claimed to be an investigator. Michael Farmer, who sought the Defendant's help regarding his brother's case, also stated that the Defendant did not identify himself as an investigator during their interactions, although he assisted in obtaining documents and interviewing witnesses. Farmer acknowledged that his brother eventually pleaded guilty but noted that the Defendant had gathered information that could prove his brother's innocence, which he attempted to deliver to the jail at the time of his arrest.
Darryl Scott testified that the Defendant approached him regarding a case involving Morris but did not identify himself as an investigator. Scott stated he had never been interviewed by the District Attorney’s office or law enforcement about this case. Under cross-examination, Scott acknowledged that the Defendant acted like an investigator by collecting information, although he noted the Defendant was dressed casually and appeared as an "ordinary person." Scott mentioned that the Defendant inquired about a Springfield Police detective and a signed document related to a burglary.
Troy Dwayne Chatman testified that the Defendant accompanied him to an unemployment meeting at the request of Chatman’s grandmother, the Defendant's mother-in-law. Chatman confirmed he did not speak with Chief Wilhoite or any officers and did not regard the Defendant as an investigator.
James Johnson, Sr. recounted a meeting with the Defendant at his home on October 17, 2000, where they spoke to police regarding children being chased off a grassy area. Johnson stated the Defendant never claimed to be an investigator and that he had not been interviewed by law enforcement regarding this case. He noted that Officer Murry approached them aggressively to inquire about the Defendant's identity.
Latisha Quarles, who had known the Defendant for three years, testified about seeking his assistance on multiple occasions, including recovering her stolen truck and addressing a harassment charge against her. She noted that the Defendant helped her with both matters but never presented himself as an investigator. Quarles confirmed that the Defendant's actions led to the resolution of her truck theft and the dropping of the harassment charges against her.
Quarles testified that she sought the Defendant's assistance due to confusion about her situation and granted him power of attorney. Gloria Smith, the Defendant’s wife, indicated that she met the Defendant in 2000, during which he claimed to help individuals with their legal cases and rights, but he never identified himself as an investigator. Smith recounted that the Defendant aided her friends, including a case where he helped a woman facing attempted murder charges, ultimately resulting in a dismissal; however, he did not act as a lawyer or investigator. Jeffery Farmer, an incarcerated individual, stated that the Defendant visited him twice without being arrested and intended to bring documents on a third visit, without identifying himself as an investigator.
Lieutenant Gerald Jones, who was married to the Defendant’s wife’s cousin, testified he did not know the Defendant until after his arrest and recognized him as a minister based on a preaching license. The Defendant was convicted of two counts of impersonation of a licensed professional.
On appeal, the Defendant seems to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against him; however, his brief lacks citations or legal authority to substantiate his claims, risking waiver of the issues raised. The court upheld a standard of review that considers the evidence favorably to the State, affirming that any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized it would not re-evaluate evidence or substitute its inferences for those of the trier of fact, maintaining that credibility and factual issues are determined by the jury.
A guilty verdict by the jury, with the trial judge's approval, validates the State's witnesses' testimony and resolves conflicts in favor of the State's theory. The rationale for this rule emphasizes the trial judge and jury's unique position to assess witness credibility based on their direct observation of testimony and demeanor, which cannot be replicated solely through written records. The Tennessee appellate courts must view the evidence in the strongest light for the State and consider reasonable inferences drawn from it. A guilty verdict removes the presumption of innocence, shifting the burden to the convicted defendant to prove the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
Tennessee law mandates that private investigators must be licensed, specifying requirements for such licensure. A private investigator is defined as an individual or entity that engages in obtaining or furnishing information regarding crimes, personal character, or securing evidence for legal proceedings. It is a crime under Tennessee law to impersonate a licensed professional. To secure a conviction for this offense, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant (1) pretended to be a licensed private investigator, (2) that this profession requires a license in Tennessee, (3) that the defendant lacked the requisite license, and (4) that their actions were intentional, knowing, or reckless. The definition of "recklessly" includes awareness of and conscious disregard for a substantial risk of the circumstances or outcomes. In this case, the evidence, when viewed favorably towards the State, confirms all necessary elements for the defendant's convictions, establishing that a private investigator must be licensed to conduct such activities in Tennessee.
The evidence indicates that the Defendant was unlicensed as a private investigator, despite carrying an identification card that identified him as a 'Special Agent of FAI Investigative Facts.' He sought access to a Springfield Police Department officer's personnel files, claiming he was investigating wrongful actions by the police and was working on behalf of the Farmer family regarding Jeffery Farmer's arrest. The Defendant also claimed to have taken over a company, Falsely Accused Investigative Services, and had previously been compensated for investigative work. Additionally, he visited the Robertson County jail, presenting himself as an investigator, which was corroborated by testimony from Michael Farmer, the inmate’s brother, who had contacted the Defendant for assistance. This evidence substantiates that the Defendant engaged in private investigative practices, acted recklessly, and therefore is not entitled to relief on these issues. The trial court's judgments are affirmed.
