A Roane County jury found Matthew Scott Johnston guilty of automobile theft valued over $1,000, a Class D felony. Johnston appealed, claiming the trial court should have instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of unauthorized use of an automobile. The court acknowledged this was an error but deemed it harmless, affirming the trial court's judgment.
In the underlying facts, Johnston contacted Ronald Muecke regarding the sale of a 1979 Porsche 928, agreeing to a payment plan totaling $8,200. Muecke required insurance before handing over the vehicle; however, Johnston deceived Muecke by arranging for his friend, Mike Jolley, to pose as an insurance agent. Muecke was misled into believing the car was insured and allowed Johnston to take possession of the vehicle on June 7, 1996. Johnston made minimal payments and failed to pay the full amount due. After discovering the insurance fraud and that Johnston had not made the required payments, Muecke sought to recover the vehicle. Johnston returned the car on July 29, 1996, but was arrested for theft, having failed to meet the payment deadlines.
Muecke claimed at trial that the vehicle was returned damaged on July 29, 1996, with damages totaling $4,572.52, and he sold it in its damaged state for $4,500. The Defendant faced charges of theft of property, defined as knowingly obtaining or controlling property without the owner's consent with the intent to deprive the owner. A lesser-included offense, unauthorized use of an automobile, occurs when a person takes another's vehicle without consent but without intent to deprive the owner. The State and Defendant agreed that unauthorized use is a lesser-included offense of theft.
The court needed to determine if the evidence warranted a jury instruction on this lesser offense, following a two-step process established in State v. Burns. First, the evidence must be viewed favorably toward the lesser offense to see if reasonable minds could accept it. Second, the evidence must be legally sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser offense.
In this case, evidence indicated that the Defendant entered a contract with Muecke to purchase the vehicle but obtained possession through deceptive means regarding insurance. Despite this, the jury could conclude that the Defendant intended to pay for the vehicle based on contractual terms and partial payment of $980.00, along with the promise to return the vehicle if unable to pay. After falling significantly behind in payments, the Defendant returned the vehicle, suggesting a lack of intent to unlawfully deprive Muecke of it. Therefore, the jury could find the Defendant guilty of unauthorized use of the vehicle rather than theft.
The trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of unauthorized use of a vehicle. Under Tennessee law, such an error is analyzed for harmlessness, with reversal required only if it likely affected the trial's outcome. Although there has been some disagreement on the standard for determining reversible error in cases of omitted lesser-included offenses, a recent ruling stated that this right is constitutionally based, requiring reversal unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not impact the trial's result. In this case, the court concluded that the error was harmless based on evidence showing the Defendant obtained the vehicle without the owner's consent and misled the owner regarding insurance. The Defendant used the vehicle for fifty-two days before returning it in a damaged state, which diminished its value significantly. The jury found that the Defendant acted with the necessary intent for theft. Therefore, applying both the harmless error standard and the constitutional standard, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the omission did not affect the outcome of the trial.
