State v. Cabbage
571 S.W.2d 832 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A guilty verdict by a jury, approved by the trial judge, may not be overturned on appeal by re-weighing the evidence or re-evaluating witness credibility. An appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and affirm the conviction if any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- On March 29, 1975, undercover agent Alan Taylor Smith allegedly purchased a Schedule II controlled substance from Billy Wayne Cabbage and Robin Daniels at Daniels' mobile home.
- Smith testified that the sale occurred in the early afternoon and that Cabbage also offered him free samples of other drugs.
- Cabbage denied participating in the drug sale and claimed he was in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on the day in question.
- Cabbage testified that his car broke down and he spent the afternoon of March 29, from about noon until 6:30 p.m., at Cox's Garage having it repaired.
- An auto mechanic, Edward Jack King, corroborated Cabbage's alibi, stating that he worked on Cabbage's car that afternoon.
- Cabbage introduced into evidence a repair bill from Cox Auto Parts for $90.52, dated March 29, 1975.
Procedural Posture:
- Billy Wayne Cabbage was convicted by a jury in a state trial court for selling a controlled substance.
- The trial judge approved the verdict and denied Cabbage's post-trial motions.
- Cabbage, as appellant, appealed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, finding that the evidence preponderated against the verdict, and remanded for a new trial.
- The State of Tennessee, as appellant, was granted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Court of Criminal Appeals err by reversing a conviction based on its own re-weighing of conflicting testimony and determination that the defendant's alibi evidence was more credible than the state's evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Harbison, Justice
Yes. The Court of Criminal Appeals erred because an appellate court is not free to re-evaluate evidence or witness credibility. A guilty verdict, approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the state's witnesses and resolves all evidentiary conflicts in favor of the state. The jury and trial judge are in the best position to assess credibility, as they observe the witnesses firsthand. In this case, the jury was entitled to disbelieve the alibi defense, especially given a discrepancy in the alibi witness's testimony regarding the defendant's car, which had been confiscated before the witness claimed to see it again. Furthermore, under the principles of double jeopardy established in Burks v. United States, an appellate court can no longer reverse a conviction based on the preponderance of the evidence; the standard is whether the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Dissenting - Henry, Chief Justice
No. The Court of Criminal Appeals was correct to reverse the conviction. The defendant's alibi was completely corroborated by a witness and a repair bill, which stood unshaken in the record. The majority improperly seized upon an infinitesimal and irrelevant discrepancy in the alibi witness's testimony to discredit a well-documented defense. It is disturbing to uphold a conviction based solely on the testimony of a paid informant when there is clear and conclusive evidence establishing the defendant was in another city at the time of the alleged crime.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the high degree of deference appellate courts must give to jury verdicts in criminal cases, particularly on matters of witness credibility. The decision curtails the power of appellate courts to act as a 'thirteenth juror' by independently weighing evidence. It formally aligns Tennessee's appellate review standard with the federal constitutional standard from Burks v. United States, shifting the inquiry from whether the verdict is against the 'preponderance of the evidence' to whether there is 'sufficient evidence' to support the conviction. This change means an appellate reversal for evidentiary reasons now acts as an acquittal, barring retrial under double jeopardy principles.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Cabbage