State of Tennessee v. Comer Thomas Vance, M2017-00204-CCA-R3-CD

Victim's 2004 Mazda 3 (worth ~$4,500–$5,000) was stolen from his unlocked driveway on June 22, 2015 after he left the keys on the seat.
Defendant (Vance), who lived nearby and did not own a car, arrived at his ex-girlfriend Brandy Boyce’s house driving a black Mazda and gave Boyce a pink baseball bag and bat that bore the victim’s last name.
Defendant and Boyce parked the Mazda behind a church; Boyce said she placed keys on her kitchen counter after returning from grocery shopping.
Police investigated the suspicious Mazda; neighbors identified the defendant as having driven that vehicle. The Mazda’s plates were registered to another family whose plate had been stolen.
After police questioned Boyce and the defendant, officers found the Mazda keys hidden behind an artificial tree in Boyce’s bedroom; Boyce testified the defendant repeatedly asked for a cigarette and then indicated where the keys were.
Defendant elected not to testify; jury convicted him of theft of property valued $1,000–$10,000. Trial court sentenced him to 12 years as a career offender. He appealed on sufficiency and prosecutorial-misconduct grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Vance)	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain theft conviction	Evidence (possession of car and keys, identification by neighbor, victim’s property in car, cigarette butts, ball equipment with victim’s name) supports inference defendant knowingly obtained vehicle without consent	Boyce, not Vance, may have stolen the car; State’s proof insufficient to prove Vance’s intent and control beyond reasonable doubt	Conviction affirmed. Viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, rational juror could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt
Prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal (comments on defendant’s statement about keys) and denial of mistrial	Rebuttal comment merely argued reasonable inferences from evidence (that defendant led officers to keys) and did not warrant reversal	Prosecutor improperly commented on the substance of defendant’s statement after court limited such testimony; trial court should have granted mistrial	No plain error shown and, given overwhelming evidence, any improper remark was harmless; motion for mistrial denial not an abuse of discretion

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (circumstantial and combined-evidence sufficiency review)
State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. 1978) (credibility and weight of evidence reserved to jury)
State v. Gann, 251 S.W.3d 446 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007) (failure to object to closing argument limits review to plain error)
State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2000) (plain error/harmless-error principles)
State v. Saylor, 117 S.W.3d 239 (Tenn. 2003) (standard for declaring a mistrial)
State v. Nash, 294 S.W.3d 541 (Tenn. 2009) (trial court’s discretion in ruling on mistrial motions)