465 S.W.3d 584
Tenn. Crim. App.2013Background
- Defendant Cynthia J. Finch, Knox County official, was charged with fabricating evidence (acquittal) and two forgery counts involving P-card purchases; trial resulted in convictions for forgery of $1,000+ but less than $10,000 and forgery of less than $1,000, with concurrent two-year sentence and unsupervised probation.
- Audit of P-card program in 2007–2008 uncovered missing receipts; Finch submitted a memorandum describing purchases as office supplies and copies, including a $1,759 purchase later linked to a brochure and events.
- Twelve forged FedEx Kinko’s receipts were submitted in November 2007; auditors found them non-authentic and inconsistent with documented purchases.
- Defendant allegedly directed forged receipts to be created by a third party (Mr. Mishu) and submitted them to Knox County personnel, while denying knowledge of the forgery at a February 2008 meeting.
- Civil suit between Knox County and Finch settled with mutual release; Knox County paid Finch for accrued leave, but Finch did not pay Knox County; trial court excluded evidence of the settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of 8-7-106(b) | Finch argues 8-7-106(b) violates Article VI, §5 by allowing appointment of AG pro tempore. | State contends statute does not impede DA’s discretion and allows proper appointment. | Section 8-7-106(b) constitutional; special appointment valid. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State argues evidence shows intent to defraud and value of forged writings; Mishu corroboration supported. | Mishu alone is insufficient; multiple inconsistencies and lack of direct utterance. | Sufficient evidence supports both forgery convictions; corroboration established. |
| Admissibility of civil settlement | Settlement evidence would show lack of intent to defraud. | Settlement was irrelevant to criminal issues and should be admitted to negate motive. | Court properly excluded settlement evidence as irrelevant to the criminal charges. |
| Value and instruction on 'value' | Value of forged writings essential for Class D severity; trial court must define value. | State failed to prove value; no need for value instruction. | Trial court correctly instructed on 'value'; value element properly defined. |
| Judicial and pretrial diversion and especially mitigated offender | Court’s denial of diversion and misclassification should reflect amenability to correction. | Defendant warranted diversion given conduct and community standing. | No abuse of discretion; sufficient evidence supported denial of judicial/diversion; not an especially mitigated offender. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (circumstantial-direct-evidence equivalence; standard for sufficiency)
- State v. Odom, 64 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2001) (forgery complete by fraudulent intent; value-based grading)
- State v. Shaw, 87 S.W.3d 900 (Tenn. 2001) (accomplice corroboration standard; need independent corroboration)
- Ramsey v. Town of Oliver Springs, 998 S.W.2d 207 (Tenn. 1999) (district attorney general pro tempore appointment; constitutional context)