State of Tennessee v. Joseph L. Smith
W2016-01229-CCA-R3-CD
Tenn. Crim. App.Apr 25, 2017Background
- Defendant Joseph L. Smith owned Smith’s Tire Barn, which burned on February 21, 2014; he was indicted for arson under a theory of criminal responsibility.
- Three co-defendants (William Tomlan, Diane Tomlan, Michael Alred) were involved; William and Diane testified that Smith solicited and directed the burning to collect insurance, and that Smith moved a van and boat into the shop and had a safe moved to storage beforehand.
- Fire investigator McClure concluded the fire was incendiary, observed a burned van and fiberglass boat in the bays, and located a safe in a storage building on Smith’s property; insurance adjuster Dooley confirmed a large policy on the shop.
- Defense argued at trial (and on appeal) that the accomplices’ testimony was uncorroborated and therefore insufficient to support conviction; trial court denied judgment of acquittal and new-trial motion.
- Jury convicted Smith of the lesser-included offense of attempted arson; sentence: three years (one year workhouse, remainder community corrections). Smith appealed, challenging corroboration, sufficiency, and the attempted-arson jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of corroboration for accomplice testimony | State: Independent evidence (insurance policy, burned van/boat, safe location, burn pattern) corroborates accomplices and links Smith | Smith: Only accomplice statements tie him to the crime; other evidence merely shows opportunity or presence and does not identify him | Affirmed: Court held independent circumstantial evidence (policy, van/boat, safe, burn intensity) fairly and legitimately tended to connect Smith to the arson and corroborated accomplices |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted arson conviction | State: Combined accomplice testimony + corroboration suffices for a rational juror to find attempted arson beyond a reasonable doubt | Smith: Evidence was insufficient because accomplice testimony was uncorroborated and thus unreliable | Affirmed: Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State, substantial evidence supported conviction for attempted arson |
| Jury instruction on attempted arson (lesser-included offense) | State: Attempt is a proper lesser-included instruction when evidence would support completed offense and intent element is present | Smith: Court should not have instructed on attempt because corroboration was insufficient | Affirmed: Under Thorpe and statute, attempted arson appropriately given; record contained evidence to support attempt instruction |
| Timeliness of post-trial filings (procedural) | State raised timeliness as jurisdictional issue | Smith: Motion for new trial and notice of appeal were timely (judgment filed March 29; motion filed April 28; notice filed June 9) | Court found filings timely and exercised appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (fundamental standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797 (Tenn. 1994) (conviction may not rest on uncorroborated accomplice testimony)
- Monts v. State, 379 S.W.2d 34 (Tenn. 1964) (accomplice corroboration rule)
- State v. Thorpe, 463 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2015) (criminal attempt as lesser-included offense; completed crime proof can support attempt)
- State v. Carter, 896 S.W.2d 119 (Tenn. 1995) (trial court’s role as thirteenth juror/new-trial standard)
- State v. Blanton, 926 S.W.2d 953 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (trial court may grant new trial when it disagrees with jury on weight of evidence)