State of Tennessee v. Marcus Pope, 427 S.W.3d 363

The victim operated a small, home-based candy and snack stand in South Memphis and was robbed of merchandise and cash on August 12, 2010.
The victim identified Marcus Pope from a photo lineup the day after the robbery and again at trial.
Pope testified he was at his family residence in Whitehaven during the day of the robbery; alibi witnesses claimed Pope was present there.
The jury convicted Pope of aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary; the court sentenced him to concurrent terms of ten and six years.
The trial court omitted the full statutory definition of deception in the jury instructions for aggravated burglary, and neither party objected.
On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, but this Court granted review to address sufficiency of the evidence and the deception/consent issue for aggravated burglary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the identification evidence sufficient?	Pope argues identification was weak and alibi evidence should undermine it.	Pope contends alibi witnesses show he was elsewhere.	Identification sufficient; alibi rejected.
Was there sufficient evidence to convict of aggravated robbery?	State asserts strong identification and theft under aggravated robbery elements.	Pope claims insufficiency in identity and proof of theft, weapon use or serious injury.	Evidence sufficient for aggravated robbery.
Did Pope enter the residence without the victim’s effective consent, supporting aggravated burglary?	State relies on victim’s lack of explicit permission and theory of deception.	Pope asserts the victim invited entry; no deception shown.	Deception not proven; entry with effective consent; aggravated burglary not supported.
If aggravated burglary is unsupported, should the case be remanded for lesser included offenses?	Court should affirm appropriate conviction and remand for lesser offenses.	Remand is appropriate due to flawed instructions and lack of deception.	Remand for new trial on aggravated criminal trespass and criminal trespass; aggravated burglary reversed.

State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (standard for sufficiency of evidence; strongest view of evidence)
State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (inference standard for reviewing circumstantial evidence)
State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. 1978) (presumption of innocence and burden on appeal for sufficiency)
Jordan v. Knox Cnty., 213 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2007) (appellate deference to jury credibility determinations)
State v. Hawk, 170 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn. 2005) (statutory construction principles and expressio unius)
State v. Loden, 920 S.W.2d 261 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (when to give effect to statutory language in criminal cases)
Eastman Chem. Co. v. Johnson, 151 S.W.3d 503 (Tenn. 2004) (plain meaning governs when statute is clear)
State v. Flamini, No. E2008-00418-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 1456316 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009) (deception and consent in burglary context)