State of Tennessee v. Janice Burnette - Concurring ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT JACKSON
    January 9, 2007 Session
    STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JANICE BURNETTE
    Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardeman County
    No. 05-01-0113   J. Weber McCraw, Judge
    No. W2006-01203-CCA-R3-CD - Filed June 1, 2007
    David G. Hayes, Judge, separate concurring.
    I join with the majority in affirming the defendant’s conviction of theft. I write separately
    because I conclude, as argued by the defendant, that a variance exists between the indictment and
    the proof presented at trial. The indictment charged the defendant with theft of “pseudoephedrine
    products,” whereas the proof at trial established that the defendant had “been sliding merchandise
    to five people in the amount of $20.00 every other week” over a period of twenty-four weeks. I find
    the proof in the record fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt, either directly or
    circumstantially, that the defendant stole “pseudoephedrine products.” Nonetheless, before a
    variance will be deemed fatal to a prosecution, it must be both material and prejudicial. State v.
    Moss, 
    662 S.W.2d 590
    , 592 (Tenn. 1984). In determining whether a variance is fatal, our supreme
    court in Moss held:
    Unless substantial rights of the defendant are affected by a variance, he has suffered
    no harm, and a variance does not prejudice the defendant’s substantial rights (1) if
    the indictment sufficiently informs the defendant of the charges against him so that
    he may prepare his defense and not be misled or surprised at trial, and (2) if the
    variance is not such that it will present a danger that the defendant may be prosecuted
    a second time for the same offense; all other variances must be considered to be
    harmless error.
    Id.
    Because the defendant has failed to satisfy either prong of the test articulated by Moss, I
    conclude that the variance did not affect the results of the trial on the merits; thus, the error was
    harmless. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b).
    _______________________________
    DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
    

Document Info

Docket Number: W2006-01203-CCA-R3-CD

Judges: Judge J. C. McLin

Filed Date: 6/1/2007

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014