State v. George Raudenbush ( 1999 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
FILED
AT KNOXVILLE
October 18, 1999
AUGUST 1999 SESSION Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9811-CR-00409
Appellee, )
) Polk County
v. )
) Honorable R. Steven Bebb, Judge
GEORGE JOSEPH RAUDENBUSH, III, )
) (Speeding)
Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
George Joseph Raudenbush, III, pro se PAUL G. SUMMERS
P. O. Box 261 Attorney General & Reporter
Ducktown, TN 37326
MICHAEL J. FAHEY, II
Assistant Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
JERRY N. ESTES
District Attorney General
DANIEL RAY SWAFFORD
Assistant District Attorney General
130 Washington Avenue, N.E.
P. O. Box 647
Athens, TN 37371-0647
OPINION FILED: ________________________________
AFFIRMED
ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE
OPINION
Using Doppler radar, Copperhill Police Officer Karl Helcher clocked the defendant,
George Joseph Raudenbush, III, traveling 47 miles per hour in a 25 miles per hour zone.
The defendant appeared in Copperhill Municipal Court on June 23, 1998 and was found
guilty of speeding. Upon appeal to the Polk County Criminal Court, a bench trial was held.
The court found the defendant guilty of speeding. The defendant timely appealed. Based
upon our review of this matter, we affirm the decision of the Polk County Criminal Court.
I. CERTIFICATION OF ARRESTING OFFICER
The defendant contends that, because Officer Karl Helcher was not a certified
peace officer in Tennessee, the arrest in this case was illegal.
Private citizens have the authority to effectuate warrantless arrests for
misdemeanors committed in their presence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-7-109(a)(1) (1997).
This statute has been interpreted to cure a defective, warrantless arrest by a law
enforcement officer acting outside his jurisdiction. State v. Johnson, 661 S.W.2d 854, 859
(Tenn. 1983); State v. David C. Doyal, No. 03C01-9712-CR-00552, 1998 WL 597081, at
*2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Sept. 10, 1998); State v. Horace Durham, No. 01C01-
9503-CC-00056, 1995 WL 678811, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Nov. 16, 1995). For
this reason, the trial court found the status of the officer’s certification to be immaterial and
instead focused on the reliability of the proof presented. Based on our review of the
evidence presented, we find the trial court did not err in finding the defendant guilty of the
offense charged.
II. DENIAL OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS
The defendant complains the trial court erred in refusing his request for a subpoena
duces tecum. Although the defendant has included a copy of the subpoena as an exhibit
to his brief, the document is not included in the record or with the exhibits to the trial court
proceedings. Further, no discussion of the subpoena is found in the transcript of the court
proceedings. From the record before us, we have no indication that the matter was ever
2
brought to the trial court’s attention. Because the defendant did not raise the issue in the
trial court, he has waived this issue for purposes of this appeal. State v. Davis, 751
S.W.2d 167, 171 (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1988); Tenn. R. App. P.
36(a).
III. JURISDICTION
The defendant also complains the Polk County Criminal Court did not have personal
or subject matter jurisdiction. However, the offense occurred in Polk County and the Polk
County Criminal Court has jurisdiction over appeals from General Sessions Court. Tenn.
Code Ann. § 27-5-108 (1980). For this reason, this assignment has no merit.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Polk County Criminal Court.
______________________________________
ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE
CONCUR:
____________________________________
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE
____________________________________
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
3