It is the "manner in which property is taken, rather than to whom it lawfully belongs, [which] is the issue in robbery offenses." State v. Anthony Murff, No. W2001-01459-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. at Jackson, June 11, 2002) (citing State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 899 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983)). Although neither Appellant asserted at trial the affirmative defense of "claim of right," as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-107 (2006), as noted above, on appeal, Mason argues that "Leonard was entitled to receive payment for goods he had previously supplied to [the victim]" and Mason had accompanied Leonard only for this purpose.
Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-11-110, which was enacted in 1978, provides: Tennessee v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 897 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983); see, e.g., Tennessee v. Voltz, 626 S.W.2d 291 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1981). Other states have expressly recognized the validity of a warrantless arrest of a material witness.
The State has a duty to exercise due diligence in obtaining a statement and providing it to the defense. State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 899 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983) (citing State v. Hicks, 618 S.W.2d 510, 514 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981)). "The prosecutor's duty to disclose extends not only to material in his or her immediate custody, but also to statements in the possession of the police which are normally obtainable by 'exercise of due diligence,' that is, a request to all officers participating in the investigation or preparation of the case."
The State has a duty to exercise due diligence in obtaining a statement and providing it to the defense. State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 899 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983) (citing State v. Hicks, 618 S.W.2d 510, 514 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981)).
The State that asserts proof of ownership of the property taken is not essential to a conviction of aggravated robbery. Although this court has said in commenting on the theory of robbery that "[i]t is the 'manner in which property is taken, rather than to whom it lawfully belongs, [which] is the issue in robbery offenses,'" State v. Maurice Leonard and Kenneth Shondale Mason, No. M2006-00136-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 5 (Tenn. Crim. App, Nashville, Mar. 27, 2007) (quoting State v. Anthony Murff, No. W2001-01459-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 8 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, June 11, 2002) (citing State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 899 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983)), theft, which is included in every charge of robbery, requires proof that the property was taken without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to deprive the owner of the property, see T.C.A. § 39-14-103. Here, as noted above, the indictment charged that the defendant took the property of "Rita Waters dba Whitwell BP."
Quotient or gambling verdicts are not lawful in Tennessee. State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 898 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983); Mayor of Morristown v. Inman, 47 Tenn. App. 685, 694-95, 342 S.W.2d 71, 76 (1960).Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 2829 (1980).
The manner in which property is taken, rather than to whom it lawfully belongs, is the issue in robbery offenses. See State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 899 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983); Elliott v. State, 454 S.W.2d 187, 188 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1970). "`The gist of the offense of robbery is the felonious and forcible taking from the person of another goods of value by putting him in fear.'"
State v Cannon 661 S.W.2d 893, 899 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983). This duty extends not only to material in the prosecutor's immediate custody, but also to statements in the possession of law enforcement officers participating in the case.
Delk v. State, 590 S.W.2d 435 (Tenn. 1979); State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983); State v. Francis, supra. In the instant case, the witness met the Delk standard for determining who is a missing witness.
Taken at its best, if defendant's only intention was to regain the money stolen from him, the law is that one may not commit a breach of the peace to recover his own property, but must resort to the process of the law for redress. State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 899 (Tenn.Cr. App. 1983). A guilty verdict by a jury, approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the State's witnesses and resolves all conflicts in favor of the State.