Crim. App. 1975), including the fair market value at the time of the offense or the replacement cost, see State v. Alton Tappan, No. W2006-00168-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, May 29, 2007), perm. app denied (Tenn. Aug. 20, 2007); State v. Gene Allan Logue, No. W1999-01795-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Dec. 15, 2000).Here, the evidence established that the defendant went onto the property on two occasions without the permission of the owners and stole more than $1,000 worth of metal he and Ms. Peterson later sold for scrap. Mr. Morrison testified that neither the defendant nor Ms. Peterson had permission to enter his property, which was marked with "No Trespassing" and "Private Property" signs, or to take any items from the property.
In support of his contention that the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying his application, Defendant urges upon us several unreported decisions by the Court of Criminal Appeals that a trial court may not deny an alternative sentence solely on the basis of a defendant's refusal to name his or her drug source. See, e.g., State v. Jones, No. E2001 01639-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 1103185, at *4 (Tenn.Crim.App. Mar. 12, 2003); State v. Logue, No. W1999-01795-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1843248, at *5 (Tenn.Crim.App. Dec.15, 2000); State v. Lee, No. W1999-01804-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1840077, at *4 (Tenn.Crim.App. Dec.14, 2000); State v. Keele, No. 02C01-9805-CC-00139, 1999 WL 150871, at *4 (Tenn.Crim.App. Mar.22, 1999). However, this case does not present that issue.
We conclude that venue was not established by a preponderance of the evidence as to this conviction, and we accordingly reverse the conviction. See State v. Hutcherson, 790 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Tenn. 1990) (remanding for a retrial after failure to prove venue because venue did not constitute an element of the offense but was necessary only to establish jurisdiction); State v. Gene Allan Logue, No. W1999-01795-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1843248, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 15, 2000). II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
This statement, coupled with the owner's testimony that the truck was taken from his business, which was located in Madison County, was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the offense in Madison County. Our court has similarly held that in theft cases where the evidence established that property was taken from one county and the defendant exercised control of the property in another county, venue was proper in the county wherefrom the property was taken. State v. Gene Allan Logue, No. W1999-01795-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1843248, at *3 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Jackson, Dec. 15, 2000); State v. Oscar Randall Hopkins, No. 01C01-9308-CC-00271, 1994 WL 390428, at *2 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Nashville, July 28, 1994). As such, the defendant is denied relief on this issue.
Thus, the trial court did not err by considering the defendant's refusal to name his drug source when finding him a poor candidate for alternative sentencing. See State v. Gene Allan Logue, No. W1999-01795-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1843248, at *5 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Jackson, Dec. 15, 2000) (citing Ricky Keele and finding that the trial court acted properly when denying alternative sentencing because the trial court considered the defendant's prior criminal record and untruthfulness with the court, as well as his refusal to name his drug sources); State v. Alexander A. Lee, No. W1999-01086-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 705296, at *4 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Jackson, May 26, 2000) (citing Ricky Keele and finding that the trial court acted properly when denying alternative sentencing because the trial court considered "other factors, such as seriousness of the offense and effective deterrent");State v. Nora McFall, No. W1999-01086-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 705296, at *3 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Jackson, May 26, 2000) (citing Ricky Keele and finding that the trial court did not rely solely on the defendant's refusal to reveal the names of his sources); Ricky Keele, 1999 WL 150871, at *3-*4 (finding that the trial court did not rely solely on the defendant's refusal to reveal the name of his drug source
He or she can testify about either the fair market value at the time of the offense or the replacement cost. State v. Logue, No. W1999-01795-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 958 (Tenn.Crim.App., at Jackson, Dec. 15, 2000). In this case, the owner of the property, Mr. Brock, testified to the value of the property stolen.