## Facts

- Minnie Montgomery worked for Nicholson Cleaners and was unloading clothing from a company van in a parking lot.
- Brown approached Montgomery and offered to help, but she declined and continued unloading.
- Soon after, Montgomery looked up and saw the van moving toward the parking lot exit.
- A coworker called the police while Montgomery ran after the van.
- Before the van left, Montgomery saw the driver and recognized him as Brown.
- Police broadcast a description of the van.
- Officer Michael Moss went to an alley where stolen vehicles were often left and located the van with the suspect still inside.
- Brown tried to get away, but the van’s doors were blocked, preventing escape.
- About 15 minutes after the van was taken, police arrested Brown and found the van’s keys in his possession.
- An inspection showed nothing was missing from the van.
- At trial, the owner of Nicholson Cleaners testified the van was worth about $2,000.
- Brown was convicted of theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000, which required proof that he knowingly obtained or exercised control over property without the owner’s effective consent and acted with intent to deprive the owner of it.
- On appeal, Brown argued the evidence was insufficient to show intent to deprive because the van was recovered quickly and undamaged.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Brown intended to deprive the owner of the van, even though police recovered it about 15 minutes after it was taken and nothing was missing.

## Decision

- The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee reviewed Brown’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the theft conviction.
- The court concluded the proof permitted a rational jury to find that Brown knowingly exercised control over the van without the owner’s effective consent.
- The court rejected the argument that the short time between the taking and recovery prevented a finding of intent to deprive.
- The court held the jury could infer intent to deprive from Brown’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances, including driving the van away and remaining in possession of it and its keys when found by police.
- The theft conviction was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A theft conviction requires proof that the defendant knowingly obtained or exercised control over the property without the owner’s effective consent and did so with intent to deprive the owner of the property.
- “Intent to deprive” may be shown by circumstantial evidence; direct proof of the defendant’s mental state is not required.
- A brief period of unlawful control over property does not, by itself, defeat proof of intent to deprive; the fact that police recover property quickly may reflect prompt intervention rather than a lack of criminal intent.
- On appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence, the court views the proof in the light most favorable to the prosecution and asks whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Proof of value within the charged statutory range may be established through testimony from an owner or other competent witness.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed Brown’s theft conviction because the evidence supported findings that he took and drove away Nicholson Cleaners’ van without consent and that the jury could reasonably infer the required intent to deprive from the circumstances, even though police recovered the van within minutes and nothing was missing.


State v. Brown, No. M2000-00388-CCA-R3-CD (2001)