# State of Tennessee v. John Edward Roach

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · February 20, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10803001

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
- **Decided:** February 20, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Presiding Judge Camille R. McMullen
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10803001

## Opinion text

02/20/2025
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
Assigned on Briefs December 3, 2024

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHN EDWARD ROACH

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardin County
No. 22-CR-179 J. Brent Bradberry, Judge
___________________________________

No. W2024-00036-CCA-R3-CD
___________________________________

The Defendant, John Edward Roach, was convicted by a Hardin County jury of three drug-
related offenses for which he received an effective sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment.
The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support his
conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code
Ann. § 39-17-425 (a)(1)-(2). The Defendant argues that the State failed to establish (1)
that the items seized from the search of his home constituted drug paraphernalia and (2)
that the Defendant intended to use any of the seized items for an illicit purpose. Upon our
review, we affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT L.
HOLLOWAY, JR., and JILL BARTEE AYERS, JJ., joined

M. Todd Ridley, Assistant Public Defender – Appellate Division (on appeal); Tas Gardner,
District Public Defender; Frankie Stanfill, Camden, Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant,
John Edward Roach.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Katherine C. Redding, Senior Assistant
Attorney General; Neil Thompson, District Attorney General; and Morgan Reynolds,
Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

The bulk of the proof adduced at the Defendant’s May 1, 2023 trial pertained to a
single undercover controlled purchase of illegal drugs on April 14, 2022, which resulted in
a Class B felony drug conviction not challenged in this appeal. Accordingly, we will
summarize the facts relevant to the misdemeanor drug paraphernalia conviction stemming
from a search warrant conducted four days later, on April 18, 2022. Danny Crownover, a
task force agent with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (“TBI”), testified that on April
14, 2022, he utilized a confidential informant (CI) to conduct an undercover controlled
purchase of illegal drugs from the Defendant at his home in Hardin County, Tennessee.
The CI and his vehicle were searched before and after the controlled purchase of drugs.
Before the search, the CI was fitted with audio and video recording equipment and given
$400 in documented funds to purchase drugs from the Defendant. Agent Crownover said
that the equipment provided a live feed and showed the CI giving the Defendant $400.
After some time, the Defendant gave the CI a bag containing a substance later determined
to be 12.11 grams of methamphetamine. The recording of the controlled purchase, as well
as the TBI lab report confirming that the substance was methamphetamine, were admitted
into evidence.

On April 18, 2022, Agent Crownover executed a search warrant at the Defendant’s
home and recovered methamphetamine and suspected marijuana. Although another
woman was present at the time of the search and claimed ownership of some of the drugs,
the Defendant, who had been questioned separately, claimed “[a]ll of it” after being read
his Miranda rights. The Defendant told Agent Crownover that he had been selling
methamphetamine for about six months “just to get by.” When asked if he was aware of
any drug paraphernalia found during the search, Agent Crownover said, “Some syringes, a
glass pipe. I can’t remember.” Asked further if there was any paraphernalia that would
indicate the sale of drugs, Agent Crownover said he could not remember without referring
to his notes. He agreed that the Defendant, the CI, and another individual can be overheard
discussing scales on the April 14 controlled purchase recording.

On cross-examination, Agent Crownover confirmed that he had specialized training
in narcotics and had attended several narcotics-related specialized schools. He was trained
on the distinction between felony and misdemeanor drug arrests and agreed that he would
automatically charge a felony based on the presence of more than .5 grams of drugs. He
agreed that scales alone were not indicative that an individual was a dealer; however, he
considered scales a “high qualifying factor.” He opined that most individuals he had
encountered who had scales were dealers. He clarified that the video recording of the April
14 controlled purchase did not capture the exchange of money between the CI and the
Defendant and that the agents relied on the CI for that information.

Agent Allen Hooper, a narcotics investigator with the 24th Judicial Drug Task
Force, testified that he did not take an active role in the April 14 controlled purchase from
the Defendant. However, based on the April 14 controlled purchase, Agent Hooper
obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s home. During the execution of the warrant,
he observed the Defendant and a woman in a bedroom in which he recovered two bags of
-2-
methamphetamine, one bag of suspected marijuana, and multiple items of drug
paraphernalia. Agent Hooper also found a cooler on the bed beside the Defendant, which
contained multiple syringes, two digital scales, a glass vial with cotton filters, and two
plastic baggies with a crystal-like substance that field tested positive for methamphetamine.
He took photographs of where the items were located on the bed, which were admitted into
evidence. When asked why scales are important when investigating drug activity, Agent
Hooper responded, “Scales and multiple different paraphernalia can be indicative of the
intent to resell illegal narcotics.” Agent Hooper agreed that the larger bag of
methamphetamine, which weighed approximately seven grams, was more than someone
would use in one sitting. He said the smaller bag of methamphetamine, which weighed
under two grams, was “getting a little bit closer to a user amount[.]” Following the search,
Agent Hooper collected the evidence and eventually transported it to the 24th Judicial Drug
Task Force office in Camden, Tennessee, to be handled by his director.

Director Tim Meggs of the 24th Judicial Drug Task Force testified that he logged
the evidence obtained by Agent Hooper from the search of the Defendant’s home, which
included a bag containing homemade bongs, two bags containing a crystal-like substance,
a bag containing a green leaf substance, a bag containing digital scales, and a bag
containing multiple pipes with residue. Director Meggs took the suspected drugs to the
TBI Crime Lab for testing, which confirmed that the larger bag contained 6.96 grams of
methamphetamine. Although the TBI lab report was admitted into evidence, the suspected
marijuana seized from the search was not scientifically tested or confirmed to be marijuana.
Director Meggs also confirmed that the drug paraphernalia seized from the search never
left his office and that any residue on the paraphernalia was not tested.

The Defendant elected not to offer any proof and moved for judgment of acquittal,
which was granted, in part, dismissing count three of the indictment charging misdemeanor
possession of marijuana on April 18, 2022. The Defendant was subsequently found guilty
of possession with intent to sell 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine on April 14, 2022
(count one), attempted possession with intent to sell 0.5 grams or more of
methamphetamine on April 18, 2022 (count two), and unlawful drug paraphernalia uses
and activities on April 18, 2022 (count four). Following a sentencing hearing, the trial
court determined that the Defendant was a persistent offender and imposed a concurrent
term of imprisonment of twenty years for count one, fifteen years for count two, and eleven
months and twenty-nine days for count four. The sentences were ordered to be served
consecutively to an unrelated case. The Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which
the trial court denied. The Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal, and this case is now
properly before this court for review.

-3-
ANALYSIS

To sustain a conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, Tennessee Code
Annotated section 39-17-425(a)(1) requires the State to prove three elements beyond a
reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant possessed an object; (2) that the object possessed
was classifiable as drug paraphernalia; and (3) that the defendant intended to use that object
for at least one of the illicit purposes enumerated in the statute. See State v. Ross, 49
S.W.3d 833, 846 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Mallard, 40 S.W.3d 473, 486 (Tenn. 2001) (listing
elements to be proven under section 39-17-425(a)(1)). The Defendant concedes that the
first element of this offense is met because the objects seized from his home were within
his possession. He argues there was no proof of the second element, that a “straw” found
on his property was classifiable as drug paraphernalia, or the third element, that he intended
to use the objects seized from his home for at least one of the illicit purposes enumerated
in the statute. See Ross, 49 S.W.3d at 846. The State submits that the jury could reasonably
infer that the objects seized from the Defendant’s home constitute drug paraphernalia and
that the Defendant intended to use them for an illicit purpose. We agree with the State.

“Because a verdict of guilt removes the presumption of innocence and raises a
presumption of guilt, the criminal defendant bears the burden on appeal of showing that
the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict.” State v. Hanson, 279
S.W.3d 265, 275 (Tenn. 2009) (citing State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992)).
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must “determine the elements
that the State must prove to establish the offense” and then “analyze all of the evidence
admitted at trial in order to determine whether each of the elements is supported by
adequate proof.” State v. Stephens, 521 S.W.3d 718, 723-24 (Tenn. 2017). “Appellate
courts evaluating the sufficiency of the convicting evidence must determine ‘whether, after
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of
fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’”
State v. Wagner, 382 S.W.3d 289, 297 (Tenn. 2012) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 319 (1979)); see Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). When this court evaluates the sufficiency of
the evidence on appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence
and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. State v. Davis, 354
S.W.3d 718, 729 (Tenn. 2011) (citing State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850, 857 (Tenn. 2010)).

Guilt may be found beyond a reasonable doubt where there is direct evidence,
circumstantial evidence, or a combination of the two. State v. Sutton, 166 S.W.3d 686, 691
(Tenn. 2005); State v. Hall, 976 S.W.2d 121, 140 (Tenn. 1998). The standard of review
for sufficiency of the evidence “‘is the same whether the conviction is based upon direct
or circumstantial evidence.’” State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 379 (Tenn. 2011)
(quoting Hanson, 279 S.W.3d at 275). The jury determines the weight to be given to
circumstantial evidence, the inferences to be drawn from this evidence, and the extent to
-4-
which the circumstances are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence are
questions primarily for the jury. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d at 379 (citing State v. Rice, 184
S.W.3d 646, 662 (Tenn. 2006)). When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, this
court “neither re-weighs the evidence nor substitutes its inferences for those drawn by the
jury.” Wagner, 382 S.W.3d at 297 (citing State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn.
1997)).

Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-425, which defines the offense of
possession of drug paraphernalia, provides in pertinent part:

[I]t is unlawful for any person to use, or to possess with intent to use, drug
paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture,
compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack,
store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the
human body a controlled substance or controlled substance analogue in
violation of this part.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-425(a)(1). In addition, drug paraphernalia is defined as follows:

“Drug paraphernalia” means all equipment, products and materials of any
kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting,
propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding,
converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging,
repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling or
otherwise introducing into the human body, a controlled substance as defined
in subdivision (4). . . . “Drug paraphernalia” includes, but is not limited to:

....

(C) Objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling,
or otherwise introducing marijuana, marijuana concentrates, marijuana oil,
cocaine, hashish, or hashish oil into the human body, such as:

(i) Metal, acrylic, glass, stone, or plastic pipes with or without
screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal
bowls;
(ii) Water pipes;
(iii) Carburetion tubes and devices;
(iv) Smoking and carburetion masks;
(v) Chamber pipes;
(vi) Carburetor pipes;
-5-
(vii) Electric pipes;
(viii) Chillums;
(ix) Bongs; and
(x) Ice pipes or chillers[.]

Id. § 39-17-402(12).

As to the determination of whether an object is drug paraphernalia, Tennessee Code
Annotated section 39-17-424 provides:

In determining whether a particular object is drug paraphernalia as defined
by § 39-17-402, the court or other authority making that determination shall,
in addition to all other logically relevant factors, consider the following:

(1) Statements by the owner or anyone in control of the object concerning its
use;

(2) Prior convictions, if any, of the owner or of anyone in control of the object
for violation of any state or federal law relating to controlled substances or
controlled substance analogues;

(3) The existence of any residue of controlled substances or controlled
substance analogues on the object;

(4) Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use;

(5) Descriptive materials accompanying the object that explain or depict its
use;

(6) The manner in which the object is displayed for sale;

(7) The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the
community; and

(8) Expert testimony concerning its use.

Id. § 39-17-424.

Count four of the indictment charged the Defendant with “possession with intent to
use, drug paraphernalia, to wit: multiple used and unused syringes, two (2) digital scales
with residue, one (1) glass container with cotton filters and residue, one (1) marijuana
-6-
grinder with residue, multiple pipes with residue, [and] homemade bongs with residue[.]”
Accordingly, the “object” in this case constitutes the items as listed in the indictment or the
items seized in the Defendant’s possession at the time of the search. The thrust of the
Defendant’s argument regarding the second element, whether the State proved the objects
were drug paraphernalia, is that there was no testimony to identify the residue on the objects
because the residue was not tested. Without such scientific evidence, the Defendant
contends that the objects identified in the indictment do not meet the statutory guidelines
in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-402 and 39-17-424, and his conviction cannot
stand.

We must dismiss the Defendant’s challenge to the second element in short order
because the statute defines drug paraphernalia broadly as “all equipment, products and
materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in . . . preparing,
. . . packaging, [or] repackaging . . . a controlled substance[.].” Id. § 39-17-402(12)
(emphasis added). We are also instructed to consider the enumerated factors “in addition
to all other logically relevant factors.” Id. § 39-17-424. Moreover, we note that the
significance of an object containing residue from a controlled substance distinguishes it
from its ordinary, everyday use. It is only one factor for the jury to consider when
determining whether an object qualifies as drug paraphernalia and is particularly
informative in the absence of testimony regarding the nature of the object. Testing residue
to determine whether it contains a controlled substance may be helpful, but it is not required
to sustain a conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia.

With the above in mind, the record shows the jury considered testimony,
unchallenged in this appeal, that the Defendant sold a felony amount of methamphetamine
to a CI four days before the search of his home that yielded the objects challenged on
appeal. The recency of an illegal drug transaction from the same location by the same
Defendant can be circumstantial evidence that an object later seized from the same location
in possession of the same Defendant qualifies as drug paraphernalia. In addition, the jury
considered testimony from Agent Hooper and Agent Crownover regarding the drug
paraphernalia seized from the Defendant’s home. Agent Hooper testified to the presence
of all objects in the indictment being seized from the Defendant’s home at the time of the
search. Photographs of the objects’ locations during the search were also admitted into
evidence at trial. Although the residue on the items was not tested to confirm that it was,
in fact, a controlled substance, we also consider an object’s proximity to an illegal
substance as indicative of its purpose and intended use. Agent Hooper testified that the
scales were found with two bags of methamphetamine in a cooler next to the Defendant.
One of the bags contained a felony amount of methamphetamine. Id. § 39-17-419 (“[i]t
may be inferred from the amount of a controlled substance or substances possessed by an
offender, along with other relevant facts surrounding the arrest, that the controlled
substance or substances were possessed with the purpose of selling or otherwise
-7-
dispensing”). He also stated that scales and multiple different paraphernalia can be
indicative of an intent to sell drugs. Finally, Agent Hooper stated that the amount of
methamphetamine found together with the scales was more than someone would use in one
sitting. During the search, the Defendant claimed “[a]ll of it” and told Agent Crownover
that he had been selling methamphetamine for about six months “just to get by.” Agent
Crownover also testified that he found drug paraphernalia during the search in the form of
“[s]ome syringes, a glass pipe.”

Based on the above testimony, a jury could reasonably infer that the objects, as listed
in the indictment, were “used or intended for use . . . [in] compounding, converting,
producing, processing, preparing . . . packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, or
concealing” a controlled substance, satisfying the definition of drug paraphernalia. See
State v. Foster, No. W2020-00349-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 1158156, at *9 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Mar. 26, 2021) (noting that “[w]hile no proof was presented showing that the digital
scale contained drug residue, there was no requirement that the scale actually contain drug
residue in order for the State to prove the defendant used or intended to use the scale to
weigh a controlled substance, including marijuana”).

Next, the Defendant argues that the State failed to establish that he intended to use
the objects for an illicit purpose. The Defendant acknowledges that both agents testified
that the scales and multiple different paraphernalia can be indicative of an intent to sell
illegal narcotics. However, he dismisses the agents’ testimony (1) because it was general,
not specific to the Defendant, and (2) because the agents were not qualified as experts in
the field as contemplated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-424(8). Once again,
we decline to construe the drug paraphernalia statute so narrowly. We begin with the
fundamental premise that a defendant’s intent can rarely be shown by direct proof and must
necessarily be shown by circumstantial evidence. State v. Hall, 682 S.W.3d 143, 157
(Tenn. 2019). Accordingly, intent is a question of fact within the jury’s province to infer
from surrounding facts and circumstances. State v. Brown, 311 S.W.3d 422, 432 (Tenn.
2010). The “illicit purposes” in the statute include the following, in pertinent part: to
“convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal,
inject, ingest, inhale . . . a controlled substance[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-425(a)(1).
We conclude that the Defendant intended to use the objects listed in the indictment for an
illicit purpose based on the same reasoning used to determine that the objects qualified as
drug paraphernalia. Section 39-17-424 permits the jury to consider expert testimony as to
the objects’ intended use when determining whether the object qualifies as drug
paraphernalia. The statute does not require such testimony. Here, the agents testified
regarding the objects’ intended use based on their extensive background, training, and
experience in narcotics. The Defendant did not object to the agents’ lay testimony
concerning the nature of the drug paraphernalia at trial, and we decline to consider the issue
for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, it was within the province of the jury to infer
-8-
from the facts and circumstances of the case that the Defendant intended to use the objects
listed in the indictment for an illicit purpose. He is not entitled to relief.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the record supports
the jury’s finding that the objects seized from the Defendant’s home constituted drug
paraphernalia and that the Defendant intended to use the objects for an illicit purpose.
Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction for unlawful
possession of drug paraphernalia.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above reasoning and authority, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

S/ Camille R.
McMullen____________
CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, PRESIDING JUDGE

-9-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10803001. Public record. Not legal advice.