 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bartlett4/9/1998
rother wore a mustache, beard, and long hair on the date in question. He claimed that he was wearing a light and dark blue shirt and remembered that he was not wearing his prescription glasses at the time because a lens had fallen out. He stated that the defendant wore a black George Dickel T-shirt. Michael Bartlett testified that he was driving when the officer activated his blue lights and that he "got scared and headed towards home." He explained that some of the police officers had been harassing his brother and he was afraid they were going to "start it with me." He drove the twelve miles home "pretty fast."
Michael Bartlett testified that when he arrived at their residence, he stayed in the yard and the defendant went inside. He claimed that when Officer Terry Quick arrived, he admitted that he was the driver and was searched, handcuffed, and placed in a patrol car. When Officer Howell arrived, however, five or ten minutes later, he was released and the defendant was arrested.
I.
The defendant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to each conviction. On appeal, of course, the state is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences which might be drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). The credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony, and the reconciliation of conflicts in the proof are matters entrusted to the jury as triers of fact. Byrge v. State, 575 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978). When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).
There are statutory definitions for each of the offenses at issue. "It is unlawful for any person ... to drive or to be in physical control of any automobile or other motor driven vehicle on any of the public roads ... while under the influence of any intoxicant...." Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401(a) (1993). "A person who drives a motor vehicle on any public highway ... at a time when a person's privilege to do so is ... revoked commits a Class B misdemeanor...." Tenn. Code Ann. § 55- 50-504(a)(1) (1993). A person commits reckless driving who "drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property...." Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-205(a) (1993). The speed at which a motor vehicle travels may establish a willful and wanton disregard for persons or property. State v. Wilkins, 654 S.W.2d 678 (Tenn. 1983); Bowers v. Thompson, 688 S.W.2d 827 (Tenn. App. 1984). A person evades arrest who, "intentionally flee from anyone the person knows to be a law enforcement officer and the person ... now the officer is attempting to arrest the person...." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16- 603(a)(1)(1989).
A person acts intentionally with respect to the nature of conduct or the results that flow therefrom, "when it is the person's conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-302(a). A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or circumstances, "when the person is aware of the nature of the conduct or that circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result ... when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302(b).
With its verdict, the jury accredited the testimony of the state's witnesses. That was clearly their prerogative. The trial testimony established each of the e
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|