 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Davis10/28/1999
enges the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must review the record to determine if the evidence adduced during the trial was sufficient "to support the findings by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). This rule is applicable to findings of guilt predicated upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence or a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. State v. Brewer, 932 S.W.2d 1, 19 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court does not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Nor may this Court substitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact from circumstantial evidence. Liakas v. State, 199 Tenn. 298, 305, 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (1956). To the contrary, this Court is required to afford the state the strongest legitimate view of the evidence contained in the record as well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. State v. Tuttle, 914 S.W.2d 926, 932 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). "A guilty verdict by the jury, approved by the trial Judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of the theory of the State." State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973). Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value to be given the evidence as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the jury as the trier of fact. State v. Tuttle, 914 S.W.2d at 932.
Because a verdict of guilt removes the presumption of innocence and replaces it with a presumption of guilt, the accused has the burden in this Court of illustrating why the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict returned by the trier of fact. State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982); State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d at 476.
In the present case, two individual witnesses testified that the appellant seemed to be under the influence of an intoxicant the night of the arrest. Vaughn observed that the appellant was unsteady exiting her vehicle, had bloodshot eyes and smelled of alcohol. After questioning the appellant and finding an empty beer can in the vehicle, Vaughn administered sobriety tests, and the appellant performed poorly on each test. Vaughn asked her if she would submit to a blood test, and the appellant consented. Testing revealed that the appellant had a blood alcohol content of 0.21%, over twice the legal limit.
On the night of her arrest, the appellant informed Vaughn that she had been driving the vehicle, even though she subsequently denied driving the vehicle almost three months later while criminal charges were pending against her. Additionally, the state presented testimony that the appellant backed her car onto Mt. Juliet Road after Hamblen extricated the automobile from the ditch.
After viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the state, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to determine that the appellant was driving under the influence of an intoxicant. This issue is without merit.
CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the record before this Court, we conclude that there is no reversible error in this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|