 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Eaton10/25/1999
ould not recall anything about the accident.
On appeal, 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. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1073 (1984); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).
Here, the defendant was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-101. By the terms of the statute, a driver is guilty of leaving the scene of an accident if he or she possesses the requisite mens rea, that is, if the driver "knowingly" flees. The defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that he possessed the requisite mens rea because he could not have acted knowingly while having a hypoglycemic episode. The state, however, put on evidence that the defendant's behavior was not consistent with a hypoglycemic episode, and that, while under the influence of alcohol, he was fully cognizant at the time of the collision.
In our view, the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude that the defendant acted knowingly by leaving the scene of the accident. The jury acted within its prerogative by rejecting the defendant's assertion and accrediting certain parts of the testimony offered by the state.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-101 also provides, in relevant part, that "the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to ... any person shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such accident ...." The defendant argues that he could not be convicted of leaving the scene of an accident because there was no testimony that Aline Turner suffered injury. At trial, however, Ms. Turner testified that as the defendant's car struck her vehicle, she was knocked through the red light at which she was stopped. She also testified that when the defendant asked her if she was all right she replied "No." On cross examination, Ms. Turner testified that she had pain in her neck and back, that she had trouble moving her neck, and that the pain became worse after she stepped out of the car. Officer Tracy Lynn Washington testified that an ambulance was called to the scene to provide treatment for Ms. Turner. In our view, this testimony was sufficient to establish Ms. Turner did in fact suffer an injury as required by the statute. The issue, therefore, is without merit.
Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed.
Gary R. Wade, Presiding Judge
CONCUR:
Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
Thomas T. Woodall, Judge
|