State v. Johnson9/24/1999
A Bedford County Grand Jury indicted defendant, Troy Randall Johnson, for theft of property over $1000, driving under the influence (DUI) third offense, and driving on a revoked driver's license (DORL) third offense. After a jury trial, he was convicted of joyriding, DUI third offense, and DORL third offense, all Class A misdemeanors. The trial court sentenced defendant to an effective sentence of nineteen months and fifteen days. On appeal, defendant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence, and (2) his sentences. After a thorough review of the record, this Court MODIFIES the sentence for DUI to conform to the statutory requirement, but AFFIRMS the trial court's judgment in all other respects.
FACTS
In the early morning hours of January 9, 1998, defendant was involved in a one-vehicle accident off Highway 64 in Bedford County. Law enforcement personnel responded to the scene and found local farmer Chuck Hawkins' 1992 GMC pickup at the bottom of a ravine. The truck had rolled several times, and the injured defendant was found on the ground about fifteen feet beyond the truck's resting place. Sheriff's deputies found beer cans at the scene and smelled alcohol about defendant's person.
At trial, the state presented proof that defendant's license was in a revoked status. The state's witnesses all testified that defendant was the only person in the vicinity of the accident. Truck owner Hawkins testified that defendant, who worked for him sporadically for eight or nine months preceding the accident, did not have permission to use the truck at any time. The medical lab technician from the hospital, where defendant was taken for his injuries, testified that the ethanol content of defendant's blood was above the "toxic" level.
The defendant presented no proof at trial.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him of joyriding, DUI, and DORL. Specifically, defendant argues that the evidence against him was purely circumstantial and failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the driver of Hawkins' truck.
When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the standard of review is whether, after viewing 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, 318, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-91 (Tenn. 1992); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). On appeal, the state is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable or legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). This Court will not reweigh the evidence, reevaluate the evidence, or substitute its evidentiary inferences for those reached by the jury. State v. Carey, 914 S.W.2d 93, 95 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
Although the evidence of defendant's guilt is circumstantial in nature, circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to support a conviction. State v. Tharpe, 726 S.W.2d 896, 899-900 (Tenn. 1987); State v. Buttrey, 756 S.W.2d 718, 721 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). However, for this to occur, the circumstantial evidence must be consistent with guilt of the accused, inconsistent with innocence, and must exclude every other reasonable theory or hypothesis except that of guilt. Tharpe, 726 S.W.2d at 900. While following the above guidelines, this Court must remember that the jury decides the weight to be given to circumstantial evidence and that " he inferences to be drawn from such evidence, and the extent to which
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|