 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Prater2/16/1999
ule as follows:
"One test of identity of offenses is whether the same evidence is required to prove them. If the same evidence is not required, then the fact that both charges relate to, and grow out of, one transaction, does not make a single offense where two are defined by the statutes."
Denton, 938 S.W.2d at 380 (quoting Duchac, 505 S.W.2d at 239). Finally, courts should examine other factors relative to legislative intent:
"(1) whether there were multiple victims involved;"
"(2) whether several discrete acts were involved; and"
"(3) whether the evil at which each offense is directed is the same or different.' Denton, 938 S.W.2d at 381 (footnote omitted).
Here, there was a single episode of driving under the influence of alcohol. The same evidence was used to prove both offenses. Moreover, each conviction arose under the same code section of the DUI statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401. In my view, the legislative intent would permit only one conviction.
Gary R. Wade, Preisiding Judge
|