 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Stephens1/29/1999
e running, the only reasonable explanation for the movement of the truck is that the appellant drove it. Thus, we find the circumstantial evidence, by itself, compelling. See State v. Crawford, 470 S.W.2d 610, 612 (Tenn 1971) (Before one may be convicted of a criminal offense based upon circumstantial evidence alone, the facts and circumstances "must be so strong and cogent as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save the guilt of the defendant, and that beyond a reasonable doubt.").
But, the jury need not have relied on circumstantial evidence. The appellant admitted to the officers that he had driven the truck from Dickson, Tennessee. The officers' testimony indicated that the appellant was not coherent; his admission may, therefore, have been entitled to less weight, but we do not reweigh the evidence. The testimony was sufficient to go to the jury. It was then for the jury to determine, first, whether they believed the officers' account of the appellant's admission and, second, if so, whether that admission reflected a true fact.
For the reasons above, we find the totality of this evidence more than sufficient for a rational jury to have found each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, including that the appellant drove his truck.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
L. T. LAFFERTY, SENIOR JUDGE
CONCUR:
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
(Not Participating) PAULPAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|