 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Scuderi1/12/1999
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We do not reweigh or re-evaluate the evidence. And, we are required to afford the state the strongest legitimate view of the proof contained in the record as well as all reasonable and legitimate infer-ences which may be drawn therefrom. See State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).
In Tennessee, " t is unlawful for any person . . . to drive or to be in physical control of any automobile . . . on any of the public roads and highways of the state . . . while under the influence of any intoxicant." T.C.A. § 55-10-401(a)(1993) (emphasis added). In construing this statute, our Supreme Court has concluded that "the Legislature, in making it a crime to be in physical control of an automobile while under the influence of an intoxicant, `intended to enable the drunken driver to be apprehended before he strikes.'" State v. Lawrence, 849 S.W.2d 761, 765 (Tenn. 1993) (citation omitted). Accordingly, the Court adopted a broad "totality of the circumstances approach" in assessing whether a defendant had physical control of an automobile for purposes of the DUI statute. See id. This test
"allows the trier of fact to take into account all circumstances, i.e., the location of the defendant in relation to the vehicle, the whereabouts of the ignition key, whether the motor was running, the defendant's ability, but for his intoxication, to direct the use or non-use of the vehicle, or the extent to which the vehicle itself is capable of being operated or moved under its own power or otherwise." Id. (emphasis in original).
In this case it was undisputed that the two-door car was owned and operated by Calloway. The defendant was in the back seat with her child. Her husband testified that she climbed to the front seat in order to exit the car via the driver's door. Officer Sanders testified he "immediately" approached the car as the defendant "started coming toward the driver's seat" and told her to exit the car. Officer Sanders conceded she did not have her hand on the steering wheel or gear shift.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, the evidence is insufficient to establish beyond a reaonsable doubt that the defendant was in physicial control of the automobile. At best, the state's proof showed that the defendant came from the back seat, scooted into the driver's seat and immediately exited the car. She never touched the gear shift or steering wheel. Under these facts, the elements of the crime were not established.
The conviction is vacated.
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE.
CONCUR: (NOT PARTICIPATING) PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE & L. T. LAFFERTY, SENIOR JUDGE.
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|