 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stearnes v. State6/5/2003
Following a bench trial, the trial court found Truman Bradley Stearnes guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol, speeding, and failure to maintain a lane. On appeal, Stearnes challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Finding no error, we affirm.
1. In reviewing a defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, "we view the evidence in a light most favorable to support the verdict, and the appellant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence." Moreover, we do not weigh the evidence or assess witness credibility, but determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of the crime present beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conflicting testimony is a matter of credibility for the finder of fact to resolve. As long as some competent evidence exists, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State's case, we will uphold the factfinder's verdict.
Viewed in this light, the evidence shows that on February 28, 2002, Stearnes left a bar sometime after midnight in his white pickup truck. Officer Merchant of the Gwinnett County police department observed Stearnes driving ahead of him and suspected Stearnes was speeding. Using his radar and his speedometer, Officer Merchant determined Stearnes was traveling at a speed of 59 m.p.h. in a 45-m.p.h zone. He also observed Stearnes' vehicle cross over the center lane, then jerk back into its proper lane, and make a sudden lane change.
Based on Stearnes' speeding and erratic driving, Officer Merchant stopped Stearnes. As he approached Stearnes' vehicle, Officer Merchant saw Stearnes talking on a cell phone. Officer Merchant, who has specialized DUI training, also noticed that Stearnes' eyes were red and his speech was slurred. Additionally, Officer Merchant detected a strong odor of alcohol on Stearnes' breath, and observed Stearnes exit from his vehicle in a slow and unsteady manner. Merchant also spotted a clear glass with ice cubes between the driver and passenger seats Merchant testified the glass smelled of alcohol and confirmed that it contained liquor using an alcohol-sensing flashlight.
The officer asked Stearnes to perform certain field sobriety tests, and Stearnes agreed. During the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, Stearnes alerted to all six "clues" indicating alcohol impairment. Stearnes was also unable to successfully perform either the "walk-and-turn" test or the one-leg stand. And, when he blew into the Alco-Sensor, it registered positive for alcohol.
Based on Stearnes' driving, his physical manifestations, and the results of the field sobriety evaluations, Officer Merchant determined he was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he was less safe to drive. Officer Merchant placed Stearnes under arrest and then immediately read him the Georgia Implied Consent Warning. Stearnes responded by refusing to take a blood-alcohol test.
Stearnes testified that he consumed only two alcoholic drinks that evening. He maintained the cup found by Officer Merchant in his truck contained orange juice, which he drank that morning on his way to work. Stearnes' girl friend also testified. She was at the bar with Stearnes on the evening in question, but admitted Stearnes was still inside with his friend Cravens when she left at around 11:00 p.m. According to Cravens, Stearnes did not appear drunk when he left the bar. Cravens admitted, however, that he did not continually observe Stearnes that evening.
The state submitted Officer Merchant's tape of the traffic stop into evidence at trial, which we have reviewed. Officer Merchant admits he did not t
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|