State v. Varnell10/6/2005
I. Facts
This case arises from the Defendant's conviction for DUI, fourth offense. At the Defendant's trial, the following evidence was presented: Nicholas Allen, an officer with the Chattanooga Police Department, testified that, on the morning of July 30, 2001, at approximately 3:20 a.m., he saw the Defendant driving his car with the headlights off. The officer said that he activated his emergency lights, and he began to follow the Defendant. He recalled that the Defendant continued to drive for one-half block, made a right turn, and continued for another half block, before he pulled his vehicle over. Officer Allen testified that, when he approached the vehicle, the Defendant became agitated and belligerent, and, because the Defendant was so agitated, he asked the Defendant if the Defendant had been drinking. The Officer said that the Defendant acknowledged that he had been drinking, but he refused to tell the officer what he had been drinking, or how much alcohol he had consumed. Officer Allen testified that he asked the Defendant to step out of the Defendant's vehicle so that the Defendant could perform the field sobriety tests. He stated that the Defendant initially refused, but the Defendant eventually, voluntarily, came out of his vehicle. Officer Allen testified that, after the Defendant had exited his vehicle, he refused to take any of the field sobriety tests, and Officer Allen noticed that the Defendant was unsteady as he walked, had slurred speech, and smelled strongly of alcohol. Based on the Officer's experience and training, the officer did not believe that the Defendant could safely operate a motor vehicle, and he, therefore, placed the Defendant under arrest for DUI.
Officer Allen testified that, pursuant to this arrest, the officer brought the Defendant to jail. He then stated that upon arrival at the jail, he read to the Defendant the implied consent form and offered him a breathalyzer test, however, the Defendant refused to sign the implied consent form and refused to take the breathalyzer test.
On cross-examination, Officer Allen agreed that the Defendant was observing the speed limit, was not swerving, and came to a complete stop at the intersection. He further conceded that, although he testified that he detected a "strong odor of alcohol" when the Defendant exited his vehicle, the affidavit of complaint that he filed after the Defendant's arrest did not use the word "strong" to describe the odor of alcohol, it simply stated that the " olice could smell alcohol on efendant's breath." He explained that, the affidavit makes no mention of slurred speech, but he might not include a person's speech in an affidavit. The Officer had no independent recollection of exactly where he observed the Defendant walking unsteadily. Officer Allen testified that, if the Defendant were so unsteady that he could not possibly complete the field sobriety tests, the Officer would not have asked him to attempt such tests.
On redirect Officer Allen testified that he had worked as a patrol officer for nearly three years since arresting the Defendant, he had received additional training, and he had made over two hundred DUI arrests by the time the Defendant's case came to trial. His opinion, that the Defendant was unable to safely operate his motor vehicle, remained unchanged. However, Officer Allen conceded that it would have been helpful if he had been more thorough in his completion of the affidavit.
Following this evidence, the jury found the Defendant guilty of DUI. The Defendant admitted that he had three prior DUI convictions, and the trial court entered judgment against the Defendant for DUI, fourth offense.
II. Analysis
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|