 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Whitman12/5/2005
1) Under the influence of any intoxicant, marijuana, narcotic drug, or drug producing stimulating effects on the central nervous system; or
(2) The alcohol concentration in such person's blood or breath is ten one-hundredths of one percent (.10%) or more.
After considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of DUI. At trial, both police officers testified that they detected an odor of alcohol on the defendant, that his eyes were red and watery, and that his speech was slurred. Officer Womack testified that, in his opinion, the defendant failed the field sobriety tests by demonstrating a lack of coordination and inability to follow instructions. Officer Lovell testified that he properly administered a breath-alcohol test, the results of which, registered the defendant's breath-alcohol concentration at .143 percent. The defendant's sufficiency arguments on appeal attack the weight and credibility of the evidence presented by the police officers. The weight and credibility of the police officer's testimony and the reconciliation of conflicts in the testimony, if any, are matters entrusted exclusively to the trier of fact. By its verdict, the trial court accredited the testimony of the officers, and the evidence supports the trial court's verdict. This issue is without merit.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing reasons and authority, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|