 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bell11/8/2005
BACKGROUND
The following evidence was presented at the suppression hearing. On October 11, 2003, Officer Tommy Massey of the Murfreesboro Police Department noticed the defendant driving on the wrong side of an unlined street. Officer Massey followed the defendant to his residence where he initiated a traffic stop. Ed Gorham, a DUI enforcement officer, also arrived at the scene and conducted several field sobriety tests on the defendant. After the defendant failed the field sobriety tests and refused to submit to a test of his blood alcohol content, Officer Gorham arrested the defendant. The grand jury returned an indictment against the defendant for driving under the influence and violation of the implied consent law. The defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence adduced after he was pulled over by Officer Massey, including the field sobriety tests conducted by Officer Gorham. In his motion, the defendant argued that Officer Massey did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct the initial traffic stop.
At the suppression hearing, the State presented the testimony of Officer Massey, the officer who initially stopped the defendant. After the State's direct examination of Officer Massey, defense counsel informed the court that Officer Massey was not the officer who obtained the warrant and arrested the defendant. Defense counsel argued that Officer Gorham must be present because he was the officer who generated the evidence sought to be suppressed. The trial court, sua sponte, dismissed the charges against the defendant because the State failed to produce both officers at the hearing. However, the trial court signed two orders of dismissal, one dismissing the charges with prejudice and the other dismissing the charges without prejudice. The State filed a request for the court to clarify its order. The trial court conducted a hearing on the State's request to clarify after the State had already filed its notice of appeal. At the hearing, the trial court stated that it intended that the dismissal be without prejudice, but that this Court could decide the issue because the State had already filed an appeal.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, the State asserts that the primary issue to be determined by the trial court was whether Officer Massey formulated reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle. The State argues that the trial court erred by diverting from the substance of the motion, and dismissing the charges against the defendant.
We begin our analysis by noting that " he decision whether to dismiss an indictment lies within the discretion of the trial court[,]" subject to an abuse of discretion review. State v. Harris, 33 S.W.3d 767, 769-70 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). "The abuse of discretion standard contemplates that before reversal the record must show that a judge `applied an incorrect legal standard, or reached a decision which is against logic or reasoning that caused an injustice to the party complaining.'" State v. Coley, 32 S.W.3d 831, 833 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting State v. Shirley, 6 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999)); see also State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662, 669 (Tenn. 1997). Appellate courts "may not interfere with a ruling made within the discretionary powers of the trial court absent clear abuse." State v. Street, 768 S.W.2d 703, 709 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). Therefore, absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the findings of the trial court. Harris, 33 S.W.3d at 770.
Upon review, we note that the defendant's motion to suppress challenged Officer Massey's reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. In part, the motion stated that "Defendant moves the Court to suppress all evidence resulting from his October 11, 2003, tr
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|