 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hall4/13/2005
s capable of being operated or moved under its own power." However, the defendant has failed to include copies of the proffered jury instructions in the record for appeal. Without this jury instruction, it is impossible for this Court to determine if the trial court erred. Absent the precise language of the jury instruction, this Court cannot tell whether the jury instruction, as phrased, was an accurate statement of law. See, e.g., State v. David Lee Bellamy, No. 03C01-9612-CR-00476, 1998 WL 88426, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, March 3, 1998) (holding that a proffered jury instruction on inoperable motor vehicles was an incorrect statement of the law). It is the defendant's responsibility, as appellant, to provide a complete record of the issues for our review. See State v. Roberts, 755 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988); Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b). Failure to effectuate a complete record adequate for us to review the issue results in waiver of the issue. See Roberts, 755 S.W.2d at 836. Consequently, the record is inadequate to review this issue.
The Jury Instructions on Physical Control
The defendant's final argument is that trial court failed to properly instruct and thereby confused the jury on the issue of physical control. In this case, the trial court charged the jury with both the pattern jury instruction and with the defendant's request based upon Lawrence. This Court has previously reviewed this issue and determined: "the pattern instruction supplemented by a totality-of-the-circumstances charge . . . is undoubtedly a correct exposition of the law." State v. Johnny Wade Meeks, No. 03C01-9811-CR-00411, 1999 WL 1084230, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Dec. 3, 1999); see also State v. Charles R. Brown, No. 03C01-9806-CC-00213, 1999 WL 446565, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, June 2, 1999) (holding that a trial court's charge of both the Lawrence factors and the pattern jury instruction was a correct statement of the law). Accordingly, this issue is without merit.
III. Conclusion
In consideration of the record and the foregoing reasoning, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
|