 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Flittner12/14/2001
en-hundredths of one percent (.10%) or more." The record reflects that the trial court clearly explained to the jury that, in order to find the appellant guilty of the offense charged in count two, the State must have proven that, as one of the essential elements of the offense, "the defendant had, at the time, an alcohol concentration in his blood of ten-hundredths of one percent (.10) or more." Accordingly, "because ppellant was charged alternatively under both subsection 55-10-401(a)(1) and subsection 55-10-401(a)(2), the trial court was correct when it instructed the jury on both subsections." State v. Steven Overstreet, No. 03C01-9706-CC-00248, 1998 WL 865424, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, December 15, 1998). We find nothing confusing about the trial court's explicit instructions. The appellant is not entitled to relief on this issue.
III. Conclusion
Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|