 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Arbuckle12/5/2001
A Sumner County jury convicted the Defendant, Michael Joseph Arbuckle, of one count of driving under the influence, one count of driving under the influence, per se, and one count of driving under the influence, second offense. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with all but sixty days suspended. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress the results of a blood alcohol test, (2) admitting the blood alcohol test results despite incomplete evidence of the chain of custody, (3) admitting the blood alcohol test results despite a lack of relevance, and (4) finding that sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable jury to find the Defendant guilty. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed
David H. Welles, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Joseph M. Tipton and Jerry L. Smith, JJ., joined.
OPINION
At 3:30 a.m. on December 15, 1998, Sumner County Sheriff's Deputies Tully Birdwell and Aaron Pickard noticed a broken tail light on a car driven by the Defendant, Michael Joseph Arbuckle. The officers initiated a traffic stop in order to inform the Defendant of his broken tail light. After approaching the vehicle, the officers noticed that the Defendant was slurring his speech and smelled strongly of alcohol. The Defendant stated that he had one beer approximately an hour before the officers stopped him. Deputy Birdwell asked the Defendant to exit the car in order to perform field sobriety tests. After the tests, Deputy Birdwell and Deputy Pickard concluded that the Defendant was intoxicated and placed him under arrest for driving under the influence .
The Defendant agreed to take a blood alcohol test, which was administered at Sumner Regional Medical Center approximately one hour and fifteen minutes after the initial traffic stop. The test revealed a blood alcohol content of .14%.
REASONABLE GROUNDS
First, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the officers did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendant was driving under the influence ; therefore, the officers were precluded from requesting that he take a blood alcohol test. Due to the Defendant's failure to provide an adequate record for our review of this issue, we must affirm the ruling of the trial court.
When a party seeks appellate review there is a duty to prepare a record which conveys a fair, accurate and complete account of what transpired with respect to the issues forming the basis of the appeal. See State v. Bunch, 646 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tenn. 1983); State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 561 (Tenn. 1993) (holding failure to include transcript precludes appellate review); State v. Oody, 823 S.W.2d 554, 559 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (holding trial court's ruling presumed correct in the absence of an adequate record on appeal). Where the record is incomplete and does not contain a transcript of the proceedings relevant to an issue presented for review, or portions of the record upon which the party relies, an appellate court is precluded from considering the issue. See State v. Roberts, 755 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). Absent the necessary relevant material in the record an appellate court cannot consider the merits of an issue. See Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b).
In the present case, the trial court's Order Denying the Motion to Suppress clearly incorporates the findings made on the record during the hearing on the motion. However,
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|