 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Connelly11/6/2001
at the evidence does not establish that he was intoxicated. To the contrary, the evidence amply supports the trial court's determination that the defendant was intoxicated. Although the evidence contained the results of no empirical tests to determine the defendant's blood-alcohol status, intoxication may be established by circumstantial evidence. State v. Harless, 607 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980). Deputy Ward testified about a number of circumstances that pointed toward the defendant being intoxicated to the point that he was incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle. Indeed, in the light most favorable to the state, the evidence showed that, minutes before being discovered on the roadside by Deputy Ward, the defendant failed to negotiate a curve and drove his truck into a ditch. Also, the defendant failed sobriety tests, smelled of alcohol, and was unsteady on his feet.
We conclude that the evidence in this case fully supports the determinations of the trial court that led to the defendant's conviction of DUI.
The defendant's remaining issue is his claim that, based on the dictates of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-7-103 which governs warrantless arrests, the officer had no authority to arrest the defendant without a warrant for a DUI offense that occurred prior to or during the accident on Claylick Road. He argues in his brief that Officer Ward testified that the defendant "did not commit any misdemeanor in his presence, nor could determine from investigation at the scene of the accident whether anyone had committed a crime." (Emphasis in defendant's brief.) The defendant moved pretrial to suppress any of his statements or other evidence obtained by the police as a result of his warrantless arrest.
We need not fathom any merits of the defendant's claim that Officer Ward had no basis for a warrantless arrest for driving under the influence on Claylick Road, and we need not concern ourselves with whether the police obtained any evidence following the defendant's arrest. The record cogently illustrates that the intoxicated defendant's physical control of his truck on the side of Highway 47 violated Code section 55-10-401(a) and that the trial court at least alternatively relied upon this offense committed in the officer's presence as the basis for conviction. We attach no significance to the fact that Deputy Ward discerned no basis for arrest when he first arrived on the scene. A reading of his testimony plainly shows that he determined to arrest the defendant for DUI after making on-the-scene, personal observations, including his evaluation of the defendant's poor performance of field sobriety tests. At this point, he had probable cause to arrest the defendant for the offense committed in his presence.
Also, because the defendant misapprehends the factual premise supporting his conviction, his reliance upon State v. Thad Thomas Folds, No. 01C01-9308-CC-00278 (Tenn. Crim App., Nashville, Mar.3, 1995) is unavailing. In Thad Thomas Folds, the defendant's alleged DUI was not committed in the officer's presence when the officer discovered the unattended defendant's car in a roadside ditch. The police then located Folds at his home in an intoxicated condition. Thus, Folds was convicted of an offense that had allegedly occurred prior to the officer's intervention. In the present case, however, the defendant committed the offense of DUI while physically controlling his vehicle as the officer arrived on the scene.
There is no discernible error in this case. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|