 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Brent10/26/2001
A Rutherford County jury convicted the defendant of driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served in a local workhouse. The court required the defendant to serve forty-eight hours and allowed the defendant to serve the remainder of his sentence on probation. The defendant subsequently moved for a new trial and then amended his motion. The trial court denied his amended motion, and the defendant appeals this denial, alleging that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred by allowing testimony regarding the defendant's refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test, and that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that they could consider this refusal as evidence of the defendant's consciousness of guilt. After reviewing the record and applicable case law, we find that these issues lack merit and therefore affirm the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for new trial.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Affirmed.
Jerry L. Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Gary R. Wade, P.J., and David G. Hayes, J., joined.
OPINION
Factual Background
On June 12, 1999, a police officer stopped the defendant, James Brent, for speeding. The defendant was traveling twenty-three (23) miles per hour in excess of the posted speed limit. After stopping the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol on the defendant's person, and the defendant admitted to having consumed alcohol. The officer then requested that the defendant perform some field sobriety tests, and the defendant agreed. The defendant failed two standard tests, the one-legged stand test and the heel to toe test. However, because the defendant complained of a back ailment, the officer administered two non-standard field sobriety tests, the finger dexterity test and the numerical countdown test, which the defendant also failed. Based on this performance, the officer arrested the defendant for driving under the influence of an intoxicant. After the officer read the implied consent form to the defendant, the defendant indicated that he would agree to undergo a blood alcohol test, and therefore the officer transported him to a hospital. While en route, the defendant asked the officer if the defendant would be required to pay for the costs associated with this test. The officer responded that while he did not know the cost, he thought that the defendant would have to pay the cost if he was found guilty of driving under the influence. Based on this information, the defendant decided not to take the blood alcohol test, and indicated on his implied consent form that his lack of funds was the reason for his refusal.
The defendant was subsequently tried and convicted for driving under the influence of an intoxicant. As noted above, the defendant now brings this appeal, alleging three grounds of error.
Testimony Allowed at Trial
The defendant first alleges that the trial court erroneously allowed the arresting officer to testify regarding the defendant's refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test, as the defendant refused to take this test only because he was concerned that he might be responsible for the cost of that test. However, the defendant has waived this issue on appeal because he failed to object to this testimony at trial. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a). State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Duncan, 698 S.W.2d 63, 67 (Tenn.1985). However, even if the issue was not waived, the issue nevertheless lacks merit.
An arresting polic
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|