 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Clark10/30/2001
The Appellant, Steve A. Clark, was convicted by a Grundy County jury for driving under the influence, Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401(a)(1), driving with an alcohol concentration of .10% or more, Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401(a)(2), and driving without a license. On appeal, Clark raises one issue for our review: Whether the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the results of the intoximeter test? After review, we find no error and affirm Clark's conviction for driving under the influence.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Conviction Affirmed; Remanded for Entry of Judgment of Conviction
David G. Hayes, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Gary R. Wade, P. J., and Jerry L. Smith, J., joined.
OPINION
Factual Background
Shortly after midnight on February 16, 1999, Officer Brian Wiley of the Monteagle Police Department observed a car traveling towards him with one headlight out and pulled the vehicle over. Officer Wiley approached the Appellant, who was the operator of the car, and asked to see his driver's license. After the license was produced, Officer Wiley noticed that the Appellant's driver's license had expired five days earlier. Officer Wiley detected a strong odor of alcohol from within the interior of the vehicle and observed an open beer container wedged between two seats. He further observed five cans of unopened beer in the vehicle. When Officer Wiley asked the Appellant if he had been drinking, the Appellant replied, "What's it f----ing matter. This is bullshit."
Officer Wiley asked the Appellant to exit his vehicle so that he could conduct field sobriety tests. The Appellant initially refused but after several requests and upon arrival of another officer at the scene, the Appellant complied. The Appellant then explained that he had "bad knees" and told Officer Wiley that he could not do the one-leg stand. Officer Wiley asked the Appellant to perform the heel/toe test, but the Appellant "couldn't comprehend" what the officer was asking and never tried to perform the test.
At this time, Officer Wiley placed the Appellant under arrest. Wiley and the Appellant arrived at the Grundy County Sheriff's Office at 12:49 a.m. The Appellant signed an implied consent form at 1:00 a.m. and Deputy Sheriff Jimmy Lewis administered the breathalyzer test at 1:15 a.m. The test results indicated that the Appellant's blood alcohol level was .25%.
At trial, the Appellant testified that he had frequented two bars and consumed four beers between 8:00 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. the night of his arrest. He admitted that five cans of unopened beer were found in his vehicle and stated "there might have been one open that's been setting in the car . . . I couldn't honestly say, I do not recall drinking one."
ANALYSIS
The Appellant contends that the trial court erred by admitting the results of his intoximeter test into evidence. Specifically, he contends that the State failed to comply with the requirements of State v. Sensing, 843 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1992) by "fail to lay the evidentiary foundation for admissibility of the breath test results, either in the hearing on the motion or during the testimony offered at trial."
In Sensing, our supreme court set forth the following six requirements that must be established before the results of a breathalyzer test can be admitted into evidence:
(1) that the tests were performed in accordance with the standards and operating procedure promulgated by the forensic services division of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation;
(1) that he was properly certified in accordance with those standards;
(3) that the
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|