 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v Blacksmith10/8/2001
Assigned on Briefs August 15, 2001
The defendant, John Blacksmith, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court jury conviction of second-offense driving while under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). He claims (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's conclusion that, while intoxicated, he was in physical control of an operable motor vehicle and (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when a state's witness introduced inadmissible evidence that besmirched the defendant's character. We discern no reversible error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed.
James Curwood Witt, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which David H. Welles and Joe G. Riley, JJ., joined.
OPINION
At approximately 3:00 p.m. on January 20, 2000, Metropolitan Nashville Police officers Angela Page and Brad Alexander were investigating possible drug-dealing activity behind a convenience store located near the intersection of 28th and Clifton Streets in Nashville. While the officers were on the scene, a person using a public telephone booth gained Officer Page's attention and pointed out that a man was slumped over in a truck parked near the phone booth.
Officer Page went to the driver's side of the truck, observed the apparently unconscious defendant slumped over in the driver's seat, and attempted to rouse him by rapping on the window. She continued to rap on the window for two to three minutes, long enough for Officer Alexander to go to the patrol car, initiate a records check on the truck license tag, and return to the truck. After Officer Alexander's return, Officer Page was finally successful in rousing the defendant. When the defendant rolled down the window and asked what the officer wanted, Officer Page smelled alcohol and saw an open bottle of liquor near the defendant's right hand. The defendant stated that he had "just drove up[,] . . . parked his truck[, and] was waiting to use the phone." When Officer Page asked the defendant whether he had been drinking, he responded, "Well, yeah. Just because I've been drinking doesn't mean I've been driving."
Both Officers Page and Alexander noticed that the key to the truck was in the ignition switch; however, the truck engine was not running and was never started while the officers were on the scene. The defendant was alone inside the truck, which was located in the parking lot of the convenience store. The store was open for business and was being patronized by a number of customers at the time of the officers' encounter with the defendant. Neither officer could testify how long the truck had been parked before they arrived on the scene.
Officer Page testified that when she asked the defendant to step out of the truck, he became "very uncooperative, very belligerent." He refused to participate in field sobriety tests, indicated that he hated the police, and protested that "just because he was drinking didn't mean he was driving." The officers arrested the defendant and transported him to the police station, where they read him the implied consent law. He then refused a breath-alcohol test. During the two hours that Officer Page had contact with the defendant on January 20, 2000, " e was staggering, stumbling, [and had] the obvious odor of alcoholic beverage on his person." Her official report of the arrest indicated that he was "loud and talkative," his eyes were "bloodshot" and "watery," he was "confused," his state of intoxication was "extreme," and he was unable to operate a vehicle. Officer Page testified that these descriptions were based upon her observations.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|