 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Levitt12/18/2001
that the evidence is insufficient. See State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). When the credibility of the witnesses was resolved by the jury in favor of the State, the appellate court "may not reconsider the jury's credibility assessments." State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 558 (Tenn. 2000), cert. denied, ___U.S. ___, 121 S. Ct. 2600 (2001).
Applying these principles, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Trooper Parsley testified at trial that he asked three times to see the defendant's driver's license, but the defendant refused each time to show it to him. This testimony was arguably supported, at least in part, by testimony of Ronald Lackey, a K-9 training coordinator who had stopped at the roadblock in order to talk with Trooper Shearl. Although Lackey did not testify to hearing Trooper Parsley ask for the defendant's license, he did say that he heard Trooper Parsley ask the defendant his name, and that the defendant replied with "What's your damn name?" The defendant, on the other hand, testified that the first time he was asked for his driver's license was when he was already handcuffed and in the back of the patrol car, and that he told Trooper Parsley his license was in his wallet in his right rear pocket. The jury obviously resolved these discrepancies in the proof in favor of the State, and this court may not reconsider that assessment.
As to the defendant's claim that the indictment was deficient because it failed to track the statutory language by omitting the claim that the defendant did not display his license upon demand, we note that the indictment did allege that the defendant acted "in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-351." In State v. Carter, 988 S.W.2d 145 (Tenn. 1999), denying the defendant's challenge to a felony murder indictment which referred to the appropriate proscriptive statute but failed to allege that the killings were reckless, our supreme court stated:
In this case, both felony murder indictments referenced the appropriate statute. This reference provided notice to the defendant of the applicable mens rea, notice of the offense upon which to enter the judgment, and protection from subsequent prosecution on the same offense. The indictment also meets the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-13-202. The language of the felony murder counts was legally sufficient under Ruff [978 S.W.2d 95 (Tenn. 1998)]. Id. at 149 (citations omitted).
Accordingly, we conclude that, by its reference to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 55-50-351, count two of the indictment was sufficient to put the defendant on notice as to what he was alleged to have done and to prevent reprosecution for the same offense.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing reasoning and analysis, we reverse the judgment of conviction and dismiss the charge. The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|