 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hancock5/12/1999
BR>
Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value to be given the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence, are resolved by the trier of fact, not this court. State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. to appeal denied, id. (Tenn. 1987). Nor may this court reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d at 835. A jury verdict approved by the trial Judge accredits the State's witnesses and resolves all conflicts in favor of the State. Grace, 493 S.W.2d at 476.
First, we observe that both Brolsma and Williamson, the police officers investigating the accident scene, testified that the Defendant had the odor of alcohol about her person, was argumentative and was staggering following the accident. Defendant was also unable to successfully complete any of the field sobriety tests which were administered to her at the scene. By her own admission, Defendant had been drinking and driving that evening. Her companion that night, Randy Wilkerson, also testified that Defendant had consumed at least (3) alcoholic beverages. A Zima bottle was found in Defendant's car by the police.
Regarding the test tube sample, TBI Agent Michael Little testified that he tested the Defendant's blood sample twice. He also described routine procedures by which his testing of Defendant's blood was monitored and confirmed to manifest accurate results. While there was a slight variance in the results of the two (2) tests, Little explained that such variance was due to a slight variability in the instrument. As the State points out within its brief, any suggestion that a foreign substance was in the test tube is merely speculation by the Defendant. Any questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given the evidence was determined by the trier of fact. We will not reweigh the evidence. In the strongest legitimate view of the evidence, there is more than sufficient evidence whereby the trier of fact could have found Defendant guilty of driving under the influence . This issue is without merit.
Conclusion
The Defendant's issues challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the admissibility of the blood tests performed by the TBI are without merit. However, finding reversible error regarding Defendant's other two issues, we reverse the judgment and remand this case for a new trial.
THOMAS T. WOODALL, Judge
CONCUR:
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
JERRY L. SMITH, Judge
|