 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Garner5/26/1999
FRANKLIN COUNTY HON. J. CURTIS SMITH, JUDGE
(DUI)
ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY
AFFIRMED
The Defendant, Ronnie R. Garner, appeals from his conviction for second-offense DUI and failure to wear a seat belt. The sole issue he argues on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence for DUI. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to convict Defendant of DUI, and we therefore affirm the verdict of the jury as approved by the trial court.
Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(e) prescribes that " indings of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the evidence is insufficient to support the findings by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). In addition, because conviction by a trier of fact destroys the presumption of innocence and imposes a presumption of guilt, a convicted criminal defendant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was insufficient. McBee v. State, 372 S.W.2d 173, 176 (Tenn. 1963); see also State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) (citing State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1976), and State v. Brown, 551 S.W.2d 329, 331 (Tenn. 1977)); State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982); Holt v. State, 357 S.W.2d 57, 61 (Tenn. 1962).
In its review of the evidence, an appellate court must afford the State "the strongest legitimate view of the evidence as well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn therefrom." Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d at 914 (citing State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978)). The court may not "re-weigh or re-evaluate the evidence" in the record below. Evans, 838 S.W.2d at 191 (citing Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d at 836). Likewise, should the reviewing court find particular conflicts in the trial testimony, the court must resolve them in favor of the jury verdict or trial court judgment. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d at 914.
At trial, Tennessee Highway Patrol Officer James T. Sears testified that on March 21, 1997, he and two other officers conducted a traffic-enforcement roadblock on Highway 127 in Franklin County. At approximately 11:47 p.m., Defendant drove into the roadblock very slowly, with his headlights on bright beam. When Defendant stopped his vehicle, Sears approached and smelled an odor of alcohol. After requesting Defendant's license, Sears asked him if he had been drinking, to which Defendant responded that he had consumed three to four beers. Although Sears found Defendant's demeanor cooperative, he stated that Defendant's speech was "somewhat dragged out and slurred."
Based upon these observations, Officer Sears asked Defendant to park his vehicle on the side of the road and step out. Sears noticed that after Defendant slowly exited the car and closed the door, he leaned back onto the door. Sears then conducted two field sobriety tests: the finger-to-nose test and the walk-and-turn test. Sears testified that he was not certified to conduct the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.
First, he directed Defendant to perform the finger-to-nose test. Defendant began the test without waiting for Sears to finish the instructions, contrary to Sears's direction; and the officer testified that he ultimately had to instruct Defendant three times. According to Sears, Defendant was unsteady on his feet and missed his nose, touching his cheek instead.
Next, Sears asked Defendant to perform the walk-and-turn test. Defendant again began the task before Sears finished the instructions, requiring the officer to stop him and give the instructions again. Defendant took three to four steps and became
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|