 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Garner5/26/1999
so unsteady that Sears "had to grab him" because he was "afraid that he would fall out in traffic or fall down and hurt himself." Both tests were conducted on a paved roadway, with Defendant's back to the patrol car's blue lights. Officer Sears explained the implied consent law to Defendant, and Defendant refused a blood alcohol test. Sears then arrested Defendant and took him to the county jail.
At the jail, county correctional officer Kim Rhodes met Sears to admit Defendant for booking. Both Sears and Rhodes testified that Defendant had difficulty walking and required assistance entering the jail. According to Rhodes, when she grasped Defendant's arm to steady him, she smelled a "strong odor of alcoholic beverage." Rhodes testified that she independently concluded on the standard "intake" document that Defendant was "under the influence of alcohol." Finally, Rhodes stated that Defendant "stumbled" out of the holding facility when he was permitted to leave with a responsible party.
Defendant testified on his own behalf at trial. He stated that he was one hundred percent disabled due to a past injury to both his feet. He testified that while painting, he fell and broke both feet, requiring him to be bedridden and confined to a wheelchair for one year. Defendant recounted how the disability causes him great pain and difficulty in walking and reported that he often must ingest prescription painkillers. He stated that although his feet hurt the night he performed the field sobriety tests, he had not ingested any painkillers. In addition, he testified that he told Officer Sears before the tests that he could not perform them because of his disability, a fact which Sears recollected. Finally, Defendant stated that he had consumed three or four beers between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.; that he had not had any alcohol after 2:00 p.m.; and that in his opinion, he was not impaired.
The foregoing testimony presented classic questions of fact and credibility for the jury to resolve. The jury determined from the evidence that Defendant was driving under the influence of intoxicants, despite its acceptance or rejection of testimony regarding Defendant's disability. We conclude that such a resolution was properly within the jury's purview and that the evidence is sufficient to support the finding by the jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE J.AMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|