### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 13, 200 5

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. MIC HAE L W. BELC HER

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty No. S44,889 P hylli s H. Miller, Judge

No. E2005-00532-CC A-R3- CD - F iled March 30, 2006

The de fendant, Michael W. Be lcher , was c onvicted by a Su l l i v an C ounty

jury of two counts of

a g g ra vated ass aul t by

re c kle ss c on du c t, f

or wh ic h h e re c e ive d a n e ff e c tiv e 24 -y e ar s e nte nc e a s a
car eer offe nder. A g g rieve d of hi s convictions, the def endant brings the instant appea l challeng ing the suffic iency

of the e vidence to support his two convictions. After a thoroug h revie w of the r ecor d

a ndapp lic able la w, we ho ld that th e e vid e nc e is s uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the c on vic tio ns a nda c c or din g ly aff irm the judg ments of the lower court.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt s o f theCr im ina l C our t a r e Affir m e d.

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opi nion of the c ourt, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and D AVI D G. H AYES , J J ., joined.

Gene Scott, J r., Johns on City , Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llant, Michael W. Be lcher

.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; El iza be th B . M arn e y , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; H. Gre eley

Wells, J r., District Att o rn ey Gene ral; and Robert H. Montgome ry , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

We summarize the evidenc ep r e s ented at trial. On Marc h 27, 2000, the def endant wa s employ ed as a bellman at the Garden P laza Hotel i n J ohnson City , Tenne ssee. One of his duties as bellman was to tra nsport g uest s of the hotel to and f rom the airport via the hotel’s shuttle van. Doctor M o h am m ed S houri, a g uest of the hotel, ha d trave led to J ohnson Cityto interview for a patholog y residenc y position at East Tenne ssee State University . After completing his interview and returning to the hotel, Dr. Shouri re quested transportation to the airport. The g uest servic es mana g er of the ho te l, P a tti Cop e la nd , in str uc te d th e de fe nd a nt to drive Dr

. Sho uri to the a ir po rt . D uring the ir drive, Dr . Shouri asked the de fendant s ev er al q uestions about J ohnson Cityin an attempt to learn
mor e abo ut h is po te nti a l ne w job sit e

. Do c tor Sho uri c ha ra c te ri zed the de fe nd a nt’ s re sp on se s to h is questions as slow and slug g ish.R a m o n a G o uge’ s m o t her, V erni t a W i nt ers , was a passenger i n M s. G o uge’ s car. M s. W i nt ers died at t he 1

acc i dent s cen e. T he defendan t was cha r ged wi t h v ehi cul ar homi ci de, a c har ge t hat was t r i ed j oi nt l y wi t h t he agg r ava t ed

ass aul t charges no w o n ap p eal

. T he jury d i d not agree o n a verdi ct on t he vehi cul ar hom i ci d e charge, and t hat charge

wa s a cc or di n g l y mi s t r i ed.

M r

. H u r l ey , wh os e t i t l e wa s s t at e t r ooper a t t h e t i me of t h e ac ci den t , h ad bee n pr omot ed t o t h e pos i t i on of 2
l i eut ena nt by t he t r i al dat e.
-2-

Whil e tr a ve lin g tow ardthe a ir po rt on Hi g hw a y

75 , D r. Sho uri no tic e d th a t th e sh utt le van had drifted into the l ane of opposing traffic and that another vehic le was a pproac hing the van. Doctor Shouri then s aid t o the defendant, “Hey
, hey
, hey , hey , watch, w atch, watch,” whic h is the la st thin g he re c a lle d prior to the e ns uin g c ra sh wi th a To y ota Cor oll a drive n b y Ra mon a Go ug e . M s. Goug e testified that she saw the defendant’s vehicle approac hing in her lane of traf fic a nd there fore de c ide d to ve e r i nto the op po sit e la ne of tr a ff ic , whi c h wa s cle ar. Whe n th e de fe nd a nt c or re c te d h is

err or and r eturne d to his lane of tra ffic, the two vehicles c ollided.

Af te r the a c c ide nt, the oc c up a nts of bo th ve hic le s we re tr a ns po rt e d to John so n Ci ty Medica l Center. L ieutenant Richa rd Hurle y was the state trooper w ho initi al l y responde d to the 1

a c c ide nt. A f

t e r h e a n d o t h e r s t a t e tr o o p e r s e v a l u a t e d t h e c r i m e s c e n e , h e d r o v e t o t h e h o s pit a l to 2 i n t e r v i e w t h e i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d i n t h e c r a s h

. T h e d e f e n d a n t a g r e e d t o g i v e Li e u t e n a n tH u r l e y a state me nt, wh ic h Lie ute na nt H ur le y tr a ns c ri be d a ndthe de fe nd a nt re vie we d. Ms. Cop e l an d w a s a lso pr e se nt d uring thi s e xch a ng e , a ndsh e a g re e d to sig n the de fe nd a nt’ s state me nt a s a wi tne ss. I n h is statement, the de fendant rec ounted t hat he was fatigue d while drivi ng and mus t have f allen asle ep when he was a wake ned by Dr. Shouri’s ale rt. He the n rea liz ed he ha d crosse d into the w rong lane of traf fic a nd corr ecte d his err or but was unable to avoid M s. Goug e’s vehicle, which had cr ossed into his l ane of

traff ic.

After g iving this stat em en t, the defe ndant ag ree d to provide a blood sample f or fo re ns ic e va luatio n. Ms. Gr e tc he n K e lse y , a ho sp ita l nu rs e , c oll e c te d the blo odsa mpl e pu rs ua nt t o L ieutenant Hurley ’s re quest, and Lieutenant Hurley then mailed the sa mple to the Tenne ssee B ureau of I nvestig ation (TB I ) Knoxvil le Crime L ab for a toxi colog y

analy sis. Up o n re ceipt, TBI Special Ag ent fore nsic scientist Stephanie Dotson per formed an i nitial tox icolog y scre en of the defe ndant’s blood, and that test reve aled the presenc e of cocaine and a cocaine metabolite, ecg onine m ethy l ester. Cocaine is the pa

rent drug of the meta

bolite ecg onine methy l ester, meaning that when the huma n body inge sts cocai n e an d att empts to break it down, the body transforms coca ine into ecg onine meth y l e s te r

. F u r th e r te s ti n g c o n f irme d th e p r e s e n c e o f 0

. 0 7 mi c r o g r a ms p e r mi ll il it e r o f coca ine and 0.05 microg rams per

milli liter of ec g onine methy l ester.

Do c tor Ke nn e th F e rs le w, wh o is theChi e f T oxic olo g ist a t the Ea st T e nn e sse e State University

College of Medicine and wh o testified as the state ’s expert witness, opined that the d e f e n d a n t ’ s f

a t i g u e d s t a t e p r i o r

t o t h e a c c i d e n tw a s c au s e d b y a n a c u t e s t a g e o f c o c a i n e t o x i c i t y. Specifica lly , Dr. F erslew explained that individuals who reg ularly inge st c ocaine require larg er and larg er amounts of the drug to maintain the ir “hig h.” After stay ing on this e x tended high for a periodM s

. G ouge was pri mari l y wh eel cha i r

- bo un d at t he t i me of t r i al an d coul d s t and u nas s i s t ed for n o l onger t han 3

t en m i nut es at a t i m e d ue t o t he i njures s he recei ved i n t he i nst ant acci d ent

. H o wever, d ue t o a lack o f a ny m ed i cal exp ert t est i m o ny , we are unab l e t o dis cern whet her M s. G o uge’ s wheelchai r- rel i ance i s a p erm anent co nd i t i o n or m ay i m p rove
over t i me.
-3- of time, their bodies “cr ash” w hen they come of f the hig h, and they

become very

fatig ued. Doc tor Fe rs l ew o p i n ed that the pre sence of coc aine a nd ecg onine methy l ester in the de fendant’s blood indicate that the de fendant’s fatig ued state w as caused by such a “ cra sh.”

De fe ns e e xpe rt

wi tne ss, F re de ri c k G ri m, a ve hic ula r a c c ide nt r e c on str

uc tio nis t, opined t h at t he phy sical evide nce indicated that Ms. Goug e ca used the a ccide nt by

entering the de fe nd a nt’ s lane of

tr a ff ic a ndthat th e a c c ide nt o c c ur re d inthede fe nd a nt’ s lane of tr a ff ic , n ot M s. Goug e’s lane of traf

fic.

As a r es u l t of the a ccide nt, the occupants of both vehicles sustained injuries. The defe ndant broke his thumb and injured his leg ; Dr. Shouri shattere d his ank l e, requiring sever al

corr ective surg erie s; Ms. Goug e broke both ankles, sever al ribs, a wrist, a heel, a nd a hip, re ndering her w heelc hair-bound. 3

B a se d o n th is e vid e nc e , th e jury c on vic te d the de fe nd a nt o f the a g g ra vate d a ssa ult s by rec k l es s co n d uct of Dr . Shouri and Ms. Goug e. Howe ver, the defe ndant contends that the

e vid e nc e is i ns uf

fi c ie nt to s up po rt

his c on vic tio ns . O ur

c on sid e ratio n o f that c la im i s g ro un de d in leg al bedr o ck

. W h en an accuse d challeng es the suff iciency of the e vidence , an appe llate court i n s p ec t s t h e e v i d en t i ar y

l an d s ca p e, i n cl u d i n g t h e d i rec t and circ umstanti al co n t o u rs , fr o mt h e v an t age point most ag ree able to the pr osecution. The r eviewing court then decide s whether the evidenc e and the inf e re nc e s th at f

low the re fr om p e rm it any ratio na l f a c t f ind e r t o c on c lud e be y on d a re a so na ble doubt that the defe ndant is gu i l t y o f t h e charg ed crime. See Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( e ); Jack son v. Vi rg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 24 , 9 9 S. Ct. 27 81 , 2 79 1- 92 (1 97 9) ; State v. Dunc an , 698 S.W .2d 63, 67 ( T e n n

. 1 9 85 ); S t a t e v. Dyke s , 803 S.W .2d 250, 253 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)
, overruled on othe r grounds by State v. Hoope r , 29 S.W .3d 1 (Tenn. 2000)

.

I n d et er m i n i n g s u ff

i ci en cyo f t h e p ro o f, t h e a p p el l at e co u rt d o es n o t re p l ayo r r ew ei gh the evidenc e. Se e Sta te v . M att he ws , 8 05 S.W. 2d77 6, 77 9 ( Te nn . Crim. App . 199 0) . Wit ne ss
cre dibilit y , the weig ht and value of the evidenc e, and fac tual disputes a re e ntrusted to the finder

of fac t. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978) ; Lia k as v . S tate , 199 Tenn. 298, 305, 286 S.W. 2d 85 6, 85 9 (19 56 ); Fa rm e r v . S tate , 5 74 S.W. 2d49 , 5 1 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 78 ). Simp ly stated, the re viewing court will not substit ute its judgment for that of the trier

of fa ct. I nstead, the

c ou rt e xten ds to the State of

Te nn e sse e the str on g e st l e g iti mate vie w o f the e vid e nc e c on ta ine d in the re cord a s well as all rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces that may be dra wn from the e vidence

. See Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d at 835.

Wit h these princ iples in mind we must determine whe ther the e vidence in this record is s uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the jury ’s ve rd ic ts. We b e g in w iththe de fi nit ionof the c on vic tio n o ff

e ns e s.-4-

A per son commits reckless a g g ravated assault who “[ r] ec klessly cause s an assault as defined in § 39 -1 3- 10 1( a )( 1) , a nd : ( A) Caus e s se ri ou s bo dil y inj ury to a no the r; or (B ) U se s o r d isp la y s a

de a dly

we apo n. ” Te nn . Co de An n. § 39 -13 -1 02 (a )( 2) (2 00 3) ; see § 39-13-101( a)( 1) (de fining assault as “intentionally
, knowing ly or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury to another ”). I n this contex t, the term

“ re c kle ss” :

ref ers to a pe rson who ac ts reckle ssly with respe ct t o circ umstances surr ounding the

c on du c t or

the re su lt o f the c on du c t w he n th e pe rs on is a wa reof bu t c on sc iou sly disreg ards a

substantial and unjustifiable risk t h at t h e circumstance s exi st or the

re s u lt will occur. The risk must be of such a nature a nd deg ree that its disreg ard

c on sti tut e s a

g ro ss d e viatio n fr om the stand ardof c arethat a n o rd ina

ry pe rs on wo uld

e xer c ise un de r a ll the c ir c ums ta nc e s a s v ie we d f ro m th e a c c us e d pe rs on ’s stand po int

.
Id. § 3 9- 11 -3 02 (c ). “ ‘S e ri ou s b od ily inj ury ’ mea ns bo dil y

inj ury wh ic h in vo lve s .

. . [e]xtr e me phy sical pain[, p] rotrac ted or obvious disfigur ement[,] or [ p]rotracted loss or substantial impairment of a f unction of a bodily

member, or g an or me ntal fac ulty .” Id. § 39-11-106( a)( 34).

The defe ndant arg ues that the evidenc e introduced at trial was insuffic ient to support his re c kle ss a g g ra vate d a ssa ult c on vic tio ns be c aus e the state me re ly pr ov e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt f e ll aslee p while driving and did not consciously drive into the wrong lane of traff ic. The de fendant cites Po tte r v . S tate , 1 74 Te nn . 1 18 , 124 S.W. 2d23 2 ( 19 39 ), fo r the pr op os iti on that c ri min a l li abil ity should not be ext ended to those w ho do not consciously drive in the w rong lane of traf fic. The de fe nd a nt f

urthe r a rg ue s th a t th e e vid e nc e wa s ins uf fi c ie nt to pr ov e he wa s in toxic a te d at th e tim e of the a ccide nt because ey ewitness testi mony established that the defendant was lucid and did not appea r intox icated to those observing him. The state responds that the defendant’s arg ument lacks

me ri t be c aus e the e vid e nc e e sta bli sh e s th a t th e de fe nd a nt i ng e ste d c oc a ine a ndc on sc iou sly dis re g ar d e d a

s u b s t a n t i a l a n d u n

j u s t i f i ab l e r i s k b y d r i v i n g u n d e r

t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a n i n t o xi c a nt, there by causing serious bodily

injury to Dr. Shouri and Ms. Goug e.

We a g re e that th e e vid e nc e , v ie we d inthe lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble to the state , s up po rt s the def endant’ s two ag g ravated assault convictions. An analy sis of t he defenda nt’s blood reve aled the pre sence o f 0

. 0 7 m i cr og rams per milli liter of coc aine and 0.05 microg rams per milli liter of ecg onine methy l ester, which ac cording to the state’s e x pert witness indicates that the def endant wa s

“ c ra sh ing ” fr om h is p ro lon g e d c oc a ine us e , th us c aus ing his fatig ue d a ndinatte nti ve state . B e c aus e the defe ndant, throug h his own statement, admitted that the ac cident re sulted from his falling aslee p while o p e r a ti n g th e h o te l’ s s h u tt le v a n a n d b e c au s e th e e v id e n c e a tt r ib u te d h is d r o w s in e s s to the voluntary use of illeg al nar cotics, we hold that the ju ry could have rea sonably conclude d that the defe ndant’s ing estion o f cocaine was the proxi mate ca use of the a ccide nt which re sulted in the convictions at issue. Specific ally
, a ra t i o n al j ury could have found that by inge sting c ocaine and op erat ing a

mot or ve hic le , th e de fe nd a nt a c te d r e c kle ssl y by be ing a wa

rebu t c on sc iou sly disreg arding a substantial or unjustifiable risk. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 11-302(c ) (2003) ; se e als o State v. Samue l T. C ravens , No. M2004-01710- C C A-R3-CD, slip op. at 7 (Te nn. Crim. App., Nashville, Aug . 25, 2005) (a ffirming sufficie ncy of the e videnceto support the defe ndant’ s vehicular-5-

assault and a ssault convictions bec au s e a rational jury could have conclude d that the def endant’ s undisputed alcohol intox ication was the proxi mate ca use o f t he re ckless oper ation of his vehicle, swerving into the wrong lane of traff ic, there by

causing the automobile ac cident and injuring three pe op le ); c f. Potter , 124 S.W .2d at 236 (re fusing to e x tend criminal liabilitywhen jury determined that a drive r who drif

ted into the wrong lane of traff ic c au s i n g an au t omobile acc ident was not int oxic a te d) . A c c or din g ly , w e a ff ir m th e de fe nd a nt’ s a g g ra vate d a ssa ult c on vic tio ns

.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE