### 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. BOWM AN RO BER T R US SELL

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Loudon County No. 10531 E. Eugene Eb len, Jud ge

No. E2005-01135-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Janu ary 19, 2006

The de fenda nt, Bowma n Robert Russell, appea ls from his L oudon Count yCriminal Court jury verdic t resulting in a

conviction of driving while under the influence of an intoxi cant ( DUI ), third offe nse. The sing le issue on appe al is whether the convicting evidenc e is sufficie nt to support the

c on vic tio n. B e c a us e it i s, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the c ri min a l c ou rt

.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t i s A ffirm e d.

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of t he court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and D AVI D G. H AYES , J J ., joined.

J oe H. W alker , District Public Defe nder; a nd Walter B. Johnson and Buddy Hathcoc k, Assistant Di stric t Pu bli c De fe nd e rs , f or the Ap pe lla nt, B ow ma n Ro be rt Rus se ll.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L

. B le ds oe , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; J. Sc ott Mc C l u e n , D i s t

ri c t A tt o rne y Ge ne ra l; a ndD. Rog e r D e lp, As sis ta nt D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the A ppellee, State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

At trial, L oudon CountyDeputy Sheriff Samue l M. J ohnson, a 28-y ear veter an of the sheriff ’s depa

rtment, testified that he ha d known the def endant f or 40 y ear s. On March 17, 2001, at appr ox imately 11:30 p.m., Deputy J ohnson was called to the scene of an a ccide nt on Sunny side Road, a public roa d in the Philadelphia are a. When he arrived at the scene , he saw a Subaru station wag on in the ditch. The ve hicle had le ft the cur ved roa dway in dry conditions.

Th e de fe nd a nt wa s p re se nt andtol d D e pu ty John so n th a t he ha d d ri ve n th e ve hic le int o th e dit c h. De pu ty

John so n te sti fi e d th a t a

str on g od or

of a lc oh ol e ma nate d f

ro m th e de fe nd a nt. The defenda nt “swa y ed” and could not s tand uprig ht, and Deputy J ohnson administered the A -B -C

re c itatio n an d wa lk- a nd -tur n fie ld sob ri e ty te sts , whi c h th e de fe nd a nt c ou ld n ot p e rf orm. T he de pu ty testified that, following the tests, he formed an opinion that the def endant wa s intox icated and was-2-

close to “e x t reme” impairment. The deputy arr ested the de fenda nt, who was c ooperative. The defe ndant conse nted to a blood alcohol test. The intox imeter test printout showed a blood-alcohol

re su lt o f . 21 pe rc e nt.

On cr oss-examin at i o n , Deputy J ohnson acknow ledg ed that he did not see the defe ndant driving his vehicle, but he state d that when he aske d the def endant what had happe ned, the def endant r esponded, “ I

drove in the ditch.” The de puty did not ask whether

any one else had be e n d ri vin g the c ar a nddidno t r e me mbe r w he the r the de fe nd a nt o wn e d th e S ub aru. T he de pu ty testified that the only

way to move the vehicle from its position where he first saw it on Marc h 17

was to pull it out with a wre cker

. Otherw ise, he said, “ I t wasn’t g oing any wher e.” H e produc ed a tow -i n s lip wh ic h in dic a te d th a t th e ke y s w e re in t he veh icle, a lth ou g h th e sli p d id n ot i nd ic a te whether the key s were in the ignition switch.

On beha lf of t he defenda nt, his nephew
, Shawn Russell, testified that on Marc h 17, 2001, he had bor

rowe d a Subaru station wag on belong ing to his g randf ather , the def

endant’ s father
, to dr ive to wo rk

. Whe n Sh a wn Rus se ll r e turne d f ro m w or k, the de fe nd a nt a sk e d h im “ to r un him down to Coker’s,” a tave rn in Philadelphia. The defe ndant had been drinking “a little bit, and he didn’t want to be a

round the house a

round [Shawn Russell’s] g randf ather .”

Shawn Russell drove the de fe n d ant t o Coker’s a nd told him he would pick him up around midnig ht. Mr. Russel l t h en went home, a nd when he returne d to Coker’s as pla nned, the d ef en d an tre s i s t ed l ea v i n g. Ul t i m at el y , t h e d ef en d an t w e n t w i t h M r. R u s s el l b u two u l d n o tgo without his beer. Mr. Russell testified that he and the tavern owner put the defe ndant into the car

.
Mr. Russell drove via Su n n y s i d e Road to take the def endant home, and when he encounte red a

car on his side of the roa d on a curve, he dr ove into a ditch. He was unable to drive the c ar o ut o f the dit c h. He g ot the int oxic a te d de fe nd a nt out of the c ar andtol d h im t o w a it w hil e Mr. Russell walked to the house of Robert Russell, the defe ndant’s son, to g et a chain and a tr uck for pulling the Subaru out of the ditch. Mr

. R u s s el l t es tified that he thre w the ca r key s into the fl oo rb oa rda ndthat th e de fe nd a nt w ou ld n ot h a ve kn ow n th a t. Mr . Ru sse ll t e sti fi e d th e wa lk t o Rob e rt Rus se ll’ s h ou se too k a

bo ut t wo a ndon e -h a lf

ho ur s. Af

te r h e arrive d, g ot eq uip pe d to pu ll the Subaru fr om the ditch, and re turned to the sce ne, the Subar u was g one. Mr. Russell did not learn of the de fenda nt’s plight until later in the morning on Marc h 18 when the defe ndant appea red at Mr. Russell’s house and informe d him that he had bee n in jail.

On cr oss-examination, S hawn Russell testifi ed t h at h e did not report the wre ck beca use the Subaru w as in g ood shape a nd would be oper ab l e when pulled from the ditch. He testified that he a ctually

hid the key s beneath the Subaru’s car pet. Mr. Russell acknowle dg ed that he tol d no one except for

the def endant’ s attorney

that he had driven the Subaru on Ma rch 17- 18.

Ba sed upon the for eg oing e vidence , the jury convicted the defe ndant of DU I . On appea l, the defe ndant ac knowledg es that he wa s impaired on the e vening of Mar ch 17-18, 2001. H e claims that the “only

issue is whether or

not the Def

endant wa s operating the motor ve hicle.”-3- When an ac cused c halleng es the s u fficie ncy of the e vidence , the appe llate court

cons i d er s t h e evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution to determine whe ther a ny
ratio na l trie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h a ve fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t, Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( e ); J a c k s o n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324, 99 S. C t. 2781, 2791-92 (1979), reg ardle ss whether

the conviction is based upon dir ect e vidence , circ umstan t i al evidence, or a combination of direc t and circ umstantial evidence
, Sta te v . W int e rs , 137 S.W .3d 641, 654-55 (Te nn. Crim. App. 2003), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. 2004) . The a

ppellate c ourt n ei t h er re-w eig hs the evidenc e nor substitutes its infere nces for t hose drawn by the t rier of fac t. Id . a t 65 5. Th e c re dib ili ty of the witnesse s, the weig ht and value of the evidenc e, and a ll other fac tual issue s ra i s ed by the evidenc e are resolved by the trier of fac t. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978) . The appellate court a ffor ds the State of Te nnessee the strong est leg itimate view of the evidenc e conta ined in th e r e c o r d a s w e ll a s a ll r e a s o n ab le a n d le g it im a te in f e r e n c e s w h ic h may b e d r awn f rom the evidenc e. Id.

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 55-10-401 proscribes DUI

. As pertinent to the pr e se nt c a se , th is C od e se c tio n p ro vid e s:

(a) I t is unlawful for any person to drive or to be in phy sical control of a ny a uto mob ile or oth e r mot or drive n ve hic le on a ny of the pu bli c
ro a ds a ndhig hw a y s of the state , o r o n a ny str e e ts o r a lle y s, or

wh ile on the premises of any shopping center
, trailer park or any apartment house complex, or any

other pre mises which is g ener ally fre quented by the public at lar g e, while:

(1 ) U nd e r the inf

lue nc e of a ny int oxic a nt, mari juana , n arc oti c drug , or drug producing sti m u lating e ffe cts on the ce ntral ner vous sy stem . . . .

Tenn. Code Ann. § 55- 10-401(a )(1) (2004).

I n the pre sent ca se, the de puty sheriff found t h e int ox icated de fenda nt at the sce ne wher e his fathe r’s car had run off the roadw ay into a ditch. The de puty

testified that the def

endant tol d h im tha t he ha d d ri ve n in to the dit c h. Th is t e sti mon y , w he n a c c re dit e d b y the tr ie r o f f

a c t, i s sufficie nt to establish that the de fenda nt had driven the car to the scene . I t was the jury ’s pre rog ative to resolve c onflicts in the testimony
, and the jury appar ently reje cted Shawn Russell’s account of the trip from Coker’ s tavern. A s mentioned above , it i s n o t t h e role of the appellate court to make

cre dibilit y

determinations, and we may not replac e the jury ’s infer ence s with those of our own.

For these re asons, the judg ment of the c riminal court is aff irmed.

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