### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on

Briefs A pril 23, 20 02 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. STEVEN L. RAUHUFF Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Blount County No. C-11481 D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., Judge

No. E2001-00543-CCA-R3-CD May 20, 2002
The defendant was indicted for operation of a motor vehi cle after being declared an ha bitual offender. Following a

bench tr ial, he wa s convict

ed of the indic ted offense. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed
J OE G. R ILEY , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J ERRY L

. S MITH a nd T HOMAS T. W OODALL , JJ., joined. Mack Garner, District Public Defender (on appe al); and Kevin W. Shepherd, Maryville, Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, Steven L. Rauhuff. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Kathy D. Aslinger, Assistant Attorney Genera l; Michael L. Flynn, D istrict At torney General ; and John A . Bobo, Jr. , Assistan t Dis trict Attor ney General, for the appellee, State of Te nnessee.

OPINION FACTS At the bench trial, th

e state f irst intro duced a

certif ied copy of a prior order declaring the defendant to be an Habitual Motor Vehicle Offe nder. Blount County Deputy Rusty Aycocke testified that on November 27, 1998, he responded to a complaint that two men and one woman were fighting in the road. After briefly investigating the incident, Deputy Aycocke received another dispatchstating a white Beretta that had been at the scene was back. Aycocke again drove towa rd the scene, passed a white Beretta, and made a U-turn.-2-

Deputy Aycocke further testified that while he was making the U -turn, t he Beretta accelerated; he placed

his spotlight on the Beretta; the Beretta pulled in a driveway; and he pulled his cruiser directly behind the Beretta. Aycocke saw a man wea ring a blue jean jacket with brown trim exit the driver’s side of the Beretta, and, after seeing the man’s face, he was “alm ost positive” the man was the defenda

nt becau se he had

dealt wit h the def endant in the past. Aycocke

exited hi s cruiser and followed the man onfoot, until the man entered the defendant’s mobile home. Aycocke testified he yelled verbal commands for the man to stop and advised the man he was un der arr

est. Aycocke explained that, although he could have grabbed the man during the foot chase, he decided otherwise after seeing what appear ed to be a handgun in the man’s hand. Deput y Aycocke

stated he heard th e man’s v oice fr

om within the mobile h ome inst ruc t someone he referred

to as “Tammy” to “tell them that I’ve been here all night.” Aycocke recognized the man’s voi ce as be

ing the defendant ’s. After the defendant was informed he w as under arrest and needed to come out, the defendant, wearing a blue jean ja cket, cracked open the

home’s sliding gla ss door, exposedhis head, and said “F- - - you. I’m not coming out.” The office rs eventually entered the home and arrested the defendant. Sergeant Joe Godfrey testified he

responded to a dispa

tch and pr oceede d to the scene. While exiting his cruise

r, the defendant ’s intoxic ated wif e ran fr om a near

by wooded

area to ward Sgt. Godfre y. Sgt. Godfrey corroborated Deputy Aycoc ke’s testimony concerning the defendant’s activities in the mobile home.
Donna Rauhuff, the defendant’s wife, testified that on November 27, 1998, she was returning from the store alone in her

white Beretta when a car passed her and executed a U-turn. She further testified she believe d the car belonged to a neighbo

r whom ha

d threat ened he r earlie r that we ek, so she attempted to pull into her driveway. She stated, ho wever, she missed it and turned into a neighbor’s driveway instead. She said she exited the car, ra n away, and

“hid in some bushes.” She stated the defendant was in the mobile home the entire time, denied the def endant was driving, and denied being intoxicated. The defendant testified he, Tammy Boza, and Sam Graves we re asleep in the mobile home when he heard someone “beating on the door.” He went to the door and saw men dressed in black, who instructed him to come outside. The defendant conceded he stated, “F - - - you, I ain’t coming out.” The defendant further stated the individuals acted violently and failed to identify themselves as police of

ficers. He stated they threw a cinder block through the glass door, and the three officers “proceeded to beat the hell out of me.” He denied driving the automobile. In the state’s rebuttal proof, Captain Randy Meeks testified Donna Rauhuff confessed that her police report “stretched the truth.”-3- SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE The defenda

nt does not dis pute his habitual offender status. Rather, he contends the evidenc e was insufficient to establish he was driving the vehicle. We respectfully disagree. A. Standard of Review
On appeal, we must determine “whether, af ter viewing the ev ide nce in the light most favora ble to the prosecution, any r ational trier of fact could have found the essential e lements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virgini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). According ly, we will not reweig

h the evidenc e, but inst

e ad, we w ill presume that the tr

ier of fa ct h as resolve d all conf

licts in the

testimony

and drawn all rea sonable inferences from the evidence in favo r of the stat e. See State v. She ffield , 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); Stat e v. Ca bbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn . 1978). Q uestions a

bout witne ss credibi lity

were resolved by

the trier of fact. See State v. Bland , 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). Alth ough the defendant was convicte d in a benc h trial, th e finding s of the tr

ial judg e carr

y th e same weight as a jury

verdict. State v. Holder , 15 S.W.3d 905, 911 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). B. Analysis Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state , the evidence is more than sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the defendant was the driver of t h e automobile. Deputy Aycocke performed a U-turn whe n he saw the Beretta traveling in the opposite direction. He followed the vehicle into a driveway, saw a man in a blue je an jack e t appearing to be the defendant exit the driver’s side, and chased the man on foot until he entered defendant’s residenc e. Deputy Aycocke stated he never lost sight of him during the foot chase. The defendant, wear ing a blue jean jacket, was then found in the mobile home. Although the defendant conte nds the evidence is insufficient because there was no direc t testimony the defendant was the driver of the vehicle, we conclude the judge, as the trier of fact, could reasona bly infer the def

en dant was the driver since Deputy Aycocke s aw no other person in the vehicle. Moreover, Deputy Ayc ocke heard the defendant instruct Ta mmy Bo za to inform officers he had been in bed a ll night. The defendant’s instruction was an attempt to concea l his true whe

reabout s, from wh

ich an inf erence of guilt co

uld b e drawn. See Hicks v. St ate , 533 S.W.2d 330, 334 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975) (holding that “an y attempt to suppress or destroy or conceal evidence is re levant as a circumstance from which guilt of an accused so acting may be inferr ed”). This issue is without merit.-4- CONCLUSION We aff irm the jud

gment of th

e trial c ourt.

___________________________________

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE