# FILED September 30, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN T HE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPE ALS OF T ENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE JULY SES SION, 1997

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9610-CR-00371 ) Appell ee, ) SULLIVAN COUNTY ) ) V. ) ) HON. FRA NK L. SLA UGHTE R, JUDGE RO BE RT M . SN EE D, ) ) (DUI SEC OND OFFE NSE ; Ap pella nt. ) DRIVI NG ON REVOKED LICENSE)

FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : GREGO RY D. SMITH JOHN KNOX WALKUP Att orneyat L aw Attor ney General & Reporter One Public Square, Sui te 321 Clarks vi ll e, TN 37040 SARA H M. BRA NCH (On App eal) Assist ant Attor ney General 2nd Floor , Cordel l Hul l Bui ldi ng 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashvil le, TN 37243-0943 ST EP HE N M . WAL LAC E H. GREELEY WELLS, JR. Dist ri ct Publ ic Def ender Dist ri ct Attor ney General RICHARD A. TATE RO BE RT H. M ON TG OM ER Y, JR . Assist ant Publ ic Def ender Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney Gener al P.O. Box 839 P.O. Box 526 Blountvi ll e, TN 37617-0839 Blountvi ll e, TN 37617-0526 (At Tr ial an d O n A pp ea l) OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFI RMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUD GE-2- 

# OPINION

The Defendant , RobertM. Sneed, app e als as o f ri ght pursuantto Ru le 3 of t he Tennessee Ru les o f App ellate Pro ce du re. F ollo win g a jury tr ial in the Crim inal C ourt o f Sulliva n C oun ty, the D efen dan t was con victed of drivi ng underthe infl uence, sec ond off ense, and dr iv ing on a revoked l icense, second off ense. Th e trial co urt senten ced Defendant to serve el even (11) months, twenty-ni ne (29) days f or each convi cti on. These sent ences were ordered t o be served con curre ntly. I n his s ole i ssue on appeal , t he Defendantargues t he evidence was insu fficient to sus tain a verd ict of gu iltybeyond a reasonabl e doubt of se con d offe nse DU I. W e affirm the jud gm ent o f the trial c ourt.

W hen an accused chall enges the s uff ici ency ofthe conv ict ing evi dence, the stan dard is w hethe r, aft errevi ewing the evi dence in the l ight most favo rab le to the prosecuti on, anyrat ional tr ierof f act coul d have f ound the essenti al elements of t he cri me beyond a reas ona ble d oub t. Ja cks on v. Vir gin ia , 443 U.S . 30 7, 3 19 (19 79 ). T his sta nd ard is ap plica ble to fin din gs of g uilt predi cated up on dire ct e vide nc e, c ircu m sta ntia l evid en ce or a com bin at ion of directan d cir cu m sta ntia l evid enc e. Stat e v. Matt hews , 805 S. W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Cr im . Ap p. 1 99 0). O n a pp ea l, the Sta te is ent itl ed to the st rongest legitim ate vi ew ofthe e viden ce a nd a ll inferen ces there from
. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Because a verdi ct ofguil t r emoves the presumpti on of i nnocence and repl aces itwit h a presumpti on of gui lt , t he accused has the burden i n this co urt of illustra ting w hy the evide nce is insu fficient to-3-

supp ort the v erdi ct retur ned by t he tr ierof fact. State v. Tu gg le , 639 S. W .2d 913, 914 (Te nn. 1 982 ); State v. Grace , 493 S .W .2d 47 4, 476 (Ten n. 197 3).

Question s con ce rnin g th e cr ed ibility o f the wit nesses, th e weightand val ue to be giv en the evidence, as wel l as all fa ctu al i ssues rai sed by t he ev idence, are re solve d by th e trier o f fact, no t this co urt. State v. Pappas , 75 4 S.W .2d 62 0, 623 (Ten n. Crim . App.), perm. t o appeal den ied , id . (Ten n. 198 7). Nor m ay th is co urt re we igh or re eva lu a te the evide nce . Cabbage , 571 S. W .2d at 835. A j ury v erdi ct approved by t he tr ial judge acc red its th e S tate ’s wit nesses and reso lves a ll conflicts in favo r of the State
. Grace , 493 S.W .2d a t 476
.

On Oc tobe r 28, 1 995 , at ap prox ima tely 11 :15 p .m., B rian T aylor, a Kings port poli ce off icer , observed a car spee ding al ong No rth E as tm an Ro ad in King spo rt, Tennessee. The speed li mit on North East man Road is 30 mil es per hourand Offi cer Tayl or est imated t he car t o be travel ing approxi mately40 to 45
m il es pe r ho ur. A s O ffice r T aylo r follo we d th e ca r, he no tice d th at it wa s “operat ed in a jerk y fash ion.” Offi cer Tayl or sai d thatthe car jer ked two or

thr ee ti mes wh ile dr ivin g alon g the road. I n addit ion, it s left t urn si gnal was on the entire ti me. He followed the car for approximatel y four bl ocks a long N ort h Eastman Road unt il ittu rne d l ef t o nt o Eas t Se vi er Aven ue. Atthatpoint , Off icer Taylor tur ned on the bl ue lights on his vehi cle t o signal the car to st op. The car continu ed on for appro ximate ly 100 yard s before turnin g left into Orm ond Drive and stoppi ng.

As Offi cer Tayl or approac hed t he Defendant ’s v ehicl e, he not iced there was on ly on e p ers on insid e th e ca r. O ffice r T aylo r tes tified he cou ld “sm ell-4-

the alcohol coming f rom the car. ” At thi s pointhe asked De fen da nt fo r his drive r’s li cense bu t wa s in for med he didn’ t hav e itwit h him. Offi cer Tayl or asked Defendantto step ou t of his car. As he did , Off icer Taylor observ ed that Defendantused the car door to bal ance himsel f. Offi cer Tayl or al so noti ced “t he odorof al cohol abou t hi s person afterhe was out of t he car. ” Defendanttol d Offi cerTa ylor tha t h e had just gott en out ofbed. Off icer Taylor said t hat De fen da nt’s speech was slur red . Lat er, Defendanttol d the offi cer t hat he had been at Skoby ’s Rest aurantbut had notbeen dri nking.

Offi cerTa ylor as ked De fe ndant whetherhe had any physical prob l ems thatwould affecthis perf ormance on any field sobri ety t ests, t o which Defendantreplied tha t he did no t. Then , Officer Ta yl or as ked De fend ant to perform field so briety te sts. First, De fend ant p erform ed th e thu m b to fing er tes t, but was unable to say t he numb ers a nd touch h is fingers in the c orrect ord er. Second, Defendant performed the heel-t o-toe test , duri ng which he could not walk heel-t o-toe and losthis balance atleast t hree ti mes.

On the ba sis o f De fen da nt’s driv ing and performance on these tests, Offi cerTaylor

concl uded thathe was dri vi ng under t he inf luence of an int oxi cant and arres ted hi m. Defendantref used to s ubmit t o a blood testto d ete rm ine his blood al cohol c oncentrati on.

Charles Baker, a Kingsport pol ice offi cer, test if ied t hat on Oct ober 28, 1995, he arr iv ed on the sc ene as a backup offi cer. He stood two feetaway fro m Offi cer Tayl or and Defend ant as Def endant perfor med the f ield so briety tests. Offi cer Bakernoti ced thatDefendantwas unstea dy on his feet , t hat he-5-

touched the car

to regain hi s balanc e, and t hat he smel led ofalcoho l. Offi cer Bakerconfi rmed Offi cer Tayl or’ s accountof t he test s. Based upon hi s observa ti ons of Defendant, Off ice r Baker al so concl uded thatDefendantwas und er the influen ce o f an into xican t.

Defendantack now ledg ed th a t he may nothave perfor med well on his fi eld sobr iety te sts, and sai d at t ri al t hat “ [i ]fI’ d a been the off icer , I ’d a pro ba bly arres ted me, t oo.” However, Defendantcontends thathe tol d Offi cer Taylor thathe was dizzy, but thathe did not expl ain the cause of t he dizziness. He test if ied t hat hi s poor perfor m anc e of th e fi eld t ests result ed from his hi gh blood pressure and the fact t hat he had bee n paint ing al l day and inhal ed the fumes from the paint . Defen dant’ s brot her, Larry Sneed, t esti fi ed thaton October 28, 1995, he paint ed his mot her’ s house wi th Defenda nt. He said t hat he di d not see Defendant drink any al cohol, but that Defendant di d complain of dizzi ness.

Driv ing un de r the influ en ce is de fine d in pa rt as drivin g or bei ng in physi cal con trol o f an au tom ob ile on an y of th e p ub lic roads and hi ghways ofthe Sta te of Tennessee, or on anystreets or all eys whi le under

the i nfl uence of any intoxica nt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55- 10-401(a )(1) (Supp. 1993). Therefore, t he e vi de nce must show t hat t he off ender: “(1) was in ph ysi cal co ntr ol ofan automobil e, (2) o n a pu blic r oa d w it h in t he Stat e of Tennessee, and (3) was underthe influ enc e of a n into xican t.” State v. Waddey , C.C. A. No. 01C01-9508- CC-00245, W il li amson Cou nty, slip o p. a t 3 (T en n. C rim . Ap p., a t Na sh ville, J uly 5, 199 6) (Ru le 11 ap plication no t fil ed).-6- Taken in the l ightmost favorabl e to t he Stat e, Defenda nt was dri vi ng his automobil e on a pu bli c highwayin Ki ngsport , Sul li van County , Tennessee, when he was st opped by Off icer Taylor . Th e tes ti mo ny of the p olice officers ref lect ed thatDefendantsm elle d o f alco ho l, had diffi culty st anding, had slu rred speech, and was unable to perform fi eld sobri ety t ests.

From the tes tim on y at tria l, the Def endantwa s cle arly d riving an d in physi cal control of t he car, clear lyon a Tennessee publ ic road, and clear lyunder the i nfl uence of an intoxica nt. Fo llowing the c onv iction fo r DU I, the S tate int roduced proofat a bi fur cated heari ng thatDefendanthad a pri or conv ict ion f or DU I. The re was no evide nce w hich co ntradicted this proof. T herefo re, the reco rd sup ports De fend ant’s con viction fo r sec ond offen se D UI.

Defendantargue s that dri vi ng un de rt he i nf l ue nc e i s acr i me requi ri ng speci fi c int ent and tha t he did no t ha ve th e re qu isite inte nt s inc e h e d id no t ing es t an y dru g o r alc oh ol, but i nstead t ook blood pressure medicati on and inhaled paintfumes.

Ho weve r, in Sta te v. Fio rito , thi s co urt h eld that“[ t] here i s no cu lpa ble mental s tat e requi red f or gui ltof DUI. ” C.C. A. No. 03C01-9 401- CR 0003 2, BlountCounty, sli p op. at3 (Tenn. Cr im. App. , atKnoxvi ll e, Nov. 27, 1995) (Rule 11 appli cati on not filed). Inst ea d, th e st atu te “p roh ibits drivin g w hile underthe i nfl uence of anyint oxi cant, ” i ncludi ng medicati ons. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-1 0-40 1(a) (Su pp. 1 993 ). The jurywas all owed to hear the t esti mony of De fen da nt a nd his brot her t hat Defend ant had notbeen dri nking on the dat e of his arres t, and th at any p hysical im pairm ents he suffered mu st have been caused-7-

by high blood p ressu re and/or being ex posed to pai nt f umes. By i ts v erdi ct, the jury re ject ed the Defend ant’ s version ofthe f acts. W e may not r eweigh or reev alua te the evide nce . State v. Cabbage , 571 S. W .2d at835.

Th ere was suff ici ent ev idence for a r easonable tri er offactto f ind beyond a reasonabl e d oub t that the Defend ant was gui lty ofdri vi ng under t he influen ce, s eco nd o ffens e. W e affirm the jud gm ent o f the trial c ourt.

____________________________________ THO MAS T. W OOD ALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ DAVID H. W ELLES, Judge

___________________________________ JOHN K . BYERS, Senior Judge