### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y 11, 200 4

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . HUBERT E . NARD

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for F ranklin County

No. 14644 J. Curtis Sm ith, Jud ge

No. M2003- 02294-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jun e 17, 2004

Th e de fe nd a nt, in this app e a l of ri g ht, c ha lle ng e s the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to s up po rt

his convictions for driving unde r the influenc e (D UI ) and disorde rly conduct. After a ca ref ul review of the re cord, w e af

firm both convictions. The disorde rlyconduct c onviction is remanded f or modification of judg ment to conform to the statutory maxi mum sentence

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed in Par t and R e m ande d forM odi fic at ion of Ju dgm e nt

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opin i o n o f t h e court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.

Robert S. Peters, Winchester, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, Hubert E. Nard.

Paul G . Su mme rs , At torne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Da vid H. F ind le y , As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; J ames Micha el Tay lor, District Attorney Gene ral; and Steven M . Blount, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

The de fenda nt, Hubert E. Nard, was indicted for driving under the influence (DUI ), violation of implied consent, re ckless driving , and dis order ly conduct. The defe ndant was trie d on the DUI and disorderly

conduct c harg es, and a

jury returne d g uiltyverdic ts on both.

T h e def endant wa s sentence d to eleven months, twenty -nine da y s probation with the exception of ten we ekends of service i n the county

jail and a f

ine of $350 on the D UI

and to ten

concur rent we ekends w ith thirtyday s probation and a fine of $50 on t he disorder ly conduct c harg e. The de fenda nt appea ls both convictions on the gr ounds tha t t h e evidence does not support the

ve rd ic ts o f g uil ty

be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t.-2-

Ma tth e w B ake r, a

Cow a n p oli c e of

fi c e r, a ssi ste d f

e llo w o ff ic e r, Cla y ton Willi a ms, in a tr a f fi c stop of the def

endant. The stop occurr ed on Mar ch 24, 2002, at Linda’s Mar ket, next door to the Cowan City

Hall. B aker

appr o ac h ed the def

endant, de tected an odor of a lcohol, and noticed the defe ndant was w earing w hat B aker described as pa

jamas. The de fend an t admitted to having consumed a lcohol. Ba

ker was coming off his duty shift and offe red the defe ndant a ride home. The defe ndant re sponded that he w as not intox icated but that a s a taxpay er in Cowan, he could drive there int oxic a te d. Th e de fe nd a nt w a s a sk e d to pe rf orm so brie ty

te sts by the of fi c e r. Th e de fe nd a nt f

ir st perf ormed the one -leg standing test and wa s next asked to do a heel-to-toe test. Ba ker state d that the defe ndant bec ame a

rg umentative and unc o o p er at ive and be g an rolling on the g round. B aker

c on sid e re d th e de fe nd a nt’ s a c tio ns a s thr e a te nin g a ndtho ug ht the de fe nd a nt h a d p e rf orme d p oo rl y on the field sobrie ty

test. A video of the defe ndant’s field sobriety tests was shown to the jury but was not included in the a ppellate r ecor d. I t i s t h e d u t y o f the a ccuse d to provide a r ecor d which
convey s a f

a ir
, a c c u r a te , a n d c o mp le te a c c o u n t o f w h a t tr a n s p ir e d w ith r e g ar d to th e is s u e s which form the b as i s o f the a

ppeal. Te nn. R. App. P. 24(b); see State v. Tay lor, 992 S.W .2d 941, 944 (Tenn. 1999)

. The defe ndant was then handcuf fed and arr ested a nd ag ree d to take a blood a lcohol test. The def

endant ha d orig inally

been stoppe d only

for the spe eding offe nse.
Clay ton Wi lliams was the Cowan office r who initiated the tra ffic stop of the defe ndant for driving fifty -three miles per hour in a thirty miles p er h o u r z one. The office r noticed a n odor of alcohol on the def

endant, a nd the def

endant a dmitted he had bee n drinking . Wil liams said that the defe ndant aske d if the off icer s wanted him to ac t l i k e a monke y , do back f lips, and roll on the
g round. The de fenda nt then b ega n ro l l i n g on the g round. The of fice r consider ed the de fenda nt’s

a c tio ns a s th re a te ning. Af te r the de fe nd a nt r e qu e ste d a blo oda lc oh ol s c re e nin g , Wil lia ms transporte d him to the hospit al emer g ency room. He state d that on the t rip, the def endant wa s loud and bellig ere nt but was not violent or destructive.

At the hospital, Williams attempted to r ead the defe ndant the implied consent form but was int e rr up te d b y the de fe nd a nt w ho state d h e wa s n ot s ig nin g a nythi ng bu t dem a nd e d th e blo odte st. Fa ced w ith the defe ndant’s refusal to sign the form, the blood wa s not taken and the defe ndant was

escorted out of the building . Outside the hos pital, the defendant slum ped sl owly to the g round and beg an exhibiti ng signs of

seizure ac tivity . A doctor a nd a nurse responde d. The doc tor observe d the defe ndant and state d that the def endant was faking the seizure. The de fenda nt was then take n to the ja il f or bo oking . T he re the de fe nd a nt sig ne d a c itatio n b ut r e fu se d to sig n th e imp lie d c on se nt f or m. Wil liams opined that, based on the odor of alc ohol and the def

endant’ s behavior, the defe ndant was intox icated.

On cr oss-examination, the office r af firmed that the defe ndant was willing to ta ke the blood test but would not sign the implied consent form and, as a result, the test wa s not administered. The office r obser ved no driving violation other than spee din g and found no e vidence of alc ohol in the defe ndant’s vehic le.

ChristyBr own was the charg e nurse on duty at t he emerg ency room when the de fenda nt was prese nted there

. She described the defe ndant as ree king of alcohol and ha ving slurr ed spee ch and-3-

blo od sh ot, g la ssy

e y e s. At

on e po int

sh e sa id that th e de fe nd a nt, wi tho ut ex pl anati on , b e c a me ag g ressive towa

rd her
, and the security g uard stepped between her and the defenda nt. Brow n and the doctor on duty we re summoned outside when the de fenda nt was being escorted away . The de fe nd a nt w a s “ fl a ili ng ” a nd“ je rking ” on the g ro un d. Th e do c tor , a ft e r obs e rv ing the de fe nd a nt, tol d the def endant that he was not having a seizure. The defen d an t responde d, “Ye s, I am,” but
eventua lly

stopped his activity

and wa s escorted away

by the offic er.

Joe M e tc a lf

wa s th e se c urity g ua

rd pr e se nt wh e n the de fe nd a nt wa s at the e me rg e nc y ro om. He de scribed the defe ndant when the defe ndant collapsed outside. Metca lf said the def endant e ased down to the g round and be g an to shake . Howeve r, the de fen d an t wa s able to re spond to verbal

c omm a nd s d uring thi s ti me

. B a se d on the de fe nd a nt’ s slu rr e d sp e e c h, un ste a dy g a it, a g g re ssi ve ne ss, strong odor of a lcohol, and bloodshot ey es, Metca lf believe d the def endant wa s intox icated.

Don Coffe r wa s the corr ectional of fice r at the jail when the de fenda nt was booked. H e stated that he sme lle d a lc oh ol o n th e de fe nd a nt an d tha t th e de fe nd a nt a pp e are d in toxic a te d. Cof fe r s a id the de fe nd a nt c a us e d n o p ro ble m a t th e ja il.

J o an n e Na rd, t he def

endant’ s wife, wa s the first witness ca lled by the def ense. B y way of backg round, she sa id they had bee n marrie d for twenty -eig ht y ear s. The defenda nt was a long- haul truck drive r and a diabetic. The defe ndant who had just returned fr om a stint at work on Marc h 24th,

arrived home at 9:00 or 10:00 that morning

. S h e s aid he had a steak and dra nk two beer s befor e leaving to visit his brother. The defenda nt had checke d his blood sugar level, and it wa s 380 to 386. The de fenda nt returne d from his brother ’s home shortly afte r 6:00 p.m., and Ms. N ard thought the de fe nd a nt drank

mor e du ri ng his abs e nc e fr om h ome . The de fe nd a nt wa s dizzy , an d a c he c k o f h is blood suga

r re veale d it was eleva

ted to 55 3

. T h e defenda nt put on some oversize shorts, took a blo odpr e ssu re pil l, andwe nt t o s le e p. Ar ou nd9:0 0 o r 9 :30 that nig ht, the de fe nd a nt’ s n e ph e w c a me by and aske d for a ride to his g irlfriend’ s house. The defe ndant g ot out of bed to take the ne phew.

The de fenda nt’s nephew , Edwa rd L am ont Wood, t estified to his arrival at the def endant’ s

re sid e nc e a t 9 :0 0 or 9: 30 p. m. He state d th a t th e de fe nd a nt d id n ot dri nk a nythi ng on the tr ip t o Winchester and that there w as no alc ohol in the vehicle.

The de fenda nt testified that afte r his arrival home from wor k on Marc h 24th, he went to the
sto re a ndbo ug ht a

six pa c k o f b e e r anda

ste ak. Al tho ug h h e dr a nk tw o b e e rs , h e sa id h e ha

rd ly a te

a nything . T he de fe nd a nt s a id h e we nt t o h is b ro the r’ s r e sid e nc e abo ut n oo n a ndre turne d h ome within thirtyor forty

minutes. He wa s diz zyon h is return a nd went to bed. He was a wake ned by his nephew that night and the n took his nephew to Wincheste r. Whil e re turning home, the def endant said he wa s stopped in Cowan by the police of

fice r.

Th e de fe nd a nt tol d Of

fi c e r B ake r that he ha d d rank tw o b e e rs . Wh e n r e qu e ste d b y B ake r t o perf orm sobriety

tests, the defe ndant said he pe rform ed “a b o u t t wo.” He then said he was demonstrating he could do a push up in w hat the office r had called rolling around on t h e gr o und.-4-

The de fenda nt maintained that he wa s “under control” a nd not under the influe nce. H e said that he

c ou ld n ot r e c a ll the e ve nts that ha pp e ne d a ft e r h e g ot a

drink of wate r at th e ho sp ita l.

I n determining the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e, this Court does not rew eig h or re evaluate the evidenc e. State v. Cabbag e, 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978) . A jury verdic t approve d by

the trial judge acc redits the State’s witnesses and resolves all conflicts in favor of t he S tate. S tate v. B igbe e, 885 S.W .2d 797, 803 (Tenn. 1994) . On appe al, the State is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the e vid e nc e a nda ll l e g iti ma te or re a so na ble inf e re nc e s w hic h may

be dr a wn the re fr om. I d. Th is Court will not di sturb a verdict of guilt due to the s ufficie ncy of the e vidence unless the def endant demonstrates that the fac ts c ontained in the rec ord and the infer ence s which may be dra wn there from

are insufficient, a s a matt er o f l aw , for a rational trier

of fa ct to find the ac cused g uiltybey ond a

re a so na ble do ub t. S ta te v. B re we r, 93 2 S.W.2 d 1, 1 9 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 96 ). Ac c or din g ly , it is the appe llate court’s duty

to affirm the conviction if the evidence , viewed unde r these sta ndards, wa s sufficie nt for any

rational trier of fact to have f ound the essential e lements of the of fense bey ond a

rea sonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e ); J ackson v. V irg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct . 2781, 2789, 61 L . Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994).

Driving Under The Inf

luence

Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 5 5- 10 -4 01 , in pe rt ine nt p art , p ro vid e s: I t is unlawful for a ny

person to drive or to be in phy sical control of any

a u t o m o b i l e o r

o t h e r m o t o r d r i v e n v e h i c l e o n a n y

o f t h e p u b l i c r o a d s a n d h i g h w a ys of the state, or

on any streets or a lley s , or while on the pr emises of a ny shopping

c e nte r, tr a ile r p ark

or a ny apa rt me nt ho us e c omp le x, or a ny oth e r p re mis e s w hic h is
g ener ally fre quented by

the public at lar g e, while: (1) Under the influenc e of any

intox icant, marijuana, nar cotic drug , or drug producing stimul ating eff ects on the c entra l nervous sy stem . . .

I t is not di sputed that the def endant wa s driving his ve hicl e on the public hig hway s and
str e e ts w he n he wa s sto pp e d fo r sp e e din g . T he de fe nd a nt, ho we ve r, c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e is insufficient to prove that he wa s u n d er t h e i nfluenc e of an intox icant. The jury had the be nefit of he ari ng the te sti mon y of the wi tne sse s, a s w e ll a s v ie wi ng the vid e o o f the de fe nd a nt at th e tr a ff ic stop.

The prose cution witnesses who encounte red the defe ndant on the day of his arr est, without exception, testified theybelieved him to be intoxi cate d. Their individual desc riptions varied, but included the f

ollowing c hara cteristics as exhi bited by t he def endant: a strong odor of a lcohol, an

un ste a dy g a it, a g g re ss iv e beh avi or, andslu rr e d s pe e c h. Th e jury wa s e nti tle d to a c c e pt the se classica l sy mptoms as evidence of the de fenda nt’s intox ication and reje ct the defe ndant’s testimony to the contra

ry . There is ample evidenc e in the re cord to sustain the de fenda nt’s conviction for drivi ng un de r the inf

lue nc e , a ndwe a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt.-5- Disorderly Conduct

The off ense of disorderly

conduct is def

ined by Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 39-17- 305: (a ) A p e rs on c omm its a n o ff e ns e wh o, in a

pu bli c pla c e a ndwi th i nte nt t o c a us e pu bli c a nn oy a nc e or

a larm : (1) Eng ag es in fig hting or in violent or threate ning be havior; (2 ) Re fu se s to ob e y

a n o ff ic ia l or de r to disp e rs e iss ue d to ma int a in p ub lic sa fe ty in dang erous pr ox imityto a fire , hazard or othe r eme rg ency ; or (3) Create s a hazardous or phy sically

offe nsive condition by

any act that se rves no leg itimate purpose. (b ) A p e rs on a lso vio la te s th is s e c tio n w ho make s u nr e a so na ble no ise wh ic h p re ve nts oth e rs fr om c arry ing on la wf ul a c tiv iti e s. (c) A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor. [Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.]

I n th is c a se , th e fr a min g of the ind ic tme nt, a ndthe jury ins truc tio ns , in dic a te that th e Sta te was prose cuting the def

endant on disorderly conduct for hi s “thre atening behavior .” Of fice r B aker
te sti fi e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt wa s lou d, be lli g e re nt, a nd ou t of c on tr ol a t the tim e of the a tte mpt e d f

ie ld sobriety tests. The office r also told a bout the defe ndant rolling on the g round as a n unschedule d and
unreque sted element of the sobriety testing. The office r said he found the defe ndant’s actions to be
t h re at en i n g.
Clay ton Wi lliams, the other Cowan office r, was prese nt at the traff ic stop and transporte d the de fe nd a nt t o th e ho sp ita l. He state d tha t the de fe nd a nt y e lle d, sc re a me d, a ndre fu se d to c oo pe rate dur in g th e s o b r ie ty

te s ts

. H e s a idth e d e f

e n d a n t f e lt h e w a s b e in g “ p ic k e d o n ” a n d r e s p o n d e d by asking if the off

icer s wanted him to “a ct like a monkey
, do back flips, r oll on the g round.” D uring the transport to the hospital, the defe ndant was not violent but w as loud and bellig ere nt acc ording to the office r. Will iams said he fe lt the defe ndant’s ac tions at the traff ic stop wer e threatening . He also witnessed the de fenda nt’s feig ned seizure outside the hospital.

C h r i s t y B r o w n , t h e c h ar g e n u r s e a tt h e h os pit a l, s t ated that the security g uard ha d to step be tw e e n th e de fe nd a nt andhe r b e c a us e the de fe nd a nt wa s bec omi ng “ ve ry a g g re ssi ve .” Th e se c ur ity
g uard, Joe Metca lf, said the defe ndant stood up and became “a littl e ag g ressive” and Metc alf steppe d betwee n the def

endant a nd the nurse.

None of the witnesses testify ing as to the defe ndant’s “thr eate ning” or “a g g ressive” behavior

make me nti on of a ny ve rb a l thr e a ts o r atte mpt s o f v iol e nc e on the de fe nd a nt’ s p art . T he re is n ot s o

muc h a s e ve n a

c le nc he d f

ist or a raise d h a ndme ntion ed in the ir te sti mon y . We are min df ul, ho we ve r, that the jury

ha d th e op po rtun ity

to v ie w the vid e o ta

ke n at th e tim e of

the so brie ty

te sts wh ic h may

ve ry we ll ha ve c on ve y e d mor e me na c e than the of fi c e rs ’ te sti mon y de mon str a te s. I t is also signif

icant t h at t h e security

g uard f elt it necessa

ry to shield the nurse a t the emer g ency room from the de fenda nt. For t h ese r easons, we conclude that a rational jury could find the de fenda nt-6-

g uilty of disorderly conduct by his thre atening behavior at either the scene of the arr est or at the ho sp ita l.

We a re mindful that this analy sis might raise inquiry reg arding the unanimity

of the jury ’s verdic t and whethe r the State wa s require d to make an elec tion of offenses. See Burlison v. State, 501 S.W .2d 801, 804 (Tenn. 1973) . Howeve r, the defe ndant’s issue conc erns only the suffic iency of the e vid e nc e

. Th e c los ing arg ume nts of c ou ns e l, a s we ll a s the vid e ota pe , w e re no t in c lud e d in the re cord. We a

re una ble to determine from the r ecor d whether or not “ plain err or” occur red due to any lack of a prope r ele ction of off

enses by the State.

The de fenda nt rec eived a

concur rent sente nce of ten wee kends and thirty day s probation for his c on vic tio n o f d iso rd e rl y c on du c t. T his of

fe ns e is d e sig nate d a s a

Cla ss C misdem e a no r i n Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-17-305. The ma x imum sentence f or a Class C misdemeanor is statutorilylimit ed to thirty day s. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(e)( 3). We there fore rema nd fo r m od if ic a tio n a nd c or

re c tio n of the jud g me nt to re fl e c t de le tio n o f the thi rt y da y s p ro batio n a s to the disorder ly

convict convic tion.

For the fore g oing rea sons, w e conc lude that the def endant ha s failed to prove the evidenc e was insuffic ient to support his convictions for DUI and disorder ly

conduct. W e therefor e af firm the convictions and re mand for c orre ction of the judg ment as to sentenc ing on the dis o rderly conduct conviction.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI LL I AMS, J UDGE