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

Briefs A pril 30, 20 03

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CASEY C. BOYLAN
Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Cum berland County No. 6356 Lillie Ann Sells, Judge

No. E2002-01848-CCA-R3-CD May 19, 2003

A Cumberla

nd County

ju ry convict

ed the Defendant for possession of a handg un while under the influence, a C l ass A misdemeanor. On appeal, the Defenda nt challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Because we conclude that

the evidence is sufficient, we affirm the judgment of the tri al court

. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

R OBERT W. W EDEMEYER , J., delivered the opinion of the cou rt, in which D AVID H. W ELLES and J ERRY L. S MITH , JJ., joined.
Gregory D. Smith, Clarksville, Tennessee (on appeal); and Joe L. F inley, Jr., Cookeville, Tennessee for the appellant, Casey

C. Boylan.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral andReporter; Helena Walton Yarbrough, Assistant Attorney Genera l; William E. G

ibson, Dist

rict Attor ney Genera l; and Gary

S. McKenzie, Assistant District Attorney Gene

ral, for the appellee, State of Tennessee

.
OPINION

I. F acts

Tom Burdett testified that on April 22, 20 01, he was em ployed as a de puty with the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Depa rtment and was providing security at the C umberl and County Hospital. Deputy Bur

dett encountered

the Defendant when a member of the nur sing staff “hollered for [him] to come to the room in w h ich [the De fendant ] was pres ent due to

his behav

ior to try to calm him down.” Burdett rep orted tha t th e Defendant was sitting on a stretcher , and several members of the nur sing sta ff were attemptin g to rem

ove the D efenda

nt’s pant s i n order to

treat a lacerationon the Defendant’s lower leg. B urdett ob served a

lacera tion with so me “visibl e bone” on the Defend ant’s low er leg . Burde tt te stifie d that the

Defend ant’s de

meanor w as very

violent, comba tive, loud, and obnoxious. Burdett stated that the smell of alcohol filled the roo m, th e-2-

Defendant’s speech was slurred, and the Defendant’s ey

es were bloodshot. Burdett noted that he had training in recognizing persons that are under the influence of alcohol, and he op ined th at the Defendant was extremely intoxicated.
Deputy Burdet t testifie d that he o

bserved in the Defe

ndant’s r ight poc ket a wooden ha

ndle which appeared to be

the handgrip of a handgun. B urdett reported that he told a nurse to grab the handgun, and the nurse proceeded to take the g un from the Defendant. The nurse then ga ve the handgunto Burdett, and he secured it. Burdett identified the weapon as a .22 caliber handgun which containe d three live round s and two d ischarg ed round s. According to Burdett, the Defendant ex pl ained that his leg was cut when his riding lawn
mower flipped over on a steep hill, and his leg went under the mowing deck. Burdett testified that the Defendant said he crawled appr oximatel y 200 y ar ds to a neighbor’s house after the mowing accide nt, and the neighbor

then brought him to the hospital in Crossville. T he Defendant expla

ine d that the handgun was in his pocket for use ag ainst snakes, and that he had no intention to break the law. The Def

endant r eported that he wa s unsure a s to whethe r he eve n knew he

had the g un in his pocket pr ior to the l awn mowe

r accid ent.

II . Analy sis

The Defendant argues that the evide nce was insufficient to support his conviction. When an accused chal lenges th e suffic iency of the ev

idence, an appellate cou rt’s stan dard of r

eview is whether, after c onsideri ng the e vidence in the lig ht most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could hav e found th

e essent ial eleme nts of the crime bey ond a

reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13( e); Jackson v. V irginia , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979); Statev. Duncan , 698 S.W.2d 63, 67 (Tenn. 1985). This rule applies to findings of guilt based upon dire ct evidence, c irc umstantial evidence, or a comb ination of both dire ct an d circumstantial evidence. State v. Pe nderg rass , 13 S.W.3d 389, 392-93 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court should not re-weigh or

re-eva luate the evidence. State v. Matthews , 805 S.W.2d 776, 7 79 (Tenn . Crim. App . 1990). N or may this Courtsubstitute

its inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact from the evidence. Stat e v. Buggs , 995 S.W.2d 102, 1 05 (Tenn . 1999); Liak as v. State , 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Tenn. 1956)

. Questions concerning the cre dibility of the wit

nesses, t h e weight and

value of the evide

nce, as w ell as all factua l iss ues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact. Liakas , 286 S.W.2d at 859. This Court must afford the State of Tennessee the stronge st legitimate view of the evidence containedin the record, as well as all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. Statev. Evans , 838 S.W.2d 18 5, 191 (Te nn. 1992) . Beca

use a ver dict of g uilt aga inst a defendant
removes the presumption of innocence and rai s es a presumption of guilt, the convicted criminal defendant bears the burden of showin g that the eviden ce was le gally

insuffic ient to sust

ain a gu ilty verdict. Id.-3-

The Defendant was convicted of possession of a handgun

while und

er the in fluence , a Class A misdemeanor. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39 -17-1321. Possession of a handgun while under the influence occurs when a person posse sses a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1321. The trial court correctly instructed the jury that the offe nse could be committ

ed if the Defend ant acte d either

intentio na lly, knowingly , or recklessly. The

trial court also correctly

instructed the jury as to the meaning of actual

possession and constructive possession.

We conclude that sufficient evidence was pre sented for a rational jury to find

the Defendant guilty of possession of a

handgun while under the influence. De puty Burde

tt testified that he was trainedin reco gnizi ng p ersons who a re under the influence of alcohol. Bur dett testified that the Defendant

was viole

nt, comba

tive, loud , and obno xious. He furthe r testified that the smell of alcohol filled the room in which he encountered the Defendant. Burdett noted that the Defendant’s speechwas slurred, that his ey es were bloods hot, and th at he w as scre aming a nd hol lerin g. Concerning the Defendant’s speech, Burde tt stated that “it was mumbled, running together, he was just hollering nonstop somewhat.” Burdett testified that in his opinion, the Defendant was extre mely intoxicated. Burdett observed a handgun in the De fendant’s pocket during the Defendant’s apparent state of intoxication. The handgu n was adm

itted into e

vidence at trial, as was the

ammunition

with which the handg

un was loa

ded. The evidenc e was cle arly

su fficie nt to support the verdict of the jury.

Accord

ingly , we AFF

IRM the judgme

nt of the tr

ial cour t.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE