# FILED April 21, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FEBRUARY SESS ION, 1999 STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9804- CR-00133 ) Appellee, ) ) ) HAMILTON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. DOUGLAS A.MEYER MITC HEL L EDW ARD M INGIE ,) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (Direct Appeal -

DUI - Revoked ) License)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : CONRAD FINNE LL JOHN KNOX WALKUP P. O. Box 1476 Attorney Generaland Reporter Cleveland, TN 37364-1476 ELLEN H. POLLACK Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashvill e, TN 37243 BILL COX Distri ct Attor ney General PARKE MAS TERSON Assistant Distri ct Attor ney City and County

Courts Buil ding Chattanooga, TN 37402
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE1 The trial court also

revoked Appell ant’s dri ving privileges f

or three (3) years and i mposed a fine of $1,110 for

drivi ng under the i nfluence and $50 f or drivi ng on a revoked license. -2- 

## OPINION

The appel lant , Mi tche ll Edward Mi ngie, was convicted by a Hamilton Coun ty jury of

one (1) count of driv ing under the influence of an i ntoxican t, fifth offense. He also pled guil ty to one ( 1) count of driving on a rev oked license. The trialcourt sent enced Appellant to concurrent

terms of si x (6) months for driving
o n a r evoked license and eleven ( 11) months and twent y-nine (29) days for drivi ng underthe infl uence. 1 On appeal, Appell ant clai ms that the evidence was insuffici ent to sustain the jury’s verdict for driving u nder the influenc e. After a thorough review of the re cord b efore th is Cou rt, we aff ir m t he trial c ourt’s judgm ent.

I

Officer R agan M cDevitt with the Hamil ton County Sheri ff’s Depar tment testif ied as foll ows. At approx imately 9: 30 p.m. on Jun e 22, 1996, he was dispatched to the sce ne of a single moto r vehicle accident in Ha milton Cou nty, Tennessee. When McDevitt arri ved, other eme rgency perso nnel were presen t, and Appellant, his wife, and his f ifteen ( 15) year ol d niece, Jessic a Long, we re standing outside of

the vehicl e. When McDevitt inqui red as to how the accident
occur red, Appellant i nformed the off icer that he had lost cont rol of t he vehi cl e-3-

while maneuvering a curv e and tr aveling down a h ill. Appellant a dvised the officer thathe ha d bee n driving the veh icle an d did n ot have his drive r’s license. The ve hicl e involved in t he accident was a Toyota pickup with a bench seat. When McDevitt questione d the passengers as to t heir rel ative positions in the t ruck when the acci dent occurred, Cheryl Mingi e, Appellant’s wife, ad vise d the officer

that she had been sitting i n the middle of the seat. Jessi ca stated t hat she wa s sitting nex t to the pas senge r door. W hile investi gating the accident, the offi cer not iced that Appell ant was havin g difficu lty keepi ng his balance. McDevitt obs erved that Appellant had blood shot eyes a nd sm elled o f alcoh ol. Furth er, Mc Devitt n oticed that Ap pellan t’s speech was slow and he was un stable on his fe et. O fficer McDevitt ar rested Appellant

for dri ving under t he influence of an intoxicant and, while escor ting Appellant to the p olice car, had to “ho ld on to him to ke ep him from falling.” Subseq uently, Appellant signed an impli ed consent for m and acquiesced i n a breathaly

ser test. Appellant’ s blood alcoholcontent was found to b e 0.17
. At trial , Jessica Lon g testified on behalf of the defe nse. She stated t hat Cheryl Mi ngie, not Appellant, had been drivi ng the vehicl e at the ti me of the acciden t. Jessica testifi ed that, when Of ficer McDevi tt inqui red as to who was the driver of the ve hicle, A ppella nt resp onde d, “If I tell you I was d riving th is truck , will you let the ladies go?” On cross-examinat ion, however , Long acknowledged t hat she failed to advise anyon e that C heryl M ingie was the driv er of thevehicle until the day of tr ial, whi ch was approxim ately eighte en (18) m onths a fter the date of the incide nt. The jury

found A p pellan t guilt y of dri ving under t he influ ence of an intoxicant. The partiessubm itted the issu e wheth er App ellant was guilty of a fifth2 Because the only issue at t rial was whether Appellant was driving the veh icle at the ti me of the accident, Appellant

agreed to pl ead guilt y to dri ving on a rev

oked license if the jur y found hi m guilty

of drivi ng under the i nfluence. -4- offense to the trial court . The tri al court f ound Appellant t

o be a fift h offender of drivi ng under the in fluence. Appellant al so pled gui lty to drivi ng on a revoked license. 2 From his convi ction of drivi ng under the i nfluence, Appe llant brin gs this appe al.

II

In his sole i ssue on appeal, Appel lant chal lenges the suf ficiency o f the convicti ng eviden ce. Sp ecifica lly, he cla ims th at he c anno t be co nvicted solely
on the ba sis of his uncorro borated extra-judicia l confess ion. He further ar gues thatbecause Jessica Long was present at t he time ofthe accident , her test imony is more reliabl e than that of Officer McDevitt . Therefore, he contends that the jury should have afforded Long’s testimony greater weight than McDevitt’s. A. When an accused cha l lenges the su fficiency of the evidence , this Court must review t he record to determine if the evidence adduced during the t rial was suffic ient“to support

the findi ngs by the trierof fact o f guilt beyon d a rea sona ble doubt.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13( e). Thi s ru le is app licable to findin gs of g uilt predicated upon direct evidence, c ircumstanti al evidence or a combina ti on of direct and circums tantial evide nce. State v. Brewer , 932 S.W.2d 1, 19 (Tenn

. Crim. App . 1996). In determining the suffi ciency of the evidence, this Court does not rewei gh
or reeva luate the evide nce. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn.-5-

1978). Nor

ma y this Court

substit ute its inferences for those dr awn by the tr ier of fact fr

om circums tantial evide nce. Liakas v. S tate , 199 Tenn. 298, 305, 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (19 56). To the c ontrary, this C ourt is requ ired to afford the s tate the strongest

legiti mate view of t he evidence contained in the record as wel l as all reason able an d legitima te inferences which may be drawn from the ev idence. State v. Tuttle , 914 S.W.2d 926, 932 (T enn. C rim. App . 1995). “A guilty ver dict by the jury , approved by the tri al judge, accredits the test imony of the wit nesses for theState and resolves all conflic ts in favor of t he theory of the State.” State v. Grace , 493 S.W .2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 197 3). Because a v erdict of guil t removes the pr esumption of i nnocence and replaces it wit h a presumption of guilt, the accused has the burd en in this Court of illustr ating why the evidence is insuffi cient to support the verdict

returned by the trier of fact. State v. Tug gle , 639 S .W. 2d 913 , 914 (T enn. 19 82); State v. Grace , 493 S.W.2d at 476. B. Appellant

mainta ins that the sta te did not p resent su fficient eviden ce to corrobo rate his c onfess ion tha t he wa s the d river of th e vehic le. It is we ll establi shed that the corpus delicti of a cri me may not be proven by a defen dant’s extra-j udicial confess ion alone
. Ashby v. State , 124 Tenn. 684, 139 S. W. 872, 875 (1911). To establish t he corpus delicti of a crime, the state must prove two elements: (1) “[t]hat a ce rtain r esult hasbeen produced,” a nd (2) “[t]hat the res ult
was created throug h criminal age ncy.” State v. Ervin , 731 S.W.2d 7 0, 71-7 2 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). The elem ents of corpus delicti may be proven by circum stantial evid ence. Id. at 72.-6- In the case sub judice , Appellant informed the officer

that he was t he driver of the vehicle when the accident occurred. Thi s inculpatory statement was corroborated when the oth er pas seng ers of th e vehic le informe d Officer M cDevitt thatAppe llant’s w ife was sitting in the m iddle of the seat , and Jessica was by the passengerdoor. Ne ither Mrs. M ingie nor J essica c ontr adicted Appe llant’s statementthat he w as the dr iver of the ve hicle. Office r McDe vitt testif ied at trial thathe received “ no indicat ion” fr om the passengers t hat Appellant was not the driver of the vehi cle.
The question whet her the state has suffi cientl y proven the corpus delicti is
a question for the jury. Ervin , 7 31 S.W.2d at 71. Furt hermore, “[ o]nly sl ight evidence of the corpus delicti is necessary to corroborate a confession and t hus susta in a conviction.” Id. at 72. We conclude that the statepresented suffic ient corroborat ive evi dence to support Appellant’ s convict ion. This issu e is withou t merit. C. Appellant

further ass erts thatbecause Jessica was an eyewitness t o the incident, her testim ony des erves gre ater weig ht than tha t of Offic er McD evitt. H owever, it is beyond dispute th at ques tions con cerning the cred ibility of th e witnesses, the weight and value to be given the ev idence as wellas all factual issues raised by the evide nce are resolved by the jury as the trie r of fact. State
v. Tuttle , 914 S.W.2d at 932. The j ury was able to observe thedeme anor of b oth witne sses and assess thei r credibi lity accordingl y. Clearly, the j ury discr edi te d Long ’s testimon y. This Cou rt is not at libert y to overt urn the jur

y’s determination. This issu e has n o merit.-7--8- III

We con clude tha t the eviden ce is sufficie nt to supp ort Appe llant’ s convicti on for dri ving under t he influ ence of an intoxicant. Accor dingly, th e judgment of t he trialcourt is affirmed.

____________________________________ JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE

___________________________________ L. TE RRY LAF FERTY, SPECI AL JUDGE