### IN THE CO URT OF APPEALS OF TE NNE SS EE
AT NASHVILL E Sep te m be r 19 , 20 12 Ses si on

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . ANTONIO FREEMAN

D i r e c t A p p e a l f

r o m t h e C r i m i n a l C o u r t f o r S u m n e r C o u n t y
N o

. 2 0 0 9

- C R

- 1 2 6 D e e D a v i d G a y , J u d g e

N o

. M 2 0 1 1

- 0 2 5 2 5

- C O A

- R 3

- C V

- F i l e d O c t o b e r 1 6
, 2 0 1 2

D e f e n d a n t / A p p e l l a n t w a s a r r e s t e d a n d c h a r g e d w i t h d r i v i n g u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e a n d v i o l a t i o n

o f t h e i m p l i e d c o n s e n t l a w

. A t t r i a l

, A p p e l l a n t a n d t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r g a v e c o n f

l i c t i n g

t e s t i m o n y a s t o w h e t h e r A p p e l l a n t r e f u s e d t o s u b m i t t o a b l o o d t e s t

. T h e j u r y a c q u i t t e d

A p p e l l a n t o f t h e d r i v i n g u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e c h a r g e , b u t t h e t r i a l c o u r t

, c r e d i t i n g t h e a r r e s t i n g

o f f i c e r ’ s t e s t i m o n y , f

o u n d t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t h a d v i o l a t e d th e im p lied co n sen t law

. O n

ap p eal, A p p ellan t arg u es th at th e trial co u rt erred in cred itin g th e testim o n y o f th e arrestin g

o f f icer d esp ite th e acq u ittal b y th e j u ry . D iscern in g n o erro r, w e af f irm

.

T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 3

. A p p e a l a s o f R i g h t ; J u d g m e n t o f t h e C r i m i n a l C o u r t A f f i r m e d

J

. S T E V E N S T A F F O R D
, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t

, i n w h i c h A LA N E

. H IG H E R S

, P

. J

. , W

. S

. , a n d D A V ID R

. F A R M E R
, J

. , j o i n e d

.

J a m e s B

. H a w k i n s , G a l l a t i n , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t

, A n t o n i o F r e e m a n

.

R o b e r t E

. C o o p e r , J r

. , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d R e p o r t e r a n d B r e n t C

. C h e r r y , S e n i o r C o u n s e l

, f o r a p p e l l e e , S t a t e o f T e n n e s s e e

.

O P I N I O N

I

. B a c k g r o u n d

O n S ep tem

b er 1 4

, 2 0 0 8

, D ef

en d an t/A p p ellan t A n to n io F reem an w as sto p p ed b y an 1

Mr

. Fre eman is al so ref

er re d to as Antwa n Fre eman thr oughout the pro cee din gs in the tr ia l cou rt

. 1 (c ont inu ed.. .)o f

f icer o f th e G allatin P o lice D ep artm en t o n su sp icio n o f D U I

. M r

. F reem an w as

su b seq u en tly ch arg ed w ith d riv in g u n d er th e in f lu en ce (“D U I”), T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated
S ectio n 5 5 -1 0 -4 0 1

, an d a v io latio n o f th e im p lied co n sen t law

, T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated
S ectio n 5 5 -1 0 -4 0 6

. O n F eb ru ary 5

, 2 0 0 9

, th e S u m n er C o u n ty G ran d Ju r y i n d i c t e d M r. F reem an f

o r b o th o f f en ses. M r. F reem an w as ap p o in ted co u n sel an d p led n o t g u ilty to b o th 2

ch arg es.

A j u ry trial w as h eld o n S ep tem b er 2 6 an d 2 7

, 2 0 1 1

. G allatin P o lice O f f icer D an iel
S teak in f irst testif ied

. O f f icer S teak in is a v eteran p o lice o f f icer w h o serv ed as a M arin e an d

w o rk ed at th e P en tag o n p rio r to m o v in g to T en n essee. O n ce O f f icer S teak in b ecam e a p o lice

o f f icer, h e atten d ed v ario u s D U I train in g p ro g ram s, an d h as w o rk ed o n o v er 2 0 0 D U I cases in h is career. Of

f icer S teak in testif

ied th at h e o b serv ed a b lack tru ck

, w h ich w as trav elin g

o n H ig h w ay 3 1 -E to w ard G allatin

, cro ss o v er th e cen ter lin e o f traf f ic. A cco rd in g ly

, O f

f icer
S teak in activ ated h is em erg en cy lig h ts, tu rn ed h is car aro u n d

, an d b eg an p u rsu in g th e tru ck

,

w h ich h e testif

ied ag ain cro ssed th e cen ter lin e b ef o re p u llin g o v er.

T h e tru ck p u lled o v er in a n earb y p ark in g lo t an d O f f icer S teak in ap p ro a c h e d t h e

v eh icle. O f

f icer S teak in testif

ied th at, u p o n ap p ro ach in g th e v eh icle, h e n o ticed th e o d o r o f
b u rn t m arij u an a em an atin g f ro m th e tru ck ’s o p en w in d o w

. O f f icer S teak in testif

ied th at h e ask ed th e d riv er, M r. F reem an , f o r h is d r i v e r ’ s licen se, reg istratio n , an d in su ran ce in f o rm atio n

. O f

f icer S teak in also ask e d M r. F reem an to step o u t o f th e tru ck an d M r. F reem an co o p erated

. O f

f icer S teak in f

u rth er testif

ied th at M r. F reem an w as u n stead y o n h is
f eet in g ettin g o u t o f th e car an d in f o rm ed th e o f

f icer th at h e h ad tak en m

u scle relax ers an d

p ain p ills b ecau se h e h ad recen tly h ad a to o th p u lled

.

O f f icer S teak in th en ask ed M r. F reem an to p erf o rm sev eral f

ield so b riety tests. T h e
tests in clu d ed a o n e-leg stan d an d a n in e-step w alk an d tu rn

. H o w ev er, O f f i c e r S t e a k in
testif ied th at M r. F reem an in f

o rm ed h im th at h e w o u ld h av e tro u b le co m p letin g th ese task s d u e to a p rio r in

j u ry to h is leg th at m ad e it d if f icu lt f o r h im to w alk

. In d eed

, M r. F reem an

co u ld n o t su ccessf

u lly p erf o rm eith er f

ield test. O f

f icer S teak in also testif

ied th at h e ask ed

M r. F reem a n t o p e r f

o rm a f in g er d ex terity test; h o w ev er, ag ain M r. F reem an p o in ted to a h an d /w rist in

j u ry (as ev id en ced b y a sp lin t o n h is h an d ) th at w o u ld p rev en t h im f ro m satisf acto rily co m

p letin g th e t a s k

. O f

f icer S teak in f

u rth er testif

ied th at, b ased o n M r.

(... con ti nue d) 1
However, in his app el la te bri ef

, Mr

. Fre eman re fe rs to himsel f as Anto nio Fre eman; the re for e, thi s Cour t wil l

re fe r t o M r. F re eman by the fi rs t n ame he ha s c hos en t o us e.

Acco rdi ng to Mr

. Fre eman’s bri ef

, over the thr ee years bet ween the a r r e s t a n d the tr ia l, sever al 2

app oin te d at tor neys ei the r wit hdr ew fr om the cas e or wer e dis cha rged by Mr

. Fre e ma n

. Mr

. Fre eman’s

cou nse l a t t ri al , howe ver, co nti nue s t o r epr ese nt him on ap pea l.

-2-F reem an ’s in ab ility to su ccessf u lly co m p lete an y o f th e f

ield so b riety tests, h is o b serv atio n

o f th e tru ck m o v in g o v er th e cen ter lin e o n th e street, M r. F reem an ’s slu rred sp eech

, an d th e

sm ell o f b u r n t ma r ij u an a, O f f icer S teak in b eliev ed th at M r. F reem an w as n o t cap ab le o f

p ro p erly o p eratin g a m o to r v eh icle. T h u s, O f f icer S teak in p laced M r. F reem an in th e b ack

o f h is p atro l car.

O f f icer S teak in w en t o n to testif y th at, af ter tw o o th er o f

f icers arriv ed o n th e scen e, th ey p ro ceed ed to search M r. F reem an ’s v eh icle. A cco rd in g to O f f icer S teak in

, th e o f

f icers
f o u n d a sm all m arij u an a cig arette in an em p ty carto n o f m ilk in th e cen ter co n so le o f th e
tru ck

. A lth o u g h O f

f icer S teak in n o ted th e m arij u an a ev id en ce o n h is rep o rt, h e ad m itted th at th e m arij u an a w as n o t reco v ered f ro m th e scen e. In stead

, th e m arij u an a cig arette w as lef t
in th e tru ck

, w h ich w as later d riv en h o m e b y M r

. F r e e ma n ’s g irlf rien d

. O f f icer S teak in

ex p lain ed th e o f

f icers’ f ailu re to reco v er th e m arij u an a b y statin g th at it w as n o t th eir u su al

p ro ced u re to reco v er su ch a sm all am o u n t o f m arij u an a, w h ich h e d escrib ed as a “ t r ace

am o u n t” an d “v ery sm all, v ery m in u te, v ery , v ery s ma l l

. ” O f f icer C h ris F o rd

, o n e o f th e

o f f icers w h o arriv ed o n th e scen e an d p erf o rm ed th e in v en to ry search o f th e car, later
testif ied th at th e m arij u an a cig arette w as ap p ro x im ately tw o in ch es lo n g , an d w eig h ed
b etw een tw o to tw o -an d -a-h alf g ram s. O f f icer S teak in also testif

ied th at a f

ield test h ad b een d o n e to co n f

irm th at th e su b stan ce reco v ered f ro m th e tru ck w as, in f act, m arij u a n a ; h o w ev er, ag ain th e test w as n o t p reserv ed f o r trial an d w as n o t p resen ted as ev id en ce.

O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , co u n sel f o r M r. F reem an q u estio n e d Offi c e r S teak in ab o u t th e

v id eo eq u ip m en t in stalled in h is p atro l car. O f f icer S teak in testif

ied th at th e v id eo eq u ip m en t activ ates o n ce h e tu rn s o n h is em erg en cy lig h ts an d th at it au to m atically reco rd s th e traf f ic

sto p

. H o w ev er, O f

f icer S teak in testif

ied th at th e d ig ital d ata card o n h is eq u ip m en t w as f u ll

o n th e n ig h t in q u estio n an d th at, as a resu lt, th e in cid en t w as n o t reco rd ed

. O f f icer S teak in
f u rth er ad m itted th at, in p rev io u s sw o rn testim o n y , h e h ad stated th at h e w as h ead in g b ack

to w ard th e p o lice statio n to d o w n lo ad th e d ata f ro m h is card

. H o w ev er, at trial, h e ad m itted
th at h e w as n o t h e a d in g to w ard th e p o lice statio n at th e tim e h e o b serv ed M r. F reem an ’s

v eh icle, b u t w as h ead in g in th e o p p o site d irectio n

. O f f icer S teak in f

u rth er ad m itted th at h e

n ev er in f o rm ed d isp atch th at h e w as en ro u te to t h e p o l ice statio n d u e to a f u ll d ata card ; h o w ev er O f

f icer S teak in testif

ied th at it w as n o t h i s u s u a l p r o ced u re to d o so

. O f f icer
S teak in also ad m itted o n cro ss ex am in atio n th at, o n th e sectio n o f H ig h w ay 3 1 -E w h ere M r. F reem an w as alleg ed to h av e cro ssed o v er th e cen ter lin e in to o n co m in g traf f ic, a co n crete b arrier ex isted in th e m id d l e o f t h e ro ad th at w o u ld h av e p rev en ted M r. F reem an f ro m

en terin g o n co m in g traf

f ic; O f f icer S teak in ex p lain ed

, h o w e v e r, th at h e o b serv ed M r. F reem an cro ss th e cen ter lin e o n p o rtio n s o f th e ro ad th at w ere lo cated b ef o re th e co n crete b arrier b eg an

.

F o r th e f irst tim e o n cro ss-ex am in atio n , O f f icer S teak i n a l s o t e stif

ied to M r.

-3-F reem an ’s alleg ed ref u sal to co n sen t to a b l o o d t e st to d eterm in e h is b lo o d alco h o l lev el.
O f f icer S teak in testif

ied th at, af

ter h e p laced M r. F re e ma n u n d er arrest, h e ask ed M r. F r e e m an to su b m it to a b lo o d test. O f f icer S teak in testif

ied th at h e co u ld n o t recall i f M r

. F reem an o f

f ered to p erf

o rm a B reath aly

zer test, b u t s t a t e d t h a t M r. F reem an ref u sed to

su b m it to a b lo o d test. A cco rd in g to O f f icer S teak in

, a b lo o d test, rath er th an a B reath aly zer, is th e u su al p ro ced u re o f th e G allatin P o lice D ep artm en t. O f f icer S teak in f

u rth er testif

ied o n red irect th at h e read M r. F reem an th e im p lied co n sen t f

o rm , w h ich states th at an in d iv id u al

m ay ref u se to su b m it to th e b lo o d test b u t m ay b e su b j ect to co n seq u en ces f

o r th at ref u sal,
in clu d in g b ein g ch arg ed w ith a v io latio n o f th e im p lied co n sen t law

. A cco rd in g to O f f icer
S teak in

, ev en af

ter b ein g in f

o rm ed o f th e co n seq u en ces o f h is ref u sal, M r. F reem an ref

u sed

to su b m it to th e b lo o d test an d also ref u sed to sig n th e f

o rm in d icatin g h is ref

u sal. A co p y

o f th e f o rm , n o tin g th at M r. F reem an ref u s ed to sig n , w as en tered in to ev id en ce. O f f icer
S teak in th en tran sp o rte d M r. F reem an to j ail. A f ter arriv in g at th e j ail, O f f ice S teak in
testif ied th at h e ag ain read th e im p lied co n sen t f

o rm to M r. F reem an ; h o w ev er, M r. F reem an

ag ain ref u sed to su b m it to th e test.

M r. F reem an n ex t testif

ied in h is o w n d ef

en se. S p ecif

ically

, h e testif

ied th at h e w as

n o t u n d er th e in f

lu en ce o f an y d ru g s o r a l c o h o l o n th e n ig h t in q u estio n

. In stead

, M r. F reem an testif

ied th at h e h ad p ick ed u p h is p assen g er in M u rf reesb o ro , d ro p p ed h is so n o f f

w ith h is m o th er, an d sto p p ed at K risp y C rem e an d B lo ck b u ster o n h is w ay b ack to h is

g irlf rien d ’s h o u se. H e f

u rth er testif

ied th at h e n ev er stated th at h e h ad tak en m u scle relax ers

o r p ain k illers d u e to a p u lled to o th

. M r. F reem an also d en ied th at h e o r h i s p a s s e n g er

sm o k ed an y m arij u an a o n th e n ig h t in q u estio n

. M r. F reem an f u rth er ex p lain ed th at h e d id

n o t v eer in to o n co m in g traf f ic, b u t m erely m o v ed h is tru ck slig h tly o v er th e lin e o f traf f ic
in o rd er to av o id a larg e S U V

. M r. F reem an also testif ied th at O f

f icer S teak in ask ed h im step

o u t o f h is v eh icle b ef

o re ask in g f

o r an y id en tif

icatio n

. A cco rd in g t o M r

. F reem an , w h en O f f icer S teak in ask ed M r. F reem an to p e r f o r m t h e f

ield so b riety tests, M r. F reem an

ex p lain e d h i s i n

j u ries an d in q u ired as to w h eth er h e co u ld sim p ly p erf o rm a B reath aly

zer
test. M r. F reem an f

u rth er testif

ied th at O f

f icer S teak in ask ed M r. F reem an to sit in th e b ack

o f th e p atro l car an d b eg an search in g h is tru ck b ef o re p lacin g h im u n d er arrest. M r. F reem an also testif ied th at, w h ile sittin g in th e p atro l car, h e co u ld clearly see an activ ated g reen lig h t, rath er th an a red lig h t, o n th e v id eo reco rd in g eq u i p men t, w h ich M r. F reem an testif ied

,

w ith o u t d isp u te, in d icated th at th e v id eo eq u ip m en t w as w o rk in g

. In ad d itio n , M r. F reem an

co u ld see th e scen e f

ro m a m o n ito r in sid e th e p atro l car. T h eref o re, M r. F reem an b eliev ed
th at th e v id eo reco rd in g eq u ip m en t w as in f act reco rd in g th e in cid en t. M r. F reem an f u rth er testif ied th at h e n ev er actu ally ref u sed to su b m it to a b lo o d test, b u t th at h e m erely req u ested (m o re th an o n ce) th at a B reath aly zer test b e u sed in stead

. M r. F reem an f in ally testif

ied th at

en ro u te to th e j ail, h e req u ested th at O f f icer S teak in tran sp o rt h im to th e h o sp ital to p erf o rm th e b lo o d test, b u t th at O f f icer S teak in ref

u sed

.

-4-M r. F reem an d id ad m it, h o w ev er, th at h e h ad p rev io u sly p lead ed g u ilty to T h ef t O v er $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 in co n n ectio n w ith a sto len v eh icle, P o ssessio n o f a S ch ed u le IV C o n tro lled
S u b stan ce, f

o r m arij u an a p o ssessio n , an d S ale o f a S ch ed u le II C o n t r o lled S u b stan ce, f o r sale o f co cain e. M r. F reem an d en ied h av in g co m m itted th e crim es, b u t ad m itted to p lead in g

g u ilty an d stated th at h e h ad b een released f ro m p riso n in 2 0 0 8

.

M r. F reem an ’s p assen g er, G ary P itts, also testif ied

. M r. P itts testif

ied th at h e w as n o t

p resen t w h en O f

f icer S treak in alleg ed ly read th e im p lied co n sen t f

o rm to M r

. F r e e ma n

. H o w ev er, M r. P itts testif ied th a t M r

. F r e e ma n w as n o t u n d er th e in f lu en ce o f d ru g s o r alco h o l o n th e n ig h t in q u estio n

. A s to th e alleg ed m arij u an a cig arette, M r. P itts testif ied th at
h e h ad b een sm o k in g a B l a ck an d M ild cig ar an d th at n o o n e in th e car h ad sm o k ed

m arij u an a. M r. P itts ad m itted

, h o w ev er, th at h e h ad p rev io u sly b een co n v icted o f f elo n y

assau lt an d A ttem

p ted A g g rav ated R o b b ery

. In d eed

, at th e tim e o f th e testim o n y , M r. P itts

w as in p o lice cu sto d y

o n an o th er ch arg e.

A t th e co n clu sio n o f th e testim o n y , th e j u ry retu rn ed a v erd ict o f N o t G u ilty as to th e ch arg e o f D U I. A f

ter th e j u ry w as p o lled an d ex cu sed

, h o w e v e r , t h e trial co u rt f o u n d th at
M r. F reem an h ad v io lated th e im p lied co n sen t law an d o rd ered th at h is licen ce b e rev o k ed
f o r a p erio d o f o n e (1 ) y ear. A j u d g m en t w as f iled ref lectin g th e trial co u rt’s f

in d in g o n O cto b er 5 , 2 0 1 1

.

O n N o v em

b er 4

, 2 0 1 1

, M r. F reem an , p ro se , f iled a m o tio n to rev erse th e j u d g m en t
f in d in g h im in v io latio n o f th e im p lied co n sen t law

. O n t h e sam e d ay , M r. F reem an ’s

co u n sel f iled a n o tice o f

ap p eal o f th e trial co u rt’s j u d g m en t. T h e C o u rt h eld a h earin g o n M r. F reem an s p ro se m o tio n o n N o v em b er 1 5

, 2 0 1 1

. A t th e h earin g , M r. F reem an ’s co u n sel

q u estio n ed w h eth er th e ap p eal o f M r. F reem an ’s im p lied co n sen t v io latio n w as crim in al o r civ il in n atu re, w h eth er it sh o u ld b e ap p ealed to th e C o u rt o f A p p eals o r C o u rt o f C rim in al

A p p eals an d w h eth er M r. F reema n w a s e n titled to ap p o in ted co u n sel o n ap p eal. T h e trial

co u rt o rally ru led th at th e m atter w as civ i l a n d t h a t M r. F reem an w as n o t en titled to

ap p o in ted co u n sel. O n N o v e mb e r 1 6

, 2 0 1 1

, th e trial co u rt sig n ed an o rd er d en y in g M r. 3 4

F reem an ’s m o tio n to rev erse th e j u d g m en t. 5

Des pit e t he t ri al cou rt ’s ru li ng, Mr . Fr eeman’s cou nse l c ont inu ed t o r epr ese nt him on ap pea l. 3

Alt hough the orde r was signed on Nov ember 15, 2011

, the ord er was not ent er ed unt il Dece m ber 4
15, 2011. However, the re cor d refl ect s that Mr . Fr eeman’s cou nse l a ppr oved th e or der fo r e ntr y and sen t a

cop y to t he S ta te on No vem ber 23, 2011

.

T he ord er al so not ed tha t Mr

. Fre eman was unde r a pre vious ord er of the cou rt not to m ake pro se 5

fi li ngs in the tr ia l cou rt

. T hus

, the cou rt sch edu le d a hea ri ng for cr iminal con te m pt to be hel d on Dece m

ber (c ont inu ed.. .)

-5-II. A n a ly sis

M r. F reem an raises a sin g le issu e o n ap p e a l

, tak en f ro m M r. F reem an ’s b rief : Wh eth er th e trial co u rt erred in f a ilin g to f

in d th at th e p rep o n d eran ce o f th e ev id en ce estab lish es an d su p p o rts th e cred ib ility o f M r. F reem an , w h o w as f o u n d n o t g u ilty o f D U I
b y a u n an im o u s j u ry

.

T h e im p lied co n sen t law p ro v id es, in relev an t p art:

(a)(1 ) A n y p ers o n w h o d riv es a m o to r v eh icle in th is state is
d eem ed to h av e g iv en co n sen t to a test o r tests f o r th e p u rp o se

o f d eterm in in g th e alco h o lic co n ten t o f th at p erso n 's b lo o d

, a
test o r tests f

o r th e p u rp o se o f d eterm in in g th e d ru g co n ten t o f
th e p erso n 's b lo o d

, o r b o th tests. H o w ev er, n o su ch test o r tests

m ay b e ad m in istered p u rsu an t to th is sectio n , u n less co n d u cted

at th e d irectio n o f a law en f o rcem en t o f

f icer h av in g reaso n ab le

g ro u n d s to b eliev e th e p erso n w as d riv in g w h ile u n d er th e in f lu en ce o f alco h o l, a d ru g , an y o t h er in to x ican t o r an y

co m b in atio n o f alco h o l, d ru g s, o r o th er in to x ic a nt s a s pr ohi bi ted
b y § 5 5 -1 0 -4 0 1

, . . .

* * *

(3 ) A n y law en f

o rcem en t o f

f icer w h o req u ests th at th e d riv er o f

a m o to r v eh icle su b m it to eith er o r b o th tests au th o rized

p u rsu an t to t h is sectio n , f o r th e p u rp o se o f d eterm in in g th e alco h o l o r d ru g co n ten t, o r b o th

, o f th e d riv er's b lo o d

, sh all,

p rio r to co n d u ctin g eith er test o r tests, ad v is e t h e d riv er th at ref u sal to su b m it to th e test o r tests w ill resu lt in th e su sp en sio n b y th e co u rt o f

th e d riv er's op erato r's license . . . ,

(... con ti nue d) 5
5, 2011

. No adj udi cat ion of thi s con te m pt pro cee din g i s con ta ine d in the re cor d. T he fa il ure t o adj udi cat e

a con te m pt pet it ion ar is ing afte r the ent ry of j udgm ent doe s not af fe ct the fi nal it y of a j udgm ent ent er ed by
the tr ia l cou rt

. See Pof

f v. Pof f

, No. 01- A- 01- 9301

- CV 0002 4, 1993 WL 7389 7 at *2 (T enn

. Ct. App. Ma rc h 17, 1993 ) (“ Cont empt pro cee din gs ar e col la te ra l to and ind epe nde nt of the cas es or pro cee din gs fr om whic h
the y ar is e.

. . . . [C] ont empt pro cee din gs t h a t a r i s e af te r j udgm ent has bee n ent er ed

. . . do not af fe ct the
fi nal it y of the j udgm ent .”)

. T hus

, des pit e the fa il ure to inc lud e any re cor d of the re sol uti on to the con te m pt

pro cee din g in the app el la te re cor d, thi s Cour t has j uri sdi ct ion to con si der thi s appea l. See T enn

. R. App. P. 3(a ).

-6-(4 )(A ) If su ch p erso n , h av in g b een p laced u n d er arrest an d th en h av in g b een req u ested b y a law en f o rcem en t o f

f icer t o su b m it

to eith er o r b o t h tests, an d h av in g b een ad v ised o f th e

co n seq u en ces f

o r ref u sin g to d o so , ref

u ses to su b m it, th e test o r
tests to w h ich th e p erso n ref u sed sh a l l n o t b e g iv en , an d th e

p erso n sh all b e ch arg ed w ith v io latin g th is su b sectio n (a).

T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 5 5 -1 0 -4 0 6

. V io latio n o f th e im p lied co n sen t law is n o t a crim in al o f f en se

u n less th e in d iv id u al w as d riv in g w h ile u n d er a rev o k ed o r su sp en d ed licen se d u e to a p rio r D U I co n v ictio n o r o th er en u m erated o f f en se. S ee T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 5 5 -1 0 -4 0 6 (a)(4 )– (5 ).

A co n v ictio n u n d er th e im p lied co n sen t law resu lts in a licen se r e v o c a t i o n f o r a p erio d o f

o n e y ear. T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 5 5 -1 0 -4 0 6 (a)(4 )(A )(i). T h e d eterm in atio n o f w h eth er a d riv er

v io lated th e im

p lied co n sen t law “sh all b e m ad e at th e sam e tim e an d b y th e sam e co u rt as th e o n e d isp o sin g o f th e o f f en se f o r w h ich su ch d riv er w as p laced u n d er arrest.” T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 5 5 -1 0 -4 0 6 (a)(3 ); see a lso S ta te v. M a cK in n o n , N o

. E 2 0 0 9

– 0 0 0 9 3

– C C A

– R 3 -C D

, 2 0 1 1 WL 1 4 6 0 1 6 7

, at * 2 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. M arch 3 0

, 2 0 1 1 ) (n o p erm

. ap p

. f iled ) (h o ld in g th at th e trial j u d g e, rath er th an th e j u ry , m ak es th e d eterm in atio n o f w h eth er th e d ef en d an t

v io lated th e im

p lied co n sen t law ). In th is case , t h e t r i a l co u rt f o u n d th at M r. F reem an

v io lated th e im

p lied co n sen t law af

ter th e j u ry h ad retu rn e d a v e r d i c t o f n o t g u ilty o n th e D U I c h a r g e

. T h u s, th e trial co u rt’s ru lin g w as in th e n atu re o f a b en ch trial. In ad d itio n , b e cau se M r. F reem an w as n o t d riv in g o n a rev o k ed o r su sp en d ed licen se at th e time

, t h e

p en alty f o r v io latio n o f th e im

p lied co n sen t law w as civ il in n atu re, i.e. an ad m in istrativ e

p en alty

, rath er th an a crim in al san ctio n

. S ee S ta te v. P in ch a k

, 2 7 7 S .W.3 d 9 1 2 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. 2 0 0 5 ) (n o tin g t h a t “th e d ef en d an t's v io latio n o f th e im p lied co n sen t law

. . . is n o t a crim in al o f

f en se; it is a civ il o f

f en se im p o sin g an ‘ad m in istrativ e p en alty .’”). B ecau se th is
case is in th e n atu re o f a civ il actio n , th is ap p eal is p ro p erly b ef o re th is C o u rt. S

ee S ta te v.
H em b ro o k

, N o

. M 2 0 1 1 -0 1 3 5 8 -C O A -R 3 -C V

, 2 0 1 2 WL 3 1 1 5 2 0 8

, at * 1 n .4 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. Ju ly 3 1 , 2 0 1 2 ).

U su ally b en ch trials in civ il cases are su b j ect to th e req u irem en ts o f R u le 5 2 .0 1 o f th e T en n essee R

u les o f C iv il P ro ced u re. R u le 5 2 .0 1 states th at: “ I n a l l a c t i o n s t r i e d u p o n t h e f a c t s w i t h o u t a j u r y , t h e c o u r t s h a l l f i n d t h e f a c t s s p e c i a l l y a n d s h a l l s t a t e s e p a r a t e l y i t s

c o n c l u s i o n s o f

l a w a n d d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e j u d g m e n t

. ” T h e T en n essee R u les

o f C iv il P ro c e d u re f

u rth er p ro v id e th at th e R u les sh all ap p ly “in th e circu it o r ch an cery

co u rts in all civ il actio n s, w h eth er at law o r in eq u ity

, an d in all o th er co u rts w h ile ex ercisin g th e civ il j u risd ictio n o f th e circu it o r ch an cery co u rts.” T en n

. R

. C iv

. P

. 1

. T h e C o u rt in th is

case is ex ercisin g civ il j u risd ictio n b y ad j u d icatin g th e v io latio n o f an ad m in istrativ e ru le.

T h u s, w e are o f th e o p in io n th at th e R u les o f C iv il P ro ced u re sh o u ld ap p ly in th i s c a s e

. I n d eed

, th e C o u rt o f C rim in al A p p eals h as p rev io u sly h eld th at v io latio n o f th e i mp l i e d

co n sen t law

, b ein g a civ il m atter, is g o v ern ed b y th e T en n essee R u les o f C i v il P ro ced u re.

-7-S

ee S ta te v. T ra vis

, N o

. W2 0 0 4 -0 0 4 7 6 -C C A -R 3 -C D

, 2 0 0 5 WL 7 1 1 9 4 7

, at * 3 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. M arch 2 8

, 2 0 0 5 ) (citin g T en n

. O p

. A tty

. G en

. N o

. 9 5 -0 7 7 (1 9 9 5 )). A cco rd in g ly

, th e trial co u rt, in f

in d in g M r. F reem an in v io latio n o f th e im p lied co n sen t law

, w as req u ired to set f o rth sp ecif

ic f in d in g s o f

f act an d co n clu sio n s o f

law w ith reg ard to its ru lin g

.

T h e o rd er in th is case f

in d in g M r. F reem an in v io latio n o f t h e im p lied co n sen t law
is co n tain ed in a f

o rm f ash io n ed f

o r crim in al actio n s. T h u s, it in clu d es n o f in d in g s o f f

act

o r co n clu sio n s o f law su f f icien t to satisf

y R u le 5 2 .0 1

. In ad d itio n , th e trial co u rt’s o ral

statem en ts at th e co n clu sio n o f th e tria l a r e lik ew ise in su f f icien t to af

f o rd m ean in g f

u l

ap p ellate rev iew o f th e ru lin g

. T h is C o u rt h as p rev io u sly h eld th at th e G en eral A ssem b ly ’s
d ecisio n to req u ire f

in d in g s o f f

act an d co n clu sio n s o f

law is “n o t a m ere tech n icality .” In

re K .H

. , N o

. W2 0 0 8 -0 1 1 4 4 -C O A -R 3 -P T

, 2 0 0 9 WL 1 3 6 2 3 1 4

, at * 8 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. M ay 1 5

, 2 0 0 9 ). In stead

, th e req u irem en t serv es th e im p o rtan t p u rp o se o f “f

acilitat[ in g ] ap p ellate

rev iew an d p ro m o t[ in g ] th e j u st an d sp eed y reso lu tio n o f ap p eals.” Id

. ; W h ite v. M o o d y , 1 7 1
S .W.3 d 1 8 7

, 1 9 1 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 2 0 0 4 ); B ru ce v. B ru ce , 8 0 1 S .W.2 d 1 0 2

, 1 0 4 (T en n

. C t.
A p p

. 1 9 9 0 ). With o u t f

in d in g s o f f

act an d co n clu sio n s o f law “th is co u rt is le f t to w o n d er

o n w h at b asis th e co u rt reach ed its u ltim ate d ecisio n .” In re K .H

. , 2 0 0 9 WL 1 3 6 2 3 1 4

, at * 8 (q u o tin g In re M

.E .W

. , N o

. M 2 0 0 3 -0 1 7 3 9 -C O A -R 3 -P T

, 2 0 0 4 WL 8 6 5 8 4 0

, at * 1 9 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. A p ril 2 1

, 2 0 0 4 )). H o w ev er, at a later h earin g in w h ich th e trial co u rt ru led th at th e im p lied co n sen t v io latio n w as civ il in n atu re rath er th an crim in al, th e trial co u rt, ap p aren tly

aw are o f th e civ il ru les req u irin g f in d in g s o f f

a c t a n d co n clu sio n s o f law in b en ch trials,

en d eav o red to p lace h is reaso n in g o n th e reco rd . T h e trial co u rt stated :

I f in d th at th is is n o t a crim in al m atter. If [ M r. F reem an ]

w a n ts to p u rsu e [ an ap p eal] o n h is o w n h e m ay , b u t I d o n ’ t th in k it’s ap p ro p riate f

o r y o u to sp en d tim e as h is ap p o in ted

atto rn ey in a crim in al case o n a civ il ap p eal. T h at is th e ru lin g

. L et m e state th is, if th ere is an ap p eal th at’s g o in g to b e

m ad e h ere, th e C o u rt m ad e th is f in d in g af ter th e j u ry

trial. I’m

n o t g o in g to g o o v er all th e p ro o f

, b u t I w a n t t h e r eco rd to

p reserv e th is asp ect o f m y ru lin g to d ay , . . . I w an t th is set ap art
f o r a n y p u rp o ses o f ap p eal so an y rev iew in g co u rt th at ’ s

rev iew in g

. . . m y f

in d in g th at [ M r. F reem an ] ref u sed co n sen t to

t a k e a b lo o d test h ere. I w an t th is to g o u p w ith an y o f t h e s e d o cu m en ts f

ro m th is C o u rt.
N o w , w h ile I’m o n th e su b j ect, let m e elab o rate o n th at.
T h ere w ere tw o w itn esses th at w ere called at trial th a t p u t th is
issu e in a p ersp ectiv e. It [ sic] w as O f f icer D an iel S teak in . T h e

reco rd ref lects th at h e w as a G al l a t in P o lice O f f icer. H e w as a

m arin e f ro m 1 9 9 7 to 2 0 0 1

. A t 9 /1 1 /2 0 0 1

, h e w as in th e

-8-P en tag o n b u ild i n g

. H e w as an o f f icer w ith M t. Ju liet P o lice

D ep artm en t. H e w as h ired b y th e G allatin P o lice D ep artm en t.
H e’s h ad train in g , D U I, an d h e’s b een to th e D U I In stru ctio n S ch o o l. H is testim o n y w as af ter th e arrest, [ M r. F reem an ] w as read th e Im

p lied C o n sen t L aw , an d h e ref u sed a b lo o d test. [ M r. F reem an ] stated h e d id n ’t w an t to tak e a b lo o d test, I h av e [ th e

u n sig n ed Im

p lied C o n sen t f

o rm ] h ere to m ak e an ex h ib it to th is

p articu lar ru lin g w h ere [ M r. F reem an ] ref u sed to sig n

. I also co n sid ered th e c o n trary testim o n y o f [ M r. F r e e m an ]

. B u t I g o f

u rth er to state th at O f

f icer S teak i n w a s f u rth er ask ed ab o u t th e Im p lied C o n sen t F o rm , an d h e stated h e read th e Im

p lied C o n sen t F o rm to [ M r. F reem an ] tw o tim es, an d
h e ref u sed to sig n

. I c o n sid ered th e cred ib ility o f [ M r. F reem an ]

. I h av e t o

w eig h th at cred ib ility in m ak in g a ru lin g o f t h is ty p e. I d o n ’t
f in d [ M r. F reem an ] to b e cred ib le o n th is p articu lar p o in t, an d
th e reco rd sh o u ld ref

lect th at. [ M r. F reem an ] is a c o n v icted
f elo n , an d h e w as co n v icted o f T h ef t o v er $ 1 0 ,0 0 0

, P o ssessio n

o f M ari j u a n a f o r R es[ ale]

, an d S [ ale] o f [ a] S ch ed u le II [ C o n tro lled S u b s tan ce]

. H e testif ied th at at n o tim e d id th e

o f f icer ask h im to tak e a b lo o d test, th at th e o f f icer w as ask ed
b y [ M r. F reem an ]

. . . to tak e th e test, th e o f f icer w o u ld n o t g iv e h im a b lo o d test.
I f in d t h at O f

f icer’s S teak in ’s testim o n y is cred ib le
testim o n y

. I f

in d th at [ M r

. F reem an ] ’s testim o n y is n o t b eliev ab le o n th at issu e. N o w , sin ce th is is a civ il m atter w e’re no t talk in g ab o u t b ey o n d a reaso n ab le d o u b t. I f in d th e p r o o f i s clear an d

co n v in cin g th at [ M r. F reem an ] ref u sed th e co n sen t an d ref

u sed

to tak e a b lo o d test, an d h e ref u sed to sig n th e Im

p lied C o n sen t
F o rm

. T h at w ill b e th e o r d e r o f t h e C o u rt.

. . . [ A ] ttach th at as

a p art o f m y ru lin g o n th is p articu lar issu e.

Wh ile w e n o te th at th e b etter p ractice is to set f o rth f in d in g s o f f

act an d co n clu sio n s

o f law in a w ritten o rd er, th e q u estio n o f w h eth er R u le 5 2 .0 1 o f th e T en n essee R u les o f C iv il

P r o c e d u r e ap p lies in im

p lied co n sen t cases h as n o t b een p resen ted b ef o re. H ere, th e tri a l

co u rt d irected its o ral ru lin g b e in clu d ed in th e ap p ellate reco rd in an ef f o rt to e x p l a i n its

reaso n in g in f

in d in g t h a t M r

. F reem an v io lated th e im p lied co n sen t law

. T h is C o u rt h as

p rev io u sly

h eld th at w e m ay “so ld ier o n ” to co n sid er th e issu es raised o n ap p eal w h e n t h e

c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i s “ r e a d i l y a s c e r t a i n [ a b l e ]

. ” B u r g e s s v

. K o n e , I

n c

. , N o

.

-9-M 2 0 0 7

– 0 2 5 9

– C O A

– R 3

– C V

, 2 0 0 8 W L 2 7 9 6 4 0 9

, a t * 2 ( T e n n

. C t

. A p p

. J u l y 1 8

, 2 0 0 8 )

. T h e

o ral ru lin g sets f

o rth ap p ro p riate f

in d in g s o f f

act an d co n clu sio n s o f law th at d etail th e trial

co u rt’s rea s o n i n g

. T h eref o re, w e co n clu d e th at th e o ral ru lin g is su f f icien t to af

f o rd

m ean in g f u l ap p ellate rev iew in th is case. S ee In re K

.H

. , 2 0 0 9 WL 1 3 6 2 3 1 4 , at * 8

.

We n ex t co n sid er th e su b stan tiv e arg u m en t raised b y M r. F reem an

. E ssen tially

, M r. F reem an arg u es th at th e trial co u rt erred in cred itin g th e testim o n y o f O f f icer S teak in o v er M r. F reem an ’s testim o n y w h en th e j u ry acq u itted M r. F reem an o f th e D U I ch arg e. M r. F reem an arg u es th at th e acq u ittal “m ay p ro p erly [ b e] said to d iscred it th e testim o n y o f th e

w itn esses f

o r th e S tate, a n d ma y p r o p erly b e said to reso lv e all co n f licts in f av o r o f th e th eo r y o f th e d ef

en se.” M r. F reem an also arg u es th at “[ w ] h en an accu sed ch allen g es th e

su f f icien cy o f th e ev id en ce, th is C o u rt’s stan d ard o f rev iew is w h eth er, af ter co n sid erin g th e

ev id en ce in th e lig h t m o st f av o rab le to th e S tate, ‘an y ratio n al trier o f f act co u ld h av e f

o u n d
th e essen tial elem en ts o f th e crim e b ey o n d a reaso n ab le d o u b t.’” R esp ectf u lly

, w e d isag ree.

A s d iscu ssed ab o v e, th is is a civ il actio n rev iew in g th e trial co u rt’s d ecisio n to im p o se

an ad m in istrativ e p en alty

. T h eref o re, th e S tate’s b u rd en o f p ro o f in th e tri a l c o u r t w as to sh o w th at M r. F reem an v io lated th e im p lied co n sen t law b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f th e ev id en ce,

r a t h e r t h a n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

. S e e S t a t e v

. A l b r i g h t

, N o

. E 2 0 0 7 -0 2 6 7 1 -C C A -R 3 -C D

, 2 0 0 8 WL 5 1 3 0 6 9 1

, a t * 6 & n .2 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. D ec. 8

, 2 0 0 8 ) (n o tin g th at th e p ro p er stan d ard o f p ro o f is a p rep o n d eran ce o f

th e ev id en ce).

In ad d itio n , th e d eterm in atio n o f w h eth er M r. F reem an v io lated th e im p lied co n sen t law w as p ro p erly m ad e b y th e trial co u rt rath er th an th e j u ry

. S ee S ta te v. M a cK in n o n , N o

. E 2 0 0 9

– 0 0 0 9 3

– C C A

– R 3 -C D

, 2 0 1 1 WL 1 4 6 0 1 6 7

, at * 2 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. M arch 3 0

, 2 0 1 1 ) (n o p erm

. ap p

. f

il e d ) ( “ T h e C o d e g iv es to th e trial co u rt, n o t a j u ry , th e au th o rity f o r de t e r m i ni ng whe t

h er th e n o n crim in al im

p lied co n sen t law w as v io lated .”). B e c a u s e t h i s i s s u e

w a s t r i e d b y t h e c o u r t

, s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y , t h i s C o u r t c o n d u c t s a d e n o v o r e v i e w o f t h e t r i a l

c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s a s t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t

,

u n l e s s t h e e v i d e n c e p r e p o n d e r a t e s a g a i n s t t h o s e f i n d i n g s

. W

o o d v

. S t a r k o , 1 9 7 S

. W

. 3 d 2 5 5

, 2 5 7 ( T e n n

. C t

. A p p

. 2 0 0 6 )

. F o r t h e e v i d e n c e t o p r e p o n d e r a t e a g a i n s t a t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g

o f f a c t

, i t m u s t s u p p o r t a n o t h e r f i n d i n g o f f

a c t w i t h g r e a t e r c o n v i n c i n g e f f e c t

. W a l k e r v

. S i d n e y G i l r e a th & A s s o c s

. , 4 0 S

. W

. 3 d 6 6

, 7 1 ( T e n n

. C t

. A p p

. 2 0 0 0 ) ; T h e R e a l t y S h o p , I n c

.

v

. R

. R

. W

e s t m i n s t e r H o l d i n g , I

n c

. , 7 S

. W

. 3 d 5 8 1

, 5 9 6 ( T e n n

. C t

. A p p

. 1 9 9 9 )

. T h i s C o u r t

r e v i e w s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e s o l u t i o n o f l e g a l i s s u e s w i t h o u t a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s

. J o h n s o n v

. J

o h n s o n , 3 7 S

. W

. 3 d 8 9 2

, 8 9 4 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 1 )

.

In th is c a s e , t h e trial co u rt’s ru lin g p rim arily rested o n th e cred ib ility o f O f f icer
S teak in an d M r. F reem an ’s lac k o f c r e d i b ility

. M r. F reem an arg u es th at th is w as in erro r b ecau se th e j u ry ’s v erd ict o f n o t g u ilty im p lied ly c red ited th e testim o n y o f th e d ef en se

-10-w itn esses, in clu d in g M r. F reem an

. We ag ain resp ectf u lly d isag ree. T h e f

a c t t h at th e j u ry f ailed to f in d th at th e S tate h ad p ro v en th at M r. F reem an co m m itted th e o f

f en se o f D U I
b ey o n d a reaso n ab le d o u b t is a d eterm in atio n sep arate an d d istin ct f ro m w h eth er th e S tate

p ro v ed th at M r. F reem an v io lated th e im p lied co n s e n t l a w b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f th e

ev id en ce.

In o u r v iew

, th is case rests o n th e relativ e cred ib ility o f O f f icer S teak in an d M r. F reem an

. In d eed

, th e o n ly ev id en ce reg ard in g w h eth er M r. F reem an w as ask ed an d ref u sed

to su b m it to a b lo o d test is th e co n f lictin g testim o n y o f M r. F reem an an d O f f i c e r S teak in

. S im p ly p u t, O f

f icer S teak in testif

ied th at h e ask ed M r. F reem an to su b m it to a b lo o d test an d

, d esp ite tellin g h im th e co n seq u en ces o f ref u sin g , M r. F reem an r ef

u sed to co n sen t. In

co n trast, M r. F reem an testif ied th at h e w as n ev er ask ed to su b m it to a b l o o d test, an d th at
h e ev en u n su ccessf

u lly req u ested th at O f

f icer S teak in tak e h im to th e h o sp ital so th at a b lo o d

test co u ld b e p erf

o rm ed

. T h e trial co u rt ex p ressly stated th at O f f icer’s S teak in ’s testim o n y

o n th is issu e is “cred ib le testim o n y ,” in co n trast to M r. F reem an ’s testim o n y , w h ich th e trial

co u rt v iew ed as “n o t b eliev ab le.” W h e n t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e i s s u e s i n a c a s e d e p e n d s u p o n

t h e t r u t h f u l n e s s o f w i t n e s s e s , t h e t r i a l j u d g e w h o h a s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e t h e m a n n e r

a n d d e m e a n o r o f t h e w i t n e s s e s w h i l e t e s t i f y i n g i s i n a f

a r b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t h a n t h i s C o u r t t o d e c i d e t h o s e i s s u e s

. I

n r e A r t e r i a H

. , 3 2 6 S

. W

. 3 d 1 6 7

, 1 7 6 ( T e n n

. C t

. A p p

. 2 0 1 0 ) ( c i t i n g
M c C a l e b v

. S a t u r n C o r p

. , 9 1 0 S

. W

. 2 d 4 1 2

, 4 1 5 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 5 ) )

. I f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s f a c t u a l

d e t e r m i n a t i o n s a r e b a s e d o n i t s a s s e s s m e n t o f w i t n e s s c r e d i b i l i t y , t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t

r e e v a l u a t e t h a t a s s e s s m e n t a b s e n t c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y

. ” F r a n k l i n C o u n t y B d

. O f E d u c

. v

. C r a b t r e e , 3 3 7 S

. W

. 3 d 8 0 8

, 8 1 1 ( T e n n

. C t

. A p p

. 2 0 1 0 ) ( c i t i n g J o n e s

v

. G a r r e t t

, 9 2 S

. W

. 3 d 8 3 5

, 8 3 8 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 2 ) )

.

M r. F reem an ’s b rief p o in ts to sev eral f acts, w h ich h e arg u es u n d erm in e O f f icer
S teak in ’s cred ib ility

. T h ese in clu d e: (1 ) O f f icer S teak in ’s p rio r statem en t th at h e w as
retu rn in g to th e p o lice statio n to em p ty h is v id eo d ata card

, w h en h e w as in f act h ead in g in
th e o p p o site d irectio n ; (2 ) O f f icer S teak i n ’ s f

ailu re to p reserv e an y ev id en ce o f th e

m arij u an a alleg ed ly f

o u n d in th e tru ck ; (3 ) O f f icer S teak in ’s sta t e m en t th at th e m arij u an a f o u n d w as “v ery v ery little,” w h ile an o th er o f f icer d escrib ed it as tw o t o t w o -an d -a-h alf

g ram s; (4 ) O f

f icer S teak in ’s f

ailu re to p reserv e th e f

ield test p ro v in g th e su b stan ce f o u n d in
th e tru ck w as m arij u an a; (5 ) O f f icer S teak in ’s statem en t th at h e o b serv ed M r. F reem an ’s

tru ck cro ss th e cen ter lin e m o re th an o n ce, w h en at least p art o f th e ro ad w as d iv id ed b y

a

cem en t b arrier; an d (6 ) O f f icer S teak in ’s statem en t th at th e v id eo d ev ice d id n o t reco rd th e in cid en t d u e to a f

u ll d ata card ev en th o u g h M r. F reem an testif ied th at h e saw a g reen lig h t
in d icatin g th at th e eq u ip m en t w as w o rk in g p ro p erly

. Wh ile w e ag ree th at so m e o f th ese f acts call in to q u estio n O f

f icer S teak in ’s cred ib ility

, o th er f acts in th e reco rd g iv e w eig h t to h is
testim o n y , in clu d in g h is lo n g p o lice an d m ilitary serv ice an d D U I train in g

. In ad d itio n , o th er f acts in th e reco rd w eig h ag ain st M r. F reem an ’s cred ib ility

, in clu d in g h is f elo n y co n v ictio n s

-11-f

o r th ef t an d p o ssessio n an d s a l e o f d ru g s. T h u s, th ere is ev id en ce in th e reco rd th at b o th

su p p o rts an d u n d erm in es th e trial co u rt’s cred ib ility f in d in g s. T h i s C o u rt, h o w ev er, is n o t

p erm itted to re-w eig h th e cred ib ility o f th e w itn esses an d co m e to o u r o w n co n clu sio n

. S ee
C r a b tr e e , 3 3 7 S

. W

. 3 d a t 8 1 1

. M r. F reem an p o in ts to n o f acts in th e reco rd f

ro m w h ich w e

can co n clu d e th at th e trial sh o u ld h av e g iv en g reater w eig h t to M r. F reem an ’s testim o n y

. F ro m o u r rev iew o f th e ev id en ce, M r. F reem an h as f a i l e d t o s u b m it clear an d co n v in cin g

ev id en ce th at th e trial co u rt’s cred ib ility d eterm in atio n s are erro n eo u s.

In th e arg u m en t sectio n o f h is b rief

, M r. F reem an f

u rth er arg u es th at th e S tate f ailed

to sh o w th at O f

f icer S teak in h ad “reaso n ab le g ro u n d s” to b eliev e th at M r. F r e e ma n w as in to x icated in o rd er to j u stif y th e req u ested b lo o d test. A s th e S tate p o in ts o u t, h o w ev er, th e C o u rt o f C rim in als A p p eals h as stated th at “reaso n ab le g ro u n d s” is “n o t an elem en t o f th e

o f f en se” o f v io latio n o f th e im p lied co n s e n t l a w

. S t a t e v

. P ra ter

, N o

. M 2 0 0 9 -0 0 5 2 7 -C C A -R 3 -C D

, 2 0 1 0 WL 4 6 7 4 2 8 8

, at * 4 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. N o v

. 1 6

, 2 0 1 0 ).

In stead , th e C o u rt o f

C rim in al A p p eals h as stated th at:

In th is case, to su p p o rt a co n v ictio n f o r v io latio n o f th e im

p lied

co n sen t law

, th e S tate m u st h av e p ro v en th e ex isten ce o f th e f o l l o w in g essen tial elem en ts: (1 ) th at th e d ef en d an t h ad b ee n d riv in g a m o to r v eh icle in th is state; (2 ) th at th e d ef en d an t h ad
b een p laced u n d er arrest an d h ad b een re q u ested b y a law

en f o rcem en t o f

f icer to su b m it to a test f o r th e p u rp o se o f
d eterm in in g th e alco h o l a n d / o r d ru g co n ten t o f h is b lo o d ; (3 )
th at th e d ef

en d an t h ad b een ad v ised th at ref u sal to su b m it to th e

t e s t o r tests w ill resu lt in th e su sp en sio n b y th e co u rt o f th e d riv er's o p erato r's licen se; an d (4 ) th at th e d ef en d an t ref u sed to

su b m it to su ch test o r tests.

P ra ter

, 2 0 1 0 WL 4 6 7 4 2 8 8

, at * 4 (citin g T en n e s s e e P attern Ju ry In stru ctio n s-C rim in al §
3 8 .1 7 (d ef

in in g th e o f

f en se o f r e f

u s a l to su b m it to a test w h ile d riv in g o n can celled

,
su sp en d ed

, o r rev o k ed licen se)). R eg ard less, M r. F reem an d id n o t raise th e S tate’s f ailu re
to p ro v e “reaso n ab le g ro u n d s” as an issu e in th e statem en t o f th e issu es sectio n o f h is b rief

. T h eref o re th e issu e is w ai v e d

. S ee C h ild ress v. U n io n R ea lty C

o

. , 9 7 S .W.3 d 5 7 3

, 5 7 8 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 2 0 0 2 ) (“G en erally

, an issu e arg u ed in th e b o d y o f th e b r i e f

, b u t n o t d esig n ated as an issu e w ill b e co n sid ered w aiv ed ”).

F in ally

, w e co n sid er w h eth er th e S tate h as sh o w n , b y a p rep o n d er a n c e o f th e

ev id en ce, th at M r. F reem an v io lated th e im p lied co n sen t law

. A s d iscu ssed ab o v e, b ecau se M r. F reem a n f

ailed to sh o w clear an d co n v in cin g ev id en ce to th e co n trary

, w e are

co n strain ed b y th e trial co u rt’s c r e d i b i lity f in d in g s. C o n seq u en tly

, w e m u st cred it th e

-12-testim o n y

o f O f f icer S teak in o v er th e co n trary testim o n y o f M r. F reem an . It is u n d isp u ted
th at M r. F reem an w as d riv in g th e tru ck o n H ig h w ay

3 1 -E in G allatin , T en n essee w h en h e

w as sto p p ed b y O f

f icer S teak in

. A cco rd in g to O f f icer S teak in ’s t e s t i mo n y , h e tw ice read
th e im p lied co n sen t f

o rm to M r. F reem an af

ter h e w as p laced u n d er arrest an d tw ice ask ed

M r. F reem an to su b m it to a b lo o d test. T h e im p lied co n sen t f

o rm states:

If y o u ref u se to su b m it to eith er o [ r] b o th o f th ese tests, th ey

w i ll n o t b e g iv en

. A s req u ired b y S tate law I m u st ad v i s e y o u th at if y o u ref

u se to su b m it to eith er o r b o th tests, y o u w ill also
b e ch arg e[ d ] w ith th e o f f en se o f v i o l a t i o n o f th e im p lied

c o n s e n t law

. If th e j u d g e f in d s y o u g u ilty o f th is sep ar a t e

o f f en se y o u r d riv er’s licen se w ill b e su sp en d ed f o r a p erio d o f
at least o n e y ear.

A cco rd in g to O f

f icer S teak in

, M r. F reem an tw ice ref u sed to su b m it to a b lo o d test d esp ite
th is w arn in g

. T h u s th e ev id en ce s h o w s t h at: (1 ) M r. F reem an h ad b een d riv in g a m o to r

v eh icle in th is state; (2 ) M r. F reem an h ad b een p laced u n d er arrest b y O f f icer S teak in

, w h o

req u ested th at M r. F reem an su b m it to a t e s t f o r th e p u rp o se o f d eterm in in g th e alco h o l

an d /o r d ru g co n ten t o f h is b lo o d ; (3 ) M r. F reem an w as read th e im p lied co n sen t f

o rm , w h ich
ad v ised th at ref

u sal to su b m it to th e test o r tests co u ld resu lt in su sp en sio n o f M r. F reem an ’s
d riv er’s licen se; an d (4 ) M r. F reem an ref u sed to su b m it to su ch test. S ee P ra ter

, 2 0 1 0 WL
4 6 7 4 2 8 8

, at * 4 (citin g T en n essee P attern Ju ry In stru ctio n s-C rim in al § 3 8 .1 7 ). A cco rd in g ly

,

w e m u st ag ree w ith th e trial co u rt th at th e S tate h as sh o w n , b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f ev id en ce, th at M r. F reem an v io lated th e im p lied co n sen t law

.

F o r th e f o reg o in g reaso n s, w e af

f irm th e d ecisio n o f

th e C rim in al C o u rt o f

S u m n er C o u n ty

, T en n essee. T h e co sts o f th is ap p eal are assessed to A p p ellan t A n to n i o F reem an ,

w h o is p ro ceed in g as a p au p er in th is ap p eal.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J

. S T E V E N S T A F F O R D

, J U D G E

-13-