### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 15, 200 8
STA TE OF TENNES SEE v . BOBB Y GENE W ALKE R, JR.
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forBlou nt County No. C-15574 M ichael H. Mear es, Judge

No. E2007-02784-CC A-R3- CD - Filed De cem ber 19, 2008

The de fendant, Bobby Gene W alker , Jr., appe als his co n v i ct i o n for se cond off ense D UI. The de fe nd a nt c la ims the re wa s in su ff icien t e vid e nc e pr e se nte d to the jury to su stain a ve rd ic t of

gu ilt be yo nda re a so na bledo ub t. A ft e r c omp le te re vie w, we a ff ir m th e jud gme nt f

ro m th e tria l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cir cuit Court Af firme d
J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MIT H and R OBER T W. W EDEMEYER , JJ., joined. J. Liddell Kirk, Knoxville, Tenne ssee, and Raymond Mack Ga rner , District Public Def

ender , for the appellant, Bobby Ge ne Wa lker, Jr. Robert E. Cooper, J r. , At t o rn ey Ge n er al an d R ep o rt er ; E l i zab et h T

. R y an , As s o ci at e D ep u t y Attorney Gene ral; Michae l L. Flynn, District Attorney Gene ral; and A ndrew Watts, Assistant District Attorney Ge nera l, Bobby Gene W alker , Jr.
OP IN ION
Th e c ha rg e s inthi s c a se aro se a ft e r a Blo un t Co un ty S he ri ff ’s de pu ty w a s d isp a tc he d to investigate a possible ac ci d ent and c ame upon the de fendant walking on the roa dway at app ro xim a te ly 3 :10 in the mornin g. At trial , th e State c a lle d th e arr e sti ng of fi c e r, De pu ty T im Wilson, and the de fenda n t t es t i fi ed on his own behalf. D eputy Wilson stated that he pic ked the defe ndant up, walking along the r oad appr oximately seventy-f ive ya rd s fr o m the acc ident. The defe ndant voluntarily returned to the ac ci d en t scene with the deputy and a dmitted that he was the owner of the blac k 2003 Ford Mustang and that he was driving when it left the road a fter hitting a “slick spot.” Deputy Wilson noticed a smell of alcohol emanating f rom the defe ndant and observed tha t th e d e f

e n d a n th a d b l o o d s h o te y e s a n d s l u rr e d s p e e c h a n d w a s u n s t e a d y o n h i s f e e t

. D e pu ty Wilson asked the de fendant to submi t to field sobriety tests, which he failed, in the opinion of the deputy. Deputy Wilson stated t hat t he defenda nt could not do the “one legged stand” test at all, and, when he attempted the “ walk and turn” test, he f ailed by swaying, raising his arms, st epping off the line, losing balance , and moving befor e he was told. Deputy Wilson explained the implied consent-2-

law to the def

endant, and the defendant refused to submit to a blood test. Deputy Wilson, a sixtee nye ar v e te ran a ndc e rt if

ie d in str uc tor of DU I inv e sti gatio ns , op ine d that the de fe nd a nt w a s “ e xtr e me ly intoxicated.”
The de fendant te stified on his ow n behalf and stated he was on his way fr om his home to the EZ Stop Market to purc hase “ drinks and things.” He stated he had not been drinking or taking any presc ription medication. Acc ording to the defe ndant, a small animal ran in f ront of his c ar and when he tried to a void hitti ng it, his car “f ish-tailed” and went off the s ide of the road wher e it trave led up thee mbankme nt b e fo re c omi ng to a s top . T he de fe nd a nt b e lie ve d th a t he pa sse d th e fi e ld s ob ri e ty tests. He denie d ever

being given an opportunity to take a blood test and stated he w ould have done
so . Ba sic a lly , th e de fe nd a nt o pin e d th a t th e de pu ty w a s a “ lia r” a ndthat th e rewa s n o b a sis fo r h is
arr e st.
The defenda nt’s sole argume nt is that the evidence submi tted by the State, eve n if ac curate, was not conclusive proof of intoxication as opposed to some other expla nation, i.e. , the car wre ck. A def endant c halleng ing the sufficie ncy of the proof has the burde n of illustrating why the evidenc e is insufficient. Sta tev . Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) . We reviewthe evidenc e in the light mos t favor able to the prosecution to determine whether “ anyrational trier

of fa ct could have found the essential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt.” J ac k so n v. Vi rg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct . 2781, 2789 (1979). We do not rew eig h or reevaluate the evide nce but a ffor d the State the strong est leg itimate view of the proof contained in the r ecor d as we ll as all rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces which may be dra wn t here from. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).
Evaluation of w itnesses’ cr edibility , the weig ht and value to be g iven to the evidenc e, and resolution of fa ctual issues ra ised by t h e ev i dence is left to the trier of fac t. Id. a t 83 5. A guil ty verdic t rende red by

the jury and appr oved by

the trial judg e a cc redits t he testimony of the State’s witnesses, and a

presumption of guilt re place s the presumption of innocenc e. State v. Grac e , 493 S.W .2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973)

. In the instant ca se, the de fendant testified that he had not be en drinking nor had he take n medication; that his car

did not hit anything; that the officer was a “ liar”; a nd there was no re ason fo r h is a rr e st. Ho we ve r, thede pu ty t e sti fi e d th e de fe nd a nt s me lle d o f a lc oh ol, ha d b loo ds ho t e ye s, wa s u ns te a dy on hi s feet , faile d th e fi e ld s ob ri e ty t e st, a ndwa s, in h is o pin ion , “ e xtr e me ly int ox ic a te d. ” Th e jury w a s f re e to b e lie ve the te stimon y o f e ith e r w itn e ss, a nd , b a se d u po n th e ir verdic t, they accre dited the t estimony of the de puty, which is their pre rogative. See Cabbage , 571 S.W .2 d at 83 5. It is no t the fu nc tio n of thi s c ou rt to r e e va luate a

jury’ s c re dib ili ty d e te rm inatio ns
. Based upon the de puty’s testimony, we conc lude the evide nce is more than sufficie nt to support the ve rd ic t.

Conclusion-3-

Suf fi c ie nt e vid e nc e e xis ts up on thi s re c or d to su pp ort th e ve rd ic t of gu ilt be yo nda re a so na ble doubt. The judgment of the tria l court is aff irmed.

___________________________________ JOHN EVE RETT WILL IAMS, JUDGE