IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs October 15, 2008

 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BOBBY GENE WALKER, JR.

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Blount County

No. C-15574 Michael H. Meares, Judge

No. E2007-02784-CCA-R3-CD - Filed December 19, 2008

The defendant, Bobby Gene Walker, Jr., appeals his conviction for second offense DUI. The

defendant claims there was insufficient evidence presented to the jury to sustain a verdict of guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt. After complete review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court.

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

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JERRY L. SMITH and

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JJ., joined.

J. Liddell Kirk, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Raymond Mack Garner, District Public Defender, for the

appellant, Bobby Gene Walker, Jr.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Elizabeth T. Ryan, Associate Deputy Attorney

General; Michael L. Flynn, District Attorney General; and Andrew Watts, Assistant District

Attorney General, Bobby Gene Walker, Jr.

OPINION

The charges in this case arose after a Blount County Sheriff’s deputy was dispatched to

investigate a possible accident and came upon the defendant walking on the roadway at

approximately 3:10 in the morning. At trial, the State called the arresting officer, Deputy Tim

Wilson, and the defendant testified on his own behalf. Deputy Wilson stated that he picked the

defendant up, walking along the road approximately seventy-five yards from the accident. The

defendant voluntarily returned to the accident scene with the deputy and admitted that he was the

owner of the black 2003 Ford Mustang and that he was driving when it left the road after hitting a

“slick spot.” Deputy Wilson noticed a smell of alcohol emanating from the defendant and observed

that the defendant had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech and was unsteady on his feet. Deputy

Wilson asked the defendant to submit to field sobriety tests, which he failed, in the opinion of the

deputy. Deputy Wilson stated that the defendant could not do the “one legged stand” test at all, and,

when he attempted the “walk and turn” test, he failed by swaying, raising his arms, stepping off the

line, losing balance, and moving before he was told. Deputy Wilson explained the implied consent
-2-

law to the defendant, and the defendant refused to submit to a blood test. Deputy Wilson, a sixteenyear veteran and certified instructor ofDUI investigations, opined that the defendant was “extremely

intoxicated.”

The defendant testified on his own behalf and stated he was on his way from his home to the

EZ Stop Market to purchase “drinks and things.” He stated he had not been drinking or taking any

prescription medication. According to the defendant, a small animal ran in front of his car and when

he tried to avoid hitting it, his car “fish-tailed” and went off the side of the road where it traveled up

the embankment before coming to a stop. The defendant believed that he passed the field sobriety

tests. He denied ever being given an opportunity to take a blood test and stated he would have done

so. Basically, the defendant opined that the deputy was a “liar” and that there was no basis for his

arrest.

The defendant’s sole argument is that the evidence submitted by the State, even if accurate,

was not conclusive proof of intoxication as opposed to some other explanation, i.e., the car wreck.

A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the proof has the burden of illustrating why the evidence

is insufficient. State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). We review the evidence in the

light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.

307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979). We do not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence but afford the

State the strongest legitimate view of the proof contained in the record as well as all reasonable and

legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn.

1978).

Evaluation of witnesses’ credibility, the weight and value to be given to the evidence, and

resolution of factual issues raised by the evidence is left to the trier of fact. Id. at 835. A guilty

verdict rendered by the jury and approved by the trial judge accredits the testimony of the State’s

witnesses, and a presumption of guilt replaces the presumption of innocence. State v. Grace, 493

S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973).

In the instant case, the defendant testified that he had not been drinking nor had he taken

medication; that his car did not hit anything; that the officer was a “liar”; and there was no reason

for his arrest. However, the deputy testified the defendant smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes,

was unsteady on his feet, failed the field sobriety test, and was, in his opinion, “extremely

intoxicated.” The jury was free to believe the testimony of either witness, and, based upon their

verdict, they accredited the testimony of the deputy, which is their prerogative. See Cabbage, 571

S.W.2d at 835. It is not the function of this court to reevaluate a jury’s credibility determinations.

Based upon the deputy’s testimony, we conclude the evidence is more than sufficient to support the

verdict.

Conclusion
-3-

Sufficient evidence exists upon this record to support the verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

___________________________________ 

 JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE