IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs May 24, 2011

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SHAWN DALE OWNBY

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County

No. 14548-III Rex Henry Ogle, Judge

No. E2010-02350-CCA-R3-CD - Filed September 19, 2011

A Sevier County jury convicted the Defendant, Shawn Dale Ownby, of driving under the

influence (“DUI”) and violation of the implied consent law, and the trial court sentenced him

to eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail and revoked his licence. On appeal, the

Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his DUI conviction. After a

thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

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

ROBERTW.WEDEMEYER, J. delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JERRY L. SMITH and

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JJ., joined.

Amber D. Haas, Sevierville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Shawn D. Ownby

Robert E. Cooper,Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Cameron L. Hyder, Assistant Attorney

General; James Dunn, District Attorney General; and Greg Eshbaugh, Assistant District

Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

I. Facts

This case arises from a lawful police stop of the Defendant’s vehicle after he was

observed failing to stop at a red light. A Sevier County grand jury indicted the Defendant

for DUI and violating of the implied consent law. At the Defendant’s trial, the following

evidence was presented: Deputy Devin Smith, an officer with the Sevier County Sheriff’s

Department, testified that he learned during his training at the police academy how to

administer field sobriety tests and how to detect that a driver is under the influence of an
intoxicant. While on routine patrol at 1:30 a.m. on Saturday, July 18, 2009, he observed a

blue Chevrolet Cavalier traveling at a high rate of speed. After observing the vehicle fail to

stop at a red light, the officer initiated a traffic stop. Deputy Smith stated that, during this

stop, he recognized a strong odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant. He also recalled

that the Defendant had bloodshot eyes and was unsteady on his feet.

Based on his observations, Deputy Smith asked the Defendant to perform some field

sobriety tests. Deputy Smith asked the Defendant whether he had any medical or physical

problems that would inhibit him from satisfactorily performing a field sobriety test. The

Defendant responded that he did not have any such medical or physical problems. The

Defendant disclosed to the officer that he had consumed one beer and smoked marijuana that

evening. Deputy Smith testified that, during the nine-step walk test, the Defendant began the

test before he was instructed to start, and he failed to complete the test. Deputy Smith

testified that he also asked the Defendant to perform the one-legged test. Because the

Defendant displayed poor balance during this test, the deputy concluded that the Defendant

did not pass this test. Deputy Smith read the implied consent form to the Defendant, but the

Defendant refused to take a breathalyzer test, saying, “Just go ahead and arrest me because

I will be at least a .20.” Deputy Smith stated that the Defendant at this point became

uncooperative. Deputy Smith arrested the Defendant for driving under the influence and

violating the implied consent law.

On cross-examination, Deputy Smith acknowledged that something other than the

Defendant being intoxicated could have caused him to run a red light and travel at a high rate

of speed. Deputy Smith also acknowledged that factors other than alcohol and/or marijuana

could cause the Defendant’s bloodshot eyes. Deputy Smith said that he had never met Mr.

Ownby before this incident. Deputy Smith agreed that, several times in his career,

individuals who were not intoxicated have become uncooperative.

On redirect, Deputy Smith emphasized that multiple aspects of the Defendant’s

demeanor in addition to his poor performance of the field sobriety tests aroused his suspicion

that the Defendant was under the influence of an intoxicant.

II. Analysis

On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his

conviction for DUI. Specifically, the Defendant asserts that the sobriety tests given to him

by Deputy Smith were highly subjective in grading his performance. He further asserts that

no independent, scientific proof of intoxication supports his conviction because the State did

not offer any actual proof about the level of alcohol in the his blood or any videotaped

evidence or other testimony corroborating the deputy’s testimony. Finally, the Defendant

-2-
argues that the proof does not support his conviction because, as the deputy acknowledged

at trial, factors other than intoxication could have caused his erratic driving.

The State counters that the evidence is sufficient because the record established that

the Defendant performed poorly on the field sobriety tests, became uncooperative, and

refused to take a breathalyzer test, saying that he would “be at least a .20.” Furthermore, the

State points out that the Defendant admitted that he consumed one beer and smoked some

marijuana.

When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court’s standard of

review is whether, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,

“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 (1979); see Tenn. R. App. P.

13(e), State v. Goodwin, 143 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tenn. 2004) (citing State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d

247, 276 (Tenn. 2002)). This rule applies to findings of guilt based upon direct evidence,

circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both direct and circumstantial evidence. State

v. Pendergrass, 13 S.W.3d 389, 392-93 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). In the absence of direct

evidence, a criminal offense may be established exclusively by circumstantial evidence.

Duchac v. State, 505 S.W.2d 237, 241 (Tenn. 1973). The jury decides the weight to be given

to circumstantial evidence, and “[t]he inferences to be drawn from such evidence, and the

extent to which the circumstances are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence,

are questions primarily for the jury.” State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646, 662 (Tenn. 2006)

(citations omitted). “The standard of review [for sufficiency of the evidence] is the same

whether the conviction is based upon direct or circumstantial evidence.” State v. Dorantes,

331 S.W.3d 370, 379 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265, 275 (Tenn.

2009)). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court should not re-weigh or

reevaluate the evidence. State v. Matthews, 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).

Nor may this Court substitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact from the

evidence. State v. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d 102, 105 (Tenn. 1999); Liakas v. State, 286 S.W.2d

856, 859 (Tenn. 1956). “Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight

and value of the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by

the trier of fact.” State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997); Liakas, 286 S.W.2d at

859. “A guilty verdict by the jury, approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the

witnesses for the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of the theory of the State.” State

v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 479 (Tenn.

1973). The Tennessee Supreme Court stated the rationale for this rule:

This well-settled rule rests on a sound foundation. The trial judge and the jury

see the witnesses face to face, hear their testimony and observe their demeanor

on the stand. Thus the trial judge and jury are the primary instrumentality of

-3-
justice to determine the weight and credibility to be given to the testimony of

witnesses. In the trial forum alone is there human atmosphere and the totality

of the evidence cannot be reproduced with a written record in this Court.

Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tenn. 1996) (citing Carroll v. State, 370 S.W.2d 523

(Tenn. 1963)). This Court must afford the State of Tennessee the strongest legitimate view

of the evidence contained in the record, as well as all reasonable inferences which may be

drawn from the evidence. Goodwin, 143 S .W.3d at 775 (citing State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d

274, 279 (Tenn. 2000)). Because a verdict of guilt against a defendant removes the

presumption of innocence and raises a presumption of guilt, the convicted criminal defendant

bears the burden of showing that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty

verdict. State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 557-58 (Tenn. 2000).

The Defendant challengesthe evidence supporting his DUI conviction. A conviction

for DUI requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant: (1) either drove or was

in physical control of a motor driven vehicle; (2) on any public road or premise frequented

by the public; (3) while under the influence of an intoxicant; or (4) with an alcohol

concentration in the defendant’s blood or breath of .08 or more. See T.C.A. § 55-10-401

(2006).

The evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the State, proves that the

Defendant drove on a public road at a high rate of speed and ran a red light. Based on this

erratic behavior, Deputy Smith initiated a lawful traffic stop. During this stop he observed

a strong odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant, and he noticed that the Defendant had

bloodshot eyes and was unsteady on his feet. The Defendant admitted that he had consumed

one beer and smoked marijuana earlier in the evening. In addition to this evidence of his

intoxication, the Defendant performed poorly on the subsequent field sobriety tests, became

uncooperative, and refused to take a breathalyzer test, saying that he would “be at least a

.20.”

While explanations other than intoxication might exist for the Defendant’s erratic

driving, the evidence supporting the Defendant’s DUI conviction was overwhelming.

Although field sobriety tests lack the scientific precision of a breathalyzer test, the field

sobriety tests, in combination with the other evidence in this case, support the Defendant’s

conviction. The Defendant’s performance on the field sobriety tests was graded by a fouryear professionally experienced deputy, who wasspecially trained to administer field sobriety

tests and detect drivers who are under the influence of an intoxicant. Also, the Defendant

refused to take a breathalyzer test. Moreover, the Defendant failed to give a reasonable

explanation for speeding and running a red light other than intoxication. Furthermore, the

Defendant acknowledged he had consumed one beer and smoked marijuana that evening.

-4-
Finally, the Defendant exhibited numerous other indicators of intoxication. Accordingly, the

evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the

Defendant drove under the influence of an intoxicant. The Defendant is not entitled to relief

on this issue.

III. Conclusion

After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude the

evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for DUI. We, therefore, affirm

the trial court’s judgments.

_________________________________

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE

-5-