IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
MARCH 1998 SESSION April 24, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
CARL WOMAC, ) C.C.A. 03C01-9707-CC-00251
) BRADLEY COUNTY
)
Appellant, ) Hon. Carroll L. Ross, Judge
)
vs. ) (DRIVING UNDER
) THE INFLUENCE)
) No. 96-526
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
)
Appellee. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
CHARLES M. CORN JOHN KNOX WALKUP
District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
RICHARD HUGHES, JR. GEORGIA BLYTHE FELNER
Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 1453 Cordell Hull Bldg., 2nd Floor
Cleveland, TN 37364 425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
JERRY N. ESTES
District Attorney General
SANDRA DONAGHY
Assistant District Attorney General
P.O. Box 1351
Cleveland, TN 37364
OPINION FILED:_______________
AFFIRMED
CORNELIA A. CLARK
Special Judge
OPINION
The defendant appeals as of right his conviction for driving under the
influence of an intoxicant, second offense. He raises a single issue - that the
evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict of guilty on the underlying
charge. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On July 6, 1996, Cleveland Police Officer Nathan Thomas was on
routine patrol traveling west on Clingan Ridge Drive. Between 11:00 p.m. and
midnight, as Officer Thomas approached a bar called “Bonnie’s Talk of the
Town”, he observed the defendant drive his car out of the bar’s parking lot and
onto Clingan Ridge Drive in front of him. Officer Thomas observed the left
tires of defendant’s car cross completely over the double yellow center line.
He followed the car approximately .2 miles, observing that the passenger threw
something out the window. The defendant then pulled into the Waffle House
parking lot. Officer Thomas pulled into the parking lot, parked beside the
defendant’s car, and approached the defendant. While he was about two feet
away from the defendant, Officer Thomas noticed that the defendant had the
smell of alcohol on his breath. According to the officer, the defendant initially
advised that he had consumed one beer, but later told the officer that he had
had two beers.
When the defendant exited his vehicle Officer Thomas testified that he
was unsteady, tripped over his own feet, and had to grab onto the door in order
to steady himself. Officer Thomas then administered several field sobriety
tests, which he testified that defendant failed. Officer Thomas testified that the
defendant never mentioned any disability. The defendant did say that one leg
hurt, and was permitted to attempt the one-leg stand on the other leg. He
failed both attempts. The defendant refused to submit to a breath test and
refused to sign the implied consent form. A second officer who came to the
scene, Jeff Griggs, testified that he saw the defendant attempt to perform one
2
of the field sobriety tests, and that the defendant did not perform the test very
well. Officer Griggs also noticed that the defendant smelled of alcohol and that
his speech was not clear.
The defendant testified that he had an arthritic condition in his knee
which he felt prevented him from performing the tests well. He also stated that
he not had anything to drink and that he had not told the officer he had
anything to drink. His passenger, who admitted he was very drunk that
evening, testified that he could not remember whether the defendant had
anything to drink. The defendant’s ex-wife testified that he was with her earlier
in the evening and consumed no alcoholic beverages prior to receiving a call to
go to Bonnie’s and pick up the drunk friend.
The principles that govern our review of a jury verdict are well settled.
When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we must review
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution in determining
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, 67 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1979). We do not reweigh or reevaluate the
evidence, and are required to 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). Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses, the
weight and value to be given to the evidence, as well as factual issues raised
by the evidence, are resolved by trier of fact, not this court. Id.
It is the appellate court’s duty to affirm the conviction if the evidence,
viewed under these standards, was sufficient for any rational trier of fact to
have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W. 2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994).
After thoroughly reviewing the record, the briefs, and the law governing
the issue, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s
verdict in this case.
3
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects.
________________________________
CORNELIA A. CLARK
SPECIAL JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________
JOHN H. PEAY
JUDGE
___________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS
JUDGE
4