IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
April 2, 2002 Session
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER M. FLAKE
No. W2000-01131-SC-R11-CD
________________________
FOR PUBLICATION
OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING - Filed October 24, 2002
The appellee, Christopher M. Flake, by and through counsel, has filed a petition to rehear
the opinion of this Court filed August 29, 2002. As grounds for rehearing the petition asserts that
the Opinion did not address another issue raised in Flake’s brief, specifically, that the trial court
erred in denying Flake’s motion to suppress because Flake was not mentally capable of
knowingly and intelligently consenting to a search or waiving his rights under Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed.2d 694 (1966).
While the appellee is correct that the August 29, 2002, Opinion did not explicitly address
the suppression issue, this assertion is not grounds for rehearing. It is well-settled that "a trial
court's findings of fact in a suppression hearing will be upheld unless the evidence preponderates
otherwise." State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996). "Questions of credibility of the
witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, and resolution of conflicts in the evidence are
matters entrusted to the trial judge as the trier of fact." Id.; see also State v. England, 19 S.W.3d
762, 766 (Tenn. 2000). As such, "the prevailing party in the trial court is afforded the 'strongest
legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn
from that evidence.' " See State v. Carter, 16 S.W.3d 762, 765 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting State v.
Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998)).
Applying these principles, we are of the opinion that the evidence does not preponderate
against the trial court’s finding that the defendant was mentally capable of knowingly and
intelligently consenting to a search and of waiving his rights under Miranda. Accordingly,
Flake’s assertion that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress is without merit.
Justice Anderson and Justice Birch continue to adhere to the views expressed in their
initial dissenting opinion but concur in the denial of this petition for rehearing.
Accordingly, the petition to rehear is DENIED.
PER CURIAM