State v. Daniel

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
FILED
February 3, 1998
DECEMB ER SESSION, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9704-CR-00161
)
Appellee, )
) ROANE COUNTY
)
V. )
) HON. E. EUGENE EBLEN, JUDGE
JAME S A. DAN IEL, )
)
Appe llant. ) (DUI)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
CHARLES B. HILL JOHN KNOX WALKUP
P.O. Box 852 Attorney General & Reporter
Kingston, TN 37763
SANDY C. PATRICK
Assistant Attorney General
2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243
CHARLES E. HAWK
District Attorney General
DENNIS W. HUMPHREY
Assistant District Attorney General
P.O. Box 703
Kingston, TN 37763
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
OPINION
The Defen dant, Jam es A. D aniel, was convicte d of DU I first offense
following a jury trial in the Criminal Court of Roan e Cou nty. In his app eal as of rig ht,
Defendant presents three issues: (1) the e vidence was insu fficient to sup port a
conviction for DUI; (2) his right to due process was violated when police officers
failed to obtain a blood alcohol test of D efend ant at a time w hen h e was incap able
of submitting to a breathalyzer test and had not refused to take a test to determine
his blood alcohol content; and (3) the trial court erred by not dismissing the
indictment because it was filed after expiration of the statute of limitations. After a
full review of th e issues presen ted, we a ffirm the jud gmen t of the trial cou rt.
From the record, it is apparent that no stenographic report, or other
transcript of the evidence was available, and that Defendant’s counsel filed a
statement of the evide nce within ninety (90) days of the filing of the notice of appeal
pursuant to Rule 2 4(c) of the T ennes see Ru les of Ap pellate P rocedu re. In its brief,
the State argues that D efend ant faile d to co mply w ith all of th e prov isions of Rule
24(c) of the Tennesse e Rules of Appe llate Proce dure. Sp ecifically, the S tate
correc tly points out that Defendant did not submit a “short and plain declaration of
the issues” intended to be presented on appeal along with notice of the filing of the
statement of evidence. In addition, the State correctly points out that the statement
of the evid ence is not pr operly certified as acc urate b y either the De fenda nt or his
counsel as requ ired by R ule 24(c) . The rec ord doe s indicate that a copy of the
statement of evidence was served upon the district attorney’s office. The district
attorney did not raise any objection as to these technical requirements of Rule 24(c)
of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and did not submit any objections
-2-
to the statement of the evidence. Under the particular circumstances of this case,
we suspend, pursuant to Rule 2 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the
requirements of a declaration of the issues to be presented and certification of the
statem ent of e videnc e by D efend ant or h is coun sel.
S UFFICIENCY O F T HE E VIDENCE
According to the record submitted by Defendant, on October 9, 1993,
Jeffrey W. Seiber was stopped at a traffic control light at the intersection of Roane
and Walden Streets in Harriman, Tennessee when his vehicle was struck in the rear
by a vehic le opera ted by D efenda nt. After the accident, he smelled alcohol on the
person of the Defendant and noticed that the police officer had to assist Defendant
getting into the patrol car. He observed what appeared to be a “fifth” of some type
of alcoh olic bever age in the Defe ndant’s ve hicle, even though he cou ld not iden tify
what was inside the b ottle. The accide nt occurred next to th e Harrim an City
Hosp ital.
Officer Chuck Moore of the Harriman Police Department arrived at the
scene of the accident at approximately 5:00 p.m. Officer Moore got the Defendant
out of the vehicle and discovered Defendant to be in such a condition that he could
not condu ct any field so briety tests. The Defendant had a sme ll of alcoh ol abo ut him
and was incoherent in his speech. Officer Moore concluded that the Defendant was
intoxicated. Defendant was not offered a breathalyzer test at th e Roa ne Co unty Ja il
because of his condition.
-3-
The Defendant testified in his own behalf and maintained that he had
not been drinking any alcoholic beverages on the day of the accident. He claimed
that his brakes had failed, and that he had had problems with the brakes on this
vehicle prior to the accident. He claimed that his hands hit the windshield, one
elbow and his k nees h it the dash , and his head hit the steering wheel. Defendant
remembered nothin g else until he again became conscious in the drunk tank of the
county jail. Defendant testified that the “fifth” liquor bottle actually contained
antifreeze. Defendant admitted that he had be en convicted o f felonies several years
prior to the w reck.
Ray Hawk, a mechanic in Harriman testified that he remembered the
Defendant and his vehicle and recalled that the Defendant had problems with the
brakes on this car. Hawk attempted to fix the brakes but he was not sure if his work
had been s uccess ful. Brian Kittrell testified that he was with Defendant most of the
day of the accident. Defendant had left Kittrell’s house just shortly before the
acciden t. Kittrell testified that the Defendant did not drink any alcoholic beverages
and wa s sobe r when h e left Kittrell’s ho me.
When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence,
the standard is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime b eyond a reason able do ubt. Jackson v. V irginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319
(1979). Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value
to be give n the e vidence, as well as all factual issues ra ised by the eviden ce, are
resolved by the trier of fac t, not this cou rt. State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623
(Tenn. Crim. A pp.), perm. to appeal denied, id. (Tenn. 1987). Nor may th is court
-4-
reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn.
1978).
A jury verdict approved by the trial judg e accre dits the State’s witnesses
and resolves all conflicts in favor of the State. State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476
(Tenn. 1973). O n appe al, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the
evidence and all inferences therefro m. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d at 835. Because a
verdict of guilt removes the presumption of innocence and replaces it with a
presumption of guilt, th e acc used has th e burd en in th is court of illustrating why the
evidence is insufficient to support the verdic t returned by the trier of fa ct. State v.
Tug gle, 639 S.W .2d 913 , 914 (T enn. 19 82); Grace, 493 S.W .2d at 476 .
The Defendant correctly points out that there was no proof of him failing
any field sobriety tests, or of his bloo d alcoho l content. H e also no tes that the State
failed to produce the “fifth” liquor bottle during its case in chief. Defendant argues
that in light of this and the fact that he submitted proof contrary to the State ’s theory,
that there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction. We disagree.
The offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant can be
established beyond a reason able do ubt by circu mstan tial evidenc e. State v.
Harless, 607 S.W.2d 492, 493-94 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980). Likewise, it is not
necessa ry for the State to subm it proof of a b lood or ch emica l breath tes t to prove
the blood alcohol conte nt of the Defe ndan t in order to su stain a co nviction. State v.
Gilbert, 751 S.W.2d 454, 459 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). Furthermore, even a non-
expert witness who smells the odor of an intoxicant upon a defendant who has been
operating a vehicle on the public highways can give opinion evidence as to the
-5-
intoxication of the defe ndant. See Hops on v. State , 201 Tenn. 337, 299 S.W.2d 11,
13 (Te nn. 195 7). In the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that
in an intoxicated condition, and in possession of an alcoholic beverage in his vehicle,
the Defendant drove his car into the rear of the victim’s automobile which was
stoppe d in traffic on a public stre et. This iss ue is witho ut merit.
V IOLATION O F D UE P ROCESS
The Defe ndan t argue s that h is cons titutiona l rights to due process of
law were v iolated by the H arrima n City P olice because he was not taken to the
hospital which was appro ximately thirty-five (35) yards away from the scene of the
accident to have a blood alcohol test performed. The record on appeal reflects that
a breathalyzer test was not given to Defendant because the officer concluded that
Defendant was in no condition to subm it to the test. Furthermore, the officer testified
that he did not want to take the De fendan t to the hospital for a blood alcohol test
because it would result in “too mu ch paperw ork.”
Defendant does not argue that he had a statutory right to a blood
alcohol test pursuant to T ennesse e Code A nnotated se ction 55-10-410(e).
Defendant would not be entitled to a test under the provisions of this statute because
the State h ad no t procu red a s amp le of his blood for testing. See Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 55-10 -410(a).
Regarding Defe ndan t’s due proce ss claim , this Co urt has previo usly
cited Scarbo rough v. S tate, 261 So. 2d 475 (Miss. 1972) with approval as to the
conditions which must be shown to prove a deprivation of due process when a
-6-
defendant is not allo wed to subm it to a blo od alcohol test. In State v. Bernell B.
Lawson, No. 63, C umbe rland Co unty (Tenn . Crim. A pp., Knoxville, May 23, 1 991),
this Court noted the four conditions as follows:
(1) A timely request for testing at defendant’s own expense;
(2) The defendant’s cooperation to the extent that officers may
conduct the examination safely for all concerned;
(3) The immediate availability of test facilities and personne l at a
reasonably accessible location; and
(4) Refusal of the officers to honor the request for testing by the
defendant, counsel, or other representatives.
Id. at 3.
In the case sub judice, there is nothing in the record to indicate that
Defendant made a request for testing a t his own expen se, or that the police o fficers
refused to hono r a reque st for blood alcohol te sting.
The record does not reflect that Defendant’s right to due process was
violated. Furtherm ore, the court in Lawson noted that even if a request for blood
alcohol testing is den ied, a re med y would not ne cess arily be dismissal of the charge.
Id. at 4. Our Cou rt surmised that suppression of the results of a blood alcohol test
by the Sta te would probab ly satisfy due process considerations in most instances.
Id. As in Lawson, there was no evidence of bloo d alco hol tes ting by th e State in
Defen dant’s ca se, and therefore this issue is without m erit.
S TATUTE O F L IMITATIONS
-7-
The Defendant argues that the ind ictmen t charging him with DUI shows
on its face that it wa s brou ght ou tside th e app licable one year statute of limitations
for misdemeanor charges. A pro se motion was filed by Defendant during a period
of time w hen h e was repres ented by cou nsel, w hich ca n, at be st, be lo osely
construed as a motion to dismiss based upon expiration of the statute of limitations.
Howeve r, the statem ent of evide nce filed b y the De fendan t reflects that Defendant
did not pres ent a motion to dismiss the indictment on the statute of limitations issue
until after the trial had begun and the jury ha d been selected . In a crimin al trial, a
defense based upon e xpiration of th e statute of limitations must be raised prior to
trial or it is untime ly. State v. H ill, 623 S.W .2d 293, 295 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1981 );
Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(b). The term “prior to trial” means sometime earlier than the
day of trial. State v. Auco in, 756 S.W.2d 705, 709 (T enn. C rim. App . 1988); State
v. Robe rts, 755 S.W .2d 833 , 837 (Tenn. Crim. A pp. 198 8); State v. Kinner, 701
S.W.2d 224, 227 (Tenn. Crim. App. 19 85). The motion was therefore untimely, and
this issue is without m erit.
The judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.
____________________________________
THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge
CONCUR:
___________________________________
DAVID H. WELLES , Judge
___________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
-8-