State of Tennessee v. Ronald Lockhart

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
February 7, 2000
NOVEMB ER SESSION, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9902-CC-00071
)
Appellee, )
) HAMBLEN COUNTY
V. )
)
) HON. JAMES E. BECKNER, JUDGE
RONALD LOCKHART, )
)
Appe llant. ) (DUI, THIRD OFFENSE)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
GREG W. EICH ELM AN PAUL G. SUMMERS
District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
1609 College Partk Drive, Box 11
Morristown, TN 37813-1618 ERIK W. DAAB
Assistant Attorney General
2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243
C. BE RKE LEY B ELL, J R.
District Attorn ey Ge neral
JOHN F. DUGGER, JR.
Assistant District Attorney General
363 Hamblen County Justice Center
510 Alliso n Street,
Morristown, TN 37814
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
OPINION
Defendant Ronald Lockhart appea ls as of right from his co nviction by a
Hamblen County jury of driving under the influenc e, third offen se, and driving with
a revoked license. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evide nce to supp ort
his conviction of driving un der the influ ence. After a careful review of the record, we
find no erro r, and affirm the judgm ent of the tria l court.
I. Facts
On Augus t 14, 1998, Officer Randall Noe of the Morristown Police Department
observed a Che vrolet van leave the Buffalo Trail shopping center in Morristown
around 9:00 PM. Officer Noe followed the van for a short distance, and when the
van was o n She rwood Drive th e office r obse rved th e van d rift over th e cen ter line
and move back within its lane of travel. The van then turned on to N orth Lib erty Hill
Road, a three lane road with one lane of travel in each direction, and a center lane
for turning. On two occasions Officer Noe observed the van drift in to the turn lane,
and move back within its lane of travel. The officer also saw the van weave within
its lane of trav el. The o fficer pulled th e van ove r.
Defendant was d riving th e van, a nd O fficer N oe as ked h im for h is driver’s
license. Defend ant cou ld not prod uce on e. At this po int the officer became
conce rned tha t Defend ant was intoxicated :
I noticed that while he was s tandin g that h e didn ’t have a particu larly
steady stand, that he was unsteady on his feet. He didn’t see m to have
an appropriate balance to me. A nd in spe aking to h im face to face, I
could sme ll the od or of an alcoh olic beverage coming from his person
and on his breath.
Officer Noe asked Defendant if he had been drinking, and Defendant replied that he
had consumed “quite a few drinks.” We note th at De fenda nt’s brie f desc ribes th is
moment with a quote from Martin Luther: “Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders.
Gott helfe mir. Amen.” Martin Luther, Speech at the Diet of Worms, (Apr. 18, 1521)
(Here stand I. I can do no other. G od help m e. Amen .)
2
Officer Noe next administered two field sobriety tests–the “walk and turn” and
“one-leg stand.” The “walk and turn” test requires the subject to walk in a straight
line for nine steps, placing one foot directly in front of the other, touching the heel of
the moving foot to the toe of the p lanted foo t. After nine steps, the subject is to turn
around, and walk nine steps ba ck to the spot he starte d from in the sa me m anner.
Officer N oe des cribed ho w Defe ndant fa iled the “wa lk and turn ”:
What I witnesse d . . . is that whe n he wa s asked to stand w ith his heel
touching his toe and to listen to the instruc tion tha t he co uldn’t k eep h is
balance, that he could not keep his heel touching his toe stand ing still.
He tried to start walking on into the test without waiting for the
instructions to be completed . . . . Another thing that I noticed is that
during the first nine steps and also on the second nine steps that he
missed his heel to toe contact with the steps that he took. There was
no mark line available on the pavement at the point these tests were
given, but I also noticed that using his best judgment that he didn’t stay
in a straight line in walking . . . . I’d asked that nine steps be taken and
on the way down he took eleven, and on the way back he took eleven.
The “one-leg stand” test requires the subject to stand on one leg (the subject
chooses which one) a nd hold the other leg out in fro nt of him, a bout six inc hes off
the ground, while counting to 30. At the sam e time, the officer looks at his watc h to
see how much time actually elapses. Office Noe also testified how Defendant failed
the “one -leg stand ’ test:
Mr. Lockhart made two attempts to do this test after he was instructed
what to do. On b oth attem pts, in particu lar on the firs t attemp t, he put
his foot down three times within the first 10 seconds of trying the tes t.
And base d on m y trainin g . . . if that o ccurs . . . there is probably a
danger that the person could fall . . . . I stopped the first test and made
sure again that he understood the instructions . . . . He tried the test
again, and again the result was that within the first ten seconds his foot
was down three times, and I stopped the test to prevent anything that
could harm him.
Both tests were reco rded by a video camera o n a police cruiser, and the tape
substa ntiates O fficer Noe ’s descrip tion of even ts.
Officer Noe testified that at this point he believed Defendant to be drunk, and
“there was no way that I w as going to put him back behind the steering wheel o f a
3
vehicle.” Office r Jack Everh art, wh o bac ked-u p Offic er No e for this particular stop,
also testified that at the conclusion of the field sobriety tests he believed Defendant
to be drunk. At this point Officer Noe placed Defendant under arrest and transported
him to the Morristow n Police D epartm ent.
At the police depa rtment De fendant con sented to take a breathalyzer. Officer
Noe testified that all three tests were inconclusive because Defendant blew an
insufficient amoun t of air into the machine each time: “It appeared to me that
[Defen dant] would suck on the hose instead of blow into the hose.” Defendant then
refused to take a blood test, citing his fear of needles.
At trial Defendant stipulated that he had two prior DUI’s, and that his driver’s
license was revoked at the time of the traffic stop at issue. The trial court, however,
chose to proceed and charge the jury with the count of driving with a revoked
license. Defendant also presented proof that explained otherwise incriminating
evidence against him. Defendant testified that his van’s front tires “scrub” the front
fender, and Defendant testified that he used Listerine around 5:00 PM. Defendant
and Defendant’s sister also testified that he had poor balance and difficulty walking
after he had be en sitting for a period of time, a condition that Defendant attributed
to his employment as a roofer. Specifically, Defendant testified as to the “one leg
stand” te st:
Q: W hat prob lems, if an y, do you w ant to tell the ju ry about th at test?
A: That’s part of where I don’t keep my balance good. It’s hard to stand on
one leg.
Q: And yet yo u’re a roofer?
A: I’m a laborer for roofers.
Q: You go up on roofs, though?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How do you keep from falling?
A: I don’t walk heel to toe.
II. Analysis
4
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 rationa l trier of fac t could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reaso nable d oubt. State v. Shep herd, 902 S.W.2d 895, 903 (Tenn.
1995) (citing Jack son v. V irginia, 443 U.S. 307, 322-25 (1979)). Questions
concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value to be given the
evidence, as well as all factual issue s raised by the evid ence, are res olved by the
trier of fact, not this Court. State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1987). Nor m ay this Court re weigh o r reevalua te the evide nce. State v. Cabbage,
571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 197 8).
A jury verd ict app roved by the tr ial judg e acc redits th e State ’s witnesses and
resolves all conflicts in fa vor of the S tate. State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476
(Tenn. 1973). On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the
evidence and all rea sonab le inferenc es there from. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d at 835.
Because a verdict of guilt removes the pres umptio n of innoc ence a nd repla ces it with
a presumption of guilt, the accused has the burden in this Court of illustrating why
the evidence is insufficient to suppo rt the jury verd ict returned by the trier of fa ct.
State v. Tug gle, 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 198 2).
Defendant argues that the observations of Offic ers N oe an d Eve rhart, th e field
sobriety tests, and the videotape thereof, are insufficient to prove that Defendant was
intoxicated. The c rux of th is argument is that there are alternative explanations for
Defendant’s erratic driving, the aroma of alcohol about his person, and poor
performance on the field sobriety tests; i.e. mechanical proble ms c ould have caused
the non-linear travel of Defendant’s vehicle, lingering Listerine gave Defendant an
alcohol-type perfume, and Defendant’s many years of work as a roofer rende red him
unab le to walk a straight line on a flat surface. As ins piration for this latter argument
Defendant cites Kant’s thoughtful observation that “[o]ut of the crooked timber of
huma nity no straigh t thing was ever ma de.” Imm anuel K ant, Idea for a Universal
5
History from a C osmo politan Point of View, reprin ted in Kant On History 17-18
(Lewis W hite Beck, ed., M acMillan, 1963 ) (1784).
The above evidence presented classic questions of fact and credibility for the
jury to resolve. The jury rejected the testimony of Defendant, and accepted that of
Officers Noe a nd Eve rhart. This Court’s role does not include reweighing the
evidence. The State presented sufficient evidence such that a rational trier of fact
could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant was “under the
influence” within the meaning of the statute. Although Defendant denied such, and
presen ted evide nce to ex plain, it was fo r the jury to de cide wh o to believe .
III. Conclusion
For the above reasons w e affirm Defendant’s conviction of driving under the
influence, third offense, and driving with a revoked license.
____________________________________
THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge
CONCUR:
___________________________________
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge
___________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, Judge
6