IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED APRIL SESSION, 1997 June 6, 1997
Cecil W. Crowson STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Appellate Court Clerk C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9606-CC-00281 ) Appellee, ) ) ) COFFEE COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JOHN W. ROLLINS BRIAN L. BRASHEARS, ) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (DUI)
ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COFFEE COUNTY
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
ROBERT S. PETERS CHARLES W. BURSON 100 Firs t Avenu e, S.W . Attorney General and Reporter Win cheste r, TN 37 398 DARYL J. BRAND Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493
C. MICHAEL LAYNE District Attorney General
STEPHEN E. WEITZMAN Assistant District Attorney General P.O. Box 147 Manchester, TN 37355
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE OPINION
This is an appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of
Appe llate Procedure . The Defe ndant, Brian L . Brashears, w as convicted b y a
Coffee County jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, third offense,
and driving on a revoked license.1 The jury fined him $250.00 for each offense
and the trial c ourt se ntenc ed him to 11 months and 29 days for driving under the
influence with 180 days to be served in the Coffee County Jail and the remainder
to be served on probation. His driver ’s license was revoked for 10 years. The
Defendant was sentenced to 30 days for driving on a revoked license, to be
served consecutively to the DUI sentence. The Defe ndan t appe als his conviction
for driving u nder th e influence of an intoxicant raising one issue: that the
evidence was insufficient to support a verdict of guilt. W e affirm the judgment of
the trial cou rt.
When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence,
the standard is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favora ble
to the pros ecution, a ny rationa l trier of fact cou ld have fo und the essential
eleme nts of the crime beyond a reaso nable d oubt. Jack son v. V irginia, 443 U.S.
307, 319 (1979). Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the
weight and value to be given the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by
the evidence, are resolved by the trier of fa ct, not this co urt. State v. Pappas, 754
S.W.2d 620, 62 3 (Ten n. Crim. App. 1987). Nor may this court reweigh or
1 Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-10-401, 55-50-504.
-2- reevalua te the evide nce. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 197 8).
A jury verdict approved by the trial judge accredits the 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 stron gest legitim ate
view of the evide nce an d all inferen ces there from. 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, the accused has the burden in this court of
illustrating why the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict returned by the
trier of fact. State v. Tug gle, 639 S.W .2d 913 , 914 (T enn. 1982); Grace, 493
S.W.2d at 476.
The State presented the following proof at tria l. On the evenin g of Ap ril
17, 1994, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Charles Holder was returnin g hom e via
Blanton’s Chapel Road in Coffee County. He noticed headlights approaching him
at approximately a quarter of a mile away. He dimmed his lights because the
road curved to the left. As he approached the turn, the other car was no longer
on the road. Seeing that there was nowhere to turn off the road, Mr. Holder
stopped his veh icle and star ted lookin g off the sid e of the roa d. A few seconds
later, he saw a car off the road. A man was standing outside the driver’s side
door with his hands on top of th e car. Mr. H older direc ted his he adlights towards
the scene . He ask ed the m an, later ide ntified as the Defen dant, whether he was
alright, if he ne eded med ical attention, a nd if he needed a tow truck. The
Defendant mumbled answers, which Holder could not understand. He noted that
the Defendant’s speech seemed slurred and that he appeared unsteady on his
-3- feet. He moved down the side of the car while leaning on it. Holder reported that
the Defendant refused help and was reluctant to speak with him.
Holder left the scene, went h ome, and called his next-doo r neighbor,
Shannon Banks. He told him about the accident because the Defendant had
knocked down a portio n of Banks’ fe nce. B anks was c once rned th at the c attle
in his field would get out onto the road. Banks called law enforcement and
reported the wreck, the n proce eded to the scen e. He arrived ap proximately five
to ten minu tes later. W hen he arrived, he saw the vehicle off the road, but the
Defendant was no t there. After anothe r ten to fifteen minute s, Deputy She riff
Morris Vanattia arrived. Ten to fifteen minutes after that, the Defendant
appeared in the field beyond the vehicle. Deputy Vanattia spoke with him.
The Defe ndan t looke d con fused , and w as talk ing slo wly and mum bling.
Depu ty Vanattia asked the Defendant about the owner and driver of the vehicle.
He denied driving the car and stated that his older brother Mike owned the car
and was driving it. His brother later arrived on the scene and denied driving the
vehicle. The De fendan t then con fessed that he ha d been driving. De puty
Vann atia conducted field sobriety tests, which the Defe ndant fa iled to com plete
successfu lly. He was arrested and taken to the Sheriff’s Department, where he
was administered a breath alcohol test at approximately 11:00 p.m. It registered
a .15% blood alcohol level. The State verified that, at the time the Defendant was
driving, his driver’s license had been revoked.
The Defendant presented proof that he had left the scene and gone to his
brother Scott’s hous e. Sco tt Bras hears testified that the Defe ndan t arrived at his
-4- house shortly after 9 :00 p.m ., and wa s upse t that he had wrecked his car. He
stated the Defendant drank three “Icehouse” beers in appro ximately tw enty
minutes. Scott B rashe ars als o adm itted tha t he ha d prev iously made a statement
in which he stated the Defendant drank two beers. Scott Brashears testified that
the Defendant did not appear intoxicated when he arrived at the house, but
admitted that he himself had been drinking beer and was himself intoxicated.
Therefore , his ability to perceive the Defenda nt’s level of intoxication may h ave
been im paired.
The Defe ndan t testified that his car’s tire had a blowo ut that c ause d him
to run off the road. T he Defen dant reported that he did not drink anyth ing un til
he reached his brothe r’s house . He stated that the “Icehouse” beers had a higher
alcohol level, thu s expla ining the .15% reading. He testified that he weighed
approximately 135 pounds.
The Defendan t contend s that the e vidence does n ot supp ort the gu ilty
verdict for driving under the influence of an intoxicant because the State did not
prove that he was intoxicated when he was operating his veh icle. Th e app licable
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED APRIL SESSION, 1997 June 6, 1997
Cecil W. Crowson STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Appellate Court Clerk C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9606-CC-00281 ) Appellee, ) ) ) COFFEE COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JOHN W. ROLLINS BRIAN L. BRASHEARS, ) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (DUI)
ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COFFEE COUNTY
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
ROBERT S. PETERS CHARLES W. BURSON 100 Firs t Avenu e, S.W . Attorney General and Reporter Win cheste r, TN 37 398 DARYL J. BRAND Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493
C. MICHAEL LAYNE District Attorney General
STEPHEN E. WEITZMAN Assistant District Attorney General P.O. Box 147 Manchester, TN 37355
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE OPINION
This is an appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of
Appe llate Procedure . The Defe ndant, Brian L . Brashears, w as convicted b y a
Coffee County jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, third offense,
and driving on a revoked license.1 The jury fined him $250.00 for each offense
and the trial c ourt se ntenc ed him to 11 months and 29 days for driving under the
influence with 180 days to be served in the Coffee County Jail and the remainder
to be served on probation. His driver ’s license was revoked for 10 years. The
Defendant was sentenced to 30 days for driving on a revoked license, to be
served consecutively to the DUI sentence. The Defe ndan t appe als his conviction
for driving u nder th e influence of an intoxicant raising one issue: that the
evidence was insufficient to support a verdict of guilt. W e affirm the judgment of
the trial cou rt.
When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence,
the standard is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favora ble
to the pros ecution, a ny rationa l trier of fact cou ld have fo und the essential
eleme nts of the crime beyond a reaso nable d oubt. Jack son v. V irginia, 443 U.S.
307, 319 (1979). Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the
weight and value to be given the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by
the evidence, are resolved by the trier of fa ct, not this co urt. State v. Pappas, 754
S.W.2d 620, 62 3 (Ten n. Crim. App. 1987). Nor may this court reweigh or
1 Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-10-401, 55-50-504.
-2- reevalua te the evide nce. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 197 8).
A jury verdict approved by the trial judge accredits the 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 stron gest legitim ate
view of the evide nce an d all inferen ces there from. 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, the accused has the burden in this court of
illustrating why the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict returned by the
trier of fact. State v. Tug gle, 639 S.W .2d 913 , 914 (T enn. 1982); Grace, 493
S.W.2d at 476.
The State presented the following proof at tria l. On the evenin g of Ap ril
17, 1994, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Charles Holder was returnin g hom e via
Blanton’s Chapel Road in Coffee County. He noticed headlights approaching him
at approximately a quarter of a mile away. He dimmed his lights because the
road curved to the left. As he approached the turn, the other car was no longer
on the road. Seeing that there was nowhere to turn off the road, Mr. Holder
stopped his veh icle and star ted lookin g off the sid e of the roa d. A few seconds
later, he saw a car off the road. A man was standing outside the driver’s side
door with his hands on top of th e car. Mr. H older direc ted his he adlights towards
the scene . He ask ed the m an, later ide ntified as the Defen dant, whether he was
alright, if he ne eded med ical attention, a nd if he needed a tow truck. The
Defendant mumbled answers, which Holder could not understand. He noted that
the Defendant’s speech seemed slurred and that he appeared unsteady on his
-3- feet. He moved down the side of the car while leaning on it. Holder reported that
the Defendant refused help and was reluctant to speak with him.
Holder left the scene, went h ome, and called his next-doo r neighbor,
Shannon Banks. He told him about the accident because the Defendant had
knocked down a portio n of Banks’ fe nce. B anks was c once rned th at the c attle
in his field would get out onto the road. Banks called law enforcement and
reported the wreck, the n proce eded to the scen e. He arrived ap proximately five
to ten minu tes later. W hen he arrived, he saw the vehicle off the road, but the
Defendant was no t there. After anothe r ten to fifteen minute s, Deputy She riff
Morris Vanattia arrived. Ten to fifteen minutes after that, the Defendant
appeared in the field beyond the vehicle. Deputy Vanattia spoke with him.
The Defe ndan t looke d con fused , and w as talk ing slo wly and mum bling.
Depu ty Vanattia asked the Defendant about the owner and driver of the vehicle.
He denied driving the car and stated that his older brother Mike owned the car
and was driving it. His brother later arrived on the scene and denied driving the
vehicle. The De fendan t then con fessed that he ha d been driving. De puty
Vann atia conducted field sobriety tests, which the Defe ndant fa iled to com plete
successfu lly. He was arrested and taken to the Sheriff’s Department, where he
was administered a breath alcohol test at approximately 11:00 p.m. It registered
a .15% blood alcohol level. The State verified that, at the time the Defendant was
driving, his driver’s license had been revoked.
The Defendant presented proof that he had left the scene and gone to his
brother Scott’s hous e. Sco tt Bras hears testified that the Defe ndan t arrived at his
-4- house shortly after 9 :00 p.m ., and wa s upse t that he had wrecked his car. He
stated the Defendant drank three “Icehouse” beers in appro ximately tw enty
minutes. Scott B rashe ars als o adm itted tha t he ha d prev iously made a statement
in which he stated the Defendant drank two beers. Scott Brashears testified that
the Defendant did not appear intoxicated when he arrived at the house, but
admitted that he himself had been drinking beer and was himself intoxicated.
Therefore , his ability to perceive the Defenda nt’s level of intoxication may h ave
been im paired.
The Defe ndan t testified that his car’s tire had a blowo ut that c ause d him
to run off the road. T he Defen dant reported that he did not drink anyth ing un til
he reached his brothe r’s house . He stated that the “Icehouse” beers had a higher
alcohol level, thu s expla ining the .15% reading. He testified that he weighed
approximately 135 pounds.
The Defendan t contend s that the e vidence does n ot supp ort the gu ilty
verdict for driving under the influence of an intoxicant because the State did not
prove that he was intoxicated when he was operating his veh icle. Th e app licable
statutes at the time the Defendant was convicted read:
(a) It is unlaw ful for an y perso n to drive or to be in phys ical control of any autom obile or other motor driven vehicle on any of the public roads and highways of the state, or on any stre ets or alleys, or while on the premises of any shopping center, trailer park or any apartment house complex, or any other prem ises which is gen erally frequented by the public at large, while under the influence of any intoxicant, marijuana, narco tic drug, o r drug p roduc ing stimulating effects on the central nervous system.
Tenn. C ode Ann . § 55-10-401 (1988).
-5- (b) Evidence that there was, at the time alleged, ten-hundredths of one percent (.10%), or more, by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood, shall create a presumption that the defendant was under the influence of such intoxica nt, and that his or her a bility to drive was impaired thereby, sufficiently to constitute a violation of § 55-10-401.
Tenn. C ode Ann . § 55-10-408 (1988).
The Defendant was shown to have been d riving his vehicle on a p ublic
roadway in Coffe e Cou nty. Ch arles H older s aw the vehicle approaching him, and
very shortly after it left the road, he witnessed the Defendant leaning against the
car. Moreover, the Defendant admitted to driving the car. These elements of the
offense have been satisfied.
As for whether the Defendant was intoxicated when driving, the State put
on proof that he was observed by Mr. Holder to mumble, slur and appear
unsteady on his feet just after the wreck. After he returned to the scene, he was
unab le to perform the field sob riety tests and continued to mumble and slur. The
State also showe d that the Defe ndant registered a blood alcohol level of .15%
nearly two hours after the accident. This is above the legal limit of .10% and
raises a rebuttable presumption that he was intoxicated. The Defendant argues
that he was not intoxicate d then, but only after he drank beer at his brother
Scott’s house . The Defendant asserts that the level of alcohol in the beer he
drank after the accident supp orts this finding, yet, whether he drank two or three
beers is in question. He also stated that he called his older broth er, Mike, to pick
up his car. Indeed, Mike Brashears showed up at the scene, corroborating the
Defen dant’s sto ry in part.
-6- Howeve r, we cannot reweigh or reevaluate the evidence considered by the
jury. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d at 835. Apparently, the jury chose to cred it the
testimony of the Sta te’s witnes ses an d resolve d any co nflicts in its favor. The
State presented a mple evidence that would support the conclusion that the
Defendant was drinking and became intoxicated before he took the wheel of his
car.
This issue is without m erit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
____________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________ GARY R. WADE, JUDGE
___________________________________ J. CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
-7-