State of Tennessee v. David L. Hathaway

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01C01-9703-CR-00094

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; July 2, 1998; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

David L. Hathaway appealed his conviction for driving under the influence (D.U.I.) in the Criminal Court of Pickett County, resulting from a bench trial. He received a suspended sentence of six months and one hour in jail, a one-year driver’s license revocation, a 48-hour jail term, and a $350 fine. Hathaway contested the admissibility of his breathalyzer results and the sufficiency of the evidence against him. 

On May 5, 1995, Hathaway left a restaurant and was stopped by Trooper Gilbert Lee, who initially approached to check his driver's license. Although Hathaway showed no signs of intoxication while driving, Trooper Lee detected a strong odor of alcohol upon speaking with him. Hathaway admitted to consuming “a couple of three beers” that evening. Observations of his unsteady walk, slurred speech, and difficulty finding his license prompted Trooper Lee to request a field sobriety test, which Hathaway ignored. He was subsequently arrested for D.U.I. without a field sobriety test being conducted.

Officer Scott Stephens, who transported Hathaway to jail, noted similar signs of intoxication. Officer Billy Harmon conducted a breathalyzer test, revealing a blood alcohol content of 0.16 percent. Hathaway testified that while he drank four beers over two hours, he believed he was capable of driving safely. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Two patrons of Moogie’s restaurant, Denise Wilkerson and Denise Musgrave, testified for the defense, stating they observed the appellant drinking beer but did not perceive him as intoxicated when he left. The trial court clarified that the question of the appellant's appearance of intoxication was distinct from whether he was driving under the influence. Based on police observations and breathalyser results, the court found the appellant guilty of D.U.I. 

The appellant challenged the admissibility of the breath test results, claiming Officer Harmon did not observe him for the required twenty minutes prior to the test. Although the law mandates this observation to prevent interference with test results, the court found the officer's testimony credible despite discrepancies in timing records. Officer Harmon indicated he relied on his wristwatch, which was unsynchronized with other clocks, to conduct the observation. The trial court upheld the validity of the breath test results, affirming that the prosecution met the evidentiary standard set by precedent.

The trial court's decision to admit the blood alcohol evidence is presumed correct unless proven otherwise. The court ruled that Officer Harmon's observation requirement was satisfied, and it is within the trial judge's discretion to weigh evidence and resolve conflicting testimony. The appellant also argued that without the blood alcohol evidence, there was insufficient proof of D.U.I., indicating the State's case depended heavily on that evidence.

The court determined that the defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the convicting evidence lacked merit. When assessing such challenges, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, ensuring that a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as established in Jackson v. Virginia. The court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence or evaluate credibility, leaving those determinations to the trier of fact. A guilty verdict implies that the trial court accepted the testimony of the State's witnesses, shifting the presumption from innocence to guilt.

The burden rests with the appellant to demonstrate that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. The trial judge found the appellant guilty of driving under the influence (D.U.I.) based on a blood alcohol level of 0.16% and witness testimony from three police officers regarding the appellant's slurred speech and unsteady demeanor. The appellant acknowledged that the breathalyzer evidence was sufficient for conviction and that there was no error in admitting this evidence at trial. Under Tennessee law, a blood alcohol level of 0.10% or higher creates a presumption of intoxication. The court found that the trial court's decision was justified and affirmed the judgment, with all judges concurring.