 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Arnett7/18/2005
e the tests. After later agreeing to take the tests, the defendant failed them. After the officers identified the defendant, they determined that he was driving on a revoked driver's license and had a prior DUI conviction in Carter County in 1999. After failing the sobriety tests, the defendant was arrested. The officers returned to the scene where bystanders told them that they saw the accident and saw the man get out of the car. A breathalyzer test apparently performed after his arrest showed a blood alcohol level of .28.
There is abundant independent evidence, apart from anything taken from the defendant and subject to suppression, primarily the testimony of the bystanders and the officers, to prove the defendant's guilt. This Court has stated:
It is well established that the denial of a motion to suppress a blood alcohol test is not necessarily dispositive of the case when sufficient evidence exists that is "independent of the test result," such as the testimony from an officer or other witness that the motorist drove in a manner or otherwise exhibited behavior that suggested impairment of the ability to drive. State v. Gregory W. Gurley, No. W2001-02253-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Aug. 6, 2002).
State v. Terry A. Hawkins, No. M2002-01819-CCA-R3-CD, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, April 6, 2004). We conclude that there is ample independent evidence from which reasonable minds could determine the defendant guilty. Therefore, the certified question is not dispositive of the case.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|