4 Decisions affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals

The CCA has been busy with three DUI affirmations in the last week. Here is a brief synopsis and a link to the cases:

State v Graham, The defendant was convicted of DUI 3rd offense and challenged the evidence that he was passed out in a McDonald's drive thru and that he was intoxicated as shown through his inability to divide his attention and adequately perform tasks during filed sobriety tests. The case occurred in Oakland, Tn. The arresting officer and witness for the State was Sgt. Kenneth Long. The prosecutor was Matt Hooper. The link to this case is at:
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/grahamgaryopn.pdf

State v Frye, In this DUI 3rd offense case the defendant challenged the stop and the sufficiency of the evidence. The stop occurred after Sergeant Phillip Henderson of Tullahoma saw the defendant had no headlights on at 1:00 a.m. He turned his police car around and followed and watched the car swerve out of his lane twice for a few seconds each. The stop was affirmed. Officer Kevin Smith performed the Field tests with the defendant and observed indicators of intoxication. The defendant called a jail officer to testify that the jail intake form did not indicate intoxication. The jury convicted and that decision was affirmed. The prosecutor in the case was Marla Holloway. The link to the case is at:
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/fryeraleighkristopheropn.pdf

State v Padgett, This one was a DUI 4th conviction in Knoxville. The defendant wanted the video recording of her arrest suppressed for lack of probable cause to arrest. She had been in a two vehicle crash she apparently caused and the cars had been moved to a fire station. She was cantankerous and in an ill humor. She refused to perform field sobriety tests. During the discussions in which she was "very belligerent" the officer's video camera recorded the audio of the conversation. Even though the driver refused to cooperate, the officer developed p.c. and placed her under arrest. In an interesting twist the defendant argued that her blood should have been drawn and that the case should be dismissed for failure to preserve her blood evidence. Blood was not drawn due to her conduct, so the court disagreed.
The prosecutor in the case was Kyle Hixson. The link is at:
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/padgettgaillynnopn.pdf

State v Minchew, This DUI 1st offender had a BAC 0f .10, but battled to suppress the traffic stop. The stop by Trooper Charles Achinger was based in part due to a B.O.L.O. call by a citizen and the trooper's observations of the vehicle crossing and straddling lanes lines. The defendant argued his driving was of the "garden variety of minor imperfections" condoned by Justice Barker in the Binette decision. In his testimony the trooper pointed out that failing to maintain a lane is now a violation of the law (see TCA 55-8-115), which was not true when Binette was decided. In addition the Court found several driving errors that went beyond the "garden variety". The prosecutor in the case was Kelly Lawrence. The link to this one is at:
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/minchewalanbryantopn.pdf