ÿWPC!  …U:V % 0Ü–w@r 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u© 0dU*‚ B¬B)ÉDCò AM5´‚‚6v~¸vÓ6 D3  0@< AO|ÆË 0D‘ D/Õ B , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ E!',-U.Ke/01D2Ó€©U!3|x=(Ð(3B$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ìŠXXdæXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ªÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òOcto…berÏ1,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó xÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAn€objective€of€the€criminal€code€is€to€ð ðgive€fair€warning€of€what€conductÏis€prohibited,€and€guide€the€exercise€of€official€discretion€in€law€enforcement,€byÏdefining€the€act€and€the€culpable€mental€state€which€together€constitute€anÏoffense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„101(2)€(1991).€€Although€the€driving€whileÏintoxicated€statute€eliminates€the€necessity€for€a€culpable€mental€state,€theÏstatute€does€not€eliminate€the€necessity€for€some€ð ðact.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401(a);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„102(b);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„301(b).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò ò›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€"#!;+'h|` e `€€Lß›à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àAUGUST€SESSION,Ï1996Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9510„CC„00321Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àBLOUNTÏCOUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€D.ÏKelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€JudgeÌò òJOHN€RUSSELL€TURNERó ó,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(DUI)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€theÏAppelleeóó:ÌÌMack€Garnerà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ318€Court€Streetà àÌMaryville,€TN€€37801à àà àà àMichael€J.€Fahey,€IIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€Generalà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMary€Ann€Queen,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àLegal€AssistantÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€L.€FlynnÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€CarpenterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBlount€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMaryville,€TN€€37801ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€John€Russell€Turner,€appeals€from€his€conviction€by€a€juryÏfor€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€The€œCircuit›€Court€of€BlountÏCounty€sentenced€the€appellant€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€daysÏincarceration€in€the€county€jail€and€suspended€all€but€five€days.€€On€appeal,€theÏappellant€contends€that€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€is€insufficient€to€support€aÏconviction,€because€the€State€failed€to€prove€that€he€intended€to€operate€aÏvehicle.ÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òBACKGROUNDó óÌà àShortly€after€midnight,€on€December€31,€1994,€Officer€Ruskey€of€theÏMaryville€Police€Department€observed€two€individuals€stagger€across€the€publicÏparking€lot€adjoining€the€ð ðCoffee€Shop,ðð€an€establishment€which€servesÏalcoholic€beverages,€and€enter€a€vehicle.€€By€the€time€the€officer€approachedÏthe€vehicle,€the€lights€were€on€and€the€engine€was€running.€€The€vehicle,Ïhowever,€remained€stationary.€€The€appellant€was€seated€behind€the€steeringÏwheel,€and€a€female€occupied€the€passenger€seat.€€The€appellant€and€hisÏcompanion€admitted€to€Officer€Ruskey€that€they€had€been€drinking.€€TheÏappellant€failed€to€satisfactorily€perform€three€field€sobriety€tests.€€An€intoximeterÍtest,€subsequently€administered€at€the€police€station,€reflected€a€breath€alcoholÏlevel€of€.28€percent.€€Ruskey€testified€that€there€was€no€doubt€in€his€mind€that€theÏappellant€was€intoxicated€on€the€night€in€question€and€that€the€appellantððsÏability€to€operate€a€vehicle€ð ðwas€very€impaired.ððÌÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€appellant€admitted€that€he€was€intoxicated€when€he€enteredÏhis€vehicle.€€However,€although€the€appellant€conceded€that€he€was€seatedÏbehind€the€steering€wheel€when€the€officer€approached€his€vehicle€and€that€heÏhad€his€car€keys€ð ðout,ðð€he€denied€starting€the€engine€or€turning€on€the€carððsÏheadlights.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€denied€any€intent€to€drive€his€vehicle€fromÏthe€parking€lot.€€He€explained€that,€earlier€that€evening,€he€had€called€hisÏnephew€and€had€asked€his€nephew€to€drive€him€home,€because€he€knew€thatÏhe€was€too€intoxicated€to€drive.€€According€to€the€appellant,€he€was€simplyÏawaiting€his€nephewððs€arrival€when€approached€by€Officer€Ruskey.€€TheÏappellantððs€nephew€also€testified€at€trial€and€confirmed€that€he€had€been€calledÏby€his€uncle€and€asked€to€drive€him€home.€€After€deliberating,€the€jury€found€theÏappellant€guilty€of€driving€under€the€influence.ÌÌà@ àò òANALYSISó óÌà àThe€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supporting€hisÏconviction€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÍ55„10„401(a)€(1993)€provides:€ð ðIt€is€unlawful€for€any€person€or€persons€to€driveÏor€to€be€in€physical€control€of€any€automobile€...€on€any€...€premises€which€isÏgenerally€frequented€by€the€public€at€large,€while€under€the€influence€of€anyÏintoxicant€...€.ðð€€The€appellant€concedes€that€he€was€under€the€influence€of€anÏintoxicant€at€the€time€of€his€arrest€and€that,€technically,€he€was€in€physicalÏcontrol€of€his€vehicle,€which€was€located€in€a€public€parking€lot.€€However,Ïdespite€the€absence€of€any€language€in€the€drunk€driving€statute€requiring€aÏculpable€mental€state,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€crime€of€driving€under€theÏinfluence€requires€an€intent€to€operate€a€vehicle.€€ÌÌà àIn€support€of€his€argument,€the€appellant€relies€upon€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„11„102(b)(1991)€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„301(b)€and€(c)€(1991).€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„11„102(b)€provides€that€ð ð[t]he€provisions€of€parts€1„6€of€thisÏchapter€apply€to€offenses€defined€by€other€laws€unless€otherwise€provided€byÏlaw.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„301€provides:ÌÓÓà8 à(b)€A€culpable€mental€state€is€required€within€this€title€unless€theÏdefinition€of€an€offense€plainly€dispenses€with€a€mental€element.Ìà8 à(b)€If€the€definition€of€an€offense€...€does€not€plainly€dispense€with€aÏmental€element,€intent,€knowledge,€or€recklessness€suffices€toÏestablishes€the€culpable€mental€state.ÌÓÓÌÌà àð ðThe€provisions€of€[the€criminal€code]€shall€be€construed€according€to€theÏfair€import€of€their€terms,€including€reference€to€judicial€decisions€and€commonÍlaw€interpretations,€to€promote€justice,€and€effect€the€objectives€of€the€criminalÏcode.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„104€(1991).€€In€determining€the€application€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„102(b)€and€39„11„301(b)€and€(c)€to€the€driving€whileÏintoxicated€statute,€we€note€that€this€court€has€previously€observed€that€there€isÏno€culpable€mental€state€required€for€guilt€of€driving€under€the€influence.€€òòStateÏv.€Fioritoóó,€No.€03C01„9401„CR„00032€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€NovemberÏ27,€1995).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Mabeóó,€No.€03C01„9402„CR„00051€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€at€Knoxville,€October€25,€1994)(ð ðwe€doubt€that€the€offense€[of€driving€underÏthe€influence]€requires€as€an€element€that€the€defendant€have€the€specific€intentÏto€drive€the€vehicle,€in€addition€to€having€physical€controlðð).€€Indeed,€consideringÏour€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Lawrenceóó,€849€S.W.2d€761€(Tenn.Ï1993),€the€definition€of€the€offense€of€driving€under€the€influence€ð ðplainlyÏdispenses€with€a€mental€element.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„301.€€InÏòòLawrenceóó,€our€supreme€court,€in€construing€the€meaning€of€ð ðphysical€control,ððÏremarked:ÌÓÓà8 àIt€is€our€opinion€that€the€Legislature,€in€making€it€a€crime€to€be€inÏphysical€control€of€an€automobile€while€under€the€influence€of€anÏintoxicant,€ð ðintended€to€enable€the€drunken€driver€to€beÏapprehended€before€he€strikes.ðð€€We€agree€with€the€observationÏthat€ð ð[a]€motor€vehicle€is€recognized€in€the€law€as€a€dangerousÏinstrumentality€when€in€the€control€of€a€sober€person;€in€the€controlÏof€a€drunk,€the€dangerous€instrumentality€becomes€lethal.€ÏTherefore€...€the€court€[should€interpret]€the€drunk€driving€statute€inÏa€way€that€[keeps]€drunks€from€behind€the€steering€wheels€ofÏmotor€vehicles,€òòeven€when€the€drunk€need[s]€to€ððsleep€it€offóó.ððððÌÌÓÓòòLawrenceóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€765€(emphasis€added).€€òòContrastóó€òòState€v.€Loveóó,€897ÍS.W.2d€P.2d€626,€628„630€(Ariz.€1995).€€In€other€words,€in€enacting€the€drivingÏwhile€intoxicated€statute,€the€legislature€desired€not€only€to€prohibit€theÏoperation€of€a€vehicle€by€an€intoxicated€individual,€but€also€œto€remove€from€theÏ›œ›œ›œ›œ›œ›œinebriated›€œthe€option€of€›œ›œ›œoperating›€a€vehicle.€€Accordingly,€the€supreme€courtÏquoted€with€approval€the€following€language:ÌÓÓà8 àð ðWe€believe€that€an€intoxicated€person€seated€behind€the€steeringÏwheel€of€a€motor€vehicle€is€a€threat€to€the€safety€and€welfare€of€theÏpublic.€€The€danger€is€less€than€where€an€intoxicated€person€isÏactually€driving€a€vehicle,€but€it€does€exist.€€The€defendant€whenÏarrested€may€have€been€exercising€òòno€conscious€violationóó€withÏrespect€to€the€vehicle,€still€there€is€a€legitimate€inference€to€beÏdrawn€that€he€placed€himself€behind€the€wheel€of€the€vehicle€andÏcould€have€at€any€time€started€the€automobile€and€driven€away.ðð€ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€765€n.2€(citing€òòHughes€v.€Stateóó,€535€P.2d€1023,€1024€(Okla.Ï1975))(emphasis€added).€ÌÌà àThus,€by€defining€the€offense€of€driving€under€the€influence€to€encompassÏthe€mere€physical€control€of€a€vehicle,€the€legislature€clearly€signaled€itsÏintention€to€create€a€crime€imposing€strict€liability.€€It€is€for€the€legislature€toÏdetermine€whether€the€public€injury€threatened€by€those€driving€under€theÏinfluence€is€so€great€as€to€justify€imposition€of€strict€liability.€€ÌÓÓà8 àWhile€the€general€rule€at€common€law€was€that€the€scienter€was€aÏnecessary€element€in€the€indictment€and€proof€of€every€crime,€andÏthis€was€followed€in€regard€to€statutory€crimes€even€where€theÏstatutory€definition€did€not€in€terms€include€it,€there€has€been€aÏmodification€of€this€view€in€respect€to€prosecutions€under€statutesÏthe€purpose€of€which€would€be€obstructed€by€such€a€requirement.€ÏIt€is€a€question€of€legislative€intent€to€be€construed€by€the€court.€€ItÍhas€been€objected€that€punishment€of€a€person€for€an€act€inÏviolation€of€law€when€ignorant€of€the€facts€making€it€so,€is€anÏabsence€of€due€process€of€law.€€But€...€the€State€may€in€theÏmaintenance€of€a€public€policy€provide€ð ðthat€he€who€shall€do€themÏshall€do€them€at€his€peril€and€will€not€be€heard€to€plead€in€defenseÏgood€faith€or€ignorance.ððÌÌÓÓòòUnited€States€v.€Balintóó,€258€U.S.€250,€251„252,€42€S.Ct.€301,€302Ï(1922)(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àWe€note€that,€in€order€to€illustrate€his€argument,€the€appellant€in€his€briefÏposes€several€hypothetical€situations,€including€the€scenario€in€which€anÏintoxicated€and€unconscious€individual€is€carried€to€his€car€by€his€companionsÏand€left€in€the€vehicle,€resulting€in€his€subsequent€discovery€by€a€police€officer.€ÏHowever,€in€general,€a€minimum€requirement€for€criminal€liability€is€theÏperformance€of€a€voluntary€act.€€òòSeeóó€Model€Penal€Code€ðð€2.01€(1985).× ƒ$ ××  ×€€AÏvoluntary€act€is€a€bodily€movement€performed€consciously€as€a€result€of€effort€orÏdetermination.€€òòIdóó.€€Accordingly,€in€order€to€be€subject€to€criminal€liability€underÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401(a),€a€defendant€would€have€to€voluntarily€placeÏhimself€in€physical€control€of€his€vehicle.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€it€is€undisputed€that€the€appellant€voluntarily€placed€himselfÏin€physical€control€of€his€vehicle€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€ÏTherefore,€we€conclude€that€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875ÏS.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€743€(1995);€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.Ï1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.Ct.€1368€(1993);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657ÏS.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073,€104€S.Ct.€1429Ï(1984).ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€Judge