WPC F;`7t2poulїqgpQuBB,7=,67ӣtFhÂQ`ga(44/f)6[@k=iLXO/NgS-u FLr-$A@ ^}Ye=߾FSɡw aEjo⚞wÅgC@2DDkA.8 p֫<*C?%|WGK -V&nvU>NK*Ka疱qxܭ ~^1Se_< 7l)eyF5'sJ=hXPjCx^VqgAws^,xWLQ۴+8N_ڗ?7o;~N#]/BGK=zM+ĜBٸ`ehe`*հQ ,斣`cQ)- r YNz:'"zFc`o)[ځM2_}b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a 'UNN;=TEb 0 B 0 D5 D- 0K ASA 0Z 0D ABHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0E) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular ;)e C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(uH Z6Times New Roman Regular  R}$      1  -  _Icannotagreewiththemajoritysassumptionthatthetrialcourt bas[ed]itsdecisionsolelyonthevisual  portionofthevideotape.Thetrialcourtsorderspecificallyreferencesthepointatwhich thebluelightswere t activated.Thateventcanbedeterminedonlyfromtheofficersstatementthatwasrecordedonthevideotape. x R}$      2  -  _Bothpartiesstipulatedtotheadmissibilityofthevideotapeinitsentirety.Theofficershearsaystatements  maythusbeconsideredassubstantiveevidence.SeeStatev.Smith,24S.W.3d274(Tenn.2000). - -(|G2}$ !.8Odd8         0  - d(|3t$ !.8Odd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3t$ !.8Odd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Odd8     _   O8IXXdd8@ ]OINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#O] #Ԉ &   May4,2000Session L XIXO #OXXI#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.GUYBINETTEXIXO  J @@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  J CriminalCourtforHamiltonCounty  6 @@No.216632RebeccaStern,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E199800236SCR11CDFiledOctober5,_2000_   AV) ` dE<h` A i       #OXIZ#XIX.OJaniceM.Holder,J.,dissenting. < #OXXI#OOXIXO  Irespectfullydissent.Thereisnoneedtoadoptanewstandardtoreviewthevideotaped d evidencepresentedinthiscase.Iwouldholdthatanapplicationofthestandardofreview P traditionallyappliedinTennesseeestablishesthattheofficerinthiscasehadreasonablesuspicion < tostopBinette. (   Themajorityreviewsthevideotapedevidenceinthiscasedenovowithnopresumptionof  correctnessaffordedtothetrialcourt.ThestandardofreviewiscontrarytoourdecisioninStatev.  Odom,928S.W.2d18(Tenn.1996).InOdom,weheldthatatrialcourtsfindingsoffactina  suppressionhearingwillbeupheldunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Seeid.at23.The t majorityrejectsthisstandardbasedonitsconclusionthatthetrialcourtwas innobetterposition ` thantheappellatecourttoreviewtheevidencebecausetherearenoissuesofcredibility. L    Contrarytothemajoritysposition,therearecredibilityissuesinthiscase.Questionsof $"t! credibilityarisewheneveropposingevidenceispresented.See,e.g.,Thomasv.Lloyd,17S.W.3d #`" 177,187(Mo.Ct.App.2000)( Areviewingcourtsdeferencetoatrialcourtsresolutionof #L# credibilityisnotlimitedtotheissueofwitnesscredibility,butalsotoconclusionsofthetrial $8 $ court.).Thetrialcourthadbeforeitthreecompetingdescriptionsoftheevents:theofficers %$!% subjectiveinterpretationasstatedintheaudioportionofthevideotape,thedefendantssubjective &"& explanation,andthevideotapesrecordoftheevent.Evenifweassumethatthetrialcourtbased '"' itsdecisionsolelyonthevideotapedevidence,thetrialcourtdidsoonlyafterdeterminingthatthe (#( videotapewasamorecredibleversionofthefactsthantheexplanationofferedbythedefendant. )$) Trialcourtsarenototherwiseentitledtodisregardadmissibleevidence.Cf.Statev.Hornsby,858 p*%* S.W.2d892,895n.2(Tenn.1993)(allowingappellatecourtstodisregardtestimonyoffactsthatare \+&+  inherentlyimpossibleandabsolutelyatvariancewithwell-establishedanduniversallyrecognized H,', physicallawsbecauseitis notcredibleevidence.)(quotingNelmsv.TennesseeFarmersMut.  Ins.Co.,613S.W.2d481,483(Tenn.Ct.App.1978)).     Themajorityreliesuponthe depositionruleenunciatedinworkerscompensationcases. t Therationaleforthe depositionruleisthatdepositionevidencereachestheappellatecourtinthe ` sameforminwhichitwaspresentedtothetrialcourt.Accordingly,thetrialcourtoccupiesnobetter L  positionthantheappellatecourtinreviewingandinterpretingthatevidence.Themajorityhas 8  determinedthatthevideotapeisinasimilarposture!itcomestothisCourtinaformidenticalto $ t thatpresentedtothetrialcourt.Themajoritythereforeconcludesthatwearenotboundbythetrial  ` courtsinterpretationofthevideotapebecausethetrialcourtwasnotrequiredtodetermine  L  credibility.  8    Strongpolicyreasonsexist,however,forpresumingatrialcourtsfactualfindingscorrect,   evenwherecredibilityisnotanissue.InMitchellv.Archibald,971S.W.2d25(Tenn.Ct.App.   1998),theCourtofAppealswasaskedbyapartytoconsiderdenovothecredibilityofawitnesss   testimonybecausethattestimonywasonvideotape.Thecourtdeclinedtodoso,citingprecedent   thatthetrialcourtisinthebestpositiontoobservethewitnessandtodeterminethatwitnesss p credibility.Thecourtalsonotedthattherearereasons,unrelatedtocredibility,fordeferringtothe \ trialcourtsfactualfindings: H 8  8`   Thetrialjudgesmajorroleisthedeterminationoffact,andwith  p experienceinfulfillingthatrolecomesexpertise.Duplicationofthe  \ trialjudgeseffortsinthecourtofappealswouldverylikely H contributeonlynegligiblytotheaccuracyoffactdeterminationata 4 hugecostindiversionofjudicialresources.Inaddition,theparties   toacaseonappealhavealreadybeenforcedtoconcentratetheir   energiesandresourcesonpersuadingthetrialjudgethattheiraccount  ofthefactsisthecorrectone;requiringthemtopersuadethreemore  judgesattheappellatelevelisrequiringtoomuch.` x` x Id.at29(quotingAndersonv.CityofBessemerCity,470U.S.564,574-75(1985)(internal X  quotationsomitted)). D!   Itistellingthatthreedifferentjudicialinterpretationsofthefactsofthiscasewereelicited #l! bythreeindependentreviewsofthevideotapeateachlevelofreview.Themajoritysopinionnow $X" becomesthe correctinterpretation.Butcf.Anderson,470U.S.at574(stating Wherethereare $D # twopermissibleviewsoftheevidence,thefactfinderschoicebetweenthemcannotbeclearly %0!$ erroneous.).Byfailingtogiveanypresumptionofcorrectnesstothetrialcourt,themajority &"% essentiallyendorsesa lastinlineisrightrule. '#&   Ifatrialcourtistrulyin nobetterpositionthantheappellatecourttoevaluateevidence, )$( thentherationaleforeliminatingthepresumptionofcorrectnessofthetrialcourtsfindingsisthat |*%) thetruefactsaremorelikelytobegleanedfromthreeinterpretationsoftheevidence(atthe h+&* intermediateappellatelevel),andeventuallyfiveinterpretationsoftheevidence(attheSupreme  Courtlevel),thanfromthetrialcourtssingleinterpretation.Thisrationaleignoresafactthat  MitchellandAndersonrecognize:trialjudgesaretheexpertfactfinders.Iamconvincedthattrial  courtsareinabetterpositionthanappellatecourtstomakefindingsoffact,irrespectiveoftheform t oftheevidence. `   Givingapresumptionofcorrectnesstothetrialcourtinthiscase,Iwouldholdthatthe 8  evidencesupportsafindingthatthestopinthiscasewasbaseduponreasonablesuspicion.Under $ t Odom,appellatecourtsgiveapresumptionofcorrectnesstothetrialcourtsfactualfindingsaslong  ` astherecorddoesnotpreponderateagainstthosefindings.SeeOdom928S.W.2dat23.  L  Applicationofthelawtothefactsisdenovo.Statev.Yeargan,958S.W.2d626,629(Tenn.1997).  8    Theonlyfactualfindingmadeontherecordinthiscasewasthattherewas fairlysignificant   weaving.UnderOdom,Ipresumethisfindingtobecorrect.Thispresumptionstandssolongas   theevidenceintherecorddoesnotpreponderateagainstit.     Icannotagreewiththemajorityopinioninthat#XIXXXI#thereisno evidenceofpronouncedweaving p orhardswervingbyBinette.XIXXXIԀTheofficerstatesintheaudiocomponentofthevideotapethat the \ vehiclejustmadeahardswerve.  #  1      ׀Theofficerwasinagoodpositiontojudgetheseverityofthe H swerve,whichwasbarelycaughtoncamera.Further,Binettesvehicledoesweavefromsidetoside 4 withinhislaneoftravelthroughoutthevideo,albeitinslowrepetition.Thus,Iwouldholdthatthe  p recorddoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingof fairlysignificantweaving.  \   TheremainderoftheevidenceincludestheofficersassertionthatBinettehad already 4 crossedtheyellowlinetwiceandthatBinettes vehicleisrunningabout60milesperhourina45   mileperhourzone.Thetrialcourtdidnotmakefindingsoffactastothesestatements.Wemust,   however,considertheentirerecordtodeterminewhethertheofficerhadreasonablesuspiciontostop  Binette.Theofficerssstatementswereadmissibleevidence.  #  2      ׀Thestatements,therefore,maybe  consideredindeterminingwhethertheofficerhadreasonablesuspicion.    Thetrialcourtsspecificfindingoffactandtheremainderoftheevidence,includingthetrial X  courtsimplicitrejectionofBinettesversionofthefacts,convincesmethattheofficerhad D! reasonablesuspicionthatBinettewasdrivingwhileimpaired.Iwouldthereforeaffirm.#XIXXXI&# 0"     `     h     ___________________________________ %0!$    `     h     JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE