Suppress Blood Draw, Motion to
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
State v. Reynolds, No. M2022-00480-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 6, 2023).
In reviewing a trial court’s decisions on suppression issues, this court must “uphold the trial court’s findings of fact, unless the evidence preponderates against them.” State v. Tuttle, 515 S.W.3d 282, 299 (Tenn. 2017) (citing State v. Bell, 429 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tenn. 2014)). “Questions of credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, and resolution of conflicts in the evidence are matters entrusted to the trial judge as the trier of fact.” State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996). “The party prevailing in the trial court ‘is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing, as well as to all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from [the] evidence.’” Tuttle, 515 S.W.3d at 299 (quoting Bell, 429 S.W.3d at 529; other citations omitted). Conversely, “[t]he application of law to the facts is reviewed de novo, and the appellate court is not obliged to afford a presumption of correctness to the [trial] court’s conclusions of law.” Tuttle, 515 S.W.3d at 299 (citing State v. Walton, 41 S.W.3d 75, 81 (Tenn. 2001)). When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court “may consider the entire record, including not only the proof offered at the hearing, but also the evidence adduced at trial.” State v. Williamson, 368 S.W.3d 468, 473 (Tenn. 2012) (citing State v. Henning, 975 S.W.2d 290, 297-99 (Tenn. 1998)).
State of Tennessee v. Moore, No. M2020-01147-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 12, 2022).
In reviewing a motion to suppress, this Court will uphold the trial court’s findings of fact unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. State v. Hayes, 188 S.W.3d 505, 510 (Tenn. 2006) (citing State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996)). Questions concerning the “credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, and resolution of conflicts in the evidence are matters entrusted to the trial judge as the trier of fact.” Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23. The party prevailing in the trial court is afforded “the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.” State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998). Additionally, our review of the trial court’s application of the law to the facts is de novo, with no presumption of correctness. State v. Walton, 41 S.W.3d 75, 81 (Tenn. 2001) (citing State v. Crutcher, 989 S.W.2d 295, 299 (Tenn. 1999); State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997)).
