Hindman & Lanzon Hindman & Lanzon
Call for a Free Consultation
865-223-6450

September 2012 Archives

Guilty of DUI by Circumstantial Evidence

The state has the burden of proof in any criminal case, including when the allegations are driving under the influence (DUI). But a jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence in finding an accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They did so in the recent case of State v. Barham, W2011-02348-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 9-17-2012). In that case, the accused's own words and actions, along with observations by witnesses, led to the conclusion that he had been driving under the influence, even though he was not observed driving.

Guilty of DUI by Circumstantial Evidence

The state has the burden of proof in any criminal case, including when the allegations are driving under the influence (DUI). But a jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence in finding an accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They did so in the recent case of State v. Barham, W2011-02348-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 9-17-2012). In that case, the accused's own words and actions, along with observations by witnesses, led to the conclusion that he had been driving under the influence, even though he was not observed driving.

Guilty of DUI by Circumstantial Evidence

The state has the burden of proof in any criminal case, including when the allegations are driving under the influence (DUI). But a jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence in finding an accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They did so in the recent case of State v. Barham, W2011-02348-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 9-17-2012). In that case, the accused's own words and actions, along with observations by witnesses, led to the conclusion that he had been driving under the influence, even though he was not observed driving.

map map

Hindman & Lanzon
550 West Main Street
Suite 550
Knoxville, TN 37902

Toll Free: 866-383-1545
Phone: 865-223-6450
Fax: 865-521-6371
Knoxville Law Office Map