Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

88 S.W.3d 540

State v. Flake

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided October 24, 2002

Tennessee Supreme Court · decided 2002-10-24

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2018

16 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The weight and value to be given expert testimony is a question for the jury. Where there is a conflict in the evidence, the trier of fact is not required to accept expert testimony over other evidence and must determine the weight and credibility of each in light of all the facts and circumstances of the case. Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, as well as all factual disputes raised by the evidence, are for the trier of fact; appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence or reevaluate credibility determinations.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State of Tennessee v. Joy Kennedy

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · State v. Odom · State v. Keith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-10-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*561OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

¶2The appellee, Christopher M. Flake, by and through counsel, has filed a petition to rehear the opinion of this Court filed August 29, 2002. As grounds for rehearing the petition asserts that the Opinion did not address another issue raised in Flake’s brief, specifically, that the trial court erred in denying Flake’s motion to suppress because Flake was not mentally capable of knowingly and intelligently consenting to a search or waiving his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

¶3While the appellee is correct that the August 29, 2002, Opinion did not explicitly address the suppression issue, this assertion is not grounds for rehearing. It is well-settled that “a trial court’s findings of fact in a suppression hearing will be upheld unless the evidence preponderates otherwise.” State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn.1996). “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.” Id.; see also State v. England, 19 S.W.3d 762, 766 (Tenn.2000). As such, “the prevailing party 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.’ “ See State v. Carter, 16 S.W.3d 762, 765 (Tenn.2000) (quoting State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn.1998)).

¶4Applying these principles, we are of the opinion that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that the defendant was mentally capable of knowingly and intelligently consenting to a search and of waiving his rights under Miranda. Accordingly, Flake’s assertion that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress is without merit.

¶5Justice Anderson and Justice Birch continue to adhere to the views expressed in their initial dissenting opinion but concur in the denial of this petition for rehearing.

¶6Accordingly, the petition to rehear is DENIED.

/88/sw3d/540 · .json · Public domain