The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has affirmed the conviction of Stanley William Havens for driving under the influence (DUI), finding the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The appellate court also upheld the enhanced sentence handed down for what was determined to be the defendant’s third DUI offense, though it ordered the trial court to correct some technical errors on the judgment forms.
Mr. Havens was convicted in Putnam County Criminal Court on charges of DUI and DUI per se (having a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher). Because this was his third offense, the court applied enhanced sentencing, resulting in a term of 11 months and 29 days confinement, with 75% eligibility for release.
On appeal, Mr. Havens raised several issues, including the sufficiency of the evidence, disputes over the handling of video evidence, allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, a challenge to the seating of a juror, and the severity of his sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals rejected all grounds for appeal except for the need to correct clerical errors.
Traffic Stop Details and Chemical Evidence
The case stemmed from a traffic stop initiated around 3:15 a.m. on October 30, 2021. Trooper Dylan Culver testified that he observed Mr. Havens speeding (78 mph in a 55 mph zone) and failing to maintain his lane, crossing the center line with both left tires.
Upon exiting the vehicle, the trooper noted Mr. Havens had slurred speech and the odor of alcohol. The defendant admitted to consuming “one or two drinks” at a bowling alley, later changing his story to “two to three whiskey drinks” at a bar. Field sobriety tests revealed poor performance: six out of eight indicators of intoxication on the walk-and-turn test and three out of four on the one-leg stand test. Mr. Havens reportedly told the trooper, “I’ve got a buzz. I won’t lie to you.”
Crucially, forensic testing on a blood sample drawn after the arrest showed Mr. Havens’ blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was 0.188%. An expert witness testified that this level of alcohol would significantly impair the ability to perform divided-attention tasks like driving, suggesting the defendant would have needed to consume eight to ten drinks quickly on an empty stomach to reach that level.
The Court of Criminal Appeals found that this evidence, viewed favorably to the State, was more than enough for a rational jury to find Mr. Havens guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of both DUI and DUI per se.
Video Redaction Dispute Fails on Appeal
A significant portion of the appeal centered on a video recording of the stop. The State redacted the video to remove references to Mr. Havens’ prior DUI convictions, arguing this was necessary because prior offenses are inadmissible during the first phase of a bifurcated trial (where guilt is determined).
The defense objected, citing the rule of completeness, and argued that the redactions implied the State was hiding exculpatory evidence. The trial court permitted the State to play the redacted version but explicitly allowed the defense the “equal opportunity” to introduce the entire, unredacted video if they chose to do so.
On appeal, the appellate court found this argument moot. During oral arguments, defense counsel admitted that the trial court *did* allow him to play the full video, but he was unprepared to do so at trial, having not secured a copy. Furthermore, counsel candidly admitted his strategy was not to introduce the full video but rather to play the State’s redacted version to suggest to the jury that the State was hiding something unfavorable—even though the unredacted portions actually contained inculpatory statements from the defendant regarding his prior DUIs and his expectation that his blood test would be over the limit.
Because the evidence was not excluded and the defendant failed to introduce any video evidence—or seek a continuance when he couldn’t—the claim that his right to present a defense was violated failed.
Juror Challenge and Prosecutorial Anecdote Waived
Mr. Havens challenged the trial court’s decision not to excuse a prospective juror for cause. This juror revealed a deeply personal history: her first husband was killed by a drunk driver in 1978, and she later married an abusive alcoholic. Although she affirmed multiple times that she could remain fair and impartial regarding the defendant, the defense argued she should have been struck.
However, the record shows the defense used a peremptory challenge to remove this juror. During oral arguments, the defense counsel effectively withdrew this issue after confirming the juror had, in fact, been excused.
The defense also complained about an anecdote the prosecutor shared during *voir dire* concerning her dog, Archie, who was implicated in stealing a steak. The prosecutor used this story to explain the concept of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without an eyewitness. The defense failed to object to this story either during opening statements or closing arguments. The appeals court ruled that failing to object contemporaneously, and failing to develop a proper legal argument against the anecdote on appeal, resulted in the issue being waived.
Sentence Affirmed
Finally, Mr. Havens challenged his sentence, specifically arguing the court provided insufficient reasoning for requiring him to serve 75% of his confinement time.
The appellate court reviewed the misdemeanor sentence under the *Bise* standard, finding the trial court acted within its discretion. The court noted the sentencing factors applied: the defendant showed no hesitation in committing a crime where human life was at high risk (speeding, poor lane control, high impairment indicators). The court also factored in the defendant’s lack of candor regarding the number of drinks consumed, which was contradicted by the toxicology report.
Given the seriousness of a third DUI offense, the court determined that confinement beyond the statutory minimum of 120 days was warranted to avoid depreciating the offense’s seriousness.
The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentence but remanded the case to the trial court for correction of the judgment forms, which contained clerical errors regarding the count numbers for the DUI and DUI per se charges.