Background
On May 4, 2024, Tennessee Highway Patrol Trooper Jonathan Baxter clocked Cordero Blake traveling 92 mph in a 70 mph zone on I-40 in Henderson County. When Baxter activated his lights, Blake veered abruptly from the fast lane to the slow lane directly in front of a semi-truck, causing the truck to slam on its brakes. Blake then accelerated off the next exit before ultimately stopping. As Baxter approached the driver’s window he immediately smelled a strong odor of marijuana. Blake appeared “dazed,” his eyes were red, and his responses to questions were delayed. Rolling papers were visible inside the vehicle. Blake denied having or using marijuana.
Baxter administered standardized field sobriety tests. On the walk-and-turn, Blake showed seven of eight possible clues of impairment—including stepping off the line, missing heel-to-toe placement, using his arms for balance, an incorrect turnaround, failing to count steps, and taking the wrong number of steps. On the one-leg stand, he showed all possible clues. Baxter arrested Blake for DUI. A search of the vehicle turned up a loaded Glock pistol under the passenger seat, rolling papers, and a bag containing marijuana residue (“shake”). Blake refused a blood test under the Implied Consent law. A Henderson County grand jury indicted Blake for DUI (first offense), possession of a handgun while under the influence of a controlled substance (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1321), driving on a suspended license, speeding, and registration and financial responsibility violations. The jury convicted on all counts. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspended to community corrections after seven days in jail.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both the DUI and the firearm convictions, applying the standard that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).
On the DUI count under Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401(a)(1), Blake conceded the first two elements—that he was driving on a public road—and challenged only whether the State proved he was under the influence of marijuana. The court concluded the circumstantial evidence was more than sufficient. Baxter observed erratic, evasive driving at 92 mph. Two officers independently smelled strong marijuana odor from both the car and Blake’s person. Blake’s eyes were red, his demeanor was dazed, and his responses were delayed. He failed seven of eight walk-and-turn clues and all one-leg-stand clues. Officers found marijuana residue in the vehicle. Blake refused the blood test. The jury also watched body-camera and dash-camera footage of the encounter. The court noted that an arresting officer’s testimony alone can be sufficient to support a DUI conviction under Tennessee precedent, and the record here far exceeded that threshold.
On the firearm count under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1321—which makes it an offense to “possess a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance”—the court noted that Blake’s impairment was established by the same evidence supporting the DUI count, and that a loaded handgun was found in his vehicle. Blake himself told the trooper about the gun before the search. That evidence was sufficient for the jury to find both possession and impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key Takeaways
- Tennessee DUI-marijuana prosecutions under Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401(a)(1) can be established entirely through circumstantial evidence: marijuana odor, physical indicators of impairment (red eyes, dazed demeanor, delayed responses), failed field sobriety tests, and presence of drug residue in the vehicle collectively support a jury finding of impairment beyond a reasonable doubt—no chemical test result is required.
- Possession of a handgun while under the influence under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1321 is satisfied by the same impairment evidence used for DUI—the statute does not require a separate or heightened showing; if the defendant is shown to be under the influence of a controlled substance and possessed a handgun, the offense is complete.
- A defendant’s refusal to submit to a blood test under Tennessee’s Implied Consent law does not preclude a DUI conviction; the State can (and did) prove impairment through the totality of observational evidence without a toxicology result.
Why It Matters
As marijuana use becomes more prevalent and chemical testing for marijuana impairment remains scientifically less precise than breathalyzer tests for alcohol, Tennessee DUI-marijuana cases frequently turn on officer observation and field sobriety testing rather than blood THC levels. This decision confirms that the courts will uphold convictions resting on that observational evidence when the record is strong. For Tennessee criminal defense attorneys handling DUI-marijuana cases, the decision underscores the importance of challenging field sobriety test administration and officer-qualification foundations, as those observations are the primary—often sole—evidentiary basis for the impairment element. The firearm charge also serves as a reminder that Tennessee’s handgun-while-intoxicated statute imposes additional criminal exposure whenever a driver who is DUI is also armed, even if the weapon is lawfully owned.
Practitioners should note that Blake’s refusal to submit to a blood test, while it may have seemed strategically defensive, did not benefit him: the jury had ample evidence without it, and the refusal itself formed part of the factual record presented to the jury through Trooper Baxter’s testimony.