Crawford-Thomas v. State

Pursuant to a jury trial, Janice Crawford-Thomas was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, driving left of the center line and speeding. She appeals, arguing that the trial court erroneously denied her motion to suppress evidence. The argument is without merit, so we affirm her convictions. In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we must construe the evidence most favorably to uphold the trial court’s judgment.1 The trial court’s findings of fact are analogous to a jury verdict and we may not disturb them if there is any evidence to support them.2 We must also accept the trial court’s decisions as to the credibility of witnesses unless clearly erroneous.3

In the instant case, the arresting officer and Crawford-Thomas were the only witnesses who testified at the suppression hearing. Construed in favor of the trial court’s ruling, their testimony establishes that on March 24, 2002, the officer was driving his patrol car east on Highway 54 near the city of Fayetteville when he encountered Crawford-Thomas heading in the opposite direction. He saw her drive through the road’s gore area, a space marked with cross-hatched yellow lines that divides lanes of travel.