State of Tennessee v. Cindy B. Hinton, M2020-00812-CCA-R3-CD

On Feb. 29, 2016, Cindy B. Hinton’s car struck and fatally injured Brandi Vandiver on I-24 after failing to brake for slowed/stopped rush-hour traffic. The victim died of blunt force injuries.
Multiple eyewitnesses and crash-reconstruction evidence showed Hinton did not brake, struck the victim at interstate speed, and her vehicle rode over the rear of the victim’s car; no skid marks or brake-pedal marks were found.
Investigators found makeup items (mascara brush, eyelash curler) and pill bottles in Hinton’s car; the airbag bore a black stain with an imprint consistent with the mascara brush.
Hinton’s blood (drawn ~2.5 hours post-crash) tested negative for alcohol but positive for several prescription/OTC substances, including amphetamine (Adderall, above therapeutic range), alprazolam (Xanax), diazepam (no prescription), fluoxetine (Prozac), and others; expert testimony described potential impairing effects of those drugs and their interactions.
A jury convicted Hinton of vehicular homicide by intoxication (Count 1) and by reckless driving (Count 2); the court imposed an effective 11-year incarceration term (Counts merged). Hinton appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence of intoxication and (2) sentencing error (failure to consider rehabilitation and misapplied enhancement factors).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hinton)	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to prove intoxication for vehicular homicide (Count 1)	Evidence (no braking, reconstruction, eyewitness accounts, blood positive for multiple CNS-active drugs including high Adderall and benzodiazepines, makeup/distracted-driving circumstantial evidence) permits a rational juror to find intoxication and proximate cause.	Blood levels/time lapse and lack of direct proof of impairment at the crash moment make intoxication unproven; expert could not say which drugs were active at impact.	Affirmed: viewing evidence in State’s favor, a reasonable jury could find intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sentencing: failure to consider rehabilitation and alleged misapplication of enhancement factors	Sentencing record shows the trial court considered statutory factors, rehabilitation potential, and applied appropriate enhancement factors (history of criminal behavior, especially prior implied-consent revocation; great property damage; risk to human life).	Court failed to make on-the-record rehabilitation findings; misapplied enhancement factors so sentence (11 years) is excessive.	Affirmed: court complied with statutory sentencing considerations, at least one enhancement properly applied, and sentence is within range and not an abuse of discretion.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (jury resolves credibility and conflict in evidence)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (treats circumstantial and direct evidence the same for sufficiency review)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard and presumption of reasonableness for sentencing review)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (purposes and principles governing sentencing)