State of Tennessee v. James Edward Farrar, Jr., 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 498

Farrar, Jr. appealed a Bedford County Circuit Court probation-revocation order.
The trial court revoked probation based on April 29, 2009 conduct alleged as excessive alcohol use and public intoxication under probation rules.
Prior to the remand, this Court had reversed the revocation due to lack of substantial evidence, relying on videotapes that contradicted officer testimony.
The Tennessee Supreme Court’s Teddy Ray Mitchell decision prompted reconsideration in light of whether videotape evidence can sustain revocation.
On remand, the court affirmed the revocation, but rejected part of the trial court’s rationale on revocation.
The opinion discusses the proper standard of review and the interplay between videotape evidence and witness testimony in revocation proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review for probation revocation on remand	Farrar asserts abuse-of-discretion review remains appropriate	Farrar relies on Garcia and Teddy Ray Mitchell to challenge the standard	Abuse of discretion applies (not de novo)
Sufficiency of evidence for public intoxication as basis for revocation	State/prosecutor contends evidence supported public intoxication	Farrar contends videotapes negate the necessary elements	No substantial evidence to prove public intoxication by preponderance
Sufficiency of evidence for excessive consumption of alcohol as basis for revocation	State证明了超量饮酒	Farrar argues鿉 videotapes undermine testimonial claims	Evidence supports revocation for excessive consumption of alcohol
Role of videotape vs testimonial evidence in proving excess alcohol use	Videotapes may contradict officer testimony and support lack of excess drinking	Testimonial evidence should control where videotape is inconclusive	Videotape alone cannot prove excess; testimonial context allowed; burden satisfied under preponderance

State v. Teddy Ray Mitchell, 343 S.W.3d 381 (Tenn.2011) (video evidence can bear on sufficiency; standard review remains abuse of discretion for revocation)
State v. Garcia, 123 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn.2003) (video evidence used to discount testimony; suppression standard applied with Odom framework)
State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215 (Tenn.2000) (de novo review when video is only evidence in suppression context)
Garcia (cite follow-up), 128 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn.2003) (discusses standard of review for suppression vs. credibility issues)
State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn.1991) (no substantial evidence standard used in revocation context historically)
State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285 (Tenn.1978) (no specific burden of proof for probation violation prior to 1989 act)
State v. Reams, 265 S.W.3d 423 (Tenn.Crim.App.2007) (credibility of witnesses is for trial court; standard abuse of discretion applies)