ÿWPCN …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe² BÈv~åvÓc D36 0@i AO©Æø 0D¾ D/ B1˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- >?D@ADBCDD[EHFLeGÓ€R¦"3|xR2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òJune€3,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€UwXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òœÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9602„CC„00055Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àGREENE€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JAMES€E.€BECKNER,€JUDGEó óÌò òGORDON€SCOTT€ALDRIDGE,)à àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(DUI)Ìó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òWILLIAM€H.€BELL€à àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó ó114€South€Main€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌGreeneville,€TN€37743Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà àTIMOTHY€F.€BEHAN€Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òC.€BERKELEY€BELL€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òCECIL€C.€MILLS,€JR.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à113€West€Church€Street€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGreeneville,€TN€€37743€ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€ °ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àà àThe€Defendant,€Gordon€Scott€Aldridge,€appeals€as€of€rightÏpursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€FollowingÏa€jury€verdict,€he€was€found€guilty€of€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€ÏThe€offense€occurred€in€February€1995.€€In€addition€to€challenging€the€sufficiencyÏof€the€evidence€in€this€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€in€three€(3)€separateÏissues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€results€of€his€blood€alcohol€testÏbecause€(1)€the€Defendant€was€not€competent€to€execute€the€implied€consentÏform€allowing€the€blood€alcohol€test;€(2)€the€Defendant€was€not€able€to€have€anÏindependent€analysis€of€his€blood€alcohol€content;€and€(3)€the€vial€used€toÏcontain€the€blood€alcohol€sample€was€not€tamper€proof.€€Finding€no€merit€to€anyÏof€Defendantððs€issues,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àI.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€first€issue,€Defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€support€his€conviction€for€driving€under€theÏinfluence€of€an€intoxicant.€€When€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged€byÏthe€accused,€the€standard€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€foundÍthe€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€after€reviewingÏthe€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,Ï443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€valueÏto€be€given€the€evidence,€and€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€toÏbe€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€and€not€by€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754ÏS.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€ÏThis€court€may€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌà àà àThe€verdict€of€guilty,€pronounced€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€aÏtrial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses,€resolves€all€conflictsÏin€testimony€in€favor€of€the€State,€and€establishes€the€Stateððs€theory€of€theÏcase.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€ÌÌà àà àBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocenceÏand€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€thisÏcourt€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returnedÏby€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€ÌÌà àà àShortly€before€midnight€on€February€18,€1995,€Clara€ElizabethÏNease€and€David€Susong€were€traveling€in€Ms.€Neaseððs€vehicle€on€the€OldÏKentucky€Road€in€Greene€County.€€They€observed€a€car€sitting€off€the€roadÏdown€an€embankment,€partially€suspended€in€the€air€by€the€barbed€wire€fenceÏstruck€by€the€vehicle.€€The€Defendant€was€alone€in€the€car€in€the€driverððs€seat.€ÏAfter€returning€to€Mr.€Susongððs€nearby€residence€to€call€911€for€help,€theyÏreturned€to€the€scene€of€the€wreck.€€Even€though€the€vehicle€was€off€the€ground,Ïthe€Defendant€was€trying€to€restart€his€vehicle€in€order€to€move€it.€€ÌÌà àà àMs.€Nease€testified€that€the€Defendant€was€not€aware€that€he€œhadÏhad›€an€accident,€did€not€know€where€he€was€or€that€he€had€run€off€the€road,Ïand€could€not€speak€clearly.€€There€was€a€very€strong€odor€of€alcohol€in€the€car,Ïand€the€Defendant€admitted€that€he€had€been€drinking.€€ÌÌà àà àSoon€Deputy€Glenna€Estepp€of€the€Greene€County€SheriffððsÏDepartment€arrived€on€the€scene.€€After€making€sure€the€Defendant€was€notÏseriously€injured,€Deputy€Estepp€assisted€him€up€the€embankment€to€the€road.€ÏShe€also€observed€that€he€had€a€strong€odor€of€alcohol€about€him,€wasÏunsteady€on€his€feet,€could€not€stand€in€one€position,€€would€lean€to€one€side€orÏthe€other€or€stagger€and€was€very€talkative.€€She€attempted€to€administer€twoÏfield€sobriety€tests.€€When€the€Defendant€attempted€the€ð ðfinger€to€noseðð€test,€heÍslapped€his€own€face€and€started€to€fall€backward.€€When€the€DefendantÏattempted€to€stand€on€one€leg€and€hold€it€in€place€for€thirty€(30)€seconds,€heÏbegan€to€fall€again€and€Deputy€Estepp€had€to€help€hold€him€up€because€heÏhad€lost€his€balance.€€Defendant€had€already€admitted€to€Deputy€Estepp€thatÏhe€had€been€driving€the€vehicle€and€had€been€drinking€alcoholic€beverages€at€aÏfriendððs€house.€€Based€on€the€results€of€the€two€field€sobriety€tests,€and€theÏinformation€given€to€her€by€the€Defendant,€Deputy€Estepp€arrested€DefendantÏfor€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Susong,€as€well€as€Ms.€Nease€testified€concerningÏDefendantððs€inability€to€perform€the€field€sobriety€tests€and€his€apparentÏintoxication€at€the€scene.€€Dale€Dodds,€a€lieutenant€with€the€Greene€CountyÏSheriffððs€Department€arrived€on€the€scene€as€backup€for€Deputy€Estepp.€ÏLieutenant€Dodds€observed€the€Defendant€to€be€extremely€intoxicated€andÏbased€this€conclusion€upon€the€extremely€strong€odor€of€alcohol€aboutÏDefendantððs€person,€his€slurred€speech,€€short€attention€span,€and€his€inabilityÏto€perform€the€field€sobriety€tests.€€ÌÌà àà àA€forensic€chemist€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€LabÏtestified€that€he€analyzed€the€blood€sample€taken€from€the€Defendant€andÍconcluded€that€there€was€0.17€percent€weight€of€alcohol€in€the€DefendantððsÏblood.€€€Ìà àà àDuring€the€Defendantððs€case€in€chief,€the€parties€stipulated€to€theÏadmission€into€evidence€of€a€letter€written€by€Carolyn€Parkins,€the€laboratoryÏmanager€of€Laughlin€Memorial€Hospital€in€Greene€County.€€In€essence€the€letterÏstated€that€an€extra€sample€of€Defendantððs€blood€provided€to€him€on€the€nightÏof€his€arrest€could€not€be€tested€because€it€was€not€properly€marked€orÏdemonstrated€to€be€a€tamper„free€sample.€€The€Defendant€also€testified€in€hisÏown€behalf€at€trial.€€He€admitted€to€consuming€approximately€three€(3)€mixedÏdrinks€of€Canadian€Mist€liquor€prior€to€the€wreck,€and€that€he€finished€drinking€atÏapproximately€9:00€p.m.€€He€recalled€nothing€concerning€the€wreck,€his€arrest,€orÏthe€field€sobriety€tests.€€He€recalled€driving€on€the€Asheville€Highway€but€did€notÏremember€anything€else€until€he€realized€he€was€being€put€into€the€holding€cellÏat€the€Sheriffððs€Department.€€A€half„full€bottle€of€Canadian€Mist€liquor€was€foundÏin€Defendantððs€vehicle€at€the€scene€of€the€wreck.ÌÌà àà àFrom€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÏhave€easily€found€the€Appellant€guilty€of€driving€under€the€influence€of€anÏintoxicant.€€Appellant€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€proof€to€illustrate€why€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€jury.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà@ àII.ÌÌà àà àDefendant€argues€the€results€of€the€blood€alcohol€tests€of€his€bloodÏwere€inadmissible€because€Defendant€was€not€ð ðcompetentðð€to€sign€the€waiver.€ÏAn€Implied€Consent€Form€signed€by€the€Defendant€wherein€he€agreed€to€submitÏto€a€blood€alcohol€test€was€introduced€into€evidence€at€the€trial.€€It€was€alsoÏsigned€by€Deputy€Estepp.€€Furthermore,€Defendant€signed€a€request€for€bloodÏwithdrawal€which€was€also€introduced€into€evidence.€€Deputy€Estepp€testifiedÏthat€€the€Defendant€agreed€to€take€a€blood€alcohol€test€after€she€read€to€him€theÏform€and€advised€him€of€his€rights€stated€therein.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€Defendant€argued€a€motion€to€suppress€results€of€the€bloodÏtest€pre„trial.€€He€did€not€submit€any€testimony€in€support€of€the€motion€and€hisÏcounsel€merely€argued€that€Defendant€did€not€understand€the€implied€consentÏform.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€found€that€Defendant€consented€to€the€blood€alcoholÏtest,€and€this€court€is€bound€by€the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€615€S.W.2d€161,€162€(Tenn.ÍCrim.€App.€1981).€€We€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏfindings€of€the€trial€court€and€accordingly€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àIII.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€third€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏadmitting€the€results€of€the€blood€alcohol€test€because€Defendant€was€given€aÏseparate€sample€of€his€blood€which€ð ðhe€couldnððt€test.ðð€€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€55„10„410(e)€provides€that€when€a€sample€of€a€personððsÏblood€is€taken€to€determine€blood€alcohol€content,€that€person€shall€be€ð ðentitledÏto€have€€an€additional€sample€of€blood€.€.€.€procured€and€the€resulting€testÏperformed€by€any€medical€laboratory€of€that€personððs€own€choosing€and€at€thatÏpersonððs€own€expense;€provided,€that€the€medical€laboratory€is€licensedÏpursuant€to€Title€68,€ch.€29.ððÌÌà àà àIn€Defendantððs€case,€he€was€given€an€additional€sample€of€hisÏblood€at€the€time€the€sample€sent€to€the€TBI€Crime€Lab€was€taken€from€theÏDefendant.€€The€Defendant€arranged€for€his€additional€sample€of€blood€to€beÏpresented€to€a€different€hospital€from€which€the€sample€was€drawn.€€ThisÏsecond€hospital€refused€to€test€the€sample€for€the€reasons€stated€earlier€in€thisÏopinion.€€The€Defendant€was€afforded€the€sample€of€his€blood€as€provided€inÍthe€statute.€€The€burden€was€on€the€Defendant€to€find€an€appropriate€facilityÏwhich€could€test€the€blood.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àIV.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€results€of€his€bloodÏalcohol€content€should€have€been€inadmissible€because€the€blood€sample€wasÏnot€contained€in€a€proper€tamper„proof€container.€€The€blood€sample€was€takenÏfrom€Defendant€at€Takoma€Hospital.€€There€was€proof€in€the€record€thatÏpersonnel€of€Laughlin€Hospital€sealed€blood€sample€containers€in€a€mannerÏdifferently€than€Takoma€Hospital,€and€that€personnel€of€Laughlin€Hospital€felt€theÏblood€sample€taken€at€Takoma€had€no€tamper„proof€mechanism€and€thereforeÏcould€not€be€tested€reliably.€€However,€the€forensic€chemist€who€tested€theÏblood€and€testified€as€to€the€results€at€trial€stated€that€the€sample€cameÏenclosed€in€a€sealed€container€kit.€€The€blood€tube€under€pressure€would€haveÏa€vacuum€which€would€let€out€a€distinctive€sound€when€opened.€€If€no€soundÏemits,€then€the€blood€is€not€tested€because€the€individual€container€would€haveÏbeen€broken.€€Notations€would€be€made€in€situations€such€as€this,€and€thereÏwere€no€notations€of€any€irregularities€in€the€blood€sample€taken€from€theÏDefendant.€€Essentially,€the€Defendant€challenges€the€chain€of€custody€of€hisÏblood€sample€used€to€test€for€blood€alcohol€content.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Hollomanóó,€835€S.W.2d€42,€46€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.)€(òòpermóó.Ïòòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€1992),€this€court€held,ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€identity€of€tangible€evidence€need€not€be€proven€beyond€allÏpossibility€of€doubt,€and€all€possibility€of€tampering€need€not€beÏexcluded.€€The€circumstances€must€establish€a€reasonableÏassurance€of€the€identity€of€the€evidence.ÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àAfter€having€considered€all€issues€raised€by€the€Defendant€to€beÏmeritless,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓÓ  Óà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JudgeÌ