ÿWPCv$ …# VU>a %Ÿ 0 ¥UB® 4ð  n­ U:À w@ú 0M: 0D‡ 0JË 0T i 0^q 0hÏ 0r7 0|© 0†% 0« 1u; B° 0dÍ D31U6dU.š 0@ÈU*B)2DC[ AMžxëcfv¤Üv~€vÓþ AOÑ"Æ # 0Dæ# D/*$ BY$˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(á}2$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€ÛòXXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÔ¡¨ 3|x‘«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular D€‚Dƒ„…†E‡ˆÓ€(ý(3äÆ$¤¤Ý ƒ}2!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€ËùXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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) dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!!!!'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€-0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ nÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌJulyÏ31,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔ€€€€€€€€€€€Ñ7À œXXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€909€S.W.2d€788,€790€(Tenn.€1995),€our€supreme€court€stated€theÏòòSensingóó€requirements€as€follows:ÌÌÓ  Óà8 à€€€€€First,€the€testing€operator€must€testify€that€the€test€used€followedÏTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€standards.€€Second,€€the€operatorÏmust€be€certified€in€accordance€with€those€standards.€€Third,€the€machineÏmust€be€certified,€tested€regularly€for€accuracy,€and€working€properly.€ÏFourth,€the€motorist€must€be€personally€observed€for€the€requisiteÏminutes€before€taking€the€test.€€Fifth,€the€operator€must€follow€theÏinstrumentððs€prescribed€operational€procedure.€€Lastly,€the€operator€mustÏidentify€the€test€results€offered€in€evidence.€€Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ šÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ôÔÑ7À œXXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€.ÔWe€note€that€the€issue€of€the€admissibility€of€the€breath€test€results€in€òòSensingóó€arose€byÏthe€defendantððs€midtrial€objection€and€was€resolved€through€a€jury„out€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€James€D.ÏSensingóó,€No.€01„C„01„9007„CC„00180,€Dickson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€4,€1991),€òòaffððdóó€843ÏS.W.2d€412€(Tenn.€1992).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€,,Xd#ÑÑ#€,,Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€.ÔÑ7€ Lã XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€120A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€APRIL€1995€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9501„CC„00001Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Coffee€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Honorable€Gerald€L.€Ewell,€Sr.,€Judge€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌWILLARD€C.€COOK,€SR.,€€€à à)à à€(Driving€Under€the€Influence)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌRobert€S.€Petersà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ100€First€Avenue,€S.W.à àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌWinchester,€TN€37398à àà àà àà àandà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àSharon€S.€SelbyÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÏà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àC.€Michael€LayneÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àStephen€E.€WeitzmanÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à307€S.€WoodlandÌà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€147Ìà àà àà àà àà àManchester,€TN€37355ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌà àóóó óThe€defendant,€Willard€C.€Cook,€Sr.,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€the€CoffeeÏCounty€Circuit€Court€of€driving€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€He€wasÏsentenced€to€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days€in€jail,€to€be€suspended€upon€servingÏtwo€hundred€forty€hours€in€confinement,€and€fined€three€hundred€fifty€dollars.€€In€thisÏappeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€essentially€contends€the€following:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à(1)€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€convict€him;ÌÌà8 à(2)€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€into€evidence€theÏdefendantððs€breath€test€result,€holding€that€he€waivedÏobjection€by€not€proceeding€by€a€pretrial€motion€toÏsuppress,€when€the€proof€showed€that€the€defendant€tookÏthe€test€with€his€dentures€in€his€mouth;ÌÌà8 à(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€rejecting€the€defendantððsÏrequested€jury€instruction€to€the€effect€that€the€jury€could€notÏconsider€the€breath€test€result€until€the€jury€determined€thatÏcertain€preliminary€facts€had€been€placed€into€evidence.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓAlthough€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€deeming€the€defendantððs€objection€to€beÏwaived,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àTennessee€Highway€Patrolman€Don€Kelsey€testified€that€after€2:00€a.m.,ÏJuly€10,€1993,€near€Manchester,€he€saw€a€car€drifting€from€lane€to€lane€withoutÏsignaling.€€He€said€he€stopped€the€car€as€it€was€about€to€enter€the€wrong€way€on€aÏone„way€road.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€was€driving€and€that€he€noticed€an€alcoholicÏbeverage€smell€on€the€defendantððs€breath,€who€also€had€bloodshot€eyes.€€TheÏdefendant€admitted€drinking€and€Trooper€Kelsey€found€a€œhalf„empty›€half„pint€bottle€inÏthe€car.€ÌÌà àTrooper€Kelsey€testified€that€the€defendant€had€some€trouble€maintainingÏhis€balance€in€getting€out€of€his€car.€€He€said€that€he€gave€the€defendant€two€fieldÏsobriety€tests,€the€horizontal€gaze€nystagmus€test€and€a€walk€and€turn€test.€€He€statedÏthat€the€defendantððs€eyes€bounced,€indicating€the€defendant€was€under€the€influenceÏof€alcohol,€and€that€he€was€unable€to€keep€his€balance€in€walking€heel„to„toe.€€TrooperÏKelsey€arrested€the€defendant€for€DUI€and€took€him€to€the€jail.€€He€added€that€theÏdefendant€was€staggering€when€walking€from€the€patrol€car€to€the€jail.€€ÌÌà àCoffee€County€Jailer€Charley€Jones€testified€that€he€gave€the€defendant€aÏbreath€test€and€that€the€defendant€registered€.13.€€Mr.€Jones€explained€the€proceduresÏthat€he€œfollowed,›€and€the€defendant€replied€œð ðnoðð›€when€Mr.€Jones€asked€if€there€wasÏany€foreign€matter€in€the€defendantððs€mouth.€€Mr.€Jones€acknowledged€that€he€wasÏunaware€that€the€defendant€had€dentures€with€a€cotton€pad€base.€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€had€been€to€the€Last€Chance€Saloon€withÏtwo€women.€€He€said€that€he€consumed€part€of€a€œhalf„pint›€of€Lord€œCalvert›€over€someÏfour€and€one„half€hours€before€they€left.€€He€said€that€the€car€was€owned€by€one€of€theÏwomen,€but€he€drove€because€she€was€sick.€€He€said€that€the€car€weaved€becauseÏone€of€the€women€was€hollering.€€He€explained€that€he€was€polite€and€courteous€toÏTrooper€Kelsey€and€that€he€performed€three€field€sobriety€tests.€€He€denied€beingÏunder€the€influence€of€alcohol€and€stated€that€any€difficulties€he€had€with€the€field€testÏrelated€to€his€physical€problems.€€ÌÌà àSusan€Lynn€Gibson€testified€that€she€saw€the€defendant€at€the€LastÏChance€Saloon€and€that€he€did€not€appear€to€her€to€be€intoxicated.€€She€said€that€heÏwas€with€two€women€and€that€when€one€got€sick,€the€defendant€offered€to€drive€theÏwoman€home.€€Ms.€Gibson€said€that€the€defendant€followed€when€she€left€theÏestablishment.€€à àÌÌÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€thatÏhe€was€under€the€influence€of€alcohol,€primarily€indicating€that€the€breath€test€resultÏwas€unreliable.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.ÏCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€When€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏchallenged,€the€relevant€question€for€an€appellate€court€is€whether,€after€viewing€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÏhave€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJacksonÏv.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2791,€2782€(1979).€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€seen€driving€in€an€erratic€manner€with€the€odor€ofÏalcohol€on€his€breath.€€He€had€trouble€maintaining€his€balance,€and€he€could€notÏperform€properly€on€sobriety€tests.€€His€eyes€were€bloodshot,€and€he€admitted€that€heÏdrank€alcohol€prior€to€his€arrest.€€Trooper€Kelseyððs€testimony€reflects€that€he€was€of€theÏopinion€that€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence.€€His€testimony,€alone,€supports€theÍjury€verdict.€€Obviously,€the€breath€test€result€was€additional€evidence€of€theÏdefendantððs€intoxication.€€ÌÌà àWe€note€that€the€defendant€made€clear€to€the€jury€that€he€had€denturesÏwhen€he€took€the€breath€test,€that€his€dentures€contained€a€cotton€pad,€and€that€thisÏcould€have€affected€the€test€result.€€Further,€the€defendant€testified€to€his€physicalÏconditions€which€he€claimed€affected€his€performance€on€the€sobriety€tests.€€He€alsoÏexplained€to€the€jury€that€his€car€weaved€because€of€one€of€the€girlsðð€actions.€ÏObviously,€the€jury€was€not€convinced€by€his€evidence.€€In€this€respect,€the€weight€andÏcredibility€of€the€witnessðð€testimony€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€theÏtrier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€The€evidence€wasÏsufficient€to€convict€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€theÏbreath€test€result€into€evidence.€€First,€he€complains€about€the€trial€courtððs€finding€thatÏhis€objection€to€the€result€was€waived.€€Second,€he€asserts€that€his€denturesÏconstituted€foreign€matter€in€his€mouth€that€would€bar€the€admission€of€the€test€resultÏas€unreliable€under€òòState€v.€Sensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€412€(Tenn.€1992).€€We€agree€withÏthe€defendantððs€first€complaint,€but€not€the€second,€given€the€circumstances€of€thisÏcase.€€ÌÌà àWhen€the€state€called€Charley€Jones€as€a€witness€about€the€breath€test,Ïthe€defendant€requested€a€jury„out€hearing€for€the€purpose€of€contesting€theÏadmissibility€of€the€test€result€because€the€test€was€taken€with€the€defendant€havingÏdentures.€€The€defendant€based€his€objection€upon€òòSensingóó,€in€which€our€supremeÏcourt€addressed€the€foundation€requirements× ƒ3 ××  ×€that€a€party€must€establish€to€admitÏbreath€test€results€obtained€from€an€Intoximeter€3000€instrument,€the€one€used€in€thisÏcase.€€One€of€the€requirements€is€that€the€testing€officer€must€be€able€to€testify€that€theÏtest€subject€was€observed€for€twenty€minutes€before€the€test,€and€that€during€thisÏperiod,€he€did€not€have€foreign€matter€in€his€mouth,€did€not€consume€any€alcoholicÏbeverage,€smoke€or€regurgitate.€€843€S.W.2d€at€416.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€fact€that€the€defendant€had€dentures€wasÏfirst€disclosed.€€Mr.€Jones€testified€that€Trooper€Kelsey,€then€he,€observed€theÏdefendant€and€œthat€the›€defendant€had€not€been€sick,€had€anything€to€drink,€or€anythingÍelse.€€He€testified€œthat€upon€being€questioned,›€the€defendant€œdenied€having›€anyÏforeign€matter€in€his€mouth.€€Mr.€Jones€acknowledged€that€he€was€unaware€of€theÏdefendant€having€dentures€with€a€cotton€pad,€but€that€if€he€had€known,€he€would€haveÏhad€the€defendant€remove€œthem.›€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€defendant€was€requiredÏto€have€filed€a€pretrial€motion€to€suppress€on€the€issue.€€Also,€it€noted€its€belief€that€theÏdefendantððs€claim€went€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence,€not€its€admissibility.€€ÌÌà@ àò òAòòó óÌà àóóThe€defendant€contends€that€he€was€not€obligated€to€file€a€pretrial€motionÏto€suppress€to€raise€the€issue€of€the€test€result€being€inadmissible€because€the€stateÏfailed€to€follow€the€òòSensingóó€requirements.€€He€asserts€that€he€did€nothing€more€than€toÏcontest€the€admissibility€of€evidence€as€would€any€midtrial€objection.€€In€response,€theÏstate€notes€that€the€defendant€was€moving€to€exclude€the€test€result.€€It€relies€uponÏRule€12(b)(3)€and€(f),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€which€require€that€a€motion€to€suppressÏevidence€must€be€filed€before€trial€and€that€a€failure€to€file€a€motion€timely€constitutes€aÏwaiver.€€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àà àThe€purpose€of€this€rule€is€not€only€to€avoid€theÏunnecessary€interruption€and€inefficiency€in€conducting€juryÏtrials€caused€by€needlessly€removing€the€jury€from€theÏcourtroom€for€protracted€suppression€hearings,€but€also€toÏensure€the€right€of€the€state€to€an€appeal€of€an€adverseÏruling€by€the€trial€judge€without€placing€the€defendant€twiceÏin€jeopardy.€€ÌÌÓÓòòÓ  ÓState€v.€Randolphóó,€692€S.W.2d€37,€40€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€ÌÌà àIn€support€of€the€stateððs€position,€we€note€that€this€court€has€previouslyÏindicated€that€a€defendantððs€failure€to€file€a€motion€to€suppress€timely€relative€to€anÏattempt€to€exclude€a€blood„alcohol€test€constitutes€a€waiver.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.ÏBradenóó,€874€S.W.2d€œ624,€625›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1993).›€€However,€upon€furtherÏconsideration,Ñ€4ÑÇwe€believe€that€Rule€12(b)(3),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€regarding€motions€to€suppressÏevidence€was€not€meant€to€apply€to€an€issue€relating€to€whether€a€sufficient€foundationÏhas€been€laid€for€the€admission€of€scientific€test€results€into€evidence.€€ÌÌà àThe€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Rule€12€state€that€our€ruleÏconforms€to€its€federal€counterpart.€€Given€this,€we€note€that€in€òòUnited€States€v.ÏBarlettaóó,€644€F.2d€50,€54€(1st€Cir.€1981),€the€First€Circuit€stated€the€following:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àAt€least€as€used€in€12(b),€ð ðsuppressðð€has€a€rather€definiteÏand€limited€meaning,€as€explained€by€the€AdvisoryÏCommittee€notes€accompanying€the€Rule.€€Motions€toÏsuppress€are€described€as€"objections€to€evidence€on€theÏground€that€it€was€illegally€obtained,"€including€"evidenceÏobtained€as€a€result€of€an€illegal€search"€and€"other€forms€ofÏillegality€such€as€the€use€of€unconstitutional€means€toÏobtain€a€confession."€€Advisory€Committee€notes,€FederalÏRule€Criminal€Procedure€12(b)(3),€foll.€18€U.S.C.A.,€òòcitingóó€3ÏC.€Wright,€Federal€Practice€&€Procedure:€€Criminal€œðð›€673Ï(1960).€€Put€generally,€then,€suppression€motions€concernÏthe€"application€of€the€exclusionary€rule€of€evidence,"€orÏmatters€of€"'police€conduct€not€immediately€relevant€to€theÏquestion€of€guilt'",€òòidóó.,€quoting€òòJones€v.€United€Statesóó,€362ÏU.S.€257,€264,€80€S.€Ct.€725,€732€4€L.Ed.€2d€697€(1960)€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓIn€other€words,€a€motion€to€suppress€is€contemplated€to€deal€with€the€issue€ofÏexcluding€ð ðillegally€obtainedðð€evidence.€€In€fact,€the€Ohio€Supreme€Court€has€followedÏthis€rationale€to€require€a€pretrial€motion€to€suppress€in€order€to€contest€theÏadmissibility€of€alcohol€breath€test€results€relative€to€foundational€requirements.€€InÏòòOhio€v.€Frenchóó,€650€N.E.2d€887,€891„92€(Ohio€1995),€the€court€noted€that€the€testingÏrequirements€came€from€the€Department€of€Health€administrative€regulations€andÍconcluded€that€a€motion€to€suppress€should€be€used€to€address€evidence€that€isÏð ðillegally€obtainedðð€whether€by€violation€of€constitutional€or€statutory€provisions.€€òòSeeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Kirnóó,€767€P.2d€1238,€1239„40€(Haw.€1989)€(for€interlocutory€appealÏpurposes,€the€state€may€appeal€the€pretrial€suppression€of€breath€test€results€deemedÏobtained€in€violation€of€an€administrative€rule).€€However,€we€do€not€believe€that€suchÏreasoning€applies€under€Tennessee€law.€€ÌÌà àAlthough€a€trial€court€is€not€barred€from€addressing€admissibility€of€testÏresults€by€a€pretrial€motion€under€certain€circumstances,€we€believe€that€matters€ofÏevidentiary€foundations,€historically€rooted€in€the€concerns€for€the€reliability€and,Ïtherefore,€the€relevancy€of€evidence€submitted€to€the€jury,€are€typically€assessed€at€œtrialÏand€remain€the€burden€of€the€offering€party.€€In€this€sense,›€it€is€an€altogether€differentÏprocedure€that€deals€with€whether€a€sufficient€evidentiary€foundation€exists€to€allowÏexpert€or€scientific€evidence€to€be€used.€€Our€rules€of€evidence€contemplate€thatÏmidtrial€determinations€of€such€admissibility€issues€will€occur.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï104.ÌÌà àScientific€test€results€and€their€interpretations€presented€by€an€expertÏwitness€are€admissible€only€upon€a€threshold€showing€of€certain€existingÏcircumstances.€€Given€the€fact€that€this€foundation€laying€is€a€prerequisite€toÏadmissibility,€the€burden€falls€upon€the€party€seeking€to€introduce€scientific€test€resultsÍto€prove€that€the€prerequisites€are€met.€€òòSeeóó€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€ofÏEvidenceóó,€ðð€702.4,€at€œ464„66›€œ(3d›€ed.€œ1995).›€€Absent€the€prerequisites€being€proven€toÏexist,€the€evidence€is€inadmissible.€€Also,€that€treatise€states€that€if€a€contest€of€theÏqualifications€is€desired,€it€is€preferable€for€the€opponent€to€request€a€jury„out€hearingÏto€allow€counsel€to€probe€"the€witness's€expertise€by€asking€about€the€witness'sÏbackground€and€about€the€scientific€basis€for€the€tests€and€the€instruments€used€in€theÏtests."€€òòIdóó.€at€œ465;›€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€œEvid.›€104(c)€(dealing€with€jury„out€hearings€forÏpreliminary€matters€relating€to€admissibility).€€We€believe€that€the€record€in€the€presentÏcase€reflects€that€the€defendant€sought€nothing€more€than€to€invoke€this€procedure.× ƒ5 ××  ×ÌÌà àIn€specific€terms€of€the€admissibility€of€breath€test€results€in€order€to€proveÏthe€alcohol€content€œin€the›€blood,€Tennessee€previously€œrequired›€the€party€seeking€toÏadmit€the€results€œto›€show€that€(1)€the€test€instrument€used€was€capable€of€measuring€orÏcalculating€data€being€used€by€the€interpreting€expert€and€was€based€upon€scientificÏprinciples€accepted€by€the€scientific€community,€(2)€the€instrument€was€functioningÏproperly€and€was€used€properly€at€the€time€of€the€test,€(3)€the€test€was€conducted€by€aÏperson€qualified€to€administer€it,€and€(4)€the€interpretation€of€the€test€results€must€haveÏbeen€by€a€qualified€person,€including€the€person€having€an€understanding€of€both€theÍscientific€principles€behind€and€the€operative€functions€of€the€test.€€òòSeeóó€òòPruitt€v.€Stateóó,Ï216€Tenn.€686,€393€S.W.2d€747€(1965);€òòFortune€v.€Stateóó,€197€Tenn.€691,€277€S.W.2dÏ381€(1955);€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702;€Cohen,€òòsupraóó€ðððð€401.17„„401.20,€401.22,€œ702.2„„702.4.€€Although›€in€òòSensingóó€our€supreme€court€relaxed€the€evidentiary€foundationÏneeded€for€admission€of€breath€test€results€obtained€from€an€Intoximeter€3000,€it€didÏnot€alter€the€burden€for€establishing€that€foundation.€€œÌÌà àAs›€our€supreme€court€stated€in€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€the€òòSensingóó€requirementsÏare€ð ðprerequisites€for€threshold€admissibility€of€breath€œalcohol€test›€results.ðð€€909ÏS.W.2d€at€œ790.›€€As€such,€the€proponent€of€the€evidence,€in€this€case€the€state,€has€theÏburden€of€laying€sufficient€foundation€to€allow€the€admission€of€the€breath€test€results.€ÏIf€the€foundation€is€not€proven,€the€evidence€may€be€excluded€upon€objection.€€In€fact,Ïthis€court€has€already€so€held.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Harold€E.€Fieldsóó,€No.€01C01„9412„CC„00438,€Williamson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€12,€1996).ÌÌà àTherefore,€the€fact€that€the€defendant€raised€the€threshold€admissibilityÏissue€midtrial€did€not€constitute€a€waiver€of€that€issue.€€Nor€did€the€fact€that€heÏproceeded€by€motion€at€the€beginning€of€Mr.€Jonesðð€appearance€as€a€witness€„„€asÏopposed€to€objecting€during€Mr.€Jonesðð€testimony€„„€change€the€nature€of€the€inquiry€orÏthe€stateððs€burden€to€establish€a€proper€foundation.€€However,€this€does€not€mean€thatÏthe€state€failed€to€meet€its€burden€in€this€case.€€ÌÌÌà@ àò òBó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€fact€that€he€was€tested€with€his€denturesÏrenders€the€test€result€inadmissible€because€the€dentures€were€a€foreign€substance€inÏhis€mouth.€€He€notes€that€Mr.€Jones€testified€that€if€he€had€known€of€the€dentures,€heÏwould€have€had€them€removed.€€Obviously,€the€requirement€that€no€foreign€matter€beÏin€the€mouth€is€intended€to€insure€that€the€breath€that€the€defendant€blows€into€theÏIntoximeter€3000€is€not€tainted€by€some€substance€that€might€alter,€by€alcohol€retentionÏor€otherwise,€the€instrumentððs€reading€of€the€defendantððs€deep€lung€air€sample.€ÏHowever,€we€believe€that€the€circumstances€in€the€present€case€did€not€call€for€theÏexclusion€of€the€breath€test€results.€€ÌÌà àInitially,€we€note€that€some€jurisdictions€have€been€unwilling€to€considerÏfalse€teeth€to€be€foreign€matter€that€should€bar€admission€of€test€results.€€òòSeeóó€òòPeople€v.ÏWittóó,€630€N.E.2d€156€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1994);€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€œ702›€P.2d€1118€(Or.€App.€1984);Ïòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòCity€of€Sunnyside€v.€Fernandezóó,€799€P.2d€753,€755€(Wash.€App.€1990)Ï(administrative€regulation€excludes€ð ðdental€workðð€from€ð ðforeign€substancesðð€relative€toÏbreath€test€procedures).€€We€are€inclined€to€agree€relative€to€the€threshold€admissibilityÏprerequisites.€€However,€whether€we€view€dentures€to€be€foreign€matter€is€notÏdispositive€in€this€case.€€€€à àÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€observed€for€the€required€time€and€nothing€unusualÏwas€seen.€€He€denied€having€any€foreign€matter€in€his€mouth.€€The€record€reflects€thatÏthe€fact€that€he€wore€dentures€was€not€even€disclosed€to€his€counsel€until€the€time€ofÏtrial.€€Also,€the€defendant€stipulated€to€Mr.€Jonesðð€qualifications€and€to€the€IntoximeterÏbeing€certified€to€be€functioning€properly€several€months€before€and€weeks€after€hisÏarrest.€€Finally,€as€a€matter€of€omission,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€tells€usÏwhat€effect,€if€any,€dentures€could€potentially€have€on€the€test€result.€€ÌÌœÌà àThe›€subject€of€a€test€should€not€be€allowed€to€withhold€a€fact€relevant€toÏthe€test€procedures€as€required€by€òòSensingóó€and€then€seek€exclusion€of€the€test€resultsÏon€the€ground€that€the€procedures€used€were€incomplete€because€of€the€withheld€fact.€ÏIn€this€case,€if€the€dentures€were€considered€foreign€matter,€Mr.€Jones€was€entitled€toÏrely€upon€the€defendantððs€answer€that€no€foreign€matter€was€present.€€Thus,€either€wayÏthat€the€dentures€are€viewed,€the€state€was€entitled€to€introduce€the€breath€test€resultÏinto€evidence.€€œÌÌà àIn€this€respect,€we€believe€it€to€be€significant€that€òòSensingóó€requires€theÏsubject€to€be€òòobservedóó€for€twenty€minutes€and€does€not€otherwise€require€a€physicalÏprobe€of€the€mouth€or€interrogation€of€the€subject€about€his€or€her€mouth€contents.€ÍObviously,€given€the€fact€that€a€defendant€may€attack€the€validity€of€the€test€resultsÏbefore€the€jury,€it€might€be€advisable,€as€a€practical€matter,€for€the€test€operator€to€askÏthe€subject€about€dentures.€€We€do€not,€though,€believe€it€to€be€a€prerequisite€toÏadmissibility.€›ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€theÏjudgment€of€conviction€is€affirmed.€à àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judge