ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0–H 0DÞ 0J" 0Tl 0^À 0h 0r† 0|ø 0†t 0ú 1uŠ Bÿ 0dU >€B)¾DCç D3*U *] AM‡ 0@Ôé“ý˜v~(vÓ¦ AOyÆÈ 0DŽ D/Ò B˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÒ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ P Q R ES T DU DV [W X Ó€d Úƒç"È3|xf (F(2ôÉ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ßÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òJune€18,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ‰Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÔ€+ÔWhile€some€court€documents€refer€to€the€defendant€as€"Jerry€Wayne€Eidson›,"€it€is€the€policyÏof€this€court€to€use€the€defendant's€name€as€it€is€listed€on€the€indictment.Ì ŽÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÔ€+ÔOther€state€jurisdictions,€however,€have€used€a€higher€standard€for€varying€types€of€scientificÏevidence.€€In€òòCity€of€Jackson€v.€Langfordóó,€648€S.W.2d€927,€929€(Mo.€App.€1983),€the€Missouri€courtÏrequired€that€the€reliability€of€radar€tests€be€established€"beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Texas€has€theÏfollowing€rule€for€"novel€scientific€evidence":€€"The€proponent€of€the€evidence€must€prove€to€the€trialÏjudge,€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€and€outside€the€presence€of€the€jury,€that€the€profferedÏevidence€is€reliable€and€therefore€relevant."€€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€910€S.W.2d€475,€478€(Tex.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€116€S.€Ct.€1430€(1996).Ô€'ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€'ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÔ€+ÔÔ€+ŠÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€,.)A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLE€óóÌÌà@ àJANUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à*à àC.C.A.€#€¢03C01£„9605„CC„00199Ì€Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà à*à àJEFFERSON€COUNTYÌÌ¢VS£.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Ben€W.€Hooper,€II,€JudgeÌÌJERRY€WAYNE€EDISON,à à*à à(DUI)Ìà àÌà àà àAppellant.à àà à*ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àòòà àFor€Appellee:óóÌà àÌLu€Ann€Ballewà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€¢Burson£ÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ¢£P.O.€Box€416ÌDandridge,€TN€€37725¢£à àà àà ࢣMichael€J.€Fahey,€IIÌà 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„0493à àÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€L.€GassÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€70Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDandridge,€TN€€37725„0070ÌÌÌ¢£OPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÔ€'ÔÔ€'XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€+ÔÌÑ7€,ŒXXdðXXdð7ÑOPINIONó óóóÌÓ  Óà àà àA€jury€found€the€defendant,€Jerry€Wayne€Edison,× ƒ/ ××  ×€guilty€of€DUI;€theÏtrial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days,€suspendedÏafter€the€service€of€seven€days€in€jail,€and€revoked€the€defendant's€license€for€oneÏyear.€€The€sole€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€theÏresults€of€the€defendant's€breath€test€into€evidence€at€trial.ÌÌà àà àAt€approximately€3:30€a.m.€on€February€17,€1994,€Officer€SteveÏManning€of€the€Jefferson€County€Sheriff's€Department€was€on€patrol€in€DandridgeÏwhen€he€saw€a€stalled€car€sitting€in€the€traveling€lane€of€a€roadway.€€TwoÏindividuals€were€trying€to€push€the€car€to€the€shoulder.€€Officer€ManningÏapproached€the€defendant,€who€was€the€driver€of€the€stalled€vehicle,€and€detectedÏa€strong€odor€of€alcohol.€€The€defendant€was€placing€chewing€tobacco€in€hisÍmouth.€€As€the€other€individual€returned€to€the€passenger€side€of€the€vehicle,€theÏofficer€directed€the€defendant€to€get€out€of€his€vehicle€and€to€remove€the€tobaccoÏfrom€his€mouth.€€The€defendant,€who€admitted€that€he€had€consumed€a€few€beers,Ïfailed€the€fingertip€to€nose€test,€the€standing€on€one€foot€balance€test,€and€the€handÏand€eye€coordination€test.€€Officer€Manning€then€placed€the€defendant€under€arrest.ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Merlin€Foister€testified€that€he€had€been€trained€by€the€TBI€toÏoperate€the€Intoximeter€3000€breath€machine.€€Over€objection€by€the€defense,€theÏofficer€was€allowed€to€testify€that€the€defendant€registered€a€blood€alcohol€level€ofÏ.12.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant's€sister,€Carol€Hatley,€testified€for€the€defense.€€SheÏclaimed€that€the€defendant€had€spent€the€day€at€her€house.€€She€related€that€herÏson,€Mark€Wade,€left€with€the€defendant€around€6:30€in€the€evening.€€She€testifiedÏthat€she€saw€her€son€the€next€day€but€has€not€seen€him€since€because€of€hisÏ"drinking€problems."€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€testified€that€when€he€was€arrested,€he€had€a€validÏFlorida€driver's€license.€€He€claimed€that€he€and€his€nephew€had€been€to€CottonÏEyed€Joe's€in€Knoxville€where€he€œhad€had›€two€beers€and€some€snack€foods.€€HeÍmaintained€that€he€drove€from€Knoxville€to€Dandridge€without€any€difficulty€but€thenÏhad€car€trouble.€€He€said€that€he€and€his€nephew€were€pushing€the€car€out€of€theÏroad€when€Officer€Manning€arrived.€€His€nephew€had€a€beer€in€his€possession.€ÏThe€defendant€contended€he€had€difficulty€with€the€field€sobriety€tests€because€theÏend€of€his€big€toe€on€his€right€foot€had€been€cut€off€in€a€lawnmower€accident.€ÏMedical€records€confirmed€this.€€The€defendant€insisted€that€his€driving€had€notÏbeen€impaired.€€€€ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€defendant€argues€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€theÏbreath€test€evidence.€€He€asserts€that€Officer€Foister's€testimony€should€not€haveÏbeen€allowed€under€the€test€established€in€òòState€v.€Sensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€412Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€€€ÌÌà àà àPrior€to€òòSensingóó,€a€prerequisite€to€the€admissibility€of€the€test€resultsÏwas€that€the€operator€had€to€"know€the€scientific€technology€involved€in€the€functionÏof€the€machine."€€òòId.óó€at€416.€€Our€supreme€court€"relax[ed]€the€rigorous€prerequisitesÏformerly€required€to€authenticate€the€reliability€of€the€scientific€equipment€...."€€òòId.óó€ÏAlthough€the€testing€officer€does€not€have€to€testify€about€the€"scientific€technologyÏinvolved,"€he€must€be€able€to€testify€to€the€following:€Ìà8 àà8 àÓÓ(1)€€that€the€tests€were€performed€in€accordance€with€theÏstandards€and€operating€procedure€promulgated€by€theÍforensic€services€division€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€that€[the€testing€officer]€was€properly€certified€inÏaccordance€with€those€standards;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€that€the€evidentiary€breath€testing€instrument€usedÏwas€certified€by€the€forensic€services€division,€wasÏtested€regularly€for€accuracy€and€was€working€properlyÏwhen€the€breath€test€was€performed;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€€that€the€motorist€was€observed€for€the€requisite€20Ïminutes€prior€to€the€test,€and€during€this€period,€he€didÏnot€have€foreign€matter€in€his€mouth,€did€not€consumeÏany€alcoholic€beverage,€smoke,€or€regurgitate;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€€evidence€that€[the€testing€officer]€followed€theÏprescribed€operational€procedure;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€[that€the€testing€officer]€identify€the€printout€recordÏoffered€in€evidence€as€the€result€of€the€test€given€to€theÏperson€tested.€€ÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€€In€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€909€S.W.2d€788,€790€(Tenn.€1995),€our€supreme€courtÏdescribed€òòSensingóó€as€"establish[ing]€the€prerequisites€for€threshold€admissibility€ofÏbreath€alcohol€test€results."€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€McCaslinóó,€894€S.W.2d€310€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€theÏtesting€officer€was€unable€to€testify€that€he€had€watched€the€defendant€for€theÏrequisite€twenty€minutes;€in€consequence,€the€test€results€were€found€inadmissible.€ÏIn€òòMcCaslinóó,€the€officer€had€placed€the€defendant€in€the€patrol€car€at€2:20€a.m.,Íarrived€at€the€police€station€at€2:30€a.m.,€€and€administered€the€test€at€2:46€a.m.€€òòId.óóÏat€311.€€The€"undisputed€period€of€observation"€was€sixteen€minutes.€€òòId.óó€€Our€courtÏheld€that€the€time€the€defendant€was€in€the€patrol€car€could€not€be€consideredÏbecause€the€officer€could€not€"say€with€certainty€that€the€defendant€did€notÏregurgitate€while€out€of€his€view€in€the€backseat€of€the€patrol€car€from€2:20€a.m.€untilÏthey€arrived€at€the€station."€€òòId.óó€at€311„12.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòMcCaslinóó,€the€state€had€argued€that€the€test€results€shouldÏnevertheless€have€been€admitted€because€the€defendant€did€not€present€anyÏevidence€that€he€had€in€fact€regurgitated.€€This€court€responded€to€that€argument€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]he€State's€position€is€misplaced€as€it€is€the€State'sÏburden,€not€the€defendant's,€to€present€testimonyÏthrough€the€testing€officer€that€the€òòSensingóó€pre„testÏrequirements€were€met.€€Therefore,€a€claim€that€theÏdefendant€either€presented€or€failed€to€present€testimonyÏof€regurgitation€is€irrelevant€in€this€case.ÌÌòòId.óó€at€312.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€òòBoboóó,€our€supreme€court€reaffirmed€the€òòSensingóó€requirements;€theÏstate€had€conceded€that€the€operational€procedures€for€administering€the€test€wereÏnot€followed€but€argued€that€the€result€should€have€been€allowed€because€theÍprocedural€deviation€benefitted€the€defendant€by€giving€a€lower€reading.€€OurÏsupreme€court€rejected€that€argument:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àCourts€admit€competent,€reliable€evidence€toÏassure€a€fair,€just€result.€€Rules€of€admissibility€must€beÏapplied€uniformly€and€universally,€regardless€of€theÏoutcome.€€Here€the€state€failed€to€meet€the€thresholdÏrequirements€for€admitting€the€results€of€defendant'sÏbreath€alcohol€test.€€The€trial€court€was€correct€inÏsuppressing€the€results.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌòòBoboóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€790.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€six€requirements€in€òòSensingóó€are€mandatory€and€must€beÏ"scrupulously€followed."€€òòState€v.€Harold€E.€Fieldsóó,€No.€01C01„9412„CC„00438,€slipÏop.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Apr.€12,€1996).€€Further,€it€is€the€state'sÏburden€to€establish€compliance€with€each€of€the€requirements;€the€defendant€doesÏnot€bear€any€burden€to€show€non„compliance.€€ÌÌà àà àTo€properly€review€this€issue€it€is€necessary€to€consider€OfficerÏFoister's€testimony€in€some€detail.€€He€testified€that€he€had€been€trained€by€the€TBIÏto€operate€the€Intoximeter€3000€breath€machine.€€When€asked€if€the€machine€wasÏ"certified€as€properly€operating€by€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,"€heÏresponded€affirmatively.€€When€asked€if€he€followed€the€"proper€procedures,"€heÏresponded€affirmatively.€€When€asked€"from€all€the€information€you€used€to€operateÍthat€machine€and€your€training,€was€it€operated€properly€at€the€time,"€he€respondedÏaffirmatively.€€When€asked€what€steps€he€had€taken€with€the€defendant,€theÏfollowing€testimony€ensued:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOfficer€Foister:€€[T]he€first€thing€we€do€is,€we€had€toÏobserve€him€for€twenty€minutes.€€That's€no€cigarettes,€noÏfood,€no€nothing,€intake.€...€[A]fter€that's€done,€then€weÏprint€everything€in€the€machine.€...€[W]e€print€the€name,Ïdate€of€birth,€driver's€license€number,€whether€he€wasÏinvolved€in€an€accident,€the€time,€the€arresting€officer,€allÏthat's€typed€in.€€...€€So€after€everything's€in€the€machine,Ïwe€hit,€it€starts€and€it€purges€itself,€it€cleans€its€wholeÏsystem.€...€€So€...€the€machine€tells€us€when€we're€readyÏto€blow.€Ì€Ìà8 àà8 àGen.€Gass:€€And€it€did€that€in€this€case?ÌÌà8 àà8 àOfficer€Foister:€€Yeah.€€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àBefore€the€officer€testified€as€to€the€results€of€the€breath€test,€defenseÏcounsel€was€permitted€to€conduct€a€voir€dire.€€The€officer€then€acknowledged€thatÏhe€did€not€have€the€TBI's€certification€of€the€intoximeter;€he€explained€that€theÏdocument€had€been€posted€at€the€jail€on€the€night€of€the€defendant's€arrest.€€TheÏofficer€testified€that€the€machine€is€calibrated€every€three€months:€€"I'd€have€to€bringÏall€the€records€over€here€to€give€you€the€dates."€€When€asked€if€he€could€"testify€asÏto€when€the€last€time€this€machine€was€calibrated€before€[the€defendant]€wasÏbrought€in,"€he€responded€in€the€negative.€€He€also€indicated€he€did€not€know€whenÍ"the€last€time€...€a€maintenance€check€had€been€done€on€this€machine€to€insure€thatÏit€was€functioning€properly."€€When€asked€if€he€could€recall€whether€he€followed€theÏnormal€procedures€in€testing€the€defendant,€the€officer€responded,€"Well,€I'm€sure€IÏfollowed€the€procedures,€but€I€can't€remember."€€€€€à àÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€the€officer's€testimony€failed€to€establishÏòòSensingóó€requirements€(1),€(3),€and€(5).€€Requirement€(1)€is€that€the€tests€wereÏperformed€in€accordance€with€the€standards€and€operating€procedure€promulgatedÏby€the€forensic€services€division€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation.€€OfficerÏFoister€testified€that€the€machine€had€been€certified€as€operating€in€complianceÏwith€the€procedures€established€by€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation.€€In€ourÏview,€that€is€enough.ÌÌà àà àRequirement€(3)€is€that€the€evidentiary€breath€testing€instrument€wasÏcertified€by€the€forensic€services€division,€was€tested€regularly€for€accuracy,€andÏwas€working€properly€when€the€breath€test€was€performed.€€Officer€Foister€testifiedÏthat€the€documentation€of€certification€was€posted€by€the€machine€when€he€testedÏthe€defendant;€he€asserted€that€the€machine€is€"checked€every€three€months"€butÏwas€uncertain€as€to€when€the€machine€was€calibrated€or€last€subjected€to€aÏmaintenance€check.€€òòSensingóó,€in€our€view,€does€not€require€that€the€officer€relateÍthe€last€date€the€machine€was€tested;€it€only€requires€that€the€officer€testify€that€theÏmachine€is€regularly€tested.€€The€state€established€that.€€Moreover,€although€thereÏwas€no€direct€declaration€that€the€machine€was€working€properly,€the€officer'sÏtestimony€implied€that.€€€€€ÌÌà àà àRequirement€(5)€directs€the€examiner€to€follow€the€prescribedÏoperational€procedures.€€On€cross„examination,€the€officer€candidly€admitted€thatÏhe€could€not€remember€whether€he€followed€the€procedures€or€not.€€At€the€hearingÏon€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€judge€characterized€the€issue€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[I]t€appears€to€me€that€there€could€be€some€questionsÏraised€that€may€need€to€be€resolved.€€I€would€think€thatÏthis€certainly€is€not€the€first€case€where€an€officer€was€notÏable€to€remember€precisely€what€took€place,€and€I€don'tÏknow€whether€that€testimony€amounts€to€a€finding€thatÏwhatever€took€place€was€certainly€not€proper€procedure.€ÏI€don't€think€I€would€want€to€go€that€far.€€It's€a€question€ofÏwhat€effect€does€that€type€testimony€have€on€the€State'sÏburden€of€proof.€€Of€course€it's€far€from€saying€yes,€IÏdidn't€do€so„and„so.€€Anyway,€the€Motion€[for€New€Trial]Ïis€overruled.ÌÌÓÓWe€conclude€from€this€that€the€trial€judge€made€a€factual€determination€that€theÏofficer€did€not€remember€what€procedures€he€followed€in€testing€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Foister's€testimony€on€the€fifth€requirement€raises€evidentiaryÏissues€of€first€impression.€€First,€we€must€determine€by€what€standard€of€proof€mustÍthe€state€establish€that€the€òòSensingóó€requirements€have€been€met.€€Secondly,€weÏmust€determine€what€is€the€appropriate€standard€of€appellate€review€of€the€trialÏjudge's€decision€to€admit€the€evidence.€€It€has€not€been€necessary€to€resolve€theseÏissues€in€prior€cases€interpreting€òòSensingóó€because€the€proof€in€the€prior€casesÏestablished€that€certain€of€the€procedures€had€not€been€followed.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€€òòBoboóó,Ï909€S.W.2d€at€790€(state€conceded€that€"prescribed€operational€procedure€was€notÏfollowed");€òòMcCaslinóó,€894€S.W.2d€at€311€(the€"undisputed€period€of€observation€...Ïof€sixteen€minutes"€was€insufficient€to€meet€the€twenty€minutes€observationÏrequirement).€€Because€the€proof€here€was€not€overwhelming€in€either€direction,€itÏis€necessary€to€determine€the€applicable€burden€of€proof€and€our€scope€of€review.€ÌÌà àà àInitially,€we€hold€that€the€state€must€establish€by€a€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence€that€the€òòSensingóó€requirements€have€been€met.œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›€€In€òòState€v.€Stamperóó,Ï863€S.W.2d€404,€405€(Tenn.€1993),€our€supreme€court€held€that€"the€standard€ofÏproof€necessary€to€show€the€existence€of€a€conspiracy€for€the€purpose€of€admittingÏco„conspirator€statements€is€proof€...€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence."€€€TheÍòòStamperóó€court€concluded€as€follows:€ÌÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà à[T]he€appropriate€standard€of€proof€for€preliminaryÏfacts€required€for€the€admission€of€evidence€is€proof€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€We€are€satisfied€thatÏthe€preponderance€standard€is€sufficient€to€satisfy€theÏreliability€concern€that€underlies€the€hearsay€rule€andÏhas€shaped€the€exceptions€to€it,€including€the€exceptionÏfor€co„conspirators'€statements.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòId.óó€at€406€(footnote€omitted).€ÌÌà àà àOur€rules€of€evidence€provide€that€"[p]reliminary€questions€concerningÏthe€...€admissibility€of€evidence€shall€be€determined€by€the€court€...."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï104(a).€€One€authority€has€noted€that€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€theÏstandard€of€proof€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€104,€given€our€supreme€court's€broadÏlanguage€in€the€òòStamperóó€case:€€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓRule€104€does€not€indicate€what€standard€of€proof€mustÏbe€satisfied€in€order€to€assess€whether€the€factsÏnecessary€for€an€evidentiary€rule€to€apply€are€present€orÏabsent.€€In€òòState€v.€Stamperóó,€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€held€that€"the€appropriate€standard€of€proof€forÏpreliminary€facts€required€for€the€admission€of€evidenceÏis€proof€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence."€€AlthoughÏthis€decision€dealt€specifically€with€the€evidenceÏnecessary€to€establish€a€coconspirator's€admission,€theÏstandard€was€expressed€in€general€terms€and€mayÏreflect€the€test€in€Tennessee.€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÓÓNeil€P.€œCohen€et€al,›€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€104.3€at€28„29€(3d€ed.€1995)Ï(footnotes€omitted).ÓÓÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€after€hearing€testimony€from€Officer€Foister,€and€afterÏhearing€argument€from€counsel,€the€trial€judge€ruled€that€a€"proper€foundation€hasÏbeen€laid."€€Implicit€in€this€ruling€is€that€the€trial€judge€found€the€officer€had,€in€fact,Ïfollowed€the€required€òòSensingóó€procedures.€€ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€admissibility€of€breath€test€evidence€is€analogous€to€theÏadmissibility€of€expert€testimony.€€The€standard€of€review€of€the€admissibility€ofÏexpert€testimony€is,€of€course,€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€OurÏsupreme€court€recently€described€that€standard€as€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àIn€Tennessee€the€qualifications,€admissibility,Ïrelevancy€and€competency€of€expert€testimony€areÏmatters€which€largely€rest€within€the€sound€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Rhodenóó,€739€S.W.2d€6€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987).€€Such€discretion,€however,€is€notÏabsolute€and€may€be€overturned€on€appeal€where€theÏdiscretion€is€arbitrarily€exercised.€€òòBaggett€v.€Stateóó,€220ÏTenn.€592,€421€S.W.2d€629,€632€(1967).€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).€€Expert€testimony€typicallyÏinvolves€some€type€of€scientific€or€specialized€knowledge.€€The€breath€test€is€alsoÏbased€on€science,€even€though€òòSensingóó€established€that€the€testing€officer€did€notÏhave€to€testify€to€the€scientific€basis€for€the€test.€€This€court€has€consistently€ruledÏthat€"whether€to€admit€or€exclude€òòexpert€testimony€and€scientific€evidenceóó€restsÏwithin€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€relief€on€appeal€will€only€be€afforded€ifÍthere€was€an€abuse€of€discretion€which€was€prejudicial."€€òòState€v.€Tizardóó,€897ÏS.W.2d€732,€748€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(emphasis€added).€€The€breath€test€isÏclearly€a€type€of€scientific€evidence.€ÌÌà àà àWe€acknowledge€that€our€supreme€court€clarified€the€standard€forÏreviewing€suppression€determinations€by€the€trial€court€in€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928ÏS.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996):ÌÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓòòà àQuestions€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€theÏweight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€and€resolution€ofÏconflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€trialÏjudge€as€the€trier€of€œfactóó.€€The›€party€prevailing€in€the€trialÏcourt€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing€as€well€asÏall€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€beÏdrawn€from€that€evidence.€€So€long€as€the€greater€weightÏof€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€court's€findings,€thoseÏfindings€shall€be€upheld.€€In€other€words,€a€trial€court'sÏfindings€of€fact€in€a€suppression€hearing€will€be€upheldÏunless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòWe€alsoÏnote€that€this€standard€of€review€is€consistent€with€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€13(d),€which€provides€that€in€civil€cases,Ïfindings€of€fact€by€a€trial€court€are€presumed€correctÏ"unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwiseóó."€€Hereafter,€the€proper€standard€to€be€appliedÏin€reviewing€suppression€issues€is€the€"preponderanceÏof€the€evidence"€standard.€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòId.óó€at€23€(emphasis€added).€€If€construed€broadly,€portions€of€the€paragraph€implyÏthat€all€factual€determinations€a€trial€judge€must€make€before€deciding€to€admitÏevidence€are€subject€to€the€òòOdomóó€standard;€since€òòOdomóó,€however,€our€court€hasÍcontinued€to€apply€the€abuse€of€discretion€standard€in€the€review€of€expertÏtestimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Leroy€Hall,€Jr.óó,€No.€03C01„9303„CR„00065,€slip€op.€at€28Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Dec.€30,€1996)€("the€trial€court's€ruling€[to€allow€theÏexpert€testimony]€was€within€its€discretion€and€was€appropriate");€òòState€v.€TerranceÏB.€Pulliamóó,€No.€02C01„9507„CR„00206,€slip€op.€at€9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,ÏOct.€22,€1996),€òòperm.€to€app.€filedóó,€Dec.€24,€1996;€òòState€v.€James€Ryionóó,€No.€01C01„9511„CC„00365,€slip€op.€at€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Dec.€30,€1996),Ïòòperm.€to€app.€filedóó,€Feb.€12,€1997.€€Our€courts€have€also€continued€to€use€the€abuseÏof€discretion€standard€in€reviewing€chain€of€custody€issues.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kirby€G.ÏThurmonóó,€No.02C01„9512„CR„00375,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€œJackson,ÏOct.›€17,€1996),€òòperm.€to€app.€filedóó,€Dec.€œ16,›€1996.€€ÌÌà àà àòòOdomóó€dealt€specifically€with€the€standard€of€review€of€a€trial€court'sÏdetermination€that€a€confession€was€voluntary.€€928€S.W.2d€at€22„23.€€All€of€theÏcases€cited€in€òòOdomóó€concern€the€admissibility€of€evidence€allegedly€obtained€inÏviolation€of€the€Fourth€or€Fifth€Amendment.€€òòId.óó€€€It€is€our€view€that€admissibility€ofÏbreath€test€evidence€is€more€closely€akin€to€admissibility€of€expert€testimony€than€itÏis€to€determinations€on€the€admissibility€of€illegally€seized€evidence.€€As€indicatedÏby€the€cases€cited€above€concerning€the€standard€of€review€of€the€admissibility€ofÏexpert€testimony€and€the€determination€that€the€chain€of€custody€has€been€satisfied,Íthe€òòOdomóó€standard€of€review€has€not€been€interpreted€as€applying€to€every€singleÏfactual€determination€a€trial€judge€must€make€before€deciding€to€admit€evidence.€ÏòòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€McLeodóó,€937€S.W.2d€867,€871€(Tenn.€1996)€(In€discussing€theÏadmissibility€of€hearsay€statements€under€the€medical€diagnosis€exception,€ourÏsupreme€court,€post„òòOdomóó,€stated,€"It€is€well€established€that€trial€courts€have€broadÏdiscretion€in€determining€the€admissibility€of€evidence,€and€their€rulings€will€not€beÏreversed€absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.")€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€we€conclude€the€appropriate€standard€of€review€isÏwhether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€Using€this€standard,€we€cannot€findÏerror€in€this€case.€€The€evidence€is€not€overwhelming€either€way.€€There€is,Ïhowever,€a€modicum€of€proof€to€support€the€trial€court's€determination€that€theÏtesting€officer€more€probably€than€not€followed€the€correct€procedures€in€this€case.€€ÏOfficer€Foister€insisted€that€he€was€certain€he€had€followed€the€correct€procedures,Ïnotwithstanding€his€failure€to€recall€the€specifics.€€The€officer€was€able€to€testify€toÏthe€correct€procedures.€€The€test€results€printout€shows€that€the€officer€tested€aÏblank€against€a€standard€and€then€tested€a€blank€against€the€defendant's€breath.€ÏOfficer€Manning€testified€that€he€observed€the€defendant€for€the€requisite€twentyÏminutes€and€then€witnessed€the€breath€test.€€Obviously,€the€trial€judge€is€in€a€betterÏposition€than€we€to€assess€the€officer's€credibility.€€Thus,€it€is€our€conclusion€that€theÍtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€admitting€the€results.€€The€state€mightÏconsider€the€use€of€a€checklist€so€as€to€more€closely€adhere€to€the€òòSensingóóÏrequirements.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€conviction€is€affirmed.ÌÌœ›ÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€ÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌÌœ›ÌÌ__________________________________ÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌœ_________________________________›ÌCurwood€Witt,€JudgeÌœ›