ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU:Ýw@ 4W k z 0–‚ 0D n­\  0J 0T[ 0^¯ 0h 0ru 0|ç Bc 0†€ 0 1u– 0d  D3oU>¢B)à 0@ DCIU *Œ AM¶é“ì v~‹vÓ  AOÜÆ+ 0Dñ D/5 Bd˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular þÿDEDÓ€IU îÓ€R¦"øð È3|x(F(2ôÉ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,,,,7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€-.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 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 $ÝÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€+ôÔÔ€/ÔWhile€some€court€documents€refer€to€the€defendant€as€"Jerry€Wayne€Eidson›,"€it€is€the€policyÏof€this€court€to€use€the€defendant's€name€as€it€is€listed€on€the€indictment.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌò òJune€18,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€/ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€01.A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌÌÌà@ 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€416ÌœDandridge›,€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:_____________________ÌÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDED€FOR€NEW€TRIALÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÔ€+ÔÔ€+XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓœòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€/ÔÌÑ7€¬„XXdðXXdð7ÑOPINIONó óóó›ÌÓ  Óà àà àA€jury€found€the€defendant,€Jerry€Wayne€Edison,× ƒ2 ××  ×€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."€€òòSensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€at€416.€€Our€supreme€court€"relax[ed]€theÏrigorous€prerequisites€formerly€required€to€authenticate€the€reliability€of€theÏscientific€equipment€...."€€òòIdóó.€€Although€the€testing€officer€does€not€have€to€testifyÏabout€the€"scientific€technology€involved,"€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.€€ÌÌÓÓœòòIdóó.›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€òòœMcCaslin›óó,€the€officer€had€placed€the€defendant€in€the€patrol€car€at€2:20€a.m.,Ïarrived€at€the€police€station€at€2:30€a.m.,€€and€administered€the€test€at€2:46€a.m.€€òòIdóó.Ïat€311.€€The€"undisputed€period€of€observation"€was€sixteen€minutes.€€òòIdóó.€€Our€courtÍheld€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."€€òòIdóó.€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.ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€312.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€909€S.W.2d€788€(Tenn.€1995),€our€supreme€courtÏreaffirmed€the€òòSensingóó€requirements;€the€state€had€conceded€that€the€operationalÏprocedures€for€administering€the€test€were€not€followed€but€argued€that€the€resultÏshould€have€been€allowed€because€the€procedural€deviation€benefitted€theÏdefendant€by€giving€a€lower€reading.€€Our€supreme€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€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌòòIdóó.€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,€April€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€operateÏthat€machine€and€your€training,€was€it€operated€properly€at€the€time,"€he€respondedÏaffirmatively.€€When€asked€what€steps€he€had€taken€with€the€defendant,€theÍfollowing€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€thatÏwhile€he€did€not€have€the€TBI's€certification€of€the€œintoximeter›,€that€document€hadÏbeen€posted€at€the€jail€on€the€night€of€the€defendant's€arrest.€€The€officer€testifiedÏthat€the€machine€is€calibrated€every€three€months:€€"I'd€have€to€bring€all€the€recordsÏover€here€to€give€you€the€dates."€€When€asked€if€he€could€"testify€as€to€when€the€lastÏtime€this€machine€was€calibrated€before€[the€defendant]€was€brought€in,"€heÏresponded€in€the€negative.€€He€also€indicated€he€did€not€know€when€"the€last€timeÏ...€a€maintenance€check€had€been€done€on€this€machine€to€insure€that€it€wasÏfunctioning€properly."€€When€asked€if€he€could€recall€whether€he€followed€theÍnormal€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;€that,€inÏour€view,€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€relateÏthe€last€date€the€machine€was€tested;€it€only€requires€that€the€officer€testify€that€theÏmachine€is€regularly€tested.€€The€state€established€that.€€Moreover,€although€thereÍwas€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[œI]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 àTestimony€by€an€officer€that€he€routinely€follows€the€proper€procedureÏbut€has€no€specific€recollection€of€the€event€at€issue€is€not€enough€to€satisfy€the€fifthÏrequirement.€€The€rule€in€òòSensingóó€mandates€that€the€officer€follow€the€courtÏprocedure€in€each€particular€case.€€Our€ruling€in€òòMcCaslinóó€controls;€there,€the€testÍresults€were€found€inadmissible€because€the€officer€could€not€"say€with€certaintyÏthat€the€defendant€did€not€regurgitate."€€òòMcCaslinóó,€894€S.W.2d€at€311.€€Here,€theÏofficer€could€not€say€"with€certainty"€that€he€followed€the€prescribed€operationalÏprocedures.€€Thus€the€officer's€testimony€failed€to€establish€the€essentialÏrequirement€that€he€did€in€fact€follow€the€requisite€procedures.€€The€strict€nature€ofÏthe€òòSensingóó€rule€should€have,€therefore,€precluded€admission€of€the€test€results.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€remaining€question€is€whether€the€erroneously€admitted€breathÏtest€affected€the€results€of€the€trial.€€In€òòMcCaslinóó,€other€testimony€by€the€arrestingÏofficer€established€that€the€defendant's€vehicle€was€"weaving€on€the€interstate"€andÏthat€the€defendant€performed€poorly€on€various€"field€sobriety€tests."€€òòIdóó.€at€311,Ï312.€€Videos€of€the€defendant's€performing€the€field€tests€were€shown€to€the€jury.€ÏOur€court€reviewed€the€videos€and€found€they€were€€"inconclusive"€in€establishingÏguilt.€€òòIdóó.€€This€court€ruled€that€"when€the€only€scientific€evidence€presented€at€trialÏwas€admitted€in€error€we€cannot€say€that€the€effect€was€harmless."€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àà àThe€alcohol€test€result€of€.12€triggered€the€rebuttable€presumption€thatÏthe€defendant€was€intoxicated.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408.€€Thus,€theÏdefendant€was€saddled€with€the€burden€of€overcoming€that€presumption.€€TheÏremaining€evidence€in€the€case€was€that€the€officer€smelled€alcohol€on€theÍdefendant€and€that€the€defendant€failed€the€field€sobriety€tests.€€The€officer€did€notÏobserve€the€defendant€drive€the€vehicle.€€The€defendant€produced€medical€recordsÏof€his€partially€amputated€toe€in€an€effort€to€explain€his€poor€performance€on€fieldÏsobriety€tests.€€He€also€attributed€the€smell€of€alcohol€to€his€nephew€who€wasÏdrinking€at€the€time€of€the€arrest.€€Because€the€defendant€presented€an€arguableÏdefense,€we€hesitate€to€regard€the€erroneous€evidence€as€harmless.€€A€jury€shouldÏdecide€the€issue.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€we€must€reverse€the€conviction€and€remand€this€causeÏfor€a€new€trial.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌCurwood€Witt,€œJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌ›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÑ7€óZXXdæXXdð7Ñ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€ÌœßJ€03;+'b|` Å `€@ÿJß›à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€JANUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9605„CC„00199Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àJefferson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Honorable€Ben€W.€Hooper,€II,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌJERRY€WAYNE€EDISON,€€€€€à à)à à€(DUI)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àò òòòDISSENTING€OPINIONóóó óÌÌà àI€respectfully€dissent.€€Although€I€agree€with€the€concerns€implicit€in€the€majorityÏopinion€regarding€the€lax€way€that€the€breath€test€operator€testified€without€previouslyÏdocumenting€the€specific€aspects€of€the€testing€procedures€used€in€this€case,€I€do€notÏbelieve€that€the€record€justifies€our€overturning€the€trial€courtððs€finding€and€conclusionÏthat€the€threshold€admissibility€requirements€had€been€met.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€909€S.W.2d€788,€790€(Tenn.€1995),€our€supreme€court€statedÏthat€ð ðòòSensingóó€established€the€prerequisites€for€threshold€admissibility€of€breath€alcoholÏtest€results.ðð€€What€was€left€unspecified€in€òòSensingóó€and€òòBoboóó€is€the€standard€of€proof€toÏbe€used€by€the€trial€court€in€determining€if€the€six€prerequisites€have€been€sufficientlyÏproven€so€as€to€allow€admission€of€the€test€results€into€evidence.ÌÌà àIn€òòSensingóó,€the€supreme€court€stated€that€the€testing€officer€ð ðmust€be€able€toÏòòtestifyóóðð€that€he€was€properly€certified,€that€the€instrument€was€certified,€etc.€€843€S.W.2dÏat€416€(emphasis€added).€€This€indicates€a€ð ðprima€facieðð€standard€by€which€the€testÏresults€would€be€admissible€if€the€testerððs€evidence,€taken€as€true,€meets€the€òòSensingóóÏcriteria.€€This€standard€is€somewhat€similar€to€the€one€indicated€in€Rule€104(a)€and€(b),ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.,€relative€to€conditional€relevance€assessment€by€the€trial€court€€that€doesÏnot€require€it€to€weigh€credibility€or€otherwise€find€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,Ïbut€simply€allows€for€admissibility€if€the€court€determines€that€the€jury€could€reasonablyÏfind€the€conditional€fact€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,ÏòòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€œðððð›€104.1€and€.2€(3d€ed.€1995).€€Under€such€a€standard,€IÏhave€no€problem€in€concluding€that€Officer€Foisterððs€testimony€presents,€at€least,€aÏprima€facie€showing€of€the€òòSensingóó€prerequisites.€€Any€proof€that€the€defendant€had€toÏthe€contrary€would€then€only€go€to€the€weight€the€jury€should€give€to€the€test€results,€notÏto€admissibility.€€ÌÌà àOn€the€other€hand,€in€òòState€v.€Stamperóó,€863€S.W.2d€404,€œ406›€(Tenn.€1993),€ourÏsupreme€court€stated€ð ðthat€the€appropriate€standard€of€proof€for€preliminary€factsÏrequired€for€the€admission€of€evidence€is€proof€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ðð€ÏIn€dealing€with€the€issue€of€the€foundation€needed€for€œco„conspirator›€hearsayÏstatements€to€be€admissible,€the€court€stated€that€it€believed€that€ð ðthe€preponderanceÏstandard€is€sufficient€to€satisfy€the€reliability€concern€that€underlies€the€hearsay€ruleÏand€has€shaped€the€exceptions€to€it€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€€This€indicates€to€me€that€the€òòSensingóóÏprerequisites€must€be€found€by€the€trial€court€to€have€been€proven€by€a€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence€before€the€test€results€are€admissible.€€The€threshold€reliability€concernÏindicated€in€òòSensingóó€is€similar€to€that€held€for€hearsay€issues.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€Officer€Foister€initially€testified€that€he€followed€the€requiredÏprocedures€in€this€case.€€He€explained€that€the€person€is€observed€for€twenty€minutesÏto€insure€no€intake€of€foreign€substances€and€that€the€information€about€the€person€isÏprinted€into€the€test€machine,€which€is€tied€by€computer€link„up€to€the€TBI€in€Nashville.€ÏHe€said€that€the€machine€is€started€and€that€it€purges€itself€of€dust€and€other€matter.€ÏThe€machine€then€notifies€him€that€it€is€ready.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€blew€into€theÏmachine,€which€then€gave€him€the€results.€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€he€basically€said€that€although€he€could€not€rememberÏspecifically,€he€was€sure€that€he€followed€the€procedures€that€one€has€to€follow€to€runÍthe€test.€€As€the€majority€opinion€notes,€the€trial€court€essentially€found€that€OfficerÏFoister€did€not€remember€what€specific€procedures€he€followed€in€testing€theÏdefendant.€€However,€the€fact€that€Officer€Foister€had€no€memory€of€the€specific€actionsÏtaken€in€this€case€does€not€mean€that€the€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€worthy€of€beliefÏthat€the€proper€procedures€were€followed.ÌÌà àFirst,€Officer€Manning€testified€that€he€arrested€the€defendant,€took€him€to€theÏJefferson€County€Sheriffððs€Department,€watched€him€for€more€than€twenty€minutesÏwithout€any€incident€of€regurgitation€or€objects€being€in€his€mouth,€and€observed€himÏtake€the€breath€test.€€As€for€Officer€Foister,€the€proof€shows€that€he€is€a€TBI€trained€andÏcertified€operator€of€the€Intoximeter€3000€breath€machine,€the€one€used€in€this€caseÏand€approved€in€òòSensingóó.€€He€testified€about€the€basic€procedures€one€needs€to€followÏto€operate€the€machine€properly.€€He€said€that€he€was€sure€that€he€followed€theÏprocedures€in€this€case.€€I€note€that€the€test€result€printout€reflects€the€results€of€testingÏa€blank€against€a€standard€and€then€testing€a€blank€against€the€defendantððs€breath.€€ItÏalso€reflects€that€the€defendant€was€arrested€at€4:13€a.m.€and€that€the€defendantððsÏbreath€testing€occurred€at€4:49€a.m.€€(The€record€reflects€that€the€defendant€wasÏarrested€fairly€close€to€the€sheriffððs€department).€ÌÌà àUnder€the€foregoing€circumstances,€I€am€unable€to€conclude€that€the€evidenceÏin€the€record€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€relative€to€the€òòSensingóóÍprerequisites€being€met.€€In€this€respect,€I€cannot€ignore€the€fact€that,€in€context,€OfficerÏFoisterððs€positive€assertion€that€he€is€sure€that€he€followed€the€procedures€needed€toÏrun€the€test€reflects€a€habit,€that€is,€a€regular€response€to€a€repeated€specific€situation.€ÏAs€such,€it€would€be€probative€of€what€operating€procedures€he€in€fact€followed€for€theÏdefendantððs€test.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€406.€€ÌÌà àI€would€only€add€that€machine€operators€could€easily€prepare€a€checklist€formÏthat€could€be€used€for€each€test€in€order€that€an€appropriate€history€of€the€exactÏprocedures€followed€in€any€given€test€would€be€recorded.€€The€fact€that€the€specificÏrecord€before€us€does€not€deserve€a€reversal€regarding€the€òòSensingóó€prerequisites€toÏthe€admissibility€of€breath€alcohol€test€results€does€not€mean€that€the€failure€to€recallÏthe€exact€procedures€used€for€a€particular€test€will€be€overcome€simply€by€a€claim€thatÏit€is€always€done€properly.€€In€any€event,€I€would€affirm€the€judgment€of€conviction.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àÌ̜ԀÔÔ€Ô›