ÿWPC {Àâj§GßA <ÿeóõøܲÃöpµ?Æî…Z£×Ïc×áÛîÊ}Æ~WÈO;jl@¦‡³n8‚ü;r˜9üÃŽ¯CãYÛ#íÔ\pë£&ÕjP»æ¦R “õêú¬Îj³þì§4ž }SnRSÏôìÉC‹ã„®£N×Ý’Ýò§uMØ`Y]!¨„ž¤=éE®H¯yÄt¥·„À0‹‰Ü•$¿ùcœ„ emTºÝ$z)C Ì|-Óâåï-Þãn o¬Òƒàx¢Ctii=P»àúÊ€5Yù *µWÅûê¹Á•‚© Œ·ëÁÇë©eÏߨŸèÖ—Xrè:J°R…]}Õè”i8Ž’ÿ.½ÛýÔEÓf}®¯ØgqöÉ7˜»’FúX`.‹¤¸CO×æ[™…Œyµ]чÄo•…µú¹ï%×´*’×S»ÊÈð&ø˜ÚË|-åìðÓ|Z›Œ F%•¤²¤ü ý†ºem%;Á”"ÉÕ¤ ‰æË'TVû”/•lµ£"å’ã ¾æYí˸"à‰¥•‘¢Xšáé—³qÝ›uD®k“Þˆ]~Ú£Ö… ¹‹íuAfñå¢8ùâ‡VÃr׸Ä}•çCÜ7ʲßÜκŸ§|Û… %F w@L 0ÜŒ U:h 4¢ ¶ U:Å ÿ 0  0D>U:‚Ù¼~••••••••A BTTTTTTTTTTT D3qqq 0D¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ AOèÆ77 0Dý D/A BpX EEFGEH[IJEKLMDNÓ€(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regularýhµ&3|xY, øð AZ"Arial Regular Ô€ XÜõXXXÔÔ€ îJ«îX XÜõÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ ô’î îJ«ÔÐ  ÐÌò òAugust€9,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôœäô ô’ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó(Ð(3• $¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝÑ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ÜõXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÏÔ‡ôS¿ôXXÔÝ ƒ \šÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7ÀõXXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€we€have€determined€that€the€medical€reports€are€constitutionally€admissibleÐ  Ðunder€an€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule,€Rule€703€does€not€prevent€an€expert€from€relying€uponÏinadmissible€hearsay€in€formulating€an€opinion,€if€the€type€of€hearsay€is€one€that€would€beÏreasonably€relied€upon€by€experts€in€that€situation.€€òòSeeóó€€òòNeil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€Tennessee€Law€ofÐ øð ÐEvidenceóó€ðð€703.4. tÔ‡ôS¿ôXXÔÝ ƒ \šÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7ÀõXXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant€does€not€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€apply€any€mitigating€factors. 7Ô‡ôS¿ôXXÔÝ ƒ \šÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7ÀõXXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€òòCausbyóó,€706€S.W.2d€at€631,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€third€prongÐ  Ðof€the€òòHenderson„Armesóó€requirement€for€complying€with€the€confrontation€clause,€òòi.e.óó,€that€theРƾ Ðevidence€not€be€crucial€or€devastating,€is€not€required€in€the€case€of€well€established€hearsayÏexception€such€as€former€testimony.€€òòId.óó€at€631,€note€1€(citing€òòMancusi€v.€Stubbsóó,€408€U.S.€204,Ð D < Ð92€S.Ct.€2308€(1972)€and€òòOhio€v.€Robertsóó,€448€U.S.€at€56,€100€S.Ct.€at€2531). d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ`!ÝÑ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ÜõXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝñNñ›ñNñÓ ÔþÓò òñNñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨Órß›ñNñà@. . ®àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@ÓÓ(®àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌà@±±%®àJUNE€SESSION,€1999ˆÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)Ð | t Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àNo.€03C01„9812„CC„00422Ð h` Ðà ` àAppelleeà  àà h àà À à)Ð TL  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àJEFFERSON€COUNTYÐ @8  Ðvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð ,$  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHon.€Ben€W.€Hooper,€II,€JudgeÐ   ÐRICHARD€A.€GREEN,à h àà À à)Ð ü  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à(Vehicular€Homicide)Ð ðè  Ðà ` àAppellantà  àà h àà À à)Ð ÜÔ  ÐÌó óÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð €x ÐÌò òLu€Ann€Ballewó óà  àà h àò òà À àà  àPaul€G.€Summersó óÐ LD ÐAsst.€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ 80 ÐP.€O.€Box€416à  àÐ  ÐDandridge,€TN€€37725à h àà À àà  àò òMarvin€S.€Blair,€Jr.ó óÐ ü Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€Generalà Ð àà (# àÐ ðè Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌò òEdward€C.€Milleró óà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ ¼´ ÐPublic€Defenderà  àà h àà À àà  à2d€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÐ ¨   Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à x àà Ð àà (# àÐ Ž!† Ðà ` àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àò òAlfred€C.€Schmutzer,€Jr.ó óÐ @$8  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àò òJames€L.€Gassó óÐ ø&ð# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSevier€County€CourthouseÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSevierville,€TN€€37862ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ..&'+ ÐÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÐ ’3Š,1 ÐJudgeÐ  ~4v-2S ÐÓÓ€à@+®àòòò òOPINIONóóó óˆÐ  ÐÌà ` àThe€appellant,€Richard€A.€Green,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€vehicularÏhomicide€by€intoxication,€a€class€B€felony.€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing,€theÏJefferson€County€Criminal€Court€imposed€a€ten€year€sentence€of€confinement.€€TheÏappellant€appeals€both€the€judgment€of€conviction€and€resulting€sentence€entered€byÏthe€trial€court.€€In€doing€so,€he€challenges:ÌÓÓà8 ` àI.€€The€admission€into€evidence€of€the€results€of€blood€alcohol€testsÏperformed€by€both€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€andÏJefferson€Memorial€Hospital;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àII.€€The€expert€testimony€of€Dr.€John€Zirkle€regarding€the€combinedÏeffects€of€alcohol€and€drugs€on€an€individualððs€ability€to€operate€aÏmotor€vehicle;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àIII.€€The€testimony€relating€to€the€presence€of€alcoholic€beverageÏcontainers€found€in€the€appellantððs€vehicle;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àIV.€€The€imposition€of€a€ten€year€sentence€as€being€excessive;€andÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àV.€€€The€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€suspended€sentence.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÌÓÓà ` àAfter€review€of€the€record€and€the€applicable€law,€we€find€no€error€of€lawÏrequiring€reversal€of€the€judgment€or€modification€of€the€sentence.€€The€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌà@ff)®àò òBackgroundó óˆÐ +ü#( ÐÌà ` àThe€proof€introduced€at€trial,€taken€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,Ïreveals€the€following.€€On€June€26,€1997,€Richard€Seymour€picked€up€his€wife,ÏMargaret,€from€her€place€of€employment€at€approximately€4:00€p.m.€€The€coupleÏdrove€to€Wendyððs€in€Jefferson€City€where€they€ate€dinner.€€They€then€completedÏsome€grocery€shopping€at€the€nearby€Wal„Mart.€€The€couple€then€began€their€driveÏhome€on€Highway€25/70.€€Upon€approaching€Kerrððs€Market,€€they€noticed€a€vehicleÏcoming€towards€them€on€the€wrong€side€of€the€road.€€Margaret€Seymour€exclaimed,Ð p9h28 Ðð ðheððs€going€to€hit€us.ðð€€œñ=ñRogerñ=ññ>ñRichardñ>ñ›€Seymour€stopped€their€Pontiac€sedan€in€time€toÏwatch€the€approaching€red€Volvo€ð ðtravel€all€the€way€across€to€the€edge€of€the€road.ðð€Ïœñ;ñRichañ;ññ<ñrdñ<ññ;ñ›Rogerñ;ñ›€Seymour€thought€that€ð ð[the€appellant]€was€going€into€the€cow€pasture.ðð€ÏHowever,€the€red€Volvo€veered€back€across€to€his€side€of€the€road.€€Mr.€SeymourÏð ðtook€his€foot€off€the€brake€and€started€his€vehicle€toward€a€big€strip€out€on€the€edgeÏof€his€side€of€the€road.ðð€€The€Volvo€again€veered€back€across€the€road.€€Mr.ÏSeymour€stopped€again.€€The€Volvo€ð ðwent€back€acrossðð€and€collided€with€theÏpassenger€side€of€the€Seymoursðð€vehicle.ÌÌà ` àAt€approximately€6:30€p.m.,€members€of€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€wereÏdispatched€to€the€scene€of€the€crime.€€Troopers€Bud€Potts€and€Lloyd€SmithÏdiscovered€two€vehicles€at€the€scene,€a€cream€color€Pontiac€sedan€and€a€1978€redÏVolvo.€€Trooper€Smith€approached€the€driver€of€the€red€Volvo,€later€identified€as€theÏappellant.€€Smith€observed€that€the€appellant€ð ðappeared€to€be€very€intoxicated.€€HeÏwas€using€a€lot€of€profanity€and€not€cooperating€with€the€ambulance€personnel€at€all.€ÏI€attempted€to€question€him€.€.€.€and€he€more€or€less.€.€.€told€me€to€go€to€hell.ðð€ÏTrooper€Smith€added€that€the€appellant€ð ðhad€a€very€strong€odor€of€alcohol.ðð€€UponÏsearching€the€appellantððs€vehicle,€Trooper€Smith€discovered€two€empty€beer€œbottlesñ7ñ.ñ7ññ8ñ,ñ8ñ›€Ïœð ðñ9ñoñ9ññ:ñOñ:ñne›€of€them€had€a€little€cup€holder€thing€on€it€they€put€them€in€to€keep€them€cool.ðð€ÏA€more€thorough€search€was€completed€after€the€vehicle€was€towed€from€the€scene.€ÏTrooper€Smith€later€found€ð ða€total€of€twelve€bottles,€part€of€them€empty€and€part€ofÏthem€fullðð€and€a€ð ðpack€of€rolling€papers€#€1.5.ððÌÌà ` àThe€appellant,€œñ?ñRogerñ?ññ@ñRichardñ@ñ›€Seymour,€and€Margaret€Seymour€were€transported€byÏambulance€to€Jefferson€Memorial€Hospital.€€Margaret€Seymour,€the€forty„five€yearÏold€passenger€of€the€Pontiac,€was€dead€on€arrival€at€the€hospital.€€Efforts€to€reviveÏher€were€futile.̛̜Ð X9P28 Ðà ` àLater€on€that€evening,€Trooper€David€Brown€questioned€the€appellant€at€theÏJefferson€Memorial€Hospital.€€Trooper€Brown€testified€that€the€appellant€ð ðwas€veryÏargumentative,€very€combative.€€You€could€tell€by€the€odor€that€he€had€beenÏdrinking.ðð€€ð ðHis€speech€was€slurred,€[he€was]€talking€fast,€[and€he€was]€using€veryÏracy€language.ðð€€The€appellant€told€Trooper€Brown:ÌÓÓà8 ` à.€.€.I€just€came€back€down€the€road€and€that€God€damned€yellowÏstation€wagon€was€over€on€the€other€side€of€the€road,€man.€€I€said,Ïð ðGod€damn,€theyððre€going€to€hit€me€head€on.ðð€And€I€cut€over,€man,€toÏtry€to€miss€them,€man,€and€they€freaked€out€and€cut€back€over€anywayÏand€it€caught€them€in€the€side,€man,€and€the€next€thing€I€knowed€[sic]€IÏwas€f„€„€„€ing€flipping.Ó±ÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐDuring€this€interview,€the€appellant€admitted€that€he€had€consumed€approximatelyÏthree€beers€prior€to€the€collision.€€At€some€point€during€the€appellantððs€stay€at€theÏhospital,€officers€discovered€what€was€later€determined€to€be€4.4€grams€of€marijuana€Ïconcealed€in€the€appellantððs€pants.ÌÌà ` àA€blood€sample€was€taken€from€the€appellant€at€8:12€p.m.€€This€sample€wasÏsubsequently€sent€to€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€where€a€blood€alcoholÏanalysis€on€the€sample€was€conducted.€€The€results€of€this€test€revealed€that,€at€theÏtime€the€sample€was€drawn,€the€appellant€had€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€.13Ïmg/decaliter.€€The€analysis€by€the€TBI€also€revealed€the€presence€of€Valium€in€theÏappellantððs€system.€€€€ÌÌà ` àHospital€personnel€subsequently€drew€another€sample€of€the€appellantððsÏblood€at€8:20€p.m.€for€diagnostic€and€treatment€purposes.€€The€tests€on€this€sampleÏrevealed€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€.152€mg/decaliter.€€A€urine€test€completed€by€theÏhospital€additionally€tested€positive€for€benzodiazeprine€(Valium)€and€forÏcanabonoid,€which€is€a€metabolite€of€marijuana.€€€At€trial,€Dr.€John€Zirkle,€a€physicianÏat€Jefferson€Memorial€Hospital,€was€called€as€an€expert€to€testify€as€to€the€combinedÏeffects€that€alcohol€and€drugs€would€have€upon€an€individualððs€ability€to€operate€aÏmotor€vehicle.€€Dr.€Zirkle€did€not€treat€the€appellant€at€the€hospital.€€He€testified€thatÏa€blood€alcohol€level€of€.152€is€well€above€the€standard€considered€to€be€intoxicated.€Ð >:639 ÐAt€this€level,€Dr.€Zirkle€opined€that€the€appellantððs€ð ðjudgment€and€coordination€wouldÏbe€impaired€severely.ððÌÌà ` àTrooper€Roger€Christian,€an€accident€reconstructionist,€provided€additionalÏtestimony.€€Based€upon€the€positions€of€the€two€vehicles€after€impact€and€certainÏmarks,€including€tire€marks,€vehicle€marks€and€gouges€on€the€road€surface,€TrooperÏChristian€determined€that:ÌÓÓà8 ` à[T]he€Volvo€was€heading€.€.€.€in€the€direction€of€Knoxville,€while€theÏPontiac€was€heading€back€to€Newport/Dandridge.€€The€Volvo,€someÏ263€feet€prior€to€striking€the€Pontiac,€has€traveled€off€onto€the€shoulderÏof€the€road.Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à.€.€.Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àIt€would€have€been€on€the€shoulder€of€the€road€that€the€Pontiac€wasÏtraveling.€€In€other€words,€the€Volvo€had€crossed€over€„€„€crossed€theÏPontiacððs€lane€of€travel,€and€had€traveled€off€onto€the€€shoulderÏapproximately€263€feet€before€reaching€the€Pontiac,€and€it€traveledÏdown€the€shoulder€of€the€roadway.€€In€other€words,€it€was€completelyÏon€the€other€side€of€the€highway.Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à.€.€.Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à.€.€.[T]he€Volvo€had€come€down€on€the€wrong€side,€on€the€shoulder,Ïwas€aggressively€trying€to€return€back€into€the€road,€and€had€struck€theÏPontiac€on€the€Pontiacððs€passenger€side.Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à.€.€.Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à[In€the€present€case,€the€left€front€brake€did€not€have€an€impact€on€theÏaccident.€€Indeed,€[w]hen€he€applied€his€brakes€he€should€have€wentÏover€in€the€right€hand€side€instead€of€going€to€the€left.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓÌà ` àThe€appellantððs€acquaintance,€Larry€Stinnett,€related€the€appellantððs€activitiesÏprior€to€the€collision.€€Stinnett€testified€that,€at€sometime€after€4:00€p.m.,€he€and€theÏappellant€traveled€to€Andyððs€Market€where€they€shot€a€game€of€pool€and€each€drankÏtwo€beers.€€They€then€drove€to€Newman€Hollow€Road€where€they€met€threeÏunidentified€men€and€smoked€one€marijuana€cigarette.€€They€went€back€to€AndyððsÏMarket,€the€appellant€ð ðdid€donutsðð€in€the€parking€lot,€and€then€he€drove€to€Green€HillÏRoad.€€The€appellant€dropped€Stinnett€off€at€his€€sisterððs€house€near€Kerrððs€MarketÏon€Highway€25/70.€€Stinnett€testified€that€he€saw€the€appellant€with€Valium€tabletsÏand€that€he€saw€the€appellant€drink€a€total€of€three€beers.̛̜Ð X9P28 Ðà ` àThe€appellant€testified€that€he€had€obtained€the€1978€Volvo€two€days€prior€toÏthe€offense.€€At€that€time,€he€learned€that€the€front€left€brake€had€been€disconnectedÏand€the€brake€line€plugged.€€He€had€attempted€to€have€this€condition€corrected€onÏthe€day€of€the€offense;€however,€Bill€Banks,€the€mechanic€he€visited,€did€not€haveÏthe€proper€parts.€€The€appellant€admitted€that€he€had€drank€three€beers€prior€to€theÏcollision.€€He€denied€taking€Valium€prior€to€the€collision€although€he€did€admit€that€heÏhad€ð ðeaten€ten€Valium,€two€days€before.ððÌÌà ` àBased€on€this€evidence,€the€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€vehicularÏhomicide.ÌÌÌà@yy®àò òI.€€Admissibility€of€Blood€Alcohol€Testsó óˆÐ ˜ ÐÌà ` àThe€appellant€first€complains€that€the€admission€into€evidence€of€the€resultsÏof€the€blood€alcohol€tests€completed€by€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€andÏJefferson€Memorial€Hospital€was€error.€€He€contends€that,€because€both€bloodÏsamples€were€drawn€nearly€two€hours€after€the€collision,€the€results€of€the€bloodÏtests€ð ðare€not€relevant€to€the€issue€of€whether€or€not€he€was€ððdriving€under€theÏinfluence.ððððÌà ` àÌà ` àRelevant€evidence€is€any€evidence€ð ðhaving€any€tendency€to€make€theÏexistence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€moreÏprobable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€R.Ð h0`). ÐEvid.€401.€€€In€the€present€case,€the€appellant€was€charged€with€vehicular€homicideÏas€the€proximate€result€of€the€driverððs€intoxication.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð 4ø,2 Ð213(a)(2)€(1997).€€Thus,€evidence€relating€to€the€appellantððs€level€of€intoxication€atÏthe€time€of€the€offense€is€relevant€in€establishing€an€element€of€the€offense.€€Indeed,Ïthe€appellantððs€intoxication€was€the€only€disputed€issue€at€trial.€€Ð d9\28 Їà ` àBlood€tests€are€routinely€used€to€determine€whether€a€person€was€intoxicatedÏat€a€certain€time.€€òòSeeóó€€òòNeil€P.€Cohenóó,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€401.25Ð ÔÌ Ð(1995).€€Such€tests€are€admissible€provided€that€the€sample€was€taken€by€a€properlyÏtrained€person€and€went€through€a€proper€chain€of€custody€between€the€time€theÏblood€was€drawn€and€the€time€it€was€analyzed.€€òòSee€generallyóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÐ 80 Ð55„10„401€to€„412€(1997);€òòNeil€P.€Cohenóó,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€401.25.€Ð ü  ÐòòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Ben€Jordanóó,€No.€01C01„9311„CC„00419€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ ÐÈ  ÐNashville,€Jun.€13,€1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòconcurring€in€results€onlyóó,€(Tenn.Ð œ”  ÐFeb.€5,€1996).€€There€is€no€dispute€that€the€procedural€prerequisites€to€admitting€theÏlaboratory€test€results€were€satisfied€in€the€instant€case.ÌÌà ` àAgain,€the€collision€resulting€in€the€death€of€Margaret€Seymour€occurred€atÏapproximately€6:30€p.m.€€The€blood€sample€drawn€by€the€State€was€taken€at€8:12Ïp.m.€while€the€sample€drawn€by€the€hospital€was€taken€at€8:20€p.m.€€No€expertÏtestimony€was€presented€at€trial€to€establish€what€the€test€results€would€have€beenÏat€the€time€of€the€collision€by€means€of€extrapolation.€€As€recognized€by€this€court€inÏòòState€v.€McKinneyóó,€ð ðit€would€be€virtually€impossible€for€a€sample€of€blood€to€beÐ È#À  Ðdrawn€until€some€time€after€the€accident€occurs.ðð€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€McKinneyóó,€605Ð ”%Œ" ÐS.W.2d€842,€846€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€Accordingly,€the€jury€can€inferÏintoxication€at€the€time€of€the€offense€from€the€results€of€a€test€of€a€blood€sampleÏtaken€later.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Joe€Larry€Fuquaóó,€No.€01C01„9312„CC„00431€(Tenn.Ð ø*ð#( ÐCrim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Aug.€25,€1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Nov.€7,Ð Ä,¼%* Ð1994).€€Where€there€exists€other€evidence€from€which€to€infer€the€driverððsÏintoxication,€there€is€no€need€for€expert€witnesses€to€extrapolate€the€test€results€toÏthe€time€of€the€driving.€€òòId.óó€€In€the€present€case,€several€law€enforcement€officersÐ (2 +0 Ðtestified€regarding€the€appellantððs€demeanor€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€specifically,Ïobserving€the€appellantððs€belligerent€behavior,€excessive€cursing,€slurred€speechÏand€odor€of€alcohol.€€€Additionally,€Larry€Stinnett€testified€that€the€appellant€drankÏthree€beers€and€smoked€part€of€a€marijuana€cigarette€prior€to€the€collision.€Ð X9P28 ÐAccordingly,€we€reject€the€appellantððs€contention€that€a€blood€alcohol€level€of€.13€isÏso€close€to€the€statutory€presumption€of€.10€that€expert€testimony€is€required€toÏestablish€the€appellantððs€blood€alcohol€at€the€time€of€the€collision.€€We€conclude€thatÏthe€results€of€the€blood€alcohol€tests€were€relevant€to€the€appellantððs€state€ofÏintoxication.€€The€interval€between€the€time€of€the€offense€and€the€times€at€which€theÏblood€samples€were€drawn€are€pertinent€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence,€not€to€itsÏadmissibility.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Ben€Jordanóó,€No.€01C01„9311„CC„00419€(citing€òòState€v.Ð ÐÈ  ÐFordóó,€721€S.W.2d€828,€830€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ð œ”  Ð1986);€òòMcKinneyóó,€605€S.W.2d€at€846€(parenthetical€omitted)).€€This€issue€is€withoutÐ h` Ðmerit.€€€ÌÌÌà@çç ®àò òII.€€Testimony€of€Dr.€Zirkleó óˆÐ ˜ ÐÌà ` àIn€a€related€issue,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏpermitting€Dr.€John€Zirkle€to€testify€regarding€the€combined€effects€drugs€and€alcoholÏwould€have€on€a€personððs€ability€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle.€€Specifically,€theÏappellant€bases€his€argument€on€the€grounds€thatÌÓÓà8 ` àDr.€Zirkle€did€not€treat€the€appellant€after€the€accident,€nor€did€Dr.ÏZirkle€obtain€appellantððs€drug€and€urine€samples,€nor€did€he€analyzeÏappellantððs€samples€for€their€alcohol€and€drug€content.€€In€short,€Dr.ÏZirkle€had€no€personal€knowledge€of€appellantððs€statements€forÏtreatment,€observations€by€hospital€personnel,€nor€of€the€lab€testsÏcontained€within€the€hospital€records.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÓ±GÓÌAccordingly,€the€appellant€argues€that€Dr.€Zirkleððs€testimony€violates€hisÏconstitutional€right€of€confrontation.ÌÌà ` àBefore€calling€Dr.€John€Zirkle€to€testify,€the€State€offered€into€evidence,Ïpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„11„401€òòet€seq.óó€(1996)€(Hospital€Records€asÐ Ì5Ä.4 ÐEvidence),€the€medical€records€of€the€appellant,€Margaret€Seymour,€and€RichardÏSeymour€maintained€by€Jefferson€Memorial€Hospital€relative€to€each€œpatient's›Ð h9`28 Ðrespective€treatment€following€the€June€26th€offense.€€The€trial€court€admitted€theÏrecords€after€determining€that€the€State€had€complied€with€the€requirements€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„11„401€òòet€seq.óó€€These€statutes€permit€hearsay€evidence,Ð   ˜ Ðdeny€a€party€the€right€to€cross„examine€or€otherwise€refute€the€contents€of€theÏmedical€record,€and€allow€opinion€evidence€of€experts€without€showing€theirÏqualification€to€testify€as€an€expert.€€òòSeeóó€€òòSanders€v.€Nationwide€Ins.€Co.óó,€No.Ð   Ð02S01„9409„CV„00067€(Tenn.€at€Jackson,€Jan.€22,€1996).€€The€principal€purpose€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„11„401€òòet€seq.óó€is€to€provide€a€procedure€for€a€hospital,€whereÐ  ˜  Ðit€has€no€interest€in€the€case,€to€respond€to€a€subpoena€duces€tecum€for€hospitalÏrecords€by€filing€copies€of€the€records€authenticated€by€affidavit€instead€of€byÏsending€a€witness€to€the€hearing€with€the€originals.€€The€copy€of€the€record€shall€beÏadmissible€in€evidence€to€the€same€extent€as€though€the€original€thereof€wereÏoffered€and€the€custodian€had€been€present€and€testified€to€the€matters€stated€in€theÏaffidavit.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„11„406(a).€The€statutory€requirements€wereÏsatisfied;€thus,€procedurally,€the€records€were€admissible€into€evidence.€ÏNonetheless,€although€authentication€may,€by€statute,€be€satisfied€by€an€affidavit€byÏthe€custodian,€the€medical€records€are€still€subject€to€constitutional€challenge.€€òòSeeóó€Ð Ð#È  ÐòòState€v.€Woody€Hutchinsonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€887€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Jul.€19,Ð œ%”" Ð1990).ÌÌà ` àIn€the€instant€case,€the€appellant,€relying€upon€òòState€v.€Hendersonóó,€554Ð +ø#( ÐS.W.2d€117,€120€(Tenn.€1977),€contends€that,€by€not€having€the€person(s)€whoÏconducted€the€examination€and€who€completed€the€laboratory€tests€available€toÏtestify,€the€introduction€of€these€medical€records€into€evidence€violated€hisÏconstitutional€right€to€confrontation.€€In€òòHendersonóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€out„Ð 02(+0 Ðof„court€statements€must€meet€certain€criteria€in€order€to€satisfy€the€ConfrontationÏClause€of€both€the€Sixth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,ÏSection€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Armesóó,€607€S.W.2d€234,Ð ”7Œ06 Ð236€(Tenn.€1980);€òòHendersonóó,€554€S.W.2d€117€(Tenn.€1977).€€Specifically,€the€courtÐ `9X28 Ðrecognized€that€valid€claims€of€an€unconstitutional€abridgement€of€the€right€toÏconfront€witnesses€arise€when:ÌÓÓà8 ` à(1)€the€hearsay€evidence€is€crucial€to€proving€the€Stateððs€case,€òòi.e.óó,€theÐ   ˜ Ðevidence€is€offered€to€prove€an€essential€element€of€the€crime€or€itÏconnects€the€defendant€directly€to€the€commission€of€the€crime;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌ€à8 ` à(2)€there€is€no€proof€that€the€witness€is€unavailable,€òòi.e.óó,€the€State€mustÐ :2 Ðmake€a€good€faith€effort€to€secure€the€presence€of€the€person€whoseÏstatement€is€to€be€offered€against€the€defendant;€and€Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(3)€the€hearsay€evidence€is€lacking€its€own€indicia€of€reliability.€€Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÓxUÓÌòòHendersonóó,€554€S.W.2d€at€120.€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòArmesóó,€607€S.W.2d€at€237;€òòState€v.Ð †~  ÐOodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1991);Ð RJ ÐòòState€v.€Carpenteróó,€773€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989);€òòState€v.€Arnoldóó,€719Ð  ÐS.W.2d€543€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€òòCf.óó€€òòStewart€v.€Cowanóó,€528€F.2d€79€(6th€Cir.Ð êâ Ð1976).€€ÌÌà ` àNotwithstanding€the€constraints€imposed€by€the€òòHendersonóó€tripartite€test,€ourÐ NF Ðsupreme€court€has€also€recognized€that€€ð ðfirmly€rooted€exceptions€to€the€hearsayÏrule€do€not€violate€the€Confrontation€Clause.ðð€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Causbyóó,€706€S.W.2dÐ æ"Þ Ð628,€631€(Tenn.€1986);€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Darrell€R.€Kennedyóó,€No.€02C01„9708„CR„Ð ²$ª! Ð00318€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Feb.€17,€1999),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ð ~&v# Ð(Tenn.€Jul.€19,€1999);€òòState€v.€Harvey€Phillips€Hesteróó,€No.€03C01„9704„CR„00144Ð J(B!% Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€June€4,€1998)€(citing€òòState€v.€Alleyóó,€No.€02C01„9405„Ð *#' ÐCC„00100€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€June€18,€1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ð â+Ú$) Ð(Tenn.€Mar.€2,€1998);€òòState€v.€Lillardóó,€No.€01C01„9602„CC„00051€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ®-¦&+ Ðat€Nashville,€Feb.€12,€1997)).€€The€rationale€for€this€principle€is€based€upon€theÏpremise€that€some€forms€of€admissible€hearsay€rest€upon€such€solid€foundationsÏthat€admission€of€virtually€any€evidence€within€them€comports€with€the€right€ofÏconfrontation.€òòSeeóó€€òòOhio€v.€Robertsóó,€448€U.S.€56,€66,€100€S.Ct.€2537,€2539€(1980);Ð Þ4Ö-3 ÐòòCausbyóó,€706€S.W.2d€at€631€(Tennessee€Supreme€Court€holds€that€former€testimonyÐ ª6¢/5 Ðâ âhearsay€exception€is€such€firmly€established€rule€and€so€inherently€reliable€that€anyÐ v8n17 Ðsuch€evidence€necessarily€comports€with€the€right€of€confrontation.).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Indeed,Ð  Ðâ âstatements€admitted€under€a€firmly€rooted€hearsay€exception€are€so€inherentlyÏtrustworthy€that€adversarial€testing€would€add€little€to€their€reliability.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.Ð   ˜ ÐDarrell€R.€Kennedyóó,€No.€02C01„9708„CR„00318.Ð l d ÐÌà ` àBusiness€records€are€admissible€as€an€exception€to€the€rule€against€theÏintroduction€of€hearsay€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€€R.€Evid.€803(6).€€The€courts€of€thisÐ ÐÈ  Ðstate,€our€sister€states,€and€many€federal€courts€have€held€that€the€ð ðbusinessÏrecordsðð€exception€to€the€rule€against€hearsay€is€firmly€established.€€€òòState€v.€DarrellÐ h` ÐR.€Kennedyóó,€No.€02C01„9708„CR„00318€at€n.8;€€òòState€v.€Harvey€Phillip€Hesteróó,€No.Ð 4, Ð03C01„9704„CR„00144.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòUnited€States€v.€Ismoilaóó,€100€F.3d€380,€392€(5thÐ ø ÐCir.€1996),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€„„€U.S.€„„,€117€S.Ct.€1712€(1997);€òòMinner€v.€Kerbyóó,€30€F.3dÐ ÌÄ Ð1311€(9th€Cir.€1994)(introduction€of€chemistððs€notes€through€supervisor€not€violativeÏof€Confrontation€Clause);€€òòUnited€States€v.€Nortonóó,€867€F.2d€1354,€1363€(11th€Cir.Ð d\ Ð1989);€òòUnited€States€v.€Bakeróó,€855€F.2d€1353,1360€(8th€Cir.€1988)(business€recordsÐ 0 ( Ðexception,€is€firmly€rooted€hearsay€exception€to€prevent€violation€of€ConfrontationÏClause);€òòReardon€v.€Mansonóó,€806€F.2d€€39€(2d€Cir.€1986),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€481€U.S.Ð È#À  Ð1020,€107€S.Ct.€1903€(1987)(chemist€report€introduced€through€testimony€ofÏsupervisor€properly€admitted€sufficient€indicia€of€reliability);€òòPeople€v.€Vegaóó,€639Ð `'X $ ÐN.Y.S.2d€511,€513„514€(A.D.€3€Dept.€1996)€(introduction€of€technicianððs€notes€underÏbusiness€records€exception€rendered€technicianððs€testimony€unnecessary€whereÏsupervisor€actually€analyzed€the€samples);€òòState€v.€Fontenetteóó,€No.€59014€(OhioÐ Ä,¼%* ÐApp.€Sept.€19,€1991)€(testimony€by€laboratory€supervisor€regarding€DNA€profileÏproperly€admitted€under€business€records€exception€did€not€violate€ConfrontationÏClause).ÌÐ ô3ì,2 Ðà ` àA€business€record€may€be€introduced€by€the€custodian€of€those€records€orÏany€other€qualified€witness.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€842€S.W.2d€261,€264Ð ÔÌ Ð(Tenn.Crim.App.1992).€€The€custodian€of€the€record€to€be€introduced€must€be€ableÏto€testify€as€to€the€identity€of€the€record,€the€mode€of€preparation,€and€whether€theÏrecord€was€made€in€the€regular€course€of€business€at€or€near€the€time€of€theÏrecorded€event.€€òòIdóó.€€In€the€present€case,€the€State€failed€to€call€the€recordsÐ ü  Ðcustodian€to€testify€as€to€the€authenticity€of€the€records;€rather,€the€State€relied€onÏan€affidavit€completed€by€the€custodian.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„11„406(a).€€Ð œ”  ÐÌà ` àDuring€the€course€of€the€trial,€defense€counsel€stated:ÌÓÓà8 ` àI€will€not€object,€based€on€that€affidavit,€to€the€authenticity€of€theÏrecords,€but€as€far€as€these€records€being€entered€as€exhibits€withoutÏhospital€personnel€such€as€a€nurse€who€saw€my€client,€or€the€personÏwho€drew€the€blood,€of€the€lab€technician€„„€you€know,€Iððve€got€to€objectÏto€that€because€based€on€those€grounds€it€would€be€hearsay.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓWe€are€unable€to€discern€from€this€objection€whether€the€appellant€intended€toÏconcede€or€challenge€the€Stateððs€authentication€of€the€medical€records.€ÏNotwithstanding,€we€conclude€that€an€affidavit€of€the€records€custodian,€rather€thanÏhis€or€her€personal€appearance€in€court,€is€insufficient€authentication€for€purposes€ofÏsatisfying€the€reliable€hearsay€exception€to€the€òòHendersonóó€requirements.€€òòSeeóó€Ð ”%Œ" ÐòòDouglas€M.€Varner€v.€Hon.€W.L.€Brownóó,€No.€03A01„9405„CV„00171€(Tenn.€App.€atÐ `'X $ ÐKnoxville,€Nov.€30,€1994).€ÌÌà ` àThus,€we€return€to€the€tripartite€test€announced€in€òòHendersonóó.€€In€this€regard,Ð Ä,¼%* Ðwe€find€the€evidence€not€violative€of€the€appellantððs€right€to€confrontation.€€First,€theÏevidence€challenged€is€merely€cumulative€to€evidence€introduced€by€other€witnessesÏof€the€State.€€Again,€numerous€officers€testified€as€to€the€appellantððs€physicalÏcondition€at€the€time€of€the€collision.€€Additionally,€the€tests€performed€by€theÏTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€confirmed€that€the€appellant€had€a€blood€alcoholÏcontent€of€.13,€tested€positive€for€Valium,€and€that€the€substance€found€on€theÏappellantððs€person€was€marijuana.€€Next,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€heldÐ X9P28 Ðthat€a€demonstration€of€availability€(part€2€of€the€òòHendersonóó€test)€is€not€alwaysÐ  Ðrequired.€€òòOhio€v.€Robertsóó,€448€U.S.€at€65,€n.€7,€100€S.Ct.€at€2538€n.€7;€òòSherman€v.Ð ÔÌ ÐScottóó,€62€F.3d€136,€140€(5th€Cir.€1995).€€Indeed,€€in€òòWhite€v.€Illinoisóó,€502€U.S.€346,Ð   ˜ Ð354,€112€S.Ct.€736,€741€(1992),€the€Court€held€that€òòOhio€v.€Robertsóó€stands€for€theÐ l d Ðproposition€that€unavailability€analysis€is€a€necessary€part€of€the€ConfrontationÏClause€inquiry€òòonlyóó€when€the€challenged€out„of„court€statements€were€made€in€theÐ ü  Ðcourse€of€a€prior€judicial€proceeding.€€Accordingly,€we€need€not€address€theÏavailability€requirement.€€And,€finally,€because€the€records€are€regularly€maintainedÏreports€of€the€hospital€with€respect€to€its€care€and€treatment€of€patients€and€becauseÏthey€were€not€prepared€for€the€purpose€of€this€litigation,€the€records€evidence€theirÏown€indicia€of€reliability.€€Accordingly,€the€evidence€of€the€medical€records€do€notÏviolate€the€appellantððs€confrontation€rights€and€were€properly€admitted.ÌÌà ` àWe€additionally€find€that€introduction€of€Dr.€Zirkleððs€testimony€was€proper.€ÏDuring€pre„trial€motions,€the€State€asserted€that€Dr.€Zirkle€would€testify€as€to€theÏeffect€the€combination€of€alcohol,€Valium,€and€marijuana€would€have€on€a€personððsÏability€to€drive€a€motor€vehicle.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702€provides:ÌÓÓà8 ` àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€will€substantiallyÏassist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€factÏin€issue,€a€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,Ïexperience,€training,€or€education€may€testify€in€the€form€of€an€opinionÏor€otherwise.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓRule€703,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€contemplates€three€possible€sources€from€which€an€expertÏmay€base€his/her€opinion:€€(1)€information€actually€perceived€by€the€expert;€(2)Ïinformation€made€known€to€the€expert€by€others;€and€(3)€information€reasonablyÏrelied€upon€by€experts€in€the€particular€field.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€703;€òòsee€alsoóó€Ð \0T). ÐòòNeil€P.€Cohen,€et.€al.óó,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðððð€703.2,€703.3,€703.4€(3d€ed.Ð (2 +0 Ð1995).€€€Clearly,€Dr.€Zirkle,€even€though€he€was€not€the€appellantððs€attendingÐ ô3ì,2 Ðphysician,€was€able€to€formulate€an€opinion€as€to€the€appellantððs€level€of€impairmentÏbased€on€the€medical€records€prepared€contemporaneously€to€the€appellantððsÏtreatment€at€Jefferson€Memorial€Hospital.€€Again,€the€records€were€prepared€in€orderÏto€aid€the€treating€physician€in€his€treatment€and€diagnosis€of€the€appellant;€ergo,Ïthe€records€are€presumed€reliable€and€trustworthy.€€Moreover,€since€the€doctor€wasÏavailable€for€cross„examination€by€the€defense€and€he€was€thoroughly€questioned,Ïthe€appellantððs€right€to€confrontation€was€not€infringed.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ô ô ®àò òIII.€€Evidence€of€Alcoholic€Beverage€Containersó óˆÐ 4, ÐÌà ` àThe€appellant€next€argues€that€evidence€of€alcoholic€beverage€containersÏfound€within€his€vehicle€was€unreliable€as€well€as€irrelevant€and€should€not€haveÏbeen€admitted€into€evidence.€€Specifically,€he€contends€that€the€evidence€wasÏunreliable€in€that€the€tow„in€report€completed€at€the€accident€site€indicated€that€onlyÏone€empty€beer€bottle€was€found.€€At€trial,€Trooper€Smith€testified€that€he€found€twoÏempty€beer€bottles€in€the€front€seat€of€the€car€and€twelve€other€beer€bottles,€bothÏempty€and€full,€in€the€back€seat€and€trunk€of€the€vehicle.€€Trooper€Smith€explainedÏthat€the€items€on€the€tow„in€report€are€not€required€by€the€Highway€Patrol€and€areÏœdiscretñAñiñAñonary›€on€œñBñthe€ñBñpart›€of€the€attending€officer.€€Moreover,€at€the€time€the€tow„inÏreport€was€completed,€Trooper€Smith€had€not€searched€the€back€seat€or€the€trunk€ofÏthe€car€because€of€the€vehicleððs€position€at€the€crime€scene.€€€The€appellantÏcontends€that€this€discrepancy€in€addition€to€the€Stateððs€failure€to€show€that€theÏappellant€had€consumed€alcohol€from€any€of€these€specific€containers€at€any€timeÏprior€to€the€offense€was€more€prejudicial€than€probative€and€should€have€beenÏexcluded.ÌÌà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€the€State€maintains€that,€because€defense€counselÏfailed€to€make€a€contemporaneous€objection€to€the€testimony€at€trial,€the€issue€hasÐ d9\28 Ðbeen€waived.€€We€cannot€agree.€€The€appellant€objected€to€the€admission€of€theÏbeer€bottles€in€a€pretrial€motion€to€suppress.€€The€issue€is€properly€preserved€forÏappeal.€ÌÌà ` àAgain,€evidence€is€deemed€relevant€if€it€has€any€tendency€to€make€theÏexistence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€moreÏprobable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€ÏEven€though€relevant,€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€ð ðprobative€value€isÏsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€ÌÌà ` àThe€issue€before€the€jury€was€the€appellantððs€state€of€impairment€at€the€timeÏof€the€collision€which€was€dependant€upon€the€quantity€of€alcohol€consumed.€€TheÏpresence€of€the€beer€bottles€which€were€accessible€to€the€appellant,€òòi.e.óó,€those€inÐ ˜ Ðthe€front€seat,€was€relevant€in€establishing€an€inference€of€the€appellantððsÏconsumption€of€alcohol€at€the€time€of€the€collision.€€However,€we€conclude€thatÏevidence€and€testimony€relating€to€the€presence€of€the€twelve€alcoholic€beverageÏcontainers€not€readily€accessible€to€him,€òòi.e.óó,€those€found€in€the€back€seat€and€trunkÐ Ì#Ä  Ðcompartment€of€the€vehicle,€€cannot€be€used€to€create€an€inference€of€consumptionÏat€or€near€the€time€of€the€offense,€and€are,€thus,€more€prejudicial€than€probative.€ÏNotwithstanding€the€courtððs€error€in€admitting€this€evidence,€any€such€error€isÏharmless,€especially€in€consideration€of€the€appellantððs€admission€that€he€hadÏconsumed€alcohol€prior€to€the€offense€and€the€other€overwhelming€proof€relative€toÏhis€intoxication€presented€at€trial.€€òòSeeóó€€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).Ð ˜.', Ðà ` àÌÌà@ßß'®àò òIV.€€Sentencingó óˆÐ ü3ô,2 ÐÌà ` àIn€his€final€issue,€the€appellant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€aÏsentence€of€ten€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Without€any€specific€errorÐ l9d28 Ðbeing€assigned,€the€appellant,€in€a€generalized€statement,€contends€that€he€isÏentitled€to€an€eight€year€sentence,€and,€after€credit€for€time€served,€the€remainder€ofÏhis€sentence€should€be€suspended,€or,€in€the€alternative,€he€should€be€granted€workÏrelease.€€In€support€of€this€argument,€he€asserts€that€he€is€employable€as€a€rooferÏand€that€he€is€responsible€for€the€support€of€his€two€children.ÌÌà ` à€When€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€sentence€is€challenged€onÏappeal,€this€court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€conditioned€upon€the€presumption€thatÐ œ”  Ðthe€determination€made€by€the€trial€court€is€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„¼401(d)(1997).€€This€presumption€only€applies,€however,€if€the€record€demonstratesÏthat€the€trial€court€properly€considered€relevant€sentencing€principles.€€òòState€v.Ð ü ÐAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€the€case€before€us,€the€trial€courtÐ ÐÈ Ðconsidered€relevant€sentencing€principles;€thus,€the€presumption€applies.€€Moreover,Ïthis€court€may€only€modify€sentence€if€the€sentence€is€excessive€or€the€manner€ofÏservice€is€inappropriate.€€òòState€v.€Russellóó,€773€S.W.2d€913,€915€(Tenn.€1989).€€OnÐ 4 , Ðappeal,€the€appellant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€imposed€wasÏimproper.€€Sentencing€Commission€Comments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).ÌÌà ` àThe€proof€at€the€sentencing€hearing€revealed€that€the€twenty„eight€year€oldÏappellant€is€the€non„custodial€father€of€two€minor€children.€€The€appellant€refused€toÏacknowledge€that€the€collision€was€the€result€of€his€intoxication.€€He€admits€toÏsmoking€a€ð ðhalf€nickelðð€of€marijuana€and€drinking€a€twelve€pack€of€beer€a€day.€€TheÏappellantððs€work€status€with€his€most€recent€employer€was€not€verified.€€Moreover,Ïhis€previous€employer€indicated€that€ð ðthe€[appellant]€had€worked€very€little€for€him.€ÏHe€stated€that€[the€appellant]€may€work€for€a€few€hours€and€then€he€would€not€seeÏhim€again€for€six€months.ðð€€Additionally,€the€appellant€has€a€criminal€historyÏconsisting€of€at€least€twenty„two€separate€violations€of€the€law€including,€amongÏothers:€two€felony€convictions€for€theft,€three€convictions€for€driving€under€theÏinfluence,€two€convictions€for€reckless€driving,€two€convictions€for€possession€of€aÐ \9T28 Ðcontrolled€substance,€two€convictions€for€driving€on€a€suspended€license,€fourÏconvictions€involving€public€intoxication,€three€convictions€for€recklessÏendangerment,€€and€one€conviction€for€assault.€€The€record€also€indicates€that€theÏappellant€had€previously€had€a€suspended€sentence€revoked€and€that,€while€in€jailÏon€the€present€charges,€the€appellant€was€arrested€for€simple€possession€ofÏmarijuana€and€drug€paraphernalia€while€incarcerated€in€a€penal€facility.€Ìò òÌà ` àó óIn€determining€the€appropriate€sentence€for€the€appellantððs€conviction€ofÐ ¨   Ðvehicular€homicide,€the€trial€court€applied€one€enhancement€factor,€òòi.e.óó,€that€theÐ tl Ðappellant€has€a€history€of€criminal€behavior,€but€concluded€that€no€mitigating€factorsÏwere€applicable.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€œñCñðð€ñCñ40„35„114(1)›€(1997).€€The€appellantððsÐ  Ðonly€challenge€to€the€length€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€that€heÏshould€have€received€a€sentence€of€eight€years€rather€than€a€ten€year€sentence.€€ÌÌà ` àWhen€there€are€enhancement€factors€and€no€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€courtÏmay€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€within€the€applicable€sentencing€range,Ïbut€still€within€the€range.€€Tenn€Code€Ann.€Ô‡XõXXXÔðð€40„35„210(d)(1997).€€The€appellant€wasÐ Ø#Ð  Ðconvicted€as€a€range€I€offender€of€a€class€B€felony.€€Thus,€the€sentence€range€forÏthe€appellantððs€conviction€is€eight€to€twelve€years.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð p'h $ Ð112(a)(2)€(1997).€€The€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€ten€years.€€We€find€the€length€ofÏthis€sentence€justified€and€clearly€not€excessive€under€the€guidelines€of€the€1989ÏSentencing€Act.€Ô#†XõXXXõ<›#ÔÐ Ô,Ì%* ÐÌà ` àAdditionally,€the€trial€court€denied€any€form€of€alternative€sentence€includingÏprobation.€€As€the€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€ten€years,€which€we€have€found€toÏbe€justified,€the€appellant€is€not€eligible€for€a€sentence€involving€probation.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a)€(1997).€€Moreover,€we€conclude€that€a€sentence€ofÏconfinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€who€has€aÐ œ7”06 Ðlong€history€of€criminal€conduct€and€because€measures€less€restrictive€thanÏconfinement€have€frequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€theÏappellant.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„103(1)(A),€„103(1)(C)€(1997).€€ThisÐ   ˜ Ðcontention€is€without€merit.Ìà ` àÌÌà@ÚÚ'®àò òVI.€€Conclusionó óˆÐ ÐÈ  ÐÌà ` àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€error€requiring€reversal.€€TheÏjudgments€of€conviction€and€sentences€entered€by€the€trial€court€are€affirmed.ÌÌœÌñCñ›ñCñÌ›ÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌœñEññDñ(SñDñ_______________________________________ñEññGññFñ(ñFññGññHñòòñHññIñ(See€sepñIññJññIñañIññJññKñarate€concurring€opinion)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ñKññLñ€€€€ñLññMññKñ€ñKññMññKñóóñKññKññHñóóñHññKñ›Ð 8)0"& ÐJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________________ÌJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€Judge