ÿWPC¢, ã‹ÎEËœÁ©œRG«f.†ýÍW#‰âW74$B×Á9r4EΚ1ä¥;o’:ì •ýhß6ÙÙçCHøÆ´µ¬Ð!²ô_o„gÜ,®'޼½ë¥=â"ã´óe/|ì(M;RnžÖˆ€7Bv·ãTx6®¼9§¶à4;܇2ô ¡ëvÁ)…÷ªÐì£Ó¨ ^ y‰f¸qs ñ*DP–““ñrI^ï9£5›.;õXî²ñÛô/^œHœ…äùeW3tR´ÁÅlKŠáýOª ÓÎÚ=ªð/°PòŽR¥³´Aæ=JÙ•GjmBš(¿lŠì¿&þýòÚl Í€¬xË’¦„xÀ¬síÞõeÙ ÑÜD7fK‰ë(:ö5\½ Ø+ݹ¾«{™^BÈ^Ñ]ûö2ŸŠË0Ís• é®âÌ0ø ô‚‹aã˜3M_ÚVöê`€j^ÁîA]ê>ƒ&*o½DGþ¸­s«&§ƒwëÏ£ü³Œ5‹–j{ì nƒbBb&ÿ2vø‘ÜI¡XzÈY¾E)p³P÷“¡Z>ã¤KþÊç'Þ­ºŸÔþ,FH„ð™/ŽÙUÓ •ÊgáSš(bŠÏ=Ê!š "ÅGÁicD~Š÷…U.F %t bz ~ bŽ &ðn­&Ó 0(ÛU:w¸=4õµ  0™¾ 0DWU:›bÕU:7"U:q"b«"U: )èG)U:/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/* Bi*i*i*i*i*i*i*i* D3†*†*†* 0D¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹*¹* AOý*ÆL+L+ 0D, D/V, B…,<þ6X9`(CourierX ù Ý ƒ ¤$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XÒ~XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝSpecial€Agent€Harrison€identified€a€"drink"€as€twelve€ounces€of€beer,€fourÐ `  Ðounces€of€wine€or€one€ounce€of€90€or€100€proof€liquor.€ XÝ ƒ ¤$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XÒ~XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€are€concerned,€however,€by€the€trial€court's€partial€abdication€of€itsÐ `  Ðrole€in€determining€the€threshold€admissibility€of€the€evidence€based€upon€aÏdemonstration€of€a€satisfactory€chain€of€custody.€€The€trial€court€admitted€theÏevidence€but€instructed€the€jury€that€it€should€not€accredit€the€toxicologist'sÏtestimony€unless€it€found€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€blood€sample€wasÏtaken€from€the€defendant.€€The€question€of€whether€the€threshold€requirement€ofÏa€satisfactory€chain€of€custody€has€been€met€is€a€matter€for€the€sound€discretionÏof€the€trial€court,€not€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pamela€JeanÐ ð ÐRankinsóó,€No.€01C01„9602„CC„00052,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,Ð à€ ÐFeb.€26,€1998)€(trial€court€did€not€err€by€not€giving€special€instruction€on€chain€ofÏcustody€because€such€was€an€issue€for€sound€discretion€of€trial€court);€òòState€v.Ð À`  ÐWillie€Gene€Ogburnóó,€No.€01C01„9105„CR„00150,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð °P  ÐNashville,€May€13,€1992).€€In€this€case,€the€error€is€harmless€because€theÏevidence€of€record€very€clearly€establishes€a€complete€chain€of€custody.€€In€theÏfuture,€however,€the€trial€court€should€determine€in€its€discretion€the€admissibilityÏof€the€proffered€physical€evidence€based€upon€the€chain€of€custody€establishedÏby€the€proof;€the€court€should€refrain€from€giving€a€special€instruction€delegatingÏthis€responsibility€to€the€jury. Ý ƒ ¤$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€Xo&XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝDuring€direct€exam,€Special€Agent€Harrison's€responses€to€numerousÐ `  Ðquestions€established€his€qualifications€as€an€expert€in€the€field€of€toxicology.€ÏHowever,€the€state€never€tendered€him€to€the€court€as€an€expert€witness.€ÏNevertheless,€the€record€establishes€that€he€was€well„qualified€in€the€scientificÏmatters€about€which€he€testified€(including€the€controlled€sobriety€studies),€andÏalthough€the€defense€objected€to€his€testifying€about€the€controlled€sobrietyÏstudies€without€the€underlying€data€being€furnished,€the€defense€posed€noÏobjection€to€the€witness's€qualifications€òòas€an€expertóó.€Therefore,€for€purposes€ofÐ ð Ðresolving€the€issue€presented,€we€consider€Special€Agent€Harrison's€testimonyÏas€if€he€had€been€properly€tendered€by€the€state€and€accepted€by€the€court€as€anÏexpert€witness.€€ò òÐ À`  ÐÌIf€you€agree€with€this€proposal,€you€may€want€to€add€an€explanation€of€whyÏthis€is€the€result€in€this€case€when€in€òòRay€Anthony€Nelsonóó€we€said€thereÐ 0  Ðwas€"no€justiciable€issue€in€the€defendant's€claim€that€the€trial€courtÏimproperly€allowed€[a€witness€who€was€never€tendered€as€an€expert]€toÏtestify€as€an€expert€witness."€€òòRay€Anthony€Nelsonóó,€slip€op.€at€23.€€ThatÐ ` Ðcase€is€distinguishable€because€the€defense€either€did€not€object€to€orÏelicited€"the€only€evidence€which€might€arguably€require€expertÏqualification."€€Here,€the€defense€objected€to€only€a€small€part€of€the€expertÏevidence,€and€the€question€for€appellate€review€is€not€whether€courtÏimproperly€allowed€expert€testimony.€€(also,€in€this€case,€the€expert„typeÏevidence€is€much€more€extensive€than€it€was€in€òòNelsonóó)ó ó3|x;"«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular""D"[""D""""""D"!"""D#"D$"D%"&"U'"@e("D)"*"+"D,"-"D."/"E0"1"2"Ó€uM% «Ý ƒ ¤$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XÒ~XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAccording€to€Trooper€Cash,€the€defendant€weighs€185€pounds.(I(2)„$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X©©XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular XÝ ƒ ¤$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€Xo&XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€are€concerned,€however,€by€the€trial€court's€partial€abdication€of€itsÐ `  Ðrole€in€determining€the€threshold€admissibility€of€the€evidence€based€upon€aÏdemonstration€of€a€satisfactory€chain€of€custody.€€The€trial€court€admitted€theÏevidence€but€instructed€the€jury€that€it€should€not€accredit€the€toxicologist'sÏtestimony€unless€if€found€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€blood€sample€wasÏtaken€from€the€defendant.€€The€question€of€whether€the€threshold€requirement€ofÏa€satisfactory€chain€of€custody€has€been€met€is€a€matter€for€the€sound€discretionÏof€the€trial€court,€not€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pamela€JeanÐ ð ÐRankinsóó,€No.€01C01„9602„CC„00052,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,Ð à€ ÐFeb.€26,€1998)€(trial€court€did€not€err€by€not€giving€special€instruction€on€chain€ofÏcustody€because€such€was€an€issue€for€sound€discretion€of€trial€court);€òòState€v.Ð À`  ÐWillie€Gene€Ogburnóó,€No.€01C01„9105„CR„00150,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð °P  ÐNashville,€May€13,€1992).€€In€this€case,€the€error€is€harmless€because€theÏevidence€of€record€very€clearly€establishes€a€complete€chain€of€custody.€€In€theÏfuture,€however,€the€trial€court€should€determine€in€its€discretion€the€admissibilityÏof€the€proffered€physical€evidence€based€upon€the€chain€of€custody€establishedÏby€the€proof;€the€court€should€refrain€from€giving€a€special€instruction€delegatingÏthis€responsibility€to€the€jury.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular XÝ ƒ ¤$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€Xo&XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€are€concerned,€however,€by€the€trial€court's€partial€abdication€of€itsÐ `  Ðrole€in€determining€the€threshold€admissibility€of€the€evidence€based€upon€aÏdemonstration€of€a€satisfactory€chain€of€custody.€€The€trial€court€admitted€theÏevidence€but€instructed€the€jury€that€it€should€not€accredit€the€toxicologist'sÏtestimony€unless€it€found€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€blood€sample€wasÏtaken€from€the€defendant.€€The€question€of€whether€the€threshold€requirement€ofÏa€satisfactory€chain€of€custody€has€been€met€is€a€matter€for€the€sound€discretionÏof€the€trial€court,€not€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pamela€JeanÐ ð ÐRankinsóó,€No.€01C01„9602„CC„00052,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,Ð à€ ÐFeb.€26,€1998)€(trial€court€did€not€err€by€not€giving€special€instruction€on€chain€ofÏcustody€because€such€was€an€issue€for€sound€discretion€of€trial€court);€òòState€v.Ð À`  ÐWillie€Gene€Ogburnóó,€No.€01C01„9105„CR„00150,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð °P  ÐNashville,€May€13,€1992).€€In€this€case,€the€error€is€harmless€because€theÏevidence€of€record€very€clearly€establishes€a€complete€chain€of€custody.€€In€theÏfuture,€however,€the€trial€court€should€determine€in€its€discretion€the€admissibilityÏof€the€proffered€physical€evidence€based€upon€the€chain€of€custody€establishedÏby€the€proof;€the€court€should€refrain€from€giving€a€special€instruction€delegatingÏthis€responsibility€to€the€jury.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÞÔ€X©©XXXÔÔ€ÀHXX©©ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X©©XÀHÔÐ  ÐÌJanuary€19,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d""""'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÝ  Ýñ'"ñ›ñ'"ññ'"ñ›ñ'"ñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€ XÒeXXXÔÑ7€ Òe XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÌÑ€Ñò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ P ð ÐÌ€à@@@'àAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ 0 Ð ÐÌà@ÓÓ"àSEPTEMBER€1998€SESSIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h à€à À àà  àó ó)Ð Ðp  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ À`  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,à h àà À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9709„CC„00429Ð °P  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìñ2"ñœßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@EÈ–` 8ttxPð  rß›ñ2"ñvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àWilliamson€Countyà x àÐ 0  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òVICTOR€S.€KELLY,€JR.,à h àà À àó óà  à)à p àHon.€Henry€Denmark€Bell,€Judge€ò òÐ p Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À àà  à)à p à(DUI)Ð Pð Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  àà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð   ÐÌò òDAVID€BRANDONà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ à€ Ðó óAttorney€at€Lawà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ Ð p Ð211€Third€Ave.€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37219à0 h àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àò òELIZABETH€B.€MARNEYó óа"Pp(#p(# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌò òPETER€D.€HEILó óà  àà h àò òà À àà  àà p àó ó425€Fifth€Ave.€N.,€2d€Floorò òÐ $0 Ðó óAttorney€at€Lawà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð €%  ÐP.O.€Box€40651ÌNashville,€TN€€37204à h àà À àà  àà p àò òJOSEPH€D.€BAUGHó óÐ `'  Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ P(ð! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òLEE€DRYERÐ 0*Ð # Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ  +À!$ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àP.O.€Box€937Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àFranklin,€TN€€37065„0937ÌÌÌò òÌOPINION€FILED:________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEó óÐ €4 +. ÐÐ  p5,/ Ðà@qq*àò òòòOPINIONó óóóˆÐ `  ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Victor€S.€Kelly,€Jr.,€stands€convicted€of€driving€underÏthe€influence€following€a€jury€trial€in€the€Williamson€County€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñCircuitñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€Court.€€Kelly€wasÏsentenced€to€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñelevenñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€months€and€29€days€supervised€probation,€with€ñ'"ñœ›œñ'"ñsixñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€monthsÏservice€in€the€county€jail€suspended€after€service€of€48€hours.€€Terms€of€hisÏsentence€include€revocation€of€his€driver's€license€and€attendance€of€alcohol€safetyÏschool.€€He€was€fined€$1,000.€€In€this€direct€appeal,€Kelly€poses€various€challengesÏto€the€soundness€of€his€conviction:ÌÓÓà8 ` à(1)à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àWhether€there€was€sufficient€competent€proof€to€establish,Ð ` Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€that€he€was€under€the€influence€ofÏan€intoxicant€at€the€time€he€was€driving€his€motor€vehicle.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à(2)à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€adequately€instructed€the€jury€on€theÐ  À Ðpermissible€inference€of€intoxication€which€may€be€drawn€fromÏblood€alcohol€test€results.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à(3)à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€properly€determined€that€the€state€metÐ à€ Ðits€burden€of€establishing€an€unbroken€chain€of€custody€for€theÏdefendant's€blood€sample.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à(4)à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€committed€plain€error€by€admittingÐ  #@ Ðtestimony€of€the€TBI€toxicologist€regarding€controlled€sobrietyÏtest€studies€absent€the€witness€having€any€underlyingÏdocumentation€with€him€at€trial.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓHaving€reviewed€the€record,€studied€the€briefs€of€the€parties€and€heard€the€oralÏarguments€of€counsel,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àœñ("ñiñ("ññ)"ñIñ)"ñn›€the€early€morning€hours€of€March€21,€1996,€Trooper€Richard€CashÏof€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€observed€the€defendant€operating€a€motor€vehicleÏat€an€excessive€rate€of€speed€on€Interstate€65€in€Williamson€County.€€Trooper€CashÏclocked€the€defendant's€speed€at€90€miles€per€hour€and€initiated€pursuit.€€AfterÏTrooper€Cash€stopped€the€defendant,€he€noticed€the€smell€of€alcohol€coming€fromÏthe€defendant€and€his€vehicle.€€The€defendant€was€unsteady€on€his€feet€andÏadmitted€to€having€a€martini€and€two€other€mixed€drinks€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñin€the€previous€hour.ñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€€TheÐ 09Ð/3 Ðdefendant€performed€poorly€on€field€sobriety€tests.€€Trooper€Cash€had€no€doubt€inÏhis€mind€that€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€alcohol.€€At€1:30€a.m.,ÏTrooper€Cash€placed€the€defendant€under€arrest€for€driving€under€the€influence.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àTrooper€Cash€transported€the€defendant€to€Williamson€MedicalÏCenter,€and€at€2:10€a.m.,€John€Marshall€Osborne,€a€licensed€laboratory€technician,Ïdrew€a€blood€sample€from€the€defendant.€€Trooper€Cash€and€Mr.€Osborne€filled€outÏa€form€entitled€"Alcohol/Toxicology€Request"€with€the€defendant's€name,€sex,€race,Ïdate€of€birth,€driver's€license€number,€date€and€time€of€collection€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñofñ"ñ€theñ"ññ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€bloodÏsample.€€Both€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñTrooper€Cashñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€and€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñMr.€Osborneñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€signed€the€request€form.€€TrooperÏCash€took€the€blood€sample€from€Mr.€Osborne€and€sealed€it€along€with€the€requestÏform€in€a€test€kit,€which€he€mailed€to€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€("TBI").ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€test€kit€was€received€at€the€TBI€crime€lab€by€Julie€Fleak,€anÏevidence€technician.€€She€followed€standard€procedures€in€opening€the€kit,€puttingÏidentifying€numbers€on€the€sample€vial,€and€placing€the€vial€in€a€refrigerator.€€Ms.ÏFleak€noticed€that€the€vial€did€not€have€the€defendant's€name€written€on€it,€so€sheÏwrote€his€name€on€the€vial.€€She€then€placed€the€sample€in€the€refrigerator.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àSpecial€Agent€John€W.€Harrison€of€the€TBI,€who€is€a€toxicologist,Ïretrieved€the€sample€from€the€refrigerator€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñandñ"ñ›ñ"ññ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñanalyzedñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñitñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€using€a€scientificÏinstrument€used€for€that€purpose.€€His€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñanalysisñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€revealed€that€the€blood€alcoholÏcontent€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñwasñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€.14€grams€percent€of€ethyl€alcohol.€€Special€Agent€Harrison€explainedÏthat€the€TBI€lab,€which€enjoys€national€accreditation,€has€stringent€quality€controlÏstandards€which€yield€accurate€blood€alcohol€analysis.€€The€lab€maintains€a€reliableÏchain€of€custody€of€an€individual's€blood€sample.€€ÌÐ  :À04 Ðà ` àà ¸ àSpecial€Agent€Harrison€opined€that€an€average,€150„pound€individualÏwould€need€to€consume€four€to€six€drinks׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€within€45€minutes€to€an€hour€and€a€halfÐ @ à Ðin€order€to€achieve€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€.10€grams€percent.€€A€larger€individualÏwould€require€more€alcohol€to€achieve€the€same€blood€alcohol€content.׃p×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€furtherÐ   Ðopined€that€the€average€individual's€body€can€rid€itself€of€.02€grams€percent€ofÏalcoholic€content€from€the€blood€in€an€hour.ÌÌà@üü-àò òIó óˆÐ €  Ðà ` àà ¸ àFirst,€we€consider€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€theÏdefendant's€conviction€of€driving€under€the€influence.€€WÔ‡XÒ~XX XÒ~Ôhen€an€accused€challengesÐ @à Ðthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€courtððs€standard€of€review€is€whether,Ïafter€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóóÐ   Ðrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2791„92Ð À!` Ð(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€Ð  #@ ÐThis€rule€applies€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantialÏevidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,Ð `'  Ð803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€€Ô#† XÒ~XXXÒ~s##ÔÐ @)à" ÐÌÔ‡XÒ~XX XÒ~Ôà ` àà ¸ àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€should€notÐ - #& Ðreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779Ð à.€%( Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€theÏweight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ð €4 +. Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÏtrier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2dÐ @ à Ð856,€859€(1956);€€òòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€OnÐ  À Ðthe€contrary,€this€court€must€afford€the€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.Ð À`  ÐÔ#† XÒ~XXXÒ~Ú&#ÔÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€pertinent€part,€driving€under€the€influence€is€committed€where€anÏindividual€ÌÓÓà8 ` àdrive[s]€or€[is]€in€physical€control€of€any€automobile€or€other€motorÏdriven€vehicle€on€any€of€the€public€roads€and€highways€of€this€state,Ïor€on€any€streets€or€alleys,€or€while€on€the€premises€of€any€shoppingÏcenter,€trailer€park€or€any€apartment€house€complex,€or€any€otherÏpremises€which€is€generally€frequented€by€the€public€at€large,€whileÏ.€.€.€[u]nder€the€influence€of€any€intoxicant,€marijuana,€narcotic€drug,Ïor€drug€producing€stimulating€effects€on€the€central€nervous€systemÏ.€.€.€.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401€(1993)€(amended€1996).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€the€proof€of€his€intoxication€is€insufficientÏbased€upon€a€vigorous€attack€on€the€reliability€of€the€blood€alcohol€test€result.€€WeÏdisagree.€€In€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€defendant€admitted€having€aÏmartini€and€two€other€mixed€drinks.€€He€was€driving€at€a€grossly€excessive€rate€ofÏspeed€on€an€interstate€highway.€€When€he€was€stopped€by€Officer€Cash,€he€smelledÏof€alcohol,€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñwasñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€unsteady€on€his€feet€and€did€not€perform€field€sobriety€testsÏsatisfactorily.€€The€defendant€was,€as€described€by€Officer€Cash,€"very€intoxicated."€ÏAll€of€this€evidence€is€strong,€probative€evidence€of€the€defendant's€guilt€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€of€driving€under€the€influence.€€€òòCf.,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Clinton€DarrellÐ p5,/ ÐTurneróó,€No.€03C01„9604„CC„00151,€slip€op.€at€2„6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,Ð P7ð-1 ÐJuly€9,€1997)€(defendant€properly€convicted€of€DUI€based€upon€evidence€of€slurredÐ 09Ð/3 Ðspeech,€unsteady€gait,€bloodshot€eyes,€smell€of€alcohol,€driving€without€headlightsÏat€1:30€a.m.,€performance€on€field€sobriety€tests,€and€admission€of€drinking).€€TheÏfact€that€the€defendant's€blood€alcohol€content€was€.14€grams€percent€only€40Ïminutes€after€his€arrest€only€further€adds€to€the€certainty€of€his€guilt.€€òòCfóó.€òòState€v.Ð   ÐMcKinneyóó,€605€S.W.2d€842,€846€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€(jury€properly€inferredÐ à€ Ðdefendant's€intoxication€at€time€of€offense€from€alcohol€content€of€blood€sampleÏdrawn€approximately€two€and€one„half€hours€after€the€offense).€ÌÌà@àà,àò òIIó óˆÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€€questions€whether€the€trial€court€adequately€instructedÏthe€jury€on€the€permissible€inference€of€intoxication€which€may€be€drawn€from€bloodÏalcohol€test€results.€€The€DUI€statute€as€it€existed€at€the€time€of€the€defendant'sÏcrime€has€been€a€source€of€grief€for€the€courts€of€this€state.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.Ð à€ ÐGregory€Steeleóó,€No.€01C01„9706„CC„00218€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Apr.€7,Ð À!` Ð1998),€òòpet.€for€perm.€app.€filedóó€(Tenn.,€June€6,€1998);€òòState€v.€Charles€Bourgeoisóó,Ð  #@ ÐNo.€01C01„9611„CR„00483€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Oct.€24,€1997);€òòState€v.Ð €%  ÐMark€Spencer€Kingóó,€No.€01C01„9608„CR„00343€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.Ð `'  Ð18,€1997).€€The€statute€as€it€existed€on€March€€21,€1996€provided€a€conclusiveÏpresumption€of€intoxication€and€impairment€upon€a€showing€the€blood€alcoholÏcontent€was€.10€percent€or€greater.€€òòSeeóó€Amendments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„Ð - #& Ð408€(Supp.€1996).€€The€statute€in€this€form€has€been€declared€unconstitutionalÏbecause€it€created€a€mandatory€presumption,€as€opposed€to€a€permissibleÏinference.€€òòMark€Spencer€Kingóó,€slip€op.€at€2.€€During€the€effective€period€of€thisÐ  2@), Ðversion€of€section€55„10„408,€there€was€understandable€confusion€about€the€properÏinstruction€to€be€given€regarding€the€statutory€presumption.€€òòSeeóó€òòBourgeoisóó,€slip€op.Ð `6-0 Ðat€4„7.ÌÐ  :À04 Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€ñ'"ñœñ'"ññ"ñòòñ"ññ"ñsub›€judiceñ"ññ"ñpresent€caseñ"ññ"ñóóñ"ñ,ñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€the€state€during€òòvoir€direóó€inquired€of€the€jury,Ð `  Ð"Does€everyone€agree€that€if€the€state€proves€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€thisÏdefendant's€blood€alcohol€content€was€over€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñ.ñ"ñ0ñ"ñ1ñ"ñ0ñ"ññ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€that€there€is€a€presumption€he'sÏunder€the€influence?€€Is€there€anyone€here€who€can't€apply€that€presumption?"€ÏThese€inquiries€met€with€objection€by€the€defense,€which€was€sustained€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€The€trial€court€then€explained€to€the€jury€panel€that€although€the€statuteÏcalled€for€a€presumption€to€be€drawn€from€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€greater€thanÏ.10,€the€correct€terminology€was€inference,€not€presumption.€€The€court€told€the€juryÏpanel€that€it€would€be€instructed€that€if€they€found€the€defendant€had€a€blood€alcoholÏcontent€of€more€than€.10,€they€would€be€able€to€infer€impairment€without€furtherÏproof,€although€it€would€be€their€prerogative€whether€to€draw€the€inference€fromÏsuch€evidence.€€The€prosecution€resumed€òòvoir€dire€óóand€reaffirmed€that€theÐ   Ðdefendant€is€presumed€innocent€and€that€the€state€had€the€burden€of€proving€guilt.€ÏWhen€the€defense€began€òòvoir€direóó,€counsel€characterized€the€inference€as€aÐ À!` Ðrebuttable€presumption.€€The€court€corrected€counsel,€œñ*"ñand€ñ*"ñexplainñ+"ñingñ+"ññ,"ñedñ,"ñ›€to€the€juryÏpanel€that€they€may€draw€the€inference€of€impairment€based€upon€the€blood€alcoholÏcontent.€€Ultimately,€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€at€the€close€of€proofÏthat€if€it€found€the€defendant's€blood€alcohol€concentration€was€.10€or€greater,€itÏ"may"€infer€that€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€an€œintoxicañ-"ñtionñ-"ññ/"ññ."ñmñ."ññ/"ññ0"ñntñ0"ñ›€and€that€hisÏability€to€drive€was€impaired.€€Further,€the€jury€was€instructed€that€if€it€chose€to€makeÏthe€inference,€the€inference€is€not€conclusive€and€should€be€considered€with€all€theÏevidence.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€correctly€stated€the€law€in€its€instructions,€and€itÏadequately€cured€the€misstatements€of€the€state€and€the€defense€that€occurredÏduring€òòvoir€direóó.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.€amend€XIV,€ðð€1€(due€process€requires€that€stateÐ @8à.2 Ðprove€every€element€of€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt);€òòFrancis€v.€Franklinóó,€471Ð  :À04 ÐU.S.€307,€105€S.€Ct.€1965€(1985)€(prosecution€may€not€use€evidentiaryÏpresumptions€which€are€conclusive€in€nature€or€shift€the€burden€of€proof€to€theÏdefendant);€òòSandstrom€v.€Montanaóó,€442€U.S.€510,€99€S.€Ct.€2450€(1979);€òòState€v.Ð  À ÐSensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€412,€417€(Tenn.€1992);€òòcfóó.€òòBourgeoisóó,€slip€op.€at€6„7€(outliningÐ   Ðproper€jury€instruction€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñfor€offenses€committed€prior€to€1996€amendmentñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€of€ðð€55„10„¼408).ÌÌà@ÄÄ,àò òIIIó óˆÐ €  Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€third€issue,€the€defendant€alleges€that€the€state€failed€to€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñmñ"ñeñ"ñetñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñÏits€burden€of€establishing€an€unbroken€chain€of€custody€for€the€defendant's€bloodÏsample.€€The€state€is€not€required€to€establish€the€identity€of€a€blood€sample€beyondÏall€possible€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Fergusonóó,€741€S.W.2d€125,€127€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð   Ð1987)€(citation€omitted).€€Likewise,€the€state€is€not€required€to€exclude€allÏpossibilities€of€tampering.€€òòFergusonóó,€741€S.W.2d€at€127.€€Rather,€the€state€mustÐ À!` Ðshow€with€reasonable€assurance€the€identity€of€the€evidence.€€òòFergusonóó,€741Ð  #@ ÐS.W.2d€at€127.€€The€sufficiency€of€proof€regarding€the€chain€of€custody€of€physicalÏevidence€is€a€matter€addressed€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€which€willÏnot€be€overturned€on€appeal€absent€a€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñclearñ"ñlyñ"ññ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€mistaken€exercise€of€discretion.€€òòStateÐ @)à" Ðv.€Baldwinóó,€867€S.W.2d€358,€361€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citation€omitted).Ð  +À!$ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€in€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó€claims€the€state€failed€to€offerÐ à.€%( Ðsufficient€proof€of€the€chain€of€custody€of€the€defendant's€blood€sample.€€We€areÏunpersuaded.€€The€blood€sample€was€drawn€by€Laboratory€Technician€Osborne€andÏgiven€to€Trooper€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñCash.ñ"ñ›ñ"ñ€€Mr.ñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€Osborne€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñand€Trooperñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€Cash€filled€out€anÏAlcohol/Toxicology€Request€form,€then€Cash€mailed€the€sample€and€completed€formÏto€the€TBI€lab€in€a€kit€provided€for€that€purpose.€€The€kit€was€opened€by€EvidenceÏTechnician€Fleak,€who€marked€the€vial€of€blood€with€the€defendant's€name€andÐ  :À04 Ðidentifying€numbers€and€then€placed€it€in€a€refrigerator.€€The€sample€was€laterÏretrieved€from€the€refrigerator€by€Special€Agent€Harrison,€who€analyzed€the€sampleÏfor€blood€alcohol€content€using€standard€TBI€procedures.€€The€procedure€employedÏby€Special€Agent€Harrison€included€measures€to€ensure€that€each€test€result€wasÏproperly€identified€as€belonging€to€the€person€who€gave€the€sample.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€are€firmly€convinced€of€the€completeness€and€reliability€of€theÏchain€of€custody€established€in€this€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñcase.ñ"ñ€€ñ"ññ"ñ€€The€defendant's€attacks€are€specious€andÏnot€based€upon€any€actual€infirmities€in€the€chain€of€custody.€€ñ"ñAccordingly,ñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€we€find€no€merit€in€thisÏissue.ñ'"ñœñ'"ññ"ññ'"ñ׃×ñ'"ññ'"ñ׃×ñ'"ññ"ññ"ñ׃×ñ"ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñÐ ` ÐÌñ'"ñœñ'"ññ"ñÌñ"ññ'"ñ›ñ'"ñà@¹¹,àò òIVó óˆÐ  À Ðà ` àà ¸ àFinally,€in€an€issue€raised€at€oral€argument€but€not€in€his€brief,€theÏdefendant€claims€he€was€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€confront€the€witnessesÏagainst€him€when€the€trial€court€admitted€Special€Agent€Harrison's€testimonyÏregarding€controlled€sobriety€test€studies€even€though€Harrison€did€not€have€anyÏdocumentation€regarding€these€studies€available€at€trial€for€use€in€defense€cross„¼examination.€€The€defendant€urges€us€to€recognize€this€alleged€shortcoming€asÐ `'  Ðplain€error.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àSpecial€Agent€Harrison€testified€during€direct€examination€aboutÏcontrolled€sobriety€studies€he€had€conducted.€€He€explained€that€these€studies€wereÏconducted€by€giving€the€test€subjects€measured€quantities€of€alcohol,€thenÏobserving€their€reactions€and€administering€tests.€€These€studies€were€conductedÏon€individuals€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñofñ!"ñ€both€sexesñ!"ññ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€œñ1"ñand€ñ1"ñvarious›€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñracesñ""ñ,›€sexesñ""ññ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ€and€weights.€€The€studies€also€variedÏby€when€and€where€they€were€performed€and€how€many€subjects€participated.€€HeÏgave€specific€information€about€the€studies,€including€the€number€of€participants€andÏthe€identity€of€the€individuals€or€groups€involved€with€him€in€conducting€the€studies.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWhen€an€expert€witnessñ#"ñ׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñ#"ñ€testifies€about€matters€within€his€expertise,Ïhe€may€be€required€to€divulge€the€underlying€facts€or€data€upon€cross„examination.ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€705.€€Furthermore,€an€expert€witness's€credibility€may€be€impeachedÏby€use€of€published€treatises,€periodicals€or€pamphlets.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€618.€€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€case€under€consideration,€the€witness€explained€the€studies€inÏdetail.€€He€gave€identifying€information€about€the€individuals€or€groups€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñthatñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñÏparticipated€with€him€in€conducting€the€studies.€€After€explaining€the€proceduresÏemployed,€he€testified€about€the€conclusions€he€drew€from€the€results€obtained.€ÏThe€defense€had€the€opportunity€to€extract€details€about€the€"underlying€facts€orÏdata"€on€cross„examination€but€chose€not€to€do€so.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€618.€€TheÐ À0`'* Ðdefense€apparently€sought€the€underlying€information€in€written€form,€but€there€isÏno€indication€in€the€record€that€published€documentation€of€these€studies€exists.€€Ð €4 +. ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€618,€705.€€Moreover,€we€find€no€indication€the€defense€wasÐ `6-0 Ðlimited€in€its€ability€to€impeach€Special€Agent€Harrison€from€published€treatises,Ïpamphlets€or€periodicals€which€supported€different€conclusions€than€those€to€whichÐ  :À04 Ðhe€testified€on€direct€examination.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€705.€€Because€the€defenseÐ `  Ðwas€in€no€way€limited€in€its€ability€to€cross„examine€Special€Agent€Harrison,€theÏclaim€that€the€defendant's€right€to€confrontation€was€abridged€must€fail.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€sum,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌñ'"ñœñ'"ññ$"ñÌñ$"ññ'"ñ›ñ'"ñÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________________________________¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌñ'"ñœñ'"ññ%"ñCONCUR:ÌÌñ%"ññ'"ñ›œñ'"ññ&"ñÌñ&"ññ'"ñ›œñ'"ññ&"ñÌñ&"ññ'"ñ›ñ'"ñÌ_______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€ñ'"ñœñ'"ñJUDGEÌñ'"ñ›ñ'"ñ