ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝ4åù 0l 0Dt ¸ w@¸ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` U,Õ 0dU,eU>‘U *ÏB)ùDC" Be AM‚-Ï D3ü¹/v~è 0@fvÓ¦ AOyÆÈ 0DŽ D/Ò B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-5tt 9:;<=>?@ABCD"|x|((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó hiDjkDlmDnUopDqÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd d€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òMarch€21,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó'''''ÿÿdxd ¯Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ôÔThe€blood€samples€taken€from€the€Defendant€at€the€hospital€were€sent€to€the€TennesseeÏBureau€à0 àof€Investigation€crime€laboratory€where€a€test€determined€the€Defendant's€blood€alcohol€contentÏto€be€.11€gram€percent.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€#ŠÔÔ€$ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€;XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙßL€()&;+'h|` Å `€€LßÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌJANUARY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ï03C01„9503„CR„00079Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellant,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àBLOUNT€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€D.€KELLY€THOMAS,€JR.ó óÌò òDENNIS€LIVESAY,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellee.à àà àà à)à à(Dismissal€of€DUI€Charge)ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCIRCUIT€COURT€OF€BLOUNT€COUNTYó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:ÌÌCRAIG€L.€GARRETTà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌPaine,€Garrett€&€Brayà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌAttorneys€at€LawÌ226€E.€Broadway€Avenueà àà àEUGENE€J.€HONEAÌMaryville,€TN€37801„2404à àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMIKE€FLYNNÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPHIL€MORTONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à363€Court€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMaryville,€TN€37804„5906Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€$°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€$XÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€$ŠÔà àThis€is€an€appeal€by€the€State€of€Tennessee€from€an€order€of€the€trialÏcourt€dismissing€a€charge€of€driving€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€ÏThe€trial€court€judge€dismissed€the€charge€because€he€found€that€lawÏenforcement€authorities€violated€the€Defendant's€constitutional€right€to€dueÏprocess€when€they€refused€to€allow€the€Defendant's€personal€physician€toÏcome€to€the€jail€and€procure€an€additional€sample€of€blood€from€the€DefendantÏfor€the€purpose€of€having€performed€an€independent€laboratory€examination€toÏdetermine€his€blood€alcohol€content.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€facts€of€this€case€are€generally€undisputed.€€One€evening€shortlyÏbefore€midnight,€a€Maryville,€Tennessee€police€officer€observed€the€DefendantÏrun€a€red€light.€€The€officer€stopped€the€Defendant's€automobile€and€detected€theÏodor€of€alcohol€on€the€Defendant's€breath.€€The€officer€administered€field€sobrietyÏtests€which€the€Defendant€could€not€successfully€perform.€€The€officer€offered€theÏDefendant€a€choice€between€a€breath€test€or€a€blood€test.€€When€theÏDefendant€requested€a€blood€test,€the€officer€transported€him€to€Blount€MemorialÍHospital€for€the€purpose€of€having€blood€drawn.€€Two€tubes€of€blood€wereÏdrawn€from€the€Defendant's€arm.× ƒ+ ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€then€transported€to€the€jail,€which€took€about€fiveÏminutes.€€When€the€Defendant€arrived€at€the€jail,€he€asked€to€make€a€phone€callÏand€was€allowed€to€do€so.€€He€telephoned€his€personal€physician€andÏrequested€that€the€doctor€come€to€the€jail€to€obtain€an€additional€blood€sampleÏfor€analysis.€€When€the€jailer€heard€the€Defendant's€request€on€the€phone,€heÏtold€the€Defendant€that€he€could€not€have€his€doctor€come€to€the€jail€to€drawÏblood.€€At€the€Defendant's€request,€the€jailer€then€took€the€phone€and€told€theÏdoctor€that€the€Defendant€could€not€have€an€additional€blood€sample€taken€atÏthe€jail.€€The€doctor€testified€that€he€would€have€come€to€the€jail€and€taken€theÏblood€sample€from€the€Defendant€if€he€had€been€allowed€to€do€so.€€ÌÌà àThe€order€of€dismissal€of€the€trial€court,€after€summarizing€the€facts€asÏstated€herein,€states€as€follows:€€"The€court€finds,€therefore,€as€a€matter€of€factÏthat€agents€for€the€State€interfered€with€the€Defendant's€right€to€develop€andÏobtain€what€could€be€exculpatory€evidence€on€his€behalf,€violative€of€theÏDefendant's€right€to€due€process.€€In€that€there€is€no€way€to€afford€theÍDefendant€such€an€opportunity€at€present,€the€case€is€dismissed€and€the€costsÏtaxed€to€the€State€of€Tennessee."€€It€is€from€this€order€that€the€State€appeals.ÌÌà àThe€State€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€the€charge€againstÏthe€Defendant€because:€€(1)€Without€a€showing€of€actual€prejudice,€the€trialÏcourt€should€not€have€found€a€due€process€violation;€and€(2)€even€if€theÏDefendant's€due€process€rights€were€violated,€the€appropriate€remedy€would€beÏto€suppress€the€State's€blood€test€results€rather€than€dismiss€the€charge€againstÏthe€Defendant.ÌÌà àThe€legislature€has€provided€that,€when€a€sample€of€a€person's€blood€isÏprocured€for€making€a€test€to€determine€the€alcoholic€or€drug€content€of€the€blood,Ï"the€person€tested€shall€be€entitled€to€have€an€additional€sample€of€blood€orÏurine€procured€and€the€resulting€test€performed€by€any€medical€laboratory€of€thatÏperson's€own€choosing€and€at€that€person's€own€expense€.€.€.€."€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€55„10„410(e).ÌÌà àIt€is€difficult€to€overstate€the€importance€of€evidence€of€blood€alcoholÏcontent€in€DUI€prosecutions.€€Our€supreme€court€recently€noted€that€the€decisionÏof€whether€to€take€a€blood€alcohol€test€by€a€person€suspected€of€DUI€was€"aÏdecision€having€such€important€consequences€for€his€or€her€guilt€or€innocence,"Íyet€the€decision€must€be€made€without€benefit€of€counsel.€€òòState€v.€Frasieróó,€__ÏS.W.2d€__€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€court€further€noted€that€any€compromise€of€theÏaccuracy€of€such€a€test€"is€a€crucial€consequence,€given€the€importance€ofÏscientific€evidence€in€DUI€cases."€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àThis€court€has€stated€that€"the€defendant's€greatest€challenge€to€theÏaccuracy€of€the€breath€test€is€the€independent€blood€test€to€which€eachÏaccused€has€a€statutory€right."€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€717€S.W.2d€298,€305€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1986).ÌÌà àIn€analyzing€a€similar€issue,€this€court€has€stated:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àIt€is€necessary€to€state€what€this€case€does€not€involve.€ÏWe€are€not€here€dealing€with€a€case€in€which€a€defendantÏrequests€an€opportunity€to€call€his€own€doctor€or€other€qualifiedÏperson€and€have€his€doctor€or€other€qualified€person€come€to€theÏjail€or€other€place€of€incarceration€and€take€a€sample€of€blood.€ÏUnder€that€described€circumstance€the€defendant's€due€processÏrights€would€be€violated€if€the€police€interfered€with€the€defendant'sÏright€to€obtain€evidence€necessary€to€his€defense.€€The€right€of€oneÏin€custody€for€driving€under€the€influence€to€have€a€blood€test€by€hisÏown€doctor€or€other€qualified€person€at€his€own€expense€at€theÏplace€of€incarceration€is€well€recognized€by€the€Courts.€€òòSeeóó,ÏòòScarborough€v.€Stateóó,€261€So.2d€475€(Miss.€1972)€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€410ÏU.S.€946,€83€S.Ct.€1353,€35€L.Ed.2d€613;€òòBrown€v.€MunicipalÏCourtóó,€86€Cal.€App.3d€357,€150€Cal.Rptr.€216€(2d€Dist.€1978);ÏòòState€v.€Lewisóó,€Supra€€at€526;€and€òòIn€Re€Koehneóó,€54€Cal.2d€757,Ï8€Cal.Rptr.€435,€356€P.2d€179,€180„81€(1960).ÌÌòòState€v.€Choateóó,€667€S.W.2d€111,€112€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€State€argues€that€the€Defendant's€due€process€rights€were€satisfiedÏbecause€the€Defendant€could€have€requested€that€he€be€provided€one€of€theÏsamples€taken€at€the€hospital€so€that€he€could€obtain€independent€testing€of€theÏsample.€€It€appears€that€the€Defendant€did€not€make€such€a€request.€€WeÏbelieve,€however,€that€the€statute€gives€the€Defendant€the€right€to€have€his€ownÏ"additional"€sample€of€blood€procured€for€testing.€€Because€the€sample€taken€byÏthe€state's€agents€may€become€contaminated,€be€mishandled,€lost€or€beÏotherwise€unreliable,€when€the€state's€agents€refuse€to€allow€the€Defendant€toÏpreserve€such€important€evidence,€this€becomes€tantamount€to€suppression€ofÏevidence€favorable€or€useful€to€the€defense.€€That€is€the€òòonlyóó€opportunity€òòtheóóÏòòDefendantóó€has€to€gather€that€evidence.ÌÌà àOther€states€have€grappled€with€similar€statutes€and€similar€issues.€ÏEspecially€in€question€is€the€possibilty€of€due€process€violations€in€the€event€theÏpolice€refuse€access€to€a€private€test.€€This€topic€was€addressed€in€anÏannotation€which€stated:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌà àIn€a€number€of€cases€it€has€been€held€or€stated€thatÏconstitutional€due€process€requires€that€a€motorist€charged€withÏan€alcohol„related€driving€offense€be€afforded€a€reasonableÏopportunity€to€obtain€a€private€sobriety€test.€€Ìà àÌà àò òArizó ó„McNutt€v€Superior€Court€of€Arizona€(1982)€133€ArizÏ7,€648€P2d€122.€€Ìà àÌà àSmith€v€Cada€(1977,€App)€114€Ariz€510,€562€P2d€390;ÏSmith€v€Ganske€(1977,€App)€114€Ariz€515,€562€P2d€395;€AmosÏv€Bowen€(1984,€App)€143€Ariz€324,€693€P2d€979.Ìà àÌà àò òCaló ó„Re€Martin€(1962)€58€Cal€2d€509,€24€Cal€Rptr€833,Ï374€P2d€801;€Kesler€v€Department€of€Motor€Vehicles€(1969)€1ÏCal€3d€74,€81€Cal€Rptr€348,€459€P2d€900,€cert€den€397€US€989,Ï25€L€Ed€2d€396,€90€S€Ct€1121.ÌÌà àBrown€v€Municipal€Court€for€Los€Angeles€Judicial€Dist.Ï(1978,€2d€District)€86€Cal€App€3d€357,€150€Cal€Rptr€216.ÌÌà àò òMeó ó„State€v€Munsey€(1956)€152€Me€198,€127€A2d€79Ï(ovrld€on€other€grounds€State€v€Copeland€(Me)€391€A2d€836Ï(superseded€by€statute€as€stated€in€State€v€Pineau€(Me)€491ÏA2d€1165)).ÌÌà àò òMoó ó„€State€v€Snipes€(1972,€Mo)€478€SW2d€299,€cert€denÏ409€US€979,€34€L€Ed€2d€242,€93€S€Ct€332.ÌÌà àò òTennó ó„€State€v€Choate€(1983,€Tenn€Crim)€667€SW2d€111.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓJohn€P.€Ludington,€Annotation,€òòDrunk€Driving:€Motoristððs€Right€to€Private€SobrietyÏTestóó,€45€A.L.R.€4th€11,€21€(1986).ÌÌà àIn€òòBrown€v.€Municipal€Court€of€Los€Angeles€Judicial€Districtóó,€150€Cal.ÏRptr.€216€(Ct.€App.€1978),€the€California€Court€of€Appeals€dealt€with€a€situationÏin€which€an€individual€was€in€custody€for€driving€under€the€influence€and€wasÏtaken€to€the€police€station€where€his€blood€alcohol€level€was€determined.€€AfterÏthe€test€was€administered,€the€officer€took€him€to€the€hospital€for€a€physicalÍexamination€for€possible€neck€injuries.€€While€at€the€hospital,€the€individualÏstated€that€he€wanted€a€blood€test€taken€and€offered€to€pay€for€it.€€The€officerÏrefused€to€allow€the€test€and€told€the€arrestee€that€he€could€get€the€test€after€heÏhad€been€released€from€custody.€€The€California€Court€of€Appeals€stated:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌThe€denial€of€an€opportunity€to€procure€a€blood€test€on€a€chargeÏof€intoxication€prevents€the€accused€from€obtaining€evidenceÏnecessary€to€his€defense,€and€is€a€denial€of€due€process€ofÏlaw.€€(òòIn€re€Newbernóó€(1961)€55€Cal.2d€508,€513,€11€Cal.€Rptr.Ï551,€360€P.2d€47.)€€While€there€is€no€duty€or€obligation€on€lawÏenforcement€officers€to€administer€a€blood€test€(òòIn€re€KoehneóóÏ(1960)€54€Cal.2d€757,€759,€8€Cal.€Rptr.€435,€356€P.2d€179;ÏòòMcCormick€v.€Municipal€Courtóó€(1961)€195€Cal.€App.€2d€819,Ï821,€16€Cal.€Rptr.€211),€in€no€event€can€an€officer€frustrate€theÏreasonable€efforts€of€an€accused€to€obtain€a€timely€sample€ofÏhis€blood€without€denying€him€due€process€of€law.€€(òòIn€re€MartinóóÏ(1962)€58€Cal.2d€509,€512,€24€Cal.€Rptr.€833,€374€P.2d€801).ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòId.óó€at€219.€€We€agree€with€the€California€Court€of€Appeals.ÌÌà àWe,€therefore,€have€no€hesitancy€in€following€this€court's€reasoning€inÏòòState€v.€Choateóó,€667€S.W.2d€111€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983),€and€conclude€thatÏunder€the€facts€and€circumstances€presented€herein,€the€Defendant's€dueÏprocess€rights€were€violated€when€the€police€interfered€with€the€Defendant'sÏattempt€to€obtain€evidence€necessary€to€his€defense.ÌÌà àOur€supreme€court€recently€held€that€a€person's€refusal€to€take€a€blood„alcohol€test€may€be€admitted€as€evidence€against€the€person€at€trial.€€òòFrasieróó,Ï__€S.W.2d€at€__.€€Obviously,€if€the€person€submits€to€the€State's€test,€theÏresults€are€admissible.€€If€the€person€is€not€allowed€to€procure€his€own€sampleÏfor€testing,€the€State's€proof€becomes€irrefutable,€even€if€the€test€result€is€in€factÏunreliable€for€any€of€a€variety€of€reasons.ÌÌà àWe€also€note€that€the€interference€with€the€Defendant's€statutory€and€dueÏprocess€rights€to€obtain€this€evidence€was€intentional€on€the€part€of€lawÏenforcement€authorities.€€We€do€not€believe€that€simply€suppressing€the€State'sÏblood€alcohol€test€is€a€sufficient€safeguard€of€the€Defendant's€right€to€be€able€toÏgather€and€preserve€evidence€in€his€defense.€€This€evidence,€if€favorable€to€theÏDefendant,€could€easily€have€secured€his€acquittal.€€ÌÌà àMany€other€courts€agree€that€suppression€of€the€blood€alcohol€test€is€notÏa€sufficient€safeguard€of€the€Defendantððs€rights€in€all€cases.€€The€Supreme€CourtÏof€Massachussetts€states:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌIn€determining€the€appropriate€remedy€for€a€violation€of€G.L.€c.Ï263,€ðð€5A,€we€consider€the€conduct€of€the€police,€the€exigentÏcircumstances€of€the€particular€case,€and€other€admissibleÏevidence€of€the€defendantððs€guilt.€[òòCommonwealth€v.óó]ÏòòRosewarneóó,€[€]€410€Mass.€[53]€at€57,€571€N.E.2d€354€[(1991)].Ï[òòCommonwealth€v.óó]€òòKelleyóó,€[€]€404€Mass.€[459]€at€464,€535ÍN.E.2d€1251€[(1989)].€€Dismissal€may€be€deemed€appropriateÏwhere€there€is€deliberate€or€intentional€misconduct€by€the€police.€ÏòòCommonwealth€v.€Manningóó,€373€Mass.€438,€443,€367€N.E.2dÏ635€(1977).€€In€cases€arising€under€c.€263,€ðð€5A,€we€mustÏconsider€the€purpose€of€the€statute,€namely,€to€give€theÏdefendant€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€obtain€his€ownÏevidence,€available€only€for€a€short€period€of€time,€regarding€hisÏalleged€intoxication.€€òòCommonwealth€v.€Marleyóó,€396€Mass.€433,Ï443,€486€N.E.€2d€715€(1985)€(Liacos,€J.,€concurring).€ÏòòCommonwealth€v.€Andradeóó,€389€Mass.€874,€881,€453€N.E.2dÏ415€(1983).€€Thus,€the€remedy€must€be€ð ðadequate€to€cureÏpotential€or€actual€prejudice€resulting€from€a€violation€of€G.L.€c.Ï263,€ðð€5A,ðð€given€the€particular€facts€of€the€case.€€òòAndradeóó,Ïsupra€at€878„879,€881„882,€453€N.E.2d€415.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒòòCommonwealth€v.€Hampeóó,€646€N.E.2d€387€(Mass.€1995).ÌÓÓÌà àIn€òòMcNutt€v.€Superior€Court€of€Arizonaóó,€648€P.2d€122€(Ariz.€1982),€aÏdefendant€was€arrested€on€suspicion€of€DWI.€€He€was€taken€to€the€policeÏstation€and€asked€to€call€his€lawyer€and€asked€for€a€blood€test€after€the€policeÏhad€given€him€a€breath€alcohol€test.€€òòId.óó€at€124.€€The€officers€refused€bothÏrequests,€but€did€allow€him€to€call€his€ex„wife.€€He€was€released€to€his€ex„wifeÏabout€two€to€two€and€a€half€hours€after€he€was€stopped.€€òòId.óó€€The€SupremeÏCourt€of€Arizona€stated,€ð ðDismissal€of€the€case€with€prejudice€is€the€appropriateÏremedy€because€the€stateððs€action€foreclosed€a€fair€trial€by€preventing€petitionerÏfrom€collecting€exculpatory€evidence€no€longer€available.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmith€v.€Cadaóó,Ï114€Ariz.€510,€562€P.2d€390€(App.€1977).ðð€€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àThe€same€is€true€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€We,€therefore,€are€unable€toÏconclude€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€dismissing€the€charge€against€theÏDefendant.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE