ÿWPC +€4aƒ‚%DÞw£ÞÛ<OJ¹gXálwƒ¢rŠXutïö¤BJâFÄ°èPð²PÚ4Š ŸS™2z"¢G;÷7Âí¿H0`,FÊÆ]­ü’Äõ;¤„zPWC÷XœëªŒ0—‰êûðtVå4³D߶|.®a‚º/JäËi|Ú| ÕPDsîNbÑæIÛ ´ÒRîRëx¯–Hs† HP¦oé8]o}¦0©3¥ÎƳ6Â.f¦ Œ‹v:—¡)±üäÙW\cùªè§ë¹6G•”n)W¦µžç±)[uE"aÔ½ºÉ%ù'3 ”ãüc³jä)4-ñoɉõÁi9Òh_ ÅYSþO‡(AAƒ[®mŽªøV&Œ¡s‰µß×]×&Cí0fž“"èí&Ø5åf§Ð>y‡ê•ÙÖƒŒ bwÝQê½”œýgš{10CöêL„4­Më³n”Ò Ê»Šzm÷ÆÔ³DoÌß,å Q ?;úçww¿u9 :ƺŽXátL‚÷‰¸–]Ê–ñôv‘Ìø4k÷ü‡;d8àe•ý^ éé¯[™.6yÞ9búBb·„ÞšÿÙé½÷!¼ÏŽü­6:8;ƒ[þþòI‡ÚjºŠ]âIâ Ã#†E[é…# F U:Q %‹ 0D‘ w@Õ 4 ) -8 ]e 0 ˆÂ 0DJ ÝŽ $kw—y‡ÔœpævU:\–U:œÖU:Ü,èBU:** Bddddddddddd D3 0D´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´ AOøÆGG 0D  D/Q B€˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(ñÄ$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒX°Ò DDebb U Ó€uM%ñÄ$¡¡3|x #Ñ#€Xÿÿd#Ñ SÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ô…¬ôXXÔApparently,€the€appellantððs€car€had€rolled€off€the€road€until€it€came€to€rest€against€a€stop€sign.€Ð  ÐThe€car€was€found€parked€with€its€back„end€extending€into€the€middle€of€an€intersection.€€(8(3Åå$¤¤Ý ƒñÄ!ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÓÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ô•ËôXXÔTranscripts€from€the€sentencing€hearing€were€not€made€a€part€of€the€record€on€appeal. Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô•ËôXXÔThe€òòHarrisonóó€Court€characterized€that€method€as€the€ð ðcommon€law€method.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€714„15Ð  Ð(citations€omitted). mÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú*******Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ô•ËôXXÔJudge€Jones€died€on€May€1,€1998,€following€a€distinguished€career€as€a€trial€attorney€and€asÐ  Ða€respected€member€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€since€his€appointment€in€November,€1986.€€He€willÏbe€greatly€missed. oÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô•ËôXXÔSimilar€to€the€habitual€criminal€statutes€at€issue€in€òòHarrisonóó,€supra€at€714,€the€D.U.I.€laws€inÐ  ÐTennessee€allow€enhanced€punishment€for€repeat€D.U.I.€offenders.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(a)(1)Ï(Supp.€1995).€€ Ñ  Ñ ÊÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ô•ËôXXÔIn€1995,€the€General€Assembly€amended€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(a)€to€read:€ð ðEvidenceÐ  Ðthat€there€was,€at€the€time€alleged,€ten„hundredths€of€one€percent€(.10%)€or€more€by€weight€of€alcohol€inÏthe€defendantððs€blood€shall€be€òòconclusive€proofóó€that€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€suchÐ „| Ðintoxicant€...ðð€€òòId.óó€(emphasis€added).€€The€State€Attorney€General€declared€that€provision€unconstitutionalÐ D < Ðbecause€it€relieved€the€State€of€its€burden€of€proving€intoxication€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€Op.ÏAtty.€Gen.€No.€95„117€(Nov.€28,€1995).€€Under€the€current€statutes,€both€the€0.10€percent€standard€andÏthe€0.08€percent€standard€are€rebuttable€presumptions€of€intoxication.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„Ð ~ v Ð408€(1998).€€€€€€€€€ üÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ô•ËôXXÔNothing€in€this€opinion€is€intended€to€disturb€Rule€404(b)€or€Rule€609€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ  ÐEvidence. ÜÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÉôXXÔNothing€in€this€opinion€is€intended€to€disturb€Rule€404(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular üÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÉôXXÔNothing€in€this€opinion€is€intended€to€disturb€Rule€404(b)€or€Rule€609€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ  ÐEvidence.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular üÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÉôXXÔNothing€in€this€opinion€is€intended€to€disturb€Rule€404(b)€or€Rule€609€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ  ÐEvidence.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ ÞÔ€X:ÄXXXÔÔ€U?XX:ÄÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X:ÄXU?ÔÐ  ÐÌJanuary€19,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒñÄ!ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÝ  Ýññ›ññññ›ññÑ°ÑÑ€°ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€úÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ€P¨ ÑœññññÑ€o]ÑññññññÑ€oNÑñññ ñ›ñ ññ ñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rß›ñ ñà@ €àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  ÐÌà@»»*€àAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌà@ºº&€àOCTOBER€1997€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð 80 Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àNO.€01C01„9612„CC„00536Ð   Ðà Ø àAppelleeà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ü  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àRUTHERFORD€COUNTYÐ êâ  Ðv.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ÐÈ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àHon.€James€K.€Clayton,€Jr.Ð ¶®  ÐMICHAEL€ELMORE€ROBINSONà 8 àà  à)Ð œ”  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àà @ à(D.U.I.,€3rd€Offense)Ð ‚z  Ðà Ø àAppellant.à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð h` Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àòòà @ àFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð æÞ ÐÌMichael€J.€Flanaganà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àJohn€Knox€WalkupÐ ²ª Ð95€White€Bridge€Road,€Ste.€208à 8 àà  àà è àà @ àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ ˜ ÐNashville,€TN.€37205à à àÐ ~v Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àDaryl€J.€BrandÌJohn€G.€Mitchell,€Jr.à à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ JB ÐP.O.€Box€1336à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ 0 ( ÐMurfreesboro,€TN.€37130à à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ à2nd€Floor€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÐ ! Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àNashville,€TN.€37243„0493Ìà Ø àÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àWilliam€C.€Whitesell,€Jr.Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àJohn€W.€Price,€IIIÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àAssistant€District€Attorney€Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ à303€Rutherford€Co.€Jud.€Bldg.Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àMurfreesboro,€TN.€37130ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌñ ñÑúÑÑ7€:ÄXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑúÑÑ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ  Ññ ñWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÐ r8j17 ÐÑúÑÑ7€:ÄXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  Ññ ñÑúÑÑ7€ªïXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  Ññ ñà@ÙÙ-€àò òOPINIONó óˆÐ  ÐÌÓÓà Ø àThe€appellant,€Michael€Elmore€Robinson,€appeals€as€of€right€the€conviction€heÏreceived€in€the€Rutherford€County€Circuit€Court.€€After€a€jury€trial,€the€appellant€wasÏconvicted€of€driving€a€motor€vehicle€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€his€thirdÏoffense,€and€was€fined€eleven€hundred€($1,100)€dollars.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€himÏto€eleven€(11)€months€and€twenty€nine€(29)€days,€with€one€hundred€and€fifty€(150)Ïdays€to€be€served€in€the€Rutherford€County€work€house,€and€the€remainder€to€beÏserved€on€supervised€probation.€€Appellantððs€driverððs€license€was€revoked€for€a€three„¼year€period.€Ìà Ø àOn€appeal,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€statutory€presumption€of€intoxicationÏfor€multiple€D.U.I.€offenders,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(b)€(Supp.€1995),€violatedÏhis€right€to€equal€protection.€€Ó˜ÓÓÓWe€conclude€that€section€55„10„408(b)€does€not€violateÏequal€protection;€however,€certain€procedures€must€be€implemented€to€insure€that€theÏstatute€comports€with€the€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€For€the€reasons€provided€herein,€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Ìà Ø àò òà@§§+€àBACKGROUNDó óˆÐ "ú Ðà Ø àDuring€the€early€morning€hours€of€July€16,€1995,€the€appellant€was€involved€in€aÏminor€one„car€accident€in€Rutherford€County.€€Deputies€from€the€Rutherford€CountyÏSheriffððs€Department€found€the€appellant€asleep€in€his€car€while€parked€against€a€stopÏsign€on€Crescent€Road.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€State€Trooper€John€Albertson€testified€that€he€arrived€at€theÐ >)6"& Ðscene€around€5:00€a.m.€and€found€the€appellant€sitting€in€his€car€with€the€driver„sideÏdoor€open.€€Trooper€Albertson€observed€two€beer€cans€inside€the€vehicle€and€noticedÏthat€the€appellant€smelled€strongly€of€alcohol.€€He€also€noticed€that€appellantððs€speechÏwas€slurred€and€that€he€had€difficulty€walking.€€€€€Ìà Ø àThe€appellant€admitted€to€the€trooper€that€he€had€consumed€alcoholicÏbeverages€around€1:30€a.m.€that€morning€and€had€fallen€asleep€on€his€way€home.€Ð 4þ,2 ÐSuspecting€that€the€appellant€was€intoxicated,€Trooper€Albertson€administered€fourÏseparate€field€sobriety€tests.€€The€appellant€was€asked€to€recite€the€alphabet,€count€toÏfive€on€his€fingers,€stand€on€one€leg,€and€walk€a€straight€line,€heel€to€toe.€€TrooperÏAlbertson€testified€that€he€gave€the€appellant€several€opportunities€to€perform€eachÏtask;€however,€the€appellant€was€unable€to€complete€any€of€the€four.€€Thereafter,€theÏappellant€was€placed€under€arrest€and€taken€to€a€hospital€emergency€room€for€a€bloodÏtest.€€€€Ìà Ø àThe€appellant€signed€a€consent/waiver€form€and€gave€a€blood€sample€aroundÏ5:30€a.m.€€Trooper€Albertson€preserved€the€sample€and€shipped€it€by€mail€to€the€T.B.I.ÏCrime€Lab€where€it€was€analyzed€by€forensic€scientist,€Edward€L.€Kuykendall.€€Mr.ÏKuykendall€testified€that€the€appellantððs€blood/alcohol€level€was€0.13€grams€percent€atÏthe€time€the€sample€was€taken.Ìà Ø àThe€State€presented€the€above€evidence€to€establish€appellantððs€guilt€on€theÏpresent€D.U.I.€offense.€€At€the€close€of€the€evidence,€the€State€requested€a€juryÏinstruction€on€the€statutory€presumption€of€intoxication€contained€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€55„10„408(b)€(Supp.€1995).€€That€instruction€is€required€in€cases€where€theÏdefendant€has€one€or€more€prior€D.U.I.€convictions.€€The€trial€court€conducted€aÏhearing€outside€the€presence€of€the€jury,€but€did€not€make€a€formal€finding€on€theÏrecord€of€appellantððs€prior€D.U.I.€convictions.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€StateððsÏrequest€and€instructed€the€jury€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 Ø àIf€you€find€from€the€proof€that€the€Defendant€was€found€by€means€of€aÏblood€test€to€have€eight„hundredths€of€one€percent€or€more€by€weight€ofÏalcohol€in€his€blood,€you,€the€jury,€are€permitted€to€infer€that€theÏDefendant€was€under€the€influence€of€such€intoxicant€and€that€theÏDefendantððs€ability€to€drive€was€therefore€impaired€sufficiently€toÏconstitute€a€violation€of€the€law€against€driving€under€the€influence€ofÏalcohol.Ð Ø (#Ø (# ÐÌÓ©Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€The€jury€convicted€the€appellant€of€driving€under€the€influence€as€charged.€ÏThereafter,€both€the€State€and€the€appellant€stipulated€to€appellantððs€prior€D.U.I.Ïconvictions:€€(1)€September€5,€1991€in€the€Rutherford€County€General€Sessions€Court;Ïand€(2)€November€26,€1991€in€the€Bedford€County€Sessions€Court.€€The€State€readÐ Œ7„06 Ðthe€two€prior€convictions€into€the€record,€and€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€forÏthird€offense€D.U.I.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ÔÌ Ðà Ø àOn€appeal,€the€appellant€challenges€the€statutory€presumption€of€intoxicationÏcontained€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(b)€(Supp.€1995).€€Under€that€provision,€aÏdefendant€may€be€presumed€to€have€been€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€for€theÏpurposes€of€D.U.I.,€if€there€is€evidence€that€at€the€time€alleged,€the€defendantððs€blood/Ïalcohol€level€was€eight„hundredths€of€one€percent€(.08%)€or€greater.€€TheÏpresumption,€however,€is€applicable€only€to€defendants€who€have€been€previouslyÏconvicted€of€D.U.I.€one€(1)€or€more€times.€€Otherwise,€for€first„time€offenders,€theÏpresumption€of€intoxication€begins€at€ten„hundredths€of€one€percent€(.10%)€blood/Ïalcohol€level.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(a)€(Supp.€1995).׃N×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€Ð ø Ðà Ø àThe€appellant€argues€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(b)€violates€his€right€toÏequal€protection€because€the€0.08€presumption€of€intoxication€applies€only€toÏdefendants€who€have€prior€D.U.I.€convictions,€while€first„time€offenders€receive€theÏ0.10€presumption.€Ìà@+€àò òDISCUSSIONó óˆÐ ü!ô Ðà Ø àEqual€protection€of€the€laws€is€guaranteed€by€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€theÏUnited€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€section€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€TheÏconcept€of€equal€protection€under€both€the€federal€and€state€constitutions€is€that€ð ðallÏpersons€similarly€circumstanced€shall€be€treated€alike.ðð€€òòDoe€v.€Norrisóó,€751€S.W.2dÐ 8)0"& Ð834,€841€(Tenn.€1988)€(quoting€òòF.S.€Royster€Guono€Co.€v.€Virginiaóó,€253€U.S.€412,Ð +ü#( Ð415,€40€S.Ct.€560,€562,€64€L.Ed.€989€(1920)).€€ð ðConversely,€things€which€are€differentÐ Ð,È%* Ðin€fact€or€opinion€are€not€required€by€either€constitution€to€be€treated€the€same.ðð€€ÏòòNorrisóó,€751€S.W.2d€at€841;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòPlyler€v.€Doeóó,€457€U.S.€202,€216,€102€S.Ct.€2382,Ð ÔÌ Ð2394,€72€L.Ed.2d€786€(1982).€€Ìà Ø àThe€determination€of€what€is€ð ðdifferentðð€and€what€is€the€ð ðsameðð€generallyÏresides€with€our€state€legislature.€€òòNorrisóó,€751€S.W.2d€at€841.€€When€those€legislativeÐ 80 Ðdeterminations€are€challenged,€this€Courtððs€inquiry€is€generally€limited€to€whether€theÏclassifications€have€a€reasonable€relationship€to€a€legitimate€state€interest.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.€Southern€Fitness€and€Health,€Inc.óó,€743€S.W.2d€160,€164€(Tenn.€1987);€òòState€v.Ð œ”  ÐBlackóó,€745€S.W.2d€302,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987),€òòper.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).€Ð h` ÐHowever,€if€a€classification€discriminates€against€a€suspect€class€or€infringes€aÏfundamental€right,€we€must€review€it€with€strict€scrutiny:€€the€State€must€demonstrateÏthat€the€classification€has€been€narrowly€tailored€to€fulfill€a€compelling€governmentalÏinterest.€€òòPlyleróó,€457€U.S.€at€217,€102€S.Ct.€at€2395;€òòState€v.€Testeróó,€879€S.W.2d€823,Ð œ” Ð828€(Tenn.€1994).Ìà Ø àThe€appellant€contends€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(b)€impinges€theÏfundamental€right€to€a€fair€trial€because€it€lowers€the€burden€of€proof€with€respect€toÏrepeat€D.U.I.€offenders.€€As€such,€he€argues€that€this€Court€should€review€the€statuteÏwith€strict€scrutiny.€€We€disagree.€€Ìà Ø àIn€all€D.U.I.€cases,€regardless€of€the€presumptive€intoxication€level,€the€StateÏhas€the€burden€of€proving€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€operated€aÏmotor€vehicle€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€If€the€defendant€is€a€multipleÏD.U.I.€offender,€the€jury€may€presume€that€the€defendant€was€intoxicated€if€it€findsÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendantððs€blood/alcohol€level€was€0.08€percentÏor€greater.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(b)€(Supp.€1995).€€The€jury,€however,€is€freeÏto€disregard€that€presumption€and€rely€strictly€upon€the€evidence€presented€at€trial.€€InÏaddition,€the€defendant€may€rebut€the€presumption€by€introducing€evidence€to€theÏcontrary.€€€€€€€Ð Ä5¼.4 Ðà Ø àWe€conclude€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(b)€does€not€violate€the€right€toÏa€fair€trial€by€lowering€the€presumptive€level€of€intoxication€for€repeat€D.U.I.€offenders.€ÏOur€analysis€under€equal€protection€is€whether€the€statute€is€rationally€related€to€aÏlegitimate€governmental€interest.€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà Ø àThe€legislature,€in€the€instant€case,€has€determined€that€D.U.I.€crimes€are€aÏgrowing€problem€on€the€highways€and€roadways€in€Tennessee.€€The€legislature€mayÏhave€reasonably€concluded€that€repeat€D.U.I.€offenders€represent€a€greater€risk€to€theÏpublic€than€first„time€offenders€because€of€their€propensity€towards€driving€whileÏintoxicated.€€To€deter€that€criminal€activity,€the€legislature€has€seen€fit€to€lower€theÏstatutory€presumption€of€intoxication€to€0.08€percent€for€repeat€D.U.I.€offenders.€€TheÏappellant€concedes€that€the€State€of€Tennessee€has€a€legitimate€interest€in€protectingÏits€citizens€from€those€offenders.€€The€0.08€presumption€of€intoxication€is€rationallyÏrelated€to€deterring€D.U.I.€crimes€and€is,€therefore,€valid€under€equal€protection.Ìà Ø àNevertheless,€we€find€that€the€application€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(b)Ïpresents€procedural€concerns€in€the€guilt€phase€of€D.U.I.€trials.€€The€statutoryÏpresumption€of€intoxication€under€section€408(b)€is€applicable€only€where€theÏdefendant€has€one€or€more€prior€D.U.I.€convictions.€€Therefore,€before€the€trial€courtÏcan€instruct€the€jury€under€that€statute,€there€must€first€be€a€finding€that€the€defendantÏis€a€prior€D.U.I.€offender.€€Ìà Ø àOur€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€it€is€prejudicial€error€to€allow€the€jury€to€hearÏevidence€of€a€defendantððs€prior€convictions€before€the€jury€determines€guilt€orÏinnocence€of€the€present€crime.€€òòHarrison€v.€Stateóó,€217€Tenn.€31,€394€S.W.2d€713,Ð Ä,¼%* Ð717€(1965).€€à 0 àIn€òòHarrisonóó,€the€Supreme€Court€addressed€the€use€of€a€defendantððs€priorÐ .ˆ', Ðconvictions€for€the€purpose€of€enhancing€punishment€under€the€habitual€criminalÏstatutes.€€394€S.W.2d€at€714„17.€€The€Court€noted€that€in€some€jurisdictions,€evidenceÏâ âof€prior€convictions€may€be€presented€to€the€jury€during€the€prosecutionsðð€case€inÐ ô3ì,2 ÐÑoNÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑññœÑo]ÑÑ€ÑÑ  Ñññœchief.›€€òòId.óó€at€714„15.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€That€method€allows€the€jury€to€consider€the€defendantððs€priorÐ  Ðâ âconvictions€before€it€has€rendered€a€verdict€on€the€defendantððs€guilt€or€innocence€ofÏthe€present€crime.€€òòIdóó.€€€€€€Ð   ˜ Ðà Ø àThe€Court€recognized€the€obvious€risk€of€prejudice€when€a€jury€learns€of€aÏdefendantððs€prior€convictions€while€determining€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€presentÏoffense.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€717.€€The€Court,€therefore,€concluded€that€even€with€a€special€juryÐ ü  Ðinstruction,€there€is€no€way€to€guarantee€a€fair€process€unless€evidence€of€priorÏconvictions€is€shielded€from€the€jury€until€after€it€renders€a€verdict€on€the€presentÏcharge.€€òòIdóó.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð h` Ðà Ø àFollowing€òòHarrisonóó,€trial€courts€have€incorporated€bifurcated€trial€procedures€inÐ 4, Ðcases€where€a€defendant€is€charged€with€a€repeat€D.U.I.€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòCrawford€v.Ð ø ÐStateóó,€469€S.W.2d€524,€525€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971),€òòper.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1971).׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ÌÄ ÐIndictments€in€those€cases€generally€include€two€counts,€the€first€count€charging€theÏdefendant€with€the€present€D.U.I.€offense,€and€the€second€count€alleging€the€priorÏD.U.I.€convictions.€€In€the€first€stage€of€trial,€the€jury€is€permitted€only€to€determine€guiltÏor€innocence€of€the€present€offense€alleged€in€count€one.€€If€the€jury€finds€theÏdefendant€guilty€of€that€offense,€then,€and€only€then,€may€the€jury€hear€and€considerÏevidence€of€the€prior€convictions€for€the€purpose€of€determining€punishment.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.Ð ˜%" Ðà Ø àIn€this€case,€we€are€not€concerned€with€the€enhanced€punishment€of€D.U.I.Ïoffenders.€€Instead,€we€must€address€the€manner€in€which€evidence€of€a€defendantððsÏprior€D.U.I.€convictions€can€be€introduced€during€the€guilt€phase€of€trial€for€theÏpurposes€of€instructing€the€jury.€€€€€Ìà Ø àThe€bifurcated€trial€procedures€were€mandated€by€our€Supreme€Court€inÏòòHarrisonóó,€supra€at€717,€before€the€General€Assembly€created€the€ð ðrepeat€offenderððÐ `0X). Ðprovision€in€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(b)€(Supp.€1995).€€Accordingly,€we€mustÐ ,2$+0 Ðpresume€that€the€General€Assembly€had€knowledge€of€those€procedures€and€intendedÏfor€them€to€apply€in€cases€where€the€jury€is€charged€under€the€0.08€ññœññpresumption.€ÏAside€from€special€exceptions,ñþ ñññññ׃×ññññ׃×ññññññ׃×ñññþ ññþ ñ׃×ñþ ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€theññ›ññ€jury€must€not€hear€or€consider€evidence€of€aÐ   ˜ Ðdefendantððs€prior€D.U.I.€convictions€until€after€it€has€determined€guilt€or€innocence€ofÏthe€present€D.U.I.€ññœññoffense.ññ€€òòññññSeeóóññññññóóññññññ›ññ€ññœññññ€ññòòHarrisonóó,ññ›ññ€394€S.W.2d€at€717;€òòCrawfordóó,€469€S.W.2dÐ 80 Ðat€525.€€Nevertheless,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(b)€implicitly€requiresÏconsideration€of€prior€convictions€before€the€jury€is€instructed€on€the€presumptiveÏstandard€of€intoxication.Ìà Ø àThis€apparent€conflict€may€be€reconciled€in€a€manner€that€upholds€the€validityÏof€the€statute.€€We€conclude€that€in€D.U.I.€cases,€the€trial€court€must€make€theÏdetermination€of€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions,€if€any,€outside€the€presence€of€theÏjury.€€If€the€trial€court€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€hasÏa€prior€D.U.I.€record,€then€the€court€shall€charge€the€jury€under€the€standard€set€forthÏin€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(b).€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìò òà@àà+€àCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ 0 ( Ðà Ø àIn€all€D.U.I.€cases,€it€is€the€trial€courtððs€duty€to€instruct€the€jury€under€theÏappropriate€statute€governing€the€presumption€of€intoxication.€€When€the€defendant€isÏa€first€time€offender,€the€presumption€of€intoxication€is€0.10€percent€blood/alcohol€levelÏor€greater.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(a).€€Otherwise,€the€text€of€section€408(b)Ïprovides€that€an€accused€may€be€presumed€to€be€intoxicated€if€his€or€herÏblood/alcohol€level€is€0.08€percent€or€greater,€when€the€accused€has€one€or€more€priorÏD.U.I.€convictions.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(b).€€Ìà Ø àIn€this€case,€the€record€is€unclear€whether€the€trial€court€made€a€specific€findingÏof€appellantððs€prior€D.U.I.€convictions€before€instructing€the€jury.€€However,€weÏpresume€that€the€trial€court€made€such€a€finding€during€the€hearing€outside€theÏpresence€of€the€jury.€€The€trial€court€heard€arguments€for€and€against€the€sectionÏ408(b)€provision€and€decided€to€charge€the€jury€under€the€0.08€standard.€€€€€Ð Ì5Ä.4 Ðà Ø àThe€record€reflects€that€the€appellantððs€blood/alcohol€level€was€0.13€percentÏfollowing€his€arrest€in€Rutherford€County.€€Based€upon€that€evidence€and€the€trialÏcourtððs€instruction,€the€jury€was€free€to€convict€the€appellant€under€the€0.08Ïpresumption€of€intoxication€or€other€evidence€that€appellant€was€intoxicated€whileÏoperating€a€motor€vehicle.€€We€find€no€reversible€error€in€that€proceeding€and€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€à 8 àÐ ü  ЀÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à_________________________________¼à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÙ*ƒñÄ!Ùòò€€€€€€€(Not€Participating)€×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú*******Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ d\ ÐJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÓ€PÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌññÑP¨ ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññññœññññÌ›ÌññññÑP¨ ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññññ›ññÓÓœññÌññ›œññÌññ›œññÌññ›œññÌññ›œññÐ Ú4Ò-3 ÐÑP¨ ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññ›à@ €àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌññÑP¨ ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÌññÑP¨ ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññà@»»*€àAT€NASHVILLEˆÌññÑP¨ ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÌññÑP¨ ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññà@ºº&€àOCTOBER€1997€SESSIONˆÌññÑP¨ ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð R J Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àNO.€01C01„9612„CC„00536Ð 80 Ðà Ø àAppelleeà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð   Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àRutherford€County€No.€34917Ð ü  Ðv.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð êâ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àHon.€James€K.€Clayton,€Jr.Ð ÐÈ  ÐMICHAEL€ELMORE€ROBINSONà 8 àà  à)Ð ¶®  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àà @ à(D.U.I.,€3rd€Offense)Ð œ”  Ðà Ø àAppellant.à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ‚z  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àññœññ)à è àññ›ññà @ àññ›ññAFFIRMEDññ›ññÐ h` ÐÓ(SÓÓÓññœññÌÌà@TT,€àòòJUDGMENTóóˆÐ  Ðà Ø àÌÓÜYÓà Ø àCame€the€appellant,€Michael€Elmore€Robinson,€by€and€through€counsel,€andÏalso€came€the€attorney€general€on€behalf€of€the€State,€and€this€matter€was€heard€onÏthe€record€on€appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€of€Rutherford€County;€and€in€considerationÏthereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€there€is€no€reversible€error€in€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court.Ìà Ø àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€filed€herein,€it€is,€therefore,€ordered€andÏadjudged€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed,€and€this€case€is€remanded€toÏthe€Circuit€Court€of€Rutherford€County€for€the€execution€of€the€judgment€of€that€courtÏand€for€the€collection€of€costs€accrued€below.Ìà Ø àCosts€of€appeal€will€be€paid€into€this€Court€by€the€appellant,€Michael€ElmoreÏRobinson,€for€which€execution€may€issues€if€necessary.Ìà Ø àIn€the€event€the€appellant€indicates€the€intention€to€file€an€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court,€his€bond€shall€be€set€in€the€total€amountÏof€ññœññ$5,000,ññ›ññ€with€sufficient€sureties€to€be€approved€by€the€Clerk€of€the€trial€court;Ïpending€the€filing€and€disposition€of€said€application,€and€in€default€of€such€bond,€heÏwill€be€remanded€to€the€Sheriff€of€Rutherford€County.ÌÓ#VÓññœññÌññ›ññà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWilliam€M.€Barker,€Special€JudgeÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àJoe€G.€Riley,€Judge€Ó-_Ó