ÿWPCR …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe² BÌv~évÓg D3: 0@m AO­Æü 0D D/ B5˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- •–E—˜™Eš›VœVÓ€©»{s 3|x©2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òOctober€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÆIXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#$";+'h|,É` Å `€€Lß›ÌAT€œJACKSON›ÌÌœJULY›€SESSION,€œ1996›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ïœ02C01„9512„CR„00375›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœSHELBY›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œBERNIE€WEINMANó ó›Ìò òœKIRBY€G.€THURMON,ó ó›à àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(DUI)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œSHELBY€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœROBERT€M.€BRANNON,€JR.›à àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ295€Washington,€Suite€3à àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€37140Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àROBIN€L.€HARRISÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPATIENCE€R.€BRANHAMÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€ °Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant€appeals€to€this€court€as€of€right€from€a€judgment€enteredÏon€a€Shelby€County€jury€verdict€convicting€him€of€driving€under€the€influence€ofÏan€intoxicant€and€diazepam.€€The€Defendant€presents€seven€issues€for€review:Ï(1)€That€he€was€unable€to€consent€to€the€blood€alcohol€test€œand,›€œtherefore,›€œtheÏtrial›€court€erred€in€admitting€the€blood€test€results;€(2)€that€the€court€erred€byÏadmitting€the€blood€test€results€without€establishing€the€chain€of€custody;€(3)€thatÏhis€€pretrial€detention€without€bail€was€a€punishment€resulting€in€double€jeopardyÏwhen€the€charges€were€tried;€(4)€that€admitting€a€photograph€of€him€was€undulyÏprejudicial;€(5)€that€the€State€failed€to€prove€he€was€in€control€of€and€driving€hisÏvehicle€on€a€public€roadway;€(6)€that€testimony€regarding€the€blood€test€resultsÏfrom€a€copy€of€a€computer€printout€violated€the€best€evidence€rule;€and€(7)€thatÏthe€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€a€guilty€verdict.€€We€affirm€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àWe€begin€with€a€brief€summary€of€the€facts.€€On€June€11,€1994€atÏapproximately€2:45€a.m.,€the€Memphis€Police€Department€received€a€callÏreporting€that€a€vehicle€had€run€off€the€road.€€The€caller€was€at€the€scene€andÏdirected€the€investigating€officer€to€a€car€located€in€the€front€yard€of€a€residence.€ÍThe€officer€found€the€Defendant€in€the€car,€which€was€in€œð ðdrive.ð𛀀TheÏDefendantððs€foot€was€still€on€the€gas€pedal.€€The€officer€spoke€to€the€DefendantÏthrough€the€closed€window€of€the€œcar,›€but€the€Defendant€was€unresponsive.ÌÌà àThe€police€officer€called€another€officer€to€the€scene,€at€which€time€bothÏofficers€opened€the€car€doors€at€the€same€time,€turned€off€the€ignition€and€put€theÏvehicle€in€ð ðparkðð.€€The€Defendant€was€sitting€up€in€the€seat,€but€only€mumbledÏincoherently€when€the€officers€tried€to€communicate€with€him.€€They€detected€anÏodor€of€an€intoxicant€on€his€breath€and€noticed€a€bottle€of€diazepam€containingÏa€few€pills.€€The€officers€called€for€a€paramedic€unit.€€The€officers€continued€toÏspeak€to€the€Defendant,€who€was€awake,€yet€when€he€spoke€it€wasÏunintelligible.€€€When€the€unit€arrived,€the€paramedics€and€the€officers€helped€theÏDefendant€onto€a€stretcher€because€he€could€not€walk.€€He€resisted€being€putÏon€the€stretcher€and€was€strapped€down€and€transported€to€the€hospital.€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€admitted€for€trauma€assessment€at€œ3:55›€a.m.€€HeÏwas€€taken€to€an€exam€room€and€was€assisted€from€the€stretcher€to€a€bed€andÏhospital€personnel€obtained€a€routine€blood€sample.€€At€œapproximately€4:10›Ïa.m.,€the€Defendant€was€approached€by€a€member€of€the€œDUI›€squad,€œwhoÏtalked€with€him€and€asked€if›€he€would€consent€to€a€blood€test.€€The€DefendantÏanswered€verbally,€œð ðyes.ð𛀀The€nurse€drew€the€blood€sample,€which€wasÍreceived,€tagged,€put€in€a€sealed€box€and€transported€by€the€œDUI›€officer€to€theÏpolice€substation€at€the€end€of€his€shift.€€The€sample€was€taken€to€theÏUniversity€of€Tennessee€Toxicology€Laboratory€where€testing€subsequentlyÏrevealed€a€0.14€percent€blood€alcohol€level€and€detected€the€presence€of€aÏdiazepam€œmetabolite.€€The›€Defendant€was€discharged€into€police€custody€atÏapproximately€9:00€a.m.€for€booking€and€processing.€€He€was€released€fromÏcustody€at€approximately€5:00€p.m.€ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœI.Ì›ÌÓ  Ó€à àà àThe€Defendant€first€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denyingÏDefendantððs€pretrial€Motion€to€Suppress€the€blood€test€results.€€The€Defendant€Ïasserts€that€he€did€not€give€a€valid€consent€to€submitting€to€the€blood€test€andÏthat€this€effected€an€unlawful€search€violating€his€constitutional€right€under€theÏFourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€He€also€argues€that€theÏtrial€court€misapplied€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€œsection›€œ55„10„406(b),›€whichÏexcludes€the€evidence€of€a€blood€test€drawn€from€a€person€unconscious€orÏincapable€of€refusing.ÌÌà àThe€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€thatÏð ð[t]he€right€of€the€people€to€be€secure€in€their€person€.€.€.€against€unreasonableÏsearches€and€seizures,€shall€not€be€violated€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€extraction€of€a€bloodÏsample€is€considered€an€intrusion€that€constitutes€a€search€subject€to€FourthÏAmendment€protections.€€òòSeeóó€òòSchmerber€v.€Californiaóó,€384€U.S.€757,€œ767„72Ï(1966).›€€Consent€to€a€search€is€an€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement€if€givenÏvoluntarily€and€understandingly.€€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€889€S.W.2d€219,€221€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993),€òòcert.€œdeniedóó,›€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óóÏ(Tenn.€1994).€€ð ðThe€sufficiency€of€consent€depends€largely€upon€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€in€a€particular€case.ðð€òòId.óó€€€€The€prosecution€bears€the€burden€toÏprove€the€validity€of€the€consent.€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àA€Defendant€may€be€too€intoxicated€to€give€consent€voluntarily€andÏunderstandingly.€€òòSeeóó€òòJacksonóó,€889€S.W.2d€at€221;€òòDrinkard€v.€Stateóó,€584ÏS.W.2d€650,€654€(Tenn.€1979).€€ð ðActually,€it€is€the€degree€of€the€driverððsÏintoxication€that€should€be€determinative€of€this€issue.€.€.€.ðð€€òòDrinkardóó,€584€S.W.2dÏat€654.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€at€trial€that€he€had€consumed€three€sixteen„ounceÏbeers€over€the€evening,€had€taken€one€five„milligram€diazepam€tablet€and€hadÏnot€eaten€that€evening.€€The€Defendant€is€a€diabetic€and€his€medication€had€Íbeen€changed€two€days€before€his€arrest.€€He€testified€that€he€felt€weak€andÏsweaty€late€in€the€evening€and€was€attempting€to€go€out€and€get€something€toÏeat€when€he€had€a€€hypoglycemic€episode€while€driving.€€He€swallowedÏseveral€hard€candies,€but€testified€he€had€no€memory€after€that.à àÌà àÌà àThe€arresting€officer€testified€that€when€the€Defendant€was€discovered€inÏhis€vehicle,€he€was€unresponsive,€incoherent€and€unable€to€walk.€€The€officerÏtestified€that€in€attempting€to€elicit€a€response,€the€Defendant€was€ð ðin€a€stuporððÏand€ð ðwe€couldnððt€understand€what€he€was€talking€about.ððÌÌà àAfter€his€admittance€to€the€hospital,€the€Defendant€was€awake,€but€thereÏwas€conflicting€evidence€presented€during€the€suppression€hearing€œconcerningÏthe›€œDefendantððs›€œability›€to€effectively€communicate€or€understand.€€The€traumaÏassessment€of€the€Defendant€described€him€as€being€oriented€only€as€to€hisÏname,€but€not€as€to€place€or€time.€€A€letter€admitted€by€stipulation€during€theÏsuppression€hearing€also€included€a€statement€by€the€admitting€physician,€Dr.ÏS.€Winberry,€that€the€Defendant€was€ð ðacutely€intoxicated€and€disorientedðð€andÏunable€to€give€informed€consent.€ÌÌà àThe€blood€for€the€test€was€drawn€approximately€œfifteen›€minutes€after€theÏDefendantððs€arrival€at€the€emergency€room.€The€Defendantððs€primaryÍcommunication€was€his€verbal€assent€to€the€blood€test.€€The€œDUI›€officer€whoÏrequested€the€blood€test€testified€that€he€spoke€with€the€Defendant€forÏapproximately€fifteen€minutes.€€The€officer€stated€that€he€€asked€whether€theÏDefendant€understood€what€the€consent€form€was€and€asked€œhim›€severalÏquestions,€which€were€answered,€to€complete€the€€form.€There€was€testimonyÏfrom€the€arresting€officer€that€the€Defendant€was€argumentative€during€the€timeÏhe€spent€in€the€emergency€room;€that€he€was€cursing€and€threatened€to€sue€theÏpolice.€€ÌÌà àThe€cause€of€the€Defendantððs€stupor€was€contested€as€possiblyÏintoxication€or€a€hypoglycemic€episode,€or€both.€€œRegardless€of€the›€cause,€œtheÏtrial€judge€found€that›€the€Defendant€was€in€such€a€condition€that€he€was€able€toÏgive€his€voluntary€and€understanding€consent€to€the€blood€test.€€TheÏdetermination€of€the€Defendantððs€ability€to€voluntarily€and€understandinglyÏconsent€was€a€contested€issue€of€fact€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€DeferenceÏis€given€to€the€trial€court€to€assess€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€and€determineÏissues€of€fact.€€At€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€a€motion€to€suppress€evidence,€theÏtrial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€conclusive.€€òòJacksonóó,€889€S.W.2d€at€222.€€TheÏfindings€of€the€trial€judge€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict€and€will€not€beÏdisturbed€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€againstÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€œòòId.óó;€òòState›€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€233Í(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1988).€€Where€there€isÏmaterial€evidence€in€the€record€that€supports€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trialÏjudge,€we€are€required€to€affirm€that€judgment.€€òòKillebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€at€233.̛̜à àWe€œconclude€from€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€record€in›€this€œcase€that›Ïœthere€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€trial€judgeððs€finding€that€the›€DefendantÏwas€able€to€œand€did€consent;›€œtherefore,›€the€blood€test€was€obtained€by€œa›Ïsearch€within€œthe€constraints€of€the›€Fourth€Amendment.€€œTherefore,€the›€trial€courtÏdid€not€err€in€admitting€the€evidence€of€the€blood€test.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€œsection›€55„10„406(b)€and€(e).€€The€relevant€section€of€theÏCode€provides€that€ð ð[a]ny€person€who€is€unconscious€as€a€result€of€an€accidentÏor€is€unconscious€at€the€time€of€arrest€or€apprehension€or€otherwise€in€aÏcondition€rendering€him€incapable€of€refusal,€shall€be€subjected€to€the€test€.€.€.Ïbut€the€results€thereof€shall€not€be€used€in€evidence€.€.€.€without€the€consent€ofÏthe€person€so€tested.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„406(b).€€However,€the€bloodÏtest€evidence€may€be€used€ð ðin€criminal€prosecutions€for€aggravated€assault€orÏhomicide€by€the€use€of€a€motor€vehicle€only.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€œ55„10„406(e).Ì›Ìà àAny€driver€in€Tennessee€is€deemed€to€give€implied€consent€to€submit€to€aÏtest€for€alcohol€in€the€blood,€yet€also€has€the€right€to€refuse€such€a€test.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€55„10„406(a)(1),€(3).€The€issue€here€is€whether€the€DefendantÏwas€ð ðin€a€condition€rendering€him€incapable€of€refusingðð€the€test.€€€The€trial€courtÏbased€its€ruling€on€the€fact€that€the€Defendant€was€not€œunconscious›€œand›€wasÏcapable€of€refusing.€€œFor›€the€reasons€described€above,€œwe€must€affirm€the€trialÏcourtððs€ruling€that€the›€Defendant€was€not€in€a€condition€that€rendered€him€unableÏto€understandingly€refuse€or€consent€to€the€blood€test.€€ÌÌà àœBecause€the›€consent€for€the€extraction€of€the€blood€test€was€valid,€theÏDefendant€voluntarily€submitted€to€the€test.€€The€blood€test€results€are€notÏsubject€to€the€constraints€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„406(b),Ïœbecause€the›€Defendant€was€capable€of€refusing€at€the€time€the€blood€test€wasÏdrawn.€€His€election€not€to€refuse€the€blood€test€allows€use€of€the€results€at€trial.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„406(a)(1).€€€The€trial€court€did€not€violate€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€55„10„406(b),€therefore,€admitting€the€blood€test€wasÏproper.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant€œnext€argues€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€the€chain€ofÏcustody€of€the€blood€sample€tested€by€the€laboratory.€€€The€purpose€ofÏestablishing€the€chain€of€custody€is€to€determine€that€there€has€been€noÏtampering,€substitution,€mistake€or€loss€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867ÏS.W.2d€750,€759€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€trial€judgeððs€determination€thatÏthe€chain€of€custody€has€been€established€will€not€be€overturned€unless€thereÏhas€been€an€abuse€of€discretion.€òòBradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€759;€òòState€v.ÏMcKinneyóó,€605€S.W.2d€842,€846€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€òòid.óó€;€òòState€v.€Ritteróó,€462€S.W.2d€247,€249„50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1970),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1971).€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€notes€that€there€was€inconsistent€testimony€whether€oneÏor€two€vials€of€blood€were€drawn€and€that€no€testimony€was€presented€from€theÏofficer€who€transported€the€sample€from€the€substation€to€the€laboratory.€ÏAlthough€there€is€an€inconsistency,€there€is€no€evidence€that€a€substitutionÏoccurred.€€A€properly€labeled€vial€was€delivered€and€tested€following€routineÏprocedures.€€The€proof€of€the€chain€of€custody€does€not€require€that€all€doubt€beÏeliminated€before€the€sample€may€be€admitted.€òòSeeóó€òòRitteróó,€462€S.W.2d€at€250.€ÏThere€is€no€evidence€of€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€admitting€the€blood€sample€asÏevidence.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendantððs€third€issue€is€that€he€was€subjected€to€double€jeopardyÏbecause€his€pretrial€detention€without€bail€consisted€of€a€punishment.€€TheÏDefendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€apply€the€standards€set€forth€inÏòòState€v.€Jefferson€Penningtonóó,€No.€01C01„9307„PB„00219,€Davidson€CountyÏ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Feb.€1,€1996).€€The€Defendant€contends€that€theÏtrial€court€failed€to€allow€an€evidentiary€showing€of€the€double€jeopardy€violation.€ÏThis€issue€is€waived€because€the€defendant€failed€to€make€appropriateÏreferences€to€the€record.€€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b);€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760ÏS.W.2d€228,€231€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1988);Ïòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€T.R.A.P.€27(a)(7)€and€(g).€€However,€we€will€address€this€issue€on€theÏmerits.ÌÌà àPretrial€detention€without€bail€may€qualify€as€a€punishment,€violating€the€ÏDouble€Jeopardy€Clause€of€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€and€Article€I,€Section€10€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€A€secondÏrisk€of€punishment€at€trial€must€be€precluded€if€the€detention€is€not€imposed€for€aÏlegitimate€governmental€purpose.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Coolidgeóó,€915€S.W.2d€820,€822„23€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1995).€Detention€forÏdetoxification€of€an€arrestee€is€considered€a€valid€governmental€purpose,€yet€aÍblanket€policy€of€detaining€DUI€offenders€for€twelve€hours€has€been€found€toÏviolate€double€jeopardy€as€an€impermissible€punishment.€€òòSeeóó€òòCoolidgeóó,€915ÏS.W.2d€at€822;€òòPenningtonóó,€slip€op.€at€2„3.ÌÌà àòòCoolidgeóó€established€a€two„part€test€to€evaluate€the€detention:€(1)Ïwhether€the€detention€serves€some€remedial€purpose€and€(2)€whether€theÏdetention€is€excessive€to€effect€that€purpose.€€The€Defendant€was€detainedÏfrom€approximately€3:15€a.m.€on€June€11,€1995€to€5:00€p.m.€that€day.€€He€wasÏin€the€hospital€ward€until€9:00€a.m.€because€he€was€discovered€in€a€stupor€andÏneeded€immediate€medical€treatment.€€The€trial€court€evaluated€the€evidence€andÏdetermined€that€the€detention€of€the€Defendant€was€sufficiently€remedial€andÏnecessary€to€protect€the€public€and€the€Defendant.€€This€case€illustrates€Ïprecisely€a€legitimate€governmental€purpose€for€detaining€a€DUI€offender€andÏdoes€not€violate€double€jeopardy.€€We€affirm€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€on€thisÏissue.ÌÌÓ  ÓIV.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€court€erred€in€admitting€a€photographÏtaken€of€him€approximately€five€hours€after€he€was€admitted€to€the€emergencyÏroom.€€€In€order€to€admit€a€photograph€as€evidence,€it€must€be€relevant€to€anÍissue€for€the€trier€of€fact€and€its€probative€value€must€outweigh€the€prejudicialÏeffect.€€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€750,€758€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€trialÏcourt€has€the€discretion€to€admit€photographs€as€evidence.€€òòBradenóó,€867ÏS.W.2d€at€758;€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€courtÏwill€not€overturn€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€absent€a€clear€abuse€of€discretionÏappearing€on€the€face€of€the€record.€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€949.ÌÌà àWe€agree€that€the€relevance€of€the€admitted€photograph€is€suspect€toÏprove€the€condition€of€the€Defendant€when€he€was€intoxicated,€because€thereÏwas€a€five„hour€lapse€of€time.€€However,€there€is€no€indication€that€theÏphotograph€prejudiced€the€Defendant.€€Although€we€believe€it€was€error€to€admitÏthe€photograph€into€evidence€at€the€trial,€after€considering€the€entire€record€in€theÏcase€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€we€are€satisfied€that€this€was€harmless€error.€€T.R.A.P.€36(b);ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌÓ  ÓV.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àWe€will€address€Defendantððs€fifth€and€seventh€issues€together.€€HeÏargues€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€that€he€had€driven€or€was€in€physicalÏcontrol€of€his€motor€vehicle€on€a€Tennessee€public€road€pursuant€to€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€55„10„401(a).€€This€section€provides€that€it€is€unlawfulÍto€drive€or€to€be€in€control€of€a€motor€vehicle€on€ð ðany€public€roads€or€highways€.€.Ï.€streets€or€alleys.ðð€€ðð€55„10„401(a).€€Tennessee€uses€a€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€test€to€evaluate€whether€the€accused€was€in€physical€control€ofÏa€vehicle.€€òòState€v.€Lawrenceóó,€849€S.W.2d€761,€765€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€stateÏmay€prove€the€offense€by€using€direct€or€circumstantial€evidence.€òòId.óó€at€763.€€TheÏvehicle€need€not€be€in€motion,€nor€the€engine€running;€the€ð ðpresent€physicalÏability€to€direct€the€vehicleððs€operation€and€movementðð€is€sufficient.€€òòId.óó€at€765.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Lisa€Breweróó,€No.€01C01„9502„CC„00042,€Franklin€County,€slipÏop.€at€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Aug.€4,€1995),€the€driver€was€discoveredÏin€the€car€off€the€roadway,€with€no€direct€observation€of€the€vehicle€driving€on€theÏstreet.€€This€court€concluded€that€there€was€evidence€sufficient€to€support€theÏjuryððs€conclusion€that€the€vehicle€had€indeed€used€the€street€to€travel€from€theÏBrewerððs€home€to€the€front€yard€where€the€car€was€found.€€In€the€case€òòsubóóÏòòjudiceóó,€the€Defendant€was€found€on€the€front€lawn€of€a€home€and€testified€at€trialÏthat€he€had€driven€his€car.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€state€did€not€prove€the€presence€ofÏdiazepam€in€his€blood€and,€therefore,€the€jury€could€not€have€reasonablyÏconvicted€the€Defendant€of€driving€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€andÏdiazepam.€€When€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÍevidence,€the€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€theÏwitnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factualÏissues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€ÏòòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóóÏòòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€court€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€ÏòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€ÌÌà àA€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnessesÏand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,Ï476€(Tenn.€1973).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€atÏ835.€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÏreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€courtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€byÏthe€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòGraceóó,€493ÏS.W.2d€at€476.ÌÌà àThe€Defendantððs€assertion€must€fail.€€The€Defendant€testified€at€trial€thatÏhe€had€consumed€intoxicants€and€diazepam.€€His€primary€argument€was€thatÏhe€was€too€intoxicated€to€consent€to€the€blood€test.€€The€jury€heard€conflictingÏexpert€testimony€as€to€the€stimulating€effects€of€a€diazepam€metabolite€in€theÏbloodstream.€€The€jury€evaluated€the€evidence€and€assessed€the€relativeÏcredibility€of€the€witnesses.€€After€reviewing€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€juryÏcould€have€reasonably€found€the€Defendant€guilty.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓÇVI.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àFinally,€the›€Defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€violated€Rule€1002€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€by€admitting€testimony€from€a€copy€of€aÏcomputer€report€of€Defendantððs€blood€test.€€He€contends€that€this€is€not€the€bestÏevidence€to€prove€the€results.€€Rule€1002€provides€that€an€original€document€isÏneeded€to€prove€the€content€of€a€writing.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€1002.€€The€DefendantÏasserts€that€the€computer€printout€is€a€copy€of€the€test€results€that€wereÏgenerated€by€the€laboratory.€€ÌœÌ›à àThe€blood€test€data€is€initially€written€on€cards€and€reviewed€by€theÏtechnicians.€€The€data€is€then€entered€onto€a€computer€which€generates€aÏcomputer€printout.€The€technicians€review€and€sign€the€œprintout,›€and€this€isÏissued€as€the€report.€€According€to€Rule€1001(3),€€ð ð[i]f€data€are€stored€in€aÏcomputer€or€similar€device,€any€printout€or€other€output€readable€by€sight€andÏshown€to€reflect€the€data€accurately€is€an€œððoriginal.ððð𛀀Tenn.€R.€Evid.€1001(3).€ÏWe€are€satisfied€that€the€laboratory€report€is€an€original€for€purposes€of€RuleÏœ1002;›€œtherefore,›€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€admitting€the€computer€generated€testÏresults.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌœÇCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGE›