ÿWPCì /UN¢ %ð 0(öw@4^rU.‰ 0J· 0T 0^U 0h³ 0r 0| 0†  0 1u 0d” AQøÆI 0D 0@S 0D“ U>× D/ BD Ba D3~ B)± DCÚ AM 1j v~› vÓ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ #$E%&E'(E)*"e+Ó€7n~<$3|x7%ä2¼A`ArialTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d))))7Border 1dd "*Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òJune€26,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€ÅvXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ќـ ÙßR€+,*A1-j|Ÿ¦` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌà@ àDECEMBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òNO.€02C01„9707„CC„00264ó óÌà àAppellee,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òMcNAIRY€COUNTYó óÌò òVS.ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òHON.€JON€KERRY€Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€ó ó)ò òà àBLACKWOOD,ÌLILLY€FRAN€BAKER,ó óà@ à)à àò òJUDGEó óÌò ò(A.K.A.€LILLIE€F.€HOLLOWAY),à à€€€€€€€€€€ó ó)ò òÌó óà@ à)Ìà àAppellant.à@ à)à à(DUI,€3d€Offense)ÌÌÌÌÒ†„èyÒò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:ÌÌLLOYD€R.€TATUMÌó ó124€E.€Main€StreetÌP.O.€Box€293ÌHenderson,€TN€38340Éò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òELIZABETH€T.€RYANó óÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCordell€Hull€Building,€2nd€FloorÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òELIZABETH€T.€RICEó óÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òED€NEAL€McDANIELó óÌAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌ300€Industrial€Park€DriveÌP.O.€Box€473ÌSelmer,€TN€38375„0473ÌÉÒÒÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,ÌJUDGEÇÓ  ÓÓÓOPINIONó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant,€Lilly€Fran€Baker,€appeals€a€jury€conviction€for€drivingÏunder€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€third€offense.€€She€was€sentenced€toÏeleven€(11)€months€and€twenty„nine€(29)€days,€all€but€120€days€suspended,€andÏfined€$10,000.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€raises€the€following€issues€for€review:€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€for€the€jury€to€find€her€guiltyÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt;Ì€Ì(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€declare€a€mistrial€afterÏmistakenly€informing€the€jury€that€the€defendant€was€also€chargedÏwith€driving€while€revoked€and€violating€the€implied€consent€law;Ïand€ÌÌ(3)€whether€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€erroneously€allowed€theÏjury€to€consider€intoxicants€in€addition€to€alcohol.€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòFACTSó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àPatrol€Sergeant€R.C.€Pipkins€of€the€Selmer€Police€Department€testifiedÏthat€he€observed€a€pickup€truck€driven€by€the€defendant€make€an€improper€turn.€ÏThe€officer€began€following€the€defendant€and€noticed€the€vehicle€ð ðdriftingðð€andÏcross€onto€the€shoulder.€€After€a€distance€of€approximately€one„half€(ðð)€mile,Ïthe€officer€activated€his€lights€and€the€defendant€pulled€over.ÌÌà àSergeant€Pipkins€asked€the€defendant€to€exit€the€truck€and€meet€himÍbetween€their€vehicles.€€The€officer€testified€that€the€defendant€appearedÏunsteady€on€her€feet.€€Sergeant€Pipkins€also€testified€that€he€smelled€an€odor€ofÏalcohol€on€the€defendantððs€breath,€and€her€speech€was€slurred.€€€€TheÏdefendant€informed€the€officer€that€she€had€lupus€and€was€on€medication,€butÏdid€not€indicate€that€this€would€affect€her€ability€to€drive€a€motor€vehicle€orÏperform€field€sobriety€tests.ÌÌà àSergeant€Pipkins€administered€three€(3)€field€sobriety€tests€to€theÏdefendant.€€The€defendant€performed€the€ð ðone€leg€stand,ðð€the€ð ðwalk€and€turn,ððÏand€the€ð ðfinger€to€noseðð€tests.€€The€officer€testified€the€defendant€passed€theÏð ðone€leg€standðð€test,€but€failed€the€other€two.€€The€defendant€failed€the€ð ðwalk€andÏturnðð€test€by€failing€to€touch€the€heel€of€her€shoe€to€the€toe€of€the€other€shoe,Ïstepping€off€of€the€line,€raising€her€arms,€and€making€an€improper€turn.€€SheÏperformed€the€ð ðfinger€to€noseðð€test€unsatisfactorily€by€not€following€instructionsÏand€by€failing€to€touch€her€nose€on€any€of€the€six€(6)€attempts€to€do€so.€€After€theÏfield€sobriety€tests€were€completed,€the€officer€was€of€the€opinion€that€theÏdefendant€was€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.ÌÌà àAfter€the€defendant€was€arrested,€Sergeant€Pipkins€found€in€the€truck€theÏfollowing:€€four€(4)€full,€one€(1)€empty,€and€one€(1)€half„empty,€12€ounce€cans€ofÏNatural€Light€beer;€two€(2)€full€and€one€(1)€half„empty€16€ounce€cans€ofÏBudweiser€beer;€and€one€(1)€empty€can€of€Busch€beer.€€The€defendantððsÏboyfriend€was€a€passenger€in€the€vehicle.ÌÌà àSubsequent€to€his€search€of€the€vehicle,€the€officer€requested€that€theÏdefendant€submit€to€a€chemical€test€to€determine€the€content€of€alcohol€or€drugsÏin€her€blood.€€The€defendant€refused€to€submit€to€the€test.ÌÌà àAt€her€trial,€the€defendant€testified€that€she€had€consumed€only€one€(1)Ïbeer€and€a€part€of€another€at€the€time€she€was€arrested.€€She€denied€beingÏunder€the€influence.€€The€defendant€also€presented€testimony€from€a€witnessÏwho€stated€he€observed€the€defendant€approximately€two€(2)€hours€before€herÏarrest,€and€she€did€not€appear€to€be€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€at€that€time.ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌÓ  Óó óóóÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€no€rational€trier€of€fact,€after€weighing€theÏevidence€presented€at€her€trial,€could€conclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thatÏshe€was€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€In€Tennessee,€greatÏweight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€by€the€jury€in€a€criminal€trial.€€A€jury€verdictÏaccredits€the€state's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€ÏòòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2dÏ54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÍview€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÏtherefrom.€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,Ïa€guilty€verdict€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€which€the€appellantÏenjoyed€at€trial€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493ÏS.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€The€appellant€has€the€burden€of€overcomingÏthis€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòId.óóÌà àÌà àWhere€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€forÏan€appellate€court€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€or€crimes€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61ÏL.Ed.2d€560€(1979);€òòState€v.€Abramsóó,€935€S.W.2d€399,€401€(Tenn.€1996).€TheÏweight€and€credibility€of€the€witnesses'€testimony€are€matters€entrustedÏexclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,Ï547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).ÌÌà àSergeant€Pipkins€testified€that€he€observed€the€defendant€make€anÏimproper€turn€and€deviate€from€the€roadway.€€He€further€testified€that€theÏdefendant€had€a€strong€smell€of€alcohol€on€her€person,€was€unsteady€on€herÏfeet,€had€slurred€speech€and€was€unable€to€satisfactorily€perform€two€(2)€of€theÏthree€(3)€field€sobriety€tests€administered.€€The€jury€also€heard€testimony€fromÏthe€officer€that€the€defendant€appeared€to€be€under€the€influence€of€anÍintoxicant.€€When€viewed€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€there€is€sufficientÏevidence€in€the€record€for€the€jury€to€have€rendered€a€guilty€verdict.€€This€issueÏis€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòMISTRIALó óóóÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendantððs€second€assignment€of€error€is€that€the€trial€court€abusedÏits€discretion€in€overruling€her€motion€for€a€mistrial.€€The€defendant€moved€for€aÏmistrial€at€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€courtððs€òòvoir€direóó€examination€of€the€jury€pool.€ÏWhile€informing€the€jury€as€to€the€issues€they€would€be€deciding,€the€trial€courtÏmistakenly€included€the€revoked€license€and€implied€consent€charges€which,Ïalthough€in€the€same€indictment,€had€been€severed€for€the€jury€trial.€€TheÏdefendant€contends€the€mention€of€the€other€charges€might€have€caused€theÏjury€to€infer€she€had€previously€been€convicted€of€driving€under€the€influence,Ïthereby€unfairly€prejudicing€her.ÌÌà àNo€contemporaneous€objection€was€made€at€the€time€the€trial€courtÏrelayed€this€information€to€the€jury.€€An€objection€was€made€out€of€the€presenceÏof€the€jury€after€the€trial€court€completed€its€initial€òòvoir€direóó€of€the€jury.€€The€trialÏcourt€acknowledged€its€mistake€and€gave€the€following€curative€instruction€toÏthe€prospective€jurors:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àLadies€and€gentlemen,€the€Court€may€have€mentioned€„„„ÏThe€charge€here€today€is€Driving€Under€the€Influence€of€anÏIntoxicant.€€The€Court€was€in€error€in€any€other€charges€that€theÍCourt€may€have€explained€to€you.€€But€the€only€charge€youððll€beÏdealing€with€here€today€is€Driving€Under€the€Influence€of€anÏIntoxicant.ÓÓÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àThe€determination€of€whether€to€grant€a€mistrial€rests€within€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€871€S.W.2d€667,€672€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏThe€reviewing€court€should€not€overturn€that€decision€absent€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€947€S.W.2d€181,€184€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€TheÏburden€of€establishing€the€necessity€for€mistrial€lies€with€the€party€seeking€it.€ÏòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€385,€388€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€In€making€thisÏdetermination,€no€abstract€formula€should€be€mechanically€applied,€and€allÏcircumstances€should€be€taken€into€account.€€òòState€v.€Mounceóó,€859€S.W.2d€319,Ï322€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€gave€a€curative€instruction€to€the€jury€concerning€theÏcharges.€€The€jury,€absent€evidence€to€the€contrary,€is€presumed€to€haveÏfollowed€the€trial€courtððs€curative€instructions.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,Ï914€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€at€388.€€The€defendantððsÏcontention€that€she€might€have€been€prejudiced€is€not€sufficient€to€overcome€theÏpresumption.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòJURY€INSTRUCTIONSóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àFinally,€the€defendant€claims€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€on€driving€underÍthe€influence€of€an€intoxicant€was€prejudicial€in€that€it€included€all€intoxicants,Ïyet€the€state€previously€ð ðelectedðð€to€prove€alcohol€as€the€means€of€theÏdefendantððs€intoxication.€€The€ð ðelectionðð€was€made€by€the€state€at€theÏdefendantððs€request€at€the€conclusion€of€the€stateððs€proof.€€Subsequently,€theÏtrial€courtððs€jury€charge€was€as€follows:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àAny€person€who€commits€the€offense€of€driving€under€theÏinfluence€of€an€intoxicant€is€guilty€of€a€crime.€€For€you€to€find€theÏdefendant€guilty€of€this€offense,€the€state€must€have€provenÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€the€followingÏelements.€€That€the€defendant€was€driving€an€automobile€or€motorÏdriven€vehicle€and€that€this€act€occurred€on€a€public€road€orÏhighway€or€a€public€street€or€alley,€and€that€the€defendant€wasÏunder€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€The€expression€ð ðunder€theÏinfluence€of€an€intoxicantðð€covers€not€only€„„€covers€not€only€all€theÏwell„known€and€easily€recognized€conditions€and€degrees€ofÏintoxication,€but€also€any€mental€or€physical€condition€which€is€theÏresult€of€taking€intoxicants,€in€any€form,€and€which€deprives€one€ofÏthat€clearness€of€mind€and€control€of€herself€which€she€wouldÏotherwise€possess.ÓÓÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àThe€defendant€contends€this€instruction€casts€doubt€on€whether€the€juryððsÏverdict€was€unanimous€as€to€the€type€of€intoxicant.€€The€defendant€complainsÏthe€wording€of€the€instruction€could€have€led€some€jurors€to€convict€her€of€beingÏunder€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€other€than€alcohol.ÌÌà àOne€of€the€leading€cases€in€this€state€on€the€doctrine€of€election€isÏòòBurlison€v.€Stateóó,€501€S.W.2d€801€(Tenn.€1973).€€In€that€case,€after€the€stateÏintroduced€proof€of€numerous€incidents€of€sexual€abuse€over€a€period€of€time,Ïthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€the€state€was€required€to€ð ðelectðð€theÍparticular€offense€upon€which€it€was€seeking€a€conviction.€€òòBurlisonóó,€501€S.W.2dÏat€804.€€One€of€the€reasons€for€requiring€an€election€in€that€case€was€to€ensureÏthe€unanimity€of€the€juryððs€verdict,€avoiding€a€situation€where€one€jurorÏconvicted€for€one€occurrence€and€other€jurors€for€another€occurrence.€€òòId.óó€atÏ803.€€More€recently,€our€Supreme€Court€has€ruled€that€the€state€must€make€anÏelection€ð ðwhen€it€is€pursuing€convictions€for€discrete€crimes€and€proof€ofÏadditional€discrete€crimes€has€been€introduced€at€trial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hoxieóó,€___ÏS.W.2d___,___€(Tenn.€1998).ÌÌà àThe€doctrine€of€election€does€not€apply€to€a€single€offense€of€drivingÏunder€the€influence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ernest€Seibersóó,€C.C.A.€No.€89„20„III,€WhiteÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€June€29,€1989,€at€Nashville).€€The€defendant€wasÏcharged€with€only€one€offense€of€driving€under€the€influence.€€The€proof€showedÏonly€one€offense.€€Therefore,€the€state€was€not€required€to€elect€a€particular€typeÏof€intoxicant.ÌÌà àRegardless,€the€state€only€relied€upon€alcohol€to€have€caused€theÏdefendantððs€impairment.€€The€defendant€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€use€of€theÏword€ð ðintoxicantðð€instead€of€the€word€ð ðalcoholðð€in€the€jury€charge.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€36(b).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________ò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌó ó