ÿWPCþ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw¸Ý4• © ¸ À 0lÈ 0D4 x 0J€ 0TÊ 0^ 0h| 0rä 0|V 0†Ò 0X 1uè 0d] BÁU>ÞU*B)FDCo AM²îÿ D3í¨ v~È 0@FvÓ† AOYƨ 0Dn D/² Bá˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡E‘D’D“e”•D–—˜V™DšV›DœDžVŸ e¡¢D£¤¥D¦§D¨©Dª«D¬Ó€Ô¡¨ x3|xµ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ äÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌDecember€17,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó""""'ÿÿdxd žÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  Ýà àÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€%Ôà àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€trooper€also€testified€the€machine€was€functioningÏproperly,€€he€was€a€certified€operator,€and€all€operational€procedures€wereÏfollowed.€The€defendant€has€raised€no€issue€concerning€any€of€these€aspects€ofÏthe€test.à àÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`("ÿÿ$££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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÙ€€ÙÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€%Ôò òÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œßR€()'A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌÌIN€THE€CRIMINAL€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLEó óÌSEPTEMBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)€€€€€€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9608„CC„00377Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€Williamson€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òMARK€BATEMAN,à àó óà àà àà à)€€€€€€Honorable€Cornelia€A.€Clark,ÏJudgeÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà àó ó)ò òà àà àó óà àà àÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)€€€€€€(Driving€While€Under€the€Influence)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà à€€€€€€€€€FOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌE.€Covington€Johnstonà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€JOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ136€Fourth€Avenue€Southà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÌFranklin,€TN€37064à àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€500€Charlotte€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€DARYL€J.€BRANDÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Criminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€JOSEPH€D.€BAUGHÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€MARK€PURYEARÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Assistant€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€P.O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Franklin,€TN€37065„1608Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_____________ÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌó óCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÇÓ  ÓÓÓò òÑ7€ìáXXdðXXdð7ÑOPINIONó óÌÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant,€Mark€Bateman,€appeals€his€Williamson€CountyÏCircuit€Court€conviction€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€€HavingÏbeen€convicted€in€a€bench€trial€of€violating€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ55„10„401,€€the€defendant€received€a€six„month€sentence€which€was€fullyÏsuspended€after€he€served€five€days,€day„for„day,€in€the€county€jail.€€He€wasÏplaced€on€unsupervised€probation€for€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days,€finedÏ$350,€and€had€his€driver's€license€revoked€for€a€year.€€On€appeal,€the€defendantÏcomplains€that€(1)€the€results€of€the€breath„alcohol€test€should€have€beenÏexcluded€from€the€evidence€and€(2)€the€indictment€should€have€been€dismissedÏbecause€the€defendant€was€denied€the€opportunity€to€receive€an€independentÏblood„alcohol€test.€€After€review€of€the€record€and€the€briefs€submitted€by€theÏparties,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€wrecked€his€automobile€on€Highway€96€East€inÏWilliamson€County.€€When€a€state€trooper€arrived€at€the€scene€of€the€one„carÏaccident,€the€defendant€was€alone€and€admitted€he€was€driving.€€The€trooper,Ïan€experienced€officer,€€testified€without€objection€that,€contrary€to€theÏdefendantððs€version€of€the€accident€that€a€tire€blew€out€and€caused€him€to€wreck,Ïthe€accident€appeared€to€have€been€caused€when€the€defendant€drove€off€theÏedge€of€the€pavement€and€lost€control€of€his€vehicle,€causing€him€to€careenÏacross€the€road,€travel€down€an€embankment,€and€collide€with€some€trees.€€TheÍtrooper€testified€the€defendant€€seemed€disoriented,€smelled€of€alcohol,€and,Ïwhile€being€questioned,€the€defendant€vomited.€€After€first€denying€he€had€beenÏdrinking,€the€defendant€then€admitted€drinking€a€beer.€€The€trooper€asked€theÏdefendant€to€perform€the€one„legged€stand,€a€field€sobriety€test.€€The€defendantÏattempted€to€perform€as€instructed€but€was€unable€to€stand€alone€and€had€to€beÏassisted€by€the€officer€to€prevent€his€falling.€The€trooper€testified€that,€in€hisÏopinion,€the€defendant€was€ð ðextremely€intoxicated.ðð€The€trooper€arrested€theÏdefendant€and€transported€him€to€the€jail.€€During€the€trip,€the€defendantÏbecame€loud€and€belligerent,€causing€the€trooper€to€stop€and€place€handcuffsÏon€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àà àAfter€arriving€at€the€jail,€the€defendant€signed€an€implied€consentÏform€for€a€breath„alcohol€test.€€€The€trooper€was€asked€on€cross„examination,Ïð ðDid€[the€defendant]€ask€you€about€the€blood€test?ðð€The€officer€testified€he€toldÏthe€defendant€that€the€defendant€could€go€to€the€Williamson€County€Hospital€toÏtake€his€own€blood„alcohol€test€at€his€own€expense.€€€€€The€trooper€testified€theÏdefendant€was€not€asked€to€rinse€his€mouth€between€the€vomiting€and€theÏadministering€of€the€breath„alcohol€test€on€the€Intoximeter€3000€machine,€norÏdid€the€defendant€request€the€opportunity€to€rinse€his€mouth.€€The€trooperÏobserved€the€defendant€from€11:57€p.m.€until€12:21€a.m.€prior€to€administeringÏthe€test.€€During€this€time,€the€defendant€did€not€belch,€eat,€drink,€vomit€or€haveÍforeign€matter€in€his€mouth.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€The€test€was€administered€and€yielded€a€result€ofÏ.15.€€€The€defendant€offered€no€proof€at€the€trial.ÌÌà àà àPrior€to€trial,€the€defendant€challenged,€through€motions€thatÏappear€in€the€technical€record,€€the€admissibility€of€the€breath„alcohol€test€result,Ïand€further,€he€moved€the€dismissal€of€the€indictment€on€the€grounds€that€heÏwas€€denied€the€right€to€obtain€an€independent€blood€test.€€The€trial€courtÏoverruled€these€motions€after€a€hearing,€but€the€proceedings€and€any€evidenceÏadduced€during€the€hearing€were€not€preserved€in€the€record€on€this€appeal.€€€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€bench€trial,€the€trial€judge€found€theÏdefendant€guilty€of€driving€under€the€influence€so€as€to€be€impaired,€and€sheÏfurther€found€that,€in€addition€to€the€breath„alcohol€test€result€of€.15,€which€sheÏacknowledged€to€be€ð ðjust€an€inference,ðð€there€was€independent€circumstantialÏevidence€of€the€defendantððs€guilt,€including€the€smell€of€alcohol€on€his€person;Ïthe€likelihood€the€impairment€caused€the€accident,€in€view€of€the€defendantððsÏuntruthfulness€about€the€cause;€the€defendantððs€sickness€and€vomiting;€hisÏinability€to€ambulate€without€the€officerððs€assistance;€his€failure€of€the€fieldÏsobriety€test;€and€his€bizarre€behavior€during€the€trip€to€the€jail.€ÌÌà àà àWe€review€this€case€upon€the€record€preserved€from€the€benchÏtrial.€€As€noted€above,€the€record€does€not€include€the€proceedings€upon€theÏdefendantððs€motion€to€suppress€and€motion€to€dismiss.€€To€the€extent€theÏdefendant€is€challenging€the€trial€courtððs€disposition€of€these€motions,€hisÏchallenge€fails€at€this€point.€€€ÌÌà àà àIt€is€the€appellantððs€duty€to€ensure€that€the€record€on€appealÏcontains€all€of€the€evidence€relevant€to€those€issues€which€are€the€bases€ofÏappeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b);€òòState€v.€Deborah€Gladishóó,€No.€02C01„9404„CC„00070,€slip€op.€at€14„15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Nov.€21,€1995),€òòperm.€app.Ïdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Banesóó,€874€S.W.2d€73,€82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).€€In€the€absence€of€such€a€record,€the€affected€issues€are€waived.€€òòState€v.ÏOodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€€ð ðIn€the€absence€of€anÏadequate€record€on€appeal,€this€court€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€rulingsÏwere€supported€by€sufficient€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óóÌÌà àà àWe€point€out,€however,€that€the€defendant€also€objected€at€trial€toÏthe€introduction€of€the€breath„alcohol€test€results.€€Giving€the€defendant€theÏbenefit€of€the€doubt,€we€will€treat€the€objection€as€embracing€both€issues€nowÏraised€on€appeal;€however,€the€only€evidence€in€the€record€which€bears€uponÏeither€issue€is€the€trial€testimony€of€the€trooper.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€complaint€about€the€breath€test€procedure€isÍpredicated€upon€his€claim€that€the€breath€sample€taken€subsequent€to€theÏvomiting€and€without€a€rinsing€of€his€mouth€was€flawed€and€should€beÏsuppressed.€€He€bases€€his€argument€upon€our€supreme€courtððs€holdings€inÏòòState€v.€McCaslinóó,€894€S.W.2d€310€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€and€òòState€v.ÏSensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€412€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€òòSensingóó,€the€test€products€of€theÏIntoximeter€3000,€the€machine€used€to€test€the€defendant€in€the€present€case,Ïwere€held€to€be€admissible€without€the€necessity€of€a€certified€operator€testifyingÏas€to€his€knowledge€of€the€ð ðscientific€technology€involved€in€the€function€of€theÏmachine,ðð€so€long€as€the€operator„witness€could€testify€to€prescribedÏoperational€or€procedural€facts,€including€the€taking€of€certain€precautions€toÏassure€the€validity€of€the€subjectððs€breath€sample.€€òòSensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€at€416.€ÏThese€precautions€are€ð ðthat€the€motorist€was€observed€for€the€requisite€20Ïminutes€prior€to€the€test,€and€during€this€period,€he€did€not€have€foreign€matter€inÏhis€mouth,€did€not€consume€any€alcoholic€beverage,€smoke,€or€regurgitate.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€ÏIn€òòMcCaslinóó,€the€DUI€conviction€was€reversed,€based€upon€the€officerððs€failure€toÏcomply€with€the€twenty„minute€rule€in€that€the€accused€was€observed€for€onlyÏsixteen€minutes.€€òòMcCaslinóó,€894€S.W.2d€at€311.€€This€court€held€that€ð ðtheÏrequirements€established€in€òòSensingóó€are€a€condition€precedent€to€theÏadmissibility€of€breath€test€results.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€312.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€acknowledge€the€rule€of€òòMcCaslinóó€that€the€òòSensingóóÏsafeguards€go€to€the€admissibility,€rather€than€the€weight,€of€the€offered€testÏresults;€however,€unlike€òòMcCaslinóó€where€there€was€an€undisputed€failure€toÍobserve€the€defendant€for€the€required€twenty€minutes,€in€the€present€case€thereÏis€no€proven€violation€of€the€òòSensingóó€requirements.€€It€is€uncontroverted€that€theÏobservation€in€excess€of€twenty€minutes€occurred€and€that€during€theÏobservation€period€none€of€the€invalidating€events€occurred.€€Of€course,€it€isÏalso€uncontroverted€that€the€defendant€vomited€approximately€one€hour€prior€toÏtaking€the€test,€but€òòSensingóó€does€not€purport€to€invalidate€a€breath€test€resultÏbecause€the€subject€vomited€at€òòanyóó€time€prior€to€taking€the€test.€€Common€senseÏindicates€that€the€selection€of€the€twenty„minute€precautionary€period€wasÏjudiciously€imposed€to€protect€against€the€skewing€of€test€results€due€to€recentÏdigestive€episodes€experienced€by€the€accused.€€Obviously,€other€suchÏepisodes€may€well€have€occurred€before€the€arrival€and€the€supervisory€Ïpresence€of€the€officer.€€The€possibility€of€these€more€remote€episodes€are€takenÏinto€account€by€the€adoption€of€the€twenty„minute€rule€and€are,€therefore,Ïirrelevant€for€our€purposes,€especially€in€the€absence€of€proof€showing€that€theÏvomiting€actually€caused€some€defect€in€the€test€results.€€There€being€noÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€test€result€was€otherwise€flawed,€we€affirm€theÏtrial€court€in€overruling€the€òòSensingóó„based€objection€to€the€admissibility€of€theseÏbreath„test€results.€ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€had€error€been€committed€in€allowing€this€evidence,Ïwe€are€certain€that€any€such€error€would€have€been€harmless.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€€€We€are€aware€that€in€òòMcCaslinóó€this€courtÏreversed€the€trial€court€and€declined€to€find€harmless€error€in€the€wake€of€theÍòòSensingóó€violation.€€òòMcCaslinóó,€894€S.W.2d€at€312.€€However,€in€òòMcCaslinóó,€weÏpointed€out€the€difficulty€in€determining€ð ðthe€weight,€if€any,€given€by€òòaóó€òòjuryóó€to€anÏitem€of€evidence.ðð€€òòIdóó.€(emphasis€added).€€Also,€the€òòMcCaslinóó€jury€was€chargedÏunder€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„408(b)€(1993)€(being€theÏpredecessor€provision€to€current€section€55„10„408(a))€that€the€test€resultsÏcreated€a€rebuttable€presumption€of€intoxication,€as€opposed€to€a€mereÏinference.€€òòSeeóó€òòSandstrom€v.€Montanaóó,€442€U.S.€510,€99€S.€Ct.€2450€(1979);ÏòòState€v.€Cokeróó,€746€S.W.2d€167,€170€(Tenn.€1987)€(invalidating€the€use€of€theÏword€ð ðpresumptionðð€in€jury€instructions).€€€However,€in€the€present€case,€the€trialÏjudge€was€the€trier€of€fact,€and€she€affirmatively€acknowledged€that€(1)€the€effectÏof€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„408(a)€is€to€supply€an€inferenceÏonly,€and€(2)€there€was€evidence€independent€of€the€test€result€sufficient€toÏconvict€the€defendant.€€The€record€supports€the€trial€court€in€this€lastÏobservation,€and€consequently,€unlike€the€situation€in€òòMcCaslinóó,€we€can€discernÏthe€extent€to€which€the€trier€of€fact€relied€upon€the€test€results.€Had€there€beenÏany€òòSensingóó€error,€it€could€not€be€viewed€as€affecting€the€outcome.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€asserts€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€obtain€aÏblood€test.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„410(e)€(Supp.€1997).€€However,€theÏonly€€evidence€before€us€is€the€trooperððs€testimony,€and€the€extent€of€thatÏtestimony€on€the€subject€is€the€trooperððs€answer€to€the€question,€ð ðDid€[theÏdefendant]€ask€you€about€the€blood€test?ðð€€The€trooper€acknowledged€theÍquestion€and€testified€he€told€the€defendant€that€he€could€obtain€his€own€bloodÏtest€at€the€Williamson€County€Hospital.€€The€trooper€denied€that€the€defendantÏrequested€a€blood€test€in€lieu€of€a€breath€test.€€As€such,€the€record€reveals€noÏrequest€nor€demand€for€a€blood€test.€If€the€defendant€had€a€desire€to€receive€aÏblood€test,€the€record€does€not€reflect€that€he€made€his€desire€known€or€that€heÏotherwise€did€or€said€anything€to€initiate€the€procedure€for€the€blood€test.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€recognize€that,€apart€from€section€55„10„410(e),€a€defendantððsÏð ðdue€process€rights€[are]€violated€when€the€police€interfere[€]€with€theÏDefendantððs€òòattemptóó€to€obtain€evidence€necessary€to€his€defense.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏLivesayóó,€941€S.W.2d€63,€66€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(emphasis€added).€€InÏòòLivesayóó,€the€DUI€arrestee€requested€his€doctor€to€come€to€the€jail€in€order€toÏadminister€an€independent€blood€test,€but€the€police€disallowed€the€test.€InÏholding€that€this€action€of€the€police€denied€the€accused€his€due€process€of€law,Ïwe€acknowledged€that€ððð ðthere€is€no€duty€or€obligation€on€law€enforcementÏofficers€to€administer€a€blood€test,ðððð€as€long€as€they€do€not€ððð ðfrustrate€theÏòòreasonableóó€òòeffortsóó€of€an€accused€to€obtain€a€timely€sample€of€his€blood....ðððð€ÏòòLivesayóó,€941€S.W.2d€at€66€(quoting€with€approval€òòBrown€v.€Municipal€Courtóó,€86ÏCal.€App.€3d€357,€150€Cal.€Rptr.€216,€219€(1978))€(internal€citations€omitted)Ï(emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€the€present€case,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€theÏofficer(s)€hampered€or€obstructed€any€effort€by€the€defendant€to€obtain€a€bloodÍtest.€€Moreover,€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€defendant€made€any€effort€toÏobtain€the€test.€€€As€such,€the€facts€of€the€case€fit€more€neatly€within€theÏlanguage€of€òòState€v.€Choateóó,€667€S.W.2d€111€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€InÏòòChoateóó,€we€affirmed€the€DUI€conviction€and€recognized€the€due€process€right€ofÏa€DUI€arrestee€to€obtain€his€own€blood€test€at€the€place€of€incarceration€and€thatÏthe€right€would€be€violated€if€the€police€interfered€with€the€exercise€of€it.€€òòChoateóó,Ï667€S.W.2d€at€112.€€It€was€pointed€out€in€òòChoateóó€that€the€defendant€did€notÏrequest€the€opportunity€to€summon€his€doctor€or€otherwise€to€obtain€a€bloodÏtest.€€We€adopted€the€trial€courtððs€language€which€in€part€provided:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓð ðThere€is€no€proof€in€the€record€that€the€police€officers€saidÏanything€or€did€anything€to€indicate€that€they€would€interfere€withÏthe€defendant€if€he€wanted€to€call€a€doctor€or€other€qualifiedÏperson€to€come€down€to€the€jail€and€take€a€sample€of€his€blood€forÏtesting.€€Clearly€there€was€no€interference€with€the€right€of€or€theÏability€of€the€defendant€to€have€his€own€chosen€test€conducted€atÏhis€own€expense€at€the€place€of€incarceration.ððÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòChoateóó,€667€S.W.2d€at€113.€€We€held€there€was€no€affirmative€obligation€on€theÏpolice€to€make€a€blood€test€available€to€the€accused.€€òòIdóó.€€That€holding€controlsÏthe€result€in€the€present€case.€€Based€upon€the€proof€in€the€record,€there€is€noÏviolation€of€the€defendantððs€statutory€or€due€process€rights.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÓÓÌ_________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ__________________________________€€ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE