ÿWPC- ·‹DïÛØÄ)r¸Fò¿“—gÓ³ÜíS3¡p7îWÅ5þmväTÞ•î­µüéh,Ej:><ðSWgš=l†1BºH—#ÞŽTYÑ(Ï™.šÕäG'ÝÓ”¢+mÐñ„ã a^&‡/=ó‰í±T Wa)¯d;3–bù þ¤½“d@hl› „»]éc€¢Fðð(âÙÿ÷ˆ0µ •0£0N,s fÖ¦œO .ÕÕ;o×#à%S´Qw¢ÎWzèæ|°¢& /îO_Œ§Á0Éï À>”2TÉÏ‘µbwJÄ r´'y¾uŸ†|æÒ^ÑSH5I±/Ó¤FãSzÇÛ‡â>Þâõ~úfpå‘Y³JLS¹hK›I¬>?P¨+nϵµKÉaú'˜J嬚…£¾IT ßݵØ•ãHÓKyZ1/\û: Àñ{8_t¥ûv7DÆ/nOÁÿ˾ÀGîQñ ½ààf9wbÚWtM0›±Ít﮹ý;†·Œò¹½™àãÈ ßKEï{k9—î1c+äÄÈYæKÞüfaöT@®vewþép8å2.<,˨:äóÊ4‚ßd;pÖ*߇ÀVd‚”DÉ¿Ø5t“G¦\ö ÈìdŽ±*b#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% UN­ û Û zÞ ÒX z*Ò¤^ vw‚ƆÆLÆÆØ4žN²´ÃEÅ mÇ 0DÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞb"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 0ë**** B 0¤2 D3Ö D-  0K66 ASÆÔ 0¤š 0D> A«‚˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular  ÑÝ ƒRôs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôè­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Supreme€Court€overruled€òòBaldasaróó€in€òòNichols€v.€United€Statesóó,€511€U.S.€738,748„749,€114€S.€Ct.€1921,Ð ° Ð1928€(1994).€€Nevertheless,€the€Court€in€òòNicholsóó€reaffirmed€that€an€uncounseled€conviction€cannot€be€used€to€enhanceÐ tÄ Ðpunishment€for€a€subsequent€conviction€unless,€under€òòScott€v.€Illinoisóó,€440€U.S.€367,€99€S.€Ct.€1158€(1979),€no€prisonÐ 8ˆ Ðterm€was€imposed€for€the€uncounseled€conviction€or€the€defendant€waived€his€right€to€counsel.€òòNicholsóó,€511€U.S.€at€748„Ð üL Ð749,€114€S.€Ct.€at€1928. ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptŠ2+ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÖJ~'貤3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2ôs$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€R5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôè­ò»»Ô d(|3G{$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€R5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G{$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€R5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€R5»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼R5»»»ÔÑ8€éXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îO$R5ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼R5»îîO$ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€April€25,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XéX»¼R5ÔÌò òÔ#†¼R5»XXé#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€òòóóROBERT€G.€BEANÔ‡XéX»¼R5Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€II„76„400€€€€€€Timothy€L.€Easter,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„02797„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€September€18,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€appellant,€Robert€G.€Bean,€challenges€his€conviction€in€the€Williamson€County€Circuit€CourtÐ xÈ  Ðof€one€count€of€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€(Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô),€third€offense.€€He€presents€theÐ d´ Ðfollowing€issues€for€our€determination:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€appellantððsÐ P  Ðchallenge€for€cause€of€prospective€juror€Thelma€Ô_ÔWoodardÔ_Ô;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ <Œ Ðdenying€the€appellantððs€motion€to€suppress€the€Stateððs€use€at€trial€of€the€videotape€of€the€traffic€stopÐ (x Ðof€the€appellantððs€vehicle;€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€adultÐ d Ðdriving€while€impaired€as€a€lesser„included€offense€of€driving€under€the€influence;€and€(4)€whetherÐ P Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€using€the€appellantððs€1996€conviction€of€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô€to€enhance€the€appellantððsÐ ì< Ðsentence.€€Following€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€and€the€partiesðð€briefs,€we€affirm€the€judgmentÐ Ø( Ðof€the€trial€court.Ð Ä ÐÓÄÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ œì ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼R5»àXé•#ÔÔ‡XéX.¼R5ÔNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€and€òòAlanÐ tÄ ÐE.€Glenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð `° ÐÌLee€Ô_ÔOfmanÔ_Ô,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Robert€G.€Bean.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð #`" ÐRonald€L.€Davis,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Lee€Dryer€and€Derek€Smith,€Assistant€DistrictÐ ü#L# ÐAttorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓ$ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼R5»XXéS #ÔÔ‡XéX»¼R5ÔÐ À&"& ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼R5»XXé< #ÔÔ‡XéX»¼R5ÔÓ  Óà@ìàò òòòI.€€Factual€Backgroundó óóóˆÐ ˜(è#( Ðà  àà ` àIn€the€early€morning€hours€of€January€14,€2000,€Trooper€Richard€Cash€of€theÐ „)Ô$) ÐTennessee€State€Highway€Patrol€was€seated€in€his€patrol€car€on€the€shoulder€of€Interstate€HighwayÐ p*À%* Ð65€in€Williamson€County€and€observed€the€appellant€drive€past€in€an€erratic€manner.€€In€particular,Ð \+¬&+ ÐCash€noted€that,€although€the€appellant€was€driving€his€vehicle€below€the€posted€speed€limit,€heÐ H,˜', Ðcrossed€two€lanes€of€traffic€and€veered€into€the€emergency€lane€before€returning€to€a€center€lane.€Ð 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_ÔCash€proceeded€to€follow€the€appellant€for€several€minutes,€activating€video€recording€equipmentÐ ° Ðin€his€patrol€car.€€The€appellant€continued€to€swerve€over€the€lines€demarcating€his€lane.€Ð œì ÐAccordingly,€Cash€activated€his€emergency€lights.€€The€appellant€did€not€respond,€however,€forcingÐ ˆØ ÐCash€to€employ€his€siren.€€At€this€point,€the€appellant€stopped€his€vehicle€on€the€shoulder€of€theÐ tÄ Ðhighway.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€Cash€approached€the€appellantððs€vehicle€on€foot,€he€noticed€a€strong€odor€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðalcohol€emanating€from€the€vehicle.€€The€trooper€requested€the€appellantððs€driverððs€license,€and€theÐ $ t Ðappellant€fumbled€for€his€wallet€for€some€time,€prompting€the€trooper€to€ask€the€appellant€to€get€outÐ  ` Ðof€his€vehicle.€€Despite€the€trooperððs€request,€the€appellant€continued€his€efforts€to€retrieve€his€wallet.€Ð ü L  ÐAccordingly,€Cash€himself€opened€the€driverððs€door.€€Ô#†¼R5»XXéš #ÔÔ‡XéX»¼R5ÔWhen€the€appellant€emerged€from€his€vehicle,Ð è 8  ÐCash€noted€that€the€appellantððs€movements€were€slow€and€deliberate,€and€the€appellant€appeared€toÐ Ô$  Ðhave€difficulty€maintaining€his€balance.€€Additionally,€Cash€observed€that€the€appellantððs€eyes€wereÐ À  Ðbloodshot,€and€his€speech€was€slurred.€€Cash€administered€the€ð ðwalk€and€turnðð€and€ð ðone„leggedÐ ¬ü  Ðstandðð€field€sobriety€tests,€both€of€which€tests€the€appellantÔ#†¼R5»XXéÀ#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼R5Ô€performed€ð ðvery,€veryðð€poorly.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àFollowing€his€administration€of€the€field€sobriety€tests,€Cash€placed€the€appellantÐ pÀ Ðunder€arrest.€€Pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„406€(1998),€Cash€then€requested€the€appellantððsÐ \¬ Ðpermission€to€test€his€blood€alcohol€content,€advising€the€appellant€of€the€potential€consequences€ofÐ H˜ Ðhis€refusal.€€The€appellant€refused€to€submit€to€any€test,€and€Cash€transported€the€appellant€to€theÐ 4„ ÐWilliamson€County€Jail.Ô#†¼R5»XXéô#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼R5ÔÐ  p ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ#†¼R5»XXéx#ÔÔ€XéX»¼R5ÔOn€April€10,€2000,€a€Williamson€County€Grand€Jury€returned€a€two„countÐ øH Ðpresentment€charging€the€appellant€as€a€repeat€offender€with€driving€under€the€influence.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðappellantððs€case€proceeded€to€trial€on€September€6,€2000.€€In€the€first€phase€of€the€bifurcatedÐ Ð  Ðproceeding,€a€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€DUI.€€In€the€second€phase,€the€appellant€waived€hisÐ ¼  Ðright€to€a€jury,€and€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€appellant€had€been€convicted€on€two€priorÐ ¨ø Ðoccasions€of€DUI.€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€found€that€on€September€27,€1995,€the€appellant€wasÐ ”ä Ðconvicted€of€DUI€in€the€Williamson€County€General€Sessions€Court,€and€on€March€27,€1996,€theÐ €Ð Ðappellant€was€convicted€of€DUI,€second€offense,€in€the€Davidson€County€General€Sessions€Court.€Ð l¼ ÐIn€accordance€with€its€findings€and€following€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€sentenceÐ X ¨ Ðof€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€in€the€Williamson€County€Jail,€suspending€all€but€160€daysÐ D!” Ðof€the€sentence€and€placing€the€appellant€on€probation.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà@éé$ìàò òòòII.€€Analysisó óóóˆÐ $X" Ðò òà  àA.à0 ` àChallenge€for€Cause€of€Prospective€Juroró ó€ò òThelma€Woodard€ó óÐô$D #` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àIn€this€appeal,€the€appellant€first€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€hisÐ ä%4!$ Ðchallenge€for€cause€of€prospective€juror€Thelma€Woodard.€€With€respect€to€this€issue,€the€recordÐ Ð& "% Ðreflects€that,€during€the€voir€dire€of€prospective€jurors,€Woodard€communicated€to€defense€counselÐ ¼' #& Ðher€belief€that€the€appellant€was€probably€guilty.€€Seeking€clarification,€the€trial€court€explained€toÐ ¨(ø#' ÐWoodard€the€presumption€of€innocence€accorded€an€accused€in€a€criminal€trial€and€inquired€ifÐ ”)ä$( ÐWoodard€could€accord€the€appellant€the€presumption.€€Woodard€responded,€ð ðI€can€try.ðð€Ð €*Ð%) ÐSubsequently,€however,€she€stated€her€belief€that€a€state€trooper€would€not€arrest€someone€withoutÐ l+¼&* Ðcause€and€would€not€testify€under€oath€falsely.€€Moreover,€when€defense€counsel€asked€theÐ ° Ðprospective€jurors€to€raise€their€hands€if€they€could€accord€his€client€the€presumption€of€innocence,Ð œì ÐWoodard€declined€to€raise€her€hand.€€Consequently,€the€trial€court€again€addressed€Woodard,€askingÐ ˆØ Ðher€if€she€could€set€aside€her€beliefs€if€he€so€instructed€her.€€She€replied,€ð ðI€can.ðð€€On€the€basis€of€herÐ tÄ Ðreply,€the€trial€court€denied€the€appellantððs€ensuing€challenge€of€Woodard€for€cause,€forcing€theÐ `° Ðappellant€to€use€a€peremptory€challenge€to€exclude€Woodard€from€the€jury.€€The€appellant€noted€toÐ L œ Ðthe€trial€court,€and€now€contends€on€appeal,€that€he€otherwise€exhausted€his€peremptory€challengesÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€was€therefore€unable€to€exclude€juror€Beverly€Hytken.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àBoth€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€the€Sixth€Amendment€toÐ ü L  Ðthe€United€States€Constitution€guarantee€an€accused€in€a€criminal€prosecution€the€right€to€a€trial€byÐ è 8  Ðan€impartial€jury.€€Consistent€with€these€constitutional€guarantees,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„1„106Ð Ô$  Ð(1994)€provides€that€a€trial€court€may€dismiss€a€juror€if€ð ða€state€of€mind€exists€on€the€jurorððs€partÐ À  Ðtoward€law€enforcement€or€which€will€prevent€the€juror€from€acting€impartially.ðð€€òòSee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.Ð ¬ü  ÐCrim.€P.€24(b).€€The€process€of€voir€dire€allows€not€only€the€trial€court€but€also€the€parties€anÐ ˜è  Ðopportunity€to€ensure€that€ð ðjurors€are€competent,€unbiased,€and€impartial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868Ð „Ô  ÐS.W.2d€238,€247€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€particular,€ð ð[t]he€right€of€challenge€for€cause€was€designed€toÐ pÀ Ðexclude€from€the€jury€triers€whose€bias€or€prejudice€rendered€them€unfit,€and€peremptory€challengeÐ \¬ Ðwas€intended€to€exclude€those€suspected€of€bias€or€prejudice.ðð€€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€292€S.W.€451,€455Ð H˜ Ð(Tenn.€1927);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Letivias€Princeóó,€No.€M1998„00005„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€1133572,Ð 4„ Ðat€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€August€10,€2000),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2001).Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€assessing€a€jurorððs€impartiality€following€a€challenge€for€cause,€the€trial€courtÐ øH Ðshould€inquire€ð ðwhether€the€jurorððs€views€would€ððprevent€or€substantially€impair€the€performanceÐ ä4 Ðof€[her]€duties€as€a€juror€in€accordance€with€[her]€instructions€and€[her]€oath.ðððð€€òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó,Ð Ð  Ð469€U.S.€412,€424,€105€S.€Ct.€844,€852€(1985));€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Harold€W.€Humphreysóó,€No.€M2001„Ð ¼  Ð00333„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€844400,€at€*10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€July€26,Ð ¨ø Ð2001)(applying€in€a€non„capital€case€the€standard€articulated€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Courtòòóó€forÐ ”ä Ðdetermining€when€a€juror€in€a€capital€case€may€be€excused€due€to€her€views€on€capital€punishment);Ð €Ð ÐòòState€v.€Billy€Gene€DeBow,€Sr.óó,€No.€M1999„02678„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€1137465,€at€*9€(Tenn.Ð l¼ ÐCrim.€App.€at€Nashville,€August€2,€2000),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2001)(applying€theÐ X ¨ Ðstandard€articulated€in€òòWittóó€in€a€non„capital€case).€€Thus,€when€a€prospective€juror€expressesÐ D!” Ðdisagreement€with€the€law,€ð ðit€should€be€determined€that€the€juror€cannot€or€will€not€follow€the€lawÐ 0"€  Ð(regardless€of€disagreement€with€it)€before€he€or€she€is€disqualified.ðð€€òòBrazelton€v.€Stateóó,€550€S.W.2dÐ #l! Ð7,€10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€771€S.W.2d€387,€400€(Tenn.€1989).€Ð $X" ÐSimilarly,€òòóóð ð[e]ven€the€formation€of€an€opinion€on€the€merits€will€not€disqualify€a€juror€if€she€can€layÐ ô$D # Ðaside€her€opinion€and€render€a€verdict€based€on€the€evidence€presented€in€court.ðð€€òòHumphreysóó,€No.Ð à%0!$ ÐM2001„00333„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€844400,€at€*10;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòPrinceóó,€No.€M1998„00005„CCA„R3„Ð Ì&"% ÐCD,€2000€WL€1133572,€at€*4;€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24,€Advisory€Commission€Comments.€€However,Ð ¸'#& Ðthe€rehabilitation€of€a€prospective€juror€who€has€formed€an€opinion€on€the€merits€ð ðshould€only€beÐ ¤(ô#' Ðallowed€with€great€care.ðð€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€535€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àA€determination€of€the€qualifications€of€a€juror€rests€within€the€discretion€of€the€trialÐ ° Ðâ âcourt€and€will€not€be€overturned€absent€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Kilburnóó,Ð œì Ð782€S.W.2d€199,€203€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€Indeed,€our€supreme€court€has€observed€that€a€trialÐ ˆØ Ðcourtððs€finding€of€impartiality€may€be€overturned€only€for€ð ðððmanifest€error.ðððð€€òòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2dÐ tÄ Ðat€248.€€The€court€has€explained:€ð ðThe€trial€court's€findings€on€this€issue€are€entitled€to€a€presumptionÐ `° Ðof€correctness€since€they€involve€a€determination€of€demeanor€and€credibility,€and€the€burden€restsÐ L œ Ðon€the€defendant€to€establish€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€trial€court's€determinationsÐ 8 ˆ Ðwere€erroneous.ðð€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€993€S.W.2d€6,€29€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,Ð $ t Ð64€(Tenn.€1992);€òòDeBowóó,€No.€M1999„02678„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€1137465,€at€*9.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€acknowledge€that€the€trial€courtððs€rehabilitation€of€Woodard€in€this€case€wasÐ è 8  Ðsomewhat€summary€in€light€of€the€prospective€jurorððs€prior€expressions€of€unwillingness€to€accordÐ Ô$  Ðthe€appellant€a€presumption€of€innocence€and€her€corresponding€admission€to€a€lack€of€impartiality.€Ð À  ÐòòCf.óó€òòState€v.€Irickóó,€762€S.W.2d€121,€125€(Tenn.€1988).€€The€difficulty€faced€by€the€appellant€in€thisÐ ¬ü  Ðappeal,€however,€is€that€any€error€by€the€trial€court€in€failing€to€exclude€Woodard€from€the€jury€forÐ ˜è  Ðcause€is€harmless€unless€the€jury€who€heard€the€case€was€not€fair€and€impartial.€€òòState€v.Ð „Ô  ÐMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€329€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239,€246€(Tenn.Ð pÀ Ð1989)òòóó.€€In€other€words,Ð \¬ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àa€defendant€who€disagrees€with€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€for€causeÐ H˜ Ðchallenges€must,€in€order€to€preserve€the€claim€that€the€rulingÐ 4„ Ðdeprived€him€of€a€fair€trial,€exercise€òòóóperemptory€challenges€to€removeÐ  p Ðthe€jurors.€€Even€then,€however,€the€failure€to€correctly€exclude€aÐ  \ Ðjuror€for€cause€is€grounds€for€reversal€only€if€the€defendant€exhaustsÐ øH Ðall€of€his€peremptory€challenges€òòand€an€incompetent€juror€is€forcedÐ ä4 Ðupon€himóó.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐòòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€248€(emphasis€added);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€329;€€òòState€v.Ð ¼  ÐGregory€Lynn€Reddenóó,€No.€M2000„00988„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€1879141,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ¨ø ÐApp.€at€Nashville,€December€28,€2000),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2001).€€Again,€the€appellantÐ ”ä Ðasserts€that€juror€Beverly€Hytken€was€forced€upon€him€by€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€excludeÐ €Ð ÐWoodard€for€cause€and€the€appellantððs€consequent€exhaustion€of€his€peremptory€challenges.€€Be€thatÐ l¼ Ðas€it€may,€the€appellant€has€made€no€effort€to€explain€why€juror€Beverly€Hytken€was€an€incompetentÐ X ¨ Ðjuror,€and€we€decline€to€grant€him€relief.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7);€Tenn.€Ct.€of€Crim.€App.€RuleÐ D!” Ð10(b).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àò òB.à0 ` àMotion€to€Suppress€Videotapeó óÐ$X"` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€pre„trial€motionÐ ô$D # Ðto€suppress€the€Stateððs€use€at€trial€of€the€videotape€of€Trooper€Cashððs€traffic€stop€of€the€appellantððsÐ à%0!$ Ðvehicle.€€With€respect€to€this€issue,€the€record€reflects€that€the€appellant€filed€a€motion€on€May€30,Ð Ì&"% Ð2000,€to€suppress€both€the€videotape€and€any€statements€made€by€the€appellant€to€Trooper€Cash.€€AsÐ ¸'#& Ðrelevant€to€this€appeal,€the€appellant€asserted€that€the€videotape€lacks€any€audio€component€and,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðtherefore,€ð ðdoes€not€give€a€complete€picture€of€what€transpired€at€the€time€of€the€[appellantððs]€arrest.ðð€Ð )à$( Ðâ âThe€appellant€concluded€that€the€admission€of€the€videotape€at€his€trial€would€deny€him€the€right€toÐ |*Ì%) Ða€fair€trial.€€Due€to€the€appellantððs€motion,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€suppression€hearing€on€AugustÐ ° Ð7,€2000.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€the€prosecutor€notified€the€trial€court€that€Trooper€CashÐ tÄ Ðhad€failed€to€honor€the€Stateððs€subpoena.€€The€prosecutor€largely€conceded€that,€due€to€CashððsÐ `° Ðabsence,€he€could€not€demonstrate€the€admissibility€of€statements€made€by€the€appellant€to€theÐ L œ Ðtrooper€and,€contrary€to€the€assertion€of€the€appellant€in€his€brief,€did€ask€that€the€court€continue€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðhearing€to€another€date€for€the€purpose€of€securing€the€trooperððs€presence.€€In€any€event,€theÐ $ t Ðprosecutor€asserted€that€the€admissibility€of€the€videotape€of€the€traffic€stop€was€not€dependent€uponÐ  ` ÐCashððs€presence€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€In€support€of€his€position,€the€prosecutor€cited€ourÐ ü L  Ðholding€in€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€637€S.W.2d€896,€898€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982),€that,€ð ð[p]rovided€that€aÐ è 8  Ðtape€recording€is€properly€authenticated,€the€incompleteness€of€it€goes€only€to€its€weight€and€not€toÐ Ô$  Ðits€admissibility.ðð€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Roy€Ray€Wallaceóó,€No.€E2000-00046-CCA-R3-CD,€2000€WLÐ À  Ð1782757,€*5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€December€6,€2000).€€The€appellant€responded€that€theÐ ¬ü  ÐState€was€required€to€authenticate€the€videotape€at€the€suppression€hearing€rather€than€at€trial.€€AtÐ ˜è  Ðthe€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€granted€the€appellantððs€motion€to€suppress€anyÐ „Ô  Ðstatements€made€by€him€to€Trooper€Cash€but€reserved€its€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€the€videotape.€Ð pÀ ÐImmediately€prior€to€the€appellantððs€trial,€the€court€ruled€that€the€videotape€was€admissible€onÐ \¬ Ðcondition€of€proper€authentication€by€the€State€at€trial.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€the€appellant€acknowledges€our€holding€in€òòHarrisóó,€637€S.W.2d€at€898,€butÐ  p Ðseeks€to€distinguish€òòHarrisóó€from€the€instant€case€on€the€sole€basis€that€his€challenge€implicated€hisÐ  \ Ðconstitutional€right€to€a€fair€trial€and€was€therefore€subject€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(3).€€TheÐ øH Ðappellant€explains€that,€ð ðwhere€a€constitutional€violation€is€alleged,€the€defendant€is€required€to€fileÐ ä4 Ða€Motion€to€Suppress,€pre„trial.€€.€.€.€.€€The€burden€of€going€forward€at€the€suppression€hearing€wasÐ Ð  Ðon€the€State.€.€.€.€The€State€failed€to€carry€its€burden.ðð€€In€other€words,€the€appellant€reiterates€hisÐ ¼  Ðassertion€that€the€State€was€required€to€authenticate€the€videotape€at€the€suppression€hearing€ratherÐ ¨ø Ðthan€at€trial.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àPreliminarily,€we€do€not€agree€that€the€appellant€was€required€by€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ð l¼ Ð12(b)(3)€to€challenge€the€admissibility€of€the€videotape€prior€to€trial.€€In€òòState€v.€Cookóó,€9€S.W.3d€98,Ð X ¨ Ð101€(Tenn.€1999),€our€supreme€court€quoted€with€approval€òòóóthe€following€construction€of€the€federalÐ D!” Ðcounterpart€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(3)€by€the€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€First€Circuit:Ð 0"€  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAt€least€as€used€in€12(b),€ð ðsuppressðð€has€a€rather€definite€and€limitedÐ #l! Ðmeaning€.€.€.€.€€Motions€to€suppress€are€described€as€ð ðobjections€toÐ $X" Ðevidence€on€the€ground€that€it€was€illegally€obtainedðð,€includingÐ ô$D # Ðð ðevidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€an€illegal€searchðð€and€ð ðother€formsÐ à%0!$ Ðof€illegality€such€as€the€use€of€unconstitutional€means€to€obtain€aÐ Ì&"% Ðconfession.ðð€€Put€generally,€then,€suppression€motions€concern€theÐ ¸'#& Ðð ðapplication€of€the€exclusionary€rule€of€evidenceðð,€or€matters€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðð ðððpolice€conduct€not€immediately€relevant€to€the€question€of€guiltððððÐ )à$( Ðâ â.€.€.€.Ð|*Ì%)` x` x ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Barlettaóó,€644€F.2d€50,€54€(1òòstóó€Cir.€1981)(citation€omitted).€€Again,€the€appellant€inÐ ° Ðâ âthis€case€did€not€allege€in€his€motion€that€the€police€obtained€the€videotape€illegally€but€only€that€theÐ œì Ðlack€of€an€audio€component€rendered€the€videotape€incomplete€and€its€admission€a€violation€of€hisÐ ˆØ Ðright€to€a€fair€trial.€€In€short,€the€appellantððs€utterance€of€the€words€ð ðfair€trialðð€did€not€transform€hisÐ tÄ Ðchallenge€into€one€that€òòmustóó€be€resolved€prior€to€trial.€€Indeed,€to€the€extent€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ `° ÐEvidence€are€intended€ð ðto€secure€the€just€.€.€.€determination€of€proceedings,ðð€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€102,Ð L œ Ðmost€evidentiary€challenges€can€be€said€to€implicate€a€defendantððs€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€Reduced€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðits€essence,€the€appellantððs€complaint€was€simply€an€invocation€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403,€which€ruleÐ $ t Ðprovides€that€ð ð[a]lthough€relevant,€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantiallyÐ  ` Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€.€.€.€or€misleading€the€jury.ððÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àThat€having€been€said,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(emphasis€added)€provides€that€ð ð[a]nyÐ Ô$  Ðdefense,€objection,€or€request€which€is€capable€of€determination€without€the€trial€of€the€general€issueÐ À  Ðòòmayóó€be€raised€before€trial€by€motion.ðð€€Notwithstanding€this€provision,€the€trial€court€may,€for€ð ðgoodÐ ¬ü  Ðcause,ðð€order€that€the€motion€be€deferred€for€determination€at€the€trial€of€the€general€issue.€€WeÐ ˜è  Ðconclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€the€instant€case€in€deferring€theÐ „Ô  Ðdetermination€of€the€appellantððs€motion.€€Significantly,€the€appellant€does€not€claim€on€appeal€thatÐ pÀ Ðthe€State€failed€to€properly€authenticate€the€videotape€at€trial.€€Moreover,€he€does€not€argue€on€appealÐ \¬ Ðthat,€properly€authenticated,€the€videotape€posed€any€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€or€misleading€theÐ H˜ Ðjury.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àò òC.à0 ` àMotion€to€Instruct€the€Jury€on€Lesser„Included€Offenseó óÐ \` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€next€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€his€request€that€itÐ øH Ðinstruct€the€jury€on€adult€driving€while€impaired,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„418€(1998),€as€a€lesser„Ð ä4 Ðincluded€offense€of€driving€under€the€influence,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401€(1998).€€However,Ð Ð  Ðwe€are€persuaded€by€this€courtððs€holding€in€òòHumphreysóó,€No.€M2001„00333„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WLÐ ¼  Ð844400,€at€**8„9,€that€the€offense€of€adult€driving€while€impaired€does€not€satisfy€the€test€enunciatedÐ ¨ø Ðby€our€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€466„467€(Tenn.€1999).€€Accordingly,€weÐ ”ä Ðcannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€the€appellantððs€request.€€This€issue€is€withoutÐ €Ð Ðmerit.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àò òD.à0 ` àAppellantððs€Status€as€a€Three„Time€Repeat€Offenderó óÐD!”` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àFinally,€the€appellant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€reliance€upon€his€1996€convictionÐ 0"€  Ðof€DUI€in€the€Davidson€County€General€Sessions€Court€to€enhance€his€sentence.€€The€appellant€notesÐ #l! Ðthat€the€State€established€his€1996€conviction€by€introducing€a€certified€copy€of€the€judgment€ofÐ $X" Ðconviction€and€complains€that€the€judgment€does€not€affirmatively€demonstrate€his€representationÐ ô$D # Ðby€counsel€or€his€waiver€of€his€right€to€counsel.€€The€appellant€proffered€an€identical€objection€in€theÐ à%0!$ Ðtrial€court.€€However,€the€court€concluded€that€the€notation€on€the€judgment€indicating€the€appellantððsÐ Ì&"% Ðrepresentation€by€counsel€at€the€time€of€his€release€on€bond€adequately€established€his€representationÐ ¸'#& Ðat€the€time€of€his€conviction.Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âÐ )à$( Ðà  àà ` àCiting€òòBaldasar€v.€Illinoisóó,€446€U.S.€222,€100€S.€Ct.€1585€(1980),׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€this€court€has€heldÐ ° Ðâ âthat€a€prior€DUI€conviction€may€not€be€used€to€enhance€the€punishment€for€a€subsequent€DUIÐ œì Ðconviction€unless€the€record€of€the€first€conviction€affirmatively€demonstrates€that€the€defendant€wasÐ ˆØ Ðeither€represented€by€counsel€or€waived€his€right€to€counsel€during€the€prior€proceedings.€€òòState€v.Ð tÄ ÐOððBrienóó,€666€S.W.2d€484,€485€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984);€òòState€v.€James€Todd€Atkinsonóó,€No.€01C01„Ð `° Ð9712„CC„00558,€1999€WL€97916,€at€**1„2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€February€18,€1999).€Ð L œ ÐCorrespondingly,€our€supreme€court€has€indicated€that€a€facially€invalid€judgment€cannot€be€usedÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€enhance€punishment€in€a€subsequent€prosecution.€€òòState€v.€McClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268,€272„273Ð $ t Ð(Tenn.€1987).€€A€judgment€that€does€not€indicate€that€the€defendant€was€represented€by€counsel€orÐ  ` Ðwaived€his€right€to€counsel€is€facially€invalid.€€òòState€v.€Whaleyóó,€982€S.W.2d€346,€348€n.3€(Tenn.Ð ü L  ÐCrim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Rigina€Rollins€Lettsomeóó,€No.€01C01„9809„CC„00370,€1999€WL€618971,Ð è 8  Ðat€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€August€11,€1999).€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àð ððð[I]ndulg[ing]€every€intendment€in€favor€of€the€validity€of€the€[prior]€judgment[],ððððÐ ¬ü  ÐòòState€v.€Cottrellóó,€868€S.W.2d€673,€678€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€we€conclude€that€it€adequatelyÐ ˜è  Ðdemonstrates€the€appellantððs€representation€by€counsel€at€the€time€of€his€conviction.€€The€judgmentÐ „Ô  Ðform€designates€only€one€location€for€recording€the€appellantððs€representation€by€counsel,€and€thisÐ pÀ Ðlocation€contains€a€signature.€€While€we€agree€that€the€judgment€form€is€poorly€drafted,€the€appellantÐ \¬ Ðis€not€thereby€entitled€to€relief.Ð H˜ ÐÌà@MM"ìàò òòòIII.€€Conclusionó óóóˆÐ  p Ðà  àà ` àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ä4 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNORMA€McGEE€OGLE,€JUDGE