ÿWPC. …U.V %„bŠŽn­ž 0(KU:sw@­4í 0™ 0Dš U:Þ 0J 0Tb 0^¶ 0h 0r| 0|î 0†j 0ð 1u€ 0dõ BYB)vDCŸU*â  AMâa D3CfvÈÜ 0@¤v~ävÓb 0T5 AO‰ÆØ 0Dž D/â B<þ6X9`(CourierX ù3|x…!«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular s!6et!u!Ev!w!Ex!Dy!z!D{!|!Ó€Ô¡¨ (I(2t$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XIØXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular2 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% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ØÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌOctober€24,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó""""'ÿÿdxd \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ¾Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€neither€party€challenges€the€propriety€of€the€trial€court's€actionÏin€this€regard,€we€note€parenthetically€this€action€is€in€accord€with€a€recentÏdecision€of€this€court€in€another€DUI€case.€€òòState€v.€Mark€Spencer€Kingóó,€No.€01„C„01„9608„CR„00343€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.€18,€1997);€òòsee€alsoóóÏòòState€v.€Dixonóó,€530€S.W.2d€73,€75€(Tenn.€1975)€("[A]€criminal€statuteÏsuperseded€or€repealed€by€an€unconstitutional€act€is€left€unaffected€by€theÏpassage€of€the€void€repealing€act.").Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò(—8$——ÔªÔò òòòóóó óÔªÔ€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ÔßR€()%A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌÑ€Ñò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌó óÌà@ àAUGUST€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9611„CR„00483Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilson€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òCHARLES€BOURGEOIS,à àà à€ó ó€€€à à)à àHonorable€J.O.€Bond,ÏJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à à(DUI)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌFRANK€LANNOMà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà0 àà àà àà0 àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€649ÌLebanon,€TN€€37088„0649à àà àà àELLEN€H.€POLLACKÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌÌà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àTOM€P.€THOMPSON,€JR.Ìà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDOUG€HALLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à111€Cherry€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLebanon,€TN€€37087ÌÌÌœOPINION›€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÑ€+ÑÇÑ7€¢0XXdðXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ` ÑÓÓÑ7€ re XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌà àà àThe€defendant,€Charles€Bourgeois,€appeals€his€conviction€ofÏdriving€under€the€influence.€€Bourgeois€was€convicted€following€a€jury€trial€in€theÏWilson€County€Criminal€Court.€€The€court€sentenced€him€to€serve€11€months,€29Ïdays,€with€all€but€10€days€suspended€in€favor€of€probation,€revoked€his€driver'sÏlicense€for€one€year,€and€fined€him€$350.00€plus€costs.€€In€this€direct€appeal,ÏBourgeois€alleges€the€trial€court€improperly€admitted€evidence€of€the€level€ofÏalcohol€in€his€blood.€€Although€we€find€no€merit€in€this€argument,€weÏnevertheless€reverse€the€defendant's€conviction€and€remand€for€a€new€trial,Ïbased€upon€plain€error€in€the€trial€court's€instruction€to€the€jury.ÌÌà àà àOn€November€18,€1995,€Bourgeois€was€arrested€for€driving€underÏthe€influence€following€a€traffic€accident€in€Wilson€County.€€He€submitted€to€aÏblood€test€to€determine€his€blood€alcohol€concentration€on€the€request€of€theÏarresting€officer.€€According€to€a€TBI€forensic€scientist€who€tested€the€BourgeoisÏblood€sample,€the€blood€alcohol€concentration€was€.18%.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àBourgeois€contends€in€this€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏadmitting€€the€evidence€of€the€level€of€alcohol€in€his€blood.€€While€he€concedesÍthe€relevance€of€the€test€result€that€his€blood€alcohol€concentration€was€.10%€orÏmore,€he€argues€the€evidence€of€the€exact€amount€by€which€the€concentrationÏexceeded€.10%€should€not€have€been€admitted€by€the€trial€court€because€it€wasÏ(1)€irrelevant,€or€if€relevant,€its€probative€value€was€outweighed€by€its€danger€ofÏmisleading€the€jury,€(2)€not€evidence€that€would€substantially€assist€the€trier€ofÏfact,€and/or€(3)€so€speculative€as€to€deprive€him€of€his€right€to€due€process€and€aÏfair€trial.€€Ìà àà àAt€the€time€of€the€offense€of€which€the€defendant€was€convicted,Ïthe€DUI€statute€provided€a€conclusive€presumption€of€intoxication€andÏimpairment€upon€a€showing€the€blood€alcohol€content€was€.10%€or€greater.€ÏòòSeeóó€Amendments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408€(Supp.€1996).€€The€trial€courtÏfound€this€conclusive€presumption€unconstitutional,€found€no€severability€clauseÏin€the€statute€which€would€allow€it€to€elide€only€the€unconstitutional€portion€ofÏthe€statute,€and€applied€the€prior€version€of€section€55„10„408€to€the€defendant.× ƒ, ××  ×€ÏUnder€prior€law,€a€blood€alcohol€weight€of€.10%€or€greater€created€aÏpresumption€of€intoxication€and€impairment.€€òòSeeóó€Amendments,€Tenn.€CodeÍAnn.€ðð€55„10„408€(Supp.€1996).€€Accordingly,€the€court€allowed€the€TBI€scientistÏto€testify€that€the€weight€of€alcohol€in€the€defendant's€blood€sample€was€.18%.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€would€have€us€hold€the€court€should€have€allowedÏthe€TBI€scientist€to€testify€that€his€blood€alcohol€content€was€.10%€or€greater,Ïwithout€specifying€the€exact€percentage.€€He€opines€that€allowing€the€jury€toÏhave€the€information€of€the€exact€percentage,€without€expert€testimony€to€assistÏin€interpreting€the€meaning€of€the€percentage,€permitted€the€jury€to€engage€inÏ"wild€speculation"€as€to€its€meaning.€€€We€are€unpersuaded.€€At€trial,€the€stateÏhad€the€burden€of€proving€the€defendant€was€intoxicated€and€thereby€impaired.€ÏThe€state€had€no€burden€of€showing€the€extent€of€that€impairment.€€ByÏintroducing€evidence€that€the€weight€of€alcohol€in€the€defendant's€blood€wasÏ.18%,€the€state€presented€evidence€from€which€the€trier€of€fact,€guided€by€theÏstatute,€could€infer€the€defendant's€guilt.€€In€a€case€of€this€nature,€the€jury€is€notÏleft€to€speculate€on€the€meaning€and€effect€of€any€alcohol€above€.10%€in€theÏdefendant's€blood€because€that€is€not€at€issue€unless€the€defendant€puts€it€atÏissue€by€attempting€to€show€he€was€not€impaired€despite€the€level€of€alcohol€inÏhis€blood.€€In€the€event€the€defendant€wishes€to€challenge€the€inference€thatÏmay€be€drawn€from€the€evidence€of€his€blood€alcohol€level€of€.10%€or€greater,Ïòòheóó€may€present€expert€evidence€of€his€own€which€will€assist€the€jury€inÍinterpreting€the€particular€result€and€its€effect€on€him€individually.€€In€sum,Ïevidence€of€the€exact€level€of€alcohol€in€Bourgeois'€blood€was€relevant,Ïmaterial,€and€would€not€lead€to€"wild€speculation"€by€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€401,€402,€403.€€The€testimony€of€an€expert€with€special€skill€in€determiningÏthe€concentration€of€alcohol€in€a€defendant's€blood€sample€is€of€substantialÏassistance€to€the€trier€of€fact€in€determining€whether€the€defendant€is€guilty€ofÏDUI.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€we€credit€defense€counsel€with€zealous€advocacy€on€behalfÏof€his€client,€we€find€this€issue€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà àBourgeois€alleged€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€that€the€trial€courtÏimproperly€instructed€the€jury€on€the€statutory€presumption€of€intoxication€andÏimpairment€upon€a€showing€of€a€weight€of€alcohol€in€the€blood€of€.10%€orÏgreater,€thereby€violating€his€constitutional€guarantee€of€due€process.€€ThisÏargument€was€not€raised€in€the€defendant's€brief;€nevertheless,€we€elect€toÏaddress€it€under€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€52(b)€and€Rule€of€AppellateÏProcedure€36(a).ÌÌà àà àDue€process€requires€the€state€to€prove€every€element€of€a€crimeÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.€amend.€XIV,€ðð€1.€€In€proving€itsÏcase,€the€prosecution€may€not€use€evidentiary€presumptions€which€areÏconclusive€in€nature€or€shift€the€burden€of€proof€to€the€defendant.€€òòFrancis€v.ÏFranklinóó,€471€U.S.€307,€105€S.€Ct.€1965€(1985);€òòSandstrom€v.€Montanaóó,€442ÏU.S.€510,€99€S.€Ct.€2450€(1979).€€In€the€context€of€another€DUI€case,€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€recently€articulated:ÌÓÓà8 àWe€òòcautionóó€both€court€and€counsel€that€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court,€as€well€as€this€Court,€has€held€that€the€dueÏprocess€clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€protects€an€accusedÏagainst€conviction€except€upon€proof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏof€every€fact€necessary€to€constitute€the€crime€with€which€he€isÏcharged.€€This€principle€prohibits€the€State€from€using€evidentiaryÏpresumptions€in€a€jury€charge€that€have€the€effect€of€relieving€theÏ[s]tate€of€its€burden€of€persuasion€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€ofÏevery€essential€element€of€the€crime.€òòFrancis€v.€Franklinóó,€471€U.S.Ï307,€[313],€105€S.€Ct.€1965,€1970[]€(1970);€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€729ÏS.W.2d€286,€287€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€€In€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€702ÏS.W.2d€560€(Tenn.€1985)€[òòoverruled€on€other€groundsóó,€òòState€v.ÏBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992)],€this€Court,€citing€from€itsÏprevious€ruling€in€òòState€v.€Bolinóó,€678€S.W.2d€40,€44„45€(Tenn.Ï1984),€reiterated,€"that€trial€judges€should€avoid€the€use€of€the€termÏ'presumption'€in€instructing€juries€in€criminal€cases€except€for€theÏpresumption€of€innocence.€€In€its€place€juries€may€be€instructedÏthat€a€permissible€inference€may€or€may€not€be€drawn€of€anÏelemental€fact€from€proof€by€the€State€of€a€basic€fact,€but€that€suchÏan€inference€placed€no€burden€of€proof€of€any€kind€upon€aÏdefendant."ÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Sensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€412,€417€(Tenn.€1992)€(emphasis€added).€€If€theÏjury€is€erroneously€instructed,€reversal€is€required€unless€the€error€wasÍharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àEvidence€that€there€was,€at€the€time€alleged,€ten„hundredths€ofÏone€percent€(.10%)€or€more€by€weight€of€alcohol€in€theÏ[defendant's]€blood€shall€create€a€presumption€that€the€[d]efendantÏwas€under€the€influence€of€such€intoxicant,€and€that€theÏ[d]efendant's€ability€to€drive€was€impaired€thereby,€sufficiently€toÏconstitute€a€violation€of€55„10„401.Ìà0 à.€.€.€Ìà8 àI€have€used€the€terms€presumption€and€inference€during€this€trial.€ÏIt€is€the€exclusive€province€of€the€jury€to€determine€whether€theÏfacts€and€circumstances€shown€by€all€the€evidence€in€the€caseÏwarrant€the€inference€which€the€law€permits€the€jury€to€draw.€€TheÏpresumption€or€inference€may€be€rebutted€by€direct€orÏcircumstantial€evidence€or€both,€whether€it€exists€in€the€evidenceÏof€the€[s]tate€or€is€offered€by€the€[d]efendant.€€Although€theÏ[d]efendant€is€not€required€by€law€to€do€so,€when€the€[d]efendantÏoffers€an€explanation€along€with€all€the€evidence€to€determine€notÏonly€the€correctness€of€the€presumption€or€inference,€but€also€theÏreasonableness€of€the€[d]efendant's€explanation[,€œy]ou›€are€notÏbound€to€accept€either€the€inference€or€the€[d]efendant'sÏexplanation.€€The€[s]tate€must€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏevery€element€of€the€offense€before€the€[d]efendant€can€be€foundÏguilty.ÌÌÓÓThese€instructions,€which€employ€the€"presumption€that€the€[d]efendant€wasÏunder€the€influence€of€such€intoxicant,€and€that€the€[d]efendant's€ability€to€driveÏwas€impaired€thereby,"€unfairly€relieved€the€state€of€its€burden€of€proof€as€to€anÏessential€element€of€the€offense€of€œDUI›œ.€€Also,›€the€instruction€that€theÍpresumption€"shall,"€rather€than€"may,"€arise€from€evidence€of€alcohol€in€theÏblood€of€.10%€or€greater€could€be€interpreted€by€a€reasonable€juror€asÏmandatory.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bryantóó,€585€S.W.2d€586€(Tenn.€1979).€€The€languageÏthat€follows€does€not€cure€the€error.€€òòSeeóó€òòFrancisóó,€471€U.S.€at€316,€105€S.€Ct.€at€Ï1972,€1794€(language€that€presumption€"may€be€rebutted"€does€not€cure€errorÏof€instruction€which€commands€jury€to€presume€an€element€of€the€offense€fromÏthe€evidence,€nor€does€general€instruction€as€to€prosecution's€burden€of€proof).€€ÏWe€likewise€note€the€charge,€read€in€its€entirety,€does€not€explain€or€cure€theÏerror€illustrated€above.€€òòSeeóó€òòFrancisóó,€471€U.S.€at€325,€105€S.€Ct.€at€1977.€€WeÏcannot€say€this€error€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€because€the€proofÏof€impairment,€other€than€the€blood„alcohol€test€result,€was€not€compelling.€€AsÏsuch,€Bourgeois'€conviction€is€constitutionally€infirm€and€cannot€stand.€ÌÌà àà àOn€remand,€if€the€state€presents€the€test€result€as€evidence,€theÏcourt€should€instruct€the€jury€that€the€law€allows€it€to€infer€the€defendant€wasÏunder€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€and€his€ability€to€drive€was€impaired€by€suchÏintoxication€from€proof€that€there€was€.10%€or€more€by€weight€of€alcohol€in€theÏdefendant's€blood.€€However,€the€jury€is€not€required€to€make€the€inference,€andÏin€its€province€as€trier€of€fact€may€determine€whether€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€as€shown€by€the€evidence€warrant€any€inference€which€the€lawÍpermits€to€be€drawn€from€the€blood€test€result.€€Moreover,€the€inference,€ifÏdrawn,€may€be€rebutted€by€other€evidence€and€circumstances.€€Ultimately,€theÏjury€is€to€determine€whether€to€make€the€inference,€the€correctness€of€theÏinference,€and€the€weight€to€be€given€to€any€such€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,Ï729€S.W.2d€286€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)€(trial€court€properly€instructed€jury€inÏDUI€case);€òòBryantóó,€585€S.W.2d€at€589„90€(outlining€proper€procedure€forÏinstructing€jury€on€a€permissive€inference€based€upon€a€statutory€presumption).ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€we€reverse€the€defendant's€conviction€and€remand€toÏthe€trial€court€for€a€new€trial,€consistent€with€the€holdings€of€this€opinion.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJOSEPH€H.€WALKER,€III,€SPECIAL€€JUDGEÌÌÌ