WPC %Ti zkj ZfҙOjʌ3nsm$i9WݯԽ_>*w4}Fo7hA5eIsa[zYA*+F$Rᩏ)_gxj5MPW Zz X̿<%-i'*&vS4&h'U1ÌHT=ox_.ߛɆ^ v"pW {<%I5dM}#X!XMԀStatev.Smith,24S.W.3d274(Tenn.2000);Statev.Duncan, @ 698S.W.2d63,67(Tenn.1985).However,eveniftheissuewasnotwaived,theissuenevertheless , lacksmerit.    Anarrestingpoliceofficerdoesnothaveanaffirmativedutytoinformanarresteeofthecosts  associatedwithabloodalcoholtest.h  #  3      ׀Rather,anofficerissimplyprohibitedfromtakinganyactions  tofrustrateanarresteeseffortstoundergosuchtesting.SeeStatev.Livesay,941S.W.2d63,66  (Tenn.Crim.App.1996)(acknowledgingthat thereisnodutyorobligationonlawenforcement x officerstoadministerabloodtest,aslongastheydonotfrustratethereasonableeffortsofan d  accusedtoobtainatimelysampleofhisblood....(quotingwithapprovalBrownv.Mun.Court, P!  86Cal.App.3d357(1978)));seealsoMarkBateman,1997WL779122,at*4(citingsameand <"  affirmingalowercourtsconvictionofadefendantforDUI,astherewas noevidenceintherecord  thattheofficer(s)hamperedorobstructedanyeffortbythedefendanttoobtainabloodtest).     Intheinstantcase,thereisnoevidencethatthearrestingofficerfrustratedanattemptbythe  defendanttoobtainabloodtest.Theofficersimplystatedthathewasunsureaboutthecostofsuch t atest;hedidnotpreventthedefendantfromtakingthetestorfromlearningabouttestcostsfrom ` hospitaladministrators.Therefore,wefindthatthisissuelacksmerit. L       JuryInstructionError   ` "    Thedefendantallegesthatthetrialcourterredbyinstructingthejurythattheycouldconsider  8  thedefendantsrefusaltosubmittoabloodalcoholtestasconsciousnessofguilt,asthedefendant $  onlyrefusedtotakethetestbecausethepoliceofficerfailedtoassurehimthathewouldnotbe   responsibleforthecostofthetest.However,thedefendanthasfailedtoincludethecourtsjury   instructionsinhisrecordforappeal.Withoutthejuryinstructions,itisimpossibleforthiscourtto   determineifthetrialcourterredwheninstructingthejury.Becauseitisthedefendants   responsibility,astheappellant,toincludetheinformationintherecordnecessarytoresolvethe p issuespresentedforappeal,anyissueregardingthetrialcourtsjuryinstructionsiswaived.Tenn. \ R.App.P.24;seealsoStatev.TimmyFulton,No.02C01-9706-CC-00223,1998WL188532,at H *6(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,Apr.21,1998). 4    SufficiencyoftheEvidence  H '  Thedefendantarguesthattheevidencepresentedattrialwasinsufficienttosupporthis   convictionfordrivingundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant.Whenanaccusedchallengesthe   sufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence,thiscourtmustreviewtherecordtodetermineiftheevidence  adducedduringthetrialwassufficient"tosupportthefindingofthetrieroffactofguiltbeyonda  reasonabledoubt."Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).Thisruleisapplicabletofindingsofguiltpredicated  upondirectevidence,circumstantialevidence,oracombinationofdirectandcircumstantial l evidence.Statev.Matthews,805S.W.2d776,779(Tenn.Crim.App.1990).Indeterminingthe X  sufficiencyoftheevidence,thiscourtdoesnotreweighorreevaluatetheevidence.Statev. D! Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978).Normaythiscourtsubstituteitsinferencesforthose 0"  drawnbythetrieroffactfromcircumstantialevidence.Liakasv.State,286S.W.2d856,859(Tenn. #l! 1956).Thiscourtisrequiredtoaffordthestatethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidence $X" containedintherecord,aswellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferencesthatmaybedrawnfrom $D # theevidence.Statev.Herrod,754S.W.2d627,632(Tenn.Crim.App.1988). %0!$   Questionsconcerningthecredibilityofthewitnesses,theweightandvaluetobegiventhe &"% evidence,aswellasallfactualissuesraisedbytheevidence,areresolvedbythetrieroffact,notthis '#& court.Statev.Pappas,754S.W.2d620,623(Tenn.Crim.App.1987).Aguiltyverdictbythejury, (#' approvedbythetrialjudge,accreditsthetestimonyofthewitnessesforthestateandresolvesall )$( conflictsinfavorofthetheoryofthestate.Statev.Grace,493S.W.2d474,476(Tenn.1973). |*%) Becauseaverdictofguiltremovesthepresumptionofinnocenceandreplacesitwithapresumption h+&* ofguilt,theaccusedhastheburdenonappealofillustratingwhytheevidenceisinsufficientto  supporttheverdictreturnedbythetrieroffact.Statev.Tuggle,639S.W.2d913,914(Tenn.1982).  Thiscourtwillnotdisturbaverdictofguiltduetothesufficiencyoftheevidenceunlessthefacts  containedintherecordandtheinferencesthatmaybedrawnfromthefactsareinsufficient,asa t matteroflaw,forarationaltrieroffacttofindtheaccusedguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt. ` Matthews,805S.W.2dat780. L    Theevidencepresentedintheinstanttrialwassufficientforarationaltrieroffacttofindthe 8  defendantguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt.Thearrestingpoliceofficerstoppedthedefendantfor $ t speedinginexcessoftwentymilesoverthepostedspeedlimit.Moreover,thepoliceofficernoticed  ` anodorofalcoholemanatingfromthedefendant,andthedefendantadmittedtohavingconsumed  L  alcohol.Thepoliceofficeralsotestifiedthatthedefendantfailedfoursobrietytests.Thisevidence  8  issufficientforarationaltrieroffacttofindthatthedefendantwasdrivingorinphysicalcontrol $  ofhisvehiclewhileundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.5510401(1998).   Therefore,wefindthatthedefendantschallengeofthesufficiencyofevidenceattriallacksmerit.     Ӏ Conclusion  p 7  Fortheforegoingreasons,wefindthatnoneofthedefendantsallegationsmeritrelief. L Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED.  8  #X!XXX!##MXX!#X!XM   `     h      p    `     h     ___________________________________ 8    `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE