ÿWPC!& d{U•´Fsh)$À«VãÚÖì)…íÁ¬†>Mb N—™r& ·€'MÁS¥æ“l“‰Bã.6û£uó\-(SS$\kÞ¹ikbˆ§+¤¢u¥Åâ1‚œšŸMk«O äzøñ  MFåCîI|% ¨Ì'.†µÿH²Ð.N,ß-0>D{èlÝ ¬›üéJêÛ ž")nhñ*ßsˆÆa§ŒãÜ{¶½6}'ï@«dœ©óI{ù ÿ~gô„–t¼7cX‘ÝKä¬ñOó×óñ¥ògRýŠàX}ÆbÊ4Ž”*Ú¦|b_`uÓO¥().ÂÔŒ*Φˮ¹ +† "Xž&óuâf’Ð:WßàXßâéÎYµ}³ß¬ÐöÑz,%ã$" ̽cEgùcTïW1\qÔÓ©Â*÷²cß󮆡ßÀ<;òÔìøK§¾„P%¤‘£&‰é¨È³8¸x7u.äÉèÞbN\ %^ 0ˆdUNì z:Ò´^ † z’ Ò wÞ 4â ö  Æ ÆÍ Æ“ ÆY mN6#Á8\ùEU 0DW››­HqeU@Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö b!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 0ë!!!! B " " 0¤&" D3Ê" D-ý" 0K*#*# ASu#ÆÈ# 0¤Ž$ 0D2% A«v%»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptZš«*â  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptyG*¨™£3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 RÝ ƒR©Ž$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€At€trial€and€upon€original€application€to€this€court€for€an€interlocutory€appeal,€the€Stateððs€position€was€thatÐ ° Ðproof€of€the€defendantððs€prior€DUI€offenses€was€an€element€of€DUI,€second€or€subsequent€offense,€and€therefore€the€StateÐ tÄ Ðshould€be€allowed€to€produce€evidence€of€the€prior€convictions€during€the€Stateððs€case„in„chief.€€The€defendant€arguedÐ 8ˆ Ðthat€a€conviction€as€a€DUI€repeat€offender€was€an€enhancement€of€a€DUI€conviction,€and€the€proceeding€should€beÐ üL Ðbifurcated€in€order€to€reduce€the€risk€of€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€On€appeal,€the€State€has€altered€its€position€to€mirrorÐ À Ðthat€of€the€defendant.€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒR©Ž$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€In€its€brief,€the€State€lists€the€following€as€issues€presented€to€this€court€for€review:€(1)€are€the€required€threeÐ ° Ðprior€DUI€convictions€an€element€of€the€crime€of€felony€DUI€that€must€be€proven€in€the€case„in„chief;€(2)€should€a€felonyÐ tÄ ÐDUI€trial€be€bifurcated€with€separate€guilt€and€punishment€phases;€(3)€if€the€trial€is€bifurcated,€does€jeopardy€attach€atÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€finding€of€guilt€by€a€jury,€thus€prohibiting€the€sentencing€court€from€enhancing€the€offense€to€a€felony;€(4)€if€the€trialÐ üL Ðis€bifurcated,€is€the€defendant€entitled€to€the€number€of€jury€strikes€allowed€in€a€felony€trial€or€a€misdemeanor€trial;€(5)Ð À Ðif€the€trial€is€bifurcated,€should€the€jury€be€instructed€that€the€blood€alcohol€standard€is€.08€(second€and€subsequentÐ „Ô Ðoffense€DUI)€or€.10€(first€offense€DUI);€and€(6)€if€the€trial€is€bifurcated,€should€the€jury€be€instructed€concerning€theÐ H ˜ Ðminimum€and€maximum€fines€for€a€felony€offense?€€However,€in€the€body€of€its€brief,€the€State€argues€only€the€threeÐ  \ Ðissues€mentioned€òòsupraóó. ‘Ý ƒR©Ž$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€procedure€approved€in€òòSandersóó€echoes€the€procedure€approved€in€òòCrawfordóó.€€Specifically,€this€court€statedÐ ° Ðin€òòCrawfordóó:Ð tÄ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Ô_ÔI]nÔ_Ô€the€first€stage€of€such€a€case€as€this€the€jury€should€be€permitted€only€toÐ 8ˆ Ðdetermine€the€question€of€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€principal€offense€charged€in€theÐ üL Ðfirst€count€of€the€indictment.€€If€the€jury€finds€the€defendant€guilty€under€the€firstÐ À Ðcount,€then,€and€only€then,€is€it€proper€to€present€to€the€jury€the€indictment€countÐ „Ô Ðdelineating€the€previous€like€convictions€and€present€evidence€establishing€them€forÐ H ˜ Ðthe€consideration€of€the€jury€in€fixing€punishment€for€the€principal€crime€chargedÐ  \ Ðin€the€first€count€of€the€indictment.€€This€procedure€fairly€implements€the€provisionsÐ Ð  Ðof€[Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(a)(1)]€that€in€drunk€driving€cases€punishment€forÐ ” ä  Ðthe€principal€crime€charged€in€the€indictment€may€be€increased€upon€charge€andÐ X ¨  Ðproof€showing€that€it€is€the€second€or€third€or€subsequent€offense.Ð l ` x` x Ð469€S.W.2d€at€525. Ý ƒR©Ž$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€We€note€that€òòRobinsonóó,€29€S.W.3d€at€476€was€published€after€the€State€filed€its€application€for€anÐ ° Ðinterlocutory€appeal.€ gÝ ƒR©Ž$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€DUI€first,€second,€or€third€offenses€are€all€class€A€misdemeanors.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(m).€Ð ° ÐHowever,€DUI,€fourth€offense,€is€a€class€E€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(a)(1).(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2©Ž$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³ ò»»Ô d(|3ÿe$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿe$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼%»»»ÔÑ8€OéXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îT%ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼%»îîT #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` à€Assigned€on€Briefs€January€24,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XOéX»¼%ÔÌò òÔ#†¼%»XXOé"#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€RONNIE€LAMAR€EVANSÔ‡XOéX»¼%Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Interlocutory€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€229235€€€€€€Stephen€M.€Ô_ÔBevilÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„00327„CCA„R9„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐMay€11,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€appellant,€State€of€Tennessee,€charged€the€defendant,€Ronnie€Lamar€Evans,€with€driving€underÐ xÈ  Ðthe€influence€(DUI),€fourth€offense.€€Prior€to€trial,€a€dispute€arose€about€whether€the€defendantððs€priorÐ d´ ÐDUI€convictions€are€elements€of€the€charged€offense€that€should€be€proven€during€the€Stateððs€case„Ð P  Ðin„chief€or€whether€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€prior€DUI€convictions€should€only€be€brought€beforeÐ <Œ Ðthe€jury€during€the€second,€or€enhancement,€phase€of€a€bifurcated€trial.€€This€court€granted€the€StateððsÐ (x Ðapplication€for€an€interlocutory€appeal€on€this€issue.€€The€State€now€raises€the€following€issues€forÐ d Ðour€review:€(1)€whether€prior€DUI€convictions€are€to€be€used€onlyÔ#†¼%»XXOé–#ÔÔ‡XOéX»¼%Ô€to€enhance€a€sentence€and€are€notÐ P Ðelements€of€DUI,€fourth€offense;€(2)€whether€a€felony€DUI€trial€should€be€bifurcated€into€separateÐ ì< Ðphases€as€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„203€(1997);€and€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€shouldÐ Ø( Ðmake€a€finding€prior€to€trial€as€to€the€number€of€applicable€prior€offenses€in€order€to€determine€theÐ Ä Ðnumber€of€jury€challenges€each€side€may€exercise€and€how€the€jury€should€be€instructed.€€UponÐ ° Ðreview€of€the€record€and€the€partiesðð€briefs,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð œì ÐÓíÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€Interlocutory€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ tÄ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼%»àXOéB#ÔÔ‡XOéX.¼%ÔNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€andÐ L œ ÐòòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Patricia€C.€Ô_ÔKussmanÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð #`" ÐWilliam€H.€Cox,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€C.€Ô_ÔParkeÔ_Ô€Masterson,€Jr.,€Assistant€DistrictÐ ü#L# ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð è$8 $ ÐÌLloyd€A.€Levitt,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Ronnie€Lamar€Evans.Ð À&"& ÐÓi ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼%»XXOé˜ #ÔÔ‡XOéX»¼%ÔÐ ˜(è#( ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼%»XXOéü#ÔÔ‡XOéX»¼%ÔÓ  Óà@(( ìàòòò òI.€Factual€Backgroundó óóóÔ#†¼%»XXOéZ#ÔÔ€XOéX»¼%ԈРp*À%* Ðà  àà ` àAs€a€result€of€an€incident€on€July€19,€1998,€the€State€of€Tennessee€charged€theÐ \+¬&+ Ðdefendant,€Ronnie€Lamar€Evans,€with€driving€under€the€influence€(DUI),€fourth€offense.€€Prior€toÐ H,˜', Ðtrial,€the€defendant€moved€to€exclude€evidence€of€his€prior€DUI€convictions€during€the€Stateððs€case„Ð 4-„(-ý Ðin„chief.€€The€defendant€argued€that€his€prior€convictions€should€be€used€merely€to€enhance€hisÐ ° Ðpunishment€upon€conviction€for€the€current€DUI€offense.€€In€response,€the€State€contended€that€theÐ œì Ðdefendantððs€prior€DUI€convictions€were€elements€of€the€crime€of€DUI,€fourth€offense.€€The€StateÐ ˆØ Ðnoted€that€other€courts€within€the€jurisdiction€had€concluded€that€prior€DUI€convictions€are€elementsÐ tÄ Ðof€the€crime€of€DUI,€second€or€subsequent€offense,€and€had€allowed€evidence€of€the€priorÐ `° Ðconvictions€to€be€proven€by€the€State€during€its€case„in„chief.€€The€trial€court€found€that€a€trial€onÐ L œ Ða€charge€of€DUI,€second€or€subsequent€offense,€should€be€bifurcated€with€evidence€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendantððs€prior€DUI€convictions€being€introduced€only€during€the€second,€or€enhancement,€phase.€Ð $ t ÐAccordingly,€the€State€sought€an€interlocutory€appeal€on€this€issue.€€The€trial€court€granted€a€RuleÐ  ` Ð9€interlocutory€appeal,€and€this€court€agreed€that€an€interlocutory€appeal€was€appropriate.€€On€appeal,Ð ü L  Ðthe€State€raises€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€prior€DUI€convictions€are€to€be€usedÐ è 8  Ðonly€to€enhance€a€sentence€and€are€not€elements€of€DUI,€fourth€offense;€(2)€whether€a€felony€DUIÐ Ô$  Ðtrial€should€be€bifurcated€into€separate€phases€as€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„203€(1997);Ð À  Ðand€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€should€make€a€finding€prior€to€trial€as€to€the€number€of€applicableÐ ¬ü  Ðprior€offenses€in€order€to€determine€the€number€of€peremptory€challenges€each€side€may€exercise€andÐ ˜è  Ðhow€the€jury€should€be€instructed.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р„Ô  ÐÌà@éé$ìàòòò òII.€€AnalysisˆÐ \¬ Ðà  àà ` àóóó óà@¬¬#ìàA.€BifurcationˆÐ H˜ Ðà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€the€State€and€the€defendant€agree€that€DUI,€second€or€subsequent€offense,Ð 4„ Ðis€merely€an€enhancement€of€the€punishment€for€DUI,€and€therefore€the€defendantððs€prior€DUIÐ  p Ðconvictions€are€not€elements€of€the€offense;€accordingly,€both€agree€that€the€proceedings€should€beÐ  \ Ðbifurcated€with€the€jury€first€determining€the€defendantððs€guilt€on€the€issue€of€the€current€DUI€offenseÐ øH Ðand€second,€upon€a€verdict€of€guilt,€determining€if€the€defendant€has€been€found€guilty€of€prior€DUIÐ ä4 Ðoffenses.׃t×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€State€contends€that€there€is€a€need€for€a€uniform€body€of€law€on€this€issue€becauseÐ Ð  Ðsome€courts€in€this€particular€jurisdiction€do€not€bifurcate€the€proceeding.€€Ð ¼  Ðâ âÐ ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àWe€note€that,€subsequent€to€this€courtððs€order€granting€a€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9Ð ° Ðâ âinterlocutory€appeal,€our€supreme€court€addressed€the€procedure€to€be€followed€when€a€defendantÐ œì Ðis€charged€as€a€multiple€DUI€offender.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Robinsonóó,€29€S.W.3d€476,€481„483€(Tenn.Ð ˆØ Ð2000).€€As€a€result€of€the€supreme€courtððs€ruling€in€òòRobinsonóó,€there€appears€to€be€no€dispute€amongÐ tÄ Ðthe€authorities€that€a€DUI,€second€or€subsequent€offense,€is€merely€an€enhancement€of€a€DUIÐ `° Ðconviction.€€It€is€well€established€that€a€bifurcation€of€the€proceedings,€in€order€to€minimize€prejudiceÐ L œ Ðto€the€defendant,€is€the€correct€procedure€for€trial€courts€to€employ.€€As€this€court€has€previouslyÐ 8 ˆ Ðobserved;Ð $ t Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhen€the€indictment€alleges€the€accused€is€a€second€or€subsequentÐ  ` Ðoffender,€a€bifurcated€proceeding€is€mandated.€€The€first€phase€of€theÐ ü L  Ðproceeding€addresses€the€issue€of€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€theÐ è 8  Ðdefendant.€€In€addition,€the€jury€must€determine€the€maximum€amountÐ Ô$  Ðof€fine€the€trial€judge€may€assess€if€the€defendant€is€punishable€as€aÐ À  Ðfirst€offender.€€If€the€jury€returns€a€verdict€of€guilty,€the€jury,€not€theÐ ¬ü  Ðtrial€judge,€must€determine€whether€the€defendant€is€a€second€orÐ ˜è  Ðsubsequent€offender€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€In€addition,€the€juryÐ „Ô  Ðmust€establish€the€maximum€fine€the€trial€court€may€assess€if€theÐ pÀ Ðaccused€is€found€to€be€a€second€or€subsequent€offender.Ð\¬` x` x ÐòòState€v.€Sandersóó,€735€S.W.2d€856,€858€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Mahoneyóó,€874Ð H˜ ÐS.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòCrawford€v.€Stateóó,€469€S.W.2d€524,€525€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 4„ ÐApp.€1971).Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€bifurcated€procedure€is€appropriate€because€ð ð[a]€finding€that€the€defendant€is€aÐ øH Ðsubsequent€offender€qualifies€the€offender€for€enhanced€punishment€but€does€not€constitute€ðða€newÐ ä4 Ðoffense.ðððð€€òòState€v.€William€M.€Ô_ÔNeelyÔ_Ôóó,€No.€01C01„9803„CR„00125,€1999€WL€103714,€at€*1€(Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐCrim.€App.€at€Nashville,€March€2,€1999);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(a)(1)€(1997).€Ð ¼  ÐSpecifically,€this€court€has€stated€thatÐ ¨ø Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àit€is€clear€that€new€offenses€are€not€created€for€subsequent€offendersÐ ”ä Ðbut€that€those€found€to€be€subsequent€offenders€are€subject€toÐ €Ð Ðincreased€punishment.€€It€is€apparent€that€this€increased€punishmentÐ l¼ Ðis€analogous€to€the€habitual€criminal€statutes€which€our€courts€haveÐ X ¨ Ðconsistently€held€do€not€create€a€new€offense€but€only€provide€for€anÐ ° Ðenhanced€punishment.€€Ðœì` x` x ÐòòState€v.€Wardóó,€810€S.W.2d€158,€159€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔMarburyÔ_Ôóó,€908Ð ˆØ ÐS.W.2d€405,€407€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€òòRobinsonóó,€29€S.W.3d€at€482,€our€supreme€courtÐ tÄ Ðimplicitly€approved€the€rationale€that€underlies€a€bifurcated€procedure€for€this€type€of€offense€andÐ `° Ðthat€was€articulated€in€òòHarrison€v.€Stateóó,€394€S.W.2d€713,€717€(Tenn.€1965).€€In€òòHarrisonóó,€ourÐ L œ Ðsupreme€court€recognized€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Ô_Ôt]hereÔ_Ô€are€limits€to€the€human€mind.€€We€think€to€say€to€any€jury,Ð $ t Ðthere€is€evidence€here€the€defendant€before€you€has€been€guilty€ofÐ  ` Ðseveral€prior€crimes€but€you€are€not€to€consider€this€in€determining€hisÐ ü L  Ðguilt€or€innocence€of€the€present€crime,€is€at€best€to€severely€test€theÐ è 8  Ðability€of€the€mind€to€remove€all€prejudice€therefrom.ÐÔ$ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.[Ô_ÔW]eÔ_Ô€are€of€the€opinion€to€allow€a€jury€to€have€before€it€evidenceÐ ¬ü  Ðof€former€convictions,€at€the€time€they€are€required€to€decide€upon€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefendantððs€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€present€crime,€will€deny€to€aÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant€the€procedural€fairness€due€him.ÐpÀ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.It€results€and€we€so€hold,€it€is€prejudicial€error€to€allow€knowledgeÐ H˜ Ðor€evidence€of€previous€convictions,€enhancing€the€penalty€uponÐ 4„ Ðconviction€of€the€present€crime,€to€be€placed€before€the€jury€prior€toÐ  p Ðtheir€determination€of€defendantððs€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€presentÐ  \ Ðcrime.ÐøH` x` x Ðòòóó394€S.W.2d€at€717.òòóó€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that,€upon€a€charge€of€DUI,€second€or€subsequentÐ ä4 Ðoffense,€a€bifurcated€trial€is€the€appropriate€procedure.Ð Ð  ÐÌà@ÕÕìàB.€Peremptory€ChallengesˆÐ ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àThe€State€also€asks€this€court€to€determine€the€number€of€peremptory€challengesÐ ”ä Ðallowed€a€defendant€charged€with€DUI,€fourth€or€subsequent€offense.€€In€the€instant€case,€the€trialÐ €Ð Ðcourt€was€prepared€to€grant€each€side€the€eight€(8)€peremptory€challenges€generally€afforded€duringÐ l¼ Ða€felony€trial.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„118€(1997)€provides:Ð X ¨ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIf€the€offense€charged€is€punishable€by€imprisonment€for€more€thanÐ D!” Ðone€(1)€year€but€not€by€death,€each€defendant€is€entitled€to€eight€(8)Ð 0"€  Ðperemptory€challenges,€and€the€state€is€entitled€to€eight€(8)Ð #l! Ðperemptory€challenges€for€each€defendant.€€If€the€offense€charged€isÐ $X" Ðpunishable€by€imprisonment€for€less€than€one€(1)€year€or€by€fine,€orÐ ô$D # Ðboth,€each€side€is€entitled€to€three€(3)€peremptory€challenges€for€eachÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âdefendant.€€ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐFor€a€conviction€of€DUI,€first,€second,€or€third€offense,€the€maximum€punishment€is€eleven€monthsÐ ° Ðand€twenty„nine€days€incarceration,€coupled€with€a€fine.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(a)(1).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рœì Ðâ âHowever,€DUI,€fourth€offense,€is€a€class€E€felony€punishable€by€one€to€six€years€incarceration€in€theÐ ˆØ ÐTennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„111(5)€(1997).€€In€order€toÐ tÄ Ðdetermine€the€number€of€peremptory€challenges€each€side€possesses,€the€trial€court€must€look€to€theÐ `° Ðoffense€òòas€chargedóó.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„118.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€when€theÐ L œ ÐState€charges€a€defendant€with€DUI,€fourth€offense,€each€side€is€entitled€to€eight€(8)€peremptoryÐ 8 ˆ Ðchallenges.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà@ÞÞ ìàC.€Jury€InstructionsˆÐ ü L  Ðà  àà ` àThe€State€also€raises€the€following€issues:€(1)€whether,€if€the€trial€is€bifurcated,€theÐ è 8  Ðjury€should€be€instructed€that€the€defendantððs€intoxication€may€be€inferred€upon€proof€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendantððs€blood€alcohol€content€at€the€time€of€the€offense€was€.08€percent€(the€inference€allowedÐ À  Ðin€cases€of€DUI,€second€or€subsequent€offense)€or€.10€percent€(the€inference€allowed€when€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendant€is€a€first€time€DUI€offender);€and€(2)€whether,€if€the€trial€is€bifurcated,€the€jury€should€beÐ ˜è  Ðinstructed€as€to€the€minimum€and€maximum€fines€for€a€felony€offense.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€issue€of€whether€to€instruct€the€jury€that€they€may€infer€intoxication€from€a€bloodÐ \¬ Ðalcohol€content€of€.10€percent€for€a€DUI€first€offender€or€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€€.08€percent€forÐ H˜ Ða€DUI€second€or€subsequent€offender€was€addressed€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòRobinsonóó,€29€S.W.3dÐ 4„ Ðat€481„483.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€The€supreme€court€agreed€with€the€procedure€previously€recommended€by€this€courtÐ  p Ðin€òòState€v.€Michael€Ô_ÔElmoreÔ_Ô€Robinsonóó,€No.€01C01„9612„Ô_ÔCCÔ_Ô„00536,€1999€WL€16802,€at€*4,€(Tenn.Ð  \ ÐCrim.€App.€at€Nashville,€January€19,€1999).€€òòRobinsonóó,€29€S.W.3dòòóó€at€482.€€Specifically,€the€supremeÐ øH Ðcourt€stated€thatÐ ä4 Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[a]€trial€court€should€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€presence€of€the€juryÐ Ð  Ðand€make€a€formal€finding€on€the€record€as€to€whether€the€defendantÐ ¼  Ðhas€prior€DUI€convictions€before€instructing€the€jury€pursuant€toÐ ¨ø ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(b)€[as€to€an€inference€of€intoxicationÐ ”ä Ðupon€proof€of€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€.08€or€more€for€a€DUIÐ €Ð Ðmultiple€offender].€.€.€.€€As€in€this€case,€a€trial€court€must€also€instructÐ l¼ Ðthe€jury€that€it€may€draw€an€inference€of€intoxication€from€the€bloodÐ X ¨ Ðalcohol€evidence€but€that€it€is€not€required€to€do€so.ÐD!”` x` x ÐòòId.óó€(citations€and€footnote€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Susan€Blackburnóó,€No.€M1999„00295„CCA„R3„Ð 0"€  ÐCD,€2000€WL€1130158,€at€*6„7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€July€25,€2000),€òòÔ‡XOéXXXOéÔperm.€to€appealÐ #l! Ðdeniedóó,Ô#†XOéXXXOé¡E#Ô€(Tenn.€2001)òòóó.€€Additionally,€we€note€that€the€jury€should€not€be€informed€of€the€reason€forÐ $X" Ðwhich€they€are€allowed€to€infer€the€defendantððs€intoxication€when€the€defendantððs€blood€alcoholÐ ô$D # Ðcontent€is€.08€percent€or€more.€€òòId.óó€at€482€n.€3.€Thus,€the€jury€will€not€be€informed,€prior€to€theÐ à%0!$ Ðsecond€stage€of€the€proceeding,€that€the€defendant€has€prior€DUI€convictions.€òòSeeóó€òòRobinsonóó,€No.Ð Ì&"% Ð01C01„9612„Ô_ÔCCÔ_Ô„00536,€1999€WL€16802,€at€*4;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Stacy€D.€Ô_ÔWillifordÔ_Ôóó,€No.€02C01„Ð ° Ð9710„Ô_ÔCCÔ_Ô„00416,€1998€WL€886589,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€December€21,€1998).Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€connection€with€this€issue,€we€emphasize€the€following€language€from€òòRobinsonóó:Ð tÄ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Ô_Ôw]eÔ_Ô€stress[].€.€.that€a€trial€court€should€avoid€the€use€of€the€termÐ `° Ðð ðpresumptionðð€in€its€instructions€to€the€jury,€except€for€theÐ L œ Ðpresumption€of€innocence.€.€.€.[Ô_ÔI]nÔ_Ô€the€place€of€the€termÐ 8 ˆ Ðð ðpresumption,ðð€the€jury€ð ðmay€be€instructed€that€a€permissibleÐ $ t Ðinference€may€or€may€not€be€drawn€of€an€elemental€fact€from€proofÐ  ` Ðby€the€State€of€a€basic€fact,€but€that€such€inference€may€be€rebuttedÐ ü L  Ðand€the€inference€places€no€burden€of€proof€of€any€kind€upon€Ð è 8  Ðdefendant.ðð€ÐÔ$ ` x` x Ð29€S.W.3d€at€481€(citations€omitted).€€Accordingly,€a€trial€court€must€find,€outside€the€presence€ofÐ À  Ðthe€jury,€whether€the€defendant€is€a€multiple€DUI€offender.€€Upon€so€finding,€the€trial€court€mayÐ ¬ü  Ðinstruct€the€jury€that€it€is€permissible€for€the€jury€to€òòinferóó,€not€presume,€the€defendantððs€intoxicationÐ ˜è  Ðupon€proof€that€the€defendantððs€blood€alcohol€content€was€.08€percent€or€more€at€the€time€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðoffense.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àAlso,€the€trial€court€may€instruct€the€jury€as€to€the€misdemeanor€fine€for€DUI,€firstÐ H˜ Ðoffense,€during€the€first€phase€of€the€proceeding€and€then€Ô_ÔreinstructÔ_Ô€the€jury€concerning€the€fine€forÐ 4„ ÐDUI,€second€or€subsequent€offense,€during€the€second€phase.€€Even€if€the€jury€imposes€a€fine€for€theÐ  p ÐÔ_Ômisdemeanor€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô€conviction,€ð ðsuch€fine€[will€be]€neutralized€when€the€[defendant€is]€convicted€ofÐ  \ Ðdriving€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€[multiple]€offense.ðð€€òòState€v.€Mark€Ô_ÔWeemsÔ_Ôóó,€No.Ð øH Ð89„276„III,€1990€WL€45697,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Nashville,€April€19,€1990).€€However,€if€theÐ ä4 Ðjury€does€not€find€that€the€defendant€is€a€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô€multiple€offender€and€accordingly€enhance€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendantððs€sentence€and€fine,€then€the€misdemeanor€may€be€Ô_Ôimposed.Ô_ÔÐ ¼  ÐÌà@MM"ìàò òòòIII.€€Conclusionó óóóˆÐ ”ä Ðà  àà ` àBased€upon€the€forgoing,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€Ð €Ð Ѐà  àà ` àÐ l¼ ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNORMA€Ô_ÔMcGEEÔ_Ô€OGLE,€JUDGE