ÿWPC¦ †Uîóå/ùÚÕuJÞ¶ÈóÚ×u°3Â\º¼¡oWEnL×ËŽÅóô/Ô ô|^“ÌGñ^«ˆ£Ô‚¼F†ÜÑ7º´ç­€T‘Й¢‹årÁ-Öl*=Û&… K4Ônqæ Þ¥ÂÌ4"4_sü¯ÔDÞn?T]i5È@…ßžjö„_`H{®®‚ƒ}©Ø«¶) Õ­!ú(D5±´n3”Ý<‘òVâ©•òF>âIT‚´žû‹w*ªÀ ¬=þv|È^Ðè"#†iÿ–tÔlô·Ž=M K‚Né³Iða‹‡ƒUB/ÎäGÿ?8®w‰„ÞXUã]ûî'ïsÆr›ý´ÒÓ¥G=©4´íöû¨0MvlWØä7‹ÙÐì¨I:Ϭ'Tè´`ãd‘råcÀ ºs¤1r?Ìol#{O´uÁ$+5ÜÔ°Ø#'—âWPæ°Ï”CU85ÔUKp<¤™HÀ=={/ .õÍtb‹žü‰Ì5LD W%’´Wàûn˜gBz¨$’®w§f!ÇC¡ ä¨f­”€ï¡wíÕzþY¿·5mRSß¡µnËÕz{ ¨#°µÈ}›Èf’Ì,+ ¿¡ Ø©|ËVž?ýús.b#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ ä™ Æ} ÆCÆ ÆÏÏN•••E————————————————————————b™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™ 0ë¡¡¡¡ BŒŒ 0¤© D5M D-‚ 0K¯¯ ASúÆM 0¤ 0D· A«û˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0»&¨D1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularh_B0ê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ FAIRBETTERYarbroughKristenCandiceMowryD.U.I.D.U.IBagleyStrouthAgursYoungbloodLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2ôå$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ŒÉ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­Ôò»»Ô d(|3?$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ŒÉ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ŒÉ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ŒÉ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ŒÉ»»»ÔÑ8€ÇXXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡îpþŒÉÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ŒÉ»îîpþ #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€10,€2004€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡XÇX»¼ŒÉÔÌò òÔ#†¼ŒÉ»XXÇ#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€GREGORY€FAIRBETTERòòóóÔ‡XÇX»¼ŒÉÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€2003„T„296€€€€€€Monte€Watkins,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2004„00594„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€1,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Gregory€Fairbetter,€was€charged€with€driving€under€the€influence€and€violating€theÐ V¦  Ðimplied€consent€law.€€The€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss,€arguing€that€because€the€videotapeÐ ? Ðof€his€arrest€had€been€destroyed€by€the€state,€he€could€not€receive€a€fair€trial.€€The€trial€court€agreedÐ (x Ðand€dismissed€the€driving€under€the€influence€charge.€€In€this€appeal,€the€state€asserts€that€the€trialÐ a Ðcourt€erred.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€the€cause€is€remanded.Ð úJ ÐÓžÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Reversed€and€Remandedó óÐ Ì ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ŒÉ»àXÇ#ÔÔ‡XÇX.¼ŒÉÔGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòNorma€McGee€Ogleóó€and€òòRobertÐ Ÿï ÐW.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Helena€W.€Yarbrough,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð Zª Ðand€Kristen€Shea,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð C“ ÐÌRichard€McGee,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Gregory€Fairbetter.Ð e ÐÓnÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ŒÉ»XXÇ#ÔÔ‡XÇX»¼ŒÉÔÐ ç 7  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ŒÉ»XXÇD #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÇX»¼ŒÉÔà  àIn€June€of€2003,€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€one€count€of€driving€under€the€influence€andÐ º" " Ðone€count€of€violation€of€the€implied€consent€law.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€55„10„401,€„406.€Ð £#ó# ÐApproximately€eight€months€later,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€charges€because€theÐ Œ$Ü$ Ðstate€had€destroyed€the€videotape€of€his€arrest.€€He€argued€that€the€videotape€was€essential€to€theÐ u%Å % Ðdevelopment€of€his€defense€and€that€a€trial€conducted€without€the€videotape€would€be€fundamentallyÐ ^&®!& Ðunfair.Ð G'—"' ÐÌà  àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€motion,€Belle€Meade€Police€Officer€Shawn€O'BrienÐ )i$) Ðtestified€that€he€arrested€the€defendant€for€driving€under€the€influence€on€October€12,€2002.€€HeÐ *R%* Ðstated€that€prior€to€initiating€a€traffic€stop€and€activating€the€camera€in€his€patrol€car,€he€hadÐ ë*;&+ Ðobserved€the€defendant€driving€off€of€the€roadway.€€According€to€Officer€O'Brien,€he€activated€theÐ Ô+$', Ðvideo€camera€in€his€patrol€car€at€the€same€time€he€activated€the€lights€and€siren.€€The€officer€testifiedÐ ½, (- Ðthat€the€defendant€was€not€unsteady€on€his€feet€but€had€watery€eyes,€slurred€speech,€and€anÐ ¦-ö(.ýÿ ÐÔ_Ô"extreme"€odor€of€alcohol.€€He€contended€that€he€observed€the€defendant€for€more€than€an€hour€fromÐ ° Ðthe€time€of€the€initial€traffic€stop€until€the€time€the€defendant€was€booked€at€the€jail.€€Officer€O'BrienÐ ™é Ðestimated€that€the€video€contained€only€thirteen€minutes€of€evidence.€€It€was€his€opinion€that€theÐ ‚Ò Ðvideotape€would€have€shown€the€defendant€in€the€profile€position€because€the€defendant€never€facedÐ k» Ðthe€camera.€€According€to€Officer€O'Brien,€an€officer€trainee,€Kenneth€Dixon,€was€riding€with€himÐ T¤ Ðat€the€time€of€the€arrest.€€Officer€O'Brien€stated€that€Dixon€also€observed€the€defendant's€erraticÐ =  Ðdriving€before€the€arrest€and€his€demeanor€afterward.Ð & v ÐÌà  àAfter€arresting€the€defendant,€Officer€O'Brien€delivered€the€videotape€to€Officer€CandiceÐ ø H ÐMowry€with€a€note€attached€that€said,€"Hold,€D.U.I.€evidence."€€Officer€O'Brien€stated€that€he€didÐ á 1  Ðnot€review€the€videotape€between€the€time€that€it€was€made€and€the€time€that€it€was€requested€by€theÐ Ê   ÐDistrict€Attorney's€Office.€€He€recalled€that€when€he€asked€Officer€Mowry€to€return€the€videotape,Ð ³  Ðshe€informed€him€that€she€had€erased€the€videotape€and€placed€the€blank€tape€into€a€cabinet€to€beÐ œì  Ðreused.€€Officer€O'Brien€testified€that€he€was€aware€of€no€other€instance€of€a€videotape€beingÐ …Õ  Ðdestroyed€in€that€office.€€After€this€incident,€the€police€department€changed€its€policy€regarding€theÐ n¾  Ðhandling€of€tapes,€requiring€the€arresting€officer€to€maintain€possession€of€videotapes€of€arrests.€Ð W§  ÐOfficer€O'Brien€admitted€that€certain€of€the€facts,€such€as€the€exact€time€and€location€of€the€trafficÐ @ Ðstop,€were€not€in€the€arrest€report€but€would€have€been€on€the€videotape.€€He€also€conceded€that€theÐ )y Ðvideotape€would€have€shown€the€defendant's€appearance,€his€driving,€and€his€interaction€with€theÐ b Ðofficer.Ð ûK ÐÌà  àOfficer€O'Brien€admitted€that€he€stopped€the€defendant€based€upon€driving€that€occurred€bothÐ Í Ðbefore€and€after€he€activated€his€emergency€equipment€and€video€camera.€€He€also€conceded€thatÐ ¶ Ðthe€videotape€was€important€because€it€would€help€him€testify€with€greater€accuracy.€€The€officerÐ Ÿï Ðalso€admitted€that€he€described€the€odor€of€intoxicant€as€"extreme"€based€upon€his€smelling€it€whenÐ ˆØ Ðthe€defendant€was€inside€the€patrol€car.€€He€acknowledged€that€Dixon's€name€was€not€listed€in€anyÐ qÁ Ðof€the€reports€generated€at€the€time€of€the€arrest€and€had€not€been€included€on€the€list€of€witnessesÐ Zª Ðfor€the€state.Ð C“ ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€granted€the€motion€to€dismiss,€observing€asÐ e Ðfollows:Ð þN ÐÌà8  àà ` àThere€are€three€basic€factors.€€The€degree€of€negligence€is€factor€number€one.€Ð Ð!   ÐIn€considering€this,€the€officer€testified€that€he€specifically€wrote€on€the€tape€to€"HoldÐ ¹" ! Ðfor€a€D.U.I,"€and€the€tape€was€erased€anyway.€€That,€to€me,€constitutes€negligence,Ð ¢#ò" Ðbecause€there€was€a€duty,€that€duty€was€breached.€€So,€that,€in€my€mind,€wasÐ ‹$Û# Ðnegligence.Ðt%Ä $Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àFactor€number€two€is€significance€of€the€destroyed€evidence.€€I€believe€thatÐ ]&­!% Ðthe€evidence€was,€in€fact,€significant.ÐF'–"&Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAnd,€then,€you€have€to€go€to€factor€three,€the€sufficiency€of€the€other€trialÐ /(#' Ðevidence.€€I€don't€know€if€the€other€trial€evidence€would€be€sufficient€or€not.€€EvenÐ )h$( Ðthe€State€admitted€it€would€be€somewhat€troubling€to€them,€or€they€would€have€someÐ *Q%) Ðtrouble€with€that.€€But,€what€I€find€is€that,€without€the€missing€evidence,€then,€havingÐ ê*:&* Ða€trial€would€be€fundamentally€unfair€.€.€.€.ÐÓ+#'+Ð Ð  Їà  àIn€the€landmark€case€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963),€the€United€States€SupremeÐ ° ÐCourt€ruled€that€a€prosecutor€has€a€duty€to€furnish€exculpatory€evidence€to€the€defendant€uponÐ ™é Ðrequest.€€Exculpatory€evidence€may€pertain€to€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€accused€and/or€theÐ ‚Ò Ðpunishment€which€may€be€imposed€if€the€accused€is€convicted€of€the€crime.€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845Ð k» ÐS.W.2d€228,€232€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Any€"suppression€by€the€prosecution€of€evidenceÐ T¤ Ðfavorable€to€an€accused€upon€request€violates€due€process€where€the€evidence€is€material€either€toÐ =  Ðguilt€or€punishment,€irrespective€of€the€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution."€€òòBradyóó,€373€U.S.Ð & v Ðat€87.€€Thus,€the€duty€to€provide€arises€when€the€evidence€is€material,€the€evidence€is€favorable€forÐ  _ Ðthe€defense,€and€a€proper€request€for€production€is€made€by€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.Ð ø H ÐBagleyóó,€473€U.S.€667,€675€(1985);€òòStrouth€v.€Stateóó,€755€S.W.2d€819,€828€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€Ð á 1  ÐEven€in€the€absence€of€a€specific€request,€the€prosecution€has€a€constitutional€duty€to€turn€overÐ Ê   Ðexculpatory€evidence€that€would€raise€a€reasonable€doubt€about€a€defendant's€guilt.€€òòUnited€StatesÐ ³  Ðv.€Agursóó,€427€U.S.€97€(1976).€€"Evidence€'favorable€to€an€accused'€includes€evidence€deemed€to€beÐ œì  Ðexculpatory€in€nature€and€evidence€that€could€be€used€to€impeach€the€state's€witnesses."€€òòJohnsonÐ …Õ  Ðv.€Stateóó,€38€S.W.3d€52,€55-56€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€òòBagleyóó,€473€U.S.€at€676;€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910Ð n¾  ÐS.W.2d€381,€389€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Copelandóó,€983€S.W.2d€703,€706€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998)òòóó).Ð W§  ÐÌà  àIn€òòArizona€v.€Youngbloodóó,€488€U.S.€51€(1988),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€thatÐ )y Ða€criminal€defendant€must€show€bad€faith€on€the€part€of€the€state€in€order€to€establish€a€denial€of€dueÐ b Ðprocess€for€failure€to€preserve€potentially€useful€evidence.€€In€òòState€v.€Fergusonóó,€2€S.W.3d€912,€917Ð ûK Ð(Tenn.€1999),€however,€where€the€police€lost€a€videotape€of€the€defendant's€field€sobriety€tests,€ourÐ ä4 Ðsupreme€court€rejected€the€bad€faith€requirement€articulated€in€òòYoungbloodóó.€€Our€high€courtÐ Í Ðconcluded€that€the€due€process€principles€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€are€broader€than€thoseÐ ¶ Ðenunciated€in€the€United€States€Constitution€and€that€fundamental€fairness,€as€an€element€of€dueÐ Ÿï Ðprocess,€requires€that€the€state's€failure€to€preserve€evidence€which€could€be€favorable€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant€be€evaluated€in€the€context€of€the€entire€record.€€òòFergusonóó,€2€S.W.3d€at€916-17.€€If€theÐ qÁ Ðstate€has€a€duty€to€preserve€the€evidence,€the€reviewing€court€must€conduct€a€balancing€test€basedÐ Zª Ðupon€the€following€three€factors:Ð C“ ÐÌà8  à(1)€the€degree€of€negligence€involved;ÐeÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(2)€the€significance€of€the€destroyed€evidence,€considered€in€light€of€the€probativeÐ ç 7 Ðvalue€and€reliability€of€secondary€or€substitute€evidence€that€remains€available;€andÐÐ!  Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€the€sufficiency€of€the€other€evidence€against€the€defendant.Т#ò"Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€917.€€If€a€trial€without€the€lost€or€destroyed€evidence€would€be€unfair,€the€trial€court€mayÐ t%Ä $ Ðdismiss€the€charges,€provide€a€jury€instruction,€or€take€other€steps€necessary€to€protect€theÐ ]&­!% Ðdefendant's€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€òòId.óó€€In€òòFergusonóó,€our€supreme€court€ultimately€determined€that€theÐ F'–"& Ðdefendant€had€not€been€deprived€of€his€right€to€a€fair€trial€by€the€loss€of€the€videotape.€€òòId.óó€at€918Ð /(#' ÐÌà  àIn€this€instance,€the€state€had€a€duty€to€preserve€the€videotape€because€it€was€"material€to€theÐ *Q%) Ðpreparation€of€the€defendant's€defense."€€òòId.óó€€Because€the€state€destroyed€the€videotape€before€itÐ ê*:&* Ðcould€be€viewed€by€the€defendant,€it€breached€that€duty.€€As€to€the€first€of€the€òòFergusonóó€factors,€theÐ Ó+#'+ Ðrecord€establishes€that€the€destruction€of€the€tape€was€the€result€of€simple€rather€than€grossÐ ° Ðnegligence.Ð ™é ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€second€factor,€the€evidence€was€significant.€The€videotape€would€have€displayedÐ k» Ðthe€appearance€and€demeanor€of€the€defendant€at€the€time€of€the€stop.€€Its€probative€value€wasÐ T¤ Ðlimited,€however,€because€the€defendant€refused€all€but€one€field€sobriety€test,€the€horizontal€gazeÐ =  Ðnystagmus€test,€and€the€results€of€that€test€would€not€be€admissible€at€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Murphyóó,€953Ð & v ÐS.W.2d€200€(Tenn.€1997)€(holding€that€horizontal€gaze€nystagmus€tests€are€"scientific"€and€must,Ð  _ Ðtherefore,€meet€the€requirements€of€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€702€and€703€to€be€admissible).€Ð ø H ÐFurther,€there€was€other€evidence.€€Both€Officer€O'Brien€and€Dixon€were€eyewitnesses€to€theÐ á 1  Ðdefendant's€level€of€intoxication€and€his€driving€behavior.Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àBecause€the€trial€court€granted€the€pretrial€motion€to€dismiss,€the€third€factor,€the€sufficiencyÐ œì  Ðof€the€convicting€evidence,€is€the€most€difficult€to€address.€€The€record€establishes€that€the€defendantÐ …Õ  Ðrefused€all€admissible€field€sobriety€tests€and€also€refused€to€submit€to€a€breathalyser€examination.€Ð n¾  ÐThe€only€evidence€in€the€record€is€the€testimony€of€Officer€O'Brien.€€At€the€hearing,€Officer€O'BrienÐ W§  Ðtestified€that€the€defendant€had€watery€eyes€and€slurred€speech€and€smelled€of€alcohol.€€While€heÐ @ Ðconceded€that€the€defendant€was€not€unsteady€on€his€feet,€Officer€O'Brien€believed€that€theÐ )y Ðdefendant€was€intoxicated€and€indicated€in€the€arrest€report€that€the€effects€of€intoxication€wereÐ b Ð"obvious."€€The€arrest€report€also€indicates€that€the€defendant€crossed€the€double€yellow€lines€fourÐ ûK Ðtimes€and€the€white€line€five€times,€once€almost€leaving€the€roadway.€€The€defendant€made€noÐ ä4 Ðadmissions.€€Dixon€did€not€testify.€€While€proof€of€the€defendant's€guilt€is€certainly€less€thanÐ Í Ðoverwhelming,€it€would€have€been€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€driving€under€the€influence.Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àIn€summary,€all€of€the€òòFergusonóó€factors€weigh€favorably€for€the€state.€€In€our€view,€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant€can€be€given€a€fair€trial€without€the€videotape.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€dismissing€theÐ qÁ Ðcharge.€€A€remand€for€a€trial€is€appropriate.€€In€accordance€with€òòFergusonóó,€the€defendant€should€beÐ Zª Ðpermitted€to€cross„examine€Officer€O'Brien€about€the€missing€evidence€and€the€trial€court€shouldÐ C“ Ðprovide€a€jury€instruction€on€that€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòFergusonóó,€2€S.W.3d€at€917€n.11€(providing€a€suggestedÐ ,| Ðinstruction).Ð e ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€reversed€and€the€cause€is€remanded€for€trial.Ð ç 7 ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ‹$Û# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE