WPC # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 @ 0lH 0D 0J 0TB 0^ 0h 0r\ 0| 0J 0 1u` 0d U>9 BwU*B)DC AM*w_v~K D3v 0@ AO^ 0D$ D/h BHP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ RUSTUUUVPWDXPYUZe[Ӏڃ"?3|xf((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman d<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd-%C << G !!  ##   YYY FILED#X July8,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.#AppellateCourtClerk  !#d#!          Infact,thedefendantdidnothavea.03%readingbutratherhada.13%reading.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'h""""'dxdStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . !  ݛ      8 \RA'\  #\RA'\ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜R&'%A1-j|`  `@Rߛ@ ATKNOXVILLE@ APRIL1997SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE,   ) C.C.A.No.03C019610CR00370      )  Appellee,   ) HAMBLENCOUNTY      )VS.      ) HON.BENK.WEXLER,JUDGE       )CHRISTIANKINGFISHER,  ) (DUI,Speeding)      )      Appellant.   )FORTHEAPPELLANT:    FORTHEAPPELLEE: JIMW.STAMBAUGH    JOHNKNOXWALKUP P.O.Box1003     AttorneyGeneralandReporterMorristown,TN378161003           MARVINE.CLEMENTS,JR.       AssistantAttorneyGeneral       450JamesRobertsonParkway        Nashville,TN372430493        C.BERKELEYBELL        DistrictAttorneyGeneral             VICTORVAUGHN       AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral       510AllisonStreet       Morristown,TN37814 OPINIONFILED:򀀀AFFIRMEDJOEG.RILEY,JUDGE7XdXXd7 @ OPINION Defendant,ChristianKingFisher,wasconvictedbyaHamblenCountyjuryofdrivingundertheinfluenceofanintoxicantandspeeding.Thesoleissueinthisappealiswhetherthetrialcourtdeniedthedefendanthisrighttoanimpartialjurybyfailingtoexcusecertainjurorsforcause.WeAFFIRMthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.@ I. Duringvoirdiredefensecounselaskedthefollowinghypotheticaltothejurypanel:  Inotherwords,letssaytheTennesseelawsays  theressupposedtobeonezero[.10%],andsomebody  hasapointzerothree[.03%],...wouldyoufeellikethat  personisguiltyofDUI?Two(2)jurorsindicatedintheaffirmativeandwerechallengedforcause.Thetrialjudgethenexplainedtothejuryindetailthattobeconvicteditmustbeshownthatadefendantwasdrivingundertheinfluence,notthefactthathehadacertainamountofalcohol.Alljurorsindicatedtheycouldfollowthelaw.Thetrialjudgedidnotgrantthechallengeforcause. Defensecounselsubsequentlyaskedthepanelthefollowing:  Still,assumeforthepurposeofthisquestion,andthis  isanassumption,thatsomeonehadapointzerothree  [.03%]reading,andthestateofTennesseelawsaysit  takesapointonezero[.10%]tobeundertheinfluence,  howmanyofyouwouldconvictadefendantthathad  apointzerothree[.03%]reading?Five(5)jurorsindicatedintheaffirmative.Thetrialcourtthennotedthejurorsmightnotunderstandwhat.10%and.03%means.Afterafurtherexplanationfromthecourt,thejurorsindicatedtheycouldfollowthelaw. Defensecounselchallengedforcausethejurorswhohadindicatedinresponsetocounselsquestionsthattheywouldconvictbasedupona.03%reading.Afterthesechallengesforcauseweredenied,defensecounselexercisedallthree(3)peremptorychallengesallowedinamisdemeanorcase.Defendantcontendsthatbecauseofthetrialcourtsrefusaltoexcusetwo(2)namedjurorsforcause,hewasforcedtoexercisehisperemptorychallengesastothosejurors.He,therefore,argueshewasforcedtoaccepttwo(2)otherjurorsthathewouldhaveotherwiseperemptorilychallenged.@ II.  Wefirstnotethatthequestionswereconfusingtoajurywho,atthattimeinvoirdire,hadbeengivennoexplanationabouttheinferencesthatcouldbedrawnfrombloodalcoholreadings. (   ׀Furthermore,defensecounselmisstatedthelawbytellingthejury ittakesapointonezero[.10%]tobeundertheinfluence...Adefendantcanbeguiltyofdrivingundertheinfluenceevenwithoutabloodalcoholtestindicatinga.10%orgreater.Tenn.CodeAnn.5510401;Statev.Gilbert,751S.W.2d454(Tenn.Crim.App.1988).Thetrialcourthaswidediscretioninrulingonthequalificationsofajuror.Statev.Kilburn,782S.W.2d199,203(Tenn.Crim.App.1989).Thetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninrefusingtoexcusethejurorsforcause. Irrespectiveofwhetherthetrialjudgeshouldhaveexcludedthechallengedjurorsforcause,anypossibleerrorisharmlessunlessthejurywhoactuallyheardthecasewasnotfairandimpartial.Statev.Howell,868S.W.2d238,248(Tenn.1993);Statev.Thompson,768S.W.2d239,246(Tenn.1989).Thefailuretocorrectlyexcuseajurorforcauseisgroundsforreversalonlyifthedefendantexhaustsallofhisperemptorychallengesandanincompetentjurorisforceduponhim.Rossv.Oklahoma,487U.S.81,89,108S.Ct.2273,2279,101L.Ed.2d80(1988);Statev.Jones,789S.W.2d545,549(Tenn.1990).Althoughdefendantexercisedallofhisperemptorychallenges,hehasnotshownthatanincompetentjurorwasforceduponhim. ThejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED.      򀀀      JOEG.RILEY,JUDGECONCUR:򀀀JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE򀀀CHRISCRAFT,SPECIALJUDGE