ÿWPCå( … %Vw@\ 0ÜœU:x 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u© 0d B‚U *ŸB)ÉDCò AM5§‚@)ái2Jv~|vÓú D3Í& 0@' AO@'Æ' 0DU( D/™( BÈ(X &P'E()E*+E,-e./Ó€(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular³†;$3|x8(Ð(3Æ—$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ ŸXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌJuneÏ30,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó 6Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À¬¤XXdæXXdì7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóNystagmus€means€a€jerking€of€the€eyes.€€Horizontal€gaze€nystagmus€refers€to€a€jerking€ofÏthe€eyes€as€they€gaze€to€the€side.€€Gaze€nystagmus€is€observed€in€50€to€60€percent€of€the€entireÏpopulation€when€the€eyes€are€deviated€as€far€as€possible€to€one€side.€€As€people€becomeÏintoxicated,€the€onset€of€the€jerking€occurs€after€fewer€degrees€of€turning,€and€the€jerking€at€moreÏextreme€angles€becomes€more€distinct.€€The€test€is€conducted€by€having€the€subject€cover€oneÏeye€and€follow€an€object€(the€officerððs€finger€in€this€case)€with€the€open€eye€until€the€subjectððs€eyeÏis€at€an€angle€of€45ð$ð€from€his€nose.Ì ×Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À¬¤XXdæXXdì7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€note€that€the€appellantððs€trial€was€conducted€on€February€11„12,€1997,€eight€monthsÏprior€to€our€supreme€courtððs€ruling€in€òòMurphyóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€200.€€Thus,€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€theÏissue€of€whether€the€HGN€test€was€a€scientific€test€was€pending€before€the€supreme€court.€ÏMoreover,€different€panels€of€òòthisóó€court€had€reached€different€results€on€this€issue.€€òòCompareóó€ÏòòState€v.€Jankowskióó,€No.€03C01„9503„CR„00100€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Nov.€15,€1995),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Apr.€1,€1996)€òòwithóó€òòMurphyóó,€No.€01C01„9412„CC„00401.€ÏAccordingly,€the€appellantððs€contention€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€follow€precedent€is€not€a€validÏposition,€as€there€was€no€òòper€seóó€consistent€precedent€to€follow.Ì (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€Receiving€Screen€Form,€generated€at€the€time€the€appellant€was€initially€booked€atÏthe€jail,€indicated€that€the€appellant€did€not€appear€to€be€intoxicated.€€However,€testimonyÏindicated€that€the€ð ðnoðð€response€to€this€question€was€computer€generated,€and,€must€be€manuallyÏchanged€to€indicate€an€affirmative€response.€€As€such,€the€responses€on€the€screening€form€wereÏsubject€to€human€error.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  Óò òßR€#$"A1-j|`   `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ àMAY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9707„CC„00298Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àWILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Donald€P.€Harris,€JudgeÌELROY€D.€KAHANEK,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(DUI,€Third€Offense)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)Ìó óÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òLee€Ofmanó óà àà àò òà àà àà àJohn€Knox€Walkupó óÌ317€Main€Street,€Suite€208à àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌFranklin,€TN€€37064à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òTimothy€F.€Behanó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€JusticeÏDivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€D.€Baugh,€Jr.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òMark€Puryearó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€€37065„0937ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Elroy€D.€Kahanek,€appeals€the€verdict€of€a€Williamson€CountyÏjury€finding€him€guilty€of€driving€under€the€influence,€third€offense.€€The€trial€courtÏimposed€a€sentence€of€11€months,€29€days,€suspending€all€but€120€days,€andÏassessed€a€fine€of€$5,000.€€The€appellant€now€appeals€his€conviction,€raising€theÏfollowing€issues:ÌÓÓà8 àI.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€overruling€the€appellantððs€motion€òòinÏlimineóó€to€exclude€evidence€of€the€horizontal€gaze€nystagmus€test;ÌÌà8 àII.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€restricting€the€appellantððs€cross„examination€of€Officer€Hardcastle;ÌÌà8 àIII.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€rejecting€the€appellantððs€specialÏjury€instruction€relating€to€the€ð ðodor€of€alcohol;ððÌÌà8 àIV.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€instructing€the€jury€to€disregardÏportions€of€the€appellantððs€testimony;€andÌÌà8 àV.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€commenting€on€the€reliability€€of€anÏintake,€or,€ð ðReceiving€Screen€Form,ðð€required€for€the€processing€ofÏdetainees€prior€to€incarceration.ÌÌÓÓÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€evidence€and€the€applicable€law,€we€conclude€that€theÏappellantððs€issues€are€without€merit.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌà@ àò òBackgroundó óÌÌà àOn€March€28,€1996€at€approximately€6:30€p.m.,€Debbie€Doebler€was€drivingÏhome€on€I„65€south€in€Williamson€County.€€Ms.€Doebler€was€following€two€vehicles:Ïa€small€white€automobile€and€a€tractor€trailer€truck.€€The€tractor€trailer€was€in€the€farÏright€hand€lane€and€the€white€car€was€in€the€adjacent€lane.€€Ms.€Doebler€observedÏthe€white€car€swerve,€ð ðlike€it€was€going€to€hit€the€truck.ðð€€In€response,€she€slowedÏher€vehicle.€€The€white€vehicle€swerved€again,€and,€this€time,€the€car€hit€the€truck,Ïtraveling€across€the€four€southbound€lanes€of€the€interstate,€bouncing€off€theÏconcrete€median€barrier,€and€traveling€back€across€the€four€lanes€where€it€came€toÏa€stop€in€the€far€right€hand€lane.€€Ms.€Doebler,€assuming€that€someone€was€injured,Ïpulled€onto€the€shoulder€of€the€interstate€and€called€911€on€her€cellular€phone.€ÌÌà àBrentwood€Police€Officers€Allen€Hardcastle€and€David€Graves€responded€toÏthe€scene€of€the€accident.€€When€Officer€Hardcastle€arrived€at€the€scene,€heÏobserved€a€small€white€car€sitting€in€the€far€right€lane€of€the€interstate.€The€vehicleÏhad€sustained€extensive€damage€to€the€right€front€portion€and€left€rear€portion€of€theÏvehicle.€€The€damage€to€the€passenger€side€was€consistent€with€those€made€by€aÏtire.€€The€vehicleððs€airbag€was€deployed€in€the€wreck.ÌÌà àShortly€after€arriving€on€the€scene,€the€officers€determined€that€the€appellantÏwas€the€driver€of€the€white€car.€€Upon€first€making€contact€with€the€appellant,€OfficerÏHardcastle€noticed€that€the€appellant€had€a€strong€odor€of€alcohol€about€him€andÍthat€he€answered€questions€slowly.€€Also,€the€appellantððs€eyes€were€bloodshot.€ÏThe€appellant€told€Officer€Hardcastle€that,€while€he€was€traveling€in€the€far€rightÏhand€lane€of€the€interstate,€the€tractor€trailer€truck€attempted€to€make€a€lane€changeÏfrom€the€adjacent€lane€to€the€lane€in€which€he€was€traveling,€resulting€in€theÏaccident.€€When€asked€by€the€officer€whether€he€was€injured€or€needed€to€go€to€theÏhospital,€the€appellant€stated€that€he€did€not€need€any€medical€treatment.€€OfficerÏHardcastle€did€observe€a€small€cut€on€the€appellantððs€wrist,€but€no€incapacitatingÏinjuries.ÌÌà àBased€on€his€initial€observations€of€the€appellant,€Officer€HardcastleÏbelieved€that€the€appellant€had€been€driving€under€the€influence€of€alcohol.€€HeÏproceeded€to€conduct€three€field€sobriety€tests,€òòi.e.óó,€the€Horizontal€Gaze€NystagmusÏTest,× ƒ% ××  ×€the€ð ðwalk€and€turnðð€test,€and€the€ð ðone€leg€standðð€test.€€During€theððHGNðð€test,Ïthe€appellant€failed€to€have€ð ðsmooth€pursuit,€his€eyes€pursued€in€one€jerky€motionÏto€45ð$ð.€€He€had€a€[di]stinct€nystagmus€at€max[imum]€deviation€on€both€eyes.€€He€hadÏonset€of€nystagmus€prior€to€45ð$ð.ðð€€Officer€Hardcastle€next€conducted€the€ð ðwalk€andÏturnðð€test.€€The€appellant€was€unable€to€complete€the€test€as€instructed;€he€raisedÏhis€arms,€swayed,€and€stumbled€to€the€left,€where€he€was€caught€by€Officer€Graves.€ÍThe€appellant€then€stumbled€to€the€right,€where€he€was€caught€by€OfficerÏHardcastle.€€At€this€point,€Officer€Hardcastle€terminated€the€test€for€the€appellantððsÏown€safety.€€The€final€test€administered€was€the€ð ðone€leg€stand,ðð€which€required€theÏraising€of€either€foot€six€inches€off€the€ground,€while€counting€to€thirty€out€loud.€TheÏappellant€raised€his€arms,€swayed,€and€put€his€foot€down€within€two€œseconds›€ofÏpicking€it€up.€€The€appellant€admitted€that€he€could€not€complete€this€test.€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àÌà àOfficer€Hardcastle€concluded€that€the€appellantððs€conduct€during€these€testsÏwas€consistent€with€his€initial€observations€that€the€appellant€was€under€theÏinfluence€of€alcohol.€€Officer€Graves€confirmed€Officer€Hardcastleððs€results€of€theÏfield€sobriety€tests€and€the€appellantððs€statements€at€the€scene.€€The€appellant€wasÏarrested€and€transported€to€the€Williamson€County€Jail.ÌÌà àThe€appellant,€in€his€own€defense,€testified€that,€on€February€12,€his€wife€hadÏsurgery€which€revealed€the€spread€of€cancer€throughout€her€body.€€The€doctorsÏinformed€the€appellant€and€his€wife€that,€without€chemotherapy€treatments,€she€hadÏnine€months€to€live.€€The€chemotherapy€treatments€cost€approximately€four€to€sixÏthousand€dollars€per€treatment€and€his€wife€refused€any€treatment€if€their€insuranceÏcompany€denied€coverage.€€On€the€afternoon€of€the€accident,€the€appellant€wasÏnotified€that€his€insurance€would€not€cover€his€wifeððs€chemotherapy€treatments.€ÏThe€appellant€testified€that€this€news€was€emotionally€upsetting,€causing€him€toÏð ðcr[y]€all€afternoon.ðð€€ÌÌÌà àAt€5:30€p.m.,€the€appellant€left€his€Nashville€office€and€went€across€the€streetÏto€the€Nashville€Country€Club€ð ðto€wait€for€traffic€to€die€down.ðð€€At€the€restaurant,€theÏappellant€ordered€a€scotch€and€water.€€Shortly€thereafter,€a€friend€purchased€theÏappellant€a€second€scotch€and€water€as€a€belated€birthday€present.€€The€appellantÏleft€the€restaurant€at€6:00€p.m.€and€began€his€drive€home€on€I„65€South.€€On€theÏway€home,€he€called€his€wife€from€his€cellular€phone€and€asked€her€if€she€wantedÏhim€to€pick€up€some€fast€food€for€dinner.€€After€ending€his€conversation€with€hisÏwife,€the€appellant€threw€the€telephone€in€the€passenger€side€seat.€€Realizing€thatÏhe€had€not€turned€the€telephone€off,€€he€leaned€over€to€pick€the€telephone€up.€€AtÏthis€point,€the€accident€occurred.€€The€appellant€stated€that,€upon€impact€with€theÏtruck,€his€airbags€exploded,€causing€burns€and€cuts€on€his€arms.€€He€added€that€theÏairbags€caused€his€knees€to€hit€the€dashboard.€€The€appellant€testified€that€he€toldÏOfficer€Hardcastle€that€his€ð ðknees€are€killing€me,€I€cannot€perform€this€test.ððÌÌà àBased€upon€this€evidence,€the€jury€returned€a€guilty€verdict€as€to€the€offenseÏof€driving€under€the€influence,€third€offense.ÌÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Horizontal€Gaze€Nystagmus€Testó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€relying€upon€an€unpublished€opinion€of€this€court,€òòi.e.óó,€òòStateÏv.€Cora€Murphyóó,€No.€01C01„9412„CC„00401€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Oct.€6,Ï1995),€òòaffððd€byóó,€953€S.W.2d€200€(Tenn.€Oct.€13,€1997),€filed€a€motion€òòin€limineóó€onÏJanuary€9,€1997,€to€exclude€evidence€of€the€Horizontal€Gaze€Nystagmus€Test€asÏthe€State€was€required€to€establish€that€there€is€general€acceptance€of€the€test€inÏthe€scientific€community.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€finding€that€the€HGN€testÏdoes€not€constitute€a€scientific€test.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€ruling€is€in€ð ðerror€and€is€contrary€to€existing€law€within€the€courtððsÏjurisdiction.ðð× ƒ& ××  ×€€€Although€conceding€the€error€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€the€StateÏcontends€that€any€error€in€admitting€the€evidence€of€the€HGN€test€was€harmless.ÌÌà àInitially,€we€note€that€this€issue€is€now€governed€by€our€supreme€courtððsÏruling€in€òòState€v.€Murphyóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€200.€€In€òòState€v.€Murphyóó,€the€court€held€thatÏthe€Horizontal€Gaze€Nystagmus€test€is€a€scientific€test.€€€òòMurphyóó,€953€S.W.2d€atÏ201.€€In€so€ruling,€the€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àIn€our€view,€the€HGN€test€does€differ€fundamentally€from€other€fieldÏsobriety€tests€because€the€witness€must€necessarily€explain€theÏunderlying€scientific€basis€of€the€test€in€order€for€the€testimony€to€beÏmeaningful€to€a€jury.Ìà8 à.€.€.Ìà8 àAnd€there€is€another€distinction€.€.€.€and€it€concerns€measurement.€.€.€.Ï[W]hen€an€officer€testifies€that€the€subjectððs€eye€movement€was€rapidÏand€very€jerky€at€less€than€a€40€degree€angle,€that€officer€is€testifyingÏabout€a€measurement€that€probably€should€be€taken€with€aÏmeasuring€device.€€Therefore,€the€accuracy€of€this€testimony€may€beÏquestionable€in€light€of€the€officerððs€non„scientific€measurement€of€aÏscientifically€measurable€phenomenon.ÌÓÓÌòòIdóó.€at€203.€€ÌÌà àSince€the€HGN€test€is€a€scientific€test,€evidence€resulting€from€the€test€mustÏsatisfy€€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702€and€703.€€òòIdóó.€at€203.€€Under€theseÏrules,€the€trial€court€must€determine€whether€the€evidence€will€substantially€assistÏthe€trier€of€fact€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue€and€whether€the€facts€and€dataÏunderlying€the€evidence€indicate€a€lack€of€trustworthiness.€€òòSeeóó€€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSXÏTransp.,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257,€265€(Tenn.€1997),€òòpetition€for€cert.€filedóó,€66€U.S.L.W.Ï3605€(Mar.€9,€1998)€(No.€97„1469).€€€€If€€the€scientific€evidence€is€valid,€a€witnessÏqualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€mayÏtestify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.€€òòIdóó.€at€264.€€Moreover,€the€court€mustÏbe€assured€that€the€opinion€of€the€expert€witness€is€based€on€relevant€scientificÏmethods,€processes,€and€data,€and€not€upon€an€expertððs€mere€speculation.€€òòIdóó.€atÏ265.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€Officer€Hardcastle€testified€regarding€the€proceduresÍinvolved€in€the€administration€of€the€HGN€test€and€his€law€enforcement€training€andÏcertification€relevant€to€field€sobriety€tests.€He€also€acknowledged€the€existence€ofÏother€nystagmus€in€the€eye€other€than€horizontal€and€that€they€could€be€caused€byÏfactors€other€than€alcohol.€€We€cannot€conclude€that€this€testimony€establishedÏOfficer€Hardcastle€as€being€qualified€by€his€ð ðknowledge,€skill,€experience,€trainingÏor€educationðð€to€provide€expert€testimony€that€would€ð ðsubstantially€assist€the€trier€ofÏfact€[in]€understand[ing]€the€evidence€or€determin[ing]€a€fact€in€issue.ðð€€òòSeeóó€€òòMurphyóó,Ï953€S.W.2d€at€201„202;€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Grindstaffóó,€No.€03C01„9704„CR„00139Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Mar.€23,€1998).€€As€such,€the€trial€court€should€haveÏgranted€the€appellantððs€òòin€limineóó€motion.ÌÌà àNotwithstanding€the€trial€courtððs€error€in€admitting€such€testimony€regardingÏthe€HGN€test,€we€find€the€courtððs€error,€at€most,€harmless,€as€there€was€more€thanÏsufficient€evidence€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€appellant€guilty€of€drivingÏunder€the€influence.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Summersóó,ÏNo.03C01„9606„CR„00235€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Dec.€4,€1997);€€òòState€v.ÏTurneróó,€No.€03C01„9604„CC„00151€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Jul.€9,€1997).€€InÏaddition€to€the€HGN€test,€Officer€Hardcastle€conducted€the€ð ðwalk€and€turnðð€test€andÏthe€ð ðone€leg€standðð€test.€€There€is€no€doubt€that€neither€of€these€tests€require€expertÏtestimony.€€General€field€sobriety€tests€are€not€ð ðscientific€tests,ðð€and,€thus,€notÏgoverned€by€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702€and€703.€€òòSeeóó€€òòTurneróó,€No.€03C01„9604„CC„00151Ï(citing€òòState€v.€Gilbertóó,€751€S.W.2d€454,€459€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)).€€The€resultsÍof€these€two€non„scientific€field€sobriety€tests€in€conjunction€with€the€officersðð€initialÏobservations€of€the€appellantððs€demeanor,€his€admission€of€consuming€alcoholÏprior€to€driving€home,€and€eyewitness€testimony€of€the€appellantððs€erratic€drivingÏwere€properly€before€the€jury€and€are€sufficient€evidence€from€which€a€rational€jurorÏcould€infer€that€the€appellant€was€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€impairing€hisÏability€to€operate€his€vehicle.€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Cross„Examination€of€Officer€Hardcastleó óÌÌà àDuring€cross„examination€of€Officer€Hardcastle,€defense€counsel€initiated€aÏline€of€questioning€regarding€the€officerððs€opinion€of€the€fairness€of€theÏstandardized€field€sobriety€tests.€€Defense€counsel€then€asked€Officer€Hardcastle:Ïð ðIf€you€were€designing€this€test€to€cause€imbalance€and€sway,€would€you€have€themÏhave€their€feet€standing€apart€like€this€or€have€one€foot€out€about€six€inches€off€theÏground?ðð€€The€prosecutor€objected€to€the€question€as€being€argumentative,€statingÏthat€Officer€Hardcastle€had€already€answered€defense€counselððs€questionsÏregarding€the€fairness€of€the€test.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€Stateððs€objection,Ïfinding€that€the€question€was€posed€as€a€hypothetical,€that€the€officer€hadÏpreviously€stated€that€he€did€not€and€does€not€design€the€test,€and€that€the€questionÏð ðhas€nothing€to€do€with€this€case.ðð€€€ÌÌà àð ðThe€right€to€cross„examination€is€fundamental,€thus,€the€denial€of€this€rightÏto€apprise€the€accused€a€fair€trial€is€ððconstitutional€error€of€the€first€magnitude.ðððð€ÏòòState€v.€Henningóó,€No.€02C01„9504„CC„00115€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Jan.€9,Ï1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó,€(Tenn.€Jul.€7,€1997)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€598ÏS.W.2d€815,€819€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)).€€Yet,€the€propriety,€scope,€manner€andÏcontrol€of€testimony€and€other€evidence,€including€the€scope€of€cross„examination,Ïis€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€which€will€not€be€reversed€absent€anÏabuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Hutchinsonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161,€172€(Tenn.Ï1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€516€U.S.€846,€116€S.Ct.€137€(1995);€òòState€v.€Barnardóó,€899ÏS.W.2d€617,€624€(Tenn.€ÌÌCrim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994)€(citing€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564ÏS.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978));€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€611.ÌÌà àThe€scope€of€cross„examination€extends€to€ð ðany€matter€relevant€to€any€issueÏin€the€case,€including€credibility.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€611(b).€€Defense€counselððs€inquiryÏas€to€the€police€officerððs€design€of€a€hypothetical€sobriety€test€was€irrelevant€to€theÏissue€at€hand.€€Officer€Hardcastle€had,€on€more€than€one€occasion,€expressed€hisÏopinion€as€to€the€fairness€of€the€field€sobriety€tests€conducted€in€the€present€case.ÏMoreover,€considering€Officer€Hardcastleððs€testimony€in€its€totality,€we€cannotÏconclude€that€the€appellant€was€prejudiced€by€the€courtððs€ruling.€€Accordingly,€weÏfind€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€Jury€Instruction€on€Odor€of€Alcoholó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€next€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€his€specialÏinstruction€regarding€€the€odor€of€alcohol.€€In€pertinent€part,€the€refused€instructionÏreads:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€bare€fact€that€there€was€an€odor€of€intoxicant€on€the€DefendantððsÏperson€is€not€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€that€he€was€driving€underÏthe€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€òòNewby€v.€Stateóó,€388€S.W.2d€136,€138Ï(Tenn.€1965).ÌÌÓÓThe€trial€court€refused€the€appellantððs€request,€finding€that€the€instruction€wasÏð ðcovered€by€[the]€charge€that€requires€[a]€finding€of€impairment.ðð€€The€courtÏdetermined€that:ÌÓÓà8 àThis€request€may€be€confusing€in€that€jurors€may€infer€the€court€isÏstating€odor€of€alcohol€is€in€the€Courtððs€opinion€the€only€evidenceÏindicating€that€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence.ÌÓÓÌà àWhere€the€charge,€as€given,€fully€and€fairly€states€the€law€applicable€to€theÏcase,€it€is€not€error€to€refuse€a€special€request.€€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€523Ï(Tenn.€1997),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€„„U.S.€„„,€118€S.Ct.€376€(1997);€€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€771ÏS.W.2d€387,€398€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€497€U.S.€1031,€110€S.Ct.€3291€(1990).€ÏWe€find€that€the€jury€instructions€provided€by€the€trial€court€adequately€covered€theÏapplicable€law€on€this€subject.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òIV.€€Cross„Examination€of€the€Appellantó óÌÌà àOn€cross„examination€of€the€appellant,€the€prosecuting€attorney€asked€theÏappellant€if€there€was€any€person€at€the€Nashville€Country€Club€who€knew€him€andÏwould€those€people€have€been€able€to€testify€as€to€the€appellantððs€sobriety.€€TheÏappellant€responded€that,€if€he€had€been€intoxicated,€those€people€would€not€haveÏlet€him€drive€and€someone€would€have€taken€him€home€or€he€would€have€called€aÏlimousine€service€to€take€him€home.€€The€prosecutor€then€requested€a€jury„outÏduring€which€he€asked€the€court€to€instruct€the€jury€to€disregard€the€appellantððsÏstatement,€since€the€prosecutor€was€not€able€to€introduce€evidence€of€theÏappellantððs€two€prior€convictions€for€driving€under€the€influence.€€The€trial€courtÏruled€that€the€appellantððs€statement€was€unresponsive€to€the€question€asked€by€theÏprosecutor€and€was€volunteered€by€the€appellant.€€The€jury€was€then€instructed€toÏdisregard€the€appellantððs€statements.€€The€appellant€contests€the€courtððs€rulingÏarguing€that€the€courtððs€instruction€to€the€jury€ð ðwas€a€comment€on€the€evidenceÏwhich€is€disallowed€in€Tennessee,€òòHooper€v.€Stateóó,€325€S.W.2d€561€(Tenn.€1959),Ïand,€further,€that€instruction€cast€doubt€on€the€Defendantððs€credibility,€therebyÏdenying€the€Defendant€his€due€process€right€to€a€fair€trial€under€the€Tennessee€andÏUnited€States€Constitutions.ððÌÌà àContrary€to€the€appellantððs€assertions,€we€agree€with€the€State€that€there€isÏno€evidence€that€the€trial€court€commented€upon€the€evidence.€€Rather,€the€trialÏcourt€only€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€the€appellantððs€statement€as€it€wasÏunresponsive€to€the€prosecutorððs€ð ðyes€or€noðð€question.€€As€stated€previously,€theÏscope€and€control€of€the€examination€of€witnesses€rests€within€the€sound€discretionÏof€the€trial€court;€and€this€court€will€not€interfere€with€the€exercise€of€this€discretionÏunless€it€clearly€appears€upon€the€face€of€the€record€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€when€ruling.€€òòSeeóó€€òòHutchinsonóó,€898€S.W.2d€at€172;€òòBarnardóó,€899€S.W.2dÏat€624.€€We€fail€to€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€instructing€the€juryÏto€disregard€the€appellantððs€extemporaneous€testimony.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òV.€€Trial€Courtððs€Comment€Upon€Reliability€of€Receiving€Screen€Formó óÌÌà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€appellant€complains€that€the€trial€court€made€improperÏcomments€to€the€jury€regarding€the€reliability€of€the€intake€or€receiving€screenÏform,× ƒ' ××  ×€which€is€required€for€the€processing€of€a€detainee.€€This€form€was€introducedÏinto€evidence€by€the€defense€through€the€custodian€of€records€at€the€WilliamsonÍCounty€Jail.€€Initially,€we€agree€with€the€State€that€the€appellant€has€waived€thisÏissue€for€failure€to€cite€to€that€which€he€complains€of.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7).€ÏThis€court€will€not€speculate€as€to€the€alleged€errors€of€the€trial€court.€ÏNotwithstanding€waiver€of€this€issue,€this€court€fails€to€find€that€the€trial€court€madeÏany€improper€comments€to€the€jury€regarding€the€formððs€reliability.€€Indeed,€theÏvideo€tape€transcript€of€the€trial€indicates€that€any€comments€made€by€the€trial€courtÏwere€made€during€a€jury€out€hearing.€€Accordingly,€there€is€no€merit€to€this€issue.ÌÌÌà@ àò òConclusionó óÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record€before€us,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€convictionÏentered€by€the€Williamson€County€Circuit€Court.€€€€€€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€Judgeà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à