WPC # VU>a % 0UB 4  n U: w@  0J& 0Tp 0^ 0h" 0r 0| 0x 0 1u 0dU6gU.U*B)DC Ba AM~cv~.v D3 0@ AOA 0D D/K BzHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh<( 9Z &Courier RegularX($  7'CXXdXXd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiԡ 3|xi<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@,rAZ"Arial Regular WDXYDZ[D\]e^_`Ӏ2 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`(Courier New<  9p`(Courier<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d-$C << G Y !  #d#   #d#  ` X  ""   YYY FILED"XOctober16,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .    #!!Xd##!!Xd#  ` X  ݛ         X \RA'\\RA'\"7  XXdXXd7ќR&'$A1-j|`  `@Rߛ ̀8 @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE@   MARCH1997SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE,  ) ̀    ) Appellee,  ) No.01C019605CC00209    )    ) CoffeeCountyv.    )    ) HonorableGeraldL.Ewell,Sr.,Judge    )MARKT.SCISNEY,  ) (DUIWhileDrivingCommercialVehicle)    ) Appellant.  )@  CONCURRINGOPINION  Iconcurintheresultsreachedintheleadopinion.However,IamreluctanttoadopttheconclusionthatunderTennesseelaw,anIntoximeter3000readingof.04percentissufficient,byitself,toprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthatthedefendantwasdrivingwitha.04percentbloodalcoholconcentration. Asforthesufficiencyoftheevidenceinthiscase,Idonotbelievethattheconvictionisbasedsolelyuponthebreathtestresultof.04percent.Inthelightmostfavorabletothestate,theevidencereflectsthatthedefendanthadacoupleoftallbeersinGeorgiaseveralhoursearlier.TheofficerssmelledanodorofalcoholuponthedefendantspersonwhenhewasstoppedinCoffeeCounty.Theofficerswaitedthirtytofortyminutesbeforeadministeringthebreathtest.Thesefacts,coupledwiththebreathtestreadingof.04percent,leadmetoconcludethattheevidencewassufficienttoconvictthedefendantbeyondareasonabledoubtfordrivingacommercialvehicleinCoffeeCounty,Tennessee,with,atleast,a.04bloodalcoholconcentration. Ontheotherhand,IamnotreadytoconcedethattheIntoximeter3000readinginthiscaseprovidessufficientproof,byitself,tofindbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthedefendantsbloodalcoholconcentrationwas,infact,.04percent.Thefactthatinanygiventest,theIntoximeter3000readinghasaplusorminus.005percentrangeofdeviationfromtheactualbloodalcoholconcentrationmeansthattheactualconcentrationcouldbe.035percentwhenthetestregistersa.04percentresult.Also,thisdeviation,coupledwiththeinstrumentsroundingdowntothenearesthundredth,meansthatanactualconcentrationof.054percentcouldregisteras.04percent,aswell.Thisreflectsatotaldeviationrangeof20thousandthsofonepercentforanygivenbreathtestresult.Inotherwords,anygiventestthatregisters.04percenthasa25percentchanceofreflectinganactualconcentrationoflessthan.04percent.Inmyopinion,thetest,alone,cannotjustifyafindingbeyondareasonabledoubtthatapersonsbloodalcoholconcentrationisactually.04percent.Putanotherway,Idonotbelievethatitwouldallowanyrationaljurorsmindtoresteasilyuponthemoralcertaintyoftheactualconcentrationbeing.04percent. Moreover,Iamnotconvincedthattheleadopinionsinterpretationoflegislativeintentbaseduponthewordingofourstatutesiswhollyaccurate.InotethatT.C.A.5510408providesthatarebuttablepresumptionofintoxicationandimpairmentarisesupon evidencethattherewas...tenhundredthsofonepercent(.10%)ormorebyweightofalcoholinthedefendantsblood... relativetodrivingundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant.Thus,underStatev.Sensing,843S.W.2d412(Tenn.1992),areadingof.10percentfromanIntoximeter3000wouldconstitutesuch evidencethatwouldbeprobativeoftheissueofintoxication,atleastasamatteroflegalinference. Giventhelegislatureswordingintherebuttablepresumptionstatute,Ibelieveittobesignificantthatnosuchwordingexistsintheperseoffensestatutes,whichexpresslyrefertothe bloodalcoholconcentrationamount,not evidenceofsuchamount.SeeT.C.A.5510401(a)(2)and5550408.Obviously,ifthelegislaturehadmeantfortheprohibitedbloodalcoholconcentrationtobethatasevidencedbyachemicaltest,itcouldhavesaidso. Finally,Iseesomesignificanceinthefactthatthecasesuponwhichtheleadopinionreliesrelateto.10percentperseprovisionsthatarealternativestothedrivingundertheinfluenceprovisions.AsindicatedinStatev.Lentini,573A.2d464,465(N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1990),studiesreflectthatahighpercentageofpeopleareimpairedat.08percentandalmostallareimpairedat.10percent.Thus,asamatterofpracticeandpolicy,itmakeslittledifferencetothedangerousriskinvolvedwhetherapersonsbloodalcoholconcentrationisactually.095percentratherthan.10percent.However,thereisnosimilarlyprovenrelationshipbetween.035percentand.04percent.Icannotassumethatthelegislaturethoughtthemtobethesameforcommercialdrivingpurposes. Insum,Iconcurinaffirmingthejudgmentofconvictiongiventhesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence.However,IrefrainfromconcludingthattheIntoximeter3000testresultof.04percent,alone,wouldbesufficienttoconvictunderT.C.A.5550408.      _____________________________      JosephM.Tipton,Judge