ÿWPC‘ N…ÕdôˆôxGvz‡ŒU^‘øá5.9©Ú¨æQ•Š[zó¬>bO—¨ORÓ’u'Ü*ElÇÿz°ÔÐa¶®¸GeÚ##~ƒŒOðüW•ÔŠü´y,x¬ >€ËE¡h‰[Þk˜Û>È4\]’ç@HGå;žéÄ'å·Þ2áóü1$‘'°ßÈYJ4 þ`0߃î£ÎÇ®0GÔÐÛÞ“œAP·uÄþ÷Ì:3ŠUÈjŒTY $>å[¥o ¤8méƒ-:“?³`¢ÏQ#Åþ P“œÜ¥ÁÀ ak±ª¾@øœÕH<ÓÌüaªÝ 쀋ÇO¼n¬QÎÍŸÎ ©„ò_¬€°àŒØ1ôÜÜÕ¹53p³ƒ¶9¼‚–é?LÇÑMà/Mä‚rÅ8}ÝxÝYˆù?qr%Ù—É0Dðß1GÍq&ˆ)yV’bØÓjîHaØfß3†î=‰) ;;¡û 'à>Sÿý'Ao£[ôg´ÁEI€âM ¢—˜XÅêF%Í)s@¯(†Ñ€×?_°‡zü‘– òðî]N {È&±rÐYi}unùŽû‚㣥z#ø²HQ¿iÉ\s±îóFc{ϳ hþ Œ3ZGsw…# F %Q UNW 0Æ¥ ¡k 4  å/U:w@NU:Ž 0 È 0DÒU:PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP BXXXXXX D3uuu 0D¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨ AOìÆ;; 0D D/E Bt˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏX(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ —Ý ƒ eB$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓÓà Œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ‡ XcšXXXÔÔ‡ ôžëôX XcšÔThe€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€had€been€observed€for€seventeen€minutes€ratherÐ `  Ðthan€the€twenty€minutes€required€by€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€412€(Tenn.€1992).€€³†;$3|x² ÛÔ€XcšXXXÔÔ€–XXcšÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XcšX–ÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€15,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular  ¡¢D£¤D¥¦D§¨D©Ó€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(º(3eB$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýñ©ñ›ñ©ñÑ7€— XdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ XcšXXXÔñ©ñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` 8ttxPX` ð  rß›ñ©ñà@g g ÚàòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóˆÐ `  Ðà@*ÚàòòAT€NASHVILLEóóˆÐ , Ì Ðà@ââ'ÚàAPRIL€1998€SESSIONˆÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ” àà ì à*à D àC.C.A.€#€€01C01„9706„CC„00215Ð 0 Ðà Œ àAppellee,à < àà ” àà ì à*à D àRUTHERFORD€COUNTYÐ \ü  ÐVS.à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à*à D àHon.€James€K.€Clayton,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ (È  ÐÓÓEARNEST€EUGENE€TRAVIS,à ì à*à D à(Driving€Under€the€Influence)Ð ô”  ÐÌà Œ àAppellant.à < àà ” àà ì à*Ð À` ÐÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à < àà ” àà ì àà D àòòFor€Appelleeóó:Ð $Ä ÐÌPeter€D.€Heil,€Attorneyà ” àà ì àà D àJohn€Knox€WalkupÐ ð ÐP.O.€Box€40651à < àà ” àà ì àà D àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ Öv ÐNashville,€TN€€37204€à ” àà ì àà D àÐ ¼ \ Ð(on€appeal)à ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àDaryl€J.€Brand€à L àÐ ¢!B Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌDavid€E.€Brandon,€Attorneyà ì àà D à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ n# Ð211€Third€Avenue€North€à ” àà ì àà D àSecond€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€Building€Ð T$ô ÐNashville,€TN€€37201à ” àà ì àà D àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð :%Ú Ð(at€trial€and€on€appeal)Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àWilliam€E.€Whitesell€Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àThird€Floor,€Judicial€BuildingÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÐ  8¸.4 ÐÓÓà@33-ÚàòòOPINIONóóˆÐ `  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant,€Earnest€Eugene€Travis,€was€convicted€in€a€bench€trialÏof€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€ofÏeleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days,€granted€supervised€probation€after€forty„eightÏhours€in€jail,€and€revoked€the€driver's€license€of€the€defendant.€€In€this€appeal€ofÏright,€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€Ô‡ XcšXX XcšÔargues€that€theÐ (È  Ðopinion€testimony€of€the€police€officers€should€have€been€excluded,€and€Ô#† XcšXX Xcš #ÔcontendsÐ ô”  Ðthat€the€trial€judge€impermissibly€considered€personal€knowledge€in€making€hisÏdecision.€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àWe€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€2:00€A.M.€on€August€9,€1995,€Officer€Stacey€Thompson€of€theÏLavergne€Police€Department€observed€a€red€Toyota€driven€by€the€defendantÏweaving€along€a€public€road.€€After€stopping€the€defendant's€vehicle,€OfficerÏThompson€detected€a€strong€odor€of€alcohol.€€According€to€the€officer,€whoÏadministered€field€sobriety€tests,€the€defendant€"failed€to€perform€satisfactorily."€€InÏOfficer€Thompson's€opinion,€the€defendant€was€intoxicated.ÌÌÔ‡ XcšXX XcšÔà Œ àà ä àSergeant€Sam€Spicer,€who€performed€a€breathalyser€test,€testifiedÐ P-ð#( Ðover€objection€that€he€believed€the€defendant€to€be€intoxicated.€€The€result€of€theÏtest€was€excluded,€however,€because€the€defendant€was€not€observed€for€theÏrequisite€period€of€time.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô#† XcšXX Xcš[#ÔÐ ´2T). ÐÐ €4 +0 Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€acknowledged€that€he€had€consumed€between€threeÐ L6ì,2 Ðand€six€beers€over€a€period€of€six€to€seven€hours€while€he€had€been€fishing€with€hisÏbrother.€€He€explained€that€he€had€been€barefoot€when€he€performed€the€fieldÏsobriety€test.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThere€was€no€transcript€of€the€trial.€€A€statement€of€the€evidenceÏprepared€by€counsel€for€the€defendant€serves€as€the€record.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€statement,€filed€by€the€defendant€in€lieu€of€œñžña€transcript€ñžññŸñattachment›€ñŸñunder›ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(c),€makes€reference€to€the€comments€of€the€trial€judge:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[T]he€judge€indicated€that€he€attended€a€judicial€seminarÏwhich€had€addressed€the€number€of€drinks€that€wouldÏresult€in€intoxication€and€based€on€such€informationÏfound€the€defendant€guilty€of€D.U.I.€and€assigned€first„¼time€D.U.I.€sanctions.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àThe€state€filed€no€objections€to€the€content€of€the€statement€of€theÏevidence€and€otherwise€chose€not€to€supplement€œñ ñthe€ñ ñnarrative›€summary€of€the€proofÏpresented€in€the€trial€court.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€initial€challenge€is€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€On€appeal,Ïthe€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏreasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð à.€%( ÐS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€to€beÏgiven€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€testimony,€however,Ïare€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575Ð €4 +. ÐS.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€A€conviction€can€be€set€aside€only€whenÏthe€reviewing€court€finds€that€the€"evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€finding€byÐ @8à.2 Ðthe€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13€(e).€€In€aÏbench€trial,€the€trial€judge's€findings€on€questions€of€fact€are€given€the€weight€of€aÏjury's€verdict.€€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978);€òòState€v.Ð  À ÐHatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627€(Tenn.€1978).€€Ð   ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€our€view,€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction.€ÏWhile€the€statement€of€the€evidence€obviously€did€not€include€all€of€the€testimony€atÏtrial,€each€of€the€elements€of€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€wereÏestablished.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401.€€The€defendant€admitted€that€he€hadÏconsumed€several€beers.€€The€record€indicates€that€his€car€was€weaving€just€beforeÏhis€arrest.€€He€failed€one€or€more€sobriety€tests€and€each€of€two€officers€held€theÏopinion€that€the€defendant€was€intoxicated.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àNext,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€judge€should€have€excludedÏthe€opinion€testimony€of€the€two€officers€that€the€defendant€was€intoxicated.€€TheÏdefendant€insists€that€there€was€no€foundation€for€the€testimony.€€We€disagree.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àRule€701(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€permits€a€lay€witnessÏto€express€an€opinion€if€(1)€the€opinion€is€"rationally€based€on€the€perception€of€theÏwitness,"€and€(2)€it€is€"helpful€to€a€clear€understanding€of€the€witness's€testimony€orÏthe€determination€of€a€fact€in€issue."€€The€statement€of€evidence€suggests€that€eachÏof€the€two€officers€had€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€observe€the€demeanor€of€theÏdefendant.€€One€of€the€officers€who€made€the€arrest€administered€a€field€sobrietyÏtest.€€The€other€observed€the€defendant€for€several€minutes€before€administering€a€ññœññÔ‡ XE'XX XE'ÔÐ €4 +. ÐbreathalyserÔ#† XE'XX XE'/ #Ô€test.ññ›ññ€€The€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Rule€701€provide€that€"aÐ `6-0 Ðlay€witness€may€testify€that€a€person€was€'drunk'€or€that€a€car€was€traveling€'fast.'"€Ð @8à.2 ÐThe€record€establishes€that€each€of€the€lay€witnesses€had€a€basis€for€rendering€hisÏopinion.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAs€his€final€argument,€the€defendant€submits€that€what€the€trial€judgeÏhad€learned€at€a€judicial€seminar€about€the€number€of€drinks€that€would€result€inÏintoxication€qualified€as€extra„judicial€evidence€rendering€the€verdict€unreliable.€€InÏòòVaughn€v.€Shelby€Williams€of€Tennessee,€Inc.óó,€813€S.W.2d€132€(Tenn.€1991),€ourÐ  @  Ðsupreme€court€established€guidelines€governing€extra„judicial€observations:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThere€is€ample€authority€for€the€proposition€that€a€judgeÏis€not€to€use€from€the€bench,€under€the€guise€of€judicialÏknowledge,€that€which€he€knows€only€as€an€individualÏobserver€outside€of€the€judicial€proceedings.€€9€Wigmore,ÏEvidence,€ðð€2569€at€723€(1981).€€Judicial€knowledgeÏupon€which€a€decision€may€be€based€is€not€the€personalÏknowledge€of€the€ññœññjudge,ññ›ññ€but€the€cognizance€of€certainÏfacts€the€judge€becomes€aware€of€by€the€virtue€of€theÏlegal€procedures€in€which€he€plays€a€neutral€role.€€òòStateÐ à€ Ðv.€Hendersonóó,€221€Tenn.€24,€424€S.W.2d€186,€188Ð Ð p Ð(1968).€€No€judge€is€at€liberty€to€take€into€accountÏpersonal€knowledge€which€he€possesses€when€decidingÏupon€an€issue€submitted€by€the€parties.€€òòLaurance€v.Ð  #@ ÐLauranceóó,€198€Ore.€630,€258€P.2d€784,€787€(1953).€€InÐ $0 Ðother€words,€"[i]t€matters€not€what€is€known€to€the€judgeÏpersonally€if€it€is€not€known€to€him€in€his€official€capacity."€ÏòòGalbreath€v.€Nolandóó,€58€Tenn.€App.€260,€429€S.W.2dÐ `'  Ð447,€450€(1967).€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àIn€òòVaughnóó,€a€worker's€compensation€œcñ¡ñaseñ¡ññ¢ñlaim,ñ¢ññ£ñ,€ñ£ññ¤ñ›€ñ¤ñthe›€trial€judge€remarked€inÐ ,°"% Ðhis€memorandum€opinion€that€he€had€observed€the€claimant€on€three€separateÏoccasions€outside€of€the€courtroom.€€The€trial€judge€observed,€"This€man€looks€andÏwalks€a€little€better€than€death€warmed€over,"€before€determining€that€the€claimantÏhad€an€eighty€percent€permanent„partial€disability€to€the€body€as€a€whole.€€TheÏsupreme€court€reversed€the€judgment€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial€with€a€differentÏjudge.€€Ð P7ð-1 Їà Œ àà ä àThis€case€is€distinguishable€on€the€facts.€€The€trial€judge€knew€nothingÏof€the€particular€circumstances€of€this€offense€except€through€the€evidenceÏpresented€by€the€state€and€the€defense.€€Because€there€is€no€verbatim€transcript€ofÏthis€trial,€it€is€difficult€to€assess€the€context€in€which€the€reference€to€a€judicialÏseminar€was€made.€€The€general€knowledge€of€a€trial€judge€about€the€effects€ofÏalcohol€or€general€knowledge€otherwise€acquired€through€professional€training€isÏalmost€inevitably€a€part€of€a€judicial€determination€in€a€bench€trial.€€ññœññ"Althoughññ›ññÏlitigants€are€entitled€to€a€judge€who€will€hear€both€sides€and€decide€an€issue€on€theÏmerits€of€the€law€and€the€evidence€presented,€they€are€not€entitled€to€a€judge€whoseÏmind€is€a€clean€slate.€€Each€judge€brings€to€the€bench€the€experiences€of€life,€bothÏpersonal€and€ññœññòòprofessionalóó."€€òòMadsen€v.€Prudential€Fed.€Sav.€&€Loanóó,€767€P.2d€538,Ð  À Ð546€(Utah€1988)€(emphasisññ›ññ€ññœññadded)ññ›œññ;€òòseeññ›ññ€generallyóó,€òòMontegut€v.€Davisóó,€473€So.2dÐ   Ð73,€80€(La.€App.€1985)€("Obviously€a€judge€cannot€decide€cases€in€a€vacuum;€we€allÏœmñ§ñuñ§ññ¨ñoñ¨ñst›€use€our€accumulated€knowledge€and€experience€in€evaluating€evidence€andÏdetermining€what€makes€one€witness€more€believable€than€another.€€Under€theÏcircumstances,€the€judge's€mention€of€his€knowledge€[of€local€real€estate€trends]Ïwas€harmless€error€if€it€was€error€at€all.")€€Discretion€suggests€that€references€toÏthese€ordinary€experiences€are€often€better€left€unsaid.€€Whether€those€mattersÏqualify€as€reversible€error,€however,€depends€upon€the€extent€and€context€of€theÏremarks€in€view€of€the€evidence€presented€at€trial.€€òòSee€generallyóó,€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,Ð - #& Ð882€S.W.2d€376,€385€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)(sentence€affirmed€although€trialÏjudge€erroneously€applied€enhancement€factor€based€on€trial€judge's€recollection€ofÏhaving€seen€the€victim€rather€than€evidence€presented€to€the€court€by€the€parties);Ïòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòKay€E.€Blackwood€v.€Berkline€Corp.óó,€No.€01S01„9609„CV„00190€œ(Tenn.ñ¥ñ,Ð €4 +. ÐMay€21,ñ¥ñ›€1997)(harmless€error€for€trial€judge€to€take€judicial€notice€of€the€credibility€ofÏa€witness).€€Here,€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€conviction.€€The€trialÐ @8à.2 Ðjudge€had€a€sound€basis€for€a€determination€of€guilt€and,€when€confronted€with€hisÏextra„judicial€statement€at€the€motion€for€new€trial,€he€nonetheless€declined€relief.€€ItÏis€the€duty€of€the€appellant€to€prepare€a€record€which€conveys€a€fair,€accurate,€andÏcomplete€account€of€what€transpired€in€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€the€issuesÏwhich€form€the€basis€of€the€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€737€S.W.2d€556€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð à€ ÐApp.€1987);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(c).€€In€the€absence€of€a€more€complete€record€for€aÏdetermination€on€a€particular€issue,€this€court€must€conclude€that€the€œñ¦ñjudgment›€of›€the›€ñ¦ñtrial›€courtÏcorrectly€ruled.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€811€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979);Ð €  ÐòòVermilye€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€226€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€Ð ` ÐÌà Œ àà ä àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à________________________________Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌThomas€T.€Woodall,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌL.€T.€Lafferty,€Special€Judge