ÿWPC' ž†°±t´€PŽu5¸¤ãÔ@fc£Ÿ\ìPé[ÒÍ¡ê;PFŒñKí}Gé¯üQð°ìžÐàûBZÙU¶ ÏL[q¹`Ô)Õ…Òà¶i_ÏÔq†ÐxoùOf̉מ&ŒVQ'B6n˜½( Ý`FMÉK„nOr¡†@1sµé¼¥äü% ½±;ÉyÒÊ—œgwÈØv•*ÿâçߨ…E (<ÞˆxЩ¾1†ÍuNƒÆIs¢){Ê¢ï.@:†nÕ™Hü=¤%Ê fëᇆ–•‰ŽÄ>,†¶P¹˜€tZâ~Ë-TÍÅ'“©TäÆ2”BÕ@Ëæ/’·ÁiÈ¿ÑÎsжÝcÖý¶\-CÐfâòãͧ«¬‚Z vl4>K~Â6£:ö×ûñEUûF)ü…“™.ÃŒ–åÚ|·F ?¹TˆÁS?ðëáC÷áSÐ1Qfψ@Ýlg´(&§™Ó¬UL1 Ž“B¶ÊàÇÛˆÕMpLó¯QÉ­ñŠ5ÏC-{©®ÝïÃIØϸV4Ëáûž®S¨¯¸Õ‰ù õ¨Æ¶÷X¥Ð´,8{™öv!ØàvãÀ?œHMŸÏ® 6ÿu1¯¾ŸÆì …CœóÎÓIX'S¶d«õ)UB> %€U.†´nXÄ 0P4l€ 0Òˆ 0cZw@½U:ýU:7U:q·«)b U:‹ ãÅ Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å AQ¨ Æù 0D¿ 0D 0DG B‹ D/¨¨ B× D3ô<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|Xì«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ón~<$(‚(2tg$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ômœôXXÔÔ€ô¤ÝôôômœÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ˆ$Ô€ X<=XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ØÙÚ£ÛÜÝUÞUßbàÓ€ìg"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ­Ý ƒ b§$ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ôo\ôXXÔÔ€ôô½ôôôo\Ôà œ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€chief€of€the€local€police€testified€that€he€had€previously€checked€the€motorbikeððs€brakeÐ `  Ðlights€and€discovered€they€were€not€working,€although€he€admitted€he€did€not€know€whether€that€problemÏhad€been€repaired€prior€to€the€collision. Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XF%XXXÔÔ€YeXXF%ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XF%XYeÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€21,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÖÇôXXF%ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÙÝ ƒ b§$ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ôo\ôXXÔÔ€ôô½ôôôo\Ôà œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝRobbins€first€testified€they€were€traveling€approximately€20€to€30€m.p.h.€at€the€time€of€theÐ `  Ðcollision,€but€then€he€agreed€that€they€were€traveling€approximately€the€same€speed€on€Highway€57€asÏthey€had€been€on€Bateman€Road,€which€another€witness€testified€was€approximately€15€m.p.h. !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýñàñ›ñàñÑ` °ÑÑX°ÑÒPDÒÒŽ¦ÒÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÔ€XÓXXXÔÑ7€ Ó XXdðXXdð7Ññìññàñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@Eêf ` ttx$"` ð Úrßñàññìññìññìññàñ›ñàñà ¨ àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌñìñœßt€(>.*jxhÿ ` `€€@ER] ` ttx$ŠP ð átß›ñìñÌà@ÃÃ;MàAT€JACKSONˆÌÌÓ  Óà@ƒƒ6MàOCTOBER€1998€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ° àà  àà ` à)ó óÐ Ðp  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)ó óà ¸ àò òC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9710„CC„00416ó óÐ À`  Ðà ¨ àà àAppellee,à ° àò ò€€€€€à  àà ` à)Ð °P  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àFAYETTE€COUNTYó óÐ  @  ÐVS.à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)Ð 0  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àHON.€JON€KERRY€BLACKWOOD,Ð €  ÐSTACY€D.€WILLIFORD,à ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àJUDGEÐ p Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àó ó€ò òÐ ` Ðà ¨ àà àó óAppellant.ò òà ° àà  àà ` à)ó óà0 ¸ à(Aggravated€Vehicular€Homicide,Ð Pð ÐVehicular€Assault,€Driving€Under€theÏInfluence,€Driving€on€RevokedÏLicense,€and€Leaving€the€Scene€of€anÏAccident)ò òа¸J%¸J% Ðó óÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà ° àà  àà ` à€€€€€òòà ¸ àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÐ à€ ÐÌÌò òANDREW€S.€JOHNSTONà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ °"P Ðó ó108€East€Court€Squareà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ  #@ ÐSomerville,€TN€œñÛñ€ñÛñ38068›Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àPETER€M.€COUGHLANó óÐ €%  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌò òà ¨ àà àó óà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJohn€Sevier€Bldg.Ð `'  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à425€Fifth€Ave.,€Northà ! àà p# à€€€€€€Ð P(ð! Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà ¨ àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àò òELIZABETH€T.€RICEó óÐ  +À!$ Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à302€Market€St.Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àó óSomerville,€TN€œñÜñ€ñÜñ38068›à ! àà p# àÐ ð-$' Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àÌÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÐ `6-0 ÐÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÐ 09Ð/3 ÐJudgeÌÐ  ;°15 МñßñÑXÑñßññÚñ›ñÚññßññÚñœñÚññßññßñÑÜXÑñßññÚñÓ  ÓñÚñà@™™:Màò òòòÔ‡¼—G¼XXÓÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†XÓX¼¼—G†#ԈР`  ÐÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€aggravated€vehicular€homicide,Ïvehicular€assault,€driving€under€the€influence,€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€and€leavingÏthe€scene€of€an€accident.€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendant€received€anÏeffective€sentence€of€twenty€years.€€The€defendant€now€appeals,€raising€the€followingÏissues€for€review:ÌÓÓà8 ¨ àI.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€defendantððs€motion€toÏsuppress€statements€on€the€theory€the€defendant€was€in€custody€but€wasÏnot€read€his€òòMirandaóó€warnings?І&¨ ò"¨ ò" ÐÌà8 ¨ àII.€€Whether€the€defendantððs€due€process€rights€were€violated€by€T.C.A.€ððÏ55„10„401,€which€allows€an€inference€that€previous€DUI€offenders€areÏintoxicated€if€their€blood€alcohol€content€is€.08%€or€higher,€whereas€it€mayÏbe€inferred€that€first„time€offenders€are€intoxicated€only€when€their€bloodÏalcohol€content€is€.10%€or€higher?€Ð ¨ ò"¨ ò" ÐÌà8 ¨ àIII.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€charging€the€jury€that€they€could€inferÏintoxication€by€a€.08%€or€higher€blood€alcohol€content,€since€this€instructionÏreveals€to€the€jury€that€the€defendant€has€been€previously€convicted€ofÏDUI?Ð ¨ ò"¨ ò" ÐÌà8 ¨ àIV.€€Whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€defendantððsÏconvictions€for€aggravated€vehicular€homicide,€vehicular€assault,€andÏleaving€the€scene€of€an€accident?ÓôÓÐ ¨ ò"¨ ò" ÐFinding€no€reversible€error,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgments.ÌÌà ¨ àà àAround€6:50€p.m.€on€October€10,€1996,€Annette€Pittman€and€her€youngÏdaughter€were€traveling€between€forty„five€and€fifty€miles€per€hour€on€Bateman€Road€inÏFayette€County,€headed€north€toward€Highway€57.€€As€Ms.€Pittman€crested€a€hill,€herÏyoung€daughterððs€yell€alerted€her€to€a€motorbike,€without€any€lighting,€drivingÏapproximately€fifteen€miles€per€hour€weaving€in€the€middle€of€the€lane.€€Two€boys€in€theirÏearly€teens€were€riding€the€motorbike,€but€neither€looked€back€when€Ms.€PittmanððsÏheadlights€illuminated€them,€even€though€her€car€came€within€five€to€six€feet€of€hittingÐ v7.1 Ðthem.€€She€followed€them€at€a€distance,€and€when€she€came€to€a€safe€place€to€passÐ l7 .3 Ðthem,€she€did.ÌÌà ¨ àà àApproximately€fifteen€minutes€later,€at€around€7:05€p.m.,€the€defendant€wasÏdriving€his€Camaro€westbound€on€Highway€57.€€The€speed€the€defendant€was€travelingÏis€unknown.€€The€night€was€dark€and€clear,€there€were€no€street€lights€but€nothing€toÏobstruct€a€driverððs€view,€and€the€pavement€was€dry.€€The€defendant€struck€two€boys,ÏRonald€Phillip€Webb€and€Brandon€Robbins,€who€were€riding€a€motorbike€travelingÏbetween€fifteen€to€thirty€miles€per€hour׃×Ý ƒ ˆÝÔ€ XŸ_XXXŸ_ÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€westbound€approximately€one€to€three€feet€insideÐ ô”  Ðthe€pavementððs€white€line.€€The€motorbike€became€wedged€underneath€the€defendantððsÏcar€and€the€boys€were€thrown€fifteen€to€twenty€feet€from€the€road.€€The€collision€left€noÏskid€marks€on€the€road.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€continued€driving.€€A€man€driving€eastbound€on€Highway€57Ïpassed€the€defendantððs€Camaro€after€the€collision,€noticed€the€motorbike€lodged€underÏthe€Camaroððs€body,€and€smelled€antifreeze€and€burning€rubber.€€According€to€the€man,Ïthe€defendant€was€traveling€at€a€ð ðnormal€highway€speed,€maybe€fasterðð€and€without€anyÏheadlights.€€The€record€is€silent€as€to€whether€the€defendantððs€headlights€were€on€at€theÏtime€of€the€collision.€€It€is€also€unknown€how€fast€the€defendant€was€traveling€at€the€timeÏof€the€collision.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€drove€to€his€motherððs€house,€which€was€one€mile€from€theÏscene€of€the€collision.€€Because€the€motorbike€remained€lodged€under€the€Camaro,€theÏmotorbikeððs€tire€left€a€mark€as€it€dragged€on€the€road€from€the€point€of€impact€to€theÏdefendantððs€motherððs€house.€€At€his€motherððs€house,€at€7:14€p.m.,€the€defendant€calledÏ911.€€He€returned€to€the€scene€by€7:55€p.m.€driven€by€a€friend€in€another€car;€he€left€hisÐ €4 +0 ÐCamaro,€with€the€dirt€bike€lodged€still€underneath€of€it,€at€his€motherððs€house.ÌÌà ¨ àà àTrooper€Perkins€of€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€arrived€on€the€scene€atÏ7:35€p.m.,€approximately€half€an€hour€after€the€collision€occurred.€€Trooper€Perkins€didÏnot€see€the€defendant€at€the€scene€until€approximately€7:50€or€7:55€p.m.€€The€defendantÏwas€very€emotional,€appeared€to€be€upset,€and€began€to€cry.€€He€told€Trooper€PerkinsÏthat€he€was€the€driver€of€the€car€that€hit€the€motorbike.€€He€said€he€did€not€see€anything,Ïbut€he€felt€and€heard€a€ð ðthugðð€and€decided€to€continue€driving€to€his€motherððs€house.€€HeÏadmitted€he€œhad€had›€a€couple€of€beers€earlier€that€day.€€A€records€search€revealed€thatÏthe€defendantððs€driver€license€had€been€suspended.ÌÌà ¨ àà àUpon€request,€the€defendant€submitted€to€a€blood€test.€€The€paramedic€whoÏadministered€the€blood€test€observed€the€defendantððs€demeanor€as€very€scared,€afraid,Ïand€nervous.€€The€defendant€did€not€appear€to€the€paramedic€to€be€intoxicated,€but€theÏparamedic€admitted€that€there€have€been€previous€times€when€he€mistakenly€thought€aÏpatient€was€not€drunk.€€At€least€one€police€officer€at€the€scene€smelled€alcohol€on€theÏdefendantððs€person€and€believed€the€defendant€ð ðwas€obviously€under€the€influence.ðð€€TheÏdefendantððs€blood€test€later€revealed€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€.16%.ÌÌà ¨ àà àWebb,€who€was€fifteen€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€collision,€died€fromÏmultiple€injuries€sustained€in€the€collision.€€His€toxicology€screen€was€negative€for€alcoholÏor€drug€use.€€Robbins,€thirteen€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€collision,€was€severely€injuredÏin€the€collision.€€Robbins,€who€did€not€have€a€license€to€operate€the€motorbike€on€publicÏroads,€was€operating€the€motorbike€at€the€time€of€the€collision;€Webb€was€sitting€behindÏhim.€€At€trial,€Robbins€admitted€they€had€driven€north€on€Bateman€Road€toward€HighwayÏ57,€and€then€were€headed€westbound€on€Highway€57€when€the€collision€occurred.ÌÐ 8¸.4 Ðà ¨ àà àA€local€police€officer€had€warned€the€boys€one€to€two€months€prior€to€theÏcollision€about€the€dangerous€manner€in€which€they€were€riding€the€motorbike€becauseÏthey€were€causing€cars€to€weave€in€order€to€avoid€them.€€The€local€police€had€alsoÏpreviously€warned€the€boys€not€to€ride€their€bike€on€the€city€streets€because€the€bike€wasÏnot€equipped€with€proper€turn€signals,€a€windshield,€or€a€license€plate€and€the€brake€lightsÏwere€not€working.׃×Ý ƒ ˆÝÔ€ XŸ_XX XŸ_ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Robbins€admitted€that€the€reason€they€were€traveling€so€slowly€thatÐ \ü  Ðevening€was€because€they€were€having€mechanical€problems€with€the€motorbike,€but€heÏinsisted€that€the€motorbikeððs€headlight€and€taillight€were€working.ÌÌà ¨ àà àAt€trial,€there€was€evidence€suggesting€the€boys€might€have€used€marijuanaÏprior€to€the€collision.€€A€seventeen„year„old€friend€of€Robbins€testified€that€Robbins€hadÏtold€her€he€and€Webb€had€been€smoking€marijuana€prior€to€the€collision€and€was€ð ðhighððÏat€the€time€of€the€collision.€€She€admitted€she€had€known€this€information€for€nine€monthsÏand€could€not€explain€why€she€decided€three€days€prior€to€trial€to€disclose€the€informationÏto€the€defense€attorney€but€not€the€state€attorney€or€any€law€enforcement€officer.€€SheÏalso€admitted€she€knew€the€defendant,€but€she€insisted€she€did€not€know€him€well.€ÏRobbins€denied€using€any€drugs€or€alcohol€that€afternoon,€and€he€denied€telling€anyoneÏhe€had€used€marijuana€and€was€afraid€his€parents€would€find€out.€€Robbins€also€deniedÏthat€he€had€rolling€papers€on€his€person€at€the€time€of€the€collision,€but€a€local€policeÏofficer€found€rolling€papers€œnear›€him€after€the€collision.€€Robbins€was€not€subjected€to€aÏdrug€or€alcohol€test€because€Trooper€Perkins€was€not€aware€rolling€papers€were€foundÏat€the€collision€scene.ÌÌà ¨ àà àFirst,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€suppressÏthe€statements€he€made€to€Trooper€Perkins€at€the€collision€scene€because€he€was€inÐ €4 +0 Ðcustody€but€was€not€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.Ô‡XŸ_XX XŸ_Ô€€The€defendant€also€contends€that€theÐ `  Ðresults€of€his€blood€alcohol€test€should€have€been€suppressed€since€the€only€grounds€forÏadministering€the€test€under€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„406(a)(1)€was€the€defendantððs€statement€toÏTrooper€Perkins.ÌÌà ¨ àà àòòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó€bars€the€admission€of€any€statements€elicited€from€aÐ \ü  Ðdefendant€through€police„initiated€custodial€interrogation€unless€the€defendant,€prior€toÏmaking€the€statement,€was€warned€of€certain€rights€and€knowingly€waived€those€rights.€ÏòòMiranda€v.€ArizonaóóÔ#† XŸ_XXXŸ_ì0#ÔÔ‡XŸ_XX XŸ_Ô,€384€U.S.€436€(1966);€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòEdwards€v.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.€477Ð À` Ð(1981);€òòState€v.€Huddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€666,€669€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804Ð Œ, ÐS.W.2d€868€(Tenn.€1991).€Ô#† XŸ_XXXŸ_t3#ÔÔ‡XŸ_XX XŸ_Ô€ð ðCustodial€interrogationðð€is€defined€as€ð ðquestioning€initiatedÐ Xø Ðby€law€enforcement€officers€after€a€person€has€been€taken€into€custody€or€otherwiseÏdeprived€of€his€freedom€of€action€in€any€significant€way.ðð€€òòMirandaóó,€384€U.S.€at€444.€€InÐ ð Ðother€words,€òòMirandaóó€warnings€are€required€when€a€suspect€has€been€formally€arrestedÐ ¼ \ Ðor€when€his€or€her€freedom€of€movement€has€been€restrained€to€the€degree€associatedÏwith€a€formal€arrest.€€òòCalifornia€v.€Beheleróó,€463€U.S.€1121€(1983);€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€912Ð T$ô ÐS.W.2d€756€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà ¨ àà àIn€assessing€whether€an€individual€is€ð ðin€custody,ðð€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€must€be€examined€to€determine€whether€a€reasonable€person€wouldÏconsider€his€or€her€freedom€of€movement€restrained€to€the€degree€associated€with€formalÏarrest.€€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€851€(Tenn.€1996).€€Factors€relevant€to€thisÐ /¼%* Ðdetermination€include€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 ¨ àthe€time€and€location€of€the€interrogation;€the€duration€and€character€of€theÏquestioning;€the€officerððs€tone€of€voice€and€general€demeanor;€the€suspectððsÏmethod€of€transportation€to€the€place€of€questioning;€the€number€of€policeÏofficers€present;€any€limitation€on€movement€or€other€form€of€restraintÏimposed€on€the€suspect€during€the€interrogation;€any€interactions€betweenÏthe€officer€and€the€suspect,€including€the€words€spoken€by€the€officer€to€theÏsuspect,€and€the€suspectððs€verbal€or€nonverbal€responses;€the€extent€toÏwhich€the€suspect€is€confronted€with€the€law€enforcement€officerððsÐ þ8ž/5 Ðsuspicions€of€guilt€or€evidence€of€guilt;€and€finally,€the€extent€to€which€theÏsuspect€is€made€aware€that€he€or€she€is€free€to€refrain€from€answeringÏquestions€or€to€end€the€interview€at€will.Ð ¨ ò"¨ ò" ÐÌÓë8ÓòòId.óó€at€855.€€Ô#† XŸ_XXXŸ_¥4#ÔContrary€to€the€defendantððs€suggestion,€it€is€immaterial€that€ð ðthe€trooper€knewÐ ø ˜ Ðthat€he€was€dealing€with€an€individual€that€he€would€likely€charge€with€a€crimeðð€since€aÏdefendantððs€Fifth€Amendment€rights€are€no€longer€triggered€by€the€defendant€being€theÏinvestigationððs€focus.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòStansbury€v.€Californiaóó,€511€U.S.€318€(1994);€òòsee€alsoóóÐ \ü  ÐòòAndersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€854;€òòCooperóó,€912€S.W.2d€at€766.€€Ô‡XŸ_XX XŸ_ÔÐ (È  ÐÔ#† XŸ_XXXŸ_…>#ÔÌà ¨ àà àHere,€Trooper€Perkins€arrived€at€the€scene€approximately€one„half€hourÏafter€the€collision€occurred.€€Approximately€twenty€minutes€later,€the€defendant€voluntarilyÏreturned€to€the€scene,€approached€Trooper€Perkins,€and€disclosed€to€him€he€was€theÏdriver€of€the€car€involved€in€the€collision.€€Trooper€Perkins€asked€the€defendant€to€wait€aÏfew€minutes€by€his€patrol€car€while€he€finished€identifying€the€victims€and€notifying€theirÏparents.€€The€defendant€was€not€handcuffed,€placed€in€the€back€of€the€patrol€car,Ïescorted€or€guarded€by€another€police€officer,€or€otherwise€restrained.€€ApproximatelyÏfifteen€minutes€later,€Trooper€Perkins€approached€the€defendant€and€began€questioningÏhim€about€what€happened.€€The€record€does€not€indicate€that€any€officer€other€thanÏTrooper€Perkins€was€involved€in€the€questioning€of€the€defendant,€nor€does€it€indicate€thatÏeither€party€became€belligerent€or€confrontational€during€the€questioning.€€The€defendantÏstated€he€did€not€see€anything,€but€heard€a€ð ðthugðð€noise.€€When€asked,€he€also€stated€heÏhad€been€drinking€alcohol.€€Trooper€Perkins€asked€him€one€time€to€submit€to€a€blood€test,Ïtelling€him€he€was€not€required€to€consent,€but€the€defendant€agreed€to€the€test.€€TheÏdefendant€was€not€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€At€no€time,€however,€was€the€defendantÐ è0ˆ', Ðtold€he€must€remain€at€the€scene,€answer€questions,€or€submit€to€a€blood€test.€€In€fact,Ïaccording€to€the€defendantððs€testimony€at€the€suppression€hearing,€the€defendant€hadÏreturned€to€the€scene€voluntarily€to€give€his€account€of€the€incident;€he€testified€he€hadÏno€problem€waiting€until€Trooper€Perkins€could€question€him.€€After€the€questioningÐ 8¸.4 Ðconcluded,€the€defendant€went€home.ÌÌà ¨ àà àConsidering€the€totality€of€these€circumstances,€the€defendant€was€not€inÏcustody€at€the€time€he€answered€Trooper€Perkinsðð€questions.€€Because€òòMirandaóó€warningsÐ Äd Ðare€constitutionally€required€only€where€a€defendant€is€subjected€to€police„initiatedÏcustodial€interrogation,€there€was€no€basis€to€suppress€the€defendantððs€statements€toÏTrooper€Perkins.€€òòSeeóó€òòStansburyóó,€511€U.S.€at€318;€òòAndersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€854.Ð (È  ÐÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€his€blood€test€results€should€have€beenÏsuppressed.€€The€defendant€relies€upon€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„406€for€the€proposition€that€aÏpolice€officer€must€have€ð ðreasonable€grounds€to€believeðð€that€a€defendant€was€drivingÏunder€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€before€requesting€a€blood€test.€€According€to€theÏdefendant,€the€only€ð ðreasonable€groundsðð€Trooper€Perkins€had€was€his€statement€he€hadÏbeen€drinking€beer€earlier€that€day,€which€he€contends€was€obtained€in€violation€of€theÏFifth€Amendment€and€thus€cannot€serve€as€a€proper€basis€for€requesting€a€blood€testÏunder€ðð€55„10„406.€€Even€assuming€the€defendantððs€interpretation€is€correct,€hisÏargument€is€moot€since€we€have€concluded€that€the€defendantððs€Fifth€Amendment€rightsÏwere€not€œviolated€and€the€evidence€shows€the€defendant€consented€to€the€blood€rest.›ÌÌà ¨ àà àNext,€the€defendant€challenges€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„408(b),€claiming€that€a€juryÏinstruction€pursuant€to€ðð€55„10„408(b)€violated€his€constitutional€right€to€due€process€ofÏlaw.€€DUI€is€proven€by€a€showing€that€a€person€was€in€physical€control€of€a€motor€vehicleÏon€a€public€road€or€any€premises€frequented€by€the€public€while€ð ð(1)€Under€the€influenceÏof€any€intoxicant,€marijuana,€narcotic€drug,€or€drug€producing€stimulating€effects€on€theÏcentral€nervous€system;€or€(2)€The€alcohol€concentration€in€such€personððs€blood€or€breathÏis€ten„hundredths€of€one€percent€(.10%)€or€more.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„401(a)(1)„(2)€(Supp.Ï1996).€€Generally,€for€the€purpose€of€proving€intoxication€under€ðð€55„10„401(a)(1),€it€mayÐ 8¸.4 Ðbe€inferred€that€a€defendantððs€ability€to€drive€was€sufficiently€impaired€if€his€or€her€bloodÏalcohol€content€was€.10%€or€higher.€€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„408(a)€(Supp.€1996).€€If€theÏdefendant€has€at€least€one€previous€DUI€conviction,€however,€a€.08%€blood€alcoholÏcontent€is€sufficient€to€infer€intoxication€and€impaired€ability€to€drive,€in€violation€of€ðð€55„¼10„401(a)(1).€€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„408(b)€(Supp.€1996).ÌÌà ¨ àà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury,€pursuant€to€ðð€55„10„408(b),Ïas€follows:€ð ðEvidence€from€the€test€that€there€was€at€the€time€alleged€eight„hundredthsÏof€one€percent€or€.08€or€more€by€weight€of€alcohol€in€the€defendantððs€blood€creates€anÏinference€that€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€such€intoxicant,€and€that€his€abilityÏto€drive€was€impaired.ðð€€The€defendant€argues€that€this€instruction€violated€hisÏconstitutional€right€to€due€process€and€that€ðð€55„10„408€creates€disparate€treatment€ofÏpreviously€convicted€DUI€offenders,€whose€intoxication€may€be€inferred€at€.08%,€asÏcompared€to€first„time€DUI€offenders,€whose€intoxication€may€be€inferred€only€afterÏreaching€.10%.€€The€defendantððs€challenge€to€the€constitutionality€of€ðð€55„10„408(b)€mustÏfail,€however,€as€the€defendant€lacks€standing.€€Because€the€defendantððs€blood€test€resultÏwas€a€.16%,€the€jury€would€have€been€entitled€to€infer€the€defendant€was€intoxicatedÏunder€the€higher€.10%€standard€of€ðð€55„10„408(a),€regardless€of€the€existence€of€a€lowerÏ.08%€standard€for€previous€DUI€offenders€under€ðð€55„10„408(b).€€In€other€words,€evenÏif€the€trial€court€had€not€instructed€the€jury€on€the€.08%€inference€pursuant€to€ðð€55„10„¼408(b)€and€even€if€there€were€no€disparity€between€the€inferences€for€first„time€DUIÏoffenders€and€previous€DUI€offenders,€the€jury€would€still€have€been€entitled€to€infer€thatÏthe€defendant€was€intoxicated€because€his€blood€alcohol€content€exceeded€the€higherÏ.10%€level.€€Because€it€cannot€be€said€that€the€.08%€inference€under€ðð€55„10„408(b)Ïoperated€to€deprive€the€defendant€of€his€rights,€the€defendant€lacks€standing€to€challengeÏits€constitutionality.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Purkeyóó,€689€S.W.2d€196€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).Ð L6ì,2 ÐÐ 8¸.4 Ðà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€on€the€.08%Ïinference€constituted€reversible€error€because€it€ð ðrevealed€to€a€knowledgeable€juror(s)Ïthat€the€[defendant]€had€been€convicted€of€prior€DUIððs€[sic]€and€.€.€.€put€said€juror(s)€onÏnotice€of€evidence€that€would€otherwise€be€inadmissible€at€trial.ðð€€The€jury€instructionÏpursuant€to€ðð€55„10„408(b)€advised€the€jury€it€could€infer€intoxication€and€that€theÏdefendantððs€ability€to€drive€was€impaired€from€evidence€of€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€.08%Ïor€higher.€€As€far€as€the€jury€was€instructed,€the€only€purpose€of€the€.08%€standard€wasÏto€infer€intoxication€and€impaired€ability€to€drive€and€nothing€else.€The€jury€was€notÏinstructed€that€the€.08%€standard€applies€only€to€defendants€previously€convicted€of€DUIÏor€that€the€defendant€in€this€case€had€been€previously€convicted€of€DUI.€€The€defendantÏdoes€not€identify€any€ð ðknowledgeable€jurorsðð€or€even€contend€that€any€of€the€jurors€in€thisÏcase€were€ð ðknowledgeable.ððÌÌà ¨ àà àIn€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary,€a€jury€is€presumed€to€follow€theÏinstructions€given€to€it.€€òòState€v.€Blackmonóó,€701€S.W.2d€228,€233€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ˆ"( Ð1985).€€Just€as€a€jury€may€be€presented€with€evidence€of€a€defendantððs€prior€bad€acts€andÏbe€instructed€that€they€are€to€consider€that€information€only€as€it€relates€to€motive€or€intentÏor€some€other€admissible€purpose,€we€must€assume€that€the€jury€in€this€case€used€theÏ.08%€standard€for€nothing€more€than€to€infer€the€defendantððs€intoxication€and€impairedÏability€to€drive,€rather€than€to€speculate€whether€the€defendant€might€have€beenÏpreviously€convicted€of€DUI€and€allow€that€speculation€to€affect€their€verdict€in€this€case.€ÏThus,€we€must€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€œerr€in›€instructing€the€jury€pursuant€toÏðð€55„10„408(b),€a€valid€statute,€as€it€is€required€to€do.€€Even€if€error€occurred,€it€would€beÏharmless€because€the€jury€could€have€inferred€that€the€defendant,€who€had€a€.16%€bloodÏalcohol€content,€was€intoxicated€even€under€the€.10%€standard€for€first„time€offenders€inÏðð€55„10„408(a).€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a)(only€errors€affecting€the€result€of€trial€on€theÏmerits€may€constitute€reversible€error).Ð 8¸.4 Їà ¨ àà àFinally,€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€arguingÏit€is€insufficient€to€sustain€his€convictions€for€Ô‡XŸ_XX XŸ_Ôaggravated€vehicular€homicide,€vehicularÐ , Ì Ðassault,€and€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accidentÔ#† XŸ_XXXŸ_¶`#Ô.Ð ø ˜ ÐÌà ¨ àà àAs€it€pertains€to€the€charges€in€this€case,€aggravated€vehicular€homicide€isÏthe€reckless€killing€of€another€as€the€proximate€result€of€the€driverððs€intoxication€whileÏoperating€a€vehicle.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„213(a)(2).€€Similarly,€vehicular€assault€occurs€whenÏa€person€causes€serious€bodily€injury€to€another€as€the€proximate€result€of€his€or€herÏintoxication€while€operating€a€vehicle.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„106(a).€€The€defendant€contendsÏthat€due€to€the€boysðð€actions€in€operating€the€motorbike€on€the€road€under€dangerousÏconditions€when€they€had€previously€been€warned€not€to€do€so,€the€death€and€the€injuryÏthat€occurred€in€the€collision€were€not€a€proximate€result€of€his€intoxication.€€Rather,€theÏdefendant€argues€that€most€of€the€factors€that€caused€the€collision€were€ð ðbrought€to€bearÏby€the€victims€themselves.ðð€€As€the€State€points€out,€however,€Ms.€Pittman€hadÏencountered€the€boys€on€the€street€only€minutes€before€the€defendant€struck€the€boys.€ÏThe€circumstances€under€which€Ms.€Pittman€encountered€the€boys€œwere€similar€to›€theÏcircumstances€under€which€the€defendant€encountered€the€boys,€with€one€notableÏexception:€Ms.€Pittman€was€not€drunk,€while€the€defendant€had€a€blood€alcohol€contentÏof€.16%.€€Because€Ms.€Pittman,€who€was€not€drinking,€was€able€to€avoid€a€collision€whileÏthe€defendant,€who€was€drinking,€was€not,€the€evidence€was€sufficient€for€the€jury€toÏconclude€that€the€defendantððs€intoxication€was€the€proximate€cause€of€the€collision€thatÏkilled€Webb€and€injured€Robbins.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€regardless€of€the€.16%€result€from€theÏblood€test€taken€approximately€one€hour€after€the€collision,€there€was€no€proof€he€ð ðhadÏconsumed€any€alcohol€or€had€any€alcohol€in€his€blood€at€the€time€of€the€subject€accident.ðð€ÏTo€the€contrary,€the€defendant€admitted€to€Trooper€Perkins€that€he€had€consumed€twoÐ 8¸.4 Ðbeers€prior€to€the€collision.€€Moreover,€given€that€there€was€no€evidence€that€theÏdefendant€consumed€alcohol€after€the€collision€but€before€the€blood€test,€the€.16%€bloodÏalcohol€œcontentñ×ñ,ñ×ñ›€coupled€with€the€defendantððs€admission€of€drinking€prior€to€the€œcollisionñØñ,ñØñ›Ïwas€sufficient€proof€from€which€the€jury€could€infer€that€the€defendant€was€under€theÏinfluence€of€alcohol€at€the€time€the€collision€occurred.ÌÌà ¨ àà àWith€regard€to€the€defendantððs€challenge€to€his€conviction€for€leaving€theÏscene€of€the€accident€under€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„101,€the€defendant€contends€that€becauseÏhe€left€the€scene€only€to€call€911€and€then€returned€ð ðforthwith,ðð€his€actions€did€not€violate€Ïðð€55„10„101.€€The€record€shows€otherwise.ÌÌà ¨ àà àSection€55„10„101(a)€provides€that€drivers€of€vehicles€involved€in€accidentsÏresulting€in€injury€or€death€ð ðshall€immediately€stop€such€vehicle€at€the€scene€of€suchÏaccident€or€as€close€thereto€as€possible,€but€shall€then€forthwith€return€to€and€in€everyÏevent€shall€remain€at€the€scene€of€the€accident€until€the€driver€has€fulfilled€theÏrequirements€of€ðð€55„10„103.ðð€€Section€55„10„103(a)€requires€drivers€to€provideÏidentifying€information€to€other€drivers€involved€in€the€collision€and€ð ðrender€to€any€personÏinjured€in€such€accident€reasonable€œassistance.ð𛀀T.C.A.€ðð€œ55„10„103(a).ÌÌà ¨ àà àHere,›€œa›€driver€who€passed€the€defendant€on€Highway€57€shortly€after€theÏaccident€saw€the€motorbike€lodged€underneath€the€defendantððs€car€and€smelledÏantifreeze€and€burning€rubber,€which€was€apparently€caused€by€the€motorbike€as€itÏdragged€along€the€road.€€When€œthe€defendant›€reached€his€motherððs€house,€œwhich€wasÏone€mile€away€from€the€scene€of€the€collision,€he›€œcalled›€911.€œ€When€he€returned€to€theÏscene€forty„five€minutes€later,€he€told€Trooper€Perkins€he€ð ðfelt€and€heard€a€thug,ðð€butÏdecided€to€continue€traveling€without€stopping€to€investigate.€€Under€the€circumstances,›Ïœhowever,€he›€should€have€stopped€immediately€at€the€crime€œscene€to€evaluate€whetherÐ 8¸.4 Ðthe€boys€required€medical€treatment.€€òòSeeóó€ðððð€55„10„101(a),€55„10„103(a).€ñÙñ€ñÙñMoreover,›€œbyÐ `  Ðtaking€a€forty„five€minute€hiatus€from€the€scene€of€the€collision,€ñÖñtñÖñhe›€defendant€did€notÏreturn€œð ðforthwith,ðð€as›€ðð€œ55„10„101(a)›€œrequires.€€Thus,›€because€the€evidence€revealed€theÏdefendant€did€not€comply€with€œthe€statutory€requirements,›€the€evidence€was€sufficient€toÏprove€the€defendant€left€the€scene€of€an€accident,€in€violation€of€ðð€55„10„101.ÌÌà ¨ àà àFinding€no€merit€to€the€defendantððs€arguments,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÏjudgments.ÌÓÓÌÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à_______________________________Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌœñÝñÌñÝñCONCUR:›ÌÌÌœñÞñÌñÞñ______________________________›ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€Senior€Judge