ÿWPC/C H#  %  0Î4çû  0  0D$w@hUF¨UFî 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò AQ0 0h 0ré 0|[ 0†× Æ] 0D# 0@g 0D§ 0ë D/{ 1uª B D3< 0do BÓU6ðU.&B)TDC} AMÀU* “7¦Ê”p Z( [‚"Ý%Rö'sH+»-FÁ/^ 1ye:v~Þ;vÓ\=˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎX(¦¾v$¡¡ÑŒ Œ ÑÑÑÒ°ÒÒà°ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ7€ÖXXdìXXdì7ÑÔ€Xb%XXXÔê‚_#x3|x°(Â(3(Ü$¤¤Ý ƒ¾v!ÝÑŒ °ÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒà°ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ7€UXXdÖdÖ7ÑÔ€XUXXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó žeŸ {¡¢£¤¥Ó€¯° <4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular<4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô!"#$&Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(('÷ÿ dxd % ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)üÿP Pd----'ÿÿdxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd!#5Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ‰Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€7ÔÔ€7ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€7XÔÌÌNovemberÏ3,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAbuse€of€discretion€is€the€standard€for€review€of€a€trialÏcourtððs€admission€of€scientific€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855ÏS.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).Ì ŠÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSection€24„7„117€provides:€€ÌÌà8 àà à(a)€As€used€in€this€section,€unless€the€contextÏotherwise€requires,€ð ðDNA€analysisðð€means€the€processÏthrough€which€deoxyribonucleic€acid€(DNA)€in€a€humanÏbiological€specimen€is€analyzed€and€compared€with€DNAÏfrom€another€biological€specimen€for€identificationÏpurposes.ÌÌà8 àà à(b)(1)€In€any€civil€or€criminal€trial,€hearing€orÏproceeding,€the€results€of€DNA€analysis,€as€defined€inÏsubsection€(a),€are€admissible€in€evidence€withoutÏantecedent€expert€testimony€that€DNA€analysis€provides€aÏtrustworthy€and€reliable€method€of€identifyingÏcharacteristics€in€an€individual's€genetic€material€uponÏa€showing€that€the€offered€testimony€meets€the€standardsÏof€admissibility€set€forth€in€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏEvidence.ÌÌà8 àà à(2)€Nothing€in€this€section€shall€be€construed€asÏprohibiting€any€party€in€a€civil€or€criminal€trial€fromÏoffering€proof€that€DNA€analysis€does€not€provide€aÏtrustworthy€and€reliable€method€of€identifyingÏcharacteristics€in€an€individual's€genetic€material,€norÏshall€it€prohibit€a€party€from€cross„examining€the€otherÏparty's€expert€as€to€the€lack€of€trustworthiness€andÏreliability€of€such€analysis.ÌÌà8 àà à(c)€In€any€civil€or€criminal€trial,€hearing€orÏproceeding,€statistical€population€frequency€evidence,Ïbased€on€genetic€or€blood€test€results,€is€admissible€inÏevidence€to€demonstrate€the€fraction€of€the€populationÏthat€would€have€the€same€combination€of€genetic€markersÏas€was€found€in€a€specific€biological€specimen.€€ForÏpurposes€of€this€subsection,€ð ðgenetic€markerðð€means€theÏvarious€blood€types€or€DNA€types€that€an€individual€mayÏpossess.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝRule€703€states:ÌÌà8 àà àThe€facts€or€data€in€the€particular€case€upon€whichÏan€expert€bases€an€opinion€or€inference€may€be€thoseÏperceived€by€or€made€known€to€the€expert€at€or€before€theÏhearing.€€If€of€a€type€reasonably€relied€upon€by€expertsÏin€the€particular€field€in€forming€opinions€or€inferencesÏupon€the€subject,€the€facts€or€data€need€not€beÏadmissible€in€evidence.€€The€court€shall€disallowÏtestimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€inference€if€theÏunderlying€facts€or€data€indicate€lack€ofÏtrustworthiness.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝRule€401€states:€€ÌÌà8 àà àð ðRelevant€evidenceðð€means€evidence€having€anyÏtendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofÏconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€moreÏprobable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€theÏevidence.€€Ì PÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝRule€702€states:ÌÌà8 àà àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specializedÏknowledge€will€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€toÏunderstand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,Ïa€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,Ïexperience,€training,€or€education€may€testify€in€theÏform€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.€€Ì QÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAfter€this€application€was€granted€the€defendant€asked€theÏCourt€to€consider€whether€counts€three€through€eight€of€theÏindictment,€under€which€he€was€convicted€of€aggravated€rape,€wereÏfatally€deficient€by€their€failure€to€allege€the€requisite€òòmens€reaóóÏelement€of€aggravated€rape.€€Consistent€with€our€decision€in€òòStateÏv.€Hillóó,€No.€01„S„01„9701„CC„00005€(Tenn.€filed€Nov.€3,€1997),€weÏfind€that€the€failure€of€the€indictments€in€this€case€to€allege€aÏspecific€òòmens€reaóó€does€not€affect€the€validity€of€the€defendantððsÏconvictions.€€We€decline€to€address€this€issue€further.€€€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÑ7ÀÂLXXdÖdÖ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóOnly€three€million€of€the€three€billion„odd€base€pairs€of€theÏDNA€molecule€differ€from€one€individual€to€the€next.€€NationalÏResearch€Council,€òòThe€Evaluation€of€Forensic€DNA€Evidenceóó€63Ï(1996).Ì HÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÑ7ÀÂLXXdÖdÖ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAlthough€the€Alaska€Court€of€Appeals€used€the€term€ð ðgenesððÏwhen€explaining€the€DNA€testing€process,€they€recognized€that€it€isÏactually€certain€alternative€forms€of€a€particular€gene,€known€asÏð ðalleles,ðð€which€are€copied€and€compared€in€this€process.€ÏTechnically,€it€is€the€frequency€with€which€these€alleles€occur€inÏa€given€population€which€is€examined€to€exclude€or€not€exclude€aÏcertain€suspect€as€the€source€of€the€unknown€DNA.€€The€court€usedÏthe€term€ð ðgenesðð€for€the€sake€of€simplicity.Ì iÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòMcDanielóó€held€that€the€pre„Rules€of€Evidence€test€of€òòFrye€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€293€F.€1013€(D.C.€Cir.€1923),€which€required€thatÏscientific€evidence€be€generally€accepted€in€the€particular€fieldÏto€which€it€belonged€in€order€for€it€to€be€admissible,€wasÏsuperseded€by€the€adoption€of€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€702€andÏ703.€€òòMcDanielóó,€slip€op.€at€16.Ì üÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝGuerrieri€also€testified€that€based€on€his€communicationsÏwith€FBI€personnel,€he€was€under€the€impression€that€the€PCR€methodÏhad€been€admitted€in€Tennessee€courts.€€However,€this€Court€is€notÏaware€of€any€appellate€cases€in€Tennessee€addressing€this€issue.Ì <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝApparently€both€the€defendant€and€the€victim€are€blackÏAmericans.Ì T Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Hicksóó,€103€F.3d€837€(9th€Cir.€1996),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó€117€S.Ct.€1483€(1997);€òòUnited€States€v.€Beasleyóó,€102ÏF.3d€1440€(8th€Cir.€1996),€òòcert.€deniedóó€117€S.Ct.€1856€(1997);ÏòòUnited€States€v.€Sheaóó,€957€F.Supp.€331€(D.N.H.€1997);€òòUnited€StatesÏv.€Loweóó,€954€F.Supp.€401€(D.€Mass.€1996);€òòWilliams€v.€AmericanÏCyanamidóó,€164€F.R.D.€608€(D.N.J.€1995),€òòaffððdóó,€164€F.R.D.€615Ï(D.N.J.€1996);€òòUnited€States€v.€Yeeóó,€134€F.R.D.€161€(N.D.€OhioÏ1991),€òòaffððd€sub€nom.óó€òòUnited€States€v.€Bondsóó,€12€F.3d€540€(6th€Cir.Ï1993);€òòSeritt€v.€Stateóó,€647€So.2d€1€(Ala.€Crim.€App.€1994),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó€(Ala.€1994);€òòHarmon€v.€Stateóó,€908€P.2d€434€(Alaska€Ct.€App.Ï1995);€òòPeople€v.€Morgantióó,€43€Cal.€App.€4th€643,€50€Cal.€Rptr.2dÏ837€(1996),€òòreviewóó€òòdeniedóó€(Cal.€1996);€òòRedding€v.€Stateóó,€464€S.E.2dÏ824€(Ga.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòPeople€v.€Popeóó,€672€N.E.2d€1321€(Ill.€App.ÏCt.€1996),€òòappeal€deniedóó€(Ill.€1997);€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€895€P.2d€1238Ï(Kan.€1995);€òòState€v.€Spenceróó,€663€So.2d€271€(La.€Ct.€App.€1995);ÏòòCommonwealth€v.€Vao€Sokóó,€425€Mass.€787,€___€N.E.2d€___€(1997);ÏòòState€v.€Brownóó,€949€S.W.2d€639€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,Ï885€P.2d€457€(Mont.€1994),€òòoverruled€on€other€grounds€inóó€òòState€v.ÏGollehonóó,€906€P.2d€697€(Mont.€1995);€òòState€v.€Harveyóó,€1997€WLÏ422956,€___€A.2d€___€(N.J.€1997);€òòPeople€v.€Moralesóó,€227€A.D.2dÏ648,€643€N.Y.S.2d€217€(1996),€òòappeal€deniedóó€(N.Y.€1996);€òòState€v.ÏLyonsóó,€924€P.2d€802€(Or.€1996);€òòState€v.€Moelleróó,€548€N.W.2d€465Ï(S.D.€1996);€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó€910€S.W.2d€475€(Tex.€Crim.€App.Ï1995),€òòcert.€deniedóó€116€S.Ct.€1430€(1996);€òòSpencer€v.€Commonwealthóó,Ï393€S.E.2d€609€(Va.),€òòcert.€deniedóó€498€U.S.€908€(1990);€òòState€v.ÏRussellóó,€882€P.2d€747€(Wash.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó€514€U.S.€1129Ï(1995).€€òòBut€seeóó€òòState€v.€Bibleóó,€858€P.2d€1152€(Ariz.€1993),€òòcert.óóÏòòdeniedóó€511€U.S.€1046€(1994);€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€524€N.W.2d€763€(Neb.Ï1994)(holding€such€evidence€inadmissible).Ì oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defendant€did€not€raise€any€issue€concerning€the€mannerÏin€which€the€specimen€was€handled€or€the€test€performed.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€2ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€33Xd#ÑÑ#€33Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` °‚X˜XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€UXXdÖXXdÖ7ÑÑ  Ñ›œÙ€!ÙßR€685A1-j|µ,` ‚- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€œNASHVILLEÌÌà@ à(HEARD€AT€JACKSON)›ÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à)€€€FOR€PUBLICATIONÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€œFILED:€›€œNOVEMBER€3,€1997Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€HON.€J.€RANDALL€WYATT,€JR.,ÌBOBBY€ED€BEGLEYà àà àà àà à)à à€€€JUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à)Ì€€€€€à àAppellantà àà à€€€€€€€à à)€€€NO.€01„S„01„9607„CR„00134ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:òòà àà àà àà àà àFor€Appelleeóó:ÌÌJEFFREY€A.€DEVASHER€€€à àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌNashville,€TNà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMICHAEL€E.€MOOREÌ€à àà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKATHY€A.€MORANTEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKATIE€MILLERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòOPINIONÌÌóóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBIRCH,€J.ÌÓÓà àWe€granted€the€defendantððs€application€for€permission€toÏappeal€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion× ƒ9 ××  ×€in€admitting€testimony€concerning€the€results€of€aÏcertain€method€of€DNA€analysis.€€While€we€have€previouslyÏconsidered€the€admission€of€the€results€of€DNA€analysis€using€theÏð ðrestriction€fragment€length€polymorphismðð€(RFLP)€method,€weÏaddress€for€the€first€time€the€admission€of€testimony€regarding€DNAÏanalysis€using€the€ð ðpolymerase€chain€reactionðð€(PCR)€method.€€PCRÏis€to€be€distinguished€from€RFLP,€the€method€more€statisticallyÏprecise€and€firmly€established€in€both€the€scientific€and€legalÏcommunity.€€After€a€jury„out€hearing,€the€trial€court€admittedÍexpert€testimony€about€the€results€of€the€PCR€analysis€performed€onÏthe€defendantððs€clothing,€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€upheldÏthe€trial€courtððs€determination.€ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated,€we€conclude€that€the€PCR€methodÏof€DNA€analysis€is€a€ð ðDNA€analysisðð€within€the€definition€of€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€24„7„117(a)€(Supp.€1991)× ƒ: ××  ×€and€is€therefore€exempt€from€aÍjudicial€determination€of€reliability€and€trustworthiness,€as€wouldÏnormally€be€required€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€703.× ƒ; ××  ×€€Furthermore,€theÏexpert€testimony€adduced€at€trial€satisfied€the€relevancyÏrequirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401× ƒ< ××  ×€and€was€of€substantialÍassistance€to€the€trier€of€fact€as€required€by€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.× ƒ= ××  ×€ÏTherefore,€the€results€of€the€PCR€analysis€in€this€case€wereÏproperly€admitted,€and€the€defendant's€convictions€and€sentencesÏare€affirmed.€€ÌÌà àBecause€the€defendant€does€not€contest€the€sufficiency€ofÏthe€convicting€evidence,× ƒ> ××  ×›€a€brief€summary€of€the€facts€is€sufficientÏto€place€the€issue€into€context.€ÌÌà àThe€record€reveals€that€the€defendant,€Bobby€Ed€Begley,Ïlived€in€the€house€next€to€the€house€of€Delma€Johnson,€age€72.€ÍThey€were€acquainted€with€each€other;€Begley€had€been€to€JohnsonððsÏhouse€on€several€prior€occasions€to€use€Johnsonððs€telephone.€€OnÏFebruary€5,€1993,€Begley€went€to€Johnsonððs€house€and€asked€toÏborrow€$10;€Johnson€handed€the€$10€to€him.€€When€Begley€offered€toÏreturn€the€$10€later€that€evening,€Johnson€admonished€himÏrepeatedly€that€he€should€not€do€so.ÌÌà àIn€spite€of€the€admonishments,€Begley€returned€later€thatÏevening.€€As€soon€as€Johnson€opened€the€door,€Begley€rushed€in€pastÏher.€€He€beat€and€battered€her€severely.€€He€sexually€penetratedÏher€several€times.€€He€then€stuffed€her€into€the€trunk€of€her€car,Ïclosed€the€trunk,€and€drove€off.ÌÌà àHe€drove€a€short€distance€and€stopped.€€He€pulled€JohnsonÏout€of€the€trunk€and€dumped€her€in€some€bushes.€€€The€temperatureÏwas€below€freezing€that€night,€and€Johnson€was€wearing€only€aÏnightgown€and€robe.ÌÌà àApproximately€two€to€three€hours€passed€before€JohnsonÏwas€discovered€and€rescued.€€She€was€in€poor€condition€and€weakÏfrom€loss€of€blood.€€However,€at€the€hospital€she€was€able€toÍidentify€Begley€as€her€assailant,€and€she€identified€him€again€atÏtrial.ÌÌà àArresting€officers€observed€what€appeared€to€be€blood€onÏBegleyððs€trousers.€€The€trousers€were€seized,€and€the€blood€spotsÏwere€subjected€to€DNA€analysis€at€a€biomedical€laboratory€in€NorthÏCarolina.ÌÌà àFollowing€a€jury€trial,€the€defendant€was€convicted€ofÏespecially€aggravated€kidnaping,€attempted€first„degree€murder,Ïaggravated€robbery,€and€several€counts€of€aggravated€rape.ÌÌœò òà@ àó óI›ÌÌà àA€brief€and€simplified€explanation€of€the€theory€andÏmethods€of€DNA€analysis€will€be€helpful€at€the€outset.€TheÏWashington€Supreme€Court€gave€the€following€general€explanationÏabout€the€nature€of€DNA:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àDNA€(deoxyribonucleic€acid)€is€theÏchemical€material€contained€within€anÏorganism's€cells€which€determine[s]Ïthat€organism's€physical€composition.€ÏHuman€cells€each€contain€46Íchromosomes,€which€are€arranged€in€23Ïpairs.€€One€chromosome€in€each€pairÏis€inherited€from€each€parent.€ÏApproximately€100,000€genes€areÏlocated€on€the€chromosomes.€€Genes,Ïwhich€consist€of€DNA,€determine€eye,Ïhair,€and€skin€color,€theÏorganization€of€body€parts,€andÏvirtually€everything€else€about€ourÏphysical€state.€€Each€individual,Ïwith€the€exception€of€identicalÏtwins,€has€a€unique€DNA€structureÏwhich€is€contained€in€every€nucleatedÏcell.€That€structure€remains€constantÏthroughout€a€human€lifetime.€€It€canÏbe€found€in€blood,€semen,€hair,€boneÏmarrow,€and€other€tissues.ÌÓÓÌòòState€v.€Cauthronóó,€œ846›€P.2d€502,€508€œ(Wash.€1993)›€(footnoteÏomitted).€€The€DNA€analysis€at€issue€in€this€case€is€moreÏspecifically€known€as€DNA€typing.€€Ninety„nine€percent€of€the€DNAÏmolecule€is€the€same€for€every€individual.× ƒ? ××  ×€€œPolymorphisms€are€theÏDNA€segments›€which€exhibit€genetic€variation€within€the€population.€ÏThese€variations€provide€the€basis€for€DNA€typing.€€DNA€typing€isÏused€to€determine€whether€biological€material€from€a€knownÏindividual€can€be€linked€to€a€sample€from€an€unidentified€specimen.€€ÌÌà àForensic€applications€of€DNA€typing€involve€twoÏcomponents:€€molecular€biology€and€population€genetics.€€MolecularÏbiological€techniques,€such€as€the€RFLP€and€PCR€methods,€permitÏscientists€to€extract€and€examine€unidentified€DNA€from€a€givenÏpiece€of€evidence.€€In€the€PCR€method,€the€sample€of€DNA€isÏsubjected€to€an€enzyme€and€heating€treatment,€which€causes€aÏspecific€segment€of€the€DNA€to€be€ð ðamplifiedðð€by€billions€ofÏreplications.€€To€determine€whether€two€samples€could€have€comeÏfrom€the€same€person,€the€samples€are€compared€to€see€if€theyÏproduced€the€same€pattern.€€Thomas€M.€Fleming,€Annotation,ÏòòAdmissibility€of€DNA€Identification€Evidenceóó,€84€A.L.R.4th€313,€323Ï(1991).€€€In€the€RFLP€method,€an€enzyme€treatment€cuts€the€DNAÏmolecules€into€fragments.€€The€resulting€length€and€location€ofÏthese€fragments€differ€among€individuals;€samples€are€then€comparedÏto€see€if€they€match.€€òòId.óó€at€320.€€ÌÌà àPopulation€genetics€is€then€used€to€determine€the€degreeÏto€which€two€samples€are€similar€by€greater€than€a€random€chance.€ÏThe€Alaska€Court€of€Appeals€explained:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àà àTheoretically,€each€person'sÏDNA€is€unique;€that€is,€with€theÏexception€of€ð ðidentical€twins,ðð€noÍtwo€persons€share€exactly€the€sameÏcomplement€of€genes.€€At€the€sameÏtime,€however,€it€is€rare€for€aÏspecific€gene€to€be€unique€to€aÏsingle€individual.€€Some€genes„„forÏinstance,€the€genes€that€direct€ourÏbodies€to€form€two€arms€and€twoÏlegs„„are€found€in€virtually€everyÏhuman€being.€€Other€genes,€such€asÏthose€that€determine€skin,€hair,€andÏeye€color,€are€shared€by€substantialÏnumbers€of€people.€€Still€other€genesÏare€so€rare€that€they€are€shared€byÏonly€small€percentages€of€the€generalÏpopulation.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThat€genes× ƒ@ ××  ×€are€shared€by€groupsÏof€people€is€of€crucial€significanceÏwhen€DNA€testing€is€employed€toÏidentify€the€perpetrator€of€a€crime.€ÏEven€though€DNA€testing€canÏaccurately€identify€a€person's€genes,Ïthe€fact€that€a€person€carries€aÏparticular€gene€means€little€unlessÏscientists€can€also€tell€us€theÏlikelihood€that€other€people€shareÏthat€same€gene.€€The€fact€that€aÏdefendant€carries€the€same€gene€asÏwas€found€in€a€tissue€sample€taken€atÏthe€scene€of€the€crime€is€notÏparticularly€probative€if€a€highÏpercentage€of€the€population€alsoÍcarry€that€same€gene;€conversely,€ifÏthe€gene€is€quite€rare,€then€the€DNAÏmatch€becomes€correspondingly€moreÏprobative.ÌÓÓÌòòHarmon€v.€Stateóó,€908€P.2d€434,€440„41€(Alaska€Ct.€App.€1995)Ï(footnote€omitted).ÌÌà àBoth€the€RFLP€method€and€the€PCR€method€have€advantagesÏand€disadvantages.€€The€most€significant€advantage€of€the€RFLPÏmethod€is€its€specificity.€€Through€application€of€statisticalÏpopulation€frequency€evidence€to€the€test€results,€the€RFLP€methodÏnarrows€the€possible€contributors€of€a€given€sample€to€anÏinfinitesimally€small€portion€of€the€population,€and€in€doing€soÏinforms€the€jury€of€the€likelihood€the€sample€was€contributed€byÏsomeone€other€than€the€defendant.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€RFLPÏmethod€is€time„consuming€and€requires€a€large€quantity€of€high„quality€genetic€material„„at€least€a€quarter„sized€stain€of€bloodÏor€a€dime„sized€stain€of€semen€is€required€to€perform€the€RFLPÏmethod€of€DNA€analysis.€€Also,€unless€the€samples€are€recoveredÏwhen€relatively€fresh,€they€degrade€into€fragments€too€small€forÏthe€RFLP€method.€€ÌÌà àIn€contrast,€the€PCR€method€can€be€performed€with€veryÏsmall€amounts€of€genetic€material,€since€the€process€itself€allowsÏamplification€to€produce€an€amount€suitable€for€testing.€€TheÏprocess€is€relatively€simple€and€can€yield€results€in€as€little€asÏtwenty„four€hours.€€The€PCR€method,€however,€is€less€statisticallyÏprecise.€€œFurther,›€if€the€PCR€method€is€not€carefully€performed,€itÏis€more€susceptible€to€contamination€than€the€RFLP€method.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóÏat€440;€George€Bundy€Smith€&€Janet€A.€Gordon,€òòThe€Admission€of€DNAÏEvidence€in€State€&€Federal€Courtsóó,€65€Fordham€L.€Rev.€2465,€2471„72€(May€1997);€Thomas€M.€Fleming,€Annotation,€òòAdmissibility€of€DNAÏIdentification€Evidenceóó,€84€A.L.R.4th€313,€320„25€(1991).ÌÌà@ àœIIò ò›Ìó óÌà àThe€admission€of€expert€testimony€regarding€scientificÏand€technical€evidence€is€governed€by€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702€and€703.€ÏòòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transportation,€œInc.óó,›€No.€01„S„01„9605„CV„00095Ï(Tenn.€Sept.€29,€1997).× ƒA ××  ×€€Questions€regarding€the€admissibility,Íqualifications,€relevancy€and€competency€of€expert€testimony€areÏleft€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€whose€ruling€will€not€beÏoverturned€in€the€absence€of€abuse€or€arbitrary€exercise€ofÏdiscretion.€€òòBallardóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€562.€€In€òòMcDanielóó,€weÏpromulgated€the€principles€for€the€trial€courtððs€guidance€inÏdeciding€whether€to€admit€scientific€or€technical€evidence.€€ÌÌà àFirst,€the€evidence€must€be€relevant€to€a€fact€at€issueÏin€the€case.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401,€402.€€Second,€the€expert€must€beÏqualified€by€specialized€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€orÏeducation€in€the€field€of€expertise,€and€the€testimony€in€questionÏmust€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€theÏevidence€or€determine€a€fact€in€issue.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702;€ÏòòMcDanielóó,€slip€op.€at€14;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mutual€FireÏIns.€Co.óó,€850€S.W.2d€439,€443€(Tenn.€1992).€€Finally,€when€theÏexpert€witness€offers€an€opinion€or€states€an€inference,€theÏunderlying€facts€or€data€upon€which€the€expert€relied€must€beÏtrustworthy.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€703;€òòMcDanielóó,€slip€op.€at€14.€€ÌÌà àSimply€put,€scientific€or€technical€evidence€will€not€beÏadmissible€unless€it€is€determined€to€be€reliable.€€The€reliabilityÏof€scientific€evidence€is€determined€by€considering€the€followingÏnonexclusive€list€of€factors:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àà à1.à àWhether€the€scientificÏevidence€has€been€tested€and€theÏmethodology€with€which€it€has€beenÏtested;ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à2.à àWhether€the€evidence€hasÏbeen€subjected€to€peer€review€orÏpublication;ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à3.à àWhether€a€potential€rateÏof€error€is€known;ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à4.à àWhether,€as€formerlyÏrequired€by€òòFryeóó,€the€evidence€isÏgenerally€accepted€in€the€scientificÏcommunity;€andÌÌà8 àà8 àà à5.à àWhether€the€expertððsÏresearch€in€the€field€has€beenÏconducted€independent€of€litigation.ÌÓÓÌòòMcDanielóó,€slip€op.€at€11€(òòcitingóó€òòDaubert€v.€Merrell€DowÏPharmaceuticalsóó,€509€U.S.€579,€593„94,€113€S.Ct.€2786,€2796„98,€125ÏL.Ed.2d€469,€482„83€(1993)€and€òòDaubert€v.€Merrell€DowÏPharmaceuticals,€Inc.óó,€43€F.3d€1311,€1317€(9th€Cir.)(ð ðDaubert€IIðð),Ïòòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€116€S.Ct.€189€(1995)).ÌÌò òà@ àœó óIII›ÌÌà àRichard€Guerrieri,€a€forensic€scientist€with€RocheÏBiomedical€Laboratories,€testified€as€a€Stateððs€witness€regardingÏthe€results€of€the€PCR€analysis.€€During€a€jury„out€hearing,ÏGuerrieri€testified€that€he€had€a€Master€of€Science€degree€inÏForensic€Chemistry€and€a€Bachelor€of€Science€degree€in€Biology,Ïwith€course€work€equivalent€to€a€similar€degree€in€Chemistry.€€HeÏhad€worked€in€the€field€of€forensic€science€for€fifteen€years,€withÏthe€most€recent€six€years€devoted€to€DNA€analysis.€€During€thatÏtime,€he€had€worked€hundreds€of€cases€with€thousands€of€samples.€ÏHe€had€testified€as€an€expert€in€forensic€science€between€eightyÏand€ninety€times€and€as€an€expert€in€DNA€analysis€approximatelyÏthirty€of€those€times.€€He€had€only€testified€on€one€prior€occasionÏregarding€DNA€analysis€using€the€PCR€method.€€The€rest€of€hisÏexperience€in€testifying€about€DNA€was€in€cases€where€the€RFLPÏmethod€was€used.€€ÌÌà àDespite€his€limited€experience€in€testifying€on€the€PCRÏmethod€of€DNA€analysis,€he€testified€that€it€was€recognized€andÏaccepted€in€the€scientific€community€and€had€been€admitted€intoÍevidence€in€twenty€to€thirty€states.× ƒB ××  ×€€He€was€aware€of€manyÏpublications€that€had€discussed€the€validity€of€the€PCR€method.€ÏGuerrieri€admitted€that€no€DNA€analysis€can€establish€identity€toÏan€absolute€certainty.€€The€available€methods€are€tests€ofÏexclusion;€they€are€designed€to€determine€whether€a€person€can€beÏexcluded€as€the€source€of€the€unidentified€evidence.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€Guerrieri€qualified€as€an€expertÏand€ruled€that€he€could€testify€regarding€the€results€of€the€PCRÏanalysis.€€Guerrieri€then€testified€that€the€victimððs€DNA€is€typeÏð ð1.2,€1.2,ðð€a€type€shared€by€6.5%€of€the€black€population.€€TheÏdefendantððs€DNA€is€type€ð ð4,€4,ðð€a€type€shared€by€9.8%€of€the€blackÏpopulation.× ƒC ××  ×ÌÌà àGuerrieri€further€testified€that€the€PCR€analysis€ofÏspots€on€the€defendantððs€clothing€resulted€in€the€detection€of€aÍmixture€of€type€1.2€and€type€4€DNA.€€Because€of€the€differingÏintensity€of€the€two€types€found€on€the€defendantððs€clothing,ÏGuerrieri€opined€that€they€most€likely€originated€from€twoÏdifferent€persons,€a€ð ð1.2,€1.2ðð€type€and€a€ð ð4,€4ðð€type.€ÏNevertheless,€18%€of€the€black€population€do€have€the€combinationÏð ð1.2,€4ðð€type€of€DNA.ÌÌò òà@ àœó óIV›ÌÌà àThe€Legislature€has€determined€that€DNA€analysis€is€aÏtrustworthy€and€reliable€method€of€identifying€characteristics€inÏan€individual's€genetic€material€and€will€be€admissible€so€long€asÏit€otherwise€meets€the€requirements€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏEvidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„7„117(b)(1)€(Supp.€1991).€€TheÏLegislature€evidently€enacted€this€statute€in€order€to€ease€theÏadmission€of€DNA€evidence€in€Tennessee.€€Neil€P.€Cohen,€et€al.,ÏTennessee€Law€of€Evidence€ðð€401.34,€at€147€(3d€ed.€1995).€€EvenÏbefore€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„7„117€was€enacted,€Tennessee€courtsÏrecognized€the€reliability€and€trustworthiness€of€DNA€evidence.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€866€S.W.2d€583,€587€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)Í(Harris€violation€occurred€in€1989,€before€the€effective€date€ofÏthe€statute).€€ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€24„7„117(a)€defines€ð ðDNAÏanalysisðð€as€the€process€of€analyzing€and€comparing€DNA€òòforÏidentification€purposesóó.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€the€PCR€methodÏof€DNA€analysis€is€a€method€of€òòexclusionóó,€not€identification,€andÏas€such€is€not€governed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„7„117.€ÏAdditionally,€the€defendant€claims€the€PCR€methodððs€reliability€hasÏnot€been€adequately€established.€€We€find€this€argument€withoutÏmerit.€€At€the€time€the€statute€was€passed,€the€DNA€ð ðmethod€ofÏchoiceðð€was€the€RFLP€method,€which,€like€the€PCR€method,€is€notÏdefinitive€in€identifying€a€particular€person.€€Nevertheless,€theÏRFLP€method€has€clearly€been€considered€by€the€courts€to€be€aÏmethod€of€identification.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Edwardsóó,€868€S.W.2dÏ682,€697€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòHarrisóó,€866€S.W.2d€at€386;€òòStateÏv.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€576€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€While€theÏPCR€œand€RFLP€methods›€of€DNA€analysis€can€be€characterized€as€œtests›Ïof€exclusion,€œthere€are›€nevertheless€relevant€to€the€identificationÏof€the€œperpetrator€of€a€crime.›€€Because€the€results€of€the€PCRÍmethod€of€DNA€analysis€are€relevant€to€identification,€the€PCRÏmethod€falls€under€the€ðð€24„7„117(a)€definition€of€ð ðDNA€analysis.ðð€ÌÌà àUnder€the€òòMcDanielóó€analysis€of€the€admissibility€ofÏscientific€evidence,€the€initial€question€is€whether€the€results€ofÏthe€PCR€analysis€are€relevant€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€WeÏconclude€that€they€are.€€The€discovery€of€DNA€consistent€with€theÏvictimððs€DNA,€but€inconsistent€with€the€defendantððs€DNA,€on€theÏdefendantððs€clothing€is€relevant€because€it€tends€to€identify€theÏdefendant€as€the€assailant.€€The€results€of€the€PCR€method€of€DNAÏanalysis€may€not€be€as€probative€as€that€of€the€RFLP€method,Ïbecause€the€PCR€method€results€in€a€large€pool€of€possible€DNAÏcontributors,€instead€of€the€infinitesimally€small€number€resultingÏfrom€the€RFLP€method.€€Under€the€results€of€the€PCR€analysis€here,Ï6.5%€of€the€entire€black€population€have€the€victimððs€DNA€type,€andÏ18%€of€the€same€population€have€a€combination€of€the€victimððs€andÏdefendantððs€DNA€type.€€Yet,€the€PCR€method€of€DNA€analysis,€whileÏnot€as€specific€as€the€RFLP€method,€serves€by€process€ofÏelimination€to€increase€the€probability€of€an€identification€andÏthus€is€relevant.€€ÌÌà àThe€next€question€under€the€òòMcDanielóó€analysis€is€whetherÏthe€witness€was€qualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,Ïexperience,€training,€or€education€and€whether€the€witnessððÏspecialized€knowledge€substantially€assisted€the€trier€of€fact€toÏunderstand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue.€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€702.€€The€expert€witness,€Guerrieri,€was€extensivelyÏqualified,€by€both€education€and€experience,€in€the€field€of€DNAÏtesting.€€Furthermore,€Guerrieri€substantially€assisted€the€jury€toÏproperly€understand€the€complex€DNA€evidence.€€He€clearly€explainedÏthe€process€and€results€of€the€PCR€analysis,€without€overstatingÏthe€conclusiveness€of€the€evidence.€€We€conclude€that€theÏrequirements€of€Rule€702€are€satisfied.€ÌÌà àNext,€under€òòMcDanielóó€and€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€703€the€facts€orÏdata€relied€upon€by€an€expert€in€giving€his€or€her€opinion€must€beÏtrustworthy€and€reliable.€€Because€the€DNA€evidence€at€issue€hereÏis€governed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„7„117,€the€evidence€isÏstatutorily€regarded€as€trustworthy€and€reliable.€€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€ðð€24„7„117€exempts€DNA€evidence€from€the€trial€courtÏdetermination€under€Rule€703€of€whether€it€provides€a€trustworthyÏand€reliable€method€of€identifying€characteristics€in€anÍindividualððs€genetic€material.€€Consequently,€a€judicialÏdetermination€of€the€scientific€reliability€of€the€evidence€isÏunnecessary.€€ÌÌà àNevertheless,€this€Court€finds€the€PCR€method€of€DNAÏanalysis€an€inherently€trustworthy€and€reliable€method€ofÏidentification.€€In€doing€so,€we€join€a€number€of€other€state€andÏfederal€jurisdictions€that€have€already€recognized€the€reliabilityÏand€admissibility€of€evidence€based€on€the€PCR€method.× ƒD ××  ×€€SeveralÍfactors€support€our€finding.€€First,€the€PCR€method€of€DNA€analysisÏhas€been€subjected€to€extensive€peer€review.€€One€court€hasÏestimated€that€over€four€thousand€published€scientific€articlesÏexist€addressing€the€merits€of€the€method.€€òòState€v.€Lyonsóó,€924ÏP.2d€at€813.€€Second,€the€PCR€method€is€considered€reliable€andÏerror„free,€as€long€as€protocols€and€controls€are€utilized.€€òòId.óó€atÏ812.€€With€respect€to€acceptance€of€the€PCR€method€by€theÏscientific€community:€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àIn€1992,€the€National€ResearchÏCouncil€noted€that€ð ð[t]he€theory€ofÏPCR€analysis€.€.€.€is€scientificallyÏaccepted€and€has€been€accepted€by€aÏnumber€of€courts.ðð€€In€1996,€theÏNational€Research€Council€reportedÏthat€ð ð[t]he€technology€for€DNAÏprofiling€and€the€methods€forÏestimating€frequencies€and€relatedÏstatistics€have€progressed€to€theÏpoint€where€the€reliability€andÏvalidity€of€properly€collected€andÏanalyzed€DNA€data€should€not€be€inÏdoubt.ðð€€€€€€ÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€812,€n.22€(citations€omitted).€€Thus,€the€PCR€method€isÏgenerally€accepted€in€the€scientific€community€as€a€valid€means€forÏidentifying€unknown€contributors€of€body€tissue/fluid€samples.€ÏFinally,€Guerrieri€testified€that€he€spent€extensive€timeÏdeveloping€and€validating€DNA€testing€methods,€independent€of€anyÏlitigation.ÌÌà àHereafter,€the€PCR€method€of€DNA€analysis€shall€beÏadmissible€into€evidence€without€antecedent€expert€testimony€as€toÏits€trustworthiness€and€reliability,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ24„7„117(b)(1).€€As€provided€by€that€statute,€parties€areÏnevertheless€allowed€to€offer€proof€that€DNA€analysis€is€notÏtrustworthy€and€reliable.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„7„117(b)(2).€€ForÏexample,€a€party€can€challenge€the€reliability€of€a€particular€testÏin€any€given€case€by€a€showing€of€sloppy€handling€of€samples,Ïfailure€to€train€the€personnel€performing€the€testing,€failure€toÏfollow€protocol,€and€the€like.× ƒE ××  ×€€Such€a€challenge,€however,€will€goÏto€the€weight,€not€the€admissibility,€of€DNA€evidence.ÌÌà àWe€hold€that€the€trial€court's€admission€of€the€evidenceÏrelated€to€the€Polymerase€Chain€Reactive€method€of€DNA€analysis€wasÏnot€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€CourtÏof€Criminal€Appeals€is€œaffirmed.€€›Costs€of€this€cause€are€taxed€toÏBegley€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.œ›ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JusticeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Reid,€Holder,€JJ.€Ì