WPCv! >4t 0 ow@UHN  0 0DO %UF 0J 0T) 0^} 0h 0rC 0| 01 0 1uG B AQ * 0D 0@4 0Dt 0d D/ BK D3h U6 B) DC AM= U* M ov~%vz=#3|x(Ga$  XX*XXX DDbUEDӀ<09Z 0Courier (W1) RegularH(c(3LV$ a!  XXCXXX   `   0  (#$  0  X<4 9Z .Courier New Regular2 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) d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X((' dxdP Pd'dxd<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd!#2C << G<  9p`(Arial C !  #d#0    X  ""  44   YYY FILED4XOctober13,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   !#d#0    X   $       Tenn.CodeAnn.5510401.  !#d#0    X   $       ݛOralargumentwasheardinthiscaseonOctober8,1996,inϜCookeville,PutnamCounty,Tennessee,aspartofthisCourtsϜS.C.A.L.E.S.(SupremeCourtAdvancingLegalEducationforStudents)project.  !#d#0    X   $       Whitsonv.State,314Ark.458,863S.W.2d794(1993);Statev.Murphy,451N.W.2d154(Iowa1990);Statev.Garris,603So.2d277(La.App.2Cir.1992);CityofFargov.McLaughlin,512N.W.2d700(N.D.1994);Statev.Nagel,30OhioApp.3d80,506N.E.2d285(1986);Statev.Sullivan,426S.E.2d766(S.C.1993). v !#d#0    X   $       InStatev.Gilbert,751S.W.2d454,459(Tenn.Crim.App.1988),theCourtofCriminalAppealsheldthatfieldsobrietytestswerenot scientificandtherefore,notsubjecttoTenn.R.Evid.702.However,theintermediatecourtdidnotspecifywhichfieldsobrietytestswereutilizedinthatcase.ThereareseveralunpublishedopinionsbytheCourtofCriminalAppealsthathaveheldthatHGNtestresultsarenotscientificinnature.Asauthorofthisopinion,IacknowledgethatIparticipatedinseveralofthoseopinionswhileonthelowercourtandevenauthoredone.Afterfurtherreflection,however,Ihaveconcludedthatthecourseweadopttodayisthebetterreasonedone. x !#d#0    X   $       TennesseeRuleofEvidence702requiresthattheevidence substantiallyassistthetrieroffact;incontrast,thefederalrulesimplyrequiresthattheevidenceassistthetrieroffact.  !#d#0    X   $       Anapparentmajorityofthejurisdictionsthathaveaddressedthisissueagreewithourconclusion.SeeStatev.Merritt,36Conn.App.76,647A.2d1021,1026(1994)andtheauthoritiescitedtherein.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . 0    X     \RA'\\RA'\72XXdd7  ћ @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE̜@ (HEARDATCOOKEVILLE)̛STATEOFTENNESSEE, )FORPUBLICATIOǸ     )       )FILED:OCTOBER13,1997 Appellant     )       )DAVIDSONCOUNTYv.       )̜!R352A1-j|bu` - `@Rߛ       )HON.WALTERC.KURTZ,CORAMURPHY,     ) JUDGÈ  )̀Appellee    )NO.01S019602CC00035ForAppellee:     ForAppellant:JEFFERSONT.DORSEY   JOHNKNOXWALKUPAssistantPublicDefender  AttorneyGeneralandReporterNashville,TN       MICHAELE.MOORE       SolicitorGeneral       WILLIAMDAVIDBRIDGERS       AssistantAttorneyGeneral       Nashville,TN       VICTORS.JOHNSON,III       DistrictAttorneyGeneral       JAMESD.SLEDGE       AssistantDistrictAttorney       Nashville,TN@ OPINIONCOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSAFFIRMED     BIRCH,J.72XXdXXd7` XX  %  ǜ TheCourtofCriminalAppealsreversedthejudgmentofthetrialcourtthatconvictedCoraMurphy,thedefendant,ofdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant 6   ׀andremandedthecaseforanewtrial.WeconsidernowtheappealoftheStateofTennessee, 7   כandwemustdeterminewhethertestimonyconcerninganHorizontalGazeNystagmus( HGN)sobrietytestconstitutes scientific,technical,orotherspecializedknowledgeunderTenn.R.Evid.702.WeholdthattheHGNtestisascientifictest.Tobeadmissibleattrial,suchevidencemustsatisfytherequirementsofTenn.R.Evid.702and703asannouncedinMcDanielv.CSXTransportation,Inc.,򀀀S.W.2d򀀀(Tenn1997).Becauseweareunabletodeterminefromtherecordnowbeforeuswhethertheseadmissibilityrequirementshavebeenmet,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisaffirmed,andweremandthiscasetothetrialcourtforanewtrial.@ I MurphywasarrestedandchargedwithdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofanintoxicantonMay31,1993.Attrial,theStatereliedprimarilyontheresultsofanHGNsobrietytest.MichaelEby,thearrestingofficer,describedthetestheadministeredtoMurphyandhisconclusionstherefromasfollows:8 8  [TheHGNtest]worksonthemovementoftheeyes,thatwhatyoucheckforarethreedifferentthings.One,youcheckforsmoothmovement.Youhavethemfollowanobject,eitherapen,tipofapenoryourfinger,andtheyresupposedtofollowwiththeireyes.Andiftheresnystagmuspresent,theireyeswillnotmovefromsidetosidesmoothly;theywillhavejumpingmovementsinthem.8 8  Thenyoucheckfor,atmaximumdeviation,anysignsofmovement.Andwhatitisis[sic]whenyougettoa45degreeangle,theireyeswilljerkbackandforthiftheressignsofnystagmusthere.8 8  Andthelastoneisyoucheckfortheoffset[sic,onset]ofitbefore45degrees.8 8 ....8 8 onallthreepointsboththeeyes[Murphy]hadobvioussignsofnystagmus. MurphywastestedasshefacedtheflashinglightsofEbyspatrolcar.Attrial,Ebyacknowledgedthatnystagmusmaybecausedbymanyfactorsotherthanalcoholconsumption.Ebydidnotconductanyotherfieldsobrietytests,norwasMurphysbloodorbreathlateranalyzedforalcoholcontent.EbyalsotestifiedconcerninghisgeneralobservationsofMurphymadeduringtheincident.Asstated,thetrialcourtheldthattheHGNtestresultsdidnotconstitutescientificevidence.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsreversed.̛̜@ II Nystagmusisaninvoluntaryjerkingmovementoftheeyeeitherasitattemptstofocusonafixedpointorasitmovestooneside.Thephenomenonresultsfromthebodysattempttomaintainorientationandbalance.Statev.Cissne,72Wash.App.677,865P.2d564,566(1994). Thetheorybehindthe[HGN]testisthatthereisastrongcorrelationbetweentheamountofalcoholapersonconsumesandtheangleofonsetofthenystagmus.Statev.Witte,251Kan.313,836P.2d1110,1112(1992)(quotingCarper&McCamey,GazeNystagmus:ScientificProofofDUI?,77Ill.B.J.146,147(1988)). Theeffectofalcoholconsumptiononnystagmusmaybeobservedinthreeways:8 8 AngleofOnsetthemoreintoxicatedapersonbecomes,thesoonerthejerkingwilloccurastheeyesmovetotheside.8 8 MaximumDeviationthegreaterthealcoholimpairmentthemoredistinctthenystagmusiswhentheeyesareasfartothesideaspossible.8 8 SmoothPursuitanintoxicatedpersonoftencannotfollowaslowlymovingobjectsmoothlywithhiseyes.2Nichols,Drinking/DrivingLitigation26:01,p.159(1992Supp.)Id.at1113. InconductinganHGNtest,thesubjectshouldbeinstructedtokeeptheheadstillandwithoneeyecovered,followapenlightorotherobjectwiththeuncoveredeye.Thepenlightisheldateyelevelabout12to15inchesfromthesubjectshead.Itisthenmovedfromdirectlyinfrontofthesubjectseyestooneside.Asapersonwhohasbeenconsumingalcoholattemptstofollowthepenlightsmovement,sothetheorygoes,nystagmuswilloccursoonerandbemorepronouncedthanitwouldbeinapersonwhohasnotconsumedanyalcohol. TheStateargues,andcertainotherjurisdictionshaveacceptedthisreasoning, 8   ׀thatHGNtestingisnotscientificbecauseitsimplyinvolvesanofficersobjectiveobservationsofthesubjectsphysicalcharacteristics.Inthisway,saystheState,HGNisnodifferentfromotherfieldsobrietytests. 9   ׀ Inourview,theHGNtestdoesdifferfundamentallyfromotherfieldsobrietytestsbecausethewitnessmustnecessarilyexplaintheunderlyingscientificbasisofthetestinorderforthetestimonytobemeaningfultoajury.Othertests,inmarkedcontrast,carrynosuchrequirement.Forexample,ifapoliceofficertestifiesthatthedefendantwasunabletowalkastraightlineorstandononefootorcountbackwards,ajuryneedsnofurtherexplanationofwhysuchtestimonyisrelevanttoorprobativeontheissueofthedefendantscondition.Ajurorcanrelyuponhisorherpersonalexperienceorotherwiseobtainedknowledgeoftheeffectsofalcoholupononesmotorandmentalskillstoevaluateandweightheofficerstestimony.However,ifapoliceofficertestifiesthatthedefendantexhibitednystagmus,thattestimonyhasnosignificancetotheaveragejurorwithoutanadditionalexplanationofthescientificcorrelationbetweenalcoholconsumptionandnystagmus.Ineffect,thejurormustrelyuponthespecializedknowledgeofthetestifyingwitnessandlikelyhasnoindependentknowledgewithwhichtoevaluatethewitnessstestimony. AndthereisanotherdistinctionbetweentheHGNtestandotherfieldsobrietytests,anditconcernsmeasurement.Returningtoexamples,anofficermaytestifythatthesubjectperformedthe fingertonosetestsuccessfullythreeoutofsevenattempts.Onceagain,noexplanationisneeded.Incontrast,whenanofficertestifiesthatthesubjectseyemovementwasrapidandveryjerkyatlessthana40degreeangle,thatofficeristestifyingaboutameasurementthatprobablyshouldbetakenwithameasuringdevice.Therefore,theaccuracyofthistestimonymaybequestionableinlightoftheofficersnonscientificmeasurementofascientificallymeasurablephenomenon. InWitte,theKansasSupremeCourtcogentlysummarizedthedistinctionbetweentheHGNtestandotherfieldsobrietytests:8 8 TheHGNtestisdistinguishedfromotherfieldsobrietytestsinthatscience,ratherthancommonknowledge,providesthelegitimacyforHGNtesting....HGNtestresultsare scientificevidencebasedonthescientificprinciplethatconsumptionofalcoholcausesthetypeofnystagmusmeasuredbytheHGNtest....8 8 [T]heofficersopinionthatthedefendant wasundertheinfluenceofalcohol,totheextentitwasbasedonthenystagmustest,restsonscientificpremiseswellbeyond[theofficers]knowledge,training,oreducation.Withoutsomeunderstandingoftheprocessesbywhichalcoholingestionproducesnystagmus,howstrongthecorrelationis,howotherpossiblecausesmightbemasked,whatmarginoferrorhasbeenshowninstatisticalsurveys,andahostofotherrelevantfactors,[theofficers]opiniononcausation,notwithstandinghisabilitytorecognizethesymptom,wasunfounded.Witte,836P.2dat111516(quotingCommonwealthv.Miller,367Pa.Super.359,365,532A.2d1186(1987)andPeoplev.Williams,3Cal.App.4th1326,1334,5Cal.Rptr.2d130(1992)). TennesseeRuleofEvidence702states:8 8 Ifscientific,technical,orotherspecializedknowledgewillsubstantiallyassistthetrieroffacttounderstandtheevidenceortodetermineafactinissue,a  ќwitnessqualifiedasanexpertbyknowledge,skill,experience,training,oreducationmaytestifyintheformofanopinionorotherwise. :   InTennessee,evidenceconstitutes scientific,technical,orotherspecializedknowledgeifitconcernsamatterthat theaveragejurorwouldnotknow,asamatterofcourse....Statev.Bolin,922S.W.2d870,874(Tenn.1996).Inourview,theaveragejurorwouldnotknow,asamatterofcourse,thatacorrelationexistsbetweenalcoholconsumptionandnystagmus.Consequently,testimonyconcerningtheHGNfieldsobrietytestconstitutes scientific,technical,orotherspecializedknowledge. ;   ׀Assuch,itmustbeofferedthroughanexpertwitnessandmustmeettherequirementsofTenn.R.Evid.702and703asexplainedinMcDanielv.CSXTransportation,򀀀S.W.2d򀀀Ϝ(Tenn1997). ThejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisaffirmed,andthecauseisremandedtothetrialcourtforanewtrial.CostsaretaxedtotheStateforwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary.̜̜    ________________________________________    ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,Justice̜CONCUR:Anderson,C.J.Drowota,Reid,JJ.OBrien,S.J.