### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON Augus t 4, 200 9 S es sio n ST A TEOFTE N N ES SE E v . KE N N ET H RA YWI LL IS
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. 05- 01311 P aul a Skah an, Judge

N o. W 2008- 01448- C C A - R 3- C D - F i l ed January 20, 2010

A Shel by C ount y j ur y found t he def endant , K enneth R ay W i l l is, g ui l t y of D U I by i m pai r m ent , a C l as s A m i s dem eanor , on Febr uar y 29, 2008. O n appea l , t he def endantar gues t hatt he t r i al cour t er r ed i n ( 1) over r ul i ng a def ens e m ot i on t o l i m i t t es t i m ony of a w i t nes s for t he s t at e; ( 2) over r ul i ng a def ens e obj ect i on t o a w i t nes s nar r at i ng a vi deot ape; ( 3) denyi ng a def ens e m ot i on fort he j udge t o r ecus e her s el f ; ( 4) or der i ng t he def ens e t o m ov e for a d ir ec ted v erd ictp ri o r t o the c lose o f t h e state’s ca se; an d (5) d en y ing a sp ec ial jury i ns t r uct i on. T he def

endanthas w ai ved appe l l at e r evi ew of t hes e cl ai m s . A ddi t i onal l y, t he def endantar gues th at the tr i al cour ter r ed i n ( 1) over r ul i ng a def ens e obj ect i on t o t he i nt r oduct i on of

cer t ai n evi dence ; ( 2) l i m i t i ng cr os s - exam i nat i on of a w i t nes s fort he s t at e; and ( 3 ) d e n y i n g d e fe n s e m o t i o n s fo r m i s t r i a l a n d d i s m i s s a l

. Upo n r e v i e w, we a f fi r m t he ju d g m e n t o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt

. T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C ri m i nal C ourt A f f i rm ed
J

. C. M C L IN , J

. , del i ver ed t he opi nion o f t he cour t , i n w hi ch J OH N E VER ETT W I LLI AMS and A LAN E. G LEN N , J J

. , j oi ned.
P aul E. Lew i s, M i l l i ng t on , T enn essee, fort he ap pell ant, K enn et h R ay W i l l i s. R ober tE

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; J

. R os s D yer , A s s i s t antA t t or ney G ener al ; W i l l i am L

. G i bbons , D i s t r i ct A t t or ney G ener al ; and K i r by M ay, A s s i s t antD i s t r i ct A t t or ney G ener al , fort he appe l l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee. OP I NI ON
T h e S h e l b y Co u n t y Gr a n d J u r y i n d i c t e d t h e d e fe n d a n t o f DUI b y i mp a i r m e n t , DUI pers e and r eckl es s dr i vi ng. T he defendant w as t r i ed befor e a j ur y i n Shel by C ount y C r i m i nal C o u rt in F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 8 . T h e fo llo w in g e v id e n c e w a s p re s e n te d a t tr ia l.-2-

S ta te ’s P r o o

f. O f f i cerC har l es W atki ns of t he B ar t l et tPol i ce D epart m entw as r unni ng r adaron B ar t l et t B oul evar d bet w een St age R oad and Y al e R oad i n t he C i t y of B ar t l et ton t he eveni ng of

J ul y 30, 2004, w hen he obs er ved t he defendant t r avel i ng atf i f t y- ei ghtm i l es per houri n a for t y m i l es per hour zone. O f f i cer W atki ns fol l ow ed t he def endantw i t h hi s bl ue l i ght s on, and t he def

endants t opped i n t he l ef tl ane. A s he appr oache d t he def endant ’ s t r uck, he obs er ved t he d efe n dantt os s i ng a bee rcan i nt o t he bac k s eat

. O f f i cerW atki ns t es t i f

i ed that “[a ] stro n g o d o r of intox ican t [ w as] c o m ing from [t h e d efe n d an t]

. H is ey es w ere bl oods hotand w at er y. [ O f f i cerW atki ns ] coul dn’ t under s t and ver y m uch [ of] w hathe w as s ayi ng. I tw as ver y m um bl ed, ver y s l ur r ed s peec h .

. . . ” O f f i cer W atki ns had t he def endant per for m t hr ee f

i el d s obr i et y t es t s . H e t es t i f i ed t hatt he def

endantper for m ed poor l y on eac h t es t

. O f f i cerW atki ns t hen tr ans por t ed t he def endantt o t he hea dquar t er s of t he B ar t l et tPol i ce fo r f u rt h e r t e s tin g . A t th e p o lice sta tio n , O ffic e r W a tk in s film e d th e d e fe n d a n t p e rfo rm in g th e th re e fie ld s obr i et y t es t s fort he s econd t i m e, and t he def endantonce a gai n per for m ed poor l y. T he def endantcons ent ed t o a br eath al cohol t es t

. O f f i cer W atki ns i dent i f

i ed t he vi deot ape of

t he fie ld so b rie ty a n d b re a th a lco h o l tes ts a n d e x p lain e d w h a t w a s h a p p e n in g o n th e tap e w h ile t he j ur y vi ew ed i t

. H e al s o i dent i f i ed t he or i gi nal i nfor m ed cons entfor m s i gned by t he def endant

. O f

f i cer W atki ns f

ur t her t es t i f

i ed t hat he w as t r ai ned i n i dent i f yi ng i ndi cat i ons of i m p airm entby t he Tennes s ee Law E nfor cem entA cade m y and t he B ar t l et tPol i ce D epar t m ent

. H e s ai d t hathe for m ed an opi ni on t hatt he def end an t w as i m pai r ed bas ed on th e d e fe n d a n t’ s b e h a v io r. O n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , O ffic e r W a tk in s te stifie d th a t h is p a tro l ca r w a s e q u ip p e d w ith a vi deo cam er a, but on t he ni ght he pul l ed t he def endant over , t he ca m er a di d notr ecor d t he s t op and s ubs equents obr i et y t es t s beca us e i tw as ei t heroutof t ape or i tm al f

unct i oned. O f f i cerW atki ns f

ur t hert es t i f

i ed t hathe di d notfo ll o w the fi el d s obr i et y t es t i ng m anual i s s ued by t he B ar t l et tPol i ce D epar t m ent

. H e di d nots cor e t es t s as i ns t r uct ed by t he m anual butl ooked t o t he f

ul l per for m ance of

t he t es t

. H e s ai d he conduc t ed t es t s i n t he w ay he w as t r ai ned w hen he j oi ned t he pol i ce f or ce. O n r edi r ectexam i nat i on, t he as s i s t antdi s t r i ctat t or ney as ked O f f i cer W atki ns about t he i ndi cat or s pr ovi ded i n t he m anual , and O f f i cerW atki ns s ai d t hathe l ooked for e ach of t hos e i ndi cat or s . O f

f i cerW atki ns s t at ed t hati f he had been u sing the m anual ’ s s cor i ng m et hod, t he def

endant ’ s s core w o u ld h ave i ndi cat ed a bl ood al cohol cont entof 0. 1% or gr eat er . O f

f i cer W atki ns t es t i f

i ed t hat he for m ed t he opi ni on t hatt he def endantw as i m pai r ed b a se d o n a to tality o f th e c irc u m sta n c e s, n o t re ly in g o n a n y o n e tes t. H e sa id th a t th e b re a th t es tconf i r m ed hi s s us pi ci on t hatt he def endantw as i m pai r ed.
O f f i cerD avi d K ei t h S m ith t es t i f i ed t hathe w as a r es er ve pol i ce of f i cerw i t h t he B ar t l et tPol i ce D epar t m entand w as w i t h O f f i cerW atki ns w hen t hey pul l ed t he def endant-3-

overon J ul y 30, 2004. O f f i cer Sm i t h s ai d t hathe r em em ber ed t hi s cas e bec aus e i tw as t he o n ly D U I h e h a d w o rk e d

. O ffic e r W a tk in s w a s train in g h im th a t n ig h t. O ffic e r S m ith sa id t hatt hey t ur ned on t hei rem er gency l i ght s w hen t he r adarconf i r m ed t hatt he def

endantw as sp e e d in g . T h e y a lso a im e d th e c a r’s sp o tli g h t o n th e d e fe n d a n t’s tru c k a n d w e re th e re b y a b le t o s ee the def

endantt os s a ca n overhi s s houl der

. O f f i cerSm it h test if

i ed t hathe had p r e v i o u s l y b e e n e mp l o y e d b y a b e e rc o mp a n y a n d wa s v e r y fa mi l i a rwi t h b e e r . He r e c o g n i z e d t h e s me l l o f h o p s c o mi n g f

r o m t h e d e fe n d a n ta n d t h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s t r u c k

. He obs er ved t hat t he defendant had bl oods hoteyes , s l urr ed s peec h, and s t um bl ed w hen w al ki ng. H e di d notw at ch t he f

i el d s obr i et y t es t s and w as not t r ai ned t o conducts uch t es t s . O f f i cer Sm i t h acc om pani ed O f

f i cer W atki ns i n t he br eath al cohol r oom and w at ched the def endant fo r t h e re q u is ite tw e n ty m in u te s b e fo re O ffic e r W a tk in s a d m in is te re d th e te s t. O n cr os s exam i nat i on, O f f i cerSm i t h t es t i f

i ed t hat he s aw t he def

endant fal l i ng outof h is tr u ck an d ca tchin g h im self o n the truc k ’s d o o r. H e did no t k n o w w h y the pa tr o l c a r’s vi deo equi pm entdi d notr ecor d t he i nci dent

. H e al s o di d notr em em bert he def endantever re q u e s tin g to g o to th e re s tr o o m w h e n th e y w e re a t th e p o lic e s ta tio n . C h a r e s e Hen d e r s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a ts h e wor k e d a s a j a i l e ra tt h e Ba r t l e t tPol i ce D ep artm en t f

o r sev en y ea rs. S h e p roc esse d the d efe n d an t after h is a rrest. O n the d efe n d an t’ s m edi cal i nt ake f

or m , M s . H ender s on obs er ved t hat t he def endant ’ s eyes w er e bl oods hot , and “he s m el l ed of i nt oxi cant

. ”. She not ed on t he i nt ake f or m t hathe appe ar ed t o be i nt oxi cat ed. M s . H ender so n test if

i ed t hats he r ece i ved annua l t r ai ni ng i n handl i ng i nt oxi cat ed per s ons d u ri n g h e r t im e a t th e p o lic e d e p a rt m e n t. O n c ro ss e x a m in a tio n , M s. H e n d e rso n tes tified th a t s h e h a d n e v e r o b se rv e d a tes t in t he br eath al cohol r oom of t he pol i ce s t at i on. She nevert ol d anyone thatt he br eath al cohol m a c h in e w a s n o t w o rk in g p ro p e rl y . A gentR ober tM ar s hal l of t he Tennes s ee Bur e a u o f I n ves t i gat i on ( “TB I ”) t es t i f i ed t hat he is in charge o f m ai ntai ning and evaluat i ng t he b reath alcoho l m achines for W est T ennes s ee, i ncl udi ng t he B ar t l et t Pol i ce D epar t m ent ’ s m achi ne. T he B ar tl ett Pol i ce D epar t m entw as us i ng an EC / I R

- I m achi ne on Jul y 30, 2004. A gentM ar s hal l eval uat ed t he m achine foraccuracy o n Jun e 14 , 20 04 , and t he m achine m etT B I s t and ards. H e al so evaluat ed the m achine on A ug ust2, 20 04 , and i tm etT B I s t and ards. A gen tM ars hall al so t es t i f i ed t hat he t r ai ned t he B ar t l et tpol i ce of f i cer s , i ncl udi ng O f

f i cerW atki ns , t o oper at e t he m achi ne. A gentM ar s hal l s ai d t hati f t he m achi ne w as not oper at i ng pr oper l y, i tw oul d not p r i n to u tt h e n u me r i c a l r e s u l to f t h e t e s tb u two u l d p r i n t o u ta n e r r o r m e s s a g e i n s t e a d

. He i den t i fi ed the pri nt ou t of t he d efendan t ’s res ultand t est i fi ed thatt he d efendan t ’s breat h tes t re g is te re d a t 0 .2 7 3 b lo o d a lc o h o l c o n te n t.-4-

O n cr oss- exam i nati on , A gen t M ars hall t est i fi ed t hat breat h al coh ol t est s w e re less re liab le th a n b lo o d a lco h o l tes ts. A c c o rd in g to h im , the e rro r ra te o n th e E C /IR -I b re a th alco h o l m ac h ine is “p lu s o r m in u s fi v e p erc en t. ” A g en t M arsh all test ed the E C /I R -I’ s a c c u ra c y b y u sin g a sim u lato r c o n tain in g a k n o w n q u a n tit y o f e th y l alc o h o l. A g e n t M a rsh a ll re c o rd e d w h a t sim u lato rs h e u se d to tes t th e m a c h in e , b u t h e d id n o t h a v e th e re c o rd s w ith hi m . T he def

ens e couns el pr es ent ed hi m w i t h docum ent at i on t hat t he s i m ul at or s had expi r ed i n J une 2004, butA gentM ar s hal l t es t i f i ed t hathe w oul d notus e expi r ed s i m ul at or s . A gent M a rsh a ll t o o k B a rtlett’s E C /IR -I m a c h in e o u t o f se rv ice in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 4 a n d re p lac e d it w i t h an E C /I R

- I I

. A ts om e poi ntbefor e a m ot i on hear i ng i n O ct ober2005, he r et ur ned B ar t l et t ’ s E C / I R

- I m achi ne t o t he m anufactur er . T he m anufactur err eques t s t hatm achi nes b e r e t u r n e d s o t h a tt h e y d o n o t fa l l i n t o t h e h a n d s o f p e o p l e wh o a r e n o t c e r t i f i e d t o u s e t h e m. A gen tM ars hall did not r ecal l w hen or i f t he st at e gav e him t he d efense’ s di scovery reque st to p ro d u c e B a rt le tt’ s E C /I R -I m a c h in e . A gentM ar s hal l acknow l edged thatt he dat e and t i m e o n the E C / I R pr i nt outof t he def endant ’ s t es t w as i ncor r ect and sai d t hat the cl ock on t he m achi ne w as notcr i t i cal t o t he m a c h in e ’s a c c u ra c y . A g e n t M a rsh a ll fu rth e r a c k n o w led g e d th a t th e lo g k e p t b y th e B a rtlett P o lic e D e p a rt m e n t s h o w e d th a t th e re w e re s e v e ra l te s ts w ith d u p lic a te n u m b e rs . O n r edi r ectexam i nat i on, A gentM ar s hal l cl ar i f i ed t hat t he dupl i cat e num ber s occur w h e n a p e rso n re fu se s to tak e a b re a th a lco h o l tes t, th a t p e rso n ’s tes t n u m b e r i s a ss ig n e d to anot herper s on ata l at erdat e. O n r ecr os s - exam i nat i on, A gentM ar s hal l es t i m at ed t hat s om eone w oul d need t o cons um e t w el ve t o four t een Budw ei s ers t o r egi s t era 0. 273 bl ood a lc o h o l c o n te n t.
T he s t at e re cal l ed C har es e H ender s on, w ho t es t i f i ed t hat s he l ef

t herem pl oym entat t he B art l et tP oli ce D epart m ent i n O ct ob er 2007 t o w ork att he F e d e ra l B u reau of Pri sons. B eca us e t he def

endantal s o w or ked t her e, s he r eported to the uni on pr es i dentt hats he had b e e n su b p o e n a e d to tes tify a g a in st h im . T h e u n io n p re sid e n t in tro d u c e d h e r to th e d e fe n d a n t. T he def endantcal l ed heratw or k and em ai l ed heraboutt hi s cas e. S h e d id notdi s cus s t he c a s e w ith h im

. O n c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , M s . Hen d e r s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a ts h e was d i s c h a r g e d f r o m t he Feder al B ur eau of

Pr i s ons for“[ f] ai l ur e t o pr ovi de ac cur at e i nfor m at i on” bec aus e s he di d not t ur n i n i nfor m at i on on t i m e. She r ead t he em ai l s ent f r om t he def

endanti nt o t he r ecor d. T he em ail stat ed in p art, “re m em b er y o u stat ed that the m ac h ine is n ev er w o rkin g an d alw ay s torn up. I di dn’ tdr eam t hatup and [the U ni on Pr es i dent ] s ays he r em em ber s vi vi dl y you t el l i ng hi m t he m achi ne w as n’ tw or ki ng that n igh t

. ” M s . H ender s on, vi a a s peci al i nves t i gat i ons o ffic e r, re sp o n d e d th a t sh e d id n o t w a n t to c o m m u n ica te w ith th e d e fe n d a n t ag a in a b o u t h is cas e and that“[ s he knew ] t he pr os ecut i ng at t or ney w oul d not l i ke t he factt hat[ t he def endant w a s] a ttem p tin g to h a v e [h e r] s p e a k w ith [h is] a tto rn e y .” S h e re p o rte d to a u th o rities w ith in-5-

t he Feder al B ur eau of

Pr i s ons t hatt he def

endantw as har as s i ng her

. M s . H ender s on t es t i f i ed th a t th e s ta te d id n o t te ll h e r t o n o t s p e a k w ith d e fe n s e c o u n s e l.
O n r edi r ectexam i nat i on, M s . H ender s on t es t i f i ed t hat s he di d notw antt he def endant con t act i ng her becau se sh e th o u g ht he w as tryi ng t o inf l uen ce her t est i m on y. O n recr ossexam i nat i on, s he t es t i f

i ed t hatt he def

endantcal l ed hert en t i m es bet w een O ct ober2007 and J a n u a ry 2 0 0 8

. T he s t ate also r eca l l ed A gentM ar s hal l , w ho t es t i f i ed t hathi s r ecor ds i ndi cat ed t hat the s o luti o n s h e u s e d in Ju n e 2 0 0 4 an d A u g u st 20 0 4 w ere n o t exp ir ed

. H is r ec o rds w ere a d m itte d a s e v id e n c e . D ef ens e Proof

. T h e d efe n se ca ll ed M ary K athe ri n e M cM u rray to testi fy a s an ex p ert on br eath al cohol t es t i ng m achi nes . She t es t i f i ed t hat t he bes t i nfor m at i on t o d eterm ine w het hera par t i cul arm achi ne i s acc ur at e and r el i abl e i s t he dow nl oad dat a f r om t he m achi ne i t sel f. In t he ab sence o f the d ow nload da t a, she l oo ks at“l og bo ok s, m ai ntenance records, [ and] actual t es tt i cket s of w heneve rt hey che cked the ca l i br at i on . . . . ” C oncer ni ng t he l og book forB ar t l et t ’ s E C / I R

- I , M s . M cM ur r ay t es t i f i ed t hat t he l og di d nots how any dat a for t he t es t s r un by t he TB I , and she w as not pr ovi ded w i t h t he pri nt out s f r om t he TB I t es t s or w i t h i nfor m at i on r egar di ng w hi ch s peci f i c sol ut i ons w er e used i n t he t es t s . M s . M cM ur r ay t es t i f i ed t hat“not hi ng on t he face of t he [ def endant ’ s ] t es tt i cket

. . . [ gave he r ] any i ndi cat i on as t o t he accur acy or r el i abi l i t y of t hat par t i cul ar E C / I R

. ” H er opi ni on w as t hat s he coul d not

“ a s s ig n a n y le v e l o f a c c u ra c y o r r e lia b ility p re c is io n to [B a rt le tt’ s ] p a rt ic u la r E C /I R .”
O n cr os s - exam i nat i on, M s . M cM ur r ay t es t i f i ed t hat s he di d not t es t or i nt er vi ew t he def endant , norw as s he pr esen t at any poi nti n t i m e dur i ng hi s ar r es tand t es t i ng by t he B ar t l et tpol i ce. She al s o s ai d t hats he has notr ece i ved ce r t i f i cat i on f r om t he m anufactur er of t he E C / I R

- I

. O n r edi r ectexam i nat i on, M s . M cM ur r ay s t at ed t hatt he m anufactur erof t he E C /I R -I w o u ld n o t a llo w h e r t o re c e iv e fa c to ry tr a in in g o n th e m a c h in e . Shar on B r ow n t es t i f

i ed t hats he i s t he def

endant ’ s s i s t er - i n- l aw and w as w i t h hi m at a fam i l y r euni o n on J ul y 30, 2004 f r om s i x p. m . unt i l ar ound el even p. m . She di d nots ee hi m dr i nk any al cohol i n t hat t i m e per i od. I n her opi ni on, he di d notappea ri m pai r ed w hen he l ef tt he r euni on. O n cr os s - exam i nat i on, M s . B r ow n t es t i f i ed t hati n t he t en yea r s t hats he h a s k n o w n th e d e fe n d a n t, s h e h a s s e e n h im d ri n k b u t “ [n ]o t to th e p o in t o f b e in g d ru n k

. . . .”
L e o n W ill is t e stifie d th a t h e is th e d e fe n d a n t’s b ro th e r-in -la w a n d w a s at th e fa m ily r e u n i o n o n J u l y 3 0 , 2 0 0 4

. Mr

. W i l l i s wa s c o o k i n g o u t s i d e a n d h a d a c o o l e ro f b e e rwi t h h i m. H e w as dr i nki ng t he bee rbutdi d nots ee the def endantdr i nk any. M r . W i l l i s s aid thatt he-6-

def endantw oul d getqui etand i s ol at e hi m s el f w hen he dr ank t oo m uch. H e di d notbel i eve th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w a s im p a ir e d o n th e n ig h t o f J u ly 3 0 , 2 0 0 4

. O n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , M r. W ill is te stifie d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w e n t b a c k a n d fo rth bet w een i ns i de and out s i de att he fam i l y r euni on. H e s ai d t hatt he def endantdoes nots l ur hi s s peec h w hen dr i nki ng butal w ays s peaks s l ow l y. M r . W i l l i s t es t i f i ed t hathi s def

i ni t i on o f i m p a ir m e n t w a s n o t h a v in g c o n tr o l o v e r o n e s e lf

. C e d ric B ro w n tes tified th a t h e is th e d e fe n d a n t’s b ro th e r-in -la w a n d w a s a t th e fa m ily reuni on on Jul y 3 0, 20 04

. H e did n ot see t he defend ant dri nk any al coh ol that day. O n crosse x a m in a tio n , M r. B ro w n te s tif ie d th a t h e h a d n e v e r s e e n th e d e fe n d a n t d ri n k to o m u c h

. R os i e N or r i s t es t i f

i ed t hats h e i s t he def

endant ’ s m ot her

- i n- l aw , and s he w as att he fa m i l y r e u n i o n o n J u l y 3 0 , 2 0 0 4

. Sh e s a i d s h e was wi t h t h e d e fe n d a n t t h e m a j o r i t y of t he eveni ng and di d nots ee hi m dr i nk anyt hi ng. O n cr os s - exam i nat i on, M s . N or r i s t es t i f i ed t hat i n t he t en year s t hat s he has know n hi m t he m os ts he had e vers een the def endantdr i nk w as o n e c an o f be er. D on T r i pl et tt es t i f

i ed t hat he has w or ked w i t h t he def endant at t he Feder al C or r ect i on Institu ti o n for n inetee n y ea rs. H e is a c o rrecti o n al officer a n d the u n ion p reside n t. M r. T r i pl et ts ai d t hatw hen C har es e H ender s on cam e t o w or k att he Feder al C or r ect i on I ns t i t ut i on, s he ca m e t o hi s of f i ce a nd t ol d hi m s he had t o t es t i f y agai ns t t he defendant

. She w as c o n ce rne d ab o u t kee p ing h er job an d w h ethe r t h e d efe n d an t w o u ld b e v ind ict ive. M r. T rip lett te stifie d th a t M s. H e n d e rso n to ld h im “ th a t th e n ig h t th a t [th e d e fe n d a n t] c a m e in it di dn’ tappea rt hathe had be en dr unk.

. . . T hatni ght , t hatbr eathal y ze r th at t hey us e w as b rok en . ”. H e su g g ested that sh e sp ea k w ith the d efe n d an t, an d then sh e left his office. M r. T rip lett sa id th a t M s. H e n d e rso n lo st h e r jo b b e c a u se sh e d id n o t p ro v id e a c c u ra te in fo rm a tio n o n h e r a p p lic a tio n . A s u n io n p re s id e n t, h e w a s tr y in g to g e t h e r j o b b a c k

. On c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i o n , Mr

. T r i p l e t t s a i d t h a t wh e n Ms

. He n d e r s o n f i r s tc a me t o h i m, h e too k h er t o w h ere the de fen d an t w as w o rkin g . H e d id n o t com m u n icate w ith h er a n y m o re a b o u tt h i s c a s e . He s a i d h e wa s g o o d f r i e n d s wi t h t h e d e fe n d a n t , a n d t h e y u s e d t o s p e n d t i me to g e th e r a ft e r w o rk u n til th e d e fe n d a n t g o t m a rr ie d

. T he s t at e di s m i s s ed t he r eckl es s dr i vi ng char ge. A f t erdel i ber at i ons , t he j ur y found t he def endantgui l t y of

D U I by i m p ai r m ent , a C l as s A m i s dem eanor , and ac qui t t ed t he def endantof D U I pers e. T he cour ts ent ence d t he def endantt o el even m ont hs , t w ent y- ni ne days , s i xt y days of

w hi ch t o be ser ved i n t he w or khous e and the r em ai nderon pr obat i on. T he trial c o u rt d e n ied th e d e fe n d a n t’s m o tio n fo r a n e w trial, a n d th e d e fe n d a n t filed th is tim e ly a p p e a l.-7- A n a ly sis
T he def endant ’s issu es ar e al l ei t herw ai ved orm oot

. T he def endantpr es ent s t en i s s ues o n ap p ea l

. T he def endantw ai ved appe l l at e r evi ew of t he fol l ow i ng as s i gnm ent s of er r orbeca us e t he def

endantm er el y r eci t ed t he fact s of t he case w it h o utpr es ent i ng any ar gum entorci t ati o n t o author i t i es i n hi s br i ef as r equi r ed by Tennes s ee Courtof C r i m i nal A ppeal s R ul e 10( b) : ( 1) deni al of a def ens e m ot i on t o l i m i tt es t i m ony of a w i t nes s fort he stat e; (2) o v erru li n g a d efe n se o bjectio n to a w it n ess n arrati n g a v ideo tape ; ( 3 ) de n ial o f a def ens e m ot i on fort he j udge t o r ecus e her s el f ; ( 4) or der i ng t he defens e t o m ove fora di r ect ed ver di ctpr i ort o t he cl os e of t he s t at e’ s cas e; and ( 5) denyi ng a s peci al j ur y i ns t r uct i on. T he r em ai ni ng i s s ues eac h hi nge on ei t hert he r es ul t s of t he def endant ’ s br eath al cohol t es tort he avai l abi l i t y of B ar t l et t ’ s E C / I R br eathal yzerm achi ne. T he s t at e cont ends t hatt hes e i s s ues ar e m ootbeca us e t he j ur y acqui t t ed t he def endantof dr i vi ng w i t h a bl ood al cohol cont entof 0

. 0 8 % o r gre ater (“D U I pe r se” ). W e a g ree that issue s relati n g to th e D U I p er se ch arg e a re m o o t.
F i rs t , t he is sue of w hethert he tri al cou rt err ed i n how i t al l ow ed the breat h alcoho l t est r es ul t s t o be adm i t t ed i s m ootbeca us e t he j u ry h ea rd the r es ul t s and s t i l l acqui t t ed t he def endantof

D U I pers e. T he s ec o n d i s s ue of w het hert he tr i al cour ti m pr oper l y l i m i t ed d e fe n se c o u n se l’s c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n o f A g e n t M a rsh a ll i s a lso m o o t in lig h t o f th e a c q u itt a l. T he d efendan t ’s off

er o f p ro o f r evealed t hat, had t he tr i al cou rtal l ow ed the cross

ex am ination to co n ti n u e, A g en t M arsh all w o u ld h av e b ee n rep ea ti n g test im o n y that the ju ry had al r eady he ar d aboutw hy t he EC / I R

- I w as unavai l abl e. Fi nal l y, t he def endantcont ends t hatt he tr i al cour ts houl d have e i t hergr ant ed a m i s t r i al ordi s m i s s ed t he ca s e du e t o t he u n a v a ilab ili ty o f th e E C /IR -I a n d th e s tate ’s c o n tin u in g d u ty to p re se rv e e v id e n c e . T h is cl ai m i s m ooti n l i ghtof t he def endant ’ s acqui t t al on t he D U I pers e cha r ge. Fur t her m or e, t her e i s am pl e evi dence t o s uppor t t he def endant ’ s D U I by i m pai r m ent convi ct i on. O f f i cer W atki ns s aw the defendantt os s a bee rcan i nt o t he bac ks eatof hi s t r uck. T he def

endant s m el l ed of

al cohol , had bl oods hot eyes , and st um bl ed w hen he w al ked. T he defendantfai l ed t hr ee f i el d s obr i et y t es t s on t he s cene and fai l ed t hem agai n w hen he r epea t ed t he t es t s att he p o lic e s ta tio n . T h e d e fe n d a n t is n o t e n title d to re lie f o n th e s e is s u e s . C oncl usi on B a s e d o n th e fo re g o in g re a s o n s , w e a ffir m th e ju d g m e n t o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt

.

___________________________________ J

. C. M c L I N, J UDGE