### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON N ove m be r 7, 200 6 S es sio n

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . JEFFREY LE E FIE LDS

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Carr oll Coun ty No. 05CR14 C. C ree d McG inley, Jud ge

No. W2005-02128-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled April 5, 2007

A Ca r r o ll Co u n ty Ci r c u it Co u rt ju r y c o n v ic te d th e d e f

e n d an t o f dr iv in g u n d e r th e inf luence of an intox icant (DUI ), third offe nse, see T.C.A. § 55-10-401 (2006), pos session of a handg un while under the influenc e of a

n intox icant, se e id

. § 39-17-1321( a) (2006), and posse ssion of marijuana, se e id

. § 39-17-418( a), all Class A m isdemeanor s. The jury acquitted the defe ndant of unlaw ful possession of drugpara

pherna lia, rolling pa

pers, se e id . § 39-17-425( a)( 1) (2006), and unlawful possession of a prohibited we apon, a thr owing star, se e id . § 39-17-1302( a) (8 ) (2 0 06). The c ourt sentenc ed the defe ndant for the DUI

conviction to 11 months and 29 day s suspended a fter se rving 120 day s. For the possession of a ha

ndg un char g e he rec eived 11 months and 29 day s suspended a fter se rving 30 day s. L ikewise, he rec eived 11 months and 29 day s suspended after 30 da y s for the posse ssion of marijuana conviction. All sentenc es we re to run c oncurr ently . The defe ndant filed a timely notice of a pp e a l and c omp la ins , o nly

in r e g ard s to his DU I c on vic tio n, that (1) the tr ia l “ wa s f un dame nta lly unfair due t o the S tate’s failure to prese rve the video tape of the field sobrie ty

tests . . ., which . . . would have been e x culpatory in nature,” and (2) “the ve rdict . . . wa s unreliable ba sed upon [the deputy ’s] e rrone ous testimony

. . . conce rning the Br eatha ly zer Machine and the test he g ave a nd the

manner in which he g ave it.” A fter r eview of the re cord a

nd the brief

s submitt ed by the par

ties, we

a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uitCo ur t i s A ffirm e d.

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J .J ., joined.

Vi c tor ia L . D iB on ave ntu

ra , B uc ha na n, Te nn e sse e , f

or the Ap pe lla

nt, Jef fr e y L e e F ie lds

.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Da vid H. F ind le y , As sis tant Attor ne y Ge ne ra l; Hanse l J ay

McCadams, District Attorne y Gene ral; and Stephe n D. J ackson
, As sistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.-2- OP IN ION

Th e e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the c on vic tio n s s h o w e d t h a t C a r r o l l C o u nt y S h e r i f f ’ s D e p uty M i ch ael Da

rnell testified that, on Setembe r 5, 2004, at a pproxi mately

2:00 p.m., he was traveling west in his patrol ca

r on Hig hway

70, respondingto a 9-1-1 c all. He testified that he was traveling at about 65 to 70 miles per hour in a 55 mile-per- hour zone, and he neither ha d his sirens sounding nor his blue lights a ctivated. As he approa ched the Hebr on Church Road interse ctio n , he sawthe defe ndant’s vehic le, a 1990 g ray For d F- 150, pull from Hebr on Church Road pa rtially into his t rave l lane. De puty

Dar nell testified that he took “ evasive action and went lef t of the roa dway , went off into a lady ’s y ard, c ame back around, drove up around to where [the def endant] was, g ot out[ ,] and made c ontact with [the defenda nt] .”

Deputy Dar nell testified that, while he chec ked the defenda nt’s driver’ s license, he detec ted a l co h o l o n the def endant’ s breath. He then a sked the de fenda nt to ex it his t ruck a

nd p e r f o r m f i e l d s o b r i e t y t e s t s

. D e p u t y D ar n e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a tt h e d e f

e n d an ti n f o r m e d h i m o f a l e g i n j u r y, so Deputy Dar nell asked him to pe rfor

m the “fing er to nose and five -fing er c ount” tests. He testified that the def

endant pe rfor

med poorly

on both tests, mis sing his nose, be ing unste ady on his feet, a

nd g etting c onfused whe n counting

.

Deputy Dar nell further

testified that his patrol ca r video c amer a re corde d the de fe nd ant’ s p e rf

or manc e . H ow e ve r, he did no t hav e th e tape at tr ia l be c a us e “ [he ] wa s a sk e d to

rec ord [his] VHS-C tape onto another tape for ot her parties[, and w] hen [ he] did that, the tape w as damag ed.” H e also testified that, afte r the defe ndant perf ormed poorly on the tests, he arr ested the defe ndant and plac ed him in his patrol car

.

Deputy Dar nell then contac t ed another deputy to drive the pa sseng er of the de fe nd ant’ s v e hic le ho me a nd a wr e c ke r to tow the de fe nd ant’ s veh ic le

. Sub se qu e ntl y to t he a rr e st, he sear ched the vehicle a

nd rec overe d a bagof marijuana , a throwingstar, and r olling pape rs from the dr ive r’ s si de do or ; a

.3 80 se mi- a

uto ma tic pis tol fr om un de rn e a th t he dr ive r’ s si de se a t; a

n e mpt y Busc h beer

can f rom behind the truc k seat; bee r ca ns in the truck bed; a

nd a 24-pa ck of be er a

bout “thre e-qua

rters f ull.”

Deputy Dar

nell testified t hat, after he made photogra phs and a list of the e vidence
, he inf or me d th e dis patc he r that he wa s in ro ute tr ans po rt ingthe de fe nd ant t o th e Carr oll County Jail
, which he stated wa s approximately three miles from the Hig hway 70-He bron Church Road intersec tion.

Upon ar

riving at the jail, Deputy Dar nell took the defe ndant to the “br ea t haly zer room,” whe re he rea d him the impli ed conse nt form. He te stified that the def endant marked that he would submit t o the test and sig ned the form. De puty Dar nell then ty

ped information into t he I ntox ilyzer EXC-I R. He testified that he was c ertified in using the machine and that the machine had been c ertified by

the appr opriate Te nnessee Bur eau of I nvestig ation (TB I ) ag ent.-3- De pu ty Da rn e ll t e sti fi e d th a t he fo llo we d th e TB Ista nd ard s and

pr oc e dure s in

a dmi nis te ri ngthe te st. He te sti fi e d that he ob se rv e d the de fe nd ant fo r 20 min ute s pr ior to h a vin g him take the test. During this time, Deputy Dar nell testified that he wa s “[j] ust sitt ing the re w atching[t he defend ant, ]” a

nd the de fe nd ant d id n ot b ur p, re g ur g itate , o r p ut a

ny thi ngint o h is m ou th. De pu ty Dar nell further

testified that the mac hine “will only let y ou do cer tain things.” He manua lly enter ed the s tart t ime of 15:00, 3:00 p.m. from his personal watch; the machine ran a blank test at 15:22, 3:22 p.m., showing that it was clea r of a ny subs t ance ; and at 15:23, 3:23 p.m., the machine pr inted out

a re port, which he identified at trial, stating that the def endant’ s blood alcohol content wa s 0.09 perc ent. Deputy

Dar nell testified, we disc ern, that after manually enter ing the time from his watch, he us e d th e “ ma c hin e status ” a s h is t imi ngde vic e to c a lc ulate the 20 -m inute wa iti ngpe ri od . H e a lso testified that his watch w as not sy nchronized with the dispatche r’s c lock, but reg ardle ss of diffe rent tim e c loc ks , h e ob se rv e d th e de fe nd ant f or 20 min ute s b e fo re the de fe nd ant t oo k th e te st.

On cr oss-examination, Deputy Dar nell testified t hat he only found one ope n beer can in t he tr uc k’ s c a b, a nd he did no t r e me mbe r “ bla c k s tuf f” be ingon

the c an w he n h e fo un d it

. Deputy Dar nell a ls o te s ti f

ie d th a t, u p o n e nte r in g the Carroll County

J ail, the def

endant did not sit at the “ja iler’s booth,” but he took the defe ndant to the room holding the I ntox ily zer afte r the def endant e mptied his pockets at the jailer ’s booth counter

. Deputy Dar nell testified that he filled out the implied c onsent repor t, w riting 15:00 on the form while in the I ntox ilyzer room. He te stified that he re a d th e de fe nd ant the imp lie d c on se nt f or m be fo re he c a lib rate d th e ma c hin e . D e pu ty Dar nell also testified somewhat confusing ly that he then watche d the def endant f or twenty minutes be fo re ty pin g inf or ma tio n in to t

he ma c hin e . H e te sti fi e d th a t he ha d to e nte r t he tim e , 1 5: 00 , in to the machine and that the mac hine did not know the time. Then he “let the mac hine do its thing.”

De pu ty Da rn e ll als o te sti fi e d th a t th e dis patc he r h a s a “ CA D m a c hin e ” and

us e s it to tr a c k de pu tie s’ a c tiv iti e s. He te sti fi e d tha t dep uti e s conve rs e wi th the dis patc he r via ra dio s. De pu ty Dar nell testified t hat it was 15:00 when he wrote 15:00 on the c onsent form, a nd acc ording to the dis patc he r’ s lo g us inga

se pa rate tim ingde vis e , the de fe nd ant w a s arr e ste d at 2: 27 p. m. T he loga lso showed that De puty

Dar nell was in route to the ja il with the defenda nt at 3:04 p.m., and at 3:09:53, he arr ive d at th e ja il w iththe de fe nd ant.

Deputy Dar nell clar ified t hat at 15:00 he ente red the information into the I ntox ilyzer, at 15: 20 the m achine started calibrating
, at 15: 22 the defendant provided the breath sample, and at 15 :23 the ma c hin e pr int e d th e re su lts

.

On re direc t examination, Deputy Dar nell testified that he ty

ped in 15:00, we disce rn fr om h is p e rs on a l w a tc h, wa ite d 2 0 min ute s us ing the I nto xily

zer ’s tim e pie c e , a

nd the n p us he d s tart

. He testified that if he had e ntere d 8:00, then 20 minutes later the mac hine would show 8:20.

After Deputy Dar nell’s testimony
, the State rested its c ase, a nd the def endant r eca lled Deputy Dar nell. He testified that he re membere d testify ing at the prelimi nary hear ing that he used his pe rs on a l wa tc h to time the 20 -m inute ob se rv a tio n pe ri od , tha t his w a tc h h a d n oth ingto d o w ith-4-

the “br eatha ly

zer cloc k ,” and that his watch, the “ breathaly zer clock,” and the dispatc her’ s clock

wer e not sy

nchronized.

The de fenda

nt then called James Hug hes De J arne tte, the defendant’s stepbr other a nd passeng er on Septe mber 5, 2004, as a witness. He testified that ear lier that day , he and the defe ndant had bee n targ et pra cticing . After they ate l u n ch i n differ ent place s, they drove tog ether

to ge t cig are ttes. He ha d no appre h en s i o n about riding with the defe ndant, and he testified that the defe ndant did not seem intox icated.

Mr. DeJarnette te stified that the d e f e n d a nt s to p p e d a t the Hig hway

70-He bron Church Roa d in te rs e c tio n a

nd the n “ e a se d u

p a c ou ple of fe e t to ma

ke sure the ri g ht s ide wa s c le ar” be c a us e his vie w w a s o bs tr

uc te d b y a sig n. He te sti fi e d th a t w he n h e loo ke d le ft
, “ a c ar w a s sl idi nga bo ut a hundred f eet f rom [them] , and it slid rig ht by [t hem].” He state d that only afte r the ve hicle passe d him, did he notice that it wa s a patrol car

. Mr. DeJarnette further testified that the deputy reg ained control af ter “ about a qua

rter of [one] mile down the roa d.”

Mr . D e Jar

ne tte te sti fi e d that he ob se rv e d the de fe nd ant take the fi e ld s ob ri e ty te sts , and he did not notice the defe ndant do an y t h i n g wr ong . I n his opinion, t he def endant pa ssed the tests. Also, he testified that the be er f ound in the truck ha d been the re the day befor e.

On cr oss-examination, Mr. D eJarnette did not reme mber telling the deputy who took him home that he and the defe ndant had been drinking while targ et practicing

. He also stated that he wa s sitti ng in the truck whe n the def endant pe rfor

med one f

ield sobriety

tes t. He sawthe de fe nd ant c ounti ngfo ur

or fi ve tim e s.

The de fenda

nt testified on his own behalf that he had be en tar g et pra cticing ear lier in t he da y on Se pte mbe r 5 . H e te sti fi e d th a t he le ft his ha nd g un in his tr uc k a ft e r p ra c tic ing . H e a lso testified that he ha d two beer s at lunch. Afte r lunch, he drove Mr . DeJarnette to b u y ci gar ett es at “Mac k’s store.” Be fore rea ching the store, he st o p p ed at the Hig hway 70-He bron Church Road int e rs e c tio n and ha d to pu ll pa st the sto p sig n be c a us e a sig n ob str

uc te d his vie w. Af

te r l oo kin g le ft
, he sawa ca

r g o by his vehicle, a

nd once it wa s past him, he noticed it was a patrol ca r.

The defe ndant testified that Deputy Dar nell g ave him two sobriety tests. H e stated, “I didn’t do the nose test, either . Ijust did t he fing er te st.”

The defe ndant further testified that at the jail, he sat down at the corne r of the jailer’ s cag e, not in the room with the I ntox ilyzer. He could not see the office r doing things to the mac hine beca u s e h e c o u ld n o t s e e ar o u n d th e c o r n e r

. T h e d e f

e n d an t te s ti f

ie d th a t h e s a t the re f

or

a pp ro xima te ly

10 min ute s b e fo re g oin g int o the r oo m wi th t he I nto xily

zer , w he re De pu ty

Da rn e ll showed him the implied consent for m and said, “This he re is y ou’re con s enting to take the blow test.” The de fenda

nt signe d the form in the “ blow room.” He stated that he did not re member how lon g he sta

y e d in the ro om b e fo re takin g the te st.-5- On cr oss-examination, the defenda nt stated that h e s at in the I ntox ily zer room “for ever .”

Th e St a t e c a l l e d D e p u t y Jo n a th o nM c D o w e l l a s a r e b u t t a l w i t n e s s , an d

D e p u ty McDowe ll testified that he drove Mr. DeJarnette home . Deputy McDowe ll testi fi ed that Mr. DeJarnette sa id that he and the de fenda nt “had been driving around and had had some [beer] to drink and had be en tar g et pra cticing .”

The jury f

o u n d th e d e f e n d an t gu il ty

o f dr iv in g u n d e r

th e in f lu e n c e a s w e ll a s o the r char g es, but on appe al, he only raises issues c oncer

ning his DU Iconviction. He a rg ues, in essenc e, that his trial was fundamentally unfair be cause of the S tate’s failure to pre serve alleg ed exculpatory evidenc e, De puty

Dar nell’s videotape of the fie ld sobriety tests, and t h at t h e g uilty verdic t was

un re lia ble du e to D e pu ty

Da rn e ll’ s e rr on e ou s te sti mon y re g ard ingthe I nto xily

zer and its re su lts

.

We initially addre ss the S tate’s contention that the def endant wa ived both issues by (1) f ailing “ to object to the proof r eg ardingthe field sobrie ty test . . . , or that the defe ndant fa iled to reque st a missing evide nce c harg e,” a nd (2) f ailing to “ raise[] a Sensing challeng e prior or during the trial,” see State v . Sensing , 843 S.W .2d 412 (Tenn. 1992) (estab l i s h i n g foundation factors for admissibili ty

of intox imeter test results). Tenne ssee Rul e of Appellate Procedure 36(a) states that appellate relief

is ge nera lly

not available w hen a pa rty has “f ailed to take w hate v er ac t ion was

rea sonably

available to preve nt or nullify the har mful eff ect of any err or.” Tenn. R. App. P . 36(a) ; see State v . Sims , 45 S.W .3d 1, 16 (Tenn. 2001). The failure to make a contempora neous objec tion to the admission of evidenc e constitutes a wa iver of the issue on appea l. S e e T enn. R . Evid. 10 3( a )( 1) (“ Er

ro r m ay no t be pr e dic a te d up on

a ru lin g wh ic h a dmi ts o r e xclu de s e vid e nc e un le ss a substan tial rig ht of the par ty is affe cted, a

nd . . . [i ]n case the r

uling is one a dmitti ng evidenc e, a timely objection or motion to strike appea rs of re cord.” ); State v. Cook
, 9 S

. W

. 3 d 9 8, 103 (Tenn. 1999) (holding “that a de fenda nt is not require d to challeng e a breath-alcohol test by filing a pretria l motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P . 12(b)( 3), but rathe r, may make a timely objection at trial if the prosec ution ha s failed to establish the Sensing re qu ir e me nts ” ). I n th e pr e se nt c a se , th e de fe nd a nt d id not object to the t estimony during trial, and nothi ng in the record indicates that the def endant r aised the Sensing

issue prior to or during trial. There fore
, the defe ndant has waived both issues. Howeve r, in t he int e re st o f j us tic e , w e op t to c on sid e r t he iss ue s o n th e me ri ts.

First, we addre ss whether the defendant’s trial was funda mentally unfair be cause the State fa ile d to pre se rv e the vid e ota pe of the fi e ld sob ri e ty te sts . The de fe nd ant r e lie s su bs tanti a lly upon State v. Fe rguson , 2 S.W .3d 912 (Tenn. 1999) . I n Fer g u son , office rs videotape d the defe ndant’s per formanc e on field sobriety tests administered as part of a driving under the influenc e investigation; however, the taped tests we re ina dverte ntly “tape d over” befor e they

wer e viewe d by any one. Id

. at 914-15. Our supreme court deter mined that, for pur

poses of a pply ing the Tenne ssee Constit ution’s “law of

the land” c lause to issues of the State’s losing , damag ing, or destroying po te nti a lly

e xcu lpator

y e vid e nce, a balan c ingte st s ho uld be uti lize d. F ir st, the c ourt sh ou ld “dete rmine whether the State had a duty to preser ve the e vidence .” Id . at 91 6. I f t he State fa ile d to dis c ha rg e a du ty to p re se rv e e vid e nc e , th e c ourt the n d e te rm ine s-6- 1. The de g ree of neg lige nce involved;

2. The significa

nce of the destroy ed evide nce, c onsidered in lig ht of the probative value and reliability of secondary or substitute evidence that rema ins available; a

nd

3. The suff

i ci en cy o f t he other

evidenc e used at trial to support the conviction.

Id . at 917.

I n the pre se nt c ase, the ruling in Fer g uson obligates the State to prese rve the evidenc e. Se e id . at 91 8; se e als o S

tat e v . Na tha nie l R ob ins on , J r. , No. E2004-02191- CCA- R 3 -C D, slip op. at 5 (Te nn. Crim. App., Knox ville, Sept. 19, 2005) (stating that State had a duty , based on Ferguson
, to p reserve vide otape e vidence of the de fenda nt taken at the ja il that recor ded the de fenda nt’s booking pr ocess)

.

That said, we reje ct the cla im that the destruction of the vid eotape deprive d the def e n d an t o f a f a ir tr ia l. T h e r e is n o e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d

th a t D e p u ty

D ar n e ll ’ s u nintentional destruction of the tape was due to g ross neg lige nce. Although the probative va lue of the vide otape is high, the suf

ficienc y of the other evidenc e supports the jury ’s verdic t. D eputy Dar nell testified that he smelled a lcohol on the def endant’ s breath, he was unstea dy on his fee t, opened a

nd unopened be er was found in his truc k, and his blood alcohol content was 0.09 perc ent. The f actor s weig h in favor of the State, a

nd we hold that the de fenda nt rec eived a

fair tr ial even w ithout the videotape.

Se c on d, the de fe nd ant c la ims that th e guil ty ve rd ic t w a s unr e lia

ble du e to D e pu ty Da rn e ll’ s e rr on e ou s te sti mony re g ard ingthe I nto xily

zer and its re su lts

.

I n State v. Sensing , 8 43 S.W. 2d 41 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 2) , the su pr e me c ourt

he ld t hat a s a foundation for

admissibili ty

of intox imeter test re sults, a testing office r must be able to a ddress the fo llo wi ngsix po int s:

. . . (1) that the te sts were perf ormed in ac corda

nce w ith the standards and oper ating proce dure pr omu l gated by the fore nsic servic es division of the Tennesse e B urea u o f I n v est iga

tion, (2) that he wa s p r o p e r ly c e rti f

ie d in a c c o r d an c e w it

h th o s e s ta

n d ar d s , ( 3 ) th at the evidentiar y breath testing instru m en t used wa s cer tified by the fore nsic servic es division, was tested regularly for a ccur acy

and wa s working p ro p erly

when the br eath test wa s perf ormed, (4) that the
mot or ist was ob ser ve d f

or the re qu isi te 20 min

ute s p ri or to t he te st, and duringthis peri o d, he did not have f oreig n matter in his mouth, d i d n o t consume a

ny alcoholic be vera g e, smoke, or r eg urg itate, (5) evidenc e that he f

o l l o wed the pr escr ibed oper ational proc edure , (6)-7- ide nti fy the pr int ou t r e c or d o ff

e re d in e vid e nc e a s the re su lt of the te st g iven to the per son tested.

Id . at 41 6. ; see State v. Kimberly M . Larson , No. M 1999-00507-CCA-R3-CD, sl ip op. at 7-9 (T enn. Crim. App., Nashville, Aug . 4, 2000) (holding that the breath test results from a n intox ilyzer wer e ad m i s sible beca

use the Sensing

f a c t o r s w e r e m e t , n a m e l y t h a tt h e m a c h i n e h a d

b e e np r op e rl y calibrated and cer

tified, that the proper testing proce dures wer e followed, and that t h e o ff icer proper ly observe d the def

endant a nd chec ked her

mouth prior to the test).

The de fenda

nt argues that fa ctor four

conce rning the 20-minute obser vation period

wa s n ot s a tis fi e d. He ba se s h is a rgume nt o n a

c ompar is on of the tim e on the pr int ou t to the tim e shown in the dispatcher ’s log. Although D eputy Dar nell’s testimony

is somewhat conf

using at times reg ardingthis iss ue, we surmise from the r ecor d, that he ente red t h e start time from his persona l watch that was neither sy

nchronized with dispatcher’ s clock nor the I ntox ily zer’s cloc k, and then he waited 20 minutes bef

ore a dminist eringthe test as shown by the I ntox ilyzer’s printout. I n addition, at the motion for new trial hear ing, the trial court c redited D eputy Dar nell’s trial testimony

that he observe d the def

endant f or 20 minutes befor e administeringthe test, and the c o u rt fo und that the Sensing fac tors wer e met. We do not second- g uess t he trial court’s c redibility deter minations. See State v. W alton
, 41 S.W .3d 75, 81 (Tenn. 2001) (stating questions reg ardingwitness cre dibilit y and resolution of conf

licts in the evidence are matters entr usted to the trial judg e).

We hold that the Sensing fac tors wer e met and that the jury verdic t is reliable. See Sta te v

. Ke nn e th W

ay ne B all , No. E2004-00501- CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 8-9 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxvi lle, Apr. 6, 2005) ( holding that the tr ial court did not err in admitting the re sults of the int oxime te r t e st wh e re the tim e on the imp lie d c on se nt fo rm va ri e d fr om the ma c hin e ’s pr int ou t ti me but the office r testified that he observe d the def endant f or 20 minutes).

For the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the trial c ourt is upheld.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE