Court Opinion

ID: 1075279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-10-09 20:14:16.605324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:11.922172
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                           AT JACKSON
                                  November 6, 2001 Session

                   STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DANNY MUNSON

              Interlocutory Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County
                          No. 00-01541    Joseph B. Dailey, Judge

                  No. W2001-00151-CCA-R9-CD - Filed December 31, 2001

JOE G. RILEY, J., concurring.

       I concur with the result reached by the majority and consider this case distinguishable from
Scisney. In Scisney, Judge Tipton and I, in separate opinions, concluded an intoximeter reading of
.04%, by itself, was insufficient to establish “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the blood alcohol
concentration was, in fact, .04%. See State v. Mark T. Scisney, C.C.A. No. 01C01-9605-CC-00209,
1997 WL 634515, at *9-11 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 16, 1997, at Nashville). This was because there
was a 25% chance that the actual level was below .04% due to the margin of error. Id.

       In the case at bar, the blood alcohol level is not an element of the offense requiring proof
beyond a reasonable doubt as was the case in Scisney. Here, it is only necessary to establish this
sentencing enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence.

       Although I do not necessarily agree that the legislature was aware of the margin of error in
breathalyzer results, I do believe a trial judge could conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that
a .20% test result from a properly administered test satisfies this enhancement provision.

                                                       ___________________________________
                                                       JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE