results test in Tennessee

2025This court also has held that “the failure to file a motion for a new trial, the late filing of a motion for a new trial, and the failure to include an issue in a motion for a new trial results in waiver of all issues which, if found to be meritorious, would result in the granting of a new trial.” State v. Keel, 882 S.W.2d 410, 416 (Tenn. Crim.

2021Moreover, pursuant to Rule 3(e), “the failure to file a motion for a new trial, the late filing of a motion for a new trial, and the failure to include an issue in a motion for a new trial results in waiver of all issues which, if found to be meritorious, would result in the granting of a new trial.” State v. Keel, 882 S.W.2d 410, 416 (Tenn. Crim.

2014The purpose of the fourth Sensing requirement is to ensure “that no foreign matter is present in the defendant’s mouth that could retain alcohol and potentially influence the results of the test.” State v. Cook, 9 S.W.3d 98, 101 (Tenn. 1999).

2010The purpose of the fourth Sensing requirement is to ensure “that no foreign matter is present in the defendant’s mouth that could retain alcohol and potentially influence the results of the test.” State v. Cook, 9 S.W.3d 98, 101 (Tenn.1999).

2002Our supreme court has found that “if credible proof establishes that the subject did not have foreign matter in the mouth, did not consume any alcoholic beverage, and did not smoke or regurgitate, then the rule is satisfied.” State v. Hunter, 941 S.W.2d 56, 57-58 (Tenn. 1997). -3- Prior to the court’s decision in Sensing, the testifying officer was required to be qualified through education, training, and experience to “interpret the test results in evidence” as a prerequisite to admissibility.

2002Our supreme court has found that, “[i]f credible proof establishes that the subject did not have foreign matter in the mouth, did not consume any alcoholic beverage, and did not smoke or regurgitate, then the rule is satisfied ...” State v. Hunter, 941 S.W.2d 56, 57-8 (Tenn.1997).

2018Sergeant Miller stopped reading to ask the Defendant if he was listening because “[h]e appeared to have dozed off.” The Defendant responded that he was listening, Sergeant Miller finished reading 1 We note that Sergeant Miller did not testify about the results of the test or any signs of nystagmus, which “is an involuntary jerking movement of the eye either as it attempts to focus on a fixed point or as it moves to one side.” State v. Murphy, 953 S.W.2d 200, 202 (Tenn. 1997) (holding that the results of a horizontal gaze nystagmus are admissible only with expert testimony).

2004See State v. Murphy, 953 S.W.2d 200 (Tenn. 1997) (holding that horizontal gaze nystagmus tests are "scientific" and must, therefore, meet the requirements of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 702 and 703 to be admissible).

2014See Mapp, 367 U.S. at 655 ; Ingram, 331 S.W.3d at 754 .

2014See Mapp, 367 U.S. at 655 ; Ingram, 331 S.W.3d at 754 .

2007Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000).

2005Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000).

1992Explaining why real or physical evidence lies outside the protection of the right against self-incrimination, the majority in Schmerber , which involved only the taking of a blood sample, reasoned that a defendant's "testimonial capacities [are] in no way implicated; indeed his participation, except as a donor, [ is ] irrelevant to the results of the test, which depend on chemical analysis and on that alone. " 384 U.S. at 765 , 86 S.Ct. at 1832-1833 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).

1992Explaining why real or physical evidence lies outside the protection of the right against self-incrimination, the majority in Schmerber , which involved only the taking of a blood sample, reasoned that a defendant's "testimonial capacities [are] in no way implicated; indeed his participation, except as a donor, [ is ] irrelevant to the results of the test, which depend on chemical analysis and on that alone. " 384 U.S. at 765 , 86 S.Ct. at 1832-1833 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).

2016Id.; see State v. Killebrew, 760 S.W.2d 228, 235 (Tenn. Crim.

2016Id.; see Killebrew, 760 S.W.2d at 235 ; see also T.R.A.P. 36(a).

2015Having reviewed Mother‟s brief, we observe that it fails to raise the trial court‟s findings regarding the Child‟s best interests as an issue for our review.14 Although this results in waiver of the best interests issue on appeal, see State v. Freeman, 402 S.W.3d 643, 653 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (citation omitted), we nonetheless exercise our discretion to review the trial court‟s findings concerning the Child‟s best interests due to the gravity of the consequences involved in the termination of Mother‟s parental rights.

2009Subsequently, in State v. Gregory, 946 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tenn.Crim.App.1997), this court concluded that an affidavit and laboratory report were admissible in the absence of a witness testifying as to the test results when the affidavit, unlike that in Wade , identified the person certifying the drug test and stated his qualifications; specifically described the method of testing and stated that it was the most accurate method for identifying the particular type of drug which was found; certified that the results of the test were accurate and reliable; and declared that established procedures an

2003See State v. Keen, 996 S.W.2d 842, 844 (Tenn. Crim.

2003Finally, we note that at the time of this interview, the victim’s child was also approxim ately two years old. -5- whether a defendant should receive probation, “[i]t is . . . proper for a trial court to look behind the plea bargain and consider the true nature of the offenses committed.” State v. Hollingsworth, 647 S.W.2d 937, 939 (Tenn. 1983) (finding that it was proper for the trial court to deny probation to a defendant convicted of robbery and attempt to commit a felony when the facts of his case demonstrated that he was guilty of armed robbery and citing State v. Welch, 565 S.W.2d 492 (T

2000Because the appellant has declined to challeng e the adm issibility of M inor’s testim ony tha t the results of his analysis were inconclusive and in light of the appellant’s concession that “inconclusive” results, by definition, mean that the appellant was not excluded as the source of semen, we fail to comprehend how Minor’s testimony was “inaccurate.” -18- evidence, then B will be permitted to introduce such evidence, even though it might otherwise be improper.” No. M1999-01023-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 678787, at *11 (citations omitted).

2000The court cautioned, however, that “[s]ince the application of the doctrine of curative admissibility is based on the notion that the jury might be misled if contradictory evidence was excluded, the doctrine should not justify admission of that evidence when it is likely to do more harm in this respect than good.” Id.

1999State v. Gregg, 874 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tenn. Crim.

1999Id.; see also People v. Witt, 258 Ill.App.3d 124 , 196 Ill.Dec. 459 , 630 N.E.2d 156,158 (1994) (stating that important considerations are whether the defendant had any food or drink, smoked a cigarette, or put anything in his mouth that would have tainted the results); Farr v. Director of Revenue, 914 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Mo.Ct.App.1996) (recognizing “oral intake” could taint the result or prevent the operation of a breath-alcohol test).

1999Id.; see also People v. Witt, 258 Ill.App.3d 124 , 196 Ill.Dec. 459 , 630 N.E.2d 156,158 (1994) (stating that important considerations are whether the defendant had any food or drink, smoked a cigarette, or put anything in his mouth that would have tainted the results); Farr v. Director of Revenue, 914 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Mo.Ct.App.1996) (recognizing “oral intake” could taint the result or prevent the operation of a breath-alcohol test).