ÿWPC‚ 0# °U>» %ù 0ˆÿ4‡›w@ªê 0Jò 0T< 0^ 0hî 0rV 0|È 0†D 0Ê 1uZ 0dÏ U63 0@i D3© BÜ B)ù DC" U*e AM jÜ v~F AQÄÆ 0DÛ 0D D/c B’vÓ¯˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ<@ˆÐ9Z &Courier RegularX(`£3$¡¡ÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ñäzz!3|x¿ «¬­®D¯°±²U³Ó€¿2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial* $Cþÿ << Gÿÿ `Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òJune€18,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ h ÒÙ€*ÙÔ€%ÔßR€&'$A1-j|`ÿ¾` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌà@ àœNOVEMBER€1994€SESSION›ÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÓ ` Ü›XÓà à€€€€à àAppellee,à àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9405„CC„00100Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àWeakley€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHonorable›€David€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJOSEPH€T.€ALLEY,à àà à)à à(Sale€of€Cocaine)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÓ ` Ü` z h—X Óà àAppellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòà àFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌJoseph€œP.›€Atnipà àà àœà àà àCharles›€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌP.O.€Box€734à àà àà àà àà àandÌDresden,€TN€38225à àà àà àRebecca€L.€GundtÌ€€(AT€TRIAL€AND€ON€APPEAL)à àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€ofÌà àà àà àà àà à€TennesseeÌBill€R.€Barronà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ124€East€Court€Squareà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌTrenton,€TN€38382à àà àà àÌ€€(ON€APPEAL)à àà àà àà àThomas€A.€ThomasÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àJames€T.€CannonÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à414€S.€FourthÌà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€218Ìà àà àà àà àà àUnion€City,€TN€38161„0218ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_________________ÌÌÌÌœAFFIRMED€›ÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeà àà àà àà àÌÇÓÓòòÑ7€¸XXdÈXXdÈ7Ñœà0 àà àà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó ó›à@ àœóóÌÌ›à àThe€defendant,€Joseph€T.€Alley,€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€conviction€byÏa€jury€in€the€Weakley€County€œCircuit›€Court€for€the€sale€of€less€than€one„half€gram€ofÏcocaine,€a€Class€C€felony.€€He€received€a€four„year€sentence€in€the€Department€ofÏCorrection€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€and€a€fifteen€thousand€dollar€fine.€€TheÏdefendant€contends€that€(1)€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€his€convictionÏand€(2)€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€hearsay€into€evidence.€€ÌÌà àThe€events€in€question€occurred€on€the€afternoon€of€April€1,€1993.€€Ms.ÏCharlotte€Edwards,€an€undercover€drug€buyer€for€the€Twenty„Seventh€Judicial€DistrictÏDrug€Task€Force,€testified€that€she€called€the€defendant€and€arranged€to€buy€crackÏcocaine€from€him€and€James€Bondurant.€€Ms.€Edwards€then€met€with€Martin€PoliceÏOfficers€David€Moore€and€Mike€Shannon,€who€provided€her€with€marked€bills€to€makeÏthe€purchase€and€a€transmitting€device€in€order€for€them€to€monitor€the€transaction.€ÏAfter€locating€the€defendant€and€Bondurant,€Ms.€Edwards€parked€beside€theÏdefendant's€automobile.€€Bondurant€got€into€Ms.€Edwards'€automobile€and€sold€herÏone€rock€of€crack€cocaine€for€fifty€dollars.ÌÌà àWhen€Ms.€Edwards€expressed€an€interest€in€purchasing€additional€rocks,ÏBondurant€left€her€automobile€and€talked€to€the€defendant.€€Ms.€Edwards€testified€thatÍshe€saw€the€defendant€reach€inside€his€jacket€and€pour€the€rocks€into€his€hand.€ÏBondurant€reached€inside€the€automobile,€picked€up€the€rocks,€and€returned€to€Ms.ÏEdwards'€automobile.€€Ms.€Edwards€gave€Bondurant€eighty€dollars€for€the€two€rocksÏand€asked€for€her€ten€dollars€in€change€that€he€owed€her€from€the€first€sale.€ÏBondurant€did€not€have€the€ten€dollars,€but€obtained€it€from€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€parked€his€automobile€next€to€Ms.€EdwardsÏand€Bondurant€got€into€her€automobile.€€However,€he€denied€having€any€involvementÏin€a€transaction€between€Bondurant€and€Ms.€Edwards.€€The€defendant€also€deniedÏhaving€a€friendship€with€Ms.€Edwards€or€receiving€telephone€calls€from€her.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€defendant's€first€issue,€he€asserts€that€the€evidence€was€insufficientÏto€support€his€conviction.€€He€contends€that€had€the€hearsay€statements€by€BondurantÏbeen€excluded,€there€would€not€have€been€sufficient€evidence€to€link€him€to€the€crime.€ÏHis€argument€is€untenable.€€Our€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€is€questioned€on€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€lightÏmost€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€standard€contemplatesÏconsideration€of€all€of€the€evidence€submitted€at€trial€and€we€may€not€limit€the€analysisÏto€only€the€evidence€that€is€determined€upon€review€to€be€admissible.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÍLongstreetóó,€619€S.W.2d€97,€100„01€(Tenn.€1981).€€Under€this€review,€the€evidenceÏamply€supports€the€defendant's€conviction.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€Ms.ÏEdwards€to€testify€about€her€conversation€with€Bondurant€and€in€admitting€the€tapeÏrecording€of€the€conversation.€€First,€he€asserts€that€this€evidence€constitutedÏinadmissible€hearsay.€€We€disagree.€€Under€Rule€803(1.2)(E),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€aÏstatement€that€is€hearsay€is€allowed€against€a€party€when€made€"by€a€co„conspiratorÏof€a€party€during€the€course€of€and€in€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy."€€A€conspiracy€isÏdefined€as€a€combination€between€two€or€more€persons€to€do€a€criminal€or€unlawfulÏact€or€a€lawful€act€by€criminal€or€unlawful€means.€€òòState€v.€Lequireóó,€634€S.W.2d€608,Ï612€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€If€a€conspiracy€is€shown€to€exist,€the€co„conspirator'sÏstatement€is€admissible€even€though€no€conspiracy€has€been€formally€charged.€€òòIdóó.€atÏ612€n.1.€€ÌÌà àFor€admissibility€purposes,€the€standard€of€proof€required€to€show€theÏexistence€of€the€prerequisite€conspiracy€is€proof€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€ÏòòState€v.€Stamperóó,€863€S.W.2d€404,€406€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€state€only€has€to€show€anÏimplied€understanding€between€the€parties,€not€formal€words€or€a€written€agreement,Ïin€order€to€prove€a€conspiracy.€€òòState€v.€Gayloróó,€862€S.W.2d€546,€553€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1992).€€"The€unlawful€confederation€may€be€established€by€circumstantialÍevidence€and€the€conduct€of€the€parties€in€the€execution€of€the€criminal€enterprises."€ÏòòIdóó.;€òòRandolph€v.€Stateóó,€570€S.W.2d€869,€871€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€in€the€present€case€determined€that€a€conspiracy€existedÏbetween€the€defendant€and€Bondurant€before€allowing€any€hearsay€evidence€to€beÏpresented€to€the€jury.€€The€court€based€its€finding€upon€the€conduct€of€the€defendant€inÏthat€he€arrived€in€the€same€automobile€as€Bondurant,€was€present€during€theÏtransaction,€provided€the€drugs,€and€exchanged€money€with€Ms.€Edwards€andÏBondurant.€€We€believe€that€this€constitutes€adequate€proof€for€the€trial€court€to€find€byÏa€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€a€conspiracy€existed€between€the€defendantÏand€the€declarant.€€Thus,€the€evidence€was€admissible€under€Rule€803€(1.2)(E).€€ÌÌà àSecond,€the€defendant€asserts€that€his€right€to€confront€witnesses€underÏthe€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€œSection›€9€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€was€violated€because€Bondurant€did€not€testify€and€was€notÏshown€to€be€unavailable.€€He€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Hendersonóó,€554€S.W.2d€117€(Tenn.Ï1977),€in€which€our€supreme€court€dealt€with€the€admission€into€evidence€ofÏtoxicology€laboratory€test€reports€through€a€witness€other€than€the€tester€in€order€toÏprove€the€identity€of€drugs€in€a€drug€prosecution.€€After€adopting€verbatim€aÏsubstantial€portion€of€Ñ7€P¹XXdÈXXdÈ7Ñthis€court's€analysis€in€its€opinion,€the€court€held€"that€in€the€faceÏof€an€objection€by€the€person€charged,€the€State€can€not€prove€an€essential€elementÍof€a€criminal€offense€by€test€results€introduced€through€a€witness€other€than€the€oneÏwho€conducted€the€tests."€€òòIdóó.€at€122.ÌÌà àIn€discussing€the€issue€in€òòHendersonóó,€the€supreme€court€noted€thatÏalthough€the€hearsay€rule€and€the€right€to€confront€witnesses€protect€similar€values,Ïthey€are€not€wholly€congruent€in€terms€of€all€exceptions€to€the€rule€against€hearsayÏsatisfying€the€Confrontation€Clause.€€It€stated€that€three€criteria€must€be€met€in€order€toÏsatisfy€federal€constitutional€confrontation€rights:ÌœÓÓÓ  Óà8 à(1)›€the€evidence€must€not€be€crucial€or€œdevastating,̛̀œà8 à(2)›€the€witness€whose€statement€is€to€be€offered€€must€œbeÏshown›€to€be€œunavailable›€after€the€state's€good€faith€effort€toÏsecure€the€witness'€œpresence,›€andÌœà8 àÌà8 à(3)›€the€evidence€offered€under€a€hearsay€exception€must€bearÏits€own€œindicia›€of€reliability.€€òòIdóó.€at€œ119„20.›Ó  ÓÌœÓÓÌà àIn›€òòState€v.€Armesóó,€607€S.W.2d€234€(Tenn.€1980),€a€check€forgery€case,€aÏwitness€testified€from€memory€about€the€fact€that€a€then€missing€witness€had€testifiedÏat€the€preliminary€hearing€that€the€defendant€had€given€the€missing€witness€checks€toÏcash€and€had€received€money€from€the€proceeds.€€In€determining€whether€or€not€theÏdefendant's€confrontation€rights€had€been€violated,€the€supreme€court€confirmed€theÏ"tripartite€test"€adopted€in€òòHendersonóó,€construing€such€case€to€provide€the€criteria€forÏboth€the€federal€and€state€constitutional€confrontational€interests.€€òòIdóó.€at€237.€€TheÏcourt€concluded€that€none€of€the€criteria€had€been€met€and€reversed€the€conviction.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€òòHendersonóó€criteria€have€not€been€met€inÏthis€case.€€In€this€respect,€we€note€that€the€record€reflects€that€the€state€notified€theÏdefendant€that€Bondurant€was€in€jail€and€could€be€called€for€cross„examination€at€theÏdefendant's€request.€€Thus,€Bondurant's€testimony€was€not€shown€to€be€unavailable.€ÏThe€specific€question€presented€by€the€defendant€is€whether€or€not€òòHendersonóó'sÏtripartite€test€applies€to€out„of„court€statements€by€a€co„conspirator€made€during€theÏcourse€of€and€in€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy.€€We€believe€that€it€does€not.ÌÌà àHistorically,€the€Confrontation€Clause€has€not€barred€the€admission€intoÏevidence€of€a€statement€that€ð ðfalls€within€a€firmly€rooted€hearsay€exception.ðð€€òòOhio€v.ÏRobertsóó,€448€U.S.€56,€66,€100€S.€Ct.€2531,€2538€(1980).€€These€types€of€exceptionsÏare€considered€to€be€so€inherently€reliable€that€an€independent€inquiry€into€reliability,Ïas€provided€in€òòHendersonóó,€is€unnecessary.€€òòSeeóó€òòRobertsóó,€448€U.S.€at€66,€100€S.€Ct.€atÏ2538„39.€€Such€is€the€case€for€co„conspirator€statements.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòUnited€States€v.€Inadióó,€475€U.S.€387,€106€S.€Ct.€1121€(1986),€theÏSupreme€Court€held€that€the€Confrontation€Clause€did€not€require€a€showing€ofÏunavailability€as€a€condition€to€admission€of€a€nontestifying€co„conspirator's€out„of„court€statement€that€otherwise€satisfied€the€requirements€of€the€Federal€Rules€ofÏEvidence.€€In€òòBourjaily€v.€United€Statesóó,€483€U.S.€œ171,€183,€107›€S.€Ct.€œ2775,€2782›Í(1987),€the€Court€held€"that€the€co„conspirator€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€is€firmlyÏenough€rooted€in€our€jurisprudence€that€.€.€.€a€court€need€not€independently€inquireÏinto€the€reliability€of€such€statements."€œ›€Thus,€under€the€Sixth€Amendment,€noÏseparate€inquiry€into€reliability€need€be€made€for€co„conspirator€€statements.€€ÌÌà àTennessee€jurisprudence€reflects€a€similar€view.€€The€use€of€co„conspirator€statements€is€firmly€rooted€as€an€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€ofÏexclusion.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòStrady€v.€Stateóó,€45€Tenn.€(Cold.)€300,€309€(1868);€òòOwens€v.ÏStateóó,€84€Tenn.€(Lea)€1€(1885);€òòSnowden€v.€Stateóó,€66€Tenn.€(Baxt)€482€(1874);€òòSweatÏv.€Rogersóó,€53€Tenn.€œ(Heisk.)›€117,€120€(1871);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(1.2)(E),ÏAdvisory€Commission€Comments€(provision€for€co„conspirator€hearsay€exceptionÏembodies€Tennessee€œÌcommon›€law).€€It€is€significant,€as€well,€that€our€rules€of€evidence€do€not€conditionÏadmissibility€of€co„conspirator€statements€upon€the€unavailability€of€the€declarant.€ÏœòòCompareó󛀜Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(1.2)(E)›€œand€804.›€€Most€importantly,€though,€our€supremeÏcourt€continues€to€allow€the€admission€of€co„conspirator€statements€in€criminal€cases,Ïviewing€sufficient€reliability€to€exist€when€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€shows€thatÏthe€conspiracy€exists€and€that€the€statement€was€made€by€a€co„conspirator€during€theÏcourse€of€and€in€furtherance€of€that€conspiracy.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381,Ïœ385„86›€(Tenn.€œ1995),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€117€S.€Ct.€88€(1996);›€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898ÏS.W.2d€161€(Tenn.€œ1994),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€116€S.€Ct.€137€(1995);›€òòState€v.€Stamperóó,€863ÍS.W.2d€at€406.€€None€of€œthese›€cases€indicate€that€witness€unavailability€or€separateÏreliability€inquiries€are€needed.€€ÌÌà àIn€sum,€we€believe€that€the€òòHendersonóó€requirements€were€not€meant€toÏapply,€nor€do€they€now,€to€those€hearsay€exceptions€that€are€deeply€rooted€in€ourÏlegal€history€as€being€inherently€reliable.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€admissionÏof€Bondurantððs€co„conspirator€statements€did€not€violate€the€defendantððs€right€toÏconfrontation€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€or€Article€I,ÏSection€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€œÌ›Ìà àÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€Judge€ÌÌÌ__________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Judge€Ìà àà à