ÿWPCø …UNV %¤ 0(ª4Òæ 0Jõ 0T? 0^“ 0hñ 0rY 0|Ë 0†G 0Í 1u] U,Ò 0dþ U,b U>Ž U6Ì B) DC+ AMn U*» Iå B.v~KvÓÉ D3œ 0@Ï AOÆ^ 0D$ 0Dh D/¬ BÛ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡c`…ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÔ3|xß 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ?Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òJanuary€11,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑòòÑ7€jXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€"$!;+'h|` Å `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóà@ àòòÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEóóÌÌà@ àMAY€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€03C01„9501„CR„00004Ì€€Ìà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà à*à àHANCOCK€COUNTY€ÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€James€E.€Beckner,€JudgeÌÌLELAN€BAILEY,€à àà à€€€à à*à à(Forgery)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€Ìà àà àAPPELLANT.à à*ÌÌÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà à€€òòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌJoyce€Ward€à àà à€€€€à àà à€€Charles€W.€BursonÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà à€€Attorney€General€and€ReporterÌ1609€College€Park€Drive€€€€€€€€€450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌMorristown,€TN€€37813„1618à à€€Nashville,€TN€€37243„0493̀̀€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Michael€J.€Fahey,€IIÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€Nashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Eric€Christiansen€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏAssistant€District€Attorney€Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€Suite€306Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€1104€Tusculum€BoulevardÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€Greeneville,€TN€€37743à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÇÓÓ€à@ àòòò òOPINIONÌó óóóà àà àThe€defendant,€Lelan€Bailey,€appeals€as€of€right€fromÏhis€conviction€for€forgery€in€an€amount€less€than€$1,000.€€TheÏtrial€court€imposed€a€Range€I€sentence€of€two€years.ÌÌà àà àIn€addition€to€his€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€ourÏreview:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏfailing€to€suppress€the€identificationÏtestimony€of€Terry€Hart;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏrefusing€to€allow€Lawrence€Smith€to€testifyÏas€an€investigative€expert€familiar€withÏhandwriting€analysis.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment.ÌÌà àà àIn€early€February€of€1994,€the€defendant€used€hisÏcomputer€to€draft€a€check€for€$250€on€the€account€of€CJ&SÏTrucking€Company.€€He€signed€the€name€"Robert€Mason"€to€theÏcheck€and€purchased€a€carton€of€cigarettes€at€Greene'sÏSupermarket€in€Sneedville.€€€€€ÌÌà àà àTerry€Hart,€the€cashier€at€Greene's,€testified€thatÏthe€defendant€passed€her€the€check€on€Sunday,€February€6,€1994.€ÏShe€acknowledged€that€her€acceptance€of€the€check,€without€firstÏobtaining€identification,€violated€store€policy€and€explainedÏthat€she€was€a€new€employee€and€was€very€busy€at€the€time€of€theÏtransaction.€€Ms.€Hart€testified€that€she€specificallyÏremembered€the€defendant€because€he€was€the€only€one€who€hadÏcome€into€the€market€that€day€that€she€did€not€know€personally.€ÏShe€described€the€defendant€as€an€older€man€with€"grey„like"Ïhair,€a€beard,€and€glasses,€and€recognized€the€check€as€the€oneÏshe€had€cashed€because€it€bore€her€initials.€€Ms.€Hart€alsoÏtestified€that€she€was€asked€if€she€could€identify€the€defendantÏwhen€she€attended€the€preliminary€hearing.€€After€observing€theÏdefendant€for€some€five€to€ten€minutes€from€the€doorway€of€theÏclerk's€office,€she€made€a€positive€identification.€€Ms.€HartÏidentified€the€defendant€a€second€time€at€the€trial.€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àDavid€Mize,€who€had€pled€guilty€to€passing€a€forgedÏCJ&S€check€and€been€promised€probation,€testified€that€he€hadÏknown€the€defendant€for€approximately€four€years.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€and€his€cousin€had€gone€to€the€defendant's€residence€inÏMiddlesboro,€Kentucky,€on€a€Sunday€in€February€to€play€cards€andÍdrink€beer.€€He€recalled€returning€to€the€defendant's€house€onÏthe€next€day,€at€which€time€the€defendant€asked€them€to€join€himÏin€a€trip€(of€about€20€miles)€to€Sneedville.€€Before€leaving,Ïthe€defendant€placed€a€white€envelope€in€his€pocket.€€UponÏarriving€in€Sneedville,€the€men€drove€to€a€local€grocery€store,Ïwhere€the€defendant€handed€Mize€a€CJ&S€check€written€for€$225Ïand€instructed€him€to€purchase€a€carton€of€cigarettes€and€aÏtwelve€pack€of€beer€and€return€with€the€change.€€Mize€testifiedÏthat€the€defendant€told€him€to€return€to€the€car€if€he€was€askedÏby€the€clerk€on€duty€to€produce€identification.€€ÌÌà àà àMize€testified€that€the€defendant€received€possessionÏof€the€checks€when€the€wife€of€CJ&S€owner,€Chester€Wolfe,€askedÏthat€he€dispose€of€several€outdated€documents,€including€theÏchecks.€€He€stated€that€he€believed€that€the€defendant€hadÏsigned€the€$225€check,€but€was€uncertain€because€he€had€beenÏdrinking€heavily€that€day.€€Mize€testified€that€after€the€firstÏcheck€was€cashed,€the€men€drove€to€Greene's,€where€the€defendantÏpassed€the€larger€check.€€Upon€completion€of€the€transaction,Ïthe€men€returned€to€the€defendant's€residence€in€Middlesboro€toÏcontinue€their€card€game.€€Later,€Mize€observed€a€number€ofÏcigarette€cartons,€several€twelve€packs€of€beer,€an€AppleÍcomputer,€a€typewriter,€and€a€fax€machine€in€the€downstairs€areaÏof€the€defendant's€residence.€€€€€€Ìà àà àClarence€Johnson,€owner€of€Greene's,€testified€that€heÏdid€not€deposit€the€$250€check€because€he€had€a€"gut€feeling"Ïthat€something€was€not€right.€€After€determining€that€the€CJ&SÏaccount€had€been€closed€for€some€time,€Johnson€reported€theÏproblem€to€Deputy€Norman€Wolfe€of€the€Hancock€County€Sheriff'sÏDepartment.€ÌÌà àà àRobin€Lee,€a€cashier€at€Commercial€Bank€inÏMiddlesboro,€confirmed€that€the€CJ&S€account€had€been€closedÏsince€1987.€€She€further€testified€that€the€name€Robert€MasonÏhad€never€been€listed€as€an€authorized€signatory€on€the€account.ÌÌà àà àDeputy€Wolfe€obtained€information€from€the€ClaiborneÏCounty€Sheriff's€Department€which,€in€conjunction€with€aÏdiscussion€with€Ms.€Hart,€led€to€the€arrest€of€the€defendant.€ÏOfficer€Wolfe€acknowledged€that€the€arrest€warrant€alleged€thatÏthe€check€was€passed€on€Sunday,€February€6,€1994,€and€the€Ïindictment€alleged€that€the€transaction€was€"on€or€about€Monday,ÏFebruary€7,€1994."€€Deputy€Wolfe€admitted€that€he€had€notÏcompared€Mize's€signature€to€the€one€on€the€$250€forged€check,Ídespite€the€fact€that€Mize€had€pled€guilty€to€passing€the€firstÏcheck.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€claimed€that€on€the€weekend€of€FebruaryÏ6,€1994,€he€was€at€his€daughter's€home€working€on€a€wheelchairÏramp.€€The€defendant€denied€having€written€or€passed€the€checkÏto€Greene's€Supermarket€and€asserted€that€he€had€never€been€inÏSneedville€until€his€arrest.€€He€acknowledged€that€Mize€and€hisÏcousin€had€played€cards€at€his€residence€but€could€not€recallÏthe€date€of€their€visit.€€The€defendant€admitted€havingÏpreviously€done€work€for€Chester€Wolfe€at€his€mortuary€butÏclaimed€to€have€no€knowledge€of€CJ&S.€€While€conceding€that€heÏowned€a€computer,€the€defendant€contended€that€he€did€not€knowÏhow€to€use€it.€€He€took€issue€with€Ms.€Hart's€claim€that€he€woreÏa€beard.€€The€defendant€had€no€beard€when€he€was€arrested€andÏphotographed€several€days€after€the€passing€of€the€check.€ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferencesÏwhich€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÏ832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€theÏweight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€ofÍconflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€theÏjury€as€triers€of€fact.€€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€The€relevant€question€on€appeal€isÏwhether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073€(1984);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€The€sameÏrules€apply€to€convictions€based€upon€circumstancial€evidence.€ÏA€criminal€offense€may€be€established€exclusively€byÏcircumstantial€evidence.€€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€203€Tenn.€440,€313ÏS.W.2d€451€(1958);€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€1973).€€ÌÌà àà àA€forgery€has€been€committed€when€one€"forges€aÏwriting€with€intent€to€defraud€or€harm€another."€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„14„114(a).€€The€term€"forge"€includes€the€making€orÏpassing€of€a€written€instrument.€€òòIdóó.€€Here,€Terry€Hart€made€aÏpositive€identification€of€the€defendant€as€having€passed€theÏforged€check.€€Although€Mize€claimed€the€transaction€took€placeÏa€day€later,€he€confirmed€that€the€defendant€had€passed€theÏcheck€at€Greene's€Supermarket€and€testified€that€the€defendantÏhad€possession€of€a€computer,€typewriter,€and€fax€machine€at€theÏtime€the€check€was€written.€€While€the€defendant€claimed€to€haveÍno€knowledge€of€the€checks€or€of€CJ&S,€he€did€admit€havingÏperformed€services€for€the€company's€owner,€Chester€Wolfe.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€bases€much€of€his€argument€on€theÏdiscrepancy€in€the€date€provided€by€Ms.€Hart€and€that€providedÏby€the€codefendant€Mize.€€Mize€did,€in€fact,€testify€that€theÏincident€occurred€on€February€7€but€he€also€acknowledged€that€heÏhad€been€intoxicated€for€the€two€days€he€spent€with€theÏdefendant.€€ÌÌà àà àFrom€all€of€this,€including€both€direct€andÏcircumstantial€evidence,€the€jury€concluded€that€the€defendantÏcommitted€the€crime.€€In€our€view,€there€was€a€rational€basisÏfor€the€conclusion.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erredÏby€failing€to€suppress€the€identification€testimony€of€TerryÏHart.€€He€claims€that€the€process€utilized€was€undulyÏsuggestive.€€The€state€concedes€that€the€identification€processÏwas€suggestive,€but€nevertheless€contends€that€the€testimony€wasÏadmissible€because€the€reliability€of€the€identification€wasÍgreat.ÌÌà àà àTo€be€admissible€as€evidence,€an€identification€mustÏnot€have€been€conducted€in€such€an€impermissibly€suggestiveÏmanner€that€it€created€a€substantial€likelihood€of€irreparableÏmisidentification.€€òòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.€377Ï(1968).€€In€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188€(1972),€the€SupremeÏCourt€held€that€an€identification€procedure,€even€thoughÏsuggestive,€will€not€negate€the€identification€of€the€defendantÏwhen€the€identification€procedure€is€nonetheless€reliable.€€TheÏcontrolling€factors€are€as€follows:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€the€opportunity€of€the€witness€to€viewÏthe€criminal€at€the€time€of€the€offense;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€the€witness'€degree€of€attention;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€the€accuracy€of€the€witness'€priorÏdescription€of€the€individual;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€the€level€of€certainty€demonstrated€byÏthe€witness€at€the€confrontation;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€the€time€between€the€crime€and€theÏconfrontation.ÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€199.€€The€degree€of€reliability€of€the€identification,€asÏindicated€by€these€factors,€should€be€assessed€in€light€of€theÏsuggestiveness€of€the€identification€procedure€and€the€totalityÏof€the€circumstances€to€determine€whether€a€violation€of€dueÍprocess€has€occurred.€€òòSloan€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€461,€466Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€manner€in€which€Ms.€Hart€identified€the€defendantÏwas€clearly€suggestive.€€The€trial€court€so€ruled.€The€questionÏis€whether€the€identification€process€was€so€suggestive€as€toÏcause€a€"substantial€likelihood€of€irreparableÏmisidentification."€€ÌÌà àà àSome€of€the€factors€weigh€favorably€for€the€state.€ÏMs.€Hart€had€paid€particularly€close€attention€to€the€defendantÏbecause€he€was€the€only€customer€of€the€day€she€did€not€know.€ÏShe€explained€that€she€had€grown€up€in€Sneedville,€a€very€smallÏtown,€and€knew€most€everyone€living€there.€€Before€seeing€theÏdefendant€in€the€courtroom,€she€recalled€that€he€was€an€olderÏgentleman€with€grayish€hair,€a€beard,€and€glasses.€€She€alsoÏremembered€the€specific€item€he€had€purchased.€€Upon€seeing€theÏdefendant€at€the€preliminary€hearing,€Ms.€Hart€expressedÏconfidence€in€her€identification.€€She€expressed€that€sameÏcertainty€at€trial.€€ÌÌà àà àOther€factors€weigh€towards€exclusion€of€the€evidence.€ÍFour€months€had€passed€between€the€time€of€the€offense€and€theÏinitial€identification.€€Ms.€Hart€described€the€defendant€asÏhaving€a€beard.€€A€photograph€some€ten€days€after€the€arrestÏshowed€that€he€had€no€beard.€€A€state€witness€testified€that€theÏdefendant€did€not€have€a€beard€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àOn€balance,€however,€the€victim's€opportunity€toÏobserve€the€defendant,€her€recollection€that€he€was€the€singleÏcustomer€that€she€did€not€know€personally€on€the€day€of€theÏoffense,€and€her€relative€certainty€the€defendant€had€passed€theÏforged€check€persuade€us€that€a€misidentification€was€unlikely.€ÏIn€our€view,€the€trial€court€properly€admitted€theÏidentification€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sentron€Jerome€Smithóó,ÏNo.€03C01„9310„CR„00345€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€OctoberÏ13,€1994),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995)€(admittingÏidentification€testimony€despite€suggestive€atmosphere€createdÏby€allowing€the€defendant€to€be€identified€while€items€in€hisÏpossession€were€being€inventoried€on€the€trunk€of€a€policeÏcruiser€and€he€was€seated€inside);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€LarryÏBrownóó,€No.€89„53„111€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€August€25,Ï1989),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1989)(admittingÏidentification€testimony€despite€suggestive€atmosphere€createdÍwhen€the€defendant€was€taken€to€the€hospital€where€the€victimÏwas€being€treated€to€allow€her€to€identify€him).€ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà àThe€defendant's€final€contention€is€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€by€refusing€to€allow€Lawrence€Smith€to€testify€as€anÏinvestigative€expert€in€handwriting€analysis.€€The€stateÏdisagrees.ÌÌà àà àExpert€testimony€is,€of€course,€permissible€under€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€otherÏspecialized€knowledge€will€substantiallyÏassist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€theÏevidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,€aÏwitness€qualified€as€an€expert€byÏknowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€orÏeducation€may€testify€in€the€form€of€anÏopinion€or€otherwise.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€In€order€to€qualify€as€an€expert,€theÏwitness€must€have€experience,€training,€or€education€within€anÏarea€of€expertise€beyond€the€scope€of€common€knowledge.€€òòSeeóóÏòòKinley€v.€Tennessee€State€Mutual€Ins.€Co.óó,€620€S.W.2d€79€(Tenn.Ï1981).€€The€trial€judge€has€broad€discretion€in€determining€theÏadmissibility€of€expert€testimony.€€òòBaggett€v.€Stateóó,€220€Tenn.Í592,€421€S.W.2d€629€(1967);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2dÏ554€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€When€the€trial€court€has€concludedÏthat€a€witness€qualifies€as€an€expert,€that€decision€will€not€beÏoverturned€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Rhodenóó,€739ÏS.W.2d€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€he€had€offered€Smith€as€anÏexpert€in€the€manner€in€which€handwriting€comparisons€areÏconducted.€€A€statement€on€the€record€belies€that€assertion:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àMs.€Ward:€€Your€Honor,€he€has€specializedÏtraining€in€identification€of€similaritiesÏin€handwriting,€and,€although,€he€will€notÏqualify€as€a€handwriting€expert,€he€will€beÏof€assistance€to€the€jury€in€telling€theÏjury€what€it€is€that€you€look€for€inÏcomparison€of€handwritings€and€in€thatÏregard€he€has€done€some€investigation€andÏis€prepared€to€testify€regarding€theÏsimilarities€of€the€handwriting€on€theÏcheck€that€has€been€introduced€against€Mr.ÏBailey€and€on€Mr.€Mize's€who€has€admittedÏto€some€involvement€in€this.€€I€believeÏthat€would€be€helpful€to€the€jury.ÌÌÓÓ€€€€Ìà àà àClearly,€defense€counsel€asked€Smith€to€testify€in€theÏrealm€of€handwriting€analysis€when€she€asked€that€he€be€allowedÏto€testify€about€similarities€in€the€handwriting€on€twoÏdifferent€documents.€€Neither€the€state€nor€the€defendantÍemployed€a€handwriting€expert€to€analyze€the€relevant€signatureÏon€the€check.€€Thus,€testimony€about€how€the€analysis€shouldÏhave€been€made€would€not€have€been€helpful€to€the€jury€inÏreaching€its€conclusion.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌCornelia€A.€Clark,€Special€JudgeÌÌ