ÿWPC% …# V %a 0(gw@4ÏãòU:úU:4 0ln 0DÚ 0J 0Th 0^¼ 0h 0r‚ 0|ô 0†p 0ö 1u† 0dû U*_B)‰DC² AMõ÷Bf9v~Ÿ BvÓ: D3  0@@ AO€ÆÏ 0D• D/Ù B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ X($¡¡ ÆUÇUÈDÉDÊDËDÌDÍÎÏÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|xØ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularÂ"Arial Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ íÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌMay€16,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(((('ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ ùá XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑœÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßR€$%#A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLEÌœMAY›€1996€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà à)à àNO.€01C01„9508„CR„00264Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àDAVIDSON€COUNTY€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€J.€RANDALL€WYATT,€JR.,Ïà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌTHOMAS€BOOKER,€JR.à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Possession€of€Controlled€Substance€€€€Ïà àœand›à àà àà àà àà à)à àwith€Intent€to€Sell,€Possession€with€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àIntent€to€Use€Drug€Paraphernalia,€andÌTHOMAS€WAYNE€MCDANIELSà àà à)à àSentencing)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantsà àà àà àà à)ÌÌòòÌFOR€THE€APPELLANTSà àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóóÌÌGregory€D.€Smith€à à€à àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌOne€Public€Square,€Ste.€321à àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌClarksvillle,€Tennessee€37040à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌDennis€HughesÌ211€Third€Avenue,€Northà àà àà àà àChristina€S.€ShevalierÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201à àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àfor€Thomas€Booker,€Jr.à àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌGeorge€Duzaneà àà àà àà àà àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌ1€Church€Streetà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201à àà àà àWashington€Square,€Ste.€500à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à222ÏSecond€Avenue,€SouthÌà àfor€Thomas€Wayne€McDanielsà àà àNashvillle,€Tennessee€37201ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKatrin€Novak€MillerÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJan€BossingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Ste.€500à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à222ÏSecond€Avenue,€SouthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashvillle,€Tennessee€37201ÌÌOPINION€FILED:______ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÓÓœòòÓ  ÓÑ€&ÑÇOpinionóó›ÌÓ  Óà àThe€Appellants,€Thomas€Booker,€Jr.€and€Thomas€Wayne€McDaniels,€appealÏas€of€right€their€convictions€and€sentences€entered€in€the€Davidson€County€CriminalÏCourt.€€Booker€was€found€guilty€of€possession€with€intent€to€deliver€or€sell€300€grams,Ïor€more,€of€a€substance€containing€cocaine,€possession€with€intent€to€deliver€or€sellÏnot€less€than€one„half€ounce€nor€more€than€ten€pounds€of€marijuana,€and€possessionÏwith€intent€to€use€drug€paraphernalia€and€was€sentenced€to€twenty€yearsÏimprisonment.€€McDaniels€was€found€guilty€of€possession€with€intent€to€deliver€or€sellÏ300€grams,€or€more,€of€a€substance€containing€cocaine€and€sentenced€to€twentyÏyears€imprisonment.ÌBooker€argues€on€appeal€that:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)à àThe€trial€courtððs€failure€to€grant€his€motion€for€severance€deniedÏhim€due€process€of€law.ÌÌà8 à(2)à àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€òòsua€sponteóó€order€a€mistrialÏwhen€suppressed€evidence€was€mentioned€in€closing€argument.ÌÌà8 à(3)à àThe€Stateððs€evidence€was€obtained€under€the€authority€of€aÏdefective€search€warrant€and€was,€therefore,€inadmissible€in€court.ÌÌà8 à(4)à àThe€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€theÏjuryððs€guilty€verdicts.ÌÌà8 à(5)à àThe€trial€œcourt›€erroneously€applied€the€ð ðleader€in€the€commissionÏof€an€offenseðð€sentencing€enhancement€factor.ÌÌà8 à(6)à àThe€jury€failed€to€adhere€to€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€to€notÏdiscuss€the€case€before€deliberations.Ì€ÌÓÓMcDaniels€argues€on€appeal€that:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)à àThe€evidence€introduced€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€establishÏpossession€with€intent€to€deliver€or€sell€three€hundred€grams,€or€more,Ïof€a€substance€containing€cocaine.ÌÌà8 à(2)à àOfficer€Chittyððs€testimony€was€irrelevant€and€incompetent€and€theÏtrial€court€erred€by€allowing€its€admission€in€evidence.ÌÌà8 à(3)à àThe€trial€court€erroneously€qualified€Mr.€Randal€Nelson€as€anÏexpert€witness.ÌÌà8 à(4)à àThe€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€was€excessive.ÌÓÓœFollowing›€a€careful€review€of€the€record€on€appeal,€we€find€no€reversible€error€withÏrespect€to€the€Appellantsðð€convictions€and€sentences€and,€therefore,€affirm€the€trialÏcourtððs€judgments.ÌòòÓ  ÓSummary€of€the€FactsóóÌÓ  Óà àOn€July€14,€1992,€Metropolitan€Nashville€police€officers€executed€a€searchÏwarrant€on€Thomas€Booker,€Jr.€and€his€Davidson€County€residence.€€When€theÏofficers€entered€Bookerððs€residence,€four€people,€including€Booker€and€McDaniels,Ïwere€in€the€kitchen.€€When€the€occupants€realized€that€the€police€were€there,€theyÏstarted€running€towards€the€living€room€in€an€attempt€to€escape€from€the€houseÏthrough€another€door.€€The€police,€however,€had€the€house€surrounded€and€detainedÏBooker,€McDaniels,€the€other€two€men€from€the€kitchen,€and€two€men€sitting€on€theÏfront€porch.€€à àThe€officers€searched€the€house€with€the€assistance€of€the€drug€dogÏBarney€and€found€in€the€kitchen€505.6€grams€of€cocaine€packaged€in€eighteen€smallÍplastic€bags€and€rolled€up€in€a€coat,€59.1€grams€of€cocaine€packaged€in€four€plasticÏbags€inside€a€glove,€one€set€of€scales,€and€one€open€box€of€plastic€bags.€€The€policeÏofficers€also€found€22.9€grams€of€cocaine€in€Bookerððs€bedroom,€977.4€grams€ofÏmarijuana€in€the€basement,€and€4.1€grams€of€cocaine€and€one€set€of€electronicÏscales€in€the€garage.€€On€œMcDaniels'›€person€they€found€one€bag€of€cocaine€weighingÏ6.3€grams.€€At€trial,€one€of€the€six€persons€present€at€Bookerððs€house€testified€thatÏwhen€he€was€sitting€on€the€porch€earlier€that€night,€McDaniels€had€arrived€withÏsomething€that€looked€like€a€rolled€up€coat€or€shirt€under€his€arm.€€ÌÌòòÓ  ÓA.€€Bookerððs€Arguments€on€AppealóóÌòòI.óóÌÓ  Óà àBooker€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€grant€his€motion€for€severanceÏdenied€him€due€process€of€law.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àThe€trial€court€overruled€a€motion€Booker€filed€to€sever€his€trial€from€that€ofÏMcDaniels.€€If€the€severance€had€been€granted,€Booker€planned€to€introduceÏevidence€of€a€gun€that€police€officers€found€in€a€car€belonging€to€McDaniels.€€The€trialÏcourt€ruled€that€the€police€search€of€McDanielsðð€car€was€invalid€and€the€discoveredÏgun€was€suppressed€for€the€purposes€of€McDanielsðð€trial.€€Booker€now€claims€that€ifÏthe€jury€had€been€allowed€to€learn€that€McDaniels€had€a€gun€in€his€car,€it€could€haveÍdrawn€the€inference€that€McDaniels€brought€the€gun€to€protect€his€drugs€and€thatÏBooker€was€innocent.Ìà àTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€14(c)(2)(i)€and€(ii)€provides€that€theÏtrial€court€shall€grant€a€severance€of€defendants€if€deemed€appropriate€to€promote€orÏachieve€a€fair€determination€of€a€defendantððs€guilt€or€innocence.€€The€decisionÏwhether€to€grant€a€motion€for€severance€is€within€the€trial€judgeððs€sound€discretionÏand€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€unless€the€defendant€is€unfairly€or€undulyÏprejudiced.€€òòHunter€v.€Stateóó,€440€S.W.2d€1,€6€(Tenn.€1969);€òòState€v.€Wisemanóó,€643ÏS.W.2d€354,€362€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Burtonóó,€751€S.W.2d€440,Ï447€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€The€trial€court,€however,€must€not€only€protect€theÏrights€of€the€accused,€it€must€also€protect€the€rights€of€the€state€prosecution,€andÏð ðwhen€several€persons€are€charged€jointly€with€a€single€crime€.€.€.€the€state€is€entitledÏto€have€the€fact€of€guilt€determined€and€punishment€assessed€in€a€single€trial,€unlessÏto€do€so€would€unfairly€prejudice€the€rights€of€the€defendants.ðð€€òòTennessee€v.ÏWisemanóó,€643€S.W.2d€354,€362€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982)€(quoting€òòWoodruff€v.€Stateóó,Ï51€S.W.2d€843,€845€(Tenn.€1932)).Ìà àWe€do€not€find€Booker€was€unfairly€prejudiced€or€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€by€denying€the€motion€for€a€severance.€€Bookerððs€argument€thatÏMcDanielsðð€gun€would€have€helped€establish€his€innocence€is€tenuous€at€most.€ÏBooker€also€presented€exculpatory€evidence€from€two€independent€witnesses€whoÍtestified€that€the€eighteen€bags€of€cocaine€belonged€to€McDaniels€and€thatÏMcDaniels€had€brought€them€into€the€house.€€That€evidence€should€have€been€muchÏmore€probative€of€Bookerððs€innocence€than€the€suppressed€gun,€yet€the€jury€stillÏconvicted€Booker€for€possession€of€300€grams,€or€more,€of€cocaine.€€ÌòòÓ  ÓII.óóÌÓ  Óà àBooker€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€òòsua€sponteóó€orderÏa€mistrial€when€suppressed€evidence€was€mentioned€in€closing€argument.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.Ìà àAn€order€for€mistrial€is€appropriate€to€correct€some€event€which€precludes€anÏimpartial€jury€verdict.€€òòArnold€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€792,€794€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1977).€ÏThe€decision€whether€to€grant€a€mistrial€is€within€the€trial€courtððs€sound€discretion€andÏwill€not€be€overturned€on€appeal€absent€a€clear€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€ÏòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€733€S.W.2d€517,€522€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Ìà àBooker€contends€that€the€trial€judge€should€have€òòsua€sponteóó€ordered€a€mistrialÏwhen€McDanielsðð€counsel€allegedly€mentioned€McDanielsðð€suppressed€weapon€inÏclosing€argument.€€Booker€did€not€object€to€this€argument€during€trial€and€has,Ïtherefore,€waived€this€issue.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(f).€€Moreover,€we€do€not€think€thatÏthe€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€œrefusing€to€order€a€mistrial.›€€The€complainedÏabout€portion€of€McDanielsðð€counselððs€argument€was:€ð ð[D]oes€a€man€take€a€large€bagÏof€contraband€.€.€.€and€doesnððt€bring€a€pistol€to€protect€it?€€Well,€no€weapon€was€foundÍon€Mr.€McDaniels.ðð€€This€was€a€correct€statement€of€the€evidence€presented€duringÏtrial€and€there€was€no€mention€that€a€weapon€had€been€found€in€McDanielsðð€car.€€ÌòòÓ  ÓIII.óóÌÓ  Óà àBooker€argues€that€the€Stateððs€evidence€was€obtained€under€the€authority€of€aÏdefective€search€warrant€and€was,€therefore,€inadmissible€in€court.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€€œÇ›à àThe€core€of€Bookerððs€argument€is€that€the€affidavit€in€support€of€the€searchÏwarrant€was€inadequate€in€two€respects.€€First,€the€affidavit€did€not€set€out€whetherÏthe€informant€was€a€ð ðcitizen€informantðð€or€a€ð ðconfidential€informant.ðð€€Second,€theÏaffidavit€did€not€indicate€that€any€information€given€by€the€informant€had€resulted€inÏprevious€convictions€and€was,€therefore,€unreliable.€€Ìà àThe€adequacy€of€an€affidavit€is€tested€by€determining€(1)€if€it€ð ðset[s]€out€a€basisÏfor€the€informantððs€knowledge,ðð€and€(2)€if€ð ðthere€[is]€a€factual€allegation€showing€thatÏthe€source€is€credible€or€his€information€reliable.ðð€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€867€S.W.2d€343,Ï345„46€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€430€(Tenn.Ï1989).€€If€the€affidavit€states€that€the€informant€is€a€citizen€informant€rather€than€aÏconfidential€informant,€then€there€is€a€presumption€of€informant€reliability.€€òòState€v.ÏMelsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342€(Tenn.€1982).€€There€is€no€requirement€that€the€affidavit€hasÏto€state€whether€the€informant€is€a€citizen€informant€or€a€confidential€informant,€and€ifÏno€distinction€is€made,€the€magistrate€judge€simply€has€to€apply€the€more€stringentÏtwo€prong€test.€€òòSmithóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€348.€€The€fact€that€the€affidavit€used€to€supportÏthe€search€warrant€in€this€case€did€not€provide€the€informantððs€status€does€not,€byÏitself,€invalidate€its€adequacy.€€Ìà àWe€find€that€the€affidavit€supporting€the€search€warrant€satisfied€the€reliabilityÏprong€of€the€confidential€informant€test.€€The€affidavit€stated€that€the€confidentialÏinformant€had€been€inside€Bookerððs€residence€within€the€last€seventy„two€hoursÍbefore€the€search€and€seen€Booker€offer€cocaine€for€sale.€€It€also€stated€that€theÏconfidential€informant€had€given€information€in€the€past€that€had€proven€to€be€trueÏand€correct€and€had€resulted€in€numerous€narcotics€related€arrests€and€the€recoveryÏof€large€quantities€of€illegal€drugs.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€638€S.W.2d€436,€437€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1982)€(A€lack€of€previous€arrests€or€convictions€does€not€contradict€orÏnegate€informant€reliability,€which€can€be€established€if€the€ð ðnarcotics€unit€has€onÏseveral€previous€occasions€received€reliable€and€accurate€information€from€theÏœinformant.ðð);€òòState›€v.€Boydóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9303„CR„00085€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏNashville,€Sept.€16,€1993)€(Informant€found€reliable€when€the€affidavit€stated€thatÏprevious€arrests€had€resulted€from€information€supplied€by€that€informant.).ÌòòÓ  ÓIV.à àóóÌÓ  Óà àBooker€argues€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€supportÏthe€juryððs€guilty€verdicts.€€This€issue€is€likewise€without€merit.Ìà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€weÏmust€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€inÏdetermining€whether€ð ðòòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluateÏthe€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏproof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferencesÍwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€A€guilty€verdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accreditsÏthe€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€theÏpresumption€of€innocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).Ìà àA€defendant€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof€has€the€burden€ofÏillustrating€to€this€Court€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returnedÏby€the€trier€of€fact€in€his€or€her€case.€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€forÏlack€of€sufficient€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€anyÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€facts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€aÏrational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.ÏTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).Ìà àIn€order€to€convict€Booker€of€possession€of€300€grams€of€cocaine€with€intent€toÏdeliver€or€sell,€the€State€was€required€to€show€that€Booker€knowingly€possessed€300Ïgrams,€or€more,€of€a€substance€containing€cocaine€and€that€he€intended€to€deliver€orÏsell€that€substance.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(a),€(j)(5)€(Supp.€1995).€€ToÏconvict€Booker€of€possession€of€marijuana€with€intent€to€deliver€or€sell,€the€State€hadÏto€prove€that€Booker€knowingly€possessed€not€less€than€one„half€ounce€nor€moreÏthan€ten€pounds€of€marijuana€and€that€he€intended€to€deliver€or€sell€such€substance.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(a),€(g)(1)€(Supp.€1995).€€To€convict€Booker€ofÏunlawful€drug€paraphernalia€uses€and€activities,€the€State€had€to€prove€that€BookerÍknowingly€possessed€œð ðwith›€intent€to€œuse€.€.€.›€drug€paraphernalia€to€.€.€.€pack,€repack,Ïstore,€contain,€conceal€.€.€.€inhale,€or€otherwise€introduce€into€the€human€body€aÏcontrolled€œsubstanceðð›€and€acted€either€intentionally,€knowingly,€or€recklessly.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„425€(1991).€€Ìà àWe€find€that€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€was€more€than€sufficient€for€aÏrational€trier€of€fact€to€find€Booker€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€That€evidenceÏshowed€that€the€police€searched€a€residence€occupied€by€Booker,€that€the€policeÏfound€cocaine,€marijuana,€and€drug€paraphernalia€in€several€different€locations€atÏthe€house,€including€the€kitchen,€bedroom,€basement€and€garage,€and€that€BookerÏwas€involved€in€repackaging€some€of€the€drugs€for€distribution.€€The€jury€chose€toÏcredit€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€the€circumstantial€evidence€presented.€€That€was€itsÏprerogative.€€€ÌòòÓ  ÓV.óóÓ  Óà àBooker€claims€that€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€establishÏthe€ð ðleader€in€the€commission€of€an€offenseðð€sentencing€enhancement€factor.€€ThisÏissue€is€also€without€merit.Ìà àWhen€an€Appellant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€must€conduct€a€òòdeÏnovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)Ïœ(1991).›€€The€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealingÏparty.€€òòIdóó,€(sentencing€commission€comments).€€This€presumption,€however,€isÏconditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€consideredÍthe€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àThe€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€is€the€presumptive€sentence.€€If€thereÏare€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€inÏthe€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€andÏthen€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€IfÏthere€are€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€inÏthat€range€but€still€within€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€(1990).€€The€trialÏjudge€has€full€discretion€to€determine€the€weight€given€to€each€factor,€as€long€as€itÏdoes€not€violate€the€principles€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€€òòIdóó.€(SentencingÏCommission€Comments).Ìà àBooker€has€failed€to€show€that€his€sentences€were€improperly€enhanced.€€TheÏtrial€judge€found€that€Booker€was€a€ð ðleader€in€the€commission€of€an€offenseðð€becauseÏhe€was€in€possession€of€the€house€into€which€McDaniels€delivered€drugs;€otherÏdrugs€were€stored€in€the€house;€and€there€was€evidence€that€the€drugs€in€the€houseÏwere€being€repackaged€for€distribution.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€thisÏenhancement€factor€was€applicable.€€€œÌ›òòÓ  ÓVI.óóÌÓ  Óà àBooker€argues€that€the€jury€failed€to€adhere€to€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€toÏnot€œdiscuss›€the€case€before€deliberations.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àAn€unidentified€juror€made€pre„deliberation€statements€about€BookerððsÏcounsel€to€the€effect€that€he€had€very€nice€clothes€and€that€anybody€who€could€affordÏsuch€representation€must€have€a€lot€of€money.€€Booker€contends€that€somehow€œtheÏimplication›€from€the€statement€was€that€Booker€must€be€a€drug€dealer€and€guilty€ofÏthe€crimes€for€which€he€was€charged.€€Booker€wants€to€support€this€argument€byÏintroducing€the€testimony€of€one€juror€and€one€alternate€juror.€€€Ì̛̜à àTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€24(f)€states,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€jurors€shallÏnot€communicate€with€each€other€regarding€any€subject€connected€with€the€trialÏbefore€the€case€is€finally€submitted€to€the€jury.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(f)(1)€(1995).€€ÏHowever,€ð ð[œu]pon›€an€inquiry€into€the€validity€of€a€verdict€.€.€.€a€juror€may€[only]€testifyÏon€the€question€of€whether€extraneous€prejudicial€information€was€improperlyÏbrought€to€the€juryððs€attention€[or]€whether€any€outside€influence€was€improperlyÏbrought€to€bear€upon€any€juror€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€606(b);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Frazieróó,€683ÏS.W.2d€346€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)€(holding€that€even€if€the€jury€œdisregards›€the€trialÏjudgeððs€instructions€to€not€talk€about€the€case€until€deliberations,€such€testimony€isÏinadmissible€unless€it€constitutes€extraneous€prejudicial€information€or€improperÏoutside€influence).Ìà àWe€do€not€find€that€the€alleged€comments€by€the€unidentified€juror€œconstitute›Ïextraneous€prejudicial€information€or€improper€outside€influence.€€Therefore,€theÏtestimony€of€the€juror€and€the€alternate€juror€was€inadmissible.ÌòòÓ  ÓB.€€McDanielsðð€Arguments€on€AppealÌI.óóÌÓ  Óà àMcDaniels€argues€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€insufficient€toÏsupport€his€conviction€of€possession€with€intent€to€deliver€or€sell€300€grams,€or€more,Ïof€a€substance€containing€cocaine.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àIt€is€a€well€established€principle€of€law€in€this€state€that€circumstantial€evidenceÏalone€œmay€be›€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Buttreyóó,€756€S.W.2d€718,Ï721€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€The€circumstantial€evidence,€however,€ð ðmust€be€notÏonly€inconsistent€with€the€guilt€of€the€accused€but€it€must€also€be€inconsistent€with€hisÏ[or€her]€innocence€and€must€exclude€every€other€reasonable€theory€or€hypothesisÏexcept€that€of€œguilt."›€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€900€(Tenn.€1987).€€In€addition,Ïœð ðit€must›€establish€such€a€certainty€of€guilt€of€the€accused€as€to€convince€the€mindÏbeyond€œÌÌÌÌa›€reasonable€doubt€that€[the€defendant]€is€the€one€who€committed€the€crime.ðð€ÏòòTharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€at€896.€€Moral€certainty€as€to€each€element€of€the€offense€isÏrequired,€but€œÌabsolute›€certainty€is€not.€€òòIdóó.€€This€Court€must€also€remember€that€the€jury€decides€theÏweight€to€be€given€to€circumstantial€evidence,€moreover,€ð ð[œt]he›€inferences€to€beÏdrawn€from€such€evidence,€and€the€extent€to€which€the€circumstances€are€consistentÏwith€guilt€and€inconsistent€with€innocence€are€questions€primarily€for€the€jury.ðð€ÏòòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€313€S.W.2d€451,€457€(Tenn.€1958);€òòState€v.€Couryóó,€697€S.W.2dÏ373,€377€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).Ìà àWe€find€that€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€was€more€than€sufficient€for€aÏrational€trier€of€fact€to€find€McDaniels€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€During€theÏsearch€of€Bookerððs€residence€the€police€officers€found€the€eighteen€bags€containingÏcocaine€rolled€up€in€a€coat.€€One€of€the€people€who€was€sitting€on€the€porch€when€theÏpolice€searched€the€house,€testified€that€when€McDaniels€had€arrived€earlier€thatÏnight€he€had€carried€something€under€his€arm€that€looked€like€a€rolled€up€coat€orÏshirt.€€The€evidence€also€indicated€that€McDaniels,€Booker,€and€the€other€two€men€inÏthe€house€were€involved€in€repackaging€drugs€for€distribution.€€€€€€Ìà à€McDaniels€also€specifically€contends€the€evidence€was€insufficient€toÏestablish€possession€of€300€grams,€or€more,€of€cocaine€because€the€eighteen€bagsÏthat€made€up€the€505.6€grams€of€cocaine€were€only€randomly€sampled.€€During€theÍtrial,€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€forensic€scientist,€Mr.€Randal€Nelson,Ïtestified€that€he€received€the€eighteen€small€plastic€bags€containing€a€white€powderyÏsubstance€and€that€he€first€conducted€a€cobalt€thiocyanate€test€on€all€eighteen€bags.€ÏThe€cobalt€thiocyanate€test€is€a€presumptive€test,€because€not€only€cocaine€will€reactÏpositively,€but€also€substances€such€as€lidocaine€and€procaine.€€Since€all€eighteenÏbags€tested€œÌÌÌÌpositive›€in€the€cobalt€thiocyanate€test,€Mr.€Nelson€randomly€selected€five€bags€forÏfurther€testing.€€These€five€bags€tested€positive€for€cocaine€when€analyzed€in€the€gasÏchromatograph€and€the€infrared€spectrometer.€€Ìœ›à àRandom€sampling€of€large€quantities€of€drugs€can€survive€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€challenges.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€œSelphóó,›€625€S.W.2d€285,€286€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œÌ1981)›€(stating€that€a€five€tablet€random€sample€containing€methaqualone€wasÏsufficient€to€establish€that€5000€similar€looking€tablets€also€contained€methaqualone);ÏòòState€v.€Mooreóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9403„CR„00098€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,ÏSept.€18,€1995)€(holding€that€a€random€sample€of€twenty„four€ð ðrocksðð€containingÏcrack€cocaine€was€sufficient€to€establish€that€2400€similar€looking€rocks€alsoÏcontained€crack€cocaine).€€In€this€case,€the€State€first€introduced€evidence€showingÍthat€all€eighteen€bags€tested€positive€in€the€cobalt€thiocyanate€test,€and€then,€that€fiveÏof€the€eighteen€bags€affirmatively€contained€cocaine.€€The€jury€was€justified€inÏmaking€the€inference,€circumstantially,€that€all€eighteen€bags€contained€cocaine.€€Ìà àWith€regard€to€the€evidence€presented€against€McDaniels,€the€jury€chose€toÏcredit€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€the€circumstantial€evidence€presented€and€foundÏthat€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction.€€McDaniels€has€failed€toÏovercome€the€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.ÌòòÓ  ÓII.óóÌÓ  Óà àMcDaniels€argues€that€œOfficer›€Chittyððs€testimony€was€irrelevant€andÏincompetent€and€that€the€trial€judge€erred€by€allowing€its€admission€in€evidence.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.Ìà àMcDaniels€argues€that€œOfficer›€Chittyððs€testimony€was€irrelevant€andÏincompetent€because€œOfficer›€Chitty,€when€he€testified€in€court,€relied€solely€on€hisÏmemory€as€to€what€happened€on€July€14,€1992,€as€opposed€to€on€a€written€report.€ÏMcDaniels€also€claims€that€œOfficer›€Chittyððs€testimony€was€inconsistent€and€lackedÏdetail,€and€that€he€erroneously€testified€that€McDaniels€had€20.5€grams€of€cocaine€onÏhis€person,€when€it€was€in€fact€only€œ6.3›€grams.Ìœ›à àThis€issue€is€waived€as€McDaniels€œhas›€failed€to€cite€authority€to€support€hisÏarguments.€€Rules€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€of€Tennessee€10(b);€òòState€v.ÏœKillebrew›óó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€231€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€We€will,€however,€address€œÌthis›€issue€on€its€merits.€€The€decision€to€admit€or€exclude€evidence€is€left€to€the€trialÏcourtððs€sound€discretion€and€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€it€is€arbitrarily€exercised.€ÏòòState€v.€Hawkóó,€688€S.W.2d€467,€472€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985);€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€785ÏS.W.2d€132,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).Ìà àWe€do€not€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€Officer€Chitty€was€oneÏof€the€principal€officers€searching€the€Booker€residence€on€July€14,€1992,€and€hisÏtestimony€regarding€the€events€that€took€place€was€certainly€relevant€evidence.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€401,€402.€€It€was€for€the€jury€to€determine€whether€œOfficer›€ChittyððsÏtestimony€was€inconsistent€or€lacked€detail,€and€whether€œOfficer›€Chitty€was€a€credibleÏwitness.€€The€issue€regarding€œOfficer›€œChitty›ððs€testimony€was€one€of€credibility,€notÏadmissibility.Ìà àIt€is€clear€from€the€record€that€although€œOfficer›€Chitty€erroneously€testified€toÏthe€amount€of€cocaine€on€McDanielsðð€person,€such€error,€however,€was€harmlessÏbecause€later€testimony€established€the€correct€amount.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€Officer€Chittyððs€incorrect€testimony€did€not€result€inÏMcDaniels€experiencing€any€undue€prejudice€and€the€outcome€of€the€trial€was€notÏaffected€thereby.€ÌòòÓ  ÓIII.óóÌÓ  Óà àMcDaniels€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€qualified€Mr.€RandalÏNelson€as€an€expert€witness.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àMcDaniels€argues€that€Mr.€Nelson€should€not€have€been€qualified€as€aÏforensic€expert€because€he€was€unable€to€relate€when€the€equipment€he€used€to€testÏthe€cocaine€was€last€calibrated.€€He€also€contends€that€Nelson€was€unqualifiedÏbecause€he€could€not€explain€the€scientific€principles€and€mathematical€formulaeÏupon€which€the€analytical€equipment€was€based.€€œÌà à›The€record€reveals€that€Mr.€Nelson€had€substantial€training€and€experience€asÏa€forensic€scientist,€qualifying€œas€an›€expert€in€over€thirty€trials.€€Contrary€to€McDanielsððÏclaim,€Mr.€Nelson€adequately€explained€the€scientific€principles€involved€in€both€theÏtesting€procedures€and€the€equipment€operations€that€translated€the€test€results.€€HeÏacknowledged€that€he€could€not€recall€the€specific€mathematical€formulae€uponÏwhich€the€equipment€was€based,€saying€that€he€would€need€a€chemistry€book.€€HeÏalso€explained€that€the€equipment€was€calibrated€every€week,€and€that€the€exact€dateÏof€calibration€was€kept€on€file€in€the€laboratory.€€Ìà àA€witness€who€qualifies€ð ðas€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,Ïor€education€may€testify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€ÏWhether€an€individual€qualifies€as€an€expert€and€whether€expert€testimony€isÏappropriate€are€within€the€trial€judgeððs€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,Ï411€(Tenn.€1983).€€The€record€shows€Mr.€Nelson€to€be€qualified€as€a€forensic€expertÏable€to€present€the€test€results€in€this€case.€€The€mere€fact€that€he€did€not€know€someÍœmathematic›€œformulae›€or€the€exact€date€of€the€equipment€calibration€did€not€preventÏthe€trial€court€from€allowing€him€to€testify.€€We€see€no€abuse€of€discretion.€€ÌòòÓ  ÓIV.ò òóóÌÓ  Óó óà àFinally,€McDaniels€contends€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€wasÏexcessive.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àThe€trial€court€is€well€within€its€authority€to€enhance€a€prison€sentence€if€it€findsÏthat€a€convicted€individual€has€ð ða€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminalÏbehavior€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(Supp.€1995).€€Here,€the€record€œrevealsÏthat›€McDaniels€has€at€least€thirteen€prior€convictions€and€we€find€that€the€applicationÏof€the€sentencing€enhancement€factor€was€appropriate.€€The€trial€court€found€noÏmitigating€factors.Ìà àAccordingly,€all€the€Appellantsðð€convictions€and€sentences€are€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR€BY:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE