ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ U*Ç B)ñ BDC7 AMzéÇv~° D3.vÓa 0@4 AOtÆÃ 0D‰ D/Í Bü˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ÕÖE×EØ[ÙxeÚÛUÜEÝÞÓ€R¦"3|xé2 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`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ßÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òJune€24,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òÓ  ÓÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌAPRIL€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9607„CC„00273Ìà àó óAppellee,ò òà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àANDERSON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JAMES€B.€SCOTT,€JR.€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌJAMANN€T.€BOOKER,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó ó(Probation€Revocation)ò òÌà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòó óFOR€THE€APPELLANTò òóó:à àà àà àà àòòó óFOR€THE€APPELLEEò òóó:ÌÌKENNETH€F.€IRVINE,€JR.à àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌó ó606€W.€Main€Street,€Ste.€350€à àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€84à àà àà àÌKnoxville,€Tennessee€37901„0084ò òà àà àSANDY€R.€COPOUSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€€€37243„0493Ìò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJAMES€N.€RAMSEYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€Generalò òÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJAN€HICKSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à127€Anderson€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à100€North€Main€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClinton,€TN€37716Ìò òÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÌó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÌÑ7€¦kXXdìXXdì7ÑÌÌÓÓà àà àà àÓ  Óà àThe€defendant,€Jamann€T.€Booker,€appeals€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€to€revoke€his€probation.€€Defendant€pled€guilty€to€five€counts€of€theÏsale€of€cocaine€and€received€an€effective€sentence€of€eight€years€in€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€After€serving€a€portion€of€his€sentence€and€completingÏð ðboot€camp,ðð€he€was€placed€on€intensive€supervised€probation.€€While€on€probation,Ïdefendant€was€arrested€on€another€two€counts€of€selling€cocaine.€€Due€to€this€arrest,Ïa€probation€violation€warrant€was€issued.€€A€probation€revocation€hearing€wasÏsubsequently€held€wherein€the€trial€court€revoked€defendantððs€probation.€€Ìà àAfter€filing€timely€notice€of€appeal,€defendant€presents€two€issues€for€ourÏreview:€1)€whether€testimony€by€police€officers€regarding€statements€allegedlyÏmade€by€the€confidential€informant€constituted€unreliable€hearsay€and€were,Ïtherefore,€inadmissible;€and€2)€whether€the€defendantððs€constitutional€right€toÍconfrontation€was€violated€by€allowing€police€officers€to€testify€as€to€remarks€madeÏby€a€confidential€informant€which€were€simultaneously€being€monitored€byÏelectronic€transmitter.€€€Ìà àWe€AFFIRM€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓFACTSÌÓ  Óà àó óThe€facts€involved€in€this€probation€revocation€appeal€stem€from€anÏundercover€drug€operation€conducted€by€the€Oak€Ridge€Police€Department€(ORPD).€ÏThe€ORPD€employed€a€confidential€informant€to€make€drug€purchases.€€On€twoÏseparate€occasions,€December€12,€1995,€and€January€24,€1996,€the€confidentialÏinformant€came€into€contact€with€the€defendant.€€Each€transaction€was€monitored€byÏpolice€officers€by€personal€observation€and/or€through€electronic€transmitter€or€wire.Ìà àThe€December€12€transaction€was€supervised€by€Sergeant€Mike€Uher€of€theÏORPD.€€He€stated€that€he€met€with€the€confidential€informant,€placed€an€electronicÏmonitoring€device€on€him€and€gave€him€$300€for€drug€purchases.€After€searchingÏhim€and€his€vehicle€for€any€contraband,€he€sent€the€œinformant€to›€purchase€crackÏcocaine.€€à àœÌà àSgt.Uher›€was€œin€another›€vehicle€which€was€equipped€with€a€receiver€andÏpositioned€atop€a€hill€so€that€he€could€survey€the€area.€€He€watched€the€defendantÏand€the€informant€meet€and€pull€their€cars€up€next€to€each€other.€€He€then€heardÏthem€agree€to€drive€around€the€block€which€he€believed€to€be€standard€languageÏfor€initiating€a€drug€deal.€€After€identifying€the€defendantððs€and€the€informantððs€voice,Íhe€summarized€the€conversation€he€heard€through€the€electronic€monitoring€device.€Ïà àThe€informant€indicated€he€wished€to€purchase€$200€worth€of€cocaine.ÏDefendant€stated€he€wanted€to€drive€around€the€block.€€Sgt.€Uher€observed€theÏvehicles€drive€around€the€block.€€The€defendant€subsequently€exited€his€vehicleÏand€entered€the€informantððs€vehicle€where€the€transaction€took€place.€€Sgt.€UherÏstated€he€then€heard€the€informant€say€ð ð[those]€were€large€pieces€and€that€heÏwanted€$200€worth,€could€he€come€back€and€get€more€an€additional€time€...ðð€Ìà àThe€defendant€stated€that€he€wanted€to€be€dropped€off€at€his€vehicle€after€theÏtransaction.€The€informant€later€met€Sgt.€Uher€at€a€pre„arranged€location€and€turnedÏover€the€drugs.€€€€€€€ò òà àó óÌà àSgt.€Uher€stated€that€the€January€24€transaction€was€set€up€similarly€to€theÏDecember€12€transaction;€however,€they€utilized€an€undercover€vehicle€instead€ofÏthe€informantððs€personal€vehicle.€€Officer€Michael€Jackson€of€the€Athens€PoliceÏDepartment€was€the€driver.€€Sgt.€Uher€testified€regarding€the€transmissions€heÏheard€over€the€wire€on€this€occasion.€€He€stated€the€informant€entered€theÏdefendantððs€vehicle€and€requested€€$100€worth€of€crack€cocaine.€€The€informantÏindicated€ð ðœthat€that›€looked€good.ðð€€The€extent€of€defendantððs€response€was€€ð ðyes,ððÏð ðo„œkay›,ðð€ð ðno,ðð€and€ð ðmy€car.ððÌà àBecause€he€was€in€the€car€with€the€informant,€Officer€Jackson€personallyÏobserved€the€informant€enter€the€defendantððs€vehicle€and€sit€in€the€back€seat€behindÏthe€defendant.€€Although€Officer€Jackson€did€not€actually€see€the€drugs€exchanged,Ïthe€vehicles€were€parked€in€such€close€proximity€that€he€saw€hand€movements€thatÍwere€consistent€with€a€money€and€drug€exchange.€The€drugs€were€later€turned€overÏto€Sgt.€Uher.Ìà àCarl€Smith,€a€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€(œTBI›)€chemist,€analyzed€theÏsubstances€given€to€Sgt.€Uher€from€the€above€transactions.€€He€testified€that€theÏsubstances€tested€positive€for€cocaine€base€or€ð ðcrackðð€cocaine.Ìà àThe€defendant€did€not€offer€any€proof€at€the€hearing.ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àà à€ò òHEARSAY€ISSUEó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€police€officerððs€testimony€regarding€statementsÏallegedly€made€by€the€confidential€informant€constituted€unreliable€hearsay.€€InÏeffect,€the€defendant€claims€that€Sgt.€Uherððs€testimony€summarizing€theÏconversation€overheard€while€monitoring€the€alleged€drug€transaction€requires€theÏtestimony€of€the€confidential€informant.€€We€disagree.Ìà àHearsay€is€a€statement,€other€than€one€made€by€the€declarant€while€testifyingÏat€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€in€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.€ÏTenn.€R.€œEvid›.€801(c).€€Hearsay€evidence,€however,€is€admissible€in€a€probationÏrevocation€hearing€so€long€as€it€is€not€shown€to€be€so€unreliable€as€to€violate€dueÏprocess.€€òòState€v.€Wadeóó,€863€œS.W.2d›€406,€409„10€(Tenn.€1993).Ìà àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€the€statements€made€by€theÏconfidential€informant€and€repeated€by€Sgt.€Uher€were€not€offered€to€prove€the€truthÏof€the€matters€asserted.€€They€were€clearly€made€for€the€purpose€of€providing€theÍdefendant,€a€willing€drug€dealer,€with€a€customer€and€merely€depicted€one€side€of€aÏdrug€transaction.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€___€œS.W.2d›€___€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.ÏJonesóó,€598€œS.W.2d›€209€(Tenn.€1980);€òòState€v.€George€œHarless›óó,€C.C.A.€No.€œ03C01›„9203„CR„00105€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€filed€August€11,€1993,€at€Knoxville).€Ìà àEven€if€it€was€hearsay,€it€was€reliable.€€Furthermore,€it€was€harmless€in€light€ofÏthe€other€testimony€of€the€officers€which€clearly€shows€defendantððs€participation€inÏthe€drug€transaction.€€Tenn.€R.€œApp›.€P.€36(b).€€The€evidence€of€the€violation€wasÏsufficient,€even€without€the€informantððs€statements,€to€establish€that€the€trial€judgeÏexercised€conscientious€judgment.€€òòState€v.€Leachóó,€914€œS.W.2d›€104€(Tenn.€œCrim›.ÏœApp›.€1995).€€The€state€is€not€required€to€prove€the€violation€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòIdóó.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àò òRIGHT€TO€CONFRONT€AN€ADVERSE€WITNESSó óÌÌà àSince€the€only€actual€eyewitness€to€the€alleged€drug€sales€was€theÏconfidential€informant€who€was€not€called€as€a€witness,€the€defendant€contendsÏadmission€of€the€officerððs€testimony€violated€his€constitutional€right€to€confront€anÏadverse€witness.€Ìà àIt€should€be€noted€at€the€outset€that€while€closely€related€to€evidentiaryÏissues,€confrontation€issues€are€analyzed€differently.€€Both€the€United€States€andÏthe€Tennessee€Constitutions€afford€protections€which€enable€a€defendant€toÏconfront€an€adverse€witness.€U.S.€Const.€amend.€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð9.ÍGenerally,€a€probationer€is€entitled€to€the€same€protection€unless€the€trial€judgeÏmakes€a€specific€finding€of€good€cause€for€denying€the€right.€òòWadeóó,€863€œS.W.2d›€atÏ409.€Ìà àConfrontation€Clause€analysis€does€not€apply€to€the€proof€presented€in€thisÏcase.€€òòMartinóó,€___€œS.W.2d›€at€___;€òòJonesóó,€598€œS.W.2d›€at€223.€€It€is€important€to€stressÏthat€Sgt.€Uher€and€Officer€Jackson€testified€regarding€what€they€visually€and€audiblyÏperceived€in€both€drug€transactions.€They€witnessed€the€confidential€informant€andÏthe€defendant€engage€in€activities€they€believed€to€be€the€sale€of€drugs.€€TheyÏobserved€the€informant€enter€defendantððs€car€and€return€with€what€was€positivelyÏidentified€as€ð ðcrackðð€cocaine.€€The€testimony€via€the€electronic€wire€pertaining€to€theÏcomments€made€by€the€confidential€informant€was€not€substantive€evidence.€€It,€inÏeffect,€was€not€a€ð ðwitness€againstðð€€the€defendant€and€raises€no€ConfrontationÏClause€concerns.€òòTennessee€v.€Streetóó,€471€U.S.€407,€414€(1985).€€Ìà àAfter€the€defense€closing€argument€emphasizing€the€right€to€confront,€the€trialÏcourt€stated:ÌÓÓà àà àð ðI€have€unrefuted€proof€here€that€the€same€activity€Ìà àà àthat€[defendant]€was€sent€to€the€penitentiary€on,€Ìà àà àand€I€hope€frankly€that€[defendant]€can€maybe€turn€his€Ìà àà àconduct€in€such€a€way€that€he€wouldnððt€do€this,€but€thereððs€Ìà àà àso€much€money€involved€in€drugs,€and€this€appears€Ìà àà àthat€even€though€there€may€have€been€a€right€of€Ìà àà àconfrontation€with€the€confidential€informant,€that€this€Ìà àà àCourt€allowed€that€information€in€just€simply€to€Ìà àà àcorroborate€what€I€had€in€the€way€of€direct€proof€on€a€Ìà àà àprobation€hearing€.€.€.€ð ð€ÓÓÌThe€trial€court€clearly€viewed€the€questionable€evidence€as€merely€œcorrobative›€ofÍthe€direct€proof€implicating€the€defendant.€€The€record€supports€the€conclusions€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€If€there€was€error,€it€was€harmless.€€Tenn.€R.€œApp›.€P.€36(b).€€This€issueÏis€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJOE€G.€œRILEY›,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌCHRIS€CRAFT,€SPECIAL€JUDGEà àà àà àà àà àà àà à