ÿWPC•= …UNV %¤U:ªU.ä 0C 0JU 0TŸ 0^ó 0hQ 0r¹ 0D+ w@o 4¯ 0|à 0†? 0Å 1uU 0dÊ . 0)> Bg D3„ 0m·U!>$B)bDC‹ AKιWÒÉ)ò3q÷¤ ¦›#ÞA&*a61v~—4vÓ6è; AOð;Æ?< 0D= D/I= Bx=(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular%ä2¼A`ArialTT(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(3¯$££Ý ƒ%!ÝÝ  Ý Z[\D]D^D_D`UaVbcÓ€Ô¡¨ ÔôŒ2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ3|xl(µ‰$¡¡Ô€ôßqôXXÔÑ  ÑÔ€XnÛXôôßqÔÔ€XXXXnÛÔÑ` ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑTRY3Ø'Letter[  AØ'ÿLegal 3Ø' Letter AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓ  Ó d'''''ÿÿdxd((3÷$¤¤Ý ƒ%µ‰!ÝÔ€ô:ãôXXÔÑ  ÑÔ€X…&Xôô:ãÔÔ€X;óXXX…&ÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑTRY3Ø'Letter3Ø' 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¯Ý ƒ%!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔÑ  ÑÔ€.XÔÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌJanuary€16,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó MÝ ƒ%!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔÑ  ÑÔ€.XÔÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÓ ` °œXÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€€€Ô€ôÔIn€his€brief,€defense€counsel€notes€that€the€defendant€had€successfully€completedÏhis€probationary€period.Ì ¿Ý ƒ%!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔÑ  ÑÔ€.XÔÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÓ ` °œXÓÒ  ÒÒ ° Ò€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€Ú  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Ô€ôÔ€Defendantððs€brief€also€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€Motion€for€Judgment€ofÏAcquittal.€€The€state€contends€that€defendant€has€waived€this€issue€because€he€presentedÏevidence€on€his€behalf€after€the€motion€was€denied.€€Rule€29(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCriminal€Procedure€permits€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€to€be€renewed€within€30€days€of€theÏdate€of€the€order€of€the€sentence.€€A€motion€for€€judgment€of€acquittal€requires€that€the€trial€courtÏdetermine€€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29(a).€€Because€defense€counselÏraised€the€issue€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€in€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€issue€has€not€beenÏwaived.€€However,€with€a€denial€of€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€being€inextricably€linked€toÏthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€we€consider€the€issues€together.Ì uÝ ƒ%!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔÑ  ÑÔ€.XÔÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÓ ` °œXÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Ô€ôÔ€In€1989€Sergeant€Nutt€was€the€criminal€investigator€for€the€city€police€department.€€HeÏwas€Sheriff€of€Wayne€County€at€the€time€the€case€was€tried.Ì )Ý ƒ%!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔÑ  ÑÔ€.XÔÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÓ ` °œXÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Ô€ôÔ€Joel€Nutt€had€moved€to€Indiana€and€was€in€Tennessee€visiting€his€family.Ì íÝ ƒ%!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔÑ  ÑÔ€.XÔÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Ô€ôÔIt€isnððt€clear€in€the€record€which€officer€took€the€lead€in€questioning€the€parties€to€theÏaccident.€€Buddy€Nutt€testified€that€Lieutenant€Brewer€spoke€to€the€parties€and€reported€whatÏthey€said€to€him.€€Lieutenant€Brewer€testified€that€both€officers€were€present€during€the€interview.Ì œÝ ƒ%!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔÑ  ÑÔ€.XÔÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÓ ` °œXÓÒ  ÒÒ ° Ò€€€€€€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Ô€ôÔ€The€signature€line€for€the€reviewing€officer€is€not€visible€in€the€copy€of€the€supplementalÏreport€contained€in€the€record.€€However,€when€Lieutenant€Brewer€was€shown€a€copy€of€theÏsupplement€at€trial,€he€stated€that,€although€he€did€not€recall€seeing€this€version,€his€signature€wasÏon€it.Ì ÔÝ ƒ%!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔÑ  ÑÔ€.XÔÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÓ ` °œXÓÒ  ÒÒ ° Ò€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€Ú  ÚÚ  Ú€€€€Ô€ôÔ€€óóThe€note,€which€was€left€in€Sergeant€Nuttððs€mail€slot,€said:Ìà àà àà àGoody€&€Buddy,Ìà àà àà àI€want€this€acc€report€fix€like€sopose(sic)€Ìà àà àà àto€be€òòto€nightóó.Ìà àà àà àYou€got€veh€òòoneóó€inÌà àà àà àfault€in€place€andÌà àà àà àveh€òòtwoóó€in€fault€in€another.Ìà àà àà àFix€it€one€way€or€another.Ìà àà àà àà àBillÌ€à àà àà àI€want€by€in€the€morning.Ì€à àà àà àÌ Ý ƒ%!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔÑ  ÑÔ€.XÔÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ` °„XÀ–XÓà àÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€ò òÔ€ôÔOfficial€misconduct€„„„„ó ó€(a)€A€public€servant€commits€an€offense€who,€with€theÏintent€to€obtain€a€benefit€or€to€harm€another,€intentionally€or€knowingly:Ìà à(1)€Commits€an€act€relating€to€the€servantððs€office€or€employment€that€constitutes€an€unauthorizedÏexercise€of€official€power;Ìà à(2)€Commits€an€act€under€color€of€office€or€employment€that€exceeds€the€servantððs€official€power;Ìà à(3)€Refrains€from€performing€a€duty€that€is€imposed€by€law€or€that€is€clearly€inherent€in€the€nature€ofÏthe€public€servantððs€office€or€employment;Ìà à(4)€Violates€a€law€relating€to€the€public€servantððs€office€or€employment;€orÌà à(5)€(Receives€any€benefit€not€otherwise€authorized€by€law.Ìà à(b)€For€purposes€of€subdivision€(2)(2),€a€public€servant€commits€an€act€under€color€of€office€orÏemployment€who€acts€or€purports€to€act€in€an€official€capacity€or€takes€advantage€of€such€actual€orÏpurported€capacity.Ìà à(c)€It€is€a€defense€to€prosecution€for€this€offense€that€the€benefit€involved€was€a€trivial€benefitÏincidental€to€personal,€professional€or€business€contact,€and€involved€no€substantial€risk€of€underminingÏofficial€impartiality.Ìà à(d)€An€offense€under€this€section€is€a€Class€E€felony.ÌT.C.A.€ðð€39„16„402.Ìà àÌà àÌ WÝ ƒ%!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔÑ  ÑÔ€.XÔÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÓ ` °œXÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€ôÔ€€€€€€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€€At€first€Staggs€was€confused€as€to€the€year€in€which€she€served.€€She€testified€on€direct€andÏduring€cross„examination€that€she€was€on€the€grand€jury€in€1989€and€that€her€conversations€withÏthe€defendant€took€place€in€the€spring€of€that€same€year.€€The€state€recalled€her€to€the€stand€andÏshe€corrected€her€earlier€testimony.€€The€Clerk€of€the€Circuit€Court€produced€grand€jury€recordsÏshowing€that€Staggs€served€as€an€alternate€grand€juror€during€the€first€six€months€of€1990.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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€‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ%!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔÑ  ÑÔ€.XÔÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ  ÑÑ ° ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€…&XdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ ` °` ˜X ÓÙ€€ÙßR€120A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€TENNESSEE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÌÌ€à@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àMARCH€1995€SESSIONÌÌà@ àÌò òÌó óSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ò òà àà àó ó)à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àAppellee,à àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9411„CC„00378Ìà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà à)à àWayne€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà à)ÌBILLY€HAROLD€BREWER,ò òà àó ó)à àHonorable€William€B.€Cain,€Judge€Ìà àà àà àà à)€Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)à à(Official€Misconduct,€Coercion€ofÏœJuror)›à àà àà àà àà à)à à€à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌDonald€E.€Holtà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ216€Dr.€Hicks€Blvd.,€Westà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌBox€58à àà àà àà àà àà àandÌFlorence,€Alabama€35631à àà àà àEllen€H.€Pollackà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì(AT€TRIAL)à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌJames€Daniel€Freemonà à€à àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ì328€West€Gaines€St.ÌLawrenceburg,€TN€38464à àà àà àT.€Michael€Bottomsà àÌ(AT€TRIAL€AND€ON€APPEAL)à àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àRobert€C.€SandersÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àBox€459Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àLawrenceburg,€TN€38464ÌÌÌÌÌÌà àÌà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:€__________________€€€€€ÌÌà àà àà àÌà àà àà àÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ X ÒœÓ` p` ˜XÓ›€€€€œÇà@ àòòò òO›€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóàHgg1gàÌÌÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àThe€defendant,€Billy€Harold€Brewer,€was€convicted€in€a€jury€trial€in€theÏœWayne›€County€Circuit€Court€of€official€misconduct€and€coercion€of€a€juror,€œClass›€ÌE€felonies.€€As€a€Range€I,€standard€offender,€he€was€sentenced€to€two€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction€for€each€conviction.€€The€trial€court€placed€the€defendant€onÏimmediate€probation€and€ordered€that€he€pay€court€costs€and€spend€200€hoursÏperforming€public€service€work.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€The€defendant€appeals€as€of€right€contending€thatÏthe€evidence€was€insufficient€to€sustain€the€convictions€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏnot€properly€instructing€the€jury€on€his€statutory€defense.œ× ƒ4 ××  ×›€€We€œdisagree.›€€ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà@ àò ò€€€€Official€Misconductó ó€€Ìà àIn€1989,€the€defendant,€Billy€Harold€Brewer,€was€Waynesboroððs€Chief€ofÏPolice.€€He€had€served€on€the€police€force€for€more€than€twenty€years€and€was€aÍlifelong€resident€of€œWayne›€County.€€The€charges€in€this€case€were€part€of€the€aftermath€Ïof€a€minor€traffic€accident€involving€his€nephewððs€wife.€€The€defendant€was€neither€aÏparty€to€the€accident€nor€was€he€involved€in€the€initial€investigation.€€We€discuss€theÏfacts€of€the€accident€to€place€in€context€the€conduct€for€which€the€defendant€wasÏconvicted.€€ÌÌà àMary€Ann€Brewer,€the€wife€of€the€defendantððs€nephew,€went€to€theÏgrocery€store€near€the€Waynesboro€town€square€late€in€the€afternoon€of€December€28,Ï1989.€€When€she€left€the€store€shortly€after€5:00€p.m.,€it€was€already€dark€and€a€lightÏrain€was€falling.€€She€backed€her€Chevrolet€Cavalier€out€of€the€head„on€parking€spotÏand€headed€west€on€the€one„way€street€that€borders€the€square.€€The€street€has€twoÏœlanes,›€œand›€at€first,€Ms.€Brewer€was€in€the€right€lane.€€At€some€point€before€she€reachedÏthe€end€of€the€block,€she€moved€into€the€left€lane.€€Joel€Nutt,€the€driver€of€the€otherÏvehicle€involved€in€the€accident,€was€driving€a€Bronco€that€belonged€to€his€brother,ÏSteve.€€He€was€driving€in€the€left€lane€when€he€passed€the€Cavalier€as€it€backed€out€ofÏits€parking€place.ÌÌà àThe€version€told€by€the€two€parties€diverges€significantly€at€this€point.€€Mr.ÏNutt€testified€that€as€he€neared€the€corner,€Ms.€Brewerððs€car€cut€in€front€of€him.€ÏAlthough€he€braked€and€swerved,€he€could€not€avoid€hitting€her.€€According€to€Mr.€Nutt,€Ïthe€Bronco€struck€the€Cavalierððs€left€quarter€panel€where€it€left€a€long€black€streak.€ÏBecause€of€the€manner€in€which€the€Cavalier€slid,€the€Bronco€ended€up€sitting€justÍbehind€the€Cavalier.€€Mr.€Nutt€examined€her€car€and€found€no€dents€in€the€quarterÏpanel€and€no€damage€to€the€rear€bumper.€€The€Broncoððs€front€bumper€was€barelyÏscratched.€€Although€he€did€not€believe€it€was€necessary€to€call€the€police,€he€told€Ms.ÏBrewer€it€was€up€to€her.€€Ms.€Brewer,€on€the€other€hand,€testified€that€after€pulling€out€ofÏthe€parking€place,€she€moved€into€the€left€lane.€€When€she€stopped€at€the€corner,€theÏBronco€hit€her€from€behind€and€pushed€her€out€into€the€intersection.€€The€Bronco€couldÏnot€stop€and€went€up€onto€the€curb€and€finally€came€to€rest€nearly€parallel€to€her€car.€ÏAccording€to€Ms.€Brewer,€Mr.€Nutt€backed€the€Bronco€into€position€behind€her€carÏbefore€he€got€out€to€talk€to€her.€€She€went€to€a€nearby€store€and€called€the€police.€ÏThere€were€no€witnesses€to€the€accident.€€She€testified€that€Mr.€Nutt€told€her€that€heÏwould€buff€out€the€long€smear€on€the€quarter€panel€because€the€accident€was€his€fault.€ÌÌà àWithin€moments,€two€police€cars€arrived.€€Lieutenant€Carl€"Goody"ÏBrewer€arrived€first,€closely€followed€by€Sergeant€Buddy€Nutt.€€Lieutenant€Brewer€isÏthe€defendantððs€brother€and€Ms.€Brewerððs€uncle€by€marriage.€€Buddy€Nutt€is€a€distantÏcousin€of€Joel€Nutt.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€Lieutenant€Brewer€asked€Sergeant€Nutt€to€handle€theÏinvestigation€because€of€his€family€connection€with€Ms.€Brewer.€€At€that€time,€SergeantÏNutt€had€not€recognized€Joel€Nutt.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Several€days€later,€on€January€5,€1990,€SergeantÍNutt€filed€the€accident€report.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€Lieutenant€Brewerððs€signature€appears€on€the€reportÏindicating€that€he€reviewed€it.€€The€diagram€and€description€of€the€accident€areÏconsistent€with€Mr.€Nuttððs€version.€€However,€the€report€shows€that€both€drivers€hadÏfailed€to€yield.ÌÌà àAt€some€point,€Ms.€Brewer€obtained€a€copy€of€the€report.€€SheÏimmediately€spoke€to€the€defendant€and€told€him€that€the€report€was€wrong.€€She€drewÏher€version€of€the€diagram€over€the€top€of€the€one€drawn€by€Buddy€Nutt.€€ShortlyÏthereafter,€Earl€Brewer,€her€husband,€took€a€copy€of€the€accident€report€to€the€NuttððsÏinsurance€agent€to€file€a€claim.€€The€agent€had€previously€received€a€copy€of€the€reportÏfrom€Steve€Nutt.€€When€she€looked€at€the€report€offered€by€Earl€Brewer€she€noticedÏthat€it€contained€whited€out€areas.€€She€refused€to€accept€the€report€unless€theÏcorrections€were€initialed€by€the€reporting€officer.€€œGilda›€Staggs,€the€clerk€in€charge€ofÏfiling€accident€reports,€testified€that€she€saw€the€defendant€whiting€out€portions€of€anÏaccident€report.€€However,€she€did€not€know€which€report€he€had€changed.€€ÌÌà àSergeant€Nutt€testified€that€the€defendant€told€him€and€Lieutenant€BrewerÏthat€the€report€was€not€accurate€and€that€they€should€fix€it.€€According€to€Nutt,€theÏdefendant€told€him€he€wanted€"that€woman€off€his€back."€€After€the€meeting€with€theÍdefendant,€Sergeant€Nutt€filed€a€"supplement"€to€his€previous€report.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€The€supplementÏis€dated€January€15,€1990.€€The€diagram€of€the€accident€shows€the€two€cars€as€theyÏwere€positioned€when€the€police€arrived,€and€the€narrative€description€of€the€accidentÏis€closer€to€Ms.€Brewerððs€version.€€The€first€page€is€identical€to€that€in€the€earlier€report.€ÏApparently,€the€supplement€was€not€satisfactory€because€he€produced€a€third€report€inÏresponse€to€a€note€from€the€defendant.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àThe€third€report€is€also€dated€January€15,€1990.€€The€defendantððs€nameÏappears€on€the€signature€line€as€reviewing€officer.€€Sergeant€Nutt€testified€œthat€theÏdefendant›€did€not€actually€sign€the€report€and€that€Lieutenant€Brewer€had€not€signedÏthe€two€previous€ones.€€He€had€written€their€"signatures"€on€the€reports,€which€he€saidÏwas€standard€practice€when€a€supervisor€was€not€available€when€a€report€wasÏcomplete.€€The€diagram€and€the€description€of€the€accident€contained€in€the€thirdÍreport€are€identical€to€that€found€in€the€supplement.€€However,€the€page€does€not€haveÏ"supplement"€written€at€the€top.€€The€first€page€of€the€report€shows€that€the€damages€toÏMs.€Brewerððs€vehicle€were€to€the€rear€end€and€that€the€damages€to€œMr.›€œNuttððs›€vehicleÏextended€across€the€front.€€Neither€driver€is€cited€for€failure€to€œyield,›€œand›€the€box,€whereÏchecks€previously€indicated€that€the€vehicles€had€not€been€moved,€contains€a€questionÏmark.ÌÌà àOn€this€evidence€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€for€official€misconduct.€ÏThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€is€insufficient€to€prove€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt€that€he€acted€intentionally€and€knowingly€to€benefit€or€harmÏanother€€when€he€ordered€the€officers€to€correct€an€inaccurate€accident€report.€€OurÏstandard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questioned€on€appeal€isÏ"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€anyÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt."€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789Ï(1979).€€This€means€that€we€may€not€reweigh€the€œevidence›€but€must€presume€that€theÏjury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€all€reasonable€inferencesÏfrom€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547Ï(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€ÌÌà àOur€law€provides€that€official€misconduct€involves€a€public€servant€whoÏhas€"with€the€intent€to€obtain€a€benefit€or€to€harm€another,€intentionally€or€knowingly"Íperformed€an€act€that€is€"an€unauthorized€exercise€of€official€power"€or€"under€color€ofÏoffice€or€employment€that€exceeds€the€servantððs€official€power."€€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„16„402(a)(1)„(2).× ƒ: ××  ×›€€Evidence€presented€at€trial€shows€that€the€Waynesboro€chief€of€police,Ïa€public€servant€as€defined€by€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„16„401(3)(A),›€exceeded€his€official€power€inÏthis€case.€€When€the€evidence€is€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€theÏrecord€shows€that€he€first€attempted€to€modify€the€accident€report€by€whiting€out€certainÏportions.€€When€the€insurance€agent€refused€to€accept€the€modified€copy,€he€used€hisÏofficial€position€to€order€subordinates€to€rewrite€the€report.€€The€incremental€changes€inÏthe€report€clearly€benefited€Ms.€Brewer,€the€defendantððs€close€relative.€€Although€thereÏis€no€direct€testimony€indicating€that€the€defendant€was€acting€intentionally€orÏknowingly€to€benefit€Ms.€Brewer,€a€rational€juror€could€certainly€draw€that€inferenceÏfrom€the€course€of€events.€€The€jury€resolves€all€conflicts€in€testimony,€and€we€may€notÍsubstitute€our€inferences€for€reasonable€inferences€drawn€by€the€jury.€€A€rational€jurorÏcould€have€found€all€the€essential€elements€of€official€misconduct€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àIn€the€alternative,€the€defendant€argues€that€pursuant€to€subsection€(c)€ofÏthe€statute,€the€jury€should€have€found€him€not€guilty.€€This€subsection€provides€that€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àIt€is€a€defense€to€prosecution€for€this€offense€that€the€benefitÏinvolved€was€a€trivial€benefit€incidental€to€personal,Ïprofessional€or€business€contact,€òòand€involved€noÏsubstantial€risk€of€undermining€official€impartiality.óóÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓT.€C.€A.€ðð€39„16„402(c)€(emphasis€added).€€We€respectfully€disagree.€€ÌÌà àWe€need€not€decide€whether€the€benefit€involved€was€trivial€or€incidentalÏbecause€the€defendantððs€acts€plainly€involved€a€substantial€risk€of€undermining€officialÏimpartiality.€€If€the€chief€of€police€is€able€to€alter€an€accident€report€to€coincide€with€aÏrelativeððs€perception€of€events,€the€integrity€of€the€entire€system€is€in€jeopardy.€€TheÏdefendantððs€actions€cast€a€pall€over€all€investigations€conducted€by€his€departmentÏand€œundermined›€public€confidence€in€his€impartiality€and€that€of€his€officers.€€œEven›€ifÏthe€jury€agreed€that€the€benefits€were€"trivial€and€incidental,"€a€rational€juror€couldÏconclude€that€the€defendantððs€actions€undermined€official€impartiality.€€We€affirm€theÏdefendantððs€conviction€for€official€misconduct.ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌò òà@ àCoercion€of€a€Grand€Juroró óÌà àThe€jury€also€convicted€the€defendant€of€attempting€to€coerce€œGilda›ÏStaggs,€an€alternate€grand€juror.€€The€defendant€contends€that€his€conduct€did€notÏconstitute€coercion€as€defined€by€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(3).€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àStaggs€testified€that€she€served€as€an€alternate€grand€juror€during€theÏfirst€six€months€of€1990.× ƒ; ××  ×€€During€March€or€April€of€that€year,€the€defendant€approachedÏher€while€she€was€sitting€in€the€employeesðð€kitchenette.€€He€asked€her€if€she€had€beenÏon€the€grand€jury€lately.€€She€explained€that€she€had€not€been€called€in€a€while.€€ThenÏhe€told€her€that€if€she€happened€to€sit€on€the€grand€jury€when€the€district€attorneyÏgeneral€presented€a€case,€to€"throw€it€out"€because€the€defendant€ð ðwouldnððt€believe€aÏdamn€thing€he€says."€€Her€response€was€that€she€could€not€do€that.€€He€then€asked€herÏto€come€into€his€office€because€he€and€Guy€Brewer€wanted€to€talk€to€her.€€TheÏdefendant€told€her€that€there€were€people€in€her€office€who€were€trying€to€cut€his€throatÏand€hers€as€well.€€He€assured€her€that€her€job€was€safe€because€he€had€threeÏcommissioners€on€her€side.€€He€asked€her€not€to€say€anything€to€anyone€about€theirÏconversation.ÌÌà àA€person€commits€the€offense€of€coercion€of€a€juror€by€influencing€orÏattempting€to€influence€a€juror€in€the€exercise€of€the€jurorððs€official€power€or€byÏinfluencing€or€attempting€to€influence€a€juror€to€vote€or€not€to€vote€in€a€particularÏmanner€by€means€of€coercion.€€T.€C.€A.€ðð€39„16„508(a)(1)„(2).€€The€jury€couldÏreasonably€infer€from€the€defendantððs€remarks€in€the€kitchenette€that€he€was€askingÏher€to€vote€against€any€indictments€the€district€attorney€general€brought€before€theÏgrand€jury.€€The€only€question€is€whether€the€second€conversation€constitutesÏcoercion.ÌÌà àThe€legislature€has€defined€"coercion"€as€œ"a›€threat,€œhowever›Ïcommunicated,€œto:›€(A)€œCommit›€any€offense;€(B)€œWrongfully›€accuse€any€person€of€anyÏoffense;€(C)€œExpose›€any€person€to€hatred,€contempt€or€ridicule;€(D)€œHarm›€the€credit€orÏbusiness€repute€of€any€person;€or€(E)€œTake›€or€withhold€action€as€a€public€servant€orÏcause€a€public€servant€to€take€or€withhold€action."€€T.€C.€A.€ðð€œ39„11„106(a)(3).›€ÏAccording€to€the€statute,€òòanyóó€communication€of€a€threat,€whether€overt€or€veiled,Ïqualifies€as€a€threat.€€The€defendant,€after€asking€Staggs€to€vote€against€indictmentsÏbrought€by€the€district€attorney€general,€invited€her€into€his€office€and€closed€the€door.€ÏHe€then€told€her€that€her€position€with€the€clerkððs€office€was€in€some€jeopardy€but€thatÏhe€had€three€commissioners€who€would€support€her.€€Although€the€defendant€made€noÏovert€threat,€a€reasonable€juror€could€infer€that€the€defendant€was€telling€Staggs€thatÏhe€had€influence€over€her€job€and€that€unless€she€cooperated€with€him€in€his€effort€toÏavoid€indictment€by€the€grand€jury,€her€job€could€be€in€real€jeopardy.€€Employment€isÍsurely€related€to€any€personððs€business€reputation€and€the€loss€of€a€position€couldÏcertainly€harm€both€oneððs€reputation€and€oneððs€credit.€€The€evidence€is€sufficient€for€aÏrational€juror€to€conclude€that€the€defendant€had€threatened€Staggs€with€the€loss€of€herÏjob€if€she€did€not€vote€as€he€wished€during€grand€jury€deliberations.€€This€actionÏconstitutes€coercion€of€a€juror.Ìœ›œò òÌà àà àà àà àà àIIIó ó›Ìà@ à€ò ò€€€ó ó€€€ò òJuryó ó€ò òInstruction€on€the€Statutory€Defenseó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€instructing€theÏjury€that€if€they€had€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€benefit€involved€was€a€trivial€benefit€Ïincidental€to€personal,€professional€or€business€contact,€and€involved€no€substantialÏrisk€of€undermining€official€impartiality,€then€it€was€the€juryððs€duty€to€find€the€defendantÏnot€guilty.€€òòSeeóó€T.€C.A.€ðð€39„16„402(c).€€The€record€includes€the€jury€instructions€as€theÏtrial€court€read€them€to€the€jury.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€twice€about€theÏstatutory€defense€to€the€offense€of€official€misconduct.€€The€first€instruction€wasÏincluded€as€part€of€the€instruction€on€official€misconduct€and€tracked€the€words€of€theÏstatute.€€The€second€instruction€is€included€in€a€section€on€defenses€to€the€crimesÏcharged.€€The€instruction€is€as€follows:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àà àIt€is€the€theory€of€this€defendant€that€he€is€not€guilty€ofÏofficial€misconduct,€in€violation€of€39„16„402,€because€evenÏif€you,€the€jury,€find€that€the€defendant€violated€the€penalÏprovision€of€the€act,€it€is€a€defense€to€prosecution€of€theÏstatute€if€the€benefit€involved€was€a€trivial€benefit,€incidentalÍto€personal,€professional,€or€business€contact,€and€involvedÏno€substantial€risk€of€undermining€official€impartiality.ÌÌà8 àà àTherefore,€if€you,€the€jury,€òòfind€that€you€have€aÏreasonable€doubt€as€to€whether€any€benefit€involved€in€theÏcase€at€bar€was€a€trivial€benefit,€incidental€to€personal,Ïprofessional,€or€business€contact,€and€involved€noÏsubstantial€risk€of€undermining€official€impartiality,€then€youÏmust€find€the€defendant€not€guilty.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓóóThe€trial€judge€gave€the€instruction€the€defendant€now€argues€should€have€beenÏgiven.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òConclusionó óà àÌà àThe€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€legally€sufficient€to€sustain€Billy€HaroldÏBrewerððs€convictions€for€official€misconduct€and€coercion€of€a€juror.€€The€trial€court€didÏnot€err€by€denying€defendantððs€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal,€and€the€trial€courtððsÏœinstructions›€were€a€full€and€complete€statement€of€the€applicable€law.€€The€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌœÇCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌœDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge›ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌœDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge›