ÿWPCÅ7 Št%îi ÖÔ,´^¢SIÞZ:ÍdÁ6JU'æÕÀœT47D c’ëÍíNÜ`Ißi±N‘>«8¸æ~¨V{MVÖW,ëš ·Yçs¾F?ñ9@n.Üߊ¼Õdy ÓÓy’îð¯3fײ% šJ(–]•Ãxz[ïK°'¢×,yåÿÚIù úÚ+¹ù÷”Šä2\–7zýã!e>_¹Âï…@ëøp¢p‰°,ÐI˜ZqŒÉ>y ˜ ž7¥ -JÝdò:·8.ûO¹(­§RwÜ€ɼ™>äµ;KºEGé’ºAÙ•ï(|€áSÙcFµw ûsés<¾²…EøQm ¨HK|ûyžá862y™¬UF :î(#òSvd_|‚Þ?r¬5ÕŸ{6ÛÃ>è/ÔL}Y*û/ã£ã~&6©™ ,:3 D>Ž$VÓ™ÎvO(0ò^>€)¡) C½š¿~¥ä¢7uðrÛ­M_ÅHéHË‚9”¼Mqë óÑ*ÑÜí˜ûGt"RÔƒî0}„X‰ó_¸EÐCÍo>÷•à]m)•E´¼2ÿˆQ•Ä!osÓ«¸äî|ÖØX<°zÓxl§ÌôFÆðÆölõ—`U.@ %nbt-x¥~º8n­Hõ 0(ýU:% w_ 4c w 0™‘ 0D* U :n ’¨ ^ : F 0îJN8f: #Á¢ mcfz à 0ëæ 0èÑ 0å¹ 0âž 0߀ B_ 0Ü| 0ÙX 0Ö1 0Ü 0Ùã 0Ö¼ 0Ó’ 0Ðe 0Í5 0Ê 0ÇÌ 0Ä“! 0ÛW" 0Ø2# 0Õ $ 0Òß$ 0ϱ% 0Ì€& 0ÉL' 0Æ( 0ÃÛ(ž)¡*t·*|+,û§-%¢.Ç3Ç3pÝ3U:M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5M5 AS‡5ÆÚ5 0V 6 0Vö6 0DL7L7 D57<þ6X9`(CourierX ù #Ñ#€Xd#Ñ Ñ  Ñ tÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'Legal\Ñ3|x«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular¬sp' PTOSHA(I(2¤$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X¶XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ï4 ' Tom Kulaga0Tom Kulaga .   ýq4(L  úÝ ƒ¤$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XPÙXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€In€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.€Ct.€1194€(1963),€the€UnitedÐ `  ÐStates€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€prosecution€has€a€constitutional€duty€toÐ F æ Ðfurnish€the€accused€with€exculpatory€evidence€pertaining€to€either€the€accused'sÐ , Ì Ðguilt€or€innocence€and€the€punishment€that€may€be€imposed.€Failure€to€revealÐ  ² Ðexculpatory€evidence€violates€due€process€where€the€evidence€is€material€eitherÐ ø ˜ Ðto€guilt€or€punishment,€irrespective€of€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution.€Ð Þ ~ ÐòòId.óó€at€87,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1196-97.€2G+J ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\ÑH2D+J ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2A+J ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+J ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+J ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+J ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó d25+J ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+J ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/+J ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GJ ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DJ ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AJ ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>J ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;J ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28J ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25J ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22J ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/J ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GJ ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DJ ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AJ ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>J ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;J ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28J ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25J ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22J ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/J ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó ùÝ ƒ¤$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XPÙXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€have€framed€and€addressed€defendantððs€issues€differently€than€theyÐ `  Ðwere€presented€in€his€brief. Ñ H Ñ jÝ ƒ¤$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XPÙXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€also€note€that€the€defendant€called€as€a€witness€Ronald€Bret€Cass,Ð `  Ðwho€testified€that€he€was€a€good€friend€of€the€defendant€and€had€previouslyÐ F æ Ðrepresented€himself€under€similar€circumstances. rÝ ƒ¤$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XPÙXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ¸ àWe€would€characterize€what€occurred€at€the€pretrial€hearing€as€theÐ `  Ðtrial€court€facilitating€a€stipulation€between€the€parties€that€òòthe€accidentóó€occurredÐ F æ Ðin€the€Moose€Lodge€parking€lot. ñÝ ƒ¤$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XPÙXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔLatin€for€ð ðÔ‡ XPÙXXXPÙÔin€one's€own€person€or€rightÔ#†XPÙXX XPÙŽ#Ô.ðð Ý ƒ¤$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XPÙXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ XPÙXXXPÙÔRule€44(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€ProcedureÔ#†XPÙXX XPÙ€#Ô€requires€aÐ `  Ðwritten€waiver€of€the€defendantððs€right€to€counsel.€€Ô‡ XPÙXXXPÙÔAlthough€the€trial€courtÐ F æ Ðrequested€the€state€to€prepare€a€waiver,€the€record€before€us€does€not€contain€aÐ , Ì Ðwritten€waiver€of€the€defendantððs€right€to€counsel€signed€by€the€defendant.€€Ô#†XPÙXX XPÙQ#ÔÐ  ² ÐÌà ` àHowever,€we€note€that€the€defendant€has€stated€in€each€of€his€writtenÐ Þ ~ Ðmotions€that€he€was€appearing€òòin€propria€personaóó.€€We€find€that€this€assertion€ofÐ Äd Ðself„representation€is€sufficient€to€satisfy€the€written€waiver€requirement€becauseÐ ªJ Ðthese€motions€were€initiated€by€the€defendant€and€the€assertion€was€madeÐ 0 Ðrepeatedly.€€Additionally,€after€he€was€questioned€about€the€definition€of€òòinÐ v  Ðpropria€personaóó€by€the€trial€court,€the€defendant€began€using€the€term€ð ðòòpro€seóóðð€inÐ \ü  Ðhis€motions€and€court€filings. Ñ ° Ñ fÝ ƒ[½Ö"ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€AXPÙXXXÔÔ€Aâ+XAXPÙÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€AXPÙXAâ+ÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€30,€1999Ð ˜˜ ÐÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.Ð dd ÐAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAŠÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularZ[\]_Eþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3½Ö$¢¢Ý ƒ üœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý(.3½Ö$££Ý ƒ üœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó"""")ÿÿ!dxdxÝ ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[ì AØ'LegalXà3Ø' Letter  AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€ XPÙXXXÔÌÑ€Ñò òÑ€ÑÑ€ÑÑ€Ñßx€Y@_B2.jzÝÿÚ`  `€€@ÿE¥ ` ttx0ÝX ð ¨ xßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ F æ ÐÌ€à@ŽŽ(àAT€JACKSONˆÐ  ² ÐÌà@œœ$àAUGUST€1999€SESSIONó óˆÐ Þ ~ ÐÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h à€à À àà  àó ó)Ð v  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ \ü  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,à h àà À àà  à)C.C.A.€No.€W1998„00558„CCA„R3„CDÐ Bâ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð (È  Ðvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÔ_ÔHardinÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ®  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð ô”  Ðò òGREGORY€SCOTT€BATTLES,à À àó óà  à)à p àHon.€C.€Creed€Ô_ÔMcGinleyÔ_Ô,€Judge€ò òÐ Úz  Ðà ` àà ¸ àó óà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð À` Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àó óAppellant.à h àò òà À àà  àó ó)à p à(Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô,€Second€Offense)ò òÐ ¦F Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àó ó)à p àÐ Œ, Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌÌÌò òFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  àà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð $Ä ÐGREGORY€SCOTT€BATTLESó ó€(pro€se€at€trial)ò òà p àPAUL€G.€SUMMERSó óÐ  ª ÐP.O.€Box€1345à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ ð ÐSavannah,€TN€€38372Ð Öv Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òR.€STEPHEN€Ô_ÔJOBEÔ_Ôó óÐ ¼ \ Ðò òCHARLES€WATSON€CROSSó ó€(on€appeal)à p àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÐ ¢!B Ðò òó óAttorney€at€Lawò òà  àà h àà À àó óà  àà p à425€Fifth€Ave.€NorthÐ ˆ"( Ðò òó ó221€Fourth€Ave,€Northò òà h àó óà À àà  àà p à2d€Floor,€Ô_ÔCordellÔ_Ô€Hull€Bldg.Ð n# Ðò òó óNashville,€TN€€37219à h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð T$ô ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òG.€ROBERT€Ô_ÔRADFORDÔ_Ôà Ð àó óÐ  &À  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ '¦! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òJOHN€Ô_ÔOVERTONÔ_Ôó óÐ Ò(r# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ ¸)X $ Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àó óà À àà  àà p àP.O.€Box€484Ð ž*>!% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àSavannah,€TN€€38372Ð „+$"& ÐÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:________________Ð 0¢&+ ÐÌò òÌAFFIRMEDÐ ´2T). ÐÌJAMES€Ô_ÔCURWOODÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWITTÔ_Ô,€JR.,€JUDGEó óÐ  €4 +0 ÐÑÑâ âÑ8€[µXXdädÈ8Ñâ âÑ  Ñâ âÑÑÑ  ÑÑTR[ì AØ'Legal[ì AØ'Legal  AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÓ'X‚X¸ ˜Xÿÿ°œX'ÓÑ8€ PÙ XXdæXXdä8ÑÑ€†ÑÑ€† ÑÑ€9?TÑÑ€>OaÑà@qq*àò òòòOPINIONó óóóˆÐ `  ÐÓÓÌà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Gregory€Scott€Battles,€appeals€his€Hardin€CountyÐ  ² Ðconviction€and€the€resulting€sentence€by€the€trial€court.€€A€jury€convicted€theÐ Þ ~ Ðdefendant€of€DUI,€second€offense,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€€After€a€sentencingÐ ªJ Ðhearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days,€theÐ v  Ðfirst€six€months€to€be€served€in€confinement€and€the€remainder€on€probation.€€Also,Ð Bâ  Ðthe€trial€court€fined€the€defendant€$2000.€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendant€raises€theÐ ®  Ðfollowing€issues:׃8×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РÚz  ÐÓÓÌà8 ¸ à1.à0¸ x¸ xàwhether€the€indictment€was€sufficient;€ÐŒ,xx ÐÌà8 ¸ à2.à0¸ x¸ xàwhether€the€information€provided€in€lieu€of€a€billÐ Xø Ðof€particulars€should€have€limited€the€proofÐ >Þ Ðpermitted€at€trial;Ð$Äxx ÐÌà8 ¸ à3.à0¸ x¸ xàwhether€the€state€was€required€to€provide€namesÐ ð Ðof€all€persons€who€witnessed€the€incident;ÐÖvxx ÐÌà8 ¸ à4.à0¸ x¸ xàwhether€the€defendant€effectively€waived€hisÐ ¢!B Ðright€to€counsel;Ј"(xx ÐÌà8 ¸ à5.à0¸ x¸ xàwhether€the€evidence€resulting€from€theÐ T$ô Ðdefendantððs€warrantless€arrest€should€have€beenÐ :%Ú Ðsuppressed;Ð &À xx ÐÌà8 ¸ à6.à0¸ x¸ xàwhether€the€defendantððs€examination€of€aÐ ì'Œ" Ðwitness€was€improperly€limited€by€the€trial€court;ÐÒ(r#xx ÐÌà8 ¸ à7.à0¸ x¸ xàwhether€the€state€improperly€cross„examinedÐ ž*>!% Ðwitness€Cass;€Ð„+$"&xx ÐÌà8 ¸ à8.à0¸ x¸ xàwhether€the€trial€court€properly€charged€the€jury;Ð P-ð#( ÐandÐ6.Ö$)xx ÐÌà8 ¸ à9.à0¸ x¸ xàwhether€the€trial€court€improperly€sentenced€theÐ 0¢&+ Ðdefendant.Ðè0ˆ',xx ÐÌÓ5ÓAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€applicable€law,€weÐ ´2T). Ðaffirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.Ð €4 +0 Ðâ âÐ L6ì,2¾ Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€was€charged€with€DUI€after€the€Tennessee€HighwayÐ `  Ðâ âPatrol€investigated€an€accident€that€occurred€just€after€midnight€on€MondayÐ , Ì Ðmorning,€July€21,€1997.€€The€evening€before,€the€defendant€was€drinking€at€theÐ ø ˜ ÐMoose€Lodge€in€Savannah,€Tennessee.€€The€bartender€saw€the€defendant€leaveÐ Äd Ðthe€bar.€€When€she€heard€squealing€tires,€she€looked€in€the€closed€circuit€televisionÐ 0 Ðmonitor,€which€had€a€view€of€the€parking€lot.€€She€saw€the€defendantððs€truck€backÐ \ü  Ðinto€another€truck,€striking€it€on€the€left€side€and€pushing€it€eight€feet€to€the€side.€Ð (È  ÐShe€saw€the€defendant€drive€across€the€road.€€She€rushed€outside€and€saw€theÐ ô”  Ðdefendant€back€his€truck€into€the€parking€lot,€park€it,€and€get€out.€€The€owner€of€theÐ À` Ðtruck€that€was€hit€went€outside€and€confronted€the€defendant.€€Another€patron€of€theÐ Œ, Ðbar€called€the€police.Ð Xø ÐÌà ¸ àA€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€officer€was€dispatched€to€the€accidentÐ ð Ðscene.€€Because€he€could€not€respond€immediately,€he€requested€that€a€HardinÐ ¼ \ ÐCounty€deputy€sheriff€be€sent€to€the€accident€scene.€€After€the€THP€officer€arrived,Ð ˆ"( Ðhe€interviewed€the€bartender€and€the€owner€of€the€struck€vehicle.€€The€officerÐ T$ô Ðadministered€two€field€sobriety€tests€to€the€defendant€and€arrested€him€after€heÐ  &À  Ðfailed€both.€€The€first€test€required€the€defendant€to€recite€the€alphabet.€€AfterÐ ì'Œ" Ðmaking€it€half„way,€the€defendant€became€confused€and€could€not€complete€theÐ ¸)X $ Ðrecitation.€€The€second€test€was€a€heel„to„toe€test.€€The€defendant€could€notÐ „+$"& Ðmaintain€his€balance€as€he€walked€heel„to„toe€and€turned€around.€€Both€officersÐ P-ð#( Ðobserved€the€defendant€and€testified€that€he€appeared€intoxicated€because€heÐ /¼%* Ðslurred€his€speech€and€staggered€when€he€walked.Ð è0ˆ', ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€was€charged€with€DUI,€second€offense,€and€a€juryÐ €4 +0 Ðfound€him€guilty.€€He€was€fined€$2000€and€sentenced€to€eleven€months,€twenty„nineÐ L6ì,2 Ðdays.€The€trial€court€ordered€him€to€serve€six€months€in€jail€and€the€remainder€onÐ 8¸.4 Ðprobation.€Ð ä9„06 ЇÓÓò ò1.€à ¸ àSufficiency€of€the€Indictmentó óÐ `  ÐÓ€&ÓÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€indictment€was€not€sufficient€becauseÐ  ² Ðit€omitted€the€specific€location€of€the€offense€and,€therefore,€failed€to€inform€him€ofÐ Þ ~ Ðthe€nature€of€the€charge.€€He€also€asserts€that€it€omitted€the€word€ð ðgenerally,ðð€whichÐ ªJ Ðis€used€in€the€statute.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401(a)€(Supp.€1996).€€TheÐ v  Ðdefendant€also€asserts€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€trial€court€reading€theÐ Bâ  Ðindictment€to€the€jury.€€Ð ®  ÐÌà ¸ àð ðThe€indictment€need€not€be€specific€regarding€the€time€or€place€of€theÐ ¦F Ðoffense,€nor€need€it€demonstrate€facts€conferring€jurisdiction€as€long€as€such€factsÐ r Ðare€introduced€at€the€trial.ðð€òòState€v.€Sowderóó,€826€S.W.2d€924,€929€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð >Þ Ð1991)€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-13-207,€„208€and€„210).€€An€exception€to€thisÐ  ª Ðgeneral€rule€is€made€ð ðwhen€place€constitutes€a€material€element€of€the€crime.ðð€Ð Öv ÐòòState€v.€Furloughóó,€797€S.W.2d€631,€641€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)€(citations€omitted).Ð ¢!B ÐÌà ¸ àIn€the€case€at€bar,€an€essential€element€of€the€defendantððs€offense€isÐ :%Ú Ðthat€the€conduct€occur€ð ðon€any€of€the€public€roads€and€highways€of€the€state,€or€onÐ '¦! Ðany€streets€or€alleys,€or€while€on€the€premises€of€any€shopping€center,€trailer€parkÐ Ò(r# Ðor€any€apartment€house€complex,€or€any€other€premises€which€is€generallyÐ ž*>!% Ðfrequented€by€the€public€at€large.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55-10-401(a)€(Supp.€1996).€Ð j, #' ÐThe€indictment€charges€the€defendant€with€conduct€occurring€ð ðalong,€over€and€uponÐ 6.Ö$) Ða€public€street,€road,€highway€or€public€thoroughfare€on€or€upon€premisesÐ 0¢&+ Ðfrequented€by€the€public€at€large.ððÐ Î1n(- ÐÌà ¸ àWe€conclude€that€the€indictment€was€sufficient€regarding€the€locationÐ f5,1 Ðof€the€offense.€€Location€is€an€essential€element€of€the€offense,€but€the€indictmentÐ 27Ò-3 Ðalleged€a€location€specific€enough€to€show€a€violation€of€the€statute.€€Also,€anÐ þ8ž/5 Ðindictment€is€sufficient€if€it€references€the€appropriate€statute€and€also€meets€theÐ `  Ðrequirements€of€Code€section€40„13„202.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€988€S.W.2d€145,€149Ð , Ì Ð(Tenn.€1999)€(citing€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€954€S.W.2d€725,€726-27€(Tenn.€1997)).€Ð ø ˜ ÐIndictments€must€ð ðstate€the€facts€constituting€the€offense€in€ordinary€and€conciseÐ Äd Ðlanguage,€without€prolixity€or€repetition,€in€such€a€manner€as€to€enable€a€person€ofÐ 0 Ðcommon€understanding€to€know€what€is€intended.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40-13-202Ð \ü  Ð(1997).€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€indictment€met€this€standard.€€The€omission€of€theÐ (È  Ðword€ð ðgenerallyðð€did€not€render€the€indictment€insufficient€because€the€indictmentÐ ô”  Ðdescribed€where€the€offense€occurred€using€ð ðordinary€and€concise€languageðð€andÐ À` Ðit€referenced€the€statute€allegedly€violated.Ð Œ, ÐÌà ¸ àFinally,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€read€the€indictmentÐ $Ä Ðto€the€jury.€€The€record€does€not€support€the€defendantððs€contention€that€the€trialÐ ð Ðcourt€read€the€indictment€to€the€jury.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ¼ \ ÐÌÓÓò ò2.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€information€provided€in€lieu€of€a€bill€of€particularsÐ T$ô Ðshould€have€limited€the€proof€permitted€at€trial.€ó óÐ:%Ú¸ (#¸ (# ÐÓ*5ÓÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€in€response€to€his€request€for€a€bill€ofÐ ì'Œ" Ðparticulars,€the€trial€court€ð ðlimitedðð€the€offense€to€the€defendantððs€driving€in€theÐ ¸)X $ ÐMoose€Lodge€parking€lot.€€He€argues€that€it€was€unfair€surprise€for€the€state€to€offerÐ „+$"& Ðproof€that€he€drove€on€a€public€road.€€He€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÐ P-ð#( Ðdeclared€a€mistrial.€€The€state€responds€that€the€defendant€waived€this€issue€by€notÐ /¼%* Ðmaking€a€contemporaneous€objection.€€Regardless,€the€state€argues€that€the€stateÐ è0ˆ', Ðis€not€required€to€provide€the€defendant€with€its€theory€of€the€case,€and€the€state€isÐ ´2T). Ðnot€limited€to€proving€only€matters€identified€in€the€bill€of€particulars.€€Further,€theÐ €4 +0 Ðstate€contends€that€there€was€no€unfair€surprise€because€the€indictment€charged€theÐ L6ì,2 Ðdefendant€with€driving€upon€a€public€road.Ð 8¸.4 ÐÐ ä9„06 Ðò òó óà ¸ àAt€the€pretrial€hearing€in€this€case,€the€defendant€moved€for€a€bill€ofÐ `  Ðparticulars.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€and€found€that€the€indictment,€inÐ , Ì Ðcombination€with€the€€warrant,€adequately€advised€the€defendant€of€the€nature€ofÐ ø ˜ Ðthe€charge.€€Before€making€this€ruling,€the€following€occurred:Ð Äd ÐÓÓÌà8 ¸ à[DEFENDANT]:€As€this€stands,€I€stand€open€to€surpriseÐ v  Ðhere.€€My€indictment€doesnððt€even€say€where€thisÐ \ü  Ðoccurred€at.€€I€may€have€to€ð!ðÐBâ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€I€said€that€reference€ð!ð€reference€to€theÐ ®  Ðword,€I€just€now€addressed€that.€€It€shows€quite€clearlyÐ ô”  Ðitððs€alleged€to€have€occurred€on€July€21st,€alleged€toÐ Úz  Ðhave€occurred€in€Hardin€County,€more€specifically€onÐ À` Ðthe€parking€lot€of€an€area€known€as€the€Moose€Lodge€isÐ ¦F Ðwhat€the€warrant€referred.ÐŒ,¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDo€you€feel€that€that€is€inadequate€to€inform€you€of€yourÐ Xø Ðcharges,€that€youððre€charged€of€driving€under€theÐ >Þ Ðinfluence€òòafter€an€accident€that€occurred€on€the€lot€ofÐ $Ä Ðthe€Moose€Clubóó?Ð ª¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à[DEFENDANT]:€We€are€in€agreement€that€it€occurred€onÐ Öv Ðthe€parking€lot€of€the€Moose€lot.€€(Emphasis€added.)м \¸ x¸ x ÐÓ¥;Óò òÌà ¸ àó óThe€defendant€complains€that€the€location€of€the€offense€contained€inÐ n# Ðthe€indictment€was€ð ðlimitedðð€by€the€trial€court׃;×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€in€response€to€his€request€for€a€bill€ofÐ :%Ú Ðparticulars.€€He€alleges€that€it€was€improper€to€present€evidence€that€was€outsideÐ '¦! Ðof€the€indictment€as€limited.€€ò òà À àà  àÐ Ò(r# ÐÌó óà ¸ àò òó óVicki€Hunt€testified€at€trial.€€She€was€a€bartender€at€the€Moose€LodgeÐ j, #' Ðand€witnessed€the€accident.€€While€watching€a€monitor€which€showed€the€MooseÐ 6.Ö$) ÐLodge€parking€lot,€she€saw€the€defendantððs€truck€strike€the€other€truck€in€the€parkingÐ 0¢&+ Ðlot€and€then€saw€that€he€ð ðpulled€out€across€the€road.ðð€€She€said€that€she€wentÐ Î1n(- Ðâ âoutside€and€saw€the€defendantððs€truck€stopped€on€the€other€side€of€the€county€roadÐ š3:*/ Ðon€which€the€lodge€is€located.€€She€stated€that€he€then€backed€into€the€parking€lotÐ `  Ðand€parked€his€truck.€€The€defendant€did€not€object€during€this€testimony.€€Ð , Ì Ðâ âÌà ¸ àAfter€the€state€rested,€the€defendant€moved€for€a€mistrial.€€He€statedÐ Äd Ðthat€it€was€surprise€for€the€state€to€offer€testimony€showing€that€the€offense€occurredÐ 0 Ðsomewhere€other€than€the€parking€lot€of€the€Moose€Lodge.€€He€relied€on€theÐ \ü  Ðstatements€made€during€the€pretrial€hearing€describing€the€offense€as€occurring€inÐ (È  Ðthe€parking€lot.€€The€defendant€complained€that€he€was€ð ðtold€nothing€about€anotherÐ ô”  Ðroad€in€my€discovery.ðð€€The€defendant€stated€that€he€needed€to€call€other€witnessesÐ À` Ðnow€that€the€state€has€presented€evidence€showing€the€offense€occurred€off€theÐ Œ, Ðparking€lot;€however,€the€defendant€did€not€request€a€recess.€€The€trial€court€deniedÐ Xø Ðthe€motion€for€a€mistrial.€€Ð $Ä ÐÌà ¸ àThe€primary€purpose€of€a€bill€of€particulars€is€to€provide€the€defendantÐ ¼ \ Ðwith€information€about€the€details€of€the€charge,€if€necessary€to€the€preparation€ofÐ ˆ"( Ðhis€defense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Speckóó,€944€S.W.2d€598,€600€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,Ð T$ô Ð820€S.W.2d€739,€741€(Tenn.€1991).€It€also€serves€to€avoid€prejudicial€surprise€andÐ  &À  Ðto€enable€the€defendant€to€preserve€a€plea€against€double€jeopardy.€òòByrdóó,€820Ð ì'Œ" ÐS.W.2d€at€741.€òò€See€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€666€S.W.2d€54,€56€(Tenn.€1984).€€A€bill€ofÐ ¸)X $ Ðparticulars€is€not,€however,€a€discovery€device;€it€is€limited€to€information€aÐ „+$"& Ðdefendant€needs€to€prepare€a€defense€to€the€charges.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€7(c)Ð P-ð#( Ð(Advisory€Commission€Comments).Ð /¼%* ÐÌà ¸ àFirst,€we€cannot€say€that€the€defendant€failed€to€make€a€timelyÐ ´2T). Ðobjection€to€the€allegedly€surprising€testimony.€€Although€the€defendant€did€notÐ €4 +0 Ðobject€to€the€introduction€of€the€testimony€at€the€time€it€was€first€introduced,€heÐ L6ì,2 Ðraised€the€issue€after€the€witness€testified€and€the€state€rested€its€case€and€againÐ 8¸.4 Ðin€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tony€Murphy€McKinneyóó,€No.Ð ä9„06 Ð03C01-9709-CR-00392,€slip€op.,€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Sept.€14,€1998)Ð `  Ð(finding€objection€was€not€untimely€when€defendant€brought€the€matter€to€theÐ , Ì Ðattention€of€the€trial€court€within€a€very€brief€period€of€time).€€Ð ø ˜ ÐÌà ¸ àOur€supreme€court€has€said,€ð ðThe€state€may€not€press€theirÐ 0 Ðprosecution€on€a€theory€upon€which€the€defendant€has€not€been€informed€or€hasÐ \ü  Ðbeen€misled.ðð€òòState€v.€Wilcoxonóó,€772€S.W.2d€33,€39€(Tenn.€1989).€€However,€in€theÐ (È  Ðpresent€case,€we€conclude€that€the€defendant€was€neither€misled€nor€misinformedÐ ô”  Ðabout€a€theory€of€the€prosecution.€€The€indictment€encompassed€driving€under€theÐ À` Ðinfluence€both€on€private€property€frequented€by€the€public€and€on€a€public€road.€Ð Œ, ÐThe€ð ðstipulationðð€fostered€by€the€trial€court€indicated€that€the€òòcollisionóó€occurred€in€theÐ Xø ÐMoose€Lodge€parking€lot€but€that€the€DUI€offense€occurred€òòafteróóthe€collision.€€TheÐ $Ä Ðtrial€court€did€not€recite€that€the€DUI€offense€was€committed€prior€to€or€during€theÐ ð Ðcollision€and€did€not€recite€that€the€offense€occurred€in€the€parking€lot.Ð ¼ \ ÐÌà ¸ àEssentially,€the€stateððs€theory€of€the€case€was€that,€as€a€continuingÐ T$ô Ðoffense,€the€defendant€drove€while€under€the€influence€in€a€place€frequented€by€theÐ  &À  Ðpublic€and€on€a€public€road.€Although€the€substance€of€some€of€Huntððs€testimonyÐ ì'Œ" Ðmay€have€been€surprising€to€the€defendant,€he€was€not€misled€or€misinformed€asÐ ¸)X $ Ðto€any€theory.€€Surprise€resulting€from€unanticipated€aspects€of€a€witnessððsÐ „+$"& Ðtestimony€is€a€risk€born€by€the€litigants€in€any€trial,€especially€in€criminal€proceedingsÐ P-ð#( Ðwhere€discovery€depositions€or€interrogatories€are€not€used.€€Moreover,€the€stateÐ /¼%* Ðis€afforded€the€opportunity€to€prove€its€case.€€As€an€aside,€we€note€that,€in€the€lightÐ è0ˆ', Ðmost€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€supports€a€finding€that,€while€intoxicated,Ð ´2T). Ðthe€defendant€drove€on€a€public€road,€that€he€also€drove€on€private€property,€andÐ €4 +0 Ðthat€members€of€the€public€frequented€the€parking€lot€on€private€property.Ð L6ì,2 Ðâ âÐ 8¸.4 Ðц Ñâ âÑTR[ì AØ'ÿ Legal[ì AØ'Legal  AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ âÑ  Ñà ¸ àWe€find€no€error€in€either€the€trial€courtððs€proceeding€on€this€issue€orÐ `  Ðâ âthe€failure€to€grant€a€mistrial.Ð , Ì ÐÌò òÓÓ3.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€state€was€required€to€provide€names€of€all€personsÐ Äd Ðwho€witnessed€the€incident€ó óЪJ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÓûYÓÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€state€withheld€the€names€of€personsÐ \ü  Ðwho€had€knowledge€of€the€offense€or€were€witnesses€to€it.€€He€contends€that€theÐ (È  Ðstate€should€have€disclosed€the€name€of€the€person€who€reported€the€accident€toÐ ô”  Ðthe€police€and€the€names€of€all€those€who€were€at€the€scene.€€The€defendant€arguesÐ À` Ðthat€the€state€was€required€to€provide€the€names€after€he€filed€his€Rule€16€discoveryÐ Œ, Ðmotion.€€He€admits€that€the€state€did€not€call€as€a€witness€the€person€who€reportedÐ Xø Ðthe€accident.€€The€state€responds€that€it€was€not€required€to€investigate€and€informÐ $Ä Ðthe€defendant€of€all€potential€witnesses€to€the€offense.€€The€state€contends€that€itÐ ð Ðcomplied€with€Rule€16€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.Ð ¼ \ ÐÌà ¸ àAt€the€pretrial€hearing€the€defendant€requested€disclosure€of€the€nameÐ T$ô Ðof€the€person€whom€the€state€identified€only€as€the€record€keeper€of€the€MooseÐ  &À  ÐLodge.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€state€was€not€required€to€investigate€andÐ ì'Œ" Ðprovide€the€name€of€the€custodian€of€the€Moose€Lodge€records.Ð ¸)X $ ÐÌà ¸ àAt€trial,€the€defendant€introduced€the€highway€patrolððs€accident€report,Ð P-ð#( Ðwhich€showed€that€the€portion€for€listing€witnesses€to€the€accident€had€not€beenÐ /¼%* Ðcompleted.€€Sergeant€Tony€Scott€of€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€testified€thatÐ è0ˆ', Ðcompletion€of€the€witness€portion€of€the€accident€report€was€not€required.Ð ´2T). ÐÌà ¸ àThere€is€no€general€constitutional€right€to€discovery€in€a€criminal€case.€Ð L6ì,2 ÐòòSeeóó€òòPennsylvania€v.€Richieóó,€480€U.S.€39,€107€S.€Ct.€989€(1987);€òòWeatherford€v.Ð 8¸.4 ÐBurseyóó,€429€U.S.€545,€97€S.€Ct.€837€(1977).€€The€state€is€not€obliged€to€make€anÐ ä9„06 Ðinvestigation€or€to€gather€evidence€for€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Reynoldsóó,€671Ð `  ÐS.W.2d€854,€856€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€The€discovery€rules€do€not€requireÐ , Ì Ðdisclosure€of€information€not€known€by€the€state.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a).€€Rule€16Ð ø ˜ Ðpermits€the€defendant€to€discover€any€statements€made€by€him,€his€prior€record,Ð Äd Ðdocuments€and€tangible€objects,€and€reports€of€tests€and€examinations,€but€only€toÐ 0 Ðthe€extent€that€the€information€is€in€the€ð ðpossession,€custody€or€control€of€the€state.ðð€Ð \ü  ÐòòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€634€S.W.2d€639€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982)€(Rule€16Ð (È  Ðdoes€not€provide€for€the€discovery€of€prosecution€witnesses).Ð ô”  ÐÌà ¸ àAlso,€Code€section€40„17„106€directs€the€district€attorney€general€toÐ Œ, Ðidentify€on€the€indictment€witnesses€intended€to€be€called€at€trial.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð Xø Ððð€40„17„106€(1997);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€69€(Tenn.€1992)Ð $Ä Ð(provisions€of€ðð40-17-106€are€directory€only€and€do€not€necessarily€disqualify€aÐ ð Ðwitness€whose€name€does€not€appear€in€the€indictment€from€testifying).€òòóó€However,Ð ¼ \ Ðthe€defendant€is€not€complaining€that€the€undisclosed€persons€testified€at€the€trial.Ð ˆ"( ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€reliance€upon€discovery€to€provide€him€with€theÐ  &À  Ðnames€of€witnesses€to€the€offense€is€misplaced.€€The€defendant€does€not€claim€thatÐ ì'Œ" Ðthe€witnesses€had€exculpatory€information€which€would€implicate€a€òòBradyóó€violation.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р¸)X $ ÐRather,€the€defendant€desired€that€the€state€perform€his€investigative€work€andÐ „+$"& Ðreport€its€findings€to€him.€€He€has€demonstrated€neither€his€entitlement€to€thisÐ P-ð#( Ðinformation€nor€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€not€receiving€it.€€Accordingly,€this€issueÐ /¼%* Ðis€without€merit.Ð è0ˆ', Їò òÓÓ4.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€defendant€effectively€waived€his€right€to€counseló óÐ` ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÓTkÓÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€claims€that€he€did€not€validly€waive€his€right€to€counselÐ  ² Ðbecause€the€trial€court€did€not€properly€investigate€whether€his€waiver€wasÐ Þ ~ Ðintelligently€given.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€informed€him€of€theÐ ªJ Ðpotential€fines€and€sentences€that€could€have€been€imposed.€€Also,€he€contendsÐ v  Ðthat€the€trial€court€never€inquired€into€his€education,€background,€or€experience.€Ð Bâ  ÐThe€state€responds€that€the€defendantððs€waiver€was€timely€asserted€and€was€clearÐ ®  Ðand€unequivocal.€€The€state€contends€that€although€the€trial€court€did€not€explicitlyÐ Úz  Ðfollow€a€litany€of€questioning,€the€trial€court€did€thoroughly€question€and€admonishÐ ¦F Ðthe€defendant€in€making€its€determination€that€the€waiver€was€made€knowingly€andÐ r Ðintelligently.Ð >Þ ÐÌò òó óà ¸ àAt€the€defendantððs€arraignment€after€the€defendant€indicated€that€heÐ Öv Ðhad€secured€counsel€that€was€not€a€licensed€attorney,€the€trial€court€gave€theÐ ¢!B Ðdefendant€three€options:Ð n# ÐÓÓà8 ¸ à(1)€You€can€secure€legal€counsel,€which€the€definitionÐ :%Ú Ðfor€is€an€attorney€licensed€to€practice€in€this€state€ofÐ  &À  ÐTennessee€or€one€that€is€licensed€in€another€state€thatÐ '¦! Ðcomplies€with€our€supreme€court€rules€that€allows€themÐ ì'Œ" Ðto€practice€on€a€particular€case€in€this€state.€€ThatððsÐ Ò(r# Ðnumber€1.и)X $¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(2)€You€are€permitted€by€our€United€States€ConstitutionÐ „+$"& Ðto€represent€yourself€ð!ð€a€right€of€self„representation.€€IfÐ j, #' Ðyou€desire,€the€Court€will€certainly€allow€you€to€do€that.€Ð P-ð#( ÐI€do€not€encourage€it€because€there€are€many€pitfalls€forÐ 6.Ö$) Ðpeople€that€are€not€trained€in€the€law.€They€can€readÐ /¼%* Ðcertain€things€and€get€erroneous€ideas;€okay?€€But€you,Ð 0¢&+ Ðif€you€wish€to,€will€be€allowed€to€represent€yourself.€Ð è0ˆ', ÐThatððs€self„representation.ÐÎ1n(-¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(3)€The€third€possibility€is€ð!ð€Iððve€got€the€Public€Defender.€Ð š3:*/ ÐHeððs€actually€in€the€courtroom€at€this€time.€€If€you€wishÐ €4 +0 Ðto€confer€with€him,€if€you€qualify€ð!ð€that€means€if€youððreÐ f5,1 Ðunable€to€afford€an€attorney€ð!ð€then€I€will€appoint€theÐ L6ì,2 ÐPublic€Defender€to€represent€you€throughout€everyÐ 27Ò-3 Ðstage€of€this€action.Ð8¸.4¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓ¨pÓÐ ä9„06 Ðц Ñâ âÑTR[ì AØ'ÿ Legal[ì AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ âÑ  Ñà ¸ àThe€defendant€responded€that€he€was€ð ðappearing€today€òòin€propriaÐ `  Ðpersonaóó.ðð׃<×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€When€asked€what€the€Latin€words€meant,€the€defendant€did€not€know.€Ð , Ì ÐThe€following€colloquy€ensued:Ð ø ˜ ÐÓÓà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€Iððm€here€to€represent€myself€with€theÐ Äd Ðassistance€of€counsel€of€choice.€€Iððm€not€asking€forÐ ªJ Ðanybody€to€represent€me.Ð0¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Are€you€insisting€that€you€be€allowed€toÐ \ü  Ðrepresent€yourself€in€a€legal€capacity?ÐBâ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€With€the€assistance€of€counsel.Ю ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€All€right.€€Is€this€counsel€of€choiceÐ Úz  Ðsomeone€that€is€licensed€to€practice€in€the€state€ofÐ À` ÐTennessee?ЦF¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€No.Ðr¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Then€they€will€not€be€allowed€to€legallyÐ >Þ Ðrepresent€you.€€As€a€matter€of€fact,€they€would€beÐ $Ä Ðsubject€to€criminal€prosecution€if€they€did€so.€€Do€youÐ  ª Ðunderstand€this?Ðð¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€Would€you€repeat€the€question€so€I€canÐ ¼ \ Ðmake€sure€I€understand€„„Т!B¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€If€it€is€not€a€licensed€attorney€ð!ð€If€they€areÐ n# Ðgiving€you€legal€advice,€then€they€are,€in€all€likelihood,Ð T$ô Ðviolating€our€criminal€law.€€Do€you€expect€me€to€engageÐ :%Ú Ðin€a€process€that€would€allow€someone€to€violate€ð!ð€orÐ  &À  Ðwould€encourage€someone€to€violate€the€criminal€laws?Ð'¦!¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€Iððm€not€asking€for€anybody€to€representÐ Ò(r# Ðme.и)X $¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Okay.Є+$"&¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€Iððm€asking€for€help€to€hand€me€papers€toÐ P-ð#( Ðkeep€my€papers€in€order€ð!ð€not€to€speak€for€me.Ð6.Ö$)¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€All€right.Ð0¢&+¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€To€assist€to€help€me.ÐÎ1n(-¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€I€wouldnððt€have€any€objection€to€that.€€ButÐ š3:*/ Ðthey€will€not€be€seated€at€counsel€table€unless€they€areÐ €4 +0 Ða€relative.€€Sometimes€I€do€that€if€itððs€a€relative€or€aÐ f5,1 Ðâ âparalegal€or€a€licensed€lawyer.€€But€this€person€is€notÐ L6ì,2 Ðallowed€to€give€you€legal€advice;€do€you€understandÐ `  Ðthat?ÐF æ¸ x¸ x Ðâ âÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€Yes.Ð ²¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Okay.ÐÞ ~¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€They€are€not€allowed€to€give€me€legalÐ ªJ Ðadvice.Ð0¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Are€you€asking€for€a€court€appointedÐ \ü  Ðattorney?ÐBâ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€No.Ю ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Are€you€waiving€your€right€to€an€attorney?ÐÚz ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€Iððm€not€waiving€my€right€to€counsel.ЦF¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Are€you€waiving€your€right€to€a€licensedÐ r Ðattorney€representing€you?ÐXø¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€(No€response.)Ð$ĸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Iððm€not€playing€games€with€you.€€In€otherÐ ð Ðwords,€Iððm€not€trying€to€trick€you.€€But€for€the€purpose€ofÐ Öv Ðthe€integrity€of€the€legal€process,€Iððm€not€going€to€allowÐ ¼ \ Ðsomeone€to€come€in€here€and€masquerade€as€anÐ ¢!B Ðattorney€when€theyððre€not€licensed€to€do€so.€€If€you€wantÐ ˆ"( Ðan€attorney€to€represent€you€and€youððre€unable€to€affordÐ n# Ðan€attorney,€I€will€appoint€one€to€represent€you.€€ItððsÐ T$ô Ðpretty€simple.Ð:%Ú¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€I€do€not€wish€to€have€anybody€representÐ '¦! Ðme,€but€„„Ðì'Œ"¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Are€you€insisting€on€your€constitutionalÐ ¸)X $ Ðright€of€self„representation?О*>!%¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€With€the€assistance€of€counsel.Ðj, #'¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€All€right.€€Let€the€record€reflect€ð!ð€Do€weÐ 6.Ö$) Ðhave€a€form€for€a€waiver€of€counsel?Ð/¼%*¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à[PROSECUTOR]:€I€donððt€have€one€in€here.Ðè0ˆ',¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€All€right.€€If€youððll€prepare€one.€€Just€showÐ ´2T). Ðthat€in€open€court€he€has€waived€his€right€to€theÐ š3:*/ Ðappointment€of€a€licensed€attorney€to€represent€him€andÐ €4 +0 Ðis€insisting€upon€his€right€of€self„representation.Ðf5,1¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€I€object€to€that.€€I€waive€no€right€at€noÐ 27Ò-3 Ðtime€including€my€right€to€„„Ð8¸.4¸ x¸ x Ðâ âÐ þ8ž/5 Ðà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€[PUBLIC€DEFENDER],€you€will€beÐ `  Ðâ âappointed€to€assist€as€elbow„counsel.ÐF æ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDo€you€see€this€gentleman€back€there?Ð ²¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€I€object€to€that.ÐÞ ~¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Heððs€just€going€to€be€in€the€courtroom.€€IfÐ ªJ Ðyou€wish€to€consult€with€him€at€any€time,€you€may€doÐ 0 Ðso.€€Do€you€object€to€that?Ðv ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€Well,€I€object€to€him€even€being€in€theÐ Bâ  Ðcourtroom.Ð(È ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€All€right€then.€[PUBLIC€DEFENDER],€youÐ ô”  Ðwonððt€be€representing€him.€€You€wonððt€even€be€elbow„Ð Úz  Ðcounsel.€€Heððs€waived€his€right€here€in€open€court.ÐÀ`¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€I€object.€€Iððve€not€waived€„„ÐŒ,¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€You€have€by€your€statements;€okay?€€AllÐ Xø Ðright.€€Are€you€ready€to€proceed€with€this€matter?Ð>Þ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€Letððs€proceed.Ð ª¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓ´yÓThe€defendant€was€then€arraigned€for€the€offense€of€driving€under€the€influence.€Ð Öv ÐAt€the€pretrial€hearing,€the€following€colloquy€ensued:Ð ¢!B ÐÓÓà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€This€case,€Mr.€Battles,€youððreÐ n# Ðrepresenting€yourself.€€Earlier€I€offered€to€appoint€theÐ T$ô Ðpublic€defenderððs€office.€€You€specifically€rejected€theÐ :%Ú Ðoffer€of€that€appointment;€however,€Iððm€going€to€ask€thatÐ  &À  Ð[PUBLIC€DEFENDER]€remain€present€during€any€ofÐ '¦! Ðyour€proceedings€so€that€if€any€time€you€wish€to€conferÐ ì'Œ" Ðwith€counsel,€you€may€confer€with€him,€okay?ÐÒ(r#¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àI€mean,€youððve€got€a€constitutional€right€to€representÐ ž*>!% Ðyourself,€which€you€have€indicated€you€intend€toÐ „+$"& Ðexercise,€which€is€fine,€but€I€do€want€you€to€know€thatÐ j, #' Ðshould€you€feel€the€need,€[PUBLIC€DEFENDER]€will€beÐ P-ð#( Ðpresent.€€He€is€the€public€defender€in€this€district,€andÐ 6.Ö$) Ðyou€may€consult€with€him€if€you€wish€or€desire,€okay?Ð/¼%*¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€Well,€Iððm€appearing€here€òòin€propriaÐ è0ˆ', Ðpersonaóó,€and€I€do€have€counsel€of€choice€here.ÐÎ1n(-¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à.€.€.К3:*/¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€Iððm€not€asking€for€anybody€to€representÐ f5,1 Ðme.ÐL6ì,2¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Okay.Ð8¸.4¸ x¸ x Ðâ âÐ þ8ž/5 Ðà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€Iððm€just€asking€for€my€6th€amendmentÐ `  Ðâ âright€to€counsel€of€choice€to€assist€me.ÐF æ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Iððve€dealt€with€this€before.€€I€donððt€knowÐ  ² Ðwhat€else€to€say€on€that.€€Iððm€not€going€to€allowÐ ø ˜ Ðsomeone€who€is€not€a€lawyer€to€sit€up€there€and€adviseÐ Þ ~ Ðyou€on€legal€matters.ÐÄd¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€So€are€you€denying€me€my€6thÐ 0 Ðamendment€right€to€counsel€of€choice?Ðv ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Iððm€not€denying€your€6th€amendmentÐ Bâ  Ðright.€€Iððm€denying€you€what€you€referred€to€as€counselÐ (È  Ðof€choice€who€is€an€unlicensed€person€to€sit€at€the€tableÐ ®  Ðwith€you€and€assist€you.Ðô” ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àYou€can€confer€during€these€proceedings,€anyone€thatððsÐ À` Ðin€the€public€courtroom.€€You€can€talk€with€anybody€youÐ ¦F Ðwant€to,€but€if€they€give€you€legal€advice,€theyððreÐ Œ, Ðbreaking€the€law.Ðr¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€They€wouldnððt€be€giving€me€legal€advice,Ð >Þ Ðjust€to€help€me€take€notes€and€keep€my€papers€in€order.€Ð $Ä ÐThis€person€is€my€godmother.€€She€has€been€everyÐ  ª Ðsince€my€mother€passed€away.Ðð¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àTHE€COURT:€And€you€are€asking€that€they€do€what?€Ð ¼ \ ÐI€donððt€understand.Т!B¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENDANT:€Just€assist€me,€be€my€counsel€of€choice,Ð n# Ðtake€notes€and€help€keep€my€papers€in€order.ÐT$ô¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓß’ÓÌà ¸ àAfter€this€exchange,€the€trial€court€permitted€the€defendantððsÐ ì'Œ" Ðgodmother€to€assist€him€with€his€papers€and€notes,€and€the€defendant€presentedÐ ¸)X $ Ðseveral€motions€and€examined€several€witnesses.Ð „+$"& ÐÌò òó óà ¸ àThe€right€to€assistance€of€counsel€in€the€preparation€and€presentationÐ /¼%* Ðof€a€defense€to€a€criminal€charge€is€grounded€in€both€the€Tennessee€and€the€UnitedÐ è0ˆ', ÐStates€Constitutions.€€Tenn.€Const.€art.€1,€ðð€9;€U.S.€Const.€amend.€VI.€€Conversely,Ð ´2T). Ðthere€also€exists€an€alternative€right€--€the€right€to€self-representation€--€which€isÐ €4 +0 Ðfounded€on€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€òòSeeóó€òòFaretta€v.€Californiaóó,€422€U.S.€806,€819,€95Ð L6ì,2 Ðâ âS.€Ct.€2525,€2533€(1975);€òòState€v.€Smallóó,€988€S.W.2d€671,€673€(Tenn.€1999)€(citingÐ 8¸.4 ÐòòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€359€(Tenn.1982));€òòState€v.€Northingtonóó,€667Ð `  ÐS.W.2d€57€(Tenn.€1984).Ð , Ì Ðâ âÌà ¸ àThere€are€three€pre-conditions€which€must€be€satisfied€before€aÐ Äd Ðdefendant's€right€to€self-representation€becomes€absolute.€€"First,€the€accused€mustÐ 0 Ðassert€the€right€to€self-representation€timely.€€Second,€the€accused's€request€mustÐ \ü  Ðbe€clear€and€unequivocal.€€Third,€the€accused€must€knowingly€and€intelligentlyÐ (È  Ðwaive€the€right€to€the€assistance€of€counsel."€€òòState€v.€Herrodóó,€754€S.W.2d€627,Ð ô”  Ð629-30€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)€(citations€omitted).׃=×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À` ÐÌà ¸ àWith€respect€to€the€first€pre„condition,€we€conclude€that€the€defendantÐ Xø Ðtimely€moved€to€assert€his€right€to€self„representation.€€The€issue€was€first€raisedÐ $Ä Ðduring€his€arraignment€and€again€at€his€pretrial€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mark€Bodineóó,Ð ð ÐNo.€03C01-9111-CR-368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€March€25,€1994)€(a€validÐ ¼ \ Ðwaiver€must€be€made€prior€to€trial€or€not€at€all).€€The€second€pre„condition€is€alsoÐ ˆ"( Ðsatisfied.€€The€defendant,€although€confusing€in€his€use€of€the€term€ð ðcounsel,ðð€wasÐ T$ô Ðvery€clear€and€unequivocal€in€stating€that€he€wished€to€represent€himself€and€did€notÐ  &À  Ðwant€a€licensed€attorney€to€represent€him.Ð ì'Œ" ÐÌà ¸ àIt€is€the€third€pre„condition€which€proves€the€most€difficult€to€determine,Ð „+$"& Ðwhether€the€waiver€was€made€knowingly€and€intelligently.€€Although€the€defendantÐ P-ð#( Ðpersisted€in€using€his€own,€incorrect,€definition€of€ð ðcounsel,ðð€he€was€adamant€thatÐ `  Ðhe€wanted€to€represent€himself.€€The€trial€court€admonished€the€defendant€that€heÐ , Ì Ðwas€getting€some€bad€advice,€based€upon€the€defendantððs€misuse€of€legalÐ ø ˜ Ðterminology.€€The€trial€court€noted€on€the€record€that€the€person€the€defendantÐ Äd Ðwanted€as€ð ðcounsel€of€choiceðð€had€previously€aided€and€participated€in€cases€of€aÐ 0 Ðsimilar€nature€where€defendants€had€represented€themselves.׃:×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð \ü  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€attempted€to€dissuade€the€defendant€from€representingÐ ô”  Ðhimself€and€offered€to€provide€a€public€defender€for€the€defendant,€to€which€theÐ À` Ðdefendant€objected.€€The€defendant€objected€to€the€public€defenderððs€mereÐ Œ, Ðpresence€in€the€courtroom.€€The€trial€court€told€the€defendant,€ð ðyouððre€on€your€own.ðð€Ð Xø ÐWhen€the€trial€court€explored€whether€the€defendant€understood€the€nature€of€theÐ $Ä Ðcharges€against€him,€the€defendant€said€that€he€did€not€understand,€but€then€heÐ ð Ðbegan€arguing€to€the€court€that€the€charge€did€not€apply€to€him.€€His€argumentÐ ¼ \ Ðbelied€his€contention€that€he€did€not€understand€the€charge€against€him.€Ð ˆ"( ÐÌà ¸ àAdditionally,€we€note€that€the€defendant€cited€numerous€authorities€inÐ  &À  Ðhis€arguments€before€the€trial€court,€although€his€legal€reasoning€left€much€to€beÐ ì'Œ" Ðdesired.€€€The€defendantððs€effort€at€self„representation,€as€admirable€as€it€wasÐ ¸)X $ Ðineffective,€serves€to€validate€the€trial€courtððs€decision€that€the€defendant€made€aÐ „+$"& Ðknowing€decision€to€represent€himself.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Franklinóó,€714€S.W.2d€252,€261Ð P-ð#( Ð(Tenn.€1986)€(ð ðAlthough€a€defendant's€actual€òòpro€seóó€trial€performance€itself€is€notÐ /¼%* Ðrelevant€to€determining€the€competency€of€a€waiver€of€counsel,€his€personal€conductÐ è0ˆ', Ðâ âduring€trial€is€relevant€to€the€judge's€determination€that€a€defendant€.€.€.€ððis€makingÐ ´2T). Ða€knowing€decision€on€his€partðð€to€participate€in€his€defense.ðð)€(citing€òòState€v.Ð `  ÐNorthingtonóó,€667€S.W.2d€57,€61€(Tenn.1984)).Ð , Ì Ðâ âÌà ¸ àAfter€a€full€review€of€the€record€we€can€only€conclude€that€theÐ Äd Ðdefendant€employed€the€tactics€described€in€a€deliberate€effort€to€induce€and€causeÐ 0 Ðreversible€error.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Chadwickóó,€224€Tenn.€75,€78,€450€S.W.2d€568,€570Ð \ü  Ð(1970)€(ð ðA€defendant€should€not€be€permitted€to€subvert€and€nullify€the€wholeÐ (È  Ðjudicial€process€by€any€such€ruse€or€stratagem.ðð).€òòóó€Our€supreme€court€has€said€thatÐ ô”  Ða€ð ðjudge€must€investigate€as€long€and€as€thoroughly€as€the€circumstances€of€theÐ À` Ðcase€before€him€demand.ðð€€òòState€v.€Northingtonóó,€667€S.W.2d€57,€60€(Tenn.€1984).Ð Œ, ÐÌà ¸ àThis€court€òòóóhas€promulgated€a€litany€of€questions€to€be€asked€to€ensureÐ $Ä Ðthat€a€defendantððs€waiver€of€the€right€to€counsel€was€made€knowingly€andÐ ð Ðintelligently.€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€987€S.W.2d€871,€877„78€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€Ð ¼ \ ÐAlthough€in€the€case€at€bar€the€trial€court€asked€some€of€the€questions€listed€inÐ ˆ"( ÐòòSmithóó,€it€was€thwarted€in€its€effort€to€make€a€complete€investigation€by€theÐ T$ô Ðdefendantððs€obstinate€assertion€that€he€wanted€to€represent€himself.€€We€concludeÐ  &À  Ðthat€under€the€circumstances€the€trial€court€adequately€investigated€whether€theÐ ì'Œ" Ðdefendant€knowingly€and€intelligently€waived€his€right€to€counsel.Ð ¸)X $ ÐÌò òÓÓ5.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€evidence€resulting€from€the€defendantððs€warrantlessÐ P-ð#( Ðarrest€should€have€been€suppressed.ó óÐ6.Ö$)¸ (#¸ (# ÐÓjºÓÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€claims€that€his€arrest€for€DUI€was€illegal€and,€therefore,Ð è0ˆ', Ðany€evidence€obtained€by€his€arrest€is€inadmissible.€€He€argues€that€because€theÐ ´2T). Ðoffense€was€not€committed€in€the€presence€of€the€arresting€officer€and€the€officerÐ €4 +0 Ðdid€not€have€a€warrant€for€his€arrest,€the€arrest€was€illegal.€€The€defendant€contendsÐ L6ì,2 Ðthat€the€offense€occurred€on€private€property€and€the€arresting€officer€did€not€haveÐ 8¸.4 Ðprobable€cause€to€arrest€him.€€The€state€responds€that€Code€section€40„7„103(a)(6)Ð ä9„06 Ðpermits€an€officer€to€arrest€the€driver€in€an€accident€if€the€officer€has€probable€causeÐ `  Ðto€believe€the€driver€was€driving€under€the€influence.€€The€state€argues€thatÐ , Ì Ðtestimony€at€the€pretrial€hearing€established€that€the€arresting€officer€had€probableÐ ø ˜ Ðcause€to€believe€the€defendant€was€driving€under€the€influence.Ð Äd ÐÌà ¸ àThe€relevant€portion€of€section€40„7„103€states:€Ð \ü  ÐÓÓà8 ¸ à(a)€An€officer€may,€without€a€warrant,€arrest€a€person:Ð(È ¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ¸ à.€.€.Ю ¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ¸ à(6)€€At€the€scene€of€a€traffic€accident€who€is€the€driver€ofÐ ô”  Ða€vehicle€involved€in€such€accident€when,€based€onÐ Úz  Ðpersonal€investigation,€the€officer€has€probable€causeÐ À` Ðto€believe€that€such€person€has€committed€an€offenseÐ ¦F Ðunder€the€provisions€of€title€55,€chapters€8€and€10.€TheÐ Œ, Ðprovisions€of€this€subdivision€shall€not€apply€to€trafficÐ r Ðaccidents€in€which€no€personal€injury€occurs€or€propertyÐ Xø Ðdamage€is€less€than€one€thousand€dollars€($1,000)Ð >Þ Ðunless€the€officer€has€probable€cause€to€believe€that€theÐ $Ä Ðdriver€of€such€vehicle€has€committed€an€offense€underÐ  ª Ððð€55-10-401.€.€.€.€€Ðð¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓ¿ÓTitle€55,€chapter€8€deals€with€the€rules€of€the€road,€and€chapter€10€deals€withÐ ¼ \ Ðaccidents,€arrests,€crimes,€and€penalties€involving€motor€vehicles.€€Section€55„10„Ð ˆ"( Ð401€describes€the€offense€of€driving€under€the€influence.€€The€statute€creates€anÐ T$ô Ðexception€to€the€rule€that€an€officer€may€not€make€a€warrantless€misdemeanorÐ  &À  Ðarrest€unless€the€offense€was€committed€in€the€officerððs€presence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð ì'Œ" ÐSmithóó,€787€S.W.2d€34,€35€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).Ð ¸)X $ ÐÌà ¸ àThis€issue€turns€on€whether€the€arresting€officer€had€probable€causeÐ P-ð#( Ðto€believe€that€the€defendant€was€driving€under€the€influence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ /¼%* Ð55-10-401(a)€(Supp.€1996).€€Tennessee€Highway€Patrolman€Tony€Barnham€testifiedÐ è0ˆ', Ðduring€the€pretrial€hearing€that€he€investigated€the€defendantððs€accident.€€He€saidÐ ´2T). Ðthat€he€arrested€the€defendant€based€on€the€defendantððs€condition.€€He€testified€thatÐ €4 +0 Ðthe€defendant€appeared€to€be€intoxicated.€€Officer€Barnham€admitted€that€theÐ L6ì,2 Ðâ âMoose€Lodge€was€a€private€club.€€However,€during€the€trial,€he€testified€that€he€hadÐ 8¸.4 Ðprobable€cause€because€ð ðjust€seeing€people€out€there€would€be€reason€enough€forÐ `  Ð[him]€to€believe€[the€parking€lot€was]€frequented€by€the€public.ððÐ , Ì Ðâ âÌà ¸ àThe€officer€determined€that€the€defendant€was€driving€a€vehicleÐ Äd Ðinvolved€in€an€accident.€€He€also€had€probable€cause€to€believe€that€the€defendantÐ 0 Ðwas€driving€under€the€influence€in€a€place€generally€frequented€by€the€public.€€WeÐ \ü  Ðconclude€that€the€defendantððs€arrest€was€lawful€and€in€accordance€with€CodeÐ (È  Ðsection€40„7„103(a)(6).€òòóó€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ô”  ÐÌò òÓÓ6.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€improperly€limited€the€defendant'sÐ Œ, Ðexamination€of€witness€Huntó óÐr¸ (#¸ (# ÐÓdËÓÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€claims€that€he€had€a€right€to€question€witness€VickiÐ $Ä ÐHunt,€who€was€a€bartender€at€the€Moose€Lodge.€€He€contends€that€he€was€notÐ ð Ðpermitted€to€cross„examine€the€witness€regarding€her€training€for€her€server€permit.€Ð ¼ \ ÐAlso,€he€contends€that€on€direct€examination€of€Hunt€as€a€defense€witness,€he€wasÐ ˆ"( Ðnot€permitted€to€show€witness€bias€by€questioning€her€on€events€that€transpired€atÐ T$ô Ðthe€Moose€Lodge.€€The€state€responds€that€the€defendant€was€permitted€to€questionÐ  &À  ÐHunt€about€her€training.€€The€state€argues€that€Hunt€never€gave€an€opinion€basedÐ ì'Œ" Ðon€her€experience€as€a€bartender;€therefore,€questions€concerning€the€foundationÐ ¸)X $ Ðof€her€opinion€were€not€relevant.€€Also,€the€state€contends€that€the€defendant€wasÐ „+$"& Ðattempting€to€show€that€both€Hunt€and€Moose€Lodge€members€were€biased€againstÐ P-ð#( Ðhim.€€The€state€argues€that€the€defendant€was€permitted€to€question€Hunt€regardingÐ /¼%* Ðbias€and€that€the€trial€court€only€restricted€the€questioning€when€the€defendantÐ è0ˆ', Ðstrayed€too€far€afield.Ð ´2T). ÐÌà ¸ àVicki€Hunt€testified€for€the€state€that€she€served€the€defendant€twoÐ L6ì,2 Ðâ âbeers€and€two€shots€of€tequila.€€When€asked€if€she€thought€that€the€defendant€hadÐ 8¸.4 Ðtoo€much€to€drink€to€be€driving€a€car,€she€answered,€ð ðIf€I€thought€he€was,€I€...Ð `  Ðwouldnððt€have€let€him€leave.ðð€€Ð , Ì Ðâ âÌà ¸ àDuring€the€defendantððs€cross„examination€of€Ms.€Hunt,€the€trial€courtÐ Äd Ðoverruled€the€stateððs€relevancy€objection€when€the€defendant€began€questioningÐ 0 ÐMs.€Hunt€about€her€server€permit.€€The€defendant€continued€to€question€Ms.€HuntÐ \ü  Ðabout€her€qualifications€and€the€amount€of€alcoholic€beverages€that€she€shouldÐ (È  Ðserve€customers.€€When€the€defendant€asked€her€about€the€rate€the€human€liverÐ ô”  Ðcan€rid€itself€of€alcohol,€the€state€again€objected.€€The€trial€court€sustained€theÐ À` Ðobjection€and€told€the€defendant€that€it€ð ðmakes€no€difference€if€a€person€is€servedÐ Œ, Ðlegally€or€not.€€The€question€is€whether€or€not€somebody€was€driving€under€theÐ Xø Ðinfluence.ðð€€The€defendant€next€asked€her€whether€she€had€to€take€a€course€toÐ $Ä Ðreceive€her€permit.€€The€trial€court€again€sustained€the€stateððs€objection€and€pointedÐ ð Ðout€that€it€had€ruled€that€ð ðthis€line€of€questioning€is€inappropriate.ððÐ ¼ \ ÐÌà ¸ àMs.€Hunt€also€testified€for€the€defendant€during€his€case„in„chief.€TheÐ T$ô Ðdefendant€questioned€her€about€a€complaint€he€had€filed€against€certain€membersÐ  &À  Ðof€the€Moose€Lodge.€€The€state€objected€to€its€relevance.€€The€defendant€respondedÐ ì'Œ" Ðthat€he€was€attempting€to€show€bias€on€the€part€of€several€members€of€the€MooseÐ ¸)X $ ÐLodge.€€The€defendant€said€that€the€question€also€went€toward€the€witnessððsÐ „+$"& Ðcredibility.€€The€trial€court€permitted€the€defendant€to€ask€the€question.€€After€theÐ P-ð#( Ðdefendant€asked€Ms.€Hunt€about€the€details€of€how€she€found€out€about€theÐ /¼%* Ðcomplaint€the€defendant€made,€the€trial€court€stopped€the€defendant.€€It€said,€ð ðIððmÐ è0ˆ', Ðnot€here€to€try€the€internal€workings€of€the€Moose€International,€all€right.€€Letððs€getÐ ´2T). Ðon€with€the€trial€of€this€case.ðð€€After€the€witness€expressed€a€desire€to€answer€theÐ €4 +0 Ðquestion,€the€trial€court€stated,€ð ðI€just€said€I€want€to€get€to€the€point,€and€I€want€to€tryÐ L6ì,2 Ða€DUI€case.€€I€donððt€want€to€try€whatððs€happening€as€far€as€Moose€Lodge,€okay.ðð€Ð 8¸.4 ÐThe€defendant€then€wrapped€up€his€direct€examination€by€asking€Ms.€Hunt€whetherÐ ä9„06 Ðthe€members€of€the€Moose€Lodge€were€biased€against€him€because€he€complainedÐ `  Ðabout€the€lodge€having€male€strippers.€€She€said€that€she€did€not€know.Ð , Ì ÐÌà ¸ àThe€Sixth€Amendment€guarantees€a€criminal€defendant€the€right€toÐ Äd Ðcross-examine€witnesses€against€him.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòDavis€v.€Alaskaóó,€415€U.S.€308,€94Ð 0 ÐS.€Ct.€1105€(1974).€€The€rights€of€confrontation€and€cross-examination€are€essentialÐ \ü  Ðto€a€fair€trial.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòPointer€v.€Texasóó,€380€U.S.€400,€85€S.€Ct.€1065€(1965).€Ð (È  ÐRule€616€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€provides€that€"[a]€party€may€offerÐ ô”  Ðevidence€by€cross-examination,€extrinsic€evidence,€or€both,€that€a€witness€is€biasedÐ À` Ðin€favor€of€or€prejudiced€against€a€party€or€another€witness."€€Rule€611(b)€providesÐ Œ, Ðthat€a€witness€"may€be€cross-examined€on€any€matter€relevant€to€any€issue€in€theÐ Xø Ðcase,€including€credibility."€€Any€"feelings€that€a€witness€has€with€regard€to€a€partyÐ $Ä Ðor€issue€are€an€important€factor€for€the€trier€of€fact€to€consider€in€assessing€theÐ ð Ðweight€to€be€given€to€the€witness'€testimony."€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€827€S.W.2d€804,Ð ¼ \ Ð808€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð ˆ"( ÐÌà ¸ àIn€the€case€at€bar,€Ms.€Huntððs€qualifications€as€a€bartender€were€notÐ  &À  Ðrelevant€to€any€of€the€issues€being€tried.€€Evidence€which€is€not€relevant€is€notÐ ì'Œ" Ðadmissible.€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€The€propriety,€scope,€and€control€of€witnessÐ ¸)X $ Ðcross-examination€is€within€the€trial€court's€discretion€and€will€not€be€overturnedÐ „+$"& Ðabsent€clear€and€plain€abuse.€€òòState€v.€Richardsonóó,€875€S.W.2d€671,€675€(Tenn.Ð P-ð#( ÐCrim.€App.€1993).€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€exercisedÐ /¼%* Ðits€discretion€in€limiting€the€defendantððs€cross„examination.Ð è0ˆ', ÐÌà ¸ àWith€respect€to€the€defendantððs€direct€examination€of€Ms.€Hunt,€theÐ €4 +0 Ðdefendant€initially€argued€that€his€line€of€questioning€was€relevant€to€the€witnessððsÐ L6ì,2 Ðcredibility.€€The€defendant€continued€to€question€the€witness€about€the€complaint€heÐ 8¸.4 Ðhad€filed€against€the€Moose€Lodge.€€After€the€trial€court€stopped€that€line€ofÐ ä9„06 Ðquestioning,€the€defendant€asked€a€direct€question€about€the€bias€of€Moose€LodgeÐ `  Ðmembers€against€the€defendant€which€the€witness€answered.€€We€conclude€that€theÐ , Ì Ðtrial€court€did€not€prevent€the€defendant€from€examining€Ms.€Hunt€regarding€anyÐ ø ˜ Ðrelevant€material.€Ð Äd ÐÌò òÓÓ7.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€state€improperly€cross„examined€witness€Cassó óÐ\ü ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÓçÓÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€state€improperly€attempted€to€impeachÐ ®  ÐRonald€Cass€by€inquiring€about€Cassððs€prior€DUI€charges.€€The€state€asked€CassÐ Úz  Ðwhether€he€knew€the€defendant,€to€which€the€witness€said€that€he€and€theÐ ¦F Ðdefendant€were€ð ðgood€friends.ðð€€The€state€asked€Cass€if€he€had€been€in€a€similarÐ r Ðposition€a€year€ago,€making€similar€arguments€as€the€defendant,€that€the€officers€didÐ >Þ Ðnot€have€the€right€to€arrest€him.€€After€the€defendant€objected,€the€trial€court€ruledÐ  ª Ðthat€the€question€was€proper€as€it€went€toward€bias.€€The€state€then€asked,€ð ðYouÐ Öv Ðwere€taking€the€position€that€the€law€enforcement€officers€in€that€case€didnððt€haveÐ ¢!B Ða€right€to€arrest€you€for€DUI?ðð€€The€defendant€objected€again.€€The€trial€courtÐ n# Ðoverruled€the€objection€and€stated,€ð ðIt€can€go€to€bias€of€the€witness.€€Itððs€not€to€beÐ :%Ú Ðconsidered€as€any€evidence€of€guilt€against€this€person,€simply€as€to€any€bias€thatÐ '¦! Ðmight€or€might€not€exist.ððÐ Ò(r# ÐÌà ¸ àUnless€excluded€by€another€rule,€relevant€evidence€is€generallyÐ j, #' Ðadmissible.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€Rule€616€permits€a€party€to€"offer€evidence€byÐ 6.Ö$) Ðcross„examination€.€.€.€that€a€witness€is€biased€in€favor€of€or€prejudiced€against€aÐ 0¢&+ Ðparty€or€another€witness."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€616.€€Bias€is€an€important€ground€forÐ Î1n(- Ðimpeachment€of€a€witness€and€is€an€aid€for€the€trier€of€fact€in€assessing€the€weightÐ š3:*/ Ðto€be€afforded€the€witness's€testimony.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€616€(Advisory€CommððnÐ f5,1 ÐComments);€òòState€v.€Reidóó,€882€S.W.2d€423,€427€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€In€theÐ 27Ò-3 Ðcase€at€bar,€the€state€attempted€to€show€bias€of€the€witness€through€the€witnessððsÐ þ8ž/5 Ðclose€relationship€with€the€defendant€and€the€witnessððs€similar€argument€in€hisÐ `  Ðprevious€trial€for€DUI.€€Accordingly,€the€evidence€was€relevant.Ð , Ì ÐÌà ¸ àRelevancy€established,€we€must€determine€whether€some€rule€ofÐ Äd Ðevidence€nevertheless€prohibits€the€use€of€the€evidence.€€Evidence€that€a€personÐ 0 Ðmay€have€driven€while€under€the€influence€is,€of€course,€disparaging€information.€Ð \ü  ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€404€and€608€deal€with€some€evidence€of€badÐ (È  Ðbehavior€or€bad€character.€€Rule€404(b)€forbids€the€use€of€ð ðother€crimes,€wrongs,€orÐ ô”  Ðacts€.€.€.€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€withÐ À` Ðthe€character€trait.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€However,€rule€404€is€not€brought€intoÐ Œ, Ðplay€because€Cassððs€behavior€in€conformity€with€a€character€trait€was€not€an€issue.€Ð Xø ÐRule€608(b)€prescribes€rules€for€using€ð ðspecific€instances€of€conduct€of€a€witnessððÐ $Ä Ðfor€the€purpose€of€impeaching€the€witness.€€Such€instances€must€be€ð ðprobative€ofÐ ð Ðtruthfulness€or€untruthfulness,ðð€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€608(b),€but€driving€under€the€influenceÐ ¼ \ Ðis€not€suggestive€of€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Jimmy€Blantonóó,€No.Ð ˆ"( Ð01C01„9306„CR„00166,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Nashville,€Apr.€7,€1994).Ð T$ô ÐHowever,€even€though€the€state€sought€to€impeach€witness€Cass,€it€sought€to€doÐ  &À  Ðso€through€a€demonstration€of€bias€under€Rule€616€and€not€through€establishingÐ ì'Œ" Ðprior€bad€acts€under€Rule€608.€€The€court€gave€a€curative€instruction€immediatelyÐ ¸)X $ Ðafter€the€state€mentioned€the€witnessððs€DUI€trial,€and€we€conclude€that€any€violationÐ „+$"& Ðof€Rule€608(b)€was€undoubtedly€harmless.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€òòseeóóòòState€v.Ð P-ð#( ÐLaneyóó,€654€S.W.2d€383,€389€(Tenn.€1983)€(jurors€are€presumed€to€follow€theÐ /¼%* Ðinstructions€given€by€the€trial€judge).Ð è0ˆ', ÐÌà ¸ àThis€analysis€aside,€we€are€left€to€consider€Rule€403,€which€providesÐ €4 +0 Ðthat€evidence,€although€relevant,€may€be€excluded€if€its€ð ðprobative€value€isÐ L6ì,2 Ðsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,Ð 8¸.4 Ðor€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€orÐ ä9„06 Ðneedless€presentation€of€cumulative€issues.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€A€witnessððs€DUIÐ `  Ðoffense€would€raise€a€Rule€403€issue€if,€for€example,€it€unfairly€prejudiced€theÐ , Ì Ðinterests€of€the€party€sponsoring€the€witness;€however,€we€conclude€that€theÐ ø ˜ Ðprobative€value€of€the€evidence€is€not€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€ofÐ Äd Ðunfair€prejudice€or€by€any€other€issue€mentioned€in€Rule€403.€€Several€factorsÐ 0 Ðsupport€this€conclusion.€€As€pointed€out€above,€the€memory€or€possible€pendencyÐ \ü  Ðof€the€witnessððs€DUI€charges€and€his€corresponding€interest€in€the€favorableÐ (È  Ðoutcome€of€the€defendantððs€DUI€case€provide€a€powerful€basis€for€biasÐ ô”  Ðimpeachment€under€Rule€616.€€The€witness€impeached€was€not€the€defendant,€andÐ À` Ðthe€trial€court€gave€precautionary€instructions€to€the€jury.€€Ð Œ, ÐÌà ¸ àThe€admissibility€of€evidence€is€entrusted€to€the€discretion€of€trialÐ $Ä Ðcourt,€and€the€issue€will€not€be€overturned€on€appeal€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€Ð ð ÐòòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€66€(1992).€There€is€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€theÐ ¼ \ Ðpresent€case.Ð ˆ"( ÐÌà ¸ àAlso,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€state€testified€when€it€asked€CassÐ  &À  Ðabout€the€location€of€private€property€signs€which€the€state€said€it€could€not€find.€Ð ì'Œ" ÐDuring€the€stateððs€cross„examination€of€Ronald€Cass,€the€state€attempted€to€proveÐ ¸)X $ Ðthat€the€parking€lot€was€not€marked€as€a€private€lot.€€The€following€colloquy€ensued:Ð „+$"& ÐÓÓà8 ¸ à[STATE]:€Mr.€Cass,€itððs€got€signs€all€over€the€parking€lotÐ P-ð#( Ðout€there?Ð6.Ö$)¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à[WITNESS]:€Theyððve€got€a€couple€of€signs€out€there.Ð0¢&+¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à.€.€.ÐÎ1n(-¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à[STATE]:€I€drove€out€there€Friday€afternoon€just€to€kindÐ š3:*/ Ðof€look€around€to€see€what€the€lot€looked€and€I€missedÐ €4 +0 Ðthe€signs.€€Can€you€tell€me€exactly€where€they€areÐ f5,1 Ðlocated?ÐL6ì,2¸ x¸ x Ðâ âÓ ÓÐ 27Ò-3 ÐÑ9?TÑâ 9âÑH°Ñâ 9âÑ  Ñà ¸ àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€allowed€the€state€to€testify.€Ð `  Ðâ âInitially,€we€note€that€the€defendant€failed€to€object€to€the€stateððs€question;€therefore,Ð , Ì Ðthis€issue€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòsee€also€State€v.€Renneróó,€912Ð ø ˜ ÐS.W.2d€701,€705€(Tenn.€1995).€€However,€even€considering€the€merits,€there€wasÐ Äd Ðno€reversible€error.€€The€state€in€the€case€at€bar€injected€his€own€credibility€as€aÐ 0 Ðstate€officer€into€his€cross„examination€of€a€defense€witness.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Griffisóó,Ð \ü  Ð964€S.W.2d€577,€598„99€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Unlike€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€618Ð (È  ÐS.W.2d€510,€518€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981),€in€which€this€court€held€the€prosecutorððsÐ ô”  Ðconduct€improper€for€referring€to€matters€outside€the€record,€in€the€case€at€bar,€theÐ À` Ðstate€mentioned€facts€which€had€been€previously€introduced€into€evidence.€€TheÐ Œ, Ðarresting€officer€testified€at€the€beginning€of€the€trial€that€there€were€no€signs€postedÐ Xø Ðin€the€parking€lot.€€The€state€said€that€it€ð ðmissedðð€the€signs,€and€although€not€Ð $Ä Ðproper,€we€do€not€find€this€was€either€egregious€or€prejudicial€in€light€of€the€priorÐ ð Ðtestimony.€€Accordingly,€we€cannot€say€that€the€remark€by€the€state€"more€probablyÐ ¼ \ Ðthan€not€affected€the€judgment"€in€this€case.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).Ð ˆ"( ÐÌò òÓÓ8.à0 ¸ àJury€ChargeÐ &À ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÓ ÓÌó óòòÓÓa)à ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€as€to€the€elementsÐ Ò(r# Ðof€the€offense.óóÐ ¸)X $ ÐÓ ÓÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€charging€the€jury€withÐ j, #' Ðall€the€elements€of€the€offense€contained€in€the€statute.€€He€argues€that€because€heÐ 6.Ö$) Ðwas€told€the€accident€occurred€on€the€Moose€Lodge€parking€lot,€the€jury€should€notÐ 0¢&+ Ðhave€been€charged€with€the€full€statute,€which€includes€driving€upon€public€highwaysÐ Î1n(- Ðand€roadways.€€Ð š3:*/ ÐÌà ¸ àInitially,€we€note€that€the€defendant€failed€to€make€appropriateÐ 27Ò-3 Ðâ âreferences€to€the€record,€and€he€has€failed€to€cite€authority€to€support€his€argument.€Ð þ8ž/5 ÐÑ>OaÑâ >âѰHÑâ >âÑ  ÑTenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7);€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€Rule€10(b).€€However,€we€willÐ `  Ðaddress€the€merits€of€the€defendantððs€issue.Ð , Ì Ðâ âÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€complete€and€correct€charge€of€the€law.€Ð Äd ÐòòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.€1990),€including€the€law€governing€theÐ 0 Ðissues€raised€by€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€892€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð \ü  ÐApp€1995).€€The€state€presented€evidence€that€the€defendant€was€intoxicated€andÐ (È  Ðthat€he€drove€on€a€public€road€and€on€a€parking€lot€that€was€generally€frequentedÐ ô”  Ðby€the€public€at€large.€€The€jury€charge€in€the€case€at€bar€contained€the€elementsÐ À` Ðnecessary€to€prove€driving€under€the€influence€and€did€not€charge€an€offenseÐ Œ, Ðdifferent€from€the€one€on€which€the€appellant€was€indicted.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€656Ð Xø ÐS.W.2d€406,€409€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€juryÐ $Ä Ðcharge€was€not€improper.Ð ð ÐÌòòÓÓb)à ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€correctly€refused€to€charge€the€jury€on€termsÐ ˆ"( Ðof€common€understanding.óóÐ n# ÐÓªÓÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€requested€that€the€jury€be€charged€with€strictlyÐ  &À  Ðfollowing€the€statute€and€with€the€definitions€of€three€words€used€in€the€statute:Ð ì'Œ" Ðð ðgenerally,ðð€ð ðfrequented,ðð€and€ð ðpublic.ðð€€The€defendant€also€requested€that€the€juryÐ ¸)X $ Ðbe€charged€with€the€legal€meaning€of€probable€cause.€€He€argues€that€theseÐ „+$"& Ðinstructions€were€necessary€for€the€jury€to€strictly€interpret€the€statute.€€The€stateÐ P-ð#( Ðcontends€that€the€statute€uses€terms€which€are€common€and€can€be€understood€byÐ /¼%* Ðpersons€of€ordinary€intelligence.€€The€state€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€instructionÐ è0ˆ', Ðdefining€the€offense€of€DUI€fully€and€fairly€stated€the€applicable€law.€€Additionally,Ð ´2T). Ðthe€state€points€out€that,€although€not€relevant,€the€legal€definition€of€probable€causeÐ €4 +0 Ðcame€out€during€the€defendantððs€cross„examination€of€the€arresting€officer.Ð L6ì,2 Ðâ âÐ 8¸.4 Ðà ¸ àòòóóThis€court€has€explained€that€"a€defendant€has€a€constitutional€rightÐ `  Ðâ âto€a€correct€and€complete€charge€of€the€law."€€òòState€v.€Phippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,€142Ð , Ì Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.€1990)).€Ð ø ˜ ÐIt€is€not€error€for€the€trial€court€to€refuse€to€give€a€specially€requested€jury€instructionÐ Äd Ðso€long€as€the€court's€instructions€"correctly,€fully,€and€fairly€set€forth€the€applicableÐ 0 Ðlaw"€in€the€case.€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Kelleyóó,€683€S.W.2d€1,€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð \ü  Ð1984).€€On€appeal,€this€court€must€"review€the€entire€charge€and€only€invalidate€itÐ (È  Ðif,€when€read€as€a€whole,€it€fails€to€fairly€submit€the€legal€issues€or€misleads€the€juryÐ ô”  Ðas€to€the€applicable€law."€€òòóóThe€jury€instructions€should€describe€and€define€all€of€theÐ À` Ðelements€of€each€offense€unless€the€terms€are€of€common€use€and€understanding.€Ð Œ, ЀòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Summersóó,€692€S.W.2d€439,€445€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985);€òòRobinsonÐ Xø Ðv.€Stateóó,€513€S.W.2d€156,€158€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974)òòóó.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€juryÐ $Ä Ðwas€charged€with€the€elements€of€Code€section€55„10„401.€€The€phrase€used€in€theÐ ð Ðcharge,€ð ðpremises€which€are€generally€frequently€[sic]€by€the€public€at€large,ðð€usedÐ ¼ \ Ðno€technical€terms.€€Rather,€it€is€a€phrase€comprised€of€terms€of€common€use€andÐ ˆ"( Ðunderstanding.€€Ð T$ô ÐÌà ¸ àAlso,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€jury€was€not€charged€with€theÐ ì'Œ" Ðdefinition€of€ð ðprobable€causeðð€with€respect€to€his€claim€that€the€arrest€was€illegal.€Ð ¸)X $ ÐPresumably,€the€object€of€the€defendantððs€concern€is€the€use€of€evidence€of€hisÐ „+$"& Ðintoxication,€such€as€the€results€of€field€sobriety€tests,€which€arguably€would€beÐ P-ð#( Ðinadmissible€as€fruits€of€the€poisoned€tree€if€obtained€subsequent€to€an€illegal€arrest.€Ð /¼%* ÐThe€trial€court€correctly€ruled€that€the€issue€of€the€legality€of€the€arrest€was€not€anÐ è0ˆ', Ðissue€properly€before€the€jury€and€no€instructions€regarding€that€issue€would€beÐ ´2T). Ðgiven.€€Indeed,€questions€of€admissibility€of€evidence€are€generally€entrusted€to€theÐ €4 +0 Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Stinnettóó,€958€S.W.2d€329,€331€(Tenn.€1997);Ð L6ì,2 Ðâ âòòseeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€104(a)€(questions€of€admissibility€of€evidence€are€to€beÐ 8¸.4 Ðdetermined€by€the€trial€court);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b),€(e)€(questions€of€suppressionÐ `  Ðof€evidence€to€be€determined€by€trial€court€pursuant€to€pretrial€motion).Ð , Ì Ðâ âÌà ¸ àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€jury€charge,€as€given,€"correctly,Ð Äd Ðfully,€and€fairly€set€forth€the€applicable€law.ððÐ 0 ÐÌÌÌò òÓÓ9.à0 ¸ àSentencingó óÐÀ`¸ (#¸ (# ÐÓí#ÓÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€claims€that€his€period€of€confinement€was€improperlyÐ r Ðenhanced€from€45€days€to€six€months.€€He€very€cryptically€alleges€that€he€did€notÐ >Þ Ðreceive€ten€daysðð€notice,€that€his€previous€DUI€was€an€element€of€the€offense€andÐ  ª Ðcannot€be€used€as€an€enhancement€factor,€and€that€the€trial€court€did€not€articulateÐ Öv Ðcriteria€in€determining€the€enhancement€of€confinement.€€The€state€responds€byÐ ¢!B Ðasserting€that€the€trial€court€is€not€required€to€make€findings€or€specific€notation€ofÐ n# Ðenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€for€DUI€cases.€€The€state€argues€that€theÐ :%Ú Ðdefendant€has€waived€this€issue€because€his€brief€does€not€cite€any€authority€andÐ '¦! Ðdoes€not€even€provide€any€reasoning€supporting€his€conclusory€statements.€€Ð Ò(r# ÐÌà ¸ àWhen€a€defendant€fails€to€make€appropriate€references€to€the€recordÐ j, #' Ðand€fails€to€cite€authority€to€support€his€argument,€he€waives€the€issue.€€Tenn.€R.Ð 6.Ö$) ÐApp.€P.€27(a)(7);€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€Rule€10(b).€€Although€the€defendant€madeÐ 0¢&+ Ðonly€conclusory€statements€in€his€brief€without€reference€to€the€record€or€authority,Ð Î1n(- Ðwe€will€address€the€merits€of€the€defendantððs€issue.Ð š3:*/ ÐÌà ¸ àIn€misdemeanor€sentencing,€a€separate€sentencing€hearing€is€notÐ 27Ò-3 Ðmandatory,€but€the€court€is€required€to€provide€the€defendant€with€a€reasonableÐ þ8ž/5 Ðopportunity€to€be€heard€as€to€the€length€and€manner€of€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ `  ÐAnn.€ðð40-35-302(a)€(1997).€€Misdemeanor€sentences€must€be€specific€and€inÐ , Ì Ðaccordance€with€the€principles,€purpose,€and€goals€of€the€Criminal€SentencingÐ ø ˜ ÐReform€Act€of€1989.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-104,€117,€302€(1997);€òòState€v.Ð Äd ÐPalmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€misdemeanor€offender€must€beÐ 0 Ðsentenced€to€an€authorized€determinant€sentence€with€a€percentage€of€thatÐ \ü  Ðsentence€designated€for€eligibility€for€rehabilitative€programs.€€Generally,€aÐ (È  Ðpercentage€of€not€greater€than€75€percent€of€the€sentence€should€be€fixed€for€aÐ ô”  Ðmisdemeanor€offender;€however,€a€DUI€offender€may€be€required€to€serve€100Ð À` Ðpercent€of€his€sentence.€€òòPalmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€at€393-94.€€In€determining€theÐ Œ, Ðpercentage€of€the€sentence,€the€court€must€consider€enhancement€and€mitigatingÐ Xø Ðfactors€as€well€as€the€legislative€purposes€and€principles€related€to€the€sentencing.Ð $Ä ÐòòId.óó€Ð ð ÐÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€retains€the€authority€to€place€the€defendant€on€probationÐ ˆ"( Ðeither€immediately€or€after€a€period€of€periodic€or€continuous€confinement.€€Tenn.Ð T$ô ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40-35-302(e)€(1997).€€The€trial€court€has€a€wide€latitude€of€flexibility.€Ð  &À  ÐThe€legislature€has€encouraged€courts€to€consider€public€or€private€agencies€forÐ ì'Œ" Ðprobation€supervision€prior€to€directing€supervision€by€the€Department€of€Correction.€Ð ¸)X $ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-302(f)€(1997).€€The€misdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€notÐ „+$"& Ðentitled€to€the€presumption€or€a€minimum€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2dÐ P-ð#( Ð829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Ð /¼%* ÐÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€imposed€split€confinement€and€incarcerated€theÐ ´2T). Ðdefendant€for€six€months.€Although€the€six€months€exceeds€the€minimumÐ €4 +0 Ðconfinement€of€forty-five€days€for€second-offense€DUI,€it€is€nevertheless€within€aÐ L6ì,2 Ðrange€of€reasonableness€that€must€be€entrusted€to€the€trial€court.€Unlike€felonyÐ 8¸.4 Ðsentencing,€the€trial€court€does€not€have€an€affirmative€duty€to€state€in€the€record,Ð ä9„06 Ðeither€orally€or€in€writing,€which€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€it€found€and€itsÐ `  Ðfindings€of€fact.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-209(c)€(1997);€ðð€40-35-210(f)€(Supp.Ð , Ì Ð1998);€ðð€40-35-302(d)(1997);€òòState€v.€Troutmanóó,€979€S.W.2d€271,€274€(Tenn.Ð ø ˜ Ð1998).€€We€find€no€fault€with€the€sentence€in€this€case.€Ð Äd ÐÌà ¸ àFurthermore,€the€trial€court€committed€no€prejudicial€error€in€theÐ \ü  Ðmanner€in€which€it€determined€the€sentence.€After€the€jury€returned€its€verdict€andÐ (È  Ðwas€dismissed,€the€trial€court€indicated€it€was€ready€"to€proceed€with€sentencing€inÐ ô”  Ðthis€matter.ðð€€The€trial€court€asked€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€if€the€stateÐ À` Ðhad€any€proof€to€offer,€and€the€state€declined.€€The€trial€court€then€asked€theÐ Œ, Ðdefendant€if€he€wished€to€offer€any€proof,€and€the€defendant€declined.Ð Xø ÐÌà ¸ àThe€court€proceeded€to€impose€sentence€in€the€case,€withoutÐ ð Ðobjection€by€the€defendant.€€We€find€the€defendant€was€given€a€reasonableÐ ¼ \ Ðopportunity€to€be€heard.€€Moreover,€had€there€been€no€reasonable€opportunity,€theÐ ˆ"( Ðdefendant€has€waived€the€issue€by€failing€to€object,€see€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a),€andÐ T$ô Ðfurthermore€he€has€failed€to€demonstrate€any€prejudice€from€the€asserted€lack€ofÐ  &À  Ðopportunity€to€be€heard.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€€Ð ì'Œ" ÐÌà ¸ àFinding€no€error,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð „+$"& ÐÓÓÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________________________________Ð /¼%* Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ 0¢&+ ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:Ð š3:*/ ÐÌÌÌÌ_____________________________Ð 8¸.4 ÐDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÔ% € ÔÐ þ8ž/5 ÐÐ ä9„06 ЇÌ_____________________________Ð F æ ÐJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE