WPC "]ߌVNT]TY3 /wkՄ ,P'Pa]Xp_"tf\>,HS!, L㛺8(̍< aPY1+ˍ2w*ƴ TAztٗ#GY,{믊K@AYQY%h&M90!*~7[qo:J '@U`/ `.atРsՖy]R?"qZ3n^3 `Vj.nޟK3Uf5C%C&Ϗ?J}s&YI;}UaUHhUNdR(. &fLa˒Bko-W$ T+mOWj2#>umMFt=^V .LqM.UԞZL??QC)6Յqa IU.F %t bz ~  U:C } n : 0(B U:j w 4V "j 0 0D%U :iU: B D3 0D AOb 0Dw D/ B<6X9`(CourierX  XXXXXX   Ad FILED    June29,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.   AppellateCourt  Clerk   $XXXX `   1    ݀Tenn.CodeAnn.3913101(a)(1)(1997).,cAZ"Arial Regular3|x6<6X9`(CourierXx6X@`7X@($,  AZ"Arial Regular6D6Ve6D66P6E66E66E66E66D6P66E66{66E66D66D666D6Ӏh&  0$XrXXX `   2    ݀TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4014307(a)states: Adesignated `  reportershallattendeverystageofeachcriminalcasebeforethecourtandshallrecordverbatim...allproceedingshadinopencourtandsuchotherproceedingsasthejudgemaydirect.XrXXXrTenn.CodeAnn.4014307(a)#XrXXXr#Ԁ(1997). 0  Acriminalcaseisdefinedas thetrialofanycriminaloffensewhichispunishablebyconfinementinthestatepenitentiary.XrXXXrTenn.CodeAnn.4014301(3)  (1997).#XrXXXr#Ԁ(I(2 $  !  XXXX `   0  (#$  0  ,cAZ"Arial Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular  0$XrXXX `   3    ݀Thisrulestatesasfollows: `   ` (b)OtherCrimes,Wrongs,orActs.Evidenceofothercrimes,wrongs,oractsisnotadmissibletoprovethecharacterofapersoninordertoshowactioninconformitywiththecharactertrait.Itmay,however,beadmissibleforotherpurposes.Theconditionswhichmustbesatisfiedbeforeallowingsuchevidenceare:̀(1)Thecourtuponrequestmustholdahearingoutsidethejuryspresence;̀(2)Thecourtmustdeterminethatamaterialissueexistsotherthanconductconformingwithacharactertraitandmustuponrequeststateontherecordthematerialissue,theruling,andthereasonsforadmittingtheevidence;and̀(3)Thecourtmustexcludetheevidenceifitsprobativevalueisoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice. ` Tenn.R.Evid.404(b). d""""'dxd(3$  !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd  !  6666`   TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T XbXXX7 b XXdXXd7  6r*<,(j 8 `@Ef  tt0"H` rߛ6 @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  ̀@::'ATKNOXVILLE 0  @__#JANUARY1999SESSION   ̜ 6LESTERDOUGLASBELL66STATEOFTENNESSEE6,6 h 6    ) p   `     h     ) p  `   `  Appellant, h     ) p C.C.A.No.03C019712CR00541 P   `     h     )vs. `     h     ) p KnoxCounty x  0   `     h     )̜ 6STATEOFTENNESSEE666l666LE666ES666STE666DO666RDOUGLASBELL6,6  6    ) p Hon.RichardBaumgartner,Judge  p   `     h     ) `  `  Appellee. h     ) p (MisdemeanorAssault) P  `     h     FORTHEAPPELLANT: h      p FORTHEAPPELLEE:   MARKE.STEPHENS h      p JOHNKNOXWALKUP   DistrictPublicDefender h      p AttorneyGeneral&Reporter   `    PAULAR.VOSSand  h      p ELLENH.POLLACK  !`  JAMIELYNNNILAND  h      p AssistantAttorneyGeneral "P AssistantPublicDefenders     p 425FifthAve.N.,2dFloor  #@ 1209EuclidAvenue h      p Nashville,TN372430493  $0  Knoxville,TN37921 h      p  %   `     h      p RANDALLE.NICHOLS p&  `     h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral  `'   `     h      p  `     h      p JANETS.GURWITCH  @)"  `     h      p AssistantDistrictAttorney `     h      p 400Main,P.O.Box1468 `     h      p Knoxville,TN379011468  ,"%  `     h      p OPINIONFILED:________________AFFIRMEDJAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGE  `6-0  ;15 @qq* OPINION  `  XXX Xb'X, XX' # XbXXXL#Thedefendant,LesterDouglasBell,appealsfromhisconvictionof   misdemeanorassault #  1      ׀intheKnoxCountyCriminalCourt.Thetrialcourtimposed  asentenceofeleven(11)monthsandtwentynine(29)daystobesuspendedafterservingthefirst30daysinconfinement.Inthisdirectappeal,thedefendantraisesfourissues: I.  Whetherthetrialcourterredindenyingthedefendantsmotion      foracourtreportertobeprovidedbythe66state66.66񀀀 II.  Whethertheevidencewassufficienttosupportthejurysverdict P    andwhetherthetrialcourterredinfailingtosetasidethe   66verdict.66 III.  Whethertherewasprosecutorialmisconductinthefollowing:     a. h Elicitingtestimonyregardingthedefendantshistoryof      h violenceinhisrelationshipwiththevictim;   b. h Duringvoirdire,continuously66using66theterm      6 h 6 domesticviolence;     x   p    c. h Duringvoirdire,tellingthejurytoassessthedefendants !`     h credibilitybythefactthathehadastronginterestinthe    h outcomeofthe66case66.66 IV.  Whetherthetrialcourterredindenyingfullprobationand %     orderinganexcessive66sentence66.66Afterareviewoftherecordandthebriefsoftheparties,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. OnNovember14,1995,SherriBell,thedefendantswifeatthattime,wenttomeetherfriendsatApplebeesafterwork.Shecalledthedefendanttotellhimwhereshewasgoingandaskedhimtopickuptheirdaughter.Sometimelaterthatevening,thedefendantandthedaughterwenttoApplebeestolocateMrs.Bell.ThedefendantapproachedMrs.Bellandaskedhertoleave.Mrs.Bellsaidshewouldleave shortlyandthedefendantlefttherestaurant.Afewminuteslater,the P7-1 defendantreturnedtoMrs.BellstableatApplebees.Mrs.Belltestifiedthatthedefendantgrabbedherglassandtoldhertoleave.Mrs.Belltoldthedefendanttoleavetherestaurantandsaidthedaughtershouldstaytherewithher.Mrs.Belltestifiedthatthedefendantshoved66her66and6666caused66hertofallandhitherheadandnose.ThedefendanttestifiedthatMrs.BellslappedhimashewasreachingforhisdaughterandthathepushedMrs.Bellaftersheslappedhim.ThedefendantstatedthatMrs.Bellfelloffherstoolwhiletryingtoslaphim.ThedefendantleftwiththeirscreamingdaughterasMrs.Bellfollowedthemthroughtherestaurant.Mrs.Belltestifiedthatthedefendant backhandedher.ThedefendanttestifiedthatMrs.Bellhithimonthebackofthehead. DonaldGorskiwassittingatthetablewithMrs.Bell.Mr.GorskitestifiedthathedidnotheartheconversationbetweentheBells.HetestifiedthathedidnotseeMrs.Bellhitthedefendant,nordidheseethedefendantshoveorbackhandMrs.Bell.HesawMrs.Bellontheflooraftershehadfallen,buthedidnotknowhowshe66gotthere.66HesawMrs.Bellwithherearandnosebleedingafterthedefendantlefttherestaurant.He presumedthatthedefendant66hit66her.    h      Onthisevidence,thejuryfoundthedefendantguiltyofmisdemeanorassault.   @ I.CourtReporter  2@),    6  4 +.  6Thedefendantchallengesthetrialcourtsdenialofhismotionforacourtreportertobeprovidedatstateexpenseathismisdemeanortrial.In Tennessee,adefendantinamisdemeanortrialisnotautomaticallyprovidedwith @8.2 acourtreporteratstateexpense. #  2      ׀Therefore,averbatimtranscriptwillbe `   unavailableonappealunlessthedefendantemploysacourtreporter.Whenaverbatimtranscriptisunavailable,anappellantmayprepareastatementoftheevidence.Tenn.R.App.P.24(c).Theappelleemayfileobjectionstothestatementoftheevidence,andthetrialcourtshalldecidewhatisproperlyincludableinthestatementoftheevidence.Tenn.R.App.P.24(c),(e). Anindigentdefendant mustbeaffordedasadequateappellatereviewasdefendantswhohavemoneyenoughtobuytranscripts.Griffinv.Illinois,351 ` U.S.12,19,76S.Ct.585,591(1956).Indigentdefendantsinbothfelonyandmisdemeanorcaseshavetherighttoadequateappellatereview.Mayerv.Cityof   Chicago,404U.S.189,19596,92S.Ct.410,415(1971)(citingWilliamsv.  OklahomaCity,395U.S.458,459,89S.Ct.1818,1819(1969)).Thestatemust  provideanindigentdefendantwitha recordofsufficientcompletenesstopermitproperconsiderationof(his)claims.Draperv.Washington,372U.S.487,499,83 #@ S.Ct.774,781(1963)(quotingCoppedgev.UnitedStates,369U.S.438,446,82 %  S.Ct.917,921(1962)). Arecordofsufficientcompletenessdoesnottranslateautomaticallyintoacompleteverbatimtranscript.Mayer,404U.S.at194,92 @)" S.Ct.66AT666666a6666A66t666at6414.Accordingly,wemustreviewthesufficiencyofthe AmendedStatementoftheEvidencefiledbythedefendanttoensurethatthedefendantsclaimsmaybeproperlyreviewedonappeal.SeeStatev.Gallagher,738S.W.2d .%( 624,626(Tenn.1987). 0`'* Ї Thedefendantsstatementoftheevidenceisaverydetailedaccountofthetrialproceedings.Thestateandthetrialjudgeapprovedthestatementoftheevidence.However,thedefendantcontendsthataverbatimtranscriptisnecessaryinorder toportraythenuancesanddetailsofthewitnessestestimonyandtherulingsofthetrialjudge.Thereisnoindicationthatthedefendantwaspreventedfromincludinganyinformationinthestatementoftheevidenceduetostateortrialcourtobjection.Wefindthatthestatementoftheevidencesufficientlydescribesthewitnessestestimoniesandthetrialjudgesrulingsuponwhichthisappealisbased.Thetrialcourtdidnoterrbydenyingthedefendantsmotionforacourtreporter.  II.SufficiencyandtheThirteenthJurorRule   A.       Next,thedefendantchallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidence.WXrXX Xrhen !` anaccusedchallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidence,anappellatecourtsstandardofreviewiswhether,afterconsideringtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessential `'  elementsofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.Jacksonv.Virginia,443U.S. @)" 307,324,99S.Ct.2781,279192(1979);Statev.Duncan,698S.W.2d63,67  +!$ (Tenn.1985);Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).Thisruleappliestofindingsofguiltbasedupondirectevidence,circumstantialevidence,oracombinationofdirectandcircumstantialevidence.Statev.Dykes,803S.W.2d250,253(Tenn.Crim.App. 0`'* 1990).# XrXXXr.# 2@), XrXX Xr Indeterminingthesufficiencyoftheevidence,thiscourtshouldnot `6-0 reweighorreevaluatetheevidence.Statev.Matthews,805S.W.2d776,779 @8.2 (Tenn.Crim.App.1990).Questionsconcerningthecredibilityofthewitnesses,the  :04 weightandvalueoftheevidence,aswellasallfactualissuesraisedbytheevidenceareresolvedbythetrieroffact.Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835 @  (Tenn.1978).Normaythiscourtsubstituteitsinferencesforthosedrawnbythetrieroffactfromtheevidence.Liakasv.State,199Tenn.298,305,286S.W.2d  856,859(1956);Farmerv.State,574S.W.2d49,51(Tenn.Crim.App.1978).On  thecontrary,thiscourtmustaffordtheStateofTennesseethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidencecontainedintherecordaswellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferenceswhichmaybedrawnfromtheevidence.Cabbage,571S.W.2dat835.   # XrXXXr 2# Thedefendantchallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidencebysaying thestatecouldpresentnocorroborationofthevictimsstory,norcoulditovercomethetestimonyoftheaccused.Thiscourtshouldnotreweighorreevaluatetheevidence.XrXX XrMatthews,805S.W.2dat779.Thejuryobviouslyaccreditedthe  testimonyofthevictimanddiscreditedthetestimonyofthedefendant.# XrXXXr7#The !` defendantadmittedpushingthevictim.Inthelightmostfavorabletothestate,thedefendant intentionally...cause[d]bodilyinjurytoanotherbyshovingthevictimsuchthatshefellandinjuredherearandnose.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913101(a)(1)(1997).Therefore,theevidencesufficientlysupportsthedefendantsconvictionformisdemeanorassault.   @ B.   Thedefendantcontendsthatthereisnoproofintherecordthatthetrialjudgeperformedhisdutytoactasthethirteenthjuror.SeeTenn.R.Crim.P. 2@), 33(f).Inacriminalcase,thetrialjudgehasamandatorydutytoindependentlyweightheevidencetodeterminethatitconformswithajurysverdict.SeeStatev. `6-0 Carter,896S.W.2d119,122(Tenn.1995).InCarter,theTennesseeSupreme @8.2 Courtdescribedthestandardofappellatereviewfortheissueofwhetheratrial  :04 judgehasactedasthethirteenthjuror: ` [W]henthetrialjudgesimplyoverrulesamotionfornewtrial,anappellatecourtmaypresumethatthetrialjudgehasservedasthethirteenthjurorandapprovedthejurysverdict.Nonetheless,wheretherecordcontainsstatementsbythetrialjudgeexpressingdissatisfactionordisagreementwiththeweightoftheevidenceorthejurysverdict,orstatementsindicatingthatthetrialcourtabsolveditselfofitsresponsibilitytoactasthethirteenthjuror,anappellatecourtmayreversethetrialcourtsjudgment. ` Id.(citationsomitted).Inthiscase,thetrialjudgeoverruledamotionforanewtrial 0  andthereisnoevidenceofanystatementsmadebythetrialjudgeatanytimewhichwouldindicatedisagreementwiththejurysverdict.Therefore,wemaypresumethathefulfilledhisdutyasthethirteenthjurorandapprovedthejurysverdict. However,thedefendantarguesthatthiscourtisprecludedfrompresumingthatthetrialjudgefulfilledhisdutyasthethirteenthjurorbecausethereisnotranscriptofthehearingonthemotionforanewtrial.TheTennesseeSupremeCourtstatedthatthetrialjudgedoesnothavetoexplicitlystateontherecordapprovalofthejurysverdict.Seeid.at120.Accordingly,thelackofa P(! recordisnotrelevantforthisdetermination.Intheabsenceofanyindicationinthestatementofevidencethatthetrialjudgeaffirmativelyabdicatedhisroleasthethirteenthjurororexpresseddissatisfactionwiththeweightoftheevidence,thetrialjudgesdenialofthemotionforanewtrialistheonlyrelevantinformationneededtopresumethathefulfilledhisdutyasthethirteenthjuror.  III.ProsecutorialMisconduct  p5,/    Thedefendantcontendsthattherewasprosecutorialmisconductinthefollowingactions:(a)elicitingtestimonyregardingthedefendantshistoryof 09/3 violenceinhisrelationshipwiththevictim,(b)duringvoirdire,continuously66using66 `  66the66term domesticviolence,and(c)duringvoirdire,tellingthejurytoassessthe @  defendantscredibilitybythefactthathehadastronginterestintheoutcomeofthecase.Toestablishaclaimforprosecutorialmisconduct,thedefendantmustprovethatthe improperconductcouldhaveaffectedtheverdicttotheprejudiceofthedefendant.Harringtonv.State,385S.W.2d758,759(Tenn.1965) `    A.TestimonyoftheDefendantsHistoryofViolence   Thedefendantcontendsthattheprosecutorshouldnothaveelicitedcertainstatementsfromthevictimimplyingthatthedefendanthadabusedthevictiminthepast.Thedefendantarguesthisprosecutorialmisconductwasusedtobolsterthestates weakcasebyplacinginadmissibleevidencebeforethejury.Thedefendantclaimsthisisinadmissibleevidenceofothercrimes,wrongs,oracts,whichisgovernedbyTennesseeRuleofEvidence404(b). #  3      ׀Thedefendantfileda !` pretrialmotionforthestatetoprovidenoticeoftheuseofevidenceofothercrimes, #@ wrongs,oracts.Defensecounselstatedontherecordthatnonoticehadbeengivenbythestatetousesuchevidence.Theprosecutorannouncedthatthestatedidnotintendtopresentevidenceofothercrimes,wrongs,oracts.Thetrialjudgeorderedthestatetoapproachthebenchbeforepresentingany404(b)evidenceduringtrial.Whendefensecounselobjectedtocertaintestimonyforlackofajuryouthearingasorderedpretrial,thetrialcourtoverruledtheobjectionandallowedthetestimony. Theobjectionabletestimonywas:(1)thevictim hadseenthatlookbefore,(2)thevictim knewtherewouldbeanaltercation,(3)thedefendantandthevictim hadproblemsinthepast,and(4)thevictim knewtherewouldbeafight,verbalorphysical. 66Generally,66characterevidenceisinadmissibletoproveactioninconformitywiththecharacterortraitonaparticularoccasion.Tenn.R.Evid.404(a).However,characterevidenceisadmissibleforotherpurposesifitisrelevantandhasprobativevaluewhichisnotsubstantiallyoutweighedbyunfairprejudice.Tenn.R.Evid.401403.Thestandardofreviewapplicabletothedecisiontoadmitevidenceisabuseofdiscretion.Statev.Dubose,953S.W.2d  +!$ 649,652(Tenn.1997);Statev.Baker,785S.W.2d132,134(Tenn.Crim.App. -#& 1980).WhentheevidencefallswithinRule404(b),thestandardofreviewisthesameifthetrialjudgehassubstantiallycompliedwiththeproceduralrequirementsoftherule.Dubose,953S.W.2dat652.However,ifthetrialjudgedoesnot 2@), substantiallycomplywiththeproceduralrequirementsofRule404(b),thennodeferenceisgiventothetrialjudgesdecision.Id.󀀀 `6-0  Inordertodeterminewhichevidentiaryruleorrulesapply,wemust  :04 assessthenatureofthetestimonyoffered.Thepartiesarenotdisputingtherelevanceoftheevidence.Thedefendantandthestatetreatedthisevidenceas404(b)evidenceofothercrimes,wrongs,or66acts.66 66Whether66thesestatements66were66evidenceofothercrimes,wrongs,oractsunderRule66404(b)6666orwere66statements66of66generalcharacterevidenceunderRule66404(a),6666the6666statementsfallwithinthegeneralruleofadmissibilityinTennesseethatevidenceofthedefendantspriorviolentactionsorthreatsagainstthevictimareadmissibletoshowintent6to66or6stateofmindoftheaccused.SeeStatev.Ray, ` 880S.W.2d700,704(Tenn.Crim.App.1993);Statev.Glebock,616S.W.2d897, @ 90506(Tenn.Crim.App.1981);Hullv.State,553S.W.2d90,93(Tenn.Crim.App.   1977).Suchpriorviolent relations[betweenthe6partiies66parties6]indicatehostilitytowardthevictimandasettledpurposetoharmorinjur6y6666e6her.Glebock,616S.W.2dat  905.Thestatementstendtoshow,asthe66statearguesinits66brief,66thatthe66injuriestothevictimwerenot66accidential666accidental6.We66findthatthetrialjudgedidnot66err66inadmittingthesestatements.Becausethestatementswereadmissible,therewasnoprosecutorialmisconductinelicitingthe66statements.6666 66񀀀  B.UseofPhrase DomesticViolence  Ӏ Thedefendantcontendsthattherewasprosecutorialmisconduct -#& duringvoirdirewhentheprosecutorcontinuallyusedthephrase domestic .%( violence.Theprosecutoraskedpotentialjurors iftheyfeltitwasproperforthestatetogetinvolvedindomesticviolencecases,and ifdomesticviolencedefendantsshouldbetreatedmorelenientlythanstrangersinassaultcases.Defensecounselobjectedandthetrialjudgesustainedtheobjection,instructingtheprosecutortodiscontinueuseofthephraseandreferonlyto assaults.Theprosecutorcontinuedtousethephrase domesticviolence.Thedefendantargues  :04 thatthejurybecameprejudicedagainstthedefendantbecauseoftheseremarks.Thestatearguesthattheseremarksdidnotaffecttheoutcomeofthecase. Todeterminewhetherprosecutorialmisconductaffectedtheverdicttotheprejudiceofthedefendant,fivefactorsshouldbeconsidered.Thefivefactorstobeconsideredare: ` (1)[t]heconductcomplainedofviewedincontextandinlightofthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,(2)[t]hecurativemeasuresundertakenbythecourtandtheprosecution,(3)[t]heintentoftheprosecutorinmakingtheimproperstatement,(4)[t]hecumulativeeffectoftheimproperconductandanyothererrorsintherecord,[and](5)[t]herelativestrengthorweaknessofthecase.   ` Judgev.State,539S.W.2d340,344(Tenn.Crim.App.1976). !`  Thefirstfactorrequiresviewingtheconductincontext.Inthiscase,thecontextoftheallegedmisconductwasduringvoirdire.Thepurposeofvoirdire `'  istoinformcounselofajurorsqualification,interestandpossiblebias.Statev. @)" Onidas,635S.W.2d516,517(Tenn.1982). [The]properfieldsofinquiryinclude  +!$ thejurorsoccupation,habits,acquaintanceships,associationsandotherfactors,includinghisexperiences,whichwillindicatehisfreedomfrombias.Id.(quoting .%( Smithv.State,327S.W.2d308,318(Tenn.1959)(citationsomitted)).Inthis 0`'* context,thequestionsregardingdomesticviolenceseemtohavebeenaskedtodetermineiftherewasanybiasamongpotentialjurors.However,thecontinueduseofthephrasedomesticviolencemaynothavebeenproper. Thecurativemeasurestakenbythetrialjudgewerenoteffective  :04 becausetheprosecutorcontinuedusingthephraseafterbeinginstructedtousethephrase assaultinsteadof domesticviolence.Theintentoftheprosecutorisnotclear.However,wecannotconclude,asthedefendanthas,thattheprosecutorintendedtoinflamethepassionsofthejuryandprejudicethejuryagainstthedefendantsimplybyusingthephrase domesticviolence.Theprosecutor,byreferringtotheproblemofdomesticviolence,mayhavebeenappealing66to66thejurytoactasthecommunityconscience.Appealingtothejurytoactasthecommunityconscienceisnotnecessarilyprosecutorialmisconduct.SeeStatev.Pulliam,950   S.W.2d360,368(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).However,theprosecutorshouldnothavedisobeyedthetrialjudgesordertodiscontinueusingthephrase domesticviolence. Thefactorregardingthecumulativeeffectoftheuseof domesticviolencewithothererrorsdoesnotneedtobeconsideredbecausewefindnoothererrors.Thelastfactor,therelativestrengthorweaknessofthecase,weighsinfavorofthestate.Althoughthestatesentirecaseconsistedofthevictimstestimonyandanotherwitnesstestimony,ifthejurybelievedthesewitnesses,thenthecasewasstrongandsolidagainstthedefendant.The domesticviolencecommentsdidnotenhancethestatescase.Accordingly,wefindthatthecontinuoususeofthephrase domesticviolencedidnotconstituteprosecutorialmisconductinthiscasebecausethecommentsdidnotaffecttheverdict.  C.CommentontheDefendantsCredibility   Thethirdinstanceofallegedprosecutorialmisconductwasduringtheprosecutorsvoirdireexaminationofthejurypool.Theprosecutoraskedthe `6-0 potentialjurors iftheycouldtakeintoaccountthatthedefendantinacriminalcasehasaninterestintheoutcomeofthecasewhenconsideringthedefendants  :04 credibility.Thetrialjudgeoverruleddefensecounselsobjectiontothiscommentoncethestaterespondedthat theywerenotsayingthedefendantwasnottobebelieved.Thedefendantarguesthatthiscommentresultedinprejudicetothedefendantandthejudicialprocessasawhole. Thecontextofthiscommentwasduringvoirdire.Asstatedabove, `  thepurposeofvoirdireistoassessthepotentialjurorsqualifications,interestsand @  possiblebiases.Voirdireisnotthecontextinwhichtoinformpotentialjurorsabout   credibilityissues.Usuallythetrialjudgewillinstructjurorsaboutcredibilityissuesafterthetrialhasbegun,notduringvoirdire.Neitherthetrialjudgenorthe @ prosecutorundertookcurativemeasures.Theintentoftheprosecutorisnotclear,butwefindnointenttoprejudicethedefendantbythiscomment.Thecumulativeeffectisnotanissuebecausetherearenoothererrors.Asstatedabove,thestatescasewasrelativelystrong. [Theprosecutor]wasmerelypronouncingaprofoundtruthwhichthetrialjurorsalreadyknewiftheyweregivingcarefulattentiontotheissues.66񛀀Sheltonv.State,479S.W.2d817,820(Tenn.Crim.App.1972). %  Consideringallthefactors,wefindthatthiscommentdidnotconstituteprosecutorialmisconduct.   IV.Sentencing -#&  r XrXX XrThedefendantchallengesthesentenceimposedasexcessiveand .%( arguesthatimmediateprobationshouldhavebeengranted.Indeterminingwhetherthetrialcourthasproperlysentencedanindividual,thiscourtengagesinadenovo 2@), reviewoftherecordwithapresumptionthatthetrialcourt'sdeterminationswerecorrect.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d)(1997).66In66conductingourdenovo `6-0 review,wemustconsidertheevidenceatsentencing,thepresentencereport,thesentencingprinciples,theargumentsofcounsel,thestatementsofthedefendant,  :04 thenatureandcharacteristicsoftheoffense,anymitigatingandenhancementfactors,andthedefendantsamenabilitytorehabilitation.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035210(b)(Supp.1998);Tenn.CodeAnn.4035103(5)66(1997)66.66񛀀# XrXXXrr#XrXX XrOnappeal,the   appellanthastheburdenofshowingthatthesentenceimposedisimproper.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d),SentencingComm'nComments66(1997)66.66 Infelonysentencing,thetrialcourthasanaffirmativedutytostatein @  therecord,eitherorallyorinwriting,whichenhancementandmitigatingfactorsit   foundanditsfindingsoffact.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035209(c)(1997);Tenn.CodeAnn.4035210(f)(Supp.1998);Statev.Troutman,979S.W.2d271,274(Tenn. @ 1998).Incontrast,themisdemeanorsentencingstatuteonlyrequiresthatthetrialcourtconsidertheenhancementandmitigatingfactorswhencalculatingthe  percentageofthesentencetobeserved"inactualconfinement"priorto"considerationforworkrelease,furlough,trustystatusandrelatedrehabilitativeprograms."Tenn.CodeAnn.4035302(d)(1997);Troutman,979S.W.2dat #@ 274.# XrXXXrv# Indeterminingwhethertograntprobation,thejudgemustconsiderthenatureandcircumstancesoftheoffense,thedefendantscriminalrecord,66his66backgroundandsocialhistory,66his66presentcondition,including66his66physicalandmentalcondition,thedeterrenteffectonothercriminalactivity,andthelikelihoodthatprobationisinthebestinterestsofboththepublicandthedefendant.Stiller 0`'* v.State,516S.W.2d617,620(Tenn.1974).Thedefendantbearstheburdenof 2@), establishingsuitabilityforprobation,evenwhenthedefendantispresumedtobeeligibleforprobation.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035303(a)(b)(1997). `6-0  Atthesentencinghearing,defensecounselpresentedevidenceofthe  :04 defendantsworkhistory,militarybackground,educationalbackground,andvolunteerwork.Hiscriminalrecordconsistedofthreeprioroffenses,twoconvictionsfromthelate1970sandonefederalconviction.Oneoftheconvictionsfromthelate1970swasforassault,butthereisnoevidenceregardingthecircumstancesofthatconviction. Wereviewthetrialcourtsdecisionwithapresumptionof66correctness.6666The66trialjudgestatedhisconcernaboutthedefendants failuretorecognizehisresponsibilityforthisconduct.Thetrialjudgeconsideredthedefendantspriorcriminal66history66butfoundlittlesignificanceintwoofthepreviousconvictions.Theonlyconvictionthetrialjudgefoundtobesignificantwasatwentyyearoldassaultconviction. TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasstatedthat thereisnoruleinthisStaterequiringaDefendanttoadmithisguiltinordertoseekprobation.Statev. #@ Bunch,646S.W.2d158,160(Tenn.1983)(citingStatev.Gautney,607S.W.2d %  907,910(Tenn.Crim.App.1980)).TheBunchcourtheldthatreversalwouldbe `'  requiredifthesolebasisforatrialcourtsdenialofprobationwasthatthedefendantdidnotadmitguilt.Bunch,646S.W.2dat160.Thedefendantarguesthatreversal  +!$ isrequiredherebecausehisfailuretoadmitguiltwasthesolebasisfordenialofprobation.Wedisagree. Indenyingprobation,thetrialjudgemadefindingsregarding66thenatureandcircumstancesoftheoffense,thedefendantspriorcriminalhistory,andthedefendantspotentialforrehabilitation.Thedefendanthasfailedtocarrytheburdenofestablishingimmediateprobationsuitabilityinthetrialcourtandonappeal.Fromourreviewofthesentencinghearingtranscript,wefindthatthetrial  :04 judgeproperlyorderedashortperiodofincarceration.666666 Inconsiderationoftheforegoing,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.    h      p      x   666666    h     ________________________________    h     JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:_______________________________GARYR.WADE,PRESIDINGJUDGE_______________________________JOHNK.BYERS,SENIORJUDGE