ÿWPCZ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝwå4õ 0l 0D„ U.È ö ö 0Jþ 0TH 0^œ 0hú 0rb 0|Ô 0†P 0Ö 1uf U,Û 0dU,k D3— BÊU >ç 0@%B)eDCŽ AMÑ"$@v~dvÓâ AOµÆ 0DÊ D/ B=˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-UVÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x_((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó%ä2¼A`ArialTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco++++'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd€-/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌJune€11,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417.Ô€,ÔÔ€,XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÓ&€))X„d&ÓÑ#€))Xd#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€,ŠÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ænXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€01/;+'h|` ç `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€œNASHVILLE›ÌÌœFEBRUARY›€SESSION,€œ1996›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ïœ01C01„9506„CC„00196›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœWILLIAMSON›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œCORNELIA€A.€CLARKó ó›Ìò òœKENNY€CHEATHAM,ó ó›à àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àœò ò)à àó ó(Conspiracy€to€Sell€Cocaine)ò òÌó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCIRCUIT€COURT€OF€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌó óÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌERIC€L.€DAVISà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ317€Main€Street,€Suite€208à àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌFranklin,€TN€37064Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àELLEN€H.€POLLACKÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOE€D.€BAUGH,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDEREK€SMITHÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€37065„0937ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant,€Kenny€Cheatham,€brings€this€appeal€as€of€right€from€aÏjury€verdict€convicting€him€of€conspiracy€to€sell€and€deliver€cocaine.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€For€thisÏClass€C€felony,€€the€jury€imposed€a€fine€of€ten€thousand€dollars,€and›€the€trialÏcourt€sentenced€him€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€to€a€six„year€sentence€inÏthe€Department€of€œCorrection.›€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€presents€four€issues€on€appeal:€(1)€That€the€evidenceÏwas€not€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€conspiracy€to€sell€and€deliverÏcocaine€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€theÏredirect€examination€of€Michael€Buchanan;€(3)€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏadmitting€witness€Allen€Haleððs€rebuttal€testimony€concerning€witness€MichaelÏBuchananððs€alleged€out„of„court€œstatements;€and,›€(4)€that€the€trial€courtÏimproperly€imposed€an€excessive€sentence.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€originally€charged€in€a€nine„count€indictment,€includingÏfour€counts€œcharging›€the€sale€of€cocaine,€four€counts€charging€the€unlawfulÍdelivery€of€cocaine,€and€one€count€charging€conspiracy€to€sell€and€deliverÏcocaine€of€.5€grams€or€more.€€The€Defendant€pleaded€guilty€to€the€four€countsÏcharging€the€sale€of€cocaine,€and€the€State€nolled€the€four€counts€chargingÏdelivery€of€cocaine.€€The€Defendant€was€tried€by€jury€on€the€remainingÏconspiracy€charge.€€œHe›€was€found€guilty€and€subsequently€sentenced€onÏJanuary€23,€œ1995.€€He€appeals€from€the€judgment€entered€on€the€jury€verdictÏand€the€sentence€imposed€thereon.›ÌœÌÓ  Óò òI.€€Factsó óÓ  Ó›Ìà àOn€June€7,€1994,€Doug€Malinowski,€a€confidential€informant€for€theÏFranklin€Police€Department,€and€Detective€Allen€Hale,€an€officer€with€theÏœdepartment,›€met€to€discuss€an€undercover€narcotics€investigation€in€the€EleventhÏAvenue€North€area€of€Franklin.€€Detective€Hale€set€up€Malinowskiððs€car€with€aÏvideo€camera€and€audio€transmitter.€€Detective€Hale€proceeded€with€the€usualÏsearch€and€briefing€procedures€used€with€a€confidential€informant€and€instructedÏMalinowski€that€he€was€to€make€a€cocaine€purchase.€€The€officer€then€providedÏthe€informant€with€money€to€buy€the€crack€cocaine.€€The€two€then€droveÏseparately€to€the€Eleventh€Avenue€North€area€to€make€the€purchase,€andÏDetective€Hale€waited€in€a€hidden€location€to€monitor€the€purchase€on€audioÏtape.€€Ìà àAs€Malinowski€drove€down€the€street,€he€was€hailed€by€MichaelÏBuchanan.€€Malinowski€negotiated€with€Buchanan€to€purchase€œeighty›€dollarsÏworth€of€crack€cocaine.€€Buchanan€then€directed€Malinowski€to€go€behind€theÏhouses€that€faced€the€œstreet›€to€meet€the€person€who€would€supply€the€cocaine.€ÏThere,€Malinowski€met€the€Defendant€and€bought€eighty€dollars€worth€ofÏcocaine€from€him.€€Buchanan€stood€nearby€during€the€transaction,€andÏimmediately€after€the€sale,€another€individual,€Derek€ð ðPookieðð€Johnson€gave€theÏinformant€his€name€as€a€future€reference.ÌÌà àMalinowski€then€returned€to€the€police€department€followed€by€DetectiveÏHale,€who€took€the€cocaine,€sealed€it€as€evidence,€and€submitted€it€to€theÏevidence€custodian.€€The€crime€lab€later€positively€identified€the€substance€asÏcrack€cocaine.€ÌÌ€€à àAt€trial,€Detective€Hale€testified€that,€at€the€time€of€the€transaction,€he€wasÏfamiliar€with€both€the€Defendant€and€the€co„defendant,€€Michael€Buchanan.€ÏThe€entire€transaction€was€recorded€on€video€and€audio€tape,€and€HaleÏsubsequently€identified€the€Defendant€as€the€person€that€sold€and€delivered€theÏcocaine€œon›€the€videotape.€€He€also€identified€Buchanan€as€the€co„conspiratorÏfrom€the€tape.ÌÌÓ  Óò òœII.›€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÌÓ  Ӝ̛à àThe€Defendant€first€contends€that€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€to€supportÏa€conviction€of€conspiracy€to€sell€or€deliver€cocaine€because€the€elements€wereÏnot€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€He€specifically€argues€that€the€StateÏfailed€to€prove€that€the€Defendant€and€Michael€Buchanan€entered€into€anÏagreement€to€commit€the€offense€œcharged,›€œnor›€that€they€entered€into€an€overt€actÏin€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy.€€ÌÌà à€When€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïthis€court€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€during€theÏtrial€was€sufficient€"to€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt."€€T.R.A.P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guiltÏpredicated€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€ofÏdirect€and€circumstantial€evidence.€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweighÏor€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€ofÏfact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286ÍS.W.2d€856,€859€(Tenn.€1956).€€This€court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€ofÏTennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÏas€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€fromÏthe€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Herrodóó,€754€S.W.2d€627,€632€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€andÏvalue€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754ÏS.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€In€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474Ï(Tenn.€1973),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€said,€"A€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,Ïapproved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."€€œòòId.óó›€at€476.Ì€€à àà àÌà àBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÏreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€œòòid.óó,›€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€thisÏcourt€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returnedÏby€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€ThisÏcourt€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unlessÏthe€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€the€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€fromÏthe€facts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€theÏaccused€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòMatthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€at€780.ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„12„103€states€that€the€offense€ofÏconspiracy€is€committed€if€ÌÓÓà8 àtwo€(2)€or€more€people,€each€having€the€culpable€mental€stateÏrequired€for€the€offense€which€is€the€object€of€the€conspiracy€andÏeach€acting€for€the€purpose€of€promoting€or€facilitating€commissionÏof€an€offense,€agree€that€œone€(1)›€or€more€of€them€will€engage€inÏconduct€which€constitutes€such€offense.€€ÌÌà8 àà à(d)€No€person€may€be€convicted€of€conspiracy€to€commit€anÏoffense€unless€an€overt€act€in€pursuance€of€such€conspiracy€isÏalleged€and€proved€to€have€been€done€by€the€person€or€byÏanother€with€œwhom›€the€person€conspired.ÌÌÔ€XÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÔ€ŠÔ€39„12„103(a),€(c).ÌÓÓÌà àBoth€the€confidential€informant€and€Detective€Hale€testified€that€MichaelÏBuchanan€hailed€the€informant,€negotiated€on€the€amount€of€drugs€he€wanted€toÏpurchase,€and€then€motioned€him€to€go€around€to€a€nearby€location€behind€aÏrow€of€houses€to€buy€the€drugs.€€The€videotape€of€the€transaction€indicated€thatÏsomeone€stopped€the€informant€and€questioned€him€as€to€the€amount€of€drugsÏthat€he€wanted€to€buy.€€Both€witnesses€identified€Michael€Buchanan€as€theÏone€negotiating€the€purchase,€and€both€identified€him€from€the€videotape€as€oneÏof€the€men€standing€nearby€during€the€transaction.€€ÌÌà àBuchanan€admitted€at€trial€that€he€directed€the€informant€to€go€around€toÏthe€back€of€the€houses€where€several€dealers€apparently€were,€but€he€deniedÍthat€he€had€any€type€of€agreement€to€sell€drugs€with€the€Defendant.€€BuchananÏdid€testify€that€the€Defendant€had€given€him€drugs€for€his€personal€use.€€TheÏState€also€impeached€the€credibility€of€this€witness€with€prior€inconsistentÏstatements€that€he€had€made€to€the€district€attorney€and€Detective€Hale€theÏnight€before€in€which€he€had€said€that€he€and€the€Defendant€would€sometimesÏget€high€together.€€Ìà àAfter€observing€the€witnesses€and€hearing€their€testimony,€the€jury€foundÏthat€the€State€had€proven€the€elements€of€the€offense€of€conspiracy€to€sell€orÏdeliver€cocaine.€€After€reviewing€the€record€and€looking€at€the€evidence€in€the€lightÏmost€favorable€to€the€State,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€insufficientÏto€support€the€conviction.€€We,€therefore,€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficientÏto€support€the€juryððs€verdict€of€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€Admissibility€of€Witness€Testimonyó óÌÓ  Ӝ̛à àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€œadmitting›€the€StateððsÏredirect€examination€of€Michael€Buchanan€and€the€rebuttal€testimony€ofÏDetective€Allen€Hale.€ÌÌà àThe€State€called€the€alleged€co„conspirator,€Michael€Buchanan.€€œAfter€theÏStateððs€direct€examination,€the›€defense€cross„examined€the€witness€as€to€theÍexistence€of€a€conspiratorial€agreement€between€him€and€the€Defendant.€€TheÏwitness€denied€that€they€ever€had€such€an€agreement.€€The€defense€thenÏquestioned€the€witness€as€to€whether€he€had€ever€been€a€part€of€any€drugÏtransactions€with€the€Defendant,€œwhich›€the€witness€again€denied.€€ÌÌà àThe€prosecutor€and€Detective€Hale€had€questioned€the€witness€on€theÏnight€before€trial.€€On€redirect,€the€State€attempted€to€impeach€the€witnessððsÏtestimony€with€several€inconsistent€statements€which€he€had€made€during€theirÏdiscussion€on€the€previous€night,€which€related€to€the€conspiratorial€agreementÏbetween€the€witness€and€the€Defendant.€€The€redirect€examination,€in€part,€wasÏas€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àQ:€[MR.€DAVIS]:€Mr.€Buchanan,€do€you€remember€telling€meÏlast€night€that€you€had€received€drugs€from€Kenny€Cheatham€forÏdirecting€people€over€there€to€him?ÌÌà8 àà àA:€No,€I€said,€ð ðWe€get€high€together,ðð€not€for€no€„„€directingÏnobody€to€him.ÌÌà8 àà àQ:€Do€you€remember€telling€me€that€you€would€get€highÏtogether€because€he€would€give€you€some€of€the€cocaine€to€getÏhigh€together?ÌÌà8 àà àA:€We€have€our€own.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€trial€court€allowed€such€questioning,€reasoning€that€the€defense€hadÏopened€the€œdoor€by€asking€the€witness€if€he€had€even€received€or€seen€moneyÍfrom€the€Defendant€for€selling€drugs.€€Because€the€defense€opened€the€door,€theÏcourt€said€that€the€State€could€ask€the€witness€about€other€forms€ofÏconsideration€he€received.ÌÌà àAfter›€an€objection€by€the€defense,€the€trial€court€admonished€the€State€œnotÏto€use›€such€language€as,€ð ðDo€you€remember€telling€me€last€œnight,ð𛀜or€ð ðDidnððt€IÏsay€to€you?ðð€›€Upon€the€Defendantððs€request,€the€court€also€gave€a€curativeÏinstruction€to€the€jury€that€the€statements€or€questions€of€counsel€are€notÏevidence,€but€only€provide€a€framework€for€the€answers€that€are€given.€€TheÏcourt€gave€a€second€curative€instruction€explaining€that€the€prior€inconsistentÏstatements€could€not€be€considered€substantive€evidence,€but€could€only€beÏœused€for€impeachment€value›€in€considering€the€credibility€of€the€witness.ÌÌà àThe€State€subsequently€recalled€Detective€Hale€to€the€stand€as€a€rebuttalÏwitness.€€Detective€Hale€testified€as€to€the€prior€inconsistent€statements€madeÏby€Michael€Buchanan€on€the€night€before€trial€and€that€during€these€statements,Ïthe€witness€testified€about€drug„related€transactions€with€the€Defendant.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€specifically€argues€that€the€redirect€testimony€of€MichaelÏBuchanan€was€not€relevant€and€thereby€should€have€been€excluded€underÏTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€403.€€Rule€403€states€that€relevant€evidence€mayÍbe€excluded€if€its€ð ðprobative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€ofÏunfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€byÏconsiderations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needless€presentation€ofÏcumulative€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€testimony€of€Buchanan€was€cumulativeÏevidence,€that€the€probative€value€of€examining€the€witness€on€theÏconspiratorial€agreement€was€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice€toward€the€œDefendant,›€and€the€risk€that€the€testimony€would€misleadÏthe€jury€concerning€the€admissibility€of€factual€allegations€œstated›€by€theÏprosecuting€attorney.€ÌÌà àThe€decision€to€admit€or€exclude€œevidence€based€on€relevancy›€is€left€toÏthe€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€and€his€or€her€discretion€will€not€beÏdisturbed€unless€it€is€arbitrarily€exercised.€œ€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€785€S.W.2d€132,€134Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€€(Tenn.€1990).€€TheÏdecision€of€whether€the€probative€value€of€evidence€is€substantially€outweighedÏby€the€danger€of€confusing€the€issues,€misleading€the€jury,€or€undue€waste€ofÏtime€is€also€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Burlisonóó,€868ÏS.W.2d€713,€721€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).›€œMichael€Buchananððs›€testimony€wasÏdirectly€probative€on€the€central€issue€of€whether€he€had€a€conspiratorialÍagreement€with€the€œDefendant.€€We€do€not€believe€that€the€trial€judge€abusedÏher€discretion€in€allowing€his€redirect€examination.›€€€ÌœÌ›à àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€rebuttalÏtestimony€of€Detective€Hale€in€which€he€testified€that,€on€the€night€before€trial,ÏMichael€Buchanan€admitted€that€he€sent€the€informant€to€the€Defendant€ð ðto€getÏhis€business€took€care€of,ðð€and€that€the€Defendant€was€going€to€give€him€drugsÏfor€doing€this.€€The€Defendant€contends€that€this€testimony€was€not€relevantÏunder€Rule€403€because€the€probative€value€was€substantially€outweighed€byÏthe€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€and€misleading€the€jury.€ÏHe€also€argues€that€despite€the€courtððs€curative€instruction,€the€juryððs€naturalÏinclination€would€be€to€consider€the€detectiveððs€testimony€as€substantiveÏevidence€rather€than€using€it€to€determine€Buchananððs€credibility.€€ÌÌà àAgain,€the€decision€as€to€the€relevancy€of€evidence€is€within€the€discretionÏof€the€trial€judge€and€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€absent€a€showing€that€theÏœjudge›€abused€that€discretion.€€œòòState€v.€Bakeróó,€785€S.W.2d€at€134;€òòState€v.ÏFurloughóó,€797€S.W.2d€631,€645€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óóÏ(Tenn.€1990).€€Haleððs›€testimony€was€clearly€relevant€on€the€issue€of€theÏwitnessððs€credibility.€€The€judge€instructed€the€jury€that€Detective€HaleððsÏtestimony€regarding€the€prior€statements€of€Michael€Buchanan€should€only€beÍused€to€determine€Buchananððs€credibility,€not€as€substantive€evidence.€€The€juryÏis€presumed€to€have€complied€with€the€curative€instructions€given€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòState€v.€Fosteróó,€755€S.W.2d€846,€849€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1988).€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€œjudge›€did€not€abuse€œher›Ïdiscretion€in€admitting€the€rebuttal€testimony,€and€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€€€à àÌÌÓ  Óò òIV.€€Sentencingó óÌÓ  Ӝ̛à àFinally,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€imposed€an€excessiveÏsentence€œand›€improperly€applied€the€statutory€enhancement€œfactors€for€theÏconspiracy€conviction.›ÌÌà àœWhen›€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€,ÔððÔ€Ô€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ÌÌÓ ` °œXÓà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:€Ï(a)€€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€,Ôðððð€Ô€Ô40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€that€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€does€not€contest€the€consecutive€nature€of€his€sentence€orÏthe€aggregate€length€of€all€the€sentences,€but€apparently€only€takes€issue€withÏthe€length€of€the€œsentence€for€the€conspiracy€conviction.›€He€argues€that€he€wasÏerroneously€ordered€to€serve€the€maximum€sentence€because€the€trial€courtÏimproperly€applied€the€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors.€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€Defendant€as€a€Range€I€standard€offenderÏand€imposed€a€six„year€term€of€imprisonment€on€this€charge.€€The€trial€court€alsoÏsentenced€the€Defendant€on€the€four€charges€of€sale€of€cocaine€to€which€heÏhad€pleaded€guilty.€€The€sentence€for€the€conspiracy€conviction€was€ordered€toÏrun€concurrent€to€three€of€the€counts€of€the€sale€of€cocaine€and€consecutive€toÏthe€fourth€count€for€an€effective€sentence€of€eighteen€years.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€did€not€find€any€mitigating€factors€and€applied€fourÏenhancement€factors.€€As€enhancement€factors,€the€trial€court€applied€œfactors:›€(1)Ïthat€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminalÏbehavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€range;€(2)€that€theÏdefendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€an€offense€involving€two€or€moreÏcriminal€actors;€(8)€that€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€toÏcomply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€œrelease›€into€the€community;Ïand€(10)€the€Defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€where€theÏrisk€to€human€life€was€œhigh.›€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.Ô€,ÔÔ€,XÔÌÌà àÔ€ÔÔ€ŠÔThe€Defendant€concedes€that€the€application€of€factors€(1)€and€(8)€areÏappropriate.€€He€contends,€however,€that€the€record€does€not€support€theÏapplication€of€factor€(10).€€He€also€argues€his€client€did€not€participate€in€aÍconspiracy,€thus€the€application€of€factor€(2),€that€he€was€the€leader€in€theÏcommission€of€the€offense,€was€error.€€In€the€alternative,€even€if€it€is€concludedÏthat€he€and€Michael€Buchanan€both€participated€in€the€sale,€the€proof€isÏinsufficient€to€show€that€he€was€the€leader€in€the€crime.€€We€disagree.€€TheÏDefendant€was€convicted€of€conspiracy.€He€possessed€the€drugs,€sold€andÏdelivered€the€drugs€to€the€informant,€and€took€the€money€from€the€sale€of€drugs.€ÏWe€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€this€factor.€€€ÌÌ€à àThe€trial€œjudge›€said€that€factor€(10)€was€applicable€because€the€sale€ofÏcocaine€to€people€that€the€Defendant€knew€and€knew€were€using€cocaineÏregularly€with€an€addiction€problem€should€convince€the€supplier€that€a€risk€toÏhuman€life€and€œwell„being›€existed.€€The€State€cites€òòState€v.€Millbrooksóó,€819ÏS.W.2d€441€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1991),›€in€support€of€the€trial€courtððs€application€ofÏthis€factor,€in€which€this€court€held€that€ð ð[c]onsidering€the€potency€of€crackÏcocaine,€it€certainly€can€be€said€that€there€is€a€high€risk€to€human€life€from€theÏdistribution€of€that€substance.€€It€can€also€be€said€that€the€crime€involved€greatÏpotential€for€bodily€injury.€.€.€since€the€use€of€crack€cocaine€is,€without€a€doubt,Ïinjurious€to€the€human€body.ðð€€œòòId.ó󛀜at›€446„47.€€ÌÌà àœThis€court€has€subsequently€departed€from€the€òòMillbrooksóó€holding€and›Ïheld€that€the€application€of€factor€(10)€cannot€be€used€solely€based€on€theÍinherent€traits€of€cocaine€such€as€its€potential€for€addiction€or€the€dangers€of€itsÏuse.€€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€420€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€œ1994).›€€The€potential€for€abuse€and€the€œpsychological›€andÏphysical€dependency€that€can€result€from€the€use€of€the€drug€has€already€beenÏconsidered€by€the€legislature€when€classifying€the€drug€as€a€Schedule€IIÏsubstance.€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€œ532,€542›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.Ïto€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1993);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Timmy€Rickeróó,€No.€269,ÏHamblen€County,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€filed€Jan.€€4,€1989),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.,€œfiled›€May€8,€1989)€(factor€(10)€not€applicableÏbecause€legislature€sufficiently€incorporated€the€factor€into€the€classificationÏschedule€and€again€in€the€sentencing€act).€€Therefore,€we€conclude€thatÏapplication€of€factor€(10)€in€this€instance€was€error.€€€€Ìœà àThe›€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€record€supports€two€mitigatingÏfactors€that€the€trial€court€refused€to€consider:€(1)€that€the€Defendantððs€criminalÏconduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury,€and€(3)€substantialÏgrounds€exist€tending€to€excuse€or€justify€the€Defendantððs€criminal€conduct,Ïthough€failing€to€establish€a€defense.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€œÔ€XÔððððÔ€ŠÔ›€œ40„35„113(1),€(3).›€€œÌ›Ìœà àThe›€Defendant€contends€that€factor€(1)€was€applicable€because€no€oneÏsustained€any€bodily€injury,€nor€was€anyone€threatened€with€bodily€œinjury.€€ThisÍcourt€has€previously€stated€that€ð ðgiven€the€magnitude€of€the€problem€of€cocaineÏabuse,ðð€a€defendantððs€sale€of€2.5€grams€of€cocaine€threatened€serious€bodilyÏinjury.€€òòJohnny€Arwood€v.€Stateóó,€No.€335,€Hamblen€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€filed€May€9,€1991);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Roger€D.€Pulleyóó,€No.€01C01„9501„CC„00013,€Wayne€County,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€filed€Sept.Ï20,€1995)€(reasoning€that€mitigating€factor€(1)€not€applicable€when€caseÏinvolved€the€sale€of€large€amounts€of€a€dangerous€drug).€›€œThe›€trial€court€did€notÏfind€this€factor€applicable,€and€maintaining€the€presumption€of€correctness,€weÏcannot€say€that€selling€crack€cocaine€does€not€threaten€serious€bodily€injury.€€œÌÌà àThe›€Defendant€argues€that€factor€(3)€applies,€in€that€his€conduct€isÏexcused€or€justified€because€of€his€drug€addiction.€€We,€however,€cannotÏconclude€that€the€Defendantððs€conduct€is€mitigated€by€the€voluntary€use€ofÏdrugs.€€œThus,€we›€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€noÏapplicable€mitigating€factors.€€ÌÌà àConspiracy€to€sell€or€œdeliver›€drugs€is€a€Class€C€felony,€with€a€range€ofÏthree€to€six€years.€€Even€though€the€trial€court€erroneously€applied€oneÏenhancement€factor,€three€other€enhancement€factors€were€applicable,€andÏnone€of€the€mitigating€factors€applied.€€Based€on€these€findings,€we€cannotÍconclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€the€Defendant€to€the€maximumÏsentence€of€six€œyears.›ÌÌœà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is,€therefore,€affirmed.›ÌÓ  Óà àÌœÌÓÓ›à àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE›