ÿWPC1  …# VU>a %Ÿ 0í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ U:¤ Þ w@æ 01& 0DW 0J› 0Tå 0^9 0h— 0rÿ 0|q 0†í 0s 1uU,x 0d¤ BU,%U6QU.‡U*µ D3ßB)DC; 0@~ AM¾z f…Pëv~;vÓ¹ AOŒÆÛ 0D¡ D/å B ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÔ¡¨ 3|xg «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular U EV DW X Y EZ [ D\ ] ^ Ó€(á(3¬#$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€~XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial""""'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ pÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌSeptember€13,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ FÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€)ÔÔ€)ôÔAlthough€the€defendant€cited€to€Pruittððs€testimony€in€the€record,€he€argues€in€his€brief€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïthat€Moore€compared€the€withdrawal€slips€to€the€signature€on€the€check€and€expressed€the€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïopinion€that€the€signatures€were€similar.€Ô€)XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€'ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€((Xd#ÑÑ#€((Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€)ÔÑ7€ Üô XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ€ÙßL€./,;+'h|` ç `€€Lß›€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€JANUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9506„CC„00209Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àRutherford€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Hon.€James€K.€Clayton,€Jr.,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌWILLIAM€S.€DEDMON,€€€€€à à)à à€(Forgery)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌGerald€L.€Meltonà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌ€€€€€andà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌJeannie€Kaessà àà àà àà àCharlotte€H.€RappuhnÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€€€€Ï201€West€Main€St.à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌMurfreesboro,€TN€37130à àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ì(ON€APPEAL)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà à€à àà àWilliam€C.€Whitesell,€Jr.ÌRussell€N.€Perkinsà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€and€€à àà àÌ201€West€Main€St.à àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PriceÌMurfreesboro,€TN€37130à àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ(AT€TRIAL)à àà àà àà àà à303€Rutherford€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TN€37130ÌÌà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÇÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌà àThe€defendant,€William€S.€Dedmon,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€theÏRutherford€County€Criminal€Court€for€forgery,€a€Class€D€felony.€€As€a€Range€I,€standardÏoffender,€he€was€sentenced€to€a€minimum€term€of€two€years€to€be€served€on€probation.€ÏIn€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€contends€that€(1)€the€evidence€was€insufficientÏto€support€his€conviction,€and€(2)€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€four€savingsÏwithdrawal€slips€into€evidence.€€We€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€and€thatÏthe€trial€court€did€not€commit€error.ÌÓÓà8 àÓÓÌà àThe€offense€for€which€the€defendant€was€convicted€involved€the€forgeryÏof€a€check€in€the€amount€of€$1,200.00€drawn€from€œa€CD›€savings€account€of€his€eighty„one„year„old€grandmother,€Alma€Dunn,€on€May€20,€1993.€€The€signature€of€ð ðWm.€G.ÏDedmonðð€appeared€on€the€check€and€a€withdrawal€slip.€€William€Gordon€Dedmon,€Jr.,Ïson€of€Alma€Dunn€and€the€father€of€the€defendant,€was€authorized€to€makeÏwithdrawals€from€Dunnððs€account.€€The€indictment€charged€the€defendant€with€theÏforgery€of€the€check€and€not€the€withdrawal€slip.€€At€trial,€the€defendant€did€not€presentÏany€proof.€€€€€Ì€Ìà àRegina€Moore,€Vice€President€of€Cavalry€Bank,€testified€that€a€jointÏsavings€account€had€been€opened€in€1980€in€the€name€of€Robert€J.€Dunn€and€AlmaÍDunn,€husband€and€wife.€€At€the€time€of€the€offense,€Robert€J.€Dunn€was€no€longer€aÏparty€to€the€account€and€William€Gordon€Dedmon,€Jr.,€who€had€power€of€attorney€to€actÏon€behalf€of€Alma€Dunn,€was€added€to€the€account.€€Moore€also€explained€the€bankingÏprocedures€used€by€the€bank€associated€with€deposits€and€withdrawals.€€In€order€for€aÏperson€to€be€authorized€to€withdraw€funds,€either€(1)€his€or€her€signature€must€be€on€aÏsignature€card€for€the€account€and€a€withdrawal€slip€presented€to€the€bank,€or€(2)€aÏwithdrawal€application€must€be€signed€by€the€customer€from€whose€account€funds€areÏbeing€withdrawn€and€presented€to€the€bank€along€with€a€withdrawal€slip.€€The€name€ofÏWilliam€Gordon€Dedmon,€Jr.,€appeared€on€the€signature€card.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àMoore€also€testified€that€a€withdrawal€slip€with€the€name€ð ðWilliam€G.ÏDedmonðð€was€presented€to€the€bank€and€a€check€payable€to€Alma€Dunn€and€œWilliam›ÏGordon€Dedmon,€œJr.›€was€issued€on€May€20,€1993.€€The€check€was€endorsed€with€aÏsignature€of€the€name€ð ðWm.€G.€Dedmonðð€and€was€cashed€by€Sherry€Bowen,€a€teller€atÏCavalry€Bank,€on€May€20,€1993.€€In€October€1993,€William€Gordon€Dedmon€notifiedÏthe€bank€of€the€forgery.€€Moore€compared€the€signatures€on€the€withdrawal€slip€and€theÏcheck€to€the€signature€on€the€signature€card€and€expressed€the€opinion€at€trial€that€theÏsignatures€were€not€the€same.€€The€bank€refunded€the€money€to€the€account.€€€€ÌÌà àMoore€stated€that€on€other€occasions,€the€defendant€had€withdrawnÏmoney€from€the€account€with€the€consent€of€Alma€Dunn.€€Two€withdrawal€applicationsÍdated€April€14,€1993,€in€the€amounts€of€$1,000.00€and€$6,000.00,€were€signed€byÏAlma€Dunn.€€Three€withdrawal€slips€were€presented€along€with€the€withdrawalÏapplications€by€the€defendant:€(1)€$1,000.00€on€April€14,€1993,€(2)€$1,000.00€on€MayÏ12,€1993,€and€(3)€$5,000.00€on€May€12,€1993.€€The€defendant€signed€his€name€asÏð ðWm.€S.€Dedmonðð€on€each€withdrawal€slip.€€On€cross„examination,€Moore€stated€thatÏshe€did€not€personally€know€who€signed€the€savings€withdrawal€or€the€check.€€OnÏredirect€examination,€she€explained€that€it€was€normal€banking€procedure€not€to€checkÏeach€signature€against€the€signature€cards.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€teller€who€cashed€the€$1,200.00€check,€Sherry€Bowen,€testified€thatÏshe€cashed€the€check€believing€that€the€person€was€William€Gordon€Dedmon.€€SheÏstated€that€normally€she€would€have€checked€the€signature€card€before€cashing€aÏcheck€but€was€not€required€to€do€so€when€the€check€came€from€another€departmentÏwithin€the€bank.€€She€said€that€the€policy€that€she€followed€was€to€obtain€prior€approvalÏfrom€her€supervisor€before€cashing€a€check€greater€than€$500.€€She€did€not€recallÏrequesting€identification.€€Bowen€was€recalled€as€a€witness€and€testified€that€she€wasÏunsure€whether€the€defendant€cashed€the€check€but€she€recognized€him€as€aÏcustomer€of€the€bank.€€ÌÌà àCynthia€Pruitt,€an€officer€and€customer€service€representative€at€CavalryÏBank,€testified€that€she€recognized€the€defendant€and€William€Gordon€Dedmon,€Jr.,Ífrom€earlier€banking€transactions.€€She€stated€that€on€May€20,€1993,€the€defendantÏobtained€a€withdrawal€slip€provided€by€the€bank€and€signed€the€name€ð ðWm.€G.ÏDedmonðð€in€her€presence.€€She€then€issued€the€$1,200.00€check€payable€to€ð ðAlma€V.ÏDunn/William€Gordon€Dedmon,€Jr.,€POAðð€and€gave€it€to€the€defendant.€€She€explainedÏthat€it€was€normal€procedure€to€authorize€payment€by€a€check€without€comparing€theÏsignature€to€the€signature€card€when€a€withdrawal€slip€is€signed€with€the€name€of€aÏperson€that€also€appears€on€the€account.€€She€also€believed€that€the€signature€on€theÏback€of€the€check€did€not€match€Dedmonððs€signature€on€the€signature€card€and€that€theÏendorsement€resembled€the€defendantððs€signatures€on€the€three€withdrawal€slips.€€OnÏcross„examination,€Pruitt€said€that€she€did€not€specifically€remember€giving€the€checkÏto€the€defendant€but€did€recall€ð ðdealing€with€him€several€different€times.ðð€€She€also€didÏnot€see€him€endorse€the€check.€€She€stated€that€she€filled€out€the€withdrawal€slips€forÏthe€defendant€except€for€his€signature.ÌÌà àWilliam€G.€Dedmon,€the€defendantððs€father,€testified€that€he€was€added€toÏAlma€Dunnððs€checking€and€savings€account€œfor€him€to›€pay€her€bills.€€In€October€1993,ÏDedmon€discovered€the€forgery€of€the€$1,200.00€check€when€œthe€CD€savings›€accountÏmatured.€€He€became€suspicious€when€he€noticed€that€$19,500.00€had€beenÏwithdrawn€in€five€years.€€Dedmon€brought€charges€against€the€defendant€after€he€wasÏð ðunable€to€talk€to€[the€defendant]€about€taking€the€money€from€the€account€and€ha[d]Ïnot€seen€him€for€about€a€week.ðð€€He€said€that€the€signature€on€the€check€was€not€hisÍand€that€he€never€gave€the€defendant€permission€to€withdraw€money€from€the€account.€ÏHe€also€testified€that€Dunn€was€ð ðafraid€that€she€would€run€out€of€money€in€the€bankÏaccount€.€.€.€and€wouldnððt€have€money€for€[the€defendant].ðð€€At€the€time€of€the€offense,Ïthe€defendant€was€living€with€Dunn.€€On€cross„examination,€Dedmon€acknowledgedÏthat€Dunn€had€signed€a€withdrawal€application€on€two€occasions€and€that€theÏdefendant€was€authorized€to€withdraw€funds€on€three€occasions€in€the€amountsÏindicated€on€the€applications.€€He€stated€that€Dunn€did€not€know€anything€about€theÏ$1,200.00€check€and€had€told€him€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€her€permission€toÏwithdraw€funds€in€that€amount.€€He€also€testified€that€she€did€not€want€him€to€bringÏcharges€against€the€defendant.€€Dedmon€explained€on€redirect€examination€that€DunnÏdid€not€want€the€defendant€to€work€because€she€was€afraid€that€he€might€get€ð ðdirtyðð€orÏð ðhurtðð€himself€and€because€she€wanted€to€take€care€of€him.€€According€to€Dedmon,€theÏdefendant€had€never€worked€and€was€unemployed€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€DedmonÏtestified€that€he€was€living€with€Dunn€in€October€1993€and€that€she€was€bedridden€fromÏthat€time€up€until€her€death€on€April€15,€1994.€€The€jury€convicted€the€defendant€uponÏthe€foregoing€proof.ÌÌà@ àò òI€€€€ó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction€because€the€state€did€not€prove€the€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€He€asserts€that€a€reasonable€doubt€exists€because€the€state€reliedÍon€circumstantial€evidence.€€Forging€a€writing€with€the€intent€to€defraud€or€harmÏanother€constitutes€forgery.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„114.€€Forgery€requires€a€person€to€ð ð[a]lter,Ïmake,€complete,€execute€or€authenticate€any€writing€so€that€it€purports€to€...€[b]e€the€actÏof€another€who€did€not€authorize€that€act€.€.€.€.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„114(b)(1)(A)(i).ÌÌà àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏquestioned€on€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,Ï319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,Ïbut€must€presume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€allÏreasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€his€conviction€for€forgery€was€based€solelyÏupon€circumstantial€evidence.€€He€further€claims€that€the€state€failed€to€present€proofÏsufficient€to€identify€the€defendant€as€the€forger.€€For€circumstantial€evidence€toÏconstitute€the€sole€basis€for€a€conviction€the€facts€must€be€"so€closely€interwoven€andÏconnected€that€the€finger€of€guilt€is€pointed€unerringly€at€the€defendant€and€theÏdefendant€alone."€€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€225€Tenn.€478,€484,€470€S.W.2d€610,€613€(Tenn.Í1971).€€The€evidence€must€be€both€consistent€with€the€defendant's€guilt€andÏinconsistent€with€the€defendant's€innocence,€exclude€all€other€reasonable€theoriesÏexcept€that€of€guilt,€and€establish€the€defendant's€guilt€so€as€to€convince€the€mindÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€he€or€she€committed€the€crime.€€òòPatterson€v.€Stateóó,Ì4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€657,€661,€475€S.W.2d€201,€203€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971).€€ÌÌà àWhen€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidenceÏpresented€at€the€defendantððs€trial€supports€the€jury€verdict.€€The€defendantððs€father,Ñ€0ÑÇWilliam€Gordon€Dedmon,€testified€that€the€signatures€on€the€withdrawal€slip€and€theÏcheck€were€not€his.€€Moore€and€Pruitt€also€testified€that€they€believed€the€signature€onÏthe€check€to€be€a€forgery.€€The€defendant,€who€was€unemployed€and€living€with€DunnÏat€the€time€of€the€offense,€had€withdrawn€money€from€Dunnððs€account€on€earlierÏoccasions€and€thus€was€aware€of€the€banking€procedures.€€Although€Pruitt€could€notÏspecifically€recall€giving€the€defendant€the€check,€she€stated€that€the€defendant€didÏsign€the€withdrawal€slip€in€her€presence.€€The€withdrawal€slip€was€endorsed€ð ðWm.€G.ÏDedmon.ðð€€The€signature€was€similar€to€the€endorsement€on€the€check.€€Further,€theÏsignature€resembled€the€defendantððs€signature,€ð ðWm.€S.€Dedmon,ðð€on€the€three€otherÏwithdrawal€slips€used€for€the€withdrawals€authorized€by€Dunn.€€ÌÌà àPruitt€testified€that€she€handled€the€transactions€involving€the€earlierÏwithdrawals€of€money€through€the€defendantððs€use€of€withdrawal€applications€andÏslips.€€€A€review€of€the€signatures€on€the€forged€check€and€related€withdrawal€slipÏreflects€such€similarity€that€one€can€easily€infer€that€both€were€written€by€the€sameÏauthor,€i.e,€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€901(b)(3)€(the€trier€of€fact€is€entitled€toÏcompare€the€writings€relative€to€identity€of€the€author).€€Under€the€foregoingÏcircumstances,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€find€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€theÏsignature€of€ð ðWm.€G.€Dedmonðð€was€a€forgery€for€which€the€defendant€is€criminallyÏresponsible.€€à àà àÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àNext,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€intoÏevidence€the€three€withdrawal€slips€for€which€the€defendant€was€authorized€to€makeÏwithdrawals€and€the€$1,200.00€withdrawal€slip€relating€to€the€check€in€issue.€€GivenÏthe€record€before€us,€it€is€somewhat€unclear€as€to€the€specifics€of€the€defendantððsÏcontentions.€ò ò€ó óThe€defendant€apparently€claims€that€the€four€withdrawal€slips€shouldÏhave€been€excluded€because€(1)€the€probative€value€for€identification€purposes€isÏsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403;Ïand€(2)€the€signatures€on€the€withdrawal€slips€that€were€used€for€handwritingÏexemplars€by€the€state€were€ð ðtoo€suggestive€to€provide€a€reliable€identification€of€theÏdefendantððs€signature.ððÌà àÌà àThe€admissibility€of€evidence€is€a€matter€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretionÏand€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€absent€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,Ï839€S.W.2d€54,€66€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€113€S.€Ct.€1368€(1993).€€Evidence€isÏrelevant€if€it€has€ð ðany€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofÏconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€itÏwould€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€In€other€words,€evidence€isÏrelevant€if€it€helps€the€jury€to€resolve€a€factual€issue.€€€€€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€three€withdrawal€slips€for€earlier€authorizedÏtransactions€are€relevant€to€show€the€defendantððs€knowledge€of€the€bankingÍprocedures€associated€with€Dunnððs€account.€€All€four€withdrawal€slips€are€helpful€toÏprove€the€identify€of€the€author€of€the€signature€on€the€check.€€Further,€the€withdrawalÏslip€in€the€amount€of€$1,200.00€is€relevant€to€show€that€the€defendant€was€inÏpossession€of€the€check€and€had€the€opportunity€to€cash€it.€€The€forgery€of€theÏwithdrawal€slip€is€also€relevant€to€show€the€defendantððs€criminal€intent€to€commitÏforgery€of€the€$1,200.00€check.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€use€of€the€withdrawal€slips€as€handwritingÏexemplars€unfairly€prejudiced€him€because€of€the€possibility€of€misidentification.€€HeÏclaims€that€the€comparison€of€signatures€on€the€$1,200.00€check€and€the€threeÏwithdrawal€slips€by€Pruitt× ƒ1 ××  ×€was€unreliable€because€only€three€withdrawal€slips€wereÏused€for€the€comparison.€€œA€nonexpert€may€testify€to€the€genuineness€of€handwriting€ifÏthe€person€is€familiar€with€the€handwriting€and€the€familiarity€was€not€acquired€forÏpurposes€of€litigation.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€901(b)(2).€€One€method€a€person€can€becomeÏfamiliar€with€anotherððs€handwriting€is€by€ð ðdo[ing]€business€with€him,€thereby€gainingÏfamiliarity€with€signatures€that€are€in€all€likelihood€genuine.ðð€€òòState€v.€Chestnutóó,€643ÏS.W.2d€343,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€However,€only€the€trier€of€fact€or€an€expertÏwitness€may€make€comparisons€of€handwriting€specimens€that€have€been€properlyÏauthenticated.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€901(b)(3).€€Pruitt,€who€had€nineteen€years€of€experienceÍwith€Cavalry€Bank,€handled€the€earlier€transactions€involving€the€authorizedÏwithdrawals.€€She€compared€the€signatures€on€the€withdrawal€slips€to€the€signature€onÏthe€$1,200.00€check€and€expressed€the€opinion€that€the€signatures€were€similar.€€At›Ïtrial,€the€defendant€made€no€objection€to€the€comparison€made€by€Pruitt€and€has€thusÏwaived€any€error.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€562€S.W.2d€820,€825€(Tenn.€1978);€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€103(a)(1);€T.R.A.P.€36(a).ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€though,€we€note€that€the€jury,€as€the€trier€of€fact,€was€entitledÏto€compare€the€signatures€on€the€writings€and€draw€any€inferences,€and€therefore,ÏPruittððs€testimony€that€the€signatures€were€similar€was€nothing€more€than€what€wasÏobvious€to€the€jury€on€the€documentsðð€face.€€Though€other€handwriting€samples€couldÏhave€been€obtained€from€the€defendant,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuseÏits€discretion€in€finding€that€the€withdrawal€slips€were€relevant€to€show€identity.€ÏBecause€their€probative€value€is€not€substantially€outweighed€by€any€unfair€prejudicialÏeffects,€the€trial€court€properly€admitted€the€withdrawal€slips€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï403.ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€argument€that€the€signatures€on€the€withdrawal€slipsÏwere€too€suggestive€to€provide€a€reliable€identification€of€the€defendantððs€signature€onÏthe€check€is€misplaced.€€A€claim€that€evidence€is€unduly€suggestive€so€as€to€increaseÏthe€likelihood€of€misidentification€is€more€appropriate€when€dealing€with€eyewitnessÍidentification.€€òòSeeóó€òòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.€377,€384,€88€S.€Ct.€967,€971Ï(1968);€òòSloan€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€461,€466€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Thus,€we€findÏno€error.€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€withdrawal€slip€for€$1,200.00€wasÏinadmissible€as€evidence€of€other€bad€acts€whose€probative€value€is€outweighed€byÏthe€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€He€claims€that€theÏintroduction€of€the€forged€withdrawal€slip€for€which€he€was€not€indicted€unfairlyÏprejudiced€him€because€of€the€implication€that€the€defendant€also€forged€the€check.€ÏUnder€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b),€evidence€of€other€crimes€or€acts€that€are€independent€ofÏthe€offenses€on€trial€are€generally€prohibited€in€ð ðrecognition€that€such€evidence€easilyÏresults€in€a€jury€improperly€convicting€a€defendant€for€his€or€her€bad€character€orÏapparent€propensity€or€disposition€to€commit€a€crime€regardless€of€the€strength€of€theÏevidence€concerning€the€offense€on€trial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824,€828Ï(Tenn.€1994).€€However,€Rule€404(b)€does€allow€such€evidence€when€it€is€relevant€to€aÏlitigated€issue,€such€as,€identity,€intent€or€rebuttal€of€accident€or€mistake,€and€itsÏprobative€value€is€not€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏPartonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299,€303€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Hootenóó,€735€S.W.2d€823€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987).€€€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€stated€reason€for€admitting€the€$1,200.00€was€itsÏrelevance€to€œidentity,€a€key€issue€in€the€trial.›€€We€agree.€€Pruitt€testified€that€theÏdefendant€signed€the€slip€and€received€the€check.€€The€signature€on€the€withdrawalÏslip€œresembles›€the€signature€on€the€œcheck,›€providing€the€inference€that€the€defendantÏwas€the€person€who€signed€both€writings.€œ›œ›€Because€the€probative€value€œwas›€notÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€any€unfair€prejudice,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€notÏabuse€its€discretion€in€admitting€this€withdrawal€slip.ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgmentÏof€conviction€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Judgeà àÌ