ÿWPCÄ …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  0l, 0D˜ Ü 0Jä 0T. 0^‚ 0hà 0rH 0|º 0†6 0¼ 1uL 0dÁ U*%B)ODCx B» AMØü%ˆ!²©v~[ D3ÙvÓ  0@ß AOÆn 0D4 D/x B§˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡   E  E   D  e Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|x ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd d€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌNovember€27,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ~Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOn€appeal€to€the€supreme€court,€Howingtonððs€conviction€of€first€degree€murderÏà àwas€reversed.€€The€court€held€that€the€State€was€obligated€to€honor€the€bargain,Ïà àas€Howingtonððs€testimony€was€not€a€material€breach€of€the€agreement.€€InÏà àupholding€the€bargain,€the€court€summarily€entered€a€conviction€of€secondÏà àdegree€murder€for€Howington€and€remanded€his€case€for€resentencing.€€òòState€v.óóÏà àòòHowingtonóó,€907€S.W.2d€403€(Tenn.€1995).€Ì ¨Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMany€of€the€witnesses€at€appellantððs€trial€were€implicated€criminally€in€drugÏà àpossession/sale€or€as€accessories€to€Trobaughððs€murder.€€However,€the€StateÏà àgranted€full€immunity€to€each€of€them€in€exchange€for€their€testimony€againstÏà àappellant.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h$$$$'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€O XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ќـ€ÙßR€%&#A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›à@ àÞ ÞÌòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLEóóÌÌà@ à€JUNE€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNo.€01„C„01„9509„CC„00285Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à à€MONTGOMERY€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOHN€H.€GASAWAY,ÌROBERT€ANTHONY€DEVITO,à àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à à(Felony€Murder)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌòòÌÌFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌN.€Reese€Bagwellà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌThe€Bagwell€Law€Firmà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€427à àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ116€S.€Second€St.à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌClarksville,€TN€37041Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSarah€M.€BranchÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Wesley€Carney,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSteven€L.€GarrettÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à204€Franklin€St.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSuite€200Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClarksville,€TN€37041ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€is€a€direct€appeal€by€appellant,€Robert€Anthony€Devito,€from€a€convictionÏin€the€Montgomery€County€Circuit€Court€of€first€degree€felony€murder.€€He€received€aÏsentence€of€life€imprisonment.€€Appellant€raises€the€following€issues€on€appeal:ÌÓÓà à(1)à àthe€unavailability€of€òòJencksóó€material€and€co„defendant€DavidÏà àà àHowingtonððs€testimony€deprived€appellant€of€his€Sixth€AmendmentÏà àà àconstitutional€rights;ÌÌà à(2)à àthe€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€honor€an€informal€agreement€betweenÏà àà àthe€State€and€co„defendant€Howington;ÌÌà à(3)à àthe€trial€court€erred€in€not€ordering€a€mistrial€when€co„defendantÏà àà àHowington€stated€that€he€had€been€threatened€by€the€district€attorney;Ïà àà àandÌÌà à(4)à àthe€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€preliminary€hearing€testimony€of€co„à àà àdefendant€Howington€because€it€was€hearsay.ÌÌÓÓFinding€the€trial€court€committed€no€error,€we€affirm€the€conviction.€€€Ìà àMichael€Trobaugh€was€medically€discharged€from€the€Army€on€January€12,Ï1991€and€received€a€large€lump€sum€payment.€€The€check€was€for€approximatelyÏ$23,000€and€bank€records€reflect€that€Trobaugh€withdrew€roughly€$8,000€of€thisÏamount€in€cash.€€He€intended€to€use€the€money€to€purchase€marijuana.€€TrobaughÏlived€in€Clarksville€and€owned€ð ðfoosballðð€tables€at€two€bars€there.€€He€also€worked€asÏa€bouncer€at€the€ð ðCat€Westðð€club€in€Clarksville.€€By€virtue€of€these€affiliations,€he€knewÍthat€obtaining€marijuana€would€not€be€difficult.€€He€began€to€inquire€aboutÏpurchasing€ten€pounds€of€the€substance.Ìà àTrobaugh€talked€to€his€roommate€about€the€drug€purchase€and€the€roommateÏreferred€Trobaugh€to€Eric€Farley,€who€was€known€to€distribute€drugs.€€Farley€spokeÏwith€Trobaugh€on€the€phone€and€confirmed€that€he€likely€could€get€that€amount€ofÏmarijuana.€€He€quoted€Trobaugh€a€price€of€$1400„$1600€per€pound.€€Trobaugh€thenÏasked€where€Farley€could€get€that€much€marijuana.€€He€informed€Trobaugh€thatÏappellant€was€his€regular€supplier.€€Testimony€reflected€that€Farley€worked€forÏappellant€distributing€drugs€and€usually€received€a€commission€from€his€sales.€€UponÏlearning€this,€Trobaugh€replied€that€he€knew€appellant€and€would€get€the€drugsÏhimself.€€They€argued€about€the€matter€because€such€an€arrangement€would€ð ðcutÏ[Farley]€out€of€the€deal.ðð€€In€fact,€Farley€stood€to€lose€about€$1,000€if€eliminated€fromÏthe€transaction.€€Ultimately,€however,€Farley€agreed€to€give€Trobaughððs€phoneÏnumber€to€appellant€for€further€dealing.Ìà àAppellant€contacted€Trobaugh€and€made€arrangements€for€the€delivery€of€theÏmarijuana.€€It€is€unclear€from€the€record€when€the€delivery€was€scheduled€to€takeÏplace.€€On€January€21,€1991,€appellant€and€a€friend,€David€Howington,€visitedÏFarleyððs€house.€€Farley€noticed€that€appellant€was€carrying€a€.357€Dan€Wesson€in€aÏholster€on€his€side.€€The€three€men€discussed€the€planned€drug€deal.€€AppellantÏinformed€Farley€that€he€and€Howington€were€going€to€ð ðroll€Trobaugh,ðð€meaning€theyÍwere€going€to€rob€and/or€kill€him.€€Farley€told€appellant€to€ð ðdo€what€you€have€to€do.ðð€ÏAppellant€elaborated€by€stating€that€he€and€Howington€were€not€going€to€actuallyÏdeliver€the€marijuana,€but€were€going€to€take€Trobaughððs€money.€€That€way€theyÏwould€have€both€the€money€and€the€marijuana.€€Farley€cautioned€them€thatÏTrobaugh€might€retaliate€and€was€rumored€to€be€an€accomplished€kickboxer.€ÏAppellant€then€stated€ð ðwell,€Iððll€just€shoot€him.ðð€€Appellant€also€stated€that€when€heÏrobbed€Trobaugh,€he€would€ð ðleave€no€witnesses€behind.ðð€€The€men€did€not€discussÏwhen€this€would€take€place.€€Ìà àLater€that€evening,€appellant€and€Howington€went€to€numerous€bars€inÏClarksville€where€they€were€well„known.€€Appellant€was€armed€with€the€.357€thatÏnight.€The€record€reflects€that€they€had€been€drinking,€as€well€as€smoking€marijuanaÏand€taking€Valium.€€They€met€Trobaugh€at€a€bar€and€then€followed€him€to€his€trailer.€ÏThis€was€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€January€22.€€Upon€arrival,€the€three€enteredÏthe€living€room€of€the€trailer€and€Howington€sat€down€on€the€couch.€€ApparentlyÏthinking€the€exchange€was€going€to€take€place,€Trobaugh€went€into€the€backÏbedroom€and€emerged€with€his€hands€full€of€money.€€He€put€it€on€the€coffee€table€andÏsat€down€in€a€recliner.€€Appellant€was€standing€on€the€left€side€of€the€recliner.€ÏWithout€speaking,€he€pulled€out€his€gun,€placed€it€behind€Trobaughððs€left€ear€andÏfired.€€He€and€Howington€then€collected€the€money€and€they€left€the€trailer.Ìà àThe€medical€examiner€testified€that€the€entry€wound€was€just€behind€the€leftÏear.€€The€bullet€severed€the€brain€stem€causing€the€bodily€functions€to€cease€andÏthen€exited€the€body€through€the€right€cheek.€€He€also€testified€that€the€gun€was€firedÏanywhere€from€zero€to€six€inches€from€the€head.€€Neither€the€bullet€nor€the€gun€wereÏever€recovered.€€Ìà àInitially,€much€of€the€evidence€incriminating€appellant€was€revealed€in€aÏstatement€Howington€made€to€police€and€his€testimony€at€the€preliminary€hearing.ÏThe€testimony€was€the€result€of€an€agreement€with€the€State.€€If€Howington€wouldÏtestify€truthfully€at€the€preliminary€hearing,€the€State€agreed€to€recommend€that€theÏmagistrate€bind€Howington€over€to€the€grand€jury€on€a€charge€of€second€degreeÏmurder.€€However,€the€bargain€was€later€abandoned.€€The€State€believed€thatÏHowington€did€not€testify€truthfully€at€the€hearing€and€declined€to€honor€its€part€of€theÏbargain.€€Both€appellant€and€Howington€were€indicted€for€premeditated€and€felonyÏmurder€of€Michael€Trobaugh.€€Ìà àThe€trials€were€severed€and€Howington€was€tried€first.€€A€jury€convicted€him€ofÏfelony€murder€and€he€was€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.× ƒ' ××  ×€€Appellant€was€then€tried.€ÍThe€State€called€Howington€to€testify€at€appellantððs€trial.€€However,€he€refused€to€doÏso.€€First,€he€invoked€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€against€self„incrimination.€€The€trialÏcourt€ruled€that€he€could€not€invoke€this€privilege€as€he€had€already€been€convictedÏof€the€offense.€€Howington€then€contended€that€he€was€in€fear€for€his€life€in€theÏpenitentiary€and€would€not€testify€against€appellant.€€He€persisted€in€this€refusal€evenÏafter€being€ordered€to€testify€by€the€trial€court.€€He€was€held€in€contempt€and€orderedÏto€serve€ten€days.€€The€trial€court€ruled€Howington€an€unavailable€witness€under€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€As€a€result,€the€State€was€permitted€to€introduceÏHowingtonððs€former€testimony€from€the€preliminary€hearing.€€This€testimonyÏincriminated€appellant€in€Trobaughððs€murder€and€fingered€him€as€the€trigger€man.€ÏOthers€involved€with€appellant€testified€at€trial,× ƒ( ××  ×€including€Eric€Farley.€€All€incriminatedÏappellant€in€the€crime.€€The€jury€found€him€guilty€of€felony€murder€and€he€received€aÏsentence€of€life€imprisonment.Ìà àAppellant€first€contends€that€the€unavailability€of€òòJencksóó€material€andÏHowingtonððs€testimony€violated€his€right€to€confrontation.€€The€issue€is€twofold.€€First,Ïappellant€contends€that€the€State€failed€to€provide€him€with€a€copy€of€a€statementÏHowington€made€to€police€officers€after€being€arrested.€€Appellant€alleges€this€is€aÍviolation€of€the€Tennessee€equivalent€of€the€òòJencksóó€Act.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€26.2ÏAdvisory€Commission€Comments.€€Second,€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€ruling€Howington€an€unavailable€witness.€€The€thrust€of€his€argument€is€that€theÏState€somehow€procured€the€unavailability€through€the€dishonored€bargain€withÏHowington.€€These€issues€are€without€merit.Ìà àThere€was€no€violation€of€the€duty€to€provide€òòJencksóó€material.€€UnderÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€26.2,€opposing€counsel€must€be€providedÏany€prior€statements€of€a€testifying€witness€to€permit€an€effective€cross„examination€ofÏthat€witness€and€to€thereby€test€his€credibility.€€The€rule€provides€that€the€informationÏis€to€be€provided€only€after€the€witness€has€given€testimony€on€direct€examination.€ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€26.2(a).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€534€(Tenn.),Ïòòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€114€S.Ct.€475,€126€L.Ed.2d€426€(1993)€and€òòState€v.ÏTayloróó,€771€S.W.2d€387,€394€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€497€U.S.€1031,€110€S.Ct.Ï3291,€111€L.Ed.2d€799€(1990)€(emphasis€added).€€As€such,€this€rule€was€notÏapplicable€to€Howingtonððs€testimony€at€appellantððs€trial.€€Howington€was€anÏunavailable€witness€and€never€proffered€any€testimony€on€direct€examination.€€Thus,Ïunder€the€language€of€the€rule,€the€duty€to€provide€òòJencksóó€material€never€arose.€Ìà àMoreover,€the€record€belies€appellantððs€claim€that€he€was€denied€òòJencksóóÏmaterial€on€Howington.€€After€Howingtonððs€preliminary€hearing€testimony€was€readÏinto€the€record,€appellantððs€counsel€indicated€that€he€had€Howingtonððs€statement€toÍpolice.€€He€stated€during€a€bench€conference€that€he€had€not€ð ðread€his€[Howington]Ïstatement€to€the€police€officers€in€about€a€week€and€a€half.ðð€€Later€in€the€same€benchÏconference,€appellantððs€counsel€stated€that€he€received€ð ðabout€a€hundred€and€fiftyÏpages€of€òòJencksóó€yesterday.ð ð€€Therefore,€the€State€did€provide€the€òòJencksóó€material€inÏadvance€of€Howingtonððs€expected€testimony,€although€under€no€duty€to€do€so.€€TheseÏadmissions€by€appellantððs€counsel€clearly€demonstrate€that€he€was€not€deprived€ofÏany€òòJencksóó€material.€€Appellant€is€unable€to€show€that€his€right€to€confrontation€wasÏhindered€in€this€respect.€€Ìà àNeither€can€appellant€demonstrate€that€Howingtonððs€unavailability€violated€hisÏright€of€confrontation.€€Howington€was€called€as€a€witness€by€the€State.€€AfterÏanswering€some€preliminary€questions,€Howington€refused€to€testify.€€He€stated€thatÏhe€had€been€threatened€in€the€penitentiary€and€was€in€fear€of€his€life.€€HowingtonÏpersisted€in€his€refusal€after€the€court€ordered€him€to€testify.€€The€trial€court€held€himÏin€contempt€and€ruled€him€unavailable€as€a€witness€under€Rule€804(a)(2)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€Ìà àThe€trial€courtððs€determination€of€unavailability€was€based€upon€certainÏdefinitions€provided€in€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€804.€ÏThe€rule€permits€certain€forms€of€hearsay€to€be€introduced€when€a€declarant€isÏdetermined€to€be€unavailable.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€804(b).€€The€rule€also€delineates€theÏcircumstances€that€justify€a€such€a€ruling.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€804(a).€€For€example,€aÍwitness€is€unavailable€when€he€ð ðpersists€in€refusing€to€testify€concerning€the€subjectÏmatter€of€the€declarantððs€statement€despite€an€order€of€the€court€to€do€so.ðð€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€804(a)(2).€€Howingtonððs€actions€clearly€fit€within€this€set€of€circumstances.€€TheÏtrial€court€ordered€Howington€to€testify€and€he€repeatedly€refused€in€the€face€of€beingÏheld€in€contempt.€€The€ruling€was€proper.Ìà àThe€logical€corollary€to€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€was€the€admission€ofÏHowingtonððs€prior€testimony.€€When€a€declarant€is€unavailable,€one€form€ofÏadmissible€hearsay€is€former€testimony.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€804(b)(1).€€This€was€theÏexception€proffered€by€the€State€to€admit€Howingtonððs€preliminary€hearing€testimony.€ÏThis€did€not€infringe€appellantððs€right€to€confront€witnesses.€€Our€supreme€court€hasÏexplicitly€held€that€the€admission€of€hearsay€evidence€under€this€exception€to€theÏhearsay€rule€satisfies€the€dictates€of€both€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÏConstitutions€in€the€right€to€confront€witnesses.€€òòState€v.€Causbyóó,€706€S.W.2d€628,Ï631€(Tenn.€1986)€(former€testimony€is€one€of€the€hearsay€exceptions€resting€uponÏsuch€solid€foundations€that€its€admission€comports€with€the€right€of€confrontation).€ÏòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€251€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.Ï___,€114€S.Ct.€1339,€127€L.Ed.2d€687€(1994)€(finding€that€admission€of€preliminaryÏhearing€testimony€under€the€former€testimony€exception€does€not€violate€the€right€toÏconfront€witnesses).€€The€protections€inherent€in€Howingtonððs€former€testimony€wereÏsufficient€to€protect€appellantððs€constitutional€right€to€confront€witnesses.Ìà àAppellantððs€second€issue€was€not€raised€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€andÏgenerally€this€constitutes€waiver.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€However,€even€addressingÏthe€issue€on€its€merits,€we€find€no€error.€€Appellant€contends€that€he€sufferedÏprejudice€when€the€trial€court€in€Howingtonððs€trial€refused€to€honor€the€informalÏagreement€he€had€made€with€the€State.€€Appellant€argues€that€the€supreme€courtððsÏruling€requiring€the€State€to€honor€its€bargain€with€Howington€would€affectÏHowingtonððs€willingness€to€testify€at€appellantððs€trial.€€His€argument€is€premised€onÏthe€assumption€that€Howingtonððs€refusal€was€solely€on€Fifth€Amendment€grounds.€ÏThe€record,€however,€discloses€the€deficiency€of€such€a€claim.€Ìà àAfter€the€trial€court€instructed€Howington€that€he€was€not€entitled€to€exerciseÏhis€Fifth€Amendment€privilege,€his€attorney€stated€on€the€record€that€HowingtonÏgenuinely€feared€appellant€and€feared€for€his€life€if€he€offered€testimony€againstÏappellant.€€He€further€stated€that€this€was€a€factor€in€Howingtonððs€decision€not€toÏtestify.€€In€questioning€Howington€about€this€refusal€to€testify,€Howington€replied€thatÏð ðI€am€not€putting€my€life€in€danger€.€.€.ðð€€Contrary€to€appellantððs€contention,ÏHowingtonððs€refusal€to€testify€was€based€on€a€fear€for€his€life,€not€fear€of€self„incrimination.€€Howington€further€stated€he€would€testify€only€if€he€was€exonerated€ofÏall€charges€and€released€from€the€penitentiary.€€It€is€clear€that€the€Stateððs€dishonoredÏbargain€is€completely€irrelevant€to€appellantððs€case.€€It€had€absolutely€no€bearing€onÍwhether€appellant€would€testify€and€appellant€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€wrongÏHowington€suffered.€€The€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àAppellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€ordered€a€mistrialÏwhen€Howington€referred€to€a€threat€made€by€the€district€attorney.€€Again,€appellantÏfailed€to€raise€this€error€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€and€it€is€considered€waived.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€However,€our€examination€of€the€issue€on€the€merits€revealsÏno€error.Ìà àWhen€Howington€refused€to€testify,€he€stated€that€he€had€been€threatened€byÏthe€district€attorney€on€Sunday.€€No€further€inquiry€was€made€into€this€assertion.€€TheÏreference€to€such€a€statement€does€not€warrant€a€mistrial€and€is€harmless€error.€€TheÏgranting€of€a€mistrial€is€a€decision€that€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€courtÏand€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€absent€a€showing€of€abuse.€€òòState€v.€Millbrooksóó,Ï819€S.W.2d€441,€443€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)€(citations€omitted).€€In€addition,€aÏmistrial€will€only€be€granted€in€a€criminal€case€if€there€is€a€manifest€necessityÏrequiring€the€action€by€the€trial€court.€€òòArnold€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€792,€794€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1978).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€733€S.W.2d€517,€522€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1987)€(citations€omitted).€€There€has€been€no€showing€of€manifest€necessity€and€weÏfind€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court.€€The€statement,€reiterated€by€a€declarantÏof€questionable€veracity,€was€made€outside€the€presence€of€the€jury.€€As€such,€itÏcould€not€be€deemed€to€have€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€Ìà àFurthermore,€appellantððs€counsel€did€not€request€a€mistrial€on€this€basis.€€TheÏrecord€indicates€that€appellant€asked€the€court€to€declare€a€mistrial€and€continueÏappellantððs€case€until€Howingtonððs€appeal€was€complete.€€This€was€in€the€hopes€thatÏhe€would€be€exonerated€of€all€charges€and€be€willing€to€testify.€€The€alleged€threatÏmade€by€the€district€attorney€was€irrelevant€to€this€request€for€a€mistrial.€€AppellantððsÏreliance€on€this€error€is€misplaced.€€The€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ìà àAppellantððs€final€issue€attacks€the€admission€of€Howingtonððs€preliminaryÏhearing€testimony.€€He€contends€that€the€testimony€does€not€meet€the€ð ðformerÏtestimonyðð€exception€found€in€Rule€804(b)(1)€of€the€Rules€of€Evidence.€€AlthoughÏsomewhat€unclear,€it€appears€that€appellant€attacks€the€ð ðopportunity€to€cross„examineðð€element€of€this€exception.€€We€find€the€trial€court€committed€no€error€inÏadmitting€the€testimony.Ìà àUnder€the€former€testimony€exception,€testimony€that€was€given€at€anotherÏhearing€of€the€same€proceeding€is€admissible€ð ðif€the€party€against€whom€theÏtestimony€is€now€offered€had€both€an€opportunity€and€a€similar€motive€to€develop€theÏtestimony€by€direct,€cross€or€redirect€examination.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€804(b)(1).€ÏHowingtonððs€former€testimony€satisfies€the€explicit€requirements€of€this€rule.€€InÏaddition,€the€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€the€Rule€specifically€contemplateÏpreliminary€hearing€testimony.€€The€evidence€was€properly€admitted€by€the€trial€court.€€Ìà àThe€testimony€being€offered€was€sworn€testimony€that€had€been€given€at€aÏjoint€preliminary€hearing€for€Howington€and€appellant.€€The€party€against€whom€it€isÏnow€being€used,€appellant,€had€the€opportunity€to€cross„examine€the€declarant,ÏHowington.€€The€record€reflects€that€appellantððs€attorney€had€the€opportunity€andÏexercised€it€fully€at€the€preliminary€hearing.€€He€was€given€ample€opportunity€to€testÏHowingtonððs€veracity€and€this€was€not€limited€by€the€court.€€In€addition,€the€motive€toÏdevelop€the€testimony€was€exactly€the€same.€€The€preliminary€hearing€testimonyÏincriminated€appellant€as€the€trigger€man€in€the€murder.€€Appellantððs€motive€on€cross„examination€at€the€preliminary€hearing€was€to€discredit€Howingtonððs€veracity€andÏtherefore€make€appellantððs€culpability€less€likely.€€The€same€motive€was€present€atÏappellantððs€trial.€€Appellantððs€brief€states€that€the€cornerstone€of€his€defense€is€toÏdiscredit€Howingtonððs€testimony.€€At€trial,€appellant€obviously€intended€to€attackÏHowingtonððs€credibility€thereby€making€appellantððs€culpability€less€likely.€€AlthoughÏthe€requirement€is€merely€that€the€motives€be€similar,€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2dÏ238,€251€(Tenn.€1993),€the€motives€here€were€identical.€€We€find€that€the€preliminaryÏhearing€testimony€satisfies€the€parameters€of€the€evidentiary€rules€and€it€was€notÏerror€to€admit€the€evidence.€€Ìà àNotwithstanding€the€admitted€evidence,€we€note€that€appellant€had€numerousÏopportunities€to€discredit€Howingtonððs€testimony€at€his€trial€as€well.€€Appellant€wasÏpermitted€to€introduce€statements€that€were€inconsistent€with€the€former€testimony.€ÍPortions€of€Howingtonððs€statement€to€police,€as€well€as€portions€of€HowingtonððsÏtestimony€offered€at€his€own€trial€were€read€into€the€record.€€These€all€demonstratedÏinconsistencies.€€This€is€an€outstanding€example€of€the€measures€taken€by€the€trialÏcourt€to€protect€appellantððs€right€to€confront€witnesses.€€Ìà àAppellant€also€contends€that€the€preliminary€hearing€testimony€containedÏcertain€inadmissible€hearsay€statements.€€However,€we€decline€to€review€the€issueÏdue€to€appellantððs€failure€to€make€references€to€the€record.€€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.Ï10(b)€and€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(g).€€Appellant€lodged€an€objection€to€hearsay€whichÏthe€court€ruled€was€admissible.€€There€are€eighteen€pages€of€testimony€following€thisÏruling.€€Appellantððs€brief€is€entirely€devoid€of€references€to€the€record€or€the€specificÏstatements€that€were€inadmissible€hearsay.€€He€merely€argues€that€admission€of€theÏtestimony,€in€toto,€was€improper.€€Without€appropriate€references€to€the€record,€theÏissue€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó€and€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€233€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1988)€(it€is€not€the€responsibility€of€this€Court€to€search€the€record€for€theÏpurpose€of€locating€pleadings,€evidentiary€hearings,€and€factual€allegations€whichÏare€not€supported€by€citations€to€the€record;€such€issues€are€waived).€€Ìà àA€thorough€review€of€the€record€indicates€no€reversible€error.€€The€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge€€