WPCA  "=LTfδ\Z3)MK}0+LpW_Q%WIp;iRU Wʟ=',GbFK, wIvAh.ݱi0ի\?/m{|ñqs??K>BBKG%jުj3u~.7qt!#(9TL񁊨Y/"A۞q$`KQ>_ i.rG~;a#5܌  9 xQY7* vXm`Ě?>qk&W^ 9O^(jB ](Yh,FDk^w!^`נ*G}zZ5q)l~M& Ҝ"2,bX+}Ch̳xc'0U;:;$Yx8B;/ح[me`0[oн&ee`D -mPЮd#!xUN % 0(U: bO wW 4[ o ~ N 0 0Dr U.:  m  ^ ' 3 H 1u] 72 1 72 0c 1& 72 1 72r 1 B1 72N 1 72  0w?v 1, 1>] 72 1 1\ 72 72 72Ow 1 72 1 72Dv] 1; 0< 72!68!U:n"n" "#hs%}&"X(7z)+* 1-;k.02%x45 1m: 72::P.;~<~<~<fC>C>C>C>C>C> D5???? 0D??? AQ"@s@ 0D9A 0D}AHP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,6 AZ"Arial Regular- -tpO'dTd3|x(2d$ !  4 X X(cXXX_XX(c  0  (#$  0  ,yAZ"Arial Regular'U HIMMELREICHTORRYRondalDillmonRochellMadux DCI FMOMadduxRadcliffe Crim TBIEdginAshbyJernigan Odley'L       ##37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(CEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  ( CEMU]emu}AutoList2(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)( CEMU]emu}AutoList3(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(CEMU]emu}AutoList4(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A) d(A)0CEMU]emu}AutoList5(a)(1)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)!(a)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(# l  ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  16    _ԀThedefendantassertsthattherewerenotesofaninterviewconductedby_Taplin_.From  therecord,itispossiblethat_Taplin_Ԁand_Schlafly_Ԁparticipatedinaninterviewandthat_Taplin_Ԁtook  notesfor_Schlafly_.(CEMU]emu}AutoList6(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)   (EGOW_gowAutoList14(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) 4  ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  17    _ԀApparently,_Schlafly_ԀalsointerviewedKleinonMarch18,1993.'(1)  ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  12    _ԀLazenbywasBlevinssecretary.(7EGOW_gowAutoList11(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(wEGOW_gowAutoList15(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)-(1)+(1)%(1) m  ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  21    _Ԁ:):)Thestatesbriefassertsthatthedefendantdidnotusethisevidenceathistrial.#:):)#(CEMU]emu}AutoList7(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)2(1)(CEMU]emu}AutoList8(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)4(1)  e    ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  19    _ԀRochelletestifiedthatthedefendanttoldherthathehadacquiredsomequestionsin  thismanner.Thedefendantclaimedhewouldreadthequestionsintoarecordingdevicewhile  takingtheexamination.   ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  13    _ԀAccordingtothestatesbrief,atranscriptofafederalhearingandsanctionagainstthe  defendantregardinghiscivilaction,introducedbythestateatthesentencinghearing,wasnot  submittedinthisrecord.(gEGOW_gowAutoList12(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)<:Footnote Ref9(1) , b"  _=X(cXXX=kX=X(c   Ad FILED=X(cX=k  December28,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAx ,6 AZ"Arial Regular   ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  1    _ԀTherecordcomprises44volumesoftranscripts.   ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  3    _ԀAcodefendantofDillmon,hercasewasseveredfromhisandshewasgranted  diversionfromthesecharges,throughtheMauryCountyCircuitCourt,forhertestimonyagainst  thedefendant. ^  ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  4    _ԀSharonSanders,acoworker,alsohandledtheseapplicationsandcertifications;thetwo  generallyoperatedinconcert. s  ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  5    _ԀAsnotedearlier,Dillmonbeganaclassfornewapplicants,inwhichheofferedhis  assistanceintheapplicationandevaluationprocedures.   ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  6    _ԀAttrial,Rochelletestifiedthatthesetransferswere loans. -  ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  7    _ԀThecheckstoRochellesdaughterwereneverthelessdepositedinRochellesaccount. !  ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  8    _ԀAttrial,thedefendantinvokedthisandsubsequentcontacttoassertauthorityto  investigatetheBoard.Interestingly,Smithtestifiedonthedefendantsbehalfatsentencing,and,  equallyinteresting,RochelletestifiedattrialthatSmithcontactedheratonepointtosuggestthat | sheavoidoneoftheinvestigatorswhowasseekingher.Finally,wheninterviewedbythe B : ComptrollersOffice,onJanuary5,1993,Smithdidnotacknowledgethatthedefendantwas   workingforhim.(GEGOW_gowAutoList10(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) 1  ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  9    _ԀThisTBIinvestigationwasnotinresponsetothisaffidavit,whichwasneverfiled,but  rathertoareporttheTBIreceivedfromRochellescoworker,SharonSanders.Rochellehad  advisedSandersthatlicensescouldbesold.Sandersthenexchangedalicenseforhome | constructionwork.   ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  2    _ԀOrralsotestifiedastotheexactcontentsofthevariousformsandtoexamination  procedureforspecialclassifications.Further,whilethisprocedurewasthegeneralpractice,Larry  Parks,aBoardmember,testifiedthata hardshiplicenseprocedureexisted.   ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  10    _Ԁ:):)ԀThetwoalsoagreedthatwheneverthedefendantwishedtocontactMadduxatthe  office,hewouldcallandidentifyhimselfas Joe.#:):)#   ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  14    _ԀTheNAIwasaprivatecompanythatadministeredtheBoardexaminations.   ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  15    _ԀRecordsofRegularlyConductedActivity.!Amemorandum,report,record,ordata  compilationinanyformofacts,events,conditions,opinions,ordiagnosesmadeatornearthe  timebyorfrominformationtransmittedbyapersonwithknowledgeandabusinessdutytorecord | ortransmitifkeptinthecourseofaregularlyconductedbusinessactivityandifitwastheregular B : practiceofthatbusinessactivitytomakethememorandum,report,record,ordatacompilation,all   asshownbythetestimonyofthecustodianorotherqualifiedwitness,unlessthesourceof   informationorthemethodorcircumstancesofpreparationindicatelackoftrustworthiness.The | t term businessasusedonthisparagraphincludeseverykindofbusiness,institution, : 2 association,profession,occupation,andcalling,whetherornotconductedforprofit.(EEGOW_gowAutoList13(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)L(a) F  ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  11    _ԀRadcliffe,however,statedthatheneverreceivedthenotesanddidnotknowtheir  location.   ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  20    _Odlemadeaprofferofproofbutwasapparentlynotassociatedwithanyoftheentities  namedincountsonethroughnine,andnoneoftheconvictionsinvolvehistransactionwiththe  defendant. \  ~f$4 X @XXXX:)XX  18    _Theamendedrule26.2incorporatesthisdefinitionof statement.SeeTenn.R.Crim.  P.26.2(g)(1),(2).)!dxdx(3$ !  ab]cYC<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  !  _4X(cXXX8XXdd8  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TP@ &P6W$_@   INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  {`<YE51j~|Xt K `@ELt KttP> k {@,AT NASHVILLE  @SS)MARCH1999SESSION DXXSTATEOFTENNESSEE,     D *  C.C.A.#M199700080CCAR3CD  ,$    Appellee,      D *  DavidsonCounty     VS.   <      D *  HonorableWalterC.Kurtz,Judge    JACKRONDALDILLMON,   D *  (BriberyofaPublicOfficial)     Appellant.     D *   FORTHEAPPELLANT:      D   FORTHEAPPELLEE:  6.  HERBERTS.MONCIER     D   JOHNKNOXWALKUP  ANNC.SHORT <      D   AttorneyGeneral&Reporter  Suite775NationsBankCenter550MainAvenue <      D   DAVIDM.HIMMELREICH T$    Knoxville,TN37920     D   DeputyAttorneyGeneral !    <      D   425FifthAvenueNorth   <      D   Nashville,TN372430493   <      D   VICTORS.(TORRY)JOHNSON,III &  8%0!    <      D   DistrictAttorneyGeneral   <      D   RONALDE.MILLER   <      D   AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral   <      D   222SecondAvenueNorth,Suite500   <      D   Nashville,TN372011649OPINIONFILED:_______________ AFFIRMEDINPART;MODIFIEDINPART;REVERSED J6B/4 INPART  67.05   JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS, Judge 928   :39 Ї@,D uXX OPINION #XX u0#Ԉ   Thedefendant,JackRondalDillmon,appealsfromhisconvictionbya   DavidsonCountyjury.Hewasconvictedoftencountsofbriberyofapublic   servantandsentencedtofouryearsoneachcount.Thetrialcourtordered   countsonethroughfivetorunconcurrentlyandcountssixthroughtentorun rj  concurrently.Thesetwofouryearsentenceswereimposedconsecutivelyforan >6  effectiveeightyearsentence,withoneyeartobeservedintheworkhouse,day    forday,andtheremainingsevenyearsonprobation.Further,thetrialcourt   imposed$24,610ofrestitutionand$10,000offines.Onappeal,thedefendant  challengesbothhisconvictionsandhissentence.Heassertsthat: nf  4 ,,DX(1)0 _The_Ԁevidenceisinsufficienttosupportthejuryverdicts;:2 ! ! (2)0 thetrialcourtsjuryinstructiononthedefenseof publicduty  waslegallyinsufficient; ! ! (3)0 thetrialcourterredinrefusingtoconductaposttrialhearingto  investigateallegedjurymisconduct;   ! ! (4)thetrialcourterredinseveralevidentiaryrulings; j!b ! ! F(G83(5)theprosecutionsuppressedmaterialexculpatoryevidence; 6#. (6)thetrialcourterredbynotdisqualifyingthedeputystate %! Ѐattorneygeneralandhisoffice; %" (7)thetrialcourterredingivingjurorsshirtsthatwereallegedly ' $ Ѐdemeaningtothedefense; (!% (8)thetrialcourterredindenyingthedefenseaccesstocertain f*^#' Ѐdocuments; L+D$( (9)thetrialcourterredinallowingtestimonythatcontractor -&* Ѐlicensingexaminationandfireinspectorexaminationmaterials -&+ Ѐweresecret; .', (10)thetrialcourterredinsentencing; 0). (11)thetrialcourterredindenyingfullprobation;and |2t+0 Ѐ(12)thetrialcourterredinitsorderofrestitution. H4@-2 " DX ,,D"?+ 4 <DL!DX?4 Afterthoroughreview,weMODIFYonegrantofrestitutionandREVERSEtwo 6 /4 grantsofrestitution;inallotherrespects,weAFFIRMthejudgmentofthetrial 706 court. 928 @kk*D BACKGROUND    Thiscaseiscomplicated,thetrialtestimonylongandtechnical,andthe   recordvoluminous.?  #  1      ׀However,thiscaseessentiallyinvolvestwoschemes:(1)A   schemetoillegallysecurelicensesfromtheTennesseeLicensingContractors X P Board( Board);and(2)aschemetoillegallysecuretheCertifiedFireInspector $  Examinationandassociatedmaterials.Thedefendantinitiated,orchestrated,   andconductedbothschemes.    Inthefirstscheme,thedefendantcultivatedcontactswithprivate TL contractorfirmsbyteachingalicensingclassandbyapproachingcontractorsas   apotentialemployee.Inexchangeformoney,Dillmonofferedtoassistthese  contractorstoobtaincertainlicenses.HewouldthenpayBarbaraRochelle,an  employeeoftheBoard,tofalsifyrequisitelicensingdocumentationandissuethe | licenses. PH  Thisfirstschemeresultedinprosecutionforninecountsofbriberyofa " publicservant.Attrial,Rochelledescribedtheinnerworkingsofthisscheme $! anddetailedtheindividualcontractorsandlicenses.Further,testimonyby &x# severalrepresentativesofthevariousprivatecontractorsestablishedtheir L(D!% involvementwiththedefendant,hisrepresentations,andthelicensesobtained. *#' Ajuryconvictedthedefendantonallcounts. +$)  Inthesecondscheme,thedefendantattemptedtopurchasetheCertified |/t(- FireInspectorExaminationandassociatedmaterials.Hefirstestablisheda H1@*/ friendshipwithBettyMaddux,anemployeeoftheTennesseeFireMarshalls 3 ,1 Office.Hethenaskedhertoprocurethematerialsforhim,butshenotifiedher 4-3 superiors.Afteraninvestigation,theTennesseeBureauofInvestigation( TBI) 6/5 caughtDillmonreceivingwhathebelievedtobetheexamination.Attrial,  Madduxtestifiedtoherparticularinteractionswiththedefendant,his  propositions,andthespecificdetailssurroundinghisarrest.Thejuryconvicted   thedefendantofonecountofbriberyofapublicservant. l d  Complicatingthispicture,however,arethedefendantsattemptsto   misleadinvestigators.Duringtheseschemes,authoritiesbegananinvestigation   directedatreportsthatBoardlicenseswerebeingsold.Thedefendant,when   questionedbyauthorities,madenumerousallegationsandevencreatedfalse h` affidavitsdesignedatshiftingsuspicionandblametoPhyllis_Blevins_,theBoards 4, executivedirector.Inthisattempt,thedefendantemployedbothhisBoard  contact,Rochelle,aswellasScottKlein,hisemployee.Theseattemptsledto  noinstantcharges.  @44 D SCHEMEI:ContractorLicensing  0 (  Thedefendantwastriedandconvictedonninecountsofbriberyofa " publicservantregardingcontractorslicenseapplicationsandcertificationsfor $! thefollowingentities: &z#   $  !X!$Count1: < July11,1991 D DelaneyConstruction,Inc.T$T$MT$ N(F!%   3 DL! !3ӀCount2: < Sept.12,1991 D _Brigance_ԀContractors,Inc. 4),"&   6 DL! X!6Count3: < Oct.7,1991 D _TerraCom_ԀDevelopment,Inc. *#' Count4: < Dec.15,1991 D AtlantaTriCom,Inc. +#(  m  6 DL! X!6GibsonDryWall,Inc. +$) SmokeyMt.Contracting,Inc. ,%*  m  6 DL! X!6Count5: < June25,1992 D WalkerDevelopmentCorp. -&+ Count6: < July3,1992 D CollierDevelopmentCo.,Inc. .', Count7: < Sep.17,1992 D ByrdConstruction ~/v(- Count8: < Sept.17,19920 D R&HConstructiond0\).DT$DT$ Count9: < Nov.9,1992 D _Gatlinburg_ԀElectricCompany,Inc. J1B*/  02(+0  3,1   l<`  Toobtainalicense,anapplicantmustcompletetheBoardsapplication 3,2 andevaluationprocedure.Attrial,DonaldC.Orr,aBoardmember,described 5.4 thestepsoftheapplicationandcertificationprocedure:(1)submissionofan 706 applicationpacket,includingreferencesandfinancialstatements;(2)successful `9X28 P     completionofcertainexaminations;and(3)aninterviewwiththeBoardora  Boardmember.:  :2  H  #  2         ThedefendantscontactintheBoard,andhismeansofcircumventingthis l d procedure,wasRochelle,:  :94  @  #  3      ׀anemployeeoftheBoards NewApplications 80 section.Herjobdutiesincludedhandlingapplicationfilesandmailing   certificationstothenewlicenseholders.A,  #  4      :  :5  ݀ThedefendantbefriendedRochelle   whilehewasseekingalicense,andby1991hewasdiscussingwithherthe   possibilityofobtaininglicensingforsomeofhisstudentsandnewapplicants.:  :7  B  #  5      ׀ h` Thesediscussionsledtoaschemeinwhich,inreturnformoney,Rochelle 4, beganfalsifyingapplicationfilesandissuinglicensesatthedefendantsrequest.  Welistthecountsbelowwithabriefdescription:   4  $ ,, X!$0 Count1 :Rochelletestifiedthatsheaddeda mechanicallicense  classificationtoDelaneyConstructionCompanyscertification. | Delaneysrepresentative,MichaelDelaney,testifiedattrialthat jb hepaidthedefendant$600to taketheexaminationsand PH acquirecertification.6 . ! ! Ѐ  ! 0 Count2 :Rochelletestifiedthatsheaddedmultipleclassifications " to_Brigance_ԀContractorscertification.RonnieCole,aBoard " member,testifiedtoirregularitiesin_Brigance_sfileand #  certification.$! ! !  0 Count3 :Rochelletestifiedthatsheaddedmultipleclassifications &~# tothecertificationof_TerraCom_ԀDevelopment.r'j $ ! !  0 Count4 :Rochelletestifiedthatsheforgedinterviewerinitialsand >)6"& falsifiedthefilesandcertificationsofGibsonDrywall,Smoky **"#' MountainContracting,andAtlantaTriCom.+$( ! !  0 Count5 :Rochelletestifiedthatsheforgedinterviewerinitialson ,%* thefileofWalkerDevelopmentCorporation.Arepresentative -&+ ofWalkerfurthertestifiedthathepaidthedefendantover .', $2000inconnectionwithhisclassandanother$1000forthe /(- defendanttotakecareoftheinterviewrequirement.Larry z0r). Parks,aBoardmember,alsotestifiedthathedidnotinterview `1X*/ anyonefromWalkerandthathisinitialsonthepertinentfile  appearedforged. ! !  0 Count6 :Rochelletestifiedthatsheaddedadditionalclassifications   tothecertificationofPhilipCollier.Colliertestifiedtohis   interactionswiththedefendantinconnectionwiththislicensing.  ! !  0 Count7 :Rochelletestifiedthatsheaddedclassificationsand d \ forgedinterviewerinitialsonthefileandcertificationofJames PH Byrd.Byrdtestifiedtohisinteractionwiththedefendant.6.  ! !  0 Count8 :Rochelletestifiedthatsheaddedclassificationsand   forgedinterviewerinitialsonthefileandcertificationofRandH   Construction.JohnnyHarristestifiedthathissonhadappliedfor   acontractorslicense.Hetestifiedthatafterhissonapplied,he   receivedcorrespondencefromthedefendant.Thewitness   testifiedthathewrotea$1000checktohissonsconstruction  companyforpaymenttothedefendant.Subsequently,he rj testifiedthathereceivedthelicenseforRandH.XP ! ! 8 0 JohnnyHarrisfurthertestifiedthatheissuedacheckfor$1500 $ tothedefendantforassistanceinobtaininghisownlicense.In   anoutofjuryhearing,thewitnesstestifiedthatthedefendant  saidhewouldtaketheapplicationandpaperstoNashville.The  witnesstestifiedthathelaterlearnedthatthepaperworknever  arrivedinNashville.;F  ! ! 0 Count9 :Rochelletestifiedthatsheaddedtheclassification nf  electricalonthecertificationof_Gatlinburg_ԀElectricCompany. Z R Dallas_Atchley_,ownerof_Gatlinburg_ԀElectric,testifiedtohis @!8 interactionswiththedefendant.( X! ,, 9(&" ! ! 4  Inreturnforherrole,thedefendantcompensatedRochelle.Shetestified $! thatshereceivedvariouschecks,wiretransfers,andcashfromhim.C  #  6      ׀Thestate &# introducedevidenceoffourchecksandsixwiretransfersfromthedefendantto p(h!% eitherRochelleorherdaughter:  :+L  Dv  #  7      ׀datingfromJuly11,1991throughNovember6, <*4#' 1992.Shetestifiedthatthedefendantwouldcallherinadvanceandadviseher ,%) whereandwhenhewouldbesendingthemoney. -&+  OnAugust22,1991,duringthecourseofthedefendantsscheme,the l1d*/ DepartmentofCommerceandInsurancebegananinvestigation,headedby 830,1 InvestigatorRichardRadcliffeoftheRegulatoryBoards,thatfocusedon 5-3 problemsdetectedintheapplicationprocedure.Radcliffecontactedthe 6/5 defendantabouttheseproblems.Radcliffetestifiedthatthedefendant  respondedbyassertingthathecouldprovethatlicenseswerebeingsoldbythe  Board.Atthatpoint,however,thedefendanthadnoproof.Radcliffearrangeda   meetingwiththedefendant,himself,andWadeSmith,thechiefinvestigatorfor l d theRegulatoryBoard.Atthismeeting,thedefendantofferedtoobtainthisproof, 80 andSmithstatedthathewouldbeinterestedinsuchinformation.:  :XQied,  E  #  8          Rochelletestifiedthatthedefendantcontactedherregardingacollateral   schemetoshiftblameto_Blevins_.ThedefendantinstructedRochelletotellher h` coworkerthat_Blevins_Ԁwas onthetake,andheevenhadRochellesignan 4, affidavitattestingthatshehadpersonallyleftbribemoneyon_Blevins_desk.The  affidavitfurtherstatedthat_Blevins_Ԁwasoperatinga licenseforsaleschemeand  usingRochelleasherunderling.  Ѐ d\ tJ Duringthisapproximatetimeframe,theTBIbeganaseparate 0 ( investigationthatultimatelyledtotheinstantindictmentsandconvictions.G,  #  9      :  :Uied,  ݀ ! However,thedefendantwasnotfinished.Heinstructedhisemployee,Scott #  Klein,aformersheriffsdeputy,tostatethathehadpaid_Blevins_Ԁforalicense %" andtocreateafalseaffidavittothiseffect.InDecember1992,thedefendant `'X $ himselftelephonedinvestigatorsandreiteratedclaimsofboardcorruption. ,)$"& Finally,thedefendantparticipatedinaninterviewwithinvestigators,wherehe *#( againaccused_Blevins_Ԁofcorruption.Despitethesevariousattemptsandasa ,%* resultoftheinvestigation,thedefendantwaschargedwithninecountsofbribery. .',  (2 +0 @D SCHEMEII:FireInspectorExamination    Thefinalcountchargedthedefendantwithbriberyregardinghisseeking   theFireInspectorExamination.Inthisscheme,thedefendantagaincultivateda   contactonthe inside,Maddux.MadduxtestifiedthatinMayof1994shemet V N thedefendantandthetwobeganafriendshipandrelationship.Thedefendant "  thenpropositionedMaddux:IfshecouldobtainFireInspectorExamination   materialsforhim,thenhewouldcompensateher.:  :\ied,  ݀Shetestifiedthatsheagreed   tothisdeal;I  #  10      :  :\ied,  ݀however,onherreturntotheofficeandaftercontactwithher ~  supervisor,shedecidednottogivethedefendantthematerials.Subsequently, RJ MadduxtestifiedthatshemetwithaTBIagentregardingDillmonsoffer.   WhenshefinallymetwiththedefendantonJune7,1994,Maddux,  unbeknownsttothedefendant,recordedtheirconversationasthedefendant z reiteratedhisneedfortheexaminationandotherrelatedinformation.Maddux NF testifiedthatthedefendantwantedthequestionsthatafternoon;however,the ! twodidnotmakecontactagainuntilMadduxcalledhimandhesuggestedthat " shemailhimtheexamination.Noexaminationwassent. $!  Finally,onJune15,1994,shetestifiedthatthetwometatthebuilding J(B!% wheresheworked.:  :`ied,  Shetoldhimthatshehadtheexaminationinthetrunkofa *#' carintheparkinglot.Atthecar,shehandedhimanenvelopepurportedly +$) containingtherequestedmaterials.TwoTBIagentsapprehendedthedefendant -&+ beforeheleftthearea,andhewaschargedwithonecountofbriberyofapublic z/r(- official. F1>*/  706 @&D SentencingHearing    Atthesentencinghearingsubsequenttothetenconvictions,Cindy   _Collette_Ԁtestifiedthatshehadworkedforthedefendantandhadbeeninvolvedin   apersonalrelationshipwithhim.ShesaidthatthedefendantmovedKleininto V N herhousetoprotecther. "   ShesaidthatsheplacedathreateningtelephonecalltoWadeSmithat   thedefendantsrequest._Collette_Ԁalsodiscoveredthatthetelephoneather ~  residencehadbeen bugged,andthedefendantadmittedrecordingher RJ conversations.Shetestifiedthatthedefendanttoldherthathehadavideo  camerainstalledinherbedroom._Collette_ԀhadapersonalrelationshipwithKlein  whileheprovidedsecurityforher,andthedefendantvideotapedthetwointhe  bedroom. z  Shetestifiedthatduringtheinvestigationshemetaninvestigator,Chas ! _Taplin_,ata_Shoney_sin_Sevierville_Ԁatthedefendantsrequest._Taplin_Ԁwasto " meetwithacontractor, Gary,toquestionhimabouthiscontractorslicense. $! Shesaidthedefendantwantedherto dothetalking,therebyminimizingGarys ~&v# statements,andtodeterminethestatesgoalsinquestioningGary.Further,the J(B!% defendantwishedhertoinvite_Taplin_Ԁoutfordrinksandputhimina *#' compromisingsituation._Taplin_,however,calledherafterthemeetingand +$) indicatedthatheknewshehadusedafakename,andtheplanwascanceled. -&+  WadeSmithalsotestifiedforthedefendant.Hetestifiedthathemetwith F1>*/ thedefendantandwithRadcliffetodiscussmatterspertainingtotheBoard. 3 ,1 Smithfurthertestifiedthatvariousleakshaderuptedduringpriorinvestigations 4-3 oftheBoard.Hestatedthathetoldthedefendantthathewouldbeinterested 6/5 inthedefendantsillicitpurchaseofalicense.Smithtestifiedthatthedefendant v8n17 thenattemptedandsuccessfullypurchasedsomelicenses.Smithtestifiedthat B::39 @      hetoldthedefendantthatiftheyobtainedsolidevidence,hewouldapproach  ErnieWilliams,theUnitedStatesAttorney,withthatdata.   SmithoriginallymetwiththedefendantonoraboutOctober8or9,1991. l d SmithrecalledthathetooknotesandgavethemtoRadcliffetowriteupamemo 80 forhisfile.O  #  11      ׀    Thedefendanttestifiedathissentencinghearing.Hedeniedanyandall   activitiesallegedbycountone,andclaimedthatforcountstwothroughninehe h` onlysoughttoassistSmithsinvestigation. 4,  Attheconclusionofthedefendantsproof,hisattorneystatedconcern  aboutpotentialjurormisconduct.Henotedthatfourjurorshadattendedthe  sentencinghearing.Further,heallegedthataftertheverdictssevenfemale d\ jurorsvisited_Blevins_Ԁatheroffice. 0 ( @QQ+D ANALYSIS #  @"DSUFFICIENCYOFTHEEVIDENCE  &#  Thedefendantfirstarguesthattheevidenceattrialwasinsufficientto D)<"& supportthejurysverdictsforallcounts.Whenadefendantchallengesthe +$( sufficiencyoftheevidence,thisCourtmustdeterminewhether,afterviewingthe ,%* evidenceinalightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,anyrationaltrieroffact .', couldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofacrimebeyondareasonabledoubt. t0l). SeeJacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,319(1979);Statev.Duncan,698S.W.2d @28+0 63,67(Tenn.1985);Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).Theappelleeisentitledtothe  4-2 strongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceandallreasonableinferencesthatmay 5.4 bedrawntherefrom.SeeStatev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978). 706  Thecredibilityofwitnesses,theweightoftheirtestimony,andthe  reconciliationofconflictsintheevidencearemattersentrustedexclusivelytothe  trieroffact.SeeStatev.Sheffield,676S.W.2d542,547(Tenn.1984);Statev.   Gentry,881S.W.2d1,3(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).Ajuryverdictforthestate l d accreditsthetestimonyofthestateswitnessesandresolvesallconflictsinfavor 80 ofthestate.SeeStatev.Williams,657S.W.2d405,410(Tenn.1983).   Moreover,aguiltyverdictremovesthepresumptionofinnocenceenjoyedby   defendantsattrialandreplacesitwithapresumptionofguilt.SeeStatev.   Grace,493S.W.2d474,476(Tenn.1973).Thus,anappellantchallengingthe h` sufficiencyoftheevidencecarriestheburdenofillustratingtothisCourtwhythe 4, evidenceisinsufficienttosupporttheverdict.SeeStatev.Freeman,943  S.W.2d25,29(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).  @gg$D CountsOneThroughNine  d\  Incountsonethroughnine,thedefendantwasconvictedofbriberyofa ! publicservant: "  4(a)Apersoncommitsanoffensewho: $! "3"  3}2G(  1  )3  0   Offers,confers,oragreestoconferanypecuniarybenefit ~&v# uponapublicservantwiththeintenttoinfluencethepublic d'\ $ servantsvote,opinion,judgment,exerciseofdiscretionor J(B!% otheractioninthepublicservantsofficialcapacity;3}X}݌0)("& ! ! Ќ  @HH+D.... *#( (c)BriberyofapublicservantisaClassCfelony. ,%* 4 Tenn.CodeAnn.3916102. .',  Thedefendantarguesthattheevidenceattrialwasinsufficienttosupport F1>*/ theseconvictions.Heassertsthatthestatefailedtopresentsufficientevidence 3 ,1 because: 4-3  4(1)0 _The_Ԁdefendantsconferringapecuniarybenefitupon 6/5 Rochelleforeachofthelicensesissuedinthesecountswas 706 notestablished;v8n17 ! !  B::39 (2)0 theprosecutiondidnotestablishthateachseparate  paymenttoRochellewasintendedtocarry,anddidcarry,its  owncorruptinginfluence; ! ! (3)0 Rochellestestimonyasanaccomplicewasinsufficiently   corroboratedtosupportconvictions; ~ ! ! ! !"3"  3߃2G(  4  )3  0   variancesbetweenthedatesontheissuedlicensesandthe R J dateoftheirentryintheBoardscomputerconstituteerror 80 underthesufficiencyofevidenceargument;and3߃ ݌  ! ! Ќ  "3"  32G(  5  )3  0   thestatedidnotsufficientlyrebuthisprofferedpublicduty   defense.3݌  ! ! Ќ  4 Wedisagree.    ThedefendantarguesthatthestatedidnotprovethatRochellereceived 4, apecuniarybenefit,anessentialelementofthepublicbriberyoffense,foreach  oftheillegitimatelicenses.Heproposesthatthejuryhadtoinferfromthe  evidencethatmoneyhegavetoRochellewasconsiderationfortheillicit  licenses.HeemphasizesRochellestestimony,characterizingthefundsas d\  loans.However,Rochelleadmittedinearliertestimony,atherowntrial 0 ( regardingthesecounts,thatsheacceptedmoneyfromthedefendantforissuing ! theillicitlicenses.Whendefensecounselintheinstantcaseaskedifthatearlier #  testimonywasfalse,sheanswered, No.Thejurycananddidresolveany %" contradictionsorinconsistenciesinthistestimony,andthejurycould,anddid, `'X $ rejecthercharacterizationofthepaymentsas loans. ,)$"&  Thedefendantsassertionthatthestatedidnotestablishsufficiently ,%* concretelinksbetweenpaymentsfromthedefendanttoRochelleandeachof .', theimproperlyissuedlicensesisunpersuasive.Exactcorrelation,oneandonly \0T). onepaymentforeachindividualillegitimatelicense,wasnotnecessarily (2 +0 established.Theevidencedidestablish,however,thatthedefendant 3,2 communicatedwithRochelleondistinctoccasionsforeachseparateillicitlicense 5.4 andthatRochelleunderstoodherbenefitsfromherillegalacts:payments 706 coveringoneormoreactsatthedefendantsrequestandforhisbenefit. X9P28  Further,thisjuryheardtestimonyfrominvestigators,thedefendants  formerclients,andBoardemployeesthatestablishedtheillicitnatureofthe  licenses.Thisjuryheardtestimonyregardingdocumentedmultiplepayments   fromthedefendanttoRochelle.WeacknowledgethatRochellewasan l d accomplicewhosetestimonyagainstthedefendantmustbecorroboratedby 80 somefactentirelyindependentofthetestimonywhichinfersthattheaccusedis   implicatedinacrimewhichhasactuallybeencommitted.SeeStatev._Bigbee_,   885S.W.2d797,803(Tenn.1994);Statev.Henley,774S.W.2d908,913   (Tenn.1989).However,theevidenceattrialprovidedthe slightcircumstances h` tocorroboratethetestimonyofanaccomplice.Dykesv.State,589S.W.2d 4, 384,389(Tenn.Crim.App.1979).   ThedefendantcitesStatev._Desirey_,909S.W.2d20(Tenn.Crim.App.  1995)tosupporthisargumentthatthepaymentsdidnoteachcarrytheirown d\  corruptinginfluenceandthattheevidenceinsufficientlyconnectsanygiven 0 ( corruptinginfluencetoaparticularlicenseinaparticularcount.Therelevant ! portionofthe_Desirey_opinionaddressedmultiplicity, thetermappliedtothe #  improperchargingofthesameoffenseinmorethanonecount.Id.at27. %"  Generally,ifthe[relevant]statuteprohibitsindividualacts,theneachactis `'X $ punishedseparately.Id.at29.Thepertinentbriberystatutedefinesanoffense ,)$"& asoccurringwhenaperson [_o]ffers_,confers,oragreestoconferanypecuniary *#( benefituponapublicservantwiththeintenttoinfluencethepublicservants... ,%* actioninthepublicservantsofficialcapacity....Tenn.CodeAnn.3916 .', 102(a)(1)(emphasisadded).Theevidencepresentedattrialsupportedajurys \0T). concluding,beyondareasonabledoubt,thatsomepaymentstoRochellewere (2 +0 divisible,correspondingtomultipleinstancesofthedefendantsconferring any 3,2 pecuniarybenefitforindividual,discreteactionsrequestedonindividual, 5.4 discreteoccasions.Wedonotconcludethat lumpsumpaymentsformultiple 706 offenses,committedondistinctlyseparatedates,establishmultiplicityunderthis X9P28 statute.Wenotethatthepaymentswereofvaryingamounts.Further,the  _Desirey_opiniondoesnotestablishahardandfastruleforevaluatingallbribery  charges;rather,theanalysisrecognizes,attheveryleastimplicitly,thatthe   varyingcircumstancesofbriberycasesinfluencethenumberofoffensesthat l d canbeproperlycharged.Seeidat30. 80  Wealsorejectthedefendantsargumentregardinginsufficientproofof   datesassertedintheindictmentsforcountsonethroughfourandforcountnine,   anargumentbasedatleastinpartonsubstantialdifferencesbetweendateson h` theissuedlicensesandthedatesoftheirrespectivecomputerentry.Anexact 4, dateinanindictmentisrequiredifthedateisa materialingredientofthe  chargedoffense.SeeStatev.Byrd,820S.W.2d739,740(Tenn.1991).The  pertinentstatutedoesnotrequireproofofadate,seeTenn.CodeAnn.3916  102,andweconcludethatanydiscerniblevarianceisimmaterialandnot d\ groundsforreversal. 0 ( @*D PublicDuty  #   Thedefendantassertsthatthestatedidnotnegate,beyondareasonable ~&v# doubt,hisassertedpublicdutydefense: J(B!%  4$ ,, X!$(a)0 Exceptasqualifiedbysubsections(b)and(c),conductis *#' justifiedifthepersonreasonablybelievestheconductis *#( requiredorauthorizedbylaw,bythejudgmentororderofa +$) competentcourtorothertribunal,orintheexecutionoflegal ,%* process. ...-&+ ! ! (c)Thejustificationaffordedbythissectionisavailableif:  /x(- @,D.... L1D*/  (2)0 Thepersonreasonablybelievestheconductisrequiredor 3,1 authorizedtoassistapublicservantintheperformanceof 3,2 thepublicservantsofficialduty,eventhoughthepublic 4-3 servantexceedsthepublicservantslawfulauthority.5.4 ! ! ( X! ,,(4 Tenn.CodeAnn.3911610. Thedefendantassertsthatthecircumstancesof 706 thecaseestablishthisdefenseandthatthisCourtshouldreversetheconvictions n9f28 resultingfromthejurysrejectionofthisdefense.Wedisagreeforthefollowing  reasons.   TherecordestablishespecuniarybenefitbestoweduponRochellebythe l d defendantpriortohisallegedcooperationwithinvestigators.Theseinvestigators 80 soughtoutthedefendantbecauseofpotentiallyproblematicapplications   submittedforhisstudents,notbecausetheysoughthisassistance.However,   whenthedefendantmetwiththeinvestigatorsheassignedculpabilityagainst   otherpersons.Infurtheranceofhis investigations,thedefendantfabricatedat h` leasttwofalseaffidavits,allegedlyprovidingevidenceof_Blevins_corruption,after 4, hismeetingswithinvestigators.Theseactionsweighagainstanylegitimate,  bonafideinvestigationconductedbythedefendantundertheairofauthority.  Theevidencesupportsarationaltrieroffactconcluding,beyondareasonable  doubt,thatthedefendantsoughttomanipulatetheinvestigationstohisbenefit d\ andtofabricatecasesagainstotherpersons.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. 0 ( @+D Count10  #   Thedefendantarguesagainsthisconvictionforbriberyofapublicservant ~&v# oncount10,allegingthatthecrimewasnotprovenbecausethedocumentshe J(B!% soughtwerepublicrecords.Hefurtherallegesthathewasentrapped.We *#' disagree. +$)  Thetrialcourtinstructedthejurythatthematerialscovetedbythe z/r(- defendantwerepublicrecords.However,thebriberystatuteprohibitsattempts F1>*/ to influencethepublicservants...exerciseofdiscretioninthepublicservants 3 ,1 officialcapacity .... Tenn.CodeAnn.3916102(a)(1).Thejurywas 4-3 instructedthattherecordsmustbeinspectedandcopiedwheretheyarekept 6/5 andthatanagencymaydesignatespecificpersonstohandlepublicrecord 8z17 requests.ThedefendantrequestedthatMadduxprovidehimwiththe N:F39 documentsoutsidethedesignatedmechanism.Also,Madduxwasnotthe  designatedcustodianoftheexamination.Hethereforesoughttoinduceapublic  servanttouseherofficetogetdocumentsnotinhercustody,andnotather   discretiontodispense,andtogivehimthosedocumentsinamannerotherthan l d thedefinedlegalmeansofaccess.Theevidenceattrialwassufficientfora 80 rationaltrieroffacttoconclude,beyondareasonabledoubt,thatthedefendant   soughttoinfluenceMadduxsdiscretioninthecourseofherstateemployment   withthelureofpecuniarybenefit.    Althoughthedefendantassertsthathewasentrapped,hepresentsno 4, authorityinsupportofthisdefensetheory,seeCt.Crim.App.R.10(b),but  insteadattacksthestatestheoryregardingpredisposition,atheoryasserting  thatthedefendantsoughtoutandmanipulatedweakwilledwomen.The  defendantdiscussesthepersonalitydifferencesbetweenMadduxandRochelle d\ andassertsthathemerelysoughttoestablishschoolstoassistpersonson 0 ( stateexaminations.However,therecordcomprisesampleevidencethatthe ! defendantdidnotsolimithimself:Hesoughttomanipulatemanypersonsof #  bothgenders,duringhisactivities. %"  Thejurycouldinferintentfromthecircumstancesofthecase.SeeState ,)$"& v.Holland,860S.W.2d53,59(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).Wealsonotethatthe *#( statewasunawareofthedefendantscontactwithMadduxuntilafterhis ,%* attemptedbribeandthissequenceofeventsnegatestheentrapmentargument .', astothiscount.Therecordcomprisessufficientevidencetosupportarational \0T). trieroffactsconcluding,beyondareasonabledoubt,thatthestateestablished (2 +0 predisposition.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. 3,2  >:639 @d d D JURYINSTRUCTIONS!PUBLICDUTYDEFENSE    Attrial,thedefendantreliedalmostexclusivelyonhisassertionthatany   criminalconductrelatedtocountsonethroughninewasjustifiedunderhis   reasonablebeliefthathisconductwasinsupportofapublicofficial.SeeTenn. X P CodeAnn.3911610.Thedefendantarguesthatthetrialcourtsinstructionto $  thejuryregardingthedefenseofpublicdutywasinadequateandviolatedhis   stateandfederaldueprocessrightstoafairtrial.     Boththestateandthedefenseproposedjuryinstructions.However,the TL trialcourtrejectedeach,andtrackingthelanguageofthestatute,seeTenn.   CodeAnn.3911610,instructedthejuryasfollows:   4Itisadefensetothisprosecutionthatthedefendantsconductis  justifiedifhereasonablybelievedthatconductisrequiredor  authorizedbylaw.Thedefensesupportedbythissectionis | availableifthepersonreasonablybelievedthatconductisrequired jb orauthorizedtoassistapublicservantintheperformanceofa PH publicservant[s]officialdutyeventhoughtheservantexceedsthe 6 . servantslawfulauthority.Ifevidenceisintroducedsupportingthis ! defensetheburdenisontheStatetoprovebeyondareasonable " doubtthatthedefendantdidnotactoutofapublicdutyandthenif " youhaveareasonabledoubtwhetherheactedoutofpublicduty #  thenyoumustfindthedefendantnotguilty. $! /4  Thedefendantarguesthattheinstructionwasinsufficientto inform, L(D!% instructandguidethejurysdeliberationsinthiscase,becausethatinstruction *#' impliedthatthepublicdutydefenserequiresashowingofactioninconnection +$) withsometraditional,recognizedlawenforcementagency.Thisconclusion -&+ derivesnotfromtheinstructionbutprimarilyfromthestatesclosingargument. |/t(- There,thestaterecountedthetestimonyofonetrialwitness,Maddux,whohad H1@*/ cooperatedwiththeTBIasanundercoveragent.Thestatenotedthe 3 ,1 proceduresemployedinthatrelationshipandtheabsenceofasimilar 4-3 arrangementinvolvingthedefendant.Thedefensearguesthatthevagariesof 6/5 thetrialcourtsinstruction,combinedwiththeseclosingstatements,ledthejury x8p17 tobelievethatonlyinvolvementwithanofficialagencywouldsuffice. D:<39  This,however,isneitherthelanguagenortheimplicationofthetrial  courtsinstruction.Rather,theinstructionrefersbroadly,asdoesthestatute,to  assistinga publicservant.Atrialcourtsrefusaltogiveaspecificallyrequested   chargeisnoterror [_i]f_Ԁtheinstructiongivenbythetrialcourtisacorrect l d statementofTennesseelawandfullyandfairlysetsforththeapplicablelaw.... 80 Statev.Haynes,720S.W.2d76,85(Tenn.Crim.App.1986).Weconcludethat   theinstructionisacorrectstatementofthelaw,sufficienttoinformandtoguide   thejury.   @yy(D JURYMISCONDUCT  4,  Thedefendantassertsthatthejurywasnot freeofevenareasonable  suspicionofbiasorprejudice,therebydeprivinghimofhisrighttotrialbyan  impartialjuryundertheSixthAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionand | underArticleI,9oftheTennesseeConstitution.Thedefendantassertsthat PH hebecameawareofpotentialjurymisconductafterreturnoftheguiltyverdicts ! andthatheappropriatelyamendedhispendingmotionforanewtrial.Insupport " ofthisamendedmotion,hesubmittedanaffidavitfromaprofessionalwriterwho $! allegedlyinterviewedajuror,aswellasataperecordingofthatconversation. &x# Thedefendantalsoexpressedconcernduringtheproceedingsaboutfourjurors L(D!% whoattendedthesentencinghearingandaboutseveraljurorswhoallegedly *#' visited_Blevins_officeaftertheverdict. +$)  Thedefendantrequestedthatthetrialcourtcallinthejurorsand |/t(-  independentlyfindoutwhatisgoingon.Thatcourtrejectedthemotionand H1@*/ suggestedthatthedefendantsubpoenajurorsforthehearingonhismotionfora 3 ,1 newtrial.However,thedefendantdidnotpresentanyjurorsatthatlater 4-3 hearing. 6/5  D:<39  Whereajuryisnotlegallydisqualifiedorthereisnoinherentprejudice,  theburdenisontheDefendanttoshowthatajuryisinsomewaybiasedor  prejudiced.Statev._Caughron_,855S.W.2d526,539(Tenn.1993).Wenote   thatinquiriesintothevalidityofaverdictarelimited:Ajurystestimonyina l d proceedingconcerningsuchamattermayaddressneithermattersorstatements 80 occurringduringthecourseofthejurysdeliberationsnortheeffectofanything   uponanyjurorsmindoremotionasinfluencingtheverdict.SeeTenn.R._Evid_.   606(b).Theexceptiontothisgeneralruleisthatajurormaytestifyregarding   anyextraneousprejudicialinformationimproperlybroughttothatjurors h` attention,whetheroutsideinfluencesimproperlyboreuponanyjuror,orwhether 4, apreexistingagreementexistedbetweenthejurorstobeboundbyaquotientor  agamblingverdictwithoutfurtherdiscussion.Seeid.Further,neitherajurors  affidavitnoranyotherevidenceofanystatementbythejurorconcerninga  matteraboutwhichthejurorwouldbeprecludedfromtestifyingmaybereceived d\ asevidence.Seeid. 0 (  Thedefendantfailedtodevelopanyadmissibleproofandwaivedthis #  issuebynotpresentingadmissiblejurytestimonyorotherevidenceatthe %" previouslymentionedhearing.Further,anallegedjurorstatementreflecting `'X $ negativelyonthedefendantwasgivenduringtheinterview,afterthetrial,and ,)$"& reflectedtheresultoftheevidencepresentedtothejury.SeeStatev._Bigbee_, *#( 885S.W.2d797,805(Tenn.1994)(jurorsseenloweringandraisingarmasif ,%* pullingaleveronanelectricalswitchboxandmuttering yeahandhugging .', victimsrelativesaftertheverdictwherereactionstoaverdictissuedafter \0T). adequatedeliberation).Inshort,therecordlacksashowingof extraneous (2 +0 prejudicialinformationoranyoutsideinfluence...broughttobearonajuror 3,2 thatquestionsthevalidityoftheverdict.Statev._Parchman_,973S.W.2d607, 5.4 612(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).Thisissueiswithoutmerit. 706  X9P28 @&D EVIDENTIARYRULINGS  @__%DPublicDutyDefense     Thedefendantnextchallengescertaintrialcourtevidentiaryrulings:  z  4(1)0 Thetrialcourtrefusedthedefendantsrequesttoplaytape NF recordingsofsixtelephoneconversationsbetweenRadcliffe 4,  andthedefendant;  ! ! (2)0 thetrialcourtrefusedthedefendantsrequesttoeitherplay   forthejurytaperecordingsofthedefendantsconversation   withanotherinvestigator,ChrisFreeze,ortoallhearsay   statementsmadebyWadeSmithandCarolyn_Lazenby_*  #  12      ׀to   Freeze;~v ! ! (3)0 thetrialcourtlimitedtestimonyregardingthedefendants JB civilsuitagainsttheBoardandhisallegedousterpetition 0( against_Blevins_; ! !  -(w88F! !"3"  32w(  4  )3  0   thetrialcourtrefusedSmithstestimonyregardingthe  defendantsstateofmind;and3"݌ ! ! Ќ  "3"  3<2w(  5  )3  0   thetrialcourtdeniedthedefendantsrequesttointroduce  certainexhibits.3<i݌zr ! ! Ќ  4  Severaloftheserulingsrestrictedadmissionofevidenceallegedlybearing "  onthedefendantspublicdutydefense,andthedefendantcollectively #  characterizestheserulingsasadenialofhisconstitutionalrighttofullyraiseand %" develophisdefenseofpublicduty.However,thedefendantdoesnotarguethat v'n $ therulesofevidenceuponwhichthetrialcourtsrulingswerebasedare B):"& unconstitutional.We,therefore,donotreviewthechallengedrulingsasa +$( constitutionalissue. Thedecisiontoadmitorexcludeevidenceislefttothe ,%* sounddiscretionofthetrialjudgewhichwillnotbedisturbedunlessithasbeen .', arbitrarilyexercised.Statev.Baker,751S.W.2d154,163(Tenn.Crim.App. r0j). 1987). >26+0  Thedefendantassertsthatthetrialcourterredinrefusingtoallowthe 5.4 defendanttoplaytaperecordingsofsixconversationsbetweenthedefendant 706 andRegulatoryInvestigatorRickRadcliffe.Heassertsthatthesetapeswould  have conclusivelydocumentedtheoriginsanddevelopmentof[thedefendants]  assistanceinuncoveringcorruptionwiththeContractorsBoard.Thetrialcourt   rejectedthedefendantsrequestbecausethepriortapesdidnotsatisfythe l d requirementsforinconsistentstatementsenteredforimpeachmentpurposes:If 80 awitnessdeniesapriorinconsistentstatement,thatstatementmaybeentered   forimpeachmentpurposesbutnotassubstantiveevidence.SeeTenn.R._Evid_.   613.Descriptionofthetapescontentsestablishednothinginconsistentbetween   Radcliffestestimonyandthetapescontents,andthereforetheirentryinto h` evidencewasbarred. 4,  Further,giventheabsenceofinconsistencies,thetrialcourtdetermined  thatplayingthetapeswouldbeawasteoftime.SeeTenn.R._Evid_.403.We  reviewtrialcourtrulingsregardingthisrulebyanabuseofdiscretionstandard, d\ seeStatev._Dubose_,953S.W.2d649,654(Tenn.1997),andwefindnone. 0 (  Wefurtheragreewiththestatesassessmentofthedefendantsargument #  thatthetapesshouldbeadmittedassubstantiveevidence.SeeStatev._Coker_, %" 746S.W.2d167,172(Tenn.1987)(taperecordingsprobablyfallunder `'X $ TennesseeRuleofEvidence1002,thesocalled bestevidencerule).Asprior ,)$"& inconsistentstatementsandhearsay,seeTenn.R._Evid_.613(b),thetapescould *#( onlybeadmittedforimpeachmentofRadcliffe,see_McFarlin_Ԁv.State,381 ,%* S.W.2d922,924(Tenn.1964).Weapplythesameanalysistothearguments .', thatthetrialcourterroneouslydeniedthedefendantsrequesttoplayarecording \0T). ofinterviewswithChrisFreezeregardingtheinvestigations.Werejectthat (2 +0 assertionunderthesameanalysisandfindnoerroronthisissue.Wefurther 3,2 findnoabuseofdiscretioninthetrialcourtsbarringentryofhearsaystatements 5.4 madebySmithandCarol_Lazenby_ԀtoFreeze.  706   X9P28  Thedefendantassertsthatthetrialcourterredbylimitingtestimony  regardingthedefendantscivilsuitagainsttheBoardandallegedousterpetition  against_Blevins_.8  #  13      ׀Therefore,goestheargument,hewasprecludedfrom   developingevidenceinsupportofhisallegedinvestigativeactivities.Heargues l d thathesoughttoforceBoardmemberstorespondtoallegationsofmisconduct 80 throughhiscivilsuitandtothensubmitthedevelopingevidencetotheUnited   StatesAttorneysOffice.Thedefendantdidinsertreferencesregardingthesuit   inhiscriminaltrial,butthetrialcourtrejectedfurtherdevelopmentoftestimony,   regardingtheComptrollersOfficeblocking_subpeonas_Ԁonthebasisofhearsay, h` _irrevelance_,andexcessiveprejudicialeffect.Thedefendantalsoassignserror 4, againstthetrialcourtsrejectingdevelopingtestimonialreferencestohisouster  petitionagainst_Blevins_,claimingthathefiledthepetitionto tryandobtain  informationfromBoardemployeesbygettingMs._Blevins_Ԁoutofoffice.Wefind  noabuseofdiscretionbythetrialcourtintheserulings. d\  Duringajuryouthearing,Smithassertedhisopinionthatthedefendant ! thoughthewasassistingastateinvestigation.Thedefendantassertsthathe #  shouldhavebeenallowedtopresentSmithsproffertothejury.Thetrialcourt %" rejectedthatmotionunderTennesseeRuleofEvidence602,becausethe `'X $ witnesscouldnotpossesspersonalknowledgeofthedefendantsstateofmind. ,)$"& Further,thedefendantstrialcounseladvisedthetrialcourtthathewouldnotcall *#( Smithforanother,tacticalreason,unrelatedtothisassertedissue:Thestate ,%* wouldhavea wideopencrossexaminationoftheadversewitness.Thisissue .', iswithoutmerit. \0T).  Finally,thedefendantassertsthatthetrialcourtsenforcementofan 3,2  ambiguousorderregardingwhetherexhibitsintroducedduringcross 5.4 &P &  &  examinationhadtobedisclosedtotheprosecutionduringpretrial.This  enforcementprecludedtheentryofthreedocuments:documentsregardingOrrs  telephoneconferences;Sandersletterofresignation;andthereceiptRochelle   receivedfortheworkperformedonherroof.However,thedefendantdoesnot l d elaborateastohowtheirpreclusionprejudicedhisdefense.Also,duringthe 80 hearingonthedefendantsmotiontoclarifythepertinentorder,heonlyargued   astotaperecordings.Thelimitedscopeofthetrialcourtorderthusaddressed   onlythoserecordings.Thisissuehasnomerit.SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.16(d)(1).   @OOD EvidenceofBoardandNAIJ  #  14      ׀Records  4,  Thedefendantassertsthatthetrialcourtsadmittingcertaindocuments  violatedTennesseeRuleofEvidence803(6),Kv  #  15      ׀the businessrecordexception  tohearsay,andthusdeniedhimafairtrial.Thecontestedexhibitsincludethe z Boardsfilefoldersfornewapplicants.Thedefendantclaimsthatthefiles NF submittedduringdiscoverywere strippeddownversionsandthatthewitness ! introducingthedocuments,Orr,wasnottheircustodian, andthereforecouldnot " authenticatethem. Thedefendantfurtherconteststestimonyfromother $! witnessesregardingtheseandotherdocuments.Thetrialcourtcharacterized &# thedefendantsobjectionsasaddressingtheweight,nottheadmissibility,of V(N!% thesedocuments.Heconcludesthatthetrialcourtallowed junkevidenceto "*#' reachthejury,becausethedocumentswerenottrustworthyandthejurywasnot +$) capableoffullyunderstandingtheadmittedevidence. -&+   /~(-  Authenticityoftangibleevidencemaybeestablishedbyawitness,see   Statev.Ferguson,741S.W.2d125,127(Tenn.Crim.App.1987),and  admissionoftangibleevidenceislefttothetrialcourtsdiscretion,seeStatev.   Baldwin,867S.W.2d358,361(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).Testimonydidestablish l d sufficientauthenticitytoadmittherecords.Forexample,Rochellewascertainly 80 qualifiedtotestifyastotherecordsshehandledonadailybasisandasto   entriesshepersonallymade.Orrcouldcertainlytestifythathedid signa   proffereddocumentwithhisinitial.Further,althoughOrrstestimonypreceded   Rochelles,admissionofthedocumentsduringOrrsexaminationwasnot h` improper.SeeTenn.R._Evid_.104(b)(Thetrialcourtmayadmitevidence 4, conditionedonsubsequentintroductionofevidencesufficienttosupporta  conditionofentry.)   Althoughthedefendantassertsthatthefileswere strippeddown,he d\ doesnotestablishhowthatallegedparingaffectedthedataontheexterior,the 0 ( dates,initials,andotherentriesactuallydocumentingRochellesforgeriesand ! falsifications.Thedefendantfurtherclaimsthatthecontentswerenotavailable #  fordiscoveryandthathiscopieslookeddifferentfromtheoriginals.Thetrial %" courtnotedthatthefileshadbeenavailablefordiscoveryfortwoyears.Further, `'X $ theoriginalswereoccasionallydifferentfromthecopiesbecausetheBoardhad ,)$"& beenusingthemwhensomeofthedefendants clientscontinuedbusinesswith *#( theBoard. ,%*  Regardingcomplaintsagainstprosecutingcounseltakingcustodyof \0T). foldersbeforetrial,wefindnoerror.Thecircumstances establishedreasonable (2 +0 assuranceoftheidentityoftheevidence.Ferguson,741S.W.2dat127.Asfor 3,2 inconsistenciesregardingdatesonNAIprintouts,thejurywasfullyadvisedof 5.4 theseproblems.Further,theindividualcontractorsidentifiedthespecificscore 706 sheetsfortheirrespectiveexaminations.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. X9P28 @(D BRADYVIOLATION    Thedefendantassertsthattheprosecutionsuppressedevidenceand   deniedthatadealexistedbetweentheDavidsonCountyDistrictAttorneysoffice   andRochelle,whowasalsofacingbriberycharges.Ofcourse,underBradyv. X P Maryland,373U.S.83(1963),theprosecutionhasanaffirmativedutytodisclose $  materialevidencethatisfavorabletoanaccused.    Thestaterespondsthatthedefendanthadbeenprovidedwithacopyof   thepretrialdiversionagreementayearandonehalfbeforetrial.Althoughthis TL copywasapparentlyillegible,thestatecontendstherecordwasequally   availabletothedefendantandtothestateandarguesthatthedefendantwas  obligatedtoobtainhisowncopy.Weagree.SeeUnitedStatesv.McKenzie,  768F.2d602,608(5thCir.1985)(Theaccusedbearsresponsibilityforobtaining | exculpatoryevidenceequallyavailabletotheprosecutionandtheaccused.); PH Statev.Marshall,845S.W.2d228,233(Tenn.Crim.App.1992).Thepertinent ! datawerecomprisedinpublicrecords,notinthestatesexclusivecontrol. " Therefore,thedefendantcannotshowsuppression,oneoftheelements $! necessaryforestablishingaBradyviolation.SeeStatev.Edgin,902S.W.2d &x# 387,389(Tenn.1995).Further,thedefendanthasshownnoprejudice,andthus L(D!% noreasonableprobabilityofadifferingresult,therebyprecludingadetermination *#' ofmateriality,anotheressentialelement.Seeid.at390.Thisissueiswithout +$) merit. -&+ @VV#D ATTORNEYDISQUALIFICATION  H1@*/  Thedefendantcomplainsthatthetrialcourtshouldhavedisqualifiedthe 4,2 DeputyStateAttorneyGeneralfromparticipatingasaprosecutorinthiscase.At 5.4 apretrialmotion,thedefendantrequesteddisqualificationbasedontheDeputy 706 StateAttorneyGeneralsinvolvementwithafederalsubpoenaaddressing d9\28 SmithsfilesandrepresentingandadvisingtheBoardduringthetimeperiod  relevanttotheinstantcase.Thedefendantassertsthatthetrialcourt  erroneouslydeclinedrelevantmotionsatpretrialandpriortoopening   statements.Atthelatterproceeding,thedefenseassertedthattheState l d AttorneyGeneralsOfficewasawitness,participatinginthequestioningof 80 SandersinNovember1993.Thedefendantfurtherassertsthatthetrials   progressionindicatedthattheAttorneyGeneralsOfficehadbecomeacustodian   ofcertainrecordsenteredasexhibits.Thedefensereassertedthiscomplaint   duringFreezestestimony.Wedisagreewiththedefendantsargument. h`  ThestatecorrectlyidentifiesthefocusofthepolicybehindDR5102,a  RuleoftheSupremeCourtaddressingprofessionalresponsibilityandregarding  withdrawalascounselwhenalawyerbecomesawitness: ThepurposeofDR5  102isnottoprotectadversariesfromtheopposingpartysattorneybutisto d\ protecttheattorneysclientintheeventhisattorneystestimonyisneededat 0 ( trial._Coakley_Ԁv.Daniels,840S.W.2d367,371(Tenn.App.1992)(emphasis ! added).TheAttorneyGeneralwasnotrequiredtotestifyattrial.Althoughthe #  defendantassertedintentiontocallcounsel,heestablishedno compelling %" needforthiswitness.SeeUnitedStatesv._Roberson_,897F.2d1096,1098 `'X $ (11thCir.1990).Further,theattorneyspresenceatinterviewsdoesnotrequire ,)$"& disqualification.SeeStatev._Zagorski_,701S.W.2d808,815(Tenn.1985).The *#( trialcourt,therefore,correctlyfoundnoconflictofinterestmandating ,%* disqualification. .',  Regardingthechainofcustody,weconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnot (2 +0 abuseitsdiscretioninaddressingthesematters.SeeStatev.Baker,931 3,2 S.W.2d232,238(Tenn.Crim.App.1996)(abuseofdirectionstandardin 5.4 reviewingtrialcourtsdecisionsregardingprosecutorialdisqualification). 706 AlthoughthedefendantcitesInReEllis,822S.W.2d602(Tenn.App.1991),as X9P28 authorityforadenovoreview,wedisagree.Theinstantcasedoesnotinvolve  thatcases attorneyclientrelationshipconcerns.Seeid.at60506.Thisissue  hasnomerit.   @&D JUDICIALMISCONDUCT  80  Duringthecourseofthedefendantstrial,circumstancesrequired   numerousjuryoutdiscussions.Becausethejuryhadtoexitfrequently,thetrial   judgejokedwiththejurorsthathewouldhavetobuythemshirtssaying I   WalkedaMileinFifthCircuitCourt.Thislightheartedthemecontinued TL betweenthejudgeandjurorsuntil,onthedaybeforeclosingarguments,the   Judgepresentedeachjurorwithsuchashirt.Thejurorsthenworetheseshirts  tocourtforclosingarguments.   Whilewedonotencouragethetrialcourtsbehavior,thedefendantfails PH toestablishprejudice.Thedefendantassertsthattheseshirtscaused, ! strengthened,ordemonstratedabondbetweenthejudgeandthejurythatwas " spitefulofthedefense.Thatis,thedefendantsuggests,objectionsbythe $! defensewerethecauseofmostjuryouthearings,andthejudgesbanterwith &x# thejurytacitlypokedfunatthedefense.Therecordreveals,however,thatthe L(D!% statealsoprecipitatednumerousjuryouthearings,andtheshirtsdonotfacially *#' malignthedefense.Neitherdowefindanyimplicitprejudiceagainstthe +$) defenseonthesefacts.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. -&+ @q q D ACCESSTORECORDSANDNOTESOFWITNESSINTERVIEWS  H1@*/  Thedefendantassertsthatthetrialcourtsdenyinghimaccesstocertain 4,2 documents,placedundersealpursuanttothetrialcourtsinspectionandrulings, 5.4 wasconfusingandhighlyprejudicialtohisdefense.Theseitemsincludeexhibits 706 25,56,and59,comprising(1)afilefromoneofRochellesdefenseattorneys, d9\28 (2)TBISpecialAgent_Schlafly_snotesoftwointerviewswithRochelle,and(3)  SpecialAgent_Schlafly_sinterviewsummaryofaninterviewwithKlein.Further,  thetrialcourt,atpretrial,reviewedandsealedtwootheritems,apparentlyTBI   filescomprisingTBISpecialAgent_Fortner_sreportof_Blevins_polygraphand l d _Blevins_diary.Thedefendantassertsthatthetrialcourterroneouslyruledthat 80 thematerialsinquestionconstituteneither_Jencks_ԀnorBradymaterials.    Therecordpaintsaconfusingpictureregardingfieldnotesofvarious   interviewsconductedduringtheinvestigation.Thetrialcourtdidproducetothe h` defendantportionsof_Schlafly_sinterviewswithRochelle$  #  16      ׀andatranscriptofthe 4, tapeof_Schlafly_sinterviewwithKleinonMarch2,1993._(  #  17      _ԀThedefendant  assertsthatheshouldhavereceivedallitemseitheras_Jencks_Ԁstatementsor  pursuanttoBrady.Thetrialcourtfoundthattheitemsdidnotconstitutewitness  statementsproducibleunderTenn.R.Crim.P.26.2,andthatthenonproduced d\ portionsofthedefenselawyersfileforRochelleandthenotesoftheinterviews 0 ( withKleinandRochellewerenotproducibleunderBrady. !  Tenn.R._Crim._ԀP.26.2,knownasthe_Jencks_ԀAct,states: %"  4ProductionofStatementsofWitness! `'X $  L(E88-"3"  $ ,, X!$372E(  a  )3  0   MotionforProduction.!Afterawitnessotherthanthe ,)$"& defendanthastestifiedondirectexamination,thetrialcourt,on * #' motionofapartywhodidnotcallthewitness,shallorderthe *#( attorneyforthestateorthedefendantandthedefendants +$) attorney,asthecasemaybe,toproduce,fortheexamination ,%* anduseofthemovingparty,anystatementofthewitnessthat -&+ isintheirpossessionandthatrelatestothesubjectmatter .', concerningwhichthewitnesshastestified.377݌v/n(- ! ! Ќ  "3"  3:2E(  b  )3  0   ProductionofEntireStatement.!Iftheentirecontentsofthe B1:*/ statementrelatetothesubjectmatterconcerningwhichthe (2 +0 witnesshastestified,thecourtshallorderthatthestatementbe 3,1 deliveredtothemovingparty.3:;݌3,2 ! ! Ќ  "3"  3<2E(  c  )3  0   ProductionofExcisedStatement.!Iftheotherpartyclaimsthat 5.4 thestatementcontainsmatterthatdoesnotrelatetothesubject 6/5 matterconcerningwhichthewitnesshastestified,thecourt  shallorderthatitbedeliveredtothecourtincamera.Upon  inspection,thecourtshallexcisetheportionsofthestatement  thatdonotrelatetothesubjectmatterconcerningwhichthe   witnesshadtestified,andshallorderthatthestatement,with   suchmaterialexcised,bedeliveredtothemovingparty.Any  ~ portionofthestatementthatiswithheldfromthedefendantover l d thedefendantsobjectionshallbepreservedbytheattorneyfor R J thestate,and,intheeventofaconvictionandanappealbythe 80 defendant,shallbemadeavailabletotheappellatecourtforthe   purposeofdeterminingthecorrectnessofthedecisiontoexcise   theportionofthestatement.3<<݌  ! ! Ќ  @dd+D....   (g)Definition.!Asusedinthisrule,a statementofawitness z  means: h`  (1)Awrittenstatementmadebythewitnessthatissignedor 4, Ѐotherwiseadoptedorapprovedbythewitness;or  4 6 4 (2)Asubstantiallyverbatimrecitalofanoralstatementmade  Ѐbythewitnessthatisrecordedcontemporaneouslywiththe  Ѐmakingoftheoralstatementandthatiscontainedina  Ѐstenographic,mechanical,electrical,orotherrecordingora  Ѐtranscriptionthereof.( X! ,,7( ~v 4  NoneofthewitnesssummarieswithinthefilesfromtheTBIinvestigations 0 ( wereadoptedbythestateswitnessesorpresentedasverbatimstatements. ! Absentshowingthatthesummarieswere recordedcontemporaneouslyor #   substantiallyverbatim_recital[s_],theyarenotconsidered_Jencks_Ԁstatements. %" Tenn.R.Crim.P.26.2(g)(2).Regardingroughnotestakenby_Schlafly_Ԁandby `'X $ Rochellescounsel,thatinformationdoesnotconstitute_Jencks_Ԁstatementsfor ,)$"& thosesamereasons.SpecialAgent_Schlafly_Ԁtestifiedthatthenoteswith *#( Rochellesinterviewswerenotverbatim.SeeStatev._Payton_,782S.W.2d490, ,%* 49496(Tenn.Crim.App.1989)(holdingthedefenseinvestigatorsnotesof .', telephoneconversationswerenot_Jencks_Ԁstatements,eventotheinvestigator, \0T). becausetheywerenot recordedcontemporaneously).Noneoftheseitems (2 +0 conformtothestandardfor_Jencks_Ԁmaterial.SeeStatev.Robinson,618 3,2 S.W.2dat754,758(Tenn.Crim.App.1981)(establishesdeterminationif 5.4 investigativereportsare_Jencks_Ԁmaterial).S  #  18       706 Ї Wefurthernotethatthetrialcourtproducedwhatitfounddiscoverable  underBrady.Wefindnomeritinthisissue.  @ D EVIDENCEREGARDINGEXAMINATIONQUESTIONPROCUREMENT  l d  Thedefendantnextchallengesthetrialcourtsadmittingtestimonythat $  thedefendanthadobtainedthequestionstothecontractorsexaminationby   surreptitiouslytaperecordingthemwhiletakingthetest.7  #  19      ׀Thedefendant   objectedtothetestimony,assertingthatthisrecordingwasnotanillegalact.   Thetrialcourtissuedalimitinginstructionthatclearlyinformedthejurythatthe TL lawprovidesforaccessofpublicrecordsnototherwiseexcludedforinspection   andforcopyingbyanycitizen.Suchinspectionorcopying,however,mayoccur  onlywheretherecordsarekept.   Thestateassertsthatthisevidencewasrelevanttothedefendants PH purposed publicdutydefense,establishingthedefendantsdifficultieswiththe ! BoardandtheNAI.Thesedifficultiesdovetailwiththedefendantsconspiracy " theory,comprisedwithinhispublicdutydefense,regarding_Blevins_,theBoard, $! andtheNAI.Thestatecontendsitmaylegitimatelypresentinitsproofpoints &x# thatmightopposethetheoryofdefense. L(D!%  Theadmissionofthisevidencewasnot prejudiciallyunfair,asasserted +$) bythedefendant.Further,thetrialcourtslimitinginstructiontothejury -&+ precludedanyundueprejudicefromthatevidence.SeeStatev.Walker,910 |/t(- S.W.2d381,397(Tenn.1995)(Ajuryispresumedtofollowinstructions). H1@*/  Thedefendantassertsasimilarissueregardingcountten.Maddux 4-3 testifiedthatDillmonsolicitedhertoobtainacopyofthequestionstothefire 6/5 inspectorcertificationexamination,tellingherthatifshedidnothelphim,he  wouldtakethetestandgetthequestionsthatway.Madduxssupervisorlater  testifiedthathisofficetreatedthefireinspectorexaminationasconfidential.This   CourtnotesthatthedefendantdidnotobjecttoMadduxstestimonyregarding l d thedefendantsrequestfortheexaminations,therebywaivingthatissue.See 80 Tenn.R.App.P.3(e),13(b),36(a);Statev._Killebrew_,760S.W.2d228(Tenn.   Crim.App.1988).    Further,oncrossexaminationthedefendantaskedMadduxaboutthe h` defendantsrequestingtheexaminationandspecificallyaskedwhetherhehad 4, toldherthatwhathewantedwaslegal.Afterelicitingtestimonythatmight  supportthedefendantsbelievingthisprocurementlegal,thedefendantmovedin  _limine_ԀtoprohibitFroststestimonyregardinghisofficeshandlingofthe  examinations,includingthefactthatMadduxdidnothavecustodyofthem. d\  First,thedefendantopenedthedoortoquestioningregardingthe ! treatmentoftheexaminations.Further,thetrialcourtdidnoterrinallowing #  testimonyregardingthehandlingandthetreatmentoftheexaminations, %" especiallyinthecontextofanissuedjuryinstruction: thelawonlyallowsfor `'X $ inspectionandcopyingattheplacetherecordsarekeptandthatgovernment ,)$"& agenciesmaydesignatecertainemployeestohandlepublicrecords_request[s_]. *#( Wefindnounfairprejudiceintheseadmissions,andthisissueiswithoutmerit. ,%* @*D SENTENCING  (2 +0  Thetrialcourtsentencedthedefendanttofouryearsoneachofhisten 4-3 convictionsandorderedthatthedefendantssentenceswithincountsone 6/5 throughfiveandsixthroughtenrunconcurrentlywitheachother.Thetrialcourt x8p17 thenorderedthosetwosetsoffouryearsentencestorunconsecutivelywith D:<39 eachother,foratotalsentenceofeightyears,andorderedoneyearof  confinement,dayforday,followedbysevenyearsofprobation.Thedefendant  arguesthatthesentenceswereexcessiveandthatconsecutiveserviceandsplit   confinement,inlieuoftotalprobation,wereimproper. l d  Inaddition,thetrialcourtorderedatotalof$24,610restitution.The   defendantconteststhefollowingrestitutionpayments:    4(1)1,500toJohnnyHarris;   (2)3,449toWadeOdle;and z  (3)4,000totheStateofTennessee,DepartmentofCommerce& h` ЀInsurance. NF 4 Thedefendantarguesthatthesearenotproperrecipientsofrestitution.   Whenanaccusedchallengesthelengthormannerofserviceofa  sentence,itisthedutyofthisCourttoconductadenovoreviewontherecord d\  withapresumptionthatthedeterminationsmadebythecourtfromwhichthe 0 ( appealistakenarecorrect.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d).This ! presumption isconditionedupontheaffirmativeshowingintherecordthatthe #  trialcourtconsideredthesentencingprinciplesandallrelevantfactsand %" circumstances.Statev.Ashby,823S.W.2d166,169(Tenn.1991).The `'X $ appellantcarriestheburdenofshowingthathissentenceisimproper.See ,)$"& Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401,sentencing_commn_Ԁ_cmts_;Statev.Jernigan,929 *#( S.W.2d391,395(Tenn.Crim.App.1996). ,%* @&D LengthofSentence  B1:*/  ThedefendantisaRangeIoffender.Briberyofapublicservantisa 3,2 ClassCfelony,carryingaRangeonesentenceofthreetosixyears.SeeTenn. 5.4 CodeAnn.3916102(c);4035112(a)(3).Athissentencinghearing,thetrial 706 courtfoundapplicabletwoenhancementfactors: Thedefendanthasaprevious \9T28 historyofcriminalconvictionsorcriminalbehaviorinadditiontothosenecessary  toestablishtheappropriaterange;and [_t]he_Ԁdefendantwasaleaderinthe  commissionofanoffenseinvolvingtwo(2)ormorecriminalactors;....Tenn.   CodeAnn.4035114(1),(2).Inmitigation,thetrialcourtfoundthatthe l d convictionswerenotforconductthreateningseriousbodilyinjuryandthatthe 80 defendantwashonorablydischargedfromthemilitary.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.   4035113(1),(13).Basedonthesefindingsandweightaccordedeachfactor,   thetrialcourtsetthedefendantssentencesatfouryearsoneachcount.    Theappellantchallengesthetrialcourtsapplicationofbothenhancement 4, factorsaswellasitsrejectionofadditionalmitigatingfactorsthatwereproposed  bythedefense.Wefindnoerror.Therecordsupportsapplicationof  enhancementfactor(1).CitingStatev.Brown,No.01C019808CC00240  (Tenn.Crim.App.filedJan.28,1993,atNashville),thedefendantnotesthatthis d\ Courthasdeclinedtoapplyfactor(1)onthebasisofmultiplecountsthat 0 ( occurredinclosetemporalproximity.However,thedefendantcommittedhis ! offensesoveraperiodofnearlythreeyears,muchlongerthantheeighteendays #  inBrown.Thenatureandproximityofthedefendantstenoffensesclearly %" indicateseparateanddistinctcrimes,notonecontinuingoffense.Wetherefore `'X $ agreewiththetrialcourtthateachcountmaybeproperlyconsideredas ,)$"& independentbasesinsupportoffactor(1).Wefurthernotethedefendants *#( criminalbehavioroutsidethescopeoftheconvictions;forexample, bugging ,%* telephoneconversationsandprocuringfalseaffidavits. Thiscriminalbehavior .', wouldjustifythetrialcourtsapplying(1). h0`).  Asforenhancementfactor(2),thedefendantdoesnotcontesthis 4,2 leadershiproleinthecommissionoftheoffenses.Nonetheless,hearguesthat 5.4 thefactorisinapplicablebecausethelanguageofthestatuterequirestwoor 706 morecriminalactors,and,heasserts,noproofexistedthatcodefendant d9\28 Rochellecommittedanycriminalact.Wehavereceivedtherecordandnoted  Rochellesroleinthedefendantsscheme.AlthoughRochelledeniedaccepting  themoneytoissueillicitlicences,shedidacknowledgeearliersworntestimony   inwhichsheadmittedsellinglicensestothedefendant.Further,hernine l d convictionsinMauryCountyestablishillegalityinfurtheranceofthedefendants 80 scheme.Thisargumentiswithoutmerit.    Next,thedefendantarguesthatthetrialcourterredinrejectingseveral   mitigatingfactors:(2)thedefendantactedunderstrongprovocation;(3) h` substantialgroundstendedtoexcuseorjustifythecriminalconduct;(9)the 4, defendantassistedauthoritiesinuncoveringoffensescommittedbyother  personsorindetectingorapprehendingotherpersonswhohadcommitted  offenses;(10)thedefendantassistedauthoritiesinlocatingorrecoveringany  propertyorpersoninvolvedinthatcrime;(11)thedefendantcommittedthecrime d\ undersuchhighlyunusualcircumstancesthatmakeitunlikelythatasustained 0 ( intenttoviolatethelawmotivatedthecriminalconduct;and(13)otherarguments ! presentedunderthis catchallprovision.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035113 #  (2),(3),(9),(10),(11),(13).Thetrialcourtaddressedonly(3),andalthoughwe %" reviewthisparticularissuedenovo,wedonotfindthattherecordestablishes `'X $ theremainingmitigatingfactors.Thisissuehasnomerit,andtheenhancement ,)$"& ofthepresumptiveminimumsentencewasnotinerror. *#( @$D ConsecutiveSentencing  .',  Thedefendantassertsthatconsecutivesentencingwasinerror.Thetrial F1>*/ courtfoundthatthedefendants criminalactivitywasextensive.SeeTenn. 3 ,1 CodeAnn.4035115(a)(2).Weagreethattherecordsupportsthisconclusion 4-3 byapreponderanceoftheevidence.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035115(a). 6/5  B::39 @&D SplitConfinement    ThedefendantassertsthatasaClassCoffenderheispresumeda   favorablecandidateforalternativesentencingoptions.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.   4035102(6).Weinitiallynotethathedidreceivethebenefitofalternative V N sentencing:Afteroneyearofincarceration,heshallservesevenyearsof "  probation.Theorderedconfinementwasappropriateto avoiddepreciatingthe   seriousnessoftheoffense....    [_T]he_Ԁoffenseofbriberystrikesattheheartofoursystemofjusticeand.. RJ .asentencetoconfinementunderthecircumstances[ofour]caseisnecessary  inorderthattheseriousnessofthedefendantsconductwillnotbedepreciated.  Statev._Desirey_,909S.W.2d20,33(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).Theinstantcase  didnotinvolvepoliceofficers,asdid_Desirey_;however,fortheseoffenses z  confinementisparticularlysuitedtoprovideaneffectivedeterrenttootherslikely NF tocommitsimilaroffenses,....Tenn.CodeAnn.4035163(1)(B).Byits ! verynature,briberyisanoffenseneeding noextraneousprooftoestablishthe " deterrentvalueofpunishment.Statev.CharlesA._Pinkham_,Jr.,No.02C01 $! 9502CR00040(Tenn.Crim.App.filedMay24,1996,atJackson). ~&v#  Further,therecorddoessupporttheimposedoneyearofincarceration. *#' SeeStatev.Davis,940S.W.2d558(Tenn.1997).Regardingtheinstantcase, +$) briberyofpublicservants,separatefromthedefendantsactions,occurred -&+ contemporaneouslywithhisscheme.SharonSanderslefttheBoardsemploy z/r(- forthatveryreason:Shetradedatleastonelicenseforconstructionservices. F1>*/ Further,thedefendantsownpervasiveconductoffabricatingaffidavitsand 3 ,1 inducinginvestigationsupportsaneedfordeterrence.Thisissuehasnomerit. 4-3  B::39 @::*D Restitution    Asaconditionofprobation,thetrialcourtorderedthatthedefendantpay   restitution,commencingattheendofthefirstcalendarmonthfollowingthe   defendantsreleasefromserviceofoneyeardayfordayconfinementand V N continuinginequalpaymentsfor84monthsuntilthelastmonthofhisseven "  yearprobationarysentence.Thedefendantassertsthatatrialcourtmaynot   imposerestitutioninasentenceinvolvingsplitconfinementandthatcertain   recipientsofrestitutionintheinstantcasearenot,underapplicablelaw, ~   victimsqualifiedforthosepayments.Weconcludethatrestitutionwas RJ appropriatelyimposedasaconditionofprobationbutmodifythreeofthespecific  grants.   ThedefendantcitesStatev.Davis,940S.W.2d558,561n.6(Tenn. z 1997),insupportofhispremisethatrestitutioncannotbeassociatedwitha NF sentenceofsplitconfinement.HeproposesthattheTennesseeSupreme ! CourtsDavisdecisionconcludedthattheGeneralAssemblyintendedrestitution " toapplyonlytosentencesinvolvingpureprobationandnotsplitconfinement. $! Thedefendantnotesthathisoffensesprecededa1996amendmenttothe ~&v# pertinentcode.Theearliercodeversionallowed: J(B!%  4Asentenceofconfinementwhichissuspendeduponatermof *#' probationsupervisionwhichmayincludecommunityserviceor *#( restitution,orboth;.... +$) 4 * 4 X X!*Tenn.CodeAnn.4035104(c)(2)(1990).Thecurrentversion,revisedin1996, -&+ providesfor: z/r(-  4paymentofrestitutiontothevictimorvictimseitheraloneorin F1>*/ additiontoanyothersentenceauthorizedbythissubsection;.... ,2$+0 4 Tenn.CodeAnn.4035104(c)(2)(1997).Heassertsthattheearlierstatutes 3,2 language,readinthecontextoftheamendmentsallowingrestitutionin 5.4 conjunctionwith anyothersentenceauthorizedbythesubsection,precludes 706 restitutionimposedwithsplitconfinement.Thedefendantarguesthatthis \9T28 6W% 6e 6  amendmentbroadenedopportunitiesforrestitution,thusimplyingthattheearlier  versionofthestatuterestrictedrestitutiontocasesinvolvingonlytotalprobation.   Wedisagree.IntheDaviscase,thedefendantwasdeniedanyprobation l d andreceivedonlytwoyearsofincarcerationandwasorderedtopayrestitution 80 duringthatincarceration.OurstatesSupremeCourtfoundthatorderinerror,   becauserestitutioncouldnotbetiedtoaperiodofincarceration.Seeid.at562.   Thosecircumstancesclearlydifferfromthoseoftheinstantcase,inthatthe   defendantfacessevenyearsofprobationafteroneyearofincarceration. h` Restitutionislinkedwiththosesevenyearsofprobationandnotwiththe 4, incarcerationterm.Althoughthedefendantapparentlyemphasizescontrast  betweenthe1990and1996versionsofthestatute,theDavisopiniondidnot  imposesucharestrictivereadingofthe1990version.Inconclusion,wefindno  erroringeneralapplicabilityofrestitutioninthiscase. d\  Thedefendantfurtherconteststhetrialcourtsjudgmentregardingthree ! specificrecipientsofrestitution:theStateofTennessee,WadeOdle,and #  JohnnyHarris.Heassertsthattheserecipientsarenotqualifying victimsunder %" thelaw.Inpart,weagree. `'X $  TheCodestatesthatrestitutionmaybeorderedtoa victimofthe *#( _offense[s_]forwhichthedefendantwasconvicted.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.40 ,%* 35304(a).TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasnotedlegislativehistory .', indicatingthat victimincludes immediatemembersof[a]familywhohad \0T). incurredmedicalandcounselingexpenses.Statev._Alford_,970S.W.2d944, (2 +0 947(Tenn.1998). Weagreewiththedefendantthatrestitutionisnotproperly 3,2 imposedastoWadeOdle,P  #  20      ׀however,becausetherecordshowsthatnoneof 5.4 theconvictionsagainstthedefendantarisefromhistransactionswithOdle. 706 AlthoughOdlemayhavelostfundsinamannerconsistentwiththetransactions  constitutingthebasesfortheconvictions,wefindnoauthorityforthetrialcourts  imposingrestitutionoutsidethescopeoftheactualconvictions.    PartoftherestitutionorderedtoHarris,however,isappropriate.The 80 recordshowsthatHarrisactuallypaid$1000tothedefendantforalicenseforR   &HConstruction,andthedefendantwasconvictedforhisbriberyregardingthis   license.Therefore,weaffirmtherestitutiontoHarris,butonlyintheamountof   $1000. h`  Thedefendantsfinalcognizablechallengetorestitutionaddressesthe  trialcourtsordering$4000restitutiontotheDepartmentofCommerceand  Insurance,representingcostsofenforcementincurredwhenthedefendants  expertwitnessinsistedoncostlyformatalterationstocomputerrecords.1  #  21       d\  AlthoughtheCodeallowsimpositionofanyconditionofprobation !  reasonablyrelatedtothepurposeoftheoffenderssentenceandnotunduly #  restrictiveoftheoffendersliberty,orincompatiblewiththeoffendersfreedomof %" conscience,Tenn.CodeAnn.4035303(d)(9),absentauthoritywedeclineto `'X $ extendthedefinitionof victimtothestateinthiscase.InStatev._Cantwell_, ,)$"& No.01C019701CC00035(Tenn.Crim.App.filedNov.16,1998,atNashville), *#( apanelofthisCourtdeclinedtoaffirmreimbursementofcostsofprosecutionas ,%* aconditionofprobation,comprisinghourlywagesofvariousTennesseeWildlife .', ResourceAgencyemployees,mileagecostsforthevehicles,expensesfor \0T). airplanevideoandstillpictures,laboratoryexpenses,andsalarycostsforsome (2 +0 witnesses.Seeid.ThisCourtopinedthatTenn.CodeAnn.4035303(d)(9) 3,2  [did]notauthorizethereliefsoughtbytheState,asthatstatutedoes 5.4 notgiveunfetteredauthoritytothetrialcourtstoplaceconditionsofprobations   uponadefendant.Seeid.Thepanelfurtherrecognizedthatthedefendant  couldnegotiateapleaagreementcomprisingcostofenforcementasacondition   ofprobation,butabsentsuchanagreement,authorizationforsuchrestitution l d  [was]amattermoreappropriatelyaddressedinspecificlegislationbythe 80 GeneralAssemblyandnotbyjudicialinterpretationof[thecitedcode].Seeid.   WeconcludethatthejudgmentorderingrestitutiontotheStateofTennessee   shouldbereversed.   @*D CONCLUSION    4,  WeREVERSEtheawardsofrestitutiontoOdleandtotheStateof  Tennessee;weMODIFYtherestitutiontoHarrisbyreducingitto$1000;inall  otherrespects,weAFFIRMthetrialcourtsjudgment. | Ѐ PH $ 4  4 X$   _____________________________ "    JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,Judge #  CONCUR: %" _____________________________ L(D!% JOEG.RILEY,Judge 2)*"& _____________________________ -&+ THOMAST._WOODALL_,Judge .', @DD/D