ÿWPCÓ …#†VUNÜ %* 0(04Xlb{ 0lƒ 0Dï 0J3 0T} 0^Ñ 0h/ 0r— 0| 0†… 0 1u› U, 0d< U,  U>Ì U* B)4 B]DCz AM½ v~&vÓ¤ D3w 0@ª AOêÆ9 0Dÿ 0DC D/‡ B¶˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0ºÖP _>¶ ×K&` ÚP(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡˜€* @ d3|x½ - ù-((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òDecember€28,€1995ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€"ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÙ€€ÙÓ ` ܆XDp”X ÓßL€&'%;+'h| ` Å `€€Lßà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€àQ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÓ` °‡XDp”XÓà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà àNOVEMBER€1995ÏSESSIONó óÌÌÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ` cÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cÓà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9412„CR„00294€€€€€€Ïà àAppellee,à à)Ìà àà à)€Shelby€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€(DUI;€Reckless€Driving)Ìò òà àó óà à)ò òÌÓ ` ¸ cùÓJOE€A.€FLEECE,ó óà à)à àHonorable€Arthur€T.€Bennett,€Judge€à àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellant.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌWilliam€C.€Gosnellà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Lawà àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€Ì100€N.€Main,€Suite€3010ÌMemphis,€TN€38103à àWilliam€David€BridgersÌà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àLorraine€CraigÌà àAsst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Third€FloorÌà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ  ÑÑ7€fXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÓÓÓ ` ¸ pÓò òÔ  Ôà àà àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÌà àA€jury€found€appellant,€Joe€A.€Fleece,€guilty€of€driving€under€the€influenceÏof€an€intoxicant€(DUI)€and€reckless€driving.€€The€trial€judge€sentenced€appellantÏto€120€days€confinement€with€all€but€80€days€suspended€on€the€DUI€conviction.€ÏAs€to€reckless€driving,€the€judge€sentenced€appellant€to€30€days€confinement.€ÏBoth€sentences€are€to€run€concurrently.€€Appellant€challenges:€€(1)€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence,€(2)€his€sentence,€(3)€the€trial€court's€failure€to€grant€aÏnew€trial€because€two€jurors€were€allegedly€influenced€by€improper€comments,Ïand€(4)€the€introduction€of€proof€of€his€restricted€license€from€a€prior€DUI.ÌÌà àAppellant's€first€three€issues€are€either€devoid€of€merit€or€waived.€€First,Ïwe€find€sufficient€evidence€to€sustain€the€DUI€and€reckless€driving€convictions.€ÏSecondly,€the€appellant€has€waived€any€argument€of€improper€sentencing€dueÍto€his€inadequate€briefing€of€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.,€Rule€10(b).€ÏAppellant's€third€issue,€regarding€two€jurors€who€supposedly€heard€improperÏqualification€instructions€by€another€judge€prior€to€their€service,€is€devoid€ofÏmerit.€€The€appellant€has€failed€to€show€what€the€instructions€were€and€whetherÏthe€two€jurors€actually€heard€them.€€The€two€jurors€were€voir€dired€at€appellant'sÏtrial€and€the€record€does€not€reveal€any€evidence€of€prejudice.ÌÌà àWe€find€merit,€however,€to€appellant's€last€assignment€of€error.€€We€holdÏthat€the€trial€court€improperly€permitted€the€jury€to€hear€evidence€of€appellant'sÏrestricted€license.€€We,€therefore,€reverse€and€remand€for€a€new€trial€on€allÏcharges€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌà àAppellant€was€charged€with€DUI€and€reckless€driving.€€At€trial,€the€stateÏintroduced€evidence€of€appellant's€restricted€license.€€Appellant€argues€that€heÏwas€not€charged€with€driving€on€a€restricted€license€and,€therefore,€introductionÏof€such€evidence€"was€merely€a€back„door€way€of€getting€information€to€the€juryÏthat€there€was€a€prior€DUI."ÌÌà àThe€state€initially€sought€to€introduce€evidence€of€appellant's€restrictedÏlicense€during€direct€examination€of€officer€Berryman.ÌÓÓà8 àQ.€€Now,€you€stated€that€you€asked€him€for€his€license.€€Did€heÏproduce€a€license€for€you?ÌÌÓÓà8 àA.€€Yes,€ma'am,€he€did.Ìà8 àQ.€€Did€you€run€a€check€on€that€license?Ìà8 àA.€€Yes,€ma'am,€I€did.Ìà8 àQ.€€Was€it€valid?Ìà8 àA.€€It€was€valid,€but€had€restrictions€on€it.Ìà8 àQ.€€Do€you€recall€what€those€restrictions€were?Ìà8 àA.€€To€and€from€work.ÌAn€objection€was€made€and€sustained€on€grounds€of€irrelevance.ÌÌà àAppellant€testified€at€trial.€€He€stated€that€on€the€night€of€his€arrest€he€hadÏbeen€at€his€father's€house€repairing€a€work€vehicle.€€He€confessed€to€havingÏdrunk€three€beers€over€a€period€of€three€hours€and€fifteen€minutes.€€AppellantÏmaintained,€however,€that€he€was€not€intoxicated€and€his€driving€wasÏunimpaired.€€In€support€of€his€contention,€appellant€stated€that€he€had€seen€theÏpolice€officer€parked€down€the€street€prior€to€leaving€and€would€not€have€drivenÏin€front€of€the€officer€had€he€felt€that€his€driving€was€impaired.€€Appellant€alsoÏstated€that€had€he€been€drunk,€he€could€have€walked€home€because€his€houseÏwas€only€nine€houses€down€from€his€father's.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination€of€the€appellant,€the€state€attempted€to€introduceÏevidence€of€appellant's€restricted€license€as€rebuttal€evidence.Ìà8 àQ.€€Mr.€Fleece,€it's€not€true€you€saw€that€officer€out€there;€is€it?Ìà8 àA.€€Yes,€ma'am.Ìà8 àQ.€€It€is?Ìà8 àA.€€Yes,€ma'am.ÌÓÓà8 àQ.€€Now,€Mr€Fleece€you€wouldn't€have€driven€a€car€at€8:00€o'clockÏat€night€if€you€saw€a€police€officer;€would€you?€€Would€you€have,ÏMr.€Fleece?ÌÌÓÓà8 àA.€€Yes,€ma'am.ÌÓÓà8 àQ.€€Well,€isn't€it€true€that€you€only€were€allowed€to€drive€betweenÏthe€hours€of€6:00€a.m.€and€6:00€p.m.?ÌÓÓÌObjection€was€made€and€overruled.€€The€state€then€proceeded€to€incessantlyÏquestion€appellant€concerning€the€time€restrictions€on€his€license.€€Over€sixÏpages€of€the€trial€transcript€are€consumed€by€this€interrogation.ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€appellant's€proof,€the€state€called€an€employee€ofÏthe€criminal€court€clerk's€office€to€testify€concerning€appellant's€restrictedÏlicense.€€Apparently,€during€examination€of€this€witness,€appellant's€prior€DUIÏjacket€was€waved€around€and€passed€back€and€forth€to€the€witness.€€TheÏwitness€testified€that€"as€part€of€the€file,€which€is€part€of€the€general€sessionsÏrecord,"€there€was€a€restrictive€license€order€signed€by€a€judge.ÌÌà àThe€state€argues€that€evidence€of€the€restricted€license€did€not€suggestÏ"in€any€way€that€the€defendant€had€previously€been€convicted€of€[DUI]."€€TheÏstate€notes€that:€€(1)€the€restrictions€could€have€been€the€result€of€physicalÏdisabilities€rather€than€from€a€DUI€conviction,€and€(2)€the€evidence€was€relevantÏin€challenging€the€appellant's€veracity€in€testifying€that€he€had€seen€the€policeÏand€would€not€have€driven€had€he€been€intoxicated.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àWe€find€no€relevant€purpose€for€introducing€this€evidence€during€theÏstate's€proof.€€Appellant€was€not€charged€with€violation€of€a€restricted€license.€ÏTherefore,€the€evidence's€sole€relevance€was€raising€an€impermissibleÏinference€of€a€prior€DUI€conviction.€€The€state,€however,€would€have€us€find€thatÏthe€jury€could€have€surmised€that€appellant's€license€was€merely€restricted€dueÏto€physical€disabilities.€€This€logic€is€fundamentally€unsound€and€severelyÏundermined€by€the€state's€repeated€references€during€trial€that€Judge€Dwyer,Ïthe€General€Sessions€judge,€entered€the€order€restricting€appellant's€license.€ÏEqually€disconcerting€is€the€prosecution's€conduct,€brought€out€during€theÏmotion€for€new€trial€hearing,€of€waving€the€appellant's€jacket€from€his€prior€DUIÏcase,€in€front€of€the€jury,€while€questioning€appellant€concerning€his€restrictedÏlicense.ÌÌà àWe€also€question€this€evidence's€relevance€as€rebuttal€evidence.€€TheÏsubstance€of€appellant's€defense€was€that€he€would€not€have€knowingly€drivenÏby€a€police€officer€while€intoxicated.€€Driving€under€the€influence€was€the€issueÏwith€which€the€jury€was€confronted.€€It€was€irrelevant€whether€appellant€wouldÏhave€knowingly€violated€his€time€restrictions.€€Therefore,€whether€the€appellantÏwould€have€knowingly€driven€by€the€police€officer€outside€the€time€parametersÏof€his€restricted€license€does€not€rebut€appellant's€contention€that€he€would€notÏhave€purposely€driven€by€a€police€officer€while€knowing€his€driving€wasÏimpaired.ÌÌà àTenn.€R.€Evid.,€Rule€404(b)€establishes€the€procedure€in€determining€theÏadmissibility€of€evidence€of€other€crimes.€€The€trial€court€must:€€(1)€upon€requestÏhold€a€hearing€outside€the€jury's€presence;€(2)€find€that€a€material€issue€existsÏother€than€the€defendant's€propensity€for€conduct€in€conformity€with€the€priorÏbad€act;€and€(3)€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€is€outweighed€by€theÏdanger€of€its€unfair€prejudice.€€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€732€(Tenn.Ï1994);€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€Rule€404(b).€€Only€in€exceptional€cases€will€evidence€ofÏother€crimes€be€relevant€to€issues€other€than€an€accused's€character.€€òòState€v.ÏLuellenóó,€867€S.W.2d€736,€740€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Evidence€of€otherÏcrimes€may€be€admissible€to€show€identity,€intent,€motive,€opportunity,€orÏrebuttal€of€mistake€or€accident.€€òòIdóó.€€Relevant€evidence,€however,€must€beÏexcluded€if€the€unfair€prejudice€outweighs€the€probative€value€or€is€dangerouslyÏclose€to€tipping€the€scales.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€prosecution's€conduct€crossed€the€line€and€gave€rise€toÏthe€impermissible€inference€that€appellant€had€a€previous€DUI€conviction.€€TheÏprobative€value€of€this€evidence€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€its€unfairÏprejudice.€€When€the€state€was€permitted€to€raise€such€a€strong€inference€of€aÏprior€DUI€conviction,€appellant's€chance€of€receiving€a€fair€trial€became€remote.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòLuellenóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€741€(citing€U.S.€Còòonstóó.,€Amend.€V€and€XIV;€òòTenn.ÏConstóó.,€Aòòrtóó.€I€ðððð€6€and€8).ÌÌò òà àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌÌÓ` ¸ pÓÓÓà àà ààQ àà à______________________________Ìà àà ààQ àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JudgeÌà àà à