ÿWPC) …U :V % 0C– 0JÙ 0T#wn­‡ 0 Ü4  w@ 4X 0^l 0hÊ 0r2 0|¤ 0† 0¦ 1u6U,« 0d× B;U,X D3„U *·B)á 0@ DCJ AM¹Ú¤“$7[`è’HEÚv~ vÓ! AOp'Æ¿' 0D…( D/É( Bø(<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô3|x«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@(´È$¡¡ÑÑÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Ó úûüýþEÿEeÓ€Ôe{ Ôô,Ö2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,,,,7Border 1dd€-.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¯Ý ƒ !ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ28,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó šÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€+Ô€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Pryor€and€his€family€lived€in€a€house€immediately€next€door€to€the€home€thatÏwas€under€construction.Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Morgan€also€testified€that€he€encountered€the€appellant€at€the€courthouseÏbefore€the€preliminary€hearing.€€Morgan€said€that€he€"snickered"€at€the€appellantÏand€that€the€appellant€said,€"You€bitch,€I'll€kill€you.€€I'll€kill€you."Ì ƒÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÓ  Ó€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Mercks€conceded€that€the€fingerprints€of€Roger€French€were€found€at€theÏscene.Ì VÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€We€note€that€criminal€trespass€may€not€always€be€a€lesser€included€offense€ofÏburglary.€€For€example,€the€requirement€that€one€"enter"€property€for€criminalÏtrespass€requires€"an€intrusion€of€the€entire€body."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„14„405(c).€€The€"enter"€element€for€burglary€means€the€"intrusion€of€any€part€of€theÏbody."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„14„402€(b)(1).€€Thus,€one€who€commits€burglary€byÏplacing€one's€arm€through€an€open€window€may€not€commit€criminal€trespass;€thus,Ïin€such€a€case,€the€latter€would€not€be€included€in€the€former.Ì ˆÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€According€to€the€stipulation,€the€entrance€to€the€courtroom€consisted€of€twoÏsets€of€double€doors;€the€two€sets€of€doors€were€five€feet€apart.€€The€doors€were€72Ïinches€wide,€and€the€upper€half€of€each€door€had€clear€glass€windows.€€It€was€40Ïfeet,€5€inches,€from€the€outside€doors€to€where€the€exhibits€had€been€located€duringÏthe€trial.Ì ;Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€12.3(a)€requires€that€the€State€fileÏnotice€of€its€intent€to€seek€an€enhanced€sentence€"not€less€than"€ten€days€prior€toÏtrial.€€Although€the€State€did€not€comply€with€this€rule,€the€appellant€did€not€objectÏon€this€ground.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÓ&€))X„d&ÓÑ#€))Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  Ý›Ñ7€ìXXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€+ÔÑ  ќـ€ÙßL€/0.;+'h|` ´- `€€Lß›à@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEóóÌà@ àDECEMBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#03C01„9503„CR„00096Ìà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà à*à àBLOUNTÏCOUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€D.€KellyÏThomas,€Jr.,€JudgeÌJAMES€EDWARD€FRENCH,à à*à à(Burglary)Ìà àà àAPPELLANT.à à*ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àòòà àFor€theÏAppellee:óóÌÓÓGerald€Russellà àà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏBursonÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€and€ReporterÌ125€E.€Broadway€Ave.à àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌMaryville,€TNà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDarian€B.€TaylorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€L.€FlynnÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPhilip€H.€MortonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à363€Court€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMaryville,€TN€37804ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àà àThe€appellant,€James€Edward€French,€was€convicted€of€burglary,€aÏclass€D€felony.€€He€was€sentenced€to€twelve€years€in€the€Department€of€CorrectionÏas€a€career€offender.€€He€raises€three€issues€on€appeal:€€(a)€the€trial€court€erred€inÍfailing€to€charge€the€lesser€included€offense€of€criminal€trespass;€(b)€the€State'sÏwitnesses€violated€the€rule€of€sequestration€by€discussing€testimony€during€the€trial;Ïand€(c)€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€appellant's€prior€convictions€could€beÏused€for€impeachment.ÌÌà àà àWe€conclude€that€there€is€no€reversible€error€in€the€record.€€TheÏjudgment€is,€therefore,€affirmed.ÌÌà àà àIn€July€of€1993,€Isaac€Pryor€was€building€a€house€on€AlfredÏMcCammon€Road€in€Blount€County,€Tennessee.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€The€exterior€of€the€house€hadÏbeen€completed,€and€the€house€was€locked.€€There€was€construction€equipmentÏinside€the€house,€including€a€table€saw,€drill,€air€compressor,€paint€sprayer€andÏhammer.€€Sometime€around€July€22,€Pryor€noticed€that€these€items€had€beenÏremoved€from€the€house€and€left€near€the€road.€€He€had€given€no€one€permission€toÏenter€the€house€or€to€move€the€tools.€€On€closer€inspection,€Pryor€noticed€that€twoÏwindows€had€been€tampered€with.€€It€appeared€that€entry€to€the€house€had€beenÏmade€through€a€side€window.ÌÌà àà àGary€Reagan€was€Pryor's€neighbor.€€On€July€22,€he€was€driving€onÏAlfred€McCammon€Road€when€he€saw€two€men€walk€out€the€front€door€of€the€houseÏthat€Isaac€Pryor€was€building.€€It€was€still€daylight,€and€the€men€were€about€15€to€20Ïyards€away€from€Reagan.€€Reagan€could€see€that€both€men€were€carrying€items€asÏthey€walked€out€of€the€house.€€When€Reagan€pulled€into€the€driveway,€the€two€menÏhesitated€for€a€moment,€threw€their€items€on€the€ground,€and€then€ran€behind€theÏhouse.€€ÌÌà àà àReagan€pursued€the€men€in€his€truck.€€One€of€the€men,€whom€ReaganÏlater€identified€as€the€appellant,€ran€into€a€wooded€area.€€The€other,€who€was€laterÏidentified€as€Roger€French,€the€appellant's€brother,€tripped€and€fell€as€he€attemptedÏto€double€back€toward€the€house.€€Reagan€stayed€with€Roger€French€until€theÏpolice€arrived.€€Approximately€forty„five€minutes€later,€Reagan€saw€the€appellant€atÏthe€scene€in€the€back€of€a€police€car.€€Reagan€said€that€there€was€"no€question"€thatÏthe€appellant€was€one€of€the€men€he€had€seen€leaving€Isaac€Pryor's€house.€€HeÏhad€been€about€ten€feet€from€the€appellant€while€pursuing€him€and€he€got€a€goodÏlook€at€the€appellant's€face.Ì€€€Ìà àà àJohn€Morgan€was€visiting€Jeff€Pryor,€Isaac€Pryor's€son,€that€sameÏafternoon.€€At€one€point,€Morgan€noticed€a€man€walking€through€the€field€behindÍthe€Pryor's€house€at€"a€brisk€pace."€€Morgan€got€a€"quick€glimpse"€of€the€man,Ïwhom€he€later€identified€as€the€appellant.€€Moments€later,€Gary€ReaganÏapproached€the€scene€in€his€truck.€€Morgan€and€Jeff€Pryor€then€decided€to€driveÏalong€nearby€roads€to€look€for€the€man€Morgan€had€seen€in€the€field.€€While€drivingÏnear€Doc€Norton€and€Sevierville€Roads,€Morgan€saw€the€appellant€near€aÏgreenhouse;€Morgan€was€sure€that€the€appellant€was€the€same€man€he€had€seenÏwalking€through€the€field.€€When€Morgan€and€Pryor€approached,€the€appellantÏwalked€to€a€house€and€started€knocking€on€the€door.€€Morgan€told€the€appellantÏthat€the€police€were€on€the€way;€the€appellant€denied€any€wrong€doing.€€TheÏappellant€then€walked€to€a€garage€on€Doc€Norton€Road€and€began€talking€to€someÏpeople.€€Morgan€and€Pryor€waited€for€police€to€arrive€and€then€identified€theÏappellant.× ƒ2 ××  ×ÌÌà àà àRandy€Mercks,€a€criminal€investigator€with€the€Blount€County€Sheriff'sÏDepartment,€was€called€to€the€scene€after€Roger€French€and€the€appellant€hadÏbeen€apprehended.€€Mercks€explained€the€òòMirandaóó€rights€to€the€appellant€and€laterÏinterviewed€him.€€The€appellant€told€Mercks€that€he€"couldn't€believe€that€we€didÍthat€in€the€daytime€right€in€front€of€everybody."€€The€appellant€also€said€that€"he€wasÏsmart€[and]€didn't€get€his€fingerprints€on€anything."€€According€to€Mercks,€theÏappellant's€fingerprints€were€not€found€on€any€of€the€items€at€the€scene.€€MercksÏnoted€that€the€dust€at€the€construction€site€made€it€difficult€to€find€latent€fingerprints.× ƒ3 ××  ×€ÏFinally,€Mercks€testified€that€he€was€sure€that€the€appellant€had€said€"òòweóó"Ïcommitted€the€crime€in€the€daytime€and€not€"he,"€(meaning€Roger€French),Ïcommitted€the€crime.€ÌÌà àà àThe€State€rested€its€case€in€chief.ÌÌà àà àKathy€French,€the€appellant's€wife,€testified€for€the€defense.€€On€JulyÏ22,€she€and€the€appellant€left€their€home€around€6:15€p.m.€to€go€to€an€auto€partsÏstore€on€Doc€Norton€Road.€€The€appellant€wanted€to€buy€a€hood€latch€for€his€car.€ÏThe€store€was€about€ten€miles€from€their€home.€€They€stopped€at€a€grocery€store€onÏthe€way.€€When€they€got€closer€to€Doc€Norton€Road,€the€appellant€insisted€on€beingÏlet€out€of€the€vehicle€because€of€an€argument€the€couple€was€engaged€in.€€KathyÏFrench€let€the€appellant€out€of€the€car€near€the€greenhouse€at€approximately€6:45Ïp.m.€€She€didn't€hear€from€him€again€until€after€he€had€been€arrested.ÌÌà àà àKathy€French€also€testified€that€Roger€French€had€left€her€houseÏapproximately€forty„five€minutes€before€she€and€the€appellant€left€for€the€store.€ÏRoger€French€had€left€with€two€men€in€a€pickup€truck.€€She€did€not€know€either€ofÏthe€men,€nor€did€she€know€where€Roger€French€was€headed.€€She€did€not€see€theÏappellant€with€Roger€French€that€afternoon.€€She€did€not€tell€the€police€about€theÏtwo€men€in€the€pickup€truck.ÌÌà àà àRandy€Mercks€was€called€to€testify€by€the€defense.€€He€said€that€theÏcrime€had€been€reported€to€911€at€7:33€p.m.Ì€€€Ìà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€inÏfailing€to€charge€criminal€trespass€as€a€lesser€included€offense€of€burglary.€€HeÏacknowledges€that€he€did€not€request€such€an€instruction€but€maintains€that€the€trialÏcourt€had€an€obligation€to€give€the€instruction€because€it€was€raised€by€theÏevidence.€€The€State€maintains€that€the€failure€to€charge€criminal€trespass€was€notÏerroneous€under€the€facts€of€the€case.ÌÌà àà àOur€supreme€court€recently€has€clarified€that€there€are€two€types€ofÏlesser€offenses€that€may€be€included€in€the€charged€offense€under€Tennessee€law:Ïa€lesser€grade€or€class€of€offense€and€a€lesser€included€offense.€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,Ï___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1996)(For€Publication).€€A€lesser€grade€or€class€of€offenseÏis€established€by€the€legislature€and€is€determined€simply€by€looking€at€theÏstatutory€provisions.€€Whenever€there€is€evidence€in€the€record€from€which€aÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€find€the€elements€of€a€lesser€grade€or€class€of€offense,€theÏtrial€court€must€charge€the€offense€irrespective€of€a€"request€on€the€part€of€theÏdefendant€to€do€so."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„18„110;€òòseeóó€òòTrustyóó,€slip€op.€At€9„10.ÌÌà àà àA€lesser€offense€"necessarily€included€in€the€indictment"€is€notÏidentical€to€a€lesser€grade€or€class€of€offense.€€òòTrustyóó,€slip€op.€at€10.€€Generally,€anÏoffense€is€a€lesser€included€offense€only€if€the€elements€of€the€included€offense€areÏa€"subset€of€the€elements€of€the€charged€offense€and€only€if€the€greater€offenseÏcannot€be€committed€without€also€committing€the€lesser€offense."€€òòIdóó.€slip€op.€at€10„11€(òòcitingóó,€òòSchmuck€v.€United€Statesóó,€489€U.S.€705,€716€(1989)).€€In€this€jurisdiction:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[A]n€offense€is€necessarily€included€in€another€if€theÏelements€of€the€greater€offense,€as€those€elements€areÏset€forth€in€the€indictment,€include€but€are€not€congruentÏwith,€all€the€elements€of€the€lesser.ÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Howardóó,€578€S.W.2d€83,€85€(Tenn.€1979).€€A€trial€judge€is€required€toÏinstruct€on€lesser€included€offenses€only€when€the€evidence€would€support€aÏconviction€for€the€lesser€offenses.€€òòTrustyóó,€slip€op.€at€11,€n.€5;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.ÏStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€550€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€618€S.W.2d€310,Ï315€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€Ìà àà àBurglary€and€related€offenses€are€statutorily€defined€in€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€sections€39„14„401€through€412.€€The€elements€of€burglary€areÏdefined€in€section€39„14„402,€and€the€elements€of€criminal€trespass€are€set€forth€inÏsection€39„14„405.€€Thus,€criminal€trespass€was€a€lesser€grade€or€class€of€theÏcharged€burglary€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòTrustyóó,€slip€op.€at€9„10.€€The€offense€of€criminalÏtrespass€may€also,€depending€on€the€facts€of€the€case€and€the€elements€charged€inÏthe€indictment,€be€a€lesser€included€offense€of€burglary.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Vanceóó,€888ÏS.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Dhikr€Abban€Boyceóó,€No.€01C01„9402„CR„00053€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Feb.€2,€1995,€Nashville).× ƒ4 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àà àIn€either€case,€the€trial€judge€was€required€to€charge€this€offense€if€theÏevidence€warranted€such€an€instruction.€€If,€on€the€other€hand,€the€record€clearlyÏshowed€that€the€appellant€was€guilty€of€the€greater€offense€and€that€there€was€noÏevidence€permitting€an€inference€of€guilt€of€the€lesser€offense,€the€charge€was€notÏrequired.€€òòSeeóó€òòTrustyóó,€slip€op.€at€11,€n.5;€òòWhitwell€v.€Stateóó,€520€S.W.2d€338,€343Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€We€conclude,€as€did€the€trial€court,€that€such€is€the€case€here.€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àEntry€into€the€Pryor's€building€was€made€through€a€window.€€GaryÏReagan€saw€the€appellant€leave€the€building€while€carrying€a€number€of€items.€ÏReagan€pursued€the€appellant€through€an€open€field€behind€Pryor's€house,€whereÏhe€was€also€seen€by€John€Morgan.€€The€appellant€made€an€admission€toÏInvestigator€Mercks€that€he€had€been€involved€in€the€crime.€€Moreover,€theÏappellant€presented€what€amounted€to€an€alibi€defense.€€His€wife€claimed€that€theÏappellant€was€not€with€Roger€French€on€the€afternoon€of€the€offense,€that€RogerÏFrench€left€her€home€with€two€other€men,€and€that€she€last€saw€the€appellant€nearÏDoc€Norton€Road€around€6:45€p.m.€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àThe€authority€cited€by€the€appellant€differs€factually€from€the€presentÏcase.€€In€òòState€v.€Vanceóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€defendant€broke€into€the€victim's€home€and€wasÏapprehended€in€the€kitchen.€€At€trial,€the€defendant€testified€that€he€had€called€toÍcheck€on€the€victim's€well€being,€got€no€response,€and€then€broke€in€only€to€see€ifÏthe€victim€was€okay.€€Our€court€said€that€even€if€the€defendant's€explanation€did€notÏappear€credible,€the€trial€court€should€have€charged€criminal€trespass€for€the€jury€toÏdetermine€the€exact€offense€that€was€committed.€€òòVanceóó,€888€S.W.2d€at€781.€ÌÌà àà àSimilarly,€in€òòState€v.€Dhikr€Abban€Boyceóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€defendantÏentered€a€building€after€breaking€out€a€window.€€He€was€apprehended€severalÏmoments€later€inside€the€store;€he€had€no€flashlight€or€tools.€€The€defense€offeredÏno€proof€at€trial€but€did€request€a€charge€on€criminal€trespass.€€The€trial€courtÏrefused;€this€court€reversed€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]he€proof€clearly€shows€the€defendant€guilty€ofÏCriminal€Trespass.€€Whether€the€defendant€is€guilty€ofÏburglary€depends€upon€his€intent€at€the€time€he€enteredÏthe€premises,€as€charged€in€the€indictment.€€This€courtÏand€the€trial€court€may€conclude€that€he€had€such€intentÏ[to€commit€theft].€€However,€the€finder€of€fact€is€the€jury.€ÏBy€failing€to€charge€the€jury€on€the€lesser€includedÏoffense€of€Criminal€Trespass,€the€trial€court€deprived€theÏdefendant€of€his€right€to€have€the€jury€determine€his€guilt.ÌÌÓÓÌòòIdóó.€slip€op.€at€6.€€ÌÌà àà àUnlike€òòVanceóó€and€òòBoyceóó,€there€was€direct€evidence€of€the€appellantððsÏintent€once€he€entered€the€building;€the€State's€witnesses€saw€him€leaving€theÏPryor's€building€in€the€possession€of€property€belonging€to€Pryor.€€Moreover,€heÏwas€taken€into€custody€shortly€after€the€offense,€and€he€admitted€participating€in€theÏoffense.€€Nonetheless,€his€defense€at€trial€was,€in€effect,€that€he€was€not€with€RogerÏFrench€or€at€the€scene€of€the€crime.€€Accordingly,€he€was€either€guilty€of€burglary€ifÏthe€State's€evidence€was€believed,€or€guilty€of€nothing€if€the€defense€was€believed.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Eddie€Louis€Mitchellóó,€No.€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Jan.€25,Ï1989),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1989)(holding€that€charge€on€criminalÏtrespass€was€not€required€in€burglary€case).€€Thus,€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€thisÏground.ÌÌà@ àò òIIó ó€€Ìà àà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€State's€witnesses€violated€the€rule€ofÏsequestration€by€(a)€viewing€the€testimony€in€the€courtroom€through€a€window€inÏthe€door€and€(b)€discussing€testimony€while€the€trial€was€in€progress.€€The€StateÏmaintains€that€the€facts€did€not€rise€to€the€level€of€reversible€error.ÌÌà àà àThe€issue€was€first€raised€in€the€appellant's€motion€for€a€new€trial,Ïwhich€was€accompanied€by€the€affidavit€of€Kathy€French.€€During€the€hearing€onÍthe€motion€for€a€new€trial,€Kathy€French€testified€that€she€saw€Gary€Reagan,€JeffÏPryor,€and€John€Morgan€in€the€hall€outside€the€courtroom.€€While€Reagan€testified,Ïa€police€officer€said,€"Boys,€they've€got€a€blackboard€for€you€all€to€draw€on."€€PryorÏand€Morgan€then€looked€into€the€courtroom.€€When€Reagan€came€out€of€theÏcourtroom,€he€said€he€"didn't€think€[he'd]€ever€get€off€that€stand."€€He€also€said€thatÏdefense€counsel€"tried€to€confuse€[him]€and€cross€[him]€up€every€way€possible,"Ïparticularly€with€regard€to€directions€and€distances.€€When€John€Morgan€finishedÏtestifying,€he€told€Reagan€and€Jeff€Pryor€that€he€had€not€been€sure€what€time€heÏsaw€the€appellant€in€the€field€or€what€the€appellant€had€been€wearing.€€Reagan€hadÏalready€testified;€Jeff€Pryor€was€never€called€to€testify.€€According€to€Kathy€French,Ïneither€Isaac€Pryor€nor€Randy€Mercks€were€part€of€the€foregoing€events.€€€€ÌÌà àà àFrench€testified€that€she€told€a€bailiff€what€was€happening€but€noÏaction€was€taken.€€She€did€not€inform€defense€counsel€until€after€the€trial.€€SheÏconceded€that€she€also€looked€into€the€courtroom€and€could€see€"some€sort€ofÏboard."€€She€could€not€see€what€was€on€the€board.€€She€conceded€that€none€of€theÏwitnesses€talked€about€specific€answers€or€questions€they€had€been€asked.€€NoÍother€witnesses€testified€at€the€hearing.€€A€stipulation€was€entered€regarding€theÏdimensions€of€the€courtroom€doors€and€the€courtroom.× ƒ5 ××  ×ÌÌà àà àIn€overruling€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€trial€court€made€detailedÏfindings€of€fact:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOn€the€rule€for€the€separate€reception€of€evidence,Ïthere's€no€testimony€that€I€heard€to€indicate€that€anyÏtestimony€of€a€witness€in€court€was€relayed€to€anotherÏperson€that€was€going€to€be€a€witness.€€They€wereÏcomplaining€about€problems€that€they€had€testifyingÏabout€times€and€distances€and€directions,€but€there's€noÏevidence€that€they€ever€told€the€other€witnesses€whatÏthey€said€the€directions€were€or€anything€else.€€And€if€IÏremember€right,€there€[were]€some€inconsistencies€in€theÏtestimony€of€Gary€Reagan€and€Jeff€Morgan€to€indicateÏœthat€that›€didn't€happen.€€The€other€witness€was€RandyÏMercks€and€he€wasn't€even€involved€in€this.€€And€neitherÏwas€Isaac€Pryor.€€He€testified€before€any€of€thisÏhappened.ÌÌà8 àà8 àAs€far€as€watching€the€exhibits€[is]€concerned,€I€don'tÏthink€that€a€person€can€look€through€the€windows€to€theÏcourtroom€and€tell€much€about€what€anybody€was€doingÏdrawing€on€an€exhibit€sitting€on€the€witness€stand....AndÏthere's€no€evidence€that€they€stood€there€and€discussedÏwhat€they€were€looking€at€or€could...even€tell€what€it€was.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àExclusion€of€witnesses€from€the€courtroom€is€governed€by€Rule€615€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAt€the€request€of€a€party€the€court€shall€order€witnesses,Ïincluding€rebuttal€witnesses,€excluded€at€trial€or€otherÏadjudicatory€hearing.€€Sequestration€shall€be€effectiveÏbefore€voir€dire€or€opening€statements€if€requested.€€TheÏcourt€shall€order€all€persons€not€to€disclose€by€anyÏmeans€to€excluded€witnesses€any€live€trial€testimony€orÏexhibits€created€in€the€courtroom€by€a€witness.€€This€ruleÏdoes€not€authorize€the€exclusion€of€(1)€a€party€who€is€aÏnatural€person,€or€(2)€an€officer€or€employee€of€a€partyÏwhich€is€not€a€natural€person€designated€as€itsÏrepresentative€by€its€attorney,€or€(3)€a€person€whoseÏpresence€is€shown€by€a€party€to€be€essential€to€theÏpresentation€of€the€party's€cause.ÌÌÓÓThe€purpose€of€the€rule€is€"to€prevent€one€witness€from€hearing€the€testimony€ofÏanother€and€adjusting€his€testimony€accordingly."€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,Ï68„69€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€507€U.S.€954€(1993);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòNance€v.€Stateóó,Ï210€Tenn.€328,€358€S.W.2d€327,€329€(1962).€€The€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏhas€said€that€the€rule€"exercises€a€restraint€on€witnesses€'tailoring'€their€testimonyÏto€that€of€earlier€witnesses€[and]€aids€in€detecting€testimony€that€is€less€thanÏcandid...."€€òòGeders€v.€United€Statesóó,€425€U.S.€80,€87€(1976).ÌÌà àà àThe€sanctions€for€violations€of€the€rule€vary.€€In€the€most€egregiousÏcases,€the€trial€judge€may€declare€a€mistrial€or€preclude€a€witness€from€testifying.€€InÏother€cases,€the€witness€may€testify€subject€to€cross€examination€on€the€violation,Ïand€the€jury€may€be€instructed€to€consider€the€violation€in€assessing€the€testimony.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€836€S.W.2d€600,€605€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Where€theÏissue€is€raised€on€appeal,€we€must€consider€the€seriousness€of€the€violation€andÏthe€prejudice,€if€any,€that€enured€to€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€atÏ68„69;€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€605.ÌÌà àà àThe€conduct€of€the€State's€witnesses€in€this€case€is€troublesome,Ïparticularly€if,€in€fact,€it€was€instigated€by€a€law€enforcement€officer.€€The€onlyÏwitness€to€testify€in€this€regard€was€Kathy€French;€she€said€that€the€prospectiveÏwitnesses€included€Gary€Reagan,€John€Morgan,€and€Jeff€Pryor.€€Randy€Mercks€andÏIsaac€Pryor€were€not€implicated,€and€Jeff€Pryor€ultimately€did€not€testify.€€AccordingÏto€French,€Reagan€and€Morgan€did€not€discuss€specific€questions€they€had€beenÏasked€or€answers€they€had€given€during€the€trial.€€The€witnesses€also€did€notÏdiscuss€or€compare€their€answers€or€what€they€had€written€on€the€physical€exhibits.€ÏTheir€discussions€were€apparently€limited€to€their€general€impressions€of€the€trialÏand€the€nature€of€the€questions€asked€by€defense€counsel.€ÌÌà àà àIn€assessing€the€prejudice€to€the€appellant€we€benefit€greatly€from€theÏfindings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court.€€The€record€simply€does€not€show€that€one€orÏmore€of€the€witnesses€compared€or€disclosed€specific€testimony.€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,Ï554€S.W.2d€648,€650€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€Nor€does€the€record€indicate€that€aÏwitness€"changed€or€embellished"€his€testimony€based€on€the€testimony€of€another.€ÏòòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€605.€€In€sum,€the€appellant€is€not€entitled€to€reliefÏon€this€ground.ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€claims€that€the€State€should€not€have€been€permitted€toÏuse€prior€convictions€for€impeachment€because€it€failed€to€give€written€notice€of€theÏconvictions€until€one€day€prior€to€trial.€€The€appellant€argues€that€he€was€prejudicedÏby€the€State's€late€notice€because€he€was€forced€to€abandon€his€original€trialÏstrategy,€which€was€to€testify€in€support€of€his€defense.ÌÌà àà àThe€record€supports€the€appellant's€assertion€that€the€State€did€notÏfile€written€notice€of€its€intent€to€use€the€appellant's€prior€criminal€record€to€impeachÏand€to€enhance€the€sentence€until€the€day€before€the€trial€was€to€begin.€€The€list€ofÏconvictions€included€four€for€petit€larceny,€two€for€burglary,€and€one€for€violating€theÏage€of€consent.€€The€appellant€responded€by€filing€a€motion€requesting€that€theÍState€not€be€allowed€to€use€the€impeaching€convictions.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€After€the€State€rested€itsÏcase€in€chief,€the€trial€judge€ruled€that€the€State€could€use€the€petit€larcenyÏconvictions€to€impeach€the€appellant,€but€not€the€other€convictions.€€The€appellantÏthen€elected€not€to€testify.ÌÌà àà àOne€of€the€requirements€before€using€a€conviction€to€impeach€theÏaccused€in€a€criminal€case€is€that€the€State€give€the€accused€"reasonable€writtenÏnotice€of€the€impeaching€conviction€before€trial...."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(3);€òòseeóóÏòòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€837,€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Few€cases€haveÏinterpreted€this€provision.€€In€òòState€v.€Barnardóó,€899€S.W.2d€617€(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp›.),Ïòòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994),€the€State€sent€a€discovery€response€toÏdefense€counsel€setting€forth€the€defendant's€criminal€record.€€The€State€did€not,Ïhowever,€file€a€written€notice€of€its€intent€to€use€one€of€the€convictions€forÏimpeachment.€€Our€court€said€that€the€defendant€had€not€been€"unduly€prejudiced"Ïby€the€State's€noncompliance€and€held€that€the€error€was€harmless.€€òòIdóó.€at€622.€ÏSimilarly,€in€òòState€v.€Burl€Lakinsóó,€No.€32€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€May€24,Ï1991),€òòpermóó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1991),€the€State€notified€defense€counsel€ofÍits€intent€by€telephone€the€night€before€the€trial€was€to€begin.€€Our€court,€whileÏultimately€waiving€consideration€of€the€issue€on€other€grounds,€noted€that€theÏdefendant€had€been€aware€of€the€prior€convictions€and€had€not€been€prejudiced€byÏthe€timing€of€the€notice.€€Finally,€in€òòState€v.€Catherine€Susan€(Suzanne)€Smith€&ÏWilliam€C.€Hindmanóó,€No.€03C01„9106„CR„00174€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Nov.Ï13,€1991),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1992)(not€recommended€for€publication),Ïnotice€received€on€the€day€of€trial€was€found€"not€reasonable."€€Still,€this€court€heldÏthat€error€was€harmless€because€the€record€otherwise€established€sufficient€noticeÏand€the€defendant€did€not€move€for€a€continuance€upon€receiving€notice.€€ÌÌà àà àGenerally,€the€decision€as€to€whether€to€admit€evidence€in€a€trial€is€leftÏto€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161,€172€(Tenn.Ï1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€116€S.Ct.€137,€133€L.Ed.2d€84€(1995);€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€785ÏS.W.2d€132,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€Here,€the€State's€notice€was€hardlyÏprompt,€yet€it€was€provided€one€full€day€before€the€beginning€of€the€trial.€€When€itÏwas€received,€defense€counsel€filed€a€motion€to€bar€the€State€from€using€theÏconvictions,€and€argument€was€heard€on€the€motion€before€the€trial€began.€€ThereÏis€no€indication€in€this€record€that€the€appellant€requested€a€continuance€of€the€trialÏin€which€to€reassess€the€strategy€that€would€be€used€in€defense€of€the€charge.€€AfterÏthe€State€rested€its€case€in€chief,€the€trial€court€gave€additional€consideration€to€theÍissue.€€The€criminal€record€of€the€appellant€was,€obviously,€extensive.€€AfterÏconsidering€the€arguments€of€counsel€and€weighing€the€probative€value€andÏprejudicial€impact€of€each€conviction,€the€court€ruled€that€four€of€the€seven,€(thoseÏfor€petit€larceny),€could€be€used€to€impeach€the€appellant€if€he€testified.€ÏNotwithstanding€the€Stateððs€delayed€written€notice,€we€cannot€conclude€on€thisÏrecord€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€__________________________Ìà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€William€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌJerry€L.€Smith,€Judgeà àà à