ÿWPCx ˆowˆdíþßÅS0YǶýZkL J8ëåµ»Q öô¡D}$¯ôrú.Ãpº)=¥, °Är1w÷ãÑÓ­“Õ ëñ¶ (-¥ù42Š_:I!€2TÂS<÷Rˆy¤³ Ouƒ€Ÿe¢…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í b w@ 4O c 0Ær 0D8 | ^ ßU:çä!U: B??????????? D3\\\ 0D AOÓÆ"" 0Dè D/, B[˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- ;U<=U>?D@eDEEFGÓ€uM%3|xP(v(2O$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X„XXXÔÔ€ô(ƒôXX„Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ûÝ ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝHowever,€we€do€cautioin€trial€courts€that€motions€to€sever€offenses€for€trial€should€beÐ `  Ðresolved€prior€to€the€commencement€of€trial€and€the€impanelling€of€the€jury. TÝ ƒ ow$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XW·XXXÔÔ€ôè¸ôXXW·Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝHowever,€we€do€caution€trial€courts€that€motions€to€sever€offenses€for€trial€should€be€resolvedÐ `  Ðprior€to€the€commencement€of€trial€and€the€impanelling€of€the€jury.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÚÔ€X„XXXÔÔ€¹ XX„ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X„X ¹ÔÐ  ÐÌMay€27,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñGññ@ñ›ñ@ññGñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ŠRóŠXXÔÔ€Š³ŠŠŠRóÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¶XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñGñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rß›ñGñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌJANUARY€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9804„CC„00182Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àWILLIAMSON€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€HENRY€DENMARK€BELLó óÐ Xø  Ðò òJOEL€GUILDS,ó óà  àà h àà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€DUI)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌDAVID€H.€KINGà  àà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ ( È ÐKING,€TURNBOW€&€BRISBYà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  !À Ð203€Third€Avenue€Southà h àà À àà  àÐ "¸ ÐFranklin,€TN€€37064à h àà À àà  àTIMOTHY€BEHANÐ #° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€D.€BAUGH,€JR.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJEFF€BURKSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àP.€O.€Box€937Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àFranklin,€TN€€37065„0937ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  x5,- ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„@Í„ŠŠ³ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†Š³Š„„@͹ #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÑ7€¶XXdìXXdì7ÑÌà ` àOn€April€14,€1997,€the€Williamson€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€AppellantÏJoel€P.€Guilds€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€second€offense,Ïand€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€€On€October€15,€1997,€Appellant€filed€aÏmotion€to€have€the€two€charges€tried€separately.€€The€trial€court€initially€deniedÏthe€motion,€but€after€Appellantððs€trial€began€on€October€29,€1997,€the€trial€courtÏgranted€the€motion€to€sever.€€Later€that€same€day,€a€Williamson€County€juryÏconvicted€Appellant€of€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€On€FebruaryÏ13,€1998,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nineÏdays.€€Appellant€challenges€his€conviction,€raising€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà0 ` à1)€whether€Appellant€was€prejudiced€by€the€late€severance€of€the€charges;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€when€it€allowed€a€witnessÏto€testify€who€had€not€been€disclosed€to€Appellant€until€the€day€of€trial;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€Appellantððs€conviction;ÏandÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à4)€whether€a€comment€by€the€prosecutor€during€closing€argumentÏconstituted€prosecutorial€misconduct€that€deprived€Appellant€of€a€fair€trial;Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓEÓAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ÑÑ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ ¼*\!" ÐÌà ` àOfficer€Daniel€Aloy€of€the€Franklin,€Tennessee€Police€Department€testifiedÏthat€while€he€was€responding€to€a€call€in€downtown€Franklin€on€February€13,Ï1997,€he€heard€a€loud€crash.€€Aloy€then€turned€around€and€saw€that€a€car€hadÏstruck€a€large€flowerpot€and€a€light€pole€a€short€distance€away.€€When€AloyÏarrived€at€the€scene,€he€saw€that€Appellant€was€in€the€driverððs€seat€and€was€theÏonly€person€in€the€car.€€Aloy€then€made€contact€with€Appellant€and€observed€thatÐ \8ü.0 ÐAppellant€had€slurred€speech,€appeared€to€be€only€semi„conscious,€and€hadÏdifficulty€answering€questions.€€€ÌÌà ` àOfficer€Frank€Soto€of€the€Franklin€Police€Department€testified€that€heÏarrived€at€the€accident€soon€after€it€occurred€and€he€ð ðtook€over€the€scene.ðð€ÏShortly€after€Soto€approached€Appellant,€Soto€recognized€him€because€Soto€hadÏknown€Appellant€for€approximately€five€or€six€years.€€Soto€smelled€the€odor€ofÏalcohol€coming€from€both€the€inside€of€the€car€and€from€Appellantððs€person€andÏhe€saw€a€beer€can€on€the€floor€of€the€car.€€Soto€also€observed€that€Appellant€hadÏslurred€speech€and€glassy,€red€eyes.€€Soto€further€observed€that€AppellantÏappeared€to€have€a€head€injury€and€that€the€windshield€of€Appellantððs€car€hadÏbeen€broken€by€what€Soto€guessed€was€probably€Appellantððs€head.€ÌÌà ` àSoto€testified€that€shortly€after€he€arrived€at€the€scene,€Appellant€wasÏtransported€to€the€hospital€by€some€paramedics.€€Soto€subsequently€metÏAppellant€at€the€hospital€and€asked€him€to€take€a€blood€alcohol€test.€€WhenÏAppellant€refused,€Soto€asked€him€whether€he€had€been€drinking.€€Appellant€thenÏresponded,€ð ðYou€know€me.ðð€€Appellant€then€stated€that€he€had€fallen€asleep€whileÏhe€was€driving€his€vehicle.ÌÌà ` àSoto€testified€that€he€did€not€ask€Appellant€to€take€a€breath€test€for€alcoholÏbecause€the€ñ@ñbreathalyzerñ@ññ@ñbreathalyserñ@ñ€was€at€the€Williamson€County€Jail€and€Appellant€couldÏnot€be€transported€there€because€of€his€medical€condition.€€Soto€also€testified€thatÏhe€did€not€have€Appellant€perform€any€field€sobriety€tests€because€Appellant€wasÏinjured.€€Soto€admitted€that€he€could€not€be€sure€whether€Appellantððs€slurredÏspeech€and€behavior€were€due€to€intoxication€or€to€injury.€Ð Ð9p02 Їà ` àNancy€Steagal€testified€that€she€was€one€of€the€paramedics€who€treatedÏAppellant€at€the€scene€of€the€accident.€€When€Steagal€made€contact€withÏAppellant,€he€complained€of€pain€in€his€back,€neck,€wrist,€and€knee.€€SteagalÏobserved€that€Appellantððs€words€were€not€plain€and€sounded€ð ðsluggish.ðð€€SteagalÏalso€noticed€that€an€odor€of€alcohol€was€coming€from€the€car€and€the€odorÏbecame€stronger€when€she€approached€Appellant.€€Steagal€also€testified€thatÏAppellant€was€awake,€alert,€and€oriented;€he€denied€drinking€alcohol€and€statedÏthat€he€had€fallen€asleep€at€the€wheel.€ÌÌà ` àDoctor€Paul€Hagan€testified€that€he€was€the€emergency€room€physicianÏwho€treated€Appellant€when€Appellant€was€brought€to€the€hospital.€€When€Dr.ÏHagan€made€contact€with€Appellant,€Appellant€complained€of€pain€in€his€cheek,Ïjaw,€left€knee,€and€right€arm.€€Other€than€the€pain€in€his€cheek€and€jaw,€AppellantÏmade€no€other€complaint€of€any€head€injury.€€Dr.€Hagan€observed€that€AppellantÏhad€a€strong€odor€of€alcohol€on€his€person€and€had€slurred€speech€and€otherÏsymptoms€of€intoxication€such€as€nystagmus€of€the€eyes.€ÌÌà ` àDr.€Hagan€testified€that€the€radiology€report€indicated€that€Appellant€hadÏsuffered€an€injury€to€the€head.€€Dr.€Hagan€then€acknowledged€that€nystagmusÏcould€be€caused€by€a€head€injury,€but€he€stated€that€he€had€never€seen€the€typeÏof€nystagmus€that€Appellant€had€in€a€head€injury€case.€€Dr.€Hagan€stated€that€inÏhis€opinion,€a€patient€with€nystagmus€similar€to€that€of€Appellant€would€usually€beÏunconscious.€Ìñ:ñÌñ:ññ:ñÌñ:ñÐ Ð9p02 Ðò òà@{{'®àII.€€SEVERANCEó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€late€severance€of€theÏcharge€for€driving€under€the€influence€from€the€charge€for€driving€on€a€revokedÏlicense.€€We€find€otherwise.ÌÌà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€after€the€trial€court€informed€the€jury€about€theÏnature€of€the€case,€a€jury„out€hearing€was€conducted.€€During€this€hearing,€theÏcourt€granted€Appellantððs€motion€to€sever€the€two€charges.€€When€the€juryÏreturned,€the€court€instructed€the€jury€that€this€case€only€involved€a€charge€forÏdriving€under€the€influence.€€The€court€further€instructed€the€jury€that€they€shouldÏdisregard€the€second€charge.€ÌÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€Appellant€has€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€byÏthe€late€severance€of€the€charges.€€The€record€indicates€that€the€charges€wereÏsevered€before€any€evidence€was€introduced€about€the€charge€of€driving€on€aÏrevoked€license.€€Further,€the€trial€court€clearly€instructed€the€jury€that€it€shouldÏonly€be€concerned€with€the€charge€of€driving€under€the€influence€and€it€shouldÏdisregard€the€other€charge.€€ð ðIt€is€well-established€that€jurors€are€presumed€toÏfollow€the€instructions€given€by€the€trial€judge.ðð€€òòState€v.€Cribbsóó,€967€S.W.2d€773,Ð @.à$& Ð784€(Tenn.€1998).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Mathisóó,€969€S.W.2d€418,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 00Ð&( ÐApp.€1997).€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ñ@ñ׃ ×ñ@ññ@ñ׃ ×ñ@ñÝ ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  2À(* Ðñ;ñÌñ;ñÐ 6 ,. Ðà@ÞÞ"®àò òIII.€€UNDISCLOSED€WITNESSó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€when€it€allowedÏa€witness€to€testify€who€had€not€been€disclosed€to€the€defense€until€the€day€ofÏtrial.€€We€again€must€disagree.ÌÌà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€the€State€failed€to€include€œñDñNancyñDññEññDñtñDññEññFñ€ñFñSteagalððs›€nameÏon€the€indictment€as€required€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„17„106,Ïwhich€provides:Ìñ<ñÓÓñ<ñà0 ` àIt€is€the€duty€of€the€district€attorney€general€to€endorse€on€each€indictmentÏor€presentment,€at€the€term€at€which€the€same€is€found,€the€names€of€suchÏwitnesses€as€the€district€attorney€general€intends€shall€be€summoned€inÏthe€cause,€and€sign€such€indictment€or€presentment€name€thereto.ñ=ñÐ ` T$` T$ Ðñ=ñÌñ<ñÓ<*Óñ<ñTenn.€Code€Ann.€40„17„106€(1997).€€However,€it€is€well„established€that€the€dutyÏcreated€by€this€statute€is€merely€directory,€not€mandatory.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839Ð ¨!H ÐS.W.2d€54,€69€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€947€S.W.2d€875,€947€(Tenn.Ð ˜#8 ÐCrim.€App.€1996).€€The€Stateððs€failure€to€include€a€witnessðð€name€on€theÏindictment€will€not€automatically€disqualify€the€witness€from€testifying.€€òòHarrisóó,€839Ð x' ÐS.W.2d€at€69;€òòKendricksóó,€947€S.W.2d€at€947.€€Rather,€a€defendant€will€be€entitledÐ h) ! Ðto€relief€for€nondisclosure€only€if€he€or€she€can€demonstrate€prejudice,€bad€faith,Ïor€undue€advantage.€€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€69;€òòKendricksóó,€947€S.W.2d€at€947.€Ð H-è#% ÐThe€determination€of€whether€to€allow€the€witness€to€testify€is€left€to€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòKendricksóó,€947€S.W.2d€at€947;€òòState€v.€Underwoodóó,Ð (1È') Ð669€S.W.2d€700,€703€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€ÌÌà ` àHere,€Appellant€has€not€even€alleged€that€the€State€acted€in€bad€faith€orÏhad€an€undue€advantage€because€of€the€failure€to€disclose€Steagalððs€identity€untilÐ è8ˆ/1 Ðthe€day€of€trial.€€Indeed,€neither€of€these€allegations€would€be€supported€by€theÏrecord.€€Further,€although€Appellant€complains€that€he€was€ð ðcompletely€surprisedððÏby€Steagalððs€presence€as€a€witness,€he€has€failed€to€indicate€how€he€wasÏprejudiced€by€that€surprise.€€Indeed,€the€record€indicates€that€when€AppellantððsÏcounsel€informed€the€trial€court€that€he€had€not€previously€been€notified€thatÏSteagal€would€be€a€witness,€the€court€gave€him€an€opportunity€to€interviewÏSteagal€before€she€testified€and€he€took€advantage€of€that€opportunity.€€Further,ÏAppellantððs€counsel€subsequently€conducted€a€very€able€cross„examination€ofÏSteagal.€€In€this€case,€Appellant€has€simply€failed€to€indicate€anything€that€heÏcould€or€would€have€done€differently€if€he€had€known€about€Steagal€earlier.€€ThisÏissue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@..®àò òIV.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ   @ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÏis€obliged€to€review€that€challenge€according€to€certain€well-settled€principles.€€AÏverdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€theÏState.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).€€Although€an€accusedÐ  2À(* Ðis€originally€cloaked€with€a€presumption€of€innocence,€a€jury€verdict€removes€thisÏpresumption€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,Ð 6 ,. Ð914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,€on€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€with€Appellant€toÏdemonstrate€the€insufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€On€appeal,€ð ðtheÐ à9€02 Ð[S]tate€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€allÏreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòId.óó€€WhereÐ P ð Ðthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€contested€on€appeal,€the€relevant€question€forÏthe€reviewing€court€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏaccused€guilty€of€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€560Ð °  Ð(1979).€€In€conducting€our€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€isÏprecluded€from€reweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929Ð ð  ÐS.W.2d€380,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Moreover,€this€Court€may€notÏsubstitute€its€own€inferences€ð ðfor€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€fromÏcircumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð À` ÐApp.€1990).€€Finally,€Rule€13(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€ProcedureÏprovides,€ð ðfindings€of€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€juryÏshall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trierÏof€fact€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ððÌÌà ` àIn€order€to€establish€that€Appellant€had€committed€the€offense€at€issueÏhere,€the€State€was€required€to€prove€that€Appellant€drove€his€vehicle€on€a€publicÏstreet€while€he€was€ð ð[u]nder€the€influence€of€any€intoxicant,€marijuana,€narcoticÏdrug,€or€drug€producing€stimulating€effects€on€the€central€nervous€system.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401(a)(1)€(1998).€€Appellant€concedes€that€the€State€provedÏthat€he€operated€his€vehicle€on€a€public€street.€€However,€Appellant€contends€thatÏthe€State€did€not€prove€that€he€was€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€(alcohol)Ïwhen€he€did€so.Ìâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðà ` àAppellant€basically€argues€that€because€the€case€is€circumstantial,€the€juryÏâ âcould€not€have€found€that€the€facts€presented€excluded€every€other€reasonableÏtheory€or€hypothesis€except€that€of€guilt.€€Specifically,€Appellant€argues€that€theÏjury€could€have€accepted€his€theory€that€his€slurred€speech€and€nystagmus€wereÏactually€caused€by€his€head€injury€rather€than€intoxication.€€It€is€true€that€whereÏthe€evidence€is€entirely€circumstantial,€the€evidence€must€allow€the€jury€toÏexclude€every€other€reasonable€theory€or€hypothesis€except€that€of€guilt.€€òòStateÐ    Ðv.€Ballóó,€973€S.W.2d€288,€292€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€Of€course,€ð ð[l]ike€all€otherÐ ð  Ðfact€questions,€the€determination€of€whether€all€reasonable€theories€orÏhypotheses€are€excluded€by€the€evidence€is€primarily€a€jury€question.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ð Ðp ÐÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence,€when€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€toÏthe€State,€was€sufficient€for€a€rational€jury€to€exclude€Appellantððs€theory€and€findÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Appellant€had€committed€the€offense€of€drivingÏunder€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€The€evidence€showed€that€Appellant€wasÏinvolved€in€a€single€vehicle€accident€in€which€he€drove€his€car€off€the€road€andÏinto€a€flowerpot€and€light€pole.€€Further,€Soto€testified€that€he€found€a€beer€canÏin€Appellantððs€car.€€Soto€and€Steagal€both€testified€that€there€was€an€odor€ofÏalcohol€coming€from€Appellantððs€car.€€Soto,€Steagal,€and€Hagan€all€testified€thatÏthey€could€smell€alcohol€on€Appellantððs€person.€€Aloy,€Soto,€Hagan,€and€SteagalÏall€described€Appellantððs€speech€as€either€slurred€or€sluggish€and€Aloy€testifiedÏthat€Appellant€was€only€semi„conscious€and€had€difficulty€answering€questions.€ÏSoto€testified€that€Appellant€had€red,€glassy€eyes.€€Dr.€Hagan€testified€thatÏAppellant€had€nystagmus€of€the€eyes,€which€was€consistent€with€intoxication.€ÏAlthough€Dr.€Hagan€testified€that€nystagmus€could€be€caused€by€a€head€injury,Ïhe€also€testified€that€Appellantððs€head€injuries€did€not€appear€to€be€serious€andÐ Ð9p02 Ðfurther,€he€had€never€seen€Appellantððs€type€of€nystagmus€in€a€head€injury€case.€ÏDr.€Hagan€also€stated€that€someone€with€Appellantððs€type€of€nystagmus€wouldÏusually€be€unconscious.€€When€Soto€asked€Appellant€to€take€a€blood€alcohol€test,ÏAppellant€refused.€€Finally,€when€Soto€asked€Appellant€whether€he€had€beenÏdrinking,€Appellant€responded,€ð ðYou€know€me.ððÌÌà ` àIn€this€case,€Appellant€essentially€asks€us€to€reconsider€the€evidence€andÏsubstitute€a€verdict€of€not€guilty€in€exchange€for€the€verdict€found€by€the€jury.€ÏThat€is€not€our€function.€€Instead,€we€conclude€that€a€rational€jury€could€haveÏfound€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Appellant€had€committed€the€offense€ofÏdriving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€ThisÐ À` Ðissue€has€no€merit.Ì€€Ìà@ll ®àò òV.€€PROSECUTORIAL€MISCONDUCTó óˆÐ "0 ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial€when€the€prosecutorÏreferred€to€him€as€a€ð ðclownðð€during€his€closing€argument.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€during€his€closing€argument,€the€prosecutor€madeÏthe€following€comment:Ìñ>ñÓÓñ>ñà0 ` àNow€we€can€talk€all€day€about€what€evidence€is€circumstantial€and€whatððsÏdirect.€€I€submit€that€there€is€a€great€deal€of€direct€evidence.€€The€officersÏsaw€the€accident.€€Theyððre€standing€right€across€the€street€from€it€when€thisÏclown,€driving€and€saying€that€he€went€to€sleep,€drives€right€into€a€lampÏpost€at€1:30€or€so€in€the€morning€and€then€states,€although€everyone€whoÏtestified€smelled€alcohol,€that€he€hadnððt€been€drinking.€€And€he€refuses€aÏâ âtest.€Ð6 ,.` T$` T$ Ðñ>ñÓQLÓñ>ñWhile€we€agree€with€Appellant€that€the€reference€to€him€as€a€ð ðclownðð€wasÏundoubtably€improper,€we€conclude€that€Appellant€is€not€entitled€to€a€new€trialÏbecause€of€it.Ìâ âÌà ` àð ðWhere€argument€is€found€to€be€improper€the€established€test€forÏdetermining€whether€there€is€reversible€error€is€whether€the€improper€conductÏcould€have€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð    ÐCauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€726,€737€(Tenn.€1998)€(citation€and€internal€quotationsÐ ð  Ðomitted).€€There€are€five€factors€that€must€be€examined€in€order€to€make€thisÏdetermination:€€1)€the€conduct€complained€of,€viewed€in€light€of€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€the€case;€€2)€the€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€courtÏand€the€prosecution;€€3)€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improperÏstatement;€€4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errorsÏin€the€record;€€and€5)€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€€òòId.óó€(citationsÐ "0 Ðomitted).ÌÌà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€Appellant€waived€this€issue€by€filing€to€make€aÏcontemporaneous€objection€at€trial.€€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€926€S.W.2d€727,€736€(Tenn.Ð P*ð " Ð1994);€òòState€v.€Greenóó,€947€S.W.2d€186,€188€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.Ð @,à"$ ÐLittleóó,€854€S.W.2d€643,€651€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€However,€we€conclude€thatÐ 0.Ð$& ÐAppellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€even€on€the€merits.€€First,€the€conductÏcomplained€of,€when€viewed€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case,Ïindicates€that€the€jury€would€not€have€been€prejudiced€by€the€use€of€the€termÏð ðclown.ðð€€The€prosecutorððs€use€of€the€term€ð ðclownðð€was€only€an€isolated€incidentÏand€it€was€far€less€inflammatory€than€other€comments€that€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€has€found€to€be€harmless€error.€€òòSeeóó€òòCauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€atÐ Ð9p02 Ð736ð!ð38€(prosecutorððs€reference€to€defendant€as€ð ðthe€evil€oneðð€was€harmlessÏerror);€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2d€868,€881€(Tenn.€1991)€(prosecutorððs€twoÐ P ð Ðreferences€to€defendant€as€a€ð ðrabid€dogðð€were€harmless€errors);€òòState€v.€Milleróó,Ð @ à Ð771€S.W.2d€401,€405€(Tenn.€1989)€(prosecutorððs€reference€to€defendant€asÏð ðpervertedðð€was€harmless€error).€€Second,€although€no€curative€measures€wereÏtaken€by€the€trial€court€or€the€prosecution,€this€was€primarily€because€the€defenseÏfailed€to€object.€€Third,€it€appears€that€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€was€to€point€outÏthe€inconsistencies€between€the€defense€theory€of€the€case€and€the€evidence€thatÏwas€presented€at€trial.€€Fourth,€the€cumulative€effect€of€this€error€and€any€otherÏerrors€was€not€sufficient€to€deny€Appellant€a€fair€trial.€€Fifth,€the€Stateððs€case€wasÏfairly€strong.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€prosecutorððsÏimproper€comment€did€not€affect€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.€ÏThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ñ7ññ4ñÔ#†ŠGŠ XXƒ#î #Ôñ4ññ7ñÌñ?ñÌà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àÌÌÌÌñ?ñÓ  Óñ?ñà ` àÌÌñ?ñÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE