ÿWPC× …U:V % 0J– 0Tà 0^4’n­¢ 04O ƒ 0hƒ w ë 4õ 0r 0|{ 0†÷ 0} 1u 0d‚ U6æ B) DCE AMˆ U*Õ ìÿ fëv~QvÓÏ B¢ D3¿ 0@ò AO2Æ 0DG D/‹ Bº<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiX2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô#|x «<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXÂxþ6X@É“8õ X@( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ€Ô¡¨ 2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial âÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌAugust€15,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ Ð ÒÙ€€ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€!A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌóóà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLEóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌBRYAN€R.€HANLEY,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€Petitioner/Appellant€€€)€€€€HICKMAN€COUNTYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€C.C.A.€NO:Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€01C01„9508„CC„00266€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€HENRY€DENMARK€BELL€€€€ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€JUDGE€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€Appellee€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€Ìòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANTóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFOR€APPELLEE€(STATE)óó:ÌÌDALE€M.€QUILLEN€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€RONALD€L.€DAVIS€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏAttorney€at€Law€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€andÌ95€White€Bridge€Rd.€€€€€€€€€€€€€DEREK€K.€SMITHÌSuite€208€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Assistant€Dist.€Attorneys€General€ÏNashville,€TN€37205€€€€€€€€€€€€€P.O.€Box€937Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Franklin,€TN€37065„0937ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€JOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Attorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€CHARLOTTE€H.€RAPPUHN€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Assistant€State€Attorney€GeneralÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Criminal€Justice€DivisionÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€LISA€A.€NAYLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Legal€Assistant€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Office€of€State€Attorney€GeneralÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó.ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÌWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÑ7€ÒXXdÈXXdÈ7Ñà@ àOPINIONÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Bryan€R.€Hanley,€appeals€from€his€August€12,Ï1994,€convictions€by€jury€verdict€of€the€premeditated€firstÏdegree€murder€of€Timothy€Tanner€and€the€Class€D€felony€gradeÏtheft€of€property.€€Hanley€received€a€life€sentence€for€theÏmurder€and€a€concurrent€three€year€sentence,€plus€a€two€thousandÏdollar€fine,€for€the€theft€conviction.ÌÌà àIn€this€direct€appeal,€the€appellant€challenges€the€legalityÏof€the€search€warrant;€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏallowing€the€state€to€introduce€proof€of€prior€consistentÏstatements€of€a€state€witness;€and€contends€that€the€trial€judgeÏcommented€on€the€evidence€and€should€therefore€have€granted€aÏmistrial.€€We€find€no€reversible€error€and€affirm€theÏconvictions.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€has€notÏbeen€challenged,€a€summary€of€the€State's€proof€is€provided€toÏfacilitate€an€understanding€of€the€case€under€review.ÌÌà àTimothy€Tanner,€the€murder€victim,€was€a€young€man€employedÏas€a€driver€by€Sayl„Co,€a€Dickson,€Tennessee€company€whichÏcontracted€with€the€United€States€Postal€Service€to€pick€up€andÏdeliver€mail€on€a€designated€route.€€In€mid„1991,€Tanner's€jobÏwas€to€drive€a€mail€truck€to€half€a€dozen€post€offices€situatedÏfrom€Fairview€to€Linden.€€The€Bon€Aqua€Post€Office,€where€theÏmurder€took€place,€was€one€of€the€stops€on€Tanner's€route.ÌÌà àIn€1982€Timothy€Tanner€married€Beverly€Tanner€andÏsubsequently€the€couple€had€a€little€girl.€€Marital€problemsÏdeveloped€and€€the€Tanners€separated€in€July€of€1990.ÌÌà àDuring€her€separation€from€Tanner,€Beverly€began€dating€theÏappellant,€Bryan€R.€Hanley,€who€was€an€acquaintance€from€work.€ÏMs.€Tanner€filed€for€divorce€in€October€of€1990€and€the€divorceÏwas€granted€in€January€of€1991.ÓÓÌÓÓÓÓÓÓÌà àThroughout€the€separation€and€after€the€divorce,€BeverlyÏTanner€continued€to€see€both€Timothy€Tanner€and€Bryan€Hanley.€ÏEach€man€was€aware€of€the€other's€relationship€with€Beverly.ÌÌà àIt€was€Beverly's€perception€that€when€Tanner€saw€that€sheÍand€Hanley€were€becoming€serious€about€each€other,€andÏparticularly€when€he€realized€she€would€soon€be€eligible€toÏremarry,€he€became€increasingly€interested€in€a€reconciliation.€ÏAt€the€same€time,€Tanner's€daughter€pressured€her€mother€toÏreunite€the€family.€€Ultimately,€Beverly€told€Timothy€Tanner€sheÏwould€give€their€marriage€another€chance€if€he€would€agree€toÏobtain€counseling.€€Tanner€began€counseling€sessions€and€Beverly,Ïin€turn,€terminated€her€relationship€with€Bryan€Hanley.ÌÌà àDuring€this€domestic€transition,€animosity€developed€betweenÏTimothy€Tanner€and€Bryan€Hanley.€€The€level€of€Hanley's€hostilityÏincreased€as€Beverly€and€Tanner€resumed€a€social€relationship€andÏbegan€discussing€remarriage.ÌÌà àOn€at€least€two€occasions€prior€to€Tanner's€death,€he€andÏHanley€had€confrontations€when€Hanley€would€show€up€at€a€postÏoffice€where€Tanner€was€working.€€The€second€encounter€becameÏheated.ÌÌà àIn€April€of€1991,€Hanley€became€convinced€that€Tanner€hadÏtampered€with€his€mail,€delaying€the€receipt€of€funds€againstÏwhich€Hanley€had€already€written€checks.€€Hanley€was€enraged.ÌÌà àIn€May€of€1991,€Bryan€Hanley€reported€to€Beverly€that€he€hadÏseen€the€Tanner€family€at€WalMart,€and€that€Timothy€had€given€himÏa€"shitty"€smile€because€he€[Tanner]€had€won€the€battle€forÍBeverly's€affections.€€On€that€occasion,€Hanley€followed€theÏTanners€home.ÌÌà àIt€was€also€in€May€of€1991€that€Beverly€telephoned€Hanley€inÏan€effort€to€stop€him€from€following€Tanner€on€his€postal€route.€ÏOn€three€occasions,€Hanley€had€pulled€out€of€the€parking€lot€ofÏRubee's€bar,€pulling€behind€Tanner's€mail€truck€and€followingÏhim.€€Around€May€of€1991,€a€friend€of€Hanley's€observed€thatÏHanley€possessed€a€written€chart€of€the€locations€and€arrivalÏtimes€on€Tanner's€route.ÌÌà àIt€was€also€around€May€of€1991,€when€Hanley,€visibly€upset,Ïremarked€to€a€friend€that€he€was€having€problems€in€hisÏrelationship€with€Beverly€because€Timothy€Tanner€was€around€aÏlot.€€Hanley€commented€that€if€he€had€blasting€caps,€he€wouldÏblow€up€Tanner's€vehicle.€€Hanley€also€remarked€to€the€sameÏfriend€that€Timothy€Tanner€must€have€been€running€late€on€hisÏroute€on€a€given€day,€because€"someone€had€missed€him"€by€onlyÏfive€minutes.ÌÌà àFinally,€around€May€of€1991,€Hanley,€upset,€told€a€differentÏfriend€that€he€really€liked€Beverly€Tanner€and€did€not€like€theÏfact€that€Timothy€Tanner€was€interfering€in€their€relationship.€ÏA€week€or€two€before€Tanner€was€killed,€in€speaking€to€this€sameÏfriend,€Hanley€threatened€Tanner.ÌÌà àOnce€or€twice€before€Timothy€Tanner€was€murdered€on€June€4,Ï1991,€Hanley€told€his€half„brother,€John€David€Walker,€thatÏTimothy€Tanner€had€been€giving€him€problems€and€he€guessed€he€wasÏgoing€to€have€to€kill€him.ÌÌà àIt€was€in€the€late€afternoon€of€June€4€that€Hanley€flaggedÏdown€Walker€and€solicited€his€help,€supposedly€to€repair€a€videoÏcassette€recorder€and€a€television€antennae.€€After€fifteenÏminutes€of€repair€work,€the€two€went€to€Rubee's€bar€and€beganÏdrinking€beer.ÌÌà àRather€abruptly,€Hanley€purchased€a€twelve€pack€of€beer€"toÏgo"€and€he€and€Walker€left€Rubee's.€€They€pulled€out€of€the€Ìparking€lot€behind€the€mail€truck€and€Hanley€stated,€"I'm€goingÏto€fuck€him€up."ÌÌà àHanley€followed€Tanner's€mail€truck€to€the€Bon€Aqua€PostÏOffice.€€While€Tanner€pulled€around€back€to€the€loading€dock,ÏHanley€parked€out€front.€€Hanley€got€out€of€his€pickup,€pulled€aÏsawed„off€shotgun€from€behind€the€seat,€tucking€it€down€behindÏhis€leg,€and€walked€around€to€the€rear€of€the€post€office.ÌÌà àA€couple€of€minutes€or€so€later,€Hanley€came€out€from€behindÏthe€post€office€driving€Tanner's€mail€truck.€€Walker€followed€inÏHanley's€pickup€truck.ÌÌà àIt€was€apparent€to€the€investigating€officers€that€TannerÏhad€been€interrupted€as€he€performed€his€normal€job€duties.€€HisÏkeys€were€left€dangling€in€the€back€door€of€the€post€office€whereÏhe€had€activated€the€hydraulic€lift.€€The€rolling€mail€container,Ïstill€loaded,€was€outside€the€partially€open€door,€partway€on€theÏlift.€€When€accosted,€Tanner€had€been€standing€on€the€lift,€aboveÏground€level,€preparing€to€load€the€mail.ÌÌà àBlood€and€tissue€were€left€in€the€dock€area,€on€the€ramp,Ïand€on€and€around€the€hydraulic€lift.€€The€wadding€from€a€shotgunÏshell€was€also€left€on€the€ramp.€€ÌÌà àThe€mail€truck,€driven€by€Hanley,€and€Hanley's€pickup,Ïdriven€by€Walker,€caravaned€from€the€post€office€to€the€BucksnortÏExit€off€Interstate€40.€€Hanley€led€Walker€up€a€dirt€road€leadingÏto€the€old€rock€quarry.€€The€mail€truck€was€pulled€beneath€theÏinterstate€bridge,€with€Timothy€Tanner's€body€in€the€back.ÌÌà àAfter€parking€the€mail€truck,€Hanley€quickly€removed€someÏmailbags€and€transferred€them€and€his€shotgun€to€his€pickup.€ÏHanley€drove€the€pickup€to€a€wooded€area€where€he€and€Walker€Ìhurriedly€covered€the€mailbags€with€leaves€in€an€effort€to€makeÏthe€killing€look€like€the€by„product€of€a€mail€robbery.€€Back€onÏthe€road,€Hanley€instructed€Walker€on€how€to€dismantle€theÏshotgun,€which€was€then€discarded€piecemeal.€€Hanley€subsequentlyÏaltered€the€tires€on€his€pickup€€and€cleaned€his€truck€withÍpressure€hoses.€ÌÌà àHanley€dropped€his€younger€half„brother€off€at€a€friend'sÏhouse€around€7:00€p.m.€that€evening.€€Within€minutes,€Walker€hadÏtold€his€friend€what€Hanley€had€done.€€Meanwhile,€around€7:30Ïp.m.€the€same€day,€the€abandoned€mail€truck€was€noticed,€but€notÏreported.€€ÌÌà àIt€was€just€after€2:00€a.m.€on€June€5€when€Tanner€and€theÏmail€truck€were€reported€as€missing€to€the€local€sheriff.€€LaterÏon€the€morning€of€June€5,€an€employee€of€a€gas€station€„€marketÏoff€the€Bucksnort€Exit€sent€a€customer€to€check€out€the€mailÏtruck,€which€had€been€observed€under€the€interstate€bridge€allÏnight€long.€€Timothy€Tanner's€body€was€found€in€the€back€of€hisÏmail€truck,€and€law€enforcement,€already€searching€for€theÏmissing€man,€was€summoned.ÌÌà àThe€subsequent€autopsy€revealed€that€Tanner€died€from€aÏshotgun€blast€to€his€chest€and€neck.€€The€pellets€travelledÏdiagonally€through€his€body,€back€to€front€and€right€to€left.€ÏThe€path€of€the€pellets€was€also€from€down€to€up.€€Tanner€wasÏshot€in€the€back€as€he€stood€elevated€on€the€lift€preparing€toÏload€the€mail.ÌÌà àWhite€pellets€of€polypropylene,€a€substance€used€in€pelletÏform€as€buffer€material€in€shotgun€shells,€was€found€threeÍplaces:€with€Tanner's€shirt;€in€the€front€passenger€compartmentÏof€the€mail€truck;€and€inside€the€passenger€compartment€ofÏHanley's€pickup€truck.€€A€bloodstain€resembling€blood€spatter€wasÏfound€on€Ìthe€back€window€of€Hanley's€pickup.€€That€blood€was€Type€A,€whichÏmatched€that€of€Tanner.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€appellant's€first€issue€challenging€his€convictions,Ïhe€contends€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€not€suppressing€theÏevidence€obtained€in€the€search€of€his€pick€up€truck€on€theÏground€that€the€affidavit€utilized€to€obtain€the€search€warrantÏdid€not€establish€probable€cause.ÌÌà àAppellant€urges€at€this€level€that€the€search€warrant€shouldÏbe€evaluated€under€applicable€state€law€and€that,€when€soÏevaluated,€it€is€found€to€be€deficient.ÌÌà àWe€hold€that€federal€law€controls€the€assessment€of€theÏadequacy€of€the€affidavit€utilized€in€obtaining€the€searchÏwarrant.€€We€further€find€that€the€affidavit€was€sufficient€toÏestablish€probable€casue.ÌÌà àIt€should€be€noted€that€although€the€appellant€frames€thisÏissue€in€terms€of€error€on€the€part€of€the€trial€judge,€theÏquestion€of€whether€federal€or€state€law€controls,€which€isÏdetermined€by€the€respective€roles€and€activities€of€the€lawÍenforcement€officers,€was€never€raised€at€the€hearing€on€theÏmotion€to€suppress.€€The€issue€raised€at€that€hearing€was€a€veryÏgeneral€attack€on€the€sufficiency€of€the€affidavit€underlying€theÏsearch€warrant.€€Even€if€error€had€occurred,€it€should€not€beÏinferred€that€the€issue€raised€on€appeal€was€presented€to€theÏtrial€judge€and€that€he€made€an€erroneous€decision.€ÌÌà àThe€search€warrant€in€question€was€obtained€by€postalÏinspectors€employed€by€the€United€States€government.€€It€wasÏissued€by€Federal€District€Judge€L.€Clure€Morton.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€those€federal€postal€inspectorsÏwere€mere€agents€of€the€State€law€enforcement€officers€involvedÏin€the€homicide€and€theft€investigation€and€that€state€law,€withÏits€stricter€standard€for€establishing€probable€cause,€applies.€ÏThe€facts€do€not€support€appellant's€contention.ÌÌà àAs€is€apparent€from€the€relatively€detailed€factual€summaryÏcontained€hereinbefore,€the€appellant's€criminal€conduct€violated€Ìthe€laws€of€two€sovereigns,€the€federal€government€and€the€stateÏgovernment.€€The€evidence€reveals€that€the€appellant's€intentionÏwas€to€eliminate€a€romantic€rival.€€The€theft€of€the€mail€truckÏand€its€contents€were€incidental€to€the€homicide,€and€theirÏdisposition€was€to€delay€the€detection€of€the€murder€and€toÏdisguise€the€true€motive€and€identity€of€the€killer.ÌÌà àUnder€this€set€of€facts,€the€federal€and€state€offenses€andÏattendant€investigations€were€obviously€interrelated.€€However,Ïeven€though€the€persons,€activities,€and€physical€evidence€beingÏinvestigated€were€the€same€and€the€state€and€federalÏinvestigations€were€therefore€largely€parallel,€they€were€stillÏindependent€investigations€conducted€on€behalf€of€distinctÏgovernments€involving€violations€of€different€bodies€of€law.ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€mere€fact€that€officers€of€the€federalÏgovernment€obtained€the€physical€evidence€and€delivered€it€to€theÏstate€laboratory€for€analysis,€instead€of€having€time„consumingÏand€expensive€duplicative€scientific€procedures€performed€at€aÏfederal€laboratory€does€not€mean€that€the€federal€investigationÏwas€subsumed€into€the€state€investigation€and€does€not€transformÏthe€postal€inspectors€into€mere€agents€for€the€state€lawÏenforcement€officials.€€Agents€of€the€two€governmental€entitiesÏcan€work€side„by„side€and€even€share€resources€without€forfeitingÏindependent€control€and€accountability.€òòSeeóó,€òòDillon€v.€Stateóó,€844ÏS.W.€2d€139€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Hudsonóó,€849€S.W.€2d€309€(Tenn.Ï1993);€òòState€v.€Cauleyóó,€863€S.W.€2d€411€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àThe€sufficiency€of€the€search€warrant€is€therefore€to€beÏdetermined€by€the€federal€standard,€which€is€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€test€for€probable€cause.€€òòIllinois€v.€Gatesóó,€462ÏU.S.€213,€103€S.Ct.€2317,€76€L.€Ed.€2d€527€(1983).€€In€òòGatesóó,€theÏduties€of€the€issuing€and€the€reviewing€courts€are€explained:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€task€of€the€issuing€magistrate€is€simplyÏto€make€a€practical,€commonsense€decision€Ìà8 àà8 àwhether,€given€all€the€circumstances€setÏforth€in€the€affidavit€before€him,€includingÏthe€"veracity"€and€"basis€of€knowledge"€ofÏpersons€supplying€hearsay€information,€thereÏis€a€fair€probability€that€contraband€orÏevidence€of€a€crime€will€be€found€in€aÏparticular€place.€€And€the€duty€of€aÏreviewing€court€is€simply€to€ensure€that€theÏmagistrate€had€a€'substantial€basis€for€...Ïconclud[ing]'€that€probable€cause€existed.Ï462€U.S.€at€238,€239,€103€S.Ct.€at€2332ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€subject€affidavit€is€detailed€and€in€proper€form.€ItÏcontains€a€thorough€chronological€account€of€events€andÏallegations,€and€an€explanation€of€the€corroboration€of€many€ofÏthose€points.€€The€sources€are€sufficiently€defined.€€In€summary,Ïit€contains€ample€appropriate€information€to€allow€the€issuingÏjudge€to€make€the€necessary€neutral€and€detached€determinationsÏas€to€credibility€and€reliability.€€Probable€cause€is€wellÏestablished.ÌÌà àAppellant's€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€affidavit€isÏtherefore€meritless.ÌÌÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓà àThe€appellant€next€complains€that€it€was€error€for€the€trialÏcourt€to€allow€three€witnesses€for€the€State€to€recount€priorÏconsistent€statement€evidence.€€Over€the€appellant's€objection,Ïthe€State€was€allowed€to€introduce,€through€Michael€Lovell,ÏDeborah€Annette€Walker€and€Ramsey€Mosley,€evidence€that€JohnÍDavid€Walker€made€statements€to€them€which€were€substantiallyÏconsistent€with€his€testimony€at€trial.ÌÌà àAt€the€time€the€corroborative€proof€was€admitted,€Walker€hadÏalready€completed€his€trial€testimony.€€In€his€cross„examinationÏof€Walker,€appellant's€skilled€attorney€vigorously€challenged€theÏtruthfulness€of€Walker's€testimony€on€direct.€€TheÏinconsistencies€between€Walker's€testimony€before€the€federalÏgrand€jury€and€at€trial€were€emphasized.€€One€of€defenseÏcounsel's€tactics€was€to€infer€that€Walker's€account€of€theÏmurder€was€fabricated€to€minimize€his€culpability€and€to€allowÏhim€to€bargain€with€both€the€state€and€federal€authorities€forÏleniency€in€exchange€for€his€testimony€against€Hanley.ÌÌà àIt€is€true€that€it€is€generally€not€permissible€toÏcorroborate€any€witness€with€proof€of€consistent€statements.€ÏHowever,€there€are€exceptions€to€this€general€rule.€€One€of€thoseÏis€where,€as€here,€it€is€contended€that€the€witness'€testimonyÏderives€from€recent€influence€or€is€based€upon€faultyÏrecollection.€€In€such€an€instance,€it€is€permissible€toÏdemonstrate€that€before€the€influence€was€brought€to€bear,€or€atÏa€time€when€the€matter€was€fresher€in€the€witness'€memory,€theÏwitness€had€made€statements€consistent€with€the€ultimateÏtestimony.€€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€867€S.W.€2d€361,€374€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993);€òòState€v.€Bentonóó,€759€S.W.€2d€427,€433,€434€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1988).ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€Walker€had€made€the€challenged€statementsÏbefore€he€was€charged.€€Indeed,€it€was€apparently€the€fact€thatÏtwo€of€the€three€people€he€told€in€turn€reported€his€account€ofÏthe€killing€to€the€sheriff€which€led€to€Walker€being€charged.€ÏWhile€it€has€long€been€acknowledged€that€it€is€sometimesÏdifficult€to€judge€when€a€witness'€motive€to€misrepresent€theÏfacts€arose,€it€is€clear€that€at€the€time€Walker€made€theÏstatements€that€were€consistent€with€his€subsequent€trialÏtestimony,€he€had€no€direct€or€immediate€pressure€to€lie.€€òòSeeóó,ÏòòLegere€v.€Stateóó,€111€Tenn.€368,€374,€77€S.W.€1059€(1903).ÌÌà àUnder€the€circumstances,€we€find€that€the€trial€judge€didÏnot€err€in€allowing€Walker's€prior€consistent€statements€to€beÏadmitted€into€evidence.ÌÌà àIn€conjunction€with€this€issue,€the€appellant€contends€thatÏòòSutton€v.€Stateóó,€291€S.W.€1069,€1070€(Tenn.€1927)€and€òòState€v.ÏJonesóó,€385€S.W.€2d€80,€85€(Tenn.€1964)€stand€for€the€propositionÏthat€the€exception€to€the€rule€against€admissibility€of€priorÏconsistent€statements€cannot€be€invoked€if€the€party€whoseÏwitness'€credibility€requires€shoring€up€has€itself€challengedÏthe€witness'€credibility.€€This€argument€is€based€on€the€languageÏthat€"the€exception€is€applied€when€the€attack€upon€the€testimonyÏof€the€witness€has€been€made€in€the€form€of€cross„examinationÏòòonlyóó."€(emphasis€added).€€Appellant's€construction€of€the€holdingÍis€erroneous.€€€The€relied„upon€language€means€that€there€need€beÏno€impeachment€of€the€witness€above€and€beyond€cross„examinationÏto€trigger€application€of€the€exception.ÌÌà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€appellant€complains€that€the€trialÏjudge€should€have€granted€his€motion€for€mistrial€based€on€whatÏappellant€characterizes€as€the€judge's€erroneous€comment€on€theÏevidence.ÌÌà àAs€mentioned€in€conjunction€with€the€preceding€issue,€afterÏMichael€Lovell€testified€as€to€a€prior€consistent€statement€madeÏto€him€by€John€David€Walker,€and€before€Deborah€Annette€WalkerÏoffered€similar€testimony,€the€trial€court€gave€the€jury€aÏlimiting€instruction€regarding€their€consideration€of€thatÏevidence.€€Specifically,€the€trial€judge€instructed:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àLadies€and€gentlemen,€I'm€going€to€give€you€aÏbrief€lesson€in€the€law€of€evidence,Ïparticularly€hearsay€evidence,€and€I€haveÏreference€to€the€testimony€that€you€heardÏrecently€by€Michael€Lovell€as€to€theÏstatement€that€John€David€Walker€made€to€himÏabout€where€he€had€been€and€who€had€done€whatÏwith€reference€to€a€killing.€€Much€of€what€heÏtold€his€friend,€that€is,€it€was€a€statementÏmade€out€of€court€not€under€oath,€not€subjectÏto€cross€examination,€by€the€witness€whoÏsays,€"Somebody€told€me€something."€€So€youÏcan€consider€that€part€of€Mr.€Lovell'sÏtestimony,€if€you€believe€his€testimony,€onlyÏto€the€extent€that€it€reinforces€theÏcredibility€of€John€David€Walker,€who€theÏproof€showed€had€made€prior€inconsistentÏstatements,€that€is€inconsistent€with€hisÏtestimony€here€today.€€Under€the€law€ofÍevidence,€the€state€in€this€case,€where€theirÏwitness€has€been€impeached€in€that€way,€canÏbring€in€prior€consistent€statements.ÌÌà8 àà8 àBut€it's€for€that€limited€purpose,€testingÏthe€credibility€of€John€David€Walker,Ïparticularly,€and€not€for€establishing€whatÏactually€happened€at€the€scene€of€theÏkilling.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€same€thing,€basically,€will€apply€to€thisÏwitness'€testimony€which€you're€about€toÏhear,€it's€another€statement€by€this€witnessÏthat€tends€to€be€consistent€with€John€DavidÏWalker's€testimony€at€trial.ÌÌÓÓÌà àDefense€counsel€interrupted€with€an€objection€and€the€trialÏjudge€readily€acknowledged€that€he€had€already€realized€he€hadÏmisspoken€by€characterizing€Mrs.€Walker's€anticipated€testimonyÏas€corroboration€of€Mr.€Walker's.€€The€trial€judge€immediatelyÏgave€the€following€remedial€instruction€to€the€jury:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àLadies€and€gentlemen,€as€in€every€case,Ïyou'll€be€instructed€that€the€jury€is€theÏsole€and€exclusive€judge€of€the€credibilityÏof€the€witnesses€and€the€weight€to€be€givenÏto€the€testimony€of€the€various€witnesses,Ïand€a€judge,€in€the€first€place,€has€noÏopinion,€is€not€entitled€to€have€any€opinion,Ïand€he's€forbidden€to€comment€on€theÏevidence,€and€that€means€expressing€to€theÏjury€anything€that€might€indicate€that€theÏjudge€may€think€a€witness€is€truthful€orÏuntruthful€of€may€think€that€their€testimonyÏhas€weight€or€doesn't€have€weight.€€And€IÏhope€I€haven't€said€anything€that€indicatedÏthat€to€you.ÌÌÓÓÓÓà8 àà8 àI€was€more€careful€in€dealing€with€MichaelÏLovell's€testimony€when€I€said€only€if€youÏbelieve€his€testimony€does€it€tend€to€show€aÏprior€consistent€statement.€€But€that's€forÏyou€to€determine€in€his€case,€and€also€inÍthis€lady's€case.€€If€you€believe€herÏtestimony,€then€it€will€have€whatever€weightÏyou€think€it€has€as€constituting€a€priorÏconsistent€statement.ÌÌÓÓÌà àWe€believe€the€trial€judge€properly€handled€the€situation.€ÏIn€conducting€any€jury€trial,€but€especially€a€lengthy€homicideÏtrial,€a€trial€judge€is€constantly€faced€with€unanticipatedÏissues€demanding€immediate€answers€and€action€on€the€part€of€theÏjudge.€€It€is€absolutely€inevitable€that€mistakes€will€be€made,Ïparticularly€where€circumstances€compel€the€trial€judge€toÏextemporaneously€explain€a€complicated€rule€of€evidence€to€theÏjury.€€ÌÌà àThe€important€thing€in€our€analysis€of€whether€the€appellantÏreceived€a€fair€trial€is€whether€the€mistake€was€recognized€andÏcorrected€by€the€trial€court.€€In€this€case,€the€immediateÏcurative€instruction,€which€the€jury€is€presumed€to€haveÏfollowed,€was€adequate€to€counter€any€previous€misstatement€onÏthe€part€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó,€òòMonts€v.€Stateóó,€214€Tenn.€171,Ï379€S.W.€2nd€34,€42€(1964).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òògenerallyóó,€òòFrancis€v.ÏStateóó,€498€S.W.€2d€107,€113,€114€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973);€òòStateÏv.€Hallóó,€667€S.W.€2d€507,€509€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Thus,€noÏerror€occurred.Ìà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant'sÏchallenges€to€his€convictions€are€without€merit.€€ThoseÏconvictions€are€affirmed.€Ìà àÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÓÓóó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóDAVID€GREENE€HAYES,€JUDGEÌ€ÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJERRY€LYNN€SMITH,€JUDGE€€€€Ì€Ìà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ€"ÑÇà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌóóà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLEóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌBRYAN€R.€HANLEY,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€Petitioner/Appellant€€€)€€€€HICKMAN€COUNTYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€C.C.A.€NO:Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€01C01„9508„CC„00266€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€HENRY€DENMARK€BELL€€€€ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€JUDGE€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€Appellee€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€Ìòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó)ÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòJUDGMENTÌÌÌÓÓóóà àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€regularly€heard€and€was€taken€underÏadvisement.€€Ìà àAfter€a€full€consideration€of€all€of€the€issues€the€Court€isÏof€the€opinion€that€the€judgment€against€the€defendant€is€withoutÏreversible€error,€and€said€judgment€is€affirmed.Ìà àCosts€on€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€appellant.ÌÓÓÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Hayes,€J.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Smith,€J.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Russell,€Sp.€J.Ìà@ àÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ  Ñ