WPC # VU>a % 0UB 4  n U:  w@ 0J& 0Tp 0^ 0h" 0r 0| 0x 0 1uU, 0d/U,U6U.U*# BMB)jDC AMy# D3v~vM 0@  AO` 0Du D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 <( 9Z &Courier RegularX($  7'CXXdXXd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiԡ 3|xX<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@,rAZ"Arial Regular FGHDIJDKDLMNOӀ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(Courier<  9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd-'C << G o !  #d#"  #d#  ` X  $$   YYY FILED$XSeptember5,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  %%%%'dxdPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &!!Xd&#!!Xd#"  ###Xd####Xd#  ` X  ݛ         X \RA'\\RA'\$7 \ XXdXXd7ќL()';+'h|`  `Lߛ8 @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE@   OCTOBER1993SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE,  ) ̀    ) Appellee,  ) No.01C019304CR1282    )    ) DavidsonCountyv.    )    ) Hon.WalterC.Kurtz,Judge    )ALFREDB.ROLLINS,etal., ) (Contempt)̀   ) Defendants,  )    )Inre:JOHNHERBISON,  )    ) Appellant.  )@ CONCURRINGOPINION  Iconcurintheresultreachedinthemajorityopinion.Iwriteseparately,though,toexpressmystrongbeliefthattheappellantsconductinthiscaseisfreeofanyblame,giventhecontextofthequestioninissue.Inthisrespect,whetherIoranyoneelsewouldhavefoundamorecircumspectwaytoprovethepointormakearecordislargelyirrelevant.Likewise,whetheralltheevidenceviewedinhindsightactuallyprovedthepointssoughttobeprovedrelativetotheappellantsquestionislargelyirrelevant. Thedefenseintheunderlyingcasecontendedthatthegamblingpromotionchargesagainstthedefendantsshouldbedismissedbecauseofanunconstitutionallyvindictiveorselectiveprosecution.Thetrialcourtheldapretrial,nonjuryhearingrelativetovariousmotions,includingtheonefordismissal.Insupportofthedefenseclaims,defendantRollinswascalledtotestifyandwasaskedbyhisownattorneyaboutwhathecalledthefemalepoliceofficerinhisdiscussiontothenMayorBoner.Asthemajorityopinionnotes,hedidnotanswerdirectly,butstatedthatitwasvulgarandwasalesbianreference.ItwasonlythenthattheappellantverifiedtheexactwordsusedbyRollinsinhisopprobriousappellation. SignificanttoourinquiryisthatneitherobjectionnorquestionwasraisedregardingthelegitimacyorrelevancyofthislineofinquirywhenRollinscounselaskedhisquestionsregardingthesamesubjectmatter.Moreover,giventheinferencesoughtbydefensecounsel,thatis,membersofthepoliceforcewouldhavereasontohaveanimositytowardRollinsandhisassociates,itcertainlyshouldbeofinteresttothetrialcourtandanyreviewingcourtastowhatwasactuallysaid.Thisisbecausesomenamecallingmaybemoreoffensivetotherecipientthanothers;ironically,apointseeminglymadebythetrialcourtsreactioninthiscase. Inanyevent,therecordplainlyshowsthattheappellantsquestion,containingthewordsofthewitnessthattheappellantsoughttoprove,wasaskedingoodfaithasonerelevanttotheissuesunderinquiry.Thefactthatthelanguagewasvulgarandcoarseisofnoconsequencewhenitiscontainedinthestatementofawitnessthatisrelevanttoanissueattrial.Iseeneithermisbehavior,illmotive,norimproperwillfulnessintheappellantsconduct.Rather,Isee,astheappellantstated,anattempt tohaveafullpictureofwhat,infact,wenton.Inthisvein,whenthefactsϜhappentobevulgar,thetrialcourtshouldnotquestionzealouscounselsgoodfaithattempttoinsurethattherealfactsareplacedintotherecord.      ______________________________      JosephM.Tipton,Judge@