ÿWPC" …UBV %˜žnX® 0P 4V j 0”r 0D J w@P 0J 0TÚ 0^. 0hŒ 0rô 0|f 0†â 0h 1uø U,m 0d™ BýU,U6FU*|B)¦DCÏ D3 AME<’ 0@Îv~,vÓª AO}ÆÌ 0D’ D/Ö B<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX3|X]«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ¡¨ (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóHD K£LäeMbNOPEQR STÓ€2 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 d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌAugustÏ22,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔIn€point€of€fact,€this€is€not€what€the€State€said€during€argument.€€The€Stateððs€actualÏargument€included€the€following:€ð ðWhy€are€there€no€words€on€the€buy€tapes?€€I€submit€to€youÏbecause€that€simply€indicates€design.€€And€that€silence€spoke€volumes.€€She€hands€the€man€aÏtwenty„dollar€bill€„„€if€this€is€not€design,€if€this€is€not€a€predisposition,€I€donððt€know€what€is€„„€sheÏhands€him€a€twenty„dollar€bill€and€he€knows€exactly€what€she€wants.€€No€words.€€No€wordsÏnecessary.ðð€€We€caution€the€defendantððs€lawyer€not€to€misquote€the€record.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€%%X„d&ÓÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€wÞXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€'Ԝـ€ÙßL€+,);+'h|` 81 `€€Lß›à àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÏOF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àJUNE€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.Ï01C01„9511„CR„00363ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSUMNERÏCOUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏJANE€W.€WHEATCRAFT,ÌDAVID€HUMPHREYS,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Sale€ofÏcocaine)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òCHERYL€J.€SKIDMOREà àà àà àà àCHARLESÏW.€BURSONÌó ó629€E.€Main€St.à àà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌó óHendersonville,€TN€€€37075ò òÌó ó€€€€à à(On€Appeal)à àà àà àà àà àò òKAREN€M.ÏYACUZZOó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.ÏAttorney€GeneralÌò òJOE€D.€HARSHó óà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€Pkwy.à à€€€123€PublicÏSquareà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€Ï37243„0493ÌGallatin,€TN€€€37066à àà àà àà àÌà à(AtÏTrial)à àà àà àà àà àò òLAWRENCE€RAYÏWHITLEYó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àKATHI€PHILLIPSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à113€E.€Main€St.à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGallatin,€TN€€€37066ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇœ›Ñ Ü ÑÓ  Óà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€selling€cocaine.€€He€was€convicted€by€aÏjury,€and€was€subsequently€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€to€ten€years€inÏthe€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€A€five€thousand€dollar€($5,000)€fine€wasÏalso€assessed.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€now€appeals€as€of€right,€raising€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà àà àÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ Ò1.à àThe€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction;ÌÌ2.à àHe€was€improperly€classified€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender;ÌÌ3.à àThe€State€engaged€in€prosecutorial€misconduct€so€severe€as€toÏentitle€him€to€a€new€trial;ÌÌ4.à àHe€received€ineffective€assistance€at€trial;ÌÌ5.à àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€allowed€into€evidence€an€audio€tapeÏmade€of€the€defendantððs€meeting€with€the€confidential€informant,€and€aÏtranscript€thereof;ÌÌ6.à àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€for€aÏmistrial€following€the€confidential€informantððs€two€statements€that€sheÏhad€purchased€cocaine€from€the€defendant€in€the€past;ÌÌ7.à àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€did€not€permit€the€defendant€to€passÏto€the€jury€copies€of€the€judgment€forms€of€the€confidential€informantððsÏprior€convictions;ÌÌ8.à àThe€trial€court€was€biased€in€favor€of€the€prosecution;ÌÌ9.à àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€his€motion€that€the€StateÏproduce€arrest€histories€and€prior€convictions€of€its€witnesses;ÌÌ10.à àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€commented€about€defense€tacticsÏand€admonished€defense€counsel€for€his€objections;€andÌÌ11.à àHis€constitutional€rights€were€violated€because€the€jury€poolÏcontained€no€blacks€and€the€jury€venire€was€not€from€the€community€inÏwhich€the€offense€occurred.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€below.ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àDetective€Don€Linzy€testified€that€he€had€arranged€with€a€confidentialÏinformant,€Lee€Templeton,€to€purchase€twenty€dollars€($20)€worth€of€cocaine€from€theÏdefendant.€€Incident€to€this€arrangement,€Detective€Linzy€and€Sandra€Vance€met€withÏTempleton€on€July€1,€1993,€at€her€residence.€€Vance€searched€Templeton,€notÏincluding€a€body€cavity€search,€and€wired€her€with€a€transmitting€device€under€herÏclothes.€€Linzy€and€Templeton€then€drove€in€an€unmarked€car€to€the€defendantððsÏhouse;€Detective€Linzy€parked€on€the€street.€€While€they€were€in€the€car,€the€detectiveÏgave€Templeton€a€twenty€dollar€($20)€bill€and€wrote€down€the€serial€number€of€thatÏbill.€€He€watched€Templeton€go€up€to€the€defendantððs€house,€knock€and€then€go€intoÏthe€house.€€After€approximately€thirty€seconds,€Templeton€left€the€house€and€returnedÏto€the€car€where€she€gave€the€detective€a€ð ðsmall€plastic€bag€containing€a€whiteÏpowder.ðð€€This€substance€was€later€determined€to€be€cocaine.€€Linzy€listened€toÏTempletonððs€meeting€with€the€defendant€via€the€transmitter€and€recorded€what€wasÍsaid€onto€an€audio€tape.€€This€audio€tape€was€admitted€into€evidence€and€played€forÏthe€jury.€€A€transcript€of€the€tape,€prepared€by€Detective€Linzy€and€Templeton,€wasÏalso€provided€to€the€jury.€€ÌÌà àà àAfter€the€buy,€Detective€Linzy€obtained€a€search€warrant€for€theÏdefendantððs€residence,€which€was€executed€approximately€six€hours€after€the€drugÏpurchase€occurred.€€During€the€search,€the€police€found€one€thousand€sevenÏhundred€seventy„six€dollars€($1,776)€in€cash€under€some€clothes€in€a€laundry€basketÏin€one€of€the€bedrooms.€€The€cash€consisted€of€ten€and€twenty€dollar€bills,€andÏincluded€the€twenty€dollar€bill€that€Templeton€had€used€to€make€the€cocaineÏpurchase.€€The€police€also€found€in€the€bedroom€some€rolling€papers€and€someÏalum.€€Detective€Linzy€testified€that€alum€is€a€food€preservative€which€could€be€usedÏfor€cutting€cocaine.€€A€Western€Union€money€transfer€receipt€indicating€a€transfer€ofÏone€thousand€two€hundred€dollars€($1,200)€was€also€found.€€The€detective€testifiedÏthat€the€defendant€had€told€him€that€the€receipt€was€for€ð ðmoney€sent€to€his€man€thatÏday.ðð€€The€police€found€no€cocaine€in€the€house.ÌÌà àà àTempleton€testified€that,€after€the€defendant€had€let€her€into€his€house,Ïthey€conversed€for€a€brief€time,€she€showed€him€the€twenty„dollar€bill€and€he€gaveÏher€twenty€dollars€worth€of€cocaine.€€She€testified€that€he€had€taken€the€cocaine€outÍof€a€prescription€bottle€that€contained€little€bags€of€cocaine.€€She€admitted€that€sheÏwas€currently€on€parole€and€community€corrections,€and€that€she€had€prior€felonyÏconvictions€for€forgery,€burglary€and€possession€of€marijuana€while€in€jail.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€put€on€no€proof.Ìà àà àÌ€à àà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence,€we€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecutionÏin€determining€whether€"òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluateÏthe€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏproof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€infer‚encesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€ÌÌà àà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€valueÏto€be€given€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835.€€A€guiltyÏverdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimonyÍof€the€witnesses€for€the€State,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€was€charged€with€the€sale€of€cocaine€in€violation€ofÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„17„417€which€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€that€ð ð[i]t€is€an€offense€for€aÏdefendant€to€knowingly:€.€.€.€Sell€a€controlled€substance[.]ðð€€Cocaine€is€a€controlledÏsubstance.€€T.C.A.€ðð39„17„408(b)(4).€€The€proof€adduced€in€this€case€was€more€thanÏsufficient€to€convict€the€defendant€of€the€crime€charged.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€classifiedÏhim€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender.€€ð ðA€ððmultiple€offenderðð€is€a€defendant€who€hasÏreceived:€(1)€A€minimum€of€two€(2)€but€not€more€than€four€(4)€prior€felony€convictionsÏwithin€the€conviction€class,€a€higher€class,€or€within€the€next€two€(2)€lower€felonyÏclasses[.]ðð€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„106(a)(1).€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€aÏclass€C€felony.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€State€filed€a€ð ðnotice€of€intent€to€seek€enhancedÏpunishmentðð€which€listed€two€prior€convictions:€possession€of€cocaine€for€resale,€andÏreceiving€and€concealing€stolen€property€under€two€hundred€dollars€($200).€€TheseÏare€class€C€and€E€felonies,€respectively.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„118.€€These€convictionsÏwere€also€included€in€the€presentence€report€admitted€into€evidence€at€theÏsentencing€hearing.€€Furthermore,€the€State€requested€to€add€to€the€record€certifiedÍcopies€of€these€convictions,€to€which€the€defendant€did€not€object,€and€the€trial€courtÏgranted€the€Stateððs€request.€€There€was€sufficient€evidence€for€the€trial€court€to€haveÏfound€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€was€a€multiple€offender,€andÏthe€defendant€was€therefore€properly€sentenced€within€Range€II.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„106(c).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€third€issue,€the€defendant€complains€about€prosecutorialÏmisconduct.€€Specifically,€he€complains€that€the€State€did€not€properly€inform€himÏabout€its€agreement€with€Templeton€in€exchange€for€her€testimony;€failed€to€produceÏstatements€by€witness€Sandra€Vance;€limited€his€lawyerððs€contact€with€witnesses;Ïelicited€testimony€from€Templeton€about€her€prior€cocaine€purchases€from€theÏdefendant;€and€made€improper€closing€arguments.€€We€first€note€that€the€defendantððsÏmotion€for€new€trial€does€not€contain€any€allegations€with€respect€to€any€failure€by€theÏState€to€produce€Vanceððs€statements€or€limiting€his€lawyerððs€contact€with€witnessesÏbefore€trial.€€These€allegations€of€error€are€therefore€waived.€€T.R.A.P.€3(e).€€ÌÌà àà àPrior€to€trial,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€ð ðto€require€the€State€to€revealÏagreements€between€the€State€and€prosecution€witness(es).ðð€€The€trial€court€grantedÏthis€motion.€€On€the€day€of€trial,€the€prosecuting€attorney€informed€defense€counselÏthat€the€confidential€informant€had€approached€Detective€Linzy€in€hopes€that€sheÍwould€be€granted€some€ð ðconsiderationðð€on€some€pending€charges€if€she€cooperatedÏin€undercover€work.€€According€to€the€district€attorney,€ð ð[s]he€was€told€she€wouldÏultimately€get€consideration€for€her€cooperation.ðð€€However,€because€the€confidentialÏinformant€was€subsequently€rearrested,€no€consideration€was€ever€given€by€theÏState.€€The€trial€court€established€that€ð ð[n]othing€specific€was€ever€offered€or€givenÏbecause€of€her€new€[arrests.]ðð€€The€defendant€now€complains€that€he€should€haveÏbeen€given€this€information€earlier.€€However,€during€trial,€defense€counsel€ablyÏcross„examined€both€Detective€Linzy€and€Templeton€about€this€issue.€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€we€acknowledge€that€a€criminal€defendant€is€entitled€toÏinformation€that€a€prosecution€witness€has€been€offered€concessions€in€exchange€forÏhis€or€her€testimony,€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94,€101€(Tenn.€1995),Ïthere€is€no€requirement€that€this€information€be€disclosed€at€any€particular€time€priorÏto€trial.€€Moreover,€even€if€the€prosecution€erred€by€not€revealing€this€informationÏearlier,€we€fail€to€see€how€this€ð ðerrorðð€harmed€the€defendant.€€The€relevant€witnessesÏwere€thoroughly€cross„examined€on€this€issue€and€the€jury€clearly€had€sufficientÏevidence€before€it€to€determine€that€Templeton€had€some€personal€interest€inÏparticipating€in€the€buy€and/or€testifying€at€trial.€€Obviously,€it€concluded€that€herÏinterest€did€not€overcome€the€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€guilt.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€State€erred€when€it€elicitedÏtestimony€from€Templeton€about€her€previous€cocaine€purchases€from€the€defendant.€ÏAt€trial,€Templeton€testified€that€she€had€not€asked€the€defendant€for€the€cocaineÏwhile€she€was€in€his€house;€rather,€she€simply€showed€him€the€twenty€dollar€billÏwhile€they€ð ðchitchat[ed].ðð€€The€State€then€asked,€ð ðHow€did€he€know€you€wanted€to€buyÏcocaine€if€you€didnððt€ask?ðð€€Templeton€responded,€ð ðI€had€bought€cocaine€for€about€aÏyear€from€him€before€this.ðð€€The€defendant€fails€to€cite€us€to€any€authority€whichÏindicates€that€this€question€constituted€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€Even€if€it€was€error,Ïthe€trial€court€gave€a€curative€instruction€(see€discussion€below)€which€we€presumeÏthe€jury€followed.€€òòState€v.€Blackmonóó,€701€S.W.2d€228,€233€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€ÏTherefore,€any€error€was€harmless.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€additionally€complains€about€the€Stateððs€closingÏargument.€€Specifically,€he€points€to€the€Stateððs€alleged€remarks€that€ð ðfacts€may€beÏinferred€from€silence,ðð× ƒ. ××  ×€that€the€defendant€ð ðdestroyed€Lee€Templetonððs€life,ðð€and€thatÏthe€defendantððs€child€ð ðwasnððt€screaming€[during€the€search]€because€of€the€actions€ofÍthe€police€officers€[in€conducting€the€search],€he€was€screaming€because€that€manÏ(indicating€appellant)€sold€dope€in€his€house.ðð€€No€objections€were€raised€to€theseÏremarks€at€trial.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€waived.€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,Ï578€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€deniedÏhis€motion€for€mistrial€based€on€Templetonððs€two€statements€that€she€had€previouslyÏpurchased€cocaine€from€the€defendant.€€The€first€such€statement€is€set€forth€above,Ïand€defense€counsel€objected€upon€hearing€it.€€The€trial€court€overruled€thisÏobjection.€€Subsequently,€during€cross„examination,€defense€counsel€inquired€as€toÏTempletonððs€forgery€convictions.€€Specifically,€defense€counsel€asked,€ð ðYou€forgedÏone€of€your€own€motherððs€checks?ðð€€Templeton€responded,€ð ðYes,€for€cocaine€that€IÏbought€from€Mr.€Humphrey.ðð€€Defense€counsel€made€no€motion€to€strike€thisÏresponse.€€However,€at€the€close€of€the€Stateððs€proof,€he€did€ask€for€a€mistrial€on€theÏgrounds€of€this€testimony.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€mistrial,€but€gave€a€curativeÏinstruction€to€the€jury€during€her€charge.€€That€instruction€was:€ÌÓÓà8 àÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒThe€Defendant,€David€Humphreys,€is€only€standing€trial€for€theÏalleged€sale€of€cocaine€as€the€State€asserts€occurred€on€July€theÏ1st,€1993.€Ìà àÌYesterday€during€the€Stateððs€proof€one€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses,ÏMs.€Templeton,€made€a€reference€to€a€prior€bad€act€which€theÏdefendant€may€or€may€not€have€committed.€€Iððm€instructing€you,€asÍmembers€of€the€jury,€that€in€weighing€the€evidence€any€such€factÏabout€Mr.€Humphreys€prior€to€July€1st,€1993€is€irrelevant€andÏshould€not€be€considered€by€you€when€determining€whether€theÏState€can€overcome€the€presumption€of€innocence€and,€in€fact,Ïprove€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ððÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ° ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓà àà àThe€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€a€motion€for€mistrial€will€not€be€reversed€onÏappeal€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€871€S.W.2d€667,€672Ï(Tenn.€1994)€(ð ðthe€determination€of€whether€to€grant€a€mistrial€and€allow€a€retrialÏrests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.ðð)€€Here,€the€trial€court€determinedÏthat€a€mistrial€was€not€necessary€and€that€any€error€could€be€rectified€through€aÏcurative€instruction.€€This€was€not€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€did€notÏallow€the€judgment€forms€relative€to€Templetonððs€prior€convictions€to€be€passed€toÏthe€jury.€€The€defendantððs€lawyer€ably€cross„examined€Templeton€on€her€criminalÏhistory€and€she€freely€admitted€to€all€of€her€prior€convictions.€€The€trial€court€ruled€thatÏpassing€the€judgment€forms€to€the€jury€was€unnecessary€and€might€cause€confusion.€ÏWe€see€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court€in€making€this€ruling.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€trial€court€was€biased€in€favor€ofÏthe€prosecution.€€This€allegation€was€not€raised€in€the€defendantððs€motion€for€newÍtrial€and€is€therefore€waived.€€T.R.A.P.€3(e).€€Moreover,€a€review€of€the€record€revealsÏno€such€bias.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€at€trial.€€Specifically,€he€contends€that€counsel€failed€œto›€investigate€the€œcaseÏadequately,›€opened€the€door€to€irrelevant€but€prejudicial€evidence€during€openingÏstatement,€and€failed€to€interview€witnesses€prior€to€trial.ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€the€petitioner's€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€deter‚mine€whether€the€advice€given€orÏservices€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ToÏprevail€on€a€claim€of€inef‚fective€counsel,€a€petitioner€"must€show€that€counsel'sÏrepresenta‚tion€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reason‚ableness"€and€that€thisÏperformance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonable€probability€thatÏbut€for€coun‚sel's€error€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708ÏS.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).ÌÌà àà àAt€the€hearing€on€the€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€courtÍstated,€ð ðI€thought€[the€defendantððs€trial€counsel]€did€an€excellent€job.€€Frankly,€heÏraised€every€issue€known€to€man.€€If€I€would€rule€against€him,€he€would€raise€it€againÏand€again.€€And€I€really€feel€that,€even€though€it€was€his€first€[jury]€trial,€that€he€workedÏvery€hard€on€the€case.€€I€think€that€he€interviewed€witnesses€beforehand.€€He€wasÏvery€well€prepared,€and€I€really€felt€that€he€had€done€an€excellent€job.€.€.€.€€I€thoughtÏ[the€defendant]€was€very€well€represented.ðð€€The€findings€of€a€trial€judge€on€factualÏissues€have€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€these€findings€will€not€be€set€asideÏunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€615€S.W.2d€161,Ï162€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€The€evidence€does€not€do€so€here.€€Moreover,€evenÏassuming,€òòarguendoóó,€that€the€defendantððs€trial€counselððs€performance€fell€below€theÏstandard€imposed,€the€defendant€has€failed€utterly€to€demonstrate€that€he€wasÏprejudiced€by€his€lawyerððs€performance.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€next€issue,€the€defendant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€rulingÏallowing€into€evidence€the€audio€tape€made€of€Templetonððs€meeting€with€theÏdefendant€during€which€the€cocaine€sale€occurred,€and€the€transcript€thereof.€€TheÏdefendant€merely€concludes€that€this€evidence€was€prejudicial€and€cites€no€specificsÏor€authority.€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€the€probative€value€ofÏevidence€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€183€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1995).€€No€such€abuse€is€present€here.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€next€contention€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÏdenied€his€pretrial€motion€to€require€the€State€to€produce€criminal€histories€on€all€ofÏits€witnesses.€€In€point€of€fact,€the€State€provided€the€defendant€with€the€criminalÏhistory€of€Templeton.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€Stateððs€remaining€witnesses€wereÏð ðpart€of€law€enforcement.ðð€€Accordingly,€the€court€declined€to€order€a€search€be€doneÏon€those€witnesses.€€The€defendant€cites€us€to€no€authority€holding€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€ruling€was€in€error.€€Nor€does€the€defendant€offer€any€argument€about€howÏthis€ruling€prejudiced€him.€€Therefore,€any€alleged€error€was€harmless.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÏð ðcommented€about€defense€tacticsðð€and€ð ðadmonish[ed]ðð€defense€counsel€for€hisÏobjections.€€These€allegations€were€not€raised€in€the€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trialÏand€are€therefore€waived.€€T.R.A.P.€3(e).€€Moreover,€the€record€does€not€support€theÏdefendantððs€allegations€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€these€respects.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€contends€that€his€constitutional€rights€under€theÏSixth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€were€violatedÍbecause€the€jury€pool€contained€no€blacks€and€the€jury€venire€was€not€from€theÏcommunity€in€which€the€offense€occurred.€€The€defendant€cites€to€nothing€in€theÏrecord€that€supports€the€latter€of€these€two€allegations.€€This€issue€is€thereforeÏwaived.€€T.R.A.P.€27(a)(6)€and€(7);€Tenn.Ct.Crim.App.R.€10(b);€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760ÏS.W.2d€228,€231„32€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€As€to€the€former€allegation,€the€trialÏcourt€stated€during€the€hearing€on€the€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial€that€ð ðthere€wasÏno€systematic€exclusion€of€any€juror€who€was€black,€nor€has€there€ever€been€inÏSumner€County.€.€.€œ.[T]here›€are€plenty€of€jury€pools€where€we€have€black€jurors.€€It€justÏso€happened€on€that€particular€panel€we€did€not.ðð€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€our€Supreme€Court€found€thatÌÓÓà àà àÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ 4 ÒIn€order€to€establish,€in€the€context€of€jury€selection,€aÏòòprima€facieóó€case€of€purposeful€discrimination€under€theÏFourteenth€Amendment,€the€Defendant€must€show€thatÏ(1)€he€is€a€member€of€an€excluded,€recognizably€distinctÏclass;€(2)€the€class€to€which€the€Defendant€belongs€hasÏbeen€underrepresented€on€venires€for€a€significantÏperiod€of€time;€and€(3)€the€selection€procedure€isÏsusceptible€to€abuse.€€To€establish€that€the€venireÏviolates€the€Sixth€Amendmentððs€right€to€a€juryÏrepresenting€a€fair€cross„section€of€the€community,€aÏdefendant€must€establish€that€(1)€the€excluded€group€isÏa€ððdistinctive€groupðð€in€the€community;€(2)Ïrepresentation€of€the€group€in€the€jury€pool€is€not€fairÏand€reasonable€in€relation€to€the€number€of€groupÏmembers€in€the€community;€and€(3)Ïunderrepresentation€of€the€group€is€due€to€systematicÏexclusion€in€the€jury€selection€process.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓ838€S.W.2d€185,€193€(Tenn.€1992)€(citations€omitted)Ô% € Ô.€€The€defendant€here,€like€theÏdefendant€in€òòEvansóó,€has€failed€to€establish€a€òòprima€facieóó€case€of€purposefulÏdiscrimination€under€either€the€Fourteenth€or€Sixth€Amendments.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€above,€the€judgment€below€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€Judge€€€