ÿWPC@. —˜ÝÞ¬qD²;š–?C¿R°1Æ1-ߪ=•nÅ¢VýûùY²67’ÁTQh©†zzVQhÜ+Ç…™Ä&ËÖmé@T@Oõ‰eòZZQ|?”z‚Ḫ̌]ñ複ÃJ)³67Ü¥?âŽ8÷ÌIjl, ©Iúe ¡[E.!0;â£ê0èý7'ì̘h^Q$­F_¨YçÒk¨ðâ­¥Ww˜–œwDÁʰ0µo P'.µšæB¬vR¼#¯Æ¢:hw«õ>;‡Ä[—·²ŽRͰÛcnz^L וFzU"-4Ô¡*N0 ù5]?¢÷ØëiÉʼnŒø¼6¢rÚ¤ð£ˆI6°’Ó†ù1ÛÅ )Ó “ZÏ"ŸøÄM±1‘;Alêï®Ä*4Ì ÅM`ujµD™¬ÚæÑçòÇy¿7—ÍOñŽ•ÙôbmÔkîðþêö`[‹ ]Ér…‡ÍSˆåWm "Ž]tÑ»eHßD¨ ï„×Ð;ÈÝ® ÒLØ™< -ü¶\ÕÉ·Í×õ0öŽCGÀ¦¨{ @ë±$`ì˜íd3íh?Èâ?ˆHîHÃaÃðuÔ屈_¨,·,9Ôê;¦áüW[zD¥¿Ø«‹w""O…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ LÍ U: bS w@[ 4› ¯ 0 ƾ 0D„ ðÈ ð¸‘¨ç9ò øU : U:D~‘†U:çQU:8 òr U:d!ž!U:¶$ðð$ Bà&U:ý&‘7'U:È*è+U:ê+ê+ê+ê+ê+ê+ D3$,$,$, 0DW,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W, AO›,Æê,ê, 0D°- D/ô- B#.˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- HUIJUKeLr‚M eN+O+PQÓ€uM%3|xZ(v(2. $¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X{œXXXÔÔ€ôDŽôXX{œÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó æÝ ƒ C1$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X‹ÙXXXÔÔ€ôôÙôXX‹ÙÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€may€be€a€tape€recording.€€òòMitchell€v.€Archibaldóó,€971€S.W.2d€25,€28€n.4€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð `  ÐApp.€1998).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Sollarsóó,€979€F.2d€1294,€1298€(8th€Cir.€1992);€€2€òòMcCormick€onÐ  ¾ ÐEvidenceóó€ðð€281€(John€W.€Strong€4th€ed.€1992).Ð Ü | ÐÌ€ æÝ ƒ C1$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X‹ÙXXXÔÔ€ôôÙôXX‹ÙÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€may€be€a€tape€recording.€€òòMitchell€v.€Archibaldóó,€971€S.W.2d€25,€28€n.4€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð `  ÐApp.€1998).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Sollarsóó,€979€F.2d€1294,€1298€(8th€Cir.€1992);€€2€òòMcCormick€onÐ  ¾ ÐEvidenceóó€ðð€281€(John€W.€Strong€4th€ed.€1992).Ð Ü | ÐÌ€ ‡Ý ƒ C1$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X‹ÙXXXÔÔ€ôôÙôXX‹ÙÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€argues€that€even€if€the€statement€was€admissible€under€Rule€803(5),€the€properÐ `  Ðprocedure€would€have€been€to€read€a€transcript€of€the€tape€to€the€jury€rather€than€playing€the€tape€itself.€€ItÏis€true€that€Rule€803(5)€does€not€expressly€provide€for€the€playing€of€audio€or€videotapes.€€However,€weÏconclude€that€if€the€record€is€an€audio€or€video€recording,€there€is€no€reason€why€the€tape€should€not€beÏplayed€to€the€jury€during€trial€and€transcribed€in€the€record€at€that€time.€€Indeed,€the€Tennessee€Court€ofÏAppeals€has€upheld€the€playing€of€an€audiotape€to€the€jury€because€the€tape€qualified€as€a€recordedÏrecollection€under€Rule€803(5).€€òòSeeóó€òòMitchellóó,€971€S.W.2d€at€28ð!ð29.Ð Ô t ÐÌ€€ ÝÝ ƒ C1$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X‹ÙXXXÔÔ€ôôÙôXX‹ÙÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€addition,€the€trial€court€did€not€make€an€express€determination€that€there€was€clear€andÐ `  Ðconvincing€evidence€that€Appellant€had€committed€the€prior€crimes.€€However,€it€appears€that€this€wasÏnever€really€an€issue€as€Appellant€never€challenged€the€allegation€that€he€had€committed€the€prior€crimes. èÝ ƒ C1$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X‹ÙXXXÔÔ€ôôÙôXX‹ÙÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€does€not€challenge€his€sentence€for€the€paraphernalia€conviction. îÝ ƒ C1$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X‹ÙXXXÔÔ€ôôÙôXX‹ÙÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Stateððs€only€evidence€about€the€deterrent€effect€of€Appellantððs€sentence€was€a€conclusoryÐ `  Ðstatement€by€Chief€Ethridge€that€McEwen€had€a€serious€drug€problem€and€that€more€drug€cases€fromÏMcEwen€were€presented€to€a€grand€jury€than€from€any€other€part€of€Humphreys€County.€€Chief€EthridgeÏadmitted,€however,€that€the€drug€problem€in€McEwen€was€no€more€serious€than€it€was€in€many€other€partsÏof€Tennessee€and€the€Unites€States€as€a€whole.€€Chief€Ethridge€also€admitted€that€he€was€not€familiar€withÏthe€extent€of€the€drug€problem€in€other€parts€of€Humphreys€County.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ‡Ý ƒ C1$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X‹ÙXXXÔÔ€ôôÙôXX‹ÙÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€argues€that€even€if€the€statement€was€admissible€under€Rule€803(5),€the€properÐ `  Ðprocedure€would€have€been€to€read€a€transcript€of€the€tape€to€the€jury€rather€than€playing€the€tape€itself.€€ItÏis€true€that€Rule€803(5)€does€not€expressly€provide€for€the€playing€of€audio€or€videotapes.€€However,€weÏconclude€that€if€the€record€is€an€audio€or€video€recording,€there€is€no€reason€why€the€tape€should€not€beÏplayed€to€the€jury€during€trial€and€transcribed€in€the€record€at€that€time.€€Indeed,€the€Tennessee€Court€ofÏAppeals€has€upheld€the€playing€of€an€audiotape€to€the€jury€because€the€tape€qualified€as€a€recordedÏrecollection€under€Rule€803(5).€€òòSeeóó€òòMitchellóó,€971€S.W.2d€at€28ð!ð29.Ð Ô t ÐÌ€€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÝÝ ƒ C1$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X‹ÙXXXÔÔ€ôôÙôXX‹ÙÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€addition,€the€trial€court€did€not€make€an€express€determination€that€there€was€clear€andÐ `  Ðconvincing€evidence€that€Appellant€had€committed€the€prior€crimes.€€However,€it€appears€that€this€wasÏnever€really€an€issue€as€Appellant€never€challenged€the€allegation€that€he€had€committed€the€prior€crimes.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular èÝ ƒ C1$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X‹ÙXXXÔÔ€ôôÙôXX‹ÙÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€does€not€challenge€his€sentence€for€the€paraphernalia€conviction.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ C1$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X‹ÙXXXÔÔ€ôôÙôXX‹ÙÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Stateððs€only€evidence€about€the€deterrent€effect€of€Appellantððs€sentence€was€a€conclusoryÐ `  Ðstatement€by€Chief€Ethridge€that€McEwen€had€a€serious€drug€problem€and€that€more€drug€cases€fromÏMcEwen€were€presented€to€a€grand€jury€than€from€any€other€part€of€Humphreys€County.€ò òó ó€Chief€EthridgeÐ Ü | Ðadmitted,€however,€that€the€drug€problem€in€McEwen€was€no€more€serious€than€it€was€in€many€other€partsÏof€Tennessee€and€the€Unites€States€as€a€whole.€€Chief€Ethridge€also€admitted€that€he€was€not€familiar€withÏthe€extent€of€the€drug€problem€in€other€parts€of€Humphreys€County.ò òó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular æÝ ƒ C1$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ X‹ÙXXXÔÔ€ ôôÙôXX‹ÙÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€may€be€a€tape€recording.€€òòMitchell€v.€Archibaldóó,€971€S.W.2d€25,€28€n.4€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð `  ÐApp.€1998).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Sollarsóó,€979€F.2d€1294,€1298€(8th€Cir.€1992);€€2€òòMcCormick€onÐ  ¾ ÐEvidenceóó€ðð€281€(John€W.€Strong€4th€ed.€1992).Ð Ü | ÐÌ€ d,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ‡Ý ƒ C1$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€"X‹ÙXXXÔÔ€"ôôÙôXX‹ÙÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€argues€that€even€if€the€statement€was€admissible€under€Rule€803(5),€the€properÐ `  Ðprocedure€would€have€been€to€read€a€transcript€of€the€tape€to€the€jury€rather€than€playing€the€tape€itself.€€ItÏis€true€that€Rule€803(5)€does€not€expressly€provide€for€the€playing€of€audio€or€videotapes.€€However,€weÏconclude€that€if€the€record€is€an€audio€or€video€recording,€there€is€no€reason€why€the€tape€should€not€beÏplayed€to€the€jury€during€trial€and€transcribed€in€the€record€at€that€time.€€Indeed,€the€Tennessee€Court€ofÏAppeals€has€upheld€the€playing€of€an€audiotape€to€the€jury€because€the€tape€qualified€as€a€recordedÏrecollection€under€Rule€803(5).€€òòSeeóó€òòMitchellóó,€971€S.W.2d€at€28ð!ð29.Ð Ô t ÐÌ€€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÞÔ€$X{œXXXÔÔ€$Œ X$X{œÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€$X{œX $ŒÔÐ  ÐÌFebruary€8,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñMñ›ñMññMññKñ›ñKññMñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Šâ›ŠXXÔÔ€Š€UŠŠŠâ›ÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¶:XXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñQñœßr€#*<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rß›ñQñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌNOVEMBER€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9711„CC„00507Ð ` 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  àHUMPHREYS€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€ALLEN€W.€WALLACEó óÐ Xø  Ðò òDARYL€HOOPER,ó óà 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€„€Possession€of€à (# àÐ Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àMarijuana€for€Resale)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌMICHAEL€J.€FLANAGANà À àà  àœñPñJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPñPññPñ›PAUL€G.€SUMMERSñPñ›Ð (!È ÐDALE€M.€QUILLENà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  "À Ð95€White€Bridge€Rd.€#208ÌNashville,€TN€€37205à h àà À àà  àTIMOTHY€BEHANÐ $° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAN€ALSOBROOKSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGEORGE€T.€SEXTONÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHumphreys€County€CourthouseÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWaverly,€TN€€37085ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  x6-. ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„ƒ›„ŠŠ€UÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†Š€UŠ„„ƒ›3 #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌà ` àOn€June€4,€1997,€a€Humphreys€County€jury€convicted€Appellant€DarylÏHooper€of€possession€of€more€than€ten€pounds€of€marijuana€for€resale€andÏpossession€of€drug€paraphernalia.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing€on€July€22,€1997,Ïthe€trial€court€imposed€concurrent€sentences€of€four€years€for€the€marijuanaÏconviction€and€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€for€the€paraphernaliaÏconviction.€€Appellant€challenges€both€his€convictions€and€his€sentences,€raisingÏthe€following€issues:Ìà0 ` à1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€allowed€the€jury€to€hear€anÏaudiotape€of€a€prior€statement€of€a€witness;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€sentenced€Appellant.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ÑÑ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ ì$Œ ÐÌà ` àOn€May€29,€1996,€Officer€Joe€Taylor€of€the€Conway,€Arkansas€PoliceÏDepartment€made€a€traffic€stop€of€a€vehicle€driven€by€Charles€Carr.€€AfterÏobtaining€consent€from€Carr€and€his€passenger,€Kenneth€McKee,€Officer€TaylorÏconducted€a€search€of€the€vehicle.€€During€the€search,€Officer€Taylor€discoveredÏtwenty„three€packages€containing€21.47€pounds€of€marijuana.€€After€aÏconversation€with€McKee,€Officer€Taylor€contacted€Police€Chief€John€Ethridge€ofÏthe€McEwen,€Tennessee€Police€Department€about€making€a€controlled€deliveryÏof€the€marijuana€in€Tennessee.€€ÌÐ \8ü.0 Ðà ` àAfter€obtaining€the€marijuana,€Officer€Billy€Hudspeth€of€the€Twenty„thirdÏJudicial€District€Drug€Task€Force€accompanied€McKee€to€Appellantððs€residenceÏin€McEwen.€€When€Hudspeth€and€McKee€arrived€at€Appellantððs€residence,ÏAppellant€came€to€the€door€and€McKee€stated€that€he€had€the€package€fromÏAlbuquerque.€€€Hudspeth€and€McKee€left€the€marijuana€with€Appellant€and€thenÏdrove€away.€ÌÌà ` àA€short€time€later,€Officer€Hudspeth€and€several€other€police€officersÏreturned€to€Appellantððs€residence€and€found€that€Appellant€was€not€in€his€house.€ÏAfter€a€brief€search€of€the€surrounding€property,€the€officers€found€AppellantÏhiding€in€some€weeds€about€100€yards€from€his€house.€€After€Appellant€was€takenÏinto€custody,€he€told€the€officers€where€the€marijuana€was€located.€€The€officersÏsubsequently€found€all€of€the€marijuana€along€with€a€small€smoking€pipe.€€ÌÌà ` àMcKee€testified€during€a€jury€out€hearing€at€trial€that€he€suffered€from€shortÏand€long€term€memory€loss€and€he€could€not€recognize€Appellant€as€someoneÏhe€knew.€€McKee€stated€that€he€remembered€talking€to€Officer€Hudspeth,€but€heÏdid€not€remember€whether€those€conversations€were€tape€recorded.€€McKee€alsoÏstated€that€he€remembered€telling€Officer€Hudspeth€that€he€had€transported€theÏmarijuana€from€New€Mexico€to€Tennessee,€but€he€could€not€remember€where€heÏactually€delivered€the€marijuana.€€The€State€then€played€a€tape€recording€of€aÏconversation€between€McKee€and€Officer€Hudspeth€about€several€drugÏtransactions€McKee€had€with€Appellant.€After€listening€to€the€tape,€McKee€statedÏthat€he€remembered€having€the€conversation€with€Officer€Hudspeth,€but€he€didÏnot€remember€any€of€the€events€discussed€during€the€conversation.€ÌÐ Ð9p02 Ðà ` àMcKee€then€testified,€in€the€presence€of€the€jury,€that€he€suffered€fromÏmemory€loss€and€confusion€and€that€he€remembered€talking€to€Officer€Hudspeth,Ïbut€he€had€no€present€memory€of€the€matters€discussed€in€the€conversation.€€TheÏtrial€court€then€allowed€the€State€to€play€the€tape€in€the€presence€of€the€jury.€ÌÌà ` àOn€the€tape,€McKee€stated€that€he€first€came€into€contact€with€AppellantÏwhen€he€saw€Appellant€smoking€marijuana€and€he€asked€Appellant€how€he€couldÏobtain€some€marijuana€for€himself.€€Over€the€next€few€months,€McKee€purchasedÏmarijuana€from€Appellant€on€four€or€five€occasions.€€McKee€stated€that€he€hadÏagreed€to€transport€marijuana€for€Appellant€in€order€to€pay€off€a€debt€that€heÏowed€to€Appellant.€€McKee€then€traveled€to€Albuquerque€and€checked€into€aÏmotel€selected€by€Appellant.€€At€some€point,€a€Mexican€man€came€to€the€motelÏand€asked€for€the€keys€to€McKeeððs€vehicle.€€A€few€hours€later,€the€man€returnedÏand€told€McKee€that€the€vehicle€was€ready€to€go.€€McKee€also€stated€that€he€hadÏtransported€another€load€of€marijuana€for€Appellant€by€following€this€same€basicÏprocedure.€ÌÌà@ýý ®àò òII.€€PLAYING€OF€THE€AUDIOTAPEó óˆÐ P*ð " ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€allowed€the€jury€toÏlisten€to€the€audiotape€of€the€conversation€between€McKee€and€Officer€Hudspeth.€ÏSpecifically,€Appellant€claims€that€the€tape€was€inadmissible€under€both€RuleÏ803(5)€and€Rule€404(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€and€becauseÏplaying€the€tape€to€the€jury€deprived€him€of€his€constitutional€right€toÏconfrontation.ÌÐ à9€02 Ðà@ÉÉ'®àò òA.€€Rule€803(5)ó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€audiotape€was€not€admissible€under€RuleÏ803(5)€because€the€requirements€of€the€rule€were€not€satisfied.€€Under€RuleÏ803(5),ÌÓÓà0 ` àA€memorandum€or€record€concerning€a€matter€about€which€a€witness€onceÏhad€knowledge€but€now€has€insufficient€recollection€to€enable€the€witnessÏto€testify€fully€and€accurately,€shown€to€have€been€made€or€adopted€by€theÏwitness€when€the€matter€was€fresh€in€the€witnessððs€memory€and€to€reflectÏthat€knowledge€correctly.€€If€admitted,€the€memorandum€or€record€may€beÏread€into€evidence€but€may€not€itself€be€received€as€an€exhibit€unlessÏoffered€by€an€adverse€party.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓÞ ÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€803(5).€€Unlike€writings€used€to€refresh€a€witnessððs€presentÏrecollection€under€Rule€612€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€recordedÏrecollections€admitted€in€accordance€with€Rule€803(5)€are€themselvesÏsubstantive€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòLeach€v.€Stateóó,€220€Tenn.€526,€420€S.W.2d€641,€642Ð ° P Ð(1967).ÌÌà ` àTo€utilize€Rule€803(5)ððs€recorded€recollection€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule,Ïa€party€must€(1)€provide€a€memorandum€or€record;ñKññNñ׃×ñNññNñ׃×ñNññKññKñ׃ ×ñKñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€(2)€about€a€matter€that€theÐ p(  Ðwitness€once€had€knowledge€of;€€(3)€establish€that€the€witness€now€hasÏinsufficient€recollection€to€testify€fully€and€accurately;€€(4)€that€the€statement€wasÏmade€or€adopted€by€the€witness;€€(5)€while€fresh€in€the€witnessððs€memory,€and;€Ï(6)€that€the€record€accurately€reflects€the€witnessððs€knowledge.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð 00Ð&( ÐñMññLñœñLññMñMathisóó,€969€S.W.2d€418,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòNeil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,Ð  2À(* ÐTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€803(5).2,€at€557ð!ð58€(3d€ed.€1995).Ð 4°*, Їà ` àThe€audiotape€of€McKeeððs€statement€meets€Rule€803(5)ððs€requirements€asÏa€past€recollection€recorded.€€First,€the€record€was€in€the€form€of€an€audioÏrecording.€€Second,€McKee€had€first€hand€knowledge€of€activities€he€discussedÏin€the€tape€recorded€conversation€because€he€participated€in€them.€€Third,€McKeeÏstated€that€he€remembered€having€the€conversation€with€Hudspeth,€but€he€did€notÏremember€any€of€the€events€discussed€during€the€conversation.€€Fourth,€McKeeÏtestified€that€the€voice€on€the€tape€was€his.€€Fifth,€the€detailed€nature€of€theÏstatement€indicates€that€it€was€made€at€a€time€when€the€matter€was€still€fresh€inÏMcKeeððs€memory.€€Finally,€McKee€testified€that€he€told€the€truth€when€he€madeÏthe€statement.€€Thus,€playing€the€tape€in€the€presence€of€the€jury€was€properÏunder€Rule€803(5).ñMññOñ׃×ñOññOñ׃!×ñOññMññMñ׃×ñMñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РÀ` ÐÌà@ÀÀ'®àò òB.€€Rule€404(b)ó óˆÐ   @ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€audiotape€was€not€admissible€under€RuleÏ404(b)€because€it€contained€reference€to€other€crimes€committed€by€Appellant.€ÏRule€404(b)€statesÌÓÓà0 ` àEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€theÏcharacter€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€theÏcharacter€trait.€€It€may,€however,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.€€TheÏconditions€which€must€be€satisfied€before€allowing€such€evidence€are:ñFñÐ ` T$` T$ ÐñFñÌÓÁ,ÓÓÓà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€juryððsÏâ âpresence;Ð00Ð&(¸ T$¸ T$ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à(2)€The€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€other€thanÏâ âconduct€conforming€with€a€character€trait€and€must€upon€requestÏstate€on€the€record€the€material€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€forÏadmitting€the€evidence;€€andÐ ¸ T$¸ T$ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à(3)€The€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€isÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.Ð ¸ T$¸ T$ ÐÌÓ4.ÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€A€fourth€prerequisite€to€admission€is€that€the€court€find€byÏclear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€defendant€committed€the€prior€crime.€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€404€(Advisory€Commission€Comments);€òòState€v.€DuBoseóó,€953Ð ¨  ÐS.W.2d€649,€654€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299,€303€(Tenn.Ð ø˜  Ð1985).€€When€a€trial€court€substantially€complies€with€the€procedural€requirementsÏof€the€rule,€its€determination€will€not€be€overturned€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€ÏòòDuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€652.€€Where€a€court€fails€to€substantially€comply€withÐ Èh Ðthese€requirements,€the€courtððs€decision€is€afforded€no€deference.€€òòId.ó󀀀Р¸X ÐÌà ` à€The€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€addressed€the€admissibility€of€theÏaudiotape€during€a€jury€out€hearing.€€However,€the€trial€court€did€not€make€anÏexpress€determination€that€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€did€not€outweigh€theÏprobative€value€of€the€evidence.ñMñ׃×ñMññMñ׃×ñMñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Thus,€our€review€is€de€novo€without€anyÐ h' Ðdeference€to€the€trial€courtððs€decision.ÌÌà ` àDespite€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€comply€with€the€procedural€requirementsÏof€the€rule,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€was€correct€when€it€ruled€that€theÏaudiotape€was€admissible€under€Rule€404(b).€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€theÏevidence€about€Appellantððs€prior€drug€transactions€was€admissible€because€itÏwas€relevant€to€establishing€Appellantððs€intent€to€possess€the€marijuana€forÐ ø4˜+- Ðresale.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€stated€that€evidence€of€other€crimesÏis€admissible€when€offered€to€prove€intent.€€òòPartonóó,€694€S.W.2d€at€303.€€InÐ P ð Ðaddition,€this€Court€has€held€that€a€pattern€of€prior€drug€sales€is€probative€of€aÏdefendantððs€knowledge€and€intent€to€possess€drugs€for€resale.€€òòState€v.€JohnnyÐ 0Ð ÐWayne€Tilleryóó,€No.€01C01„9506„CC„00182,€1998€WL€148326,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð  À ÐApp.,€Nashville,€March€30,€1998).€€Indeed,€evidence€that€Appellant€had€soldÏdrugs€before€and€had€established€a€set€method€of€obtaining€drugs€indicates€thatÏhe€took€possession€of€the€marijuana€in€this€case€with€the€intent€of€reselling€it,Ïwhich€is€an€element€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(a)(4)Ð à€ Ð(Supp.€1998).€€The€highly€probative€value€of€this€evidence€was€not€outweighedÏby€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Thus,€the€audiotape€was€admissible€under€RuleÏ404(b).ÌñGñÌÌÌÌñGññHñÌñHñà@††!®àò òC.€€Right€of€Confrontationó óˆÐ "0 ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€playing€the€audiotape€in€the€presence€of€the€juryÏdeprived€him€of€his€right€of€confrontation€under€the€Sixth€and€FourteenthÏAmendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€€I,€Section€9€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€The€right€of€confrontation€provides€two€types€ofÏprotection€for€criminal€defendants:€€the€right€to€physically€face€the€witnesses€whoÏtestify€against€the€defendant,€and€the€right€to€cross-examine€witnesses.ÏòòPennsylvania€v.€Ritchieóó,€480€U.S.€39,€51,€107€S.€Ct.€989,€998,€94€L.€Ed.€2d€40,Ð  2À(* Ð53€(1987);€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€332€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€thisÐ 4°*, Ðcase,€Appellant€was€able€to€both€physically€face€McKee€and€was€able€to€cross„¼examine€him.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€Appellantððs€right€of€confrontationÏwas€not€violated€by€playing€the€audiotape€in€the€presence€of€the€jury.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,Ð à9€02 ÐòòHatch€v.€Oklahomaóó,€58€F.3d€1447,€1467€(10th€Cir.€1995)€(holding€that€admissionÐ `  Ðof€recorded€recollection€under€Federal€Rule€of€Evidence€803(5)€does€not€violateÏthe€right€of€confrontation);€òòUnited€States€v.€Sawyeróó,€607€F.2d€1190,€1194€(7th€Cir.Ð @ à Ð1979)€(holding€that€admission€of€evidence€under€Federal€Rule€of€Evidence€803(5)Ïdoes€not€violate€right€of€confrontation€when€witness€is€available€for€cross„¼examination).€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@66&®àò òIII.€€SENTENCINGó óˆÐ ð  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€imposed€a€four€yearÏsentence€for€the€marijuana€conviction.ñMñ׃×ñMññMñ׃×ñMñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Specifically,€Appellant€claims€that€the€trialÐ Ðp Ðcourt€erroneously€imposed€a€longer€sentence€than€he€deserved€and€improperlyÏdenied€alternative€sentencing.ÌÌà ` àð ðWhen€reviewing€sentencing€issues€.€.€.€including€the€granting€or€denial€ofÏprobation€and€the€length€of€sentence,€the€appellate€court€shall€conduct€a€de€novoÏreview€on€the€record€of€such€issues.€€Such€review€shall€be€conducted€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€isÏtaken€are€correct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€ð ðHowever,€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trial€courtððs€action€isÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€conducting€our€review,€weÐ 4°*, Ðmust€consider€all€the€evidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,Ïthe€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€arguments€of€counsel,€the€appellantððsÐ ð7.0 Ðstatements,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,€and€the€appellantððs€potentialÏfor€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-103(5),€-210(b)€(1997€&€Supp.Ï1998);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€ð ðThe€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÐ @ à Ðdemonstrating€that€the€sentence€is€improper.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Because€the€record€in€thisÐ 0Ð Ðcase€indicates€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€properly€consider€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances,€our€review€is€de€novo€withoutÏa€presumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà@#®àò òA.€€Length€of€Sentenceó óˆÐ à€ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€claims€that€the€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€a€longer€term€ofÏimprisonment€than€he€deserves.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àIn€imposing€a€four€year€sentence€for€the€Class€D€felony€marijuanaÏpossession€conviction,€the€trial€court€failed€to€state€whether€it€had€considered€anyÏof€the€mitigating€factors€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„113.€€In€ourÏde€novo€review,€we€conclude€that€mitigating€factor€(1)€applied€becauseÏAppellantððs€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóóÐ `*!" ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1)€(1997).€€However,€we€conclude€that€this€factorÏis€entitled€to€only€minimal€weight.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hoyt€Edward€Carrollóó,€No.€03C01„Ð @.à$& Ð9607„CC„00254,€1997€WL€457490€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim€App.,€Knoxville,€Aug.€12,Ï1997)€(holding€that€in€cases€involving€drugs,€mitigating€factor€(1)€is€entitled€to€littleÏweight).ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€enhancement€factor€(2)€applied€becauseÏAppellant€was€a€leader€in€an€offense€involving€two€or€more€criminal€actors.€€òòSeeóóÐ à9€02 ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(2)€(1997).€€Appellant€does€not€challenge€theÏapplication€of€this€factor€and€we€conclude€that€it€was€correctly€applied.ÌÌà ` àIn€our€de€novo€review,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€should€have€appliedÏenhancement€factor€(1)€because€Appellant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏbehavior.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€(1997).€€Indeed,€the€recordÐ °  Ðindicates€that€McKee€had€purchased€marijuana€from€Appellant€on€four€occasionsÏand€had€transported€marijuana€for€Appellant€on€one€occasion€in€addition€to€theÏincident€at€issue€here.€€While€it€is€true€that€Appellant€was€not€convicted€of€theseÏprior€offenses,€section€40„35„114(1)€does€not€limit€consideration€to€convictionsÏonly.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Anthony€Joel€Allen,€Jr.óó,€No.€01C01„9612„CC„00514,€1998€WLÐ À` Ð235963,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€7,€1998).ÌÌà ` àIn€short,€two€enhancement€factors€and€only€one€mitigating€factor€apply€toÏthe€marijuana€conviction€and€the€mitigating€factor€is€entitled€to€little€weight.€€Thus,Ïwe€hold€that€a€sentence€of€four€years€is€appropriate€in€this€case.ÌÌà@yy!®àò òB.€€Alternative€Sentencingó óˆÐ P*ð " ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€granting€his€request€forÏalternative€sentencing.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àThe€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€recognizes€thatÏthe€capacity€of€state€prisons€is€limited€and€mandates€that€ð ðconvicted€felonsÏcommitting€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminal€histories€evincing€aÏclear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€pastÐ à9€02 Ðefforts€of€rehabilitation€shall€be€given€first€priority€regarding€sentencing€involvingÏincarceration.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-102(5)€(1997).€€A€defendant€who€doesÏnot€qualify€as€such€and€who€is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€of€aÏClass€C,€D,€or€E€felony€is€ð ðpresumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€sentencingÏoptions€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40-35-102(6)€(1997);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€This€simply€means€that€the€trialÐ °  Ðjudge€must€presume€such€a€defendant€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€sentencingÏwhich€does€not€involve€incarceration.€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€379ð!ð80Ð ð  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€However,€this€presumption€is€rebuttable€andÏincarceration€may€be€ordered€if€the€court€is€presented€with€evidence€of€theÏfollowing:ÌñIñÓÓñIñà0 ` à(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendantÏwho€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÏoffense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effectiveÏdeterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€€orÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à(C)€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recentlyÏbeen€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.€€ñJñÐ ` T$` T$ ÐñJñÌñIñÓuWÓñIñTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-103(1)€(1997);€€òòsee€alsoóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€Ð p& ÐIn€determining€the€appropriate€sentencing€alternative,€a€court€may€also€look€toÏevidence€or€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€statutory€enhancement€andÏmitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(b)(5)€(1997).€€Lastly,€a€courtÏshould€take€into€account€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€a€defendantððsÏrehabilitation€or€treatment€when€considering€the€appropriate€sentencingÏalternative.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-103(5)€(1997).ÌÌà ` àAppellant€is€a€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€D€felony€who€doesÏnot€fall€within€the€parameters€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ40-35-102(5).€€Therefore,€he€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€forÐ Ð9p02 Ðalternative€non-incarcerative€sentencing.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€thisÏpresumption€had€been€rebutted€because€it€found€that€confinement€was€necessaryÏto€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€confinement€wouldÏprovide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others.€€We€agree€that€the€presumption€thatÏAppellant€is€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€has€been€rebutted.ÌÌà ` àRegarding€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€this€Court€has€stated€that€ð ð[i]nÏorder€to€deny€an€alternative€sentence€based€on€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,Ïððthe€circumstances€of€the€offense€as€committed€must€be€especially€violent,Ïhorrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€orÏexaggerated€degree,ðð€and€the€nature€of€the€offense€must€outweigh€all€factorsÏfavoring€a€sentence€other€than€confinement.ðð€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,Ð °P Ð454€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citation€omitted).€€Although€importing€twenty„oneÏpounds€of€marijuana€into€the€State€of€Tennessee€is€certainly€a€serious€matter,€weÏare€unable€to€conclude€that€the€circumstances€of€this€offense€meet€this€standard.ÌÌà ` àRegarding€deterrence,€the€general€rule€is€that€ð ð[b]efore€a€trial€court€canÏdeny€alternative€sentencing€on€the€ground€of€deterrence,€there€must€be€someÏevidence€contained€in€the€record€that€the€sentence€imposed€will€have€a€deterrentÏeffect€within€the€jurisdiction.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€455.€€The€Stateððs€evidence€that€AppellantððsÐ 0.Ð$& Ðsentence€would€have€a€deterrent€effect€on€the€drug€problem€in€McEwen€andÏHumphreys€County€was€minimal€at€best.ñMñ׃×ñMññMñ׃×ñMñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€the€State€was€not€requiredÐ 2°(* Ðto€offer€proof€of€deterrence€in€this€case€because€this€Court€has€held€that€the€saleÐ 4 *, Ðor€use€of€narcotics€is€ð ðdeterrable€per€se,ðð€even€in€the€absence€of€a€recordÏdemonstrating€a€need€for€deterrence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€260Ð P ð Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Thus,€the€trial€court€properly€denied€Appellantððs€requestÏfor€alternative€sentencing€based€on€the€need€to€deter€drug€related€offenses.€€òòSeeóóÐ 0Ð Ðòòid.óó€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Keith€A.€Jacksonóó,€No.€02C01„9705„CR„00193,€1998€WLÐ  À Ð148330,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€April€1,€1998)€(upholding€denial€ofÏprobation€because€sale€of€narcotics€is€deterrable€per€se);€òòState€v.€Timothy€S.Ð    ÐMyrickóó,€No.€02C01„9512„CC„00368,€1997€WL€11288,€at€*2ð!ð3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð ð  ÐJackson,€Jan.€15,€1997)€(upholding€denial€of€alternative€sentencing€because€saleÏof€narcotics€is€deterrable€per€se).€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÌà ` à¹Ó  ÓÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE