ÿWPC  œ…*( {DdqÑôí#D‘®÷ÓÒ¬œñÙcößÚgBGþÙì…ítd&:¾¡ÚN:0€œ¢sv×´c@ò¦/›‚ŸLë2¶ìk²ÛìëèÆk€å•éYoY\º¸Ïôá_Ûï„£Ûíïò™×`R ÛØÄÙ—-–I{ºá⊭kµAXVHõÏŒ2ܽf<ÉLEí0ˆí¾Em tÛ+ŒVóÂBxÚ¼˜“µö s¨gu£Ø½èÆ…áWç¯wšF¶ ñôòIôçøY‹ê?]\_[ÝI.3çwÁñŒ;ÒLtú¡m8kN:˜oÞžt®]HC1xaé›î`žê¹Eч±é±ÙØEP£¦k*;.äWé[Ë÷.l—µ¼ïupdVdÞ„Ew§rýVcˆ,oà›¾Ý$¾ÙkH° @TêçY!Nf¹+ KBè‰;È+Eº+ækS¢—Ô¦u¡8©$,,ø t¬|ŠÏYØhAš®GŠ<ž¶5‰@ §"o²ÕCT–s­ËÉ‘9Ø‚ ¯gLžÙ ÃºêÍL˜0Yš•ý½¶˜cŠû~¤©÷ëaýÈç™Å]°&þ• tïåõcç®Î6ãÝMæxhr×iÇ•F˜úö=ø\îj)ì,# hU:s %­ 0G³w@ú4:N&]ƒ 0‹‹ 0DZ D3bU:••••••••••••••••••• 0DÏ B    AQ0 Æ 0DG 0D‹ D/Ï Bþ ˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÜÏ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(þ,$¡¡Ô€XoÌXXXÔ òóDôõ{öE÷øQeùDúûÓ€V&B)@3|x Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XïœXXXÔÔ€öZXXïœÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XïœXöZÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€17,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôYðôXXïœÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó(;(3¸.$¤¤Ý ƒþ,!ÝÔ€XïœXXXÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó""""'ÿÿdxd,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d'(!)*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒþ,!ÝÔ€XïœXXXÔÝ  Ýñøñ›ñøññøñ›ñøñÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  Óò òÓÓÑ7€ïœXdædÈ7ÑÑ  Ññûñœßr€& <,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` ttx$°ð Õrß›ñûñÌÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€KNOXVILLEó óÐ 8 ˆ Ðò òDECEMBER€1998€SESSIONó óÐ  ` ÐÌÓ  Óò òÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà h àà À àà  à)Ð ´  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àò òAppelleeó ó,à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9801„CC„00006ó óÐ †Ö  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òvsó ó.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òBlount€Countyó óÐ X¨ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òÓ  ÓREGINALD€C.€JOHNSONó óà h àà À à)€€€€€ò òHon.€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€Judgeà Ð àÐ *z Ðà ` àó óà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð f Ðà ` àà ¸ àò òAppellantó ó.à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò ò(Delivery€of€Cocaine)ó óÐ üL Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€FOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð €Ð ÐÌSHAWN€ñøñœñøñGRAHAM€(Trial)ñøñ›ñøñà h àà À àñøñœ›ñøñà  à€€€€€€€JOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ Lœ ÐAsst.€Dist.€Public€Defenderà À àà  à€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÐ 2‚ Ð419€High€StreetÌMaryville,€TN€37804à h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ELIZABETH€B.€MARNEYÐ þN Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÌGERALD€C.€ñøñœñøñRUSSELL€(on€Appeal)ñøñ›ñøñ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌ125€E.€Broadway€Avenueà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€37243à x à€€à Ð àÐ °"! ÐMaryville,€TN€37804Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€PHILIP€MORTONÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Asst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€363€Court€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Maryville,€TN€37804ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_____________ÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÐ ^.®). ÐÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEó óÐ "1r,1 ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ ð;@7=S ЇÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òOPINIONÐ H˜ ÐÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óó óà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Reginald€C.€€Johnson,€appeals€from€a€Blount€CountyÐ ø H ÐCircuit€Court€jury€conviction€of€delivery€of€cocaine€in€excess€of€0.5€grams,€a€ClassÏB€felony.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€Range€II€sentence€of€fourteen€yearsÏincarceration€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€and€imposed€the€jury„¼recommended€fine€of€$36,000.€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendant€raises€the€followingÏissues:Ìà ` àà ¸ à1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€a€videotape€of€the€¼à ` àdefendant€attempting€to€deal€in€drugs€and€in€failing€to€grant€a€continuanceÌà ` àonce€the€video€tape€was€ruled€admissible;€Ìà ` àà ¸ à2.€€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€a€photograph€which€¼à ` àassisted€the€State€in€identifying€the€defendant€although€it€had€not€been€¼à ` àrevealed€to€the€defense€in€pre„trial€discovery;Ìà ` àà ¸ à3.€€whether€the€public€defenderððs€office€which€represented€the€¼à ` àdefendant€at€trial€was€hampered€with€a€conflict€of€ñøñœñøñinterests;ñøñ›ñøñ€Ìà ` àà ¸ à4.€€whether€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€object€to€the€use€¼à ` àof€the€chemical€analystððs€testimony€who€only€tested€one€of€the€six€rocks€of€Ìà ` àsubstance€alleged€to€be€cocaine;€andÌà ` àà ¸ à5.€€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€of€a€Ìà ` àClass€B€felony.ÌAfter€review€of€the€record€and€of€the€applicable€law,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€August€14,€1996,€the€Blount€Metro€Naracotics€Unit€deployed€anÏundercover€agent€to€engage€in€the€controlled€buys€of€narcotics€in€Blount€County.€ÏThe€police€wired€him€with€an€audio€transmission€device€and€equipped€his€car€withÏa€video€camera.€€While€driving€on€West€Fulton€Street€in€Alcoa,€he€was€approachedÐ ä844: Ðby€an€individual€in€a€white€shirt€and€white€cap€whom€the€officer€identified€as€theÏdefendant.€€The€agent€testified€the€defendant€sold€him€six€rocks€of€a€substance€forÏa€total€of€$120.€€This€transaction€was€the€basis€for€the€indictment€and€conviction€inÏthe€present€case.€€A€couple€of€hours€after€this€transaction€occurred,€the€undercoverÏagent€made€a€second€visit€to€West€Fulton€Street.€€The€videotape€record€of€theÏsecond€visit€shows€the€same€individual€in€the€white€shirt€and€cap€whom€the€agentÏagain€identified€as€the€defendant.€€The€second€video€segment€provides€a€moreÏextensive€view€of€this€individualððs€face.€€On€this€video€segment,€the€individualÏattempts€to€sell€drugs€to€the€agent€for€the€second€time.€€The€jury€viewed€both€tapeÏsegments.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOfficer€Scott€Johnson€of€the€Blount€Metro€Naracotics€Unit€was€inÏcontrol€of€the€undercover€operation€on€August€14.€€He€received€the€six€rocks€fromÏthe€undercover€agent€and€submitted€them€to€the€TBI€Crime€Lab€for€chemicalÏanalysis.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOfficer€Johnson€testified€that€he€recognized€the€seller€on€the€first€tapeÏsegment€as€Reginald€Johnson,€a€man€with€whom€he€had€been€acquainted€sinceÏschool€days.€€After€the€undercover€agent€turned€over€the€contraband€to€OfficerÏJohnson,€the€officer€drove€to€the€ñøñœñøñsceneñøñ›ñøñ€ñøñœñøñand€sawñøñ›ñøñ€the€man€wearing€the€white€shirtÏand€ñøñœñøñcap.€€Atñøñ›ñøñ€trial€ñøñœñøñhe€confirmedñøñ›ñøñ€that€this€man€was€the€defendant.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€TBI€chemist€who€analyzed€the€six€rocks€which€were€delivered€toÏthe€TBI€Lab€by€Officer€Johnson€testified€that€she€analyzed€one€of€the€rocks€andÏdetermined€it€to€be€cocaine€base€which€is€a€Schedule€II€controlled€substance.€€SheÏtestified€that€the€combined€weight€of€all€the€rocks€was€0.7€grams.€€However,€ñøñœ›ñøñ€she€didÏnot€chemically€analyze€any€of€the€other€five€ñøñœñøñrocks,ñøñ›ñøñ€but€ñøñœñøñtheyñøñ›ñøñ€were€similar€inÐ 09€48 Ðcomposition€and€appearance€to€the€one€rock€that€was€tested.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€time€this€case€was€pending€in€the€trial€court,€the€Blount€CountyÏPublic€Defenderððs€office€employed€Officer€Johnsonððs€wife€as€a€secretary.€€AlthoughÏthe€Public€Defenderððs€Office€represented€the€defendant€in€the€trial€of€this€cause,€thisÏrelationship€to€Officer€Johnson€was€ñøñœñøñcommunicated€neitherñøñ›ñøñ€to€the€defendant€nor€toÏthe€trial€court€until€after€the€trial.€€After€the€appointment€of€substitute€counsel€duringÏthe€pendency€of€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€new€counsel€amended€the€new€trialÏmotion€and€alleged€a€conflict€of€interest€in€the€Public€Defenderððs€Office.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defense€offered€no€proof.€€After€the€guilty€verdict€and€a€Ïsentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€the€fourteen€year€incarcerative€sentenceÏand€the€fine€that€had€been€recommended€by€the€jury.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.€€The€Second€Video€Tape€Segment.Ð ð@ ÐÓ  Óà ` àó óà ¸ àThe€jury€viewed€the€videotape€segment€which€depicted€the€undercoverÐ Ð  Ðagentððs€first€visit€to€the€transaction€scene.€€This€videotape€segment€shows€theÏagentððs€transaction€with€the€individual€wearing€a€white€shirt€and€white€cap.€€AlthoughÏthe€agent€testified€that€this€individual€was€the€defendant,€the€tape€does€not€clearlyÏshow€the€face€of€the€individual.€€The€second€tape€segment€was€made€during€aÏsecond€visit€to€the€scene€approximately€two€hours€later.€€As€the€trial€court€observedÏin€the€jury„out€hearing€held€ñøñœñøñpursuant€toñøñ›ñøñ€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(b),€theÏsecond€segment€shows€a€more€extensive€view€of€the€face€of€the€person€in€the€whiteÏshirt€and€cap€who€the€undercover€agent€identified,€once€again,€as€the€defendant.€ÏAfter€the€jury„out€hearing,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€second€video€segment€wasÏadmissible€on€the€issue€of€identity.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àDuring€opening€argument,€defense€counsel€told€the€jury€that€ð ðourÏtheory€of€the€case€is€that€it€is€not€Reginald€Johnson€[on€the€videotape],€that€itððsÐ 09€48 Ðsomebody€we€donððt€know€who€it€is.€€It€could€be€most€anyone.€€But€it€is€not€ReginaldÏJohnson.ðð€€This€was€the€only€defense€theory€revealed€to€the€jury€during€the€openingÏstatement.€€Counsel€summed€up€this€theory€by€saying€near€the€end€of€hisÏstatement,€ð ðAnd,€again,€I€canððt€express€enough€to€you€that€the€position€that€weððreÏtaking€is€that€it€is€not€Mr.€Johnson€.€.€.€.€[I]tððs€someone€different.ðð€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€challenges€the€use€of€the€second€tape€segment€as€(1)Ïa€violation€of€evidence€Rules€403€and€404€and€(2)€a€contravention€of€his€right€toÏdiscovery€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€16(a)(1)(C).€€He€alsoÏcomplains€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€a€continuance€after€the€second€segmentÏwas€ruled€admissible.€€We€first€examine€the€objection€based€on€€the€evidence€rules.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€403€authorizes€the€exclusion€of€evenÏrelevant€evidence€if€ð ðits€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€dangerÏof€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€byÏconsiderations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needless€presentation€ofÏcumulative€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Under€ñøñœñøñRuleñøñ›ñøñ€404,€character€evidence€isÏgenerally€inadmissible€ð ðfor€the€purpose€of€proving€action€in€conformity€with€theÏcharacter€or€trait€on€a€particular€occasion.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a).€€The€defendantÏasserts€that€the€second€video€segment€violates€ñøñœñøñRuleñøñ›ñøñ€404(a)€because€it€suggestsÏthat€the€defendant€is€a€drug€dealer€and,€for€that€reason,€has€a€propensity€to€commitÏthe€offense€on€trial.€€However,€ñøñœñøñRuleñøñ›ñøñ€404(b)€provides€that€evidence€of€ð ðother€crimes,Ïwrongs,€or€actsðð€may€be€admissible€for€purposes€other€than€to€show€that€theÏimpugned€person€acted€in€conformity€with€the€bad€character€trait.€€Under€ñøñœñøñRuleñøñ›ñøñÏ404(b),€such€evidence€may€be€admissible€if€the€trial€court,€after€a€jury„out€hearing,Ïdetermines€that€ð ða€material€issue€exists€other€than€conduct€conforming€with€aÏcharacter€traitðð€and€that€the€probative€value€is€not€outweighed€by€the€danger€ofÏunfair€prejudice.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€The€comments€ñøñœñøñto€Ruleñøñ›ñøñ€404€illustrate€thatÏthe€ð ðotherðð€material€issues€that€could€support€the€use€of€the€evidence€includeÐ 09€48 Ðð ðidentity€(including€motive€and€common€scheme€or€plan),€intent,€or€rebuttal€ofÏaccident€or€mistake.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404,€Advisory€Commððn€Comments.€€After€aÏjury„out€hearing,€the€trial€court€admitted€the€evidence€based€upon€its€finding€that€itÏwas€probative€on€the€issue€of€identity€and€that€it€was€not€unduly€prejudicial.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€standard€of€appellate€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€Rule€404(b)Ïdetermination€is€abuse€of€discretion€where€the€trial€court€has€substantially€compliedÏwith€the€procedural€requirements€of€the€rule.€€òòState€v.€Duboseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€652Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€1997).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€second€tape€segment€unfairlyÏprejudices€him€by€depicting€him€as€a€drug€dealer€and,€thereby,€a€person€more€likelyÏto€have€sold€drugs€to€the€agent€two€hours€earlier.€€He€argues€that,€even€if€theÏevidence€was€probative€of€identity,€there€was€no€need€to€admit€it€during€theÏtestimony€of€the€stateððs€first€witness€in€its€ñøñœñøñcase„in„chief,ñøñ›ñøñ€that€other€evidenceÏidentified€the€defendant€as€the€seller,€and€that€using€the€tape€served€only€toÏneedlessly€sully€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€cites€no€specific€authority€to€supportÏhis€argument€that€the€evidence,€even€if€probative€of€identity,€was€premature€orÏunnecessary€and€that€therefore€the€prejudice€outweighed€the€probative€value.€€HeÏcites€òòState€v.€Bunchóó,€605€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€1980),€for€the€general€proposition€thatÐ P( #& Ðð ðthe€rule€[of€exclusion]€should€not€be€circumvented€by€admitting€evidence€of€anotherÏcrime€to€show€identity€.€.€.€if€the€defendant€admits€that€he€committed€the€act€charged€Ï.€.€.€or€if€the€identity€of€the€accused€is€established€by€other€evidence€and€therefore,Ïis€no€longer€in€issue.ðð€€òòBunchóó,€605€S.W.€2d€at€230.€€Ð Ð/ +. ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThis€comment€from€òòBunchóó€does€not€tell€us,€however,€when€ð ðtheÐ 3à.2 Ðidentity€of€the€accused€is€established€by€other€evidence,ðð€nor€does€it€help€us€toÏdetermine€if€identity€ð ðis€no€longer€in€issue.ðð€€We€know€that€in€any€criminal€case,€theÏburden€rests€with€the€state€to€establish€a€defendantððs€guilt.€€No€reasonable€law€Ð 09€48 Ðwould€impose€a€burden€upon€a€party€without€granting€that€party€an€opportunity€toÏcarry€the€burden.€€Absent€some€concession€by€the€accused,€the€state€has€theÏburden,€and€should€be€afforded€the€opportunity,€of€identifying€the€accused€as€theÏperpetrator€in€every€criminal€case.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€theÐ `  Ðstate€addressed€its€burden€of€identifying€the€defendant€as€the€murderer€and€rapistÏby€introducing€ð ða€positive€identification€of€the€defendantððs€ñøñœñøñhandprintñøñ›ñøñ€and€hisÏfingerprintðð€on€and€near€the€bed€in€the€victimððs€home€where€her€body€was€tied€whileÏshe€was€raped,€tortured,€and€ñøñœñøñkilled.€€òòIdóó.€at€576.€€Theñøñ›ñøñ€state€also€used€DNA€evidenceÐ à Ðwhich€was€ð ðconsistent€with€the€defendantððs€having€been€the€ñøñœñøñperpetrator.ð ðñøñ›ñøñ€€DespiteÏthis€proof,€the€òòGregoryóó€court€approved€the€use€of€evidence€of€the€defendantððsÐ P  Ðattempt€to€enter€the€apartment€of€another€female€on€the€day€prior€to€the€murder.€ñøñœñøñòòIdóó.ñøñ›ñøñÐ 0€ Ðat€578.€€The€court€observed€that,€at€the€time€the€state€offered€the€putative€victimððsÏevidence,€the€ð ðstate€still€had€to€prove€[the€defendantððs]€identity€as€the€assailant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€Ð ð@ ÐAccordingly,€in€the€absence€of€a€stipulation€as€to€identity,€the€Rule€404€evidenceÏð ðwas€properly€offered€by€the€stateðð€to€prove€identity.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð °"  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àð ðRule€404(b)€does€allow€such€evidence€[of€other€crimes]€when€it€isÏrelevant€to€òòaóóòòlitigatedóó€òòissueóó,€such€as€identity€.€.€.€and€its€probative€value€is€notÐ P( #& Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,Ð 0*€%( Ð183€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(emphasis€added).€€In€criminal€cases,€defendants€doÏnot€file€formal€written€answers€to€the€complaining€instrument.€€Consequently,€oneÏmust€look€to€the€plea,€filed€notices,€òòseeóó€òòe.g.óó,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.1,€12.2,Ð Ð/ +. Ðarguments€of€counsel,€and€evidence€offered€to€determine€what€is€ð ðlitigated.ðð€€In€theÏpresent€case,€the€defendant€declared€in€his€opening€argument€that€the€defenseÏtheory€was€that€he€was€not€the€person€who€sold€drugs€to€the€undercover€agent.€ÏWhen€the€state€began€ñøñœñøñitsñøñ›ñøñ€case€in€chief,€identity€was€clearly€the€issue€beingÏð ðlitigated.ðð€€We€cannot€say€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€allowing€the€secondÐ 09€48 Ðtape€segment€into€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòDuboseóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€652.€€In€the€absence€ofÐ ° Ðan€identity€stipulation,€the€trial€court€was€well€within€its€discretion€in€essentially€rulingÏthat€the€subjective€evidence€of€identity€had€not€so€clearly€established€identity€so€asÏto€make€further€proof€redundant.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€fact€that€other€ñøñœñøñidentity€proofñøñ›ñøñ€has€been€introduced€ñøñœñøñshouldñøñ›ñøñ€beÏconsidered€by€a€trial€court€in€determining€whether€the€probative€value€of€rule€404(b)Ïevidence€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€The€court€below€properlyÏweighed€the€probative€value€against€prejudicial€effect€and€rationally€concluded€thatÏthe€second€tape€segment€provided€highly€relevant€evidence€of€the€offenderððsÏidentity.€€Indeed,€this€is€not€a€case€where€the€state€is€seeking€to€rely€upon€aÏcommon€scheme€or€plan€carried€out€at€different€times,€perhaps€on€different€days,Ïand€at€different€locations.€€Here,€the€distinctively€attired€offender€was€identifiedÏthrough€the€second€video€at€the€same€location€only€two€hours€after€the€offense€wasÏcommitted.€€It€is€difficult€to€think€of€a€stronger€case€for€demonstrating€the€efficacy€ofÏidentity€evidence.€€Even€though€some€subjective€evidence€of€identity€had€beenÏadmitted,€the€cogency€of€the€video€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€ñøñœñøñruling.€€Ruleñøñ›ñøñÏ404(b)€offers€the€defendant€no€relief€on€this€issue.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àNeither€does€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€ñøñœñøñ16(a)(1)(C)€afford€any€relief.ñøñ›ñøñ€ÏThe€state€furnished€the€second€tape€segment€to€the€defendant€on€Thursday€beforeÏthe€trial€began€the€following€Monday.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€state€shouldÏhave€ñøñœñøñdisclosedñøñ›ñøñ€the€second€video€segment€to€ñøñœñøñhim€earlier€in€Ruleñøñ›ñøñ€ñøñœñøñ16(a)(1)(C)Ïdiscovery.ñøñ›ñøñ€€However,€no€right€to€such€discovery€is€triggered€unless€the€defendantÏmakes€a€proper€request.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(A),€(C).€€The€record€in€thisÐ °1-0 Ðcase€reveals€no€such€request.€€In€a€scheduling€order,€the€trial€court€set€a€deadlineÏfor€providing€discovery,€but€the€record€is€devoid€of€any€request€which€would€haveÏobligated€the€state€to€reveal€the€second€tape€segment.€€At€any€rate,€the€segmentÏwas€revealed€a€few€days€prior€to€trial.Ð 09€48 Їà ` àà ¸ àFurthermore,€the€defendant€made€no€objections€at€trial€based€uponÏRule€16.€As€a€result,€the€Rule€16€ground€for€objection€is€waived.€€Tenn€R.€App.€P.Ï36(a);€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€781€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.Ð pÀ ÐRyanóó,€756€S.W.2d€284,€288€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).Ð P   ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àFor€the€above€reasons,€there€is€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€allowing€theÏsecond€video€segment€into€evidence.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àMoreover,€the€defendant€was€shown€no€prejudice€as€a€result€of€theÏdenial€of€his€motion€to€continue.€€This€court€will€not€disturb€a€trial€courtððs€denial€ofÏa€continuance€absent€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€946Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€ñøñœñøñ829,€831ñøñ›ñøñ€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Moreover,€any€abuse€of€discretion€mustÏprejudice€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Goodmanóó,€643€S.W.2d€375,€378€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 0€ ÐApp.€1982).€€The€motion€to€continue€was€made€after€the€trial€began.€€The€defenseÏhad€seen€the€second€tape€segment€four€days€earlier.€€There€is€no€abuse€ofÏdiscretion€in€denying€the€continuance.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.Ð $à" ÐÓ  Óó óà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€objected€to€the€admission€into€evidence€of€theÐ p&À!$ Ðdefendantððs€photograph€which€was€taken€during€the€defendantððs€jail€processing€afterÏhis€arrest€on€the€current€charge.€€Both€the€undercover€agent€and€Officer€Johnson€ñøñœ›ñøñÏtestified€that€the€defendantððs€appearance€had€changed€since€August€14,€1996.€ÏThey€testified€he€appeared€in€court€with€facial€hair€shaven€and€with€a€short€hair€cut.€ÏOfficer€Johnson€testified€that€the€jail€intake€photograph€depicted€the€appearance€ofÏthe€defendant€that€more€closely€resembled€his€appearance€in€the€video€tapes€onÏAugust€14,€1996.€€This€photograph€had€not€previously€been€revealed€to€theÏdefendant.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€claim€is€once€again€founded€upon€Rule€of€CriminalÐ 09€48 ÐProcedure€16(a)(1)(C).€€However,€as€noted€above,€the€record€contains€no€requestÏfor€discovery€of€photographs.€€Absent€a€request,€the€state€had€no€duty€to€furnish€theÏphotograph.€€Moreover,€the€basis€given€for€the€objection€at€trial€was€irrelevancy.€€AÏparty€may€not€object€on€œñùñtheñùññúñoneñúñ›€basis€and€assert€a€different€basis€on€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€Ð 0 € ÐMoreover,€the€ground€for€this€assigned€error€as€set€forth€in€the€motion€for€new€trialÏwas€evidence€Rule€404(b).€Rule€16€was€not€asserted€in€the€new€trial€motion.€ÏTherefore,€the€issue€is€waived€for€this€ñøñœñøñreason,ñøñ›ñøñ€as€well.€€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€622€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ð77,€79€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e),€36(a).ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.Ð pÀ ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àñøñœñøñó óNext,€we€consider€the€defendantððs€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ P  Ðcounsel€at€trial.ñøñ›ñøñ€€First,€the€defendant€alleges€that€defense€counsel€was€hamperedÏby€a€conflict€of€interests€based€upon€Officer€Scott€Johnsonððs€wife€being€employedÏas€a€secretary€in€the€Public€Defenderððs€Office.€€Although€the€defendant€in€his€briefÏdoes€not€specifically€allege€this€conflict€of€interests€as€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€he€does€not€articulate€any€other€basis€for€obtaining€any€relief,€and€weÏconstrue€the€claim€to€be€one€of€ineffective€assistance.€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.Ð $à" ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.€S.€668,€692,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2067€ñøñœñøñ(1984);ñøñ›œñøñ€ñøñ›ñøñ€ñøñœñøñòòMichael€McNeilñøñ›ñøñ€v.Ð p&À!$ ÐStateóó,€No.€02C01„9705„CC„00168,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Jan.Ð P( #& Ð7,€1998).€€Second,€the€defendant€asserts€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€notÏobjecting€to€the€testimony€of€the€TBI€chemist€who€admitted€that€she€failed€to€test€sixÏof€the€seven€rocks€which€were€submitted€to€her€for€testing€by€Officer€Johnson.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€theÏappellant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€(1)€deficient€representation€and€(2)Ïprejudice€resulting€from€that€deficiency.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,Ð p5À04 Ð686,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.Ð P7 26 Ð1975).€€Deficient€representation€occurs€when€counsel€provides€assistance€that€fallsÐ 09€48 Ðbelow€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€criminal€attorneys.€€òòBankston€v.€Stateóó,Ð ° Ð815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Prejudice€is€the€reasonableÏlikelihood€that,€but€for€deficient€representation,€the€outcome€of€the€proceedingsÏwould€have€been€different.€€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.€1994).€€OnÐ P   Ðreview,€there€is€a€strong€presumption€of€satisfactory€representation.€€òòBarr€v.€Stateóó,Ð 0 € Ð910€S.W.2d€462,€464€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òa.€€Conflict€of€Interests.Ð Ð  ÐÓ  Óó óà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€claims€his€trial€attorney€who€was€employed€through€theÐ ° Ðpublic€defenderððs€office€was€caught€in€a€conflict€of€interests€which€resulted€in€hisÏviolation€of€various€rules€of€ethical€conduct.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€DR€4„101Ð pÀ Ð(preserving€confidences€and€secrets€of€client),€DR€5„101€(restricting€representationÏwhen€interests€of€the€lawyer€may€impair€his€or€her€independent€professionalÏjudgment),€DR€5„107€(avoidance€of€influence€from€persons€other€than€the€client),ÏDR€9„101€(avoiding€the€appearance€of€impropriety).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àð ðA€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€based€on€an€attorneyððsÏconflict€of€interest€is€examined€under€a€slightly€different€standard€than€a€traditionalÏineffectiveness€claim.ðð€€ñøñœñøñòòHoward€Clifton€Kirbyñøñ›ñøñ€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9303„CR„00074,Ð p&À!$ Ðslip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€ñøñœñøñKnoxville,€Septñññ.€28,ññññøñ›ñøñ€1994).€€Prejudice€is€presumedÏwhen€ð ðthe€defendant€demonstrates€that€counsel€ððactively€represented€conflictingÏinterestsðð€and€that€ððactual€conflict€of€interest€adversely€affected€his€lawyerððsÏperformance.ðððð€òòStricklandóó,€46€U.S.€at€692,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2067€(quoting€òòCuyler€v.Ð ð-@), ÐSullivanóó,€446€U.S.€335,€350,€100€S.€Ct.€1708,€1719€(1980)).€€ð ðUntil€a€defendant€hasÐ Ð/ +. Ðestablished€that€defense€counsel€ððactively€represented€conflicting€interests,€theÏdefendant€has€not€established€the€constitutional€predicate€for€his€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance.ðððð€òòKirbyóó,€slip€op.€at€4.€€Ð p5À04 Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€there€is€no€showing€that€the€trial€attorney€ð ðactivelyÏrepresented€conflicting€interestsðð€or€that€ð ðan€actual€conflict€of€interest€adverselyÐ 09€48 Ðaffected€his€lawyerððs€performance.ðð€€Consequently,€there€is€no€presumed€prejudice.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFurthermore,€the€record€fails€to€show€actual€prejudice.€€On€appeal,€thisÏcourt€may€look€to€the€prejudice€prong€of€the€òòStricklandóó€standard€first,€and€if€theÐ P   Ðelement€of€prejudice€is€not€present,€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€fails.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€466,€U.S.€at€697,€S.€Ct.€at€2069.€€Such€is€the€case€here.€€IneffectiveÐ `  Ðassistance€of€counsel€based€upon€the€assertion€of€a€conflict€of€interests€has€notÏbeen€shown.ÌÌÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ àò òb.€€Expert€Witness€Testimony.Ð à ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àó óThe€defendantððs€next€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€relates€to€trialÐ pÀ Ðcounselððs€failure€to€object€to€the€chemistððs€testimony€about€the€weight€of€the€cocaineÏwhen€the€expertððs€opinion€should€have€been€disallowed€because€ð ðthe€underlyingÏfacts€or€data€indicate€a€lack€of€trustworthiness.ðð€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€703.€€InÐ ` Ðoverruling€this€claim€on€the€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€held€thatÏthe€quantity€by€weight€of€the€contraband€was€an€issue€for€the€jury€to€resolve.€€WeÏhold€that€òòState€v.€Copelandóó,€677€S.W.2d€471€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984),€supports€theÐ °"  Ðtrial€courtððs€decision.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòCopelandóó,€the€chemist€received€a€quantity€of€approximately€3,000Ð P( #& Ðpills.€€He€first€examined€the€pills€ð ðto€ascertain€they€had€the€outward€characteristicsÏof€Quaalude€tablets.ðð€€After€concluding€that€the€pills€all€ð ðappeared€the€same,ðð€heÏrandomly€selected€a€total€of€thirty€pills€upon€which€he€performed€his€chemical€testÏand€another€nine€pills€upon€which€he€performed€his€instrumental€test.€€Based€uponÏhis€positive€findings€that€the€samples€were€Quaaludes,€he€opined€that€the€combinedÏweight€of€all€the€pills€was€1,087€grams€of€methaqualone.€€On€appeal,€CopelandÏcomplained€that€the€testing€procedure€was€ð ðgrossly€inadequate.ðð€€ñøñœñøñòòñòñIdñòññóñCopelandñóñóóñóñ,›€677›€S.W.2d›€añóññôñ.€ñôññõññôñañôññõññöññõñAñõññöññ÷ñañ÷ñtñøñ›ñøññøññøñ€474.€€ThisÐ p5À04 Ðcourt€held€the€evidence€that€Copeland€possessed€the€necessary€200€grams€toÏsupport€his€conviction€was€sufficient€to€find€him€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð 09€48 ÐòòIdóó.€€The€court€said,€ð ðThe€weight€to€be€given€to€the€testimony€of€the€witness€was€aÐ ° Ðquestion€for€the€jury.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð à ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€the€chemist€testified€that€first€she€weighed€all€ofÏthe€ð ðrocksðð€of€the€white€solid€material€before€she€analyzed€it.€€The€combined€weightÏwas€0.7€gram.€€Then€she€examined€all€of€the€rocks€submitted€to€determine€if€it€is€aÏð ðfairly€consistent€sample,€all€the€rocks€are€about€the€same€color,€about€the€sameÏtexture.ðð€€In€the€case€of€the€rocks€submitted€by€Officer€Scott€Johnson,€she€foundÏthem€all€to€be€consistent.€€Then€she€selected€one€of€the€rocks€for€analysis.€€TheÏother€rocks€were€not€analyzed.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€maintains€the€rocks€of€cocaine€are€not€uniformly€madeÏand€are€distinguishable€in€this€respect€from€Quaalude€tablets.€€However,€the€recordÏdoes€not€reflect€a€sufficient€basis€for€distinguishing€the€present€case€from€òòCopelandóó.€Ð ` ÐIn€òòCopelandóó,€the€court€approved€the€basic€testing€methodology€that€was€employedÐ ð@ Ðin€the€present€case,€and€we€see€no€basis€for€departing€from€the€rule€in€òòCopelandóó.Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àBecause€òòCopelandóó€authorizes€the€use€of€the€expert€evidence€in€theÐ $à" Ðpresent€case,€the€defendant€has€demonstrated€no€prejudice€as€a€result€of€his€trialÏcounselððs€failure€to€object€to€the€evidence.€€For€this€reason,€this€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€must€fail.ÌÌÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ àò òIV.Ð ð-@), Ðó óÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àIn€addition€to€presenting€the€expert€witness€issue€described€in€theÐ Ð/ +. Ðpreceding€section€as€a€matter€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€defendantÏalso€has€asserted€that€there€is€insufficient€evidence€of€the€quantity€by€weight€of€theÏcocaine€to€support€his€conviction€of€a€Class€B€felony.€€Under€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€39„17„417(c),€cocaine€in€an€amount€of€0.5€grams€or€more€is€theÏbasis€for€a€Class€B€felony.€€An€amount€of€less€than€0.5€grams€supports€only€a€ClassÐ 09€48 ÐC€felony€charge.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFor€the€reasons€explained€in€the€preceding€section,€the€rule€inÏòòCopelandóó€establishes€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€in€the€present€case.Ð P   ÐÌÓ  Óò òConclusion.Ð `  ÐÓ  Óó óà ` àà ¸ àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð ð@  ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€Judge