ÿWPCì$ I# U> %W 0í]UBJ4Œ n­¯U:\– 0Lžw@ê 01* 0D[ 0JŸ 0Té 0^= 0h› 0r 0|u 0†ñ 0w 0@ D3G Bz 1u— 0d  AQpÆÁ 0D‡ 0DË D/ B>U6[U.‘U *¿B)éDC AMU†¢À(fèüNJv~OvÓÍ 0L $˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi§aö"3|x'«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular> ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à DDDUÓ€'(á(3ì*$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€;×XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd* 5Cþÿ << Gÿÿ |Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔÔ€3ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€3XÔÌÌò òAugust€18,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€3ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€3ÔÔ€3ôÔÑ7À;×XXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Although€the€defendant€does€not€present€it€in€his€statement€of€the€issues,€he€beginsÏthe€argument€portion€of€his€brief€with€a€claim€that€the€guilty€verdict€ð ðis€against€the€great€weight€andÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence,ðð€pointing€to€perceived€weaknesses€in€the€stateððs€proof.€€This€claimÏpresents€no€cognizable€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€778„79€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€ÏAppellate€review€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€does€not€allow€us€to€reweigh€the€evidence€or€toÏconsider€how€it€might€preponderate.€€Rather,€we€must€afford€the€state€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€contained€in€the€record,€including€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÏtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Then,€it€is€only€when€the€facts,€soÏviewed,€are€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏmay€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€In€this€respect,€our€review€of€the€evidence€in€this€caseÏleads€us€to€the€conclusion€that€the€defendant€was€convicted€upon€sufficient€evidence.Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€1ôÔÔ€3Ô€Ñ7ÀËŒXXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€We€note€that€the€newspaper€articles€are€not€contained€in€the€record.€€It€is€theÏdefendantððs€obligation€to€prepare€an€adequate€record€for€appellate€review.€€T.R.A.P.€24.€Ì ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€1ôÔÔ€3ÔÑ7ÀËŒXXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€For€Class€A€felonies€committed€on€or€after€July€1,€1995,€the€presumptive€sentence€is€theÏmidpoint€of€the€range.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(Supp.€1996).Ô€1ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò>c$"Small Circleð"ðà0 àÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€1ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€22Xd#ÑÑ#€22Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€3ÔÑ7€ ¼¡ XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ*ÙßR€675A1-j|Ÿýå` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€JUNE€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9512„CC„00389Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àMadison€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHonorable€Franklin€Murchison,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌGEORGE€E.€MARTIN,€JR.,€€à à)à à€(Possession€with€the€intent€to€sell€cocaine)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌGeorge€Morton€Googeà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌ€€€€€andà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌPamela€J.€Dreweryà àà àà àà àRobin€L.€HarrisÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€227ÏW.€Baltimore€Streetà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌJackson,€TN€38301à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àJerry€WoodallÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àNick€NicolaÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€38302ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌà àThe€defendant,€George€E.€Martin,€Jr.,€appeals€as€of€right€from€hisÏconviction€by€a€jury€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Madison€County€for€possession€with€theÏintent€to€sell€cocaine,€a€Class€B€felony.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€as€aÏRange€I,€standard€offender€to€nine€years€to€serve€ninety€days€in€the€county€jail€andÏeight€years€and€nine€months€on€community€corrections.€€The€trial€court€also€imposed€aÏfine€of€two€thousand€dollars.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€contends€that:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à(1)€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€to€suppress;ÌÌà8 à(2)€the€prosecutor€engaged€in€improper€argument€byÏcommenting€on€the€absence€of€witnesses;ÌÌà8 à(3)€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€into€evidence€theÏcocaine€seized€by€the€officers€because€the€state€failed€toÏestablish€the€proper€chain€of€custody€of€the€evidence,€byÏfailing€to€take€judicial€notice€of€newspaper€articles€reportingÏthe€desecration€of€the€Drug€Task€Forceððs€evidence€vault,Ïand€by€not€allowing€the€defendant€more€time€to€gather€proofÏregarding€the€desecration;€andÌÌà8 à(4)€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€the€defendant€becauseÏit€failed€to€consider€mitigating€factors€and€improperlyÏconsidered€an€enhancement€factor.× ƒ8 ××  ×ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓWe€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err.€€We€affirm€the€defendantððs€judgment€ofÏconviction.ÌÌà àOfficers€Greg€Robinson€and€Tim€Willis€of€the€Madison€County€SheriffððsÏDepartment€were€conducting€a€drug€sweep€at€Merry€Lane€Courts.€€Initially,€theyÏobserved€the€defendant€walking€towards€them€through€a€playground€approximatelyÏseventy„five€yards€away.€€When€the€defendant€was€within€fifty€yards€of€the€officers,€theÏdefendant€reached€inside€his€pocket,€removed€something€and€dropped€it€on€theÏground.€€The€defendant€then€turned€to€the€right€and€began€walking€away€from€theÍofficers.€€Officer€Willis€stopped€the€defendant€and€asked€him€for€identification.€ÏMeanwhile,€Officer€Robinson€returned€to€the€playground€area€to€search€for€the€itemÏdropped€by€the€defendant.€€Officer€Willis€permitted€the€defendant€to€leave€beforeÏOfficer€Robinson€discovered€a€plastic€bag€containing€a€substance€that€appeared€to€beÏcrack€cocaine.€€The€plastic€bag€contained€fourteen€rocks€of€a€cocaine„basedÏsubstance€having€a€street€value€of€about€two€hundred€and€fifty€to€two€hundred€andÏeighty€dollars.€€The€officers€then€arrested€the€defendant€as€he€entered€Kentucky€FriedÏChicken,€finding€three€hundred€and€ten€dollars€in€cash€and€a€pager€on€the€defendant.€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESSó ó€Ìà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€hisÏmotion€to€suppress€in€that€the€police€lacked€probable€cause€for€the€warrantless€stop€ofÏhim.€€However,€the€defendant€has€failed€to€raise€the€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€ÏThe€failure€to€raise€the€issue€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€constitutes€a€waiver€of€the€issueÏon€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€3(e)€and€36(a).€€Also,€the€defendant€has€not€included€aÏtranscript€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€It€is€theÏdefendantððs€duty€ð ðto€have€prepared€a€transcript€of€such€part€of€the€evidence€orÏproceedings€as€is€necessary€to€convey€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€whatÏtranspired€with€respect€to€the€issues€that€are€the€bases€of€appeal.ðð€€T.R.A.P.€24(b).€ÏWhen€necessary€parts€of€the€record€are€not€included€on€appeal,€the€court€mustÍpresume€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€was€correct.€€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Such€is€the€case€before€us.€ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òII.€€PROSECUTOR€ARGUMENTó óÌà àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€prosecutor€committed€prosecutorialÏmisconduct€during€his€closing€argument€by€commenting€on€the€absence€of€witnesses.€ÏHe€argues€that€the€witnesses€were€not€knowledgeable€about€material€facts€and€couldÏhave€testified€only€to€collateral€matters.€€He€asserts€that€the€comments€were€especiallyÏdamaging€because€the€defendantððs€credibility€had€been€attacked.ÌÌà àœDuring€the›€trial,€the€defendant€testified€that€he€had€borrowed€his€sisterððsÏcar€to€visit€his€cousin,€Yolanda€Brown,€at€Merry€Lane€Courts.€€He€said€that€he€had€leftÏBrownððs€apartment€to€walk€to€Kentucky€Fried€Chicken€to€get€something€to€eat€at€theÏtime€that€he€was€arrested.€€He€also€stated€that€he€was€living€with€his€mother€at€the€time.€ÏRegarding€the€three€hundred€and€ten€dollars€that€he€had€with€him€at€the€time€of€hisÏarrest,€the€defendant€claimed€that€he€had€received€approximately€one€hundred€andÏfifty€dollars€from€an€income€tax€refund€and€that€he€had€won€the€rest€of€the€moneyÏgambling.€€The€defendant€also€testified€that€he€had€the€pager€to€keep€in€contact€withÏhis€friends.€€He€conceded€that€he€had€lied€to€the€officers€about€the€source€of€theÍmoney.€€On€cross„examination,€the€defendant€admitted€that€his€mother,€sister,€cousinÏand€his€friends€who€contacted€him€through€his€pager€were€not€there€to€œtestify.ÌÌ›€€à àIn€relevant€part,€the€prosecutorððs€argument€was€as€follows:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àà àNow,€.€.€.€the€Judge€is€going€to€instruct€you€that€youÏcan€weigh€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€he€is€also€goingÏto€instruct€you€that€the€burden€of€proof€is€upon€the€State.€ÏAnd€that€burden€never€shifts.€€However,€the€defendant€hereÏtoday,€itððs€his€cho[ic]e€to€present€testimony€and€puts€his€ownÏcredi[]bility€into€issue€that€you€can€weigh.ÌÌà8 àà àNow,€imagine€this€if€it€were.€€If€Investigator€RobinsonÏhad€testified€we€found€crack€cocaine,€we€saw€the€defendantÏdrop€it,€and€that€was€the€only€proof.€€We€wouldnððt€bringÏWillis€to€say€he€had€all€the€money,€we€didnððt€bring€in€the€labÏperson€to€say€this€in€fact€was€crack€cocaine.€€You€may€veryÏwell€say,€you€didnððt€carry€your€burden€through.€€And,€thatÏwould€be€fine.€€But,€we€brought€in€these€people€to€show€youÏeach€step€that€was€taken.€€The€defendant,€on€the€other€handÏdoesnððt€even€bring€in€his€own€mother€to€say€in€fact€that€heÏdid€live€in€Denmark,€at€some€time.€€Doesnððt€bring€in€theÏpeople€that€he€was€supposed€to€be€gambling€with.€€DoesnððtÏbring€in€all€these€people€who€needed€to€contact€him,€by€useÏof€his€pager.€€Doesnððt€bring€in€his€sister,€whoððs€car€he€saidÏhe€borrowed€and€most€of€all,€and€most€importantly,€doesnððtÏeven€bring€in€the€cousin€that€he€says€he€was€there€to€visit.ÏNow,€would€you€allow€the€State€to€take€steps€like€that?ÌÌà8 àà àMS.€DREWERY:€Your€Honor.€€The€burdenððs€differentÏfor€the€State,€than€it€is€for€the€Defense.ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€Well,€the€burden€is€on€the€State.€€TheÏDefendant€doesnððt€have€to€prove€anything.€€The€state€has€toÏprove€the€case.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€prosecutor€continued€his€argument€by€acknowledging€that€the€state€had€theÏburden€of€proof€in€the€case,€but€asserted€that€the€jury€was€not€required€to€accept€theÏdefendantððs€proof€without€question.€€ÌÌà àThe€prosecutor€also€stated€that€the€defendant€had€offered€no€plausibleÏexplanation€for€being€in€a€high€crime€area,€arguing:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àYou€have€his€word,€but€none€of€the€corroborating.€€None€ofÏthe€people,€who€could€supposedly€back€his€word€up.€€And,Ïwhatððs€his€word€worth?€€Well,€heððs€told€you€once,€at€leastÏonce,€that€he€lied€to€the€officers,€while€out€there€on€theÏscene.€€He€lied€about€where€the€money€came€from.€ÏPerhaps,€he€lied€about€what€he€was€actually€doing€outÏthere.€€ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€prosecutor€then€argued€that€the€defendant€wanted€the€jury€to€believe€that€theÏofficers€had€lied€but€that€ð ðhe€doesnððt€offer€anything€to€back€it€up.€€He€doesnððt€offer€theÏsupposed€cousin,€he€was€out€there€visiting.ððÌÌà àThe€defendant€refers€to€the€comments€made€by€the€prosecutor€asÏreferences€to€missing€witnesses€for€the€purpose€of€the€jury€inferring€that€œthe›€œwitnessesðð›Ïtestimony€would€have€been€unfavorable€had€they€testified.€€ð ðAs€a€predicate€forÏcomment€on€a€missing€witness,€the€evidence€must€show€that€the€witness€hadÏknowledge€of€material€facts,€that€a€relationship€exists€between€the€witness€and€theÏparty€that€would€naturally€incline€the€witness€to€favor€the€party€and€that€the€missingÏwitness€was€available€to€the€process€of€the€Court€for€the€trial.ðð€€œòòDelk›€v.€Stateóó,€590ÍS.W.2d€435,€440€(Tenn.€1979).€€œThe›€mere€fact€that€a€party€fails€to€produce€a€particularÏperson€who€may€have€some€knowledge€of€the€facts€involved€does€not€justifyÏapplication€of€the€inference.€€òòState€v.€Francisóó,€669€S.W.2d€85,€88€(Tenn.€1984).€€ÌÌà àThe€initial€problem€with€the€defendantððs€position,€though,€is€that€he€didÏnot€object€to€the€argument€based€upon€the€missing€witness€inference.€€Rather,€heÏobjected€to€the€stateððs€argument€because€it€tended€to€shift€the€burden€of€proof€to€him.€ÏThe€trial€court€sustained€this€objection€and€gave€a€curative€instruction,€which€wasÏimmediately€followed€by€the€stateððs€acknowledgment€that€the€defendant€did€not€haveÏœany›€burden€of€proof.€€œThe›€defendant€may€not€object€on€one€ground€and€then€assert€aÏnew€or€different€theory€to€support€the€objection€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€or€on€appeal.€ÏòòState€v.€Adkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626,€634„35€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Raising€a€newÏground€on€appeal€for€objecting€to€the€introduction€of€evidence€results€in€a€waiver€of€theÏissue€on€appeal.€€òòId.óó€at€635.€€ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€prosecutorððs€argument€wasÏimproper€as€claimed€by€the€defendant.€€During€cross„examination,€the€prosecutorÏasked€the€defendant,€without€objection,€whether€his€mother,€sister,€cousin€and€friendsÏwho€contacted€him€on€his€beeper€were€present€to€testify.€€The€defendant€stated€thatÏthey€were€not€present€and€admitted€that€they€could€have€testified€in€his€behalf.€€In€thisÍrespect,€the€prosecutorððs€reference€to€the€witnessesðð€absence€was€a€permissibleÏcomment€on€the€evidence.€€ÌÌà àAlso,€we€œsee€some€defusion›€from€the€missing€witness€inference€in€thatÏthe€prosecutorððs€œcomments€actually›€focused€upon€the€defendantððs€credibility€and€notÏœdirectly›€upon€what€could€be€inferred€from€ð ðmissing€œwitnessesðð€about€their€potentialÑ€9ÑÇtestimony.›€€In€this€context,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€prosecutorððs€argument€was€Ïimproperly€prejudicial€to€the€œdefendant,€and€thus,€it›€did€not€constitute€prosecutorialÏmisconduct.€€òòSeeóó€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€Ìà àÌà@ àò òIII.€€INTRODUCTION€OF€COCAINEó óÌà àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€evidence€ofÏcocaine€over€his€objection€regarding€the€adequacy€of€the€chain€of€custody.€€He€arguesÏthat€the€trial€court€should€have€either€taken€judicial€notice€of€newspaper€articles× ƒ: ××  ×Ïreporting€the€ð ðdesecrationðð€of€the€Drug€Task€Forceððs€evidence€vault€or€given€him€moreÏtime€to€gather€proof€regarding€the€desecration.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€errÏby€permitting€the€introduction€of€the€cocaine€into€evidence.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€Officer€Greg€Robinson€testified€that€he€took€the€plastic€bag€that€heÏretrieved€from€the€ground€near€the€playground,€sealed€it€in€the€appropriate€evidenceÏenvelopes€with€an€evidence€tag,€and€placed€it€in€the€evidence€vault.€€Officer€RobinsonÏidentified€the€plastic€bag€and€the€evidence€bag€containing€the€case€number,€theÏcharge,€the€defendantððs€name,€and€the€seals€with€his€initials€on€the€tape.€€He€statedÏthat€he€took€the€evidence€bag€from€the€vault€and€brought€it€to€court.€€He€said€that€theÍbag€was€sealed€and€had€one€additional€piece€of€tape€on€it€which€was€added€by€theÏcrime€lab.€€€€ÌÌà àDuring€the€prosecutorððs€questioning€of€Officer€Robinson€regarding€theÏchain€of€custody€of€the€cocaine,€a€jury„out€hearing€was€held€at€which€defense€counselÏobjected€to€the€admission€of€the€cocaine,€stating€that€the€Drug€Task€Force€hadÏexperienced€problems€with€its€evidence€room.€€The€prosecutor€asserted€that€defenseÏcounsel€was€referring€to€articles€contained€in€òòTheóó€òòJacksonóó€òòSunóó€but€stated€that€defenseÏcounsel€had€no€proof€of€the€problem.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€defendantððsÏobjection,€stating€that€the€state€must€establish€chain€of€custody.ÌÌà à€Officer€Willis€testified€that€the€evidence€was€placed€inside€the€vault€andÏthat€it€was€not€removed€until€he€took€it€to€the€crime€lab€for€analysis.€€TBI€Agent€LisaÏMayes€testified€that€she€received€a€sealed,€plastic€bag€of€cocaine€from€Officer€Willis.€ÏShe€said€that€after€analyzing€the€substance,€she€placed€the€plastic€bag€back€inside€theÏevidence€bag,€sealed€it,€wrote€the€lab€number€and€her€initials€on€the€bag,€and€thenÏplaced€the€evidence€inside€the€evidence€vault.€€At€trial,€she€identified€the€evidence€andÏconfirmed€that€the€lab€number€matched€that€of€the€evidence€she€analyzed.ÌÌà àAt€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€defendant€argued€that€the€state€had€failedÏto€establish€the€chain€of€custody€of€the€cocaine.€€The€defendant€asserted€that€the€trialÍcourt€could€take€judicial€notice€that€the€Drug€Task€Forceððs€vault€was€broken€into€basedÏupon€the€newspaper€articles,€but€the€prosecutor€objected€to€the€introduction€of€theÏarticles.€€Defense€counsel€then€requested€that€more€time€be€allowed€to€prove€that€theÏvault€had€been€broken€into,€and€the€prosecutor€responded,€ð ðWe€had€a€trial.ðð€€The€trialÏcourt€did€not€directly€rule€on€either€request,€but€instead€stated,€ð ðGo€ahead.ðð€€DefenseÏcounsel€proceeded€to€her€next€issue€contained€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€At€theÏconclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial.€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌà àFirst,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowedÏevidence€of€the€cocaine€because€the€state€failed€to€show€the€proper€chain€of€custodyÏof€the€cocaine.€€The€state€responds€that€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€testimony€ofÏthe€officers€and€Agent€Mayes€sufficiently€established€the€chain€of€custody.€€We€agree.€€ÌÌà àBefore€tangible€evidence€can€be€introduced,€ð ða€witness€must€be€able€toÏidentify€the€evidence€or€establish€an€unbroken€chain€of€custody.ðð€€òòState€v.€Goodmanóó,Ï643€S.W.2d€375,€381€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòBolen€v.€Stateóó,€544€S.W.2d€918,€920Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€The€purpose€underlying€this€requirement€is€ð ðto€demonstrateÏthat€there€has€been€no€tampering,€loss,€substitution,€or€mistake€with€respect€to€theÏevidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€750,€759€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€However,Ïthe€identity€of€such€evidence€need€not€be€proven€beyond€all€possibility€of€doubt,€butÍrather€the€circumstances€must€establish€a€reasonable€assurance€of€the€identity€of€theÏevidence.€€òòRitter€v.€Stateóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€372,€462€S.W.2d€247,€250€(1970).€€ÏWhether€the€requisite€chain€of€custody€has€been€sufficiently€established€to€justifyÏadmission€of€evidence€is€a€matter€committed€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,Ïand€the€trial€courtððs€determination€will€not€be€overturned€in€the€absence€of€an€abuse€ofÏthat€discretion.€€òòGoodmanóó,€643€S.W.2d€at€381;€òòWade€v.€Stateóó,€529€S.W.2d€739,€742Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).ÌÌà àThe€evidence€in€this€case€is€sufficient€to€establish€an€unbroken€chain€ofÏcustody.€€The€testimony€of€Officer€Robinson,€Officer€Willis€and€Agent€MayesÏestablishes€a€reasonable€assurance€that€the€substance€discovered€by€OfficerÏRobinson€was€the€same€substance€which€Agent€Mayes€tested€and€which€wasÏintroduced€at€trial.€€ÌÌà@ àò òB.Ìà àó óNext,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€should€have€taken€judicialÏnotice€of€newspaper€articles€reporting€the€desecration€of€the€Drug€Task€ForceððsÏevidence€vault.€€The€state€contends€that€the€defendant€did€not€request€that€the€trialÏcourt€take€judicial€notice€at€trial€but€instead€waited€until€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€TheÏstate€argues€that€the€trial€court€could€not€take€judicial€notice€of€the€articles€absent€aÍrequest€by€the€defendant.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€failing€to€takeÏjudicial€notice€of€the€articles.Ìò òÌó óà àJudicial€notice€is€governed€by€Rule€201,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€A€trial€court€mayÏtake€judicial€notice€of€an€adjudicative€fact€that€is€ð ðnot€subject€to€reasonable€dispute,€inÏthat€it€is€either€(1)€generally€known€within€the€territorial€jurisdiction€of€the€trial€court€orÏ(2)€capable€of€accurate€and€ready€determination€by€resort€to€sources€whose€accuracyÏcannot€reasonably€be€questioned.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€201(a)€and€(b).€€€A€request€need€notÏbe€made€for€the€trial€court€to€take€judicial€notice,€and€such€notice€may€be€taken€at€anyÏstage€of€the€proceedings.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€201(c)€and€(e).€€€ÌÌà àRule€œ201›€does€not€permit€a€trial€court€to€take€judicial€notice€of€hearsayÏstatements€contained€in€the€newspaper€articles.€€Information€contained€in€aÏnewspaper€article€is€not€ð ðcapable€of€accurate€and€ready€determination€by€resort€toÏsources€whose€accuracy€cannot€be€questioned.ðð€€Rather,€the€content€of€newspaperÏarticles€is€hearsay€that€does€not€fall€within€an€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule,€and€thus€isÏinadmissible€at€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801,€802€and€803.€€Whether€the€vault€had€beenÏtampered€with€was€a€matter€that€was€subject€to€reasonable€dispute,€and€therefore,€theÏdefendant€was€required€to€prove€the€fact.€€The€defendant€failed€to€do€so€in€this€case.€€ÌÌà@ àò òC.ó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€given€him€moreÏtime€to€establish€the€desecration€of€the€Drug€Task€Forceððs€vault.€€However,€theÏdefendant€did€not€make€a€request€for€additional€time€until€the€motion€for€new€trial.€ÏUnder€these€circumstances,€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€36(a).€ÏIn€any€event,€the€defendant€has€failed€to€establish€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€in€admitting€the€evidence.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err.ÌœÌò òÌ›œÌ›à@ àIV.€€SENTENCINGó óÌà àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€theÏdefendant€by€failing€to€consider€mitigating€factors€and€by€relying€on€enhancementÏfactors€not€provided€by€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏimposed€the€minimum€sentence€with€the€lowest€level€of€supervision.€€The€stateÏcontends€that€the€trial€court€properly€sentenced€the€defendant.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€trial€court's€determinations€are€correct.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€AsÏthe€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€this€section€notes,€the€burden€is€now€on€theÏdefendant€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€This€means€that€if€the€trial€courtÏfollowed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€made€findings€of€fact€that€are€adequatelyÍsupported€in€the€record,€and€gave€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factorsÏand€principles€that€are€relevant€to€sentencing€under€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€we€mayÏnot€disturb€the€sentence€even€if€a€different€result€were€preferred.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805ÏS.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÌÌà àHowever,€"the€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trialÏcourt's€action€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€respect,€for€the€purpose€ofÏmeaningful€appellate€review,ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àthe€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€forÏarriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€theÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,€state€the€specificÏfacts€supporting€each€enhancement€factor€found,€andÏarticulate€how€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€haveÏbeen€evaluated€and€balanced€in€determining€the€œsentence.€›ÏT.C.A.€œðð›€40„35„210(f)€(1990).€€ÌÌòòÓÓState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€599€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àAlso,€in€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€we€must€consider€(1)€the€evidence,Ïif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€theÏprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€natureÏand€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct,€(5)€any€mitigating€or€statutory€enhancementÏfactors,€(6)€any€statement€that€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf€and€(7)€theÍpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103€and€„210;€òòseeóóÏòòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168;€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€236„37€(Tenn.€1986).€ÌÌà àThe€sentence€to€be€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€presumptively€theÏminimum€in€the€range€unless€there€are€enhancement€factors€present.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(c).× ƒ; ××  ×€€Procedurally,€the€trial€court€is€to€increase€the€sentence€within€the€rangeÏbased€upon€the€existence€of€enhancement€factors€and,€then,€reduce€the€sentence€asÏappropriate€for€any€mitigating€factors.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(d)€and€(e).€€The€weight€to€beÏafforded€an€existing€factor€is€left€to€the€trial€court's€discretion€so€long€as€it€complies€withÏthe€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€its€findings€areÏadequately€supported€by€the€record.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210,€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments;€òòMossóó,€727€S.W.2d€at€237;€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€ÌÌà àBefore€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendant€filed€a€list€of€mitigatingÏfactors€for€the€trial€court€to€consider.€€The€defendant€requested€that€the€trial€courtÏconsider€that:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€the€defendantððs€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatenedÏserious€bodily€injury;ÌÌà8 à(2)€the€defendant€did€not€contemplate€that€his€criminalÏconduct€would€cause€or€threaten€serious€bodily€injury;ÌÌà8 à(3)€the€defendant,€because€of€his€youth,€lacked€substantialÏjudgment€in€committing€the€offense;€andÌÌà8 à(4)€the€defendant€is€attempting€to€enroll€in€college.ÌÌòòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(1),€(6)€and€(13).€ÌÌÑ7€KóXXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÓÓÓ  ÓÌà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€then€nineteen„year„old€defendant€testifiedÏthat€he€was€not€working€but€planned€to€attend€technical€school€to€study€dieselÏmechanics€and€auto€body€repair€in€the€fall.€€The€defendant€conceded€that€he€had€notÏenrolled€at€school€but€asserted€that€he€had€talked€to€someone€at€the€school€regardingÏenrollment€and€financial€aid.€€He€asserted€that€he€had€not€looked€for€a€job€because€ofÏhis€plans€to€go€back€to€school.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€was€living€in€Nashville€withÏa€friend€and€claimed€that€his€mother€was€giving€him€money€to€pay€the€bills.€€HeÏadmitted€that€he€had€been€convicted€of€misdemeanor€possession€of€marijuanaÏapproximately€three€to€four€months€earlier.€ÌÌà àThe€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€defendant,€a€high€schoolÏgraduate,€did€not€have€any€prior€felony€convictions.€€It€shows€that€the€defendant€wasÏarrested€when€he€was€sixteen€years€old€for€shoplifting€and€was€ordered€to€participateÏin€the€street€law€program.€€Regarding€his€employment€history,€the€report€states€that€theÏonly€job€held€by€the€defendant€was€with€the€United€Parcel€Service€over€the€ChristmasÏholiday€as€a€seasonal€employee€following€his€arrest€for€the€present€offense.€€TheÍreport€also€reflects€that€the€defendant€denied€having€any€alcohol€or€drug€abuseÏproblems.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€theÏdefendant€to€nine€years,€with€ninety€days€to€be€served€in€the€county€jail€and€theÏremaining€portion€in€community€corrections.€€In€sentencing€the€defendant,€the€trialÏcourt€concluded€that€the€only€enhancement€factor€that€applied€was€his€previous€historyÏof€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€The€trial€courtÏalso€considered€in€mitigation€that€the€defendant€was€eighteen€years€old€at€the€time€heÏcommitted€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(6)€(ð ðThe€defendant,€because€of€hisÏyouth€.€.€.,€lacked€substantial€judgment€in€committing€the€offense.ðð).ÌÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€inappropriately€considered€theÏseriousness€of€the€crime€for€enhancement€purposes.€€We€note€that€the€enhancementÏfactors€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114€have€been€determined€to€be€the€factors€that€mayÏbe€applied€to€increase€the€length€of€a€defendantððs€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803ÏS.W.2d€250,€258€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€We€also€note€that€although€the€seriousnessÏof€the€offense€is€not€œa€factor€contained›€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114,€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€Ïrequires€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€to€be€considered€forÏsentencing€purposes.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210.€€In€this€sense,€to€the€extent€that€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€criminal€conduct€relate€to€existing€enhancementÍfactors,€those€circumstances€may€have€substantial€bearing€on€the€weight€that€theÏsentencing€court€places€upon€a€particular€factor.€€In€any€event,€though,€the€record€inÏthe€present€case€does€œnot›€reflect€that€the€trial€court€enhanced€the€defendantððsÏsentence€based€upon€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€Rather,€although€the€trial€courtÏstated€the€offense€was€ð ðvery€aggravatingðð€and€ð ðterrible,ðð€it€stated€that€thoseÏcircumstances€were€addressed€by€the€penalty€involved€for€the€offense€being€a€Class€BÏfelony.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€not€inappropriately€consider€the€circumstances€of€theÏcrime€for€enhancement€purposes.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€address€the€listÏof€mitigating€factors€provided€by€the€defendant€before€trial.€€We€disagree.€€The€recordÏshows€that€the€trial€court€considered€but€rejected€the€mitigating€factors€offered€by€theÏdefendant.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€€ÌÌà àRegarding€the€defendantððs€claim€that€he€deserved€the€minimumÏsentence,€we€note€that€the€trial€courtððs€decision€regarding€the€weight€to€be€afforded€anÏexisting€factor€is€discretionary€as€long€as€it€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principlesÏof€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€its€findings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments;€òòMossóó,€727€S.W.2d€at€237;Ïòòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€We€conclude€that€the€record€œadequately›€supports€theÏtrial€courtððs€sentencing€decision.€€ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€theÏdefendantððs€judgment€of€conviction.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge€ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge€€€€€€€€€€