WPC ]B~n}c,HƂLe ¬4R0@8ZhdvoZ|cz=#5}$8‚Q(a:< 䑁~[ƴ9LJGZ7vsNI'*ޤ(< X=rX:LhrBNӧoe.?T= 3z{2D5\[te }Wu0 6IaʸOҒ,'XTi MR5ӡ'~n&Kw;py0 W-=*,@Ew~}qNo#C@ދgy6ɢ"*pu)*9]J7 kqb䚴.?d8@.-np\8L$΂Nh/V2H3kz[63k!C(p9pOÍ`#!@UNa % 0(U:b w 4# 7 F 72N 0 0DF U: f 1* N ^ 1u 4 m6 WM M M M M M M M M B AQ  0D 0D 0D`` D3HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,6 AZ"Arial Regular- -{Z='dTd3|xi)(v(2 $ !  4XH|XXX#gXXH|   0  (#$  0  ,yAZ"Arial Regular \\RA' Legal\(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>' ##37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)U M ["  XH|XXX0XXH|  _  Ad FILEDXH|X0  September30,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourt_ClerkdAx _ dZ[\]_C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  'dxd !  _4!XXʪ!8XXdd8    XH|XʪTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  † _vY_@0,j:`  `@E ` 8ttxP'  v__INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  ATNASHVILLEJULY1999SESSION   DXXSTATEOFTENNESSEE,    * D C.C.A.#01C019806CR00265  TL    Appellee,#ʪXXH|#XH|Xʪ     * D SUMNERCOUNTY  ,$   VS.   <     * D HonorableJaneWheatcraft,Judge    JACKIEDEANM#ʪXXH|v#XH|XʪAYES,JR.  * D (DrivingUnderInfluenceThird      <      D Offense)     Appellan#ʪXXH|#XH|Xʪt.    *   FORTHEAPPELLANT:      D FORTHEAPPELLEE:  XP  SAME.WALLACE,SR.     D PAULG.SUMMERS *" SAME.WALLACE,JR.     D AttorneyGeneral&Reporter  227SecondAvenueNorthNashville,TN37201     D MARVINE.CLEMENTS,JR.     <      D AssistantAttorneyGeneral   <      D 425FifthAvenueNorth   <      D Nashville,TN37243   <      D LAWRENCERAYWHITLEY   <      D DistrictAttorneyGeneral   <      D LYTLEANTHONYJAMES   <      D AssistantDistrictAttorney   <      D 113EastMainStreet   <      D Gallatin,TN37066   <      D OPINIONFILED:_______________ X X AFFIRMED  R5J.3  JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS, Judge  928 † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   X  X#ʪXXH|# u !ʪ    OPINION #ʪ ! u 8#XH|Xʪ  | I X 44     Thedefendant,JackieDeanMayes,Jr.,appealshisconvictionfroma l d SumnerCountyjuryguiltyverdictofD.U.I.,thirdoffense.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. 8 0 5510401,403(a).Hewassentencedtoelevenmonthsandtwentynine   daysatseventyfivepercentreleaseeligibility.Heappealsonthefollowing  grounds:    4 X#`XXvJ6#  XvJX` ,DX1. Whetherthetrialcourterredindenyingthedefensecounsels h`   motionforcontinuance; NF  2. Whetherthetrialcourterredinfailingtosuppressthe    4,   testimonyofthepoliceofficers;  3. Whetheraviolationofthesequestrationruleoccurredthat    wouldrequireamistrial;and  4. Whetherthejuryverdictshouldbesetasidebecauseonejuror   sleptthroughmuchofthedefendantscase.  4 Afterareviewoftherecord,thebriefsoftheparties,andtheapplicablelaw,we ~v concludethatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED. JB   BACKGROUND     XThedefendant,JackieDeanMayes,Jr.,wasarrestedonApril3,1997,in ! Hendersonville,Tennessee.Hewasinitiallystoppedbypolicewhenthey z#r noticedthatthetemporarytagonhiscarhadexpired.Uponfurther F%>! investigation,theofficersobservedthatthedefendantwasglassyeyedand ' # unsteadyonhisfeet.Therewasastrongodorofalcoholaboutthedefendants (!% person.Thedefendantperformedpoorlyonafieldsobrietytestadministeredby *#' theofficer,andherefusedtosubmittoabloodalcoholtest. v,n%)  B.:'+ OnNovember10,1997,thedefendantagreedtoallowtheGeneral 0)- SessionsCourttoconductahearingonthemerits.Thedefendantwasfound 1*/ guiltyofD.U.I.,thirdoffense.Onthesameday,thedefendantfiledanoticeto 3,1 appeal,requestingajurytrial,totheCircuitCourt.Duringdocketcallon r5j.3 December12,1997,thedefendantscasewassetforjurytrialonMarch23, >7605 1998.  927 ЇSamWallace,Sr.,thedefendantsretainedcounsel,sufferedcongestive  heartfailureonFebruary18,1998,andwashospitalizedforapproximatelyone  week.Mr.Wallace,Sr.,filedamotionforacontinuanceapproximatelyfour(4)   daysbeforetheMarch23,1998,trialdate. l d  80 ThetrialcourtallowedMr.Wallace,Sr.,towithdraw,althoughhehadnot   soughtpermissiontowithdraw,andorderedthedefendanttoappearwithnew   counselonorbyApril3,1998.OnApril14,1998,SamWallace,Jr.,appeared   withthedefendantathissuppressionhearing.Whenaskedbythecourt h` whetherhewasreadytoproceed,Mr.Wallace,Jr.,answeredintheaffirmative. 4,   Atthesuppressionhearing,OfficerTimothyRollertestifiedthathehad  observedaredCamarotravelingintheleftlaneaheadofhim.Hesaidthe  Camaroabruptlychangedlanes,therebycausinghimtobrakeinorderto d\ maintaintheproperinterval.Atthistime,heobservedthatthetemporarytag 0 ( displayedintheredCamarohadexpired,andhethereforestoppedthevehicle. ! Further,hestatedthathewouldhavestoppedthevehicleforthehazardous #  illegallanechange,buttheexpiredtagiswhatreallystuckoutinhismind. %"  `'X $ Afterthesuppressionhearing,thetrialcourtfoundprobablecauseforthe ,)$"& stopandoverruledthedefendantsmotiontosuppress. *#(  ,%*   XANALYSIS  .',  X#  Thedefendantfirstcontendsthatthetrialcourterredindenyinghis \0T). motionforcontinuancefiledbycounsel,SamWallace,Sr.Wenotetherecord (2 +0 revealsthatthetrialcourtgrantedacontinuancebecausetheseniorWallace 3,2 wasill.Theneedforafurthercontinuancewasneverasserted.Thedefendant 5.4  alsofailedtoincludethisissueinhismotionfornewtrial.Therefore,thisissue 706 iswaived.Tenn.R.App.P.3(e);Statev.Clinton,754S.W.2d100,103(Tenn.  Crim.App.),permissiontoappealdenied,(Tenn.1988).   /$     Next,thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinfailingto l d suppressthetestimonyofthepoliceofficersthatwasallegedlythefruitofan 80 illegaltrafficstop.Thedefendantcontendsthatthepoliceofficerdidnotpullhis   vehicleoverbecauseoftheexpiredtemporarytag.Thedefendantnoteshewas   notticketedfordrivingwithanexpiredtag.However,atthesuppressionhearing   andinhisincidentreporttheofficerstatedthathestoppedthevehiclebecause h` thedefendantstemporarytaghadexpired.Inthedefendantsbrief,the 4, defendantattackstheofficerscredibilitywithoutanyofferofproof.Forexample,  thebriefallegesthatwhattheofficersaidhesawwasimpossible,thatthe  officerseyesightmustbetrulyamazing,andthattheofficerwasmakingafeeble  attempttojustifythestop. d\  0 ( Thefindingsoffactmadebythetrialcourtatthehearingonamotionto ! suppressarebindinguponthisCourtunlesstheevidencecontainedinthe #  recordpreponderatesagainstthesefindings.SeeStatev.Henning,975S.W.2d %" 290,299(Tenn.1998).Thetrialcourt,asthetrieroffact,assessesthecredibility `'X $ ofthewitnesses,determinestheweightandvaluetobeaffordedtheevidence ,)$"& andresolvesanyconflictsintheevidence.SeeStatev.Odom,928S.W.2d18, *#( 23(Tenn.1996).However,thisCourtisnotboundbythetrialcourts ,%* conclusionsoflaw.SeeStatev.Simpson,968S.W.2d776,779(Tenn.1998). .', Thedefendanthastheburdenofestablishingthattheevidencecontainedinthe \0T). recordpreponderatesagainstthefindingsoffactmadebythetrialcourt.See (2 +0 Brazielv.State,529S.W.2d501,506(Tenn.Crim.App.1975). 3,2  5.4 Clearly,thedefendantrequeststhisCourttoignoreourstandardofreview 706 andsimplysubstituteourjudgmentforthatofthetrialcourt.Thisweare X9P28 unwillingtodo.Weconcludethattherecorddoesnotpreponderateagainstthe  findingsoffactmadebythetrialcourt.Onthisissue,wefindnoerror.     Next,thedefendantcontendsthatthecircumstanceoftheofficers l d testimonyviolatedthesequestrationruleandthatthetrialcourterredinfailingto 80 declareanewtrial.Rule615oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidenceprovides:    4   Attherequestofapartythecourtshallorderwitnesses,   includingrebuttalwitnesses,excludedattrialorotheradjudicatory   hearing.Inthecourtsdiscretion,therequestedsequestrationmay z  beeffectivebeforevoiredire,butinanyeventshallbeeffective h` beforeopeningstatements.Thecourtshallorderallpersonsnotto NF disclosebyanymeanstoexcludedwitnessesanylivetrial 4, testimonyorexhibitscreatedinthecourtroombyawitness.This  ruledoesnotauthorizeexclusionof(1)apartywhoisanatural  person,or(2)apersondesignatedbycounselforapartythatisnot  anaturalperson,or(3)apersonwhosepresenceisshownbya  partytobeessentialtothepresentationofthepartyscause.This  ruledoesnotforbidtestimonyofawitnesscalledattherebuttal  stageofahearingif,inthecourtsdiscretion,counselisgenuinely ~v surprisedanddemonstratesaneedforrebuttaltestimonyfroman d\ unsequesteredwitness. JB  0 ( 4  ! Thesequestrationrulepreventswitnessesfromhearingtestimonyofother " witnessesandsubsequentlyadjustingtestimony.SeeStatev.Harris,839 $! S.W.2d54,68(Tenn.1992).The ruleismandatoryandmaybeinvokedatany z&r# time.Statev.Anthony,836S.W.2d600,605(Tenn.Crim.App.1992). F(>!%  * #' Varioussanctionsexistforviolationsoftherule.Atrialjudgemaydeclare +$) amistrialorprecludeawitnessfromtestifyinginthemostegregiouscases. -&+ Anthony,836S.W.2dat605.However,thewitnessmaybecrossexamined v/n(- regardingtheviolation,andthejurymaybeinstructedtoconsidertheviolationin B1:*/ assessingthewitnesstestimony.Id.Whentheissueofaviolationofthe rule 3,1 israisedonappeal,thisCourtconsiderstheseriousnessoftheviolationandthe 4-3 prejudice,ifany,sufferedbythedefendant.Harris,839S.W.2dat6869; 6/5 Anthony,836S.W.2dat605. r8j17  >:639 Therecordreflectsthatthefirsttimethedefendantcontendedthathewas  entitledtoamistrialbecauseofaviolationofthesequestrationruleoccurred  duringdefensecounselscrossexaminationofOfficerLittrell.Thefollowing   colloquyoccurred: l d  4  XCrossExaminationByMr.Wallace: 80   Q: Mr.Littrell,afteropeningstatementandduringthatlastrecess    whenyouweresittinginthatchairnexttoMr.Roller,youand    Mr.Rollerwerehavingawhisperedconversationheadtohead.    Isthatcorrect?   A: Yes,sir.   Q: Andwereyoutalkingaboutthiscase? z  A: Yes,sir. h` Mr.Wallace:YourHonor,Imovethathisstatementsbestricken 4,  andthatamistrialbedeclared.Thejuryhadbeensworn,    openingstatementshadbeenmade,andthesetwowitnesses   wereinthecourtroom,inthepresenceofthejury,andtheother   witnesseshadbeenexcluded.Wemoveforamistrial.  TheCourt: < Thatwillbeoverruled.  ByMr.Wallace: ~v Q: Andbeforetheopeningstatement,youandMr.Rollerwerein d\  thislittlehallwayhere,andyouwereagainwhisperingtoeach JB  other.Wereyoutalkingaboutthecasethen? 0 ( A: Imsureweprobablydid,sir. ! Q: Ifyourejusttellingthetruth,whydoyallhavetogetyour  !  statementstogetherlikethat? " A: Actually,weweretalkingaboutsomethingyousaid,sir. #  4  `  Atthehearingonthemotionfornewtrial,OfficerRollertestifiedthatthe `'X $ gistofhisconversationwithOfficerLittrellwasoverthefactthatLittrellhad ,)$"& forgottenaboutthecaseandhadtobecalledawayfromfishingtoappear.They *#( werenotdiscussingwhattheirtestimonywouldbe.Afterthehearingonthe ,%* motionforanewtrial,thetrialcourtfoundthattheofficersweremerely .', discussingwhyoneofthemhadforgottenthecase.Weagreewiththetrial \0T). courtsfindings.Therefore,weconcludethattheviolation,ifany,wasslightand (2 +0 thedefendantsufferednoprejudice.Therefore,thetrialcourtdidnoterrin 3,2 refusingtograntamistrial. 5.4  Xx> 706 Finally,thedefendantcontendsthathedidnotreceiveafairtrialbecause   ajurorsleptduringmuchofthedefendantsproof.Thedefendantidentifies  nothingintherecordtoshowthatthisissuewasraisedattrial.Failuretomakea   contemporaneousobjectionwaivesthisissueonappeal.SeeTenn.R.App.P. l d 36(a);Teaguev.State,772S.W.2d915,926(Tenn.Crim.App.1988);Statev. 80 Killebrew;760S.W.2d228,235(Tenn.Crim.App.1988).         XCONCLUSION       `  Findingnoreversibleerror,weAFFIRMthejudgmentfromthetrialcourt. h` ̀ `       <  h         ________________________________   `       <  h         JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,Judge ~v XLCONCUR: ! ______________________________ F(>!% JOSEPHM.TIPTON,Judge ,)$"& _______________________________ .', JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,Judge v/n(-  `       <  h          N