ÿWPCÕB Ô¦†è±*×Vß<Õ1’ä¨4½YI½¼é~m`uþ‹ÐÚ»MŽä!Ú{ôÁîŒà·q†K¨ à†l]íeÏ»\¦¨¨½ÒÈÀÔMV“SxÄ›Øf8On̘Ÿ~ÛAׂ‚Š0-)÷X º§ÒZT%˜F ŽºP®H²†%`mÓ„Ž8,—Šù…ÖNèÐ8ÇÖT‹×ÍŸ|þ‚”Fõ>n~Ø¡~š«‡ó+3¨çJvÍÿ^3tb‚YÓàJMÙ·="9¶F8W…‹m9²§½á?N‰…B_Üýƒ"ë{qGáD>öÇMH#u¾µ<®M{c|îÖ%ŽRF[XRþÞ·˜Ÿ-M·$>&œ6«öãÁPÎÕMYY#·ýȵUå`þ9¹•ªÆ¸ˆ—±SõGJÑûAR©wÀëïŠFƒ}ëÚOªÓƒÔpÄ/6!ˆMÕ#ÊpÙþr‚$}Ä2ý/ŠEhmû–‘!*ùþTm&Eµ/T×ç)Š]„FÕ<ò`²i+MÈZJ€ÚË_(ºÈ‘¥7@ôîD™¬„5±«ÔP% ¾`±cþóîMˆÿ0EåùwsÖpù¬Uºpsë6åËÛÖ4U‰tn¡!Ϸס|áo·b…U :F %€ 0(† # ® n¹ ~' w@¥ 4å ù U : B mD 1[ 1mè 0#dU X¹ 9 0 ˆJ 0DÒU:T=j 0 § 0Š6 1À}M 0 Ê 1j 1÷ 1„!f"Qw"fÈ%õ.&$#(fG($­( 0DÑ( )é5* + 1‡>+ 1‡Å+ 0DL,f, D3ö,)-U:/;/;pi;i;i;i;i;i;i;i;i;i;i;i;i;i;õÙ<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù<Ù< B Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î=Î= 0´ë= 0ÇŸ> 0Ûf? 0ïA@A@A@A@A@ AO0AÆAA 0DEB D/‰B B¸B,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlΘc:\COREL\SUITE8\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\LEGAL\OPINION.WPTc:\Corel\Suite8\Template\Custom WP Templates\Legal\opinion.wpt ÛÜݘޘßDàáâDãäÓ€uM%p‚Ä”3|xí, øð AZ"Arial RegularÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ³CEMS[cks{AutoList1(I)1.(1)(1)(I)(I)(I)(I)wxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à McKissacklimineHoneaWalkupMangrumT.P.I. CrimJoynerinartfullyLakatosGrayned S.Ct TeelDorrierTimmonsnonsupport EvidTraylorDuBoseCribbsCroomTransouCokerAshbyWilkersonoverbroadcuriam PEAYTIPTON i]t t]hea]lthough /Ý ƒ§ã$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWith€respect€to€Rule€609,€the€similarity€of€the€prior€offense€to€the€crime€onÐ `  Ðtrial€would€militate€against€its€use€for€impeachment€purposes.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòState€v.Ð L ì ÐÔ_ÔBlantonÔ_Ôóó,€926€S.W.2d€953,€959€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€However,€[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€mere€fact€aÐ 8 Ø Ðprior€conviction€of€the€accused€is€identical€or€similar€to€the€offense€for€which€theÏaccused€is€being€tried€does€not,€as€a€matter€of€law,€bar€the€use€of€the€conviction€toÏimpeach€the€accused€as€a€witness.ðð€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€No.€02C01„9612„CR„00447,Ð ü œ Ð1998€WL€12673,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ð èˆ Ð(Tenn.€1998).€€Rather,€the€court€must€analyze€the€relevance€of€the€prior€convictionÏto€the€issue€of€credibility€and€balance€its€relevance€against€any€prejudicial€effectÏupon€substantive€issues.€€Due€to€the€closeness€of€this€issue€and€the€availability€toÏthe€prosecution€of€the€appellantððs€prior€forgery€convictions,€it€may€be€that€the€priorÏconviction€for€failure€to€appear€would€not€have€been€admissible€for€impeachmentÏpurposes€pursuant€to€Rule€609.(8(2§ã$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó úÝ ƒ§ã$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€18„6„114€(1997)€provides€that€county€clerks€areÐ `  Ðempowered€to€take€affidavits€and€administer€oaths.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ñ ' Ñ 3Ý ƒ§ã$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWith€respect€to€Rule€609,€the€similarity€of€the€prior€offense€to€the€crime€onÐ `  Ðtrial€would€militate€against€its€use€for€impeachment€purposes.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòState€v.Ð L ì ÐÔ_ÔBlantonÔ_Ôóó,€926€S.W.2d€953,€959€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€However,€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€mere€fact€aÐ 8 Ø Ðprior€conviction€of€the€accused€is€identical€or€similar€to€the€offense€for€which€theÏaccused€is€being€tried€does€not,€as€a€matter€of€law,€bar€the€use€of€the€conviction€toÏimpeach€the€accused€as€a€witness.ðð€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€No.€02C01„9612„CR„00447,Ð ü œ Ð1998€WL€12673,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ð èˆ Ð(Tenn.€1998).€€Rather,€the€court€must€analyze€the€relevance€of€the€prior€convictionÏto€the€issue€of€credibility€and€balance€its€relevance€against€any€prejudicial€effectÏupon€substantive€issues.€€Due€to€the€closeness€of€this€issue€and€the€availability€toÏthe€prosecution€of€the€appellantððs€prior€forgery€convictions,€it€may€be€that€the€priorÏconviction€for€failure€to€appear€would€not€have€been€admissible€for€impeachmentÏpurposes€pursuant€to€Rule€609.(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(æÙCEMU]emu}AutoList5(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) sÝ ƒ§ã$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€any€event,€even€had€defense€counsel€ð ðopened€the€door,ðð€the€court,€underÐ `  ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€405,€would€still€have€had€to€determine€that€the€probative€value€of€theÏconviction€outweighed€its€prejudicial€effect€upon€the€substantive€issues.(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à æýCEMU]emu}AutoList2(a)(a)(a)(1)(a)(a)(a)(a) öýCEMU]emu}AutoList3(a)(a)(a)(1)(a)(a)(a)(a) ÖÙCEMU]emu}AutoList4(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ GÝ ƒ§ã$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€appellant€in€his€brief€does€not€appear€to€claim€that€the€statute€in€theÐ `  Ðinstant€case€is€overbroad.€€In€contrast€to€the€standard€for€determining€whether€or€notÏa€statute€is€vague,€Ô‡ Xf—XXXÔwhen€a€statute€is€challenged€as€overbroad€this€court€mustÐ 8 Ø Ðevaluate€whether€or€not€the€statuteððs€language€ð ðliterally€encompassesÏconstitutionally€protected€activity.ðð€€òòState€v.€Forbesóó,€918€S.W.2d€431,€448€(Tenn.Ð  ° ÐCrim.€App.€1995).€€The€appellant€does€not€allege€any€constitutionally€protectedÏactivity€which€would€be€encompassed€by€the€instant€statute,€nor€do€we€find€that€theÏinstant€statute€is€overbroad.Ô#†X“XX Xf—:#Ô \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ ëÝ ƒ§ã$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€appellant€argues€in€his€brief€that€the€statute€ð ðdoes€not€define€whichÐ `  Ðproceedings€a€defendant€is€compelled€to€attend.ðð€€However,€contrary€to€theÏappellantððs€assertion,€the€statute€does€provide€that€the€appellant€is€to€attend€thoseÏofficial€proceedings€which€he€has€been€directed€to€attend€by€a€lawful€authority.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„609(a). Ñ€X ÀÀ` 4Ñ \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ€X ÀÀ` 4Ñ(3¯$§§Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý Ý ƒ§ã$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€the€prosecutor,€in€his€closing€argument,€recited€the€juryÐ `  Ðinstructions€to€the€jury,€including€the€language€omitted€by€the€trial€court. ßÔ€1XVÉXXXÔÔ€1‰X1XVÉÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€1XVÉX1‰ÔÐ  ÐÌFebruary€19,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó Ñ€X ÀÀ` 4Ñ(•hCEKQW]cioAutoList71.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(…hCEKQW]cioAutoList61.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\ÑXXXX'ÿÿdxd ü Ý ƒ§ã$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOur€supreme€court,€in€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€noted€that€the€law€is€unsettled€as€toÐ `  Ðwhether€harmless€error€analysis€is€available€when€a€trial€court€fails€to€instruct€a€juryÏon€an€essential€element€of€an€offense.€€òòIdóó.€at€249.€€In€òòState€v.€Jamesóó,€No.€03C01„Ð 8 Ø Ð9408„CV„00276,€1995€WL€548788,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€SeptemberÏ18,€1995),€this€court€queried€whether€or€not€harmless€error€analysis€is€appropriate€inÏthe€context€of€a€complete€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€an€aspect€of€an€essentialÐ ü œ ‚ Ðelement€of€the€charged€offense.€€The€court€cited€òòSullivan€v.€Louisianaóó,€508€U.S.Ð `  Ð275,€113€S.Ct.€2078€(1993),€in€which€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€aÏconstitutionally€deficient€reasonable€doubt€instruction€cannot€be€harmless.€€òòIdóó.€atÐ 8 Ø Ð279,€2081„2082.€€The€Court€in€òòSullivanóó€observed,€ð ð[Ô_ÔT]oÔ_Ô€hypothesize€a€guilty€verdictÐ $ Ä Ðthat€was€never€in€fact€rendered€„€no€matter€how€inescapable€the€findings€to€supportÏthat€verdict€might€be€„would€violate€the€[appellantððs€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€a€juryÏtrial].ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€other€words,€when€the€jury€has€not€been€permitted€to€find€an€essentialÐ èˆ Ðelement€of€an€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€that€error€may€ð ðnot€be€cured€byÏan€appellate€courtððs€determination€that€the€record€evidence€unmistakablyÏestablished€guilt.ðð€òòÔ_ÔCarellaÔ_Ô€v.€Californiaóó,€491€U.S.€263,€269,€109€S.Ct.€2419,€2422„Ð ¬L  Ð2423€(1989).€€Nevertheless,€most€recently,€in€òòRogers€v.€United€Statesóó,€òò€€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€€óó,Ð ˜8  Ð118€S.Ct.€1179€(1998),€the€Supreme€Court€granted€the€appellantððs€petition€for€writ€ofÏcertiorari€to€decide€whether€a€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€an€element€of€anÏoffense€is€harmless€error€where,€at€trial,€the€appellant€had€admitted€that€element.€ÏThe€Court€ultimately€dismissed€the€writ€as€improvidently€granted,€leaving€thisÏquestion€unresolved.€€òòIdóó.€at€òò€€€€óó,€677„678.€€More€significantly,€in€òòCalifornia€v.€Royóó,Ð 4Ô  Ð519€U.S.€2,€òò€€€€óó,€117€S.Ct.€337,€339€(1996)(per€curiam),€the€Court€suggested€that€juryÐ  À Ðinstructions€that€incompletely€set€forth€an€element€of€an€offense€might€not€alwaysÏconstitute€structural€errors€that€defy€analysis€by€harmless€error€standards.€€òòSee€alsoóóÐ ø˜ ÐòòJohnson€v.€United€Statesóó,€òò€€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€€óó,€òò€€€€óó,€117€S.Ct.€1544,€1548„1550€(1997)(CourtÐ ä„ Ðdeclined€to€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€submit€an€element€of€an€offense€to€theÏjury€constituted€a€structural€error€to€which€harmless€error€analysis€could€not€beÏapplied).€€At€least€one€state€supreme€court,€interpreting€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€cases€through€òòRogers€v.€United€Statesóó,€has€concluded€that€an€instructionalÐ ”4 Ðerror€such€as€the€one€committed€in€the€instant€case€is€not€a€ð ðstructural€defect€in€theÏtrial€mechanism€that€defies€harmless€error€review.ðð€€òòPeople€v.€Floodóó,€957€P.2d€869,Ð l  Ð891„892€(Cal.€1998).€€òòAccordóó,€òòUnited€States€v.€Gonzalezóó,€110€F.3d€936€(2òòndóó€Cir.Ð X!ø Ð1997);€òòóó€òòMasonóó,€85€F.3d€at€471;€€òòHennessy€v.€Goldsmithóó,€929€F.2d€511€(9òòthóó€Cir.Ð D"ä Ð1991).òòóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular fÝ ƒ§ã$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€defense€counsel€stated€in€his€opening€statement€that€the€appellantÐ `  Ðwas€to€appear€at€the€Williamson€County€Jail,€the€record€reflects€that,€in€fact,€theÏappellant€was€to€report€to€the€Williamson€County€Clerkððs€office. ëÝ ƒ§ã$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€the€pre„sentence€report€reflects€that,€in€fact,€the€appellant€hasÐ `  Ðused€cocaine€in€the€past. d(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓÓÓÓÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÑ` °ÑÒX°ÒÓ  ÓòòÔ‡XVÉXXXÔÑ7€VÉXXdæXXdð7ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑñäñßr€)/<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` 8ttxPX` ð  rßñäñÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÐ F æ Ðà@@ÚÚ0ÚàòòÌAT€NASHVILLEóóÐ  ² ÐÌDECEMBER€1998€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ” àà ì à*à D àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9804„CC„00190€Ð v  ÐÌà Œ àAPPELLEE,à < àà ” àà ì à*à D àWILLIAMSON€COUNTYÐ Bâ  ÐÌVS.à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à*à D àHon.€Henry€Denmark€Bell,€JudgeÐ ®  ÐÌà0 Œ àà 4 àNATHAN€MCKISSACK,à ” àà ì à*à D à(failure€to€appear)à L àà ¤ àà ü! àà T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ à€ÐÚz Œ €%Œ €% ÐÌà Œ àAPPELLANT.Ô#†XVÉXXXVÉ–#ÔÔ‡XVÉXXXVÉÔà ” àà ì à*à D àÐ ¦F Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àÌà Œ àà ä àÌòòÌÌFor€Appellantóó:à < àà ” àà ì àà D àòòFor€Appelleeóó:Ð  ª ÐÌEugene€J.€Honeaà < àà ” àà ì àà D àPaul€G.€SummersÐ Öv ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà ” àà ì àà D àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ ¼ \ ÐTwenty„First€Judicial€Districtà ì àà D à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÔ#†XVÉXXXVÉ—#ÔÔ‡XVÉXXXVÉÔÐ ¢!B Ð407„C€Main€Street,€P.O.€Box€68à ì àà D àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð ˆ"( ÐFranklin,€TN€€37065„0068Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àTodd€R.€KellyÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àLee€DryerÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àP.O.€Box€937Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àFranklin,€TN€€37065„0937ÌÌà Œ àà ä àà < àÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€____________________ÌÓ=ÓÓÓÌÌÌAFFIRMED€€ÌÌÌÌNORMA€MCGEE€OGLE,€JUDGEÔ#†XVÉXXXVÉ3 #ÔÐ L6ì,2 ÐÓ5 ÓÐ  27Ò-3 ÐÑ€OP ÑÑ€ †ÑñÝñÑ€*]¹ÑñÝñÑ€.†ÑÑ€"†ÑñÞññÝñÑ€$-wÑñÝññÞññÝñÑ€%†ÑñÝññÞñÑ€&-wÑñÞñà@33-Úàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà Œ àOn€September€30,€1997,€a€Williamson€County€jury€found€the€appellant,ÏNathan€McKissack,€guilty€of€failure€to€appear.€€Because€the€underlying€offensesÏwere€felonies,€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€a€Class€E€felony€and€sentenced€to€fourÏyears€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Corrections€as€a€Persistent,€Range€IIIÏoffender.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€the€appellant€serve€his€sentence€consecutivelyÏto€his€eight€year€sentence€for€the€underlying€offenses.ÌÌà Œ àñßñOn€appeal,€tñßññàñTñàñhe€appellantñáñ€appeals€as€of€right€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€andñáñ€raiseñâñdñâññãñsñãñ€theÏfollowing€issues:ÌÓL€ ³ #wxyzLÓÝ ‚1 ÝÝ  ÝÔ‡ X£rXXXVÉÔà8 Œ àÝ‚1ŽÝÔ2³Ô(Ú  ÚIÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0ä Œ (#Œ (#àÝ  ÝWhether€the€failure€to€appear€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„Ð 0Ð Ð609€Ô#†XVÉXX X£r¹#Ô(1996)Ô‡ X£rXXXVÉÔ,€is€unconstitutional;݃1Žä݌аä (#ä (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚1 ÝÝ  Ýà8 Œ àÝ‚1BÝÔ2³Ô(Ú  ÚIIÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0ä Œ (#Œ (#àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€the€appellant's€MotionÐ ô ” Ðòòin€Limineóó€to€prohibit€the€State€during€trial€from€impeaching€theÐ Ô"t Ðappellant€with€his€prior€conviction€for€failure€to€appear;݃1By݌Рä (#ä (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚1 ÝÝ  Ýà8 Œ àÝ‚1ÝÔ2³Ô(Ú  ÚIIIÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0ä Œ (#Œ (#àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€overruling€the€appellantððsÐ ”&4  Ðobjection€to€the€Stateððs€recitation€of€a€pattern€jury€instructionÏduring€closing€argument;݃17݌Рä (#ä (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚1 ÝÝ  Ýà8 Œ àÝ‚1†ÝÔ2³Ô(Ú  ÚIVÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0ä Œ (#Œ (#àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€overruling€the€appellant'sÐ 4,Ô"& Ðobjection€to€the€State's€reference,€during€closing€argument,€toÏthe€appellantððs€failure€to€present€a€defense;€and݃1†½ÝŒÐ ä (#ä (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚1 ÝÝ  Ýà8 Œ àÝ‚1ÝÔ2³Ô(Ú  ÚVÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0ä Œ (#Œ (#àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€imposing€consecutiveÐ Ô1t(, Ðsentences.݃1V݌Рä (#ä (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà Œ àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ô#†XVÉXX X£rÊ#ÔÐ t7.2 ÐÑ%†Ñâ %âÑTR[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ %âÑ  Ñà Œ àà ä àà < àÐ `  ÐÐ 8 Ø Ðà@¨¨%Úàò òI.€€Factual€Backgroundó óˆÐ  ° Ðà Œ àIn€1996,€the€appellant€was€convicted€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€WilliamsonÏCounty€of€a€felony€count€of€failure€to€appearñÛñ,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„609,ñÛñ€and€a€felony€count€of€forgeryñÜñ,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„14„114€(1996)ñÜñ.€€PursuantÏto€these€convictions,€the€appellant€received€an€effective€sentence€of€eight€years.€ÏHowever,€the€appellant€was€placed€in€a€Community€Corrections€program€in€lieu€ofÏincarceration€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Corrections.€ÌÌà Œ àOn€February€18,€1997,€upon€the€appellantððs€admission€to€violating€theÏconditions€of€his€alternative€sentence,€the€Williamson€County€Circuit€Court€revokedÏthe€appellantððs€Community€Corrections€sentence€and€ordered€the€appellant€to€reportÏto€the€Williamson€County€Clerkððs€office€on€March€18,€1997,€in€order€to€begin€servingÏhis€eight€year€sentence€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Corrections.€€The€appellantÏfailed€to€report€to€the€Clerkððs€office,€and€on€March€24,€1997,€the€Clerk€issued€aÏwarrant€for€the€appellantððs€arrest.€€€The€appellant€was€subsequently€arrested€at€hisÏhome,€and,€on€April€14,€1997,€a€Williamson€County€grand€jury€indicted€the€appellantÏfor€the€offense€of€failure€to€appear.€€à€€%€%P€%àˆÐ È(h" ÐÌà Œ àPrior€to€the€appellantððs€trial,€on€August€4,€1997,€the€trial€court€conducted€aÏpreliminary€hearing€to€address€the€appellantððs€Motion€to€Dismiss,€which€alleged€thatÏthe€statute€setting€forth€the€charged€offense€of€failure€to€appear€is€unconstitutional.€ÏThe€trial€court€also€considered€the€appellantððs€Motion€òòin€Limineóó€to€prohibit€theÐ 2 (, Ðreading€of€or€showing€of€the€indictment€to€the€jury€or€prospective€jurors,€due€to€theÏreference€in€the€indictment€to€the€appellantððs€prior€conviction€for€failure€to€appear.€ÏFollowing€argument€by€counsel,€the€trial€court€denied€the€Appellantððs€Motion€toÐ ˆ7(.2 ÐÑ&-wÑâ &âÑ€X ÀÀ` 4Ñâ &âÑ  ÑÑ&-wÑâ &âÑ€X ÀÀ` 4Ñâ &âÑ  ÑDismiss.€€However,€the€court€ordered€that€the€jury€and€any€prospective€jurors€beÐ ˆ7(.2 ÐÑ&-wÑâ &âÑ€X ÀÀ` 4Ñâ &âÑ  Ñprecluded€from€viewing€the€indictment.Ð ˆ7(.2 ÐÑ$-wÑâ $âÑ€X ÀÀ` 4Ñâ $âÑ  ÑÌà Œ àAt€trial,€the€appellant€stipulated€that€he€had€previously€been€convicted€of€twoÏfelonies€and€that,€on€February€18,€1997,€the€Williamson€County€Circuit€CourtÏrevoked€his€Community€Corrections€sentence€for€those€offenses€and€ordered€him€toÏreport€to€the€Williamson€County€Jail€on€March€18òòóó,€1997.׃3×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€appellant€furtherÐ À` Ðstipulated€that,€in€fact,€he€failed€to€appear€on€that€date.€€ÌÌà Œ àIn€his€opening€argument,€counsel€for€the€Appellant€stated€that€he€hoped€toÏpresent€evidence€that€the€Appellant€had€never€been€convicted€of€a€violent€offenseÏor€a€drug€offense,€and€that€the€appellant€is€a€ð ðdecent€person.ðð€€Counsel€furtherÏstated€that€he€hoped€to€present€proof€that€the€Appellant€possessed€a€reasonableÏexcuse€for€failing€to€report€for€service€of€his€prior€sentences€in€accordance€with€theÏtrial€courtððs€order.ÌÌà Œ àThe€State€presented€the€testimony€of€Judy€Mangrum,€a€Deputy€Clerk€in€theÏWilliamson€County€Clerkððs€office,€and€Corporal€John€Jordan,€a€supervisor€in€theÏRecords€Department€of€the€Williamson€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€€€Through€Ms.ÏMangrumððs€testimony,€the€State€introduced€into€evidence€a€copy€of€the€trial€courtððsÏorder,€dated€February€18,€1997,€revoking€the€appellantððs€Community€CorrectionsÏsentence€and€ordering€him€to€report€to€the€Clerkððs€office€on€March€18,€1997.€€Ms.ÏMangrum€further€testified€that,€in€fact,€the€Appellant€did€not€report€to€the€ClerkððsÏoffice€on€March€18,€1997.€€She€confirmed€that,€according€to€the€records€of€theÏClerkððs€office,€a€warrant€for€the€appellantððs€arrest€was€issued€on€March€24,€1997.€ÏCorporal€Jordan€further€confirmed€that€the€appellant€was€brought€to€the€WilliamsonÐ È3h*. ÐCounty€Jail€pursuant€to€an€arrest€warrant.€€The€trial€court€sustained€defenseÏcounselððs€objection€to€the€introduction€into€evidence€and€presentation€to€the€jury€ofÏthe€arrest€warrant,€which€also€included€a€reference€to€the€appellantððs€priorÏconviction€for€failure€to€appear.ÌÌà Œ àFollowing€the€presentation€of€the€Stateððs€proof,€the€trial€court€conducted€aÏjury„out€hearing€in€order€to€address€the€appellantððs€Motion€òòin€Limineóó€to€prohibit€theÐ Hè  ÐState€from€impeaching€the€appellant€with€his€prior€conviction€for€failure€to€appear.€ÏThe€trial€court€denied€the€appellantððs€motion.€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€stated€that,Ïbecause€defense€counsel€had€stated€during€his€opening€statement€that€theÏappellant€is€a€decent€person,€counsel€had€subjected€his€client€to€impeachment€withÏall€his€prior€convictions,€including€the€conviction€for€failure€to€appear.€ÌÌà Œ àFollowing€the€courtððs€ruling,€the€appellant€declined€to€testify.€€Instead,€whileÏthe€jury€remained€outside€the€courtroom,€the€appellant€took€the€stand€for€the€limitedÏpurpose€of€making€an€offer€of€proof€concerning€his€excuse€for€failing€to€report€to€theÏWilliamson€County€Clerkððs€office.€€The€appellant€testified€that€he€forgot€that€he€hadÏbeen€ordered€to€report€to€the€clerkððs€office,€because€he€was€working€at€two€jobs€andÏhis€mother€was€ill.€€He€stated€that€he€willingly€accompanied€the€detective€who€cameÏto€his€house€to€execute€the€arrest€warrant.€€The€appellant€presented€no€evidence€toÏthe€jury.ÌÌà Œ àFollowing€the€close€of€proof,€the€State€asked€that€the€trial€court€instruct€theÏjury€that€it€could€not€consider€the€defense€of€a€reasonable€excuse.€€The€court€deniedÏthe€Stateððs€request,€opining€that€the€instruction€was€unnecessary€due€to€theÐ x7.2 Ðappellantððs€failure€to€present€a€defense.€€The€court€observed€that€the€State€couldÏargue€to€the€jury€that,€although€defense€counsel€had€stated€during€openingÏstatements€that€the€appellant€hoped€to€prove€a€reasonable€excuse,€the€appellantÏhad€not,€in€fact,€presented€any€evidence€of€a€reasonable€excuse.ÌÌà Œ àDuring€closing€argument,€the€State,€in€fact,€argued€that,€although€defenseÏcounsel€had€stated€during€his€opening€statement€that€the€appellant€is€a€decentÏperson,€counsel€had€presented€no€evidence€to€support€his€statements,€nor€hadÏdefense€counsel€presented€proof€of€a€reasonable€excuse€for€the€offense.€€TheÏprosecutor€then€read€the€following€excerpt€from€T.P.I.€Crim.€No.€27.02:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àIt€is€a€defense€to€prosecution€for€the€offense€of€failure€to€appear€thatÏthe€person€had€a€reasonable€excuse€for€failing€to€appear€at€theÏspecified€time€and€place.€€If€evidence€is€introduced€supporting€thisÏdefense,€the€state€has€the€burden€of€proving€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€a€reasonable€excuse€for€failingÏto€appear€at€the€specified€time€and€place.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓÓThe€prosecutor€emphasized€that€the€State€had€the€burden€of€proving€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€the€lack€of€a€reasonable€excuse€only€if€a€defendant€presentedÏproof€of€a€reasonable€excuse.€€€Defense€counsel€timely€objected€both€to€theÏprosecutorððs€comments€concerning€the€appellantððs€failure€to€present€a€defense€andÏthe€prosecutorððs€recitation€of€the€pattern€jury€instruction€concerning€the€defense€ofÏreasonable€excuse,€which€objections€were€overruled€by€the€trial€court.€€DefenseÏcounsel€waived€closing€argument,€and,€following€deliberation,€the€jury€returned€aÏverdict€of€guilty.ÌÌà Œ àOn€December€8,€1997,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing,€at€theÏconclusion€of€which€the€court€imposed€a€minimum€sentence€of€four€years,€to€beÏserved€consecutively€to€the€appellantððs€sentences€for€the€felonies€underlying€theÏinstant€offense.Ð d8/3 Їà@ºº*Úàò òII.€€AnalysisòòÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ôóóó óˆÐ `  ÐÓ  ÓA.ÌÓ  Óà Œ àInitially,€the€appellant€challenges€the€constitutionality€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„16„609,€the€statute€setting€forth€the€offense€of€failure€to€appear.€€The€appellantÏalleges€the€following€bases€to€his€claim:ÌÝ ‚. ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚.–8Ýà0 Œ àÔ2³ÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0ä Œ €%Œ €%àÝ  ÝThe€statute€is€sufficiently€vague€to€violate€the€due€process€provisionsÐ ¨H  Ðof€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€constitutions€and€constitutes€anÏimpermissible€delegation€of€legislative€authority€to€the€executive€andÏjudicial€branches€of€government.׃!×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#†X“XX Xf—b7#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô݃.–8Á8ÝŒÐ0Ðä €%ä €% ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚. ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚.;Ýà0 Œ àÔ2³ÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0ä Œ €%Œ €%àÝ  ÝThe€manner€in€which€the€statute€is€applied€in€Williamson€CountyÐ ¨ Ðviolates€equal€protection€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€and€UnitedÏStates€constitutions.݃.;9;ÝŒÐ ä €%ä €% ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà Œ àCourts€are€charged€with€upholding,€where€possible,€the€constitutionality€ofÏstatutes.€òòóó€òòState€v.€Joyneróó,€759€S.W.2d€422,€425€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)(citingÐ @#à ÐòòDykes€v.€Hamilton€Countyóó,€191€S.W.2d€155,€159€(Tenn.€1945)Ô#†X“XX Xf—¬:#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô).€€This€principle€isÐ %¸ Ðapplicable€to€statutory€provisions€which€are€ð ðinartfully€drawn,€but€which€withÏreasonably€unstrained€interpretation€can€be€seen€to€express€the€clear€intent€of€theÏlegislature.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€light€of€this€principle,€we€turn€to€the€specific€standards€that€mustÐ  *@!$ Ðbe€applied€when€determining€whether€or€not€a€statute€is€impermissibly€vague.ÌÌà Œ àGenerally,€when€a€statute€is€challenged€as€unconstitutionally€vague,€thisÐ (0È&* Ðcourt€must€consider€whether€the€statuteððs€ð ðprohibitions€are€not€clearly€defined€andÏare€susceptible€to€different€interpretations€as€to€what€conduct€is€actuallyÏproscribed.ðð€€òòForbesóó,€918€S.W.2d€at€447„48.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Lakatosóó,€900Ð  ° ÐS.W.2d€699,€701€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)(citing€òòGrayned€v.€City€of€Rockfordóó,€408Ð èˆ ÐU.S.€104,€108,€92€S.Ct.€2294€(1972))(ð ð[i]t€is€a€fundamental€tenet€of€due€process€thatÏa€statute€is€void€for€vagueness€if€the€conduct€which€it€prohibits€is€not€clearlyÏdefinedðð).€€Vague€statutes€implicate€due€process€by€failing€to€provide€adequateÏnotice€to€a€criminal€defendant€of€proscribed€conduct€and€by€inviting€arbitrary€andÏdiscriminatory€law€enforcement.€€òòForbesóó,€918€S.W.2d€at€448.€€Accordingly,€theÐ  À Ðstandard€for€determining€whether€or€not€a€statute€is€unconstitutionally€vague€hasÏalso€been€articulated€by€this€court€in€the€form€of€a€two€part€test:ÌØØÝ ‚. ÝÝ  ÝÓÓÝ‚.ÈCÝà0 Œ àÔ2³ÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0ä Œ €%Œ €%àÝ  ÝThe€statute€ð ðmust€ððgive€the€person€of€ordinary€intelligence€aÐ ¨H Ðreasonable€opportunity€to€know€what€is€prohibited,€so€that€he€may€actÏaccordingly;ðððð€and݃.ÈCDÝŒÐ ä €%ä €% ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚. ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚.cEÝà0 Œ àÔ2³ÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0ä Œ €%Œ €%àÝ  ÝThe€ð ðstatute€ððmust€provide€explicit€standardsðð€to€prevent€ððarbitrary€andÐ l  Ðdiscriminatory€enforcement.ðððð݃.cEŽEÝŒÐ ä €%ä €% ÐŒÝ  ÝÓóCÓ€ÌòòLakatosóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€701€(citations€omitted).Ð $¼ ÐÌà Œ àThe€statute€challenged€by€the€defendant€provides,€in€pertinent€parts:ÌØØÓL€ æý  LÓÝ ‚ªo ÝÝ  ÝÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àÝ‚ªoâGÝÔ2æýÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0<ä Ð ä Ð àÝ  ÝIt€is€unlawful€for€any€person€to€knowingly€fail€toÐ ¤)D # Ðappear€as€directed€by€a€lawful€authority€if€theÏperson:€...݃ªoâG?H݌Р<Ð <Ð  ÐŒÝ  Ýà8 Œ àà ä àà < à(2)€à0”Œ (#Œ (#àHas€been€lawfully€released€from€custody,€with€orÐ h,#& Ðwithout€bail,€ØØon€condition€of€subsequentÏappearance€at€an€official€proceeding€or€penalÏinstitution€at€a€specified€time€or€place;€...Ð ”(#”(# ÐØØÓL€ öý  LÓÝ ‚ªo ÝÝ  Ýà Œ àà ä àÝ‚ªoKÝÔ2öýÔ(Ú  ÚbÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 < àÝ  ÝIt€is€a€defense€to€prosecution€under€this€section€that:€...݃ªoKGKÝŒÐ0¸&*<€%<€% ÐŒÝ  ÝØØÓL€ ÖÙ( LÓÝ ‚ªo ÝÝ  Ýà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à€€€à0<ä Ð ä Ð àÝ‚ªoŠLÝÔ2ÖÙÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0”<Ð <Ð àÝ  ÝThe€person€has€a€reasonable€excuse€forÐ 1¤'+ Ðfailure€to€appear€at€the€specified€time€andÏplace€...€.݃ªoŠLìL݌Р”Ð ”Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÓ HÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„609.ÌÐ x7.2 Ðà Œ àThe€appellant€in€the€instant€case€contends€that€this€statute€is€vague,€becauseÏthe€terms€ð ðofficial€proceedingðð€and€ð ðreasonable€excuseðð€are€ambiguous.€€Moreover,Ïthe€appellant€contends€that€the€ambiguity€of€the€statute€constitutes€anÏð ðunconstitutional€delegation€of€legislative€authority€and€duty.ððÌÌà Œ àThe€term€ð ðofficial€proceedingðð€must€be€considered€ð ðin€the€context€of€theÏstatements€of€law€contained€in€the€relevant€statutes€and€court€rulings.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð p  ÐLyonsóó,€802€S.W.2d€590,€592€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€State€correctly€notes€that€the€termÐ Hè  Ðð ðofficial€proceedingðð€is€defined€in€our€criminal€code.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„¼106(25)€(1996).€€The€provision€states:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àð ðOfficial€Proceedingðð€means€any€type€of€administrative,€executive,Ïlegislative€or€judicial€proceeding€that€may€be€conducted€before€aÏpublic€servant€authorized€by€law€to€take€statements€under€oath.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÓEQÓÌThus,€we€note€that,€in€òòState€v.€Forbesóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€448,€this€court€concluded€thatÐ l  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„503(a)(2),€the€statute€setting€forth€the€offense€ofÏtampering€with€or€fabricating€evidence,€provided€sufficient€notice€to€the€accused€ofÏthe€prohibited€conduct,€despite€the€legislatureððs€use€of€the€phrase€ð ðofficialÏproceeding.ðð€€ÌÌà Œ àWe€conclude€that€the€phrase€does€not€render€the€failure€to€appear€statuteÏunconstitutionally€vague.Ô#†X“XX Xf—¶=#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô׃#×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Moreover,€in€this€case€the€record€reflects€that€theÐ T-ô#' ÐWilliamson€County€Circuit€Court€released€the€appellant€on€bail€and€ordered€him€toÏâ âreport€to€the€Clerkððs€office€in€order€that€the€Clerk€might€process€the€revocation€of€hisÐ 1¤'+ ÐCommunity€Corrections€sentence.׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€person€of€ordinary€intelligence€wouldÐ `  Ðâ âunderstand€that€failure€to€appear€as€ordered€by€the€trial€court€would€constituteÏconduct€encompassed€by€the€statute€at€issue€in€this€appeal.Ô#†X“XX Xf—gT#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“ÔÐ  ° ÐÌñÒñà Œ àInñÊñ€hoñÊññÌñlding€inñÌññÏñ€ñÏññÎñòòñÎñForbesóóñÒññÐñ,ñÐññÒñ€Ô_ÔñÒññÑñinñÑññÒñÔ_ÔÔ_ÔñÒññÑñ€holdingñÑññÒñÔ_ÔÔ_ÔñÒññÑñ€ñÑññÒñthatÔ_Ô€the€statute€setting€forth€the€offense€of€tamperingÐ À` Ðwith€and/or€fabricating€evidence€is€not€unconstitutionally€vague,€this€court€furtherÏnoted€thatñÒñÔ#†X“XX Xf—XW#ÔñÒñÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô€ð ðthe€jury€charge€provided€full,€fair,€and€correct€guidelines€for€determiningÐ p  Ðwhether€the€evidence€in€this€case€satisfied€the€elements€of€the€offense.ðð€€òòForbesóó,Ð Hè  Ð918€S.W.2d€at€448.€€Ô#†X“XX Xf—Z#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“ÔIn€contrast,€in€reviewing€the€record€of€the€trial€courtððsÐ  À Ðinstructions€to€the€jury€in€the€instant€case,€we€do€note€that€the€trial€court€instructedÏthe€jury€on€the€essential€elements€of€failure€to€appear€in€the€following€manner:ÌÝ ‚. ÝÝ  ÝÓÓÝ‚.[\Ýà0 Œ àÔ2ÖÙÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0ä Œ €%Œ €%àÝ  Ýthat€the€defendant€knowingly€failed€to€appear;€and݃.[\˜\݌ШHä €%ä €% ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚. ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚.{]Ýà0 Œ àÔ2ÖÙÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0ä Œ €%Œ €%àÝ  Ýthat€the€defendant€had€been€directed€to€appear€by€a€lawful€authority;Ð ”4 Ðand݃.{]¦]ÝŒÐ ä €%ä €% ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚. ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚.¬^Ýà0 Œ àÔ2ÖÙÔ(Ú  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0ä Œ €%Œ €%àÝ  Ýthat€the€defendant€had€been€released€from€custody,€with€or€withoutÐ l  Ðbail,€on€condition€of€subsequent€appearance€òòat€a€penal€institutionóó€at€aÐ X!ø Ðspecified€time€and€place.݃.¬^×^ÝŒÐ ä €%ä €% ÐŒÝ  ÝÓ†\ÓÌ(Emphasis€added).€€In€other€words,€the€trial€court€omitted€failure€to€appear€at€anÏð ðofficial€proceeding,ðð€applicable€in€this€case,€from€its€instructions.Ô#†X“XX Xf—A[#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô׃(h×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð à&€  ÐÌà Œ àThe€appellant€failed€to€bring€this€omission€to€the€trial€courtððs€attention€at€trialÏand,€indeed,€during€his€opening€statement,€defense€counsel€stated€that€theÏappellant€had€stipulated€to€failing€to€appear€at€a€penal€institution€in€violation€of€theÏtrial€courtððs€order.€€Additionally,€the€appellant€failed€to€raise€this€issue€in€his€motionÏfor€new€trial€and€has€not€assigned€the€trial€courtððs€omission€as€error€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóóÐ ð1(, ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e)€(ð ðno€issue€presented€for€review€shall€be€predicated€upon€errorÏ...€unless€the€same€was€specifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€new€trial;€otherwise€suchÏissues€will€be€treated€as€waivedðð).€€However,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b)€does€provideÏthat€an€error€which€has€affected€the€substantial€rights€of€an€accused€may€be€noticedÏat€any€time.€€Moreover,€our€supreme€court€has€declined€to€treat€the€omission€of€anÏessential€element€of€an€offense€from€the€jury€instructions€as€waived.€€òòState€v.€Teelóó,Ð ˜8  Ð793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€498€U.S.€1007,€11€S.Ct.€571€(1990).Ð p  ÐÌà Œ àNevertheless,€as€noted€earlier,€defense€counsel€and€the€prosecutor€stated€toÏthe€jury€during€opening€statements€that€the€parties€had€stipulated€that€the€appellantÏfailed€to€appear€at€a€penal€institution€as€ordered€by€the€trial€court,€although€proofÏsubsequently€admitted€at€trial€established€that€the€appellant€had€been€ordered€toÏappear€at€an€official€proceeding€before€the€Clerk€of€the€Williamson€County€CircuitÏCourt.€€Accordingly,€on€the€basis€of€the€partiesðð€stipulation,€the€jury€could€haveÏfound€all€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€as€instructed€by€the€trial€court.Ô#†X“XX Xf—+a#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô€Ô#†X“XX Xf—†h#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô€òòÔ#†X“XX Xf—Éh#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“ÔSeeóóÐ 0#Ð ÐòòÔ#†X“XX Xf—i#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“ÔUnited€States€v.€Masonóó,€85€F.3d€471,€473€(10òòthóó€Cir.€1996)(generally,€ð ða€jury€does€notÐ %¨ Ðhave€the€lawful€power€to€reject€stipulated€factsÔ#†X“XX Xf—oi#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ôðð)Ô#†X“XX Xf—Wj#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô.Ô#†X“XX Xf—žj#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“ԀРà&€  ÐÌà Œ àOf€course,€in€this€case,€the€partiesðð€stipulation€was€clearly€erroneous.€ÏNotwithstanding€the€partiesðð€error,€the€intent€of€the€appellant€to€stipulate€to€the€factsÏthat€prove€the€particular€element€at€issue€in€this€case€is€clearly€reflected€in€theÏrecord.€€In€light€of€the€appellantððs€stipulation,Ô#†X“XX Xf—áj#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô€we€conclude€that€any€error€wasÐ 0¸&* Ðharmless.Ô#†X“XX Xf—xl#ÔñÒñÔ‡ Xf—XXX“ÔñÒñ€€òòIdóó.€at€249„250.׃0×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€ñÒñÔ#†X“XX Xf—[l#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“ÔñÓñÌÌÌñÓñà Œ àThe€appellant€additionally€challenges€the€use€by€the€legislature€of€the€phraseÐ À` Ðð ðreasonable€excuseðð€in€setting€forth€a€defense€to€failure€to€appear.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„16„609(b)(2).€€In€evaluating€the€appellantððs€contention,€this€court€shouldÏconsider€ð ðthe€natural€and€ordinary€sense€of€the€words€of€the€statute€and€the€ððuse€ofÏcommon€experience.ðððð€€òòLyonsóó,€802€S.W.2d€at€592.Ô#†X“XX Xf—m#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô€€Moreover,€Ð  À ÐÓÓà8 Œ à[t]he€vagueness€doctrine€does€not€invalidate€every€statute€which€aÏreviewing€court€believes€could€have€been€drafted€with€greaterÏprecision.€...€€Nor€does€the€fact€that€a€statute€...€applicable€in€a€wideÏvariety€of€situations,€must€necessarily€use€words€of€general€meaning,Ïbecause€greater€precision€is€both€impractical€and€difficult,€render€thatÏstatute€unconstitutionally€vague.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓXoÓòòIdóó.€€Accordingly,€our€supreme€court€has€further€observed€that€ð ðthe€probability€thatÐ l  Ðindividuals€or€courts€may€disagree€on€the€application€of€a€statute€in€close€factualÏsituations,€is€wholly€insufficient€to€support€a€charge€of€unconstitutional€vagueness.ðð€ÏòòDorrier€v.€Darkóó,€537€S.W.2d€888,€893€(Tenn.€1976).Ð ô%” ÐÌà Œ àIndeed,€this€court€has€previously€held€that€the€use€of€a€reasonablenessÏstandard€does€not€render€a€statute€unconstitutionally€vague.€€€€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€No.Ð |+"% Ð01C01„9708„CR„00368,€1998€WL€668263,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,ÏMarch€30,€1998)(holding€that€language€ð ðfashioned€to€lead€a€victim€to€reasonablyÏbelieve€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon,ðð€contained€in€the€aggravated€robbery€statute,€isÏnot€unconstitutionally€vague).€€The€reasonableness€standard€ð ðpervades€our€legalÏsystem€and€rests€with€the€intelligence,€experience,€and€common€sense€of€judgesÐ ´4T+/ Ðand€juries.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Hurdóó,€400€N.W.2d€42,€45€(Wis.€Ct.€App.Ð `  Ð1986)(use€of€the€standard€of€reasonableness€does€not€itself€render€a€statuteÏunconstitutionally€vague).€€Furthermore,€other€jurisdictions€have€approved€similarÏphrases.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòCommonwealth€v.€Loveóó,€530€N.E.2d€176€(Mass.€Ct.€App.Ð èˆ Ð1988)(phrase€ð ðwithout€sufficient€excuseðð€was€not€unconstitutionally€vague);€òòState€v.Ð À` ÐTimmonsóó,€706€P.2d€1018€(Or.€Ct.€App.€1985)(phrase€ð ðwithout€lawful€excuseðð€in€aÐ ˜8  Ðcriminal€nonsupport€statute€was€not€unconstitutionally€vague).€€òòSee€alsoóó€ModelÐ p  ÐPenal€Code€ðð€242.8€(Proposed€Official€Draft€1962)(bail€jumping€statute€utilizes€theÏphrase€ð ðwithout€lawful€excuseðð).€€We€similarly€conclude€that€the€phrase€ð ðwithoutÏreasonable€excuseðð€survives€constitutional€scrutiny€in€the€instant€case.ÌÌà Œ àFinally,€in€holding€that€the€failure€to€appear€statute€is€not€unconstitutionallyÏvague,€we€also€reject€the€appellantððs€claim€that€the€manner€in€which€the€statute€isÏapplied€in€Williamson€County€violates€the€appellantððs€right€to€equal€protection€underÏthe€law.€€The€appellant€has€failed€to€adequately€explain€how€application€of€theÏstatute€at€issue€here€creates€any€class€of€individuals€or€targets€a€class€of€individualsÏfor€differential€treatment.€€òòDoe€v.€Norrisóó,€751€S.W.2d€834,€841€(Tenn.€1988).€€LawÐ à&€  Ðenforcement€authorities€and€the€courts€in€Williamson€County€may€be€called€upon€toÏapply€the€failure€to€appear€statute€differently€in€different€factual€circumstances;Ïhowever,€ð ðthings€which€are€different€in€fact€or€opinion€are€not€required€by€either€[theÏUnited€States€or€Tennessee€constitutions]€to€be€treated€the€same.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€If€this€wereÐ @.à$( Ðnot€true,€no€criminal€statute€would€survive€constitutional€scrutiny.€€Thus,€this€courtÏhas€observed€that€ð ðstate€officials€enjoy€broad€discretion€in€determining€what€casesÏare€selected€for€prosecution.€...€That€discretion€does€not€violate€the€principles€ofÏequal€protection€unless€the€choice€to€prosecute€is€ððdeliberately€based€upon€anÏunjustifiable€standard€such€as€race,€religion€or€other€arbitrary€classification.ðð€€òòStateÐ x7.2 Ðv.€Bowenóó,€No.€03C01„9612„CR„00460,€1997€WL€789899,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ `  ÐKnoxville,€December€23,€1997).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@||/ÚàB.ˆÌà Œ àThe€appellant€next€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€the€appellant'sÏMotion€òòin€Limineóó€to€prohibit€the€State€during€trial€from€impeaching€the€appellant€withÐ ˜8  Ðhis€prior€conviction€for€failure€to€appearÔ#†X“XX Xf—o#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô.€€The€appellant€specifically€contends€thatÐ p  Ðthe€prejudicial€effect€of€the€prior€conviction€for€failure€to€appear€would€haveÏoutweighed€any€probative€value€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609.ÌÌà Œ àTenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)€provides€that€a€witness,€including€the€accused€in€aÏcriminal€prosecution,€may€be€impeached€by€evidence€that€he€has€previously€beenÏconvicted€of€a€crime€if€the€following€procedures€are€followed:ÌÝ ‚. ÝÝ  ÝÓÓÝ‚.ÄÝà0 Œ àÔ2ÖÙÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0ä Œ €%Œ €%àÝ  ÝThe€witness€must€be€asked€about€the€conviction€on€cross„examination.Ð X!ø Ð...݃.Ä‚ÝŒÐ ä €%ä €% ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚. ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚.ƒÝà0 Œ àÔ2ÖÙÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0ä Œ €%Œ €%àÝ  ÝThe€crime€must€be€punishable€by€death€or€imprisonment€in€excess€ofÐ 0#Ð Ðone€year€under€the€law€under€which€the€witness€was€convicted€or,€ifÏnot€so€punishable,€the€crime€must€have€involved€dishonesty€or€falseÏstatement.€€Ýƒ.ƒ1ƒÝŒÐ ä €%ä €% ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚. ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚.Å„Ýà0 Œ àÔ2ÖÙÔ(Ú  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0ä Œ €%Œ €%àÝ  ÝIf€the€witness€to€be€impeached€is€the€accused€in€a€criminalÐ à&€  Ðprosecution,€the€State€must€give€the€accused€reasonable€notice€of€theÏimpeaching€conviction€before€trial,€and€the€court€upon€request€mustÏdetermine€that€the€convictionððs€probative€value€on€credibility€outweighsÏits€unfair€prejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues.Ô#†X“XX Xf—ñ#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô݃.Å„ð„ÝŒÐ*0!$ä €%ä €% ÐŒÝ  ÝÓïÓà Œ àà ä àà < àÌÌà Œ àThe€appellant€in€his€brief€correctly€notes€that€the€trial€court,€during€the€jury„¼out€hearing€conducted€for€the€purpose€of€addressing€the€appellantððs€Motion€òòinÐ 1¤'+ ÐLimineóó,€did€not€articulate€his€application€of€the€balancing€test€set€forth€above.€Ð Ü2|)- ÐRather,€Ô#†X“XX Xf—߆#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ôthe€court€merely€concluded€that,€because€defense€counsel€had€remarkedÐ ´4T+/ Ðduring€the€appellantððs€opening€statement€that€he€hoped€to€demonstrate€that€theÏappellant€is€a€ð ðdecent€person,ðð€defense€counsel€ð ðopened€the€doorðð€to€evidenceÐ d8/3 ÐÑOP Ñâ âÑ'ÜÑâ âÑ  Ñconcerning€the€appellantððs€prior€convictions,€including€his€prior€conviction€for€failureÏto€appear.ÌÌà Œ àAccordingly,€it€appears€that€the€trial€court€ruled€upon€the€admission€of€theÏappellantððs€prior€conviction€for€failure€to€appear€on€the€basis€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404,Ïgoverning€the€admission€of€character€evidence€of€the€accused€in€a€criminalÏprosecution,€rather€than€pursuant€to€Rule€609.€€Interestingly,€the€trial€court€madeÏthis€determination€after€already€ruling€on€two€separate€occasions,€once€pre„trial€andÏonce€in€response€to€an€objection€by€defense€counsel€during€the€presentation€of€theÏStateððs€case,€that€the€jury€should€not€be€informed€that€the€appellant€had€previouslyÏbeen€convicted€of€failure€to€appear.€Ì€Ìà Œ àInitially,€rule€404(a)(1)€does€provide,€generally,€that€the€prosecution€may€offerÏevidence€of€a€pertinent€character€trait€to€rebut€such€evidence€offered€by€theÏaccused.€€òòSee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€405(a).€€However,€this€court€has€held€that,Ð 0#Ð Ðbecause€opening€statements€by€counsel€are€not€evidence,€such€statements€will€notÏalone€ð ðopen€the€doorðð€for€the€prosecution€to€introduce€evidence€of€other€crimes.€ÏòòState€v.€Trayloróó,€No.€01C01„9104„CC„00124,€1992€WL€14140,€at€*2„*3€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ¸(X" ÐApp.€at€Nashville,€January€31,€1992).€€Opening€statements€by€defense€counselÏsimply€provide€nothing€for€the€State€to€rebut.€€òòIdóó.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ h,#& Ðdetermining€that€defense€counsel€had€ð ðopened€the€doorðð€to€admission€by€the€StateÏof€the€appellantððs€prior€conviction€for€failure€to€appear.׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 0¸&* ÐÌà Œ àRule€404(b)€specifically€governs€the€admission€of€evidence€of€other€crimesÐ È3h*. Ðas€substantive€evidence.€€This€evidence€will€only€be€admissible€as€relevant€toÏissues€such€as€motive,€intent,€identity,€rebuttal€of€accident€or€mistake€defenses,€andÏthe€existence€of€a€larger€continuing€plan,€scheme€or€conspiracy€of€which€the€crimeÏon€trial€is€a€part.€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,€707€(Tenn.€1997),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€€óóÐ èˆ ÐU.S.€òò€€€€óó,€118€S.Ct.€2348€(1998).€€As€under€Rule€609,€under€Rule€404€the€trial€courtÐ À` Ðmust€comply€with€certain€procedural€requirements:ÌØØÓL€ æÙ((LÓÝ ‚ªo ÝÝ  ÝÓÓà Œ àÝ‚ªo”ÝÔ2æÙÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ä àÝ  ÝThe€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€juryððsÐ p  Ðpresence;݃ªo”P”ÝŒÐ ä €%ä €% ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚ªo ÝÝ  Ýà Œ àÝ‚ªoC•ÝÔ2æÙÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ä àÝ  ÝThe€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€other€thanÐ Hè  Ðconduct€conforming€with€a€character€trait€and€must€upon€request€stateÏon€the€record€the€material€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€forÏadmitting€the€evidence;€and݃ªoC•z•ÝŒÐ ä €%ä €% ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚ªo ÝÝ  Ýà Œ àÝ‚ªo—ÝÔ2æÙÔ(Ú  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ä àÝ  ÝThe€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€isÐ ø˜ Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Ýƒªo—>—ÝŒÐ ä €%ä €% ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÓ2”ÓAs€noted€earlier,€the€trial€court€in€the€instant€case€failed€to€comply€with€theseÏprocedural€requirements.€€ÌÌà Œ àAlthough€the€standard€of€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€decision€concerning€theÏadmissibility€of€evidence€is€normally€abuse€of€discretion,€òòóóour€supreme€court€hasÐ $¼ Ðheld€that€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€to€admit€evidence€pursuant€to€Rule€404(b)Ïshould€be€afforded€no€deference€unless€there€has€been€substantial€compliance€withÏthe€procedural€requirements€of€the€rule.€€òòState€v.€DuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€652Ð ¤)D # Ð(Tenn.€1997).Ô#†X“XX Xf—؈#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô€€Thus,€this€court€must€review€this€issue€òòde€novoóó€on€the€basis€ofÐ |+"% Ðevidence€presented€at€the€jury„out€hearing.ÌÌà Œ àBecause€the€appellant€stipulated€at€trial€that€he€had€failed€to€appear€asÏdirected€by€a€lawful€authority,€the€only€issues€remaining€at€trial€were€whether€or€notÏthe€appellant€ð ðknowinglyðð€failed€to€appear€and€whether€or€not€he€possessed€aÏð ðreasonable€excuseðð€for€failure€to€comply€with€the€courtððs€order.€€Ô#†X“XX Xf—ßš#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“ÔThe€appellantÐ Œ6,-1 Ðtestified€in€a€jury„out€hearing€that€he€would€have€testified€before€the€jury€that€heÐ d8/3 Ðforgot€to€appear€on€the€appointed€date€due€to€his€heavy€workload€and€his€motherððsÏillness.€€Thus,€the€appellantððs€prior€conviction€for€failure€to€appear€would€have€beenÏhighly€probative€on€the€issue€of€the€requisite€mental€element,€i.e.,€whether€or€not€theÏappellant€ð ðknowinglyðð€failed€to€appear.€€€€ÌÌà Œ àWe€wish€to€emphasize€that€this€is€not€a€propensity€argument.€€In€other€words,Ïthe€probative€value€of€the€appellantððs€prior€conviction€is€òònotóó€that,€having€once€failedÐ p  Ðto€appear€without€reasonable€excuse,€the€appellant€was€likely€to€do€so€again.€ÏRather,€the€probative€value€of€the€prior€conviction€is€that,€having€been€convictedÏone€year€earlier€of€failure€to€appear€and€sentenced€to€two€years€incarceration€in€theÏTennessee€Department€of€Correction,€the€appellant€was€unlikely€to€òòforgetóó€to€appearÐ Ðp Ðat€another€proceeding€as€ordered€by€the€court.€€In€this€manner,€the€reasonableÏexcuse€defense€as€applied€in€this€case€is€analogous€to€an€accident€or€mistakeÏdefense€in€response€to€which€evidence€of€other€crimes€may€be€admitted.€€WhileÏacknowledging€that€this€issue€is€an€extremely€close€one,€we€conclude€that,€pursuantÏto€Rule€404(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€the€appellantððs€prior€convictionÏwas€admissible€to€rebut€the€appellantððs€defense.ñÔñ׃×ñÔññÔñ׃×ñÔñÝ ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð à&€  ÐñÖñÌñÖñÐ *0!$ ÐÑ"†Ñâ "âÑTR[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ "âÑ  Ñà@vv/ÚàC.ˆÐ `  Ðà Œ àThe€appellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€overruling€theÏappellantððs€objection€to€the€Stateððs€recitation€of€a€pattern€jury€instruction€duringÏclosing€argument.€€Because€closing€argument€is€a€valuable€privilege€for€both€theÏState€and€the€defense,€courts€generally€afford€wide€latitude€to€counsel€in€presentingÏfinal€argument€to€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Cribbsóó,€967€S.W.2d€773,€783€(Tenn.),€òòcert.Ð ˜8  Ðdeniedóó,€òò€€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€€óó,€119€S.Ct.€343€(1998).€€However,€Ô_Ôð ð[a]lthoughÔ_Ô€counsel€mayÐ p  Ðsummarize€the€law€during€closing€arguments,€the€possibility€of€misstatement€of€theÏlaw€makes€this€an€undesirable€practice.ðð€€òòState€v.€Croomóó,€No.€3,€1988€WL€63503,€atÐ  À Ð*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€June€22,€1988)(citing€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€626€S.W.2dÐ ø˜ Ð283,€285€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€Nevertheless,€a€correct€statement€of€the€law€byÏa€prosecutor€during€closing€argument€will€not€constitute€error.€€òòIdóó.€€The€prosecutor€inÐ ¨H Ðthe€instant€case€merely€recited€to€the€jury€the€pattern€jury€instructions€concerningÏthe€defense€of€reasonable€excuse,€T.P.I.€Crim.€No.€27.02,€and€correctly€noted€that,Ïin€the€absence€of€proof€of€reasonable€excuse,€the€State€was€not€required€toÏdisprove€the€defense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòóóÔ#†X“XX Xf—öœ#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“ÔThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð %¨ Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àÌÌà@vv/ÚàD.ˆÌà Œ àThe€appellant€further€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€overruling€theÏappellant's€objection€to€the€State's€reference,€during€closing€argument,€to€theÏappellantððs€failure€to€present€a€defenseÔ#†X“XX Xf—Öª#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô.€€The€appellant€specifically€objects€to€theÐ 0¸&* Ðprosecutorððs€comment€that,€because€defense€counsel€stated€in€his€openingÏstatement€that€the€appellant€is€a€decent€person,€defense€counsel€should€haveÏpresented€proof€in€support€of€his€statement.Ô#†X“XX Xf—p¬#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô€€It€is€constitutionally€impermissible€for€aÐ  5@,0 Ðprosecutor€to€comment€upon€the€accusedððs€silence€during€the€course€of€trial.€€òòStateÐ x7.2 Ðv.€Transouóó,€928€S.W.2d€949,€960€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.Ð `  ÐStanleyóó,€No.€03C01„9704„CR„00123,€1997€WL€789965,€at€*14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ 8 Ø ÐKnoxville,€December€23,€1997).€€Moreover,€the€prosecutor€should€refrain€fromÏcomments€reflecting€unfavorably€upon€defense€counsel€or€tactics€employed€byÏdefense€counsel€at€trial.€€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð À` Ð1995).€€Nevertheless,€this€constitutional€error€may€be€harmless€if€it€can€beÏestablished€that€this€transgression€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€òòóóÐ p  ÐòòTransouóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€960Ô#†X“XX Xf—¸­#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô.Ð Hè  ÐÌà Œ à€In€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury,€ð ð[The€defendant]€is€notÏrequired€to€take€the€stand€in€his€own€behalf,€and€his€election€not€to€testify€cannot€beÏconsidered€for€any€purpose€against€him,€nor€can€any€inference€be€drawn€from€suchÏfact.ðð€€After€reviewing€the€record,€we€conclude€that,€beyond€any€reasonable€doubt,Ïthe€prosecutorððs€comments€did€not€affect€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€theÏappellant.€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965).€€This€issue€isÐ 0#Ð Ðwithout€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓE.ÌÓµ³Óà Œ àThe€appellant's€fifth€and€final€complaint€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏordering€the€appellant€to€serve€his€sentence€for€failure€to€appear€consecutively€toÏhis€sentences€for€the€underlying€offenses.ÌÌà Œ àÔ#†X“XX Xf—R±#ÔOn€December€8,€1997,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing€in€theÐ ð1(, Ðappellantððs€case.€€Both€the€State€and€the€Appellant€relied€upon€the€pre„sentenceÏreport.€€The€pre„sentence€report€reflects€a€history€of€prior€convictions€including€theÏfollowing:€one€felony€conviction€for€failure€to€appear,€three€Class€D€felonyÐ x7.2 Ðconvictions€for€forgery,€one€Class€E€felony€conviction€for€forgery,€and€three€Class€AÏmisdemeanor€convictions€for€worthless€checks.€€The€State€asserted€the€followingÏenhancement€factors:€(1)€the€appellant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;Ï(13)(a)€the€offense€was€committed€while€the€appellant€was€on€bail;€(15)€theÏdefendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust€owed€to€his€bondsman.€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114€(1997).ÌÌà Œ àThe€appellant€argued,€and€the€State€conceded,€that€mitigating€factor€(1),€thatÏthe€appellantððs€criminal€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury,Ïis€applicable€in€the€instant€case.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113€(1997).€€TheÏappellant€further€argued€that,€on€the€basis€of€his€offer€of€proof€to€the€trial€court,€theÏcourt€should€apply€factor€(7),€that€the€appellant€was€motivated€by€a€desire€to€provideÏnecessities€for€himself€and€his€family,€and€factor€(11),€concerning€the€appellantððsÏlack€of€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law.€€Finally,€the€appellant€argued€that,Ïunder€factor€(13),€the€court€should€give€weight€to€the€lack€of€violent€or€drug„relatedÏactivity€in€the€appellantððs€criminal€history.׃A×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð à&€  ÐÌà Œ àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factorsÏð ðbalanced€out.ðð€€He€accordingly€imposed€a€minimum€sentence€of€four€years.€ÏHowever,€he€did€further€order€that€the€appellantððs€sentence€be€served€consecutivelyÏto€the€appellantððs€sentences€for€the€felonies€underlying€the€instant€offense.€€TheÏcourt€observed€that€a€failure€to€impose€consecutive€sentencing€would€constitute€aÏfailure€to€impose€any€punishment€at€all.Ô‡ Xf—XXX“ÔÐ È3h*. ÐÑ †Ñâ  âÑTR[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ  âÑ  ÑÌà Œ àAgain,€on€appeal,€the€appellant€is€challenging€only€the€trial€courtððs€impositionÏof€consecutive€sentencing.€€Generally,€when€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€manner€ofÏservice€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€aÐ èˆ Ðpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40-35-401(d)€(1997).€€However,€this€court€only€applies€this€presumption€if€theÏrecord€reveals€that€the€trial€court€adequately€considered€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ð Hè  Ð1991);€€see€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€SentencingÐ  À ÐCommission€Comments€provide€that€the€burden€is€upon€the€appellant€toÏdemonstrate€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence.ÌÌà Œ àThe€appellant€correctly€notes€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€state€on€the€recordÏthe€rationale€for€imposing€consecutive€sentencing,€other€than€the€trial€courtððsÏobservation€that€to€fail€to€impose€consecutive€sentencing€would€be€to€fail€to€imposeÏany€sentence€at€all.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(2)€(ð ðthe€judgment€to€make€theÐ %¨ Ðsentences€...€consecutive€shall€explicitly€recite€the€judgeððs€reasons€thereforðð).€ÏÔ#†X“XX Xf—U½#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“ÔNevertheless,€upon€òòde€novoóó€review€and€absent€the€presumption€of€correctness,€weÐ ¸(X" Ðconclude€that€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€determination.€€ÌÌà Œ àIn€the€instant€case,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„609(f)€specifically€providesÏthat,€in€imposing€a€sentence€for€failure€to€appear,€a€trial€court€may€order€aÏconsecutive€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Rankinóó,€No.€03C01„9511„CC„00369,€1996€WLÐ ð1(, Ð469678,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€August€19,€1996).Ô#†X“XX Xf—jÄ#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô€€Moreover,€we€note,Ð È3h*. Ðand€it€is€undisputed,€that€the€appellantððs€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive.€€òòSeeóóÐ  5@,0 ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-115(b)(2)€(1997).Ô#†X“XX Xf—²Æ#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ô€€When€a€defendant€falls€within€theÐ x7.2 ÐÑ.†Ñâ .âÑTR[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ .âÑ  Ñstatutory€classifications€for€eligibility€to€be€considered€for€consecutive€sentencing,Ð `  Ðthe€only€remaining€considerations€are€whether€(1)€the€sentences€are€necessary€inÏorder€to€protect€the€public€from€further€misconduct€by€the€defendant€and€whether€(2)Ï"the€terms€are€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses."€€òòState€v.Ð èˆ ÐWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995).€€Ô#†X“XX Xf—ÀÇ#ÔÔ‡ Xf—XXX“ÔThe€appellantððs€sentence€isÐ À` Ðconsistent€with€these€principles.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòState€v.€Nobleóó,€No.€02C01„9701„CC„Ð ˜8  Ð00060,€1998€WL€32681,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€January€30,€1998).€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ñ×ñÐ  Hè  Ðñ×ññØñÌñØñÌà@(Úàò òIII.€€Conclusionó óˆÐ ø˜ Ðà Œ àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€we€AFFIRM€the€appellantððs€conviction€forÏfailure€to€appear,€and€we€further€affirm€the€sentence€imposed.ÌÌÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àÓÓà ì àà D àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ @#à Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àNORMA€MCGEE€OGLE,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ È(h" ÐJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ x,#& ÐJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÔ#†X“XX Xf—lË#ÔòòóóÔ‡ Xf—XXX“Ôà ì àÔ#†X“XX Xf—¡Ï#Ôò òó ó