ÿWPCÛ" …# VUNa %¯ 0 µUB¾ U: w@: 4z Ž 0J 0Tç ; 0^C 0h¡ 0r 0|{ 0†÷ 0} 1u  0d‚ BæU>U.AU*oB)™DC AMR D3ÓÒ<Ø 0@v~TvÓÒ 0M¥ 0Dò AO6!Æ…! 0DK" D/" B¾"˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(á×0$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€{¿XXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi, øð AZ"Arial Regular œž¢£¤¥¦§Ó€³R¦"Z‹–3|xµ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ wÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òMayÏ19,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó!!!!'ÿÿdxd ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ0$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ôÔ€€The€same€distinction€presently€exists€in€that€only€a€felony€offense€can€result€in€aÏpenitentiary€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„104(c)(8)€(Supp.€1996).Ì 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ0$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€€Ô€#ôÔÔ€%ÔThe€motion€contains€the€following€assertions:ÌÌÓ  Óà8 à"1.€€That€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€is€insufficient€as€a€€€€matterÏof€law€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€the€offenses€of€driving€under€theÏinfluence€of€an€intoxicant€and€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accident;Ìà à2.€€That€there€is€no€evidence€contained€in€the€record€to€support€the€verdict€returned€byÏthe€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€jury;Ìà à3.€€That€the€verdict€is€contrary€to€the€law€and€the€evidence;Ìà à4.€€That€the€state€failed€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€to€a€moral€certainty€all€ofÏthe€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€elements€of€the€offenses€of€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€and€leaving€the€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïscene€of€an€accident€.€.€.€."€€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(ý(3Å@$¤¤Ý ƒ×0!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€¶1XXdÈdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€o2XXdðXXdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€()'A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ à€€€AT€KNOXVILLE€€€€€€€ÌÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œOCTOBER€1994€SESSION›ÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9406„CR„00197€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àRhea€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà à)à àHonorable€Paul€A.€Swafford,€Judge€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€€Honorable€Thomas€W.€Graham,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Driving€while€under€the€influence€ofÌRONNIE€W.€NAIL,à àà àà àà à)à à€€an€intoxicant€and€leaving€the€sceneÌà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€of€an€accident)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòà àà àFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌHoward€L.€Upchurchà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌP.O.€Box€381€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌPikeville,€TN€37367€€€€à àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà à€€€€€à àà àClinton€J.€MorganÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCounsel€for€the€State€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà à€€€€€à àà àJames€Michael€TaylorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWill€DunnÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à265€3rd€Avenue,€SuiteÏ300à àà àà àà àà àà àà àDayton,€TN€37321ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_____________________ÌÌÌœJUDGMENTS€VACATED›€œAND€CASE›€REMANDEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÓÓÓ` °½` ˜XÓà@ àÌÇà àà àà àà àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Ronnie€W.€Nail,€was€convicted€in€a€jury€trial€in€the€CircuitÏCourt€for€Rhea€County€of€driving€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€(DUI)€andÏleaving€the€scene€of€an€accident,€both€offenses€being€misdemeanors.€€He€wasÏsentenced€to€the€minimum€sentence€available€for€a€first€offense€DUI€and€fined€twoÏdollars€for€leaving€the€scene.€€He€appeals€as€of€right€and€claims€that€he€was€entitled€toÏa€new€trial€because€an€adequate€record€of€the€trial€proceedings€could€not€be€preparedÏso€as€to€allow€the€successor€judge€to€rule€on€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€This€case€hasÏtraveled€a€tortuous€route€since€the€defendant's€arrest€in€1985€„„€a€route€that€we€needÏnot€fully€recount€here.€€Unfortunately,€the€journey€does€not€end€here,€because€we€mustÏvacate€the€judgments€of€conviction€and€remand€the€case€for€further€proceedings.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€convicted€in€March€1989€in€a€jury€trial€over€whichÏJudge€Paul€A.€Swafford€presided.€€On€October€19,€1989,€Judge€Swafford€sentencedÏthe€defendant€and€on€November€20,€1989,€the€defendant€filed€his€motion€for€new€trial.€ÏThe€motion€remained€pending€when€Judge€Swafford€was€defeated€in€his€reelectionÏeffort€and€Judge€Thomas€W.€Graham€was€elected€to€replace€him€beginningÏSeptember€1,€1990.€€The€motion€was€heard€in€July€1992€and€the€order€denying€it€wasÏentered€in€June€1993.ÌÌà àThe€issue€raised€by€the€defendant€stems€from€his€claim€that€no€record€ofÏthe€trial€exists.€€From€this€he€asserts€that€it€was€impossible€for€the€successor€judge€toÍrule€upon€the€motion€for€new€trial€and,€therefore,€that€a€new€trial€was€required.€€HeÏrelies€upon€Rule€25(b),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€which€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àòòà àAfter€Verdict€of€Guiltóó.€€If€by€reason€of€absence,€death,Ïsickness€or€other€disability€the€judge€before€whom€theÏdefendant€has€been€tried€is€unable€to€perform€the€duties€toÏbe€performed€by€the€court€after€a€verdict€of€guilt,€any€otherÏjudge€regularly€sitting€in€or€who€may€be€assigned€to€theÏcourt€may€perform€those€duties.€€If€the€successor€judge€isÏsatisfied€that€he€cannot€perform€those€duties€because€œhe€orÏshe€›€did€not€preside€at€the€trial€or€for€any€other€reason,€œtheÏsuccessor€judge€may€exercise€the€discretion€to€grant€a€newÏtrial.›ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓIn€response,€the€state€notes€that€the€rule€gives€discretion€to€the€judge€and€asserts€thatÏno€abuse€of€discretion€has€occurred€because€the€lack€of€an€adequate€record€for€theÏsuccessor€judge€to€review€is€attributable€to€the€defendant.€€Although€the€defendantððsÏfailure€to€present€an€adequate€record€of€the€case€for€appellate€review€would€be€fatal,Ïwe€believe€that€the€state€misapprehends€the€obligation€relative€to€entry€of€a€validÏjudgment,€one€for€which€the€trial€court€must€approve€the€verdict.ÌÌà àAt€the€new€trial€motion€hearing,€the€defendant's€trial€attorney,€who€noÏlonger€represented€the€defendant,€testified€that€he€did€not€hire€a€court€reporter€toÏpreserve€the€proceedings€at€trial€because€he€thought€that€the€state€was€to€provide€oneÏfor€the€defendant's€misdemeanor€trial.€€He€said€that€when€he€learned€in€court€that€aÏreporter€was€not€present,€he€asked€the€circuit€court€clerk,€John€E.€Fine,€to€record€theÏproceedings€and€that€Mr.€Fine€did€so.€€He€stated€that€the€trial€lasted€all€day€and€thatÏfour€or€five€tapes€were€used.€€He€said€that€Mr.€Fine€provided€the€tapes€and€operatedÏthe€recorder.€€He€testified€that€after€the€trial,€Mr.€Fine€retained€the€tapes.€€He€explainedÍthat€he€did€not€need€possession€of€the€tapes€until€the€decision€to€appeal€was€madeÏand€he€indicated€that€he€thought€that€the€tapes€would€be€made€part€of€the€record€orÏcourt€file.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€testified€that€Mr.€Fine€made€the€tapes€during€the€trial€andÏstopped€both€sides€in€order€to€change€the€tapes.€€He€stated€that€at€the€end€of€the€trial,ÏMr.€Fine€took€the€tapes€and€the€recorder€out€of€the€courtroom.€€The€defendant€said€thatÏabout€a€month€after€he€was€sentenced,€he€went€to€see€Mr.€Fine€at€his€trial€attorney'sÏrequest€in€order€to€obtain€a€copy€of€the€tapes€and€that€Mr.€Fine€told€him€that€a€copyÏwould€be€furnished€if€his€attorney€made€a€written€request.€€ÌÌà àMr.€Fine€testified€that€he€handles€many€recording€tapes€for€preliminaryÏhearings,€but€not€for€trials.€€He€recalled€the€trial€attorney€asking€about€tape€recordingÏthe€proceedings€and€stated€that€he€directed€the€court€officer€to€get€the€recorder€and€setÏit€upon€the€bench.€€He€said€that€the€officer€took€the€recorder€out€of€the€courtroom€afterÏthe€trial.€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€ever€remember€taking€possession€of€the€tapes€andÏthat€he€searched€diligently€for€them,€but€to€no€avail.€€He€also€stated€that€there€was€noÏnotation€in€the€rule€docket€book€of€there€being€tapes,€something€he€normally€wouldÏnote.ÌÌà àIn€sum,€the€tape€recordings,€if€any,€of€the€trial€were€not€to€be€found.€€TheÏtrial€attorney€testified€that€although€he€remembered€a€lot€of€the€testimony,€it€was€notÏ"with€such€particularity€that€would€be€accurate."€€The€defendant€was€not€asked€aboutÍhis€recollection.€€However,€the€prosecuting€attorney€stated€that€he€could€prepare€anÏaccurate€statement€of€the€evidence€for€the€court€to€review,€although€he€acknowledgedÏthat€he€could€not€specifically€remember€every€question.€€In€any€event,€apparently€noÏstatement€of€the€evidence€or€other€detailed€account€of€the€trial€proceedings€was€everÏproduced€and€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€denied.ÌÌà àAs€for€the€cause€of€the€lack€of€a€trial€record,€the€defendant€asserts€that€theÏjudicial€system€is€required€to€provide€a€court€reporter€for€every€stage€of€a€criminal€caseÏand€that€it€was€not€his€duty€either€to€preserve€the€tapes€or€otherwise€to€insure€theÏproper€recording€of€the€trial.€€He€relies€upon€T.C.A.€ðð€œ40„14„307(a)€(1990)›€which,€inÏpertinent€part,€then€stated:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à€€à àA€designated€reporter€shall€attend€every€stage€ofÏeach€criminal€case€before€the€court€and€shall€recordÏverbatim,€by€a€method€prescribed€or€approved€by€theÏexecutive€secretary€[now€administrative€director],€allÏproceedings€had€in€open€court€and€such€other€proceedingsÏas€the€judge€may€direct.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓHowever,€as€the€state€has€noted,€the€"criminal€case"€to€which€the€statute€refers€isÏnarrowly,€but€specifically,€defined€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„14„301(2)€as€œ"the›€trial€of€any€criminalÏoffense€which€is€punishable€by€confinement€in€the€state€penitentiary€and€anyÏproceeding€for€the€writ€of€habeas€corpus€wherein€the€unlawful€confinement€is€allegedÏto€be€in€a€state,€county€or€municipal€institution€.€.€.€."€€In€this€respect,€at€the€timesÏrelevant€to€this€case,€penitentiary€confinement€as€punishment€was€the€defining€featureÏof€a€felony€and€distinguished€it€from€a€misdemeanor.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„1„103€(repealed€ÇÌ1989).œ× ƒ+ ××  ×›€€In€other€words,€a€court€reporter€was€not€provided€at€state€expense€for€a€Ìmisdemeanor€unless€a€defendant€was€unable€to€afford€one€based€upon€indigency,€aÏstatus€not€asserted€by€the€defendant.€€Thus,€the€obligation€to€provide€the€defendant€aÏmeans€to€have€a€verbatim€record€of€the€defendant's€trial€proceedings€did€not€fall€uponÏthe€state.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€also€asserts€that€even€if€he€had€the€responsibility€toÏprovide€an€adequate€record,€we€should€excuse€his€failure€to€do€so.€€He€claims€that€hisÏcounsel€sought€to€have€a€recording€of€the€trial,€"had€every€right€to€assume"€that€theÏtapes€would€be€preserved,€and€could€not€be€faulted€for€not€anticipating€that€JudgeÏSwafford€would€become€"unavailable"€without€hearing€and€ruling€upon€his€motion.€ÏHowever,€the€successor€judge€saw€no€legal€obligation€cast€upon€the€court€clerk€to€takeÏand€keep€possession€of€any€tapes€and€concluded€that€any€failure€to€preserve€or€makeÏan€appropriate€record€was€the€ð ðfaultðð€of€the€defendant's€trial€attorney.€€We€believe€that,Ïfor€appellate€purposes,€these€conclusions€are€correct€under€the€record€before€us.ÌÌà àAt€this€point,€we€note€that€the€defendant€combined€his€motion€for€new€trialÏwith€one€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€with€the€joint€pleading€purporting€to€raise€sevenÏgrounds.€€However,€the€last€three€deal€with€the€central€complaint€that€he€was€illegallyÏarrested€and€that€the€charges€and€the€evidence€used€against€him€flowed€from€thatÍillegal€arrest.€€The€record€establishes€that€on€behalf€of€the€defendant,€a€court€reporterÏdid€make€a€verbatim€record€of€the€suppression€hearing€dealing€with€the€issue€of€theÏarrest's€legality,€but€a€transcript€of€it€was€not€submitted€to€the€successor€judge€forÏreview€nor€is€it€part€of€the€record€on€appeal.€€Ìà àÌà àÇà àThe€remaining€four€grounds€in€the€defendant's€motion€assail€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence.× ƒ, ××  ×€€However,€the€record€does€not€indicate€any€attempt€by€theÏdefendant€to€prepare€a€statement€of€the€evidence€that€could€ordinarily€meet€the€needsÏfor€a€sufficiency€review.€€The€mere€claim€by€the€trial€attorney€of€inaccurate€recollectionÏdid€not€foreclose€him€from€ultimately€recalling€all€of€the€evidence€that€would€beÏnecessary€for€complete€review€of€the€issues€raised€in€the€defendant's€motion.€€ItÏobviously€does€not€establish€that€the€defendant€was€unable€to€present€such€aÏstatement€through€his€own€recollection,€that€of€the€former€judge,€and€even€that€of€theÏprosecutor€and€witnesses.€€€€ÌÌà àIn€fact,€the€defendant€indicates€in€his€brief€that€an€attempt€was€not€madeÏby€including€such€statements€as,€"For€argument's€sake,€if€we€assume€that€theÏAppellant€could€prepare€his€own€statement€of€evidence,€and€eventually€develop€one,Ïthe€State€will€most€certainly€object€to€his€recollection€of€the€events."€€As€the€state€pointsÏout€in€its€brief,€there€is€no€basis€for€imputing€such€bad€faith€upon€the€state€and€"it€is€inÏthe€State's€best€interest€to€approve€a€factually€correct€statement€rather€than€to€risk€toÏretry€this€old€case."€€Ultimately,€though,€such€argument€by€the€defendant€only€goes€toÍshow€that€the€defendant€has€failed€to€prepare€an€appropriate€record€on€appeal€forÏreview.ÌÌà àHowever,€the€reason€for€vacating€the€judgment€and€remanding€this€caseÏarose€before€the€case€was€appealed.€€While€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€pendingÏhearing€and€resolution,€Rule€33(f),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€became€effective€so€as€toÏreinstate€the€thirteenth€juror€rule€in€all€pending€actions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Enochsóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€œ539,€540›€(Tenn.€1991).€€Under€the€thirteenth€juror€rule,€the€trial€judge€has€aÏduty€to€act€as€the€thirteenth€juror€to€insure€that€a€jury€verdict€is€based€upon€satisfactoryÏevidence,€including€that€it€be€presented€through€sufficiently€credible€witnesses.€€òòSeeóó,Ïòòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€896€S.W.2d€œ119,€122›€(Tenn.€1995).€€This€assessment€by€the€trialÏjudge€is€a€prerequisite€to€the€entry€of€a€valid€judgment.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burlisonóó,€868ÏS.W.2d€œ713,€718›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Absent€the€proper€approval€of€the€verdictÏby€the€trial€court,€a€new€trial€must€be€granted.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Moatsóó,€906€S.W.2d€œ431,Ï432,€435„36›€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€this€respect,€we€believe€that€a€successor€judgeððsÏconsideration,€pursuant€to€Rule€25(b),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€of€whether€the€duties€of€theÏoriginal€judge€can€be€met€must€include€an€assessment€of€his€or€her€ability€to€act€as€aÏthirteenth€juror,€including€witness€credibility.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bilbreyóó,€858€S.W.2d€911,Ï914€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Therein€lies€the€problem€in€this€case.€€ÌÌà àAs€previously€noted,€the€defendant€sought€a€new€trial€on€the€grounds€thatÏthere€was€no€evidence€to€support€the€verdict€and€that€the€verdict€was€contrary€to€theÏevidence.€€These€grounds€adequately€raised€the€issue€of€the€trial€judgeððs€functioningÍas€the€thirteenth€juror.€€At€that€point,€the€successor€judge€would€need€to€determine€theÏextent€to€which€witness€credibility€was€a€factor€in€the€case€and€the€extent€to€which€he€€€€Ïhad€sufficient€knowledge€or€records€before€it€in€order€to€decide€whether€the€credibleÏevidence,€as€viewed€by€the€judge,€adequately€supported€the€verdict.€€òòSeeóó€òòBilbreyóó,€858ÏS.W.2d€at€915.€€If€these€determinations€could€not€be€made€by€the€successor€judge,€theÏverdict€could€not€be€approved€and€a€new€trial€should€have€been€granted.ÌÌà àObviously,€the€defendant€had€no€more€obligation€than€the€state€to€insureÏthat€a€verbatim€record€of€this€misdemeanor€trial€was€available.€€However,€each€partyÏbears€its€œown›€risks€and€responsibilities€relative€to€a€successful€conclusion€to€litigation.€ÏIn€a€legal€sense,€the€prosecution€has€achieved€nothing€until€valid€judgments€ofÏconviction€are€entered€upon€which€the€state€may€execute€the€sentence.€€Thus,€as€aÏpractical€measure,€the€state€was€obligated€in€this€case€to€insure€either€that€the€originalÏtrial€judge€rule€on€the€defendantððs€motion€or€that€a€sufficient€record€was€preserved€forÏthe€successor€judge€to€review€for€the€purpose€of€fulfilling€the€role€of€thirteenth€juror.€ÏAbsent€the€record€indicating€that€the€defendant€somehow€unfairly€obstructed€the€stateÏfrom€pursuing€either€avenue,€there€is€no€issue€regarding€assessing€ð ðfaultðð€to€theÏdefendant.€€Rather,€it€is€the€fact€that€the€successor€judge€did€not€have€an€adequateÏrecord€of€the€trial€for€him€to€function€as€the€thirteenth€juror€that€prevented€him€fromÏentering€a€valid€judgment.€€Consequently,€a€new€trial€must€be€granted.€€ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€we€hold€that€the€judgments€ofÏconviction€are€vacated€and€that€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJerry€Scott,€Special€JudgeÌÌà àÌ