ÿWPCð gMµ••D·B"_$›'! rúàÚÄ @ÝÇá³Οá?UEúãêÌçí_¸ðo—mbî¨Û¶š¡\Èö¦´Â$¢Ïmu©ŸNUPê>Åh˜¢·e룻R¯‹óaEËܳ|qçá{KO\nèÖ7¬+ç_,}Ó_Àòü GçH_ik/Ûæ¶yÈ‘6”÷¹ô-½ÿ •²ó\zÃh_oŸí8 ¾!qp‚ç0·,É»&Ãå'åSUüoß2* È}n\ç$NÛti¢~®«ÙFí¾b¾£Vª§[é¼àý,Äøx¥!±,·rìúÈãä=е‘4w^àÕ¦•Kÿ·l‘‘Pí ·}»Ù¾3øÛošÃFiãÔf¦©ï<õéØà»«ÉÜ?¾T^«,¾—€k²+^O ó óÉÃ’Æ'”oÏ&Å ‹qövd±Åãñ¡~¿&†rñ¢õuô¹5ÈP^Ú—2.•½È* ß«²ì§ïv&)¢—7OtT|޲j6™ëÆ[T1»“ªBöß|$e/Š|»Ø4ò œÂåy=uÒˆ ê±2Ù–qãÙo²mkËgñÞyz’  J&ÛTÕ$|¥Zþ«kVJ8×É(,Ô sŸÙ‘Öéé!ªÄv#P…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í w@ 4G [ j èr U:Z é” U:} } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } B· · · · · D3Ô Ô Ô 0D AOKÆšš 0D` D/¤ BÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ'Ör Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡-Ýr2AZ‹"Arial Regular  V D D    U U  Ó€ uM%3|x  ÞÔ€ X…ªXXXÔÔ€ ³KX X…ªÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X…ªX ³KÔÐ  ÐÌJanuary€14,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ßÔ€ X…ªXXXÔÔ€ ³KX X…ªÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X…ªX ³KÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€21,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ ñ›ñ ñÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÔ€X…ªXXXÔòòÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ñ7XXdìdÈ7Ññ ññ ñßr€ *<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` 8ttxPX` ð  rßñ ññ ññ ñßr€ *<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` 8ttxPX` ð  rßñ ññ ñ›ñ ñà@g g ÚàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóˆÐ `  Ðà@ÚÚ0ÚàòòˆÌà@*ÚàAT€NASHVILLEóóˆÐ , Ì ÐÌà@™™%ÚàSEPTEMBER€1998€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ” àà ì à*à D àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9708„CC„00327£€Ð 0 ÐÌà Œ àà ä àAPPELLEE,à ” àà ì à*à D à¢RUTHERFORD£€COUNTYÐ \ü  ÐÌ¢VS£.à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à*à D àHon.€J.€S.€Daniel¢£,€JudgeÐ (È  ÐÌà0 Œ àà 4 àSTEPHEN€CARL€OSBORNE,à ì à*à D à(Driving€on€Revoked€License€and€Ðô” Œ €%Œ €% Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àDriving€Under€the€Influence„4th€Offense¢£)¼à Œ àAPPELLANT.à ” àà ì à*à D àÐ À` 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 $Ä ÐÌGuy€R.€Dotson,€Jr.¢à < à£à ” àà ì à¢à D àJohn€Knox€Walkup£Ð ð Ð102€South€Maple€Streetà ” àà ì àà D àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ Öv ÐMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130à ” àà ì àà D à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÐ ¼ \ Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à¢Lisa€A.€Naylor£Ìà 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 àWilliam€C.€WhitesellÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àThird€Floor€Judicial€Bldg.Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130à ¤ àà ü! à€Ð ž*>!% ÐÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€____________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌ€ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEòòÐ  f5,1 ÐÑ7€…ªXXdæXXdì7Ñà@33-Úàò òOPINIONó óóóˆÐ `  ÐÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant,€Stephen€Carl€Osborne,€was€convicted€of€operating€aÏmotor€vehicle€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€fourth€offense,€and€forÏoperating€a€motor€vehicle€on€a€revoked€driver's€license.€€The€trial€court€imposed€aÏsentence€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€for€the€DUI€conviction,€suspendedÏall€but€œone€hundred›€œseventy›€days,€and€ordered€the€remainder€to€be€served€onÏprobation.€€The€trial€court€€imposed€a€consecutive€six„month€sentence€for€driving€onÏrevoked€license,€ordered€ten€days€in€jail,€and€required€the€balance€to€be€served€onÏprobation.€€In€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€forÏreview:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(I)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€order€aÏmistrial€after€the€jury€was€exposed€to€evidence€of€theÏdefendant's€prior€convictions;€and€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(II)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€a€newÏtrial€after€the€jury€was€exposed€to€extraneous€informationÏduring€deliberations.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÌÌà Œ àà ä àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àAt€approximately€1:00€a.m.€on€April€21,€1996,€Officer€Don€Fanning€ofÏthe€Murfreesboro€Police€Department€observed€the€defendant€driving€in€an€industrialÏarea€which€had€minimal€late„night€traffic€on€the€weekends.€€When€Officer€FanningÏnoticed€the€defendant€turning€right€onto€a€dead„end€street,€he€drove€through€theÏintersection,€and€then€returned€to€the€intersection€to€observe.€€By€that€time€theÏdefendant€was€reapproaching€the€intersection.€€According€to€Officer€Fanning,€theÏdefendant€failed€to€stop€at€the€stop€sign€before€turning€right.€€Officer€Fanning€thenÏstopped€the€defendant's€vehicle.̜Р R6ò,2 Лà Œ àà ä àSamantha€Krueger,€girlfriend€of€the€defendant,€stepped€out€of€the€carÏfirst€and€attempted€to€talk€with€Officer€Fanning.€€The€officer€asked€Ms.€Krueger€toÏstep€aside€so€that€he€could€speak€with€the€driver.€€When€asked€to€show€his€driver'sÏlicense,€the€defendant€told€Officer€Fanning€that€it€had€been€revoked.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOfficer€Fanning€administered€a€series€of€field€sobriety€tests€beforeÏdetermining€that€the€defendant€was€driving€under€the€influence.€€He€also€confirmedÏthe€revoked€status€of€the€defendant's€driver's€license.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€claimed€necessity€as€his€defense.€€He€and€Ms.€KruegerÏtestified€that€he€was€driving€because€Ms.€Krueger,€who€had€been€driving€earlier€thatÏevening,€had€become€ill.€€When€Officer€Fanning€stopped€the€vehicle,€however,Ïneither€the€defendant€nor€Ms.€Krueger€made€such€a€claim.€€Ìà Œ àà ä àÌà Œ àà ä àAt€trial,€the€State€presented€a€video€tape€of€the€stop,€the€field€sobrietyÏtests,€and€the€arrest.€€A€portion€of€the€video€tape€included€questions€about€priorÏarrests€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€€The€State€redacted€the€portions€of€theÏvideo€that€covered€information€about€the€prior€arrests.€€During€jury€deliberations,Ïhowever,€the€jury€asked€to€review€the€tape€and€the€prosecution€mistakenly€includedÏsome€of€the€redacted€portions.€€On€the€redacted€portion€of€the€videotape,€the€juryÏheard€Officer€Fanning€ask€the€defendant,€"When€was€the€last€time€you€wereÏarrested€for€driving€on€revoked?"€€The€tape€was€stopped€before€the€defendantÏanswered.€€The€defendant's€motion€for€a€mistrial€was€overruled.€€A€short€time€later,Ïthe€jury€returned€with€œverdicts›€of€guilty€for€driving€under€the€influence€and€driving€onÏœa€revoked›€license.€€Ì€œÐ  L6ì,2 ЛÓ  ÓI¹Ó  Óà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant's€first€complaint€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€toÏgrant€a€mistrial.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€jury€was€exposed€to€evidence€of€hisÏprior€convictions€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license€by€the€question€recorded€on€theÏvideotape.€€The€state€argues€that€the€trial€court€correctly€denied€the€defendant'sÏmotion€because€the€challenged€question€was€not€evidence€of€any€prior€œconvictions›Ïand,€therefore,€did€not€require€the€grant€of€a€mistrial.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€purpose€of€a€mistrial€is€to€correct€the€damage€done€to€the€judicialÏprocess€when€some€event€has€occurred€which€would€preclude€an€impartial€verdict.€ÏòòArnold€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€792,€794€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€The€decisionÐ Xø Ðwhether€to€grant€a€mistrial€is€within€the€trial€court's€discretion€and€will€not€beÏdisturbed€absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Millbrooksóó,€819€S.W.2d€441,Ð ð Ð443€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€"Generally€a€mistrial€will€be€declared€in€a€criminalÏcase€only€when€there€is€a€'manifest€necessity'€requiring€such€by€the€trial€œjudge.€€òòId.óó,Ð ˆ"( Ð819›€S.W.2d€at€443.€€The€authority€to€discharge€a€jury€is€to€be€exercised€only€whenÏthere€is€œa€cogent›€reason€or€manifest€necessity.€€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€403€S.W.2d€750,Ð  &À  Ð754€(Tenn.€1966).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòState€v.€James€Edward€Gatesóó,€œNo.€01C01„9607„CR„00312,€slip€op.Ð „+$"& Ðat€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Sept.€30,€1997),€òòapp.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Oct.€12,Ð P-ð#( Ð1998),€the›€issue€before€this€court€was€whether€a€mistrial€was€required€when€the€juryÏinadvertently€heard€a€question€on€audiotape€that€alluded€to€the€defendant's€possibleÏprior€misconduct.€œñú ñ€ñú ññú ñ›ñú ññù ñ.›€ñù ññú ñ›ñú ññù ñ€ñù ñSpecifically,›€the€jury€heard€on€audiotape€a€detective€ask€theÏdefendant,€"Juaney€[Bradford]€has€got€you€in€trouble€before,€ain't€he?"€€òòGatesóó,€slipÐ €4 +0 Ðop.€at€7.€€This€court€held€that€a€jury€hearing€a€question€on€audiotape€that€alluded€toÏthe€defendant's€possible€prior€misconduct€without€hearing€the€answer€did€not€qualifyÐ 8¸.4 Ðas€a€"manifest€necessity"€requiring€mistrial.€€The€court€concluded€that€the€trial€judgeÏhad€not€abused€his€discretion€in€refusing€to€grant€a€mistrial.€€òòGatesóó,€slip€op.€at€7.€€Ð , Ì ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€this€instance,€the€jury€heard€Officer€Fanning's€œquestionñû ñ,ñû ñ›€but€did€notÏhear€the€defendant's€response.€€Furthermore,€before€hearing€the€question,€the€juryÏwas€instructed€by€the€trial€judge€that€questions€were€not€to€be€considered€asÏevidence.€€In€the€context€of€the€entire€record,€the€objectionable€portion€of€theÏvideotape€did€not€affect€the€results€of€the€trial€or€otherwise€so€prejudice€the€judicialÏprocess€as€to€preclude€an€impartial€verdict.€€The€evidence€of€guilt€was€convincingÏnotwithstanding€the€improper€question€heard€by€the€jury.€€It€is€our€conclusion,Ïtherefore,€that€there€was€no€manifest€necessity€for€the€mistrial€and€that€the€trialÏjudge€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€by€refusing€to€grant€a€mistrial.ÌÌÓ  ÓIIÌÓ  Óà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€toÏgrant€defendant's€motion€for€a€new€trial€œñü ñbecause€ñü ññý ñafter›€ñý ñthe›€jury€was€exposed€to€extraneousÏœinformationñþ ñ€during€deliberationsñþ ñ.›€€The€defendant€argues€that€Officer€Fanning'sÏquestion€affected€the€reliability€of€the€verdict.€€The€defendant€also€argues€thatÏbecause€the€question€was€prejudicial,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€prosecution€toÏdemonstrate€the€harmlessness€of€the€communication€with€the€jury.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€issueÏpresented€is€whether€the€jury€was€prejudiced€by€the€introduction€of€the€extraneousÏinformation.€€The€trial€judge€stated€as€follows:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓWell€here's€...€and€I€understand€your€argument€and€itÏmakes€an€interesting€issue€framed€for€appellate€review.€ÏBut€as€you€know,€we€charge€the€jury€that€a€question€isÏnot€evidence.€€That€evidence€is€the€response€to€theÏquestion.€€And€so€the€issue€really€that's€raised€[is:€€Is]€thisÏquestion,€which€is€unanswered,€such€a€piece€ofÐ þ8ž/5 Ðextraneous€information€that€the€jury€is€prejudiced€in€theirÏdeliberation.€€œñÿ ñÌñÿ ñ›ÌÒ4ä ÷)ÒÒXé)ÒÓ*Óœñ ñ(Alteration›€added).›€ñ ññ ñ€ñ ñIn›€overruling€the€defendant's€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€trial€judge€made€a€furtherÏobservation:€ÌÒä ù.4ÒÒ/XÒÓÓà < àBut€in€this€case,€it€looks€like€this€would€be€the€typeÏof€case€in€which€it€would€be€an€attack€on€the€receipt€byÏthe€jury€of€extraneous€information€that€affects€theirÏverdict,€and€that€verdict€could€be€attacked€by€affidavitÏshowing€that€the€defendant€in€his€position€was€in€factÏprejudiced€by€the€question.Ìà < àAnd€I€don't€have€anything€to€justify€that.€€AndÏassuming€that€following€the€charge€and€the€law,€that€aÏquestion€is€not€evidence,€then€I€don't€have€anythingÏpresented€to€me€that€would€give€rise€to€a€basis€toÏconclude€that€the€jury,€using€that€extraneous€information,Ïreached€a€conclusion€that€was€inappropriate€for€them€toÏreach€based€on€that€information.€€So€with€thoseÏcomments,€I'm€going€to€overrule€your€motion.ÌÌÌÒ4ä —,ÒÒX©,ÒÓ»,Óà Œ àà ä àÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€and€the€State€both€cite€Rule€606(b)€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Evidence.€€Rule€606(b)€states€that€a€juror€may€testify€on€the€question€ofÏwhether€extraneous€prejudicial€information€was€improperly€brought€to€bear€upon€anyÏjuror.€€Here,€the€defendant€never€presented€testimony€by€a€juror€as€to€anyÏextraneous€prejudicial€information.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àExtraneous€information€is€information€from€a€source€outside€the€jury.€ÏòòCaldararo€v.€Vanderbilt€Universityóó,€794€S.W.2d€738,€742€(Tenn.€App.€1990)€(citingÐ j, #' ÐòòState€v.€Cokeróó,€746€S.W.2d€167,€171€(Tenn.€1987)).€€After€proof€that€a€juror€hasÐ 6.Ö$) Ðbeen€exposed€to€extraneous€prejudicial€information,€there€arises€a€rebuttableÏpresumption€of€prejudice,€and€the€burden€shifts€to€the€prosecution€to€explain€theÏconduct€or€demonstrate€the€harmlessness€of€it.€€òòState€v.€Youngóó,€866€S.W.2d€194,Ð š3:*/ Ð196€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Ìœñ ñÐ  27Ò-3 Ðñ ññ ñà Œ àñ ññ ñà Œ àñ ññ ñÌñ ñ›à Œ àà ä àIn€order€to€shift€the€burden€to€the€prosecution€to€demonstrate€theÏharmlessness€of€the€communication€with€the€jury,€the€threshold€question€is€whetherÏthe€statement€communicated€to€the€jury€was€prejudicial€to€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.Ð ø ˜ ÐParchmanóó,€973€S.W.2d€607,€612€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòYoungóó,€866Ð Äd ÐS.W.2d€at€196€(trial€judge€was€best€able€to€assess€the€nature€of€extraneousÏinformation,€as€well€as€its€effect,€if€any,€upon€the€jury).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€this€instance,€the€jury€heard€Officer€Fanning's€question€on€videotapeÏsome€two€hours€after€deliberations€had€begun.€€Although€the€question€is€suggestiveÏof€the€fact€that€defendant€had€been€previously€arrested€for€driving€on€a€revokedÏlicense,€the€jury€did€not€hear€the€defendant's€answer.€€Because€the€jury€had€beenÏinstructed€that€questions€alone€are€not€evidence,€it€is€our€view€that€the€statementÏcommunicated€to€the€jury€was€not€prejudicial€to€the€defendant.€€Moreover,€the€juryÏhad€sufficient€reason€absent€Officer€Fanning's€question€to€have€found€that€theÏdefendant€had€been€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ à_____________________________Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________Ìœñ ñJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.,€JudgeÌñ ñ›œñ ñThomas€T.€Woodall,€Judgeñ ñ›ÌÌÌœñ ñÌñ ñ_______________________________›œñ ñÌñ ñ›œñ ñJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.,€JudgeÌñ ñ›Ìœñ ñThomas€T.€Woodall,€œJudgeñ ññ ñÌ›à ì à›à ì à›à ì à›à ì à›à ì à›à ì à›à ì à›à ì à›Ì›Ì›€›€›Ì›Ì›€›Ì›Ì›à ì à›à ì à›Ì›Ì›Ì›à ì à›à ì à›€›€›€›€›Ì›à ì à›à ì à›Ì›Ì›à ì à›à ì à›€›Ì›Ì›à ì à›à ì à›Ì›Ì›à ì à›à ì àñ ññ ñ›ñ ñ›