ÿWPC …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ ˜ 0”˜ 0D, w@p 0J° 0Tú 0^N 0h¬ 0r 0|† 0† 0ˆ 1uU, 0d¹U, BIU6fB)œDCÅ AMCU D3˜v~ËvÓI 0@ AO\Æ« 0Dq D/µ Bä<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓypÑ (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó    DDDÓ€2 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco d< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òJulyÏ8,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€W¸XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€()';+'h|` 81 `€€Lß›à àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àFEBRUARY€1996ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€œ03C01›„9503„CR„00102ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCUMBERLAND€COUNTYó óÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏLEON€BURNS,ÌWAYNE€œHYMES›ÏRICHARDS,à àà à)à àJUDGEÌa/k/a€PETE€RICHARDS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(DeliveryÏof€marijuana)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òSTEVEN€C.ÏDOUGLASà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONÌó óP.O.€Box€422à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€GeneralÏ&€Reporterò òÌó óœCrossville›,€TN€€€38557ò òÌó óà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àHUNT€S.ÏBROWNó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAsst›.ÏAttorney€GeneralÌ€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€RobertsonÏPkwy.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àWILLIAM€E.€GIBSONó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àOWEN€G.€œBURNETT›ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAsst›.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à145€S.€JeffersonÏSt.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœCookeville›,€TN€€€38501ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJOHN€œNISBET›ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAsst›.€District€Attorney€Generalà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à205€East€œ2nd›€St.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœCrossville›,€TN€€€38555à àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€originally€indicted€separately€for€two€offenses€of€theÏsale€of€marijuana.€€He€was€subsequently€reindicted,€with€each€new€indictmentÏcharging€him€with€alternate€counts€of€the€sale€or€delivery€of€marijuana.€€Case€numberÏ3453€alleged€an€offense€date€of€July€28,€1992;€case€number€3454€alleged€anÏoffense€date€of€July€30,€1992.€€Case€number€3454€was€tried€by€a€jury€in€March€1994,Ïresulting€in€a€mistrial.€€The€State€then€moved€to€consolidate€the€two€cases,€which€theÏcourt€granted€over€the€objection€of€the€defendant.€€The€two€cases€were€then€triedÏtogether€by€a€jury,€and€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€delivery€ofÏmarijuana.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€now€appeals€as€of€right,€raising€three€issues.€€In€his€firstÏissue€he€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ordered€the€two€cases€to€beÏconsolidated.€€He€also€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€State€toÏintroduce€into€evidence€a€photograph€which€had€not€been€provided€to€him€inÏcompliance€with€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16.€€In€his€third€issue€he€challenges€the€sufficiencyÏof€the€evidence.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€below.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€was€arrested€pursuant€to€an€undercover€police€opera…tion.€€Officer€Craig€Smith€was€introduced€to€the€defendant€by€a€confidential€informantÏon€July€28,€1992.€€Officer€Smith,€while€accompanied€in€his€vehicle€by€the€confidentialÏinformant,€picked€up€the€defendant€œat›€a€residence€on€Justice€Street€in€CumberlandÏCounty.€€They€discussed€buying€marijuana,€coming€to€terms€on€the€purchase€price,Ïœquantity,›€and€how€and€where€the€defendant€would€obtain€the€drug.€€Officer€SmithÏgave€the€defendant€one€hundred€fifty€œdollars›€œ($150)€for›€the€purchase€of€one€ounce€ofÏmarijuana,€and€then€dropped€the€defendant€off€ð ðin€close€proximity€to€where€heÏœneeded›€to€go.ðð€€This€location€was€œa€residence€in›€the€Chestnut€Hill€area.€ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Smith€testified€œthat,€pursuant€to€the€defendantððs€instructions,€›heÏand€the€informant€had€then€œtravelled€a€short€way€down€the€road,€waited€five€or€tenÏminutes,€and€then€ð ðeased›€back€up€the€road,€and€he€was€walking€down€the€road€andÏthen€got€back€in€the€car€with€us€and€handed€me€the€bag€of€marijuana.ðð€€The€bag€ofÏplant€material€which€the€defendant€delivered€to€Officer€Smith€was€subsequentlyÏanalyzed€and€determined€to€be€marijuana.ÌÌà àà àOfficer€œElmore›,€who€acted€as€the€surveillance€and€ð ðback€upðð€œofficer€in€aÏseparate€vehicle›€for€this€transaction,€testified€and€corroborated€Officer€SmithððsÍtestimony€about€where€he€picked€up€the€defendant€and€where€they€went.ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àOn€July€30,€1992,€Officer€Smith€and€the€confidential€informant€againÏpicked€the€defendant€up€œat›€the€same€address€on€Justice€œStreet›€and€proceeded€to€theÏsame€œresidence›€in€Chestnut€Hill.€€The€defendant€established€the€price€of€œoneÏhundred€sixty„five€dollars›€œ($165)€for›€another€ounce€of€marijuana,€which€Officer€SmithÏpaid€to€him.€€This€time€Officer€Smith€and€the€confidential€informant€œwere€allowed€toÏwait›€in€the€driveway€while€the€defendant€went€inside.€€œAfter€the€defendantððs€initial€tripÏinto€the€house,€he€returned€and€told€Officer€Smith€that€ð ðhe€couldnððt€get€it€because€theÏguy€was€in€the€shower,ðð€so€they€decided€to€wait.€€On€the€defendantððsÏrecommendation€they€drove€a€short€distance€away,€waited€five€or€ten€minutes,€andÏthen€returned€to€the€driveway.€€The€defendant€again€went€into€the€residence€and,Ïaccording€to€the€officer,€›after€a€few€minutes€the€defendant€ð ðcame€back€out,€and€heÏhad€a€bag€of€marijuana,€approximately€an€ounce,€and€gave€it€to€me.ðð€€This€substanceÏwas€also€later€determined€to€be€marijuana.ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Calahan€provided€the€surveillance€and€ð ðback€upðð€on€thisÏœtransaction,€again€from€a€separate€vehicle.›€€His€testimony€corroborated€OfficerÏSmithððs€as€to€where€the€defendant€was€picked€up€and€where€they€then€went.€€OfficerÍCalahan€also€testified€that€he€monitored€the€conversation€and€heard€an€unidentifiedÏthird€voice.€€œAt€one€point,€Officer€Calahan€testified,€this€voice€said,€ð ð€ððHeððs€in€theÏshower.€€We€need€to€come€back.€€We'll€go€down€„„€letððs€go€down€to€the€store€for€a€fewÏminutes.ðð€ðð€€A€short€while€later,€the€officer€heard€the€same€voice€say,€ð ð€ððIððm€going€in.ðð€"€›ÏOfficer€Calahan€testified€that€ð ðhe€was€in€the€house€for€just€a€few€minutes€and€cameÏback€out,€and€then€there€was€a€conversation€about€what€he€had€brought€back€to€theÏcar.ðð€€Specifically,€Officer€Calahan€testified,€the€unidentified€third€voice€stated,€ð ð€'ThisÏBudððs€for€you.'€ðð€€€€This€officer€testified€further€that,€ð ðIn€drug€talk,€bud€is€the€potent€partÏof€the€marijuana€plant€that€has€the€highest€value,€and€it€carries€the€most€kick,€andÏthatððs€the€expensive,€most€expensive€part€of€the€marijuana€plant.ðð€€ÌÌ€€à àà àThe€defendant€put€on€no€proof€but€challenged€the€State's€case€on€theÏissue€of€his€identity.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€first€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€joined€casesÏnumbered€3453€and€3454€for€trial.€€Although€the€technical€record€contains€noÏdocument€reflecting€the€courtððs€order,€apparently€the€court€ordered€the€consolidationÏfollowing€a€motion€by€the€State,€to€which€the€defendant€objected.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï13(a)€provides:€ð ðThe€court€may€order€consolidation€of€two€or€more€indictments€.€€.€€.Ífor€trial€if€the€offenses€.€.€.€could€have€been€joined€in€a€single€indictment€.€.€.€pursuantÏto€Rule€8.ðð€€Joinder€is€appropriate€where€either€ð ðthe€offenses€are€based€upon€theÏsame€conduct€or€arise€from€the€same€criminal€episode€[where]€such€offenses€areÏknown€to€the€appropriate€prosecuting€official€at€the€time€of€the€return€of€theÏindictment(s),ðð€Rule€8(a),€or€ð ðif€the€offenses€constitute€parts€of€a€common€scheme€orÏplan€or€if€they€are€of€the€same€or€similar€character,ðð€Rule€8(b).€€It€is€apparent€from€theÏfacts€of€this€case€that€the€only€proper€joinder€could€have€been€under€Rule€8(b).ÌÌà àà àHowever,€a€defendant€whose€offenses€are€joined€under€Rule€8(b)€isÏthen€entitled€to€a€severance€ð ðunless€the€offenses€are€part€of€a€common€scheme€orÏplan€and€the€evidence€of€one€would€be€admissible€upon€the€trial€of€the€others.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€14(b)(1).€€The€defendant€contends€that€his€offenses€were€not€part€ofÏa€common€scheme€or€plan€and€that€the€evidence€of€one€would€not€be€admissibleÏupon€the€trial€of€the€other€and€therefore€consolidation€was€improper.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àà àOffenses€are€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan€if€they€are€ð ðso€similar€inÏòòmodusóó€òòoperandióó€and€occur€within€such€a€relatively€close€proximity€of€time€andÏlocation€to€each€other€that€there€can€be€little€doubt€that€the€œoffense[s›]€were€committedÏby€the€same€person.ðð€€òòState€v.€Steve€Mosleyóó,€No.€œ01C01›„9211„CC„00345,€œDickson›ÍCounty€(filed€Sept.€9,€1993,€at€Nashville).€€In€this€case€the€offenses€occurred€withinÏforty„eight€œhours€and›€each€involved€a€sale€of€a€single€ounce€of€œmarijuana€for€a€priceÏset€by€the€defendant€and€paid€in€cash€to€the€defendant.€€Each›€involved€the€sameÏbuyer€and€companion€(the€confidential€œinformant).€€In€both€cases€the›€undercoverÏofficer€œpicked›€the€defendant€up€at€the€same€œplace€and€then›€drove€to€œthe€sameÏresidence.€€Each€time€the›€defendant€then€left€the€other€two€and€entered€theÏresidence€where€he€obtained€the€œmarijuana.€€Both€times€the›€defendant€then€rejoinedÏthe€other€two€men€and€delivered€the€marijuana.€€These€similarities€between€the€twoÏoffenses€are€sufficient€to€establish€a€common€scheme€or€plan.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.ÏMosleyóó,€œòòsupra.óó›€(Rule€8(b)€consolidation€proper€where€ð ðfour€of€the€indicted€offensesÏoccurred€within€a€three„day€period€and€the€other€occurred€approximately€six€weeksÏlater.€€All€of€the€offenses€involved€the€same€controlled€substance,€the€sameÏdefendant,€the€same€informants€and€the€same€witnesses.€€It€was€such€a€continuousÏepisode€and€so€closely€related€that€the€proof€was€essentially€the€same€in€eachÏcase.ðð)ÌÌà àà àWe€also€find€that€evidence€of€one€of€the€offenses€was€admissible€on€theÏtrial€of€the€other.€€ð ðEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€toÏprove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€theÍcharacter€trait.€€It€may,€however,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï404(b).€€Other€purposes€for€which€such€evidence€is€admissible€include€identity,€guiltyÏknowledge,€intent,€and€motive.€€òòRobert€Lee€Morris€v.€Stateóó,€No.€œ03C01›„9409„CR„00343,€Hamilton€County€(filed€July€5,€1995,€at€Knoxville).€€In€this€case,€as€pointed€outÏby€the€defendant,€identity€was€an€issue.€€Moreover,€one€of€the€elements€of€the€crimeÏof€delivery€of€a€controlled€substance€is€that€the€defendant€did€so€ð ðknowingly.ðð€€T.C.A.Ïðð€39„17„417(a)(2).€€Given€that€the€two€offenses€were€so€similar,€evidence€of€theÏdefendantððs€participation€in€each€offense€was€probative€of€both€his€identity€and€hisÏguilty€knowledge€as€to€the€other€offense.€€Accordingly,€so€long€as€the€ð ðprobativeÏvalue€[of€the€evidence€of€the€other€crime]€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice,ðð€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)(3),€the€evidence€was€properly€admissible.€€WhileÏthe€record€contains€no€ruling€by€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€this€issue,€our€review€ofÏthe€transcript€of€the€trial€convinces€us€that€the€probative€value€of€each€offense€withÏrespect€to€the€defendantððs€identity€and€state€of€mind€outweighed€any€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.€€Accordingly,€both€prongs€of€the€test€under€Rule€14(b)€are€met€and€theÏconsolidation€was€œtherefore€not€subject€to€severance€and€was€proper.›€ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€the€defendant€has€not€established€that€he€has€been€clearlyÏprejudiced€by€the€consolidation€of€these€offenses.€€ð ðOn€appeal,€a€denial€of€theÍseverance€will€not€be€reversed€unless€it€appears€that€the€defendant€was€œclearlyÏprejudiced.ð𛀀òòState€v.€Mosleyóó,€òòsupraóó.€€This€same€standard€is€applicable€to€a€complaintÏof€wrongful€consolidation.€€òòIdóó.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€complains€because€the€trial€court€allowed€the€StateÏto€introduce€into€evidence€a€copy€of€the€his€driverððs€license€photograph€which€hadÏnot€been€previously€provided€to€the€defendant€in€compliance€with€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï16.€€Prior€to€the€initial€trial€of€case€number€3454€(which€resulted€in€a€mistrial),€theÏdefendantððs€counsel€made€several€discovery€requests.€€The€State€responded€toÏthese€requests,€but€never€furnished€the€defendant€with€a€copy€of€the€copy€of€theÏdefendantððs€driverððs€license€which€Officer€Smith€had€obtained€within€a€day€or€two€ofÏthe€œJuly€28€offense.€€The€driverððs€license€of€which€the€copy€was€made€contained€aÏphotograph€of€the€defendant,€and€the€copy€had€been€enlarged.€€This€item€had€notÏbeen€used€by€the€State€in€the€first€trial.€€However,€during€Officer€Smithððs€testimony€atÏthe€second€trial,€the€State€introduced€it€to€bolster€Officer€Smithððs€identification€of€theÏdefendant.€€The€defendant€objected,€and€the€trial€court€ruled€it€admissible,€stating,€ð ðIÏwould€think€that€if€the€officer€obtained€the€photograph€of€the€driverððs€license€soonÏafter€the€first€buy,€and€that€helps€him€with€his€identification,€or€it€verifies,€at€least€in€hisÏmind,€that€itððs€the€same€person,€then€I€think€he€could€testify€to€that.ðð€€The€court€furtherÍstated,€ð ðI€donððt€see€any€great€prejudice€by€it.€€I€don't€think€the€state€purposely€withheldÏthe€picture€to€attempt€to€gain€any€sort€of€advantage,€and€I€donððt€think€that€theÏintroduction€of€that€picture€would€be€prejudicial.€€They€may€use€the€driverððs€licenseÏpicture€if€he€ties€that€in€with€some€proximity€to€the€time€frame€of€the€crime.ððÌÌà àà àTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(C)€provides:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒUpon€request€of€the€defendant,€the€state€shall€permit€theÏdefendant€to€inspect€and€copy€or€photograph€.€.€.€papers,Ïdocuments,€photographs,€.€.€.€or€copies€or€portions€thereof,€whichÏare€within€the€possession,€custody€or€control€of€the€state,€andÏwhich€are€material€to€the€preparation€of€his€defense€or€areÏintended€for€use€by€the€state€as€evidence€in€chief€at€the€trial,€orÏwere€obtained€from€or€belong€to€the€defendant.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓEven€assuming,€òòarguendoóó,€that€the€State€violated€this€provision,€however,€theÏdefendant€is€not€entitled€to€a€new€trial.€€Rule€16€provides€further:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒIf€at€any€time€during€the€course€of€the€proceedings€it€is€brought€toÏthe€attention€of€the€court€that€a€party€has€failed€to€comply€with€thisÏrule,€the€court€may€order€such€a€party€to€permit€the€discovery€orÏinspection,€grant€a€continuance,€or€prohibit€the€party€fromÏintroducing€evidence€not€disclosed,€or€it€may€enter€such€otherÏorder€as€it€deems€just€under€the€circumstances.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(d)(2).€€Thus,€sanctions€for€noncompliance€are€left€to€the€soundÍdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge.€›€We€will€not€reverse€the€lower€courtððs€holding€absent€anÏabuse€of€discretion.€€We€see€no€such€abuse€here.ÌÌà àà àð ð[œE]vidence›€should€not€be€excluded€except€when€it€is€shown€that€a€partyÏis€actually€prejudiced€by€the€failure€to€comply€with€the€discovery€order€and€that€theÏprejudice€œcannot›€be€otherwise€eradicated.ðð€€òòState€v.€Garlandóó,€617€S.W.2d€176,€185Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€The€defendant€has€shown€no€such€prejudice€here.€€WhenÏOfficer€Smith€initially€took€the€witness€stand,€the€prosecuting€attorney€asked€if€he€œhadÏhad›€ð ðoccasion€to€come€in€contact€with€the€defendant,€Pete€Richards?ðð€€Officer€SmithÏresponded,€ð ðYes,€I€did.ðð€€The€State€then€proceeded,€ð ðLet€me€ask€you€for€the€record€ifÏyou€see€him€in€the€courtroom€today,€and€if€you€could€identify€him,€if€you€would?ðð€ÏOfficer€Smith€then€replied,€ð ðI€do€see€him,€and€heððs€sitting€right€over€there€(indicating).ðð€ÏThe€officerððs€unequivocal€in„court€identification€of€the€defendant€came€long€beforeÏthe€court€allowed€the€introduction€of€the€facsimile€of€the€defendantððs€driverððs€license.€ÏThe€later€use€of€this€photograph€in€no€way€altered€the€results€of€the€trial,€and€wasÏharmless€error,€if€error€at€all.€€ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€toÏsupport€the€verdicts€of€guilt€in€these€cases.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àà àà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence,€we€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecutionÏin€determining€whether€"òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluateÏthe€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏproof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€infer‚encesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€jury€heard€testimony€from€Officer€Smith€that€he€twiceÏpicked€the€defendant€up;€paid€the€defendant€the€amount€of€money€requested€for€anÏounce€of€marijuana;€drove€the€defendant€to€a€specific€location;€waited€for€theÏdefendant€to€return;€and€received€an€ounce€of€marijuana€from€the€defendant€after€theÏdefendant€returned€to€his€car.€€The€jury€also€heard€testimony€establishing€that€theÏmarijuana€had€been€chemically€analyzed€and€was,€in€fact,€marijuana.€€There€wasÏalso€œthe€corroborating€testimony€from€the€two€officers€who€conducted€theÏsurveillance.€€Officer€Calahan€testified€that,€while›€œhe›€could€not€identify€the€voice€ofÍthe€third€œoccupant€of€Officer€Smithððs€car,›€he€did€œhear€this€voice€state,›€ð ðIððm€going€to€goÏin€the€house,ðð€and,€later,€ð ðThis€Budððs€for€œyou.ðð€€Officer€Calahan€also€explained€whyÏthis€phrase€might€have€special€meaning€in€the€context€of€a€marijuana€deal.›ÌÌà àà àThis€evidence€was€more€than€sufficient€for€the€jury€to€have€œproperlyÏfound›€the€defendant€guilty€of€both€counts.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àœFor€the€reasons€set€forth€above,€the›€judgment€below€is€affirmed.€œÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€Judge›