ÿWPCñ ­Ó©øÿ'¯Ë}ò2u+pðǃH%Æ/^˜-"dÃvÿ«öÝ6Dè±Cpʼn0²¦zJìêï´RÕ¹ŠÖ“Ð}Z¹ˆÈp·,í Q?\ˆI— àE–˜v˜¨­ÅÕŽ1³ã#Þfëfô­\ ]„EIݨI¾°ûéFGÜØâD‘¾a‰šúÑÄ `»Pж±Áç³j2'/õ›Ö)ä*y?¼ün;>ÓЙnßs¹Ì¼í‹Ö\éK¿@6yoÌŽæëÜ]ë¦ìWWÕ&g{xBèC'Æ4ð§4N#"ÃT(õ~tÈ„M¢Ò¬/[Ö—š|чrç~Òyg¾áâùîçØù_¥Á™f<‹1ÌŽ Ñ ï@ý¦ì\ jj¼µÒIž„aßLÙ…qê®Ø–¿FRW96ÐA~®anþ岞nÜžXq tüŠþ]¨ÓëDa(> pkñ|˜t¯Y¡Ú~¸P\ÕOêÊ(BuW­©¼¢,ižêÖŠSÙ¿¥ŠÝi`TûÇø³ŒoNq WB78f°ÅÊ8ÏÝ[Ë3nÊ‚jŽ}¤ñeaOƒªÎ…fÙd6@C±ÍHxê}f†PIÏPÈY¾ù5rxo)SŪÖ`#!@U>a %Ÿ 0í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ U:¤ fÞ D "L wn Ær 028 0Dj U:® Æè Æ®ÆtÆ:N^  m'ª/////// BÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ A©ö 0 ŸŸ D+© 0KÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔ AQ 0 pp 0Dzz D3¾˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpitpO'3|x«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  ÑLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(â(3–$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ8€xAXXdêdê8ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5uV' ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ   Ý ƒ[uŠ"ÝÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ X̵XXXÔÔ€ ¼RX X̵ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X̵X ¼RÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€22,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAíÔó ó d:=<›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK(â3uŠ$££Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ8€xAXXdêdê8ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxd( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó[:]_Cþÿ<<Cÿÿ(â3uŠ$¢¢Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ8€xAXXdêdê8ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó""""'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ8€xAXXdêdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ X̵XXXÔÑ8€ ̵ XXdæXXdê8ÑÔ_Ôßv€Y_@0,j:úÿ`  `€€@ÿE ` 8ttxPRð  vßÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ Ð ¸ Ð àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@ƒƒ%DàAT€NASHVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€MARCH€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellee,€à h àà À à)à  àNo.€01C01„9705„CC„00200Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àMaury€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€James€L.€Weatherford,€Judge€€€€€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌJEFFREY€WALKERà h àà À à)à  à(Sale€of€cocaine)Ð h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À à)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð æÞ ÐÌShara€Ann€Flacyà  àà h àà À àà  àJohn€Knox€Walkup€Ð ²ª ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ˜ Ѐ€€€€andà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÐ ~v ÐWilliam€C.€Brightà  àà h àà À àà  àClinton€J.€MorganÐ d\ ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€Ð JB Ð128€North€2nd€Streetà h àà À àà  à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà Ð àà (# àÐ 0 ( ÐP.O.€Box€1208à  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ð ! ÐPulaski,€TN€38478Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àT.€Michael€BottomsÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àP.O.€Box€459Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àLawrenceburg,€TN€38464„0459Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÐ >:639 ЇÌà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ îæ ÐÌÓÓÌà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Jeffrey€Walker,€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€conviction€by€aÐ † ~ Ðjury€in€the€Maury€County€Circuit€Court€for€selling€one„half€gram€or€more€of€a€substanceÐ R J Ðcontaining€cocaine,€a€Class€B€felony.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€as€aÐ   Ðcareer€offender€to€thirty€years€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction€to€beÐ êâ  Ðserved€consecutively€to€prior€sentences.€€The€court€also€imposed€a€two„thousand„dollarÐ ¶®  Ðfine.€€The€defendant€contends€that:Ð ‚z  ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(1)€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€introduction€of€theÐ NF Ðdefendantððs€five€prior€cocaine„related€felony€convictions€toÐ 4, Ðimpeach€his€credibility€under€Rule€609,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.;и Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ à(2)€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€that€it€mustÐ æÞ Ðfind€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€€the€amount€of€cocaineÐ ÌÄ Ðsold€by€the€defendant€was€one„half€gram€or€more;€and€Ð²ª¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ à(3)€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€that€the€defendant€was€aÐ ~v Ðcareer€offender.Ðd\¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓWe€reverse€the€defendantððs€conviction€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial€because€theÐ 0 ( Ðtrial€court€improperly€allowed€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions€to€be€introduced€forÐ ü!ô Ðimpeachment€purposes.Ð È#À  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€proof€at€trial€showed€that€Agent€Maxie€Gilleland€of€the€TennesseeÐ `'X $ ÐBureau€of€Investigation€conducted€an€undercover€drug€operation€in€Columbia€usingÐ ,)$"& ÐShelley€Holland€and€her€mother€as€informants.€€On€September€20,€1995,€AgentÐ ø*ð#( ÐGilleland€and€Ms.€Holland€attempted€to€make€drug€purchases€near€the€Three€HundredÐ Ä,¼%* ÐClub.€€As€they€drove€by€the€club,€an€unknown€young€man€stepped€out€of€a€crowd€andÐ .ˆ', Ðsaid,€ð ðIððll€beep€you.ðð€€Ms.€Holland€said€that€she€then€received€a€beeper€message€fromÐ \0T). Ðsomeone€calling€from€the€Three€Hundred€Club.€€Ms.€Holland€called€the€number€and€hadÐ (2 +0 Ða€conversation€with€an€unidentified€man,€and€they€made€arrangements€to€meet€aboutÐ ô3ì,2 Ðâ âfifteen€minutes€later€in€a€church€parking€lot€near€the€club€for€the€sale€of€an€ounce€ofÐ À5¸.4 Ðcocaine€for€one€thousand€three€hundred€fifty€dollars.€€Two€men€were€at€the€locationÐ  Ðwhen€they€arrived€at€approximately€9:00€or€10:00€p.m.Ð ÔÌ Ðâ âÌà ¸ àMs.€Holland€walked€over€to€the€men€while€Agent€Gilleland€remained€insideÐ l d Ðhis€truck.€€One€of€the€men€identified€himself€as€the€person€who€spoke€with€Ms.€HollandÐ 80 Ðon€the€telephone.€€The€man€gave€Ms.€Holland€a€plastic€bag€containing€cocaine,€and€sheÐ ü  Ðtook€the€bag€to€Agent€Gilleland€to€weigh€it€on€a€set€of€finger€scales.€€Agent€GillelandÐ ÐÈ  Ðtestified€that€the€substance€weighed€approximately€twenty„six€or€twenty„seven€gramsÐ œ”  Ðand€that€an€ounce€of€cocaine€is€twenty„eight€grams.€€Agent€Gilleland€then€gave€Ms.Ð h` ÐHolland€fourteen€marked,€one„hundred„dollar€bills,€and€Ms.€Holland€walked€back€to€theÐ 4, Ðmen€and€gave€them€the€money.€€Ms.€Holland€identified€the€defendant€as€the€man€whoÐ ø Ðsold€her€the€drugs.€€She€testified€that€she€could€not€see€the€defendant€and€the€otherÐ ÌÄ Ðman€clearly€when€they€first€arrived€but€that€she€had€no€trouble€seeing€the€defendantÐ ˜ Ðduring€the€transaction€because€she€stood€approximately€one€foot€away€from€theÐ d\ Ðdefendant€and€a€streetlight€was€nearby.€€Neither€Agent€Gilleland€nor€Ms.€Holland€knewÐ 0 ( Ðthe€defendant€or€the€other€man.€€Agent€Gilleland€testified€that€he€could€not€identify€theÐ ü!ô Ðperson€who€sold€the€drugs€to€Ms.€Holland.Ð È#À  ÐÌà ¸ àMs.€Holland€described€the€defendant€as€a€black€male€approximately€sixÐ `'X $ Ðfeet€tall,€having€large€eyes,€and€wearing€green€shorts,€a€black€t„shirt€and€a€baseball€capÐ ,)$"& Ðon€backwards.€€Agent€Gilleland€gave€this€information€to€the€local€police€along€with€theÐ ø*ð#( Ðdirection€the€men€were€traveling.€€Deputy€William€Doelle€of€the€Maury€County€DrugÐ Ä,¼%* ÐTask€Force€testified€that€after€he€received€the€information,€he€drove€by€the€ThreeÐ .ˆ', ÐHundred€Club€and€saw€the€defendant€standing€outside.€€He€said€the€defendantÐ \0T). Ðmatched€the€description€given€by€Ms.€Holland.€Ð (2 +0 ÐÌà ¸ àTwo€days€later,€the€defendant€was€arrested€during€a€drug€bust€at€theÐ À5¸.4 ÐThree€Hundred€Club.€€The€marked€one„hundred„dollar€bills€were€not€in€the€defendantððsÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ í:Ñâ  âÑÜÜÑÑÑâ  âÑ  Ñpossession€at€the€time€of€his€arrest.€€The€defendant€was€taken€to€the€police€station.€Ð  ÐMs.€Holland€was€also€at€the€police€station€identifying€other€persons€from€whom€she€hadÐ ÔÌ Ðpurchased€drugs€as€part€of€the€undercover€operation.€€Ms.€Holland€testified€that€sheÐ   ˜ Ðrecognized€the€defendant€as€the€person€from€whom€she€had€purchased€an€ounce€ofÐ l d Ðcocaine€on€September€20.€€Ms.€Holland€identified€the€defendant€at€trial€as€well.€€DianeÐ 80 ÐSmith,€a€forensic€chemist€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,€testified€that€sheÐ ü  Ðanalyzed€the€substance€sold€to€Ms.€Holland€and€determined€that€it€was€24.8€grams€ofÐ ÐÈ  Ðcocaine.€€Her€lab€report€also€reflects€that€the€amount€of€cocaine€was€24.8€grams.Ð œ”  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€presented€evidence€of€an€alibi.€€Keyonna€Mostiller,€theÐ 4, Ðdefendantððs€former€girlfriend,€testified€that€the€defendant€lived€with€her€on€SeptemberÐ ø Ð20,€1995.€€She€stated€that€the€defendant€babysat€their€daughter€while€she€went€to€workÐ ÌÄ Ðon€that€day.€€She€said€she€last€saw€the€defendant€on€September€20€when€she€left€forÐ ˜ Ðwork€at€approximately€6:30€p.m.€€Ms.€Mostiller€said€the€defendant€was€at€home€whenÐ d\ Ðshe€returned€from€work€the€next€day,€but€she€admitted€that€she€did€not€know€where€theÐ 0 ( Ðdefendant€was€around€9:00€or€9:30€p.m.€on€September€20.€€She€testified€that€theÐ ü!ô Ðdefendant€did€not€have€any€means€of€transportation.€€Michael€Jay€Buchanan,€Ms.Ð È#À  ÐMostillerððs€brother,€testified€that€he€lived€with€Ms.€Mostiller€around€the€time€of€theÐ ”%Œ" Ðoffense.€€Mr.€Buchanan€testified€that€the€defendant€often€babysat€Ms.€MostillerððsÐ `'X $ Ðchildren,€but€he€said€he€did€not€know€whether€the€defendant€was€at€the€Three€HundredÐ ,)$"& ÐClub€on€September€20.€€Ð ø*ð#( ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified,€denying€that€he€arranged€a€drug€deal€or€soldÐ .ˆ', Ðdrugs€on€September€20.€€He€said€he€was€at€home€babysitting€for€Ms.€Mostiller.€€TheÐ \0T). Ðdefendant€said€he€did€not€have€any€money€or€a€pager€when€he€was€arrested€onÐ (2 +0 ÐSeptember€22.€€On€cross„examination,€the€defendant€was€questioned€about€his€priorÐ ô3ì,2 Ðâ âconvictions.€€He€admitted€that€he€was€convicted€on€August€24,€1992,€of€four€counts€ofÐ À5¸.4 Ðselling€cocaine,€but€he€denied€having€a€1993€conviction€for€possession€with€the€intent€toÐ  Ðsell€cocaine.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€he€had€not€sold€drugs€since€1992.€€€€€€€€€€Ð ÔÌ Ðâ âÌà@##Dàò òI.€€ADMISSIBILITY€OF€PRIOR€CONVICTIONSó óˆÐ l d Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€theÐ 80 Ðintroduction€of€five€prior€cocaine„related€convictions€to€impeach€his€credibility.€€HeÐ ü  Ðasserts€that€the€convictionsðð€probative€value€as€to€credibility€is€slight€and€that€the€dangerÐ ÐÈ  Ðof€unfair€prejudice€is€great,€especially€because€the€offenses€are€similar€to€the€chargedÐ œ”  Ðoffense.€€He€argues€that€given€the€slight€probative€value€and€the€great€potential€forÐ h` Ðunfair€prejudice,€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€state€to€introduce€the€convictions.€Ð 4, ÐThe€state€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€admitting€evidence€of€the€defendantððsÐ ø Ðprior€cocaine€felony€convictions€for€impeachment€purposes.€€We€conclude€that€the€trialÐ ÌÄ Ðcourt€committed€reversible€error€by€admitting€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€five€priorÐ ˜ Ðconvictions€for€the€sale€of€cocaine€and€possession€with€the€intent€to€sell€cocaine.Ð d\ ÐÌà ¸ àBefore€trial,€the€state€provided€written€notice€of€its€intent€to€use€theÐ ü!ô Ðdefendantððs€prior€convictions€in€1991€and€1992€for€one€count€of€possession€with€theÐ È#À  Ðintent€to€sell€cocaine€and€four€counts€of€selling€cocaine.€€At€a€pre„trial€hearing,€theÐ ”%Œ" Ðdefendant€objected€to€the€use€of€the€prior€convictions€for€impeachment€purposes,Ð `'X $ Ðarguing€that€they€had€little€probative€value€of€untruthfulness€and€that€they€were€highlyÐ ,)$"& Ðprejudicial€given€the€similarity€to€the€charged€offense.€€The€trial€court€agreed€that€theÐ ø*ð#( Ðintroduction€of€the€evidence€would€be€prejudicial€to€the€defendant.€€However,€it€ruledÐ Ä,¼%* Ðthat€the€prior€convictions€were€admissible,€stating€as€follows:Ð .ˆ', ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à[T]hereððs€five€felony€convictions€for€the€sale€of€cocaine.€€IÐ \0T). Ðwould€certainly€think€that€if€Mr.€Walker€testifies€that€.€.€.€it€wouldÐ B1:*/ Ðbe€highly€unfair€to€the€State€and€to€society€as€a€whole€for€meÐ (2 +0 Ðnot€to€permit€them€to€ask€him€about€these€other€convictions€forÐ 3,1 Ðthe€.€.€.€same€offense€that€heððs€on€trial€here.Ðô3ì,2¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àAs€I€stated€before,€.€.€.€if€you€fool€around€with€cocaine,Ð À5¸.4 Ðyou€have€to€sneak€around€when€you€buy€it,€sneak€aroundÐ ¦6ž/5 Ðwhen€you€sell€it,€sneak€around€when€you€use€it.€€Youððre€just€aÐ Œ7„06 Ðflat€sneak,€and€a€sneak€will€lie,€and€I€think€that€it€would€not€beÐ r8j17 Ðdoing€this€community€fair€for€me€to€say,€ð ðOh,€no,€weððre€notÐ  Ðgoing€to€say€anything€about€these€other€five€times€itððsÐ îæ Ðhappened.ðð€€So€Iððm€going€to€permit€the€State€to€ask€theÐ ÔÌ Ðdefendant,€if€he€testifies,€about€these€five€convictions€for€saleÐ º ² Ðof€cocaine€or€possession€of€cocaine€for€resale.Р ˜¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓÓÓ  ÓÌà ¸ àWhen€questioned€on€cross„examination,€the€defendant€admitted€havingÐ R J Ðfour€prior€convictions€for€selling€cocaine€and€acknowledged€his€signature€on€the€pleaÐ   Ðagreement€relative€to€the€1992€conviction€for€possession€with€the€intent€to€sell€cocaine.€Ð êâ  ÐAfter€returning€from€a€break€following€the€defendantððs€testimony,€the€trial€courtÐ ¶®  Ðinstructed€the€jury€that€it€could€consider€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions€only€as€toÐ ‚z  Ðtruthfulness€and€not€as€evidence€of€guilt.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€similarly€atÐ NF Ðthe€close€of€the€proof.Ð  ÐÌà ¸ àPursuant€to€Rule€609,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€the€credibility€of€the€accused€mayÐ ²ª Ðbe€attacked€by€presenting€evidence€of€prior€convictions.€€The€prior€conviction€must€beÐ ~v Ðfor€an€offense€punishable€by€death€or€imprisonment€in€excess€of€one€year€or€for€a€crimeÐ JB Ðinvolving€dishonesty€or€false€statement.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(2).€€Less€than€ten€yearsÐ ! Ðmust€have€elapsed€between€the€date€the€accused€was€released€from€confinement€andÐ â"Ú Ðthe€commencement€of€prosecution.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(b).€€Also,€the€state€must€giveÐ ®$¦! Ðreasonable€written€notice€of€the€impeaching€conviction€before€trial,€and€the€trial€courtÐ z&r# Ðmust€find€that€the€convictionððs€probative€value€on€credibility€outweighs€its€unfairÐ F(>!% Ðprejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(3).€€Ð * #' ÐÌà ¸ àThe€fact€that€a€prior€conviction€involves€the€same€or€similar€crime€forÐ ª-¢&+ Ðwhich€the€defendant€is€being€tried€does€not€automatically€require€its€exclusion.€€òòState€v.Ð v/n(- ÐMilleróó,€737€S.W.2d€556,€560€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€The€trial€court€must€analyze€theÐ B1:*/ Ðrelevance€that€the€impeaching€conviction€has€to€the€issue€of€credibility€and€then€assessÐ 3,1 Ðthe€similarity€between€the€crime€on€trial€and€the€crime€underlying€the€impeachmentÐ Ú4Ò-3 Ðconviction€in€balancing€the€probative€value€on€credibility€against€its€unfair€prejudicialÐ ¦6ž/5 Ðeffect€on€the€substantive€issues.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€661,€674€(Tenn.Ð r8j17 ÐÑ †Ñâ  âÑTR[ì AØ'ÿ Legal[ì AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ  âÑ  Ñ1999);€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€837,€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€The€trial€courtððsÐ  Ðdecision€to€allow€the€prior€convictions€under€Rule€609€will€not€be€reversed€on€appealÐ ÔÌ Ðunless€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Blantonóó,€926€S.W.2d€953,€960Ð   ˜ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ð l d ÐÌà ¸ àRelative€to€probative€value€on€the€issue€of€credibility,€Rule€609(a)(2)Ð ü  Ðprovides€two€categories€of€convictions:€(1)€convictions€for€felonies€and€(2)€convictionsÐ ÐÈ  Ðfor€offenses€that€ð ðinvolved€dishonesty€or€false€statement.ðð€€The€Advisory€CommissionÐ œ”  ÐComment€states€that€the€rule€follows€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€541€S.W.2d€385,€388„89€(Tenn.Ð h` Ð1976),€which€had€adopted€the€federal€Rule€609(a),€(b).€€When€the€source€of€our€rule€isÐ 4, Ðthe€federal€rule,€federal€developments€are€instructive.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€618€S.W.2dÐ ø Ð510,€514€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€In€the€federal€rule,€ð ðdishonesty€and€false€statementððÐ ÌÄ Ðare€meant€to€relate€to€ð ðcrimes€such€as€perjury,€subornation€of€perjury,€false€statement,Ð ˜ Ðcriminal€fraud,€embezzlement,€or€false€pretense,€or€any€other€offense€in€the€nature€ofÐ d\ Ðòòcrimenóó€òòfalsióó,€commission€of€which€involves€some€element€of€deceit,€untruthfulness,€orÐ 0 ( Ðfalsification€bearing€on€the€accusedððs€propensity€to€testify€truthfully.ðð€€ConferenceÐ ü!ô ÐReport€No.1597€at€9€(1974)€òòreprintedóó€òòinóó€1974€U.S.C.C.A.N.€7098,€7102;€AdvisoryÐ È#À  ÐCommitteeððs€Note€to€Rule€609€(as€amended€in€1990).€€The€committee€note€also€statesÐ ”%Œ" Ðthat€certain€decisions€that€admit€convictions€for€bank€robbery€or€bank€larceny€take€anÐ `'X $ Ðð ðunduly€broad€view€of€ððdishonesty.ððððÐ ,)$"& ÐÌà ¸ àThe€commission€of€any€felony€is€considered€to€be€generally€probative€of€aÐ Ä,¼%* Ðdefendantððs€criminal€nature€from€which€a€jury€could€infer€a€propensity€to€falsifyÐ .ˆ', Ðtestimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Barnesóó,€622€F.2d€107,€109€(5th€Cir.€1980).€Ð \0T). Ðð ðDishonesty€and€false€statementðð€are€more€directly€related€to€a€defendantððs€truthfulness.€Ð (2 +0 ÐRegardless€of€which€category€of€offense€is€involved,€the€danger€of€prejudice€relates€toÐ ô3ì,2 Ðâ âthe€risk€that€the€jury€will€consider€the€defendantððs€criminal€nature€as€evidence€that€theÐ À5¸.4 Ðdefendant€acted€illegally€on€the€day€in€question.€€òòBarnesóó,€622€F.2d€at€109.€€Thus,€theÐ  Ðrule€requires€balancing€the€interests€against€the€risks.Ð ÔÌ Ðâ âÌà ¸ àFirst,€we€note€that€the€fact€that€the€defendant€denied€being€the€personÐ l d Ðwho€sold€Ms.€Holland€the€cocaine€placed€his€credibility€directly€in€issue.€€The€trial€wasÐ 80 Ðessentially€a€swearing€match,€and€who€was€to€be€believed€by€the€jury€was€critical.€Ð ü  ÐObviously,€the€fact€that€the€defendant€had€previous€felony€convictions€would€haveÐ ÐÈ  Ðprobative€value€regarding€his€credibility.Ð œ”  ÐÌà ¸ àIn€determining€the€weight€of€the€probative€value€of€the€convictions,€anÐ 4, Ðinitial€question€is€whether€the€convictions€for€the€sale€and€felonious€sale€andÐ ø Ðpossession€of€cocaine€involve€dishonesty.€€The€trial€courtððs€determination€that€a€drugÐ ÌÄ Ðseller€has€to€ð ðsneak€aroundðð€and€its€resulting€conclusion€that€ð ða€sneak€will€lieðð€indicatesÐ ˜ Ðthat€it€believed€the€offenses€were€quite€relevant€to€dishonesty.€€In€òòState€v.€Gibsonóó,€701Ð d\ ÐS.W.2d€627,€629€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985),€a€conviction€for€selling€drugs€was€used€toÐ 0 ( Ðimpeach€the€defendant€in€a€drug€sale€prosecution€because€the€ð ðnature€of€the€act€ofÐ ü!ô Ðdealing€in€drugs€is€indicative€of€dishonesty,€expressing€as€it€does€the€design€andÐ È#À  Ðdetermination€to€violate€the€law.ðð€€Also,€we€note€that€this€court€has€stated€that€ð ðthe€act€ofÐ ”%Œ" Ðdrug€dealing€is€suggestive€of€dishonesty€because€the€dealer€is€engaged€in€aÐ `'X $ Ðclandestine€commercial€enterprise€which€is€carried€out€deceitfully€beyond€the€scrutiny€ofÐ ,)$"& Ðsocietyððs€institutional€watchdog€such€as€health€code€enforcers,€licensing€authorities,Ð ø*ð#( Ðand€taxing€agencies.ðð€€òòState€v.€Brian€Robersonóó,€No.€01C01„9801„CC„00043,€WilliamsonÐ Ä,¼%* ÐCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Dec.€21,€1998),€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€May€13,€1999).Ð .ˆ', ÐÌà ¸ àWe€believe,€however,€that€the€sale€of€cocaine€does€not€involveÐ (2 +0 Ðð ðdishonesty€or€false€statementðð€as€contemplated€by€Rule€609(a)(2).€€Relative€toÐ ô3ì,2 ÐòòRobersonóó,€we€question€whether€we€can€assume€that€the€defendantððs€previous€sales€ofÐ À5¸.4 Ðcocaine€for€which€he€was€convicted€involved€money€laundering,€tax€evasion,€or€otherÐ Œ7„06 Ðso„called€deceitful€conduct.€€Moreover,€almost€all€crimes€are€committed€with€theÐ  Ðintention€of€not€being€caught.€€In€this€respect,€the€sale€of€a€drug€in€clandestine€fashionÐ ÔÌ Ðdoes€not€readily€relate€to€dishonesty€or€false€statement.€€See€òòUnited€States€v.€Hayesóó,Ð   ˜ Ð553€F.2d€824,€827„28€(2d€Cir.€1977)€(holding€that€proof€of€cocaine€importation,€alone,Ð l d Ðdoes€not€show€dishonesty€or€false€statement€even€if€it€shows€stealth).€€In€fact,€weÐ 80 Ðbelieve€that€the€evidence€relating€to€the€elements€of€the€crime€is€to€be€considered€inÐ ü  Ðquestioning€the€offenseððs€relevance€to€dishonesty,€not€the€general€circumstances€orÐ ÐÈ  Ðenvironment€within€which€the€offense€was€committed.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Lewisóó,€626Ð œ”  ÐF.2d€940,€946€(D.C.€Cir.€1980).€€In€this€respect,€we€conclude€that€the€mere€fact€of€theÐ h` Ðsale€of€cocaine€is€not€as€probative€of€the€defendantððs€credibility€as€would€be€an€offenseÐ 4, Ðinvolving€dishonesty€or€false€statement.Ð ø ÐÌà ¸ àHowever,€five€previous€felony€convictions€are€more€probative€on€the€issueÐ ˜ Ðof€the€defendantððs€credibility€than€would€be€a€fewer€amount.€€One€can€more€readily€inferÐ d\ Ðthat€the€defendant€has€a€disregard€for€the€law€that€would€include€not€testifying€truthfully.€Ð 0 ( ÐThe€problem,€though,€arises€from€the€nature€of€the€prior€convictions.Ð ü!ô ÐÌà ¸ àThe€fact€that€the€defendant€had€five€previous€felony€convictions€relating€toÐ ”%Œ" Ðthe€sale€of€cocaine€greatly€increases€the€risk€that€the€jury€would€consider€them€to€beÐ `'X $ Ðevidence€that€the€defendant€acted€the€same€way€on€the€day€in€question,€i.e.,€he€soldÐ ,)$"& Ðcocaine.ÓÓÐ ø*ð#( ÐÓ  ÓÌà8 ¸ àWhen€an€impeaching€conviction€is€substantially€similar€€to€theÐ Ä,¼%* Ðcrime€for€which€the€defendant€is€being€tried,€there€is€a€dangerÐ ª-¢&+ Ðthat€jurors€will€erroneously€utilize€the€impeaching€conviction€asÐ .ˆ', Ðpropensity€evidence€of€guilt€and€conclude€that€since€theÐ v/n(- Ðdefendant€committed€a€similar€offense,€he€or€she€is€probablyÐ \0T). Ðguilty€of€the€offense€charged.€€òòState€v.€Barnardóó,€899€S.W.2dÐ B1:*/ Ð617,€622€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841Ð (2 +0 ÐS.W.2d€837,€839„40€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€òòLong€v.€Stateóó,Ð 3,1 Ð607€S.W.2d€482€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€Accordingly,€theÐ ô3ì,2 Ðunfairly€prejudicial€effect€of€an€impeaching€conviction€on€theÐ Ú4Ò-3 Ðsubstantive€issues€greatly€increases€if€the€impeachingÐ À5¸.4 Ðconviction€is€substantially€similar€to€the€crime€for€which€theÐ ¦6ž/5 Ðdefendant€is€being€tried.ÐŒ7„06¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÐ r8j17 ÐÓÓÓ  ÓòòMixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€at€674.€€In€reversing€an€assault€and€battery€conviction€because€theÐ  Ðstate€proved€a€prior€conviction€for€assault€and€battery,€our€supreme€court€adopted€theÐ ÔÌ Ðlanguage€of€our€former€colleague,€Robert€K.€Dwyer:Ð   ˜ ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àWhen€the€prior€conviction€was€shown,€it€may€have€settled€allÐ l d Ðquestions€for€the€jury,€allowing€them€to€conclude€that€becauseÐ R J Ðòòhe€did€it€once,€more€than€likely€he€did€it€again.óóÐ80¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓState€v.€Robertsóó,€703€S.W.2d€146,€147€(Tenn.€1986)€(emphasis€in€original).Ð ü  ÐÌà ¸ àWe€believe€that€proof€of€the€five€felony€cocaine€convictions€cannot€helpÐ œ”  Ðbut€unfairly€prejudice€the€jury.€€We€note€that€this€court€has€previously€reversed€feloniousÐ h` Ðcocaine€possession€convictions€because€two€prior€cocaine€possessions€and€oneÐ 4, Ðmarijuana€possession€by€the€defendants€were€used€as€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Luellenóó,Ð ø Ð867€S.W.2d€736,€741€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Moreover,€we€conclude€that€the€trialÐ ÌÄ Ðcourtððs€limiting€instructions€could€not€overcome€the€prejudice€to€the€defendant.Ð ˜ ÐÓÓà8 ¸ àThere€are€limits€to€the€human€mind.€€We€think€to€say€to€anyÐ d\ Ðjury,€there€is€evidence€here€the€defendant€before€you€hasÐ JB Ðbeen€guilty€of€several€prior€crimes€but€you€are€not€toÐ 0 ( Ðconsider€this€in€determining€his€guilt€or€innocence€of€theÐ ! Ðpresent€crime,€is€at€best€to€severely€test€the€ability€of€theÐ ü!ô Ðmind€to€remove€all€prejudice€therefrom.€Ðâ"Ú¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓòòHarrison€v.€Stateóó,€217€Tenn.€31,€40,€394€S.W.2d€713,€717€(1965).€Ð ®$¦! ÐÌà ¸ àAs€previously€stated,€the€very€fact€that€the€defendant€had€five€felonyÐ F(>!% Ðconvictions€leads€to€an€inference€that€the€defendant€would€disregard€the€law€in€hisÐ * #' Ðtestimony.€€This€leads€us€to€believe€that€a€proper€balance€in€this€case€would€be€to€allowÐ Þ+Ö$) Ðthe€state€to€prove€the€fact€of€the€five€felonies€while€excluding€the€fact€that€the€feloniesÐ ª-¢&+ Ðwere€cocaine€related.€€Although€not€disclosing€the€type€of€felony€to€the€jury€might€leadÐ v/n(- Ðto€speculation,€it€would€be€of€much€less€concern€than€the€certainty€of€prejudice€if€theÐ B1:*/ Ðjury€knew€the€types€of€felonies.€€However,€we€are€obligated€to€order€exclusion€of€theÐ 3,1 Ðconvictions€in€this€case€because€of€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€decisions.€€In€òòState€v.Ð Ú4Ò-3 ÐGalmoreóó,€994€S.W.2d€120€(Tenn.€1999),€our€supreme€court€held€that€the€state€may€notÐ ¦6ž/5 Ðimpeach€a€defendantððs€credibility€by€referring€to€an€unnamed€felony€conviction.€Ð r8j17 ÐAlthough€we€believe€the€fact€that€the€present€case€involves€five€prior€felony€convictionsÐ  Ðcould€distinguish€it€from€the€holding€in€òòGalmoreóó,€we€are€constrained€by€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,Ð ÔÌ Ð993€S.W.2d€33€(Tenn.€1999).€€In€òòTayloróó,€a€burglary€and€theft€case,€the€trial€court€ruledÐ   ˜ Ðthat€the€state€could€impeach€the€defendant€with€his€seven€prior€burglary€convictions€andÐ l d Ðone€prior€larceny€conviction€by€presenting€them€to€the€jury€only€as€ð ðfelonies€involvingÐ 80 Ðdishonesty.ðð€€Our€supreme€court€held€that€the€trial€court€erred€for€the€same€reasonsÐ ü  Ðprovided€in€òòGalmoreóó.€€òòSeeóó€993€S.W.2d€at€35.€€The€fact€that€òòTayloróó€dealt€with€eightÐ ÐÈ  Ðsimilar€prior€convictions€is€significant€to€the€present€case.€€In€consideration€of€theÐ œ”  Ðsupreme€court€cases,€we€conclude€that€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions€areÐ h` Ðinadmissable€in€any€form€at€a€retrial.Ð 4, Ðà0 ¸ àÐ ¸ €%¸ €% ÐÓÓà@P P Dàò òII.€€OMISSION€FROM€THE€JURY€INSTRUCTIONS€ˆÐ ÌÄ Ðà@%%#DàOF€AMOUNT€OF€COCAINE€SOLDó óˆÐ ²ª ÐÌÓÖwÓà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€theÐ ~v Ðjury€that€in€order€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€a€Class€B€felony,€it€must€find€beyond€aÐ JB Ðreasonable€doubt€that€the€amount€of€the€substance€containing€cocaine€was€one„halfÐ ! Ðgram€or€more.€€He€argues€that€he€can€only€be€convicted€of€selling€less€than€one„halfÐ â"Ú Ðgram€of€cocaine,€a€Class€C€felony,€because€the€trial€court€omitted€from€its€juryÐ ®$¦! Ðinstructions€an€essential€element€of€the€Class€B€felony€offense.€€€€Ð z&r# ÐÌà ¸ àThe€indictment€charges€that€the€defendant€ð ðdid€unlawfully€and€knowinglyÐ * #' Ðsell€.€.€.€Cocaine€.€.€.€in€the€amount€of€.5€grams€or€more,€in€violation€of€òòTennessee€CodeÐ Þ+Ö$) ÐAnnotatedóó€39„17„417(a)(c)(1).ðð€€At€the€beginning€of€the€trial,€the€indictment€was€read€toÐ ª-¢&+ Ðthe€jury.€€At€the€close€of€the€proof,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€the€ð ðindictmentÐ v/n(- Ðin€this€case€charges€the€defendant€with€the€offense€of€selling€a€schedule€II€controlledÐ B1:*/ Ðsubstance,€to€wit,€cocaine.ðð€€It€stated€that€it€was€the€stateððs€theory€that€the€defendantÐ 3,1 Ðwas€guilty€as€charged€in€the€indictment.€€Ð Ú4Ò-3 ÐÌÐ r8j17 Ðà ¸ àThe€trial€court€defined€the€elements€of€the€offense€as€follows:Ð  ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àFor€you€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€this€offense,€theÐ ÔÌ Ðstate€must€have€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€theÐ º ² Ðexistence€of€the€following€essential€elements:Р ˜¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  à(1)€that€the€defendant€sold€cocaine,€a€Schedule€IIÐ l d Ðcontrolled€substance,€and€ÐR J¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  à(2)€the€defendant€acted€knowingly.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓ]~ÓÌÓ  ÓThe€instructions€given€by€the€trial€court€omitted€the€requirement€that€the€jury€must€findÐ ÐÈ  Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€amount€of€cocaine€sold€was€one„half€gram€or€more.€Ð œ”  ÐThe€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€gave€the€indictment€and€the€jury€instructions€toÐ h` Ðthe€jury€before€it€retired€for€its€deliberations.€€When€the€jury€returned€its€verdict,€it€statedÐ 4, Ðthat€it€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€ð ðselling€cocaine.ðð€€The€jury€verdict€portion€of€theÐ ø Ðindictment€states€the€following:€ð ðWe,€the€Jury,€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€sellingÐ ÌÄ Ðcocaine.ðð€Ð ˜ ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€first€raised€the€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€TheÐ 0 ( Ðdefendant€asserted€as€a€ground€for€a€new€trial€that€the€conviction€should€be€amendedÐ ü!ô Ðto€a€Class€C€felony€because€the€trial€court€failed€to€instruct€the€jury€regarding€theÐ È#À  Ðamount€of€cocaine€sold€necessary€for€a€Class€B€felony.€€The€state€asserted€that€noÐ ”%Œ" Ðinstruction€on€the€amount€was€required€given€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€that€the€juryÐ `'X $ Ðmust€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€selling€cocaine€as€charged€in€the€indictment,€and€theÐ ,)$"& Ðindictment€properly€alleged€the€amount€necessary€for€a€Class€B€felony€conviction€ofÐ ø*ð#( Ðselling€cocaine.€€The€defendant€conceded€that€there€was€no€dispute€at€trial€regardingÐ Ä,¼%* Ðthe€amount€of€cocaine€involved.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€motion,€stating€that€it€wasÐ .ˆ', Ðnot€required€to€instruct€the€jury€regarding€the€amount€of€cocaine€involved€because€thereÐ \0T). Ðwas€no€dispute€as€to€the€amount€of€cocaine€sold.€€The€trial€court€also€noted€that€theÐ (2 +0 Ðindictment€alleged€that€the€defendant€sold€one„half€gram€or€more€of€cocaine€and€thatÐ ô3ì,2 Ðthe€proof€showed€an€amount€in€excess€of€one„half€gram.Ð À5¸.4 ÐÐ Œ7„06 Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€complete€and€accurateÐ  Ðinstructions€of€the€law.€€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€Ð ÔÌ ÐThe€trial€court€has€a€duty€to€give€a€complete€charge€of€the€law€of€the€offense€included€inÐ   ˜ Ðthe€indictment,€without€any€request€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€to€do€so.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ l d ÐAnn.€ðð€40„18„110(a);€òòTeelóó,€793€S.W.2d€at€249.€€The€failure€to€do€so€deprives€theÐ 80 Ðdefendant€of€the€right€to€a€jury€trial.€€òòId.óó€€The€Fifth€and€Sixth€Amendments€to€the€UnitedÐ ü  ÐStates€Constitution€ð ðrequire€criminal€convictions€to€rest€upon€a€jury€determination€thatÐ ÐÈ  Ðthe€defendant€is€guilty€of€every€element€of€the€crime€with€which€he€is€charged,€beyond€aÐ œ”  Ðreasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Gaudinóó,€515€U.S.€506,€509,€115€S.€Ct.€2310,€2313Ð h` Ð(1995);€òòseeóó€òòSullivan€v.€Louisianaóó,€508€U.S.€275,€277„78,€113€S.€Ct.€2078,€2080„81Ð 4, Ð(1993).€Ð ø ÐÌà ¸ àFirst,€we€again€note€that€the€indictment€containing€the€requisite€quantityÐ ˜ Ðelement€was€read€to€the€jury€at€the€beginning€of€the€case€and€was€given€to€the€jury€forÐ d\ Ðdeliberations.€€The€trial€court€also€charged€the€jury€that€the€stateððs€theory€was€that€theÐ 0 ( Ðdefendant€was€guilty€as€charged€in€the€indictment.€€These€circumstances€indicate€thatÐ ü!ô Ðthe€jury€may€well€have€been€expressly€aware€of€the€one„half€gram€requirement.€Ð È#À  ÐHowever,€we€will€not€speculate€that€such€was€the€case.€€€Ð ”%Œ" ÐÌà ¸ àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€that€itÐ ,)$"& Ðmust€find€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€sold€one„half€gram€or€more€ofÐ ø*ð#( Ðcocaine.€€The€amount€of€cocaine€sold€by€the€defendant€is€an€essential€element€of€theÐ Ä,¼%* ÐClass€B€felony€of€selling€cocaine.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hilliardóó,€906€S.W.2d€466,€470€(Tenn.Ð .ˆ', ÐCrim.€App.€1995)€(reducing€a€Class€B€felony€conviction€for€possession€with€the€intent€toÐ \0T). Ðsell€cocaine€to€a€Class€C€felony€because€the€indictment€failed€to€include€the€amount€ofÐ (2 +0 Ðcocaine€involved,€an€essential€element€of€the€Class€B€felony€offense).€€The€trial€courtÐ ô3ì,2 Ðwas€obligated€to€instruct€the€jury€that€it€must€find€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€theÐ À5¸.4 Ðelement€relating€to€the€amount€of€cocaine€sold.€€The€failure€to€do€so€constituted€error.€€Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àThe€question€now€becomes€whether€the€failure€to€instruct€on€an€elementÐ  Ðof€the€offense€is€subject€to€constitutional€harmless€error€analysis.€€We€conclude€that€it€isÐ ÔÌ Ðand€that€it€constituted€harmless€error€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€In€òòTeelóó,€theÐ   ˜ Ðdefendant€contended€that€the€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€element€of€rapeð!ðtheÐ l d Ðfelony€supporting€the€felony€murder€convictionð!ðconstituted€reversible€error.€€OurÐ 80 Ðsupreme€court€stated€that€whether€harmless€error€analysis€applies€when€a€trial€courtÐ ü  Ðomits€an€essential€element€was€an€unsettled€area€of€the€law.€€òòTeelóó,€793€S.W.2d€at€249.€Ð ÐÈ  ÐIt€stated,€though,€that€harmless€error€analysis€applied€to€the€failure€to€define€a€separateÐ œ”  Ðfelony€that€is€an€essential€element€of€the€felony€with€which€a€defendant€is€charged.€€òòId.óóÐ h` Ðat€249„50;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Leeóó,€618€S.W.2d€320,€323€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€TheÐ 4, Ðcourt€decided€that€the€harmless€error€analysis€applied€and€concluded€that€the€failure€toÐ ø Ðinstruct€was€harmless€beyond€reasonable€doubt.Ð ÌÄ ÐÌà ¸ àThe€law€is€presently€more€settled.€€In€òòNeder€v.€United€Statesóó,€119€S.€Ct.Ð d\ Ð1827€(1999),€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€failure€to€instruct€a€jury€about€a€materialÐ 0 ( Ðelement€was€subject€to€constitutional€harmless€error€analysis.€€The€majority€opinionÐ ü!ô Ðnoted€that€the€Court€had€previously€used€a€harmless€error€analysis€in€a€case€in€whichÐ È#À  Ðthe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€to€consider€obscenity€under€the€wrong€standard,Ð ”%Œ" Ðmeaning€the€jury€did€not€make€a€finding€on€the€òòactualóó€element€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóóÐ `'X $ ÐòòPope€v.€Illinoisóó,€481€U.S.€497,€499„501€(1987).€€€Also,€the€Court€had€previouslyÐ ,)$"& Ðanalogized€the€omission€of€an€element€to€the€misstatement€of€the€element€in€theÐ ø*ð#( Ðinstructions.€€òòSeeóó€òòCalifornia€v.€Royóó,€519€U.S.€2,€5,€117€S.€Ct.€337,€339€(1996).€€InÐ Ä,¼%* Ðseparate€opinions€by€Justices€Stevens€and€Scalia,€four€justices€concluded€that€theÐ .ˆ', Ðharmless€error€analysis€should€be€limited€to€determining€whether€the€jury€verdictÐ \0T). Ðnecessarily€embraced€the€omitted€element.€€Ð (2 +0 ÐÌà ¸ àWe€note€that€this€court€has€also€applied€a€constitutional€harmless€errorÐ À5¸.4 Ðanalysis€to€the€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€about€a€material€element.€€In€òòDavid€A.€Scott,€IIIÐ Œ7„06 Ðv.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9709„CR„00400,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€20,Ð  Ð1999),€òòapp.óó€òòfiledóó€(Tenn.€June€9,€1999),€this€court€reviewed€an€aggravated€rapeÐ ÔÌ Ðconviction€relative€to€the€trial€court€erroneously€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€that€theÐ   ˜ Ðoffense€had€to€be€accomplished€with€the€defendant€having€an€intentional,€knowing,€orÐ l d Ðreckless€mental€state.€€The€Court€recognized€Justice€Scaliaððs€minority€position€firstÐ 80 Ðexhibited€in€òòRoyóó€and€refrained€in€òòNederóó€that€the€error€can€be€harmless€only€when€theÐ ü  Ðrecord€and€evidence€reflect€that€the€jury€verdict€necessarily€embraces€the€omittedÐ ÐÈ  Ðelement.€€Considering€that€both€the€petitioner€and€the€victim€testified€that€sexualÐ œ”  Ðpenetration€occurred€and€that€the€central€contested€question€was€the€issue€of€consent,Ð h` Ðthis€court€concluded€that€the€jury€verdict€necessarily€included€a€determination€of€anÐ 4, Ðappropriate€mental€state.Ð ø ÐÌà ¸ àWe€believe€that€a€similar€result€is€appropriate€in€the€present€case.€€TheÐ ˜ Ðstate€chemist€testified€that€she€had€24.8€grams€of€substance€that€she€tested€andÐ d\ Ðdetermined€to€be€cocaine.€€The€defendant€did€not€question€these€findings.€€His€onlyÐ 0 ( Ðdefense€was€that€he€was€not€the€seller.€€Under€the€facts€in€this€case,€the€guilty€verdictÐ ü!ô Ðfinding€that€the€defendant€sold€the€cocaine€necessarily€embraced€the€quantity€of€theÐ È#À  Ðcocaine€that€was€proven.Ð ”%Œ" ÐÌà@  'Dàò òIII.€€SENTENCINGó óˆÐ ,)$"& Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€he€is€a€careerÐ ø*ð#( Ðoffender.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€treated€his€prior€convictions€forÐ Ä,¼%* Ðaggravated€assault€and€sale€of€cocaine€as€a€single€conviction€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ð .ˆ', Ððð€40„35„104(b)(4),€which€provides€as€follows:Ð \0T). ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àConvictions€for€multiple€felonies€committed€as€part€of€aÐ (2 +0 Ðsingle€course€of€conduct€within€twenty„four€(24)€hoursÐ 3,1 Ðconstitute€one€(1)€conviction€for€the€purpose€of€determiningÐ ô3ì,2 Ðprior€convictions;€however,€acts€resulting€in€bodily€injury€orÐ Ú4Ò-3 Ðthreatened€bodily€injury€to€the€victim€or€victims€shall€not€beÐ À5¸.4 Ðconstrued€to€be€a€single€course€of€conduct€.€.€.€.€Ð¦6ž/5¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðâ âÐ Œ7„06 ÐÓÓÓ  ÓThe€defendant€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Hortonóó,€880€S.W.2d€732,€736€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  Ðâ â1994),€which€holds€that€the€twenty„four€hour€merger€rule€exception€under€Tenn.€CodeÐ ÔÌ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„104(b)(4)€applies€only€if€more€than€one€prior€conviction€involving€bodilyÐ   ˜ Ðinjury€or€threatened€bodily€injury€exists.€€€€Ð l d ÐÌà ¸ àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€state€introduced€a€copy€of€the€presentenceÐ ü  Ðreport€and€certified€copies€of€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions.€€The€defendant€objectedÐ ÐÈ  Ðonly€to€the€prior€convictions€for€aggravated€assault€and€possession€with€the€intent€toÐ œ”  Ðsell€cocaine,€claiming€that€the€offenses€occurred€on€the€same€day€and€therefore,€shouldÐ h` Ðbe€considered€as€one€conviction€for€range€enhancement€purposes.€€With€respect€to€theÐ 4, Ðchallenged€convictions,€the€ð ðDATE€OF€EVENT/ARRESTðð€portion€of€the€presentenceÐ ø Ðreport€provides€the€same€date,€April€5,€1992.€€Ð ÌÄ ÐÌà ¸ àThe€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€reviewed€its€files€on€the€priorÐ d\ Ðconvictions€and€stated€that€the€indictment€for€the€possession€with€intent€to€sell€cocaineÐ 0 ( Ðconviction€alleged€November€9,€1991.€€The€court€later€reviewed€the€judgments€ofÐ ü!ô Ðconviction€for€the€offenses€and€stated€that€the€judgments€for€the€aggravated€assaultÐ È#À  Ðand€for€the€possession€with€intent€to€sell€cocaine€provide€that€the€two€offenses€occurredÐ ”%Œ" Ðon€April€5,€1992.€€Defense€counsel€argued€that€the€two€offenses€should€be€treated€as€aÐ `'X $ Ðsingle€conviction€because€they€occurred€on€the€same€date.€€Counsel€asserted€that€theÐ ,)$"& Ðexception€to€the€twenty„four€merger€rule€was€not€applicable€because€the€reference€toÐ ø*ð#( Ðð ðactsðð€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„108(b)(4)€required€that€more€than€one€of€the€priorÐ Ä,¼%* Ðconvictions€be€for€a€violent€offense.€€The€prosecutor€replied€that€the€exception€appliedÐ .ˆ', Ðeven€though€only€one€of€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions€was€for€a€violent€offense,€andÐ \0T). Ðthus,€the€convictions€for€aggravated€assault€and€possession€with€the€intent€to€sellÐ (2 +0 Ðcocaine€should€be€considered€as€separate€convictions.€€The€trial€court€agreed€with€theÐ ô3ì,2 Ðprosecutorððs€position,€noting€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„108(b)(4)€provides€that€ð ðactsÐ À5¸.4 Ðresulting€in€bodily€injury€or€threatened€bodily€harm€to€the€victim€or€victims€shall€not€beÐ Œ7„06 Ðconstrued€to€be€a€single€course€of€conduct.ðð€€The€trial€court€found€the€defendant€to€be€aÐ  Ðcareer€offender,€relying€upon€the€judgments€of€conviction€entered€as€exhibits.Ð ÔÌ ÐÌà ¸ àThe€record€is€unclear€as€to€the€date€the€defendant€committed€the€offenseÐ l d Ðof€possession€with€intent€to€sell€cocaine.€€Reading€from€the€indictment€in€the€case,€theÐ 80 Ðtrial€court€stated€that€it€alleged€the€date€of€November€9,€1991.€€However,€it€later€statedÐ ü  Ðthat€the€judgment€of€conviction€for€the€offense€alleged€April€5,€1992,€the€same€date€thatÐ ÐÈ  Ðthe€aggravated€assault€occurred.€€In€this€respect,€we€note€that€the€record€on€appealÐ œ”  Ðdoes€not€include€Ô‡XC³XX XC³Ôthe€judgments€of€conviction€entered€as€exhibits€at€the€sentencingÐ h` Ðhearing.€€It€is€the€duty€of€the€appealing€party€to€prepare€a€fair,€accurate€and€completeÐ 4, Ðrecord€on€appeal€to€enable€meaningful€appellate€review.€€T.R.A.P.€24(b).€€Ð ø ÐÌà ¸ àIn€any€event,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€convictions€should€be€treated€asÐ ˜ Ðseparate€convictions€given€the€fact€that€the€offense€of€aggravated€assault€involved€orÐ d\ Ðthreatened€bodily€injury.€€Ô#† XC³XXXC³n¶#ÔThe€trial€court€agreed€with€the€stateððs€position€that€two€priorÐ 0 ( Ðconvictions€for€violent€felonies€were€not€necessary€for€the€twenty„four€hour€merger€ruleÐ ü!ô Ðexception€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„108(b)(4)€to€apply.€€Ô‡XC³XX XC³ÔIn€this€respect,€the€trialÐ È#À  Ðcourtððs€ruling€is€erroneous.€€As€stated€in€òòHortonóó,€880€S.W.2d€at€736,€the€twenty„fourÐ ”%Œ" Ðhour€merger€rule€exception€applies€when€there€is€more€than€one€previous€convictionÐ `'X $ Ðinvolving€or€threatening€bodily€injury.€€Thus,€if€the€defendant€is€convicted€again,€theÐ ,)$"& Ðmerger€rule€applies.€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô#† XC³XXXC³Ë¹#ÔÐ ø*ð#( ÐÌà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€reverseÐ .ˆ', Ðthe€defendantððs€conviction€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.Ð \0T). ÐÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ô3ì,2 Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àóóJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€Ð Ú4Ò-3 ÐÌÌÌÐ r8j17 ЇCONCUR:Ð  ÐÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð º ² ÐóóDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÐ   ˜ ÐÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð R J ÐóóJoe€G.€Riley,€Judge€€€