ÿWPC: …# VUNa %¯ 0(µLÝw@) 4i } 0lŒ 0Dø L< ˆ 0J 0TÚ 0^. 0hŒ 0rô 0|f 0†â 0h 1uø Bm 0dŠU>îU*,B)V D3DC² AMõ 0@B‚±“v~DvÓ AO•Æä 0Dª D/î B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT RESTVUUVVWXYEZ[Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|xd((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌNovember€21,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó §Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Ricky€Oganóó,€No.€01C01„9406„CC„00213,€slip€op.€at€6Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€April€30,€1997)(defendantððs€identity);€òòState€v.ÏTommy€Crispóó,€No.€167,€slip€op.€at€4,5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€19,Ï1989)(proof€that€connected€defendant€with€stolen€property);€€òòState€v.€Alex€Bilesóó,ÏNo.€86„104„II,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€10,€1987)(evidenceÏto€prove€dates€of€prior€convictions);€òòState€v.€Furman€Calvin€Schrader€and€LarryÏClark€Schraderóó,€No€number€in€original,€slip€op.€at€10„11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€August€28,€1985);€€òòState€v.€Ricky€Wayne€Cooperóó,€No.€71,€slip€op.€at€5Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€April€17,€1985)òò€óó(testimony€corroborating€accompliceÏtestimony).€ÌPtPtHHÚ(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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€(ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€œúXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßR€,.+A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌó óÌò òà@ àSEPTEMBER,€1997€SESSIONó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9611„CC„00461Ìà àœAppellee,›à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àMaury€CountyÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHon.›€James€L.€Weatherford,€JudgeÌò òANTHONY€PAUL€ALDERSON,à àó ó)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à à(DUI)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌGARY€M.€HOWELLà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌP.O.€Box€442à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌColumbia,€TN€38402à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGEORGIA€BLYTHE€FELNERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCounsel€for€the€StateÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMIKE€BOTTOMSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€459Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àLawrenceburg,€TN€38464„0459ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÇà@ àò òOPINIONÓÓÓ` °‚X˜XÓó óÌÌà àœThe›€defendant,€Anthony€Paul€œAlderson,›€appeals€pursuant€to€RuleÏ3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€from€his€judgment€ofÏconviction€in€the€Maury€County€Criminal€Court€for€driving€under€the€influence€ofÏan€intoxicant.€€After€a€bench€trial,€he€was€sentenced€to€serve€eleven€months€andÏtwenty„nine€days€on€probation€after€serving€œ48€hours€in›€the€county€jail.€€ÌÌà àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏallowing€the€state€to€reopen€its€proof€after€the€defendant€moved€for€a€judgmentÏof€acquittal.€€After€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€driving€while€underÏthe€influence€of€an€intoxicant€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏœSection€55„10„401€on›€June€20,€1996.€€No€transcript€of€the€trial€is€included€in€theÏrecord.€€However,€the€defendant€prepared€a€Statement€of€the€Evidence€whichÏthe€trial€court€has€certified.€€From€this€statement€we€derive€the€following€facts.€ÏOfficer€Tim€Potts,€the€stateððs€only€witness,€testified€that€on€July€1,€1995,€heÏobserved€a€vehicle€traveling€north€on€Highway€7€in€Maury€County.€€When€theÏvehicle€swerved€twice€across€the€center€line,€he€radioed€ahead€to€OfficerÏTommy€Goetz€to€stop€the€vehicle.€€When€Officer€Potts€arrived,€he€found€theÏdefendant€and€three€other€individuals€standing€around€the€car€talking€with€aÍthird€officer.€€Officer€Potts€noticed€the€odor€of€an€alcoholic€beverage€coming€fromÏthe€defendant€and€asked€him€if€he€had€been€drinking.€€The€defendant€admittedÏthat€he€had.€€The€officer€administered€two€field€sobriety€tests.€€Based€on€theseÏtests€and€his€other€observations,€he€concluded€that€the€defendant€was€underÏthe€influence€and€placed€him€under€arrest.€€The€results€of€the€defendantððs€bloodÏalcohol€test€were€.16%€alcohol€content.€€This€concluded€the€stateððs€proof.ÌÌà àThe€defense€then€moved€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€in€that€thereÏwas€no€proof€that€the€defendant€was€either€driving€or€in€physical€control€of€theÏvehicle.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401€(a)€(Supp.€1996).€€The€trial€court,Ïover€the€defendantððs€objection,€allowed€the€state€to€reopen€its€proof.€€OfficerÏPotts€again€took€the€stand€and€testified€that€as€he€approached€the€scene€of€theÏstop€he€saw€the€defendant€get€out€of€the€car€from€the€driverððs€door.€€The€stateÏrested€again€and€the€defense€put€on€no€proof.€œ€ÌÌà àUpon›€these€facts,€the€trial€judge€found€the€defendant€guilty€andÏsentenced€him€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€of€probation€œafterÏserving€48€hours.€€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€now€contends€that€the€rules€of€criminal€procedureÏrequire€that€the€trial€court€grant€a€defendantððs€motion€for€a€judgment€of€acquittalÏð ðof€one€or€more€offenses€charged€in€the€indictment€or€information€after€theÏevidence€on€either€side€is€closed€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€sustain€aÍconviction€for€such€offense€or€offenses.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29(a).€€The€defendantÏconcedes€that€a€trial€judge€has€broad€discretion€in€allowing€€the€reopening€ofÏproof.€€He€argues,€however,€that,€since€the€adoption€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCriminal€Procedure€in€1978,€the€motion€to€reopen€is€appropriate€only€when€theÏstate€has€failed€to€establish€venue€and€not€when€the€state€fails€to€establish€anÏessential€element€of€the€offense.€€We€respectfully€disagree.€€Ìà àIn€Tennessee,€the€law€is€well„settled€that€the€decision€to€allow€aÏparty€to€reopen€its€proof€after€resting€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.ÏòòBoone€v.€Citizenððs€Bank€&€Trustóó,€154€Tenn.€241,€244„45,€290€S.W.€39,€40Ï(1927);€òòState€v.€Tuttleóó,€914€S.W.2d€926,€931€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòClaridayÏv.€Stateóó,€552€S.W.2d€759,€770€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€Nothing€in€the€rules€orÏin€case€law€indicates€that€Rule€29€restricts€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€to€grant€orÇ€deny€a€motion€to€reopen.€€The€rule€states,€in€pertinent€part:€€ÌÓÓà8 à.€.€.€€The€court€on€motion€of€a€defendant€or€of€its€ownÏmotion€shall€order€the€entry€of€judgment€of€acquittalÏof€one€or€more€offenses€charged€in€the€indictment€orÏinformation€after€the€evidence€on€either€side€isÏclosed€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€sustain€aÏconviction€of€such€offense€or€offenses.€€If€aÏdefendantððs€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€at€theÏclose€of€the€evidence€offered€by€the€State€is€notÏgranted,€the€defendant€may€offer€evidence€withoutÏhaving€reserved€the€right.€€ÌÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29(a).€€ÓÓà àMoreover,€comments€to€the€rule€states€that€the€newÏrule€ð ðis€substantially€the€same€as€the€federal€rule.ðð€€òòIdóó.€committee€comments.€€AsÏthe€defendant€concedes€in€his€brief,€federal€law€permits€parties€to€reopen€theÏproof€under€a€variety€of€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó€10€David€Raybin,€òòTennesseeÏCriminal€Practice€and€Procedureóó,€ðð€26.113€(1985€and€Supp.€1997).ÌÌà àAlthough€a€motion€to€reopen€has€perhaps€most€often€been€grantedÏto€permit€the€state€to€establish€venue,€its€use€has€never€been€limited€to€thatÏparticular€situation.€€For€example,€in€òòState€v.€John€Michael€Armitageóó,€this€courtÏreversed€a€conviction€for€second€degree€murder€and€remanded€the€case€forÏnew€trial€because€the€trial€court€refused€to€reopen€the€proof€and€allow€theÏdefendant€to€present€the€testimony€of€a€newly€found€witness€that€tended€toÏimpeach€one€of€the€stateððs€most€important€witnesses.€€òòState€v.€John€MichaelÏArmitageóó,€No.€1241,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€10,€1990).€€InÏanother€case,€the€trial€court€granted€the€stateððs€motion€to€reopen€so€that€theÏprosecution€could€prove€that€the€defendant€was€in€possession€of€an€automobileÍinvolved€in€a€burglary,€and€we€affirmed.€€òòState€v.€Tuttleóó,€914€S.W.2d€926,€930Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).× ƒ/ ××  ×›€€€We€have€found€nothing€in€Tennessee€law€that€wouldÏcause€us€to€conclude€that,€once€the€defense€has€moved€for€a€judgment€ofÏacquittal,€€the€state€may€reopen€its€case€only€to€offer€proof€of€venue.€€TheÏdecision€to€grant€or€deny€a€motion€to€reopen€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt.ÌÌà àIn€the€absence€of€an€injustice,€a€trial€courtððs€decision€to€permit€€theÏintroduction€of€further€evidence€after€a€party€has€rested€must€be€upheld.ÏòòSimpson€v.€Frontier€Community€Credit€Unionóó,€810€S.W.€2d€147€(Tenn.€1991);€ÏœòòClariday€v.€Stateóó,›€552€S.W.2d€759,€771€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€The€mere€factÏthat€the€evidence€presented€after€the€reopening€of€the€case€produced€a€differentÏresult€is€not€determinative€as€long€as€there€is€no€surprise€or€unfair€advantage.€ÏòòDon€McBay€v.€Charles€Lesley€Cooperóó,€No.€01A01„9205„CV„00202,€slip€op.€at€4Ï(Tenn.€App.,€Nashville,€Aug.€26,€1992).€€This€court€has€previously€noted€withÏapproval€€the€rule€stated€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Thetfordóó,€676€F.2d€170€(5th€Cir.Ï1982):€€ÌÓÓà8 àA€motion€to€reopen€is€clearly€within€the€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court.€In€exercising€its€discretion,€the€courtÏmust€consider€the€timeliness€of€the€motion,€theÏcharacter€of€the€testimony,€and€the€effect€of€grantingÏof€the€motion.€€The€party€moving€to€reopen€shouldÏprovide€a€reasonable€explanation€for€failure€toÏpresent€the€evidence€in€its€case„in„chief.€€TheÏevidence€proffered€should€be€relevant,€admissible,Ïtechnically€adequate,€and€helpful€to€the€jury€inÏascertaining€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€accused.€ÏThe€belated€receipt€of€such€testimony€should€notÏð ðimbue€the€evidence€with€distorted€importance,Ïprejudice€the€opposing€partyððs€case,€or€preclude€anÏadversary€from€having€an€adequate€opportunity€toÏmeet€the€additional€evidence€offered.ðð€€(Citations€toÏother€cases€omitted.)€ÌÌÓÓòòState€v,€John€Michael€Armitageóó,€No.€1241,€slip€op.€at€7€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€July€10,€1990).€€ÌÌà àIn€this€instance,€no€court€reporter€transcribed€the€trial,€and€theÏStatement€of€the€Evidence€contains€the€following€remark,€ð ð[a]fter€someÏdiscussion€the€Court,€over€the€defendantððs€objection,€allowed€the€State€to€re„open€its€proof.ðð€€From€such€a€record,€we€have€no€way€of€determining€whatÏreasons€the€state€gave€for€its€request€to€reopen€or€what€findings€the€trial€courtÏmay€have€made.€The€appellant€has€the€responsibility€to€present€a€recordÏcontaining€ð ðsuch€parts€of€the€evidence€or€proceedings€as€is€necessary€toÏconvey€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€with€respect€toÏthose€issues€that€are€bases€of€appeal.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b);€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,Ï733€S.W.2d€517,€522€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€€Lacking€such€a€record,€thisÏcourt€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€was€adequately€supported€by€theÍevidence.€€òòState€v.€Beechóó,€744€S.W.2d€585,€588€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€we€cannot€say€that€any€injustice€resulted€from€theÏadmission€of€Officer€Pottsððs€testimony€even€though€the€new€evidence€addressedÏthe€issue€upon€which€the€defendant€had€based€his€motion€for€acquittal.€€As€thisÏcourt€wrote€in€òòState€v.€Tommy€Crispóó,€No.€167€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€JulyÏ19,€1989),€ð ð[t]he€only€reason€for€allowing€any€party€to€reopen€their€proof€is€toÏcorrect€some€deficiency.€€Otherwise,€there€would€be€no€reason€for€the€rule€andÏno€party€could€ever€reopen.ðð€€Slip€op.€5.€€€The€defendant€has€not€demonstratedÏthat€the€opportunity€to€present€the€additional€testimony€gave€the€state€the€benefitÏof€any€surprise€or€unfair€advantage,€that€either€party€or€the€court€was€seriouslyÏinconvenienced,€or€that€the€defendant€had€no€fair€opportunity€for€rebuttal.€€€òòDonÏMcBay€v.€Charles€Lesley€Cooperóó,€No.€01A01„9205„CV„00202,€slip€op.€at€4Ï(Tenn.€œApp.,›€Nashville,€Aug.€26,€1992).€€ÌÌà àOfficer€Pottsððs€additional€testimony€was€relevant,€admissible,€andÏhelpful€to€the€determination€of€the€defendantððs€innocence€or€guilt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v,ÏJohn€Michael€Armitageóó,€No.€1241,€slip€op.€at€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€JulyÏ10,€1990).€€The€trial€court€is€entitled€to€and€should€have€the€benefit€of€allÏavailable€evidence€for€its€assistance€in€arriving€at€a€just€determination.€€òòDon€œÇMcBay›€v.€Charles€Lesley€Cooperóó,€slip€op.€at€4.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÏdiscretion€in€permitting€the€state€to€reopen€its€case€after€the€defendant€hadÏmoved€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal.ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌ