ÿWPCR AXËw0ñVúz¼Ïk4-Š#ypê‹ýï-±ùLæ÷ûf0×OÚ¸V!¿}2õ j-˜óå&'\Lã+¾m&0È™±5f5¹½?´É‹‰¯HYüæí²èpêD½ Î+ϳTöüWsNN8)äï!R½xªáúMõ>0­RûG Ôº•EŠ ÆMA9-K¡xÍcªö"•Ëôv¦jf!u,xæ‡s@9ç©ñ¾^¸^3ã9+‰EšK`ËåQ’=ª‡óMa÷» g*½y#qgé<S0 ·õÌÀ8@·tZ°o*DR½›Å ¯ÐïV@$NÀÏ?‡ìôK´V«y=åÒ”.½ö–ü‡·‹Éñ ,Nðs½ 0Ü€}g îÆ*•ꥷuwRëÄ%TŠ qÛt…­àÑ,vgÇý®çÍ ‚Xe |¨6·DJ2AÜå‘ÍŒLº‹­ WxÔ“§{VÉV%4Úf:ͧ©Í]­T†ƒ+•YòôÔPä«âÉ3y nÜœ'"Å!iMç3þã.¦kò‚FF ÖY3’À.•õs÷ U׺tõQ¿:¯t u%¼Å3®‚•ñêûÊd9„äC¦ÊŽ1  ÿoýh³Ÿ*„ŽH!Ÿø¸b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë 0D±NõõUN÷EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEbGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 0ëOOOO B:: 0¤W D3û D-. 0K[[ AS¦Æù 0¤¿ 0Dc A«§»ì~O+ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'  3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G2¤³$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô·-ò»»Ô d(|3¿\$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿\$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼»»»ÔÑ8€M‰XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îôÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@LL$ìàAT€€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼»îîô #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€€September€25,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XM‰X»¼ÔÌò òÔ#†¼»XXM‰ #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€òòóóv.€ANGELA€H.€BLACKÔ‡XM‰X»¼Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌò òDirect€ó óà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€€99„B„1040à0 @ àà0 @ àà0 @ à€€€€€€Steve€R.€Dozier,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„02368„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€12,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓA€Davidson€County€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€theft€over€$60,000,€a€Class€B€felony.€€Ô#†¼»XXM‰~#ÔÔ‡XM‰X»¼ÔTheÐ xÈ  Ðdefendant€contends€in€this€appeal€that€(1)€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€testimony€of€a€stateððsÐ d´ Ðwitness€who€heard€the€victimððs€testimony€despite€the€trial€courtððs€order€to€sequester€witnesses;€andÐ P  Ð(2)€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€giving€an€enhanced€unanimity€instruction.€€We€affirm€the€judgmentÐ <Œ Ðof€the€trial€court.€€€Ð (x ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÓ0ÓÌòòÔ#†¼»àXM‰U#ÔÔ‡XM‰X.¼ÔJoe€G.€Riley,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€and€òòAlan€E.Ð Ø( ÐGlenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌRoss€E.€Alderman,€Public€Defender;€C.€Dawn€Ô_ÔDeanerÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Public€Defender€(at€trial€and€onÐ œì Ðappeal);€and€James€P.€McNamara,€Assistant€Public€Defender€(at€trial),€for€the€appellant,€Angela€H.Ð ˆØ ÐBlack.€Ð tÄ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð L œ ÐVictor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Bret€Thomas€Gunn,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ 8!ˆ  ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ð $"t! ÐÌÌò òà@66'ìàOPINIONó óÔ#†¼»XXM‰Ù#ÔÔ‡XM‰X»¼ÔˆÐ è$8 $ ÐÌà  àOver€a€period€of€three€years,€the€defendant,€a€bookkeeper,€embezzled€over€$165,000€fromÐ À&"& Ðher€employer,€Nashville€Steel€Rule€and€Die,€Inc.,€by€altering€over€150€checks.€€Some€of€the€checksÐ ¬'ü"' Ðwere€for€legitimate€payments€to€the€defendant,€but€she€altered€the€amount€of€the€checks.€€OtherÐ ˜(è#( Ðchecks€were€intended€for€the€companyððs€suppliers,€but€instead€she€made€them€payable€to€herself.€€Ð „)Ô$) ÐThe€indictment€aggregated€the€separate€acts€into€the€single€offense€of€theft€over€$60,000,€and€the€juryÐ p*À%* Ðconvicted€the€defendant€as€charged.€€Ð \+¬&+ ÐÌÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà@++ìàò òI.€VIOLATION€OF€ð ðTHE€RULEðð€OF€WITNESS€SEQUESTRATIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€defense€moved€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€615€for€the€court€to€exclude€all€witnesses€fromÐ ˆØ Ðthe€courtroom,€and€the€trial€court€granted€the€motion.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àMeryl€Stinson,€a€certified€public€accountant€and€accountant€for€Nashville€Steel€Rule€and€Die,Ð L œ Ðtestified€for€the€state€that€Ô#†¼»XXM‰~ #ÔÔ‡XM‰X»¼Ôshe€discovered€checks€were€missing€from€the€companyððs€bank€statements.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐUpon€reviewing€copies€of€the€missing€checks,€Stinson€discovered€most€of€them€were€made€payableÐ $ t Ðto€the€defendant€although€the€defendantððs€entries€in€the€check€register€showed€they€were,€for€the€mostÐ  ` Ðpart,€written€to€suppliers.€While€explaining€the€companyððs€computerized€bookkeeping€system,Ð ü L  ÐStinson€said€it€would€not€allow€entry€of€two€checks€with€the€same€number€for€differing€amounts.€Ð è 8  ÐÔ#†¼»XXM‰`#ÔÔ€XM‰X»¼ÔStinson€said€there€were€notations€on€the€checks€referring€to€the€names€of€suppliers€as€well€as€toÐ Ô$  Ðcertain€country€music€entertainers,€but€stated€she€was€not€aware€of€any€business€that€the€companyÐ À  Ðwould€have€conducted€with€entertainers.€€Stinson€also€reviewed€copies€of€the€defendantððs€bankÐ ¬ü  Ðrecords€and€found€there€were€deposits€in€the€defendantððs€checking€account€corresponding€with€theÐ ˜è  Ðmisappropriated€checks.€Ð „Ô  Ѐ€€€€€€€Ð pÀ Ðà  àAfter€Stinson€testified,€the€prosecutor€advised€her€she€could€remain€in€the€courtroom.€€Thus,Ð \¬ Ðshe€stayed€in€the€courtroom€and€heard€the€testimony€of€the€stateððs€next€witness,€Dennis€Lane,€theÐ H˜ Ðpresident€and€owner€of€Nashville€Steel€Rule€and€Die.€€Lane€stated€€some€legitimate€payments€wereÐ 4„ Ðmade€to€the€defendant€for€her€wages,€loans,€and€reimbursements€for€small€expenses.€€He€alsoÐ  p Ðtestified€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€his€permission€to€alter€the€checks.€€€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àDuring€cross„examination,€the€defendantððs€attorney€questioned€Lane€regarding€ð ðfinishingððÐ ä4 Ðwork€performed€by€his€company€which€involved€assembling€boxes.€€This€work€was€performed€byÐ Ð  Ðcontract€laborers€who€were€paid€for€each€piece€they€completed,€as€well€as€hourly€employees€whoÐ ¼  Ðwere€paid€their€regular€wage.€€The€contract€laborers€were€paid€from€the€companyððs€business€account.€Ð ¨ø ÐWhen€questioned€regarding€payments€made€to€defendant€for€her€work€on€these€ð ðfinishingðð€jobs,Ð ”ä ÐLane€stated€the€defendant€was€paid€her€normal€hourly€wage€from€a€separate€payroll€account.€€LaneÐ €Ð Ðtestified€some€of€the€ð ðfinishingðð€work€could€have€related€to€products€for€the€country€music€industry,Ð l¼ Ðand€the€notations€written€on€some€of€the€checks€referred€to€certain€country€music€artists.€€Ð X ¨ Ðà  àÌà  àFollowing€Laneððs€testimony,€the€state€recalled€Meryl€Stinson€to€the€witness€stand.€€The€Ð 0"€  Ðdefense€objected€on€the€grounds€that€Stinson€had€remained€in€the€courtroom€during€LaneððsÐ #l! Ðtestimony.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€objection,€noting€the€state€had€reason€to€recall€Stinson€inÐ $X" Ðrebuttal€to€the€cross„examination€of€Lane€regarding€the€companyððs€ð ðfinishingðð€business.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àStinson€testified€that€after€court€recessed€the€day€before,€she€operated€the€companyððsÐ Ì&"% Ðcomputer€to€determine€if€it€would€allow€duplicate€entries€of€the€same€check€number.€€She€€found€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðit€did€allow€her€to€enter€identical€check€numbers€with€different€dates€and€amounts.€€She€also€testifiedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€companyððs€financial€statements€contained€information€regarding€the€ð ðfinishingðð€work,€includingÐ )à$( Ðâ âthe€expenses€related€to€the€work.€€Under€the€category€of€contract€labor€expenses,€the€statementsÐ |*Ì%) Ðincluded€a€list€of€payments€to€specific€contract€laborers;€however,€they€did€not€include€any€paymentsÐ ° Ðmade€to€defendant.€€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€Stinson€to€testify€after€hearing€Ð tÄ ÐLaneððs€testimony.€€We€respectfully€disagree.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àRule€615€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€provides:€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÒ½°ÒÒ½ÒÒ°Òà ` àAt€the€request€of€a€party€the€court€shall€order€witnesses,€including€rebuttalÐ  ` Ðwitnesses,€excluded€at€trial€or€other€adjudicatory€hearing.€€In€the€court's€discretion,Ð ü L  Ðthe€requested€sequestration€may€be€effective€before€voir€dire,€but€in€any€event€shallÐ è 8  Ðbe€effective€before€opening€statements.€The€court€shall€order€all€persons€not€toÐ Ô$  Ðdisclose€by€any€means€to€excluded€witnesses€any€live€trial€testimony€or€exhibitsÐ À  Ðcreated€in€the€courtroom€by€a€witness.€This€rule€does€not€authorize€exclusion€of€(1)Ð ¬ü  Ða€party€who€is€a€natural€person,€or€(2)€a€person€designated€by€counsel€for€a€party€thatÐ ˜è  Ðis€not€a€natural€person,€or€(3)€a€person€whose€presence€is€shown€by€a€party€to€beÐ „Ô  Ðessential€to€the€presentation€of€the€party's€cause.€This€rule€does€not€forbid€testimonyÐ pÀ Ðof€a€witness€called€at€the€rebuttal€stage€of€a€hearing€if,€in€the€court's€discretion,Ð \¬ Ðcounsel€is€genuinely€surprised€and€demonstrates€a€need€for€rebuttal€testimony€fromÐ H˜ Ðan€unsequestered€witness.Ð 4„ ÐÒ°[!ÒÒ½M!ÒÒ9$°ÒÌÒ°A&ÒÒe½Òà ½ àWe€note€that€Rule€615€does€not€prescribe€a€specific€sanction€for€its€violation.€€Instead,€courtsÐ  \ Ðretain€the€discretion€to€impose€a€variety€of€sanctions€appropriate€to€the€circumstances.€€òòState€v.Ð øH ÐAnthonyóó,€836€S.W.2d€600,€605€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€N.€Cohen€et€al.,€ò òTennessee€LawÐ ä4 Ðof€Evidenceó ó€ðð€6.15[11][b]€(4òòthóó€ed.€2000)€Ô‡XM‰XXXM‰Ô.Ô#†XM‰XXXM‰((#Ô€€The€trial€court€may,€as€a€sanction,€exclude€the€testimonyÐ Ô$ Ðof€a€witness€who€hears€other€testimony€while€subject€to€a€sequestration€order.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Weedenóó,Ð Ä Ð733€S.W.2d€124,€125€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€The€decision€to€exclude€or€allow€the€testimony€isÐ ° Ða€matter€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€subject€to€a€showing€of€abuse€and€prejudice€to€theÐ œì Ðcomplaining€party.€€òòState€v.€Chadwickóó,€750€S.W.2d€161,€166€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€òòóóÐ ˆØ ÐÌà ½ àIn€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€indicated€it€found€the€state€was€taken€by€surprise€by€defenseÐ ` ° Ðcounselððs€line€of€questioning€regarding€the€victimððs€expense€for€the€ð ðfinishingðð€work€andÐ L!œ Ðdemonstrated€a€need€to€present€the€testimony€of€Meryl€Stinson€to€rebut€the€inferences€made€byÐ 8"ˆ  Ðdefense€counsel€during€Laneððs€cross„examination.€€In€light€of€this€finding,€we€conclude€the€trial€courtÐ $#t! Ðdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€allowing€Stinson€to€again€testify€following€Laneððs€testimony.€Ð $`" ÐÌà ½ àRegardless,€we€conclude€that€the€defendant€has€not€shown€she€was€unduly€prejudiced€byÐ è%8!$ ÐStinsonððs€subsequent€testimony.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€Stinson€altered€her€testimony€to€conformÐ Ô&$"% Ðto€Laneððs.€€Stinsonððs€testimony€was€presented€to€rebut€the€defenseððs€inference,€made€through€theÐ À'#& Ðcross„examination€of€Lane,€that€some€of€the€payments€alleged€to€be€thefts€were€actually€legitimateÐ ¬(ü#' Ðpayments€made€to€the€defendant€for€her€assistance€with€the€ð ðfinishingðð€work.€€Stinson€also€correctedÐ ˜)è$( Ðâ âher€previous€testimony€regarding€the€operation€of€the€companyððs€bookkeeping€software.€€ThisÐ „*Ô%) Ðtestimony€was€not€related€to€Laneððs,€but€was€merely€a€correction€of€her€own€prior€testimony.€€ThisÐ ° Ðissue€is€without€merit.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌò òÌà@ ÆàII.€€ENHANCED€UNANIMITY€INSTRUCTION€ó óˆÐ `° ÐÌà ½ àThe€defendant€also€argues€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€giving€the€jury€an€enhanced€instructionÐ 8 ˆ Ðregarding€the€necessity€of€a€unanimous€verdict.€€She€submits€that€since€the€proof€of€the€theft€involvedÐ $ t Ðover€150€separate€checks€and€each€check,€or€even€different€groups€of€checks,€could€have€eitherÐ  ` Ðsupported€different€theft€convictions€or€been€found€by€the€jury€to€be€legitimate€payments,€there€wasÐ ü L  Ða€danger€of€a€ð ðpatchworkðð€verdict,€thus€requiring€an€enhanced€unanimity€instruction.€€We€disagree.Ð è 8  ÐÌà ½ àThis€case€was€prosecuted€as€a€single€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cattoneóó,€968€S.W.2d€277,€279Ð À  Ð(Tenn.€1998)€(holding€aggregation€of€value€of€stolen€property€taken€in€separate€acts€of€theft€isÐ ¬ü  Ðpermissible€when€(1)€taken€from€the€same€owner,€(2)€from€the€same€location,€and€(3)€pursuant€to€aÐ ˜è  Ðsingle€sustained€larcenous€scheme).€€The€defendant€concedes€there€was€no€need€for€an€election€ofÐ „Ô  Ðoffenses€since€multiple€offenses€were€not€committed.€€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Adamsóó,€24€S.W.3d€289,€294€(Tenn.Ð pÀ Ð2000).€Ð \¬ ÐÌà ½ àDefendant€relies€heavily€upon€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€576€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),Ð 4„ Ðrelating€to€the€need€for€an€enhanced€unanimity€instruction.€€The€evidence€in€òòBrownóó€established€theÐ  p Ðdefendantððs€simultaneous€possession€of€cocaine€located€on€two€separate,€but€adjoining,€properties.€Ð  \ ÐJudge€Tipton,€writing€for€the€court,€concluded€there€was€a€real€potential€for€a€conviction€based€uponÐ øH Ðdifferent€jurors€concluding€that€the€defendant€committed€different€acts,€ð ðeach€of€which€separatelyÐ ä4 Ð[constituted]€the€commission€of€an€offense.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€583.€€This€court€concluded€an€enhanced€unanimityÐ Ð  Ðinstruction€was€necessary€to€insure€the€jury€understood€its€duty€to€agree€unanimously€to€a€particularÐ ¼  Ðset€of€facts.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà ½ àòòBrownóó€was€cited,€but€distinguished,€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Lemacksóó,€996€S.W.2dÐ €Ð Ð166,€170€(Tenn.€1999).€€òòLemacksóó€noted€that€òòBrownóó€involved€ð ðseveral€possible€criminal€events.ðð€€òòIdóó.€Ð l¼ ÐòòLemacksóó,€according€to€the€court,€involved€only€one€set€of€facts€relating€to€the€charge€of€DUI.€Ð X ¨ ÐTherefore,€the€supreme€court€concluded€the€jury€was€properly€instructed€it€could€convict€based€uponÐ D!” Ðdefendantððs€actual€operation€of€the€vehicle€or€upon€his€criminal€responsibility€for€allowing€anotherÐ 0"€  Ðintoxicated€person€to€drive.€€òòIdóó.€at€171.€€No€enhanced€unanimity€instruction€nor€election€of€offenseÐ #l! Ðwas€required.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà ½ àMore€recently,€our€supreme€court€ruled€that€no€election€or€enhanced€unanimity€instruction€isÐ à%0!$ Ðrequired€as€to€facts€supporting€a€particular€element€of€a€crime;€provided,€the€jury€agrees€that€theÐ Ì&"% Ðdefendant€is€guilty€of€the€crime€charged.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€___€S.W.3d€___,€___€(Tenn.€2001).€€MoreÐ ¸'#& Ðspecifically,€the€court€noted€that€the€enhanced€unanimity€instruction€was€unnecessary€because€ð ð[t]heÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrecord€indicated€only€one€offense.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€___.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà ½ àIn€light€of€òòLemacksóó,€òòAdamsóó,€and€òòJohnsonóó,€we€are€uncertain€as€to€the€continued€vitality€ofÐ ° Ðâ âòòBrownóó.€€We€do,€however,€conclude€that€òòJohnsonóó€appears€to€be€controlling€of€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó.€€Ð œì ÐÌà ½ àHere,€the€various€alleged€acts€constituted€but€one€offense€of€theft.€€An€enhanced€unanimityÐ tÄ Ðinstruction€was€not€required,€provided€each€juror€agreed€that€the€aggregate€theft€was€over€$60,000.€Ð `° ÐThe€general€unanimity€jury€instruction€was€sufficient€to€ensure€that€each€juror€concluded€theÐ L œ Ðdefendant€was€guilty€of€theft€over€$60,000.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÌà@ÆÆ*Æàˆà Í ààHÍÍ,ÍàˆàH'''Íàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ ü L  ÐÌà ½ àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à___________________________________€Ð ˜è  Ðà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÐ „Ô  ÐÌà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à