’WPCĀ s”<“–p±· e 0M–5(Į.®—Įq­Ļõ‰‰ :§’ģN¢Ćłš xä%–ø:’‚sų ø9Ķ`¾äĶø–ŅB„¾zi<ŗ”4ČŹ ī’€;›ć|wÉC‹Ōō¼Š‰­ßI¢1ń–žÅƒ‰k“!+±~G9ćÅĪ„śšĀ—h õ›cip±c§nOļ÷MF.›Ķ¹(¼Ļ£żŻü9“4Ÿ/Ś‹¶[ G²æmŌ 4x£ÆwŗrN·‘Ō±I„CÜU?āōWü,­„T!Ū`«ę‰£?ÓlP¤ĶģÉ_I† wc\@M±ńķĆĢ‚S(%_ap5xe}ė ¬¦ōV ²Čkė¾!2—|¤łµĪ%·Ŗ·QŖŲĆP ʘŖed¦ēRY&ų€jˆ,­å"ßā£tąōļś}~ĮĻZB6Œ°ŌČ\/š3GĖR§2½QGĢTx$6"7²5p`ļZNuœ`„=Ķ#&ž šō_Ü“wjĶåŚØS3ƒ¤eśżń–"“LŅŅՁļĖe%±”×UϜÅ0µY"éTžņ<‰_Ō®!óžĖ·üņžqdĘĆm±AķĪHż®¼ƒłœf–Ah[W„¼ÆQNåw”b#Į\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ņ— i x mz ‘ ʙ Ę_ Ę% Ęė ė N±±±E³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³bµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ 0ė½½½½ BØØ 0¤Å D5i D-ž 0KĖĖ ASĘi 0¤/ 0DÓ A«˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eČČ,,,,ČČ0»O¤H+ (`£Ŗ$””Ń€.ŃŃ8€½­»»d»»d8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  Ó(ķ€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'XTŸ ˜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.wpt3|x’U‹’ĄĄĄ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ł-(|G2¹x$¤¤Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€J•»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōõŻņ»»Ō d(|3G…$££Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€J•»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻVVVV)’’!dxdx)!ČČČČdxdx( ±ž$’’ņ ņFigure€Ś  Ś1Ś  Śó ó^_X`YEž’<<C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G…$¢¢Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€J•»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Ż($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8’’’’’’’’’’C’’ HKKKKŻ ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€J•»»ddČ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŃ  ŃŃ  ŃŌ€¼J•»»»ŌŃ8€ YXXdģ»»d8Ńą@ttģąŌ‡īCōJ•ŌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ ° Šą@kk$ģąAT€NASHVILLEŌ#†¼J•»īīCō #ԈŠ Ö& ŠÓ  Óą @ ąą @` ąAssigned€on€Briefs€August€15,€2001Š üL ŠŌ‡X YX»¼J•ŌĢņ ņŌ#†¼J•»XX Y #ŌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEņņóó€v.€JOHN€T.€BLACKSMITHņņóóŌ‡X YX»¼J•Ōó óŠ śJ ŠĢą@@½½ģąņ ņAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyŠ ś J Šą@@ųųģąNo.€2000„T„162€€€€€€Frank€G.€Clement,€Jr.,€JudgeŠ ę 6 ŠĢĢą@@ģģ*ģąßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` Aߊ Ŗś  ŠĢą@@TTģąNo.€M2000„02294„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€8,€2001Š „õ  ŠĢßA€V) °°` dE<|` Aߊ }Ķ  Šó óĢÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€John€Blacksmith,€appeals€his€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court€jury€conviction€ofŠ xČ  Šsecond„offense€driving€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€(Ō_ŌDUIŌ_Ō).€€He€claims€(1)€that€theŠ d“ Ševidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€juryššs€conclusion€that,€while€intoxicated,€he€was€in€physicalŠ P  Šcontrol€of€an€operable€€motor€vehicle€and€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€grant€a€mistrialŠ <Œ Šwhen€a€stateššs€witness€introduced€inadmissible€evidence€that€besmirched€the€defendantššs€character.€Š (x ŠWe€discern€no€reversible€error€and€affirm€the€trial€courtššs€judgment.Ō#†¼J•»XX Yš#ŌŌ‡X YX»¼J•ŌŠ d ŠÓ£ÓĢņ ņTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.ó óŠ ģ< ŠĢņņÓ  ÓŌ#†¼J•»ąX Yš#ŌŌ‡X YX.¼J•ŌJames€Ō_ŌCurwoodŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌWittŌ_Ō,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€ņņDavid€H.€Wellesóó€andŠ Ä ŠņņJoe€G.€Riley,€JJ.óó,€joined.Š ° ŠĢHollis€I.€Moore,€Jr.,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€John€T.€Blacksmith.Š ˆŲ ŠĢPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Ō_ŌBledsoeŌ_Ō,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Š `° ŠVictor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€James€Sledge,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Š L œ Šfor€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Š 8!ˆ  ŠÓ:ÓĢą@@OO&ģąņ ņOPINIONó óŌ#†¼J•»XX Yi#ŌŌ‡X YX»¼J•ŌŠ #`" ŠĢņņóóŌ#†¼J•»XX Y{ #ŌÓ  ÓŌ€X YX»¼J•Ōą  ąą ` ąAt€approximately€3:00€p.m.€on€January€20,€2000,€Metropolitan€Nashville€PoliceŠ č$8 $ Šofficers€Angela€Page€and€Brad€Alexander€were€investigating€possible€drug„dealing€activity€behindŠ Ō%$!% Ša€convenience€store€located€near€the€intersection€of€28ņņthóó€and€Clifton€Streets€in€Nashville.€€While€theŠ Ą&"& Šofficers€were€on€the€scene,€a€person€using€a€public€telephone€booth€gained€Officer€Pageššs€attentionŠ ¬'ü"' Šand€pointed€out€that€a€man€was€slumped€over€in€a€truck€parked€near€the€phone€booth.€Š ˜(č#( ŠĢą  ąą ` ąOfficer€Page€went€to€the€driverššs€side€of€the€truck,€observed€the€apparentlyŠ p*Ą%* Šunconscious€defendant€slumped€over€in€the€driverššs€seat,€and€attempted€to€rouse€him€by€rapping€onŠ \+¬&+ Šthe€window.€€She€continued€to€rap€on€the€window€for€two€to€three€minutes,€long€enough€for€OfficerŠ H,˜', ŠAlexander€to€go€to€the€patrol€car,€initiate€a€records€check€on€the€truck€license€tag,€and€return€to€theŠ 4-„(-ż ŠŌ_Ōtruck.€€After€Officer€Alexanderššs€return,€Officer€Page€was€finally€successful€in€rousing€the€defendant.€Š ° ŠWhen€the€defendant€rolled€down€the€window€and€asked€what€the€officer€wanted,€Officer€PageŠ œģ Šsmelled€alcohol€and€saw€an€open€bottle€of€liquor€near€the€defendantššs€right€hand.€€The€defendantŠ ˆŲ Šstated€that€he€had€š šjust€drove€up[,]€.€.€.€parked€his€truck[,€and]€was€waiting€to€use€the€phone.šš€€WhenŠ tÄ ŠOfficer€Page€asked€the€defendant€whether€he€had€been€drinking,€he€responded,€š šWell,€yeah.€€JustŠ `° Šbecause€Iššve€been€drinking€doesnššt€mean€Iššve€been€driving.ššŠ L œ ŠĢą  ąą ` ąBoth€Officers€Page€and€Alexander€noticed€that€the€key€to€the€truck€was€in€the€ignitionŠ $ t Šswitch;€however,€the€truck€engine€was€not€running€and€was€never€started€while€the€officers€were€onŠ  ` Šthe€scene.€The€defendant€was€alone€inside€the€truck,€which€was€located€in€the€parking€lot€of€theŠ ü L  Šconvenience€store.€€The€store€was€open€for€business€and€was€being€patronized€by€a€number€ofŠ č 8  Šcustomers€at€the€time€of€the€officersšš€encounter€with€the€defendant.€€€Neither€officer€could€testifyŠ Ō$  Šhow€long€the€truck€had€been€parked€before€they€arrived€on€the€scene.€Š Ą  ŠĢą  ąą ` ąOfficer€Page€testified€that€when€she€asked€the€defendant€to€step€out€of€the€truck,€heŠ ˜č  Šbecame€š švery€uncooperative,€very€belligerent.šš€€He€refused€to€participate€in€field€sobriety€tests,Š „Ō  Šindicated€that€he€hated€the€police,€and€protested€that€š šjust€because€he€was€drinking€didnššt€mean€heŠ pĄ Šwas€driving.šš€€The€officers€arrested€the€defendant€and€transported€him€to€the€police€station,€whereŠ \¬ Šthey€read€him€the€implied€consent€law.€€He€then€refused€a€breath„alcohol€test.€€During€the€two€hoursŠ H˜ Šthat€Officer€Page€had€contact€with€the€defendant€on€January€20,€2000,€š š[h]e€was€staggering,Š 4„ Šstumbling,€[and€had]€the€obvious€odor€of€alcoholic€beverage€on€his€person.šš€€Her€official€report€ofŠ  p Šthe€arrest€indicated€that€he€was€š šloud€and€talkative,šš€his€eyes€were€š šbloodshotšš€and€š šwatery,šš€he€wasŠ  \ Šš šconfused,šš€his€state€of€intoxication€was€š šextreme,šš€and€he€was€unable€to€operate€a€vehicle.€OfficerŠ ųH ŠPage€testified€that€these€descriptions€were€based€upon€her€observations.Š ä4 ŠĢą  ąą ` ąOfficer€Alexander€described€the€defendant€as€belligerent€and€smelling€of€alcohol.€€HeŠ ¼  Šhad€very€watery,€bloodshot€eyes,€and€upon€exiting€the€truck,€the€defendant€had€to€brace€himselfŠ Øų Šagainst€the€truck€bed€to€avoid€falling€down.€He€corroborated€Officerššs€Pageššs€testimony€concerningŠ ”ä Šthe€defendantššs€attitude€toward€police€and€his€behavior€following€his€arrest€on€the€scene.€€WhenŠ €Š Šasked€whether€he€would€have€allowed€the€defendant€to€go€free€had€he€taken€a€breath€alcohol€test€andŠ l¼ Špassed,€Officer€Alexander€testified€that€he€would€not€have€let€him€drive,€but€š š[p]ersonally,€I€wouldŠ X Ø Šhave,€you€know€let€him€[go]€š!š€[w]ell,€actually,€different€circumstances;€he€did€have€a€warrant€for€hisŠ D!” Šarrest,€so,€no,€I€wouldnššt€have€let€him€go.šš€€Officer€Alexander€opined€that€the€defendant€wasŠ 0"€  Šincapable€of€operating€a€motor€vehicle.Š #l! ŠĢą  ąą ` ąAfter€the€state€concluded€its€direct€examination€of€Officer€Alexander,€the€defendant,Š ō$D # Šoutside€the€presence€of€the€jury,€moved€for€a€mistrial€because€of€Officer€Alexanderššs€testimony€thatŠ ą%0!$ Šthe€defendant€was€the€subject€of€an€outstanding€warrant.€€€He€argued€that€the€state€had€portrayed€theŠ Ģ&"% Šdefendant€as€being€hostile€to€the€police€and€that€the€testimony€about€the€warrant€was€especiallyŠ ø'#& Šdamaging€because,€with€the€other€evidence€in€the€case,€it€portrayed€the€defendant€as€a€lawlessŠ ¤(ō#' Šindividual.€€The€state€argued€that€the€warrant€was€issued€for€failing€to€appear.€€It€proposed€that€theŠ )ą$( Šā ājury€be€told€of€the€rather€innocuous€nature€of€the€charge€supporting€the€warrant,€but€the€defendantŠ |*Ģ%) Šobjected€to€the€jury€being€given€this€information.€€The€trial€court€held€that€the€testimony€was€errorŠ ° Šbut€that€š šitššs€minor€enough€that€it€is€not€sufficient€for€.€.€.€a€mistrial.ššŠ œģ Šā āĢą  ąą ` ąThe€jury€returned€to€the€courtroom,€and€the€trial€judge€instructed€them€as€follows:Š tÄ ŠĢŅ` °ŅŅ` °Ņą ø ąą  ąLet€me€share€a€couple€of€things€with€you:€One€of€myŠ L œ Šresponsibilities€is€to€make€certain€that€everybody€gets€a€fair€trial.€AndŠ 8 ˆ Šone€aspect€of€a€fair€trial€is€to€make€certain€that€only€that€evidenceŠ $ t Šwhich€pertains€to€the€matter€that€youššre€to€decide€is€presented€to€you.€Š  ` ŠAnd€itššs€not€to€suggest€that€youššre€not€smart€enough€and€matureŠ ü L  Šenough€to€put€other€matters€aside,€but€you€just€donššt€want€to€worryŠ č 8  Šabout,€you€know,€š šWell,€did€they€consider€something€that€theyŠ Ō$  Šshouldnššt€be€considering?ššŠ Ą  ŠĢą ø ąą  ąI€have€evaluated€a€matter€and€I€want€to€share€it€withŠ ˜č  Šyou.€€In€response€to€a€question€that€did€not€require€the€additionalŠ „Ō  Šinformation€as€part€of€the€answer,€but€which€I€think€was€a€fairŠ pĄ Šinclusion,€the€Officer€said,€š šWell,€I€wouldnššt€have€let€him€go€anywayŠ \¬ Šbecause€he€had€an€outstanding€warrant.ššŠ H˜ ŠĢą ø ąą  ąI€donššt€want€you€to€infer€anything€wrong€from€that.€Š  p ŠFirst,€I€want€you€[to]€know€that€I€now€know€what€it€is,€and€itššs€anŠ  \ Šextremely€minor€thing.€€Though€the€Officer€had€a€duty€to€take€aŠ ųH Šperson€down,€say,€you€know,€š šHere€it€is€and€this€is€in€the€computerŠ ä4 Šand€Iššm€supposed€to€bring€him€in€for€this€paperwork€to€be€submitted.šš€Š Š  ŠIt€doesnššt€have€anything€to€do€with€this€offense.€€It€was€a€very€minorŠ ¼  Šmatter,€but€the€Officer€did€have€a€duty€not€to€let€him€go.€And€I€donšštŠ Øų Šwant€you€to€consider€it€at€all.Š ”ä ŠĢą ø ąą  ąThe€important€thing€is€to€focus€on€whatššs€the€issue€toŠ l¼ Šbe€tried€today.€€And€it€doesnššt€matter€if€the€Defendant€is€FlorenceŠ X Ø ŠNightengale,€who€has€saved€a€thousand€people€from€drowning,€orŠ D!” Šsomeone€who€has€been€less€than€a€perfect€citizen,€it€doesnššt€matter.€Š 0"€  ŠThe€question€is,€on€the€day€in€question,€January€the€20ņņthóó€of€2000,€wasŠ #l! Šthe€Defendant€driving€or€in€physical€control€of€[a]€motor€vehicleŠ $X" Šwhile€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€and€so€please€limit€yourŠ ō$D # Šconsideration€to€that.€€And€I€insist€that€you€strike€from€yourŠ ą%0!$ Šconsideration€any€suggestion€that€there€was€a€warrant€out€there.Š Ģ&"% ŠĢą ø ąą  ąNumber€One,€itššs€not€relevant;Š ¤(ō#' Šą ø ąą  ąĢą ø ąą  ąNumber€Two,€it€was€extremely€minor;€andŠ |*Ģ%) ŠŠ h+ø&* Šą ø ąą  ąNumber€Three,€it€would€be€justification€for€a€mistrialŠ ° Šif€you€let€that€creep€into€your€decision€making€process.Š œģ ŠĢą ø ąą  ąSo€please€disregard€that,€Iššm€very€serious€about€it.Š tÄ ŠĢҰ` ŅҰ` Ņą  ąą ` ąTestimony€resumed€after€this€instruction€was€given,€and€Metro€Officer€OvertonŠ L œ ŠMerritt€testified€that€he€had€several€yearsšš€experience€in€administering€breath€alcohol€tests€at€theŠ 8 ˆ Špolice€station.€€Although€the€defendant€refused€the€test,€Officer€Merritt€observed€the€defendant€forŠ $ t Ša€period€of€time€after€Officer€Page€brought€him€in.€€Based€upon€observing€š šthousandsšš€of€personsŠ  ` Što€whom€he€had€administered€breath€alcohol€tests,€he€testified€that€the€defendant€was€š švery€talkativeŠ ü L  Š.€.€.€angry,€confused,€extreme€odor€of€alcohol,€slurred€speech,€he€staggered,€red€eyes,€red€bloodshotŠ č 8  Šeyes,€and€he€was€drunk.ššŠ Ō$  ŠĢą  ąą ` ąThe€defendant€did€not€testify.€€Based€upon€the€evidence€summarized€above€andŠ ¬ü  Ševidence€of€a€prior€DUI,€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€second„offense€DUI.€€Š ˜č  ŠĢą  ąą ` ąIn€the€defendantššs€first€issue,€he€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€Š pĄ ŠSpecifically,€he€complains€that€there€was€no€evidence€that€the€parked€truck€in€which€the€defendantŠ \¬ Šwas€found€was€capable€of€being€operated.Š H˜ ŠĢą  ąą ` ąIn€reviewing€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€we€apply€a€familiar€standard.€Š  p ŠWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court€inspects€theŠ  \ Ševidentiary€landscape,€including€its€direct€and€circumstantial€contours,€from€the€vantage€point€mostŠ ųH Šagreeable€to€the€prosecution.€€The€reviewing€court€then€decides€whether€the€evidence€and€theŠ ä4 Šinferences€that€flow€therefrom€permit€any€rational€factfinder€to€conclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtŠ Š  Šthat€the€defendant€is€guilty€of€the€charged€crime.€€ņņSee€Jackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€442€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.Š ¼  ŠCt.€2781,€2791„92€(1979);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€ņņState€v.€Duncanņņóóóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985).€Š Øų ŠThis€rule€applies€to€findings€of€guilt€based€on€direct€evidence,€as€well€as€circumstantial€evidence€orŠ ”ä Ša€combination€thereof.€€ņņSee€State€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€ņņoverruledŠ €Š Šon€other€grounds€by€State€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1€(Tenn.€2000).€€On€appeal,€a€defendant€no€longerŠ l¼ Šenjoys€the€presumption€of€innocence;€consequently,€he€shoulders€the€burden€of€demonstrating€thatŠ X Ø Šthe€evidence€is€legally€insufficient€to€support€the€conviction.€€ņņState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914Š D!” Š(Tenn.€1982).Š 0"€  ŠĢą  ąą ` ąIn€determining€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€court€does€not€replay€and€reweigh€theŠ $X" Ševidence.€€ņņSee€State€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€WitnessŠ ō$D # Šcredibility,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€and€factual€disputes€are€entrusted€to€the€finder€ofŠ ą%0!$ Šfact.€€ņņState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€itsŠ Ģ&"% Šinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€ņņSee€Liakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,Š ø'#& Š305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956);€ņņFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€Š ¤(ō#' ŠRather,€this€court€extends€to€the€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidenceŠ )ą$( Šcontained€in€the€record€as€well€as€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€theŠ |*Ģ%) Ševidence.€€ņņSee€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.Š h+ø&* Їą  ąą ` ąAs€is€pertinent€to€the€present€case,€a€person€commits€DUI€who€drives€or€is€inŠ ° Šš šphysical€control€of€any€automobile€or€other€motor€driven€vehicle€on€any€of€the€public€roads€andŠ œģ Šhighways€.€.€.€or€while€on€.€.€.€any€.€.€.€premises€which€is€generally€frequented€by€the€public€at€largeššŠ ˆŲ Šwhile€under€the€influence€of€any€intoxicant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€55„10„401(a)€(1997).€Š tÄ ŠĢą  ąą ` ąBy€defining€DUI€to€include€mere€š šphysical€controlšš€of€a€motor€vehicle,€the€legislature€Š L œ Šcreated€a€strict€liability€crime.€€ņņSee€State€v.€Turneróó,€953€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€Š 8 ˆ ŠTo€assess€whether€a€defendant€was€in€physical€control€of€a€vehicle€for€purposes€of€the€DUI€offense,Š $ t Ša€jury€looks€to€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€including€š šthe€location€of€the€defendant€in€relationŠ  ` Što€the€vehicle,€the€whereabouts€of€the€ignition€key,€.€.€.€the€defendantššs€ability,€but€for€hisŠ ü L  Šintoxication,€to€direct€the€use€or€non„use€of€the€vehicle,€or€the€extent€to€which€the€vehicle€itself€isŠ č 8  Šcapable€of€being€operated€or€moved.šš€€ņņState€v.€Lawrenceóó,€849€S.W.2d€761,€765€(Tenn.€1993);€ņņseeŠ Ō$  ŠTurneróó,€953€S.W.2d€at€215€(š š[I]n€enacting€the€driving€while€intoxicated€statute,€the€legislatureŠ Ą  Šdesired€not€only€to€prohibit€the€operation€of€a€vehicle€by€an€intoxicated€individual,€but€also€toŠ ¬ü  Šremove€from€the€inebriated€the€option€of€operating€a€vehicle.šš).Š ˜č  ŠĢą  ąą ` ąIn€our€view,€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€indicates€that,€while€intoxicated,€theŠ pĄ Šdefendant€was€in€physical€control€of€the€truck€on€premises€generally€frequented€by€the€public€atŠ \¬ Šlarge.€€The€state€introduced€ample€evidence€of€the€defendantššs€intoxication,€a€fact€that€the€defendantŠ H˜ Šneither€contested€at€trial€nor€contests€on€appeal.€€Likewise,€he€does€not€contest€that€the€location€ofŠ 4„ Šthe€vehicle€was€in€a€place€frequented€by€the€public,€and€the€evidence€shows€that€it€was€in€such€aŠ  p Šplace.€€The€defendant€was€not€only€alone€inside€the€vehicle€but€was€in€the€driverššs€seat.€€The€key€wasŠ  \ Šlocated€in€the€ignition€switch.€€Although€there€was€no€testimony€that€the€truck€engine€was€started€orŠ ųH Šthat€the€officers€saw€the€truck€move€under€its€own€power,€the€defendant€told€Office€Page€at€the€sceneŠ ä4 Šthat€he€had€š šjust€drove€up€.€.€.€and€parked.šš€€This€statement€established€that€the€vehicle€was€operableŠ Š  Šand€that€the€defendant,€but€for€his€intoxication,€could€have€driven€it€away.€€Š ¼  ŠĢą  ąą ` ąThese€facts€place€this€case€solidly€within€the€ambit€of€cases€wherein€sufficiency€ofŠ ”ä Šthe€evidence€was€found.€€ņņSee,€e.g.,€Lawrenceóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€765€(defendantššs€truck€stopped€in€theŠ €Š Šroad,€and€defendant€was€asleep€in€the€driverššs€seat€with€the€vehicleššs€keys€in€his€pocket;€defendantŠ l¼ Šš šcould€have€at€any€time€started€the€engine€and€driven€awayšš);ņņ€State€v.€Johnny€Wade€Meeksóó,€No.Š X Ø Š03C01„9811„CR„004411,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Dec.€3,€1999)€(defendant€aloneŠ D!” Šand€in€driverššs€seat€of€van€with€motor€running€and€lights€on;€evidence€sufficient€to€prove€physicalŠ 0"€  Šcontrol),€€ņņperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2000);€ņņState€v.€David€W.€Seiberóó,€No.€01C01„9505„CC„00138,Š #l! Šslip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Feb.€13,€1997)€(defendant€found€either€asleep€or€passedŠ $X" Šout€behind€the€wheel€of€the€vehicle€with€the€headlights€on€and€the€key€in€the€ignition;€evidenceŠ ō$D # Šsufficient€that€defendant€exercised€physical€control€over€the€vehicle);€ņņState€v.€James€W.€Starnesóó,€No.Š ą%0!$ Š01C01„9408„CC„00279,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€14,€1995)€(defendantššs€carŠ Ģ&"% Šmechanically€capable€of€being€driven,€so€dispute€whether€he€actually€attempted€to€start€vehicle€is€ofŠ ø'#& Šno€consequence),€ņņperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1996).Š ¤(ō#' ŠĢą  ąą ` ąThus,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€juryššs€verdict.€€Š |*Ģ%) ŠŠ h+ø&* Šą  ąą ` ąIn€the€defendantššs€next€issue,€he€is€aggrieved€of€the€trial€courtššs€failure€to€declare€a€Š ° Šmistrial€in€response€to€Officer€Alexanderššs€statement€about€an€outstanding€warrant.€€Although€theŠ œģ Šdefendant€does€not€say€so€in€his€brief,€we€assume€that€his€complaint€about€this€testimony€is€groundedŠ ˆŲ Šin€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404.€€Under€Rule€404,€character€evidence€is€generally€inadmissibleŠ tÄ Što€prove€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€or€trait€on€a€particular€occasion.€€The€state,€however,Š `° Štakes€no€pains€to€posit€that€the€testimony€was€admissible;€rather,€it€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€notŠ L œ Šerr€in€refusing€to€grant€a€mistrial.€€Essentially,€the€state€argues€that€the€trial€court€acted€within€itsŠ 8 ˆ Šdiscretion€to€deny€the€motion€for€a€mistrial€because€the€testimony€about€the€outstanding€warrant€wasŠ $ t Šnot€egregious€and,€in€any€event,€it€was€effectively€offset€by€the€courtššs€instructions.€€We€agree.Š  ` ŠĢą  ąą ` ąThe€entry€of€a€mistrial€is€appropriate€when€the€trial€cannot€continue€for€some€reason,Š č 8  Šor€if€the€trial€does€continue,€a€miscarriage€of€justice€will€occur.€€ņņState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2dŠ Ō$  Š365,€370€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€š šA€mistrial€is€usually€appropriate€in€a€criminal€case€only€whereŠ Ą  Šthere€is€a€ššmanifest€necessity.šššš€ņņState€v.€Seayóó,€945€S.W.2d€755,€764€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€TheŠ ¬ü  Šburden€of€showing€manifest€necessity€rests€upon€the€defendant.€€ņņId.óó€€The€decision€to€grant€a€mistrialŠ ˜č  Šlies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€this€court€will€not€disturb€the€trial€courtššsŠ „Ō  Šdetermination€unless€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion€appears€on€the€record.€€ņņMcPherson,óó€822€S.W.2d€atŠ pĄ Š370.Š \¬ ŠĢą  ąą ` ąEven€though€the€testimony€about€the€warrant€was€inadmissible€evidence€pursuant€toŠ 4„ ŠRule€404,€the€only€information€communicated€to€the€jury€was€the€existence€of€a€warrant.€€The€trialŠ  p Šcourt€took€pains€to€minimize€the€significance€of€the€warrant.€€The€trial€judge€cogently€emphasizedŠ  \ Što€the€jury,€not€only€that€the€existence€of€a€warrant€was€irrelevant€to€the€case€on€trial,€but€also€thatŠ ųH Šthe€warrant€represented€an€insignificant€matter.€€Even€though€the€trial€judge€did€not€specificallyŠ ä4 Šinstruct€the€jury€as€to€the€dangers€of€propensity€evidence,€we€think€he€effectively€abated€anyŠ Š  Šprejudice€to€the€defendant€that€resulted€from€Officer€Alexanderššs€statement.€€Š ¼  ŠĢą  ąą ` ąš šIt€is€presumed€that€the€jury€followed€the€trial€judgeššs€instructions€not€to€considerŠ ”ä Šinadmissible€evidence.šš€€ņņState€v.€Millbrooksóó,€819€S.W.2d€441,€443€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)Š €Š Š(affirming€the€denial€of€a€mistrial€based€upon€prejudicial€character€evidence€being€countered€byŠ l¼ Šcurative€instructions).€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€denial€of€the€mistrial€was€not€an€abuse€ofŠ X Ø Šdiscretion.Š D!” ŠĢą  ąą ` ąAs€a€result€of€our€analyses,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Š #l! ŠĢĢĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą___________________________________€Š ø'#& Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE