ÿWPC€: Ì¡ –zºõO¡ñº:-»όˆ\>òDÉ?vŸT“ŽÖH[‰B%-§'t2Ä\c*啲Ìñ#\©SÒ´qwiÄ™Ä? 9óÚ9Å=.FaGÏJp݈ý!ã÷›J,‰äó:Ÿ¶úóɘüŒ\´í_d´@–¬í«ùåšWêV€÷õüþ³,O°‰Åñd˜Š&Ní4œ'bj õÛRßj¯öæ²ÈUèI…1!5OX©­9èù“[îlÙ„G™ˆtTºSê~È<ñ܆Ŀ˜šì˜¸ïs²èà}®ÿ‰ê)}4§)õâ1YÜdˆ¤ Ÿœ\ŠëàûÝ»˜ÜóMY2¯ 6hB`™yg’è@ãg˜N3ñšå'žÇ¶.\„C¤èxJGÙÅ_üëG¹ß„!‹CŽI† ?`˜ˆN”«|^ghÚ[­›Aå :Í¿±Zá3ÕRSùÊê…)ûš¤»óktì+ÊÙîœ#%®¬;Å…g¦­\Ì€¾(Ì mÉy ~»SÜ•À‘?]RžäÝ΄é¯*] {4_ù„Œ¹kïü&´Æå]àI™XKŠQ‚3ð͹ëÀ©{)ón !.ä)~+α-:³n<#ÚDFb %\Nb 0ˆdU Nì 0U: 0é zx zò Òl Ò> ^  w 4 Æ4 Æú ÆÀ ƆLN[] m_Ev#Áx 0æ9 0ã 0à 0Ýâ 0Ú¿ 0×™ 0Ôp 0CD 0ׇ 0Ô^ 0Ñ2 0Î 0ËÑ 0Èœ 0Åd 0À) 0@é 0Ô) 0Ñý 0ÎÎ 0Ëœ 0Èg!b/" 0Å7" 0Âü" 0½¾# 00{$ 0<«$ 0¾ç$ 0>¥% 0vã% 0`Y& 0`¹& 0`' 0`y' 0`Ù' 089( 0Òq( 02C) 0üu) 0:q* 0Y«* 0_+ 0 c+ 0jm, 0„×- B*[/ D/…/ 0„´/ D/81 0Îg1 0652 0k2 0:s3 0^­3 0< 4 0NG4U6•4 0ëË4U>¶5U*ô56 B&6U@C6 0¤ƒ6 D5'7 D-\7 0K‰7‰7 ASÔ7Æ'8 0¤í8 0D‘9 A«Õ9»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*G+M ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT ˜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.wptC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpto -s Yo†)ê:i¢Ø+00Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0*D+M ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+M ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡ôôôÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€G(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡T%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dF)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€I(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡T%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓF)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ<þ6X9`(‹Courier New(|G2gö$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ e»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®Mò»»Ôô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial  d(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (|3ÁB$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ e»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÁB$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ e»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ e»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ e»»»ÔÑ8€JéXXdì»»d8ÑÔ€W¼ e»»¼ eÔà@ttìàÔ‡WîŒpî»W¼ eÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†W¼ e»îWîŒp;#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€March€12,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡WXJéX»W¼ eÔÌò òÔ#†W¼ e»XWXJéL#ÔòòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEóó€v.€òòóóROBERT€S.€CLARKÔ‡WXJéX»W¼ eÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNos.€99„06263,€99„06264€€€€€€W.€Otis€Ô_ÔHiggsÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„00921„CCA„R3„CD€€Ô_Ô„Ô_Ô€Filed€August€5,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Robert€S.€Clark,€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€robbery.€€The€trial€court€imposedÐ xÈ  Ðconcurrent€four„year€sentences.€€In€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€asserts€that€there€wasÐ d´ Ðprosecutorial€misconduct€during€voir€dire€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€excluding€certain€expertÐ P  Ðtestimony.€€Because€there€is€no€reversible€error,€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court€are€affirmed.Ð <Œ ÐÓ0ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgments€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†W¼ e»àWXJéÃ#ÔÔ‡WXJéX.W¼ eÔGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòNorma€McGee€Ogleóó€and€òòAlanÐ ì< ÐE.€Glenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌJefferson€D.€Gilder,€Ô_ÔSouthavenÔ_Ô,€Mississippi€(on€appeal),€and€Leslie€Ô_ÔBallinÔ_Ô€and€Gray€Bartlett,Ð ° ÐMemphis,€Tennessee€(at€trial),€for€the€appellant,€Robert€S.€Clark.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€P.€Robin€Dixon,€Jr.,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð tÄ Ðand€Greg€Ô_ÔGillulyÔ_Ô€and€Betsy€Ô_ÔCarnesaleÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€StateÐ `° Ðof€Tennessee.Ð L œ ÐÓ{ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†W¼ e»XWXJéª#ÔÔ‡WXJéX»W¼ eÔÐ $"t! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†W¼ e»XWXJé= #ÔÔ‡WXJéX»W¼ eÔÓ  Óà  àOn€November€20,€1998,€a€robber€carrying€a€police€scanner€entered€a€Union€Planters€BankÐ ü#L# Ðbranch€located€in€the€Jitney€Premier€grocery€store€in€Cordova,€Tennessee.€€At€the€teller€counter,€heÐ è$8 $ Ðannounced€that€he€had€a€gun€in€his€pocket€and€demanded€that€a€bag€he€was€carrying€be€filled€withÐ Ô%$!% Ðmoney.€€The€tellers€complied.€€The€police€were€alerted€by€a€silent€alarm€just€as€the€robber€left.€€AfterÐ À&"& Ða€photograph€of€the€robber€made€from€the€bankððs€security€videotape€Ô#†W¼ e»XWXJé› #ÔÔ€WXJéX»W¼ eÔappeared€in€the€local€newspaper,Ð ¬'ü"' Ðpolice€received€an€anonymous€tip€identifying€the€defendant€as€the€robber.€€Later,€bank€tellers€Ô_ÔSaleemÔ_ÔÐ ˜(è#( ÐÔ_ÔSamanaÔ_Ô€and€Joshua€Marino€identified€the€defendant€from€a€photographic€lineup.Ð  „)Ô$)ý ÐÔ_Ôà@ÍÍ*ìàIˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àInitially,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€excluding€the€proffered€expertÐ ˆØ Ðtestimony€of€William€Bearden,€who€had€analyzed€and€digitized€the€security€videotape€of€the€robbery.€Ð tÄ ÐThe€state€argues€that€because€Bearden€was€not€qualified€as€an€expert€and€because€his€testimonyÐ `° Ðwould€not€have€substantially€assisted€the€jury,€the€trial€court€properly€excluded€the€evidence.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àGenerally,€the€admission€of€expert€testimony€is€largely€entrusted€to€the€sound€discretion€ofÐ $ t Ðthe€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€trial€court's€decision€mayÐ  ` Ðbe€overturned€on€appeal€only€upon€a€showing€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòId.óó€€"[A]nÐ ü L  Ðappellate€court€should€find€an€abuse€of€discretion€when€it€appears€that€a€trial€court€applied€anÐ è 8  Ðincorrect€legal€standard,€or€reached€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€that€caused€anÐ Ô$  Ðinjustice€to€the€party€complaining."€€òòState€v.€Shuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€662,€669€(Tenn.€1997).Ð À  ÐÌà  àAfter€the€state€rested€its€proof€in€chief,€the€defense€called€William€Bearden€as€an€expert€onÐ ˜è  Ðfilm€and€videotape.€€When,€however,€an€objection€was€lodged€by€the€state,€the€trial€court€disallowedÐ „Ô  Ðthe€testimony,€holding€that€the€defense€had€an€obligation€to€notify€the€state€of€its€intention€to€presentÐ pÀ Ðthe€witness€and€that€the€proposed€testimony€would€not€be€of€assistance€to€the€jury:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà ` àNow,€as€I€understand€it€in€this€case€thereððs€a€serious€question€about€the€qualityÐ 4„ Ðof€the€video.€€Thereððs€a€serious€question€as€to€whether€.€.€.€the€person€in€the€video€is,Ð  p Ðindeed,€the€defendant.€.€.€.€[W]e€have€admitted€that€video€tape€into€evidence.€.€.€.Ð  \ Ð[T]he€weight€and€credibility€of€the€evidence€in€the€record€[are]€something€for€the€juryÐ øH Ðto€determine.Ðä4Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àBoth€of€you€will€be€allowed€to€argue€that€the€person€in€the€video€is€or€is€notÐ Ð  Ðthe€defendant.€€The€jury€will€make€that€final€determination,€and€the€video€speaks€forÐ ¼  Ðitself.€€Iððm€not€going€to€allow€an€expert€witness€now,€today,€in€the€middle€of€the€trialÐ ¨ø Ðto€come€forward€.€.€.€.€€And€Iððm€not€sure€itððs€relevant€to€bring€this€kind€of€person€inÐ ”ä Ðrelative€to€the€quality€of€the€videotape.ЀÐÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àI€mean,€the€jury€itself€can€determine€from€what€we€have€in€evidence€thatÐ l¼ Ðthereððs€no€clear,€distinctive€features€on€the€person€in€the€video.€€Theyððll€have€to€makeÐ X ¨ Ða€determination€as€to€whether€or€not€itððs€really€the€defendant€.€.€.€.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAfterwards,€in€a€hearing€out€of€the€presence€of€the€jury,€Bearden€testified€that€he€obtainedÐ #l! Ða€degree€in€education€from€the€University€of€Memphis€and€that€after€graduating,€he€was€employedÐ $X" Ðby€a€film€laboratory€where€he€was€a€film€editor€and€timer.€€He€stated€that€he€began€his€own€videoÐ ô$D # Ðproduction€company€in€1988€and€had€ð ðedited€literally€.€.€.€thousands€of€hours€of€finished€programs.ðð€Ð à%0!$ ÐAccording€to€Bearden,€he€had€digitized€the€security€videotape€of€the€robbery€onto€the€hard€drive€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðhis€edit€system€and€then€printed€individual€frames€that€he€edited€with€Adobe€Photo€Shop€software:Ð ¸'#& Ðð ðI€would€take€it€in€and€clean€it€up€as€I€could,€de„interlace€the€video€image,€sharpen€it€a€little€bit,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðmaybe€make€it€monochrome€.€.€.€and€just€try€to€make€it€the€best€it€could€be€.€.€.€.ðð€€BeardenÐ )à$( Ðacknowledged€that€he€had€never€before€testified€as€an€expert€witness.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€admissibility€of€expert€testimony€is€governed€by€Rules€702€and€703€of€the€TennesseeÐ ° ÐRules€of€Evidence.€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transp.,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257€(Tenn.€1997).€€Rule€702Ð œì Ðaddresses€the€need€for€expert€testimony€and€the€qualifications€of€the€expert:€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àà ` àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€will€substantially€assistÐ `° Ðthe€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witnessÐ L œ Ðqualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€mayÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€Its€counterpart,€Rule€703,€focuses€on€the€reliability€of€expert€opinion€testimony:€Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€facts€or€data€in€the€particular€case€upon€which€an€expert€bases€an€opinionÐ Ô$  Ðor€inference€may€be€those€perceived€by€or€made€known€to€the€expert€at€or€before€theÐ À  Ðhearing.€If€of€a€type€reasonably€relied€upon€by€experts€in€the€particular€field€inÐ ¬ü  Ðforming€opinions€or€inferences€upon€the€subject,€the€facts€or€data€need€not€beÐ ˜è  Ðadmissible€in€evidence.€The€court€shall€disallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinionÐ „Ô  Ðor€inference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€data€indicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€703.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transportation,€Inc.óó,€our€supreme€court€concluded€that€to€determine€"theÐ  p Ðstandard€of€admissibility€of€scientific€evidence€requires€an€analysis€of€the€unique€language€found€inÐ  \ ÐRules€702€and€703€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence."€€955€S.W.2d€at€264.€€Our€high€courtÐ øH Ðobserved€that€Rule€702€requires€that€the€evidence€"substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact,"€while€theÐ ä4 Ðfederal€rule€requires€only€that€the€evidence€"assist€the€trier€of€fact."€€òòId.óó€€The€court€concluded€that€theÐ Ð  Ðprobative€force€of€expert€testimony€must€be€stronger€in€this€state's€courts€than€under€the€federal€rules.€Ð ¼  ÐòòId.óó€€Rule€703€provides€that€trial€courts€"'shall€disallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€orÐ ¨ø Ðinference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€data€indicate€a€lack€of€trustworthiness.'"€€òòId.óó€(quoting€Tenn.€R.Ð ”ä ÐEvid.€703).€€Even€if€expert€testimony€tends€to€provide€substantial€assistance€to€the€jury,€the€testimonyÐ €Ð Ðis€admissible€only€if€it€is€based€upon€reliable€facts€or€data.€€òòState€v.€Shuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€662,€668Ð l¼ Ð(Tenn.€1997).Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àRecently,€in€òòState€v.€Stevensóó,€___€S.W.3d€___,€No.€M1999„02067„SC„DDT„DD€(Tenn.Ð 0"€  Ð2002),€our€supreme€court€approved€the€application€of€òòMcDanielóóto€nonscientific€expert€testimony.€Ð #l! ÐThe€court€observed€that€ð ðnonscientific€testimony€must€still€meet€the€stringent€requirements€ofÐ $X" Ðrelevance€and€reliability.€.€.€.€[N]othing€in€the€language€of€Rules€702€and€703€suggests€that€scientificÐ ô$D # Ðtestimony€should€be€treated€any€differently€than€expert€opinions€based€on€technical€or€nonscientificÐ à%0!$ Ðspecialized€knowledge.ðð€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€12„13.€€In€determining€whether€to€admit€the€testimony€of€aÐ Ì&"% Ðproffered€nonscientific€expert,€trial€courts€may€consider€the€following:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  à(1)€the€òòMcDanielóó€factors,€when€they€are€reasonable€measures€of€the€reliability€ofÐ )à$( Ðexpert€testimony;€(2)€the€expertððs€qualifications€for€testifying€on€the€subject€at€issue;Ð |*Ì%) Ðand€(3)€the€straightforward€connection€between€the€expertððs€knowledge€and€the€basisÐ h+¸&* Ðfor€the€opinion€such€that€no€ð ðanalytical€gapðð€exists€between€the€data€and€the€opinionÐ ° Ðoffered.МìÐ Ð  ÐÌòòId.óóat€15.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àInitially,€the€defense€did€not€identify€Bearden,€disclose€its€intent€to€call€him€as€a€witness,€orÐ L œ Ðprovide€the€state€with€copies€of€his€security€video€stills€until€mid„way€through€the€trial.€€The€state,Ð 8 ˆ Ðof€course,€would€have€been€entitled€to€Beardenððs€stills€had€it€made€an€appropriate€request€afterÐ $ t Ðinitiation€of€discovery€by€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(b)(1)(B).€€The€record,€however,Ð  ` Ðdoes€not€contain€any€motions€or€orders€pertaining€to€discovery€and€this€court€cannot,€therefore,Ð ü L  Ðdiscern€what€discovery€information€the€defense€may€have€been€obliged€to€provide€or€when€it€shouldÐ è 8  Ðhave€been€made€available.€€Furthermore,€the€defendant€asserts€that€he€could€not€have€identifiedÐ Ô$  ÐBearden€earlier€because€the€state€did€not€timely€provide€an€acceptable€copy€of€the€security€video€forÐ À  Ðhim€to€digitize€and€edit.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€state€produced€two€copies€of€the€video€to€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefense€sometime€prior€to€trial,€but€that€both€copies€were€defective.€€The€state€did€not€produce€anÐ ˜è  Ðacceptable€copy€until€jury€selection€began.€€Any€delay€in€disclosure€of€the€witness,€under€theseÐ „Ô  Ðcircumstances,€cannot€be€blamed€on€the€defense.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€Bearden€appears€to€be€qualified€as€an€expert€in€the€field€of€video€production.€Ð H˜ ÐHe€testified,€among€other€things,€that€he€owns€his€own€video€production€company€and€that€he€hasÐ 4„ Ðedited€thousands€of€hours€of€videotape.€€While€he€has€no€formal€education€in€the€field,€heÐ  p Ðdemonstrated€substantial€knowledge,€skill,€and€experience.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€It€is€irrelevantÐ  \ Ðthat€Bearden€was€not€present€during€the€robbery.€€The€state€argued€at€trial€that€Beardenððs€video€stillsÐ øH Ðwere€inadmissible€because€Bearden€could€not€ð ðauthenticate€[them]€because€he€canððt€say€whether€thatÐ ä4 Ðphotograph€fairly€and€accurately€depicts€the€robber,€because€he€wasnððt€there.ðð€€The€videotape€fromÐ Ð  Ðwhich€Bearden€extracted€the€stills€had€already€been€properly€authenticated€and€entered€into€evidence.€Ð ¼  ÐHis€testimony€would€have€needed€only€to€explain€his€alterations€and€their€underlying€processes€inÐ ¨ø Ðorder€to€support€a€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€that€the€stills€were€what€he€claimed€them€to€be.€Ð ”ä ÐòòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€901(a)€(ð ðThe€requirement€of€authentication€.€.€.€is€satisfied€by€evidence€sufficientÐ €Ð Ðto€the€court€to€support€a€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€that€the€matter€in€question€is€what€its€proponentÐ l¼ Ðclaims.ðð).€€In€our€view,€the€trial€court€should€not€have€summarily€excluded€Beardenððs€testimony.€Ð X ¨ ÐThe€state€did€not€claim€prejudice€by€the€delay€in€identifying€Bearden€as€a€witness.€€Exclusion€of€theÐ D!” Ðexpert€was€the€harshest€remedy€available€to€the€trial€court.€€A€more€appropriate€measure€would€haveÐ 0"€  Ðbeen€to€offer€the€state€a€continuance€so€as€to€allow€time€for€preparation€and€response.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAlthough€there€was€error,€it€is€our€view€that€the€proffered€testimony€would€not€have€been€ofÐ ô$D # Ðsubstantial€assistance€to€the€jury.€€During€its€case€in€chief,€the€state€introduced€the€original€videotapeÐ à%0!$ Ðand€18€still€frames.€€While€the€still€frames€are€not€high€quality,€they€are€relatively€clear€and€provideÐ Ì&"% Ðsome€detail.€€By€comparison,€the€edited€still€frames€produced€by€Bearden€are€actually€blurrier€andÐ ¸'#& Ðprovide€fewer€details.€€There€is€no€indication€that€the€jury€would€have€benefitted,€substantially€orÐ ¤(ô#' Ðotherwise,€by€the€introduction€of€Beardenððs€testimony€or€his€still€frames.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€702;Ð )à$( Ðòòsee€alsoóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b)€(ð ðA€final€judgment€.€.€.€shall€not€be€set€aside€unless,€considering€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðwhole€record,€error€involving€a€substantial€right€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment€.€.€.Ð h+¸&* Ð.ðð).€€Additionally,€it€was€Beardenððs€opinion€that€the€individual€depicted€in€the€video€and€stills€wasÐ ° Ðnot€the€defendant.€€After€examining€the€record,€this€court€has€been€unable€to€find€any€logical€basisÐ œì Ðfor€the€opinion.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€703.€€In€sum,€while€Beardenððs€testimony€and€the€edited€stillÐ ˆØ Ðframes€should€have€been€admitted,€their€quality€would€not€have€made€a€difference€in€the€result.Ð tÄ ÐÌà@®®)ìàIIˆÐ L œ ÐÌà  àNext,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€the€security€videotape€ofÐ $ t Ðthe€robbery.€€He€contends€that€a€proper€chain€of€custody€was€not€established€and€that€no€witnessÐ  ` Ðauthenticated€the€tape.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àAs€a€condition€precedent€to€the€introduction€of€tangible€evidence,€a€witness€must€be€able€toÐ Ô$  Ðidentify€the€evidence€or€establish€an€unbroken€chain€of€custody.€€òòState€v.€Goodmanóó,€643€S.W.2d€375,Ð À  Ð381€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€The€purpose€of€the€chain€of€custody€requirement€is€to€"demonstrateÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€there€has€been€no€tampering,€loss,€substitution,€or€mistake€with€respect€to€the€evidence."€€òòStateÐ ˜è  Ðv.€Bradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€750,€759€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€While€the€state€is€not€required€toÐ „Ô  Ðestablish€facts€which€exclude€every€possibility€of€tampering,€the€circumstances€established€mustÐ pÀ Ðreasonably€assure€the€identity€of€the€evidence€and€its€integrity.€€òòState€v.€Fergusonóó,€741€S.W.2d€125,Ð \¬ Ð127€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€This€rule€does€not€require€absolute€certainty€of€identification.€€òòRitterÐ H˜ Ðv.€Stateóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€372,€462€S.W.2d€247,€250€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1970).€€Absent€sufficientÐ 4„ Ðproof€of€the€chain€of€custody,€however,€the€"evidence€should€not€be€admitted€.€.€.€unless€both€identityÐ  p Ðand€integrity€can€be€demonstrated€by€other€appropriate€means."€€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€LawÐ  \ Ðof€Evidenceóó€ðð€9.01[13][c]€(4th€ed.€2000).€A€leading€Tennessee€treatise€provides€as€follows:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€concept€of€a€"chain"€of€custody€recognizes€that€real€evidence€may€beÐ Ð  Ðhandled€by€more€than€one€person€between€the€time€it€is€obtained€and€the€time€it€isÐ ¼  Ðeither€introduced€into€evidence€or€subjected€to€scientific€analysis.€Obviously,€any€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthese€persons€might€have€the€opportunity€to€tamper€with,€confuse,€misplace,€damage,Ð ”ä Ðsubstitute,€lose€and€replace,€or€otherwise€alter€the€evidence€or€to€observe€anotherÐ €Ð Ðdoing€so.€Each€person€who€has€custody€or€control€of€the€evidence€during€this€timeÐ l¼ Ðis€a€"link"€in€the€chain€of€custody.€Generally,€testimony€from€each€link€is€needed€toÐ X ¨ Ðverify€the€authenticity€of€the€evidence€and€to€show€that€it€is€what€it€purports€to€be.Ð D!” ÐEach€link€in€the€chain€testifies€about€when,€where,€and€how€possession€or€control€ofÐ 0"€  Ðthe€evidence€was€obtained;€its€condition€upon€receipt;€where€the€item€was€kept;€howÐ #l! Ðit€was€safeguarded,€if€at€all;€any€changes€in€its€condition€during€possession;€andÐ $X" Ðwhen,€where€and€how€it€left€the€witness's€possession.Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€€The€issue€addresses€itself€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court;€its€determination€will€not€beÐ Ì&"% Ðdisturbed€in€the€absence€of€a€clearly€mistaken€exercise€of€such€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Beechóó,€744Ð ¸'#& ÐS.W.2d€585,€587€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€673€S.W.2d€877,€881€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐApp.€1984).€€Reasonable€assurance,€rather€than€absolute€assurance,€is€the€prerequisite€for€admission.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àHere,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€admitting€the€security€videotape€of€theÐ ° Ðâ ârobbery.€€Deputy€Joe€Everson€of€the€Shelby€County€Sheriffððs€Department€testified€that€the€tape€wasÐ œì Ðrecovered€from€the€Union€Planters€ð ðsecurity€man,ðð€Blake€Gerald.€€The€deputy€stated€that€he€thenÐ ˆØ Ðused€sheriffððs€department€equipment€to€make€copies€of€the€video€and€print€a€variety€of€still€shots€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€robber.€€According€to€Deputy€Everson,€the€videotape€then€remained€secured€in€the€evidence€roomÐ `° Ðuntil€he€checked€it€out€for€trial.€€Because€Blake€Gerald€did€not€testify,€the€chain€of€custody€for€theÐ L œ Ðvideotape€is€not€technically€complete.€€Additionally,€there€was€some€confusion€in€Deputy€EversonððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestimony€in€that€at€one€point€he€affirmed€that€ð ð[t]his€is€the€video€tape€that€I€picked€up€from€the€FBIÐ $ t ÐEvidence€Room€and€delivered€into€this€Memphis€Police€Department€Evidence€Room.ðð€€Any€failureÐ  ` Ðin€the€chain€of€custody€was,€however,€remedied€by€the€testimony€of€Saleem€Samana€and€JoshuaÐ ü L  ÐMarino,€the€teller„victims,€who€confirmed€that€the€videotape€fairly€and€accurately€depicted€theÐ è 8  Ðrobbery.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€901(b)(1);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€913€S.W.2d€462,€465€(Tenn.€1996)Ð Ô$  Ð(holding€that€robbery€victim€properly€authenticated€still€photographs€printed€from€security€cameraÐ À  Ðvideotapes).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà@)ìàIIIˆÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àNext,€the€defendant€complains€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€during€voir€dire.€€Specifically,Ð \¬ Ðhe€argues€that€the€prosecutor€attempted€to€erode€the€defendantððs€presumption€of€innocence.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976),€this€court€established€fiveÐ  p Ðfactors€to€be€considered€in€determining€whether€alleged€instances€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€mightÐ  \ Ðhave€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant:€Ð øH ÐÐ Ðà8  à(1)€the€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€context€and€in€light€of€the€facts€andÐ Ð  Ðcircumstances€of€the€case;€Ð ¼  Ð(2)€the€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution;€Ð ¨ø Ð(3)€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improper€statement;€Ð ”ä Ð(4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€in€the€record;Ð €Ð Ðand€Ð l¼ Ð(5)€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€defendantððs€complaints€relate€to€two€separate€comments€by€the€state.€€First,€the€assistantÐ 0"€  Ðdistrict€attorney€general€gave€the€prospective€jurors€the€following€ð ðcivics€lesson:ððÐ #l! ÐÌà8  àà ` àAnd€once€the€crime€is€committed€ð!ð€Iððm€just€going€to€give€you€a€little€civicsÐ ô$D # Ðlesson€before€we€get€started,€before€I€begin€asking€general€questions.€€When€theÐ à%0!$ Ðcrime€is€committed€someone€is€generally€arrested,€and€after€that€they€have€a€right€toÐ Ì&"% Ðpresent€their€case€to€whatððs€called€the€Grand€Jury.€€Does€anyone€know€what€a€GrandÐ ¸'#& ÐJury€is?Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  Ðà@bbìà*€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€*ˆÐ )à$( Ðà8  àà ` àItððs€basically€a€group€of€citizens€like€yourself€who€are€called€together€from€allÐ |*Ì%) Ðaround€our€community,€and€they€listen€to€the€[s]tate.€€We€present€some€evidence€andÐ h+¸&* Ðthey€determine€whether€thereððs€probable€cause€that€a€crimeððs€committed,€and€whetherÐ ° Ðor€not€the€defendant€is€the€one€who€committed€the€crime.МìÐ Ð  ÐÌAt€that€point,€defense€counsel€objected€and€requested€a€new€jury€panel.€€The€trial€judge€sustained€theÐ tÄ Ðobjection.€€Instead€of€granting€a€new€panel,€he€gave€the€following€curative€instruction:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà ` àAlright,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€you€can€disregard€the€[p]rosecutorððs€statementÐ 8 ˆ Ðabout€the€civics€lesson.€€And€remember€during€this€process€the€lawyers€are€going€toÐ $ t Ðask€you€some€questions,€and€what€they€say€is€not€necessarily€the€law€of€the€facts.Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThey€simply€ask€questions€based€on€their€concept€of€what€this€case€is€allÐ ü L  Ðabout.€€You€take€the€law€properly€from€this€[c]ourt.€€So€just€disregard€that€statementÐ è 8  Ðabout€a€civics€lesson.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àSubsequently,€the€prosecutor€asked€the€following€question€of€the€prospective€jurors:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àDoes€anyone€think€that€just€because€the€defendant€pled€not€guilty€heððs€obviously€notÐ „Ô  Ðguilty?ÐpÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àHe€has€that€constitutional€right€to€have€a€jury€trial,€would€you€agree€with€meÐ \¬ Ðthere?ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌAgain,€defense€counsel€objected€and€the€trial€court€sustained€the€objection€and€instructed€theÐ  p Ðpotential€jurors€as€follows:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà ` àLadies€and€gentlemen,€please€disregard€the€past€question€that€you€were€askedÐ ä4 Ðby€the€prosecutor.€€Disregard€the€question€in€its€entirety.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€prosecutorððs€comments€during€voir€dire€do€not€warrant€reversal.€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðstatements€were€general€in€nature€and€any€prejudice€resulting€therefrom€would€have€been€minimal.€Ð ”ä ÐThe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€the€statements€and€to€accept€instructions€on€the€lawÐ €Ð Ðonly€from€the€court.€€Moreover,€there€is€no€indication€that€the€prosecutor€was€acting€with€the€intentÐ l¼ Ðto€provoke€unfair€bias€among€the€potential€jurors€or€to€otherwise€impede€the€defense.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà@……)ìàIVˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€defendant€raises€a€series€of€evidentiary€issues.€€He€initially€complains€that€theÐ $X" Ðtrial€court€erroneously€permitted€Deputy€Joe€Everson€to€testify€that€investigators€had€foundÐ ô$D # Ðfingerprints€at€the€scene€but€were€unable€to€make€any€identification€from€the€prints.€€He€asserts€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€deputy€had€not€been€trained€in€fingerprints€and€did€not€have€any€firsthand€knowledge€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðidentification€process.€€The€deputy,€who€was€present€at€the€crime€scene,€testified€that€he€observedÐ ¸'#& Ðcrime€scene€officers€lift€several€fingerprints.€€Over€a€defense€objection,€he€was€also€permitted€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtestify€that€police€ð ðwere€not€able€to€identify€anyone€based€on€prints.ððÐ )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àGenerally,€hearsay€evidence€is€inadmissible.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€802.€€Hearsay€is€"a€statement,Ð ° Ðâ âother€than€one€made€by€the€declarant€while€testifying€at€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€in€evidence€toÐ œì Ðprove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c).€€In€our€view,€the€trial€court€properlyÐ ˆØ Ðpermitted€Deputy€Everson€to€testify€that€fingerprint€evidence€was€recovered€at€the€scene.€€The€deputyÐ tÄ Ðwas€present€when€the€crime€scene€was€investigated€and€personally€observed€the€fingerprints€beingÐ `° Ðlifted.€€His€testimony€that€the€fingerprints€failed€to€identify€a€suspect€qualified€as€inadmissibleÐ L œ Ðhearsay,€however,€and€should€have€been€excluded.€€Deputy€Everson€had€not€been€trained€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðfingerprinting,€suggesting€that€his€information€regarding€the€results€of€any€analysis€came€fromÐ $ t Ðsomeone€else.€€Nevertheless,€the€fingerprint€evidence€was€of€no€assistance€to€police€and€did€notÐ  ` Ðimplicate€the€defendant.€€Accordingly,€the€error€was€harmless.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b)€(ð ðA€finalÐ ü L  Ðjudgment€.€.€.€shall€not€be€set€aside€unless,€considering€the€whole€record,€error€involving€a€substantialÐ è 8  Ðright€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment€.€.€.€.ðð);€òòState€v.€Edwardsóó,€868€S.W.2d€682€(Tenn.Ð Ô$  ÐCrim.€App.€1993).Ð À  ÐÌà  àSimilarly,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€Deputy€Everson€toÐ ˜è  Ðtestify€that€a€third€teller,€who€was€present€during€the€robbery€but€who€did€not€testify€at€trial,€couldÐ „Ô  Ðnot€identify€anyone€as€the€robber.€€Defense€counsel€elicited€the€contested€testimony€during€cross„Ð pÀ Ðexamination€of€the€deputy:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà ` àQà0¸ Ð Ð àYou€didnððt€talk€to€her,€take€a€statement€from€her?Ð4„¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAà ¸ àSomeone€took€a€statement€from€„€one€of€the€other€officers€thatÐ  p Ðresponded€to€the€scene.€€Personally€I€did€not€take€a€statement€from€her.Ð \Ð Ð  Ðà@bbìà*€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€*ˆÐ øH Ðà8  àà ` àQà ¸ àDid€any€other€officer€show€this€female€bank€employee€a€similarÐ ä4 Ðphotospread?ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAà ¸ àIt€is€very€well€possible€that€she€might€have€seen€one,€but€she€wouldÐ ¼  Ðnot€[be]€use[d]€for€identification€purposes€because€during€her€statement€she€statedÐ ¨ø Ðshe€wouldnððt€be€able€to€identify€anybody.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌAt€that€point,€defense€counsel€requested€a€bench€conference€and€objected€on€the€grounds€that€DeputyÐ l¼ ÐEversonððs€answer€was€non„responsive.€€The€trial€court€instructed€defense€counsel€to€ask€the€questionÐ X ¨ Ða€second€time€and,€in€response,€the€deputy€responded€that€he€did€not€know€whether€any€other€officersÐ D!” Ðhad€showed€the€third€teller€a€photospread.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àInitially,€defense€counsel€did€not€object€on€hearsay€grounds.€€A€defendant€may€not€object€onÐ $X" Ðone€ground€in€the€trial€court€and€then€assert€a€new€or€different€theory€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð ô$D # ÐAdkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626,€634„35€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€While€Deputy€Eversonððs€commentÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€the€teller€could€not€identify€anyone€was€hearsay,€any€error€in€its€admission€was€harmless.€Ð Ì&"% ÐòòSeeóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€In€our€view,€the€testimony€did€more€harm€than€good€for€the€state.€€ThatÐ ¸'#& Ða€teller€was€unable€to€identify€the€defendant€tended€to€support€the€defense€theory.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€Deputy€Everson€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðtestify€that€police€investigated€Crime€Stoppers€leads€implicating€persons€other€than€the€defendantÐ h+¸&* Ðand€ruled€them€out€as€suspects.€€The€first€testimony€regarding€Crime€Stoppers€occurred€duringÐ ° ÐDeputy€Eversonððs€direct€testimony:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà ` àQà ¸ àAnd€as€a€result€of€that€did€you€receive€any€Crime€Stopper€tips?ÐtÄÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAà ¸ àYes,€we€did.Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQà ¸ àDid€you€investigate€the€Crime€Stopper€tips?ÐL œÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAà ¸ àYes.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQà ¸ àAnd€was€[the€defendant]€identified€as€an€individual€who€committedÐ $ t Ðthe€robbery?Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAà ¸ àIn€one€of€the€Crime€Stopper€tips,€yes.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌWhen€defense€counsel€objected,€the€state€responded€that€the€testimony€was€being€offered€to€showÐ Ô$  Ðhow€the€defendant€became€a€suspect€in€the€investigation,€not€for€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.€Ð À  ÐDefense€counsel€requested€a€curative€instruction€and€the€trial€court€gave€the€following:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà ` àLadies€and€gentlemen,€the€testimony€that€youððve€just€heard€is€not€offered€forÐ „Ô  Ðthe€truthfulness,€the€truth€of€that€testimony.€€Itððs€only€offered€to€establish€that€anÐ pÀ Ðidentification€was€made,€not€the€truthfulness€of€it€but€that€an€ID€was€made.€.€.€.Ð\¬Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àIn€other€words,€somebody€called€him€and€gave€him€information.€€The€mereÐ H˜ Ðfact€that€it€was€given€does€not€mean€that€itððs€true.€.€.€.Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌDuring€cross„examination,€defense€counsel€elicited€the€following€testimony€from€Deputy€Everson:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà ` àQà ¸ àThat€was€one€of€three€Crime€Stoppers€tips€identifying€possibleÐ ä4 Ðsuspects€out€of€the€newspaper?ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAà ¸ àI€believe€I€had€four€ð!ð€four€other€tips€other€than€[the€defendant].м Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQà ¸ àOkay.€€And€you€had€people€calling€identifying€a€Ronnie€Cain€as€theÐ ¨ø Ðperson.€€You€had€people€calling€identifying€a€man€named€Larry€Shea€as€the€personÐ ”ä Ðwhose€picture€was€in€the€paper.ЀÐÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAà ¸ àYes,€sir,€uh„huh.Ðl¼Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQà ¸ àAnd€if€thereððs€another€name€given€Iððm€not€aware.€€Do€you€rememberÐ X ¨ Ðany€other€name?ÐD!”Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAà ¸ àI€donððt€remember€it€was€on€a€Crime€Stopper€tip,€I€believe€I€got€aÐ 0"€  Ðcontact€from€a€West€Memphis€officer,€he€called€me€directly.Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌOn€re„direct,€the€state€questioned€Deputy€Everson€regarding€the€outcome€of€the€other€Crime€StoppersÐ ô$D # Ðtips:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àà ` àQà ¸ àThe€Crime€Stoppers€tips€that€implicated€other€people€[ð!ð]€did€youÐ ¸'#& Ðinvestigate€those€Crime€Stoppers€tips?Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAà ¸ àYes,€sir.Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQà ¸ àAnd€did€you€rule€those€out?Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAà0¸ Ð Ð àYes,€sir.Ðh+¸&*¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ЇThe€trial€court€sustained€defense€counselððs€objection€that€the€deputyððs€statements€were€ð ðconclusoryÐ ° Ð.€.€.€and€involve[d]€hearsay.ððÐ œì ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€statements€at€issue€do€not€constitute€hearsay.€€The€deputy€testified€that€heÐ tÄ Ðinvestigated€other€Crime€Stoppers€tips€and,€as€a€result,€ð ðrule[d]€them€out.ðð€€He€did€not€testify€as€toÐ `° Ðany€out„of„court€statements.€€Nor€was€his€testimony€necessarily€grounded€in€hearsay.€€For€example,Ð L œ Ðthe€deputy€might€have€ruled€out€the€other€Crime€Stoppers€tips€based€on€physical€evidence.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐAdditionally,€the€trial€court€sustained€the€defendantððs€objection€at€trial.€€Because€defense€counselÐ $ t Ðfailed€to€seek€a€curative€instruction,€the€issue€has€been€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòStateÐ  ` Ðv.€Jonesóó,€733€S.W.2d€517,€522€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)€(holding€that€ð ðfailure€to€request€[a]€curativeÐ ü L  Ðinstruction[]ðð€is€failure€to€take€action€ð ðreasonably€available€to€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effectÐ è 8  Ðof€an€errorðð).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court€are€affirmed.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE