ÿWPCâ^ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µLÝw@) 4i } 0lŒ 0Dø 0J< 0T† 0^Ú 0h8 B  0râ 0|T 0†Ð 0V Bæ 1un­x% 0d-U>‘U*ÏB)ù 1m" 0dDCó AM6 ƒ&ì¶d¢ØLî¦:Cà#"È8&Å)¿Å*1„,µ-ZË/6%2N[3 0@©7 D3é7a8®}J+L¯?Ov~îPvÓlR 0?X 0ŠÎX 0 XY 0´øY 0ǬZ 0Ûs[ 0ïN\ AO=]ÆŒ] 0DR^ D/–^ BÅ^˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÐ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT j7k7Tel7Um7Dn7Do7x7z7{7D|7Ó€³†;$^,3|x…7((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2@ 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 d ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉQX@P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d6tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à44447Border 1dd€N7Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔÔ€3ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€3XÔÌÌJune€10,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àThe€grand€jury€issued€a€three„count€indictment€againstÏCunningham€and€his€closely€held€corporation,€Electroplating,€Inc.€€BothÏdefendants€were€charged€with€violating€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionsÏ69„3„114(b)€and€69„3„115(c)€by€discharging€chromium€on€September€4,€1994Ï(Count€1),€€and€with€feloniously€and€knowingly€causing€property€damage€toÏMetropolitan€Governmentððs€sewer€system€in€violation€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€39„14„408€(Count€3).€€In€the€second€count,€the€corporationÏwas€charged€with€the€willful€discharge€of€chromium€and€nickel€betweenÏSeptember€9€„€12,€1994.€€The€jury€found€Cunningham€guilty€on€the€first€countÏbut€acquitted€him€on€the€third.€€The€corporation€did€not€make€an€appearance€inÏthe€trial€court€and€was€convicted€of€all€three€counts€and€received€finesÏamounting€to€$169,480.16.€€Electroplating,€Inc.,€is€not€a€party€to€this€appeal.€€Ì âÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àIn€1994,€Labor€Day€fell€on€the€fifth€of€September.€Ì ZÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àFlow€from€the€Lakewood€area€goes€first€to€the€Lakewood€PumpingÏStation,€then€to€the€Old€Hickory€Pumping€Station,€and€finally€to€the€Dry€CreekÏWastewater€Treatment€Plant.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àPogue€also€testified€to€other€expenses€incurred€by€theÏMetropolitan€Water€Service€as€follows:Ìà àà àà àà àPersonnel€costs:€€€$2,280.16Ìà àà àà àà àAnalytical€costs:€€€€$3,060.00Ìà àà àà àà àMileage:à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€111.25ÌÌOn€cross„examination,€Pogue€conceded€that€these€items€resulted€in€no€extraÏoutside€cost€to€Metro€Water€Service€as€the€personnel€costs€were€for€payroll,€theÏmileage€was€incurred€in€government„owned€vehicles,€and€that€the€analysesÏwere€performed€in€a€Metro€Water€Serviceððs€laboratory.€Ì ÎÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àThe€defendant€objected€to€this€testimony€as€based€on€facts€not€inÏevidence.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€objection€finding€that€a€hypotheticalÏdoes€not€have€to€be€absolutely€accurate€and€that€the€evidence€was€relevant€toÏprove€motive.€The€defendant€has€not€raised€this€issue€on€appeal.ÌC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àAs€originally€charged,€the€vandalism€would€have€been€a€class€C„felony.€€The€trial€court€allowed€the€jury€to€determine€whether€the€defendant€wasÏguilty€of€a€D€or€E€felony€or€a€misdemeanor.€€The€jury€acquitted€the€defendant€ofÏthis€charge.Ì 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àThe€record€does€not€contain€either€the€motion€to€suppress€or€theÏtranscript€of€the€suppression€hearing.€€From€the€comments€made€during€theÏjury„out€hearing€at€trial,€we€gather€that€five€samples€were€taken€from€inside€theÏplant€without€a€valid€warrant€and€that€the€trial€court€suppressed€the€results.€€OneÏof€the€tests€clearly€indicated€that€zinc€was€present€in€sludge€found€in€the€toiletÏbowl.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àThe€state€contends€that€the€defendant€waived€this€issue€becauseÏhe€presented€evidence€on€his€own€behalf€rather€than€standing€on€the€motion.€ÏRule€29(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€that€aÏdefendant€may€offer€evidence€after€the€trial€court€denies€a€judgment€of€acquittalÏwithout€having€reserved€the€right.€€If€the€jury€returns€a€guilty€verdict€or€is€unableÏto€reach€a€verdict,€the€defendant€may€immediately€make€or€renew€a€motion€forÏjudgment€of€acquittal.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29(c).€€In€the€alternative,€the€ruleÏpermits€the€defendant€to€include€the€motion€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€in€aÏtimely€motion€for€new€trial.€€òòIdóó.€€In€this€instance,€the€defendant€raised€the€issue€inÏhis€motion€for€new€trial.€€Moreover,€as€discussed€above,€a€defendant€may€raiseÏthe€issue€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.Ì ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àThis€court€has€generally€equated€the€mens€rea€of€ððwillfulðð€withÏððintentionalðð€as€defined€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„302(a).ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.,óó€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€224€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòStateÏv.€Fredrick€Sledgeóó,€No.€02C01„9405„CR„00089,€slip€op.€at€15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏJackson,€Nov.€24,€1997),€òòperm.€app.€filedóó€(Tenn.€January€12,€1998);€òòMarkÏSteven€Johnson€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9212„CR„00408,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Nashville,€Sept.€2,€1993).Ì »Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àThe€influent€at€Dry€Creek€may€contain€no€more€than€.51€parts€perÏmillion€of€chromium.€€Even€though€the€discharge€had€been€greatly€diluted€by€theÏtime€it€reached€the€treatment€facility,€the€chromium€still€exceeded€theÏpermissible€amount€by€more€than€a€thousand€times.€€Ì µÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àPogue€testified€that€no€sample€could€be€taken€at€the€officialÏdischarge€point€because€it€was€dry.€€The€record€does€not€indicate€why€noÏsample€was€taken€at€manhole€68.€€Photographs€in€evidence€show€that€onÏSeptember€9,€manhole€68€contained€a€bluish„green€liquid.€Ì 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àCunningham€testified€that€since€the€trench€drain€and€sump€wereÏinstalled€in€1989,€no€liquid€discharges€left€the€plant.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àThe€state€also€offered€another€€witness€who€would€have€testified€toÏthe€defendantððs€prior€violations€of€the€Water€Quality€Control€Act€of€1977.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðððð€69„3„101€through€69„3„129€(1987)(as€amended€in€1989).€€TheÏtrial€court€excluded€this€testimony€under€Rule€404(b)€because€the€evidence€wasÏnot€proof€of€an€intentional€violation.€Ì PÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àRule€404€(b)€provides€that€(1)€upon€request,€the€court€must€hold€aÏhearing€outside€the€juryððs€presence;€(2)€the€court€must€determine€that€theÏevidence€is€probative€on€a€material€issue€and€must,€if€requested,€state€on€theÏrecord€the€material€issue€and€the€reasons€for€admitting€or€excluding€theÏevidence;€and€(3)€the€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice€outweighs€its€probative€value.€€Ì ,Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àThe€transcript€of€the€suppression€hearing€is€not€part€of€the€recordÏon€appeal.€€Apparently,€the€search€warrant€was€defective.Ì DÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€3Ôà àRule€608(b)€governs€the€admissibility€of€specific€instances€ofÏconduct€to€attack€or€support€the€credibility€of€a€witness.€€Such€proof,€if€probativeÏof€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness,€may€be€inquired€into€on€cross„examination.€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€608(b).€€The€defendant€is€correct€when€he€argues€that€the€ruleÏspecifically€states€that€extrinsic€evidence€of€specific€instances€of€conduct€mayÏnot€be€admitted.€€òòIdóó.€€€€ÌÌà àRule€608,€however,€is€not€relevant€to€these€facts.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.ÏPerez„Perezóó,€72€F.3d€224,€227€(1st€Cir.€1995).€€In€this€case,€the€laboratoryÏanalyses€and€the€testimony€about€them€is€neither€opinion€testimony€norÏevidence€of€a€specific€act.€€Rule€608€does€not€determine€the€admissibility€ofÏevidence€introduced€to€factually€contradict€a€witnessððs€testimony.€€òòUnited€StatesÏv.€Lopezóó,€979€F.2d€1024,€1033€(5th€Cir.€1992)(citations€omitted).Ô€1ÔÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'ÿÿdxd WÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àÔ€3ÔIn€addition€to€his€rule€608€argument€(see€n.16€òòsupraóó),€theÏdefendant€has€argued€that€the€rebuttal€impeachment€was€improper€because€theÏfacts€being€shown€were€collateral.€€Because€the€defendant€has€challenged€theÏstateððs€rebuttal€as€òòimpeachmentóó€evidence,€we€have€considered€whether€theÏlimitation€on€the€use€of€the€constitutionally„infirm€evidence€requires€that€theÏimpeachment€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€be€satisfied.€€WeÏsee€no€reason€nor€basis€for€imposing€such€a€requirement.ÌÌà àThe€type€of€impeachment€typically€called€for€in€cases€when€the€evidenceÏis€physical€evidence€that€was€illegally€seized,€such€as€in€òòWaldenóó,€òòHavensóó,€andÏthe€present€case,€is€impeachment€by€fact€contradiction.€€In€Tennessee,€factÏcontradiction€is€qualified€by€the€ð ðcollateral€evidenceðð€rule.€€Neil€P.€Cohen,ÏDonald€F.€Paine,€&€Sarah€Y.€Sheppeard,€òòTennesseeóóòòLawóó€òòofóóòòEvidenceóó€ðð€607.3Ï(1995).€€Although€Tennesseeððs€rules€of€evidence€do€not€mention€it€specifically,Ïthe€rule€is€still€a€viable€part€of€our€evidence€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Perkinsonóó,€867ÏS.W.2d€1,€6„7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(co„defendantððs€possible€exchange€ofÏdrugs€did€not€tend€to€prove€a€material€issue);€òòState€v.€Terry€Bowenóó,€No.€01C01„9505„CC„00158€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Aug.€1,€1996)€(on€cross„examination,€counsel€is€bound€by€witnessððs€answer€if€relevant€only€to€aÏcollateral€issue);€òòState€v.€Keith€Mack€and€Terry€D.€Clarkóó,€No.€02C01„9107„CR„00156€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Aug.€26,€1992)€(no€rebuttal€testimony€on€aÏcollateral€matter);€Cohen,€Paine,€&€Sheppeard,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ððððÏ607.3€and€613.5.€€ÌÌà àA€collateral€fact€is€one€which€has€no€relevance€except€that€it€contradicts€€€€€Ïsomething€said€in€court.€€The€fact€is€not€collateral€ð ðif€it€is€relevant€independent€ofÏany€contradiction.ðð€€Cohen,€Paine,€&€Sheppeard,€òòTennesseeóó€òòLawóó€òòofóó€òòEvidenceóó,Ïðð€607.3.€€Extrinsic€evidence€is€relevant€where€it€logically€impeaches€a€witness€€€€€€€€€Ïthrough€factual€contradiction€that€reveals€lack€of€opportunity€or€capacity€toÏobserve,€bias,€or€otherwise€implicates€deficient€quality€as€a€witness.€€òòIdóó.€€TheÏtreatise€writers€do€not€mention€impeachment€by€extrinsic€evidence€that€factuallyÏcontradicts€the€witness€on€a€substantive€issue€because€extrinsic€impeachmentÏevidence€that€is€admissible€because€it€is€relevant€to€prove€a€material€issue€isÏgenerally€admissible€as€òòsubstantiveóóevidence€under€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏEvidence€401€and€402.€€In€effect€the€courts€have€not€been€called€upon€to€reviewÏthe€òòimpeachmentóó€admissibility€of€extrinsic€contradiction€evidence€based€onÏrelevance€to€a€material€issue€in€the€case.€€Put€another€way,€relevant€substantiveÏevidence€that€contradicts€a€witnessððs€statement€is€almost€always€ð ðnon„collateral,ðð€in€the€parlance€of€impeachment€evidence.€€Once€a€court,€in€makingÏan€evidentiary€analysis,€finds€the€evidence€admissible€òòsubstantivelyóó€under€ruleÏ401„403,€any€inquiry€about€the€collateral€nature€of€the€evidence€asÏòòimpeachmentóó€by€fact€contradiction€is€superfluous.ÌÌà àWe€are€aware€that,€in€òòHavensóó,€the€Supreme€Court€speaks€of€the€taintedÏevidence€being€used€for€impeachment€that€is€ð ðotherwise€proper,ðð€òòHavensóó,€446ÏU.S.€at€628,€100€S.€Ct.€at€1917,€but€we€believe€that€if€fact„contradiction€on€aÏsubstantive€issue€must€be€pressed€into€the€mold€of€impeachment€evidence€inÏorder€to€satisfy€a€constitutional€constraint,€such€evidence€can€be€said€to€be€non„collateral€for€impeachment€purposes.€€This€conclusion€is€supported€by€anÏanalogy€to€the€use€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€as€an€impeachment€device.ÏThe€prior€statement€is€not€collateral€if€it€is€relevant€either€(1)€ð ðto€impeach€someÏspecific€testimonial€qualityðð€or€(2)€ð ðòòto€prove€or€disprove€a€material€propositionóó.ðð€ÏCohen,€Paine,€&€Sheppeard,€òòTennesseeóó€òòLawóó€òòofóóòòEvidenceóó€ðð€613.5€(emphasisÏadded);€òòseeóóòòalsoóóòòState€v.€Mayoóó,€735€S.W.2d€811,€817€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)Ï(For€purposes€of€using€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€to€impeach€a€witness,€aÏð ðcollateral€fact€is€one€which€affords€no€reasonable€inference€as€to€the€principalÏmatter€in€dispute.ðð)€By€analogy€to€the€collateral€evidence€rule€employed€underÏrule€613,€evidence€that€tends€to€prove€or€disprove€a€material€fact€in€issue€wouldÏnot€be€collateral€evidence€in€a€ð ðtheoreticalðð€impeachment€by€fact€contradiction.ÌÌ ¤Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àFor€purposes€of€the€self„incrimination€clause,€a€man€who€isÏcorporate€president,€director,€and€sole€shareholder€is€a€separate€person€fromÏhis€corporation.€€òòSeeóó€òòBraswell€v.€United€Statesóó,€487€U.S.€99,€99,€108€S.€Ct.Ï2284,€2285€(1988).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àAs€the€state€notes€in€its€brief,€prosecutions€against€corporationsÏand€individuals€as€co„defendants€for€the€same€criminal€acts,€while€rare,€are€notÏunknown€in€Tennessee.€€òòSee,óó€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Superior€Oilóó,€òòInc.,€et€al.óó,€875€S.W.2dÏ658€(Tenn.€1994)€(violations€of€the€Water€Quality€Control€Act);€òòState€v.€€Lucy€M.ÏHunt€and€Guess€What,€Inc.óó,€660€S.W.2d€513€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)Ï(possessing€obscene€material€with€the€intent€to€distribute);€òòState€v.€ShearonÏDavis€and€Guess€What,€Inc.óó,€654€S.W.2d€688€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(unlawfulÏdistribution€of€obscene€material).Ì ¥Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€3Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àAlso€at€issue€was€the€trial€courtððs€decision€not€to€impose€a€fineÏalthough€one€had€been€set€by€the€jury.€€The€majority€concluded€that€neitherÏfines€nor€restitution€were€appropriate€issues€for€a€state€appeal.€€òòKevin€Crespoóó,Ïslip€op.€at€2.ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€N‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òò òÔ€3Ô›Ñ7€L±XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙßR€897A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌó óÌò òà@ àFEBRUARY,€1998€SESSIONó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àó ó)à àNo.€01C01„9612„CR„00535Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àAppelleeà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CountyÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHonorable€Walter€C.€Kurtz,€ÏJudgeà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òELECTROPLATING,€INC.,€andà àó ó)à àÌò òROSS€CUNNINGHAM,à àà àó ó)à à(Violation€of€the€Water€Quality€ControlÌà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€Act€of€1977)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌJERRY€D.€HUNT€(Trial€only)à àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ102€E.€Main€St.à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€812ÌLebanon,€TN€37088„0812à àà àà àALBERT€L.€PARTEE,€IIIà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSenior€CounselÌBOB€LYNCH,€JR.€(Trial€and€Appeal)à à425€Fifth€Ave.€North,€2nd€FloorÌSuite€316à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌWashington€SquareÌ222€Second€Ave.€Northà àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON€IIIÌNashville,€TN€37201à àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHNÏSEABORGà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€A.ÏMOOREÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSuite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€SquareÌà àà àà àà àà àà à222€2nd€Ave.€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òCONVICTION€AND€SENTENCE€AFFIRMEDó óÌò òSTATEððS€APPEAL€DISMISSEDó óÌÌCURWOOD€WITT,€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌà@ àò òOPINIONÓÓÓ` °‚X˜XÓó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant,€Ross€Cunningham,€appeals€his€conviction€forÏwillfully€failing€to€comply€with€the€Tennessee€Water€Control€Act€of€1977€byÏdischarging€chromium€into€the€Metropolitan€Government€Sewer€System€onÏSeptember€5,€1994,€a€class€E€felony.× ƒ: ××  ×€€After€the€Davidson€County€jury€returnedÏa€guilty€verdict,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€the€minimum€one„yearÏsentence€and€a€fine€of€$10,000.€€The€trial€court€suspended€the€sentence€andÏordered€Cunningham€to€serve€two€years€on€probation€including€800€hours€ofÍcommunity€service€and,€in€addition,€required€a€cash€bond€securing€payment€ofÏhis€fine€and€the€costs.€€In€this€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Appellate€Procedure,€Cunningham€alleges€that:ÌÓÓà à1.à8 àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€hisÏmotion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€at€theÏclose€of€the€stateððs€proof€and€in€theÏmotion€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌà à2.à8 àThe€trial€court€erred€by€admittingÏevidence€of€the€defendantððs€prior€badÏacts.ÌÌà à3.à8 àThe€trial€court€erred€by€admittingÏextrinsic€evidence€of€specific€instancesÏof€conduct€to€impeach€the€defendantððsÏcredibility.€€ÌÌà à4.à8 àThe€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€theÏdefendant€to€stand€trial€for€the€sameÏcharges€both€as€an€individual€and€as€aÏcorporate€defendant.ÌÌà à5.à8 àThe€trial€court€erred€in€denying€theÏdefendantððs€request€that€he€be€grantedÏjudicial€diversion€under€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„35„313.Ô€1ÔÌÌÓÓÔ€3ÔThe€state€also€raises€an€issue€in€this€appeal.€€It€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€not€requiring€the€defendant€to€pay€restitution.ÌÌà àWe€have€reviewed€the€record€and€the€law€in€this€rather€unusualÏcase.€€Because€the€state€does€not€have€the€right€to€appeal€a€trial€courtððs€failureÏto€order€restitution,€the€stateððs€appeal€is€dismissed.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„402€(1997).€€Finding€no€error€warranting€reversal€of€CunninghamððsÍconviction€or€any€modification€of€his€sentence,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€ÌÌà@ àò òFactsó óÌà àBecause€of€the€complexity€of€the€factual€issues€in€this€case,€weÏdiscuss€the€facts€in€detail.€€During€the€early€morning€hours€of€September€6,Ï1994,€an€employee€of€the€Metro€Water€Services€Department€at€the€Dry€CreekÏfacility€took€a€sample€from€the€Old€Hickory€line€and€noticed€that€the€sample€wasÏyellowish„orange€rather€than€its€normal€brown€color.€€The€employee€preservedÏa€gallon€of€the€orange€liquid,€and€later,€James€Pogue,€a€chemist€for€Metro€WaterÏServices,€took€the€sample€to€the€Central€Waste€Water€Treatment€Plant€forÏanalysis€of€its€metals€content.€€ÌÌà àBased€on€his€knowledge€and€experience,€Pogue€immediatelyÏidentified€two€possible€sources€for€the€discharge€in€the€Old€Hickory/LakewoodÏarea.€€The€first€company€he€visited€was€Chem„Plate€where€he€met€with€theÏowner€and€informed€him€of€the€discharge.€€Chem„Plateððs€owner€stated€that€heÏœhad€had›€no€spills€in€the€past€couple€of€days,€and€on€a€walk„through€of€the€plantÏPogue€found€no€evidence€of€anything€similar€to€the€sample€taken€at€theÏtreatment€plant.€€The€second€company€he€visited€was€Electroplating,€Inc.,€whereÏhe€met€with€Ross€Cunningham,€the€owner.€€Cunningham€told€Pogue€that€he€hadÏclosed€the€plant€due€to€the€deteriorating€condition€of€the€roof.€€He€denied€anyÏresponsibility€for€the€discharge€and€explained€that€he€had€been€out€of€town€untilÍlate€in€the€evening€on€September€5.× ƒ; ××  ×€€Pogue€testified€that€he€was€able€toÏeliminate€Chem„Plating€as€the€source€of€the€discharge€rather€quickly.€€First,€theÏanalysis€of€the€sample€taken€at€the€treatment€plant€showed€that€the€dischargeÏcontained€a€high€concentration€of€chromium,€and€he€knew€that€Chem„Plate€didÏno€chrome€plating.€€€Second,€after€examining€a€sewer€plat€map€of€the€LakewoodÏSanitary€Sewer€System,€Pogue€found€that€Chem„Plating€and€Electroplating,ÏInc.,€were€on€the€opposite€sides€of€a€hill€which€prevented€the€sewer€flow€fromÏthe€two€plants€from€combining€until€they€were€out€of€the€Lakewood€district.× ƒ< ××  ×̛̜à àPogue€then€concentrated€his€attention€on€the€ElectroplatingÏfacility.€ÌOn€September€7,€he€and€William€Bryant,€a€senior€chemist€for€the€Metro€WaterÏService,€returned€to€conduct€an€inspection.€€During€this€inspection,€they€foundÏtwo€plating€tanks€at€the€back€of€the€building.€€One€tank€was€empty€except€forÏsome€yellow„orange€sludge€at€the€bottom,€and€the€other€containedÏapproximately€250€gallons€of€a€yellow„orange€solution.€€The€official€dischargeÏpoint€for€the€plantððs€waste€water€€was€a€shallow€manhole€directly€behind€theÏfacility.€€The€inspectors€were€unable€to€take€a€sample€from€this€manholeÏbecause€it€was€completely€dry.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€official€discharge€point,€however,€connects€to€manhole€68Ïwhich€also€receives€the€sanitary€discharges€from€the€plantððs€bathroom€and€sink.€ÏOnly€Electroplating€is€connected€to€manhole€68.€€€No€sample€was€taken€fromÏthis€manhole.€€Sewage€from€number€68€flows€approximately€268€feet€toÏmanhole€15€into€which€four€residences€also€empty€their€sewage.€Gravity€flowÏcarries€the€sewage€through€manholes€13,€14,€and€17€and€ultimately€to€theÏLakewood€and€Old€Hickory€Pumping€Stations.€€While€Pogue€was€inspectingÏmanhole€15€on€September€9,€a€yellow„orange€substance€flowed€through€theÏmanhole,€and€he€was€able€to€secure€a€sample.€€To€provide€for€continuingÏobservation,€an€automatic€sampler€that€took€samples€at€regularly€scheduledÏintervals€was€installed€that€same€day.€€ÌÌà àOn€September€12,€Pogue€returned€to€manhole€68.€€He€found€aÏblueish„green€liquid€in€the€bottom€of€the€manhole.€€Although€no€samples€fromÏthis€site€were€analyzed,€he€presumed€that€the€liquid€contained€a€concentrate€ofÏnickel€because€of€the€color.€€The€concrete€in€the€manhole€had€been€eaten€awayÏby€what€appeared€to€be€some€type€of€acid.€€Pogue€testified€that€out€of€theÏthousands€of€manholes€he€had€seen,€he€had€never€found€one€as€corroded€andÏeaten€away€as€this€one.€€Later,€Pogue€stated€that€Ferguson€Harbor,€anÏenvironmental€clean„up€company,€had€removed€the€metal„bearing€waste€foundÍin€the€sewer€line€near€manhole€68€at€a€cost€of€$7,413.60.× ƒ> ××  ×ÌÌà àPogue€and€Bryant€made€another€inspection€of€ElectroplatingððsÏplant€on€September€14.€€Cunningham€allowed€them€to€walk€through€the€plantÏbut€denied€permission€to€take€pictures.€€During€this€visit,€Cunningham€statedÏthat,€although€he€had€dumped€some€ð ðstuffðð€before,€he€was€not€responsible€forÏthe€current€problem.€€€Ìà àAt€trial,€Bryant€explained€the€Metro€Water€permit€system.€€UsersÏthat€discharge€more€than€25,000€gallons€per€day€or€that€discharge€pollutantsÏmust€have€an€industrial€userððs€permit.€€Electroplatingððs€permit€was€issued€onÏMarch€15,€1994€and€was€effective€through€March€15,€1997.€€The€permit€definesÏthe€amount€of€various€pollutants€that€may€be€discharged€into€the€sewer€system,Ïspells€out€the€methods€to€be€used€for€collection€and€analysis€of€samples,€andÏrequires€that€certain€records€be€kept.€€Electroplatingððs€permit€specifically€limitsÏthe€amount€of€chromium,€nickel,€copper,€zinc,€cadmium€and€other€metals€theÏplant€could€discharge€into€the€system€both€at€a€given€moment€of€time€and€in€aÏtwenty„four€hour€period.€€€For€example,€the€ððgrabðð€sample€limit€on€chromium€wasÍten€parts€per€million€(ppm)€and€the€limit€for€a€twenty„four€hour€composite€sampleÏis€five€ppm.€€Dry€Creek€Water€Treatment€Plant€also€has€limits€which€it€cannotÏexceed.€€ÌÌà àThe€state€introduced€the€test€results€from€three€different€samples:€Ï#1520,€the€original€sample€taken€on€September€5€at€Dry€Creek;€#€1556,€theÏððgrabðð€sample€taken€on€September€9€from€manhole€15;€and€#1567,€theÏcomposite€sample€obtained€from€the€automatic€sampler€on€manhole€15€fromÏSeptember€9€through€September€12.€€Sam€Seged,€a€laboratory€chemistÏemployed€by€Metro€Water€Services,€testified€that€he€analyzed€each€sample€forÏthe€presence€of€various€metals€including€chromium,€nickel,€copper€and€zinc.€ÏThe€reported€results,€expressed€in€part€per€million,€and€the€permit€limits€areÏcompared€in€the€table€below.€€The€limits€in€#1520€are€from€the€limits€imposed€onÏinfluent€at€the€Dry€Creek€treatment€plant.€€The€other€two€samples€are€comparedÏto€the€limits€in€Electroplatingððs€permit.ÌÓÓÔ€3ôÔ€€òò#óó€€€€€€€òòTypeóó€€€€€€€€€€òòChromiumóó€€€€òòLimitóó€€€€€òòNickelóó€€€€€òòLimitóó€€€€€€òòCopperóó€€€€€òòLimitóó€€€€€€òòZincóó€€€€€òòLimitóóÌ1520€€€grab€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€560€€€€€€€€€€€€.51€€€€€€€€€16€€€€€€€€€.32€€€€€€€€€€11€€€€€€€€€€€€€.52€€€€€€€€.4€€€€€€€€.43ÌÌ1556€€€grab€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€400€€€€€€€€€€€€€10€€€€€€€€€23€€€€€€€€€€10€€€€€€€€€€€€2.5€€€€€€€€€€€10€€€€€€€€3.1€€€€€€€10ÌÌ1567€€€composite€€€€€€450€€€€€€€€€€€€€€5€€€€€€€€€1300€€€€€€€€€5€€€€€€€€€€160€€€€€€€€€€€€€5€€€€€€€€€€130€€€€€€€5ÌÔ€3XÔÌÓÓà àÌà àAccording€to€William€Bryant,€once€sewage€at€the€treatment€plantÏexceeds€the€limitations€there€is€a€possibility€for€environmental€harm.€€Not€onlyÏwould€the€Cumberland€River€be€harmed,€€but€the€toxicity€of€the€metals€couldÏdestroy€the€biological€activity€at€the€treatment€plant€itself€and,€as€a€result,€theÍtreatment€system€could€fail.€€Bryant€also€concluded€from€the€data€that€there€wereÏtwo€separate€discharges€represented€by€samples€1520€and€1567.€€HeÏdescribed€samples€1520€and€1556€as€having€the€same€ð ðfingerprintðð€and,Ïtherefore,€he€considered€them€to€be€representative€of€the€same€spill.€€€The€firstÏdischarge€was€high€in€chromium€with€smaller€amounts€of€the€other€metals;€theÏsecond€discharge,€on€the€other€hand,€was€extremely€high€in€nickel.€€The€stateððsÏexperts€conceded€that€it€was€possible€that€a€backflow€from€the€area€belowÏmanhole€15€could€occur;€however,€such€a€backflow€was€extremely€unlikelyÏexcept€during€periods€of€heavy€rain.€€€James€Pogue€explained€that€the€yellow„orange€flow€he€observed€in€manhole€15€on€September€9€was€probably€causedÏby€liquid€emptied€into€the€line€earlier€but€trapped€in€a€low€spot.€€€When€a€newÏsurge€of€liquid€passed€through€the€line,€the€trapped€discharge€was€released.€ÓÓ€ÏÓÓOn€cross„examination,€Bryant€acknowledged€that€anything€discharged€from€theÏplant€had€to€pass€through€either€the€official€discharge€point€or€manhole€68€orÏboth€and€that€he€had€no€direct€proof€that€such€a€discharge€had€occurred.€€ÌÌà àJames€North,€an€environmental€consultant,€testified€that€it€wouldÏhave€cost€approximately€$9,000€for€an€electroplating€company€to€disposeÏlegally€of€1,750€gallons€of€spent€nickel€and€chrome€plating€waste.× ƒ@ ××  ×€€He€alsoÏtestified€to€the€toxic€effect€of€such€metals€which€can€eat€through€the€concreteÍand€masonry€of€sewer€lines,€contaminate€water€supplies€downstream€from€theÏdischarge,€and€negatively€affect€the€wildlife€as€well€as€the€surface€and€groundÏwater€of€the€area€involved.€€ÌÌà àThree€non„expert€witnesses€concluded€the€stateððs€case.€€BillÏCrusenberry€testified€that€at€about€1:00€p.m.€on€September€5€he€saw€RossÏCunningham€standing€near€his€pickup€truck€behind€the€plant.€€Crusenberry€hadÏknown€the€defendant€for€years€and€was€familiar€with€the€truck.€€€Jack€BarnesÏowned€a€garage€across€the€street€from€Electroplating.€€He€testified€he€hadÏknown€the€defendant€since€the€late€seventies.€€He€described€the€condition€of€theÏfacility€as€ð ðneeding€a€lot€of€work.ðð€€He€said€that€the€roof€was€in€particularly€badÏshape€and€leaked€terribly.€€In€the€past,€he€had€noticed€that,€during€a€heavy€rain,Ïa€yellowish„orange€liquid€would€run€out€of€the€door€of€the€plant€and€across€theÏstreet.€€ÌÌà àThe€last€witness,€Billy€Clark,€was€a€former€employee€ofÏElectroplating.€€During€a€jury„out€hearing,€the€state€offered€the€testimony€ofÏClark,€Miller€Jakes,€former€codes€director€for€the€city€of€Lakewood,€and€AnnÏRochelle,€an€environmental€specialist€for€the€State€Department€of€EnvironmentÏand€Conservation.€€Cunningham€also€testified€briefly.€€The€trial€court€foundÏClarkððs€testimony€admissible€under€rule€404(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCriminal€Procedure.€€He€refused€to€allow€the€other€two€witnesses€to€testifyÏunless€something€in€the€defendantððs€proof€ð ðopened€the€door.ð ðÌÌà àBefore€the€jury,€Clark€described€the€process€by€whichÏElectroplating€had€plated€chrome€and€nickel€parts.€€He€also€testified€that€duringÏrainy€periods,€Cunningham€would€open€the€valve€on€the€bottom€of€the€rinseÏtank.€€The€rain€falling€through€the€roof€would€wash€the€solution€out€the€door,Ïdown€the€road€and€into€a€storm€drain.€€During€the€ten€years€he€worked€at€theÏplant,€he€said€that€the€rinse€tank€had€been€emptied€a€few€times€in€this€manner.€€ÏHe€also€described€the€trench€drain€and€sump€pump€that€he€helped€theÏdefendant€install€in€front€of€the€doorway€approximately€five€years€before€theÏplant€closed.€€The€solution€would€flow€across€the€floor€into€the€trench€drainÏwhere€it€would€be€pumped€through€a€filtration€system€and€then€collected€inÏanother€tank.€€€On€cross„examination€Clark€admitted€that€he€had€ð ðcaught€anÏattitudeðð€when€he€was€laid€off€without€any€severance€pay.€€He€said€he€wasÏð ðdropped€like€a€hot€potatoðð€when€Cunningham€suddenly€decided€to€close€theÏplant.€€At€the€close€of€Clarkððs€testimony,€the€judge€instructed€the€jury€that€theÏevidence€of€Cunninghamððs€prior€acts€were€to€be€considered€for€the€limitedÏpurpose€of€determining€the€defendantððs€intent,€knowledge,€and/or€absence€ofÏaccident€and€could€not€be€used€to€prove€the€defendantððs€disposition€to€commitÏthe€crimes€for€which€he€was€on€trial.ÌÌà àAfter€the€state€rested,€the€trial€court€reduced€the€vandalism€chargeÏinvolving€damages€in€excess€of€ten€thousand€dollars€to€one€for€which€theÍdamages€were€less€than€ten€thousand.× ƒC ××  ×€€The€defense€did€not€move€for€aÏjudgment€of€acquittal€on€the€first€count€of€the€indictment.€€ÌÌà àRoss€Cunningham€took€the€stand€in€his€own€defense.€€He€deniedÏthat€he€had€dumped€any€toxic€materials€on€September€5.€€Although€heÏacknowledged€that€some€waste€material€had€flowed€out€the€door€in€the€past,€heÏinsisted€that€the€spillage€had€ceased€once€the€trench€drain€and€sump€pumpÏwere€in€place.€€He€testified€about€his€process€for€recycling€the€waste€from€theÏrinse€tanks.€€He€had€patented€a€process€which€removed€contamination€from€theÏrinse€water€and€had€used€the€system€for€the€past€several€years.€€When€spillageÏoccurred€in€the€facility€everything€went€through€the€sump€pump€and€filter€via€theÏtrench€drain.€€The€process€removed€the€metals,€and€the€water€was€then€returnedÏto€the€pretreatment€tank.€€The€metals€could€then€be€returned€to€the€plating€tanksÏand€reused.€€He€testified€that€he€had€performed€no€zinc€plating€and€had€no€zincÏin€his€shop.€€He€reiterated€on€cross„examination€that€his€shop€contained€noÏzinc.ÌÌà àThe€defense€offered€the€expert€testimony€of€Donald€Pearson,€aÏformer€chemistry€professor€at€Vanderbilt€University.€€Pearson€testified€that€heÏhad€examined€the€defendantððs€patent€and€conducted€an€experiment€using€theÍprocess.€€He€found€that€the€process€did€in€fact€work€to€remove€chromium€fromÏthe€water.€€In€his€experiment,€the€chromium€was€reduced€to€six€parts€per€million.€ÏHowever,€Pearson€acknowledged€that€he€had€never€seen€the€process€at€workÏin€the€plant€and€had€tested€it€only€under€laboratory€conditions.€€At€this€point€theÏdefense€rested.€€ÌÌà àAfter€the€jury€left€the€courtroom,€the€state€moved€for€admission€of€Ïcertain€evidence€to€rebut€the€defendantððs€direct€testimony€that€there€was€no€zincÏin€his€plant€and€that€he€had€never€emptied€any€contaminated€material€into€theÏsewer€system.€€The€evidence,€which€consisted€of€laboratory€analyses€performedÏon€samples€taken€from€inside€the€plant,€had€been€suppressed€prior€to€trial.× ƒD ××  ×€€ÏAfter€considerable€discussion€the€court€ruled€that€the€result€of€only€one€test€wasÏadmissible€and€was€limited€to€impeachment€purposes.€€The€prosecution€thenÏrecalled€James€Pogue€and€Samuel€Seged.€€They€testified€that€the€sludge€takenÏfrom€the€toilet€bowl€in€the€boarded€up€lavatory€contained€16€parts€per€million€ofÏzinc€as€well€as€smaller€amounts€of€chromium€and€nickel.€€The€trial€judgeÏinstructed€the€jury€that€this€testimony€was€admissible€only€on€the€issue€of€theÏdefendantððs€credibility.€€ÌÌà àThe€state€then€called€Sherman€Reeves€who€lived€down€the€streetÏfrom€the€Electroplating€plant€and€passed€it€every€day.€€He€testified€that€betweenÏ1989€and€1994€he€had€observed€some€unusual€blue„green€or€orange€liquidÏcoming€from€the€plant€on€20€or€30€different€occasions.€€ÌÌà àThe€defense€then€recalled€Ross€Cunningham€who€again€testifiedÏthat€his€plant€did€not€perform€any€zinc€plating.€€He€explained€that€when€itemsÏcontaining€zinc€were€placed€in€the€plating€tank,€the€solution€would€pullÏimpurities€such€as€zinc€into€the€bath.€€Over€a€period€of€time,€the€zinc€in€theÏsolution€would€build€up.€€Cunningham€also€testified€that€prior€to€plating,€zincÏdiecast€products€and€pot€metal€required€polishing.€€Dust€from€the€processÏsettled€onto€everything€including€the€toilet€bowl.€€He€reiterated€that€after€theÏinstallation€of€the€trench€drain,€no€contaminated€liquid€had€escaped€from€theÏplant.€€€On€cross„examination,€he€said€that€he€had€not€plated€any€zinc€sinceÏ1982€and€that€any€zinc€in€the€shop€was€a€by„product€of€the€process.€€ÌÌà àBased€on€this€evidence,€the€jury€found€Ross€Cunningham€guilty€ofÏwillfully€discharging€chromium€into€the€Metropolitan€Government€Sewer€SystemÏon€September€5,€1994€as€charged€in€count€one€of€the€indictment€but€acquittedÏhim€of€the€vandalism€charge€in€count€three.€€The€jury€returned€guilty€verdictsÏagainst€the€corporation€in€all€three€counts.€€ÌÌà@ àò òDenial€of€the€Defendantððs€Judgment€of€Acquittaló óà@ àÌà àThe€framing€of€this€issue€has€produced€some€confusion€on€appeal.€ÏThe€defendant€contends€in€his€brief€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€that€he€willfullyÏdischarged€chromium€contaminated€waste€into€the€sewer€system€and€that,Ïtherefore,€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€sustain€the€jury€verdict.€€The€issue,€onÏthe€other€hand,€is€framed€as€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€theÏdefendantððs€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€at€the€close€of€stateððs€proof€and€inÏthe€subsequently€filed€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€record€shows€that€the€defendantÏdid€not€move€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€with€respect€to€the€first€count€of€theÏindictment€at€the€close€of€the€stateððs€proof.€€After€the€jury€left€the€courtroom,Ïdefense€counsel€said,€ð ðYour€Honor,€at€this€time,€weððd€ask€for€a€„„€we€make€aÏmotion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€on€the€vandalism€charge.€€There€has€been€noÏproof€of€damages€to€the€Metropolitan€system€whatsoever.ðð€€€€The€trial€courtÏpartially€granted€the€defense€motion€by€reducing€the€charge€to€no€greater€than€aÏD€felony.€€€We€need€not€review€the€trial€courtððs€action€because€the€jury€acquittedÏthe€defendant€of€the€charge€of€vandalism€and€our€consideration€would€beÏmoot.× ƒE ××  ×€€€€ÌÌà àHowever,€nothing€in€the€rules€requires€the€defendant€to€raise€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence€either€in€a€motion€for€€judgment€of€acquittal€or€in€theÏmotion€for€new€trial€in€order€to€preserve€the€issue€for€appellate€review.€€€TheÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provide€that€ÌÓÓà8 àin€all€cases€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€forÏreview€shall€be€predicated€upon€error€in€theÏadmission€or€exclusion€of€evidence,€jury€instructionsÏgranted€or€refused,€misconduct€of€jurors,€parties€orÏcounsel,€or€other€action€committed€or€occurringÏduring€the€trial€of€the€case,€or€òòother€ground€uponÏwhich€a€new€trial€is€soughtóó,€unless€the€same€wasÏspecifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€new€trial.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€(e)€(emphasis€added).€€€When€the€issue,€if€found€to€beÏmeritorious,€would€result€in€dismissal€of€the€prosecution€against€the€accused,Ïthe€Rule€3€waiver€provision€does€not€apply.€€€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€416Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€If€this€court€determines€that€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏis€insufficient€to€sustain€the€juryððs€verdict,€no€new€trial€will€result.€The€chargeÏmust€be€dismissed.€€Thus,€the€sufficiency€question€is€subject€to€review€even€ifÏthe€defendant€had€not€raised€it€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€anÏappellate€courtððs€standard€of€review€€is,€whether€after€considering€the€evidenceÏin€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJacksonÏv.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,Í698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€Since€a€jury€convictionÏremoves€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€is€initiallyÏcloaked€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burdenÏof€demonstrating€on€appeal€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,Ï639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€In€determining€that€sufficiency,€this€courtÏdoes€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÏ832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimate€inferencesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€It€is€the€appellate€courtððs€duty€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€the€evidence,Ïviewed€under€these€standards,€is€sufficient€for€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€theÏessential€elements€of€the€offenses€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,Ï875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€evidence€in€this€case,€when€reviewed€according€toÏthese€standards,€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€willfullyÏdischarging€chromium€into€the€Metropolitan€Governmentððs€sewer€system€onÏSeptember€5,€1994€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€69„3„114(b)€and€69„3„115(c).€€In€pertinent€part,€section€69„3„114€states:ÌÓÓà8 àà àIn€addition€it€shall€be€unlawful€for€any€personÏto€act€in€a€manner€or€degree€which€is€violative€of€anyÏprovision€of€this€part€or€of€any€rule,€regulation,€orÏstandard€of€water€quality€promulgated€by€the€boardÏor€of€any€permits€or€orders€issued€pursuant€to€theÏprovision€of€this€part.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€69„3„114(b)€(1987).€€If€a€violation€occurs,€section€69„3„115Ïprovides€the€penalty:ÌÓÓà8 àà àAny€person€who€.€.€.€willfully€and€knowinglyÏunlawfully€pollutes€the€water€of€the€state€or€willfullyÏfails,€neglects,€or€refuses€to€comply€with€any€of€theÏprovisions€of€this€part€shall€be€guilty€of€a€felony€andÏshall€be€punished€by€a€fine€of€not€more€than€twenty„five€thousand€dollars€($25,000)€or€imprisonment€notÏto€exceed€two€(2)€years€or€both.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€69„3„115(c)€(Supp.€1994).€€ÌÌà àThe€indictment€charged€that€Ross€Cunningham€ð ðdid€willfully€fail€toÏcomply€with€the€Tennessee€Water€Quality€Control€Act€of€1977€by€dischargingÏchromium€contaminated€waste€into€the€sewer€system€of€the€MetropolitanÏGovernment€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€in€violation€of€the€industrial€userÏpermit€issued€to€Electroplating,€Inc.ðð€€Therefore,€the€evidence€presented€at€trialÏmust€demonstrate€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thatÌÌÓÓà à1.à8 àA€discharge€of€chromium„contaminatedÏwaste€into€the€Metro€GovernmentððsÏsewer€system€occurred.ÌÌà à2.à8 àThe€discharge€was€a€violation€ofÏElectroplating,€Inc.ððs€industrial€userÏpermit€issued€pursuant€to€theÏTennessee€Water€Quality€Control€Act€ofÏ1977.ÌÌà à3.à8 àThe€defendant,€Ross€Cunningham,Íwillfully€caused€the€discharge.œ× ƒF ××  ×›ÌÌÓÓà àAt€trial,€the€defendant€did€not€challenge€the€stateððs€evidenceÏdemonstrating€that€a€discharge€of€chromium€occurred.€€Nor€did€he€question€thatÏsuch€a€discharge€would€violate€the€provisions€of€the€industrial€user€permit.€€TheÏevidence€that€such€a€discharge€occurred€is€overwhelming.€€A€copy€ofÏElectroplatingððs€industrial€user€permit€containing€the€limitations€was€placed€intoÏevidence.€€The€analysis€of€the€sample€taken€at€the€Dry€Creek€treatment€plant€inÏthe€early€morning€hours€demonstrates€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€theÏwaste€discharged€contained€chromium€far€in€excess€of€the€permissibleÏamount.× ƒG ××  ×€€€ÌÌà àThe€major€issue€at€trial€was€whether€the€illegal€discharge€was€theÏresult€of€Ross€Cunninghamððs€willful€and€knowing€act.€€On€appeal,€CunninghamÏcontends€that€the€record€contains€no€evidence€that€any€contaminated€sewageÏwas€discharged€through€either€the€official€discharge€point€or€manhole€68,€theÏonly€two€locations€through€which€sewage€from€Electroplating€could€enter€theÍsystem.€€It€is€true€that€no€samples€were€taken€from€either€the€discharge€point€orÏfrom€manhole€68€and€that€the€state€presented€no€direct€evidence€thatÏCunningham€was€the€perpetrator.× ƒH ××  ×€€Circumstantial€evidence,€however,€doesÏpoint€unerringly€to€the€Electroplating€facility€as€the€source€of€the€contaminationÏand€to€Cunningham€as€the€person€responsible€for€the€discharge.€ÌÌà àA€criminal€offense€may€be€established€exclusively€byÏcircumstantial€evidence.€€€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899„900€(Tenn.Ï1973);€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€393,€396€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.ÏLequireóó,€634€S.W.2d€608€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€However,€the€evidence€mustÏnot€only€be€consistent€with€the€guilt€of€the€accused€but€inconsistent€withÏinnocence€and€must€exclude€every€other€reasonable€theory€or€hypothesisÏexcept€that€of€guilt.€€If€the€trier€of€fact€can€determine€from€the€proof€that€all€otherÏreasonable€theories€except€that€of€guilt€are€excluded,€the€evidence€is€sufficient.€ÏòòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€at€900;€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€at€396.€ÏInferences€to€be€drawn€from€circumstantial€evidence€are€within€the€province€ofÏthe€trier€of€fact,€and€this€court€may€not€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawnÏby€the€jury€from€the€evidence.€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2dÏ856,859€(1956);€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€577€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).Ì€Ìà àWhen€Pogue€conducted€a€walk„through€of€the€facility€onÏSeptember€7,€1994,€he€found€two€plating€tanks€at€the€back€of€the€plant.€€OneÏwas€empty€except€for€a€yellow„orange€sludge€at€the€bottom,€and€the€otherÏcontained€approximately€250€gallons€of€a€yellow„orange€solution.€€The€onlyÏother€possible€source€of€contamination€in€the€relevant€area€was€the€operation€atÏChem„plate.€€€Pogueððs€inspection€of€that€plant€on€September€7€found€nothingÏthat€would€have€caused€the€high€concentration€of€chromium€present€in€theÏinfluent€at€Dry€Creek.€€Moreover,€Chem„plate€did€no€chrome€plating.€€Two€daysÏlater,€while€Pogue€was€inspecting€manhole€15,€another€yellow„orangeÏsubstance€flowed€through€the€manhole.€€Sewage€from€only€five€users€flowsÏthrough€manhole€15.€€Four€of€these€sources€were€residential€users.€€The€fifthÏwas€Electroplatingððs€plant,€a€facility€where€chrome€plating€had€represented€aÏmajor€portion€of€the€business.€€€From€these€facts,€a€jury€could€have€reasonablyÏinferred€that€the€source€of€the€discharge€was€indeed€the€Electroplating€plant.€€ÌÌà àRoss€Cunningham€was€the€sole€owner€of€the€corporation.€€HeÏmanaged€the€operation€of€the€plant€and€was€intimately€involved€in€its€day€to€dayÏoperations.€€He€described€himself€as€an€inorganic€chemist,€and€he€had€manyÏyears€of€experience€in€the€plating€business.€€€Just€prior€to€the€discharge,ÏCunningham€closed€the€plant€because€of€the€condition€of€the€roof€andÏannounced€his€decision€to€retire.€€According€to€the€environmental€consultant,Ïlegal€disposal€of€a€full€tank€of€plating€solution€or€rinse€bath€would€have€cost€theÍcorporation€several€thousand€dollars.€€Although€the€defendant€at€first€told€theÏinspectors€that€he€was€out€of€town€until€late€in€the€evening€on€Labor€Day,€aÏwitness€who€was€well„acquainted€with€the€defendant€saw€him€standing€in€backÏof€the€plant€€at€approximately€1:00€p.m.€€At€trial,€the€defendant€admitted€that€heÏhad€come€to€the€plant€at€about€5:00€p.m.€to€pick€up€his€truck.€€Billy€Clark,€aÏemployee€of€Electroplating€for€approximately€ten€years,€testified€that€many€timesÏhe€had€seen€Cunningham€open€the€valve€on€the€rinse€tanks€and€allow€theÏliquid€to€run€out€the€door.€€Jack€Barnes,€the€owner€of€a€nearby€garage€testifiedÏthat€he€had€seen€orange€or€blue„green€liquids€running€across€the€road.€ÏAlthough€neither€Clark€nor€Barnes€provided€any€dates€for€these€events,ÏSherman€Reeves,€who€lived€nearby,€testified€that€he€had€seen€a€rust„coloredÏliquid€being€discharged€from€the€premises€twenty€or€thirty€times€between€1989Ïand€1994.× ƒI ××  ×€€Although€no€eyewitness€actually€saw€Cunningham€run€the€wasteÏwater€into€the€sewer€system,€the€facts€presented€at€trial€place€him€on€the€sceneÏduring€the€critical€time€period.€€Because€the€business€was€closed,€he€was€theÏone€person€with€access€to€the€tanks,€and€it€is€reasonable€to€conclude€that€heÏwould€need€to€dispose€of€the€plating€solutions€and€rinses.€€€He€had€theÏknowledge€and€experience€required€to€handle€the€dangerous€materials.€€HeÏwould€profit€by€their€disposal.€€In€this€instance,€the€facts€and€circumstances€areÏsuch€that€the€jury€could€draw€no€other€reasonable€inference€save€the€guilt€of€theÏdefendant€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€at€396.€€ÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€facts€presented€at€trial,€we€find€that€theÏevidence€is€legally€sufficient€to€convict€the€defendant€of€willfully€dischargingÏchromium€contaminated€waste€into€the€sewer€system€of€the€MetropolitanÏGovernment€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€in€violation€of€the€industrial€userÏpermit€issued€to€Electroplating,€Inc.€€€Ì€Ìà@ àò òEvidence€of€Prior€Conduct€ó ó„€ò òRule€404(b)ó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€excludedÏthe€testimony€of€Billy€Clark€who€stated€that€he€had€seen€the€defendant€open€theÏvalves€on€the€rinse€tanks€during€rainy€periods€and€let€the€contaminated€waterÏflow€out€the€door.€The€general€rule€is€that€evidence€of€prior€conduct€isÏinadmissible,€especially€€when€previous€crimes€or€acts€are€of€the€sameÏcharacter€as€the€charged€offense,€because€such€evidence€is€irrelevant€andÏinvites€the€ð ðfinder€of€fact€to€infer€guilt€from€propensity.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hallockóó,€875ÏS.W.€2d€285,€290€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Moreover,€ð ð[e]vidence€of€otherÏcrimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€inÏorder€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï404(b).€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€€trial€court€found€that€the€evidence€was€admissibleÏunder€the€exceptions€found€in€Rule€404(b).€€€The€rule€permits€the€admission€ofÏevidence€of€prior€conduct€if€the€evidence€of€other€acts€is€relevant€to€a€litigatedÍissue€such€as€identity,€intent,€or€rebuttal€of€accident€or€mistake,€and€theÏprobative€value€outweighs€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï404(b)€Advisory€Commððn€Comments;€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299,€303Ï(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Hootenóó,€735€S.W.2d€823,€824€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€€€ÌÌà àAfter€a€jury„out€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€€Clarkððs€testimonyÏwas€probative€on€the€issue€of€the€defendantððs€intent€and€that€intent€was€anÏessential€element€of€the€crime€which€the€prosecution€was€required€to€prove€atÏtrial.œ× ƒJ ××  ×›€€The€court€also€found€that€the€state€had€shown€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence€that€the€incidents€described€by€Clark€took€place.€€Although€the€trialÏjudge€did€not€specifically€weigh€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€against€itsÏpotential€prejudicial€effect€in€his€findings,€his€earlier€comments€indicate€€that€heÏconsidered€the€evidence€highly€probative€and,€therefore,€the€probative€valueÏoutweighed€the€unfair€prejudice.€€When,€as€in€this€case,€a€trial€courtÏsubstantially€complies€with€the€procedural€requirements€of€the€rule,€itsÏdetermination€will€not€be€overturned€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.ÏDuboseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€652€(Tenn.€1997).× ƒK ××  ×€€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€wasÏinadmissible€on€the€issue€of€intent€because€(1)€his€attorney€conceded€inÏopening€argument€that€the€crime€had€been€committed€intentionally,€(2)€the€stateÏadmitted€that€it€had€no€other€evidence€on€the€issue€of€intent,€and€(3)€theÏprobative€value€was€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€TheseÏarguments€have€no€merit.€€ÌÌà àFirst,€the€transcript€before€this€court€does€not€contain€the€openingÏarguments,€and€even€if€the€attorneyððs€statement€were€included,€statements€ofÏcounsel€are€not€evidence.€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29.1;€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401;€òòState€v.ÏDraperóó,€800€S.W.2d€489,€493€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€At€the€time€of€the€jury„out€hearing,€the€defense€had€not€yet€put€on€any€proof€and€had€not€offered€toÏstipulate€that€the€discharge€was€not€an€accident€or€a€mistake.€€Under€our€law,Ïthe€state€is€required€to€prove€every€element€of€the€crime€charged€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€Although€evidence€that€the€defendant€committed€certainÏprior€acts€is€admissible€only€if€the€ground€for€relevance€is€actually€beingÏcontested,€òòBunch€v.€Stateóó,€605€S.W.2d€227,€230€(Tenn.€1980),€we€find€that,€onÏthese€facts,€the€element€of€the€defendantððs€willful€intent€to€violate€the€law€was€aÏmaterial€issue€in€this€case.ÌÌà àMoreover,€our€review€of€the€record€does€not€disclose€that€the€stateÏconceded€that€it€was€unable€to€prove€willfulness€without€Clarkððs€testimony.€€TheÏprosecutor,€at€one€point,€merely€remarked€that€Clarkððs€testimony€was€the€onlyÏòòdirectóó€proof€on€the€issue.€€€As€we€discussed€above,€there€was€considerableÏcircumstantial€evidence€that€Ross€Cunningham€was€responsible€for€the€illegalÏdischarge.€€In€our€view,€the€fact€that€the€state€had€little€direct€proof€of€intentÏincreases€the€probative€value€of€the€testimony€rather€than€decreases€it.€€òòSeeóóÏòòBunch€v.€Stateóó,€605€S.W.2d€at€230.€€Although€the€earlier€illegal€dischargesÏdescribed€by€Clark€did€not€involve€any€direct€contamination€of€the€sewerÏsystem,€the€evidence€was€indicative€of€Cunninghamððs€guilty€knowledge€andÏwillful€behavior.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Blue€Ridge€Plating€Company,€Inc.óó,€No.Ï92„5441,€1993€WL€358780€€(4th€Cir.€Sept.€14,1993)€(N.C.€unpublished€perÏcuriam€disposition)€(table€case€at€7€F.€3d€226).ÌÌà àEven€if€the€trial€court€had€erred€in€finding€that€Clarkððs€testimonyÏwas€admissible€on€the€issue€of€intent,€the€defendantððs€identity€was€clearly€aÏmaterial€issue€at€trial.€€Cunningham€denied€that€he€was€in€any€way€responsibleÏfor€the€contamination.€€Therefore,€it€was€incumbent€upon€the€state€to€prove€thatÏhe€was€the€person€who€spilled€the€chromium„contaminated€liquid€into€the€sewerÏsystem.€€€When€identity€is€the€issue,€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€of€otherÏcrimes€depends€upon€the€extent€to€which€it€raises€an€inference€that€theÏperpetrator€of€the€prior€offenses€was€the€perpetrator€of€the€offense€at€issue.€ÏòòState€v.€Bunchóó,€605€S.W.2d€at€230€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Powellóó,€587€F.2dÍ443,€448€(9th€Cir.€1978)).€€€An€inference€of€identity€arises€when€the€elements€ofÏthe€prior€offense€and€the€charged€offense€are€sufficiently€distinctive€that€one€canÏconclude€that€the€person€who€committed€the€former€also€committed€the€latter.€ÏòòIdóó.€€€However,€it€is€not€required€that€the€other€crime€be€identical€in€every€detail€toÏthe€offense€on€trial.€€òòIdóó.€at€231.€€The€evidence€must€support€the€inference€that€theÏdefendant,€who€committed€the€earlier€acts,€is€the€same€person€who€committedÏthe€offense€on€trial.€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àThe€elements€as€well€as€the€details€of€Cunninghamððs€earlierÏcriminal€violations€are€sufficiently€distinctive€to€support€an€inference€that€he€isÏthe€same€person€who€committed€the€offense€on€September€4,€1994.€€All€of€theÏviolations€occurred€at€the€same€location€and€involved€the€liquids€used€in€platingÏmetal.€€In€the€prior€acts,€the€defendant€allowed€the€contaminated€waste€water€toÏflow€out€the€door€and€into€a€storm€drain.€€On€this€occasion,€the€liquid€wasÏsomehow€deposited€directly€into€the€sewer€system.€€The€defendant€was€theÏperson€in€charge€of€plant€operations€in€both€instances€and€was€present€whenÏthe€illegal€activity€took€place.€€Clark€identified€the€defendant€as€the€person€whoÏopened€the€valves€on€the€tanks€and€allowed€the€liquid€to€flow€out€the€door.€ÏCunningham€did€not€refute€the€identification.€€We€must€conclude€that€theÏsimilarity€between€the€prior€violations€and€the€one€at€bar€was€sufficientlyÏdistinctive€to€support€an€inference€that€the€same€person€committed€all€of€theÏacts.€ÌÌà àThe€testimony€of€Billy€Clark€was€highly€probative€on€the€issues€ofÏintent€and€œidentity,›€and€the€probative€value€outweighed€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.€€The€trial€court€gave€instructions€both€at€the€conclusion€of€theÏtestimony€and€in€the€formal€jury€instructions€which€limited€the€use€of€theÏevidence€to€the€issues€of€intent,€knowledge,€and/or€absence€of€accident€andÏspecifically€disallowed€its€use€to€prove€the€defendantððs€disposition€to€commit€theÏcrimes€on€trial.€€We,€therefore,€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÏdiscretion€in€admitting€Clarkððs€testimony.€€The€evidence€was€relevant€andÏproperly€admitted.ÌÌà@ àò òImpeachment€with€Extrinsic€EvidenceÌà àó óThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€theÏstate€to€introduce€evidence€derived€from€an€illegal€search€and€that€substantialÏprejudice€resulted€from€the€error.€€€The€record€discloses€that€the€trial€court,€afterÏa€pretrial€hearing,€suppressed€the€laboratory€analyses€of€material€obtained€fromÏtwo€tanks€and€a€toilet€bowl€in€the€plant.× ƒL ××  ×€€An€analysis€of€the€sludge€in€the€toiletÏbowl€revealed€that€the€sludge€contained€zinc€at€16€parts€per€million.€€The€platingÏtank€sample€contained€700€parts€per€million€of€zinc.€€During€the€trial,€theÏdefendant€testified€on€direct€examination€that€the€Electroplating€facilityÏperformed€no€zinc€plating,€that€the€plant€contained€no€zinc,€and€that€he€hadÏnever€discharged€any€contaminated€liquid€into€the€sewer€system.€€€After€theÍdefense€rested,€the€prosecutors€moved€that€the€test€results€be€admitted€toÏimpeach€Cunninghamððs€testimony.€€Based€on€òòJames€v.€Illinoisóó,€493€U.S.€307,€Ï110€S.€Ct.€648€(1990)€and€€òòWalder€v.€United€Statesóó,€347€U.S.€62,€74€S.€Ct.€354Ï(1954),€the€trial€court€admitted€the€analysis€of€the€toilet€sludge€but€excluded€theÏresults€obtained€from€the€plating€liquid€in€the€tanks.€€The€trial€court€also€refusedÏto€admit€photographs€of€the€plant€and€ordered€that€the€stateððs€witnesses€notÏmention€that€the€samples€were€obtained€during€a€search.€€After€the€testimonyÏwas€complete,€the€court€instructed€the€jury€that€the€results€could€be€consideredÏonly€on€the€question€of€the€defendantððs€credibility€and€not€as€substantiveÏevidence€of€guilt.€€The€jury€received€a€written€jury€instruction€containing€theÏsame€limitations.ÌÌà àThe€defense€argues€on€appeal€that,€although€suppressedÏevidence€may€be€admissible€for€impeachment€purposes,€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Criminal€Procedure€prohibit€the€introduction€of€extrinsic€evidence€other€thanÏconvictions€to€prove€specific€instances€of€conduct€in€an€attempt€to€impeach€aÏwitness.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€608(b),€609.€€€The€defendant€also€contends€that€theÏevidence€was€inadmissible€under€Rule€607€as€it€was€offered€to€contradict€aÏcollateral€fact.€ÌThe€state€argues,€first,€that€the€defendant€waived€this€complaint€because€he€didÏnot€invoke€Rules€607€and€608€during€the€jury„out€hearing€and,€second,€that€theÏevidence€was€properly€admitted€under€òòWalderóó.€€For€the€reasons€discussedÏbelow€we€find€that€the€test€results€were€properly€admitted€in€this€instance€toÍimpeach€the€defendantððs€direct€testimony.ÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€that€the€defendant€did€not€contend€that€theÏevidence€was€inadmissible€pursuant€to€the€rules€of€evidence€during€the€jury„outÏhearing.€€However,€in€his€motion€for€new€trial,€he€argues€at€length€that€theÏstateððs€rebuttal€proof€was€inadmissible€pursuant€to€Rule€608(b)€and€because€itÏwas€relevant€only€to€a€collateral€fact.€€Therefore,€we€consider€the€issue€on€itsÏmerits.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e),€36(a).ÌÌà àFirst,€it€is€important€to€point€out€that,€aside€from€constitutionalÏexclusionary„rule€constraints,€the€presence€of€zinc€in€the€defendantððs€plant€wasÏotherwise€clearly€relevant€to€show€substantively€that€the€defendant€wasÏresponsible€for€the€illegal€discharge.€€The€samples€taken€from€manhole€15€andÏat€the€Dry€Creek€treatment€plant€contained€zinc€as€well€as€chromium,€nickel€andÏother€metals.€€Therefore,€but€for€the€constitutional€constraints,€the€fact€that€theÏsludge€in€the€plantððs€unused€toilet€contained€zinc€would€have€been€admissibleÏas€relevant€substantive€evidence€under€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€401€andÏ402.€€Moreover,€such€evidence€would€not€have€been€excludable€under€ruleÏ403.€€The€probative€value€was€not€ð ðsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€ofÏunfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€byÏconsiderations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needless€presentation€ofÏcumulative€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.ÌÌà àœNext,›€we€examine€the€scope€of€the€ð ðimpeachmentðð€exception€to€theÏconstitutional€exclusionary€rule.€€Evidence€obtained€through€illegal€means€and,Ïfor€that€reason,€rendered€inadmissible€by€the€exclusionary€rule,€is€neverthelessÏadmissible€to€impeach€the€direct€testimony€of€the€defendant€in€a€criminal€case,ÏòòWalder€v.€United€Statesóó,€347€U.S.€62,€74€S.€Ct.€354€(1954),€and€also€to€impeachÏthe€defendantððs€ð ðanswers€to€questions€put€to€him€on€cross„examination€that€areÏplainly€within€the€scope€of€the€defendantððs€direct€examination.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.ÏHavensóó,€446€U.S.€620,€627,€100€S.€Ct.€1912,€1916€(1980).€€This€constitutionallyÏpermissible€impeachment€is€not€limited€to€evidence€that€merely€attacks€theÏquality€of€a€defendantððs€testimony.€€Rather,€òòWalderóóand€òòHavensóó€clearlyÏauthorize€the€use€of€ð ðimpeachmentðð€evidence€which€is€relevant€to€substantiveÏissues€and€which€usually€implicates€the€defendant€on€the€ultimate€issue€of€guilt.€ÏIn€these€cases,€illegally„obtained€physical€evidence€used€to€impeach€theÏdefendant„witness€€would€have€cogently€inculpated€the€defendant,€were€it€notÏfor€the€limitations€on€use.€€òòSeeóó€€òòalsoóó€òòHarris€v.€New€Yorkóó,€401€U.S.€222,€91€S.€Ct.Ï643€(1971)€(allowing€impeachment€through€the€use€of€a€òòMirandaóó„deficientÏconfession).€€Nevertheless,€as€a€function€of€the€constitutional€rule€and€not€anyÏevidentiary€rule,€such€evidence€is€not€to€be€used€in€the€ð ðgovernmentððs€directÏcase,€or€otherwise,€as€substantive€evidence€of€guilt.ðð€€òòHavensóó,€446€U.S.€at€628,Ï100€S.€Ct.€at€1917.€€Thus,€under€the€constitutional€rule,€ð ðimpeachmentðð€does€notÏrefer€to€precisely„crafted€rules€of€evidence€so€much€as€it€signifies€a€generalÏpolicy€of€not€permitting€ð ðfalse€testimony€[to]€go€unchallenged.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€446€U.S.€atÏ627,€100€S.€Ct.€at€1917.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€defendant€complains€about€the€use€ofÏrebuttal€evidence.× ƒM ××  ×€€However,€as€we€have€seen,€this€evidence€was€admissibleÏunder€the€rules€of€evidence€as€substantive€evidence€of€guilt.€€It€was€alsoÏadmissible€from€a€constitutional€standpoint€as€long€as€the€use€was€limited€toÏimpeaching€the€defendantððs€credibility.€€The€trial€court€not€only€instructed€theÏjury€at€the€conclusion€of€the€rebuttal€testimony€that€the€rebuttal€could€beÏconsidered€only€on€the€question€of€the€defendantððs€credibility€and€not€asÏsubstantive€evidence€of€guilt,€but€it€also€provided€the€jury€with€a€writtenÏinstruction€containing€these€limitations.€€As€such,€both€evidentiary€andÏconstitutional€requirements€have€been€met.× ƒS ××  ×€€ÌÌà àà@ àò òDouble€Jeopardyó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€convictions€of€Electroplating,€Inc.,Ïand€himself€personally€for€the€same€unlawful€discharge€of€chromium€violatesÏdouble€jeopardy.€€He€argues€that€€because€he€was€the€sole€shareholder€and€theÏpresident€of€the€corporation,€he€and€the€corporation€were€the€same€party.€ÏTherefore,€the€two€convictions€are,€in€essence,€a€multiple€punishment€for€aÏsingle€offense.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àThe€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€ArticleÏ1,€Section€10€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€protect€one€accused€of€a€crime€(1)Ïagainst€a€second€prosecution€after€an€acquittal;€(2)€against€a€secondÏprosecution€after€conviction;€and€(3)€against€multiple€punishments€for€the€sameÏoffense.€€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373,€378€(Tenn.€1996).€€Double€jeopardyÏbecomes€a€factor€only€when€the€defendant€who€faces€retrial€or€multipleÏpunishments€for€the€same€crime€is€the€same€person€in€the€each€instance.€€TheÍprosecution,€conviction,€and€punishment€of€two€co„defendants€for€the€sameÏcriminal€act€do€not€violate€double€jeopardy€principles.€€ÌÌà àIn€this€instance,€the€corporation,€Electroplating,€Inc.,€is€not€theÏsame€person€as€Ross€Cunningham.€€A€corporation€is,€by€definition,€a€legalÏentity,€an€ð ðartificial€personðð€that€has€the€power€to€act€and€to€reason.€€òòState€v.ÏSowderóó,€826€S.W.2d€924,€926€fn€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðððð€48„2„102(9),€48„3„501(4),€48„11„201(19)€(1995).€€Moreover,€the€corporation,Ïas€an€artificial€person,€has€an€identity€€separate€and€distinct€from€its€officers€andÏshareholders.× ƒT ××  ×€òòOld€Hickory€Engineering€and€Machinery€€Co.€v.€Henryóó,€937ÏS.W.2d€782,€785€(Tenn.€1996).€€Incorporation€creates€a€new€entity€that€bearsÏresponsibilities€and€liabilities€beyond€that€of€any€single€shareholder.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€€48„13„102€(1995).€€€Indeed€,€the€creation€of€this€artificial€personÏwhose€existence€reduces€the€financial€liability€of€the€shareholders€is€one€of€theÏmain€purposes€of€incorporation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„16„205.€€€RossÏCunningham€accepted€the€advantages€and€protections€inherent€in€this€separateÏand€distinct€corporate€identity.€€He€cannot€now€argue€that€he€and€theÏcorporation€are€one.× ƒU ××  ×€€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€a€jury€would€be€more€inclined€toÏconvict€the€defendant€when€it€learned€of€additional€serious€allegations€againstÏthe€corporation.€€This€appears€to€be€more€of€an€argument€for€severance€thanÏone€for€double€jeopardy€and€is€likewise€without€merit.€€The€jury€in€this€case€hadÏno€trouble€distinguishing€between€Ross€Cunningham€and€the€corporation.€ÏCunningham€and€the€corporation€were€both€charged€with€dischargingÏchromium€into€the€sewer€system€on€September€5,€1994,€and€with€vandalism€toÏpublic€property.€€Count€two€of€the€indictment€charges€the€corporation€with€otherÏillegal€discharges.€€The€trial€court€carefully€instructed€the€jury€who€convicted€theÏcorporation€on€all€three€counts€but€acquitted€Ross€Cunningham€of€vandalism.€€ÌÌà àThe€convictions€of€both€Ross€Cunningham€and€the€corporate€entityÏknown€as€Electroplating,€Inc.,€for€the€same€violation€of€the€Water€Quality€ControlÏAct€of€1977€do€not€violate€double€jeopardy€principles.€€ÌÌà@ àò òDenial€of€Judicial€Diversionó óÌà àIn€his€last€issue,€Cunningham€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€denial€ofÏjudicial€diversion.€€€The€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€provides€in€pertinentÏpart:ÌÓÓà8 àIf€any€person€who€has€not€previously€been€convictedÏof€a€felony€or€a€Class€A€misdemeanor€is€found€guiltyÏor€pleads€guilty€to€.€.€.€a€Class€C.,€D,€or€E€felony,€theÏcourt€may,€without€entering€a€judgment€of€guilty€andÏwith€the€consent€of€such€person,€defer€furtherÏproceedings€and€place€the€person€on€probationÏupon€such€reasonable€conditions€as€it€may€requireÏand€for€a€period€of€time€not€less€than€the€period€of€theÏmaximum€sentence€.€.€.€of€the€felony€with€which€he€isÏcharged€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313(a)(1)€(1997).€€€This€procedure,€commonly€knownÏas€judicial€diversion,€is€similar€to€pretrial€diversion;€however,€€judicial€diversionÏfollows€a€determination€of€guilt€and€the€decision€to€grant€diversion€rests€with€theÏtrial€court,€not€the€prosecutor.€€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€857€S.W.2d€571,€572€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1992).€€ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„313€does€not€entitleÏthe€accused€to€the€favorable€presumption€created€by€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„35„102(6).€€The€lower€courtððs€denial€of€judicial€diversion€isÏsubject€to€reversal€on€appeal€only€if€that€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòState€v.ÏHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€352,€356€(Tenn.€1983).€€When€a€defendantÏchallenges€the€denial€of€judicial€diversion,€we€may€not€revisit€the€issue€if€theÏrecord€contains€any€substantial€evidence€supporting€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€ÏòòState€v.€Parkeróó,€932€S.W.2d€945,€958€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòHammersleyóó,Ï650€S.W.2d€at€356.€€ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€judicial€diversion,€the€trial€courtÍmust€consider€€Ìà8 àÓÓ(a)€the€accusedððs€amenability€to€correction,€ÌÌà à(b)€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€ÌÌà à(c)€the€accusedððs€criminal€record,€ÌÌà à(d)€the€accusedððs€social€history,€ÌÌà à(e)€the€accusedððs€physical€and€mental€health,€ÌÌà à(f)€the€deterrence€value€to€the€accused€as€well€as€others,€and€ÌÌ€à8 à(g)€whether€judicial€diversion€will€serve€the€interestsÏof€€€€€€€€the€public€as€well€as€the€accused.ÌÌÌÓÓòòParkeróó,€932€S.W.2d€at€958;€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€168€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993)€(citation€omitted).€€Moreover,€the€record€must€reflect€that€the€courtÏhas€weighed€all€of€the€factors€in€reaching€its€determination.€€òòBonestelóó,€871ÏS.W.2d€at€168€(citations€omitted).€€The€court€must€explain€on€the€record€why€theÏdefendant€does€not€qualify€under€its€analysis,€and€if€the€court€has€based€itsÏdetermination€on€only€some€of€the€factors,€it€must€explain€why€these€factorsÏoutweigh€the€others.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àIn€this€instance,€the€trial€court€did€not€place€on€the€record€anÏadequate€explanation€for€denying€the€defendantððs€request€for€judicial€diversionÏas€required€in€òòBonestelóó.€€€The€trial€court€did€not€explain€whether€it€hadÏconsidered€all€of€the€other€factors€or€discuss€the€weight€given€to€the€applicableÏfactors.€€€After€determining€which€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€applied,Ïthe€trial€judge€merely€said,€ð ðI€think€because€of€that€history€Iððm€not€inclined€toÍdivert€under€40„35„313,€but€rather€set€a€sentence€that€will€include€a€substantialÏamount€of€public€service€work€and€an€appropriate€fine€and€a€period€ofÏprobation.ðð€€We€must,€therefore,€determine€whether€the€trial€court€reached€theÏcorrect€result€notwithstanding€its€failure€to€explain€its€reasoning.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏTalmadge€G.€Wilbanksóó,€No.€02C01„9601„CR„00003€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,ÏNov.€19,€1996).ÌÌà àA€number€of€factors€tend€to€favor€the€granting€of€judicial€diversion.ÏRoss€Cunningham€has€lived€a€productive€life.€€€His€wife€was€supportive€of€himÏthrough€the€resolution€of€these€charges.€€Many€friends€and€businessÏacquaintances€spoke€on€his€behalf€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€At€the€time€ofÏsentencing,€he€was€66€years€old.€€He€suffers€from€asthma€and€other€medicalÏproblems.€€€After€serving€in€the€army€from€1949€to€1951,€he€spent€42€years€in€theÏelectroplating€business.€€He€obtained€a€patent€on€a€process€for€removingÏchromium€from€the€plating€solution€and€installed€the€system€in€his€plant€in€1989.€ÌÌà àOn€the€other€hand,€the€record€also€discloses€that€the€defendantÏdoes€not€accept€any€responsibility€for€the€discharge€of€the€toxic€chemicals€andÏapparently€has€made€some€attempt€to€hide€assets.€€Since€his€retirement€inÏ1994,€he€reported€that€he€was€living€on€Social€Security€benefits€of€$648.00€perÏmonth.€€He€claimed€that€his€only€assets€were€two€vehicles€that€together€wereÏworth€less€than€$20,000.€€At€the€hearing,€he€testified€that€all€of€the€real€propertyÏand€other€assets€were€in€his€wifeððs€name.€€He€has€no€business„relatedÍretirement€plan.€€He€insisted€throughout€that€he€had€not€intentionally€dischargedÏany€contaminated€liquid€into€the€sewer€system.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€discharge€thatÏoccurred€on€September€5€are€more€egregious€than€the€earlier€ones.€€The€plantÏwas€closed.€€Although€the€defendant€testified€that€he€sold€the€waste€liquid€for€aÏprofit,€he€presented€no€proof€of€the€sale.€€A€witness€for€the€state€testified€that€itÏwould€have€cost€Electroplating€thousands€of€dollars€to€dispose€of€the€materialÏlegally.€€The€discharge€on€September€5€was€a€deliberate,€intentional€act.€€ItÏcaused€damage€to€the€sewer€close€to€the€plant€and€posed€a€potential€danger€toÏthe€pumping€stations,€the€water€treatment€plant,€and€to€the€Cumberland€RiverÏand€its€ecosystem.€€€€€€ÌÌà àAlthough€the€pre„sentence€report€revealed€no€prior€criminalÏconvictions€or€arrests,€testimony€at€trial€and€at€the€sentencing€hearing€indicatedÏthat€on€many€occasions€contaminated€liquids€ran€out€the€door€of€the€plant€andÏinto€a€storm€sewer€across€the€street.€€The€record€also€indicates€that€theÏdefendant€€had€been€cautioned€and€fined€on€several€occasions€for€improperlyÏdischarging€contaminated€liquid€into€the€street.€€Cunningham€freely€admittedÏthat€inadvertent€discharges€had€occurred€but€insisted€that€since€1989€the€trenchÏdrain€and€his€patented€process€had€prevented€further€problems.€€€One€witness,Ïhowever,€testified€that€since€1989€he€had€observed€dark€blue,€turquoise€or€rustyÏcolored€liquids€running€from€the€plant€twenty€or€thirty€times.€€ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€and€CunninghamððsÏpast€disregard€of€the€regulations€controlling€the€disposal€of€contaminated€liquidÏoutweigh€his€positive€social€history.€€Moreover,€his€unwillingness€to€acceptÏresponsibility€and€his€efforts€to€disguise€his€assets€reflect€unfavorably€on€hisÏamenability€to€correction.€€Judicial€diversion,€in€this€instance,€would€not€serveÏthe€manifest€public€interest€in€maintaining€clean€water€and€a€healthyÏenvironment.€€On€these€facts,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€in€denying€judicial€diversion.€€ÌÌÓÓà@ àò òStateððs€Appeal€„„€€ó óà@ àò òRestitutionó óÌÌÓÓà àThe€state€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€requiring€RossÏCunningham€to€pay€restitution€for€costs€and€damages€to€the€sewer€systemÏcaused€by€the€illegal€dumping€of€contaminated€waste€water.€€It€is€the€opinion€ofÏthis€court€that€the€state€does€not€have€a€right€to€appeal€the€issue€presented€forÏreview.€€A€panel€of€this€court€addressed€this€issue€in€òòState€v.€Kevin€Crespoóó,€No.Ï03C01„9504„CR„00118€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Apr.€19,€1997)€(€no€perm.Ïapp.€filed),€in€which€the€state€appealed€the€amount€of€restitution€imposed€by€theÏtrial€court.× ƒV ××  ×€ÌÌà àIn€òòCrespoóó,€the€majority€held€that€based€on€the€language€containedÏin€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„402,€the€legislature€had€not€givenÏthe€state€the€right€to€appeal€issues€concerning€restitution.€€òòKevin€Crespoóó,€slipÏop.€at€2.€€One€member€of€the€òòCrespoóó€panel€dissented€on€this€issue.€€He€arguedÏthat€the€broad€language€in€the€first€sentence€of€the€statute€included€fines€andÏrestitution.€òòKevin€Crespoóó,€separate€concurring€and€dissenting€opinion€at€2Ï(Summers,€J.€€concurring€and€dissenting).€€However,€as€the€òòKevin€CrespoóóÏmajority€noted,€the€statute€does€not€stop€with€this€broad€language.€€òòSeeóó€òòKevinÏCrespoóó,€slip€op.€at€2€n.4.€€The€statute€states:€ð ðThe€district€attorney€general€in€aÏcriminal€case€may€appeal€from€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€the€service€of€theÏsentence€imposed€by€the€sentencing€court.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„402(a).€ÏHowever,€the€statute€also€€limits€the€right€of€appeal€to€the€following€enumeratedÏgrounds:ÌÓÓà8 à€€€(b)€€An€appeal€from€a€sentence€is€limited€to€one€(1)Ïor€more€of€the€following€grounds:ÌÌà8 àà à(1)€The€court€improperly€sentenced€theÏdefendant€to€the€wrong€sentence€range;ÌÌà8 àà à(2)€The€court€granted€all€or€part€of€theÏsentence€on€probation;ÌÌà8 àà à(3)€The€court€ordered€all€or€part€of€theÏsentences€to€run€concurrently;ÌÌà8 àà à(4)€The€court€improperly€found€the€defendantÏto€be€an€especially€mitigated€offender;€orÌÌà8 àà à(5)€The€enhancement€and€mitigating€factorsÏwere€not€weighed€properly.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„402€(b)€(1997).€€Based€on€the€specific€language€inÍsection€40„35„402(b),€we€find€that€the€state€does€not€have€the€right€to€appeal€aÏtrial€courtððs€failure€to€order€restitution.€€Therefore,€the€stateððs€appeal€isÏdismissed.Ì€€Ìà àMoreover,€the€record€of€the€sentencing€hearing€is€silent€on€theÏsubject€of€restitution.€€€Although€the€state€presented€evidence€concerning€theÏdamage€to€the€sewer€system€and€other€costs€at€trial,€the€prosecutors€did€notÏrefer€to€this€evidence€at€the€sentencing€hearing€and€did€not€ask€the€court€toÏimpose€any€restitution.€€Therefore,€even€if€this€court€had€the€jurisdiction€toÏconsider€the€issue,€it€would€be€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36€(a).€ÌÌÓ  Óò òConclusionó óÌÓ  Óà àFor€the€reasons€discussed€above,€we€affirm€Ross€CunninghamððsÏconviction€for€violation€of€the€Water€Quality€Control€Act€of€1977€and€theÏsentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€The€stateððs€appeal€is€dismissed.ÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏCURWOOD€WITT,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€œJudge›€ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JudgeÌÌÌ