ÿWPCT ŸZíäÉÝæH‡×æJ‡àÈ`š¯ß"!Wýö<Ë”ÜéœlädDþOR[žað;WKž¯—\AmçͳxÜ—ü—ˆ-à¸ìú<:?ˆsò<)í…¯n/G¯[#ö{CÅDÒ¡ ÀFp^ÌÀuf[#Iè’’Y¬zøü¡úa¦œ²ä6KR@„oÜ#1»ŠÒkü»?$ø";:…÷¹/Šûð³° è®ä`Wã-„ã½Kn;TÊ*ûÁzc=À°ŠÆý¼²?öü$@âÆò?žµºŸ~x§KA`;F=®¨Ù,•Òv LöjíBo% Òjt†Ñ¶¹ýwt±ÝAd³pÕ¢³-ýd VJ— ¹HNùÌ-êÊÇÒëÈâRד#š5ÓZ{!­ß;M7-ͳÞÄ݇…Zje¾­’¹ ’âsÎ÷¡—H)³AÚ26ᄼWèÉÐàOÒ ê:BÇ€Ckm®iŠ|Ag;•«QH•⡬ @»; ÓnfÓ¦òkÛ_%?à3éùo5¸D-úVht%»øÜÉ3I]c¶§÷™íV âØfó=XyÒQ¤4h{¨É4.Ë(ÁãNƒ^ÜN2²yn…¤DÆ»3!¿È1ð6˜ÕFÔêfû`_ø p× ¶òôž$ŠW_b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ U@™ ÆÙ ÆŸ ÆeÆ+U>ñN/ô1Ü%E 0DbGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 0ëOOOO B:: 0¤W D5û D-0 0K]] AS¨Æû 0¤Á 0De A«©»ê´/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularlk.ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ô\  `‹&Times New Roman DAMRONTiptonLayneTildonStubblefieldTullahomaFraleyCribbsSchefferIrickAdkinsHembree ÒÝ ƒRÝ;$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôõò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€victimððs€name€appears€here€in€the€report€as€an€obvious€typographical€error.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2Ý;$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Øé»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôõò»»Ô d(|37-$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Øé»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|37-$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Øé»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Øé»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Øé»»»ÔÑ8€ŸŸXXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î3fØéÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@™™$ìàAT€Ô#†¼Øé»îî3f #ÔNASHVILLEˆÐ Ó# ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€16,€2003à @ àà @` à€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡XŸŸX»¼ØéÔÌò òÔ#†¼Øé»XXŸŸ#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€BENJAMIN€DAMRONòòóóÔ‡XŸŸX»¼ØéÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€By€Permission€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Coffee€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€29542€€€€€€John€W.€Rollins,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„00588„CCA„R9„CO€„€Filed€December€29,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€interlocutory€appeal,€brought€by€the€State,€seeks€to€answer€whether€a€defendantððs€statementsÐ V¦  Ðmade€during€the€third€phase€of€a€polygraph€examination€are€admissible€evidence.€€We€conclude€theÐ ? Ðtrial€court€correctly€suppressed€the€defendantððs€statements€because€the€ð ðpost„instrument€phaseðð€ofÐ (x Ðthe€polygraph€examination€was€an€integral€part€of€the€examination€process€and€not€a€separate€andÐ a Ðdiscrete€event.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€from€the€trial€court.Ð úJ ÐÓ»ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ì ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Øé»àXŸŸ#ÔÔ‡XŸŸX.¼ØéÔJohn€Everett€Williams,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Tipton,€J.,Ð Ÿï Ðóójoined.Ô#†¼Øé»XXŸŸ•#ÔÔ‡XŸŸX»¼ØéÔòò€€David€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€filed€a€dissenting€opinion.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Kim€R.€Helper,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð Zª ÐCharles€M.€Layne,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Jason€M.€Ponder,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ C“ ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ,| ÐÌRobert€S.€Peters,€Winchester,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Benjamin€Damron.Ð þN ÐÓfÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Øé»XXŸŸY#ÔÔ‡XŸŸX»¼ØéÔÐ Ð! ! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Øé»XXŸŸž #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XŸŸX»¼ØéÔÓ XÓThis€is€an€interlocutory€appeal€by€the€State,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€AppellateÐ £#ó# ÐProcedure€9.€€The€State€appeals€the€suppression€of€statements€made€by€the€defendant,€BenjaminÐ Œ$Ü$ ÐDamron,€on€the€date€of€the€defendantððs€voluntary€polygraph€examination.€The€polygraphÐ u%Å % Ðexamination€was€administered€on€January€4,€1999,€with€the€approval€of€the€defendantððs€thenÐ ^&®!& Ðattorney.€€The€defendant€was€indicted€on€January€11,€1999,€for€rape€of€a€child,€in€contravention€ofÐ G'—"' ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„522.€Ð 0(€#( ÐÐ )i$) ÐOn€the€day€of€and€before€the€polygraph€examination,€the€defendantððs€former€attorney€andÐ *R%* Ðthe€District€Attorney€General€had€a€brief€phone€conversation€concerning€the€examination.€€BothÐ ë*;&+ Ðindividuals€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€The€defendantððs€attorney€stated€his€sole€purpose€inÐ Ô+$', Ðallowing€his€client€to€be€examined€was€with€the€hope€he€would€pass€the€test€and€avoid€a€criminalÐ ½, (- Ðprosecution.€€The€defendantððs€attorney€did€not€discuss€the€details€of€questioning€with€the€DistrictÐ ¦-ö(.ý ÐAttorney€General€but€testified€there€was€a€ð ðtacit,€absolute€understandingðð€there€were€to€be€noÐ ° Ðquestions€asked€beyond€the€test€itself.Ð ™é ÐÐ ‚Ò ÐThe€District€Attorney€General€testified€that€he€confirmed€to€the€defendantððs€attorney€that€noÐ k» Ðresults€of€the€test€would€be€admitted€into€evidence,€but€no€commitment€was€made€as€to€statementsÐ T¤ Ðmade€outside€the€actual€taking€of€the€test.Ð =  ÐÐ & v ÐThe€defendant€was€unaccompanied€by€his€attorney€at€the€examination.€€Prior€to€theÐ  _ Ðquestioning,€the€defendant€signed€a€ð ðConsent€to€Polygraph€Examinationðð€and€a€òòMirandaóó€warningÐ ø H Ðtitled€ð ðTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€Warnings€as€to€Constitutional€Rightsðð.Ð á 1  ÐÐ Ê   ÐThe€polygraph€examination€was€administered€by€a€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€agentÐ ³  Ðwhose€report€was€submitted€into€evidence.€€The€pertinent€part,€with€the€victimððs€name€excised,€isÐ œì  Ðas€follows:Ð …Õ  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓDetective€Tildon€Stubblefield,€Tullahoma€Police€Department,€Tullahoma,€TN.,Ð n¾  Ðrequested€a€polygraph€of€DAMRON€in€connection€with€an€on„going€criminalÐ W§  Ðinvestigation.€€The€investigation€has€revealed€that€DAMRON€was€the€manager€of€theÐ @ ÐFun„Tunnel€game€room€at€the€Northgate€Mall,€Tullahoma€TN.€[The€victim]€statesÐ )y Ðthat€she€frequented€the€Fun„Tunnel€and€met€DAMRON.€[The€victim]€states€that€onÐ b Ð08/29/98€[the€defendant]׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€took€her€into€the€office€area€and€they€engaged€inÐ ûK Ðconsensual€sexual€intercourse.€€DAMRON€has€been€interviewed€and€denied€he€everÐ ä4 Ðtook€[the€victim]€into€the€office€area€or€that€he€had€sexual€intercourse€with€her.€Ð Í ÐDAMRON,€through€his€legal€counsel,€agreed€to€undergo€polygraph€testing€to€proveÐ ¶ Ðhis€innocence.Ð Ÿï ÐÌBeginning€at€10:00€AM€on€01/04/99,€DAMRON€was€administered€a€polygraphÐ qÁ Ðexamination€at€the€Tullahoma€City€Hall,€Tullahoma,€TN.Ð Zª ÐÌDuring€the€pre„instrument€phase€of€the€polygraph€examination,€DAMRON€waivedÐ ,| Ðhis€right€to€legal€counsel€and€provided€written€evidence€he€was€undergoing€theÐ e Ðpolygraph€examination€voluntarily.€€DAMRON€made€no€statements€contrary€to€thoseÐ þN Ðpreviously€made€by€him.Ð ç 7 ÐÌBased€on€the€polygraph€examination,€it€was€concluded€that€DAMRON€wasÐ ¹" ! Ðpracticing€deception€when€answering€the€relevant€questions.€€The€relevant€questionsÐ ¢#ò" Ðutilized€during€this€polygraph€examination€were€the€following:Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌQ:€€Did€you€have€sex€with€[the€victim]?Ð ]&­!% ÐA:€No.Ð F'–"& ÐQ:€Did€you€have€sexual€intercourse€with€[the€victim]€at€the€Fun„Tunnel?Ð /(#' ÐA:€No.Ð )h$( ÐQ:€Did€you€touch€[the€victim]€with€your€penis?Ð ° ÐA:€No.Ð ™é ÐÌDuring€the€post„instrument€phase€of€the€polygraph€examination€DAMRON€wasÐ k» Ðadvised€of€the€results€and€initially€continued€to€deny€having€sexual€intercourse€withÐ T¤ Ð[the€victim].€€DAMRON€made€the€statement€that€if€he€admitted€to€such€activity,€heÐ =  Ðwould€lose€his€job€with€the€National€Guard,€and€that€he€would€lose€his€part€time€jobÐ & v Ðas€a€police€officer.€€Also,€when€I€stated€that€[the€victim]€had€not€said€she€had€beenÐ  _ Ðforced€to€engage€in€the€sexual€intercourse,€DAMRON€said€ð ðshe€was€not€forcedðð.€Ð ø H ÐDAMRON€departed€the€office€to€meet€with€his€legal€counsel.Ð á 1  ÐÌThe€examination€was€terminated€at€12:45€PM,€on€01/04/99.Ð ³  ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÔ_ÔTheÔ_Ô€suppression€hearing€consisted€entirely€of€testimony€by€the€defendantððs€former€attorneyÐ …Õ  Ðand€the€District€Attorney€General,€the€polygraph€examination€report,€and€arguments€of€counsel.€€AtÐ n¾  Ðthe€conclusion,€the€trial€court€held€as€follows:Ð W§  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓWell,€it€looks€to€me€like€to€a€great€extent,€this€is€a€case€of€first€impression€inÐ @ ÐTennessee.€€General,€I€think€you€are€right.€€I€think€it€boils€down,€and€the€essence€ofÐ )y Ðit€is,€what€was€the€agreement€between€defense€counsel€and€the€attorney€general?€€IÐ b Ðthink€itððs€generally€understood,€and€I€donððt€know€if€I€can€take€judicial€knowledge€ofÐ ûK Ðit,€the€results€of€any€polygraph€test€in€Tennessee€are€not€admissible€for€any€purposeÐ ä4 Ðin€court.€€Can€you€distinguish€the€results€of€the€test€from€the€process€of€the€test?€€IÐ Í Ðdonððt€know€the€answer€to€that,€but€I€donððt€think€General€Layne€misled€Mr.€Fraley,Ð ¶ Ðand€I€donððt€think€Mr.€Fraley€misled€General€Layne,€but€what€I€do€think€here€is€thereÐ Ÿï Ðwas€a€lack€of€communication€about€what€was€expected€and€what€the€results€mightÐ ˆØ Ðbe,€and€I€donððt€think€that€there€was€a€clear€understanding€about€exactly€what€wasÐ qÁ Ðgoing€to€transpire.€€Where€does€that€leave€us?€€Frankly,€I€think€it€leaves€us€at€theÐ Zª Ðpoint€where€I€donððt€think€that€those€responses€under€the€circumstances€areÐ C“ Ðadmissible.€€I€agree€with€your€argument€about€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€It€was€notÐ ,| Ðcustodial.€€I€think€you€are€right€about€that,€and€my€brothers€and€sisters€who€grade€myÐ e Ðpapers€may€have€a€different€attitude€about€it€if€this€gets€to€Nashville,€but€Iððm€goingÐ þN Ðto€rule€it€is€inadmissible.Ð ç 7 ÐÓ Xq!ÓÓ Xc!ÓÓ XU!ÓÐ Ð!   Ðò òÓ XÓÓ  ÓAnalysisÐ ¹" ! ÐÓ5(ÓÓ X'(ÓÐ £#ó" Ðó óÔ‡ X¹e XXXŸŸÔThe€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€at€the€hearing€on€a€motion€to€suppress€are€bindingÐ $Ý# Ðupon€this€Court€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€them.€€òòState€v.Ð v%Æ $ ÐRossóó,€49€S.W.3d€833,€839€(Tenn.€2001).€€The€prevailing€party€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÐ _&¯!% Ðview€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€thatÐ H'˜"& Ðevidence.€€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€55€S.W.3d€515,€521€(Tenn.€2001).€€However,€the€application€of€the€lawÐ 1(#' Ðto€the€facts€found€by€the€trial€court€are€questions€of€law€that€this€Court€reviews€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.Ð )j$( ÐDanielóó,€12€S.W.3d€420,€423€(Tenn.€2000).€€Absent€a€showing€by€the€appellant€that€the€evidenceÐ *S%) Ðpreponderates€against€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court,€this€Court€must€defer€to€the€ruling€of€the€trialÐ ì*<&* Ðcourt.€€òòState€v.€Cribbsóó,€967€S.W.2d€773,€795€(Tenn.1998)òòóó.Ô#†XŸŸX X X¹e˜(#ÔÔ‡X¹e XXXŸŸÔÐ Õ+%'+ ЇDue€to€a€lack€of€scientific€consensus€of€the€reliability€of€polygraph€evidence,€most€statesÐ ° Ðmaintain€òòper€seóó€rules€excluding€the€results.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Schefferóó,€523€U.S.€303,€310„11,€118Ð ™é ÐS.€Ct.€1261,€1265„66,€140€L.€Ed.€413€(1998).€€The€precedent€in€Tennessee€is€longstanding€regardingÐ ‚Ò Ðpolygraph€€results€being€inherently€unreliable€and,€thus,€inadmissible.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hartmanóó,€42Ð k» ÐS.W.3d€44,€60€(Tenn.€2001);€òòGrant€v.€Stateóó,€213€Tenn.€440,€443,€374€S.W.2d€391,€392€(1964);€òòIrickÐ T¤ Ðv.€Stateóó,€973€S.W.2d€643,€652„53€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998);€òòState€v.€Campbellóó,€904€S.W.2d€608,€614Ð =  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€710€S.W.2d€525,€529€n.17€Ô#†XŸŸX XX¹eé,#ÔÔ‡X¹e XXXŸŸÔ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€TheÐ & v Ðban€on€admissibility€is€not€limited€to€the€test€results,€but€extends€to€the€circumstances€surroundingÐ  _ Ðthe€taking€or€not€taking€a€polygraph€examination.€€òòHembree€v.€Stateóó,€546€S.W.2d€235,€240€(Tenn.Ð ø H ÐCrim.€App.€1976);€òòGrantóó,€213€Tenn.€at€443,€374€S.W.2d€at€392.Ð á 1  ÐÐ Ê   ÐAs€noted€before,€the€suppression€hearing€was€devoted€almost€entirely€to€the€issue€of€theÐ ³  Ðagreement,€or€lack€thereof,€of€the€ground€rules€concerning€the€polygraph€examination€by€theÐ œì  Ðrespective€attorneys.€€The€trial€court€could€not€discern€a€meeting€of€the€minds€but€did€consider€theÐ …Õ  Ðexamination€as€a€continuous€process.€€Based€on€the€authorities€cited€above,€the€results€of€theÐ n¾  Ðpolygraph€examination€would€be€inadmissible€regardless€of€the€expectations€of€the€respectiveÐ W§  Ðattorneys.€€The€trial€judgeððs€findings€can€be€fairly€read€to€mean€that€he€considered€the€inculpatoryÐ @ Ðstatements€as€a€part€of€the€test€and€thus€ruled€them€inadmissible.€€We€agree.Ð )y ÐÐ b ÐThe€polygraph€examiner€did€not€testify€at€the€suppression€hearing,€but€the€report€he€preparedÐ ûK Ðwas€admitted€into€evidence.€€From€the€report€we€discern€there€are€three€phases€to€a€polygraphÐ ä4 Ðexamination:€the€pre„instrument€phase,€the€instrument€phase,€and€the€post„instrument€phase.€Ð Í ÐÐ ¶ ÐThe€€report€indicates€that€the€examination€began€at€10:00€a.m.€€During€the€ð ðpre„instrumentÐ Ÿï Ðphase,ðð€the€defendant€signed€a€Warnings€as€to€Constitutional€Rights€waiver€at€10:08€a.m.€€TheÐ ˆØ ÐConsent€to€Polygraph€Examination€was€signed€by€the€defendant€at€10:12€a.m.Ð qÁ ÐÐ Zª ÐDuring€the€instrument€phase,€the€defendant€Ô#†XŸŸX XX¹es0#ÔÔ‡X¹e XXXŸŸÔ€answered€three€questions€posed€by€the€examinerÐ C“ Ðthat€the€examiner€deemed€relevant.€€In€his€answers,€the€defendant€denied€any€improper€contact€withÐ ,| Ðthe€victim.Ð e ÐÐ þN ÐThe€inculpatory€statements€were€made€during€what€the€examiner€referred€to€as€the€ð ðpost„Ð ç 7 Ðinstrument€phase€of€the€polygraph€examination.ðð€€There€is€no€verbatim€transcript€of€this€phase,€butÐ Ð!   Ðfrom€the€examinerððs€report,€it€appears€that€the€statements€made€by€the€defendant€were€in€responseÐ ¹" ! Ðto€statements€by€the€examiner.€€The€report€then€states,€ð ðThe€examination€was€terminated€at€12:45Ð ¢#ò" Ðp.m.,€on€1/04/99.ðð€€The€examinerððs€report€indicates€that€the€polygraph€examination€consisted€ofÐ ‹$Û# Ðthree€phases€and€that€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€were€during€the€third€phase€of€theÐ t%Ä $ Ðexamination.Ð ]&­!% ÐÐ F'–"& ÐBoth€the€State€and€the€defendant€rely€on€òòState€v.€Greeróó,€666€N.W.2d€518€(Wis.€Ct.€App.Ð /(#' Ð2003),òòóó€in€support€of€their€positions.€€The€Court€therein€examines€the€factors€determiningÐ )h$( Ðadmissibility€of€statements€made€after€a€polygraph€examination.€The€Court€reasons€that€forÐ *Q%) Ðâ âadmissibility,€the€post„exam€statement€must€be€a€separate€and€discrete€event€from€the€examinationÐ ê*:&* Ðalthough€no€time€separation€is€required.€€However,€the€core€factors€are€whether€the€test€is€over€andÐ ° Ðòòwhetheróó€òòtheóó€òòdefendantóó€òòwasóó€òòsoóó€òòtoldóó.€€òòId.óó€at€522.€€(emphasis€added)Ð ™é Ðâ âÐ ‚Ò ÐAfter€careful€review,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€correctly€suppressed€the€statementsÐ k» Ðmade€by€the€defendant.€€In€this€instance€there€was€no€separation€as€to€mark€a€discrete€event,€otherÐ T¤ Ðthan€possibly€the€disconnection€from€the€machine,€of€the€machine€phase€from€the€post„instrumentÐ =  Ðphase€which€caused€the€defendant€to€make€the€inculpatory€statements.€€It€was€one€event€and,Ð & v Ðtherefore,€part€of€the€polygraph€examination€itself.Ð  _ ÐÐ ø H ÐAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€from€the€trial€court.Ð á 1  ÐÔ#†XŸŸX XX¹ee8#ÔÐ Ê   ÐÐ ³  ÐÐ œì  ÐÐ …Õ  ÐÐ n¾  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€___________________________________€Ð W§  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€JOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE