ÿWPCÝ ç¬wRìB³uâýO­·.Š8Ä'<ÇoBa–Þjñqø“úDüÉ*ÓcMP—¦¸å@#VœÒsV᫆z üX*È —Ë¿âÌ ƒÚÝõŠ(‘K†;J ±b¹åωwó-?45ƒ<Õ 0¢:èåe‡lx­ÀÊYpài)ØLý·Oë²v×܈²eG‘äÙˆ\±)¯º®¥xÙØQa¬x½“Ž qj)^–2ÜLŸ¬AÈ8äO$ïö½ó¥’µÓõpHý êh˜@IV!¤Q…‹.¨:0ñŠ›Ž†:ÄKRÕn’õGå‹Ï.ÖK&Ñ>-~G»³H½Ofl—%ùÈnÈѦPÊÕ™åQÒRIg|=Çñ!rä°¡´à÷ìÄ "¥»a:àðó‹Ñxãy¯(T‹²½á½)ë‰"€ó]í*¨ý•¥Ä†3y‘HªÉ7K”ö¡e@Ô¿WƒůU­¸àñ­sœ×ó0p³`}­n¦ÿkÂxཱུµ‡ñY d³Nc>Ç`“-aQP´Ù˜kß šµÃ”f!ðô*ùnDj­Æ¬ƒQ·R+r›Š ¨úÍð¾Û^‚ÂìÌIºº‘Ö£nÕ©&œ¢Â9–¥7#â]­Å%…ÝMŒ2ظ'^$`#!@UNa %¯ 0(µU:Ýb w 4# 7 F 0ÆH 0D 5R  ‡ O§U:öN0^ 2 m>UUUUUUUUUUUU Bªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªª AQÇÆ 0DÞ 0D" 0Dff D3ª˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-tpO'3|x(v(2ï£$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XXáXXXÔÔ€ôóüõXXXáÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó +Ý ƒ ¯Ç$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XBþXXXÔÔ€ôMòXXBþÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€appellant€does€not€contest€the€finding€that€she€is€a€second€offender€of€driving€under€theÐ `  Ðinfluence€of€an€intoxicant. Ý ƒ ¯Ç$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XBþXXXÔÔ€ôMòXXBþÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€appellant€claims€that€the€state€was€obligated€to€provide€the€notes€prior€to€trial€because€sheÐ `  Ðrequested€ð ðwritten€.€.€.€summaries€of€statements€made€by€the€defendant€to€any€individual€concerning€anyÐ  ¾ Ðrelevant€aspect€of€this€caseðð€in€her€pretrial€discovery€motion€which€was€granted€by€the€trial€court.€€SheÐ Ü | Ðargues€that€the€notes€contain€statements€made€by€the€appellant€on€relevant€aspects€of€the€case.€Ð š : ÐHowever,€the€record€does€not€support€this€contention,€as€there€is€no€indication€as€to€what€information€theÐ X ø Ðnotes€contain. EÝ ƒ ¯Ç$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XBþXXXÔÔ€ôMòXXBþÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€A€statement€is€defined€as:Ð `  ЀÌà8 ` à(1)€A€written€statement€made€by€the€witness€that€is€signed€or€otherwise€adopted€orÐ Ü | Ðapproved€by€the€witness;€orК :` (#` (# ЀÌà8 ` à(2)€A€substantially€verbatim€recital€of€an€oral€statement€made€by€the€witness€that€isÐ  ¶ Ðrecorded€contemporaneously€with€the€making€of€the€oral€statement€and€that€is€containedÐ Ô t Ðin€a€stenographic,€mechanical,€electrical,€or€other€recording€or€a€transcription€thereof.Ð’2` (#` (# ÐÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€26.2(g);€òòsee€alsoóóòòState€v.€Paytonóó,€782€S.W.2d€490,€494€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularΨ\' ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ KÝ ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XXáXXXÔÔ€“¤XXXáÔÓ  ÓÔ_Ôò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XXáX“¤ÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€28,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Ô_ÔClerkÔdAxÔó óÔ_Ô dZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ŠbÇ‹XXÔÔ€Š‹‹ŠbÇÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ8€F<XXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÔ_Ôßv€Y_@0,j:ûÿ`  `€€@ÿEïa ` 8ttxP'` ð  vßÔ_ÔÔ_ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9811„CR„00446Ð n Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð p Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð l  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àWILSON€COUNTYÐ p  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ r  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€J.€O.€BONDó óÐ t  Ðò òWANDA€E.€DAVIS,ó óà h àà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ v Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ x Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€D.U.I.)Ð z Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à À àà  àà p àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð l  ÐÌHUGH€GREENà  àà h àà À àà  àPAUL€G.€SUMMERSÐ d  Ð100€Public€Squareà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ `! ÐLebanon,€TN€€37087Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àELIZABETH€B.€MARNEYÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTOM€P.€THOMPSON,€JR.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJERRY€HUNTÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à119€S.€College€St.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àLebanon,€TN€€37087ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ   6¬,-ø ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„你‹ŠÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†Š‹ „„𯒠#ÔÐ `  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òÑ8€N XdæXXdæ8ÑÌà ` àó óThe€appellant,€Wanda€E.€Davis,€was€convicted€by€a€Wilson€County€jury€ofÐ ¢ B Ðone€(1)€count€of€driving€under€the€influence,€second€offense.€€She€was€finedÐ ’2 Ð$600,€and€the€trial€court€sentenced€her€to€eleven€(11)€months€and€twenty„nineÐ ‚" Ð(29)€days€in€jail;€all€but€45€days€of€the€sentence€was€suspended.€€On€appeal,€theÐ r  Ðappellant€raised€the€following€issues€for€this€Courtððs€review:Ð b  ÐÓÓà8 ` à(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€dismiss€the€caseÐ Rò  Ðbecause€of€alleged€defects€in€the€indictment;ÐJê` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(2)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€testimony€of€aÐ :Ú Ðstateððs€witness€€when€the€appellant€was€not€provided€with€pretrialÐ 2Ò Ðdiscovery€information€relating€to€the€witness;Ð*Ê` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(3)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€restricting€the€appellantððs€crossÐ º Ðexamination€of€Trooper€Ô_ÔVaughnÔ_Ô;в` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€admit€testimonyÐ !¢ Ðconcerning€a€statement€made€by€Trooper€Ô_ÔVaughnÔ_Ô€to€the€appellant;Ðú!š` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(5)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€a€mistrial€after€the€stateÐ ê#Š Ðconducted€improper€questioning€of€the€appellant;Ðâ$‚` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(6)€whether€the€stateððs€closing€argument€constituted€prosecutorialÐ Ò&r Ðmisconduct€which€warranted€a€mistrial;€andÐÊ'j` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(7)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€appellantððsÐ º)Z ! Ðconviction.в*R!"` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€there€is€no€reversibleÐ ¢,B#$ Ðerror€and,€therefore,€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ò òÐ ’.2%& ÐÌà@FF,®àòòFACTSóóó óˆÐ r2)* ÐÌà ` àIn€the€early€morning€of€January€23,€1997,€Henry€Kerr€was€traveling€on€Mt.Ð R6ò,. ÐJuliet€Road€when€he€noticed€a€vehicle€in€a€ditch.€€When€Kerr€stopped€to€assistÐ B8â.0 ÐÔ_Ôthe€motorist,€the€appellant€got€out€of€the€vehicle€and€asked€Kerr€if€he€would€pushÐ 2:Ò02 Ðher€vehicle€from€the€ditch.€€Kerr€refused€the€appellantððs€request€but€offered€to€callÐ `  Ða€wrecker€once€he€arrived€at€his€home.€€Immediately€upon€arriving€home,€KerrÐ P ð Ðcontacted€Oco€Hamblen,€who€owned€a€wrecker€service.€€Ð @ à Ðà ` àOnce€Hamblen€arrived€at€the€scene,€he€hooked€his€wrecker€to€theÐ 0Ð Ðappellantððs€vehicle€and€pulled€it€from€the€ditch.€€Hamblen€then€asked€theÐ  À Ðappellant€to€get€in€the€vehicle€and€either€push€down€on€the€brakes€or€shift€intoÐ °  Ðpark.€ò ò€ó óInstead,€the€appellant€shifted€the€vehicle€into€gear,€allowing€it€to€roll€backÐ    Ðinto€the€ditch.€€After€Hamblen€pulled€the€vehicle€from€the€ditch€a€second€time,€theÐ ð  Ðappellant€got€out€of€her€vehicle€and€began€to€complain€that€Hamblen€hadÐ à€ Ðdamaged€her€vehicle.€€Hamblen€responded€by€calling€the€police.€Ð Ðp Ðà ` àState€Trooper€Jack€Vaughn€arrived€on€the€scene€about€12:25€a.m.€€€TheÐ À` Ðappellant€informed€him€that€she€was€driving€on€Interstate€40€when€she€took€theÐ °P Ðwrong€exit€and,€while€trying€to€make€a€U„turn,€drove€her€vehicle€into€the€ditch.€Ð   @ ÐVaughn€noticed€an€open€beer€can€in€the€vehicle€and€asked€the€appellant€if€sheÐ "0 Ðhad€been€drinking.€€The€appellant€acknowledged€that€she€had€consumed€aÐ €$  Ðcouple€of€beers€that€evening.€€Vaughn€administered€three€field€sobriety€tests,€allÐ p& Ðof€which€the€appellant€performed€unsatisfactorily.€ò ò€ó óBased€on€his€observations,Ð `(  ÐVaughn€concluded€that€the€appellant€was€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€andÐ P*ð " Ðplaced€her€under€arrest.€€He€then€asked€her€to€submit€to€a€blood€alcohol€test,€andÐ @,à"$ Ðthe€appellant€consented.€€The€blood€alcohol€test€results€revealed€that€theÐ 0.Ð$& Ðappellantððs€blood€alcohol€level€was€0.21%.€Ð  0À&( Ðà ` àThe€appellant€was€indicted€in€a€three„count€indictment€charging€alternativeÐ 2°(* Ðcounts€of€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€driving€under€the€influenceÐ 4 *, Ðof€an€intoxicant,€second€offense,€and€driving€with€a€blood€alcohol€content€aboveÐ ð5,. Ð.10.€€At€trial,€the€appellant€testified€that€she€had€not€been€driving€her€car€thatÐ à7€.0 Ðnight,€but€had€met€a€man€named€ð ðAllenðð€at€a€local€bar€whom€she€had€allowed€toÐ Ð9p02 Ðdrive€her€automobile.€€They€were€driving€on€Mt.€Juliet€Road€when€they€attemptedÐ `  Ðto€turn€around€in€a€residential€driveway,€and€the€car€became€stuck.€ò ò€€ó óð ðAllenðð€leftÐ P ð Ðto€seek€assistance,€but€never€returned€to€the€scene.€Ð @ à Ðà ` àThe€jury€returned€a€verdict€of€guilty€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€anÐ 0Ð Ðintoxicant,€second€offense.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€to€eleven€(11)Ð  À Ðmonths€and€twenty„nine€(29)€days,€with€all€but€45€days€suspended.€€From€herÐ °  Ðconviction,€the€appellant€now€brings€this€appeal.Ð    ÐÌà@ÜÜ!®àò òòòALLEGED€INDICTMENT€DEFECTSóóˆÐ à€ Ðó óÌà ` àThe€appellant€claims€that€the€indictment€contained€deficiencies€which€wereÐ À` Ðunduly€prejudicial.€€First,€she€asserts€that€the€indictment€was€defective€becauseÐ °P ÐCount€Two€of€the€indictment,€charging€her€with€DUI€ð ðsecond€offenseðð€could€notÐ   @ Ðbe€taken€into€the€jury€room€during€deliberations.€€She€further€contends€that€theÐ "0 Ðindictment€was€defective€because€she€could€not€be€convicted€of€driving€under€theÐ €$  Ðinfluence€of€an€intoxicant€in€Count€One€and€driving€with€a€blood€alcohol€contentÐ p& Ðabove€the€legal€limit€in€Count€Three€because€such€counts€are€duplicitous.Ð `(  Ðà ` à€Appellant€has€failed€to€provide€this€court€with€authority€in€support€of€herÐ P*ð " Ðargument.€€When€an€appellant€fails€to€cite€appropriate€authority€in€support€of€hisÐ @,à"$ Ðor€her€issue€on€appeal,€that€issue€is€waived.€€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b);€òòStateÐ 0.Ð$& Ðv.€Alvaradoóó,€961€S.W.2d€136,€148€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ð  0À&( Ðà ` àFurthermore,€defects€in€the€indictment€must€be€raised€prior€to€trial,€or€willÐ 2°(* Ðbe€deemed€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(2);€òòState€v.€Kennedyóó,€649€S.W.2dÐ 4 *, Ð275,€279€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€€Appellant€failed€to€raise€the€issue€of€theÐ ð5,. Ðindictmentððs€sufficiency€prior€to€trial.€€€Although€this€Court€ð ðmay€notice€at€any€timeÐ à7€.0 Ðduring€the€pendency€of€the€proceedings€the€defense€that€the€indictment€fails€toÐ Ð9p02 Ðshow€jurisdiction€or€fails€to€charge€an€offense,ðð€òòseeóó€òòRuff€v.€Stateóó,€978€S.W.2d€95,Ð `  Ð96€(Tenn.€1998),€the€appellant€does€not€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€jurisdiction€orÐ P ð Ðcomplain€that€the€indictment€fails€to€charge€an€offense.€€As€a€result,€the€appellantÐ @ à Ðhas€waived€the€issue€on€this€basis€as€well.Ð 0Ð Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð  À ÐÌò òà@øø%®àòòPRETRIAL€DISCOVERYˆÐ    ÐóóÌó óà ` àIn€her€next€issue,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ à€ Ðadmitting€the€testimony€of€Norman€Kerr€when€the€state€failed,€during€pretrialÐ Ðp Ðdiscovery,€to€provide€the€defense€with€Kerrððs€address€and€Kerrððs€hand„writtenÐ À` Ðnotes€regarding€the€incident.€€The€appellant€claims€that€as€a€result€of€beingÐ °P Ðdenied€access€to€the€requested€information,€she€was€unfairly€prejudiced€by€KerrððsÐ   @ Ðtestimony€and€was€denied€a€full€and€fair€cross„examination€of€the€witness.Ð "0 Ðà ` àWith€regard€to€the€stateððs€failure€to€provide€the€defense€with€KerrððsÐ €$  Ðaddress,€the€state€provided€the€defense€with€the€names€and€addresses€of€itsÐ p& Ðwitnesses€during€pretrial€discovery.€€The€state€listed€Kerr€as€a€witness,€but€did€notÐ `(  Ðprovide€his€address€because€the€state€did€not€have€that€information€at€that€time.€Ð P*ð " ÐThe€state€was,€however,€able€to€obtain€his€address€approximately€one€monthÐ @,à"$ Ðprior€to€trial€when€a€subpoena€requiring€Kerrððs€presence€at€trial€was€issued.Ð 0.Ð$& Ðà ` àThe€state€is€not€required€to€furnish€the€appellant€with€information€easilyÐ  0À&( Ðobtainable€by€exercising€reasonable€diligence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dickersonóó,€885Ð 2°(* ÐS.W.2d€90,€92€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€defense€was€provided€with€KerrððsÐ 4 *, Ðname€during€pretrial€discovery.€€Once€a€name€has€been€acquired,€the€addressÐ ð5,. Ðâ âof€the€individual€is€usually€obtainable€with€reasonable€diligence.€€The€appellantÐ à7€.0 Ðhas€failed€to€show€that€she€made€any€effort€in€addition€to€the€pretrial€discoveryÐ `  Ðmotion€to€obtain€the€address€of€Mr.€Kerr.Ð P ð Ðâ âà ` àIn€any€event,€the€appellant€has€not€established€how€she€was€prejudiced€byÐ @ à Ðthe€stateððs€failure€to€provide€the€witnessðð€address.€€Defense€counsel€conductedÐ 0Ð Ða€vigorous€cross„examination€of€Kerr€and€implied€that€Kerr€would€have€reasonsÐ  À Ðto€be€biased€in€favor€of€other€state€witnesses€and€against€the€appellant.€€AfterÐ °  Ðbeing€placed€upon€notice€that€Kerr€might€testify,€the€defense€was€clearly€able€toÐ    Ðprepare€for€the€witnessðð€testimony.€€Therefore,€there€is€not€prejudice€to€theÐ ð  Ðdefense€shown€in€this€record.Ð à€ Ðà ` àThe€appellant€also€claims€that€she€was€unfairly€prejudiced€because€theÐ Ðp Ðstate€failed€to€provide€Kerrððs€hand„written€notes.€€Kerr€drafted€a€summary€of€theÐ À` Ðevents€he€witnessed€the€night€of€the€arrest€to€aid€him€during€his€testimony.€€TheÐ °P Ðappellant€claims€that€she€has€a€right€to€pretrial€discovery€of€these€notes€becauseÐ   @ Ðshe€requested€ð ðwritten€.€.€.€summaries€of€statements€made€by€the€defendant€toÐ "0 Ðany€individual€concerning€any€relevant€aspect€of€this€caseðð€and€Kerrððs€notesÐ €$  Ðallegedly€contained€statements€made€by€the€appellant€on€relevant€aspects€of€theÐ p& Ðcase.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Kerrððs€handwritten€notes€did€not€constitute€aÐ `(  Ðð ðstatement,ðð€and€the€appellant€was€entitled€to€review€these€notes€only€if€theÐ P*ð " Ðdefense€requested€them€at€the€conclusion€of€Kerrððs€direct€testimony.€Ð @,à"$ Ðà ` àIt€is€arguable€whether€Kerrððs€handwritten€notes€to€aid€in€his€testimonyÐ 0.Ð$& Ðconstitute€a€ð ðstatement.ðð׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€However,€even€if€these€notes€could€be€considered€aÐ  0À&( Ðð ðstatement,ðð€the€state€was€not€required€to€produce€such€statement€until€after€KerrÐ `  Ðhad€testified€on€direct€examination.€€According€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(2),Ð P ð Ðstatements€made€by€state€witnesses€are€not€subject€to€rules€of€disclosure.€€UnderÐ @ à ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€26.2,€trial€counsel€may€examine€a€witnessðð€statement€afterÐ 0Ð Ðdirect€examination.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€535€(Tenn.€1993).€Ð  À ÐNo€obligation€exists€for€the€state€to€produce€a€witnessðð€statement€until€after€directÐ °  Ðexamination€of€the€witness.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòId.óóÐ    Ðà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ð ð  ÐÌà@b b ®àòòò òRESTRICTION€ON€CROSS€EXAMINATIONóóó óˆÐ Ðp ÐÌà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€her€theÐ °P Ðopportunity€to€fully€and€fairly€cross€examine€State€Trooper€Jack€Vaughn.€€€TheÐ   @ Ðappellant€claims€that€the€witness€was€biased€due€to€pressures€from€an€internalÐ "0 Ðaffairs€investigation.€€Consequently,€the€appellant€argues€that€she€should€haveÐ €$  Ðbeen€afforded€the€opportunity€to€question€this€witness€regarding€his€bias.Ð p& Ðà ` àThe€appellant€and€Vaughn€spoke€on€the€day€that€her€preliminary€hearingÐ `(  Ðwas€scheduled,€and€the€appellant€informed€him€that€she€had€not€been€driving€herÐ P*ð " Ðvehicle€on€the€night€of€the€incident.€€€She€explained€that€a€man€she€picked€upÐ @,à"$ Ðfrom€a€bar€(ð ðAllenðð)€was€the€driver,€but€she€did€not€tell€the€officer€this€informationÐ 0.Ð$& Ðon€the€night€of€the€incident€because€she€was€embarrassed.€€Vaughn€told€theÐ  0À&( Ðâ âappellant€that€her€explanation€was€sincere€and€reasonable.€Shortly€after€herÐ 2°(* Ðconversation€with€Vaughn,€the€appellant€informed€her€former€boyfriend€that€sheÐ `  Ðbelieved€the€charges€against€her€would€be€dropped€by€the€state.Ð P ð Ðâ âà ` àSometime€later,€the€appellantððs€former€boyfriend€contacted€the€TennesseeÐ @ à ÐHighway€Patrol€in€an€effort€to€generate€an€internal€affairs€investigation,Ð 0Ð Ðsuggesting€that€the€appellant€and€Vaughn€were€ð ðgoing€to€conspire€to€fix€theÐ  À Ðcase.ðð€€€Subsequently,€Vaughn€testified€for€the€grand€jury,€and€the€grand€juryÐ °  Ðreturned€the€present€indictment.€Ð    Ðà ` àAt€trial,€Vaughn€testified€on€cross„examination€that€he€believed€theÐ ð  Ðappellantððs€explanation€of€the€incident€was€sincere€and€seemed€reasonable.€Ð à€ ÐWhen€defense€counsel€attempted€to€question€Vaughn€about€the€internal€affairsÐ Ðp Ðinvestigation€which€may€have€affected€the€officerððs€testimony€before€the€grandÐ À` Ðjury,€the€state€objected€to€the€appellantððs€questioning.€€After€a€jury€out€hearing,Ð °P Ðthe€trial€court€sustained€the€objection€finding€that€the€information€was€irrelevant.€Ð   @ Ðà ` àð ðBecause€an€assessment€of€whether€a€piece€of€evidence€is€relevantÐ "0 Ðrequires€an€understanding€of€the€caseððs€theory€and€other€evidence€as€well€as€aÐ €$  Ðfamiliarity€with€the€evidence€in€question,€appellate€courts€give€great€deference€toÐ p& Ða€trial€judgeððs€decision€on€relevance€issues.ðð€€òòState€v.€Forbesóó,€918€S.W.2d€431,Ð `(  Ð449€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(quoting€N.€Cohen,€D.€Paine€&€Sheppeard,Ð P*ð " ÐòòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€401.5€(2d€ed.€1990)).€€For€this€reason€the€controlÐ @,à"$ Ðof€cross€examination€of€witnesses€is€completely€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretionÐ 0.Ð$& Ðand€will€not€be€interfered€with€absent€a€clear€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.Ð  0À&( ÐòòState€v.€Harrisòòóó,€óó839€S.W.2d€54,€72€(Tenn.€1992).Ð 2°(* Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€determined€that€testimony€regarding€the€investigation€intoÐ 4 *, ÐVaughnððs€actions€which€preceded€his€grand€jury€testimony€was€irrelevant€to€theÐ ð5,. Ðjuryððs€determination€at€trial.€€We€agree.€€Clearly,€Officer€Vaughn€had€probableÐ à7€.0 Ðcause€to€arrest€the€appellant€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,Ð Ð9p02 Ðnotwithstanding€the€appellantððs€subsequent€self„serving€statement€that€she€wasÐ `  Ðnot€driving€on€the€night€of€her€arrest.€€Further,€the€district€attorney,€not€OfficerÐ P ð ÐVaughn,€made€the€determination€to€submit€the€case€to€the€grand€jury.€€TheÐ @ à Ðdecision€whether€to€prosecute€rests€entirely€within€the€discretion€of€the€districtÐ 0Ð Ðattorney.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Superior€Oil,€Inc.óó,€875€S.W.2d€658,€660€(Tenn.€1994);Ð  À ÐòòQuillen€v.€Crockettóó,€928€S.W.2d€47,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€Ð °  Ðà ` àIn€addition,€although€the€appellant€insists€that€Vaughn€was€improperlyÐ    Ðinfluenced€by€the€internal€affairs€investigation,€the€record€does€not€support€thisÐ ð  Ðcontention.€€Vaughn€testified€in€a€pretrial€hearing€that€he€learned€of€theÐ à€ Ðinvestigation€òòafteróó€he€testified€before€the€grand€jury.€Furthermore,€Vaughn€deniedÐ Ðp Ðgiving€the€appellant€any€indication€that€he€would€recommend€that€the€grand€juryÐ À` Ðnot€return€an€indictment€in€this€case.€€Ð °P Ðà ` àThe€facts€surrounding€the€internal€affairs€investigation€into€VaughnððsÐ   @ Ðactions€was€irrelevant€to€the€juryððs€determination€of€whether€the€appellant€wasÐ "0 Ðdriving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€JanuaryÐ €$  Ð23.€€Moreover,€the€record€does€not€support€the€appellantððs€assertions€that€OfficerÐ p& ÐVaughnððs€testimony€before€the€grand€jury€was€improperly€influenced€and€that€theÐ `(  Ðprosecution€against€her€would€have€been€dismissed€had€the€investigation€notÐ P*ð " Ðoccurred.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€refusing€to€allowÐ @,à"$ Ðthe€appellant€to€cross„examine€Vaughn€regarding€the€investigation.Ð 0.Ð$& Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð  0À&( ÐÌò òà@   ®àòòAPPELLANTððS€TESTIMONY€REFUSEDóóˆÐ 4 *, Ðó óÌà ` àThe€appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€allowing€the€appellantÐ à7€.0 Ðto€testify€as€to€whether€Vaughn€expressed€that€he€believed€that€the€appellant€wasÐ Ð9p02 Ðnot€driving€on€the€night€of€the€incident.€€When€the€appellant€attempted€to€testifyÐ `  Ðthat€Vaughn€stated€that€he€personally€believed€her,€the€state€objected€to€theÐ P ð Ðquestion,€and€the€trial€court€sustained€the€objection.€€ò ò€ó óHowever,€ignoring€the€trialÐ @ à Ðcourtððs€ruling,€the€appellant€stated,€ð ðhe€said€he€believed€me.ðð€€The€trial€judge€thenÐ 0Ð Ðgave€curative€instructions€asking€the€jury€to€disregard€the€appellantððs€statement.€Ð  À Ðà ` àInitially,€this€Court€notes€that€this€issue€was€not€presented€in€the€appellantððsÐ °  Ðmotion€for€new€trial.€€If€an€alleged€error€is€not€properly€raised€in€a€motion€for€newÐ    Ðtrial,€the€issue€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2dÐ ð  Ðat€538.€€In€any€event,€the€arresting€officerððs€personal€belief€concerning€theÐ à€ Ðtruthfulness€of€a€statement€made€by€the€accused€is€irrelevant.€€The€standard€ofÐ Ðp Ðreview€for€a€trial€courtððs€determination€of€relevancy€is€an€abuse€of€discretionÐ À` Ðstandard.€€òòState€v.€DuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€652€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€trial€courtÐ °P Ðdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€refusing€to€allow€the€testimony€into€evidence.Ð   @ Ðà ` àMoreover,€the€appellant€certainly€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððsÐ "0 Ðruling.€€On€cross„examination,€Vaughn€repeatedly€testified€that€the€appellantÐ €$  Ðappeared€sincere€when€she€explained€that€she€was€not€driving€her€automobileÐ p& Ðon€the€night€of€her€arrest€and€that€her€story€seemed€reasonable.€€Thus,€the€juryÐ `(  Ðwas€allowed€to€hear€that€the€officer€believed€that€the€appellantððs€version€of€theÐ P*ð " Ðevents€was€sincere.Ð @,à"$ Ðà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ð 0.Ð$& ÐÌò òà@(( ®àòòIMPROPER€QUESTIONING€BY€STATEóóˆÐ 2°(* Ðó óÌà ` àIn€appellantððs€next€issue,€she€asserts€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÐ ð5,. Ðgranted€a€mistrial€when€the€prosecutor€questioned€the€appellant€as€to€why€sheÐ à7€.0 Ðdid€not€inform€Vaughn€at€the€time€of€her€arrest€that€she€was€not€driving€theÐ Ð9p02 Ðvehicle.€€She€claims€that€such€questioning€was€unduly€prejudicial,€and€theÐ `  Ðcurative€instruction€provided€by€the€trial€court€was€insufficient€to€cure€theÐ P ð Ðprejudicial€effect.Ð @ à Ðà ` àDuring€cross€examination,€the€assistant€district€attorney€asked€theÐ 0Ð Ðappellant€why€she€failed€to€inform€Vaughn€that€she€was€not€driving€the€vehicle€atÐ  À Ðthe€time€of€her€arrest.€€Trial€counsel€requested€a€bench€conference€and€movedÐ °  Ðfor€a€mistrial€based€upon€the€inappropriate€questioning.€€The€trial€court€denied€theÐ    Ðappellantððs€motion€for€a€mistrial€but€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:€€ð ðTheÐ ð  Ðdefendant,€upon€being€advised€of€constitutional€rights€has€a€right€to€rely€uponÐ à€ Ðthose€rights€without€any€further€questioning€from€the€officer.ðð€ò òÐ Ðp Ðó óà ` àThe€decision€of€whether€to€grant€a€mistrial€rests€within€the€sound€discretionÐ À` Ðof€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€871€S.W.2d€667,€672€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.Ð °P ÐMcKinneyóó,€929€S.W.2d€404,€405€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€This€Court€will€notÐ   @ Ðdisturb€that€decision€absent€a€finding€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€786Ð "0 ÐS.W.2d€642,€644€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€947€S.W.2d€181,€184€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð €$  ÐApp.€1997).€€The€burden€of€establishing€the€necessity€for€mistrial€lies€with€theÐ p& Ðparty€seeking€it.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€385,€388€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð `(  Ð1996).€€In€making€this€determination,€ð ðno€abstract€formula€should€be€mechanicallyÐ P*ð " Ðapplied,€and€all€circumstances€should€be€taken€into€account.ðð€€òòState€v.€Mounceóó,Ð @,à"$ Ð859€S.W.2d€319,€322€(Tenn.€1993)€(quoting€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€403€S.W.2d€750,€753Ð 0.Ð$& Ð(Tenn.€1966)).Ð  0À&( Ðà ` àIt€is€well€established€that€a€prosecutorððs€comment€on€an€accusedððs€exerciseÐ 2°(* Ðof€his€privilege€against€self-incrimination€violates€both€federal€and€stateÐ 4 *, Ðconstitutions.€€òòState€v.€Haleóó,€672€S.W.2d€201,€202€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.Ð ð5,. ÐThomasóó,€818€S.W.2d€350,€364€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€€the€appellantÐ à7€.0 Ðexplained€on€direct€examination€that€she€did€not€tell€the€officer€that€she€was€notÐ Ð9p02 Ðdriving€because€she€did€not€believe€she€should€talk€to€the€officer€after€he€hadÐ `  Ðread€her€òòMirandaóó€rights€and€placed€her€under€arrest.€€She€testified,€ð ðI€mean,€heÐ P ð Ðread€me€my€rights,€and€it€said€that€I€didnððt€have€to€say€anything€else,€so€I€was€justÐ @ à Є„€I€just€didnððt€say€anything€else.ðð€€Further,€the€questioning€was€limited,€and€theÐ 0Ð Ðtrial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€the€appellant€was€not€required€to€speak€to€theÐ  À Ðofficer.€€In€light€of€the€limited€nature€of€the€offending€questioning€and€the€trialÐ °  Ðcourtððs€prompt€curative€instruction,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÐ    Ðrefusing€to€grant€a€mistrial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dickóó,€872€S.W.2d€938,€944€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ð  ÐApp.€1993).Ð à€ Ðà ` àThe€appellant€also€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€curative€instructionÐ Ðp Ðgiven€by€the€trial€court.€€However,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant€has€waived€herÐ À` Ðright€to€appeal€the€issue€of€whether€the€trial€judgeððs€instruction€was€sufficient€toÐ °P Ðprevent€undue€prejudice.€ð ðIf€a€party€fails€to€request€a€curative€instruction,€or,€ifÐ   @ Ðdissatisfied€with€the€instruction€given€and€does€not€request€a€more€completeÐ "0 Ðinstruction,€the€party€effectively€waives€the€issue€for€appellate€purposes.ðð€òòStateÐ €$  Ðv.€Griffisóó,€964€S.W.2d€577,€599€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1997);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Leachóó,Ð p& Ð684€S.W.2d€655,€658€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€During€trial€the€appellant€failedÐ `(  Ðto€request€a€more€complete€instruction€by€the€trial€court.€€Therefore,€because€theÐ P*ð " Ðappellant€did€not€contest€the€sufficiency€of€the€instructions€during€trial,€theÐ @,à"$ Ðappellant€has€waived€any€complaints€with€regard€to€the€trial€courtððs€curativeÐ 0.Ð$& Ðinstruction.Ð  0À&( Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð 2°(* Ðò òÌÌÌÐ Ð9p02 Ðà@00"®àòòSTATEððS€CLOSING€ARGUMENTóó€ˆÐ `  Ðó óÌà ` àThe€appellant€next€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€aÐ @ à Ðmistrial€upon€the€prosecutor€making€an€improper€remark€during€closing€argument.€Ð 0Ð ÐDuring€its€rebuttal€closing€argument,€the€assistant€district€attorney€made€theÐ  À Ðfollowing€statement:Ð °  ÐÓÓà8 ` àI€do€know€that€the€officer€wrote€down€here€from€her€testimony,€herÐ    Ðstatement€to€him€that€night€that€she€was€driving€the€car.€€He€believesÐ ø˜  Ðthat€she€was€reasonable€and€he€believes€she€was€telling€the€truthÐ ð  Ðthat€night.Ðèˆ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓThe€appellant€objected,€on€the€grounds€that€there€was€no€proof€of€this€fact.€€TheÐ Øx Ðtrial€court€overruled€the€objection€stating,€ð ð[t]his€is€argument€.€.€.€.€What€you€all€sayÐ Èh Ðis€not€evidence.ðð€€The€appellant€claims€that€this€remark€was€improper€andÐ ¸X Ðconstitutes€prosecutorial€misconduct.Ð ¨H Ðà ` àð ðTrial€judges€are€accorded€wide€discretion€in€control€of€the€argument.ðð€Ð ˜!8 ÐòòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€888€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Furthermore,€bothÐ ˆ#( Ðthe€state€and€the€defense€are€afforded€wide€latitude€in€arguing€their€cases€to€theÐ x% Ðjury.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€809€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910Ð h' ÐS.W.2d€at€888.€€However,€when€the€prosecutionððs€argument€goes€beyond€thatÐ X)ø! Ðwide€latitude€afforded,€the€test€to€determine€whether€reversal€is€required€isÐ H+è!# Ðð ðwhether€the€impropriety€ððaffected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.ððððÐ 8-Ø#% ÐòòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€809€(quoting€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€215€Tenn.€338,Ð (/È%' Ð385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(1965)).Ð 1¸') Ðà ` àIn€reviewing€a€claim€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€during€closing€argument,Ð 3¨)+ Ðwe€are€guided€by€such€factors€as:Ð ø4˜+- ÐÓÓà8 ` à1.€€The€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€context€and€in€light€of€theÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðfacts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.Ðà7€.0` ü!` ü! Ѐ€Ð Ø8x/1 Ðà ` à2.€The€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution.€€Ð Ð9p02 Їà ` à3.€The€intent€of€the€prosecution€in€making€the€improper€statement.€€Ð `  ÐÌà ` à4.€The€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€inÐ P ð Ðthe€record.€€Ð H è ÐÌà ` à5.€The€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.Ð 8Ø ÐÌÓÓòòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).Ð (È Ðà ` àWe€do€not€believe€that€the€prosecutorððs€remark€was€improper.€€Certainly,Ð ¸  Ðit€is€a€logical€inference€that€the€officer€believed€that€the€appellant€was€drivingÐ ¨  Ðwhen€he€arrested€her€for€driving€under€the€influence.€€Additionally,€this€remarkÐ ø˜  Ðwas€made€in€response€to€defense€counselððs€argument€that€the€officer€insteadÐ èˆ Ðbelieved€the€appellantððs€other€version€of€the€events€that€ð ðAllenðð€was€driving€theÐ Øx Ðcar.Ð Èh Ðà ` àIn€any€event,€after€defense€counsel€objected€to€the€remark,€the€trial€courtÐ ¸X Ðstated€in€the€juryððs€presence€that€closing€arguments€are€not€evidence.€€InÐ ¨H Ðaddition,€in€its€jury€charge€the€trial€court€further€€instructed€the€jury€that€ð ðwhat€theÐ ˜!8 Ðattorneys€say€to€you€is€not€evidence€and€you€cannot€rely€on€their€statements€toÐ ˆ#( Ðyou€as€evidence.ðð€€The€jury€is€presumed€to€have€followed€the€trial€court'sÐ x% Ðinstructions.€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€880€S.W.2d€395,€399€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ð h' Ðà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ð X)ø! Ðò òÌà@îî!®àòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEóóˆÐ 8-Ø#% Ðó óÌà ` àFinally,€the€€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€Ð 1¸') ÐWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€mustÐ 3¨)+ Ðreview€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€during€the€trial€wasÐ ø4˜+- Ðsufficient€ð ðto€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonableÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðdoubt.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guiltÐ Ø8x/1 Ðpredicated€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence€or€a€combination€ofÐ `  Ðdirect€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.Ð P ð ÐCrim.€App.€1996).Ð @ à Ðà ` àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€does€not€reweighÐ 0Ð Ðor€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ð  À Ð1978).€€Nor€may€this€Court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trierÐ °  Ðof€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286Ð    ÐS.W.2d€856,€859€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€Court€is€required€to€afford€the€stateÐ ð  Ðthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€as€well€asÐ à€ Ðall€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€Ð Ðp ÐòòState€v.€Tuttleóó,€914€S.W.2d€926,€932€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€ð ðA€guilty€verdictÐ À` Ðby€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnessesÐ °P Ðfor€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State.ðð€€òòStateÐ   @ Ðv.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€Questions€concerning€theÐ "0 Ðcredibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence€as€wellÐ €$  Ðas€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€jury€as€the€trierÐ p& Ðof€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuttleóó,€914€S.W.2d€at€932.Ð `(  Ðà ` àBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÐ P*ð " Ðreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€CourtÐ @,à"$ Ðof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€byÐ 0.Ð$& Ðthe€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.Ð  0À&( ÐGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.Ð 2°(* Ðà ` àIn€the€present€case,€two€individual€witnesses€testified€that€the€appellantÐ 4 *, Ðseemed€to€be€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€the€night€of€the€arrest.€ò ò€ó óVaughnÐ ð5,. Ðobserved€that€the€appellant€was€unsteady€exiting€her€vehicle,€had€bloodshot€eyesÐ à7€.0 Ðand€smelled€of€alcohol.€€After€questioning€the€appellant€and€finding€an€emptyÐ Ð9p02 Ðbeer€can€in€the€vehicle,€Vaughn€administered€sobriety€tests,€and€the€appellantÐ `  Ðperformed€poorly€on€each€test.€€Vaughn€asked€her€if€she€would€submit€to€a€bloodÐ P ð Ðtest,€and€the€appellant€consented.€€ò ò€ó óTesting€revealed€that€the€appellant€had€aÐ @ à Ðblood€alcohol€content€of€0.21%,€over€twice€the€legal€limit.€Ð 0Ð Ðà ` àOn€the€night€of€her€arrest,€the€appellant€informed€Vaughn€that€she€hadÐ  À Ðbeen€driving€the€vehicle,€even€though€she€subsequently€denied€driving€theÐ °  Ðvehicle€almost€three€months€later€while€criminal€charges€were€pending€againstÐ    Ðher.€€ò ò€ó óAdditionally,€the€state€presented€testimony€that€the€appellant€backed€herÐ ð  Ðcar€onto€Mt.€Juliet€Road€after€Hamblen€extricated€the€automobile€from€the€ditch.€Ð à€ Ðà ` àAfter€viewing€the€evidence€in€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€we€concludeÐ Ðp Ðthat€there€is€sufficient€evidence€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€determine€that€theÐ À` Ðappellant€was€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€issue€is€withoutÐ °P Ðmerit.Ð   @ ÐÌò òà@ØØ)®àòòCONCLUSIONóóˆÐ €$  Ðó óÌà ` àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€before€this€Court,€we€conclude€thatÐ `(  Ðthere€is€no€reversible€error€in€this€case.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trialÐ P*ð " Ðcourt€is€affirmed.Ð @,à"$ ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ð  0À&( Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ 1¸') ÐÌÌÌÌÌÔ_ÔÐ è6ˆ-/ ÐCONCUR:Ð `  ÐÌÌÌ___________________________________Ð @ à ÐDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÐ 8Ø ÐÌÌ___________________________________Ð  À ÐNORMA€MCGEE€OGLE,€JUDGE