ÿWPCâG 2=ÇÆšN(gp*ZטðßB‹¤aq{œÉfH±t†à¹è-Æ&X¹Þ™™U~Z }‹ú´zú¬P\ˆ 9­{é͈ր_Æ(¡0Hê’bÿ©W]k¯iG·˘‚ «lëV¬y·Û®•  ¤T"=Ný9h »ÿ‡²¹¥~΢w/Mꛚ%žÃ^É´¿&U¹ìlµëí!n»Ihÿ9‘u>Ôìpó˜ú$íâf“Y6²âçdŸ‰È(¼p>´ƒ ž+3¡,ã‚à·Å-x Üx³ Ï„ÀnX¤–Ę„Û=Á>r%¨~òð™Ál’=j; Ö/K¶ëå¢êýÒ‡© ­â  5!Â'+M"”øÕ )uh—Üôã£`5œ‡¯´+‘,G1†}#½»ˆâÚX1§ŽFÈâ”)K(òÄ[©¿d¶3ø”jji°Š]·8ìœD?~ýE¸QôwI»Vzÿ–Ç@Ò§t'“z0´ä¼o÷^"ª~•-n N}L?¹k8Ä;;Lc¼Í;ÔhÔŠ›2ÙOÑãw^ÖÓ¸¹©Aì&».%>²!y&¶_s[>—ú’¼'ðAÉôÀ¯ÁÒÅò|#ÁÈ %‰ 0D 0ˆÓ UN[ 1© 1u6 z« Ò% 0w÷ 0ôn 0Þb 0:@ÆzÆ@ÆÆÌ 72’NÄ 72Æ 04cøE[ 1] 72ê 1 72©© 0ñÛ 0îÌ 0ëº 0è¥ 0å 0âr 0ßT 0Ü3 0â 0ßñ 0ÜÐ 0Ù¬ 0Ö… 0Ó[! 0Ð." 0Íþ" 0ÊË# 0á•$bv% 0Û~% 0ØY& 0Õ1' 0Ò( 0ÏØ( 0̧) 0És* 00<+ 0<l+ 0¾¨+ 0>f, 0v¤, 0`- 0`z- 0`Ú- 0`:. 0`š. 08ú. 0Ò2/ 020 0ü60 0:21 0Yl1 0_Å1 0 $2 0j.3 0„˜4 B*6 D/F6 72u6 0„§6 D/+8 0ÎZ8 06(9 0^9 0ëf: 0^Q; 0<¯; 0Në; B9< 1V< 0¤ã< D5‡= D-¼= 0Ké= 14> ASÁ>Æ? 0¤Ú? 0D~@ A«Â@ 72mA 1ŸA 72,BU6^B 1”B 72!CU>SCU*‘Cw»C¡¿C¤`E`E`E G G .G.G.G @GU@RG4’G¦GµG·G^ ¿G mËG˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular0¦åCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(a)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à2J+M ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó4ÿÿ2VariableòòóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(1)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(ç CEMU]emu}AutoList2(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)0ÆÙCEMU]emu}AutoList3(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)2G+M ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2D+M ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2A+M ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+M ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+M ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+M ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25+M ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+M ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-2DM ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡e<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡hô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡e<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡hô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡e<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡hô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€K(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡i%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡hô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dJ)1dxd\(1)<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€N(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡i%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡hô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓJ)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡e<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡hô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡e<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡hô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ(|G2 ,$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€HÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôð]ò»»Ô: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ d(æÙCEMU]emu}AutoList5(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(|3ÇŒ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€HÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(ÖÙCEMU]emu}AutoList4(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÇŒ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€HÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKW(1)0öåCEMU]emu}AutoList6(1)(a)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)c(1)<þ6X9`(‹Courier New(7 CEMU]emu}AutoList7(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)f(a)ô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial —Ý ƒR ,$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôð]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendantððs€closing€argument€has€not€been€included€in€the€appellate€record.€€Our€characterization€ofÐ ° Ðdefense€strategy€is€based€upon€the€defendantððs€opening€statement,€cross„examination€of€stateððs€witnesses,€and€defenseÐ tÄ Ðevidence. šÝ ƒR ,$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôð]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAccording€to€Mr.€Robbins,€the€termination€was€a€consequence€of€his€having€reported€sexual€harassment€withinÐ ° Ðthe€department€to€the€city€commissioners.€€The€witness€apparently€had€litigation€or€other€proceedings€pending€relativeÐ tÄ Ðto€his€dismissal.ÿÿ7421-14ÿÿ4952-450ÿÿ7421-9ÿÿ7420-8(ÖÃ9 Z(Times New Roman 3j1,\Pê:i¢×+003|x w–—-s ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€HÕ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼HÕ»»»ÔÑ8€¹XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îRäHÕÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼HÕ»îîRä #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€20,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡X¹X»¼HÕÔÌò òÔ#†¼HÕ»XX¹ #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€FRANK€Ô_ÔGAITORÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡X¹X»¼HÕÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Washington€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€25133B€€€€€€Robert€E.€Ô_ÔCuppÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„02531„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€23,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡uX¹XXX¹ÔFrank€Ô_ÔGaitorÔ_Ô€appeals€from€his€Washington€County€Criminal€Court€convictions€of€Class€B€felonyÐ xÈ  Ðpossession€of€0.5€grams€or€more€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€sell€and€misdemeanor€simple€possessionÐ d´ Ðof€marijuana.€€He€is€presently€serving€an€effective€22„year€sentence€as€a€Persistent€Offender€for€theseÐ P  Ðcrimes.€€In€this€direct€appeal,€he€raises€numerous€challenges€to€the€Ô_ÔfirmityÔ_Ô€of€the€convictionÐ <Œ Ðproceedings.€€Upon€examination,€however,€none€of€these€claims€warrant€relief.€€Thus,€we€affirm.Ô#†X¹XXuX¹ #ÔÔ#†¼HÕ»XX¹´#ÔÔ‡X¹X»¼HÕÔÐ (x ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼HÕ»àX¹æ#ÔÔ‡X¹X.¼HÕÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óóÐ Ø( Ðand€òòRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌClifton€R.€Corker,€Johnson€City,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Frank€Ô_ÔGaitorÔ_Ô.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Ô_ÔAngeleÔ_Ô€M.€Gregory,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð tÄ ÐJoe€C.€Ô_ÔCrumleyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Steve€Finney,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ `° ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L œ ÐÓ‰ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼HÕ»XX¹¸#ÔÔ‡X¹X»¼HÕÔÐ $"t! ÐòòóóÔ#†¼HÕ»XX¹M #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X¹X»¼HÕÔà0  àÔ€uX¹XXX¹ÔÐ (#(# Ðà  àà ` àViewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€at€trial€demonstrated€thatÐ ü#L# Ðon€November€30,€1998,€members€of€the€First€Judicial€District€Drug€Task€Force€went€to€the€FairfieldÐ è$8 $ ÐInn€in€Johnson€City,€where€they€were€informed€the€defendant€and€Lynn€Benson€were€guests,€for€theÐ Ô%$!% Ðpurpose€of€arresting€them€on€outstanding€warrants.€€At€approximately€seven€oððclock€that€evening,Ð À&"& Ðagents€observed€the€defendant€and€Ms.€Benson€drive€into€the€hotel€parking€lot€in€a€dark€red,€small,Ð ¬'ü"' Ðfour„door€vehicle.€€The€defendant€was€driving.€€The€two€got€out€of€the€car€and€went€to€an€upstairsÐ ˜(è#( Ðroom€in€the€hotel.€€Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€order€to€get€the€two€to€come€out€of€the€room€without€damaging€hotel€property,Ð \+¬&+ ÐSteve€Wheat,€the€Assistant€Director€of€the€Drug€Task€Force,€called€the€defendant€and€Ms.€BensonððsÐ H,˜', Ðhotel€room€and€claimed€to€be€an€employee€of€the€hotel.€€He€told€Ms.€Benson,€who€answered€theÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôphone,€that€the€vehicle€in€which€she€and€the€defendant€had€arrived€had€been€involved€in€an€accidentÐ ° Ðand€requested€that€they€come€downstairs.€€The€defendant€and€Ms.€Benson€began€to€leave€the€room,Ð œì Ðand€as€they€did€so,€agents€of€the€Drug€Task€Force€who€had€stationed€themselves€outside€the€room,Ð ˆØ Ðtook€the€two€into€custody.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àInside€the€hotel€room,€officers€found€a€small€amount€of€marijuana€in€a€plastic€bag€andÐ L œ Ða€cigar€ð ðbluntðð€on€the€nightstand.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€the€marijuana€was€his,€not€Ms.Ð 8 ˆ ÐBensonððs.€€Upon€subsequent€testing,€the€marijuana€was€determined€to€weigh€less€than€one„tenth€ofÐ $ t Ðan€ounce.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€the€defendant€was€taken€through€the€parking€lot,€he€was€asked€whose€car€he€hadÐ è 8  Ðbeen€driving,€and€he€responded€that€it€belonged€to€some€girl€named€Shawna.€€He€was€asked€whetherÐ Ô$  Ðthere€was€anything€in€the€car,€meaning€drugs,€and€he€responded€that€there€was€nothing€in€it,€and€theÐ À  Ðofficers€could€search€it.€€With€the€assistance€of€a€police€dog,€they€proceeded€to€do€so€and€discoveredÐ ¬ü  Ða€plastic€bag€in€the€ash€tray€which€contained€several€smaller€bags,€each€containing€a€single€rock€ofÐ ˜è  Ðwhat€appeared€to€be€crack€cocaine.€€An€expert€from€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€laterÐ „Ô  Ðidentified€the€substance€in€the€bag€as€six€rocks€of€cocaine€base€weighing€a€cumulative€total€of€5.8Ð pÀ Ðgrams.€€Members€of€the€drug€task€force€estimated€the€street€value€of€the€cocaine€to€be€in€the€rangeÐ \¬ Ðof€$1400€to€$1600.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àAccording€to€members€of€the€Drug€Task€Force,€they€had€seen€the€defendant€drivingÐ  p Ðthe€vehicle€from€which€the€crack€cocaine€was€recovered€in€the€days€and€weeks€prior€to€NovemberÐ  \ Ð30.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àShawna€Lee€Warren€Whitaker€testified€that€in€November€1998,€she€owned€a€burgundyÐ Ð  Ðvehicle€which€she€identified€alternately€as€a€Plymouth€Horizon€and€a€Dodge€Shadow.€€She€was€livingÐ ¼  Ðin€Ohio€at€this€time,€and€she€left€the€car€in€the€custody€of€her€father.€€Ms.€Whitaker€testified€that€herÐ ¨ø Ðfather€told€her€that€he€had€rented€her€car€to€the€defendant,€who€was€a€family€friend.€€She€receivedÐ ”ä Ð$200€while€she€was€in€Ohio€for€rental€of€the€car.€€When€Ms.€Whitaker€returned€to€TennesseeÐ €Ð Ðsometime€prior€to€Christmas€1998,€her€car€was€in€the€hotel€parking€lot€with€underinflated€tires.€€HerÐ l¼ Ðhusband€had€to€have€the€car€retrieved€by€a€tow€truck.€€When€Ms.€Whitaker€saw€the€defendantÐ X ¨ Ðsometime€later,€he€told€her€not€to€worry€because€she€was€not€in€any€trouble.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àJaquetta€Lynn€Benson€testified€as€a€witness€for€the€state.€€In€exchange€for€herÐ #l! Ðtestimony,€charges€against€her€in€this€case€had€been€òònolle€prosequiedóó.€€Further,€upon€truthfulÐ $X" Ðtestimony€in€the€defendantððs€case,€she€was€to€receive€a€recommendation€for€a€two„year€probatedÐ ô$D # Ðsentence€in€a€separate€case€for€her€guilty€plea€to€the€offense€of€facilitation€of€sale€of€cocaine.€€WithÐ à%0!$ Ðsome€reluctance,€Ms.€Benson€recounted€the€events€of€the€date€of€the€offense.€€She€had€been€with€theÐ Ì&"% Ðdefendant€that€day€in€a€maroon,€four„door€car.€€They€went€to€his€motherððs€house.€€The€defendant€gotÐ ¸'#& Ðout€of€the€car,€and€when€he€returned,€he€had€a€sandwich€bag€in€his€hand.€€Ms.€Benson€first€testifiedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€she€did€not€know€what€was€in€the€bag,€but€she€later€acknowledged€that€although€she€did€not€seeÐ )à$( Ðthe€contents,€she€ð ðknewðð€it€was€crack€cocaine.€€Ms.€Benson€claimed€she€did€not€know€whether€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðdefendant€had€the€bag€in€his€hand€when€he€first€got€out€of€the€car,€but€she€acknowledged€a€priorÐ h+¸&* Ðstatement€in€which€she€said€the€defendant€had€the€bag€when€he€got€out€of€the€car€at€his€motherððsÐ ° Ðhouse.€€Ms.€Benson€testified€that€when€they€went€to€the€hotel,€they€took€their€belongings€upstairs.€Ð œì ÐShe€thought€the€defendant€took€the€sandwich€bag€inside€with€him.€€During€a€vigorous€cross„Ð ˆØ Ðexamination,€Ms.€Benson€acknowledged€that€she€had€a€cellular€telephone€in€her€possession,€evenÐ tÄ Ðthough€she€had€no€income.€€She€also€admitted€having€previously€signed€an€affidavit€of€indigency€inÐ `° Ðwhich€she€claimed€she€had€no€income€in€the€year€1997,€even€though€she€filed€a€tax€return€for€1997Ð L œ Ðon€which€she€listed€income€of€$113.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendantððs€trial€strategy€centered€on€attempts€to€discredit€the€stateððs€witnesses,Ð  ` Ðparticularly€Ms.€Benson€and€Larry€Robbins.׃k×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Mr.€Robbins€was€a€former€member€of€the€Drug€TaskÐ ü L  ÐForce€whose€employment€with€the€City€of€Johnson€City€was€terminated€following€an€internalÐ è 8  Ðdepartment€dispute€unrelated€to€the€defendantððs€case€or€any€other€criminal€case.׃lÜ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€defendantððsÐ Ô$  Ðonly€witness€was€a€forensic€scientist€from€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€who€testified€thatÐ À  Ðhe€had€been€unable€to€recover€any€fingerprints€on€the€seven€plastic€bags€recovered€with€the€crackÐ ¬ü  Ðcocaine.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€possession€of€0.5€grams€or€more€of€cocaineÐ pÀ Ðwith€intent€to€sell€and€simple€possession€of€marijuana.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ \¬ Ðfound€the€defendant€to€qualify€as€a€Range€III€Persistent€Offender€and€imposed€concurrent€sentencesÐ H˜ Ðof€22€years€for€the€felony€cocaine€conviction€and€eleven€months,€29€days€for€the€misdemeanorÐ 4„ Ðmarijuana€conviction.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àFollowing€unsuccessful€rulings€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€and€amended€motion€forÐ øH Ðnew€trial,€the€defendant€initiated€this€appeal.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€issues€before€us€are€numerous€and€are€as€follows:Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ€ (¦å03ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£N,ÝÔ2¦åÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppressÐ ”ä Ðevidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€the€warrantless€search€of€the€car€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendant€was€driving€on€the€date€of€his€arrest.݃3£N,‡,ÝŒÐl¼` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£.ÝÔ2¦åÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€the€defendantððs€motion€forÐ X ¨ Ðjudgment€of€acquittal.݃3£.R.ÝŒÐD!”` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£k/ÝÔ2¦åÔ(Ú  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€made€proper€evidentiary€rulings€in݃3£k/¤/ÝŒÐ0"€ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝØ! !ØÓ€ (ç 80ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àÝ‚3£%1ÝÔ2ç Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ Ð Ð àÝ  ÝExcluding€evidence€regarding€Larry€Robbinsðð€termination€from€theÐ #l! Ðâ âDrug€Task€Force;݃3£%1j1ÝŒÐ$X"¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àÝ‚3£2ÝÔ2ç Ô(Ú  ÚbÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ Ð Ð àÝ  ÝAdmitting€Shawna€Whittakerððs€testimony€regarding€the€defendantððsÐ ° Ðâ ârental€of€her€car;€and݃3£2Æ2ÝŒÐœì¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àÝ‚3£æ3ÝÔ2ç Ô(Ú  ÚcÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ Ð Ð àÝ  ÝAdmitting€evidence€that€the€defendant€had€arrest€warrants€pending.݃3£æ3+4݌Јظ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÓ€ (ÆÙ88ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£´5ÝÔ2ÆÙÔ(Ú  Ú4Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€should€have€continued€the€trial€upon€the€stateððs€lateÐ tÄ Ðdisclosure€of€a€witnessðð€location.݃3£´5í5ÝŒÐ`°` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£7ÝÔ2ÆÙÔ(Ú  Ú5Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€the€defendantððs€motion€forÐ L œ Ðremoval€of€trial€counsel.݃3£7U7ÝŒÐ8 ˆ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£q8ÝÔ2ÆÙÔ(Ú  Ú6Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€instruction€to€the€jury€regarding€LynnÐ $ t ÐBensonððs€guilty€plea€to€facilitation€of€cocaine€sale.݃3£q8ª8݌Р`` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£ç9ÝÔ2ÆÙÔ(Ú  Ú7Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€on€the€definition€of€theÐ ü L  Ðterm€ð ðknowing.ðð݃3£ç9 :ÝŒÐè 8 ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£<;ÝÔ2ÆÙÔ(Ú  Ú8Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€providing€the€jury€with€excerpts€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðtestimony€of€witnesses,€rather€than€transcripts€of€the€entire€testimony€of€theseÐ À  Ðwitnesses.݃3£<;u;݌Ьü ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌBecause€no€harmful€error€occurred,€we€affirm.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà@ÅÅ*ìàò òIˆÐ \¬ Ðó óÌà  àà ` àWe€first€consider€whether€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€toÐ 4„ Ðsuppress€evidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€the€warrantless€search€of€the€car€the€defendant€was€drivingÐ  p Ðon€the€date€of€his€arrest.€€The€defendant€claims€that€his€consent€to€the€search€was€not€voluntary.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€search€in€this€case€was€conducted€without€a€warrant.€€A€warrantless€search€isÐ ä4 Ðpresumptively€unreasonable€under€the€Fourth€Amendment.€€òòMinnesota€v.€Dickersonóó,€508€U.S.€366,Ð Ð  Ð372,€113€S.€Ct.€2130€(1993).€€However,€there€are€a€few€exceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement.€€òòKatzÐ ¼  Ðv.€United€Statesóó,€389€U.S.€347,€357,€88€S.€Ct.€507€(1967);€òòFuqua€v.€Armouróó,€543€S.W.2d€64,€66Ð ¨ø Ð(Tenn.€1976).€€Those€who€seek€to€except€a€search€from€the€warrant€requirement€must€show€that€theÐ ”ä Ðofficers€had€compelling€reasons€to€justify€the€search.€€òòCoolidge€v.€New€Hampshireóó,€403€U.S.€443,Ð €Ð Ð455,€91€S.€Ct.€2022€(1971);€Ô% ‡o ÔÔ%†oÇAÔòòFuquaóó,€543€S.W.2d€at€67.€€Before€the€fruits€of€a€warrantless€search€areÐ l¼ Ðadmissible€as€evidence,€the€state€must€establish€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€searchÐ X ¨ Ðfalls€into€one€of€the€narrowly€drawn€exceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement.€€òòState€v.€Shawóó,€603Ð D!” ÐS.W.2d€741,€743€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà  àà ` àOne€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement€exists€when€consent€has€been€given€for€theÐ $X" Ðsearch.€€òòSchneckloth€v.€Bustamonteóó,€412€U.S.€218,€219,€93€S.€Ct.€2041,€2043€(1973);€òòState€v.Ð ô$D # ÐBartramóó,€925€S.W.2d€227,€230€(1996).€€This€is€the€basis€upon€which€the€state€seeks€to€justify€theÐ à%0!$ Ðsearch€in€this€case.Ð Ì&"% ÐÓÓÌà  àà ` àThe€evidence€relative€to€the€search€is€not€in€dispute€so€much€as€the€interpretation€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbe€drawn€from€that€evidence.€€The€trial€court€did€not€make€findings€of€fact€relative€to€its€rulingÐ )à$( Ðdenying€the€motion€to€suppress.€€Our€review,€therefore,€is€one€of€òòde€novo€óóconsideration€of€the€lawÐ |*Ì%) Ðwith€the€facts€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Jennie€Bain€Duckeróó,€No.Ð h+¸&* Ð01C01„9704„CC„00143,€slip€op.€at€12€Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Mar.€25,€1999),€òòaffððd€on€otherÐ ° Ðgrounds,óó€27€S.W.3d€889€(Tenn.€2000).Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€state€offered€proof€at€the€suppression€hearing€in€the€form€of€testimony€fromÐ tÄ Ðmultiple€witnesses€that€the€defendant€declared€that€there€was€no€contraband€in€the€car€and€told€theÐ `° Ðofficers€they€could€search€it.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€acknowledges€that€he€consented€to€the€search€of€the€vehicle€he€hadÐ $ t Ðbeen€driving€prior€to€his€arrest.€€However,€he€claims€that€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€fail€toÐ  ` Ðdemonstrate€that€his€consent€was€freely€and€voluntarily€given.€€He€points€to€evidence€that€the€DrugÐ ü L  ÐTask€Force€officers€discussed€searching€the€vehicle€prior€to€asking€the€defendant€for€consent,€theÐ è 8  Ðlack€of€a€signed,€written€consent€form€for€the€search,€and€more€general€proof€that€the€defendant€wasÐ Ô$  Ðuncooperative€at€the€time€of€his€arrest.€€He€has€not€explained,€however,€the€way€in€which€theseÐ À  Ðallegations€overcame€his€voluntariness€in€consenting€to€the€vehicle€search.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àUpon€review,€we€are€unpersuaded€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€defendantððsÐ „Ô  Ðmotion€to€suppress.Ð pÀ ÐÌà@žž)ìàò òIIˆÐ H˜ Ðó óÌà  àà ` àNext,€we€consider€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€the€defendantððs€motionÐ  p Ðfor€judgment€of€acquittal.€€We€consider€this€claim€to€be€equivalent€to€a€challenge€to€the€sufficiencyÐ  \ Ðof€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòóó€òòSee€State€v.€Priceóó,€46€S.W.3d€785,€818€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000)Ð øH Ð(appellate€court€applies€the€same€standard€in€reviewing€both€the€denial€of€a€judgment€of€acquittal€andÐ ä4 Ðthe€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence).òòóóÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àA€criminal€conviction€may€be€aside€only€when€the€appellate€court€finds€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðð ðevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€Tenn.Ð ”ä ÐR.€App.€P.€13(e).€€ð ðA€jury€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€court,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÐ €Ð Ðwitnesses€for€the€state€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€stateððs€theory.ðð€òòPrice,€óóS.W3d€at€818;Ð l¼ ÐòòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978).€€Following€the€conviction,€the€appellate€courtÐ X ¨ Ðreviews€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state€and€affords€the€state€the€benefit€of€allÐ D!” Ðinferences€that€may€be€reasonably€drawn€from€the€evidence.€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€836Ð 0"€  Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€€This€means€that€issues€of€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€to€be€ascribedÐ #l! Ðto€their€testimony€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€trier€of€fact€and€are€not€issues€for€appellate€analysis.€Ð $X" ÐòòPriceóó,€46€S.W.3d€at€785.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€claims€that€Lynn€Bensonððs€testimony€was€contradictory€about€whetherÐ Ì&"% Ðshe€knew€that€the€defendant€possessed€crack€cocaine,€and€that€to€the€extent€that€Ms.€Benson€gaveÐ ¸'#& Ðconflicting€testimony€about€a€single€fact,€the€testimony€cancels€the€opposing€testimony.€€Moreover,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðthe€defendant€attacks€Ms.€Bensonððs€testimony€as€being€unreliable€and€characterizes€it€as€being€anÐ )à$( Ðunsafe€premise€upon€which€to€base€a€criminal€conviction.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àThe€defendant€is€correct€that€the€rule€of€cancellation€may€apply€when€a€witnessÐ ° Ðtestifies€contrarily€about€a€single€fact.€€The€supreme€court€has€defined€the€rule€as€followsÐ œì ÐÌà8  àIf€two€witnesses€contradict€each€other,€there€is€proof€on€both€sides,€and€it€is€for€theÐ tÄ Ðjury€toÔ% ‡p ÔÔ%†pÂWÔ€say€where€the€truth€lies;€but€if€the€proof€of€Ô% ‡q ÔÔ%†qXÔa€fact€lies€wholly€with€one€witness,Ð `° Ðand€he€both€affirms€and€denies€it,€and€there€is€no€explanation,€it€cannot€standÐ L œ Ðotherwise€than€unproven.€For€his€testimony€to€prove€it€is€no€stronger€than€hisÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestimony€to€disprove€it,€and€it€would€be€mere€caprice€in€a€jury€upon€such€evidenceÐ $ t Ðto€decide€it€either€way.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ?+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °œX?ÓÓÓòòJohnston€v.€Cincinnati,€N.O.€&€T.P.€Ry.óó,€146€Tenn.€135,€158,€240€S.W.€429,€436€(1921).€€However,Ð è 8  Ðas€òòJohnstonóó€suggests,€the€rule€is€one€of€limited€application.€€The€rule€applies€only€when€theÐ Ô$  Ðcontradiction€is€not€explained€and€when€neither€version€is€corroborated€by€other€proof.€€òòTaylor€v.Ð À  ÐNashville€Banner€Pub.€Co.óó,€573€S.W.2d€476,€483€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1978).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€do€not€view€Ms.€Bensonððs€conflicting€testimony€in€the€present€case€to€beÐ „Ô  Ðunexplained.€€She€first€testified€that€she€was€not€sure€what€the€defendant€had€inside€a€sandwich€bagÐ pÀ Ðin€his€hand,€and€she€later€testified€that€although€she€did€not€see€what€was€in€the€bag,€she€ð ðknewðð€thatÐ \¬ Ðit€was€crack€cocaine.€€When€pressed€on€cross„examination,€she€admitted€that€she€had€not€beenÐ H˜ Ðtruthful€in€her€initial€testimony€about€the€contents€of€the€bag.Ð 4„ ÐÌÓÓà  àà ` àMoreover,€the€second€version€of€Ms.€Bensonððs€testimony€was€corroborated.€€A€plasticÐ  \ Ðbag€containing€crack€cocaine€was€recovered€from€the€car€the€defendant€was€driving€on€the€day€of€hisÐ øH Ðarrest.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àFor€these€reasons,€the€rule€of€cancellation€does€not€apply€to€Ms.€Bensonððs€testimony.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àMoreover,€when€her€testimony€is€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€itÐ ”ä Ðis€not€so€unreliable€that€it€casts€doubt€upon€the€firmity€of€the€defendantððs€conviction.€€Ms.€BensonÐ €Ð Ðwas€certainly€a€difficult€witness€for€both€the€state€and€the€defense.€€She€was€not€completelyÐ l¼ Ðforthcoming€during€direct€examination,€and€she€was€subjected€to€vigorous€cross„examination€aboutÐ X ¨ Ðher€testimony€and€her€credibility.€€However,€Ms.€Bensonððs€testimony€was€corroborated€by€otherÐ D!” Ðevidence€that€supports€the€conviction.€€The€defendant€was€shown€to€possess€a€large€quantity€of€crackÐ 0"€  Ðcocaine€packaged€in€a€manner€consistent€with€possession€for€purpose€of€street€sales.€€òòSee€State€v.Ð #l! ÐBrownóó,€915€S.W.2d€3,€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(amount€and€manner€of€packaging€of€drugs€mayÐ $X" Ðsupport€inference€of€possession€with€intent€to€sell,€rather€than€possession€for€personal€use).€€No€drugÐ ô$D # Ðparaphernalia€consistent€with€possession€for€personal€use€was€recovered.€€òòSee€id.€óó(possession€withÐ à%0!$ Ðintent€to€sell€may€be€inferred€from€absence€of€drug€paraphernalia).€€The€defendant,€not€Ms.€Benson,Ð Ì&"% Ðhad€been€seen€driving€the€vehicle€from€which€the€cocaine€was€recovered€in€the€days€and€weeks€priorÐ ¸'#& Ðto€the€arrest.€€The€jury€had€the€prerogative,€particularly€in€view€of€the€corroborating€evidence,€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðaccept€as€true€portions€of€Ms.€Bensonððs€testimony€despite€her€inconsistencies€and€credibility€issues.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âWe€are€not€free€to€revisit€the€determinations€made€by€the€trier€of€fact€simply€because€a€contraryÐ |*Ì%) Ðdetermination€might€have€been€made€had€credibility€issues€been€determined€differently€and€theÐ ° Ðevidence€been€weighed€otherwise.€€òòSeeóó€òòPriceóó,€46€S.W.3d€at€785.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà@ww)ìàò òIIIˆÐ tÄ Ðó óÌà  àà ` àWe€next€consider€whether€various€evidentiary€rulings€made€by€the€trial€court€wereÐ L œ Ðproper.€€These€rulings€relate€to€the€courtððs€excluding€evidence€regarding€Larry€Robbinsðð€terminationÐ 8 ˆ Ðfrom€the€Drug€Task€Force,€admitting€Shawna€Whittakerððs€testimony€regarding€the€defendantððs€rentalÐ $ t Ðof€her€car,€and€admitting€evidence€that€the€defendant€had€arrest€warrants€pending.Ð  ` ÐÌà@ìàò òA€„€Standard€of€ReviewˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àó óAs€a€general€premise,€the€admission€or€exclusion€of€evidence€is€a€matter€entrustedÐ À  Ðto€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€737€S.W.2d€790,€793„94€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€Ð ¬ü  ÐWe€will€reverse€an€evidentiary€ruling€only€if€the€appellant€demonstrates€that€the€trial€court€abusedÐ ˜è  Ðits€discretion€in€admitting€or€excluding€the€challenged€evidence.€€òòId.óóÐ „Ô  ÐÌà@……ìàò òB€„€Larry€Robbinsðð€TerminationˆÐ \¬ Ðó óÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€complains€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€unfairly€limited€his€ability€toÐ 4„ Ðcross„examine€former€police€officer€Larry€Robbins€regarding€the€reason€for€Robbinsðð€terminationÐ  p Ðfrom€employment€with€the€City€of€Johnson€City€as€a€member€of€the€Drug€Task€Force.€€The€proofÐ  \ Ðduring€a€jury„out€hearing€demonstrated€that€Robbins€had€complained€to€the€city€commissioners€aboutÐ øH Ðsexual€harassment€within€the€task€force.€€He€was€subsequently€terminated€for€having€done€so.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðbases€upon€which€the€discharge€was€premised€were€violation€of€a€general€order€regarding€chain€ofÐ Ð  Ðcommand,€release€of€information€not€entrusted€to€him,€and€conduct€unbecoming€an€officer.€€RobbinsÐ ¼  Ðtestified€that€he€was€never€accused€of€planting€evidence.€€The€court€ruled€that€in€the€absence€ofÐ ¨ø Ðmisconduct€related€to€a€criminal€case,€such€as€planting€evidence€or€mistreating€a€defendant,€theÐ ”ä Ðreason€for€Robbinsðð€termination€was€not€relevant€and€therefore€not€admissible.Ð €Ð Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€the€defendant€argues€that€Robbinsðð€violation€of€a€position€of€trust€wasÐ X ¨ Ðdirectly€relevant€to€his€credibility.€€The€defendant€posits€that€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€608,Ð D!” Ða€witnessðð€prior€bad€acts€are€admissible€to€impeach€credibility€if€more€probative€than€potentiallyÐ 0"€  Ðprejudicial.€€The€defendant€claims€he€was€hamstrung€by€the€courtððs€ruling€excluding€the€evidenceÐ #l! Ðand€that€the€exclusion€was€harmful€error€because€this€was€a€close€case.€€Not€surprisingly,€the€stateÐ $X" Ðmaintains€that€the€trial€court€correctly€found€the€evidence€irrelevant€and€that€the€defendant€has€failedÐ ô$D # Ðto€demonstrate€that€the€evidence€would€have€been€more€unfairly€prejudicial€than€probative.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€order€for€evidence€to€be€admissible,€it€must€first€be€relevant.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€Ð ¸'#& ÐThus,€the€defendantððs€assertion€that€the€evidence€regarding€the€reason€for€Robbinsðð€termination€isÐ ¤(ô#' Ðadmissible€under€Rule€608€is€pertinent€only€if€the€evidence€is€relevant.€€Upon€consideration,€we€areÐ )à$( Ðunpersuaded€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€the€evidence€irrelevant.€€The€pertinent€issue€wasÐ |*Ì%) ÐRobbinsðð€credibility.€€Although€he€was€terminated€for€violating€various€rules€of€his€employment,€theÐ h+¸&* Ðevidence€demonstrates€that€he€reported€sexual€harassment€ð ðthat€had€already€been€investigated€andÐ ° Ðkind€of€swept€under€the€rug.ðð€€He€had€made€this€report€ð ðto€the€chiefððs€bosses,€who€were€the€cityÐ œì Ðcommissioners.ðð€€Viewed€in€this€context,€we€cannot€say€that€the€lower€court€abused€its€discretionÐ ˆØ Ðin€excluding€the€evidence.Ð tÄ ÐÌà@ ìàò òC€„€Shawna€Whittakerððs€Testimony€that€the€Defendant€Rented€Her€CarˆÐ L œ Ðó óÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€challenges€the€lower€courtððs€admission€of€Shawna€WhittakerððsÐ $ t Ðtestimony€about€the€rental€arrangement€the€defendant€had€relative€to€the€witnessððs€car.€€Ms.Ð  ` ÐWhittaker€testified€that€while€she€was€living€in€Ohio,€she€left€her€car€in€her€fatherððs€care.€€Her€fatherÐ ü L  Ðtold€her€that€he€was€renting€the€car€to€the€defendant.€€Ms.€Whittaker€received€$200€in€rental€feesÐ è 8  Ðduring€the€time€she€was€in€Ohio.€€When€she€returned€to€Tennessee,€she€had€to€have€the€car€towedÐ Ô$  Ðfrom€a€motel€parking€lot.€€She€later€saw€the€defendant,€who€told€her€not€to€worry€because€she€wasÐ À  Ðnot€in€any€trouble.€€The€defendantððs€specific€complaint€is€that€Ms.€Whittakerððs€testimony€regardingÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€conversation€with€her€father€about€the€rental€agreement€was€hearsay.€€On€appeal,€the€stateÐ ˜è  Ðconcedes€as€much€but€posits€that€the€evidentiary€admission€was€harmless€error€in€light€of€otherÐ „Ô  Ðevidence€that€the€defendant€was€arrested€in€possession€of€the€car€and€had€been€seen€driving€the€carÐ pÀ Ðin€the€weeks€prior€to€his€arrest.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€agree€with€the€parties€that€Ms.€Whittakerððs€testimony€about€the€conversation€withÐ 4„ Ðher€father€is€hearsay.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c).€€Through€this€evidence,€Ms.€Whittaker€offered€herÐ  p Ðown€testimony€of€her€fatherððs€statements€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted,€that€the€defendantÐ  \ Ðwas€renting€Ms.€Whittakerððs€car.€€òòSee€id.óó€€No€hearsay€exceptions€apply€to€this€testimony.€€òòSeeÐ øH Ðgenerallyóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803,€804.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€task€now€becomes€one€of€assessing€what€harm,€if€any,€follows€the€erroneousÐ ¼  Ðadmission€of€this€testimony.€€The€defendant€claims€that€this€was€ð ðcrucialðð€evidence€because€itÐ ¨ø Ðestablished€a€period€of€time€in€which€the€defendant€could€have€had€the€vehicle.€€However,€theÐ ”ä Ðundisputed€evidence€shows€that€the€defendant€and€Ms.€Benson€arrived€at€the€Fairfield€Inn€in€theÐ €Ð Ðvehicle,€which€the€defendant€was€known€to€have€been€driving€in€previous€weeks.€€Members€of€theÐ l¼ ÐDrug€Task€Force€kept€the€car€under€surveillance€once€it€was€parked€in€the€Fairfield€Inn€parking€lot.€Ð X ¨ ÐShortly€thereafter,€drugs€were€recovered€from€the€vehicle.€€Portions€of€Ms.€Whittakerððs€testimonyÐ D!” Ðto€which€there€was€not€a€specific€objection€otherwise€established€that€Ms.€Whittaker,€the€owner€ofÐ 0"€  Ðthe€vehicle,€was€out€of€the€state€on€the€date€in€question.€€Ms.€Bensonððs€testimony€provided€furtherÐ #l! Ðproof€that€she€and€the€defendant€had€been€in€the€car€on€the€date€in€question€and€that€the€defendantÐ $X" Ðhad€crack€cocaine€in€his€possession€while€they€were€in€the€car.€€When€the€evidence€is€viewed€in€itsÐ ô$D # Ðtotality,€we€fail€to€see€harmful€error€in€the€erroneous€admissionòòóó€of€the€hearsay€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð à%0!$ ÐR.€App.€P.€36(b)€(relief€from€judgment€will€not€be€granted€unless€error€had€more€probable€than€notÐ Ì&"% Ðeffect€on€verdict€or€would€prejudice€judicial€process).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà@ï ï ìàò òD€„€Defendantððs€Pending€Arrest€WarrantsˆÐ ° Ðó óÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€stateððs€repeated€references€toÐ ˆØ Ðhis€pending€arrest€warrants.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€court€considered€the€issue€and€ruled€that€the€fact€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€defendant€had€pending€warrants€was€admissible€but€evidence€about€the€nature€of€the€chargesÐ `° Ðwould€not€be€allowed.€€The€defendant€claims€that€the€state€tried€to€prejudice€the€jury€against€him€byÐ L œ Ðoffering€evidence€of€his€pending€arrest€warrants€by€sponsoring€testimony€of€multiple€members€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€Drug€Task€Force€to€this€effect.€€He€claims€that€this€was€an€effort€by€the€state€to€bolster€a€weakÐ $ t Ðcase€by€attempting€to€demonstrate€bad€character€attributable€to€the€defendant€based€upon€theÐ  ` Ðoutstanding€criminal€charges.€€The€state€argues€that€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€pending€arrestÐ ü L  Ðwarrants€was€important€because€it€provided€contextual€background€evidence€to€explain€the€officersððÐ è 8  Ðpresence€at€the€Fairfield€Inn€and€their€entry€into€the€defendantððs€hotel€room.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€general€parameters€regarding€admissibility€of€a€defendantððs€bad€acts€other€thanÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€crime€on€trial€is€found€in€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(b).€€Evidence€of€a€defendant's€priorÐ ˜è  Ðcrimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€generally€is€not€admissible€as€character€evidence€of€the€defendant€to€proveÐ „Ô  Ðthat€he€committed€the€crime€in€question.€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404.€The€rationale€underlying€the€generalÐ pÀ Ðrule€is€that€admission€of€such€evidence€carries€with€it€the€inherent€risk€of€the€jury€convicting€theÐ \¬ Ðdefendant€of€a€crime€based€upon€his€bad€character€or€propensity€to€commit€a€crime,€rather€than€theÐ H˜ Ðconviction€resting€upon€the€strength€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824,€828€(Tenn.Ð 4„ Ð1994).€€The€risk€is€greater€when€the€defendant's€prior€bad€acts€are€similar€to€the€crime€for€which€theÐ  p Ðdefendant€is€on€trial.€€òòIdóó.;€òòsee€also€State€v.€McCaryóó,€922€S.W.2d€511,€514€(Tenn.€1996),€òòperm.€app.Ð  \ Ðdeniedóó€(Tenn.€2000).€€Nevertheless,€evidence€of€a€defendant's€prior€crimes,€wrongs€or€acts€may€beÐ øH Ðadmissible€where€it€is€probative€of€material€issues€other€than€conduct€conforming€with€a€characterÐ ä4 Ðtrait.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€supreme€court€has€recognized€the€need,€in€appropriate€cases,€to€allow€suchÐ ¨ø Ðevidence€for€purposes€of€illustrating€a€contextual€background€for€other€facts€in€the€case.€€òòState€v.Ð ”ä ÐGillilandóó,€22€S.W.3d€266€(Tenn.€2000).€€In€order€for€evidence€to€fall€within€this€exception€to€theÐ €Ð Ðgeneral€rule,€it€must€be€relevant€to€an€issue€other€than€criminal€propensity€and€the€probative€valueÐ l¼ Ðof€the€evidence€must€outweigh€its€potential€prejudicial€effect.€€òòId.óó€at€271„72.€€Before€such€evidenceÐ X ¨ Ðis€admitted,€the€state€must€establish€thatÐ D!” ÐÌØ! !ØÓ€ \(ÖÙ88ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£B”ÝÔ2ÖÙÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýthe€absence€of€the€evidence€would€create€a€chronological€or€conceptual€voidÐ #l! Ðin€the€stateððs€presentation€of€its€case;€Ýƒ3£B”{”ÝŒÐ$X"` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£¬•ÝÔ2ÖÙÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýthe€void€created€by€the€absence€of€the€evidence€would€likely€result€inÐ ô$D # Ðsignificant€jury€confusion€as€to€the€material€issues€or€evidence€in€the€case;Ð à%0!$ Ðand€Ýƒ3£¬•å•ÝŒÐÌ&"%` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£K—ÝÔ2ÖÙÔ(Ú  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýthe€probative€value€of€the€evidence€is€not€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÐ ¸'#& Ðprejudice.݃3£K—„—݌Ф(ô#'` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌòòId.óó€at€272.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€had€outstanding€arrest€warrants,€which€at€least€implies€theÐ ° Ðexistence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs€or€acts.€€The€state€sought€introduction€of€the€evidence€of€theÐ œì Ðoutstanding€warrants€in€order€to€explain€the€presence€of€Drug€Task€Force€officers€at€the€hotel€whereÐ ˆØ Ðthe€defendant€was€lodging.€€Without€this€explanatory€evidence,€the€police€conduct€in€conductingÐ tÄ Ðsurveillance,€creating€a€subterfuge€to€lure€the€defendant€and€his€companion€from€their€hotel€room,Ð `° Ðstorming€into€the€room,€and€immediately€subduing€and€restraining€the€defendant€would€appearÐ L œ Ðegregious€and€inappropriate.€€It€had€the€likelihood€of€creating€confusion€of€the€issues€and€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence.€€In€order€to€limit€any€prejudice€from€the€introduction€of€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€limitedÐ $ t Ðthe€evidence€to€the€existence€of€the€warrants€and€excluded€evidence€of€the€underlying€charges.€€TheÐ  ` Ðcourt€gave€a€limiting€instruction€regarding€the€warrants.€€Upon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€see€noÐ ü L  Ðabuse€of€discretion€in€this€ruling.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àMoreover,€we€are€not€compelled€to€discern€error€in€the€stateððs€repeated€introductionÐ À  Ðof€this€evidence€through€various€officers€from€the€Drug€Task€Force.€€Each€individual€was€explainingÐ ¬ü  Ðhis€presence€at€the€hotel,€and€none€did€so€in€a€way€that€implied€more€than€that€the€defendant€hadÐ ˜è  Ðpending€warrants.€€The€courtððs€ruling€limiting€the€evidence€to€the€existence€of€the€warrants€and€notÐ „Ô  Ðthe€underlying€charges€and€the€limiting€instruction€the€court€gave€to€the€jury€regarding€the€warrantsÐ pÀ Ðprevented€any€undue€prejudice€to€the€defendant€as€a€result€of€the€admissions.Ð \¬ ÐÌà@}})ìàò òIVˆÐ 4„ Ðó óÌÓ€ (ÆÙ88\ÓØ! !Øà  àà ` àNext,€we€consider€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€continued€the€trial€upon€theÐ  \ Ðstateððs€late€disclosure€of€a€witnessðð€location.€€This€issue€pertains€to€witness€Shawna€Whittaker.€Ð øH ÐApparently,€the€state€was€unable€to€serve€a€subpoena€on€this€witness€until€shortly€before€the€trial,€andÐ ä4 Ðthe€defense€was€unable€to€locate€her€prior€to€her€appearance€at€the€courthouse€on€the€day€of€trial.€Ð Ð  ÐThe€record€reflects€that€the€court€allowed€the€defendant€the€opportunity€to€interview€the€witness€priorÐ ¼  Ðto€her€taking€the€stand€and€instructed€counsel€to€advise€the€court€if€any€problems€arose.€€The€defenseÐ ¨ø Ðnever€made€any€complaint€on€the€record.€€The€defendant€complains€that€his€counsel€could€haveÐ ”ä Ðinvestigated€the€witness€more€thoroughly€with€more€time€and€that€the€court€should€have€granted€aÐ €Ð Ðcontinuance.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€record€does€not€clearly€reflect,€however,€that€the€defense€ever€requested€aÐ D!” Ðcontinuance€because€of€the€absence€of€the€witness.€€There€was€a€pre„trial€defense€motion€for€aÐ 0"€  Ðcontinuance€so€that€the€defendant€would€have€more€time€to€consider€a€settlement€agreement.€€TheÐ #l! Ðstate€supported€the€defense€motion€for€a€continuance€because€such€would€allow€it€more€time€toÐ $X" Ðlocate€Ms.€Whittaker.€€However,€the€defendant€said€nothing€about€any€desire€he€had€to€locate€Ms.Ð ô$D # ÐWhittaker,€and€the€court€denied€the€motion.€€The€defendant€did€not€request€a€continuance€on€anyÐ à%0!$ Ðbasis€on€the€day€the€trial€began.€€The€first€time€the€defendant€posited€that€the€court€should€haveÐ Ì&"% Ðgranted€a€continuance€was€in€his€motion€for€new€trial,€in€which€he€claimed€that€the€witness€changedÐ ¸'#& Ðher€story€during€her€trial€and€his€counsel€had€been€unable€to€rebut€her€claims€due€to€inadequateÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpreparation€time.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àWe€have€serious€reservations€in€reaching€any€conclusion€other€than€that€the€issue€hasÐ ° Ðâ âbeen€waived€by€the€defendantððs€failure€to€make€a€timely€motion€for€continuance€on€the€basis€of€hisÐ œì Ðinability€to€locate€Ms.€Whittaker€prior€to€trial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Assuming€òòarguendoóó€thatÐ ˆØ Ðthe€issue€has€not€been€waived,€the€record€reflects€that€the€defendant€has€not€established€hisÐ tÄ Ðentitlement€to€a€new€trial€on€this€basis.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€decision€whether€to€grant€a€motion€for€a€continuance€is€a€matter€of€discretion€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€trial€court,€the€denial€of€which€will€not€be€overturned€on€appeal€absent€a€clear€showing€the€trialÐ $ t Ðcourt€abused€its€discretion€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€359Ð  ` Ð(Tenn.€1982);€òòBaxter€v.€Stateóó,€503€S.W.2d€226,€230€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€In€order€to€establishÐ ü L  Ðan€abuse€of€discretion,€the€complaining€party€must€make€a€clear€showing€of€prejudice€as€a€result€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€continuance€being€denied.€€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€245€(Tenn.€1990).€Ð Ô$  ÐÌÓÓà  àà ` àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€offered€no€evidence€at€the€motion€for€new€trial€toÐ ¬ü  Ðdemonstrate€that€he€could€have,€with€more€time,€impeached€Ms.€Whittakerððs€testimony€or€otherwiseÐ ˜è  Ðcaused€a€more€favorable€result€for€himself€in€his€trial.€€Without€something€upon€which€to€base€aÐ „Ô  Ðfinding€of€prejudice,€this€court€is€not€empowered€to€grant€relief.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó;€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€876€S.W.2dÐ pÀ Ð121,€130€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)ÓÈÓ€(no€prejudice€from€trial€court's€denial€of€motion€to€continue€whereÐ \¬ Ðdefendant€failed€to€present€proof€at€motion€for€new€trial€hearing).€Ð $t ÐÓÈÓÌà@¤¤*ìàò òVˆÐ Ø( Ðòòóóó óÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€also€challenges€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€theÐ ° Ðdefendantððs€motion€for€removal€of€trial€counsel.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€defendant€wasÐ œì Ðmistrustful€of€his€attorneys,€the€court,€and€the€proceedings.€€He€filed€written€complaints€and€voicedÐ ˆØ Ðhis€grievances€throughout€the€pre„trial€and€trial€proceedings.€€He€called€for€investigation€of€hisÐ tÄ Ðattorneys€and€the€trial€court.€€A€few€days€prior€to€trial,€the€defendant€read€a€letter€to€the€court€inÐ `° Ðwhich€he€alleged€that€the€trial€court€was€prejudiced€against€him,€had€defamed€him,€and€threatenedÐ Lœ Ðhim.€€He€claimed€that€his€attorneys€had€violated€the€attorney/client€privilege.€€He€stated€his€intentionÐ 8ˆ Ðto€pursue€investigation€of€the€trial€judge€and€one€of€his€attorneys€for€ð ðmisconduct€and€violating€myÐ $t Ðconstitutional€rights.ðð€€The€defendant€never€specifically€requested€that€counsel€be€removed,€althoughÐ  ` Ðthis€was€certainly€the€tenor€of€his€complaint.€€For€the€first€time€on€appeal,€the€defendant€contendsÐ ü L Ðthat€the€court€should€have€allowed€him€to€proceed€òòpro€seóó.€€He€did€not€specifically€request€this€remedyÐ è!8  Ðin€the€trial€court.€€His€efforts€in€the€trial€court€appear€to€be€directed€more€to€removal€of€counsel€thanÐ Ô"$! Ðto€the€exercise€of€the€right€of€self„representation.€€In€his€motion€for€new€trial,€he€alleged€that€the€trialÐ À#" Ðcourt€should€have€allowed€his€attorneys€to€withdraw€and€should€have€appointed€other€counsel.Ð ¬$ü# ÐÌà  àà ` àAn€indigent€defendant€is€constitutionally€guaranteed€the€right€to€assistance€ofÐ „&Ô!% Ðappointed€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.€amend€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€9.€€Neither€the€federal€nor€stateÐ p'À"& Ðconstitutions€requires,€however,€that€an€indigent€defendant€receive€counsel€of€his€choice,€or€counselÐ \(¬#' Ðwith€whom€the€defendant€enjoys€ð ðspecial€rapport,€confidence,€or€even€a€meaningful€relationship.ðð€Ð H)˜$( ÐòòState€v.€Carruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€516,€546€(Tenn.€2000),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€533€U.S.€953,€121€S.€Ct.€2600Ð 4*„%) Ð(2001).€€The€baseline€guarantee€is€one€of€effective€counsel,€not€preferred€counsel.€€òòId.óó€Ð  +p&* ÐÐ  ,\'+ Ðà  àà ` àWhen€considering€whether€to€permit€withdrawal€of€counsel,€the€court€may€act€uponÐ ° Ða€showing€of€good€cause€for€withdrawal.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„205€(1997).€€On€appellateÐ œì Ðreview,€we€examine€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€only€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Russellóó,€10€S.W.3dÐ ˆØ Ð270,€274€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€demonstrated€his€mistrust€of€counsel;€however,€he€did€notÐ L œ Ðdemonstrate€that€counsel€was€failing€to€perform€in€the€defendantððs€best€interests,€had€a€conflict€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðinterests,€or€otherwise€was€unable€to€discharge€the€task€of€representing€the€defendant.€€In€fact,€theÐ $ t Ðtrial€judge€remarked€based€upon€his€own€institutional€knowledge€that€the€defendant€had€enjoyed€aÐ  ` Ðpositive€relationship€with€lead€counsel€in€another€case€in€which€counsel€had€obtained€an€acquittal,Ð ü L  Ðthat€counsel€had€diligently€prepared€the€case€and€cut€short€his€vacation€to€prepare€for€trial,€that€theÐ è 8  Ðdefendant€had€been€disruptive€and€his€ð ðown€worst€enemyðð€throughout€the€proceedings,€and€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendantððs€dissatisfaction€with€the€process€was€as€a€result€of€the€defendantððs€own€actions,€ratherÐ À  Ðthan€any€shortcomings€of€counsel.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€reviewing€the€record,€we€are€completely€convinced€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€wasÐ „Ô  Ðnot€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€The€facts€simply€do€not€support€the€defendantððs€request€for€removal€ofÐ pÀ Ðcounsel.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àMoreover,€we€are€unimpressed€with€the€defendantððs€eleventh„hour€contention€thatÐ 4„ Ðhe€should€have€been€allowed€to€proceed€òòpro€se.óó€€The€record€is€devoid€of€any€indication€that€he€soughtÐ  p Ðthat€type€of€relief€in€the€lower€court.€€For€that€reason€alone,€he€has€waived€any€opportunity€he€mightÐ  \ Ðotherwise€have€to€pursue€that€form€of€relief€in€the€appellate€courts.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a)€(partyÐ øH Ðwho€failed€to€make€effort€to€prevent€error€at€trial€level€not€entitled€to€relief€on€appeal).€€Additionally,Ð ä4 Ðalthough€the€defendant€apparently€engaged€in€some€unusual€and€perhaps€ill„advised€behavior€in€theÐ Ð  Ðlower€court,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€his€conduct€was€such€that€he€implicitlyÐ ¼  Ðwaived€or€forfeited€his€right€to€counsel€altogether.€€òòSee€generally€Carruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€516.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà@}})ìàò òVIˆÐ €Ð Ðó óÌà  àà ` àOur€next€area€of€inquiry€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€instruction€to€the€juryÐ X ¨ Ðregarding€Lynn€Bensonððs€guilty€plea€to€facilitation€of€cocaine€sale.€€The€defendant€claims€that€theÐ D!” Ðtrial€courtððs€instruction€was€deficient€in€that€it€failed€to€advise€the€jury€to€carefully€evaluate€Ms.Ð 0"€  ÐBensonððs€testimony€in€light€of€her€last„minute€plea€agreement€with€the€state.€€He€claims€that€theÐ #l! Ðinstruction€given€misled€the€jury€into€believing€that€Ms.€Bensonððs€guilty€plea€was€based€on€conductÐ $X" Ðin€selling€drugs€for€the€defendant,€rather€than€on€other€criminal€activity.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€record€reflects€that€as€part€of€a€plea€agreement€with€the€state€which€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðformalized€just€before€the€defendantððs€trial,€Ms.€Benson,€who€was€originally€charged€as€a€co„Ð ¸'#& Ðdefendant,€agreed€to€testify€truthfully€as€a€stateððs€witness€in€exchange€for€the€stateððs€òònolle€prosequióóÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€charges€against€her€in€the€present€case€and€for€her€guilty€plea€to€facilitation€of€sale€of€cocaine€inÐ )à$( Ða€separate€case€with€a€recommendation€for€a€two„year€probated€sentence.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àWhen€a€stateððs€witness€offers€testimony€procured€via€plea€agreement,€concerns€of€theÐ ° Ðdefendantððs€rights€to€due€process€and€a€fair€trial€are€implicated.€€òòState€v.€Boldenóó,€979€S.W.2d€587,Ð œì Ð590€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€order€to€protect€those€rights,€the€following€safeguards€must€be€met€before€suchÐ ˆØ Ðtestimony€may€be€admitted:Ð tÄ ÐÌØ! !ØÓ€ c(öå08ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£,ÎÝÔ2öåÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýfull€disclosure€of€the€terms€of€the€agreements€struck€with€the€witnesses;€Ýƒ3£,ÎeÎÝŒÐL œ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£TÏÝÔ2öåÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýthe€opportunity€for€full€cross„examination€of€those€witnesses€concerning€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðagreements€and€the€effect€of€those€agreements€on€the€testimony€of€theÐ $ t Ðwitnesses;€and€Ýƒ3£TÏÏ݌Р`` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£üÐÝÔ2öåÔ(Ú  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýinstructions€Ô% ‡t ÔÔ%†t¤ÑÔcautioning€the€jury€to€carefully€evaluate€the€weight€andÐ ü L  Ðcredibility€of€the€testimony€of€such€witnesses€who€have€been€induced€byÐ è 8  Ðagreements€with€the€State€to€testify€against€the€defendant.€Ýƒ3£üÐ5ÑÝŒÐÔ$ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝòòId.Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àóóIn€this€case,€the€plea€agreement€itself€was€read€into€the€record.€€The€evidence€clearlyÐ ˜è  Ðestablished€that€the€charge€to€which€the€witness€was€pleading€guilty€was€in€another€case,€and€theÐ „Ô  Ðcharge€in€the€present€case€was€being€òònolle€prosequiedóó€by€the€state.€€The€defendant€engaged€in€a€veryÐ pÀ Ðthorough€and€searching€cross„examination€of€the€witness.€€The€jury€was€instructed€at€the€time€of€Ms.Ð \¬ ÐBensonððs€testimony€that€her€plea€agreement€with€the€state€did€not€take€from€the€jury€its€duty€ofÐ H˜ Ðdetermining€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€to€be€placed€on€witness€testimony.€€At€theÐ 4„ Ðconclusion€of€proof,€the€jury€was€instructed€in€more€general€but€thorough€terms€about€its€role€as€theÐ  p Ðexclusive€judge€of€witness€credibility€and€of€weight€to€be€given€witness€testimony.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€its€instructions€relative€to€Ms.€BensonððsÐ ä4 Ðtestimony.Ð Ð  ÐÓÓÌà@VV)ìàò òVIIˆÐ ¨ø Ðó óÌà  àà ` àWe€now€consider€whether€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€on€the€definitionÐ €Ð Ðof€the€term€ð ðknowing.ðð€€The€Criminal€Code€contains€the€following€definition:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  à"Knowing"€refers€to€a€person€who€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€the€conduct€or€toÐ D!” Ðcircumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€of€the€nature€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðconduct€or€that€the€circumstances€exist.€€A€person€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€aÐ #l! Ðresult€of€the€person's€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€that€the€conduct€is€reasonablyÐ $X" Ðcertain€to€cause€the€result.€Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(b)€(1997).€€The€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ Ì&"% Ðomitting€from€the€charge€the€portion€of€the€definition€embodied€in€the€second€sentence€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðstatutory€definition.€€The€defendant€claims€that€this€error€was€not€harmless€because€the€case€was€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðclose€one.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àThe€defendant€does€not€claim,€however,€that€possession€of€cocaine€with€intent€toÐ ° Ðâ âresell€is€a€result„of„conduct€offense€requiring€such€instruction.€€For€the€reasons€that€follow,€weÐ œì Ðconclude€that€it€is€not.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àA€so„called€result„of„conduct€offense€is€typified€by€a€single€element,€that€being€theÐ `° Ðresult€of€the€conduct€itself.€€òòState€v.€Duckeróó,€27€S.W.3d€889,€896€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€culpable€mentalÐ L œ Ðstate€accompanies€the€result,€rather€than€the€nature€of€the€conduct.€€òòId.óó€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àPossession€of€cocaine€for€resale€requires€that€the€defendant€ð ðknowingly€.€.€.€[p]ossessÐ  ` Ða€controlled€substance€with€intent€to€.€.€.€sell€such€controlled€substance.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„Ð ü L  Ð417(a)(4)€(Supp.€2001).€€As€defined€by€the€proscriptive€statute,€the€òòmens€rea€óóofòò€óóknowing€focuses€onÐ è 8  Ðthe€defendantððs€possession€of€cocaine.€€Put€another€way,€the€crime€requires€that€the€defendant€beÐ Ô$  Ðaware€that€he€is€in€unlawful€possession€of€cocaine.€€Thus,€cocaine€possession€with€intent€to€resellÐ À  Ðfocuses€on€the€nature€of€the€defendantððs€conduct€and€not€a€particular€result.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€did€not€err€in€its€instructions€relative€to€the€knowing€element€ofÐ „Ô  Ðcocaine€possession.Ð pÀ ÐÌà@//(ìàò òVIIIˆÐ H˜ Ðó óÌà  àà ` àFinally,€we€take€up€the€issue€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€providing€the€jury€withÐ  p Ðexcerpts€of€the€testimony€of€certain€witnesses,€rather€than€transcripts€of€the€entire€testimony€of€theseÐ  \ Ðwitnesses.€€This€issue€pertains€to€an€inquiry€the€jury€made€during€deliberations€about€the€testimonyÐ øH Ðof€two€members€of€the€Drug€Task€Force€regarding€the€identity€of€the€individual€who€opened€the€ashÐ ä4 Ðtray€in€which€the€cocaine€was€discovered.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€a€jury€requests€to€rehear€or€review€evidence€during€its€deliberations,€the€trialÐ ¨ø Ðcourt€may,€in€its€discretion,€allow€the€jury€to€do€so.€€òòState€v.€Jenkinsóó,€845€S.W.2d€787,€793€(Tenn.Ð ”ä ÐCrim.€App.€1992).€€In€ruling€on€the€request,€the€court€must€be€guided€by€ABA€Standard€15„4.2.€€òòId.€Ð €Ð ÐóóThe€ABA€Standard€providesÐ l¼ ÐÌÝ"‚ é;"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚ é;hæÝà0  àÔ2öåÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝIf€the€jury,€after€retiring€for€deliberation,€requests€a€review€of€certain€testimony€orÐ D!” Ðother€evidence,€they€shall€be€conducted€to€the€courtroom.€Whenever€the€jury's€requestÐ 0"€  Ðis€reasonable,€the€court,€after€notice€to€the€prosecutor€and€counsel€for€the€defense,Ð #l! Ðshall€have€the€requested€parts€of€the€testimony€read€to€the€jury€and€shall€permit€theÐ $X" Ðjury€to€reexamine€the€requested€materials€admitted€into€evidence.݃ é;hæ•æÝŒÐô$D #` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚ é;"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚ é;1éÝà0  àÔ2öåÔ(Ú  ÚbÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝThe€court€need€not€submit€evidence€to€the€jury€for€review€beyond€that€specificallyÐ à%0!$ Ðrequested€by€the€jury,€but€in€its€discretion€the€court€may€also€have€the€jury€reviewÐ Ì&"% Ðother€evidence€relating€to€the€same€factual€issue€so€as€not€to€give€undue€prominenceÐ ¸'#& Ðto€the€evidence€requested.݃ é;1é^é݌Ф(ô#'` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÓ?+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °°ŒX?ÓÓÓABA€Standard€15„4.2;€òòsee€Jenkinsóó,€843€S.W.2d€at€793.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àIn€this€case,€the€jury€asked€how€two€stateððs€witnesses€had€testified€when€asked€theÐ ° Ðidentity€of€the€person€who€opened€the€ash€tray€in€the€car€the€defendant€was€driving.€€After€hearingÐ œì Ðarguments€from€the€parties,€the€court€ruled€that€it€would€provide€the€jury€with€those€portions€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðtrial€transcript€which€contained€the€pertinent€testimony.€€Although€the€court€might€have€been€moreÐ tÄ Ðsquarely€within€the€spirit€of€ABA€Standard€15„4.2€by€having€these€portions€of€the€transcript€read€toÐ `° Ðthe€jury€than€by€providing€the€jury€with€the€transcript€itself,€we€hold€that€there€was€no€abuse€ofÐ L œ Ðdiscretion€in€providing€a€partial€transcript,€rather€than€the€entire,€much€more€lengthy€transcript€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthese€two€witnessesðð€testimony.€€òòSee€Van€Holt€v.€Rainboltóó,€42€Tenn.€(2€Cold.)€139,€141€(1865)€(TheÐ $ t Ðpractice€of€allowing€a€re„statement€to€the€jury,€of€such€portions€of€the€evidence€as€they€may€desireÐ  ` Ðto€hear,€at€any€time€before€delivering€their€verdict,€and€in€the€presence€of€the€Court,€is€too€wellÐ ü L  Ðestablished€to€be€called€in€question.);€òòState€v.€Steven€Radleyóó,€No.€01C01„9311„CC„00382,€slip€op.Ð è 8  Ðat€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€14,€1994)€(trial€court€did€not€abuse€discretion€in€allowingÐ Ô$  Ðjury€to€rehear€requested€portions€of€tapes);€òòcf.€State€v.€Nathaniel€Allenóó,€No.€E1999„02209„CCA„R3„Ð À  ÐCD,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Oct.€19,€2000)€(trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretionÐ ¬ü  Ðby€complying€with€jury€request€for€assistance€in€locating€a€particular€phrase€on€a€tape€that€was€a€trialÐ ˜è  Ðexhibit).Ð „Ô  ÐÓÓÌà  àà ` àAfter€considering€all€of€these€issues,€we€find€none€which€warrant€relief€for€theÐ \¬ Ðdefendant.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð H˜ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE