ÿWPCx 8žX .Ù[¿ÙV¿¬¸†½èŽ'Xµ(Jî“î±.ëåë|Fó¿&#«ì,§Û~²P¸áœ'lï'ªdefËùî6W¥ì -‰~˜TÈ©é½èŽ-0¸=šÆ ;™Ø\þ¿†ÿq@}w©ôÚ§'ÚÒ“B†ZøÆÎD…£¤.õäÏ-ähàðˆÄ ¬8»YømbLÞ{b߯DO³®fÄ qm©º³Öin P³rã¤A'ÙÒ…šÖ$!Éñ ºuëïV…,=Áeˆœ+:GV"È÷Üø;6±Ù£'‰– °P{)ÊýÝ?W…Œ‚Ý[‚Ÿ¨¯Ôµ\Øÿò%”[]²(9öÝÍ\¸‡Ué#ÐçKSOr@}·îS.¼¦òÐo­ ªÙ¡ž9D´2OÖHê™hcìîÈNvaÌU.æ‰5V”»—ÐZ{´à‘vþòsÔS°¦]ù9»R×ò5Ðå?ùƒuØ T;2^6´hÚ}ÍËíê¢4`êÛ›uˆkôOÞÕ~›|†`â+)^Kp=Ìý Ž/Ž è(1i¦ÜÜ Þh5Yè*ñÏð ÓÄdgxõ†Ä<ÆÔP© ¿ò« ~(Tsø«ëíE(_B؈ˆ’34b %\U @b 0ˆ¢U&N* x'… ^ ¬ z¸ Ò2w4+Æ-ÆóƹÆ mEN\#É^^E'''''''''''''''''''' 0D))))bmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 0ëuuuu B`` 0¤} D3! D-T 0K ASÌÆ 0¤å 0D‰ A«Í»(ƒð Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒR3¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔWe€note€that€the€record€reflects€that€four€law€enforcement€officers€„€Agent€Tim€Ô_ÔHaunÔ_Ô,€Agent€GregÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔPeckinpaughÔ_Ô,€Officer€Marty€Roberts,€and€Agent€Joey€Ô_ÔKimbleÔ_Ô€„€testified€to€indications€that€a€person€is€a€drug€seller€ratherÐ qÁ Ðthan€a€drug€user. Ý ƒR3¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„17„417(c)(1)€provides€that€possession€of€over€.5€grams€of€cocaine€withÐ ° Ðthe€intent€to€sell€or€deliver€is€a€Class€B€felony.€€However,€the€indictment€failed€to€allege€that€the€amount€of€the€controlledÐ qÁ Ðsubstance€found€in€the€possession€of€the€Defendant€was€.5€grams€or€more.€€Therefore,€in€accordance€with€òòState€v.Ð 2‚ ÐÔ_ÔHilliardÔ_Ôóó,€906€S.W.2d€466,€469„70€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1995),€the€trial€court€reduced€the€Defendantððs€conviction€to€a€ClassÐ óC ÐC€felony€at€the€sentencing€hearing.t|q1Ï  ˜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.wpth_B0ê:i¢×+003|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G23¼$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ØQ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþò»»Ô d(|37$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ØQ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|37$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ØQ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ØQ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ØQ»»»ÔÑ8€˜?XXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î>~ØQÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ØQ»îî>~ #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJanuary€14,€2003€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡X˜?X»¼ØQÔÌò òÔ#†¼ØQ»XX˜?#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€SAMUEL€L.€Ô_ÔGIDDENSÔ_ÔÔ‡X˜?X»¼ØQÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNos.€II„1100„367„B€&€II„1299„415„A€€€€€€Timothy€L.€Easter,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„00163„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€15,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓFollowing€a€jury€trial,€the€Defendant,€Samuel€L.€Ô_ÔGiddensÔ_Ô,€was€convicted€of€facilitation€of€possessionÐ V¦  Ðof€heroin€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver€and€possession€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.€Ð ? ÐIn€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€Defendant€raises€the€following€four€issues:€(1)€whether€the€trial€courtÐ (x Ðerred€by€allowing€law€enforcement€officers€to€testify€regarding€factual€indications€that€a€personÐ a Ðpossesses€drugs€with€the€intent€to€sell,€rather€than€for€personal€use;Ô#†¼ØQ»XX˜?£#ÔÔ‡X˜?X»¼ØQÔ€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erredÐ úJ Ðby€admitting€testimony€regarding€prior€drug€transactions€conducted€by€the€Defendant;€Ô#†¼ØQ»XX˜?g#ÔÔ‡X˜?X»¼ØQÔ(3)€whetherÐ ã3 Ðthe€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€his€two€convictions;€and€Ô#†¼ØQ»XX˜?5#ÔÔ‡X˜?X»¼ØQÔ(4)€whether€he€was€entitled€to€a€mistrialÐ Ì Ðdue€to€a€statement€made€by€the€prosecutor€during€closing€argument.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÐ µ Ðtrial€court.Ð žî ÐÓæÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ pÀ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ØQ»àX˜?Ö#ÔÔ‡X˜?X.¼ØQÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ôóó€andÐ C“ ÐòòRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ,| ÐÌErnest€W.€Williams€and€Anna€E.€Freeman,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Samuel€L.Ð þN ÐÔ_ÔGiddensÔ_Ô.Ð ç 7  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€T.€Ryan,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ¹" " ÐRon€Davis,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Lee€E.€Dryer,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€theÐ ¢#ò# Ðappellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ‹$Û$ ÐÓG ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ØQ»XX˜?v #ÔòòóóÔ‡X˜?X»¼ØQÔÐ ]&­!& ÐÓ  ÓÓÓÔ#†¼ØQ»XX˜?ª #ÔÔ€X˜?X»¼ØQÔòòÔ‡X: XXX˜?ÔóóÌÓÓà  àThe€Defendant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€facilitation€of€possession€of€heroin,€a€ScheduleÐ )i$) ÐI€controlled€substance,€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver,€which€is€a€Class€C€felony,€and€possessionÐ *R%* Ðwith€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver€cocaine,€a€Schedule€II€controlled€substance,€which€is€a€Class€CÐ ë*;&+ Ðfelony.Ð Ô+$', Ðâ âÐ ½, (-ýú ÐÔ_Ôà  à€€The€evidence€put€forth€by€the€State€at€trial€established€that,€on€October€27,€1999,€AgentÐ ° Ðâ âMarty€Roberts€of€the€Drug€Enforcement€Administration€received€a€telephone€call€from€FrankÐ ™é ÐCollier,€a€heroin€addict,€asking€for€a€meeting.€€Agent€Roberts€arranged€to€meet€Mr.€Collier€at€theÐ ‚Ò ÐMarriott€Hotel€in€Cool€Springs,€near€Franklin,€Tennessee.€€Agent€Roberts€and€Joey€Kimble,€theÐ k» Ðdirector€of€the€21st€Judicial€District€Drug€Task€Force,€interviewed€Mr.€Collier€at€the€hotel.€€TheyÐ T¤ Ðarranged€for€Mr.€Collier€to€make€several€recorded€telephone€conversations€with€his€supplier,€RonaldÐ =  ÐJasmin,€from€whom€he€was€to€buy€an€ounce€of€heroin.€€Law€enforcement€officers€set€up€surveillanceÐ & v Ðin€and€around€the€hotel.€€Agent€Roberts€remained€in€the€hotel€room€with€Mr.€Collier;€DEA€AgentsÐ  _ ÐGreg€Peckinpaugh€and€Tim€Bailey€conducted€surveillance€in€the€hotel€lobby.€€When€Mr.€Jasmin€andÐ ø H Ðthe€Defendant€arrived€at€the€hotel,€Agents€Peckinpaugh€and€Bailey€followed€them€to€Mr.€CollierððsÐ á 1  Ðroom.€€When€Mr.€Jasmin€and€the€Defendant€knocked€on€Mr.€Collierððs€door,€Agents€PeckinpaughÐ Ê   Ðand€Bailey€approached€them€in€the€hallway€and€identified€themselves€as€DEA€agents.€€Both€Mr.Ð ³  ÐJasmin€and€the€Defendant€then€put€their€hands€into€their€pant€pockets,€and€Agents€Peckinpaugh€andÐ œì  ÐBailey€restrained€the€men.€€Four€bags€of€a€powder€substance€were€found€on€Mr.€Jasmin,€and€one€bagÐ …Õ  Ðof€a€powder€substance€was€found€on€the€Defendant.€€Glenn€Everett,€a€forensic€scientist€with€theÐ n¾  ÐTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,€testified€that€the€substance€taken€from€the€Defendant€weighedÐ W§  Ðthirteen€grams€and€tested€positive€for€cocaine.€€The€substances€taken€from€Mr.€Jasmin€weighed€24.6Ð @ Ðgrams€and€4.3€grams€and€tested€positive€for€heroin€and€cocaine,€respectively.Ð )y ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€first€argues€that€Ô#†X˜?X XX:A#Ôthe€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€law€enforcement€officers€toÐ ûK Ðtestify€regarding€indications€that€a€person€possesses€drugs€with€the€intent€to€sell,€rather€than€forÐ ä4 Ðpersonal€useÔ‡X: XXX˜?Ô.€€Specifically,€the€Defendant€asserts€that€drug€task€force€agent€Tim€Haunððs€testimonyÐ Í Ðregarding€the€packaging€of€drugs€was€based€upon€inadmissible€hearsay.€€Agent€Haun€testified€that,Ð ¶ Ðthroughout€the€course€of€his€training€as€a€law€enforcement€officerÔ#†X˜?X XX:‹#ÔÔ‡X: XXX˜?Ô,€he€was€instructed€in€how€toÐ Ÿï Ðdifferentiate€between€a€drug€user€and€a€drug€dealer.€€He€stated€that€the€manner€in€which€the€drugsÐ ˆØ Ðare€packaged€is€indicative€of€how€the€possessor€of€the€drugs€intends€to€use€them.€€Drug€dealersÐ qÁ Ðusually€package€drugs€for€resale€in€the€ð ðcorners€of€baggies€tied€off€with€a€knot.ðð€€Also,€he€testifiedÐ Zª Ðthat€drug€dealers€often€will€have€several€of€these€individual€bags.€€Furthermore,€drug€dealers€do€notÐ C“ Ðnecessarily€carry€the€drug€paraphernalia€that€users€often€do,€and€mere€drug€users€may€not€have€theÐ ,| Ðcellular€phones€or€pagers€that€are€so€vital€to€a€drug€dealer.€€Finally,€the€amount€of€the€drug€found€onÐ e Ða€person€is€suggestive€of€whether€the€person€has€the€drug€to€sell€or€for€personal€use.Ð þN ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€contends€that€Agent€Haun€was€simply€testifying€as€to€what€he€was€told€byÐ Ð!   Ðhis€instructors;€therefore€his€testimony€should€have€been€excluded€as€hearsay.€€Initially,€we€disagreeÐ ¹" ! Ðwith€the€Defendant€in€the€characterization€of€Agent€Haunððs€testimony.€€While€Agent€Haun€didÐ ¢#ò" Ðexplain€that,€during€his€training,€he€had€been€instructed€concerning€how€to€differentiate€a€drug€dealerÐ ‹$Û# Ðfrom€a€drug€user,€he€also€explained€that,€based€on€his€experiences€in€the€field,€there€are€commonÐ t%Ä $ Ðdifferences€between€users€and€sellers.€€His€testimony€was€based€not€solely€on€the€training€he€hadÐ ]&­!% Ðreceived€but€also€on€his€actual€experience€in€investigating€and€arresting€drug€offenders.€€FollowingÐ F'–"& ÐAgent€Haunððs€testimony,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€regarding€expert€testimony€as€set€forthÐ /(#' Ðin€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€702.€€However,€Agent€Haunððs€testimony€is€equally€admissible€underÐ )h$( ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€701,€which€states:Ð *Q%) Ðà8  àIf€a€witness€is€not€testifying€as€an€expert,€the€witnessððs€testimony€in€the€form€ofÐ ê*:&* Ðopinions€or€inferences€is€limited€to€those€opinions€or€inferences€which€areÐÓ+#'+Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(1)€rationally€based€on€the€perception€of€the€witness€andаРР Ðà8  à(2)€helpful€€to€a€clear€understanding€of€the€witnessððs€testimony€or€the€determinationÐ ™é Ðof€a€fact€in€issue.ЂÒÐ Ð  ÐÌTo€the€extent€that€one€could€characterize€Agent€Haunððs€testimony€in€this€case€as€ð ðopinion€orÐ T¤ Ðinferences,ðð€we€believe€it€fell€within€the€parameter€of€this€Rule.Ð =  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€testimony€of€Agent€Haun€and€Agent€PeckinpaughÐ  _ Ðregarding€specific€characteristics€of€a€drug€seller€as€opposed€to€a€drug€user€presented€a€drug€profile.׃×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рø H ÐAs€we€stated€above,€Agent€Haun€testified€that€the€packaging€of€the€drugs€and€the€quantity€of€theÐ á 1  Ðdrug€often€indicate€that€a€person€intends€to€sell,€rather€than€use,€a€drug.€€Agent€PeckinpaughððsÐ Ê   Ðtestimony€is€very€similar.€€He€also€stated€that€the€quantity€and€method€of€packaging,€as€well€as€theÐ ³  Ðlack€of€drug€paraphernalia€and€presence€of€cellular€telephones€or€pagers,€indicate€that€a€person€isÐ œì  Ða€drug€seller.€€In€support€of€his€argument€that€this€testimony€constitutes€improper€profiling,€theÐ …Õ  ÐDefendant€cites€the€concurring€opinion€of€Judge€Tipton€in€òòState€v.€William€Aubrey€Trotter,€Jr.óó,€No.Ð n¾  Ð01C01„9701„CR„00019,€1998€WL€75423,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Feb.€24,€1998).€€InÐ W§  Ðthat€case,€one€officer€testified€that€he€charged€the€defendant€with€possession€for€resale€rather€thanÐ @ Ðsimple€possession€based€upon€the€defendantððs€appearance,€the€amount€of€drugs€found€on€theÐ )y Ðdefendant,€the€amount€of€cash€the€defendant€was€carrying,€and€the€fact€that€the€defendant€was€notÐ b Ðcarrying€any€drug€paraphernalia.€€A€second€officer€explained€what€factors€distinguish€a€possessionÐ ûK Ðfor€resale€from€a€simple€possession.€€He€testified,€ð ðUsually,€the€simple€possession€is€usually€theyÐ ä4 Ðalways€have€a€crack€pipe€with€them,€and€the€majority€of€the€time,€one€small€rock€of€crack€cocaine,Ð Í Ðand€the€possession€for€resale€are€obviously€several€rocks€of€cocaine€andð8ðthe€amount€of€money€isÐ ¶ Ðan€indicator.ðð€òòóó€òòId.óó€at€*2.€€He€also€testified€that€drug€sellers€can€often€be€found€ð ðstanding€on€theÐ Ÿï Ðcorner€[in€an€area€known€to€have€a€high€volume€of€drug€traffic],€flagging€cars€down,€going€to€cars,Ð ˆØ Ðleaving€cars,€standing€there€with€really€no€objective,€not,€donððt€live€there,€not€visiting€anyone€there.ðð€Ð qÁ ÐòòId.óó€€In€his€concurring€opinion,€Judge€Tipton€opined€that€the€officersðð€testimony€regarding€specificÐ Zª Ðcharacteristics€of€a€drug€seller€as€opposed€to€a€drug€user€was€opinion€evidence€that€essentiallyÐ C“ Ðpresented€a€profile.€€However,€the€majority€in€òòTrotteróó€did€not€find€that€the€testimony€of€officersÐ ,| Ðpresented€a€drug€profile.€€Ô#†X˜?X XX:ó#ÔÔ‡X: XXX˜?ÔÐ e ÐÌà  àConsistent€with€the€majority€opinion€in€òòTrotteróó,€we€conclude€that€the€testimony€of€the€agentsÐ ç 7 Ðin€this€case€did€not€create€a€drug€profile.€€Based€upon€what€they€had€perceived€during€theirÐ Ð!   Ðexperience€as€narcotics€officers,€the€agents€testified€to€the€factors€that€commonly€distinguish€oneÐ ¹" ! Ðwho€possesses€drugs€for€the€purpose€of€resale€from€one€who€possesses€drugs€for€personal€use.€€TheyÐ ¢#ò" Ðdid€not€testify€that€the€Defendant€was€guilty€as€charged.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌà  àThe€second€issue€raised€by€the€Defendant€is€whether€Ô#†X˜?X XX:Å0#Ôthe€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€the€Ð ]&­!% Ðtestimony€of€Ronald€Jasmin€regarding€prior€drug€transactions€conducted€by€the€Defendant€whichÐ F'–"& ÐMr.€Jasmin€had€witnessedÔ‡X: XXX˜?Ô.€€First€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€allowedÐ /(#' ÐMr.€Jasmin€to€testify€because€his€testimony€was€unduly€prejudicial,€and€the€only€way€for€theÐ ° ÐDefendant€to€rebut€it€would€be€for€him€to€take€the€stand.€€Therefore,€the€Defendant€presents€theÐ ™é Ðcreative€argument€that,€by€allowing€Mr.€Jasmin€to€testify,€the€trial€court€compelled€the€DefendantÐ ‚Ò Ðto€give€evidence€against€himself,€lest€a€presumption€of€guilt€be€created€against€him.€€The€sole€caseÐ k» Ðcited€by€the€Defendant€in€support€of€this€argument€is€òòStaples€v.€Stateóó,€14€S.W.€603€(Tenn.€1890).€Ð T¤ ÐHowever,€in€that€case,€the€prosecutor€argued€to€the€jury€that€the€defendant€had€not€testified.€€TheÐ =  Ðprosecutor€further€described€for€the€jury€what€the€defendant€would€have€said€if€he€had€testified.€€TheÐ & v Ðinstant€case€is€obviously€distinguishable.€€The€attorney€for€the€State€did€not€comment€on€theÐ  _ ÐDefendantððs€decision€€not€to€testify,€and€there€has€been€no€showing€that€the€Defendantððs€decisionÐ ø H Ðto€not€testify€created€a€presumption€of€guilt€against€him.€€Therefore,€this€portion€of€the€DefendantððsÐ á 1  Ðargument€must€fail.Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€excluded€the€testimony€of€Mr.Ð œì  ÐJasmin€because€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(b),€ð ðEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€orÐ …Õ  Ðacts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€withÐ n¾  Ðthe€character€trait.ðð€€As€the€trial€court€correctly€noted,€ð ð[i]t€may,€however,€be€admissible€for€otherÐ W§  Ðpurposes.ðð€€òòId.óó€€One€such€purpose€is€to€show€the€accusedððs€intent.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2dÐ @ Ð299,€302€(Tenn.€1985).€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€evidence€of€the€Defendantððs€prior€participationÐ )y Ðin€drug€sales€was€admissible€to€show€that€the€Defendant€did€intend€to€sell€the€drugs€that€he€possessedÐ b Ðon€October€27,€1999Ô#†X˜?X XX:4#ÔÔ‡X: XXX˜?Ô.€€This€Court€has€held€in€several€cases€that€evidence€of€prior€drug€sales€wasÐ ûK Ðadmissible€to€prove€a€defendantððs€intent€to€sell€drugs.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Littleóó,€854€S.W.2d€643,€649Ð ä4 Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(holding€that€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€prior€drug€transactions€wasÐ Í Ðadmissible€to€show€intent€to€sell€drugs€and€rebut€the€defendantððs€contention€that€he€was€ð ða€victimÐ ¶ Ðof€circumstanceðð);€òòState€v.€Bernard€Jerome€Jonesóó,€No.€M2000„00018„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WLÐ Ÿï Ð1562864,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Oct.€20,€2000)€(holding€that€regardless€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðadmissibility€of€defendantððs€prior€convictions€for€selling€drugs€for€impeachment€purposes,Ð qÁ Ðconvictions€were€admissible€to€show€intent€to€sell€drugs);€òòState€v.€Johnny€Wayne€Tilleryóó,€No.Ð Zª Ð01C01„9506„CC„00182,€1998€WL€148326,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Mar.€30,€1998)Ð C“ Ð(holding€that€probative€value€of€evidence€of€defendantððs€involvement€in€drug€transactionsÐ ,| Ðoutweighed€prejudice€and€pattern€of€prior€drug€sales€was€admissible€to€show€defendantððs€intent€toÐ e Ðpossess€drugs€with€the€intent€to€sell).€€In€this€case,€the€Defendant€maintained€throughout€the€trial€thatÐ þN Ðhe€did€not€intend€to€sell€drugs.€€In€his€opening€statement€to€the€jury,€defense€counsel€said,€ð ðIt€isÐ ç 7 Ðhighly€disputed€that€[the€Defendant]€intended€to€deliver€or€sell€heroin€and€cocaineð8ðIf€you€believeÐ Ð!   Ðall€of€the€Stateððs€proof,€I€submit€to€you€that€what€[the€Defendant]€is€guilty€of€is€no€more€than€simpleÐ ¹" ! Ðpossession.ðð€€The€testimony€of€Ronald€Jasmin€that€he€had€witnessed€the€Defendant€selling€drugs€onÐ ¢#ò" Ðseveral€prior€occasions€was€relevant€to€show€that€the€Defendant€was€more€than€a€mere€drug€user.€Ð ‹$Û# ÐThe€evidence€of€prior€drug€sales€indicated€an€intent€on€the€part€of€the€Defendant€to€sell€the€drugs€heÐ t%Ä $ Ðpossessed.€€It€was€not€error€for€the€trial€court€to€admit€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Jasmin,€and€this€issueÐ ]&­!% Ðis€without€merit.€€€Ð F'–"& ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€insufficient€to€sustain€hisÐ )h$( Ðconvictions€for€possession€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sell€and€facilitation€of€possession€of€heroinÐ *Q%) Ðwith€the€intent€to€sell.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(e)€prescribes€that€ð ð[f]indings€ofÐ ê*:&* Ðguilt€in€criminal€actionsÔ#†X˜?X XX:=#ÔÔ‡X: XXX˜?Ô€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€isÐ Ó+#'+ Ðinsufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€EvidenceÐ ° Ðis€sufficient€if,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€anyÐ ™é Ðrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð ‚Ò ÐòòSeeóó€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€24€S.W.3d€274,€278€(Tenn.Ð k» Ð2000).€€In€addition,€because€conviction€by€a€trier€of€fact€destroys€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÐ T¤ Ðimposes€a€presumption€of€guilt,€a€convicted€criminal€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€theÐ =  Ðevidence€was€insufficient.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€372€S.W.2d€173,€176€(Tenn.€1963);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòStateÐ & v Ðv.€Buggsóó,€995€S.W.2d€102,€105„06€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992);òòóóÐ  _ ÐòòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).òòóóÐ ø H ÐÌà  àIn€its€review€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court€must€afford€the€State€ð ðthe€strongestÐ Ê   Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawnÐ ³  Ðtherefrom.ðð€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914;òòóó€òòsee€alsoóó€òòSmithóó,€24€S.W.3d€at€279.€€The€court€may€not€ð ðre„Ð œì  Ðweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidenceðð€in€the€record€below.€€òòEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€at€191;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBuggsóó,Ð …Õ  Ð995€S.W.2d€at€105.òòóó€€Likewise,€should€the€reviewing€court€find€particular€conflicts€in€the€trialÐ n¾  Ðtestimony,€the€court€must€resolve€them€in€favor€of€the€jury€verdict€or€trial€court€judgment.€€òòSeeóóÐ W§  ÐòòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.€€All€questions€involving€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€andÐ @ Ðvalue€to€be€given€the€evidence,€and€all€factual€issues€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€theÐ )y Ðappellate€courts.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Morrisóó,€24€S.W.3d€788,€795€(Tenn.€2000);€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754Ð b ÐS.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ô#†X˜?X XX:XH#ÔÔ‡X: XXX˜?ÔÐ ûK ÐÌà  àThe€jury€convicted€the€Defendant€of€possessing€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.€€AtÐ Í Ðtrial,€Agent€Peckinpaugh€testified€that,€when€he€apprehended€the€Defendant€in€the€hotel€hallway,Ð ¶ Ðhe€removed€the€Defendantððs€hand€from€his€pocket€and€handcuffed€him.€€Agent€Peckinpaugh€thenÐ Ÿï Ðfelt€inside€the€Defendantððs€pocket€and€found€a€plastic€bag€that€contained€a€substance€that€appearedÐ ˆØ Ðto€be€cocaine.€€Glenn€Everett€testified€that€the€substance€recovered€from€the€Defendant€did€testÐ qÁ Ðpositive€for€cocaine€and€weighed€thirteen€grams.׃×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Clearly€the€proof€is€sufficient€to€show€that€theÐ Zª ÐDefendant€possessed€a€substance€containing€cocaine,€and€the€Defendant€concedes€as€much€in€hisÐ C“ Ðbrief.Ð ,| ÐÌà  àThe€question,€then,€is€whether€the€proof€at€trial€was€sufficient€to€establish€that€the€DefendantÐ þN Ðpossessed€the€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sell€it.€€Ronald€Jasmin€testified€that€the€Defendant€was€withÐ ç 7 Ðhim€when€Frank€Collier€called€to€order€heroin.€€The€Defendant€went€with€Mr.€Jasmin€to€retrieveÐ Ð!   Ðheroin€from€Mr.€Jasminððs€supplier.€€Furthermore,€Mr.€Jasmin€testified€that€the€Defendant€gave€himÐ ¹" ! Ðthree€bags€containing€a€small€amount€of€cocaine€to€sell€to€Mr.€Collier,€in€addition€to€the€one€largeÐ ¢#ò" Ðbag€of€cocaine€that€the€Defendant€was€carrying.€€Although€Mr.€Collier€did€not€request€cocaine,€Mr.Ð ‹$Û# ÐJasmin€stated€that€he€almost€always€bought€whatever€was€brought€to€him.€€When€the€police€officersÐ t%Ä $ Ðplaced€the€Defendant€under€arrest€and€searched€him,€they€found€the€bag€containing€thirteen€gramsÐ ]&­!% Ðof€cocaine,€a€cellular€telephone,€and€an€electronic€pager.€€The€Defendant€was€carrying€no€drugÐ ° Ðparaphernalia.€€Several€officers€testified€that€these€factors,€especially€the€large€amount€of€cocaineÐ ™é Ðfound€on€the€Defendant,€are€consistent€with€common€characteristics€of€people€who€possess€drugsÐ ‚Ò Ðfor€resale.€€ð ðIt€may€be€inferred€from€the€amount€of€a€controlled€substance€or€substances€possessedÐ k» Ðby€an€offender,€along€with€other€relevant€facts€surrounding€the€arrest,€that€the€controlled€substanceÐ T¤ Ðor€substances€were€possessed€with€the€purpose€of€selling€or€otherwise€dispensing.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÐ =  ÐAnn.€ðð€39„17„419.€€We€believe€that€this€evidence€is€sufficient€to€entitle€the€jury€to€conclude€beyondÐ & v Ða€reasonable€doubt€that€the€Defendant€possessed€the€thirteen€grams€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sellÐ  _ Ðor€deliver.Ð ø H ÐÌà  àThe€jury€also€convicted€the€Defendant€of€Ô#†X˜?X XX:éQ#Ôfacilitation€of€possession€of€heroin€with€the€intentÐ Ê   Ðto€sell€or€deliverÔ‡X: XXX˜?Ô.€€Ronald€Jasmin€admitted€that€he€took€a€large€amount€of€heroin€to€the€hotel€roomÐ ³  Ðof€Frank€Collier€for€the€purpose€of€selling€it€to€Mr.€Collier.€€Therefore,€we€focus€on€whether€theÐ œì  ÐDefendant€facilitated€Mr.€Jasminððs€possession€of€the€heroin€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.€Ð …Õ  ÐFacilitation€occurs€when,€ð ðknowing€that€another€intends€to€commit€a€specific€felony,€but€without€theÐ n¾  Ðintent€required€for€criminal€responsibility€under€ðð€39„11„402(2),€the€person€knowingly€furnishesÐ W§  Ðsubstantial€assistance€in€the€commission€of€the€felony.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„403(a).€€Mr.Ð @ ÐJasmin€testified€that€the€Defendant€was€present€during€every€stage€of€the€attempted€drug€sale€toÐ )y ÐFrank€Collier:€he€was€present€when€Mr.€Jasmin€received€the€call€from€Mr.€Collier€requesting€heroin;Ð b Ðhe€was€present€when€Mr.€Jasmin€went€to€his€supplier€to€obtain€heroin;€he€was€present€when€Mr.Ð ûK ÐJasmin€cut€the€heroin€with€sugar;€he€accompanied€Mr.€Jasmin€to€Mr.€Collierððs€hotel;€and€he€and€Mr.Ð ä4 ÐJasmin€both€knocked€on€Mr.€Collierððs€door.€€Finally,€Mr.€Jasmin€testified€that€the€Defendant€gaveÐ Í Ðhim€three€small€bags€containing€cocaine€for€him€to€try€to€sell€to€Mr.€Collier€in€addition€to€theÐ ¶ Ðrequested€heroin.€€These€facts€support€the€juryððs€verdict€finding€the€Defendant€guilty€of€facilitationÐ Ÿï Ðof€possession€of€heroin€with€the€intent€to€sell.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€last€issue€raised€by€the€Defendant€is€that€Ô#†X˜?X XX:%^#Ôhe€was€entitled€to€a€mistrial€due€to€a€statementÐ Zª Ðmade€by€the€prosecutor€during€closing€argument.Ô‡X: XXX˜?Ô€€During€the€Stateððs€closing€argument€to€the€jury,Ð C“ Ðthe€prosecuting€attorney€stated,€ð ðTwo€potential€witnesses€in€this€case€are€now€dead.€€They€were€bothÐ ,| Ðin€the€drug€business.€€What€does€that€tell€you€about€the€drug€business?€€What€does€that€tell€you€aboutÐ e Ðwhat€it€does€to€us,€to€our€community?ðð€€Upon€hearing€this€utterance€by€the€prosecutor,€defenseÐ þN Ðcounsel€immediately€objected€and€then€moved€for€a€mistrial€when€the€prosecutor€had€concluded€hisÐ ç 7 Ðclosing€argument.€€In€response€to€defense€counselððs€objection,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€toÐ Ð!   Ðdisregard€the€comments€because€there€was€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€suggest€that€drugs€causedÐ ¹" ! Ðthe€deaths€of€the€two€potential€witnesses.€€The€Defendant€now€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ ¢#ò" Ðdenying€his€motion€for€a€mistrial.€€He€argues€that€the€prosecutorððs€statements€were€so€prejudicial€thatÐ ‹$Û# Ðno€curative€instruction€would€be€sufficient€and€a€that€mistrial€was€necessary.Ð t%Ä $ ÐÌà  àA€trial€court€has€substantial€discretionary€authority€in€determining€the€propriety€of€finalÐ F'–"& Ðargument.€€òòSeeóó€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Although€counselÐ /(#' Ðis€generally€given€wide€latitude,€a€trial€court€must€restrict€any€improper€commentary.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€Ð )h$( Ðð ðArguments€must€be€temperate,€predicated€on€evidence€introduced€during€the€trial,€relevant€to€theÐ *Q%) Ðissues€being€tried,€and€not€otherwise€improper€under€the€facts€or€law.ðð€€òòState€v.€Thorntonóó,€10€S.W.3dÐ ê*:&* Ð229,€235€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1999).€€However,€even€if€the€prosecutorððs€statements€constituteÐ Ó+#'+ Ðmisconduct,€whether€it€amounts€to€reversible€error€depends€on€whether€it€had€a€prejudicial€effectÐ ° Ðupon€the€juryððs€verdict.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóÐ ™é ÐÌà  àThe€factors€to€aid€us€in€making€this€determination€are€set€forth€in€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2dÐ k» Ð340,€344€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1976).€€The€òòJudgeóó€factors,€later€adopted€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòStateÐ T¤ ÐÔ_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€609€(Tenn.€1984),€require€this€Court€to€consider€the€following:Ð =  ÐÌà8  à1.€€The€conduct€complained€of[,]€viewed€in€context€and€in€light€of€the€facts€andÐ  _ Ðcircumstances€of€the€case.Ðø HÐ Ð  Ðà8  à2.€€The€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution.Ðá 1 Ð Ð  Ðà8  à3.€€The€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improper€statement.ÐÊ  Ð Ð  Ðà8  à4.€€The€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€in€the€record.г Ð Ð  Ðà8  à5.€€The€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.Мì Ð Ð  ÐÌòòJudgeóó,€539€S.W.2d€at€344.Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àThe€first€òòJudgeóó€factor€requires€us€to€consider€the€prosecutorððs€comments€in€context€and€inÐ @ Ðlight€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòJudgeóó,€539€S.W.2d€at€344.€€The€Stateððs€proofÐ )y Ðin€this€case€established€that€the€Defendant€accompanied€Ronald€Jasmin€to€sell€heroin€to€FrankÐ b ÐCollier.€€When€he€was€arrested€and€searched,€police€officers€found€a€bag€containing€thirteen€gramsÐ ûK Ðof€a€substance€containing€cocaine.€€The€Defendantððs€theory€of€defense€was€that€he€had€the€cocaineÐ ä4 Ðfor€his€personal€use€and€did€not€intend€to€sell€it.€€However,€Mr.€Jasmin€testified€that€he€hadÐ Í Ðwitnessed€the€Defendant€selling€drugs€before.€€Furthermore,€law€enforcement€officers€testified€thatÐ ¶ Ðno€drug€paraphernalia€was€found€on€the€Defendant.€€The€prosecutorððs€comment,€arguably€implyingÐ Ÿï Ðthat€the€two€potential€witnesses€had€died€as€a€result€of€their€involvement€in€the€drug€business,€wasÐ ˆØ Ðnot€based€on€any€evidence€that€had€been€introduced€and€was€not€relevant€to€any€of€the€issues€beingÐ qÁ Ðtried.€€Therefore,€the€comment€was€improper.Ð Zª ÐÌà  àImmediately€after€the€Stateððs€attorney€made€the€improper€statement,€the€trial€court€issued€aÐ ,| Ðcurative€instruction€to€the€jury.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€the€improperÐ e Ðargument€because€there€was€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€the€deaths€of€the€two€potential€witnessesÐ þN Ðwas€caused€by€their€involvement€in€the€drug€business.Ð ç 7 ÐÌà  àThe€third€factor€is€the€prosecutorððs€intent€in€making€the€questioned€comment.€€Here,€theÐ ¹" ! Ðprosecutor€was€apparently€intending€to€demonstrate€the€threat€that€the€drug€trade€poses€to€society,Ð ¢#ò" Ðespecially€when€drugs€are€dealt€in€the€quantity€presented€in€this€case.€€Obviously,€the€drug€businessÐ ‹$Û# Ðis€dangerous,€but€in€illustrating€that€point,€prosecutors€must€limit€their€arguments€to€the€evidenceÐ t%Ä $ Ðintroduced€during€trial.Ð ]&­!% ÐÌà  àThe€fourth€factor€is€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€comment€and€other€errors€in€theÐ /(#' Ðrecord.€€In€our€review€of€the€record,€we€have€found€no€other€errors,€and€we€believe€that,€in€theÐ )h$( Ðcontext€of€the€entire€closing€argument€by€the€State€and€the€totality€of€the€evidence€presented€to€theÐ *Q%) Ðâ âjury,€the€prosecutorððs€comment€had€little€or€no€effect€on€the€jury.€€The€trial€court€immediatelyÐ ê*:&* Ðinstructed€the€jury€to€disregard€the€improper€comment;€at€the€close€of€argument€the€court€instructedÐ ° Ðthat€the€Defendant€was€presumed€innocent€and€bore€no€burden€to€prove€his€innocence.Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àThe€fifth€òòJudgeóó€factor€is€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€Stateððs€case,€and€we€find€thatÐ k» Ðthe€State€presented€a€relatively€strong€case€against€the€Defendant.Ð T¤ ÐÔ#†X˜?X XX:e#ÔÌà  àConsidering€all€of€the€òòJudgeóó€factors,€we€conclude€that€the€prosecutorððs€comment€wasÐ & v Ðimproper,€but€it€does€not€require€reversal.€€Once€again,€however,€this€Court€cautions€the€State€againstÐ  _ Ðmaking€such€gratuitous€and€improper€comments€and€reminds€prosecutors€that€ð ððð[r]emarks€whichÐ ø H Ðskirt€the€edges€of€impermissible€comment€are€neither€desirable€nor€worth€the€risk€of€reversal€of€whatÐ á 1  Ðmay€well€be€a€thoroughly€deserved€conviction.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Copelandóó,€983€S.W.2d€703,€709€(Tenn.Ð Ê   ÐCrim.€App.€1998)€(quoting€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€582€S.W.2d€98,€101€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979)).€€TheÐ ³  ÐDefendant€is€not€entitled€to€a€new€trial€on€this€basis.Ð œì  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ô_ԀРä4 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE