ÿWPC˜* àR?©hýÚÉ*Hå,ÂÞn*»È‚Ê!ˆi¢*OÑÕè_!ÉòËßJÑ@ôÞq¯ë, ¡ÙN²‚*›&ÏÉ&Q>Z·ó/öGÔÁºk¢a/üšT+¬½ó6S_¥-ñXG ŒÍm‘sÅöb‰‹_sCÝGQ|×û´zžÑ”öFiH™ ( ’‡ÊÕ^ ™пþíüUBsAdfò˜À+LÅ5O~—±™¦ªqxÌ­“©mádýóe«¹#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5Ô.€€Simply€stated,€the€court€is€not€Ð øH Ðan€appellate€surrogate€for€the€trier€of€fact.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àAlthough€the€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó€standard€of€review€is€often€cited,€the€delicateÐ ¼  Ðbalancing€of€interests€that€produced€the€standard€is€mentioned€seldom,€if€at€all.€€This€case€serves€toÐ ¨ø Ðremind€us€of€the€balance€that€has€been€struck.€€ð ð[T]he€relevant€question,ðð€the€United€States€SupremeÐ ”ä ÐCourt€stated,€ð ðis€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,Ð €Ð Ðòòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÐ l¼ Ðdoubt.ðð€€òòJacksonóó,€443€U.S.€at€319,€99€S.€Ct.€at€2789.€€The€Supreme€Court€continued,Ô#†¼^5»XX‰@#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÐ X ¨ ÐÌÔ#†¼^5»XX‰¨C#ÔÓO2ÓÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÓ  ÓòòóóÓ °ÓÓ °ÓThis€familiar€standard€gives€full€play€to€the€responsibility€of€the€trierÐ 0"€  Ðof€fact€fairly€to€resolve€conflicts€in€the€testimony,€to€weigh€theÐ #l! Ðevidence,€and€to€draw€reasonable€inferences€from€basic€facts€toÐ $X" Ðultimate€facts.€Once€a€defendant€has€been€found€guilty€of€the€crimeÐ ô$D # Ðcharged,€the€factfinder's€role€as€weigher€of€the€evidence€is€preservedÐ à%0!$ Ðthrough€a€legal€conclusion€that€upon€judicial€review€òòall€of€theóóÐ Ì&"% Ðòòevidenceóó€is€to€be€considered€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ ¸'#& Ðprosecution.€€The€criterion€thus€impinges€upon€"jury"€discretion€onlyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€the€extent€necessary€to€guarantee€the€fundamental€protection€of€dueÐ )à$( Ðprocess€of€law.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÓ °ODÓÓ °ADÓÐ h+¸&* ÐòòId.óó€(footnotes€omitted).Ô#†¼^5»XX‰D#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÐ ° ÐÓ/DÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state€shows€that€the€defendant€wasÐ ˆØ Ðdriving€her€vehicle€in€an€erratic€and€dangerous€manner.€€She€crossed€over€the€centerline€of€theÐ tÄ Ðhighway€on€three€occasions€while€being€observed€by€Officer€Gann.€€When€stopped,€the€defendantÐ `° Ðhad€a€detectable€odor€of€alcohol€about€her.€€She€stumbled€after€she€got€out€of€€her€vehicle.€€She€failedÐ L œ Ðtwo€field€sobriety€tests€administered€by€Officer€Gann,€and€she€refused€to€submit€to€a€blood€alcoholÐ 8 ˆ Ðtest.€€When€asked€if€she€had€been€drinking,€the€defendant€replied€that€she€had€probably€consumedÐ $ t Ðtoo€much€rum€to€drive.€€Throughout€the€roadside€encounter,€the€defendant€exhibited€inappropriateÐ  ` Ðbehavior.€€She€hung€onto€the€officer€and€patted€him€on€the€shoulder;€she€also€laughed,€giggled,€andÐ ü L  Ðrepeatedly€interrupted€him.€€Finally,€while€she€was€being€transported€to€jail€by€the€arresting€officer,Ð è 8  Ðthe€defendant€made€sexually€suggestive€remarks€about€how€she€had€previously€avoided€beingÐ Ô$  Ðarrested,€and€she€propositioned€the€officer€to€let€her€go€free€in€exchange€for€performing€oral€sex€onÐ À  Ðhim.Ð ¬ü  ÐÓeHÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àThis€court€has€previously€found€evidence€of€DUI€sufficient€even€though€it€consistedÐ „Ô  Ðentirely€of€the€arresting€officerððs€testimony.€€In€òòState€v.€Vasseróó,€870€S.W.2d€543,€544€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð pÀ ÐApp.€1993),€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€a€DUI€conviction€when€the€trial€court€relied€onlyÐ \¬ Ðupon€the€arresting€officer's€testimony€that€the€defendant€was€driving€under€the€influence.€€òòId.óó€€InÐ H˜ ÐòòVasseróó,€the€defendant€did€not€complete€the€field€sobriety€tests€and€refused€to€take€a€breath€test.€€òòId.óóÐ 4„ Ðat€543-44.€€In€òòState€v.€Corderóó,€854€S.W.2d€653€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€the€defendant€was€foundÐ  p Ðasleep€in€his€car€and€no€field€sobriety€tests€were€administered.€€òòId.óó€at€654.€€This€court€affirmed€theÐ  \ ÐDUI€conviction€because€the€trial€court€accredited€the€testimony€of€the€arresting€officer€over€the€otherÐ øH Ðwitnesses.€€òòId.óóÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àDriving€under€the€influence€may€be€shown€by€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.Ð ¼  ÐLawrenceóó,€849€S.W.2d€761,€763€(Tenn.€1993);€€òòCorderóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€654.€€The€proof€in€the€presentÐ ¨ø Ðcase€was€clearly€sufficient€to€allow€a€rational€fact€finder€to€conclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,Ð ”ä Ðbased€upon€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence,€that€the€defendant€was€driving€under€theÐ €Ð Ðinfluence.€Ð l¼ ÐÌÓ»MÓòòÓ  Óà @ àà @` àóóò òII.€€Suppression€Issuesó óòòÐ D!” ÐÓTÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àóóThe€defendant€is€aggrieved€that€the€trial€court€did€not€grant€her€motions€to€suppressÐ #l! Ðstatements€she€made€to€the€arresting€officer.€€The€state€correctly€notes€that€the€defendant€does€notÐ $X" Ðquote€in€her€brief€which€statements€are€in€issue.€€Nevertheless,€from€the€transcripts€and€pleadingsÐ ô$D # Ðbefore€us,€including€the€defendantððs€new€trial€motion,€it€is€evident€that€two€statements€and€oneÐ à%0!$ Ðquestion€are€involved.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€first€statement€the€defendant€made€was€in€response€to€a€question€posed€by€OfficerÐ ¤(ô#' ÐGann.€€During€the€traffic€stop,€he€asked€about€her€alcohol€consumption.€€She€replied€that€òòóóshe€hadÐ )à$( Ðdrunk€too€much€rum€to€drive.€€The€second€challenged€statement€was€made€while€the€defendant€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðbeing€transported€to€jail.€€She€referred€to€prior€run„ins€with€the€law€and€made€suggestive€commentsÐ h+¸&* Ðabout€ð ðdoing€thingsðð€to€avoid€being€arrested€in€another€jurisdiction.€€The€third€challengedÐ ° Ðð ðstatementðð€is€more€properly€regarded€as€a€question€or€an€ð ðofferðð€to€the€arresting€officer.€€BeforeÐ œì Ðbeing€removed€from€the€police€cruiser€at€the€jail,€the€defendant€offered€to€perform€fellatio€inÐ ˆØ Ðexchange€for€being€released.Ð tÄ ÐÔ#†¼^5»XX‰ H#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔòòÌà  àà ` àóóThe€defendant€challenges€the€admissibility€of€the€first€statement€on€constitutionalÐ L œ Ðgrounds.€€She€argues€that€she€was€subjected€to€custodial€interrogation€without€having€been€advisedÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€her€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€She€claims€that€any€statement€to€the€officer€as€a€result€of€such€custodialÐ $ t Ðinterrogation€was€unconstitutionally€obtained,€and€thus,€the€statement€should€not€have€been€admittedÐ  ` Ðat€trial.Ô#†¼^5»XX‰AZ#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5Ô€€òòóóThe€defendant€maintains€that€the€second€statement€and€the€sexual€proposition€wereÐ ü L  Ðinflammatory€and€unfairly€prejudicial,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Evidence€Rule€403,€and€constitutedÐ è 8  Ðinadmissible€evidence€of€other€wrongs,€crimes,€or€acts,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Evidence€Rule€404(b).Ô#†¼^5»XX‰€\#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ԀРÔ$  ÐWe€first€will€address€the€constitutional€challenge€and€then€discuss€the€evidentiary€objections.òòÐ À  ÐÌà  àà ` àò òó óA.€€Miranda€warnings.ò òó óÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àóóAt€the€outset,€we€must€decide€what€standard€of€review€to€apply.€€In€this€case,€the€trialÐ pÀ Ðjudge€made€no€findings€of€fact€concerning€the€defendantððs€statements€to€Officer€Gann.€€Moreover,Ð \¬ Ðno€live€testimony€or€evidence€was€presented€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress.€€Rather,€theÐ H˜ Ðparties€submitted€to€the€trial€court€a€transcript€of€the€preliminary€hearing,€which€was€conductedÐ 4„ Ðbefore€a€different€judge,€and€the€parties€argued€their€respective€positions€to€the€trial€court.€€At€leastÐ  p Ðonce€before€on€a€motion€to€suppress,€when€identical€circumstances€arose,€our€court€held€that€ð ðreviewÐ  \ Ðwill€be€òòde€novoóó.ðð€€òòState€v.€Doughertyóó,€930€S.W.2d€85,€86€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€In€light€of€theÐ øH Ðrecent€decision€in€òòState€v.€Binetteóó,€___€S.W.3d€___,€No.€1998„00236„SC„R11„CD€(Tenn.,€Knoxville,Ð ä4 ÐOct.€5,€2000),€however,€we€feel€obliged€to€explore€the€matter€in€greater€depth.Ô#†¼^5»XX‰^#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÐ Ð  ÐÓpTÓÔ#†¼^5»XX‰]c#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÌòòÔ#†¼^5»XX‰Äc#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÓ  Óà  àà ` àóóIn€òòBinetteóó,€the€supreme€court€restated€the€standard€of€appellate€review€for€suppressionÐ ¨ø Ðissues€as€had€been€settled€upon€in€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996).òòÐ ”ä ÐóóÔf  ÔÌÔf  ÔÔg ÔÓ XÓÓ °XÓÓ XÓÓ °XÓÔ#†¼^5»XX‰ d#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔQuestions€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€theÐ l¼ Ðevidence,€and€resolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€mattersÐ X ¨ Ðentrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€The€party€prevailing€inÐ D!” Ðthe€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðevidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing€as€well€as€all€reasonableÐ #l! Ðand€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€that€evidence.€€SoÐ $X" Ðlong€as€the€greater€weight€of€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððsÐ ô$D # Ðfindings,€those€findings€shall€be€upheld.€€In€other€words,€a€trialÐ à%0!$ Ðcourtððs€findings€of€fact€in€a€suppression€hearing€will€be€upheld€unlessÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÓ X°{eÓÓ X°_eÓÓ XÓÓ XÓòòId.óó€at€23.€€The€supreme€court€in€òòBinetteóó€then€rejected€that€standard€of€review€for€a€trial€courtððsÐ )à$( Ðfindings€of€fact€on€a€motion€to€suppress€when€they€are€based€on€evidence€that€does€not€involve€issuesÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€credibility;€the€proper€standard€in€that€situation€is€òòde€novoóó€review€without€a€presumption€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðcorrectness.€€The€supreme€court€explained€that€ð ðwhen€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€on€a€motion€toÐ ° Ðsuppress€are€based€solely€on€evidence€that€does€not€involve€issues€of€credibility,€appellate€courts€areÐ œì Ðjust€as€capable€to€review€the€evidence€and€draw€their€own€conclusions.ðð€€òòBinetteóó,€slip€op.€at€3.Ô#†¼^5»XX‰¬e#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€evidence€in€òòBinetteóó€was€a€videotape€of€a€vehicle€stop,€and€the€suppression€issueÐ `° Ðwas€whether€the€officer€had€reasonable€suspicion€for€the€stop€and€detention.€€In€this€case,€theÐ L œ Ðevidence€is€a€preliminary€hearing€transcript€of€the€arresting€officerððs€testimony,€and€the€issue€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðwhether€defendantððs€statements€to€the€officer€should€be€suppressed.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€question€becomes€whetherÐ $ t Ðthe€preliminary€hearing€transcript€should€be€treated€as€was€the€òòBinetteóó€videotape.€€There€is€languageÐ  ` Ðin€òòBinetteóó€suggesting€that€similar€treatment€is€appropriate.Ð ü L  ÐÔ#†¼^5»XX‰vl#ÔÔf  ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÓ)dÓÔf  ÔÌÔf  ÔÔg ÔÓ  ÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓIn€the€context€of€workersðð€compensation€cases,€this€Court€has€heldÐ Ô$  Ðthat€ð ðwhere€the€issues€involve€expert€medical€testimony€and€all€theÐ À  Ðmedical€proof€is€contained€in€the€record€by€deposition...then€thisÐ ¬ü  ÐCourt€may€draw€its€own€conclusions€about€the€weight€and€credibilityÐ ˜è  Ðof€that€testimony.ðð€€òòKrick€v.€City€of€Lawrenceburgóó,€945€S.W.2d€709,Ð „Ô  Ð712€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€rationale€allowing€an€appellate€court€toÐ pÀ Ðreview€such€evidence€de€novo€without€a€presumption€of€correctnessÐ \¬ Ðis€clear:€the€reviewing€court€is€in€the€same€position€as€the€trial€courtÐ H˜ Ðand€is€just€as€capable€of€reviewing€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Similarly,Ð 4„ Ðwhen€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€on€a€motion€to€suppress€are€basedÐ  p Ðsolely€on€evidence€that€does€not€involve€issues€of€credibility,Ð  \ Ðappellate€courts€are€just€as€capable€to€review€the€evidence€and€drawÐ øH Ðtheir€own€conclusions.Ð ä4 ÐÔ#†¼^5»XX‰òo#ÔÓBpÓÓ °\pÓÓ °NpÓÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔòòÌÓ  ÓBinetteóó,€slip€op.€at€3.€€While€this€is€not€a€workersðð€compensation€case,€our€court€is€in€the€sameÐ ¼  Ðposture€as€the€trial€court€vis„a„via€the€preliminary€hearing€transcript.€€That€is,€the€trial€judge€read€aÐ ¨ø Ðcold€record€of€a€hearing€over€which€he€did€not€preside;€our€court€is€just€as€capable€of€reviewing€thatÐ ”ä Ðsame€cold€record€and€drawing€our€own€conclusions.òòÐ €Ð ÐÓRuÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àóóWe€are€mindful,€however,€that€ð ðin€òòóóevaluating€the€correctness€of€a€trial€courtððs€rulingÐ X ¨ Ðon€a€pretrial€motion€to€suppress€appellate€courts€may€consider€the€proof€adduced€both€at€theÐ D!” Ðsuppression€hearing€and€at€trial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€975€S.W.2d€290,€299€(Tenn.€1998Ô#†¼^5»XX‰/u#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5Ô).€€The€trialÐ 0"€  Ðcourt€in€this€case€did€hear€the€testimony€of€Officer€Gann€at€trial,€and€the€trial€court€observed€hisÐ #l! Ðdemeanor€at€that€time.€€In€the€absence€of€findings,€it€may€be€possible€for€us€to€assume€that€the€trialÐ $X" Ðcourt€found€the€officer€to€be€credible.€€òòSeeóó€òòCleek€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€19€S.W.3d€770,€775Ð ô$D # Ð(Tenn.€2000).€€That€credibility€determination€is€entitled€to€substantial€deference€on€appeal.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àà ` àTherefore,€our€review€of€the€denial€of€the€defendantððs€suppression€motion€requiresÐ ° Ða€dual€standard€of€review.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€begin€with€the€law€regarding€questioning€incident€to€traffic€stops.€€In€òòBerkemerÐ tÄ Ðv.€McCartyóó,€468€U.S.€420,€104€S.€Ct.€3138€(1984),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€rejected€theÐ `° Ðnotion€that€all€traffic€stops€are€subject€to€the€dictates€of€òòMirandaóó.€€òòóóð ð[Q]uestioning€incident€to€anÐ L œ Ðordinary€traffic€stop€is€quite€different€from€stationhouse€interrogation,€which€frequently€is€prolonged,Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€in€which€the€detainee€often€is€aware€that€questioning€will€continue€until€he€provides€hisÐ $ t Ðinterrogators€the€answers€they€seek.Ô#†¼^5»XX‰½x#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5Ôðð€€òòId.óó€at€437,€104€S.€Ct.€at€3149.Ô#†¼^5»XX‰d~#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5Ô€€In€the€traffic€stop€situation,Ð  ` ÐòòMirandaóó€protections€only€come€into€play€if€a€motorist€detained€pursuant€to€a€traffic€stop€is€subjectedÐ ü L  Ðto€treatment€that€renders€him€or€her€"in€custody"€for€practical€purposes.€€òòId.óó€at€440,€104€S.€Ct.€atÐ è 8  Ð3150.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àð ðIn€custodyðð€has€been€defined€as€a€"formal€arrest€or€restraint€on€freedom€of€movementÐ ¬ü  Ðof€the€degree€associated€with€a€formal€arrest."€€òòStansbury€v.€Californiaóó,€511€U.S.€318,€322-23,€114Ð ˜è  ÐS.€Ct.€1526,€1528-29€(1994);€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€499€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€United€StatesÐ „Ô  ÐSupreme€Court€has€held€that€it€is€appropriate€to€apply€an€objective€test€to€determine€whether€a€personÐ pÀ Ðis€in€custody€and€therefore€entitled€to€receive€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€òòSeeóó€òòStansburyóó,€511€U.S.€at€323,Ð \¬ Ð114€S.€Ct.€at€1529;€òòFlorida€v.€Royeróó,€460€U.S.€491,€501„02,€103€S.€Ct.€1319,€1326€(1983).€€CourtsÐ H˜ Ðlook€to€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€of€the€interrogation€and€inquire€"how€a€reasonable€man€inÐ 4„ Ðthe€suspect's€position€would€have€understood€his€situation."€€òòBerkemeróó,€468€U.S.€at€€422,€104€S.€Ct.Ð  p Ðat€3151;€òòseeóó€òòalso€Stansburyóó,€511€U.S.€at€323-24,€114€S.€Ct.€at€1529.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€851,€855€(Tenn.€1996),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ ä4 ÐCourt€expressly€adopted€òòBerkemeróóððs€objective€analysis€and€recognized€several€nonexclusive€factorsÐ Ð  Ðto€aid€in€the€assessment€of€whether€a€reasonable€person€would€consider€himself€deprived€of€freedomÐ ¼  Ðof€movement€to€a€degree€associated€with€a€formal€arrest.€€Relevant€factors€include€the€following:€Ð ¨ø Ðthe€time€and€location€of€the€interrogation;€the€duration€and€character€of€the€questioning;€the€officer'sÐ ”ä Ðtone€of€voice€and€general€demeanor;€the€suspect's€method€of€transportation€to€the€place€ofÐ €Ð Ðquestioning;€the€number€of€police€officers€present;€any€limitation€on€movement€or€other€form€ofÐ l¼ Ðrestraint€imposed€on€the€suspect€during€the€interrogation;€any€interactions€between€the€officer€andÐ X ¨ Ðthe€suspect,€including€the€words€spoken€by€the€officer€to€the€suspect,€and€the€suspect's€verbal€orÐ D!” Ðnonverbal€responses;€the€extent€to€which€the€suspect€is€confronted€with€the€law€enforcement€officer'sÐ 0"€  Ðsuspicions€of€guilt€or€evidence€of€guilt;€and€finally,€the€extent€to€which€the€suspect€is€made€awareÐ #l! Ðthat€he€or€she€is€free€to€refrain€from€answering€questions€or€to€end€the€interview€at€will.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€trial€court€correctlyÐ à%0!$ Ðdenied€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress,€and€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÔ#†¼^5»XX‰Ñ~#ÔÓ-wÓÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÓ  Óòòà  àà ` àóóAt€the€preliminary€hearing,€Officer€Gann€testified€that€when€he€approached€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendantððs€vehicle,€she€asked€why€she€had€been€stopped.€€Officer€Gann€told€her€about€the€BOLOÐ )à$( Ðfor€the€vehicle€she€was€driving.€€Officer€Gann€stated€that€when€the€defendant€started€speaking,€heÐ |*Ì%) Ðnoticed€an€odor€of€alcohol.€€At€that€point,€Officer€Gann€asked€her€how€much€she€had€to€drink,€andÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€defendant€answered€that€ð ðshe€had€too€much€rum€to€drink€tonight€to€drive.ðð€€The€officer€thenÐ ° Ðrequested€that€she€step€out€of€her€vehicle€and€follow€him€so€he€could€administer€field€sobriety€tests.€Ð œì ÐAt€the€conclusion€of€the€field€sobriety€testing,€Officer€Gann€placed€her€under€arrest€for€driving€underÐ ˆØ Ðthe€influence.Ð tÄ ÐòòÌÓ–‹ÓÓ  Óà  àà ` àóóAt€trial,€Officer€Gann€related€that€he€approached€the€vehicle€and€asked€for€theÐ L œ Ðdefendantððs€operatorððs€license.€€When€she€turned€to€speak€to€him,€he€noticed€an€odor€of€alcohol.€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðofficer€advised€the€defendant€that€he€had€stopped€her€because€of€her€erratic€driving€and€because€ofÐ $ t Ðthe€earlier€BOLO.€€He€asked€her€to€get€out€of€her€vehicle€and€step€to€the€rear€of€his€vehicle.€€TheÐ  ` Ðofficer€observed€that€she€stumbled€while€walking,€and€he€asked€her€if€she€had€anything€to€drinkÐ ü L  Ðbecause€he€detected€the€odor€of€alcohol.€€The€defendant€told€him€that€ð ðshe€had€probably€consumedÐ è 8  Ðtoo€much€rum€to€drive.ðð€€He€asked€her€to€perform€field€sobriety€tests;€after€the€testing,€Officer€GannÐ Ô$  Ðdetermined€that€she€was€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€and€placed€her€under€arrest.òòÐ À  ÐÓ/ÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àóóThe€slight€differences€in€the€officerððs€testimony€at€the€preliminary€hearing€and€at€trialÐ ˜è  Ðare€not€significant€in€terms€of€the€suppression€issue.€€Regarding€the€preliminary€hearing€testimony,Ð „Ô  Ðwe€have€reviewed€the€transcript€òòde€novoóó,€and€we€independently€conclude€that€the€defendant€was€notÐ pÀ Ðin€custody€for€purposes€of€òòMirandaóó€at€the€time€she€told€the€officer€that€she€had€consumed€too€muchÐ \¬ Ðrum€to€drive.€€We€reach€the€same€conclusion€when€we€apply€the€òòOdomóó€standard€of€appellate€reviewÐ H˜ Ðto€Officer€Gannððs€trial€testimony.€€òòÐ 4„ ÐÓ“ÓóóÔ#†¼^5»XX‰w‹#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›XXX‰ÔÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àÔ#†X‰XXXz›.–#ÔThe€facts€in€this€case€fit€the€situation€in€òòBerkemeróó€like€a€well„worn€glove.€€TheÔ#†¼^5»XX‰–#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›XXX‰ÔÐ V ÐÔ#†X‰XXXz›.—#Ôdefendant€in€òòBerkemeróó€was€stopped€by€a€highway€patrolman€as€a€result€of€his€erratic€driving.€Ð òB ÐòòBerkemeróó,€468€U.S.€at€423,€104€S.€Ct.€at€3141.€€The€defendant€had€trouble€standing€and€failed€toÐ Þ. Ðsatisfactorily€perform€a€field€sobriety€test.€€òòId.óó€€Although€the€officer€subjectively€believed€that€heÐ Ê Ðwould€charge€the€defendant€with€a€traffic€offense,€he€did€not€advise€the€defendant€that€he€was€inÐ ¶ Ðcustody.€€òòIdóó.€€The€defendant€then€made€incriminating€statements€to€the€officer€that€he€had€consumedÐ ¢ò Ðalcohol€and€marijuana€shortly€before€being€stopped.€€€òòId.óó€€On€those€facts,€the€United€States€SupremeÐ ŽÞ ÐCourt€concluded€that€the€statement€was€admissible,€even€though€the€defendant€had€not€been€advisedÐ zÊ Ðof€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€€According€to€the€Supreme€Court,€on€the€facts€before€it,€the€brief€roadsideÐ f¶ Ðdetention€did€not€constitute€"custody"€for€the€purposes€of€òòMirandaóó.€€òòIdóó.€at€440,€104€S€.Ct.€at€3150.Ð R ¢ ÐÓN–ÓÌÔ#†¼^5»XX‰—#ÔÔ‡¼ *»»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›X»¼ *ÔÓ  Óà  àà ` àÔ#†X‰XXXz›œ#ÔAs€in€òòBerkemeróó,€the€defendant€in€this€case€was€detained€for€a€short€period€of€timeÐ *"z  Ðprior€to€her€arrest.€€The€defendantððs€statement€about€drinking€rum€was€in€response€€to€only€modestÐ #f! Ðquestioning€by€the€officer€who€had€observed€dangerous€and€erratic€driving.€€Officer€Gann€was€theÐ $R" Ðonly€officer€involved€in€the€traffic€stop.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€Officer€Gann€informed€theÐ î$> # Ðdefendant,€prior€to€her€arrest,€that€she€was€not€free€to€leave.€€€Likewise,€there€is€no€evidence€thatÐ Ú%*!$ ÐOfficer€Gannððs€tone€of€voice€or€demeanor€was€overbearing€or€threatening.€€Also,€Officer€Gann€didÐ Æ&"% Ðnot€arrest€her€until€after€he€administered€the€field€sobriety€tests.€€These€considerations,€regarded€asÐ ²'#& Ðrelevant€to€the€assessment€whether€a€reasonable€person€would€consider€herself€to€be€in€custody,€allÐ ž(î#' Ðpoint€to€the€conclusion€that€Officer€Gann€was€not€constitutionally€required€to€advise€the€defendantÐ Š)Ú$( Ðpursuant€to€òòMirandaóó.€€Therefore,€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€was€properly€denied.Ð v*Æ%) ÐÐ b+²&* ÐÔ#†¼^5»XX‰8œ#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5Ôòòà  àà ` àB.€€Evidentiary€objectionsÐ ° ÐÌà  àà ` àóóThe€defendant€has€not€raised€a€constitutional€objection€to€the€admissibility€of€herÐ ˆØ Ðsecond€statement€or€of€her€proposition€to€the€arresting€officer.€€We€note€that€even€had€aÐ tÄ Ðconstitutional€challenge€been€interposed,€it€would€have€failed.€€Neither€the€€statement€nor€theÐ `° Ðproposition€was€the€product€of€an€unconstitutional€custodial€interrogation.€€Ô#†¼^5»XX‰z¡#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔòòóóIndeed,€we€find€noÐ L œ Ðevidence€that€there€was€any€interrogation.€€òòóóÔ#†¼^5»XX‰¹£#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔThe€defendantsððs€comments€were€spontaneous€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðunsolicited,€and€probably€for€this€reason,€the€defendant€has€couched€her€objections€in€terms€ofÐ $ t Ðevidentiary€admissibility.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€664€S.W.2d€318,€320€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)Ð  ` Ð(statement€given€voluntarily€without€any€compelling€influences€is€admissible€in€evidence€whetherÐ ü L  Ðor€not€òòMirandaóó€warnings€are€given€firstÔ#†¼^5»XX‰Z¤#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5Ô)Ô#†¼^5»XX‰¦#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5Ô;€òòState€v.€Chamblessóó,€682€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð è 8  Ð1984)€(volunteered€statements€of€any€kind€are€not€barred€by€the€Fifth€Amendment).òòÐ Ô$  ÐÌÔ#†¼^5»XX‰Ä¦#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5Ôà  àà ` àóóOn€appeal,€the€defendant€argues€based€upon€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€403€andÐ ¬ü  ÐRule€404(b)€that€her€second€statement€and€her€subsequent€proposition€to€the€officer€were€€improperlyÐ ˜è  Ðadmitted.€€The€defendant€never€objected€at€trial,€however,€on€the€basis€of€Rule€404(b)€of€theÐ „Ô  ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€The€defendantððs€written€motion€in€limine€on€this€topic€asserted€onlyÐ pÀ Ðthat€admission€of€the€evidence€was€unfairly€prejudicial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€The€defendant€didÐ \¬ Ðnot€request€a€hearing€for€the€trial€court€to€determine€if€ð ða€material€issue€existed€other€than€conductÐ H˜ Ðconforming€with€a€character€trait.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)(1),€(b)(2).Ð 4„ ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àà ` àð ð[A]€party€is€bound€by€the€grounds€asserted€when€making€an€objection.€€The€partyÐ  \ Ðcannot€assert€a€new€or€different€theory€to€support€the€objection€in€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€or€in€theÐ øH Ðappellate€court.ðð€€òòState€v.€Adkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626,€634€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)Ô‡Xz›XXX‰ÔÔ#†¼ *»XXz›Á§#ÔÔ‡Xz›X»¼ *Ô;€òòÔ#†X‰XXXz›˜¬#Ôseeóó€òòState€v.Ð ä4 ÐAucoinóó,€756€S.W.2d€705,€715€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1988)€Ô#†¼^5»XX‰Ú¬#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5Ô(cannot€object€on€one€ground€and€assert€newÐ Ð  Ðbasis€on€appeal).€€When€that€happens,€as€in€this€case,€the€party€waives€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòAdkissonóó,€899Ð ¼  ÐS.W.2d€at€626;€Ô#†¼^5»XX‰¡­#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔòòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€781€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€òòAucoinóó,€756Ð ¨ø ÐS.W.2d€at€715;€òòState€v.€Dobbinsóó,€754€S.W.2d€637,€641€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.€Brockóó,€678Ð ”ä ÐS.W.2d€486,€490€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).Ð €Ð ÐÓ5«ÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àÔ#†¼^5»XX‰¸®#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔThe€defendant€in€this€case€has,€however,€preserved€her€Rule€403€objection€for€ourÐ X ¨ Ðreview.€€Evidence€Rule€403€provides€that€relevant€evidence€ð ðmay€be€excluded€if€its€probative€valueÐ D!” Ðis€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleadingÐ 0"€  Ðthe€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needless€presentation€of€cumulativeÐ #l! Ðevidence.ðð€€As€noted€by€the€authors€of€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ð ðThe€heart€of€Rule€403€is€itsÐ $X" Ðbalancing€test.ðð€€Neil€P.€Cohen€òòet€al.óó,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€403.3,€at€151€(3d€ed.€1995).€€TheÐ ô$D # Ðbalancing€test€articulated€in€the€rule€favors€admission€of€evidence,€already€determined€to€be€relevant.€Ð à%0!$ ÐòòIdóó.Ð Ì&"% ÐÓ°ÓÌÔ#†¼^5»XX‰Z°#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›XXX‰ÔòòÓ  Óà  àà ` àóóÔ#†X‰XXXz›F´#ÔWe€review€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€which€admitted€the€challenged€evidence€in€thisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcase,€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSee,óóòòe.g.,óó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€979€S.W.2d€276,€294„95€Ô#†¼^5»XX‰'´#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5Ô(Tenn.€1998)Ð )à$( Ð(balancing€test€is€committed€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court;€its€decision€will€not€beÐ |*Ì%) Ðdisturbed€on€appeal€absent€a€showing€of€clear€abuse€of€discretion)Ô#†¼^5»XX‰£µ#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›XXX‰Ô;€òòÔ#†X‰XXXz›Ý¶#ÔState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2dÐ h+¸&* Ð530,€542€(Tenn.€1994);Ô#†¼^5»XX‰¾¶#ÔÔ‡¼ *»»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›X»¼ *Ô€òòÔ#†X‰XXXz›”·#ÔÔ€X‰XXX‰ÔState€v.€Robersonóó,€988€S.W.2d€690,€695€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).Ô‡Xz›XXX‰ÔÔ#†¼ *»XXz›³·#ÔÔ‡Xz›X»¼ *Ô€€Ô#†X‰XXXz›Z¸#ÔNo€suchÐ ° Ðshowing€has€been€made€here.Ð œì ÐÌÓh´ÓÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€gist€of€the€challenged€evidence€is€that€the€defendant,€at€first€indirectly€and€thenÐ tÄ Ðexplicitly,€sexually€propositioned€the€arresting€officer€in€an€attempt€to€gain€her€freedom.€€The€trialÐ `° Ðcourt€carefully€considered€the€import€of€this€evidence.€€The€trial€court€acknowledged€that€theÐ L œ Ðevidence€was€prejudicial,€but€it€also€found€that€the€evidence€had€great€probative€value€going€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðconsciousness€of€guilt€and€to€the€defendantððs€intoxication.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that,€inÐ $ t Ðeffect,€the€defendant€attempted€to€bribe€the€officer.€€We€also€have€no€quarrel€with€the€trial€courtððsÐ  ` Ðreasoning€that€individuals€who€are€intoxicated€sometimes€make€nonsensical€statements€or€say€thingsÐ ü L  Ðthat€a€person€with€a€clear€mind€and€who€is€in€control€of€her€faculties€would€not€say.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€are€reinforced€in€our€conclusion€by€the€supreme€courtððs€recognition€thatÐ À  Ðcircumstances€surrounding€a€defendantððs€arrest€are€ð ðpeculiarly€relevant.ðð€€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€313Ð ¬ü  ÐS.W.2d€451,€459€(Tenn.€1958).Ð ˜è  ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓThe€actions€and€behavior€of€accused€when€charged€with€the€crime,€orÐ pÀ Ðwhen€confronted€with€the€consequences€.€.€.€are€peculiarly€relevant.€Ð \¬ ÐIn€receiving€evidence€of€this€kind,€it€is€not€easy,€if€at€all€possible,€forÐ H˜ Ðcourts€to€draw€any€line€segregating€those€acts€which€to€some€mindsÐ 4„ Ðmay€seen€significant€of€guilt€€from€those€which€are€irrelevant€becauseÐ  p Ðjustifying€no€such€inference.€€Any€ex€post€facto€indication€by€accusedÐ  \ Ðof€a€desire€to€evade€prosecution€may€be€shown€as€one€of€series€ofÐ øH Ðcircumstances€from€which€guilt€may€be€inferred.Ð ä4 ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓòòId.óó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€808,€813€(Tenn.€1985)€(defendant€rammed€police€car€andÐ ¼  Ðopened€fire€on€officers;€his€conduct€at€the€time€of€capture€provided€relevant€circumstances€fromÐ ¨ø Ðwhich€jury€could€infer€guilt);€Ô#†¼^5»XX‰œ¸#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔòòState€v.€Matthew€Douglas€Coxóó,€No.€E1999„00351„CCA„R3„CD,€slipÐ ”ä Ðop.€at€19€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Oct.€20,€2000)€(applying€òòMarableóó€and€concluding€that€trialÐ €Ð Ðcourt€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€admitting€testimony€concerning€circumstances€of€defendantððsÐ l¼ Ðarrest);€òòState€v.€Braggsóó,€604€S.W.2d€883,€886€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€(defendantððs€attempt€to€hideÐ X ¨ Ðin€basement€to€avoid€arrest€was€relevant€to€show€consciousness€of€guilt).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àUnder€the€circumstances€in€this€case,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€trial€courtÐ #l! Ðabused€its€discretion€in€allowing€this€evidence€to€be€admitted.Ð $X" ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†¼^5»XX‰vÂ#ÔÔ‡¼ *»»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›X»¼ *ÔòòÌÓ  Óà @ àà @` àò òóóÔ#†X‰XXXz›ÇÅ#ÔIII.€€Prosecutorial€Misconductòòó óÐ Ú%*!$ ÐóóÓ ÆÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àIn€her€next€issue,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€state€engaged€in€improper€closingÐ ²'#& Ðargument,€which€amounted€to€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€The€state€led€off€its€closing€with€the€firstÐ ž(î#' Ðcomplained„of€argument.Ð Š)Ú$( Ðâ âÐ v*Æ%) ÐÓ °ÁÓÓ °"ÁÓà ¸ àThank€you,€Your€Honor.€€May€it€please€the€Court€and€ladiesÐ ° Ðâ âand€gentlemen€of€the€jury.€€I€suggest€to€you,€ladies€and€gentlemen,Ð œì Ðthat€what€Mr.€Lee€said€regarding€Defendantððs€state€and€all€this€sheÐ ˆØ Ðwas€ill€and€hormone€malarkey,€besides€being€offensive,€is€malarkey.Ð tÄ ÐÓ£ÆÓÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓ  ÓThe€defendant€characterizes€this€argument€as€intemperate€and€improper.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€second€complained„of€argument€occurred€during€the€stateððs€rebuttal€closing.Ð $ t ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °Óà ¸ àThe€testimony€that€they€give,€the€State€ð!ð€the€facts€that€comeÐ ü L  Ðfrom€her€husband€are€just€as€unreasonable,€just€as€improbable.€€ForÐ è 8  Ðinstance,€the€business€about€spilling€the€drink.€€First€of€all,€the€timeÐ Ô$  Ðisnððt€right.€€If€somebody€mixes€some€alcohol€and€some€Coke€andÐ À  Ðspills€it€on€you€and€then€an€hour€later,€I€submit€youððre€probably€notÐ ¬ü  Ðgoing€to€ð!ð€if€you€smell€like€anything,€youððre€going€to€smell€like€Coke.€Ð ˜è  ÐSecondly,€youððre€probably€not€going€to€smell€like€anything.Ð „Ô  ÐÌÓ °«ÊÓÓ °ÊÓThe€defendant€alleges€that€no€evidence€supported€this€argument€and€that€it€violated€due€process.Ð \¬ ÐÌÔ#†¼^5»XX‰æÅ#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÔ‡#Xz›XXX‰Ôà  àà ` àÔ#†X‰XX#Xz›Î#ÔIt€is€appropriate€to€note€at€the€outset€that€the€defendant€did€not€contemporaneouslyÐ 4„ Ðobject€to€any€of€the€comments€of€which€she€now€complains,€although€she€did€raise€the€issue€in€herÐ  p Ðmotion€for€new€trial.€€The€defendantððs€failure€to€object€would€ordinarily€constitute€waiver€of€theÐ  \ Ðissue.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€8€S.W.3d€593,€603€òòóó(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Thorntonóó,Ð øH Ð10€S.W.3d€229,€234€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€In€the€interest€of€justice,€however,€we€will€considerÐ ä4 Ðthe€issue.Ô‡Xz›XXX‰ÔÔ#†¼ *»XXz›öÍ#ÔÔ‡Xz›X»¼ *ÔÐ Ð  ÐÌÔ#†X‰XXXz›ÛÐ#ÔÔ#†¼^5»XX‰Ñ#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÔ‡#Xz›XXX‰Ôà  àà ` àÔ#†X‰XX#Xz›·Ñ#ÔÔ€X‰XXX‰ÔThe€question€here€is€whether€the€prosecutor's€arguments€amounted€to€prosecutorialÐ ¢ò Ðmisconduct.Ô‡#Xz›XXX‰ÔÔ#†#¼ *»X#Xz›˜Ñ#ÔÔ‡#Xz›X»#¼ *Ô€€Ô#†X‰XX#Xz›¡Ò#ÔTo€prevail€on€such€a€claim,€the€defendant€must€show€that€the€argument€was€soÐ ŽÞ Ðinflammatory€or€the€conduct€so€improper€that€it€affected€the€verdict€to€€her€or€his€detriment.€€òòSeeóóÐ zÊ ÐòòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€215€Tenn.€338,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(1965);€òòState€v.€Grayóó,€960€S.W.2d€598,Ð f¶ Ð609€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€On€appellate€review,€the€€court€should€ð ðconsider€several€factorsÐ R ¢ Ðincluding€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor,€the€curative€measures€which€were€undertaken€by€the€court,€theÐ >!Ž Ðimproper€conduct€viewed€in€context€and€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case,€theÐ *"z  Ðcumulative€effect€of€the€remarks€with€any€other€errors€in€the€record,€and€the€relative€strength€orÐ #f! Ðweakness€of€the€case.ðð€€òòGrayóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€609;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344Ð $R" Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€Ô#†¼^5»XX‰ãÒ#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÔ€X‰XXX‰ÔIn€addition,€we€must€keep€in€mind€that€closing€argument€is€subject€to€theÐ î$> # Ðtrial€courtððs€discretionary€control.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€995€S.W.2d€550,€557€(Tenn.€1999).Ô#†¼^5»XX‰$×#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›XXX‰ÔÐ Ú%*!$ ÐÌÓµÉÓÓ  Óà  àà ` àÔ#†X‰XXXz›sØ#ÔAs€a€general€proposition,€closing€argument€must€be€temperate,€predicated€uponÐ ¬'ü"& Ðevidence€introduced€during€the€trial,€and€pertinent€to€the€issues€on€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òò€State€v.€Suttonóó,€562Ð ˜(è#' ÐÓ¸ØÓÓÈÓS.W.2d€820,€823€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€state€is€more€limited€in€its€prerogative€due€to€the€prosecutor'sÐ „)Ô$( Ðrole€as€a€seeker€of€justice,€rather€than€a€mere€advocate.€€òòSeeóó€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€368Ð p*À%) Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð \+¬&* ÐÓøÙÓÓ  ÓòòóóÔ#†¼^5»XX‰TØ#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÌÓ@ÛÓÔ#†¼^5»XX‰uÛ#ÔÔ‡¼ *»»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›X»¼ *ÔÓ  Óà  àà ` àÔ#†X‰XXXz›ÈÛ#ÔWe€have€carefully€studied€the€comments€made€by€the€prosecution.€€The€tone€of€theÐ œì Ðprosecutor's€overall€argument€was€that€of€commending€the€evidence€to€the€jury€and€that€the€juryÐ ˆØ Ðshould€make€its€own€decision€as€the€trier€of€fact€about€the€credibility€of€the€testimony€of€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendantððs€husband.€€The€credibility€of€the€husband€was€an€important€issue€about€which€the€stateÐ `° Ðdeserved€the€ability€to€comment€upon€within€bounds.€€The€ð ðmalarkeyðð€remark€strikes€us€as€sarcastic,Ð L œ Ðbut€oratorical€emphasis€can€include€the€use€of€sarcasm€to€make€a€relevant€point.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð 8 ˆ ÐFredrick€Sledgeóó,€No.€02C01„9405„CR„00089,€slip€op.€at€48€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Nov.€25,Ð $ t Ð1997),€òòaffððd€other€groundsóó,€„„„€S.W.3d€„„„,€No.€W1994-00005-SC-R11-DD€(Tenn.,€Mar.€20,€2000).€Ð  ` ÐÔ#†¼^5»XX‰çÛ#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔAdditionally,€the€comment€about€how€a€person€would€smell€after€having€a€drink€spilled€on€her€wasÐ ü L  Ðnothing€more€than€argument€that€the€jury€should€consider€the€husbandððs€testimony€in€light€of€humanÐ è 8  Ðexperience€and€common€sense;€such€argument€is€not€improper.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€795Ð Ô$  ÐS.W.2d€689,€696€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)€(upholding€as€proper€a€prosecutorððs€closing€argument€thatÐ À  Ðð ðthe€jury€should€consider€the€evidence€in€light€of€human€experience€and€common€senseðð).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÔ#†¼^5»XX‰!à#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›XXX‰Ôà  àà ` àÔ#†X‰XXXz›Üâ#ÔConsequently,€we€fail€to€see€any€misconduct€with€respect€to€these€portions€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðstateððs€closing€argument.Ô‡Xz›XXX‰ÔÔ#†¼ *»XXz›½â#ÔÔ‡Xz›X»¼ *ÔÐ pÀ ÐÓÜÓÌÓ  ÓÔ#†X‰XXXz›¸ã#ÔÔ€X‰XXX‰Ôà @ àà @` àò òIV.€€Reckless€DrivingÐ B’ ÐÓ?äÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àó óThe€defendantððs€grievance€that€it€was€error€not€to€charge€the€jury€with€the€lesser€Ð j Ðoffense€of€reckless€driving€need€not€detain€us€long.€€Ô€X‰XXX‰ÔNothing€in€the€record€suggests€that€the€defendantÐ V Ðrequested€jury€instructions€on€lesser„included€offenses€for€driving€under€the€influence.€€We€recognizeÐ òB Ðthat€Code€section€40„18„110(a)€places€an€affirmative€duty€on€a€trial€court€regardless€whether€theÐ Þ. Ðdefendant€has€made€the€request,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110(a)€(1997);€nevertheless,€Rule€3€of€theÐ Ê ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€still€applies€and€is€specific€that€ð ðin€all€cases€tried€by€a€jury,Ð ¶ Ðno€issue€presented€for€review€shall€be€predicated€upon€error€in€.€.€.€jury€instructions€granted€orÐ ¢ò Ðrefused,€.€.€.€unless€the€same€was€specifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial;€otherwise€such€issuesÐ ŽÞ Ðwill€be€treated€as€waived,ðð€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€The€defendant€in€this€case€failed€to€include€thisÐ zÊ Ðissue€in€her€new€trial€motion,€although€she€has€raised€it€on€appeal.€€Ô‡#Xz›XXX‰ÔÔ#†#¼ *»X#Xz›úã#ÔÔ‡#Xz›X»#¼ *ÔÐ f¶ ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ#†X‰XX#Xz›³é#ÔMoreover,€plain€error€does€not€avail€the€defendant€on€this€issue.€€Reckless€driving€isÐ 8!ˆ Ðnot,€at€any€rate,€a€lesser„included€offense€of€driving€under€the€influence.׃-×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6Ð $"t  ÐS.W.3d€453€(Tenn.€1999);€òòseeóó€òòalsoÔ#†¼^5»XX‰õé#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÔ‡X‰XXX‰Ôóó,€òòState€v.€Lawrenceóó,€995€S.W.2d€142,€145€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ° Ð1998);€òòFournier€v.€Stateóó,€945€S.W.2d€766,€769€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòRay€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2dÐ œì Ð218,€219€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).Ô#†X‰XXX‰ì#ÔÔ#†¼^5»XX‰óë#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5Ô€€Consequently,€it€was€not€error,€plain€or€otherwise,€to€fail€toÐ ˆØ Ðinstruct€on€reckless€driving€in€this€case.€Ô#†¼^5»XX‰pí#ÔòòóóÐ tÄ ÐÌÓãäÓÓ  ÓÔ€¼^5»»¼^5Ôò òÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔV.€€SentencingÔ#†¼^5»XX‰Œî#ÔÐ r  ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X‰X»¼^5Ôó óà  àà ` àIn€the€defendantððs€final€issue,€she€proposes€that€she€should€have€been€sentenced€toÐ r  Ðminimum€fines€and€time.€€According€to€the€defendant,€she€had€no€prior€criminal€history,€had€physicalÐ ^ ® Ðand€mental€problems,€and€was€capable€of€rehabilitation,€thereby€creating€the€presumption€that€sheÐ J š  Ðwas€a€logical€candidate€for€probation.€€She€further€offers,€in€conclusory€fashion,€that€she€was€anÐ 6†  Ðespecially€mitigated€offender,€and€for€that€reason€she€should€have€been€sentenced€to€minimum€finesÐ "r  Ðand€time€served.Ð ^  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€does€not€specify€what€she€means€by€being€sentenced€to€ð ðminimumÐ æ6  Ðtime.ðð€€In€light€of€the€mandatory€minimum€48€hours€of€confinement€for€first€offense€DUI,€theÐ Ò" Ðdefendant€is€not€eligible€for€a€completely€probated€sentence.€€We€interpret€the€complaint,€therefore,Ð ¾ Ðto€stem€from€the€trial€courtððs€order€that€she€is€to€serve€eight€days€incarcerated€before€being€releasedÐ ªú Ðto€serve€the€balance€of€her€sentence€of€eleven€months,€29€days€on€supervised€probation.Ð –æ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€immediately€following€the€juryððs€verdict.€€TheÐ n¾ Ðtrial€court€noted€that€the€degree€of€the€defendantððs€intoxication€and€the€defendantððs€attempt€toÐ Zª Ðinfluence€the€officer€were€the€two€considerations€that€justified€more€than€the€mandatory€minimumÐ F– Ð48€hours€confinement.Ð 2‚ ÐÐ n ÐÔ#†¼^5»XX‰þî#ÔÔ‡¼ *»»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›X»¼ *Ôà  àà ` àÔ#†X‰XXXz›Ôõ#ÔIn€felony€sentencing,€the€trial€court€has€an€affirmative€duty€to€state€in€the€record,Ð ° Ðeither€orally€or€in€writing,€which€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€it€found€and€its€findings€of€fact.€Ð œì ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-209(c)€(1997);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(f)€(Supp.1998);€òòState€v.Ð ˆØ ÐTroutmanóó,€979€S.W.2d€271,€274€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Russellóó,€10€S.W.3d€270,€278€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð tÄ ÐApp.€1999).€€By€contrast,€the€misdemeanor€sentencing€statute€does€not€require€explicit€findings;€itÐ `° Ðspecifies€only€that€the€trial€court€ð ðconsiderðð€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€when€calculatingÐ L œ Ðthe€percentage€of€the€sentence€to€be€served€"in€actual€confinement"€prior€to€"consideration€for€workÐ 8 ˆ Ðrelease,€furlough,€trusty€status€and€related€rehabilitative€programs."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-302(d)Ð $ t Ð(1997);€€òòTroutmanóó,€979€S.W.2d€at€274;€òòRussellóó,€10€S.W.3d€at€278.€€The€statutory€scheme€is€designedÐ  ` Ðto€provide€the€trial€court€with€continuing€jurisdiction€in€the€misdemeanor€case€and€a€wide€latitudeÐ ü L  Ðof€flexibility.€€Additionally,€the€misdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumptionÐ è 8  Ðof€a€minimum€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2d€829,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Ô#†¼^5»XX‰óõ#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›XXX‰ÔÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ#†X‰XXXz›7ü#ÔFor€misdemeanor€sentencing,€the€trial€court€retains€the€authority€to€place€theÐ ¦ö  Ðdefendant€on€probation€either€immediately€or€after€a€term€of€periodic€or€continuous€confinement.€Ð ’â  ÐTenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-302(e)€(1997).€€In€determining€whether€to€grant€probation,€the€trial€courtÐ ~Î  Ðshould€consider€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€defendantððs€criminal€record€andÐ jº Ðpotential€for€rehabilitation,€the€defendantððs€background€and€social€history,€present€condition,Ð V¦ Ðincluding€physical€and€mental€condition,€the€deterrent€effect€on€other€criminal€activity,€and€theÐ B’ Ðlikelihood€that€probation€is€in€the€best€interests€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.Ô#†¼^5»XX‰ü#ÔÔ‡¼ *»»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›X»¼ *Ô€€òòÔ#†X‰XXXz›Ùÿ#ÔSee,€e.g.óó,Ð .~ ÐòòStiller€v.€Stateóó,€516€S.W.2d€617,€620€(Tenn.€1974);€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€259„60€(Tenn.Ð j ÐCrim.€App.€1990);€òòState€v.€Tidwellóó,€No.€0C01„9807„CC„00288,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð V ÐNashville,€Jun.€30,€1999),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Jan.€3,€2000).Ð òB ÐÔ#†¼^5»XX‰øÿ#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›XXX‰ÔÌà  àà ` àÔ#†X‰XXXz›ù#ÔAs€indicated,€a€trial€court€is€not€required€to€make€explicit€findings€in€misdemeanorÐ Ä Ðcases.€€This€is€not€to€say€that€a€trial€court€has€unbridled€discretion€in€misdemeanor€sentencing.€€InÐ ° Ðthis€case,€the€trial€court€„„€although€not€obliged€to€do€so€„„€gave€two€reasons€why€it€was€ordering€theÐ œì Ðdefendant€to€serve€more€than€the€48„hour€minimum€period€of€incarceration.€€We€have€examinedÐ ˆØ Ðthose€reasons.Ð tÄ ÐÌÔ#†¼^5»XX‰Ú#ÔÔ‡¼ *»»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›X»¼ *Ôà  àà ` àÔ#†X‰XXXz›j#ÔÔ€X‰XXX‰ÔThe€first€reason€cited€by€the€trial€court€was€the€defendantððs€degree€of€intoxication.€Ð L œ ÐDegree€of€intoxication€goes€to€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense,€and€it€may€be€legitimateÐ 8!ˆ Ðand€influential€consideration€regarding€probation.€€The€problem€in€this€case,€however,€is€that€whileÐ $"t  Ðthe€evidence€was€clearly€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction€for€driving€under€the€influence,€theÐ #`! Ðòòdegreeóó€of€the€defendantððs€intoxication€cannot€be€determined€from€the€record.€€Consequently,€underÐ ü#L" Ðthe€facts€of€this€case€(or€the€lack€thereof)€the€trial€court€erred€in€relying€on€this€reason.Ð è$8 # ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€second€reason€that€the€trial€court€mentioned€was€the€defendantððs€attempt€toÐ À&"% Ðinfluence€the€officer;€we€assume€that€the€trial€court€was€referring€to€the€sexual€proposition€that€theÐ ¬'ü"& Ðdefendant€made€to€the€arresting€officer.€€The€defendantððs€attempt€to€corrupt€the€criminal€justiceÐ ˜(è#' Ðsystem€is€certainly€worthy€of€consideration.€€Just€as€a€defendantððs€truthfulness€at€a€trial€or€sentencingÐ „)Ô$( Ðâ âis€a€factor€that€may€be€considered,€òòseeóó€òòDykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€at€259,€the€defendantððs€behavior€in€thisÐ p*À%) Ðcase€demeans€the€process€of€justice€that€we€rely€on€to€safeguard€our€rights€and€privileges.€€TheÐ ° Ðdefendantððs€behavior€was€a€circumstance€of€the€offense€which€warrants€the€trial€courtððs€concern.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àOn€balance,€we€are€not€persuaded€that€the€trial€court€exceeded€the€ð ðwide€latitude€ofÐ tÄ Ðflexibility,ðð€òòCreasyóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€832,€that€is€afforded€in€the€misdemeanor€arena,€and€we€will€notÐ `° Ðdisturb€the€order€requiring€a€short€term€of€confinement.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ#†¼^5»XX‰‰#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔBefore€leaving€this€subject,€however,€we€must€correct€a€matter€concerning€theÐ $ t Ðjudgment€form.€€The€judgment€form€is€blank€as€to€the€percentage€of€the€sentence,€which€theÐ  ` Ðdefendant€shall€serve€and€after€which€the€defendant€is€eligible€for€work€release,€furlough,€trustyÐ ü L  Ðstatus,€and€related€rehabilitative€programs.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(d)€(1997).€€The€trialÐ è 8  Ðcourt€mentioned€thirty€percent€(30%)€when€it€sentenced€the€defendant€following€the€juryððs€verdict.€Ð Ô$  ÐThrough€some€oversight,€that€percentage€figure€did€not€find€its€way€onto€the€judgment€form.€€TheÐ À  Ðjudgment€is€hereby€amended€to€show€that€the€defendant€shall€serve€30€percent€of€her€sentence€beforeÐ ¬ü  Ðshe€is€eligible€for€available€rehabilitative€programs.€€The€defendant,€therefore,€is€sentenced€to€elevenÐ ˜è  Ðmonths,€29€days.€€She€is€eligible€for€available€rehabilitative€programs€after€serving€30€percent€of€herÐ „Ô  Ðsentence.€€The€defendant€is€ordered€to€serve€eight€days€of€her€sentence€in€confinement,€after€whichÐ pÀ Ðshe€shall€be€placed€on€supervised€probation€for€the€balance€of€her€sentence.€€Ð \¬ ÐÔ#†¼^5»XX‰Ø #ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›XXX‰ÔÌà  àà ` àÔ#†X‰XXXz›>#ÔWe€now€come€to€the€last€sentencing€issue:€the€maximum€$1,500€fine€Ó °°šX°œXÓwhich€was€Ð .~ Ðassessed€by€the€jury€and€then€imposed€without€further€comment€by€the€trial€court.€€In€òòState€v.€Bryantóó,Ð j Ð805€S.W.2d€762,€766-67€(Tenn.€1991),€the€supreme€court€held€that€the€constitution€did€not€prohibitÐ V Ðappellate€review€of€fines.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14.€€Fines€are€generally€assessed€by€the€juryÐ òB Ðunless€the€defendant€waives€this€constitutional€protection.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-301€(1997);Ð Þ. ÐòòState€v.€Mahoneyóó,€874€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð Ê ÐÌà  àà ` àð ðAlthough€the€jury€is€to€ððfixðð€the€amount€of€the€fine€and€report€it€with€a€guilty€verdict,Ð ¢ò Ðit€is€the€trial€court€that€is€obligated€to€impose€a€fine,€if€any€ð!ð€not€to€exceed€that€fixed€by€the€jury€ð!ðÐ ŽÞ Ðas€part€of€the€sentence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Blevinsóó,€968€S.W.2d€888,€895€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòseeóó€Tenn.Ð zÊ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40-35-301(b)€(1997).€€The€trial€court's€imposition€of€a€fine€is€to€be€guided€by€the€factorsÐ f¶ Ðof€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€including€ð ðððthe€defendantððs€ability€to€pay€that€fine,€and€other€factors€ofÐ R ¢ Ðjudgment€involved€in€setting€the€total€sentence.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,€978€S.W.2d€558,€567€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð >!Ž ÐApp.€1997)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€542€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)).€€A€trialÐ *"z  Ðcourt,€in€other€words,€may€not€abdicate€its€judicial€responsibility€for€imposing€a€fine€by€parrotingÐ #f! Ðwhatever€fine€is€fixed€by€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlevinsóó,€968€S.W.2d€at€895.Ð $R" ÐÌà  àà ` àA€defendant's€ability€to€pay€is€usually€a€factor€in€the€establishment€of€fines,€albeit€notÐ Ú%*!$ Ðautomatically€ð ðtheðð€controlling€factor.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-207(a)(7)€(1997);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.Ð Æ&"% ÐMarshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€542€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(a€defendant's€ability€to€pay€"is€notÐ ²'#& Ðnecessarily€a€controlling€[factor]").€€When,€as€in€this€case,€the€trial€court€fails€to€set€forth€any€findingsÐ ž(î#' Ðof€fact€concerning€the€defendant's€ability€to€pay€a€fine,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€without€a€presumptionÐ Š)Ú$( Ðof€correctness.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,€978€S.W.2dÐ v*Æ%) Ð558,€567€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(no€findings€by€trial€court€regarding€fine€imposed€forÐ b+²&* Ðmisdemeanor,€simple€possession€of€marijuana€conviction);€òòState€v.€Alvaradoóó,€961€S.W.2d€136,€153Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(no€findings€by€trial€court€regarding€fine€imposed€for€felony€convictions).Ô‡Xz›XXX‰ÔÔ#†¼ *»XXz›#ÔÔ‡Xz›X»¼ *ÔÐ œì ÐÔ#†X‰XXXz›2#ÔÔ#†¼^5»XX‰t#ÔÔ‡¼ *»»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›X»¼ *ÔÌà  àà ` àÔ#†X‰XXXz›î#ÔThe€trial€court€in€this€case€failed€to€articulate€the€basis€for€imposing€the€maximumÐ n¾ Ðfine,€which€was€the€amount€set€by€the€jury.€€The€defendant,€though,€did€not€request€any€specialÐ Zª Ðfinding€by€the€trial€court;€nor€did€she€offer€any€relevant€evidence€demonstrating€why€the€fine€wasÐ F – Ðexcessive.€€When€the€defendant€filed€her€new€trial€motion,€she€raised€a€point€that€the€fine€wasÐ 2 ‚ Ðexcessive,€but€again€no€specifics€and€no€relevant€evidence€of€excessiveness€were€offered.€€We€alsoÐ  n Ðcan€find€no€evidence€that€the€defendant€ever€filed€with€the€trial€court€a€Rule€35,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ð  Z Ð35,€motion€for€reduction€of€the€fine€portion€of€the€sentence.€€We€simply€have€no€evidence€before€usÐ ö F  Ðin€the€record€establishing€why€the€fine€is€excessive,€and€it€is€the€defendantððs€burden€on€appeal€toÐ â 2  Ðmake€that€showing.€€She€has€not€done€so,€and€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€acceptance€of€the€fineÐ Î  Ðrecommended€by€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòAlvaradoóó,€961€S.W.2d€at€153€(defendant€has€burden€on€appeal).Ð º  ÐÔ#†¼^5»XX‰ #ÔÔ‡¼ *»»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›X»¼ *ÔÌÓòîÓò òÔ#†X‰XXXz›)$#ÔÔ€X‰XXX‰ÔVI.€€Conclusionó óÐ ŒÜ  ÐÓÓÌà  àà ` àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed.€€The€trial€courtððsÐ d´ Ðjudgment€shall€be€modified€to€reflect€the€percentage€of€service€required€for€this€misdemeanorÐ P  Ðsentence.Ð <Œ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à__________________________________________Ð ì< Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÔ#†¼^5»XX‰H$#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^5Ôà x àà Ð àÐ Ø( ÐÓä$ÓÔ#†¼^5»XX‰'#ÔÔ‡¼ *»»¼^5ÔÔ‡Xz›X»¼ *ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÔ#†¼ *»XXz›¦'#ÔÔ#†¼^5»»¼ *‡'#Ô