ÿWPC £ŽØy-Ú¨b-fä/Š•,5éÏ'³µoÉ’Æý±;dú½59“ƒ›nÑ1—‘à}wÃHv6’gÔïŽ ¾ô{|¼TècÝ‹šçf—Ä.2w(Z”J7OñßE‰eí`©ÖB—\Øoñ5û{úJ%ge鵈.¦Çi[ñ`ÙíÅ/¡ÚÇ}\}¹uhÚŠÊqiçqjy8 +,mûÇÇLBö[”Ž B˜"'ów™:‚Ö¥óÓ_8kcIGÅ×bËöÆWÝù¦ F…cŸÿv€1-éúq¶àp”!àØLoCÆœK$s.ab÷¡Ì&È¥|ò^¬Þn]-iô×ë´ðúb«˜ãï`÷1®ŽAKþn mªòIïdÖé] …5¤©08ýu­–U%v*]#]”'Y(@õÜ–aOqâ&¿¬'_¾’šúGbrJ“™cÄ'?o…îI)ènWK”Ÿ0'<½3U®ùšõÏ'×Q³Qh[¯Ð†§{&­U:ª¹\yá–¯}™ ®'x úÞ*F;¾tlÞý Û[!õv·[@{ˆkͬTWÙ'ãï;‰©FË…à4¹DgRŸ­¦í>4Ãlõ:,³Cý_º@õ_ù§7Üû§ô …# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ w@Í 4 ! 0 m2  I U:é U.# 0èQ Ù9 0DU:VÙU:iU:£ÝU:åè"")U:KE…………………… BÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ D3ççç 0D AO^Æ­­ 0Ds D/· Bæ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ü Vý Vþ Dÿ V V 0e e E  Ó€uM%ÀÓ‚3|x  ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ FralixGillelandMaxeyPulaskiDemetriR.Crim CrimCrim.AppBarbeevPulleyMosley EvidHallock S.W.McKnight S.CTParhamTizard DammLeath LTL PeayT.Woodall,@ÓÐAZ‹"Arial Regular%ä2¼A`ArialTT(˜(2Ⱥ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÏÝ ƒ è|$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÑT@R[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€XæXXXÔÔ‡ XæXXXæÔThe€trial€court€did€conduct€a€hearing€on€the€defendantððs€motion€to€sever,€but€theÐ ü Ðhearing€minimally€met€Rule€404(b)€requirements.€Ô#†XæXX XæÞ#Ô€Ô‡ XæXXXæÔThe€record€does€not€reflect€the€trialÐ ŠŽ Ðcourtððs€ruling€as€to€Rule€404(b),€in€that€no€evidence€was€presented,€no€finding€was€madeÏas€to€a€material€matter,€and€no€balancing€test€was€completed.Ô#†XæXX Xæº#Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular ÏÝ ƒ Ø»$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÑT@R[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€X 7XXXÔÔ‡X@hXXX 7ÔThe€trial€court€did€conduct€a€hearing€on€the€defendantððs€motion€to€sever,€but€theÐ ü Ðhearing€minimally€met€Rule€404(b)€requirements.€Ô#†X 7XX X@hÞ#Ô€Ô‡X@hXXX 7ÔThe€record€does€not€reflect€the€trialÐ âæ Ðcourtððs€ruling€as€to€Rule€404(b),€in€that€no€evidence€was€presented,€no€finding€was€madeÏas€to€a€material€matter,€and€no€balancing€test€was€completed.Ô#†X 7XX X@hº#Ô, øð AZ"Arial Regular,@ÓÐAZ‹"Arial Regular,ó‚ AZ"Arial Regular ÞÔ€XþmXXXÔÔ€áTXXþmÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XþmXáTÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€28,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó Ñ ü ÑÑ ü Ñ Ñ ä ÑÑ ü Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ;Ñ 8 ÑÑ 8 ÑÑ#€Xÿÿd#Ñ d""""'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ ñ›ñ ññ ññ ñ›ñ ññ ñÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ_ÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XXXXÔÓ  ÓÑ€œWÑÑ€kYÑÑ€;YÑñ ñœßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E ±` 8ttxPX°ð  rß›ñ ñINñ ñ›ñ ñ€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌAUGUST€1998€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À àà  à)Ð  p  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9711„CC„00510Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,à h àà À àà  à)Ð P  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àGiles€CountyÐ ð@  Ðv.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð à0  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHonorable€Robert€L.€Jones,€JudgeÐ Ð  ÐSTEVE€EDWARD€HOUSTON,à À àà  à)Ð À Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p à(Sale€of€Cocaine€and€Casual€ExchangeÐ ° Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À àà  à)à p à€of€Cocaine)Ð  ð ÐÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  àà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð @ ÐÌHershell€D.€Kogerà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJohn€Knox€WalkupÐ  p Ð131€North€First€Streetà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ ` ÐP.€O.€Box€1148à  àà h àà À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Avenue,€NorthÐ P ÐPulaski,€TN€€38478à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð ð@ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDaryl€J.€BrandÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Avenue,€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àT.€Michael€BottomsÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àP.€O.€Box€459Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àLawrenceburg,€TN€€38464„0459ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àStella€L.€HargroveÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àP.€O.€Box€459Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àLawrenceburg,€TN€€38464„0459ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àRichard€H.€DunavantÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àP.€O.€Box€304Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àPulaski,€TN€€38478„0304ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€__________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌñ ñÑœWÑÑ8°ÑÑ8°ÑÑ7€ 1XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑœWÑÑ 8 ÑÑ 8 ÑÑ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ  Ññ ñL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€SENIOR€JUDGEÐ #Ô€(Tenn.,€Dec.€8,€1997)€(involving€sameÐ 1 -2 Ðagent,€same€defendant,€same€transaction€area,€same€controlled€substance,€and€smallÏamount€of€cocaine€in€four€ñ ñœñ ñtransactions).ñ ñ›ñ ñ€€Although€òòBarbee€óóinvolved€a€post„convictionÐ ¸4¼06 Ðappeal,€this€court€held€the€offenses€fit€a€ð ðcommon€scheme€or€plan;ðð€therefore,€if€counsel€ñ ñœñ ññü ñÐ  ˆ6Œ28 Ðñü ñhadñ ñ›ñ ñ€made€a€motion€to€sever,€it€would€not€have€been€successful.€€òòSee€alsoóó,€òòState€v.€JosephÐ ü ÐClyde€Beard,€Jr.,€óóSullivan€County€No.€03C01„9502„CR„00044,€1996€WL€563893€(Tenn.Ð ÌÐ ÐCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Sept.€26,€1996),€Ô‡ XæXXXæÔòòper.€app.€deniedóóÔ#†XæXX XæöA#Ô€(Tenn.,€Feb.€3,€1997)€(findingÐ œ  Ðð ðcommon€schemeðð€where€same€informant€purchased€similar€amounts€of€cocaine€fromÏsame€defendant€for€same€amount€of€money€in€same€location€although€transactionsÏoccurred€a€month€apart);€òòState€v.€Roger€D.€Pulley,€óóWayne€County€No.€01C01„9501„CC„Ð    Ð00013,€1995€WL€555060€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.€20,€1995)€(holding€fiveÏoffenses€constituted€ð ðcommon€schemeðð€occurring€within€eight€weeks,€involving€sameÏsequence€of€events,€same€informant,€and€procedures);€òòappeal€after€remand,€óóNo.€01C01„Ð lp Ð9605„CC„00217,€1997€WL€438166€(Tenn.€Crim.€App,€Nashville,€July€31,€1997);€òòState€v.Ð <@ ÐSteve€Mosley,óó€Dickson€County€No.€01C01„9211„CC„00345,€1993€WL€345542€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð   ÐApp.,€Nashville,€Sept.€9,€1993).ÌÌà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€four€indicted€offenses€transpired€over€an€approximate€ten„¼week€period,€with€two€transactions€only€eight€days€apart,€each€occurring€at€the€defendantððsÏhome.€€All€of€the€transactions€involved€the€same€controlled€substance,€approximately€theÏsame€number€of€rocks€with€approximately€the€same€weight,€the€same€defendant,€the€sameÏinformant,€and€the€same€amount€of€money.€€Each€time€the€defendant€left€his€house€andÏwent€around€the€left€side€to€retrieve€the€cocaine.€Moreover,€each€time€the€agentÏapproached€in€his€vehicle,€under€instructions€of€the€defendant,€the€agent€moved€his€vehicleÏfurther€away€from€the€house.€The€proof€was€essentially€the€same€òòmodus€operandióó€in€eachÐ ( $( Ðoffense,€òòi.e.,€óóclose€in€time,€location,€and€character.€€We€conclude€these€four€offensesÐ Ø)Ü%* Ðconstitute€a€ð ðcommon€scheme€or€planðð€as€contemplated€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€8(b)€andÏœ14(ñ ñañ ññ ñbñ ñ)(1).›€ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.€Admissibility€of€Evidence€of€One€at€Other€TrialsÐ  1-2 ÐÌó óÓ  Óà ` àThe€second€prong€required€under€Rule€14(b)(1)€for€joinder€of€offenses€is€that€theÐ ¼4À06 Ðevidence€of€one€offense€would€be€admissible€upon€the€trial€of€the€others.€òò€Hoyt,€óó928€ñ ñœñ ññý ñÐ  ˆ6Œ28 Ðñý ñS.W.2dñ ñ›ñ ñ€at€944.€This€court€held€this€prong€was€satisfied€if€the€evidence€would€have€beenÏadmissible€under€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€òòId.€óó€Generally,€evidence€of€otherÐ ÈÌ Ðcrimes€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€defendant€acted€in€conformity€therewith,€unless€theÏtrial€court€determines€that€a€material€issue€exists€to€show€identity,€motive,€intent,€guiltyÏknowledge,€absence€of€mistake€or€inadvertence,€and€other€material€points.€òòHoyt,€óó928Ð 0 4 ÐS.W.2d€at€944;€òòState€v.€Hallock,€óó875€S.W.€2d€285,€291€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€ñ ñœñ ñ1993),€òòper.€app.Ð    Ðdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).ñ ñ›ñ ñÐ ÐÔ  ÐÌà ` àHere,€the€defendant€does€not€dispute€that€he€committed€the€other€offenses,€onlyÏthat€ð ðnone€of€the€evidence€of€one€case€is€relevant€to€any€other€caseðð€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï401,€402,€and€403.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€the€introduction€of€evidence€regarding€theÏother€offenses€violates€fundamental€fairness€regarding€prior€bad€acts€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï404(b).€The€trial€court,€in€a€pretrial€hearing,€must€weigh€the€evidence€to€determine€if€theÏprobative€value€is€outweighed€by€the€prejudicial€effect.€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)(3).€€This€courtÏhas€held:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àFactors€in€weighing€the€probative€value€include€theÏprosecutionððs€need€for€the€evidence,€the€likelihood€theÏdefendant€committed€the€other€crimes,€and€the€degree€of€itsÏrelevance.€The€similarity€of€the€acts€make€the€probative€valueÏparticularly€significant.€The€distinctive€design€in€theÏcommission€of€a€series€of€crimes€may€serve€as€the€basis€forÏeither€admitting€evidence€of€the€other€crimes€or€havingÏconsolidated€trials.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðñ ñœñ ññþ ñÌñþ ññ ñ›ñ ñÌÓÓòòState€v.€McKnight,€óó900€S.W.2d€36,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€òòper.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ð '#' Ð1995).€€€€€ÌÌà ` àTo€comply€with€the€requirements€of€Rule€14(b)(1),€the€trial€court€was€required€toÏconduct€a€hearing€to€determine€if€evidence€of€one€offense€is€relevant€to€a€material€issueÏin€the€trial€of€the€other€offense€and€to€determine€whether€the€probative€value€of€suchÏevidence€outweighs€any€prejudicial€effect.€In€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€did€notÏconduct€such€a€hearing.ñ ñ׃×ñ ññ ñ׃×ñ ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€elect€to€complete€this€analysis.Ð ®3²/5 ÐÐ z5~17 Ðà ` àThe€defendant€does€not€contest€the€fact€that€he€sold€crack€cocaine€to€the€StateððsÏagents.€€He€defends€the€felony€charges,€however,€upon€grounds€that€his€sales€of€cocaineÏwere€ð ðcasual€exchangeðð€rather€than€a€designed€sale€as€contemplated€by€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.Ï39„17„417(a)(3).€€As€such,€the€evidence€of€the€other€counts€was€relevant.€€Each€of€theÏtransactions€were€closely€related€with€a€distinctive€design€common€among€the€fourÏoccurrences.€The€probative€value€of€the€evidence€clearly€outweighs€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.€òòSeeóó€òòBarbee,óó€Dyer€County€No.€02C01„9610„CC„00372€(holding€evidenceÐ <@  Ðadmissible€as€probative€of€both€identity€and€guilty€knowledge);€òòsee€alsoóó,€òòPulley,€óóWayneÐ   ÐCounty€No.€01C01„9501„CC„00013;€òòState€v.€Wayne€Hymes€Richards,€óóCumberland€CountyÐ ü ÐNo.€03C01„9503„CR„00102€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€8,€1996).€Thus,€we€concludeÏthe€evidence€of€one€offense€would€be€admissible€upon€the€trial€of€the€others.€ÌÌà ` àFurthermore,€on€appeal,€the€denial€of€the€severance€will€not€be€overturned€unlessÏit€appears€the€defendant€was€clearly€prejudiced.€òò€State€v.€Barber,€óó753€S.W.2d€659,€671Ð \` Ð(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€488€U.S.€900,€109€S.Ct.€248,€102€L.Ed.2d€236€(1988);€òòState€v.Ð <@ ÐColeman,€óó619€S.W.2d€112,€116€(Tenn.€1981);€òòParham€v.€State,€óó885€S.W.2d€375,€383Ð   Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€€òòper.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€defendant€has€failed€toÐ ü!  Ðdemonstrate€that€he€has€been€clearly€prejudiced.ÌÌà ` àTherefore,€we€conclude€the€trial€court€properly€granted€the€permissive€joinder€ofÏoffenses€and€properly€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€for€severance.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏñ ñœñ ñmerit.ñ ñ›ñ ñÌÓ  Óò òII.€Suppression€of€the€AudiotapeÐ <-@), ÐÌó óÓ  Óà ` àIn€his€second€issue,€the€defendant€challenges€the€admission€of€the€audiotapedÐ ü0-0 Ðconversation€of€March€22,€1995€between€Agent€Gilleland,€Fralix,€and€the€defendant.ÏAlternatively,€the€defendant€argues€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€redacting€certain€portionsÏof€this€audiotaped€conversation€because€the€contested€portions€did€not€directly€relate€toÏany€of€the€other€charged€offenses€and€would€mislead€and€prejudice€the€jury.€€In€support€ñ ñœñ ññÿ ñÐ  |8€48 Ðñÿ ñofñ ñ›ñ ñ€this€contention,€the€defendant€relies€upon€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)€and€òòState€v.€Tizard,€óó897Ð ü ÐS.W.2d€732,€734€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€in€that€the€defendant€had€particular€propensityÏor€acted€in€conformity€therewith€in€the€stated€offenses.€€The€defendant€contends€that€theÏintroduction€of€this€tape€was€not€harmless€error€because€in€the€two€transactions€precedingÏthis€conversation,€the€jury€only€convicted€him€of€casual€exchange€of€cocaine,€and€in€theÏtwo€transactions€following€this€conversation€the€jury€convicted€him€of€felony€sale€ofÏcocaine.€ÌÌà ` àIn€ruling€on€the€motion€to€suppress,€the€trial€court€found€the€defendantððs€statementsÏregarding€the€$400€crack€deals€and€stealing€away€money€from€his€competitors€were€ð ðplentyÏrelevant€and€probative€on€the€issue€of€casual€exchange€versus€intent€to€engage€in€the€kindÏof€illicit€business.ðð€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€motion€to€suppress€the€entire€audiotapeÏand€a€motion€to€redact€on€all€but€three€sentences.€However,€on€a€subsequent€motion€toÏredact,€the€trial€court€granted€the€motion€with€regard€to€three€statements€contained€in€theÏaudiotape:€€(1)€the€self„serving€statement€of€Fralix,€the€informant,€that€ð ðPeps€[defendant],Ïa€big€time€dealer€here,ðð€(2)€ð ðCops€done€got€all€my€money€man,ðð€and€(3)€ð ðIððve€been€in€andÏout€of€jail€man.ððÌÌà ` àThis€particular€audiotape€recording€stems€from€an€unrelated€drug€transactionÏinvolving€the€purchase€of€cocaine€by€Agent€Gilleland€and€Fralix€from€another€individual€atÏthat€individualððs€residence.€€Fralix€had€ð ðfrontedðð€the€individual€$400€for€cocaine,€and€theÏindividual€left€to€secure€the€cocaine.€While€awaiting€the€return€of€the€individual,€theÏdefendant€appeared€at€the€residence€and€introduced€himself€to€the€agent,€Gilleland.€€AgentÏGilleland€explained€the€individual€had€left€with€the€money€to€which€the€defendant€stated,Ïð ðFour€hundred€„„€goodness€„„€that€would€have€made€my€day€„„€man€„„€you€would€have€gotÏyour€dope€man.ðð€The€agent€then€asked€for€the€price€of€an€ð ðeight€ballðð€and€the€defendantÏstated,€ð ðAll€I€got€is€.€.€.€two€hundred€dollars€worth€.€.€.€if€I€can€get€rid€of€that€.€.€.€Iððm€fixing€toÏgo€get€some€real€big€stuff€.€.€.€I€have€to€get€rid€of€that€.€.€.€Iððm€trying€to€start€up€now.ðð€€StillÏfrustrated€over€his€loss€of€the€sale,€the€defendant€continued,€ð ðDamn€man€.€.€.€four€hundred€ñ ñœñ ññ ñÐ  |8€48 Ðñ ñ.ñ ñ›ñ ñ€.€.€you€could€have€come€and€seen€me€man€.€.€.€Hell,€you€and€I€need€to€talk€about€.€.€.€IÏneed€to€know€when€youððre€coming€around.ðð€From€there,€the€defendant€wanted€to€know€howÏoften€the€agent€came€into€town€to€purchase€cocaine€so€that€he€could€be€his€regularÏsupplier.€Speaking€to€the€agent,€the€defendant€said,€ð ðMan€you€trying€to€make€it€[drugÏdealing]€.€.€.€I€thought€you€was€smoking€like€hell€man.ððÌÌà ` àThe€relevance€of€evidence€is€determined€by€the€trial€court€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï401€and€will€not€be€overturned€without€an€abuse€of€discretion.€òòState€v.€Forbes,€óó918€S.W.2dÐ   Ð431,€449€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Leath,€óó744€S.W.2d€591,€593€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ü Ð1987).€€A€declaration€of€intent€to€engage€in€criminal€conduct€is€relevant€and€admissible,ÏòòState€v.€Woods,€óó806€S.W.2d€205,€209€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€502€U.S.Ð ¼À Ð1079,€112€S.Ct.€986,€117€L.Ed.2d€148€(1992),€unless€there€is€no€apparent€relationshipÏbetween€this€statement€and€€the€subsequent€crime.€The€defendantððs€statements€on€thisÏday€reflect€his€attitude€of€intent€to€engage€in€the€illicit€drug€trade€and,€as€a€matter€of€fact,Ïdid€so€the€next€day€and€eight€days€later.€€We€conclude€the€redacted€version€of€the€tapeÏwas€relevant€and€admissible€as€the€trial€court€properly€found€and€was€not€undulyÏprejudicial,€confusing,€or€misleading€to€the€jury.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà ` àThus,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÓÓÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ô‡X 7XXX 7ÔÐ ¬5°15 ÐTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÔ#†X 7XXX 7Eo#Ô