ÿWPC  ­à &Ã÷K.W¾8Ýgh.Ã÷ ÙÏþû;WYÈ?™1Š«xS<¢ÒJ†5(æSEwOZš 6ˆ¡VÔFømçuW‡»h?ß»s˜ªlâêÛ50gCλ µO{‰š™§¶õí±žñü~›DÖu;ÝØÕ‡`[@¡ùÛ$M'Ê!á¨ZÎòdZI° ëŹŸz{3¾Ý€9¬Š†éX{1J(PQn°ÞÀî\.ø$\hD’|âj®}ØFõ ÏÕ;ZõZ<äòˆ8Â8™ìRÆÙØeŽ¿v{Y‰dUË’·âöØY1>ôæâšV32Íß…tQã}NuNC!þe<õõ“Û/|n¹ðé /LÙ²ÈXJ'a0ö²,¥òT¨"R®PÊÄ¿I¤Q`³¸ß<ÕS¬oŠ{ÉÓÆý->ûžo—_ù"¨&lÂ@´Â/ªmœ+‚Bqžˆ•0Ÿ:¢kWÜ®Ê £®42V«}pzÔÃúøåyàù±ÇýIûvá­BÍ“5újJD_¢¾+áRÆÛs‰G=Ó¨æ Æ@â³¢‰jÚ.NÙÕÃݨθ¶Ï†Ä7æûçñVPgCž;ã<"Ñ6cl|)¼‡/¦ì¬²K°ïŠrò9¸³¶Ž²_P{d#!xUN™ %ç 0(íU: bO wW 4[ o ~ U2† 0Ƹ 0D~ U: 6ü N2 ^ 4 @ mB Y a ^w w w w w w w w w BÕ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ D5ò ò ò ò 0D''' AQkƼ 0D‚ 0DƘHP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,Ù¹6 AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-tpO'¸dTdŒ–3|x'î#! Z‹Garamond (v(2&f$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XˆXXXÔÔ€ôcMõXXˆÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,–ûyAZ‹"Arial Regular ,Ý ƒb¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XˆXXXÔÔ€VwXXˆÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XˆXVwÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€28,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó 󦲜'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ  Ñ  Ñ TÑTR[ì AØ'ÿ Legal[ì AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ d)ÿÿ!dxdx(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýab]cYCþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ°ÑÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š!±‹XXÔÔ€ŠŠŒ‹‹Š!±ÔÑ€ÑÑ8€u;XXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ‡XˆX‹ŠŠŒÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  Óò òÑ€DÑÑ€Î.ÑÔ_ÔÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLE€Ìßx€`YB2.jz C`  `€€@ÿEþû ` 8ttxP6¸ ð C xßÌFEBRUARY€1999€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ D”§X°œXÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ” àà ì à*à D àó óC.C.A.€#M199700084CCAR3CDò òÐ ü  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àó óAppellant,ò òà ” àà ì à*à D àó óDAVIDSON€COUNTYò òÐ ÜÔ  ÐÌó óVS.à Œ àò òà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à*à D àó óHonorable€Walter€C.€Kurtz,€Judgeò òÐ ´¬ ÐÌDENNIS€J.€HUGHES€AND€à ì à*à D àó ó(Bribery/Conspiracy€To€Commit€Bribery)Ð Œ„ Ðò òSUVONNYA€LAKEISHA€SMITH,à ì àÐ xp ÐÌà Œ àà ä àó óAppellees.à ” àò òà ì à*Ð PH Ðó óÌò òÌÌó óòòFOR€APPELLANT€HUGHESóó:ò òà ì àà D àó óòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ò òÐ úò ÐÌó óEDWARD€M.€YARBROUGHà ì àà D àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ Ì Ä Ðand€PETER€J.€STRIANSEà ” àà ì àà D àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ ²!ª Ð424€Church€StreetÌ2210€Sun€Trust€Centerà ” àà ì àà D àKIM€R.€HELPERÐ ~#v ÐNashville,€TN€37219à ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ d$\  Ðòòà Œ àà ä àóóà < àà ” àà ì àà D à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ J%B! ÐòòFOR€APPELLANT€SMITH:óóà ì àà D àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ð 0&(" ÐÌRICHARD€D.€PILIPONISà ” àà ì àà D àVICTOR€S.€(TORRY)€JOHNSON€IIIÐ ü'ô $ Ð176€Second€Avenue€Northà ì àà D àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ â(Ú!% ÐSuite€400ÌNashville,€TN€37201à ” àà ì àà D àJOHN€C.€ZIMMERMAN€Ð ®*¦#' Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à222€Second€Avenue€North€Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àSuite€500Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_______________ÌÌÌÌÓ XÓÓ XÓò òÓÓÓÓAFFIRMEDÐ ô9ì28 ÐÓþ ÓÐ à:Ø39 ÐÑÎ.Ñâ âÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal[° AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ âÑ  ÑÓÓJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,Ð  Ðó óJudgeÓŸÓÐ ôì ÐÌÌÌÓ X“ ÓÓ XÓÔ#†ŠP3ˆXXþjó#ÔÔ‡ 눊P3Ôò òÓ  ÓÓÓOPINIONó óÔ#†ŠP3ˆ ëU#ÔÔ‡XþjXˆŠP3ÔÐ $  ÐÓwÓÓ X$ÓÓƒÓThe€defendants,€Dennis€J.€Hughes€and€Suvonnya€Lakeisha€Smith,€appealÐ ÒÊ  Ðas€a€matter€of€right€their€Davidson€County€convictions€of€bribery€of€a€witness,€aÐ ž–  ÐClass€C€felony,€and€conspiracy€to€bribe€a€witness,€a€Class€D€felony.€€TheÐ jb Ðdefendants€were€also€charged€with€solicitation€to€commit€First€Degree€murder,Ð 6. Ðbut€the€trial€judge€granted€the€defendantsðð€motions€for€judgments€of€acquittal€andÐ ú Ðwithdrew€this€charge€from€the€juryððs€consideration.Ð ÎÆ Ѐ€On€this€appeal,€both€defendants€raise€the€two€following€issues:Ô#†ŠP3ˆXXþjÂ#ÔÔ‡XþjXˆŠP3ÔÐ š’ ÐÒŒ 4ÒÒÜ„ÒÓÓÓ XÓÓ Œ ܧXD”§XÓÓ Œ §,Œ ܧXÓ1.€à ¸ àWhether€sufficient€evidence€existed€to€find€the€defendants€guiltyÐ f^ ÐÔ#†ŠP3ˆXXþjÆ#ÔÔ‡XþjXˆŠP3Ôà ¸ àof€bribery€and€conspiracy€to€commit€bribery;€andÐ L D ÐÌ2.€Ô#†ŠP3ˆXXþjú#ÔÔ‡XþjXˆŠP3Ô€whetherÔ‡ X © XXXþjÔ€Ô#†XþjX X X ©¸#ÔÔ#†ŠP3ˆXXþj‘#ÔÔ‡XþjXˆŠP3Ôreversible€error€occurred€when€a€stateððs€witness€à ¤ àà Ð àÐ " Ðinvoked€his€Fifth€Amendment€privilege€in€the€presence€of€the€à Ð àÐ #þ Ðjury,€and€whether€prosecutorial€misconduct€occurred€when€the€à Ð àÐ ì#ä Ðstate€called€that€witness.Ð Ò$Ê  ÐÌÒ„ÜÒÒ4Œ ÒÓÓThe€following€issues€were€raised€only€by€defendant€Hughes:Ð ž&–" ÐÒŒ 4˜ÒÒÜ„ŠÒÓ¦Ó3.à ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€testimony€involving€a€Ð j(b!$ Ðà ¸ àfee€dispute€between€Hughes€and€a€prior€client;€andÐ P)H"% ÐÌ4.à ¸ àwhether€the€fines€assessed€against€Hughes€should€be€à ¤ àà Ð àÐ +$' Ðà ¸ àconcurrent€or€consecutive.Ð ,ú$( ÐÌÒ„ÜÒÒ4Œ ÒÓÓThe€following€issue€was€raised€only€by€defendant€Smith:Ð Î-Æ&* ÐÒŒ 4±ÒÒÜ„£ÒÓ¿Ó5.à ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€improperly€sentenced€Smith.Ð š/’(, ÐÌÌÒ4Œ ÒÒ„ÜÒÌÓÓÓ XÓÓ" Œ ܧXŒ §,T"ÓÔ#†ŠP3ˆXXþj#ÔÔ€XþjXˆŠP3ÔAfter€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs,€and€the€applicable€law,€we€AFFIRMÐ 23*,0 Ðthe€convictions€of€both€defendants€and€we€AFFIRM€the€sentence€of€Smith.Ð þ4ö-2 ÐÐ Ê6Â/4 ÐÐ –8Ž16 ÐÑDÑâ âÑÑâ âÑ  ÑÐ  ÐÐ ÔÌ ÐÓ XÓò òÓ  ÓÓÓBACKGROUNDó óÐ   ˜ ÐÓ´ÓÓÀÓòòÓ  ÓÓÓRhonda€WilliamsonóóÐ d \ ÐÓÓÓ)Óà Œ àThe€instant€convictions€arise€from€the€bribery€of€the€stateððs€key€witness€toÐ   Ðthe€murder€of€Naron€Allen.€€This€witness,€Rhonda€Williamson,€was€the€murderÐ èà  Ðvictimððs€girlfriend€and€was€sitting€beside€him€in€a€car€when€Wayford€DemonbreunÐ ´¬  Ðshot€and€killed€him€on€November€3,€1993.Ð €x ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓÓDennis€HughesóóÐ  ÐÓÓÓÓà Œ àThe€defendant,€Dennis€J.€Hughes,€a€practicing€attorney€in€DavidsonÐ ÐÈ ÐCounty,€was€retained€by€Demonbreun€to€defend€him€in€his€murder€trial€and€otherÐ œ” Ðunrelated€cases.€€Ð h` ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓÓSuvonnya€SmithóóÐ #ø ÐÓ\ÓÓhÓà Œ àThe€defendant,€Suvonnya€Lakeisha€Smith,€became€DemonbreunððsÐ ¸%°" Ðgirlfriend€about€three€to€four€months€after€the€murder€and€continued€as€such€atÐ „'| $ Ðall€times€pertinent€to€these€proceedings.€€Smith€and€Demonbreun€have€one€childÐ P)H"& Ðtogether.€€€Ð +$( ÐÌÓ  ÓòòÓÓRhonda€Cecilóóà @< àÐ ´.¬', ÐÓ!ÓÓ!Óà Œ àRhonda€Cecil,€an€employee€of€the€Metropolitan€Nashville€PoliceÐ l1d*/ ÐDepartment€Domestic€Violence€Division,€testified€that€she€received€a€telephoneÐ 830,1 Ðcall€from€an€anxious€Williamson.€€Cecil,€who€had€met€Williamson€through€theÐ 5ü-3 ÐVictim€Intervention€Program,€said€that€she€called€the€Murder€Squad€detectivesÐ Ð6È/5 Ðand€told€them€that€she€had€received€a€call€from€Williamson.€€Williamson€toldÐ œ8”17 ÐCecil€that€Demonbreunððs€attorney€and€girlfriend€had€approached€her€aboutÐ  Ðchanging€her€story€in€return€for€money.€€Cecil€then€called€the€District€AttorneyÐ ÔÌ ÐGeneralððs€office.Ð   ˜ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓÓDelores€WilliamsonóóÐ 80 ÐÓ\$ÓÓh$Óà Œ àWilliamsonððs€aunt,€Delores€Williamson,€testified€that€Williamson€hadÐ ðè  Ðcalled€her€as€well.€€Delores€Williamson€said€that€she€told€Williamson€to€call€theÐ ¼´  Ðpolice€and€reject€the€offered€money.€Ð ˆ€  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓÓTim€Allenóóà @ä àÐ   ÐÓÖ%ÓÓâ%Óà Œ àSergeant€Tim€Allen€of€the€Metropolitan€Nashville€Police€DepartmentÐ ØÐ Ðtestified€that€he€issued€Williamson€a€recording€device.€Ð ¤œ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓÓThe€First€MeetingóóÐ < 4 ÐÓû&ÓÓ'Óà Œ àPrior€to€her€meeting€either€codefendant,€Williamson€identifiedÐ ô"ì ÐDemonbreun€as€the€slayer€and€testified€at€the€preliminary€hearing€and€the€grandÐ À$¸! Ðjury€that€Demonbreun€shot€and€killed€Allen.€€€Williamson€testified€that€in€lateÐ Œ&„# Ð1994€Smith€came€to€Williamson€to€get€her€hair€braided.€€At€some€point€during€theÐ X(P!% Ðbraiding€session,€Smith€said€that€she€had€to€leave€to€prepare€food€for€ð ðWayford.ðð€Ð $*#' ÐWilliamson€excitedly€responded,€ð ðWhat?ðð€and€jumped€back.€€Smith€askedÐ ð+è$) ÐWilliamson,€ð ðOh,€so€you[ððre]€Rhonda,ðð€and€Williamson€responded€that€she€wasÐ ¼-´&+ ÐRhonda,€the€occupant€in€Allenððs€car.€€€At€which€time,€Williamson€calledÐ ˆ/€(- ÐDemonbreun€and€handed€Williamson€the€phone.€€She€said€Demonbreun€told€herÐ T1L*/ Ðthat€he€was€not€trying€to€shoot€her€when€he€shot€into€the€car.€Ð  3,1 ÐÌâ âòòÓ  ÓÓÓThe€OfferóóÐ ¸6°/5 ÐÓI+ÓÓU+Óà Œ àBy€January€1995,€the€codefendants€had€concocted€a€scheme€in€whichÐ  Ðâ âthey€would€obtain€a€tape„recording€of€Williamsonððs€recanting€her€testimony€aboutÐ ÔÌ Ðthe€murder.€€This€recording€would€subsequently€be€used€to€discredit€WilliamsonððsÐ   ˜ Ðtestimony.€€Williamson€testified€that€in€January€1995€Smith€called€her€fromÐ l d ÐHughesððs€office€and€offered€her€$3,000€to€say€on€tape€that€glass€splattered€in€herÐ 80 Ðeyes€and€prevented€her€from€actually€identifying€the€shooter.€€WilliamsonÐ ü  Ðresponded€that€she€had€earlier€testified€in€court€about€the€murder€and€wasÐ ÐÈ  Ðreluctant€to€change€her€story.€€Williamson€testified€that€Hughes€was€in€theÐ œ”  Ðbackground€of€the€phone€call,€telling€Williamson€that€he€and€Smith€would€comeÐ h` Ðto€her€house€later€in€the€day.€€Later,€Hughes€and€Smith€arrived€in€a€black€Lexus,Ð 4, Ðbut€Williamson€was€frightened€and€did€not€allow€them€in€her€house.€€Ð ø ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓÓThe€RecordingsóóÐ ˜ ÐÓö/ÓÓ0Óà Œ àFollowing€this€meeting,€Williamson€recorded€three€conversations.€Ð PH ÐHughesððs€voice€is€present€on€only€the€tape€of€the€first€conversation.€€€TheÐ ! Ðconversation€began€when€Smith€arrived€at€Williamsonððs€house,€and€the€twoÐ è"à Ðentered€a€car€occupied€by€Hughes.€€As€Williamson€began€to€describe€theÐ ´$¬! Ðmurder,€Hughes€repeatedly€interrupted€her€and€suggested€explanations€for€herÐ €&x# Ðearlier€statement€and€testimony.€He€said€automobile€window€glass,€shattered€byÐ L(D!% Ðthe€shooting,€entered€her€eye€and€prevented€her€from€actually€identifying€theÐ *#' Ðshooter.€€Further,€he€suggested€that€her€earlier€statement€and€testimony€resultedÐ ä+Ü$) Ðfrom€the€pressure€by€the€police.€€Ð °-¨&+ ÐÌà Œ àAt€one€point€in€the€taped€conversation,€Williamson€reaffirmed€her€earlierÐ H1@*/ Ðobservations€of€the€murder,€only€to€abruptly€retract€them€after€several€seconds€ofÐ 3 ,1 Ðsilence:Ð à4Ø-3 ÐÒŒ 4ÒÒÜ„ÒÓÓÓ Œ §,Œ ܧXÓWilliamson:€No,€I€mean€it.€€I€was€sitting€in€the€car€when€Wayford€Ð ¬6¤/5 Ðà ¸ àshot€him.€[intervening€period€with€no€dialogue]€à  àNaw,€I€didnððt€seeÐ ’7Š06 Ðà ¸ àanything.Ð x8p17 ÐÒ4Œ ’4ÒÒ„Ü 4ÒÓ®4ÓÓ" Œ ܧXŒ §,À4"ÓÐ ^9V28 ÐWilliamson€testified€that€Smith,€during€the€silence,€hit€the€back€of€the€seat€andÐ  Ðtold€her€that€she€was€to€change€her€story.€Ð ÔÌ ÐÌà Œ àAt€least€one€unidentified€person€approached€the€car€during€this€meetingÐ l d Ðand€asked€Hughesððs€identity.€€When€Williamson€replied€that€he€was€herÐ 80 Ðð ðinsurance€man,ðð€the€unidentified€person€told€her€she€was€lying€and€identified€theÐ ü  Ðvehicleððs€male€occupant€as€Dennis€Hughes.€€Ð ÐÈ  ÐÌà Œ àSmith€and€Williamson€exited€the€car,€and€Smith€told€Williamson€thatÐ h` ÐHughes€was€scared€to€speak€to€her€forthrightly€in€fear€that€she€was€ð ðwired.ðð€Ð 4, ÐSmith€told€her€that€Hughes€wanted€Smith€to€search€her.€Ð ø ÐÌà Œ àWilliamson€made€a€second€recording€the€following€day.€€This€tape€was€ofÐ ˜ Ða€telephone€conversation€between€Smith€and€Williamson.€€On€this€tape,Ð d\ ÐWilliamson€asked,€ð ðIs€he€going€to€give€me€the€money?ðð€to€which€SmithÐ 0 ( Ðresponded,€ð ðYes,€he€is.ðð€€€The€conversation€proceeded:Ð ü!ô ÐÒÜ„ÒÒŒ 4ÒÓÓÓ Œ §,Œ ܧXÓSmith:€It€could€be€me€and€you€but€Iððm€just€saying€he€gonna€have€to,Ð È#À  Ðà ¸ àthatððs€the€lawyer€he€gonna€have€to€hear€you,€he€gonna€have€to€Ð ®$¦! Ðà ¸ àhear€you€any€way€it€go.€€But€you€ainððt€going€have€to€be€all€up€on€Ð ”%Œ" Ðà ¸ àno€stand€or€no€[stuff]€like€that.Ð z&r# ÐÌWilliamson:€But€well,€this€is€what€Iððm€saying,€okay€look,€listen€to€Ð F(>!% Ðà ¸ àthis,€Keisha.€€One,€if€I€had€said€that,€uh,€I€didnððt€see€him€do€this;€Ð ,)$"& Ðà ¸ àright?€Ð * #' ÐÌSmith:€Uh„huh.Ð Þ+Ö$) Ðà ¸ àà ä àà  àà < àà h àà ” àà À àÌWilliamson:€And€then€ð"ðÐ ª-¢&+ ÐÌSmith:€Because€look,€donððt€you€think€I€got€all€this€straight?€€I€à Ð àÐ v/n(- Ðà ¸ àwas€in€his€office€for€two€days€straight,€went€to€ask€him€what€à Ð àÐ \0T). Ðà ¸ àyou€supposed€to€say€and€what€you€not€supposed€to€say.€€This€isÐ B1:*/ Ðà ¸ àhow€you€supposed€to€come€to€me.€€You€just€said€that€basically€Ð (2 +0 Ðà ¸ àeverybody€was€pressuring€you,€DA,€policeman,€and€all€that.€€ButÐ 3,1 Ðà ¸ àthe€only€reason€why€you€said€ð ðyeahðð€cause€you€wanted€to€get€it€Ð ô3ì,2 Ðà ¸ àover€with,€but€deep€down€in€you€heart€you€been€thinking€about€itÐ Ú4Ò-3 Ðà ¸ àand€you€canððt€send€nobody€away€for€something€that€you€really€Ð À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àknow€that€you€canððt€prove€that€he€did.Ð ¦6ž/5 ÐÌWilliamson:€Uh„huh.Ð r8j17 ÐÌSmith:€Thatððs€all€you€have€to€say,€That€is€all€you€have€to€say.Ð >:639 ЇWilliamson:€Just€that,€and€it€will€be€over€with.Ð  ÐÌSmith:€And€it€will€be€over€with.Ð ÔÌ ÐÌWilliamson:€And€you€promise.Ð   ˜ ÐÌSmith:€I€promise,€that€if€he€try€to€make€you€say€more€then€Iððm€à Ð àÐ l d Ðà ¸ àgonna€stop€and€be€like€this,€thatððs€all€she€gonna€say.€€And€that€Ð R J Ðà ¸ àway€I€bet€he€deal€with€it.€€That€will€be€enough.€€Deep€down€in€Ð 80 Ðà ¸ àyour€heart€you€knew€you€couldnððt€send€that€boy€away€because€ifÐ   Ðà ¸ àyou€did€you€just€said€it€to€get€away,€and€now€that€it€was€working€Ð ü  Ðà ¸ àon€your€conscience,€just€make€it€sound€like€that.Ð êâ  ÐÌWilliamson:€Uh„huh.Ð ¶®  ÐÌSmith:€Thatððs€it.€€That€is€it.Ð ‚z  ÐÌÒ4Œ ÷:ÒÒ„Üé:ÒÓ;ÓÓ" Œ ܧXŒ §,;"ÓÌà Œ àSmith€reassured€Williamson€that€she€would€receive€the€money€when€sheÐ  Ðprovided€a€recorded€statement€for€Hughes.€€She€further€reassured€WilliamsonÐ æÞ Ðthat€she€would€not€have€to€testify€if€she€provided€the€tape€because€the€caseÐ ²ª Ðwould€be€dropped.€€If€Williamson€made€the€tape€and€if€the€authorities€askedÐ ~v Ðabout€her€prior€testimony,€she€should€say€she€had€been€ð ðpressuredðð€to€identifyÐ JB ÐDemonbreun.€€Williamson€also€asked€if€she€could€merely€avoid€court,€and€SmithÐ ! Ðreplied€that€would€be€unacceptable€because,€ð ðhe€is€saying€.€.€.€they€gonna€thinkÐ â"Ú Ðhe€said€something€for€you€to€make€you€leave€out€of€town.ðð€€Ð ®$¦! ÐÌà Œ àThe€third€tape€was€another€telephone€conversation€between€Smith€andÐ F(>!% ÐWilliamson,€in€which€Smith€says,€ð ðand€he€told€me,€he€said€he€ainððt€coming€backÐ * #' Ðto€your€house€since€you€donððt,€he€donððt€want€you€to€get€in€no€trouble.ðð€€Smith€toldÐ Þ+Ö$) ÐWilliamson€that€ð ðI€ainððt€got€all€of€it.€.€.€.€But€I€got€some€of€it€to€let€you€know€that€IÐ ª-¢&+ Ðainððt€[lying].ðð€€Williamson€agreed€to€a€meeting,€during€which€Smith€toldÐ v/n(- ÐWilliamson€that€ð ðheðð€would€want€Williamson€searched.Ð B1:*/ ÐÌâ âòòÓ  ÓÓÓÝ ƒÿÝÝ  ÝUnrecorded€ConversationsóóÐ Ú4Ò-3 ÐÓ=KÓÓIKÓà Œ àWilliamson€testified€that€she€had€other€unrecorded€conversations€withÐ  ÐSmith,€including€one€in€which€Smith€wanted€her€to€ride€to€K„Mart€for€a€tape€toÐ ÔÌ Ðmake€the€requested€recording.€Ð   ˜ Ðâ âÌÓ  ÓÓÓà @Œ àòòÌÌJudge€ShriveróóÐ ¨   ÐÓÓLÓÓßLÓ€à Œ àThe€state€called€the€late€Judge€Thomas€Shriver€to€testify.€€Judge€ShriverÐ `X Ðpresided€over€all€three€of€Demonbreunððs€trials€for€the€murder€of€Naron€Allen.€Ð ,$ ÐJudge€Shriver€testified€that€he€declared€a€mistrial€during€Demonbreunððs€first€trial.€Ð øð ÐHe€had€noted€that€during€Hughesððs€cross„examination€of€Williamson,€HughesРļ Ðasked€her€about€some€fear€of€changing€her€story€and€perjury.€€To€this,Ð ˆ ÐWilliamson€replied€with€a€question,€ð ðWhen€they€offered€me€the€money?ðð€€HughesÐ \T Ðreplied,€ð ðYeah.ðð€€Judge€Shriver,€alerted€to€some€problem,€stopped€the€testimony,Ð (!  Ðsent€the€jury€out,€and€inquired€into€the€matter.€€Judge€Shriver€heard€the€tapedÐ ô"ì Ðconversations€between€Williamson€and€the€codefendants,€declared€a€mistrial,Ð À$¸! Ðrelieved€Hughes,€and€appointed€Mickey€Gibson€to€represent€Demonbreun.Ð Œ&„# ÐÌà Œ àJudge€Shriver€then€ordered€Hughes€to€surrender€fees€received€forÐ $*#' Ðdefending€Demonbreun.€€He€held€a€hearing€to€determine€a€fair€amount€of€funds.€Ð ð+è$) ÐJudge€Shriver€testified€that€the€amount€was€contested€and€that€his€determinationÐ ¼-´&+ Ðwas€complicated€by€the€lack€of€receipts€and€by€Hughesððs€representation€ofÐ ˆ/€(- ÐDemonbreun€on€multiple€charges.€€Judge€Shriver€found€a€substantial€disparityÐ T1L*/ Ðbetween€what€Hughes€claimed€to€receive€and€what€Demonbreunððs€familyÐ  3,1 Ðtestified€they€paid.€€He€concluded€that€Hughes€received€approximately€$31,400.€Ð ì4ä-3 ÐJudge€Shriver€also€testified€that€he€considered€contempt€charges€againstÐ ¸6°/5 ÐHughes.€€ò òÐ „8|17 Ðó óÐ P:H39 ÐòòÓ  ÓÓÓTimothy€DavisóóÐ  ÐÓ|TÓÓˆTÓÓ XÓÓ Œ §,Œ ܧXÓThe€state€alleged€that€the€codefendants€contracted€with€Timothy€Davis,Ð À ¸ Ða.k.a.€Teenie€Weenie,€a€prisoner,€to€murder€Rhonda€Williamson.€€In€support€ofÐ Œ „ Ðthis€charge,€the€state€planned€to€call€Davis€as€its€only€witness.€€At€the€trial,€DavisÐ X P Ðrefused€to€testify€and€invoked€his€Fifth€Amendment€privilege€in€the€presence€ofÐ $  Ðthe€jury.€€The€trial€judge€excused€the€jury€and€determined€that€the€witness€wouldÐ ðè  Ðcontinue€to€refuse€to€testify.€€He€did€not€make€any€finding€whether€the€witnessððsÐ ¼´  Ðrefusal€to€testify€was€justified.€€He€did€not€levy€any€sanctions€against€the€witnessÐ ˆ€  Ðfor€his€refusal€to€testify.€€The€trial€judge€did,€however,€grant€the€defendantsððÐ TL Ðmotions€for€judgments€of€acquittal.€The€trial€court€advised€the€jury€that€DavisÐ   Ðrefused€to€testify€and€that€the€charge€contained€in€Count€Three€of€the€indictmentÐ ìä Ðagainst€the€defendants€charging€solicitation€of€First€Degree€murder€wasÐ ¸° Ðwithdrawn€from€their€consideration.Ð „| ÐÐ PH ÐThe€totality€of€Davisðð€appearance€before€the€jury€follows:€Ð ! ÐÒŒ 4ÒÒÜ„ÒÓÓÓ XÓTimothy€Davis,€having€first€been€duly€sworn,€was€examined€andÐ è"à Ðtestified€as€follows:Ð Î#Æ  ÐÌTHE€WITNESS:€I€plead€the€Fifth.€€I€plead€the€Fifth,€thatððs€how€I€à Ð àÐ š%’" Ðà ¸ àplead.Ð €&x# ÐÌTHE€COURT:€Well,€wait€until€you€hear€the€questions.Ð L(D!% ÐÌTHE€WITNESS:€But€Iððm€pleading€the€Fifth.Ð *#' ÐÌÌBY€MR.€ZIMMERMAN:Ð Ê,Â%* ÐÌQUESTION:€Would€you€tell€the€court€your€full€name,€sir?Ð –.Ž', ÐÌANSWER:€In€the€paper€you€all€got€Teenie„Weenie€Davis.Ð b0Z). ÐÌQUESTION:€What€is€your€name,€sir?Ð .2&+0 ÐÌANSWER:€Teenie„Weenie€Davis.€€Thatððs€whatððs€in€the€newspaper€Ð ú3ò,2 Ðà ¸ àthis€morning.Ð à4Ø-3 ÐÌQUESTION:€Whatððs€your€name,€sir?€€Are€you€Timothy€Davis?Ð ¬6¤/5 ÐÌANSWER:€Timothy€Lamont€Davis.Ð x8p17 Ðâ âÐ ^9V28 ÐQUESTION:€Mr.€Davis,€did€you€ever€„„€were€you€ever€taken€to€the€Ð  Ðâ âà ¸ àlaw€office€of€Mr.€Dennis€Hughes€by€the€defendant€Keisha€to€à Ð àÐ îæ Ðà ¸ àspeak€with€Mr.€Hughes?Ð ÔÌ ÐÌANSWER:€(No€response.)Ð   ˜ ÐÌQUESTION:€Are€you€going€to€answer€our€questions?Ð l d ÐÌANSWER:€(No€response.)à ì àà  àà D àà p àÐ 80 ÐÌMR.€ZIMMERMAN:à ” àYour€Honor,€Iððd€ask€the€Court€him€to€answer€Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à[sic]€the€questions.Ð êâ  ÐÌTHE€COURT:€Okay,€Mr.€Davis,€answer€the€questions€please.Ð ¶®  ÐÌTHE€WITNESS:€I€politely€first€off€the€top,€how€do€you€plead€the€à Ð àÐ ‚z  Ðà ¸ àFifth?€€Ainððt€nobody€direct€me€and€told€me€and€how€to€plead€the€Ð h` Ðà ¸ àFifth.à  àà < àà h àà ” àà À àà ì àà  àà D àà p àÐ NF ÐÌTHE€COURT:€Well,€you€can€just€say€that€I€take€the€Fifth€à x àà ¤ àà Ð àÐ  Ðà ¸ àAmendment.à h àà ” àà À àà ì àà  àà D àà p àÐ ø ÐÌTHE€WITNESS:€Thatððs€what€Iððm€taking.Ð ÌÄ ÐÌTHE€COURT:€Okay.€€All€right.€€Members€of€the€jury,€let€me€ask€you€Ð ˜ Ðà ¸ àto€step€back€into€the€jury€assembly€room€please.Ð ~v Ðà ¸ àà ä àà  àà < àà h àà ” àà À àà ì àà  àà D àà p àà œ àà È àÌÌÌÒ4Œ ÒÒ„ÜÒÓÓà ` àà Œ àà ¸ àà ä àà  àà < àà h àà ” àà À àà ì àòòSentencingÐ ! ÐóóÓdÓà ` àà Œ àÓÓAfter€the€jury€returned€guilty€verdicts€against€the€codefendants,€the€trialÐ Î#Æ  Ðcourt€applied€to€Hughesððs€sentence€enhancement€factor€(2)€he€was€ð ða€leader€inÐ š%’" Ðthe€commission€of€an€offense€involving€two€or€more€criminal€actionsðð€and€factorÐ f'^ $ Ð(15)€his€offense€constituted€an€abuse€of€public€or€private€trust.€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ 2)*"& ÐAnn.€ðð€49„35„114€(2),€(5).€€The€trial€court€placed€little€weight€on€(2)€butÐ þ*ö#( Ðconsiderable€weight€on€(15).€€That€court€also€found€one€mitigating€factor:€€theÐ Ê,Â%* Ðcrime€was€not€one€of€violence€or€one€that€threatened€severe€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóóÐ –.Ž', ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„38„113(1).Ð b0Z). ÐÌà ` àà Œ àThe€trial€court€sentenced€Hughes€to€three€years€confinement€on€countÐ ú3ò,2 Ðone€and€to€four€years€and€six€months€confinement€on€count€two,€to€be€servedÐ Æ5¾.4 Ðâ âconcurrently€in€the€workhouse.€€The€trial€court€further€imposed€a€total€fine€ofÐ ’7Š06 Ð$15,000„„$5,000€on€the€first€count€and€$10,000€on€the€second.€€That€courtÐ  Ðdenied€alternative€sentencing€for€Hughes.Ð ÔÌ Ðâ âÌà ` àà Œ àRegarding€Smith,€the€trial€court€applied€mitigating€factor€(6)€her€youth€andÐ l d Ðfactor€(1)€the€crime€involved€no€threat€of€severe€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ 80 ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(1),(1).€€Because€her€offenses€so€clearly€offended€the€integrityÐ ü  Ðof€the€judicial€system,€the€court€considered€her€neither€a€mitigated€offender€nor€aÐ ÐÈ  Ðcandidate€for€immediate€probation.€€The€Court€also€cited€a€need€for€deterrence.€Ð œ”  ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103.€€On€count€one,€the€trial€court€imposed€aÐ h` Ðthree„year€sentence€in€the€workhouse€and€a€$500€fine.€On€count€two,€the€trialÐ 4, Ðcourt€imposed€a€two„year€sentence€in€the€workhouse€and€a€$500€fine.€€TheÐ ø Ðincarceration€terms€were€ordered€to€be€served€concurrently.€€The€trial€courtÐ ÌÄ Ðordered€her€sentences€suspended€after€one€hundred€and€twenty€days,€day„for„Ð ˜ Ðday,€in€the€jail€or€workhouse,€followed€by€four€years€of€probation.Ð d\ ÐÌÓleÓÓ  Óò òÓÓANALYSISÐ ü!ô ÐÓØnÓÓçnÓòòÓænÓà ` àó óóóà Œ àWe€first€address€those€issues€asserted€by€both€defendants.Ð À$¸! ÐÓ?oÓÌòòÓ  ÓÓÓSufficiency€of€Evidenceò òÐ r'j $ ÐÓèoÓÓ  Óó óóóà ` àà Œ àÓÓThe€jury€convicted€both€defendants€of€bribing€a€witness:Ð **"#' ÐÓipÓÒŒ 4ÒÒÜ„ÒA€person€commits€an€offense€who:Ð ö+î$) ÐÌà ¸ à(1)€Offers,€confers€or€agrees€to€confer€any€thing€of€value€upon€aÐ Â-º&+ Ðà ¸ àà ä àwitness€or€a€person€the€defendant€believes€will€be€called€as€Ð ¨. ', Ðà ¸ àà ä àa€witness€in€any€official€proceeding€with€intent€to:Ð Ž/†(- Ðà ¸ àà ä àÌà ¸ àà ä à(a)€Corruptly€influence€the€testimony€of€the€witness;€.€.€.€Ð Z1R*/ ÐÓ" Œ ܧXŒ §,óT"Óòòò òÌÒ4Œ ÒÒ„ÜÒó óóóÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„107(a),(1)(A).€€Both€defendants€assert€that€theÐ *3",1 Ðevidence€did€not€support€the€juryððs€verdict€because€that€evidence€did€notÐ ö4î-3 Ðâ âestablish€intent€to€corruptly€influence€testimony.€€But€rather,€they€argue€that€theÐ Â6º/5 Ðstate€has€proven,€at€most,€that€the€defendants€sought€to€fabricate€evidence€inÐ  Ðorder€to€obtain€a€more€favorable€plea€bargaining€position.€We€disagree.Ó*sÓò òÓÓÐ ÔÌ Ðâ âÌó óà Œ àThe€defendants€emphasize€that€the€plan€presented€to€Williamson€wouldÐ x p Ðlikely€preclude€a€trial€for€Demonbreunððs€murder€charge.€€Although€WilliamsonÐ D< Ðunderstood€the€plan€as€a€purchase€of€her€testimony,€the€defendants€argue€thatÐ   ÐWilliamson€would€not€need€to€testify€at€trial,€because€no€trial€would€occur€afterÐ ÜÔ  Ðthe€state€reviewed€the€fabricated€tape.€€The€defendants€thus€assert€that€theyÐ ¨   Ðsought€no€corruption€of€ð ðtestimonyðð€and€therefore€argue€that€the€elements€of€theÐ tl Ðcharged€statute€are€unfulfilled.€€Further,€continue€the€defendants,€the€statuteÐ @8 Ðprohibits€corruption€of€òòtestimonyóó,€not€of€a€òòwitnessóó.Ð   ÐÌò òà Œ àó óWe€do€not€agree€that€ð ðtestimonyðð€is€so€far€divorced€from€the€ð ðwitnessðð€thatÐ ¤œ Ðone€may€purchase€the€former€without€influencing€the€latter.€€We€conclude€thatÐ ph Ðthe€defendants€attempted€to€corrupt€testimony.Ð < 4 ÐÌà Œ àWe€acknowledge€that€Williamson€lacks€expertise€in€criminal€procedureÐ Ô#Ì  Ðand€evidence,€yet€she€apparently€recognized€the€obvious€outcome€of€the€plan:€Ð  %˜" ÐAt€trial,€she€would€face€inconsistences€between€her€previous€testimony€and€theÐ l'd $ Ðfabricated€statements.€€The€defendants€also€anticipated€this€situation:€If€the€stateÐ 8)0"& Ðexplored€the€contrast€between€the€statement€and€the€earlier€testimony,€she€wasÐ +ü#( Ðinstructed€to€say€that€the€state€ð ðpressuredðð€her€to€give€the€incriminatingÐ Ð,È%* Ðpreliminary€hearing€testimony.€€The€defendants€also€recognized€that€havingÐ œ.”', ÐWilliamson€leave€town€to€avoid€trial€testimony€would€not€achieve€their€goals,Ð h0`). Ðbecause,€as€Smith€advised€Hughes,€the€state€would€suspect€that€they€hadÐ 42,+0 Ðprocured€Williamsonððs€absence.€Ð 4ø,2 ÐÌà Œ àThe€defendants€further€argue€that€the€word€ð ðtestimonyðð€should€beÐ ˜706 Ðnarrowly€defined€to€encompass€only€statements€in€court€proceeding.€€They€urgeÐ d9\28 Ðthis€Court€to€narrowly€consider€the€evidence€in€this€case€as,€at€most,€an€effort€toÐ  Ðcreate€a€tape€recording€or€tampering€with€or€the€fabrication€of€evidence.€€òòSeeóóÐ ÔÌ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„503.€€€We€decline€the€opportunity€to€accept€the€narrowÐ   ˜ Ðinterpretation.€€As€the€trial€court€found€the€fabrication€of€a€tape€would€have€hadÐ l d Ðmajor€implications€on€the€past€and€future€testimony€of€Rhonda€Williamson.€Ð 80 ÐUpon€this€point€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€and€State.€€The€scheme€planned€byÐ ü  Ðboth€Hughes€and€Smith,€if€successful,€could€have€influenced€any€subsequentÐ ÐÈ  Ðtestimony€of€Rhonda€Williamson€in€a€number€of€ways.Ð œ”  ÐÌà Œ àSpecifically,€the€trial€court€recognized€that€if€the€State€pursued€the€case,Ð 4, Ðdespite€the€false€recording,€Ms.€Williamsonððs€actual€trial€testimony€would€beÐ ø Ðinfluenced€by€her€knowledge€and€the€existence€of€the€tape€recording.€€Further,€ifÐ ÌÄ Ðshe€did€not€appear€at€trial,€the€replay€of€her€preliminary€hearing€testimony€couldÐ ˜ Ðbe€hampered€by€the€subsequent€playing€of€the€fabricated€tape€recording.€€ThereÐ d\ Ðcan€be€no€doubt€that€this€scheme€was€designed€with€the€intent€to€corruptlyÐ 0 ( Ðinfluence€the€testimony€of€Rhonda€Williamson.Ð ü!ô ÐÌà Œ àThe€State€cites€to€a€Alabama€case€in€support€of€its€contentions.€€òòSeeóóÐ ”%Œ" ÐòòMaddox€v.€Smithóó,€520€S.W.2d€143€(Ala.€Crim.€App.€1986),€òòcert.€denied,€óó(Ala.òòÐ `'X $ Ðóó1988).€€The€Alabama€statute€in€effect€at€the€time€stated€that€ð ð[a]€person€commitsÐ 0)("& Ðthe€crime€of€bribing€a€witness€if€he€offers,€confers€or€agrees€to€confer€anything€ofÐ ü*ô#( Ðvalue€upon€a€witness€or€person€he€believes€will€be€called€as€a€witness€in€anyÐ È,À%* Ðofficial€proceeding€with€intent€to€corruptly€influence€the€testimony€of€that€person.ðð€Ð ”.Œ', ЀòòóóÐ `0X). Ðà Œ àIn€òòMaddoxóó,€the€father€of€a€man€already€convicted€of€a€drug€offenseÐ ,2$+0 Ðoffered€money€to€a€deputy€to€reconsider€his€trial€testimony.€òòóó€The€defendantððs€sonÐ ø3ð,2 Ðhad€already€been€convicted.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€argued€that€because€hisÐ Ä5¼.4 Ðson€had€been€convicted,€the€deputy€was€no€longer€a€witness€under€the€statute.€òòóóÐ 7ˆ06 ÐThe€Alabama€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€because€the€sonððs€case€was€pending€onÐ \9T28 Ðappeal€and€two€co„defendants€were€awaiting€trial,€the€deputy€was€indeed€still€aÐ  Ðwitness€under€the€statute.€€520€S.W.2d€at€149.€€The€Court€rejected€the€argumentÐ ÔÌ Ðthat€because€the€codefendants€eventually€did€not€go€to€trial,€the€deputyððs€statusÐ   ˜ Ðas€a€witness€was€somehow€diminished.Ð l d ÐÌà Œ àAppellants€here€do€not€question€whether€Rhonda€Williams€was€a€witness.€Ð ü  ÐHowever,€the€argument€is€somehow€similar€to€òòMaddoxóó.€€In€this€case,€RhondaÐ ÐÈ  ÐWilliamson€was€a€witness€in€the€case€whose€testimony€would€be€used€at€the€trialÐ œ”  Ðof€Wayford€Demonbreun.€€The€bribery€involved€her€testimony€at€the€preliminaryÐ h` Ðhearing€and€her€future€use€as€a€witness€for€the€State.€€The€fact€that€the€planÐ 4, Ðinvolved€a€tape€recording€of€a€statement€by€Ms.€Williamson€for€use€inÐ ø Ðsubsequent€discussions€with€the€State,€though€not€necessarily€at€trial,€does€notÐ ÌÄ Ðimpact€nor€change€the€testimonial€nature€of€her€past€and€future€statements.Ð ˜ Ѐ€€€€Ð d\ Ðà Œ àHaving€determined€that€the€defendantððs€actions€fall€within€the€conductÐ 0 ( Ðprohibited€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„16„107(a),(1)(A),€we€concludeÐ ü!ô Ðthat€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict.ò ò€ó óWhen€a€defendantÐ È#À  Ðchallenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€must€determine€whether,Ð  %˜" Ðafter€viewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€anyÐ l'd $ Ðrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€a€crime€beyond€aÐ 8)0"& Ðreasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979);€òòState€v.Ð +ü#( ÐDuncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€The€state€isÐ Ð,È%* Ðentitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonableÐ œ.”', Ðinferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÐ h0`). Ð832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Ð 42,+0 ÐÌà Œ àThe€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€of€their€testimony,€and€theÐ Ì5Ä.4 Ðreconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€theÐ ˜706 Ðtrier€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.Ð d9\28 ÐGentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€€A€jury€verdict€for€the€stateÐ  Ðaccredits€the€testimony€of€the€stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favorÐ ÔÌ Ðof€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€Ð   ˜ ÐMoreover,€a€guilty€verdict€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€enjoyed€byÐ l d Ðdefendants€at€trial€and€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð 80 ÐGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€Thus,€a€defendant€challenging€theÐ ü  Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€carries€the€burden€of€illustrating€to€this€Court€why€theÐ ÐÈ  Ðevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Freemanóó,€943Ð œ”  ÐS.W.2d€25,€29€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ð h` ÐÌà Œ à€The€defendants€initiated€conduct€with€Williamson€and€offered€her€moneyÐ ø Ðin€exchange€for€a€taped€recantation.€€Tape€recordings€and€WilliamsonððsÐ ÌÄ Ðtestimony€evidence€the€defendantsðð€attempts€to€elicit€this€statement€sufficient€forÐ ˜ Ðthe€trier€of€fact€to€find€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð d\ ÐÌÓ1uÓÓ  ÓòòÓÓFifth€Amendment€Issueóóò òÐ ü!ô Ðó óÓ„—ÓÓ“—ÓÓ$€Óà Œ àTimothy€ð ðTeenie€Weenieðð€Davis€was€the€last€witness€called€by€the€State€of€Ð ´$¬! ÐTennessee€against€the€defendants.€€Prior€testimony,€standing€alone,€could€notÐ €&x# Ðsupport€a€conviction€on€the€charge€of€solicitation€to€commit€First€Degree€murderÐ L(D!% Ðcharge.€€Apparently,€the€state€planned€to€rely€solely€upon€the€testimony€of€Davis.Ð *#' Ðà Œ àÌà Œ àWe€first€note€that€we€do€not€determine€whether€this€witness€actually€had€aÐ °-¨&+ Ðright€to€invoke€his€Fifth€Amendment€privilege.€€Rather,€we€focus€upon€whatÐ |/t(- Ðprejudicial€effect€the€witnessððs€refusal€to€testify€in€the€presence€of€the€jury€had€onÐ H1@*/ Ðthe€fairness€of€the€proceedings€against€the€defendants,€Dennis€Hughes€andÐ 3 ,1 ÐSuvonnya€Smith.€€The€defendants€argue€that€the€witnessððs€refusal€had€a€fatalÐ à4Ø-3 Ðeffect€on€the€proceedings€and€that€their€convictions€should€be€accordinglyÐ ¬6¤/5 Ðreversed.€€Further,€the€defendantððs€argue€that€the€prosecutorððs€actions,€callingÐ x8p17 ÐDavis€to€the€stand,€amounted€to€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€We€disagree.Ð D:<39 Ðà Œ àÌà Œ àGenerally,€whether€prejudicial€error€occurred€is€determined€on€a€case€byÐ ÔÌ Ðcase€basis.€€For€instance,€Whartonððs€Criminal€Evidence,€14€edition,€states,Ð   ˜ Ðð ðwhere€a€prosecuting€attorney€calls€an€accomplice€as€a€witness€for€theÐ l d Ðprosecution€for€the€apparent€purpose€of€forcing€him€to€assert€his€privilege€againstÐ 80 Ðself„incrimination,€the€error€may€or€may€not€be€prejudicial.ðð€€The€defendantsÐ ü  Ðwould€argue€that€we€eschew€this€type€of€case„specific€analysis€and€hold€thatÐ ÐÈ  Ðsuch€conduct€constitutes€per€se€prejudicial€error.€€This€we€will€not€do.€€TheÐ œ”  Ðdefendant€provides€no€Tennessee€authority€in€support€of€a€per€se€approach.Ð h` ÐÌà Œ àThe€law€in€Tennessee€does€provide€that€a€jury€may€not€draw€an€inferenceÐ ø Ðfrom€a€witnessððs€invocation€of€the€Fifth€Amendment€privilege.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð ÌÄ ÐDicksóó,€615€S.W.2d€126€(Tenn.€1981);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54€(Tenn.Ð ˜ Ð1992).€€However,€we€are€sensitive€to€the€dangers€involved€when€a€witness,Ð d\ Ðconfronted€with€prosecutorial€questioning€connecting€him€to€the€defendants,Ð 0 ( Ðinvokes€the€privilege.€€Accordingly,€we€review€for€prejudice.€Ð ü!ô ЀÌà Œ àReviewing€these€claims,€some€jurisdictions€inquire€solely€into€the€intent€ofÐ ”%Œ" Ðthe€prosecutor.€€We,€however,€are€unpersuaded€by€this€rationale.€€€Instead,€weÐ `'X $ Ðtake€note€of€several€factors€in€the€instant€case€which€weigh€against€a€finding€ofÐ ,)$"& Ðprejudice.€€First,€we€note€the€time€which€the€witness€was€before€the€jury.€€DavisÐ ø*ð#( Ðwas€before€the€jury€for€approximately€two€minutes.€€Second,€we€note€theÐ Ä,¼%* Ðcharacter€of€the€questions€asked€of€the€witness.€€Davis€was€asked€only€oneÐ .ˆ', Ðquestion€relating€to€the€defendants€and€that€question€was€hardly€damning€orÐ \0T). Ðsuggestive.€€He€was€simply€asked€whether€he€went€to€Hughesððs€office€withÐ (2 +0 ÐSmith.€€Third,€we€note€that€this€witness€was€entirely€unrelated€to€theÐ ô3ì,2 Ðcircumstances€and€charges€left€before€the€jury.€€Davis€was€not€involved€in€theÐ À5¸.4 Ðcriminal€episodes€constituting€the€bribery€and€conspiracy€to€bribe€charges.€Ð Œ7„06 ÐRather,€he€arrived€on€the€scene€much€later€and€then€only€in€the€capacity€chargedÐ X9P28 Ðin€count€three,€solicitation€to€murder.€€Nor€was€any€evidence€presented€to€theÐ  Ðjury€to€suggest€any€connection€between€Davis€and€the€bribery.€€Finally,€we€noteÐ ÔÌ Ðthat€the€judge€did€not€simply€offer€a€curative€instruction,€but€rather,€due€to€theÐ   ˜ Ðfacts€of€this€case,€completely€removed€from€the€juryððs€consideration€the€oneÐ l d Ðcharge€to€which€the€witness€had€any€connection.€€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€thatÐ 80 Ðno€prejudice€resulted€from€Davisððs€invocation.Ð ü  ÐÌà Œ àNext,€we€review€defendantsðð€claims€of€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€OurÐ œ”  ÐSupreme€Court€has€articulated€five€factors€to€be€considered€when€determiningÐ h` Ðwhether€prosecutorial€misconduct€prejudices€a€defendant€and€constitutesÐ 4, Ðreversible€error.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€609€(Tenn.€1984).€€WeÐ ø Ðconsider€€the€conduct€in€context€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case;€theÐ ÌÄ Ðcurative€measures€undertaken;€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor;€the€cumulative€effectÐ ˜ Ðof€the€conduct€and€other€errors€in€the€record;€and€the€relative€strength€andÐ d\ Ðweakness€of€the€case.Ð 0 ( ÐÌà Œ àIn€this€case,€the€prosecutor€had€clear€basis€for€bringing€the€solicitation€toÐ È#À  Ðmurder€charge€and€for€calling€Davis€to€testify.€€Davis€had€cooperated€with€theÐ ”%Œ" Ðpolice,€informed€them€of€the€murder€for€hire€scheme,€and€even€recorded€aÐ `'X $ Ðconversation€with€defendant€Hughes.€€However,€the€circumstances€wereÐ ,)$"& Ðcomplicated€by€the€threats€allegedly€placed€against€his€mother€if€he€testifiedÐ ø*ð#( Ðagainst€Hughes.€€Afterwards,€Davis€expressed€some€equivocation€aboutÐ Ä,¼%* Ðtestifying.€€Nevertheless,€it€cannot€properly€be€said€that€the€prosecutor€knew€thatÐ .ˆ', ÐDavis€would€not€testify,€but€rather,€the€prosecutor,€faced€with€some€uncertainty,Ð \0T). Ðstill€had€good€reason€to€believe€he€would€testify€based€on€Davisððs€previousÐ (2 +0 Ðcooperation.€€Ð ô3ì,2 ÐÌà Œ àThe€trial€judge,€in€response€to€Davisððs€invocation,€removed€considerationÐ Œ7„06 Ðof€solicitation€to€murder€from€the€jury.€€We€find€this€curative€measure€to€beÐ X9P28 Ðsubstantial€especially€in€light€of€the€fact€that€this€one€count€is€the€only€part€of€theÐ  Ðcase€to€which€Davis€had€any€relation.Ð ÔÌ ÐÌà Œ àWe€also€do€not€doubt€the€prosecutorððs€intent.€€As€stated€above,€he€hadÐ l d Ðsufficient€reason€to€believe€that€Davis,€despite€his€equivocation,€would€testify.Ð 80 ÐÌà Œ àFinally,€we€find€no€cumulative€effect€from€any€other€error€in€the€record€thatÐ ÐÈ  Ðwould€mandate€reversal.€€The€case€against€both€defendants€was€strong.€€€€Ð œ”  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð h` Ðà Œ àWe€note€that€Smith€has€claimed€plain€error,€because€her€counsel€did€notÐ 4, Ðmake€a€prior€objection€to€Davisðð€appearance€before€the€jury€and€failed€to€cite€thatÐ ø Ðissue€in€the€Motion€for€New€Trial.€€Since€we€do€not€find€an€error€of€constitutionalÐ ÌÄ Ðmagnitude€or€an€error€that€would€affect€ð ðthe€substantial€rights€of€an€accused,ððÐ ˜ ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b),€we€find€the€issue€not€only€waived€but€also€withoutÐ d\ Ðsubstantive€merit.€€Ð 0 ( ЀÌÓþ—ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà @Œ àòòConsecutive€Finesò òÐ È#À  Ðóóó óÓ*µÓÓ6µÓÓ XÓÓ“ÓThe€defendant€Hughes€asserts€that€his€fines€of€$5000,€for€conspiracy€toÐ €&x# Ðcommit€bribery,€and€$10,000€for€bribery,€should€be€imposed€concurrently.€Ð L(D!% ÐTherefore,€he€argues€that€the€fines€should€total€$10,000€versus€the€$15,000€totalÐ *#' Ðassessed.€€He€notes€that€his€confinement€periods€were€imposed€concurrentlyÐ ä+Ü$) Ðand€asserts€that€a€trial€court€errs€when€it€imposes€part€of€a€sentence€concurrentlyÐ °-¨&+ Ðand€the€remainder€consecutively,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Connersóó,€924€S.W.2d€362,€364Ð |/t(- Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996),€in€that€a€ð ðfineðð€is€part€of€the€ð ðsentence,ðð€òòseeóó€òòState€v.Ð H1@*/ ÐBryantóó,€805€S.W.2d€762€(Tenn.€1991).Ð 3 ,1 ÐÐ à4Ø-3 ÐWe€disagree.€€Imposition€of€concurrent€sentences€ð ðdoes€not€imply€thatÐ ¬6¤/5 Ðfines€are€to€be€paid€concurrently,€or€non„cumulatively,€as€well.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð x8p17 ÐWoodcockóó,€922€S.W.2d€904,€918€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.Ð D:<39 ÐPatrick€Lewis,€IIóó,€No.€01C01„9608„CC„00378€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€October€30,Ð  Ð1997,€at€Nashville).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ÔÌ ÐÐ   ˜ ÐÓºµÓòòÓ  ÓÓ XÓÓÓEvidentiary€IssuesóóÐ l d ÐÓ X»ÓÓõºÓÓ»ÓÓÙ±ÓThe€defendant,€Hughes,€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€theÐ $  Ðlate€Judge€Shriverððs€testimony€regarding€a€fee€dispute€between€Hughes€andÐ ðè  ÐDemonbreun.€€Judge€Shriver€testified€that€he€required€Hughes€to€surrender€theÐ ¼´  Ðfees€and€that€his€determination€of€€the€funds€paid€to€Hughes€was€difficultÐ ˆ€  Ðbecause€of€the€lack€of€receipts.€€The€testimony€further€established€that€JudgeÐ TL ÐShriver€contemplated€a€future€hearing€to€determine€if€the€court€should€holdÐ   ÐHughes€in€contempt.Ð ìä ÐÐ ¸° ÐRelevant€evidence€is€evidence€which€has€a€tendency€to€make€theÐ „| Ðexistence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€actionÐ PH Ðmore€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€that€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð ! Ð401.€€Even€relevant€evidence,€however,€may€be€excluded€where€there€exists€aÐ è"à Ðdanger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.Ð ´$¬! ÐÐ €&x# ÐIn€this€case,€we€conclude€that€Shriverððs€testimony€about€the€fee€dispute,€ifÐ L(D!% Ðrelevant€at€all,€tended€only€to€prove€Hughesðð€access€to€funds€necessary€toÐ *#' Ðfinance€bribery.€€This€connection€is€tenuous€and€questionable€at€best;€further,Ð ä+Ü$) Ðeven€if€we€credit€this€connection,€we€find€that€its€prejudicial€effect€outweighed€itsÐ °-¨&+ Ðprobative€value.€€The€state€could€have€just€as€easily€proved€Hughesðð€access€byÐ |/t(- Ðother€more€direct€and€less€prejudicial€means.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€theÐ H1@*/ Ðtrial€court€erred€and€abused€its€discretion€in€allowing€Shriverððs€testimony€aboutÐ 3 ,1 Ðthe€fee€dispute.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€DuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€654€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð à4Ø-3 ÐHowever,€in€light€of€all€the€evidence€presented,€we€conclude€that€such€error€isÐ ¬6¤/5 Ðâ âharmless.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P€52(a).€€ShriverððsÐ x8p17 Ðtestimony€was€irrelevant€and€immaterial€to€Hughesðð€guilt,€and€could€not€haveÐ  Ðaffected€the€result€of€the€trial€on€the€merits.€Ð ÔÌ Ðâ â€Óƒ»ÓÌÐ † ~ ÐòòÓ  ÓÓ XÓÓÓSentencing€of€SmithóóÐ l d ÐÓ XöÄÓÓêÄÓÓÅÓà ä àÌÓÓSmith€asserts€that€she€should€have€received€judicial€diversion,€especiallyÐ    Ðmitigated€status,€or€total€probation.€€We€first€note€that€Smith€did€receive€theÐ ÖÎ  Ðbenefit€of€an€alternate€sentence:€A€split€confinement€sentence€of€probation€afterÐ ¢š  Ðone€hundred€and€twenty€days€incarceration.€€We€do€not€feel€that€the€trial€courtÐ nf Ðerroneously€imposed€this€sentence.€€ð ðDenial€of€probation€may€be€based€solelyÐ :2 Ðupon€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€when€they€are€of€such€a€nature€as€toÐ þ Ðoutweigh€all€other€factors€favoring€probation.ðð€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2dÐ ÒÊ Ð448€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Ð ž– ÐÐ jb ÐSmith€actively€participated€in€an€attack€on€the€very€core€principles€ofÐ 6 . Ðfairness€and€integrity€that€constitutes€the€heart€of€the€criminal€justice€system.€Ð "ú ÐAbsent€vigilance€against€such€attacks,€the€results€of€that€system€lose€credibility,Ð Î#Æ  Ðand€citizens€as€a€whole€lose€faith€in€and€respect€for€our€societyððs€mechanism€forÐ š%’" Ðpunishing€the€guilty€and€protecting€the€innocent.€€This€crime€involved€tenaciousÐ f'^ $ Ðexecution€of€a€long„term€plan€to€pervert€judicial€proceedings.€€PunishmentÐ 2)*"& Ðincluding€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrent€toÐ þ*ö#( Ðothers€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð Ê,Â%* Ð103(1)(B).€€We€find€no€error€in€this€sentence.€Ð –.Ž', ÐÐ b0Z). ÐWe€have€also€reviewed€the€defendantððs€requests€for€pretrial€diversion€andÐ .2&+0 Ðespecially€mitigated€status,€and€we€find€no€reversible€error€regarding€thoseÐ ú3ò,2 Ðissues.Ð Æ5¾.4 ÐÐ ’7Š06 ÐÓ  ÓÐ ^9V28 ÐÓ ÍÓÓ†ÅÓò òÓ XÓÓ  ÓÓÓCONCLUSIONó óÐ  ÐÓnÍÓÓÓÓ XTÍÓÓbÍÓAccordingly,€we€AFFIRM€the€convictions€of€Dennis€Hughes€and€SuvonnyaÐ Ì Ä ÐSmith€and€we€affirm€the€sentence€of€Smith.€Ð  ˜  ÐÓ¸ÍÓÐ  ÐÐ îæ ÐÐ ÔÌ Ðà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àÌà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à________________________________Ð   ˜ Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JudgeÐ † ~ ÐÐ l d ÐÐ R J ÐÐ 80 Ðà ä àà < àà ” àÌÓ XÓCONCUR:Ð ü  ÐÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________Ð h` ÐDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÐ NF ÐÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________Ð ²ª ÐJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JudgeÐ ˜ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ