ÿWPCž >FÍ®Ûv=¼Í˜²¥Éü6Èhƒ­þõ¸r¿âwÌ<ír8÷9&¼žëM.Æ%³uƃ[DHwGŠxvaö@Ýý0¬?Ð'¢ ˆÚ^é8…ôÉÆÝâ„v&k!ùÿëÞǯª6i\!×¾KbšÒ—jð¥ÞÚOô ¬ù?»r¸@J»h“æ°†w6¿prJ ±ç‡°Ž“Ú\ƼïOIYGWW†GOÜ Á¾)އ;ÂAöíê)Ýå#€an %qb“°VWà¯ãÿ*˜Ê42ÔC…äë^ì€YËqnv·¼7éÛ¡ÐgÅiÞ…",x·‘?]4'lz±Vè"AÇ^|: i½y‰ 2+3:´ÖôF9*ZiH¼˜ç³FËpIåƒ;&‰–m3ôäÈõÉý !XCæ¨ý ça†±ZaçùçËÈÀùªs‰”õÕKKL-éˆØÌ+.EÅèqªso ÿ]ŸoÓ'+›¦å¾!£÷«TÅYœaèøŒ[´éyUàœ¨6"§wn’‘S“D™]Do{íòY1¯¯¨&+–cŽ¢1Ôy¤16-u—†…"¾êÿ¾ýu_m¾k–K•žnƒû "¬;˜÷W=*&ð],=Ûaêøb#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% U N­ U@û û z; Òµ z‡ Ò ^ Ó wß Æã Æ© ÆoÆ54ûN E" m$;UNCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCb‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ 0ë™™™™ B„„ 0¤¡ D5E D-z 0K§§ ASòÆE 0¤  0D¯ A«ó˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptSkÛ,s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Yo†)ê:i¢Ø+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ (ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G2ñð$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€MM»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôì…ò»»Ô d(|3IV$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€MM»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3IV$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€MM»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€MM»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼MM»»»ÔÑ8€AXXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼MM»»¼MMÔà@ttìàÔ‡îÎäMMÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼MM»îîÎä;#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àMarch€12,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XAX»¼MMÔÌò òÔ#†¼MM»XXAA#ÔòòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEóó€v.€òòóóJUDY€JOHNSON€and€STANLEY€JOHNSONÔ‡XAX»¼MMÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Gibson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€6803€€€€€€George€R.€Ellis,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„01272„CCA„R3„CD€€„€Filed€June€26,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓòòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó,Ô#†¼MM»XXAÉ#ÔÔ‡XAX»¼MMÔ€concurring.Ð xÈ  ÐÌà  àWhile€I€concur€in€the€result€reached€by€the€majority,€I€disagree€on€three€points.€€First,€it€is€myÐ P  Ðview€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€the€state€to€cross„examine€Stanley€Johnson€on€a€1993Ð <Œ Ðanimal€cruelty€charge€that€did€not€result€in€a€conviction.€€Ô#†¼MM»XXAO#ÔÔ‡XAX»¼MMÔÔ‡XAXXXAÔTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€608€permitsÐ (x Ðlimited€use€of€character€evidence€for€impeachment€purposes.€€Rule€608€provides€in€pertinent€part€asÐ d Ðfollows:Ð P ÐÌà8  àà ` àSpecific€Instances€of€Conduct.€€Specific€instances€of€conduct€of€a€witness€forÐ Ø( Ðthe€purpose€of€attacking€or€supporting€the€witness's€credibility,€other€than€convictionsÐ Ä Ðof€crimes€as€provided€in€Rule€609,€may€not€be€proved€by€extrinsic€evidence.€€TheyÐ ° Ðmay,€however,€if€probative€of€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness€and€under€the€followingÐ œì Ðconditions,€be€inquired€into€on€cross-examination€of€the€witness€concerning€theÐ ˆØ Ðwitness's€character€for€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness€or€concerning€the€character€forÐ tÄ Ðtruthfulness€or€untruthfulness€of€another€witness€as€to€which€the€character€witnessÐ `° Ðbeing€cross-examined€has€testified.€€The€conditions€which€must€be€satisfied€beforeÐ L œ Ðallowing€inquiry€on€cross-examination€about€such€conduct€probative€solely€ofÐ 8!ˆ  Ðtruthfulness€or€untruthfulness€are:Ð$"t!Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€jury's€presence€andÐ #`" Ðmust€determine€that€the€alleged€conduct€has€probative€value€and€that€a€reasonableÐ ü#L# Ðfactual€basis€exists€for€the€inquiry;Ðè$8 $Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€The€conduct€must€have€occurred€no€more€than€ten€years€beforeÐ Ô%$!% Ðcommencement€of€the€action€or€prosecution,€.€.€.€;€andÐÀ&"&Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(3)€If€the€witness€to€be€impeached€is€the€accused€in€a€criminal€prosecution,Ð ¬'ü"' Ðòòthe€State€must€give€the€accused€reasonable€written€notice€of€the€impeaching€conductÐ ˜(è#( Ðbefore€trial,€and€the€court€upon€request€must€determine€that€the€conduct's€probativeÐ „)Ô$) Ðvalue€on€credibility€outweighs€its€unfair€prejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues.€Ð p*À%* ÐóóThe€court€may€rule€on€the€admissibility€of€such€proof€prior€to€the€trial€but€in€anyÐ \+¬&+ Ðevent€òòshall€rule€prior€to€the€testimony€of€the€accused.óó€€If€the€court€makes€a€finalÐ H,˜', Ðdetermination€that€such€proof€is€admissible€for€impeachment€purposes,€the€accusedÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôneed€not€actually€testify€at€the€trial€to€later€challenge€the€propriety€of€theÐ ° Ðdetermination.€.€.€.€€ÐœìÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€608(b)€(emphasis€added).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àHere,€the€state€failed€to€provide€notice,€as€required€by€the€rule,€of€its€intention€to€cross„Ð L œ Ðexamine€Stanley€Johnson€regarding€the€1993€animal€cruelty€charge.€€The€pre„trial€notice€filed€by€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðstate,€which€the€state€now€concedes€was€ð ðdefect[ive],ðð€expressed€an€intent€to€impeach€only€JudyÐ $ t ÐJohnson€with€a€1990€embezzlement€conviction.€€Ô#†XAXXXA#ÔÔ‡XAXXXAÔÔ#†¼MM»XXAé#ÔÔ‡XAX»¼MMÔStanley€Johnson€had€already€testified€on€directÐ  ` Ðexamination€and€the€state€was€near€the€end€of€its€cross„examination€before€the€issue€of€the€1993Ð ü L  Ðcharge€was€presented.€€At€that€point,€the€trial€court€held€a€bench€conference€and€permitted€theÐ è 8  Ðquestioning.€€Ô#†XAXXXA|#ÔÔ#†¼MM»XXA¾#ÔÔ‡¼MM»»¼MMÔÔ‡XAX»¼MMÔJudy€Johnson,€perhaps€because€of€her€prior€convictions,€elected€not€to€testify€at€trial.€Ð Ô$  ÐHad€Stanley€Johnson€had€proper€notice€of€the€stateððs€intent€to€cross„examine€on€the€1993€charge,€heÐ À  Ðmay€have€made€a€similar€election.€€More€importantly,€however,€while€the€events€underlying€theÐ ¬ü  Ðcharge€may€ultimately€have€been€admissible,€the€charge€itself€was€not.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€541Ð ˜è  ÐS.W.2d€385,€389€(Tenn.€1976);€òòState€v.€Philpottóó,€882€S.W.2d€394,€403€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);Ð „Ô  ÐòòMoore€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€215,€218€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€A€witness€being€cross„examinedÐ pÀ Ðas€to€a€specific€instance€of€conduct€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€608€ð ðshould€be€asked€aboutÐ \¬ Ðthe€act€itself,€not€about€rumors,€arrests,€charges€or€indictments€for€the€act.ðð€€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,Ð H˜ ÐòòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€6.08[4]€(4òòthóó€ed.€2000).€€To€the€stateððs€credit,€the€assistant€districtÐ 4„ Ðattorney€referred€to€prior€ð ðproblemsðð€in€his€cross„examination€and€instructed€Stanley€Johnson€thatÐ  p Ðhe€was€not€inquiring€about€ð ðcharges.ðð€€Nevertheless,€Johnson,€in€his€response€to€the€questions,€madeÐ  \ Ðmultiple€references€to€the€criminal€charge,€inadvertently€placing€inadmissible,€highly€prejudicialÐ øH Ðinformation€before€the€jury.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIt€is€my€conclusion,€however,€that€the€trial€courtððs€error€in€permitting€the€cross„examinationÐ ¼  Ðwas€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€òòState€v.€Edwardsóó,€868€S.W.2d€682€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¨ø Ð1993).€€First,€the€jury€had€already€heard€evidence€of€other€complaints€against€the€defendants€whenÐ ”ä Ðinvestigator€Don€Curry€read€the€affidavit€in€support€of€the€search€warrant.€€Second,€the€evidence€ofÐ €Ð Ðguilt€was€substantial.€€The€living€conditions€of€the€dogs€are€documented€by€photographic€andÐ l¼ Ðvideotape€evidence.€€A€veterinarian€and€the€Dyersburg€Humane€Society€supervisor€described€in€someÐ X ¨ Ðdetail€the€unsanitary€state€of€the€defendantsðð€kennel€and€the€poor€quality€of€the€care€provided€to€theÐ D!” Ðanimals.€€The€defense€was€not€that€the€conditions€in€the€kennel€were€acceptable,€but€that€they€wereÐ 0"€  Ðthe€unintentional€result€of€Judy€Johnsonððs€surgery€and€poor€physical€health.€€The€animal€crueltyÐ #l! Ðstatute,€however,€does€not€require€intentional€conduct.€€The€statute€is€satisfied€when€a€personÐ $X" Ðð ðknowingly€.€.€.€[f]ails€unreasonably€to€provide€necessary€food,€water,€care€or€shelter€for€an€animalÐ ô$D # Ðin€the€person's€custody.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„202(a)(2).€€Evidence€that€the€dogs€were€notÐ à%0!$ Ðreceiving€necessary€food,€water,€and€care€and€that€the€defendants€had€knowledge€of€the€situation€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðoverwhelming.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àI€also€depart€from€the€majority€with€regard€to€certain€of€the€sentencing€considerations.€€TheÐ )à$( Ðdefendants€complain€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€approximately€500€letters€from€personsÐ |*Ì%) Ðwith€only€secondhand€knowledge€of€the€case.€€The€letters€originated€from€across€the€United€StatesÐ h+¸&* Ðand€their€authors€appear€to€have€gained€information€about€the€prosecution€from€the€internet€and€fromÐ ° Ðhumane€society€publications.€€The€majority€excuses€the€filing€of€the€letters€into€the€record€becauseÐ œì Ðthe€trial€court€made€no€reference€to€their€content€in€sentencing€the€defendant€and€then€relies€uponÐ ˆØ Ðthe€content€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€order€of€partial€confinement:€Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àThe€letters€sent€to€the€prosecutor€from€throughout€the€United€States€demonstrate€theÐ L œ Ðwide€interest€in€this€matter€and€establish€that,€because€of€the€publicity,€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðpunishment€would€have€a€deterrent€effect.€.€.€.€€The€geographic€spread€from€whichÐ $ t Ðthese€letters€came€supports€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€as€to€the€deterrent€effect€of€theÐ  ` Ðsentences.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌIn€my€view,€the€letters€should€not€have€been€considered€for€any€purpose.€€In€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€ourÐ Ô$  Ðsupreme€court€established€the€following€standard€for€incarceration€based€on€a€need€for€deterrence:Ð À  ÐÌà8  à[W]e€will€presume€that€a€trial€court's€decision€to€incarcerate€a€defendant€based€on€aÐ ˜è  Ðneed€for€deterrence€is€correct€so€long€as€any€reasonable€person€looking€at€the€entireÐ „Ô  Ðrecord€could€conclude€that€(1)€a€need€to€deter€similar€crimes€is€present€òòin€theÐ pÀ Ðparticular€community,€jurisdiction,€or€in€the€state€as€a€wholeóó,€and€(2)€incarcerationÐ \¬ Ðof€the€defendant€may€rationally€serve€as€a€deterrent€to€others€similarly€situated€andÐ H˜ Ðlikely€to€commit€similar€crimes.Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌ29€S.W.3d€1,€10€(Tenn.€2000)€(emphasis€added).€€From€this,€I€would€hold€that€a€need€for€deterrenceÐ  \ Ðof€similar€crimes€outside€this€state€is€irrelevant€and€would€not,€standing€alone,€support€a€decision€toÐ øH Ðincarcerate.€€Nevertheless,€I€would€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€order€of€split€confinement.€€In€my€view,Ð ä4 Ðsome€incarceration€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àFinally,€I€disagree€with€the€majorityððs€conclusion€that€the€trial€court€properly€failed€toÐ ”ä Ðconsider€as€a€mitigating€factor€that€the€defendantsðð€conduct€ð ðneither€caused€nor€threatened€seriousÐ €Ð Ðbodily€injury.ðð€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€The€majority€holds€that€the€mitigator€isÐ l¼ Ðinapplicable€because€the€dogs€in€the€defendantsðð€care€had€ð ðphysical€and€emotional€problems.ðð€€WhileÐ X ¨ Ðthat€may€be€an€accurate€observation,€I€believe€the€legislature€intended€the€statute€to€apply€to€humanÐ D!” Ðlife.€€The€application€of€this€factor€would€not,€however,€affect€the€sentence.Ð 0"€  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÔ#†XAXXXA^#ÔÔ#†¼MM»XXA}#ÔÐ Ì&"% ÐÓçÓ