WPC Z % 0(UN*w@x4 0L 0J/ 0Ty 0^ 0h+ 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d U>p U* 0@ D3 BK B)h DC AM ! v~( v AQy 0D 0D D/ BG 0LdX($(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular EDӀB\J#3|x> $Small Circle0 2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial("$    """"'dxd d% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd* $C << G !  +"     YYY FILEDX November25,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva *+ ,-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ..' dxdP Pd>c$"Small Circle"0 ! .      *  \RA'\R%&$A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATJACKSON@ NOVEMBER1997SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE, @ )@ ) NO.02C019705CC00183 󀀀̛ Appellee,@ )@ ) HARDEMANCOUNTY VS. @ )@ ) HON.JONKERRYϜBLACKWOOD,RANDYJOY, @ ) JUDGE @ ) Appellant.@ ) (DeliveryofCocaine)y FORTHEAPPELLANT:JEANNIEKAESS(AtTrial) AssistantDistrictPublicDefenderP.O.Box700Somerville,TN38068 C.MICHAELROBBINS(OnAppeal) 3074EastStreet̜Memphis,TN38128 FORTHEAPPELLEE:JOHNKNOXWALKUP AttorneyGeneralandReporter KENNETHW.RUCKER AssistantAttorneyGeneral̜CordellHullBldg.,2ndFloor4255thAvenue,NorthNashville,TN372430493 ELIZABETHT.RICE DistrictAttorneyGeneral JERRYW.NORWOOD AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral302MarketStreetSomerville,TN38068 OPINIONFILED:򀀀AFFIRMEDJOEG.RILEY,JUDGE 7_XdXXd7@ OPINION  Thedefendant,RandyJoy,wasconvictedbyaHardemanCountyjuryofϜdeliveringcocaineover0.5grams,aClassBfelony.DefendantwassentencedasaRangeI,StandardOffender,toatermofeleven(11)yearsintheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrectionandfinedintheamountof$5,000.Defendantpresentsthefollowingissuesforourreview: (1)8 whetheraproperfoundationwaslaidforthetestimonyofthedruganalystconcerningtheweightofthecocaine; (2)8 whetherthetrialcourtshouldhaveadmittedevidencerelatingtotheinformantsgirlfriendhandlingcocaine;and (3)8 whetherdefendantspriordrugconvictionwasproperlyadmitted.Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.@ FACTS  Althoughsufficiencyoftheevidenceisnotanissueinthisappeal,abriefrecitationofthefactsisappropriate.ThelocalDrugTaskForceemployedaconfidentialinformantasapartofanundercoverdrugoperation.Theinformantarrangedanarcoticstransactionwiththedefendant.Thenarcoticsagentgavetheinformant$100tobeusedinthepurchaseofcocaineandwiredtheinformant. Theconfidentialinformantmetthedefendantataprearrangedlocation.Thedefendantrequestedthemoney,andtheconfidentialinformantgavehim$80.Defendantdepartedinhisvehicleandreturnedapproximatelyfifteenminuteslater.Defendantthenhandedtheconfidentialinformantaplasticbagcontainingfive(5)rocksofcrackcocaine.Thenarcoticsagentfollowedtheinformantbacktohismobilehomeandobtainedpossessionofthenarcoticsandtherecorder.̛̜@ TESTIMONYCONCERNINGWEIGHTOFCOCAINE 8  Thestatepresentedevidencefromaforensicscientistspecializingindrugidentification.Whenthewitnesstestifiedthat Iweighedit...Ideterminedthatthesubstanceweighed.6grams,defensecounselobjected.Thebasisoftheobjectionwasafailuretolayaproperfoundationregardingtheaccuracyofthemeasuringinstrument.Theobjectionwasoverruled.Defensecounseldidnotcrossexaminethewitness. Defensecounselhasnotcitednorhavewediscoveredanycaserequiringthataforensicscientisttestifyastothecalibrationandaccuracyofaweighinginstrumentpriortobeingallowedtotestifyastotheweightofaparticularsubstance.Tenn.R.Evid.705providesthatexpertsmayexpressopinionsandgivereasonswithoutthepriordisclosureoftheunderlyingfactsordata,unlessrequiredbythecourt.Therulefurtherprovidesthattheexpertmayberequiredtodisclosetheunderlyingfactsordatauponcrossexamination.Defensecounselchosenottocrossexaminethewitnessconcerningtheweighinginstrument. DefendantprimarilyreliesuponStatev.Sensing,843S.W.2d412(Tenn.1992),whichestablishedcertainminimalrequirementsrelatingtotheadmissibilityoftheresultsofabreathtestingdevice.Sensingisdistinguishable.PoliceofficersarenotrecognizedasexpertsonbloodalcoholconcentrationorthemannerinwhichcertaininstrumentsperformthisϜmeasurement.Theforensicscientistwhodeterminedtheweightofthiscontrolledsubstancewasrecognizedasanexpertwitness.Assuch,hertestimonyiscontrolledbythelawrelatingtoexpertwitnesses.Certainly,defensecounselwasfreetocrossexaminethewitnessconcerningtheaccuracyoftheweighinginstrument.However,wefindnoreasontoextendSensingtoforensicscientistswhotestifyconcerningtheweightofaparticularsubstance. Thisissueiswithoutmerit.@ BIASOFTHEINFORMANT  ThedefensecalledasawitnessanofficerwhohadworkedwiththeϜinformant.Thedefenseendeavoredtointroduceavideotapeofatransactionin͜anunrelatedcase.DefendantcontendsthatthetapeshowstheinformantsϜgirlfriendhandlingcocaineduringatransaction.Defensecounselcontendsthisisrelevanttoshowthebiasoftheinformanttowardthestateinordertopreventtheprosecutionofhisgirlfriendforhandlingthecocaine.Thetrialcourtdisallowedthetestimony. Certainly,evidenceofbiasofawitnessisrelevantandadmissible.Tenn.R.Evid.616;Statev.Williams,929S.W.2d385,389(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).However,nopartymayexamineawitnessuponirrelevantmatters.Tenn.R.Evid.402.Thepropriety,scope,mannerandcontroloftheexaminationofwitnessesisamatterwithinthediscretionofthetrialcourt,subjecttoappellatereviewonanabuseofdiscretionstandard.Statev.Caughron,855S.W.2d526,540(Tenn.1993),cert.denied510U.S.979,114S.Ct.475,126L.Ed.2d426Ϝ(1993). Wefindnoabuseofdiscretionbythetrialcourtinthisinstance.Therewasnoshowingthatthedrugsallegedlyhandledbythegirlfriendwerenotproperlyhandedovertoauthorities.Defendantsimplycontendedshedidnothavetheauthoritytohandlethedrugs,andherhandlingofthedrugswouldbeacriminaloffense.Wefailtoseehowthistestimonywouldhaveshownbiasonthepartoftheinformant.Atmost,thefailuretoadmitsuchevidencewasharmlesserror.Tenn.R.App.P.36(b). Thisissueiswithoutmerit.@ PRIORCONVICTIONS  Priortodefendantstestimony,thetrialcourtruledthatthedefendantcouldnotbeimpeachedbyapriorconvictionforthesaleofcocaine.Duringdefendantsdirectexamination,hewasaskedwhetherhedeliveredthecocainetotheinformant.Heremarked, Idontdodrugs;Idontselldrugs.Defendantfurtherstatedonthreeotheroccasionsthathedidnotselldrugs.Theprosecutingattorneysecuredpermissionofthetrialcourtatabenchconferencetoaskaboutthepriorconvictioninlightofthistestimony.Thetrialcourtfoundthatthedefendant madeablanketstatementthathedoesntselldrugsandopenedthedoorforadmissionofthepriordrugconviction.Uponcrossexamination,theprosecutingattorneyaskedthedefendantaboutthepriordrugconviction. Weconcludethatthedefendantstestimonyopenedthedoortothestatescrossexaminationaboutthepreviousdrugconviction.SeeStatev.Bray,669S.W.2d684,687(Tenn.Crim.App.1983).Infact,thedefendantstatedonfourseparateoccasionsthathedidnotselldrugs.Thisclearlylefttheimplicationthathehadneverbeeninvolvedinthesaleofdrugs.Thestatehadarighttochallengetheimplicationleftwiththejury.Thetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninallowingtheintroductionofthisevidence. Thisissueiswithoutmerit.@ CONCLUSION  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Ӝ̛       򀀀        JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE ̜CONCUR: 󀀀 GARYR.WADE,JUDGE 򀀀 DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE