ÿWPC& 9# .UN9 %‡ 0ÆS4[oU:~w@¸ 0 ø 0D 1mF 0c³ 0J 0T` 0^´ 0h 0rz 0|ì 0†h 0î 1u~ 0dó AQWƨ 0Dn 0@² 0Dò B6 D/S B‚ D3ŸU>ÒU*B):DCc AM¦ÏójÂ',ÝSv~0vÓ® ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ ƒ‰#3|x, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular ÿ DPDPDDDÓ€(º(3eB$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó#.e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;³»$´´Ô2.eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd "1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÅÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ10,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€/ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó `Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔÓÓÔ€/ÔIn€an€out„of„court€statement€discussion,€the€trial€judge€told€defense€counsel€that€he€had€toÏshow€knowledge€of€the€contents€of€the€statement€made€by€the€victim,€which€was€apparently€neverÏtranscribed.€€Defense€counsel€could€not€pinpoint€the€source€of€his€information.€€A€witness€from€CIGNAÏInsurance€Company,€Attorney€Bruce€Williams€of€Memphis,€had€been€subpoenaed€by€both€the€stateÏand€the€defense.€€The€state€asked€to€excuse€the€insurance€company€representative€but€the€courtÏrefused€to€do€so€on€the€basis€that€defense€counsel€had€a€right€to€call€the€representative€€as€a€witness.€ÏWhile€the€jury€was€out,€the€witness€said€there€was€no€written€form€of€the€statement,€only€a€tape€inÏRichmond,€Virginia.€€The€witness€claimed€that€he€had€not€been€subpoenaed€by€defense€counsel€andÏchose€to€appear€only€after€consultation€with€the€prosecution.€€The€extent€of€Mr.€Williams'sÏrepresentation€was€in€providing€advice€to€the€insurance€company€as€to€how€to€respond€to€a€faxedÏsubpoena€by€the€defense€made€the€day€before€trial.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔÓÓÔ€/ÔDefense€counsel€received€a€copy€of€a€fax€from€the€Criminal€Injuries€Compensation€ClaimsÏDepartment€of€the€State€that€had€been€filed€by€the€victim.€€In€a€hearing€out€of€the€presence€of€the€jury,Ïdefense€counsel€read€a€portion€of€the€statement:ÌÌà8 àà8 àOn€February€6,€1995,€Mr.€Newburn€and€his€neighbor€had€anÏargument€over€a€refrigerator€which€resulted€in€Mr.€Newburn€calling€theÏpolice€who€removed€the€offender€from€the€premises.€€On€February€7,Ï1995,€the€offender€went€back€to€Mr.€Newburn's€job€and€shot€him€inÏthe€face.€€ÌÌThe€victim€denied€making€the€statement€and€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€defendant€was€"stuck€withÏthe€answer"€and€could€not€introduce€the€faxed€statement.€€ÌÌ ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔÓÓÔ€/ÔThis€exchange€appears€to€have€taken€place€in€a€bench€conference€although€the€record€isÏnot€clear€on€that€point.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€.ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÑ7€VoXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€/Ô›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÙ€ ÙœßR€231A1-j|:\` ´- `€€@ÿRß›à@ àòòAT€JACKSONóóÌà@ àMAY€1997€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€02C01„9608„CR„00282€Ìœà à›à àAppellee,à àà àœ*›à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€W.€Fred€Axley,€JudgeÌJOHN€KNAPP,à àà àà à*à à(Attempted€Second€Degree€Murder)Ìà àœà àAppellant.›à àà àœ*›ÌÌòòÌÌFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÓÓCharles€R.€Curbo,€Attorneyà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ109€Madison€Avenue€à àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€€38103Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àKenneth€W.€RuckerÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAlanda€HorneÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€Center,€Third€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌà àà àà àÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÓÓò òòòÑ7€ ¤ú XXdæXdì7ÑOPINIONóóó óÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant,€John€Knapp,€was€convicted€of€attempted€secondÏmurder.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€Range€I,€ten„year€sentence.€€In€this€appeal€ofÏright,€the€defendant€claims€an€entitlement€to€a€new€trial€on€several€grounds,Ïincluding€that€the€trial€judge€precluded€an€effective€cross„examination€of€the€victimÏand€improperly€commented€on€the€evidence.€€Although€counsel€for€the€defendantÏfailed€to€enumerate€other€grounds€in€his€appellate€brief,€there€are€references€toÏpossible€other€issues;€included€is€an€alleged€violation€of€the€rule€of€sequestration€ofÏwitnesses.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€€€à àà àÌÌà àà àIn€1994,€the€defendant€vacated€a€residence€at€1609€Stribling€inÏMemphis€and€the€victim,€Kevin€Newburn,€moved€into€the€same€residence.€€TheÏdefendant€and€the€victim€had€been€friends€and€the€defendant€left€the€refrigerator€forÏthe€victim's€use.€€Later,€however,€a€dispute€arose€and€the€defendant€gave€notice€toÏthe€victim€that€he€intended€to€regain€possession€of€the€item.€€Over€a€period€of€time,Ïthe€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim€deteriorated€to€the€point€thatÏthe€defendant€had€to€arrange€for€Ronnie€Jackson,€who€lived€near€the€victim,€to€helpÏhim€re„obtain€the€refrigerator.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€February€6,€1995,€Jackson€and€his€stepson,€Phillip,€moved€theÏrefrigerator€from€the€victim's€residence.€€Once€the€refrigerator€was€outside,€theÏdefendant€joined€in€the€effort€to€move€it€into€the€Jackson€residence.€€As€theÏrefrigerator€was€maneuvered€up€a€step,€however,€the€door€opened€and€severalÏitems€of€spoiled€food€fell€out.€€The€defendant€then€threw€the€spoiled€food€over€aÏfence€into€the€victim's€front€yard.€€The€victim€heard€the€noise,€walked€outside€hisÏresidence,€and€observed€dents€in€his€vehicle€which€was€parked€near€where€theÏfood€was€thrown.€€The€victim€then€picked€up€the€garbage€and€threw€it€back.€€TheÏvictim€testified€that€when€he€returned€to€his€residence,€he€heard€a€"loud€boom"€andÏso€he€"came€back€outside€and€...€shot€[his€own€weapon]€up€in€the€air."€€Otherwise,Ïthe€victim€denied€having€made€any€threats€toward€the€defendant€at€that€point.€ÏShortly€after€this€episode,€two€police€cars€arrived€next€door€to€talk€to€the€defendant.€ÏThey€left,€however,€without€making€any€arrests.€€€ÌÌà àà àOn€the€next€day,€the€victim,€who€worked€for€a€security€company€inÏaddition€to€his€duties€with€the€United€€Parcel€Service,€was€assigned€to€theÏapartment€complex€where€the€defendant€lived.€€The€victim,€dressed€in€a€securityÏguard€uniform,€was€unarmed€as€he€patrolled€his€vehicle€through€the€apartmentÏcomplex.€€Shortly€before€noon,€the€victim€saw€the€defendant's€sister,€MelissaÍMontgomery,€as€she€was€leaving€the€apartments.€€The€victim€testified€that€he€askedÏMs.€Montgomery€"what€was€up"€with€the€defendant€and€his€behavior€the€day€before.€ÏAccording€to€the€victim,€Ms.€Montgomery€answered€that€the€defendant€was€"crazy"Ïand€that€the€victim€just€needed€"to€leave€him€alone."€€ÌÌà àà àThe€victim€testified€that€a€short€while€later€he€observed€the€defendantÏdrive€through€the€apartment€complex.€€He€recalled€that€he€refused€a€demand€by€theÏdefendant€that€he€roll€down€his€car€window.€€What€happened€thereafter€is€bestÏreflected€in€the€victim's€testimony:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àSo€I€just€...€looked€over€there€and€when€I€looked€back,€...ÏI€saw€the€infrared€beam€and€I€saw€him€pointing€that€gunÏat€me.€€And€I€was€just€sitting....€€[W]hen€I€saw€that€beam€...Ïit€just€froze€me.€€I€didn't€know€[if]€this€guy€[was]€going€toÏpull€this€trigger€or€...€not....€€[I]t€hit€my€head€and€cameÏdown.€€After€[it]€hit€the€bottom€of€my€eye,€I€...€just€kind€of€...Ïclosed€my€eyes€and€heard€a€boom....€€I€went€over€intoÏthe€seat€and€blood€...€was€just€running€profusely€out€ofÏmy€mouth€and€I€couldn't€stop€it,€so€I€just€drove€off.€€I€justÏhit€the€gas.€€I€didn't€know€what€to€do€because€he€took€offÏreal€fast....€€So€I€started€blowing€the€horn€because€I€feltÏmyself€getting€weak€and€I€just€knew€I€was€going€to€passÏout€and€I€wouldn't€make€it€to€the€office€or€make€itÏanywhere.€€As€I€looked€to€my€left,€he€had€come€backÏaround€beside€me€and€it€was€like€he€was€either€wavingÏthat€gun€or€waving€his€hand€at€me....€€[I]€drove€to€theÏleasing€office,€got€out,€and€I€walked€to€the€door€and€toldÏher,€...€"call€911,€I've€been€shot."€€Blood€[was]€justÏrunning€like€a€water€faucet.€€ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àThe€defendant€testified€that€on€the€day€before€the€shooting,€he€hadÏcomplained€to€the€police€about€the€victim€having€thrown€the€garbage€back€into€theÏJacksons'€yard.€€He€contended€that€the€victim€caused€damages€to€his€vehicle€ofÏalmost€$1,000.00.€€On€the€day€of€the€shooting,€the€defendant€attempted€to€take€outÏa€vandalism€warrant€against€the€victim.€€When€he€told€officers€that€the€damage€toÏhis€vehicle€was€over€$500.00,€however,€he€learned€that€more€information€would€beÏrequired€because€the€charge€would€be€a€felony€rather€than€a€misdemeanor.€€AÏshort€while€later,€the€defendant€learned€that€his€sister,€whom€he€described€asÏ"hysterical,"€had€talked€to€the€victim.€€He€claimed€that€she€suggested€that€heÏneeded€to€"go€and€check"€on€the€victim.€€The€defendant€then€drove€to€his€apartmentÏcomplex€"to€check€and€make€sure€somebody€was€not€breaking€into€my€apartmentÏto€steal€my€stereo€equipment."€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€testified€that€when€he€arrived,€he€saw€the€victim€andÏasked,€"[W]hat€the€hell€[are€you]€doing€in€my€apartment€complex?"€€The€victimÏanswered€that€he€was€a€security€guard.€€According€to€the€defendant,€the€victim€thenÏinstructed€him€not€to€come€into€the€neighborhood,€else€"he€would€make€it€so€I€wasÏunable€to€walk."€€The€defendant€claimed€that€the€victim€then€said,€"Boy,€I€ought€toÏgo€ahead€and€take€care€of€you€now"€and€then€picked€up€a€gun.€€The€defendant,€stillÍinside€his€vehicle,€testified€that€he€leaned€over,€saw€a€gun€on€his€floorboard,€put€aÏbullet€in€the€chamber,€hurriedly€fired€his€weapon,€and€then€drove€away.€€TheÏdefendant€explained€that€he€thought€the€victim€"was€going€to€shoot€me."€€Afterward,Ïthe€defendant€drove€to€his€place€of€employment,€informed€his€boss€what€had€takenÏplace,€and€then€drove€to€the€"East€Precinct"€of€the€police€department.ÌÌà àà àNo€weapon€other€than€that€of€the€defendant€was€discovered€by€police.€ÏThe€victim's€car€window€was€shattered€as€he€was€struck€in€the€chin€by€a€œbullet.›€€œAÏspent›€cartridge€was€later€located€on€the€window€wiper€of€the€defendant's€car.€ÏExpert€testimony€on€the€firearm€indicated€that€the€gun€was€being€held€outside€theÏcar€window€at€the€time€the€shot€was€fired.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€makes€no€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€ÏSecond€degree€murder,€a€Class€A€felony,€is€"a€knowing€killing€of€another."€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210.€€Because€the€victim€survived€the€shooting,€the€€crime€wasÏone€of€attempt.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101.€€The€felony€grade,€Class€B,€is€oneÏdegree€lower.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„107.€€Certainly,€it€is€our€view€that€theÏrecorded€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€jury's€verdict.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€made€aÍnumber€of€errors;€however,€he€has€failed€to€categorize€his€arguments.€€HeÏcomplains€that€the€trial€judge€ridiculed€and€threatened€his€defense€counsel,Ïthwarted€the€cross„examination€of€the€victim,€and€generally€precluded€theÏpresentation€of€a€proper€defense.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€cites€as€the€most€egregious€example€of€this€theÏinstructions€made€by€the€trial€court€to€the€jury€after€defense€counsel€attempted€toÏcross„examine€the€victim€about€the€nature€of€earlier€statements€made€for€worker'sÏcompensation€and€victims€to€crimes€compensation€purposes.€€When€the€issue€wasÏraised,€the€trial€court€charged€the€jury€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThere€is€an€attempt€to€impeach€a€witness€on€a€priorÏinconsistent€statement.€€When€I€charge€you,€...€I'll€explainÏto€you€what€that€means.€€But€in€order€for€the€witness€toÏbe€impeached€on€a€prior€inconsistent€statement,€theÏlawyer€trying€to€do€that€must€have€in€his€hand€theÏstatement.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€court€...€just€learned€that€they€don't€have€it,€but€willÏhave€it€sometime€today,€within€an€hour€is€what€I€was€told.€ÏSo€you€cannot€consider€this€line€of€questioning€until€theÏexamining€lawyer€...€has€that€statement€in€theirÏpossession.€€ÌÌÓÓAfter€further€discussions€with€counsel€in€connection€to€the€worker's€compensationÏclaim€of€the€victim,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€a€second€time:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[Y]esterday,€there€was€an€objection€by€the€state€thatÍ[defense€counsel]€was€asking€questions€of€[the€victim]Ïabout€a€CIGNA€insurance€company€worker'sÏcompensation€claim€...€and€about€statements€that€[theÏvictim]€had€made€to€the€...€company.€€You€may€recall€thatÏ[the€victim]€stated€that€the€...€hospital€filed€a€claim€and€notÏhim.€€I€did€not€rule€on€the€objection€because€the€courtÏwas€advised€by€defense€counsel€that€this€would€beÏlinked€up€by€information€that€he€had.€€I€am€advised€todayÏthat€he€does€not€have€that€information€and€it€is€notÏavailable€to€him.€€The€objection€is€sustained.€€In€otherÏwords,€I€am€ruling€for€the€state.€€You€may€disregard€theÏquestions€asked€by€defense€counsel€with€regard€toÏstatements€[the€victim]€made€to€CIGNA€InsuranceÏCompany.€€ÌÌÓÓThe€defendant€claims€that€this€instruction€was€made€in€"an€extremely€sarcastic€toneÏof€voice"€with€an€emphasis€so€as€to€indicate€that€his€defense€counsel€was€"a€liar."€ÏThe€defendant€contends€that€it€was€perfectly€clear€to€the€trial€judge€that€defenseÏcounsel€never€had€a€copy€of€the€statement,€only€information€as€to€its€content.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€refers€to€a€violation€of€the€rule€requiringÏsequestration€of€witnesses.€€He€contends€that€the€victim,€who€had€testified€for€theÏstate,€should€not€have€been€permitted€to€stay€in€the€courtroom€after€his€testimony.€€ÌThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€judge€violated€the€state€constitution€byÏcommenting€favorably€upon€the€credibility€of€the€victim€and€indicating€a€belief€in€theÏguilt€of€the€defendant.€€(òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Const.,€art.€VI,€ðð€9,€providing€that€"judges€shallÏnot€charge€juries€with€respect€to€matters€of€fact,€but€may€state€and€declare€the€law.")€ÍThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€judge's€reference€to€Kevin€Newburn€as€theÏ"victim"€was€erroneous.€€He€also€complains€that€a€transcript€of€the€preliminaryÏhearing€was€introduced€at€trial€without€redaction,€including€the€opinion€of€theÏgeneral€sessions€judge€that€there€was€"probable€cause."€€He€also€submits€that€theÏtrial€court€"smirked€at€defense€counsel,€would€roll€his€eyes€when€[counsel]€askedÏquestions€that€appeared€to€be€making€headway,€and€generally€used€every€type€ofÏbody€language€possible€to€demean€defense€counsel."€€The€defendant€insists€thatÏthe€trial€judge€erroneously€allowed€the€state's€witnesses€to€handle€the€weaponÏused€in€the€shooting€but€precluded€the€defense€from€doing€so.€ÌÌà@ àIÌà àà àThe€victim€filed€a€claim€for€criminal€injuries€compensation€and€theÏhospital€where€he€was€treated€filed€a€claim€for€worker's€compensation.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€The€victimÏadmitted€that€he€made€a€statement€in€support€of€his€worker's€compensation€claimÍbut€denied€having€made€any€statement€regarding€his€claim€as€a€victim€of€a€criminal€Ïact.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€He€explained€that€his€attorney€had€prepared€the€statement€regarding€theÏclaim€for€victim€compensation.€€The€trial€court€refused€to€allow€use€of€theÏinformation€in€either€claim€as€grounds€to€impeach€the€victim€during€cross„examination.ÌÌà àà àGenerally€speaking,€the€right€to€an€effective€cross„examinationÏinvolves€the€fundamental€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€Yet€the€propriety,€scope,€and€mannerÏof€cross„examination€for€the€purposes€of€impeachment€are€within€the€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€598€S.W.2d€815,€819€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980);€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€611(a).ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€victim€was€questioned€about€the€statement€he€had€made€inÍsupport€of€the€worker's€compensation€claim.€€He€was,€however,€unable€toÏremember€much€of€the€content€other€than€it€was€"pretty€much€exactly€the€sameÏthing€I€have€already€said...."€€Because€defense€counsel€did€not€have€a€copy€of€theÏstatement,€the€trial€court€would€not€allow€defense€counsel€to€"refresh€the€victim'sÏmemory"€by€suggesting€the€content.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€state€concedes€that€the€trial€court's€assertion€that€"in€order€for€theÏwitness€to€be€impeached€on€a€prior€inconsistent€statement,€the€lawyer€trying€to€doÏthat€must€have€in€his€hand€the€statement,"€is€not€a€correct€statement€of€the€law.€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€613.€€The€state€argues,€however,€that€because€defense€counsel'sÏonly€knowledge€of€the€statement€was€through€discussions€with€clerical€employeesÏof€the€insurance€agency,€the€trial€court€properly€precluded€any€reference€to€theÏstatement.Çà àà àAs€to€the€criminal€injuries€claim,€the€victim€recognized€only€the€firstÏand€last€pages€of€the€document,€denied€having€ever€read€an€attached€police€report,Ïand€contended€that€he€did€not€make€the€statement€defense€counsel€sought€to€useÏfor€impeachment.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€it€would€have€been€admissible€only€ifÏcounsel€could€qualify€the€extrinsic€evidence.€€The€primary€aim€of€the€cross„examination€was€to€attack€the€credibility€of€the€victim€by€showing€that€the€victim€hadÏmade€a€false€claim€of€ownership€of€the€refrigerator.€€A€second€objective€was€to€callÏinto€question€whether€the€victim€had€contacted€police€about€the€dispute.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€victim€could€not€recall€the€details€of€the€his€injury€claim.€€WhenÏdefense€counsel€tried€to€refresh€his€memory,€despite€having€only€a€general€ideaÏbased€on€conversations€with€another€as€to€the€content€of€the€document,€theÏpurpose€of€the€cross„examination€was€frustrated€regardless€of€the€intervention€byÏthe€trial€court.€€While€the€subject€matter€was€clearly€collateral€to€the€central€issue,€itÏhad€some€relevance€to€the€credibility€of€the€victim.€€In€context€of€the€entire€record,Ïhowever,€it€is€our€view€that€the€error€was€harmless;€while€defense€counsel€mayÏhave€had€some€basis€to€consider€his€colloquy€with€the€court€as€a€personal€affront,€itÏis€our€opinion€that€the€ruling€had€no€effect€on€the€results€of€the€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€App.ÏP.€36(b);€òòWilson€v.€Stateóó,€109€Tenn.€167,€70€S.W.2d€€57€(1902).€€ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àà àRule€615,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€provides€that€witnesses,€upon€request€ofÏeither€counsel,€must€be€excluded€from€the€courtroom€except€during€their€testimonyÏand€prevented€from€disclosing€the€content€of€their€proof.€€Here,€the€victim€wasÏcalled€as€a€witness€for€the€state.€€Because€defense€counsel€indicated€that€he€mightÏrecall€the€victim€during€defense€proof,€the€trial€court€declined€to€honor€counsel'sÏrequest€for€continued€sequestration.€€The€state€concedes€that€the€trial€courtÏcommitted€error€by€failing€to€recognize€that€the€rule€of€sequestration€includesÏrebuttal€witnesses.€€Yet€the€state€argues€that€any€error€in€the€failure€to€exclude€theÏvictim€as€a€witness€was€harmless.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€ÌÌà àà àA€history€of€the€rule€of€sequestration€of€witnesses€appears€in€òòState€v.ÏAnthonyóó,€836€S.W.2d€600€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Traditionally,€trial€judges€haveÏbeen€afforded€wide€discretion€in€determining€whether€to€impose€the€sanctions€ofÏexcluding€the€evidence€of€the€witness€suspected€of€violating€"the€rule"€or€declaringÏa€mistrial.€€òòState€v.€Moffettóó,€729€S.W.2d€679,€681€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986);ÏòòTennesseeLaw€of€Evidenceóó,€Neil€P.€Cohen,€et€al.,€ðð€615.4€(3d€ed.€1995).€€ÌÌà àà à"The€rule"€was€included€in€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence:€€€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€€At€the€request€of€a€party€the€court€shall€orderÍwitnesses,€including€rebuttal€witnesses,€excluded€at€trialÏor€other€adjudicatory€hearing.€€Sequestration€shall€beÏeffective€before€voir€dire€or€opening€statements€ifÏrequested.€€The€court€shall€order€all€persons€not€toÏdisclose€by€any€means€to€excluded€witnesses€any€liveÏtrial€testimony€or€exhibits€created€in€the€courtroom€by€aÏwitness.€€This€rule€does€not€authorize€exclusion€of€(1)€aÏparty€who€is€a€natural€person,€or€(2)€an€officer€orÏemployee€of€a€party€which€is€not€a€natural€personÏdesignated€as€its€representative€by€its€attorney,€or€(3)€aÏperson€whose€presence€is€shown€by€a€party€to€beÏessential€to€the€presentation€of€the€party's€cause.€€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€615.€€Prior€to€January€1,€1990,€the€effective€date€of€the€Rules€ofÏEvidence,€"the€rule"€did€not€apply€to€rebuttal€witnesses.€€Rule€615,€however,Ïprovides€that€upon€request,€"the€court€shall€order€witnesses,€including€rebuttalÏwitnesses,€excluded€at€trial€or€other€adjudicatory€hearing...."€€The€new€rule€doesÏvest€trial€courts€with€some€discretion€in€that€it€does€not€apply€to€"a€person€whoseÏpresence€is€shown€by€a€party€to€be€essential...."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€615.€€The€AdvisoryÏCommission€Comment€to€this€rule€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIf€a€witness€inadvertently€and€unintentionally€hearsÏsome€trial€testimony,€the€sense€of€the€rule€would€permitÏthe€judge€to€allow€the€witness€to€testify€if€fair€under€theÏcircumstances.€€ÌÌÓÓIn€this€case,€the€victim,€after€testifying€for€the€state€and€retained€by€the€defense€as€aÏpossible€witness,€was€never€recalled€to€the€stand.€€Neither€was€he€recalled€to€testifyÏagain€for€the€state.€€Under€these€circumstances,€it€cannot€be€said€that€the€stateÍgained€any€advantage€by€the€violation.€€Thus,€any€error€was€clearly€harmless.€ÏòòState€v.€George€Corbit€Wallace,€Jr.óó,€No.€01C01„9106„CC„00189€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ïat€Nashville,€Feb.€20,€1992).€€ÌÌà@ àIIIÌà àà àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€judge€made€an€improper€commentÏon€the€evidence€by€referring€to€Newburn€as€a€"victim,"€by€permitting€the€generalÏsessions€transcript€into€evidence,€by€prohibiting€the€defendant€from€handling€theÏweapon€during€his€testimony,€and€by€making€sarcastic€remarks€and€exhibitingÏunfavorable€body€language.€€ÌÌà àà àAs€to€the€reference€to€Newburn€as€victim,€the€trial€court€provided€aÏcurative€instruction€as€suggested€by€the€defense.€€Because€the€trial€court€instructedÏthe€jury€to€disregard€his€use€of€the€word€"victim"€because€it€was€in€no€way€intendedÏto€express€an€opinion€that€Newburn€was,€in€fact,€a€victim,€the€error€was€cured.€€It€isÏpresumed€that€a€jury€will€follow€the€instructions€of€the€court€in€such€a€situation.€ÏòòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€762€S.W.2d€110,€116€(Tenn.€1988).ÌÌà àà àOn€at€least€two€separate€occasions€during€the€course€of€the€trial,Ïdefense€counsel€agreed€to€allow€the€entire€general€sessions€court€transcript€to€beÍread€to€the€jury.€€Thus,€the€defense€failed€to€take€steps€to€prevent€any€alleged€errorÏby€the€admission€of€the€transcript.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Moreover,€the€trial€courtÏcorrectly€instructed€the€jury€on€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€properly€chargedÏthat€the€burden€of€proof€was€on€the€state€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€It€is€unlikely,Ïunder€these€circumstances,€that€any€probable€cause€determination€at€the€generalÏsessions€court€level€(a€process€repeated€by€the€grand€jury€indictment)€would€haveÏprejudiced€the€jury.€€ÌÌà àà àIt€is€difficult€to€assess€allegations€regarding€body€language€andÏsarcasm.€€The€written€record€rarely€provides€an€accurate€reflection€of€any€suchÏbehavior.€€That€is€the€case€here€as€well.€€A€reference€to€the€trial€judge's€laughterÏafter€one€exchange€was,€in€our€view,€clearly€inconsequential€in€the€entire€context€ofÏthe€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€During€the€course€of€the€trial,€the€trial€courtÏinstructed€the€jury€to€determine€the€facts€from€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses.€€TheÏlaw€presumes€that€the€jury€adhered€to€those€instructions.€€€€ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€only€witness€who€was€permitted€to€handle€the€weaponÏhad€been€qualified€as€an€expert€on€"how€nine€millimeter€weapons€eject€spentÏshells."€€€€Witnesses€other€than€the€court€officer,€whether€called€by€the€state€orÏdefense,€were€€not€allowed€to€do€so.€€In€answer€to€the€question€by€defense€counselÍfor€permission€to€"approach€the€witness€and€pass€him€the€weapon,"€the€trial€courtÏanswered,€"The€deputy€can€show€it€to€him,€that's€his€job."€€When€defense€counselÏcomplained€that€the€state's€attorney€had€been€allowed€to€handle€the€weapon,€theÏtrial€court€responded,€"You're€welcome€to€...€but€I€cannot€let€you€...€hand€thatÏweapon€to€this€witness...."× ƒ6 ××  ×€€The€rule€of€the€trial€court€precluding€the€actual€handlingÏof€weapons€by€witnesses€other€than€experts€is€reasonable.€€Because€the€ruleÏapplied€to€both€the€state€and€the€defense,€the€incident€did€not,€in€our€view,€affect€theÏresults€of€the€trial.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌThomas€T.€Woodall,€Judge€ÌÌ