ÿWPC 0# °UN» %  0(b7w@?4“¢ 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡U>ë 0@) D3i Bœ U*¹ B)ã DC AMO 6œ v~Ò AQP Æ¡ 0Dg 0D« D/ï BvÓ;˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ãäåDæçèéDêëÓ€÷Œƒ*#3|x÷2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd* %Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ,Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òSeptember€15,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdStyl{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  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€|³XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œJACKSON›Ì̜ـ*ÙßR€&'%A1-j|j#` Å `€€@ÿRßJUNE›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ02C01„9702„CC„00070›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœLAUDERDALE›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œJOSEPH€H.€WALKERó ó›Ìœò òRONALD€MITCHELL,ó ó›à àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Felony€Drugs,€Reckless€Driving)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCIRCUIT›€COURT€OF€œLAUDERDALE€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœGARY€F.€ANTRICANà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌJULIE€PILLOWà àà àà àà àELIZABETH€T.€RYANÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ131„A€Industrial€Roadà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌCovington,€TN€38019à àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àELIZABETH€RICEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMARK€DAVIDSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPost€Office€Box€509Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRipley,€TN€38063à àà àà àà àà à›à àà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€IN€PART›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€#°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant,€Ronald€C.€Mitchell,€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€RuleÏ3,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€€He€was€convicted€by€aÏLauderdale€County€jury€of€possession€of€over€.5€grams€of€cocaine€with€intent€toÏdeliver,€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€reckless€driving€and€evading€arrest.€€HeÏwas€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€offender€to€14€years€for€the€conviction€forÏpossession€of€cocaine,€11€months€and€29€days€for€evading€arrest,€6€months€forÏdriving€on€a€revoked€license,€and€6€months€for€reckless€driving.€€All€sentencesÏwere€ordered€to€run€concurrently€with€each€other€but€consecutively€to€sentencesÏthe€Defendant€was€serving€for€prior€convictions.€€The€Defendant€challenges€hisÏconviction€for€possession€of€cocaine€over€.5€grams,€contending€(1)€That€the€trialÏcourt€erred€by€allowing€testimony€regarding€a€pager€and€cash€seized€from€hisÏperson€during€his€arrest;€and€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€a€witness€toÏtestify€using€his€notes.€€The€Defendant€also€asserts€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€to€support€the€convictions€for€possession€of€cocaine€and€recklessÏdriving.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€in€part€and€reverse€and€dismiss€the€convictionÏfor€reckless€driving.ÌÌà àThe€State€presented€the€following€evidence€at€trial.€€On€the€night€of€AprilÏ3,€1996,€Officer€Steve€Jackson€of€the€Henning€Police€Department€set€up€a€radarÏpatrol€on€Highway€209,€a€two„lane€road€€in€Lauderdale€County.€€The€officerÏwas€facing€northbound€and€observed€the€Defendantððs€vehicle€travelingÏsouthbound€on€the€highway.€€The€vehicle€appeared€to€be€moving€at€a€high€rateÏof€speed€and€it€passed€another€vehicle.€€The€radar€reflected€that€theÏDefendantððs€vehicle€was€traveling€at€œseventy„seven›€miles€per€hour.€€€The€officerÏturned€on€his€emergency€lights€and€followed€the€Defendant€in€order€to€pull€himÏover.€€The€Defendant€was€driving€a€1975€Buick€Electra€with€a€tag€number€ofÏ126„KTW.€€The€officer€followed€the€Defendant€only€a€short€distance€from€whereÏhe€had€set€up€his€radar.€€The€Defendant€pulled€into€a€driveway€of€a€privateÏhome.€€The€officer€saw€the€Defendant€leave€the€driverððs€side€of€the€vehicle€andÏflee€on€foot€heading€north.ÌÌà àOfficer€Jackson€chased€the€Defendant€on€foot€through€a€wooded€area.€ÏThe€officer€called€for€backup.€€He€had€briefly€lost€sight€of€the€Defendant€when€heÏobserved€him€in€a€creek€bed.€€When€the€officer€went€to€the€area,€he€saw€theÏDefendant€lying€on€the€ground€on€his€back€on€an€embankment.€€The€officerÏapproached€the€Defendant.€€€He€ordered€the€Defendant€to€place€his€handsÏbehind€his€neck€and€to€roll€over€onto€his€stomach.€€Instead,€the€Defendant€gotÏup€and€walked€towards€the€officer.€€The€officer€continued€to€order€the€DefendantÍto€lie€down€and€when€he€was€around€œsix›€feet€away,€Officer€Jackson€sprayedÏthe€Defendant€with€pepper€spray.€€The€Defendant€then€complied€and€wasÏhandcuffed.ÌÌà àBackup€officers€arrived€at€the€scene€œand›€assisted€with€the€arrest.€€OfficerÏJackson€conducted€a€pat„down€search€and€discovered€in€the€Defendantððs€shirtÏpocket€what€he€described€as€œa€clear›€plastic€bag€containing€an€off„white€chunkyÏsubstance€that€appeared€to€be€crack€cocaine.€€€He€also€seized€a€pager€andÏ$203.72€in€cash.€€€€The€Defendant€was€agitated€and€upset€and€appeared€toÏresist€being€taken€back€to€the€cruiser.€€The€Defendantððs€girlfriend,€FeliciaÏSanders,€was€also€present€after€the€Defendant€was€arrested.€€It€wasÏdetermined€that€the€vehicle€the€Defendant€was€driving€belonged€to€Ms.ÏSanders.€€The€officers€conducted€a€search€of€the€vehicle,€which€revealed€noÏother€evidence.€€The€Defendant€was€transported€to€the€Lauderdale€CountyÏJustice€Center.€€The€substance€in€the€plastic€bag€was€field€œtested,›€œrevealing€it›€toÏbe€cocaine.€€The€cocaine€was€shipped€to€the€T.B.I.€laboratory€in€Jackson,ÏTennessee€to€be€tested.€€The€T.B.I.€confirmed€that€the€substance€was€cocaineÏin€the€amount€of€1.1€grams.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€presented€evidence€that€he€was€out€that€night€on€anÏerrand€for€his€girlfriend.€€He€was€at€her€house€that€evening.€€€Ms.€SandersÍtestified€that€she€sent€the€Defendant€to€Wal„Mart€to€get€some€diapers€for€theirÏbaby.€€Later€that€evening,€Sanders€heard€the€Defendant€pull€into€the€driveway,Ïbut€she€did€not€see€any€emergency€lights€indicating€that€a€police€vehicle€wasÏpresent.€€She€went€outside€and€saw€her€vehicle,€which€the€Defendant€hadÏbeen€driving,€in€the€driveway€with€the€door€open€and€the€lights€on.€€She€took€theÏdiapers€out,€turned€off€the€lights€and€locked€the€doors.€€After€a€few€minutes,€sheÏsaw€the€Defendant€and€the€officers.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€at€trial.€€He€stated€that€he€went€to€Wal„Mart€to€getÏdiapers€between€10:00€and€10:30.€€He€returned€on€Highway€209€and€saw€aÏpolice€car€behind€him.€€He€did€not€see€emergency€lights€being€displayed.€€TheÏcruiser€€did€not€enter€the€driveway€behind€him€when€he€turned,€but€turnedÏaround€in€the€next€driveway.€€The€Defendant€asserted€that€he€thought€it€wasÏOfficer€Jackson€so€he€ran€because€he€knew€his€license€was€canceled€andÏstated€that,€in€the€past,€Officer€Jackson€had€stopped€him€for€no€reason€andÏthreatened€him.€€He€ran€into€a€wooded€area€near€the€house.€€After€reaching€theÏcreek€bed,€he€noticed€the€lights€from€several€flashlights€and€felt€relieved€that€otherÏofficers€were€there.€€He€began€walking€toward€Officer€Jackson€to€turn€himself€in.€ÏHe€then€sat€down€because€he€was€tired.€€The€Defendant€also€testified€thatÏOfficer€Jackson€had€his€gun€drawn€and€sprayed€the€pepper€spray€while€theÍDefendant€was€lying€on€the€ground.€€He€was€handcuffed€and€led€œup›€theÏembankment,€but€could€not€see€because€of€the€spray.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€asserted€that€he€was€never€searched€and€did€notÏpossess€drugs.€€He€admitted€to€having€a€pager€so€his€girlfriend€could€reach€himÏand€he€had€approximately€$200€earned€from€cutting€hair,€mowing€lawns€andÏwashing€cars.€€He€also€noted€that€he€could€not€have€been€driving€at€œseventy„seven›€miles€per€hour€and€still€turn€into€the€driveway.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€charged€with€possession€of€cocaine€over€.5€gramsÏwith€intent€to€deliver,€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€evading€arrest,€reckless€drivingÏand€€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia.€€The€State€later€dropped€the€charge€forÏpossession€of€drug€paraphernalia.€€The€Defendant€was€tried€and€a€jury€foundÏhim€guilty€on€all€counts.ÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue€for€our€review,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€admitting€Officer€Jacksonððs€testimony€regarding€a€pager€and€cashÏseized€from€the€Defendantððs€person€during€his€arrest.€€He€asserts€that€the€StateÏfailed€to€provide€notice€of€this€evidence€prior€to€trial€and€this€failure€constitutes€aÏviolation€of€Rule€16€of€the€Tennessee€œRules›€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€€The€trialÏcourt€issued€a€pretrial€order€on€June€4,€œ1996,›€ordering€discovery€pursuant€to€RuleÍ16.€€In€addition,€the€Defendant€filed€a€pretrial€motion€requesting€notice€of€theÏStateððs€intention€to€use€evidence€that€would€be€a€subject€for€suppressionÏpursuant€to€Rule€12(d)(2)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€€TheÏState€gave€the€Defendant€no€notice€of€the€existence€of€the€pager€or€the€cashÏas€evidence€prior€to€the€witnessðð€testimony.ÌÌà àRule€16(a)(1)(C)€provides€that€upon€the€defendantððs€request,€the€StateÏshall€allow€inspection€and€copying€or€photographing€œof€ð ðbooks,›€papers,Ïdocuments,€photographs,€tangible€objects€which€are€within€the€possession,Ïcustody€or€control€of€the€State,€and€which€are€material€to€the€preparation€of€theÏdefendantððs€defense€or€are€intended€for€use€by€the€State€as€evidence€in€chief€atÏthe€trial,€or€were€obtained€from€or€belong€to€the€defendant.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï16(a)(1)(C).€€Clearly,€although€the€State€had€not€intended€to€use€the€pager€andÏcash€in€its€case€in€chief€when€defense€counsel€made€the€request,€the€StateÏwas€compelled€under€Rule€16(a)(1)(C)€to€provide€them€to€the€Defendant€asÏð ðmaterial€to€the€preparation€of€the€defendantððs€defenseðð€or€simply€because€theyÏwere€ð ðobtained€from€or€belongedðð€to€the€Defendant.€€€Therefore,€we€find€that€theÏfailure€to€disclose€or€produce€the€evidence€in€question€was€a€Rule€16€violation.€ÏMoreover,€the€trial€court€erred€by€simply€overruling€the€Defendantððs€objectionÏwithout€addressing€the€discovery€violation.ÌÌà àThe€State€counters€that€the€failure€to€provide€notice€to€the€DefendantÏoccurred€because€of€a€misunderstanding.€€The€State€alleges€that€the€informationÏwas€provided€in€the€list€of€inventory€on€the€warrant€which€was€returned€to€theÏDefendant.€€Also,€the€State€was€under€the€impression€that€the€pager€and€cashÏwere€discussed€at€the€preliminary€hearing,€although€the€State€now€concedesÏthat€no€such€evidence€exists€in€that€record.€€This€does€not€excuse€the€StateððsÏfailure€to€comply€because€the€burden€is€on€the€State,€regardless€of€what€itÏthinks€the€Defendant€is€aware€of,€to€assure€that€discovery€is€provided.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€exclusion€of€the€evidence€is€now€the€onlyÏremedy€available€to€ensure€a€fair€trial.€€However,€prohibiting€the€introduction€ofÏevidence€is€not€the€exclusive€means€to€remedy€failure€to€comply€with€a€Rule€16Ïviolation.€€Considering€that€the€failure€to€produce€the€pager€and€cash€was€aÏviolation€of€Rule€16,€the€trial€court€had€the€discretion€to€order€whatever€remedyÏthat€was€just€under€the€circumstances.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P€16(d)(2).€€This€includesÏa€brief€continuance€to€conduct€a€suppression€hearing€to€determine€theÏadmissibility€of€the€evidence€or€to€allow€the€Defendant€time€to€inspect€œtheÏevidence€and›€formulate€a€responsive€strategy.€The€Defendant€has€assertedÏthat€the€Stateððs€failure€to€provide€the€evidence€was€prejudicial€to€his€caseÏbecause€the€admission€of€testimony€regarding€the€pager€and€cash€establishedÏa€required€element€of€intent€to€sell€the€cocaine.€€€A€defendant€must€demonstrateÍactual€prejudice€from€the€Stateððs€failure€to€provide€evidence€pursuant€to€aÏdiscovery€request.€€òòState€v.€Garlandóó,€617€S.W.2d€176,€185€(Tenn.€œCrim.›€App.Ïœ1981);›€òòState€v.€Brileyóó,€619€S.W.2d€149,€152€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€InÏconsidering€discovery€violations,€the€important€inquiry€is€what€prejudice€hasÏresulted€from€the€discovery€violation,€òònotóó€simply€the€prejudicial€effect€theÏevidence,€otherwise€admissible,€has€on€the€issue€of€a€defendantððs€guilt.€€œòòSee,óó›Ïòòe.g.óó,€€òòState€v.€Cottrellóó,€868€S.W.2d€673,€677€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€€òòGarlandóó,Ï617€S.W.2d€at€œ186.›€ÌÌÌà àAt€trial,€although€defense€counsel€objected€to€the€witnessðð€testimony,€thereÏwas€no€request€for€Rule€16€sanctions,€such€as€a€continuance.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏBakeróó,€751€S.W.2d€154,€160€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€€Furthermore,€we€cannotÏspeculate€about€the€merits€of€a€motion€to€suppress€the€pager€and€the€cash.€ÏThe€Defendant€has€not€provided€even€a€suggestion€that€the€evidence€wasÏobtained€from€an€illegal€search€or€that€the€evidence€was€in€any€wayÏinadmissible.€€Here,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€abused€hisÏdiscretion€by€admitting€the€evidence.€€After€considering€the€entire€record€in€theÏcase€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€we€are€satisfied€that€any€error€made€concerning€the€discoveryÏviolation€was€harmless.€€T.R.A.P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌà àIn€his€second€issue,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏallowing€a€witness€to€retain€his€notes€while€testifying€at€trial.€€Officer€JacksonÏtestified€at€trial€regarding€the€Defendantððs€actions€concerning€the€charges€œagainstÏthe€Defendant.€€The›€record€reflects€that,€as€Officer€Jackson€began€testifyingÏregarding€April€3,€1996,€defense€counsel€objected€that€he€appeared€to€beÏreading€from€his€notes.€€Specifically,€counsel€charged€that€a€proper€foundationÏhad€not€been€established€to€support€the€witnessðð€testifying€from€his€notes.€€TheÏtrial€court€overruled€the€objection€and€instructed€the€witness€to€use€the€notes€toÏrefresh€his€memory.€€The€State€offered€that€defense€counsel€could€examine€theÏdocument€and€cross„examine€the€witness€regarding€its€contents.€€The€trial€courtÏclarified€that€the€witness€could€use€the€notes€to€refresh€his€memory€only€inÏresponse€to€questions,€but€allowed€him€to€keep€the€notes€with€him€while€on€theÏstand.€€The€Defendant€now€argues€that€the€trial€court€was€confused€as€to€theÏapplicable€law€and€its€decision€to€allow€the€witness€to€retain€his€notes€amountsÏto€prejudicial€error.ÌÌà àThe€rules€of€evidence€provide€that€œ"hearsay›€is€not€admissible€except€asÏprovided€by€these€rules€or€otherwise€by€law."€€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€802.€€€Hearsay€isÏdefined€as€"a€statement,€other€than€one€made€by€the€declarant€while€testifyingÏat€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€in€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matterÏasserted."€€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c).€€There€are,€of€course,€numerous€exceptions€toÍthe€general€rule€of€exclusion€of€hearsay.€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€œEvid.›€803(1.1)€throughÏ(25),€804,€and€805.€€The€exception€for€Recorded€Recollection€under€Rule€803(5)Ïis€as€follows:ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà à(5)€Recorded€Recollection.€€A€memorandum€or€record€concerningÏa€matter€about€which€a€witness€once€had€knowledge€but€now€hasÏinsufficient€recollection€to€enable€the€witness€to€testify€fully€andÏaccurately,€shown€to€have€been€made€or€adopted€by€the€witnessÏwhen€the€matter€was€fresh€in€the€witness's€memory€and€to€reflect€thatÏknowledge€correctly.€€If€admitted,€the€memorandum€or€record€may€beÏread€into€evidence€but€may€not€itself€be€received€as€an€exhibit€unlessÏoffered€by€an€adverse€party.ÌÌÌÓÓÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒRecorded€Recollection€is€used€in€lieu€of€a€witnessðð€testimony€when€that€witnessÏcannot€recall€the€event€in€any€meaningful€way.€€Neil€P.€Cohen€et.€al.,ÏTennessee€Law€of€Evidence€œðð€803(5).1€(3d›€ed.€1995).à àÌÌà àA€writing€used€to€refresh€oneððs€memory€is€not€a€hearsay€exception,€butÏrather€a€means€to€facilitate€a€witnessðð€testimony€when€he€or€she€cannotÏcompletely€remember€the€details€of€an€event.€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€612.€€WhenÏa€witnessðð€memory€is€refreshed,€the€adverse€party€may€inspect€the€writing,Ïcross„examine€the€witness€and€introduce€portions€into€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï612.€ÌThe€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Rule€612€suggest€guidelines€by€whichÏa€witness€may€refresh€her€memory:€€"The€direct€examiner€should€lay€aÍfoundation€for€necessity,€show€the€witness€the€writing,€take€back€the€writing,Ïand€ask€the€witness€to€testify€from€refreshed€memory."€€€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€Officer€Jackson€began€by€reading€his€notes€andÏdefense€counsel€objected€that€a€proper€foundation€had€not€been€established,Ïi.e.€that€the€witness€could€not€remember.€€He€continued€to€testify€from€his€notesÏin€response€to€questions€and€was€permitted€to€keep€them€with€him€on€theÏstand.€€€He€did€€say,€at€times,€that€he€would€have€to€refer€to€his€notes.€€€Yet,Ïbecause€the€notes€were€not€taken€back,€there€appears€to€have€been€error€byÏthe€manner€in€which€they€were€used.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dishmanóó,€915€S.W.2d€458,Ï461€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€We€believe,€however,€any€error€was€clearlyÏharmless€in€the€context€of€the€entire€record.ÌÌà àIn€his€last€issue,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€to€support€his€convictions€for€possession€of€cocaine€with€intent€toÏdeliver€and€reckless€driving.€€When€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏconvicting€evidence,€the€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€theÏlight€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€foundÏthe€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€theÏwitnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factualÍissues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€ÏòòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Nor€may€thisÏcourt€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,Ï835€(Tenn.€1978).€€ÌÌà àA€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnessesÏand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,Ï476€(Tenn.€1973).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€atÏ835.€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÏreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€courtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€byÏthe€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòGraceóó,€493ÏS.W.2d€at€476.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€theÏessential€element€of€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver€regarding€his€possession€ofÏcocaine.€€The€offense€of€which€he€was€convicted€requires€that€one€knowinglyÏð ð[p]ossess€a€controlled€substance€with€intent€to€manufacture,€deliver€or€sell€suchÏcontraband€substance.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(a)(4).€€Possession€ofÏcocaine€over€.5€grams€is€a€Class€B€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(c)(1).€ÍFurthermore,€ð ð[i]t€may€be€inferred€from€the€amount€of€a€controlled€substance€.€.€.Ïalong€with€other€relevant€facts€surrounding€the€arrest,€that€the€controlledÏsubstance€or€substances€were€possessed€with€the€purpose€of€selling€orÏotherwise€dispensing.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„419.€ÌÌà àThe€proof€in€the€record€establishes€that€the€cocaine€found€on€theÏDefendant€was€in€the€amount€of€1.1€grams.€€It€was€in€the€form€of€one€large€rockÏcontained€within€one€plastic€bag.€€The€T.B.I.€laboratory€technician€testified€thatÏthe€1.1€grams€was€eleven€times€the€usual€amount€she€tests,€although€she€hasÏseen€greater€amounts€of€cocaine.€€A€pager€and€over€$200€cash€was€seizedÏduring€the€arrest.€€The€Defendant€explained€that€he€had€the€pager€so€Ms.ÏSanders€could€contact€him.€€He€also€explained€that€he€earned€the€cash€doingÏodd€jobs,€but€that€he€was€not€regularly€employed€at€the€time€of€his€arrest.ÌÌà àThe€jury€was€permitted€to€consider€both€the€amount€of€the€cocaine€andÏthe€fact€that€the€Defendant€had€a€pager€and€cash€on€his€person.€€TheÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€arrest€may€carry€as€much€weight€as€the€quantityÏpossessed€in€authorizing€the€jury€to€draw€the€inference€of€intent€to€sell€aÏcontrolled€substance.€€òòState€v.€Bledsoeóó,€626€S.W.2d€468,€469€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Ï1981).€€The€possession€of€a€pager€and€cash€simultaneously€with€a€largeÏamount€of€controlled€substance€is€such€an€example.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Robert€LeeÍMooreóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9502„CC„00038,€Madison€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏJackson,€Oct.€4,€1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€ReginaldÏT.€Smithóó,€C.C.A.€No.€œ02C01„9204„CR„00097,›€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏJackson,€œFeb.›€17,€1993).€€Likewise,€the€jury€here€could€have€reasonablyÏconcluded€that€the€Defendant€possessed€the€cocaine€in€question€with€the€intentÏto€sell.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€convictÏhim€of€reckless€driving.€€The€applicable€statute€states€that€ð ð[a]ny€person€whoÏdrives€any€vehicle€in€willful€or€wanton€disregard€for€the€safety€of€persons€orÏproperty€commits€reckless€driving.ðð€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€55„10„205.€€A€defendantÏmanifests€willful€or€wanton€disregard€who€willfully€breaches€a€duty€in€aÏð ðheedless€and€reckless€disregard€for€anotherððs€rights,€with€the€consciousnessÏthat€the€act€or€omission€to€act€may€result€in€injury€to€another.ðð€€òòState€v.€Wilkinsóó,Ï654€S.W.2d€678,€679€(Tenn.€1983)(citing€òòBurgess€v.€Stateóó,€369€S.W.2d€731,Ï733,€212€Tenn.€315€œ(1963)).›€€Exceeding€the€speed€limit€has€been€consideredÏreckless€driving€under€certain€circumstances€when€a€defendant€drove€120€milesÏper€hour€on€a€highway€with€hills€and€curves.€€òòSeeóó€œòòid.óó.›€€€It€is€for€the€trier€of€fact€toÏdetermine€whether€a€defendantððs€operation€of€a€vehicle€constitutes€a€willful€andÏwanton€act€considering€all€the€circumstances.€€òòId.óó;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Eddie€JakeÏMysingeróó,€C.C.A.€No.€314,€Greene€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€œKnoxville,€Mar.›Í14,€1990)(the€defendantððs€approximate€speed€was€106€m.p.h.€and€he€crashedÏinto€another€vehicle,€killing€the€occupant);€€òòState€v.€Rita€Marie€Russellóó,€C.C.A.ÏNo.€158,€Anderson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Apr.€2,€1986)(TheÏdefendant€passed€four€vehicles€and€forced€a€vehicle€nearly€off€the€road).ÌÌà àHere,€the€Defendant€was€clocked€going€œseventy„seven›€miles€per€hourÏwhen€the€posted€speed€limit€was€œfifty›€miles€per€hour.€The€roadway€was€straightÏand€flat.€€€It€was€late€at€night,€and€he€passed€another€vehicle.€€ShortlyÏthereafter,€he€turned€into€his€girlfriendððs€driveway.€€œThe€primary€evidence€whichÏcould€be€considered€as€reckless€driving€was€driving€seventy„seven€miles€perÏhour.€€After›€carefully€reviewing€the€evidence€in€this€case€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€State,€we€œconclude€that›€the€evidence€œis€insufficient›€to€œsupport›€aÏverdict€of€guilt€for€reckless€driving.€€€Therefore,€we€reverse€and€dismiss€the€chargeÏfor€reckless€driving.ÌÌà àœAccordingly,€the€reckless€driving€conviction€is€reversed€and€that€charge€isÏdismissed.€€In€all€other€respects,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.›ÌÌà àœÌÓÓà à›à àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌœÇCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE›