ÿWPC§  ™´"è~8ŒZÝ rWµÐIcÕw£¦)8£€kaîÓ«™fŠâNª ŒmEª*+ÙÁâ D7µB·9U[¯¸ت®dc,#–| sF½,ŽO5I#ÇžíQF#ÚÂdu‹pç©C%\~E>ÊÅ`DQS+(py™Û•¶{aÔ¹´†Ä°Ì%w†}Úª»A™Å×îŒff@¼¯‡7{_¥ÌÃxHʤ‡ò=Vj¾FÚ&K‰ÃXÚ\;ïäZÙ|„ñ{èa îü¡‰`ʬdÜ«ø»[1]µûqw¥¤¬(¼M‚Ҿ뚀Üt¹ÍØ`Ы®©4µc:‘ñ¿úÆÏnl„{EïÀ4Ë7~UýŠ#‡Oƒ^ò©í60´†SÀ^÷p™S8SÕ06„k”ÜA–[†Úþ`:‹ÜOŸšb ¯·+öO7›4áJ¥ÝoyU›ãó/µÍ·¤œÁsüK®qAË©*yx/ä1´Éê…Šë¬ÒœTt»Œ¼È|3œ•¾ˆhsZÚ›‡X̡œx²5Õ¿Ó 0ï|ˆ‡A‚Q×VªFšv•Aœ7¶M´Dà»ÔBᇶ½(Ë`ˆ¤{å5¡¾š¯Êkö`ËNÛÇµÏ Á¡§~§ˆm·bUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N;==EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEbGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGeOOð´ 0뤤¤¤ B 0¤¬ D3P D-ƒ 0K°° ASûÆN 0¤ 0D¸ A«ü(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Óq-s Yo†)ð‡£3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó - ù- [Ý ƒR[ $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôŽ$ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€court€charged€possession€with€intent€to€deliver,€criminal€responsibility€for€possession€with€intent€toÐ ° Ðdeliver,€facilitation€of€possession€with€the€intent€to€deliver,€and€simple€possession.€€ æÝ ƒR[ $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôŽ$ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAbsent€this€standard,€the€trial€judge€who€charges€a€lesser€offense€based€upon€less€than€legally€sufficientÐ ° Ðevidence€would€be€faced€with€the€absurd€necessity,€predicated€upon€its€own€invited€error,€of€entering€a€judgment€ofÐ tÄ Ðacquittal€following€the€jury's€guilty€verdict€on€the€lesser€offense.€€Moreover,€to€employ€a€lesser€standard€in€determiningÐ 8ˆ Ðwhether€the€lesser€offense€should€be€instructed€invites€the€jury€to€return€a€compromise€or€otherwise€unwarranted€verdict.€Ð üL ÐòòState€v.€Elderóó,€982€S.W.2d€871,€878€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998)òòóó.Ð À ÐÌà  àDuring€deliberations,€the€jury€returned€with€a€question€indicating€that€the€verdict€in€ths€case€was€a€compromiseÐ H ˜ Ðverdict.€€The€question€reads:€ð ðAs€a€jury,€11€to€1,€we€feel€the€defendant€is€guilty€of€possession€with€intent€to€deliver.€€SinceÐ  \ Ðwe€cannot€at€least€yet€agree,€is€it€our€legal€obligation€to€go€to€the€lesser„included€charge€of€facilitation?€€The€one€differentÐ Ð  Ðvote€does€agree€with€facilitation.ðð€€(|G2[ $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€)Œ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôŽ$ò»»Ô d(|3Çi$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€)Œ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Çi$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€)Œ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€)Œ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼)Œ»»»ÔÑ8€j°XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î()ŒÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼)Œ»îî( #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àMay€7,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡Xj°X»¼)ŒÔÌò òÔ#†¼)Œ»XXj°#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€MAURICE€LASHAUN€NASHòòóóÔ‡Xj°X»¼)ŒÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Tipton€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€3933€€€€€€Joseph€H.€Walker,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„01703„CCA„R3„CD€€„€Filed€August€14,€2002Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ Xj°XXXj°ÔThe€Appellant,€Maurice€Lashaun€Nash,€appeals€his€conviction€by€a€Tipton€County€jury€forÐ xÈ  Ðfacilitation€of€possession€of€marijuana,€a€schedule€VI€controlled€substance,€with€intent€to€deliver,Ð d´ Ða€class€A€misdemeanor.€€€On€appeal,€Nash€raises€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€€(1)€whetherÐ P  Ðthe€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€to€suppress,€and€(2)€whether€the€evidence€in€the€recordÐ <Œ Ðis€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€sustain€his€conviction.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€we€find€plainÐ (x Ðerror€in€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€to€the€jury€charging€the€offense€of€facilitation,€as€this€lesserÐ d Ðoffense€was€not€fairly€raised€by€the€evidence.€€Accordingly,€Nashððs€conviction€is€reversed€andÐ P Ðremanded€for€a€new€trial€upon€the€lesser€offense€of€class€A€simple€possession.€€Ô#†Xj°XX Xj°š#ÔÔ#†¼)Œ»XXj°‹#ÔÔ‡Xj°X»¼)ŒÔÐ ì< ÐÓŽÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Reversed€and€Remanded.ó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼)Œ»àXj°–#ÔÔ‡Xj°X.¼)ŒÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòAlan€E.Ð œì ÐGlenn,€JóóJ.,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌC.€Michael€Robbins,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Maurice€Lashaun€Nash.Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Kim€R.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐHelper,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Elizabeth€T.€Rice,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Ryan€Brown,Ð $"t! ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð #`" ÐÔ#†¼)Œ»XXj°q #ÔÔ‡Xj°X»¼)ŒÔÌÓB ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼)Œ»XXj° #ÔÔ‡Xj°X»¼)ŒÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ ¬'ü"' ÐòòóóÔ#†¼)Œ»XXj°v #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xj°X»¼)ŒÔÌÔ‡ Xj°XXXj°Ôà  àOn€August€19,€1999,€around€11:30€p.m.,€Tipton€County€Reserve€Deputy€Chris€Smith,Ð „)Ô$) Ðstopped€a€white€four„door€LTD€traveling€on€Highway€51€in€Brighton.€€The€vehicle€was€driven€byÐ p*À%* ÐFidel€Jefferson€and€occupied€by€two€passengers,€the€Appellant€and€Lavena€Adams,€who€were€in€theÐ \+¬&+ Ðbackseat.€€Deputy€Smith€stopped€the€vehicle€because€he€ð ðcould€not€read€the€drive„out€tag,€theÐ H,˜', Ðexpiration€on€the€drive„out€tag,ðð€which€was€displayed€in€the€upper„left€corner€of€the€car€window.€Ð 4-„(-ý Їà  àAs€Deputy€Smith€approached€the€rear€of€the€vehicle,€he€was€able€to€read€the€drive„out€tag,Ð ° Ðwhich€was€valid.€€He€also€smelled€ð ða€strong€odor€of€marijuana.ðð€€At€this€time,€the€two€windows€onÐ œì Ðthe€driverððs€side€of€the€vehicle€ð ðwere€up.ðð€€Jefferson€thereafter€lowered€the€window€to€speak€withÐ ˆØ ÐDeputy€Smith.€€Deputy€Smith€took€Jeffersonððs€driver€license€and€returned€to€his€vehicle€ð ðto€checkÐ tÄ Ðthe€license€of€the€driver.ðð€€While€Smith€was€conducting€the€license€check,€Deputy€David€GrahamÐ `° Ðarrived€on€the€scene.€€Deputy€Smith€advised€Deputy€Graham€ð ðthat€[he]€stopped€the€vehicle,€that€twoÐ L œ Ðsubjects€was€in€the€back€seat€that€popped€up€when€[he]€was€approaching€the€vehicle,€told€him€[he]Ð 8 ˆ Ðhad€the€license,€[he]€was€checking€the€license€on€the€subject,€and€that€[he]€had€smelled€the€strongÐ $ t Ðodor€of€marijuana.ðð€€As€Deputy€Graham€approached€the€passenger„side€of€the€vehicle,€he€also€couldÐ  ` Ðð ðsmell€the€smell€of€marijuana.ðð€€After€Deputy€Smith€confirmed€the€status€of€Jeffersonððs€driverÐ ü L  Ðlicense€and€returned€to€the€stopped€vehicle,€he€Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  àasked€[Jefferson]€if€he€would€step€out,€advised€him€why€[he]€had€stopped€him,€[gave]Ð À  Ðhim€a€verbal€warning€to€get€the€drive„out€tag€where€it€would€be€legible,€[gaveÐ ¬ü  ÐJeffersonððs]€license€back€and€asked€him€if€there€was€anything€in€the€vehicle€[they]Ð ˜è  Ðshould€know€about.€€And€[Jefferson]€advised€there€wasnððt,€and€[they]€asked€him€forÐ „Ô  Ðconsent€to€search€the€vehicle.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌJefferson€consented.€€The€Appellant€and€Adams€were€also€removed€from€the€vehicle,€and€the€threeÐ H˜ Ðof€them€were€made€to€ð ðstand€at€the€rear€of€the€vehicle.ðð€€Deputy€Smith€stayed€with€the€Appellant,Ð 4„ ÐJefferson,€and€Adams,€and€Deputy€Graham€searched€the€vehicle.€€Upon€search€of€the€vehicle,€DeputyÐ  p ÐGraham€found€a€brown€paper€bag€containing€443.8€grams€of€dry,€packaged€marijuana€and€drugÐ  \ Ðparaphernalia€€ð ðunderneath€the€passengerððs€side€of€the€front€seat.ðð€Ð øH ÐÌ€à  àAfter€discovery€of€the€marijuana,€Deputy€Graham€asked€the€Appellant,€Jefferson,€and€Adams,Ð Ð  Ðð ðDoes€anybody€know€anything€about€the€brown€paper€bag€in€the€car?ðð€€The€Appellant€responded,Ð ¼  Ðð ðItððs€mine.ðð€€Deputy€Graham€again€inquired,€ð ðItððs€yours?ðð€€The€Appellant€responded€affirmatively.€Ð ¨ø ÐAt€the€time€these€statements€were€made€by€the€Appellant,€he€was€not€under€formal€arrest€and€hadÐ ”ä Ðnot€been€Mirandized.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAccording€to€Adams,€earlier€in€the€evening,€she,€the€Appellant,€and€Jefferson€stopped€at€anÐ X ¨ Ðapartment€complex€in€Memphis.€€The€Appellant€and€Jefferson€went€inside.€€The€Appellant€returnedÐ D!” Ðto€the€vehicle€in€ð ðabout€five€minutes.ðð€€Jefferson€exited€the€apartment€ð ða€minute€or€twoðð€laterÐ 0"€  Ðcarrying€a€brown€paper€bag,€which€he€placed€ð ðunder€the€armrest,€so€it€was€right€in€the€middle€of€theÐ #l! Ðcar.ðð€€Jefferson€then€started€the€vehicle€and€again€began€driving.€€Adams€fell€asleep€until€awoken€byÐ $X" Ðthe€police.€€€€€€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àIn€March€of€2000,€the€Appellant€was€indicted€for€possession€of€marijuana€with€intent€toÐ Ì&"% Ðdeliver.€€The€Appellant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€the€evidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€the€stop,€whichÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âwas€denied€on€January€10,€2001.€€After€a€trial€by€jury,€the€Appellant€was€found€guilty€of€facilitationÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€possession€of€marijuana€with€intent€to€deliver.׃O×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Appellant€received€a€sentence€of€elevenÐ ° Ðâ âmonths€and€twenty„nine€days€to€be€served€in€the€Tipton€County€jail.€€The€Appellantððs€motion€for€newÐ œì Ðtrial€was€denied,€and€this€timely€appeal€followed.€€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌÓ  Óò òANALYSISó óÐ `° ÐÌò òI.€€Motion€to€Suppressó óÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€ð ðthe€trial€court€erred€by€overruling€[his]€motion€to€suppress.ðð€Ð  ` ÐSpecifically,€he€contends€(1)€that€Deputy€Smith€was€not€authorized€to€effect€a€stop€in€order€to€readÐ ü L  Ðthe€drive„out€tag€on€the€car;€(2)€that€the€detection€of€the€odor€of€marijuana€did€not€provide€aÐ è 8  Ðreasonable€ground€to€request€permission€to€search;€and€(3)€Deputy€Graham€should€have€Ô_ÔMirandizedÔ_ÔÐ Ô$  Ðthe€Appellant,€Jefferson,€and€Adams€before€inquiring€about€the€marijuana.€€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àIn€reviewing€a€denial€of€a€motion€to€suppress,€this€court€looks€to€the€facts€adduced€at€theÐ ˜è  Ðsuppression€hearing€which€are€most€favorable€to€the€prevailing€party.€€òòState€v.€Danielóó,€12€S.W.3dÐ „Ô  Ð420,€423€(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996)).€€òòóóIn€considering€theÐ pÀ Ðevidence€presented€at€the€hearing,€this€court€extends€great€deference€to€the€fact-finding€of€theÐ \¬ Ðsuppression€hearing€judge€with€respect€to€weighing€credibility,€determining€facts,€and€resolvingÐ H˜ Ðconflicts€in€the€evidence.€€òòId.;€see€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Waltonóó,€41€S.W.3d€75,€81€(Tenn.€2001).€€Indeed,Ð 4„ Ðthese€findings€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòDaniel,€óó12€S.W.3d€atÐ  p Ð423.€€òòóóIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€denied€the€Appellantððs€motion€to€suppress,€finding€that:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  à.€.€.€the€officersðð€testimony€established€that€they€had€a€lawful€right€to€stop€the€vehicle,Ð ä4 Ðand€after€stopping€the€vehicle€in€a€lawful€manner,€and€right€after,€smelling€the€odorÐ Ð  Ðof€what€they€believed€to€be€marijuana,€that€gave€the€officers€reasonable€grounds€forÐ ¼  Ðsuspicion€that€some€illegal€activity€was€afoot,€requested€permission€of€the€driver€toÐ ¨ø Ðsearch€the€vehicle,€the€driver€gave€permission,€and€therefore€the€motion€to€suppressÐ ”ä Ðon€the€basis€of€an€illegal€stop€should€be€denied.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àFurther,€the€Court€finds€that€the€general€question€asked€of€all€three€occupantsÐ X ¨ Ðwho€were€standing€at€the€rear€of€the€vehicle,€whether€the€bag€belonged€to€any€ofÐ D!” Ðthem,€was€a€type€of€question€that€did€not€require€a€Miranda€warning,€and€that€theÐ 0"€  Ðstatement€that€the€defendant€made,€that€the€bag€was€his€and€that€the€contents€of€theÐ #l! Ðbag€was€his,€should€not€be€suppressed.€Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àNone€of€the€occupants€were€under€a€formal€arrest€or€restraint.€€Mr.€Nash€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðonly€placed€under€formal€arrest€or€restraint,€as€indicated,€after€he€acknowledgedÐ Ì&"% Ðownership€for€the€brown€bag€and€its€contents€of€marijuana.€€The€other€occupants€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€vehicle€were€not€arrested.Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  Їò òA.€€Stopó óÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€State€maintains€that€the€Appellant€does€not€have€standing€to€contest€the€stop€ofÐ ˆØ ÐJeffersonððs€car.€€Standing€is€ultimately€a€question€of€law,€subject€on€appeal€to€òòde€novoóó€review€againstÐ tÄ Ðthe€backdrop€of€a€trial€court's€factual€determinations.€€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€No.€M1998„00035„CCA„R3„Ð `° ÐCD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€May€5,€2000)€(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€Cooperóó,€133€F.3d€1394,Ð L œ Ð1398€(11òòthóó€Cir.€1998);€òòsee€also€United€States€v.€Gama-Bastidasóó,€142€F.3d€1233,€1237€(10òòthóó€Cir.Ð 8 ˆ Ð1998);€òòUnited€States€v.€Ibarraóó,€948€F.2d€903,€905€(5òòthóó€Cir.€1991);€òòUnited€States€v.€Blancoóó,€844€F.2dÐ $ t Ð344,€349€n.4€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1988);€òòUnited€States€v.€Kuespertóó,€773€F.2d€1066,€1067€(9òòthóó€Cir.€1985)òò;€UnitedÐ  ` ÐStates€v.€Smithóó,€621€F.2d€483,€489€n.3€(2òòndóó€Cir.€1980)).€€Upon€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€agree€with€theÐ ü L  ÐState€and€conclude€that€the€Appellant€does€not€have€standing€to€challenge€the€validity€of€the€trafficÐ è 8  Ðstop.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€that€"[t]he€right€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðpeople€to€be€secure€.€.€.€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures,€shall€not€be€violated."€U.S.€Ð ˜è  ÐConst.€amend.€IV.€€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€similarly€provides€"[t]hat€theÐ „Ô  Ðpeople€shall€be€secure€.€.€.€from€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures."€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€7.€€In€theÐ pÀ Ðcontext€of€these€particular€constitutional€provisions,€the€so-called€"standing"€requirement€is€simplyÐ \¬ Ðthe€rigorous€application€of€the€principle€that€the€rights€thereby€secured€are€personal.€€òòRakas€v.Ð H˜ ÐIllinoisóó,€439€U.S.€128,€139,€99€S.€Ct.€421,€428€(1978).€€In€other€words,€in€challenging€the€lawfulnessÐ 4„ Ðof€a€search€or€seizure€under€either€the€United€States€or€Tennessee€Constitution,€a€defendant€mustÐ  p Ðpreliminarily€establish€that€the€disputed€search€or€seizure€intruded€upon€his€own€privacy€or€personalÐ  \ Ðsecurity.€€òòSee€Danielóó,€12€S.W.3d€at€424€(Tenn.€2000).€€Not€all€personal€intercourse€betweenÐ øH Ðpolicemen€and€citizens€involves€"seizures"€of€persons.€€€When€an€officer,€by€means€of€physical€forceÐ ä4 Ðor€show€of€authority,€has€in€some€way€restrained€the€liberty€of€a€citizen€a€ð ðseizureðð€has€occurred.€Ð Ð  ÐòòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€19€n.16,€88€S.€Ct.€1868,€1879€n.16€(1968);€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€776€S.W.2dÐ ¼  Ð933,€937€(Tenn.€1989).€€Police€questioning,€by€itself,€is€unlikely€to€result€in€a€constitutional€violation.€Ð ¨ø ÐòòState€v.€Ashworthóó,€3€S.W.3d€25,€29€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999)€(citation€omitted).€€ð ðUnless€theÐ ”ä Ðcircumstances€of€[an]€encounter€are€so€intimidating€as€to€demonstrate€that€a€reasonable€person€wouldÐ €Ð Ðhave€believed€he€was€not€free€to€leave€if€he€had€not€responded,€one€cannot€say€that€the€questioningÐ l¼ Ðresulted€in€a€detention€under€the€Fourth€Amendment."€€òòId.óó€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€we€concludeÐ X ¨ Ðthat€the€Appellant€was€not€seized€for€constitutional€purposes€when€Deputy€Smith€stopped€the€vehicleÐ D!” Ðin€order€to€determine€the€validity€of€the€drive„out€tag.€€€Therefore,€the€Appellant€does€not€haveÐ 0"€  Ðstanding€to€challenge€the€stop€of€the€vehicle.€€€Ð #l! ÐÌò òB.€€SearchÐ ô$D # ÐÌó óà  àThe€State€also€contends€that€the€Appellant€does€not€have€standing€to€challenge€the€search€ofÐ Ì&"% ÐJeffersonððs€car.€€We€agree.€€One€who€challenges€the€reasonableness€of€a€search€or€seizure€has€theÐ ¸'#& Ðinitial€burden€of€establishing€a€legitimate€expectation€of€privacy€in€the€place€or€thing€to€be€searched.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐòòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€560€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€denied,óó€(Tenn.€1991).€€òòóóOneÐ )à$( Ðwho€does€not€have€such€an€expectation€of€privacy€lacks€"standing"€to€challenge€the€search.€€òòSee€StateÐ |*Ì%) Ðv.€Pattersonóó,€966€S.W.2d€435,€441€n.5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€There€are€seven€factors€to€beÐ h+¸&* Ðconsidered€when€determining€if€a€legitimate€expectation€of€privacy€exists:€(1)€ownership€of€theÐ ° Ðproperty;€(2)€whether€the€defendant€has€a€possessory€interest€in€the€thing€seized;€(3)€whether€theÐ œì Ðdefendant€has€a€possessory€interest€in€the€place€searched;€(4)€whether€the€defendant€has€a€right€toÐ ˆØ Ðexclude€others€from€that€place;€(5)€whether€he€has€exhibited€a€subjective€expectation€that€the€placeÐ tÄ Ðwould€remain€free€from€intrusion€by€the€state;€(6)€whether€the€defendant€took€normal€precautionsÐ `° Ðto€maintain€his€privacy;€and€(7)€whether€he€was€legitimately€on€the€premises.€€òòOodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€atÐ L œ Ð560.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÐ Ѐà  àApplying€these€factors,€we€conclude€that€the€Appellant€does€not€have€a€legitimate€expectationÐ  ` Ðof€privacy€in€Jefferson's€car.€€The€Appellant€was€a€passenger€in€the€vehicle.€€He€did€not€have€anyÐ ü L  Ðpossessory€interest€in€the€car.€There€was€no€evidence€that€the€Appellant€exhibited€a€subjectiveÐ è 8  Ðexpectation€of€privacy€in€the€vehicle.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€Appellant€does€not€haveÐ Ô$  Ðstanding€to€challenge€the€search€of€Jefferson's€vehicle.€€òòóóò òÐ À  ÐÌC.€€Miranda€warnings€ó óÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€contends€that€his€admission€claiming€ownership€of€the€marijuana€should€beÐ pÀ Ðsuppressed€because€he€was€in€custody€at€the€time€his€statement€was€made€and€he€had€not€beenÐ \¬ Ðprovided€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€òòóóThe€Fifth€Amendment€protection€against€self-incrimination€"privilegesÐ H˜ Ð[a€person]€not€to€answer€official€questions€put€to€him€in€any€other€proceeding,€civil€or€criminal,Ð 4„ Ðformal€or€informal,€where€the€answers€might€incriminate€him€in€future€criminal€proceedings."€Ð  p ÐòòMinnesota€v.€Murphyóó,€465€U.S.€420,€426,€104€S.€Ct.€1136,€1141€(1984).€€In€fact,€the€statements€ofÐ  \ Ðan€accused€made€during€the€course€of€custodial€interrogation€are€inadmissible€as€evidence€unless€theÐ øH ÐState€establishes€that€the€accused€was€advised€of€certain€constitutional€rights€and€waived€those€rights.€Ð ä4 ÐòòState€v.€Andersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€851,€853€(Tenn.€1996).€€Although€we€acknowledge€an€individual'sÐ Ð  Ðconstitutional€right€against€self-incrimination€and€right€to€be€forewarned€of€these€rights,€we€likewiseÐ ¼  Ðrecognize€that€voluntary€statements,€even€if€incriminating,€are€not€òòper€seóó€barred€by€the€FifthÐ ¨ø ÐAmendment.€€òòSee€Miranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€444,€86€S.€Ct.€1602,€1612€(1966);€òòsee€alsoÐ ”ä ÐCalifornia€v.€Beheleróó,€463€U.S.€1121,€1123,€103€S.€Ct.€3517,€3519€(1983);€òòOregon€v.€Mathiasonóó,€429Ð €Ð ÐU.S.€492,€494,€97€S.€Ct.€711,€713€(1977);€òòBeckwith€v.€United€Statesóó,€425€U.S.€341,€346„47,€96€S.€Ct.Ð l¼ Ð1612,€1616€(1976).€€It€is€only€when€an€individual€is€taken€into€custody€or€otherwise€deprived€of€hisÐ X ¨ Ðfreedom€by€the€authorities€in€any€significant€way€and€is€subjected€to€questioning€[that]€the€privilegeÐ D!” Ðagainst€self-incrimination€is€jeopardized,€requiring€the€authorities€to€adequately€advise€the€individualÐ 0"€  Ðof€his€constitutional€protections.€€òòMirandaóó,€384€U.S.€at€444,€86€S.€Ct.€at€1612òòóó.€€In€other€words,€beforeÐ #l! ÐòòMirandaóó€warnings€are€required,€the€accused€must€be€the€subject€of€custodial€interrogation.€€òòId.óóÐ $X" ÐÌà  àIn€determining€whether€an€individual€is€"in€custody"€as€contemplated€by€òòMirandaóó,€it€isÐ à%0!$ Ðincumbent€upon€the€reviewing€court€to€decide€whether,€"under€the€totality€of€circumstances,€aÐ Ì&"% Ðreasonable€person€in€the€suspect's€position€would€consider€himself€or€herself€deprived€of€freedomÐ ¸'#& Ðof€movement€to€a€degree€associated€with€formal€arrest."€€òòWaltonóó,€41€S.W.3d€at€82;€òòsee€Andersonóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð937€S.W.2d€at€855.€€Factors€relevant€to€this€determination€include,€but€are€not€limited€to,€theÐ )à$( Ðfollowing:€€(1)€the€time€and€location€of€the€interrogation;€(2)€the€duration€and€character€of€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðquestioning;€(3)€the€officer's€tone€of€voice€and€general€demeanor;€(4)€the€suspect's€method€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðtransportation€to€the€place€of€questioning;€(5)€the€number€of€police€officers€present;€(6)€anyÐ ° Ðlimitation€on€movement€or€other€form€of€restraint€imposed€on€the€suspect€during€the€interrogation;Ð œì Ð(7)€any€interactions€between€the€officer€and€the€suspect;€(8)€the€suspect's€verbal€or€nonverbalÐ ˆØ Ðresponses;€(9)€the€extent€to€which€the€suspect€is€confronted€with€the€law€enforcement€officer'sÐ tÄ Ðsuspicions€or€evidence€of€guilt;€and€(10)€the€extent€to€which€the€suspect€is€made€aware€that€he€or€sheÐ `° Ðis€free€to€refrain€from€answering€questions€or€to€end€the€interview€at€will.€€òòAndersonóó,€937€S.W.2dÐ L œ Ðat€855€(citations€omitted).€The€trial€court€is€provided€a€wide€latitude€of€discretion€in€its€decision,€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€decision€will€not€be€overturned€by€this€court€unless€it€appears€there€has€been€an€abuse€of€the€trialÐ $ t Ðcourt's€discretion€and€a€violation€of€the€defendant's€rights.€€òòSee€State€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€570Ð  ` Ð(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€513€U.S.€960,€115€S.€Ct.€417€(1994).Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€determining€that€the€AppellantÐ Ô$  Ðwas€not€in€custody€during€the€time€he€made€the€incriminating€statements.€€ð ð[T]he€initialÐ À  Ðdetermination€of€custody€depends€on€the€objective€circumstances€of€the€interrogation,€not€on€theÐ ¬ü  Ðsubjective€views€harbored€by€either€the€interrogating€officers€or€the€person€being€questioned."€Ð ˜è  ÐòòStansbury€v.€Californiaóó,€511€U.S.€318,€323,€114€S.€Ct.€1526,€1529€(1994).€€Specifically,€the€inquiryÐ „Ô  Ðis€"how€a€reasonable€man€in€the€suspect's€position€would€have€understood€his€situation,"òò€i.e.óó,€wouldÐ pÀ Ðhe€have€felt€that€he€was€not€free€to€leave€and,€thus,€in€custody.€€òòBerkemer€v.€McCartyóó,€468€U.S.€420,Ð \¬ Ð442,€104€S.€Ct.€3138,€3151€(1984);€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòMichigan€v.€Chesternutóó,€486€U.S.€567,€573,€108€S.€Ct.Ð H˜ Ð1975,€1979€(1988);€òòState€v.€Waltonóó,€41€S.W.3d€at€82;€òòState€v.€Mosieróó,€888€S.W.2d€781,€784€(Tenn.Ð 4„ ÐCrim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Furloughóó,€797€S.W.2d€631,€639€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÐ  p Ðdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1990).€€Considering€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€now€before€us,€in€the€light€mostÐ  \ Ðfavorable€to€the€State,€we€hold€that€the€evidence€supports€a€conclusion€that€the€Appellant€was€notÐ øH Ðin€custody€when€he€made€the€incriminating€statements€in€response€to€Deputy€Grahamððs€questioning.€Ð ä4 ÐThe€Appellant€was€not€under€formal€arrest€until€after€the€statements€were€made.€€At€no€time€was€he€Ð Ð  Ðthreatened€or€coerced€into€providing€a€statement.€€Accordingly,€the€Appellant's€statements€did€notÐ ¼  Ðarise€from€a€custodial€environment€with€the€attendant€entitlement€to€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€This€issueÐ ¨ø Ðis€without€merit.Ð ”ä Ðò òÓ  ÓII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÐ €Ð ÐÌó óÓ]Óà  àThe€Appellant€next€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€ð ðsustain€the€judgment€ofÐ X ¨ Ðconviction€for€facilitation€of€possession€of€marijuana€with€the€intent€to€deliver,ðð€a€class€AÐ D!” Ðmisdemeanor.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€ò òó óð ðthere€is€no€proof€of€any€assistance€being€provided€by€theÐ 0"€  Ð[Appellant]€to€Jefferson;€and€further,€that€there€is€no€proof€of€any€knowledge€by€the€[Appellant]€ofÐ #l! Ðany€of€the€activities€of€Jefferson.ðð€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àAny€sufficiency€analysis€necessarily€includes€review€of€the€elements€of€the€offense€for€whichÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€defendant€is€convicted.€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€elected€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€offense€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðfacilitating€possession€of€marijuana€with€intent€to€deliver.€€No€objection€was€entered€to€the€trialÐ ¸'#& Ðcourt's€instruction€on€this€charge.€€Nonetheless,€a€trial€court€has€the€duty,€in€criminal€cases,€to€fullyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðinstruct€the€jury€on€the€general€principles€of€law€relevant€to€the€issues€raised€by€the€evidence.€€InÐ )à$( Ðother€words,€the€court€must€instruct€the€jury€on€those€principles€closely€and€openly€connected€withÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€facts€before€the€court€and€which€are€necessary€for€the€jury's€understanding€of€the€case.€€ThisÐ h+¸&* Ðobligation€includes€giving€instructions€on€lesser€offenses€included€in€the€indictment,€without€anyÐ ° Ðrequest€on€the€part€of€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-18-110(a)€(1997).€€In€determiningÐ œì Ðwhen€an€instruction€should€be€given,€we€are€mindful€that€the€ultimate€goal€of€criminal€proceedingsÐ ˆØ Ðshould€be€a€solemn€search€for€the€truth,€so€that€one€accused€of€a€crime€will€be€convicted€or€acquittedÐ tÄ Ðdepending€on€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€when€measured€against€the€reasonable€doubt€standardÐ `° Ðof€proof.€€òòSee€Jackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòIn€re€Winshipóó,Ð L œ Ð397€U.S.€358,€364,€90€S.€Ct.€1068,€1073€(1970).€€The€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€FourteenthÐ 8 ˆ ÐAmendment€protects€a€defendant€in€a€criminal€case€against€conviction€"except€upon€proof€beyondÐ $ t Ða€reasonable€doubt€of€every€fact€necessary€to€constitute€the€crime€with€which€he€is€charged."€€òòSee€InÐ  ` Ðre€Winshipóó,€397€U.S.€at€364,€90€S.€Ct.€at€1073;€òòJacksonóó,€443€U.S.€at€316,€99€S.€Ct.€at€2787.€€TheÐ ü L  Ðrelevant€question€upon€review€of€a€criminal€conviction,€be€it€the€trial€court€or€an€appellate€court,€isÐ è 8  Ðwhether,€"after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trierÐ Ô$  Ðof€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJacksonóó,Ð À  Ð443€U.S.€at€317,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€at€2788„89;òòóó€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29(a);òòóóÐ ¬ü  ÐòòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€469€(Tenn.€1999)€(holding€the€trial€court€must€determine€if€theÐ ˜è  Ðevidence€viewed€liberally€in€the€light€most€favorable€€to€the€existence€of€the€lesser€included€offenseÐ „Ô  Ðis€legally€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€the€lesser€included€offense).׃Q×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àRelevant€to€this€case,€an€offense€is€a€lesser€included€offense€if:€Ð H˜ Ðà8  à(a)€all€of€its€statutory€elements€are€included€within€the€statutory€elements€of€theÐ 4„ Ðoffense€charged;€orÐ pÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(b)€it€fails€to€meet€the€definition€in€part€(a)€only€in€the€respect€that€it€contains€aÐ øH Ðstatutory€element€or€elements€establishing:Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(1)€a€different€mental€state€indicating€a€lesser€kind€of€culpability;Ð ¼  Ðand/orШø` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(2)€a€less€serious€harm€or€risk€of€harm€to€the€same€person,€property€orÐ €Ð Ðpublic€interest;€orÐl¼` x` x ÐÌà8  à(c)€it€consists€ofÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÐ 0"€  Ðà  àà8 ` à(1)€facilitation€of€the€offense€charged.€.€.€.€Ð°` x` x ÐÌòòÌBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€466„67.€€€Whether€a€lesser€included€offense€must€be€charged€in€a€jury€instructionÐ tÄ Ðis€a€two-part€inquiry.€€òòId.€óóat€467.€€First,€the€trial€court€must€apply€the€òòBurnsóó€test€to€determine€whetherÐ `° Ða€particular€lesser€offense€is€included€in€the€greater€charged€offense.€€òòId.€€óóIf€a€lesser€offense€is€notÐ L œ Ðincluded€in€the€offense€charged,€then€an€instruction€should€not€be€given,€regardless€of€whetherÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence€supports€it.€€òòId.€€óóIf,€however,€the€trial€court€concludes€that€a€lesser€offense€is€included€inÐ $ t Ðthe€charged€offense,€the€question€remains€whether€the€evidence€justifies€a€jury€instruction€on€suchÐ  ` Ðlesser€offense.òò€€Id.€óóÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àTo€convict€a€defendant€for€facilitation€of€possession€of€marijuana€with€intent€to€deliver,€the€Ð Ô$  ÐState€must€prove:€Ð À  ÐÌà8  à(1)€that€the€defendant€knew€that€another€person€intended€to€commit€the€specificÐ ˜è  Ðfelony€of€possession€of€marijuana€with€intent€to€deliver,€but€did€not€have€the€intentÐ „Ô  Ðto€promote€or€assist€the€commission€of€the€offense€or€to€benefit€in€the€proceeds€orÐ pÀ Ðresults€of€the€offense;€andÐ\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(2)€that€the€defendant€furnished€substantial€assistance€to€that€person€in€theÐ 4„ Ðcommission€of€the€felony;€andÐ pÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(3)€that€the€defendant€furnished€such€assistance€knowingly.€€ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌT.P.I.--Crim.€3.02€(7òòthóó€ed.€2000);€òòsee€also€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-11-403€(1997).€€Facilitation€byÐ Ð  Ðdefinition€requires€criminal€culpability€of€a€person€other€than€that€of€the€facilitator.€€At€trial,€theÐ ¼  Ðconvicting€evidence€implicates€only€the€Appellant.€€As€such,€we€find€no€proof€to€support€the€threeÐ ¨ø Ðelements€of€the€offense.€€€Specifically,€the€record€is€devoid€of€any€proof€that€the€Appellant€knowinglyÐ ”ä Ðprovided€substantially€assistance€to€Jefferson€in€the€commission€of€the€offense€or€that€the€AppellantÐ €Ð Ðknew€that€Jefferson€intended€to€commit€possession€of€marijuana€with€intent€to€deliver.€€In€this€case,Ð l¼ Ðthe€Appellant€was€the€sole€person€indicted€for€the€offense.€€€The€proof€adduced€at€trial€showed€thatÐ X ¨ Ðthe€Appellant€went€inside€an€apartment€complex€with€Jefferson.€€The€Appellant€exited€the€buildingÐ D!” Ðseveral€minutes€before€Jefferson,€and€Jefferson€exited€carrying€the€brown€paper€bag€containing€theÐ 0"€  Ðmarijuana.€€There€was€no€evidence€that€the€Appellant€knew€Jefferson€intended€to€get€marijuana€fromÐ #l! Ðinside€the€residence€or€that€the€Appellant€knew€the€substance€inside€the€bag€was€marijuana.€€TheÐ $X" ÐAppellantððs€mere€presence€in€the€car€and€the€apartment€complex€is€not€enough€to€constituteÐ ô$D # Ðsubstantial€assistance€in€the€commission€of€the€felony.€€Furthermore,€the€statements€made€by€theÐ à%0!$ ÐAppellant€claiming€sole€ownership€of€the€marijuana€are€in€contradiction€to€a€charge€of€facilitation.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àFinding€the€proof€at€trial€insufficient€to€support€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfacilitation€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€we€find,€in€accord€with€òòJackson€v.€Virginia,óó€that€theÐ )à$( ÐAppellantððs€due€process€rights€were€violated.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€As€a€general€rule,Ð |*Ì%) Ðappellate€review€is€limited€to€issues€that€are€properly€presented€for€review€before€this€court.€Ð h+¸&* ÐNotwithstanding,€the€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€and€the€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€recognizeÐ ° Ðthat€an€appellate€court€may€consider€issues€not€presented€for€review€if€they€rise€to€the€level€of€ð ðplainÐ œì Ðerror.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).€€These€matters€lie€within€the€soundÐ ˆØ Ðdiscretion€of€the€appellate€court€and€may€be€addressed€to€prevent€needless€litigation,€prevent€injuryÐ tÄ Ðto€the€interests€of€the€public,€prevent€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process,€prevent€manifest€injustice,€orÐ `° Ðto€do€substantial€justice.€€òòState€v.€Adkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626,€638„39€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€AsÐ L œ Ðsuch,€we€are€constrained€to€note€ð ðplain€errorðð€by€the€trial€court€in€submitting€to€the€jury€the€offenseÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€facilitating€the€possession€of€marijuana.€€Accordingly,€the€Appellantððs€conviction€is€reversed€andÐ $ t Ðremanded€for€a€new€trial€upon€the€lesser€offense€of€simple€possession.€€Ð  ` ÐÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONó óÐ è 8  ÐÌÓR‚Óà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€the€Appellant€does€not€have€standing€toÐ À  Ðchallenge€the€traffic€stop€and€subsequent€search€of€the€vehicle.€€However,€because€the€evidence€isÐ ¬ü  Ðinsufficient€to€support€an€instruction€to€the€jury€of€the€lesser€included€offense€of€facilitation€ofÐ ˜è  Ðpossession€of€marijuana€with€intent€to€deliver,€the€Appellantððs€conviction€is€reversed€and€remandedÐ „Ô  Ðfor€a€new€trial€upon€the€lesser€offense€of€class€A€simple€possession€of€marijuana.€€€Ô#†Xj°XX Xj°- #ÔÐ pÀ ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  \ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE