ÿWPC¤ Œqp1š‘¦D0QuH¯ý,ŠŒ†”'ò¦FXèÚU¤!X·|5o’A~¼¡oĬÆ!Á¸U» /¼à@ÃOèyV tÐãΠ™³*Öƒþ粑›g2P]Š`AÈwÛè²€jŸÉ‚ʶ(uÕ——å®{v9ðzhÛÜÝVrƒÄŸ¬¿Jpu¥â>]n‰öäK£Û†a<4ÿJZëleý€” m¹€¦ŸìçiW2ïs¢êöós˜xuâFgNfHpbÁÄIc4ÜÂɈ» CVÝb!õYGxL¥U´¿{nbgeR,¥²‚5êÄLnr³ÒZ]VDÝZMç°#(%r9£åID‘Q⎉ÀtöI¬æ|Ø¥ß6í®kx#ÿô9«#B¹ll¸˜å ànÿlÇ©ÇTY1¬w_Z‡Vêp¿6J\0EÌJ.fŸvVPÍùE$ÐQ³)i~ÚLV²±Å£¶ýh§¿½ª4€$ÏLļeöeëÏ4Ú^lû­C!tÀîoÎÉÃ&RODY‹ Û‘Iòq7ÌÝ£….TƲ ŒxŠÒë>T$hžMâ/î×$QŒˆáwóшîë·WdavPK÷ÀÐO¨û6ì½ÄqÖHHìø‘,…# F U>Q % 0í• UB‚ 4Ä Ø n­ç U:” fÎ 4 "< w@^ U:ž äØ U:¼¼¼ 01ö 0D'''''''''''''' Bkkkkkkkk D3ˆˆˆ 0D»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» AOÿÆNN 0D D/X B‡˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi³†;$3|x@«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ .D/012{3456E7Ó€,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ÚÔ€XœÂXXXÔÔ€¨XXœÂÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XœÂX¨ÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€9,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(á(3 L$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€»àXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó d""""'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€»àXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ݛѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XœÂXXXÔÑ7€ œÂ XXdæXXdÈ7Ññ7ñœßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rß›ñ7ñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@ƒƒ%DàAT€NASHVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€MARCH€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellee,€à h àà À à)à  àNo.€01C01„9704„CR„00118Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àœDavidson›€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,€Judge€€€€€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€€ÌMELVIN€LEWIS€PEACOCK,à À à)à  à(Possession€of€three€hundred€grams€orÐ h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€œ€ñ6ññ5ñ€ñ5ññ6ñmore›€of€cocaine€for€resale€and€unlawfulÌà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À à)à  àœ€possession›€of€a€weapon)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð æÞ ÐÌMark€J.€Fishburnà  àà h àà À àà  àJohn€Knox€Walkup€Ð ²ª Ð100€Thompson€Laneà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ˜ ÐNashville,€TN€37211à h àà À àà  àà p àandÐ ~v Ѐ€€€€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àLisa€A.€NaylorÐ d\ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€Ï€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà Ð àà (# àÐ 0 ( Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àKatrin€Novak€MillerÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWashington€SquareÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à222€2nd€Avenue,€NorthÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÐ >:639 Їà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ  ÐÌÌÌÔ‡XœÂXX XœÂÔÓÓà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Melvin€Lewis€Peacock,€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€juryÐ ¦ ž Ðconvictions€in€Davidson€County€for€possession€with€intent€to€sell€three€hundred€gramsÏor€more€of€a€substance€containing€cocaine,€a€Class€A€felony,€and€for€the€unlawfulÏpossession€of€a€weapon,€a€Class€E€felony.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€asÏa€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€twenty€years€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€ofÏCorrection€for€the€cocaine€possession€conviction€and€to€a€concurrent€two„year€sentenceÏin€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction€for€the€weapon€œpossession€conviction.›€ÏThe€trial€court€ordered€the€defendant€to€serve€the€twenty„year€sentence€consecutivelyÏto€an€earlier€sentence.€€The€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(1)€€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€the€defendantððsÏmotion€to€suppress€the€evidence€seized€by€the€policeÏpursuant€to€a€search€warrant€on€the€basis€that€an€exactÏcopy€of€the€warrant€was€not€left€with€the€defendant;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(2)€€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€defendantððsÏmotion€in€limine€to€preclude€the€state€from€introducingÏinto€evidence€five€car€titles€found€in€a€safe;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(3)€€the€trial€court€erred€in€permitting€the€state€to€recallÏCurtis€Peacock€as€a€witness€during€its€case„in„chief.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌWe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€of€conviction.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌà ¸ àThis€case€involves€a€search€of€the€defendantððs€apartment€pursuant€to€aÏsearch€warrant€on€December€9,€1994.€€Upon€entering€the€apartment,€Officer€DoneganÏfound€three€people:€(1)€the€defendant,€(2)€Curtis€Peacock,€the€defendantððs€cousin€andÏroommate,€and€(3)€George€Logan,€œthe›€œdefendantððs€friend›€and€a€recent€resident€of€theÏapartment.€€During€the€search,€officers€discovered€about€seven€hundred€grams€ofÏcocaine€located€in€a€safe.€€The€officers€also€found€a€weapon€and€undisclosed€amountsÏof€marijuana.€€Later,€on€January€25,€1996,€five€car€œtitles€in€the€defendantððs€name€were›Ïâ âdiscovered€in€the€safe€while€Officer€Donegan€was€gathering€information€regarding€theÐ Æ5¾.4 Ðsafeððs€manufacturer€and€serial€numbers€pursuant€to€a€request€by€the€defendantððsÏattorney.€€Ìâ âÌà@__$Dàò òI.€€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESSó óˆÐ l d Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€suppressÏthe€evidence€seized€from€his€apartment.€€The€defendant€submits€that€the€failure€of€theÏpolice€to€leave€a€copy€of€the€search€warrant€with€him€makes€the€search€illegal€and€theÏevidence€inadmissible€under€Rule€œ41(c),›€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€€The€state€counters€that€theÏofficer€did€in€fact€give€to€the€defendant€a€copy€of€the€warrant€as€required€by€Rule€41(c).€ÏWe€agree.ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€the€defendant€testified€that€neither€he€norÏanyone€else€living€at€the€defendantððs€residence€was€given€a€copy€of€the€search€warrantÏexecuted€by€Officer€Donegan.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€see€a€copy€of€the€search€warrantÏor€the€inventory€list€until€copies€were€forwarded€to€him€by€his€attorney.€€The€defendantÏstated€that€he€requested€a€copy€from€Officer€Donegan€and€that€the€officer€replied€thatÏhe€would€get€him€one.€€He€said€that€at€no€point€did€Officer€Donegan€read€the€searchÏwarrant€to€him,€show€it€to€him,€or€tell€him€that€a€copy€would€be€left€at€the€residence.€ÏThe€defendant€testified€that€he€had€been€incarcerated€since€his€arrest.ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€John€Donegan€testified€that€he€obtained€a€search€warrant€toÏsearch€the€defendantððs€residence.€€He€said€that€upon€entering€the€residence,€he€foundÏthe€œdefendant,›€Curtis€Peacock,€and€George€Logan.€€Officer€Donegan€said€that€once€theÏapartment€was€secured,€the€three€suspects€were€gathered€together€and€read€theirÏrights.€€He€said€that€the€search€of€the€defendantððs€premises€revealed€about€sevenÏhundred€grams€of€cocaine,€unspecified€quantities€of€marijuana,€and€a€weapon.Ìâ âÐ Ì5Ä.4 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ñà ¸ àOfficer€Donegan€testified€that€he€obtained€two€copies€of€the€searchÏâ âwarrant€and€that€he€gave€the€defendant€one€of€the€copies€to€read€as€the€search€wasÏbeing€executed.€€Officer€Donegan€stated€that€he€also€compiled€an€inventory€list€of€theÏitems€seized€during€the€search.€€He€said€that€after€the€search€he€left€an€inventory€listÏwith€the€defendantððs€copy€of€the€search€warrant€on€the€kitchen€table€at€the€residence.€€ÏOfficer€Donegan€testified€that€he€told€the€defendant€that€a€list€of€the€items€seized€wouldÏbe€left€with€the€defendantððs€copy€of€the€search€warrant€at€the€residence€for€safekeepingÏpurposes.€€He€said€that€he€left€the€copies€at€the€residence€because€he€knew€that€theÏdefendant€was€going€to€jail€and€would€have€œdifficulty›€keeping€up€with€the€inventory€list.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.€€It€found€thatÏOfficer€Donegan€properly€provided€a€copy€of€the€warrant€to€the€defendant€and€that€heÏleft€a€copy€of€the€warrant€and€inventory€list€on€the€table€at€the€residence.ÌÌà ¸ àA€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€on€a€motion€to€suppress€are€conclusive€onÏappeal€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€them.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,Ð ü!ô Ð928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts€as€determinedÏby€the€trial€court€is€a€question€of€law€œthat›€is€reviewed€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.Ð ”%Œ" ÐÔ_ÔYearganÔ_Ôóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð `'X $ ÐÌà ¸ àRule€41(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€inÏpertinent€œpart€as€follows:›€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àThe€magistrate€shall€prepare€an€original€and€two€exactÏcopies€of€the€search€œwarrant,›€.€.€.€one€of€which€shall€beÏleft€with€person€or€persons€on€whom€the€search€warrantÏis€œservedñ0ñ€ñ0ñ.›€.€œ.ñ/ñ€.ñ/ññ2ññ/ñ€ñ/ññ2ññ/ñ€ñ/ññ1ñ[ñ1ññ3ñT]heñ3ñ›€failure€of€the€serving€officer€whereÏpossible€to€leave€a€copy€with€the€person€or€persons€onÏwhom€the€search€warrant€is€being€served,€shall€makeÏany€search€conducted€under€said€search€warrant€anÏillegal€search€and€any€seizure€thereunder€an€illegalÏseizure.€€Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðâ âÐ ¦6ž/5 ÐÓÓÓ  ÓThe€intent€of€Rule€41(c)€is€to€ð ðsecure€the€citizen€against€carelessness€and€abuse€in€theÏâ âissuance€and€execution€of€search€warrants.ðð€€òòState€v.€Steeleóó,€894€S.W.2d€318,€319Ð ÔÌ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Rule€41(d)€states€that€the€œð ðofficer›€taking€property€under€theÏwarrant€œshall›€give€to€the€person€from€whom€or€from€whose€premises€the€property€wasÏtaken€a€copy€of€the€warrant€and€a€receipt€for€the€property€taken€or€shall€leave€the€copyÏand€receipt€at€a€place€from€which€the€property€was€taken.ðð€€€The€provisions€of€Rule€41Ïare€mandatory.€€òòSteeleóó,€894€S.W.2d€at€319.€Ð ÐÈ  ÐÌà ¸ à€The€suppression€issue€turns€on€whether€Officer€Donegan€did€in€fact€leaveÏa€copy€of€the€search€warrant€with€the€defendant€in€accordance€with€41(c)€and€(d).€€UponÏreview,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€courtððs€findingÏthat€Officer€Donegan€gave€the€defendant€a€copy€of€the€warrant.€€Therefore,€we€hold€thatÏthe€trial€court€properly€denied€the€motion€to€suppress.ÌÌà@99%Dàò òII.€€MOTION€IN€LIMINEó óˆÐ 0 ( Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€theÏdefendantððs€œmotion›€to€prohibit€the€state€from€introducing€into€evidence€at€trial€five€carÏtitles€that€were€discovered€on€January€25,€1996,€in€a€safe€seized€from€the€defendantððsÏapartment€during€the€search€on€December€9,€1994.€€The€defendant€argues€that€aÏprerequisite€to€introducing€tangible€evidence€is€that€the€ð ðwitness€must€be€able€to€identifyÏthe€evidence€or€establish€an€unbroken€chain€of€custody.ðð€€òòState€v.€Goodmanóó,€643Ð +ü#( ÐS.W.2d€375,€381€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€Although€the€defendant€admits€that€Ïidentifying€the€titles€as€belonging€to€him€is€self„evident,€he€insists€that€the€state€failed€toÏestablish€the€requisite€chain€of€custody.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€contends€that€theÏstate€failed€to€demonstrate€that€there€had€not€been€any€tampering,€substitution,€orÏmistake€during€that€period€of€time€which€elapsed€between€the€initial€search€and€theÏdiscovery€of€the€titles€at€issue.€€In€addition,€the€defendant€submits€that€this€evidenceÏshould€have€been€excluded€under€Rules€403€and€602€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ ˜706 ÐEvidence.€€He€argues€that€under€Rule€403€the€probative€value€is€outweighed€by€theÏdanger€that€the€evidence€will€mislead€the€jury€and€that€under€Rule€602€the€officer€hadÏno€personal€knowledge€of€how€the€titles€arrived€in€the€safe.€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€state€œresponds›€that€the€safe,€and€the€car€titles€which€it€contained,Ïwere€secured€in€police€custody€after€the€search€and€that€they€were€not€tampered€with€inÏany€way.€€The€state€argues€that€the€titles€are€highly€relevant€to€the€instant€case€and€thatÏOfficer€Donegan€had€sufficient€personal€knowledge€to€testify€regarding€the€contents€ofÏthe€safe,€in€accordance€with€Rule€602.€€The€state€maintains€that€the€trial€court€did€notÏerr€in€denying€the€defendantððs€œmotion›€in€limine€to€prohibit€the€state€from€introducing€theÏcar€titles€into€evidence.€€We€agree.Ìà ¸ àÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€filed€a€motion€in€limine€to€exclude€the€car€titles€found€in€theÏsafe€on€the€ground€that€the€state€could€not€satisfactorily€establish€the€chain€of€custodyÏof€the€titles€or€their€location€at€the€time€of€seizure.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion,Ïstating€that€the€evidence€was€admissible€and€that€the€circumstances€in€which€theÏevidence€was€found€went€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence€rather€than€its€admissibility.€ÏAlthough€the€circumstances€in€the€instant€case€were€unusual€in€that€evidence€is€usuallyÏdiscovered€before€it€is€seized€and€not€the€reverse,€the€officerððs€explanation€for€the€delayÏin€discovering€the€titles€was€found€œto€be€reasonable›€by€the€trial€court.Ìà ¸ àÌà ¸ àOfficer€Donegan€stated€that€during€the€search€of€the€defendantððsÏresidence€in€December€1994,€the€officers€found€a€safe,€approximately€eighteen€inchesÏsquare€and€weighing€thirty€to€forty€pounds,€located€under€the€kitchen€sink.€€OfficerÏDonegan€testified€that€to€open€the€safe,€it€was€necessary€for€him€to€hit€the€safe€once€orÏtwice€with€a€sledge€hammer.€€He€said€that€the€front€door€popped€open,€and€he€foundÏabout€seven€hundred€grams€of€cocaine€in€plastic€bags€inside€the€safe.€€He€said€that€heÏexamined€the€inside€of€the€safe€and€did€not€notice€anything€else€at€that€time.€€He€saidÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ñthat€the€blow€from€the€sledgehammer€pushed€a€shelf€inside€the€safe€against€the€roof€ofÏthe€interior.€€Officer€Donegan€testified€that€the€safe€remained€locked€at€the€warehouseÏuntil€January€œ2ñ4ñ5ñ4ññ4ñ9ñ4ñ,›€1996,€when€Officer€Donegan€gathered€information€regarding€theÏsafeððs€serial€number€and€manufacturer€for€the€defendantððs€attorney.€€He€stated€that€asÏhe€lowered€the€safe€to€the€ground,€he€dropped€the€safe€on€a€chair.€€He€stated€that€heÏimmediately€noticed€a€strong€odor€of€cocaine.€€Officer€Donegan€said€that€he€opened€theÏdoor€of€the€safe€and€a€large€plastic€baggie€containing€cocaine€and€loose€cocaine€fellÏout.€€The€car€titles,€listing€the€defendant€and€Curtis€Peacock€as€owners,€were€amongÏthe€cocaine.€€Ô#† XŒíXXXŒí¨#ÔÔ‡XŒíXX XŒíÔHe€said€that€it€appeared€œthat€the›€cocaine€and€œthe€titles›€had€been€lodgedÐ h` Ðup€against€the€roof€of€the€safe€and€were€knocked€loose€after€he€dropped€the€safe€ontoÏthe€chair.€€Officer€Donegan€demonstrated€for€the€court€how€the€safe€was€opened€andÏthe€location€of€the€shelf,€drugs€and€car€titles.€€At€trial,€the€titles€were€admitted€intoÏevidence€for€the€purpose€of€establishing€the€defendantððs€ownership€of€the€safe.€€TheÏstate€did€not€introduce€the€additional€cocaine€into€evidence.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€determining€the€admissibility€of€tangible€evidence,€it€is€sufficient€if€theÏÔ_Ôevidence€establishes€a€reasonable€assurance€of€the€identity€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.Ð È#À  ÐWoodsóó,€806€S.W.2d€205,€212€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Absent€a€clear€mistake€orÐ ”%Œ" Ðabuse€of€discretion,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€concerning€the€sufficiency€of€evidenceÏas€to€the€chain€of€custody€will€not€be€disturbed.€€òòWade€v.€Stateóó,€529€S.W.2d€739,€742Ð ,)$"& Ð(Tenn€Crim.€App.€1975);€òòState€v.€Goodmanóó,€643€S.W.2d€375,€381€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ø*ð#( Ð1982).ÌÌà ¸ àIn€our€view,€the€trial€court€properly€determined€that€the€state€established€aÏchain€of€custody€for€the€car€titles.€€Officer€Donegan€testified€that€after€he€seized€theÏsafe€on€December€9,€1994,€he€properly€tagged€it€before€sending€it€to€the€ViceÏWarehouse€for€storage.€€He€stated€that€the€safe€remained€locked€up€at€the€warehouseÏuntil€he€retrieved€it€on€January€25,€1996.€€The€trial€court€heard€Officer€DoneganððsÐ Œ7„06 Ðtestimony€and€thoroughly€investigated€the€unusual€circumstances€surrounding€theÏdiscovery€of€the€car€titles.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€courtððs€hearing,€the€court€wasÏsatisfied€that€the€officerððs€explanation€was€credible€and€that€the€discovery€of€the€titlesÏwas€reasonable€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€We€hold€that€the€evidenceÏsupports€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€police€did€not€tamper€with,€substitute,€orÏmake€a€mistake€with€the€evidence€while€it€was€in€police€custody.ÌÌà ¸ àAs€for€the€defendantððs€contentions€with€respect€to€Rules€403€and€602,ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.,€we€note€that€the€defendant€asserted€in€his€motion€in€limine€that€the€titlesÏwere€excludable€under€these€rules.€€However,€at€the€hearing,€the€defendant€did€notÏargue€that€the€evidence€should€be€excluded€on€the€basis€of€Rules€403€and€602.€€NorÏdid€the€trial€court€make€a€ruling€regarding€the€admissibility€of€the€evidence€under€theseÏrules.€€As€stated€by€this€court€in€òòState€v.€Kinneróó,€701€S.W.2d€224,€227€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ÌÄ ÐApp.€1985),€ð ð[t]he€filing€of€a€motion€with€the€clerk€without€presenting€it€to€the€trial€courtÏfor€determination€is€of€no€effect.ðð€€Moreover,€ð ð[a]€trial€judge€will€not€be€placed€in€error€forÏfailing€to€consider€something€which€was€never€presented€to€him.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Ð 0 ( ÐÌà ¸ àIn€any€event,€we€believe€that€Officer€Doneganððs€testimony€demonstratedÏsufficient€knowledge€of€the€matters€regarding€the€initial€search€and€seizure,€as€well€asÏthe€facts€surrounding€the€subsequent€discovery€of€the€hidden€car€titles,€to€comply€withÏthe€ð ðpersonal€knowledgeðð€requirement€in€Rule€602.€€Furthermore,€Rule€403€was€notÏviolated.€€The€probative€value€of€the€titles€on€the€issue€of€ownership€of€the€cocaine€isÏnot€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€that€the€jury€would€have€been€œunfairlyÏmisled.›€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€admitting€the€evidence.ÌÌà@99#Dàò òIII.€RECALL€OF€A€WITNESSó óˆÐ (2 +0 Ðà ¸ àFinally,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€permitting€theÏstate€to€recall€Curtis€Peacock€as€a€witness€during€its€case„in„chief.€€He€submits€thatÏœPeacockððs›€testimony€was€so€inconsistent€and€contradictory€that€it€should€have€beenÐ ˜706 Ðexcluded€in€its€entirety.€€Relying€on€òòTaylor€v.€Nashville€Banner€Publishing€Companyóó,Ð  Ð573€S.W.2d€476,€œ482„83›€(Tenn.€App.€1978),€the€defendant€argues€that€it€is€the€rule€ofÏlaw€in€this€state€that€contradictory€statements€of€a€witness€relating€to€the€same€factÏhave€the€effect€of€ð ðcanceling€each€other€out.ðð€€The€state€responds€that€this€rule€onlyÏapplies€when€the€inconsistent€testimony€is€unexplained€and€when€neither€version€of€theÏwitnessðð€testimony€is€corroborated€by€other€evidence.€€òòIdóó.€at€483.€€The€state€agrees€thatÐ ü  Ðthe€testimony€of€Curtis€Peacock€was€inconsistent,€and€the€state€admits€that€it€was€notÏcorroborated€by€other€testimony€or€facts.€€However,€the€state€maintains€that€PeacockÏexplained€the€inconsistent€testimony€by€testifying€that€he€was€nervous€and€had€difficultyÏhearing€the€questions,€and€thus,€the€rule€from€òòTayloróó€is€inapplicable€here.€€We€agree.Ð 4, ÐÌà ¸ àCurtis€Peacockððs€testimony€was€inconsistent€the€first€time€he€testified.€ÏInitially,€Peacock€testified€during€direct€examination€by€the€state€that€he€saw€the€safeÏpossibly€a€week€or€two€before€the€search.€€œThen›€the€witness€stated€that€he€first€noticedÏthe€safe€four€to€five€days€before€the€search€and€that€he€was€not€sure€œwhether›€the€safeÏwas€there€before€the€arrival€of€œLogan.›€€œHe€said€that€Logan›€began€to€live€with€theÏdefendant€two€to€three€weeks€before€the€search.€€Under€cross„examination,€the€witnessÏstated€that€he€guessed€that€he€did€not€see€the€safe€until€after€Logan€arrived.€€UponÏredirect€examination,€Peacock€testified€that€he€saw€the€safe€before€Logan€arrived.€€HeÏthen€œstated›€that€he€was€not€œsure€when€he€first€noticed€the€safe.›€€Peacock€changed€hisÏtestimony€two€more€times.€€On€œredirect€examination,›€he€said€he€remembered€telling€theÏstateððs€attorney€that€he€saw€the€safe€before€Logan€arrived€but€that€he€was€no€longerÏsure€and€was€confused.€€On€œrecross€examination,›€he€testified€that€Logan€was€thereÏbefore€he€saw€the€safe,€and€on€the€subsequent€œredirect€examination,›€he€again€said€thatÏhe€saw€the€safe€before€Logan€œarrived.ÌÌà ¸ àPeacock›€was€recalled€by€the€state€the€next€day€to€clarify€his€testimony.€ÏHe€testified€that€he€saw€the€safe€before€Logan€arrived€and€œsaid€that›€he€contradicted€hisÐ Œ7„06 Ðown€testimony€because€he€was€nervous€and€confused€the€day€before.€€He€did€notÏchange€his€testimony€during€the€remainder€of€the€examination.€œ›€On€cross„examination,Ïhe€œstated›€that€he€saw€the€safe€before€Logan€arrived€and€that€he€was€telling€the€truth.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€decision€to€recall€an€excused€witness€is€vested€within€the€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€McAlisteróó,€751€S.W.2d€436,€438€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€TheÐ ü  Ðtrial€courtððs€decision€to€allow€a€party€to€recall€a€witness€will€only€be€disturbed€upon€aÏshowing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€œñ%ñCaughroñ%ññ&ñnñ&ññ%ñ›Hartmanñ%ñóó,›€œñ'ñ855ñ'ññ'ñ›703ñ'ñ›€S.W.2d€œñ(ñ526ñ(ññ(ñ›106ñ(ñ,›€œñ)ñ539ñ)ññ)ñ›116ñ)ñ›€(Tenn.€œ19ñ*ñ93ñ*ññ*ñ85ñ*ñ).›€Ð œ”  ÐÌ€à ¸ àWe€agree€that€the€testimony€first€given€by€Curtis€Peacock€was€confusingÐ 4, Ðand€inconsistent.€€However,€the€defendantððs€claim€that€Curtis€Peacockððs€œñ+ñcontradictoryÏtestimony€was€not€explained€on€ñ+ññ,ñrecall€ñ,ññ+ñ›explanation›Ïwhen›Ïhe›€was›€recalled›€as›€a›€witnessñ+ññ-ñ›€ñ-ñdoes›€not€negate€the€fact€that€the€trial€court€hadÏthe€discretion€to€allow€the€testimony.€€We€see€no€abuse€of€discretion€upon€the€recordÏbefore€us.€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€œforegoingñ.ñ,ñ.ñ›€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€theÏjudgments€of€conviction€are€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àà (# à¼à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à_______________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÔ#† XŒ…XXXŒ…€C#ÔCONCUR:Ð ª-¢&+ ÐÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ B1:*/ ÐDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð À5¸.4 ÐóóJoe€G.€Riley,€Judge€