ÿWPCH ´±Īí(á àS[÷Zä7  ú÷±˜„Ž!Qn@p8†<έLMGºÅ´ßcšÝDäÞ(£.× µÆÅA3c•W$ðáÛº¡bÎz7Nêð8gm¢,¯!}•Š_º®¼q„x¨7¾4Ù©±YõZ×-u]¤>ºm5ѱ6ùgm¸»§%šò‘wðy³¢VǨ½ëÄ›ørx1)DùÝÛ0ß4X:e4æêRßëãfý®A@te¸²œêí^R}ïT*Æ|ù?€Lqºã¹$f+RÎ×¹&V®ëBŽq£™½¸|JÐ`™¿ óÓ*k…u l]ñ$'ÎÅ 2Rk> ìàTESTIMONY€THAT€VICTIM€HAD€PREVIOUSLY€CUT€OR€STABBED€SOMEONEˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€excluding€the€proposed€testimonyÐ ¼  Ðof€the€Defendant€that€Ms.€Hardin€had€told€him€that€she€had€"cut"€or€"stabbed"€a€"girl."€€TheÐ ¨ø ÐDefendant€did€not€know€any€details€of€the€incident.€€At€trial,€the€defense€argued€that€this€testimonyÐ ”ä Ðwas€relevant€to€the€Defendant's€mental€state€because€it€was€additional€evidence€that€the€DefendantÐ €Ð Ðknew€of€the€victim's€violent€propensities.€€The€trial€judge€originally€commented€that€the€testimonyÐ l¼ Ðwas€admissible,€but€then€changed€his€mind€and€excluded€the€proposed€testimony.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€did€not,€however,€raise€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Therefore,€thisÐ 0"€  Ðissue€has€been€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Clintonóó,€754€S.W.2d€100,€103€(Tenn.Ð #l! ÐCrim.€App.€1988)òòóó.€€Nevertheless,€the€Defendant€urges€us€to€consider€the€issue€as€plain€error.€Ð $X" ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€52(b)€provides€that€"[a]n€error€which€has€affected€theÐ ô$D # Ðsubstantial€rights€of€an€accused€may€be€noticed€at€any€time,€even€though€not€raised€in€the€motion€forÐ à%0!$ Ða€new€trial€or€assigned€as€error€on€appeal,€in€the€discretion€of€the€appellate€court€where€necessary€toÐ Ì&"% Ðdo€substantial€justice."€€We€do€not€believe€that€the€exclusion€of€the€Defendant's€testimony€that€theÐ ¸'#& Ðvictim€had€previously€cut€someone,€if€error€at€all,€affected€the€Defendant's€substantial€rights.€€AsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpreviously€noted,€the€Defendant€offered€an€abundance€of€proof€establishing€that€the€victim€was€theÐ )à$( Ðfirst€aggressor.€€The€jury€rejected€that€theory,€and€more€evidence€on€the€issue€would€have€beenÐ |*Ì%) Ðunlikely€to€affect€the€result.Ð h+¸&* Їà@ll%ìàCONCLUSIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€Defendant's€conviction,€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðtrial€court€erred€in€excluding€the€proposed€testimony€of€Maydel€Woods€regarding€threats€made€byÐ tÄ Ðthe€victim€but€that€such€error€was€harmless,€and€that€the€Defendant€waived€consideration€of€whetherÐ `° Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€the€proposed€testimony€of€the€Defendant€that€the€victim€hadÐ L œ Ðpreviously€cut€or€stabbed€a€person.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð è 8  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE