WPC; Q #X] X% $8 $   #%XX] i #X] X%X] XXX]   IntheearlymorningofMay17,1998,twouniformedpoliceofficers,concealedinbushes, '"' observedtheDefendantpacingattheintersectionofDouglasandStainbackstreetsinNashville. (#( Approximatelythirtyminuteslater,theofficerswitnessedanexchangebetweentheDefendantand )$) Mr.CharlesClark.Theofficersmaintainedvisualcontactwithbothsuspectsandrequestedthat p*%* otherofficersintheareaquestionMr.ClarkwhiletheyquestionedtheDefendant.Atleastone \+&+ officerwasinvisualcontactwitheachsuspectatalltimes.PoliceapproachedMr.Clarkand  informedhimthathewasseenpurchasingdrugs.Mr.Clarkconfessedimmediately,andreturned  totheintersectionofDouglasandStainbackwhereheidentifiedtheDefendantasthepersonwho  soldhimthecocaine. t   TheDefendanttestifiedattrialthathewaswaitingonthecornerofDouglasandStainback L  forhisgirlfriendtopickhimup.Hesaidhehadspenttheeveningathiscousinshouse,whichwas 8  nearby,andwaswaitingoutsidebecausehisgirlfriendwasunsureastothehouseinwhichthe $ t Defendantscousinlived.TheDefendantalsostatedthatMr.Clarkapproachedhimandaskedhim  ` foracigarette,whichtheDefendantprovided.TheDefendantdeniedsellingorusingdrugs,and  L  deniedsellingdrugstoMr.Clark.ApproximatelythreehundreddollarswasfoundontheDefendant,  8  butnodrugs. $    SUFFICIENCYOFTHEEVIDENCE      TheDefendantarguesthattheevidencepresentedattrialwasinsufficienttoestablishguilt   beyondareasonabledoubtbecauseitconsistedofuncorroboratedaccomplicetestimony.The   Defendantthusurgesreversalofhisconviction. p   TennesseeRuleofAppellateProcedure13(e)prescribesthat [f]indingsofguiltincriminal H actionswhetherbythetrialcourtorjuryshallbesetasideiftheevidenceisinsufficienttosupport 4 thefindingsbythetrieroffactofguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt.Evidenceissufficientif,after  p reviewingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,anyrationaltrieroffactcould  \ havefoundtheessentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.SeeJacksonv.Virginia, H 443U.S.307,319(1979);Statev.Smith,24S.W.3d274,278(Tenn.2000).Inaddition,because 4 convictionbyatrieroffactdestroysthepresumptionofinnocenceandimposesapresumptionof   guilt,aconvictedcriminaldefendantbearstheburdenofshowingthattheevidencewasinsufficient.   SeeMcBeev.State,372S.W.2d173,176(Tenn.1963);seealsoStatev.Buggs,995S.W.2d102,  10506(Tenn.1999);Statev.Evans,838S.W.2d185,191(Tenn.1992);Statev.Tuggle,639  S.W.2d913,914(Tenn.1982).    Initsreviewoftheevidence,anappellatecourtmustaffordtheState thestrongestlegitimate X  viewoftheevidenceaswellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferencesthatmaybedrawn D! therefrom.Tuggle,639S.W.2dat914;seealsoSmith,24S.W.3dat279.Thecourtmaynot re 0"  weighorreevaluatetheevidenceintherecordbelow.Evans,838S.W.2dat191;seealsoBuggs, #l! 995S.W.2dat105.Likewise,shouldthereviewingcourtfindparticularconflictsinthetrial $X" testimony,thecourtmustresolvetheminfavorofthejuryverdictortrialcourtjudgment.Tuggle, $D # 639S.W.2dat914.Allquestionsinvolvingthecredibilityofwitnesses,theweightandvaluetobe %0!$ giventheevidence,andallfactualissuesareresolvedbythetrieroffact,nottheappellatecourts. &"% SeeStatev.Morris,24S.W.3d788,795(Tenn.2000);Statev.Pappas,754S.W.2d620,623(Tenn. '#& Crim.App.1987). (#' #X] XXX] #X] XXX]       InTennessee,aconvictionmaynotbebasedsolelyupontheuncorroboratedtestimonyofan |*%) accomplice.SeeStatev.Shaw,37S.W.3d900,903(Tenn.2000);Statev.Bigbee,885S.W.2d797, h+&* 803(Tenn.1994);Montsv.State,214Tenn.171,191,379S.W.2d34,43(1964).Oursupreme  courthasdescribedthenatureofthisrequirementasfollows:  8  [T]heremustbesomefacttestifiedto,entirelyindependentoftheaccomplice's  testimony,which,takenbyitself,leadstotheinference,notonlythatacrimehas t beencommitted,butalsothatthedefendantisimplicatedinit;andthisindependent ` corroborativetestimonymustalsoincludesomefactestablishingthedefendant's L  identity.Thiscorroborativeevidencemaybedirectorentirelycircumstantial,and 8  itneednotbeadequate,inandofitself,tosupportaconviction;itissufficientto $ t meettherequirementsoftheruleifitfairlyandlegitimatelytendstoconnectthe  ` defendantwiththecommissionofthecrimecharged.Itisnotnecessarythatthe  L  corroborationextendtoeverypartoftheaccomplice'sevidence... 8    _Bigbee_,885S.W.2dat803(quotingStatev._Gaylor_,862S.W.2d546,552(Tenn.Crim.App.1993)). $  Whethersufficientcorroborationexistsisadeterminationforthejury.SeeShaw,37S.W.3dat903;   _Bigbee_,885S.W.2dat803.     WefindthatarationaljurycouldhavefoundtheDefendantguiltyofthesaleoflessthan.5   gramsofcocainebeyondareasonabledoubt.Mr.Clarktestifiedthatheboughtthecocainefound p inhispossessionfromtheDefendant.WhileMr.Clarkstestimonyalonewouldbeinsufficientto \ supportaverdictduetohisstatusasanaccomplice,thejurywaspresentedwithsufficient H corroboratingevidence.TheDefendantwasobservedbypolicepacinganareaknownfordrug 4 activityintheearlyhoursinthemorning.PolicewitnessedanexchangebetweentheDefendantand  p Mr.Clarkinwhichbothpartiesgaveandreceiveditems.DrugsweresubsequentlyfoundonMr.  \ ClarkandalargeamountofcashwasfoundinthepossessionoftheDefendant. H   ViewedinthelightmostfavorabletotheState,sufficientevidencewaspresentedattrialto   supportthejurysverdictofguilty.Therefore,theDefendantschallengetothesufficiencyofthe   evidencepresentedattrialiswithoutmerit.     `   PRIORCONVICTIONS   ,  TheDefendantalsoallegesthatthetrialcourterredinrulingthathispriorconvictionsfor l aggravatedassaultandfelonyweaponpossessionwereadmissibletoimpeachhiscredibility. X  Subjecttocertainconditionsforadmissibility,TennesseeRuleofEvidence609authorizestheuse D! ofawitnessspriorconvictionsinordertoattackawitnessscredibility.SeeTenn.R._Evid_.609(a). 0"  Thepriorconvictionmustbeforafelonyor,ifnotafelony,acrimeinvolvingdishonestyorfalse #l! statement.SeeTenn.R._Evid_.609(a)(2).However,whenthewitnesstobeimpeachedisthe $X" criminaldefendant,thestatemustgivenoticepriortotrialofitsintenttoutilizetheconvictionfor $D # impeachmentpurposes,and,uponrequest,thecourtmustdeterminetheadmissibilityofaneligible %0!$ convictionbydecidingwhether theconvictionsprobativevalueoncredibilityoutweighsitsunfair &"% prejudicialeffectonthesubstantiveissues.Tenn.R._Evid_.609(a)(3).Inmakingthisdetermination, '#&  twocriteriaareespeciallyrelevant.Statev._Mixon_,983S.W.2d661,674(Tenn.1999).First,the (#' courtmust analyzetherelevancetheimpeachingconvictionhastotheissueofcredibilityand )$(  explain[therelevance]ontherecord,andthen assessthesimilaritybetweenthecrimeontrial |*%) andthecrimeunderlyingtheimpeachingconviction.Id.(quotingNeilP.Cohenetal.,Tennessee h+&* LawofEvidence609.9at376(3ded.1995)).Atrialcourtsrulingontheadmissibilityofprior  convictionstoimpeachadefendantwillnotbeoverturnedunlessthetrialcourthasabusedits  discretion.SeeStatev._Blanton_,926S.W.2d953,960(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).Wefindnoabuse  ofdiscretioninthepresentcase. t   Itisclearfromtherecordthatthetrialcourtproperlyconsideredtheprobativevalueofthe L  Defendantspriorconvictionsinlightofthepossibilityofunfairprejudice.Thetrialcourtreasoned 8  thatthepriorconvictionsforaggravatedassaultandfelonyweaponpossessionwerenotsimilarin $ t naturetothesaleordeliveryoflessthan.5gramsofcocaine.Thetrialcourtfurtherstatedthatthe  ` credibilityoftheDefendantwasespeciallyimportantinthepresentcasebecauseMr.Clarkandthe  L  Defendantweretheonlyindividualscloseenoughtoknowtheintimatedetailsofthetransaction.  8  Baseduponthisfinding,wecannotconcludethatthetrialjudgeabusedherdiscretioninallowing $  theStatetoimpeachtheDefendantwithhispriorconvictions.Therefore,wefindthatthe   Defendantschallengetothetrialcourtsrulingiswithoutmerit.     CONCLUSION    :  Accordingly,afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,weAFFIRMthejudgmentofthetrial p court.#X] XXX] #X] XXX]  \ #X] XXX] l;#   `     h     ___________________________________  p    `     h     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE