WPCF -w975J.X362o<*:PM,.bY-'_8~~/o^FH/T9pja>g'lfzsP6 ǥ*Ei ƞɰ ?9%RCM0a{{i'R.8Б-$iO*JMuEĈ<gA$vBI?ޜk'3jNx"6u^:-q 5bsF'(6[>ݴ JS`r;c +Љ ѿ~# 0$ 0 %b% 0% 0& 0' 0( 0}) 07* 02 + 0;+ 0:7, 0Yq, 0_, 0 )- 03. 0/ B*1 D/1 02 D/4 0I4 065 0M5 0:U6 0^6 0<6 1e)7U67U >7U*8-,8U NY8 0N8819U@: 0D<; 0;Nk< 1um< 72< B=1= 0A D3{B D-B 0KB^ &C AS2CC 0KD 0DD A3EwE4EEF mF\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3,,,,0*5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular*2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p 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*,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  - -(]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKH<6X9`(Courier NewKSI\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KH<6X9`(Courier NewKSI\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KH<6X9`(Courier NewKSI\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7>(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?J%2A`Arial?  SI\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d=)1dxd<:zTop of For7@(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?J%2A`Arial?  SI\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  =)2dxd0KS.SampleKH<6X9`(Courier NewKSI\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKH<6X9`(Courier NewKSI\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial ##Ld#(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(O$ R$      1  u  _ ` Thedefendantsmotherandfatherlivedinseparateresidences. ' R$      2  u  _ ` Atthesuggestionofthetrialcourt,defensecounselsummarizedtheprofferedevidenceratherthan  introducingactualwitnesstestimony.(9 Z(Times New Roman (#$  0  (|G2$ !.8Vdd8         0  u3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ti) d  R$      3  u  _ ` Wehaveconsideredwhetherthevictimsreferencetothestatementmadebythisindividualshe  encounteredinabankparkinglotcouldbeconsideredalegallyeffectiveoffertopurchasethevictimsvehiclefor$5,000 t andthatrepeatingthisstatementondirectexaminationwasintendedtoreflectsuchanofferandnotintendedtoprove 8 thetruthofthematterassertedbythe_declarant_.Wefurtherquestionwhetherusingthisstatementasevidenceofa L bindingofferismaterialwhenthemethodofvaluationforthelossinflictedtothedamagedpropertyistheowners  opinion.However,wehavenotanalyzedthisissueanyfurtherinlightofourfinding,discussedinfra,thatanyerrorin   allowingtheintroductionofthisstatementisharmlessduetoourinferencethatthejurydidnotrelyonthisstatement  whenconvictingthedefendant.(|3G$ !.8Vdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  n2 ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Vdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKKb.fr3|x U !.8Vdd8     _  V8XXdd8  @ttYpVINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#VYp #Ԉ &   August18,2004Session L XXV #VXX#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.NONA_PILGRAM_XXV  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Bledsoe_ԀCounty  J @@No.222003ThomasW.Graham,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200400242CCAR3CDFiledMarch14,2005   AV) ` dE<|` A }     A_Bledsoe_ԀCountygrandjuryindictedthedefendant,Nona_Pilgram_,forassaultandvandalism x  resultingin$1,000to$10,000indamagestothevehicleofthevictim,MollyMyers.Ajury d acquittedthedefendantofassaultbutconvictedherofvandalismresultingin$500to$1,000in P damages.Forthisconviction,thecourtorderedthedefendanttoserveasixyearprobationary < sentence.Thedefendantnowappealsherconvictionandsentence,arguingthatsheisentitledtoa (x newtrialor_resentencing_Ԁonthefollowinggrounds:(1)Thetrialcourterredbyrefusingtoallow d testimonyregardingthevictimsprejudicetowardsthedefendant;(2)thetrialcourterredby P allowinghearsayevidenceregardingthefairmarketvalueofthevictimsvehicle;(3)thetrialcourt < erredbyrefusingtoallowtheintroductionofaninternetbasedestimateofthevictimsvehicle;and ( (4)thetrialcourterredbyfailingtocomplywithTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections4035102  through121whendeterminingwhetherthedefendantwasaviablecandidateforjudicialdiversion.  Afterathoroughreviewoftherecordandapplicablelaw,weaffirmthedefendantsconvictionand  sentence.#VXX#XXV   Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmed.  `   #VX #XX.VJamesCurwoodWitt,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidG.Hayesand 8!  AlanE.Glenn,JJ.,joined. $"t! PhilipA._Condra_,DistrictPublicDefender;andB.JefferyHarmon,AssistantDistrictPublic #L# Defender,fortheAppellant,Nona_Pilgram_. $8 $ PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;RachelE.Willis,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; &"& JamesMichaelTaylor,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andJamesW.Pope,III,AssistantDistrictAttorney '"' General,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. (#(   4-(-  OPINION #VXX #XXV  #VXX#  XXVKV     ` Inthelightmostfavorabletothestate,theevidence,apparentlyaccreditedbythejury,  showedthefollowingfacts.OnDecember23,2002,thedefendant,herhusband,DuanePilgram, t andtheirdaughtertraveledtoPikeville,Tennesseetovisitthedefendantsfamily.Thedefendant ` telephonedhersister,DonnaCampbell,toinformherthatshewouldbevisitingtheirhome, L  apparentlytoarrangeforthedefendantsdaughtertospendthenightwiththeCampbells. 8  Ѐ $ t    ` Ms.Campbellhadspentthedayinquestionwithhergoodfriend,thevictim,Molly  ` Myers.Ms.MyershadaccompaniedMs.Campbelltoaphysiciansappointment,andthetwohad  L  beenChristmasshopping.WhenthedefendanttelephonedtheCampbellsresidencetoarrangeto  8  dropoffherdaughter,Ms.MyerswasintheCampbellsbedroomhelpingMs.Campbellwrap $  Christmaspresents.DuringthetelephoneconversationbetweenMs.Campbellandthedefendant,   Ms.Campbellinformedthedefendantthatthevictimwaspresentandadvisedheragainstcoming   totheCampbellshome.Conflictexistedbetweenthedefendantandthevictim,andMs.Campbell   wasawarethatthedefendantwouldnotpermitherchildrentoassociatewiththevictim.        ` SeveralminutesafterthetelephoneconversationbetweenMs.Campbellandthe \ defendant,thePilgrimsarrivedattheCampbellresidence.Mr.Pilgramandtheirdaughterwaited H outsideintheirvehiclewhilethedefendantwenttothedoor.Whenthedefendantarrived,Duane 4 Campbell,thedefendantsbrotherinlaw,answeredthedoorandtoldthedefendantthatthevictim  p waspresentandthatthedefendantshouldnotcomein.Nevertheless,thedefendantthenproceeded  \ totheCampbellsbedroom.AlthoughMs.Campbellandthevictimhadlockedthebedroomdoor H whenthedefendantarrived,thedefendantwasabletoopenitbyforcefullypushingit,duetothe 4 natureofthedoorsconstruction.Mr.Campbellfollowedthedefendantintothebedroomand   restrainedherwhenshelungedacrossthebedtowardsthevictimandMs.Campbell.Thedefendant   yelledatboththevictimandMs.Campbell,punctuatingherspeechwithmuchprofanity.Mr.  Campbellescortedthedefendantoutside.Asthedefendantpassedthevictimsvehicleasshemade  herwaytowardshervehicle,shebentdownbythevictimsvehicle,grabbedarockorsomegravel,  andscratchedthevictimsvehiclewithit.Atthispoint,thevictimexitedthe_Campbells_residence l andexchangedwordswiththedefendant.Mr.CampbelltheninstructedMr.Pilgramtoremovethe X  defendantfromtheCampbellsproperty.Mr.Pilgramsubsequentlygrabbedthedefendanttoescort D! herbacktotheirvehicle,atwhichtimethedefendantkickedthevictimsvehicle.Mr.Campbell 0"  radioedthepolicefromoutsidethe_Campbells_residence,whileMs.Campbelltelephonedthepolice #l! frominsidetheresidence. $X"    ` Onceinhervehicle,thedefendantwenttohermothersresidence.Whenthepolice %0!$ arrivedattheCampbellsresidence,thedefendantwasnotpresent.Thevictimfollowedtheofficers &"% tothepolicedepartmentwhereshesworeoutwarrantsagainstthedefendant.Laterthateveningthe '#&  policelocatedthedefendantatherfathersresidence.N Q#  1      ׀Accordingtothearrestingofficers (#' KV K8LLXdXXd8 K  testimony,thedefendantwasangrythatchargeshadbeenpressedagainstherandresistedbeing  takenintocustody.      ` Attrial,thevictimtestifiedthatthefairmarketvalueofhervehiclebeforethe t defendantdamageditwasbetween$4,500and$5,000becauseshehadreceiveda$5,000offerfor ` hervehicle,a1985Toyotapickuptruck,beforeitwasdamaged.Thevictimestimatedthatthe L  vehiclesvaluedepreciatedtoanapproximateworthofbetween$3,000and$3,500.Thevictim 8  basedheropinionofthedamagesonseveralrepairestimatesthatshereceivedfromvariousvehicle $ t bodyrepairmen.  `    ` Inhercaseinchief,thedefendantsoughttointroduceaninternetbasedestimateof  8  thevehiclesundamagedvalue,butthecourtrejectedtheevidence,statingthatitlackedrelevance $  andtrustworthiness.Thedefendantalsosoughttointroduceevidenceilluminatingtherelationship   amongthevictim,thedefendant,andthedefendantshusband.Specifically,thedefendantmadean   offerofproofevidencingthatthevictimhadallegedlyhadasexualrelationshipwiththedefendants   husband,thatthevictimreportedshemightbepregnantasaresultoftherelationship,andthatthe   victimhadrequestedmoneyfromthedefendantandherhusbandtofundanabortion.Apparently, p thevictimalsohadpreviouslyobtainedwarrantsagainstthedefendantshusband,althoughthese \ warrantswerelaterdismissed.Thedefendantarguedthatthisevidencewasrelevanttoshowthe H victimsprejudicetowardsthedefendantand,therefore,wasgermanetothevictimscredibility. 4 However,thecourtexcludedtheevidenceonthebasisthatitwasirrelevanttotheissuesattrial.  p    ` Thejuryconvictedthedefendantofvandalismresultingin$500to$1,000indamages H butacquittedheroftheassaultcharge.Duringthedefendantssentencinghearing,thedefendant 4 requestedthatthecourtgrantjudicialdiversioninhercase.Whenthecourtrefusedtodoso,the   defendantrequestedclassificationasanespeciallymitigatedoffender,whichthecourtalsodeclined.   Instead,thecourtsentencedthedefendantasaRangeIstandardoffenderandorderedhertoserve  asixyearprobationarysentence.Thedefendantnowbringsthisdirectappealofherconvictionand  sentence,challengingseveralevidentiaryrulingsandthecourtsfailuretograntjudicialdiversion.    I.EvidentiaryIssues X   ,   ` Thefirstthreeissuesraisedbythedefendantinthisappealrelatetovarious 0"  evidentiaryrulingsofthelowercourt.uXXJ:& u #l! #JX] X J:&-##XX XJX]-#LXXXX   A.TestimonyEvidencingPrejudice $D # D. 0   (#(#    ` Thedefendantarguesthatthetrialcourterredbyrefusingtoallowtestimony &"% regardingthevictimsprejudicetowardsthedefendant.Specifically,thedefendantallegesthatthe '#& trialcourtshouldhaveallowedhercounsel(1)tointroduceevidenceregardingthevictimsalleged (#' affairwiththedefendantshusbandaspartofhercaseinchiefand(2)toeffectivelycrossexamine )$( thevictimaboutthisallegedaffairandthereforeexposethevictimsprejudiceagainstthedefendant. |*%) Thedefendantarguesthatcounselshouldhavebeenallowedtobothintroduceevidenceofand h+&* questionthevictimaboutthehistoryofherrelationshipwiththedefendantshusband,includingtheir  allegedsexualrelationshipandthefactthatthevictimhadobtainedwarrantsagainstthedefendants  husband.ThedefendantfurtherallegesthattheseerrorsviolatedTennesseeRulesofEvidence616  and611(b)aswellasherconstitutionalrighttoconfrontwitnessesagainsther.Thestatecounters t thatthetrialcourtcorrectlyfoundthatthistestimonywasirrelevant.Thestatepositsthatthecourt ` allowedquestioningwhichrevealedthatthetwodislikedeachother,whichwasenoughtosuggest L  prejudiceonthepartofthevictim. 8     ` Therecordrevealsthatduringdefensecounselsopeningstatements,thestate  ` objectedtocounselsanticipatedstatementsabouttheallegedaffairbetweenthevictimandthe  L  defendantshusband.Thecourtheldajuryouthearingandruledinliminethatthedefendantcould  8  notintroduceevidenceoftheaffairnorcrossexaminethevictimonthesubjectbecausetheaffair $  wasirrelevanttothecrimesatissue.Attheconclusionoftheproof,thedefensemadeanofferof   proofinwhichcounselsummarizedthesubstanceofthetestimonythatthedefendantwouldhave   elicitedifallowedtodoso.O Q#  2      ׀DuanePilgram,thedefendantshusband,wouldhavetestifiedthathe   engagedinasexualrelationshipwiththevictimshortlybeforehereconciledwithhiswife.   Thereafter,thevictimcontactedMr.Pilgramandinformedhimthatshemightbepregnant,inwhich p eventshewouldneedmoneytofundanabortion.Furthermore,thedefendantintroducedcopiesof \ arrestwarrantsallegingthatMr.Pilgramhadassaultedthevictimandthreatenedherbyphone.At H theconclusionoftheofferofproof,counselarguedthattheevidencewasrelevanttoshowthatthe 4 victimwasupsetwhenthedefendantandherhusbandreconciled,therebyaffectinghercredibility  p asawitnessagainstthedefendant.  \    ` Webeginouranalysisbynotingthato#XXXLX!.#IXXXXnappellatereview,thetrialcourts 4 determinationofadmissibilityontheissuesathandwillnotbereversedunlessthecourtabusedits   discretioninadmittingorexcludingthechallengedevidence.See,e.g.,Statev.Bigbee,885S.W.2d   797,806(Tenn.1994).#XXXIX;#LXXXX       ` TennesseeRuleofEvidence616statesthat [a]partymayofferevidenceby  cross-examination,extrinsicevidence,orboth,thatawitnessisbiasedinfavoroforprejudiced l againstapartyoranotherwitness.Tenn.R.Evid.616.Rule611(b)providesthat [a]witnessmay X  becross-examinedonanymatterrelevanttoanyissueinthecase,includingcredibility....Tenn. D! R.Evid.611(b).Any feelingsthatawitnesshaswithregardtoapartyorissueareanimportant 0"  factorforthetrieroffacttoconsiderinassessingtheweighttobegiventothewitnesstestimony. #l! Statev.Williams,827S.W.2d804,808(Tenn.Crim.App.1991). $X"    ` TheSixthAmendmentguaranteesacriminaldefendanttherighttocross-examine %0!$ witnessesagainsther.See,e.g.,Davisv.Alaska,415U.S.308,94S.Ct.1105(1974).Moreover, &"% therightsofconfrontationandcross-examinationareessentialtoafairtrial.See,e.g.,Pointerv. '#& Texas,380U.S.400,85S.Ct.1065(1965).Furthermore,theFifthAmendmentguaranteesdue (#' processforeachcriminaldefendant.SeeUnitedStatesv.Nixon,418U.S.683,711,94S.Ct.3090,  3109(1974).However,neithertheSixthAmendmentrightofconfrontationnortheFifth  Amendmentdueprocessclauseauthorizestheuseof#XXXLXT=#PXXXXԀ#XXXPX D#LXXXXirrelevantevidence.Seeid.( <( 4 <DLX<#XXXLXOD#IXXXXTherighttothe  productionofallevidenceatacriminaltrialsimilarlyhasconstitutionaldimensions.TheSixth t Amendmentexplicitlyconfersuponeverydefendantinacriminaltrialtherighttobeconfronted ` withthewitnessesagainsthimandtohavecompulsoryprocessforobtainingwitnessesinhis L  favor.Moreover,theFifthAmendmentalsoguaranteesthatnopersonshallbedeprivedofliberty 8  withoutdueprocessoflaw.Itisthemanifestdutyofthecourtstovindicatethoseguarantees,and $ t toaccomplishthatitisessentialthatallrelevantandadmissibleevidencebeproduced.);seealso  ` UnitedStatesv.Abel,469U.S.45,50,105S.Ct.465,468(1984)(findingthatevidencethatthe  L  defendantandadefensewitnesswerebothmembersof#XXXIXD#LXXXXthesameprisongangwasrelevanttothe  8  issueofthewitnesssbiasunderthefederalrulesofevidenceandnotingthattheSixthAmendment, $  whichguaranteestherighttocrossexaminationandthusexposethebiasorprejudiceofawitness,   createdafoundationforthefederalrules).      ` Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtruledthattheprofferedevidencewasirrelevantand   thereforeinadmissiblebothoncrossexaminationandasextrinsicevidence.However,wefindthat p theallegedrelationshipbetweenthevictimandthedefendantshusbandwasrelevanttothevictims \ credibilityandaccordinglythatthetrialcourtsrulingranafoulofbothTennesseeRuleofEvidence H 616andthedefendantsrightofconfrontation. 4    _i_.Assault   \      ` Theelementsofthecrimeofassaultrequirethatthevictimbeplacedinimminentfear 4 ofbodilyinjury,seeTenn.CodeAnn.3913101(a)(2)(2003),whichtypicallymeansthata   convictionforassaultmusthingeonthetestimonyofthevictim.Thus,theallegedaffairwasa   propergroundforcrossexaminationbecauseitwouldhavebeenrelevanttoimpeachthevictims  testimony,andanassaultconvictionwoulddependonthejurycreditinghertestimony.However,  thejuryacquittedthedefendantofassault,andaccordinglywefindthattheerrorinfailingtoallow  thedefendanttocrossexaminethevictimonthissubjectisharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.#XXXLXH#IXXXX l SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.52(a);Cruzv.NewYork,481U.S.186,193,107S.Ct.1714,1719(1987) X  (confrontationviolationsubjecttoharmlesserroranalysis).#XXXIXP#LXXXX D!    ii.Vandalism  #l!      ` Turningnexttothevictimsvandalismconviction,theevidencesupportingthis $D # convictionincludesnotonlythevictimstestimony,butthetestimonyofMr.Campbell,who %0!$ witnessedthedefendantvandalizethevictimsvehicle,aswellasseveralphotographstakenofthe &"% damageinflictedtothevictimsvehicle.Therefore,evenexcludingthevictimstestimony,the '#& remainingevidencewouldhavebeensufficienttosupportthedefendantsvandalismconviction. (#' Furthermore,thejurysverdictreflectsthatitdidnotrelyonthevictimstestimonywhen )$( determiningthegradeoftheoffense;thevictimstestimonysupportedaconvictionforthe |*%) defendantsindictedcrime,vandalismresultingin$1,000to$10,000indamages,butthejury h+&* convictedthedefendantofalessercrime,vandalismresultingin$500to$1,000indamages.  Consideringtheotherevidencesupportingthedefendantsvandalismconvictionandourinference  thatthejurydidnotrelyheavilyonthevictimstestimonywhenfindingthedefendantguiltyof  vandalism,wefindthatanyerrorincurtailingthescopeofthevictimscrossexaminationasit t relatedtothevictimsvandalismconvictionissimilarlyharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.<( 4 <DLX<#XXXLXQ#IXXXXSee ` Tenn.R.Crim.P.52(a);Cruz,481U.S.at193,107S.Ct.at1719.#XXXIXuX#LXXXX L     B.HearsayTestimonyRegardingthe $ t FairMarketValueoftheVictimsVehicle   ` WY   ` Next,thedefendantarguesthatthetrialcourterredbyadmittinghearsayevidence  8  regardingthefairmarketvalueofthevictimsvehicle.Attrial,thevictimtestifiedthatshe $  estimatedthefairmarketvalueofhervehicletobeapproximately$4,500to$5,000,andshebased   herestimateonanunsolicitedoffershereceivedfromastrangerinabankparkinglotbeforeher   vehiclewasdamaged.Thedefendantarguesthatthistestimonywasinadmissiblehearsay.Thestate   respondsthatthedefendanthasfailedtoprovehowthisallegederrornegativelyimpactedhertrial   andthatifthetrialcourterredinadmittingtheevidence,theerrorwasharmless. p    ` Asdiscussedsupra,thedefendantwasconvictedofvandalismcausingdamageinthe H amountof$500to$1,000.TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3914408definesthecrimeof 4 vandalismas knowinglycaus[ing]damagetoor...destr[oying]...anyrealorpersonalproperty  p ofanotherorofthestate,theUnitedStates,anycounty,city,ortownknowingthatthepersondoes  \ nothavetheownerseffectiveconsent.Tenn.CodeAnn.3914408(a)(2003).Thestatute H furtherinstructsthat [a]ctsofvandalismaretobevaluedaccordingtotheprovisionsof3911 4 106(a)(36),whichdefinesthetermvalueasthefairmarketvalueofthepropertylossatthetime   andplaceoftheoffense,ifascertainable.Id.3914408(c)(1),3911306(a)(36).Thus,thefair   marketvalueofthedamagetothevictimsvehiclewasanessentialelementofthecrimeatissue.     ` Theownerofthepropertyispermittedtotestifyaboutheropinionofthevalueofthe  property.SeeTenn.R.Evid.701(b).Moreover,thevalueofthecostofrepairsisanappropriate l meansofdeterminingthevalueofthedamagesustainedtothevandalizedproperty.See,e.g.,State X  v.TerryW.Bean,No.M200302062CCAR3CD,slipop.at4(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,Oct. D! 28,2004) .Wefirstnotethatwhilethevictimintheinstantcasewasproperlyallowedtogiveher 0"  opinionofthe__diminutioninhervehiclesvaluepursuanttoRule701(b),webelievethatthevictims #l! testimonyexceededthepermissibleambitofthatrulebecauseshetestifiednotmerelyastoher $X" opinion,butrepeatedhearsayasthebasisofheropinion.W Q#  3      ׀ $D # Ї   ` Indeed,thestateconcedesthatthevictimstestimonythatshereceiveda$5,000offer  forhervehiclebeforeitwasdamageddoesnotfallwithinarecognizedhearsayexception.Weagree  butfindthattheerrorwasharmless.Aswediscussedinthecontextofthedefendantsfirst  evidentiarychallenge,thejurysverdictreflectsthatthejurydidnotcreditthevictimstestimony. t Thevictimtestifiedthathervehiclesvaluewasbetween$4,500and$5,000beforeitwasdamaged, ` andsheestimatedhervehiclesvaluetobebetween$3,000and$3,500afteritwasdamaged, L  reflectingdamagesrangingbetween$1,000and$2,000.However,thejuryconvictedthedefendant 8  ofthelessercrimeofvandalismresultingin$500to$1,000indamages.Thus,itdoesnotappear $ t fromtherecordthatthevictimshearsaytestimonyadverselyimpactedthedefendant.Accordingly,  ` wefindthatthetrialcourtserrorinallowingthishearsaytestimonyisharmless.<( 4 <DLX<#XXXLXY#IXXXXSeeTenn.R.Crim.  L  P.52(a);Cruz,481U.S.at193,109S.Ct.at1719.#XXXIXj#LXXXX  8    C.InternetBasedEstimateofVehiclesValue    k   ` Inherthirdissueonappeal,thedefendantclaimsthatthetrialcourterredbyrefusing   toadmitaninternetbasedestimateofthevalueofthevictims1985Toyotapickuptruck.The   defendantclaimsthattheestimatewasadmissiblepursuanttoTennesseeRuleofEvidence803(17). p Thestatecountersthattherecorddoesnotestablishthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionwhen \ rulingontheadmissibilityofthesereportsandthereforetheissuedoesnotwarrantreversal. H    ` TennesseeRuleofEvidence803(17)allowsadmissionofcertainpublished  p compilationsthathaveanindiciaofreliabilityduetotheirwidespreaduse.SeeTenn.R.Evid.  \ 803(17).ThedefendantsaysthatsheattemptedtointroduceaprintofffromtheKellyBlueBooks H internetsite,andbecausetheinternetsitewascreatedbyapublicationroutinelyadmittedpursuant 4 toRule803(17),thetrialcourterredbyfindingthattheinternetpublicationwasirrelevantund   untrustworthy.      ` Areviewoftherecordrevealsthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionby  excludingtheevidencebasedonitsuntrustworthiness.Theinternetbasedestimatethatthedefense  soughttointroducewasanestimateofthecurrentvalueofthevictimsvehicle,asopposedtothe l vehiclesvalueatthetimeofthecrime.Inordertocompensateforthis discrepancy,thedefendant X  hadsubtracted15,000milesfromthevehiclescurrentmileagealthoughtherewasnoevidence H! introducedregardingtheapproximatemileageofthevehicleatthetimeofthecrime.Moreover,the 4"  estimatedidnotcalculatetheappreciationordepreciationcausedbythepassageoftimeandbythe  #p! factthatthevehiclehadbeentotaled,rebuilt,andrepainted.Finally,asthestatesbriefnotes,  $\" defensecounseldidnotpresentafoundationfortheevidenceorinformthecourthowthereport $H # wouldbeauthenticated.  SeeTenn.R.Evid.901.Accordingly,wefindthatthetrialcourtacted %4!$ withinthepurviewofitsdiscretionwhenexcludingthisevidence.See<( 4 <DLX<#XXXLXk#IXXXXStatev.Bigbee,885S.W.2d &$"% 797,806(Tenn.1994). '#& _#XXXIXv#LXXXX _  II.JudicialDiversion   #XXXLX;w#mwPXXXX  0 ` Whensentencingthedefendantforhervandalismconviction,thetrialcourtimposed` (#` (# theminimumClassEfelonyRangeIsentenceofoneyearbutorderedthedefendanttoserveasix t yearprobationarysentence.#XXXPXw#LXXXXԀThedefendantchallengeshersentenceonthebasisthatshewasa ` deservingcandidateforjudicialdiversionandthatthetrialcourterredbyfailingtograntjudicial L  diversionandbyfailingtofollowthemandatesofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections4035102 8  to121whenrulingonthedefendantsrequest.Thestaterespondsthattherecordsupportsthetrial $ t courtsfindingandthatthecourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionwhenrefusingtograntjudicial  ` diversion.  L  <( 4 <DLX<#XXXLX:y#PXXXX   ` TheSentencingReformActof1989allowsasentencingcourtto deferfurther $  proceedingsandplacethepersononprobationuponsuchreasonableconditionsasitmayrequire   withoutenteringajudgmentofguiltyandwiththeconsentofsuchperson,providedthatthe   candidatehasnot,interalia,previouslypleadedguiltytoorbeenconvictedofafelonyorClassA   misdemeanor.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035313(a)(2003).Thisprocedure,commonlyknownas   judicialdiversion,issimilartopretrialdiversion;however,judicialdiversionfollowsadetermination p ofguilt,andthedecisiontograntdiversionrestswiththetrialcourt,nottheprosecutor.SeeState \ v.Anderson,857S.W.2d571,572(Tenn.Crim.App.1992). H    ` Thelowercourtsdenialofjudicialdiversionissubjecttoreversalonappealonlyif  p thatcourtabuseditsdiscretion.SeeStatev.Hammersley,650S.W.2d352,356(Tenn.1983).An  \ abuseofdiscretionoccurswhenthetrialcourtsdenialofjudicialdiversionisunsupportedbyany H substantialevidence.SeeStatev.Parker,932S.W.2d945,958(Tenn.Crim.App.1996). 4    ` Indeterminingwhethertograntjudicialdiversion,thetrialcourtmustconsider(a)   theaccusedsamenabilitytocorrection,(b)thecircumstancesoftheoffense,8 @ (c)theaccuseds  criminalrecord,(d)theaccusedssocialhistory,8 @ (e)theaccusedsphysicalandmentalhealth,(f)the  deterrencevaluetotheaccusedaswellasothers,and8 @t (g)whetherjudicialdiversionwillservethe  interestsofthepublicaswellastheaccused.Parker,932S.W.2dat958;Statev.Bonestel,871 l S.W.2d163,168(Tenn.Crim.App.1993),overruledonothergroundsbyStatev.Hooper,29 X  S.W.3d1,9(Tenn.2000).Moreover,therecordmustreflectthatthecourthasweighedallofthe D! factorsinreachingitsdetermination.SeeBonestel,871S.W.2dat168.Thatis,thecourtmust 0"  explainontherecordwhythedefendantdoesnotqualifyunderitsanalysis,andifthecourthas #l! baseditsdeterminationononlysomeofthefactors,itmustexplainwhythesefactorsoutweighthe $X" others.Seeid.  $D #      ` Whendefensecounselrequestedthatthelowercourtgrantjudicialdiversioninthe &"% presentcase,thecourtdiscussedtheapplicabilityofthefactorsoutlinedabove.Thecourtfoundthat '#& thelastfactor,whetherjudicialdiversionwouldservetheinterestsofthepublicaswellasthe (#' accused,wasdeterminativeofthecourtsdecisionandweighedagainstgrantingjudicialdiversion. )$( ЀSpecifically,thecourtfoundthatthedefendantsapparentunwillingnesstocompensatethevictim, |*%) asorderedbythecourt,ortopaytheoutstandingcourtfine,coupledwithherlackofcandorabout h+&* herfinancialsituationandherseeminglackofremorseforcommittingthecrimeinquestion  indicatedthatthedefendantwasnotadesirablecandidateforjudicialdiversion.Wefindthatthe  lowercourtadequatelyexplainedwhyitdeclinedtograntjudicialdiversioninthiscaseandwhythe  factorrelieduponoutweighedallotherfactors.Wediscernnoabuseofdiscretionindenying t diversion.See,e.g.,Statev.Dowdy,894S.W.2d301,307(Tenn.Crim.App.1994)(findingthat ` thetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionbyrefusingtograntjudicialdiversionbasedonthe L  defendantsunrepentantattitudeanddishonestnature);Anderson,857S.W.2dat57374(finding 8  thatthesentencingcourtwasinthebestpositiontoobservethedefendantsattitudeanddemeanor $ t andtheappellatecourtshouldnotdisturbthelowercourtsrefusaltograntjudicialdiversionbased  ` onthedefendantsattitudeanddemeanor).  L    III.Conclusion  $  j   ` Insum,wefindthatthedefendanthasfailedtodemonstratethatanyofthetrial   courtsevidentiaryrulingswarrantreversalorthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionwhenrefusing   tograntjudicialdiversion.Accordingly,thejudgmentofthelowercourtisaffirmed.     #XXXPX|#   `     h     ___________________________________  p    `     h     JAMES_CURWOOD_Ԁ_WITT_,JR,.JUDGE