ÿWPC# 5# öUN %O 0(Ub}Æ…w@K4‹Ÿ 0l® 0D^U:f 0J  0Tê 0^> 0hœ 0r 0|v 0†ò 0x 1u 0d} AQá B2 0DO 0@“ 0DÓ D/ BF D3c U>– U *Ô B)þ DC' AMj 3· èêv~ÒvÓP˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 TEUV{WEXYDZD[Ó€gjn~<$"|xj((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ d(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd"/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€-ÔÔ€-ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€-XÔÌÌò òAugust€12,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€-ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€-ÔÔ€-&ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(2).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€,ŠÔÔ€-ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€y㈈ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÙ€ÙœßR€01/A1-j|§` Å `€€@ÿRß›AT€JACKSONÌÌJUNE€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9711„CR„00425Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€CHRIS€CRAFTó óÌò òGARY€PRUDE,ó óà àà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(DUI€„€4th€Offense,€Reckless€Driving)ò òÌó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌROBERT€A.€WAMPLERà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌP.O.€Box€3410à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€38173„0410Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àPETER€M.€COUGHLANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDAN€BYERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€Complex,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€-°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€-ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThis€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Appellate€Procedure.€€The€Defendant€was€convicted€on€a€Shelby€CountyÏjury€verdict€of€driving€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€(fourth€offense)Ïand€reckless€driving.€€On€this€appeal€he€argues€œ(1)€that›€the€trial€judge€erred€byÏcharging€the€jury€regarding€criminal€responsibility€for€the€conduct€of€œanother,›€andÏœ(2)€that›€under€the€circumstances€of€this€œcase,›€the€inclusion€of€œthis›€jury€instructionÏviolated€the€Defendantððs€constitutional€right€to€a€unanimous€œverdict.€€We€find€noÏreversible€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àOn€February€11,€1996,›€the€Defendant€was€in€possession€of€a€vanÏœprovided›€by€his€employer.€€At€approximately€2:00€œa.m.,›€the€Defendant,€alongÏwith€a€male€and€a€female€companion,€were€proceeding€in€the€van€along€aÏstreet€in€Memphis€when€the€van€struck€a€pickup€truck€parked€in€the€street,Ïtraveled€across€a€yard,€and€then€went€up€on€the€front€porch€of€a€house€andÏrammed€into€the€house€itself.€€Memphis€Police€Officer€Larry€Skelton€was€the€firstÏofficer€to€arrive€on€the€scene.€€Ambulance€personnel€were€already€present.€ÏWhen€the€police€officer€arrived,€the€Defendant€had€been€placed€in€theÏambulance.€€Officer€Skelton€entered€the€ambulance€where€he€detected€a€strongÍodor€of€intoxicants€about€the€Defendant€and€œnoticed€that›€œthe€Defendantððs›Ïspeech€was€slurred€and€his€eyes€were€watery.€€The€officer€testified€that€theÏDefendant€told€him€œhe›€was€driving€the€van€and€had€hit€a€bump€which€causedÏhim€to€lose€control€of€the€van.€€The€officer€stated€that€beer€cans€were€scatteredÏaround€the€inside€of€the€van€and€in€the€yard.€€Based€on€his€observations€of€theÏDefendant€and€the€statements€the€Defendant€made,€the€officer€determined€thatÏthe€Defendant€had€been€the€driver€of€the€van€and€that€the€Defendant€wasÏintoxicated.ÌÌà àMemphis€Fire€Department€Paramedic€Harry€Perry€stated€that€when€heÏarrived€at€the€œscene,›€a€Shelby€County€Sheriffððs€Deputy€car€was€alreadyÏpresent€and€some€people€were€ð ðmillingðð€near€the€van.€€Mr.€Perry€testified€that€heÏexamined€the€œDefendant,›€who€had€a€lip€laceration€and€some€blood€on€his€face.€ÏHe€said€he€detected€an€odor€of€intoxicants€about€the€Defendant€and€noted€thatÏhe€staggered€somewhat€and€that€his€ð ðgaitðð€and€demeanor€œindicated›€ð ðsomewhatÏimbalance.ðð€€œMr.€Perry€said€that›€the€Defendant€advised€him€that€he€(theÏDefendant)€œhad€been›€œdriving€the€van.›€€œIn€addition,€Mr.€Perry€heard›€theÏDefendant€advise€a€policeman€that€he€(the€Defendant)€œhad€been›€œdriving,€and›Ïœhe›€heard€the€Defendant€apologize€to€the€female€companion€for€ð ðdriving€andÏhaving€this€accident.ðð€€On€cross€examination,€Mr.€Perry€emphasized€that€heÍwas€certain€œthe›€Defendant€œtold›€him€that€he€œhad€been›€œdriving€the€van.›€€œFinally,Ïhe€testified€the›€Defendantððs€speech€was€slurred.€€ÌÌà àThe€owner€of€the€pickup€truck€and€house€œstruck€by€the€van€testified€thatÏalthough€he€was€not€at€home€when€the€wreck€occurred,€he€arrived€shortlyÏthereafter.€€He€observed€all€three€occupants€of€the€van€and€claimed€that€theyÏwere€all€ð ðdrunkðð€ð"ð€they€were€ð ðunsteady,€speech€was€slurred€and€smelling€realÏstrong€[of€alcohol].ðð€€He€also€said€that€the€Defendant€told€him€that€he€(theÏDefendant)€had€been€driving.€€Although€this€witness€testified€that€the€driver€ofÏthe€van€had€been€placed€in€the€police€squad€car,€other€evidence€showed€thatÏthe€Defendant€had€been€placed€in€the€ambulance€and€the€male€passengerÏhad€been€placed€in€the€squad€car.ÌÌà àA€Shelby€County€deputy€sheriff€testified€that€when€he€arrived€at€theÏscene,€only€the€occupants€of€the€van€and€the€owners€of€the€house€wereÏpresent.€€He€stated€that€he€responded€to€the€call€because€he€was€close€to€theÏscene.€€He€said€that€he€asked€who€had€been€driving€and€the€Defendant€saidÏthat€he€(the€Defendant)€had€been.€€He€stated€that€all€three€van€occupantsÏsmelled€of€alcohol.€€When€he€later€advised€the€Defendant€of€his€ð ðimplied€consentÏrights,ðð€the€Defendant€advised€him€that€he€had€not,€in€fact,€been€driving.€€TheÏDefendant€then€refused€to€take€a€blood„alcohol€test.›ÌÌà àThe€deputy€also€stated€that€prior€to€œtalking›€œwith€›€the€Defendant,€the€otherÏmale€occupant€of€the€van€œadvised›€him€that€he€(the€other€occupant)€œhad€been›Ïdriving.€€œWhen›€œthe€deputy›€started€advising€the€occupant€of€his€rights€under€theÏimplied€consent€law,€œthe›€occupant€then€said€œð ðððIððm›€not€going€to€jail€for€something€IÏdidnððt€œdo›€.€œ.›€œ.›€œ.ðððð€The€male€occupant€then›€stated€that€œthe›€Defendant€œhad€beenÏdriving€the€van.›ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€offered€no€proof.€€The€State€requested€that€the€judgeÏinstruct€the€jury€concerning€criminal€responsibility€for€the€conduct€of€another.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€TheÏassistant€district€attorney€œstated€that›€the€œdefense›€œcontended€the›€State€did€notÏprove€sufficiently€that€œthe›€Defendant€œhad€been€driving›€rather€than€the€other€maleÏoccupant€of€the€van.€€œThe€State›€therefore€argued€that€a€charge€on€criminalÏresponsibility€was€warranted€by€the€evidence.€€œIn€addition,€the›€State€argued€œthe›Ïproof€clearly€showed€that€the€Defendant€œhad›€legal€possession€of€andÏresponsibility€for€the€van€and€that€if€the€other€individual€was€operating€œthe€van,›Ïhe€œdid€so›€while€intoxicated€and€with€the€Defendantððs€permission.€€The€judgeÏagreed€to€œcharge›€the€jury€œon€criminal€responsibility€over€the€objection€of€theÏDefendant.€€Although€the€judge€gave€a€standard€jury€instruction€concerning€theÏneed€for€a€unanimous€verdict,€no€special€instruction€was€given€on€the€need€for€aÍunanimous€verdict€on€òòeitheróó€criminal€responsibility€for€the€conduct€of€another€òòoróóÏactual€commission€of€the€offenses.€€The€jury€returned€a€general€verdict€of€guiltyÏfor€driving€a€motor€vehicle€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€and€recklessÏdriving.€€After€hearing€additional€evidence,€the€jury€found€the€Defendant€guilty€ofÏdriving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€fourth€offense.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€first€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€by€charging€the€juryÏconcerning€criminal€responsibility€because€it€was€not€charged€in€the€indictmentÏand€because€the€State€did€not€give€the€Defendant€notice€of€this€alternate€theoryÏof€prosecution.€€He€argues€that€his€due€process€rights€were€violated€becauseÏthe€indictment€failed€to€provide€him€notice€that€he€was€being€tried€for€the€conductÏof€a€third€party.ÌÌà àAn€indictment€or€presentment€must€provide€notice€of€the€offense€charged,Ïan€adequate€basis€for€the€entry€of€a€proper€judgment,€and€suitable€protectionÏagainst€double€jeopardy.€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€310€(Tenn.€1996);ÏòòState€v.€Byrdóó,€820€S.W.2d€739,€741€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Lindsayóó,€637€S.W.2dÏ886,€890€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€1982).€€€The€indictment€ð ðððmust€state€the€facts€.€.€.€inÏordinary€and€concise€language€.€.€.€in€such€a€manner€as€to€enable€a€person€ofÏcommon€understanding€to€know€what€is€intended,€and€with€that€degree€ofÏcertainty€which€will€enable€the€court,€on€conviction,€to€pronounce€the€properÍjudgment.ðððð€€òòWarden€v.€Stateóó,€381€S.W.2d€244,€245€(Tenn.€1964).€€(quotingÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„1802€(recodified€as€amended€at€ðð€40„13„202).ÌÌà àThe€indictment€in€the€case€at€bar€charged€the€Defendant€with€drivingÏwhile€intoxicated,€requiring€that€the€following€elements€be€proved:€(1)€that€theÏDefendant€was€driving€or€in€control€of€a€motor€vehicle;€(2)€that€the€vehicle€wasÏdriven€on€a€public€road;€and€(3)€that€the€Defendant€was€under€the€influence€ofÏan€intoxicant.€€Initially,€we€note€that€criminal€responsibility€for€the€conduct€ofÏanother€is€not€a€statutory€offense,€but€rather€a€legal€theory€of€criminal€liability€byÏwhich€a€defendant€may€be€convicted€for€an€offense€when€there€are€multipleÏactors€involved.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402.€€We€do€not€believe€thatÏð ðcriminal€responsibilityðð€must€have€been€included€in€the€indictment.€€TheÏindictment€gave€the€Defendant€notice€of€the€events€charged,€and€an€adequateÏbasis€for€the€entry€of€a€proper€judgment,€and€protection€against€doubleÏjeopardy.€€Because€the€evidence€at€trial€raised€the€issue,€we€believe€it€wasÏappropriate€for€the€State€to€request€the€charge€at€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,Ïand€the€trial€judge€did€not€commit€prejudicial€error€in›€granting€the€request.ÌÌà àThe€second€part€of€the€Defendantððs€issue€on€appeal€is€a€more€troublingÏone.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€because€œthe€criminal€responsibility€instruction›Ïwas€œincluded,›€it€is€impossible€to€determine€whether€the€jury€in€this€case€reachedÍa€unanimous€verdict€concerning€the€œfacts€supporting€the€offense›€for€which€heÏwas€œconvicted.›€€Although€the€court€instructed€the€jury€œon€the›€need€for€aÏunanimous€verdict,€the€court€did€not€instruct€œconcerning›€the€juryððs€need€to€renderÏa€unanimous€verdict€œon€whether›€the€Defendant€was€guilty€of€DUI€based€on€hisÏconduct€as€the€driver€of€the€van€or€whether€the€Defendant€was€guilty€of€DUIÏbased€on€his€œcriminally›€œresponsibility›€for€the€conduct€of€another€individual.€€œThe›ÏDefendant€cites€òòBurlison€v.€Stateóó,€501€S.W.2d€801€(Tenn.€1973),€for€theÏproposition€that€the€State€should€have€been€required€to€elect€and€that€the€judgeÏœshould€haveð ð€properly›€œinstruct[ed]›€the€jury€so€that€the€verdict€of€every€juror€wouldÏbe€united€on€the€one€offense.ðð€€òòId.óó€œat›€804.ÌÌà àThe€requirement€that€the€State€elect,€at€the€close€of€its€case€in€chief,€whichÏproof€it€relies€upon€for€a€œconviction›€most€commonly€occurs€where€the€State€hasÏintroduced€evidence€of€several€instances€of€sexual€misconduct,€especially€whenÏthe€proof€presented€could€support€a€finding€of€more€criminal€conduct€than€is€setÏforth€in€the€indictment€or€indictments.€€òòJamison€v.€Stateóó,€94€S.W.2d€675€(Tenn.Ï1906);€òòBurlison€v.€Stateóó,€501€S.W.2d€801,€803€(Tenn.€1973);€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,Ï851€S.W.2d€134,€136€(Tenn.€1993).€€Where€there€is€evidence€of€multipleÏoffenses,€particularly€involving€sexual€crimes€against€small€children,€theÏprecaution€œto€›ensure€œjury€›unanimity€œis›€the€doctrine€of€election,€which€requires€theÏState€to€elect€and€identify€at€the€end€of€its€proof€the€œfacts€that€supported€theÍexact›€offense€for€which€it€seeks€conviction.€€œòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Waltonóó,€958€S.W.2dÏ724,€727€(Tenn.€1997).Ì›Ìà àIn€a€case€such€as€the€one€at€bar,€where€a€defendant€is€charged€withÏDUI€and€the€jury€is€to€be€charged€concerning€the€Defendantððs€guilt€based€uponÏhis€own€conduct€and€also€based€on€the€conduct€of€another€for€which€he€mayÏbe€criminally€responsible,€we€do€not€believe€the€doctrine€of€election€is€applicable.€ÏIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€charge€arose€out€of€the€driving€of€one€automobile€atÏone€particular€time.€€The€charges€do€not€involve€evidence€of€multiple€acts,€eachÏof€which€could€constitute€the€offense€of€DUI.€€Where€the€evidence€could€supportÏsuch€a€finding,€we€believe€the€State€is€entitled€to€proceed€to€the€jury€underÏalternate€theories€of€DUI€based€upon€a€defendantððs€own€driving€or€on€theÏdriving€of€another€for€whom€the€Defendant€may€be€criminally€responsible.ÌÌà àWe€do€agree€with€the€Defendant,€as€the€cases€involving€the€need€for€anÏelection€œemphasize,›€that€the€Defendant€has€a€fundamental€constitutional€right€toÏa€unanimous€verdict€before€a€conviction€for€a€criminal€offense€may€be€imposed.€ÏòòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€134,€137€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€576,€583€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€œunanimity›€of€a€verdict€is€requiredÏso€that€the€jury€verdict€may€not€be€a€matter€of€choice€between€offenses€in€whichÏsome€jurors€convict€of€one€offense€and€others€of€another€offense,€all€within€theÍsame€count.€€œòòTidwell›€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.€1996).€€Protection€ofÏthis€right€often€requires€œspecial›€œð ðprecautions›€[by€the€court]€to€œensure›€that€the€juryÏdeliberates€over€the€particular€charged€œoffense,›€instead€of€creating€œa€ððpatchwork›Ïverdictðð€based€on€different€œoffenses›€in€œevidence.ð𛀀òòSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€at€œ137Ï(citing€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€576,€583€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)).›ÌÌà àIn€a€case€such€as€the€one€at€bar,€the€Defendantððs€fundamental€right€to€aÏunanimous€jury€verdict€requires€the€State€to€prove€to€the€jury€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€the€facts€which€constitute€the€offense.€€If,€for€example,€sixÏjurors€were€convinced€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€Defendant€himselfÏwas€driving€the€van€while€intoxicated,€and€the€other€six€jurors€were€convincedÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€Defendantððs€male€companion€was€drivingÏthe€van€while€intoxicated,€a€conviction€of€the€Defendant€œfor›€DUI€would€not€beÏbased€upon€a€unanimous€jury€decision€concerning€proof€of€all€elements€of€theÏoffense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€œ›€The€juryððs€verdict€in€that€event€would€notÏbe€unanimous.ÌÌà àWe€must€œtherefore€conclude›€that€it€was€œerror›€for€the€trial€court€to€chargeÏcriminal€responsibility€for€the€conduct€of€another€without€clearly€communicating€toÏthe€jury€the€need€for€a€unanimous€verdict€on€the€facts.€€The€jury€did€not€indicateÏupon€which€theory€and€set€of€facts€it€convicted€the€Defendant.€€It€is€this€potentialÍœfor›€confusion€that€œinvades›€œa›€œdefendantððs›€constitutional€rights€because€underÏthese€œcircumstances,›€œa€jury›€could€œindeed›€œcompile›€a€ð ðpatchwork€verdictðð€regardingÏthe€œfacts€of›€the€offense.€€œòòSeeóó›€òòœState›€v.€James€R.€œLemacksóó,›€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9605„CC„00227,€Humphreys€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€26,Ï1997),€œòòperm.›€œto€app.›€grantedóó€œ(Tenn.€Mar.›€16,€1998).ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€however,€based€upon€the€evidence€presented€atÏtrial,€we€conclude€that€the€error€of€the€trial€judge€in€œfailing€to›€œinstruct›€the€jury€moreÏclearly€œof€the›€need€for€a€unanimous€verdict€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€While€there€was€some€suggestion€from€the€evidence€that€theÏDefendantððs€male€companion€œhad€driven›€the€van€on€the€morning€in€question,Ïbecause€of€the€strength€œof€the›€overwhelming€evidence€that€the€Defendant€œhad›Ïin€fact€œbeen€driving,›€we€do€not€believe€that€there€is€any€reasonable€doubt€thatÏthe€jury€convicted€the€Defendant€based€upon€the€proof€that€he€œin›€fact€œhad€beenÏdriving›€the€van.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€accordingly€affirmed.Ìà àÌÌÓÓœà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE