ÿWPC+ šiŶÖ,žq‰C@Olapd%öú¢$HwÃŽ¬ëWoìêÉpìžêħìj)²]a <ÔÐ^]jŽg^H3!}jÛÿìkžŠM´£Ý¶Â¡t>[9iOþ¼Ø‘HiJ.j3©}MV&òl+ X o ž¯iCÒæÅ>"ËKãlšÛ¸xK]àQgÄŸo˜åBhµ‹*Úô®}Q¾^NVD5ÅÇðnŒ;“¶vMw >ZßmÂÔO%ˆIgV¡¨)C†…ŽæïõœÂÊ¢u†âÉQ_~RðÍ¡o±•(`é"X2PÛ¡ +¤¼ÿI¯ÿ¨ÚU°“5<âÄ!®$±·DŽÒþ½4×úú»bÈÛc4S xaãë+Ì’u¥‰œ¯Ž‚Q6Ù¡aÊ¥YÇÔqŠ:p1ÐìvØÀï×0¾‡ÌŒüÀÈ•E u/'µ¤ëâT lb¬²³mí@ç,6ã}Óß®ñá–T׸³ÿÑb\àA$ÈdkåÖ<*o¿£d(ò‰ü¨ÍÖ³wB¡Ü þö“d™Ï†à•9ŸÆË3Ä(u®Ö^}W·JÞ‹ðÓÎWXjI7ôö*úšœ‡ZÝÑ:ÎŽ:-q:BðøT*R|Uª#XEÏ¢¢1Ê£b#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq UNù UNG ^ • z¡ Ò wí Sñ 4D 0DX Æœ ÆbÆ(Æî´NÃÅ mÇEÞU @àààààààààààààààààààààààb                                     0ë(((( B 0¤0 D3Ô D- 0K44 ASÆÒ 0¤˜ 0D< A«€˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularÑ‚ì(  ˜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 IÝ ƒR±:$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X%<X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô‡X%<XXX%<ÔAt€the€beginning€of€the€trial,€the€appellant€pled€guilty€to€driving€on€a€revoked€license€andÐ ° Ðcriminal€impersonation.Ô#†X%<XXX%<#ÔÖJ~'Ã(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2±:$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z`»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X%<X»»Ô d(|3–‚$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z`»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3–‚$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z`»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z`»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼Z`»»»Ôà@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ ¾ ÐÔ‡X%<X»¼Z`ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Z`»XX%<3#ÔÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€MICHAEL€S.€REIDòòóóÔ‡X%<X»¼Z`Ôó óÐ ² ÐÓyÓÌà@¼ ¼ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyˆÐ ¦ ö Ðà@ª ª ìàNo.€II„136„698€€€€€€Timothy€L.€Easter,€JudgeˆÐ Œ Ü ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<= ` A߈Ð > Ž  ÐÌà@Ç Ç ìàNo.€M1999„00305„CCA„R3„CD€„€Decided€July€12,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈР3ƒ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<þ` AßÐ ÿO  Ðó óÌÔ‡X%<XXX%<ÔThe€Williamson€County€grand€jury€indicted€the€appellant,€Michael€S.€Reid,€with€one€(1)€count€ofÐ ôD  Ðdriving€under€the€influence,€third€offense,€one€(1)€count€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license€and€one€(1)Ð Ú*  Ðcount€of€criminal€impersonation.€€The€appellant€pled€guilty€to€driving€on€a€revoked€license€andÐ À Ðcriminal€impersonation€and,€after€a€jury€trial,€was€found€guilty€of€driving€under€the€influence,€thirdÐ ¦ö Ðoffense.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€to€concurrent€terms€of€eleven€(11)€months€andÐ ŒÜ Ðtwenty„nine€(29)€days,€suspended€after€service€of€180€days,€for€driving€under€the€influence,€thirdÐ r Ðoffense€and€six€(6)€months,€suspended€after€service€of€ten€(10)€days,€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€Ð X¨ ÐIn€addition,€the€appellant€received€a€consecutive€sentence€of€six€(6)€months,€suspended€after€serviceÐ >Ž Ðof€five€(5)€days,€for€criminal€impersonation.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ $t Ðin€(1)€admitting€hearsay€evidence€over€his€objection€by€allowing€a€Williamson€County€SheriffððsÐ  Z ÐDeputy€to€testify€as€to€the€contents€of€a€dispatch€he€received€prior€to€stopping€the€appellant;€and€(2)Ð ð@ Ðallowing€the€state€to€introduce€evidence€concerning€a€prior€stop€of€the€appellant€for€which€he€wasÐ Ö& Ðnot€charged.€€We€hold€that€the€officerððs€testimony€concerning€the€dispatch€was€Ô_ÔnonhearsayÔ_Ô€andÐ ¼  Ðrelevant€and,€as€a€result,€properly€admissible.€€Additionally,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant€hasÐ ¢ò Ðwaived€the€issue€regarding€the€prior€stop€as€a€result€of€his€failure€to€object€to€this€evidence€at€trialÐ ˆØ Ðand€his€failure€to€include€this€issue€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€Therefore,€we€affirm€the€judgmentÐ n¾ Ðof€the€trial€court.Ð T¤ ÐÌà@ìì*ìàò òòòó óóóˆÌÔ#†X%<XXX%<÷#ÔÔ#†¼Z`»XX%<¶#ÔÔ‡X%<X»¼Z`ÔÌÌò òÔ€X%<XXX%<ÔÔ_ÔT.R.A.P.Ô_Ô€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€of€Williamson€County€isÐ Ò#"$ ÐAffirmedó óÐ ¸$ % ÐÌòòSmith,€J.Ô#†¼Z`»àX%!% Ðfound€in€his€vehicle€during€an€inventory.€€During€the€booking€process,€the€appellant€revealed€his€trueÐ Ô&$"& Ðidentity€to€Deputy€Henley.€€The€officer€ran€a€driverððs€license€check€and€determined€that€theÐ º' #' Ðappellantððs€license€had€been€revoked.€ò òó óÐ  (ð#( Ðà  àThe€appellant€testified€on€his€own€behalf€at€trial.€€He€stated€that,€on€the€night€of€May€1,€heÐ †)Ö$) Ðwas€driving€to€Ô_ÔShelbyvilleÔ_Ô€to€visit€his€mother€when€he€dropped€his€cellular€phone€in€the€floorboardÐ l*¼%* Ðof€his€vehicle.€€This€caused€him€to€swerve.€€He€testified€that,€when€the€officer€stopped€him,€he€wasÐ R+¢&+ Ðnervous€because€he€realized€that€his€driverððs€license€had€been€revoked,€so€he€concocted€a€story€thatÐ ° Ðhis€wife€was€in€labor€in€a€Ô_ÔShelbyvilleÔ_Ô€hospital.€€ò òó óHe€stated€that€he€was€not€married€at€the€time€he€wasÐ –æ Ðarrested€and€denied€that€he€had€a€wife€or€a€girlfriend€in€the€hospital€on€May€1.€ò òó óÐ |Ì Ðà  àAlthough€he€acknowledged€that€he€had€been€drinking€that€evening,€the€appellant€testified€thatÐ b² Ðhis€driving€ability€was€not€impaired.€€ò òó óHe€stated€that€he€is€blind€in€his€right€eye€and€received€a€backÐ H˜ Ðinjury€in€1989€which€affects€his€balance€on€occasion.€€ò òó óHe€disagreed€with€Deputy€Henleyððs€testimonyÐ . ~ Ðthat€he€did€not€satisfactorily€perform€the€field€sobriety€tests€during€either€stop.€€ò òó ó€The€appellantÐ  d Ðadmitted€his€guilt€on€the€charges€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license€and€criminal€impersonation;Ð ú J Ðhowever,€he€testified€that€he€was€not€intoxicated€when€the€officer€stopped€him€on€either€occasion.€Ð à 0 Ðò òó óà  àThe€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€driving€under€the€influence.€€The€appellant€waived€hisÐ Æ   Ðright€to€a€jury€trial€on€Count€Three€of€the€indictment€alleging€third€offense€driving€under€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðinfluence.€€In€a€separate€proceeding,€the€trial€court€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€driving€under€theÐ ’â  Ðinfluence,€third€offense.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€to€eleven€(11)€months€and€twenty„Ð xÈ  Ðnine€(29)€days,€suspended€after€service€of€180€days,€for€driving€under€the€influence,€third€offense,Ð ^®  Ðsix€(6)€months,€suspended€after€service€of€ten€(10)€days,€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license€and€six€(6)Ð D”  Ðmonths,€suspended€after€service€of€five€(5)€days,€for€criminal€impersonation.€€The€court€ordered€thatÐ *z  Ðthe€driving€under€the€influence€and€driving€on€revoked€license€sentences€run€concurrently€with€oneÐ ` Ðanother,€but€consecutively€to€the€criminal€impersonation€sentence.Ð öF Ðà  àFrom€his€conviction€for€driving€under€the€influence,€third€offense,€the€appellant€now€bringsÐ Ü, Ðthis€appeal.Ð Â ÐÌà@9 9 ìàò òòòHEARSAY€STATEMENT€„€CONTENTS€OF€DISPATCHó óóóˆÐ ŽÞ ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€Deputy€Henley€to€testify€as€toÐ Zª Ðthe€contents€of€the€ð ðbe€on€the€lookoutðð€dispatch€he€received€prior€to€originally€stopping€theÐ @ Ðappellant.€€He€contends€that€this€testimony€was€hearsay€and€inadmissible€because€none€of€theÐ &v Ðexceptions€to€the€hearsay€rule€apply.€€He€further€argues€that€the€testimony€was€inadmissible€at€trialÐ  \ Ðbecause€it€is€irrelevant.Ð òB Ðà  àAccording€to€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€hearsay€is€ð ða€statement,€other€than€one€madeÐ Ø( Ðby€the€Ô_ÔdeclarantÔ_Ô€while€testifying€at€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matterÐ ¾ Ðasserted.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€801(c).€€Hearsay€evidence€is€generally€inadmissible.€€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€802.€Ð ¤ô ÐHowever,€extrajudicial€statements€offered€to€prove€the€effect€on€the€hearer€constitute€Ô_ÔnonhearsayÔ_ÔÐ Š Ú Ðevidence€and€are€admissible.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔVenableÔ_Ôóó,€606€S.W.2d€298,€301€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1980);€òòseeÐ p!À  Ðalsoóó€N.€Cohen,€S.€Ô_ÔSheppeardÔ_Ô€&€D.€Paine,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€801.6€(3d.€ed.€1995).Ð V"¦! Ðà  àIn€this€case,€the€officer€testified€that€he€received€a€dispatch€to€be€on€the€lookout€for€a€smallÐ <#Œ" Ðgreen€or€blue€pickup€truck.€€The€dispatch€advised€the€officer€that€the€driverððs€wife€was€in€labor€inÐ "$r# Ða€Ô_ÔShelbyvilleÔ_Ô€hospital€and€requested€that€the€officer€check€on€the€driverððs€well„being.€€This€testimonyÐ %X $ Ðwas€not€offered€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted,€i.e.,€that€the€appellantððs€wife€was€in€laborÐ î%>!% Ðin€Ô_ÔShelbyvilleÔ_Ô.€€Rather,€the€testimony€was€introduced€to€prove€the€effect€on€Deputy€Henley€as€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðhearer€to€explain€why€the€officer€initially€followed€the€appellantððs€vehicle€and,€ultimately,€stoppedÐ º' #' Ðthe€vehicle.€€Moreover,€the€statement€also€explains€the€officerððs€actions€in€allowing€the€appellant€toÐ  (ð#( Ðleave€after€the€first€stop,€even€though€the€officer€believed€that€the€appellant€was€driving€under€theÐ ° Ðinfluence.€€Because€the€testimony€was€not€offered€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted,€it€isÐ –æ ÐÔ_ÔnonhearsayÔ_Ô€and€admissible.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€737€S.W.2d€556,€558„59€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1987).Ð |Ì Ðà  àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€the€testimony€was€irrelevant€because€the€validity€of€the€initialÐ b² Ðstop€was€not€contested€at€trial.€€However,€the€contents€of€the€dispatch€prove€not€only€why€the€officerÐ H˜ Ðstopped€the€appellantððs€vehicle,€but€also€why€the€officer€did€not€arrest€the€appellant€after€the€initialÐ . ~ Ðstop,€even€though€he€believed€that€appellant€was€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€The€centralÐ  d Ðissue€at€trial€was€whether,€as€a€result€of€his€drinking,€the€appellantððs€driving€ability€was€impaired.€Ð ú J ÐThe€appellant€testified€that€he€was€not€intoxicated€and€performed€well€on€the€field€sobriety€tests.€Ð à 0 ÐHowever,€Deputy€Henleyððs€testimony€directly€refuted€the€appellantððs€in€this€respect.€€Indeed,€theÐ Æ   Ðofficer€testified€at€trial€that,€had€he€not€believed€that€the€appellantððs€wife€was€in€labor,€he€would€haveÐ ¬ ü  Ðarrested€the€appellant€for€driving€under€the€influence€after€the€first€stop.€€ò òó óThe€officer€executed€theÐ ’â  Ðsecond€stop€approximately€two€(2)€hours€later,€and€the€appellant€was€arrested€for€driving€under€theÐ xÈ  Ðinfluence.Ð ^®  Ðà  àRelevant€evidence€is€evidence€ð ðhaving€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€thatÐ D”  Ðis€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€wouldÐ *z  Ðbe€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€401.€€Certainly,€whether€the€appellant€was€intoxicatedÐ ` Ðduring€the€first€stop€at€11:30€p.m.€would€be€relevant€to€the€issue€whether€the€appellant€wasÐ öF Ðintoxicated€approximately€two€(2)€hours€later.€€In€the€same€vein,€the€officerððs€determination€that€theÐ Ü, Ðappellant€was€intoxicated€during€the€first€stop€was€relevant€at€trial.€€Thus,€the€officerððs€reasons€forÐ Â Ðfailing€to€arrest€the€appellant€for€driving€under€the€influence,€even€though€he€had€probable€cause€toÐ ¨ø Ðdo€so,€would€necessarily€become€relevant€to€the€juryððs€determination€in€this€case.€€As€a€result,€theÐ ŽÞ Ðcontents€of€the€dispatch,€while€clearly€not€Ô_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô,€were€nonetheless€probative€to€the€issuesÐ tÄ Ðpresented€at€trial.Ð Zª Ðà  àThe€officerððs€testimony€concerning€the€contents€of€the€ð ðbe€on€the€lookoutðð€dispatch€wasÐ @ Ðproperly€admitted.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð &v ÐÌà@¾¾ìàò òòòEVIDENCE€OF€PRIOR€STOPó óóóˆÐ òB ÐÌà  àIn€his€next€issue,€the€appellant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€state€toÐ ¾ Ðintroduce€evidence€concerning€the€prior€stop€for€which€the€appellant€was€not€charged.€€He€contendsÐ ¤ô Ðthat€the€first€stop€constituted€evidence€of€a€prior€bad€act€which€would€be€prohibited€under€Tenn.€R.Ð Š Ú ÐÔ_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€404(b).€€Furthermore,€he€argues€that€this€evidence€should€have€been€excluded€as€it€was€undulyÐ p!À  Ðprejudicial.Ð V"¦! Ðà  àInitially,€the€appellant€failed€to€object€to€this€evidence€at€trial.€€Generally,€the€failure€to€objectÐ <#Œ" Ðwill€result€in€waiver€of€the€issue.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381,€386Ð "$r# Ð(Tenn.€1995).€€Moreover,Ô#†X%<XXX%<Ð#ÔÔ‡X%<XXX%<Ô€the€appellant€failed€to€include€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Ð %X $ ÐÌÌTherefore,€the€issue€is€waived€for€this€reason€as€well.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòState€v.€Maddoxóó,€957Ð º' #' ÐS.W.2d€547,€553€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔSpadafinaÔ_Ôóó,€952€S.W.2d€444,€451€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.Ð  (ð#( ÐApp.€1996).Ô#†X%<XXX%<ÄF#ÔÔ‡X%<XXX%<ÔÐ †)Ö$) Ðà  àThe€appellant€concedes€that€he€failed€to€object€to€this€evidence€and€to€include€this€issue€inÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€motion€for€new€trial.€€However,€he€contends€that€this€Court€should€recognize€plain€error€in€thisÐ R+¢&+ Ðinstance€due€to€the€prejudicial€nature€of€the€evidence.€€This€Court€may,€in€an€exercise€of€itsÐ ° Ðdiscretion,€consider€an€issue€which€has€been€waived.€€However,€in€order€for€this€Court€to€find€plainÐ –æ Ðerror,€the€error€must€affect€a€substantial€right€of€the€accused.€€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€52(b).Ð |Ì Ðà  àAfter€thoroughly€reviewing€the€record,€we€conclude€that€there€is€no€plain€error.€€First,€it€isÐ b² Ðarguable€whether€the€first€stop€could€be€considered€a€ð ðseparateðð€offense€within€the€meaning€of€Tenn.Ð H˜ ÐR.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€404(b).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€James€Ray€Bartlettóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9509„CC„00302,€1998€Tenn.Ð . ~ ÐÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€429,€at€*5,€Lincoln€County€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€filed€April€7,€1998,€at€Nashville)Ð  d Ð(recognizing€that€ð ðour€appellate€courts€have€held€that€the€rule€operates€to€exclude€evidence€of€otherÐ ú J Ðcrimes,€wrongs€or€acts€òòonly€when€they€are€ððwholly€independent€of€that€for€which€[the€defendant]€isÐ à 0 Ðchargedóó.ðð€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€254€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€718€S.W.2d€241Ð Æ   Ð(Tenn.€1986).ðð€(emphasis€added)).€€Secondly,€evidence€regarding€the€prior€stop€was€relevant€to€anÐ ¬ ü  Ðissue€ð ðother€than€conduct€conforming€with€a€character€trait.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€404(b).€€AsÐ ’â  Ðpreviously€stated,€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€initial€stop€were€relevant€to€the€primary€issueÐ xÈ  Ðwhether€the€appellant€was€intoxicated€when€the€deputy€stopped€him€a€second€time,€merely€two€(2)Ð ^®  Ðhours€later.Ð D”  Ðà  àThe€appellantððs€allegation€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€plain€error.€€As€a€result,€this€issue€hasÐ *z  Ðbeen€waived.Ð ` ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ Ü, ÐÌà  àAfter€thoroughly€reviewing€the€record€before€this€Court,€we€conclude€that€there€is€noÐ ¨ø Ðreversible€error.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ô#†X%<XXX%<ÉH#ÔÔ#†¼Z`»XX%<±#ÔÔ€X%<X»¼Z`Ô