ÿWPC ½³úwÎoc’…h<™™äÎmˆ ØÿâÌÜѸv‚ðN‚÷9ɰþõñ#Q8·°Ëe "ºSFƒfÕ‚TÚJé³ÇþAr!>Ç_ú¿³0)·8> Gãö=‹œ› ¬ qÃÓŸ#ù.p-æKQ¦€ä‚@UYzÏ·s;¶|•¦N óé– Aåñö5d¨6Ñ›RºßßtÐFQ[]Í9Bû&vâ\z·9|"!úèüO2i|åpàÒ[x,ˆåsŽPô‡0…©þwØÞ2TnbƒÆbk‰µ¯Æ|‡=îás$!V>ôÊ5—£rtU/£êÀ‡ãt º‹5X~?ì·‡Òkq² ©“>±úç®ÓyµDÞ«PãÊC¹h\KÿpÇü¢±³³¥¾ÎþQ”×4¼"j·nK4ÌnN(‹ û\ú\L˜|êS¤XíÙ¡ž‘åQüƒüÜ1éÑ"K‹~£W‡‚f­Ó6—ù¤ñdŽiÞÇÄ&~ËÇ®6므 ÎOó¥¤Sy±P.çð{š¾ÔíÍ–àÈJIð†ž+¹Ãºø0œgCEg!†:–~mí€c‹ïA/QÅÿùçPVö–ÓZ°I±Àɾ„%…¾êOÉw’b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#déNM 0DO“E›pb                                     0ë B 0¤ D3Á D-ô 0K!! ASlÆ¿ 0¤… 0D) A«m˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»=£) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'àž‚ùØ–® ˜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.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ZÝ ƒRØ/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô' ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€right€to€cross„examine€a€witness€is€included€within€the€right€of€an€accused€in€a€criminal€case€to€confrontÐ ° Ðwitnesses€against€him,€a€right€secured€by€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔBrutonÔ_Ô€v.€United€Statesóó,€391€U.S.€123,€126,€88Ð n¾ ÐS.€Ct.€1620,€1623,€20€L.€Ed.€2d€476€(1968)€(citing€òòPointer€v.€Texasóó,€380€U.S.€400,€406„07,€85€S.€Ct.€1065,€1069,€13€L.Ð ,| ÐEd.€2d€923€(1965)).€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  fÝ ƒRØ/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô' ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€court€apparently€was€referring€to€theòò€A.B.A.€Standards€for€Criminal€Justiceóó,€(3d€ed.€1992),€when€itÐ ° Ðsuggested€the€possibility€of€ethical€violations€when€the€prosecution€called€witnesses€it€knew€beforehand€would€notÐ n¾ Ðtestify.€Those€standards€include€the€admonition€that,€ð ðA€prosecutor€should€not€call€a€witness€in€the€presence€of€the€juryÐ ,| Ðwho€the€prosecutor€knows€will€claim€a€valid€privilege€not€to€testify.ðð€€€The€Prosecution€Function,€Standard€3ð!ð5.7(c)Ð ê: ÐExamination€of€Witnesses.€€The€A.B.A.€Standards€are€advisory€only.€Furthermore,€the€State€knew€of€no€valid€privilegeÐ ¨ø Ðthat€this€witness€could€assert€not€to€testify.€€- ù-(|G2Ø/$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\`»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô>Äò»»Ô d(|3ƒ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\`»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ƒ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\`»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼\»»»ÔÑ8€9\XXdæ»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îus\ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼\»îîus #ԈРР ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àMarch€2000€SessionÐ ð@ ÐÔ‡X9\X»¼\ÔÌò òÔ#†¼\»XX9\#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€BILLY€LEE€SMITH,€JR.òòóóÔ‡X9\X»¼\Ôó óÐ ä4 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ Ø ( Ðà@@øøìàNo.€II„497„158„A€€€€€€Timothy€L.€Easter,€JudgeÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<o` AßÐ pÀ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„1371„CCA„R3„CD€Ô_Ô„Ô_Ô€Filed€August€25,€2000Ð eµ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<0` AßÐ 1  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€various€offenses,€consisting€of€aggravated€burglary,€theft,€andÐ &v  Ðreckless€endangerment,€for€which€he€received€an€effective€sentence€of€twelve€years€as€a€Range€IÐ  \ Ðstandard€offender.€€He€timely€appealed,€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€and€claiming€thatÐ òB Ðhe€was€denied€the€right€to€cross„examine€a€Stateððs€witness,€that€the€court€failed€to€give€curativeÐ Ø( Ðinstructions,€that€the€court€referred€to€his€being€in€custody,€and€that€the€State€improperly€called€twoÐ ¾ Ðwitnesses.€€Based€upon€our€review,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð ¤ô ÐÓ´ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ pÀ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼\»àX9\Œ#ÔÔ‡X9\X.¼\ÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Riley,€J.,óó€and€òòWilliam€B.Ð <Œ ÐAcree,€Jr.,€Sp.J.óó,€joined.Ð "r ÐÌCharles€E.€Morton,€IV,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Billy€Lee€Smith,€Jr.Ð î> ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Todd€R.€Kelley,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð º  ÐRonald€L.€Davis,€District€Attorney€General;€Lee€E.€Dryer,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€forÐ  ð Ðthe€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð † Ö  ÐÓöÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼\»XX9\%#ÔÔ‡X9\X»¼\ÔÐ R"¢" ÐÌÌÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant,€Billy€Lee€Smith,€Jr.,€appeals€as€a€matter€of€right€from€his€conviction€by€aÐ %T % ÐWilliamson€County€jury€of€aggravated€burglary;€theft€of€property€valued€at€$500€or€less;€theft€ofÐ ê%:!& Ðproperty€valued€at€$10,000€or€more€but€less€than€$60,000;€and€two€counts€of€reckless€endangerment.€Ð Ð& "' ÐHe€was€found€not€guilty€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€assault.€€His€co„defendants,€Matthew€ShaneÐ ¶'#( ÐSmith€and€Daniel€Wayne€Guthrie,€facing€the€same€charges€as€the€defendant€except€for€the€recklessÐ œ(ì#) Ðendangerment€and€aggravated€assault€charges,€pled€guilty€and€were€sentenced,€prior€to€theÐ ‚)Ò$* Ðdefendantððs€trial,€according€to€a€plea€bargain€agreement€with€the€State.€€Ð h*¸%+ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€six€years€for€aggravated€burglary€(residence€of€MaryÐ 4,„'- ÐBlakeney);€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€for€theft€of€property€valued€at€$500€or€less€(theftÐ -j(.ýC Ðof€property€from€Mary€Blakeney);€and€six€years€for€theft€of€property€valued€at€$10,000€or€more€(theftÐ ° Ðof€the€automobile€of€Ray€Stribling),€the€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€The€defendant€wasÐ –æ Ðalso€sentenced€to€two€years€on€each€of€the€reckless€endangerment€(as€to€Mary€Blakeney€and€JamieÐ |Ì ÐBlakeney)€convictions,€sentences€to€be€served€concurrently€to€each€other€and€to€the€other€sentences,Ð b² Ðfor€an€effective€sentence€of€twelve€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€as€a€Range€IÐ H˜ Ðstandard€offender,€and€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€in€the€county€jail€on€the€misdemeanorÐ . ~ Ðtheft€charge.€€These€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€sentence€the€defendantÐ  d Ðwas€currently€serving€for€convictions€in€Sumner€County.Ð ú J ÐÌà  à€€The€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€on€appeal:Ð Æ   ÐÌÓ*°,XƒX× –X°œX*Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI.€à8× ` x` xàWhether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€convict€theÐ ’â  Ðdefendant;ÐxÈ × ×  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àII.€à8× ` x` xàWhether€the€defendantððs€constitutional€right€to€confrontÐ D”  Ðwitnesses€€was€abridged€when€he€was€not€afforded€anÐ *z  Ðopportunity€to€cross„examine€a€State€witness;Ð`× ×  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIII.€à8× ` x` xàWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€defendantððs€requestÐ Ü, Ðfor€curative€jury€instructions€concerning€a€State€witnessððsÐ Â Ðrefusal€to€testify;Шø× ×  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIV.€à8× ` x` xàWhether€the€trial€court€improperly€referred€to€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendantððs€being€in€custody;€andÐZª× ×  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àV.€à8× ` x` xàWhether€the€State€improperly€called€two€witnesses.Ð&v× ×  ÐÌà  à€We€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€convict€the€defendant€and€that€all€remainingÐ òB Ðissues€are€without€merit.€€Judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð Ø( ÐÌà@¤¤(ìàò òFACTSˆÐ ¤ô ÐÌà  àó óOn€March€19,€1997,€the€defendant€was€driving€a€stolen,€blue€and€silver€Chevrolet€Blazer€inÐ p!À  Ðthe€company€of€his€younger€brother,€Matthew€Shane€Smith,€and€a€friend,€Daniel€Wayne€Guthrie.€Ð V"¦! ÐThe€Blazer€had€been€stolen€earlier€that€same€day€from€the€driveway€of€Ray€Stribling,€a€thirty„six„Ð <#Œ" Ðyear€veteran€of€the€Metro€Fire€Department.€€Around€noon,€the€three€young€men€arrived€at€the€houseÐ "$r# Ðof€Jason€Allison,€apparently€in€Dickson,€Dickson€County,€where€the€defendant€also€lived.€€CharlesÐ %X $ ÐFinch,€the€Stateððs€key€witness,€was€at€Allisonððs€house€at€the€time.€€Finch€testified€that€he€knew€theÐ î%>!% Ðdefendant€because€the€two€had€burglarized€houses€together.€Finch€had€known€the€defendant€someÐ Ô&$"& Ðtwo€years.€€Finch€testified€that€the€defendant€regularly€brought€stolen€goods€to€Allison€who€paid€himÐ º' #' Ðfor€the€goods.€€The€defendant€was€in€the€process€of€acquiring€Allisonððs€van€by€keeping€a€running€tabÐ  (ð#( Ðof€stolen€goods€to€trade€for€Allisonððs€van.€€On€this€particular€day,€the€defendant€came€by€to€getÐ †)Ö$) Ðmoney€from€Allison€as€an€advance€on€one€of€the€items€on€Allisonððs€wish€list,€a€big€screen€television.Ð l*¼%* Ðâ âÐ R+¢&+ Ðà  àBy€approximately€2:45€p.m.€of€the€same€day,€the€defendant€and€his€co„defendants€hadÐ ° Ðâ âselected€a€house€on€a€rural€road€in€Fairview,€Williamson€County.€€The€winding€drive€to€the€houseÐ –æ Ðcrossed€a€creek€and€climbed€a€wooded€hillside€to€the€home.€€At€2:45€p.m.,€Mary€Blakeney,€a€seventhÐ |Ì Ðgrade€teacher€for€thirty„two€years,€and€her€teenage€daughter€were€returning€home€from€the€schoolÐ b² Ðday.€€They€stopped€for€the€daughter€to€get€mail€from€the€box€and€saw€a€strange€vehicle,€which€theyÐ H˜ Ðboth€identified€as€the€vehicle€in€the€photograph€of€Mr.€Striblingððs€stolen€Blazer.€€The€Blazer€wasÐ . ~ Ðparked€at€the€top€of€their€drive.€€Both€were€puzzled€at€first,€and€then€Mary€Blakeney€saw€someoneÐ  d Ðcarrying€a€television€from€her€house.€€Her€daughter€said€that€she€thought€they€were€being€robbed.€Ð ú J ÐAs€the€Blakeneys€drove€into€their€drive€to€block€the€Blazer,€they€were€apparently€spotted.€€TheÐ à 0 Ðindividual€carrying€her€television€dropped€it€in€the€driveway€and€got€in€the€Blazer.€€The€driver€of€theÐ Æ   ÐBlazer€turned€the€vehicle€around€and€headed€down€the€drive€at€a€fast€rate€of€speed.€€The€BlakeneysÐ ¬ ü  Ðheard€what€they€thought€at€first€might€be€firecrackers€but€quickly€realized€were€€gunshots€when€theÐ ’â  Ðdriver€of€the€Blazer€waved€what€appeared€to€be€a€gun€at€Mary€Blakeneyððs€daughter,€Jamie.€€JamieÐ xÈ  ÐBlakeney€had€impulsively€jumped€from€her€motherððs€car€and€was€standing€beside€it€when€the€driverÐ ^®  Ðof€the€Blazer€maneuvered€around€the€Blakeney€vehicle€and€sped€away.€€Ð D”  ÐÌà  àBoth€Mary€Blakeney€and€her€daughter€observed€that€the€driver€of€the€Blazer€was€wearing€anÐ ` Ðorange€University€of€Tennessee€(ð ðUTðð)€jacket€and€an€orange€hat.€€Neither€could€provide€furtherÐ öF Ðidentification.€€The€Blakeneys€were€also€unsure€as€to€how€many€other€individuals€were€present.€Ð Ü, ÐJamie€Blakeney€testified€that€the€driver€was€a€young,€white€male€and€that€a€figure€was€hunched€downÐ Â Ðon€the€passenger€side.€€In€addition€to€the€TV,€a€CD€player€and€a€VCR€had€been€taken€from€theirÐ ¨ø Ðhome.€€The€burglars€had€entered€the€house€by€forcing€in€a€back€door.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌà  àThat€same€afternoon,€between€4:00€and€6:00€p.m.,€the€defendant€and€his€co„defendantsÐ Zª Ðreturned€to€Allisonððs€home.€€Charles€Finch€and€Jason€Allison,€along€with€some€other€individuals,Ð @ Ðwere€in€the€front€yard€when€the€stolen€Blazer€returned.€€Finch€testified€that€the€defendant€told€theÐ &v Ðassembled€group€why€they€had€not€been€able€to€get€the€TV.€€The€defendant€told€the€group€that€a€manÐ  \ Ðand€a€woman€had€tried€to€block€the€driveway€of€the€house€they€were€burglarizing,€so€they€had€toÐ òB Ðdrop€the€TV.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€fired€a€gun€in€the€direction€of€where€the€woman€was.€€TheÐ Ø( Ðdefendant€said€that€the€lady€was€just€standing€there.€€Finch€testified€that€the€three€had€other€itemsÐ ¾ Ðwith€them,€including€two€guns€and€a€CD€player.€€Finch€saw€a€couple€of€spent€rounds€in€the€Blazer.€Ð ¤ô ÐFinch€also€testified€that€the€defendantððs€brother€was€wearing€an€orange€UT€jacket€and€orange€hat,Ð Š Ú Ðand€the€defendant€was€wearing€a€red€and€gold€San€Francisco€49ers€jacket.€Ð p!À  ÐÌà  àA€piece€of€paper€was€found€on€the€defendant€when€he€was€arrested.€€This€evidence€wasÐ <#Œ" Ðidentified€by€Finch€as€being€one€of€the€running€tabs€of€stolen€items€kept€by€the€defendant€andÐ "$r# ÐAllison.€€The€list€included€a€CD€player€and€a€VCR,€as€well€as€other€items€such€as€a€shotgun,Ð %X $ Ðsilverware,€a€pistol,€and€rings.€€Each€item€was€assigned€a€dollar€value.€€Finch€testified€that€the€listÐ î%>!% Ðwas€in€the€defendantððs€handwriting,€which€Finch€recognized€from€having€seen€the€defendantÐ Ô&$"& Ðcompose€many€such€lists€in€the€past.€€€Ð º' #' ÐÌÌà  àDetective€Beard€with€the€Williamson€County€Sheriffððs€Department€testified€that€noÐ l*¼%* Ðfingerprint€evidence€was€found.€€He€also€testified€that€neither€of€the€Blakeneys€was€able€to€make€aÐ R+¢&+ Ðpositive€identification€of€the€defendant€from€photographs€shown€to€them.€€Detective€BeardÐ 8,ˆ', Ðphotographed€the€inside€of€the€Blazer€when€it€was€found.€€The€Blazer€had€been€cannibalized€and€wasÐ ° Ðdeemed€a€total€loss.€One€photograph€of€the€contents€of€the€Blazer€included€firemanððs€glovesÐ –æ Ðbelonging€to€Mr.€Stribling€and€another€pair€of€orange€work„type€gloves€that€did€not€belong€to€Mr.Ð |Ì ÐStribling.Ð b² ÐÌà@òò&ìàò òANALYSISˆÐ . ~ ÐÌà@úúìàI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceˆÐ ú J ÐÌà  àÔ‡ X9\XXX9\Ôó óWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€an€appellate€courtÐ Æ   Ðmust€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€is€sufficient€"to€support€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðfinding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€This€ruleÐ ’â  Ðis€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€aÐ xÈ  Ðcombination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.Ð ^®  ÐCrim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).Ð D”  ÐÌà  àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€an€appellate€court€does€notÐ ` Ðreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ð öF Ðòòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÐ Ü, Ðtrier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,Ð Â Ð859,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.€Ct.€39,€1€L.€Ed.€2d€49€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€an€appellateÐ ¨ø Ðcourt€is€required€to€afford€the€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidenceÐ ŽÞ Ðcontained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€fromÐ tÄ Ðthe€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ð Zª ÐÌà  àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€theÐ &v Ðevidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€thisÐ  \ Ðcourt.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€In€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973),€ourÐ òB Ðsupreme€court€said:€€"A€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€theÐ Ø( Ðtestimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."Ð ¾ ÐÌà  àSince€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€aÐ Š Ú Ðpresumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€whyÐ p!À  Ðthe€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdicts€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639Ð V"¦! ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiencyÐ <#Œ" Ðof€the€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€aÐ "$r# Ðrational€trier€of€fact€to€find€that€the€accused€is€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòTuggleóó,€639Ð %X $ ÐS.W.2d€at€914.Ð î%>!% ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€Stateððs€evidence€is€all€circumstantial€and,€therefore,€the€StateÐ º' #' Ðis€subject€to€the€additional€burden€of€showing€that€the€facts€and€circumstances€so€strongly€implicateÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€accused€as€to€exclude€every€other€reasonable€hypothesis€except€guilt.€€The€defendant€cites€òòStateÐ †)Ö$) Ðv.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)€for€this€proposition.€€The€òòMatthewsóó€court,Ð l*¼%* Ðquoting€our€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€470€S.W.2d€610,€613€(Tenn.€1971),€elaborated,€ð ðInÐ R+¢&+ Ðother€words€ðð[a]€web€of€guilt€must€be€woven€around€the€defendant€from€which€he€cannot€escape€andÐ 8,ˆ', Ðfrom€which€facts€and€circumstances€the€jury€could€draw€no€other€reasonable€inference€save€the€guiltÐ ° Ðof€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðððð€€òòMatthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€at€780.Ð –æ ÐÌà  àHere,€the€Stateððs€proof€included€the€testimony€of€Charles€Finch,€a€professional€criminal€withÐ b² Ða€record€of€nine€felony€convictions€for€car€theft€and€aggravated€burglary.€€The€defense€thoroughlyÐ H˜ Ðcross„examined€Mr.€Finch€in€an€effort€to€discredit€his€testimony,€including€eliciting€from€Finch€anÐ . ~ Ðassertion€that€he€was€absolutely€sure€that€the€defendant€told€him€a€man€and€woman€surprised€himÐ  d Ðby€coming€home€and€blocking€the€drive,€and€that€the€defendant€was€wearing€a€49ers€jacket.€€FinchððsÐ ú J Ðidentification€of€the€defendantððs€handwritten€list€of€items,€with€dollar€values€written€beside€eachÐ à 0 Ðitem,€€was€not€challenged.€€Finch€saw€the€defendant€driving€a€blue€and€silver€Blazer€on€the€day€it€wasÐ Æ   Ðstolen€and€saw€the€ripped€steering€column€of€the€Blazer.€€He€testified€that€this€was€the€way€cars€wereÐ ¬ ü  Ðstolen:€€the€steering€column€was€ripped€from€the€side€opposite€the€key€side€so€the€starter€could€beÐ ’â  Ðð ðpopped.ðð€€€The€Blakeneys€identified€a€blue€and€silver€or€gray€Blazer€as€the€one€driven€by€theÐ xÈ  Ðburglars.€€Mr.€Stribling€identified€the€Blazer€as€the€one€stolen€from€his€drive€and€the€contents€in€theÐ ^®  ÐBlazer€as€his.€€Ð D”  ÐÌà  àThe€Blakeneys€also€heard€noises€that€sounded€like€firecrackers€as€the€Blazer€was€driven€downÐ ` Ðtheir€drive.€€Jamie€Blakeney€saw€the€driver€wave€something€she€determined€was€a€gun€at€her€as€sheÐ öF Ðstood€in€her€drive.€€Finch€testified€that€the€defendant€returned€to€the€home€of€Jason€Allison€late€inÐ Ü, Ðthe€afternoon€of€March€19€when€it€was€ð ðdusky„dark,ðð€and€Finch€saw€two€pistols€and€spent€bulletÐ Â Ðshells€in€the€Blazer.€€Finch€also€testified€that€the€defendant€related€events€of€an€interrupted€burglary,Ð ¨ø Ðwhich€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€concluded€was,€in€fact,€the€Blakeney€burglary.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌà  àMuch€of€the€defendantððs€argument€regarding€the€insufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€based€uponÐ Zª Ðthe€alleged€questionable€credibility€of€Charles€Finch.€€However,€the€jury€resolved€this€issue€in€favorÐ @ Ðof€the€State.€€We€conclude€that€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€is€sufficient€for€a€rational€trierÐ &v Ðof€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€aggravated€burglary,€theft€(both€misdemeanor€and€felony),€andÐ  \ Ðreckless€endangerment.€€Ð òB ÐÌà@ä ä ìàò òII.€€Right€to€Cross„Examine€WitnessˆÐ ¾ ÐÌà  àó ó€€€€The€defendant€next€contends€that€he€was€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€confrontÐ Š Ú Ðwitnesses€against€him€when€he€was€unable€to€cross„examine€co„defendant,€Daniel€Wayne€Guthrie.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рp!À  ÐThe€defendant€relies€on€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€212€S.W.2d€374,€375€(Tenn.€1948)€(ð ðWhile€cross„Ð V"¦! Ðexamination€of€a€witness€is€controlled€by€the€trial€judge€and€his€discretion€will€not€ordinarily€beÐ <#Œ" Ðdisturbed,€where€a€witness€has€testified€to€material€matters€on€his€direct€examination,€the€right€toÐ "$r# Ðcross„examine€cannot€be€denied.ðð).€€Ð %X $ ÐÌà  àThe€following€exchange€took€place€when€Mr.€Guthrie€was€called€by€the€State:Ð Ô&$"& ÐÐ º' #' Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Mr.€Guthrie,€where€are€you€residing€now?а` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€The€county€jail.Ð|Ì` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Okay,€and,€on€March€19,€you€committed€a€burglary?€Correct?ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€plead€the€Fifth.Ð d` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Your€Honor,€I€donððt€believe€he€has€any€Fifth€AmendmentÐ à 0 Ðprivilege,€and€I€ask€that€he€be€instructed€to€ask€and€answer€theÐ Æ   Ðquestion.Ь ü ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àCOURT:€Has€he€already€entered€pleas€in€that€case?ÐxÈ ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àGeneral€Dryer:€Yes,€your€Honor.Ð D”  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àCOURT:€Mr.€Guthrie,€when€you€entered€your€plea€in€that€case,€youÐ ` Ðwaived€your€Fifth€Amendment€right.€€The€Courtððs€instructing€you€toÐ öF Ðanswer€the€question.€€Ask€the€question.ÐÜ,` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Were€you,€did€you€commit€a€burglary€on€March€19€out€inÐ ¨ø ÐFairview?ÐŽÞ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€refuse€to€testify.ÐZª` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Now,€Mr.€Guthrie,€youððve€answered€other€questions€in€this€case.€Ð &v ÐIf€Mr.€Morton€got€up€and€asked€you€questions,€would€you€answerÐ  \ Ðthose?ÐòB` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€[Shook€head,€ð ðnoðð€and€whispered€ð ðno.ðð]о` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Have€you€answered€Mr.€Mortonððs€questions€in€the€past?Њ Ú` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Mr.€who?ÐV"¦!` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Mr.€Morton.Ð"$r#` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Oh,€about€my€past€cases,€yeah.Ðî%>!%` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Okay,€so€if€Mr.€Morton€asked€you€to€testify€again€when€he€cross„Ð º' #' Ðexamines€you,€that€would€be€okay,€wouldnððt€it?Р(ð#(` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMr.€Morton:€Your€Honor,€cross„examination€is€going€to€be€limited€toÐ l*¼%* Ðwhat€has€been€brought€out.ÐR+¢&+` x` x ÐÐ 8,ˆ', Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àGeneral€Dryer:€Thatððs€not€the€rule€in€Tennessee,€your€Honor,€IÐ ° Ðbelieve,€anymore.€€Itððs€anything€that€is€relevant.Жæ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àCOURT:€Answer€the€question,€Mr.€Guthrie.Ðb²` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€refuse€to€testify.Ð. ~` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àCOURT:€I€find€that€this€witness€is€in€contempt.€[Inaudible]€ten€daysÐ ú J Ðin€the€Williamson€County€Jail€consecutive€to€his€sentence€that€he€isÐ à 0 Ðcurrently€serving.ÐÆ  ` x` x ÐÌà  àAt€this€point,€Mr.€Guthrie€was€removed€from€the€courtroom.€€The€defendant€did€not,€at€anyÐ ’â  Ðpoint,€seek€to€cross„examine€this€witness.€€Admittedly,€Mr.€Guthrie€made€it€clear€that€he€also€refusedÐ xÈ  Ðto€be€cross„examined.€€Nevertheless,€the€defendant€made€no€attempt€to€assert€a€right€to€cross„Ð ^®  Ðexamine€this€witness,€and€the€trial€court€was€never€asked€to€allow€or€disallow€cross„examination.€Ð D”  ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€36(a)€addresses€the€broadly€applied€ð ðraise„or„waiveðð€rule:Ð *z  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òRelief;€Effect€of€Error.€ð"ð€ó ó(a)€Relief€To€Be€Granted;€ReliefÐ öF ÐAvailable.€ð"ð€The€Supreme€Court,€Court€of€Appeals,€and€Court€ofÐ Ü, ÐCriminal€Appeals€shall€grant€the€relief€on€the€law€and€facts€to€whichÐ Â Ðthe€party€is€entitled€or€the€proceeding€otherwise€requires€and€mayÐ ¨ø Ðgrant€any€relief,€including€the€giving€of€any€judgment€and€making€ofÐ ŽÞ Ðany€order;€provided,€however,€relief€may€not€be€granted€inÐ tÄ Ðcontravention€of€the€province€of€the€trier€of€fact.€€Nothing€in€this€ruleÐ Zª Ðshall€be€construed€as€requiring€relief€be€granted€to€a€party€responsibleÐ @ Ðfor€an€error€or€who€failed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonablyÐ &v Ðavailable€to€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.€€€€€€€Ð \` x` x Ðà  à€€€€€€€ò òÔ#†X9\XX X9\À1#ÔÐ òB Ðó óà  àEven€if€not€waived,€this€issue€would€be€subject€to€a€harmless€error€analysis€for€constitutionalÐ Ø( Ðerrors€under€òòChapman€v.€Californiaóó,€386€U.S.€18,€24€87€S.€Ct.€824,€828,€17€L.€Ed.€2d€705€(1967)Ð ¾ Ð(upholding€the€application€of€a€harmless€error€analysis€to€federal€constitutional€errors€in€stateÐ ¤ô Ðcriminal€trials).€€Our€supreme€court€has€established€standards€for€determining€when€constitutionallyÐ Š Ú Ðimproper€restrictions€on€the€right€of€cross„examination€constitute€harmless€error:Ð p!À  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€determining€whether€the€constitutionally€improper€denial€of€aÐ <#Œ" Ðdefendantððs€opportunity€to€impeach€a€witness€is€harmless€under€theÐ "$r# ÐòòChapmanóó€standard,€[i.e.,€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt]€theÐ %X $ Ðcorrect€inquiry€is€whether,€assuming€that€the€damaging€potential€ofÐ î%>!% Ðthe€cross„examination€were€fully€realized,€the€error€was€nonethelessÐ Ô&$"& Ðharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.к' #'` x` x ÐÌòòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€253€(Tenn.€1993)€(citing€òòDelaware€v.€Van€Arsdallóó,€475€U.S.€673,Ð †)Ö$) Ð684„85,€106€S.€Ct.€1431,€1438,€89€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1986).Ð l*¼%* Ðâ âÐ R+¢&+ Ðà  àThe€evidence€that€the€defendant€asserts€€he€was€unable€to€present€to€the€jury€because€of€hisÐ ° Ðâ âinability€to€cross„examine€Daniel€Guthrie€includes:€(1)€the€prior€convictions€of€the€witness€andÐ –æ Ðð ðdirect€material€conflicts€with€other€witnessesðð;€(2)€the€fact€that€the€prosecution€knew€the€witnessÐ |Ì Ðwas€unwilling€to€testify;€and€(3)€the€fact€that€the€defendant€had€not€commanded€the€witness€not€toÐ b² Ðtestify.€€This€is€the€missing€evidence€that,€according€to€the€defendant,€had€it€been€fully€realized,òòóóÐ H˜ Ðwould€have€damaged€the€Stateððs€case€and€thereby€benefitted€the€defendant.Ð . ~ ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€first€point,€Guthrie€gave€his€address€as€the€county€jail€and€admitted€that€he€hadÐ ú J Ðalready€answered€questions€about€his€ð ðpast€cases.ðð€€Because€Guthrie€was€already€identified€as€aÐ à 0 Ðfriend€of€the€defendantððs,€it€is€unlikely€that€the€defendant€would€have€benefitted€from€a€detailedÐ Æ   Ðlisting€of€Guthrieððs€criminal€past.€€The€defendant€points€to€no€piece€of€evidence€that€the€witnessÐ ¬ ü  Ðcould€have€provided€that€conflicted€with€testimony€of€any€other€witness.€€As€to€the€second€point,Ð ’â  ÐGuthrie€had€no€rights€to€assert€to€prevent€his€testifying.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€quotedÐ xÈ  Ðfavorably€the€proposition€that€ð ðððthe€ordinary€rule€is€that€once€a€person€is€convicted€of€a€crime,€he€noÐ ^®  Ðlonger€has€the€privilege€against€self„incrimination€as€he€can€no€longer€be€incriminated€by€hisÐ D”  Ðtestimony€about€said€crime.€.€.€.ðððð€€òòReina€v.€United€Statesóó,€364€U.S.€507,€513,€81€S.€Ct.€260,€264,€5Ð *z  ÐL.€Ed.€2d€249€(1960).€€On€the€other€hand,€if€a€person€has€a€valid€privilege€against€self„incriminationÐ ` Ðto€assert,€ð ðneither€a€defendant€nor€the€prosecution€possesses€the€right€to€benefit€from€any€inferencesÐ öF Ða€jury€may€draw€from€a€witnessðð€assertion€of€his€privilege€against€self„incrimination.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð Ü, ÐMichael€F.€Maraschielloóó,€No.€M1997„00049„CCA„R10„CD,€2000€WL€1130126,€at€*17€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð Â ÐApp.,€Nashville,€July€28,€2000)€(citing€òòState€v.€Dicksóó,€615€S.W.2d€126,€129€(Tenn.€1981)).€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðeffect€of€this€general€principle€is€that€the€prosecution€ð ðmay€not€deliberately€call€a€witness€closelyÐ ŽÞ Ðidentified€with€the€defendant,€knowing€that€the€witness€will€assert€his€right€to€remain€silent.ðð€€òòBusbyÐ tÄ Ðv.€Holtóó,€781€F.2d€1475,€1477€(11òòthóó€Cir.€1986)€(quoting€òòLawrence€v.€Wainwrightóó,€445€F.2d€281,€282Ð Zª Ð(5òòthóó€Cir.€1971)).€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court,€in€òòNamet€v.€United€Statesóó,€373€U.S.€179,€186„87,€83€S.Ð  \ ÐCt.€1151,€1154„55,€10€L.€Ed.€278€(1963),€has€provided€lower€courts€with€factors€to€consider€inÐ òB Ðdetermining€whether€a€witnessððs€assertion€of€his€privilege€against€self„incrimination€in€the€juryððsÐ Ø( Ðpresence€has€resulted€in€reversible€error.€€Those€factors€include€whether€the€prosecutor€made€aÐ ¾ Ðconscious€and€flagrant€attempt€to€build€his€case€out€of€inferences€arising€from€invocation€of€theÐ ¤ô Ðprivilege,€and€whether€the€witnessððs€refusal€to€answer€ð ðadded€critical€weight€to€the€prosecutionððsÐ Š Ú Ðcase€in€a€form€not€subject€to€cross„examination,€and€thus€unfairly€prejudiced€the€defendant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€Ð p!À  ÐNothing€in€the€record€here€indicates€that€the€prosecutor€made€any€effort€to€build€his€case€fromÐ V"¦! ÐGuthrieððs€assertion€of€his€Fifth€Amendment€privilege.€€In€fact,€the€prosecutor€was€convinced€that€theÐ <#Œ" Ðwitness,€having€already€pled€guilty€and€been€sentenced,€had€no€valid€privilege.€€The€prosecutor€inÐ "$r# ÐòòNametóó€believed,€ð ðwith€some€justification€that€their€[the€defendantsðð]€plea€of€guilty€to€the€gamblingÐ %X $ Ðcharge€would€erase€any€testimonial€privileges€as€to€that€conduct.ðð€373€U.S.€at€188,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1155.Ô#†¼\»XX9\Ñ #ÔÔ‡X9\X»¼\ԀРî%>!% ÐAdditionally,€the€prosecutor€could€reasonably€have€believed€that€this€witness€might€decide€to€testifyÐ ° Ðrather€than€be€subject€to€contempt.€€As€òòNametóó€explains,€ð ðthe€prosecutor€need€not€accept€at€face€valueÐ –æ Ðevery€asserted€claim€of€privilege,€no€matter€how€frivolous.ðð€€Ô#†¼\»XX9\Úx#ÔÔ‡X9\X»¼\ÔòòIdóó.€€The€weight€of€the€Stateððs€case€didÐ |Ì Ðnot€hang€on€this€witnessððs€assertion€of€his€privilege€against€self„incrimination€and€anyÐ b² Ðconcommitment€inferences€made€by€the€jury.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€defendantððs€final€point,€the€defendant€would€have€had€no€reason€to€commandÐ  d ÐGuthrie€not€to€testify.€€By€refusing€to€testify,€the€witness€became€ð ðunavailableðð€under€TennesseeÐ ú J ÐRule€of€Evidence€804(a)(2),€which€defines€a€witness€as€ð ðunavailableðð€who€ð ð[p]ersists€in€refusing€toÐ à 0 Ðtestify€concerning€the€subject€matter€of€the€declarantððs€statement€despite€an€order€of€the€court€to€doÐ Æ   Ðso.ðð€€Here,€the€prosecutor€questioned€the€witness€concerning€his€participation€in€a€crime€that€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðwitness€had€confessed€to€and€been€sentenced€for,€according€to€a€plea€bargain€agreement€with€theÐ ’â  ÐState.€€Such€an€admission€was€admissible€evidence€as€a€hearsay€exception€under€Tennessee€Rule€Ð xÈ  Ðof€Evidence€804(b)(3)€as€a€statement€against€interest.€€It€is€improbable€that€such€evidence€wouldÐ ^®  Ðhave€been€beneficial€to€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€fails€to€point€to€any€piece€of€evidence€thatÐ D”  Ðmight€have€emerged€under€cross„examination€of€Daniel€Guthrie€to€bolster€his€defense.€€The€greaterÐ *z  Ðlikelihood€is€that€cross„examination€of€this€witness€would€have€further€convinced€the€jury€of€hisÐ ` Ðguilt.€Ð öF ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€this€issue€was€waived€by€the€defendantððs€failure€to€assert€his€right€to€cross„Ð Â Ðexamine€Daniel€Guthrie€during€trial,€but,€even€if€not€forfeited,€his€missed€opportunity€to€cross„Ð ¨ø Ðexamine€this€witness€was€harmless€error.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌà  àIt€appears€that€the€defendant€also€contends€that€the€State€should€not€have€called€as€a€witnessÐ Zª ÐMatthew€Shane€Smith,€a€brother€of€the€defendant€as€well€as€a€co„defendant€in€this€case.€€Out€of€theÐ @ Ðpresence€of€the€jury,€Smith€refused€to€testify,€even€though€he€had€already€entered€a€guilty€plea€in€theÐ &v Ðmatter€for€which€the€defendant€was€being€tried.€€Consequently,€the€trial€court€found€him€in€contemptÐ  \ Ðand€sentenced€him€to€ten€days€in€jail.€€Thus,€the€witness€presented€no€testimony€to€the€jury.€€TheÐ òB Ðdefendant€contends€that€it€was€correct€to€keep€ð ðthe€non„testimony€of€Matthew€Shane€Smith€from€theÐ Ø( Ðjury.ðð€€To€the€extent€that€the€defendant€argues€it€was€error€for€the€State€to€have€called€Matthew€ShaneÐ ¾ ÐSmith€to€the€stand€in€the€first€place,€this€claim€is€without€merit.Ð ¤ô ÐÌà@´´ìàò òIII.€€Curative€Jury€InstructionsˆÐ p!À  ÐÌà  àó óThe€following€exchange€took€place€between€counsel€for€the€defense€and€the€trial€court€afterÐ <#Œ" ÐGuthrie€was€found€in€contempt€and€removed€from€the€courtroom:Ð "$r# ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMr.€Morton:€What,€sir,€with€the€jury€coming€in€and€seeing€Mr.Ð î%>!% ÐGuthrieððs€refusal€to€answer,€Iððd€like€some€sort€of€remedy€instructionÐ Ô&$"& Ðto€them€that€his€failure€to€testify€in€no€way€reflects€on€my€client.к' #'` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€€Well,€the€reason€I€did€it€that€way,€Mr.€Morton,€is€that,Ð †)Ö$) Ðas€I€stated€earlier,€itððs€my€belief€from€review€of€the€law,€it€is€.€.€.Ð l*¼%* Ðthereððs€some€ethical€issues€about€putting€a€witness€on€that€you€knowÐ R+¢&+ Ðis€not€going€to€testify.€€Unfortunately,€by€the€time€we€got€to€Mr.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐSmith€we€knew€he€wasnððt€going€to€testify.€€We€didnððt€know€that€whenÐ ° Ðwe€allowed€the€jury€to€hear€Mr.€Guthrie.€€So€I€donððt€know€that€thereÐ –æ Ðis€any€curative€instruction€that€this€court€needs€to€give€the€jury.€€IððllÐ |Ì Ðlet€them€infer€from€it€.€.€.€At€the€time€he€was€called€when€the€jury€wasÐ b² Ðpresent€we€didnððt€know€whether€he€was€going€to€testify€or€not,€so€IÐ H˜ Ðoverrule€your€[inaudible].Ð. ~` x` x ÐÌà  àWe€have€noted€that€the€State€acted€within€its€prerogative€when€it€called€Daniel€Guthrie.€€NoÐ ú J Ðcurative€instruction€was€necessary.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð à 0 ÐÌà@ÐÐìàò òIV.€€Improper€ReferenceˆÐ ¬ ü  ÐÌà  àó óThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€protection€afforded€him€by€the€presumption€of€innocence€wasÐ xÈ  Ðtainted€when€the€trial€court,€before€impaneling€the€selected€jurors,€but€in€the€presence€of€allÐ ^®  Ðprospective€jurors,€asked,€ð ðCan€we€bring€in€Mr.€Wright€(pause€while€reviewing€papers)€.€.€.€Billy€LeeÐ D”  ÐSmith.ðð€€This€statement€is€not€included€in€the€record,€therefore€it€is€waived.€€Nevertheless,€becauseÐ *z  Ðthe€absence€of€this€statement€from€the€video€record€is€not€the€fault€of€the€defendant,€we€address€thisÐ ` Ðissue.Ð öF ÐÌà  àThe€Supreme€Court€noted€that€ð ð[o]ne€of€the€essential€due€process€safeguards€that€attends€theÐ Â Ðaccused€at€his€trial€is€the€benefit€of€the€presumption€of€innocence.€.€.€.ðð€€òòEstelle€v.€Williamsóó,€425€U.S.Ð ¨ø Ð501,€517,€96€S.€Ct.€1691,€1699,€48€L.€Ed.€2d€126€(1976).€€This€court€has€stated€that,€ð ð[d]ue€processÐ ŽÞ Ðrequires€that€a€criminal€defendant€be€afforded€the€ððphysical€indicia€of€innocence.ðððð€òòState€v.€Smithóó,Ð tÄ Ð639€S.W.2d€677,€681€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1982)€(quoting€òòKennedy€v.Ð Zª ÐCardwellóó,€487€F.2d€101,€104€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1973)).€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€theÐ @ Ðdefendant€was€brought€into€the€courtroom€by€guards€or€restrained€in€any€way.€€Even€if€the€statementÐ &v Ðby€the€trial€court€was€just€as€reported€by€the€defendant,€the€defendant€apparently€expressed€noÐ  \ Ðobjection.€€The€defendant€points€to€no€way€in€which€he€was€specifically€harmed€since€he€does€notÐ òB Ðshow€that€any€prospective€juror€even€took€note€of€the€trial€courtððs€statement.€€Any€error€wasÐ Ø( Ðharmless.Ð ¾ ÐÌà@wwìàò òV.€€€Improper€Calling€of€WitnessˆÐ Š Ú ÐÌà  àó óThis€issue€is€addressed€in€our€treatment€of€defendantððs€issues€II€and€III€where€we€concludeÐ V"¦! Ðthat€the€State€acted€properly€in€calling€both€co„defendants€to€testify.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ %X $ Ðó óÌà  àBased€upon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€convictÐ Ô&$"& Ðthe€defendant€of€each€of€the€crimes€for€which€he€was€found€guilty,€and€that€it€was€harmless€error€forÐ º' #' Ðthe€defendant€not€to€have€been€afforded€the€opportunity€to€cross„examine€a€State€witness.€€HavingÐ  (ð#( Ðalso€concluded€that€the€defendantððs€remaining€issues€are€without€merit,€we€affirm€the€judgment€ofÐ †)Ö$) Ðthe€trial€court.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌÐ 8,ˆ', Ї€€€€€€€€€€à  àà ` àà × àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà × àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGEÔ#†¼\»XX9\pz#ÔÔ‡X9\X»¼\ÔÐ –æ ÐòòóóÔ#†¼\»XX9\)™#ÔÔ€X9\X»¼\Ô