ÿWPCš @# UN› %é 0 Dïb3w@;4{ž 0ˆ¦ 0D.Ær 0J8 0T‚ 0^Ö 0h4 0rœ 0@ D3N 0| 0†ý 0ƒ 1u 0dˆ AQì B= 0DZ 0Dž D/â B U>. U*l B)– DC¿ AMNO“¡Ç4bûì]v~IvÓǘHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ñþ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°Ò- ù- þÿEUUDDÓ€Œƒ*#3|x(8(3I¸$¤¤Ý ƒñþ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò****'ÿÿdxd2J 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($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d55557Border 1dd 6Cþÿ << Gÿÿ DÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€4XÔÌÌò òSeptemberÏ10,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€4ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó úÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ôÔ€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„101(a)(3).Ì ‰Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ôÔ€It€is€the€policy€of€this€Court€not€to€refer€to€minor€victims€by€name.€€We€will€refer€to€the€victims€inÏthis€case€as€ð ðJ.A.ðð€and€ð ðS.B.,ðð€or€simply€as€ð ðthe€victims.ððÌ ½Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ôÔ€Because€the€victims€were€seventeen€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€offenses,€the€trial€courtÏconcluded€that€the€use€of€parental,€custodial€or€official€authority€did€not€qualify€as€coercion.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(1).Ì XÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ôÔ€The€sentencing€alternative€commonly€known€as€ð ðjudicial€diversionðð€is€set€forth€at€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„35„313.Ì âÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ôÔ€In€fact,€the€transcript€of€the€trial€testimony€indicates€that,€upon€his€return€from€Memphis,€J.A.Ïbecame€withdrawn€and€began€to€have€familial€troubles.€€J.A.€eventually€moved€out€of€his€familyððsÏhome,€apparently€because€of€embarrassment€over€the€incident€in€Memphis.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€3ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€3ŠÔÔ€4ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€Æ2XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œJACKSON›Ì̜ـÙßR€786A1-j|ä ` à. `€€@ÿRßJULY›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ02C01„9607„CR„00245›Ìà 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 àœSHELBY›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œBERNIE€WEINMANó ó›Ìœò òLESLIE€THOMPSON,ó ó›à àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Assault)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œSHELBY€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœBILL€ANDERSON,€JR.›à àà àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP›Ìœ138€North€Third€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€38103Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJANIS€L.€TURNERÌà 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 àP.T.€HOOVERÌà 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€38103›ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€4°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€4ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant,€Leslie€Thompson,€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3Ïof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€He€was€convicted€by€aÏShelby€County€jury€of€two€counts€of€assault.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€asÏa€Range€I€standard€offender€to€six€months€imprisonment€in€the€countyÏworkhouse€for€each€count,€with€the€sentences€to€run€concurrently.€€The€trial€courtÏalso€imposed€a€two€hundred€fifty€dollar€($250)€fine€for€each€count.€€In€thisÏappeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€both€in€permitting€theÏState€to€question€his€character€witness€about€knowledge€of€his€prior€bad€actsÏand€in€sentencing€him€to€six€months€incarceration.€€After€reviewing€the€record,€weÏconclude€that€the€Defendantððs€issues€lack€merit.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àWe€begin€with€a€summary€of€the€pertinent€facts.€€Over€Labor€DayÏweekend€in€1994,€the€Defendant€accompanied€two€minor€boys,€J.A.€and€S.B.,œ× ƒ: ××  ×›Ïfrom€Henderson,€Texas€to€Memphis,€Tennessee.€€The€victims€were€students€atÍHenderson€High€School€at€the€time,€and€the€Defendant€was€employed€as€aÏchoir€teacher€at€their€school.€€The€victims€met€the€Defendant€through€the€choir.€ÏThe€Defendant€suggested€that€they€go€to€Memphis€for€the€experience€of€seeingÏanother€choir€sing€in€front€of€an€audience.€€According€to€the€testimony€of€J.A.ððsÏmother,€the€Defendant€stated€that€the€trip€was€being€funded€by€the€school.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€and€the€victims€left€Texas€late€on€Friday€night,€droveÏthrough€the€night,€and€arrived€in€Memphis€on€Saturday€morning.€€They€stayed€atÏthe€Defendantððs€sisterððs€home€in€Memphis.€€On€Saturday€afternoon,€they€wentÏto€a€church€to€hear€the€Defendant€sing,€but€the€victims€did€not€practice€or€singÏwith€the€choir.€€The€Defendant€and€the€victims€went€out€on€Saturday€evening€toÏsee€Memphis.€€While€they€were€touring€Memphis,€the€Defendant€bought€beerÏand€cigarettes€for€the€victims.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€evening,€they€came€backÏto€the€Defendantððs€sisterððs€home€and€went€to€bed.€€The€victims€shared€aÏbedroom€with€its€own€bathroom,€and€the€Defendant€slept€in€a€separateÏbedroom.ÌÌà àThey€awoke€on€Sunday€and€went€to€church€to€hear€the€Defendant€sing.€ÏAfter€church,€they€toured€more€of€Memphis€and€later€attended€a€social€functionÏwhere€the€Defendant€sang€again.€€They€went€to€a€movie€after€the€socialÏfunction.€€After€the€movie,€the€Defendant€bought€the€victims€wine€coolers€andÍthey€drove€around€Memphis.€€The€Defendant€began€to€bring€up€matters€of€aÏsexual€nature€as€they€were€conversing.€€He€bought€the€victims€more€wineÏcoolers,€and€they€ate€late€that€night€shortly€before€returning€to€the€DefendantððsÏsisterððs€home.ÌÌà àOnce€home,€the€Defendant€joined€the€victims€in€their€bedroom.€€All€three€ofÏthem€were€dressed€for€bed.€€The€Defendant€sat€down€on€the€bed€next€to€S.B.Ïand€told€him€that€he€loved€him€and€that€ð ðif€there€is€anything€that€you€ever€needÏjust€tell€me.ðð€€The€Defendant€began€to€rub€S.B.ððs€chest€and€thigh.€€As€he€wasÏrubbing€S.B.ððs€thigh,€the€Defendant€began€to€rub€ð ðaround€the€crotch€area.ðð€€AtÏthat€point,€S.B.€feigned€that€he€was€drunk€and€turned€over.€€The€Defendant€thenÏmoved€to€J.A.ððs€side€of€the€bed.€€He€rubbed€the€inside€of€J.A.ððs€thigh€and€hisÏpenis.€€J.A.€acted€like€he€was€asleep.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€then€got€up€from€the€bed€and€went€into€the€bathroomÏattached€to€the€victimsðð€bedroom.€€The€victims€heard€noises€which€indicated€toÏthem€that€the€Defendant€was€masturbating.€€Five€to€ten€minutes€later€theÏDefendant€exited€the€bathroom€and€left€the€victimsðð€bedroom.€€S.B.€and€J.A.Ïwere€alarmed€and€agreed€that€they€needed€to€get€out€of€the€house€immediately.€ÏThey€did€not€want€to€risk€leaving€the€bedroom€to€escape€the€house,€however,Íso€they€ripped€the€screen€of€a€window€in€their€bedroom.€€They€left€the€houseÏwearing€only€their€bedclothes€and€shoes.ÌÌà àUpon€leaving€the€house,€the€victims€ran€to€a€nearby€gas€station.€€TheÏpolice€were€called€and€arrived€there€a€short€time€later.€€The€victims€explainedÏwhat€had€happened€to€the€police€officers.€€As€they€were€doing€so,€theÏDefendant€drove€by€in€his€truck€and€the€victims€pointed€him€out€to€the€police.€ÏRussell€Duvall,€an€officer€with€the€Shelby€County€Sheriffððs€Department,€pursuedÏand€stopped€the€Defendant.€€According€to€Duvall,€when€he€stopped€the€truck,Ïthe€Defendant€asked€him€if€he€had€seen€two€young€men€because€twoÏindividuals€staying€with€him€that€weekend€had€just€run€away.€€Police€officersÏthen€went€to€the€Defendantððs€sisterððs€home€to€investigate€the€matter€andÏdiscovered€that€one€of€the€window€screens€had€been€ripped€apart.€€There€wereÏno€signs€of€a€struggle€in€the€œhome.›€ÌÌà àOn€May€4,€1995,€the€Defendant€was€indicted€on€two€counts€of€sexualÏbattery€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„505(a).€€HeÏwas€tried€from€October€2€to€October€3,€1995.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€theÏtrial€court€granted€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€with€respect€toÏthe€indicted€offenses€of€sexual€battery.€€The€trial€court€found€that€there€had€beenÏinsufficient€proof€of€force€or€coercion€to€support€charging€the€jury€on€sexualÍbattery.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„505(a),€„503(a)(1).× ƒ; ××  ×€€As€a€result,€the€trialÏcourt€charged€the€jury€only€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€assault.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„101(a)(3).€€After€considering€the€proof€presented€at€trial,€theÏjury€found€the€Defendant€guilty€of€two€counts€of€assault.ÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue€on€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€permitting€the€State€to€question€his€character€witness€about€knowledge€of€hisÏprior€bad€acts.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€Defendant€offered€the€testimony€ofÏTerrence€Tresner€as€part€of€his€proof€at€trial.€€Tresner€had€been€a€student€atÏHenderson€High€School€and€had€known€the€Defendant€for€approximately€twoÏyears.€€He€had€worked€with€the€Defendant€as€a€member€of€the€HendersonÏHistorical€Society€as€well.€€Tresnerððs€testimony€at€the€Defendantððs€trial€wasÏadmittedly€offered€as€proof€of€the€Defendantððs€good€character.€€On€directÏexamination,€Tresner€testified€concerning€the€Defendantððs€reputation€in€theÏcommunity€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓQ.à àAre€you€aware€of€Mr.€Thompsonððs€reputation€in€the€community?ÌA.à àYes.ÌQ.à àIs€that€reputation€good€or€bad?ÌA.à àRelatively€good.ÌQ.à àOkay.€€Have€you,€are€you€aware€of€any€information€in€theÏcommunity€that€would€lead€you€to€believe€that€Mr.€Thompson€wasÏsomeone€that€it€would€not€be€safe€for€you€to€stay€in€his€home?Ì.€.€.ÌA.à àIf€I€hadnððt€known€him€previously€and€got€to€know€him€as€aÏperson€and€not€from€rumors,€yes.€€And,€there€were€things€that€floatedÏaround€that€were€not€facts€but€just€rumors,€that€I€would€get€the€wrongÏidea€about€him.ÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒThe€direct€examination€of€Tresner€concluded€after€two€more€questions.ÌÌà àThe€prosecutor€began€cross„examination€by€asking€Tresner€what€rumors€heÏwas€referring€to€on€direct€examination.€€Tresner€stated€that€there€were€rumors€thatÏthe€Defendant€ð ðlikes€to€molest€boys.ðð€€The€prosecutor€followed€this€questioning€byÏasking€Tresner€if€he€knew€of€a€newspaper€article€that€detailed€these€rumors.€ÏTresner€responded€affirmatively.€€The€prosecutor€asked€Tresner€if€he€was€awareÏthat€the€newspaper€article€stated€that€the€Defendant€had€been€convicted€of€childÏmolestation€in€California.€€Tresner€responded€that,€to€the€best€of€his€recollection,€theÏarticle€stated€that€the€Defendant€had€been€arrested€but€not€convicted.€€TheÏprosecutor€then€asked€Tresner€if€it€would€surprise€him€to€know€that€the€newspaperÏarticle€contained€information€about€a€conviction€in€California€or€if€that€informationÏwould€change€his€opinion€of€the€Defendantððs€good€character.€€Tresner€respondedÏthat€the€information€would€not€change€his€opinion.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€Defendant€objected€when€the€prosecutor€began€to€questionÏTresner€about€a€source€of€the€rumors€referred€to€on€direct€examination,€namely€theÏnewspaper€article.€€The€trial€court€conducted€a€bench€conference€to€discuss€theÍmatter€out€of€the€hearing€of€the€jury.€€After€hearing€argument€from€the€prosecutor€andÏdefense€counsel,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€Defendant€had€offered€TresnerððsÏtestimony€as€proof€of€his€good€character.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a)(1);€405(a).€ÏAccordingly,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€prosecutor€could€question€Tresner€aboutÏrelevant€specific€instances€of€conduct€to€test€the€extent€of€his€knowledge€of€theÏDefendantððs€character.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€405(a).€On€appeal,€the€DefendantÏcontends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€permitting€the€prosecutorððs€questions€to€TresnerÏconcerning€the€Defendantððs€character.ÌÌà àWe€begin€our€analysis€by€noting€the€well„established€principle€that€characterÏevidence€is€generally€inadmissible€to€show€conformity€with€a€certain€trait€on€aÏparticular€occasion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a);€òòLaird€v.€Stateóó,€565€S.W.2d€38,€40Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Yet€the€defendant€may€affirmatively€choose€to€place€hisÏor€her€character€at€issue.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a)(1);€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2dÏ144,€149€(Tenn.€1992).€€Once€the€defendant€has€done€so,€the€State€may€confrontÏsuch€evidence€in€multiple€ways.€€The€State€has€the€option€of€presenting€its€ownÏcharacter€evidence€to€rebut€the€defendantððs€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a)(1);ÏòòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€149€(citing€òòDurham€v.€Stateóó,€128€Tenn.€636,€640,€163€S.W.Ï447,€448€œ(1913)).›ÌÌà àIn€addition,€the€State€may€also€opt€to€attack€the€credibility€of€a€characterÏwitness€testifying€on€behalf€of€the€defendant€by€cross„examination€regardingÏrelevant€specific€instances€of€conduct.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€405(a).€€Rule€405(a)Ïprovides€that,€in€the€event€of€such€cross„examination,€the€trial€court€must€uponÏrequest€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€presence€of€the€jury€to€determine€that€aÏreasonable€factual€basis€exists€for€the€inquiry€and€that€the€probative€value€of€theÏspecific€instance€of€conduct€on€the€credibility€of€the€character€witness€outweighs€itsÏprejudicial€effect€on€substantive€issues.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€405(a)(1)€„€(3).€€With€regardÏto€this€type€of€attack,€the€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Rule€405€state€theÏfollowing:ÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThe€examining€lawyer€can€ask€the€witness€about€rumored€arrests€andÏcharges€concerning€the€defendant,€because€the€witnessððs€knowledgeÏof€the€rumors€might€impeach€the€witness€in€the€eyes€of€the€jurors.€€IfÏthe€witness€admits€having€heard€unfavorable€rumors,€the€jury€mayÏdecide€that€the€witnessððs€reputation€or€opinion€testimony€is€entitled€toÏlittle€weight.€€If€the€witness€has€not€heard€the€rumors,€the€witnessððsÏtestimony€may€likewise€be€taken€with€a€grain€of€salt€because€theÏwitness€is€unfamiliar€with€the€accused€or€the€accusedððs€community.ÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒAdvisory€Commission€Comments€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€405.€€In€the€event€of€suchÏquestioning,€the€trial€judge€should€instruct€the€jury€that€the€questions€are€for€theÏpurpose€of€testing€the€credibility€of€the€witness€and€that€the€responses€of€theÏwitness€are€not€substantive€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€character.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏSimsóó,€746€S.W.2d€191,€194€(Tenn.€1988);€òòState€v.€Chestnutóó,€643€S.W.2d€343,€348Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).ÌÌà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€Defendant€affirmatively€chose€to€put€his€character€atÏissue€through€Tresnerððs€testimony€on€direct€examination.€€Tresner€himself€alluded€toÏunsavory€rumors€about€the€Defendant€during€direct€examination.€€The€prosecutorÏthen€cross„examined€Tresner€concerning€his€testimony€on€direct€examination,Ïincluding€his€mentioning€of€rumors€about€the€Defendantððs€arrest€on€or€conviction€forÏchild€molestation€charges.€€Given€the€prosecutorððs€questions€to€Tresner,€the€trialÏcourt€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:ÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àThe€Court€charges€you€that€when€a€defendant€presents€aÏcharacter€witness€to€testify€on€his€behalf,€such€character€witness€mayÏbe€cross„examined€about€certain€alleged€charges€or€rumors€ofÏmisconduct€by€the€defendant.€€Such€cross„examination€of€a€characterÏwitness€as€to€his€knowledge€of€any€alleged€charges€or€rumors€ofÏmisconduct€by€a€defendant€is€not€to€be€considered€as€substantiveÏevidence€of€said€acts,€but€should€be€considered€by€you€only€for€theÏpurpose€of€testing€the€credibility€of€the€character€witness.€€There€is€noÏproof€of€any€kind€in€this€record€that€such€alleged€charges€or€rumors€ofÏmisconduct€are€factual€and€true,€and€reference€to€such€acts€wasÏmade€to€test€the€good€faith,€information€and€accuracy€of€the€characterÏwitness.€€In€other€words,€such€testimony€is€to€be€considered€by€youÏonly€for€the€purpose€of€determining€what€weight,€what€value€you€willÏgive€to€the€character€witnessððs€testimony.ÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒThe€trial€court€also€gave€the€jury€the€pattern€instruction€concerning€evidence€of€goodÏcharacter€offered€on€behalf€of€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€œT.P.I.›€„„€Crim.€42.08.ÌÌà àOf€course,€rulings€on€the€admissibility€of€evidence€and€the€propriety€and€formÏof€cross„examination€are€entrusted€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSee,Íe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€œHutchison›óó,€898€S.W.2d€161,€172€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€116€S.Ct.Ï137,€133€L.Ed.2d€84€(1995);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€72€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.Ct.€1368,€122€L.Ed.2d€746€(1993).€€Such€rulings€willÏnot€be€reversed€on€appeal€absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏCaughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€541€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€510€U.S.€579,€114ÏS.Ct.€475,€126€L.Ed.2d€426€(1993).€€From€our€review€of€the€record,€we€believe€thatÏquestioning€the€Defendantððs€character€witness€concerning€rumors€of€theÏDefendantððs€arrests€or€convictions€stemming€from€a€newspaper€article€wasÏpermissible€under€Rule€405(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€Accordingly,Ïwe€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€erred€or€abused€his€discretion€in€allowing€theÏchallenged€questions.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àIn€his€second€issue€on€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€sentencing€him€to€six€months€incarceration.€€The€record€indicates€that€theÏDefendant€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€assault€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€39„13„101(a)(3).€€This€offense€is€a€Class€B€misdemeanor.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„101(b).€€The€authorized€term€of€imprisonment€for€a€ClassÏB€misdemeanor€is€a€period€of€time€not€greater€than€six€months.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„111(d)(2).€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€Defendant€to€the€maximumÏallowable€term€of€imprisonment€for€each€count,€with€the€sentences€to€runÏconcurrently.€€On€appeal,€the€Defendant€contends€that€his€sentence€is€excessiveÍand€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€him€an€alternative€sentence€such€asÏprobation€or€judicial€diversion.× ƒ< ××  ×ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€ofÏa€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€withÏa€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÏrelevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:€(a)Ïthe€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÏalternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(e)Ïany€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statement€that€theÏdefendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÏrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€4XÔððððÔ€4ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,€and€„210;€òòseeóóÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€andÏthat€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€weÏmay€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€ÏòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àMisdemeanor€sentencing€is€controlled€by€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€40„35„302,€which€provides€in€part€that€the€trial€court€shall€impose€a€specificÏsentence€consistent€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€CriminalÏSentencing€Reform€Act.€€In€misdemeanor€sentencing,€a€separate€sentencingÏhearing€is€not€mandatory,€but€the€court€is€required€to€provide€the€Defendant€with€aÏreasonable€opportunity€to€be€heard€as€to€the€length€and€manner€of€the€sentence.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(a).€€The€trial€court€retains€the€authority€to€place€theÏdefendant€on€probation€either€immediately€or€after€a€time€of€periodic€or€continuousÏconfinement.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(e).€€Misdemeanor€sentencing€isÏdesigned€to€provide€the€trial€court€with€continuing€jurisdiction€and€a€great€deal€ofÏflexibility.€€One€convicted€of€a€misdemeanor,€unlike€one€convicted€of€a€felony,€is€notÏentitled€to€a€presumption€of€a€minimum€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2dÏ829,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994€).ÌÌà àœThe›€principles€of€sentencing€reflect€that€the€sentence€should€be€no€greaterÏthan€that€deserved€for€the€offense€committed€and€should€be€the€least€severeÏmeasure€necessary€to€achieve€the€purposes€for€which€the€sentence€is€imposed.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(3)€„€(4).€ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€probation,€the€judge€must€consider€the€natureÏand€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€defendantððs€criminal€record,€his€backgroundÏand€social€history,€his€present€condition,€including€his€physical€and€mental€condition,Ïthe€deterrent€effect€on€other€criminal€activity,€and€the€likelihood€that€probation€is€in€theÏbest€interests€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.€€òòStiller€v.€Stateóó,€516€S.W.2dÏ617,€620€(Tenn.€1974).€€The€burden€is€on€the€Defendant€to€show€that€the€sentenceÏhe€received€is€improper€and€that€he€is€entitled€to€probation.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€œ1991).ÌÌà àThe€presentence€report€indicates€that€the€Defendant€was€approximatelyÏsixty„eight€years€old€at€the€time€of€sentencing.€€He€is€a€widower€and€has€twoÏadopted€children,€ages€forty„six€and€forty„eight,€who€reside€in€Dallas,€Texas.€€HeÏalso€has€two€sisters,€ages€eighty„seven€and€eighty„four,€who€reside€in€Memphis,ÏTennessee€and€Silver€Springs,€Florida€respectively.€€The€Defendant€is€well„educated,€including€a€graduate€degree€in€the€field€of€music,€and€has€a€goodÍemployment€history.€€He€reported€no€history€of€alcohol€or€drug€abuse.€€TheÏpresentence€report€also€contained€letters€of€support€from€the€Defendantððs€currentÏemployers.Ì›Ìà àœThe›€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing€at€which€the€DefendantÏtestified.€€The€Defendant€stated€that€as€a€result€of€his€arrest€in€this€case,€he€lost€hisÏjobs€at€Henderson€High€School€and€at€the€First€Presbyterian€Church€where€heÏwas€an€organist.€€He€also€lost€his€home€and€moved€from€Henderson,€Texas€toÏTyler,€Texas€where€he€works€part„time€as€an€organist€for€the€Emerald€BayÏCommunity€Church€and€part„time€for€Exchange€Data€Corporation.€€The€DefendantÏtestified€that€he€has€coronary„artery€disease,€for€which€he€has€undergone€multipleÏsurgical€procedures€and€continues€to€take€medication€daily.€€He€stated€that€he€isÏwilling€to€comply€with€whatever€restrictions€are€placed€upon€him€as€a€condition€ofÏprobation.ÌÌÌà àAfter€considering€all€of€the€evidence€and€evaluating€the€DefendantððsÏtestimony,€the€trial€court€specifically€noted€that€the€offense€ð ðrises€to€a€high€level€ofÏseriousness.ðð€€The€trial€court€also€noted€that€the€Defendantððs€offenses€would€haveÍa€lasting€impact€on€the€young€victims.× ƒ= ××  ×€€Given€the€seriousness€of€the€offenses€andÏthe€impact€which€the€Defendantððs€behavior€had€on€the€victims,€the€trial€court€foundÏthat€the€appropriate€punishment€was€a€six„month€term€of€incarceration.€€œÌÌà àThe›€trial€court€is€in€a€much€better€position€to€evaluate€both€the€effect€of€theÏoffenses€upon€the€victims,€as€evidenced€during€œthe›€trial€testimony,€and€theÏtestimony€of€the€Defendant€at€the€sentencing€hearing€than€an€appellate€court,Ïwhich€must€rely€on€the€written€record.€€Trial€judges€are€traditionally€vested€withÏbroad€discretionary€powers€in€sentencing€matters.€€œThis€Court€should€not€place€trialÏjudges€in€a€judicial€straight„jacket€on€sentencing€matters,€and€we€should€beÏreluctant€to€interfere€with€their€traditional€›discretionaryœ€powers.€€òòMoten€v.€Stateóó,€559ÏS.W.2d€770,€773€(Tenn.€1977).€€From›€this€record,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trialÏjudge€erred€or€abused€his€discretion€in€sentencing€the€Defendant€to€a€term€ofÏœconfinement€rather›€than€an€alternative€sentence.€€œÌÌà àThe€Defendant€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€demonstrating€that€theÏsentence€he€received€is€improper€and€that€he€is€entitled€to€an€alternative€sentence.€ÏThus,€this›€issue€is€without€œmerit.€€For›€the€reasons€set€forth€in€the€discussion€above,Íwe€conclude€that€the€Defendantððs€issues€on€appeal€lack€merit.€€We€therefore€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.̛̜ÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE