ÿWPC “…·øÈ×NÑk®ú+*8æíƶÒÐÄç¸O‰åd¡@ Í)Žº˜}\}oÖìxŠOë´¡ôùh¸Œ:Ó7â̼Á¡ÎÞXû B¤YˆxL¢ÿ¥Éþ"Y_pnÀ:&:ëå… +g€Wgâ;Œ®÷z=n8™ØÐ/ ×ã‹–Ù±‡7¦Ý°%? nì,=|dC ’gw=!n3üMsßõNâØ0Ù¯'µ””Vâä>ÍÖòóÉŸ¾îÓ±4Ö]Ébh¬ê©9üÝ&c×—Þw9w$P¹J‡e•Ò“ŽZªª3óÂw(úÞEùó²©(ƒìÕl^„ÄŽ¹&TXt ‡ôÏ/ÏŽÑw•ÛËŒ±9`ÏúJø¦$ùI1¿HÁ*Ô¬U¬„qdI½}Ë)…Ÿ³ûÞ'|´ 4"ƒùrq+[ 8-Néâƒæ"¯ê »¹2•Ä`PQ©5_ °•ê }º ™2)ë톢…ó©Î j 3§Ë9ˆmTî‡2p‰6ne®4M”l󓹤ʴw¬þ–ŠÆ”zóã~lÄJâDÝŠæô<9F£Ìrˆ§w|m§6;‘äÅL9Ÿú›t¤åÆ{ÛåÕÀÎÿ¸e Q>E=]ÁŸR‡Cpb %\^ b 0ˆnU NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë U@±NñññEóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóbõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõ 0ëýýýý Bèè 0¤ D3© D-Ü 0K   ASTƧ 0¤m 0D A«U»“i)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¡B )¬7¥3|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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2 $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ü»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôv`ò»»Ô d(|3û$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ü»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3û$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ü»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ ô»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡»Õø»»»ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Õø»»»ÕøÔÑ8€pXXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îÌî»¼ÕøÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Õø»îîÌ;#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àMay€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XŽX»¼ÕøÔÌò òÔ#†¼Õø»XXŽ=#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JESSE€ROSS€Ô_ÔTOLBERTÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡XŽX»¼ÕøÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Ô_ÔRoaneÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€11768€€€€€€E.€Eugene€Ô_ÔEblenÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„02326„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐAugust€18,€2000Ð ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÌà  àDefendant€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€conviction€of€aggravated€assault.€€At€trial€the€trialÐ d´ Ðjudge€did€not€let€defense€counsel€question€the€sole€prosecution€witness€about€the€witnessðð€guilty€pleaÐ P  Ðto€extortion€and€subsequent€judicial€diversion.€€The€court€did€allow€questioning€regarding€the€factsÐ <Œ Ðunderlying€the€witnessðð€prosecution.€€Defendant€now€alleges€that€this€evidentiary€ruling€€violated€hisÐ (x Ðrights€under€the€confrontation€clauses€of€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€We€holdÐ d Ðthat€the€trial€court€erred.€€Under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€608€defense€counsel€should€have€beenÐ P Ðallowed€to€question€the€witness€regarding€the€guilty€plea€and€judicial€diversion.€€However,€weÐ ì< Ðconclude€that€the€error€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€We€thus€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÐ Ø( Ðtrial€court.Ô#†¼Õø»XXŽ×#ÔÔ‡XŽX»¼ÕøÔÐ Ä ÐÓ$ÓÓ  ÓÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ œì ÐÓ} ÓÌòòÔ#†¼Õø»àXŽ) #ÔÔ‡XŽX.¼ÕøÔThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJohn€Everett€Williamsóó€andÐ tÄ ÐòòAlan€E.€Glenn,€JJ.,óó€joined.Ð `° ÐÔ#†¼Õø»XXŽ' #ÔÔ‡XŽX»¼ÕøÔÌJoe€H.€Walker,€District€Public€Defender;€Alfred€Ô_ÔHathcockÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Public€Defender;€and€RolandÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÔ_ÔCowdenÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Harriman,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Jesse€Ross€Ô_ÔTolbertÔ_Ô.€Ð $"t! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Clinton€J.€Morgan,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ü#L# ÐJ.€Scott€Ô_ÔMcCluenÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Frank€Harvey,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General;Ð è$8 $ Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÔ#†¼Õø»XXŽ: #ÔÔ‡XŽX»¼ÕøÔÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Õø»XXŽ #ÔÔ‡XŽX»¼ÕøÔˆÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Õø»XXŽm#ÔÔ€XŽX»¼ÕøÔà  àDefendant€Jesse€Ross€Ô_ÔTolbertÔ_Ô€was€convicted€of€aggravated€assault€by€a€Ô_ÔRoaneÔ_Ô€County€juryÐ „)Ô$) Ðand€sentenced€to€three€years€incarceration€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€appeal€DefendantÐ p*À%* Ðraises€one€issue€regarding€his€constitutional€confrontation€rights.€€During€cross„examination€of€theÐ \+¬&+ Ðvictim€the€trial€court€did€not€allow€defense€counsel€to€discuss€€the€victim's€guilty€plea€to€extortionÐ H,˜', Ðbecause€the€victim€was€granted€judicial€diversion.€€The€trial€court€did€allow€defense€counsel€toÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôexplore€the€factual€circumstances€that€gave€rise€to€the€victimððs€prosecution.€€Defendant€now€arguesÐ ° Ðthat€this€ruling€by€the€trial€court€violated€Defendant's€confrontation€rights,€and€asks€that€we€reverseÐ œì Ðhis€conviction.€€After€a€careful€review€of€the€record€and€applicable€law€we€conclude€that€the€trialÐ ˆØ Ðcourt€erred.€€However,€we€conclude€that€the€error€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€and€thusÐ tÄ Ðaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð `° ÐÌÓ  Óò òI.€€Factsó óÐ 8 ˆ ÐÓ¼ÓÌà  àOn€August€9,€1996€Defendant€Tolbert€went€to€the€home€of€his€ex„wife,€Candace€Eskridge,Ð  ` Ðto€get€his€son€for€a€parental€visit.€€One€block€from€the€house€he€encountered€his€ex„wifeððs€€husband,Ð ü L  ÐMarshall€Eskridge,€and€Defendantððs€son,€who€were€out€riding€bicycles.€€At€trial€Eskridge€testifiedÐ è 8  Ðthat€Defendant€pulled€up€in€a€van€with€two€other€persons,€exited€the€van,€and€informed€Eskridge€thatÐ Ô$  ÐDefendant€was€there€to€get€his€son.€€Eskridge€asked€Defendant€to€come€to€the€house,€so€EskridgeÐ À  Ðcould€confirm€that€Defendant€had€Candaceððs€permission€to€take€the€boy.€€Defendant€then€yelledÐ ¬ü  Ðobscenities€at€Eskridge€and€threatened€him.€€Eskridge€said€that€he€could€smell€alcohol€onÐ ˜è  ÐDefendantððs€breath,€and€that€Defendantððs€eyes€were€bloodshot.€€Eskridge€placed€his€body€betweenÐ „Ô  ÐDefendant€and€Defendantððs€son,€and€Defendant€again€threatened€Eskridge.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àEskridge€placed€the€boy€on€one€of€the€bicycles,€climbed€on€the€same€bike,€and€rode€back€toÐ H˜ Ðthe€house.€€Defendant€followed€in€the€van.€€At€the€house€Eskridge€took€the€boy€inside,€and€whenÐ 4„ Ðdoing€so€he€observed€Defendant€yelling€and€exiting€the€van€with€a€shotgun.€€While€Defendant€stoodÐ  p Ðat€the€front€of€the€house€and€screamed€for€Candace€Eskridge€to€come€outside,€Eskridge€proceededÐ  \ Ðto€retrieve€a€nine€millimeter€automatic€pistol€from€inside€the€house.€€After€he€collected€the€weaponÐ øH Ðhe€went€back€outside€the€house€because€Candace€Eskridge€had€responded€to€Defendantððs€yelling€andÐ ä4 Ðhad€gone€out€to€talk€to€Defendant.€€€By€the€time€that€Eskridge€exited€the€house€Defendant€was€backÐ Ð  Ðin€the€van,€sitting€on€the€passenger€side.€€Defendant€pointed€the€shotgun€at€Eskridge,€and€EskridgeÐ ¼  Ðpointed€the€pistol€at€Defendant.€€No€words€were€exchanged,€and€after€a€moment€the€van€drove€offÐ ¨ø Ðwith€Defendant€in€it.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAt€trial€the€Stateððs€only€proof€was€the€testimony€of€Marshall€Eskridge,€and€DefendantÐ l¼ Ðpresented€no€proof.€€Defendant€sought€to€undermine€Eskridgeððs€credibility€by€delving€into€theÐ X ¨ Ðcircumstances€regarding€Eskridgeððs€resignation€from€the€Knoxville€Police€Department€in€March€ofÐ D!” Ð1996.€€Eskridge€was€caught€in€an€FBI€sting€operation€when€he€arrested€a€man€for€whom€no€warrantÐ 0"€  Ðwas€outstanding,€and€offered€to€ð ðfixðð€the€warrant€for€a€cash€sum.€€Eskridge€pled€guilty€to€one€countÐ #l! Ðof€extortion,€and€received€judicial€diversion.€€Eskridge€testified€that€as€a€result€he€resigned€from€theÐ $X" ÐKnoxville€Police€Department;€the€presentence€report€prepared€for€his€guilty€plea€hearing€states€thatÐ ô$D # Ðhe€was€fired.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€ruled€pre„trial€that€defense€counsel€could€explore€the€factual€circumstancesÐ ¸'#& Ðunderlying€Eskridgeððs€guilty€plea,€but€that€defense€counsel€could€not€discuss€any€aspect€of€the€legalÐ ¤(ô#' Ðproceedings€against€Eskridge,€including€the€guilty€plea€and€judicial€diversion.€€The€trial€court€didÐ )à$( Ðnot€give€any€reasons€for€this€ruling€in€the€record.€€Defense€counsel€managed€a€furious€attack€on€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðvictimððs€credibility€with€questions€regarding€the€circumstances€of€the€victimððs€crime.Ð h+¸&* Їò òÓ  ÓII.€Analysisó óÐ ° ÐÓ?"ÓÌà  àDefendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€did€not€allow€an€inquiry,€on€crossÐ ˆØ Ðexamination,€regarding€the€victimððs€guilty€plea€and€judicial€diversion€status,€and€that€in€so€doing€theÐ tÄ Ðtrial€court€violated€Defendantððs€right€to€effectively€cross€examine€his€accuser.€€Defendant€argues€thatÐ `° Ðdefense€counsel€should€have€been€allowed€to€question€the€victim€regarding€the€plea€and€judicialÐ L œ Ðdiversion.€€Defendant€also€argues€that€defense€counsel€should€have€been€permitted€to€admit€the€guiltyÐ 8 ˆ Ðplea€into€evidence€if€Defendant€denied€the€existence€of€the€plea.€€We€agree€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ $ t Ðwhen€it€did€not€allow€questioning€of€the€victim€about€the€plea€and€diversion.€€Tennessee€Rule€ofÐ  ` ÐEvidence€608€controls€this€issue,€and€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€did€not€follow€the€procedure€setÐ ü L  Ðforth€in€the€rule.€€We€do€not€think€that€judicial€diversion€is€a€ð ðconvictionðð€within€the€meaning€ofÐ è 8  ÐRule€609,€however,€and€thus€any€extrinsic€evidence€of€Defendantððs€plea€and€diversion€would€notÐ Ô$  Ðhave€been€admissible€had€Defendant€denied€the€existence€of€the€plea.€€Accordingly,€when€the€trialÐ À  Ðcourtððs€error€is€placed€in€the€context€of€the€entire€trial,€the€error€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÐ ¬ü  Ðdoubt,€and€therefore€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€that€a€criminal€defendantÐ pÀ Ðð ðshall€enjoy€the€right€.€.€.€.€to€be€confronted€with€the€witnesses€against€him.ðð€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€IV.€Ð \¬ ÐLikewise,€Tennesseeððs€constitution€states€that€ð ðthe€accused€hath€the€right€.€.€.€.€to€meet€the€witnessesÐ H˜ Ðface€to€face.ðð€€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I.,€ðð€9.€€These€so€called€ð ðconfrontationðð€clauses€have€been€interpretedÐ 4„ Ðto€give€a€defendant€the€right€to€physically€face€and€effectively€cross„examine€the€governmentððsÐ  p Ðwitnesses.€€òòState€v.€Howard€Brownóó,€No.€E1995„00017„SC„R11„CD,€2000€WL€49153,€at€*€3,€KnoxÐ  \ ÐCounty€(Tenn.€2000)€òòpet.€for€cert.€filed,€68€U.S.L.W.€3998óó;€òòState€v.€Belseróó,€945€S.W.2d€776,€784Ð øH Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(quoting€òòDelaware€v.€Fenstereróó,€474€U.S.€15,€20€(1985)).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€right€to€an€effective€cross„examination€is€not€unbridled.€€This€right€is€part€of€aÐ ¼  Ðdefendantððs€right€to€present€a€defense,€and€generally€an€accused€ð ðdoes€not€have€an€unfettered€rightÐ ¨ø Ðto€offer€evidence€that€is€incompetent,€privileged,€or€otherwise€inadmissible€under€standard€rules€ofÐ ”ä Ðevidence.ðð€€òòMontana€v.€Egelhoffóó,€518€U.S.€37,€42€(1996).€€The€right€to€present€relevant€evidence€mayÐ €Ð Ðbow€to€accommodate€other€legitimate€interests€in€the€criminal€trial€process.€€òòMichigan€v.€Lucasóó,€500Ð l¼ ÐU.S.€145,€149€(1991)€(quoting€òòRock€v.€Arkansasóó,€483€U.S.€44,€55€(1987).€€Defendantððs€briefÐ X ¨ Ðimplicitly€acknowledges€these€limitations;€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€only€becauseÐ D!” Ðthe€evidence€regarding€the€victimððs€guilty€plea€and€judicial€diversion€is€competent€evidence€underÐ 0"€  Ðthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.à h àÐ #l! ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€Defendantððs€assertion€that€an€inquiry€regarding€the€victimððs€guilty€plea€andÐ ô$D # Ðjudicial€diversion€should€have€been€allowed€on€cross€examination.€€Defendant€argues€that€this€resultÐ à%0!$ Ðis€mandated€by€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€609,€but€we€think€that€the€issue€is€controlled€by€RuleÐ Ì&"% Ð608.€€Rule€609€governs€impeachment€of€a€witness€when€a€witness€has€been€convicted€of€crimeÐ ¸'#& Ðpunishable€by€death€or€one€year€or€more€in€prison,€or€a€crime€involving€dishonesty€or€false€statement.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(2).€€The€rule€sets€forth€guidelines€that€provide€when€the€witness€may€beÐ )à$( Ðâ âasked€about€the€conviction€(on€cross„examination),€and€how€extrinsic€evidence€may€be€admitted€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðprove€that€the€witness€has€been€so€convicted€if€the€witness€denies€the€conviction€under€oath.€€òòId.óóÐ ° Ð609(1).€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àHere,€however,€the€victim€was€not€convicted€of€any€crime.€€The€victim€did€plead€guilty€toÐ tÄ Ðextortion,€but€was€granted€judicial€diversion.€€When€judicial€diversion€is€granted€a€judgment€ofÐ `° Ðconviction€is€not€entered€in€the€record,€and€all€proceedings€against€the€defendant€are€stayed.€€òòSeeóóÐ L œ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313(a)(1)(A)€(1999).€€If€diversion€is€completed€successfully€all€officialÐ 8 ˆ Ðrecords€regarding€the€prosecution€are€expunged€from€the€Defendantððs€criminal€record.€€òòId.óó€ðð€313(b).€Ð $ t ÐThe€effect€is€ð ðto€restore€the€person,€in€the€contemplation€of€the€law,€to€the€status€the€person€occupiedÐ  ` Ðbefore€such€arrest€or€indictment€or€information.ðð€€òòId.óó€€ð ðSuch€discharge€or€dismissal€shall€not€beÐ ü L  Ðdeemed€a€conviction€for€purposes€of€disqualifications€or€disabilities€imposed€by€law€upon€convictionÐ è 8  Ðof€a€crime€or€for€any€other€purpose,€except€as€provided€in€subsection€(b).ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€313(a)(2).€€AlthoughÐ Ô$  Ðsubsection€(b)€does€discuss€the€admissibility€of€judicial€diversion€records,€it€limits€admissibility€toÐ À  Ð(1)€non„public€records€kept€by€the€trial€court,€that€are€(2)€presented€in€civil€trials€where€the€defendantÐ ¬ü  Ðis€a€civil€plaintiff,€and€(3)€the€subject€matter€of€the€suit€is€the€same€matter€as€the€original€criminalÐ ˜è  Ðprosecution.€€òòId.óó€ðð313(b).€€Notably,€the€statute€omits€any€reference€to€the€general€admission€ofÐ „Ô  Ðjudicial€diversion€records€for€impeachment€purposes€under€Rule€609.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àGiven€the€language€of€the€statute€we€think€that€when€a€defendant€is€granted€judicial€diversionÐ H˜ Ðthere€is€no€conviction€within€the€meaning€of€Rule€609,€and€thus€the€rule€does€not€apply€when€counselÐ 4„ Ðseeks€to€impeach€a€witness€with€a€criminal€prosecution€that€has€concluded€in€judicial€diversion.€€òòSeeóó,Ð  p Ðòòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Schindleróó,€986€S.W.2d€209,€211€(Tenn.€1999)€(holding€in€part€that€successfulÐ  \ Ðcompletion€of€judicial€diversion€does€not€bar€evidence€of€the€underlying€criminal€act€as€a€prior€badÐ øH Ðact);€òòState€v.€Dishmanóó,€915€S.W.2d€458,€463€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(suggesting€that€there€is€noÐ ä4 Ðconviction€within€the€meaning€of€Rule€609€when€pretrial€diversion€is€granted).€€Here,€this€means€thatÐ Ð  Ðany€extrinsic€evidence€of€the€victimððs€guilty€plea€and€judicial€diversion€is€inadmissible.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àWe€think€that€the€evidence€of€the€victimððs€guilty€plea€and€judicial€diversion€is€governed€byÐ ”ä ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€608(b),€which€states€in€part:Ð €Ð ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà ` à(b)€€Specific€Instances€of€Conduct.€ð!ð€Specific€instances€of€conduct€of€aÐ X ¨ Ðwitness€for€the€purpose€of€attacking€or€supporting€the€witnessððs€credibility,€other€thanÐ D!” Ðconvictions€of€crime€as€provided€in€Rule€609,€may€not€be€proved€by€extrinsicÐ 0"€  Ðevidence.€€They€may,€however,€if€probative€of€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness€andÐ #l! Ðunder€the€following€conditions,€be€inquired€into€on€cross„examination€of€the€witnessÐ $X" Ðconcerning€the€witnessððs€character€for€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness€or€concerningÐ ô$D # Ðthe€character€for€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness€of€another€witness€as€to€which€theÐ à%0!$ Ðcharacter€witness€being€cross„examined€has€testified.€€The€conditions€which€must€beÐ Ì&"% Ðsatisfied€before€allowing€inquiry€on€cross„examination€about€such€conduct€probativeÐ ¸'#& Ðsolely€of€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness€are:Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âÐ )à$( Ðà ` à(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€juryððs€presenceÐ ° Ðand€must€determine€that€the€alleged€conduct€has€probative€value€and€that€a€reasonableÐ œì Ðfactual€basis€exists€for€the€inquiry;Ð ˆØ Ðâ âÒ°è?ÒÒ°Ú?ÒÌUnder€this€rule€a€witness€who€has€been€granted€judicial€diversion€may€be€properly€questioned,€forÐ `° Ðimpeachment€purposes,€about€the€criminal€conduct€that€lead€to€prosecution,€as€well€as€the€subsequent€Ð L œ Ðprosecution€and€judicial€diversion.€€òòSeeóó€òòSchindleróó,€986€S.W.2d€at€211.€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòDishmanóó,€915Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€at€463€(questioning€of€victim€regarding€burglary€prosecution€proper€under€Rule€608€evenÐ $ t Ðthough€pre„trial€diversion€was€granted€and€completed);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€€645€S.W.2d€258€(Tenn.Ð  ` ÐCrim.€App.€1982)€(under€Rule€608€trial€court€should€have€allowed€questioning€of€witness€regardingÐ ü L  Ðlarceny€prosecution,€even€though€pre„trial€diversion€was€granted).€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àHere,€defense€counsel€requested€a€pre„trial€hearing€to€show€that€the€victim€had€indeed€pledÐ À  Ðguilty€to€extortion€and€received€judicial€diversion.€€The€trial€court€replied€ð ðNo.€€No.€€No.€€No.ðð€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðtrial€court€instructed€defense€counsel€that€on€cross„examination€counsel€could€not€discuss€any€aspectÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€victimððs€guilty€plea€and€judicial€diversion,€but€that€counsel€could€inquire€about€the€factualÐ „Ô  Ðcircumstances€underlying€the€victimððs€prosecution.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ pÀ Ðwhen€it€did€not€allow€Defendant€to€cross„examine€the€victim€regarding€the€victimððs€guilty€plea€andÐ \¬ Ðjudicial€diversion.€€The€language€of€Rule€608€is€non„discretionary;€a€court€ð ðupon€request€òòmustóó€holdÐ H˜ Ða€hearing.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€608€(emphasis€added).€€Because€the€trial€court€did€not€follow€the€properÐ 4„ Ðprocedure€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€instructed€defense€counsel€not€to€discuss€the€guilty€plea€andÐ  p Ðjudicial€diversion€during€cross„examination.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àOrdinarily,€the€next€step€in€our€analysis€would€be€to€assess€whether€this€evidentiary€error€isÐ ä4 Ðso€egregious€that€it€rises€to€the€level€of€a€constitutional€violation.€€However,€even€when€a€defendantððsÐ Ð  Ðright€to€effectively€cross„examine€a€witness€is€violated€this€Court€may€not€set€aside€a€conviction€ifÐ ¼  Ðthe€constitutional€error€at€trial€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2dÐ ¨ø Ð238,€252„53€(Tenn.€1993);€òòBelseróó,€945€S.W.2d€at€784.€€Assuming,€arguendo,€that€DefendantððsÐ ”ä Ðconfrontation€rights€were€violated€by€the€trial€courtððs€error,€we€nonetheless€affirm€the€judgment€ofÐ €Ð Ðthe€trial€court€because€we€conclude€that€the€error€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€assess€the€effect€of€an€improper€denial€of€a€defendantððs€cross„examination€rightÐ D!” Ðwe€must€ask€if€the€error€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€even€if€the€damaging€potential€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðcross„examination€were€to€be€fully€realized.€€òòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€253€(citing€òòDelaware€v.€VanÐ #l! ÐArsdallóó,€475€U.S.€673,€684„85€(1986)).€€Factors€to€be€considered€in€making€this€decision€include€ð ðtheÐ $X" Ðimportance€of€the€witnessðð€testimony€to€the€prosecutionððs€case,€the€cumulative€nature€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðtestimony,€the€presence€or€absence€of€evidence€corroborating€or€contradicting€the€witness€on€materialÐ à%0!$ Ðpoints,€the€extent€of€cross„examination€otherwise€permitted,€and€the€overall€strength€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðprosecutionððs€case.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòVan€Arsdallóó,€475€U.S.€at€684„85)).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àHere,€the€victimððs€testimony€was€central€to€the€prosecutionððs€case€because€it€was€the€onlyÐ )à$( Ðevidence€of€Defendantððs€crime.€€There€were€no€other€witnesses€at€trial.€€Nonetheless€we€concludeÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€the€trial€courtððs€error€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€because€the€cross„examination€thatÐ h+¸&* Ðwas€allowed€regarding€the€victimððs€crimes€was€extensive.€€Any€additional€damage€that€would€haveÐ ° Ðbeen€caused€by€questioning€the€victim€about€the€guilty€plea€and€judicial€diversion€would€have€beenÐ œì Ðnegligible.€€The€relevant€portion€of€the€record€reads€as€follows:Ð ˆØ ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓ*„°‚X" —X°œX*ÓDefense:à0 " àAnd€when€you€took€his€$240,€you€made€a€deal€with€him,€didnððt€you?Ð`°" Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àI€donððt€understand€you€by€deal.Ð8 ˆ" Ð " Ð  ÐÌDefense:à0 " àWell,€you€said,€thereððs€a€warrant€out€for€you,€didnððt€you?Ð `" Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àYes.Ðè 8 " Ð " Ð  ÐÌDefense:à0 " àAnd€you€said,€I€can€take€care€of€that€warrant€for€you;€didnððt€you?ÐÀ " Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àYes.€€Yes.Иè " Ð " Ð  ÐÌDefense:à0 " àBut€for€me€to€take€care€of€that€warrant€for€you,€itððs€going€to€take€$240.€Ð pÀ ÐThatððs€what€you€told€him,€isnððt€it?Ð\¬" Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àYes.Ð4„" Ð " Ð  ÐÌDefense:à0 " àAnd€you€took€his€money,€didnððt€you?Ð \" Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àYes,€I€did,€yes.Ðä4" Ð " Ð  ÐÌDefense:à0 " àYou€took€the€$240?м " Ð " Ð  ÐÌÓ<„°‚X" ¸ ‚,h–X„°‚X" —X<ÓVictim:€à0 " àYes.Дä" Ð " Ð  ÐÌÓ?„°‚X" ä —X„°‚X" ¸ ‚,h–X?ÓDefense:à0 " àNow€you€didnððt€give€back€that€money€before€the€FBI€confronted€you,Ð l¼ Ðdid€you?ÐX ¨" Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àNo,€I€did€not.Ð0"€ " Ð " Ð  ÐÌDefense:à0 " àBut€you€and€the€FBI€had€a€little€meeting;€didnððt€you?Ð$X"" Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àYes.€Ðà%0!$" Ð " Ð  ÐÌDefense:à0 " àAnd€in€fact,€the€word€extortion€was€used,€wasnððt€it?и'#&" Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àYes.Ð)à$(" Ð " Ð  ÐÌDefense:à0 " àMore€than€once,€wasnððt€it?Ðh+¸&*" Ð " Ð  ЇVictim:€à0 " àYes.а" Ð " Ð  ÐÌDefense:à0 " àNow€as€a€police€officer€you€were€completely€familiar€with€the€crime€ofÐ ˆØ Ðextortion,€werenððt€you?ÐtÄ" Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àYes,€I€was.ÐL œ" Ð " Ð  ÐÌDefense:à0 " àAnd€you€admitted€to€the€FBI€that€you€had€taken€his€money?Ð$ t" Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àYes,€I€did.Ðü L " Ð " Ð  ÐÌDefense:à0 " àAnd€you€admitted€that€you€took€it,€because€you€told€him€that€youððd€takeÐ Ô$  Ðcare€of€the€warrant€for€him?ÐÀ " Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àYes,€I€did.Иè " Ð " Ð  ÐÌDefense:à0 " àAnd€it€was€after€that€that€(sic)€you€lost€your€job€with€the€KnoxvilleÐ pÀ ÐPolice€Department,€isnððt€it?€Ð\¬" Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àNot€that€Ið!ðyes,€I€resigned.Ð4„" Ð " Ð  ÐÌDefense:à0 " àYou€resigned?€€Well€they€knew€about€it;€didnððt€they?Ð \" Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:à " àExcuse€me?Ð ä4 ÐÌDefense:à0 " àThe€Knoxville€Police€Department€knew€that€youððd€been€stung€by€theÐ ¼  ÐFBI?Шø" Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àYes.ЀÐ" Ð " Ð  ÐÌDefense:à0 " àAnd€it€was€after€they€learned€about€this€sting€that€your€career€with€theÐ X ¨ ÐKnoxville€Police€Department€terminated,€wasnððt€it?ÐD!”" Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àNot€on€their€terms.Ð#l!" Ð " Ð  ÐÌDefense:à0 " àThatððs€not€what€I€asked.€€Iððm€talking€about€timing€in€here.€€Iððm€talkingÐ ô$D # Ðabout€timing.€€My€question€to€you€is,€it€was€after€they€learned€that€theÐ à%0!$ ÐFBI€got€you,€that€your€career€ended€with€the€Knoxville€PoliceÐ Ì&"% ÐDepartment;€isnððt€that€correct?и'#&" Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àI€was€in€the€process€of€leaving,€yes.Ð)à$(" Ð " Ð  Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐDefense:à0 " àYou€going€to€tell€this€jury€you€had€any€choice€in€keeping€that€job€afterÐ ° Ðâ âthe€FBI€had€stung€you?Мì" Ð " Ð  ÐÌVictim:€à0 " àIt€was€a€slim€possibility.ÐtÄ" Ð " Ð  ÐÒ°WÒÒ°WÒÌÌà  àIn€short,€the€jury€was€made€aware€that€the€victim€committed€a€crime€for€financial€gain,€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðhe€abused€his€position€of€trust€as€a€police€officer€by€committing€the€crime€while€on„duty,€that€heÐ $ t Ðadmitted€his€crime€to€the€FBI,€and€that€the€€crime€was€responsible€for€his€immediate€departure€fromÐ  ` Ðthe€Knoxville€Police€Department.€€During€his€testimony€the€victim€admitted€his€guilt€to€extortion.€Ð ü L  ÐThe€only€point€of€contention€was€whether€he€was€fired€or€voluntarily€quit€his€job€as€a€KnoxvilleÐ è 8  Ðpolice€officer.€€We€think€that€any€additional€questions€regarding€the€victimððs€guilty€plea€and€judicialÐ Ô$  Ðdiversion€would€have€caused€little€additional€prejudice€to€the€victimððs€credibility.€€As€a€result,€weÐ À  Ðconclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€allow€questioning€about€the€guilty€plea€and€judicial€diversionÐ ¬ü  Ðis€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð ˜è  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€Conclusionó óÐ pÀ ÐÓ¿kÓÌà  àFor€the€above€reasons€we€AFFIRM€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð H˜ ÐÌÌÌà  àà Ê àà Œ àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà Ê àà Œ àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÔ#†XpXXXŽ‹#ÔÔ_Ô