ÿWPC.+ b#Ál %- 0 ˆ3UN» z Òƒ^ U wa 0De Æ© Æo Æ5 Æû NÁ 4à E× Ù è mê 0J 0TK 0^Ÿ 0hý 0re 0|× 0†S 0Ù 1ui 0dÞU>BU*€ßªb‰»‘LPÛcv~>vÓ¼ 0ë& Bz' 0@—' D3×' D- ( 0K7( AS‚(ÆÕ( 0¤›) 0D?* A«ƒ*˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptN©,+ (#Ã$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 5ÖJ~'ø_°3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô !" ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times ÕÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€+ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€Tennessee€the€testimony€of€an€accomplice€must€be€corroborated€if€it€is€to€form€the€basis€of€a€validÏcriminal€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBigbeeÔ_Ôóó,€885€S.W.2d€797€(Tenn.€1994).Ì- ù- ±Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€+ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Defendant€claims€that€the€additional€counts€were€impermissibly€based€on€a€mere€ð ðreassessmentðð€of€theÏevidence.€€However,€Ô_Ôthe€State€argues€thatÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€Mr.€Ô_ÔSchmacherÔ_Ôððs€testimony€led€to€new€corroborative€evidence,€Ô_Ôand€was€notÔ_ÔÏa€mere€reassessment€of€evidence€already€in€the€possession€of€the€State.Ì úÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€+ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€after€1998,€the€legislature€amended€section€40„35„210(e)€so€that€when€enhancing€factors€andÏmitigating€factors€were€present,€the€presumptive€sentence€for€Class€Ô_ÔAÔ_Ô€felonies€is€the€midpoint,€not€the€minimum,Ïwithin€the€range,€the€conspiracy€to€deliver€over€700€pounds€of€marijuana€in€this€case€occurred€prior€to€theÏamendment.€€Thus,€the€correct€presumptive€sentence€in€this€case,€and€the€one€applied€by€the€trial€court,€was€theÏminimum€sentence€within€the€range.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€+ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€fines€assessed€were€as€follows:€$150,000€for€count€one;€Ô_Ô$2,500€each€for€counts€three€and€four;Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔandÔ_ÔÏ$5000€each€for€counts€five,€six,€seven,€eight€and€Ô_Ônine,€originally€Ô_ÔtotallingÔ_Ô€$180,000.Ô_Ô€Ô_Ô€The€fines€were€reduced€toÏ$160,000€when€the€trial€court€subsequently€dismissed€the€four€ð ðÔ_ÔSchumakerÔ_Ô€countsðð€of€money€laundering.Ô_ÔÌ ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€+ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„17„417(j)€authorizes€up€to€$500,000€for€conspiracy€to€deliver€overÏ700€pounds€of€marijuana.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Ô_ÔSections€40„Ô_Ô35Ô_Ô„111(b)(2),Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€(3)€Ô_ÔauthorizeÔ_Ô€a€maximum€ofÏ$10,000€for€each€count€of€conspiracy€to€commit€money€laundering€and€a€maximum€of€$25,000€for€each€count€ofÏmoney€laundering.€ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  Serv Geneva ÒÒ  Serv Geneva Ò(|G2üS$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôà½ò»»Ô d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‹$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÑ#€,,¼d#ÑÑ#€,,¼d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ àÔ€+îÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÔ€+¼ÔÌÓ  ÓJune€20,€2000€SessionÌÔ€+XÔÌò òÔ€+¼ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€FRANK€MICHAEL€Ô_ÔVUKELICHÔ_ÔÔ€+XÔó óÌÌà@ àò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÌà@ àNo.€98„D„2423€€€€€€Walter€C.€Kurtz,€JudgeÌÌÌà@ àßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÌÌà@ àNo.€M1999„00618„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€September€11,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÌó óÌÓ  Óò òòòà àà àà àà àÌà àó óóóOn€December€8€through€December€17,€1998,€Frank€Ô_ÔVukelichÔ_Ô,€the€Defendant€and€Appellant,Ïwas€tried€in€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court€for€one€count€of€conspiracy€to€deliver€700Ïpounds€or€more€of€marijuana,€three€counts€of€conspiracy€to€commit€money€laundering,€and€fiveÏcounts€of€money€laundering.€€The€jury€found€the€Defendant€not€guilty€of€one€count€of€conspiracyÏto€commit€money€laundering,€but€guilty€on€all€other€counts.€€Following€a€subsequent€sentencingÏhearing,€the€court€effectively€sentenced€the€Defendant€to€thirty„four€years€of€incarceration€andÏordered€the€Defendant€to€pay€fines€totaling€$180,000.€€After€a€hearing€regarding€the€DefendantððsÏmotion€for€new€trial,€however,€the€trial€court€dismissed€four€money€laundering€counts.€€TheÏDefendant€appeals€here,€arguing;€(1)€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€the€consolidation€ofÏindictments;€(2)€that€although€the€trial€court€correctly€dismissed€four€money„laundering€counts,€theÏtrial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€dismiss€the€counts€prior€to€trial,€thus€prejudicing€the€Defendant;€(3)Ïthat€the€trial€court€erroneously€denied€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€the€fruits€of€two€searchÏwarrants€executed€at€the€Defendantððs€home;€(4)€that€the€Defendantððs€confrontation€rights€wereÏviolated€by€the€introduction€of€hearsay€at€trial;€(5)€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€refused€to€grant€aÏmistrial;€(6)€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€the€introduction€of€prior€acts€of€the€Defendant€atÏtrial;€and€(7)€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€The€State€also€appeals€here,€arguing€that€the€trial€courtððsÏdismissal€of€the€four€money„laundering€counts€was€erroneous.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€weÏhold€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€dismissed€the€four€money€laundering€counts,€and€those€countsÏmust€be€reinstated.€€As€to€the€Defendantððs€claims,€we€find€no€merit.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part€and€reversed€in€part.ÌÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed€inÏPart€and€Reversed€in€Part.ó óÌÌòòJerry€L.€Smith,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€and€òòJohn€EverettÏWilliams,€JJ.óó,€joined.ÌÌPeter€J.€Ô_ÔStrianseÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€appellant,€Frank€Michael€Ô_ÔVukelichÔ_Ô.ÌÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€David€H.€Ô_ÔFindleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;ÏVictor€S.€Johnson,€District€Attorney€General;€and€John€Zimmermann,€Assistant€District€Attorney,Ïfor€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.ÌÌò òà@ àOPINIONó óÌÌò òòòà@ àFactual€BackgroundÌÌà àó óóóIn€November€of€1989,€the€Metropolitan€Nashville€Police€Department€was€investigating€theÏDefendant,€the€owner€and€operator€of€a€tour„bus€company,€for€drug€trafficking.€ò ò€ó óIn€1991,€PoliceÏSergeant€James€Ô_ÔMcWrightÔ_Ô€received€information€from€a€confidential€informant€that€Randy€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_ÔÏwas€transporting€drugs€in€a€slate„colored€Honda€Accord.€€Sergeant€Ô_ÔMcWrightÔ_Ô€was€familiar€withÏMr.€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_Ô.€€As€a€result€of€the€information,€Sergeant€Ô_ÔMcWrightÔ_Ô€stopped€Mr.€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_Ô€in€a€carÏmatching€the€above€description€in€Ô_ÔDicksonÔ_Ô,€Tennessee.€€Sergeant€Ô_ÔMcWrightÔ_Ô€proceeded€to€searchÏMr.€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_Ôððs€vehicle,€which€had€an€Oklahoma€license€plate,€and€found€$135,000€in€cash€hiddenÏinside€a€door€panel.€ò ò€ó óMr.€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_Ô€also€had€an€Oklahoma€driverððs€license.€€As€a€result€of€the€stop,ÏMr.€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_Ô€began€cooperating€with€police.€ò ò€€ó óMr.€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_Ô€told€police€that,€at€the€DefendantððsÏdirection,€he€had€been€delivering€money€from€either€the€Defendant€or€James€Ô_ÔEasonÔ_Ô,€who€lived€on€aÏfarm€in€Santa€Fe,€Tennessee,€to€someone€in€Arizona€where€he€would€pick€up€large€amounts€ofÏmarijuana€and€€bring€it€back€to€either€the€Defendant€or€James€Ô_ÔEasonÔ_Ô,€both€of€whom€were€inÏTennessee,€or€deliver€it€to€Gary€Jones€in€Fort€Lauderdale,€Florida.€ò ò€ó óMr.€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_Ô€also€told€police€thatÏthe€money€that€police€discovered€in€his€car€had€been€loaded€into€his€vehicle€at€Mr.€Ô_ÔEasonÔ_Ôððs€farm.Ìò òòòà àó óóóBased€on€that€information,€police€obtained€a€search€warrant€for€Mr.€Ô_ÔEasonÔ_Ôððs€farm.€ò ò€ó óWhenÏthey€searched€Mr.€Ô_ÔEasonÔ_Ôððs€farm,€police€found€large€scales,€at€least€$35,000€in€cash,€fifty€pounds€ofÏmarijuana€and€an€all„terrain€vehicle€registered€to€the€Defendant.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔEasonÔ_Ô€later€confirmed€that€theÏscales,€the€all„terrain€vehicle€and€the€marijuana€were€placed€there€by€the€Defendant.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔEasonÔ_Ô€alsoÏconfirmed€that€the€Defendantò ò€ó óknew€Gary€Jones.€ò ò€€Ìà àó óMr.€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_Ô€testified€that€the€Defendant€instructed€him€to€purchase€a€houseboat€for€theÏDefendant.ò ò€ó óThe€Defendant€and€Mr.€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_Ô€went€to€look€at€the€houseboat€together,€and€theÏDefendant€subsequently€gave€Mr.€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_Ô€$24,000€in€cash€with€which€to€purchase€the€boat€fromÏDan€Ô_ÔSizemoreÔ_Ô.€ò ò€ó óMr.€Ô_ÔSizemoreÔ_Ô€confirmed€that€the€Defendant€and€Mr.€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_Ô€had€looked€at€theÏboat€together€and€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_Ô€ultimately€purchased€the€boat€for€$24,000€in€cash.€ò ò€ó óMr.ÏÔ_ÔSizemoreÔ_Ô€also€testified€that€the€Defendant€later€complained€that€the€boat€had€broken€down.€ò òòòÌà àó óóóFurthermore,€Mr.€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_Ô€testified€that€he€and€the€Defendant€were€partners€in€a€HauntedÏHouse€business.ò ò€ó ó€When€dividing€their€profits€from€this€partnership,€Mr.€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_Ô€stated€that€heÏwould€give€his€share€of€the€cash€profits€to€the€Defendant€in€small€bills€so€the€Defendant€couldÏdeposit€that€money€into€his€own€bank€account,€and€the€Defendant,€in€turn,€would€repay€Mr.€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_ÔÏwith€large€bills.€ò òòòÌà àó óóóSubsequently,€in€1996,€Officer€Perry€Buck€of€the€Metropolitan€Nashville€Police€DepartmentÏreceived€information€from€a€confidential€informant€that€Tommy€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€was€about€to€receive€a€largeÏshipment€of€marijuana.€ò ò€ó óThe€informant€told€police€that€the€marijuana€would€arrive€in€a€fifth„wheelÏtrailer€attached€to€a€light„colored€truck€with€Colorado€license€tags.€€On€October€24,€1996,€police€sawÏa€truck€matching€the€description€given€by€the€informant€arrive€at€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ôððs€home.€€Instead€of€aÏfifth„wheel€trailer,€however,€the€truck€was€pulling€a€flat„bed€trailer.€€Officer€Buck€met€with€theÏinformant€again,€and,€as€a€result,€recommenced€surveillance€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô.€€On€December€4,€1996,ÏOfficer€Buck€and€other€officers€saw€the€light„colored€truck€arrive€at€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ôððs€home€again.Ìà àBased€on€that€information,€police€obtained€a€search€warrant€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ôððs€home€early€theÏnext€morning.€€During€the€search,€police€found€over€500€pounds€of€marijuana.€€Tommy€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_ÔÏimmediately€indicated€that€he€wanted€to€cooperate€with€police.€ò ò€€ó óMr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€subsequently€informedÏpolice€that€he€sold€drugs€for€the€Defendant€and€that€Gary€Corn€was€a€drug€courier€who€wouldÏdeliver€marijuana€at€the€Defendantððs€direction.ò ò€€€ó óMr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€said€that€Mr.€Corn€would€usually€driveÏto€Ô_ÔTusconÔ_Ô,€Arizona€to€exchange€money€for€marijuana€and€return€to€Nashville€or€Fort€Lauderdale.€ÏWhile€Mr.€Corn€was€acting€as€a€courier,€he€would€report€to€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô,€who€in€turn€would€report€toÏthe€Defendant.€Ìà àMr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€testified€that,€at€the€Defendantððs€direction,€he€purchased€a€Coachman€travel€trailerÏto€haul€marijuana.€ò ò€ó óHe€also€testified€that€the€Defendant€accompanied€him€to€buy€the€trailer.€€ThomasÏPayne,€who€sold€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€the€trailer,€verified€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ôððs€testimony€and€said€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€paidÏ$15,000€cash€for€the€trailer.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€also€testified€that€Mr.€Corn€later€bought€a€light„coloredÏpickup€truck€and€that€the€Defendant€picked€the€color€so€that€the€pickup€would€not€be€noticeable€onÍthe€highway.€€After€its€purchase,€a€fifth„wheel€trailer€hitch€was€apparently€installed€on€the€truck.€ò òÏó óHowever,€at€some€point,€the€Defendant€borrowed€the€truck,€and€when€he€returned€it€to€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô,Ïthe€trailer€hitch€was€missing.€€Later,€another€truck€was€purchased€to€transport€marijuana,€and€a€bed„liner€was€installed€at€the€Defendantððs€direction.ò ò€€ó óMr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€paid€for€the€bed„liner€using€funds€thatÏhe€owed€the€Defendant€for€drugs.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€testified€that€they€stopped€using€the€trailer,€and€theÏDefendant€ordered€that€the€trailer€be€taken€to€Eagleððs€Nest€Ô_ÔBusworksÔ_Ô,€a€bus€repair€company.€€Ìà àMr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€agreed€to€call€the€Defendant€regarding€the€Coachman€trailer€while€wearing€aÏrecording€device.ò ò€€ó óHowever,€when€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€spoke€to€the€Defendant€about€the€trailer,€theÏDefendant€denied€any€knowledge€of€it.€ò òÌà àó óClarence€Huffman€testified€that,€in€1996,€he€sold€the€Defendant€a€burgundy€1993€ChevroletÏpickup€truck€for€$13,000.€€At€the€Defendantððs€direction,€Mr.€Huffman€made€out€a€bill€of€sale€forÏ$8,300€because€that€was€the€amount€that€Mr.€Huffman€owed€on€the€truck€when€he€sold€it.€€Also€atÏthe€Defendantððs€direction,€Mr.€Huffman€did€not€write€in€the€name€of€the€buyer,€because€theÏDefendant€claimed€to€be€acting€as€a€broker€for€someone€else€who€wanted€to€buy€the€truck,€and€thisÏbuyer€apparently€wanted€to€title€the€truck€in€Alabama.€€At€trial,€Mr.€Huffman€identified€the€bill€ofÏsale,€but€noted€that€the€name€ð ðRaul€Enrique€Ô_ÔMatusÔ_Ôðð€was€written€as€the€buyer€some€time€after€Mr.ÏHuffman€gave€the€Defendant€the€bill€of€sale.€Ìà àLater,€the€Defendant€told€Mr.€Huffman€that€he€(the€Defendant)€might€be€under€investigation,Ïand€he€told€Mr.€Huffman€that€if€anyone€asked,€Mr.€Huffman€should€tell€them€that€he€sold€the€truckÏto€a€Mexican.€€Federal€agents€eventually€approached€Mr.€Huffman.€€Mr.€Huffman€originally€toldÏthe€agents€that€he€sold€the€truck€to€a€Mexican,€but€after€consulting€with€his€attorney,€he€told€theÏagents€the€truth€the€next€day.ò òÌà àó óThe€parties€stipulated€that€on€September€23,€1996,€co„defendant€Raul€Enrique€Ô_ÔMatusÔ_Ô€flewÏfrom€Phoenix,€Arizona€to€Nashville€and€stayed€at€a€Ô_ÔRamadaÔ_Ô€Inn€in€Nashville.ò ò€€ó óDenise€FrancisÏtestified€that,€in€the€fall€of€1996,€Raul€Ô_ÔMatusÔ_Ô€rented€an€apartment€in€Decatur,€Alabama,€but€movedÏout€one€month€later.ò ò€ó ó€Finally,€Louisiana€State€Police€Officer€Don€Campbell€testified€that€onÏDecember€10,€1996,€he€pulled€over€Mr.€Ô_ÔMatusÔ_Ô€in€the€1993€maroon€Chevrolet€pickup€truck€for€aÏtraffic€violation.€€ò ò€ó óUpon€further€inspection,€Officer€Campbell€found€that€the€truck€was€loaded€withÏbundles€of€marijuana.€€€Ìà àGary€Corn€also€testified€against€the€Defendant,€and€verified€much€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_ÔððsÏtestimony.€€For€example,€Mr.€Corn,€who€was€formerly€an€employee€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔtestifedÔ_Ô€that€Mr.ÏÔ_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€asked€him€to€transport€drugs€for€the€Defendant.€ò ò€ó ó€Soon€after€that,€Mr.€Corn€began€makingÏtrips€to€Arizona€to€exchange€cash€for€marijuana€using€a€map€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€said€had€been€providedÏby€the€Defendant.€At€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ôððs€direction,€Mr.€Corn€bought€a€truck€and€a€fifth„wheel€trailer€inÏwhich€to€haul€the€marijuana.€€Also€at€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ôððs€direction,€Mr.€Corn€eventually€parked€the€trailerÏat€the€Eagleððs€Nest.€€He€also€bought€a€bed„liner€and€modified€both€trucks€to€transport€marijuanaÏmore€effectively.€€When€Mr.€Corn€was€traveling,€he€communicated€with€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€by€telephone.Ìòòò òà àó óóóMr.€Corn€admitted€that€although€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€told€him€that€the€Defendant€was€overseeing€theÏdrug€operation,€Mr.€Corn€never€saw€the€Defendant€involved€in€or€spoke€to€him€about€the€drugÏoperation.€€However,€the€Defendant€called€Mr.€Corn€once,€and€asked€him€how€to€remove€a€trailerÏhitch€from€the€truck.€€Ìà àDuring€their€investigation€of€the€Defendant,€police€searched€through€the€Defendantððs€trashÏafter€it€had€been€picked€up.€€In€the€trash,€police€found€a€picture€of€the€Defendant€with€Gary€Jones.ÏEarlier€in€the€investigation,€police€also€found€a€copy€of€a€rental€agreement€that€indicated€that€theÏDefendant€and€Gary€Jones€were€lessees€of€a€house€together€in€Ô_ÔTusconÔ_Ô,€Arizona€from€November,Ï1988€until€May,€1989.€ò òòòÌà àó óóóFollowing€the€above€investigation,€police€obtained€a€search€warrant€for€the€DefendantððsÏhome€on€Jones€Parkway€on€April€16,€1997.€€€€When€they€executed€the€warrant,€police€found€aÏtrailer„hitch.€€They€also€found€seven„hundred€and€twenty„four€$20€bills,€fifty€$10€bills,€and€threeÏ$100€bills,€some€of€which€were€cut€in€half.€€€Police€later€obtained€a€second€search€warrant€for€theÏDefendantððs€home,€executed€the€warrant€and€arrested€the€Defendant€on€March€2,€1998.€ò òÌà àó óInvestigators€eventually€learned€that€the€Defendant€was€involved€in€several€money„laundering€schemes.€€Bob€Williams€testified€that€he€co„signed€for€a€loan€to€buy€a€tour€bus€in€1989.€ò òÏó óAfter€his€partner€defaulted€on€the€loan,€however,€Mr.€Williams€was€introduced€to€the€Defendant,Ïwho€offered€to€buy€the€bus€from€Mr.€Williams.€€Several€times,€the€Defendant€gave€Mr.€WilliamsÏlarge€sums€of€cash,€and€Mr.€Williams€bought€cashierððs€checks€with€the€cash.€ò ò€ó óThen,€the€cashierððsÏchecks€were€used€to€pay€off€the€loan.€€Mr.€Williams€also€signed€a€document€purporting€to€loanÏmoney€to€the€Defendantððs€bus€company,€of€which€Mr.€Williams€became€an€officer;€€however,€Mr.ÏWilliams€testified€that€he€never€actually€loaned€the€company€any€money.ò ò€€ó óInstead,€Mr.€WilliamsÏmerely€pretended€to€loan€the€company€money,€and€the€Defendant€gave€Mr.€Williams€several€checksÏfor€the€purpose€of€paying€back€the€ð ðloan.ðð€Mr.€Williams€cashed€the€checks€and€gave€the€moneyÏback€to€the€Defendant.€ò òÌà àó óIn€1995,€the€Defendant€approached€Mr.€Keith€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô,€a€home€builder€in€Brentwood,Ïand€offered€to€buy€a€home€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô,€was€building.€ò ò€ó óMr.€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô€testified€that€theÏDefendant€offered€to€pay€him€$480,000€for€the€home€along€with€$65,000€cash.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_ÔÏagreed,€and€they€signed€a€written€contract€to€purchase€the€home€for€$480,000.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_ÔÏalso€had€a€separate€contract€drawn€to€memorialize€the€$65,000,€even€though€the€money€€was€ð ðunderÏthe€table,ðð€or€illegal.ò ò€ó óThe€Defendant€eventually€had€Mr.€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô€add€$15,000€in€additions€toÏthe€home,€so€he€ultimately€paid€Mr.€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô€$80,000€in€cash.€ò ò€ó óThe€Defendant€also€gave€Mr.ÏÔ_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô€a€$30,000€check€as€a€down€payment.Ìà àMr.€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô€also€testified€that€he€subsequently€gave€the€Defendant€four€checks,€totalingÏ$105,000,€in€exchange€for€cash.€€Although€Mr.€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô€also€signed€contracts€that€purported€toÏshow€that€the€Defendant€received€the€checks€for€consulting€work,€Mr.€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô€testified€that€theÏDefendant€never€actually€performed€the€work.€€When€Mr.€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô€discovered€that€theÏDefendant€was€the€subject€of€a€criminal€investigation,€he€gave€some€of€the€cash€to€a€friend€namedÏWayne€Ô_ÔKabanukÔ_Ô€and€instructed€Mr.€Ô_ÔKabanukÔ_Ô€to€distribute€the€money€to€charity.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔKabanukÔ_ÔÏcorroborated€this€testimony.€ò òÌà àó óThe€Defendant€was€originally€indicted€on€January€1,€1998€for€one€count€of€conspiracy€toÏdeliver€over€700€pounds€of€marijuana€between€February€1988€and€December€1996€in€violation€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„17„417€and€for€three€counts€of€money„laundering.€€On€MayÏ22,€1998,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€original€indictment,€and€the€Davidson€County€Grand€JuryÏreturned€a€superceding€indictment,€charging€the€Defendant€with€one€count€of€conspiracy€to€deliverÏover€700€pounds€of€marijuana€between€February,€1988€and€December,€1996,€and€with€six€counts€ofÏmoney„laundering.€€Apparently€realizing€that€the€conspiracy€count€encompassed€criminal€activityÏthat€occurred€before€section€39„17„417€was€passed€in€November,€1989,€the€State€indicted€theÏDefendant€again€on€July€14,€1998.€€In€this€second€superceding€indictment,€the€State€essentially€splitÏthe€first€count€of€the€prior€indictment€into€two€parts;€thus,€this€second€superceding€indictmentÏcontained€one€count€of€conspiracy€to€deliver€over€700€pounds€of€marijuana€between€November,Ï1989€and€December,€1996€in€violation€of€section€39„17„417,€one€count€of€conspiracy€to€deliver€overÏ70€pounds€of€marijuana€between€February€1988€and€October€1989€in€violation€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€39„6„417€(repealed,€Nov.€1,€1989),€and€six€money„laundering€offenses.€€The€trialÏcourt€dismissed€the€second€count€(conspiracy€to€deliver€over€70€pounds€of€marijuana)€due€to€theÏstatute€of€limitations.€€A€subsequent€jury€trial€on€the€remaining€counts€resulted€in€a€mistrial€due€to€aÏhung€jury.€€During€that€trial,€Keith€Ô_ÔSchmacherÔ_Ô€testified€about€several€instances€in€which€theÏDefendant€laundered€money€by€giving€Mr.€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô€cash€for€checks.€€The€State€then€indictedÏthe€Defendant€again,€attempting€to€cure€the€statute€of€limitations€problem€by€indicting€the€DefendantÏfor€one€count€of€conspiracy€to€deliver€over€700€pounds€of€marijuana€between€February€1988€andÏDecember€1996€in€violation€of€section€39„17„417€and€for€eight€counts€of€money„laundering.€€ThisÏnew€indictment€included€four€new€charges€which€arose€from€Mr.€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ôððs€testimony.€€TheÏDefendant€moved€to€dismiss€count€one,€arguing€that€section€39„17„417,€which€was€not€in€effectÏuntil€November€1,€1989,€should€not€apply€retroactively€to€activity€conducted€prior€to€that€date.€€TheÏtrial€court€agreed€and€dismissed€the€count,€but€apparently€suggested€that€the€State€substitute€countÍone€from€the€second€superceding€indictment€(conspiracy€to€deliver€over€700€pounds€of€marijuanaÏbetween€November€1989€and€December€1996)€because€it€did€not€reference€any€activity€beforeÏNovember€1989.€€Following€the€courtððs€suggestion,€the€State€moved€for€consolidation€of€theÏindictments,€and€the€court€granted€the€Stateððs€motion.€€Thus,€the€final€indictment€consisted€of€countÏone€of€the€second€superceding€indictment€and€counts€two€through€nine€of€the€third€supercedingÏindictment.€€Following€a€subsequent€jury€trial,€the€Defendant€was€convicted€on€all€counts€exceptÏcount€two,€a€money„laundering€charge,€for€which€he€was€found€not€guilty.Ìà àFollowing€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€Defendant€to€serve€twentyÏyears€for€count€one,€conspiracy€to€deliver€over€700€pounds€of€marijuana;€four€years€each€for€countsÏthree€and€four,€conspiracy€to€commit€money€laundering;€and€ten€years€each€for€counts€five,€six,Ïseven,€eight€and€nine,€all€money€laundering.€€The€court€also€ordered€the€sentences€for€counts€threeÏand€four€to€be€served€concurrently€to€each€other,€but€consecutively€to€the€sentence€for€count€one,Ïand€the€sentences€for€the€remaining€counts€to€be€served€concurrently€to€each€other,€but€consecutiveÏto€counts€one€and€three,€for€a€total€effective€sentence€of€thirty„four€years.€€The€court€also€imposed€aÏtotal€of€$180,000€in€fines€on€the€Defendant.Ìà àFollowing€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€fourÏadditional€money„laundering€counts,€holding€that€the€addition€of€counts€following€a€mistrial€violatedÏRule€8€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€Thus,€the€Defendantððs€effective€sentenceÏremained€thirty„four€years,€but€his€fines€were€reduced€to€$160,000.€€Ìà àò òòòÌÓ  ÓÓÓPermissive€Consolidation€of€Indictmentsóóó óÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€improperly€constructed€a€ð ðhybridðð€indictment€byÏconsolidating€one€count€from€one€indictment€and€eight€other€counts€from€a€subsequent€indictment.€ÏThus,€the€Defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€deprived€him€of€his€constitutional€right€to€have€hisÏcase€presented€to€a€grand€jury.€€We€disagree.Ìà àUnder€article€I€section€14€of€the€Tennessee€Ô_ÔConsitutionÔ_Ô,€"no€person€shall€be€put€to€answerÏany€criminal€charge€but€by€presentment,€indictment,€or€impeachment."€€€There€is€also€an€absoluteÏright€to€a€criminal€accusation€by€a€grand€jury€that€applies€to€all€crimes€except€those€involving€a€fineÏof€$50.00€or€less.€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBrackettÔ_Ôóó,€869€S.W.2d€936,€938€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1993)€(citing€òòCapitolÏNews€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Metro€Ô_ÔGovððtÔ_Ô€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€Co.óó,€562€S.W.2d€430€(Tenn.€1978)).€ÏValidly€constituted€grand€juries€returned€each€count€against€the€Defendant.€€The€Defendant€has€notÏdemonstrated€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€an€accusation€by€a€grand€jury,€because€count€one€of€theÏfinal,€so„called€ð ðhybridðð€indictment€was€validly€returned€by€the€grand€jury€that€returned€the€secondÏsuperceding€indictment,€and€counts€two€through€nine€were€validly€returned€by€a€subsequent€grandÏjury.€€€€Ì€à àNor€did€the€trial€court€err€in€consolidating€the€indictments.€€We€review€decisions€concerningÏconsolidation€of€indictments€under€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard.€€òòÔ_ÔSpicerÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€12€S.W.3d€438,Ï443€(Tenn.€2000);€òòState€v.€Shirleyóó,€6€S.W.3d€243,€247€(Tenn.€1999).€€As€such,€a€trial€court'sÏdecision€to€consolidate€or€sever€offenses€will€not€be€reversed€unless€the€"court€applied€an€incorrectÏlegal€standard,€or€reached€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€that€caused€an€injustice€toÏthe€party€complaining.€"€€òòState€v.€Shuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€662,€669€(Tenn.€1997).Ìà àRule€13€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€which€governs€consolidation€ofÏindictments,€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€court€may€order€consolidation€of€two€or€moreÏindictments,€presentments,€or€Ô_ÔinformationsÔ_Ô€for€trial€if€the€offenses€and€all€defendants€could€haveÏbeen€joined€in€a€single€indictment,€presentment,€or€information€pursuant€to€Rule€8€[of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Criminal€Procedure].ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€13(a).€€Thus,€we€must€determine€whether€theÏoffenses€could€have€been€joined€in€a€single€indictment€under€Rule€8.€€Ìà àRule€8(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides,€in€pertinent€part:ÌÌà8 àTwo€or€more€offenses€may€be€joined€in€the€same€indictment,€presentment,€orÏinformation,€with€each€offense€stated€in€a€separate€count,€or€consolidated€pursuant€toÏRule€13€if€the€offenses€constitute€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan€or€if€they€are€ofÏthe€same€or€similar€character.€ÌÌTenn.€R.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€8(b).€€In€this€case,€the€Defendant€was€essentially€charged€with€conspiracy€toÏdeliver€a€large€amount€of€marijuana€and€subsequent€laundering€of€the€proceeds€in€several€differentÏways.€€For€consolidation€purposes,€we€consider€all€of€the€counts€to€be€ð ðpart€of€a€common€schemeÏor€plan€.€.€.ðð€to€distribute€marijuana€and€launder€the€proceeds.€€Thus,€the€consolidation€ofÏindictments€was€proper€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€Ìà àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€amended€count€one€of€the€secondÏsuperceding€indictment€(which€became€count€one€of€the€final€indictment)€to€excise€the€names€ofÏunindicted€coconspirators.€€The€trial€court€amended€the€indictment€prior€to€the€first€trial,€and€theÏamended€count€remained€excised€when€the€trial€court€consolidated€it€with€the€third€supercedingÏindictment€before€the€second€trial.€€The€Defendant€claims€that€this€amendment€ð ðaltered€the€natureÏof€the€conspiracy,€as€it€was€presented€to€the€Grand€Jury€[and€thus]€substantially€prejudiced€theÏDefendant.ðð€€However,€the€Defendant€has€waived€this€issue€by€failing€to€provide€an€adequateÏrecord€for€this€Courtððs€review.€€Although€the€Defendant€claims€that€ð ðthe€technical€record€isÏsufficient€to€preserve€the€issue[,]ðð€we€respectfully€disagree;€the€record€before€us€merely€contains€aÏone„sentence€order€by€the€trial€court€granting€the€Stateððs€motion€to€amend€the€indictment€prior€toÏthe€first€trial€and€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€reconsider€that€order.€€€Thus,€we€are€unable€toÏdetermine€how€and€why€count€one€was€amended.€€It€is€the€defendant's€responsibility€to€include€aÏcomplete€record€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔTroutmanÔ_Ôóó,€979€S.W.2d€271,€274€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.ÏÔ_ÔOodyÔ_Ôóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1991).€€Failure€to€do€so€precludes€our€review.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòò òAdditional€Countsó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€State€to€add€four€additionalÏcounts€of€money€laundering€to€the€third€superceding€indictment€following€the€Defendantððs€firstÏtrial.€€During€the€first€trial,€state€witness€Keith€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô€testified€that€he€helped€the€DefendantÏlaunder€money€by€giving€the€Defendant€checks€in€exchange€for€cash.€€Although€in€the€first€trial€theÏtestimony€was€offered€as€proof€of€the€conspiracy,€the€third€superceding€indictment,€which€wasÏreturned€after€the€first€trial€ended€in€a€mistrial,€charged€that€cashing€each€check€was€a€separateÏmoney„laundering€offense.€€The€Defendant€moved€to€dismiss€the€four€additional€counts,€arguingÏ(1)€that€the€four€additional€counts€were€the€result€of€prosecutorial€vindictiveness€and€(2)€that€RuleÏ8(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€barred€the€addition€of€counts€arising€from€theÏsame€conspiracy.€€Following€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€Defendantððs€motion.€€After€theÏsecond€trial,€the€Defendant€was€convicted€of€the€additional€counts.€€Following€the€DefendantððsÏargument€at€a€hearing€regarding€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€reconsideredÏand,€citing€an€unpublished€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€decision,€dismissed€the€four€additionalÏmoney€laundering€counts,€finding€that€they€violated€Rule€8€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure.€€On€appeal,€the€Defendant€claims€(1)€that€the€addition€of€the€counts€was€a€result€ofÏprosecutorial€vindictiveness;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€correctly€dismissed€the€counts,€but€should€haveÏdone€so€prior€to€trial;€and€(3)€that€the€Defendant€was€prejudiced€as€a€result€of€the€trial€courtððs€initialÏruling,€because€the€jury€was€presented€with€a€much€larger€indictment€and€was€thus€more€likely€toÏconvict€the€Defendant.€€The€State€responds€(1)€that€the€additional€counts€were€not€the€result€ofÏprosecutorial€vindictiveness,€because€they€were€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence;€(2)€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€when€it€ultimately€dismissed€the€four€additional€counts,€because€its€decision€wasÏbased€on€an€unpublished€decision€of€this€Court€that€should€be€overturned;€and€(3)€that€in€any€event,Íthe€Defendant€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€additional€counts,€as€evidenced€by€the€juryððs€ð ðnot€guiltyððÏverdict€returned€on€count€two€of€the€final€indictment.ÌÌÓ  Óò òA.€Prosecutorial€Vindictivenessó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€addition€of€the€four€additional€money€laundering€counts€wasÏerroneous.€€He€argues€that€a€presumption€of€ð ðprosecutorial€vindictivenessðð€applies€to€the€StateððsÏaddition€of€money€laundering€counts.€€At€a€hearing€on€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€dismiss€theÏadditional€money„laundering€counts,€the€Defendant€argued€that€his€due€process€rights€were€violatedÏbecause€the€additional€counts€were€the€result€of€prosecutorial€vindictiveness.€€Following€the€hearing,Ïthe€trial€court€issued€an€order€that€relied€on€òòUnited€States€v.€Goodwinóó,€457€U.S.€368,€102€S.€CtÏ2485,€73€L.€Ed.€2d€74€(1982).€€òòGoodwinóó€drew€a€distinction€between€pre„trial€and€post„trial€initiationÏof€additional€charges,€and€held€that€in€a€pre„trial€setting,€the€Defendant€must€offer€proof€ofÏprosecutorial€vindictiveness.€€òòGoodwinóó,€457€U.S.€at€382.€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€thatÏinitiation€of€additional€charges€following€the€mistrial€was€more€closely€analogous€to€a€pre„trialÏsetting€than€a€post„trial€one€and,€thus,€that€the€presumption€of€prosecutorial€vindictiveness€did€notÏapply.€€Finding€no€other€objective€proof€of€bad€faith€on€the€part€of€the€prosecutor,€the€court€deniedÏthe€Defendantððs€motion.€€€€€€Ìà àWe€need€not€decide€whether€the€initiation€of€additional€charges€following€the€mistrial€was€inÏa€pre„trial€or€a€post„trial€procedural€posture,€because€ð ða€Ô_ÔrebuttableÔ_Ô€presumption€of€prosecutorialÏvindictiveness€may€arise€if€the€circumstances€of€a€case€pose€a€ððrealistic€likelihoodðð€of€prosecutorialÏretaliation.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔPhippsÔ_Ôóó,€959€S.W.2d€538,€546€(Tenn.€1997).€€Thus,€the€relevant€question€forÏan€appellate€court€is€not€the€timing€of€the€new€charges,€but€whether€a€"realistic€likelihood"€ofÏprosecutorial€retaliation€existed.€€As€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€stated,ÌÌà8 àIn€assessing€whether€a€"realistic€likelihood"€of€prosecutorial€retaliation€exists,€courtsÏmust€consider€whether€the€right€asserted€by€the€defendant€would€result€in€Ô_ÔduplicativeÔ_ÔÏexpenditures€of€prosecutorial€resources,€or€require€the€State€to€do€over€again€what€itÏthought€it€had€already€done€correctly€once.€€òòGoodwinóó,€457€Ô_ÔU.SÔ_Ô€at€383[].€€When€theÏcircumstances€demonstrate€that€the€prosecutor€has€"a€personal€stake"€or€an€interestÏin€self€vindication,€or€when€institutional€biases€militate€against€retrial€of€a€decidedÏquestion,€the€balance€weighs€in€favor€of€recognizing€the€presumption.€€òòId.óó€€LikewiseÏthe€presumption€is€especially€warranted€if€the€prosecutorial€decision€to€increase€theÏcharge€or€sentence€is€made€after€an€initial€trial€is€completed€rather€than€in€a€pretrialÏcontext.€€When€application€of€these€factors€to€the€circumstances€of€a€case€reveal€theÏexistence€of€a€realistic€likelihood€of€prosecutorial€retaliation,€[the€presumption€ofÏprosecutorial€vindictiveness€announced€in€òòNorth€Carolina€v.]€Pearceóó€applies.Ì€€ÌòòIdóó.€€The€circumstances€of€this€case€do€not€indicate€that€the€prosecutor€had€an€interest€in€self„vindication,€and€no€institutional€biases€militated€against€retrial€of€a€decided€question,€because€theÏDefendant€was€to€be€tried€again€anyway.€€Furthermore,€although€the€decision€to€add€the€moneyÏlaundering€counts€came€following€the€first€trial,€that€trial€was€not€ð ðcompletedðð€because€it€resultedÏin€a€mistrial.€€Thus,€we€find€that€the€presumption€of€prosecutorial€vindictiveness€does€not€applyÏhere.Ìà àEven,€assuming€Ô_ÔarguendoÔ_Ô,€that€the€presumption€applied,€the€State€overcame€the€presumption.€Ïð ðOnce€the€presumption€of€vindictiveness€has€been€raised,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€State€to€rebut€itÏby€presenting€clear€and€convincing€evidence€which€demonstrates€that€the€prosecutor's€decision€wasÏmotivated€by€a€legitimate€purpose.ðð€€òòIdóó.€(citations€omitted).€€After€the€first€trial,€Assistant€DistrictÏAttorney€John€Zimmerman€filed€an€affidavit€in€which€he€claimed€that,€although€he€had€knowledgeÏof€Keith€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ôððs€allegations€prior€to€the€first€trial,€he€believed€that€he€could€not€prosecute€theÏDefendant€solely€on€the€basis€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔSchmacherÔ_Ôððs€testimony,€because€Mr.€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô€was€anÍaccomplice€whose€testimony€could€not€be€corroborated.Ô_Ô× ƒ- ××  ×Ô_Ô€€During€cross„examination€of€Mr.ÏÔ_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô,€however,€Mr.€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô€revealed€certain€details€that€he€had€not€previously€revealedÏbefore.Ô_Ô× ƒ/ ××  ×Ô_Ô€€Those€details€led€to€further€investigation€that,€in€turn,€led€to€the€new€money€launderingÏcounts.€€Investigating€Officer€Ed€Ô_ÔRigsbyÔ_Ô€filed€a€similar€affidavit€that€detailed€this€resultingÏinvestigation.€€These€uncontradicted€affidavits€provide€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€theÏprosecutor€did€not€act€vindictively.ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.€€Mandatory€Joinderó ó€€ÌÌÓ  Óà àPrior€to€the€second€trial,€the€Defendant€also€moved€to€dismiss€the€four€additional€moneyÏlaundering€counts€because€they€violated€Rule€8(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€ÌThe€trial€court€denied€the€Defendantððs€motion,€and€the€Defendant€was€ultimately€tried€and€convictedÏfor€those€four€counts.€€Following€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€however,€the€trial€courtÏreversed€its€position€and€granted€the€Defendantððs€motion,€citing€òòState€v.€Luther€E.€Fowleróó,€No.Ï03C01„9207„CR„00249,€1993€WL€278468€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Jul.€27,€1993).€ÏThe€trial€court€held€that€òòLuther€E.€Fowleróó€stood€for€the€proposition€that€Rule€8(a)€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€which€governs€the€mandatory€joinder€of€offenses,€prevents€indictmentÏfollowing€a€mistrial€for€additional€offenses€that€arose€from€the€same€criminal€episode€for€which€theÏDefendant€was€originally€tried€when€the€evidence€which€gave€rise€to€the€additional€counts€wasÏknown€to€the€prosecutor€prior€to€the€first€trial.€€On€appeal,€the€Defendant€agrees€with€the€trialÏcourtððs€ruling,€but€argues€that€it€should€have€dismissed€the€four€additional€counts€prior€to€trial.€ÏAdditionally,€the€Defendant€argues€that€by€waiting€to€dismiss€those€counts€until€after€the€DefendantÏwas€tried€for€and€convicted€of€€those€counts,€the€court€prejudiced€him€by€presenting€the€jury€with€anÏindictment€almost€twice€as€large€as€it€should€have€been.€€€The€State€also€appeals€this€issue,€butÏargues€that€the€reasoning€in€òòLuther€E.€Fowleróó€is€misguided€and€that€the€Defendantððs€convictions€onÏthe€four€additional€counts€should€be€reinstated€by€this€Court.Ìà àRule€8(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides,€in€pertinent€part,Ìà8 àTwo€or€more€offenses€shall€be€joined€in€the€same€indictment,€presentment,€orÏinformation,€with€each€offense€stated€in€a€separate€count,€or€consolidated€pursuant€toÏRule€13€if€the€offenses€are€based€upon€the€same€conduct€or€arise€from€the€sameÏcriminal€episode€and€if€such€offenses€are€known€to€the€appropriate€prosecutingÏofficial€at€the€time€of€the€return€of€the€indictment(s),€presentment(s),€orÏinformation(s)€and€if€they€are€within€the€jurisdiction€of€a€single€court.€€A€defendantÏshall€not€be€subject€to€separate€trials€for€multiple€offenses€falling€within€thisÏsubsection€unless€they€are€severed€pursuant€to€Rule€14.€€à àÌÌTenn.€R.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€8(a).€€The€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Rule€8€further€provide,€inÏpertinent€part,Ìà8 àThis€rule€is€designed€to€encourage€the€disposition€in€a€single€trial€of€multipleÏoffenses€arising€from€the€same€conduct€and€from€the€same€criminal€episode,€andÏshould€therefore€promote€efficiency€and€economy.€€Where€such€joinder€of€offensesÏmight€give€rise€to€an€injustice,€Rule€14(b)(2)€allows€the€trial€court€to€relax€the€rule.€€Ìà8 àà àThe€Commission€wishes€to€make€clear€that€section€(a)€is€meant€to€stop€theÏpractice€by€some€prosecuting€attorneys€of€"saving€back"€one€or€more€chargesÏarising€from€the€same€conduct€or€from€the€same€criminal€episode.€€Such€otherÏcharges€are€barred€from€future€prosecution€if€known€to€the€appropriate€prosecutingÏofficial€at€the€time€that€the€other€prosecution€is€commenced,€but€deliberately€notÏpresented€to€a€grand€jury.ÌÌTenn.€R.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€(8),€Advisory€Commission€Comments.€€Ìà àThis€court€has€been€somewhat€inconsistent€in€defining€the€scope€of€the€rule.€€In€òòState€v.ÏKingóó,€717€S.W.2d€306€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1986),€the€state€attempted€to€prosecute€the€defendant€byÏa€second€indictment€for€an€offense€subject€to€mandatory€joinder€with€an€offense€that€had€beenÏprosecuted€in€a€prior€trial.€€òòIdóó.€at€307.€€Following€appeal,€this€Court€held€that€the€second€indictmentÏwas€barred€by€Rule€8(a).€In€reaching€this€result,€the€court€held€ð ð[a]€subsequent€indictment€isÏpermitted€after€the€defendant€has€been€tried€on€the€first€charge€when€(1)€the€subsequent€offense€isÏnot€known€to€the€District€Attorney€General€at€the€time€of€the€return€of€the€indictment€upon€whichÏthe€defendant€was€tried,€or€(2)€if€the€second€charge€is€not€within€the€jurisdiction€of€the€same€courtÏthat€tried€the€defendant."€òòIdóó.€at€308.€€Then€the€court,€in€dictum,€stated,€Ìà8 à[Ô_Ôw]eÔ_Ô€do€not€perceive€that€any€evil€results€from€subsequent€indictments€beingÏreturned€against€a€defendant€charging€him€with€additional€offenses€which€are€basedÏon€the€same€conduct€or€which€arise€from€the€same€criminal€episode€upon€whichÏprior€indictments€have€been€returned;€when€the€defendant€has€not€been€tried€on€anyÏof€the€offenses€at€the€time€the€subsequent€indictments€are€returned.€€As€previouslyÏnoted,€the€purpose€of€Rule€8€is€to€prevent€multiple€trials€on€charges€arising€from€theÏsame€conduct€or€from€the€same€criminal€episode€except€under€the€circumstancesÏstated€in€the€rule.ÌÌÓÓòòId.óóÌÓÓà àMore€recently,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€adopted€a€portion€of€this€Courtððs€opinion€inÏòòState€v.€Carruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€516,€573€(Tenn.€2000)€that€interpreted€Rule€8(a)€by€relying€on€theÏabove€dictum€in€òòKingóó.€€In€that€case,€the€defendant€was€indicted€first€for€three€counts€of€first„degreeÏmurder€and€later,€in€a€separate€indictment,€for€three€counts€of€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€andÏone€count€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€òòIdóó.€at€572.€€All€of€the€offenses€arose€from€the€sameÏcriminal€episode€and€involved€the€same€three€victims.€€òòIdóó.€The€defendant€appealed,€arguing€that€theÏmurder€charges€should€have€been€dismissed€pursuant€to€Rule€8.€€òòIdóó.€This€Court€held,€and€theÏsupreme€court€adopted€the€holding,€as€follows:Ìà8 àà à[The€Defendantððs]€argument€ignores€the€basic€premise€behind€the€Rule.€ÏThe€purpose€of€Rule€8€is€to€promote€efficient€administration€of€justice€and€to€protectÏthe€rights€of€the€accused.€€The€rule€clearly€permits€a€subsequently€returnedÏindictment€to€be€joined€with€a€previous€indictment€where€the€alleged€offenses€relateÏto€the€same€criminal€episode.€€This€practice,€however,€does€have€certain€limitationsÏthat,€as€the€comments€note,€safeguard€an€accused€against€prosecutorial€abuse.€€ForÏexample,€a€prosecutor€cannot€simply€decide€to€"save"€charges€on€other€offensesÏarising€out€of€the€same€conduct€until€after€a€trial€is€had€on€the€original€charges.€ÏObviously,€this€would€result€in€multiple€trials€and€prejudice€the€defendant.€€ThisÏconcern,€however,€is€not€present€in€the€case€at€hand€because€the€subsequentÏindictments€were€returned€well€before€the€start€of€trial.ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€573.€(citations€omitted)ÌÓÓà àIn€òòState€v.€Luther€E.€Fowleróó,€1993€WL€273468,€an€unpublished€case,€a€divided€panel€of€thisÏCourt€found€that€Rule€8€was€violated€when€the€State€brought€additional€charges€after€the€DefendantÏhad€been€prosecuted€for€other€charges€arising€from€the€same€conduct,€but€that€prosecution€resultedÏin€a€mistrial.€€òòIdóó.€at€*6€„€*8.€€One€judge€dissented,€finding€that€since€the€mistrial€necessitated€a€newÏtrial€on€the€original€charges€anyway€the€evil€that€Rule€8€was€designed€to€prevent,€òòi.e.óó,€multiple€trialsÏnecessitated€by€the€new€charges,€was€not€present.€€òòIdóó.€at€*8€„€*9€(Ô_ÔPeayÔ_Ô,€J.,€dissenting).Ìà àWe€believe€that€òòCarruthersóó€and€òòKingóó€stand€for€the€proposition€that€the€purpose€of€Rule€8€isÏto€prevent€multiple€trials€necessitated€by€the€prosecutorððs€ð ðholding€backðð€of€charges€arising€out€ofÏthe€same€conduct€for€which€other€charges€have€been€prosecuted€to€completion.€€That€evil€is€notÏpresent€here,€and€we€respectfully€disagree€with€this€Courtððs€holding€to€the€contrary€in€òòState€v.ÏLuther€E.€Fowleróó,€1993€WL€278468,€at€*6€„€*8.€€In€the€instant€case€the€defendantððs€first€trial€endedÏwith€a€hung€jury€thereby€necessitating€a€second€trial€on€the€original€charges€whether€the€newÏcharges€were€brought,€or€not.€€Following€a€mistrial€where€a€new€trial€on€the€original€charges€will€beÏheld€in€any€event,€we€do€not€believe€Rule€8€is€implicated.€€See,€òòState€v.€Luther€E.€Fowleróó,€1993€WLÏ278468,€at€*8€(Ô_ÔPeayÔ_Ô,€J.€dissenting);€òòPeople€v.€Quigleyóó,€697€N.E.2d€735,€739€(Ill.€1998);€(holdingÏthat€mandatory€joinder€is€not€applicable€in€cases€of€mistrial).€€Therefore,€it€was€error€for€the€trialÏcourt€to€dismiss€the€four€money€laundering€counts€in€question,€and€we€therefore€reverse€thatÏdecision.€€Because€of€this€holding€we€need€not€address€the€defendantððs€argument€that€the€initialÏinclusion€of€these€counts€in€the€indictment€prejudiced€him.ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòSearch€Warrantsóóó óà àÌÌÓ  Óà àNext,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€affidavits€supporting€the€April€16,€1997€and€March€2,Ï1998€search€warrants€of€the€Defendantððs€home€failed€to€provide€a€sufficient€nexus€between€theÏcrimes€committed€and€the€place€to€be€searched.€€We€disagree.€à àÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔLongstreetÔ_Ôóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€quoting€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals'€opinion€in€the€same€case,€said€that€"facts€providing€a€nexus€between€the€crime€and€theÏ[place]€to€be€searched€are€a€critical€element€that€must€be€included€in€the€affidavit."€€619€S.W.2d€97,Ï99€(Tenn.€1981)€(citing€òòÔ_ÔWhiteleyÔ_Ô€v.€Wardenóó,€401€U.S.€560,€565„66,€91€S.€Ct.€1031,€28€L.€Ed.€2dÏ306€(1971)).€€In€other€words,€€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€police€may€have€absolute€proof€that€the€defendant€sold€drugsÏon€a€street€corner,€for€example,€but€officers€cannot€search€the€home€of€the€defendant€for€drugsÏwithout€some€information€that€the€drugs€are€in€the€defendantððs€home.ðð€€€David€L.€Ô_ÔRaybinÔ_Ô,ÏòòTennessee€Criminal€Practice€and€Procedureóó€ðð€18.70.€€€€However,€the€supreme€court€later€clarifiedÏthat€the€required€nexus€between€the€crime€and€the€place€to€be€searched€"may€be€established€by€theÏtype€of€crime,€the€nature€of€the€items,€and€the€normal€inferences€where€a€criminal€would€hideÏevidence,"€as€long€as€those€inferences€are€based€on€facts€set€forth€in€the€affidavit€supporting€theÏwarrant.€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€572€(Tenn.€1993).Ìà àFor€example,€in€òòSmithóó,€the€defendant€became€a€prime€suspect€in€the€murder€of€his€estrangedÏwife€and€her€two€sons.€€òòIdóó.€at€566„67.€€After€obtaining€a€search€warrant,€the€police€searched€theÏdefendant's€home€for€the€weapons€used€in€the€Ô_ÔslayingsÔ_Ô€and€any€clothing€worn€the€night€of€theÏmurder.€òòId.óó€at€571.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€objected€to€the€search,€contending€that€the€affidavitÏfailed€to€establish€probable€cause€because€it€did€not€show€a€nexus€between€the€evidence€sought€andÏthe€place€to€be€searched.€òòId.óó€at€572.€The€supreme€court€rejected€Smith's€argument,€stating€thatÏð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€items€being€sought,€murder€weapons€such€as€a€gun€and€ice€pick/awl,€clothing€worn€the€nightÏof€the€killing€.€.€.€€were€of€the€type€kept€at€one's€residence.€€It€was€reasonable€to€conclude€thatÏpersonal€items€such€as€these€would€have€been€left€at€Defendant's€trailer€and€would€remain€there.ðð€ÏòòId.óó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,€641€S.W.2d€517,€520€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1982)€(stating€that,€when€theÏaffidavit€establishes€that€the€amount€of€contraband€in€question€is€large,€it€is€reasonable€to€infer€thatÏthe€contraband€is€located€at€the€defendantððs€residence.)òòÌà àóóMoreover,€ð ðit€is€commonly€held€that€[the€requisite€nexus€may€be€established]€merely€on€theÏbasis€of€the€Ô_ÔaffiantÔ_Ô„officerððs€experience€that€drug€dealers€ordinarily€keep€their€supply,€records€andÏmonetary€profits€at€home.ðð€€Wayne€R.€Ô_ÔLaFaveÔ_Ô,€òòSearch€and€Seizure:€A€Treatise€on€the€FourthÏAmendment€óóðð€3.7(d),€at€378€(3d€ed.€1996€&€Supp.€2001)€(citing,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€òòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ÔFelizÔ_Ôóó,Ï182€F.3d€82€(1st€Cir.€1999)€(stating€that,€where€an€affidavit€established€defendant€as€a€ð ðlong„time,Ïsuccessful€drug€trafficker,ðð€the€warrant€was€properly€based€on€Ô_ÔaffiantÔ_Ô„officerððs€ð ðexperience€inÏdrug€trafficking€cases€and€his€opinions€regarding€the€habits€of€drug€traffickers€with€regard€to€theÏretention€of€drug€trafficking€proceeds€and€records.ðð);€òòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ÔReddrickÔ_Ôóó,€90€F.3d€1276€(7thÏCir.€1996)€(stating€that€a€magistrate€can€infer€that€ð ðin€the€case€of€drug€dealers,€evidence€is€likely€toÏbe€found€where€dealers€liveðð);€òòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ÔEmmonsÔ_Ôóó,€24€F.3d€1210€(10th€Cir.€1994)(statingÏthat€due€to€the€€large€marijuana€cultivation€in€woods€adjacent€to€defendantððs€home,€it€was€reasonableÏto€issue€a€search€warrant€based€upon€the€conclusion€that€the€defendant€was€involved€in€drugÏtrafficking,€a€conclusion€predicated€upon€the€Ô_ÔaffiantÔ_Ô€officerððs€training€and€experience,€whichÏindicated€that€distributors€keep€records,€packaging€and€assets€at€home)).Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€two€affidavits€in€question,€which€were€substantially€identical,€detailed€anÏextensive€investigation€of€the€defendant€that€lasted€several€years.€€The€affidavits€reveal,€among€otherÏthingsòò,óó€(1)€that€several€sources€informed€police€that€the€Defendant€had€been€a€large„scale€marijuanaÏdealer€for€several€years;€(2)€that€police€had€previously€seized€marijuana€and€paraphernalia€fromÏanother€residence€belonging€to€the€Defendant€and€approximately€$85,000€in€cash€from€a€carÏbelonging€to€the€Defendant;€(3)€that€the€Defendant€was€using€various€businesses€to€launder€theÏproceeds€from€his€drug„dealing€operation;€(4)€that€the€Ô_ÔaffiantÔ_Ô„officer€had€extensive€experience€in€theÏinvestigation€of€narcotics€trafficking;€and€(5)€that€the€Ô_ÔaffiantÔ_Ô„officerððs€experience€led€him€to€believeÏthat€drug€dealers€often€kept€contraband,€records€and€money€at€their€residences.€€Based€on€theÏofficerððs€experience€and€the€amount€of€contraband€likely€at€issue,€we€find€a€sufficient€nexusÏbetween€the€criminality€and€the€Defendantððs€residence.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òConfrontationó óóóÌÌÓ  Óà àNext,€the€Defendant€claims€that€he€was€denied€his€constitutional€rights€to€confront€aÏwitness.€€Specifically,€the€Defendant€complains€that€the€State€elicited€testimony€from€Officer€PerryÏBuck€that€a€confidential€informant€had€told€Officer€Buck€that€the€Defendant€was€involved€in€drug„dealing.€€The€State€responds€(1)€that€the€Defendant€ð ðopened€the€doorðð€to€Officer€BuckððsÏtestimony€by€cross„examining€Officer€Buck€about€the€confidential€informant,€(2)€that€OfficerÏBuckððs€statements€were€not€hearsay,€and,€alternatively,€€(3)€that€the€admission€of€hearsay€wasÏharmless€error.Ìà àDuring€the€Defendantððs€cross„examination€of€Officer€Buck,€the€following€colloquyÏoccurred:€ÌÌà8 àÔ_ÔMRÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔSTRIANSEÔ_Ô€[Defense€Counsel]:€Now€in€advance€of€this€raid€that€youÏconducted€on€December€5,€1996€out€at€Mr.€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ôððs€place€on€Ô_ÔVantreaseÔ_Ô,€I€thinkÏyouððd€agree€that€you€received€some€remarkably€specific€informant€information.ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Yes,€sir.ÌÌà8 àÔ_ÔMRÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔSTRIANSEÔ_Ô:€How€many€years€have€you€been€a€police€officer?ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Twenty„two.ÌÌà8 àÔ_ÔMRÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔSTRIANSEÔ_Ô:€Twenty„two€years.€€Would€you€say€that€itððs€pretty€unusual€toÏreceive€the€kind€of€specific€information€that€you€had€in€advance€of€that€raid€onÏDecember€5,€ðð96?ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Yes,€sir.ÌÌà8 àÔ_ÔMRÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔSTRIANSEÔ_Ô:€€Because€you€pretty€much€had€a€cliff€note€version€of€theÏÔ_ÔRippyÔ_Ô/Corn€organization€well€in€advance€of€December€5,€ðð96?ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Yes,€sir.ÌÌÔ_Ôà8 àMR.€STRIANSE:€You€knew€from€this€informant€that€Mr.€Rippy€supposedly€had€aÏright„hand€man€named€Corn,€correct?ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Correct.ÌÌà8 àMR.€STRIANSE:€And€these€trips€out€west€were€being€made€with€a€light„coloredÏtruck,€correct?ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Correct.Ìà8 àÌà8 àMR.€STRIANSE:€This€truck€had€Colorado€tags?ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Correct.ÌÌà8 àMR.€STRIANSE:€€These€people,€Corn€and€Rippy,€were€using€a€fifth„wheel€trailer€toÏhaul€marijuana?ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Correct.ÌÌà8 àMR.€STRIANSE:€€That€marijuana€was€stored€in€the€bathroom?ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Correct.ÌÌà8 àMR.€STRIANSE:€€That€Mr.€Corn€would€even€have€his€wife€with€him€on€hisÏDecember€trip,€is€that€right?ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Correct.ÌÌà8 àMR.€STRIANSE:€€And€that€Corn€had€a€Colorado€driverððs€license?ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Correct.ÌÌà8 àMR.€€STRIANSE:€And€that€Corn,€when€he€wasnððt€using€the€pickup€truck,€wouldÏavail€himself€of€renting€cars€from€the€state€of€Colorado.ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Correct.ÌÌà8 àMR.€STRIANSE:€So€that€is€some€really€specific€detail,€would€you€agree?ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Yes,€sir.ÌÌà8 àMR.€STRIANSE:€Indicative€of€somebody€being€on€the€inside€whoððs€giving€thatÏinformation€„€Ô_Ô„ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Correct.ÌÌThe€State€never€objected€to€this€testimony.€€Subsequently,€on€re„direct€examination,€the€followingÏcolloquy€occurred:ÌÌà8 àÔ_ÔMRÔ_Ô.€ZIMMERMAN€[Prosecutor]:€Next€Mr.€Ô_ÔStrianseÔ_Ô€asked€you€about€theseÏmatters,€the€very€particular€and€specific€information€that€this€informant€provided€youÏprior€to€the€raid€on€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ôððs€house€that€night.€€Did€he€tell€you€anything€aboutÏÔ_ÔVukelichÔ_Ôððs€role€in€this€organization?ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€This€is€on€December€5th?ÌÌà8 àÔ_ÔMRÔ_Ô.€ZIMMERMAN:€No.€€Iððm€talking€about€the€information€you€got€from€theÏinformant.ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Oh,€yes.ÌÌà8 àÔ_ÔMRÔ_Ô.€ZIMMERMAN:€What€did€he€tell€you€his€role€was?ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€The€informant€told€us€that€„€„ÌÌà8 àÔ_ÔMRÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔSTRIANSEÔ_Ô:€Your€Honor,€unless€theyððre€going€to€produce€the€informant€thisÏwould€be€hearsay.ÌÌà8 àÔ_ÔMRÔ_Ô.€ZIMMERMAN:€Theyððve€opened€the€door€to€this,€Judge.€€Heððs€asked€himÏabout€the€information€„€„€ÌÌà8 àTHE€COURT:€Excuse€me.€€Approach€the€bench.ÌÌFollowing€a€bench€conference,€the€trial€court€overruled€the€Defendantððs€objection,€holding€that€theÏDefendant€had€ð ðopened€the€doorðð€by€questioning€the€witness€about€the€informant€and€that€theÏð ðrule€of€completenessðð€required€that€the€prosecutor€be€allowed€to€ask€the€question.€€Subsequently,Ïthe€witness€answered€the€question€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àOFFICER€BUCK:€Our€informant€said€that€Ô_ÔVukelichÔ_Ô€was€the€money€man.€€Said€heÏhad€the€Mexican€connection.€€And€he€told€us,€as€did€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô,€about€the€system€thatÏthey€would€use€where€Corn€would€drive€out€of€state.€€Go€to€a€motel.€€Heððd€call€backÏto€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô.€€Tell€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€where€he€was€at.€€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô,€in€essence,€would€call€Ô_ÔVukelichÔ_Ô,€Mr.ÏÔ_ÔVukelichÔ_Ô.€€And€Mr.€Ô_ÔVukelichÔ_Ô€would€call€the€Mexican€connection.€€And€at€someÏpoint€this€gold€truck€or€the€light„colored€truck€would€disappear€and€when€itÏreappeared€it€would€be€full€of€marijuana.€€He€also€told€us€about€the€fifth„wheelÏtrailer€as€defense€was€talking€about.€€The€bathroom€being€„€„€marijuana€beingÏtransported€in€that€and€they€would€pile€it€all€the€way€to€the€ceiling€inside€theÏbathroom€in€the€Coachmen€trailer.ÌÌà àThe€next€morning,€however,€the€trial€court€reconsidered€its€ruling.€€Following€argument€byÏboth€sides,€the€trial€court€sustained€the€Defendantððs€earlier€objection€and€issued€the€followingÏcurative€instruction€to€the€jury:€ÌÌà8 àGood€morning,€Ladies€and€Gentlemen.€€Members€of€the€Jury,€yesterday€toward€theÏclose€of€the€day€you€heard€some€testimony€from€Officer€Buck€about€someÏinformation€he€received€from€an€informant€related€to€the€Defendant,€Mr.€Ô_ÔVukelichÔ_Ô.€€IÏwant€you€to€disregard€that€testimony.€€Do€not€consider€that€testimony€for€anyÏpurpose€whatsoever€in€this€lawsuit.€€Thank€you.ÌÌÓ  Óà àFirst,€we€agree€with€the€Defendant€that€Officer€Buckððs€statement€was€inadmissible€hearsay,Ïbecause€it€was€an€out„of„court€statement€made€by€the€confidential€informant€and€offered€to€proveÏthe€truth€of€the€matter€asserted€in€the€statement,€i.e.,€that€the€Defendant€was€involved€in€the€drug„dealing€organization.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€801.€€The€State€claims€that€the€statement€was€merelyÏoffered€to€show€that€the€informant€made€the€statement,€i.e.,€that€besides€Ô_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€and€Corn,€theÏinformant€had€also€implicated€the€Defendant.€€However,€if€the€statement€were€merely€offered€toÏshow€that€the€informant€had€implicated€the€Defendant,€but€not€to€show€that€the€Defendant€wasÏguilty,€then€the€statement€would€have€little€to€no€relevance€and€a€substantial€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€401,€403.€€ÌÓ  Ó€€€à àWe€also€agree€that€admission€of€the€statement€violated€the€Defendantððs€right€to€confrontÏwitnesses.€€It€is€well„settled€that€the€Confrontation€Clause€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution€and€article€€I,€section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provide€two€protectionsÏfor€criminal€defendants:€€the€right€to€physically€face€witnesses€and€the€right€to€cross„examineÏwitnesses.€€òòSeeóó€òòPennsylvania€v.€Ritchieóó,€480€U.S.€39,€51,€107€S.€Ct.€989,€998,€94€L.€Ed.€2d€40,€53Ï(1987);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€332€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€òòState€v.€Hendersonóó,Ïour€supreme€court€recognized€that€in€order€to€satisfy€federal€constitutional€confrontation€rights:ÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà8 à(1)€the€evidence€must€not€be€ð ðcrucialðð€or€ð ðdevastatingðð€(but€see€òòState€v.€DwightÏMilleróó€1998€WL€902592€*6,€questioning€whether€this€prong€still€viable)ÌÌà8 à(2)€there€is€proof€that€the€witness€is€unavailable,€i.e.,€the€State€must€make€a€goodÏfaith€effort€to€secure€the€presence€of€the€person€whose€statement€is€to€be€offeredÏagainst€the€defendant;€€andÌÌà8 à(3)the€evidence€offered€under€a€hearsay€exception€must€bear€its€own€'indicia€ofÏreliability.ððÓ  ÓÌÓ  Ó554€S.W.2d€117,€120€(Tenn.€1977)€(citations€omitted).€€Similarly,€in€òòOhio€v.€Robertsóó,€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€analyzed€the€relationship€between€the€Confrontation€Clause€and€the€hearsayÏrules€of€evidence€and€established€the€following€general€approach:€ð ð[Ô_ÔW]henÔ_Ô€a€hearsay€Ô_ÔdeclarantÔ_Ô€isÏnot€present€for€cross„examination€at€trial€.€.€.€€his€statement€is€admissible€only€if€it€bears€adequateÏ'indicia€of€reliability.'€"€òòOhio€v.€Robertsóó,€448€U.S.€56,€56,€100€S.€Ct.€2531,€2538,€65€L.€Ed.€2d€597Ï(1980).€The€òòRobertsóó€Court€also€held€that€"the€Confrontation€Clause€.€.€.€€requires€a€showing€that€[aÏhearsay€Ô_ÔdeclarantÔ_Ô]€is€unavailable."€€òòRobertsóó,€448€U.S.€at€75.€€The€Court€later€modified€theÏunavailability€requirement€in€òòWhite€v.€Illinoisóó,:€"[Ô_ÔU]navailabilityÔ_Ô€analysis€is€a€necessary€part€of€theÏConfrontation€Clause€inquiry€only€when€the€challenged€out„of„court€statements€were€made€in€theÏcourse€of€a€prior€judicial€proceeding€.€.€.€."€€502€U.S.€346,€354„55,€112€S.€Ct.€736,€116€L.€Ed.€2dÏ848€(1992);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Kennedyóó,€7€S.W.3d€58,€65€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1999).€€However,€weÏneed€not€decide€whether€the€second€prong€of€òòHendersonððsóó€tripartite€test€has€been€modified€by€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Courtððs€holding€in€òòWhiteóó,€nor€must€we€decide€whether€the€evidence€wasÏcrucial€or€devastating,€because€we€hold€that€the€statement€made€by€a€confidential€informant€andÏrelayed€by€a€police€officer€was€not€admissible€under€any€hearsay€exception€and,€in€any€event,€lackedÏits€own€indicia€of€reliability.€€€Thus,€the€Defendantððs€confrontation€rights€were€violated.Ìà àIn€reviewing€an€error€of€constitutional€magnitude,€we€must€determine€whether€the€error€wasÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€òòChapman€v.€Californiaóó,€386€U.S.€18,€24,€87€S.€Ct.€824,€828,Ï17€L.€Ed.€2d€705€(1967);€òòÔ_ÔMomonÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€152,€167€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔDeuterÔ_Ôóó,€839ÍS.W.2d€391,€396„97€(Tenn.€1992).€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€erroneous€admission€ofÏOfficer€Buckððs€testimony€about€the€confidential€informant€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt,€because€(1)€the€evidence€of€the€Defendantððs€guilt€was€substantial;€(2)€the€hearsay€itself€didÏnot€provide€any€additional€information€that€the€jury€had€not€already€heard;€and€(3)€the€trial€court,Ïafter€recognizing€its€error,€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€the€testimony.€ÌÔ_Ôà àAlthough€the€Defendant€relies€on€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€915€S.W.2d€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),Ïwe€find€that€case€distinguishable€from€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó.€€In€òòBrownóó,€a€detective€testified€that€aÏconfidential€informant€told€the€detective€that€the€defendant€was€driving€a€certain€make€of€car€andÏwas€carrying€drugs.€€òòId.óó€at€5.€€The€detective€stopped€the€car€and€attempted€to€secure€the€defendant,Ïwho€was€driving€the€car.€€òòId.óó€€As€he€did€so,€he€saw€the€passenger€throw€two€bags€of€cocaine€awayÏfrom€the€vehicle.€€òòId.óó€€The€trial€court€allowed€the€detective€to€testify€about€the€confidentialÏinformantððs€statement.€€òòId.óó€at€6.€€On€appeal,€this€Court€found€that€the€admission€of€the€detectiveððsÏtestimony€was€erroneous,€because€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€substantially€outweighed€itsÏprobative€value.€€òòId.óó€at€7.€€The€Court€also€found€that€the€error€was€not€harmless,€because€there€wasÏvery€little€evidence€tying€the€defendant€to€the€discarded€cocaine.€€òòIdóó.€€€€Ìà àIn€this€case,€however,€there€was€substantial€evidence€of€the€Defendantððs€guilt.€€AlthoughÏmost€of€the€evidence€of€the€Defendantððs€guilt€was€established€through€the€testimony€ofÏaccomplices,€that€testimony€was€substantial€and€corroborated.€€Mr.€Rippy,€Mr.€Corn,€and€Mr.ÏMcCool€all€testified€that€they€delivered€drugs€and/or€money€for€the€Defendant€and€that€theyÏengaged€in€various€schemes€to€hide€their€involvement€and€launder€the€money,€including€theÏpurchase€of€vehicles€and€a€trailer€to€transport€the€drugs€and€a€truck„bed€liner€to€hide€the€drugs,€all€atÏthe€Defendantððs€direction.€€Several€witnesses€verified€that€the€Defendant€kept€a€trailer€andÏpossessed€a€gold€truck,€and€telephone€records€verified€that€the€Defendant€called€Mr.€Rippy€and€Mr.ÏMcCool€several€times.€€Finally,€Bob€Williams€and€Keith€Schumacher€both€testified€that€they€helpedÏthe€Defendant€launder€money.€Ìà àFurthermore,€in€determining€whether€the€error€was€harmless,€it€is€useful€to€determineÏwhether€the€challenged€evidence€provided€new€or€merely€cumulative€evidence.€€Of€course,€in€someÏcases,€evidence€that€is€cumulative€may€be€quite€harmful,€as€it€may€serve€to€corroborate€evidence€thatÏÔ_Ôwas€previously€dubious.€€However,€in€this€case,€Officer€Buckððs€brief€testimony€about€theÏconfidential€informantððs€tip€was€of€little€consequence€given€the€nature€and€weight€of€all€of€the€otherÏevidence.Ìà àFinally,€we€note€that€the€trial€court€did€instruct€the€jury€to€disregard€the€erroneously€admittedÏtestimony.€€The€jury€is€presumed€to€have€followed€the€trial€courtððs€instruction.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893ÏS.W.2d€908,€923€(Tenn.1994).€€In€view€of€all€of€the€above,€we€find€that€the€error€in€the€admissionÏof€this€testimony€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòMistrialóóó óÌÌÓ  Óà àNext,€the€Defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€twice€refusing€to€grant€a€mistrial.€ÏThe€€Defendant€first€moved€the€court€to€declare€a€mistrial€after€the€introduction€of€Officer€BuckððsÏtestimony€discussed€above€and€again€when€the€prosecutor€elicited€testimony€that€the€Defendant€hadÏsmoked€marijuana€with€a€witness€for€the€State.Ìà àDuring€the€first€trial,€the€prosecutor€elicited€testimony€from€Keith€Ô_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ô€that€he€hadÏpreviously€smoked€marijuana€with€the€Defendant€on€two€occasions.€€The€Defendant€objected,€and,Ïfollowing€a€hearing,€the€court€sustained€the€objection.€€Nevertheless,€in€the€second€trial,€theÏfollowing€colloquy€occurred:Ìà8 àÔ_ÔMRÔ_Ô.€ZIMMERMAN:€And€you€talked€about€the€closeness€of€your€relationship.€€AtÏany€time€did€you€ever€use€drugs€in€the€presence€of€[the€Defendant]?ÌÌà8 àÔ_ÔMRÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔSCHUMACHERÔ_Ô:€On€two€occasions€I€smoked€a€joint€with€[the€Defendant].€ÏOnce€at€his€home€on€July€4th€with€Joe€Prim€and€another€time€at€my€place€we€did.€ÏBut€Iððm€not€a€pot€smoker€and€thatððs€the€only€two€times€I€ever€seen€him€[sic].ÌÌThe€court€immediately€asked€for€a€bench€conference€and€excused€the€jury.€€The€prosecutorÏapologized€and€claimed€to€have€forgotten€the€trial€courtððs€earlier€ruling,€and€the€trial€court€stronglyÏadmonished€the€prosecutor.€€The€Defendant€then€moved€for€a€mistrial,€but€the€trial€court€denied€theÏmotion:ÌÌà8 àTHE€COURT:€I€think€I€indicated€the€last€time€that,€I€mean,€I€really€didnððt€think€theÏissue€was€that€important€because€I€donððt€believe€that€a€jury€is€going€to€convictÏsomeone€for€drug€trafficking€or€money€laundering€because€they€smoked€marijuanaÏa€couple€of€times.€€On€the€other€hand,€there€was€sort€of€a€basis€for€my€ruling€thatÏbecause€someone€smoked€marijuana€is€really€not€probative€of€whether€they€wereÏinvolved€in€selling.€€So€motion€for€mistrial€is€overruled.€€You€could€never€convinceÏme€that€a€jury€is€going€to€convict€somebody€because€they€smoked€marijuana€aÏcouple€of€times.€€ÌÌAt€the€Defendantððs€request,€the€trial€court€then€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€the€testimony.€€OnÏappeal,€the€Defendant€claims€that€a€mistrial€was€warranted€by€the€confrontation€violation€ð ðbecause€aÏmistrial€was€the€only€measure€which€could€rectify€such€an€injustice€of€constitutional€proportions.ðð€ÏÔ_ÔHe€also€claims€that€a€mistrial€was€necessary€after€Mr.€Schumacherððs€testimony€because€(1)€Ô_ÔMr.ÏÔ_ÔSchumacherÔ_Ôððs€testimony€itself€was€inherently€prejudicial,€and€(2)€the€prosecutor€flagrantlyÏdisregarded€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€We€disagree.€€à0 àÌà àThe€purpose€of€a€mistrial€is€to€correct€the€damage€done€to€the€judicial€process€when€someÏevent€has€occurred€that€would€preclude€an€impartial€verdict.€€òòArnold€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€792,€794Ï(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1977).€€The€decision€whether€to€grant€a€mistrial€is€within€the€trial€court'sÏdiscretion€and€will€not€be€disturbed€absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882ÏS.W.2d€365,€370€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1994).€€"Generally€a€mistrial€will€be€declared€in€a€criminal€caseÏonly€when€there€is€a€'manifest€necessity'€requiring€such€by€the€trial€judge."€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔMillbrooksÔ_Ôóó,€819ÏS.W.2d€441,€443€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1991).€€Ìà àIn€this€case,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€refusing€to€grant€aÏmistrial,€because,€in€both€instances,€the€offending€testimony€was€limited,€and€the€trial€court€tookÏimmediate€steps€to€prevent€undue€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔAdkinsÔ_Ôóó,€786€S.W.2d€642,Ï644€(Tenn.€1990)€(holding€that€a€mistrial€was€not€required€following€a€witnessððs€outburst€where€theÏtrial€court€took€immediate€action€to€dispel€prejudice);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔMathisÔ_Ôóó,€969€S.W.2d€418,€422Ï(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1997)€(holding€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôi]nÔ_Ô€light€of€the€limited€nature€of€the€offending€testimonyÏand€the€trial€court's€prompt€curative€instruction,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€refusingÏto€grant€a€mistrialðð).€€Ìà àWith€respect€to€the€argument€that€the€flagrancy€of€the€prosecutorððs€disobedience€to€the€trialÏcourtððs€ruling€warrant€a€mistrial,€we€note€that€the€test€to€be€applied€in€reviewing€a€claim€ofÏprosecutorial€misconduct€is€"whether€the€improper€conduct€could€have€affected€the€verdict€to€theÏprejudice€of€the€defendant."€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965).€€The€factors€toÏbe€considered€in€such€an€analysis,€set€out€in€€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.ÏApp.€1976),€and€adopted€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€609Ï(Tenn.€1984),€are€as€follows:ÌÌà à(1)€the€conduct€complained€of,€viewed€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case;ÌÌà à(2)€the€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution;ÌÌà à(3)€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improper€statement;ÌÌà à(4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€in€the€record;€€andÌÌà à(5)€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€€ÌÌÓÓòòJudgeóó,€539€S.W.2d€at€344.à àÌÓÓà àThe€first€factor,€the€conduct€complained€of,€weighs€in€favor€of€the€Defendant,€because€theÏtestimony€solicited€was€patently€improper€given€the€trial€courtððs€previous€ruling.€€The€second€factor,Ïthe€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution,€weighs€in€favor€of€the€State,Ïbecause€the€Court€immediately€issued€curative€instructions.€€The€third€factor,€the€intent€of€theÏÔ_Ôprosecutor,€does€not€weigh€either€way,€because€the€only€evidence€of€the€prosecutorððs€intent€is€hisÏapology€to€the€court€and€his€explanation€that€he€did€not€remember€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€in€Ô_ÔtheÏoriginal€trial.€€The€weight€of€the€fourth€factor€is€also€neutral,€because€although€there€was€anotherÏerror€in€the€trial,€the€cumulative€effect€did€little€to€alleviate€the€effect€of€this€error.€€The€final€factor,Ïthe€strength€of€the€case,€tips€the€scales€in€favor€of€the€State€because€the€evidence€of€the€DefendantððsÏguilt€was€substantial.€€In€short,€we€are€convinced€that€any€improper€conduct€on€the€prosecutorððs€partÏdid€not€contribute€to€the€guilty€verdict.€€This€issue€does€not€require€a€reversal€of€the€case.ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òPrior€Actsó óóóÌÌÓ  Óà àNext,€the€Defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€State€to€introduceÏevidence€that€the€Defendant€had€entered€into€a€lease€with€Gary€Jones.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€DefendantÏmoved€the€court€to€exclude€all€evidence€of€the€conspiracy€that€predated€November,€1989,€pursuantÏto€rule€404(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€Defendantððs€motion.€ÏHowever,€during€the€trial,€the€court€allowed€the€State€to€introduce€a€copy€of€a€lease€from€ArizonaÏthat€showed€that€the€Defendant€and€Gary€Jones€had€leased€a€condominium€in€Arizona€fromÏNovember,€1988€to€May,€1989.€€On€appeal,€the€Defendant€claims€that€introduction€of€this€leaseÏviolated€Rule€404(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€We€disagree.Ìà àRule€404(b)€provides€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€character€ofÏa€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait.€€It€may,Ïhowever,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.€€The€conditions€which€must€be€satisfiedÏbefore€allowing€such€evidence€are:ÌÌà8 à(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€jury's€presence;ÌÌà8 à(2)€The€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€other€than€conductÏconforming€with€a€character€trait€and€must€upon€request€state€on€the€record€theÏmaterial€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€for€admitting€the€evidence;€€andÌÌà8 à(3)€The€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€is€outweighed€by€theÏdanger€of€unfair€prejudice.ÌÌTenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€404(b).€€Furthermore,€before€admitting€any€evidence€of€prior€acts€under€Rule€404(b),Ïa€trial€court€must€find€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€defendant€committed€the€other€acts.€ÏTenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€404,€Advisory€Commission€Comments;€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔPartonÔ_Ôóó,€694€S.W.2d€299,€303Ï(Tenn.€1985).Ìà àAlthough€the€Defendant€correctly€notes€that€the€rule€applies€to€prior€acts,€not€merely€priorÏcrimes,€the€rule€only€excludes€propensity€evidence,€i.e.,€evidence€ð ðthat€Ô_Ôprove[sÔ_Ô]€the€character€of€aÏÔ_Ôperson€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€AsÏthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€noted,€Ìà8 àWhere€the€evidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€and€acts€may€reflect€upon€the€characterÏof€the€accused,€the€procedure€set€forth€in€Rule€404(b)€should€be€followed,€evenÏthough€the€evidence€is€offered€to€prove€a€material€fact€not€necessarily€related€Ô_ÔdirectlyÏto€the€accused.€€If,€after€hearing€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€finds€that€the€evidenceÏdoes€not€implicate€the€accused,€the€weighing€of€probative€value€against€unfairÏprejudice€will€be€made€pursuant€to€Rule€403.€€If€the€court€finds€that€the€evidenceÏreflects€upon€the€character€of€the€accused,€the€weighing€will€be€made€pursuant€toÏRule€404(b).ÌÌòòState€v.€Ô_ÔDuBoseÔ_Ôóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€655€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€other€words,€if€the€State€had€been€tryingÏto€establish€the€Defendantððs€propensity€for€entering€into€leases,€Rule€404(b)€might€apply.€However,Ïin€this€case,€the€State€was€merely€attempting€to€prove€that€the€Defendant€and€Gary€Jones€knew€eachÏother,€and€evidence€of€the€Arizona€lease€was€relevant€to€establish€that.€€It€did€not,€however,€implicateÏthe€Defendantððs€character.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Lacyóó,€983€S.W.2d€686€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ï1997).€€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòò òSentencingó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àFinally,€the€Defendant€challenges€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€Following€aÏsentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€Defendant€to€serve€twenty€years€for€count€one,Ïconspiracy€to€deliver€over€700€pounds€of€marijuana;€four€years€each€for€counts€three€and€four,Ïconspiracy€to€commit€money€laundering;€and€ten€years€each€for€counts€five,€six,€seven,€eight€andÏnine,€all€money€laundering.€€The€court€also€ordered€the€sentences€for€counts€three€and€four€to€beÏserved€concurrently€to€each€other,€but€consecutively€to€the€sentence€for€count€one,€and€the€sentencesÏfor€the€remaining€counts€to€be€served€concurrently€to€each€other€but€consecutive€to€counts€one€andÏthree,€for€a€total€effective€sentence€of€thirty„four€years.€€The€court€also€imposed€a€total€ofÏ$180,000.00€in€fines€on€the€Defendant.€€On€appeal,€the€Defendant€claims€that€the€trial€courtÏerroneously€(1)€enhanced€the€length€of€the€Defendantððs€sentence,€(2)€imposed€consecutiveÏsentences,€and€(3)€imposed€excessive€fines.€ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òA.€Standard€of€Reviewó óóóÌÌÓ  Óà àThis€Court's€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€de€novo€with€a€presumptionÏof€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€However,€this€presumption€is€conditioned€uponÏan€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€judge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÏrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔAshbyÔ_Ôóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€the€trialÏcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness,€and€ourÏreview€is€de€novo.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€95€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€conducting€a€de€novoÏreview,€we€must€consider€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€theÏÔ_ÔpresentenceÔ_Ô€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)Ïthe€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€statutory€enhancementÏfactors;€(6)€any€statement€that€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€the€potential€forÏrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„103,€„210;€òòÔ_ÔAshbyÔ_Ôóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168.€€ÌÌÌÌÓ  Óòòò òB.€Length€of€Sentenceó óóóÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€challenges€the€length€of€his€sentence.€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€theÏexistence€of€two€statutory€enhancing€factors:€(1)€that€the€€Defendant€had€a€previous€history€ofÏcriminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€that€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriateÏsentencing€range€and€(2)€that€the€Defendant€was€the€leader€in€the€commission€of€the€offenses.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€&€(2).€€The€trial€court€also€found€the€existence€of€three€mitigatingÏfactors:€(1)€that€the€Defendantððs€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury;€(2)Ïthat€the€Defendant€expressed€remorse;€and€(3)€that€the€Defendant€ran€a€successful€business.€€òòId.óó€ððÏ40„35„113(1),€(13).Ìà àFirst,€the€Defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€applied€the€first€enhancementÏfactor,€because€the€ð ðprevious€history€of€criminal€behaviorðð€was€originally€charged€as€part€of€theÏoffense.€€As€noted€above,€the€state€originally€tried€to€charge€the€pre„1989€conduct€in€the€first€twoÏindictments,€but€was€prevented€from€doing€so€for€various€reasons.€€However,€the€State€did€presentÏevidence€of€this€pre„1989€conduct€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Specifically,€Randy€Ô_ÔMcCoolÔ_Ô€testifiedÏthat€he€made€numerous€trips€to€deliver€marijuana€for€the€Defendant€prior€to€the€charged€conspiracy.€ÏFurthermore,€Sergeant€James€Ô_ÔMcWrightÔ_Ô€testified€that€a€search€of€the€Defendantððs€home€prior€to€theÏcharged€conspiracy€yielded€marijuana,€paraphernalia€and€a€large€amount€of€cash.€€Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€noted€that€ÌÌà8 àAs€we€have€previously€observed,€enhancement€factors€must€be€ððappropriate€for€theÏoffenseðð€and€ððnot€themselves€essential€elements€of€the€offense.ðð€These€limitationsÏexclude€enhancement€factors€ððbased€on€facts€which€are€used€to€prove€the€offenseððÏor€ðð[Ô_Ôf]actsÔ_Ô€which€establish€the€elements€of€the€offense€charged.ðð€€The€purpose€of€theÏlimitations€is€to€avoid€enhancing€the€length€of€sentences€based€on€factors€theÏLegislature€took€into€consideration€when€establishing€the€range€of€punishment€forÏthe€offense.€Ìà àÌòòPooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€98€(citations€omitted).€€The€evidence€adduced€at€the€sentencing€hearing€wasÏnot€an€essential€element€of€the€offense,€because€it€occurred€prior€to€the€charged€conspiracy.€ÏFurthermore,€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€establish€the€previous€history€of€criminal€behavior.€ÏThus,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€applying€the€enhancement€factor.Ìà àThe€Defendant€also€challenges€the€weight€that€the€trial€court€assigned€to€the€aggravatingÏfactors€and€mitigating€factors.€€As€a€Range€I,€Standard€Offender,€the€Defendant€was€eligible€for€aÏsentence€between€fifteen€and€twenty„five€years€for€count€one,€a€Class€A€felony;€between€three€andÏsix€years€each€for€counts€three€and€four,€Class€C€felonies;€and€between€eight€and€twelve€years€eachÏÔ_Ôfor€counts€five,€six,€seven,€eight€and€nine,€Class€B€felonies.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„111.€TheÏpresumptive€sentence€for€each€offense€was€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(c)(1990).× ƒ0 ××  ×€€If€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€do€exist,€a€trial€court€should€start€at€Ô_ÔtheÏpresumptive€sentence,€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€for€enhancement€factors€and€thenÏreduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(e).€Ìà àAlthough€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€follow€the€prescribed€ð ðstatutoryÏcalculusðð€in€determining€the€weight€applied€to€each€factor,€it€is€well„settled€that€no€particular€weightÏfor€each€factor€is€prescribed€by€the€statute,€as€the€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretionÏof€the€trial€court,€provided€that€its€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Santiagoóó,€914ÍS.W.2d€116,€125€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1995);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210,€SentencingÏCommission€Comments.€€We€find€that€the€record€supports€the€defendant's€sentences.ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òC.€Consecutive€Sentencesó óóóÌÌÓ  Óà àNext,€the€Defendant€challenges€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences.€€A€trial€court€mayÏimpose€consecutive€sentencing€upon€a€determination€that€one€or€more€of€the€criteria€set€forth€inÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„115(b)€exists.€€This€section€permits€the€trial€court€toÏimpose€consecutive€sentences€if€the€court€finds,€among€other€criteria,€that€the€defendant€is€aÏprofessional€criminal€who€has€knowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€hisÏlivelihood.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(1).€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€Defendant€was€aÏprofessional€criminal€and€accordingly€ordered€consecutive€sentencing.Ìà à€The€Defendant€argues€€(1)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€relying€on€pre„November€1,€1989Ïconduct€to€establish€that€the€Defendant€was€a€professional€criminal€and€(2)€that€the€trial€courtÏignored€the€sentencing€considerations€delineated€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„103Ïin€imposing€consecutive€sentences.€€We€disagree.Ì€à àWe€need€not€decide€whether€the€trial€court€could€have€relied€on€pre„November€1,€1989Ïconduct€in€finding€that€the€Defendant€was€a€professional€criminal,€because€the€record€indicates€thatÏthe€trial€court€did€not€rely€on€that€evidence€in€making€its€finding.€€In€imposing€consecutiveÏsentences,€the€court€held€as€follows:€ð ð[Ô_Ôa]sÔ_Ô€far€as€the€consecutive€sentencing€under€40„35„115,€IÏthink€[the€Defendant]€is€a€professional€criminal.€€He€at€least€earned€part€of€his€livelihood€from€hisÏinvolvement€in€a€marijuana€business€that€at€least€went€from€1989€to€1996.ðð€€This€does€not€indicate,Ïas€the€Defendant€suggests,€that€the€court€relied€on€pre„November€1,€1989€conduct€in€imposingÏconsecutive€sentences.€€Furthermore,€the€record€indicates€that€the€Defendant€was€a€major€marijuanaÏdealer€for€at€least€the€past€several€years€and€that€he€used€the€proceeds€of€his€illegal€enterprise€toÏpurchase€a€house€and€a€boat€and€to€partially€finance€his€legitimate€business.€€Indeed,€the€DefendantÏadmitted€to€dealing€drugs€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€We€find€the€evidence€sufficient€to€support€aÏfinding€that€the€Defendant€was€a€professional€criminal.€Ìà àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€ordered€consecutive€sentencesÏwithout€first€taking€into€account€the€sentencing€considerations€embodied€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„35„103.€€Specifically,€he€claims€that€ð ðthe€trial€court€should€have€consideredÏ(1)€the€need€to€protect€the€public€from€further€serious€criminal€offenses€by€the€Defendant;€(2)Ïinequality€in€sentencing;€(3)€the€least€severe€measure€of€punishment;€and€(4)€the€DefendantððsÏpotential€for€rehabilitation.€€With€regard€to€the€claims€that€the€terms€of€the€Defendantððs€sentence€doÏnot€reasonable€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€and€that€consecutive€sentences€were€notÏnecessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€serious€criminal€conduct,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔWilkersonÔ_Ôóó,€905ÏS.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€the€òòÔ_ÔWilkersonÔ_Ôóó€factorsÏare€limited€to€cases€involving€defendants€found€to€be€ð ðdangerous€offendersðð€under€€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„35„115(b)(4).€€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€3€S.W.3d€456,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€Thus,Ïthis€claim€is€without€merit.€Ì€à àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€his€situation€is€analogous€to€that€of€the€defendant€in€òòStateÏv.€Ô_ÔDesireyÔ_Ôóó,€909€S.W.2d€20€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1995).€€In€òòÔ_ÔDesireyÔ_Ôóó,€this€court€ruled€that€trial€courtsÏshould€ensure€that€the€aggregate€sentence€imposed€should€be€the€least€severe€measure€necessary€toÏprotect€the€public€from€the€defendant's€future€criminal€conduct€and€should€bear€some€relationship€toÏthe€defendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€òòId.óó€at€33.€€€Ô_ÔDesireyÔ_Ô€was€convicted€of€four€counts€ofÏbribing€a€public€servant€and€was€sentenced€to€four€consecutive€four„year,€six„month€sentences.€òòId.óóÏat€34.€On€appeal,€this€court€modified€the€sentences€so€that€three€of€the€terms€were€concurrent,Ïresulting€in€an€aggregate€nine„year€sentence.€òòId.óó€The€court€held€that€four€consecutive€sentences€wereÏinappropriate€because€the€defendant€had€been€convicted€of€non„violent€offenses€that€"consisted€of€aÏshort€series€of€similar,€related€conduct€of€an€ongoing€nature."€òòId.óó€€The€court€commented€thatÍ"offenses€which€overlap€with€the€same€intent€can€make€concurrent€sentencing€appropriate."€òòId.óóÏ(citing€òòState€v.€Holtóó,€691€S.W.2d€520,€522€(Tenn.€1984)).Ìà àAlthough€the€Defendant,€like€Ô_ÔDesireyÔ_Ô,€did€commit€non„violent€offenses€that€consisted€of€anÏongoing€series€of€related€conduct,€there€are€significant€differences€between€this€Defendant€andÏÔ_ÔDesireyÔ_Ô.€€First,€the€offenses€in€òòÔ_ÔDesireyÔ_Ôóó€all€occurred€within€a€much€briefer€time€span,€specifically€allÏwithin€one€month.€€Second,€the€proof€established€that€Ô_ÔDesireyÔ_Ô€possessed€significant€potential€forÏrehabilitation.€This€defendant€can€be€distinguished€from€Ô_ÔDesireyÔ_Ô€in€both€respects€because€heÏcontinued€to€violate€the€law€despite€a€nearly€decade„long€investigation,€and€all€of€the€offenses€atÏissue€occurred€within€the€much€longer€time„span€of€six€years.€In€short,€considering€the€Defendant'sÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€and€the€nature€of€the€offenses,€we€find€the€Defendantððs€case€sufficientlyÏdistinguishable€from€òòÔ_ÔDesireyÔ_Ôóó.€€We€hold€that€the€aggregate€thirty„four€year€sentence€imposed€on€theÏDefendant€was€appropriate.ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òD.€Excessive€Finesó óóó€ÌÌÓ  Óà àBesides€the€sentence€of€incarceration,€the€trial€court€also€imposed€an€aggregate€fine€ofÏ$180,000€on€the€Defendant.× ƒ1 ××  ×€The€Defendant€does€not€challenge€the€amount€of€the€fines€per€se;Ïinstead,€he€claims€that€the€amount€of€the€fines€in€conjunction€with€the€amount€of€property€forfeitedÏviolates€the€Excessive€Fines€Clauses€of€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions.€€In€supportÏof€his€argument,€the€Defendant€cites€òòStuart€v.€Stateóó,€963€S.W.2d€28,€34€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€òòStuartóó,€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€while€forfeiture€of€the€òòproceedsóó€of€illegal€drug€transactions€areÏnot€punitive€and€are€therefore€not€subject€to€excessive€fines€analysis,€forfeiture€of€òòitemsóó€used€inÏfurtherance€of€an€illegal€drug€transaction€is€punitive€in€nature€and€therefore€subject€to€excessiveÏfines€analysis.€€òòId.óó€at€34„35.€€€The€supreme€court€then€articulated€a€five„pronged€proportionality€testÏto€determine€whether€the€forfeiture€of€an€item€used€in€furtherance€of€a€drug€transaction€constitutesÏan€excessive€fine.€Ìà àHowever,€at€the€time€the€Defendant€filed€his€brief,€the€forfeiture€proceedings€were€stillÏpending,€and€the€Defendant€ð ðconcedes€that€it€is€difficult€to€assess€whether€the€trial€courtððs€fine€[]Ïwas€excessive€in€light€of€the€absence€of€a€Judgment€of€Forfeiture.ðð€€We€agree.€€When€imposingÏfines,€a€trial€court€must€examine€"the€defendant's€ability€to€pay€that€fine,€and€other€factors€ofÏjudgment€involved€in€setting€the€total€sentence."€€òòState€v.€Bryantóó,€805€S.W.2d€762,€766€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€Thus,€although€the€defendant's€ability€to€pay€a€fine€is€a€factor,€it€is€not€necessarily€aÏcontrolling€one.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€542€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1993)€overruledÏon€other€grounds€by€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€988€S.W.2d€145€(Tenn.1999).€à àAlthough€òòStuartóó€established€aÏtest€to€determine€whether€a€forfeiture€constituted€an€excessive€fine,€it€did€not€change€the€well„settledÏprinciples€that€guide€our€analysis€regarding€whether€a€fine€itself€is€excessive,€nor€did€it€mandate€thatÏwe€determine€whether€a€combination€of€forfeitures€and€fines€are€excessive,€except€to€the€extent€thatÏthose€forfeitures€would€impact€the€Defendantððs€ability€to€pay€the€fines.€€In€this€case,€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€state€its€findings€on€the€record€regarding€the€calculation€of€the€fines.€€However,€given€theÏseriousness€and€nature€of€the€crimes,€we€defer€to€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€regarding€the€amount€ofÍthe€fines.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€We€also€note€that€although€the€fine€imposed€was€$180,000,€the€Defendant€facedÏa€maximum€possible€aggregate€fine€of€$645,000.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÓ  Óà@ àòòò òConclusionó óóóÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED€in€part€and€REVERSED€in€part,Ïand€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€sentencing€on€the€four€(4)€money€laundering€countsÏreinstated€by€this€Court.à à€ÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE