WPC HxZ7KI*˙q́.#j$ 0Fc̣N#K3F Na6i(KzŞH3{=AH/PJ D2CA c Ab<$VWg "qjv9@8WG3 88Ú!B SL:GSSWy\"z貧{7dze]p|i0 ̥2%]^CHlfg#(M{S.k~he0|{gO1bR˖_e-w"VRKd ԉ.UD=В׷˪#TCk 7#ܥ u<85q׃+-@52Yj(1)< > 'ߙ) gbцO2q*xC!3g3 1d9^CC]*# LU :W % 0w4 0 U: k 0Dv & k Kq,U:U:&'U:/iU:]qU:e B AQLU: B 0D 0D 0DCC D/ B D3HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh,  AZ"Arial RegularX(`zZ$TRY,3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T  uYvwEx[yYz{{|}E~EEE!6EӀF&3|x((2$ zZ!TRX3' Letter3'3'*Avery 5165 Full Sheet3'T   4XX   0  ,  AZ"Arial Regular a ؉$  43XX   1    Althoughtherecorddoesnotincludeafinalrulingonthisissue,thedefendantstated 4 duringajuryouthearingthatheunderstoodthetrialcourtsrulingthattheStatecouldnotaskabouttherobberyconvictionpersebutcouldaskwhetherhehadafelonyconviction.Thedefendantthenindicatedthathedidnotwishtotestify.Therecordissilentastowhetherthedefendantintendedtotestifyiftherobberyconvictionwereexcluded.(#$  0    ؉$  43XX   2    Thedefendantdidnotchallengethetrialcourtsrulingregardingtheadmissibilityofthe 4 sixpriorburglaryconvictions. a ؉$  43XX   1    Althoughtherecorddoesnotincludeafinalrulingonthisissue,thedefendantstated 4 duringajuryouthearingthatheunderstoodthetrialcourtsrulingthattheStatecouldnotaskabouttherobberyconvictionpersebutcouldaskwhetherhehadafelonyconviction.Thedefendantthenindicatedthathedidnotwishtotestify.Therecordissilentastowhetherthedefendantintendedtotestifyiftherobberyconvictionwereexcluded.  ؉$  43XX   3    Becausethedefendantwasfreetotestifydespitethetrialcourtsruling,thiscasedoes 4 notinvolvethedeprivationofafundamentalconstitutionalright.SeeLuce,105S.Ct.at464  (concludingthaterroneousdecisionunderRule609doesnotreachconstitutionaldimension). g ؉$  43XX   4    ݀Thedefendantsdecisionnottochallengetheadmissibilityoftheconfessionwasmade 4 eightmonthsbeforethetrialcourtruledontheadmissibilityofpriorconvictionsforimpeachmentpurposes.  9$  4SXX   3    Becausethedefendantwasfreetotestifydespitethetrialcourtsruling,thiscasedoes 4 notinvolvethedeprivationofafundamentalconstitutionalright.SeeLuce,supra,105S.Ct.at  464(concludingthaterroneousdecisionunderRule609doesnotreachconstitutionaldimension).,  AZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular  ؉$  43XX   2    Thedefendantdidnotchallengethetrialcourtsrulingregardingtheadmissibilityofthe 4 sixpriorburglaryconvictions.,  AZ"Arial Regular  ؉$  43XX   3    Becausethedefendantwasfreetotestifydespitethetrialcourtsruling,thiscasedoes 4 notinvolvethedeprivationofafundamentalconstitutionalright.SeeLuce, supra, 105S.Ct.at p 464(concludingthaterroneousdecisionunderRule609doesnotreachconstitutionaldimension).,  AZ"Arial Regular g ؉$  43XX   4    ݀Thedefendantsdecisionnottochallengetheadmissibilityoftheconfessionwasmade 4 eightmonthsbeforethetrialcourtruledontheadmissibilityofpriorconvictionsforimpeachmentpurposes.,  AZ"Arial Regular !"#$&C<< C ""  X϶XXXm XX϶   Ad FILEDX϶X m  May10,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd 'dxd zZ!TRX3' Letter3'3'*Avery 5165 Full Sheet3'T   44TR[A' LegalX3' LetterA' Legal3'Letter ManualT  7϶XXdd7   TR[A'Legal ManualX3' LetterA' Legal3'*Avery 5165 Full SheetTr)<,(j 8` `@E;` 8ttxP,4  r@PPDINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@*DATJACKSONt)>.*jx` `@E ` 8ttxP t.G:\IB013S2\OPINION\ACTIVE\GALMORE\CIRC\RELEASED\CORR'D\TOCLERK\GALMOREA.OPNG:\IB013S2\OPINION\ACTIVE\GALMORE\CIRC\RELEASED\CORR'D\TOCLERK\GALMOREA.OPN/     <      D   FORPUBLICATION    <      D   Filed: 򀀀May10,1999T$T$MT$ ` STATEOFTENNESSEE,@##/D) 2  @##/D) APPELLEE,@##/D)  SHELBYCOUNTY   @##/D)v.@##/D)  Hon.JosephB.Dailey,Judge  @##/D)ABRAHAMGALMORE,@##/D)  No.02S019804CR00033 b @##/D) APPELLANT.@##/D) b. FORAPPELLANT: <      D FORAPPELLEE:  x A.C.WHARTON <      D JOHNKNOXWALKUP x"D PUBLICDEFENDER     D ATTORNEYGENERAL&REPORTER ^#* М MEMPHIS ̜   <      D MICHAELE.MOORE̜M.MARKWARD <      D SOLICITORGENERAL &! МASSISTANTPUBLICDEFENDER̜MEMPHIS  <      D MICHAELJ.FAHEYII '#    <      D ASSISTANTATTORNEYGENERAL   <      D NASHVILLE@ss)D 4XXOPINION #X϶X4 #Ԉ 2p*/ AFFIRMED  CT$HOLDER,J.  8r059   XXXX϶@,D OPINION  4  Wegrantedthisappealtodetermine:1)whethertheStatemayimpeachadefendant  scredibility byreferring toanunnamedfelonyconviction;and  ,  2)if   not,whetheranontestifyingdefendantmustshowthathedidnottestifybecauseofthetrialcourt'sruling.Weholdthatthetrialcourterred by in permittingtheStatetoimpeachthedefendantscredibilitybyreferringtoanunnamedfelonyconviction.Wefurtherholdthatthedefendantwasnotrequiredtopreservehisobjectionbystatingthathewouldhavetestifiedinhistrialbutforthetrialcourt'srulingorbymakinganofferofproofastohisproposedtrialtestimony.Althoughtherulingastotheadmissibilityofthepriorfelonywasimproper , itdoesnotmandatereversalinthiscase.      BACKGROUND   `    OnDecember14,1993,JamesHathawayandthedefendant,AbrahamGalmore,robbedDanandMaxineSwartz,theresidentmanagersofaselfstoragefacilityinMemphis.Bothvictimswereshotinthehead,stabbed,andcutacrossthethroat.Mr.Swartzdiedasaresultofhisinjuries.Mrs.SwartzsurvivedandwasabletoidentifyHathaway,whomsheknewpriortotheincident,asoneoftheperpetrators.Galmoreadmittedhisinvolvementintherobberybutdeniedhavingharmedeithervictim. Priortotrial,theStategavewrittennoticepursuanttoTenn.R.Evid.609(a)(3)ofitsintenttoimpeachthedefendantscredibilitywithsixpriorburglaryconvictionsandonepriorrobberyconviction.Afterahearing,thetrialcourtconcludedthatthesixburglaryconvictionscouldbeusedforimpeachment 804 purposes.Astotherobberyconviction,thetrialcourtstatedthatitwasinclinedtoallowtheStatetousethatconvictionbyaskingthedefendant, IsntittruethatyouarethesameAbrahamGalmorethatwasconvictedofafelonyonSeptember1,1992,inindictment9202608,andreceivedasentenceofXyears...?    #  1      ׀Thedefendantdidnottestifyattrial.Thejuryconvictedthe ` defendantofespeciallyaggravatedrobberyandcriminallynegligenthomicide.Thetrialcourtimposedaneffectivesentenceofsixtysixyears. RelyingonStatev.Summerall,926S.W.2d272(Tenn.Crim.App.1995),  theCourtofCriminalAppealsheldthatadmissionofapriorconvictionof afelonywithoutfurtheridentificationwouldhavebeenimproper.Thecourt,however,concludedthatthetrialcourtsrulingwasnotreversibleerrorbecausethedefendantfailedtodemonstrateprejudice.Thecourtnotedthatthedefendantneithershowedthathewouldhavetestifiedhadtheunnamedfelonyconvictionbeen excludednormadeanofferofproofastohisproposedtrial " testimony.Thecourtfurtherheldthatanyerrorwasharmlessbasedontheoverwhelmingevidenceofguiltandtheadmissibilityofthesixburglaryconvictionsforimpeachmentpurposes.    ANALYSIS  L+#&    TheStateconcedesthatthetrialcourterredinrulingthatthedefendantscredibilitycouldbeimpeachedbyaskingwhetherhehadbeenconvictedofanunnamedfelony.TheState,however,arguesthatthedefendantwaivedhisright 2*. toconsiderationoftheissueonappeal becausehe:(1)failedtoshowthathe 4 didnottestifybecauseoftheruling;and(2)failedtomakeanofferofproofastohisproposedtestimony.ThedefendantcontendsthattherequirementsproposedbytheStateconflictwithTenn.R.Evid.609(a)(3),areagainstpublicpolicy,andhavepracticalproblemsinimplementation.@  .DI.  T Beforetheaccusedinacriminalprosecutionmaybeimpeachedbyproofofapriorconviction,thetrialcourt mustdeterminethattheconvictionsprobativevalueoncredibilityoutweighsitsunfairprejudicialeffectonthesubstantiveissues.Tenn.R.Evid.609(a)(3).Inmakingthisdetermination,thetrialcourtshoulds s (a)assessthesimilaritybetweenthecrimeontrialandthecrimeunderlyingtheimpeachingconvictionand(b)analyzetherelevancetheimpeachingconvictionhastotheissueofcredibility.{{񛀜wws sy yz(z|1) analyzetherelevancetheimpeachingevidence|}|a|}~h~~s~astotheissueofcredibility:andand(2) assessthesimilaritybetweenthecrimeontrialandthecrimeunderlyingtheimpeachingconficviction.y yxxStatev.Mixonxxww,983S.W.2d " М661,t t67375t tu uv674vu u(Tenn.1999)(quoting N.Cohen,D.Paine,andS.Sheppeard, # TennesseeLawofEvidence,609.9,at376(3ded.1995)). %   Thepriorconvictionatissueisrobbery.   #  2      כRobberyisacrimeinvolving )P!$ dishonestyandmaybeusedforimpeachmentpurposes.Statev.Caruthers, \+(#& 676S.W.2d935,941(Tenn.1984).Thedefendantwasindictedforespeciallyaggravatedrobbery,murderduringtheperpetrationofarobbery,andfirstdegreepremeditatedmurder.Evidenceofapriorconvictionthatisthesameorsimilarinnaturetoanoffensebeingprosecutedisnotperseinadmissibleforimpeachmentpurposes.SeeStatev.McGhee,746S.W.2d460,463(Tenn. 4`,0 1988);Statev.Roberts,943S.W.2d403,408(Tenn.Crim.App.1996). 4 Similaritybetweenthecrimeontrialandtheimpeachingconviction,however,couldimproperlyinfluenceajurytoconvictadefendantbasedonpropensityevidence. Inthecasenowbeforeus,thetrialcourtattemptedtomitigatethepotentialprejudiceoftheimpeachingevidencebyreferringtotherobberyconvictiononlyasaprior"felonyconviction."Notidentifyingthefelony,however,wouldpermitajurytospeculateastothenatureofthepriorconviction.Statev.Barnard,899S.W.2d617,622(Tenn.Crim.App.1994).Furthermore,  instructingthejuryonanunnamedfelonywouldprovideinadequateinformationforajurytoproperlyweightheconviction'sprobativevalueasimpeachingevidence.Summerall,926S.W.2dat277.Weholdthattheproperapplication T  ofthebalancingtestunderTenn.R.Evid.609(a)(3)requiresidentificationofthepriorconviction.Therefore,thetrialcourterredinrulingthattheStatecouldimpeachthedefendantscredibilitybyaskinghimifhehadbeenconvictedofanunnamedfelony.  @.DII.̛ Weshallnextaddresstherequirementsforpreservingtheissueforreviewonappeal.Tennessee Rules Rule ofEvidence Rule 609(a)(3)providesthat [i]fthecourtmakesafinaldeterminationthatsuchproof[ofapriorconviction]isadmissibleforimpeachmentpurposes,theaccusedneednotactuallytestifyattrialtolaterchallengetheproprietyofthedetermination.ThisprovisioninTenn.R.Evid.609(a)(3)isnotcontainedintherulesfederalcounterpart.See L6.2 Lucev.UnitedStates,469U.S.38,105S.Ct.460,83L.Ed.2d443(1984). $8/4 Ї InLuce,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatadefendantmust 4 testifytoraiseandpreserveforreviewtheclaimofimproperimpeachmentwithapriorconviction.105S.Ct.at464.TheCourtreasonedthatareviewingcourtishandicappedinweighingtheprobativevalueoftheimpeachmentevidenceagainstitsprejudicialeffectwhentheprecisenatureofthedefendantstestimonyisunknowable. 򛀜. #X̤XX X̤ # X̤XXX̤ԀId.at463.Inaddition,theCourtfoundthat , becausethe l8  decisiontotestifyseldomturnsontheresolutionofonefactor,areviewingcourtcannotassumethattheadverserulingonadmissibilityofimpeachmentevidencemotivatedthedefendantsdecisionnottotestify.Id.  ̜ DespiteTennesseesrejectionoftheLucerule,theCourtofCriminal  AppealsconsideredpersuasivethereasoningoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsheldthatatleasttwothingsmustoccurbeforeanontestifyingdefendantcansuccessfullyappealthetrialcourtsrulingontheadmissionofapriorconviction.First,itmustappearfromtherecordthatthedefendantdidnottestifybecauseoftheadverserulingonadmissibilityofapriorconviction.Second,thedefendantshouldmakeanofferofproofastohisproposedtrialtestimony. TheCourtofCriminalAppealsstatedthatthefirstrequirementwasbestaddressedbyrequiringthedefendanttosotestifyoutsidethepresenceofthejury.Thecourtnotedthattherecordissilentastowhythedefendantdidnottestify.Thecourtexpresseddoubtthattheproposedadmissibilityoftheunnamedfelonyconvictionhadanyimpactonthedefendantsdecisionnottotestifyinviewoftheevidenceandtheadmissibilityofthesixpriorburglaryconvictions.Althoughwecannotconcludethatthedefendantwouldhavetestifiediftheunnamedfelonyconvictionwerenotadmitted,itisquitepossible 4804 thattheadverserulingwasafactorinthedefendantsdecisionnottotestify.Moreover,weagreewiththedefendantthatthisproformarequirementcouldonlypenalizetheunsophisticatedorilladviseddefendantwhoisunawarethathecanlaterdecidenottotestifyifthepriorconvictionisexcluded.SeeStatev.   Whitehead,517A.2d373,377(N.J.1986).Therefore,weconcludethatthe ` defendantisnotrequiredtoshowthathedidnottestifybecauseoftheadverserulingonimpeachmentevidence.̀ Whilerecognizingthatthemakingofanofferofproofastothe  defendantsproposedtrialtestimonycanbeatimeconsumingprocedureforthealready overburdened overburdened trialcourts,theCourtofCriminalAppealsreasonedthatsuchaprocedurewasnecessaryforanappellatecourttoproperlyassesstheimpactofthetrialcourtsruling.ThefewstatesthathavedeclinedtoadopttheLuceruleappeartobeequallysplitbetweenrequiringanofferofproof,see ,  Wickhamv.State,770P.2d757(AlaskaCt.App.1989); Statev.McClure,692 " P.2d579(Or.1984); Saucierv.State,562 " So.2d1238(Miss.1990); Statev.McClure,692P.2d579(Or.1984); #X̤XX X̤j.# X̤XXX̤butsee # Hicksonv.State,697So.2d391,397(Miss.1997)(holdingthatprofferof %  defendantstestimonywasnotrequiredwhenitwouldhaveaddednothingtorecordthatincludedtestimonyofdefendantsalibiwitnesses);andplacingnosuchrestrictiononthedefendantsrighttoappellatereview.SeeWhitehead, <+#& 517A.2dat377;Peoplev.Moore,548N.Y.S.2d344( N.Y.App .Div.1989); -$( Commonwealthv.Richardson,500A.2d1200(Pa.Super.1985).Asnotedby .&* theNewJerseySupremeCourt,therearesignificantproblemsassociatedwithrequiringanofferofproof:8  Likewise,therequirementthatadefendantoutlinehistestimonythroughanofferofproofisbesetwithpitfalls.Asidefromthepotentialunconstitutionalityofrequiringadefendanttomakeanadvanceofferofproof,seeUnitedStatesv.Cook,supra,608 905 F.2dat190(Kennedy,J.,concurringinpart&dissentinginpart),therequirementisunmanageable.AsnotedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,adefendantsprofferoftestimonyisinappropriatebecause histrialtestimonycould,foranynumberofreasons,differfromtheproffer.Lucev.UnitedStates,supra,469U.S.at   41n.5,105S.Ct.at463n.5,83L.Ed.2dat447n.5.Thenatureandscopeoftheproffer,aswellastheprosecutorsuseofthedefendantsprofferedtestimony,ifhetestifies,forimpeachmentpurposesattrial,raisethornyquestionsabouttheextenttowhichthestatecancrossexaminethedefendantandusethedefendantstestimonyattrial.UnitedStatesv.Toney,supra,615F.2dat282. l8  Moreover,requiringthedefendanttomakeanofferofproofexposeshimtothetacticaldisadvantageofprematurelydisclosinghistestimony.SeeUnitedStatesv.Luce,supra,713F.2dat1241 0  n.4;UnitedStatesv.Cook,supra,608F.2dat1190(Kennedy,J.,   concurringinpart&dissentinginpart).  ! ! Whitehead,517A.2dat377.   Furthermore,therequirementofanofferofproofisinconsistentwithTenn.R.Evid.609(a)(3).Rule609(a)(3)requiresthetrialcourttodetermine,priortothetestimonyoftheaccused,whetherapriorconvictionsprobativevalueoncredibilityoutweighsitsunfairprejudicialeffectonthesubstantiveissues.Thetrialcourtmustperformthisbalancingwithoutthebenefitofknowingthedefendantsproposedtrialtestimony.Therulethenallowstheaccusedtoraisetheissueonappealwithoutactuallytestifyingattrial.ThereisnorequirementinRule609(a)(3)thatthedefendantmakeanofferofproof. WealsofindpersuasivethedistinctioninTenn.R.Evid.103betweenarulingthatadmitsevidenceandonethatexcludesit.Rule103providesinpertinentpart:8 (a)EffectofErroneousRuling.Errormaynotbepredicateduponarulingwhichadmitsorexcludesevidenceunlessasubstantialrightofthepartyisaffected,and  ! !   $8/4 8 (1)Objection.Incasetherulingisoneadmittingevidence,a timelyobjectionormotiontostrikeappearsofrecord,statingthespecificgroundofobjectionifthespecificgroundwasnotapparentfromthecontext;or  ! ! 8 (2)OfferofProof.Incasetherulingisoneexcludingevidence,thesubstanceoftheevidenceandthespecificevidentiarybasissupportingadmissionweremadeknowntothecourtbyofferorwereapparentfromthecontext.  ! ! Theissuehereistheeffectofanerroneousrulingontheadmissibilityofimpeachmentevidence.UnderRule103(a)(1),noofferofproofisrequired. TheStatesrelianceonStatev.Baxter,938S.W.2d697(Tenn.Crim.  App.1996),ismisplaced.Inthatcase,thetrialcourterroneouslyruledthatthedefendantspriorincestconvictionwasadmissibleforimpeachmentpurposes.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsnotedthatthenontestifyingdefendantdidnotmakeanofferofprooftopreservetheissueforappeal.Id.at703.Thelackof ,  anofferofproof,however,wasjustonereasonforthecourtsfindingofnoprejudice.Id.Moreover,theholdingwithregardtotherequirementofanofferof # proofisnotsupportedbytheauthoritycited.SeeTennesseeLawofEvidence, %  М 𛀜 p pp p609.9,at377( Iftheaccuseddoesnottestify,itmaybewisetomakeanofferofproofsothattheappellatecourtcouldhavearecordtouseinassessingtheimpactofthetrialcourtsruling.);seealsoStatev.Martin,642S.W.2d720,724 <+#& (Tenn.1982)(apreRule609caseholdingthatitwaserrortodenydefendantsrequesttomakeanofferofproof becausesuchproofmayberelevantandnecessarytoadeterminationbytheappellatecourtofwhetherthetrialjudgehasabusedhisdiscretioninrefusingtoruleonpriorconvictionsbeforedefendantselectiontotakethestand).  L6.2  InlightofTenn.R.Evid.103(a)(1)and609(a)(3)andtheproblems associatedwithrequiringadefendanttooutlinehisproposedtrialtestimony,weconcludethatadefendantisnotrequiredtomakeanofferofproof.Ourholdingdoesnotprecludeadefendantfrommakingaprofferofthesubstanceofhiscontemplatedtestimony.Dependinguponthefactsandcircumstancesofacase,anofferofproofmaybetheonlywaytodemonstrateprejudice.However,neitheranofferofproofnorashowingthatthedefendantwouldhavetestifiedbutforthetrialcourtsrulingisrequiredinordertopreserveforreviewaclaimofanerroneousrulingonadmissibilityofapriorconvictionforimpeachmentpurposes.  @-DIII. Finally,wemustdecidewhethertheerrorinthiscaseaffirmativelyormoreprobablythannotaffectedthejudgmenttothedefendantsprejudice.See " Tenn.R.Crim.P.52(a);Tenn.R.App.P.36(b).Toresolvethisissue,wemustexaminethetheoryofdefense. Thedefendantpresentednoevidence.Duringclosingargument,defensecounselemphasizedthelackofbothphysicalevidenceandidentificationevidencetyingthedefendanttothekilling.DefensecounselarguedthatMrs.SwartzwasconfusedwhenshetestifiedthatthemanwhowaswithJamesHathawayshotandstabbedherhusband.Defensecounselalsoremindedthejurythatthedefendanthadcooperatedwithpolicebygivingastatementaboutwhathappened.  L6.2  Thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourtsrulingonadmissibilityofthe impeachmentevidenceeffectivelyprecludedhimfromtakingthestandrrrr  #  3      כand   refutingtheallegedconfessioninwhichheadmittedhisinvolvementintherobberybutdeniedhavingharmedeithervictim.Thedefendantsassertionthathewouldhaverefutedtheconfession,however,isnotsupportedbytherecord.Althoughthedefendantinitiallyfiledamotiontosuppressclaimingthattheconfessionhadbeenobtainedillegally,hewaivedhisrighttohavethemotionheard.  #  4      ׀Regardingthiswaiver,thedefendantstatedontherecord: Thatsthe   statementthatIgave.ThatswhatIwant.ThatswhatIsaid.Healsotestifiedthathefreelyandvoluntarilygavethestatementtothepolice.Thedefendanthasnotspecifiedandweareunabletodeterminehowheintendedtorefutehisconfession.Underthefactsandcircumstancesofthiscase,weholdthatthetrialcourtserroneousrulingallowingimpeachmentbyreferencetoanunnamedfelonyconvictionwasharmless.  @*D CONCLUSION  #  Weholdthatthetrialcourterredinrulingthatthedefendantscredibilitycouldbeimpeachedbyaskingwhetherhehadbeenconvictedofanunnamedfelony.Wedeclinetoadoptarulethatrequiresanontestifyingdefendanttostatethathewouldhavetestifiedhadthepriorconvictionbeenexcludedandtomakeanofferofproofastohisproposedtrialtestimonyinordertoobtainappellatereview.TheserequirementsareinconsistentwithTenn.R.Evid. 0(, 609(a)(3).Weholdthattherecordisadequatetopermitmeaningfulreviewoftheimpeachmentissueandthattheerrorwasharmlessinthiscase.Accordingly,weaffirmthedecisionoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.Itappearingthatthedefendantisindigent,costsofthisappealshallbetaxedtotheState.#X̤XX X̤:# `    <      D T$T$MT$      <      D JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE̜ CONCURRING:   Anderson,C.J.Drowota,Birch,andBarker,J.J.