ÿWPCR# … %V 0 \\L¸w@4DXUFg 0 ­ 0DM 0J‘ 0TÛ 0^/ 0h 0rõ 0@g 0|§ 0†# 0© 1u9 0d® U 6U.P D3~B)±DCÚ B AM:U*‡<±ðíXÝì5½!~Þv~\vÓÚ AO­!Æü! 0DÂ" D/# B5# X(4$V$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÑ  Ñc:\wpwin60\template\legal\opinion.wpt gh{ijEklbmbnoÓ€yDÒ eÔô3|xy<4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular(P(3‹ª$¤¤Ý ƒ$V!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2J 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`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier----'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd d€,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌMarchÏ17,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó æÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417€(1991).Ì NÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€noting€that€the€evidentiary€issues€raised€by€theÏdefendant€were€waived,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€addressedÏthem€on€their€merits.Ì âÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€informant€died€prior€to€trial.Ì ³Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€admission€of€an€informantððs€non„hearsay€taped€statementÏwas€addressed€in€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€598€S.W.2d€209€(Tenn.€1980).€€InÏòòJonesóó,€we€held€that€the€admission€of€a€non„testifying€informantððsÏstatement€did€not€violate€the€constitutional€rights€of€theÏdefendant.€€òòId.óó;€òòDutton€v.€Evansóó,€400€U.S.€74,€91€S.€Ct.€210,€27ÏL.Ed.2d€213€(1970).€€In€our€view,€the€admission€of€Martinððs€priorÏdrug€offense€for€the€purpose€of€establishing€identity€and€intentÏwas€harmless€error.Ì tÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(&ÔThe€minimum€mandatory€fine,€is€based€upon€the€following:Ô€(XÔÌÔ€(ôÔà8 à€€€€First€conviction€for€a€felony€drug€offenseÏ...............$2,000Ìà8 à€€€€Second€conviction€for€a€felony€drug€offenseÏ..............$2,500Ìà8 à€€€€Third€or€subsequent€conviction€for€a€felony€drugÏoffense..$3,000Ô€(XÔÌÔ€(&ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„428(b)(7„9)(1991).€Specifically,€theÏstatute€states€that€"the€minimum€fines€imposed€by€this€sectionÏshall€be€mandatory€and€shall€not€be€reduced,€suspended,€waived,€orÏotherwise€released€by€the€court."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„428(d)(1)(1991).Ô€(XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` °‚X˜XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€º+XXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€))XÐd&Ó›Þ ÞÌÌÌà@ àœIN›€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à)€€€FOR€PUBLICATIONÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€œFILED:€›€œMARCH€17,›€1997Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€HON.€ANN€LACY€JOHNS,ÌJOHN€DERRICK€MARTINà àà àà àà à)à à€€€JUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à)Ì€€€€€€à àAppellantà àà à€€€€€€€à à)€€€NO.€01„S„01„9605„CR„00091ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:òòà àà àà àà àà àFor€Appelleeóó:ÌÌJOHN€E.€HERBISON€€€€€€à àà àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP›ÌNashville,€TNà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€Reporter̜ـ€ÙßR€.0,A1-j|6ì·` ‚- `€€@ÿRß›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMICHAEL€E.€MOOREÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLINDA€A.€ROSSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssociate€Solicitor€œGeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àEUGENE€J.€HONEAÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCHERYL€A.€BLACKBURNÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòOPINIONÌÌÌóóÌÌœAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDà àà à›à àà à€à àà àà àBIRCH,ÏC.J.ÌœÓÓÇ›à àJohn€Derrick€Martin,€the€defendant,€was€convicted€by€aÏjury€on€four€counts€of€possession€and€sale€of€cocaine€in€variousÏamounts.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€The€trial€judge€sentenced€Martin€to€consecutive€ten„yearÏsentences€and€imposed€a€fine€of€$10,000€for€each€count.€The€CourtÏof€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€convictions,€œmodified€the›Ïœsentences,›€and€remanded€the€cause€to€the€trial€court€so€that€aÏjury€could€determine€the€fine.ÌÌà àIn€this€appeal,€Martin€contends€(1)€that€the€admissionÏof€tape„recorded€statements€of€an€informant€at€trial€violated€hisÏstate€and€federal€constitutional€rights;€(2)€that€the€admission€ofÏevidence€of€a€prior€drug€offense€was€erroneous€under€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€404(b);€and€(3)€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€becauseÏthe€trial€judge€unconstitutionally€imposed€fines€in€excess€of€$50.€ÏFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€hold€that€Martin€waived€hisÏright€to€appeal€the€admission€of€both€the€tape„recorded€statementsÏand€the€admission€of€the€prior€drug€offense.€€On€the€fines€issue,Ïwe€hold€that€a€new€trial€is€not€constitutionally€required.€ÏTherefore,€we€affirm€Martinððs€convictions€and€remand€this€cause€toÏthe€trial€court€where€a€new€jury€shall€be€empaneled€for€theÍpurpose€of€fixing€the€amount€of€the€fines€to€be€œimposed.€›€œThus,Ïthe€judgment›€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€affirmed,€albeitÏon€different€grounds.× ƒ2 ××  ×ÌÌœÌÌ›à@ àIÌÌà àUsing€an€informant,€officers€of€the€MetropolitanÏNashville„Davidson€County€Police€Department€orchestrated€threeÏcontrolled€drug€purchases€from€the€defendant.€€Each€transactionÏwas€recorded€on€audio€tape.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€jury€heard€a€redacted€version€of€the€tape„recorded€conversations€between€the€defendant€and€the€informant.€ÏAlso,€officers€testified€about€the€persons€involved€and€the€eventsÏsurrounding€the€drug€purchases.€€Each€officer€identified€theÏvoices€on€the€tapes€as€those€of€the€informant€and€the€defendant.ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€the€officersðð€testimony,€the€vehicleÏdriven€by€the€defendant€at€the€time€of€his€arrest€was€the€sameÏvehicle€used€in€the€three€drug€buys.€€At€his€arrest,€Martin€had€aÏsubstantial€quantity€of€cocaine€and€cash€in€his€possession.ÌÌà@ àIIÌà@ àÌà àIn€his€first€two€issues,€Martin€contends€that€theÏadmission€of€tape„recorded€statements€of€the€informant× ƒ3 ××  ×€violatedÏhis€constitutional€right€to€confront€the€witness€against€him€andÏœthat€it€was€error,€under›€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€œ404(b),›€for€the€trialÏcourt€to€admit€evidence€of€his€prior€drug€offense.ÌÌà àMartin€concedes€that€he€failed€to€file€a€timely€motionÏœfor€a›€new€œtrial€which€must€be€filed€within€thirty€days€from€theÏdate€the€order€of€sentence€is€entered.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€33(b).›€ÏThis€provision€is€mandatory,€and€the€time€for€the€filing€cannot€beÏœextended.€›€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€45(b).€€A€trial€judge€does€not€haveÏjurisdiction€to€hear€and€determine€the€merits€of€a€motion€for€aÏnew€trial€that€has€not€been€timely€œfiled.€›€òòState€v.€Dodsonóó,€780ÍS.W.2d€778,€780€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989);€òòState€v.€Givhanóó,€616ÏS.W.2d€612,€613€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981);€òòMassey€v.€Stateóó,€592ÏS.W.2d€333,€334„35€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€œ€The›€trial€œjudgeððs›Ïœerroneous›€œconsideration€of€ruling›€on€a€motion€for€new€trial€œnot›Ïœtimely›€œfiled,€as€in€this€case,€does›€not€validate€the€œmotion.€›ÏœòòDodsonóó,€780›€S.W.2d€at€780.€ÌÌà àFailure€to€file€a€written€motion€for€new€trial€withinÏthe€required€thirty€days€not€only€results€in€the€appellant€losingÏœthe›€right€to€have€a€hearing€on€the€motion,€but€it€also€deprivesÏœthe€appellant›€of€the€opportunity€to€argue€on€appeal€any€issuesÏthat€were€or€should€have€been€presented€in€the€motion€for€newÏtrial.€€œòòDodsonóó,€780€S.W.2d€at€780;€òòGivhanóó,€616€S.W.2d€at€613;ÏòòMasseyóó,€592€S.W.2d€at€333.€ÌÌà àThis€Court,€however,€has€the€authority€to€review€theÏrecord€for€apparent€errors€to€prevent€needless€litigation,€injuryÏto€the€interest€of€the€public,€and€prejudice€to€the€judicialÏprocess€under€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(b).€€Moreover,Ïwe€may€take€notice€at€any€time,€within€our€discretion,€of€an€errorÏthat€affects€a€substantial€right€of€an€accused,€even€though€notÍraised€in€a€motion€for€new€trial,€where€it€may€be€necessary€to€doÏsubstantial€justice.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52.€€We€decline€toÏexercise€our€discretion€in€this€case.€€Accordingly,€theÏevidentiary€issues€raised€by€Martin€are€deemed€waived.× ƒ4 ××  ×€ÌÌÓ  ÓIIIÌÓ  Óà àÌà àIn€his€last€issue,€Martin€insists€that€because€he€didÏnot€waive€his€right€to€have€a€jury€fix€his€fine,€the€trial€judgeÏerred€in€fixing€a€fine€of€more€than€$50.€€According€to€Martin,Ïthis€action€constitutes€reversible€error€and€entitles€him€to€aÏcompletely€new€trial€before€a€new€jury€because€the€stateÏconstitution€requires€that€the€fine€be€fixed€by€the€same€jury€thatÏdetermines€guilt.€€Because€this€issue€concerns€sentencing,€it€isÏproperly€before€the€Court.ÌÌà àContained€in€the€original€state€constitution€of€1796€andÏcarried€forward€into€both€of€the€subsequent€constitutions€is€theÏfollowing€provision€now€designated€as€Article€VI,€Section€14:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àNo€fine€shall€be€laid€on€any€citizenÏof€this€State€that€shall€exceedÏfifty€dollars,€unless€it€shall€beÏassessed€by€a€jury€of€his€peers,€whoÏshall€assess€the€fine€òòat€the€timeÏthey€find€the€factóó,€if€they€thinkÏthe€fine€should€be€more€than€fiftyÏdollars.€(emphasis€added).ÌÓÓÌà àA€trial€judge€may€fix€a€fine€of€more€than€$50€in€onlyÏtwo€circumstances.€€They€are:€€(1)€when€the€defendant€waives€theÏright€for€jury€determination€of€the€fine,€òòState€v.€Sandersóó,€735ÏS.W.2d€856,€858€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987),€and€(2)€when€the€fine€isÏstatutorily€specified€and€allows€no€judicial€discretion€in€itsÏimposition,€òòFrance€v.€The€Stateóó,€63€Tenn.€479,€486€(1873).ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€nothing€in€the€record€points€to€aÏwaiver€by€the€defendant€of€his€right€to€have€the€fine€fixed€by€theÏjury.€€Additionally,€the€trial€judge€exercised€some€measure€ofÏdiscretion€because€the€statute€prescribes€only€a€minimum€fine.ÏThus,€neither€of€the€two€exceptions€applies.€€Consequently,€theÍtrial€judge€lacked€the€authority€to€fix€fines€of€$10,000€in€theÏvarious€counts€of€this€case.ÌÌà àTo€determine€the€remedy€for€this€error,€it€will€perhapsÏbe€helpful€to€understand€the€reason€for€the€limitation€upon€theÏtrial€judgeððs€authority.€€The€prohibition€against€a€trial€judgeÏfixing€fines€exceeding€$50€was€intended€to€protect€citizens€fromÏ"excessive"€fines€fixed€by€a€powerful€judiciary.€€òòUpchurch€v.ÏStateóó,€153€Tenn.€198,€281€S.W.€462,€464€(1926).Ìà àà àÌà àThe€construction€of€this€constitutional€provision€hasÏbeen€addressed€previously€by€this€Court€in€at€least€four€cases.€ÏòòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€190€Tenn.€492,€230€S.W.2d€977€(1950);€òòScopes€v.ÏStateóó,€154€Tenn.€105,€289€S.W.€363€(1927);€òòUpchurch€v.€Stateóó,€153ÏTenn.€198,€281€S.W.€462€(1926);€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€152€Tenn.€184,Ï274€S.W.€12€(1925).€€We€remanded€each€of€these€cases.€€In€no€case,Ïhowever,€have€we€held€that€the€same€jury€that€found€the€defendantÏguilty€must€also€fix€the€fine.€€In€fact,€we€explicitly€held€to€theÏcontrary€in€òòHuffman€v.€Stateóó,€200€Tenn.€487,€292€S.W.2d€738Ï(1956).ÌÌà àòòHuffmanóó€is€cited€by€both€parties€to€this€cause,€but€itÏis€important€to€note€its€limitations.€€In€that€case,€the€CourtÏremanded€the€case€and€directed€that€a€new€jury€be€empaneled€forÏthe€sole€purpose€of€fixing€the€fine.€€The€Court€then€limited€theÏjury€to€a€maximum€fine€of€$50.€€In€our€view,€the€Courtððs€action€inÏlimiting€the€amount€of€the€fine€on€remand€was€not€constitutionallyÏrequired.ÌÌà àIt€has€long€been€held€in€this€state€that€provisions€ofÏthe€constitution€are€to€be€given€effect€according€to€the€draftersððÏintention€in€light€of€the€entire€document.€€òòDavis€v.€Williamsóó,€12ÏS.W.2d€532,€535€(Tenn.€1928).€€Our€constitution€is€concerned€withÏsubstance€rather€than€with€form.€€òòEnnix€v.€Clayóó,€703€S.W.2d€137,Ï139€(Tenn.€1986).€€The€intent€of€the€drafters€was€not€to€restrictÏthe€power€of€a€jury€to€fix€a€fine€but€to€impose€a€limitation€onÏthe€judiciary.€€òòState€v.€Bryantóó,€805€S.W.2d€762,€767€(Tenn.€1991).€ÏArticle€VI,€Section€14€does€not€require€a€reversal€and€an€entireÏnew€trial€when€a€trial€judge€fixes€a€fine€in€excess€of€$50€withoutÏthe€defendantððs€waiver.€€By€remanding€this€cause€so€that€a€juryÏmay€fix€the€fine,€we€preserve€the€intent€of€Article€VI,€SectionÏ14.ÌÌà àMoreover,€sentencing€errors€have€never€necessitated€aÏnew€trial€on€the€merits.€€Cases€abound€in€which€punishment€wasÏdetermined€by€a€different€jury€than€that€which€determined€guilt.€ÏTo€illustrate,€in€òòHuffmanóó€we€held€that€there€is€no€constitutionalÏrequirement€that€the€same€jury€fix€the€fine€that€finds€the€accusedÏguilty.€€200€Tenn.€487,€292€S.W.2d€at€738.€€Similarly,€in€òòBryantóóÏwe€held€that€if€there€is€a€guilty€plea€and€no€jury€waiver,€a€juryÏshall€be€empaneled€to€fix€a€fine.€€805€S.W.2d€at€762.€€Likewise,Ïin€€òòHunter€v.€Stateóó,€496€S.W.2d€900€(Tenn.€1972),€we€held€thatÏwhere€the€death€penalty€cannot€be€validly€carried€out,€the€causeÏis€to€be€remanded€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing€before€a€jury€andÏthe€fact€that€the€punishment€is€fixed€by€a€different€jury€fromÏthat€which€assessed€guilt€does€not€violate€the€rights€of€theÏaccused.€€òòId.óó€at€904„904.ÌÌà àIt€has€long€been€the€rule€that€unless€an€error€isÏprejudicial,€that€is,€one€that€affirmatively€appears€to€haveÏaffected€the€result€of€the€trial€on€the€merits,€reversal€of€theÏconviction€is€not€authorized.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€ItÏplainly€appears€from€the€reading€of€this€record€that€no€such€errorÍexists€in€this€case.€€A€sentencing€error€did€not€affect€the€meritsÏof€the€case€under€submission.Ìà àÌà àFinally,€the€State€urges€that€we€fix€the€minimum€fine€asÏis€statutorily€prescribed€for€each€of€these€offenses„„aÏresolution,€the€State€argues,€that€is€supported€by€the€case€ofÏòòFrance€v.€The€Stateóó,€64€Tenn.€478€(1873).€€In€òòFranceóó,€we€upheldÏthe€trial€judgeððs€fixing€of€a€$500€fine.€€Such€a€fine,€however,Ïhad€been€established€Ñ X Ñby€the€legislature€as€mandatory€in€every€caseÏinvolving€the€particular€offense.€€In€operation,€this€provisionÏeffectively€prevented€the€trial€judge€from€exercising€even€theÏslightest€measure€of€discretion.€€In€contrast,€the€statuteÏpertinent€here€establishes€a€mandatory€minimum€fine.× ƒ5 ××  ×›€€Hence,Ïjudicial€discretion€is€involved€to€determine€whether€the€fineÏimposed€is€the€minimum€or€whether€it€should€exceed€the€minimum.€ÏThus,€œòòFranceóó›€is€distinguishable€and€inapplicable€here.Ìà àÌà@ àIVÌÌà àIn€conclusion,€we€hold€that€Martin€waived€his€right€toÏappeal€the€admission€of€the€informantððs€statements€and€theÏadmission€of€the€prior€drug€offense.€€We€find€that€Article€VI,ÏSection€14€does€not€require€the€same€jury€that€determines€guilt€toÏfix€the€fine.€€We€remand€this€cause€and€direct€that€a€new€jury€beÏempaneled€for€the€sole€purpose€of€fixing€fines.ÌÌà àThus,€œthe›€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€isÏœaffirmed€as€to€the€fines.›€€œThe›€judgment€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÏœAppeals›€is€affirmed€œas€to€the€remaining€issues€for›€the€reasonsÏexpressed€herein.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€Chief€JusticeÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌœDrowota,›€œReid,›€œJJ.;€Todd,€S.J.›