WPC%; uym5#2ľw9eU]i*o2gS]h8_ 7@~sA1ΝXaq|/U*O(e_N9c.ֳ7NK쭕~O`z<@0`b_ ie,0)ï*h]X2Uxmr{:(c~+ "pM Wǧx& 4Wөl_窸AhcC>pyC VU!V"rZx'0ZX/345_(>Եu_8cCh zbߺ!Y 嘮H^~g\t8sAu,>i[ r|o1{j]сR1zPdpj#g9rn +[H? ;ZM @Hm4b#\ %% w+ 0/ ^ UN 4 z%  q  m 0U   z@ 0N 0 0Eo 0q 0* 0 0 01 0 0 0h 0 0 0o 0 0 0@ 0 0 0] 0  0 0[ 0 0 0#!b!UN!! 0D"`G"@*I22222222220505050505050505050505050505050505050505 0 6 6 6 6 B 7 7 0(7 D57 D-8 0K.8.8 ASy88 09 0D6: Az:\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0(`$.8dd8    &^/ ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularo=/\PB110S2 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.wpt3|xU*+ (_2623  ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   - -(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0   V R$      1  (  _ԀRule609provides:  8  8`    (a)GeneralRule. Forthepurposeofattackingthecredibilityofawitness, 8 evidencethatthewitnesshasbeenconvictedofacrimemaybeadmittedifthe N followingproceduresandconditionsaresatisfied:` x` x 8  8`   ....J ` x` x 8  8`   (2)Thecrimemustbepunishablebydeathorimprisonmentinexcessofoneyear  " underthelawunderwhichthewitnesswasconvictedor,ifnotsopunishable,the    crimemusthaveinvolveddishonestyorfalsestatement.Z  ` x` x   n   8  8`   (3)Ifthewitnesstobeimpeachedistheaccusedinacriminalprosecution,theState  mustgivetheaccusedreasonablewrittennoticeoftheimpeachingconviction t beforetrial,andthecourtuponrequestmustdeterminethattheconvictions 8 probativevalueoncredibilityoutweighsitsunfairprejudicialeffectonthe L substantiveissues....Ifthecourtmakesafinaldeterminationthatsuchproofis  admissibleforimpeachmentpurposes,theaccusedneednotactuallytestifyatthe  trialtolaterchallengetheproprietyofthedetermination.H ` x` x 8  8`    (b)TimeLimit. Evidenceofaconvictionunderthisruleisnotadmissibleifa   periodofmorethantenyearshaselapsedbetweenthedateofreleasefrom    confinementandcommencementoftheactionorprosecution;ifthewitnesswasnot Z   confined,thetenyearperiodismeasuredfromthedateofconvictionratherthan  n  release. 2 ` x` x Tenn.R.Evid.609. 6 R$      2  (  _ԀTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection39-17-417(a)provides, Itisanoffenseforadefendanttoknowingly:_  ____________(1)_ԀManufactureacontrolledsubstance;_______(2)_ԀDeliveracontrolledsubstance;_______(3)_ԀSellacontrolledsubstance;or___________(4)_ԀPossess t acontrolledsubstancewithintenttomanufacture,deliverorsellsuchcontrolledsubstance.Tenn.CodeAnn. 8 39-17-417(a)(1997&Supp.2002)._Ԁ____Under_ԀTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection39-11-403(a), [a]personiscriminally L responsibleforthefacilitationofafelonyif,knowingthatanotherintendstocommitaspecificfelony,butwithoutthe  intentrequiredforcriminalresponsibilityunder39-11-402(2),thepersonknowinglyfurnishessubstantialassistance  inthecommissionofthefelony.Tenn.CodeAnn.39-11-403(a)(1997).Dependingonthecircumstancesofthe H  offense,aviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection39-17-417(a)isanoffensethatcouldrangefromaClassA  \ felonytoaClassEfelony.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.39-17-417(b)-(l)(1997&Supp.2002). ? R$      3  (  _ԀTheAdvisoryCommissionCommenttoRule609oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidencestatesthattherule  followsthisCourtsopinioninStatev.Morgan,541S.W.2d385(Tenn.1976),inwhichweadoptedRule609(a)&(b) t oftheFederalRulesofEvidence.Federaldevelopmentsareinstructivewhenthefederalruleisthesourceofourrule. 8 SeeWalker,29S.W.3dat890. MarneyDewayneZaehringer Pucoa]rrangingKonechnyAlekseyd]rugDunlap uncontrovertedWaller(|G2$ !.8mdXXd8         0  ( d(|3Qp$ !.8mdXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Qp$ !.8mdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8mdd8     _   m8 XXdd8V ` @ mINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#m&#Ԉ &   June4,2003Session L X Xm #mXX #STATEOFTENNESSEEv.VERNOND.WALLER  J X Xm@@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  p CriminalCourtforDavidsonCounty  \ @@No.2000C1618CherylA.Blackburn,Judge  H @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200102414SCR11CD/X XXX ԀFiledOctober30,2003#X XX/X 0#   AV) ` dE<` A      Wegrantedthisappealtodeterminewhetherthetrialcourterredinrulingthattheappellantsprior  felonydrugconvictionswouldbeadmissibleforimpeachmentpurposesifhetestified.TheCourt v ofCriminalAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourt,holdingthatthepriorconvictionswererelevanttothe b issueoftheappellantscredibilityandthattheprobativevalueoftheevidenceoutweighedanyunfair N prejudicialeffect.Wegrantedtheappellantsapplicationforpermissiontoappeal.Afterthoroughly : reviewingtherecordandapplicablelaw,weconcludethatthetrialcourterredinallowingtheState &v tousetheappellantspriorfelonydrugconvictionsforimpeachmentpurposes.However,because b theappellantfailedtodemonstratethathewasprejudicedbythetrialcourtserroneousruling,we N holdthattheerrorwasharmless.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsis : affirmed. &  Tenn.R.App.P.11AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals  Affirmed     ӀJaniceM.Holder,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF.Drowota,III,C.J., r  andE.RileyAnderson,_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,andWilliamM.Barker,JJ.,joined. ^!  WilliamJ.Steed,III(onappeal)andJosephE.Clifton(attrial),AssistantPublicDefenders, 6#" Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,VernonD.Waller. "$r# PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;andGordon %J!% W.Smith,AssociateSolicitorGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. &6"&    '"#' _   @@OO& OPINION       @  FactualandProceduralBackground     Theappellant,VernonDewayneWaller,wasarrestedforsellingasubstancerepresentedto ` becrackcocainetoanundercoverpoliceofficer.Twoindependenttestsrevealedthatthesubstance L  didnotcontaincocaineoranyothercontrolledsubstance.Wallerwaschargedwiththeunlawfulsale 8  ofacounterfeitcontrolledsubstanceinviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection39-17-423(a). $ t Heenteredapleaofnotguilty.  `   TheStateservednoticeofitsintenttouseWallerssevenpriorconvictionsforimpeachment  8  purposes.Wallerfiledapretrialmotionrequestingarulingontheadmissibilityoftheconvictions. $  Thetrialcourtruledthatthreeofthesevenconvictionswouldbeadmissibleforimpeachment   purposesifWallertestified.ThethreeconvictionsincludedaMarch1990convictionforpossession   ofacontrolledsubstanceforresale,aFebruary1992convictionforsaleofacontrolledsubstance,   andaNovember1999convictionforfacilitationofsaleofacontrolledsubstance.     OnMay15,2001,ajuryfoundWallerguiltyoftheunlawfulsaleofacounterfeitcontrolled \ substance.Wallerdidnottestifyattrial.Thetrialcourtsentencedhimtosixyearsinthe H DepartmentofCorrection. 4   TheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedWallersconvictionandsentence.Theintermediate  \ appellatecourtheldthatthetrialcourtcorrectlyconcludedthatWallersthreepriorfelonydrug H convictionswererelevanttotheissueofhiscredibilityandthattheprobativevalueoftheevidence 4 outweighedanyunfairprejudicialeffect.Wegrantedreview.     @& Analysis     Rule609oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidencepermitstheStatetoattackthecredibilityofa  criminaldefendantbypresentingevidenceofpriorconvictionsiffourconditionsaresatisfied.See l Tenn.R.Evid.609.2 1#  1      ׀First,thepriorconvictionmustbepunishablebydeathorimprisonmentover X  oneyearormustinvolveacrimeofdishonestyorfalsestatement.SeeTenn.R.Evid.609(a)(2).  Inaddition,lessthantenyearsmusthaveelapsedbetweenthedefendantsreleasefromconfinement  forthepriorconvictionandthecommencementofthesubjectprosecution.SeeTenn.R.Evid.  609(b).Finally,theStatemustgivereasonablepretrialwrittennoticeoftheimpeachingconviction, t andthetrialcourtmustfindthattheimpeachingconvictionsprobativevalueontheissueof ` credibilityoutweighsitsunfairprejudicialeffectonthesubstantiveissues.SeeTenn.R.Evid. L  609(a)(3). 8    Itisthelastoftheseconditionsthatisatissueinthiscase.Wallerarguesthattheprior  ` convictionsfoundadmissibleforimpeachmentpurposesbythetrialcourthavelittleornoprobative  L  valueastocredibility.Becausetheseconvictionsaresubstantiallysimilartothepresentcharge,he  8  contendsthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthattheconvictionsprobativevalueontheissueof $  credibilityoutweighedtheirunfairprejudicialeffect.     Wereviewatrialcourtsrulingontheadmissibilityofpriorconvictionsforimpeachment   purposesunderanabuseofdiscretionstandard.SeeStatev.Mixon,983S.W.2d661,675(Tenn.   1999);Statev.Blanton,926S.W.2d953,960(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).Atrialcourtabusesits p discretiononlywhenit applie[s]anincorrectlegalstandard,orreache[s]adecisionwhichis \ againstlogicorreasoningthatcause[s]aninjusticetothepartycomplaining.Statev.Shirley,6 H S.W.3d243,247(Tenn.1999)(quotingStatev.Shuck,953S.W.2d662,669(Tenn.1997)). 4   Twocriteriaareespeciallyrelevantindeterminingwhethertheprobativevalueofa  \ convictionontheissueofcredibilityoutweighsitsunfairprejudicialeffectuponthesubstantive H issues:(1)theimpeachingconvictionsrelevanceastocredibility;and(2)theimpeaching 4 convictionssimilaritytothechargedoffense.Mixon,983S.W.2dat674.Atrialcourtshouldfirst   analyzewhethertheimpeachingconvictionisrelevanttotheissueofcredibility.Id.Rule609of   theTennesseeRulesofEvidencesuggeststhatthecommissionofanyfelonyis generallyprobative  ofacriminaldefendantscredibility.SeeStatev.Walker,29S.W.3d885,890(Tenn.Crim.App.  1999).However,thisCourthaspreviouslyrejectedaperserulethatpermitsimpeachmentbyany  andallfelonyconvictions.SeeMixon,983S.W.2dat674.Apriorfelonyconvictionstillmustbe  analyzedtodeterminewhetheritissufficientlyprobativeofcredibilitytooutweighanyunfair  prejudicialeffectitmayhaveonthesubstantiveissuesofthecase.Seeid.Todeterminehow t probativeafelonyconvictionistotheissueofcredibility,thetrialcourtmustassesswhetherthe ` felonyoffenseinvolvesdishonestyorfalsestatement.Walker,29S.W.3dat890. L    ThetrialcourtinthiscaseconcludedthatWallersMarch1990,February1992,and $ t November1999convictionsinvolveddishonesty.Thecourtstatedthattheseconvictionswerefor  `  crimesofdishonestyinthesenseofitisillegaltopossessthosesubstancesinthisState.  L  Consequently,thetrialcourtruledthattheStatewouldbeallowedtousetheseconvictionsto  8  impeachWallerifhetestified. $    Inourview,Wallerspriorconvictionsdonotinvolvedishonestyorfalsestatementas   contemplatedbyRule609.Wallersthreepriorconvictionsareforpossessionofacontrolled   substanceforresale,saleofacontrolledsubstance,andfacilitationofsaleofacontrolledsubstance.   Thetrialcourtbaseditsfindingthatthesefelonydrugconvictionsinvolvedishonestyuponthe p illegalityofthepossessionofacontrolledsubstance.Weareunwillingtoholdthateveryconviction \ foranillegalactisindicativeofdishonesty.Acceptingthetrialcourtsreasoning wouldpreclude H anyprincipleddifferentiationamongcrimesofvaryingimpactonwitnessveracity.Statev. 4 Zaehringer,325N.W.2d754,757(Iowa1982);seealsoGregoryv.State,616A.2d1198,1204(Del.  p 1992)(rejectingreasoningsimilartothatappliedbythetrialcourtinthepresentcase).Underthe  \ trialcourtsrationale,virtuallyallconvictionsforcrimescommittedknowinglyorintentionally H wouldbeadmissibleforimpeachmentpurposes.WedeclinetoreadRule609insuchamanner. 4   TheoffensesforwhichWallerhasbeenconvicteddonotcomportwiththeplainmeaning   of dishonesty.Thestatutoryelementsoftheseoffensesdonotrequirethatthecontrolledsubstance  besoldorpossessedinamannerthatinvolvesdeceitorfraud.3 1#  2      ׀SeeWalker,29S.W.3dat891  (statingthat theevidencerelatingtotheelementsofthecrimeistobeconsideredinquestioningthe  offensesrelevancetodishonesty,notthegeneralcircumstancesorenvironmentwithinwhichthe l offensewascommitted);seealsoUnitedStatesv.Lewis,626F.2d940,946(D.C.Cir.1980) X   (interpretingRule609oftheFederalRulesofEvidencetorequirethatthecrimeinvolvedishonesty D! orfalsestatementasanelementofthestatutoryoffense);4 1#  3      ׀Gregory,616A.2dat1204(concluding   thattheelementsofthecrimeofpossessionofacontrolledsubstancewithintenttodeliver require  noproofofconductinvolvinglying,deceiving,cheating,stealingordefrauding);Zaehringer,325  N.W.2dat756(holdingthattheelementsofthedeliveryofmarijuanaoffensedonotinvolve deceit, t fraud,cheating,orstealing). `   Caselawfromotherjurisdictionssupportsourviewthatdrugconvictionsdonotinvolve 8  dishonestyorfalsestatement.SeeLewis,626F.2dat946(statingthatthedefendantspriorfelony $ t convictionfortheunlawfuldistributionofacontrolledsubstancedidnotinvolvedishonestyorfalse  ` statementwithinthemeaningofRule609oftheFederalRulesofEvidence);UnitedStatesv.Puco,  L  453F.2d539,543(2dCir.1971)(concludingthatnarcoticsconvictionsarenothighlyrelevantto  8  theissueofveracity);Statev.Geyer,480A.2d489,496-97(Conn.1984)(concludingthat $  convictionsfornarcoticsoffensesdonotreflectdirectlyoncredibilityandstatingthatsuch   convictions clearlylack[]thedirectprobativevalueofacriminalconvictionindicatingdishonesty   oratendencytomakefalsestatement);Gregory,616A.2dat1204-05(explainingthatdrugrelated   offensesgenerallydonotinvolvedishonestyorfalsestatement);Statev.Fernandez,859P.2d1389,   1391(Idaho1993)(holdingthat [a]rrangingadrugtransactioninandofitselfisnotprobativeof p whetherapersonistruthfuloruntruthful);Statev.Konechny,3P.3d535,546(IdahoCt.App. \ 2000)(statingthatfelonydrugconvictionsarenot intimatelyconnectedwithcredibility); H Zaehringer,325N.W.2dat756-57(holdingthatnarcoticsoffensesdonotinvolvedishonestyorfalse 4 statement);Statev.Aleksey,538S.E.2d248,255(S.C.2000)(indicatingthatviolationsofnarcotics  p lawsaregenerallynotprobativeoftruthfulness);Statev.Hardy,946P.2d1175,1178(Wash.1997)  \ (commentingthat [d]rugconvictionsarenotcrimesofdishonestyorfalsestatementlikeperjury H orcriminalfraudandthus[Rule609]doesnotapply).Therefore,weconcludethattheseprior 4 felonydrugconvictionsare,atbest,onlyslightlyprobativeofWallerscredibility.     Oncethetrialcourtfindsthattheimpeachingconvictionhassomerelevancetotheissueof  thedefendantscredibility,itshouldnext assessthesimilaritybetweenthecrimeontrialandthe  crimeunderlyingtheimpeachingconviction.Mixon,983S.W.2dat674(quotingCohen,  Sheppeard&Paine,TennesseeLawofEvidence609.9(3ded.1995)).Whenanimpeaching l convictionissubstantiallysimilartothechargedoffense,adangerexiststhatjurorswillimproperly X  considertheimpeachingconvictionasevidenceofthepropensityofthedefendanttocommitthe D! crime.Id.Accordingly,theunfairprejudicialeffectofanimpeachingconvictiononthesubstantive 0"  issuesgreatlyincreasesiftheconvictionissubstantiallysimilartothechargedoffense.Id. #l! However,evidenceofapriorconvictionthatissubstantiallysimilartothechargedoffenseisnotper $X" seinadmissibleforimpeachmentpurposes.SeeStatev.Galmore,994S.W.2d120,122(Tenn. $D #  1999).Underthesecircumstances,atrialcourtshouldcarefullybalancetheimpeachingconvictions %0!$ relevancewithregardtocredibilityagainstitsunfairprejudicialeffectonsubstantiveissues.Mixon,  983S.W.2dat674.     ThetrialcourtdidnotexplicitlystatewhetheritfoundWallerspriorconvictionsandthe t chargedoffensetobesubstantiallysimilar.Nevertheless,itisclearthateachoftheseprior ` convictionsissubstantiallysimilartothechargedoffense.Wallersthreepriorconvictionsaswell L  ashispresentchargeinvolvethesaleortheintenttosellcocaineorasubstancerepresentedtobe 8  cocaine.WhileitmaybetruethatWallersthreepriordrugconvictionsaremoreprobativeof $ t credibilitythanalessernumberwouldbe,theyarealsomoreprejudicialconsideringthenatureof  ` thechargedoffense.SeeWalker,29S.W.3dat891(statingthat fivepreviousfelonyconvictions  L  aremoreprobativeontheissueofthedefendantscredibilitythanwouldbeafeweramountbutalso  8  that [t]hefactthatthedefendanthadfivepreviousfelonyconvictionsrelatingtothesaleofcocaine $  greatlyincreasestheriskthatthejurywouldconsiderthemtobeevidencethatthedefendantacted   thesamewayonthedayinquestion);seealsoGeyer,480A.2dat497-98(indicatingthata greater   number[ofconvictions]impliesaninveterateaffinityforillegalnarcotics,therebyengenderinga   greaterprejudicethanasinglepriorconvictionmightcreate).Wallersconvictionofcrimes   relatingtothesaleofcocaineonthreepreviousoccasionsincreasestheriskthatthejurywould p improperlyconsidertheimpeachingconvictionsasevidenceofhispropensitytocommitthepresent \ offense.Theconvictionsunfairprejudicialeffect,therefore,isgreat.Thisunfairprejudicialeffect H outweighsanyprobativevalueWallersdrugconvictionsmayhaveontheissueofcredibility.See 4 Statev.Dunlap,579S.E.2d318,320(S.C.2003)(notingthattherelativelackofprobativevalue  p narcoticsoffenseshavetocredibilityshould figureprominentlyintheweighingofprejudice...  \ whendeterminingwhethertopermitacriminaldefendantsimpeachmentbysuchconduct).We H thereforeholdthatthetrialcourterredinallowingtheStatetouseWallerspriorfelonydrug 4 convictionsforimpeachmentpurposes.     Ouranalysisdoesnotendhere,however.Wemustnextconsiderwhethertheerrorinthis  caseaffirmativelyormoreprobablythannotaffectedthejudgmenttoWallersprejudice.SeeTenn.  R.Crim.P.52(a);Tenn.R.App.P.36(b);Galmore,994S.W.2dat125.Wallerisnotentitledto  reliefifhewasnotprejudicedbytheerror.Statev.Taylor,993S.W.2d33,35(Tenn.1999). l   Wallerpresentednoevidenceattrial,andhefailedtomakeanofferofproofastohis D! proposedtestimony.SeeGalmore,994S.W.2dat125(holdingthatanofferofproofisnotrequired 0"  topreserveaclaimofanerroneousrulingonadmissibilityforreviewbutconcludingthatitmaybe #l! theonlywaytodemonstrateprejudice).Healsohaspresentednoargumentonappealconcerning $X" thesubstanceofhiscontemplatedtestimony.Attrial,theStatepresentedthetestimonyoftwopolice $D # officerswhoobservedWallersellthecounterfeitsubstance.ThisevidenceagainstWalleris %0!$ overwhelminganduncontroverted.Consequently,Wallerhasfailedtodemonstratethathewas &"% prejudicedbythetrialcourtserroneousruling.Wehold,therefore,thatthetrialcourtserrorin '#& rulingthatWallerspriorfelonydrugconvictionswouldbeadmissibleforimpeachmentpurposes (#' washarmless.SeeGalmore,994S.W.2dat125;Taylor,993S.W.2dat35. )$(   |*%)    @  % Conclusion     WeholdthatthetrialcourterredinrulingthattheStatecouldusetheappellantspriorfelony  drugconvictionsforimpeachmentpurposes.Underthecircumstancesofthiscase,however,the t errorwasharmless.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisaffirmed.It ` appearingthattheappellant,VernonDewayneWaller,isindigent,costsofthisappealaretaxedto L  theStateofTennessee. 8     `     h     ___________________________________  8     `     h     JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE