A ltho u g h the d e fen d a n t lists a fo u rth issu e , “v io la tio n o f [F ]o u rth A m e n d m e n t p ro te c tio n a g a ins t un re a so n a b le 1
search and sei zure, ” t hi s i ss ue i s no t i ncl ud ed i n t he argume nt po rt i o n of t he d ef end ant ’ s b ri ef

. I n co nsequenc e, t he i ss ue
w ill no t b e c o n sid e re d b y this c o u rt. See T enn. C t

. C ri m

. A p p

. R

. 10 (b). 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 7, 200 7

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . KENDRICK D. RIVERS
Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty No. 04-365 Donald H. Allen, Ju dge

No. W2006-01120-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Janu ary 7, 2008

The de fenda

nt, Kendric k D. Rivers, was convicted of possession of m ore than .5 g rams of c ocaine with intent to sell and/or deliver, e vading arr est, resisting arr est, and c riminal tresp as s

. The trial court imposed an e ffe ctive sente nce of twelve y ear s’ incar cerat i o n. I n this appeal, the de fenda nt
asser ts (1) that the e vidence is insufficient to support his conviction for posse ssion of coca ine; (2) that one of the jurors had a bias ag ainst him; and (3 ) t h at t h e State eng ag ed in prosec utorial misconduct by

knowing ly

using f alse testimony

. Finding no err or in the re cor d , we a ffirm the 1 jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nts of the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D H. W ELLES and D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J J ., joined.
Colin Morris, J ackson, Tenne ssee (at trial); and Kendr ick D. Rivers, Henning , Tenne ssee, pr o se (on appea l).

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Ra c he l E. Willi s, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Jer ry Woo da ll, Di str ic t Attor ne y Ge ne ra l; a

nd An g e la R. Sc ott , A ssi sta

nt D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee

OP IN ION

The de fenda

nt’s convictions relate to an incident on January 17, 2004, in J ackso n, Tenne ssee. On that evening , J ackson Pol ice Office r R oland J ames was on routine patrol in Parkvie w Courts, a housing pr operty owned a nd manag ed by

the J ackson H ousing Authority , when he observe d the def

endant standingwith a g roup of individuals. Be cause Offic er James knew that the-2-

defe ndant had be en plac ed on the “no trespass list” f or Parkview Courts, he stopped his patrol car and aske d the defe ndant to stop. At that point, t he def endant “ took off running ,” and O ffice r James g ave chase and called for backup. Offic er J ames testified that as he chase d the defendant, he saw the defe ndant throw down “a plastic bag that may have contained na rcotics.” Offic er James did not stop to retrieve the bag and instead continued to c hase the defe ndant until he “ca ug ht up w ith [ the defe ndant] when he tried to g et into a y ellow Cadillac.” The two men s trug g led, and Of fice r James “pulled [his] g un out and stuck it in [ the d ef en d ant] and asked him to come out [of] t he vehic le.” Wit h assistance from fe llow office r Mar vin Brooks, Offic er J ames was eventua lly able to plac e the defe ndant in custody

. A sea rch of the def endant’ s person re veale d sever al clea r plastic bag g ies, a cellular telephone, $1100, a

n d “a b ox of sandwic h wra p plastic bag s in his back pocke t.” Off icer J ames e x plained that “most of y our drug dealer s and pushers will use sandwich ba g s to separate the

coca ine or the c rac k and wr ap it individually so that they

can distribute it or sell it.”
Upon sea rchingthe ar ea where the def endant ha d jettisoned his packag e, the of fice r discovere d a plastic ba g containing a lar g e amount of c ocaine . Offi ce r J am es testified that the

am o u n t o f c o c a i n e w as m o re t h an wo u l d gen er al l y

b e p o s s es s edfo r p er s o n al u s e, ex p l ai n i n g, “Nor mally , if a p er s o n ’s g oing to pur chase coca ine for pe rsonal use, it will be one or two rocks may be and the n normally weighs like less than half a g ram.” He a lso testified that the “stre et value”

o f agra m o f c o ca i n e i s $ 1 0 0

. Af t er h i s arre s t , t h e d ef

en d an twa s t ra n s p o rt ed t o t h e j ai l fo r b o o k i n g, during which time he told Off icer J ames that “ he wasn’t a

punk bitch and we office rs wer e not the only ones with g uns and if he ha d a gun he would put some heat on us that night.”

Duri ngc ro ss- e xami natio n, Of fi c e r Jame s conce ded

tha t th e re we re oth e r p e op le cong reg ated in the g ener al ar ea where the plastic bag of coca ine was f

ound. He a lso acknowle dg ed t h at h e d i d

n o tre qu es ta f

i n ger p ri n tex am i n at i o no f t h e p l as t i c b ag.

Offic er Ma

rvin Br ooks responde d to Office r James’s ca l l for backup and he lped Offic er James g et the def

endant out of t he car he was try ing to g et i nto. Offic er B rooks transpor ted the def endant a nd rec alled that during booking, the defe ndant said that “he wasn’t no punk a nd that

we wa sn’t [si c] the only

ones with g uns and that if he ha d of had one he would have used it.”

Tenne ssee Bur eau of I nvestig ation For ensic Scientist Jessica Webb te stifi ed that testing e stablished that the plastic bagcontained 20.2 g rams of c ocaine

.

At the conc lusion of the trial, the jury returne d a ver dict of g uilty on eac h char g e. The trial court mer g ed the c onviction for possession of c ocaine with intent to deliver into the conviction for possession of c ocaine with intent to sell. I n this a ppeal, the defe ndant cha lleng es the suff iciency of the c onvic ti n g e v id e n c e o f p o s s e s s io n , a s s e rts th a t a ju r o r w a s b ia s e d , an d c o n te n d s th a t the p r o s e c u t o r

e n g a g e d i nm i s c o n d

u c tb y kn o w i n g l y p r e s e n t i n g f a l s e t e s t i m o n y.-3- I. Sufficiency

As his fi rs t is su e , th e de fe nd ant a sse rt s that the e vid e nc e is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his conviction for possession of coca ine with intent to sell or deliver. When an a ccuse d challeng es the sufficie ncy

of the evidenc e, an appellate court’s standard of revie w is w hether , afte r consider ing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, any rational trier of fa ct could have found the e sse nti a l ele me nts of the c ri me be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. Te nn . R. App . P. 13 (e ); Jack son v. Vi rg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 24 , 9 9 S. Ct. 27 81 , 2 79 1- 92 , 6 1 L . E d. 2d 56 0 ( 19 79 ); Sta te v . W

inte rs , 137 S.W .3d 641, 654 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) . The rule applies to finding s of g uilt based upon direc t evidenc e, cir cumstantial evidenc e, or a combination of direc t and circ umstantial evidence

. W inte rs , 137 S.W .3d at 654.

I n deter mining the suff

iciency of t he evidence, this court should neither r e-w eig h the evidenc e nor substitute its i n fe re n ce s for those drawn by the trier of

fac t. Id. at 655. Questions

c on c e rn ingthe c re dib ili ty of the wi tn ess es, th e we ig ht a nd va lue of the e vid e nc e , a s w e ll a s a ll fac tual issues raised by

the evidenc e are resolved by the trier of fac t. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 83 2, 83 5 ( Te nn . 1 97 8) . Si g nif ic antl y , th is c ourt mu st a ff or d th e State of

Te nn e sse e the str on g e st le g iti mate vie w o f t

he e vid e nc e c on tain ed in the re c or d a s w e ll a s a ll r e a so na ble and le g iti mate infere nces w hich may

be dra wn from the e vidence

. Id.

A s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e p r e s e n tc a s e , “ [ i ] ti s ano f f e n s e f o r a d e f e n d an tt o kn o w i n g l y .

. . [ p ]oss ess a c ontrolled substance with intent to . . . sell t he contr olled substance,” see T.C.A. § 39-17-417( a)( 4), and c ocaine is a Sch ed u l e I Icontrolled substanc e, see id. § 39-17-408( b)(4)

. Fur thermore ,“[i] t ma

y be inferr ed from the amount of c ontrolled substance or substance s possessed by an off ender , along with othe r rele vant fac ts sur rounding arr est, that the controlled substanc e or substances w ere p o s sessed with the purpose of selling or otherw ise dispensing .” See id. § 39-17-419.

I n this case, Office r J ames ini tially made contact with the def endant be cause he knew that the def

endant wa s on the “no tre spass list” for Parkvie w Court s. When approac hed by the office r, the defe ndant ran. Duringthe ensuingfoot cha se, Off icer J ames saw

the def endant throw do wn a pla sti c ba g . A ft e r the c ha se , of fi c e rs dis c ov e re d a larg e a mou nt of c a sh and ind ivi du a l pl a sti c sandwich bag s o nth e d e f e n d an t’ s p e r s o n

. Wh e nth e y s e ar c h e d th e ar e a w h e r e O f

f ic e r Ja mes repor ted see ing the defe ndant drop a bag , office rs di scover ed a plastic bag containing a white powde r that was late r dete rmined to be 20.2 g rams of coca ine. Although e ach of fice r conc eded that other in d iv id u a ls w e r e p r e s e n t in th e ar e a , th e r e w a s s im p ly n o p r o o f li n k in g an y p e r s o n o th e r than the de fe nd ant t o th e ba g of

c oc a ine . T his e vid e nc e is s uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the jur y ’s ve rd ic t.

II. J uror Bias

The de fenda

nt n ex t as s erts that he w as denie d the rig ht to a trial by a fa ir and impartial jury

beca use juror Cy

nthia Bates knew him prior t o t ri al and had, in fac t, suspected the-4-

defe ndant of murde ring her br other. The State argues that the de fenda nt has failed to establish “a prima fa cie c ase of

juror bias or pr ejudice.”

Tenne ssee Rul e of Evidence 606(b), which authorizes only limit ed inqui ry into the vali d i t y o f a verdic t throug h the questioning of jurors, pr ovides that “a juror may

testify on the question of whethe r extraneous, pre judicial i n formation wa s improperly broug ht to the jury ’s attention” or “ whether

any outside influence was improper ly broug ht to be ar upon a ny juror.” T enn. R. Evid. 606(b). The term “extraneous infor mation” may

include a jur or’s pe rsonal knowledg e of the defe ndant’s prior c riminal rec ord or a rre st, see Neil P. Cohen, et al., Tennessee Law of Evidenc e § 606.2 (3rd e d. 1995), and suc h information is deemed p re j u d i ci al if it has an influenc e on the

v e r d i c to f t h e j u r y, se e Pa tto n v . R os e , 892 S.W .2d 410, 414 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). A lthough the defe ndant is entitled to a verdic t untainted b y extraneous, pre

judicial information, the def endant bear s the burden of

establishing jur

y misconduct. Sta te v . B lac k we ll , 664 S.W .2d 686, 688-90 (Te nn. 1984).

Gene rally , juror disqualificati o n s are based upon one of two theorie s: (1) propter defec tum (“O n acc ount of or for some defe ct.” Black’

s Law Dictionary 1385 (Rev. 4th Ed. 1968)) or (2) prop t era

f fectum (“F or or on a ccount of some aff

ection or pr ejudice.” Id. ). Partin v. Hende rson , 686 S.W .2d 587, 589 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). O b j ec tions based on g ener al dis qualifications, such as familial re lationship, fall within the propter defec tum class and,

acc ording ly , must be challeng ed prior to the ver dict. Id. at 589. I n contra st, disqualific ations based upon propter affectum exis t due t o some bias or partiality toward one party in the l itigation and ma y be made afte r the ve rdict. Too mb s v . S tate , 2 70 S.W. 2d

64 9, 65 1 ( Te nn . 1 95 4) ; D u rh a m v

. S tat e , 18 8 S. W.2 d 5 55 , 5 57 (T e nn . 1 94 5) ; Pa rti n , 686 S.W .2d at 589. Even in case s of propter affectum , challeng es af

ter the ve rdict ar e not prope r unless the “ ‘par ticular d i s q u al i fi ca tion of a juror w as unknown to the def

endant a nd his attorney at t he ti me of the jury ’s selec tion.’” Durham , 188 S.W .2d at 557 (quoting Mo nd

ay v . S tate , 2 3 S. W.2 d 6 56 , 6 58 (1 93 0) ); see also State v . Akins , 867 S.W .2d 350, 355 (Tenn. Crim. A p p

. 1993) (“ Thus, when a juror conc eals or misre prese nts information tending to indicate a la ck of impar tial i t y , a cha lleng e may

be made as her e in a motion for ne w trial.”). Be cause the defe ndant complains of bias or partiality in f avor of the State, his claim is one of propter affectum

. See State v . Furlough , 797 S.W .2d 631, 652 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

.

Her e, the de fenda

nt alleg ed in his motion for a new trial that juror Cy

nthia Bates knew him prior to tr i al and had suspected him of murde ring her br other. At the he aringon the motion for a new t ri al, J uror B ates testified e mphatically that she did not know the def endant a nd had neve r hea

rd of him prior to the tria l. She stated t hat s he had never discussed t he def endant a s a suspec t in h er b rot her’ s death be cause her br other ha d committed suicide. Fur ther, Juror Bates testified that B reon B ates, a relative of her s, had telephone d and informe d h er that the defe ndant “wr ote him or something a nd want[ed] to know i f I would say that I knew him so that he could g et
a new trial.” Juror Bates also denied ever acc using the defe ndant of selling coca ine to her br other. The de fenda

nt testified that he had never met J uror Bate s and had only hear say evidenc e to support his claim that she was bia sed ag ainst him. J uror B ates’s cousin, Michael B ates, testified that he kn e w the de fe nd ant, bu t hi s c ou sin ha d tol d him that sh e did no t kn owthe de fe nd ant. Un de r t he se-5-

circ umstances, the de fenda nt has failed to e stablish that J uror B ates e ven k n ew h i m , let alone harbor ed any

bias ag ainst him prior to trial. He is not entitled to relief on this issue.

III . Prosecutorial Misconduct
Finally , the defendant asserts that the State eng ag ed in prosec utorial misconduct by knowing ly prese nting f

alse testimony . The State c ontends that the def endant wa ived this issue by failing to object to the alleg edly false te stimony

and by failing to pur sue it in his motion for a new tr ia l. I n th e a lte rn a tiv e , th e State su bmi ts that th e de fe nd ant h a s f a ile d t o est abl is h that th e State p r e s e n t e d f a l s e t e s t i m o n y.

As the State c or

re c tly po int s ou t, the de fe nd ant ha s wa ive d thi s iss ue by fai li ng to purs ue it i n h is m oti on

fo r a ne w tri a l. A lth ou g h th e de fe nd ant i ni ti all y pl aced the iss ue in h is motion, he withdrew the issue from the t rial court’s consideration at t he hearing on the motion for

a new t ri al

. I n co nsequenc e, the issue ha s not been pre serve d for a ppellate r eview. See Te nn . R. App. P. 3(e) ( stating that “in all case s tried by a jury , no issue prese nted for r eview sh all be predic ated upon e rror

in the admission or exclusion of evidenc e, jury instructions gr anted or

ref used,

. . . o r o t h er gro und upon which a ne w trial is soug ht, unless the same wa s specific ally stated in a

mo ti on for a

ne w tri a l; o the rw ise su c h is su e s w ill be tr e a te d a s w a ive d” ); Sta te v . M ar tin , 9 40 S.W .2d 567, 569 (Tenn. 1997) (holding that a defe ndant relinquishes the rig ht to arg ue on appe al any iss ue s th a t sh ou ld h a ve be e n p re se nte d in a mot ion fo r n e w t ri a l) ; State v. Dodson , 780 S.W .2d 778, 780 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989)

.
CO NC LU SION

The re cord e vinces no e rror , and the judg ments of the trial c ourt are aff irmed.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE