### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 17, 200 8

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . JAMES EDWARD FARRAR, JR.

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Bedf ord County No. 16183 Lee R ussell, Ju dge

No. M2007- 02006-CCA -R3-C D - F iled October 15, 2008

The de fenda

nt, J ames Edwa

rd F ar ra r, J r., appeals from his B edfor d County Circuit Court jury conviction of bribing a witness. He claims that the ver dict is not supported by leg ally s ufficie nt evidenc e and that the trial court erre d in admitting int o evidenc e a compac t disc containing rec orded telephone c alls that the State failed to pr operly authenticate. B eca

use we disag ree , we a ffirm the judgme nt of the trial cour t Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e 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 R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER and J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

J ohn H. Norton, I I I , Shelby ville, Tennesse e, for

the appe llant, J ames Edwa rd F arr ar, Jr.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr. , A tt o r

n e y G e n e r a l a n d R e po rt e r; B e nja

min A. B a ll, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Charles F . Crawf

ord, Jr., District Attorney Gene ral; and Micha el D. Randles, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

On J anuar

y 22, 2007, the Bedfor d County Gra nd J ury indicted the def

endant on one count of bribing a witness, see T.C.A. § 39-16-107 (2006), and one count of conspirac y to bribe a witness, see id. § 39-12-103. The State char g ed that the de fenda nt attempted to induc e Amy Merlo, a subpoena ed witness, to be abse nt from the trial of State of Tennessee v . Mark A. Buntley in the Circuit Court of Be dford County , in order to preve nt he r from testifying a g ainst Mark B untley . The State alleg ed that the de fenda nt offer ed to pay

Ms. Merlo’s bond if she w ere arr ested for contempt of c ourt and the he fu rt he r o ff e re d mo ne y

to M s. Me rl o s o sh e wo uld le a ve tow n o n th e da y of tr ia l. Af te r a tw o- da y tr ia l by jur y , th e jur y re tur ne d a ve rd ic t of g uil ty on the c ount of br ibe ry , a Cla ss C felony , and acquitted the defe ndant on the count of conspirac y to c ommit briber y

. T h e d efendant
w a s s e n t e n c e d t o s i x ye ar s ’ i mp r i s o n m e n t a s a s t an d ar d o f f e n d e r w i t h a s t an d ar d

r e l e a s e e l i g i b i l i t y.B e d fo rd C o u n ty ha s tw o fac ili ties to h o u s e i n m a te s: the B e d fo rd C o u n ty Ja il a n d the B e d fo rd C o u n ty 1
W ork hous e. T he work hous e had been op er at i ng f or t wo or t hr ee y ear s at t he t i me of t r i al

. B ot h f

aci l i t i es ar e opera t ed b y t he B ed f

o rd C o un t y Sh erif

f ’ s D ep artm en t

. In the ca se a t ha nd , M r. B un t l ey wa s ho use d at t he w o rkh o use at all t i m es.

-2- Th e de fe nd ant f

ile d a tim e ly a pp e a l and c ha lle ng e s h is c on vic tio n on tw o g ro un ds

. First, the de fenda

nt asserts that the tria l c ourt err ed in denying his motion in lim ine to preve nt the i n t r o d u c t i o no f a c o mp a c td i s c c o n t a i n i n g r e c o r d e d t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s b e t w e e nM r

. B u n t l e y, Ms. Me rl o, and

the de fe nd ant. Se c on d, the de fe nd ant c ha lle ng e s the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to
su sta in h is c on vic tio n o f b ri bin g a wi tne ss.

Motion in Li mine

The de fenda

nt takes issue with the admiss ion into evidenc e of a series of telephone
c a lls , r e -r e c or de d o n c omp a c t di sc , in wh ic h th e de fe nd ant a

nd Mr . B un tle y sp ok e wi th M s. Me rl o reg ardingMr. Bu n tley ’s trial. The c alls orig inated fr om the Be dford County Workhouse (the
wo rk ho us e ) wh e re Mr . Buntl e y wa s in cus tod y pr ior to h is tri a l f

or a g g ra vate d b ur g lary

and the ft

. 1 The c ompact di s c o ff

er ed as e vidence contained r ecor dings of calls made by

Mr. B untley

to the de fe nd ant w he n th e de fe nd ant u se d “ thr e e -w ay c a lli ng ” to i nc lud e Ms. Me rl o in the c on ve rs a tio ns

. Th e de fe nd ant m ov e d in

lim ine and

argue d th a t th e re c or de d te lephone c on ve rs a tio ns , c op ie d to compac t disc, were not properly authenticated and we re the ref ore ina dmissibl e.

I n th e mot ion he ari ng , the State c a lle d L ie ute na nt Tr e y Ar no ld o f t he B e df or d Co un ty S heri ff ’s De pa rtme nt t o te sti fy

a bo ut t he te le ph on e sy ste m a t th e wo rk ho us e . L ie ute na

nt A rn old testified that he had wor

ked for the depa rtment for a

pproxi mately

11 y ear s. His primary

duty was the administration of the B edfor d County J ail; however , he also mana g ed tec hnology for the e ntire depar tment, including the w orkhouse. He testified that the workhouse was divided into “blocks,” with eac h block having it s own telephone . I nmates we re pe rmitted to make outg oing c alls, but the pe r s o n r e c e i v i n g t h e c a l l m u s t a c c e p t t h e t e l e p h o n e c h ar g e s , m u c h l i k e a “ c o l l e c t ” t e l e p h o n e c a ll. The wor khouse lea sed a te chnolog y sy stem (the sy stem) from Sec urus Tec hno l o gi es , a compa ny ba se d in I rv ing , T e xas. Th e sy ste m di g ita lly re c or de d a ll tel e ph on e c a lls ma de fr om t he wo rk ho us e to a har d drive. When an inmate initiated a c al l , t h e s y s t em pl ay ed a pr e-r ecor ded messag e that i n fo rm edb o t h t h e c al l er

an d t h e r ec i p i en tt h at t h e c al l wa s s u b j ec tt o m o n i t o ri n g an d

re co rd i n g.

L ieutenant Ar

nold testified that he ofte n rec eived r equests fr o m v arious law enfor ceme nt entities to find recor din g s of inmates’ tele phone ca lls. To find a rec orded te lephone call, L ieutenant Arnold testified t hat he used a computer query function t hat allowed him to search the har d drive accor ding to the out g oing dialed num ber a nd the ra ng e of dates in which the c all was place d. He state d that the sy stem produce d a re cord of all completed outg oing te lephone c alls and all attempted outg oing te lepho n e ca l l s . The re cord inc luded the date and time that the ca ll was pla c e d a nd the re c e ivi ng , o r “ targ e t,” te le ph on e numbe r. Up on fi nd ingthe re qu e ste d c a ll, he c ou ld use the sy stem to re-r ecor d the ca ll onto a compact disc.-3- L ie ute na nt A rn old te sti fi e d th a t th e sy ste m ha d b e e n u se d at th e ja il f or a pp ro xima te ly
e ig ht y e ars and

ha d b e e n u se d at th e wo rk ho us e sin c e it f

ir st o pe ne d tw o o r t

hr e e y e ars pr ior

to t ri a l. He testified that, to his knowledge , the sy stem never had any problems rec ording conver sations. He added that the sy stem, to his knowl ed ge, h ad never failed to re cord a

telephone c all. He ne ver le arn e d o f a

ny dis c re pa

nc ie s bet we e n the dig ita l har d dri ve re c or din g and the re -r e c or din g ult imate ly written to the compa ct disc. F urther, he testified t hat he had no ability to edit, delete, or

re- rec ord po rt ion s o f t

he re c or de d te le ph on e c a lls

. On cr o s s -e x am i n at i o n , L i eu t en an tAr n o l d ad m i tted that he wa s never specia lly trained at any formal sc hool to operate t h e s y s tem. He testified that Securus Te chnolog ies installed and service d the sy stem and that he ha d never persona lly

participated in any

maintenanc e wor

k. He stated that he c ould not testify to the “eng ineer ing side” of the s y stem and that he was not familiar wi th t he te c hn olo g y

inv olv e d in

the sy ste m. H e a c kn ow le dg e d th a t he c ou ld n ot t e sti fy to a n a bs olute
cer tainty that the softwar e had ne ver f ailed. L ieutenant Ar

nold did not kn o w of a

ny “saf eg uard mecha nisms” or the “f

ailure r ate” of tho s e m echanisms. L ieutenant Ar nold also testified that the depar tment did not moni tor any calls in rea l time and sol ely relied on the sy stem’s rec ords and the digital rec ording s. He never compar ed the c ompact disc play back to the r ecor ding store d on the har d drive in the pre sent ca se and c ould not testify with cer tainty that the re -re cordingwas a ccur ate.

L ieutenant Ar

nold testified that on J anuar y 9, 2007, Detec tive Br ian C rew s contac ted him and asked wh et h er an y calls had be en made to the telephone numbe r assig ned to “De als on Whe e ls, ” an a

uto mob ile de a le rs hip in S hel by vil le ow ne d b y

the de fe nd ant. L ie ute na nt A rn old
se arc he d th e sy ste m and fo un d tha t on Janu ary 2 a nd 8, 20 07 , M r. B un tle y

ma de six te le ph on e c a lls fr om t he wo rk ho us e to “ De a ls o n Wh e e ls. ” L ie ute na nt A rn old re -r e c or de d th e se te le ph on e c a lls o nto
a c omp a c t di sc and

de liv e re d it t o D e te c tiv e Cr e ws . T he de fe nd ant m ov e d to e xclu de the se rec ording s, arguing that L ieutenant Arnold’s testimony failed to pr operly authenticate the compa ct disc.

I n the hea

ring , the def

end an t ar gu ed that pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidenc e 901(b)( 9), the wor

khous e’ s ca l l manag ement sy stem “involves a pr ocess or a sy stem,” and thus “evide n c e d e s c r ib in g a p r o c e s s o r s y s te m u s e d to p r o d u c e a r e s u lt ” r e qu ir e d a “ s h o w in g that the proce ss or sy stem produce s an ac curate re sult.” The def endant a rg ued that L ieutenant Ar

nold was
no t qu a lif ie d to te sti fy a

bo ut the sy ste m’ s a

bil ity fo r p ro du c inga c c ur a te re c or din g s b e c a us e he did not know the fa ilure rate of the sof tware , whether t h e re cordings could be edited, or w hether the
c o mp a c td i s c a c c u r a t e l y d e p i c t e d t h e o r i g i n a l r e c o r d i n g

. T h e d e f e n d an tm a i n t a i n e d

t h a to n l y a repr esentative from Securus Tec hnologie s could proper ly testify to the acc urac y

and re liability

of the
rec ording proce ss of the sy stem, and without such t es t i m o n y , the compac t disc could not be authenticated.

Th e State argue d tha t noth ingin t he te sti mony

sh ow e d a ny pr ob le m w iththe sy ste m. Fur ther, the State posited that the de fenda nt’s relianc e on Te nnessee Rule of Evidenc e 901(b) (9) wa s misplaced. The State rea soned that this r ule applies to pr ocesse s and sy stems such as DNAtesting-4-

and did not a

pply to simpl y acc essing rec orded f

iles. The State ar g ued that bec ause Sec urus’s sy stem
w a s n o tn e w , s o p h i s t i c a t e d t e c h n o l o g y, i n d e p e n d e n t l y s h o w i n g i t s r e l i a b i l i t y w a s u n n e c e s s ar

y.
The c ourt found that the State ha d sufficie ntly authenticated the evide nce. T he cour t opined, “I t’s not new tec hnology . I t’s not junk technolog y . I t’s very familiar tec hnol o gy

. ” The
co u rt al s o re as o n edt h at t h e j u ry wi l l “h ea r c er t ai nqu es t i o n s ab o u tt h e e v i d en ce an d t h ey ca nwe i gh the evidenc e.” T he trial c ourt overr uled the motion in lim ine.

The Trial During the trial, the State fir st called L ieutenant Ar nol d , wh o g ave te stimony very simil ar to his testimony during the hearing on the m otion in limine. He gave a br ief de scription of how the sy stem worked a

nd how Dete ctive Crew s had asked him to sea rch f or telephone calls made from the wor

khouse to the def

endant’ s au tomobile dealer ship betwee n J anuar y 1 and 8, 2007. Throug h his testimony , the State introduce d the compac t disc and the r ecor d of the six t elephone
c a lls a s e xhibi ts t o tr ia l.

Th e State ne xt c a lle d De te c tiv e Cr e ws , wh o te sti fi e d that he ha d wo rk e d f or the City of Shelby ville Poli ce D epar

tment for more than s even y ear s and had be en a c riminal investigator for approximately

five y ear s. He testified that his involvement with the ca se starte d in 2006 when he investigated a bur g lary

incident t hat ultimately

led to the indictment of Mr. B untley on ag g ravated burg lary and thef t char g es. He testified that he had spoken with Ms. Merlo and her son, Sky ler, who
was a pproxi mately

ten y ear s old, a

bout te stify ing in Mr

. Buntley ’s trial. He a dvised Ms. Merlo that she wa s under subpoen a t o b e p re s ent at court at 9:00 a.m. on J anuar y 9, 2007, and the two made
arr ang ements for

Sky ler to ar

rive a t court at 1:00 p.m. due to his school schedule

.
Detect i v e C rews testified that at 9:00 a.m. on J anuar y 9, 2007, all witnesses we re prese nt at Mr. Buntley ’s trial except for Ms. Me rlo. He assig ned members of the police depar tment to searc h for Ms. Mer lo. She could not b e fo u n d , and the tria l ag ainst Mr. Buntley had to be
c on tin ue d to a la te r da te

. De te c tiv e Cr e ws te sti fi e d tha t, la te r that day , Ms. Me rl o wa s b ro ug ht i nto
c us tod y . H e int e rv ie we d M s. Me rl o, and the inf or ma tio n h e le arn e d f

ro m sp e a kin g wi th h e r l e d h im to r equest from L ieutenant Arnold any telephone calls made from the wor khouse to the def

endant’ s a uto mob ile de a le rs hip be fo re Mr . B un tle y ’s tr ia l.

De te c tiv e Cr ews tes tif

ie d th a t he re c e ive d a

c omp a c t di sc fr om L ie ute na nt A rn old with six telephone c onversations recor d ed o n i t

. He testified that he re cog nized the voice of the d e f e n d an t, a s w e ll a s th e v o ic e s o f M r

. B u n tl e y

an d M s

. M e r lo , f

r o m t h e r e c o r d in g s

. D e te c tive Crews stated that the defe ndant and Mr. B untley wer e first c ousins. He testified that the defenda nt’s fathe r owne d and oper ated a bail bond company , Fa rra r Bonding , at the time the telephone calls we re made. He also stated that the de fenda nt used the nickname “B lue.”

D u r i n g D e t e c t i v e C r e w s ’ s t e s t i m o n y, t h e c o mp a c t d i s c w a s p l aye d i nf u l l t o t h e j u r

y. The re cording s reve aled the f ollowing infor

mation:-5- On J anuar y 8, 2007, Mr. Buntley called the def endant a nd discussed his pending trial and the c harg es he w as fa cing . Mr. B untley told the defe ndant, “I think old Amy [Merlo] ’s g onna be up ther e testifying a g ain s t me.” Mr. B untley could not direc tly

contac t Ms. Merlo from the workhouse beca

use she had place d a “block” on her te lephone, whic h preve nted her from re ceiving

“ c oll e ct” te le ph on e c a lls . H ow e ve r, the de fe nd ant u til ize d a thr e e -w ay

c a lli ngfe a tur e duri nghis telephone c alls with Mr. Buntley to connec t with Ms. Merlo. Thus, the defendant, Mr. Buntley , and Ms. Merlo ef

fec tively had a series of

three -per son confe renc e ca lls. Five telephone calls we re ma de on J anuar y 8. The following conver sation took place dur ing the first telephone call at 11:55 a.m.:

MR. B UN TL EY : H e y , y ou c omi ngto c ourt

to test if y a g a ins t me tomorrow, ain’ t y ou? MS. MERL O: Mark? MR. BUNTL EY: Yea

h. MS. MERL O: I ’m not like try ing to do a ll that, but I mean, but they -- they come ove r and they like (inaudible) a nd I ’m g onna have to do this or this i s g oing to ha

ppen. And they

talked to Sky ler.

. . . . Th e y wa nte d to ta lk to him. I did

n’ t re a lly have a c ho ic e the y c ou ld
su bp oe na me any wa y and the re wa sn ’t

no thi ngIc ou ld d o a

bo ut i t.

. . . . MR. FA R R AR : T his is Blue. You a in’t g oing up the re to testify ag ainst him, are you?

. . . . MS. ME RL O: No , [I ]’m no t te sti fy inga g a ins t hi m, b ut my

so n w ill be. MR. BUNTL EY: They ’re g onna ca ll y ou to testify tomorrow. You know that, don’t y ou? MS. MERL O: Yes, Mar

k. MR. F ARRAR: I mean, hell, Amy , y ou don’t know nothing, thoug h, do y ou?

. . . . Imean, the boy ’s g oing to ge t roy ally f[---]ed tomorrow if somebody do n’ t a c t r ig ht. MS. MERL O: Blue , I know what the f[

--- ]’s g oing on. Iknow what I ’m doing , too.

. . . . You ac t like I ’m g oing to c ome up there and f[

-- -] i ng g o -- just like te ll a ll this sh it, and

I ’m no t.

Mr. B untley place d the second call at 12:10 p.m. Be fore the def endant use d three

way calling to contact Ms. Mer lo, the following exchang e took pl ace betwee n Mr. B untley and the de fe nd ant.-6- MR. FARRAR: L ord, she’ s g onna royally scre w y ou tomorrow. MR. BUNTL EY: Iknow it, man. I t’s f[---]ed u p

. I h ad a f [---]ing g ut f e e lin g sh e wa s g oin g to d o th a t sh it.

Af te r s ome dis c us sio n, the de fe nd ant c a lle d M s. Me rl o a g a in. Up on Mr . B un tle y

te lli ngMs. Me rl o that he could f

ace sever al y ear s of imprisonment on the char g es, she r esponded:

MS. MERL O: Well, I wasn’t e ven g oing to g o and they said they
c ou ld g e t me fo r c on te mpt of c ourt

.

. . . . MR. BUNTL EY: You’r e g onna have to show up now. MR. FARRAR: W ell -- MR. BUNTL EY: They

can’ t -- they

can’ t make S k y l er g et on the stand. MR. FARRAR: Mark, Mark. A s far as Amy and him, they

don’t have to show up tomorr ow. They can’ t ge t in no trouble, neither.

. . . . They

-- th e y

te ll y o uth a t k in d

o f s h it , A my , to s c ar e y o u

. Ia in ’t taking up for Ma

rk or nothing but he nee ds some help. MR. BUNTL EY: Ye ah , I n eed a ll the help Ican f [---]ing g et rig ht
now. MR. FARRAR: Well, the best thing to do is not show up tom orrow.

. . . . They arr est y ou, I ’ll come up ther e and make y our bond for fre e. MS. ME RL O: Wel l, you be tte r d a mn i t. MR. FARRAR: You just don’t go up there tomorrow. MS. MERL O: Then I ’m g oing to be violated. MR. FARRAR: You call me.

. . . . MS. MERL O: Iprobably just won’t even show up Ma rk. MR. F ARRA R: T hat’ ll b e the be st t hin g , to he lp h im o ut.

The de fenda

nt and Mr. B untley

wer e unable to rea ch Ms. Merlo during Mr. B untley ’s thi rd c a ll on Janu ary

8. Ho we ve r, the de fe nd ant t old Mr . B un tle y

that he pla

nn e d to g ive Ms. Me rl o and Sky ler $50 a

nd send them to Nashville. He also proposed to send some body with them. The fo ur th c a ll o f t

he da y sta rt e d at 2: 51 p. m. T he de fe nd ant o nc e mor e state d, “ B ut i f you g o to ja il, we’ ll make y our bond. I t won’t cost y ou a nicke l. But more or less they p ro b ab l y wo n ’t even do that. That’s at the most.” Also, during this conversation the defe ndant and Mr. B untley confirme d t h a tM s

. M e r l o h a d s i g n e d a s u b p o e n a an d w a s l e g a l l y o b l i g a t e d

t o ar r i v e a tc o u rtt h e f

o l l o w i n g d a y. The followingconver sation took place w hile the def endant wa s not on the telephone line.

MS. MERL O: I ’m not g onna be there ! I ’m not g onna be the re! I ’ve alre ady g ot pla

ns, I alre ady

know wher e I ’m g oing to hide out whe re-7- they won’t find me. And then at 3:00 I ’m g oing to g o up there and tur n my se lf [sic ] in b e fo re Ig o to wo rk so Ic an g e t so me bo dy

to bo nd me ou t. M R

. BU NT L E Y: Am y , y o u ’r e n o tgo i n g t o b e ch ar gedwi t h n o t h i n g, man. MS. MERL O: Well, I ’m just not go i n g to be at wor k and them mother-f [---]ers come up there and g et me, beca use I ’ll lose my

job. An d I jus t ma de mana g e r a

nd e ve ry thi ngand Ia in’ t f[-- -]i ngtr

y ingto do a ll this sh it. MR. BUNTL EY: Blue sai d h e wa s g oing to g ive y ou a hundre d dollars and tell y ou to go to Na shville.

. . . . MS. MERL O: A hundre d dollars to g o to Nashville? What the f[---] is a hundred dollar s g oing to do f or me?

Af te r D e te c tiv e Cr e ws ’s te sti mony and the pla y ba c k o f t he c omp a c t di sc , M s. Me rl o testifie d o n b e h a lf o f th e St a te

. Sh e te s ti f ie d th a t s h e d a te d M r

. B u n tl e y an d li v e d w ith him for a period of time. Their relationship ended shortly afte r he went to jail. She stated t hat Mr. B untley was the f ather of her daug hter, L ily , who was two y ear s old at the time of trial. She testified that she had told Detec tive Crews that she and her son, Skyler, would testify ag ainst Mr. Buntley

on J anuar

y 9, 20 07 . Sh e a g re e d to be a t c ourt a t 9: 00 a .m. and

sh e arr ang e d f

or Sky le r to be a t c ourt

a t 1: 00 p. m. Ms. Merlo testified that prior to January 8, she had pla

nned to b e at court for Mr. Buntley ’s trial as a wi t n es s fo r the State. She told the court that she c hang ed her mind about testify ing be cause “[Mr. Buntley ] wa s just like, well, y ou know, they offe red me 14 y ear s. And he made me f

eel ba d. You know, I mean, I still loved him.” She testified that she w as mere ly telling Mr. B untl e y w h a t h e w an te d to h e ar w h e n s h e s tate d d u r in g th e r e c o r d e d c a ll s th a t s h e h a d never planned to testify . Ms. Merlo ultimately testified ag ainst Mr. Buntley at trial on Mar ch 29, 2007. Both pa rties stipulated that Ms. Merlo was subpoenae d by the State to Mr. B untley ’s tr ia l se t f or 9:0 0 a .m. on

Janu ary 9, 20 07 . T he su

bp oe na wa s is su e d o n D e c e mbe r 2 1, 20 06 , a nd Ms. Merlo wa s serve d on Dec ember 28. A copy

of the subpoena

was e ntere d into evidence

. Th e State the n r e -c a lle d D e te c tiv e Cr e ws to t e sti fy tha t he arr e ste d th e de fe nd a nt. After the g rand jury

had indicted the de fenda nt, he locate d the def

endant and notified him of the
c ha rg e s b ro ug ht a g a ins t hi m. H e inf or me d the de fe nd ant that the br ibe ry c ha rg e s st e mme d f

ro m hi s of fe ri ngc omp e ns a tio n to Ms. Me rl o an d off e ri ng to ma ke he r b on d if

sh e wa s a rr e ste d f or fa ili ngto sh owa t c ourt

. De te c tiv e Cr e ws te sti fi e d th a t th e de fe nd ant r e sp on de d, “ [W]ell , I g ue ss I ’m

g uil ty of that. I offe red to make her bond f or fr ee.”

The State re sted its case

. No defense proof was offe red, a nd the def endant c hose not to te stify

. Ba sed upon the evidenc e as summarized a bove, the jury convicted the defe nd an t of br ibi nga wi tne ss a nd a c qu itt e d th e de fe nd ant o f c on sp ir a c y to b ri be a

wi tne ss.-8- On appea l, the defe ndant challeng es the admission of the compac t disc containing the
re c or de d te le ph on e c a lls and the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g h is con vict ion . We wi ll analy ze eac h in turn.

I. Ad mi ssi on of t he Com pa c t D isc c on tai nin g R e c or de d Te le ph on e Cal ls

The de fenda

nt conte n d s th a

t t h e trial c ourt err ed by

admitting into evidenc e a c ompact disc containing the re -re cording of si x telephone calls place d by Mr. B untley to the defe ndant. The de fe nd ant a sse rt s th a t th e c omp a c t di sc is a “ du pli c a te ” re c or din g of the c a lls un de r Te nn e sse e Rul e of Evidenc e 1001(4) (“A‘duplicate ’ is a copy produce d . . . by

. . . elec tronic re -re cording. . . .”).

“ A d up lic a te is a dmi ssi ble to the same e xten t a s an or ig ina l un le ss a g e nu ine qu e sti on

is r a ise d a s to the authenticity

of the o ri gi nal.” Te nn. R. Evid. 1003. The defe ndant ar g ues that a g enuine issue exis ts as to the authenticity of the orig inal beca use the call manag ement sy stem rec ording s cannot be authe nticated. This ar g ument, in tur n, require s analy sis pur suant to T ennesse e Rule of Evidenc e 901, which g overns the a

uthentication of e vidence

. Th e de fe nd ant r e lie s o n T e nn e sse e Rul e of Ev ide nc e 90 1( b) (9 ), a lle g ingthat th e State cannot show that the telephone call manag ement sy stem at the workhouse produce d an ac curate re

rec ording of the orig inal telephone c alls. The S tate ins ists that it has met its burden of a uthentication and that the c ompact disc is admissible.

Gene rally , questions conce rning the admissibilit y of evide nce r est within the sound discretion of the trial court, a nd this court will not int erf ere with the exercise of this discretion in the absenc e of a

clea r abuse appea

ring on the fa ce of

the re cord. Se e Sta te v . D uB os e , 953 S.W .2d 649, 65 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 7) ; State v. Va n T r an , 8 64 S.W. 2d

46 5, 47 7 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; Sta te v . H arris , 839 S.W .2d 54, 73 (Tenn. 1992). An abuse of discretion occur s when the tria l court applies a n incorre ct le g a l st and ard

or re a c he s a c on c lus ion

that is “ ill og ic a l or

un re a so nab le and c a

us e s a n in jus tic e to th e p arty c o mp la in in g .” Statev . R uiz , 2 0 4 S

. W

. 3 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 8 (T en n

. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g Ho we ll v . S tat e , 18 5 S. W.3 d 3 19 , 337 (Tenn . 2 00 6) ); see State v . Shirley , 6 S.W .3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999)

. Authe nti c a tio n o f e vid e nc e is g ov e rn e d b y Te nn e sse e Rul e of

Ev ide nc e 90 1, whi ch pro vid e s in pe rt ine nt p a rt

a s f oll ow s: (a) Gene ral Provision. The re quirement of au t h entication or ide ntification as a c ondition prec edent to admis s i bility is satisfied by

evidenc e suff

icient to the
c ourt to s up po rt

a fi nd ingby

the tr ie r o f f

a c t th a t th e mat te r i n qu e sti on is w hat it s p ro po ne nt c la ims

. (b ) I llu str a tio ns

. By way of illustr at i o n only , and not by way of limitation, t he following are examples of authentic a ti o n o r id e nti f ic a ti o n confor ming with the require ments of this rule:

. . . .-9- (9 ) P ro c e ss o r S y ste m. Evidence descr ibing a

proce ss or sy stem used to produce a re sult and sh ow ingthat th e pr oc e ss o r s y ste m pr od uc e s a n a c c ur a te re su lt.

. . . . Tenn. R. Evid. 901. As noted above , Rule 901(b)(9) is for “illustration only .” T enn. R . Evid. 901(b). More over, t h e Advisory Commi ssion Com ments to Rule 901 provide that “[s] ubsection (b)( 9) treats authentication of c omputer docume nts.” Id. , Advisory C o m m ’n C omments. The defe ndant insists, however, that Rule 901(b) (9) se rves a s the only means of a

uthenticati o n fo r the compac t disc. We disagr ee.

Another me ans of a

uthentication of e vid ence pertinent to this case is describe d by subsection (b)( 5), “I dentification of a voice , whethe r hea rd firsthand or

throug h mecha

nical or elec tronic transmission or re cording , by opinion based upon hea

ring the voi ce at any

time under
c ir c ums tanc e s c on ne c tin g it with the a lle g e d spe a ke r. ” B e c a us e the State ha s me t th e re qu ir e me nts of Rule 901(b)( 5), there is no need to fur ther a naly ze whether the compact disc is proper pur suant to Rule 901(b)(9)

.

Detec tive Crews testified that he listened to the s ix calls on the c ompact disc. He stated that he c ould rec o gn i z e the voices of the de fenda nt, Mr. Buntley , and Ms. Merlo f rom the
rec ording s. On three occa sions he testified that he was cer tain he could r ecog nize the defe ndant’s voice. This testimony

suffice s to authenticate the compac t disc under Rule 901(b) (5).

For the above stated reasons t he trial court did not abuse its discre tion in permitti ng t h e p l ayb a c k

o f t h e c o mp a c td i s c t o t h e j u r y.

II . S uff ic ie nc yof t he Ev ide nc e of B rib ing

a W itn ess

I n his challeng e to the suff iciency of the e vidence of bribing a witness, the de fenda nt
ma int a ins that t he evi den c e fa ils to s ho w t hat th e de fe nd ant e ve r i nte nd e d to ind uc e or a c tua lly induced Ms. Mer lo to be absent from Mr. Buntley ’s trial. The defe ndant ar g ues that “nothing that
wa s d isc us se d d

ur inghis c on ve rs a tio ns wi th M s. Me rl o ‘ ind uc e d’ her no t to a

pp e ar a s a

wi tne ss ag ainst Mr. Buntley ,” and that Ms. Merlo had “c onsistently indicated to both [t he def

endant] and Mr. Buntley that she di d not intend to appea r as a witness ag ainst Mr. Buntley .” F urther, the defe ndant maintains that the evidenc e shows that Ms. Merlo wa s not actually induced by the defe ndant and that the de fe nd ant’ s a c tio ns ha d n o a c tua l be ari ngon Ms. Me rl o’ s d e c isi on

no t to a tte nd

tr ia l.

A convicte d criminal def endant who c halleng es t h e sufficie ncy of the e vidence on appea l bear s the burde n o f d em o n s trating why the evidenc e is insufficient to support the ve rdict beca use a guilty

verdic t destroy s the presumption of innocenc e and re place s it with a presumption of g uilt. See State v. Ev ans , 1 08 S.W. 3d 23 1, 23 7 ( Te nn . 2 00 3) ; Sta te v . Ca rru the rs , 35 S.W .3d 516, 55 7- 58 (T e nn . 2 00 0) ; Sta te v . Tu gg le , 63 9 S.W. 2d 91 3, 91 4 (T e nn

. 19 82 ). Th is c ourt mus t r e je c t a defe ndant’s cha lleng e to the suff iciency of the evidenc e if, afte r consideringthe evidenc e in a lig ht-10-

most fa vorable to the prosec ution, we deter mine that any

rational trier

of fa ct could have found the essential elements of t he crime bey ond a re asonable doubt. Se e J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 31 9, 99 S. Ct . 2 78 1, 27 89 (1 97 9) ; Sta te v . H all , 8 S.W .3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999)

. On appe al, the State is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence and all rea sonable a

nd leg itimate infere nces w hich may be dra wn there from. Se e Car

ru the rs , 35 S.W .3d
a t 55 8; Ha ll , 8 S.W .3d at 599. A g uilty verdic t by

the trier of

fac t acc redits the testimony of the State’s wit nesses and resolves all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the prose cution’s theory

. See State v. Bland , 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). I ssues of the c redibility of witnesses, the w eig ht and value of the evidenc e, as well as all fac tual issues raised by the evidenc e ar e re solved by the trier of fa ct, and this court will not re- weig h or re -eva luate the e vidence

. See E vans , 108 S.W .3d at 236; Bland , 9 5 8 S.W .2d at 659. This court may not substit ute its own infere nces dr awn f rom circ umstantial evidence for those dr awn by the trier o f fa ct

. See E

vans , 108 S.W .3d at 236-37; Car ru the rs , 35 S.W .3d at 557.

As a pp lic a ble in the pr e se nt c a se , br ibe ry of a wi tne ss oc c ur s wh e n a pe rs on “ [o]f fe rs , c on fe rs or a g re e s to c on fe r a

ny thi ngof va lue up on

a wi tne ss or

a pe rs on the de fe nd ant b e lie ve s w ill be ca lled as a w itness in any officia l proce eding with intent to

. . . . [i ]nduce the witness to be a bsent from an of

ficial proc eedingto which that witness has bee n leg ally summoned.” T.C.A. § 39-16- 107(a) (1)( C) (2006).

The evidence in the pre sent ca se, in the lig ht most favorable to the State, showed that the de fe nd a nt util iz e d thre e -w ay c a lli ngto c on ne c t Mr . B un tle y and Ms. Me rl o. He c le a rl y p art i c i p a t e d

i nc o n v e r s a t i o n s a

b o u tM r

. B u n t l e y’ s t r i a l , i n c l u d i n g w h e t h e r M s

. M e r l o s h o u l d

t e s t i f y. He told Ms. Merlo that she should “ac t rig ht” or e lse Mr. B untley could fa ce tr emendous jail time. When Ms. Me rlo voiced he r conc erns a bout being arr ested for

contempt and losing her job, the de fe nd ant o ff

e re d to pa y he r b on d “ fo r fr e e .” On ano the r oc c a sio n he state d, “ B ut i f you g o to ja il, we’ ll make y our bond. I t won’t cost y ou a nickel.” The e vidence showed that the de fenda nt’s fathe r owned a bail bonding busine ss at the time. The defe ndant also told Mr. B untley that he would g ive Ms. Merlo money

to leave t o wn , wh i ch Mr. B untley later r epeated to Ms. Merlo. The te lephone
conver sations also show that the def endant k n ew that Ms. Mer lo was under subpoena, but that he
never thel es s attempted to influenc e her to be abse nt at trial. When Detec tive Crews a rre sted the defe ndant, t he defenda

nt stated, “[ W] ell, I g uess I ’m g uilty of that. I offe red to make her bond f or fre e.”

The de fenda nt argues t h at Ms. Merlo had a lrea dy stated her

intention not to t estify before the def

endant of fer ed any thing of value to her , there fore nothing he could do would “induce ” he r. He argue s th a t Ms. Me rl o ma de c le ar h e r i nte nti on s to a bs e nt h e rs e lf

fr om t ri a l du ri ngthe fi rs t J an u ar y 8 , 2 0 0 7 t e l e p h o n e c a l l a n d t h a tt h e d e f

e n d an t ’ s l a t e r

o f f e r t o p ay h e r

b o n d w a s m e r e l y a “comment.” Howeve r, the e vidence , viewed in the lig ht most favorable to the State, shows that the defe ndant did not believe Ms. Mer lo’s repr es en tations that she would not show to trial. After the first conve rsation wit h Ms. Merlo, the de fenda nt told Mr. Buntley , “L ord, she’ s g onna roy ally scre w-11-

y ou tomorrow.” F urther, M s

. Merlo testified that, pr ior to the J anuar y 8 telephone c alls, she had p l an n e d t o t e s t i f y.
The de fenda

nt’s contention that his actions did not a ctually induce Ms. Merlo to not show at trial is unava iling. The statute for bribing a witness cle arly define s the offe nse as of

fer ing any thing of value with intent to induce. See id. § 39-16-107( a)( 1)(C). Intent to induce is sufficie nt to meet the ele ments of the off ense. Ms. Merlo’s failure to be prese nt at trial for r easons other than the defendant’s of

fer s is irreleva

nt. A rational trier

of fa ct could find that the de fenda nt offer ed something of

value, whe ther it was m o n ey t o go t o Nashville or a fre e bond, to a witness that he knew to wa s leg ally

summoned, with the intent of inducing her to not testify at the trial a g ainst Mr. B un tle y

. Thus , a re a so na

ble tr ie r of fa c t c ou ld have fo un d the de fe nd ant g uil ty of br ibi ng a wi tne ss, and whe ther his offe rs ac tually succe eded in inducingMs. Merlo is of no conse quence

. Thus, following the well-settled rules gover ning our revie w of the s ufficie ncy of the convicting evidenc e, we aff irm the defe ndant’s bribe ry of a w itness conviction.

III . Conclusion

Be cause the record supports the t rial court’s admission of the compac t disc into evidence and beca use the e vidence prese nted in the trial court is suffic ient to support the conviction, we a ffirm the jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

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