# FILED
January 20, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON OCTOBER 1997 SESSION

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9512-CC-00364 Appellee, ) ) Crockett County V. ) ) Honorable Dick Je rman, Jr., Judge ) JACQUES SHERRON, ) (Certified Question- Suppression) ) Appellant. )

FOR THE APPE LLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: Charles S. Kelly John Knox Walkup 802 Troy Avenue Attorney General & Reporter P.O. Box 802 Dyersburg, TN 38025-0507 Elizabeth T. Ryan Assistant Attorney Gener al 450 James Robertson Parkwa y Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Clayburn L. Peeples District Attorney General Larry Hardister Assistant District A

ttorney General 110 S. College Street Trenton, TN 38382

OPINION FILED: ___________________
AFFIRMED
PAUL G. SUMM ERS, Judge

O P I N I O N-2- The appellant, Jacques Sherron , was indicted for posses sion of over .5 grams of cocaine with i ntent to sell or deliv er, possession of marijuana, and evading arrest. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from his house alleging that the w arrant authorizing the search was insufficient upon its face. The trial court over ruled the motion. The appellant pl ed guilty to possession with the int ent to sell over .5 g rams of cocaine, reservi ng the right to appeal a certified question of l aw regarding the v alidity of the search w

arrant. Upon review, w

e affirm the judgment of the trial cour t.
The appellant contends that the w arrant authorizing the search failed to show the veracity

of the confidential informant or the basi s of his knowledge. The state argues that the search warrant considered together with personally observed information supplied by a police officer was sufficient evidence of corroboration to vali date the warrant.
A trial court’s determination at a suppression hearing is presumptively correct on appeal. State v. Odom , 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996) The appellant has the burden of overc oming the presumption by sh owing that the evidence preponderates aga inst the trial court’s findings. Id. The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that cour ts must utilize the tw

o-pronged Aguilar/Spinelli test in determining w

hether probable cause exis ts to issue a search w

arrant. State v. Jacumin , 778 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn. 1989). Before a trial cour t may issue a search warrant on the basis of information gained from an informant, the police officer requesting the w arrant must make a showing of the informant’s veracity and of the informant’s basis of knowl edge. Id. at 436. How ever, the S upreme Court has stated that this two-prong test should not be applied hypertechnically-3- and that independent police corr oboration could make up deficienci es in either prong of the test. Id.

The affidavit at issue states in pertinent part: [A]ffiant has received information from a reliable and confidential informant and this information has proved to be reliable through first hand information of the a ffiant. This information being that the confidenti al informant has observed cocaine base (c rack) in the possession of and being sold by Jacque

s Sherron in the above described dwelling withi n the past 72 hours. The affiant monitored a controlled buy from Jacqu es Sherron by the confidential informant. The evidence purchased was tested and found to be positive for cocaine bas e. The affiant - police officer monitored a co ntrolled buy from the appellant

. The police officer testified that the i nformant had proven reliable i n the past and that he actually confirmed the informant’s veracity and basis of knowledge by monitoring a buy from the appellant to the informa nt. This independent police corroboration compensated for any alleged deficiency conc erning the history o

f the informant.

This Court concludes that the search warrant wa s properly issued. The appellant has failed to carry his burden. The items seized from his ho me were not subject to suppression. The judgment of the trial court i s affirmed.

__________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, Ju dge-4- CONCUR:

___________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

___________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Jud ge