# FILED
October 23, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON SEPTEMBER 1998 SESSION

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) NO. 02C01-9801-CC-00029 Appellee, ) ) CARROLL COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. C. CREED McGINLE Y, KENNETH WAYNE NESBITT, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Sale of Cocaine)

FOR THE APPELLANT : STEVEN L. WEST 5 Broadway P.O. Box 400 McKenzie, TN 38201 FOR THE APPEL LEE : JOHN KNOX WALKUP Attorney General and Repor ter DOUGLAS D. H IMES Assistant Attorney Gener al Cordell Hull Buildi ng, 2nd Floor 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493 G. ROBERT RADFORD District Attorney General ELEANOR CAHILL Assistant

District Attorney

General P.O. Box 686 Huntingdon, TN 38344

OPINION FI LED:

AFFIRMED
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE2 OPINION Defendant was found guilty by a Carroll County j ury oftwo counts of selling cocaine under 0.5 grams, Class C felonies. The trial court s entenced defendant to Range II sentence s of ei ght years on each count and ordered them served concurrently. On appeal , the defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred i n refusing to grant an acquittal due to insufficient evidence; and (2) the state failed to establish the r equisite chain of custody in order to properly admit the coc aine into evidence.
This Court finds no revers ible error and affirms the tri al court’s judgment.

FACTS

O n January 7, 1997, undercov er operative Sylv

ester Island made tw o controlled drug buys involv ing target suspects other than defendant. Prior to making each buy, Island met wi th officer Steve Lee at the ai rport. Lee searched Island and his ca r, placed a “wire” on Island, and gave him “buy money.” Lee monitored the transactions and, after each, would meet Island at the airport again to receive and seal t he drugs f or analysi s. Island was paid f or making each buy. In two separate transacti ons occurring on this date, Island gave the buy moneyto the target; the target approachedthe driver of a white Nissan automobile; and the money was given t o the driver in exc

hange for a packet of cocaine. The target then got into the Nissan, circled the block, and upon r eturn de l ivered the packet of cocaine to Island w ho subsequently deliv

ered it to Lee. Island testified that the packets h e saw transferred from the driver of the Ni ssan to the targets were the same packets he received and delivered to Lee. Lee’s testimony established that the Nissan was

registered to defendant. Lee and Island both identified the defendant as the driver of the Nissan.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE3 Whe n suffici ency of th e evidenc e is challe nged, the standard of review i s whether, after viewing the e vidence in the light most favorable t o the state, any rational trier

of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Evans , 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-91 (Tenn. 1992); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). On appeal, the s tate is entitled to

the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all re asonabl e or legitim ate infe rences whi ch may be d rawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 83 5 (Tenn. 1978). This Court will not reweigh the evidence, reevaluate the evidence, nor substitute its evidentiary inferences for those reached by the jur y. State v. Carey , 914 S.W.2d 93, 95 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). Furthermore, in a crimi nal trial, great w eight is given to

the result reached by the jury. State v. Johnson , 9 10 S. W.2d 897, 899 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). Defendant contends the statefailed to meet its burden of proof by failing to show any “transfer.” He emphasi zes that the target suspect s, to whom the dru gs were originally

transferred, did not testify

. On appeal, the defendant claims that beca use he and the target s were left alone for a period of time, out of sight and hearing of Island and Lee, “[a] ny rational t rier of fact shou ld easily deduce t hat it would be extre mely easy for thes e ‘targe t suspects’ to have supplied the coc aine which was lat er turned over to Mr.Lee.” According to the defendant, this necessaril y raises a reasonable do ubt as to the supplier of the drugs, which no rational tr ier of fact could overcome in reachi ng its verdict. Viewing the evidence in the lig ht most favorable to the prosecution and givi ng proper weight to the result

reached by the jury,we f in d sufficient evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant gu ilty of the charged offenses. This issue is without merit.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY4 Defendant challenges the chain of custo dy of the drugs. In order to admit physical evidence, the party offerin g the evidence must “ either introduce a witness who is able to identify the evi dence or must establish an unbroken chai n of custody.” State v. Holloman , 835 S.W.2d 42, 46 (T enn. Crim. App. 1992)(emphasis added). Whether the required cha in of custody has been sufficiently established to justify the admission of ev idence i s a matter committed to the sound di scretion of the trial court, and the court's determination w ill not be overturned

in the absence of a clearly mistaken exercise of that discr etio n. Id. The identity of tangible evidence need not be proven bey ond all possibility of doubt, and all possibility of tampering need not be excluded. The circumstances must establish a reasonable
assur anc e of the identity of the evidenc e. State v. Kilburn , 782 S.W.2d 199, 203 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989). In assigning

error, the

defendant agai n points to the timeperiod during which the targetsand defendant were outside Islan d and Lee’s direct observ ation and the state’s failure to call the targ et suspects as witnesses . He argues that because of these lapses, thestate failed to establish the requisite chain of custody necessary to admit the drugs into ev ide nce. Defendant’s reliance on this principle is misguided. The state is required to introduce a witness w

ho can identify the evidenc e to be admitted. Island testified that th e pac kets of drugs supplied to the target suspe ct s by defendant were the same pack ets given to him and that h e subsequently deliv

ered them to Lee. Lee then transpo rted the dru gs to the cr ime laboratory and picked the drugs up after analysis

. Having supplied thenecessary witness , any questions as to the identity of the drugs, the credibility of the w itness’ testimony, and w hether defendant s old the cocaine which was delivered to Island, were within the purview of the juryto decide. The fact that the targets and the suspect were out of sight for a period of time goes to the weight and credi bility, not the admissi bility of the evidence. This issue is without merit.5 CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, the ju dgment of the trial court is affirmed.

_________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ PAUL G. SUMM ERS, JUDGE

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELL ES, JUDGE