### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y 4, 200 4

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. M ALC OLM BEN SON

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Lake Coun ty No. 02-CR -8247 R. Lee Moore , Jr., Judge

No. W2003-02211-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Augu st 12, 2004

Following a jury

trial on April 23, 2003, the def endant wa s convicted of

one count of

sale of a controlled substanc e more th an

. 5 gra m s. He wa s sentence d to ten y ear s in the Tennesse e Depa rtment of Corre ction and fine d $3000. He a ppeals this conviction. The defendant arg ues two issues: (1) whe ther the e vidence was suff icient t o s u pport the def endant’ s conviction; and (2) wh e the r the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d by no t a llo wi ng the de fe nd a nt’ s un c le to te sti fy a t tr ia l a s to the ide nti ty of a n in div idu a l in the vid e ota pe of the dr ug sa le . We a ff

ir m th e de c isi on of

the tr ia l c ou rt

.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court is Aff irm ed

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., deliver ed t h e opinion of the c ourt, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

Ramsdale O’ DeNe al, J r., Jackson, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, Malcolm Be nson.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; David H. Findley
, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; and Phill ip Bivens, District Attorne y Gene ral, for

the appe llant, State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

Fa ctual B ackg round

There wer e seve ral witnesses at the defe ndant’s trial. The fir st witness was Special Ag ent Brian Eaton. Ag ent Eaton is a f orensic sc ientist for the Tenne ssee Bure au of I nvestig ation (“TB I ”). He testified that he rece ived a cocaine base sample which weig hed .68 g rams in his laboratory . He also stated that ther e we re se ven roc ks of coc aine in the sa mple.

The ne x t witness for the State wa s Ag ent Robert Ha rrison who wor

ks for the West Tenne ssee J udicial Violent Crime and Drug Task Force (“West Tennessee D rug Task F orce ”). In the Fa ll of-2-

2001, Chief B ry an Ave ry of the Tiptonvi lle Police Depa rtment, contac ted Ag ent Har rison for

a ssi sta nc e wi th an u nd e rc ov e r drug op eratio n. On No ve mbe r 3 0, 20 01 , A g e nt H arriso n me t w ith Ag ent Eric H olmes at a pre arr ang ed location. Ag ent Harrison g ave A g ent Holmes $120 to make a drug purcha se and e quipped Ag ent Holmes’ ve hicle with both audio and video sur veill ance equipment. Ag ent Holmes left the me eting sight a round 2:45 p.m. During the p u rc h as e, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Ag ent Harrison was in a plain, unmarke d vehicle w ith Chi ef A very . Ag ent Har rison and Chief Ave ry

could not see, but co u l d h ea r, the tra nsaction as it occ urre d. After the

c omp le tio n o f the sa le , A g e nt Holm es bro adcast a d e sc ri pti on of the bu y e r a s a

bla c k ma le , th in bu ild , b lue pa nts , b lue je a n c oat, l ig ht mus ta c he , ca p an d hoo d, ta ll, 5' 9 or 5' 10 , a ndapp ro xima te ly 150 pounds. Having hear d the description, Ag ent Har rison and Chief Avery circ led throug h the ar ea

a ndsa w a n in div idu a l matc hin g the de sc ri pti on . T he ind ivi du a l w a s late r i de nti fi e d a s th e de fe nd a nt. Chief Avery

was familiar with the defendant and was a ble to identify

him. Age nt Harrison and Chief Avery then g ot a picture of the defe ndant from the Depa rtment of Safety databa se, and Ag ent Holmes ide nti fi e d th e de fe nd a nt a s th e bu y e r. Ag e nt Ha rriso n did state that the de fe nd a nt’ s ha ir a t the tim e of the trial was differ ent from that of the picture obtained fr om the Depa rtment of Safe ty

databa se. Ag ent Holmes g ave A g ent Har rison the drug s at 3:10 p.m. Ag ent Har rison field tested the substanc e, and it tested positive for c ocaine . The drug s arrived a t t h e T BI lab on Dec ember

5 for more

ex t en s i v e t es t i n g.

Th e ne xt wit ne ss w a s A g e nt H olm e s. Ag e nt H olm e s te sti fi e d th a t he wo rk e d f or the Wes t Tenne ssee Dr

ug Task F orce as a spe cial ag ent. He was i nvolved wit h some underc over work i n L ake County . On the day in question, Ag ent Holm es was approa ched by a black male on the passeng er’ s side of the v eh i cl e. T h e blac k male then c ame a round to the driver ’s side of the ve hicle. Ag ent Holmes asked the black male for se ven roc ks, meaning cra ck coc aine. The black male said y es he would deal with Ag ent Holm es. Ag ent Holmes then a sked for seven r ocks for

$120. The two men

c omp le te d th e de a l. A g e nt Ho lme s ne ve r le ft the ve hic le

. Ag e nt Ho lme s te sti fi e d th a t th e ve hic le

was e quipped with surveillance equipment. There wer e four conce aled c amer as, two shooting the
pa sse ng e r’ s si de a ndtw o s ho oti ng the drive r’ s si de . H e a lso state d that the ind ivi du a l w ho so ld h im the dr ug s w a s r ig ht u p in his win do w. He the n id e nti fi e d th e de fe nd a nt a s th e ind ivi du a l w ho so ld him the dr ug s andstate d th a t th e de fe nd a nt’ s h a ir ha d c ha ng e d s inc e the bu y . A g e nt H olm e s a lso stated he le ft the buy

and we nt to mee t the surveillance team, Ag ent Har rison and Chief Ave ry

and
tur n ed o v er t h e substance he boug ht. Ag ent Holmes said he the n viewed a photogr aph of the defe ndant and identifie d him as the individual from whom he purc hased the cocaine.

The State’s ne x t witness was Chief B ry an Ave ry of the Tiptonvi l l e P o l i ce. Chief Avery te sti fi e d th a t he c on ta c te d th e Wes t T e nn e sse e Judic ia l D ist ri c t T a sk F or c e a nd a sk e d fo r he lp w ith
an oper ation. On Novembe r 30, 2001, Chief Avery was taking notes as part of a ba ck-up te am. He hear d a tra nsmissi on over the radio of what appeare d to be a drug sale. After the s ale wa s completed Chief Avery

and Ag ent Har

rison drove a

round to see if

they could find an individual matching the description given by Ag ent Holm es. Chief Avery and Age nt Har rison drove a

round less than one minute after

the buy and at a bout ten miles per hour. The y saw two pe ople that Chief Ave ry was able to identify , Malcolm Be nson and Edwa rd F rison. At the time of the de fenda nt’s t ri al, Chief-3-

Avery had known Ma lcolm Be nson for seve n or eig ht y ear s. Mr. Be nson and Mr. Frison wer e not dresse d simil arly

on the day

in question.

The de fenda nt then prese nted his case . As his first witness he re ca l l ed Ag ent Har rison. Ag ent Har

rison testified that he ha d seen the videotape of the sale whic h was a dmitted into evidence. He state d that the t ape had bee n in the possession of the State since the time of the drug purcha se. Ag ent Harrison stated t hat t he videotape contains two views because drug deale rs had f igur ed out that there wer e camera s pointed at the driver ’s side of the c ar and knew to g o to the passeng er’ s side.

The nex t witness was the defendant himself. The def endant testified that he was twe nty -two and th at he lived with his mother and his sister. He stated that he ha d a prior c onviction for
po ss e ssi on of

c oc a ine le ss tha n . 5 g rams. Th e de fe nd a nt s ta te d h e ha d s e e n th e vid e ota pe te n to fi ft een t im es an d t he i nd iv id ual in th e vi deo was no t hi m. Th e def end ant des cri bed hi ms elf

as 6 '1",

we ig hin g 17 0 p ou nd s a ndwa s a bo ut the sam e hei ght andwe ig ht o n th e da y in q ue sti on . H e a lso
te sti fi e d th a t he ha d n e ve r o wn e d a blu e je a n ja c ke t or

the ty pe of hat de sc ri be d by

Ag e nt H olm e s. The de fenda nt stated that he worke d the third shift at Poly One and came home afte r work , slee ping until 4:00 or 5:00 o’clock.

The de fenda nt’s mother also testified at the trial. She stated that she reme mbere d November 30, 2001 beca

use of a party being thrown at he r chur ch. Sh e t es t i fi ed that she re membere d the d e f e n d a n ta th o m e a s l e e p a t3 : 0 0 p

. m

. t h a td a y.
The jury viewed the videotape of

the sale a s part of the evidenc e in addition to the fore g oing testimony

.

AN AL YSI S Suf fi ciency of the Evidence

When a def

endant challeng es t he sufficiency of the e vidence , this Court i s oblige d to review that claim ac cordi n g to certain well-settled principles. A ver dict of g uilty , rende red by a jury and

“ app ro ve d b y

the tr ia l ju dg e , a c c redit s th e testimo ny of the ” Sta te ’s wi tne sse s a ndre so lve s a ll conflicts in the testimony

in favor of t he S tate. State v. Cazes, 875 S.W .2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994) ; State v. Har

ris, 839 S.W .2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). Thus, althoug h the accused is originally cloake d with a pre sumption of innocenc e, the jury verdic t of g uiltyremove s this presumption “and re place s it with one of g uilt.” State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1 9 8 2 ). He nce, on a ppeal, the burden of proof r ests with the defe ndant to demonstrate the insuff iciency of the c onvicting e vidence

. I d. Th e re le va nt q ue sti on the re vie wi ng c ou rt mus t a ns we r i s w he the r any ratio na l trie r o f f

a c t c ou ld have f ound the ac cused g uiltyof eve ry element of

the offe nse bey ond a re asonable doubt. See Te nn. R. App. P. 13(e); Ha

rris, 839 S.W.2d at 75. I n making this decision, we ar e to ac cord the State “the strong est leg itimate vie w of the e vidence as we ll as all rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces tha t may be dra wn there from.” See Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d at 914. As such, th i s C o u rt i s prec luded from r eweig hing or rec onsidering the evidenc e whe n evaluating the c onvicting pr oof. State v. Morg an, 929 S.W. 2d38 0, 38 3 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 96 ); Sta te v. Ma tth e ws , 8 05 S.W. 2d 77 6, 77 9 ( Te nn . Crim.-4-

App. 1990). Moreover, we may not substit ute our own “ infere nces f or those dra wn by

the trier of fac t from circ umstantial evidence .” Matthew s, 805 S.W .2d at 779.

Th e jury fo un d th e de fe nd a nt g uil ty of sa le of a con tr ol led s ub sta nc e mor e than . 5 g ra ms. Tenne ssee Code A nnotated section 39-17-417 states that an individual is g uiltyof this crime whe n h e k n o w in g ly

s e ll s a c o n tr o ll e d s u b s tan c e a n dth a t s u b s tan c e w e ig hs mo r e th a n

. 5 g r a ms

. We conclude that the evidenc e as p re s en t ed throug h the testimony of the State’s w itnesses and the videotape of

the drug sale is more tha n adequate t o support the defendant’s c onviction. There is no question that a rational trier of f act c ould find the defendant guilty of sale of a contr olled substance

mor e than . 5 g rams.

Th e re fo re , th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

Lay Te st im ony

The de fenda nt’s second issue is that the tria l court err ed when it did not a llow the defe ndant
to c a ll h is un c le to the sta nd a s a la y op ini on wi tne ss on the qu e sti on of the ide nti ty

of the de fe nd a nt. The de fenda nt wanted to put his uncle on the stand to testify that the per son selling the dr ug s in the video was not, in t h e u ncle’ s opinion, the defendant. At a benc h confe renc e, the tria l court stated that the witness could not testify bec au s e the identity

of the individual in the videotape is a fac t q u e s t i o n f o r t h e j u r y.

Ev ide nc e mus t be re le va nt a nd pr ob a tiv e to an is su e a t tria l in or de r t o b e a dmi ssi ble . St a te v. McCary , 922 S.W .2d 511, 515 (Tenn. 1996); see also Tenn. R. Evid. 402. Evidence is releva nt if it has “any

tendenc y to ma

ke the exis tence of any fac t that is of conseque nce to the determination of t he action more probable or less probable than i t would be without the evidence.” Tenn. R. Evid. 40 1. Ho we ve r, re le va nt ev ide nc e ma y be e xclu de d at tri a l if the pr ob a tiv e va lue of that e vid e nc e “ is substantially

outweig hed by

the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice, c onfusion o f t he issues, or misleading the jury

. . .” Tenn. R. Evid. 403. The de termination of re levanc y is left to the discretion of the trial court, a nd this Court will not overturn a trial c ourt' s determination in this reg ard in the a bsence of

a n a bu se of dis c re tio n. Sta te v. Willi a mso n, 91 9 S. W.2 d 6 9, 78 -7 9 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 95 ); Sta te v. For bes, 918 S.W.2d 431, 449 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).

Rule 701 of the Te nnessee Rules of Evidence provides that a lay witness’s t estimony “in the fo rm of op ini ons or in feren c e s is lim ite d to tho se op ini on s o r i nf e re nc e s w hic h a

re (1 ) r a tio na lly based on the perc eption of the witness a nd (2) hel p fu l t o a clear under standing of the witness’s testimonyor the de termination of a f act in issue.

I n Sa nd e rs v. Un ite d St a te s, 80 9 A .2 d 5 84 (D .C. Ct. Ap p. 2002 ), th e Di stric t of Col umb ia Court of Appea ls made an e x tensive anal y sis of the introduction of lay witness testimonywhen ide nti fying a

de fe nd a nt f

ro m a su rv e ill a nc e ph oto g ra

ph or vid e o in a ser ie s o f F e de ra l c a se s. Sanders, 809 A.2d at 594-97. At the conclusion of i ts analy sis, the court held that befor e allowing such testimony
, “t h e t ri al court at least should be re asonably satisfied that bec ause of the either-5-

obscure d or alter ed appe ara nce of the def endant, the la y

witness is more likely

to acc urate ly

identify the def endant than is the f

actf inder.” I d. at 596. We find Sanders to be persua sive in this reg ard.

I n State v. Powers, the Direc tor of S urveillanc e at Sam’s Town C asino, wher e the victim had last been se en alive, te stified conce rning the videotape and re peate dly ref err ed to an individual in the video as “ Mr. Powers” even thoug h he had no prior knowledg e of Mr. P o we rs

. 1 0 1 S.W .3d 383, 413-14.

Citi ng thi s Co urt’ s o pin ion , th e Te nn e sse e Sup re me Cou rt ru le d tha t the tr ia l cou rt e rr e d in allowing the direc tor’s testimony beca use he had no more familiaritywith the defe ndant than the jury did. Howeve r, the c ourt found this err or to be harmless because “the jurors saw the videotape a nd had the De fenda nt before them ; eac h juror ther efor e had the opportunity to determine f

or her or himself whether

the per son in the video was the D efe ndant.” 101 S.W.3d at 414.

I n t h e c a s e a t h a n d
, t h e r e w a s n o t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s ap p e ar a n c e ha d g re a tly chang ed. Ag ent Holmes did t es t i fy t h at his hair wa s differ ent, but that was the only chang e. The videotape, w hich has be en re viewed by this Court
, h as a cl ear

view of the defe ndant. Under the Sanders g uidelines, the def endant’ s appea

ranc e must have be en alter ed, or the view of the defe ndant

mus t ha ve be e n o bs c ur e d. Ne ith e r o f tho se is the c a se here

. I t is in the tr ia l c ou rt ’s dis c re tio n to admit evidence . We do not find an abuse of discretion her e in the trial c ourt’s disallowanc e of the de fe nd a nt’ s u nc le a s a

wi tne ss.

I n addition, even if disallowing the def endant’ s uncle’s te stimo n y h ad been e rror , it was ha rm le ss e rr or . Ch ie f A ve ry te sti fi e d th a t he ha d kno wnthe de fe nd a nt f or sev en or

e ig ht y e ars

. Th e re fo re , it

is c le ar that Ch ie f A ve ry

wo uldbe ableto i de nti fy the de fe nd a nt. Th e de fe nd a nt a lso
prese nted evidenc e throug h the testimony of his mother that he w as aslee p at t h e time of the drug sale. And f

inally , as in Powers, the jury was pre s ented with both the def endant a nd the videotape
at trial and had the opportunity to de termine whether the individual in the videotape was actua lly the defe ndant. Presente d with all this evi d ence, the jury found that the individual was indee d the de fe nd a nt. Th e re fo re , th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE