### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 30, 200 3

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. SHA WN R AF AEL BOU GH

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for K nox Coun ty No. 68041 Richard R. Baum gartner , Judge

No. E2004-02928-CC A-RM -CD - F iled Janu ary 19, 2005

Th is c a se pr e se nts a n a

pp e a l to thi s Co urt a ft e r re ma nd by or de r o f the Te nn e sse e Sup re me Cou rt

. The a ppellant, Shawn R afael B oug h, was c onvicted by a Knox Count y

J ury of fe lony murder a nd espec ially ag g ravated robbe ry . The orig inal opinion of this C ourt in this matter was re lease d on J anuary 12, 2004, and the appellant filed an application for permission to appea l. See State v. Shawn Rafae l Boug h, No. E2002-00717-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 50798 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knox ville, J an. 12, 2004), a ffirme d in part, re verse d in part, and rema nded by State v. Boug h, ___ S.W .3d ___, 2004 WL 2481367. The supre me court gr anted the pe rmission to appeal on May 24, 2004. I n our orig inal opinion, we determined that (1) beca use the appellant’ s first motion for new tria l was not timely filed in reg ards to the felony murder conviction and an untimely notice of a

ppeal r esulted, the appellant wa ived all issu es except for sufficie ncy

of the e vidence in reg ards to the f elony murder conviction; (2) beca

use the appellant’ s amende d motion for new tria l and sec ond amende d motion for ne w trial we re likew ise dee med untimely by this Court, t he only

other issues re maining w ere those raised in the initial mot ion for new trial that relate to the conviction for espec ially

ag g ravated robbery

. As a re sult of the proce dural de terminations, we a ddresse d the following issues in reg ards to the conviction for espec ially ag g ravated robbery on direc t appea l: (1) whether the trial court e rre d i n allowing the State to comment on the appe llant’s failure to produce a witness; (2) w hether the evidenc e wa s insufficient to support the convic tion for espe cially ag g ravated robbery ; and (3) whether the trial court erre d in failing to instruc t the jury reg arding the corr oboration of a ccomplice testimonyand out-of- court c onfessions. As a r esult, we conclude d that the evidenc e wa s sufficient to sustain the convictions. Furthe r, we could find no er ror r equiring reve rsal of the judgme nts of the
tr ia l c ou rt . T he su pr e me c ou rt de te rm ine d on ap pe a l tha t the or ig ina l mo tio n f or ne w t ri a l, a s w e ll

a s th e tw o a me nd e d mo tio ns fo r n e w t ri a l, w e re timel y fi le d a s to bo th c on vic tio ns , e ff e c tiv e ly aff irming in pa

rt, reve rsing in part, a nd rema nding the case to this C ourt for c onsideration of the issues that were prete rmitted by our proce dural ruling s in the orig inal opinion. See State v. Boug h,

__ _ S. W.3 d ___ , 200 4 WL 24 81 36 7 (T e nn . 200 4) . The fo llo wi ng iss ue s w e re no t a dd re sse d b y thi s Court due to our dete rmination that the motion fo r n ew tria l was untimely as to the appe llant’s felony -murder conviction and thus must be addressed on r emand: (1) whether the trial court erre d in allowing the State to comment on the appe llant’s failure to produce a witness; and ( 2) whe ther the trial court e rre d in failing to instruct the jury reg arding the corr oboration of ac complice testimony-2-

and o u t- o f

- c o u r t c o n f

e s s io n s

. T h e f

o ll o w in g is s u e s w e r e p r e te r mi tt e d o n d ir e c t ap p e a l by our conclusion that the a mended motion for new trial was untimely : ( 1) whe ther the tria l court er red by admitting the 911 tape of the victim; (2) whether the trial court err ed in a llowing juror s to take notes andor de re d th e no te s to be de str oy e d p ri or to d e lib e ratio n; ( 3) wh e the r the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in allowing the State to exhibi t the appellant a nd the co- defe ndant to the jury shortly befor e the 911 tape

was play ed; (4) whether the trial court err ed in a llowing the State to inf er criminal c o n d u ct o f t he

app e lla nt d ue to his a sso c ia tio n with kn ow n cr imi na ls a nddr ug de a le rs . A ft e r c on sid e ratio n o f the se

rema ining issues, we aff

irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t i s A ffirm e d.

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in w hich D AVI D H. W ELLES and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

Mark E. Stephe ns, Distric t P u b l i c Defende r and John Halstead, Assistant Public Defe nder f or the appellant, Shawn Ra fea l Boug h.

Pa ul G. Sum me rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Rep orte r; Th oma s E. Willia ms, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Randall E. Nichols, District Attorney Gene ral; and G . Scott Gr ee n, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound We i nc lud e the fa c ts a s se t f orth i n o ur

op ini on in the or ig ina l app e a l:

On Dec ember 19, 1998, the students at Knoxvi lle College started their winter brea k. They wer e re quired to vac ate student housing unt il the s pring semester . Two

s i s t er s fr o m Ne w J er s ey , De an n a an d E d i e J o n es , we re s t u d en t s at Kn o x v i l l e C o l l ege at the time. Afte r pac k i n g u p their belong ings, the two wer e picke d up by a friend and his brot h er

. T h ey dropped of f some of the ir possessions at the apa rtment of Edg ar Johnson, Edie J ones’s bo y fr i en d , which wa s located in Ridg ebrook housing development, and made plans for the rema inder of the evening

. Edie an d De anna J ones planne d to stay

the nig ht in Knox ville before catc hing the ir fl i gh t home the fo l l o wi n g m o rn i n g.
After g oing to the store to ge t alcohol and sna cks, the sisters a nd their two friends stopped at a liquor store. The party then went to the Ex p o I nn off of Ailor Av en u e i n Knox ville where Edie Jones rented room 207 for the nig ht. Room 207 was located direc tly

above y et slightly

behind the hotel’s lobby

and fr ont desk are a.-3-

Te rry Willi a ms w a s th e e mpl oy e e on du ty wh e n Edi e Jone s a ndhe r s ist e r c he c ke d- in to the Ex po I nn.

Whil e che cking -in to the hotel, Dea nna J ones saw the appellant a nd codefe ndant, Craig Shears, in the pa rking lot and invited them to come up to their r oom lat e r o n th a t e ve nin g . D e a nn a a ndEd ie Jone s k ne w b oththe app e lla nt a ndCr a ig Shears be cause they wer e students at Knox ville Coll eg e. The two sisters, the frie nd, and the f riend’s br ot her hung out in the room, drinking a lcohol and smoking marijuana

. At s o m e point , Dea nna Jones fell asleep. While she wa s asleep, the frie nda ndhis br oth e r l e ft the ho te l r oo m f

or the nig ht.

Montes Be st relieved T erry Wil liams at t h e front desk of the hotel at approximately

11:00 p.m. Montes Best wor ked at the Expo I nn until around seventhirty a.m. the next m o rn i n g an d was wor king at the desk whe n two Afric anAmeric an men who claimed to be looking for a friend in r oom 207 a pproac hed the locked f ront doors late at nig ht. Dea nna and Edie Jones remember the def endant, c odefe ndant and a nother male student stopping by room 207 for a

few minutes before midnight. The appellant and C raig Shears stopped by ag ain after mi dnight, a sking to use the telephone . The a ppellant used the te lephone to ca ll s ev er al ai rlines. He

a tte mpt e d to se c ur e a

fl ig ht f ro m T e nn e sse e thr ou g h Ch ic a g o to Ca lif or nia , h is h ome state. Dea nna J ones was in the restroom during part of the appellan t ’s telephone

conver sation, but was able to he ar most of wh at t h e ap pellant was sa y ing on the telephone. When she exit ed the bathroom, she noticed a g un underne ath the corner of the be d w he re the app e lla nt w a s si tti ng . Sh e tol d th e app ella nt n ot t o f or g e t hi s g un ; he tha nk e d h e r a ndpu t th e g un in his so c k. At that time , the app e lla nt a ndCr a ig She ars le ft

the ro om.

Som e tim e a ft e r m idn ig ht, the ap pe lla nt a ndCr a ig She ars a g a in r e turne d to room 207 for the th i rd t i m e, again to use the telephone. D eanna J ones hea

rd the appellant a sk the person on the other end of the phone about g etting a ride. Edie w as

a sle e p. Th e tw o me n le ft the ro om a ft e r the ph on e c a ll.

The a ppellant and Cra ig Shea

rs ca me bac k to room 207 for a fourth and f

inal time to tel l D e a n n a a n d E d ie Jo n e s th a t th e y w e r e le a v in g

. A t tria l, D e a n n a J ones te sti fi e d th a t it

wa s “ sti ll d ark ” wh e n th e tw o me n le ft the hotel r oo m f

or the la st time. Howeve r, the stateme nt she g ave t o t h e police on the day of the incide nt indicates that the two le ft the hotel room ar ound 9:00 a.m. on Dec ember 20, 1998.

During the cour se of the e ven i n g, Dea nna Jones drank appr ox imately five

c up s o f a pu nc h ma de fr om liq uo r a nd smo ke d a mari jua na “ blu nt” the size of

a sma ll

c ig ar tha t sh e sh are d w ith e ve ry on e in the ro om. Ed ie Jone s sm ok e d a pp ro xima te ly
tw o to thr e e ma

ri jua na “ blu nts ” with her fri e nda ndhis br oth e r a nddr a nk a sma llE d g a r J o h n so n w a s E d ie J o n e s’s b o yfrie n d

. 1

-4- amount of alc ohol. She complained of a head cold and cla imed to sleep a g reat deal

o f t h e e v en i n g.

Mo nte s B e st, the de sk c le rk , spo ke wi th B ill y Ol dh a m, the pe rs on re sp on sib le for r elieving her post, via tele phone the morning of De cembe r 20, 1998. He g ave he r permission to lock up and g o home bef ore he arrived at the hotel be tween e ight a nd

e ig ht- thi rt y

a .m.

When Edie J ones woke up ear ly on the morning of De cembe r 20, 1998, she

co u l d n ot find matches or a lig hter to lig ht a cig are tte, so she walke d down to the lobby /front desk a

rea of the hotel to se e if she could g et a lig ht for her cig are tte. She spoke wit h the gentleman in the l obby
, Billy Oldham. He offer ed her a c up of cof fee

. She declined, looke d at seve ral of th e fl i er s o n the bulletin board in the lobby , and he a de d b a c k u ps ta ir s to g e t r e a dy fo r he r fl ig ht. Ar ou ndte n a .m. , D e a nn a a ndEd ie he ardso me thi ng do wn sta ir s in the lob by are a lik e thr e e or

fo ur g un sh ots

. J ust after ten a.m. on De cembe r 20, 1998, off icer s of the Knoxvill e Police Depa rtm en t we re dispatc hed to the Expo I nn in response to a 9-1-1 c all from the ho te l’ s c le rk

that th e re ha d b e en a ro bb e ry a ndsh oo tin g . A c c or din g to the vic tim
, Billy Oldham, two tall, thin black males from room 207 demande d money and shot him . A c c or din g t o th e Knoxville Cou nty Me dic a l E xami ne r, the vic tim die d a s a result of c omplications from multip l e g un shot wounds. The victim was shot four tim e s, on c e in the c he st u nd e r the ri g ht arm, onc e in the up pe r l e ft ba c k, a ndon c e in

eac h side of the lowe r bac k.

Da nte Smith pic ke d up the app e llant a ndCr a ig She ars a t th e Expo I nn sh ortly

a ft e r t e n a .m. on De c e mbe r 20, 19 98 , af te r b e ing c a lle d r e pe a te dly by the app e lla nt. Mr. Smit h was Edg ar J ohnson’s roommate. He dr ove to the hotel whe re he saw the 1
ap p e l l a n t a n d C ra i g S h ea rs ru n n i n g o u to f t h e l o b b y

. T h e ap p el l an twa s ca rr y i n g a pla sti c tub wh ic h c on ta ine d e nv e lop e s. Da nte Smith te sti fi e d th a t:

He [the appe llan t ] wa s just talking a lot. He kept on say ing something a

bout he thinks he killed--or he thinks he shot somebody inside. He wasn' t sure, but--he said he shot him, but he wa sn’t sure if he killed him or not. . . . He wa s say ing some thing a bout, ‘I f y ou cut the phone lines, I

did--I did the rest,’ or , ‘I

was doing the rest,’ or something like tha t.

Mr. Smith drove the two men t owar ds Knox ville Coll eg e whe re he stopped the ca r and a sked them to g et out be cause he “ha [d] never done anything like this.” Mr. Smith t hen drove back to his apa rtment at Ridge brook.-5- The a ppellant and Cra ig Shea

rs later showed up a t Mr. Smit h’s Ridge brook apartment and started c ounting money from the plastic c ontainer the y car ried fr om the hotel. The a

ppellant aske d Mr. Smith if he would “hide the g un for him.” Mr. Smit h ref used, asking the appellant if he was “cr azy .” The appellant a lso asked Mr. Smith to g iv e th e tw o a r id e to th e b u s s to p o r a ir p o r t. A g a in
, M r

. Sm ith ref used. T h e ap p e l l a n ta n d C r a i g S h e ar s l e f t$ 2 5

- 3 0 f o r M r

. S m i t h

. H e d i d n o t t ak e t h e m o n e y, bu t g a ve it t o s ome on e wh o n e e de d th e mon e y to t ra ve l ho me fo r the ho lid a y s. I nv e sti g a tor

A. J. L oe ff

le r a rrive d at th e Expo I nn aro un d 1 0:1 5 a .m. Al mos t immediately , he g ot into the ambulance w ith the victim. Th e v i ct i m was “ g asping fo r a ir ” a ndke pt s a y ing “ I ’m los ing it. I

a m g oin g ou t. I

a m lo sin g it. ” Th e vic tim stated that he “ was wor

king the desk, and two g uy s came in from room 207, asked me for my

money , and then shot me.” The victim described t he per petra tors as “two black male s, tall, slender” with “a little bit of fac ial hair.” He told Off icer L oeff ler that he thoug ht that the two men g ot into a “brown Japanese model” ca r. That c ar was late r identified a s the ca r of Ray etta Woodruff.

Af te r i nte rv ie wi ng the vic tim
, Of fi c e r L oe ff

le r we nt ba c k to the Expo I nn to observe the scene of the incident and collect more information. He noted t h at t he
te le ph on e lin e s in the lob by we re c ut a s we ll a s tho se in the a dja c e nt o ff ic e s o f r oo ms 10 5 a nd10 6. Th e c ri me sc e ne sp e c ia lis t, Joe Cox, f ou ndthr e e fe de ra l .2 2 lo ng ri fl e

cartridg e cases behind the front desk a nd two cartridg e ca ses locate d elsewhe re in the lobby ar e a

. T h e d e ta il ta

p e o n th e c a s h r e g is te r in d ic a te d th a t th e “ n o

- s a le ” button was pushed at 10:03 a.m. on Dece mber 20, 1998.

Af te r ins pe c tin g the sc e ne of the c ri me , Of fi c e r L oe ff

le r pr oc e e de d to interview D eanna

and E d i e J o n es

. He took the two wome n to the bus station and airport, hoping that they

could identify

the ap p el l an t and Craig Shears. Of fice r L oeff le r l oc a te d a

re se rv a tio n o n G re yho un d f or Cr a ig She ars to C hic a g o a t 7 p .m.

on Decem ber

20 , 1 99 8. Of

fi c e r L oe ff

le r b oa rd e d th e bu s, bu t di d n ot f indCr a ig Shears on boa

rd.

Acc ording to an employ ee w ith America n Eag le Airlines i n Kn o x ville, the g uest passeng er list from a f light fr om Nashville to Chicag o on Dec ember 20, 1998 contained the names of the appe llant and Craig Shears a nd showed that the two me n

wer e seated in seats 23A a nd 23B. The rese rvations indicated that the tickets wer e purcha sed at the sa me time. The a ppellant ca lled Mr. Smith in J anuary of 1999. He asked Mr . S m i t h i f he ta lked to the police a bout the incident. Mr. Smith tol d the appellant he had not spoken with the police. A few months late r, Mr. Smith t alked
to s e ve ra l de te c tiv e s r e g ard ing his kn ow le dg e of the inc ide nt.

I saiah Dixon has known the appe llant since they wer e eleve n y ear s old. They lived near eac h other in San F ranc isco and a ttended school tog ether . Mr. Dixon s aw the appe llant in California sometim e after the D ece mber incide nt when the a ppellant-6-

told Mr. Dix on that he wa s on bail for a homicide cha rg e in Tenne ssee. Mr. D ix on stated that the a

ppellant “told me that he w as try ing to pull a heist, and ther e wa s [s ic] things that we nt wrong

. . . . The man w as taking too long, so he let him have it.” Mr. Dix on also stated the appellant “let him [t he cle rk] have it” bec ause “ he wa s taking too much time to open the safe . He wa s stalling.” The appellant told Mr. D ix on that he g ot a “c ouple thousand” in the heist
, but that “he ha d went [sic] to jail shortlyafte r that for like a

war rant or some thing, a nd when he had g ot [sic] ba ck to school, all the

mon e y wa sn ’t the re .” At

the tim e of tr ia l, Mr

. Di xon wa s inc arc e rate d in a Ca lif or nia p r i s o n a s a

r e s u l to f a g u i l t y p l e a

f o r s e c o n d d e g r e e b u r g l ar y.
On May 6, 1999, the Knox C o u n ty Gra nd J ury

returne d a multiple-count indictment ag ainst the appe llant and Craig Shears for one c ount of first deg ree

m u r d e r , o n e c o u n to f

f e l o n y m u r d e r , a n do n e c o u n to f e s p e c i a l l y a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y.

The a pp el l an t was ar

rested on May

9, 1999, at his mother’s home in San Fr anci s co , California. On Ma y 8, 1999, L isa Curry

with the San Fr ancisc o Police De pa rt me nt p ho ne d th e app e lla nt’ s h ome po sin g a s D e a nn a Jone s. S he was tol d wher e to find the appellant and ins tructed to call back t he nex t day

. On May 9, 1999, the po lic e su rr ou nd e d th e ho us e sh ortly be fo re Of

fi c e r C ur ry ph on e d th e app e lla nt, ag ain pos ing a s Dea nna Jones. The appe llant was appr ehende d at the bac k door of the re sidence

.

Offic er L oeff

ler wa s prese nt during the ar re s t an d rec orded a

conver sation with the appellant later t hat day . During the conve rsation, the appe llant indicated that he stay ed at “ a hotel” w ith “D eanna and Edie ” the nig ht he vac ated the dorms for Christ ma s b re ak a nd“ le ft in the mornin g

. . . abo ut 9:3 0. ” He state d th a t “ the ho me bo y gav e m e a ride to Nashville. I took my plane f rom there .” He told Office r L oeff ler that the g uy

who g ave him and Cra ig Shea rs a ride was na med “Te d” and that he dr ov e a

va n. Acco rd ing to the app e lla nt, “ Te d” wa s a g uy wh o “ jus t c ome [si c] up to the school, y ou know . . . he just g ive [sic] u s ri des and stuff so I asked him could he g ive me a ride

. . . the night befor e

. . . he said alrig ht, I ’ll be there .” He stated that “Te d” picke d him and Craig S h ea rs u p at ar ound 9:00 or 9:30 a.m. on Dec ember

20, 1998 and took the m stra ight to N ashville wher e he dr opped them off at the air port afte r making sure their flig hts were not delay ed.

State v. Shawn Rafae l B oug h, 2004 WL 50798, at *1-*6. F ollowing a jury trial, the appe llant was fo un d n ot g uil ty

of fi rs t- de g re e pr e me dit a te d mu rd e r, bu t g uil ty of fe lo ny mu rder a nde sp e c ia lly ag g ravated robbe ry

. An a ly sis

We b egi n o u r a n al y s i s b y

ad d re s s i n g t h o s e i s s u es i n o u r o ri gi n al o p i n i o n t h at we re n o tap p l i ed
t o t h e f e l o n y m u r d e r

c o n v i c t i o n d u e t o o u r d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e m o t i o n f o r n e w t r i a l w a s u n t i m e l y. We see no re ason that the a naly sis applied there in to the c onviction f or espec ially ag g ravated robbe ry-7-

would be diffe rent whe n applied to the convic tion for fe lony murder. A ccor dingly , we a dopt the analy sis in our origina l opinion as to those issues and conclude that: ( 1) while the State’ s ref ere nce to a “missing w itness” during closing arg ument was improper, the er ror wa s harmless bey ond a

rea sonable doubt ; (2 ) the witnesses De anna Jones, Edie Jones, and Dante Smith were not

a c c omp lic e s w ho se te sti mon y re qu ir e d c orr ob orat ion , a ndthe re fo re the tr ia l c ou rt didno t e rr

in failing to give a jury

instruction on acc omplice testimony ; and (3) the appe llant waived a ny objection
to the te sti mon y of I sa iah Di xon re g ard ing the app e lla nt’ s ou t- of -c ou rt c on fe ssi on by his fa ilu re to raise the issue at trial. See B oug h, 2004 WL 50798, at *6-*14.

I ntroduction of the 911 Ta pe

Th e app e lla nt co mpl a ins that th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in a dmi tti ng he a

rs a y te sti mon y

of the vic tim in the form of the 911 tape. In this recor ding the victim, who has just been shot seve ral times, states he is l os ing c on sc iou sn e ss an d fe ars he “

. . . ca n’ t mak e it m uc h lo ng e r .

. . .” I n a dd iti on , d ur ing thi s telephone c onversation the victim described hi s assailants as two tall thin black men sta y ing in Room 207. Spe c if

ic a ll y , th e ap p e ll a n t c la im s th a t t h e s e s tate me n ts w e r e n o t a d mi s s ib le a s a dy ing decla ration or a n excited utteranc e and the prej u d i ci al n ature of the tape outweig hs its probative

va lue . T he app e lla nt c on te nd s that the tr ia l c ou rt ’s de c isi on to a llo w the int ro du c tio n o f the tape int o evidenc e constituted plain er ror. The S tate dis ag ree s, citing the appellant’ s failure to object to the introduction of the tape at trial.

First, we note that the appe llant filed a motion in limine prior to t rial attempting to exclude the 911 tape from evidence. Howeve r, t here is nothing in the record to sug g est that the trial court

ever addre ssed or rule d on the motion. Further , the Def endant ne ver c ontemporane ously objected to the introduction of the tape or otherw ise broug ht the unadjudicate d motion in l imi n e to the attention of the trial c ourt. We think these circ umstances a mount to a waiver of this t h e i s s u e on appea l. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a ); St at e v

. Killebrew , 760 S.W .2d 228, 235 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988); Acc ording ly
, we f ind no error . See State v. L arryEldon Shannon, No. M2000-00985-CCAR3CD, 2001 W L

846030, at *9 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Jul y 27, 2001), perm. to appeal denied ( Tenn. 2001). Ne ith e r d oe s th e int

ro du c tio n of the 91 1 ta

pe c on sti tut e pla in e rr or

a s a rg ue d b y the app e lla nt. I n order to r eview an issue under the plain err or doctrine, five fac tors must be prese nt: (1) the re cord

mus t c le arl y

e sta bli sh wh a t oc c ur

re d in the tr ia l c ou rt ; ( 2) a c le ar a ndun e qu ivo c a l rule of la w m us t have be en bre ache d; (3) a substantial right of the def endant must have been adverse ly aff ecte d; (4)
t h e a c c u s e d d i d n o t w a i v e t h e i s s u e f o r t a c t i c a l r e a s o n s ; a n d ( 5 ) c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t he e rr oris

ne c e ssa ry to do su bs ta nti a l jus tic e

. Se e Sta te v. Smith, 24 S.W. 3d27 4, 28 2- 83 (T e nn . 2 00 0) ; State

v. Adkisson, 899 S.W .2d 626, 641 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); see also Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b). The

rec ord does not support a f inding that the a dmission of the 911 tape wa s plain err or. Ther e is no brea ch of a clea

r and unequivoca l r

ule of law by the trial court as alleg ed by the appe llant. Wi thout definitively

addre ssing the issue, it is ce rtainly more than a

rg uable that the vic tim’s statements were excited utteranc es, if not dy ing decla rations. The rec ord is c lear that the appellant failed to objec t to the introduction of the tape and ther e is no evidenc e as to why the appe llant waived the issue. Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.-8- Ex hibition of Appellant to J ury

The a ppellant next contends that the trial court erre d in allowing the State to exhibi t him and the co- defe ndant to the jury prior to the playing of

the 911 tape i n wh i ch t h e v i ctim describe d the perpe trators a s two tall, thin bl ack ma les. Specif i ca l l y , t he appe llant arg ues in his brief that the “ef fec t of the S tate’s actions was to highlig ht and ex ploit the powerful emoti on of t he 911 tape ” and that “the manne r of e x hibiting the appe llan t and the co-def endant to the jury

three minutes before the 911 tape was t he practica l equivalent of a show-up ide ntification.” The appellant c ites State v. Colli ns, 986 S.W .2d 13 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) , State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W .2d 872 (Tenn. 1988) , and State v. J ackson, 52 S.W.3d 661 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001), to support his a rg ument that the tape w as extremely emotional testimonythat should ha ve been excluded, comparing it to autopsy photos and victim impact evidence . The State a rg ues that the a

ppellant was not unfa irly

prejudice d.

Although the appellant fra mes this issue as one of wrong fully exhibi ting the a ccuse d to the jury , his arg ument focuse s on the emotional impact of the 911 tape and its pre judicial nature . The

c a se he re in i s r e a dil y

dis tin g uis ha

ble fr om the c a se s r e lied up on by the app e lla nt t o s up po rt

his arg ument. I n State v. Colli ns, this C ourt determined that autopsy photogr aphs of a

murdere d infant

wer e cumulative and more prejudicia l tha n probative wher e there was e x tensive medica l testimony as to the cause of de ath of the infa nt. 986 S.W .2d at 20; s ee al s o J ac k s o n , 52 S.W .3d at 668-69 (dete rmining tha t cumulative evidenc e o f a p r ejudicial natur e should be e x cluded) . The c onversation

on the tape w a s n ot c umu la tiv e a s th e tape c on ta ine d d e ta ils that th e vic tim didno t di sc los e to Detec tive L oeff

ler upon his ar

rival. F urther, the tape did not consist o f “[ ev i d en ce] reg arding the emotional impact of the murde r on the victim’s fa mily .” Ne sbit, 978 S .W.2d at 891. L astly , play ing the tape w as helpful in esta blishing the re liabilityof the victim’s st at em en ts to Detective L oeff ler and wa s not primarily intended to “elicit emotions of bias, sy mpathy , hatre d, contempt, re tribution, or h o rr or.” Collins, 986 S.W .2d at 20. While the State’s trial strateg y of exhibit ing the appellant to the jury

in light of the de scription gi v en by the victim was most likely unfavor able to the

app e lla nt’ s c a se , the re is no ind ic a tio n that it wa s un fa ir ly pr e jud ic ia l. Th is iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t.

J ury Notes

Th e app e lla nt a

rg ue s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt

e rr e d inpe rm itt ing the jur or s to take no te s a t tria l. Spe c if ic a lly , he arg ue s tha t the “ pr ob le m in thi s c a se c ome s f ro m a llo wi ng the jur or s to take no te s, but then ordering the notes to be destroy ed.” T he State ar gu es t h at b ecause the de struction of the notes made a ny

prejudice to the appellant impossible, the appe llant’s claim is without merit.

Th e tr ia l c ou rt

ha s the di scr etion to a llo w j ur or s to take no te s d uring the c ou rs e of a tr ia l. Watkins v. S tate, 393 S.W .2d 141, 147 (Tenn. 1965); State v. Chance , 778 S.W .2d 457, 462 (Tenn. Crim. App

. 1 9 8 9 )

. A d e f e n d a n t is n o t e n ti tl e d to r e li e f in th a t r e g ar d u n le s s th e r e is a s h o w in g of prejudice . Watkins, 393 S .W.2d at 149. I n the case her ein, the trial c ourt permitted the jury to take notes during the pre sentation of proof . At the conc lusion of the proof, but prior to de liberation, the trial court or dere d the notes destroy ed . I nitially
, defe nse counsel objected to the ta king of notes by-9-

the jury an d re q u ested that the note s be sea led for r eview on a ppeal. The trial court r efuse d that reque st and order ed the notes de stroy ed. The appellant ha s failed to s h o w how the trial c ourt’s decision to allow the jury to take notes or the decision to order destruction of the notes prejudice d his de fe ns e

. Con sid e ri ng the app e lla nt’ s in abil ity to s ho w p re

jud ic e , w e fi ndthat th e tr ia l c ou rt did

n o t a b u s e it s d is c r e ti o n

. Se e St a te v

. Ja me s A lf o n s o V a u g h n , N o

. 0 1 C0 1

- 9 6 1 2

- CR

- 0 0 5 2 3
, 1 9 9 8 WL 255438, at *10 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Nashville, May 21, 1998), perm. to appea l denied (Te nn. 1999). This issue is without merit.

I mproper A rg ument

The a ppellant ar g ues on appe al that he is entitled to a new trial bec ause the prosec utor stated du ri ng c los ing arg ume nt tha t “ bir ds of a fe a the r f loc k to g e the r” in r e sp on se to a tte mpt s b y de fe ns e

c ou ns e l to imp e a c h th e Sta te ’s wi tne sse s w ith a lle g a tio ns of va ri ou s f or ms of ill ic it b e ha vio r. Whil e the appe llant admits that he failed to object to the prosec utor’s statements a t trial, he ar g ues that the trial court commit ted pl ain error byallowing the statements to be made . The State c ounters that the appellant wa ived the issue by failing to object at trial, and, in the alternative, t hat t he prose cutor’s
statement wa s not “plainly improper” such that it would have r equire d a cur ative instruction.

I n g ener al, the scope of closing arg ument is subject t o the t rial court’s discretion. Counsel fo r bo th the pr os e c uti on a nd the de fe ns e sh ou ld be pe rm itt e d wi de la tit ud e in a rg uin g the ir

c a se s to the jury . Stat e v

. Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d 726, 737 (Tenn. 1998). H oweve r, “a rg ument must be temperate, . . . pre dicated on e vidence introduced during the trial,” and rele vant to the issues being
tr ie d. Sta te v. Ke e n, 92 6 S .W .2 d 727, 73 6 ( Te nn . 1 99 4) . T hu s, the Sta te mus t no t e ng a g e in

arg ume nt d e sig ne d to in fl a me the jur or s a ndsh ou ld r e stric t it s c omm e nts to m a tte rs pr op e rl y in evidenc e at tria l. State v. Hall, 976 S.W .2d 121, 158 (Tenn. 1998)

.

When a re viewing court finds improper arg ument, State v. Philpot t, 882 S.W .2d 394 (Tenn. Cr im. Ap p. 19 94 ), se ts ou t fi ve fa c tor s to de te rm ine “ wh e the r a pr os e c uto r’ s impr op e r c on du c t c ou ld have a ffe cted the ve rdict to the pre judice of the defe ndant.” I d. at 408. The f actor s are : (1) the conduct c omplained of in lig ht of the fa cts and c ircumstance s of t he case; (2) the cur ative mea sures undertaken; (3) the intent of the prosec utor in ma king the improper rema

rks; (4) the cu m u l ati ve eff ect of the improper c onduct and a ny other e rror s i n t h e re co rd ; and, (5) the re lative streng th or

wea kness of the c ase. I d. (citing J udg e v. State, 539 S.W.2d 340, 344 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976)).

The State ha s corr ectly noted that the appellant f ailed to lodg e a c ontemporane ous objection to any of the c omments about which he complains on appea l. Ty pically
, the failure to obje ct to the statement at trial r esults in a waiver on appea l of any complaint conce rning the prosec utor’s comments. Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a) ; State v. Thornton, 10 S.W .3d 229, 234 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999); State v. Gre en, 947 S.W .2d 186, 188 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State v. L ittle, 854 S.W .2d 643, 651 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992)

. Thus, if this Court is to revie w t he claims of prose cution misconduct we must do so through the proce ss of “plain err or” review embodied i n Tenn. R. C rim. P. 52(b) which pr ov ide s:T hi s r ul e by i t s t er ms a l l ows pl ai n erro r re vi ew onl y wh er e t her e i s a fai l ur e t o al l ege er r or i n t he new t r i al 2

m o tio n o r w here t he error i s no t rai sed b ef o re t he ap p el l at e co urt

. N evert hel ess t he rul e has been i nt erpret ed by t he appel l at e c our t s t o al l ow appel l at e rev i ew under s om e c i r cums t anc es i n t he abs enc e of a c ont emp oran eous object i on as

w e ll.

-10- An er ror whic h has af

fec ted the substantial rights of an acc used may be noticed at any time, e v e n th o u g h n o t r a is e d in th e mo ti o n f o r a n e w tria l o r a s s ig n e d a s err or on appea l, in the discretion of t h e ap p ellate c ourt wher e nec essary to do substantial justice. 2

This Court has, in its d i s cr et i o n , from time to time review ed alleg ations of prosec utorial misconduct as “pla in error ” eve n in the absenc e of a contempora neous objection. See, e.g ., State v. Marsha ll, 870 S.W .2d 532 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) , overr uled on other g rounds by

State v. Carter
, 988 S.W .2d 145 (Tenn. 1999) (dete rmining in a bsence of objec tion that prosecutor’ s jury arg ument was not plain er

ror) ; State v. Butler, 795 S.W.2d 680 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) ( considering whether statements of prose cutor were plain err or despite lack of objection by defe ndant); Ang lin v. St ate, 55 3 S. W.2 d 6 16 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 77 ) ( de te rm ini ng that in or de r t o ju sti fy re ve rs a l on the ba sis of improper arg ument and rema rks of counsel in absenc e of obje ction, it must aff irmatively

appea r that the improper c onduct af fec ted the ver dict to the prejudice of the de fenda nt).

I n exercising our discre tion as to whet her pla in error revie w under

Tenne ssee Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) is appr opriate, the Tenne ssee Supre me C ourt has di rec ted t hat we e x amine five fac to r s , a ll o f

w h ic h mu s t b e p r e s e n t i n a c a s e ino r d e r

f o r r e v ie w u n d e r

Ru le 5 2 ( b ) to be

app ro pr ia te . A s n ote d p re vio us ly , th e se fi ve f a c tor s a re a s f oll ow s: ( 1) the re c or d mu st c le arl y establish what occ urre d in the trial court; (2) a cle ar a nd unequivoca l rule of law must have bee n brea ched; ( 3) a substantial rig ht of t he defenda nt must have bee n adver sely aff ecte d; (4) the a ccuse d did not waive the issue f or tactical rea sons; and (5) c onsideration of the err or is nece ssary to do substantial justi ce. State v. Smith, 24 S.W .3d 274, 282-83 (T enn. 2000) ( citing A dkisson, 899 S.W .2d at 641).

For a “substantial right” of the a ccuse d to have been affe cted, the err or must have pr ejudiced the app e lla nt. I n o the r w or ds , it mus t ha ve a ff

e c te d th e ou tc ome of

the tr ia l c ou rt

pr oc e e din g s. Un it e d St a te s v

. O la n o , 5 0 7 U

. S. 7 2 5
, 7 3 2

- 3 7 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( a n a ly zi n g th e s u b s ta n ti a ll y s im il ar F eder al Rule of Criminal Proc edure (b)) ; A dkisson, 899 S.W .2d at 642. This is the same type of inquiry as the harmless error

analy sis under Te n n es s ee Rule of Appellate Procedur e 36(b) , but the appellant bear s the burden of

persua sion with respec t to plain error claims. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732-37.

I n the ca se her ein we are not pe rsuade d that the appellant ha s succe ssfully car ried his burde n of per suasion in establishing a plain err or claim. First, the rec ord is c lear as to what happe ned in the trial court. In closing arg ument the prosec utor rec apped the testimonyat trial, including that of I saiah Dix on, who t estified that the appellant confe ssed his involvement in the crime to him. During

cross-e x amination, Mr. Dixon admit ted that he ha d a subst an t i al cr i minal rec ord and tha t he was-11-

seeking leniency

by testify ing a g ainst the appellant. Mr. Dix on also admitted to using a nd selling

coca ine and marijuana. The prosec utor stated:

Now, does I saiah Dixon have something to ga in? Of c ourse, he does. I am not going to stand up here and tell y ou differ ently

. Of course he does. He is try ing to h e lp h ims e lf

ou t on so me bu rg lary

c ha rg e s, on so me do pe c ha

rg e s that he ha s g ot. W h a td o e s

. . . [ d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l ] d o o n c e a g a i n ? “ Y o u t ak e e c s t a c y; yo u s e l l e c s t a c y. You take ma

rijuana; y ou sell marijuana. Y ou take c ocaine ; y ou sell coca ine.”

Di dn ’t bo the r him [the app e lla nt] e no ug h n ot t o b e his frie ndno w, didit? Bu t, oh, don’t y ou believe him, be cause he is tha t kind of person. Well, birds of a feather flock tog ether

.

I n rebuttal a

rg ument, afte r further re cappinga llo f th e te stimonyimplicating the a ppellant and

re s p o n d i n g t o d ef

en s e c o u n s el ’s ar gu m en tt h at al l o f t h e w i t n es s es aga i n s tt h e a p p el l an twe re l y i n g, the prosec utor stated:

Yo u k no w, we wa nt to h a ve ou r c ake a nde a t it , to o, a ndba sh a ll o f the se people a nd talk about what ter rible, terrible awf

ul people they

are . But who is friends with them? Him [ the appe llant] . You ca n’t have y our ca ke and e at it, too.

I am g oing to a sk y ou why - - why in the world and how in the world - - he is t rying to c on vin c e y ou th a t no t on e , n ot t wo , n ot thr e e , b ut f ou r d if fe re nt p e op le

came into this courtroom and lied on him, took that st and and r aised their right ha nd and lied on him, and nothing contra dicts what they have sa id that y ou have he ard fr om the re

. Th e on ly thi ng that c on tr a dic ts the m is

. . . [de fe ns e c ou nsel ’s] fertile imag ination.

Al tho ug h th e ma nn e r i n w hic h th e se po int s w e re ma de arg ua bly c ro sse s th e lin e int o improper e x pressions of opinion or per sonal belief a s to the cred i b i l ity of witnesses, no c lear

and unequivoca l rule of law has bee n brea ched. Further, w hat is or is not improper reb u t t al ar g ument may very well vary depending on the contex t in which it was made. See Judge, 539 S.W.2d at 343 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976) (holding that propriety of prose cution comments must be evaluated in light

o f w h e th e r th e y w e r e in d ir e c t r e s p o n s e to d e f e n s e ar g u me n t r a th e r th a n g r a tu it o u s ) ; se e a ls o G o lt z, 111 S.W .3d at 6. The sa me might be said of t h e prosec utor’s re marks commenting on the illeg al activities of som e of the witnesses and w hether or not they

wer e ly ing during the ir testimony . The
statements wer e made in direct response to de fense arg uments that the prosec ution witnesse s were ly ing on the stand.

Next it is imposs ible to say whether the complained of

comments adve rsely

aff ecte d the jury ’s ver dict in this case and w hether consideration of this is sue is nece ssary to do substantial jus tic e

. I t sh ou ld be no te d a g a in that the bu rd e n of pe rs ua sio n on app e a l is on the app ell ant to de mon str a te that th e pr os e c uto r’ s c omm e nts “ m o r e p r o b a b l y tha n n ot a ff

e c te d th e jud g me nt o r w ou ld-12-

result i n p re

j u dice to the judicial pr ocess.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 732- 37; Te nn. R. App. P. 36(b). Other tha n the bar e asse rti o n t h at the prosec utor’s comments deprived the appe llant of a fa ir trial beca use it wa s a “close case ,” ther e is no indication that the jury was unduly

sway ed fr om its dut ies

a s e xpla ine d in the jury

ins truc tio ns

. Finally , and perh aps m ost importantly , there is no ex cuse or explanation proffe red by the appellant either i n the record or in his brief on a ppeal a s to the rea son for his fa ilure to object to the alleg edly offe nding c omments. Thus, we ca nnot say that the failure to object was f or re asons other than tactica l. Under the se circ umstances we are of the opinion that the appellant has fa iled to car ry his burden of pe rsuasion in co n v i n ci ng this Court t o consider a s plain err or the propriety of the all e g e d ly im p r o p e r c o mm e n ts o f

th e p r o s e c u to r

in c lo s in g and re buttal. This issue is t here fore waived.

Cumulative Effec t of Error

L astly , the appe llant broadly arg ues that eve n if none of his c laimed err ors are by themselves

e no ug h to pr ov ide re lie f, the ir c umu la tiv e e ff

e c t mand a te s a ne w tr ia l. I n s up po rt of his arg ume nt, the app e lla nt c ite s St a te v. Z imm e rm a n, 82 3 S. W.2 d 2 20 , 2 28 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 91 ) a ndSta te v. Br ewe r, 932 S.W.2d 1, 28 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). Be cause we determine that there is no error
, cumulative or othe rwise, this issue is without merit.

Conclusion

For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

________________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE