### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A pr il 25, 200 6 S es sio n STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RO SHA D R OMA NIC SILER
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Roane County

No. 12878 E. Eugene Eb len, Jud ge

No. E2005-01201-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Janu ary 3, 2007

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J., c on c ur ri ng in p art

a nddis se nti ng in p art

. I concur with the maj o ri t y ’s o pinion reg arding the evidentiary issue. I dissent from the ma jority ’s op ini on ins of

ar a s it fi nd s in su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e to s up po rt thec on vic tio ns . The off ense of s al e o f a counterfe it substance as se t forth in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated section 39-17- 423(a) require s proof of three essential elements: (1) that the a ccuse d sold, delivered, or dis trib u te d a

s u b s tan c e ; ( 2 ) th a t th e a c c u s e d r e p r e s e n te d th e s u b s tan c e to b e a c o n tr o lle d subs t ance ; (3) and that the substance sold, de livered or distributed is subst antially simil ar to a Sc he du le I , II , II I , o r IV c on tr oll e d s ub stanc e it is re pr e se nte d to be

. A c le ar re a din g of thestatut e demonstrates that proof of the actua l composition of the substance sold is not an essential e lement of the off ense de fined in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-17-421(a ).
Ba sed on the videota

pe of the three transac tions occurring on July14, 2003, and the testimonyof De tective Mynatt, Def endant was in possession of a bag g ie containing a w hite, rocklike substance. O n three separ ate oc casions, individuals approa ched D efe ndant and exchang ed what app e ars to be c a sh fo r a portio n of the wh ite , roc k- lik e su bs ta nc e c on ta ine d in the ba g g ie . T he ba g g ie was visible to the buy ers before or during the transac tions. After handing the buy ers the substanc e, De fe nd a nt t oo k th e bu y e rs ’ c a sh , r e tie d th e ba g g ie , a nd c on tin ue d to main ta in h is p os iti on in T ri a ng le Park. De tective Mynatt testified that he ha d boug ht crack co ca i n e o n numerous occ asions in an underc over c apac ity , and that the substance in Defe ndant’s bag g ie was substantially simil ar in size, composition and color to crack c ocaine . Cocaine is a Sche dule I I controlled substanc e. See T.C.A. § 39-17-408( b)(4)

. The fa ct that t h e s u bstance was not sold to an under cover police off

icer or conf idential informant in an a

rrang ed buy

transac tion, and thus not available for testing prior to trial, g oes to the we ig ht o f the State ’s e vid e nc e , a s d oe s th e fa c t that no c ra c k c oc a ine wa s fo un d in the fi rs t bu y e rs ’ car when it was se arc hed appr ox imately thirty minutes after

the transa ction.-2-

Def endant a lso contends that the lac k of an audio memorialization of the transac tions neg ates a finding that Def

endant madea “r epre sentation” c oncerning the substance sold. A “ repr esentation” is a prese ntation of a fac t w hich is ma de either by words or conduct. Bl ac k ’s Law D ic tio na ry 1303 (7th ed. 1999). In a similar situation, a panel of this Court concluded that, in the abse nce of a ver bal aff irmation or represe ntation by a defenda nt, the defendant’s actions can support an infe renc e that the merc handise sold w as to be unde rstood as a c ontrolled substance

. State v. Je ffrey Antwon Burns , No. M1999-01830-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1520261, at *3 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Oc t. 13, 2000), perm. to appeal de nied (Tenn. A pr. 23, 2001). In J e ff r ey A n tw o n B u rns , a conf idential informant solicited a sa le of drug s from the de fendant. The defendant approac hed the c onfidential informant, re moved a substanc e fr om his mouth, and exchang ed the substanc e for the twenty

dollars offe red by

the conf idential informant, all without uttering a wor d. Id

. The c ourt observe d:
Ou r j urispr

ud e nc e re c og nize s th a t th e me nta l st a te , a ne c e ssa ry fa c tor of a lmo st a ll our criminal statutes, is m ost often prove n by circ umstantial e vidence , from which the trier of fac t makes infer ence s from the attendant circ umstances and from which that body weig hs the circ umstantial evidence

. Se e Ha ll v . S tate , 490 S.W .2d 495, 496 (T e nn .1 97 3) ; W

ill iam s v . S tate , 552 S.W .2d 772, 776 (Tenn. Crim. App.1977) ; see, e.g ., Po ag v . S tate , 567 S.W .2d 775, 778 (Tenn. Crim. App.1978) . I n this case, the jury c ou ld c e rt a inl y ha ve inf

e rr e d fr om the de fe nd a nt’ s a c tio ns that heint e nd e d to se ll a controlled substance. Clea rly , the def

endant’ s manner of

conce alment, manner

of delivery and, in fa ct, his silence, support the proposit ion that he int ended to sell an un la wf ul s ub stanc e . Furthe r, tria l te sti mon y e sta bli sh e d th a t th e su bs tanc e so ld rese m b l ed cra ck coc aine in size, color and sha pe. F inally , the testimony of the experience d [confidential informant] which described the actions of the de fendant as well as hi s kno wl e dg e of sim ila r t rans a c tio ns su pp orte d th e inf e re nc e that th is transac tion was intended a s a drug sale. Id

. I n the ca se sub judice , Detec tive My natt, who was e x perie nced in drug transac tions invol ving the sale of

cocaine, testified that De fendant’s actions in Triang le Park we re similar to other dr ug transac tions he had observed. The videotape c learly depicts De fendant exchang ing a subst an ce, wh ic h D e te c tiv e Mynatt t e sti fi e d w a s su bs ta nti a lly sim ila r to cr a c k c oc a ine , f

or wh a t th e jury

c ou ld rea son ab l y i n fer was c ash. De tective Mynatt’s testimony as we ll as the videotape supports an infere nce that Def

endant intended to se ll the substance in the bag g ie, and that the substanc e sold was repr esente d to be cr ack c ocaine

. De fe nd a nt a lso c ha lle ng e s th e su ff ic ie nc y of the c on vic tin g e vid e nc e be c aus e theState did not prove that the substanc e he sold wa s not crac k cocaine as alleg ed in e ach count of the indictment su pp ortin g De fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio ns . E a c h c ou nt o f the ind ic tme nt a lle g e s th a t D e fe nd a nt:-3-

did unlawfully an d i n t entionally sell a substance , repr esenting such to be c rac k co ca i n e, s u ch s u b s t an ce b ei n g s u b s t an t i al l y s i m i l ar i n co l o r, s h ap e, s i z e a n d m ark i n gs or lac k there of to cra ck coc aine[,] a Schedule I I Drug as classified in T.C.A. sec tion 39-17-408, whe n, in fac t such substance was not a c ontrolled substance , in violation of T.C.A. Section 39-17- 423. . . .
The lang uag e, “w hen, in fa ct such substanc e wa s not a controlled substanc e,” is surplusag e. An indictment is not defec tive b ecause of the inclusion of surplusag e if, after e liminating the surplusag e, the offe nse is still sufficiently char g ed. Sta te v . Cu lp , 891 S.W. 2d 23 2, 23 6 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1994). Proof of

the actual composition of t he subst ance sold is not an essential element of the offe nse def

ined in Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 39-17-421( a). The indictment se ts forth the es s en t i al el em en t s o f th e of fe n s e wi t h wh i ch De fe n d an twa s ch ar ged

. T h u s , t h e u s e o f t h e l an gu age in the indictment “when, in f act suc h substance w as not a contr olled substance,” cannot c hang e the essential ele ments of the off ense. See State v . W

itherspoon , 769 S.W .2d 880, 884 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
Ac c or din g , I

wo ulda ff

irm th e jud g me nts of

thetria l c ou rt

.

_________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE