# FILED

A pr il 3, 19 96 Cec il Cr ow son , Jr . Ap p e l l a te C o u rt C l e rk IN THE CO UR T OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT KN OXVILLE DE CE MB ER1995 SESSI ON

STATE OF TENN ESSEE , * C. C. A. # 03C 01- 9410- CR -0 0366

AP PE LL EE , * M C M IN N C OU N TY VS

. * Ho n . Ma yo L . Ma sh b u rn , J u d ge RA LPH AVE RY

SM ITH, * (S ale of Coc ain e) AP PE LL AN T. *

For the Appel lan t: For the Appel lee : El ler y E. Hi ll , J r. Cha rl es W . Bu rs on Atto rn ey at Law Atto rn ey Gene ra l and R epor

ter 531 So uth G ay

St. 450 J ames R ober tso n Par kw ay Sui te 15 15 Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Knoxv il le, TN 37902 (o n appea l) Chr is ti na S. Shev ali er Ass is tant Atto rn ey

Gene ra l 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Jer ry N . Es tes Di str ic t At tor ney

Gene ra l Sandra C ra ig D onag hy Ass t. Di str ic t At tor ney

Gene ra l 203 E. M adi son Av e. P.O. Box 647 Athens , TN 37371

OPIN ION F ILED :
AFF IR ME D W ill ia m M. B a rke r, Ju d ge OPIN IONThe Tenness ee Bureau of I nv est ig ati on C ri me Lab l ater tes ted t he ev ide nce and 1 det ermin ed th at it w as "crack" cocaine w eighing .5 g rams. 2 The appel lan t, Ral ph Av er y Smi th, w as conv ic ted of t he s ale of coc ain e, a c las s B felony , and sent enced as a R ang e I sta ndard offender to eig ht y ears i n the Dep artment of C or re cti on. On ap peal , t he appe ll ant a rg ues (a ) that the e v ide nce w as insuf f icient t o s u ppo rt the jury' s v erdict, (b) tha t a prosp ective juror w as imp rope rly
remo v ed by the p rosecu tion in v iolation of Batso n v . Ken tucky, 476 U.S. 79 (198 6), (c) that the t ri al cour

t er re d i n admi tti ng ce rt ain ev ide nce, and (d ) that he w as deni ed th e ef fective assistance of

coun sel at trial.

W e c oncl ude t hat t her e is no re v ersi ble er ro r in the re cord. The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s, therefore, aff ir med.

On A ug ust6, 1993, Ev ely n Li nder w as w or ki ng as an i nformant for th e T ent h Jud icial Di strict Dr ug T ask Force. She metw ith Lt. Ken Po tee t and Detective Bill Ma tthew s. She w as given $100 and t old to buy crack co cai ne from t he appe ll ant. A
w ire transmi tter

w a s p laced i n her

ca r to en abl e off ic ers t o moni tor and re cord the transac ti on. At 1:55 p.m., Lin der drov e to a c ertai n l ocat ion i n At hens, Tenness ee, a nd met w it h the appel lan t. She g av e him $100, and the a ppel lan t t old her to re tur n to the
s a m e lo c a t io n a ro u n d 3 : 0 0 p . m . W h e n L in d e r re t u rn e d t o t h e s c e n e , t h e a p p e ll a n tga ve her ni ne rock s o f cocai ne bas e. 1

Lin der tes ti fied th at t he appe ll ant w as a fri end of her so n's and that she had k now n hi m near ly

hi s e nti re l ife. In J uly

of 1993, law enforcementoff ic ers found one of Lin der 's sons i n pos ses si on of one g ra m of coc ain e; t her eafter, Li nder met w it h Det ect iv e Bi ll M atthe w s a nd ag re ed to hel p off ic ers a rrang e a purchas e of coc ain e from the a ppel lan t. Li nder

co ncede d tha t her

moti v e w as to he lp her so n av o id a c ri minalD ur ing the transac ti on, Det ect iv e Matt hew s rec eiv ed a pag e and had t o l eav e the 2 scene . He w as replace d by D ete ctiv e Lo ng, w ho d id nottestif y at trial. 3 prose cution . She also adm itted tha t she had w orked as an informa nt for the p olice in the p ast , and thatsh e had been c onv icted o f sel li ng mar ij uana i n 1984.

Detect iv e Matth ews testif ied th at in July of 199 3, a sea rch of

Linde r's son' s apar

tment tur ned up one g ra m of c ocai ne. Ma tthew s cont act ed Lin der , w ho
w anted to he lp her

son. Ma tthew s tol d her that he w as int er est ed in f ind ing the "main" supp lier of

crack cocaine in the area ; Lind er r e p li e d t h at she could m ake a purcha se from the appel lan t. M atthe w s a dmit ted t hat L ind er 's so n w as nev er ar re ste d or

ch arg ed
w it h a d ru g offense re lat ing to the Jul y of 19 93 inc ide nt; he als o sai d that the cas e w as pendi ng the outc ome of the a ppel lan t' s c ase.

Ma tthew s a nd Pot eet metw it h Lin der before she made the purchas e from the a ppel lan t. A transmi tter w as pla ced in her

ca r, and she w as g iv en $100

. The off ic ers moni tored L in d e r's meeti ng w it h the appel lan t by w ire, bu t t hey

co uld not act ual ly g et c los e enoug h to obser v e the t ra nsac ti on. Po teet conc eded t hat L ind er w as 2 not s ear ched eit her

before or

afte r sh e m e t w it h the appel lan t; how ev er , after Li nder met w it h the appel lan t, she g av e the off ic ers n ine rock s o f cr ack co cai ne.

Bi ll ySi mp s o n , t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s fa t h e r i n l a w , t e s t i fi e d o n b e h a l f o f t he appel lan t. Si mpson sai d tha t on Aug ust6, 1993, he saw Ev ely n Li nder near the ar ea
w her e the dr ug sa le all eg edl y oc cur re d. He w as tal ki ng to her w hen t he appe ll ant app roach ed. The three ta lked for aw hile bu t no tran s a c tions o f any ki nd to ok place betw een Li nder

and the a ppel lan t. Si mpson did n o t se e L ind er retur n to the s cene ag ain thatday

.4 I W hen a defendant c hal len g es the s uff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce, the stan dard for rev iew

b y a n app ellate co urt is w het her, after consid ering the evidence in a l ig ht mos t fav or abl e to the pros ecut ion , anyrati onal tri er of fact c oul d hav e found the
ess enti al ele ments of the c ri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. See Jack son v . Vi rg ini a, 443 U .S. 307, 318- 19 (1 979) ; Stat e v . Dun can, 698 S.W .2d 63, 67 ( Tenn. 1985 ); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). T he Sta te is e ntitled t o the st rongest legitimat e v iew of the evidence
a n d t o a ll re a s o n a b le a n d le gi t im a t e in fe re n c e s t h a t m a y b e d ra wn t h e re f ro m . St a t e v. Cab bag e, 57 1 S. W .2d 8 32, 8 36 ( Tenn. 1978 ). I n det er mini ng the suffici e n cy of the
ev ide nce, w e do not rew eig h the evi dence , id., nor do w e subst it ute our in ferenc es for thos e draw n by

the tr ier of f actf ro m the ev ide nce. Lia kas v . St ate, 199 Tenn. 298, 305, 286 S.W .2d 856 , 859 (1956 ).

T he a ppe llant argues tha t the e v iden ce did notsu ppo rt the jury' s v erdict of g uilty as to th e sale of

cocaine ; instea d, he claims tha t the ev iden ce sup porte d on ly
a c onv ic ti on for the c asual ex chang e of a cont ro ll ed s ubst ance. Se e Tenn. Cod e Ann. §39- 17- 418. W e di sag re e. The tes ti mony of the St ate' s w it ness es cl ear ly rev eal ed th at the appel lan t sol d .5 g ra ms of crack co cai ne to Ev ely n Li nder for $ 100. M or eov er , t he transcript indicat es tha t the t rial jud ge inst ructed t he jury on the lesser include d of fense of casu al ex chang e, an d tha t i t w as re jec ted b y

the ju ry i n fav or of the g re ater

offense. T he a ppe llant esse ntially asks us to reco nside r the evidence and substitu te a verdict of casu al ex chang e for the v erdic t found by the jur y . That i s n ot ou r functi on. Ins tead,
w e c oncl ude t hat a rati onal tr ier of f actcould hav e found the essent ial elements of the of fense beyond a rea sona ble do ubt . Te nn. R. App. P. 13(e).

IIW it hout ci ti ng auth or it y or furth er arg uin g the poi nt, the appel lan t al so ass erts that 3 the remo v al of

this juror w as imp rope rly base d on g end er. See, e.g., Stat e v . Tu rner, 879 S. W .2d 8 19 ( Tenn. 1994 )( pr inc ipl es of Batso n appl y to the remov al of jurors b ased on g ender ). As di sc uss ed, the condi ti on of the re cord prev ents us f ro m r ev iew ing ei ther the race or g end er base d argume nts. 5

The appel lan t arg ues that a prospec ti v e j uror w as re mov ed by

the Stat e on th e bas is of her

race in v iol ati on of Batso n v. Kentucky , 476 U .S. 79 ( 1986)

. I n 3 Bats on, s upra, the Sup re me C our t hel d tha t eq ual protecti on prohi bit s t he St ate from chal len g ing j urors s ole ly on the basi s of ra ce. If a pr ima facie cas e of ex cl usi on i s made by a de fendant, t he burden i s o n the prosec uti on to off er a ra ce neutral ex pla nati on for it s a cti on on the record. Id. at 96-97 ; see als o Georg ia v . Mc Col lum, 112 S.C t. 2348, 1 2 0 L

. E d

. 2 d 3 3 (1 9 9 3 ) ( a p p lyi n g B a t s o n p r i n c ip le s t o e xc lu s io n o f ju ro rs b y a def end ant ).

W e a r e u n a b l e t o r e v i e w t h i s i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e . F i rs t , t h e i s sue w as
w aiv ed bec ause itw as not rais ed in the appell ant' s motion for a new tri al. Se e Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e); Sta te v

. Kee l, 882 S.W .2d 410 (Te nn. Crim. App . 199 4). Secon d, th ere is no transcript o f

the voir dire include d w ith the record on a ppe al. It is the ap pellan t's obl ig ati on to prepare a fair , acc ur ate, and compl ete re cord of w hat t ra nspi re d i n the tr ial
cour t w it h respec t t o an is sue ra is ed on appeal

. Stat e v . Bo li ng , 84 0 S.W .2d 9 44 (Tenn. C ri m. App. 199 2 ); St ate v . Be nnett , 798 S.W .2d 7 83 ( 1990)

. Abse nt an
a d e qu a t e re c o rd , we m u s tp re s u m e t h e ru li n gs o f t h e t ri a l ju d ge we re c o rr e c t

. St a t e v. Oody , 823 S.W .2d 5 54 ( Te n n . Cri m. App. 1991)

. Acc ordin g ly , t he appe ll ant i s n ot enti tl ed to reli ef on thi s g ro und.

III

T h e a p p ell ant a rg ues that the t ri al cour t c ommitt ed rev ersi ble er ro r by all ow ing Lt. Pot eet t o tes ti fy as to w hat h e heard Ev ely n Lind e r sa y w hen he w as monit or ing her

co nv ersat ion w it h the appel lan t. H e c lai ms t hat t her e w as no foundati on6

for such te stimo ny beca use Pot eetd id nott estif y t hath e w as ab le to recognize Linder's
v oice on the surveillance m onito r.

Ag ain , t he appell ant h as w aiv ed appe ll ate rev iew of thi s i ss ue by

fail ing to i ncl ude i t i n hi s mot ion for a new tr ial

. Tenn. R. App. P. 3( e)

. In any ev ent, iti s c lea r tha t rev ersible error w as no t c o m m it t e d. First, althou gh Potee t w as no t specif ically ask ed w hether

he recog niz ed Li nder 's v oic e, hi s t est imony thathe metw it h Li nder and then monit or ed th e transac ti on i mmediat ely thereafter impl ic it ly

rev eal ed th at he
re cog niz ed her v oic e. Mo re ov er , Lin der tes ti fied immedi atel y after Lt. Poteet , and sh e re it er ated near ly

the sam e e vent s a nd s tatement s d esc ri bed by Pot eet. Thus, the appel lan t i s n ot en ti tl ed to reli ef on thi s i ss ue.

IV F in a ll y, t h e a p p e ll a n t m a in t a in s t h a t h e wa s d e n ie d t h e e f f e c t ive
a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l a t t r i a l

. H e a rg u e s t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l fa i l e d t o : ( a ) p r eser v e the Bats on i ss ue dur ing j ur

y se lec ti on; ( b) proper ly

obj ectto Poteet 's tes ti mony aboutw hat he heard v ia the s ur

v eil lan ce monit or ; ( c) proper ly u se the tape re cordin g of the transac ti on to hi g hli g ht i ncons is tenc ies i n the State's ev ide nce; and (d ) arg ue th e defense of ca sual ex chang e. This is sue w as not pr eser v ed i n the moti on for a new tr ial and i s therefore w aiv ed. Tenn. R. App. P. 3( e) ; Stat e v . Cl ar k, Shel by Cr im. App. No. 9, 1 98 6 W L 53 14 ( Ten n. C r . Ap p. M ay 7 , 19 86 ) . (W he n r ai s ed on di r ec t ap pe al c l ai ms of ineffectiv e as si sta nce of couns el must be rai sed in moti on for new tr ial or be t re ated
as w aiv ed.) Acc ordin g ly , t he j udg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

______ _________

_________

___ W ill ia m M. B a rke r, Ju d ge7

_________

_________

_________

_____ Da vid G . Ha yes , J u d ge

_________

_________

_________

_____ Jer ry L. Smit h, J udg e