### FILED August 27, 199

9 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE JULY 1999 SESSION
STATE OF TENNESSEE, * C.C.A. # 03C01-9808-CC-00293 Appellee, * ANDERSON C OUNTY VS. * Hon. James B. Sc ott, Jr., Judge MELVIN JEROME ANDERSON, * (Sale of Cocaine) Appellant. *

For Appellant : For Appellee : Ann D. Kress, Attorney Paul G. Summers Mostoller, Stulberg & Whitfield Attorney General and Repor ter 136 South Illinois Avenue, Suite 104 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Erik W. Daab (on appeal) Assistant Attorney Gener al Criminal Justice Div

ision Travis Brasfield, Attorn ey 425 Fifth Avenue North 6220 Western Avenue Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Knoxville, TN 37921 (at trial) Jan Hicks Assistant District A

ttorney General Room 127, Anderson County Courthouse 100 North Main Street Clinton, TN 37716

OPINION FILED:__________________________

AFFIRMED
GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE2 OPINION The defendant, Melvin Jerome Anders on, was convicted of a sal e of cocaine greater than 0.5 g ram, a Class B felony. Tenn. C ode Ann. § 39-17-417. The trial court imposed a Rang e I sentence of ten years and a $50, 000.00 fine. In this appeal of right, the single issue presented for review is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the c onviction.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
At approximately 4:00 P.M. on October 11, 1996, Oak Ridge Police Sergeant Mike Uher met w ith an informant, Bryan Keith Turner, to plan a cocaine purchase in the Scarboro community. Turner, who was compensated by the police at an hourly rate of $10.00, w as employed as an informant, accor ding to Sergeant Uher, because he had a prior criminal record which engendered an element of trust among illegal drug s uppliers in the area. Jus t prior to the offense, Sergeant U her searched Turner and his vehicle, supplied him with $300.00 in cash, and f itted him with a wireless

radio device to allow

monitoring of the planned transa ction. Sergeant Uher followed Tur ner and watched through bi noculars while Turner met with the defendant, purchased coc aine, and then returned to a pre- arranged meeting area. At that point, Tur ner, who testified at tri al that he had purchased $130.00 worth of "rocks" from the defendant, returned the illegal dr ugs to Sergeant Uher. Later, Carl Smith, a forensic chemist with the TBI, confirmed that the substance Turner had acquire d amounted to 2.1 grams of crack c ocaine.
Turner's wife, Rahvonna, was present during the transaction. At trial, she testified that she had driv en Turner to the place he was to meet the defendant. She confirmed that Turner did not tal k with anyone else oth er than the defendant3 from the time they left Sergeant Uher until their retur n. Oak Ridge Police Officer Mark Bell, who worked with a narcotic unit, set up the electronic surveillance equipment for the transaction and monitored the receiver. He also searched Turner's vehicle prior to the transaction. Officer Kristie Brock acted as the evidence technician. She made copies of the c ash provided Turner and sear ched Rahvonna Turner to assure that she w as not in possession of illegal drugs prior to the transaction. After the transaction, Officer Brock ob tained the cocaine from Turner, sealed it, and delivered it to the TBI Crime Laboratory in Knoxville.
Judy McKnight testified for the defense as did her son, Ray mond Luster. Those witnesses c laimed that the defendant was aw are Turner was an informant in the summer of 1996, well before the drug transaction s upposedly took place. The defendant did not testify at trial.

The defendant contends that because the informant had a prior conviction for armed robber y and had a "previous dr ug problem," he was not trustworthy, and the evidence was insufficient. He argues that the failure on the part of the police to strip search Ms. Turner prior to the transaction, rather than merely doing a pat down search, made the case against the defendant part icularly suspect. The defendant asserts that Turner's cl aim of cocaine delivery was uncorroborated by any other witn ess. The defendant also points out that the tape recording of the transaction contained "interfer ence" and was not probativ e of guilt.
On appeal, the state is entitl ed to the strongest legi timate view of the evidence and all reasonabl e inferences which might be drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 832 (Te nn. 1978). When the suf ficiency of the evidence is challenged, the relevant question is whether , after reviewing the evidence in the lig ht4 most favorable to the state, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a rea sonable doubt. State v. Willia ms , 657 S.W.2d 405 (Tenn. 1983); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e ). This court may neither reweigh nor reevaluate the evidence offered at trial, State v. Evans , 838 S.W.2d 185 (Tenn. 1992), nor may this court substitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier of f act from the evidence. Likas v. State , 286 S.W.2d 856 (Te nn. 1956).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417(a)(3) prohibits the sale of a contr olled substance. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417(c)(1) provides as follows:

A violation of subsection ( a) with respect to: ( 1) Cocaine is a Class B felony if the amount involved is point five (.5) grams or more of any substanc e containing cocaine....
Here, the state offered proof on each and every element of the offense as defined by the statute. It w as the jury's prerogative to accredit the tes timony of the informant Turner and reject altogether the theory offered by the defense. The limited scope of our revi ew precludes either a r eevaluation of the weight of the evidence or a reconsideration of the comparative credibility of the witness. Thus, the proof is sufficient to support the conviction.
Accordingly, the j udgment is affirmed.

________________________________ Gary R. Wade, Presiding Judge CONCUR:

_____________________________ David H. Wel les, Judge

_____________________________ Joe G. Riley, Judge