### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE Marc h 8, 200 5 S es sio n

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RO BER TO V AS QUE S, LU IS D. VID ALE S R O M E R O , K E V I N J O E L H E R N A N D E Z, L U I S M A R T I N V A S Q U E Z, H E C T O R A L O N ZO , A N D V I C T O R H U G O G A R ZA

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2000-D- 1876 J. Randall Wyatt, Jr ., Judge

No. M2004- 00166-CCA -R3-C D - F iled October 7, 2005

A D a vid so n Co un ty

Cr iminal Co urt jury

c on vic te d th e de fe nd a nts of c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w ith intent to sell more than seve nty pounds of marijuana

withi n o n e thousand fee t of a school zone, a Class A f

e lo n y , a n d th e tria l c o u r t s e n te n c e d e a c h o f th e m t o f

if te e n y e ar s c o n f

in e me n t at o ne hu nd re d p e rc e nt i n th e De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n. Th e de fe nd a nts app e a le d th e ir c on vic tio ns , w ith various def

endants c laiming that the e vidence was insuffic ient, that the Tenne ssee Drug Fr ee School Z one Ac t was unconstitutional, that the trial court e rre d in ins t ru ct i n g the jury , that the state’s continued refer ence to the defendants’ ethnicity was overly prejudicia l, that the state’s introduc tion of evide nce c oncerning the prese nce of wea pons was irre levant and ove rly prejudicia l, and that the jury ’s ve rd ic t la c ke d u na nim ity . H ow e ve r, be fo re or a l ar gume nt, thi s c ou rt stay e d th e app e llate proce eding s based upon the de fenda nts filing petitions for c oram nobis relief i n the trial court. The
tr ia l c ou rt

the re a ft e r g ra nte d th e pe tit ion s f or cora m no bis re lie f a nd

va c a te d th e de fe nd a nts ’ convictions, and the state now appe als, claiming the t rial court improperly g rante d cora m nobis relief
to eac h defe ndant. I n these consolidated case s, we affirm the trial court’s coram nobis j udg ment as to the de fe nd a nts Luis Va sq ue z a nd Vi c tor Ga rza bu t r e ve rs e the jud g me nt a s to the oth e r d e fe nd a nts

. On d ir e c t ap p e a l o f th e u n d e r lyin g c o n v ic ti o n s , w e h o ld th e tria l c o u r t e rr e d in n o t instruc ting the jury abo ut fa c ili ta tio n but tha t the e rr or did no t a ff e c t a su bs ta nti a l r ig ht o f R ob e rt o V a sq ue s, Luis D. Vidales Romer o, Kevin Joel Hernande z, or Hector A lonzo, and we af firm their c onvictions.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt Aff irm ed in Par t, Reve rsed in Par t, Case R em anded

J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J

. , d el i v er ed the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y G e n e r a l an d

R e p o r t e r ; R i c h a r d H

. D u na va nt, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, Victor S. (Torry ) Johns on, I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; and John C. Zimmerman, A ssistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llant, State of Tenne ssee.-2-

J erry Gonzalez, Nashville, Tennesse e, for the appe llee, Roberto Va s q u es ; C. L eAnn Smith, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f

or the a ppellee, L

uis D. Vidales Romero; James O. Martin, I I I , Nashville, Tenne ssee, f

or the a ppellee, K evin J oel Hernandez; J ohn G. Oliva, Na shville, Tennessee , for the appellee , Luis Martin Vasquez; David M. Hopkins, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, H ector Alonzo; and Dwight E. Scott, Na shville, Tennessee , for the a ppellee, V ictor Hug o Gar za.

OP IN ION

This case rela tes to an under cover drug sting ope ration conduc ted by the Tenne ssee B ureau of I nvestig ation (“TB I ”) and the Metropolitan Na shville Pol ice De partment whic h culminated in the

arr e st a ndc on vic tio n o f the de fe nd a nts . A ft e r the tr ia l a ndmot ion fo r n e w t ri a l he ari ng , th e state inf or me d th e de fe nd a nts a ndthe tr ia l c ou rt that du ri ng the inv e sti g a tio n an d tri a l of the de fe nd a nts , one of the lead investig ators in the case , TBI Ag ent Patrick Howe ll, had been using coca ine which he stole fr om evidence collecte d in other criminal cases. Ba sed upon this new information, the trial

c ou rt grant ed the de fe nd a nts ’ p e tit ion s f or writs of e rr or c or a m no bis a ndva c a te d th e de fe nd a nts ’ convictions.

THE TRI AL

At the tr ia l, M e tr op ol i t anP o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t D e te c tiv e Jess ie B ir c hw e ll t e sti fi e d th a t on Ap ri l 18 , 2 00 0, he a ssi ste d in a n inv est igation wh ic h r e su lte d in the arr e st o f Jos e Rod ri g ue z. H e sa id Rodrigue z was ar re s t ed on drug char g es and a g ree d to help law enf orce ment arr est his supplier. Detec tive Birc hwell said Rodrig uez id entified two houses loc ated at 1147 and 1035 Antioch Pike wh e re his su pp lie r’ s o pe ratio n w a s b a se d. De te c tiv e B ir c hw e ll sa id that a ph on e c a ll w a s ma de to the su pp lie r, Da vid , a ndthat a me e tin g wa s se t up to b uy on e hu nd re d p ou nd s o f m ari jua na on Ap ri l 19.

Detec tive Birc hwell t estified that on April 19, he a nd approximately fourtee n other na

rcotics office rs established surve illance on both h ouses and the me eting place , a ca rwa sh located at 3004 No le ns vil le Roa d. He sa id h e sa w two me n in a whit e To y ota Ca mr y dr ive int o the c arw a sh . H e sa id the Camry

was drive n by

a man we aring a white football jerse y who left the Camry

and ente red the inf or ma nt’ s c ar. He sa id Da vidwa s late r i de nti fi e d a s th e de fe nd a nt L uis Da vidRom e ro . H e sa id that a t th e sa me tim e , a g ray va n wa s par ke d in on e of

the c arw a sh ba y s a ndthat on e of the me n in
t h e v a n ap p e ar e d t o b e t a l k i n g o n a r a d i o

. H e s a i d h e t h o u g h t t h a t t h e m a n w a s t a l k i n g o n a ra dio beca use he he ld it in front of his mouth i nstead of to his ea r like a c ell phone. He said that a short time later, the ma n in the jersey exit ed the informant’s car and drove awa y in the white Camry but that the g ray van rema ined at the car wash. He said he was told that the suspects in the Camry wer e g oing to g et the marijuana.

De te c tiv e B ir c hw e ll s a id th at app ro xima te ly thi rt y to f orty -f ive min ute s late r, the wh ite Camry r e tu r n e d f

o ll o w e d b y

a w h it e F o r d T a u ru s a n d a b la c k Po n ti a c F ir e b ir d

. H e s a idth a t the Camry and the Taurus pu l l ed i nto the car wash but that the F irebird did not. He sa id the Fire bird i n s t ea d p u l l ed i n t o t h e D ai ryQu ee n n ex td o o r t o t h e ca r wa s h an d re ap p ea re d l at erat Bu rge r K i n g,T he reco rd ref l ect s t hat a t o t al o f seven sus p ect s i n t he t hree cars were ap p rehend ed at t he scene but t hat one 1

o f t he m , Jo aq uin B o nil l a, wa s no t t ried jo i ntl y wit h the d efen d an t s.

-3- which wa s located next to the Dairy Quee n with portions of i ts parking lot having an unobstructe d view of the car wash. He said three male Hispanics we re in the Ta urus, two in the Camry , and two in the Fire bird. 1

Detec tive Birc hwell said that whe n he was g iven t he “take down” signa l by the offic er w ho was monitoring the informant’ s conver sation, he pulled into the car wash and g ot out of the ca r. He said the man in the jer sey fled. He said that he helped Metropolitan Police Off icer Gene Donneg an pursue the suspect and that when they caug ht the suspect, a nine milli meter, se mi-automatic handg un was found in his fr ont waistband

. Detective B irchwe ll identified the suspect he and Of fice r Donneg an pursue d as the defe ndant, Luis D avid Romero. He said that afte r Romero wa s secur ed, he returned to the C amry

wher e anothe r suspec t was still si tting. He said that in the Camry he found a loaded .45 caliber
, semi-automatic handg un and a w alkie-ta lkie. Offic er B irchwe ll identified the
passeng er of

the Camry

as the de fenda nt, Kevin Hernandez.

De tec tiv e B ir c hw e ll t e sti fi e d th a t a ft e r s e c ur ing He rn a nd e z, h e he lpe d o the r o ff ic e rs arr e st the su sp e c ts i n th e Taur

us

. He s a id the de fe nd a nt, Rob e rt o V a sq ue s, ha d r un tow ardNo le ns vil le Road but was take n into custody al m o s t p ar all el to the ca rwa sh bay s by

Metropolitan Police Detec tive Mike Elrod and Me tropolitan Poli ce Se rge an t R ob For rest. He also said Metropolitan Police Detec tive J ohn Donneg an had the defe ndant, Hec tor Alonzo, in custodyon the passeng er side of the Taurus. Dete ctive B irchwe ll identified both Alonz o and Va sques in the courtroom.

Detec tive Birc hwell testified that whe n the m en in the cars were secure d, he we nt to find the
g ray van but discover ed that it had alr eady left. He said two other g uns were rec overe d from the

scene . He sa id tha t o n e o f t h e gu n s was re cover ed beside the Taur us and that the other

one wa s

rec overe d in a ca

rwa sh bay near wher e Roberto Vasque s had run. He said that althoug h no one saw Vasque s throw the g un in the car wash ba y , no other de fenda n t could have thrown a g un in the

car wash ba y

beca use they wer e not close e noug h to it. De tective Birc hwell also testified that there

wer e thre e blac k trash bag s in the trunk of the Taurus and one b l ac k t ra s h b ag on the pave ment behind the Taurus containing approximately one hundre d pounds of marijuana

.

Detec tive Birc hwell testified that part of the Metropolit an Police De partment’s booking
pr oc e du re is t o d e te rm ine the su sp e c t’ s a dd re ss. He sa id that Rob e rt o Va sq ue s wa s b or n in Da lla s, Texas and had a Dallas, Te x as addr ess; that David Romero wa s born in Mexi co and r efuse d to give an addr ess; that Hec tor Alonzo ha d a L are do, Texas a ddress; that Victor Ga rza had a L are do, Texas addre ss; that Luis Martin Vasquez had a Gra nd Prairie, Te x as address; and that Kevin Joel He rn a nd e z ha d a

Na sh vil le , T e nn e sse e a dd re ss.

On cross-e x amination, Detec tive Birc hwell admitted the telephone call the informant made to his suppli er w as audiotape d, but he said he did not have the t ape with him. He also admitted the-4-

informant wor e a w ire, but he sa id he did not have that audiotape with him either. He admitted he could not be one hundr ed per cent c erta in that the defe ndant, David Romero, w as the Da vid the informant had c alled the nig ht before . Finally , Detec tive Birc hwell admitted t hat he wa s not the office r who a

rre sted J ose Rodrig uez or convince d him to help the investiga tion.

Metropolitan Police Dete ctive Greg Adams t estified that on April 19, he set up surveillance

o f t h e c a r w a s h f

r o mt h e D a i r y Q u e e n p ark i n g l o t

. H e s a i d h e h a d b e e n t o l d t o l o o k f o r a C a m r y, another white ca r, and a black F irebird, which he had been told was r unning c ounter-sur veillance

. He sa id the Fire bird pulled in directly beside him. He sa id the two male Hispanic s in the car never exit ed the c ar but just sat there watching the ca rwa sh. He said the Fire bird stay ed at Dairy Quee n tw o o r thr e e min ute s b e fo re ba c kin g ou t a nd le a vin g

. He sa id he wa s un able to ide nti fy the me n in the Fir ebird.

On cr oss-examination, Detective A dams said that the men in the Fire bird wer e curious about him. He said they wer e looking around and keeping their ey es on the pa rking lot. He admitted that he did not see the men talking on a ra dio and did not see a ny wea pons.
Metropoli t an P o l ice Of

fice r He rbert Kajihara

testified that on April 19, he a nd TBI Ag ent Pat Howell set up surve illance of the ca rwa sh. He said he saw the F irebird drive slowly throug h the Dairy Quee n parking lo t

. He s ai d t he occ upants of the c ar w ere “slouche d” down in the se at and looking ba ck and f

orth for e ither a parking space or people . He sa id that the car parke d fac ing the

car wash but that no one exit ed the car

. He admitted that he did not see a passeng er in the F irebird until the arre sts.

On cr oss-examination, Office r Ka jihara a dmitted that he did not see the F irebird p ark at Dairy Quee n or the pre sence of De tective Ada ms in the Dairy Quee n parking lot. He said he did not see D etec tive Adams bec ause his view was bl ocked by a buil ding. O ffice r Ka jihara sa id that after the Fir ebird left the Dairy Quee n Parking lot, it parke d in the Burg er King parking lot. He a dmitted he quit watching the ca

rwa sh after

the Fir ebird pa

rked behind him a t B urg er King

. He sa id that when the “take down” signa l was given, he approa ched the Fire bird, which Metropolitan Police De tective L e on Ta y lor

ha d b loc ke d in the pa

rking sp a c e wi th his c ar. He sa id the su sp e c ts in the F ir e bir d d id not attempt to flee.

Detec tive Tay lor testified that on April 19, he e stablished surveillance on one of the houses located at Antioch Pike and later at the carw as h

. He s ai d that he followe d the Camry from the

car wash to the Walgr eens loc ated a t the corne r of Antioch Pike a nd Nolensville Road. He sa id the Camry was met in t he Walg ree ns parking lot by a white F ord Taur

us. He said that a fter a

short time, the Taur us le ft a ndpr oc e e de d d ow n An tio c h Pik e tow ard the tw o h ou se s id e nti fi e d b y the inf or ma nt. He sa id that he re mained at Walg ree ns to keep surve illance on the Ca mry . He sai d t h at wh en the Taurus r eturne d ten minutes later, it was f ollowed by

a b l ack Fire bird. He sa id that as the Taur us and F irebird a

pproac hed Walg ree ns, the Camry appea red r eady to l ea v e, but he admitted that he

c ou ld n ot s e e if

e ith e r the Taur

us or F ir e bir d e nte re d th e Wal g re e ns pa rking lot

.-5-

Detec tive Tay lor said he f ollowed the ca

rs from Walg ree ns back to the c arw ash whe re he established surve illance f rom Bur g er K ing. H e said he wa s t o l d t h at the Fir ebird wa s also in the Bur g er K ing pa

rking lot. H e s ai d t h at wh en the sig nal was g iven, he pulled his ca r behind the Fire bird to make the a

rre sts. He s aid t hat he was a ble to pull in behind the Fire bird and that he was not noticed until he g ot to the driver’s door beca use t he passeng ers were not pay ing attention to what
was g oing on be hind them. Detec tive Tay lor identified the de fenda nt, Victor Hugo Ga rza, as the driver of the Fir ebird a nd the def

endant, L uis Martin Vasquez, a s t h e p as s en ger. He said that he

arr ested Ga

rza and that Of

fice r Ka jihara arre sted Vasque z. He said that afte r t he def endants we re in c us tod y , he se arc he d the c ar a nd fo un d a sh otg un loa de d wi th fi ve sh e lls be hin d the f ron t s eat

. He sa id th ere wer e no B ur g e r King sa nd wi c he s o r o the r e vid e nc e that th e de fe nd a nts ha d b e e n in Bu rge r K i n g.

On cr oss-examination, Detective Tay lor admitted that he could not tell conclusively what the de fe nd a nts we re a c tua lly

do ing wh ile pa

rk e d at the Wal g re e ns . H e sa id o the r o ff ic e rs inf or me d h im that afte r the Taurus left Walgr eens, it we nt to one of the houses on Antioch Pike. H e also a dmitted that he did not see the Fire bird drive throug h the Dairy Quee n parking lot. Finally , he admitted the Fire bird containe d no evidenc e of dr ug traff icking

. Serg eant F orre st testified that on April 19, he assisted in surve illance on the c arw ash loca ted at 3004 Nolensville Road. He said that when the “take down” signa l w as g iven, he pulled in to block the c ars a ndsa w s e ve ra l me n run ni ng. He sa id tha t he ta c kle d Ro be rt o V a sq ue s n e ar the fi rs t

car wash ba y . He sa id that a citizen at the ca rwa sh pointed out a handg un on the g round in the bac k of the fir st carw ash bay

.

O n c r o s s

- e xa mi n a ti o n , Se r g e a n t F o rr e s t s a idth a t h e w a s c e r ta in th a t h e ta c k le d V a s q u e s n e xt to the fi rs t c arw a sh ba y . How e ve r, he a dmi tte d tha t bec aus e his vie w wa s bloc ke d, he c ou ld n ot t e ll if Vasque s threw a g un into the bay

. He a lso admitted that he only saw Va sques for a

few seconds befor e tac kling him. He sa id he saw the car s ear lier and the suspects standing outside on the road. He sa id that when he pulled in, he lost sight of Va sques until Vasques ra n around the corne r. He

e sti ma te d that it wo uld ha ve take n V a sq ue s o ne or tw o s e c on ds to r

un the wi dthof

the fi rs t c arw a sh bay

.

Detec tive J ohn Donneg an testified that on April 19, he participa ted in the surveillanc e of the

c arw a sh a nd arr e st of the su sp e c ts. He sa id that he sa w the wh ite Ca mr y wi th tw o H isp a nic me n p ull int o th e c arw a sh be sid e the inf or ma nt. He sa id that he a lso sa w a g ray va n w ith thr e e Hi sp a nic s in it and that one of the m appea red to be talking on a

walkie- talkie. He sa id that he monito red the informant’s tra nsmitt er a nd could tell he wa s talking w ith someone.

D e te c ti v e D o n n e g a n te s ti f ie d th a t w h e n th e Ca mry r e tu r n e d tw e n ty to th irty mi n u te s later, it was followed by

a white Taurus and a black Fire bird. He sa id the Camry and the Taurus turned in to th e c ar w a s h
, b u t h e c o u ldn o t s e e w h e r e th e F ir e b ir d w e n t. H e s a idth a t th e r e w e r e th r ee suspects standing by

the Taurus as he pulled into the carwa sh. He sa id he ar rested H ector

Alonzo, whom he identified in court, on the passenge r si de of the Taurus. He said that a gun was rec overe d-6-

beside the Ta

urus. He sa id that while he wa s at the sce ne, he sa w t he F irebird a g ain in the B urg er King parking lot.

Detec tive Donneg an testified that a fter the car wash wa s secur ed, t h e police se arc hed the h o u s e s l o c a t e d a t 1 0 3 5 a n d 1 1 4 7 A n t i o c h P i k e

. H e s a i d t h a tt h e y r e c o v e r e d a s a f e c o n t a i n i n g m o n e y, elec tronic sca les, marijuana , ammunition, a loaded pistol mag azine, and a box to a Glock model 26 pistol fr om 1035 Antioch Pike. He said they rec overe d a Glock 26 Pist ol a nd ten tr as h b ags each

co n t ai n i n g t we n t y -f

i v e o n e- p o u n d b ags o f m ar i j u an a fr o m 1 1 4 7 An t i o ch P i k e. He s ai d t h at t h e b ags of marijuana found at the house wer e identical to the bag s found in the Taurus. He s ai d t h at t h ey found a dr ug ledg er containing rec ords of a mounts paid and stating that the drug s were being shipped i n a tra ctor tra iler. He said that in the bedroom of the house, they

found eig ht one-pound ba g s of marijuana and a shotgun. He said he filled out the paper work to se nd the marijuana rec overe d from the houses to the crime lab. He ide ntified the drug s admitted into e vidence as the drug s seized at the ho us e s.

On cr oss-examination, Detective D onneg an admitted that he did not see the passeng er in the Camry using a walkie- talkie. He also admitted that other than a pistol, the Camry contained no othe r evidenc e.
Metropolitan Police Off

icer Thomas Rollins t estified that he set up surve illance in the An tio c h Pik e are a on Ap ri l 19

. He sa id a wh ite F or d Ta ur us , oc c up ie d by thr e e ma le Hispa nic s, pulled into the drivewa y

at 1147 Antioch Pike. He said the driver knocked on the door and stood the re fo r a

fe w m inu te s b e fo re re turnin g to the Taur us a nddr ivi ng to 1 03 5 A nti oc h Pi ke . H e sa id the re sid ence on 10 35 An tio c h Pi ke wa s a du ple x. He sa id h e fo llo we d th e Taur us fr om 1 14 7 to 1035 Antioch Pike wher e the Taurus p u l l ed around be hind the rig ht hand side of the duple x and
pa rk e d. He sa id he did no t se e a ny on e g e t ou t of the c ar. He sa id tha t sh ortly the re a ft e r, tw o ma le Hispanics pulled into the drivew ay in a black F irebird a nd parke d in the front on the lef t hand side of the duplex. He said the men g ot out of the ca r and w alked toward the back of the duplex. Office r Rolli ns said that when he drove back by the hous e, the trunk of t he Firebird was open. He sa id that the Taur us left the duplex first followed bythe Fir ebird a nd that both car s went to Walgr eens w here they met the white Camry . He sa id that a few minutes later, the F irebird, the T aurus, a nd the Camry left Walg ree ns toge ther a nd drove towa rd the c arw ash.

Offic er Rollins testified that after the ca rwa sh was sec ured, he assisted in sec uring the houses at 1035 and 1147 Antioch Pike until sear ch wa rra nts could be obt ai n ed . He sa id that at 1147 Antioch Pike, they

rec ove r e d

a r e v o lve r, two loade d semi-automatic pistols (including the Glock 26)
, a semi-automatic rifle maga zine, ammunition, scale s, and a larg e amount of ma rijuana. H e said that he seized the drug s at 1147 Antioch Pike a nd turned them into the Metropolitan Police Depa rtment’s
property room. He also identified t he drugs admitted into evidenc e as the drugs seiz ed at the house.

On c ro ss- e xami na tio n, Of fi c e r R oll ins a dmi tte d th a t he didno t se e the de fe nd a nts ta lki ng to

eac h other while pa

rked at the Walgr eens, but he believed it wa s obvious that they knew e ach othe r. He a dmitted that he never saw the Camry

at either house on Antioch Pike.-7-

Metropolitan Police Dete ctive Mike Clark te stified that on April 19, he provide d surve il la n ce

a t th e c arw a sh loc a te d on Nol e ns vil le Roa d. He sa id tha t he sa w the wh ite Ca mr y le a ve the c arw a sh and that he f

ollowed it to W al gre en s where a w hite Taurus pa rked be side the Camry . He sa id he fo llo we d th e Taur

us on An tio c h Pi ke fo r a

sh ort ti me be fo re he turne d o nto a no the r r oa d. He sa id that upon being told that the Taurus had left 1147 Antioch P ike and pulled into 1035 Antioch Pike, he drove by

1035 Antioch P i k e an d saw a black F irebird. Hesaid he saw the Taur us drive bac k toward Walg ree ns, followed by the Fir ebird.

Dete ct i v e C lark testified tha t as the ca rs trave led bac k toward Walg ree ns, they passed Glencliff Elementary

School, Glencliff H igh School, a nd Wright Middle School. H e said that be fore trial, he mea sured the distanc es fr om the schools t o t h e ro ad

. He sa id that the measure ment from Glencliff Elementary

School to Antioch Pike was 200 fe et and that the me asure ment from Glennc liff Hig h School to Antioch Pike w as 202 fee t. He said that the distance from the co rn er o f W ri ght Middle School to Antioch Pi ke wa s 222.6 fee t. He also said that Walgr eens w as only eig hty -one f

eet from Radnor B aptist Acade my

.

Detec tive Clark testified that whe n he ar rived a t the car wash, he saw the trunk of the Taurus op e n, se ve ra l su sp e c ts be ing ha nd c uf fe d, a ndha nd g un s lying aro un d. He sa id h e sa w f ou r l arg e tr a sh bag s and five boxes of plastic ba g s in the trunk of the Taurus. He sa id he fil led out an examination form for the TB I lab and locke d the evidenc e in his car until he took it t o t h e Metropolitan Pol ice Depa rtment’s evidenc e room. He sa id the complaint number on the e x amination form matche d the drug s admitted as evidenc e.

On cr oss-examination, Detective Clar k admitted that he did not measure the distance s from the s chools to the c ar w a s h a n d th a t th e T a u ru s o n ly d r o v e p a s t th e s c h o o ls

. H e a d mi tt e d th a t he

c ou ld o nly

sp e c ulate a s to wh e the r a c on sp ir a c y too k p la c e wh ile the Taur us dr ov e pa st the sc ho ols

. H e a ls o s a id
, “ I

th in k it ’ s ju s t b ar e ly

s h y o f a th o u s a n d f

e e t t o Ra d n o r

B ap ti s t [ f r o m th e c ar

w a s h ]” but admitted that he did not measure that distance. He also admitted that he could not see what took place at Walgr eens a nd that he could not identify the occ upants of the F irebird.

TB I Ag e nt P a tr ic k H ow e ll t e sti fi e d that on Ap ri l 19
, he se t up su rv e ill a nc e ne ar the c arw a sh on Nolensville Road. He sa id that from his position, he could se e t h e b ac k o f t h e Da iry Quee n parking lot and part of the Bu rge r Ki n g parking lot. He said he sa w the F irebird e nter the D airy Quee n parking lot and pull into a parking space . He sa id t h e occupants of the F irebird g lance d toward the car wash, left the Dairy Quee n, and pulled into a parking spot at Burg er K ing, f acing the

car wash. He said that the two men i n t h e Firebird wer e consta ntly looking stra ight ahead, that he

wa s b e tw e e n th e F ir e bir d a ndthe c arw a sh , an d tha t he wa s af ra id the su sp e c ts wo uld ide nti fy him as a police office r. He said the F irebird did not g o throug h t h e d ri v e-thru at either B urg er K ing or Dairy Quee n and neither suspect left the car at Bur g er King or Dairy Quee n. On cr oss-examination, Ag ent Howe ll admitted that he did not participate in the a rre st of either susp ect in the F irebird beca use Off icer Kajihar a and O ffice r Tay lor had the situation under control.-8-

Metropolitan Police employ ee Ma ry Wil hoite testified conc erning the safe keepi n g of the evidenc e until trial. She said that an off icer is called in to che ck in t h e ev i d en ce a nd place it in a drug vault and that very few people have acce ss to the vault. She said the drug s rec overe d from the

car wash we re r ece ived at 9:25 p.m. on April 19 and stored in the dr ug vault. She said the drug s were sent to the lab on Aug ust 17, 2000. She said all evidenc e that comes into the property room is sealed and initialed, making it impos sible to tamper with the evide n ce

. S h e s ai d the evidenc e fr om the ho us e s on Ant ioc h Pi ke wa s a lso re c e ive d o n A pr il 1 9 a ndla te r s e nt t o th e la b f or te sti ng . Sh e sa id that befor e the dr

ug s are sent to the lab, they are put in box es, sea led, and initialed. She said the lab will not take unseale d evidenc e.

TBI fore nsic che mist Donna Flowe rs testified that evidenc e is rec eived in a se aled c ondition either throug h hand delivery or certified U.S. mail. She said that if evidenc e is rec eived unse aled, it may still be tested but that it is note d in the rec ord. She said the evidenc e from t h e T au ru s was

re c e ive d in a se a le d co nd iti on

. She sa id she re se a le d the e vid e nc e a ft e r it wa s a na ly zed . Sh e sa id th at t h e l ab o ratory

number on the e vidence matched the number she put on the e vidence afte r her analy sis. She said she examined the box es and f ound that they

contained a

total of 93.8 pounds of marijuana . She al s o t es t i fied that the e vidence from 1035 Antioch Pike wa s rec eived in a se aled condition and was not tampere d with. She said she examined the evide nce a nd found it to be 250.5 pounds of marijuana

TBI fore nsic scientist Wi lliam H. Stanton, J r. testified that he rec ei v ed the e vidence taken from 1147 Antioch Pike in a seale d condition and that it would not have bee n acc epted if it we re not seale d. He said he found the substance to be 21.2 pounds of marijuana

. Ba sed upon this evidence
, the jury c on vic te d ea c h de fe nd a nt of c on sp ir a c y to pos se ss w ith the int e nt t o s e ll m or e tha n s e ve nty pounds of marijuana

within one thousand fee t of a school zone.

THE CORAM NOB I S HEARI NG

Af te r the c on c lus ion of

the mot ion fo r ne w tri a l hea ri ng , the state inf

or me d th e de fe nd a nts that TBI Ag ent Patrick How el l h ad been using coca ine, which he stole from the TB I crime la b, during the time of the investig ation and trial of the defe ndants. At the cor am nobis hearing, f ormer Ag e nt Ho wel l testif

ie d th a t he be g a n u sin g c oc a ine du ri ng a six w e e k p e ri odin l a te 19 97 or e arl y 19 98 . H e a dmi tte d h e too k a le a ve fro m the TB I

in F e br ua ry 19 98 a ndre turne d a

y e ar a nda

ha lf later. H e also a dmitted using coc aine a g ain as ear ly as J uly 2000. He a dmitted that by 2001, he wa s using c ocaine twice a wee k, sometimes w ith pr ostitut es, whom he paid with coc aine. He said he ha d not used marijuana

since hig h school.

Ho we ll t e sti fi e d th a t he wo uld g e t c oc a ine by re mov ing sma ll a mou nts be fo re he turne d in evidenc e purc hased in underc over buy s. He explained that he usually took a g ram or one -half g ram at these times. He said he kne w he would not g et ca ug ht because it was not unus ual for the re to be discrepa ncies in we ight. He also admitted to ta king coca ine from evidenc e he had chec ked out of the TB I lab for r ever se buy

operations. He said that to hide the cha ng e in weig ht, he would use duc t tape whe n he re packa g ed the dr ug s or add ba

king soda

.-9-

Howell said that he self-r eporte d his actions to his supervisor, TB I Ag ent Roy

Copeland, on September 15, 2001. He also said he tol d Detec tive Mike Clark on the same day . Howell admitted that during this time, he may have experience d drug -re lated par anoia a nd believed tha t he was be ing followed by

authorities.

Ho we ll s a id h e wa s in dic te d o n f ive c ha rg e s. He a dmi tte d th a t he ple d g uil ty to t wo c ou nts of tampering w ith evidence and that the state dropp ed t h e o t h er c harg es. He said that he wa s sentenc ed to three y ear s to be serve d on community corr ections and that he w as re quired to attend

a dr ug c ou rt pr og ra m.

Howell testified that he was the le ad TBI ag ent i n the investig ation of the de fenda nts, but he also asserted that bec ause it wa s a joint investigation, Metropolitan Vic e had its own lea d o ff i ce r. He sa id he was i n v o l v ed i n t he ar rest of Jose Rodrigue z which led to the investigation of the defe ndants. He r eca lled Rodrigue z making a te lephone c all to a ssist the TBI and Metropolitan police in catching his supplier

. He said he was sure that he monitored the telephone c all but was not sure if any one else monitored it with him. Howell admitted he testified at the de fenda nts’ preliminary hearing a nd in front o f t h e gra n d jury , but he said that he did not testify in front of the g rand jury which re turned a

superse ding indictment or take the le ad role in the trial testimony

.

Howell asse rted that he did not use coca ine while working. H e said that a lthough the defe ndants’ ar

rests and tria l were during the time he wa s using c ocaine , he did not use cocaine during the investig ation or trial of the defe ndants. He also admitted to stealing coca ine from e vidence on April 6, 20 0 1
, t h e d ay afte r the de fenda nts’ trial. Howe ll said he rec eived hig h evalua tions but admitted that he had r ece ived lower evaluations for not turning in doc umentation in a timely manner

. He sa id this was not a result of his coc aine a ddiction.

Ho we ll s a id tha t hi s b a nk

re c or ds we re us e d b y

the TB I to inv e sti g a te his ill e g a l a c tiv ity . H is bank re cords showe d the purc hase of a movie in a hotel r oom on J anuary 8, 2001; a purc hase f rom an adult video store on Marc h 5, 2001; and a c all to Frie nd Finder on April 5, 2001. He a dmitted that whene ver he used prosti tutes, he was likely using c ocaine . Howell’s ba nk rec ords also indicate d that he had e leven a ccounts a nd that some of these ac co u n t s co ntained more than $100,000 and oth e rs c on ta ine d ov e r $2 0, 00 0. Ho we ll d id n ot r e c a ll a ny of the ba nk a c c ou nts be ing his a ndsa id h e n e v e r h a d a b a n k a c c o u n t w ith $ 1 0 0
, 0 0 0

. H e s a id th a t may b e th e a c c o u n ts w e r e th o s e h e used for TB I purposes. H o we l l s ai d that he paid pr ostitut es in ca sh but acknowle dg ed that his bank

re c or ds didno t r e fl e c t a ny AT M w ith dr a wa ls a ndthat his pa y c he c k wa s d ir e c tly de po sit e d. Ho we ll said he was unawa

re of any discrepa ncy betwee n the amounts of money he took for T BI

purposes and the a mount that the Metropolitan police took for the same purpose s.

Offic er B irchwe ll testified that Ag ent Howe ll’s arre st of J ose Rodrig uez led to the investi gat i o n o f t he def

endants. He said that he did not reme mber be ing pr esent whe n Rodrigue z called his supplier. H oweve r, he sa id it was possible he was ther e bec ause Ag ent Howe ll worked closely with Metropolitan Vice. H e could not re call whe t h er he participated in setting up the buy investigation that led to the defe ndants’ ar rests. Off icer Birc hwell admit ted that he would not wa nt-10-

to w or k with a n o ff

ic e r w ho ha d a

c oc a ine pr ob le m be c a us e su c h a n o ff ic e r w ou ld n ot thin k p ro pe rl y and would not be trustworthy

.

De te c tiv e Cla

rk te sti fi e d th a t A g e nt H ow e ll told him abo ut his ill e g a l a c tiv iti e s o n th e sa me d ay h e t old his TBI

supervisor. He said Ag ent Howe ll wanted to apolog ize for some ac tiviti es inv olv ing pr os titute s. He sa id tha t A g e nt H ow e ll tho ug ht that Me tr op oli ta n V ic e wa s f oll ow ing him

. He said that at t hat point, either Ag ent Howe ll’s supervisor fr om the TBI came over or

called in a nd Ag ent Ho we l l s ai d he had to g o. He sa id he learned Ag ent Howe ll had been using coca ine and
ta mpe ring wi th e vid e nc e a c ou ple of

da y s late r. He sa id tha t he didno t tu rn Ag e nt H ow e ll i n beca use Ag ent Howe ll told hi m that he had a lrea dy informed his supervisor at the TB I of his illega l

a c tiv iti e s. He sa id he wa s not aw are of a ny ill e g a l ac tiv ity by Ag e nt Ho we ll d ur ing the tr ia l. H e sa id that, t o h is kno wl e dg e , n o p oli c e of fi c e r kne w a

bo ut A g e nt H ow e ll’ s c ri min a l be ha vio r a t the tim e of the tr ia l.

On cr oss-examination, Detective Clar k admitted that he too k n o ac tion to report Ag ent Howell bec a u s e h e b e li e v e d A g e n t H o w e ll h a d a lr e a d y to ld h is s u p e r v is o r

. H e a d mi tt e d th at he sh ou ld h a ve re po rt e d A g e nt H ow e ll’ s c on fe ssi on . H e a dmi tte d th a t he ma y ha ve tol d a f

e w p e op le

a t w or k a bo ut A g e nt Ho we ll’ s c on fe ssi on . H e sa id tha t in the se ve ra l in ve sti g a tio ns he wo rk e d w ith him, Age nt Howell’s beha vior was nor m al

. Ba s ed upon this newly discovere d evidenc e, the tria l

c ou rt g ra nte d e a c h de fe nd a nt’ s w ri t of e rr or c or a m no bis a ndor de re d a ne w t ri a l f or the de fe nd a nts

.

I. CO RA M NO BIS R ELIE F

T h e s t a t e c o n t e n d s t h e t r i a l c o u r te rr e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s c o r a mn o b i s r e l i e f

. It claims that there was sufficie nt e vidence to c onvict eac h defe ndant of conspirac y even in the absenc e of Ag e nt H ow e ll’ s te sti mon y

. Th e de fe nd a nts c on te nd the tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y g ra nte d c or a m no bis relief based upon A g ent Howell’s illega l actions. We conclude the t rial court’s order vacating the de fe nd a nts ’ c on vic tio ns sh ou ld b e a ff ir me d a s to Luis Va sq ue z an d V ic tor Ga rza bu t re ve rs e d a s to the oth e r d e fe nd a nts

.

A w ri t of e rr or c or a m no bis lie s “ fo r su bs e qu e ntl y or ne wl y dis c ov e re d e vid e nc e re la tin g to matters which w ere litigated at the trial if the judge determines that such evide nce ma y have r esulted in a di ffe rent judgment, had it been presente d at t he trial.” T.C.A. § 40-26-105; State v. Ha rt, 911 S.W. 2d37 1, 37 4 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 95 ). Th e de c isi on to g ra nt o r d e ny su c h a writ r e sts wi thi n the sound discre tion of the t ri al co u rt

. Tea g ue v. State, 772 S.W.2d 915, 921 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988), ce rt. denied 493 U .S. 874, 110 S. C t. 210 (1989). I n exercising its discretion, the trial court must de termine the cre dibilit y of the witnesses who testify in support of the petition for writ of e rror

cora m nobis. Hart, 911 S.W.2d at 375.

I n g ranting the def

endants’ pe titions for c oram nobis re lief, the trial c ourt stated,

The Court is, there fore
, of the opinion that the criminal acts and drug addiction of former Ag ent Howe ll constitut e new ly discovere d-11- evidenc e, within the meaning of t h e statute, and that the Petitioners

we re wi tho ut f

a ult in f a ili ng to u se or

pr e se nt the e vid e nc e a t tria l.

Having made these finding s, the Court is prese nted with the issue o f w h a t s ta n d ar d to ap p ly

. T h e Pe ti ti o n e r s ar g u e th a t the

app ro pr ia te sta nd ardto b e app lie d is wh e ther th e ne w e vid e nc e , if
prese nted to t he jury , may have r esulted in a diff

ere nt outcome. . . . Th e Sta te , how e ve r, arg ue s tha t the sta nd ard to be app lie d in thi s c a se is whether the new e vidence in this case is likely to ha ve chang ed the
outcome o f the trial, not whethe r the outcome may have be en differ ent. . . .

After considering the arg uments and authority cited by all of the parties, the Court is persuade d by the Petitioners’ arg ument. The Cou rt po int s o ut tha t th e pla in t e xt of the c or a m no bis statut e c le arl y indicates that a

writ will lie for new ly

discov ere d evidenc e if the judge determines that the evidenc e “ma y ” have resulted in a dif fer ent judgme nt. .

. . Ba sed on this una mbiguous lang uag e, the Court is of the opinion that the standard to be applied is wheth er the new evidenc e, if prese nted to the jury
, may have resulted in a d i ffe rent outcome, and tha t under the f acts and circ umstances of this case, the Petitioners’ contention is well taken.

Th e Cou rt

is of the op ini on that fo rm e r Ag e nt H ow e ll’ s r ole in the investigation and prosec ution of this case wa s vital in obtaining convictions ag ainst the Petitioners. The Court is also of the opinion that
, h ad the information re g arding his criminal acts a nd drug

a dd ic tio n be e n a va ila

ble to the Pe tit ion e rs , h e c ou ld h a ve be e n c ro sse xami ne d r e g ard ing his dr ug us e a ndc ri min a l a c ts, his c re dib ili ty could have been attacked, a nd alternate def enses mig ht have be en

e mpl oy e d b y

the Pe tit ion e rs . T he Cou rt is o f the op ini on th a t a

rea sonabl e j u ry , informed of former Ag ent Howe ll’s drug use and

c r i m i n a l a c t s , m a y h a v e c h o s e n t o r e j e c t a l l o r p ar to f h i s t e s t i m o n y. This information may

hav e also c aused the jury to question the integ rity of the e ntire investig at i o n in spite of the dilige nt and profe ssional e fforts of members of the Nashville Police De partment Vice Squad in the inve stiga tion and appre hensi o n of the Petitioners in this case.

The Court ac knowl ed g es that former Ag ent Howe ll’s testimonywas pa rt i cular ly detrimental to Petitioners Luis Vasquez

an d Vi ct o r Gar za, as he wa s the witness who identified them at the crime sc ene. T he Court, ho we v er , does not find that forme r Ag ent-12- Howell’s e ffe ct on the outcome of this case is limited to P etitioners Luis Vasquez and Victor Gar za. The Court points out that former Ag ent Howe ll play ed a le ading role in ac quiring evid en ce that was

us e d a g a ins t a ll o f the Pe tit ion e rs . T he Cou rt is of the op ini on that hi s testimonywas a lso use d by the State ag ainst all of the Petitioners and

was c onsidered by

the jury

. . . .

Ac c or din g ly , it

is h e r e by OR DE RED that th e Pe tit ion fo r Writ of Err or Coram Nobis be g rante d and this case be plac ed on the Cou rt ’s do c ke t f

or a ne w t ri a l or fu rthe r p ro c e e din g s.

I nitially , we note tha t the trial court r elied on the plain lang uag e of the statute in determining that the prope r standar d for r eviewing the merits of the defe ndants’ petitions for writ of err or cor am nobis was whethe r the ne w evidenc e may have res u l ted in a diffe rent judg ment. Howeve r,

no tw ith sta nd ing the pla in l a ng ua g e of the statut e , thi s c ou rt

ha s p re vio us ly

he ld tha t th e “ ‘r e a so na

ble
pr ob abil ity ’ sta nd ard is the pr op e r int e rp re ta tio n of the ‘m a y ha ve re su lte d in a di ff e re nt j ud g me nt’ lang uag e used in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-26-105.” State v. Workman, 111 S.W .3d 10, 18 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002)

.

I n Workman, this court equate d the “r easona ble proba bility ” standa

rd to that used in ca ses wher e the state fails to turn over materially exculpatory

evidenc e to the def

ense, U nited S t at es v. Ba g ley , 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. C t. 3375 (1985); St at e v. Edgin, 902 S.W.2d 387, 390 (Tenn. 1995), and in c ases involving the ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel. Strickland v. W ashing ton, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S

. C t

. 2 0 5 2 (1 9 8 4); Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 370 (Tenn. 1996). In the

c o n t e x to f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l
, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s d e f i n e d “ r e a s o n ab l e p r o b ab i l i t y” as “a probability

sufficie nt to undermine conf idence in the outcome” of

the proc eeding s. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068; see also B ag ley , 473 U.S. at 682, 105 S. Ct . at 3383 (stating the definition of “r easona

ble proba bility ” is “a

probability

sufficie nt to u n d er m i ne conf idence in the outcome”)

.

We further

note that in Workman, this court analy zed the cora m nobis statute and stated,

I t is arg ua

ble that th e “ ma y

ha ve re su lte d in a di ff

e re nt j ud g me nt” lang uag e should be viewed unde r the same standard a s a motion for new tria l based upon ne wly discov er ed ev i dence . The test in such a situa tio n is wh e the r the ne wl y dis c ov e rede vid e nc e “ wi ll l ike ly chang e the result of the t rial.” St ate v. Nic hols, 877 S.W .2d 722, 737 (Tenn. 1994) . Howeve r, t h i s appea rs on its face to be a hig her standard tha n the “may have” lang uag e in the s tatute and the “might have” lang uag e used by our supreme court in [St ate v. ]Mix on[, 983 S .W .2 d 6 61 (T e nn . 1 99 9) ]. F urthe rm or e , a le sse r s ta nd ardwo uld
appea r to be more appropriate . . . .-13-

111 S.W .3d at 18. This court c oncluded that the “r ea s o n able pr obability ” standa rd constituted a lesser standa

rd than the “ will likelychang e the r esult of the trial” lang uag e for a motion for new trial hearing. We c onclude that this result is incong ruous. We discern little ef fec tive differ ence betwee n

“ a pr ob abil ity su ff

ic ie nt to und e rm ine c on fi de nc e in the ou tc ome ” a nd “ wi ll l ike ly c ha ng e the re su lt of the trial.” We further note that th e his tory

of the c oram nobis statute, our supre me court’s
pr on ou nc e me nts in this are na , a ndthe de fi nit ion of the wo rd“ ma y ” bu ttr e ss the c on te nti on that bo th

o f t h e f o re go i n g s t an d ar d s ar e i n co m p at i b l e w i t h t h e s t at u t e’ s p l ai n m ea n i n g.

Th e his t o r y o f c o r am n o b i s r e l ie f i nd ic a te s th a t, p re vio us ly , n e wl y dis c ov e re d e vid e nc e wo uld

serve as a pr oper ba sis for re li ef o n l y i f t he evide nce w ould have c hang ed the outcome of the
proce eding s. See Dinsmore v. B oy d, 74 Tenn. 689 (1881); Mahalovitch v. Vaug hn, 60 Tenn. 325 (1 87 2) ; ac c or d Stat e e x re l. Carl so n v. Stat e , 407 S.W. 2d 16 5 (T e nn . 1 96 6) ; se e g e ne ra lly 18 Am

. J ur. 2d Coram Nobis § 18 (1985). When our Gene ral Asse mbly first provided f

or cor am nobis relief in criminal proce eding s, it mandated th at s u ch procee dings “ be g overne d by the same r

ules and
proce dure a

pplicable to the writ of err or cora m nobis in c ivil ca ses, except in so f ar a s inconsistent here with.” 1955 Tenn. Pub. Ac ts ch. 166, § 1.

I n 1 9 7 8
, t h e G en er al As s em b l y am e n d e d t h e co ra mn o b i s s t at u t e f o r c ri m i n al p ro ce ed i n gs by a dd ing the fo llo wi ng se nte nc e :

Upon a showing by the defendant that he was without fault in failing to present c erta in evidence at t h e proper time, a writ of e rror

cora m nobis will l ie for

s u b s equently

discovere d evidenc e re lating to matter s which we re litig ated a t the trial if the judg e dete rm i n es t h at such evi d en ce may

have r esulted in a diff

ere nt judgment, ha d it been
pr e se nte d a t tria l.

1978 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 738, § 1. We note that the leg islature is presume d to know the state of the law at the time the le g islation is passed. S ee W i l s o n v. J ohnson County , 879 S.W .2d 807, 810 (T e nn . 1 99 4) . T he re fo re , w e c on c lud e that our Ge ne ra l Asse mbl y ’s a me nd me nt to the c or a m no bis statute was de signe d in part to a lter the standard for determining when newly discovere d evidenc e would war

rant re lief.

I n Cole v. State, 589 S.W .2d 941, 943 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979), this c ourt in r eviewing a

c or a m no bis pe tit ion br ou g ht un der the a me nd e d s ta tut e state d th a t in or de r t o g ra nt c or a m no bis relief
,

the tr ia l ju dg e mus t ma ke the fo llo wi ng fi nd ing s: (1) whe ther or not there now ex ists subsequently or new ly discovere d evidenc e (e ven thoug h rela ted to matters pre viouslylitigated)
, (2) whic h might have resulted in a d i ff er en t judgme nt had it been
prese nted at trial,-14- (3) b u t wh i ch was not pre sented a t that time through no f ault of the defe ndant.

(Emphasis adde d). We note this is the same lang uag e used by our supre me court in Mix on.

I n Mix on, afte r t h e t ri al and during the pende ncy of the a ppeal, the de fenda nt’s daug hter

re c a nte d h e r t e sti mon y

that he r f a the r atte mpt e d to ra

pe he r, statin g that he r m oth e r t oldhe r t o te ll authorities her

fathe r attempted to ra

pe her be cause her mother was planning to divorce he r father. 983 S.W .2d at 664-65. Whil e the court did not decide the case on the coram nobis issue, it did agr ee that th is c ou rt

ha d p re vio us ly

“ e nu nc ia te d th e c or

re c t st a nd ardwh ic h s ho uldbe app lie d b y t ri a l c ou rt s in determining whether

a new trial shou l d b e gra n ted upon the basis of ne wly discovere d [evidence].” I d. at 673. That standa rd is whether

(1) the trial court is rea sonably well satisfied that the te stimonyg iven by the mater i al wi t ness was f alse a nd the new te stimonyis true; (2) the defendant wa s rea sonably diligent in discove ring the new

e vid e nc e , o r w a s su rp ri se d b y th e fa lse te sti mon y , o r w a s u na ble to kno w o f th e f

a ls it y o f th e te s ti mo n y u n ti l a f te r th e tria l; a n d ( 3 ) the jury might have rea ched a differ ent conclusion had the t ru t h b een told.

I d. at 673 n.17 (e mphasis added) . I n Workman v. Stat e, 4 1 S.W .3d 100 (Tenn. 2001) , the court addre ssed the summary

dismiss al of the petitioner’s pe tition for cora m nobis relief. I n reve rsing the
summary dismiss al, the supre me court ag ain cited the sta ndard it enunc iated in Mix on as the
appropriate standa

rd for adjudicating a petition for writ of err or cor am nobis.

Con c e rn ing the statut ory

la ng ua g e , We bs te r d e fi ne s th e wo rd “ ma y ” a s ( 1) “ ha ve the abil ity to” or (2) “used to i n d i ca t e possibility .” Mer riam Webster’s Colleg e Dictionary 718-19 (10th ed. 1996). B lack’ s L aw Dic tionary define s “may ” as “ [a] n auxil iary verb qua lify ing the meaning of another verb by expressing . . . possibility
, probability or conting ency

. . . .” B lack’ s L aw Dic tionary 676 (6th ed. 1991).

We b e lie ve that th e “ re a so na ble pr ob abil ity ” stand ard

de fi ne d a s “ a

pr ob abil ity

su ff ic ie nt t o

un de rm ine c on fi de nc e in the ou tc ome ” is inc omp a tib le wi th the statut e ’s pla in m e a nin g . We a lso believe tha t in determining wh ether to gr ant cor am nobis relief based upon ne wly

discovere d evidenc e, the pr oper standa rd should be whe ther a

rea sonable ba sis ex ists for concluding t h at had the e vid e nc e be e n p re se nte d a t tr ia l, the re su lt o f the pr oc e e din g s mi g ht h a ve be e n d if fe re nt.

Howeve r, we note that the proper standard for determining whe ther to g rant a writ of er ror

c or a m no bis wa s n ot a n is su e be fo re the su pr e me c ou rt in Wor kma n or Mixon or thi s c ou rt in C ole but was an issue be fore this c o u rt o n re mand in Workman. There fore , we a re oblig ated to follow Wor kma n a s c on tr oll ing a uth or ity fo r the “ re a so na ble pr ob abil ity ” sta nd ard . Se e Te nn . Su p. Ct. R. 4( H) (2 ). We not e that upon fu rthe r re vie w, thi s ca se c ou ld p ro vid e ou r s up re me c ou rt a n o pp ortun ity-15-

to clarify this area of the law and dete rmine t h e p ro p er standard f or interpr eting the “may

have chang ed the r esult” lang uag e in T.C.A. § 40-26-105.

Turning to the fac ts of this c ase, we note that at the trial, Ag ent Howe ll did not t estify that he wa s persona lly involved in appre hending or identify ing Robe rto Vasque s, Luis David Romero, Kevin He rnande z, or Hector A lonzo. However, my riad off icer s o f t h e Metropolitan Pol ice Depa rtment did testify

that Roberto Vasque s, Luis David Romero, Ke vin Herna ndez, and Hec tor Alonzo were the same pe rsons they appre hended at the car

wash.

Notwithstanding, the defe ndants contend that their defe nse strate g ies would have chang ed had they known about Ag ent Howe ll’s illi cit drug use, and the trial court noted that Ag ent Howe ll’s illega l activities may

have c aused the jury

to question the validityor integ rity of the e ntire investigation. I f the standard for g ranting a writ or err or cor am nobis were the statutory “may have

c ha ng e d th e re su lt” la ng ua g e , w e wo uldc on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ou rt didno t a bu se its dis c re tio n in
g r a n ti n g th e w r it s o f

e rr o r c o r a m n o b is to Ro b e r to V a s q u e s , Lu is D a v id Ro me r o , K e v in H e r n a n d e z, and He ctor Alonzo. Howeve r, we cannot c onclude that the sta in placed on the integ rity of the e ntire investigation by

Ag ent Howell’s illega l a ctions constitutes a “re asonable probability ” that the jury ’s

v e r d ic t would h a v e c h a n g e d “ s u f f ic ie n t t o u n d e r mi n e [o u r ] c o n f id e n c e in th e o u tc o me

. ” We the re fo re c on c lud e that the tr ia l c ou rt abu se d it s d isc re tio n in g ra nti ng Rob e rt o V a sq ue s, Luis Da vid Romero, Kevin He rnande z, and Hector Alonzo coram nobis relief

.

As the trial court noted, Ag ent Howe ll directly implicated def

endants L uis Vasque z and Victor Ga rza in the conspira cy

. We do note, howeve r, that De tective Ada ms observed V asquez and Ga rza in the F ir e bir d w he n th e y parke d n e xt to h im at th e Da ir y Qu e e n, bu t hi s te sti mon y re fl e c ts that Vasque z and Garza we re only par k ed n ex t to him for one to two minutes befor e lea ving the Dairy Quee n. We also note that Off icer Rolli ns saw the Fire bird at the duplex at the same time the Taurus w as there and that a loa ded shotg un was found in the F irebird. On the other ha nd, Ag ent Howell testified that whe n Vasque z and Garza pulled into the Burg er K ing pa rking lot, he observe d the m c on sta ntl y

loo kin g str a ig ht a

he a d in the dir e c tio n o f the c ar w a sh . H e a lso sa id tha t ne ith e r L uis Vasque z nor Victor Gar za went into the Bur g er King or exit ed the car . We conclude this testimony

w a s e s p e c ia ll y d a ma g in g in li g h t o f th e f a c t th a t V a s q u e z a n d G ar za w e r e n o t ap p r e h e nded at the

scene and we re not in either actua l or construc tive possession of the marijuana . As to the Fire bird’s
prese nce at 1035 Antioch Pike, we note that Of fice r Rollins t estimony

place d th e Fi re b i rd on one side o f t h e b u i l d ing a nd the Taur us on the other side, be hind the building. Howe ver, he did not testify as to any meeting s or communications betwe en Vasquez and Garza and the oc cupants of the Ta ur us . T h e r e f

o r e , w e c o n c l u d e t h a tb a s e d u p o n t h e n e w l y d i s c o v e r e de v i d e n c e , a

“ r e a s o n a ble probability ” exists “sufficient to undermine [our] confidenc e in the outcome” that the jury ’s ver dict would have c hang ed and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in gr ant i n g t h e writs of er ror

c or a m no bis to the se de fe nd a nts

.

Mixon instruct s u s th a t pr oc e du ra lly , w e are to a dd re ss the c or a m no bis iss ue fi rs t w he n it has bee n g rante d by

the trial court beca

use, should this court aff

irm, the def

endant’ s issues on direct

app e a l be c ome moo t. 9 83 S.W. 2d a t 672. Ho we ve r, in this c a se , if the e vid e nc e is i ns uf

fi c ie nt t o-16-

sustain the convictions of L uis V asquez and Victor Gar za, a conviction on rema nd could offe nd the Double Jeopardy

provision of the fe dera l constituti on. There fore , even thoug h we have af firmed the trial court’s g rant of cora m nobis relief
, we will address the suf

ficienc y arg uments of Mr. Va squez and Mr. Ga

rza.

II. SUFF ICIENCY OF THE E VIDENCE

Al l de fe nd a nts c on te ndthat th e e vid e nc e a t tria l w a s in su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

the ir c on vic tio ns

. As pa rt ic ula rl y dis c us se d b e low in d e ta il a s to e a c h d e fe nd a nt, a ll o r s ome of the m c la im ( 1) the state failed to prove that the def endants e ntere d into an ag ree ment to sell marijuana in a school zone; (2) the state fa ile d to pro ve tha t so me of the m w e re wi thi n 1 00 0 f e e t of a sc ho ol zo ne wh ile in
po sse ssi on of

the mari jua na or that th e c ar w a sh wa s with in 1 00 0 f e e t of a sc ho ol zo ne ; ( 3) the state fa ile d to pr ov e that so me of the m e nte red i nt o an a g re e me nt t o p os se ss o r s e ll d ru g s; ( 4) the state fa ile d to pr ov e that so me of the m c omm itt e d o ve rt a c ts i n f urthe ra nc e of

the c on sp ir a c y ; ( 5) the state failed to prove that one of them was in any of t he three ca rs; and (6) the state’s c ase a s to some of the def endants wa s based e ntirely on circ umstantial e vidence
, and as such, it f ailed to e x clude e very oth e r r e a so na

ble hy po the sis sa ve the g uil t of

tho se de fe nd a nts . T he state c on te nd s th e e vid e nc e is sufficie nt. We ag ree with the state.

Our standa

rd o f re v iew whe n the def endant que stions the sufficienc y of the e vidence on appea l is “whether , afte r viewin g t h e ev i d ence in the light most favor able to the pr osecution, any

ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h a ve fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a

re a so na ble d o u b t

. ” J ac k s o n v

. Vi rgi n i a, 4 4 3 U. S

. 3 0 7
, 3 1 9
, 9 9 S

. C t

. 2 7 8 1
, 2 7 8 9 (1 9 7 9 ). W e d o n o tre we i gh the evidenc e; ra ther, we presume tha t the jury has resolved all conflicts in the testimony and dra wn all rea sonable infe renc es fr om the evidenc e in favor of t he st ate. See S tate v. S heff ield, 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984) ; State v. Cabbag e, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (T enn. 1978). Questions about witness cre dibilit y are resolved by the j ury

. See S tate v. Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997)

.

I n order to prove the c onspiracy , the state wa s require d to prove that

tw o ( 2) or

mor e peopl e, e a c h h a vin g the c ulp able me nta l st a te require d for the offense which is the obj ect of the conspiracy and ea ch acting for the purpose of promoting or fa cilitating c ommissi on of an offe nse, ag ree that one (1) or more of them will en gage i n conduct which constitutes such off ense.

. . . . No pe rson may

be convic ted of c onspiracy to commit an offe nse unless an ove rt ac t in pursuance of such conspiracy is alleg ed and prove d to have be en done by the person or by another with whom the per son conspired.-17-

T.C.A. § 39-12-103( a), ( d).

I n o rd e r t o p ro ve the un de rl y ing offens e, the state wa s r e qu ir e d to pr ov e the de fe nd a nts kn o w in g ly p o s s e s s e d “ a c o n tr o ll e d s u b s ta n c e w ith in te n t to ma n u f a c tu r e , d e li v e r o r s ell such controlled substanc e.” T .C.A. § 39-17-417( a)( 4). Tennessee Code Annotated se ction 39-17-432( b) provides that

A violation o f § 39-17-417, or a conspira cy

to violate such sec tion, that occur s on the g rounds or fa cilities of any scho o l or within one thousand fee t (1,000' ) of the real property that comprises a public or
pr ivate e le me nta

ry sc ho ol, mid dlesc ho ol o r s e c on da ry sc ho ol s ha ll be punished one (1) c lassification hig her th an is provided in § 39-17-417( b)-( I ) for

such violation.

We b e g in b y

no tin g that th e e sse nc e of c on sp ir a c y ha s a lw a y s b e e n a n a g re e me nt t o c omm it

a crime. State v. Hodg kinson, 778 S.W .2d 54, 58 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989); acc ord Owens v. State, 84 T e n n

. 1
, 3 ( 1 8 8 5 )

. O b v io u s ly
, a c o n s p ir a c y r e q u ir e s a k n o w in g in v o lv e me n t. H o w e v e r , no formal or expressed ag ree ment is nece ssary and the a g ree ment may

be prove d by

circ u m s t antial evidenc e. State v. Shropshire, 874 S.W.2d 634, 641 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). T o p rove a conspirac y , it is not ne cessa ry that the state show a f

ormal ag ree ment betwee n the parties to do the unlawful ac t , b ut a mutually implied understanding is sufficient, althoug h not manifested by any formal wor ds, or by

a written ag ree ment. I d. The unlaw ful confe deration may be esta blished by circ umstantial evidence and the conduct of the parties in the e x ecution of the criminal ente rprise. Conspiracy

implies concert of desig n and not participation in every detail of e x ecution. Randolph v. State, 570 S.W .2d 869, 871 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978)

.

A. Def endant Roberto Vasques

Def endant Va sques contends the evidenc e is insuffi ci ent bec ause at trial, the state’s pr oof failed to pla ce him inside any of the three car s involved. He c laims the only evidenc e pre sented by the state “ was that the a

rre sting off

icer saw [the defe ndant] running for his life at the ca r wa sh.” He

a sse rt s tha t he wa s simp ly “ loi te ri ng a t th e c ar w a sh ” a ndra n w he n th e po lic e arrive d, “ wa ivi ng the ir
g un s. ” Th e state c on te nd s th e e vid e nc e is s uf fi c ie nt.

I n th e l i g h t m o s t f

a v o r ab l e t o t h e s t a t e , t h e e v i d e n c e s h o w s t h a t th e i n f o r m a n t c a l l e d his
contac t, the defe ndant Romero, who ag ree d to se ll the informant marijuana and de liver it to the car wash, that Romero a

rrived at the Walgr eens in the Camry followed by the Taur us and the F irebird, that th e thr e e c ars pa

rk e d ne xt to ea c h othe r, that th e Ca mr y a ndTaur us pr oc e e de d to the c ar w a sh to deliver the ma

rijuana, a nd that the Fir ebird stake d out a location at the Bur g er King parking lot with a direc t view of the c ar w ash. When the ar rest orde r wa s g iven, S er gea n t Forrest tac kled Vasque s, who was “ running for his life” near one of the ca

r wa sh bay s. A subsequent sea rch of the

are a re veale d the pre sence of over seventy pounds of marijuana in the trunk of the Taurus and the
p r e s e n c e o f

a g u n in s id e th e c ar

w a s h b a y a d ja cent to whe r e th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s ap p r e h e n d e d

. We-18-

a lso no te that th e e vid e nc e sh ow s th a t th e thr e e c ars c on ta ine d s e ve n s us pe c ts an d tha t se ve n s us pe c ts

we re app re he nd e d a t th e tw o lo c a tio ns . We c on c lud e the e vid e nc e , th ou g h c ir c ums ta nti a l, i s

su ff ic ie nt fo r a ra tio na l trie r of fa c t to fi nd that Va sq ue s c on sp ir e d to g e the r w ith the oth e r d e fe nd a nts t o p o s s es s wi th the intent to sell over seve nty pounds of marijuana

within one thousand fee t of a school zone. Vasques is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.

B. D efe ndant L

uis D. Vidales Romero

Def endant Romero c ontends the evide nce is insuffic ient beca use the state f

ailed to prove that
any part of the conspirac y

occur red w ithin one thousand fee t of a school zone. He claims that the state fa iled to prove the car he was in, the Camry , ever drove pa st the schools on Nolensville Road and that no overt act occ urre d at t he Walg ree ns, which he c oncede s was within one thousand fe et of Ra dn or B apti st E le me nta

ry Sc ho ol. He a lso c on te nd s the state fa ile d to pr ov e that he kn ow ing ly
enter ed into a conspirac y to posse ss ma rijuana with the intent to sell it. He claims the evide nce w as

“ wh oll y ins uf fi c ie nt t o p ro ve a

c on sp ir a c y

[simp ly ] b e c a us e to [sic ] v e hic le s p ull e d u p in the sa me parking lot.” The state c ontends the evide nce is suff icient.

I n th e lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to the state , th e e vid e nc e sh ow s t hat th e inf or ma nt c a lle d h is supplier, David, and arr ang ed to ma ke a larg e purcha se of marijuana

. At a time ar rang ed during the

conver sation, a white Camry arrived at the c ar w ash on Nolensville Road and the occ upants spoke wi th the inf

or ma nt a ndtol d h im th ey we re g oin g to g e t th e mari jua na . T he Ca mr y

the n w e nt t o Walgr eens w here it was met by the Taurus. The Taurus left a nd went to the house on A ntioch Pike, wher e it was met by

a F irebird. Appr ox imately twenty minutes later, the Taurus and the F irebird
trave led tog ether

to Walgre ens an d p ar ked next to the Camry . All three c ars then w ent to the ca r wash. While the Fire bird parke d at the B u rge r Ki ng in a position that allowed the occ upants an unimpeded view o f t h e car wash, the Ta

urus and the Ca mry

pulled into the car

wash. When the police moved in to a

rre st Romer o, who was in the Camry
, he fled but w as ca ptured. A se arc h of the Taurus r evea led o ver se venty pounds of marijuana , a sea rch of the def endant r evea led a ha ndg un,

a nda se arc h o f the Ca mr y re ve a le d c omm un ic a tio n e qu ipm e nt. We c on c lud e the e vid e nc e is

su ff ic ie nt fo r a ra tio na l trie r of fa c t to f indthat Ro me ro c on sp ir e d to g e the r w ith the oth e rs to p os se ss with the intent to sell over seve nty pounds of marijuana

. Concerning the enha nceme nt statute, the evidenc e shows th at t h e Taurus c ontaining the

mari jua na me t with the Ca mr y a nd the F ir e bir d at Wa lg re e ns , e ig hty -o ne fe e t f ro m Ra dn or

B apti st Elementary

School. We conclude this meeting wa s an act in furthera nce of the conspira cy

which attache s criminal liability to a ll of the defe ndants throug h the conspirac y statute. See T.C.A. § 39- 12-103. We a lso c onclude that this a ct occ urre d within one thousand fee t of a school zone, Radnor Ba ptist Elementary

School, thereby

trig g ering the enha nceme nt provisions of the Drug -F ree School Z one Ac t. See T.C.A. § 39-17-432. In any eve n t , we n o t e that on cr oss-examination, Detective Clark said without objec tion that he thought Radnor Ba ptist Elemeta

ry School was “just shy ” of one thousand fee t from the ca

r wa sh. There fore , his statement that the car wash was withi n one thousand fee t of the school zone was befor e the jury
, and Romero and his conf eder ates we re a

pprehe nded at-19-

the c ar w a sh wh ile a tte mpt ing to d e liv e r the mari jua na , ce rt a inl y a n ove rt a c t in fu rthe ra nc e of the ir
ag ree ment. Romero is not entitled to relief on this issue.

C. Defe ndant Kevin Joel Herna ndez

Def endant Her nandez contends the evidenc e is insufficient be cause the state fa iled to prove he ente red into an a g ree ment to sell or deliver ma rijuana. H e cla ims that the state’s proof c onstitut ed

on ly c ir c ums ta nti a l e vid e nc e based up on his pr e se nc e in the Ca mry , w hic h d oe s n ot e sta bli sh his

e nte ri ng int o a

con sp ir acy to se ll d ru g s. He a lso c on te nd s th e e vid e nc e pr e se nte d a t tria l f a ile d to establish that any

part of the conspirac y

occur red w ithin one thousand fee t of a school zone. He

c la ims that T e nn e sse e ’s Dr ug -Free Sc ho ol Z on e Ac t r e qu ir e s a pe rs on to h a ve the int e nt t o s e ll within one thousand fee t of a school zone, tha t the state fa iled to prove a n intent to sell at any location other tha n the ca r wa sh, and that the state f ailed to prove the ca

r wa sh was within one thousand fee t of a school zone. F inally , Hernandez claims that application of the Drug -F ree School Z one Ac t in this case , resulting in his having to ser ve a minimum of fiftee n y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction befor e ac hieving parole elig ibilit y , “is surely not the type situation contemplated by the school zone statute,” beca use once a conspirac y exis ts, it “w ill continue for day s, wee ks, months or long er until the desire d result is a chieve d or the participa nts withdraw.” T he state c ontends the

e vid e nc e is s uf

fi c ie nt.

I n the light most favor able to the state , the evidenc e s h ows that the def endant Ke vin J oel He rn a nd e z wa s a

rr e ste d a t th e c ar w a sh wh ile sit tin g in the pa sse ng e r s e a t of the Ca mr y . It a lso sh ow s th e Ca mr y , T a ur

us , a ndF ir e bir d me t a t Wa lg re e ns a ndpr oc e e de d to the c ar w a sh in o rd e r t o sell the drug s. At the ca

r wa sh, a search revea led t he presence of over seventy pounds of marijuana in the trunk of the Ta

urus and c ommunication equipment in the Camry . We concl u d e t h at the evidenc e, thoug h circ umstantial, was suffic ient for a rational trier

of fa ct to find th at Hernandez
enter ed into an ag ree ment with his confederate s to sell marijuana a t the car wash a nd that the defe ndants committed overt ac ts in furthera nce of their conspira cy

by meeting at Walgr eens w ith the drug s and by

proce eding to the car

wash with the drug s in or d er t o sell them. Concerning Hernandez’ c ontention that no part of the conspirac y occur red within one thousand fee t of the school
zone, w e c o n c lu d e h is ar g u me n t i s c o n tr o ll e d b y o u r a n a ly s is o f

th e ar g u me n t p r e s e n te d b y the defe ndant L

uis David Romero.

Hernandez’ fina l arg ument is presente d in his brief under t h e s ec t ion titl ed “Summary .” Whil e it i s a lit a ny of c omp la int s c on c e rn ing the op e ratio n o f the Dr ug -Fre e Sc ho ol Z on e Ac t in thi s

c a se , it is de vo id of a ny le g a l jus tif ic a tio n fo r s us pe nd ing the app lic a tio n o f the Ac t to the de fe nd a nt. He doe s not assert that the Ac t is overbroa d or vag ue or tha t its application violated his right to due
proce ss of law. He does, howe ver, c ite State v. Fi el d s , 4 0 S .W.3d 435 (Tenn. 2001), for the
pr op os iti on that our su pr e me c ou rt ’s “ la ng ua g e a ndre a so nin g

. . . is pe rs ua siv e on thi s is su e . It is clea r they are uncomforta

ble with the stri ct l i ab i l ity nature of the school zone statute a nd are

re luc ta nt t o a

pp ly its e nh a nc e me nt o n a

pe r s e ba sis .” He fu rthe r c on te nd s th at th is cou rt “ sh ou ld also be une asy

with the sentenc e in this case be ing e nhance d based on the mere pa ssing throug h the school zone incident to the intended a ctivity .”-20-

The defenda nt’s relianc e on Fields is misplaced. I n Fields, the de fenda nt and his acc omplice sold coca ine to an underc over informant, and the jury convicted the defe ndant of fa cilitation of the sale of coca ine, a Class C felony . At the sentenc ing he aring reg arding the manner of ser vice of

the
sentenc e, the state showed that the dr ug transac tion oc curr ed within one thousand fee t of a school zone, thereby

supporting its ar g ument t h at i n car cer ation was wa rra nted to avoid depr ecia ting the seriousness of the offe nse. The trial court orde red the defe ndant to serve his s en t en ce in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. Fields, 40 S.W.3d at 437-38. On appe al, our supreme court held that “the

me re e xiste nc e of

the Dr ug -Fre e Sc ho ol Z on e Ac t, w ith ou t mo re , c a nn ot e le va te the na tur e of thi s offe nse to one requi ring incar cer ation.” I d. at 440-41. It noted the state ha d failed to indict the defe ndan t u n d er the Act. I n this contex t, the court mer ely determined that a drug transac tion

occur ring within one thous and feet of a school zone, standing alone, is insufficient to overc ome the presumption of alternative sente ncing and jus t i fy incar cer ation in order to a void depre ciating the seriousness of the offe nse. We do not be lieve the supreme court in F ields expressed unea se about the application of the Drug -F ree School Z one Ac t throug h strict liability

. Concerning the contention that this court should be uneasy about the enha nced pe nalties for

me re ly pa ssi ng thr ou g h a

sc ho ol zo ne , w e no te He rn a nd e z’ b ri e f d oe s n ot c ite a ny a uth or ity to support his contention. I n any event, we conclude that the def endant c ould have e asily

avoided the enhanc ed pena lties unde r the Act by not c onspiring to se ll dr ug s within one thousand fee t of a school

zon e . H e a ndhis c on fe de rate s c ou ld h a ve c ho se n a loc a tio n to se ll the dr ug s w hic h w a s n ot w ith in one thousand fe et of a

school zone and could ha ve chosen not to commit ove rt acts in further ance of their a g ree ment within one thousand fee t of a school zone. Hernandez is not entitl ed to re lief on this iss ue.

D. Def endant L uis Martin Vasquez

Def endant Va squez contends the evide nce is insuffic ient beca use the state (1) failed to prove he e nte re d in to a n agreemen t to se ll d ru g s, (2 ) f a ile d to pr ov e a ny

ov e rt a c t of the de fe nd a nt i n further ance of the c onspiracy , and (3) failed to prove the conspira cy occur red w ithin one thousand fee t of a scho o l z o n e. He c laims that the proof only established his prese nce at the crime sc ene, which he c laims is ins ufficie nt evidence to convict on conspira cy char g es and tha t t h e state fa iled to p rove any of th e ov e rt a c ts a lle g e d a g a ins t hi m in the ind ic tme nt. He c on c e de s th a t th e state proved he was in a c ar at the Walgr eens pa rked ne x t to the Taurus a nd the C amry , but he maintains thi s d id n ot c on sti tut e a n ov e rt a c t in fu rthe ra nc e of the c on sp ir a c y

. He fu rthe r c la ims that th e state failed to prove that any

of the de fenda nts knew they wer e within one thousand fe et of a school zone and that the leg islature did not intend for e nhance d penalties to attac h under the Drug -F ree School Z on e Ac t fo r simply dr ivi ng wi th dr ug s pa st a sc ho ol. Th e state c on te nd s th e e vid e nc e is s uf fi c ie nt.

I n the light most favora

ble to the state, the e vidence ref lects that Va squez was in the Fir ebird, that th e F ir e bir d w a s o bs e rv e d a t on e of the ho us e s on A nti oc h Pi ke , th a t it fo llo we d th e Taur

us to the Walgr eens w here it met with the Taurus and the Camry , that i t fo l l o we d the Taur us and the Camry to the car wash, but that it stopped short of t he car wa sh, turned into the B urg er K ing, a nd set up surveillance o f t he ca

r wa sh. After

the ar rest orde r wa s g iven, re sulting sea rche s reve aled the-21-

pr e se nc e of

a we apo n in the F ir e bir d, ov e r se ve nty po un ds of mari jua na in the trun k o f the Taur

us , communication equipment in t he C amry , and other wea pons. We conclude the evidence is suffic ient for a rational trier of fac t to find that Vasque z conspire d toge ther with the other s to possess with the intent to sell over seve nty pounds of marijuana

. Concerning the def

endant’ s arg uments relative to the e nhance d penalties of the Drug -F ree School Z one Ac t, the evidenc e shows that the defenda nt was in the Firebird and that the Fire bird met wi th t he Tau rus and the Ca mr y a t Wa lg re e ns . We a g a in c on c lud e that th is w a s a n o ve rt a c t in further ance of the c onspiracy , there by attaching liabilityto the defe ndant and that t h e o v er t act

o cc u rr ed wi t h i n o n e t h o u s an d fe et o f as ch o o l z o n e, t h er eb y t ri gger i n g t h e a p p l i ca t i o n o f t h e D ru gFr ee School Z one Ac t. We also note that the evidenc e shows that the Taur us and the Camry

went to the c ar w a sh to c omp le te the dr ug tr a ns a c tio n a nd that De te c tiv e Cla rk te sti fi e d th a t th e c ar w a sh was within one thous and feet of a school zone. We conclude this wa s another a ct in further ance of the conspira cy

Vasque z entered into, attaching liability to him through the pr ovisions of Tennessee C o d e A n n o t a t e d s e c t i o n 3 9

- 1 2

- 1 0 3 f o r t h e c r i m e a n d s e c t i o n 3 9

- 1 7

- 4 3 2 f o r t h e e n h a n c e d p e n a l t y. Vasque z is not entitled to relief on this issue.

E

. D e f e n d a n t H e c to r

A lo n zo

Def endant Alonzo conte nds the evidenc e is insuff icient beca

use the state failed to pr ove that he ente r e d in to a n a g r e e me n t to p o s s e s s ma r ij u a n a w ith th e in te n t to s e ll it a n d f a il e d to prove he committed any

overt a cts in further ance of the c onspiracy . He c laims that the state mere ly proved his pr e se nc e a t th e c ar w a sh bu t th a t it fa ile d to pr ov e he kn e w a bo ut the dr

ug s o r the c on sp ir a c y

to

se ll the m. T he state c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e is s uf fi c ie nt.

I n th e lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to the state , the e vid e nc e sh ow s that A lon zo w a s a n o c c up a nt i n the Taurus, that the Taurus parke d next to the C amry and F irebird a t Walgre ens, and tha t the Taurus and Camry

proce ede d t o t h e car wash while the Fire bird established a n observation post at the Bur g er K ing. T he ar

rest of the defe ndants and subsequent sear ch of their car s reve aled the pr esenc e of over seventy pounds of marijuana

in the trunk of the Taurus and the pre senceof communica tion devi c e s a n d w e ap o n s

. We c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v id e n c e , th o u g h c ir c u ms ta n ti a l, is s u f f ic ient for a

ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t to fi ndthat A lon zo c on sp ir e d to p os se ss o ve r s e ve nty po un ds of

mari jua na wi th the int e nt t o s e ll i t.

Conc e rn ing the ov e rt

a c t, w e c on c lud e that th e me e tin g a t Wa lg re e ns wa s a n o ve rt a c t in fu rthe ra nc e of the c on sp ir a c y wh ic h oc c ur re d with in one tho us a nd fe e t of a sc ho ol zo ne . We a lso

c on c lud e that the a tte mpt to c omp le te the dr ug tr a ns a c tio n a t the c ar wa sh wa s a n ov e rt a c t in further ance of the c onspiracy and that De tective Clark’ s testimony provided sufficie nt e vidence for the ju r y to f in d th e o v e r t a c t at th e c ar w a s h o c c u r

r e d w ith in o n e th o u s a n d f e e t o f a s c h o o l z one. A l o n z o c l a i m s t h e s t a t e f

a i l e d t o p r o v e h e c o m m i t t e d a n o v e r t a c t i n f u r t h e r a n c e o f

t h e c o n s p i r a c y. Howeve r, Tenne ssee Code A nnotated se cti on 39-12-103 only require s the state to prove that an
ag ree ment exis ted among the def endants to possess more tha n seventy pounds of marijuana

with the-22-

intent to sell it and that any one o f t h e d efe ndants committed an overt act in furthe ranc e of the conspirac y . The state ha s met its burden, and the de fenda nt is not entit led to relief on this iss ue.

F

. D e f e n d a n t V ic to r

H u g o G ar za

Def endant Ga

rza contends the e vidence is insufficient because the state failed to prove tha t he ente red into an a g reement to sell drug s. He a sserts that his prese nce in the F irebird, whic h he notes was not at the sc ene of the drug transac tion, is “not enoug h to c onstitut e being a member of

a c on sp ir a c y .” Th e state c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e is s uf fi c ie nt.

I n the light most favor able to the state, t he record r efle cts that Gar za was in the F irebird, that the Firebird was observe d at one of t he houses on Antioch P ike, t hat i t followed the Ta urus to the Walgr eens w here it met with the Taurus and the Camry , that it followed the Taur us and the Camry to the car wash, but that it stopped short of the c ar w ash, t urned into the B urg er K ing, a nd set up intense surve illance of

the ca r wa sh. After

th e arrest orde r wa s g iven, re sulting sea rche s reve aled the pre sence of a w eapon in the F irebird, ove r seve nty po u n ds of marijuana

in the trunk of the Taurus, c ommunication equipment, and other wea pons. We conclude the evidenc e is suf ficient for

a ratio na l trie r of fa c t to fi nd that the de fe nd a nt co ns pir e d tog e the r with th e oth e rs to p os se ss w ith the intent to se ll more than seve nty pounds of marijuana

within one thousand fee t of a school zone, and the de fenda nt is not entit led to relief on this iss ue.

III. CONSTI TUTIONALIT Y OF THE DRUG- F REE SCHO OL ZONE ACT

De fe nd a nts Rob e rt o V a sq ue s a nd Ro me ro c on te ndthe Dr ug -Fre e Sc ho ol Z on e Ac t is

un c on sti tut ion a l. T he y

c on c e de that th is c ou rt

ha s prev io us ly

up he ld the Ac t’ s c on sti tut ion a lit y under a vag uenes s ch al leng e. Howe ver, the y claim that the oper ation of Tenne ssee’ s conspirac y statut e in co nju nc tio n with the Ac t, re nd e rs the Ac t unc on sti tut ion a lly va g ue a s app lie d to the m in th is c a s e

. T h e s tater e s p o n d s th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts h a v e w a iv e d th is is s u e f o r f a il in g to f il e pretria l motions attacking the constitutionalityof the statute, that Rom ero ha s waived this issue for f ailing to raise it in his motion for new tria l, and that, in any event, the A ct is not unconstituti onally vag ue as this court has r epeatedly held.

The Te nnessee Rules of Criminal Procedur e mandate that ce rtain motions be raised be fore trial, including “[ d ]efenses a nd objections based on de fec ts in the indictment, presentment or information (other

than t hat i t fails t o show jurisdiction in the court or to char g e an of fense which objections shall be noticed by the court a t any time during the pende ncy of the proc eeding s).” Te nn. R. Crim. P . 12(b)( 2). I n State v. Smit h, 48 S.W .3d 159, 162 n.1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) , this court in review ing the constitutionalit y of the Dr ug -Free School Z one Ac t stated,

We n ote the abs e nc e fr om the re c or d o f a ny pr e -t ri a l mo tio n to dismiss Count One and Count Two of the indictment on the basis that the Dr ug -Fre e Sc ho ol Z on e Ac t is un c on sti tut ion a l. T e nn . R. Cr im. P. 12( b)(2)

. Acc ording to the rec ord, the appellant raised t h i s i ssue-23- for the f irst time at t h e h earing on the appellant’ s motion for new trial. We have pr eviously

held that, under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2),

“ d e f e n s e s a n d o b

je c ti o n s b a s e d o n d e f

e c ts in th e in d ic tm ent,” including c halleng es to the constitutionalityof anu nderly ing c riminal statute, must be raised prior to trial in order to a void waiver of the issue. State v. Seag rave s, 837 S.W .2d 615, 623 (Tenn. C ri m. App. 1992). Howe ver, w e also note tha t the State did not raise the issue of waiver at the motion f

or new tria l hearing a nd does not raise the issue of wa iver on appea l. Acc ording ly
, we will addr ess the merits of the

app e lla nt’ s c la im. Sta te v. Go ss, 99 5 S.W.2 d 6 17 , 6 28 (T e nn . Crim. App. 1998), pe rm. to appea l denied, (Te nn. 1999).

We n ote the re c or d r e fl e c ts tha t ne ith e r de fe nd a nt r a ise d th e c on sti tut ion a lit y of the statut e by way of pr e tr ia l mo tio n an d tha t the state ha s r a ise d th e iss ue of wa ive r o n a

pp e a l. T he re c or d a lso ref lects that Romer o fa i l ed t o ra ise this issue in his motion for new tria l. See T.R.A.P. 3(e). T he defe ndants have waived this issue.

IV. JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Def endant Romero c ontends the trial court err ed by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser inc lud e d o ff

e ns e of fa c ili ta tio n, arg uin g that th e e vid e nc e su pp orted the ins truc tio n. Th e state responds that fa cilitation is n o t a lesser included off

ense of conspirac y

beca use the two c rimes contain diffe rent e lements. I n the alternative, t he st ate claims the error, if any , in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included off ense of fac ilitation was harmless bey ond a re asonable doubt give n t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s p r i m ar y r o l e i n t h e c o n s p i r a c y.

I n criminal cases, t he trial court has the dut y to char g e the jury on all of the law that applies to the fac ts of the ca se. See State v. Har ris, 839 S.W .2d 54, 73 (Tenn. 1992) . Any thing short of a complete c harg e denie s the defe ndant his constitutional right to a trial by jury

. See State v. McA fee
, 737 S.W .2d 304, 308 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)

.

I nitially , we note the state did not cite Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 40-18-110( c) f or the proposition that a defendant waives a jury instruction issue on appea l by failing “to re quest the ins truc tio n o f a le sse r inc lud e d of fe ns e

. . . . Ab se nt a writt e n re qu e st, the fa ilu re of a tr ia l ju dg e to instruct the jury

on any lesser inc luded offe nse may not be pre sented as a ground for relief in a motion for new tria l or on appe al.” T h e record re flec ts that the defe ndant did not reque st a jury ins truc tio n o n th e le sse r i nc lud e d o ff e ns e of fa c ili ta tio n of a c on sp ir a c y to po sse ss w ith the int e nt t o sell more than se venty

pounds of marijuana

within one thousand fee t of a school zone.

This court has split as t o whether section 40-18-110 violates a defenda nt’s rig ht to trial by jury . I n State v. Robert P ag e, No. W2003-01342-CCA-R3-CD, Shelby County , (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug

. 26, 2004), app. g rante d (Tenn. J an. 18, 2005), a panel of this court held “the w aiver provision of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-18-110 is an unconstitutional abrog ation of a c riminal-24-

defe ndant’s constitutional rig ht to have the jury char g ed on all off

enses include d within the indicted offe nse and supported by the proof adduce d at trial.” Howeve r, in State v. Robert Eug ene H all, No. M2 00 3- 02 32 6- CCA -R 3- CD , D a vid so n Cou nty (T e nn

. Cr im. Ap p. F e b. 8, 20 05 ), a no the r p a ne l he ld that “a de fenda nt must request an instruction of the le sser include d offe nse on the re cord prior to the
tr ia l c ou rt ’s c ha

rg e to the jury ; othe rw ise , th e ri g ht t o a pp e a l th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s fa ilu re to s o in str uc t is waived.” Slip op. at 7 (citing Pag e, dissenting slip op. at 3). W e d ec l i n e to addr ess the constitutionalit y of section 40-18- 110 beca use we conclude the plain lang uag e of the statute does not
prec lude us from c onsidering this iss ue in the contex t of pl ain error. S ee State v. B randon Patric k, No . E20 03 -0 23 82 -C CA -R 3- CD , Bl ou nt Cou nty (T e nn . Crim . App . O c t. 2 6, 20 04 ) ( “ Ev e n w he n th is Court has stated that a lesser included offe nse i ssue i s waived be cause of the a mended statute, the majority of ca ses have also addre ssed the issue on the merits.”); cf. Te nn. R. Crim. P . 1, Advisory Commi ssion Com ments (stating that the rules of criminal proc edure “take p re cedence over pr e e xistin g statut e s andc a se la w w hic h a re in c on fl ic t w ith the m, b ut s ta tut e s p a sse d s ub se qu e nt t o their adoption which c onflict with these rule s shall control”).

Rul e 52 (b ), Te nn . R. Cr im. P., pr ov ide s:

(b) Plain Er

ror. An err or which ha s aff ecte d the substantial rig hts of

an accuse d may

be noticed at any

time, even thoug h not raised in the motion for a new trial or assig ned as e rror on appea l, in the discretion of the a ppellate c ourt wher e nec essary to do substantial just ice.

Se e a lso T. R.A .P. 36 (b ). Ou r s up re me c ou rt

has deve loped five f

actor s to consider whe n deciding whe the r an e rror constitutes “plain error” in the a bsence of an obje ction at trial: “(a ) the re cord must c lear ly establish what occur red in the tria l court; (b)

a clea r and unequivoca l r

ule of law must ha ve been brea ched; (c) a substantial rig ht of the ac cused must have been a dverse ly aff ecte d; (d) the ac cused did not wa ive the issue for tactica l rea sons; and (e) consideration of the err or is nece ssary to do substantial just ice.”

State v. Smit h, 24 S.W .3d 274, 282 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting State v. Adkisson, 899 S.W .2d 626, 641-42 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1994)). I n order for this court to re verse the judg ment of a tria l court, the

err or must be “of

such a g reat mag nitude that it probably chang ed the outcome of the [procee dings],” and “r ecog nition should be li mited to err ors that had a n unfair pr ejudicial impact whic h undermined the funda mental fa irness of the tr ial.” Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 642.

We note that Tenne ssee c ourts have r ever sed convictions and g rante d new tria ls based upon plain err or bec ause of

the fa ilure to instruct on lesser included offe nses even though the issue was not properly

prese rved. See , e.g ., State v. Terry , 118 S.W .3d 3 55 (Tenn. 2003) ; State v. Walter Wil son, W2001-01463-CCA-R3-CD, ShelbyCount y (T en n . Crim. App. Sept. 4, 2002); St ate v. J ason Thomas B eele r, W1999 -01417-CC A-R3-CD, Obion County (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 22,-25-

20 00 ). Th us , w e wi ll r e vie w the de fe nd a nt R ome ro ’s c la im o n th e me ri ts. We w ill a lso c on sid e r this issue as to the def

endants, Roberto Vasques, Kevin Hernandez, and Hec tor Alonzo under pla in error analy sis.

I n State v. Burns, 6 S.W .3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) , our supre me court a dopted a modified ve rsion of the Model Pena l Code in order to de termine what constitutes a lesser inc luded offe nse:

An offe nse is a lesser -included of fense if:

(a) all of its statutory

elements a

re inc luded within the statutory elements of the offe nse cha rg ed; or

(b ) i t f a ils to me e t the de fi nit ion in part (a ) onl y in the re sp e c t th a t it

co n t ai n s a s t at u t o ryel em en to r e l em en t s es t ab l i s h i n g

(1) a differ ent m ental st ate indicating a lesser kind of culpability ; and/or

(2) a le ss s e ri ou s h arm

or ri sk of ha rm to the sa me person, pr operty

or public intere st; or

(c) it consists of

(1 ) f a c ili ta tio n o f the of

fe ns e c ha rg e d or of a n o ff e ns e that otherwise me ets the def inition of lesse r-include d offe nse in part ( a) or

(b); or

(2) a n attempt to commit the of fe nse cha rg ed or a n offe nse that otherw ise mee t s the def inition of lesser- included off

ense in pa rt (a) or (b) ; or

(3) solicitati on to commit the offense char g ed or a n offe nse that otherw ise meets the de fi n i t ion of lesser- included off

ense in pa rt (a) or (b)

.

Burns, 6 S.W .3d at 466-67. Fa cilitation in thi s case is not a lesser include d offe nse under either pa rt (a ) o r ( b) of the B ur ns te st. Un de r pa rt (c ), ho we ve r, fa c ili ta tio n is a le sse r inc lud e d of fe ns e if it i s fa c ili ta tio n o f the of

fe ns e c ha rg e d. I n th is c a se the ind ic te d off e ns e wa s c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w ith the intent to sell more than seventy pounds of m arijuana within one thous and feet of a school zone.

Te nn e sse e Cod e An no tate d s e c ti on 39 -11- 40 3 p ro vid e s th a t “ [a] p e rs on is c ri min a lly

re sp on sib le fo r the fa c ili ta tio n o f a fe lon y if, k no wi ng th at a no the r i nte nd s to c omm it a sp e c if ic felony , but without the i ntent require d for criminal responsibility under § 39-11-402(2) , the per son-26-

knowingl y fu rni shes substantial assistance in the commission of the felony .” The Sentencing Commi ssion Com ments to this s ection state tha t fac ilitation i s a lesser included off

ense of the indicted offense. We note t hat no conspiracy exception exi sts to thi s g ener al proposition. T.C.A. § 39-11-403, Sentenc ing Commission Com ments. We conclude tha t it is possible f or a def endant not to have ente red into a c onspiracy , y et eng ag ed in conduc t that fac ilita t es t h e o b j ect of a conspi rac y

–in this case selling marijuana to the underc over informant. We hold therefor e that fac ilitation of conspir ac y t o p ossess with the intent to sell drugs is a le sser include d offe nse of conspirac y

to possess with the intent to sell drugs.

I f an offe nse is a lesser included offe nse, then the trial court must c onduct the fo llowing two-step ana ly sis in order to determine whether th e l es s er i n cluded of

fense instruction should be
g iven:

First, the tria l court m ust determine whether any evidenc e exists t hat

r e a s o n ab l e m i n d s c o u l d a c c e p ta s t o t h e l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e

. In making thi s d et er mination, the trial court must view the e vidence l i b er al l yin the light most favor able to the e x istence of the lesser-i n cl u ded off

ense w ithout making any judgme nts on the

cre dibilit y

of such evidence

. Second, the trial court must determine if the e vid e nc e , v ie we d in thi s li g ht, is l e g a lly su ff ic ie nt to su pp ort a conviction for the lesser- included off ense.

Burns, 6 S.W .3d at 469. Ba sed upon the circumstantial nature of m uch of the evidence pr esente d at the trial, we conclude the jury could have found that any of the de fenda nts facilitated the conspirac y

rathe r than joined it, and the trial court erre d in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e o f f a c i l i t a t i o n o f

t h e c o n s p i r a c y.

We m us t no w c on sid e r w he the r thi s fa ilu re a ff e c te d a su bs ta nti a l r ig ht o f e a c h d e fe nd a nt. At the trial, t he evidence showed t hat t he undercove r informa nt called his conta ct, David, a nd that Da v i d t h en ar ri ved at the c ar w ash in a Camry and met with the informa nt. The Camry then
proce eded to mee t with the Taurus, a nd the Taur us went to the drug houses on Antioch Pike. After retriev i n g t h e m arijuana, the Taur us left the houses on Antioch Pike f ollowed by

the Fir ebird a nd both car s proce eded to Walg ree ns wher e t h ey m et t he Camry . All three c ars then w ent to the ca r wash, with the F irebird turning into the B urg er K ing in or der to set up surve illance of the ca r wa sh. After the ar rest orde r wa s g iven, the def endant Romero w as caug ht fleeing in possession of a ha nd g un . A re su lti ng se arc h r e ve a le d th e pr e se nc e of a we apo n a ndc omm un ic a tio n e qu ipm e nt i n the Camry

and over seventy pounds of marijuana

in the trunk of the Taurus. We also note that no oth e r d e fe nd a nt i s n amed D a vid . We c on c lud e that th e e vid e nc e a g a ins t L uis Da vidRom e ro is

overw helming. It s h o we d not just t hat he wa s a conspirator but also that he wa s a lea der in the commission of the offe nse. We conclude that the error in failing to instruct on the lesser included offe nse of f

acilitation did not affe ct a substantial rig ht of R o m ero’ s and wa s harmless bey ond a

rea sonable doubt.-27-

As to the defe ndants, Roberto Va sques, Kevin He rnande z, and Hector Alonz o, the informant did not speak direc tly

with them. Howeve r, the e v i d ence shows that Vasque s, Herna ndez, and Alonzo we re either riding in or driving the Camry or the Taurus and that they wer e appr ehende d at the sce ne of the attempted drug transac tion. W e note that Romero w as riding in the Camry , that

r e s u l t i n g s e ar c h e s r e v e a l e d t h e p r e s e n c e o f a w e ap o n a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n e q u i p m e n t i n t h e C a m r y, a weapon on Romero, a wea pon near wher e Vasques was apprehe nded, and ove r seve nty pounds of marijuana in the trunk of the Taurus, and that Romero and Vasque s attempted to f lee. Surve illance of the houses on A ntioch Pike reve aled that a fter the informant called Romero, Romero met with the
occupa nts of the Taur

us, among whom wer e Va sques and Alonzo. I mmediately there afte r, Va sques and Alonzo went to both houses on Antioch Pike and office rs observe d the Taur us parke d behind one of the houses. After the apprehension of the def endants, sea

rche s of the houses on Antioch Pike

reve aled the pr esenc e of a lar g e quantity of marijuana

and other evidenc e consistent with nar cotics traff icking . We conclude that this evidenc e over whelming ly establishes a c onspiracy , the object of which wa s the delivery

of over seventy pounds of marijuana

to the informant, and the tria l court’s failure to instruct the jury

on fac ilitation di d not affe ct a substantial rig ht of Vasque s, Herna ndez, or Alonzo. I n this reg ard, we conclude t he trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on fac ilitation was harmless be y ond a re asonable doubt and these de fenda nts are not e ntitled to relief on this issue.

V. P REJUDICIAL EVIDENCE

De fe n d ants Roberto Vasque s and Romero c ontend that the state violate d the trial court’s pretria l order pr ohibiting the state’ s witnesses from making refe renc e to their e thnicity or plac e of birth. They claim t hat Detective Birchwe ll testified t hat one or m ore of the def endants we re f

rom Mexi co, that they

objected, but that the trial court did not corr ect the e rror by g iving a limit ing instruction o r an a dmonishment to t he jury . They assert that “[i] n this ti me period, with so much de ba te abo ut i lle g a l im mig ra nts a nd the lik e , a jury c ou ld b e sw a y e d b y

be lie vin g that th e de fe nd a nts

we re ill e g a l a lie ns .” Rom e ro a lso c la ims the state ’s int ro du c tio n of the po sse ssi on of we apo ns int o

e vid e nc e wa s ir

re le va nt a ndhig hly

pr e jud ic ia l. T he state re sp onds th at Vas qu e s h a s w a ive d th is iss ue fo r f

a ili ng to p re se nt i t in his mot ion fo r n e w t ri al, that Ro me ro ha s w a ive d a po rt ion of

thi s issue by failing to object to the introduction of weapons i nto evidenc e or testimonyalluding to the de fe nd a nts a s “ ma le Hi sp a nic s, ” that Det ect ive B ir c hw e ll’ s te sti mon y re la tin g to the de fe nd a nts ’

na tio n o f o ri g in w a s r e le va nt a ndno t pr e jud ic ia l, a ndthat th e e rr or wa s h arm le ss.
We beg in by

noting that Va sques fa iled to present this issue in his moti on for ne w trial. The de fe nd a nt h a s w a ive d th is i ssu e . Se e T. R.A .P. 3( e ). We a lso no te that Rom e ro fa ile d to ob je c t to the state’s introduc tion of wea pons into evidence or the re peate d use of the phrase “male H ispanics.” He ha s theref

ore w aived those issues. See T.R.A.P. 36(a). With reg ard t o De t ec tive Birc hwell’s
te sti mon y , th e fo llo wi ng po rt ion of the re c or d is re le va nt:

Q: Ok a y . A nd , y ou –y ou me nti on e d e arl ie r tha t w he n th e ir photogr aphs we re tak en at the booking pr ocedur e . . . is that – does that a lso inc lud e fi nd ing ou t w he re the ir a dd re ss i s?-28- A: Yes, sir. You–uh–ba sically , fill out ba sic information

. . . name, date of birth, addre ss, stuff like that, place of birth.

Q: Wit h reg ard to Roberto Vasques, uh–does i t show whether or not he wa s f ro m T e xas?

A: Rob e rt o V a sq ue s?

Q: Ye s.

A: Uh –n o, sir . It sh ow s h is p la c e of birth a s D a lla s, Te xas, andhis

a dd re ss a s .

. . Da lla s, Te xas.

Q: Ok a y

. An y oth e r ind ivi du a ls fr om Da lla s, Te xas? Woul d y ou te ll

a

. . . t e l l u s w h a tw a s i n d i c a t e d o n t h e i r b o o k i n g [ ?]

A: Uh–Mr. Da vid Romero shows a plac e of birth in Mexico. . . .

Ms. Thompson: Your Honor, uh–may we a pproac h quickly ? I

–

. . . .

The Co u r t: O k a y

. L e t’ s ju s t s te p in my

– my o f f ic e r e a l q u ic k ly

and

se e wh a t th is i s.

Th e re c or d r e fl e c ts that du ri ng the pr oc e e din g s in c a me ra , the de fe nd a nt arg ue d that the state ha d v iol a te d th e tria l c ou rt ’s or de r r e g ard ing no t i nt ro du c ing a ny de fe nd a nt’ s p la c e of

birth i nto evidenc e. The stat e co u ntere d that the witness had g one bey ond the scope of the que stion to give the de fe nd a nt’ s p la c e of

birth a s Me xico a nd that he wa s on ly se e kin g to i ntr od uc e the de fe nd a nts ’

a dd re sse s int o e vid e nc e to sh ow that the y we re no t a t the c ar w a sh fo r the pu rp os e s o f w a sh ing the ir

c ars . The tr ia l cou rt ru le d tha t the de fe nd a nts ’ pla c e s of b ir th w e re ir re le va nt b ut tha t th e state c ou ld ask the witness what addre ss eac h defe ndant g ave the booking office r. We note that Romero did not

re qu e s t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o t ak e a n y a c t i o n t o c u r e t h e w i t n e s s ’ a n s w e r t h a t R o m e r o w a s b or n in Mexi co. A de fenda nt must t ake w hateve r ac tion necessa ry “to pre vent or nullify the harmful eff ect of an e rror .” T.R.A.P. 36(a) . I n any event, we conclude th e re fe re n ce t o the def endant’ s place of birth was not over ly

prejudicia l, a nd he is not entitled to relief on this issue. See Te nn. R. Evid. 403.

CO NC LU SION

Ba s ed u p o n the fore g oing a nd the re cord a s a whole, w e af firm the trial c ourt’s judg ment g ranting cora m nobis relief to Luis Martin Vasquez and Victor Hug o Gar za but reve rse the judgment-29-

as to the other de fenda nts. W e af firm the judg ments of convi ction for Roberto Vasques, L uis D. Vidales Romero, K evin J oel Hernandez, and He ctor Alonzo.

______________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE