WPC! # VUNa % 0U:~ w$ 4  0  0D  0JP 0T 0^ 0hL 0r 0|& 0 00 1u 0d5U>U *B)DC* Bm AM_u6v~ D3v8 0@ AOK  0D`! D/! B!HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(9$4TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTX XXX,  AZ"Arial Regular0[D[UDPUUDDDDDDUDPDDDDU PDU eӀԡ 3|x((31$ 9!4TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXhXXX     0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd d-#C << G U !  4   \RA'\!  !   YYY FILED!XMay7,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   k !  4   \RA'\!   $       ! 539S.W.2d340,34445(Tenn.Crim.App.1976).!X  !  4   \RA'\!   $        !Inthisinstance,acurativeinstructionbythejudgewouldhaveonlyservedtobringmoreattentionandfocustotheimpropercomment.!XPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'h$$$$'dxdStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .   4   \RA'\!  R%&#A1-j|` . `@Rߛ  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE@    APRIL1995SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE,  )     )` XX Appellee,   ) No.01C019412CC00406     )     ) MauryCountyv.     )     ) Hon.JimT.Hamilton,Judge     )RANDYANDERSON, ) (AggravatedBurglaryandTheftover$1,000)     ) Appellant.   )   DISSENTINGOPINION Irespectfullydisagreewithmycolleaguesinthiscase.Idonotbelievethattheprosecutor'sremarksconcerningtheappellant'sintentiontopleadguiltyprejudicedhimordeprivedhimofafairtrial.Aspointedoutbythemajority,Judgev.State '   ׀providesfivefactorstobeconsideredinassessingtheprejudicialeffectofimproperargument.Thefivefactorsare:8 1.Theconductcomplainedofviewedincontextandinlightofthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase.0 0 8 2.Thecurativemeasuresundertakenbythecourtandtheprosecution.8 3.Theintentoftheprosecutorinmakingtheimproperstatement.8 4.Thecumulativeeffectoftheimproperconductandanyothererrorsintherecord.8 5.Therelativestrengthorweaknessofthecase. Fourofthesefiverequirements,inthecontextofthiscase,tendtoestablishthattheimproperconductdidnotaffecttheverdict.Thetrialcourtdidnotgiveacurativeinstructionregardingtheimpropercomments. (   ׀However,therecordrevealsthattheintentoftheprosecutorwasnotmalicious.Theprosecutorwasonlyarticulatingaconclusionthathewantedthejurytoreachregardingtheappellant.Furthermore,therecorddoesnotindicatethattheappellant'strialwastaintedwitherrors.Iseenocompoundingorcumulationofprejudicewhenthisimpropercommentisconsideredinlightoftheentirerecord. Ifindthattheevidenceprofferedagainsttheappellantwasstrong.Todetractnothingfromacompetentprosecutor,Iamveryskepticalthathisimpropercommentsremovedalltracesofreasonabledoubtfromthemindsofthejury.Therefore,Iwouldaffirmtheconvictions.       __________________________       PAULG.SUMMERS,Judge