џWPCnF ћџ2ю ZBЏœеKЮ HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSєCє\  PŽQєP IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE Valued Gateway ClientValued Gateway ClientџЯ џб#єCє\  PŽQєP#баав ШX0УУФФУУФФШX0УУФФУУФФ вfootnote reffootnote reference;;б#XPє\  PŽQXP#бггггггггб#єCє\  PŽQєP#бћџ2@  €А€0А heading 2heading 2!ХХааааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ4Œ ф <”ьDœєLЄќ!T$џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА4ааб#XXф2МPБ9QXP#бггггУУФФггггб#єCє\  PŽ:QєP#бааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааХХBody Text InBody Text Indent 2ааааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ4` Œ ф <”ьDœєLЄќ!T$џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА4ааб#XXф2МPБ=QXP#бггггггггб#єCє\  PŽ>QєP#бааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааBody TextBody Textааааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ4Œ ф <”ьDœєLЄќ!T$џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА4ааб#XXф2МPБAQXP#бггггггггб#єCє\  PŽBQєP#бааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааheading 1heading 1!  ХХааааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ4Œ ф <”ьDœєLЄќ!T$џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА4ааб#XXф2МPБEQXP#бггггУ УФ Фггггб#єCє\  PŽFQєP#бааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааХХћџ22F€r Юђ0r5РџџBody Text 2Body Text 2  ааааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ4Œ ф <”ьDœєLЄќ!T$џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА4ааб#XXф2МPБLQXP#бггггггггб#єCє\  PŽMQєP#бааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааDefault ParaDefault Paragraph Font; ;б#XPє\  PŽNQXP#бггггггггб#єCє\  PŽOQєP#бЋєCє\  PŽQєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єєCє\  PŽQєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єєCє\  PŽQєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єXXф2МPБQXP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)XєCє\  PŽQєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єш–ф2МPшP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial Regularш<ф2МPP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularєCє\  PŽQєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єєCє\  PŽQєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єXPє\  PŽ QXPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)XXPє\  PŽ QXPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)XєCє\  PŽ QєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)є uф2МPБ Q P%ф2МA€`Arial (TT) XXф2МPБ QXP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)XXPє\  PŽQXPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)XєCє\  PŽQєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єXPє\  PŽQXPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)XєCє\  PŽQєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єXPє\  PŽQXPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)XXPє\  PŽQXPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)XєJф2МPБQєP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)єXPє\  PŽQXPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)XXZф2МPXP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularXєKф2МPєP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularєєCє\  PŽQєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єXZф2МPXP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularXXPє\  PŽQXPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)XXZф2МPXP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularXXPє\  PŽQXPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)XXZф2МPXP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularXєCє\  PŽQєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єXPє\  PŽQXPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)XXPє\  PŽ QXPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)XєJф2МPБ!QєP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)єXPє\  PŽ"QXPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)XєKф2МP#єP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularєєCє\  PŽ$QєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єXXф2МPБ%QXP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)XXZф2МP&XP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularXєKф2МP'єP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularєXXф2МPБ(QXP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)XXZф2МP)XP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularXX`Зop*QX,–ћyAZ‹Arial XXNє\  P+XPє\  `‹&Times New RomanXX`Зop,QX,–ћyAZ‹Arial XXNє\  P-XPє\  `‹&Times New RomanXX`Зop.QX,–ћyAZ‹Arial XX`Зop/QX,–ћyAZ‹Arial XєCє\  PŽ0QєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єєPЗop1Qє,–ћyAZ‹Arial єєKф2МP2єP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularєєKф2МP3єP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularєєKф2МP4єP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularєXZф2МP5XP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularXXZф2МP6XP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularXXZф2МP7XP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularXXZф2МP8XP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularXXXф2МPБ9QXP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)XєCє\  PŽ:QєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єXXф2МPБ;QXP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)XXZф2МP<XP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularXXXф2МPБ=QXP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)XєCє\  PŽ>QєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єXXф2МPБ?QXP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)XXZф2МP@XP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularXXXф2МPБAQXP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)XєCє\  PŽBQєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єXXф2МPБCQXP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)XXZф2МPDXP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularXXXф2МPБEQXP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)XєCє\  PŽFQєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єXXф2МPБGQXP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)XXZф2МPHXP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularXXZф2МPIXP,–ћyAZ‹"Arial RegularXXXф2МPБJQXP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)XXXф2МPБKQXP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)XXXф2МPБLQXP%ф2МA€`Arial (TT)XєCє\  PŽMQєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єXPє\  PŽNQXPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)XєCє\  PŽOQєPє\  €`*Times New Roman (TT)єћџ2dFlF3|xб#єCє\  PŽQєP#бааа АА4„ аа ї Aи'џї аа ААА аааб#XXф2МPБQXP#бггУ Ув€ШШШШdddd1ШШШШdddd1€вФ ФкI!ŽŽб#єCє\  PŽQєP#бааб#ш–ф2МPшP#бааУ УFILEDб#<ф2МPP#б December 7, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court ClerkФ ФIкУ УIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE MAY 1999 SESSION ааSTATE OF TENNESSEE, СС*ССCCA #E1998Љ00378ЉCCAЉR3ЉCD Ф Ф ССССAppellant,У УСССС*ССФ ФHAMILTON COUNTYУ У Ф Ф VS.ССУ УСССССССС*ССФ ФHonorable Douglas A. Meyer, JudgeУ У JOE N. ANDERSON, JR.СССС*ССФ Ф(Attempted Especially Aggravated ССССССССССССRobbery/First Degree Murder) ССССAppellee.ССУ УСС*Ф Ф У У Ф Ф УУFOR THE APPELLANTФФ:У УССССССФ ФУУFOR THE APPELLEEФФ:У У Ф Ф ARDENA J. GARTHССССССPAUL G. SUMMERS District Public DefenderССССССAttorney General & Reporter DONNA ROBINSON MILLERССССELLEN H. POLLACK Assistant District Public DefenderССAssistant Attorney General 701 Cherry Street, Suite 300СССС425 Fifth Avenue North Chattanooga, TN 37402ССССССNashville, TN 37243 ССССССССССССWILLIAM H. COX, III ССССССССССССDistrict Attorney General СССССССССССС600 Market Street, Suite 310 ССССССССССССChattanooga, TN 37402 СССССССССССС OPINION FILED: _______________ ааУ УAFFIRMEDФ Ф JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE ааУ УJOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS,Ф ФŒе" б#єCє\  PŽQєP#бааа 4„4„ ааШа в€11€вкх# ъ ъб#єCє\  PŽQєP#бааааб#XPє\  PŽ QXP#бЉииЉхкааа 4„АX аааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА4Œ ф <”ьDœєLЄќ!T$џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА4ааб#XPє\  PŽ QXP#б а АX4„ аб#єCє\  PŽ QєP#б"еааJudge ааб# uф2МPБ Q P#бУ УOPINIONФ Фб#XXф2МPБ QXP#б ааССThe defendant, Joe N. Anderson, Jr., appeals from guilty verdicts returned by a Hamilton County jury for one count of First Degree murder and two counts of attempted especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment to serve at eightyЉfive percent for First Degree murder, a Class A felony, and twelve years in the Department of Correction for each count of attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The defendant was sentenced as a Range I standard offender for the attempted especially aggravated robberies, with those sentences to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to the First Degree murder sentence. In this appeal, the defendant contends that: ааааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ4` Œ И ф <h”РьDpœШє LxЄа ќ!T$џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА4ааТ` ` ` ТТŒ Œ Œ Т(1) The trial court erred in denying the defendantРРs motion to sever; Т` ` ` ТТŒ Œ Œ Т(2) The trial court erred in denying the admission of Michael ССTaylorРРs statement to police; Т` ` ` ТТŒ Œ Œ Т(3) The trial court erred in denying the testimony of Marvin Davis; ССand Т` ` ` ТТŒ Œ Œ Т(4) the trial court erred in ordering the defendantРРs attempted robbery sentences to be served consecutively to his murder sentence. ааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ4Œ ф <”ьDœєLЄќ!T$џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА4ааТŒ Œ Œ ТСС ааСС ССAfter careful review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we AFFIRM the defendantРРs convictions and sentences as imposed by the trial court. ааУ УааFACTSФ Ф ааааССOn July 11, 1996, the defendant was at his motherРРs house when Allen Russell, driving a blue Astro van, arrived around midnight. The defendant requested Allen to drive him to the home of Lakita Fountain, the defendantРРs girlfriend. At the Franklin house, the defendant retrieved a .25 caliber gun and an older revolver. The defendant, Russell, and Fountain then returned to the defendantРРs home. While at the defendantРРs home, the defendant and Fountain fired the weapons at a street light. ССLater in the evening, Russell drove the defendant, Fountain, his sister, and Michael Taylor to the McCallie Housing Project in the blue Astro van. Russell pulled into the parking lot of the Project, where the defendant and Taylor exited the van. ССTravis Haynes was sitting on a friendРРs porch in the area. He was talking to a friend, Ricus Langston, when he saw the van pull into the parking lot and two people get out. Soon after exiting the vehicle, the defendant and Taylor approached the house, and the defendant asked Langston for drugs. Haynes recognized the defendant because they had previously worked together, and Haynes knew that the defendantРРs name was Р РJoe.РР After Langston told the defendant that they did not have drugs, the defendant pulled out a gun. ССCheryl Ransom, who was inside the house, had seen the defendant and Taylor approach the house. At which time, she became concerned for the safety of Langston and Hayes. She first called Mr. Langston, who was her cousin, into the house. Langston went into the house. After Mr. Langston was inside, she then called to Mr. Haynes to come into the house. However, the defendant had already grabbed Haynes and told him to Р Рgive up the cheese.РРлfootnote refлб#XPє\  PŽQXP#бггггллв X0УУФФУУФФX0УУФФУУФФ вв X0УУФФX0УУФФ вжџџб#єCє\  PŽQєP#бааб#XPє\  PŽQXP#ба 4„4„ аааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ4Œ ф <”ьDœєLЄќ!T$џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА4аалfootnote refлб#XPє\  PŽQXP#бггггллССб#єJф2МPБQєP#бУУФФл#footnote ref#лггггб#XPє\  PŽQXP#бллб#XZф2МPXP#б б#єKф2МPєP#бHaynes said he believed Р РcheeseРР meant money.б#єCє\  PŽQєP#бж ССб#XZф2МPXP#бHaynes told the defendant that he had no money. After repeating his demand, the defendant shot Haynes. The bullet struck Haynes in the shoulder. б#XPє\  PŽQXP#б ССб#XZф2МPXP#бLangston heard the shot. He returned to the porch and found the wounded Haynes. Haynes told Langston that his assailantРРs name was Р РJoe.РР Haynes later told the police he had been shot during a robbery. ССThe defendant and Taylor ran back to the van, and Russell drove away. The defendant and Taylor joked with each other saying, Р Р . . . just another dead slob.РР The defendant also said something like Р РI canРРt believe we did not get any РРcheese.РРРР ССSoon afterwards, while riding in the van, the defendant and Taylor spotted a tractorЉtrailer truck parked near the side of the road. They believed the driver was asleep inside. Taylor said something like Р Рtruck drivers have a lot of money.РР The defendant then requested that Russell stop the van so that he could Р Рget this truck driver.РРб#XPє\  PŽQXP#бггггб#XZф2МPXP#бв X0УУФФX0УУФФ вжџџџб#єCє\  PŽQєP#бааб#XPє\  PŽQXP#ба 4„4„ аааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ4Œ ф <”ьDœєLЄќ!T$џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА4аалfootnote refлб#XPє\  PŽ QXP#бггггллааССб#єJф2МPБ!QєP#бУУФФл#footnote ref#лггггб#XPє\  PŽ"QXP#бллб#єKф2МP#єP#б Russell believed that this meant the defendant planned to rob the truck driver.б#єCє\  PŽ$QєP#бџж After stopping, the defendant and Taylor exited the van and approached the truck. The defendant carried the .25 caliber gun with him. ССRussell, not wanting to be Р Рinvolved,РР drove away. As he pulled away, he and the remaining occupants of the van heard a gun shot. Almost immediately, a police car stopped the van, a short distance from the truck. The police, who were searching for HaynesРРs assailant, found beer and a .22 or .25 caliber casing in the van. However, after a brief investigation, the police allowed Russell and the others to drive away. ССŒССThe truck driver, Daren King, was found in his truck shot to death. The bullet that killed him was shot from the same gun the defendant had used to shoot Haynes. The driver had been shot at close range. TaylorРРs fingerprint was found on the passenger side of the truck, which was found locked. ааХХааааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ4Œ ф <”ьDœєLЄќ!T$џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА4ааб#XXф2МPБ%QXP#бггггУ Уб#XZф2МP&XP#бззССССССССССANALYSISззФ Ф ааб#єKф2МP'єP#бааааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ4Œ ф <”ьDœєLЄќ!T$џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА4ааб#XXф2МPБ(QXP#бггггУУззб#XZф2МP)XP#бааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааааааг ‚` гб#X`Зop*QX#бMotion to Severб#XNє\  P+XP#бФФ ааг ‚` гааг ‚X гХХб#X`Зop,QX#бThe defendant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the offense charging the attempted robbery and shooting of Travis Haynes from the offense charging the attempted robbery and murder of Daren King. Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 14(b) governs severance of offenses. г ‚X г г ‚X гA motion for severance of offenses is a matter which addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not interfere with the exercise of this discretion unless it appears on the face of the record that the accused was prejudiced by the courtРРs ruling. УУState v. FurloughФФ, 797 S.W.2d 631, 642 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990); УУState v. WisemanФФ, 643 S.W.2d 354, 362 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982). Whether severance should be granted Р Рdepends upon the facts and circumstances involved in the various crimes charged.РР УУState v. MorrisФФ, 788 S.W.2d 820, 822 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). The trial court is required to hold a pretrial hearing to determine the appropriateness of severance. УУSeeФФ УУState v. HoytФФ, 928 S.W.2d 935, 944Љ45 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). The court must make a determination that the evidence of one crime is relevant to a material issue in the trial of the other. УУId.ФФУУ ФФat 945. The court must then consider whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs any prejudicial effect. УУId.ФФŒг ‚X г™г ‚X гTennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure provide for mandatory and permissive joinder of offenses charged in separate indictments. It is permissible to join offenses under Rule 8(b) Р Рif the offenses constitute parts of a common scheme or plan or if they are of the same or similar character.РР Under Rule 14(b)(1) a defendant shall have the right to severance of the offenses unless the offenses are (a) part of a common scheme or plan and (b) the evidence of one would be admissible upon the trial of the others. УУSeeФФ УУHoytФФ, 928 S.W.2d at 943; УУState v. HallockФФ, 875 S.W.2d 285, 289 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). To avoid severance, both portions of the rule must be satisfied. УУSee v. HallockФФ, 875 S.W. 2d at 289. г ‚X гRule 14(b)(1) requires the trial court to find a common scheme or plan to meet the first prong. УУSeeФФ УУHoytФФ, 928 S.W.2d at 943. There are three categories of common scheme or plan evidence: (1) distinctive design or signature crimes; (2) a larger continuing plan or conspiracy; and (3) same transaction. N. Cohen, D. Paine & Sheppeard, УУTennessee Law of EvidenceФФ РР 404.11 (3d. ed. 1995). г ‚X гThe second prong of Rule 14(b)(1) requires that the evidence of the offenses be admissible at the trial of the other. УУSeeФФ УУHoytФФ, 928 S.W.2d at 943; УУState v. McKnightФФ, 900 S.W.2d 36, 50 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Evidence that the accused committed crimes independent of those for which he is on trial is generally inadmissible because such evidence lacks relevance and invites the finder of fact to infer guilt from propensity. Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b). However, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admissible for other purposes. УУId.ФФСССССССССССССССССССС г ‚X г г ‚X гIn УУState v. PartonФФ, 694 S.W.2d 299, 303 (Tenn. 1985), the Supreme Court held that proof of other crimes may be admissible if, after a juryЉout hearing, the trial court determines: (1) the evidence is relevant to an issue at trial, such as identity, and (2) the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect. Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b) was drafted in accordance with these standards. УУSeeФФ Ten. R. Evid. 404, Advisory Commission Comments. в X0УУФФУУФФX0УУФФУУФФ вг ‚X гб#XNє\  P-XP#бб#X`Зop.QX#бFirst, these two offenses are properly considered part of a common scheme or plan. That is, each is part of a Р Рcontinuing plan or conspiracyРР directed at and executed for the same purpose. УУSeeФФ, УУe.g.ФФ, УУState v. BrownФФ, 823 S.W.2d 576, 585 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). In this case, there was a working plan commenced earlier that evening when the defendant gathered the necessary weapons, practiced shooting, and then joined his companion, Taylor. Their plan and goal were simple: robbery and murder. And while the victim was not certain, the conclusion was tragically inevitable. And so, the two first came upon Haynes, pulled a gun, pointed it to his head, and demanded money. When Haynes did not produce any, the defendant and Taylor shot him and fled. But with their purpose unfilled, they continued on their plan. Within twenty minutes, they had found their next victim, Daren King, parked on the side of the road in his truck. Again, the two approached, again the gun was pointed to the victimРРs head, and again a shot was fired. This time, however, their attempted robbery victim was killed. That night, like Haynes, King was their victim. The first victim was shot, the other killed, but both were prey to one simple and violent plan. Their attacks were similarly motivated and similarly executed, close in time and location, and carried out by the same two perpetrators intent on one simple purpose. б#X`Зop/QX#б г ‚X гSecond, we must address the admissibility of the evidence as governed by Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b). In this case, the trial court did not hold a pretrial hearing to determine the relevance of evidence of other crimes or bad acts. УУSeeФФ УУState v. BigbeeФФ, 885 S.W.2d 797, 806 (Tenn. 1994); УУState v. NicholsФФ, 877 S.W.2d 722, 732 (Tenn. 1994); УУState v. WestФФ, 844 S.W.2d 144, 150 (Tenn. 1992). Rather than remand for a 404(b) hearing, we choose to complete the analysis. УУSeeФФ УУHoytФФ, 928 S.W.2d at 943. г ‚X г г ‚X гAs we have previously determined, the evidence of the offense against Haynes and the attempted robbery and murder of King involves a common plan or scheme. As such, the evidence of each offense addresses an issue relevant to the other offense and is therefore admissible in the trial of the other.ж`џџааџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџXА` И hРpШ xа (#€%и'0*ˆ,р.813ш5@8˜:№