ÿWPC! …# VU>a %Ÿ 0ñ¥U:– BÐ w@ 4R f 05u 0Dª 0Jî 0T8 0^Œê 0hò 0rZ 0|Ì 0†H 0Î 1u^ 0dÓ B7U6TU*ŠB)´DCÝ AM  D3m“ —3 0@Êv~ vÓˆ AO[ƪ 0Dp D/´ Bã ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <@ˆÐ9Z &Courier RegularX(ÉÞÍ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€XíèXXXÔÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT /D0U1D2D34+56D78Ó€©U!Â3|xC(å(3tõ$¤¤Ý ƒÞÍ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€X ËXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd ‰Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òSeptemberÏ18,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓòòÔ€&ôÔState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€34€(Tenn.€1993)€provides€that€"a€juvenile€record€of€criminalÏconduct€may€properly€be€considered€in€assessing€a€suitable€sentence€upon€a€felony€conviction€by€anÏadult"€(quoting€òòState€v.€Stocktonóó,€733€S.W.2d€111,€112„13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986)).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÙ€€Ù›œßL€)+(;+'h|` ´- `€€Lß›à@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLE€óóÌà@ àNOVEMBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€NO.Ï03C01„9502„CR„00056€Ìà àAPPELLEE,à àà àà à*à àKNOX€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Ray€L.ÏJenkins,€JudgeÌWILLIAM€BRIAN€BELSER,à à*à à(Second€DegreeÏMurder)Ìà àAPPELLANT.à àà à*à à€Ìà àà àÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÓÓLeroy€Phillips,€Jr.à àà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏBursonÌPhillips€&€Caputoà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€and€ReporterÌ312€Vine€Streetà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌChattanooga,€TN€€37403à àà àà àNashville,€TN€Ï37243„0493Ì(on€appeal€and€at€trial)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAmy€L.ÏTarkingtonÌLeonard€Michael€Caputoà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌPhillips€&€Caputoà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌ312€Vine€Streetà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌChattanooga,€TN€€37403à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ì(at€trial)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€G.€NassiosÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€L.€JolleyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€€37902à àà à€ÌÌà àà àà àÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€____________________ÌÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÑ7€e7XXdÈXXdæ7ÑÓÓÓ  Óò òòòOPINIONóóó óÌÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant,€William€Brian€Belser,€was€convicted€of€second€degreeÏmurder€and€sentenced€to€a€Range€I,€twenty„five€(25)€year€term€in€the€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€€39„13„210€and€40„35„112(a)(1).€€In€thisÏappeal€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€charging€self„defense€as€defined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„611(b)Ïas€a€justification€for€the€victimððs€conduct;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€whether€the€state€committed€prosecutorialÏmisconduct€during€the€course€of€the€trial;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€permitÏcounsel€for€the€defendant€to€cross„examine€a€stateÏwitness€as€to€any€possible€bias;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€allowÏdefense€counsel€to€question€witness€Angie€Barbeau€onÏredirect€about€€her€prior€statements€to€law€enforcementÏofficers;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€allow€theÏdefendant€to€introduce€as€evidence€the€full€content€ofÏeach€of€his€pretrial€statements€after€the€state€hadÏcompleted€its€cross„examination;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€charge€theÏjury€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€voluntaryÏmanslaughter;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(7)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€imposing€theÏmaximum€sentence.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àBecause€we€find€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€byÏfailing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€voluntary€manslaughter,Ïwe€must€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€the€cause€for€a€newÏtrial.ÌÇÓ  Óòòò òFactsó óóóÌÓ  Óà àà àAt€approximately€10€P.M.€on€March€29,€1993,€the€defendant€shot€andÏkilled€the€victim,€Brian€Shaver.€€Although€the€defendant€and€victim€had€previouslyÏbeen€friends,€tension€had€developed€between€the€two€men€over€their€sharedÏinterest€in€Angela€Barbeau.€€The€defendant€had€dated€Ms.€Barbeau;€severalÏmonths€prior€to€the€shooting,€however,€she€had€moved€into€a€residence€with€theÏvictim.€€One€week€before€the€shooting,€Ms.€Barbeau€broke€off€her€relationship€withÏthe€victim€and€returned€to€the€defendant.€€€ÌÌà àà àOn€the€day€of€the€shooting,€the€victim€informed€Ms.€Barbeau€that€sheÏcould€not€come€into€his€condominium€and€that€he€was€placing€all€of€her€personalÏbelongings€outside€the€door.€€That€evening,€the€defendant€drove€Ms.€Barbeau€toÏthe€victimððs€residence.€€Ms.€Barbeau€walked€to€the€front€porch€and€rang€the€doorÏbell;€upon€answering,€the€victim€shoved€her€to€the€ground€and€shut€the€door.€€Ms.ÏBarbeau€rang€the€doorbell€a€second€time.€€By€then,€she€had€been€joined€by€theÏdefendant,€who€had€a€gun€in€his€possession.€€The€victim€first€opened€and€thenÏslammed€the€door€shut;€he€then€opened€the€door€again,€stepped€outside,€andÏclosed€the€condominium€door€behind€him.€€Seconds€later,€the€gun€fired.€€AlthoughÏMs.€Barbeau€was€present,€she€claimed€that€she€did€not€see€the€actual€shooting.€ÏSeriously€wounded,€the€victim€was€able€to€return€to€the€inside€of€his€condo€but€diedÍminutes€later.€€The€defendant€claimed€self„defense.€€€Although€they€did€not€see€theÏshooting,€several€witnesses€saw€the€defendant€carrying€a€gun€as€he€stood€justÏoutside€the€victimððs€residence.ò òòòÌÇÓ  ÓSTATEððS€PROOFóóó óÌÓ  Óà àà àChadwick€Bill€Ferrell,€a€roommate€of€the€victim,€testified€that€he€andÏseveral€other€young€men€were€socializing€at€the€condo€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€ÏFerrell€related€that€the€victim€had€talked€with€Ms.€Barbeau€by€telephone€severalÏtimes€throughout€the€day;€the€victim,€obviously€angry,€threw€her€personalÏbelongings€on€to€the€front€lawn,€scattering€many€of€the€items.€€Ferrell€later€saw€theÏdefendant€and€Ms.€Barbeau€at€the€front€door€of€the€condominium.€€He€describedÏthe€defendant€as€"very€focused"€on€the€victim€and€noticed€the€laser€sight€on€theÏdefendantððs€gun€flash€inside€the€residence.€€Jeffrey€Chandler€Jackson€and€KevinÏHall€corroborated€various€parts€of€Ferrellððs€testimony.€ÌÌà àà àRobert€John€Bowlby€testified€that€he€had€seen€the€defendant€about€aÏweek€and€a€half€to€two€weeks€earlier;€the€defendant€was€armed€with€the€same€gunÏwhich€was€later€used€to€shoot€the€victim.€€When€Bowlby€asked€the€defendant€whatÏhe€he€intended€to€do€with€the€weapon,€the€defendant€replied,€"Iððm€going€to€use€thisÏfor€any[one]€that€f„„„„€with€me,€and€that€includes€that€Brian€Shaver€...."€€ÌÌà àà àGuy€Adams€testified€that€after€the€shooting,€the€defendant€and€Ms.ÏBarbeau€went€to€the€residence€of€Jeff€and€Lisa€Hubbard.€€Adams,€who€lived€withÏthe€Hubbards,€stated€that€the€defendant€claimed€that€the€victim€had€initiated€the€frayÍby€pulling€Ms.€Barbeau€from€the€vehicle€and€striking€her.€€The€defendant€toldÏAdams€that€he€took€his€weapon€from€the€car€trunk€to€get€the€victim€to€stop€hittingÏMs.€Barbeau€and€fired€only€when€he€was€charged€by€the€victim.€€Adams€also€noted,Ïhowever,€that€Ms.€Barbeau€showed€no€visible€signs€of€having€been€involved€in€aÏstruggle.€€Adams,€who€had€several€prior€convictions€of€his€own€and€an€outstandingÏCommunity€Corrections€revocation€notice,€testified€that€the€defendant€asked€him€toÏ"get€rid€of"€the€gun€and€that€he€cooperated€by€taking€it€to€a€friendððs€house.€€WhenÏarrested€later,€Adams€helped€police€locate€the€weapon.€€Adams€acknowledged€thatÏhe€had€been€allowed€to€stay€on€the€Community€Corrections€program€in€exchangeÏfor€his€testimony€in€this€case.€ÌÌà àà àLisa€Michelle€Hubbard,€Adamsðð€sister„in„law,€testified€that€theÏdefendant€appeared€to€be€"excited"€after€the€shooting€and€that€he€called€both€theÏpolice€and€his€father.€€Ms.€Hubbard€related€that€the€defendant€tried€to€clean€theÏweapon€and€asked€her€and€her€husband€to€tell€the€police€that€he€had€thrown€theÏgun€away€at€a€place€other€than€where€Adams€agreed€to€take€it.€€She€stated€that€theÏdefendant€had€admitted€carrying€the€gun€in€his€lap€on€the€drive€to€the€victimððsÏcondominium€but€had€nevertheless€asked€the€Hubbards€to€tell€the€police€the€gunÏwas€in€the€trunk€of€the€car.€€Ms.€Hubbard€conceded€that€she€had€originally€told€theÍstory€the€defendant€had€asked€her€to€tell;€she€claimed€that€she€had€later€recantedÏher€fabrication€and€had€testified€truthfully€at€the€trial.€€Ì€€Ìà àà àDetective€Dan€Stewart€examined€the€crime€scene€and€supervised€theÏcollection€of€evidence.€€He€testified€that€he€took€statements€from€several€witnesses,Ïincluding€those€of€the€defendant€and€Ms.€Barbeau.€€He€acknowledged€that€Ms.ÏBarbeau€showed€no€visible€signs€of€injury.ÌÌà àà à€Dr.€David€Douglas€Wilson,€who€performed€an€autopsy€on€the€victim,Ïtestified€that€a€single€bullet€wound€had€caused€death.€€He€found€that€the€bullet€hadÏtraveled€on€a€downward€path€through€the€victimððs€body.€€Don€Carman€of€theÏTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€Crime€Laboratory€estimated€the€distanceÏbetween€the€muzzle€of€the€gun€and€the€victim€to€be€"greater€than€18€inches€andÏless€than€84€inches."€€His€best€estimate€was€that€the€distance€between€the€two€menÏwas€from€"two€to€four€feet."ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòDEFENDANTððS€PROOFóóó óÌÓ  Óà àà àLarry€Fletcher,€a€firearms€examiner,€held€the€opinion€that€the€distanceÏbetween€the€muzzle€of€the€gun€and€the€shirt€was€from€"1€to€2€feet."€€James€RussellÍDavis,€another€forensic€scientist,€stated€that€his€testing€did€not€eliminate€theÏpossibility€that€the€victim€handled€or€fired€the€gun.ÌÌà àà àAngela€Christine€Barbeau,€who€had€lived€with€the€victim€for€monthsÏbut€was€in€the€process€of€moving€on€the€day€of€the€shooting,€testified€that€she€wasÏoutside€the€condo€at€the€time€the€shot€was€fired.€€Ms.€Barbeau,€employed€at€a€stripÏclub€at€the€time,€claimed€that€she€was€at€her€motherððs€house€at€8:30€P.M.€when€sheÏreceived€an€angry€phone€call€from€the€victim.€€She€described€the€victim€as€"rantingÏand€raving€...€yelling€and€screaming"€and€claimed€that€he€ordered€her€to€come€toÏhis€residence€to€collect€her€belongings.€€Ms.€Barbeau€testified€that€the€defendantÏaccompanied€her€in€order€to€help€determine€whether€her€clothing€had€been€thrownÏinto€the€front€yard.€€She€explained€that€she€went€to€the€condo€only€because€sheÏthought€the€victim€was€not€at€home€and€that€she€could€collect€her€belongings€thereÏwithout€a€confrontation.€€ÌÌà àà àMs.€€Barbeau€claimed€that€the€victim€approached€her€from€behind,Ïpulled€her€out€of€the€car,€and€knocked€her€down€several€times.€€She€stated€thatÏwhen€the€victim€left,€she€followed€him€to€his€condo€and€knocked€on€the€door.€€SheÏcontended€that€the€victim€opened€the€door,€shoved€her€to€the€ground,€andÏ"backhanded"€her€before€the€defendant€intervened€by€warning€the€victim€to€"stayÍaway.ðð€€Ms.€Barbeau€claimed€that€the€victim€then€struck€the€defendant€and€wrestledÏover€the€gun€when€she€"heard€the€gun€go€off,€but€...€didnððt€see€anything."€ÌÌà àà àMs.€Barbeau€testified€that€she€had€several€earlier€altercations€with€theÏvictim.€€She€claimed€that€the€victim,€upset€about€her€relationship€with€the€defendant,Ïhad€pushed€her€down€in€the€shower.€€She€contended€that€the€victim€then€pinnedÏher€to€the€bed€for€about€fifteen€minutes.€€Ms.€Barbeau€testified€that€the€defendantÏknew€about€several€of€her€prior€altercations€with€the€victim.€€ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€à àOn€cross„examination,€Ms.€Barbeau€admitted€threatening€to€have€theÏvictimððs€"ass€kicked."€€She€also€conceded€that€after€she€argued€with€the€victimÏsometime€earlier,€an€acquaintance€of€the€defendantððs€had€threatened€to€beat€theÏvictim.€€Ms.€Barbeau€also€acknowledged€several€inconsistencies€between€her€trialÏtestimony€and€her€pretrial€statements€to€police.€€She€conceded€that€the€defendantÏwas€angry€when€they€went€to€the€victimððs€condo€that€evening€and€that€she€hadÏoverheard€the€defendant€make€other€threats€against€the€victim.€€ÌÌà àà àMarianne€Hathcock,€Ms.€Barbeauððs€mother,€testified€that€the€victimÏcalled€her€house€several€times€on€the€day€of€the€shooting.€€She€described€theÏvictim€as€getting€more€and€more€angry€with€each€call.€€Ms.€Hathcock€also€testified€toÍa€prior€incident€when€the€victim,€accompanied€by€a€group€of€his€friends,€came€toÏher€house€carrying€baseball€bats€in€a€threatening€manner.€€She€claimed€that€sheÏhad€seen€bruises€on€the€lower€part€of€Ms.€Barbeauððs€€body€shortly€after€theÏshooting.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€was€aware€that€the€victim€hadÏpreviously€resorted€to€physical€violence€during€arguments€with€Ms.€Barbeau.€€TheÏdefendant€claimed€that€he€overheard€portions€of€the€phone€calls€the€victim€made€toÏMs.€Barbeauððs€motherððs€house€just€prior€to€the€shooting€and€that€on€one€occasion,Ïwhen€he€answered€the€telephone,€he€was€threatened€by€the€victim.€€He€contendedÏthat€when€they€arrived€at€his€residence€just€prior€to€the€shooting,€the€victim€threwÏMs.€Barbeau€to€the€ground€and€asserted€that€the€victim€had€struck€her€when€sheÏknocked€on€the€door.€€Fearing€Ms.€Barbeau€was€injured,€the€defendant€claimed€thatÏhe€retrieved€his€gun€from€the€trunk,€went€to€the€front€porch€where€she€lay,€andÏhimself€had€been€struck€by€the€victim€when€the€gun€went€off.€€ÌÌà@ àIÌ€€à àà àThe€defendantððs€first€argument€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€chargingÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„611(b),€a€statute€which€defines€self„defense€in€theÍcontext€of€€the€defense€of€oneððs€own€residence.€€The€trial€court€gave€extensive€juryÏinstructions€on€the€issue.€€A€portion€of€the€instruction€provided€as€follows:Ìà8 àà8 àÓÓà àAny€person€using€force€intended€or€likely€to€causeÏdeath€or€serious€bodily€injury€within€his€own€residence€isÏpresumed€to€have€held€a€reasonable€fear€o[f]€imminentÏperil€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury€to€self,€family,€or€aÏmember€of€the€household€when€that€force€is€usedÏagainst€another€person,€not€a€member€of€the€family€orÏhousehold,€who€unlawfully€and€forcibly€enters€or€heÏunlawfully€and€forcibly€entered€the€residence,€and€theÏperson€using€the€force€knew€or€had€reason€to€believeÏthat€an€unlawful€and€forcible€entry€occurred.ÓÓòòÌSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„611(b).€€The€state€requested€this€charge€on€theÏbasis€that€"[the€victim]€has€every€right€to€go€after€[the€defendant]„„and€thereððs€aÏpresumption€he€was€acting€in€self„defense€...."€€During€summation,€the€state€arguedÏthat€"if€someone€is€attacked€at€their€residence,€they€are€presumed€to€be€acting€inÏself„defense."ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€contends€that€this€instruction€was€erroneous€for€twoÏreasons:€first,€the€statute€was€simply€inapplicable€to€these€facts€because€the€victim,Ïnot€the€defendant,€was€acting€in€defense€of€his€residence€and€the€statute€wasÏintended€to€govern€defenses€to€prosecution,€not€to€justify€a€victimððs€conduct;Ïsecond,€the€instruction€improperly€shifted€the€burden€of€proof€on€the€issue€of€self„defense.€€We€will€address€each€of€these€arguments€separately.ÌÌà àà à€The€trial€judge€has€a€duty€"to€give€a€complete€charge€of€the€lawÏapplicable€to€the€facts€of€a€case."€€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€319€(Tenn.),Ïòòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€476€U.S.€1153€(1986);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€30.€€Clearly,€theÏinstructions€were€simply€not€applicable€to€the€facts€of€this€case.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„11„601€provides€that€"[i]t€is€a€defense€to€prosecution€that€the€conduct€of€theÏperson€is€justified€under€this€part."€€Self„defense€qualifies€as€justification.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„11„611.€€The€plain€language€of€the€statute€is€that€self„defense€mayÏbe€utilized€in€defense€of€the€prosecution;€it€is€not,€however,€any€justification€œfor€a€›Ïvictimððs€conduct.€€Thus,€the€instruction€was€not€warranted€by€the€facts.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€state€has€the€burden€of€proving€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thatÏthe€defendant€did€not€act€in€self„defense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„201(a)(3)Ïprovides€that€"No€person€may€be€convicted€of€an€offense€unless€each€of€theÏfollowing€is€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt:€€...€The€negation€of€any€defense€toÏan€offense€defined€in€this€title€...."€€Self„defense€qualifies€as€such€a€defense.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„11„601€and€39„11„611.€€An€instruction€like€that€given€here,Ïto€justify€the€victimððs€conduct,€does€tend,€in€our€view,€to€impermissibly€shift€theÏburden€of€proof€to€the€defendant.€€Moreover,€due€to€the€circumstances€of€theÏshooting,€the€instruction€would€likely€confuse€the€jury€even€if€it€did€not€have€theÍeffect€of€shifting€the€burden€of€proof.€€In€short,€it€should€not€have€been€used€in€thisÏcase.€€ÌÌà àà àSubpart€(a)€of€the€self„defense€statute,€which€is€applicable€to€the€factsÏpresented€at€trial,€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA€person€is€justified€in€threatening€or€using€force€againstÏanother€person€when€and€to€the€degree€the€personÏreasonably€believes€the€force€is€immediately€necessaryÏto€protect€against€the€otherððs€use€or€attempted€use€ofÏòòunlawful€forceóó....ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„11„611(a)€(emphasis€added).€€Subpart(b)€of€the€self„defenseÏstatute,€which€tended€to€excuse€any€possible€misconduct€by€the€victim,€provides€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAny€person€using€force€intended€or€likely€to€cause€deathÏor€serious€bodily€injury€within€their€own€residence€isÏòòpresumedóó€to€have€held€a€reasonable€fear€...€when€thatÏforce€is€used€against€another€person€...€who€òòunlawfullyóóÏand€òòforciblyóó€enters€or€had€unlawfully€and€forciblyÏentered€the€residence€....€€ÌÌòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€39„11„611(b)€(emphasis€added).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€our€view,€the€defense€provided€for€in€subsection(a)€arises€onlyÏwhen€the€defendant€is€protecting€himself€from€òòunlawfulóó€force.€€Under€subsection(b)Ïthe€victimððs€conduct€is€"presumed"€to€be€justified€and€the€defendantððs€conduct€isÍdescribed€as€"unlawful."€€Thus,€the€only€way€the€defendant€could€employ€the€self„defense€theory€would€be€to€overcome€this€presumption€of€justification€on€the€part€ofÏthe€victim.€€The€state€has€the€burden€of€proof€to€negate€the€defense;€the€burden€isÏnot€upon€the€defendant€to€prove€the€defense€exists.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„201(a)(3).ÌÌà àà àWe€now€turn€to€the€question€of€whether€the€error€here€may€have€beenÏharmless.€€The€essential€question€is€whether€the€error€more€probably€than€notÏaffected€the€verdict€of€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€If€an€error€is€ofÏconstitutional€dimensions,€there€must€be€a€reversal€unless€the€error€is€harmlessÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Carpenteróó,€773€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1989).€€We€believe€that€the€erroneous€instruction€here€was€harmless€when€viewedÏin€context€with€the€entire€charge.€€Jury€instructions€must€be€read€as€a€whole€ratherÏthan€in€isolation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Phippsóó,€œ883›€S.W.2d€138,€142€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994).€€While€it€may€have€been€the€intention€of€the€state,€in€asserting€that€theÏinstruction€was€warranted,€to€justify€the€victimððs€conduct,€and,€while€the€state€placedÏemphasis€on€the€instruction€during€closing€argument,€the€trial€judge€charged€theÏjury€as€if€the€statute€merely€afforded€one€other€possible€defense€offered€by€theÏdefendant.€€The€applicable€subsection€of€the€self„defense€statute€was€properlyÏcharged.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€self„defense€instruction,€the€trial€court€correctlyÍpointed€out€that€the€burden€was€on€the€state€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏthat€the€defendant€did€not€act€in€self„defense.€€That,€in€our€view,€served€to€mitigateÏany€adverse€consequences€from€the€erroneous€charge.€€Under€all€of€theÏcircumstances,€we€must€conclude€that€the€charge,€in€context,€was€not€harmful€to€theÏdefendant€under€any€standard.€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àÓ  ÓIIÌÓ  Óà àà àAs€his€second€issue,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€prosecutor€wasÏguilty€of€misconduct€during€the€trial€by€asking€the€defendant€whether€he€had€"calledÏthe€mother€of€th[e]€victim€to€say€[he€was]€sorry€for€what€happened€...."€€After€theÏdefendant€objected€to€this€question,€the€prosecutor€did€rephrase€his€question€€butÏessentially€asked€the€same€thing.€€The€trial€court€sustained€each€of€the€defendantððsÏobjections.€€No€curative€instructions€were€given.€€The€defendant€now€asserts€thatÏthe€question€had€no€legitimate€purpose€and€that€the€conviction€should€be€reversedÏbecause€of€the€misconduct.ÌÌà àà àIn€our€assessment,€the€stateððs€conduct€did€not€amount€to€prosecutorialÏmisconduct.€€The€test€to€be€applied€in€reviewing€a€claim€of€prosecutorialÏmisconduct€is€"whether€the€improper€conduct€could€have€affected€the€verdict€to€theÏprejudice€of€the€defendant."€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€215€Tenn.€338,€340,€385€S.W.2dÏ758,€759€(1965).€€The€factors,€set€out€in€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344Í(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976),€and€adopted€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.ÏBuckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€609€(Tenn.€1984),€are€as€follows:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€the€conduct€complained€of,€viewed€in€light€of€the€factsÏand€circumstances€of€the€case;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€the€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€andÏthe€prosecution;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improperÏstatement;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€andÏany€other€errors€in€the€record;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àWhile€no€curative€measures€were€taken,€the€conduct€complained€ofÏwas€minor€when€viewed€in€the€context€of€the€whole€trial.€€We€are€unable€to€discernÏany€improper€motive.€€Because€the€other€required€factors€for€our€determination€didÏnot€indicate€any€prejudicial€effect,€we€have€found€no€error€in€this€instance.€€ÌÇÓ  ÓIIIÌÓ  Óà àà àAs€his€third€issue,€the€defendant€claims€the€trial€court€erred€byÏrefusing€to€permit€defense€counsel€to€cross„examine€Detective€Dan€Stewart€aboutÏcertain€pretrial€statements€of€the€defendant.€€We€agree.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€had€made€exculpatory€claims€to€police€during€theÏcourse€of€the€investigation.€€Detective€Stewart€made€no€attempt€€to€either€verify€orÏdiscredit€€those€claims.€€For€example,€the€defendant€insisted€at€trial€that€he€told€theÏdetective€that€the€trench€coat€he€was€wearing€at€the€time€of€the€shooting€was€torn€inÏhis€struggle€with€the€victim.€€The€detective€did€not€inspect€the€trench€coat.€€TheÏdefendant€now€argues€that€the€detectiveððs€failure€to€follow€up€on€the€leadÏestablished€the€bias€of€the€detective.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€stateððs€objectionsÏto€this€line€of€questioning,€based€upon€its€conclusion€that€the€claims€involved€self„serving€hearsay.€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€114€S.ÏCt.€1339€(1994),€our€supreme€court€reviewed€a€similar€action.€€In€òòHowellóó,€theÏdefendant€tried€to€cross„examine€a€state€witness€with€evidence€the€trial€courtÏcharacterized€as€"self„serving€hearsay."€€òòIdóó.€at€252.€€The€only€factual€differenceÏbetween€òòHowellóó€and€this€case€is€that€here,€the€self„serving€statements€wereÍoriginally€uttered€by€the€defendant,€whereas€in€òòHowellóó,€the€statements€wereÏoriginally€made€by€the€witness€under€cross„examination.€€òòId.óó€€Our€supreme€courtÏheld€that€the€statements€were€not€hearsay€because€they€were€not€being€offered€toÏprove€the€truth€of€the€matter€stated.€€òòIdóó.;€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c).€€Further,€the€courtÏfound€the€limitation€on€cross„examination€violated€the€defendantððs€confrontationÏrights€under€the€Sixth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€U.S.€Constitution,€andÏArt.€I,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€252.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€find€òòHowellóó€to€control€here.€€"'Hearsay'€is€a€statement,€other€thanÏone€made€by€the€declarant€while€testifying€at€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€inÏevidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c).€€WeÏbelieve€that€the€statements€here€were€offered€to€show€the€detectiveððs€bias,€therebyÏadmissible,€and€not€to€prove€the€truth€of€their€content.€ÌÌà àà àThe€Sixth€Amendment€provides€that€the€accused€shall€have€the€rightÏto€be€"confronted€with€the€witnesses€against€him."€€U.S.€Const.€Amend€VI.€Ï"Confrontation€means€more€than€being€allowed€to€confront€the€witness€physically."€ÏòòDavis€v.€Alaskaóó,€415€U.S.€308,€315€(1974).€€It€includes€the€right€to€an€"effectiveÏcross„examination."€€òòDelaware€v.€Fenstereróó,€474€U.S.€15,€20€(1985).€€A€witnessesððÏbias€is€"ððalways€relevant€as€discrediting€the€witness€and€affecting€the€weight€of€hisÍtestimony.ðð"€€òòDavis€v.€Alaskaóó,€415€U.S.€at€316€(quoting€3A€J.€Wigmore,€Evidence€ððÏ940,€p.€775€(Chadbourn€rev.€1970));€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€616.ÌÌà àà àWe€are€cognizant€of€the€general€policy€against€allowing€theÏdefendantððs€self„serving€statements€to€be€admitted€without€the€defendant€taking€theÏstand:€Ìà8 àà8 àÓÓà àð ðA€declaration€made€by€a€defendant€in€his€ownÏfavor€[with€certain€exceptions],€is€not€admissible€for€theÏdefense.€€A€self„serving€declaration€is€excluded€becauseÏthere€is€nothing€to€guarantee€its€testimonialÏtrustworthiness.€€If€such€evidence€were€admissible,€theÏdoor€would€be€thrown€open€to€obvious€abuse:€€anÏaccused€could€create€evidence€for€himself€by€makingÏstatements€in€his€favor€for€subsequent€use€at€his€trial€toÏshow€his€innocence.ððÌÌÓÓòòHall€v.€Stateóó,€552€S.W.2d€417,€418€(Tenn.€Crim.€App€1977)€(quoting€WhartonððsÏCriminal€Evidence,€13th€Edition,€ðð€303).€€However,€this€policy€must€yield€to€theÏconstitutional€requirements€that€the€accused€be€allowed€to€confront€the€witnessesÏagainst€him.€ÌÌà àà àWe€now€address€the€question€of€whether€this€error€was€harmless.€€InÏòòHowellóó,€our€supreme€court€announced€the€standards€for€determining€whenÍconstitutionally€improper€restrictions€on€the€right€to€cross„examine€constituteÏharmless€error:Ìà8 àà8 àÓÓ[T]he€correct€inquiry€is€whether,€assuming€that€theÏdamaging€potential€of€the€cross„examination€were€fullyÏrealized,€the€error€was€nonetheless€harmless€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€A€number€of€factors€are€relevant€toÏthis€inquiry,€including€the€importance€of€the€witnessððÏtestimony€in€the€prosecutionððs€case,€the€cumulativeÏnature€of€the€testimony,€the€presence€or€absence€ofÏevidence€corroborating€or€contradicting€the€witness€onÏmaterial€points,€the€extent€of€cross„examinationÏotherwise€permitted,€and€the€overall€strength€of€theÏprosecutionððs€case.ÌÌÓÓ€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€253€(citations€omitted).Ìà àà àÌà àà àThe€importance€of€this€witnessðð€testimony€to€the€stateððs€case€and€theÏcumulative€nature€of€his€testimony€suggest€€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€was€otherwise€allowed€a€vigorousÏcross„examination.€€The€detectiveððs€testimony€established€the€foundation€for€theÏadmission€of€several€items€into€evidence€and€proved€venue€in€Knox€County.€€HeÏalso€€testified€that€Ms.€Barbeau€did€not€show€any€physical€signs€of€having€been€in€aÏstruggle€with€the€victim.€€The€primary€issue€in€this€case€was€whether€the€shootingÏwas€in€self„defense.€€In€our€view,€the€detectiveððs€testimony€provided€little,€if€any,Ïinsight€on€the€issue€of€self„defense;€certainly,€the€testimony€was€relativelyÍinsignificant€to€the€state€to€show€that€the€killings€were€not€in€self„defense.€€Thus,€theÏerror,€in€context,€qualified€as€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà@ àIVÌà àà àAs€his€fourth€issue,€the€defendant€claims€the€trial€court€erred€byÏrefusing€to€allow€counsel€for€the€defense€to€question€Angie€Barbeau€on€redirectÏabout€her€pretrial€statements.€€We€agree€that€the€questions€should€have€beenÏallowed€but€also€find€this€error€to€have€been€harmless.€€ÌÌà àà àDuring€the€cross„examination€of€Ms.€Barbeau,€the€state€referredÏextensively€to€statements€she€had€previously€made€to€the€police.€€At€one€point,€Ms.ÏBarbeau€appeared€to€have€contradicted€herself€about€whether€she€believed€theÏshooting€was€in€self„defense.€€A€second€inconsistency€was€whether€Ms.€BarbeauÏever€heard€the€defendant€offer€anyone€money€to€beat€the€victim.€€Defense€counselÏobjected,€arguing€that€the€statements€suggesting€the€inconsistencies€were€takenÏout€of€context€and€that€the€full€context€of€the€statements€would€show€there€to€be€noÏinconsistencies.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€objection€but€assured€defenseÏcounsel€that€he€could€address€the€issue€on€redirect.€€On€redirect,€however,€the€trialÏcourt€refused€to€allow€any€inquiry€about€the€context€of€the€statements.Ìà àà àÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€498€U.S.Ï1074€(1991),€our€supreme€court€cited€the€following€rule:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€general€rule€is,€subject€to€certain€exceptions,€thatÏevidence€of€prior€consistent€statements€may€not€be€usedÏto€rehabilitate€an€impeached€witness.€€This€is€not€whatÏoccurred€in€this€case.€€The€State€was€allowed€to€place€inÏproper€context€supposedly€inconsistent€statementsÏbrought€into€evidence€by€the€defendant.€€Where€specificÏquestions€and€answers€taken€out€of€context€do€notÏconvey€the€true€picture€of€the€prior€statement€alleged€toÏbe€inconsistent,€it€is€unfair€to€permit€reference€toÏisolated,€unexplained€responses€by€the€witness€andÏthere€is€no€error€in€allowing€the€statements€to€be€placedÏin€context.€€òòSeeóó€òòCole€v.€Stateóó,€498€S.W.2d€915,€917Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).ÌòòÌIdóó.€at€593„94.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€also€suggest€that€the€trial€judgeÏshould€have€allowed€the€statements€to€be€placed€in€context.€€The€Rule€ofÏCompleteness€provides€that€"[w]hen€a€writing€or€recorded€statement€or€part€thereofÏis€introduced€by€a€party,€an€adverse€party€may€require€the€introduction€at€that€timeÏof€any€other€part€or€any€other€writing€or€recorded€statement€which€ought€in€fairnessÏto€be€considered€contemporaneously€with€it."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€106.Ì€€Ìà àà àThe€rationale€of€òòBoydóó€applies€here.€€The€defendant€should€have€beenÏpermitted€to€show€the€full€context€of€the€statements.€€The€stateððs€use€of€theÏstatements€present€the€context€of€the€statements€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€itsÏtheory.€€The€full€context€of€the€statements€in€their€complete€form€presented€aÏdifferent€perspective.€€By€suggesting€that€Ms.€Barbeau€had€heard€the€defendantÏthreaten€the€victim,€the€state€made€relevant€her€assertion€that€she€never€heard€theÏdefendant€offer€anyone€money€to€kill€the€victim.€€By€suggesting€Ms.€Barbeau€wasÏuntruthful€in€her€assertions€that€the€shooting€was€in€self„defense,€the€state€madeÏrelevant€her€denial€that€the€shooting€occurred€from€several€feet.€ÌÌà àà àWe€now€turn€to€whether€the€error€was€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.ÏR.€36(b).€€We€are€mindful€that€Ms.€Barbeau€was€a€major€witness€offered€by€theÏdefendant€to€corroborate€his€testimony€about€self„defense.€€Further,€the€transcriptÏshows€that€the€effective€cross„examination€of€Ms.€Barbeau€seriously€underminedÏher€credibility.€€€It€is€unlikely,€however,€that€proof€of€the€full€text€of€these€statementsÏwould€have€helped€restore€her€credibility.€€The€state€successfully€impeached€Ms.ÏBarbeau€on€a€number€of€other€issues€as€well.€€It€is€unlikely,€in€our€view,€that€proof€ofÏthe€complete€statements€would€have€helped.€€Thus,€we€hold€that€this€error€did€notÏaffect€the€verdict.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓVÌÓ  Óà àà àAs€his€fifth€issue,€the€defendant€claims€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusingÏto€allow€the€defendant€to€introduce€the€full€text€of€each€of€his€statements€after€theÏstate€had€completed€its€cross„examination.€€The€defendant€gave€three€pretrialÏstatements€to€the€police.€€All€three€statements€were€given€within€a€œtwelve„hour›Ïperiod€shortly€after€the€shooting.€€The€state€effectively€cross„examined€theÏdefendant€by€pointing€out€several€inconsistencies€between€statements€and€theÏdefendantððs€trial€testimony.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€cross„examination,€the€defenseÏrequested€that€all€three€of€the€statements€be€submitted€in€their€entirety€intoÏevidence.€€ÌÌà àà àA€jury„out€hearing€was€held€to€determine€the€admissibility€of€theÏstatements.€€The€state€argued€certain€parts€of€the€statements€should€be€redacted.€€ÌThe€trial€court€agreed€and€ruled€that€various€specified€parts€of€the€statements€hadÏto€be€omitted€before€they€could€be€introduced€into€evidence.€€In€this€appeal,€theÏdefendant€argues€the€entire€text€of€all€three€statements€should€have€been€allowed.€ÏWe€cannot€agree€that€the€entire€text€of€each€statement€should€have€been€admitted.€€ÌœÌ›à àà àA€prerequisite€to€the€admissibility€of€any€evidence€is€relevance.€€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€402.€€Parts€of€the€statements€clearly€contain€irrelevant€information,€such€asÏhow€much€bond€was€to€be€set€for€the€defendantððs€release.€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòCurry€v.€Stateóó,€217€Tenn.€257,€397€S.W.2d€179€(1965),€ourÏsupreme€court€held€that€if€the€defendant€is€cross„examined€in€great€detail€from€hisÏprior€statements,€ð ðthe€entire€statement€should€be€admitted,€but€that€parts€of€it€thatÏare€not€relevant€might€be€excluded.ðð€òò€Id.óó€at€182€(citations€omitted).€€€€The€òòCurryóó€courtÏcontinued,ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓWe€are€not€saying€that€normally€in€a€situation€of€this€kindÏthe€entire€statement€should€be€allowed€to€go€to€the€juryÏregardless€of€whether€it€bears€on€the€point€ofÏcontradiction€or€not€(some€courts€go€to€this€extent,€thatÏthe€entire€statement€is€entitled€to€go€in€regardless€ofÏwhat€it€says).€€We€do€not€go€that€far,€but€we€think,€evenÏon€cross„examination€for€the€purposes€of€impeaching,Ïthat€normally€statements€should€be€offered€so€that€CourtÏwould€have€an€opportunity€to€pass€on€whether€or€notÏother€statements€made€there,€are€in€anywise€pertinent,Ïand€also€to€determine€whether€or€not€to€exclude€portionsÏof€the€statement€not€relevant€to€the€items€thereof€whichÏhave€been€introduced.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòIdóó€at€182„83.€€ÌÌà àà àAlso,€in€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€710€S.W.2d€525,€528„29€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1985),€the€court€held€the€part€of€the€defendantððs€statement€about€his€willingness€toÏtake€a€lie€detector€test€was€inadmissable€because€of€case€law€holding€thatÏevidence€of€the€willingness€or€unwillingness€to€take€a€lie€detector€test€is€irrelevant.€ÏThe€òòAdkinsóó€court€relied€on€òòCurryóó€to€exclude€part€of€the€statement€containingÏreferences€to€the€lie€detector€test.€€òòIdóó.€€€ÌÌà àà àWe€now€turn€to€the€question€of€whether€each€part€which€was€excludedÏwas€irrelevant€and,€therefore,€properly€stricken.€€The€defendantððs€first€statement,€aÏtwo„page€transcript€of€a€taped€telephone€conversation€between€the€defendant€andÏDetective€Bernie€Lyon,€was€ruled€inadmissable€in€its€entirety.€€Arguing€againstÏadmission,€the€state€asserted€the€statement€was€irrelevant€because€the€state€hadÏnot€cross„examined€the€defendant€from€that€particular€statement;€the€defendant,Ïconceding€that€the€state€had€not€done€so,€claimed€the€statement€was€relevantÏbecause€it€contained€prior€consistencies€which€would€show€the€full€context€of€all€ofÏhis€pretrial€statements.ÌÌà àà àAs€stated€previously,€prior€consistent€statements€may€be€admitted€toÏplace€in€proper€context€alleged€inconsistencies€brought€out€by€opposing€counsel.€ÍòòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€at€593„94.€€The€defendant€maintains€that€the€telephoneÏconversation€should€have€been€admitted€for€this€purpose.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àà àDuring€direct€examination,€the€defendant€claimed€that€the€shootingÏoccurred€after€the€victim€charged€at€him€and€that€the€shooting€was€in€self„defense.€ÏAlso,€he€contended€that€he€did€not€realize€he€had€actually€shot€the€victim€becauseÏthe€victim€had€walked€back€into€the€house€without€staggering€or€making€any€otherÏgestures€that€would€indicate€he€had€been€injured.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€state€impeached€the€defendant€on€these€assertions€by€using€hisÏsecond€and€third€pretrial€statements.€€For€example,€much€of€the€stateððs€cross„examination€consisted€of€the€state€using€parts€of€the€statements€which€mightÏsuggest€the€shooting€was€not€in€self„defense.€€Also,€the€state€quoted€from€theÏdefendantððs€second€statement,€where€the€defendant€said€that€although€he€did€notÏsee€any€blood€on€the€defendant,€Ms.€Barbeau€had€seen€bleeding.€€The€state€usedÏthis€statement€to€suggest€the€defendant€knew€he€had€shot€the€victim.€€Ì€€€€€€à àà àÌà àà àIn€the€taped€conversation,€the€defendant€provided€€Detective€BernieÏLyon€with€an€abbreviated€version€of€the€shooting.€€Specifically,€he€claimed€that€theÍvictim€charged€at€him€and€the€gun€went€off€while€they€were€wrestling€and€that€heÏdid€not€realize€he€had€actually€shot€the€victim.ÌÌà àà àThe€assertions€in€the€taped€conversation€qualified€as€prior€consistentÏstatements€which€might€have€served€to€rehabilitate€the€trial€testimony€of€theÏdefendant€and€would€have€placed€the€inconsistencies€in€proper€context.€€In€ourÏview,€the€statement€should€have€been€admitted€under€the€standards€announced€inÏòòBoydóó,€òòsupraóó.ÌÌà àà àWe€must€also€address€the€stateððs€contention€that€because€theÏdefendant€was€not€cross„examined€by€the€actual€use€of€the€statement,€theÏconversation€should€not€have€been€admitted€for€any€purpose.€€We€cannot€agree.€ÏThe€Rule€of€Completeness€provides,€ð ðWhen€a€writing€or€recorded€statement€or€partÏthereof€is€introduced€by€a€party,€an€adverse€party€may€require€the€introduction€atÏthat€time€of€any€other€part€òòor€any€other€writing€or€recorded€statementsóó€which€oughtÏin€fairness€to€be€considered€contemporaneously€with€it.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€106.€€Here,Ïwhile€the€defendant€was€cross„examined€only€from€his€other€two€pretrialÏstatements,€the€contents€of€this€first€statement,€which€was€given€only€hours€beforeÏthe€remaining€two€statements,€were€relevant€to€establish€the€context€of€all€of€theÏstatements.€€The€statements€cannot€be€treated€in€isolation.€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€second€statement,€six€pages€in€length€and€given€atÏ1:58€a.m.€shortly€after€the€shooting,€had€portions€stricken.€€In€the€statement,€theÏdefendant€claimed€that€the€victim€had€been€arrested€for€assaulting€several€differentÏwomen,€one€of€whom€had€to€be€hospitalized,€and€that€the€victim€took€medication€forÏð ðhis€temperðð€or€some€sort€of€mental€condition.€€The€trial€court€held€that€theseÏportions€had€to€be€omitted€before€the€statement€could€be€admitted€into€evidence,Ïdespite€the€defendantððs€arguments€that€these€parts€of€the€statement€showed€hisÏstate€of€mind€(i.e.,€he€feared€the€victim).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€testified€on€direct€that€he€was€aware€of€the€prior€acts€ofÏviolence€committed€by€the€victim€and€thus,€these€statements€might€qualify€as€priorÏconsistent€statements.€€Prior€consistent€statements€are€not€admissible,€however,Ïunless€the€defendant€is€impeached€about€some€matter€to€which€the€priorÏstatements€pertain.€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€867€S.W.2d€361,€374€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).€€The€defendant€was€not€impeached€in€any€manner€on€this€issue;€thus,€thereÏwas€no€need€to€admit€the€prior€consistent€statements€to€rehabilitate€the€defendantÏor€to€show€the€context€of€the€statements.€€That€the€defendant€thought€€the€victimÏtook€medication€to€control€his€temper€was€not€brought€out€on€direct€and€this€factÏmay€have€been€relevant€to€establishing€the€defendantððs€fear€of€the€victim.€€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€third€statement,€a€seventeen€page€statement€given€atÏ7:26€the€morning€after€the€shooting,€also€had€portions€stricken.€€When€DetectiveÏStewart€asked€the€defendant€if€he€knew€where€Adams€had€taken€the€gun,€theÏdefendant€responded:Ìà8 àà8 àÓÓUm,€at€first€he€said€he€was€taking€it€to€...€Jeff€...€and€at€firstÏhe€said€he€was€gonna€go€put€it€in€the€trunk€of€there€andÏthen€...€he€said€he€was€gonna€go€move€it€again€causeÏthat€[wasnððt]€a€good€place.€€And€...€he€tried€to€tell€meÏdownstairs€....€I€asked€him€cause€I€was€gonna€come€tellÏyaððll€where€it€was€cause€yaððll€said€that€...€if€I€had€the€gunÏthat€that€would€help€me€out.€€But€that€guy€down€there€inÏthe€holding€cell€wouldnððt€let€us€talk.ÌÌÓÓ€This€portion€was€excluded.ÌÌà àà àThe€conversation€between€the€defendant€and€Adams€about€whereÏAdams€hid€the€gun€is€irrelevant,€as€it€does€not€make€the€ð ðexistence€of€any€fact€€thatÏis€of€consequence€...€more€probable€or€less€probable€....ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€First,Ïthe€defendant€was€not€cross„examined€in€any€fashion€about€this€conversation.€ÏEven€if€it€were€relevant,€€there€are€multiple€layers€of€hearsay.€€The€statements€fromÏAdams€to€the€defendant€qualify€as€the€first€layer€of€hearsay.€€When€the€defendantÏrepeated€the€statements€to€Stewart,€there€was€a€second€layer€of€hearsay.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€801€and€802.€€In€our€view,€this€portion€was€properly€excluded.€€ÌÌà àà àTo€analyze€the€next€portion,€the€transcript€of€part€of€the€statement€isÏreproduced€in€full,€with€portions€that€were€redacted€reproduced€in€italics:€€Ìà8 àà8 àÓÓDetective€Stewart:€...€What€the€witnesses€will€testify€to€isÏthat€you€pulled€the€weapon€out.€€You€displayed€it€...€theyÏsaw€the€laser€sight€activated€and€Brian€was€then€shotÏand€he€was€shot€at€some€distance€away€he€wasnððt€shotÏat€close€range€like€youððve€told€us.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€defendant:€O.K.€€Well€Iððve€got€a€busted€lip.€€WhereÏhe€came€and€punched€me€in€the€lip.€€Ya€know€thatððs€thatÏshould€be€evidence€on€my€part.€€He€came€...€I€was€on€theÏporch€and€I€told€I€told€yaððll€that€I€did€point€the€gun€at€himÏand€I€put€the€laser,€but€I€put€laser€on€his€head.ÌÌà8 àà8 àòòDetective€Stewart:€According€to€Angie€...€she€says€thatÏthe€dot€[the€beam€from€the€laser€on€the€gun]€appearedÏon€him€before€you€got€out€of€the€automobile.€€Now,€youÏexplain€that€to€me.ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€defendant:€The€dot€appeared€on€him€before.ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àDetective€Stewart:€The€dot€appeared€before€you€got€outÏof€the€car.ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€defendant:€...€Thatððs€impossible.óóÌÓÓà8 àà8 àòòDetective€Stewart:€€Itððs€not€impossible.€€She€saw€it.€€SheÏrecognized€it.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€defendant:€€My€laser€wonððt€...€€go€through€aÏwindshieldóó.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àDetective€Stewart:€€Iððm€not€saying€how€the€dot€appeared.€ÏIððm€just€telling€you€what€she€told€me.€€The€otherÍwitnesses€are€going€to€testify€that€...€the€sight€wasÏactivated€prior€to€the€œshooting›€in€the€vicinity€of€the€frontÏporch.€€There€was€not€a€struggle€between€you€and€BrianÏ...€Shaver€and€weððve€got€more€than€one€witness€that€hasÏtold€us€that.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€defendant:€You€mean€people€have€said€that€thereÏwas€not€a€struggle€between€us.ÌÌà8 àà8 àDetective€Stewart:€There€was€no€struggle€reported.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€defendant:€But€there€was€a€struggle.ÌÌà8 àà8 àDetective€Stewart:€None€reported.€€The€witnesses€insideÏthe€dwelling€that€heard€this€and€saw€it€said€you€veryÏcalmly€displayed€the€weapon,€pointed€it€right€at€him,€andÏpulled€the€trigger.€€They€even€told€us€what€Brian€saidÏafter€you€shot€him.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€defendant:€Well,€I€told€yaððll€what€he€said€after€heÏshot€him€he€stepped€back€in€the€door€and€said€nowÏyouððve€did€it€...€and€shut€the€door.ÌÌà8 àà8 àDetective€Stewart:€That€was€the€last€thing€he€ever€said.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€defendant:€Wait€a€minute,€he€died?ÌÌà8 àà8 àDetective€Stewart:€Yes€sir€he€sure€did.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€defendant:€They€said€on€the€news€he€was€.....ÌÌà8 àà8 àDetective€Stewart:€Donððt€believe€everything€you€hear€onÏthe€news.ÌÌà8 àà8 àDetective€Freeman:€Well€on€the€news€I€believe€what€theÏnews€says€you€had€(inaudible)€dead€body€over€at€UTÍhospitable€(inaudible)€and€Iððll€be€going€later€to€see€aboutÏthat.ÌÌà8 àà8 àDetective€Stewart:€Now€you€wanna€start€telling€us€theÏrest€of€the€truth€about€this€...€(inaudible)€...€or€do€you€wantÏto€stick€with€the€story€that€number€one€I€donððt€believe€andÏnumber€two€Mike€Freeman€doesnððt€believe€and€heððsÏbeen€at€this€all€night€like€I€have.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€defendant:€I€am€...€the€only€thing....ÌÌà8 àà8 àòòDetective€Stewart:€Youððre€gonna€be€standing€up€in€courtÏwith€at€least€seven€people€testifying€to€the€exactÏopposite€of€what€youððre€telling€us.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€defendant:€The€only€thing€that€I€did€not€tell€yaððll€theÏtruth€about€was€about€the€gun.óóÌÌÓ  Ó***ÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àà àThe€Rule€of€Completeness€suggests€the€portions€in€italics€should€notÏhave€been€redacted.€€"When€a€writing€or€recorded€statement€or€part€thereof€isÏintroduced€by€a€party,€an€adverse€party€may€require€the€introduction€at€€that€€time€ofÏany€other€part€or€any€other€writing€or€recorded€statement€which€ought€in€fairness€toÏbe€considered€contemporaneously€with€it."€€Tenn.€Rules€Evid.€106.€€The€state,€inÏcross„examining€the€defendant€in€extensive€detail€from€his€prior€statements,Ïeffectively€introduced€the€defendantððs€pretrial€statements.€€The€full€context€of€theÏstatements,€"in€fairness"€should€have€been€before€the€jury.€€Here,€the€redactionsÏwere€particularly€disturbing.€€The€first€redacted€portion€could€have€affected€how€theÍjury€would€have€interpreted€the€rest€of€what€Detective€Stewart€said€to€theÏdefendant.€€It€strongly€indicates€the€detective€was€fabricating€facts€in€order€to€getÏthe€defendant€€to€confess.€€The€fact€that€the€detective€was€probably€fabricating€factsÏin€that€portion€of€the€statement€would€affect€how€much€weight€to€give€other€parts€ofÏwhat€the€detective€says€to€the€defendant.€€The€second€redacted€portion€was€alsoÏerroneously€redacted.€€In€the€statement,€the€detective€repeatedly€accuses€theÏdefendant€of€lying.€€The€defendantððs€response€that€he€had€told€the€truth€aboutÏeverything€except€the€gun€was€highly€relevant€to€showing€the€full€context€of€theÏstatements.€€€€€€ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X Òà àà àThe€final€portion€of€the€third€statement€that€was€redacted€concernedÏsetting€bond€for€the€defendant€and€the€detective€lecturing€the€defendant€about€notÏbeing€truthful€with€him.€€The€fact€that€bond€was€set€for€the€defendant€is€irrelevant€toÏthe€issues€in€this€case,€so€there€was€no€error€in€striking€that€portion€of€theÏstatement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€Also,€the€detectiveððs€lecture€to€the€defendantÏabout€being€truthful€was€not€relevant.€€ÌÌà àà àThus,€we€hold€as€follows:€€(1)€€error€occurred€when€the€first€statementÏwas€not€admitted;€(2)€no€errors€occurred€in€the€redactions€in€the€second€statement;Ïand€(3)€error€occurred€in€redacting€certain€portions€of€the€third€statement.€€We€nowÍconsider€whether€the€errors€were€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€52(b).€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€redactions€in€the€third€statement€are€clearly€harmless€error.€€VeryÏminor€portions€of€the€seventeen€page€statement€were€redacted.€€Also,€aside€fromÏthe€redacted€portion,€there€were€many€other€instances€where€the€defendantÏinsisted€he€was€being€truthful.€€The€redactions€in€the€third€statement€are€notÏreversible€error.€€Ìà àà àThe€harmless€error€analysis€is€more€difficult€as€applied€to€theÏadmission€of€the€first€statement.€€The€defendant€was€not€allowed€to€present€aÏstatement€in€which€he€said€the€gun€was€in€the€trunk€or€in€his€lap€on€the€trip€to€theÏvictimððs€condo,€the€shooting€was€in€self„defense,€and€he€did€not€realize€the€victimÏhad€actually€been€shot.€€We€nevertheless€conclude€that€this€error€did€not€affect€theÏverdict.€€We€reach€this€conclusion€for€several€reasons.€€First,€all€of€these€assertionsÏwere€either€in€other€parts€of€the€defendantððs€statements€which€were€allowed€intoÏevidence€or€they€were€testified€to€by€other€witnesses.€Also,€the€defendant€wasÏimpeached€on€innumerable€other€matters.€€Thus,€there€was€not€reversible€error.€€€ÌÌÓ  Ó€VIÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€also€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instructÏthe€jury€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€voluntary€manslaughter.€€The€defendantÏargues€that€there€was€sufficient€evidence€that€he€acted€with€passion€produced€byÏadequate€provocation€to€warrant€the€additional€instructions.€€In€response,€the€stateÏcontends€that€the€evidence€simply€did€not€support€such€an€instruction.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€judge€has€a€duty€to€give€a€complete€charge€of€the€lawÏapplicable€to€the€facts€of€the€case.€€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€319€(Tenn.),Ïòòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€476€U.S.€1153€(1986).€€It€is€settled€law€that€when€"there€are€any€factsÏthat€are€susceptible€of€inferring€guilt€of€any€lesser€included€offense€or€offenses,Ïthen€there€is€a€mandatory€duty€upon€the€trial€judge€to€charge€on€such€offense€orÏoffenses.€€Failure€to€do€so€denies€a€defendant€his€constitutional€right€of€trial€by€aÏjury."€€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€618€S.W.2d€310,€315€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€(citationsÏomitted);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110(a).€€When€there€is€a€trial€on€a€single€chargeÏof€a€felony,€there€is€also€a€trial€on€all€lesser€included€offenses,€"as€the€facts€may€be."€ÏòòStrader€v.€Stateóó,€210€Tenn.€669,€675,€362€S.W.2d€224,€227€(1962).€€Trial€courts,Ïhowever,€are€not€required€to€charge€the€jury€on€a€lesser€included€offense€when€theÏrecord€is€devoid€of€evidence€to€support€an€inference€of€guilt€of€the€lesser€offense.€ÏòòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€549„50€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797ÍS.W.2d€589,€593€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€498€U.S.€1074€(1991);€€òòState€v.ÏDulsworthóó,€781€S.W.2d€277,€287€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).ÌÌà àà àIn€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€549€S.W.2d€682€(Tenn.€1977),€our€supreme€courtÏconfirmed€the€test€to€determine€whether€an€offense€is€lesser€and€included€in€theÏgreater€offense.€€Quoting€the€late€Justice€Weldon€White€in€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€217ÏTenn.€234,€243,€397€S.W.2d€170,€174€(1965),€the€court€ruled€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€true€test€of€which€is€a€lesser€and€which€is€a€greaterÏcrime€is€whether€the€elements€of€the€former€areÏcompletely€contained€within€the€latter,€so€that€to€proveÏthe€greater€the€State€must€first€prove€the€elements€of€theÏlesser.€€ÌÌòòWright€v.€Stateóó,€549€S.W.2d€at€685„86.€€ÌÌÌÌà àà àTwo€years€later,€the€supreme€court€again€addressed€the€subject:€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àWe€believe€that€the€better€rule,€and€the€one€to€beÏfollowed€henceforth€in€this€State,€is€the€rule€adoptedÏimplicitly€by€this€court€in€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó,€that,€inÏthis€context,€an€offense€is€necessarily€included€inÏanother€if€the€elements€of€the€greater€offense,€as€thoseÏelements€are€set€forth€in€the€indictment,€include,€but€areÏnot€congruent€with,€all€the€elements€of€the€lesser.€€IfÏthere€is€evidence€to€support€a€conviction€for€such€aÏlesser€offense,€it€must€be€charged€by€the€trial€judge.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„2519€[now€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„118(a)];€òòWhitwell€v.€Stateóó,€520€S.W.2d€338€(Tenn.€1972).€€ÌÌòòHoward€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.2d€83,€85€(Tenn.€1979).€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àTrial€judges€should€charge€the€jury€on€lesser€included€offensesÏcharged€in€the€indictment€whether€requested€to€do€so€or€not.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„18„110(a).€€Failure€to€instruct€on€a€lesser€included€offense€denies€a€defendantÏhis€constitutional€right€to€trial€by€jury.€€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€618€S.W.2d€310,€315€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1981).€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€defendant€was€charged€with€first€degree€murder.€€The€lesserÏincluded€offenses€of€second€degree€murder€and€negligent€homicide€were€properlyÏincluded€in€the€jury€charge.€€Voluntary€manslaughter,€a€lesser€grade€of€first€degreeÏmurder,€was€not€charged.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€311€(Tenn.€1996),Ï(explaining€that€voluntary€manslaughter€is€a€lesser€grade€of€first„degree€murder);€ÏòòHoward€v.€Stateóó,€506€S.W.2d€951€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€It€is€defined€as€"theÏintentional€or€knowing€killing€of€another€in€a€state€of€passion€produced€by€adequateÏprovocation€sufficient€to€lead€a€reasonable€person€to€act€in€an€irrational€manner."€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„211(a).€€The€court€in€òòTrustyóó€held€that€"if€the€evidenceÏwould€support€a€conviction€for€the€offense,€defendants€are€entitled€to€juryÍinstructions€...€on€all€offenses€which€are€a€lesser€grade€or€class€of€the€chargedÏoffense."€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€311.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€there€was€enough€evidence€that€he€actedÏin€a€state€of€passion€due€to€the€provocation€of€the€victim€to€warrant€instructions€onÏvoluntary€manslaughter.€€We€must€agree.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€knew€ofÏprior€acts€of€violence€by€the€victim.€€There€was€tension€between€the€defendant€andÏthe€victim€because€of€the€competing€interests€in€the€same€woman.€€There€wasÏtestimony€that€the€victim€struck€the€defendant€and€had€also€beaten€Ms.€BarbeauÏshortly€before€the€shooting.€€Ms.€Barbeau€conceded€that€the€defendant€was€angryÏwith€the€victim€on€the€evening€of€the€shooting.€€The€evidence€offered,€even€ifÏunpersuasive,€provided€support€to€the€theory€of€defense.ÌÌà àà àThe€guiding€principle€is€that€if€there€is€evidence€in€the€record€fromÏwhich€the€jury€could€have€concluded€that€the€lesser€included€or€grade€of€offenseÏwas€committed,€there€must€be€an€instruction€for€the€lesser€offense.€€òòIdóó.;€òòseeóóÏòòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€531€S.W.2d€558,€559€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€rule€otherwise€wouldÏeffectively€deprive€any€defendant€of€a€jury€trial€on€the€lesser€offense.€€That€is€aÏconstitutional€entitlement.€€Whether€there€was,€in€fact,€adequate€provocation€toÍwarrant€consideration€of€voluntary€manslaughter€was€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury,Ïnot€one€of€law€for€the€trial€court.€€€€€ÌÌà àà àRecently,€Judge€Welles€spoke€for€this€court€in€its€determination€that€anÏomission€of€a€lesser€included€offense€from€the€charge€to€the€jury€always€requires€aÏnew€trial.€€òòState€v.€Dhikr€Abban€Boyceóó,€No.€01C01„9402„CR„00053€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€at€Nashville,€Feb.€2,€1995).€€The€opinion€included€a€quote€from€òòPoole€v.€Stateóó,Ï61€Tenn.€288,€294€(1872):€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àHowever€plain€it€may€be€to€the€mind€of€the€Court€thatÏone€certain€offense€has€been€committed€and€none€other,Ïhe€must€not€confine€himself€in€his€charge€to€that€offense.€ÏWhen€he€does€so€he€invades€the€province€of€the€jury,Ïwhose€peculiar€duty€it€is€to€ascertain€the€grade€of€theÏoffense.€€However€clear€it€may€be,€the€Court€shouldÏnever€decide€the€facts,€but€must€leave€themÏunembarrassed€to€the€jury.ÌÌòòState€v.€Dhikr€Abban€Boyceóó,€slip€op.€at€6„7.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àWhile€the€evidence€of€provocation€may€have€lacked€credibility,€weÏmust€hold€that€voluntary€manslaughter€should€have€been€charged€as€a€possible,Ïlesser€grade€of€offense.€€It€is€unfortunate€that€this€omission,€in€the€face€of€strongÏconvicting€evidence,€mandates€a€reversal€of€the€conviction€and€the€grant€of€a€newÏtrial.€€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓVIIÌÓ  Óà àà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€impositionÏof€a€twenty„five€(25)€year€sentence,€the€maximum€for€second€degree€murder.€ÏAlthough€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial,€we€will€nonetheless€address€theÏquestion€of€whether€the€sentence€was€excessive.ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€challenge€is€made€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€"de€novo€review€...€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€isÏtaken€are€correct."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„40l(d).€€The€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€the€impropriety€ofÏthe€sentence.€€ÌÌà àà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(l)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€atÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors;Ï(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÍdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„l02,Ï„l03,€and„210.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€this€offense,€the€presumptive€sentence€was€theÏminimum€in€the€range€if€there€were€no€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€(amended€in€1995€changing€the€presumptive€sentence€forÏa€Class€A€felony€to€the€midpoint€in€the€range).€€Should€the€trial€court€find€mitigatingÏand€enhancement€factors,€it€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€andÏenhance€the€sentence€based€upon€any€applicable€enhancement€factors,€thenÏreduce€the€sentence€based€upon€any€appropriate€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€within€the€trial€court'sÏdiscretion€provided€that€the€record€supports€its€findings€and€it€complies€with€theÏSentencing€Act.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€trialÏcourt,€however,€should€make€specific€findings€on€the€record€which€indicate€hisÏapplication€of€the€sentencing€principles.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„209€and€„210.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€the€followingÏenhancement€factors€applicable:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÍnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÏunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€aÏsentence€involving€release€in€the€community.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8).ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€The€defendant€possessed€or€employed€a€firearm€...Ïduring€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„119(9).ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€€The€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€aÏcrime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(10).ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€€The€crime€was€committed€under€circumstancesÏunder€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€wasÏgreat.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(16).ÌÌÓÓThe€defendant€does€not€challenge€the€application€of€the€first€three€enhancementÏfactors.€€He€has€an€extensive€juvenile€record€of€criminal€conduct€which€includesÏmultiple€sales€of€LSD,€the€sale€of€marijuana,€the€sale€of€cocaine,€reckless€driving,Ïmisdemeanor€theft,€and€shoplifting.× ƒ, ××  ×€€The€fact€that€some€of€the€juvenile€offensesÏwere€committed€while€the€defendant€was€on€probation€for€earlier€juvenile€offensesÏdemonstrates€the€defendantððs€unwillingness€to€comply€with€conditions€of€release.€ÍThe€evidence€also€clearly€established€that€the€defendant€used€a€firearm€to€commitÏthe€offense.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant,€however,€challenges€the€application€of€the€fourth€andÏfifth€factors.€€He€argues€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10),€the€defendant€hadÏno€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,Ïcannot€be€used€to€enhance€his€sentence€because€that€factor€is€inherent€in€theÏoffense€of€second€degree€murder.€€We€agree.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2dÏ597,€603€(Tenn.€1994).€€To€justify€using€this€factor,€the€state€must€prove€theÏdefendant€"demonstrated€a€culpability€distinct€from€and€appreciably€greater€thanÏthat€incident€to€the€offense€for€which€he€was€convicted."€€òòId.óó€at€603;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.ÏLambertóó,€741€S.W.2d€127,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)(appropriate€use€of€thisÏfactor€in€a€homicide€case€where€the€defendantððs€conduct€posed€a€threat€to€a€largeÏnumber€of€people€before€the€particular€victims€were€killed).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€disputes€the€applicability€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„114(16),€that€the€potential€for€injury€to€the€victim€was€particularly€great.€€InÏòòDaughertyóó,€this€court€held€that€the€factor€was€an€element€of€any€homicide€case€and,Ïtherefore,€could€not€be€considered€to€enhance€a€sentence.€€òòState€v.€David€KeithÍDaughertyóó,€No.€03C01„9203„CR„00082€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€August€27,Ï1993).€€We€agree€that€this€factor€should€not€have€been€used.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€toÏapply€these€two€mitigating€factors:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€Substantial€grounds€exist€tending€to€excuse€or€justifyÏthe€defendantððs€criminal€conduct,€though€failing€toÏestablish€a€defense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(3);Ïand€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€The€defendant,€although€guilty€of€the€crime,Ïcommitted€the€offense€under€such€unusualÏcircumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€toÏviolate€the€law€motivated€his€conduct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„113(11).ÌÌÓÓà àà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€expressly€ruled€thatÏmitigating€factors€did€not€apply.€€The€defendant€presented€no€evidence€to€justify€orÏexcuse€the€killing€other€than€that€provided€at€trial.€€Further,€the€defendant€armedÏhimself€and€carried€the€weapon€from€his€automobile€to€the€scene€of€the€killing.€ÏAfter€the€shooting,€the€defendant€disposed€of€the€gun€and€then€lied€to€the€policeÏabout€it.€€These€facts€suggest€a€"sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law."€€Thus€weÏconcur€in€the€finding€by€the€trial€court€that€there€were€no€mitigating€factors.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€trial€court€gave€great€weight€to€the€first€three€enhancementÏfactors€and€announced€on€the€record€that€he€gave€"little€weight"€to€the€last€twoÏfactors,€because€of€concerns€that€those€factors€were€inherent€in€the€elements€of€theÏcrime.€€Even€if€some€evidence€of€mitigation€did€exist,€the€applicable€enhancementÏfactors€so€strongly€outweigh€the€mitigating€factors€that€the€maximum€sentenceÏwould€have€been€warranted.ÌÌà àà àIn€summary€and€despite€the€existence€of€several€mistaken€rulings€onÏmatters€of€evidence,€we€find€only€one€error€that€warrants€reversal.€€Because€the€trialÏcourt€failed€to€instruct€the€jury€on€all€the€possible€lessor€included€or€grades€ofÏoffenses€as€required€by€law,€the€judgment€must€be€reversed€and€the€causeÏremanded€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÇCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________à àÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌà àÓ  Óà à