ÿWPCË :# <UNG %• 0(›4Ã×bæ 0ªî 0D˜ÜU:ä 0Db 0@jw誒ƚU@` AQ  0Dñe5 0J6 0T€ 0^Ô 0h2 0rš 0| 0†ˆ B 0+ D3» 1uî D/c 0d’ Bö U>U*QB){DC¤ AMçÝ4iv~zvÓø˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡äzz! @ d3|xU- ù-(Z(2o¢$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X[ÂXXXÔòòà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò&0D1U2e34D5U67D89:D;<=D>?D@ABDCDEFGDHIeJKDLMDNODPQDRSeTÓ€UƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$$$$'ÿÿdxd !"#% ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)**'÷ÿ dxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ€2ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔó óÌò òÔ€2¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€2XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€2ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔ _Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€2Ôòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€appellant€hit€his€father€in€the€head€approximately€nineteen€times€with€a€hammer,Ïstabbed€his€father€five€times€in€the€chest€cavity,€and€cut€his€throat.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  Ý›Ò 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑœÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€2Ô›Þ ÞÌà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـÙßR€564A1-j|Š\â `€€@ÿRß›ÌÓ ` ܆XDp”X Óà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€àQ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÓ` °‡XDp”XÓà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ààQ àà àOCTOBER€1996€SESSIONó óÌÌÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ` cÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cÓà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9507„CC„00196€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellee,à à)Ìà àà à)€Madison€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€Honorable€Whit€LaFon,€JudgeÌò òà àó óà à)ò òÌJEFFREY€A.€BIVENS,ó óà à)€(Murder€in€the€First€Degree€„€2€counts)€€à àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellant.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌMike€Mosierà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Lawà àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€Ì204€West€BaltimoreÌP.O.€Box€1623à àEllen€H.€PollackÌJackson,€TN€38302„1623à àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌClayton€F.€Mayoà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌAttorney€at€Lawà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ì618€North€Highland€AvenueÌP.O.€Box€1625à àTerrell€L.€HarrisÌJackson,€TN€38302„1625à àDistrict€Attorney€General€Pro€TemÌà àAssistant€District€Attorneyà à201€Poplar,Ïà àSuite€301Ìà àMemphis,€TN€38103„1947ÌÌà àTom€MurrayÌà àSpecial€ProsecutorÌà à312€South€ShannonÌà àJackson,€TN€38301Ìà àà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌò òÔ  ÔÓ ` ¸ pÓÔ  ÔÌÌÑ  ÑÑ7€f;XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ Ñà àà ààQ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓÓÓ ` °§XÓÌà àThe€appellant,€Jeffrey€Bivens,€was€convicted€on€two€counts€of€first€degreeÏmurder.€€He€was€sentenced€to€life€without€parole€on€each€count.€€The€sentencesÏwere€ordered€to€run€consecutively.€€The€appellant€presents€five€issues€forÏreview€and€challenges:ÌÓÓà8 à1.€€The€sufficiency€of€the€evidence;ÌÌà8 à2.€€The€admission€of€photographs;ÌÌà8 à3.€€The€admission€of€forgery€evidence;ÌÌà8 à4.€€The€admission€of€the€medical€examiner's€statement€that€bothÏvictims'€wounds€were€made€by€the€same€person;€andÌÌà0 àà àà8 à5.€€The€application€of€statutory€enhancement€factors.ÌÌÓÓUpon€review,€we€affirm€the€judgment€as€to€convictions€and€sentences€in€allÏrespects.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓFACTSó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant€resided€with€the€two€victims,€his€father€and€grandmother.€ÏHis€grandmother€was€81€and€physically€disabled.€€The€appellant€had€a€historyÏof€drug€abuse.€€He€was€prohibited€from€driving€and€subject€to€a€curfew.€€HeÏresented€his€restrictions.ÌÌà àIn€July€of€1993,€the€appellant€called€his€employer.€€His€employerÏinformed€him€that€he€was€laid€off.€€Later€that€day,€the€appellant€killed€both€hisÏfather€and€his€grandmother.€€Both€victims€were:€€(1)€€beaten€with€a€hammer,€(2)€Ïstabbed€multiple€times,€and€(3)€€slashed€across€the€throat.€€The€appellant€tookÏmoney€from€his€father's€billfold€and€his€grandmother's€purse.€€He€stole€a€VCRÏand€his€father's€car.€€He€then€purchased€"crack"€cocaine€and€"got€high."ÌÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€sustain€hisÏconvictions€for€first€degree€murder.€€He€maintains€that€the€requisite€elements€ofÏpremeditation€and€deliberation€were€not€supported€by€the€evidence.€€He€furtherÏasserts€that€his€testimony€was€uncontroverted€and€established€legalÏprovocation.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àGreat€weight€is€accorded€jury€verdicts€in€criminal€trials.€€Jury€verdictsÏaccredit€state's€witnesses€and€resolve€all€evidentiary€conflicts€in€the€state'sÍfavor.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Banesóó,€874ÏS.W.2d€73,€78€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€bothÏthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferencesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€Moreover,€guilty€verdicts€remove€the€presumption€of€innocence,€enjoyedÏby€defendants€at€trial,€and€replace€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,Ï493€S.W.2d€474€(Tenn.€1973).€€Appellants,€therefore,€carry€the€burden€ofÏovercoming€a€presumption€of€guilt€when€appealing€jury€convictions.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àWhen€appellants€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÏmust€determine€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€toÏthe€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€a€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307€(1979);€€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï13(e).€€The€weight€and€credibility€of€a€witness'€testimony€are€matters€entrustedÏexclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542Ï(Tenn.€1984);€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).ÌÌà àUpon€viewing€witness€demeanor€and€listening€to€the€evidence,€the€juryÏapparently€inferred€that€the€appellant€entered€the€victims'€kitchen€carrying€aÏhammer.€€He€inflicted€numerous€blows€to€the€victims'€heads.€€He€stabbed€theÏvictims€multiple€times.€€He€slashed€their€throats.€€He€stole€money€and€otherÏitems€from€the€victims'€house.€€He€fled€the€scene€in€his€fatherððs€car.€€HeÍdiscarded€the€murder€weapons€into€a€river.€€He€drove€the€car€to€purchaseÏ"crack."€€He€then€used€the€victims'€money€to€purchase€"crack.ðð€€He€madeÏinconsistent,€implausible,€and€impeached€statements€about€how€the€murdersÏoccurred.ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€evidence€lends€itself€to€a€reasonable€inference€that€theÏappellant€possessed€the€requisite€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€Moreover,Ïupon€listening€to€the€testimony€at€trial,€viewing€witness€demeanor,€andÏconsidering€the€witness'€testimony€in€light€of€all€the€facts€in€the€case,€the€juryÏchose€to€discredit€the€appellant's€version.€€Assessing€witnessesðð€credibility€isÏexclusively€the€purview€of€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Banesóó,€874€S.W.2d€73,€78€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€€That€the€jury€rejected€the€appellant's€veracity€is€not€a€basisÏfor€relief.€€Accordingly,€reviewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€theÏstate,€we€conclude€that€the€record€amply€supports€the€jury's€verdicts.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓINTRODUCTION€OF€PHOTOGRAPHIC€EVIDENCEó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant's€second€assignment€of€error€is€the€admission€of€crimeÏscene€photographs.€€In€a€related€issue,€the€appellant€objects€to€the€admission€ofÏphotographs€depicting€the€victims€while€they€were€alive.ÌÌà àThe€admissibility€of€photographs€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court.€€The€trial€court's€decision€shall€not€be€overturned€unless€itÏaffirmatively€appears€that€the€admission€has€affected€the€results€of€the€trial.€ÍòòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€365€€(1982);€€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Bradyóó,Ï595€F.2d€359,€361€(6th€Cir.€1979).€€"The€trend€of€modern€authority€is€to€vestÏmore€discretion€in€the€trial€court€in€this€respect."€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2dÏ947,€949€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€we€cannot€substitute€our€judgment€for€that€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Weaveróó,€No.€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€3,€1985).€€If€weÏoverturn€in€the€absence€of€an€affirmative€finding€of€abuse€of€discretion€andÏprejudice,€we€merely€supplant€the€trial€judge's€judgment€with€that€of€our€own.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€has€not€affirmatively€demonstrated€that€admission€of€theÏphotographic€evidence€prejudiced€the€jury€verdict.€€Moreover,€the€photographsÏwere€relevant€in€rebutting€his€assertions€of€provocation€and€self„defense.€€TheÏphotographs€illustrate€the€position€and€location€of€the€victims'€bodies€as€well€asÏthe€nature€of€the€wounds€inflicted.€€The€trial€court€examined€each€photograph.€ÏThe€court€admitted€several€photographs€and€excluded€others€as€repetitious€orÏunnecessary.€€The€issues€are€devoid€of€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓCHARACTER€IMPEACHMENTó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€impeachmentÏevidence.€€The€appellant€testified€at€trial.€€During€cross„examination€of€theÏappellant,€the€state€questioned€him€concerning€his€passing€of€bad€checks€andÏforgery.€€The€appellant€maintains€that€the€probative€value€of€this€testimony€wasÏoutweighed€by€the€prejudicial€impact.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àEvidence€of€dishonest€conduct€may€be€admissible€to€impeach€a€witness'Ïcredibility.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€Rule€608(b).€€The€appellant€testified€that€he€killed€inÏself„defense.€€His€credibility€was,€therefore,€at€issue.€€The€state€offered€theÏevidence€to€impeach€the€appellant's€veracity.€€Moreover,€in€light€of€theÏoverwhelming€evidence€and€the€appellant's€incredulous€version€of€the€events,Ïthe€appellant€cannot€establish€prejudice.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓEXPERT€TESTIMONYó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant€next€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€permitting€Dr.ÏFrancisco's€testimony€that€both€victims'€injuries€were€likely€caused€by€the€sameÏperson.€€The€appellant€argues€that€the€speculative€opinion€was€unsupported€byÏfoundation.ÌÌà àExpert€testimony€that€different€wounds€were€inflicted€by€the€same€personÏmay€be€admissible€provided€there€is€a€factual€basis€supporting€the€opinion.€ÏòòState€v.€Westóó,€767€S.W.2d€387,€401„02€(Tenn.€1989).€€Dr.€Francisco€testified€thatÏthe€anatomical€location,€length,€and€depth€of€the€victims'€neck€wounds€wereÏsimilar.€€He€stated€that€the€nature€of€the€wounds€were€consistent€or€likely€toÏhave€been€caused€by€the€same€person.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓSENTENCINGó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant€received€consecutive€sentences€of€life€without€parole.€€HeÏchallenges€the€trial€court's€application€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„204(I)(5),Í(6),€and€(7)€to€enhance€his€sentence.€€He€contends€that€his€sentence€should€beÏreduced€to€life€with€the€possibility€of€parole.€€We€disagree.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(5)ó óÌÓ  Óà àAggravating€circumstance€(I)(5)€permits€enhancement€when€"[t]he€murderÏwas€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€seriousÏphysical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€cause€death."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(5).€€The€appellant€argues€that€circumstance€(I)(5)€is€"vague€andÏincapable€of€being€understood€and€applied€by€lay€persons."€€He,€therefore,Ïcontends€that€(I)(5)€is€unconstitutional.ÌÌà àThe€constitutionality€of€circumstance€(I)(5)€has€been€upheld.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996)€(holding€(I)(5)€constitutional).€€Application€ofÏ(I)(5)€may€be€supported€by€multiplicity€of€wounds€beyond€that€necessary€toÏcause€death,€the€infliction€of€gratuitous€violence,€and€needless€mutilation.€€òòStateÏv.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€580€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àBoth€victims€sustained€multiple€blunt€traumas€to€the€head€from€theÏappellantððs€beating€them€with€a€hammer.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€The€blunt€traumas€were€inflicted€withÏsufficient€force€to€penetrate€their€skulls.€€Both€victims€received€multiple€stabÏwounds€and€had€their€throats€cut.€€Expert€testimony€established€that€theÍappellant's€grandmother€died€from€a€trauma€to€her€sternum€which€prohibitedÏher€from€breathing.€€Evidence€further€showed€that€she€sat€in€an€upright€positionÏfor€a€period€of€time€following€the€commencement€of€the€attack.€€The€appellant'sÏfather€exhibited€defensive€wounds.€€Blood€splatter€evidence€indicated€that€bothÏvictims€struggled€to€flee€the€attacks€and€survive.ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€multiplicity€of€the€wounds€beyond€that€necessary€toÏcause€death€and€the€wanton€infliction€of€gratuitous€violence€support€applicationÏof€circumstance€(I)(5).€€The€evidence€amply€supports€a€jury€inference€that€theÏvictims€remained€conscience€and€struggled€for€their€lives€as€they€were€savagelyÏbeaten€and€stabbed.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(6)ó óÌÓ  Óà àAggravating€circumstance€(I)(6)€permits€enhancement€when€"[t]he€murderÏwas€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€aÏlawful€arrest€or€prosecution.€.€.€."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(6).€€TheÏappellant€argues€that€circumstance€(I)(6)€is€not€supported€by€the€evidence.€€WeÏdisagree.ÌÌà àCircumstance€(I)(6)€may€be€applicable€if€at€least€one€motive€for€the€killingÏwas€prevention€of€apprehension.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€580„81Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€In€the€appellant's€statement€to€the€police,€he€stated€that€he€andÏhis€father€were€fighting.€€His€"grandmother€got€between€[them]€and€she€wasÍstruck€and€fell€down€on€the€floor."€€He€stated€that€his€father€then€"got€very€upset"Ïand€attempted€to€get€Russell€Warren.€€Russell€Warren€was€a€sergeant€with€theÏJackson€Police€Department.ÌÌà àThe€father's€futile€attempt€to€contact€Russell€Warren€is€evidence€of€anÏattempt€to€report€the€assaults.€€The€appellant€was,€by€his€own€admission,€awareÏof€his€father's€intention€to€contact€the€police.€€The€record,€therefore,€supports€aÏfinding€that€a€motive€for€killing€the€victims€was€prevention€of€lawful€arrest.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„207(I)(7)ó óÌÓ  Óà àAggravating€circumstance€(I)(7)€permits€imposition€of€life€without€paroleÏprovided€that€a€premeditated€murder€was€committed€during€the€perpetration€of€aÏfelony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(7).€€The€appellant€avers€that€hisÏacquittal€of€felony€murder€precluded€a€finding€of€(I)(7).€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àThe€jury€was€instructed€that€they€could€either€find€the€appellant€guilty€ofÏpremeditated€murder€or€felony€murder€but€not€both.€€According€to€the€court'sÏinstruction,€the€jury's€finding€of€premeditated€murder€neither€precluded€a€findingÏof€aggravating€circumstance€(I)(7)€nor€was€inconsistent€with€application€of€(I)(7).€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€581€(Tenn.€1993)€(holding€acquittal€ofÏfelony€murder€did€not€preclude€application€of€(I)(7)).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€was€convicted€of€first€degree€premeditated€murder.€€HeÏstole€money€and€property€from€the€victims€to€purchase€"crack."€€Application€ofÏ(I)(7)€is€amply€supported€by€the€facts€of€this€case.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àAFFIRMED.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€Judge€