ÿWPCd! ;# JUNU %£ 0Æ©U.o4±Àw@ÈÆÆÎÆ”ÆZ Æ 0 æ 0Dð 0J4 0T~ BÒ Aï 0@Œ 0^Ì D+* 0KU 0h  0r 0|z 0†ö 0| 1u  0dU>åU*#/M—|v~vÓ‘˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ<Ô6X9`+Courieräzz!3|x†' }'~'D'D€''D‚'ƒ'D„'…'D†'Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(º(3eB$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d!$# I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô'ÈÈÈÈdxd( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó26 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔAccording€to€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€Clerk's€office,€neitherÔ€5Ô€Ô€6ÔÓÓJimmyÏJones€nor€Stevin€Cash€were€indicted€for€their€roles€in€the€death€of€KimberlyÏWilburn.€€Sammie€Lee€Taylor€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping,€especially€aggravated€robbery,€aggravated€sexual€battery,€and€felonyÏmurder.€€Sammie€Taylor's€convictions€have€been€affirmed€by€this€court€on€directÏappeal.€€òòState€v.€Sammie€Lee€Tayloróó,€No.€02C01„9501„CR„00029€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€at€Jackson,€October€10,€1996).€€He€received€life€without€the€possibility€ofÏparole€for€the€felony€murder€conviction.€€After€Sammie€Lee€Taylorððs€trial,€WillieÏDavidson,€Tracy€Davidson,€and€Barry€Smith€all€pled€guilty€to€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€and€first€degree€murder.€€The€rapeÏcharges€were€voluntarily€dismissed€by€the€state.€€All€three€defendants€received€lifeÏwithout€the€possibility€of€parole€on€the€murder€charges.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔThe€articles€were€not€included€in€the€record€on€appealÔ€5Ô.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€5ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ý›Ñ7€ÖXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÞ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSON€óóÌà@ àMARCH€1996€œSESSIONà à›ÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€02C01„9508„CR„00232€Ìà àœà àAppellee,›à àà àœ*›à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Joseph€B.€Dailey,€JudgeÌÓÓANTONIO€M.€BYRD,à àà à*à à(First€Degree€Murder,€œEspecially€›€à àà àà àà àà àà àÏà àœAggravated€Kidnapping,›€œAggravated›€Rape,Ïœà àà àAppellant.›à àà àœ*›à àœEspecially€Aggravated€Robbery)›ÌÓÓÌÌà àÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÓÓPaula€Skahanà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ140€North€Third€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€David€Bridgesà àà àà àÌGerald€Skahanà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ140€North€Third€Streetà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ì(at€trial€only)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€J.€Challen,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€CampbellÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103€ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________ÌÌÌÌœAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED›ÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓòòò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óóóÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant,€Antonio€M.€Byrd,€was€convicted€of€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping,€especially€aggravated€robbery,€aggravated€rape,€and€firstÏdegree€murder.€€Seventeen€years€old€when€the€offenses€occurred,€the€defendantÏwas€sentenced€to€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole€for€the€murder€conviction.€ÏThe€trial€court€imposed€concurrent€œtwenty„three„year›€sentences€on€the€otherÏoffenses,€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€life€term.€€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€addition€to€his€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€theÏdefendant€presents€the€following€issues€on€this€direct€appeal:ÌÓÓÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  Ò(1)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€theÏdefendant's€motion€to€suppress€his€pretrial€statement;ÌÌ(2)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€a€change€ofÏvenue;ÌÌ(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€individualÏvoir€dire;ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  Ò(4)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€photos€ofÏthe€victim's€body;ÌÌ(5)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€state€toÏcross„examine€the€defendant€about€criminal€conductÏwhich€may€have€occurred€after€the€murder;ÌÌ(6)€€whether€the€trial€court€gave€erroneous€juryÏinstructions€on€criminal€responsibility;€ÌÌ(7)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€theÏdefendant's€request€for€special€jury€œinstructions;›Ì€€€€€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  Ò(8)€€whether€the€evidence€at€the€penalty€phase€wasÏsufficient€to€support€the€enhanced€sentence;ÌÌ(9)€€whether€a€juvenile€may€be€sentenced€to€life€withoutÏthe€possibility€of€parole€under€Tenn.€Code€œAnn.›€ðð€39„13„207;ÌÌ(10)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€clarifyÏjury€instructions€regarding€œ"weighing"€aggravating›€andÏmitigating€circumstances;ÌÌ(11)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€an€autopsyÏphotograph€into€evidence€at€the€sentencing€hearing;€ÌÌ(12)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€victim'sÏstepfather€to€testify€at€the€sentencing€hearing;€andÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  Ò(13)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€the€application€ofÏenhancement€factors€and€by€the€imposition€ofÏconsecutive€sentences.€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€convictions€are€œaffirmed.€€The€sentences€are€affirmed,€except€theÏsentence€for€the€rape€conviction€is€modified€to€twenty€(20)€years.›€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àOn€July€7,€1993,€the€defendant,€Barry€Smith,€and€fifteen„year„oldÏJimmy€Jones,€visited€the€residence€of€their€friend,€Sammie€Taylor.€€Jones€testifiedÏthat€late€in€the€afternoon,€Willie€Davidson€telephoned€to€ask€if€anyone€would€like€toÍparticipate€in€a€robbery.€€When€Willie€Davidson€called€a€second€time,€he€discussedÏhis€plan€over€the€speakerphone.€€The€defendant,€Smith,€Jones,€and€Taylor€were€allÏpresent€when€Davidson€suggested€an€armed€kidnapping€and€theft€of€a€car.€€LaterÏin€the€evening,€œDavidson's›€brother,€Tracy€Davidson,€arrived€at€œTaylor's›€house.€€JustÏbefore€dark,€all€except€Jones€left€the€residence€together€to€meet€with€WillieÏDavidson€at€Stevin€œCash's›€residence.€€ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€Cash€testified€that€earlier€in€the€day,€he€had€assisted€WillieÏDavidson€in€purchasing€a€gun.€€Cash€related€that€once€the€entire€group€had€arrivedÏat€his€residence,€they€continued€to€discuss€their€plans€to€steal€a€car,€lock€the€ownerÏin€the€trunk,€and€then€commit€some€robberies.€€According€to€Cash,€there€was€noÏmention€of€rape€or€murder.€€Cash€related€that€he€and€the€five€others€went€to€aÏKroger.€€œThey›€decided€not€to€steal€a€car€there€because€of€the€large€number€ofÏpeople€present.€€Next,€they€went€to€St.€œJoseph's›€Hospital.€€They€decided€not€to€stealÏa€car€there€due€to€security€cameras€in€the€parking€lot.€€ÌÌà àà àCash€testified€that€Taylor€and€Tracy€Davidson€then€left€the€defendantÏand€the€others.€€While€away,€Taylor€and€Tracy€Davidson€kidnapped€the€victim,ÏKimberly€Wilburn,€at€gunpoint€and€locked€her€in€the€trunk€of€her€1992€teal„greenÏFord€Taurus.€€When€Taylor€and€Tracy€Davidson€returned€to€the€others,€they€wereÍdriving€a€car€later€determined€to€be€that€of€the€victim.€€The€defendant€got€in€the€backÏseat.€€When€Cash€asked€where€the€owner€of€the€car€was,€Tracy€DavidsonÏresponded€that€she€was€in€the€trunk.€€Cash€testified€that€when€he€learned€that,€heÏdecided€not€to€get€in€the€car.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€gave€a€pretrial€statement€to€the€investigating€officers.€ÏHe€claimed€that€after€accepting€a€ride€in€the€stolen€vehicle,€he€asked€who€ownedÏthe€car;€Tracy€Davidson€answered,€œ"Be›€quiet,€œshe['s]›€in€the€œtrunk."›€€The€defendantÏtold€officers€he€and€the€others€then€drove€around€for€a€while€before€stopping€forÏgas.€€The€defendant€admitted€pumping€gas€and€paying€for€it.€€Afterward,€the€menÏdrove€to€a€steam€plant€and€considered€what€to€do€with€the€victim.€€The€defendantÏclaimed€that€he€started€to€open€the€trunk€to€let€the€victim€out€but€hesitated€when€heÏsaw€a€car€approaching;€he€acknowledged€then€shutting€the€trunk,€getting€back€intoÏthe€car,€and€riding€around€until€the€other€car€had€passed€out€of€sight.€€ShortlyÏthereafter,€the€men€stopped€again.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€when€the€victim€gotÏout,€Tracy€Davidson€struck€her.€€The€defendant€denied€striking€her.€€In€his€pretrialÏstatement,€which€was€entered€into€evidence,€the€defendant€maintained€there€wasÏno€agreement€to€kill€the€victim:€œ"it›€œwasn't›€decided€when€we€got€out€œ[of]€the›€car.€€It€justÏhappened.€€It€was€mentioned,€but€they€œdidn't›€say€they€were€going€to€do€it.€€It€justÏœhappened."›€€ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€the€defendant€testified€that€when€the€others€started€beating€theÏvictim,€he€walked€away.€€He€claimed€that€Willie€Davidson€warned€the€others€toÏmove€out€of€the€way€before€running€over€the€victim€with€the€vehicle;€he€recalled€thatÏSmith€warned€Willie€Davidson€not€to€do€it.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€he€turnedÏwhen€he€heard€the€tires€œ"burn›€œrubber"›€and€saw€Davidson€run€over€the€victim€withÏthe€car.€€The€defendant,€who€testified€that€he€recalled€Taylor€pulling€at€the€œvictim's›Ïclothes,€admitted€that€he€helped€Smith,€Taylor,€and€Tracy€Davidson€throw€her€bodyÏover€the€edge€of€the€bridge;€he€insisted€that€he€had€not€touched€the€victim€until€thatÏtime.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€the€group€never€intended€for€him€to€be€a€primaryÏparticipant€in€the€events;€he€did€acknowledge,€however,€that€he€acted€as€a€lookoutÏwhen€the€others€later€tried€to€burn€the€interior€of€the€car.Ì€Ìà àà àDr.€œO.›€œC.›€Smith,€a€pathologist,€testified€that€the€impact€of€the€carÏfractured€the€œvictim's›€skull€and€ruptured€the€brain,€causing€nearly€instantaneousÏdeath.€€The€liver€and€spleen€were€also€torn.€€The€ribs€and€chest€were€crushed.€€TheÏvictim€also€had€bruising€on€the€rest€of€her€body,€most€notably€in€the€neck€area.€€TheÏbruising€was€so€extensive€that€one€bruise€could€not€be€distinguished€from€another.€ÏDr.€Smith€also€described€injuries€to€the€vaginal€area€that€would€œ"indicate›€there€wasÏa€penetrating€force€into€the€vaginal€œarea."›€€The€vaginal€injuries€occurred€œ"co„contemporaneously"›€with€the€œvictim's›€other€physical€injuries.à à€There€was€noÏphysical€evidence,€such€a€hair€samples,€sperm,€or€saliva,€that€would€connect€theÏdefendant€to€the€scene€of€the€crime€or€to€the€injuries€on€the€œvictim's›€body.ÌÌà àà àœJimmy€Jones€testified€that€around€midnight,€the€five€men€returned€toÏthe€Taylor€residence€in€the€victim's€car.€€Jones× ƒ7 ××  ×›€œrelated€that›€œhe›€heard€the€defendantÏsay€to€Tracy€Davidson,€œ"I›€think€I€hurt€my€hand€when€I€hit€œher."›€€Jones€observed€theÏdefendant€help€remove€items€from€the€car€and€put€several€items€in€a€bag.€€Later,ÏJones€saw€the€œvictim's›€œdriver's›€license,€her€checkbook,€and€various€other€personalÏbelongings.€€Jones€testified€that€he€saw€the€five€men€at€the€Taylor€house€the€nextÏmorning.€€They€traveled€together€in€the€stolen€vehicle€for€the€next€two€or€three€days,Ïbut€the€defendant€never€drove.€€ÌÌà àà àCarolyn€McCroy,€an€employee€of€First€Tennessee€Bank€in€Memphis,Ïtestified€that€on€the€day€after€the€murder,€Smith€attempted€to€cash€a€forged€checkÏdrawn€on€the€œvictim's›€account.€€McCroy€became€suspicious€and€asked€the€bankÏmanager€for€assistance.€€After€waiting€briefly€for€approval,€Smith€left€the€bank.ÌÌà àà àJerry€Locke€discovered€the€body€the€day€after€the€murder€andÏcontacted€the€police.€€Officer€Phil€Nason,€who€investigated€the€crime€scene,Ïtestified€that€he€observed€blood€on€the€bridge€and€recovered€the€œvictim's›€purse€andÏseveral€credit€cards.€€The€œvictim's›€pants€were€down€around€her€ankles€and€herÏpanties€had€been€ripped€off.€€None€of€the€physical€evidence,€such€as€hair€fibers,Ïfinger€prints,€or€blood€samples,€connected€the€defendant€to€the€murder.€€OfficerÏNason€measured€the€height€of€the€bridge€to€be€twenty„six€feet€and€eight€inches.ÌÌà àà àTwo€days€after€the€murder,€the€œvictim's›€car€was€discovered€at€anÏelementary€school.€€The€vehicle€was€in€good€condition€except€for€damage€to€theÏinterior.€€Two€of€the€twenty€fingerprints€found€in€the€car€matched€those€of€theÏdefendant.€€ÌÌà àà àThree€days€after€the€murder,€Sergeant€œH.€A.›€Ray€of€the€MemphisÍPolice€Department€took€all€five€men€to€the€police€department€for€questioning.€€TheÏdefendant€was€originally€believed€to€be€a€possible€witness,€not€a€suspect.€€AfterÏquestioning€Smith€and€Tracy€Davidson,€the€police€became€suspicious€of€theÏdefendant.€€Because€he€was€a€juvenile,€the€police€contacted€the€œdefendant's›Ïmother€before€any€interrogation.€€When€the€œdefendant's›€mother€arrived,€he€gave€œa›Ïstatement€which€was€entered€into€evidence€at€trial.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€initially€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€as€toÏeach€of€the€four€convictions.€€He€insists€that€he€did€not€personally€commit€any€of€theÏcrimes€and€that€the€state€failed€to€present€any€evidence€that€he€had€solicited,Ïdirected,€aided,€or€attempted€to€aid€any€of€the€others€charged€or€had€otherwiseÏacted€with€an€intent€to€promote€or€assist€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€of€course,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawnÏtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€ofÏthe€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€ofÏconflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€jury€as€triers€of€fact.€€òòByrge€v.ÏStateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€When€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€is€whether,€after€reviewing€theÍevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€œ1983);›€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).ÌÌà àà àWe€are€also€guided€in€our€review€by€other€well„established€principles.€ÏA€crime€may€be€established€by€the€use€of€circumstantial€evidence€only.€€òòState€v.ÏTharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899„900€(Tenn.€1987);€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€œ313›€S.W.2d€451,Ï457€œ(Tenn.€1958).›€€An€accused€may€be€convicted€of€a€criminal€offense€based€uponÏcircumstantial€evidence€alone€so€long€as€the€facts€and€circumstances€are€œ"so›Ïstrong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€[beyond€a€reasonable€doubt]€every€otherÏreasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€the€œdefendant."›€€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€œ470›ÏS.W.2d€610,€612€œ(Tenn.€1971).›€€œ"A›€web€of€guilt€must€be€woven€around€theÏdefendant€...€from€which€facts€and€circumstances€the€jury€could€draw€no€otherÏreasonable€inference€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonable€œdoubt."›€ÏòòIdóó.€at€œ613.›ÌÌà àà àA€œkidnapping›€occurs€when€one€œ€"knowingly›€removes€or€confinesÏanother€unlawfully€so€as€to€interfere€with€...€liberty€...€œ[u]nder›€circumstancesÏexposing€the€other€to€substantial€risk€of€bodily€œinjury...."€€Tenn.›€Code€œAnn.€Ìððð𛀜39„13„302,€„303.›€€It€becomes€aggravated€when,€among€other€things,€œ"the›€victimÍsuffers€bodily€œinjury...."€€›€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„304.€€It€is€especially€aggravated,Ïand€thereby€a€Class€A€felony,€where€the€injury€is€œserious€or€a€gun€is€used€toÏaccomplish€the€kidnapping.›€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„305.€€Although€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€instruct€the€jury€on€the€œcriminal€responsibility€for€the€conduct€of€anotherÏstatute›€in€relation€to€the€œkidnapping,›€robbery€and€rape€charges,€it€did€generallyÏinstruct€the€jury€that€the€defendant€may€be€held€criminally€responsible€for€theÏconduct€of€another€if€œ"[a]cting›€with€intent€to€promote€or€assist€the€commission€of€theÏoffense,€or€to€benefit€in€the€proceeds€or€results€of€the€offense,€[he]€solicits,€directs,Ïaids,€or€attempts€to€aid€another€person€to€commit€an€œoffense[.]"›€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„11„402(2).€€The€trial€court€charged€and€the€statute€œ"requires›€proof€ofÏintent€to€promote€or€assist€the€commission€of€the€œoffense."›€€òòState€v.€Maxeyóó,€898ÏS.W.2d€œ756,€757›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€The€penalty€for€criminal€responsibility€ofÏanother€is€the€same€as€that€imposed€for€the€principal€œoffense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„11„401.›€€œ"[A]›€person€œ...€acts›€intentionally€with€respect€to€the€nature€of€œthe€conduct›Ïor€to€a€result€of€œthe€conduct›€when€it€is€œthe›€personððs€conscious€objective€or€desire€toÏengage€in€the€conduct€or€cause€the€œresult."›€€œTenn.›€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„11„302(a).›€€TheÏSentencing€Commission€Comments€œto€this€section€have›€explained€the€definition€ofÏœ"intentional"›€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIntentional€conduct€or€an€intentional€result€occurs€whenÏthe€defendant€wants€to€do€that€act€or€achieve€theÍcriminal€objective.€€A€defendant€acts€knowingly,€on€theÏother€hand,€when€he€or€she€is€aware€of€the€conduct€or€isÏpractically€certain€that€the€conduct€will€cause€the€result,Ïirrespective€of€his€or€her€desire€that€the€conduct€or€resultÏwill€occur.€€ÌÌòòÓÓœIdóó.€€In›€òòMaxeyóó,€this€court€held€that€the€statute€attaching€criminal€liability€for€theÏconduct€of€another€requires€the€culpable€mental€state€of€intent.€€œ898€S.W.2d€at€757.€ÏKnowing,›€reckless,€and€negligent€mental€states€are€œinsufficient.€€òòIdóó.€€›€ÌÌà àà àFor€the€evidence€to€be€sufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€under€theÏcriminal€responsibility€for€the€conduct€of€another€statute,€there€must€be€proof€thatÏthe€defendant€œintended,›€as€defined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„11„302(a),›€to€promoteÏor€assist€the€commission€of€the€offenses,€€or€to€benefit€in€the€proceeds€or€results€ofÏthe€offense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(2).€€In€addition,€there€must€be€proof€thatÏthe€defendant€solicited,€directed,€aided,€or€attempted€to€aid€another€to€commit€theÏoffense.€€òòIdóó.€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àWe€will€first€consider€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€supportÏthe€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€conviction.€€As€stated,€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping€is€defined€as€a€knowing€removal€or€confinement€of€another€so€as€toÏsubstantially€interfere€with€the€otherððs€liberty,€where€the€confinement€isÍaccomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€or€the€victim€suffered€serious€bodily€injury.€ÏTenn.€Code€œAnn.€ðððð›€39„13„302€to€„305.€€In€our€view,€the€proof€clearly€establishedÏthat€the€defendant€was€a€full€participant€in€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€ofÏthe€victim.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€conjunction€with€the€others,€the€defendant€planned€to€rob€someoneÏof€their€car€and€lock€the€victim€in€the€trunk.€€Proof€demonstrated€that€he€intended€toÏœ"promote"›€the€kidnapping€of€the€victim.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(2).€€That€theÏdefendant€chose€to€join€in€the€course€of€events€after€he€learned€of€the€victimððsÏpresence€in€the€trunk€is€proof€of€his€culpability;€that€he€purchased€gasoline€for€theÏstolen€vehicle€and€pumped€the€gas€was€evidence€of€aid€and€assistance.€€When€theÏdefendant€opened€the€trunk€to€release€the€victim€and€then€closed€it€as€a€carÏapproached,€he€exercised€a€measure€of€control€over€the€victim.€€The€evidence,€inÏour€view,€was€sufficient€to€establish€the€defendant's€guilt€either€as€a€principal€or€asÏcriminally€responsible€for€the€acts€of€the€others.€€ÌÌà àà àThere€is€also€sufficient€evidence,€in€our€view,€to€sustain€a€convictionÏfor€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€Especially€aggravated€robbery€is€defined€asÏœ"the›€intentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€the€person€of€another€by€violenceÏor€putting€the€person€in€œfear"›€that€is€œ"[a]ccomplished›€with€a€deadly€œweapon"›€andÍwhere€œ"the›€victim€suffers€serious€bodily€œinjury."›€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€œ39„13„401,›€œ„403.›€€The€facts€clearly€show€a€robbery€occurred.€€The€defendant€participated€in€theÏplan.€€As€indicated,€he€exercised€at€least€some€direct€control€over€the€victim€whileÏshe€was€in€the€trunk€of€the€stolen€car.€€The€robbery,€at€the€point€of€his€participation,Ïwas€of€a€continuing€nature.€€There€was€evidence€that€the€defendant€helped€planÏthe€car€theft,€exercised€control€over€the€victim€for€œpart›€of€the€time€the€robbery€tookÏplace,€and€struck€the€victim€during€the€series€of€events€causing€her€serious€injuryÏand,€œultimately,›€death.€€Again,€the€proof€was€sufficient€to€show€guilt€as€either€aÏprincipal€offender€or€œresponsibile›€for€the€acts€of€the€others.€€ÌÌà àà àAggravated€rape€is€accomplished€by€unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€aÏvictim€accompanied€by€any€of€the€following€circumstances:Ìà8 àà8 àÓÓ(1)€Force€or€coercion€is€used€to€accomplish€the€act€andÏthe€defendant€is€armed€with€a€weapon€...;€[or]ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€The€defendant€causes€bodily€injury€to€the€victim;€[or]ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€The€defendant€is€aided€or€abetted€by€one€(1)€or€moreÏother€persons;€and€œ...›€œ[f]orce›€or€coercion€is€used€toÏaccomplish€the€act€....ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„502.€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€œSmith,›€the€assistant€medical€examiner€who€performed€the€autopsyÍon€the€victim,€testified€that€the€victimððs€vagina€had€been€forcibly€penetrated€as€theÏother€injuries€were€inflicted.€€The€circumstances€of€the€crimes€clearly€suggestÏcoercion.€€There€was€testimony€that€at€least€one€of€the€men€had€a€gun€and,€ofÏcourse,€evidence€that€the€victim€suffered€serious€bodily€injury.€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€question€is€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€œhold›€œthis›Ïparticular€defendant€œresponsible€for€the€sexual›€œpenetration€of›€the€victim.€€No€part€ofÏthe€proof€at€trial€indicated€that€the€men€had€planned€to€rape€the€victim.€€TheÏcircumstances€suggest€that€the€rape€was€spontaneous.€€There€was€no€physicalÏevidence€connecting€the€defendant€to€the€specific€crime.€€Dr.€Smith€described€theÏvaginal€injury€as€œsuggestive›€of€œ"a›€penetrating€force€into€the€...€œarea."€›€There€was€noÏœsemen›€or€hair€at€or€near€the€vaginal€area.€€In€order€to€sustain€the€conviction,€thisÏcourt€must€find€evidence€in€the€record€upon€which€a€rational€jury€could€concludeÏthat€the€defendant€had€a€culpable€mental€state.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€œAnn.€ððð𛀜39„11„302(1),€„402(2).›€€ÌÌà àà àViewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidenceÏestablishes€that€the€defendant,€present€during€the€entire€course€of€events€takingÏplace€after€the€car€theft,€released€the€victim€from€the€trunk€of€the€car€and€struck€herÏat€least€once,€and€then€helped€dispose€of€the€body€after€the€murder.€€He€kept€aÍlookout€while€the€others€set€fire€to€the€interior€of€the€vehicle.€€œSome€of€the›€actionsÏmay€have€been€preliminary€to€the€rape.€€That€the€defendant€exercised€a€measure€ofÏcontrol€over€the€victim€and€may€have€helped€incapacitate€the€victim€before€theÏsexual€assault€is€inculpatory.€€While€there€is€no€physical€evidence€that€theÏdefendant€actually€committed€the€rape€of€the€victim,€that€is€not€required€to€support€aÏconviction.€€That€the€defendant€actively€participated€in€the€scheme€indicates€œthat›€heÏhad€the€requisite€intent€for€the€other€crimes.€€Circumstances€suggest€that€theÏdefendant€œwas›€much€more€than€a€casual€observer,€more€than€merely€present.€ÌÌà àà àœIt›€is€a€well„established€principal€of€law€that€a€conviction€may€not€beÏbased€upon€conjecture,€guess,€or€speculation.€€òòRucker€v.€Stateóó,€œ129›€S.W.2d€208Ïœ(Tenn.€1939);›€òòState€v.€€Jenkinsóó,€733€S.W.2d€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€WhileÏthe€standard€of€review€is€the€same€whether€a€conviction€is€based€upon€direct€orÏcircumstantial€evidence,€either€of€which€may€be€sufficient,€a€purely€circumstantialÏcase,€as€is€the€rape€charge€against€the€defendant,€must€exclude€to€the€jury'sÏsatisfaction€every€other€reasonable€theory€except€that€of€guilt.€€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,Ïœ313›€S.W.2d€451€œ(Tenn.€1958);›€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329€(Tenn.€1977).€ÏThe€jury€had€the€opportunity€to€consider€the€theory€that€the€defendant,€by€hisÏcollective€actions,€helped€another€commit€the€offense€of€aggravated€rape.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(2).€€A€weapon€was€utilized.€€Expert€testimony€establishedÍthat€the€victim€had€been€raped;€the€vaginal€area€had€been€injured€by€a€penetratingÏforce.€€The€defendant€acted€as€a€lookout€for€the€other€men€during€the€ordeal.€€ByÏreasonable€inference€from€the€circumstances,€a€œrational›€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏconcluded€that€the€defendant€aided€and€assisted€in€the€commission€of€the€offenseÏof€aggravated€rape.€€Ì€€€Ìà àà àWe€next€review€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€for€the€first€degreeÏmurder€conviction.€€At€the€time€of€the€offense,€first€degree€murder€was€defined€asÏœ"[a]n›€òòintentionalóó,€òòpremeditatedóó,€and€œòòdeliberateóó›€killing€of€another€œ...."›€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„202€(emphasis€added).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,Ï543€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€for€purposes€of€thisÏappeal,€depends€entirely€upon€whether€the€state€was€able€to€prove€each€and€everyÏone€of€the€essential€elements:€intent,€premeditation,€and€deliberation.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€begin€our€analysis€with€a€review€of€each€of€these€three€elements.€ÏAn€œ"intentional"›€act€is€statutorily€œdefined€as€follows:›€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àœ"Intentional"›€refers€to€a€person€who€acts€intentionallyÏwith€respect€to€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€to€a€result€ofÏthe€conduct€when€it€is€the€person's€conscious€objectiveÏor€desire€to€engage€in€the€conduct€or€cause€the€result.€€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(a).€€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€œto€thisÍsection€describe›€conduct€as€intentional€œ"when›€the€defendant€wants€to€do€the€act€orÏachieve€the€criminal€œobjective."›€€A€œ"'[d]eliberate›€œact'›€means€one€performed€with€aÏcool€œpurpose[.]"›€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(1).€€A€œ"'[p]remeditated›€œact'›€meansÏone€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€œjudgment."›€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(2).€€So,€from€all€of€this,€it€would€appear€that€the€burden€of€the€state€at€trialÏwas€to€prove€that€the€defendant€had€consciously€engaged€in€conduct€whichÏresulted€in€the€death€of€the€victim€(intentionally)€and€that€he€perpetrated€the€killingÏwith€a€cool,€calculated€purpose€(deliberately)€and€after€reflective€judgmentÏ(premeditatedly).€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àNo€specific€time€is€required€to€form€the€requisite€deliberation.€€òòState€v.ÏGentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€3„4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Deliberation€is€present€whenÏthe€circumstances€suggest€that€the€murderer€contemplated€the€manner€andÏconsequences€of€his€act.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992).€ÏThough€similar,€deliberation€and€premeditation€are€defined€separately€and€areÏdistinct€elements.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„l3„201(b);€òòsee€alsoóó€œòòState€v.€Brooksóó,›Ï880€S.W.2d€œ390,›€œ392„93€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).›€€They€may€be€inferred€from€theÏcircumstances€where€those€circumstances€affirmatively€establish€that€the€defendantÏpremeditated€his€assault€and€then€deliberately€performed€the€act.€€òòState€v.€RichardÏNelsonóó,€No.€02C01„9211„CR„00251€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Oct.€14,€1993).€ÍThis€court€has€previously€held€that€the€holding€in€òòBrownóó€requires€œ"proof›€that€theÏoffense€was€committed€upon€reflection,€œ'without›€passion€or€œprovocation,'›€andÏotherwise€free€from€the€influence€of€œexcitement"€before›€a€second€degree,Ïintentional€murder€can€be€elevated€to€murder€in€the€first€degree.€€òòState€v.€David€L.ÏHassellóó,€No.€02C01„9202„CR„00038,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,ÏDec.€30,€1992).€€This€court€has€held€that€the€elements€of€deliberation€andÏpremeditation€are€questions€for€the€jury€and€may€be€inferred€from€the€manner€andÏcircumstances€of€the€killing.€€òòGentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€at€3.€€Still,€a€jury€may€not€engageÏin€speculation.€€ÌÌà àà àViewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€here€Ïestablishes€all€of€the€elements€of€first€degree€murder.€€The€proof€showed€that€WillieÏDavidson€initiated€the€robbery€and€œkidnapping.›€€After€beating€the€victim,€heÏapparently€ordered€everyone€out€of€the€way€and€drove€over€œher.›€€The€question,€ofÏcourse,€is€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€hold€the€defendant€Byrd€criminallyÏresponsible€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(2).€€The€defendant€admitted€in€hisÏpretrial€statement€that€he€participated€in€a€group€discussion€about€the€possibility€ofÏkilling€the€victim.€€There€was€also€evidence€that€the€defendant€struck€the€victim€atÏleast€once.€€That,€in€our€view,€was€sufficient€evidence€for€the€jury€to€conclude€theÏdefendant€shared€the€requisite€criminal€intent.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(2).€€Striking€the€victim€qualifies€as€œ"aiding"›€Willie€Davidson€in€the€commissionÏof€the€murder.€€The€œdefendant's›€œ"presence›€and€conduct€before€and€after€the€crimeÏare€circumstances€from€which€...€the€criminal€intent€may€be€œinferred."›€€òòState€v.ÏMcBeeóó,€644€S.W.2d€425,€428„29€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€The€fact€that€theÏdefendant€participated€in€and€helped€plan€the€robbery€and€kidnapping€may€supportÏan€inference€that€he€intended€the€murder€as€well.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€helpedÏdispose€of€the€body€and€kept€a€lookout€while€the€other€defendants€attempted€toÏburn€the€inside€of€the€car.€€This€œ"conduct›€...€after€the€œcrime"›€also€supports€theÏinference€that€the€defendant€aided€and€assisted€in€the€crime.€€œòòSeeóó€òòMcBeeóó,€644ÏS.W.2d€at€428„29.›€Ô€ÔÌÌà àà àÔ€6ÔThese€facts€are€similar€to€those€in€òòState€v.€John€V.€Woodruffóó,€No.Ïœ01C01„9507„CR„00217€(Tenn.›€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€œAug.›€1,€1996),€òòperm.€œto›Ïœapp.›€filedóó€Oct.€1,€1996.€€In€òòWoodruffóó,€the€defendant€helped€with€a€kidnapping.€€HeÏthen€drove€the€victim€to€the€area€where€she€was€eventually€killed.€€Initially,€theÏdefendant€and€his€co„defendants€released€the€victim€near€a€park.€€As€they€wereÏdriving€away,€one€co„defendant€demanded,€œ"we›€gotta€get€her,€we€gotta€get€œher."›€ÏòòWoodruffóó,€slip€op.€at€13.€€The€defendant€stopped€the€car€and€waited€while€the€otherÏtwo€co„defendants€got€out€and€killed€the€victim.€€òòIdóó.€€This€court€ruled€that€œ"based›€onÏ[the€defendantððs]€response€to€[the€co„defendantððs]€statement€as€well€as€hisÍinvolvement€in€the€events€leading€up€to€the€murder,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÏhave€found€œ[the€defendant]›€possessed€the€requisite€mental€state€œ...."›€€òòIdóó.€at€14.€€TheÏsame€rationale€applies€here.€€The€jury€could€rationally€conclude€the€defendantÏpossessed€the€requisite€mental€state.€Ìà àà àÌÓ  ÓIÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motionÏto€suppress€his€pretrial€statement.€€Originally€brought€to€the€police€station€duringÏthe€morning€hours€as€a€possible€witness,€the€defendant€was€reclassified€as€aÏsuspect€after€a€one€and€a€half€to€two€hour€interrogation€of€another€co„defendant.€ÏOfficer€H.€A.€Ray€then€handcuffed€the€defendant€to€a€chair€in€the€squad€office€andÏasked€the€defendant€to€contact€his€mother.€€The€defendant€was€offered€the€use€ofÏthe€rest€room€and€something€to€eat€and€drink.€€The€œdefendant's›€mother€œarrived›€atÏapproximately€5:15€p.m.€€Upon€being€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€the€defendantÏand€his€mother€signed€a€waiver€of€rights€form.€€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€the€defendant€claimed€that€four€policeÏofficers€burst€through€the€front€door€of€the€Taylor€house€between€8:00€and€9:00€a.m.€ÏHe€insisted€that€two€officers€held€a€gun€to€his€head€before€he€was€transported€to€theÏpolice€station.€€He€claimed€that€they€threatened€to€beat€him,€harassed€him,€andÍdenied€him€food.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€gave€the€incriminating€statementÏonly€because€he€thought€he€had€to.€€On€cross„examination,€however,€the€defendantÏacknowledged€that€his€statement€was€not€coerced.€€At€the€conclusion€of€theÏproceeding,€the€trial€judge€made€the€following€findingsÏof€fact:Ò ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓThe€proof€...€indicates€that€the€statement€was€given€freelyÏand€voluntarily.€€The€advice€of€rights€œform›€was€signed€byÏboth€Mr.€Byrd€and€his€mother....€[T]hen€the€four„pageÏstatement€was€given€and€signed€by€both€Mr.€Byrd€andÏhis€mother,€dated,€time€was€placed€on€it€by€his€mother.€ÏHe€initialed€each€of€the€first€three€pages.€€He€wasÏadvised€of€his€rights€again.ÌÌHe€stated€in€the€statement,€as€well€as€from€the€standÏunder€oath€today,€that€the€answers€...€freely€andÏvoluntarily€were€his€answers€that€he€did€give€on€thatÏdate.€€He€stated€from€the€stand,€under€oath,€that€no€oneÏcoerced€him.ÓÓÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÌà àà àThe€defendant€asserts€that€this€statement€was€not€voluntary€becauseÏhe€had€been€in€custody€for€approximately€eight€hours€before€his€mother€arrived;€heÏclaims€that€he€was€hungry€and€that€he€was€concerned€about€the€emotional€state€ofÏhis€mother.€€The€defendant€also€argues€that€the€police€violated€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ37„1„115,€which€provides€that€after€an€arrest,€a€juvenile€should€be€released€to€hisÏparent's€custody€within€a€reasonable€time€or€be€brought€before€the€juvenile€court.€ÏHe€argues€that€a€violation€of€this€statute€also€suggests€the€statement€wasÍinvoluntary.ÌÌà àà àInitially,€the€confession€must€meet€constitutional€safeguards.€€òòMirandaÏv.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436€(1966).€€This€court€must€examine€the€œ€"totality›€of€theÏœcircumstances"€to›€ascertain€whether€the€particular€defendant€knowingly€andÏvoluntarily€waived€his€constitutional€rights€prior€to€making€a€confession.€€òòFare€v.ÏMichael€C.óó,€442€U.S.€707,€728€(1979);€òòBraziel€v.€Stateóó,€529€S.W.2d€501,€506€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1975).ÌÌà àà àFactors€relevant€in€determining€whether€a€confession€is€voluntaryÏœinclude€(1)›€the€length€of€time€between€the€arrest€and€the€confession;€(2)€theÏoccurrence€of€intervening€events€between€the€arrest€and€confession;€(3)€the€givingÏof€òòMirandaóó€warnings;€and€(4)€the€purpose€and€flagrancy€of€the€official€misconduct.€ÏòòBrown€v.€Illinoisóó,€422€U.S.€590,€603„04€(1975);€òòState€v.€Chandleróó,€547€S.W.2d€918,Ï920€(Tenn.€1977).€€The€overriding€question,€however,€is€whether€the€behavior€ofÏlaw€enforcement€officials€served€to€overbear€the€defendant's€will€to€resist.€€òòState€v.ÏKellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€726,€728€(Tenn.€1980);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Howardóó,€617€S.W.2d€656,Ï658„59€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€.€€ÌÌà àà àOur€scope€of€review€is€limited.€€The€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trialÍjudge€at€a€hearing€on€a€motion€to€suppress€are€binding€on€appellate€courts€if€thereÏis€any€evidence€to€support€that€determination.€€œòòChandleróó,›€547€S.W.2d€at€923.€ÏDeference€must€generally€be€afforded€a€determination€that€a€confession€has€beenÏgiven€voluntarily€and€without€coercion.€€òòLowe€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€239,€241€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1979).€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€trial€œcourt's›€finding€that€the€statement€was€voluntary€is€wellÏsupported€by€the€record.€€There€was€testimony€that€the€defendant€was€offered€foodÏand€was€not€disturbed€by€officers€while€he€waited€for€his€mother€to€arrive.€€The€trialÏjudge€accredited€that€account.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€acknowledged€that€he€hadÏnot€been€coerced€into€giving€the€statement.€€In€our€view,€the€circumstances€supportÏthe€conclusion€that€the€defendant€made€a€knowing€and€intelligent€waiver€of€hisÏconstitutional€rights.ÌÌà àà àWhen€officers€take€a€juvenile€into€custody,€the€officers€should,€œ"within›Ïa€reasonable€œtime"›€(1)€release€the€child€to€his€parents€or€guardian€or€(2)€take€theÏchild€before€the€juvenile€court.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„115.€€SubsequentÏprovisions€provide€that€œ"[a]n›€extra„judicial€statement,€if€obtained€in€the€course€of€theÏviolation€of€this€part€...€shall€not€be€used€against€[a€œchild]."›€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„127(c).€€Rulings€in€this€court€have€œ"held›€that€ðð€37„1„127(c)€guarantees€only€that€aÍjuvenileððs€statements€in€violation€of€ðð€37„1„115€will€not€be€used€against€him€or€herÏin€a€proceeding€in€juvenile€œcourt."›€€òòState€v.€Lundyóó,€808€S.W.2d€444€(Tenn.€1991);Ïòòsee€alsoóó€òòCoyler€v.€Stateóó,€577€S.W.2d€460€(Tenn.€1979).ÌÌà àà àA€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„115€is€not€a€basis€for€theÏexclusion€of€a€statement.€€Even€if€it€were,€the€officers€œappear›€to€have€complied€withÏthe€statute.€€The€defendant€was€instructed€to€contact€his€mother€after€a€relativelyÏshort€time€at€the€police€station.€€The€defendant€was€not€deprived€of€the€counsel€ofÏhis€mother.€€She€came€to€the€station€as€soon€as€convenient€and€the€defendant€wasÏsoon€thereafter€released.€€Ì€€€€€ÌÓ  ÓIIÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€because€of€pretrial€publicity,€theÏtrial€court€should€have€granted€his€motion€for€a€change€of€venue.€€In€support€of€hisÏclaim,€the€defendant€filed€a€certified€copy€of€the€minutes€of€a€Memphis€City€CounselÏmeeting€which€had€taken€place€a€month€earlier.€€Dr.€Maynard€Sisler,€the€victim'sÏstepfather,€presented€a€petition€signed€by€about€œ36,000€Shelby›€County€citizensÏwho€œ"were›€outraged€by€the€senseless€lawlessness„„by€the€senseless€œviolence."›€ÏSeveral€published€newspaper€articles€were€entered€as€exhibits.€€Photographs€ofÏthe€defendant€and€the€prior€criminal€record€of€all€defendants€were€apparentlyÍincluded€in€the€accounts.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€The€confession€was€printed€in€full.€€Comments€by€theÏAssistant€District€Attorney€General€were€published:ÌœÓÓà8 àà8 à"I›€hear€these€..€kinds€of€cases€all€the€time,€but€this€isÏabout€as€heinous€as€Iððve€œheard[,"›€s]aid€McDowell,€whoÏnoted€that€[while]€œ"some›€states€have€the€death€penaltyÏfor€juveniles,€the€state€legislature€of€Tennessee€hasnððtÏseen€fit€to€do€that,€and€Iððm€not€sure€they€havenððt€made€aÏœmistake."›€€€œÌÌÓÓThe›€defendant€also€entered€into€evidence€an€informal€survey€conducted€by€a€lawÏstudent.€€The€survey€showed€that€approximately€œseventy›€percent€of€thoseÏquestioned€had€heard€something€about€the€murder.€€Despite€having€heard€someÏreports€of€the€accounts€of€the€murder,€œseventy„eight›€percent€of€those€questioned€feltÏthey€could€be€fair€if€they€served€on€the€jury.€€None€of€those€questioned€were€familiarÏwith€the€confessions€the€defendants€had€made.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€denied€the€motion€because€the€bulk€of€the€publicityÏoccurred€over€a€year€before€the€scheduled€trial€date.€€Further,€the€survey€indicatedÏan€impartial€jury€could€be€selected.ÌÌà àà àThe€pertinent€portion€of€Rule€21(a),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€provides€asÍfollows:€€œ"[T]he›€venue€may€be€changed€...€if€it€appears€to€the€court€that,€due€toÏundue€excitement€against€the€defendant€in€the€county€where€the€offense€wasÏcommitted€or€any€other€cause,€a€fair€trial€probably€could€not€be€œhad."›€€Whether€toÏgrant€or€deny€a€motion€for€change€of€venue€is€a€matter€of€judicial€discretion.€€òòRippyÏv.€Stateóó,€550€S.W.2d€636,€638€(Tenn.€1977).€€The€appellate€court€will€not€interfereÏwith€the€exercise€of€discretion€absent€clear€abuse.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2dÏ342,€360€(Tenn.€œ1982).›€€The€ultimate€test€is€whether€the€jurors€who€actually€sat€andÏrendered€verdicts€were€prejudiced€by€the€pretrial€publicity.€€òòState€v.€Garlandóó,€617ÏS.W.2d€176,€187€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€The€burden€of€proof€is€on€the€defendant.€ÏòòAdams€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€804€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Prejudice€will€not€beÏpresumed€on€the€mere€showing€that€there€was€considerable€pretrial€publicity.€ÏòòDobbert€v.€Floridaóó,€432€U.S.€282€(1977);€òòState€œv.›€Kygeróó,€787€S.W.2d€13,€19€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1989)Ô€Ô.ÌÌà àà àÔ€6ÔSimply€stated,€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findingsÏof€the€trial€court.€€Moreover,€there€is€nothing€in€the€proof€at€the€hearing€on€theÏmotion€to€change€venue€suggesting€that€the€jury€had€been€prejudiced€by€theÏpretrial€publicity.Ó  ÓÌIIIÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€next€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusingÍindividual€voir€dire.€€Counsel€based€the€request€on€three€factors:€(1)€€there€wasÏsubstantial€press€coverage€of€co„defendant€œSammie›€œTaylor's›€trial;€(2)€there€wasÏsubstantial€press€coverage€of€the€remaining€three€œco„defendants›œ'›€pleading€guilty;Ïand€(3)€the€four€other€co„defendants€had€all€implicated€the€defendant€in€their€trialsÏor€their€guilty€pleas.€€Although€exhibits€supporting€the€existence€of€substantial€pressÏcoverage€were€not€entered€into€the€record€on€appeal,€both€the€trial€judge€andÏprosecuting€attorney€acknowledged€there€had€been€significant€press€coverage€ofÏthese€events.€€The€trial€judge€denied€individual€voir€dire,€but€ruled€that€prospectiveÏjurors€could€be€questioned€at€the€bench€and€out€of€the€hearing€of€the€others,€ifÏanyone€admitted€to€knowledge€of€pretrial€publicity€that€was€so€compelling€œ"they›Ïœcouldn't›€set€it€œaside."›ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€judge€questioned€all€of€the€potential€jurors€before€they€wereÏexamined€by€either€the€state€or€the€defense.€€A€few€jurors€were€dismissed€due€toÏthe€hardship€associated€with€sequestration.€€The€trial€judge€also€dismissed€twoÏjurors€who€conceded€they€were€biased€and€could€not€be€fair€to€the€defendant.€ÏThereafter,€during€the€voir€dire€by€the€assistant€district€attorney€general,€eachÏindividual€on€the€venire€admitted€having€seen€or€heard€publicity€about€the€case.€ÏWhen€the€prosecuting€attorney€asked€if€the€prospective€jurors€could€be€fair€in€spiteÏof€the€pretrial€publicity,€most€responded€affirmatively;€however,€three€of€the€panelÍindicated€they€could€not€be€fair€and€were€excused.€€ÌÌà àà àDefense€counsel€asked€about€the€nature€of€the€prospective€œjurors'›Ïknowledge.€€The€trial€judge€refused€to€allow€the€question,€noting€the€responsesÏcould€taint€the€other€jurors.€€At€that€point,€defense€counsel€again€renewed€herÏmotion€for€individual€voir€dire.€€In€an€action€which€appeared€to€be€a€departure€fromÏhis€original€intentions,€the€trial€judge€overruled€the€motion€and€limited€questions€toÏwhether€the€potential€juror€had€heard€pretrial€publicity€that€would€affect€theirÏpartiality.€ÌÌà àà àThe€prevailing€practice€is€to€examine€jurors€collectively.€€òòState€v.ÏJeffersonóó,€529€S.W.2d€674,€œ681›€(Tenn.€1975);€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€563Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp.€1991);›€òòState€v.€Hopperóó,€695€S.W.2d€530,€539€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1985).€€Our€supreme€court€has€ruled€that€the€œ"ultimate›€goal€of€voir€dire€is€to€insureÏthat€jurors€are€competent,€unbiased,€and€œimpartial."›€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2dÏ253,€262€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó€,€115€S.€Ct.€743€(1995).€€Over€twenty€years€ago,Ïhowever,€in€òòSommerville€v.€Stateóó,€521€S.W.2d€792,€797€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supremeÏcourt€held€that€œ"whenever›€there€is€believed€to€be€a€significant€possibility€that€a€jurorÏhas€knowledge€of€the€jury€verdict€at€a€prior€trial,€or€has€been€exposed€to€otherÏpotentially€prejudicial€material,€the€examination€of€each€juror,€with€respect€to€hisÍexposure,€shall€take€place€outside€the€presence€of€other€chosen€and€prospectiveÏœjurors."›€€œOur›€supreme€court€reaffirmed€this€proposition€in€òòState€v.€Claybrookóó,€736ÏS.W.2d€95€(Tenn.€1987).€€In€òòClaybrookóó,€œeighty›€percent€of€the€first€group€ofÏprospective€jurors€had€heard€information€about€the€case;€two€jurors€acknowledgedÏthat€they€had€heard€the€defendant€had€been€in€prison€before.€€òòIdóó.€at€100.€€TheseÏfacts,€found€to€be€sufficient€to€trigger€the€right€to€individual€voir,€required€a€new€trial.€ÏòòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àà àThese€rulings€suggest€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€placing€restrictionsÏon€the€defendantððs€examination€of€potential€jurors.€€It€can€be€reasonably€arguedÏthat€such€a€limitation€encroaches€upon€an€individualððs€right€to€a€fair€and€impartialÏjury.€€In€òòState€v.€Porterfieldóó,€746€S.W.2d€441€œ(Tenn.€1988),›€however,€our€supremeÏcourt€approved€a€method€of€jury€selection€very€similar€to€that€used€by€the€trial€judgeÏin€this€case.€€In€òòPorterfieldóó,€the€defense€counsel€argued€the€trial€court€improperlyÏlimited€the€œ"questioning›€of€prospective€jurors€with€respect€to€exposure€to€pre„trialÏœpublicity."›€€òòIdóó.€at€446.€€The€trial€judge€had€asked€the€jurors€whether€they€had€heardÏany€inflammatory€publicity€which€they€could€not€set€aside€and€was€careful€to€makeÏsure€œ"nothing›€inflammatory€or€prejudicial€to€the€defendants€was€œrevealed."›€€òòIdóó.€ÏEvery€prospective€juror€who€indicated€they€could€not€base€their€decision€only€onÏthe€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€excused.€€œòòIdóó.€€Our›€supreme€court€found€no€error.€ÍThe€ruling€in€òòPorterfieldóó€stands€for€the€proposition€that€if€no€prejudicial€informationÏis€elicited€during€voir€dire€and€if€the€jurors€assert€they€can€disregard€the€pretrialÏpublicity,€there€is€no€error€in€denying€individual€voir€dire.€€œòòIdóó.€at›€446„47.ÌÌà àà àOur€supreme€court€has€relied€on€òòPorterfieldóó€in€finding€there€was€noÏerror€by€the€denial€of€individual€voir€dire.€€òòSeeóó€œòòCazesóó,›€875€S.W.2d€at€262;€òòState€v.ÏHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€œ1993).›€€In€òòCazesóó,€where€the€jurors€stated€theyÏcould€render€a€verdict€based€solely€on€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€the€supremeÏcourt€found€no€error,€noting€œ"a›€trial€courtððs€findings€of€juror€impartiality€may€beÏoverturned€only€for€œ'manifest›€œerror.'"›€€875€S.W.2d€at€262€(citations€omitted).€€InÏòòHowellóó,€œsixty„four›€percent€of€the€prospective€jurors€had€heard€about€the€case.€€868ÏS.W.2d€at€247.€€The€court€refused€individual€voir€dire€for€all€prospective€jurors€butÏindicated€if€a€prospective€juror€remembered€the€specific€content€of€any€pretrialÏpublicity,€questions€had€to€be€submitted€on€an€individual€basis.€€On€the€basis€thatÏall€jurors€who€were€exposed€to€pretrial€publicity€indicated€they€could€still€be€fair,€theÏcourt€in€òòHowellóó€found€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion.€€òòIdóó.€at€248.€€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€view€of€the€rulings€in€òòPorterfieldóó,€òòCazesóó,€and€òòHowellóó,€it€appears€thatÏthe€trial€œcourt›€here€acted€within€its€discretion€in€generally€denying€individual€voirÏdire.€€Prospective€jurors€who€indicated€they€could€not€be€impartial€were€excused€forÍcause.€€No€prejudicial€information€was€released€to€the€panel;€thus€there€was€noÏtaint.€€Although€restrictive,€the€procedure€provided€by€the€trial€court€permittedÏindividual€voir€dire€of€those€who€had€heard€pretrial€publicity€so€compelling€theyÏcould€not€set€it€aside.€€Finally,€all€the€jurors€who€eventually€heard€the€caseÏindicated€they€could€be€fair€and€render€an€impartial€verdict.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances€and€despite€some€reservations€about€the€propriety€of€the€procedure,Ïwe€cannot€say€the€trial€court€violated€either€the€spirit€or€the€letter€of€òòPorterfieldóó€andÏits€progeny.€ÌœòòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Sammie€Lee€Tayloróó,€No.€02C01„9501„CR„00029€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€at€Jackson,€Oct.€10,€1996);€òòState€v.€Ricky€Thompsonóó,€No.€03C01„9406„CR„00198€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Jan.€24,€1996),€òòapp.€denied,€concurring€inÏresults€onlyóó,€(Tenn.,€July€1,€1996).Ì›Ìà àà àThe€defendant€also€complains€about€the€trial€œcourt's›€refusal€of€anÏinquiry€into€the€specific€types€of€pretrial€publicity€jurors€had€heard,€relying€primarilyÏon€œTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24›€(a)€and€œ(b)(2),›€œwhich›€provide€œin€part€as›€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓœ(a)€€Examination.€€The›€court€...€shall€permit€questioningÏby€the€parties€for€the€purpose€of€discovering€bases€forÏchallenge€for€cause€and€enabling€an€intelligent€exerciseÏof€peremptory€challenges.€€ÌœÓ  Ó***›ÌÓ  Óœ(b)€€Challenges€for€Cause.€€...€Any›€party€may€challenge€aÍprospective€juror€for€cause€œif:€€...›€the€prospective€jurorððsÏexposure€to€potentially€prejudicial€information€makes€theÏperson€unacceptable€as€a€juror.€€Both€the€degree€ofÏexposure€and€the€perspective€jurorððs€testimony€as€to€hisÏor€her€state€of€mind€shall€be€considered€in€determiningÏacceptability.€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓClearly,€the€trial€court€failed€to€adhere€to€the€rule.€€The€procedure€utilized€precludedÏboth€the€state€and€the€defense€from€determining€the€nature€and€quality€of€theÏinformation€known€to€the€jurors.€€The€rule€grants€the€defense€the€right€to€exerciseÏhis€peremptory€challenges€œ"intelligently."›€€Here,€the€defense€was€simply€denied€theÏprivilege€of€examining€the€œ"degree›€of€œexposure"›€potential€jurors€had€had€to€theÏpretrial€publicity.€€€Any€knowledge€by€prospective€jurors€of€the€circumstances€of€theÏoffense€is€always€a€concern€in€the€search€for€the€constitutionally„required€fair€andÏimpartial€jury.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€right€to€question€prospective€jurors,€however,€is€a€statutory€right.€ÏIt€does€not€always€imply€a€right€of€constitutional€œdimensions.€€"'Questions›€about€theÏcontent€of€the€publicity€to€which€jurors€have€been€exposed€are€not€constitutionallyÏcompelled,€and€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€ask€these€questions€is€not€reversible€errorÏunless€it€rendered€the€defendantððs€trial€fundamentally€œunfair.'"€€òòHowellóó,€686€S.W.2dÏat€247€(quoting›€œòòMuððMin›€v.€Virginiaóó,€500€U.S.€œ415,€425„26€(1991)).›ÌÌà àà àOur€standard€of€review€is€whether€the€trial€œjudge's›€ruling€œ"affirmatively›Ïappear[s]€to€have€affected€the€result€of€the€trial€on€the€œmerits."›€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï52(a).€€This€is€a€most€difficult€standard€to€achieve.€€It€is€not€surprising€that€theÏdefendant€has€failed€to€do€so€here.€€We€cannot€conclude€the€œdefendant's›€trial€wasÏœ"fundamentally›€œunfair"›€under€òòMuððMinóó.€€Each€of€the€jurors€ultimately€impaneledÏmade€unqualified€assertions€that€they€could€be€fair€and€impartial.€€The€record€of€theÏtrial€does€not€demonstrate€any€fundamental€unfairness€in€the€conduct€of€the€trial.€Ïœ"Where›€a€juror€is€not€legally€disqualified€or€there€is€no€inherent€prejudice,€theÏburden€is€on€the€[d]efendant€to€show€that€a€juror€is€in€some€way€biased€orÏœprejudiced."›€€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€539€œ(Tenn.€1993).›€€Here,€theÏdefendant€has€been€unable€to€carry€this€significant€burden.ÌÓ  ÓÌIVÌÓ  Óà àà àNext,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admittingÏparticularly€prejudicial€photographs.€€The€first€depicts€the€body€of€the€victim€when€itÏwas€first€discovered.€€Very€little€blood€is€visible€in€this€photo;€while€gruesome,€theÏcontent€is€not€excessively€so.€€A€second€photograph€shows€that€the€victimððs€pantsÏhad€been€lowered,€her€panties€removed,€and€her€shirt€and€bra€had€been€liftedÏabove€her€breasts.€€Little€blood€is€visible.€€A€third€photo€established€the€extent€ofÏbruising€over€the€entire€body.€€It€is€the€most€gruesome€of€the€three.€ÌÌà àà àThe€admissibility€of€photographs€is€governed€by€œTenn.›€œR.›€œEvid.›€403.€ÏœòòSee€alsoóó›€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947€(Tenn.€1978).€€œ"Although›€relevant,Ïevidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€theÏdanger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury€œ...."›€€Tenn.ÏR.€œEvid.›€403.€€The€evidence€must€be€relevant€and€its€probative€value€must€outweighÏany€prejudicial€effect.€€œòòBanksóó,›€564€S.W.2d€at€950„51.€€Whether€to€admit€theÏphotographs€is€within€the€discretionary€authority€of€the€trial€court€and€will€not€beÏreversed€absent€a€clear€showing€of€an€abuse.€€òòState€v.€Dickersonóó,€885€S.W.2d€90,Ï92€(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp.€1993);›€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€692€S.W.2d€651,€654€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1985).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€each€of€the€photographs€had€considerable€probativeÏvalue€that€outweighed€the€inevitable€prejudice.€€The€photographs€were€especiallyÏhelpful€to€support€the€œstate's›€theory€that€the€victim€had€been€sexually€assaulted€andÏhad€sustained€serious€injuries€before€being€struck€by€the€vehicle.€€TheyÏcorroborated€proof€of€the€nature€and€degree€of€the€œdefendant's›€participation€in€theÏcrime.€ÌÌÓ  ÓVÌÓ  Óà àà àNext,€the€œdefendant›€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€theÏstate€to€cross„examine€the€defendant€about€possible€attempts€to€commit€otherÏrobberies€which€may€have€occurred€the€night€after€the€murder.€€In€a€jury„outÏhearing,€the€state€argued€œthat€the›€œdefendant's›€activities€on€the€evening€followingÏthe€killing€were€probative€of€his€intent€on€the€evening€of€the€killing;€the€defendantÏcontended€that€these€events€were€irrelevant€and€highly€prejudicial.€€The€trial€courtÏruled€€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àœI›€think€it€is€relevant€to€show€his€knowledge€of€andÏparticipation€in€the€events€on€the€night€Ms.€Wilburn€wasÏkilled€if€his€defense€is€basically€I€had€no€idea€this€wasÏgoing€to€happen€and€I€was€just€kind€of€tagging€along.€ÏAnd€then€the€next€night€the€same€group€of€people,€whileÏstill€driving€Ms.€œWilburn's›€car,€continue€this€course€ofÏconduct.ÓÓÌÌà àà àRule€œ404(a),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,›€establishes€that€evidence€of€a€person'sÏcharacter€or€a€trait€of€character€is€generally€not€admissible€for€the€purpose€ofÏproving€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€or€trait€on€a€particular€occasion.€€ÏSubsection€(b)€provides€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€notÏadmissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€toÏshow€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait.€€It€may,Ïhowever,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.€€TheÏconditions€which€must€be€satisfied€before€allowing€suchÏevidence€are:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(1)à àThe€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearingÏoutside€the€jury's€presence;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)à àThe€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issueÏexists€other€than€conduct€conforming€with€a€characterÏtrait€and€must€upon€request€state€on€the€record€theÏmaterial€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€for€admittingÏthe€evidence;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)à àThe€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€itsÏprobative€value€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àGenerally,€this€rule€is€one€of€exclusion;€there€are,€as€stated,Ïexceptions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1985);€òòBunch€v.€Stateóó,Ï605€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€1980);€òòCarroll€v.€Stateóó,€œ370›€S.W.2d€523€œ(Tenn.€1963);›€òòseeÏalsoóó€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824€(Tenn.€œ1994)€(favorably›€citing€both€òòPartonóóÏand€òòBunchóó).€€Most€authorities€suggest€trial€courts€take€a€œ€"restrictive›€approach€ofÏ404(b)€...€because€œ'other›€œact'›€evidence€carries€a€significant€potential€for€unfairlyÏinfluencing€a€œjury."€€òòSeeó󛀜Neil€P.€Cohen,›€œòòetóó€òòal.óó,›€òòTennessee€Law€of€œEvidenceóó›€ðð€404.7Ïat€131.€€œThis›€best€explains€the€traditional€posture€of€the€courts€that€any€testimony€ofÏprior€bad€acts€by€a€defendant,€when€used€as€substantive€evidence€of€guilt€of€theÏcrime€on€trial,€are€not€usually€permissible.€€œòòPartonóó,›€694€S.W.2d€at€302„03.€€TheÏgeneral€exceptions€to€the€rule€are€when€the€evidence€is€offered€to€prove€the€motiveÍof€the€defendant,€his€identity,€his€intent,€the€absence€of€mistake,€opportunity,€or€as€aÏpart€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan.€€œòòBunchóó,›€605€S.W.2d€at€229.ÌÌà àà àTraditionally,€courts€have€not€permitted€the€state€to€establish€throughÏacts€of€prior€misconduct€any€generalized€propensity€on€the€part€of€a€defendant€toÏcommit€crimes.€€òòSee,€e.góó.,€òòState€v.€Teagueóó,€645€S.W.2d€392€(Tenn.€1983).€€A€juryÏcannot€be€allowed€to€convict€a€defendant€for€bad€character€or€any€particular€œÏ"disposition›€to€commit€a€crime€regardless€of€the€strength€of€the€evidenceÏconcerning€the€offense€on€œtrial."€›€œòòRickmanóó,›€876€S.W.2d€at€828€(citations€omitted).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€œjudge's›€rationale€for€admitting€the€evidence€was€essentiallyÏthat€if€the€defendant€intentionally€and€knowingly€attempted€to€commit€robberies€theÏnext€evening€after€the€murder,€he€must€have€intentionally€and€knowinglyÏparticipated€in€the€events€leading€up€to€the€murder.€€From€one€point€of€view,€thisÏmight€have€qualified€as€œ"propensity›€œevidence."›€€On€the€other€hand,€the€defendantÏclaimed€that€he€was€merely€present€and€that€his€participation€in€the€crimes€at€issueÏwas€incidental;€any€implication€that€his€participation€with€the€others€was€by€mistake,Ïhowever,€was€rebutted€in€great€measure€by€his€continued€associations€with€theÏother€offenders€soon€after€these€crimes€and€his€participation€in€these€other€unlawfulÏacts.€€The€evidence€was€more€probative€than€prejudicial€from€that€perspective.€€InÍthe€œcontext›€of€the€entire€trial,€any€error€in€this€ruling€was€harmless.€€In€our€view,€theÏtestimony,€while€somewhat€damaging€to€the€defendant,€€did€not€likely€affect€theÏresults€of€the€trial.€ÌÌÓ  ÓVIÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€next€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€giving€incorrectÏjury€charges€on€criminal€responsibility.€€It€is€useful€to€briefly€describe€all€of€the€juryÏinstructions.€€First,€the€trial€judge€gave€instructions€for€all€of€the€offenses€charged€asÏwell€as€each€of€their€lesser€included€offenses.€€After€instructing€the€jury€on€theÏelements€of€those€offenses,€the€trial€judge€defined€for€the€jury€direct€evidence€andÏcircumstantial€evidence.€€He€also€gave€a€reasonable€doubt€instruction.€€Next€theÏtrial€judge€instructed€on€impeaching€witnesses€and€witness€credibility€in€general.€ÏFinally,€the€trial€judge€gave€the€following€instruction€on€criminal€responsibility€forÏthe€conduct€of€another:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àThe€defendant€is€criminally€responsible€for€anÏoffense€committed€by€another€if€the€defendant€solicits,Ïdirects,€aids,€or€attempts€to€aid€another€person€to€commitÏan€offense,€and€the€defendant€acts€with€intent€to€promoteÏor€assists€the€commission€of€offense€or€to€benefit€in€theÏproceeds€or€results€of€the€offense.€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThis€is€the€only€reference€to€the€content€of€the€statute€governing€criminalÏresponsibility€for€the€œconduct€of€another.›€€At€no€point€in€the€instructions€did€the€trialÍjudge€explain€how€the€criminal€responsibility€for€another€statute€might€have€beenÏrelevant€to€the€charges€of€murder,€kidnapping,€robbery,€or€rape.€€That€might€haveÏbeen€helpful.€€On€the€other€hand,€no€limitations€were€placed€so€that€the€jury€couldÏproperly€infer€that€the€statute€applied€generally€to€all€charges.€€ÌÌà àà àUpon€motion€of€the€state€and€immediately€after€the€instructions€onÏcriminal€responsibility€for€another,€the€trial€judge€provided€an€additional€instruction:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhen€one€enters€into€a€scheme€with€others€to€commit€aÏœkidnapping›€and€killing€ensues,€all€defendants€may€beÏheld€responsible€for€the€death,€regardless€of€whoÏactually€committed€the€murder€and€whether€the€killingÏwas€specifically€contemplated€by€the€others€as€long€asÏthe€defendant€intended€to€commit€the€œkidnapping›€and€aÏkilling€resulted€during€the€perpetration€of€or€attempt€toÏperpetrate€the€œkidnapping›.€€Each€defendant€isÏresponsible€for€the€murder,€regardless€of€whether€heÏintended€for€the€victim€to€die€or€participated€in€the€act€ofÏmurder.ÌÌÓÓThe€language€was€apparently€taken€from€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€756€S.W.2dÏ700,€703€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€where€this€court€discussed€the€law€governingÏfelony€murder.€€The€transcript€shows€that€the€state€sought€this€instruction€toÏsupplement€the€instructions€for€first€degree€murder.€€While€the€supplement€appearsÏto€have€been€an€attempt€to€further€explain€felony€murder€in€the€context€of€criminalÏresponsibility€for€the€conduct€of€another,€the€trial€judge€commented€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àSo€it€was€intended€to€be€read€in€conjunction€with€aidingÏand€abetting€and€not€as€a€part€of€felony€murder,€and€itsÏintent€was€to€further€clarify€for€the€jury€the€charge€ofÏcriminal€responsibility€of€another€...€in€[a]€fact€situationÏsuch€as€we€have€here.€€ÌÌÓÓIn€our€view,€it€is€difficult€to€ascertain€whether€the€instruction€was€directed€toward€theÏfelony€murder€count€or€the€first€degree€premeditated€œcount;›€œif›€the€instruction€hadÏapplied€to€the€latter,€it€would€have€dispensed€with€the€intent€requirement,€the€mostÏessential€element€of€the€œoffense.›€€œOur›€court€œhas€held›€that€a€jury€instruction€whichÏstated€the€mens€rea€for€liability€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(2)€wasÏœ"intentionally,›€knowingly,€or€œrecklessly"›€was€a€misstatement€of€law,€as€the€statuteÏrequires€a€œ"mens›€rea€of€œintent."›€€òòState€v.€Maxeyóó,€898€S.W.2d€756,€758€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1994).€€Because€of€the€holding€in€òòBrownóó,€however,€it€was€the€obvious€intent€ofÏthe€trial€court€to€supplement€the€felony€murder€charge.€€In€context,€that€may€haveÏbeen€evident€to€the€jury.€€ÌÌà àà àNevertheless,€the€instruction€misstated€the€law.€€If€the€jury€viewed€theÏsupplemental€instruction€as€clarifying€the€law€required€to€convict€the€defendant€ofÏfelony€murder,€the€law€has€changed€since€the€opinion€was€released.€€The€year€afterÏòòBrownóó€was€released,€the€legislature€rewrote€the€felony€murder€statute€to€provide€asÏfollows:€œ"A›€first€degree€murder€is€...€[a]€òòrecklessóó€killing€of€another€committed€in€theÍperpetration€œof,›€or€attempt€to€perpetrate€any€...€œkidnapping[.]"›€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„202(a)(2)€(1989)€(emphasis€added).€€The€legislature€added€the€requirementÏthat€the€killing€be€œ"reckless."›€€Prior€to€the€enactment€of€the€1989€act,€felony€murderÏwas€essentially€a€strict€liability€crime.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„202(a)(1)(Supp.€œ1988).€€There›€only€had€to€be€a€nexus€between€the€qualifyingÏfelony€and€the€death€of€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€œSeversóó,›€œ759›€S.W.2d€œ935›€œ(Tenn.›ÏCrim.€App.€œ1988).›€€This€law€was€in€effect€at€the€time€of€these€crimes.€€Thereafter,€ourÏcourt€has€held€that€the€addition€of€the€œ"reckless"€requirement›€was€a€œ"substantial›Ïdeparture€from€the€previous€code€which€was€primarily€a€codification€of€common€lawÏoffenses€in€effect€since€œstatehood."›€€òòState€v.€Gilliamóó,€901€S.W.2d€385,€389€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1995).€€The€1989€Act€€is€different€from€prior€law€œ"in›€that€the€presumptionÏof€recklessness€is€œremoved."›€€òòIdóó.€at€390.€€To€prove€felony€murder€under€the€1989ÏAct€the€prosecution€must€prove€œboth€€"(1)›€that€the€killing€was€committed€with€theÏculpable€mental€state€of€reckless€and€(2)€that€the€killing€was€committed€in€theÏperpetration€of€an€enumerated€œfelony."€›€òòIdóó.€(Footnote€omitted).ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€judge€has€a€duty€œ"to›€give€a€complete€charge€of€the€lawÏapplicable€to€the€facts€of€a€œcase."›€€œòòState€v.€Harbisonóó,›€704€œS.W.2d€314,€319€(Tenn.Ï1986);›€œòòseeóó›€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€30.€€œ"[T]he›€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€aÏcorrect€and€complete€charge€of€the€œlaw."›€€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.Í1990).€€Jury€instructions€must,€however,€be€reviewed€in€the€context€of€the€overallÏcharge€rather€than€in€isolation.€€òòSandstrom€v.€Montanaóó,€442€U.S.€510€(1979);€òòseeóóÏòòState€v.€Phippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,€142€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€œ€Erroneous›€juryÏinstructions€require€a€reversal€unless€the€error€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòState€v.€Carpenteróó,€773€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€That€theÏdefendant€was€convicted€of€first€degree€premeditated€murder€instead€of€felonyÏmurder€does,€in€our€view,€render€the€error€harmless€beyond€doubt.€€In€context,€theÏerroneous€charge€applied€to€felony€murder€only.€€Other€parts€of€the€jury€instructionsÏcorrectly€defined€premeditated€murder.€€The€jury€was€instructed€to€consider€firstÏdegree€premeditated€murder€before€felony€œmurder;›€according€to€the€instructions,€aÏguilty€verdict€precluded€consideration€of€the€latter.€€œThat€made€the€òòBrownóóÏinstructions€mere€surplusage.€€That€is,€the€jury€is€presumed€by€law€to€have€followedÏthe€instructions;€it€having€done€that,€felony€murder€never€came€into€play.€€Criminal›Ïresponsibility€for€the€conduct€of€another€was€properly€defined;€a€single€charge€isÏenough€to€apply€to€each€count€in€the€indictment.€€ÌÓ  ÓÌVIIÌÓ  Óà àà àIn€a€related€issue,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏdenying€his€request€for€special€jury€charges.€€The€defendant€sought€the€followingÏadditional€instructions:€(1)€€mere€presence€at€the€scene€of€an€alleged€crime€isÍinsufficient€to€convict;€(2)€a€conviction€may€not€be€based€solely€upon€conjecture,Ïguess,€speculation,€or€a€possibility;€(3)€œ"in›€order€to€find€this€defendant€guilty€ofÏfelony€murder€during€the€commission€of€a€œkidnapping›,€you€must€find€that€he€is€aÏwilling€and€active€participant€in€the€œkidnapping›€...€in€order€to€hold€him€accountableÏfor€all€of€the€consequences€flowing€from€the€œkidnapping";›€and€(4)€the€law€presumesÏa€homicide€to€be€a€second€degree€murder€as€opposed€to€first€degree€murder.€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court,€of€course,€has€a€duty€to€give€a€complete€charge€of€theÏlaw€applicable€to€the€facts€of€the€case.€€œòòHarbisonóó,›€704€S.W.2d€œat›€œ319;›€òòsee€alsoóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€49„18„110.€€While€the€defendant€may€request€specialÏinstructions,€jury€instructions€are€sufficient€where€they€adequately€state€the€law.€ÏòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€œTyson›óó,€603€S.W.2d€748€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€When€a€trialÏœcourt's›€charge€to€the€jury€is€complete,€it€need€not€give€additional€specialÏinstructions€requested€by€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Storyóó,€608€S.W.2d€599,€603Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€ÌÌà àà àCertainly,€mere€presence€at€a€crime€is€insufficient€to€support€aÏconviction.€€The€œdefendant's›€œfirst€and€second›€special€œrequests›€œwere›€adequatelyÏembodied€in€the€reasonable€doubt€instruction.€€The€third€special€request€€wasÏalready€covered€in€the€instruction€on€felony€murder.€€Regarding€the€final€instruction,Íit€is€true€that€œ"[t]he›€law€in€Tennessee€has€long€recognized€that€once€the€homicideÏhas€been€established,€it€is€presumed€to€be€murder€in€the€second€œdegree."›€€òòState€v.ÏBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€534€(Tenn.€1992).€€Accordingly,€the€state€bears€the€burdenÏof€proof€on€the€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€sufficient€to€elevate€theÏoffense€to€first€degree€murder.€€òòIdóó.€€Any€error€in€refusing€that€instruction,€however,Ïwas€clearly€harmless.€€The€instructions€on€first€degree€murder€clearly€œset›€forth€theÏelements€the€state€was€required€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€This€wouldÏhave€been€sufficient€to€support€the€œconviction.›€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Charles€Montagueóó,€No.Ïœ03C01›„9306„CR„00192,€slip€op.€at€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp.,›€at€Knoxville,€Nov.€21,Ïœ1994),›€òòapp.€œdenied,€concurring€in€results€onlyóó,›€œ(Tenn.,€Dec.€28,€1995).›€€€€€€€ÌÓ  ÓÌVIIIÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€also€insists€that€the€evidence€at€the€penalty€phase,Ïconducted€after€the€guilty€verdicts,€was€insufficient€to€support€the€enhancedÏsentence€of€life€without€parole.€€A€sentencing€hearing€was€held€pursuant€to€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„207.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€œvictim's›€step„father,€Dr.€œMaynard›€œSisler›,€testified€that€he€helpedÏrear€the€victim€for€sixteen€years.€€He€related€that€the€œvictim's›€death€œ"has›€been€aÏdeep€and€devastating€wound€from€which€we€are€not€yet€œrecovered."›€€He€describedÍthe€victim€as€kind€and€giving.€€The€state€submitted€a€morgue€photo€of€the€victim€toÏestablish€that€the€death€was€œ"heinous,›€atrocious,€and€œcruel."›€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€39„13„205(i)(5).€€Various€family€members€of€the€œdefendant's›€testified€that€he€wasÏan€obedient€child€who€was€more€of€a€follower.€€The€defendantððs€mother€testifiedÏthat€the€defendant€was€learning€disabled.ÌÌà àà àIn€sentencing€the€defendant€to€life€without€parole,€the€jury€found€theÏfollowing€aggravators:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThe€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelÏin€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuseÏbeyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5);ÌÌThe€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,Ïinterfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€orÏprosecution€of€the€defendant€or€another,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(6);€andÌÌThe€murder€was€knowingly€committed,€solicited,Ïdirected,€or€aided€by€the€defendant,€while€the€defendantÏhad€a€substantial€role€in€committing€or€attempting€toÏcommit€...€any€first€degree€murder,€...€robbery€...€[or]Ïkidnapping.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(7).ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àThe€standard€of€review€of€the€jury€sentence€is€set€forth€in€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„207(g);€that€statute€provides€as€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓWhen€a€defendant€has€been€sentenced€to€imprisonmentÍfor€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole,€such€defendantÏmay€appeal€such€sentence€to€the€Tennessee€œcourt›€ofÏœcriminal›€œappeals.›€€The€œcourt›€of€œcriminal›€œappeals›€shallÏfirst€consider€any€errors€assigned€and€then€the€courtÏshall€review€the€appropriateness€of€the€sentence.€€AÏsentence€of€imprisonment€for€life€without€possibility€ofÏparole€shall€be€considered€appropriate€if€the€stateÏproved€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€at€least€one€(1)Ïstatutory€aggravating€circumstance€contained€in€sectionÏ39„13„204(i),€and€the€sentence€was€not€otherwiseÏimposed€arbitrarily,€so€as€to€constitute€a€gross€abuse€ofÏthe€juryððs€discretion.ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓ€€€€€€Ìà àà àIn€our€view,€the€sentence€of€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole€isÏwithin€the€juryððs€discretion.€€The€proof€established€that€the€murder€was€œ"especially›Ïœcruel"›€and€involved€œ"torture›€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€toÏproduce€œdeath."›€€There€was€testimony€that€the€victim€was€beaten€so€severely€thatÏone€bruise€could€not€be€distinguished€from€the€next.€€The€victim€suffered€injuriesÏfrom€the€beating€apart€from€the€injuries€suffered€when€struck€by€the€car.€€TheÏbeating€qualified,€in€our€view,€as€œ"serious›€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€toÏproduce€œdeath."›€€There€was€also€adequate€testimony€that€the€killing€was€committedÏso€that€the€defendant€and€the€others€might€avoid€detection€and€arrest.€€The€bodyÏwas€thrown€over€the€bridge€to€avoid€discovery.€€It€was€within€the€juryððs€prerogativeÏto€find€that€the€victim€was€killed€to€avoid€detection.€€The€final€factor€was€alsoÏestablished.€€The€evidence€very€clearly€showed€the€murder€was€committed€whileÍthe€defendant€was€engaged€in€a€kidnapping.€ÌÌà àà àAll€three€aggravators€were€established€by€the€evidence.€€Once€theÏaggravators€were€established,€it€is€within€the€œjury's›€œ"considered›€œdiscretion"›€whetherÏto€impose€the€sentence€of€life€without€parole.€€Tenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„207(c).€€Ì€€€€ÌÓ  ÓIXÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€also€questions€whether€a€juvenile€may€be€sentencedÏto€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„13„207.€€TheÏœdefendant's›€argument€is€two„fold:€(1)€a€life€without€parole€sentence€for€a€juvenile€isÏcontrary€to€the€intent€of€the€legislature;€and€(2)€such€a€sentence€for€a€juvenile€isÏcruel€and€unusual€punishment€and,€therefore,€prohibited€under€the€Tennessee€andÏUnited€States€constitutions.€€We€disagree€with€both€contentions.ÌÌà àà àOnce€a€juvenile€has€been€transferred€from€juvenile€court,€the€juvenileÏis€treated€as€an€adult,€except€that€he€may€not€receive€the€death€penalty.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€37„1„134(a)(1).€€The€juvenile€transfer€statute€provides€as€follows:€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓœ[The›€juvenile€œcourt]›€œmay›€transfer€the€child€to€the€sheriff€ofÏthe€county€to€be€held€according€to€law€and€to€be€dealtÏwith€as€an€adult€in€the€criminal€court€of€competentÏjurisdiction.€€The€disposition€of€the€child€shall€be€as€if€theÍchild€were€an€adult€if€...€[t]he€child€was€sixteen€(16)€yearsÏor€more€of€age€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€conduct€....€€TheÏdistrict€attorney€general€may€not€seek€...€a€sentence€ofÏdeath€for€the€offense€for€which€the€child€was€œtransferred.Ì›€ÌÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„134(a)(1).€€The€legislature€has€made€a€specific€exceptionÏfor€the€death€penalty.€€If€a€specific€exception€were€also€intended€for€the€penalty€ofÏlife€without€the€possibility€of€parole,€the€legislature€would€have€made€an€exceptionÏfor€that€as€well.€€Moreover,€the€statutes€providing€for€the€sentence€of€life€without€theÏpossibility€of€parole€provide€no€exception€for€juveniles.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€œððððÏ39„13„204›€through€„207.€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€next€contention€is€that€a€sentence€of€life€without€theÏpossibility€of€parole€for€a€juvenile€is€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€in€violation€ofÏboth€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions.€€òòSee€generallyóó€U.S.€Const.Ïœamend.›€VIII;€Tenn.€Const.€œart.›€I,€ðð€16.€€In€determining€whether€a€sentence€violatesÏconstitutional€prohibitions€against€cruel€and€unusual€punishment,€courts€mustÏconsider€whether€the€sentence€is€in€conformity€with€contemporary€standards€ofÏdecency,€is€proportional€to€the€offense,€and€is€no€more€than€necessary€toÏaccomplish€a€legitimate€penalogical€objective.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,Ïœ189„90›€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àà àProportionality€analysis€is€controlled€by€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€844€S.W.2dÏœ601›€(Tenn.€œ1992).€€In€òòHarrisóó,›€our€supreme€court€adopted€the€standards€enunciatedÏin€Justice€œKennedy's›€concurrence€in€œòòHarmelin›€v.€Michiganóó,€501€U.S.€957,€994Ïœ(1991).›€€The€first€step€is€to€compare€the€sentence€with€the€crime€committed.€€œÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓUnless›€this€threshold€comparison€leads€to€an€inferenceÏof€gross€disproportionality,€the€inquiry€ends„„theÏsentence€is€constitutional.€€In€those€rare€cases€whereÏthis€inference€does€arise,€the€analysis€proceeds€byÏcomparing€(1)€the€sentences€imposed€on€other€criminalsÏin€the€same€jurisdiction,€and€(2)€the€sentences€imposedÏfor€commission€of€the€same€crime€in€other€œjurisdictions.Ì›€€œòòÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓHarrisóó,›€844€S.W.2d€at€603.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€œdefendant's›€sentence€passes€constitutional€muster€under€theÏstandards€set€forth€in€both€òòBlackóó€and€òòHarrisóó.€€Under€òòBlackóó,€the€sentence€conformsÏwith€standards€of€decency€and€serves€legitimate€penalogical€functions.€€òòSeeóó€œòòBlackóó,›Ï815€S.W.2d€at€189„90.€€Under€òòHarrisóó€guidelines,€there€is€no€inference€of€œ"gross›Ïœdisproportionality."›€€òòSeeóó€œòòHarrisóó,›€844€S.W.2d€at€603.€€Finally,€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€has€found€the€Eighth€Amendment€does€not€prohibit€states€fromÏimposing€capital€punishment€on€offenders€who€commit€murder€at€the€age€of€16.€ÏòòStanford€v.€Kentuckyóó,€492€U.S.€361,€380€(1989).€€The€corresponding€provisions€ofÏour€state€constitution€œdemand›€no€higher€œstandard.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Sammie€LeeÍTayloróó,€No.€02C01„9501„CR„00029€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Oct.€10,€1996).›ÌÌÓ  ÓXÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€toÏclarify€jury€instructions€regarding€œ"weighing"›€the€aggravating€and€mitigatingÏcircumstances.€€The€trial€judge€charged€the€jury€as€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓœ[Y]ou›€are€authorized€to€weigh€and€consider€anyÏmitigating€circumstances€and€any€of€the€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstances€which€may€have€been€raisedÏby€the€evidence€throughout€the€entire€course€of€this€trial.ÌÌ....The€burden€of€proof€is€upon€the€state€to€prove€anyÏstatutory€aggravating€circumstance€or€circumstancesÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌœÌÓ  Ó***›ÌÓ  ÓœÌ...›€In€choosing€between€the€sentences€of€imprisonmentÏfor€life€without€possibility€of€parole€and€imprisonment€forÏlife,€you€shall€weigh€and€consider€the€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstance€or€circumstances€proven€byÏthe€state€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€any€mitigatingÏcircumstance€or€circumstances.€€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àThe€defendant€sought€a€supplemental€instruction€to€clarify€theÏœ"weighing›€œprocess."›€€The€supplemental€instruction€provided€in€œpart:›ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓIn€order€to€impose€the€sentence€of€imprisonment€for€lifeÏwithout€the€possibility€of€parole,€the€jury€mustÏunanimously€find€that€the€State€has€proven€beyond€aÍreasonable€doubt€that€the€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstance(s)€òòoutweighóó€any€mitigatingÏcircumstance(s).Ì€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓ(emphasis€added).€€The€state€argues€the€trial€judge€did€not€err€œby›€refusing€theÏsupplemental€instruction€because€the€instruction€misstated€the€applicable€law.€€WeÏagree.€ÌÌà àà àTo€sustain€a€sentence€for€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole,€the€stateÏdoes€not€have€to€prove€that€the€aggravating€factors€outweigh€the€mitigating€factors.€ÏThe€state€only€has€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€an€aggravatingÏcircumstance€exists.€€The€relevant€statute€contains€the€following€provision:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓIf€the€jury€unanimously€determines€that€a€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstance€or€circumstances€have€beenÏproven€by€the€state€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,òò€but€thatÏsuch€circumstance€or€circumstances€have€not€beenÏproven€...€to€outweigh€any€mitigating€œ...€circumstancesóó€...,›Ïthe€jury€shall,€in€its€œconsidered€discretion,›€sentence€theÏdefendant€to€either€imprisonment€for€life€without€theÏpossibility€of€parole€or€imprisonment€for€life.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(f)(2)(emphasis€added).€€There€is€no€requirement€thatÏthe€aggravators€outweigh€the€mitigators;€the€only€requirement€is€that€theÏaggravators€be€established€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòIdóó.€€Thus,€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€err€by€refusing€the€supplemental€instruction.€ÌÌÓ  ÓXIÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€insists€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€an€autopsyÏphotograph€into€evidence€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€state€submitted€the€photoÏto€establish€the€murder€was€heinous€and€atrocious.€The€trial€court€made€theÏfollowing€observations€about€the€photo:€ÌÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[W]hile€this€photograph€clearly€was€not€admissibleÏduring€the€case€in€chief,€the€guilt„innocence€portion€ofÏthe€trial€œ....€€In›€this€sentencing€phase€at€this€point€I€thinkÏthis€photograph€is€probative.€€Obviously€it€is€a€shockingÏphotograph.€€No€one€can€disagree€with€that.€€No€one€canÏdispute€that.€€But€by€definition€anything€that€is€heinous€orÏatrocious€is€going€to€be€shocking.Ì€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThe€photo€shows€the€victim€from€the€shoulders€up.€€There€is€considerable€bruisingÏand€discoloration.€While€the€photo€is€particularly€gruesome,€it€is€also€especiallyÏprobative€on€the€claim€that€the€murder€was€heinous€or€atrocious.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.ÏœEvid.›€œ403;€òòsee€alsoóó›€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€950„51€(Tenn.€1978).€€TheÏvalue€of€the€evidence,€in€our€view,€œoutweighed›€any€prejudice.ÌÓ  ÓÌXIIÌÓ  Óà àà àNext,€the€defendant€insists€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€theÏœvictim's›€stepfather€to€testify€as€to€the€impact€of€the€crime€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€ÏDr.€Sisler€testified€that€his€family€had€been€devastated€by€the€death€of€the€victim,Íwho€he€described€as€kind€and€gentle.€€The€defendant€argues€this€testimony€isÏirrelevant€to€establishing€any€of€the€aggravators€and€that€the€evidence€was€undulyÏprejudicial.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Payneóó,€791€S.W.2d€10,€18„19€(Tenn.€1990),€œòòaff'dóó,›€501€U.S.Ï808€(1991),€our€supreme€court€addressed€this€very€issue€and€held€that€while€theÏevidence€might€be€œ"technically›€œirrelevant,"›€the€evidence€was€œ"relevant›€to€thisÏœdefendant's›€personal€responsibility€and€moral€œguilt."›€€The€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€affirmed€this€decision,€holding€that€evidence€about€the€character€of€the€victimÏand€the€emotional€impact€of€the€crimes€on€the€victimððs€family€œis›€admissible.€€òòPayneÏv.€Tennesseeóó,€501€U.S.€œ808,€at›€œ824€(1991).›ÌÌà àà àThere€is€some€irony€in€that€òòPayneóó,€a€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏcase€out€of€this€state,€upholds€the€principle€that€victim€impact€may€be€admissible€asÏevidence€and€yet€none€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€listed€in€our€œstate's›Ïcurrent€statutory€scheme€include€victim€impact.€€From€that€standpoint,€the€testimonyÏwas€not€likely€relevant€and,€perhaps,€should€have€been€excluded.€€In€the€context€ofÏthe€sentencing€proceeding€and€the€proof€offered€at€trial,€however,€the€impactÏevidence€was€harmless.€€The€jury€was€properly€charged€as€to€the€appropriateÏconsideration.€€Victim€impact€was€not€a€part€of€the€instruction.ÌÓ  ÓÌXIIIÌÓ  Óà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€the€impositionÏof€his€sentences€for€especially€aggravated€robbery,€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping,€and€aggravated€rape.€€The€trial€judge€sentenced€the€defendant€toÏœtwenty„three›€years€for€each€offense.€€The€sentences€are€to€be€served€concurrentlyÏwith€each€other€but€consecutive€to€the€sentence€of€life€without€the€possibility€ofÏparole.€€The€defendant€contests€the€length€of€the€sentences€as€well€as€the€fact€thatÏthey€were€ordered€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€sentence€of€life€without€theÏpossibility€of€parole.ÌÌà àà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€œ"conditioned›€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€œcircumstances."€€òòState›€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€SentencingÏCommission€Comments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€theÏimpropriety€of€the€sentence.€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€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)€theÏdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€€40„35„102,€„103,€œ„210;›€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€judge€found€the€following€enhancement€factors€applied€to€allÏoffenses:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€€The€defendant€treated€or€allowed€a€victim€to€beÏtreated€with€exceptional€cruelty€during€the€commissionÏof€the€offense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(5);ÌÌ(2)€€The€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€or€the€amount€ofÏdamage€to€property€sustained€by€or€taken€from€the€victimÏwas€particularly€great,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6);ÌÌ(3)€€The€offense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€toÏgratify€the€œdefendant's›€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7);€ÌÌ(4)€€The€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€aÏcrime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(10);€andÌÌ(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).ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àIn€mitigation,€the€trial€judge€found€that€the€defendant€played€a€minorÏrole€in€the€commission€of€the€offenses,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€49„35„113(4);€that€theÏdefendant€had€a€poor€family€history;€and€that€the€defendant€was€a€youthfulÏoffender.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€asserts€all€five€enhancement€factors€were€inherent€inÏeach€of€the€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.€€The€trial€judge,€afterÏsaying,€œ"I›€œdon't›€think€you€can€separate€or€try€and€divide€up€and€compartmentalizeÏthe€facts€œ...,"›€failed€to€consider€each€crime€separately.€€The€appropriate€method€ofÏweighing€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€requires€that.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏChrismanóó,€885€S.W.2d€834€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Thus,€the€sentences€carry€noÏpresumption€of€correctness.€€We€must€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review.ÌÌà àà àAn€especially€aggravated€robbery€occurs€when€the€robbery€isÏaccomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€and€the€victim€receives€serious€bodily€injury.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„403.€€That€the€defendant€allowed€the€victim€to€be€treatedÏwith€exceptional€cruelty€is€not€necessarily€inherent€in€the€offense€of€especiallyÍaggravated€robbery.€€òòSee,€œe.g.óó,›€òòState€v.€Kernóó,€909€S.W.2d€5,€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ïœ1993).›€€There€is€proof€that€œthe›€victim€was€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty.€ÏEnhancement€factor€(7),€commission€of€a€crime€for€gratification€and€pleasure,Ïlikewise€is€not€inherent€in€the€offense€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€There€wasÏno€proof,€however,€that€the€robbery€was€committed€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€ÏAccordingly€this€factor€should€not€have€been€applied.€€The€remaining€three€factorsÏare€inherent€in€the€offense€and€should€not€have€been€applied.€€That€the€victimÏsuffered€personal€injury,€is€inherent€because€one€of€the€elements€of€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€is€that€the€victim€suffer€serious€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„114(6);€œòòseeó󛀜òòJonesóó,›€883€S.W.2d€at€602.€€That€the€defendant€had€noÏhesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high€and€thatÏthe€risk€of€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€œwas›€great€are,€according€to€establishedÏprecedent,€inherent€in€the€offense€of€aggravated€robbery.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10)€and€œ(16);›€€œòòSeeóó€òòState›€v.€Claybrooksóó,€910€S.W.2d€868,€872„73€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).€€Although€there€is€a€single€enhancement€factor€and€the€trial€courtÏobviously€gave€some€weight€to€the€inapplicable€factor,€the€cruelty€exhibitedÏtowards€the€victim€was€exceptional.€€We€hold€that€the€gravity€of€the€acts€œwarrants›€aÏœtwenty„three„year›€sentence.€Ìà àÌà àà àWe€now€consider€the€sentence€for€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€ÍThat€offense€occurs€when€the€victim€suffers€serious€bodily€injury€during€the€courseÏof€the€kidnapping.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„305(4).€€That€the€defendant€allowedÏthe€victim€to€be€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty€is€not€inherent€in€the€offense€and€isÏparticularly€applicable€in€this€case€because€the€defendant€assisted€in€beating€theÏvictim€so€severely€that€one€bruise€could€not€be€distinguished€from€another.€€ThatÏthe€victim€suffered€great€personal€injury€may€be€inherent€in€an€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping,€depending€on€the€particular€facts€of€a€situation.€€Here€theÏindictment€charged€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€occurred€because€theÏvictim€suffered€serious€bodily€injury.€€Thus,€this€factor€is€inherent€in€the€offense€asÏcharged€and€should€not€have€been€applied.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7);€ÏòòSeeóó€œòòJonesóó,›€883€S.W.2d€œat›€œ602.›€€That€the€offense€was€committed€for€pleasure€orÏexcitement€is€not€inherent€in€the€offense€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€YetÏthere€is€no€real€proof€of€that€enhancement€factor.€€The€holding€in€òòJonesóó€wouldÏrequire€that.€ÌÌà àà àThere€are€two€remaining€enhancements:€€that€the€defendant€had€noÏhesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€œwas›€high€and€thatÏthe€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€where€the€potential€for€bodily€injuryÏto€a€victim€was€great.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(10)€and€(16).€€In€œòòJonesóó,€our›Ïsupreme€court€held€that€these€factors€are€not€inherent€in€offenses€where€seriousÍbodily€injury€is€an€element€of€the€offense€charged.€€œThus,›€we€find€both€factors€to€beÏapplicable.€€Locking€the€victim€in€the€trunk€of€the€car€and€releasing€her€to€the€handsÏof€five€men€who€had€previously€discussed€killing€her€created€a€significant€risk€andÏpredictable€result.€€The€enhancement€factors,€in€our€view,€fully€support€the€twenty„three€year€sentence.€€ÌÌà àà àœWe€next€consider€the€sentence€for€aggravated€rape.€€That€theÏdefendant€allowed€the€victim€to€be€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty€was€properlyÏapplied,€as€the€rape€occurred€while€the€defendants€were€severely€beating€the€Ïvictim.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€49„35„114(5).€€That€the€victim€suffered€great€bodilyÏinjuries€was€also€properly€applied.€€The€indictment€alleged€that€the€rape€wasÏaggravated€because€the€defendants€used€a€weapon;€there€was€proof€of€that.€€So,Ïbodily€injury€was€not€an€essential€element€of€the€offense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€49„35„114(6).€€That€the€offense€was€committed€to€gratify€the€defendant's€desire€forÏpleasure€or€excitement€is€not€applicable.€€Our€court€had€held€that€this€factor€is€notÏan€essential€element€of€a€rape€and€may€be€applied€when€proven.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,Ï864€S.W.2d€31€(Tenn.€1993).€€Because€there€was€simply€no€proof€establishing€theÏdefendant's€motivation,€this€factor€was€misapplied.€ÌÌà àà àWe€now€consider€the€remaining€two€factors.€€In€òòClaybrooksóó,€910ÍS.W.2d€at€872,€our€court€concluded€that€every€robbery€accomplished€with€aÏweapon€necessarily€entailed€a€high€risk€to€human€life€as€well€as€the€risk€of€bodilyÏharm.€€Accordingly,€those€factors€were€not€proper€enhancers.€€òòIdóó.€€Under€the€ruleÏannounced€in€òòClaybrooksóó,€we€must€conclude€that€when€a€rape€is€aggravatedÏbecause€of€the€use€of€a€weapon,€risk€to€human€life€and€the€risk€of€bodily€harm€areÏinherent€in€the€crime.€€Thus,€these€two€factors€were€improperly€applied.€€AÏmodification€to€twenty€years€is€appropriate.€€ÌÌà àà àWe›€now€turn€to€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€the€sentencesÏto€be€served€consecutively€to€the€sentence€for€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole.€ÏConsecutive€sentences€may€be€imposed€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€onlyÏupon€a€determination€that€one€or€more€of€the€following€criteria€exist:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€hasÏknowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€majorÏsource€of€livelihood;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€is€extensive;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormalÏperson€so€declared€by€a€competent€psychiatrist€whoÏconcludes€as€a€result€of€an€investigation€prior€toÏsentencing€that€the€defendant's€criminal€conduct€hasÏbeen€characterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitive€orÏcompulsive€behavior€with€heedless€indifference€toÏconsequences;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€andÏno€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€riskÏto€human€life€is€high;€€€€à à€€€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€moreÏstatutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€withÏconsideration€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€arisingÏfrom€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€victimÏor€victims,€the€time€span€of€defendant's€undetectedÏsexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€actsÏand€the€extent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mentalÏdamage€to€the€victim€or€victims;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offenseÏcommitted€while€on€probation;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(7)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.ÌÌœÓÓTenn.›€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).€€Even€if€the€court€finds€one€of€these€factorsÏapplicable,€however,€aggravating€circumstances€must€be€present€beforeÏconsecutive€sentences€may€be€imposed.€€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393Ï(Tenn.€1976)ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€defendant€was€a€dangerousÏoffender€and€thus€qualified€for€consecutive€sentences.€€The€defendant€contests€thatÏclassification.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòGrayóó,€our€supreme€court€œruled›€that€before€consecutive€sentencingÏcould€be€imposed€upon€the€dangerous€offender,€as€now€defined€by€subsectionÏ(b)(4)€in€the€statute,€other€conditions€must€be€present:€(a)€that€the€crimes€involveÏaggravating€circumstances;€(b)€that€consecutive€sentences€are€a€necessary€meansÏto€protect€the€public€from€the€defendant;€and€(c)€that€the€term€reasonably€relates€toÏthe€severity€of€the€œoffenses.€€òòGrayóó,€538€S.W.2d€at€393.›€€In€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905ÏS.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995),€our€high€court€reaffirmed€those€principles,€holdingÏthat€consecutive€sentences€cannot€be€required€of€the€dangerous€offender€œ"unless›Ïthe€terms€reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€areÏnecessary€in€order€to€protect€the€public€(society)€from€further€criminal€acts€by€thoseÏpersons€who€resort€to€aggravated€criminal€œconduct."›€€The€òòWilkersonóó€decision,Ïwhich€modified€somewhat€the€strict,€factual€guidelines€for€consecutive€sentencingÏadopted€in€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€814€S.W.2d€378,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),Ïdescribed€sentencing€as€a€œ"human›€process€that€neither€can€nor€should€be€reducedÏto€a€set€of€fixed€and€mechanical€œrules."›€€œòòWilkersonóó,›€905€S.W.2d€at€938.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€would€qualify€as€a€dangerous€œoffender.›€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„115(4).€€He€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€theÏrisk€to€human€life€was€high.€€The€circumstances€were€aggravated€in€every€sense.€ÏAt€trial,€the€defendant€denied€any€responsibility€for€the€offenses.€€The€failure€toÍaccept€any€responsibility€shows€an€absence€of€any€rehabilitative€qualities€andÏdemonstrates€the€necessity€for€societal€protection€by€lengthy€incarceration.€€Thus,Ïconsecutive€sentencing€is€warranted.ÌÌà àà àIn€conclusion,€the€convictions€and€œsentences,€as€modified,›€areÏaffirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________à àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌà àà à