ÿWPC9" æŒGRmÓ°„±¬šàÒ·lKAÅi\ýŠ4PŸºvøæJ¦«Göö¿¨î#áDý KÍzkÜðbèŒvš8>ñA¬Y&ÿv¸”®ƒ%e€Îâˆt³z,¥ýOÄYcOÃîd À,ê¨}æãµ‚Ü+˜í[£g*î¨ÎšÏÅ u"ƒx<>7ÃàPšqŠ r$}¡µ“žÿÄ`ƒ´¨†" w!w;Q&cáY¬Ÿš[ôQ’êÓR†®ñ"‹V?xÔ™Öëäu“p:"DE|÷±ª»’L–EùgiÄ™û‹¥jЪÎ!ë—¼ÄÔ;‹qç†.6Îx+ÒhžŠÈS*ƒÀn7ÌúR)¸9 `Šöb %\^ b 0ˆnU.NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ q‘ ÆÆÈÆŽÆT 1‡N¡ 72£ 1uÕEJ 72L 0c~ 0wáU@X 1‡˜ 72ºQ 0D  1‡O 72Ö          b,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 0ë4444 B 0¤< D5à D- 0KBB ASÆà 0¤¦ 0DJ! A«Ž!»u{Å(˜ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularq\;'ê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0 gÝ ƒR¶$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€XøãX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCo„defendant€Ô_ÔDelivetrickÔ_Ô€Blocker€was€tried€separately€and€convicted€of€felony€murder€andÐ ° Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery.€€He€likewise€sought€to€suppress€his€pretrial€statement€on€the€sameÐ  ð Ðgrounds€as€the€defendant.€€This€court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€suppress€his€statement.€Ð à ÐòòState€v.€Ô_ÔDelivetrickÔ_Ô€D.€Blockeróó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9803„CR„00120,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.Ð €Ð ÐApp.€filed€March€10,€1999,€at€Knoxville).€€This€court€also€reduced€the€especially€aggravated€robberyÐ pÀ Ðconviction€to€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 505hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. °Ý ƒR¶$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€XøãX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€this€procedure€is€unusual,€similar€orders€of€remand€have€been€utilized€by€thisÐ ° Ðcourt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Keith€Slateróó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9709„CC„00435,€Giles€County€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.Ð  ð ÐApp.€filed€January€27,€1999,€at€Nashville);€òòState€v.€William€Ô_ÔChouinardÔ_Ôóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9311„Ð à ÐCR„00357,€Ô_ÔMcMinnÔ_Ô€County€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€filed€February€9,€1995,€at€Knoxville).(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ª½CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. Ý ƒR¶$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XøãX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDefendant,€Calvin€Ô_ÔTrammellÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔDelivetrickÔ_Ô€Blocker€were€all€tried€separately.€€Ô_ÔDelivetrickÔ_ÔÐ ° ÐBlocker€was€convicted€of€felony€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery,€the€latter€convictionÐ  ð Ðbeing€reduced€to€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€He€received€consecutive€sentences€of€lifeÐ à Ðwithout€the€possibility€of€parole€and€9€years,€respectively.€€Ô_ÔTrammellÔ_Ô€was€convicted€of€attemptedÐ €Ð Ðaggravated€robbery€and€received€a€sentence€of€5€years.  Ý ƒR¶$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€XøãX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCo„defendants€Ô_ÔTrammellÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔDelivetrickÔ_Ô€Blocker€were€17€years€of€age.- ù-(|G2¶$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€åÄ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XøãX»»Ô d(|3ù+$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€åÄ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ù+$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€åÄ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€åÄ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼åÄ»»»ÔÑ8€øãXXdð»»d8Ñà@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ È ÐÔ‡XøãX»¼åÄÔÌò òÔ#†¼åÄ»XXøãk#ÔÓ  ÓòòóóSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€ROBERT€BLOCKERòòóóÔ‡XøãX»¼åÄÔó óÐ Ð  ÐÓ±ÓÌà@¼ ¼ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyˆÐ Ø ( Ðà@~ ~ ìàNo.€209398€and€209401€€€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€Judge€ˆÐ È  ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<— ` A߈Ð ˜ è  ÐÌà@þ þ ìàNo.€E1999„01624„CCA„R3„CD€„€Decided€June€5,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈР—ç  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<v` AßÐ wÇ  Ðó óÌDefendant,€Robert€Blocker,€appeals€his€jury€convictions€for€felony€murder€and€attempted€especiallyÐ vÆ  Ðaggravated€robbery.€€The€defendant€raises€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€the€trialÐ f¶  Ðcourt€erred€when€it€failed€to€suppress€statements€the€defendant€made€to€the€police€department€whileÐ V¦ Ðbeing€interrogated;€(2)€whether€the€prosecution€failed€to€present€sufficient€evidence€to€establish€thatÐ F– Ðthe€defendant€intended€to€commit€a€felony€with€the€co„defendants;€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erredÐ 6† Ðby€failing€to€allow€testimony€about€the€defendantððs€statements€shortly€after€the€crime;€(4)€whetherÐ &v Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€prosecution€to€question€a€co„defendant€about€his€refusal€to€testifyÐ f Ðat€his€own€trial;€(5)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€prosecution€to€argue€facts€notÐ V Ðpresented€in€evidence;€(6)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€permitted€the€prosecution€to€conductÐ öF ÐÔ_ÔrecrossÔ_Ô€examination€on€matters€not€covered€in€redirect€examination;€and€(7)€whether€the€trial€courtÐ æ6 Ðerred€in€allowing€the€prosecution€to€impeach€the€defendant€with€testimony€he€gave€during€hisÐ Ö& Ðjuvenile€court€transfer€hearing.€€After€thoroughly€reviewing€the€record,€we€ò òó óconclude€a€remand€isÐ Æ Ðnecessary€in€order€to€determine€the€admissibility€of€the€defendantððs€statements€during€interrogation.€Ð ¶ ÐThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€ò òvacated,ó ó€and€the€case€is€ò òremandedó ó€for€a€new€hearing€on€theÐ ¦ö Ðmotion€to€suppress.€€€€Ð –æ Ðò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Vacated;€Remanded.Ð †Ö Ѐó óÐ v Æ ÐòòRiley,€J.€Ô#†¼åÄ»àXøãí#ÔÔ‡XøãX.¼åÄÔóódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ôóó€and€òòGlennóó,€JJ.€joined.Ð f!¶  ÐÌJohn€Allen€Brooks,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Robert€Blocker.Ð F#–" ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Peter€M.€Ô_ÔCoughlanÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð &%v $ ÐWilliam€H.€Cox€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Rodney€C.€Strong,€Assistant€Attorney€General,Ð &f!% Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 'V"& Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ö'F#' Ѐ€€€€€€€Ð æ(6$( Ðà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼åÄ»XXøãÛ #ÔÔ‡XøãX»¼åÄԈРÖ)&%) ÐÓ  Óò òòòÌFACTSóóó óÐ ¶+'+ ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àDuring€the€evening€of€October€8,€1995,€the€15€year„old€defendant€saw€his€cousin,€17€year„oldÐ –-æ(-ý ÐÔ_ÔCalvin€Trammell.€€While€walking€to€Trammell's€house,€both€individuals€stopped€at€the€home€of€theÐ ° Ðdefendant's€brother,€17€year„old€Delivetrick€Blocker.€€According€to€defendantððs€pretrial€statement,Ð  ð Ðthe€three€of€them€discussed€calling€a€cab€and€robbing€the€driver.€€The€three€individuals€walked€to€aÐ à Ðnearby€convenience€store,€where€they€placed€a€call€to€a€local€cab€company.€€When€the€cab€arrived,Ð €Ð Ðthe€cab€driver€was€instructed€to€take€the€three€individuals€to€a€location€about€a€half€mile€from€theÐ pÀ Ðconvenience€store.€€Ð ` ° ÐÌà  àWhen€the€cab€reached€the€location,€the€defendant's€brother€got€out€of€the€cab€and€put€aÐ @  Ðsawed„off€shotgun€through€the€passenger€side€window,€pointing€it€at€the€cab€driver.€€The€defendant'sÐ 0 € Ðbrother€then€demanded€that€the€cab€driver€give€him€his€money.€€The€cab€driver€began€to€reach€downÐ  p  Ðbeside€the€drivers€seat,€at€which€point€the€defendantððs€brother€shot€and€fatally€wounded€the€driver.€Ð `  ÐThe€defendant's€brother€ran€in€one€direction,€and€the€defendant€ran€with€Trammell€in€a€differentÐ P  Ðdirection.€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ð@  ÐÌà  àOn€October€23,€1995,€€the€defendant,€Calvin€Trammell€and€Delivetrick€Blocker€were€arrestedÐ Ð  Ðin€connection€with€the€murder€of€the€cab€driver.€€All€three€were€taken€to€the€Chattanooga€PoliceÐ À ÐDepartment€where€they€were€interrogated.€€Each€of€the€three€individuals€had€a€parent€or€guardianÐ ° Ðpresent€during€the€questioning,€and€each€waived€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€by€signing€a€rights€waiver.€Ð  ð ÐDuring€questioning,€each€admitted€involvement€in€the€homicide.Ð à ÐÌà  àAt€the€juvenile€level,€the€defendant€filed€an€unsuccessful€motion€to€suppress€the€statementÐ pÀ Ðgiven€to€the€detectives.€€Further,€a€juvenile€transfer€hearing€was€conducted,€and€the€case€wasÐ `° Ðtransferred€to€adult€court.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€criminal€court€held€another€hearing€on€the€motion€toÐ P  Ðsuppress.€€The€juvenile€court€transfer€hearing€transcript€was€admitted€by€agreement€at€the€motionÐ @ Ðto€suppress€hearing,€and€the€motion€to€suppress€was€again€denied.€€Ð 0€ ÐÌà  àA€criminal€court€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€felony€murder€and€attempted€especiallyÐ ` Ðaggravated€robbery.€€For€the€felony€murder€conviction€the€defendant€was€given€a€life€sentence,€andÐ P Ðfor€the€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction€the€defendant€was€given€a€ten€yearÐ ð@ Ðsentence,€both€to€run€concurrently.׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð à0 ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€appeals€the€convictions,€alleging:€(1)€his€statement€was€not€freely€andÐ À! Ðvoluntarily€given;€(2)€the€prosecution€failed€to€present€sufficient€evidence€to€show€that€he€intendedÐ °"  Ðto€commit€a€felony€with€the€co„defendants;€(3)€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€allow€testimonyÐ  #ð! Ðabout€the€defendantððs€statements€shortly€after€the€crime;€(4)€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€theÐ $à" Ðprosecution€to€question€a€co„defendant€about€his€refusal€to€testify€at€his€own€trial;€(5)€the€trial€courtÐ €%Ð # Ðerred€in€allowing€the€prosecution€to€argue€facts€not€presented€in€evidence;€(6)€the€trial€court€erredÐ ° Ðwhen€it€permitted€the€prosecution€to€conduct€recross€examination€on€matters€not€covered€in€redirectÐ  ð Ðexamination;€and€(7)€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€prosecution€to€impeach€the€defendant€withÐ à Ðtestimony€he€gave€during€his€juvenile€court€transfer€hearing.€Ô#†¼åÄ»XXøãÞ#ÔÔ‡XøãX»¼åÄÔÐ €Ð ÐÔ#†¼åÄ»XXøã‚#ÔÔ‡XøãX»¼åÄÔÌòòò òÓ  ÓDEFENDANTððS€CLAIMSóóó óÐ ` ° ÐÌ(1)€Voluntariness€of€StatementÐ @  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€suppress€his€statement€heÐ  p  Ðgave€to€the€detectives€during€interrogation,€claiming€such€statement€was€not€freely€and€voluntarilyÐ `  Ðgiven.€€A€number€of€factors€must€be€considered€in€determining€whether€or€not€the€defendantÐ P  Ðvoluntarily,€knowingly€and€intelligently€waived€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€Ð ð@  ÐÓ€ (Eh83ÓÌÓ€ (ª½88ÓA.€€Standard€of€ReviewÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àÔ‡Xé^ XXXøãÔThe€trial€courtððs€determination€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€the€statement€was€voluntaryÐ ° Ðis€presumptively€correct€on€appeal.€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994).€€ThisÐ œì Ðdetermination€is€binding€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€that€finding.€€òòStateÐ ˆØ Ðv.€Carteróó,€988€S.W.2d€145,€149€(Tenn.€1999).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àWhen€determining€whether€an€accused€has€voluntarily,€knowingly€and€intelligently€waivedÐ Lœ Ðhis€òòMirandaóó€rights,€this€court€must€consider€the€totality„of„the„circumstances€which€existed€whenÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€accused€waived€these€rights.€€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€444,€16€L.E.2d€694,€724€(1966);€Ð $t ÐòòState€v.€Callahanóó,€979€S.W.2d€577,€581€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€326Ð ` Ð(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Bentonóó,€759€S.W.2d€427,€431€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Ð üL ÐÌà  àWhere€the€defendant€is€a€juvenile€and€contends€that€his€or€her€waiver€of€òòMirandaóó€rights€wasÐ Ô$ Ðnot€voluntarily,€knowingly€and€intelligently€made,€such€waiver€ð ðshall€be€analyzed€under€the€totality„Ð À Ðof„the„circumstances€test.ðð€€òòCallahanóó,€979€S.W.2d€at€583.€€òòóóUnder€the€ð ðtotality„of„the„circumstancesÐ ¬ü Ðtest€the€facts€must€reveal€an€uncoerced€choice€and€the€required€level€of€comprehension€before€a€courtÐ ˜ è Ðcan€properly€conclude€that€òòMirandaóó€rights€have€been€waived.ðð€€òòState€v.€Blackstockóó,€__€S.W.3d€__,Ð „!Ô Ð__€(Tenn.€2000).€€When€examining€juvenile€òòMirandaóó€waivers,€this€court€must€closely€examine€theÐ p"À  Ðfollowing€factors:€(1)€all€circumstances€surrounding€the€interrogation,€including,€but€not€limited€toÐ \#¬! Ðthe€juvenileððs€age,€experience,€education,€and€intelligence;€(2)€the€juvenileððs€capacity€to€understandÐ H$˜" Ðthe€òòMirandaóó€warnings€and€the€consequences€of€the€waiver;€(3)€the€juvenileððs€familiarity€withÐ 4%„ # ÐòòMirandaóó€warnings€or€the€ability€to€read€and€write€in€the€language€used€to€give€the€warnings;€(4)€anyÐ  &p!$ Ðintoxication;€(5)€any€mental€disease,€disorder€or€retardation;€and€(6)€the€presence€of€a€parent,Ð  '\"% Ðguardian,€or€interested€adult.€€òòCallahanóó,€979€S.W.2d€at€583Ô#†XøãX XXé^|##ÔÔ‡Xé^ XXXøãÔÔ#†¼§ » XXé^Ù#ÔÔ‡Xé^ X »¼§Ôòòóó.€€òòóóHowever,€one€of€these€factors,€standingÐ ø'H#& Ðalone,€will€not€necessarily€render€a€waiver€of€the€òòMirandaóó€rights€invalid.€€òòIdóó.€€Ô#†XøãX XXé^t-#ÔÔ#†¼åÄ»XXøã¶-#ÔÔ‡XøãX»¼åÄÔÐ ä(4$' ÐÌB.€€Suppression€HearingÐ À*&) ÐÐ °+'* Ðà  àThe€primary€issues€at€the€suppression€hearing€were€whether€the€officers€advised€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€of€his€òòMirandaóó€warnings€prior€to€his€pretrial€statement,€and€whether€he€was€coerced€andÐ  ð Ðintimidated€into€making€the€statement.€€This€was€primarily€a€factual€dispute€between€the€defendantÐ à Ðand€his€mother€versus€the€officers.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€the€officers€had€advised€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendant€of€his€òòMirandaóó€warnings€prior€to€his€pretrial€statement,€and€further€found€that€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€was€not€coerced€by€the€officers€into€making€his€statement.€€Since€these€were€primarilyÐ ` ° Ðcredibility€issues,€the€evidence€at€the€suppression€hearing€does€not€preponderate€against€theseÐ P   Ðfindings.€€Therefore,€based€upon€the€testimony€received€at€the€suppression€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ @  Ðdid€not€err€in€refusing€to€suppress€defendantððs€pretrial€statement.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€that€does€not€end€ourÐ 0 € Ðinquiry.€€Ð  p  Ðà  àÌÔ#†¼åÄ»XXøãÃ.#ÔÔ‡XøãX»¼åÄÔC.€€Trial€TestimonyÐ P  ÐÌà  àTennessee€follows€the€majority€view€that€ð ðappellate€courts€may€consider€evidence€adducedÐ à0  Ðat€trial€in€evaluating€the€correctness€of€a€pretrial€ruling€on€a€motion€to€suppress.ðð€€òòState€v.€Henningóó,Ð Ð  Ð975€S.W.2d€290,€297„98€(Tenn.€1998).€€There€was€significant€and€substantial€testimony€bearing€onÐ À Ðthe€issue€of€voluntariness€of€the€confession€that€was€introduced€at€trial€but€not€introduced€orÐ ° Ðconsidered€in€the€motion€to€suppress.€€Specifically,€there€was€no€expert€testimony€at€the€suppressionÐ  ð Ðhearing€and€no€testimony€concerning€the€juvenile€defendantððs€intelligence€level,€capacity€toÐ à Ðunderstand€the€consequences€of€his€òòMirandaóó€waiver,€or€mental€condition.€€These€are€relevant€factorsÐ €Ð Ðto€consider€in€determining€the€propriety€of€a€juvenileððs€òòMirandaóó€waiver.€€òòCallahanóó,€979€S.W.2d€atÐ pÀ Ð583.Ô#†¼åÄ»XXøã 4#ÔÔ‡XøãX»¼åÄÔ€€Most€of€the€following€evidence,€which€was€introduced€at€trial,€Ô‡Xé^ XXXøãÔwas€never€presented€orÐ `° Ðconsidered€at€the€motion€to€suppress€hearing.€€We€examine€this€evidence€in€light€of€the€factors€to€beÐ `° Ðconsidered€in€determining€whether€the€juvenile€voluntarily€waived€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€òòIdóó.€€€€Ô#†XøãX XXé^¶8#ÔÔ#†¼åÄ»XXøãV8#ÔòòóóòòÔ‡XøãX»¼åÄÔóó€€€€€€Ð Lœ ÐÌà  àIn€October€1995,€the€defendant€was€a€15€year„old€juvenile,€was€approximately€5'€2"€tall,Ð <Œ Ðweighed€90€pounds,€and€had€an€IQ€of€80.€€While€the€defendant€was€15€years€old,€the€defendant€wasÐ ,| Ðfunctioning€with€the€mind€set€of€a€12€or€13€year„old€child.׃%0×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð l ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€had€entered€the€ninth€grade€a€few€weeks€before€the€crimes€in€this€caseÐ üL Ðoccurred.€€However,€records€indicate€that€the€defendant€dropped€out€of€school€shortly€thereafter.€Ð ì < ÐFurther,€the€defendant€had€an€unstable€academic€history.Ð Ü!, ÐÔ#†¼åÄ»XXøã3:#ÔÔ‡XøãX»¼åÄÔÐ Ì"  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€Aside€from€having€a€low€IQ,€the€defendant€was€diagnosed€with€Attention„Ð ° ÐDeficit/Hyperactivity€Disorder,€which€caused€him€to€be€easily€distracted€and€prone€to€actingÐ  ð Ðimpulsively€without€thinking€through€the€consequences.€€The€defendantððs€Attention„Ð à ÐDeficit/Hyperactivity€Disorder€existed€for€at€least€two€years.€€€€The€record€also€indicates€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendant€had€been€ð ðseriously€emotionally€disturbedðð€since€the€age€of€ten,€and€school€officials€hadÐ pÀ Ðrecommended€that€the€defendant€undergo€psychological€testing€when€he€was€13.€Ð ` ° ÐÌà  àA€psychological€examination€of€the€defendant€performed€after€the€crimes€revealed€that€theÐ @  Ðdefendant€was€a€submissive€person€who€was€easily€led€by€others.€€Testimony€at€trial€by€theÐ 0 € Ðexamining€psychiatrist€established€that€as€a€result€of€such€characteristic,€the€defendant€would€haveÐ  p  Ðbeen€easily€led€by€others€during€the€interrogation.€€Further,€testimony€was€given€by€both€theÐ `  Ðdetectives€and€the€defendantððs€mother€that€the€defendant€was€pressured€by€his€mother€to€answer€theÐ P  Ðdetectiveððs€questions.€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô#†¼åÄ»XXøãa=#ÔÔ‡XøãX»¼åÄÔÐ ð@  ÐÌà  àThe€record€indicates€that€the€defendantððs€mother€was€present€when€the€defendant€waived€hisÐ Ð  ÐòòMirandaóó€rights.€€However,€at€trial€she€conceded€she€was€under€the€influence€of€crack€cocaine€whenÐ À Ðshe€was€at€the€police€station€with€the€defendant.€€Further,€the€defendantððs€mother€testified€that€sheÐ ° Ðwanted€the€defendant€to€hurry€up€and€tell€the€detectives€what€they€wanted€to€know€so€she€couldÐ  ð Ðleave.€€Finally,€the€defendantððs€mother€threatened€to€leave€the€defendant€if€he€did€not€cooperate.€Ð à ÐWhile€the€defendantððs€mother€was€physically€present€at€the€interrogation,€her€actions€were€coercive.€Ð €Ð Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€Ð pÀ Ðà  àFinally,€testimony€was€received€regarding€the€defendantððs€ability€to€comprehend€the€òòMirandaóóÐ `° Ðwarnings.€€Expert€testimony€indicated€that€the€juvenile€defendant€could€understand€the€words€of€theÐ P  ÐòòMirandaóó€warnings,€but€he€had€problems€understanding€the€effect€of€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings.Ð @ ÐÌD.€€Our€DeterminationÐ  p ÐÌà  àAlthough€we€have€a€right€to€consider€this€trial€testimony,€we€are€reluctant€to€conclusivelyÐ P Ðdetermine€the€effect€of€this€testimony€upon€the€voluntariness€of€the€statement€that€the€defendant€hasÐ ð@ Ðsought€to€suppress.€€We€were€not€present€to€judge€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€at€the€motion€toÐ à0 Ðsuppress€or€at€the€trial.€€Further,€the€trial€court€has€not€had€an€opportunity€to€address€this€issue€inÐ Ð  Ðlight€of€the€trial€testimony.€€Thus,€we€believe€it€to€be€appropriate€to€remand€the€suppression€issueÐ À! Ðfor€another€hearing.€€In€doing€so,€we€recognize€that€the€trial€court€is€not€responsible€for€the€necessityÐ °"  Ðof€the€remand.€€At€the€suppression€hearing€the€trial€court€properly€ruled€based€upon€the€evidenceÐ  #ð! Ðpresented€at€the€hearing.€€Nevertheless,€a€remand€is€necessary€in€light€of€the€evidence€introduced€atÐ $à" Ðtrial.Ð €%Ð # ÐÌÓ  Ó(2)€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÐ `'°"% ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€prosecution€failed€to€present€sufficient€evidence€to€show€thatÐ @)$' Ðthe€defendant€intended€to€commit€a€felony€with€the€co„defendants.€€ò òÔ‡Xé^ XXXøãÔó óOn€appeal,€the€state€is€entitledÐ 0*€%( Ðto€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€legitimate€or€reasonable€inferences€whichÐ 0+€&) Ðmay€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994)òòòòóóóó.€This€Court€will€notÐ ,l'* Ðdisturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€defendant€demonstrates€thatÐ ° Ðthe€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€the€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom€are€insufficient,Ð œì Ðas€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€accused€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð ˆØ ÐòòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Accordingly,€it€is€the€appellate€court'sÐ tÄ Ðduty€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€the€evidence,€viewed€under€these€standards,€was€sufficient€for€anyÐ `° Ðrational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð L œ ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.Ed.2dÐ 8 ˆ Ð560€(1979);€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).€€Ô#†XøãX XXé^˜L#ÔÔ#†¼åÄ»XXøãÁB#ÔÔ‡XøãX»¼åÄÔÐ $ t ÐÌà  àViewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€as€we€must,€the€defendant€hadÐ  P  Ðengaged€in€a€conversation€about€robbery€with€his€co„defendants€prior€€to€the€victim€being€robbed€andÐ ð @  Ðshot.€€According€to€the€defendantððs€statement,€he€knew€his€brother€had€a€gun€when€he€got€into€theÐ à0  Ðcab.€€As€long€as€the€intent€exists€to€commit€the€robbery€prior€to€or€concurrent€with€the€killing,€theÐ Ð  Ðunderlying€felony€is€transferred€to€elevate€an€unintentional€killing€to€felony€murder.€€òòState€v.€Buggsóó,Ð À  Ð995€S.W.2d€102,€107€(Tenn.€1999).€€The€fact€that€the€defendant€may€not€have€intended€that€a€killingÐ °  Ðtake€place€is€not€determinative.€€A€defendant€is€criminally€responsible€for€the€crime€of€his€co„Ð  ð  Ðdefendant€as€the€natural€and€probable€consequence€of€the€contemplated€armed€robbery.€€òòState€v.Ð à ÐCarsonóó,€950€S.W.2d€951,€956€(Tenn.€1997).€€A€rational€trier€of€fact€could€conclude€the€defendantÐ €Ð Ðhad€the€requisite€intent€to€commit€the€armed€robbery€with€his€co„defendants€prior€to€the€time€theÐ pÀ Ðkilling€took€place.€€€Accordingly,€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€guilty€verdict.€€€Ð `° ÐÌÓ  Ó(3)€Exculpatory€StatementÐ @ ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€allow€testimony€that€tended€toÐ  p Ðexculpate€the€defendant.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€wished€to€introduce€testimony€from€TrammellÐ ` Ðthat€defendant€made€an€exculpatory€statement€while€they€were€fleeing€from€the€scene.€€A€review€ofÐ P Ðthe€record€shows€that€after€an€objection€was€sustained€on€grounds€of€hearsay,€there€was€no€offer€ofÐ ð@ Ðproof€as€to€what€the€testimony€would€have€been.€€We€will€not€speculate€as€to€the€nature€of€thisÐ à0 Ðtestimony.€€This€issue€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€103;€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€òòóó€€€€€Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ  Ó(4)€Co„Defendantððs€TestimonyÐ °  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€prosecution€to€ask€co„Ð "à  Ðdefendant€Trammell,€ð ðOkay,€when€you€had€an€opportunity€to€testify€in€your€own€trial,€did€you?ðð€Ð €#Ð! ÐHowever,€we€note€that€Trammell€had€earlier€testified€without€objection€that€he€did€not€testify€at€hisÐ p$À" Ðtrial.€€Furthermore,€we€note€that€Trammell€never€responded€to€the€subject€question€after€counselÐ `%° # Ðobjected.€€Since€defendant€has€demonstrated€no€prejudice,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€Tenn€R.€App.Ð P& !$ ÐP.€36(b).€Ð @'"% ÐÓ  ÓÌ(5)€Closing€ArgumentÐ  )p$' ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€prosecution€to€argue€factsÐ +P&) Ðnot€presented€in€testimony.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€prosecuting€attorneyÐ ð+@'* Ðincorrectly€summarized€the€testimony€of€the€defendantððs€mother.€€However,€our€review€of€the€recordÐ ° Ðshows€that€the€prosecuting€attorneyððs€statement€was€accurate.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð  ð ÐÌÌÌÓ  Ó(6)€Scope€of€Recross€Examination€Ð ` ° ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€permitted€the€prosecution€to€conductÐ @  Ðrecross€examination€on€grounds€not€covered€in€redirect€examination.€€The€scope€of€questions€askedÐ 0 € Ðwhen€examining€a€witness€is€at€the€trial€courtððs€discretion,€and€this€court€will€not€disturb€such€aÐ  p  Ðdecision€absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Barnardóó,€899€S.W.2d€617,€624€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð `  ÐApp.€1994).€€This€court€finds€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court.òòóóÐ P  ÐÌÓ  Ó(7)€Juvenile€Court€TestimonyÐ à0  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€prosecution€to€impeach€theÐ À Ðdefendant€with€testimony€he€gave€during€his€juvenile€court€transfer€hearing.€€At€trial€the€defendant€Ð ° Ðtestified€that€he€initially€said€nothing€to€the€officers€about€the€offense.€€He€was€then€impeached€withÐ  ð Ðhis€juvenile€hearing€testimony€in€which€he€stated€that€he€told€the€officers€he€ð ðdidnððt€have€anythingÐ à Ðto€do€with€it.ððÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àPursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„134(f)(1),€ð ð[s]tatements€made€by€the€child€at€theÐ `° Ðjuvenile€court€hearing...are€not€admissible€against€the€child€over€objection€in€the€criminalÐ P  Ðproceedings€following€the€transfer.ðð€€The€state€contends€the€statute€was€not€designed€to€prohibitÐ @ Ðimpeachment€evidence.€€The€statute,€however,€has€no€such€exception.€€Regardless,€we€conclude€thatÐ 0€ Ðif€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€this€evidence,€it€was€harmless.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b)Ô#†¼åÄ»XXøãÖQ#ÔÔ‡XøãX»¼åÄÔ.€€Ð  p ÐÓ!ÓÌÓÒfÓÓ  Óò òòòCONCLUSIONÐ ð@ Ðó óóóÓ  ÓÌà  àThis€court€vacates€the€convictions€of€the€defendant€and€remands€this€case€for€another€hearingÐ Ð  Ðon€the€motion€to€suppress.€€The€parties€may€rely€upon€evidence€already€in€the€record€and/or€mayÐ À! Ðintroduce€additional€evidence€relevant€to€this€issue.€€If€the€trial€court€overrules€the€motion€toÐ °"  Ðsuppress,€it€shall€enter€an€order€accordingly€and€reinstate€the€judgments€of€conviction€from€whichÐ  #ð! Ðthe€defendant€may€appeal.€€If€the€trial€court€grants€the€motion€to€suppress,€it€should€grant€a€new€trialÐ $à" Ðin€which€the€defendantððs€pretrial€statement€will€not€be€introduced.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€€€Ð €%Ð # Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô#†¼åÄ»XXøã›f#ÔÔ‡XøãX»¼åÄÔ