ÿWPC‡! …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU:Ýb w@ 4_ 0ls 0Dß # 0J2 | 0T„ 0^Ø 0h6 0rž 0| 0†Œ 0 1u¢ U, 0dCU,§U >Ó BU *.B)XDC AMÄ D3úLbF 0@¨©èv~‘vÓ AOâÆ1 0D÷ D/;! Bj!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- €E‚ƒE„[…†P‡ˆÓ€”»{s ÔôB((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3|x”2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ þÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òJune€6,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxd ðÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€#ôÔÔ€%ÔTechnically,€these€issues€are€waived€since€Appellant€has€failed€to€make€appropriate€referencesÏto€à0 à›the€record.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€10(b);€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€231€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1988).€€Nevertheless,€we€will€address€these€issues€on€the€merits.€Ì XÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€#ôÔÔ€%Ô€For€the€death€of€Ms.€Yancey,€the€jury€found€Appellant€guilty€of€second€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€à0 àCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210€(Supp.€1995).€€For€the€death€of€the€fetus,€the€jury€found€Appellant€guiltyÏof€reckless€homicide.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð39„13„215;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòid.óó€ðð€39„13„214€(recognizing€a€viable€fetus€asÏa€person€for€the€purposes€of€criminal€homicide).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ŸÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€#ôÔÔ€%ÔAt€first€blush,€the€introduction€of€this€order€appears€to€be€an€improper€use€of€extrinsic€evidenceÏto€à0 àprove€a€specific€instance€of€conduct€denied€by€a€witness.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid€608(b).€€However,Ïspecific€instances€of€conduct€may€be€introduced€for€other€purposes,€such€as€to€rebut€aÏdefendantððs€theory€that€the€charged€offense€was€an€accident€or€mistake.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844ÏS.W.2d€144,€149€(Tenn.€1992).€Ô€#ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ãXdædÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€()';+'h|Æf` Å `€€Lß›ÌAT€JACKSONÌÌFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.ÏNO.€02C02„9507„CR„00185Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àœò ò)à àSHELBY€COUNTY›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHON.€W.€FRED€AXLEY›ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àœPRESIDING€JUDGE›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌGLEN€œD.€CLAYBORNE,›à àà àò ò)à àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àœò ò)à à(Second€Degree€Murder€and€Ìó ó›à àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœReckless€Homicide€„€Direct€Appeal)ó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌLARRY€E.€FITZGERALDà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ22€North€Second€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€410ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àRUTH€ANNE€THOMPSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJAMES€M.€LAMMEY,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38104ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  Óòòò òÔ€%„ÔÑ7€ãXXdæXdæ7ÑOPINIONÔ€%ŠÔó óóóÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àA€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€jury€found€Appellant€Glen€ClayborneÏguilty€of€one€count€of€second€degree€murder€and€one€count€of€reckless€homicide.€ÏAs€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€Appellant€received€a€sentence€of€twenty„fiveÏyears€for€the€second€degree€murder€conviction€and€two€years€for€the€recklessÏhomicide€conviction.€€He€also€received€an€eight€year€sentence€as€a€result€ofÏparole€violation.€€All€sentences€were€ordered€served€consecutively.€€In€thisÏappeal,€Appellant€presents€four€issues€for€review:€(I)€whether€the€evidenceÏpresented€at€trial€is€legally€sufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€second€degreeÏmurder;€(II)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€certain€evidence;€(III)€whetherÏthe€trial€court€erred€in€finding€no€mitigating€factors€in€determining€the€length€of€hisÏsentenceÔ€%ôÔ;€Ô€%ŠÔand€(IV)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€AppellantððsÏtrial€counsel€to€instruct€the€jury€regarding€moral€certainty.× ƒ+ ××  ×ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.ó ó€€ò òSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€alleges€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€legally€insufficientÏto€support€a€conviction€for€second€degree€murder.€€When€an€appeal€challengesÏthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€standard€of€review€is€whether,€after€viewingÏthe€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€any€rational€trier€of€factÏcould€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€318€(1979);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838ÏS.W.2d€185,€190„91€(Tenn.€1992);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€theÏState€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏreasonable€or€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.ÏCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€Court€will€not€reweigh€theÏevidence,€re„evaluate€the€evidence,€or€substitute€its€evidentiary€inferences€forÏthose€reached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Careyóó,€914€S.W.2d€93,€95€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995).€€In€a€criminal€trial,€great€weight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€by€theÏjury.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€910€S.W.2d€897,€899€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àOnce€approved€by€the€trial€court,€a€jury€verdict€accredits€the€witnessesÏpresented€by€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€The€credibility€of€witnessess,€theÏweight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proofÏare€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€A€juryððs€guilty€verdict€removes€theÍpresumption€of€innocence€enjoyed€by€the€defendant€at€trial€and€raises€aÏpresumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€TheÏdefendant€then€bears€the€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption€of€guilt€onÏappeal.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€175€(Tenn.€1991).€€We€will€review€theÏfacts€of€this€case€in€light€of€these€well„established€principles€of€law.€€€ÌÌà àEenetrich€Yancey€was€shot€during€an€argument€with€Appellant.€€TheÏhead€wound€was€inflicted€from€three€or€more€feet€away€and€proved€fatal.€€AtÏthe€time€she€was€shot,€Ms.€Yancey€was€pregnant€with€Appellantððs€baby.€ÏMedical€testimony€established€the€fetus€Ms.€Yancey€was€carrying€was€viableÏand€died€of€suffocation€as€a€result€of€the€motherððs€death.× ƒ, ××  ×€€Appellant€gaveÏvarying€accounts€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€shooting.€€Initially,ÏAppellant€stated€that€Ms.€Yancey€shot€herself€while€playing€with€the€gun.€ÏHowever,€as€the€police€investigation€proceeded,€Appellant€changed€his€story,Ïmaintaining€that€he€pulled€the€trigger€in€the€mistaken€belief€that€the€safety€wasÏengaged.€€Based€on€tests€performed€by€the€police,€it€was€established€that€theÏgun€in€question€would€not€fire€with€the€safety€engaged.ÌÌà àOn€at€least€two€prior€occasions,€Ms.€Yancey€called€the€police€regardingÏdomestic€altercations€with€Appellant.€€Just€two€weeks€before€her€death,€Ms.ÏYancey€stated€that€she€needed€to€get€away€from€Appellant€before€he€killed€her.€ÏOn€one€occasion€prior€to€the€shooting,€Appellant€threatened€Ms.€Yancey€with€aÏgun.€€On€another€occasion,€Appellant€beat€Ms.€Yancey€with€a€stick€of€someÏkind€while€she€was€holding€a€baby.€€In€1991,€she€sought€and€acquired€an€orderÏof€protection€against€Appellant.€€However,€she€continued€to€live€with€AppellantÏfrom€the€time€of€the€order€of€protection€until€the€time€of€the€shooting.ÌÌà àAppellant€testified€that€the€shooting€was€an€accident€and€that€he€did€notÏintend€to€harm€Ms.€Yancey.€€He€stated€that€he€originally€retrieved€the€gun€forÏprotection,€as€he€was€planning€on€going€out€for€the€evening.€€He€conceded€that,Ïas€a€convicted€felon,€the€possession€of€a€firearm€violated€the€conditions€of€hisÏparole.€€According€to€Appellantððs€testimony,€while€he€was€checking€to€makeÏsure€that€the€safety€was€engaged,€Ms.€Yancey€asked€him€to€stop€handling€theÏgun.€€He€responded€to€her€request€by€first€stating€that€the€gun€would€not€fire€withÏthe€safety€engaged€and€then€ð ðplayfullyðð€pointing€the€weapon€at€Ms.€YanceyÏand€pulling€the€trigger.€€The€gun€fired,€and€a€bullet€struck€Ms.€Yancey€in€theÏhead.€€Appellant€stated€that,€immediately€following€the€shooting,€he€told€theÏpolice€that€Ms.€Yancey€shot€herself€because€he€feared€that€the€investigatorsÏwould€not€believe€his€claim€that€the€shooting€was€an€accident.€€AppellantÍadmitted€that€he€had€hit€Ms.€Yancey€in€the€past€but€denied€ever€beating€herÏwith€a€stick€or€pointing€a€gun€at€her€during€an€argument.€€Despite€his€ownÏadmission€to€previous€physical€abuse€of€Ms.€Yancey,€Appellant€testified€thatÏhe€loved€her€and€would€never€have€done€anything€to€hurt€her.€ÌÌà àHaving€heard€the€foregoing€evidence,€the€jury€found€Appellant€guilty€of€theÏsecond€degree€murder€of€Ms.€Yancey.€€In€order€to€sustain€a€conviction€ofÏsecond€degree€murder€in€this€case,€the€State€was€required€to€prove€thatÏAppellant€òòknowinglyóó€killed€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210(a)(1)Ï(Supp.€1995).€€Appellant€argues€that€the€prosecution€failed€to€prove,€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt,€that€the€killing€was€ð ðknowing.ðð€€According€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€39„11„302(b)€(1991),€ð ð[a]€person€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€a€result€of€theÏpersonððs€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€that€the€conduct€is€reasonablyÏcertain€to€cause€the€result.ðð€€The€record€reveals€that,€during€an€argument,ÏAppellant€pointed€a€gun€at€Ms.€Yancey€and€pulled€the€trigger.€€The€record€furtherÏreveals€that€Appellant€had€previously€threatened€Ms.€Yancey€with€a€gun€asÏwell€as€subjected€her€to€other€forms€of€physical€abuse.€€Appellantððs€actionsÏfollowing€the€shooting,€the€evidence€of€past€abuse€by€Appellant,€and€otherÏphysical€and€circumstantial€evidence€are€sufficient€to€allow€a€rational€trier€of€factÏto€find€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Appellant€knowingly,€if€not€intentionally,Ïkilled€Ms.€Yancey.€€Determining€credibility€of€witnesses€and€resolving€conflictsÍbetween€witnesses€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€at€547.€€As€such,€it€was€within€the€province€of€theÏjury€to€disbelieve€Appellantððs€testimony€that€the€shooting€was€an€accident.€ÏInstead,€the€jury€rationally€concluded€that,€based€on€the€evidence€presented€byÏthe€State,€Appellant€was€aware€that€his€conduct€was€reasonably€certain€toÏcause€the€death€of€Ms.€Yancey.€€Appellant€has€failed€to€overcome€hisÏpresumption€of€guilt.€€Thus,€we€find€that,€when€viewed€in€a€light€most€favorableÏto€the€State,€the€evidence€on€the€record€is€legally€sufficient€to€supportÏAppellantððs€conviction€for€second€degree€murder.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òII.€€ADMISSION€OF€EVIDENCEó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€followingÏevidence:€testimony€concerning€prior€fights€between€Appellant€and€Ms.€Yancey,Ïa€1991€protective€order€obtained€by€Ms.€Yancey€against€Appellant,€andÏtestimony€regarding€statements€made€by€Ms.€Yancey€that€Appellant€was€goingÏto€kill€her.€€Appellant€argues€that,€in€each€case,€the€prejudicial€effect€of€theÏevidence€outweighed€its€probative€value.€€The€Tennessee€Rules€of€EvidenceÏprovide€the€following:Ìà àð ðAlthough€relevant,€evidence€may€be€excluded€òòif€its€probative€value€isÏsubstantiallyóó€òòoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudiceóó,€confusion€of€theÏissues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€ofÍtime,€or€needless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence.ððÓÓ€€ÓÓTenn.€R.€Evid€403Ï(emphasis€added).ÌÓÓà8 àEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€proveÏthe€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€withÏthe€character€trait.€€It€may,€however,€be€admissible€for€otherÏpurposes.€€The€conditions€which€must€be€satisfied€before€allowingÏsuch€evidence€are:Ìà0 àÌà0 à(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€juryððsÏpresence;Ìà0 à(2)€The€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€other€thanÏconduct€conforming€with€a€character€trait€and€must€upon€request€state€onÏthe€record€the€material€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€for€admitting€theÏevidence;€andÌà0 à(3)€The€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€òòif€its€probative€value€isÏoutweighed€byóó€òòthe€danger€of€unfair€prejudiceóó.ÓÓÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)(3)€(emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àFirst,€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€excluded€evidenceÏof€Appellantððs€prior€abuse€of€Ms.€Yancey.€€When€determining€the€admissibility€ofÏsuch€testimony,€a€trial€court€must€find€that€a€material€issue€exists€other€than€theÏdefendantððs€propensity€for€conduct€in€conformity€with€these€prior€bad€acts.€€òòStateÏv.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€732€(Tenn.€1994).€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€mustÏexclude€the€evidence€if€the€degree€of€unfair€prejudice€outweighs€the€probativeÏvalue€of€the€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€Here,€the€trial€court€admitted€evidence€of€these€violentÏepisodes€not€to€prove€that€Appellant€acted€in€accord€with€his€character€but€asÏpart€of€the€proof€establishing€intent.€€Violent€acts€indicative€of€the€relationshipÍbetween€the€victim€of€a€violent€crime€and€the€defendant€prior€to€the€commissionÏof€the€offense€are€relevant€to€show€intent.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€574Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€This€evidence€is€particularly€relevant€in€view€of€AppellantððsÏdefense€that€the€shooting€was€an€accident.€€We€conclude€that€the€probativeÏvalue€of€the€testimony€outweighed€its€prejudicial€effect€and€that€the€testimonyÏwas€properly€admitted.€€€ÌÌà àAs€mentioned€previously,€Appellant€testified€that€the€shooting€was€anÏaccident€and€that€he€did€not€intend€to€harm€Ms.€Yancey.€€Further,€AppellantÏdenied€severly€beating€Ms.€Yancey€and€denied€previously€threatening€her€withÏa€gun.€€In€an€effort€to€rebut€this€testimony,€the€State€introduced€a€copy€of€aÏprotective€order€obtained€by€Ms.€Yancey€against€Appellant,€wherein€Ms.ÏYancey€reported€that€Appellant€beat€and€kicked€her€as€well€as€threatened€herÏwith€a€gun.€€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€excluded€the€1991Ïprotective€order,€again€asserting€that€its€prejudicial€effect€outweighed€itsÏprobative€value.× ƒ. ××  ×€€The€order€was€probative€in€showing€a€history€of€abuse€andÏin€rebutting€Appellantððs€claim€that€the€shooting€was€an€accident.€€Furthermore,ÏMs.€Yancey€obtained€the€protective€order€just€two€years€before€the€shooting.€ÍWe€conclude€that€the€probative€value€of€the€protective€order€outweighed€itsÏprejudicial€effect€and€that€the€order€was€properly€admitted.ÌÌà àFinally,€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€excluded€theÏstatement€made€by€Ms.€Yancey€regarding€her€belief€that€Appellant€would€killÏher.€€According€to€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Jenetta€Holmes,€Ms.€Yancey€stated€thatÏshe€ð ðneed[ed]€to€get€away€from€[Appellant]€before€he€kills€me.ðð€€AppellantÏconcedes€that€the€statement€qualifies€as€an€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€butÏargues€that€its€prejudicial€effect€outweighs€its€probative€value.€€However,€underÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€the€state€of€mind€exception€to€the€hearsayÏrule€contemplates€only€that€the€declarantððs€conduct,€not€some€third€partyððsÏconduct,€is€provable€under€this€exception.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(3)€advisoryÏcommission€comments.€€Therefore,€Ms.€Yanceyððs€statement€that€she€feared€forÏher€life€is€not€admissible€to€prove€Appellantððs€state€of€mind€at€the€time€of€theÏshooting.€€We€conclude€that€the€statement€made€by€Ms.€Yancey€wasÏinadmissible€hearsay.€€However,€in€light€of€the€protective€order,€the€otherÏevidence€of€abuse,€and€the€fact€that€the€shooting€occurred€during€an€argument,Ïwe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€introduction€of€Ms.€Yanceyððs€statement€did€notÏunduly€prejudice€the€jury€nor€affect€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€Considering€theÏrecord€as€a€whole,€we€conclude€that€the€admission€of€Ms.€Yanceyððs€statementÏwas€harmless€error.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€SENTENCING€ó óÌÓ  Ó€à àAppellant€next€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€no€mitigatingÏfactors€in€determining€the€length€of€his€sentence.€€When€an€appeal€challengesÏthe€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€the€appellate€courtÏconducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review,€with€a€presumption€that€the€determination€of€the€trialÏcourt€was€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€However,€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€only€applies€when€the€record€demonstrates€that€theÏtrial€court€properly€considered€the€relevant€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevantÏfacts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€ÏIn€conducting€a€review€of€the€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider€the€evidence,Ïthe€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€theÏnature€and€character€of€the€offense,€mitigating€and€enhancement€€factors,€anyÏstatements€made€by€the€defendant,€and€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€orÏtreatment.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€TheÏdefendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€the€impropriety€of€the€sentenceÏimposed.€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àAppellant€asserts€that€the€following€mitigating€factor€is€applicable€to€hisÏsentence:€€ð ðthe€defendant,€although€guilty€of€the€crime,€committed€the€offenseÏunder€such€unusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€toÍviolate€the€law€motivated€his€conduct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(11)Ï(1990).€€Appellant€maintains€that€the€shooting€was€an€accident€and€that€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€accident€make€it€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€toÏviolate€the€law€motivated€his€conduct.€€However,€the€jury€rejected€the€defense€ofÏaccident.€€Moreover,€the€record€reveals€a€number€of€previous€incidents€whereÏAppellant€acted€violently€toward€Ms.€Yancey,€including€threatening€her€with€aÏgun€and€beating€her€with€a€stick€of€some€kind.€€Appellant€also€has€anÏextensive€criminal€record,€reflecting€consistent€criminal€conduct€from€the€age€ofÏfourteen€until€his€arrest€for€these€offenses€at€age€twenty„three.€€In€light€ofÏAppellantððs€history€of€violence€toward€Ms.€Yancey€and€his€extensive€criminalÏrecord,€we€cannot€characterize€murder€as€aberrant€behavior€for€Appellant.€ÏAppellant€has€failed€to€set€forth€circumstances€warranting€the€application€of€this,Ïor€any,€mitigating€factor.€€Thus,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€found€noÏmitigating€factors€in€determining€the€length€of€Appellantððs€sentence.ÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òIV.€€JURY€INSTRUCTION€BY€TRIAL€COUNSELó óÌÓ  Óà àFinally,€Appellant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€hisÏtrial€counsel€to€instruct€the€jury€regarding€moral€certainty.€€Appellant€does€notÏargue€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€provide€an€adequate€definition€of€reasonableÍdoubt€but€instead€that€his€trial€counsel€should€have€been€allowed€to€discussÏmoral€certainty€before€the€jury.€€Regardless€of€whether€the€substance€of€theÏintended€instruction€by€Appellantððs€counsel€was€an€accurate€statement€of€theÏlaw,€a€trial€court€may€prohibit€counsel€from€explaining€the€law€to€the€jury€duringÏvoir€dire.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Washingtonóó,€658€S.W.2d€144,€145€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1983).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGE