ÿWPC£6 …U :V %U.–ÄnXÔ, 0 4 U:J w@„ 4Ä 0ZØ 0D2 0Jv 1mÀ 0d- 0T‘ 0^å 0hC 0r« 0| 0†™ 0 1u¯ 0d$U:ˆB) BëDC AMKǘ D3_Þ’p 0@ñ15?";t%v~¯(vÓ-* 00 0Š0 0 1 0´¹1 0Çm2 0Û43 0ï4 AOþ4ÆM5 0D6 D/W6 B†6<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|xß«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTTTXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP(îMC$¡¡Ñ7€ ©Ñ XXdðXXdÖ7ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÔ€X›XXXÔÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÑTRY3Ø' Letter[  AØ'ÿred3Ø' Letter AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÆÇDÈÐFeÑÒDÓgÔÕÖÓ€Ô¡¨ ppppp8( (3»õ$¤¤Ý ƒMC!ÝÑ7€  XXdðdÖ7ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÔ€XÐáXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÑTRY3Ø' Letter3Ø' 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôtuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ½Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌJulyÏ31,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxd ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€ôÔSheila€Holman€grew€up€in€her€grandparentsðð€home€and€she€considered€them€to€be€her€parents.Ì wÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔÑ7À Ö8 XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€òòHawkins€v.€Stateóó,€220€Tenn.€383,€390,€417€S.W.2d€774,€777€(1967);€òòCrawford€v.€Stateóó,€197ÏTenn€411,€415,€273€S.W.2d€689,€691€(1954)€(told€brother€he€was€dying);€òòHelton€v.€Stateóó,€195€Tenn.€36,Ï49,€255€S.W.2d€694,€699€(1953)€(told€aunt€she€was€dying);€òòState€v.€Keelsóó,€753€S.W.2d€140,€144€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1988)€(told€son€he€was€going€to€leave€him);€òòState€v.€Lunsfordóó,€603€S.W.2d€at€747€(toldÏemergency€room€personnel€she€was€going€to€die);€òòFloyd€v.€Stateóó,€596€S.W.2d€836,€838€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1979)€(told€family€treatment€was€useless);€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€542€S.W.2d€827,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1976)€(told€brother€and€brotherððs€friend,€ð ðJimmie,€you€killed€me,€you€shot€me.ðð);€€òòState€v.€Darrell€Frittsóó,€No.Ï132,€Monroe€County,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sept.€25,€1992),€òòappóó.€òòdismissedóó€(Tenn.€Feb.€1,Ï1993)€(told€wife€he€was€dying).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔÑ7À Ö8 XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€òòState€v.€Branamóó,€604€S.W.2d€892,€894„95€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€(struggling€to€breathe,Ïjerking€and€rolling€spasmodically,€died€within€moments);€òòCrawford€v.€Stateóó,€197€Tenn.€at€415„16,€273ÏS.W.2d€at€691€(intestines€protruding€from€large€wound€in€abdomen;€died€within€45€minutes);€òòState€v.ÏMuseóó,€637€S.W.2d€468,€470€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982)€(intermittent€breathing,€glazed€eyes,€semi„conscious);€òòKilburn€v.€Stateóó,€509€S.W.2d€237,€238„39€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973)€(severe€peritonitis,€blueÏfingernails,€weakness).Ì +Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔ€òòFloyd€v.€Stateóó,€596€S.W.2d€at€838€(patient€instinctively€aware€of€impending€death);€òòMcDonald€v.ÏStateóó,€542€S.W.2d€388,€389€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976)€(chance€of€recovery€was€nil);€òòState€v.€Darrell€Frittsóó,€Ïslip€op.€at€5€(chest€filled€with€blood,€difficult€breathing);€òòState€v.€Isaac€Lydell€Herronóó,€Shelby€County,€slipÏop.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€10,€1985)€(serious€doubt€that€victim€would€reach€hospital€alive).Ì 1Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔÑ7À Ö8 XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€òòState€v.€Keelsóó,€753€S.W.2d€at€144€(17€hours);€òòState€v.€Lunsfordóó,€603€S.W.2d€at€746€(39€days);ÏòòFloyd€v.€Stateóó,€596€S.W.2d€at€839€(2€days);€òòMcDonald€v.€Stateóó,€542€S.W.2d€at€389€(43€days);€òòKilburn€v.ÏStateóó,€509€S.W.2d€at€239€(7€days);€òòState€v.€Isaac€Lydell€Herronóó,€slip€op.€at€5€(3€days).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 Ò(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  Ý›Ó  ÓÑ7€ÆÆXXdÖ XXdð7ÑÑ  Ñò òÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙßR€()%A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àó óIN€THE€TENNESSEE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÌÌ€à@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àJUNE€1994€SESSIONÌà àò òÌó óÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àÌÓ` ÜS` ˜XÓà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9401„CR„00029Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMARUJA€PAQUITA€COLEMAN,à àà àà à)à àHonorable€Ann€Lacy€Johns,ÏJudge€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à à(Second€Degree€Murder)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòà àFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌKarl€Dean€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌ€€€€€and€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àà àandÌJohn€D.€Wiethe€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àEugene€HoneaÌCynthia€Burns€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌAssistant€Public€Defendersà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ1202€Stahlman€Buildingà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌNashville,€TN€37201Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRoger€MooreÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDon€HimmelburgÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€SquareÌà àà àà àà àà àà à222€2nd€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌà àÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMED€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌPER€CURIAM€€ÌÌÑ7€ÐáXXdæXXdÖ7ќ̛ÌÓ  ÓÓ` p` ˜XÓà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óàH““4“àÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€defendant,€Maruja€Paquita€Coleman,€appeals€as€of€right€from€herÏjudgment€of€conviction€in€the€Criminal€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€second€degreeÏmurder,€a€Class€A€felony.€€She€was€sentenced€to€twenty„five€years€in€the€custody€of€theÏDepartment€of€Correction€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€be€served€consecutivelyÏto€a€sentence€for€which€she€had€been€on€parole.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€theÏdefendant€presents€the€following€issues:€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à(1)€Is€the€evidence€sufficient€to€support€her€conviction€forÏsecond€degree€murder?ÌÌà8 à(2)€Did€the€trial€court€properly€admit€into€evidenceÏstatements€of€the€deceased€under€the€dying€declarationÏexception€to€the€hearsay€rule?ÌÌà8 à(3)€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€imposing€the€maximumÏsentence?ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓWe€hold€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€defendant'sÏconviction€for€second€degree€murder€and€that€no€error€exists.€ÌÌà àThe€facts€surrounding€this€offense€involve€an€incident€in€the€earlyÏmorning€hours€of€September€2,€1992,€in€which€Sheila€Annette€Holman€receivedÏsecond€and€third€degree€burns€that€covered€her€upper€torso.€€Her€injuries€eventuallyÏproved€fatal€and€she€died€ten€days€later.€€At€first,€both€Ms.€Holman€and€the€defendantÏsaid€that€the€fire€started€as€they€tried€to€pour€gasoline€into€Ms.€Holman's€car.€€Later,Ïboth€acknowledged€that€they€had€quarreled€and€that,€during€a€struggle,€Ms.€HolmanÏwas€doused€with€gasoline.€€The€defendant€was€arrested€for€aggravated€assault,€butÏafter€Ms.€Holman's€death,€she€was€indicted€for€second€degree€murder.ÌÌà àTestimony€at€trial€revealed€that€on€the€morning€of€September€2,€1992,€EdÏJones,€the€victimððs€grandfather,€awakened€at€about€four€oððclock.€€He€thought€he€heardÏa€dog€barking€and€went€to€look€out€into€his€yard.€€When€he€saw€fires€burning€in€hisÏgranddaughterððs€front€yard,€he€shouted€to€his€wife,€Pearl,€to€call€the€fire€department.€ÍAs€Mrs.€Jones€telephoned,€Mr.€Jones€watched€the€victim€and€the€defendant€walkÏthrough€the€shrubbery€that€separated€the€two€properties€and€come€to€where€he€wasÏwaiting€on€the€back€porch.€€When€he€saw€that€his€granddaughterððs€clothing€was€"allÏjust€strings"€and€"she€was€sooted€and€dirty€and€raggedity,"€he€asked€her€what€hadÏhappened€to€her.€€She€told€him€that€they€had€been€putting€gasoline€in€the€carburetorÏand€it€had€exploded.ÌÌà àBy€the€time€Mrs.€Jones€stepped€onto€the€porch,€the€victim€was€sittingÏthere€and€the€defendant€was€standing€next€to€her.€€She€saw€that€her€granddaughterÏhad€been€badly€burned€and€that€her€clothing€was€"just€melted€to€her€skin."€€When€herÏgranddaughter€said,€"Momma,€Momma,€Iððm€burning,€Iððm€burning,"€Mrs.€Jones€wentÏback€inside€and€called€911.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€Within€moments€the€fire€department,€the€paramedics€andÏthe€police€arrived.€€As€the€rescue€squad€carried€the€vicitm€to€the€waiting€ambulance,Ïthe€defendant€asked€her€if€she€wanted€the€defendant€to€come€to€the€hospital.€€TheÏvictim€€did€not€answer,€but€called€"Come€on.€€Momma,€come€on."€€Before€leaving€in€theÏambulance,€Mrs.€Jones€heard€the€defendant€say€that€she€wanted€to€go€to€the€V.A.ÏHospital€because€she€had€been€burned€as€well.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€emergency€room,€Detective€David€Miller€spoke€with€the€victim.€€HeÏdescribed€her€as€in€pain€but€lucid.€€He€advised€her€that€she€was€in€"very€seriousÏcondition."€€She€told€him€that€she€and€the€defendant€had€been€in€a€fight,€a€domesticÏargument,€and€that€when€the€defendant€had€thrown€gasoline€on€her,€she€was€engulfedÏin€flames.€€The€victim€said€that€the€defendant€was€smoking€a€cigarette€at€the€time,€butÏshe€did€not€know€whether€the€defendant€had€flicked€a€lighter€or€thrown€the€cigarette.€ÏThe€detective€asked€her€if€"this€was€intentional,"€and€she€said€yes.€€When€he€asked€herÏif€she€wanted€to€prosecute€the€defendant,€she€said€yes.€ÌÌà àPolice€at€the€scene€quickly€determined€that€the€fire€could€not€have€startedÏthe€way€the€victim€and€the€defendant€had€first€described€it.€€The€hood€on€theÏautomobile€was€closed,€and€there€was€no€sign€of€any€fire€damage€under€the€hood€orÏanywhere€on€or€near€the€automobile.€€The€gasoline€can€was€sitting€in€the€middle€of€theÏfront€yard.€€A€patch€of€grass€near€the€can€was€burned.€€Five€smaller€burnt€patches€wereÏscattered€about€the€yard,€but€none€were€near€the€driveway€where€the€car€was€parked.€ÏBoth€the€front€and€the€back€doors€to€the€house€were€open,€and€the€victimððs€two€sonsÏwere€asleep€inside€their€bedroom.€€In€the€living€room,€the€police€found€empty€liquorÏand€beer€bottles€and€glasses€half„filled€with€a€clear€liquor.€€An€empty,€quart€beer€bottleÏwas€found€sitting€upright€near€the€driveway.ÌÌà àWhen€questioned,€the€defendant€at€first€held€to€her€earlier€story,€but€sheÏbecame€increasingly€nervous€and€soon€admitted€that€she€and€the€victim€hadÏfabricated€the€earlier€version.€€In€her€written€statement€and€in€her€testimony€at€trial,€theÏdefendant€stated€that€she€and€the€victim€had€become€acquainted€at€work€and€wereÏlovers.€€After€a€long€bout€of€drinking€and€smoking€crack€cocaine,€the€two€had€argued.€ÏThe€defendant€wanted€to€break€off€their€affair,€and€the€victim€became€furious.€ÏAccording€to€the€defendant,€the€victim€had€chased€her€out€of€the€back€door€and€flungÏblack€pepper€in€her€face.€€When€the€defendant€ran€around€to€the€front€of€the€house,Ïshe€found€the€victim€taking€the€top€off€the€gas€can€that€was€on€the€front€porch.€€The€twoÏstruggled,€and€when€the€victim€grabbed€the€can€away,€gasoline€slopped€on€her.€€AsÏthe€defendant€turned€to€walk€toward€the€car,€she€lit€a€cigarette.€€The€victim€followed€herÏand€asked€her€for€a€light.€€When€she€turned€around€and€extended€her€hand€toward€theÏvictim,€the€victimððs€long€thin€blouse€burst€into€flames.€€The€victim€ran€screaming€aroundÏthe€yard€and€the€defendant€chased€her.€€When€the€defendant€caught€the€victim,€sheÏknocked€the€victim€to€the€ground€and€helped€smother€the€flames€with€her€hands€andÏbody.€€The€two€women€then€concocted€the€story€they€first€told€and€walked,€hand€inÏhand,€to€the€grandparentsðð€nearby€home.€€Throughout,€the€defendant€maintained€thatÏthey€accidentally€spilled€and€ignited€the€gasoline.€ÌÌÓ` °‚X˜XÓà àMrs.€Jones€testified€that€during€the€ten€days€before€the€victim€died,€sheÏhad€visited€her€frequently.€€On€three€separate€occasions,€Mrs.€Jones€asked€the€victimÏwhether€"that€woman€(meaning€the€defendant)€had€done€this€to€her."€€Mrs.€JonesÏtestified€that,€each€time,€her€granddaughter€had€nodded€her€head€as€if€to€say€yes.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Charles€Harlan,€the€stateððs€medical€examiner,€presented€the€onlyÏmedical€testimony€at€trial.€€He€found€many€second€and€third€degree€burns€on€theÏvictimððs€body.€€There€were€also€burns€on€the€front€of€the€right€leg€and€on€the€posteriorÏaspect€of€the€legs.€€The€most€serious€burns€were€found€on€the€back€and€front€of€theÏtorso€and€to€the€arms.€€Dr.€Harlan€stated€that€the€victim€had€died€of€pneumoniaÏresulting€from€pulmonary€edema€and€that,€within€a€reasonable€degree€of€medicalÏcertainty,€the€burns€caused€Sheila€Holmanððs€death.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€testified€in€similar€fashion€to€the€last€statement€that€sheÏgave€police€relative€to€the€incident€being€accidental.€€She€proved€that€she€had€secondÏdegree€burns€to€the€four€fingers€on€her€left€hand,€and€to€portions€of€her€left€arm.€€ÌÌà0 àà àà@ àò òIó óÌà à€€€€€€€When€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questioned€on€appeal,€theÏstandard€of€review€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€toÍthe€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÏcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.Ï2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€but€mustÏpresume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€allÏreasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€ÌÌà àThe€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€forÏsecond€degree€murder€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tennessee€law€defines€secondÏdegree€murder€as€the€unlawful€"knowing€killing€of€another."€€T.C.A.€ðððð€39„13„201€andÌ„210(1).€€"A€person€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€a€result€of€the€personððs€conductÏwhen€the€person€is€aware€that€the€conduct€is€reasonably€certain€to€cause€the€result."€ÏT.C.A.€€ðð€39„11„302(b).€€The€jury€heard€evidence€from€which€a€rational€trier€of€factÏcould€find€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€after€a€long€argument€in€which€the€victimÏchased€the€defendant€out€of€the€house€and€threw€pepper€in€her€eyes,€the€defendantÏset€fire€to€the€victim€knowing€that€the€victimððs€death€was€reasonably€certain€to€result.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àThe€defendant€complains€about€the€admission€into€evidence€of€theÏvictimððs€statements€to€Detective€Miller€and€her€grandmother€at€the€hospital.€€SheÏcontends€that€the€statements€are€inadmissible€hearsay,€not€qualifying€as€dyingÏdeclarations€because€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€establish€that€the€victim€wasÏconscious€of€her€impending€death€at€the€time€she€made€the€statements.€€The€stateÏresponds€that€her€consciousness€of€impending€death€may€be€inferred€from€theÏcharacter€of€the€wounds€and€that,€in€this€instance,€the€five€photographs€depicting€theÏnature€of€the€wounds€show€that€the€requirements€of€a€dying€declaration€are€satisfied.€€ÌÌà àAs€a€starting€point,€we€will€discuss€the€burden€of€proof€in€the€trial€courtÏand€the€standard€of€appellate€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€findings€and€conclusions.€€TheÏtrial€court€conducted€a€jury„out€hearing€at€the€beginning€of€the€trial€in€order€toÏdetermine€the€admissibility€of€the€statements.€€After€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€foundÏthat€based€on€the€seriousness€of€the€victimððs€condition€and€the€fact€that€the€victim€wasÏlucid€and€able€to€assess€her€condition,€that€the€requirements€for€a€dying€declarationÏhad€been€met.€€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€burden€was€on€the€state€as€the€proponent€of€hearsayÏstatements€to€justify€their€admission€as€exceptions€to€the€hearsay€rule€of€exclusion,€inÏthis€case€as€dying€declarations.€€To€carry€that€burden,€the€state€was€obligated€to€proveÍto€the€trial€court€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€the€existence€of€the€preliminaryÏfacts€needed€to€show€that€the€statements€were€dying€declarations.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏStamperóó,€863€S.W.2d€404,€405„06€(Tenn.€1993)€(preponderance€of€the€evidenceÏstandard€applies€to€hearsay€exception€preliminary€facts).€€Essentially,€this€means€thatÏthe€trial€court€must€find€that€it€is€more€probable€than€not€that€the€preliminary€facts€exist.€ÏOnce€the€trial€court€makes€such€a€finding,€the€evidence€is€admissible.ÌÌà àFor€appellate€review€of€such€trial€court€findings€by€the€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence,€the€standard€is€different.€€In€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996),Ïour€supreme€court€was€confronted€with€findings€of€the€trial€court€under€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€standard€resulting€from€a€motion€to€suppress€hearing.€ÏIt€concluded€that€ð ða€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€a€suppression€hearing€will€be€upheldÏunless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€23.€€In€so€holding,€it€noted€thatÏquestions€of€witness€credibility,€the€weight€and€value€of€evidence,€and€resolution€ofÏconflicts€in€the€evidence€are€entrusted€to€the€trial€court€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòId.óó€€It€alsoÏstated€that€the€winning€party€in€the€trial€court€was€entitled€on€appeal€to€the€ð ðstrongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€at€the€hearing€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÏinferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€that€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Given€the€fact€that€the€sameÏpreponderance€standard€of€proof€applies€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€preliminary€factsÏin€this€case,€we€believe€that€the€same€standard€of€review€applies.ÌÌà àRule€804(b)(2),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€provides€the€circumstances€that€allow€forÏthe€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€that€is€historically€known€as€a€dying€declaration:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àà àòòStatement€Under€Belief€of€Impending€Death.óó€€In€aÏprosecution€for€homicide,€a€statement€made€by€the€victimÏwhile€believing€that€the€declarantððs€death€was€imminent€andÏconcerning€the€cause€or€circumstances€of€what€theÏdeclarant€€believed€to€be€impending€death.€€ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€rationale€for€admitting€these€statements€is€that€the€awareness€of€impending€deathÏis€equivalent€to€the€sanction€of€an€oath.€€òòSeeóó€òòAnthony€v.€Stateóó,€19€Tenn.€265,€278Ï(1838),€òòcitedóó€òòinóó€òòBeard€v.€Stateóó,€485€S.W.2d€882,€885€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972);€òòState€v.ÏLunsfordóó,€603€S.W.2d€745,€746„47€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€The€rule€retains€theÏcommon€law€limitations€to€the€admission€of€dying€declarations.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï804(b)(2),€Advisory€Committee€Comments.€€ÌÌà àThere€are€four€preliminary€facts€to€be€proven€for€the€admission€of€aÏhearsay€statement€as€a€dying€declaration:€(1)€the€declarant€must€be€dead,€(2)€theÏstatement€must€be€admitted€only€in€a€homicide€prosecution€in€which€the€declarant€isÏthe€victim,€(3)€the€statement€must€concern€the€cause€or€circumstances€of€death,€and€(4)Ïthe€declarant€must€have€spoken€or€written€the€statement€under€the€belief€that€deathÏwas€imminent.€€Of€the€four,€the€knowledge€of€impending€death€provides€the€indicia€ofÍreliability€and€truth€that€justifies€the€admission€of€the€statement.€€òòSeeóó€Neil€P.€Cohen,€etÏal.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€804(b)(2).1,€at€599€(3d€ed.€1995).ÌÌà àUnder€Tennessee€law,€it€is€not€necessary€that€the€declarant€stateÏunequivocally€a€belief€that€death€is€imminent.€€Awareness€of€impending€death€hasÏbeen€inferred€from€the€language€and€condition€of€the€declarant,œ× ƒ, ××  ×›€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€statement,× ƒ. ××  ×€and€medical€testimony€concerning€theÏseriousness€of€the€victimððs€condition.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€The€fact€that€a€victim€does€not€die€shortly€afterÍmaking€the€statement€does€not€preclude€its€admission€as€a€dying€declaration€if€theÏrequirements€of€the€rule€are€satisfied.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€most€telling€point€is€the€large€extent€to€which€the€victimððsÏbody€was€burned.€€Dr.€Harlanððs€report€reflects€that€sixty„five€percent€of€the€victimððs€bodyÏwas€involved.€€Although€the€photographs€showing€the€victim€ten€days€after€the€burnsÏparticularly€support€the€finding€that€the€victimððs€hospital€statements€to€her€grandmotherÏwere€dying€declarations,€they€also€are€probative€of€the€severe€extent€of€the€burnsÏsuffered€by€the€victim.€€In€this€respect,€they€support€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€theÏvictim€was€aware€of€her€impending€death€at€the€time€she€talked€to€Detective€Miller.€ÏUnder€these€circumstances,€we€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€of€record€preponderatesÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€findings€that€justify€the€conclusion€that€the€statements€in€issueÏare€dying€declarations.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIIIÌó óà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€theÏmaximum€sentence€of€twenty„five€years€for€a€Range€I,€standard€offender.€€She€statesÍthat€the€trial€court€applied€enhancement€factors€(5),€treating€the€victim€with€exceptionalÏcruelty,€and€(13)(B),€committing€a€felony€while€on€parole.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114.€ÏShe€asserts€that€factor€(5)€does€not€apply€and€that€the€remaining€factor€does€not€justifyÏthe€€sentence€imposed.€ÌÌà àHowever,€the€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€actually€found€theÏfollowing€enhancement€factors€listed€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114€to€apply:€(1)€the€defendantÏhas€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€and€behavior,€(5)€the€defendant€treatedÏthe€victim€with€exceptional€cruelty,€(6)€the€victimððs€injuries€were€particularly€great,€(8)Ïthe€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€ofÏa€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community,€(10)€the€defendant€had€no€hesitationÏabout€committing€a€crime€where€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€(13)(B)€the€felonyÏoccurred€while€the€defendant€was€on€parole,€and€(16)€the€crime€was€committed€underÏcircumstances€under€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.€€TheÏtrial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors.ÌÌà àIn€this€respect,€although€the€state€acknowledges€that€factors€(10)€and€(16)Ïshould€not€apply,€given€that€murder€inherently€includes€these€factors,€it€also€claims€thatÏother€enhancement€factors€apply.€€The€state€argues€that€factor€(9),€use€of€an€explosiveÏdevice€or€deadly€weapon,€should€apply€because€the€defendant€used€gasoline€and€thatÍfactor€(11),€commission€of€a€felony€involving€death€when€previously€convicted€of€aÏfelony€involving€bodily€injury,€applies€because€of€her€prior€aggravated€assaultÏconviction.ÌÌà àAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€but€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€trial€courtððs€determinations€are€correct.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€weight€to€be€given€a€sentencing€factor€is€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion.€ÏòòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments;€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727ÏS.W.2d€229,€235€(Tenn.€1986).€€However,€an€appellate€court€need€not€ignore€theÏexistence€of€other€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors€shown€to€exist€in€the€record.€ÏòòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879,€885€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àFirst,€contrary€to€the€defendantððs€claim,€we€believe€that€the€circumstancesÏwarrant€a€finding€that€the€victim€was€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty.€€Dousing€theÏvictim€with€gasoline€and€setting€her€on€fire,€thereby€leaving€her€with€substantial€burnsÏthat€required€drastic€treatment€and€ultimately€resulted€in€death,€is€a€particularlyÏgruesome€method€of€killing.€€Also,€although€we€doubt€that€the€igniting€of€gasolineÏpoured€onto€the€victim€constitutes€the€use€of€an€explosive€device,€òòcompareóó€T.C.A.€ððÏ39„17„1301(3)€(explosive€weapon),€we€agree€with€the€state€that€the€defendant€usedÏthe€gasoline€in€a€manner€to€make€it€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(5)(B).€€Likewise,€we€agree€with€the€state€that€enhancement€factor€(11)€shouldÏapply€relative€to€her€prior€aggravated€assault€conviction,€involving€her€shooting€theÏvictim€with€a€shotgun.€ÌÌà àOn€the€other€hand,€although€the€state€concedes€that€factors€(10)€and€(16)Ïshould€not€apply,€we€also€conclude€that€the€fact€that€the€offense€is€murder€precludesÏapplication€of€factor€(6),€regarding€the€defendant€inflicting€particular€great€injuries€uponÏthe€victim.€Needless€to€say,€murder€inherently€involves€the€greatest€of€injuries.€€ÌÌà àThus,€the€defendantððs€sentence€is€subject€to€enhancement€under€factorsÏ(1),€(5),€(8),€(9),€(11)€and€(13)(B).€€There€are€no€mitigating€factors€to€consider.€€UnderÏthe€circumstances€of€the€offense€in€this€case€and€the€defendantððs€background€andÏhistory,€we€conclude€that€the€maximum€sentence€of€twenty„five€years€constitutes€theÏleast€severe€measure€needed€to€achieve€the€purposes€of€sentencing€provided€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102.€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€conviction€is€affirmed.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ