ÿWPCùK §ô Ì…º¯á_ “¨»6Òt)ã¯IKêDGܽ 5´ZèéIPÕÛ™íøLôg2P%pû˜µd0Ɇœ•÷z{öû;ûøV›p´€úÛ`Uîmã´êâ¹û{ù*ÂOs°…ŠD_¼‰ ¨‰'iŸô24ã)‹Á^j.ƒãâ¹½'NM%©¬Ý‰µ—™ldÆάîwöñlÎÜd,J;Ø>E(j{vÞyƒ"ˆäH!£7À¨ RD1¨HÞü%ö/\ÉGÄ°y pZD¦ig«°¯ÇW¹¸$» Õ ‚£’Õ´|P½åFÇ´§‘Ö76@Õ ½ƒ5Þ ©ãÈ-ëj ã%þˆ#Jh¿3A0Ÿ=5iúŽšÊ}ƒ²º5;å6u.õ” “è#)“øk§åÔ7cý¦‹…ÀtªcÐù"ð6þí-çç´L+«x58®Fì„UoiÌšÓ#ó£sø·‘‘@?¦nJ§=%LUd?ž7µÝëä¼`ámúél„"¿i”ú3`—ïœTÛ‘QŠ0êôV€isÑ” À*ÑŬÓá†ê:_î0Ù–JV†€z6t=J¸žcŸ†Å›CCðlq\Lï¾´ Äo)…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í b w@ 4O c 0Ær 0 D8 P| LÌtqŒ!ý6<Nr!#À#&ã%± ( º*U:Ã,U:ý,t7-U:«.uå.U:Z1”1 B²4U:Ï46 5U:?:#y:U:œ<!Ö<U:÷>ô1?&%AU:KC …CU:ŽE±ÈEU:yH³H 0D»HèÿH D3çIU:JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ AOTJÆ£J£J 0DiK D/­K BÜK˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- MDNeODPDQRPSTDUVÓ€uM%3|x_(v(2æ@$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X`£XXXÔÔ€ô_¨ôXX`£Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó FÝ ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X#w XXXÔÔ€ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€concedes€that€he€is€either€responsible€for€this€error€or€that€he€failed€to€take€whateverÐ `  Ðaction€was€necessary€to€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€the€error.€€However,€Appellant€suggestsÏthat€he€is€entitled€to€relief€if€subsection€37„1„134(a)(3)€is€mandatory€or€jurisdictional€in€nature.€€AppellantÏcites€no€authority€for€his€proposition,€and€we€are€unaware€of€any.€€Further,€the€fact€that€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€has€held€that€the€entire€transfer€hearing€is€waivable,€òòState€v.€Haleóó,€833€S.W.2d€65,€67Ð X ø  Ð(Tenn.€1992),€indicates€that€there€is€no€reason€why€the€written€notice€of€the€hearing€cannot€also€beÏwaived. BÝ ƒ ]Q$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XöPXXXÔÔ€ôYœôXXöPÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€concedes€that€he€is€either€responsible€for€this€error€or€that€he€failed€to€take€whateverÐ `  Ðaction€was€necessary€to€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€the€error.€€However,€Appellant€suggestsÏthat€he€is€entitled€to€relief€if€subsection€37„1„134(a)(3)€is€mandatory€or€jurisdictional€in€nature.€€AppellantÏcites€no€authority€for€his€proposition,€and€we€are€unaware€of€any.€€Further,€the€fact€that€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€has€held€that€the€entire€transfer€hearing€is€waivable,€òòState€v.€Haleóó,€833€S.W.2d€65,€67Ð . Î Ð(Tenn.€1992),€indicates€that€there€is€no€reason€why€the€written€notice€of€the€hearing€cannot€also€beÏwaived. jÝ ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X#w XXXÔÔ€ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€these€requirements€are€substantially€the€same€as€those€contained€in€the€currentÐ `  Ðversions€of€these€statutes.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€37„1„134,€„159€(Supp.€1998). gÝ ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X#w XXXÔÔ€ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIt€could€be€argued€that€Stuard€also€testified€during€the€acceptance€hearing€that€all€of€the€events€inÐ `  Ðquestion€occurred€in€Montgomery€County.€€The€record€reveals€that€when€the€prosecutor€asked€StuardÏwhether€the€events€occurred€in€Montgomery€County,€Stuard€replied€ð ðUh„huh.ðð€€ò òó óAdmittedly,€however,€thisÐ Ü | Ðresponse€is€somewhat€ambiguous€when€viewed€in€the€context€of€prior€and€subsequent€questions€andÏanswers. Ý ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X#w XXXÔÔ€ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that,€subject€to€exceptions€not€applicable€here,€Rule€16€ð ðdoes€not€authorize€theÐ `  Ðdiscovery€or€inspection€of€reports,€memoranda,€or€other€internal€State€documents€made€by€the€districtÏattorney€general€or€other€State€agents€or€law€enforcement€officers€in€connection€with€the€investigation€orÏprosecution€of€the€case.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(2). Ý ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X#w XXXÔÔ€ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€State€contends€that€Appellant€waived€this€issue€pursuant€to€Rule€12(b)(2)€of€the€TennesseeÐ `  ÐRules€of€Criminal€Procedure€by€failing€to€raise€it€either€before€trial€or€in€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€RuleÏ12(b)(2),€however,€provides€that€either€jurisdictional€defects€or€the€failure€to€properly€charge€an€offenseÏð ðshall€be€noticed€by€the€court€at€any€time€during€the€pendency€of€the€proceedings.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï12(b)(2).€€Thus,€the€waiver€rule€does€not€apply€when€the€indictment€fails€to€assert€an€essential€element€ofÏthe€offense.€€òòState€v.€Perkinsonóó,€867€S.W.2d€1,€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992). ,Ý ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X#w XXXÔÔ€ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€suggests€that€this€court€should€hold,€under€the€ð ðphysical€facts€rule,ðð€that€Stuardððs€beliefÐ `  Ðthat€the€gun€was€real€could€not€possibly€have€been€reasonable.€€Under€this€rule,€courts€can€declareÏtestimony€incredible€as€a€matter€of€law€and€decline€to€consider€it€where€the€testimony€of€a€witness€ð ðcannotÐ Ü | 9 Ðpossibly€be€true,€is€inherently€unbelievable,€or€is€opposed€to€natural€laws.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hornsbyóó,€858€S.W.2dÐ `  Ð892,€894€(Tenn.€1993)€€(citations€omitted).€€ð ðCourts€have€made€it€clear€that€in€order€for€testimony€to€beÏconsidered€incredible€as€a€matter€of€law,€it€must€be€unbelievable€on€its€face,€i.e.,€testimony€as€to€facts€orÏevents€that€the€witness€physically€could€not€have€possibly€observed€or€events€that€could€not€have€occurredÏunder€the€laws€of€nature.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citations€omitted).€€This€rule€has€absolutely€no€application€to€this€case.€Ð X ø ÐStuardððs€belief€is€obviously€not€a€physical€fact.€€Further,€as€previously€explained,€Stuardððs€belief€that€theÏgun€was€real€was€not€impossible,€inherently€unreliable,€or€contrary€to€natural€laws. DÝ ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X#w XXXÔÔ€ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Rule€17(c)€states€that€ð ð[a]€subpoena€may€also€command€a€person€to€whom€it€is€directed€toÐ `  Ðproduce€the€books,€papers,€documents,€or€tangible€things€designated€therein.€€The€court,€upon€motionÏmade€promptly€and€in€any€event€by€the€time€specified€in€the€subpoena€for€compliance€therewith,€mayÏquash€or€modify€the€subpoena€if€compliance€would€be€unreasonable€or€oppressive.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï17(c). Ý ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X#w XXXÔÔ€ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝEven€if€the€trial€court€had€erred,€any€such€error€would€have€been€harmless€in€light€of€the€fact€thatÐ `  ÐAppellant€admitted€having€sexual€intercourse€with€Stuard.€€ò òó óAppellantððs€claim€that€this€sex€act€wasÐ  ¾ Ðconsensual€could€not€have€been€aided€by€a€DNA€expert€in€any€conceivable€way.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð Ü | Ð36(b). Ý ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X#w XXXÔÔ€ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝEven€if€the€trial€court€had€erred€in€granting€the€motion€to€quash,€any€such€error€would€have€beenÐ `  Ðharmless€in€light€of€the€fact€that€Appellant€admitted€having€sexual€intercourse€with€Stuard.€€Discrediting€theÏStateððs€DNA€expert€would€not€have€strengthened€Appellantððs€claim€that€the€sex€was€consensual.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ü | ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b). §Ý ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X#w XXXÔÔ€ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝHowever,€we€do€not€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€possible€transmission€of€the€HIV€virusÐ `  Ðduring€the€rape€established€that€Appellant€was€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€noÏregard€for€human€life€and€who€has€no€hesitation€in€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€isÏhigh.€€While€this€may€have€been€true€if€Appellant€actually€had€the€HIV€virus€and€knew€that€he€had€theÏvirus,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€Appellant€had€any€sexually€transmitted€disease. ÿÝ ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X#w XXXÔÔ€ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝRule€403€states€that€ð ð[a]lthough€relevant,€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€isÐ `  Ðsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury,Ïor€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€403.Ì€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular jÝ ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X#w XXXÔÔ€ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€these€requirements€are€substantially€the€same€as€those€contained€in€the€currentÐ `  Ðversions€of€these€statutes.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€37„1„134,€„159€(Supp.€1998).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular kÝ ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X#w XXXÔÔ€ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIt€could€be€argued€that€Stuard€also€testified€during€the€acceptance€hearing€that€all€of€the€events€inÐ `  Ðquestion€occurred€in€Montgomery€County.€€The€record€reveals€that€when€the€prosecutor€asked€StuardÏwhether€the€events€occurred€in€Montgomery€County,€Stuard€replied€ð ðUh„huh.ðð€€ò òó óAdmittedly,€however,€thisÐ Ü | W Ðresponse€is€somewhat€ambiguous€when€viewed€in€the€context€of€prior€and€subsequent€questions€andÏanswers.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ X#w XXXÔÔ€ ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€State€contends€that€Appellant€waived€this€issue€pursuant€to€Rule€12(b)(2)€of€the€TennesseeÐ `  ÐRules€of€Criminal€Procedure€by€failing€to€raise€it€either€before€trial€or€in€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€RuleÏ12(b)(2),€however,€provides€that€either€jurisdictional€defects€or€the€failure€to€properly€charge€an€offenseÏð ðshall€be€noticed€by€the€court€at€any€time€during€the€pendency€of€the€proceedings.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï12(b)(2).€€Thus,€the€waiver€rule€does€not€apply€when€the€indictment€fails€to€assert€an€essential€element€ofÏthe€offense.€€òòState€v.€Perkinsonóó,€867€S.W.2d€1,€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992). d,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ,Ý ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€"X#w XXXÔÔ€"ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€suggests€that€this€court€should€hold,€under€the€ð ðphysical€facts€rule,ðð€that€Stuardððs€beliefÐ `  Ðthat€the€gun€was€real€could€not€possibly€have€been€reasonable.€€Under€this€rule,€courts€can€declareÏtestimony€incredible€as€a€matter€of€law€and€decline€to€consider€it€where€the€testimony€of€a€witness€ð ðcannotÐ Ü | ¤ Ðpossibly€be€true,€is€inherently€unbelievable,€or€is€opposed€to€natural€laws.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hornsbyóó,€858€S.W.2dÐ `  Ð892,€894€(Tenn.€1993)€€(citations€omitted).€€ð ðCourts€have€made€it€clear€that€in€order€for€testimony€to€beÏconsidered€incredible€as€a€matter€of€law,€it€must€be€unbelievable€on€its€face,€i.e.,€testimony€as€to€facts€orÏevents€that€the€witness€physically€could€not€have€possibly€observed€or€events€that€could€not€have€occurredÏunder€the€laws€of€nature.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citations€omitted).€€This€rule€has€absolutely€no€application€to€this€case.€Ð X ø ÐStuardððs€belief€is€obviously€not€a€physical€fact.€€Further,€as€previously€explained,€Stuardððs€belief€that€theÏgun€was€real€was€not€impossible,€inherently€unreliable,€or€contrary€to€natural€laws.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€$X#w XXXÔÔ€$ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝEven€if€the€trial€court€had€erred,€any€such€error€would€have€been€harmless€in€light€of€the€fact€thatÐ `  ÐAppellant€admitted€having€sexual€intercourse€with€Stuard.€€ò òó óAppellantððs€claim€that€this€sex€act€wasÐ  ¾ Ðconsensual€could€not€have€been€aided€by€a€DNA€expert€in€any€conceivable€way.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð Ü | Ð36(b).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€&X#w XXXÔÔ€&ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that,€subject€to€exceptions€not€applicable€here,€Rule€16€ð ðdoes€not€authorize€theÐ `  Ðdiscovery€or€inspection€of€reports,€memoranda,€or€other€internal€State€documents€made€by€the€districtÏattorney€general€or€other€State€agents€or€law€enforcement€officers€in€connection€with€the€investigation€orÏprosecution€of€the€case.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(2).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular êÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Rule€17(c)€states€that€ð ð[a]€subpoena€may€also€command€a€person€to€whom€it€is€directedÐ `  Ðto€produce€the€books,€papers,€documents,€or€tangible€things€designated€therein.€€The€court,€uponÏmotion€made€promptly€and€in€any€event€by€the€time€specified€in€the€subpoena€for€complianceÏtherewith,€may€quash€or€modify€the€subpoena€if€compliance€would€be€unreasonable€orÏoppressive.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€17(c). Ý ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€)X#w XXXÔÔ€)ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝEven€if€the€trial€court€had€erred€in€granting€the€motion€to€quash,€any€such€error€would€have€beenÐ `  Ðharmless€in€light€of€the€fact€that€Appellant€admitted€having€sexual€intercourse€with€Stuard.€€Discrediting€theÏStateððs€DNA€expert€would€not€have€strengthened€Appellantððs€claim€that€the€sex€was€consensual.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ü | ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÿÝ ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€+X#w XXXÔÔ€+ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝRule€403€states€that€ð ð[a]lthough€relevant,€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€isÐ `  Ðsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury,Ïor€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€403.Ì€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular §Ý ƒ ‹8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€-X#w XXXÔÔ€-ô_³ô XX#wÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝHowever,€we€do€not€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€possible€transmission€of€the€HIV€virusÐ `  Ðduring€the€rape€established€that€Appellant€was€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€noÏregard€for€human€life€and€who€has€no€hesitation€in€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€isÏhigh.€€While€this€may€have€been€true€if€Appellant€actually€had€the€HIV€virus€and€knew€that€he€had€theÏvirus,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€Appellant€had€any€sexually€transmitted€disease.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý ÞÔ€2X`£XXXÔÔ€2Z X2X`£ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€2X`£X 2ZÔÐ  ÐÌJanuary€26,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó'ÿÿdxd,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular€/‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñVñ›ñVñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ŠòƒŠXXÔÔ€Š“ŠŠŠòƒÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€†[XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñVñßr€01<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rß›ñVñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9605„CC„00179Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àMONTGOMERY€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€JAMES€E.€WALTONó óÐ Xø  Ðò òQUINTON€CAGE,ó óà  àà h àà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€œñQñ„€Aggravated€Rape„Ð Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àñQññQñ›ñJñ„€SentencingñJññQñ)ñRñà  àEspecially€Aggravated€Kidnapping)ñRñ›Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌJOHN€E.€HERBISONà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ (!È Ð2016€Eighth€Avenue€Southà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  "À ÐNashville,€TN€€37204Ì(On€Appeal)à  àà h àà À àà  àEUGENE€J.€HONEAÐ $° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCOLLIER€GOODLETT,€JR.à À àà  à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÐ &  ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð ø&˜ Ð109€S.€Second€StreetÌClarksville,€TN€€37040à h àà À àà  àJOHN€CARNEYÐ è(ˆ  Ð(At€Trial)à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ à)€ ! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àARTHUR€BEIBERÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à204€Franklin€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àClarksville,€TN€€37040ÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  ˆ4(+, ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„Ä„ŠŠ“ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†Š“Š„„Ä[ #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÑ7€†[XXdìXXdì7Ñà@®®.®àˆÌà ` àOn€December€2,€1994,€a€Montgomery€County€jury€convicted€AppellantÏQuinton€Cage€of€aggravated€rape,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€aggravatedÏrobbery,€attempted€aggravated€robbery,€and€reckless€endangerment€with€aÏdeadly€weapon.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing€on€January€13,€1995,€AppellantÏreceived€sentences€of€twenty„five€years€for€aggravated€rape,€twenty€years€forÏespecially€aggravated€kidnapping,€eight€years€for€aggravated€robbery,€threeÏyears€for€attempted€aggravated€robbery,€and€two€years€for€recklessÏendangerment.€€The€sentences€for€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€aggravatedÏrape,€aggravated€robbery,€and€reckless€endangerment€were€ordered€to€runÏconsecutively€and€the€sentence€for€attempted€aggravated€robbery€was€orderedÏto€run€concurrently€with€the€other€sentences.€€Appellant€challenges€both€hisÏconvictions€and€his€sentences,€raising€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà0 ` à1)€whether€the€charges€against€Appellant€should€have€been€dismissed€orÏremanded€to€the€juvenile€court€for€failure€to€give€timely€written€notice€of€theÏtransfer€hearing;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€territorial€jurisdiction€of€the€trial€court€was€established€at€theÏacceptance€hearing;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€whether€the€indictment€was€sufficient€to€charge€Appellant€with€attemptedÏaggravated€robbery;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à4)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€convict€Appellant€of€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping€and€aggravated€robbery;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à5)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€denied€Appellantððs€pre„trial€motion€forÏexpert€assistance;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à6)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€quashed€a€defense€subpoena€forÏmaterials€in€the€possession€of€the€Stateððs€expert;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à7)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€admitted€DNA€evidence;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à8)€whether€Appellantððs€sentences€are€excessive;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à9)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€imposed€consecutive€sentences.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓ ÓAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÐ D9ä/1 Ðà@ÑÑ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àRajohnah€Stephanie€Stuard€testified€that€on€April€1,€1994,€she€went€to€aÏretail€store€in€Clarksville,€Tennessee€to€do€some€shopping.€€When€Stuard€left€theÏstore€and€walked€over€to€her€1993€Ford€Explorer,€Appellant€approached€her€andÏordered€her€to€get€into€the€vehicle.€€When€Stuard€asked€whether€he€was€serious,ÏAppellant€looked€down€at€the€gun€in€his€hand€and€then€looked€back€at€Stuard€andÏrepeated€his€demand.ÌÌà ` àStuard€testified€that€after€she€and€Appellant€got€into€her€vehicle,€AppellantÏtold€her€to€drive€to€her€bank€and€told€her€to€pull€up€to€the€last€stall.€€When€StuardÏpulled€up€to€the€stall,€Appellant€told€her€to€write€a€check€for€$500.€€When€StuardÏbegan€looking€in€her€purse€for€her€checkbook,€Appellant€stated,€ð ðDonððt€fuck€withÏmeðð€and€Stuard€replied,€ð ðIððm€not€fucking€with€you.ðð€€Stuard€then€found€herÏcheckbook€and€wrote€out€the€check.€€Stuard€wrote€the€word€ð ðHelpðð€at€the€bottomÏof€the€check€so€that€someone€in€the€bank€would€assist€her.€ÌÌà ` àStuard€testified€that€after€she€put€the€check€in€the€ð ðtubeðð€and€sent€it€to€theÏbank,€Appellant€told€her€to€drive€away€because€she€ð ðprobably€wrote€somethingÏon€the€check.ðð€€Stuard€then€drove€away€and€followed€Appellantððs€instructions€untilÏshe€came€to€a€barbeque€pit€in€back€of€a€white€building.€€Stuard€testified€thatÏduring€this€drive,€she€asked€Appellant€whether€he€was€going€to€rape€or€kill€her.€ÏAppellant€told€her€to€ð ðshut€upðð€and€stated€that€he€was€not€going€to€kill€her,€but€heÏwas€going€to€shoot€her€in€the€leg.€€ÌÐ  :À00 Ðà ` àStuard€testified€that€after€she€drove€behind€the€white€building,€AppellantÏordered€Stuard€to€get€in€the€back€seat€of€the€vehicle€and€then€he€ordered€ñNññLñœñLññNññMñher€ñMñher€toÏundress.€€Stuard€begged€Appellant€not€to€rape€her,€but€Appellant€repeated€hisÏdemand€that€she€undress.€€After€Stuard€took€her€clothes€off,€Appellant€penetratedÏher€vagina€with€his€penis€and€then€ejaculated.€€After€Appellant€had€finished€withÏher,€Stuard€grabbed€her€shirt€and€got€in€the€front€seat€of€the€car.€€When€AppellantÏasked€where€she€was€going,€Stuard€said€that€she€did€not€know€and€she€got€outÏof€the€car.€€Appellant€then€told€her€to€give€him€her€money€and€her€purse.€€StuardÏthen€gave€Appellant€approximately€$350€and€the€keys€to€her€car.€€€Stuard€thenÏgrabbed€the€rest€of€her€clothes€and€hid€behind€the€barbeque€pit€until€AppellantÏdrove€away€in€her€vehicle.€€After€Appellant€left,€Stuard€ran€to€a€house€down€theÏroad€where€she€was€able€to€call€ð ð911.ðð€€An€ambulance€responded€to€the€call€andÏtook€Stuard€to€the€hospital.€ÌÌà ` àStuard€testified€that€Appellant€held€a€gun€in€his€hand€throughout€the€entireÏepisode€and€that€as€he€was€raping€her,€she€ð ðcould€hear€the€metal€hitting€the€sideÏof€[her]€car.ðð€€€Stuard€described€the€gun€as€a€black€automatic€that€had€someÏscrapes€on€it.€€€Stuard€testified€that€she€believed€that€the€pistol€was€real€and€thatÏð ð[ñNñœñNñI]fñNñ›ñNñ€he€had€not€had€the€gun,€he€would€have€had€a€fight€on€his€hands.€€I€figureÏmyself€to€be€a€pretty€good€scrapper,€but€not€when€something€like€that€is€lookingÏat€you.ðð€ÌÌà ` àDwayne€Turley€testified€that€at€approximately€4:45€p.m.€on€April€1,€1994,ÏAppellant€came€to€Turleyððs€residence€in€a€white€Ford€Explorer.€€TurleyÏsubsequently€got€into€the€vehicle€and€he€and€Appellant€eventually€ended€up€onÐ  :À00 ÐInterstate€24€in€Kentucky.€€Turley€also€testified€that€he€owned€the€gun€thatÏAppellant€had€in€his€possession€on€April€1,€1994.€€Turley€testified€that€the€gunÏwas€a€pellet€pistol€that€he€had€thrown€away€when€he€and€Appellant€had€beenÏunable€to€fix€it.€€ÌÌà ` àSergeant€Robert€Ott€of€the€Montgomery€County€Sheriffððs€DepartmentÏtestified€that€at€approximately€4:30€p.m.€on€April€1,€1994,€he€received€a€dispatchÏto€be€on€the€lookout€for€a€white€1993€Ford€Explorer.€€At€approximately€5:00€p.m.,ÏOtt€saw€Stuardððs€vehicle€on€Interstate€24€headed€west€towards€St.€Louis.€€OttÏthen€asked€for€back„up,€turned€on€his€vehicleððs€emergency€equipment,€and€beganÏpursuit€of€Stuardððs€vehicle.€€During€the€subsequent€chase,€Appellant€droveÏStuardððs€vehicle€at€a€high€speed€that€reached€one€hundred€and€ten€miles€perÏhour€at€one€point.€€€Ott€testified€that€traffic€on€the€Interstate€was€fairly€heavy€andÏthat€Appellant€passed€between€other€vehicles€several€times.€€Appellant€eventuallyÏran€into€a€guardrail€and€ð ðflippedðð€Stuardððs€vehicle,€damaging€it€beyond€repair.€ÏWhen€Appellant€was€taken€into€custody,€he€told€Ott€that€he€had€been€kidnappedÏby€Turley.€ÌÌà ` àTeresa€Worley€testified€that€during€her€shift€as€a€nurse€at€ClarksvilleÏMemorial€Hospital€on€April€1,€1994,€she€assisted€Doctor€Stephen€Kent€inÏperforming€a€ð ðrape€kitðð€on€Stuard.€€Doctor€Kent€testified€that€during€the€pelvicÏexamination€that€he€performed€on€Stuard,€he€found€ð ða€cloudy€discharge€in€theÏvaginal€vault€that€was€consistent€with€semen.ðð€€Doctor€Kent€also€went€to€theÏMontgomery€County€jail€and€performed€a€ð ðrape€suspect€examinationðð€onÏAppellant.€€Ð  :À00 Їà ` àJoe€Minor€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€testified€that€heÏconducted€DNA€tests€on€the€rape€kit€taken€from€Stuard€and€the€rape€suspect€kitÏtaken€œfñSñromñSññTñorm›€ñTññUñ€ñUñAppellant.›€€Minor€stated€that€the€DNA€profile€obtained€from€the€spermÏfound€in€Stuardððs€vaginal€vault€matched€the€DNA€profile€from€Appellantððs€bloodÏsample.€€Minor€also€testified€that€the€possibility€of€selecting€an€unrelated€personÏat€random€with€a€DNA€profile€that€matched€Appellantððs€would€be€one€in€4,400,000Ïin€the€Caucasian€population€and€one€in€16,800,000€in€the€African„AmericanÏpopulation.€ÌÌà ` àAppellant€testified€that€on€April€1,€1994,€his€sixteenth€birthday,€he€metÏStuard€in€the€parking€lot€and€she€invited€him€into€her€vehicle.€€Appellant€testifiedÏthat€Stuard€voluntarily€accompanied€him€to€their€ð ðlittle€secret€place€in€the€countryððÏand€had€consensual€sex€with€him.€€Appellant€also€testified€that€he€and€Stuard€hadÏseen€each€other€approximately€ten€times€before€this€occasion.€ÌÌà ` àAppellant€testified€that€he€stole€Stuardððs€vehicle€ð ðin€revengeðð€because€sheÏhad€slapped€him,€but€he€denied€taking€her€money.€€Appellant€admitted€that€heÏrecklessly€endangered€the€general€public€during€the€high€speed€chase€onÏInterstate€24.€€ÌÌò òà@\ \ ®àII.€€NOTICE€OF€THE€TRANSFER€HEARINGó óˆÐ 2 (( ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€either€dismissed€thisÏâ âcase€or€remanded€it€to€the€juvenile€court€because€he€was€not€given€timely€writtenÐ 8¸.. Ðnotice€of€his€transfer€hearing€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€37„¼1„134,€which€states,€in€relevant€partÌâ âÓÓà0 ` àà8¸ ` T$` T$àAfter€a€petition€has€been€filed€alleging€delinquency€based€onÏconduct€which€is€designated€a€crime€or€public€offense€underÏthe€laws,€including€local€ordinances,€of€this€state,€the€court,Ïbefore€hearing€the€petition€on€the€merits,€may€transfer€theÏchild€to€the€sheriff€of€the€county€to€be€held€according€to€lawÏand€to€be€dealt€with€as€an€adult€in€the€criminal€court€ofÏcompetent€jurisdiction.€€The€disposition€of€the€child€shall€be€asÏif€the€child€were€an€adult€if:Ð ¸ ü!¸ ü! Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$àà0¸ T$¸ T$à.€.€.€.Ð T$T$ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$àà8¸ T$¸ T$àReasonable€notice€in€writing€of€the€time,€place€andÏpurpose€of€the€hearing€is€given€to€the€child€and€theÏchildððs€parents,€guardian€or€other€custodian€at€leastÏthree€(3)€days€prior€to€the€hearing€.€.€.€.Ð ü!ü! ÐÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„134(a)(3)€(1994).ÌÌà ` à€The€record€indicates€that€on€April€5,€1994,€the€trial€court€informedÏAppellantððs€counsel€in€open€court€that€there€were€two€available€dates€for€theÏtransfer€hearing,€one€on€April€8,€1994,€and€one€on€April€11,€1994.€€AppellantððsÏcounsel€then€spoke€to€Appellant€and€Appellantððs€mother,€who€agreed€that€AprilÏ8€would€be€the€best€date€to€have€the€transfer€hearing.€Written€notice€was€givenÏon€April€6,€1994,€and€the€transfer€hearing€was€held€on€April€8,€1994.€ÌÌà ` àIt€is€evident€that€any€error€in€failing€to€provide€written€notice€three€daysÏbefore€the€transfer€hearing€was€caused€by€Appellant€himself€when€he€and€hisÏcounsel€chose€to€have€the€hearing€on€April€8€rather€than€on€April€11.€€Thus,ÏAppellant€has€clearly€waived€this€issue.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a)€(ð ðNothing€inÐ  5¬++ Ðthis€rule€shall€be€construed€as€requiring€relief€be€granted€to€a€party€responsibleÏfor€an€error€or€who€failed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonably€available€toÐ 9¼// Ðprevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.ðð).ñNñ׃ ×ñNññNñ׃ ×ñNñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,€this€issue€is€withoutÐ `  Ðmerit.Ìâ âÌà@22 ®àò òIII.€€DETERMINATION€OF€VENUEó óˆÐ 0Ð ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€his€convictions€should€be€reversed€because€theÏState€failed€to€establish€venue€at€the€acceptance€hearing.€€Appellant€concedesÏthat€there€is€no€Tennessee€authority€that€expressly€requires€venue€to€be€provenÏat€an€acceptance€hearing.€€Appellant€suggests,€however,€that€this€requirementÏcan€be€inferred€from€reading€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€37„1„134(a)Ïand€37„1„159(d)(2)€together.€€We€disagree.€€At€the€time€of€Appellantððs€transferÏand€acceptance€hearings,€section€37„1„134(a)€provided€that€a€juvenile€courtÏcould€transfer€a€juvenile€to€a€criminal€court€of€ð ðcompetent€jurisdictionðð€if€itÏdetermined€that€the€requirements€of€subsections€(a)(1)ð!ð(4)€and€(b)(1)ð!ð(5)€hadÏbeen€satisfied.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„134€(1994).€€In€addition,€section€37„1„¼159€provided€that,€as€part€of€the€acceptance€hearing,€the€criminal€court€mustÏconsider€ð ð[t]hose€issues€considered€by€the€juvenile€court€pursuant€toÏ[subsections]€37-1-134(a)€and€(b).ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„159(d)(2)€(1994).ñNñ׃Â×ñNññNñ׃Â×ñNñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р`*!" ÐWe€agree€that€section€37„1„134€requires€the€juvenile€court€to€determine€whetherÏvenue€would€be€proper€in€the€criminal€court,€i.e.,€whether€the€criminal€court€is€aÏcourt€of€ð ðcompetent€jurisdiction.ðð€€However,€we€do€not€agree€that€subsection€37„1„Ð 00Ð&( Ð159(d)(2)€requires€the€State€to€re„establish€venue€during€the€acceptance€hearing.€ÏThat€subsection€merely€requires€the€criminal€court€to€consider€the€specificÏrequirements€of€subsections€37„1„134(a)(1)ð!ð(4)€and€(b)(1)ð!ð(5),€which€do€notÏinclude€the€question€of€venue.€€The€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€made€theÏrequired€determinations.ÌÌà ` àEven€if€the€State€had€been€required€to€establish€venue€at€the€acceptanceÏhearing,€any€failure€to€do€so€was€harmless€error€because€the€Montgomery€CountyÏCircuit€Court€was€clearly€the€proper€venue€for€Appellantððs€trial.€€The€TennesseeÏConstitution€provides€that€a€defendant€has€the€right€to€be€tried€by€an€impartial€juryÏof€the€county€in€which€the€crime€was€committed.€€Tenn.€Const.€art€I,€ðð€9.€€òòSeeÐ À` Ðalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€18.€€This€Court€has€construed€this€constitutional€guaranteeÐ °P Ðas€precluding€a€court€from€indicting€or€prosecuting€a€defendant€for€crimesÏcommitted€outside€of€the€county€where€the€court€is€located.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€847Ð "0 ÐS.W.2d€544,€545€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Although€venue€is€not€an€element€ofÏthe€crime,€the€State€must€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€theÏoffense€was€committed€in€the€county€alleged€in€the€indictment.€€òòHarvey€v.€Stateóó,Ð `(  Ð213€Tenn.€608,€612,€376€S.W.2d€497,€498€(1964);€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€639€S.W.2dÐ P*ð " Ð670,€672€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€In€this€case,€the€State€clearly€established€thatÏeach€of€the€offenses€with€which€Appellant€was€charged€were€committed€inÏMontgomery€County.€€First,€Stuard€testified€at€the€transfer€hearing€that€all€of€theÏevents€in€question€occurred€in€Montgomery€County.€€Second,€and€moreÏâ âimportantly,€Stuard€also€testified€at€trial€that€all€of€these€events€occurred€inÐ 4 *, ÐMontgomery€County.ñNñ׃×ñNññNñ׃×ñNñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Indeed,€Appellant€does€not€contend€that€venue€wasÐ `  Ðimproper.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìâ âÌà@» » ®àò òIV.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€INDICTMENTó óˆÐ 0Ð ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€his€conviction€for€attempted€aggravated€robberyÏshould€be€reversed€because€the€indictment€was€insufficient€to€charge€him€withÏthat€offense.€€Under€Tennessee€law,€aggravated€robbery€is€ð ð[a]ccomplished€withÏa€deadly€weapon€or€by€display€of€any€article€used€or€fashioned€to€lead€the€victimÏto€reasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„¼402(a)(1)€(1997).€€Count€two€of€the€indictment€in€this€case€alleged€that€AppellantÏhad€ð ðact[ed]€with€intent€to€complete€a€course€of€action€to€cause€the€AggravatedÏRobbery€of€Stephanie€Stuard€.€.€.€by€use€of€a€weapon€fashioned€to€lead€the€saidÏStephanie€Stuard€to€believe€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon€.€.€.€.ðð€€Appellant€essentiallyÏclaims€that€because€the€indictment€did€not€include€the€word€ð ðreasonably,ðð€it€onlyÏalleged€that€he€had€committed€attempted€robbery€and€thus,€his€conviction€forÏattempted€aggravated€robbery€should€be€reversed.ñNñ׃F×ñNññNñ׃F×ñNñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€disagree.Ð p(  ÐÌà ` àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€stated€that€ð ðan€indictment€is€valid€if€itÏprovides€sufficient€information€(1)€to€enable€the€accused€to€know€the€accusationÐ @.à$& Ðto€which€answer€is€required,€(2)€to€furnish€the€court€adequate€basis€for€the€entryÏof€a€proper€judgment,€and€(3)€to€protect€the€accused€from€double€jeopardy.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Hillóó,€954€S.W.2d€725,€727€(Tenn.€1997)€(citations€omitted).€€Further,€ð ðanÐ @ à Ðindictment€need€not€conform€to€traditionally€strict€pleading€requirements.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ð 0Ð Ðð ðThus,€we€now€approach€ððattacks€upon€indictments,€especially€of€this€kind,€fromÏthe€broad€and€enlightened€standpoint€of€common€sense€and€right€reason€ratherÏthan€from€the€narrow€standpoint€of€petty€preciosity,€pettifogging,€technicality€orÏhair€splitting€fault€finding.ðððð€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Purvisóó,€580€F.2d€853,Ð ð  Ð857€(5th€Cir.1978)).€€A€ð ðcommon€senseðð€reading€of€count€two€of€the€indictmentÏclearly€indicates€that€it€was€sufficient€to€comply€with€the€constitutional€noticeÏrequirements€recited€in€òòHillóó.€€Count€two€clearly€informed€Appellant€that€he€wasÐ À` Ðbeing€charged€with€the€offense€of€attempted€aggravated€robbery€and€itÏsubstantially€set€forth€each€of€the€elements€of€that€offense.€€To€hold€that€countÏtwo€of€the€indictment€in€the€case€is€invalid€merely€because€it€omits€the€wordÏð ðreasonablyðð€would€require€us€to€engage€in€the€ð ðpetty€preciosity,€pettifogging,Ïtechnicality€or€hair€splitting€fault€findingðð€that€the€supreme€court€jettisoned€in€òòHillóó.€Ð p& ÐThus,€this€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@LL®àò òV.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ @,à"$ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconvictions€for€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€and€aggravated€robbery.€€UnderÏTennessee€law,€both€of€these€offenses€require€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€orÏð ðdisplay€of€any€article€used€or€fashioned€to€lead€the€victim€to€reasonably€believeÏit€to€be€a€deadly€weapon.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„305(a)(1),€„402(a)(1)Ð ð7.0 Ð(1997).€€Appellant€claims€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€convict€him€ofÐ à9€02 Ðthese€offenses€because€no€reasonable€jury€could€have€found€that€AppellantððsÏdisplay€of€an€inoperable€pellet€gun€would€lead€Stuard€to€ð ðreasonably€believeðð€thatÏthe€gun€was€a€deadly€weapon.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÏis€obliged€to€review€that€challenge€according€to€certain€well-settled€principles.€€AÏverdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€theÏState.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839Ð à€ ÐS.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€Although€an€accused€is€originally€cloaked€with€aÏpresumption€of€innocence,€a€jury€verdict€removes€this€presumption€and€replacesÏit€with€one€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,Ð °P Ðon€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€with€Appellant€to€demonstrate€theÏinsufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€On€appeal,€ð ðthe€[S]tate€is€entitled€toÐ "0 Ðthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€andÏlegitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,Ð p& Ð571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978)).€€Where€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏcontested€on€appeal,€the€relevant€question€for€the€reviewing€court€is€whether€anyÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€accused€guilty€of€every€element€of€theÏoffense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€75;€òòJackson€v.Ð 0.Ð$& ÐVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€560€(1979).€€InÐ  0À&( Ðconducting€our€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€is€precluded€fromÏreweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929€S.W.2d€380,€383Ð 4 *, Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ð5,. ÐApp.€1990).€€Moreover,€this€Court€may€not€substitute€its€own€inferences€ð ðfor€thoseÏdrawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€779.€€Finally,€RuleÐ Ð9p02 Ð13(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provides,€ð ðfindings€of€guiltÏin€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòMatthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€at€780.Ð 0Ð ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€because€the€gun€has€no€trigger€and€no€mechanismÏby€which€the€pressure€to€propel€a€BB€or€pellet€is€generated,€no€rational€jury€couldÏhave€concluded€that€Stuard€reasonably€believed€that€it€was€a€real€gun.€€That€mayÏhave€been€true€if€Appellant€had€handed€the€gun€to€Stuard€and€given€her€a€fewÏminutes€to€examine€it€before€he€committed€these€offenses,€but€that€was€not€theÏcase.€€Stuard€testified€that€when€Appellant€approached€her€in€the€parking€lot,€ð ðheÏlooked€down€at€his€gun€and€looked€back€up€at€me€and€he€said€get€in€your€car.€ÏSo€I€got€in€my€car.€€I€am€not€bullet€proof.ðð€€When€they€got€in€Stuardððs€vehicle,ÏAppellant€sat€behind€her.€€While€Stuard€was€driving€her€vehicle,€Appellant€told€herÏthat€he€was€going€to€shoot€her€in€the€leg.€€Stuard€testified€that€Appellant€held€theÏgun€in€his€right€hand€throughout€the€entire€episode,€even€when€he€was€rapingÏher.€€A€rational€jury€could€infer€from€this€evidence€that€Stuard€never€had€enoughÏof€a€chance€to€observe€the€gun€to€determine€that€it€was€inoperable€because€itÏwas€missing€some€parts.€€Further,€a€rational€jury€could€have€inferred€that€StuardÏwould€have€had€to€look€inside€the€gun€to€see€that€the€mechanism€that€propels€theÏpellets€was€missing€and€that€it€was€likely€that€Appellant€had€his€finger€positionedÏwhere€the€trigger€would€have€been,€thus€preventing€Stuard€from€seeing€whetherÏor€not€there€was€a€trigger.€€It€is€clear€that€a€rational€jury€could€conclude€thatÏStuard€reasonably€believed€that€the€gun€was€real.ñNñ׃×ñNññNñ׃!×ñNñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ð ð5,. Їà@  ®àò òVI.€€DENIAL€OF€EXPERT€ASSISTANCEó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€his€pre„trialÏmotion€for€state€funds€ð ðto€obtain€a€DNA€expert€to€cross„examine€or€assist€inÏcross„examination€of€the€Stateððs€DNA€expert.ðð€€ÌÌà ` àAt€the€time€of€Appellantððs€motion€in€November€1994,€Tennessee€law€didÏnot€provide€for€such€expert€assistance€in€non-capital€cases,€and€the€trial€courtÏproperly€denied€the€motion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-14-207(b)€(1997)Ð ð Ð(allowing€for€authorization€of€funds€for€expert€services€only€in€capital€cases);€€òòseeÐ à€ Ðalsoóó€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€411€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€866Ð Ðp ÐS.W.2d€583,€585€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€On€appeal,€however,€Appellant€reliesÏupon€òòState€v.€Barnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€423€(Tenn.€1995),€a€Tennessee€SupremeÐ ° P ÐCourt€case€which€post-dates€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€In€òòBarnettóó,€the€supreme€courtÐ  "@ Ðheld€that,€where€an€indigent€defendantððs€need€for€a€state-paid€psychiatric€expertÏtouches€upon€a€due€process€concern,€a€trial€court€may€order€such€services€evenÏin€non-capital€cases,€provided€the€defendant€can€demonstrate€a€ð ðparticularizedÏneed.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€431.€€€While€òòBarnettóó€dealt€with€a€psychiatric€expert,€this€Court€hasÐ `*!" Ðpreviously€extended€the€reasoning€of€òòBarnettóó€to€other€forms€of€expert€assistance.€Ð P,ð"$ ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€James€W.€Jacobsóó,€No.€01C01„9601„CC„00048,€1997€WL€576493,Ð @.à$& Ðat€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept€18,€1997)€(citations€omitted).€€BecauseÐ 00Ð&( ÐòòBarnettóó€constitutes€a€new€constitutional€rule,€it€must€be€applied€retroactively€toÐ  2À(* ÐAppellantððs€case€which€was€ñNñintheñNññNñin€theñNñ€appellate€pipeline€at€the€time€of€the€òòBarnettóóÐ `  Ðdecision.€€òòSeeóó€òòId.óó€€Ð P ð ÐÌà ` àIn€this€case,€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€Appellantððs€motion€for€expertÏassistance€was€proper€because€Appellant€failed€to€demonstrate€a€ð ðparticularizedÏneedðð€for€such€services.€€Under€òòBarnettóó,€Ð °  ÐÓÓà0 ` àTo€establish€particularized€need,€the€defendant€must€show€that€a[n]€.€.€.Ïexpert€is€necessary€to€protect€his€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€UnsupportedÏassertions€that€a[n]€.€.€.€expert€is€necessary€to€counter€the€Stateððs€proof€areÏnot€sufficient.€€The€defendant€must€demonstrate€by€reference€to€the€factsÏand€circumstances€of€his€particular€case€that€appointment€of€a[n]€.€.€.Ïexpert€is€necessary€to€insure€a€fair€trial.€€€Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓônÓ909€S.W.2d€at€431.€€Appellantððs€motion€for€expert€services€and€his€memorandumÏin€support€thereof€consist€almost€entirely€of€legal€arguments€as€to€why€a€court€isÏauthorized€to€provide€a€defendant€with€expert€services.€€Indeed,€AppellantððsÏmotion€and€memorandum€do€not€explain€why€ð ðthe€facts€and€circumstances€of€hisÏparticular€caseðð€demonstrate€that€appointment€of€an€expert€is€necessary€to€insureÏa€fair€trial.€€In€fact,€the€only€reference€Appellant€made€to€the€specific€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€his€case€is€contained€in€the€following€statement:ÌÓÓà0 ` àà ¸ àAs€part€of€its€proof€in€this€case€the€State€will€offer€the€testimony€ofÏone€Joe€Minor€of€the€TBI€Crime€Lab€who€performed€the€analysis€of€theÏvaginal€swabs€taken€from€the€victim.€€It€is€believed€that€Mr.€Minor€will€testifyÏthat€those€swabs€were€found€to€contain€sperm€cells€and€that€the€DNAÏremoved€from€those€sperm€cells€matched€with€DNA€from€the€Defendant.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àThis€testimony€will€be€so€damning€that€unless€the€Defendant€has€anÏexpert€who€can€either€cross„examine€the€Stateððs€expert€or€who€can€assistÏin€cross„examination€of€the€expert,€the€Defendant€will€not€be€able€toÏpresent€a€ð ðmeaningful€defenseðð€and€as€such€will€be€denied€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓsÓWe€do€not€believe€that€this€statement€adequately€demonstrates€particularizedÏneed€as€required€by€òòBarnettóó.€€As€the€supreme€court€stated€in€òòBarnettóó,€when€aÐ ð5,. Ðmotion€for€expert€assistance€is€ð ðaccompanied€by€little€more€than€undevelopedÏassertions€that€the€services€were€needed€to€attempt€to€counter€the€Stateððs€proof,ððÐ Ð9p02 Ðthe€trial€court€is€within€its€discretion€in€denying€the€request.€€909€S.W.2d€at€430Ï(quoting€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€261€(Tenn.€1994)).€€Thus,€the€trialÐ P ð Ðcourt€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€when€it€denied€the€motion€for€expert€services.ñNñ׃×ñNññNñ׃#×ñNñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р@ à ÐThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@> > ®àò òVII.€€QUASHING€OF€DEFENSE€SUBPOENAó óˆÐ °  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€quashed€his€subpoenaÏduces€tecum€for€materials€in€the€possession€of€the€Stateððs€DNA€expert.€ÏSpecifically,€Appellant€claims€that€he€was€entitled€to€materials€relating€to€theÏfactual€basis€upon€which€the€expert€based€his€conclusions.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àOn€November€7,€1994,€Appellant€filed€a€motion€for€further€discoveryÏpursuant€to€Rule€16€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€asking€theÏtrial€court€to€require€the€State€to€provide€him€with€information€related€to€the€DNAÏtesting€by€the€Stateððs€expert.€€On€November€16,€1994,€Appellant€filed€a€motionÏto€compel€pursuant€to€Rule€16,€asking€the€trial€court€to€require€the€State€toÏprovide€him€with€the€materials€used€by€the€Stateððs€DNA€expert€in€reaching€hisÏconclusions.€€After€a€hearing€on€the€discovery€motions,€the€trial€court€denied€theÏmotions.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€materials€requested€by€Appellant€were€notÏâ âdiscoverable€under€Rule€16€because€the€materials€used€by€the€expert€in€arrivingÐ 00Ð&( Ðat€his€conclusion€were€ð ðwork€product.ððAppellant€does€not€challenge€the€trialÏcourtððs€ruling€that€these€materials€were€not€discoverable€under€Rule€16.ñNñ׃×ñNññNñ׃%×ñNñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð P ð Ðâ âÌà ` àOn€November€21,€1994,€Appellant€filed€a€subpoena€duces€tecum,€directingÏthe€Stateððs€DNA€expert€to€appear€on€November€30,€1994,€with€the€materialsÏAppellant€had€sought€to€obtain€through€discovery.€€On€November€22,€1994,€theÏState€filed€a€motion€to€quash€the€subpoena.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motionÏto€quash€the€subpoena€on€November€30,€1994.€€The€trial€court€found€that€inÏissuing€the€subpoena€pursuant€to€Rule€17(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure,ñNñ׃ˆ×ñNññNñ׃'×ñNñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Appellant€was€simply€attempting€to€obtain€the€same€documents€andÐ Ðp Ðother€work€product€that€were€protected€from€discovery€by€Rule€16(a)(2).€€The€trialÏcourt€stated€that€although€Rule€16€and€Rule€17€are€separate€rules,€they€must€beÏread€together€in€context.€€In€short,€the€trial€court€found€that€Appellant€could€notÏcircumvent€the€discovery€protections€of€Rule€16€simply€by€issuing€a€subpoena€forÏthe€same€materials€under€Rule€17.€ÌÌà ` àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€Rule€17(c)cannot€be€used€to€obtainÏmaterials€which€are€not€discoverable€under€Rule€16(a)(2).€€Certainly,€the€limits€ofÏRule€16(a)(2)€would€be€meaningless€if€a€defendant€could€simply€subpoena€theÏprotected€materials€under€Rule€17(c).€€Indeed,€under€the€Federal€Rules€ofÏCriminal€Procedure,€ð ð[a]€defendant€may€not€obtain€through€Rule€17(c)€documentsÐ  0À&( Ðwhich€are€protected€from€disclosure€pursuant€to€Rule€16(a)(2).ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.Ð `  ÐOrenaóó,€883€F.€Supp.€849,€867€(E.D.N.Y.€1995).€€Our€Rules€16(a)(2)€and€17(c)€areÐ P ð Ðsubstantially€identical€to€their€federal€counterparts.€€Thus,€we€see€no€reason€whyÏthe€result€under€our€state€rules€should€be€any€different.€€The€trial€court€did€notÏabuse€its€discretion€when€it€granted€the€motion€to€quash€the€subpoena.ñNñ׃×ñNññNñ׃(×ñNñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ThisÐ  À Ðissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@QQ®àò òVIII.€€ADMISSION€OF€DNA€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ ð  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€when€itÏallowed€the€State€to€introduce€evidence€of€the€DNA€test€results.€€Specifically,ÏAppellant€claims€that€this€evidence€was€inadmissible€under€Rule€403€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€because€its€probative€value€was€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ñNñ׃ˆ×ñNññNñ׃*ˆ×ñNñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  "@ ÐÌà ` àA€trial€courtððs€decision€to€admit€evidence€is€largely€discretionary€and€thatÏdecision€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€unless€there€has€been€an€abuse€of€thatÏdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Grayóó,€960€S.W.2d€598,€606€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€In€thisÐ `*!" Ðcase,€we€see€no€reason€to€disturb€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€The€DNA€evidence€inÏthis€case€was€clearly€probative.€€Indeed,€it€is€hard€to€imagine€anything€with€moreÏprobative€value€in€a€rape€case€than€evidence€that€the€accused€had€sexualÐ 00Ð&( Ðintercourse€with€the€victim.€€At€the€time€Stuard€identified€Appellant€as€herÏassailant,€Appellant€had€not€yet€admitted€to€having€had€sex€with€her.€€Thus,€theÏDNA€evidence€was€clearly€probative€of€whether€Stuard€was€telling€the€truth.€€ThisÏprobative€value€was€not€substantially€outweighed€by€any€of€the€considerations€ofÏRule€403.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€when€it€admitted€thisÏevidence.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ÌÌ"®àò òIX.€€LENGTH€OF€SENTENCESó óˆÐ ð  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€his€sentences€for€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping,€aggravated€rape,€and€reckless€endangerment€are€excessive.€ÏSpecifically,€Appellant€claims€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€various€mitigating€andÏenhancement€factors€in€determining€the€lengths€of€these€three€sentences.ÌÌà ` àð ðWhen€reviewing€sentencing€issues€.€.€.€including€the€granting€or€denial€ofÏprobation€and€the€length€of€sentence,€the€appellate€court€shall€conduct€a€de€novoÏreview€on€the€record€of€such€issues.€€Such€review€shall€be€conducted€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€isÏtaken€are€correct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€ð ðHowever,€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trial€courtððs€action€isÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€conducting€our€review,€weÐ 4°*, Ðmust€consider€all€the€evidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,Ïthe€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€arguments€of€counsel,€the€appellantððsÏstatements,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,€and€the€appellantððs€potentialÐ à9€02 Ðfor€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-103(5),€-210(b)€(1997€&€Supp.Ï1998);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€ð ðThe€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÐ P ð Ðdemonstrating€that€the€sentence€is€improper.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Because€the€record€in€thisÐ @ à Ðcase€indicates€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€properly€consider€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances,€our€review€is€de€novo€withoutÏa€presumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà@u u ®àò òA.€€Sentence€for€Especially€Aggravated€Kidnappingó óˆÐ ð  ÐÌà ` àIn€sentencing€Appellant€to€twenty€years€for€the€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping€conviction,€the€trial€court€found€that€no€mitigating€factors€wereÏapplicable.€€The€trial€court€also€found€that€Appellantððs€sentence€should€beÏenhanced€because€he€had€treated€the€victim€with€exceptional€cruelty€andÏbecause€the€injuries€that€he€inflicted€were€particularly€great.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ  "@ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(5),€(6)€(1991997).€ÌÌà ` àWe€agree€that€none€of€the€enumerated€mitigating€factors€of€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„35„113€were€applicable.€€However,€the€trial€courtÏshould€have€considered€the€mitigating€factor€contained€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€39„13„305,€which€states€that€in€determining€the€sentence€forÏespecially€aggravated€kidnapping,€ð ð[i]f€the€offender€voluntarily€releases€the€victimÏalive€.€.€.€such€action[]€shall€be€considered€by€the€court€as€a€mitigating€factor€atÏthe€time€of€sentencing.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„305(b)(2)€(1997).€€AlthoughÏwe€hold€that€this€factor€should€have€been€considered,€we€believe€that€this€factorÏâ âis€entitled€to€little€weight,€especially€in€light€of€the€fact€that€Appellant€did€not€in€factÐ ð7.0 Ðpossess€a€deadly€weapon€with€which€he€could€have€killed€Stuard€without€aÏdifficult€struggle.Ìâ âÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€enhancement€factor€(5),Ïthat€the€victim€was€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty.€€The€trial€court€apparentlyÏbased€its€decision€to€apply€this€factor€on€the€fact€that€Appellant€told€Stuard€thatÏhe€was€going€to€shoot€her€in€the€leg.€€While€this€action€was€undoubtably€cruel,€itÏdoes€not€rise€to€the€level€of€being€ð ðexceptionally€cruelðð,€as€that€term€has€beenÏinterpreted€by€our€State€Supreme€Court.€€That€Court€has€stated€that€before€thisÏfactor€may€be€applied,€the€facts€in€the€case€must€ð ðsupport€a€finding€ofÏððexceptional€crueltyðð€that€ððdemonstrates€a€culpability€distinct€from€and€appreciablyÏgreater€than€that€incident€toðððð€the€crime.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€98Ð °P Ð(Tenn.€1997)€(citation€omitted).€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Embryóó,€915€S.W.2d€451,€456Ð   @ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(holding€that€application€of€enhancement€factor€(5)Ïð ðrequires€a€finding€of€cruelty€over€and€above€that€inherently€attendant€to€theÏcrimeðð).€€In€this€case,€Appellantððs€threat€to€shoot€Stuard€in€the€leg€cameÏimmediately€after€he€told€her€that€he€was€not€going€to€kill€her.€€A€threat€of€theÏvictim€being€shot€is€inherent€in€the€offense€of€an€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping€that€is€committed€by€the€use€of€a€firearm.€€Thus,€application€ofÏenhancement€factor€(5)€was€not€appropriate.ÌÌà ` àWe€also€conclude€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€enhancementÏfactor€(6),€that€the€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victim€were€particularly€great.€€InÏapplying€this€factor,€the€trial€court€relied€on€a€finding€that€Stuard€had€sufferedÏð ðpersonal€injuries€by€way€of€emotional€distress€[and]€the€now€inclusion€in€her€lifeÏof€fear.ðð€€There€is€no€question€that€emotional€and€psychological€injuries€can€beÐ Ð9p02 Ðthe€basis€for€applying€this€enhancement€factor.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2dÐ `  Ð922,€930€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€ð ðHowever,€before€this€factor€may€be€applied,Ïthe€State€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€emotional€injuries€andÏpsychological€scarring€are€ððparticularly€great.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Hoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€935,Ð 0Ð Ð948€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citation€omitted).€€ð ðIn€order€to€prove€that€the€injuriesÏare€particularly€great€and/or€will€endure€ððfor€the€rest€of€[the€victimððs]€life,ðð€the€StateÏmust€offer€expert€testimony€to€that€effect.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citation€omitted).€€We€do€not€doubtÐ    Ðthat€Ms.€Stuard€was€traumatized€by€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€ÏHowever,€because€the€State€failed€to€introduce€any€expert€testimony€that€herÏemotional€injuries€were€particularly€great€compared€to€those€suffered€by€everyÏvictim€of€an€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€application€of€enhancement€factorÏ(6)€was€not€appropriate.ÌÌà ` àIn€our€de€novo€review,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€failedÏto€apply€enhancement€factor€(1),€that€Appellant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€range.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€(1997).€€The€recordÐ `(  Ðindicates€that€Appellant€had€juvenile€adjudications€for€theft€of€property€($1,000€toÏ$10,000),€burglary€of€an€automobile,€and€sexual€battery.€€Juvenile€convictionsÏmay€be€used€to€enhance€the€sentence€of€an€adult€offender.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864Ð 0.Ð$& ÐS.W.2d€31,€34€(Tenn.€1993).€€Thus,€enhancement€factor€(1)€is€clearly€applicable.€ÏFurther,€given€the€serious€nature€of€these€prior€offenses,€we€believe€that€thisÏfactor€is€entitled€to€significant€weight.ÌÌà ` àEven€though€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€someÏenhancement€factors,€a€finding€that€enhancement€factors€were€erroneouslyÐ Ð9p02 Ðapplied€does€not€equate€to€a€reduction€in€the€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882Ð `  ÐS.W.2d€410,€423€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€We€hold€that€enhancement€factor€(1)Ïclearly€applies€to€this€sentence€and€that€this€factor€is€entitled€to€significant€weight.€ÏWe€further€hold€that€the€mitigating€factor€applicable€to€this€sentence€is€entitled€toÏonly€minimal€weight.€€Thus,€we€hold€that€a€sentence€of€twenty€years€for€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping€is€appropriate€in€this€case.ÌÌà@çç®àò òB.€€Sentence€for€Aggravated€Rapeó óˆÐ ð  ÐÌà ` àIn€sentencing€Appellant€to€twenty„five€years€for€aggravated€rape,€the€trialÏcourt€found€that€no€mitigating€factors€were€applicable.€€The€trial€court€also€foundÏthat€Appellantððs€sentence€should€be€enhanced€because€the€injuries€that€heÏinflicted€on€the€victim€were€particularly€great.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð ° P Ð114(6)€(1991997).€€We€agree€that€none€of€the€enumerated€mitigating€factors€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„113€are€applicable€to€the€sentence€forÏthis€offense.€€However,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€oneÏenhancement€factor€and€should€have€applied€two€other€enhancement€factors€toÏthe€sentence€for€this€offense.ÌÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€enhancement€factor€(6),Ïthat€the€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victim€were€particularly€great,€for€the€sameÏreason€that€we€conclude€that€this€factor€should€not€have€been€applied€to€theÏsentence€for€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€The€trial€court€based€its€decisionÏto€apply€this€factor€on€the€fact€that€Stuardððs€normal€life€activities€had€beenÏdisrupted€by€the€fear€that€resulted€from€her€being€raped.€€However,€the€recordÏdoes€not€indicate€that€any€expert€evidence€was€introduced€on€the€extent€ofÐ à9€02 ÐStuardððs€psychological€injuries.€€While€we€do€not€mean€to€minimize€the€traumaÏand€fear€that€Stuard€undoubtedly€experienced€as€a€result€of€this€reprehensibleÏact,€the€State€has€simply€failed€to€meet€its€burden,€under€the€law,€of€showing€thatÏthis€factor€was€applicable.€€òòSeeóó€òòHoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€948.Ð 0Ð ÐÌà ` àIn€our€de€novo€review,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€failedÏto€apply€enhancement€factor€(1)€to€the€sentence€for€this€offense€for€the€sameÏreason€that€it€should€have€applied€this€factor€to€the€sentence€for€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping.€€This€factor€is€entitled€to€especially€great€weight€for€thisÏsentence€in€light€of€the€fact€that€one€of€Appellantððs€prior€adjudications€was€forÏsexual€battery.ÌÌà ` àIn€our€de€novo€review,€we€also€conclude€that€the€trial€court€improperlyÏfailed€to€apply€enhancement€factor€(7),€that€this€offense€involved€a€victim€and€wasÏcommitted€to€gratify€Appellantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð €$  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7)€(1997).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€notedÏthat€because€pleasure€or€excitement€is€not€an€essential€element€of€the€offenseÏof€rape,€it€may€be€considered€as€an€appropriate€enhancement.€€òòAdamsóó,€864Ð P*ð " ÐS.W.2d€at€35€(citation€omitted).€The€record€indicates€that€Appellant€raped€StuardÏfor€pleasure.€€€€Appellant€testified€that€he€ejaculated€during€sex€with€Stuard,€thatÏhe€felt€ð ðpure[]€lustðð€for€her,€€and€that€he€ð ðgot€that€good€feelingðð€when€he€had€sexÏwith€her.€€€Thus,€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€factor€(7)€to€enhance€thisÏsentence.Ìâ âÐ ð5,. Ðà ` àBecause€two€enhancement€factors€and€no€mitigating€factors€apply€to€theÏsentence€for€aggravated€rape,€we€hold€that€a€sentence€of€twenty„five€years€forÏthis€offense€is€appropriate€in€this€case.Ìâ âÌà@t t ®àò òC.€€Sentence€for€Reckless€Endangermentó óˆÐ  À ÐÌà ` àIn€sentencing€Appellant€to€two€years€for€reckless€endangerment,€the€trialÏcourt€found€that€no€mitigating€factors€were€applicable.€€The€trial€court€also€foundÏthat€this€sentence€should€be€enhanced€because€the€offense€involved€more€thanÏone€victim€and€because€Appellant€had€no€hesitation€in€committing€an€offenseÏwhen€the€risk€to€human€life€was€great.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3),Ð Ðp Ð(10)€(1997).€€We€agree€that€none€of€the€enumerated€mitigating€factors€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„113€are€applicable€to€the€sentence€forÏthis€offense.€€However,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€oneÏenhancement€factor€and€should€have€applied€one€other€enhancement€factor€toÏthe€sentence€for€this€offense.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€correctly€applied€enhancement€factor€(3)€to€the€sentence€forÏreckless€endangerment€because€Appellantððs€conduct€placed€more€than€oneÏperson€in€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð @.à$& Ð114(3)€(1997).€€Appellant€argues€that€the€application€of€this€factor€to€this€sentenceÏwas€improper€because€the€existence€of€multiple€victims€was€pleaded€in€theÏindictment€and€therefore,€was€an€element€of€the€offense.€€However,€theÏindictment€in€this€case€alleged€that€Appellant€ð ðdid€recklessly€engage€in€conductÏwith€a€deadly€weapon€.€.€.€[which]€placed€another€person€or€persons€in€imminentÏdanger€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€Under€the€express€terms€of€theÐ à9€02 Ðindictment,€the€State€only€had€to€prove€that€one€person€was€endangered.€€Thus,Ïendangering€multiple€persons€was€not€an€element€of€the€offense€as€charged€inÏthe€indictment.€€Appellantððs€conduct€in€driving€a€vehicle€at€one€hundred€and€tenÏmiles€per€hour€in€heavy€traffic€on€Interstate€24€clearly€endangered€his€passenger,Ïother€motorists,€and€the€pursuing€police€officers.€€Thus,€application€of€this€factorÏwas€appropriate.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€clearly€erred€by€applying€enhancement€factor€(10)€to€theÏreckless€endangerment€sentence€because€a€high€risk€to€human€life€is€inherentÏin€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Robert€Chapmanóó,€No.€02C01„9510„CR„00304,€1997€WLÐ Ðp Ð11280,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Jan.€15,€1997).€€However,€for€the€sameÏreason€that€enhancement€factor€(1)€applied€to€the€other€sentences,€factor€(1)Ïshould€have€been€applied€to€this€sentence€as€well.€€We€hold€that€because€twoÏenhancement€and€no€mitigating€factors€apply€to€the€sentence€for€recklessÏendangerment,€a€sentence€of€two€years€is€entirely€appropriate.ÌÌà@ÿ ÿ ®àò òX.€€IMPOSITION€OF€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCESó óˆÐ `(  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ordered€the€sentencesÏfor€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€aggravated€rape,€aggravated€robbery,€andÏreckless€endangerment€to€run€consecutively.€€Consecutive€sentencing€isÏgoverned€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40-35-115.€€The€trial€court€hasÏthe€discretion€to€order€consecutive€sentencing€if€it€finds€that€one€or€more€of€theÏrequired€statutory€criteria€exist.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€924€S.W.2d€912,€917€(Tenn.Ð 6 ,. ÐCrim.€App.€1995).€€Further,€the€court€is€required€to€determine€whether€theÏconsecutive€sentences€(1)€are€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offensesÐ à9€02 Ðcommitted;€€(2)€serve€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€theÏoffender;€€and€(3)€are€congruent€with€general€principles€of€sentencing.€€òòState€v.Ð P ð ÐWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€1995).Ð @ à ÐÌà ` àIn€imposing€consecutive€sentences,€the€trial€court€found€that€Appellant€wasÏa€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€lifeÏand€who€has€no€hesitation€in€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€lifeÏis€high.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(4)€(1997).€€We€agree.€€Indeed,Ð ð  ÐAppellant€attempted€to€escape€in€Stuardððs€stolen€vehicle€by€driving€at€speeds€upÏto€one€hundred€and€ten€miles€per€hour€and€by€driving€in€between€movingÏvehicles.€€Appellantððs€conduct€demonstrated€indifference€to€a€high€probability€ofÏcalamitous€consequences€to€himself€and€motorists€whom€he€was€certain€toÏencounter.€€òòSeeóó€òòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€937ð!ð38.€€The€trial€court€properlyÐ   @ Ðdetermined€that€Appellant€is€a€dangerous€offender.ñNñ׃×ñNññNñ׃,×ñNñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð "0 ÐÌà ` àBecause€the€trial€court€sentenced€Appellant€before€òòWilkersonóó€was€decided,Ð p& Ðthe€court€made€no€express€finding€that€the€òòWilkersonóó€test€was€satisfied.€Ð `(  ÐHowever,€we€conclude€that€it€is.€€First,€consecutive€sentences€are€clearly€relatedÏto€the€severity€of€Appellantððs€offenses.€€Indeed,€Appellant€was€convicted€of€fiveÏserious€felony€offenses€and€he€put€numerous€lives€at€risk€during€this€criminalÏepisode.€€If€anything,€Appellant€is€fortunate€that€he€received€consecutiveÏsentences€for€only€four€of€the€five€convictions.€€Second,€consecutive€sentencesÏare€required€in€this€case€in€order€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminalÐ 4 *, Ðconduct€by€Appellant.€€The€record€indicates€that€Appellantððs€criminal€conduct€hasÏbecome€more€and€more€violent€with€each€new€offense.€€Appellant€apparentlyÏbegan€with€theft,€moved€on€to€vehicle€burglary,€then€to€sexual€battery,€and€finallyÏto€the€violent€offenses€at€issue€here.€€Further,€the€trial€court€found€that€AppellantÏhad€shown€no€remorse€for€his€actions€and€had€denied€all€responsibility€for€theÏaggravated€rape€of€Stuard.€€The€public€certainly€needs€protection€fromÏAppellantððs€increasingly€violent€behavior.€€Finally,€consecutive€sentencing€in€thisÏcase€is€congruent€with€general€principles€of€sentencing.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÌœñPñà ` à›à ` à›à ` à›à ` à›à ` à›ÌñPñ›œñOñ̛̛ÌñOññPñ›ñPñÓ  ÓñOñà ` à›Ì›ÌñOñ›ÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE