ÿWPCT ¨šÞa•ô8”_v:È^}BŒ£»‹Î#‡žð®ÀCÍ-|øižãí¤´þÁD„òðèÚœB‘@" 0|V’ÿ`w_½=ß´ØÑ,ñÿj~ÃÚ3Ê¢ͯ€B·—†|õ?ÑT—A¤÷÷Òʅݸ`GJÑ5Ñp¥Hª+Ÿº±]ð¸ß9OX«×Üš I­dDÅ…µF­Á( ÄRïåÔ5£oæAÀ`çÀvËfÐG%Oa¾ep|Vÿt öŽ:ÝNƒ‹åfÄíű+³Ǥøð_½™‘ ÿXY(ª!fY££ñ>B"my“NP+KmäSHëŽê&[š¿Z]Ç8}Ü&ù…ÆkE×™K€¡Z>íeHñwŸ‡r-ù³Ú¨¦D|ô”»¹óãË.E´GéÇj‘9gr±DqûHÊÇH‚íIq-u $œ›êÆ ó|qŒ8ˆ»H…‘Y©¸H6NŠI´ÁmôMv^µW§Bóí—ø±ŒÚŒ©î2Œ¸æ2 {]f¹õÈ .U^Q’h¦è£n"‹Û9Mh¨Û¾ÙÒE ÐŽ4.Ïn¡ÙŒR9’hcÉz ¾i‘¼3БÁ¢œWà,úŠ+>æ©#ýW‘§£º™›¦w¥…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í w@ 4G [ j r 1mz 0cç 0wJ 0ŠÁ K 0lj 0DÖU:T\ºdddÞU:üüüüüüüüü B66666666 D3SSS 0D††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 0 Ê 0´j 0Ç 0Ûå 0ïÀÀÀÀÀ AO¯Æþþ 0DÄ D/ B7˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÐ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular 3D4D5D67D85e9:E;<Ó€ýhµ&Õ3|xG vwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à Ô€XÎXXXÔÔ€îcÍîXXÎÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€]íîîcÍÔÐ  ÐÌò òAugust€9,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôuÁô]íÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular °Ò°ÒÝ ƒþÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€X–*XXXÔThe€first€four€criteria€are€found€in€òòGrayóó.€€A€fifth€category€in€òòGrayóó,€based€onÐ ° Ða€specific€number€of€prior€felony€convictions,€may€enhance€the€sentence€rangeÏbut€is€no€longer€a€listed€criterion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115,€SentencingÐ à ÐCommission€Comments. ÔÒ°ÒÝ ƒþÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X–*XXXÔThe€defendantððs€claims€of€illegal€arrest€hinge€largely€upon€his€argumentÐ ° Ðthat€two€local€officers€knew€that€Mitchell€and€Spencer€were€not€credible.€€We€areÏnot€convinced€that€the€defendant€made€a€showing€of€this€evidence.€€His€ð ðprofferððÏconsisted€of€an€unsigned€ð ðstipulation.ðð€€Although€the€court€received€theÏstipulation€which€stated€that€the€officers,€were€they€present,€would€testify€thatÏMitchell€and€Spencer€were€untruthful€and€unreliable,€the€prosecutor€stated€thatÏhe€did€not€know€what€the€officers€would€say€if€presented€as€witnesses,€and€theÏtrial€court€did€not€indicate€the€weight€he€placed€upon€the€ð ðprofferedðð€information.€ÏHowever,€assuming€€that€this€information€was€before€the€trial€court,€the€evidenceÏfails€to€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€and€conclusion.Ô#†X­ÈXXX–*Q#Ô, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular d""""'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ<ñ›ñ<ñÔ€XÎXXXÔÒ°ÒÓ  Óò òÓÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€Æ XXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  Ññ<ñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E± tt0"H°¨Órß›ñ<ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐAT€KNOXVILLEó óÐ ˆØ Ðò òMAY€1999€SESSIONó óÐ `° ÐÌÓ  Óò òÓÓÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà h àà À àà  à)Ð Ü ,  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àò òAppelleeó ó,à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9805„CC„00181ó óÐ ®þ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òvsó ó.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òJefferson€Countyó óÐ €Ð  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òJASON€CROSS,à  àó óà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òHonorable€Rex€Henry€Ogleó óÐ R¢ Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àó óà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð >Ž Ðà ` àà ¸ àò òAppellantó ó.à h àà À àà  à)ò ò€€€€€€(First€Degree€Murder,€Aggravatedó óÐ $t Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òKidnapping)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌÌò òFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€FOR€THE€APPELLEE:ó óÐ È ÐÌò òEDWARD€C.€MILLERà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€JOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÐ šê ÐPublic€Defenderà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÐ †Ö ÐP.O.€Box€416à  àÐ l¼ ÐDandridge,€TN€37725€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òTODD€R.€KELLEYó óÐ R¢ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€37243„0493€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òALFRED€C.€SCHMUTZER,€JR.ó óÐ Ö!&  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€125€Court€Avenue,€Suite€301„EÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Sevierville,€TN€37862Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òJAMES€L.€GASSó óÐ Z&ª!% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Assistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€125€Court€Avenue,€Suite€301„EÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Sevierville,€TN€37862Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌò òÌOPINION€FILED:€_____________Ìó óÌò òÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEó óÐ þ3N/4 ÐÌÐ  Ð5 16S ÐÌÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àà @À à€€€€€€€ò òOPINIONó óÐ –æ ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Jason€Cross,€appeals€from€his€Jefferson€CountyÏCircuit€Court€conviction€of€€first€degree€murder€and€aggravated€kidnapping.€€A€juryÏfound€him€guilty€of€one€count€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder€of€the€victim,ÏJamie€Mills,€a€thirteen„year„old€girl,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€3913„202€(a)(1)€(1997),Ð Ì   Ðand€one€count€of€first€degree€murder€of€the€same€victim€committed€during€theÏperpetration€of€€kidnapping€her.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202€(a)(2)€(1997).€Ð d´  ÐThe€jury€also€convicted€the€defendant€of€the€aggravated€kidnapping€of€the€victim.Ð 0€  ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„304€(a)(3)(1997).€The€trial€court€imposed€a€convictionÐ üL Ðand€a€life€sentence€on€the€felony€murder€count€but€€entered€no€judgment€ofÏconviction€on€the€premeditated€murder€count.€€It€imposed€a€twelve„year€sentenceÏfor€aggravated€kidnapping,€to€run€consecutively€to€the€life€sentence.€€In€this€appeal,Ïthe€defendant€raises€the€following€issues:€WhetherÌà ` àà ¸ à1.€€The€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€convictions;Ìà ` àà ¸ à2.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€not€suppressing€the€defendantððs€confession;Ìà ` àà ¸ à3.€€The€felony€murder€count€should€have€been€dismissed€becauseÌà ` àaggravated€kidnapping,€the€predicate€felony€for€the€felony€murder,€is€not€¼à ` àlisted€in€the€felony€murder€statute;Ìà ` àà ¸ à4.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€a€judgment€of€acquittal€as€to€Ìà ` àfelony€murder€because€the€kidnapping€was€incidental€to€the€planned€killing;Ìà ` àà ¸ à5.€€Defendant€should€have€been€allowed€to€offer€expert€testimony€¼à ` àabout€his€diminished€capacity;Ìà ` àà ¸ à6.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€hearsay€statements€that€were€made€Ìà ` àby€an€indicted€co„defendant€who€was€not€on€trial;Ìà ` àà ¸ à7.€€The€district€attorney€improperly€argued€matters€outside€the€record;€Ìà ` àandà ¸ àÐ ˆ2Ø-3 Ðà ` àà ¸ à8.€€Consecutive€sentences€were€improper.ÌBased€upon€oral€arguments€and€this€courtððs€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs,€and€theÏapplicable€law,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÐ ¸95; Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€showed€that€onÏthe€morning€of€June€5,€1996€the€defendant€borrowed€Danny€Guinnððs€green€FordÏEscort.€€At€about€7:30€pm€on€that€evening,€the€victim€came€to€the€home€of€CharlieÏWilliams€and€asked€to€use€the€telephone.€€She€stated€she€wanted€to€get€a€ride€toÏNew€Market,€but€the€ð ðnumberðð€she€called€hung€up€on€her.€She€was€excited€andÏupset€and€left€the€Williams€house€when€she€heard€car€tires€squalling€out€on€theÏroad.€€Williams€watched€her€ñ1ñœñ1ñwalkñ1ñ›ñ1ñ€down€the€road.€€Later€that€evening,€the€defendantÏdrove€the€Ford€back€to€the€Guinn€house.€€He€had€blood€on€his€hands€and€a€silver„¼colored€knife€in€his€pocket.€€He€explained€the€blood€by€stating€he€had€to€kill€a€manÏover€Guinnððs€ð ðbeeper.ðð€€The€two€men,€along€with€two€women€who€were€present€atÏthe€Guinn€home,€went€to€get€beer€and€stopped€along€the€road,€where€the€defendantÏthrew€the€knife€away.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àMeanwhile,€Archie€Mitchell,€Roger€Spencer,€and€several€other€personsÏaccompanying€them€entered€the€police€station.€€Mitchell€was€upset,€agitated€andÏstated€that€he€had€witnessed€the€defendant€stab€a€girl.€€He€described€the€murderÏlocation€at€a€railroad€track€near€a€ð ðtattoo€placeðð€and€said€that€the€defendant€droveÏaway€from€the€scene€in€a€green€Ford€Escort.€€Officers€went€to€the€described€locationÏand€found€the€body€of€Jamie€Mills.€€She€had€suffered€a€deep€stab€wound€in€theÏchest.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àLater,€when€the€defendant€and€Guinn€returned€to€Guinnððs€house€in€theÏgreen€Ford€and€found€police€officers€present,€€the€defendant€jumped€from€the€carÏand€ran€away.€€Guinn€informed€the€officers€that€the€defendant€had€been€in€the€carÏand€had€fled€upon€seeing€the€officers.€€Sometime€later,€during€the€early€morningÏhours€of€June€6,€the€defendant€appeared€at€the€home€of€Michael€Smith.€TheÏdefendant€had€blood€on€him€and€told€Smith€he€was€running€from€the€law.€€AÏmember€of€Smithððs€family€told€the€police€that€the€defendant€was€at€the€Smith€home,Ïand€officers€arrived€and€arrested€the€defendant.€Ð 09€48 Ðñ1ñœñ1ñ‡ñ1ñ›ñ1ñà ` àà ¸ àAfter€the€defendant€was€taken€into€custody€and€advised€of€his€rights,ÏTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€Agent€Steve€Richardson€took€a€writtenÏstatement€in€which€the€defendant€confessed€to€killing€the€victim.€€He€stated€that€he,ÏMitchell€and€Spencer€picked€the€victim€up€around€1:00€pm€on€June€5.€€They€boughtÏbeer€and€spent€most€of€the€day€drinking€and€driving€around.€€Eventually€they€wentÏto€Stanley€Brownððs€house€to€buy€marijuana,€but€Brown€became€angry€becauseÏJamie€Mills€was€in€the€car.€€They€took€her€up€the€road€and€let€her€out.€€When€theÏmen€returned€to€Brownððs€house,€Brown€told€them€that€he€would€pay€them€ð ðoneÏounce€of€pot€to€scare€Jamie€really€bad.ðð€€Brown€stated€that€she€had€been€ð ðrunningÏher€mouthðð€and€giving€narcotics€information€to€the€police.€The€defendant€and€hisÏcompanions€agreed€to€scare€the€victim.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€men€picked€up€the€victim,€obtained€more€beer,€smoked€marijuana,Ïand€went€to€a€place€beside€the€railroad€track€ð ðbehind€the€tattoo€place€in€JeffersonÏCity.ðð€The€men€and€the€victim€got€out€of€the€car.€€Mitchell€asked€the€victim€if€she€wasÏwearing€a€wire,€and€she€said€ð ðno.ðð€€Mitchell€ripped€a€blue€star€off€of€the€victimððs€teeÏshirt.€€Then,€Mitchell€and€the€defendant€made€the€victim€sit€down€and€began€yellingÏat€her€about€being€a€ð ðsnitch.ðð€€Mitchell€pulled€the€defendant€aside€and€said€theyÏshould€ð ðget€rid€of€her.ðð€€The€defendant€ð ðwalked€over€the€top€of€her€and€stabbedÏJamie€in€the€chest€.€.€.€with€a€butcher€knife.€€Jamie€gripped€her€chest€and€yelled€realÏloud.ðð€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAccompanied€by€Mitchell€and€Spencer,€the€defendant€drove€the€greenÏFord€to€Guinnððs€house.€€In€his€statement,€the€defendant€admitted€to€throwing€theÏknife€away.€€He€said,€ð ðI€had€intentions€of€scaring€the€girl€because€I€thought€she€wasÏa€snitch.€€I€got€carried€away€and€stabbed€her.ðð€€After€giving€his€statement,€theÏdefendant€directed€the€officers€to€the€place€where€they€recovered€the€blood„¼smeared€knife.ÌÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àà ¸ àA€pathologist€testified€that,€although€the€victim€suffered€someÏsuperficial€scratches€and€two€non„consequential€knife€wounds€in€her€abdomen€area,Ïthe€fatal€wound€was€a€knife€stab€which€tore€through€her€chest,€heart€and€lungs€andÏstopped€just€before€the€point€of€the€knife€exited€through€the€skin€in€her€back.€TheÏvictim€died€within€a€minute€to€a€minute€and€a€half€after€receiving€this€wound.€€TheÏpathologist€testified€the€wound€was€consistent€with€a€wound€that€could€be€made€byÏthe€knife€which€the€defendant€had€thrown€away.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOther€forensic€evidence€established€that€the€victimððs€blood€wasÏconsistent€with€blood€stains€found€on€the€knife€and€on€the€keys€and€the€driverððs€sideÏupholstery€of€the€green€Ford.€€Furthermore,€a€blue€cloth€star€found€in€the€fence€rowÏbehind€Guinnððs€house€matched€a€tear€in€the€victimððs€tee€shirt.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àBased€upon€the€above€evidence,€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€ofÏboth€premeditated€and€felony€murder€and€of€aggravated€kidnapping.€The€trial€courtÏimposed€a€conviction€of€felony€murder€and€aggravated€kidnapping.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à1.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€first€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€fails€toÏsupport€his€felony€murder€and€aggravated€kidnapping€convictions,€as€well€as€theÏjuryððs€finding€of€guilt€of€premeditated€murder.€€We€disagree.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIt€is€well€established€that€a€jury€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,Ïaccredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€state€and€resolves€all€conflicts€inÏfavor€of€the€theory€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.Ð 3à.2 Ð1978);€òòState€v.€Townsendóó,€525€S.W.2d€842,€843€(Tenn.€1975).€€On€appeal,€the€stateÐ p5À04 Ðis€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€orÏlegitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð 09€48 ÐS.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àMoreover,€a€verdict€against€the€defendant€removes€the€presumptionÏof€innocence€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal,€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.Ð P   Ð2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973);€òòAnglin€v.€Stateóó,€553€S.W.2d€616,€620€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð 0 € Ð1977).€€The€defendant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption€on€appeal.€ÏòòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329,€331€(Tenn.€1977).Ð ð@  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àMost€significantly,€where€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,Ïthe€relevant€question€for€an€appellate€court€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidenceÏin€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.Ð P  ÐVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2782€(1979);€Tenn€R.€App.€P.€13.€€See€also,Ð 0€ ÐòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405€(Tenn.€1983).€€This€rule€applies€to€findings€basedÐ ` Ðon€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,€842Ð ð@ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Circumstantial€evidence€alone€may€be€sufficient€to€convictÏone€of€a€crime.€€òòState€v.€Bolingóó,€840€S.W.2d€944,€947€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð °"  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€pertinent€parts,€the€Code€defines€the€relevant€offenses€as€follows:ÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ à(a)€First€degree€murder€is:Ìà ` à(1)€a€premeditated€and€intentional€killing€of€another;Ìà ` à(2)€a€killing€of€another€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€or€attempt€to€¼à ` àperpetrate€any€first€degree€murder,€arson,€rape,€robbery,€burglary,€theft,€¼à ` àkidnapping,€aggravated€child€abuse€or€aircraft€piracy;Ìà ` à.€.€.€Ìà ` àà ¸ à(b)€No€culpable€mental€state€is€required€for€conviction€under€¼à ` àsubdivision€(a)(2)€.€.€.€except€the€intent€to€commit€the€enumerated€offenses€¼à ` àor€acts€in€such€subdivision[].ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202€(1997)€(amended€1998).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ à(a)€Aggravated€kidnapping€is€false€imprisonment,€as€defined€in€ðð€39„¼à ` à13„302,€committed:Ìà ` à.€.€.Ìà ` à(3)€with€the€intent€to€inflict€serious€bodily€injury€on€or€to€terrorize€the€victim€or€Ìà ` àanother.€.€.€.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„304.ÌÐ  :p59 Ðà ` àà ¸ à(a)€A€person€commits€the€offense€of€false€imprisonment€who€knowinglyÌà ` àremoves€or€confines€another€unlawfully€so€as€to€interfere€substantially€with€¼à ` àthe€ÓÓotherððs€liberty.€ÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„132„302€(1997).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€to€the€felony€murder€and€aggravated€kidnapping€convictions,€theÏdefendant€argues€there€is€insufficient€evidence€of€false€imprisonment.€€He€maintainsÏthat€the€victim€voluntarily€accompanied€the€men€and€that€she€was€stabbedÏimmediately€after€she€was€told€to€sit€down.€€€However,€in€the€light€most€favorable€toÏthe€state,€the€three€men€took€the€victim€to€an€isolated€location€where€they€intendedÏto€frighten€her€ð ðreally€bad.ðð€€They€demanded€to€know€if€she€was€wearing€a€ð ðwire,ððÏand€Mitchell€ripped€her€shirt.€€They€ð ðmade€Jamie€sit€down,€and€[they€began]€€yellingÏat€her€and€calling€her€a€snitch.ðð€€They€then€walked€back€to€the€car€and€made€theÏvictim€sit€down€again.€After€a€discussion€between€Mitchell€and€the€defendant,€theÏdefendant€fatally€stabbed€the€victim.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ à€€This€evidence€supports€a€finding€that€the€defendant€not€onlyÏknowingly€removed€or€confined€the€victim€unlawfully€so€as€to€substantially€interfereÏwith€her€liberty,€but€also€that€he€intended€to€terrorize€her€during€the€confrontation€atÏthe€railroad€tracks.€€We€believe€this€evidence€provided€the€jury€an€ample€basis€forÏconcluding€that€the€defendant€committed€aggravated€kidnapping€òòbeforeóó€and€whileÐ P( #& Ðthe€act€of€homicide€was€contemplated€and€carried€out.€€€As€such,€the€evidenceÏsupports€the€aggravated€kidnapping€and€felony€murder€convictions.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFurthermore,€the€jury€was€justified€in€finding€the€defendant€guilty€ofÏpremeditated€murder.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àð ðPremeditation€involves€a€previously€formed€design,€or€actual€òòintentionóóÐ p5À04 Ðto€kill.ðð€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€539€(Tenn.€1993)€(quoting€òòLewis€v.€Stateóó,Ð P7 26 Ð40€Tenn.€127,€147„48€(1859))€(italics€added€in€òòBrownóó).€€It€is€the€process€ð ðof€thinkingÐ 09€48 Ðabout€a€proposed€killing€before€engaging€in€the€homicidal€conduct.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€541.€Ð ° Ðð ð[ñ1ñœñ1ññ1ñœñ1ñN]oñ1ñ›ñ1ññ1ñ›ñ1ñ€specific€period€of€time€need€elapse€between€the€defendantððs€formulation€of€theÏdesign€to€kill€and€the€execution€of€that€plan€.€.€.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€543.€€Premeditation€presentsÐ pÀ Ða€question€for€the€jury€to€ñ1ñœñ1ñdecideñ1ñ›œñ1ñ,ñ1ñ›ñ1ñ€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð P   Ð1993),€and€ð ðthe€cases€have€long€recognized€that€the€necessary€elements€of€first„¼degree€murder€may€be€shown€by€circumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€atÐ `  Ð541;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBullingtonóó,€532€S.W.2d€556,€560€(Tenn.€1976);€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€970Ð ð@  ÐS.W.2d€509,€516€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Thus,€premeditation€may€be€inferredÏfrom€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€killing.€€òòGentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€at€3.à Ð àÐ ° ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€evidence€shows€that€the€defendant€and€Mitchell€discussed€theÏvictimððs€fate,€and€the€defendant€had€the€opportunity€to€contemplate€the€killing€beforeÏwalking€up€behind€a€defenseless€child€and€stabbing€her€with€enough€force€that€theÏknife€all€but€exited€through€her€back.€Through€the€recording€of€the€juryððs€verdict€onÏa€standard€judgment€form€which€pointedly€does€not€impose€a€conviction€for€thisÏoffense,€the€trial€court€essentially€merged€the€juryððs€verdict€of€premeditated€firstÏdegree€murder€into€the€conviction€of€felony€murder.€€òòState€v.€Fredrick€Sledgeóó,€No.Ð °"  Ð02C01„9405„CR„00089,€œsñ:ññ9ñLñ9ññ:ññ;ñlñ;ñip›€op.€at€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Nov.€24,€1997)Ï(ð ð[A]€merger€of€the€counts€amounts€to€nothing€more€than€a€procedural€assuranceÏthat€the€record€reflects€only€one€judgment€of€conviction€while€also€preserving€theÏfactual€findings€for€both€counts.ðð),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òògrantedóó€(Tenn.,€Mar.€1,€1999).€€HadÐ 0*€%( Ðwe€any€reason€to€reverse€the€felony€murder€conviction,€we€would€be€imposing€theÏalternative€conviction€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€€òòIdóó.;€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ð-@), Ððð€40„18„111€(1997).ÌÓ  ÓÌà @` àà @¸ à€€€€€2.€€Failure€to€suppress€the€defendantððs€confessionÌÓæKÓÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€assigns€as€error€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€suppress€theÏdefendantððs€pretrial€confession.€The€defendant€moved€for€suppression€in€a€pretrialÐ 09€48 Ðmotion€and€argued€that€the€defendantððs€warrantless€arrest€was€unsupported€byÏprobable€cause€and€that€his€resulting€confession€was,€therefore,€inadmissible.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€conducted€a€suppression€hearing,€at€which€AgentÏRichardson€testified€that€Mitchell€came€to€the€police€department€and€stated€that€heÏhad€seen€the€defendant€stab€a€young€girl€at€a€described€location€behind€the€tattooÏparlor,€near€the€railroad€track.€€Mitchell€indicated€that€the€defendant€was€driving€aÏgreen€Ford€Escort.€€The€police€found€the€victimððs€body€in€the€condition€and€in€theÏlocation€that€Mitchell€reported.€€Independently€of€the€murder€investigation,€the€policeÏhad€learned€that€the€defendant€was€located€at€Michael€Smithððs€residence.€€TheÏpolice€went€to€Smithððs€house€with€the€ownerððs€consent€and€arrested€the€defendant.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAdditional€information€about€the€defendantððs€link€to€the€murderÏemerged€at€trial.€€When€Mitchell€visited€the€police€department€to€report€the€crime,Ïhe€was€upset,€agitated,€and€was€accompanied€by€Spencer€and€a€number€of€otherÏpeople.€€Independently€of€the€on„going€investigation€on€the€night€of€June€5„6,€1996,Ïthe€police€knew€that€the€defendant€had€been€using€Danny€Guinnððs€green€FordÏEscort.€€Also,€members€of€Guinnððs€household€or€social€company€had€reported€thatÏthe€defendant€had€come€to€the€Guinn€house€that€night€under€suspiciousÏcircumstances.€When€the€police€arrived€at€Smithððs€house,€blood€was€visible€on€theÏdefendantððs€person,€and€he€initially€lied€about€his€identity.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àA€trial€judgeððs€factual€findings€on€a€motion€to€suppress€have€the€weightÏof€a€jury€verdict€and€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€them.€€òòState€v.€œOdom›óó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Tuttleóó,€914Ð °1-0 ÐS.W.2d€926,€931€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€806€S.W.2d€205,€208Ð 3à.2 Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€In€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€suppression€motion,Ïthis€court€may€consider€not€only€the€evidence€presented€at€the€suppression€hearing,Ïbut€also€the€evidence€presented€at€trial.€€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€975€€S.W.2d€290€(1998).€Ð 09€48 Ðà ` àà ¸ àMitchell€was€agitated€and€upset€when€he€came€to€the€policeÏdepartment.€€He€came€with€Spencer€and€in€the€company€of€family€and€friends.€HeÏimparted€three€vital€pieces€of€information€„„€that€the€defendant€fatally€stabbed€aÏyoung€girl,€that€the€killing€occurred€on€the€tracks€near€a€certain€tattoo€place,€and€thatÏthe€defendant€drove€away€in€a€green€Ford€Escort.€€This€information€was€confirmedÏby€finding€the€girl€in€the€specified€location,€killed€by€an€apparent€stabbing,€and€byÏpolice€obtaining€knowledge€that€the€defendant€had€Guinnððs€green€Escort€on€thatÏevening.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€argues€that,€because€the€police€knew€that€Mitchell€andÏSpencer€were€not€credible,€the€ð ðveracityðð€element€necessary€to€attribute€probableÏcause€to€an€informantððs€tip€was€not€satisfied.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2dÐ P  Ð430,€432,€436€(Tenn.€1989)€(as€standard€for€measuring€probable€cause,€courtÏadopted€€ð ðòòAguilaróó€and€òòSpinellióóðð€two„prong€test€„„€ð ðbasis€of€knowledgeðð€prong€andÐ ` Ðð ðveracityðð€prong);€òòState€v.€Pulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€29,€31„32€(Tenn.€1993)€(òòJacuminóó€two„Ð ð@ Ðprong€test€applied€to€analysis€of€information€supplied€by€tipster€or€confidentialÏinformant.)€€Additionally,€he€argues,€without€citation€to€authority,€that€because€theÐ °"  Ðòòarrestingóó€officer€was€not€identified€in€the€record,€probable€cause€could€not€be€basedÐ $à" Ðupon€that€officerððs€knowledge.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFirst,€we€are€not€persuaded€by€the€defendantððs€òòJacuminóó€argument.€Ð 0*€%( ÐThe€basis€of€knowledge€of€Mitchell,€the€informant,€was€his€presence€at€the€sceneÏof€the€crime.€€Although€the€defendant€does€not€challenge€the€basis€of€theÏinformantððs€knowledge,€the€information€of€an€eye„witness,€reported€at€or€near€theÏtime€of€the€incident,€lends€credence€to€the€account.€€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€32.€€Also,Ð °1-0 Ðð ð[ñ1ñœñ1ññ1ñœñ1ñt]heñ1ñ›ñ1ññ1ñ›ñ1ñ€corroboration€of€several€of€the€details€of€the€reports,€such€as€the€identity€of€theÏ[perpetrator],€the€description€of€the€car,€and€the€general€location€of€the€incident,Ïñ1ñœñ1ññ1ñœñ1ñsupport[sñ1ñ›ñ1ññ1ñ›ñ1ñ]€the€informantððs€credibility.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€the€present€case,€independentÐ P7 26 Ðinvestigation€by€the€police€corroborated€Mitchellððs€information€about€the€location€ofÐ 09€48 Ðthe€homicide,€the€gender€and€the€age€of€the€victim,€the€method€of€killing€the€victim,Ïand€the€defendantððs€departure€from€the€scene€in€a€green€Ford€Escort.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ à Ðv.€Simpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€776,€782€(Tenn.€1998)€(ð ðA€showing€that€the€informantððsÐ pÀ Ðdata€is€reliable€may€satisfy€the€credibility€prong.ðð)€(citing€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€836Ð P   ÐS.W.2d€560,€562€(Tenn.€1992)).€€Therefore,€even€if€we€assume€there€is€a€basis€inÏthe€record€for€impugning€Mitchellððs€credibility,׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€record€nevertheless€supports€theÐ `  Ðlegality€of€the€arrest€based€upon€the€tip€being€the€genesis€of€probable€cause.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFurthermore,€the€legality€of€the€arrest€is€supported€by€information€inÏaddition€to€Mitchellððs€tip.€€The€defendant€fled€from€an€imminent€confrontation€withÏthe€police.€€Flight€to€avoid€apprehension€in€the€face€of€law€enforcement€officers€hasÏbeen€held€to€be€relevant€because€it€tends€to€ð ðshow€guilt,€consciousness€of€guilt,€orÏknowledge.ðð€€òòBuckingham€v.€Stateóó,€540€S.W.2d€660,€665€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976);Ð 0€ ÐòòMitchell€v.€Stateóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€153,€161,€458€S.W.2d€630,€633€(1970).€€In€fact,Ð ` Ðsuch€evidence€may€be€considered€by€the€trier€of€fact€ð ðas€one€of€a€series€ofÏcircumstances€from€which€guilt€may€be€inferred.ðð€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,Ð Ð  Ð74€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€808,€813€(Tenn.€1985).€Ð °"  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àMoreover,€the€officers€went€to€the€Smith€residence€with,€at€least,€aÏreasonable€suspicion€the€defendant€committed€the€murder,€and€their€encounter€withÏthe€defendant€further€enhanced€their€knowledge€of€the€defendantððs€culpability,Ïòòbeforeóó€the€arrest€was€effected.€€òòSeeóó€òòSimpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€at€780,€783.€€When€theÐ ,`'* Ðofficers€arrived,€the€defendant€gave€a€false€name,€and€the€homeowner€then€gaveÐ ð-@), Ðthe€police€the€defendantððs€correct€name.€€Also,€significantly,€blood€was€visible€on€theÏdefendantððs€person.€€The€arrest€that€was€then€effected€was€amply€supported€byÏprobable€cause.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àNext,€we€agree€with€the€defendant€that,€although€Mr.€Smith€testifiedÏand€described€the€defendantððs€arrest,€the€record€does€not€identify€the€officers€whoÏcame€to€the€Smith€house€and€made€the€arrest.€€However,€this€lapse€in€the€proof€isÏinconsequential.€€The€lawfulness€of€an€investigative€detention€or€an€arrest€does€notÏdepend€upon€the€detaining€or€arresting€officers€knowing€the€ð ðspecific€facts€which€ledÏtheir€colleagues€to€seek€their€assistance.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Hensleyóó,€469€U.S.€221,Ð à Ð231,€105€S.€Ct.€675,€681€(1985).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àMoreover,€we€believe€that€the€confession€was€admissible€even€if€theÏdefendant,€at€the€time€he€confessed,€was€being€held€in€violation€of€the€FourthÏAmendment.€€The€confession€was€not€ð ðobtained€by€exploitation€of€[any]€FourthÏAmendment€illegality.ðð€€òòState€v.€Huddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€666,€674€(Tenn.€1996).€Ð Ð  ÐIn€òòHuddlestonóó,€our€supreme€court€adopted€the€ð ðfruit€of€the€poisonous€treeðð€analysisÐ °"  Ðto€determine€whether€a€confession€taken€during€a€Fourth„Amendment„deficientÏcustody€is€ð ðððsufficiently€an€act€of€free€will€to€purge€the€primary€taint€of€the€unlawfulÏinvasions.ðððð€òòIdóó.€(quoting€òòBrown€v.€Illinoisóó,€422€U.S.€590,€598,€95€S.€Ct.€2254,€2259Ð P( #& Ð(1975)€(quoting€òòWong€Sun€v.€United€Statesóó,€371€U.S.€471,€486,€83€S.€Ct.€407,€416Ð 0*€%( Ð(1963)).€€Our€supreme€court€utilized€the€following€òòBrown€v.€Illinoisóó€factors€inÐ ,`'* Ðanalyzing€the€issue:€ð ð(1)€the€presence€or€absence€of€òòMirandaóó€warnings;€(2)€theÐ ð-@), Ðtemporal€proximity€of€the€arrest€and€the€confession;€(3)€the€presence€of€interveningÏcircumstances;€and€finally,€of€particular€significance,€(4)€the€purpose€and€flagrancyÏof€the€official€misconduct.ðð€€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€674„75;€òòseeóó€òòBrownóó,€422€U.S.Ð 3à.2 Ðat€603„04,€95€S.€Ct.€at€2261„62.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€the€defendant€was€twice€given€the€òòMirandaóóÐ 09€48 Ðwarnings€before€he€gave€a€statement€to€the€police.€€Moreover,€ð ðtemporal€proximityððÏsupports€the€validity€of€the€confession.€€There€were€no€ð ðintervening€circumstances,ððÏand€this€factor€weighs€in€favor€of€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€atÐ pÀ Ð675.€€However,€the€purpose€and€lack€of€flagrancy€of€any€violation€weighs€heavily€inÏfavor€of€the€state.€€Unlike€the€police€in€òòHuddlestonóó,€the€police€in€the€present€caseÐ 0 € Ðhad€ñ1ñœñ1ñknowledge,ñ1ñ›ñ1ññ1ññ1ñ€or€at€least€a€good€faith€belief,€that€ñ1ñœñ1ñprobableñ1ñ›ñ1ññ1ññ1ñ€cause.€Accordingly,Ïthree€of€the€four€factors€support€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€suppression€motion.€ÏHad€there€been€a€Fourth€Amendment€violation€in€this€case,€the€state€has€carried€itsÏburden€in€showing€that€the€confession€would€be€admissible€nevertheless.€ÏòòSeeóóòòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€675.Ð à ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThus,€we€conclude€that€the€defendantððs€confession€was€properlyÏadmitted€into€evidence.ÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ à3.€€The€absence€of€ð ðaggravated€kidnappingðð€as€one€of€the€felonies€à @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àenumerated€inÏthe€felony€murder€ñ1ñœñ1ñstatuteñ1ñ›ñ1ññ1ññ1ñÌÌÓ‚uÓÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„202(a)(2),€as€it€was€wordedÏat€the€time€of€the€homicide€in€the€present€case,€provided€that€first€degree€murderÏincludes€a€killing€of€another€committed€in€the€perpetration€or€attempt€to€perpetrateÏð ðany€first€degree€murder,€arson,€rape,€robbery,€burglary,€theft,€òòkidnappingóó,Ð P( #& Ðaggravated€child€abuse€or€aircraft€piracy.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2)Ï(1997)€(amended€1998)€(emphasis€added).€The€defendant€urges€that€the€felonyÏmurder€count€in€his€indictment€should€be€dismissed€because€the€enumeration€of€Ïpredicate€felonies€does€not€include€òòaggravatedóó€kidnapping.€Ð Ð/ +. ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€reject€this€interpretation€of€the€statute.€€The€plain€intent€of€theÏlegislature€in€referring€to€various€predicate€felonies€such€as€arson,€€robbery,€burglaryÏand€kidnapping€is€to€refer€to€the€crime€generically,€and€the€generic€referenceÏembraces€all€of€the€particular€offenses€that€fit€within€the€category.€€For€instance,€theÐ 09€48 ÐCode€proscribes€kidnapping,€aggravated€kidnapping€and€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping€within€a€chapter€part€entitled€ð ðKidnapping€and€False€Imprisonment.ðð€€òòSeeóóÐ à ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„301,€303„05€(1997).€Robbery,€aggravated€robbery€andÏespecially€aggravated€robbery€are€all€contained€within€the€rubric€ñ1ñœñ1ñð ðRobbery,ððñ1ñ›ñ1ññ1ññ1ñ€ñ1ñœñ1ñòòseeóóñ1ñ›ñ1ññ1ññ1ñÐ P   ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„401„„03€(1997),€and€the€same€arrangement€exists€forÏthe€various€grades€of€ð ðarsonðð€and€ð ðburglary.ðð€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„14„301„„Ð `  Ð02;€ðððð€39„14„401„„04€(1997).€€It€would€be€absurd€to€suppose€that€the€legislatureÏintended€that€only€the€least€grades€of€these€various€offenses€could€serve€asÏpredicates€for€felony€murder€convictions.€€The€legislature€specified€particularÏoffenses€only€when€it€wished€to€utilize€a€higher€grade€of€a€given€offense€as€aÏpredicate€felony;€hence,€to€serve€as€a€predicate€felony,€€murder€must€be€first€degreeÏmurder€and€child€abuse€must€be€aggravated.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ñ1ñœñ1ñððñ1ñ›ñ1ññ1ññ1ñ€39„13„202(a)(2)Ï(1997)€(amended€1998).€Otherwise,€with€respect€to€kidnapping,€the€offense€nowÏbefore€us,€felony€murder€is€indicated€by€the€perpetration€or€attempt€to€perpetrateÏð ðòòanyóó€.€.€.€kidnapping,ðð€including€aggravated€kidnapping.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ñ1ñœñ1ñððñ1ñ›ñ1ññ1ññ1ñ€39„13„Ð ð@ Ð202(a)(2)€(1997)€(emphasis€added).€€Ìà ` à€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ àà @ à4.€€Invalidity€of€felony€murder€conviction€based€uponÌà @` àà @¸ à€€€€the€incidental€relationship€of€the€kidnapping€to€the€homicideÌÓÌ€ÓÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€next€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏgranted€his€motion€for€acquittal€on€the€felony€murder€count€because€the€aggravatedÏkidnapping,€as€the€predicate€felony,€was€merely€incidental€to€the€homicide.€€RelyingÏupon€òòState€v€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991),€the€defendant€argues€that,Ð ð-@), Ðnot€only€was€the€kidnapping€incidental€to€the€murder,€but€the€kidnapping€could€notÏincrease€the€risk€of€harm€to€the€victim€because€the€resulting€crime€was€murder.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòAnthonyóó,€the€supreme€court€established€the€guidelines€forÐ p5À04 Ðdetermining€whether€a€defendant€may€be€convicted€of€kidnapping€and€anotherÏfelony€based€upon€a€single€criminal€episode.€€òòAnthonyóó€was€a€consolidation€of€twoÐ 09€48 Ðcases,€and€in€both,€the€defendants€robbed€ñ1ñœñ1ñbusinessñ1ñ›ñ1ññ1ññ1ñ€ñ1ñœñ1ññ2ñœñ2ñestablishmentsñ3ñJuly€15,€1999ñ3ññ5ñ.ñ5ññ6ñ.€€ñ6ññ8ñ›ñ8ññ1ñ›ñ1ññ7ññ2ñ›ñ2ññ7ññ7ñ€ñ7ññ8ñ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ññ8ñœñ8ññ4ñ€ñ4ñBothñ8ñ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ñÏdefendants€forcibly€confined€employees€of€the€businesses€they€robbed€by€requiringÏthem€to€remain€in€the€same€location€or€to€move€to€a€different€location€within€theÏbusiness€establishments.€€Both€defendants€were€convicted€of€robbery€andÏkidnapping€offenses.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€determining€whether€separate€convictions€were€proper,€theÏsupreme€court€looked€to€ð ðwhether€the€confinement,€movement,€or€detention€isÏessentially€incidental€to€the€accompanying€felony€and€is€not,€therefore,€sufficient€toÏsupport€a€separate€conviction€for€kidnapping,€or€whether€it€is€significant€enough,€inÏand€of€itself,€to€warrant€independent€prosecution€and€is,€therefore,€sufficient€toÏsupport€such€a€conviction.ðð€€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306.Ð P  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àMore€recently,€in€òòState€v.€Dixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€532,€534€(Tenn.€1997),Ð ` Ðthe€supreme€court€stated€that,€in€determining€whether€separate€convictions€mayÏstand,€the€trial€court€must€first€consider€ð ðwhether€the€movement€or€confinement€wasÏbeyond€that€necessary€to€consummate€the€[sexual€offense].ðð€€òòDixonóó,€957€S.W.2dÐ °"  Ðat€535.€€In€this€regard,€ð ðit€is€the€purpose€of€the€removal€or€confinement€and€not€theÏdistance€or€duration€that€supplies€a€necessary€element€of€aggravated€kidnapping.ðð€ÏòòDixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€at€535.€€If€the€additional€movement€or€confinement€was€beyondÐ P( #& Ðthat€necessary€to€consummate€the€offense,€the€court€must€then€inquire€whether€thatÏð ðadditional€movement€or€confinement:€(1)€prevented€the€victim€from€summoningÏhelp;€(2)€lessened€the€defendantððs€risk€of€detection;€or€(3)€created€a€significantÏdanger€or€increased€the€victimððs€risk€of€harm.ðð€€òòDixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€at€535.Ð Ð/ +. ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€charged€in€the€indictment,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€isÏfalse€imprisonment€for€the€purpose€of€terrorizing€the€victim€or€another.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð p5À04 ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„304(a)(3)€(1997).€€False€imprisonment€is€the€knowing€removalÏor€confinement€of€another€ð ðunlawfully€so€as€to€interfere€substantially€with€the€otherððsÐ 09€48 Ðliberty.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„302(a)€(1997).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€emphasizes€the€fact€that€the€victim€voluntarily€left€andÏrode€around€with€the€defendant€and€his€companions€and€was€then€confined€only€toÏthe€extent€necessary€to€kill€her.€€Therefore,€he€posits€separate€convictions€cannotÏstand.€€On€another€level,€the€defendant€seems€to€be€suggesting€that€we€shouldÏextrapolate€from€òòAnthonyóó€a€determination€that€a€felony€murder€conviction€isÐ ð@  Ðimpermissible€when€the€predicate€felony€is€incidental€to€the€homicide.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€disagree€that€òòAnthonyóó€bars€separate€convictions€on€the€facts€ofÐ à Ðthis€case.€€The€defendant€and€his€companions€decided€to€terrorize€the€victim,€andÏafter€they€took€her€to€a€remote€location,€they€proceeded€to€do€just€that,€by€yellingÏand€screaming€at€her€and€accusing€her€of€ð ðsnitching.ðð€€She€was€detained,€orÏconfined,€by€being€forced€to€sit€down€twice€in€the€presence€of€three€men€who€wereÏverbally€abusing,€if€not€threatening€her.€€Based€upon€the€defendantððs€confession,Ïaggravated€kidnapping€had€already€occurred€and€was€ongoing€when€the€defendant€Ïfirst€decided€to€kill€the€victim.€€This€is€not€a€case€where€the€movement€of€the€victimÏto€a€more€remote€location€was€accomplished€in€order€for€the€accused€to€carry€outÏhis€ultimate€criminal€intent.€€Rather,€the€record€supports€a€finding€that€in€this€case€Ïthe€kidnapping€occurred€prior€to€formation€of€the€intent€to€commit€the€ultimate€crime€Ïof€murder.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThus,€the€evidence€clearly€demonstrates€that€the€removal€andÏconfinement€were€not€incidental€to€the€homicide;€rather€the€defendantððs€actionsÏwere€the€proper€basis€for€separate€convictions€of€aggravated€kidnapping€andÏmurder.€€òòSeeóó€òòDixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€at€533€(separate€convictions€of€aggravatedÐ 3à.2 Ðkidnapping,€aggravated€assault€and€attempted€sexual€battery€were€upheld€whereÏthe€defendant€assaulted€the€victim€on€sidewalk€then€dragged€her€behind€bushes€inÏvacant€lot€and€attempted€sexual€assault).€€Neither€the€first€degree€murder€nor€theÐ 09€48 Ðaggravated€kidnapping€conviction€need€be€abated.€€Given€our€view€of€the€evidence,Ïwe€need€not€fathom€any€extrapolated€argument€that€a€felony€murder€conviction€isÏnot€permissible€when€its€predicate€felony€is€incidental€to€the€homicide.ÌÌÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ àÓÓ5.€€€Trial€courtððs€disallowance€of€testimony€from€the€defendantððsÌ€expert€witness€on€the€issue€of€the€defendantððs€diminished€capacityÌÓé—ÓÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àAt€a€pretrial€hearing,€the€defendant€and€the€state€argued€theÏadmissibility€of€testimony€of€Dr.€Eric€Engum,€an€expert€witness€the€defendantÏproposed€to€call€in€order€to€establish€his€ð ðdiminished€capacityðð€to€form€criminalÏintent.€€The€trial€court€agreed€with€the€state€that€the€defendant€could€not€use€theÏexpert€witness€to€show€that€the€defendant€had€ð ðdiminished€capacity€because€ofÏpersonality€disorders€or€things€like€this,ðð€and€the€trial€court€limited€the€expertððsÏtestimony€to€an€opinion€about€the€influence€of€any€alcohol€or€drugs€which€theÏdefendant€may€have€used€prior€to€the€homicide.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ à€Doctor€Engum€is€a€clinical€neuropsychologist€and€forensicÏpsychologist.€The€defendant€made€no€live„witness€proffer€of€the€proposed€evidence,Ïbut€he€did€offer,€and€the€court€received,€Dr.€Engumððs€thorough,€written€report,€whichÏwas€based€upon€a€psychological€screening€interview€and€an€extensive€battery€ofÏtests.€It€revealed€the€sad€history€of€a€young€man,€a€tenth„grade€drop„out,€€whoseÏchildhood€was€marred€by€sexual€abuse€at€the€hands€of€his€older€brother,€chronicÏacademic€failure,€negligible€parenting,€chemical€abuse,€and€repeated€placementsÏin€juvenile€institutions.€€At€the€age€of€twenty„three€at€the€time€of€sentencing,€his€briefÏadulthood€had€been€marred€by€drug€and€alcohol€abuse,€employment€and€maritalÏfailures,€and€numerous€burglary,€theft€and€vandalism€convictions.€€Dr.€EngumÏopined€that€the€defendant€demonstrated€the€following€characteristics:€(1)€attentionÏdeficit€disorder,€(2)€performance€in€the€ð ðdull€normal€range€of€intellectual€functioning,Ï.€.€.€€consistent€with€his€prior€educational€and€vocational€backgroundðð€(Full€Scale€IQÏof€86,€Performance€IQ€of€90)€(€ð ðclear,€logicalðð€thought€processes,€but€with€ð ðsomeÐ 09€48 Ðdeficits€in€basic€cognitive€organizationðð€and€a€concrete,€inflexible€ð ðreasoningÏprocess,ðð€although€performance€was€above€average€when€given€a€ð ðlanguage€freeÏñ8ñœñ8ññ8ñœñ8ñmeasure[mentñ8ñ›ñ8ññ8ñ›ñ8ñ]€of€cognitive€abilityðð),€(3)€a€psychological€dependence€on€marijuanaÏand€a€psychological€and€physiological€dependence€on€alcohol€and€history€of€abuseÏof€hallucinogens,€sedative,€hypnotic€and€ñ8ñœñ8ññ8ñœñ8ñanxiolyticñ8ñ›ñ8ññ8ñ›ñ8ñ€drugs,€(4)€a€learning€disability€inÏthe€areas€of€reading€and€mathematics€and€a€tested€Grade€Equivalent€of€6.1,€(5)€aÏð ðdepressive€disorder€not€otherwise€specified,ðð€and€(6)€a€mixed€personality€disorderÏwith€avoidant€and€schizoid€features.€The€defendant€reported€to€Dr.€Engum€that,€onÏthe€day€of€the€killing,€he€had€used€marijuana,€LSD,€€and€alcohol.€With€respect€toÏð ðany€mental€disease€or€defect€which€might€relate€to€[the€defendantððs]€state„of„mindÏat€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offense,ðð€Dr.€Engum€opined€only€that€€ð ðtheÏevidence€does€suggest€that€Mr.€Cross€was€under„the„influence€[sic]€of€significantÏamounts€of€alcohol€as€well€as€.€.€.€[LSD].ðð€€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€theÏdefendant€the€opportunity€to€prove€his€ð ðdiminished€capacityðð€to€intend€to€kill€andÏkidnap.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àð ðDiminished€capacityðð€is€not€a€defense€in€Tennessee.€€òòState€v.€Phippsóó,Ð p&À!$ Ð883€S.W.2d€138,€149€(Tenn.€1994).€€Our€supreme€court€has€discouraged€the€useÏof€the€phrase€ð ðdiminished€capacityðð€because€it€poorly€reflects€the€proper€use€of€theÏevidence€to€ð ðnegate€the€existence€of€the€culpable€mental€state€required€to€establishÏthe€criminal€offense.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679.€690€(Tenn.€1997),€òòcertóó.Ð ð-@), Ðòòdeniedóó,€„„„€U.S.€„„„€118€S.€Ct.€2348€(1998).€Ð Ð/ +. ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWhen€a€defendant€uses€òòexpertóó€testimony€to€prove€he€or€she€lackedÐ 3à.2 Ðthe€capacity€to€intend€the€crime,€ð ðthe€psychiatric€testimony€must€demonstrate€thatÏthe€defendantððs€inability€to€form€the€requisite€culpable€mental€state€was€the€productÏof€a€òòmental€disease€or€defectóó,€not€just€a€particular€emotional€state€or€mentalÐ 09€48 Ðcondition.ðð€€òòHallóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€690€(emphasis€added).€€In€òòHallóó,€the€defendantÐ ° Ðasserted€trial€court€error€in€disallowing€his€psychiatric€expert€to€testify€about€hisÏð ðdiminished€capacityðð€to€intend€murder.€€The€defense€wanted€to€prove€that€HallððsÏconsumption€of€alcohol€ð ðwould€have€had€[an€affect]€on€him€with€his€type€ofÏpersonalityðð€and€that€he€was€under€ð ðemotional€distress€and€stress.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€At€theÐ 0 € Ðsentencing€hearing,€the€expert€testified€Hall€had€ð ða€borderline€personality€disorderÏand€that€such€people€could€have€brief€episodes€of€rage€during€ððtemporary€states€ofÏmental€illness.ðððð€òòIdóó.€at€691.€€Our€supreme€court€rejected€Hallððs€claim€and€held€thatÐ Ð  Ðð ð[t]hough€expert€testimony€is€admissible€to€show€that€because€of€mental€disease€orÏdefect,€a€defendant€lacked€the€capacity€to€form€the€mental€state€required€toÏconstitute€the€offense.€.€.€,€the€testimony€in€this€case€did€not€meet€that€standard.ðð€Ð pÀ ÐòòIdóó.€at€692.Ð P  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€evidence€proposed€by€Hall€failed€in€three€respects.€€First,€theÏexpert€did€not€propose€to€testify€that€Hall€ð ðlacked€the€capacity€to€premeditate€andÏdeliberate€the€killing€because€of€a€mental€disease€or€defect.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€691.€€Second,Ð Ð  Ðthe€expert€spoke€only€abstractly€and€generally€about€typical€persons€with€personalityÏtypes€similar€to€Hallððs€type,€instead€of€discussing€ð ðthe€capacity€of€the€particularÏdefendant€on€trial.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Third,€the€ð ðpersonality€type€and€character€traits€which€[theÐ p&À!$ Ðexpert]€gleaned€from€the€test€results€and€a€single€three€hour€interviewðð€do€notÏequate€to€proof€of€ð ða€defendantððs€òòcapacityóó€to€form€the€mental€intent.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€(italics€in€Ð 0*€%( Ðoriginal).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àñ8ñœ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ññ8ñœ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ññ8ñœ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ññ8ñœ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ññ8ñœñ8ñInitially,ñ8ñ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ñ€we€note€that€a€trial€courtððs€rulings€on€the€admissibility€ofÏevidence€are€reviewed€on€appeal€under€an€abuse„of„discretion€standard.€òòState€v.Ð °1-0 ÐGriffisóó,€964€S.W.2d€577,€594€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ð 3à.2 Ð1997).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€did€not€specify€the€evidentiary€basis€for€its€ruling€whichÐ 09€48 Ðlimited€the€proposed€expert€testimony€to€showing€the€effects€of€voluntaryÏintoxication€on€the€defendantððs€culpability.€€However,€the€ruling€was€implicitly€basedÏupon€either€Tennessee€Evidence€Rule€402€or€702,€or€both.€€Rule€402€requires€thatÏevidence€€be€relevant€as€a€condition€to€its€admissibility.€€Rule€702€deals€specificallyÏwith€expert€testimony.€€If€the€testimony€is€based€upon€scientific,€technical€orÏspecialized„knowledge€information,€the€expert€witness€may€testify€if€ñ8ñœñ8ñhis€or€herñ8ñ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ñÏknowledge€or€opinion€ð ðwill€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€theÏevidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAfter€a€review€of€Dr.€Engumððs€report,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€limited€the€scope€of€the€proposed€expert€testimony,€based€upon€eitherÏevidence€rule.€€First,€the€report€does€not€clearly€indicate€whether€the€defendant€wasÏhampered€by€any€ð ðmental€disease€or€defect.ðð€€Certainly,€the€defendant€hasÏlimitations€and€problems,€including€diagnosed€personality€disorders;€however,€heÏis€neither€psychotic,€mentally€retarded,€nor€suffering€from€debilitating€brain€injury.ÏGiven€the€òòHallóó€requirement€that€expert€testimony€of€this€type€be€grounded€uponÐ Ð  Ðmental€disease€or€defect,€the€proffer€fails€to€show€that€the€evidence€is€relevant.€ÏòòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€ñ8ñœñ8ñ402.ñ8ñ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ñÐ $à" ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àSecondly,€and€in€this€case€more€importantly,€the€Engum€report€setÏforth€no€opinion€that€the€defendant€lacked€the€legal€culpability€to€commit€the€offenseÏon€trial,€except€for€the€opinion€that€his€criminal€intent€was€influenced€by€the€use€ofÏdrugs€and€alcohol.€€The€report€is€devoid€of€any€evidence€that€any€other€condition€„„Ïbe€it€his€chemical€dependency,€personality€disorder,€learning€disability,€or€anythingÏelse€„„€resulted€in€the€defendantððs€incapacity€to€form€the€requisite€intent€to€commitÏthe€offenses.€€As€such,€the€expert€evidence€as€depicted€in€the€report€was€not€ofÏsubstantial€assistance€to€the€jury.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€The€trial€court€wasÐ p5À04 Ðcorrect€in€isolating€the€defendantððs€pre„crime€drug€and€alcohol€use€as€the€soleÏfactors€which€may€have€influenced€his€capacity€to€fulfill€the€mental€elements€ofÐ 09€48 Ðmurder€and€kidnapping.ÌÌñ8ñœ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ññ8ñœ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ñÓ  ÓÓÓà @` àà @¸ à6.€€Admission€of€out„of„court€statements€of€indictedÌà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àco„defendant€who€was€not€on€trialÌÌñ8ñœñ8ñÌñ8ñ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ñÌÓ%¼Óñ8ñœ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ñÓÓà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€next€issue,€the€defendant€complains€of€the€testimony€of€a€stateÏwitness€that€Archie€Mitchell€came€into€the€jail€on€the€night€of€the€killing€and€reportedÏthat€ð ðheððd€witnessed€a€homicide,€seen€this€little€girl€get€killed.ðð€€The€defendantÏobjected€to€the€testimony,€and€following€a€bench€conference,€the€trial€courtÏsustained€the€objection€and€cautioned€the€jury€that€it€could€not€use€such€testimonyÏas€indicating€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted€by€the€out„of„court€declarant,€but€onlyÏas€a€basis€of€understanding€€why€an€investigation€was€commenced.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€statement€was€hearsay.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c),€802;€òòStateÐ  p Ðv.€James€Roy€Jerniganóó,€No.€01C01„9709„CC„00414,€slip€op.€at€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð P ÐNashville,€Sept.€29,€1998).€€The€state€advances€no€hearsay€rule€exception€thatÏwould€authorize€the€use€of€the€statement.€€Moreover,€the€criminally€accused€has€theÏright€to€confront€those€who€testify€against€him.€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€VI;€Tenn.€Const.Ïart.€1,€ðð€9.€€Admission€of€an€incriminating€statement€of€a€non„testifying€co„defendantÏviolates€a€defendantððs€constitutional€right€of€confrontation.€€òòBruton€v.€United€Statesóó,Ð `'°"% Ð391€U.S.€123,€126,€88€S.€Ct.€1620,€1622€(1968);€òòSmart€v.€Stateóó,€544€S.W.2d€109,Ð @)$' Ð112€(Tenn.€1976).€€Although€in€this€case€the€defendants€were€not€tried€jointly,€theÏstatements€of€a€non„testifying€co„defendant€would€generally€be€inadmissible€bothÏon€constitutional€and€hearsay€grounds.€€òòSeeóó€òòJames€Ray€Jerniganóó,€slip€op.€at€8.€€€€Ð à.0*- ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€however,€any€error€in€allowing€the€statement€wasÏundoubtedly€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a);Ð €4Ð/3 ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€òòChapman€v.€Californiaóó,€386€U.S.€18,€24,€87€S.€Ct.€824,€828Ð `6°15 Ð(1967).€€The€comment€itself€was€brief€and€innocuous.€€The€trial€court€gave€the€juryÏan€immediate€remedial€instruction.€€Finally,€the€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€guiltÐ  :p59 Ðwas€overwhelming.€ÌÌñ8ñœ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ñÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àà @À àà @ à7.€€Stateððs€closing€argumentÌÌÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àIn€this€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€following€closing„argumentÏstatement€of€the€prosecutor€was€improper€and€prejudicial:ÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àIf€it€wasnððt€for€the€fact€that€this€man€right€here€was€confronted€with€theÌà ` àà ¸ àfact€that€his€two€other€friends€had€already€gone€to€the€police€and€toldÌà ` àà ¸ àthem€what€happened,€and€he€was€confronted€with€that,€he€had€no€¼à ` àà ¸ àchoice.€€ñ8ñœñ8ñÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àTheñ8ñ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ñ€defendant€objected€that€his€argument€was€outside€ñ8ñœñ8ñthe€record.ñ8ñ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ñÌÌñ8ñœ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ñà ` àà ¸ àThe€review€of€this€issue€first€entails€a€determination€of€whetherÏprosecutorial€misconduct€occurred.€€òòState€v.€Pulliamóó,€950€S.W.2d€360,€367€(Tenn.Ð @ ÐCrim.€App.€1996),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1997).€€That€determination€initiallyÐ  p Ðrequires€a€decision€about€whether€the€challenged€conduct€is€improper.€€òòIdóó.€Ð P ÐAlthough€trial€courts€have€discretionary€authority€to€control€the€argument€of€counselÏand€counsel€has€wide€latitude€to€argue€the€facts€and€reasonable€inferencesÏtherefrom,€ð ð[c]losing€arguments€must€be€temperate,€must€be€based€upon€evidenceÏintroduced€at€trial,€and€must€be€relevant€to€the€issues€at€trial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Cokeróó,€911Ð €%Ð # ÐS.W.2d€357,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Most€of€the€restrictions€fall€upon€theÏprosecutor,€who€is€the€representative€of€the€state€and€whose€duty€it€is€not€only€toÏseek€convictions€but€also€to€achieve€justice€through€proceeding€fairly.€€òòIdóó.;€òòManningÐ  +p&) Ðv.€Stateóó,€195€Tenn.€94,€257€S.W.2d€6€(Tenn.€1953).€€The€prosecutorððs€argumentÐ -P(+ Ðshould€not€be€calculated€to€inflame€the€jury.€€òòCokeróó,€911€S.W.2d€at€368.Ð à.0*- ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àOnce€prosecutorial€conduct€is€deemed€improper,€the€appellate€courtððsÏtask€is€to€determine€ð ðwhether€the€impropriety€affected€the€verdict.ðð€€òòPulliamóó,€950Ð €4Ð/3 ÐS.W.2d€at€367.€€Prejudice€is€assessed€through€analyzing€the€misconduct€in€light€ofÏthe€factors€set€forth€in€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð @837 Ð1976):€(1)€the€misconduct€viewed€in€context€and€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€theÐ  :p59 Ðcase;€(2)€any€curative€measures€taken€by€the€court€or€the€prosecutor;€(3)€the€intentÏof€the€prosecutor;€(4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€misconduct€in€view€of€theÏconsequence€of€any€other€errors€in€the€trial;€and€(5)€the€ð ðrelative€strength€orÏweakness€of€the€case.ðð€€òòJudgeóó,€539€S.W.2d€at€344.Ð P   ÐÌñ8ñœñ8ñà ` àà ¸ àAssuming€that€the€cited€argument€was€not€based€upon€the€evidence,Ïour€analysis€of€the€òòJudgeóó€factors€results€in€our€finding€that€no€prejudicial€ñ/ñerrorÐ ð@  Ðoccurred.€€ñ/ññ0ñ›à ¸ à›à ¸ àñ0ñTwoñ8ñ›ñ8ññ8ññ8ñ€factors€weigh€against€the€state.€€First,€the€prosecutorððs€remark€wasÏnot€supported€by€the€evidence.€€Second,€the€trial€court€overruled€the€defenseÏobjection€and€took€no€curative€action.€€However,€the€other€three€factors€weighÏheavily€against€the€defendant.€€€The€remark€was€brief.€€Although€no€trial€is€perfect,Ïthis€transcript€contains€few€potentially€prejudicial€errors.€€Finally,€the€case€againstÏthe€defendant€is€very€strong.€€Physical€evidence€implicated€him,€and€his€confessionÏwas€palpable€and€cogent.€€Against€convicting€evidence€of€such€magnitude,€theÏprosecutorððs€remark€is€inconsequential.ÌÌÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h à8.€€Consecutive€sentencingÌÓ¯ÔÓÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€last€issue,€the€defendant€complains€about€the€imposition€ofÏconsecutive€sentences.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novo€óóreview€of€the€recordÐ ð-@), Ðwith€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÐ p5À04 Ð166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ð ðThe€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€isÏupon€the€appellant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€In€the€event€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€the€requiredÐ 09€48 Ðconsideration€by€the€trial€court,€review€of€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòIdóó.€IfÐ ° Ðappellate€review€reflects€the€trial€court€properly€considered€all€relevant€factors€andÏits€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€this€court€must€affirm€theÏsentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805Ð P   ÐS.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€making€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court,€at€theÏð ðconclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,ðð€determines€the€range€of€sentence€and€thenÏdetermines€the€specific€sentence€and€the€propriety€of€sentencing€alternatives€byÏconsidering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;Ï(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancementÏand€mitigating€factors;€(6)€any€statements€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€theÏdefendantððs€behalf€about€sentencing;€and€(7)€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€orÏtreatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(a),€(b)€(1997);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„¼103(5)(1990);€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð °"  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àPrior€to€the€enactment€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,Ïthe€limited€classifications€for€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€was€set€outÏin€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1976).€€In€that€case€our€supremeÐ 0*€%( Ðcourt€ruled€that€aggravating€circumstances€must€be€present€before€placement€in€anyÏone€of€the€classifications.€€Later,€in€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€1989),Ð ð-@), Ðthe€court€established€an€additional€category€for€those€defendants€convicted€of€twoÏor€more€statutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€minors.€€There€were,€however,Ïadditional€words€of€caution:€ð ð[C]onsecutive€sentences€should€not€routinely€beÏimposed€...€and€...€the€aggregate€maximum€of€consecutive€terms€must€beÏreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€involved.ðð€€òòTayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€atÐ P7 26 Ð230.€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€adopted€the€cautionary€language.€Ð 09€48 ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115.€€The€1989€Act€is,€in€essence,€the€codification€of€theÏholdings€in€òòGrayóó€and€òòTayloróó.€€Consecutive€sentences€may€be€imposed€in€theÐ à Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€only€upon€a€determination€that€one€or€more€of€theÏfollowing€criteria׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€exist:Ð P   ÐÒ¸ ÒÓÓ(1)€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€has€knowinglyÏdevoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood.ÌÌ(2)€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€isÏextensive;ÌÌ(3)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€and€mentally€abnormal€person€soÏdeclared€by€a€competent€psychiatrist€who€concludes€as€a€result€of€anÏinvestigation€prior€to€sentencing€that€the€defendantððs€criminal€conductÏhas€been€characterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitive€or€compulsiveÏbehavior€with€heedless€indifference€to€consequences;ÌÌ(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicatesÏlittle€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committingÏa€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high;ÌÌ(5)€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutory€offensesÏinvolving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€with€consideration€of€theÏaggravating€circumstances€arising€from€the€relationship€between€theÏdefendant€and€victim€or€victims,€the€time€span€of€defendantððsÏundetected€sexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€actsÏand€the€extent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mental€damage€to€theÏvictim€or€victims;ÌÌ(6)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offense€committed€while€onÏprobation;ÌÌ(7)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.ÌÌÒ¸ ÒÓÓTennessee€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)€(1990).€€In€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2dÐ `'°"% Ð933,€937„38€(Tenn.€1995),€the€supreme€court€imposed€two€additional€requirementsÏfor€consecutive€sentencing€„„€the€court€must€find€consecutive€sentences€areÏreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€necessary€toÏprotect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct.€€At€this€time,€it€is€unsettled€whether€ÏòòWilkersonóó€applies€to€all€seven€of€the€statutory€categories€for€consecutive€sentencingÐ À0,/ Ðor€only€the€ð ðdangerous€offenderðð€category.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€David€Keith€Laneóó,€No.Ð  2ð-1 Ð03C01„9607„CC„00259,€slip€op.€at€11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€18,€1997),Ð €4Ð/3 Ðòòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òògrantedóó€(Tenn.€1998).Ð ° ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€imposed€consecutive€sentences€based€upon€theÏdefendant€being€on€probation€when€the€present€offenses€were€committed.€€òòSeeóóÐ P   ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(6)€(1997).€€However,€the€state€concedes€that€theÏdefendant€had€been€serving€a€community€corrections€sentence,€as€opposed€toÏbeing€placed€on€ð ðprobation,ðð€and€that€our€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.Ð ð@  ÐPettusóó,€986€S.W.2d€540€(Tenn.€1999),€precludes€the€use€of€factor€(6)€of€section€40„Ð Ð  Ð35„115(b)€to€impose€consecutive€sentences.€€We€agree.€€In€òòPettusóó,€the€high€courtÐ ° Ðheld€that€ð ða€community€corrections€sentence€is€not€equivalent€to€probationðð€and€willÏnot€support€consecutive€sentencing€based€upon€factor€(6).€€òòPettusóó,€986€S.W.2d€atÐ pÀ Ð54,€slip€op.€at€1.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àHaving€concluded€that€the€trial€court€selected€an€improper€basis€forÏimposing€consecutive€sentences€and€having€before€us€a€complete€trial€andÏsentencing€record,€we€will€now€determine€òòde€novoóó€whether€the€sentences€shouldÐ Ð  Ðbe€imposed€to€run€concurrently€or€consecutively.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€presentence€report€reflects€that,€while€a€juvenile,€the€defendantÏwas€adjudicated€guilty€of€four€counts€of€theft,€three€counts€of€burglary,€and€threeÏcounts€of€vandalism.€€The€defendant,€who€was€twenty„two€years€of€age€when€heÏkilled€Jamie€Mills€and€twenty„three€when€he€was€sentenced,€had€been€convicted€asÏan€adult€of€one€count€of€vandalism,€five€thefts,€and€seven€burglaries.€€Consequently,Ïthe€defendant€is€ð ðan€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2)€(1997).€€Moreover,€we€find€that€the€extendedÏincarceration€resulting€from€consecutive€sentences€is€appropriate€to€the€offensesÏand€is€necessary€to€protect€the€public.€€For€these€reasons,€the€sentences€imposedÏby€the€trial€court€shall€be€served€consecutively.ÌÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àà ¸ àFor€the€reasons€explained€above,€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE