ÿWPC— …# VU>a %Ÿ 0í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ U:¤ 0JÞ w@( 0Th 01¼ 0Dí 0^1 0h 0r÷ 0|iå 0†í 0s 1u 0dx BÜU6ùU./U*]B)‡DC° AMóˆ@ D3Èfûv~a 0@ßvÓ AOòÆA 0D D/K Bz˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi·‚^!3|x`«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô IDJKDLDMNDOPDQÓ€]2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(á(3¬6$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€kÕXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ~Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òÓ` ` ƒXßÀ–XÓMarch€18,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó""""'ÿÿdxd \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔÑ7€ Ì XXdæXXdÈ7ÑÞ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙßR€()'A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€JANUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9607„CC„00261Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àBradley€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHonorable€Stephen€Bebb,€Judge€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌJEHIEL€FIELDS,à àà à€€€à à)à à€(First€degree€murder€and€especiallyÌà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€à à€€aggravated€burglary)Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌD.€Mitchell€Bryantà àà àà àà àœJohn€Knox€Walkup›Ì260€N.€Ocoee€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌCleveland,€TN€37364„0161à àà àà àandà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àElizabeth€T.€RyanÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÏà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àJerry€N.€EstesÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à203€E.€MadisonÏAve.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAthens,€TN€37303„0647Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àandà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€A.€RehyanskyÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€1351Ìà àà àà àà àà àCleveland,€TN€37364„1351ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌCONVICTION€FOR€FIRST€DEGREE€MURDER€AFFIRMED;€CONVICTION€FORÏESPECIALLY€AGGRAVATED€BURGLARY€REDUCED€TO€AGGRAVATED€BURGLARYÏAND€REMANDED€FOR€RESENTENCINGÌÌœÌJoseph›€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌà àó óóóThe€defendant,€Jehiel€Fields,€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€conviction€by€aÏjury€in€the€Bradley€County€Criminal€Court€for€first€degree€murder€and€especiallyÏaggravated€burglary,€a€Class€B€felony.€€He€was€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment€and€toÏeight€years€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction€as€a€Range€I,€standardÏoffender,€respectively.€€The€sentences€are€to€be€served€concurrently.€€The€defendantÏcontends€that:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à(1)€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions;ÌÌà8 à(2)€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€thatÏTravis€Ware€was€an€accomplice€as€a€matter€of€law;€andÌà àÌà8 à(3)€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€the€juryÏregarding€a€missing€witness.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓWe€hold€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€defendantððs€convictions€butÏmodify€the€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€burglary€to€aggravated€burglary€andÏremand€for€resentencing.€€We€also€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€erroneouslyÏinstruct€the€jury.Ìòòò òÌà àœó óóóThis›€case€relates€to€the€shooting€death€of€Odessa€Rouser.€€During€theÏearly€morning€of€October€22,€1994,€the€victim€suffered€three€.25€caliber€gunshotÏwounds€to€her€left€arm,€her€left€hand,€and€her€chest.€€The€shots€to€the€victimððs€left€armÏand€chest€caused€her€death.€€At€trial,€the€œdefense›€did€not€present€any€œwitnesses.›Ì€€Ìà àTravis€Ware,€a€friend€of€the€defendant,€testified€that€he€was€with€theÏdefendant€earlier€in€the€day€before€the€offense€occurred.€€He€said€that€the€victim€droveÏup€while€they€were€at€Vestððs€Grocery€and€asked€him€whether€he€had€any€drugs.€€AfterÏhe€told€the€victim€that€he€did€not€have€any€drugs,€he€saw€the€defendant€get€into€theÏvictimððs€car€and€stay€for€a€few€seconds.€€Later€in€the€evening,€he€attended€a€party€at€theÏCorner€Pocket.€€Ware€said€that€the€defendant€came€up€to€him€and€Terry€Walker€outsideÏthe€club€and€told€them€that€the€victim€had€stabbed€him.€€He€stated€that€the€defendantÏwas€angry.€€Ware€also€testified€that€he€noticed€a€little€œhole€near€the€defendantððs€leftÏshoulder€blade›€that€was€not€bleeding€badly.€€According€to€Ware,€the€defendant€thenÍstarted€walking€towards€the€victimððs€house€even€though€several€people€including€WareÏtried€to€tell€him€to€come€back.€€Ware,€Walker,€Essah€ð ðBrotherðð€Whaley€and€a€few€othersÏfollowed€the€defendant.€€Ware€stated€that€the€defendant€had€a€pistol€with€him.€€At€trial,Ïhe€identified€a€pistol€found€in€the€field€near€the€victimððs€house€as€being€similar€to€theÏone€the€defendant€was€carrying.€€ÌÌà àWare€testified€that€when€the€defendant€arrived€at€the€victimððs€house,€heÏkicked€the€door€and€it€opened€on€the€second€try.€€Ware€recalled€hearing€one€shotÏimmediately€and€then€silence.€€He€said€that€he€then€heard€glass€breaking€followed€byÏtwo€more€shots.€€œWare€said€that€he,€Walker,€Whaley€and€the€others›€started€to€run€awayÏbut€ran€back€towards€the€house€when€they€heard€cries€for€help,€fighting€and€theÏbreaking€of€a€front€window.€€Ware€stated€that€he€saw€the€victimððs€husband€trying€to€pullÏthe€defendant€back€inside€as€the€defendant€tried€to€exit€the€house€through€the€window.€ÏThen,€they€began€running€through€a€field€towards€the€Corner€Pocket.€€The€defendantÏescaped€through€the€window€and€followed€behind€them.€€Ware€testified€that€when€theyÏarrived€he€noticed€that€the€defendant€no€longer€had€the€pistol€with€him.€€He€recalledÏseeing€the€defendant€make€a€throwing€motion€with€his€arms€when€he€looked€back€atÏthe€defendant€as€they€were€running.€€ÌÌà àWare€testified€that€Walker€asked€James€ð ðBBðð€Brown€to€give€them€a€ride.€ÏHe€said€that€he,€Walker,€Walkerððs€girlfriend€and€the€defendant€rode€with€Brown€toÍWalkerððs€motherððs€house.€€Ware€stated€that€during€the€ride€the€defendant€told€themÏabout€his€argument€with€the€victim.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€stated€that€he€had€soldÏthe€victim€a€piece€of€rock€cocaine€in€exchange€for€ten€dollars€and€a€marijuanaÏcigarette.€€When€he€discovered€that€the€marijuana€cigarette€was€laced,€he€went€to€theÏvictimððs€house€to€ask€her€why€she€had€given€it€to€him.€€Ware€testified€that€the€defendantÏsaid€that€an€argument€ensued€during€which€he€slapped€the€victim€and€she€stabbedÏhim.€€ÌÌà àWare€stated€that€when€they€arrived€at€Walkerððs€motherððs€house,€theÏdefendant€went€into€a€room€and€took€his€clothes€off.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€wasÏwearing€jeans€and€a€multi„colored€jacket€with€a€Tasmanian€Devil€on€it.€€According€toÏWare,€the€defendant€then€asked€him€to€take€his€clothes.€€The€clothes€were€placed€intoÏa€box.€€Ware€stated€that€he€agreed€to€take€the€clothes€because€he€was€scared.€€HeÏtook€the€clothes€to€his€home€where€he€lived€with€his€mother€and€grandmother.€€WhenÏhis€mother€came€home€that€night,€she€commented€that€several€police€officers€were€atÏthe€victimððs€house,€and€Ware€told€her€what€happened.€€He€said€that€his€mother€noticedÏthe€clothes€the€next€morning€and€œtold›€œhim›€to€get€them€out€of€the€house.€€His€motherÏtook€the€box€of€clothes€in€her€car,€threw€them€out€the€window€and€then€called€theÏpolice.ÌÌà àWare€admitted€that€he€did€not€help€the€police€recover€the€clothes€butÏstated€that€his€mother€told€them€where€they€were€located.€€He€said€that€he€told€theÏpolice€that€he€thought€the€gun€might€be€in€the€field€because€everybody€was€saying€thatÏhe€committed€the€crimes.ÌÌà àWare€also€conceded€that€he€entered€guilty€pleas€to€two€counts€ofÏpossession€with€the€intent€to€sell€crack€cocaine,€Class€C€felonies.€€œHe›€receivedÏconcurrent,€six„year€sentences€suspended€after€the€service€of€six€months€in€the€countyÏjail.€€Pursuant€to€the€œagreement,›€œhe›€œagreed›€to€testify€against€the€defendant.€ÌÌà àWare€testified€that€while€in€jail€on€the€night€before€the€preliminaryÏhearing,€the€defendant€came€up€to€him€during€a€church€service€and€asked€him€why€heÏtold€on€him.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€told€him€to€testify€that€he€was€drunk€and€wasÏmistaken€in€believing€that€the€defendant€committed€the€offenses,€but€that€he€refused.€ÏWare€admitted€that€he€had€been€drinking€but€denied€being€drunk€on€the€night€of€theÏoffenses.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Ware€acknowledged€that€he€did€not€tell€the€policeÏduring€a€statement€on€October€22,€1994,€that€the€defendant€gave€him€his€clothing.€€HeÏalso€admitted€that€he€testified€at€the€preliminary€hearing€that€the€defendant€gave€himÏthe€jacket€but€that€he€did€not€mention€the€jeans.€€He€claimed€that€he€told€the€districtÍattorneyððs€office€about€the€jeans.€€Ware€also€stated€that€he€was€the€one€who€took€theÏclothes€and€threw€them€out€his€car€window.€€He€conceded€that€Walker€owned€a€pistolÏlike€the€one€introduced€at€trial€and€that€Walker€had€it€with€him€during€the€day.€€He€alsoÏtestified€that€the€defendant€was€known€as€ð ðJayðð€and€that€Walker€was€often€called€ð ðJap.ðð€ÏAccording€to€Ware,€Detective€Dailey€told€him€that€he€could€be€charged€with€accessoryÏto€murder€if€he€did€not€testify.€€He€claimed€that€he€rode€with€the€defendant€after€theÏoffenses€because€he€was€scared€and€wanted€to€hear€what€happened.ÌÌà àOn€redirect€examination,€Ware€asserted€that€he€had€no€other€contact€withÏthe€victim€after€she€asked€him€for€drugs.€€He€also€said€that€he€had€no€reason€to€beÏupset€with€her.ÌÌà àTwynette€Ware,€Travis€Wareððs€mother,€testified€that€Ware€was€standing€atÏthe€door€waiting€on€her€when€she€came€home.€€She€said€that€he€appeared€upset.€ÏWhen€she€asked€him€what€was€wrong€and€commented€about€seeing€officers€at€theÏvictimððs€house,€they€had€a€conversation€about€what€happened€at€the€victimððs€house.€ÏShe€said€that€the€next€morning€she€noticed€a€box€that€contained€jeans€and€a€jacket€inÏher€living€room€and€told€Ware€to€get€the€clothes€out€of€the€house.€€Ms.€Ware€stated€thatÏthey€drove€a€few€blocks€and€disposed€of€the€clothes€along€a€street€near€herÏgrandmotherððs€house.€€She€then€called€the€police€and€showed€them€where€to€locateÏthe€clothes.€€Ms.€Ware€recalled€seeing€the€defendant€wearing€the€jeans€and€jacket€theÍday€before€the€offense€when€she€was€walking€back€from€the€store.€€She€said€that€theÏjeans€were€not€Wareððs.€€On€cross„examination,€Ms.€Ware€acknowledged€that€herÏstatement€to€the€officers€only€reflects€that€she€told€them€that€she€earlier€saw€theÏdefendant€wearing€the€jacket.€€She€claimed€that€she€also€told€the€officers€about€theÏjeans€the€defendant€was€wearing.€€€ÌÌà àKimberly€Pugh,€the€victimððs€neighbor€who€lived€across€a€field€from€theÏvictim,€testified€that€around€1:00€a.m.€she€heard€four€intermittent€shots€and€then€glassÏbreaking€and€people€cussing.€€She€said€that€she€then€saw€a€motion€light€connected€toÏthe€back€corner€of€her€house€turn€on€and€stepped€outside€to€investigate.€€She€statedÏthat€she€saw€three€black€men€running€across€the€field€approximately€twenty€yardsÏaway.€€Ms.€Pugh€recalled€seeing€one€of€the€men€fall€in€the€field€after€they€came€off€theÏvictimððs€porch.€€She€said€that€she€recognized€the€man€as€the€defendant€because€heÏhad€his€hair€slicked€back€and€was€wearing€a€Tasmanian€Devil€jacket.€€She€stated€thatÏthe€defendant€was€dressed€similarly€the€day€before€the€offense€when€she€saw€him€asÏshe€was€walking€along€the€street.€€Ms.€Pugh€testified€that€before€trial€she€identified€theÏdefendant€from€a€photo€œlineup›€as€the€person€she€saw€fall€in€the€field.€€On€cross„examination,€she€conceded€that€she€knew€one€of€the€men€in€the€lineup.ÌÌà àJames€Brown€testified€that€he€was€driving€around€the€Corner€PocketÏwhen€Walker€walked€up€and€asked€him€for€a€ride€to€his€motherððs€house.€€He€said€thatÍWare€and€the€defendant€œwere›€with€Walker.€€Brown€stated€that€when€he€dropped€themÏoff,€everyone€told€him€not€to€tell€anyone€where€he€let€them€out.€€He€identified€theÏdefendant€from€the€photo€lineup€as€one€of€the€persons€whom€he€gave€a€ride.€€OnÏcross„examination,€Brown€acknowledged€that€when€he€gave€a€statement€to€theÏofficers,€he€told€them€that€Ware€and€Walker€acted€real€nervous€when€asking€for€a€ride.€ÏHe€stated€that€he€failed€to€tell€the€officers€that€his€passengers€told€him€not€to€tellÏanyone€where€he€dropped€them€off.€€Brown€also€conceded€that€he€told€defenseÏcounsel€that€he€gaveÑ€+ÑÇWare,€Walker€and€ð ðBrotherðð€a€ride€without€mentioning€the€defendant€or€a€girl.€€He€saidÏthat€the€passengers€did€not€discuss€a€shooting.ÌÌà àDanny€Chastain,€a€lieutenant€with€the€Cleveland€Police€Department,Ïdiscovered€the€victim€lying€in€the€doorway€in€the€living€room.€€He€testified€that€a€blueÏbaseball€cap€was€lying€in€the€corner€near€the€victimððs€feet.€€A€window€in€the€living€roomÏoverlooking€the€front€porch€was€broken€and€a€set€of€venetian€blinds€that€had€blood€onÏthem€had€been€torn€down.€€During€the€investigation,€four€bullets€and€casings€wereÏrecovered.€€Lieutenant€Chastain€stated€that€no€weapons€were€found€in€the€living€roomÏbut€a€paring€knife€was€discovered€on€the€front€porch.€€He€also€testified€that€a€walletÏcontaining€identification€of€Larry€Hickey€was€located€near€the€porch€steps.€€ÌÌà àKenneth€Simpson,€an€officer€with€the€Cleveland€Police€Department,Ïtestified€that€he€located€the€pants€and€the€jacket€near€a€street€based€on€informationÏprovided€to€the€officers.€€He€also€found€a€Raven€.25€caliber€semi„automatic€pistol€in€theÏfield€across€from€the€victimððs€house€after€talking€to€Ware.€€ÌÌà àDewey€Woody,€Jr.,€an€officer€with€the€Cleveland€Police€Department,Ïtestified€that€while€on€patrol€at€approximately€10:00€p.m€on€October€21,€1994,€he€sawÏthe€defendant€and€Ware€at€a€McDonaldððs€restaurant.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€wasÍwearing€a€multi„colored,€Tasmanian€Devil€jacket€and€a€blue€baseball€cap€with€aÏMickey€Mouse€insignia€on€it.€€ÌÌà àDeane€Johnson,€a€forensic€serologist€with€the€TBI,€testified€that€theÏvenetian€blinds€had€human€blood€œon€them›€and€that€blood€on€the€jeans€was€consistentÏwith€the€blood€type€of€the€victim.€€She€admitted€that€DNA€testing€was€not€conductedÏand€that€she€had€not€been€given€blood€samples€from€anyone€other€than€the€victim€andÏthe€defendant.€€Agent€Johnson€stated€that€a€drug€and€alcohol€screen€performed€on€theÏvictim€revealed€that€the€victim€tested€positive€for€cocaine€and€other€drugs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àDavid€Wilson,€an€agent€with€the€FBI,€examined€hair€samples€taken€fromÏthe€blue€baseball€cap,€compared€them€to€samples€taken€from€the€defendant,€andÏexpressed€the€opinion€that€the€samples€matched.€€He€said€that€he€also€conducted€aÏcomparison€of€a€hair€fragment€taken€from€the€finger€of€the€victim.€€Although€AgentÏWilson€noted€that€the€hair€fragment€was€not€suitable€for€a€full€analysis,€he€opined€that€itÏwas€not€consistent€with€the€defendantððs€hair.€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€compare€theÏhair€samples€to€anyone€other€than€the€defendant.ÌÌà àMatthew€Tylman,€a€firearms€toolmark€examiner€for€the€FBI,€examined€theÏ.25€caliber€semi„automatic€pistol€and€magazine,€bullets€and€shell€casings.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€performed€tests€on€the€pistol€to€determine€if€the€pistol€fired€the€bullets€byÍcomparing€marks€on€the€bullets€left€by€the€pistolððs€barrel€grooves.€€He€said€that€heÏcould€not€determine€conclusively€whether€or€not€the€pistol€fired€the€bullets€although€heÏremarked€that€inconclusive€results€often€occur.€€Agent€Tylman€stated€that€heÏconclusively€determined€from€another€test€that€the€shell€casings€were€extracted€fromÏthe€pistol.€€ÌÌà àThe€parties€stipulated€that€no€fingerprints€of€value€were€found€on€theÏpistol€or€the€casings.€€They€also€stipulated€that€James€Thomas€Rouser,€the€victimððsÏhusband,€died€of€natural€causes€on€November€17,€1994.€€ÌÌà àDetective€Don€Price€of€the€Cleveland€Police€Department€testified€thatÏwhile€he€was€filling€out€paperwork€before€reading€the€defendant€his€rights,€theÏdefendant€told€him,€ð ðCan€I€just€go€ahead€and€plead€guilty€and€let€them€executeÌœme.›€.€.€.€€I€donððt€want€to€go€to€prison€and€come€out€an€old€man.ðð€€He€stated€that€he€askedÏthe€defendant€what€he€said€and€the€defendant€repeated€the€statement.€€Detective€PriceÏsaid€that€he€had€not€questioned€the€defendant€before€he€made€the€statements.€€He€didÏnot€notice€any€cuts€or€lacerations€near€the€defendantððs€face.€ÌÌà àDetective€Steve€Bennett€of€the€Cleveland€Police€Department€testified€thatÏhe€heard€the€statements€made€by€the€defendant€to€Detective€Price.€€He€also€testifiedÏthat€other€than€a€small€hole€around€the€defendantððs€neck,€he€did€not€notice€any€cuts€orÍlacerations€on€the€defendant.€€Detective€Bennett€admitted€that€neither€a€paraffin€testÏnor€a€gunshot€residue€test€was€performed€on€the€defendant.€€He€explained€that€hisÏdepartment€no€longer€used€the€paraffin€test€and€that€a€gunshot€residue€analysis€is€notÏeffective€once€a€person€washes€their€hands.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌó óà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€convict€him€ofÏeither€first€degree€murder€or€especially€aggravated€burglary.€€He€asserts€that€the€onlyÏreliable€evidence€in€this€case€was€circumstantial€in€nature.€€The€state€argues€that€theÏevidence€is€not€entirely€circumstantial€and€that€circumstantial€evidence€mayÏnonetheless€be€used€to€support€his€convictions.€€We€agree.€€€€€ÌÌà àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏquestioned€on€appeal€is€ð ðwhether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,Ï319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,Ïbut€must€presume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€allÏreasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€ÌÌà@ àò òA.€€FIRST€DEGREE€MURDERó óÌà àFirst,€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€for€hisÏconviction€of€first€degree€murder.€€Essentially,€he€argues€that€the€state€failed€to€excludeÏWare€as€the€killer.€€He€also€contends€that€Wareððs€testimony€was€not€reliable€becauseÏhe€had€prior€convictions,€had€given€prior€inconsistent€statements,€and€had€beenÏthreatened€with€charges€of€accessory€to€murder.€€However,€questions€concerning€theÏcredibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€to€their€testimony€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€We€concludeÏthat€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€convict€the€defendant€of€first€degree€murder.€€€€€€ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€offense,€œan€unlawful,›€intentional,€premeditated€andÏdeliberate€killing€of€another€constituted€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€œðððð€39„13„201(a)€and€„202(a)(1)›€(1991).œ›€€Our€criminal€code€defined€a€deliberate€act€as€ð ðoneÏperformed€with€a€cool€purpose,ðð€and€a€premeditated€act€as€ð ðone€done€after€theÏexercise€of€reflection€and€judgment.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„13„201(b)(1)€and€(2)›€(1991).€€In€òòStateÏv.€Brownóó,€our€supreme€court€stated€that€deliberation€required€some€period€of€reflection,Ïwithout€passion€or€provocation,€and€concluded€that€the€ð ðdeliberation€necessary€toÏestablish€first€degree€murder€cannot€be€formed€in€an€instant.ðð€€836€S.W.2d€530,€539,Ï543€(Tenn.€1992).€€Premeditation€requires€a€showing€of€a€previously€formed€design€orÏintent€to€kill.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€existence€of€theÍseparate€and€distinct€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€is€a€question€of€factÏto€be€decided€by€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€541„42.€€In€this€respect,Ïthe€determination€of€the€state€of€mind€necessary€to€establish€the€elements€of€firstÏdegree€murder€may€be€shown€by€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2dÏat€541;€òòState€v.€Burlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€713,€717€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Ìœ›Ìà àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€proof€establishes€that€theÏdefendant€was€angry€at€the€victim€because€she€gave€him€a€laced€marijuana€cigaretteÏin€exchange€for€crack€cocaine€and€because€she€stabbed€him€when€he€confronted€her.€ÏHe€left€the€victimððs€house€and€went€to€the€party€at€the€Corner€Pocket.€€Although€severalÏpeople€asked€the€defendant€not€to€return€to€the€victimððs€house,€the€defendant€refusedÏto€take€their€advice.€€Instead,€he€walked€back€to€the€victimððs€house,€kicked€in€the€door,Ïand€killed€the€victim€by€shooting€her€with€the€pistol€he€had€carried€with€him.€€AÏneighbor€identified€the€defendant€as€the€person€she€saw€fall€in€the€field€as€he€ranÏaway€from€the€victimððs€house.€€She€recognized€the€personððs€jacket€and€hairstyle€as€theÏsame€worn€previously€by€the€defendant.€€Officer€Woody€saw€the€defendant€wearing€aÏhat€earlier€in€the€evening€like€one€found€lying€near€the€victimððs€body.€€Comparison€ofÏhair€from€the€hat€and€from€the€defendant€showed€that€they€were€consistent€with€eachÏother.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€asked€Detective€Price€whether€he€could€go€ahead€andÏplead€guilty€and€be€executed.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€hold€that€the€jury€couldÏhave€found€that€the€defendant€had€sufficient€time€to€reflect,€without€passion€orÍprovocation,€on€his€decision€to€return€to€the€victimððs€home€and€kill€her.€€Therefore,€weÏconclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€establish€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thatÏthe€defendant€killed€the€victim€intentionally,€deliberately€and€with€premeditation.€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òB.€€ESPECIALLY€AGGRAVATED€BURGLARYó óÌ€à àNext,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction€for€especially€aggravated€burglary.€€Especially€aggravated€burglary€is€aÏburglary€of€a€habitation€where€the€victim€suffers€serious€bodily€injury.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„404.€€A€burglary€is€committed€when€a€person€ð ðwithout€the€effective€consent€of€theÏproperty€owner€.€.€.€enters€a€building€other€than€a€habitation€.€.€.€with€the€intent€toÏcommit€a€felony€.€.€.€.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„402(a)(1).ÌÌà àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€proof€shows€that€the€defendantÏkicked€in€the€door€to€the€victimððs€home€and€fired€his€pistol€four€times,€shooting€andÏkilling€the€victim.€€Officers€found€a€hat€similar€to€one€that€Officer€Woody€testified€that€heÏhad€seen€the€defendant€wearing€shortly€before€the€murder.€€An€analysis€of€hair€takenÏfrom€the€hat€reflected€that€it€was€consistent€with€the€defendantððs€hair.€€Because€theÏdefendant€entered€the€victimððs€home€when€armed€with€a€pistol,€the€jury€could€properlyÏinfer€that€he€intended€to€kill€the€victim.€€Further,€the€act€of€killing€the€victim€constitutedÏserious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(33).€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€there€isÍample€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€determination€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏfor€the€crime€of€especially€aggravated€burglary.€€€€€ÌÌà àHowever,€we€are€compelled€by€statute€to€modify€the€defendantððsÏconviction€for€especially€aggravated€burglary€to€aggravated€burglary.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏHollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Olleróó,€851€S.W.2d€841,Ï843€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€ð ðActs€which€constitute€an€offense€under€this€section€mayÏbe€prosecuted€under€this€section€or€any€other€applicable€section,€but€not€both.ðð€€T.C.A.Ïðð€39„14„404(d).€€This€subsection€prohibits€the€application€of€the€same€act€to€prosecuteÏfor€both€especially€aggravated€burglary€and€another€offense.€€In€òòOlleróó,€as€in€this€case,Ïthe€act€of€killing€the€victim€constituted€the€ð ðserious€bodily€injuryðð€that€was€used€toÏenhance€the€burglary€offense€to€especially€aggravated€burglary.€€851€S.W.2d€at€843.€ÏBy€prosecuting€and€convicting€the€defendant€of€first€degree€murder,€a€conviction€forÏòòespeciallyóó€aggravated€burglary€is€not€permitted€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„404(d).€€òòIdóó.€ÏAccordingly,€we€modify€the€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€burglary€to€aÏconviction€for€aggravated€burglary,€a€Class€C€felony.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„403.€€ÌÌà@ àò òII.€ACCOMPLICE€AS€A€MATTER€OF€LAWó ó€€Ìà àThe€defendant€argues€that€Travis€Ware€should€have€been€declared€anÏaccomplice€as€a€matter€of€law€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€its€failure€to€instruct€theÏjury€accordingly.€€In€response,€the€state€correctly€asserts€that€the€defendant€has€waivedÍthe€issue€by€failing€to€include€his€motion€for€new€trial€in€the€appellate€record.€€òòSeeóóÏT.R.A.P.€3(e).€€ÌÌà àA€motion€for€new€trial€is€an€essential€prerequisite€to€appellate€review€ofÏthe€issues€raised€by€the€accused€at€trial€that,€if€successful,€would€mandate€a€new€trial.€ÏT.R.A.P.€3(e)€and€24(a).€€Although€the€record€contains€an€order€denying€theÏdefendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€it€does€not€detail€the€issues€raised€by€the€defendant€inÏthe€motion€for€new€trial.€€Thus,€we€are€unable€to€determine€whether€the€defendantÏproperly€preserved€the€issue€for€appeal.€€Ordinarily,€the€failure€to€include€grounds€forÏwhich€a€new€trial€is€sought€results€in€waiver€of€the€issues€on€appeal.€€T.R.A.P.€3(e)€andÏ36(a).€€It€is€the€duty€of€the€appealing€party€to€prepare€a€fair,€accurate€and€completeÏœrecord›€on€appeal€to€enable€meaningful€appellate€review.€€T.R.A.P.€24(b).€€WhenÏnecessary€parts€of€the€record€are€not€included,€we€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€rulingÏwas€correct.€€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€the€trial€court€correctly€instructed€the€jury€that€the€question€ofÏwhether€Ware€was€an€accomplice€was€one€for€the€jury€to€decide.€€It€is€a€well„established€rule€in€Tennessee€that€a€defendant€cannot€be€convicted€of€a€felony€on€theÏuncorroborated€testimony€of€an€accomplice.€€òòSeeóó€òòSherrill€v.€Stateóó,€204€Tenn.€427,€321ÏS.W.2d€811,€814€(1959).€€An€accomplice€is€defined€as€a€person€who€knowingly,Ïvoluntarily€and€with€common€intent€unites€with€the€principal€offender€in€the€commissionÍof€the€crime.€€òòState€v.€Perkinsonóó,€867€S.W.2d€1,€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€ð ðA€commonÏtest€is€whether€the€alleged€accomplice€could€have€been€indicted€for€the€offense.ðð€€òòIdóó.€ÏWhen€it€is€clear€and€undisputed€that€the€witness€participated€in€the€crime,€the€trial€courtÏdecides€as€a€question€of€law€whether€he€or€she€is€an€accomplice.€€The€questionÏbecomes€one€of€fact€for€the€jury€to€decide€when€the€facts€are€in€dispute€or€susceptibleÏto€different€inferences.€€òòIdóó.€€The€jury€ultimately€determines€whether€an€accompliceððsÏtestimony€has€been€sufficiently€corroborated.ÌÌà àHere,€the€record€does€not€clearly€establish€that€Ware€knowingly,Ïvoluntarily€and€with€common€intent€united€with€the€defendant€in€the€commission€of€theÏburglary€or€the€murder.€€Although€Ware€admitted€that€he€was€present€when€the€crimesÏtook€place€and€possessed€the€clothing€allegedly€worn€by€the€killer,€evidenceÏpresented€at€trial€also€shows€that€Ware€attempted€to€prevent€the€defendant€from€goingÏto€the€victimððs€house.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€trial€court€properly€submitted€theÏissue€to€jury.€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€MISSING€WITNESS€JURY€INSTRUCTIONó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€not€to€instructÏthe€jury€about€the€missing€witness€rule€after€the€stateððs€failure€to€call€Terry€Walker€as€aÏwitness.€€The€state€argues€that€the€defendant€waived€the€issue€by€not€including€theÍmotion€for€new€trial€in€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€3(e).€€We€agree.€€Nevertheless,€theÏdefendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€€€€ÌÌà àUnder€certain€circumstances,€when€a€party€fails€to€call€a€particular€personÏas€a€witness,€an€inference€may€be€drawn€that€had€the€person€testified,€the€testimonyÏwould€have€been€unfavorable€to€that€party.€€Generally,€three€conditions€must€be€metÏbefore€the€inference€is€allowed:€(1)€the€witness€had€knowledge€of€material€facts,€(2)€theÏrelationship€between€the€witness€and€the€party€would€naturally€incline€the€witness€toÏfavor€the€party,€and€(3)€the€witness€was€available€to€the€process€of€the€court€for€theÏtrial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€805€(Tenn.€1994).€€€€€à àÌÌà àInitially,€we€note€that€the€defendant€failed€to€request€a€missing€witnessÏinstruction.€€Ordinarily,€the€failure€to€submit€a€special€request€for€a€jury€instruction€atÏtrial€prevents€a€defendant€from€challenging€an€instruction€œthat›€is€not€as€thorough€asÏdesired€by€the€defendant,€but€is€otherwise€an€accurate€statement€of€the€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Lynnóó,€924€S.W.2d€892,€898„99€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Haynesóó,€720€S.W.2d€76,€85Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€Regardless,€the€record€does€not€reflect€that€the€relationshipÏbetween€Walker€and€the€state€is€one€that€would€naturally€incline€Walker€to€favor€theÏstate.€€To€the€contrary,€Walker€assisted€the€defendant€in€obtaining€a€ride€following€theÏmurder.€€Further,€Walker€was€equally€available€as€a€witness€to€either€party.€€TheÍwitness€list€provided€to€the€defendant€by€the€state€reveals€that€Walker€was€in€custody.€ÏTherefore,€the€defendant€was€not€entitled€to€a€missing€witness€jury€instruction.€€€€€ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€theÏdefendant's€conviction€and€sentence€for€first€degree€murder€is€affirmed.€€His€convictionÏfor€especially€aggravated€burglary€is€modified€to€aggravated€burglary€and€remandedÏfor€resentencing.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ____________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌòòÌóó____________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judge