ÿWPC  0# °UN» %  0(b7w@?4“¢ 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡U>ë 0@) D3i Bœ U*¹ B)ã DC AMO 3œ v~Ï AQM Æž 0Dd 0D¨ D/ì BvÓ8˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ÂÃDÄÅDÆDÇDÈ#eÉeÊÓ€Ö§aö"3|xÖ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd* %Cþÿ << Gÿÿ )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òAugust€13,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdStyl{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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€å.XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óœò òÙ€*ÙßR€&'%A1-j|à` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌ€ÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9607„CC„00215Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àMADISON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€WHIT€LAFON,€JUDGE€ó óÌò òYTOCKIE€FULLER,à àà à)à àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à à(ESPECIALLY€AGGRAVATEDó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àROBBERY)Ìó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òGEORGE€MORTON€GOOGEà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌò òJEFF€MUELLERà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€DAVID€BRIDGERSÌó óAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ227€West€Baltimore€Streetà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€ÌJackson,€TN€38301„6137à àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJAMES€G.€WOODALL€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJAMES€W.€THOMPSONó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLowell€Thomas€State€Office€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà à225€Martin€Luther€King€DriveÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€38302à0 àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€#°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÌÌà àà àÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant,€Ytockie€Fuller,€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€Following€a€jury€trial€in€the€CircuitÏCourt€of€Madison€County,€Defendant€was€found€guilty€of€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery,€conspiracy€to€commit€especially€aggravated€robbery€and€possessionÏof€a€deadly€weapon€with€the€intent€to€employ€in€the€commission€of€anÏespecially€aggravated€robbery.€€Subsequently,€the€trial€judge€merged€the€deadlyÏweapon€conviction€with€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction€andÏdismissed€the€conspiracy€charge.€€The€Defendant€was€sentenced€to€serveÏfifteen€(15)€years€as€a€Range€I€Standard€Offender.€€Defendant€presents€four€(4)Ïissues€to€this€court:€(1)€the€evidence€was€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€toÏsupport€the€juryððs€verdict;€(2)€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€interruptingÏand€limiting€cross„examination€of€the€victim€regarding€his€past€drug€use;€(3)€theÏtrial€court€committed€plain€error€in€allowing€his€secretary€to€read€the€last€portion€ofÏthe€instructions€to€the€jury;€and€(4)€the€trial€court€committed€plain€error€by€omittingÏthe€words€ð ðprejudice€orðð€from€the€verbal€jury€instructions.€€We€affirm€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïthe€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorableÏto€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€theÏpresumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€theÏaccused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€isÏinsufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639ÏS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.Ï1973).ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€andÏvalue€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754ÏS.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€ÏNor€may€this€court€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÏat€835.€€A€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€StateððsÍwitnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€atÏ476.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€early€morning€hours€of€August€19,€1995,€Harden€Randy€Hicks,€theÏvictim,€took€a€coworker€home€to€Parkview€Court€Apartments€after€work.€€WhenÏhe€pulled€into€the€parking€lot€sometime€shortly€after€midnight,€Hicks€saw€theÏDefendant.€€Hicks€was€able€to€identify€the€Defendant€as€he€had€known€him€allÏof€Defendantððs€life€and€worked€with€him€at€a€landscaping€service.€€After€HicksÏdropped€off€his€coworker,€Defendant€approached€the€victimððs€truck€and€wantedÏto€talk,€but€Hicks€could€not€understand€what€Defendant€was€saying.€€€The€nextÏthing€Hicks€observed€were€two€black€males€approach€him€with€one€of€themÏholding€a€gun.€€This€individual€pointed€the€gun€to€Hicksðð€forehead€and€stated,Ïð ðWe€want€your€money.ðð€€When€Hicks€asked€Defendant€what€was€happening,ÏDefendant€replied,€ð ðYou€heard€him.€€We€want€your€d„„„€money.ðð€€Hicks€reachedÏin€his€pocket€and€gave€them€twenty€dollars€($20.00).€€ÌÌà àDefendant€took€possession€of€the€gun,€cocked€it€and€put€it€to€HicksððÏforehead€saying,€ð ðWe€want€all€your€money.ðð€€When€Hicks€reached€into€hisÏpocket€to€give€Defendant€his€wallet,€Defendant€shot€him.€€Momentarily€blinded,ÏHicks€thought€he€had€been€shot€in€the€face.€€He€heard€only€one€shot€and€thenÏpitched€his€wallet€to€the€ground.€€All€three€of€the€men€reached€for€it,€and€thenÍthey€ran€behind€the€apartment€building.€€When€Hicks€started€to€get€out€of€hisÏtruck€to€get€help,€he€saw€blood€running€down€his€arm.€€He€was€afraid€theÏDefendant€would€return€to€kill€him€because€there€was€no€money€in€his€wallet,€soÏhe€got€back€in€his€truck€and€drove€to€his€home€two€(2)€miles€away.€€After€heÏarrived€there,€he€asked€his€wife€to€call€911.€€Hicks€testified€that€he€was€in€fear€forÏhis€life€during€the€incident€and€that€he€began€to€experience€pain€from€hisÏwounds€by€the€time€he€arrived€at€the€hospital.ÌÌà àDuring€cross„examination,€Hicks€admitted€to€using€drugs€in€the€past€butÏdenied€that€he€currently€used€drugs,€denied€that€he€purchased€drugs€from€theÏDefendant€at€any€time,€and€denied€that€he€owed€Defendant€any€money.ÌÌà àLinda€Jeanette€Hicks,€the€victimððs€wife,€testified€that€at€approximatelyÏ12:25€a.m.€on€August€19,€1995,€she€heard€someone€beating€on€her€door.€€SheÏheard€her€husbandððs€voice€saying,€ð ðLinda,€Linda,€open€the€door.€€Iððve€beenÏshot.ðð€€When€she€opened€the€door,€Hicks€ð ðjust€fell€in.ðð€€After€she€raised€hisÏbloody€t„shirt€to€find€out€where€he€had€been€shot,€she€called€911.€€ÌÌà àRobert€Jerry€Stephenson,€an€emergency€medicine€physician,€testified€thatÏhe€was€working€on€August€19,€1995,€and€treated€Hicks.€€There€was€a€ð ðthroughÏand€throughðð€gunshot€wound€to€Hicksðð€left€bicep€and€an€entrance€wound€to€theÍleft€side€of€his€chest.€€While€Hicksðð€vital€signs€were€stable,€Doctor€StephensonÏcould€feel€a€bullet€underneath€the€skin€near€the€spine.€€According€to€the€doctor,Ïthese€wounds€were€consistent€with€a€patient€feeling€extreme€physical€pain.€ÏHicks€was€taken€to€surgery€following€Stephensonððs€initial€treatment.ÌÌà àGeorge€Pruitt€and€Jeff€Austin,€officers€of€the€Jackson€Police€Department,Ïinvestigated€the€shooting.€€They€testified€that€they€were€both€on€duty€during€theÏearly€morning€hours€of€August€19,€1995.€€Officer€Pruitt€responded€to€the€victimððsÏresidence€and€followed€him€to€the€hospital€where€he€took€photographs€of€HicksððÏwounds.€€Officer€Austin€investigated€in€the€Parkview€Courts€parking€area€whereÏhe€found€a€spent€casing€for€a€.380€caliber€gun€within€two€(2)€inches€of€a€smallÏpool€of€blood.€€He€found€these€in€a€handicapped€parking€area€just€west€ofÏBuildings€233„35.ÌÌà àDefendant€testified€that€he€was€in€Parkview€Courts€selling€drugs€on€theÏevening€of€August€18,€1995.€€He€first€saw€Hicks€when€he€came€to€Parkview€offÏof€an€adjoining€street.€€While€standing€at€the€mailbox€with€a€friend€named€Lucky,ÏHicks€asked€to€meet€with€him.€€He€got€into€the€truck€with€Hicks,€and€theyÏdiscussed€the€twenty€dollars€($20.00)€Hicks€owed€Defendant€for€drugs.€€HicksÏgave€him€the€money€and€asked€if€Defendant€had€anything€to€sell€him.€€WhenÏhe€said€no,€Hicks€left€and€Defendant€did€not€see€him€anymore.€€ÌÌà àIn€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€there€isÏmore€than€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€conviction€of€Defendant€forÏespecially€aggravated€robbery,€which€is€robbery€accomplished€with€a€deadlyÏweapon€where€the€victim€suffers€serious€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„403.€€Robbery€is€the€intentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€the€personÏof€another€by€violence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401.€€Ìà àEvidence€at€trial€showed€that€the€victim€was€forced€at€gunpoint€to€give€ÏDefendant€and€two€other€men€twenty€dollars€($20.00).€€He€was€shot€by€theÏDefendant€after€he€demanded€ð ðall€his€d„„„€money.ðð€€The€victim€confirmed€that€heÏwas€experiencing€pain€by€the€time€he€arrived€at€the€hospital.€€Dr.€StephensonÏstated€that€Hicksðð€injury€was€of€the€type€to€cause€extreme€physical€pain,€whichÏconstitutes€serious€bodily€injury€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„11„106(33).€€ð ðSerious€bodily€injuryðð€is€also€defined€by€this€statute€as€a€bodily€injuryÏwith€ð ða€substantial€risk€of€death.ðð€€The€proof€shows€that€the€bullet€entered€andÏpassed€through€the€victimððs€arm€prior€to€entering€his€chest€area€and€stoppedÏvery€near€the€spine.€€Upon€review€of€this€record,€there€was€more€than€sufficientÏevidence€to€permit€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€elements€of€especiallyÏaggravated€burglary€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€Defendant€has€not€metÍhis€burden€in€establishing€the€insufficiency€of€the€evidence,€and€this€issue€hasÏno€merit.ÌÌà@ àII.€€LIMITATION€AND€INTERRUPTION€OF€CROSS„EXAMINATIONÌÌà àThe€trial€court€permitted€Defendantððs€counsel€to€cross„examine€the€victimÏregarding€ð ðdrug€useðð€to€the€extent€that€the€victim€admitted€he€had€used€drugs€inÏthe€past.€€The€victim€also€testified€that€he€did€not€currently€use€drugs,€and€heÏdenied€buying€drugs€from€the€Defendant.€€In€this€appeal,€the€DefendantÏcomplains€that€the€trial€court€would€not€allow€Defendant€to€ask€the€victim€if€heÏhad€ever€purchased€drugs€from€anyone€else€in€Parkview€Court€Apartments.€ÏThe€control€of€cross„examination€of€witnesses€rests€within€the€sound€discretionÏof€the€trial€court.€€€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,€843€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988).€€Whether€evidence€is€admissible€or€not€is€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judgeÏand€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€there€is€clear€evidence€of€abuse€of€thatÏdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€737€S.W.2d€790,€793„94€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àDefendant€was€allowed€to€elicit€on€cross„examination€that€the€victim€hadÏpreviously€used€drugs€and€whether€or€not€he€had€ever€purchased€drugs€fromÏthe€Defendant.€€We€do€not€see€how€it€is€relevant€in€the€proceedings€of€thisÏparticular€trial€whether€or€not€the€victim€had€purchased€drugs€from€otherÍindividuals€at€the€Parkview€Court€Apartments,€and€therefore€hold€that€the€trialÏcourt€was€correct€in€not€permitting€this€line€of€inquiry.ÌÌà àDefendant€further€complains€that€the€trial€court€interrupted€cross„examination€of€the€victim€on€other€occasions€and€committed€error€by€commentsÏthe€trial€court€made€during€the€cross„examination€of€the€victim.ÌÌà àWe€note€from€the€record€that€during€one€of€the€of€incidences€complained€ofÏby€the€Defendant,€the€trial€court€gave€the€Defendant€the€opportunity€to€make€anÏoffer€of€proof.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€reflect€that€Defendant€made€anyÏoffer€of€proof€of€what€line€of€inquiry€should€have€been€allowed€that€was€notÏpermitted.€€At€this€particular€point€in€the€cross„examination,€Defendantððs€counselÏwas€attempting€to€question€the€victim€about€the€number€of€people€that€wereÏlocated€outside€at€the€Parkview€Court€Apartments€on€the€night€of€the€incident.€ÏWithout€an€offer€of€proof€being€made€by€the€Defendant,€this€particular€matter€isÏwaived.€€T.R.A.P.€36(a).€€ÌÌà àDefendant€also€complains€about€the€trial€court€interrupting€counsel€byÏstating€that€counsel€had€asked€multiple€questions€at€once,€and€should€ask€oneÏquestion€at€a€time.€€Our€review€of€the€record€reflects€that€the€trial€judge€wasÏcorrect€in€this€ruling.€€ÌÌà àIn€addition,€Defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€interrupted€cross„examination€of€the€victim€when€he€had€been€called€back€as€a€rebuttal€witness.€ÏThe€trial€court€made€comments€inquiring€of€counsel€whether€or€not€the€questionsÏhad€already€been€asked,€and€when€given€an€explanation€by€defense€counsel,Ïthe€trial€court€allowed€the€Defendantððs€cross„examination€to€proceed.€€ThereÏwas€no€error€in€this€action€by€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€Defendant€complains€about€the€following€comments€of€the€trialÏcourt€during€cross„examination€of€Mr.€Hicks:ÌÓÓÌà àDEFENSE€COUNSEL:à8 àIt€wasÏprobably€one„thirty€before€youÏgot€to€theÏhospital€youÏsay?ÌÌà àVICTIM:à àà8 àà8 àYes.à àÌÌà àDEFENSE€COUNSEL:à8 àSir,€if€youððveÏknownÏ[Defendant]Ïnearly€all€of€hisÏlife,€why€wouldÏthe€DefendantÏrob€you,€do€youÏknow?ÌÌà àVICTIM:à àà àà8 àThatððs€what€IÏnever€couldÏfigure€out.ÌÌà8 àDEFENSE€COUNSEL:à8 àAnd,€sir,€youððveÏused€drugs€inÏthe€past?ÌÌà8 àVICTIM:à8 àà8 àà8 àYes.ÌÌà8 àTHE€COURT:à àà8 àAsk€him€if€heÏwas€usingÏdrugs€then€ifÏyou€want€to.ÌÌà8 àDEFENSE€COUNSEL:à8 àIððll€leave€it€there,ÏYour€Honor.ÌÌà àTHE€COURT:à àà8 àAll€right.€€AskÏhim€if€heððs€hadÏa€drink€ofÏwhiskeyÏsometime€orÏsomething€likeÏthat.ÌÌà8 àDEFENSE€COUNSEL:à8 àNothing€further,ÏYour€Honor.ÌÌÓÓÌà àIt€is€correct€that€a€trial€court€must€be€careful€not€to€express€any€thought€orÏmake€any€statement€that€might€cause€a€jury€to€infer€that€the€judge€is€in€favor€of,Ïor€against€the€Defendant€in€a€criminal€case,€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,Ï260€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€115€S.C.€743€(1995).€€Therefore,€we€view€theÏabove€statements€by€the€trial€court€as€improper.€€ÌÌà àThe€comments€made€by€the€trial€court€could€be€taken€by€the€jury€as€anÏindication€by€the€trial€judge€to€not€take€seriously€the€cross„examination€byÏdefense€counsel.€€Questions€by€the€trial€court€should€be€limited€to€clarifyingÏpoints€which€may€seem€to€be€obscure€and€in€supplying€omissions€which€theÏinterest€of€justice€demand.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jenkinsóó,€733€S.W.2d€528,€532€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987).€€This€would€necessarily€include€situations,€such€as€in€theÏcase€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€where€the€trial€court€suggests€to€counsel€questions€that€he€orÏshe€may€want€to€ask.€€ÌÌà àHowever,€any€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏT.R.Crim.P.€52.ÌÌà@ àIII.€€TRIAL€JUDGEððS€FAILURE€TO€READ€ALL€JURY€INSTRUCTIONSÌÌà àDefendant€argues€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€his€secretary€to€read€theÏfinal€portion€of€instructions€to€the€jury.€€From€the€record,€it€is€evident€that€the€trialÏjudge€asked€his€secretary€to€read€the€remainder€of€the€charge€due€to€his€soreÏthroat.€€The€trial€court€specifically€stated€ð ðLadies€and€gentlemen,€due€to€myÏthroat,€Iððm€going€to€let€her€read€the€rest€of€this.€€Itððd€be€just€as€if€I€read€it.ððÌÌà àDefendant€did€not€object€to€this€at€trial,€nor€did€he€raise€this€issue€in€hisÏmotion€for€a€new€trial.€€He€now€asserts€that€appellate€review€is€proper€becauseÏthe€trial€courtððs€actions€were€plain€error€under€Rule€52(b),€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCriminal€Procedure.€€Before€an€error€may€be€recognized€pursuant€to€Rule€52(b),Ïthe€error€must€be€ð ðplainðð€and€affect€a€ð ðsubstantial€rightðð€of€the€accused.€€òòState€v.ÏAdkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626,€639€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€A€plain€error€isÏespecially€egregious€in€that€it€strikes€at€the€fairness,€integrity€or€public€reputationÏof€judicial€proceedings.€€òòIdóó.€€A€substantial€right€is€a€right€of€fundamentalÏproportions€in€the€indictment€process,€in€the€proof€of€each€element€of€the€offense,Ïand€constitutional€in€nature.€€òòIdóó.€€To€determine€whether€an€error€constitutes€plainÏerror,€the€following€factors€apply:ÌÓÓà8 àa)€the€record€must€clearly€establish€what€occurred€in€the€trial€court;Ìà8 àb)€a€clear€and€unequivocal€rule€of€law€must€have€been€breached;Ìà8 àc)€a€substantial€right€of€the€accused€must€have€been€adverselyÏaffected;Ìà8 àd)€the€accused€did€not€waive€the€issue€for€tactical€reasons;€andÌà8 àe)€consideration€of€the€error€is€necessary€to€do€substantial€justice.ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€641„42.ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€consideration€of€the€above€factors,€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€read€theÏentire€charge€to€the€jury€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€plain€error.€€In€light€of€theÏevidence€against€the€Defendant,€the€secretaryððs€reading€a€portion€of€the€juryÏinstructions€did€not€affect€the€fairness€or€the€integrity€of€the€trial,€particularly€sinceÏthe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€her€reading€would€be€just€as€if€he€read€theÍcharge.€€The€presumption€is€that€a€jury€follows€the€instructions€of€the€trial€court.€ÏòòState€v.€Vanzantóó,€659€S.W.2d€816,€819€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);€òòCraig€v.ÏStateóó,€524€S.W.2d€504,€508€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).€€While€this€court€cannotÏcondone€the€actions€of€the€trial€court,€except€under€extreme€circumstances,€thereÏis€no€evidence€that€the€jury€did€not€follow€the€judgeððs€instructions.€€Any€error€wasÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€T.R.Crim.P.€52(a).€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.€ÌÌà@ àIV.€€OMISSION€OF€COMPLETE€JURY€INSTRUCTIONSÌÌà àDefendant€argues€that€the€omission€of€the€words€ð ðprejudice€orðð€from€theÏtrial€courtððs€verbal€instructions€to€the€jury€constituted€plain€error.€€Since€there€wasÏneither€objection€made€nor€a€special€request€tendered,€the€form€or€fullness€of€theÏjury€instructions€are€ordinarily€not€appropriate€issues€for€appellate€review.€€òòStateÏv.€Cravensóó,€764€S.W.2d€754,€756„57€(Tenn.€1989).€€Questions€concerning€theÏinstructions€are€generally€deemed€to€be€waived€in€the€absence€of€objection€orÏspecial€request,€unless€they€contain€plain€error.€òòIdóó.€at€757.€€ÌÌà àThe€correctness€or€fairness€of€a€particular€wording€of€a€jury€instructionÏmust€be€determined€from€a€full€reading€of€the€instructions€and€not€solely€fromÏexcerpts.€€òòState€v.€Elendtóó,€654€S.W.2d€411,€414€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);€òòMartinÍv.€Stateóó,€542€S.W.2d€638,€642€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€In€this€instance,ÏDefendant€objects€to€the€omission€of€the€words€ð ðprejudice€orðð€from€the€reading€ofÏthe€following:ÌÓÓà8 àYou€can€have€no€òòprejudice€oróó€sympathy,€or€allow€anything€but€theÏlaw€and€the€evidence€to€have€any€influence€upon€your€verdict.€ÏYou€must€render€your€verdict€with€absolute€fairness€and€impartialityÏas€you€think€justice€and€truth€dictate.ÌÓÓÌTennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instructions,€Criminal€43.04.ÌÌà àWithin€the€jury€instructions,€the€jury€was€informed:€€(1)€to€give€the€evidenceÏintroduced€by€the€State€and€the€Defendant€a€full,€fair,€and€impartialÏconsideration,€(2)€to€make€an€impartial€consideration€of€the€evidence€with€fellowÏjurors,€(3)€to€render€the€verdict€with€absolute€fairness€and€impartiality€as€justiceÏand€truth€dictate,€and€(4)€that€the€jury€was€to€allow€nothing€but€the€law€and€theÏevidence€to€have€any€influence€upon€the€verdict.€€ÌÌà àThe€omission€of€the€words€ð ðprejudice€orðð€in€the€charge€to€the€jury€does€notÏrise€to€a€level€of€plain€error€which€would€require€a€reversal€of€the€judgment€underÏRule€52(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€It€does€not€meet€theÏcriteria€of€òòState€v.€Adkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€641„42€discussed€òòsupraóó.€€TheÏomission€did€not€affect€the€fairness€or€integrity€of€the€trial,€nor€did€it€affect€aÏsubstantial€right€of€the€Defendant.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€Judge