ÿWPCè' …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ 1m˜ 0c w@h 0”¨ 0D< € 0Jˆ 0TÒ 0^& 0h„ 0rì B^ 0|{ 0†÷ 0} 1u  0d‚ D3æ 0@U 6YB)DC¸ AMû.HüvXrèÊZ²v~ vÓŠ 0w]! 0ŠÔ! 0 ^" 0´þ" 0Dz# 0Ûy$ 0ïT% AOC&Æ’& 0DX' D/œ' BË'<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|XD«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓR¦" tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à 0U1V2D3U4D5E6V7D89Ó€(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2J 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 'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€-0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ $Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ5,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔÔ€ÔThe€only€citation€to€the€record€on€this€issue€is€to€a€comment€made€by€the€trial€judge€at€theÏmotion€for€a€new€trial.€€Neither€this€comment,€nor€anything€else€in€the€record,€supports€the€defendantððsÏconclusion.€€We€find€no€facts€in€the€record€supporting€the€defendantððs€conclusion.Ì NÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThis€instruction€appeared€in€the€1988€edition€of€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instructions,€but€it€isÏnot€included€in€later€editions.Ô€.ÔÌ ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÒ D ÒÒ ¢ ÒÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóExhibit€15€was€an€autopsy€photo€of€the€victimððs€head€and€torso€areas.€€Exhibit€17€was€anÏautopsy€photo€of€the€victimððs€right€side€area.€€Both€photos€depicted€the€numerous€bruises€andÏabrasions€sustained€by€the€victim.Ô€.ÔÌ PÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTwo€news€video€clips€from€television€station€WATE€and€one€news€sound€clip€from€radio€stationÏWIVK€were€included€in€the€record.€€The€video€clips€stated€that€the€defendantððs€trial€was€beginning€whereÏhe€was€accused€of€killing€Shirlene€Miller.€€One€clip€reported€that€subsequent€to€Millerððs€death,€theÏdefendant€had€been€accused€of€brutally€beating€another€woman.€€The€radio€clip€was€similar€in€content.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··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!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ X ÑÑ7€b&XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßR€120A1-j|` 81 `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àMARCH€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€ó ó€ò ò03C01„9603„CR„00091ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àKNOX€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€MARY€BETH€LEIBOWITZ,ÌCHARLES€DANIEL€GRAY,à àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà à(Second„degree€murder)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òMARK€E.€STEPHENSó óà àò òà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌò òLESLIE€NASSIOSà àà àà àà àà àROBIN€L.€HARRISó óà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€ÏAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌ1209€Euclid€Ave.à àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.ÌKnoxville,€TN€€37921à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRANDALLó ó€ò òE.€NICHOLSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òROBERT€L.€JOLLEY,€JR.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€Bldg.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€€37902à àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,ÌJudgeÌÌÑ Ü Ñœ›à@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌ̛̜ÌÓÓÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€on€September€21,€1994,€for€the€second„degree€murder€of€Shirlene€Miller.€€After€œfive›€days€of€trial,€a€jury€convicted€him€of€theÏindicted€offense.€€A€sentencing€hearing€was€held,€and€the€defendant€was€sentencedÏto€twenty„five€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€€Ìà àà àÌÓÓà àà àIn€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€raises€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ \ ÒÓÓ€Ì1.€€The€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€juryððsÏverdict€of€second„degree€murder.ÌÌ2.€€The€trial€courtððs€instructions€to€the€jury€regardingÏð ðcause€of€deathðð€were€improper€and€should€result€in€aÏnew€trial.ÌÌ3.€€The€cumulative€errors€of€the€trial€court€deprived€theÍdefendant€of€a€fair€trial.ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÌA.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€a€plasticÏbag€into€evidence€without€disclosing€the€bagððsÏcontents.ÌÌB.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€certainÏphotographs€of€the€victim.ÌÌC.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€toÏplay€the€defendantððs€taped€statement€in€aÏprejudicial€manner.ÌÌD.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€excuseÏcertain€jurors€for€cause.ÌÌE.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€holding€court€duringÏexceedingly€late€hours.ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ô ÒÒ \ ÒÌ4.€€The€conduct€of€the€prosecutor€deprived€the€defendantÏof€a€fair€trial.ÌÌ5.€€The€defendantððs€sentence€is€excessive.̛̜ÌÒ D ÒÒ \ ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€merit€to€any€of€the€above€issues€and€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€court€below.ÌÌà àà àOn€October€1,€1992,€the€defendant€called€911€and€asked€for€assistanceÏat€his€home€on€Glen€Oaks€Drive€in€Knoxville.€€When€officers€arrived€shortly€beforeÏ9:00€a.m.,€the€defendant€told€them€he€thought€his€œfiance,›€Shirlene€Miller,€was€dead.€ÏOfficers€found€the€victim€lying€on€her€back€on€a€couch€in€the€homeððs€living€room.€€SheÍwas€wearing€nothing€but€panties,€which€appeared€to€be€on€inside€out.€€TheÏdefendant€told€the€officers€that€he€had€awakened€that€morning€and€found€the€victimÏlying€on€the€screened€porch.€€He€moved€her€to€the€couch,€attempted€CPR,€and€thenÏcalled€911€when€he€realized€the€victim€was€not€alive.ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Cynthia€Gass€and€Criminal€Investigator€Stan€McCroskeyÏinvestigated€the€scene€where€the€victim€was€found.€€At€the€defendantððs€trial,€GassÏtestified€that€she€had€seen€a€large€wet€spot€with€blood€on€it€on€the€carpet€of€theÏscreened€porch.€€She€testified€that€it€had€appeared€as€though€someone€had€tried€toÏclean€the€area.€€While€she€testified€that€she€had€seen€a€vacuum€cleaner€nearby,€sheÏdid€not€observe€any€other€cleaning€tools.€€She€further€testified€that€she€had€seen€theÏdefendant€and€observed€that€he€had€vomitus€in€his€beard€but€she€did€not€recallÏhaving€seen€any€marks€on€the€defendantððs€body.ÌÌà àà àMcCroskey€testified€that€he€had€examined€the€victimððs€body€as€it€wasÏlying€on€the€couch.€€Her€body€was€covered€with€bruises€from€head€to€toe.€€HeÏdiscovered€blood€on€the€lower€right€lobe€of€her€head€and€swelling€in€the€upper€leftÏlobe.€€He€also€detected€a€mucus„like€substance€next€to€the€victimððs€head€and€mouth.€ÏIn€his€investigation€of€the€house,€McCroskey€examined€a€blouse€that€was€foundÏhanging€on€a€coat€tree€in€the€front€entry€to€the€home.€€The€blouse€appeared€to€haveÍblood€stains€on€the€front€left€panel€and€on€the€shoulder.€€The€buttonhole€flap€was€tornÏfrom€the€chest€area€to€the€seam€of€the€sleeve.€€A€pair€of€jeans€with€a€tear€in€the€rightÏpocket€was€found€wadded€up€on€the€floor.€€McCroskey€testified€that€no€lab€analysisÏhad€been€performed€on€either€the€blouse€or€the€jeans.€€A€broken€necklace€was€alsoÏfound€on€the€floor€of€the€living€œroom.›ÌÌà àà àMcCroskey€also€testified€that€a€white€plastic€bag€with€what€appeared€toÏbe€blood€on€the€outside€had€been€found€under€the€concrete€steps€which€led€to€theÏoutdoor€pool.€€The€bag€contained€marijuana.€€No€lab€analysis€was€performed€on€theÏbag.€€McCroskey€testified€that€other€items€seized€from€the€house€included€a€metallicÏcandle€holder,€broken€pieces€of€glass€that€were€found€in€the€trash€can,€a€secondÏcandle€holder€that€was€retrieved€from€the€front€yard,€two€black€candles,€and€theÏvacuum€cleaner.€€He€further€testified€that€a€lab€analysis€had€revealed€no€evidence€ofÏblood€on€the€brush€of€the€vacuum€and€no€evidence€of€blood€or€hair€on€the€metalÏcandle€holder.€€The€defendantððs€fingerprints€were€found€on€the€broken€glass,€but€noÏfingerprints€could€be€taken€from€the€metallic€candle€holder.€€ÌÌà àà àAs€to€the€large€wet€spot€on€the€screened€porch,€McCroskey€testified€thatÏhe€had€detected€a€large€amount€of€water€on€the€carpet€and€thought€that€it€looked€asÏthough€someone€had€attempted€to€remove€the€blood€stain.€€He€testified€that€he€alsoÍhad€seen€a€rag€and€some€paper€towels€near€the€steps€leading€to€the€porch€area€andÏa€pail€with€what€appeared€to€be€blood€splatters€on€the€outside.€€None€of€these€itemsÏwere€seized€by€McCroskey.€€However,€a€portion€of€the€carpet€was€removed€andÏtaken€as€evidence.ÌÌà àà àMcCroskey€testified€that€after€investigating€the€scene€of€the€victimððsÏdeath,€he€had€asked€the€defendant€to€accompany€him€to€the€police€department€toÏgive€a€statement.€€The€defendant€agreed€and€later€signed€a€form€waiving€his€rights.€ÏMcCroskey€tape€recorded€the€interview€he€had€with€the€defendant,€and€it€was€thisÏtape€recording€that€the€State€played€at€trial€for€the€jury.€€In€the€interview,€theÏdefendant€said€that€he€and€the€victim€had€been€living€together€for€the€last€few€monthsÏand€had€been€planning€to€get€married€at€the€end€of€the€year.€€He€said€that€on€theÏnight€before€he€discovered€the€victimððs€body,€he€and€the€victim€œhad€had›€a€few€drinksÏat€the€bar€in€the€Holiday€Inn.€€However,€he€said€that€he€did€not€think€either€he€or€theÏvictim€was€drunk.€€He€also€said€that€although€they€had€fought€in€the€past,€they€did€notÏhave€a€fight€on€the€night€of€her€death.€€He€said€he€went€to€bed€around€midnight€andÏthat€the€victim€had€accompanied€him,€wearing€only€her€panties.€€He€said€he€heardÏnothing€during€the€night,€and€that€he€awoke€around€8:00€a.m.€to€find€the€victim€not€inÏthe€bed€with€him.€€This€was€not€unusual,€he€said,€because€he€snores€and€the€victimÏoften€sleeps€in€the€living€room.€€However,€when€the€defendant€went€to€look€for€her€inÍthe€living€room,€he€said€he€discovered€her€lying€on€the€porch.€€He€said€the€victim€wasÏunresponsive€and€had€no€heartbeat.€€He€said€he€then€picked€her€up€and€carried€herÏto€the€couch.€€When€he€did€this,€he€said€he€felt€blood€on€the€back€of€her€head.€€HeÏthen€called€911.ÌÌà àà àMcCroskey€testified€at€the€trial€that€at€the€time€of€the€interview,€he€couldÏsmell€alcohol€on€the€defendant€and€that€he€seemed€hung€over.€€He€further€testifiedÏthat€the€defendant€had€been€upset€that€he€was€being€interviewed,€but€that€he€was€notÏcrying€and€was€not€ð ðemotionally€upset.ðð€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€interview,€theÏdefendant€was€not€detained.€€He€was€not€arrested€until€nearly€two€years€later€inÏSeptember€1994.€€€€ÌÌà àà àHarry€James€Rippon,€Jr.,€an€associate€of€the€defendant,€testified€at€theÏtrial€that€the€defendant€had€confided€in€him€in€October€1993,€approximately€a€yearÏafter€the€victimððs€death.€€Rippon€testified€that€the€defendant€had€told€him€that€on€theÏnight€of€September€30,€1992,€the€defendant€and€the€victim€had€been€partying€andÏdrinking,€and€that€when€they€returned€home,€they€began€to€fight.€€Rippon€furtherÏtestified€that€the€defendant€had€told€him€that€he€and€the€victim€were€hitting€each€otherÏwhen€he€got€tired€of€the€situation€and€pushed€her€away.€€Rippon€testified€that€theÏdefendant€said€that€after€pushing€the€victim,€he€went€to€bed.€€Rippon€further€testifiedÍthat€the€defendant€had€said€he€did€not€mean€to€kill€the€victim.€€Rippon€was€out€of€townÏat€the€time€of€the€victimððs€death€and€had€no€personal€knowledge€as€to€what€hadÏoccurred.€€He€testified€that€his€knowledge€was€derived€solely€from€what€theÏdefendant€had€told€him.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Anthony€Kattine,€a€pathologist€at€the€University€of€Tennessee,Ïperformed€an€autopsy€on€the€victimððs€body.€€At€the€trial,€he€testified€at€length€aboutÏthe€victimððs€injuries€and€their€possible€causes.€€He€testified€that€the€victim€had€manyÏexternal€injuries€including€a€4.5€cm€x€.6€cm€laceration€on€her€scalp,€abrasions€aboveÏher€right€eye,€on€her€back€and€right€side,€on€her€hip€bone€and€on€her€thighs,Ïdiscoloration€of€her€left€breast,€bruises€on€her€right€breast,€marks€on€her€forearmsÏand€wrists,€and€a€hemorrhage€of€the€muscles€that€open€and€close€oneððs€mouth.€€HeÏfurther€testified€that€the€victimððs€skull€had€been€fractured€and€that€she€had€evidenceÏof€hemorrhaging€on€her€neck.€€He€testified€that€he€had€found€small€oval€marks€on€herÏneck€which€would€be€consistent€with€being€grabbed€by€someoneððs€fingers.€€TheÏvictim€also€had€several€internal€injuries€including€hemorrhaging€of€the€small€bowelÏand€left€breast.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Kattine€testified€that€a€very,€very€severe€blow€to€the€head€had€likelyÏbeen€the€cause€of€the€skull€fracture.€€Likewise,€he€testified€that€the€injury€to€the€smallÍbowel€had€likely€been€caused€by€a€blunt€blow€to€the€abdomen€while€the€victim€was€inÏa€relatively€fixed€state€and€the€injury€to€the€breast€had€also€likely€been€caused€by€aÏsevere€blow.€€Kattine€further€testified€that€the€stippled€or€disrupted€pattern€of€theÏinjuries€on€her€body€were€consistent€with€the€pattern€on€the€metallic€candle€holder.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Kattine€testified€that€the€victim€œhad€had›€vomitus€in€her€trachea€treeÏindicating€that€she€had€aspirated,€or€in€other€words,€she€had€pulled€vomitus€into€herÏairways.€€He€explained€that€aspiration€can€occur€when€a€person€is€intoxicated€andÏvomits,€when€a€person€has€lost€consciousness€due€to€injuries€and€vomits,€or€when€aÏperson€has€a€head€injury€which€increases€the€pressure€on€the€brain,€causing€aÏperson€to€vomit.€€As€to€the€victimððs€cause€of€death,€Dr.€Kattine€testified€that€she€hadÏbeen€severely€beaten€and€that€the€terminal€injury€was€the€blow€to€the€back€of€herÏhead€which€fractured€her€skull,€causing€hemorrhaging€and€aspiration.€€He€added€thatÏthe€intoxicants€in€her€body€contributed€to€her€death.€€He€further€testified€that€the€injuryÏto€her€skull€was€linear,€thus€making€it€hard,€but€not€impossible,€to€imagine€that€a€fallÏcould€have€produced€such€an€injury.€€He€testified€that€the€victim€had€no€injury€on€theÏopposite€side€of€her€brain€from€where€she€received€this€injury,€indicating€that€herÏhead€was€in€motion€when€she€received€the€blow,€not€that€she€struck€her€headÏagainst€an€immovable€object€such€as€the€floor.ÌÌà àà àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Kattine€testified€that€he€had€found€marijuana,Ïalcohol,€and€Doxepin,€a€sedative,€in€the€victimððs€body.€€The€victim€had€a€bloodÏalcohol€content€of€twenty„four€hundredths€of€one€percent€(.24%).€€As€to€the€effectsÏthese€intoxicants€had€on€the€victim,€Dr.€Kattine€testified€that€she€would€have€lost€a€lotÏof€coordination€and€that€the€alcohol€could€have€made€bruising€more€likely.€€He€alsoÏtestified€that€while€some€of€the€victimððs€injuries€were€consistent€with€the€pattern€onÏthe€candle€holder,€he€could€not€say€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€candleÏholder€was€the€cause€of€those€injuries.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€conclusion€of€Dr.€Kattineððs€testimony,€the€State€rested.€€TheÏdefense€then€began€its€case€with€the€testimony€of€Dr.€William€F.€McCormick,Ïprofessor€and€head€of€forensic€pathology€at€East€Tennessee€State€UniversityÏMedical€School€and€€Deputy€Chief€Medical€Examiner€for€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€Dr.ÏMcCormick€testified€that€he€had€not€been€present€at€the€victimððs€autopsy€and€that€heÏhad€never€personally€viewed€the€victimððs€body.€€Instead,€he€reviewed€numerousÏreports€and€photographs€provided€to€him€by€the€defense.€€€He€testified€that€he€hadÏreviewed€the€autopsy€report,€toxicology€reports,€photographs€from€the€scene€and€theÏautopsy,€police€incident€reports,€and€FBI€reports.€€From€this€information,€heÏdetermined€that€the€victim€had€suffered€from€a€decelerated€head€injury,€such€as€a€fall.€ÏUnlike€Dr.€Kattine,€Dr.€McCormick€testified€that€the€trauma€to€the€victimððs€head€hadÍresulted€from€falling€against€an€immovable€object,€rather€than€her€head€being€inÏmotion€and€being€struck€by€an€object.€€Dr.€McCormick€testified€that€he€had€reachedÏthis€conclusion€due€to€œthe€appearance›€of€the€abrasion€surrounding€the€laceration€inÏthe€scalp.€€He€further€testified€that€to€a€reasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty€theÏvictimððs€death€had€been€caused€by€the€combination€of€the€brain€depressing€effects€ofÏthe€intoxicants€and€the€hemorrhaging€of€the€brain€caused€by€a€head€injury€receivedÏin€a€fall.€€However,€he€did€testify€that€the€metallic€candle€holder€could€have€causedÏthe€skull€injury€if€a€person€had€been€swinging€it€very€hard.€€As€to€the€bruises€on€herÏbody,€he€said€they€too€were€consistent€with€a€fall€but€that€they€were€not€received€in€aÏsingle€fall.€€He€testified€that€the€victim€would€have€had€to€have€fallen€at€least€threeÏtimes.€€He€added€that€some€of€her€bruises€were€typical€of€an€intoxicated€personÏrepeatedly€bumping€into€objects.€€Dr.€McCormick€further€testified€that€the€marks€onÏthe€victimððs€neck€had€not€been€typical€of€marks€left€by€fingers.€€He€testified€that€theÏvictimððs€larynx€was€not€crushed€and€that€it€was€his€conclusion€that€she€was€notÏstrangled.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€conclusion€of€Dr.€McCormickððs€testimony,€the€defense€rested.€ÏThe€defendant€did€not€testify.€€The€jury€then€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€second„Ïdegree€murder€in€the€death€of€Shirlene€Miller.ÌÌÓ  ÓI.€€SUFFICIENCY€ÌÓ  Óà àà àAs€his€first€issue,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€to€find€him€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€of€second„degree€murder.€ÏA€defendant€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€toÏthis€Court€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trierÏof€fact€in€his€or€her€case.€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€for€lack€ofÏsufficient€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€any€inferences€whichÏmay€be€drawn€from€the€facts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€ofÏfact€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639ÏS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌà àà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence,€we€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecutionÏin€determining€whether€ð ðòòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluateÏthe€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏproof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€infer‚encesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€Ìà àÌà àà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€valueÏto€be€given€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835.€€A€guiltyÏverdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€witnesses€for€the€State,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€State€did€not€prove€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€he€committed€a€ð ðknowing€killing.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„210(1).€Ïð ðððKnowingðð€refers€to€a€person€who€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€the€conduct€or€toÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€of€the€nature€ofÏthe€conduct€or€that€the€circumstances€exist.€€A€person€acts€knowingly€with€respect€toÏa€result€of€the€personððs€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€that€the€conduct€isÏreasonably€certain€to€cause€the€result.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„302(b).€€A€person€can€actÏknowingly€irrespective€of€his€or€her€desire€that€the€conduct€or€result€will€occur.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Rutherfordóó,€876€S.W.2d€118,€120„21€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„302(b)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€(1989).ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€claims€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€proveÍthat€he€committed€a€knowing€killing.€€However,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€adducedÏat€trial,€we€believe€that€the€jury€could€have€reasonably€inferred€that€the€defendantÏcommitted€a€knowing€killing€of€the€victim.€€At€trial,€a€witness€testified€that€theÏdefendant€had€admitted€to€pushing€the€victim€but€that€he€had€not€meant€to€kill€her.€ÏFurthermore,€the€crime€scene€provided€evidence€as€to€how€the€victim€was€killed€asÏdid€the€severe€and€numerous€bruises€on€the€victimððs€body.€€As€for€expert€testimony,Ïthe€defendant€offered€the€testimony€of€Dr.€McCormick€to€show€that€the€victim€hadÏcaused€her€own€death€by€way€of€a€traumatic€fall.€€The€State,€on€the€other€hand,Ïoffered€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Kattine€that€the€victimððs€death€was€a€result€of€beingÏforcefully€struck€by€a€blunt€object,€most€likely€a€metallic€candle€holder€from€theÏdefendantððs€house.€€By€convicting€the€defendant,€the€jury€obviously€chose€to€believeÏthe€Stateððs€witnesses€and€to€credit€the€testimony€from€Dr.€Kattine€over€that€of€Dr.ÏMcCormick.€€It€is€the€exclusive€job€of€the€jury€to€judge€the€credibility€of€witnesses.€ÏòòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€804€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€jury€chose€to€reject€theÏdefendantððs€theory€that€a€fall€caused€the€victimððs€death,€and€this€choice€is€amplyÏsupported€by€the€evidence.ÌÌà àà àThus,€crediting€the€Stateððs€witnesses€as€we€must€on€appeal,€weÏconclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€defendantððs€conviction.€€InÏviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€it€appears€that€theÍdefendant€and€the€victim€had€been€drinking€on€the€night€of€her€death€and€had€begunÏto€argue.€€They€engaged€in€physical€fighting€and€after€striking€the€victim€numerousÏtimes,€the€defendant€delivered€a€violent€and€ultimately€deadly€blow€to€the€victimððsÏhead.€€The€defendant€knowingly€engaged€in€this€conduct,€and€he€should€have€beenÏaware€of€the€consequences€of€such€conduct.€€That€he€may€or€may€not€have€intendedÏthe€consequences€is€irrelevant.€€As€there€is€sufficient€evidence€to€support€theÏdefendantððs€conviction,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àWithin€his€sufficiency€argument,€the€defendant€further€challenges€theÏvalidity€of€the€conviction€by€alleging€that€the€jury€was€not€dispassionate€about€itsÏverdict€because€the€victimððs€family€sat€in€the€front€row€of€the€courtroom€during€theÏtrial.€€The€defendant€simply€makes€this€conclusory€statement€without€citations€to€theÏrecord€or€to€any€authority€for€support.œ× ƒ3 ××  ×›€€By€failing€to€articulate€reasons€to€support€hisÏconclusory€statement,€the€defendant€has€waived€this€issue.€€Rules€of€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€of€Tennessee€10(b);€òòState€v.€McKayóó,€680€S.W.2d€447,€454€(Tenn.Ï1984),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€470€U.S.€1034€(1985);€òòsee€alsoóó€T.R.A.P.€27(a)(7).€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àThe€defendant€further€complains€that€the€jury€could€not€have€weighedÏand€reviewed€all€of€the€evidence€because€the€members€deliberated€only€an€hourÏbefore€announcing€the€verdict.€€The€length€of€a€juryððs€deliberation€has€no€bearing€onÏthe€ð ðstrength€or€correctness€of€[its]€verdict€or€the€validity€of€[its]€verdict.ðð€€òòAnglin€v.ÏStateóó,€553€S.W.2d€616,€620€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Caldwellóó,Ï656€S.W.2d€894,€897€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)(finding€no€indication€of€aÏpredisposition€against€the€defendant€where€the€jury€deliberated€for€twenty„sixÏminutes€before€finding€guilt).€€This€complaint€has€no€œmerit.Ç›Ó  ÓII.€€JURY€INSTRUCTIONSÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€errorÏwhen€it€instructed€the€jury€on€cause€of€death.€€The€defendant€complains€that€thisÏinstruction,€in€addition€to€the€instruction€on€ð ðknowingðð,€confused€the€jury€andÏeffectively€shifted€the€Stateððs€burden€of€proof€as€to€the€element€of€ð ðknowing.ðð€€The€trialÏcourtððs€instruction€included€the€following€language:ÌÒ D ÒÒ \ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ \ ÒÓÓÌWhen€a€wound€from€which€death€might€ensue€is€inflictedÏwith€intent€to€kill,€you€may€infer€that€death€following€thatÏwound€was€caused€by€such€wound.€€If€you€so€infer,€theÏdefendant€should€show€that€death€resulted€from€someÏother€cause€not€attributable€to€the€defendant.€€However,Ïthe€burden€of€proof€never€shifts€and€is€always€upon€theÏstate€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€deathÏof€the€deceased€was€brought€about€by€the€unlawful€act€ofÏthe€defendant.ÌÒ D ÒÒ \ ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓÌà àà àThe€defendant€cites€òòState€v.€Ruaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€766€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ïœ1995),›€in€which€the€above€language€was€also€used€to€instruct€the€jury.€€In€òòRuaneóó,€theÏcase€was€remanded€for€a€new€trial€because€the€trial€court€failed€to€instruct€the€jury€onÏall€the€possible€lesser€included€offenses.€€€A€panel€of€this€Court€suggested€that€onÏremand,€the€above€language€be€deleted€from€the€jury€instructions€in€order€to€avoidÏmisleading€or€confusing€the€jury€concerning€the€burden€of€proof€on€the€issue€ofÏcausation.€€òòRuaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€at€776„77.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€above€language€used€in€òòRuaneóó€and€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€wasÏbased€on€former€pattern€jury€instruction€T.P.I.€Crim.€37.11.œ× ƒ4 ××  ×›€€Similar€language€wasÏalso€used€and€then€challenged€on€appeal€in€òòState€v.€Kenneth€Patterson€Bondurantóó,ÏNo.€01C01„9501„CC„00023,€Giles€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€May€24,€1996,€atÏNashville).€€In€òòBondurantóó,€this€Court€concluded€that€while€the€language€is€not€favoredÏtoday,€the€instruction€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€a€constitutional€deprivation.€€WeÏagree€with€the€reasoning€in€òòBondurantóó€and€conclude€that€using€the€instruction€inÏquestion€did€not€deprive€the€defendant€of€any€constitutional€right.€€Therefore,€weÏconclude€that€any€error€in€the€instruction€was€harmless.€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.€€DEPRIVATION€OF€A€FAIR€TRIALÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€next€argues€that€the€cumulative€errors€in€the€trialÏdeprived€him€of€a€fair€trial.€€We€find€no€merit€to€any€of€these€alleged€errors,€andÏtherefore,€conclude€that€the€defendant€did€in€fact€receive€a€fair€trial.€€Nonetheless,€weÏshall€address€each€of€his€arguments.ÌÌÓ  ÓA.€€Admissibility€of€Plastic€BagÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€allowed€theÏState€to€introduce€into€evidence€a€photograph€of€a€plastic€bag€without€disclosing€theÏbagððs€contents.€€The€bag€in€question€was€found€under€the€concrete€steps€leading€toÏthe€defendantððs€outdoor€pool.€Ô€ôÔ€Ô€XÔThe€bag€had€blood€on€the€outside€and€was€taken€fromÏthe€crime€scene€for€this€reason.€€However,€Officer€McCroskey€testified€that€theÏdefendant€had€admitted€to€the€police€that€he€had€placed€the€bag€under€the€stepsÏafter€calling€911€because€the€bag€contained€marijuana.€ÌÌà àà àIn€pre„trial€motions,€the€defense€sought€to€keep€the€bag€and€its€contentsÏout€of€evidence€on€the€grounds€that€it€was€not€relevant€and€that€the€prejudicial€effectÏof€the€evidence€outweighed€any€probative€value€that€the€evidence€may€have€had.€ÏThe€trial€court€held€that€the€bag€could€be€introduced€because€it€was€part€of€the€crimeÏscene€and€its€probative€value€outweighed€any€prejudicial€effect.€€At€trial,€the€StateÏsought€to€introduce€only€a€photograph€of€the€bag€without€disclosing€its€contents.€ÏThus,€the€defendant€alleges€the€State€misled€the€jury€by€suggesting€that€theÏdefendant€hid€a€bloody€bag€outside€his€house€in€an€effort€to€conceal€evidence.€€As€aÏresult,€the€defendant€complains€that€he€was€ð ðforcedðð€to€admit€into€evidence€theÏcontents€of€the€bag€in€order€to€explain€the€bagððs€existence.€€That€the€bag€containedÏmarijuana€was€disclosed€by€Officer€McCroskey€during€his€cross„examination€by€theÏdefendant.€€The€defendant€contends€that€the€admission€of€the€bag€and€its€contentsÍconfused€the€issues€in€the€case€and€misled€the€jury.ÌÌà àà àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€401€provides€that€relevant€evidence€isÏthat€which€has€ð ðany€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofÏconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€thanÏit€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€The€Stateððs€theory€was€that€the€defendantÏattempted€to€clean€up€the€murder€scene€prior€to€the€arrival€of€the€police.€€A€hiddenÏplastic€bag€with€what€appeared€to€be€blood€on€it€certainly€has€a€tendency€to€proveÏthis€fact.€€The€admission€of€evidence€is€largely€discretionary€with€the€trial€judge,€andÏher€discretion€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€unless€there€is€clearly€an€abuse€of€thatÏdiscretion.€€òòState€v.óó€òòHayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€183€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Here,€weÏsee€no€reason€to€disturb€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€That€the€defendant€was€ð ðforcedðð€toÏreveal€the€contents€of€the€plastic€bag€does€not€alter€our€determination.€€The€bag€wasÏrelevant€in€that€it€was€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€conduct€after€the€death€of€theÏvictim.€€We€find€no€evidence€that€informing€the€jury€the€bag€contained€marijuanaÏprejudiced€the€defendant€to€the€point€that€he€did€not€receive€a€fair€trial.€€We€note,Ïhowever,€that€even€if€it€were€error€to€admit€the€photograph€of€the€bag€into€evidence,€itÏwas€harmless€error.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌÓ  ÓB.€€Admissibility€of€photographsÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€whenÏit€admitted€two€autopsy€photographs€of€the€victim€at€the€conclusion€of€Dr.€KattineððsÏtestimony.€€During€his€testimony,€Dr.€Kattine€referred€to€several€slides€taken€duringÏthe€autopsy.€€These€slides€were€admitted€into€evidence,€yet€they€were€not€part€of€theÏrecord€on€appeal.€€Two€photographs€complained€about€by€the€defendant€were€alsoÏadmitted€and€passed€to€the€jury.€€The€defendant€complains€that€these€two€photosÏwere€cumulative€and€should€not€have€been€passed€to€the€jury.ÌÌà àà àThe€photographs€in€question,€exhibit€numbers€15€and€17,œ× ƒ5 ××  ×›€were€alsoÏapparently€introduced€through€Dr.€Kattine.€€However,€the€photos€had€been€theÏsubject€of€earlier€discussion€when€the€defendant€objected€to€introducing€theÏphotographs€through€Officer€McCroskey.€€At€that€time,€defense€counsel€stated,€œÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ \ ÒAt›€this€point€I€have€not€raised€any€objections€to,€and€donððtÏintend€to€raise€any€objections€to€the€slides€and€photos€thatÏ[the€State]€has€shown€me,€of€the€injuries€to€[the€victimððs]Ïbody,€because€I€think,€under€the€law,€that€they€are€relevantÏto€show,€ah,€you€know,€the€number€of€them,€and€theÏnature€of€them,€and€relevant€to€Dr.€Kattineððs€œtestimony.ÌÌ›ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ \ ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓà àà à€When€the€photos€were€later€used€during€Dr.€Kattineððs€testimony,€theÏdefendant€objected€to€passing€them€to€the€jury€on€the€grounds€that€the€photos€wereÏcumulative€of€the€previously€introduced€slides.€€He€now€complains€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€allowing€the€photos€to€be€introduced€and€passed€to€the€jury.€€We€see€twoÏproblems€with€this€argument.€€First,€it€appears€that€the€photos€had€already€been€theÏsubject€of€much€discussion€and€defense€counsel€had€stated€she€had€no€objection€toÏthe€photos€other€than€through€whom€they€were€being€introduced.€€The€photos€wereÏlater€introduced€through€Dr.€Kattine€as€requested€by€the€defendant.€€That€theÏdefendant€did€not€object€to€the€content€of€the€photographs€waives€this€issue.€€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€235€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€T.R.A.P.€36(a).ÌÌà àà àSecond,€because€the€defendant€did€not€include€the€slides€in€the€record,Ïthis€Court€has€no€way€of€evaluating€whether€the€photos€were€cumulative€of€thatÏdepicted€in€the€slides.€€Without€this€evidence€preserved€in€the€record,€we€areÏprecluded€from€considering€the€issue.€€T.R.A.P.€24(b);€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€755€S.W.2dÏ833,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Furthermore,€we€note€that€a€trial€judge€has€muchÏdiscretion€in€allowing€a€photograph€into€evidence.€€òòCagle€v.€Stateóó,€507€S.W.2d€121,Ï132€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€It€is€difficult€to€imagine€that€the€defendant€would€haveÏbeen€able€to€demonstrate€the€necessary€abuse€of€discretion€in€order€to€prevail€onÏthis€issue.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓC.€€Defendantððs€Edited€StatementÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€he€was€prejudiced€at€trial€by€theÏmanner€in€which€his€taped€statement€to€the€police€was€played€to€the€jury.€€The€tapeÏhad€to€be€stopped€and€re„started€by€the€trial€judge€in€order€to€omit€information€thatÏwas€not€elicited€from€the€defendant€and€was€irrelevant€and€possibly€prejudicial.€€OnÏthe€Friday€afternoon€prior€to€the€Monday€morning€trial€date,€the€defendant€requestedÏthat€the€State€redact€the€defendantððs€statement€in€order€to€omit€these€objectionableÏportions.€€When€the€State€reported€that€it€was€unable€to€comply€with€the€requestÏbecause€of€the€lateness€of€the€request€and€a€lack€of€technical€equipment,€the€trialÏjudge€determined€that€she€would€operate€the€tape€recorder€and€would€personallyÏstop€the€tape€prior€to€the€objectionable€portions.€€ÌÌà àà àPrior€to€playing€the€tape€at€trial,€the€trial€judge€explained€to€the€œjury,ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ \ ÒYou›€are€going€to€have€to€bear€with€us€just€a€little€bit.€ÏThere€were,€the€reason€why€Iððm€playing€this€for€you,€is€thatÏthere€were€a€couple€of€extraneous€comments€made€byÏofficers,€that€have€nothing€to€do€with€Mr.€Grayððs€statement,Ïthat€are€not€appropriate€to€part€of€the€record,€and€so€I€amÏgoing€to€stop€the€tape€and€start€the€œtape.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ \ ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓThe›€trial€transcript€reflects€that€the€tape€was€stopped€once€to€identify€voices€and€aÍsecond€time€to€omit€the€prejudicial€portions.€€However,€the€transcript€of€theÏdefendantððs€statement,€which€was€passed€to€the€jury,€reflected€three€pauses.€€TheÏdefendant€complains€that€this€method€of€playing€the€tape€raised€a€ð ðred€flagðð€to€theÏjury€that€the€deleted€material€was€prejudicial€to€his€case.ÌÌà àà àHaving€reviewed€the€record,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€defendantÏwas€in€any€way€prejudiced€by€the€manner€in€which€the€tape€was€played.€€The€trialÏjudge€gave€the€jury€an€adequate€explanation€as€to€why€the€tape€would€be€stoppedÏand€re„started.€€We€note,€however,€it€certainly€would€have€been€preferable€to€haveÏhad€the€tape€properly€redacted.€€This€might€have€been€easily€accomplished€had€theÏdefendant€filed€his€motion€earlier.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓD.€€Selection€of€JuryÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€toÏexcuse€two€jurors€for€cause.€€Thus,€the€defendant€alleges€he€was€forced€to€exhaustÏall€his€peremptory€challenges€and€ð ðproceed€to€trial€with€an€incompetent€juror.ðð€à àÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€refused€toÏremove€juror€Shephard€for€cause.€€During€voir€dire,€Ms.€Shephard€said€she€had€readÏabout€the€defendantððs€case€in€the€paper€and€had€seen€a€news€report€on€television,Íbut€that€she€did€not€really€recall€any€of€the€facts.€€She€told€the€court€that€she€did€notÏthink€her€opinion€of€the€case€would€be€in€any€way€affected€by€the€news€story.€€Ms.ÏShephard€also€told€the€court€that€in€her€opinion€it€is€best€if€a€defendant€takes€theÏstand€and€explains€himself.€€She€also€said€she€might€be€inclined€to€believe€a€policeÏofficer€over€a€lay€person€because€two€members€of€her€family€are€police€officers.€ÏHowever,€she€said€she€would€try€her€ð ðvery€hardestðð€to€follow€the€courtððs€instructions€ifÏseated€on€the€jury.€€The€defendant€asked€that€Ms.€Shephard€be€excused€for€cause,Ïbut€the€court€refused.€€The€defendant€then€used€a€peremptory€challenge€to€removeÏMs.€Shephard€from€the€jury.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€alleges€that€having€used€all€his€peremptory€challenges,Ïhe€was€then€ð ðforcedðð€to€accept€juror€Sharp.€€The€defendant€asked€that€Mr.€Sharp€beÏexcused€for€cause,€but€the€court€refused€the€request.€€The€defendant€alleges€thatÏbecause€he€was€forced€to€use€a€peremptory€challenge€for€juror€Shephard,€he€hadÏnone€left€to€use€for€juror€Sharp€and€as€a€result,€Mr.€Sharp€subsequently€served€as€aÏmember€of€the€jury€panel.€€The€defendant€complains€that€Mr.€Sharp€should€not€haveÏbeen€on€the€jury€because€he€had€heard€a€news€report€about€the€victimððs€death€on€aÏlocal€radio€station.€€When€questioned€about€this,€Mr.€Sharp€said€the€report€reallyÏð ðdidnððt€registerðð€and€that€he€had€not€formed€an€opinion€about€the€case.ÌÌà àà àThe€resolution€of€this€issue€depends€not€so€much€on€the€trial€courtððsÏruling€concerning€Ms.€Shephard€as€it€does€upon€the€examination€and€qualificationsÏof€Mr.€Sharp,€the€juror€the€defendant€was€ð ðforcedðð€to€accept.€€Since€Ms.€Shephard€didÏnot€serve€on€the€jury,€ð ðany€error€in€refusing€to€excuse€[her]€for€cause€in€and€of€itselfÏdoes€not€entitle€the€defendant€to€a€new€trial€unless€the€jury€that€ultimately€heard€theÏcase€was€not€fair€and€impartial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€249€(Tenn.Ï1993)(citation€omitted).€€Therefore,€we€must€look€to€the€qualifications€of€juror€Sharp,Ïwhom€the€defendant€had€to€accept€after€his€challenge€for€cause€was€denied.€ÏAccordingly,€we€have€examined€the€voir€dire€of€Mr.€Sharp€and€have€ð ðfound€nothing€atÏall€suggestive€of€bias€or€prejudice.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Michael€Sandersóó,€No.€2,€HardemanÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€Feb.€22,€1989,€at€Jackson).€€Mr.€Sharp€only€indicatedÏthat€he€had€heard€some€news€accounts€of€the€defendantððs€pending€trial.€€HeÏunequivocally€stated€that€he€had€not€formed€any€opinion€about€the€case.€€AÏprospective€jurorððs€mere€exposure€to€publicity€is€not€constitutional€error.€òòState€v.ÏBlakelyóó,€677€S.W.2d€12,€17€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);€òòLackey€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.2dÏ101,€103€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€The€fact€that€a€prospective€juror€has€read€or€hasÏheard€some€publicity€about€a€case€is€not€sufficient€to€disqualify€him€if€he€is€otherwiseÏqualified€and€he€states€that€he€can€give€the€defendant€a€fair€and€impartial€trial.€ÏòòBlakelyóó,€677€S.W.2d€at€17.€€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Sharp€could€not€even€recall€any€specific€details€of€the€publicity€toÏwhich€€he€was€exposed.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Such€€limited€exposure€is€not€sufficient€to€disqualify€himÏfrom€jury€service€on€this€case.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€Mr.€Sharp€was€competent€toÏserve€as€a€juror€and€that€the€defendant€suffered€no€prejudice€by€Mr.€Sharp€havingÏserved€on€the€panel.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓE.€€Late€hours€of€courtÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€holding€courtÏð ðduring€exceedingly€late€hours.ðð€€The€defendant€states€that€because€the€jury€wasÏsequestered,€the€trial€court€was€concerned€about€holding€the€jury€over€the€EasterÏholiday.€€Presumably€because€of€this€concern,€the€trial€continued€into€the€evening€onÏtwo€nights.€€The€record€does€not€reflect€what€time€court€adjourned€on€either€of€theseÏevenings.€€At€the€close€of€court€on€April€12,€the€trial€judge€made€a€reference€to€theÏlateness€of€the€hour,€but€the€record€does€not€reflect€the€specific€time.€€It€wasÏapparently€some€time€after€the€court€had€taken€its€dinner€break.€€The€jurors€were€notÏasked€to€return€the€following€day€until€9:30€a.m.€€On€April€13,€the€jurors€wereÏdismissed€for€the€evening€at€7:00€p.m.€€On€the€following€day,€the€trial€ended€and€theÍjurors€delivered€a€verdict.ÌÌà àà àFirst,€we€point€out€that€the€defendant€has€waived€this€issue€by€failing€toÏobject€to€continuing€court€into€the€evening€hours.€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€872€S.W.2d€950,Ï953€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€record€reflects€no€complaints€or€objections€fromÏeither€the€defendant€or€the€jury.ÌÌà àà àAlthough€waived,€we€will€briefly€address€the€merits€of€the€defendantððsÏclaim.€€In€general,€court€proceedings€in€criminal€cases€should€not€be€held€during€lateÏnight€hours€unless€unusual€circumstances€require€it.€€òòState€v.€McMullinóó,€801€S.W.2dÏ826,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€òòHembree€v.€Stateóó,€546€S.W.2d€235,€242„43€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1976).€€And€even€then,€court€should€not€be€held€at€late€hours€if€eitherÏdefense€counsel€or€any€juror€objects€upon€reasonable€grounds€related€to€theÏlateness€of€the€hour.€€òòMcMullinóó,€801€S.W.2d€at€832.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòSeelbach€v.€Stateóó,€572€S.W.2d€267€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978),€the€trialÏœjudge›€was€concerned€with€completing€the€trial€before€Monday€when€he€wasÏscheduled€to€be€in€another€court.€€As€a€result,€court€continued€until€9:13€p.m.€on€oneÏnight€of€the€trial.€€This€Court€held€that€doing€so€was€reasonable€under€theÏcircumstances.€€òòSeelbachóó,€572€S.W.2d€at€271.€€We€reach€the€same€conclusion€in€theÍpresent€case.€€In€this€case,€the€record€reveals€that€no€objection€was€heard€fromÏdefense€counsel€or€the€jury,€that€the€jury€was€given€several€breaks€throughout€theÏday,€that€the€jury€reported€later€in€the€morning€on€the€second€day,€and€that€on€theÏsecond€day€court€adjourned€at€7:00€p.m.€€While€the€record€does€not€reflect€how€lateÏcourt€continued€on€April€12,€we€find€nothing€in€the€record€to€suggest€continuing€pastÏregular€adjournment€hours€was€oppressive€or€unreasonable.€€òòMcMullinóó,€801€S.W.2dÏat€831.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓIV.€€PROSECUTORIAL€MISCONDUCTÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€next€alleges€that€the€prosecutor€engaged€in€a€continuingÏpattern€of€misconduct€which€deprived€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial.€€To€prevail€on€suchÏa€claim,€the€defendant€is€required€to€show€that€the€argument€was€so€inflammatory€orÏthe€conduct€so€improper€that€it€affected€the€verdict€to€his€detriment.€€òòHarrington€v.ÏStateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965).€€In€reviewing€an€allegation€of€improperÏconduct,€this€Court€should€consider€several€factors€including€the€intent€of€theÏprosecutor,€the€curative€measures€which€were€undertaken€by€the€court,€the€improperÏconduct€viewed€in€context€and€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case,€theÏcumulative€effect€of€the€remarks€with€any€other€errors€in€the€record,€and€the€relativeÏstrength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1976).ÌÌà àà àFirst,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€referred€toÏthe€O.J.€Simpson€case€during€voir€dire.€€The€prosecutor€made€a€remark€to€potentialÏjurors€about€the€domestic€abuse€aspect€of€the€O.J.€Simpson€trial€and€then€furtherÏremarked€that€he€hoped€this€trial€would€not€last€as€long€as€the€Simpson€trial€did.€€TheÏdefendant€objected€to€such€remarks,€and€the€trial€judge€instructed€the€prosecutor€toÏrefrain€from€making€such€references.€€While€the€prosecutorððs€comment€was€irrelevantÏand€inappropriate,€we€do€not€conclude€that€it€in€any€way€prejudiced€the€defendant€orÏinflamed€the€potential€jurors.€ÌÌà àà àSecond,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€prosecutor€intentionallyÏreferred€to€a€witness,€Henry€James€Rippon,€Jr.,€as€the€defendantððs€ð ðbusinessÏassociate.ðð€€The€defendant€argues€that€this€reference€was€in€violation€of€the€courtððsÏruling€to€keep€out€any€references€to€drugs,€drug€dealing,€or€similar€activities.€€WhenÏthe€defendant€objected€to€the€characterization,€the€trial€judge€held€a€sidebar€and€toldÏthe€attorneys€that€it€had€been€her€intention€to€keep€out€all€references€to€drugs€andÏthat€the€prosecutorððs€characterization€of€the€defendant€and€Mr.€Rippon€as€businessÏassociates€ð ðintends€to€mean€business€of€illegal€dealings.ðð€€However,€she€declined€toÏdeclare€a€mistrial€and€simply€instructed€the€attorneys€to€refer€to€the€pair€asÏð ðassociatesðð€or€ð ðfriends.ðð€ÌÌà àà àWe€find€that€the€trial€judge€acted€properly€in€not€declaring€a€mistrial.€ÏThat€the€jury€may€have€inferred€some€illegality€in€the€relationship€between€theÏdefendant€and€Rippon€has€not€at€all€been€established.€€We€fail€to€see€how€thisÏcharacterization€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.ÌÌà àà àThird,€the€defendant€complains€about€the€motives€of€the€prosecution€inÏintroducing€into€evidence€the€photograph€of€the€plastic€bag.€€This€issue€has€beenÏfully€discussed€above€and€is€devoid€of€merit.ÌÌà àà àFourth,€the€defendant€complains€about€the€Stateððs€presentation€of€theÏevidence€and€its€theory€of€the€case.€€That€the€jury€chose€to€believe€the€Stateððs€theoryÏand€not€the€defendantððs€is€not€a€valid€basis€for€complaint€on€appeal.ÌÌà àà àFifth,€the€defendant€complains€about€the€prosecutorððs€failure€to€redactÏthe€taped€statement€of€the€defendant.€€This€issue€has€been€fully€discussed€aboveÏand€is€devoid€of€merit.ÌÌà àà àSixth,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€prosecutor€impermissibly€ð ðledððÏhis€expert€witness€on€direct€examination.€€While€the€prosecutor€did€ask€at€least€threeÍleading€questions,€he€was€instructed€by€the€court€each€time€to€refrain€from€doing€so.€ÏAsking€leading€questions€on€direct€examination,€though€objectionable,€does€not€riseÏto€prosecutorial€misconduct.ÌÌà àà àAnd€finally,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€State€improperlyÏcharacterized€the€evidence€during€closing€arguments.€€The€trial€judge€has€wideÏdiscretion€in€controlling€the€argument€of€counsel.€€That€discretion€will€not€beÏinterfered€with€on€appeal€in€the€absence€of€an€abuse€thereof.€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€527ÏS.W.2d€737,€739€(Tenn.€1975).€€We€find€no€such€abuse,€and€likewise€find€no€merit€toÏthe€defendantððs€argument.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓV.€€SENTENCINGÌÓ  Óà àà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€complains€that€his€sentence€of€twenty„five€years€is€excessive.€€When€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€weÏmust€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealingÏparty.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,Ïhowever,€ð ðis€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àà àA€portion€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€at€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„210,€established€a€number€of€specific€procedures€to€be€followed€inÏsentencing.€€This€section€mandates€the€courtððs€consideration€of€the€following:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒX¸)Ó(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÏsentencing€hearing;€(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;€(3)€[t]heÏprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÏalternatives;€(4)€[t]he€nature€and€characteris‚tics€of€theÏcriminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€[e]vidence€and€informationÏoffered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€in€œÌðððð›€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[a]ny€statement€theÏdefendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalf€about€senƒtencing.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ¢ ÒÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210.ÌÒ € ÒÒ ¢ ÒÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÌÒ  ÒÒ À ÒÒ  ÒÒ ¢ Òà àà àIn€addition,€this€section€provides€that€the€minimum€sentence€within€theÏrange€is€the€presumptive€sentence.€€If€there€are€enhanc‚ing€and€mitigating€factors,€theÏcourt€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€asÏappropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sen‚tence€within€theÏrange€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€If€there€are€no€mitigating€factors,€theÏcourt€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€that€range€but€still€within€the€range.€ÏThe€weight€to€be€given€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.ÍSheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àThe€Act€further€provides€that€ð ð[w]henever€the€court€imposes€a€sentence,Ïit€òòshall€place€on€the€recordóó€either€orally€or€in€writing,€what€enhance‚ment€or€mitigatingÏfactors€it€found,€if€any,€as€well€as€findings€of€fact€as€required€by€ðð€40„35„209.ðð€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„210(f)€(emphasis€added).€€Because€of€the€importance€of€enhancing€andÏmitigating€factors€under€the€sentencing€guide‚lines,€even€the€absence€of€these€factorsÏmust€be€recorded€if€none€are€found.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210€comment.€€These€findings€byÏthe€trial€judge€must€be€recorded€in€order€to€allow€an€adequate€review€on€œappeal.Ì›Ìà àà àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€application€ofÏseveral€enhancing€factors.€€The€following€factors€from€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114€wereÏapplied:€a€previous€history€of€criminal€behavior€(1);€that€the€victim€was€particularlyÏvulnerable(4);€that€the€victim€was€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty(5);€and€the€felonyÏresulted€in€a€death€and€the€defendant€has€been€previously€convicted€of€a€felonyÏinvolving€death(11).ÌÌà àà àAs€to€factor€(1),€the€defendant€has€a€significant€history€of€criminalÏbehavior.€€He€has€been€convicted€of€voluntary€manslaughter,€assault€and€battery,€andÏa€litany€of€alcohol€and€drug„related€charges.€€His€criminal€behavior€spans€twentyÍyears.€€It€is€quite€obvious€this€factor€applies€to€the€defendant.ÌÌà àà àAs€to€factor€(4),€the€defendant€argues€that€the€victimððs€intoxication€did€notÏmake€her€particularly€vulnerable.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„114(4)Ïprovides€for€enhancement€of€a€defendantððs€sentence€when€the€victim€of€the€offenseÏwas€ð ðparticularly€vulnerable€because€of€age€or€physical€or€mental€disability.ðð€€TheÏState€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€ð ðvictimððs€limitations€rendering€him€or€herÏparticularly€vulnerable.ðð€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€€31,€35€(Tenn.€1993).€€This€is€aÏfactual€issue€to€be€determined€by€the€trier€of€fact€on€a€case€by€case€basis.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€victim€had€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€twenty„fourÏhundredths€of€one€percent€(.24%).€€She€was€also€under€the€influence€of€marijuanaÏand€Doxepin,€a€sedative.€€Dr.€Kattine€testified€at€trial€as€to€how€these€intoxicantsÏwould€have€affected€the€victim.€€Such€severe€intoxication€makes€the€application€ofÏfactor€(4)€proper.€€See€òòState€v.€Billy€Gene€Earnestóó,€No.€01C01„9412„CR„00434,ÏMacon€County,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€Feb.€13,€1996)(finding€victim€particularlyÏvulnerable€where€he€had€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€thirty„one€hundredths€of€oneÏpercent€(.31%)€and€had€difficulty€standing);€òòState€v.€William€Ray€Rhodesóó,€No.€02C01„9406„CC„00124,€Henry€County,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€July€19,€1995)(finding€victimÏparticularly€vulnerable€where€she€had€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€twenty€hundredthsÍof€one€percent€(.20%));€òòState€v.€Curtis€Anthony€Milleróó,€No.€01C01„9309„CR„00329,ÏDavidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€June€2,€1994,€at€Nashville)(finding€victimÏparticularly€vulnerable€where€he€had€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€twenty„twoÏhundredths€of€one€percent€(.22%)).€€€€€ÌÌà àà àAs€to€factor€(5),€that€the€victim€was€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty,€theÏdefendant€claims€that€this€factor€œis›€not€supported€by€the€evidence.€€The€evidenceÏadduced€at€trial€shows€that€the€defendant€was€severely€beaten.€€Dr.€Kattine€testifiedÏthat€the€victim€had€many€external€injuries€including€a€laceration€on€her€scalp,Ïabrasions€above€her€right€eye,€on€her€back€and€right€side,€on€her€hip€bone€and€on€herÏthighs,€bruises€on€her€breasts,€and€marks€on€her€forearms€and€wrists.€€He€furtherÏtestified€that€her€skull€was€fractured€and€that€she€also€had€several€internal€injuriesÏincluding€hemorrhaging€of€the€small€bowel€and€left€breast.€ÌÌà àà àEnhancement€factor€(5)€is€usually€found€in€cases€of€abuse€or€torture.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€825€S.W.2d€109,€113€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€òòState€v.€Haynesóó,Ï720€S.W.2d€76,€86€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€We€find€it€is€certainly€applicable€in€thisÏcase€given€the€traumatic€and€severe€injuries€sustained€by€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏHollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€61€&€fn.€18€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)(finding€exceptionalÏcruelty€where€victim€was€beaten€and€bruised€all€over€her€body€and€had€received€aÍserious€blow€to€the€head).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€trial€court€improperly€usedÏenhancement€factor€(9),€possession€of€a€deadly€weapon,€to€enhance€the€defendantððsÏsentence.€€The€trial€judge€apparently€considered€factor€(9)€in€connection€with€factorÏ(5),€but€she€stated,€ð ðThere€is€considerable€dispute€about€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,Ïand€I€am€not€sure€what€caused€those€injuries€.€.€.€.ðð€€Thus,€it€appears€that€the€trial€courtÏgave€factor€(9)€very€little€or€no€weight.€€Thus,€we€see€no€reason€for€complaint.€€TheÏdefendant€does€not€challenge€the€application€of€factor€(11).€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors€in€this€case,€nor€do€we€after€aÏreview€of€the€record.€€In€considering€the€enhancement€factors,€we€conclude€that€aÏsentence€of€twenty„five€years€is€entirely€appropriate.€€We€find€no€merit€to€theÏdefendantððs€argument€that€the€sentence€is€excessive.ÌÌà àà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record€and€applicable€law,€we€find€no€merit€to€anyÏof€the€defendantððs€issues€and€therefore,€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€court€below.ÌÓÓÌ̛̜à àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________€€à àà àà àà àà àà àÏà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€œJudgeÇÌCONCUR:›ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌœÌ_______________________________›ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€Special€œJudge›