ÿWPC{# …UBV %˜žnX® 0P 4V j 0”r 0D w@J Š 0J 0TÚ 0^. 0hŒ 0rô 0|f 0†â 0h 1uø 0dm BÑU6îU*$B)N D3wDCª AMí 0@:2zj¬—Ø­v~…vÓ AOÖ!Æ%" 0Dë" D//# B^#<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX3|X?«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ó·‚^!(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó +,D-./E01234Ó€HA2 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 d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òNovemberÏ7,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó `Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÔ€(ÔIndeed,€the€State€presented€proof€of€many€more€incidents€between€Ms.€Hoxie€and€theÏdefendant€in€support€of€its€case€than€are€recited€herein.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÔ€(ÔWe€acknowledge,€of€course,€that€each€of€the€discrete€actions€taken€in€furtherance€of€theÏconspiracy€may€constitute€òòotheróó€crimes€in€and€of€themselves.€€For€instance,€a€conspiracy€to€distributeÏcocaine€may€involve€many€individual€sales€of€cocaine,€each€of€which€may€constitute€a€separate€criminalÏoffense.€€Each€such€sale€will€not,€however,€constitute€a€separate€òòconspiracyóó.€€Similarly,€we€find€itÏconceivable€that€discrete€actions€engaged€in€during€the€course€of€stalking€a€victim€may€also€be€separate,Ïdistinct€crimes€„„€assault,€for€instance.€€This€does€not€alter€our€interpretation€of€the€overarching€crime€ofÏstalking€as€being€not€subject€to€the€requirement€of€election€of€offenses.Ì ÎÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÔ€(ÔThe€crime€of€harassment€is€set€forth€in€our€code€as€follows:€ð ð(a)€A€person€commits€an€offenseÏwho€intentionally:€(1)€Threatens,€by€telephone€or€in€writing,€to€take€action€known€to€be€unlawful€againstÏany€person,€and€by€this€action€knowingly€annoys€or€alarms€the€recipient;€(2)€Places€one€(1)€or€moreÏtelephone€calls€anonymously,€or€at€an€inconvenient€hour,€or€in€an€offensively€repetitious€manner,€orÏwithout€a€legitimate€purpose€of€communication,€and€by€this€action€knowingly€annoys€or€alarms€theÏrecipient;€or€(3)€Communicates€by€telephone€to€another€that€a€relative€or€other€person€has€been€injured,Ïkilled€or€is€ill€when€such€communication€is€known€to€be€false.€€(b)€A€violation€of€this€section€is€a€Class€AÏmisdemeanor.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„308€(1991).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{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  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€÷†XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€(ÔÙ€€ÙßL€,.+;+'h|` 81 `€€Lß›à àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àSEPTEMBER€1996ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€03C01„9506„CR„00183ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àKNOXÏCOUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏRICHARD€R.€BAUMGARTNER,ÌGREGORY€JAYÏHOXIE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àœó ó(Stalking€„Ï2€counts;›€harassment)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òMARK€E.ÏSTEPHENSà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONÌó óPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌÌPAULA€R.€VOSSó óà àà àò òà àà àà àDARIANÏB.€TAYLORó óÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAsst.ÏAttorney€GeneralÌ1209€Euclid€Ave.€à àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÍRobertson€Pkwy.à àKnoxville,€TN€€€37921à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€Ï37243„0493Ì€€€€(On€Appeal)à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àRANDALL€NICHOLSó óÌò òTIMOTHY€M.€MCLAUGHLINó óà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€andÌò òJOHN€HALSTEADó óà àà àò òà àà àà àMARSHA€SELECMANó óÌAsst.€Public€Defendersà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ1209€Euclid€Ave.à àà àà àà àà àCity„County€Bldg.ÌKnoxville,€TN€€€37921à àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€€€37902Ì€€€€(At€Trial)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÓ  ÓÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€on€one€count€of€felony€stalking,€one€countÏof€misdemeanor€stalking,€and€two€counts€of€harassment.€€A€jury€convicted€theÏdefendant€of€both€stalking€offenses€and€one€harassment€offense.€€After€a€sentencingÏhearing,€the€defendant€was€sentenced€to€two€years€on€the€felony€conviction,€andÏeleven€months€twenty„nine€days€each€on€the€misdemeanor€stalking€and€harassmentÏconvictions.€€The€judge€ordered€these€sentences€to€run€consecutively.€€The€jury€alsoÏimposed€a€fine€of€two€thousand€five€hundred€dollars€($2,500).€€The€defendant€nowÏappeals€as€of€right,€claiming€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€requiring€the€State€toÏelect€which€offenses€it€was€prosecuting;€that€the€evidence€was€not€sufficient€toÏsustain€the€convictions€for€stalking;€and€that€the€dual€stalking€convictions,€as€well€asÏthe€stalking€and€harassment€convictions,€subject€him€to€double€jeopardy.€€After€ourÏreview€of€the€record,€we€find€no€merit€in€the€defendantððs€contentions€and€affirm€theÏjudgment€below.ÌÌà àà àWe€will€first€address€the€defendantððs€claim€concerning€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence.€€When€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïwe€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€inÍdetermining€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).€ÌÌà 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€was€indicted€for€misdemeanor€stalking€for€actions€takenÏð ð[o]n€or€about€the€___€day€of€January,€1994,€and€divers€and€diverse€days€betweenÏthat€day€and€the€___€day€of€June,€1994.ðð€€In€1994,€our€code€set€forth€theÏmisdemeanor€offense€of€stalking€as€œfollows:ÌÓÓÌ›à àà8 à(a)(1)€A€person€commits€the€offense€of€stalking:€(A)€WhoÏrepeatedly€follows€or€harasses€another€person€with€theÏintent€to€place€that€person€in€reasonable€fear€of€a€sexualÏoffense,€bodily€injury€or€death;€(B)€Whose€actions€wouldÏcause€a€reasonable€person€to€suffer€substantial€emotionalÏdistress;€and€(C)€Whose€acts€induce€emotional€distress€toÏthat€person.̛̜ÌT.C.A.€ðð€39„17„315€(1994€Supp.)€€The€statute€also€includes€the€following€definitionsÏin€ÌÌsubsection€(2):̛̜Ìà àà8 à(A)€ð ðFollowsðð€means€maintaining€a€visual€or€physicalÏproximity€over€a€period€of€time€to€a€specific€person€in€suchÏa€manner€as€would€cause€a€reasonable€person€to€have€aÏfear€of€a€sexual€offense,€bodily€injury€or€death;€(B)Ïð ðHarassesðð€means€a€course€of€conduct€directed€at€aÏspecific€person€which€would€cause€a€reasonable€personÏto€fear€a€sexual€offense,€bodily€injury,€or€death,€including,Ïbut€not€limited€to,€verbal€threats,€written€threats,Ïvandalism,€or€unconsented„to€physical€contact;€and€(C)Ïð ðRepeatedlyðð€means€on€two€(2)€or€more€separateÏoccasions.̛̜ÌÓÓòòId.óó€€Although€the€statute€is€written€in€the€disjunctive€with€respect€to€the€offender€eitherÏfollowing€òòoróó€harassing,€and€with€respect€to€the€victim€fearing€either€bodily€injury€òòoróóÏdeath,€the€indictments€against€the€defendant€on€the€stalking€offenses€state€that€heÏfollowed€òòandóó€harassed€the€victim€with€the€intent€to€cause€her€to€fear€bodily€injury€òòandóóÍdeath.€€Because€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€it€must€find€the€defendant€guiltyÏof€both€following€and€harassing€the€victim€with€the€intent€of€causing€her€to€fear€bothÏbodily€injury€and€death,€the€erroneous€indictment€caused€the€defendant€noÏprejudice.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€was€more€than€sufficient€to€sustain€the€defendantððsÏconviction€for€this€offense.€€€According€to€the€victim€Suzette€Hoxie,€she€and€theÏdefendant€had€been€married€approximately€eight€years€when€they€separated€inÏ1993.€€Ms.€Hoxie€filed€for€divorce,€which€was€granted€in€May€1994.€€Prior€to€that€time,Ïin€May€1993,€she€had€obtained€a€protective€order€against€the€defendant€which,Ïaccording€to€her€testimony,€allowed€ð ðsocial€contact.ðð€€The€couple€had€a€daughter€whoÏwas€five€years€old€when€they€separated.€€Ms.€Hoxie€also€had€a€twelve„year„oldÏdaughter.ÌÌà àà àMs.€Hoxie€testified€that€on€March€16,€1994,€œthe›€defendant€had€been€atÏher€garage€and,€during€an€argument,€both€strangled€her€and€picked€her€up€andÏthrew€her.€€On€April€20,€1994,€he€returned€to€her€garage€and€jumped€on€the€hood€ofÏher€car€while€she€was€in€it€and€screamed€that€he€was€going€to€kill€her.€€On€May€21,Ï1994,€again€at€Ms.€Hoxieððs€garage,€the€defendant€threw€a€large€metal€box€at€herÍwindshield€while€she€was€in€her€car.€€On€May€29,€1994,€he€accosted€the€victim€in€herÏyard,€threw€a€wet€towel€in€her€face,€cursed€her€in€front€of€her€children,€and€after€sheÏand€her€children€went€inside,€beat€on€the€door€and€yelled€that€he€would€kill€them€all.€ÏThese€incidents€proved€that€the€defendant€had€maintained€a€physical€proximity€toÏMs.€Hoxie€over€a€period€of€time€and€in€such€a€manner€as€would€cause€a€reasonableÏperson€to€fear€bodily€injury€and€death.€€They€also€involved€a€course€of€conductÏdirected€at€Ms.€Hoxie€which€would€cause€a€reasonable€person€to€fear€bodily€injuryÏand€death,€and€included€verbal€threats€and€unconsented„to€physical€contact.€€ThereÏis€no€question€that€the€defendantððs€actions€were€engaged€in€with€the€intent€to€placeÏMs.€Hoxie€in€reasonable€fear€of€bodily€injury€and€death.€€There€is€furthermore€noÏquestion€that€these€actions€would€cause€a€reasonable€person€to€suffer€substantialÏemotional€distress.€€Ms.€Hoxie€testified€that€the€defendantððs€actions€in€fact€caused€herÏto€feel€ð ðafraid€for€her€life.ðð€€The€defendant€was€properly€convicted€of€this€offense.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€felony€stalking€charge€covered€the€period€from€ð ðthe€___€day€ofÏJune,€1994"€to€ð ðthe€___€day€of€October,€1994.ðð€€On€June€2,€1994,€Ms.€Hoxie€obtainedÏa€court€order€enjoining€the€defendant€from€ð ðcoming€about€[her]€for€any€purpose€andÏspecifically€from€abusing,€threatening€to€abuse€[her],€or€committing€any€acts€ofÍviolence€upon€[her]€upon€penalty€of€contempt.ðð€€Following€the€entry€of€this€order,€theÏdefendantððs€violation€of€the€stalking€statute€became€a€Class€E€felony.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„315(b)(3)€(1994€Supp).€€Thus,€proof€of€incidents€occurring€after€June€2,€1994,€whichÏwould€otherwise€support€a€misdemeanor€stalking€conviction,€supports€theÏdefendantððs€conviction€for€the€felony€stalking€offense.ÌÌà àà àMs.€Sharron€Fair,€a€friend€of€Ms.€Hoxieððs,€testified€that€on€June€4,€1994,Ïthe€defendant€drove€beside€the€car€that€she,€Ms.€Hoxie€and€their€daughters€were€inÏand€began€hollering€at€them.€€Ms.€Fair€testified€about€this€incident€that€she€ð ðha[d]Ïnever€been€so€afraid€for€someone€in€my€lifeðð€and€that€Ms.€Hoxie€had€appearedÏfearful.€€On€June€11,€1994,€the€defendant€phoned€Ms.€Hoxie€and€told€her€he€hadÏbeen€sitting€in€a€room€next€to€hers€at€school€the€day€before€and€had€watched€herÏduring€a€two„hour€lecture.€€€€On€June€12,€1994,€the€defendant€appeared€three€timesÏat€Ms.€Hoxieððs€community€swimming€pool€while€she€and€her€daughters€were€there,Ïand€on€one€of€these€visits€slammed€his€body€against€hers€and€threatened€to€haveÏher€killed€if€she€had€him€thrown€out€of€the€pool.€€On€June€13,€he€confronted€her€at€aÏchildrensðð€function,€was€made€to€leave€by€the€doorman,€and€told€the€victim€that€ð ðheÏwould€see€me€later€at€the€house.ðð€€In€October,€he€arrived€at€Ms.€Hoxieððs€garage€uponÏher€request€that€he€remove€his€truck€from€that€location.€€They€argued€and€she€toldÍhim€to€leave.€€Rather€than€do€so,€he€grabbed€her€by€the€throat€and€threw€her€againstÏa€wood€pile.€€ÌÌà àà àFor€the€same€reasons€as€set€forth€above,€œthis€proof€would€haveÏsupported€a€conviction€for›€misdemeanor€stalking.€€Because€these€incidents€occurredÏafter€the€entry€of€the€protective€order,€œhowever,€this›€evidence€is€sufficient€to€supportÏthe€defendantððs€conviction€for€felony€stalking.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àà àÌà àà àWe€now€address€the€defendantððs€initial€issue,€that€the€State€shouldÏhave€been€required€to€elect€those€particular€incidents€for€which€it€was€seekingÏconvictions€at€the€close€of€its€proof„in„chief.€€As€set€forth€above,€the€State€introducedÏevidence€of€numerous€incidents€in€support€of€its€prosecution€of€one€charge€ofÏmisdemeanor€stalking€and€one€charge€of€felony€stalking.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€The€defendant€arguesÏthat€his€state€€constitutional€right€to€jury€unanimity€required€an€election€among€theseÏincidents,€citing€òòBurlison€v.€Stateóó,€501€S.W.2d€801€(Tenn.€œ1973),›€and€its€progeny.€€€ÏHowever,€upon€an€analysis€of€the€rationale€underlying€òòBurlisonóó€and€dueÏconsideration€of€the€evil€at€which€the€stalking€statute€is€aimed,€we€conclude€that€theÍState€need€not€make€such€an€election€in€cases€of€this€nature.ÌÌà àà à€In€òòBurlisonóó,€the€defendant€had€been€indicted€for€one€count€of€carnalÏknowledge€of€a€female€child€under€the€age€of€twelve€years.€€501€S.W.2d€at€802.€€TheÏState€introduced€proof€of€numerous€incidents€of€sexual€fondling€and€intercourseÏduring€the€relevant€time€period.€€The€trial€court€did€not€instruct€the€jury€that€they€mustÏall€decide€upon€the€particular€offense,€if€any,€of€which€the€defendant€was€guilty.€€OurÏSupreme€Court€held€that€ð ðit€[is]€the€duty€of€the€trial€judge€to€require€the€State,€at€theÏclose€of€its€proof„in„chief,€to€elect€the€particular€offense€of€carnal€knowledge€uponÏwhich€it€would€rely€for€conviction,€and€to€properly€instruct€the€jury€so€that€the€verdict€ofÏevery€juror€would€be€united€on€the€one€offense.ðð€€òòBurlisonóó,€501€S.W.2d€at€804.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€Court€relied€on€three€cases€in€making€its€ruling.€€The€case€ofÏòòJamison€v.€Stateóó,€117€Tenn.€58,€94€S.W.€675€(1906),€had€also€involved€a€singleÏcharge€of€carnal€knowledge,€proved€by€several€acts.€€Finding€that€each€unlawful€actÏwas€a€separate€substantive€offense,€the€Court€had€held€that€the€State€could€beÏrequired€to€elect€among€the€proved€offenses€that€upon€which€it€sought€conviction.€ÏThe€Court€set€forth€three€reasons€for€this€requirement:€first,€to€give€the€defendantÏadequate€notice€of€the€offenses€he€needed€to€defend€against€during€his€presentationÍof€proof;€second,€to€protect€the€defendant€from€double€jeopardy;€and€third,€to€insureÏthat€the€jury€was€unanimous€in€its€conviction€of€the€defendant€on€each€chargedÏoffense,€thereby€avoiding€the€danger€of€some€jurors€convicting€on€one€offense€andÏother€jurors€convicting€on€a€different€offense.€€Ìà àà à€€The€òòBurlisonóó€court€also€relied€on€òòVinson€v.€Stateóó,€140€Tenn.€70,€203ÏS.W.€338€(1918),€in€which€the€defendant€had€been€charged€with€violating€the€age€ofÏconsent€law€during€the€month€of€September.€€Proof€of€multiple€acts€was€elicitedÏduring€the€trial.€€The€trial€court€had€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€to€require€theÏState€to€elect€the€act€upon€which€it€was€relying€for€conviction.€€On€appeal,€ourÏSupreme€Court€reversed,€holding€ð ð[t]he€defendant€is€entitled€to€require€the€electionÏbefore€he€introduces€any€proof€so€that€he€can€meet€by€his€proof€the€evidence€uponÏwhich€the€state€relies.ðð€€òòVinsonóó,€203€S.W.€at€339.€€€Finally,€the€òòBurlisonóó€court€relied€onÏòòCox€v.€Stateóó,€270€S.W.2d€182€(Tenn.€1954),€a€case€involving€a€charge€of€lewdness.€ÏProof€of€multiple€offenses€was€admitted€but€the€State€was€not€required€to€make€anÏelection.€€As€in€the€other€two€cases,€our€Supreme€Court€reversed€and€remanded,Ïholding€that€the€State€should€have€been€required€at€the€close€of€its€proof€to€selectÏwhich€proven€acts€it€was€relying€upon€for€a€single€conviction.ÌÌà àà àSubsequent€to€òòBurlisonóó,€our€Supreme€Court€decided€the€case€of€òòStateÍv.€Sheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€134€(Tenn.€1993).€€Shelton€had€been€charged€with€theÏunlawful€sexual€penetration€of€one€female€and€unlawful€sexual€contact€with€two€otherÏfemales.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€State€narrowed€the€time€frame€to€the€period€between€AprilÏ7€and€September€6,€1989.€€At€trial,€proof€of€numerous€incidents€of€the€prohibitedÏconduct€was€admitted.€€The€trial€court€did€not€require€the€State€to€elect€the€offensesÏfor€which€it€sought€convictions,€but€did€give€the€jury€a€general€charge€regardingÏunanimity.€€The€Supreme€Court€concluded€that€ð ðthis€instruction€is€an€inadequateÏsubstitution€for€òòBurlisonððsóó€explicit€requirement€that€the€prosecution€identify€theÏspecific€offenses€for€which€it€seeks€convictions.ðð€€òòSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€at€136.ÌÌà àà àExplaining€its€holding,€the€òòSheltonóó€Court€returned€to€the€òòJamisonóóÏdecision€and€noted€the€statement€therein€that€€ð ðððeach€unlawful€act€of€carnalÏknowledge€is€a€separate,€substantive€offense,ðð€rather€than€a€continuous€offense.ðð€ÏòòSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€at€137,€quoting€òòJamison€v.€Stateóó,€117€Tenn.€at€62.€€ð ðThus,ðð€theÏCourt€continued€in€òòSheltonóó,€ð ðto€avoid€the€prosecution€of€uncharged€crimes€in€casesÏinvolving€age€of€consent€laws€and€other€sexual€crimes,€the€state€is€required€to€ððelectÏthe€specific€offense€upon€which€a€verdict€of€guilty€would€be€demanded.ðð€ð ð€851€S.W.2dÏat€137,€quoting€òòBurlisonóó,€501€S.W.2d€at€803.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€its€most€recent€decision€on€this€issue,€our€Supreme€Court€again€dealtÏwith€sexual€offenses.€€In€òòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497€(Tenn.€1996),€theÏdefendant€had€been€charged€with€fifty„six€counts€of€rape,€statutory€rape,€incest€andÏcontributing€to€the€delinquency€of€a€minor€arising€out€of€monthly€sexual€encountersÏwith€the€victim€over€a€fourteen€month€period.€€The€State€introduced€evidence€of€manyÏmore€encounters€than€charged,€and€was€not€required€to€elect€œthose›€offenses€œforÏwhich€it›€was€seeking€œconvictions›œ.›€€In€finding€that€the€defendantððs€constitutional€rightÏto€a€unanimous€jury€verdict€had€been€violated,€the€Supreme€Court€continued€toÏð ðadhere€to€the€òòSheltonóó€rationale.ðð€€òòTidwellóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€501.€ÌÌà àà àClearly,€then,€these€cases€require€that€the€State€make€an€election€ofÏoffenses€when€it€is€pursuing€convictions€for€discrete€crimes€and€proves€more€discreteÏcrimes€than€it€has€charged.€€That€is€not€the€case€before€us.€€Unlike€the€crime€of€rape,Ïthe€crime€of€stalking€is€not€committed€upon€a€single,€discrete€act€by€the€defendant.€ÏRather,€the€stalking€statute€contemplates€a€òòseriesóó€of€discrete€actions€amounting€to€aÏcontinuing€course€of€conduct.€€It€is€the€continuing€course€of€conduct€which€constitutesÏthe€offense,€not€the€individual€discrete€actions€making€up€the€course€of€conduct.€€TheÏjury€is€asked€to€find€in€a€stalking€case€that€the€defendant€engaged€in€the€prohibitedÏconduct€ð ðrepeatedly.ðð€€ð ðRepeatedlyðð€is€defined€by€the€statute€as€ð ðtwo€(2)€òòor€moreÍseparateóó€occasions.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„315(a)(2)(C)€(1994€Supp)€(emphasis€added).€ÏThus,€there€is€no€danger€that€the€jury€may€convict€on€the€basis€of€different€offenses:Ïthere€is€only€one€offense€charged,€and€only€one€offense€proved.€€That€the€offenseÏinvolves€numerous€discrete€parts€does€not€put€the€defendant€at€risk€of€a€non„unanimous€jury€verdict.€€ÌÌà àà àAnalogously,€a€defendant€may€be€charged€with€criminal€conspiracyÏwhere€ð ðtwo€(2)€or€more€people,€each€having€the€culpable€mental€state€required€forÏthe€offense€which€is€the€object€of€the€conspiracy€and€each€acting€for€the€purpose€ofÏpromoting€or€facilitating€commission€of€an€offense,€agree€that€one€(1)€or€more€of€themÏwill€engage€in€conduct€which€constitutes€such€offense.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„12„103(a).€ÏHowever,€ð ð[i]f€a€person€conspires€to€commit€a€number€of€offenses,€the€person€is€guiltyÏof€only€one€(1)€conspiracy€so€long€as€such€multiple€offenses€are€the€object€of€theÏsame€agreement€or€continuous€conspiratorial€relationship.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„12„103(c).€ÏIn€order€to€prosecute€a€conspiracy€case,€the€State€must€prove€that€òòat€leastóó€one€ð ðovertÏact€in€pursuance€of€such€conspiracy€[was]€.€.€.€done€by€the€person€[charged€withÏconspiracy]€or€by€another€with€whom€the€person€conspired.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„12„103(d).€ÏIf€it€can,€of€course,€the€State€will€attempt€to€prove€many€more€than€one€such€overt€act.€ÏHowever,€no€matter€how€many€such€acts€it€proves€in€furtherance€of€the€singleÍconspiracy€charged,€the€State€will€not€be€forced€to€make€an€election€of€offenses.€ÏOnly€one€offense€has€been€charged€„„€the€conspiracy€„„€and€the€overt€acts€proved€toÏhave€occurred€in€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy€are€simply€discrete€parts€of€the€whole:Ïnot€wholes€in€and€of€themselves.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€We€think€the€statute€setting€forth€the€crime€ofÏstalking€is€properly€interpreted€in€the€same€manner.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€we€find€that€no€error€was€committed€when€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€require€the€State€to€elect€which€incidents€it€was€relying€on€in€order€to€proveÏeither€the€felony€or€misdemeanor€stalking€charge.€€In€fact,€it€was€relying€on€all€ofÏthem,€although€it€was€certainly€not€necessary€that€the€jury€find€that€all€of€them€hadÏbeen€proved€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€in€order€to€properly€convict€the€defendant.€ÏRather,€the€jury€simply€had€to€find€that€the€defendant€had€engaged€in€the€prohibitedÏconduct€ð ðon€two€(2)€or€more€separate€occasionsðð€during€each€of€the€relevant€timeÏperiods.€€This,€the€jury€obviously€did.€€This€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€asserts€the€inverse€of€his€òòBurlisonóó€argument:€thatÏhe€cannot€be€convicted€of€both€felony€and€misdemeanor€stalking€because€òòallóó€of€hisÏconduct€„„€not€just€that€occurring€after€June€2,€1994€„„€was€in€violation€of€a€protectiveÏorder.€€Therefore,€he€argues,€all€of€his€behavior€during€the€January€through€OctoberÏperiod€covered€by€the€indictment€was€ð ðthe€sameðð€and,€thus,€two€convictions€for€theÏsame€conduct€violates€his€constitutional€right€against€double€jeopardy.€€We€are€notÏpersuaded.ÌÌà àà à€Ms.€Hoxie€testified€that€she€had€obtained€an€initial€order€of€protectionÏagainst€the€defendant€on€May€12,€1993,€which,€according€to€her,€allowed€ð ðsocialÏcontact.ðð€€The€defendant€contends€in€his€brief€that€this€document€ordered€him€ð ðnot€toÏcommit€the€type€of€behavior€proscribed€by€the€stalking€statute.ðð€€However,€the€text€ofÏthis€particular€order€is€not€in€the€record.€€Nor€does€the€record€contain€adequate€proofÏas€to€how€long€this€order€was€in€effect.€€It€is€the€defendantððs€duty€to€have€prepared€anÏadequate€record€in€order€to€allow€a€meaningful€review€on€appeal.€€T.R.A.P.€24(b);ÏòòState€v.€Bunchóó,€646€S.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€755€S.W.2dÏ833,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€When€no€evidence€is€preserved€in€the€record€forÏreview,€we€are€precluded€from€considering€the€issue.€€òòRobertsóó,€755€S.W.2d€at€836.€ÏTherefore,€we€find€this€issue€to€have€been€waived.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€also€makes€a€double€jeopardy€argument€withÏrespect€to€his€stalking€and€harassment€convictions;€that€is,€that€he€cannot€beÏconvicted€of€both€stalking€and€harassment€because€both€convictions€are€based€onÏthe€same€conduct.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€on€two€charges€of€harassment:€one€countÏalleged€that€he€threatened€by€telephone€to€take€action€known€by€him€to€be€unlawfulÏagainst€Ms.€Hoxie€and€that€by€so€doing€ð ðdid€knowingly€annoy€and€alarmðð€Ms.€Hoxie.€ÏThe€second€count€alleged€that€he€placed€telephone€calls€to€Ms.€Hoxie€ð ðin€anÏoffensively€repetitious€manner€and€without€a€legitimate€purpose€of€communicationððÏthereby€annoying€and€alarming€her.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€However,€both€counts€covered€the€period€ofÏJanuary€1994€to€June€1994.€€Thus,€only€the€misdemeanor€stalking€charge€isÏarguably€a€ð ðdouble€convictionðð€against€the€defendant.ÌÌà àà àIn€determining€whether€a€defendant€has€been€convicted€more€thanÏonce€for€the€same€offense€in€violation€of€the€guarantee€against€double€jeopardy,€weÏmust€analyzeÌÓÓÌà àà8 à(1)€whether€the€event€is€a€violation€of€two€distinct€statutoryÏprovisions,€(2)€whether€either€offense€is€necessarilyÏincluded€in€the€other,€(3)€whether€the€offenses€requireÏproof€of€different€elements,€(4)€whether€each€offenseÏrequires€proof€of€additional€facts€not€required€by€the€other,Ïand€(5)€whether€the€legislative€intent€suggests€that€one€orÏseveral€offenses€were€intended.ÌÌÌÓÓòòœState›€v.€Ô% € ÔPelayoóó,€881€S.W.2d€7,€10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Obviously,€in€the€caseÏbefore€us,€we€have€two€distinct€statutory€provisions:€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„308€defining€andÏprohibiting€harassment,€and€ðð€39„17„315€defining€and€prohibiting€stalking.€€NeitherÏoffense€is€necessarily€included€in€the€other.€€For€instance,€stalking€can€occur€withoutÏany€verbal€or€written€threats€so€long€as€the€victim€reasonably€fears€a€sexual€offense,Ïbodily€injury€or€death€as€a€result€of€being€ð ðfollowedðð€as€it€is€defined€under€the€stalkingÏstatute.€€Such€conduct€would€not€be€an€offense€under€the€harassment€statute.€ÏSimilarly,€conduct€which€merely€annoys€or€alarms€the€recipient€may€be€harassment,Ïbut€would€not€be€stalking.€€Thus,€neither€offense€is€necessarily€included€in€the€other.ÌÌà àà àThe€offenses€require€proof€of€different€elements.€€Stalking€must€ð ðcauseÏa€reasonable€person€to€have€a€fear€of€a€sexual€offense,€bodily€injury€or€death.ðð€ÏT.C.A.€œÌðð›€39„17„315(a)(2).€€Harassment€has€no€such€requirement.€€Harassment€requiresÏsome€form€of€oral€or€written€communication.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„308(a).€€Stalking€doesÏnot.€€The€same€analysis€holds€in€determining€that€the€offenses€require€proof€ofÏdifferent€facts.€€Finally,€the€legislature€obviously€intended€these€provisions€toÏconstitute€different€offenses.€€Thus,€the€defendantððs€convictions€for€bothÏmisdemeanor€stalking€and€harassment€do€not€violate€his€protection€against€doubleÏjeopardy.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€convictions€are€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€Judge€€Ì