ÿWPC! ü^ºF…ò¶itP°†Ã÷æAžá§òR‚[ÐS©æKKEcs_‚s­«›·  ºÀì `ø øÓ$s>¶û²†~«½¿lp㪲'ñ‹xÝú~Ý÷z3/D¾¥ÎÕ•ÿ‘°Œ)SÚ<6²NøTÚç»b }¢!¹ÃoMŒØèùÉšÐÑr'OñסrS渔Ï÷ñnPÍ ¿=&L2ötMhŒŒQ % 0í• UB‚ 4Ä Ø n­ç U:” fÎ 4 "< w@^ 01ž 0DÏU:"Méo9XU:‘8ËU:"="___U:-»»»» Bèèèèèèèè D3 0D8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 AO|ÆËË 0D‘ D/Õ B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiuM%3|xuR«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ cREdRÓ€eRÓ€fREgRahRViRajRkRlRÓ€(á(3‹Ö$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ ”XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular Ñ T ÑÑ 4 Ñ ßÔ€XlÂXXXÔÔ€¾,XXlÂÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XlÂX¾,ÔÐ  ÐÌFebruary€25,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó /Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ô„FôXXÔÔ€ô}äôôô„FÔ€Ý ƒÿÝÑ @ ÑÑ7À{XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ @ ÑÐ  ÐÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€We€also€note€that€the€defendant€was€charged€in€separate€counts€of€the€indictment€withÐ ÐÈ Ðtwo€counts€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€of€Mr.€Weaver.€€One€count€alleged€that€the€kidnappingÏwas€accomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon,€and€the€other€count€alleged€that€the€victim€suffered€seriousÏbodily€injury.€€The€state€elected€to€proceed€on€the€charge€alleging€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€and€itÏdismissed€the€other€count.€€+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular .Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ‡ò„EòXXÔÔ‡òuå òòò„EÔÝ ƒ 2ÿÝÑ @ ÑÑ7À{XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€For€Class€A€felonies€committed€on€or€after€July€1,€1995,€the€presumptive€sentence€is€theÐ  Ðmidpoint€of€the€range.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(c).Ô#†ò„Eò òòuå;#Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ñ   ÑÑ Ì Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular #Ñ#€ i Xÿÿd#Ñ d""""'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ ”XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ݛѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XlÂXXXÔÑ7€ l XXdæXXdÈ7ÑÑ€<+ÑÓ  ÓñlRñœßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rß›ñlRñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@ƒƒ%DàAT€NASHVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€MAY€1996€SESSIONÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  àÐ l d Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð R J Ðà ¸ àAppellee,€à h àà À à)à  àNo.€01C01„9505„CR„00161Ð 80 Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àDavidson€CountyÐ ü  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€Seth€Norman,€Judge€€€€€Ð ÐÈ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌÓ  ÓGERALD€LEANDER€HENRY,à À à)à  à(First€degree€murder,€attempted€first€degree€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àmurder,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,Ð ‚z  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€à  àespecially€aggravated€robbery,€and€two€€Ð h` Ðà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À à)à  àcounts€of€especially€aggravated€burglary)Ð NF Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð ø ÐÌKarl€Deanà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCharles€W.€BursonÐ ÌÄ ÐDistrict€Public€Defender€à h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ²ª Ѐ€€€€€€€andà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÐ ˜ ÐDavid€M.€Siegelà  àà h àà À àà  àChristina€S.€ShevalierÐ ~v ÐSenior€Assistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  àà p àandÐ d\ Ð1202€Stahlman€Buildingà h àà À àà  àKaren€YacuzzoÐ JB ÐNashville,€TN€37201à h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€Generals€of€Tennessee€Ð 0 ( Ð(AT€TRIAL€&€ON€APPEAL)à À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€Northà x àà Ð àÐ ! Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌHollis€I.€Moore,€Jr.à  àà h àà À àà  àÐ â"Ú Ѐ€€€€€€€€andà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÐ È#À  ÐDavid€M.€Siegelà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ ®$¦! ÐSenior€Assistant€Public€Defendersà  àà p àandÐ ”%Œ" Ð1202€Stahlman€Buildingà h àà À àà  àKymberly€Haasà  àÐ z&r# ÐNashville,€TN€37201à h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ `'X $ Ð(AT€TRIAL)à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ð F(>!% Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à222€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37201„1649€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌJUDGMENTS€OF€CONVICTION€FOR€FIRST€DEGREE€MURDER,€ATTEMPTEDÏFIRST€DEGREE€MURDER,€ESPECIALLY€AGGRAVATED€KIDNAPPING,€ANDÏESPECIALLY€AGGRAVATED€ROBBERY€AFFIRMED;€JUDGMENT€OF€CONVICTIONÏFOR€ESPECIALLY€AGGRAVATED€BURGLARY€RELATING€TO€WILLIAM€REXÏWEAVER€VACATED€AND€CONVICTION€AS€MODIFIED€TO€AGGRAVATEDÏBURGLARY€MERGED€œWITH›€THE€ESPECIALLY€AGGRAVATED€BURGLARYÏCONVICTION€RELATING€TO€LARRY€HARRINGTON;€CONVICTION€FORÏESPECIALLY€AGGRAVATED€BURGLARY€OF€LARRY€HARRINGTON€AFFIRMEDÏBUT€JUDGMENT€MODIFIED€TO€REFLECT€MERGERÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÐ >:639 ЇÓÓà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóˆÐ  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Gerald€Leander€Henry,€appeals€as€of€right€from€hisÏconvictions€by€a€jury€in€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court€for€first€degree€murder,€forÏattempted€first€degree€murder,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€and€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery,€Class€A€felonies,€and€for€two€counts€of€especially€aggravatedÏburglary,€Class€B€felonies.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€as€a€Range€I,Ïstandard€offender€to€life€imprisonment€for€the€murder€conviction,€to€twenty€years€forÏeach€Class€A€felony€conviction,€and€to€ten€years€for€each€Class€B€felony€conviction.€ÏThe€court€ordered€that€the€sentences€imposed€for€the€first€degree€murder€and€theÏattempted€first€degree€murder€convictions€be€served€consecutively.€€The€defendantÏcontends€that:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà ¸ à(1)€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions;ÌÌà8 ¸ à(2)€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€the€9„1„1€tape€ofÏLarry€Harrington€asking€for€help;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(3)€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€a€videotapedÏstatement€of€Sean€OððBrien,€a€codefendant,€as€a€co„¼conspirator€under€Rule€803(1.2)(E),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€asÏthe€conspiracy€did€not€continue€after€both€the€defendantÏand€OððBrien€had€been€arrested,€the€€fruits€of€the€crimeÏhad€been€seized,€and€the€defendant€had€given€aÏconfession;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(4)€the€trial€court€erred€by€excluding€the€testimony€of€Dr.€ÏH.J.€Francois€because€his€name€was€not€on€a€notice€ofÏexperts€filed€pursuant€to€Rule€12.2(b),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(5)€his€two€convictions€for€especially€aggravatedÏburglary€stemming€from€a€single€entry€into€a€roomÏviolate€the€double€jeopardy€clauses€of€the€United€StatesÏand€Tennessee€constitutions;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(6)€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€dismissing€the€especiallyÏaggravated€burglary€counts€because€the€element€ofÏserious€bodily€injury€had€already€been€prosecuted€inÏtwo€other€counts€of€the€indictment;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(7)€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€enhancement€factorsÏinappropriately,€by€finding€that€no€mitigating€factorsÏapplied,€and€by€imposing€consecutive€sentences.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÐ ~8v17 ÐÓÓÓ  Óà ¸ àWe€affirm€the€judgments€of€conviction€for€first€degree€murder,€attemptedÏfirst€degree€murder,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€especially€aggravated€robberyÏand€especially€aggravated€burglary€relating€to€Larry€Harrington.€€We€reduce€the€Ïconviction€for€especially€aggravated€burglary€relating€to€William€Rex€Weaver€toÏaggravated€burglary€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„404(d).€€However,€we€merge€theÏaggravated€burglary€conviction€into€the€especially€aggravated€murder€conviction€relatingÏto€Larry€Harrington€because€double€jeopardy€principles€prohibit€the€entry€of€more€thanÏone€judgment€of€conviction€imposing€more€than€one€sentence€for€the€burglary.€€WeÏaffirm€the€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€burglary€of€Larry€Harrington€but€modifyÏthe€judgment€to€reflect€the€merger€of€the€aggravated€burglary€into€the€especiallyÏaggravated€burglary.€ÌÌà ¸ àÔ‡X¹mXX XŒéÔLillian€Ewing€testified€that€she€was€at€the€House€of€God€Church€aroundÐ ˜ Ðnoon€on€July€16,€1992,€with€Dovie€Shuford,€a€friend€who€lived€in€a€dormitory€room€at€theÏchurch.€€She€said€that€as€they€were€leaving,€the€telephone€rang€and€she€answered€it.€ÏShe€stated€that€she€heard€a€male€voice€ask€for€help.€€Ms.€Ewing€testified€that€Ms.ÏShuford€thought€that€it€was€a€prank€telephone€call,€but€she€believed€that€the€manÏsounded€like€he€was€seriously€hurt.€€She€said€that€she€hung€up€the€receiver,€and€theÏtelephone€rang€a€second€time.€€She€stated€that€when€she€answered€the€telephone,€aÏman€stated,€ð ðHelp€me.€€Help€me.€€Iððve€been€shot.€€Iððve€been€shot.ðð€€She€said€that€he€alsoÏtold€her€that€he€was€working€for€the€church.€€Ms.€Ewing€testified€that€she€and€Ms.ÏShuford€then€drove€to€the€other€end€of€the€church€property€where€they€believed€theÏworkers€were€located.€€She€stated€that€as€she€drove€around€the€dormitories€nearÏHeiman€Street,€she€saw€a€man€covered€in€blood€on€his€knees€barely€open€the€door€to€aÏdormitory€room€and€say,€ð ðHelp€me.ðð€€Ms.€Ewing€said€that€as€she€turned€the€car€aroundÏand€drove€toward€Ms.€Shufordððs€dormitory€room€to€call€the€police,€she€saw€police€and€Ïfiremen€looking€in€the€wrong€direction.€€She€directed€them€to€the€victim.ÌÐ ¸8°16 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ñà ¸ àPaulette€Weaver,€the€wife€of€the€murder€victim,€testified€that€her€husbandÏworked€for€National€Guardian€Security€Services.€€She€said€that€he€wore€glasses€and€aÏwork€uniform€and€that€each€day€he€carried€only€enough€cash€to€buy€lunch.ÌÌà ¸ àLarry€Harrington€testified€that€he€worked€for€National€Guardian€SecurityÏServices€installing€alarm€systems€and€that€he€worked€with€Mr.€Weaver,€the€murderÏvictim.€€He€stated€that€on€July€16,€1992,€he€and€Mr.€Weaver€were€installing€alarmÏsystems€on€air€conditioners€at€the€House€of€God€Church.€€He€said€that€they€parked€theÏcompanyððs€white,€Astro€van€in€front€of€the€dormitory€room€in€which€they€were€working.€ÏHe€stated€that€they€ate€lunch€in€the€van€at€approximately€12:30€p.m.€€Mr.€HarringtonÏtestified€that€after€he€ate€his€lunch,€he€went€inside€the€dormitory€room€in€which€theyÏwere€working€to€call€his€wife€on€the€telephone.€€He€stated€that€Mr.€Weaver€remained€inÏthe€van€in€the€driverððs€seat€finishing€his€lunch.€€Mr.€Harrington€said€that€while€he€wasÏtalking€to€his€wife,€he€saw€through€the€open€door€a€white€man€and€a€black€man,€both€ofÏwhom€he€did€not€know,€standing€at€the€passengerððs€door€of€the€van.€€He€identified€theÏdefendant€as€the€black€man.€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€see€anything€in€the€hands€ofÏeither€the€defendant€or€the€other€man.€€Mr.€Harrington€testified€that€he€hung€up€theÏtelephone€and€just€as€he€walked€out€the€door,€he€saw€Mr.€Weaver€climb€out€theÏpassengerððs€side€of€the€van.€€Mr.€Harrington€said€that€when€he€asked€whetherÏsomething€was€wrong,€the€man€with€the€defendant€pointed€a€gun€at€him€and€told€him€toÏraise€his€hands.€€He€said€that€the€two€men€told€him€and€Mr.€Weaver€to€go€inside€theÏroom,€cursed€them,€and€told€them€to€be€quiet.€€ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Harrington€testified€that€he€then€saw€Mr.€Weaver€raise€his€handsÏabove€his€head€and€walk€towards€him,€cooperating€with€the€two€men.€€He€stated€that€heÏturned€and€walked€inside€the€room€followed€by€Mr.€Weaver.€€He€said€that€the€defendantÏfollowed€Mr.€Weaver€and€that€the€other€man€followed€them€pointing€the€gun€at€Mr.Ð È7À04 ÐWeaver.€€Mr.€Harrington€testified€that€the€two€men€ordered€them€to€lie€face€down€on€theÏfloor.€€He€stated€that€Mr.€Weaver€went€to€the€floor€first.€€Mr.€Harrington€said€that€beforeÏhe€could€get€all€the€way€to€the€floor,€the€defendant€pulled€his€hands€behind€his€backÏand€bound€them€together€with€wire€used€to€install€the€air€conditioners.€€He€said€that€theÏdefendant€also€bound€his€legs€together€and€then€bound€them€together€with€his€hands.€ÏMr.€Harrington€described€the€procedure€as€being€hog„tied.€€Mr.€Harrington€testified€thatÏhe€lay€at€Mr.€Weaverððs€feet€positioned€so€he€could€reach€the€telephone€sitting€on€theÏcorner€of€a€table.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€resist€the€defendant€and€the€other€man.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Harrington€testified€that€after€he€was€bound,€he€heard€a€crash€followedÏby€a€moan€by€Mr.€Weaver.€€He€stated€that€one€of€the€men€then€said,€ð ðHere,€use€this€toÏtie€him€up€with.ðð€€Mr.€Harrington€testified€that€he€then€heard€a€gunshot€very€close€to€him.€ÏMr.€Harrington€was€then€shot€in€the€back€of€the€head.€€He€stated€that€after€being€shot,Ïhe€heard€someone€say,€ð ðLetððs€get€the€hell€out€of€here.ðð€€He€then€heard€a€door€slam.€€Mr.ÏHarrington€said€that€he€became€unconscious€for€approximately€five€minutes.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€was€bleeding€heavily.€€He€said€that€he€heard€Mr.€Weaver€gurgling€andÏthat€he€saw€a€lot€of€blood€coming€out€of€his€head€and€mouth,€and€his€glasses€were€lyingÏbeside€him€on€the€floor.€€He€said€that€Mr.€Weaver€was€hog„tied€and€was€not€responsive.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Harrington€testified€that€he€was€then€able€to€remove€his€boots.€€HeÏstated€that€he€was€also€able€to€free€his€hands€and€grab€the€telephone.€€He€said€that€heÏdialed€9„1„1€and€a€woman€answered€but€hung€up€the€telephone.€€He€said€that€he€dialedÏthe€number€a€second€time€and€asked€the€woman€for€help.€€Mr.€Harrington€testified€thatÏhe€dialed€the€number€a€third€time€and€spoke€to€the€9„1„1€operator.€€He€said€that€he€toldÏher€that€he€and€Mr.€Weaver€had€been€shot€and€needed€help.€€He€stated€that€whileÏtalking€to€the€woman,€he€went€to€the€door,€opened€it€a€little,€looked€outside,€and€thenÏput€the€chain€lock€on€the€door.€€He€said€that€the€woman€told€him€help€was€on€the€way.€Ð È7À04 ÐThe€audio€cassette€tape€of€the€9„1„1€emergency€call€was€introduced€as€an€exhibit€andÏplayed€for€the€jury.€ÌÌà ¸ à€€Ô#† XŒéXXX¹m #ÔMr.€Harrington€testified€that€he€saw€a€car€with€two€people€inside€pull€intoÐ ¨   Ðthe€parking€lot€and€turn€around€and€leave.€€He€said€that€shortly€afterwards,€the€policeÏand€ambulance€arrived€and€he€was€taken€to€the€hospital€for€treatment.€€Mr.€HarringtonÏtestified€that€he€remained€conscious€until€he€went€into€the€emergency€room€and€thatÏwhen€he€awoke,€he€saw€news€footage€on€the€television€showing€that€the€defendant€andÏSean€OððBrien€had€been€caught.€€He€said€that€he€had€no€doubt€that€the€two€men€shownÏon€the€news€footage€were€the€ones€who€had€forced€him€and€Mr.€Weaver€into€the€roomÏand€shot€them.€€Mr.€Harrington€identified€the€gun€that€was€used€by€the€man€that€wasÏwith€the€defendant.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Harrington€stated€that€he€was€hospitalized€for€thirteen€days.€€Mr.ÏHarrington€said€that€he€suffered€a€broken€jaw,€that€he€permanently€lost€his€hearing€inÏhis€right€ear,€and€that€he€no€longer€had€perfect€vision.€€He€said€that€he€was€hospitalizedÏagain€for€plastic€surgery€and€for€surgery€to€implant€a€gold€weight€in€his€eyelid€to€allow€itÏto€close.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Harrington€testified€that€he€did€not€notice€anything€peculiar€about€theÏdefendant.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€did€not€appear€to€be€scared€or€under€duress.€ÏHe€stated€that€the€defendant€was€not€shaking.€€Mr.€Harrington€described€the€defendantÏas€a€person€who€had€done€the€acts€before€or€would€not€think€much€about€doing€theÏacts.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€did€not€appear€to€be€mentally€unsound.€€Mr.ÏHarrington€stated€that€the€defendant€acted€like€he€knew€what€he€was€going€to€do€beforeÏhe€got€to€the€church.Ìâ âÐ 6 /4 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñaRñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñaRñà ¸ àSergeant€Gary€Young€of€the€Nashville€Metropolitan€Police€DepartmentÏâ âtestified€that€he€was€dispatched€to€the€church€but€that€the€police€and€the€ambulanceÏhad€difficulty€finding€the€victims.€€He€said€that€he€eventually€saw€a€dormitory€room€doorÏopen€about€one€foot.€€He€stated€that€he€found€Mr.€Harrington€and€Mr.€Weaver€inside.€ÏSergeant€Young€testified€that€Mr.€Weaver€had€been€hog„tied€and€shot€in€the€back€of€theÏhead€execution€style,€and€he€stated€that€it€was€apparent€that€Mr.€Weaver€was€deadÏbecause€of€the€amount€of€blood,€brain€matter,€and€fragments€of€teeth€that€surroundedÏhim.€€He€said€that€he€assisted€Mr.€Harrington,€who€was€still€bleeding,€by€placing€aÏpillowcase€under€his€jaw.€€He€stated€that€Mr.€Harrington€had€lost€a€lot€of€blood.€ÏSergeant€Young€testified€that€when€he€asked€Mr.€Harrington€who€had€done€this€to€him,ÏMr.€Harrington€told€him€it€was€a€black€man€and€a€white€man.€€ÌÌà ¸ àSergeant€Young€identified€four€photographs€of€the€scene.€€TheÏphotographs€show€Mr.€Weaver€lying€face€down€on€the€dormitory€floor€with€his€handsÏand€legs€tied€together.€€They€show€the€wound€to€the€back€of€Mr.€Weaverððs€head€andÏblood€and€brain€matter€surrounding€his€head.€€A€spent€shell€casing€and€fragments€of€aÏbroken€lamp€are€lying€near€Mr.€Weaverððs€head,€and€another€blood€spot€appears€nearÏMr.€Weaverððs€feet.€€The€photographs€reveal€wire€wrapped€around€a€pair€of€boots€lyingÏnear€Mr.€Weaverððs€head€with€the€receiver€of€the€telephone€lying€near€the€boots.€€BloodÏis€on€both€the€receiver€and€the€telephone.€€The€photograph€also€depicts€a€pair€ofÏglasses€lying€between€the€boots€and€Mr.€Weaverððs€head.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Sergeant€Young€testified€that€the€victims€were€shotÏby€a€large€caliber€weapon€at€a€relatively€close€range.€€He€believed€that€the€victims€wereÏnot€shot€accidentally€and€that€the€shooter€intended€to€kill€or€seriously€injure€the€victimsÏgiven€the€nature€of€the€shootings.Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àOfficer€Wayne€Hughes€of€the€Nashville€Metropolitan€Police€DepartmentÏâ âtestified€that€he€retrieved€a€total€of€three€.45€caliber€shell€casings€and€ten€bulletÏfragments€at€the€scene,€with€one€of€the€shell€casings€lying€near€Mr.€Weaverððs€head.€€HeÏstated€that€he€collected€lamp€fragments€near€Mr.€Weaverððs€body.€€Officer€Hughes€alsoÏstated€that€the€wires€from€the€broken€lamp€were€used€to€tie€Mr.€Weaver.€€ÌÌà ¸ àLieutenant€Ben€Joyner€of€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€testified€that€onÏJuly€16,€1992,€he€received€information€to€be€on€the€lookout€for€a€Sonitrol€van€headingÏwest€on€Interstate€40.€€He€said€that€he€spoke€to€a€truck€driver€who€told€him€that€he€hadÏseen€the€van€in€Jackson.€€He€stated€that€at€about€2:00€p.m.,€he€saw€the€van€exit€theÏinterstate€where€he€was€parked€on€the€exit€ramp.€€Lieutenant€Joyner€testified€that€he,Ïalong€with€other€officers€in€marked€and€unmarked€units,€followed€the€van.€€He€statedÏthat€they€tried€to€stop€the€van€by€radioing€a€truck€driver€and€having€him€slow€down,€butÏthe€van€switched€lanes€and€drove€around€the€truck.€€Lieutenant€Joyner€said€that€theyÏset€up€a€roadblock€because€the€van€was€heading€back€toward€the€interstate.€€He€statedÏthat€the€van€stopped€at€the€roadblock€momentarily€but€then€headed€toward€two€policeÏofficers.€€Lieutenant€Joyner€stated€that€Sean€OððBrien,€the€driver€of€the€van,€thenÏincreased€his€speed€and€drove€through€the€roadblock.€€He€stated€that€OððBrien€drove€theÏvan€at€speeds€up€to€one€hundred€miles€per€hour,€ran€a€red€light,€and€forced€vehicles€offÏthe€road,€including€a€police€car.€€He€said€that€the€chase€occurred€in€a€populated€area.€€ÌÌà ¸ àLieutenant€Joyner€testified€that€the€van€eventually€skidded€to€a€stop€at€aÏsecond€roadblock€approximately€four€miles€from€the€first€roadblock.€€He€said€that€whenÏthe€van€stopped,€the€officers€ordered€the€defendant€and€OððBrien€to€get€out€and€to€lie€onÏthe€ground.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€complied€with€the€orders€but€that€OððBrienÏrefused€to€get€out€of€the€van.€€He€testified€that€they€had€to€open€the€door€and€pullÏOððBrien€out€of€the€van.€€Lieutenant€Joyner€testified€that€the€defendant€appeared€toÏunderstand€the€officersðð€orders€and€that€the€defendant€did€not€act€abnormally.€€€€€€€€€Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Lieutenant€Joyner€testified€that€shots€were€fired€atÏthe€van€when€OððBrien€tried€to€run€over€the€officers€at€the€first€roadblock.€€He€stated€thatÏhe€found€a€clip€for€a€pistol€in€OððBrienððs€front€pocket.€€He€said€that€he€also€recovered€aÏgun€in€a€wooded€area€on€Pipkin€Road€after€the€defendant€gave€directions€to€where€heÏthrew€the€gun.€€On€redirect€examination,€Lieutenant€Joyner€testified€that€it€would€haveÏbeen€possible€for€someone€to€get€out€of€the€van€when€it€stopped€momentarily€beforeÏthe€first€roadblock.€€ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Ronnie€Jackson€of€the€Jackson€Police€Department€testified€thatÏthe€defendant€appeared€to€understand€and€did€not€appear€disassociated€with€realityÏwhen€he€got€out€of€the€van.€€He€described€the€defendant€as€cooperative.€€OfficerÏJackson€stated€that€hollow„point€bullets€cause€a€larger€wound.€€On€cross„examination,ÏOfficer€Jackson€testified€that€a€person€using€hollow„point€bullets€should€know€that€theyÏinflict€massive€damage.ÌÌà ¸ àDetective€Larry€Flair€of€the€Nashville€Metropolitan€Police€DepartmentÏtestified€that€he€and€Officer€Pat€Postiglione€went€to€the€Tennessee€Highway€PatrolÏheadquarters€in€Jackson€after€the€defendant€and€OððBrien€had€been€arrested.€€He€statedÏthat€they€arrived€at€approximately€5:00€p.m.€and€that€the€defendant€and€OððBrien€wereÏbeing€kept€in€separate€rooms.€€He€stated€that€OððBrien€refused€to€give€a€statement.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€read€the€defendant€his€rights,€and€the€defendant€gave€an€oral€statementÏbut€refused€to€allow€the€officers€to€tape€the€statement.€€Detective€Flair€stated€that€theÏdefendant€told€them€that€he€did€not€know€that€OððBrien€was€going€to€rob€or€shootÏanyone.€€He€testified€that€the€defendant€asked€on€two€different€occasions€about€howÏmuch€time€they€thought€that€he€would€get.€€Detective€Flair€stated€that€there€was€noÏquestion€that€the€defendant€was€in€full€possession€of€his€mental€faculties.€€He€said€thatÏthe€defendant€did€not€behave€abnormally.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€did€nothing€toÏmake€him€believe€that€he€had€mental€problems.€Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àDetective€Flair€testified€that€the€defendant€described€in€detail€the€locationÏwhere€he€threw€the€pistol€out€of€the€van€during€the€pursuit€by€police,€and€the€defendantÏaccompanied€the€officers€to€locate€the€Colt€.45€automatic€handgun.€€He€said€that€theyÏfound€the€gun€in€a€cocked€position€with€a€hollow„point€bullet€in€the€chamber€and€aÏhollow„point€bullet€in€the€clip.€€Detective€Flair€testified€that€he€and€Officer€PostiglioneÏdrove€the€defendant€and€OððBrien€to€Nashville.€€He€said€that€they€stopped€at€the€wreckerÏservice€to€photograph€the€stolen€van€along€the€way.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€didÏnot€act€out€of€the€ordinary€during€the€two„hour€ride.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Detective€Flair€testified€that€he€found€jewelry€onÏOððBrien.€€He€said€that€his€investigation€showed€that€there€were€outstanding€chargesÏagainst€OððBrien€for€burglarizing€his€girlfriendððs€home€and€taking€jewelry€in€NewÏHampshire.€€He€stated€that€his€investigation€also€showed€that€OððBrien€had€stolen€theÏColt€.45€automatic€handgun€in€Florida.€€Detective€Flair€testified€that€at€least€five€bulletsÏhad€been€loaded€into€the€gun€clip.€€He€expressed€the€opinion€that€OððBrien€had€killedÏsomeone€before€given€the€cruel€nature€of€the€shootings€in€this€case.€€Detective€FlairÏsaid€that€he€learned€during€his€investigation€that€OððBrien€had€hit€Mr.€Weaver€with€aÏlamp€and€that€the€broken€lamp€and€lampshade€were€placed€in€the€van.€€He€stated€thatÏhe€found€a€lamp€and€a€lampshade€in€the€van.€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àDetective€Flair€conceded€that€he€had€spoken€to€other€persons€who€wereÏunder€the€influence€of€alcohol€or€drugs€or€had€a€mental€illness€but€could€still€beÏunderstood.€€He€admitted€that€it€was€possible€for€someone€to€act€normally€althoughÏthey€were€not€normal.€€He€identified€several€items€worn€by€the€defendant,€a€T„shirt,€anÏelastic€band,€a€necklace,€a€charm,€a€pair€of€blue€jeans,€a€brown€leather€belt,€and€a€red,Ïlong„sleeve€thermal€shirt.€€He€stated€that€the€offenses€occurred€in€mid„July€on€a€normal€Ð  ô3ì,2 МÑ€åRÑÑ€í:ÑñgRñÑ€n?ÑñgRñsummer›€day.€€On€redirect€examination,€Detective€Flair€stated€that€he€believed€that€theÏdefendant€was€very€involved€in€the€crimes€if€he€bound€the€victims.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï€€€Ìà ¸ àOfficer€Pat€Postiglione€of€the€Nashville€Metropolitan€Police€DepartmentÏtestified€regarding€the€oral€statement€given€by€the€defendant.€€He€said€that€theÏdefendant€told€the€officers€that€he€met€OððBrien€for€the€first€time€when€he€arrived€atÏTruckstops€of€America€in€Nashville€on€July€14€or€15,€1992.€€The€defendant€told€theÏofficers€that€he€and€OððBrien€planned€to€go€to€California€together€and€that€they€went€toÏhis€motherððs€house€to€tell€her€goodbye€before€leaving€for€California€on€July€16.€€TheÏdefendant€said€that€they€did€not€have€a€vehicle€for€the€trip.€€He€said€that€as€theyÏapproached€the€House€of€God€Church,€OððBrien€removed€a€.45€automatic€gun€from€theÏduffle€bag€he€was€carrying€and€walked€over€to€a€white€van€in€which€Mr.€Weaver€wasÏseated€in€the€driverððs€seat.€€The€defendant€told€the€officers€that€OððBrien€then€used€theÏgun€to€force€Mr.€Weaver€out€of€the€van€through€the€passengerððs€side€door.€€TheÏdefendant€claimed€that€he€did€not€know€that€OððBrien€had€the€gun€with€him€until€heÏremoved€it€from€the€bag.€€The€defendant€told€the€officers€that€once€inside€the€dormitoryÏroom,€OððBrien€ordered€him€to€tie€the€victims€and€he€complied.€€The€defendant€statedÏthat€OððBrien€then€fired€the€gun€three€times,€shooting€first€into€the€floor€and€then€into€theÏtwo€victims.€€He€claimed€that€he€did€not€know€or€ask€why€OððBrien€shot€the€victims.€€TheÏdefendant€told€the€officers€that€they€left€very€quickly,€that€they€took€a€lamp€with€themÏand€that€they€drove€away€in€the€van.€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Postiglione€testified€that€the€defendant€told€him€and€Detective€FlairÏthat€he€and€OððBrien€got€on€the€interstate€going€west€toward€California.€€The€defendantÏstated€that€he€was€aware€that€they€were€being€pursued€by€the€police.€€He€described€theÏweapon€used€by€OððBrien€as€a€.45€chrome„colored€automatic€handgun€and€stated€thatÏâ âhe€threw€the€gun€out€the€window€into€a€field€as€ordered€by€OððBrien€when€they€wereÐ À5¸.4 ÐÑåR ÑÑ ÜÑÑÌÑÑ  ÑñgRñÑåR ÑÑ ÜÑÑÌÑÑ  ÑÑåR ÑÑ ÜÑÑÌÑÑ  ÑñgRññaRñÑåR ÑÑ ÜÑÑÌÑÑ  ÑñaRñœbeing›€chased€by€the€police.€€The€defendant€provided€a€detailed€description€of€theÏñgRñÑåR ÑÑ ÜÑÑÌÑÑ  ÑÑåR ÑÑ ÜÑÑÌÑÑ  ÑñgRññaRñÑåR ÑÑ ÜÑÑÌÑÑ  ÑñaRñlocation€where€he€threw€out€the€gun,€and€he€accompanied€the€officers€to€locate€the€gun.Ìâ âÌà ¸ àOfficer€Postiglione€testified€that€the€defendant€did€not€do€or€say€anythingÏduring€the€interview€or€during€the€drive€to€Nashville€to€make€him€believe€that€theÏdefendant€was€mentally€ill.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€was€nervous€but€calm€during€theÏinterview€and€that€he€asked€a€couple€of€times€how€much€time€the€officers€thought€heÏwould€get.€€Officer€Postiglione€believed€that€the€defendant€appeared€in€control€of€theÏsituation.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€never€asked€about€the€victims€but€rather€wasÏmore€concerned€about€his€sleeping€and€eating€arrangements.€€Officer€PostiglioneÏtestified€that€the€defendant€never€mentioned€hearing€voices€or€having€hallucinations.€ÏHe€said€that€the€defendant€told€the€officers€that€he€had€no€permanent€address,€but€heÏgave€the€officers€his€motherððs€address€and€told€œOfficer€Postiglione€that›€he€had€been€inÏKnoxville.€€ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Postiglione€testified€that€when€they€arrived€in€Nashville€atÏapproximately€8:00€p.m.,€the€defendant€and€OððBrien€were€booked€and€then€placed€in€anÏinterview€room€where€there€was€a€hidden€camera.€€He€stated€that€this€was€the€first€timeÏthat€the€defendant€and€OððBrien€were€together€without€the€presence€of€officers€sinceÏtheir€arrest.€€He€said€that€a€conversation€between€the€defendant€and€OððBrien€wasÏvideotaped.€€The€videotape€shows€the€defendant€and€OððBrien€planning€what€they€wereÏgoing€to€say€to€the€police€regarding€the€events€surrounding€the€offense.€€It€also€reflectsÏthat€the€defendant€and€OððBrien€discussed€their€history€of€mental€illnesses€and€theÏpossibility€of€escaping€liability€based€on€their€mental€condition.€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Officer€Postiglione€identified€the€clothing€that€theÏdefendant€was€wearing€when€he€was€arrested.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€wasÏwearing€a€red€thermal,€long„sleeve€shirt,€a€T„shirt,€a€pair€of€blue€jeans,€a€leather€beltÏand€loafers.€€Officer€Postiglione€believed€that€the€defendant€was€homeless€because€heÐ 9P28 ÐÑí: ÑÑÜ ÑÑÌÑÑ  ÑñgRñÑí: ÑÑÜ ÑÑÌÑÑ  ÑÑí: ÑÑÜ ÑÑÌÑÑ  ÑñgRññaRñÑí: ÑÑÜ ÑÑÌÑÑ  ÑñaRñœwas›€wearing€layers€of€clothing€in€a€manner€similar€to€that€of€a€homeless€person.€€HeÏsaid€that€at€the€time€of€his€arrest,€the€defendant€carried€a€bag€that€contained€clothing,€aÏreligious€cassette€tape,€religious€books,€a€lava€rock,€a€jar€containing€a€clay„likeÏsubstance,€duct€tape,€a€needle,€thread,€and€a€brace.€€Officer€Postiglione€testified€thatÏcriminals€often€take€items€necessary€for€their€escape,€but€he€conceded€that€he€did€notÏknow€how€some€of€the€items€possessed€by€the€defendant€would€aid€an€escape.€€ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Postiglione€said€that€he€found€a€gun€case€for€the€stolen€gun€inÏOððBrienððs€duffle€bag.€€Officer€Postiglione€testified€that€OððBrienððs€fingerprints€were€foundÏon€the€clip€that€was€discovered€by€police.€€He€also€testified€regarding€his€interview€ofÏMr.€Harrington€the€day€after€the€offenses€occurred.€€He€said€that€Mr.€HarringtonÏdescribed€OððBrien€as€the€leader€of€the€offenses€and€stated€that€the€defendant€stoodÏback€and€did€not€say€anything.€€Officer€Postiglione€testified€that€Mr.€Harrington€told€himÏthat€he€did€not€know€who€bound€him€but€that€he€believed€that€OððBrien€shot€themÏbecause€he€saw€OððBrien€enter€and€leave€with€the€gun.€€Officer€Postiglione€concededÏthat€his€investigation€also€reflected€that€OððBrien€was€the€leader,€given€the€fact€thatÏOððBrien€possessed€and€used€the€gun€and€that€the€defendant€participated€only€by€tyingÏthe€victims.ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Postiglione€testified€regarding€Mr.€Harringtonððs€condition€twoÏweeks€after€the€offenses€occurred.€€He€said€that€Mr.€Harrington€remained€in€intensiveÏcare€and€that€the€right€side€of€his€face€was€extremely€swollen,€that€his€jaw€was€wiredÏshut,€and€that€he€was€in€pain€and€could€barely€speak.€€Officer€Postiglione€believed€thatÏthe€defendant€knew€OððBrien€planned€to€shoot€the€victims€and€take€their€van€becauseÏthey€had€spent€forty„eight€hours€living€together€on€the€street,€because€they€did€not€haveÏa€vehicle€for€the€trip€to€California,€and€because€of€the€manner€in€which€the€victims€wereÏshot.€€He€also€believed€that€the€defendant€and€OððBrien€planned€on€eliminating€any€riskÏof€having€witnesses€to€the€crimes€by€shooting€the€victims.€€€€€€€€Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àDetective€Harold€Haney€of€the€Nashville€Metropolitan€Police€DepartmentÏtestified€that€he€monitored€the€defendant€and€OððBrien€while€they€were€being€held€in€theÏinterview€room€together€in€Nashville.€€He€said€that€he€saw€the€defendant€takeÏsomething€out€of€his€pocket€and€hide€it€under€the€table.€€He€stated€that€he€entered€theÏroom€and€found€a€spent€shell€casing€from€a€.45€caliber€automatic€weapon.ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Tommy€Welder€testified€that€he€went€to€the€morgue€in€response€toÏa€call€from€the€pathologist.€€He€said€that€he€found€a€small€piece€of€glitter€near€aÏlaceration€on€the€victimððs€head.€€A€photograph€was€introduced€depicting€the€area€whereÏthe€glitter€was€found.ÌÌà ¸ àDon€Carman,€a€forensic€scientist€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation€specializing€in€firearms€identification,€testified€that€he€examined€the€ColtÏ.45€semi„automatic€handgun€and€said€that€the€gun€functioned€properly.€€He€stated€thatÏhe€also€examined€the€bullet€fragments€recovered€from€Mr.€Weaver€and€those€sent€toÏhim.€€He€said€that€the€fragments€were€very€small€and€were€from€hollow,€lead„coreÏbullets€that€had€been€mutilated.€€Mr.€Carman€testified€that€the€fragments€had€someÏgeneral€rifling€characteristics€similar€to€those€fired€from€the€Colt€.45€semi„automaticÏhandgun€but€that€they€were€insufficient€to€be€considered€a€match.€€He€stated€that€heÏanalyzed€a€clip€and€two€.45€caliber,€hollow„point€bullets€and€said€that€they€could€beÏused€in€the€Colt€.45€semi„automatic€handgun.€€On€cross„examination,€he€stated€that€aÏcharacteristic€of€a€semi„automatic€gun€is€that€the€trigger€has€to€be€pulled€each€time€it€isÏfired.€€He€said€that€the€Colt€.45€semi„automatic€handgun€had€a€six€pound€trigger€pull.€ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Ralph€Deavers€testified€that€he€looked€for€latent€fingerprints€onÏitems€in€the€dormitory€room€as€well€as€on€the€broken€lamp,€the€Colt€.45€semi„automaticÏhandgun,€and€the€clip€taken€from€OððBrienððs€pocket.€€He€said€that€the€only€fingerprints€heÏcould€identify€were€OððBrienððs€fingerprints€on€the€clip.€€€€€€Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àDr.€John€Werther€testified€that€he€examined€Mr.€Harrington€on€July€16€inÏthe€emergency€room.€€He€said€that€Mr.€Harrington€had€a€wound€on€the€back€side€of€hisÏneck€and€in€front€of€his€cheek.€€Dr.€Werther€stated€that€the€bullet€exited€below€theÏcheekbone€causing€severe€damage,€including€swelling€of€the€face€and€bruising€of€theÏeye€area.€€He€testified€that€Mr.€Harrington€suffered€damage€to€his€ear€canal€and€eyeÏsocket.€€He€stated€that€Mr.€Harrington€also€suffered€damage€to€the€nerve€that€controls€Ïraising€the€forehead,€closing€the€eyes,€wiggling€the€nose,€and€moving€the€lips€and€neck,Ïcausing€facial€palsy.€€Dr.€Werther€testified€that€as€a€result€of€the€facial€palsy,€Mr.ÏHarrington€had€to€have€a€gold€weight€placed€in€his€eye€so€that€it€would€shut€and€toÏprevent€it€from€drying€out.€€He€said€that€the€jawbone€was€shattered€into€twenty€to€thirtyÏpieces€and€that€the€external€carotid€artery€that€supplies€the€face€with€blood€wasÏsevered.€€Dr.€Werther€described€Mr.€Harringtonððs€injury€as€being€painful€and€lifeÏthreatening,€as€the€likelihood€of€infection€was€great.€€He€testified€that€additionalÏsurgeries€were€required€after€Mr.€Harrington€was€released€from€the€hospital.€€He€statedÏthat€he€operated€on€Mr.€Harringtonððs€neck€because€the€bullet€was€close€to€his€spine,Ïcausing€him€to€have€pain€and€numbness€in€his€arm.€€Dr.€Werther€said€that€a€bone€graftÏfrom€Mr.€Harringtonððs€hip€was€used€to€fuse€his€cervical€spine.€€He€stated€that€he€alsoÏreconstructed€Mr.€Harringtonððs€cheekbone€and€his€nose€because€it€had€collapsed,Ïmaking€it€difficult€to€breathe.€€Dr.€Werther€testified€that€plastic€surgery€was€alsoÏnecessary.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Jessie€Giles,€the€medical€examiner€for€Davidson€County,€testified€thatÏhe€reviewed€the€records€of€Dr.€Gretal€Harlan,€an€assistant€medical€examiner€whoÏconducted€the€autopsy€of€William€Rex€Weaver.€€He€stated€that€the€records€show€thatÏMr.€Weaver€died€as€a€result€of€a€gunshot€wound€to€the€head,€causing€damage€to€theÏskull€and€tearing€and€bleeding€of€the€brain.€€Dr.€Giles€testified€that€the€bullet€entered€atÏthe€top€of€the€head€and€did€not€exit.€€He€stated€that€he€was€unable€to€determine€theÏdistance€from€which€the€victim€was€shot.€€He€said€that€there€were€contusions€andÐ Œ7„06 Ðbruising€around€the€eye€as€a€result€of€the€skull€fractures.€€He€also€said€that€there€was€aÏtear€at€the€back€of€the€head€with€some€abrasion€resulting€from€the€application€of€bluntÏforce.€€Dr.€Giles€testified€that€the€victim€suffered€two€other€lacerations€to€the€head.€€Dr.ÏGiles€expressed€the€opinion€that€the€victim€could€have€died€instantly€but€that€most€likelyÏthe€victim€was€rendered€unconscious,€possibly€by€the€laceration€to€the€head,€and€thenÏdied€very€quickly.€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àShelly€Betts,€a€serologist€for€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,Ïtestified€for€the€defense.€€She€stated€that€she€examined€the€clothing€of€the€defendantÏand€OððBrien€and€that€she€found€reddish„brown€stains€appearing€to€be€blood€onÏOððBrienððs€boots€and€pants.€€She€said€that€the€stains€tested€presumptively€positive€asÏblood€stains,€although€she€was€unable€to€confirm€the€finding.€€Ms.€Betts€testified€thatÏshe€found€no€blood€stains€on€the€defendantððs€clothing.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Amin€Azimi,€a€licensed€psychologist€with€the€Middle€Tennessee€MentalÏHealth€Institute€(MTMHI),€testified€that€he€conducted€two€psychological€evaluations€ofÏthe€defendant€after€the€commission€of€the€offenses.€€He€stated€that€as€a€part€of€theÏevaluations,€he€reviewed€the€defendantððs€medical€records€from€the€defendantððs€1989Ïhospitalization€in€Illinois€after€being€picked€up€by€the€police.€€He€said€that€the€recordsÏshowed€that€the€defendant€suffered€a€brief€psychotic€reaction,€and€the€defendantÏclaimed€that€he€saw€spiders,€that€he€saw€snakes€biting€him,€and€that€he€heard€voicesÏtelling€him€to€go€away.€€Dr.€Azimi€described€a€brief€psychotic€reaction€as€a€disorderÏcharacterized€by€a€breakdown€of€reality€lasting€for€hours€or€months€as€a€result€of€aÏsevere€psycho„social€stressor.€€He€testified€that€a€person€having€a€brief€psychoticÏreaction€may€appear€normal€one€to€two€months€afterwards.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Azimi€testified€that€he€was€concerned€about€the€defendantððsÏpsychological€state€because€the€defendant€acted€oddly€in€that€he€was€evasive€andÐ Œ7„06 Ðsecretive,€he€lacked€concern€for€himself€with€respect€to€the€outcome€of€the€case,€andÏhe€paced€the€floor.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€reported€having€visual€and€auditoryÏhallucinations.€€Dr.€Azimi€testified€that€the€defendant€claimed€that€he€had€heard€voicesÏfor€several€years.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€told€him€that€he€sometimes€heard€severalÏvoices€at€one€time€and€that€he€would€leave€when€this€happened.€€Dr.€Azimi€testified€thatÏthe€defendant€told€him€that€he€coped€with€the€auditory€hallucinations€by€inflicting€painÏon€himself€and€by€pacing€the€floor.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€was€vague€and€evasiveÏabout€his€mental€status.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€was€also€vague€about€whetherÏhe€mutilated€his€genitals.€€He€stated€that€he€found€a€needle€in€the€defendantððsÏpossession.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Azimi€acknowledged€that€the€defendant€was€found€to€be€competent€toÏstand€trial€and€not€committable€and€that€an€insanity€defense€was€not€supported€by€theÏfacts€of€the€case.€€He€conceded€that€although€the€defendant€became€more€cooperativeÏwith€the€staff,€the€defendant€was€unable€to€remain€free€from€hallucinations€for€twoÏweeks€and€his€oddities€continued.€€Dr.€Azimi€described€the€defendant€as€a€follower,€butÏhe€stated€that€the€defendant€was€not€dangerous.€€He€diagnosed€the€defendant€asÏhaving€an€atypical€psychosis,€a€mental€illness€or€disorder€that€causes€hallucinations,Ïdelusions€and€odd€conduct.€€Dr.€Azimi€said€that€the€defendantððs€illness€was€a€continuingÏone,€unlike€a€brief€reactive€psychosis.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Azimi€testified€that€the€defendant€wasÏhospitalized€in€Illinois€for€less€than€two€days€and€was€released€without€medication€orÏfollow„up€treatment.€€He€stated€that€the€hospital€staff€attended€to€the€defendant€afterÏthe€police€arrested€him€for€disorderly€conduct€because€he€was€knocking€on€doors€in€aÏneighborhood€and€asking€to€use€the€telephone€to€call€his€father.€€He€said€that€theÏâ âdefendant€was€diagnosed€in€Illinois€as€having€a€brief€psychotic€reaction€due€to€his€lackÐ À5¸.4 Ðof€sleep€and€food,€and€he€stated€that€all€of€the€defendantððs€symptoms€disappearedÏonce€the€defendant€ate€and€slept.€€Ìâ âÌà ¸ àDr.€Azimi€acknowledged€that€the€defendant€had€told€another€doctor€thatÏhe€had€not€heard€voices€when€he€met€OððBrien€or€before€the€offenses€occurred.€€He€alsoÏacknowledged€that€the€defendant€had€told€a€social€worker€that€he€knew€that€OððBrienÏhad€a€gun€because€they€had€shot€it€in€the€alley.€€The€defendant€also€told€the€socialÏworker€that€when€OððBrien€ordered€him€to€tie€the€victims,€he€refused€and€instead€heldÏthe€gun€on€the€victims€while€OððBrien€tied€them.€€Dr.€Azimi€testified€that€the€defendantÏtold€the€social€worker€that€the€gun€had€accidentally€discharged.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Azimi€conceded€that€the€defendant€had€no€organic€brain€injury€andÏthat€he€had€stated€in€his€report€that€the€defendantððs€symptoms€did€not€suggest€a€seriousÏmental€illness€and€did€not€require€medication.€€He€also€admitted€that€the€defendantððsÏbehavior€during€interviews€did€not€raise€a€question€of€delusional€thinking€orÏhallucinations,€but€rather€the€defendant€was€often€lucid,€coherent€and€rational.€€Dr.ÏAzimi€explained€that€the€defendant€told€him€that€he€heard€voices€when€he€was€byÏhimself€and€that€when€he€was€active,€the€voices€went€away.€€He€said€that€theÏdefendantððs€vocabulary,€reasoning€and€memory€were€within€the€normal€range€ofÏintelligence.€€Dr.€Azimi€testified€that€the€defendant€lacked€concern€about€the€outcome€ofÏthe€case€in€that€he€admitted€his€guilt€and€stated€that€he€should€be€punished.€€HeÏexplained€that€it€was€possible€that€the€defendant€recognized€the€reality€of€a€sentenceÏduring€the€two€years€of€incarceration€pending€the€trial.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€redirect€examination,€Dr.€Azimi€testified€that€the€defendant€would€beÏinfluenced€by€OððBrien€being€armed€with€a€weapon€because€the€defendant€was€aÏfollower.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€could€shut€down€under€some€circumstances.€€HeÏstated€that€a€person€can€be€mentally€ill€even€though€the€person€is€intelligent€or€does€notÐ Œ7„06 Ðhave€any€organic€brain€injury.€€Dr.€Azimi€conceded€on€recross€examination€that€theÏdefendant€did€not€tell€him€that€he€was€under€stress€or€that€he€heard€voices€or€sawÏsnakes€at€the€time€of€the€offenses€or€when€he€was€fleeing€from€the€police.€€However,€heÏsaid€that€the€defendant€told€him€that€he€left€the€dormitory€room€after€OððBrien€fired€theÏsecond€shot€because€he€heard€voices€telling€him€to€leave.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€H.J.€Francois,€a€physician€at€MTMHI,€testified€that€he€performed€aÏphysical€examination€of€the€defendant.€€He€said€that€he€found€a€lesion€in€the€rightÏtesticle€in€the€groin.€€He€stated€that€his€findings€were€normal,€except€for€an€enlargedÏright€testicle.ÌÌà ¸ àSeveral€of€the€defendantððs€family€members€testified€regarding€theÏdefendantððs€unusual€behavior€since€1989.€€His€wife€testified€that€the€defendant€hadÏbeen€living€with€her€and€her€three€children€for€five€years€when€he€left€and€went€toÏNashville€for€no€reason€in€1989.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€appeared€very€confusedÏwhen€he€left€and€that€he€took€no€money€with€him,€and€he€carried€only€a€small€duffleÏbag.€€The€defendantððs€wife€testified€that€the€defendant€called€her€when€he€arrived€at€theÏbus€station€in€Nashville€and€told€her€that€he€was€going€to€a€hotel€with€a€prostitute.€€SheÏstated€that€the€defendant€also€called€her€when€he€was€hospitalized€in€Illinois€in€1989Ïand€that€he€told€her€that€he€had€been€arrested€for€hitchhiking€and€that€a€big€bear€hadÏfollowed€him.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€wife€testified€that€the€defendantððs€behavior€changedÏagain€in€November€1990€when€he€told€her€and€her€family€that€he€had€to€follow€the€TrailÏof€Tears.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€also€told€her€that€he€felt€that€someone€wasÏcalling€him€and€that€he€felt€wind€blow€through€the€house€and€knock€him€down.€€SheÏstated€that€the€defendant€carved€a€walking€stick€to€take€with€him€and€that€he€told€herÏthat€it€was€to€keep€the€dogs€away.€€She€testified€that€the€defendant€left€again€with€noÐ Œ7„06 Ðmoney€for€approximately€two€weeks.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€called€her€fromÏMemphis€and€she€sent€him€a€bus€ticket€to€come€home.€€The€defendantððs€wife€testifiedÏthat€the€defendant€did€not€explain€why€he€had€left€when€he€returned€home.€€She€statedÏthat€the€defendant€was€normally€a€neat€person,€but€when€he€returned€home,€his€clothesÏwere€torn€and€his€hair€was€out€of€place.€€She€testified€that€on€both€occasions€that€theÏdefendant€left€home,€he€was€employed€and€their€relationship€was€good.€€She€statedÏthat€after€the€second€occasion,€he€was€not€interested€in€working,€but€instead€he€stayedÏhome€all€day€watching€television€and€reading€the€Bible,€although€he€had€shown€noÏinterest€in€religion€before€he€left€home.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€wife€testified€that€the€defendant€left€a€third€time€andÏstayed€gone€for€approximately€two€to€three€weeks.€€She€stated€that€the€defendantÏcalled€her€from€Jackson,€Mississippi€and€asked€her€to€move€there€with€her€children,Ïalthough€he€had€no€job€or€housing€arrangements.€€She€said€that€she€eventuallyÏpurchased€a€bus€ticket€and€sent€it€to€him,€and€the€defendant€returned€home.€€TheÏdefendantððs€wife€testified€that€she€stopped€living€with€the€defendant€in€February€1991Ïand€had€little€contact€with€him.€€She€conceded€that€she€knew€nothing€about€theÏdefendantððs€mental€status€in€1992€when€the€offenses€occurred.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€father€and€stepmother€testified€that€they€picked€up€theÏdefendant€in€Illinois€after€the€defendant€had€been€in€the€hospital€there€in€1989.€€TheyÏsaid€that€the€defendant€was€distant€and€that€he€told€them€that€he€was€hitchhiking€to€St.ÏLouis.€€They€stated€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€any€clothes€with€him€and€that€theyÏhad€to€pick€up€the€defendantððs€clothes€at€a€bus€station€in€Nashville.€€They€testified€thatÏthey€then€took€the€defendant€with€them€to€stay€in€Chattanooga.€€They€said€that€theÏdefendantððs€grandfather€gave€the€defendant€a€car€while€he€was€there,€but€theÏâ âdefendant€did€not€drive€it.€€The€defendantððs€father€and€stepmother€stated€that€theyÐ À5¸.4 Ðoffered€to€send€the€defendant€to€chef€school,€but€he€left€and€went€to€Nashville.€€TheyÏsaid€that€he€did€not€take€any€money€or€his€car€with€him.Ìâ âÌà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€father€and€stepmother€both€testified€that€they€did€not€seeÏor€hear€from€the€defendant€until€May€1992€when€the€defendant€came€to€stay€with€themÏin€Chattanooga.€€They€said€that€the€defendant€had€changed€his€appearance€in€that€heÏwore€bands€in€his€long€hair,€a€bag€on€a€rope€around€his€neck,€and€old€clothes€that€wereÏnot€appropriate€for€the€weather.€€The€defendantððs€father€stated€that€the€defendant€woreÏtailored€suits€and€had€short€hair€before€his€condition€changed.€€The€defendantððs€fatherÏand€stepmother€testified€that€the€defendant€also€wore€Ace€bandages€very€tightly€aroundÏhis€waist,€legs,€wrists€and€arms.€€They€said€that€the€bands€around€the€defendantððs€armsÏwere€so€tight€that€he€could€barely€bend€his€arms,€and€they€caused€his€arms€to€swell€andÏbecome€discolored.€€They€stated€that€the€defendant€also€wore€a€headband€wrappedÏtightly€around€his€head.€€The€defendantððs€father€and€stepmother€testified€that€theÏdefendant€explained€his€appearance€by€telling€them€that€it€was€related€to€his€HinduÏreligion.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€father€and€stepmother€testified€that€the€defendantððsÏbehavior€also€changed.€€They€stated€that€he€scratched€himself€all€over€with€a€piece€ofÏpumice€rock,€and€he€kept€an€electric€knife€under€his€bed.€€The€defendantððs€stepmotherÏtestified€that€the€defendant€told€him€that€he€scratched€himself€because€he€felt€thingsÏcrawling€on€him,€although€nothing€was€on€his€skin.€€The€defendantððs€father€andÏstepmother€testified€that€the€defendant€usually€sat€in€his€room€and€did€nothing€but€thatÏhe€also€walked€a€lot€and€would€often€leave€for€several€hours€before€returning€home.€ÏThey€said€that€the€defendant€carried€a€Bible€with€him€at€all€times€and€that€he€had€moreÏthan€one€Bible.€€They€offered€to€get€the€defendant€an€apartment€and€let€him€operateÏtheir€ceramic€shop,€but€he€left€again€in€June€1992€under€similar€circumstances.€€TheÏdefendantððs€stepmother€stated€that€the€defendant€called€her€two€or€three€times€after€heÐ Œ7„06 Ðleft€asking€her€for€money,€but€she€said€that€she€had€no€physical€contact€with€theÏdefendant€until€after€he€was€arrested€in€July.€€On€cross„examination,€the€defendantððsÏstepmother€testified€that€she€and€the€defendantððs€father€never€sought€mental€healthÏassistance€for€the€defendant.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Pamela€Auble,€a€clinical€psychologist,€testified€that€she€conducted€aÏpsychological€evaluation€of€the€defendant€in€June€1994.€€She€stated€that€she€did€notÏconduct€any€independent€psychological€testing€but€rather€relied€upon€Dr.€Azimiððs€resultsÏof€testing€conducted€approximately€one€week€earlier.€€She€stated€that€she€alsoÏreviewed€the€defendantððs€school€records,€the€records€from€earlier€psychologicalÏevaluations,€letters€from€counsel,€and€police€records,€including€photographs€of€theÏscene€and€the€videotape€of€the€conversation€between€the€defendant€and€OððBrien.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Auble€testified€that€the€defendant€had€a€history€of€odd€behavior,Ïincluding€pacing€with€his€head€tilted€sideways€or€with€shaving€cream€on€his€nose,Ïcarrying€food€in€his€pocket,€or€keeping€food€in€his€room€until€it€fermented.€€She€said€thatÏthe€defendant€had€also€heard€voices€for€many€years.€€She€explained€that€the€defendantÏtold€her€that€he€often€heard€seven€or€eight€voices€at€one€time€and€that€he€was€notÏalways€able€to€understand€the€voices.€€Dr.€Auble€testified€that€the€defendant€told€herÏthat€the€voices€disturbed€him€and€caused€him€to€become€tense€when€the€voices€wereÏtoo€loud€or€too€many.€€She€stated€that€the€defendant€controlled€the€tension€by€inflictingÏpain€on€himself.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€told€her€that€the€voices€instructed€him€toÏinflict€pain€on€himself.€€Dr.€Auble€stated€that€the€defendant€used€a€method€calledÏacupressure€where€he€placed€thick€bands€tightly€around€various€parts€of€his€body,Ïincluding€his€genitals.€€Dr.€Auble€said€that€the€defendant€told€her€that€if€acupressure€didÏnot€work,€he€would€stick€himself€with€a€pen,€rub€his€skin€raw,€exercise€excessively,€orÏpace€continuously.€€ÌÐ Œ7„06 Ðà ¸ àDr.€Auble€diagnosed€the€defendant€as€having€an€atypical€psychosis,€aÏmajor€mental€illness.€€She€said€that€the€defendantððs€condition€worsened€when€he€wasÏtired€or€under€stress.€€She€also€stated€that€the€defendant€was€not€a€violent€person€andÏthat€he€would€withdraw€from€a€tense€situation.€€Dr.€Auble€expressed€the€opinion€thatÏbecause€of€his€illness,€the€defendant€was€not€able€to€deal€with€stress€as€a€normalÏperson€would.€€Dr.€Auble€believed€that€the€defendant€did€not€form€the€specific€intent€toÏharm€anyone.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Auble€testified€that€she€believed€that€theÏdefendant€was€not€an€active€participant€in€the€crimes.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€toldÏher€that€OððBrien€ordered€him€to€tie€the€victims€and€gave€him€wire€to€do€so€but€that€heÏtold€OððBrien€that€he€could€not€do€it€after€he€started€to€tie€the€victims.€€Dr.€AubleÏacknowledged€that€the€doctors€at€MTMHI€found€no€evidence€of€a€serious€mental€illness,Ïalthough€they€also€diagnosed€the€defendant€with€an€atypical€psychosis.€€She€believedÏthat€the€diagnosis€by€the€doctors€at€MTMHI€was€indicative€of€a€serious€mental€illness.€€€€€Ï€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà@““ Dàò òI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ È#À  Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconvictions.€€He€argues€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€(1)€because€there€is€noÏevidence€of€his€intent,€premeditation€and€deliberation€to€kill€the€victims,€(2)€becauseÏthere€is€no€evidence€of€his€knowing€participation€in€the€crimes,€and€(3)€because€theÏevidence€of€his€serious€mental€problems€negated€any€showing€that€he€knowinglyÏparticipated€in€the€crimes.€€The€state€responds€that€there€is€sufficient€evidence€toÏestablish€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€defendantððs€guilt€of€the€offenses.€€We€agree.ÌÌà ¸ àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questionedÏon€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÐ ˜706 Ðcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.Ð  Ð2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€do€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€but€presume€thatÏthe€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€all€reasonable€inferencesÏfrom€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547Ð l d Ð(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ð 80 ÐÌà ¸ àFirst,€the€defendant€asserts€that€there€is€insufficient€evidence€to€show€thatÏhe€premeditated,€deliberated€or€intended€to€kill€the€victims€when€he€entered€theÏdormitory€room€to€establish€his€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€for€the€offenses€ofÏattempted€first€degree€murder€and€especially€aggravated€burglary.€€He€argues€that€theÏproof,€at€most,€supports€a€conviction€for€attempted€second€degree€murder.€€TheÏdefendant€acknowledges€that€the€facts€show€some€degree€of€acquiescence€orÏparticipation€by€the€defendant€in€robbing€and€kidnapping€the€victims,€but€he€contendsÏthat€the€jury€could€just€as€reasonably€infer€an€intent€not€to€kill€but€rather€to€immobilizeÏand€leave€the€victims€unharmed€after€their€being€bound.€€However,€the€jury€obviouslyÏdid€not€believe€the€defendantððs€assertion€of€limited€involvement.€€It€is€not€this€courtððsÏfunction€to€reweigh€the€evidence,€and€the€guilty€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€court,Ïresolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560Ð ”%Œ" ÐS.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978).€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€was€charged€with€and€convicted€of€attempted€first€degreeÏmurder.€€To€be€guilty€of€criminal€attempt,€the€defendant€must€have€acted€with€the€kindÏof€culpability€necessary€for€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„12„101.€€At€the€time€ofÐ .ˆ', Ðthe€offense,€first€degree€murder€was€defined€as€the€unlawful,€intentional,€premeditatedÏand€deliberate€killing€of€another.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€œ39„13„201,›€„202(a)(1)€(1991).€€Our€criminalÏcode€defined€a€deliberate€act€as€ð ðone€performed€with€a€cool€purpose,ðð€and€aÏpremeditated€act€as€ð ðone€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment.ðð€€T.C.A.€ððÏ39„13„201(b)(1)„(2)€(1991).€€The€defendant€was€also€charged€with€and€convicted€of€twoÐ Œ7„06 Ðcounts€of€especially€aggravated€burglary.€€To€be€guilty€of€especially€aggravated€burglaryÏas€charged€in€separate€counts€of€the€indictment,€the€defendant€must€have€burglarizedÏthe€House€of€God€Church€with€the€intent€to€commit€first€degree€murder,€and€WilliamÏRex€Weaver€and€Larry€Harrington€must€have€suffered€serious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.Ð l d Ððððð€39„14„402,€„404(a).€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àViewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€jury€couldÏhave€concluded€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€premeditated,Ïdeliberated€and€formed€the€intent€to€kill€the€victims.€€The€evidence€shows€that€theÏdefendant€and€OððBrien€planned€to€go€to€California€and€that€the€defendant€had€gone€toÏhis€motherððs€house€to€say€goodbye€before€leaving€for€California€on€July€16.€€TheÏdefendant€and€OððBrien€did€not€have€a€vehicle€for€the€trip.€€As€the€defendant€and€OððBrienÏwere€walking€toward€the€House€of€God€Church,€OððBrien€removed€the€.45€Colt€semi„¼automatic€gun€loaded€with€hollow„point€bullets€from€the€dufflebag€he€was€carrying€andÏwalked€over€to€the€van€in€which€Mr.€Weaver€was€sitting.€€The€defendant€knew€thatÏOððBrien€had€a€gun€because€they€had€shot€it€in€an€alley.€€OððBrien€then€forced€Mr.ÏWeaver€and€Mr.€Harrington€into€the€dormitory€room€at€gunpoint,€and€the€defendantÏfollowed€them€inside.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€evidence€shows€that€once€inside€the€dormitory€room,€the€defendantÏand€OððBrien€ordered€the€victims€to€lie€face€down€on€the€floor,€but€before€Mr.€HarringtonÏcould€get€all€the€way€to€the€floor,€the€defendant€pulled€Mr.€Harringtonððs€hands€behindÏhis€back€and€used€wire€to€tie€them€together€as€he€forced€him€to€the€floor.€€Mr.ÏHarrington€testified€that€the€defendant€did€not€appear€to€be€scared.€€The€defendant€thenÏbound€Mr.€Harringtonððs€feet€together€with€the€wire€and€then€bound€his€feet€to€his€hands.€ÏAfter€Mr.€Harrington€was€bound,€Mr.€Weaver€was€hit€in€the€head€with€a€lamp,€knockingÏhim€unconscious.€€OððBrien€then€gave€the€defendant€the€electrical€wires€from€the€lamp,Ïand€the€defendant€hog„tied€Mr.€Weaver.€€OððBrien€then€shot€the€victims€in€the€head,Ð Œ7„06 Ðkilling€Mr.€Weaver€and€severely€injuring€Mr.€Harrington.€€The€defendant€and€OððBrienÏimmediately€left€the€church,€taking€the€victimððs€van€as€transportation€for€their€trip€toÏCalifornia.€€We€believe€that€based€on€this€evidence,€any€rational€juror€could€have€foundÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€essential€elements€of€attempted€first€degree€murderÏand€especially€aggravated€burglary.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€second€contention€regarding€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€is€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€show€that€he€knowingly€participated€inÏany€of€the€offenses.€€Specifically,€he€asserts€that€his€conduct€supported€a€conviction€ofÏonly€facilitation€of€the€crimes€of€first€degree€murder,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,Ïand€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€Although€the€defendant€concedes€that€Mr.ÏHarringtonððs€testimony€that€the€defendant€bound€him€would€by€itself€demonstrate€hisÏknowing€participation€in€the€offenses,€he€argues€that€there€was€other€substantiveÏevidence€that€contradicted€the€testimony€and€showed€his€limited€involvement.€ÏHowever,€as€stated€earlier,€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€resolved€in€favor€of€the€stateÏwhen€a€guilty€verdict€is€approved€by€the€trial€court.€€òòHatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€at€630.€€Also,Ð ü!ô Ðthe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€facilitation€of€the€crimes,€and€the€jury€rejected€theÏtheory,€obviously€concluding€that€the€evidence€supported€convictions€for€first€degreeÏmurder,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€TheÏevidence€supports€those€conclusions.€ÌÌà ¸ àThird,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconvictions€given€the€evidence€of€his€serious€mental€problems.€€He€contends€that€theÏexpert,€psychiatric€testimony€and€the€lay€testimony€of€the€defendantððs€mental€illnessÏnegated€any€showing€that€the€defendant€knowingly€participated€in€the€offenses.€€TheÏstate€responds€that€there€is€no€evidence€to€show€that€the€defendant€experienced€anyÏkind€of€psychotic€episode€when€he€committed€the€offenses.€€We€believe€that€there€isÏsome€evidence€that€the€defendant€experienced€a€psychotic€episode€near€the€time€of€theÐ Œ7„06 Ðoffenses,€given€the€defendantððs€odd€behavior€shortly€before€the€offenses€took€place.€ÏNevertheless,€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€decision€that€the€defendant€was€able€toÏform€the€requisite€culpable€mental€state€to€commit€the€offenses€charged.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð   ˜ ÐHallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,€688„92€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€theÐ l d Ðdefendantððs€convictions.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìò òÌà@½ ½ DàII.€€ADMISSION€OF€VIDEOTAPED€STATEMENTó óˆÐ ÜÔ  Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€theÏvideotaped€statement€as€a€statement€by€a€co„conspirator€made€during€the€course€ofÏand€in€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy,€an€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€under€RuleÏ803(1.2),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€The€state€responds€that€the€videotaped€statement€wasÏproperly€admitted.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€exclude€the€videotaped€conversationÏbetween€the€defendant€and€OððBrien,€asserting€that€the€evidence€constitutedÏinadmissible€hearsay,€and€the€introduction€of€the€evidence€would€violate€theÏConfrontation€Clause€of€the€United€States€Constitution€and€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€ÏHe€argued€that€the€videotaped€conversation€did€not€fall€within€the€co„conspiratorÏstatement€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€because€the€statements€were€not€made€duringÏthe€course€of€the€conspiracy.€€Although€he€acknowledged€that€OððBrien€was€available€toÏbe€called€as€a€witness€because€OððBrien€had€entered€a€guilty€plea€and€was€in€jail€at€theÏtime,€the€defendant€argued€that€the€videotape€was€inadmissible€because€its€admissionÏwould€violate€his€right€to€confrontation.€€He€asserted€that€a€different€issue€wasÏpresented€if€the€state€wanted€to€redact€the€videotape.€€The€state€responded€that€theÏvideotape€was€admissible€as€a€statement€made€by€a€co„conspirator.€€It€also€contendedÏthat€it€was€impossible€to€redact€the€videotape.€€The€defendant€countered€that€theÏconspiracy€had€ended€at€the€time€of€the€videotaped€conversation€because€theÏdefendant€and€OððBrien€had€been€arrested,€and€the€defendant€had€given€anÐ ¤7œ06 Ðincriminating€statement.€€The€state€asserted€that€the€conspiracy€was€ongoing€becauseÏthe€defendant€and€OððBrien€were€taking€steps€to€conceal€the€crime€or€thwart€theÏprosecution.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€ruled€that€the€videotape€was€admissible€under€the€co„¼conspirator€statement€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€The€court€did€not€state€the€natureÏof€the€conspiracy,€but€it€ruled€that€the€conspiracy€had€not€ended€at€the€time€of€theÏconversation€between€the€defendant€and€OððBrien.€€The€trial€court€also€noted€thatÏOððBrien€could€be€subpoenaed€by€either€party,€given€that€he€was€confined€in€the€localÏjail.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€record€reflects€that€a€videotape€of€the€approximately€twenty„sevenÏminute€conversation€was€played€for€the€jury€at€trial.€€The€defendant€and€OððBrien€statedÏseveral€times€throughout€the€videotaped€conversation€that€they€believed€they€wereÏbeing€monitored,€and€portions€of€the€videotape€are€difficult€to€understand€because€theÏdefendant€and€OððBrien€were€whispering€or€mouthing€words.€€Throughout€the€videotape,ÏOððBrien€was€seen€repeatedly€feeling€and€examining€the€underside€of€the€table€in€front€ofÏhim.€€At€one€point,€the€defendant€also€looked€under€the€table.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€videotape€reflects€that€OððBrien€called€himself€a€cold„blooded€killer.€ÏOððBrien€denied€that€he€intended€to€shoot€anyone,€stating€that€the€gun€went€off,€and€heÏbecame€nervous€and€scared.€€OððBrien€told€the€defendant€that€he€was€sticking€with€theÏstory.€€The€defendant€immediately€questioned€OððBrien€about€the€nature€of€the€story,Ïand€OððBrien€replied€that€he€said€that€he€stole€a€van€that€had€the€keys€inside€in€a€nearbyÏparking€lot.€€OððBrien€told€the€defendant€that€he€would€not€say€anything€about€what€theÏdefendant€did€because€he€did€not€want€the€defendant€to€tell€on€him.€€OððBrien€also€toldÏthe€defendant€that€he€hoped€that€the€defendant€did€not€tell€what€OððBrien€had€done.€ÏOððBrien€asked€the€defendant€what€the€defendant€told€the€officers,€and€the€defendantÐ Œ7„06 Ðreplied€that€he€told€them€that€the€gun€went€off€and€that€he€did€not€know€exactly€whatÏhappened.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€did€not€tell€the€officers€that€OððBrien€did€it.€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€videotape€shows€that€OððBrien€then€instructed€the€defendant€not€toÏsay€anything€else,€and€the€defendant€replied€that€he€would€not€and€that€he€would€beÏquiet.€€OððBrien€also€told€the€defendant€several€times€that€the€defendant€only€heardÏshots€but€that€he€did€not€see€it€happen.€€The€defendant€replied€each€time,€ð ðI€dreamedÏit.ðð€€The€defendant€stated€that€he€wished€that€he€had€dreamed€it€but€that€they€found€theÏgun.€€OððBrien€told€the€defendant€that€the€gun€would€have€OððBrienððs€prints€all€over€it,€andÏthe€defendant€agreed.€€OððBrien€asked€the€defendant€whether€the€defendant€grabbedÏthe€gun,€but€the€defendantððs€response€was€inaudible.€€OððBrien€then€stated,€ð ðSo,€yourÏfingerprints€are€on€it,€too?ðð€€The€defendant€and€OððBrien€then€discussed€the€deathÏpenalty€and€whether€OððBrien€would€be€sentenced€to€death€if€he€was€found€guilty.€€TheÏdefendant€then€stated€something€about€Exit€85,€and€OððBrien€replied€that€they€shouldÏhave€gotten€off€at€Exit€85.€€OððBrien€then€told€the€defendant€that€he€was€glad€that€theyÏwere€in€jail€because€now€he€did€not€have€to€live€with€it.€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€videotape€reflects€that€the€defendant€and€OððBrien€also€discussed€theirÏhistory€of€mental€illnesses.€€OððBrien€told€the€defendant€that€he€had€some€mentalÏproblems,€and€the€defendant€responded€that€he€also€had€some€problems.€€OððBrien€thenÏstated€that€he€could€tell€the€authorities€that€they€were€ð ðhappyðð€when€it€happened,€andÏperhaps€he€would€not€be€charged€with€first€degree€murder.€€OððBrien€told€the€defendantÏthat€he€was€charged€with€first€degree€murder,€attempted€murder,€and€assault€with€aÏvehicle€on€an€officer.€€OððBrien€stated€that€the€assault€was€based€on€the€roadblock,Ïalthough€he€did€not€have€any€intentions€of€running€anyone€down.€€The€defendantÏreplied€that€someone€said€that€the€defendant€tried€to€run€through€the€roadblock.€€€Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àThe€videotape€shows€that€OððBrien€then€stated€that€he€wondered€if€theÏâ âroom€was€bugged.€€He€then€said€the€following:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àDonððt€.€.€.€tell€ððem€anything€I€did,€just€tell€ððem€stuffÏthat€you€did,€okay?€€And€thatððll€keep€you€out€of€it,€okay?€ÏYaðð€hear.€€And€Iððll€do€the€same€thing.€€Iððm€not€going€toÏsay€anything€you€did.€€Only€the€stuff€I€did,€cause€thatððsÏall€theyððre€worried€about.€€Theyððre€not€worried€aboutÏwhat€you€did.€You€can€tell€ððem€your€story.€.€.€.€€No,€IððmÏnot€gonna€tell€ððem€you€did€anything€with€the€van.€€If€theyÏask,€Iððm€just€gonna€say,€ð ðI€dunno.ðð€€All€right?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€defendant€nodded€affirmatively,€and€OððBrien€continued,€ð ðThis€way€we€donððt€getÏourselves€in€trouble.€€Or€we€get€ourselves€in€trouble,€and€I€give€it€to€you,€you€give€it€toÏme.€€Iððm€already€looking€at€twenty€to€forty€years,€anyway.ðð€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€next€several€minutes€of€the€videotape€are€inaudible€because€theÏdefendant€and€OððBrien€began€whispering.€€It€shows€that€the€two€continued€to€talk,Ïdiscussing€the€charges,€potential€sentences,€and€the€procedure€for€the€trial€and€theÏappeal.€€OððBrien€told€the€defendant€that€the€victim€got€himself€untied€and€called€theÏpolice,€and€he€said€that€there€was€blood€on€the€floor.€€OððBrien€also€stated€that€he€shouldÏhave€tried€to€drive€around€the€cop€at€the€end€of€the€road.€€The€defendantððs€nextÏstatement€is€unintelligible,€and€OððBrien€stated€that€he€did€not€have€any€shots€left€in€theÏgun.€€OððBrien€told€the€defendant€that€they€thought€that€the€defendant€helped€him€outÏand€that€they€were€going€to€shoot€them€in€the€car.€€OððBrien€then€reminded€theÏdefendant€not€to€tell€what€OððBrien€did.€€OððBrien€told€the€defendant,€ð ðAll€we€wanted€wasÏthe€car.€€We€did€not€want€that€to€happen.€€You€know€that.€€I€donððt€even€know€why€I€didÏthat.ðð€€OððBrien€told€the€defendant€again€that€the€defendant€could€tell€the€police€whateverÏhe€wanted€as€long€as€he€did€not€involve€OððBrien.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€videotape€reflects€that€OððBrien€then€asked€the€defendant€how€manyÏshots€he€heard€and€how€many€shots€that€he€told€the€police€had€been€fired.€€TheÏdefendantððs€response€was€unintelligible.€€OððBrien€then€told€the€defendant,€ð ðAlright,€thatððsÏthe€one€that€hit€the€floor.€€Thatððs€all€you€need€to€tell€ððem,€the€one€that€hit€the€floor.€Ð r8j17 ÐAlright?ðð€€He€explained€to€the€defendant€that€one€shot€hit€the€floor€as€he€was€trying€toÏdischarge€the€gun.€€OððBrien€said€that€he€did€not€know€what€he€was€doing€because€heÏwent€into€shock,€a€state€of€hysteria.€€OððBrien€stated€that€he€wondered€what€the€victimððsÏfamily€was€doing,€and€he€then€called€himself€a€cold„blooded€killer.€€OððBrien€and€theÏdefendant€then€whispered€close€to€each€other,€and€the€defendant€looked€under€theÏtable.€€OððBrien€then€stated€that€the€defendant€did€not€even€need€to€mention€his€name.€ÏOððBrien€told€the€defendant€that€when€he€tried€to€discharge€the€gun,€ð ðthe€gun€went€off.€€IÏgot€scared,€nervous.€€Get€it?ðð€€The€defendant€then€asked€OððBrien€where€he€got€the€gun.€ÏWhen€OððBrien€stated€that€the€gun€was€stolen,€the€defendant€replied€several€times,€ð ðWeÏcould€have€left€it€there.ðð€€OððBrien€responded€that€the€police€would€have€found€the€gun,Ïand€the€defendant€stated,€ð ðWe€got€our€story€together.ðð€€OððBrien€told€the€defendant,Ïð ðWhatððs€done€is€done.ðð€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€made€a€statement€that€was€unintelligible,€and€OððBrienÏresponded€that€the€police€found€it.€€The€defendant€then€said,€ð ðSo€they€know€we€were€inÏthere.ðð€€OððBrien€responded€affirmatively,€stating€that€the€police€found€the€broken€lampÏon€the€floor€and€that€they€had€a€huge€box€of€evidence.€€OððBrien€then€reminded€theÏdefendant€that€he€did€not€have€to€mention€OððBrienððs€name.€€The€videotape€ends€withÏOððBrien€stating,€ð ðYou€know€theyððre€listening.ðð€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àHearsay€is€defined€as€ð ða€statement,€other€than€one€made€by€the€declarantÏwhile€testifying€at€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€in€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matterÏasserted.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c).€€Hearsay€is€not€admissible€except€as€provided€by€theÏrules€of€evidence€or€otherwise€by€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€802.€€Pursuant€to€RuleÏ803(1.2)(A),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€the€hearsay€rule€does€not€exclude€a€ð ðstatement€offeredÏagainst€a€party€that€is€.€.€.€the€partyððs€own€statement€in€either€an€individual€or€aÏrepresentative€capacity.ðð€€The€hearsay€rule€also€does€not€exclude€ð ða€statement€by€a€€Ïco„conspirator€of€a€party€during€the€course€of€and€in€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy.ðð€Ð Œ7„06 ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€803(1.2)(E).€€Admission€into€evidence€is€conditioned€upon€these€factsÏbeing€proved€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Stamperóó,€863€S.W.2d€404,Ð ÔÌ Ð406€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà ¸ àInitially,€we€note€that€the€statements€made€by€the€defendant€during€theÏconversation€with€OððBrien€qualify€as€admissions€under€Rule€803(1.2)(A).€€Thus,€theyÏwere€admissible.€€However,€we€must€also€determine€whether€the€trial€court€properlyÏruled€that€OððBrienððs€statements€contained€on€the€videotaped€conversation€meet€theÏrequirements€for€the€co„conspirator€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€Declarations€of€a€co„¼conspirator€that€would€otherwise€be€inadmissible€may€be€offered€as€proof€when€theÏfollowing€conditions€are€met:€(1)€there€is€evidence€of€the€existence€of€the€conspiracyÏand€the€connection€of€the€declarant€and€the€defendant€to€it;€(2)€the€declaration€wasÏmade€during€the€pendency€of€the€conspiracy;€and€(3)€the€declaration€was€made€inÏfurtherance€of€the€conspiracy.€€òòState€v.€Gayloróó,€862€S.W.2d€546,€553€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð d\ Ð1992).€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€asserts€that€a€conspiracy€for€hearsay€exception€purposesÏdoes€not€extend€to€measures€of€concealment€or€obstruction€of€justice.€€The€stateÏresponds€that€under€T.C.A.€ðð€39„12„103(e)(1),€the€conspiracy€was€ongoing€because€theÏdefendant€and€OððBrien€were€undertaking€measures€to€conceal€the€crime€and€obstructÏjustice€by€manufacturing€a€story€to€frustrate€police€investigation.€€In€pertinent€part,€thatÏstatute€provides:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(a)€€The€offense€of€conspiracy€is€committed€if€two€(2)€orÏmore€people,€each€having€the€culpable€mental€stateÏrequired€for€the€offense€which€is€the€object€of€theÏconspiracy€and€each€acting€for€the€purpose€ofÏpromoting€or€facilitating€commission€of€an€offense,Ïagree€that€one€(1)€or€more€of€them€will€engage€inÏconduct€which€constitutes€an€offense.Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ¸ àÐ ¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ¸ à.€.€.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(e)(1)€€Conspiracy€is€a€continuing€course€of€conductÏwhich€terminates€when€the€objectives€of€the€conspiracyÐ r8j17 Ðare€completed€or€the€agreement€that€they€be€completed€Ïis€abandoned€by€the€person€and€by€those€with€whomÏthe€person€conspired.€€The€objectives€of€the€conspiracyÏinclude,€but€are€not€limited€to,€escape€from€the€crime,Ïdistribution€of€the€proceeds€of€the€crime,€and€measures,Ïother€than€silence,€for€concealing€the€crime€orÏobstructing€justice€in€relation€to€it.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(2)€Abandonment€of€a€conspiracy€is€presumed€if€neitherÏthe€person€nor€anyone€with€whom€the€person€conspiredÏdoes€an€overt€act€in€pursuance€of€the€conspiracy€duringÏthe€applicable€period€of€limitation.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(3)€If€an€individual€abandons€the€agreement,€theÏconspiracy€is€terminated€as€to€that€person€only€if€andÏwhen€the€person€advises€those€with€whom€the€personÏconspired€of€the€abandonment,€or€the€person€informsÏlaw€enforcement€authorities€of€the€conspiracy€and€of€theÏpersonððs€participation€therein.€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓT.C.A.€ðð€39„12„103.€€The€statute,€by€its€terms,€extends€the€objectives€of€the€offense€ofÏconspiracy€to€commit€a€substantive€crime€to€include€concealing€the€crime€and€Ïobstructing€justice€relative€to€it.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àHowever,€subsection€(g)€states€that€the€statute€is€not€ð ðintended€to€modifyÏthe€evidentiary€rules€allowing€statements€of€co„conspirators€in€furtherance€of€aÏconspiracy.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„12„103(g).€€The€defendant€argues€that€this€provision€rendersÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„12„103€inapplicable€to€the€determination€of€whether€the€co„conspiratorÏexception€to€the€hearsay€rule€applies.€€Previous€case€law€is€less€than€clear€as€to€Ïwhether€the€criminal€code€definition€of€the€offense€of€conspiracy€has€any€bearing€on€Ïthe€requirements€for€the€co„conspirator€hearsay€exception.€€òòSeeóó€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,Ð ø*ð#( ÐòòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€803(1.2).6,€at€521€(3d€ed.€1995).Ð Ä,¼%* ÐÌà ¸ àIn€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381€(Tenn.€1995),€the€defendant€wasÐ \0T). Ðconvicted€of€murder,€armed€robbery€and€conspiracy€to€commit€a€felony.€€On€appeal,€heÏcomplained€that€statements€by€his€co„conspirators€made€to€others€well€after€the€murderÏand€robbery€occurred€were€hearsay€and€improperly€admitted€into€evidence.€€Thus,€theÏdefendant€framed€the€issue€as€an€evidentiary€one.€€Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àIn€discussing€the€issue,€the€court€noted€that€historically€all€acts€orÏdeclarations€of€a€co„conspirator€may€be€given€in€evidence€against€another€co„¼conspiratorÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àfrom€the€time€the€conspiracy€had€its€origin€until€itsÏdesign€has€been€consummated,€or€until€it€is€abandoned.€ÏBut€the€declarations€or€acts€of€one€cannot€be€admittedÏagainst€another,€unless€the€facts€and€circumstancesÏwarrant€the€conclusion€that€a€conspiracy€was€existing€atÏthe€time€of€such€declarations€or€acts.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  Ó910€S.W.2d€at€384„85.€€However,€it€also€noted€the€definition€of€a€criminal€conspiracy€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„12„103,€indicating€that€it€abrogated€our€conspiracy€law€relative€to€how€longÏa€conspiracy€continues,€although€the€court€stated€that€it€was€applying€the€priorÏconspiracy€law€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€910€S.W.2d€at€385.€ÌÌà ¸ àThen€the€court€referred€to€Rule€803(1.2)(E),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€and€notedÏthat€the€analysis€under€it€was€the€same€as€the€prior€law.€€It€concluded€that€the€robberyÏconspiracy€ended€with€the€robbery€and€stated€that€the€murder€of€the€robbery€victim€wasÏincidental€to€it.€€As€for€a€conspiracy€to€conceal€the€murder€and€the€murder€weapon,€itÏconcluded€that€subsequent€statements€about€the€robbery€and€shooting€went€far€beyondÏconcealment€and€were€inadmissible.€€òòId.óó€at€386.Ð ®$¦! ÐÌà ¸ àUnfortunately,€our€supreme€court€did€not€explore€the€relationship,€if€any,Ïbetween€T.C.A.€ðð€39„12„103€and€Rule€803(1.2)(E),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€However,€itsÏrecognition€of€the€evidentiary€rule€reflects€that€the€rule€will€control€on€the€issue€ofÏadmissibility€of€hearsay€statements.€€Also,€given€the€express€statement€in€the€statuteÏthat€the€evidentiary€rules€are€not€modified,€we€will€follow€suit€in€the€present€case,€whichÏdoes€not€charge€the€offense€of€conspiracy.Ì€Ìà ¸ àAs€previously€noted,€historically,€a€conspiracy€to€commit€a€substantiveÏcrime€did€not€extend€to€measures€for€concealing€the€crime€or€obstructing€justice,€absentÏspecific€proof€showing€that€the€concealment€of€the€crime€or€the€obstruction€of€justiceÐ r8j17 Ðfurthered€the€objectives€of€the€conspiracy.€€òòGayloróó,€862€S.W.2d€at€554€(statementsÐ  Ðreflecting€an€ongoing€effort€to€conceal€held€to€be€made€during€the€course€of€conspiracyÏto€commit€first€degree€murder€to€collect€the€victimððs€life€insurance€when€the€insuranceÏproceeds,€the€goal€of€the€conspiracy,€had€not€been€collected);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòGrunewald€v.Ð l d ÐUnited€Statesóó,€353€U.S.€404,€401„05,€77€S.€Ct.€963,€972„74€(1957)€(ð ða€vital€distinctionÐ 80 Ðmust€be€made€between€acts€of€concealment€done€in€furtherance€of€the€òòmainóó€criminalÐ ü  Ðobjectives€of€the€conspiracy,€and€acts€of€concealment€done€after€these€centralÏobjectives€have€been€attained,€for€the€purpose€only€of€covering€up€after€the€crimeðð).€€AÏcontinuing€agreement€to€conceal€the€crime€after€its€commission€is€not€to€be€impliedÏfrom€the€mere€fact€that€a€conspiracy€to€commit€the€substantive€crime€existed€and€overtÏacts€were€taken€to€cover€up€the€crime.€€òòSeeóó€òòKrulewitch€v.€United€Statesóó,€336€U.S.€440,Ð ø Ð443„44,€69€S.€Ct.€716,€718„19€(1949);€òòGrunewaldóó,€353€U.S.€at€401„05,€77€S.€Ct.€at€972„Ð ÌÄ Ð74.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€the€defendant€and€OððBrien€were€spotted€in€the€stolenÏvan€around€2:00€p.m.€in€Jackson,€Tennessee,€approximately€an€hour€and€one„half€afterÏthe€offenses€occurred.€€Any€conspiracy€to€commit€the€murders€and€kidnapping€wouldÏhave€ended€upon€their€consummation€at€the€church,€absent€proof€by€a€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence€that€the€conspiracy€continued.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€fact€that€theyÏwere€using€the€stolen€van€to€go€west€would€indicate€that€their€goal€for€the€robbery€ofÏobtaining€a€vehicle€in€order€to€go€to€California€was€still€being€pursued€at€the€time€of€theirÏarrest.€€However,€even€that€goal€ended€when€the€two€were€arrested.€€Moreover,€theÏrecorded€discussion€between€the€defendant€and€OððBrien€reflects€that€no€previousÏagreement€to€conceal€or€obstruct€justice€existed€relative€to€the€crimes.€€Thus,€weÏbelieve€the€evidence€preponderates€against€a€finding€that€OððBrienððs€statements€aboutÏthe€offenses€were€admissible€as€co„conspirator€statements€under€the€originalÏconspiracy.€€This€does€not€end€our€inquiry,€though.€€In€òòWalkeróó,€our€supreme€court€Ð À5¸.4 Ðnoted€that€a€separate€conspiracy€to€conceal€the€circumstances€of€the€original€crimeÐ Œ7„06 Ðcould€exist€and€might€give€rise€to€the€admission€of€concealment€statements€in€a€case€inÏwhich€the€original€conspiracy€is€relevant€and€proven.€€Such€proof€existed€in€this€case.¼à ¸ àÌà ¸ àThe€videotape€of€the€conversation€between€the€defendant€and€OððBrienÏreflects€that€OððBrien€told€the€defendant€not€to€say€anything€else,€and€the€defendantÏagreed€to€remain€quiet.€€The€defendant€also€nodded€when€OððBrien€told€the€defendantÏnot€to€tell€the€police€about€OððBrienððs€conduct.€€We€believe€that€this€evidence€sufficientlyÏestablishes€a€conspiracy€to€conceal€the€earlier€committed€crimes€and€to€obstruct€justiceÏin€relation€to€them.€ÌÌà ¸ àHowever,€statements€made€before€the€existence€of€the€conspiracy€are€notÏadmissible€as€a€co„conspirator€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€òòWalkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€atÐ ÌÄ Ð385.€€In€this€case,€the€conspiracy€to€conceal€did€not€begin€until€OððBrien€told€theÏdefendant€not€to€say€anything€else€and€the€defendant€agreed,€stating€that€he€would€beÏvery€quiet.€€Therefore,€any€statement€made€by€OððBrien€before€the€defendant€agreed€toÏbe€quiet€should€not€have€been€admitted€because€the€statements€were€not€made€duringÏthe€course€of€the€conspiracy.€ÌÌà ¸ àAs€for€the€statements€made€by€OððBrien€after€the€conspiracy€to€concealÏbegan,€we€hold€that€they€were€made€in€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy€to€conceal€theÏsubstantive€crimes.€€For€the€statement€to€be€made€in€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy,€itÏmust€advance€in€some€way€the€objectives€of€the€conspiracy€and€not€merely€inform€theÏlistener€of€the€declarantððs€activities.€€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161,€170€(Tenn.Ð .ˆ', Ð1994).€€In€this€regard,€we€note€that€a€statement€is€not€in€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy€ifÏit€is€merely€ð ða€narrative€statement€of€past€conduct€between€the€conspirators.ðð€òòWalkeróó,Ð (2 +0 Ð910€S.W.2d€at€386.€€We€also€note€that€casual€and€purposeless€conversation€betweenÏor€among€co„conspirators€may€not€satisfy€the€requirement€that€the€conversationÏoccurred€in€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy.€€òòId.óó€at€170.€€Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àWe€believe€that€OððBrienððs€statements€detailing€the€commission€of€theÏoffenses€advanced€the€conspiracy€to€conceal€the€substantive€crimes€in€that€theyÏallowed€the€defendant€and€OððBrien€to€match€their€stories.€€Similarly,€OððBrienððsÏdeclarations€that€he€had€mental€problems€suggested€that€he€wanted€the€defendant€toÏcorroborate€his€story,€thus€advancing€the€conspiracy€to€conceal€the€crimes.€€TheÏdiscussions€relating€to€the€evidence€obtained€by€police€permitted€the€defendant€andÏOððBrien€to€tailor€their€version€of€the€crimes€to€the€evidence€against€them.€ÌÌà ¸ àAlthough€the€three€requirements€for€the€co„conspirator€hearsay€exceptionÏhave€been€met,€the€issue€now€becomes€whether€OððBrienððs€statements€made€during€theÏnew€conspiracy€to€conceal€the€substantive€crimes€may€be€used€to€show€the€defendantððsÏinvolvement€in€the€crimes€charged.€€We€note€that€some€jurisdictions€hold€that€evidenceÏof€the€new€conspiracy€to€conceal€an€earlier,€completed€conspiracy€is€inadmissible€toÏshow€participation€in€or€the€acts€of€the€conspiracy€to€commit€a€substantive€crime.€€òòSeeóóÐ d\ ÐòòUnited€States€v.€DiDomenicoóó,€78€F.3d€294,€303„04€(7th€Cir.€1996),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€117€S.Ð 0 ( ÐCt.€507€(1996).€€Yet€other€jurisdictions€hold€that€the€statements€made€by€co„¼conspirators€during€the€cover„up€conspiracy€are€admissible€in€the€trial€for€theÏsubstantive€offense€if€the€statements€are€made€at€a€time€proximate€to€the€commissionÏof€the€substantive€crime.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Buschkopfóó,€373€N.W.2d€756,€764„65€(Minn.Ð `'X $ Ð1985);€òòPeople€v.€Meagheróó,€388€N.E.2d€801,€805€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1979).€€We€believe€thatÐ ,)$"& Ðthe€latter€is€appropriate,€and€we€conclude€that€the€statements€made€by€OððBrienÏpursuant€to€and€in€furtherance€of€concealing€the€original€conspiracy€that€had€just€endedÏwere€admissible.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€addition,€we€believe€that€most€of€OððBrienððs€statements€were€admissibleÏin€order€to€give€the€defendantððs€statements€sensible€context.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€598Ð ô3ì,2 ÐS.W.2d€209,€223€(Tenn.€1980).€€The€record€reflects€that€the€primary€value€of€theÏvideotape€to€the€state€was€that€it€showed€that€the€defendantððs€mental€awareness€duringÐ Œ7„06 Ðthe€conversation€rebutted€his€claim€that€because€of€his€mental€condition,€he€could€notÏform€the€requisite€mental€intent.€€We€believe€that€under€òòJonesóó,€OððBrienððs€statementsÐ ÔÌ Ðwere€admissible€for€such€purposes.€€However,€òòJonesóó€holds€that€a€trial€court€should€Ð   ˜ Ðinstruct€the€jury€that€such€statements€are€not€to€be€considered€as€substantive€evidenceÏbut€only€as€an€aid€to€provide€meaning€to€a€defendantððs€statement.€€Such€an€instructionÏwas€not€given€in€this€case.€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€any€event,€we€hold€that€any€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€Although€OððBrienððs€statements€contain€several€references€to€the€specifics€of€theÏcrimes,€the€same€evidence€was€properly€introduced€through€other€means.€€Moreover,ÏOððBrienððs€statements€implicated€OððBrien€and€supported€the€defendantððs€theory€thatÏOððBrien€was€the€shooter.€€OððBrien€called€himself€a€cold„blooded€killer€and€stated€that€heÏdid€not€plan€on€shooting€the€victims.€€Also,€OððBrien€told€the€defendant€what€he€shouldÏand€should€not€tell€the€police,€suggesting€that€OððBrien€was€the€leader€of€the€two.€€UnderÏthese€circumstances,€we€hold€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€was€notÏharmed€by€the€admission€of€OððBrienððs€statements.€ÌÌà@¬¬Dàò òIII.€€LIMITATION€OF€EXPERT€TESTIMONYó óˆÐ ”%Œ" Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€limiting€the€testimony€ofÏDr.€Francois€to€the€contents€of€his€report€because€he€did€not€include€Dr.€Francoisðð€nameÏon€the€list€of€expert€witnesses€given€to€the€state€as€required€by€Rule€12.2(b),€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.,€relating€to€notice€of€intent€to€use€expert€testimony€of€the€defendantððs€mentalÏcondition.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€incorrectly€applied€Rule€12.2(b)€because€Dr.ÏFrancoisðð€testimony€related€to€a€physical€condition,€not€a€mental€condition,€of€theÏdefendant.€€The€defendant€contends€that€the€testimony€should€not€have€been€limitedÏbecause€he€complied€with€the€requirements€of€discovery€pursuant€to€Rule€16(b)(1)(B),ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€as€he€gave€a€copy€of€Dr.€Francoisðð€report€to€the€state€before€trial.€ÌÐ ˜706 Ðà ¸ àBefore€Dr.€Francois€testified,€a€bench€conference€was€held,€and€the€stateÏobjected€to€Dr.€Francoisðð€testimony€because€it€had€neither€received€Dr.€Francoisðð€reportÏduring€discovery€nor€been€given€notice€that€he€would€be€called€as€an€expert€witness.€ÏDefense€counsel€stated€that€Dr.€Francoisðð€report€was€contained€in€the€staff€conferenceÏreport€filed€by€Dr.€Faroogue,€although€he€conceded€that€Dr.€Francoisðð€name€did€notÏappear€on€the€report.€€In€response,€the€state€withdrew€its€objection€as€long€as€theÏtestimony€of€Dr.€Francois€was€limited€to€the€one€paragraph€contained€in€the€staffÏconference€report.€€Defense€counsel€responded€that€Dr.€Francois€would€only€testifyÏabout€the€one€paragraph.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€then€permitted€Dr.€Francois€to€testify€but€limited€hisÏtestimony€to€the€paragraph€contained€in€the€staff€conference€report.€€Ô‡X¹mXX XŒéÔContained€in€theÐ ÌÄ Ðphysical€examination€portion€of€the€staff€conference€report€is€a€paragraph€regarding€theÏphysical€examination€of€the€defendant€on€June€1,€1994.€€It€describes€the€defendantððsÏgeneral€appearance,€including€his€height,€weight,€temperature,€pulse€and€bloodÏpressure.€€It€also€states€that€the€findings€were€normal,€with€the€exception€of€an€enlargedÏright€testicle.Ô#† XŒéXXX¹mIV#ÔÐ 0$(  ÐÌà ¸ àDr.€Francois€testified€that€the€results€of€his€examination€were€that€heÏfound€a€lesion€of€the€right€testicle.€€When€defense€counsel€asked€him€to€describe€theÏlesion,€the€state€objected€on€the€ground€that€Dr.€Francoisðð€testimony€was€limited€to€hisÏreport,€and€the€trial€court€sustained€the€objection.€€Defense€counsel€then€had€Dr.ÏFrancois€read€his€findings€from€his€report,€including€the€finding€that€the€defendant€hadÏan€enlarged€right€testicle,€and€asked€him€what€would€cause€an€enlarged€right€testicle.€ÏThe€state€objected€on€the€same€grounds,€and€the€trial€court€sustained€the€objection.€ÏDefense€counsel€immediately€asked€for€a€jury„out€hearing€in€order€to€make€an€offer€ofÏproof.ÌÐ 816 Ðà ¸ àDuring€the€offer€of€proof,€Dr.€Francois€testified€that€the€defendantððsÏenlarged€testicle€could€be€caused€by€a€birth€defect,€excessive€trauma,€abnormal€growthÏor€by€wrapping€a€band€around€the€shaft€of€the€penis.€€He€stated€that€to€result€in€anÏenlarged€testicle,€a€band€would€have€to€be€used€for€a€long€period€of€time.€€He€said€thatÏit€would€cause€great€pain.€€Dr.€Francois€stated€that€the€elastic€band€that€was€foundÏwrapped€around€the€defendantððs€waist€could€also€be€wrapped€around€the€base€of€theÏpenis.€€Defense€counsel€argued€that€the€excluded€testimony€was€relevant€because€itÏcorroborated€evidence€that€the€defendant€used€self„inflicted€pain€to€focus€his€attentionÏelsewhere€during€a€psychotic€episode€and€that€the€defendant€was€wearing€a€strap€whenÏhe€was€taken€to€the€jail.€€The€trial€court€then€stated€that€it€had€initially€bent€the€rules€toÏpermit€Dr.€Francois€to€testify.ÌÌà ¸ àPursuant€to€Rule€12.2(b),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€the€defendant€must€giveÏwritten€notice€to€the€state€before€trial€and€file€a€copy€of€such€notice€with€the€clerk€if€theÏdefendant€ð ðintends€to€introduce€testimony€relating€to€a€mental€disease€or€defect€or€anyÏother€mental€condition€of€the€defendant€bearing€on€the€issue€of€his€.€.€.€guilt€.€.€.€.ðð€€If€theÏdefendant€fails€to€provide€notice€as€required,€the€court€may€exclude€the€testimony€ofÏany€expert€witness€offered€by€the€defendant€on€the€issue€of€the€defendantððs€mentalÏcondition.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.2(d);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Russellóó,€735€S.W.2d€840,€842Ð `'X $ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)€(trial€court€properly€excluded€evidence€of€expert€testimony€onÏthe€issue€of€mental€condition€when€the€defendant€failed€to€provide€written€notice€to€theÏstate€and€failed€to€file€a€copy€of€the€notice).€€The€defendant€must€also€permit€the€stateÏto€inspect€and€copy€any€results€or€reports€of€physical€or€mental€examinations.€€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€16(b)(1)(B).€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€state€argues€that€the€defendant€has€waived€the€issue€pursuant€toÏRule€103(a)(2),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€by€failing€to€object€on€grounds€that€the€testimony€shouldÏnot€have€been€limited€because€he€complied€with€Rule€16(b)(1)(B),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,Ð Œ7„06 Ðand€on€grounds€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€applied€Rule€12.2(b),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€ÏWe€do€not€believe€that€the€issue€has€been€waived.€€Pursuant€to€Rule€103(a)(2),€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.,€error€may€not€be€based€upon€a€trial€courtððs€decision€to€exclude€evidenceÏunless€the€substance€of€the€evidence€and€the€specific€evidentiary€basis€supportingÏadmission€were€made€known€to€the€court€by€offer€or€were€apparent€from€the€context.€ÏThe€defendant€followed€these€requirements.ÌÌà ¸ àWe€hold€that€the€defendant€was€required€to€give€the€state€advance€noticeÏof€his€intent€to€call€Dr.€Francois€as€an€expert€witness€under€Rule€12.2(b),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.€€€We€reject€his€argument€that€no€notice€was€required€because€he€desired€toÏintroduce€evidence€of€a€physical€condition,€as€opposed€to€a€mental€condition,€of€theÏdefendant.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€sought€to€introduce€Dr.€Francoisðð€testimony€toÏcorroborate€other€testimony€of€the€defendantððs€mental€condition.€€In€this€regard,€Dr.ÏFrancoisðð€proffered€testimony€qualified€as€ð ðexpert€testimony€relating€to€a€mental€diseaseÏor€defectðð€under€Rule€12.2(b),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€€If,€as€the€defendant€contends,€theÏtestimony€related€solely€to€the€defendantððs€physical€condition,€the€evidence€would€beÏirrelevant€and€thus€inadmissible.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401,€402.€€Therefore,€theÐ È#À  Ðdefendant€was€required€to€provide€the€state€with€advance€notice€that€he€intended€to€callÏDr.€Francois€as€an€expert€witness.€ÌÌà ¸ àPursuant€to€Rule€12.2(d),€the€trial€court€may€exclude€the€testimony€of€anyÏexpert€witness€offered€by€the€defendant€on€the€issue€of€the€defendantððs€mentalÏcondition€if€pretrial€notice€of€the€intent€to€present€such€expert€testimony€is€not€given.€ÏRule€12.2,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€conforms€to€the€federal€rule.€€Committee€Comment,€Tenn.ÏR.€Crim.€P.€12.2.€€The€objective€of€the€requirement€of€pretrial€notice€is€to€give€the€stateÏtime€to€rebut€evidence€of€a€defendantððs€mental€condition,€which€often€requires€relianceÏupon€expert€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€Notes€of€Advisory€Committee€on€Rules,€Fed.€R.€Crim.€P.Ð À5¸.4 Ð12.2(b),€18€U.S.C.A.€(West€1986).€€However,€in€considering€the€exclusion€of€evidence:Ð Œ7„06 ÐÑn?*ÑÑTÜÑÑ4ÑÑ  ÑñgRñœÑJ*ÑÑ4ÑÑ  ÑñgRñœñdRñÓÓÓ  ÓñdRññgRñ›ñgRññcRñà8 ¸ àñcRñ›ñdRñÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àñdRñœñcRñ€›ñcRññbRñ€›à8¸ x¸ xàñbRññcRññbRñ€ñbRññcRñevidence›€should€not€be€excluded€except€when€it€isÏshown€that€a€party€is€actually€prejudiced€by€the€failureÏto€comply€with€the€discovery€order€and€that€theÏprejudice€cannot€be€otherwise€eradicated.€€TheÏexclusionary€rule€should€not€be€invoked€merely€toÏpunish€either€the€State€or€the€defendant€for€theÏdeliberate€conduct€of€counsel€in€failing€to€comply€with€aÏdiscovery€order.€€The€courtððs€contempt€powers€shouldÏbe€used€for€this€purpose.€€Rules€12€and€16,€as€well€asÏthe€other€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€were€adopted€toÏpromote€justice;€they€should€not€be€employed€toÏfrustrate€justice€by€lightly€depriving€the€State€or€theÏdefendant€of€competent€evidence.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌñeRñÓÓÓ  ÓñeRñòòñeRñÓÓÓ  ÓœñeRññfRññeRñà0 ¸ àñeRññfRñState›€v.€Garlandóó,€617€S.W.2d€176,€185„86€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€(citation€omitted).€Ð È”  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€did€not€inquire€into€the€potential€prejudice€to€theÏstate€by€the€admission€of€Dr.€Francoisðð€testimony€explaining€the€possible€causes€of€theÏenlarged€testicle.€€Rather,€it€summarily€ruled€that€Dr.€Francoisðð€testimony€should€beÏlimited€to€the€statement€provided€in€the€report.€€Before€excluding€evidence€forÏnoncompliance€with€Rule€12.2(b),€the€trial€court€must€determine€that€the€admissionÏwould€prejudice€the€party€against€whom€the€evidence€is€introduced€and€that€theÏprejudice€cannot€be€mitigated€by€other€means.€€Without€a€proper€inquiry€by€the€trialÏcourt,€there€is€no€way€to€conclude€from€the€existing€record€whether€the€state€wasÏprejudiced€or€whether€the€prejudice€could€have€been€mitigated€to€such€an€extent€as€toÏallow€the€admission€of€the€evidence.€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€by€limiting€Dr.€Francoisðð€testimony€to€the€report€without€conducting€thisÏinquiry.Ìà ¸ àÌà ¸ àHowever,€we€hold€that€the€error€was€harmless.€€Dr.€Auble€testified€that€theÏdefendant€told€her€that€he€inflicted€pain€on€himself€by€wrapping€thick€bands€around€hisÏgenitals,€allowing€him€to€control€tension€that€resulted€from€the€voices€he€heard.€€TheÏdefendantððs€father€and€stepmother€testified€that€the€bands€the€defendant€wore€around€œñhRñÐ   5ì,2 ÐñhRññiRñÑ4ÑÑÜTÑñiRñhis›€arms€were€so€tight€that€the€defendant€could€barely€bend€his€arms€and€that€theÏbands€caused€his€arms€to€swell€and€become€discolored.€€Evidence€was€also€introducedÏthat€the€defendant€was€wearing€an€elastic€band€at€the€time€of€his€arrest.€€From€thisÏevidence,€the€jury€could€infer€that€the€defendant€wrapped€the€bands€around€his€genitals,Ïcausing€the€enlargement€of€his€right€testicle.€€We€do€not€believe€that€the€erroneousÏexclusion€of€Dr.€Francoisðð€testimony€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment.€ÏòòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).Ð ÐÈ  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà@ŒŒ!Dàò òIV.€€ADMISSION€OF€9„1„1€TAPEó óˆÐ h` Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€the€9„1„1Ïtape€because€the€evidence€had€little€or€no€probative€value€and€that€any€probative€valueÏwas€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€and€by€the€needlessÏpresentation€of€cumulative€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€He€also€argues€that€theÐ ¤œ Ðtrial€court€erroneously€allowed€the€state€to€use€the€9„1„1€tape€to€bolster€theÏuncontradicted€testimony€of€the€victim.€€The€defendant€contends€that€the€state€shouldÏhave€been€limited€to€introducing€Mr.€Harringtonððs€testimony€detailing€his€conversationÏwith€the€9„1„1€operator.€€The€state€responds€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€admittingÏthe€9„1„1€tape€because€the€tape€was€relevant€to€show€the€identity€of€the€defendant€andÏOððBrien€and€because€it€corroborated€several€parts€of€the€victimððs€testimony.€€The€stateÏasserts€that€the€tape€is€even€more€reliable€than€the€victimððs€testimony€because€itÏcontains€statements€made€moments€after€the€offenses€took€place.€€We€hold€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€by€admitting€the€tape€but€that€the€error€was€harmless.à Ð à€€€€€€€€€Ð Ð,È%* ÐÌà ¸ àBefore€trial,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€exclude€the€9„1„1€tape,Ïarguing€that€it€was€inadmissible€because€it€was€unfairly€prejudicial€and€constitutedÏhearsay.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403,€802.€€He€argued€that€the€tape€was€of€marginalÐ 4ø,2 Ðprobative€value€because€neither€identity€nor€the€victimððs€injuries€were€contested€by€theÏñiRñÑ<,ÑÑ7€ Œé XXdæ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑñiRñdefendant.€€He€argued€that€the€tape€was€extremely€inflammatory.€€The€defendantÐ ˜706 ÐÑ<,ÑÑ7€ Œé XXdæ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑñiRñÑ<,ÑÑ7€ Œé XXdæ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑñiRññfRñÑ<,ÑÑ7€ üæ XXdæ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑñfRñasserted€that€the€victim€could€testify€regarding€his€statements€to€the€9„1„1€operator€butÏñhRñÑ<,ÑÑ7€ Œé XXdæ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑñhRñthat€the€9„1„1€tape€itself€was€inadmissible€because€the€probative€value€wasÏñgRñÑ<,ÑÑ7€ Œé XXdæ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑñgRñsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€He€also€argued€that€theÏintroduction€of€the€tape€constituted€improper€bolstering€of€the€victimððs€uncontradictedÏtestimony.€€The€state€responded€that€the€9„1„1€tape€was€particularly€relevant€becauseÏthe€victim€described€the€offenses€committed€against€him€and€the€perpetrators.€€The€trialÏcourt€held€that€the€9„1„1€tape€was€admissible,€ruling€that€the€probative€valueÏoutweighed€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ÌÌà ¸ àAt€trial,€the€victim€testified€during€direct€examination€regarding€hisÏconversation€with€the€9„1„1€operator,€and€the€9„1„1€tape€was€played€for€the€jury.€€Ô‡X¹mXX XŒéÔItÐ ø Ðreveals€that€Mr.€Harrington€told€the€operator€that€he€and€Mr.€Weaver€had€been€shot€inÏthe€head,€that€there€was€a€lot€of€blood,€and€that€they€needed€help.€€He€stated€that€theyÏwere€in€a€dormitory€room€at€the€House€of€God€Church€on€Heiman€Street.€€He€said€thatÏhe€and€Mr.€Weaver€worked€for€National€Guardian€Security€Services€and€that€they€wereÏworking€at€the€church.€€Mr.€Harrington€told€the€operator€that€they€were€eating€lunch€in€aÏwhite,€Astro€van€when€a€white€man€and€a€black€man€forced€them€inside€the€dormitoryÏroom,€shot€them,€and€then€took€their€van.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€hear€the€men€leaveÏbut€that€they€were€no€longer€in€the€room.€€Mr.€Harrington€stated€that€he€did€not€know€theÏtwo€men€and€did€not€know€what€they€were€wearing.€€The€tape€reflects€that€when€theÏoperator€asked€Mr.€Harrington€to€describe€the€perpetrators,€Mr.€Harrington€stated€thatÏthey€were€about€twenty„five€years€old.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àThe€9„1„1€tape€also€reveals€that€Mr.€Harrington€stated€several€times,Ïð ðplease€hurry,ðð€and€that€he€asked€numerous€times€whether€the€police€or€ambulanceÏwere€there.€€The€operator€responded€by€telling€Mr.€Harrington€that€they€were€hurryingÏand€by€telling€him€to€ð ðhold€on,ðð€to€not€talk€if€it€made€him€feel€uncomfortable,€or€to€lieÏdown€and€to€put€pressure€on€his€head.€€Mr.€Harrington€stated€that€he€heard€sirens€andÐ ä8Ü16 Ðthat€he€saw€a€white€car.€€The€tape€reflects€that€the€police€and€the€ambulance€hadÏdifficulty€locating€the€victims.€€Ô#† XŒéXXX¹mú„#ÔÐ èà ÐÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€the€victim€was€asked€one€question:€whether€heÏwas€bound€after€being€made€to€lie€face€down.€€The€victim€answered€yes€to€the€question.€Ï€Ì€€€€à ¸ àThe€admissibility€of€evidence€under€Rule€403,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€is€a€matterÐ øð  Ðwithin€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€and€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€absent€an€abuse€ofÏthat€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€DuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€652€(Tenn.€1997).€€Under€RuleÐ ˆ Ð401,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€evidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€ð ðany€tendency€to€make€the€existenceÏof€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€orÏless€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Relevant€evidence€is€generallyÏadmissible.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€However,€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€probativeÏvalue€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€theÏissues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needlessÏpresentation€of€cumulative€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Hearsay€is€not€admissibleÏunless€an€exception€to€the€rule€of€exclusion€applies.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€802.€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àFirst,€we€address€the€defendantððs€improper€bolstering€argument.€€InÏsupport€of€his€argument,€the€defendant€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Bentonóó,€759€S.W.2d€427,Ð T)L"& Ð433„34€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Initially,€we€note€that€òòBentonóó€was€decided€before€theÐ  +$( Ðadoption€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€In€òòBentonóó,€this€court€held€that€the€trialÐ ì,ä%* Ðcourt€erred€by€admitting€a€videotaped€statement€of€the€victim.€€òòId.óó€€The€court€reasonedÐ ¸.°', Ðthat€the€videotape€should€not€have€been€admitted€because€the€victimððs€credibility€hadÏnot€been€attacked€on€cross„examination.€€òòId.óó€€The€court€stated€that:Ð P2H+0 ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àprior€consistent€statements€may€be€admissible,€as€anÏexception€to€the€rule€against€hearsay,€to€rehabilitate€aÏwitness€when€insinuations€of€recent€fabrication€haveÏbeen€made,€or€when€deliberate€falsehood€has€beenÏimplied.€€But€before€prior€consistent€statements€becomeÏadmissible,€the€witnessðð€testimony€must€have€beenÐ š8’17 Ðassailed€or€seriously€questioned€to€the€extent€that€theÏwitnessðð€credibility€needs€shoring€up.€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓòòId.óó€at€433„34.€€We€agree€that€the€9„1„1€tape€constituted€hearsay€and€was€notÐ º ² Ðadmissible€because€the€victimððs€credibility€had€not€been€attacked.€€However,€theÏevidence€was€admissible€under€the€excited€utterance€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(2).€€Ð   ЀÌà ¸ àNext,€we€address€the€defendantððs€argument€relating€to€relevance€and€theÏexclusion€of€relevant€evidence.€€In€support€of€his€Rule€403€argument,€the€defendantÏrelies€upon€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€òòSmithóó,€our€supreme€courtÐ NF Ðaddressed€the€admissibility€of€a€9„1„1€call€from€a€victim€under€Rule€403.€€Identity€was€aÏkey€issue€in€òòSmithóó€as€the€defendant€presented€an€alibi€defense.€€The€tape€of€the€9„1„1Ð æÞ Ðcall€introduced€in€òòSmithóó€contained€a€statement€by€one€of€the€victims€saying€theÐ ²ª Ðdefendantððs€name€as€he€was€being€attacked.€€òòId.óó€at€577.€€Noting€that€the€call€wasÐ ~v Ðparticularly€relevant€to€establishing€the€identity€of€the€defendant€as€the€killer,€the€courtÏruled€that€the€tape€of€the€9„1„1€call€was€admissible.€€òòId.óó€€In€ruling€that€the€tape€wasÐ ! Ðadmissible,€the€court€distinguished€òòState€v.€Pendergrassóó,€586€P.2d€691€(Mont.€1978),Ð â"Ú Ðbecause€the€tape€in€òòSmithóó€contained€a€statement€by€one€of€the€victims€saying€theÐ ®$¦! Ðdefendantððs€name€as€he€was€being€attacked.€€òòSmithóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€577.€€òòPendergrassóóÐ z&r# Ðheld€that€a€hysterical€emergency€call€by€a€rape€victim€was€inadmissible€because€theÏprejudicial€danger€outweighed€the€tapeððs€probative€value€and€because€the€evidenceÏwas€introduced€simply€to€bolster€the€already€overwhelming€evidence€that€the€rapeÏoccurred,€a€fact€the€defendant€did€not€dispute.€€586€P.2d€at€691.€ÌÌà ¸ àWe€conclude€that€the€9„1„1€tape€in€the€present€case€was€relevant€to€theÏmaterial€issues€of€identity€and€the€nature€of€Mr.€Harringtonððs€injuries.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð 3,1 ÐEvid.€401.€€The€9„1„1€tape€reflects€that€Mr.€Harrington€told€the€operator€that€a€blackÏâ âman€and€a€white€man€forced€him€and€Mr.€Weaver€into€the€dormitory€room,€shot€them,Ð ¦6ž/5 Ðand€then€took€their€van.€€He€described€the€two€men€as€being€about€twenty„five€yearsÏold.€€Ìâ âÌà ¸ àOn€the€other€hand,€although€relevant€under€Rule€401,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€9„1„1€tape€should€have€been€excluded€because€the€probative€value€of€the€evidenceÏwas€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€and€the€needlessÏpresentation€of€cumulative€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€The€contested€issue€atÐ ÐÈ  Ðtrial€was€the€degree€of€the€defendantððs€involvement,€not€his€identity.€€The€9„1„1€tapeÏadded€nothing€to€show€that€the€defendant€actively€participated€in€the€offenses.€€Rather,Ïthe€9„1„1€tape€related€more€to€the€identity€of€the€perpetrators.€€At€trial,€the€defendant€didÏnot€dispute€that€he€was€present€when€the€offenses€occurred,€arguing€instead€that€hisÏinvolvement€was€limited.€€Moreover,€Mr.€Harrington€testified€virtually€to€everything€thatÏwas€contained€on€the€9„1„1€tape,€including€the€identification€of€the€defendant€as€theÏperson€who€bound€him.€€In€this€respect,€the€evidence€was€cumulative.€€Also,€unlikeÏòòSmithóó,€the€introduction€of€the€tape€presented€a€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€to€theÐ 0 ( Ðdefendant.€€The€tape€reflects€that€Mr.€Harrington,€although€not€hysterical,€feared€theÏreturn€of€the€defendant€and€OððBrien,€that€he€was€in€great€pain,€that€he€repeatedly€statedÏð ðplease€hurry,ðð€that€the€operator€responded€by€telling€the€victim€to€hold€on,€stop€talking,Ïand€lie€down,€and€that€the€police€and€ambulance€had€difficulty€finding€the€victim.€€WeÏbelieve€that€there€was€a€risk€that€the€jury€could€have€been€inflamed€by€theseÏstatements.€€We€believe€that€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€was€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€erred€byÏadmitting€the€9„1„1€tape.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€error€was€not€harmless€given€the€fact€thatÏthe€tape€shows€that€the€victim€was€in€pain€and€feared€the€return€of€his€assailants€andÏgiven€the€prosecutorððs€reliance€upon€the€tape€during€closing€argument.€€During€closingÏargument,€the€prosecutor€described€the€9„1„1€call€as€a€ð ðbone„chillingðð€call.€€He€alsoÐ Œ7„06 Ðreferred€to€Mr.€Harrington€repeatedly€saying,€ð ðPlease€hurry,€please€hurry.€€Iððve€bled€all€IÏcan€bleed,€please€hurry,€please€hurry.ðð€€The€prosecutor€argued€that€Mr.€HarringtonÏbelieved€that€Mr.€Weaver€was€alive€because€he€heard€a€gurgling€noise.€€The€prosecutorÏargued€that€Mr.€Harrington€feared€the€return€of€his€assailants.€€The€defendant€did€notÏobject€to€the€stateððs€closing€argument.€€The€state€responded€that€the€erroneousÏintroduction€of€the€9„1„1€tape€was€harmless€because€the€proof€of€the€defendantððs€guiltÏwas€overwhelming.ÌÌà ¸ àWe€agree€that€the€error€was€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€36(a);€Tenn.€R.Ð h` ÐCrim.€P.€52(a).€€We€do€not€believe€that€the€erroneous€introduction€of€the€9„1„1€tapeÏmore€probably€than€not€affected€the€result€of€the€trial.€€As€earlier€stated,€the€9„1„1€tapeÏadded€almost€nothing€to€the€stateððs€case.€€The€substance€of€the€emergency€telephoneÏcall€was€provided€through€the€testimony€of€the€victim.€€Likewise,€though€we€view€theÏintroduction€of€the€9„1„1€tape€as€presenting€a€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€we€do€notÏbelieve€that€the€tape€was€of€such€an€inflammatory€nature€as€to€require€a€reversal.€€TheÏvictim,€though€obviously€in€pain,€was€coherent€and€not€hysterical.€€We€hold€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€by€introducing€the€9„1„1€tape€but€that€the€error€was€harmless.€€€Ìà ¸ àÌà@ÈÈ&Dàò òV.€€DOUBLE€JEOPARDYó óˆÐ `'X $ Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€asserts€that€his€convictions€for€two€counts€of€especiallyÏaggravated€burglary€violate€the€double€jeopardy€clauses€of€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€and€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€defendant€was€indicted€in€separateÏcounts€for€the€especially€aggravated€burglaries€of€Mr.€Weaver€and€of€Mr.€Harrington.€ÏThe€counts€allege€that€the€defendant€entered€the€House€of€God€Church€with€the€intentÏto€commit€first€degree€murder€and€that€Mr.€Weaver€and€Mr.€Harrington€suffered€seriousÏbodily€injury.€€The€defendant€argues€that€because€the€offense€of€especially€aggravatedÏburglary€is€a€crime€against€property€and€not€persons,€he€cannot€be€convicted€of€twoÏcounts€of€especially€aggravated€burglary€based€on€the€single€entry€into€the€church.€€Ð ˜706 Їà ¸ àThe€double€jeopardy€clauses€of€both€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÏConstitutions€state€that€no€person€shall€be€twice€put€in€jeopardy€of€life€or€limb€for€theÏsame€offense.€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€V;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€10.€€The€clause€has€beenÏinterpreted€to€include€the€following€protections:€ð ðIt€protects€against€a€secondÏprosecution€for€the€same€offense€after€acquittal.€€It€protects€against€a€secondÏprosecution€for€the€same€offense€after€conviction.€€And€it€protects€against€multipleÏpunishments€for€the€same€offense.ðð€€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Pearceóó,€395€U.S.€711,€717,€89€S.Ð ÐÈ  ÐCt.€2072,€2076€œ(1969);ñ`Rñ€ñ`RñòòState›€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373,€378€(Tenn.€1996).€€It€is€theÐ œ”  Ðlast€protection€that€is€of€interest€in€this€case.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€òòDentonóó,€our€supreme€court€set€forth€the€procedure€for€analyzing€a€claimÐ ø Ðthat€two€offenses€are€the€same€for€double€jeopardy€purposes.€€It€stated€that€theÏresolution€of€a€double€jeopardy€punishment€issue€under€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏrequires€the€following:€(1)€an€analysis€of€the€statutory€offenses€under€òòBlockburger€v.Ð d\ ÐUnited€Statesóó,€284€U.S.€299,€52€S.€Ct.€180€(1932);€(2)€an€analysis,€guided€by€theÐ 0 ( Ðprinciples€of€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€1973),€of€the€statutory€evidenceÐ ü!ô Ðused€to€prove€the€offenses;€(3)€a€consideration€of€whether€there€were€multiple€victims€orÏdiscrete€acts;€and€(4)€a€comparison€of€the€purposes€of€the€respective€statutes.€€òòDentonóóÐ ”%Œ" Ð938€S.W.2d€at€281.€€None€of€the€steps€are€determinative€but€rather€the€results€of€theÏanalysis€of€each€step€must€be€weighed€and€considered€in€relation€to€each€other.€€òòId.óó€€Ð ,)$"& Ðà ¸ àÌà ¸ àThe€state€conceded€during€oral€argument€in€this€case€that€multipleÏconvictions€for€especially€aggravated€burglary€are€not€permissible,€and€it€requested€thatÏthe€especially€aggravated€burglary€conviction€relating€to€Mr.€Weaver€be€dismissed.€€WeÏagree€that€double€jeopardy€principles€prohibit€convictions€for€more€than€one€offense€ofÏespecially€aggravated€burglary€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€However,€we€doÏnot€agree€that€the€charges€relating€to€Mr.€Weaver€must€be€dismissed€because€of€theÏdouble€jeopardy€violation.€€Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àA€dismissal€is€not€the€only€legitimate€option€available€when€doubleÏjeopardy€principles€are€violated.€€òòState€v.€Addisonóó,€973€S.W.2d€260,€267€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ÔÌ ÐApp.€1997),€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€June€29,€1998).€€In€òòAddisonóó,€this€court€stated€that:€€€Ð   ˜ ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àthere€is€no€need€to€ð ðdismiss,ðð€ð ðvacate,ðð€or€ð ðstrike,ðð€aÏparticular€ð ðconvictionðð€if€what€is€meant€by€the€termÏð ðconvictionðð€is€the€return€of€the€jury€verdict€of€guilt.€ÏRather,€the€jury€verdict€stands€as€a€legitimate€finding€ofÏfact€and€law€which€the€trial€court€should€preserve€byÏmerging€the€same€offense€counts€into€one€judgment€ofÏconviction€.€.€.€that€notes€the€merger€of€counts€with€eachÏother.€.€.€.€€Such€a€merger€and€imposition€of€a€singleÏjudgment€of€conviction€protects€against€double€jeopardyÏand€preserves€the€validity€of€the€jury€verdicts€for€futureÏavoidance€of€problems€related€to€unnecessarilyÏdismissed€ð ðchargesðð€or€ð ðconvictions.ðð€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòStateÐ NF Ðv.€Davisóó,€613€S.W.2d€218,€221€(Tenn.€1981).Ð4,¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓòòId.óóÐ ø ÐÌà ¸ àIn€this€case,€the€jury€returned€guilty€verdicts€for€both€counts€of€especiallyÏaggravated€burglary.€€The€counts€charge€the€same€offense€of€especially€aggravatedÏburglary,€but€each€alleges€separate€injured€victims.€€However,€double€jeopardyÏprinciples€are€violated€by€the€entry€of€more€than€one€judgment€of€conviction€imposingÏmore€than€one€sentence€for€the€burglary.€€Therefore,€the€separate€counts€should€haveÏbeen€merged,€and€a€single€judgment€of€conviction€should€have€been€entered.€€TheÏnature€of€the€judgment€of€conviction€to€be€upheld€on€appeal€is€controlled€by€ourÏdiscussion€of€the€defendantððs€òòOlleróó€claim.€€€€€Ð ,)$"& ÐÌà@éé'Dàò òVI.€€òòOLLERóó€CLAIMó óˆÐ Ä,¼%* Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€dismissÏthe€especially€aggravated€burglary€counts.€€He€argues€that€a€dismissal€is€required€underÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„14„404(d)€because€the€element€of€serious€bodily€injury€had€already€beenÏprosecuted€for€charges€of€first€degree€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€ÏPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„404(d),€the€acts€that€constitute€especially€aggravatedÏburglary€may€be€prosecuted€under€the€especially€aggravated€burglary€section€or€anyÐ ˜706 Ðother€applicable€section,€but€not€both.€€In€support€of€his€claims,€the€defendant€citesÏòòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€and€òòState€v.€Olleróó,€851Ð ÔÌ ÐS.W.2d€841€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€However,€as€the€state€correctly€points€out,€theseÏcases€do€not€require€that€the€counts€be€dismissed.€€Rather,€they€hold€that€the€convictionÏfor€especially€aggravated€burglary€must€be€modified€to€aggravated€burglary€whenÏsubsection€(d)€prohibits€the€prosecution€and€conviction€for€especially€aggravatedÏburglary.€€òòHollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€at€60;€òòOlleróó,€851€S.W.2d€at€843.€€€€€€€€€Ð ÐÈ  Ðà ¸ àÌà ¸ àWe€hold€that€the€especially€aggravated€burglary€conviction€cannot€standÏbased€upon€the€injuries€sustained€by€Mr.€Weaver€because€it€violates€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„¼404(d).€€The€act€of€killing€Mr.€Weaver€constituted€the€serious€bodily€injury€necessary€toÏenhance€the€offense€from€aggravated€burglary€to€especially€aggravated€burglary.€€InÏthis€case,€the€defendant€was€prosecuted€and€convicted€of€the€first€degree€murder€andÏthe€especially€aggravated€robbery€of€Mr.€Weaver.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Under€these€circumstances,€T.C.A.Ð d\ Ððð€39„14„404(d)€prohibits€the€prosecution€and€conviction€for€òòespeciallyóó€aggravatedÐ 0 ( Ðburglary€based€upon€Mr.€Weaverððs€injuries.€€òòSeeóó€òòOlleróó,€851€S.W.2d€at€843.€€Under€òòOlleróó,Ð ü!ô Ðthe€conviction€based€upon€Mr.€Weaverððs€injuries€must€be€modified€to€aggravatedÏburglary.€€Therefore,€only€a€finding€of€guilt€for€aggravated€burglary€remains€with€respectÏto€the€injuries€sustained€by€Mr.€Weaver.€€ÌÌà ¸ àHowever,€the€especially€aggravated€burglary€conviction€stands€basedÏupon€the€injuries€sustained€by€Mr.€Harrington€because€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„404(d)€was€notÏviolated.€€The€defendant€was€prosecuted€and€convicted€of€both€attempted€first€degreeÏmurder€and€especially€aggravated€burglary.€€The€offense€of€attempted€first€degreeÏmurder€does€not€require€a€showing€of€serious€bodily€injury.€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2dÐ (2 +0 Ð305,€313€n.7€(Tenn.€1996).€€Although€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€the€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€of€Mr.€Harrington,€an€offense€containing€serious€bodily€injury€as€anÏelement,€the€charge€was€dismissed€at€the€close€of€the€stateððs€proof.€€Therefore,€theÏprosecution€and€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€burglary€based€upon€Mr.ÏHarringtonððs€injuries€do€not€violate€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„404(d).€€ÌÌà ¸ àAs€earlier€noted,€double€jeopardy€principles€prohibit€the€entry€of€more€thanÏone€judgment€of€conviction€imposing€more€than€one€sentence€for€the€burglary.€€The€juryÏverdicts€of€guilt€for€the€offense€must€be€merged.€€In€òòState€v.€Banesóó,€874€S.W.2d€73Ð h` Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€this€court€stated:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àIn€the€circumstance,€in€which€two€guilty€verdictsÏare€returned€as€to€alternative€charges,€the€guilty€verdictÏon€the€greater€charge€stands€and€the€guilty€verdict€onÏthe€lesser€charge€merges€into€the€greater€charge.€€TheÏjudge€should€enter€a€judgment€of€conviction€on€theÏgreater€offense€and€a€judgment€merging€the€lesserÏoffense€into€the€greater.€€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓId.óó€at€81.€€In€this€case,€findings€of€guilt€for€aggravated€burglary€and€especiallyÐ 0 ( Ðaggravated€burglary€stand.€€The€finding€of€guilt€for€the€lesser€offense€of€aggravatedÏburglary€merges€into€the€greater€offense€of€especially€aggravated€burglary.€€Therefore,Ïwe€hold€that€the€judgment€of€conviction€relative€to€Mr.€Weaver€shall€be€vacated,€and€theÏconviction€shall€be€merged€œñjRñwithñjRññjRñ›››into›ñjRñ›€the€especially€aggravated€burglary€conviction€relating€toÏMr.€Harrington.ÌÌà@‘‘&Dàò òVII.€€SENTENCINGó ó€€€ˆÐ Ä,¼%* Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€imposed€an€excessiveÏsentence.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€enhancement€factors,€byÏfinding€that€no€mitigating€factors€existed,€and€by€imposing€consecutive€sentences.€€TheÏstate€responds€that€the€trial€court€imposed€appropriate€sentences.€€We€agree.Ìâ âÐ Ì5Ä.4 Ðà ¸ àAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€aÐ  Ðâ âpresumption€that€the€trial€court's€determinations€are€correct.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€AsÏthe€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€this€section€note,€the€burden€is€now€on€theÏdefendant€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€This€means€that€if€the€trial€courtÏfollowed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€made€findings€of€fact€that€are€adequatelyÏsupported€in€the€record,€and€gave€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factorsÏand€principles€that€are€relevant€to€sentencing€under€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€we€mayÏnot€disturb€the€sentence€even€if€a€different€result€were€preferred.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805Ð œ”  ÐS.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÌÌà ¸ àHowever,€"the€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trialÏcourt's€action€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€respect,€for€the€purpose€ofÐ d\ Ðmeaningful€appellate€review,ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àthe€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€forÏarriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€theÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,€state€theÏspecific€facts€supporting€each€enhancement€factorÏfound,€and€articulate€how€the€mitigating€andÏenhancement€factors€have€been€evaluated€andÏbalanced€in€determining€the€sentence.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„¼210(f)€(1990).€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€599€(Tenn.€1994).Ð * #' ÐÌà ¸ àAlso,€in€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€we€must€consider€(1)€the€evidence,Ð ª-¢&+ Ðif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€theÏprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€natureÏand€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct,€(5)€any€mitigating€or€statutory€enhancementÏfactors,€(6)€any€statement€that€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf€and€(7)€theÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210;€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,Ð ¦6ž/5 Ð823€S.W.2d€at€168;€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€236„37€(Tenn.€1986).€Ð r8j17 Їà ¸ àThe€sentence€to€be€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€presumptively€theÏminimum€in€the€range€unless€there€are€enhancement€factors€present.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„¼210(c).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Procedurally,€the€trial€court€is€to€increase€the€sentence€within€the€range€basedÐ   ˜ Ðupon€the€existence€of€enhancement€factors€and,€then,€reduce€the€sentence€asÏappropriate€for€any€mitigating€factors.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(d)„(e).€€The€weight€to€beÏafforded€an€existing€factor€is€left€to€the€trial€court's€discretion€so€long€as€it€complies€withÏthe€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€its€findings€are€adequatelyÏsupported€by€the€record.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments;ÏòòMossóó,€727€S.W.2d€at€237;€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€Ð h` ÐÌà ¸ àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€Mr.€Harrington€testified€regarding€the€extent€ofÏhis€injuries€suffered€during€the€offenses.€€He€stated€that€he€had€undergone€fourteenÏsurgeries€as€a€result€of€his€injuries€from€the€offenses,€including€surgery€to€repair€hisÏinner€ear€canal€and€a€fracture€in€his€neck€and€surgery€to€place€a€gold€weight€in€hisÏeyelid.€€He€said€that€he€had€also€undergone€plastic€surgery.€€Mr.€Harrington€testifiedÏthat€he€had€migraines€at€least€twice€a€week€and€that€he€could€not€function€when€he€hadÏa€migraine.€€He€said€that€he€had€surgery€on€his€neck€in€an€attempt€to€cure€the€migrainesÏbut€that€it€did€not€help.€€Mr.€Harrington€testified€that€he€had€to€go€to€a€doctor€to€receiveÏan€injection€to€relieve€the€pain,€but€the€injections€did€not€always€work.€€Mr.€HarringtonÏstated€that€he€lost€all€hearing€in€his€right€ear,€was€partially€blind€in€his€right€eye,€and€hadÏproblems€with€balance.€€He€stated€that€his€eyesight€was€getting€worse€and€that€his€eyesÏdid€not€tear€properly.€€Mr.€Harrington€testified€that€because€his€facial€muscles€hadÏdeteriorated,€his€teeth€rubbed€against€his€jaw€causing€sores€inside€his€mouth.€€HeÏstated€that€he€had€also€been€treated€by€a€psychologist€for€depression.€ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Harrington€testified€that€he€was€thirty„six€years€old€when€the€offensesÏoccurred.€€He€stated€that€he€had€worked€at€National€Guardian€for€five€years€and€that€heÐ À5¸.4 Ðhad€not€been€able€to€work€since€the€offenses.€€He€testified€that€he€had€financialÏproblems€as€a€result€of€his€inability€to€work,€requiring€him€to€sell€several€sentimentalÏpossessions€to€obtain€money.€€He€stated€that€his€relationship€with€his€children€had€beenÏaffected€and€that€he€and€his€wife€had€experienced€marital€problems€as€a€result€of€theÏinjuries€he€sustained.€€He€also€said€that€he€could€no€longer€ride€or€train€horses,€a€hobbyÏthat€he€had€enjoyed€since€he€was€five€or€six€years€old.ÌÌà ¸ àLinda€Harrington,€Mr.€Harringtonððs€wife,€explained€the€many€ways€that€herÏhusbandððs€life€had€been€changed€by€the€injuries€he€sustained€from€the€offenses,Ïincluding€the€financial€difficulties.€€She€also€testified€regarding€her€husbandððsÏdepression.€€She€testified€that€Paulette€Weaver,€the€widow€of€William€Rex€Weaver,€hadÏplanned€to€testify€at€the€sentencing€hearing€but€that€she€had€experienced€a€nervousÏbreakdown€and€was€unable€to€attend.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€then€thirty„year„old€defendant€hadÏno€prior€criminal€record.€€The€defendant€introduced€as€exhibits€at€the€sentencingÏhearing€copies€of€his€medical€records€relating€to€psychological€evaluations€andÏinterviews€by€Dr.€Azimi€and€by€Dr.€Auble.€€The€medical€records€relating€to€theÏdefendantððs€hospitalization€in€Illinois€were€also€introduced€as€well€as€a€copy€of€his€Ïschool€records€that€reflect€that€he€did€poorly€in€school€and€was€absent€often.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€called€Kim€Bone,€a€probation€officer.€€Ms.€Bone€testifiedÏthat€she€went€to€the€jail€to€interview€the€defendant€as€part€of€her€preparation€of€theÏpresentence€report€but€that€the€defendant€refused€to€talk€to€her.€€She€stated€that€as€aÏresult,€she€was€unable€to€interview€the€defendant.ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€theÏdefendant€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€twenty€years€for€each€Class€A€felonyÐ Œ7„06 Ðconviction€and€to€ten€years€for€each€Class€B€felony€conviction.€€The€court€ordered€thatÏthe€sentences€imposed€for€the€first€degree€murder€and€the€attempted€first€degreeÏmurder€convictions€be€served€consecutively.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€rejected€the€defendantððs€theory€that€he€was€an€unwillingÏparticipant€in€the€crimes.€€It€found€instead€that€the€defendant€did€not€attempt€to€stop€ÏOððBrien€from€shooting€the€victims€but€instead€helped€bind€the€victims.€€It€also€stated€thatÏthe€evidence€suggested€that€the€defendant€might€have€handled€the€gun€at€some€point.€ÏThe€trial€court€stated€that€the€defendant€did€nothing€to€disassociate€himself€fromÏOððBrien€as€evidenced€by€the€defendant€remaining€with€OððBrien€until€their€arrest.€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€sentencing€the€defendant,€the€trial€court€enhanced€his€sentences€forÏthe€attempted€first€degree€murder,€especially€aggravated€robbery,€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping,€and€especially€aggravated€burglary€convictions€based€upon€theÏfollowing€enhancement€factors€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(3)€the€offenses€involved€more€than€one€victim;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(6)€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€or€the€amount€ofÏdamage€to€property€sustained€by€or€taken€from€theÏvictim€was€particularly€great;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(10)€the€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committingÏthe€crimes€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€trial€court€did€not€explain€its€factual€basis€for€the€application€of€the€enhancementÏfactors.€€Although€the€state€argued€and€the€defendant€conceded€that€factor€(9)€appliedÏbecause€the€defendant€possessed€a€firearm€during€the€commission€of€the€offense,€theÏtrial€court€did€not€state€that€it€enhanced€the€defendantððs€sentence€based€upon€thisÏfactor.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€found€that€no€mitigating€factors€applied.€€Specifically,€itÏâ ârejected€the€following€mitigating€factors:Ð ¦6ž/5 ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(4)€the€defendant€played€a€minor€role€in€the€commissionÏâ âof€the€offenses;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(8)€the€defendant€was€suffering€from€a€mental€conditionÏthat€significantly€reduced€his€culpability€for€the€offenses;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(11)€the€defendant,€although€guilty€of€the€crimes,Ïcommitted€the€offenses€under€such€unusualÏcircumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intentÏto€violate€the€law€motivated€the€criminal€conduct;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(12)€the€defendant€acted€under€duress€or€under€theÏdomination€of€the€codefendant;€and€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(13)€the€defendant€had€no€prior€criminal€record€and€wasÏnot€a€violent€person.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓòòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113.€€With€respect€to€consecutive€sentencing,€the€state€and€theÐ NF Ðdefendant€limited€their€argument€to€the€provision€allowing€for€consecutive€sentencing€forÏa€dangerous€offender.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4).€€However,€the€trial€court€did€notÐ æÞ Ðexplain€its€reasons€for€ordering€the€defendant€to€serve€the€sentence€of€lifeÏimprisonment€for€the€first€degree€murder€conviction€consecutive€to€the€twenty„yearÏsentence€for€the€attempted€first€degree€murder€conviction.ÌÌà@©©$Dàò òA.€€ENHANCEMENT€FACTORSó óˆÐ â"Ú Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€thatÏenhancement€factors€(3),€(6)€and€(10)€applied.€€First,€he€asserts€that€the€trial€courtÏinappropriately€applied€enhancement€factor€(3)€because€the€defendant€was€indictedÏseparately€and€convicted€of€the€crimes€against€each€victim.€€The€state€concedes€thatÏthe€trial€court€inappropriately€applied€factor€(3).€€With€the€exception€of€the€especiallyÏaggravated€burglary,€we€agree€that€the€application€of€the€enhancement€factor€under€theÏfacts€of€this€case€was€inappropriate.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€69,€82Ð ‚/z(- Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(factor€(3)€may€not€be€applied€when€the€defendant€isÏseparately€convicted€of€the€offenses€committed€against€each€victim).€€As€mentionedÏearlier,€the€aggravated€burglary€conviction€is€merged€into€the€especially€aggravatedÏburglary€conviction.€€Under€these€circumstances,€enhancement€factor€(3)€is€applicableÏgiven€the€fact€that€the€offense€involved€more€than€one€victim.Ð ~8v17 Їà ¸ àAs€for€enhancement€factor€(6),€relative€to€particularly€great€injuries,€theÏdefendant€concedes€that€it€may€be€applied€to€the€attempted€first€degree€murderÏconviction€because€it€is€not€an€essential€element€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nixóó,€922Ð   ˜ ÐS.W.2d€894,€903€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(holding€that€particularly€great€personal€injuryÏis€not€an€essential€element€of€attempted€first€degree€murder).€€However,€with€respect€toÏthe€remaining€convictions,€he€argues€that€great€personal€injuries€are€inherent€in€everyÏespecially€aggravated€robbery,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€and€especiallyÏaggravated€burglary€because€those€offenses€require€serious€bodily€injury€as€anÏelement.€€òòÐ h` ÐÌà ¸ àóóWith€respect€to€the€offenses€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€andÐ ø Ðespecially€aggravated€burglary,€these€offenses€as€alleged€in€the€indictment€requireÏproof€of€serious€bodily€injury.€€In€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994),€ourÐ ˜ Ðsupreme€court€concluded€that€ð ðproof€of€serious€bodily€injury€will€always€constitute€proofÏof€particularly€great€injury.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€602.€€Therefore,€factor€(6)€should€not€have€beenÐ 0 ( Ðapplied€to€these€offenses€because€the€factor€is€an€essential€element€of€the€offenses.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àRelative€to€the€offense€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€the€convictionÏwas€based€upon€the€defendantððs€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€not€because€Mr.€Weaver€wasÏkilled.€€Thus,€particularly€great€personal€injuries€are€not€inherent€in€the€offense€ofÏespecially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€We€believe€that€the€severe€injuries€suffered€by€theÏvictims€qualify€as€particularly€great€personal€injuries€for€purposes€of€enhancing€theÏdefendantððs€sentences€under€factor€(6)€for€the€attempted€first€degree€murder€of€Mr.ÏHarrington€and€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€of€Mr.€Weaver.€ÌÌà ¸ àWe€note€that€the€trial€court€did€not€apply€factor€(9),€relative€to€use€of€aÏdeadly€weapon,€although€the€state€argued€that€it€was€applicable,€and€the€defendantÏconceded€that€the€factor€is€not€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€of€attempted€firstÐ Œ7„06 Ðdegree€murder€and€may€be€appropriately€considered€to€enhance€the€sentence.€€òòSeeóóÐ  ÐòòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€946€S.W.2d€329,€334€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(factor€(9)€applicableÐ ÔÌ Ðto€attempted€first€degree€murder).€€We€agree€that€the€factor€should€have€been€appliedÏto€the€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€As€for€the€offenses€of€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping€and€especially€aggravated€robbery,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€factor€isÏan€essential€element€of€the€offenses€as€charged.€€We€agree.€€However,€factor€(9)Ïshould€have€been€considered€to€enhance€the€defendantððs€sentences€for€especiallyÏaggravated€burglary€because€the€defendant€possessed€or€employed€a€firearm€duringÏthe€commission€of€the€offense.€€The€use€of€a€firearm€is€not€an€element€of€especiallyÏaggravated€burglary.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„405(a);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€956€S.W.2d€8,€17Ð 4, Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(factor€(9)€applicable€to€enhance€sentence€for€aggravatedÏburglary€conviction).€€Therefore,€factor€(9)€is€applicable€to€the€offenses€of€attempted€firstÏdegree€murder€and€especially€aggravated€burglary.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€argues€that€factor€(9)€should€be€given€little€weight€becauseÏthe€evidence€showed€that€OððBrien€stole€the€gun€used€in€the€crimes€and€that€OððBrien,€notÏthe€defendant,€shot€the€victims.€€We€disagree.€€Given€the€fact€that€the€defendant€heldÏthe€gun€during€the€commission€of€the€offenses€and€disposed€of€the€gun€when€chasedÏby€police,€we€conclude€that€factor€(9)€should€be€given€considerable€weight.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àRelative€to€enhancement€factor€(10),€the€defendant€asserts€that€it€cannotÏbe€applied€because€it€is€an€essential€element€of€the€offenses€of€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping€and€especially€aggravated€robbery€as€both€offenses€involved€the€use€of€aÏdeadly€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kernóó,€909€S.W.2d€5,€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(factorÐ \0T). Ð(10)€inapplicable€when€based€solely€upon€the€defendantððs€use€of€a€deadly€weapon).€ÏThe€test€for€determining€whether€an€enhancement€factor€is€an€essential€element€of€anÏoffense€is€whether€the€same€proof€necessary€to€establish€a€particular€element€wouldÏalso€establish€the€enhancement€factor.€€òòSeeóó€òòJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€601.€€TheÐ Œ7„06 Ðdetermination€of€whether€a€particular€enhancement€factor€should€be€applied€is€made€onÏa€case„by„case€basis.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).Ð ÔÌ ÐÌà ¸ àInitially,€we€note€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€state€the€specific€factsÏsupporting€the€application€of€factor€(10).€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€state€arguedÏthat€the€factor€applied€because€several€people,€including€two€state€troopers,€wereÏendangered€during€the€high„speed€chase€in€Jackson.€€On€appeal,€the€state€assertsÏwithout€further€explanation€that€the€trial€court€properly€applied€enhancement€factor€(10)Ïbased€upon€the€defendantððs€actions€at€the€scene€as€testified€to€by€Mr.€Harrington.€€ÌÌà ¸ àWe€do€not€believe€that€factor€(10)€is€applicable€based€upon€theÏendangerment€of€lives€during€the€high„speed€chase€that€took€place€in€JacksonÏapproximately€one€and€one„half€to€two€hours€after€the€commission€of€the€offenses.€€WeÏacknowledge€that€factor€(10)€may€be€applied€if€the€facts€ð ðdemonstrate€a€culpabilityÏdistinct€from€and€appreciably€greater€than€that€òòincident€to€the€offenseóóðð€for€which€theÐ 0 ( Ðdefendant€is€convicted.€€òòJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€603€(emphasis€added).€€This€court€hasÐ ü!ô Ðheld€that€the€factor€applies€when€persons€other€than€the€victims€alleged€in€theÏindictment€are€placed€at€risk€during€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€909Ð ”%Œ" ÐS.W.2d€46,€50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€rationale€is€that€when€there€are€others€atÏrisk€besides€the€victim,€this€demonstrates€a€culpability€greater€than€that€required€toÏprove€the€offense.€€òòJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€603.€€Ð ø*ð#( ÐÌà ¸ àIn€òòJonesóó,€our€supreme€court€cites€òòState€v.€Lambertóó,€741€S.W.2d€127,€134Ð .ˆ', Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987),€as€an€example€of€the€proper€application€of€enhancementÏfactor€(10).€€òòJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€603.€€In€òòLambertóó,€the€defendant,€before€striking€twoÐ (2 +0 Ðpersons,€drove€an€automobile€recklessly€through€the€University€of€Tennessee€area€ofÏKnoxville€while€the€streets€and€sidewalks€were€crowded€with€motorists€and€pedestrians.€ÏThe€court€explained€that€the€òòLambertóó€court€properly€determined€that€factor€(10)€appliedÐ Œ7„06 Ðbecause€the€defendant€created€a€high€risk€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury€to€manyÏpeople€before€killing€the€victims,€demonstrating€a€culpability€distinct€from€andÏappreciably€greater€than€that€incident€to€the€offense€for€which€he€was€convicted.€€òòJonesóó,Ð   ˜ Ð883€S.W.2d€at€603.€€ÌÌà ¸ àAlthough€we€believe€that€lives€were€placed€at€risk€during€the€pursuit€byÏpolice,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€risk€was€created€incident€to€the€commission€of€theÏoffenses€in€this€case.€€The€police€chase€did€not€occur€shortly€after€the€commission€ofÏthe€offenses.€€Rather,€the€police€chase€occurred€approximately€one€and€one„half€to€twoÏhours€after€the€crimes€were€committed.€€Under€these€circumstances,€factor€(10)€is€notÏapplicable.€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àHowever,€we€believe€that€based€upon€Mr.€Harringtonððs€testimony,€factorÏ(10)€is€applicable€to€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery,€and€especially€aggravated€burglary€convictions.€€Mr.€Harrington€testified€thatÏhe€was€present€when€the€offenses€were€committed€against€Mr.€Weaver,€and€Mr.ÏWeaver€was€present€when€the€offenses€were€committed€against€Mr.€Harrington.€€BothÏMr.€Weaver€and€Mr.€Harrington€were€in€direct€peril€when€the€defendant€committed€theÏoffenses€against€the€other€person.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€facts€of€this€caseÏð ðdemonstrate€a€culpability€òòdistinct€from€and€appreciably€greateróóðð€than€that€incident€toÐ ,)$"& Ðthe€offenses€as€required€for€the€application€of€factor€(10)€under€òòJonesóó.€€òòId.óó€(emphasisÐ ø*ð#( Ðadded).€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€properly€applied€factor€(10).€€We€believe€the€factorÏdeserves€considerable€weight.€€€€€€€€€€€€€à  àÐ .ˆ', ÐÌà@bb$Dàò òB.€€MITIGATING€FACTORSˆÐ (2 +0 Ðà ¸ àó óNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€that€noÐ 4ø,2 Ðmitigating€factors€applied.€€First,€he€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€consideredÏthat€he€played€a€minor€role€in€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„Ð ˜706 Ð113(4).€€However,€he€concedes€that€the€evidence€shows€that€he€made€statements€to€aÏsocial€worker€that€he€held€the€gun€during€the€commission€of€the€offenses.€€TheÏdefendant€also€acknowledges€that€the€evidence€establishes€that€he€threw€the€gun€outÏthe€window€when€chased€by€police.€€The€trial€court€rejected€the€defendantððs€theory€thatÏhe€played€a€minor€role€and€instead€found€that€the€defendant€actively€participated€in€theÏcrimes.€€The€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion.ÌÌà ¸ àNext,€the€defendant€asserts€that€there€is€ample€evidence€that€he€wasÏsuffering€from€a€mental€condition€that€significantly€reduced€his€culpability€for€theÏoffenses.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(8).€€We€agree.€€The€circumstances€surrounding€theÐ 4, Ðcommission€of€the€present€offenses€are€similar€to€earlier€occasions€when€the€defendantÏwas€suffering€from€a€mental€condition€in€that€the€defendant€decided€to€leave€home€forÏno€reason.€€The€defendant€also€told€Dr.€Azimi€that€he€left€the€dormitory€room€afterÏOððBrien€shot€the€gun€because€he€heard€voices.€€The€personal€belongings€taken€by€theÏdefendant€for€the€trip€to€California€suggest€that€the€defendant€was€suffering€from€aÏmental€condition.€€When€arrested,€the€defendant€was€wearing€clothing€inappropriate€forÏthe€weather€and€was€wearing€bands€similar€to€those€he€used€to€relieve€anxiety€fromÏauditory€hallucinations.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€factor€should€have€beenÏconsidered.€€However,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€sufferedÏfrom€a€mental€condition€at€the€time€the€offenses€were€committed€was€strong.€ÏTherefore,€the€factor€should€only€be€given€minimal€weight.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€that€heÏcommitted€the€crimes€under€such€unusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€that€he€had€aÏsustained€intent€to€violate€the€law,€òòseeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(11),€and€that€he€acted€underÐ (2 +0 Ðduress,€òòseeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(12).€€We€disagree.€€As€previously€mentioned,€the€trialÐ ô3ì,2 Ðâ âcourt€concluded€that€the€defendant€was€an€active€participant€in€the€planned€crimes.€Ð À5¸.4 ÐThe€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion.€€It€properly€rejected€factors€(11)€andÏ(12).Ìâ âÌà ¸ àAs€for€the€defendantððs€contention€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏconsidered€his€lack€of€a€prior€criminal€record,€the€state€concedes€that€the€factor€isÏapplicable.€€We€agree€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€the€defendantððs€lackÏof€a€prior€criminal€record.€€We€hold€that€the€factor€should€be€given€moderate€weight.€ò òÐ ÐÈ  ÐÌà@§§!DàC.€€MODIFICATION€OF€SENTENCESó óˆÐ tl Ðà ¸ àWe€need€not€remand€for€resentencing€due€to€the€trial€courtððsÏmisapplication€of€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€given€the€fact€that€the€record€isÏsufficient€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review.€€Although€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtÐ äÜ Ðinappropriately€applied€enhancement€factor€(3)€and€failed€to€consider€mitigating€factorsÏ(8)€and€(13)€with€respect€to€the€attempted€first€degree€murder€conviction,€the€defendantÏis€not€necessarily€entitled€to€a€reduction€in€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€InÏconsideration€of€the€record€before€us,€we€hold€that€enhancement€factor€(6),€particularlyÏgreat€personal€injuries,€and€enhancement€factor€(9),€possession€or€employment€of€aÏdeadly€weapon,€apply€to€the€attempted€first€degree€murder€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ððÐ ¬%¤" Ð40„35„114(6),€(9).€€These€enhancement€factors€are€entitled€to€great€weight€under€theÏcircumstances€of€this€case.€€We€also€hold€that€mitigating€factors€apply:€factor€(8),€theÏdefendantððs€mental€condition€significantly€reduced€his€culpability,€and€factor€(13),€theÏdefendantððs€absence€of€a€prior€criminal€record.€€However,€the€mitigating€factors€do€notÏdeserve€great€weight.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€mid„range€sentence€of€twentyÏyears€for€this€Class€A€felony€is€justified.ÌÌà ¸ àAs€for€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€conviction,€enhancementÏfactors€(6)€and€(10)€are€applicable.€€With€respect€to€the€especially€aggravated€robberyÏconviction,€enhancement€factor€(10)€applies.€€The€enhancement€factors€are€deservingÐ ¤7œ06 Ðof€great€weight,€unlike€the€applicable€mitigating€factors€(8)€and€(13).€€We€believe€thatÏgiven€the€applicable€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€a€twenty„year€sentence€isÏwarranted€for€the€convictions€for€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€and€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery.€ÌÌà ¸ àAs€for€the€remaining€especially€aggravated€burglary€conviction,€we€holdÏthat€the€trial€court€properly€sentenced€the€defendant€to€ten€years€incarceration.€ÏEnhancement€factors€(3),€(6),€(9)€and€(10)€apply€to€the€offense,€as€do€mitigating€factorsÏ(8)€and€(13).€Ìà8 ¸ àò òÐ ¸ x¸ x Ðà@IIDàD.€€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGó ó€€€€€€€€ˆÐ   Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€challenges€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences.€€HeÏargues€that€he€does€not€meet€the€requirements€for€a€dangerous€offender€under€T.C.A.Ïðð€40„35„115(b)(4).€€He€also€argues€that€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€consecutive€toÏa€twenty„year€sentence€does€not€reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offensesÏcommitted€by€the€defendant€given€his€lack€of€a€prior€criminal€record.€€The€state€countersÏthat€there€is€no€prohibition€against€imposing€consecutive€sentences€for€youthful,€first„¼time€offenders,€and€it€argues€that€consecutive€sentences€are€warranted€in€the€case.€ÏWe€conclude€that€consecutive€sentences€are€appropriate€in€this€case.ÌÌà ¸ àInitially,€we€note€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€state€its€reasons€for€imposingÏconsecutive€sentencing.€€Therefore,€our€review€of€the€issue€of€consecutive€sentencingÏis€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Ð ¨. ', ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€and€the€state€limited€their€arguments€with€respect€toÏconsecutive€sentencing€to€the€provision€providing€for€consecutive€sentencing€forÏdangerous€offenders.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4).€€We€agree€that€this€provision€isÐ Ø5Ð.4 Ðthe€only€one€applicable€in€this€case.€€Consecutive€sentencing€may€be€ordered€if€the€trialÐ ¤7œ06 Ðcourt€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€is€ð ða€dangerousÏoffender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitationÏabout€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„¼115(b)(4).€€A€finding€that€the€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€will€not,€standing€alone,Ïjustify€consecutive€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð 80 ÐIn€addition€to€a€finding€that€the€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender,€consecutiveÏsentencing€requires€further€findings€that€an€extended€sentence€is€necessary€to€protectÏthe€public€against€the€defendantððs€future€criminal€conduct€and€that€the€sentences€willÏreasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed.€€òòId.óóÐ h` ÐÌà ¸ àWe€conclude€that€ordering€the€attempted€first€degree€murder€sentence€toÏbe€served€consecutively€was€warranted€in€this€case.€€We€acknowledge€that€theÏdefendantððs€youth€and€lack€of€a€prior€criminal€record€indicate€a€capability€forÏrehabilitation.€€However,€the€defendantððs€poor€school€record€and€excessiveÏabsenteeism€from€school€weigh€in€favor€of€consecutive€sentencing.€€Also,€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€offenses€reflect€particularly€violent€behavior€and€showÏthat€the€defendant€has€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitation€about€creatingÏa€risk€to€human€life.€€These€factors€also€support€a€finding€that€consecutive€sentencing€isÏnecessary€to€protect€society€from€the€defendant€and€that€consecutive€sentences€areÏreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€defendantððs€criminal€conduct.€€€€€€ÌÌà@  (Dàò òE.€€CONCLUSIONó óˆà È à€€€Ð Ä,¼%* Ðà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€theÏjudgments€of€conviction€for€first€degree€murder,€attempted€first€degree€murder,Ïespecially€aggravated€kidnapping,€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€We€vacate€the€Ïconviction€on€the€count€charging€especially€aggravated€burglary€relative€to€William€RexÏWeaver€and€reduce€it€to€aggravated€burglary.€€Also,€we€merge€it€with€the€conviction€onÏthe€count€charging€especially€aggravated€burglary€relative€to€Larry€Harrington.€€WeÐ ˜706 Ðaffirm€the€judgment€of€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€burglary€relative€to€LarryÏHarrington€but€modify€the€judgment€of€conviction€to€reflect€the€merger€of€the€convictionsÏon€the€two€burglary€counts€into€one€especially€aggravated€burglary€judgment.€ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à______________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ____________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€œñkRñSpecial€ñkRñJudge›