ÿWPC2 05±óàSv[¡Ña§¶Ë@×þâÎRºü¿Å C½­5®4!•·ÙÜ «6…z乓¥á¶@hÌNÏÈÁEÑŒA7ëÝUN´¢v׺Á˜¶@÷Õûb‡•¨L¬Úv(|²Àþ9µœöQìœÝ[ &=Íö+,aïžeôQ5C²CIñ¥d¯}“Ú_Æ–ƒÓóÜ*yåßDü±º1àÆ`è¦ àáŘ<õ˜ÑJ'£…©¦²%ïüòïËLJ¦[Àç©ÁWŠ"ÆÙìÝ;qÇ/Æ·j÷³òù,¼*÷„DTõpGåäMd7ÍÍnéßÏï×€6ñœ„ši@­{`4=<—· 0 ‘t ±zI‡;²’—´t'˜"Óç5Ë/÷vÁ‘ujK¿« Ø` §ú!Vˆ!ZR¸ªäwu=‘‰a ¬Y`~ëŽË"­ÔUЀ@0ƒ2ô:bØÔ{6ü쓼£ 1†Í(ïÞn.ÅJiš, r÷Ïݼ  \~8E[ÖBÌæû¬qü6"Þ‘¾Â§twçm_,u”£«JY>7ŸÂ÷Ï¥ûG§ßöÃAš+÷Àî²õ¯þië6µí, ÈŠ­m3Ýř߶Cƒo¢¯Bž Ì4S…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U :Í w@ 4G [ äj U:N 0§ˆ 0D/ U:s s s 0D­ ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ Bù ù ù ù ù ù ù ù D3 0DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII AOÆÜÜ 0D¢ D/æ B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular VHV VH!V"VE#V$VD%VU&VU'VÓ€uM%ial Re3|x0V ÚÔ€ XZ2XXXÔÔ€ EX XZ2ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XZ2X EÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€8,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(8G2–Ò$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àÔ€XlKXXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d""""'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ'Vñ›ñ'VñÔ€XlKXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑÜ°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑòòÑ7€lKXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  Ññ'Vñßr€ *<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` 8ttxPX` ð  rß›ñ'Vñà@j j ÚàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ `  ÐÌà@*ÚàAT€NASHVILLEóóˆÐ @ à ÐÌà@ÇÇ&ÚàNOVEMBER€1998€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ” àà ì à*à D àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9708„CC„00326Ð à€ Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àÌà Œ àAppellee,à < àà ” àà ì à*à D àGRUNDY€COUNTYÐ À`  Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àÌVS.à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à*à D àHonorable€Thomas€W.€Graham,€JudgeÐ  @  Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àÌRANDY€LEE€JONES,à ” àà ì à*à D à(First€degree€murder,€two€counts)Ð €  Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àÌà Œ àAppellant.à < àà ” àà ì à*Ð ` ÐÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:òòà < àà ” àà ì àà D àFor€Appelleeóó:Ð ° ÐÌPaul€D.€Crossà < àà ” àà ì àà D àJohn€Knox€Walkup€Ð ð ÐAttorney€for€the€Defendantà ì àà D àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ à€ Ð100€Highway€64€WestÌP.O.€Box€99à ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àKaren€M.€YacuzzoÐ À!` ÐMonteagle,€TN€€37356à ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ °"P Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à425€Fifth€Avenue,€North€Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àCordell€Hull€Building,€Second€FloorÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àJ.€Michael€Taylor€à L àà ¤ àà ü! àÐ `'  Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à1st€American€Bank€BuildingÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àThird€and€Market€StreetsÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àDayton,€TN€€37321ÌÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àThomas€D.€HembreeÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àLawyers€Building€CourthouseÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àJasper,€TN€€37347ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________ÌÌÌCONVICTIONS€AFFIRMED;€REMANDED€FOR€RESENTENCINGÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ  09Ð/3 ÐÓÓà@33-Úàò òòòOPINIONó óóóˆÐ `  Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant,€Randy€Lee€Jones,€was€convicted€of€the€first€degreeÏpremeditated€murder€of€Buster€Dewey€Caldwell€and€Marsha€Sue€Green€Anderson.€ÏInitially,€the€trial€court€imposed€concurrent€life€sentences€but€two€months€laterÏordered€consecutive€sentences.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€forÏreview:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(I)à0<ä Ð ä Ð àwhether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€theÐ ` Ðconvictions;Ð <Ð <Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(II)à0<ä Ð ä Ð àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€the€stateÐ 0Ð Ðto€impeach€witness€Mary€Perry;Ð <Ð <Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(III)à0<ä Ð ä Ð àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€grant€aÐ   Ðmistrial€or€provide€a€more€strongly€worded€curativeÏinstruction€following€improper€impeachment€ofÏwitness€Danny€Jones;Ð <Ð <Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(IV)à0<ä Ð ä Ð àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€evidenceÐ °"P Ðof€two€prior€bad€acts€by€the€defendant€andÏevidence€of€his€parole€status;Ð <Ð <Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(V)à0<ä Ð ä Ð àwhether€the€cumulative€effect€of€trial€errorsÐ p& Ðresulted€in€a€denial€of€due€process;€andÐ <Ð <Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(VI)à0<ä Ð ä Ð àwhether€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencesÐ @)à" Ðis€excessive€or€constitutes€double€jeopardy.Ó—ÓÐ <Ð <Ð  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€conviction€of€the€trial€court.€€Because€theÏtrial€court€erred€by€imposing€consecutive€sentences€without€conducting€a€sentencingÏhearing,€we€remand€this€matter€to€the€trial€court€for€resentencing.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àDuring€the€early€afternoon€of€November€14,€1995,€Mike€Kirk,€a€criminalÏinvestigator€for€the€Grundy€County€Sheriff's€Department,€was€dispatched€to€the€Ð P7ð-1 ÐMarsha€Anderson€residence€in€Altamont.€€When€he€arrived€at€the€scene,€Officer€KirkÏsaw€two€bodies€through€an€open€front€door.€€Sheriff€Robert€Meeks€later€identifiedÐ  9ª/5 Ðthe€victims€as€Buster€Caldwell€and€Marsha€Anderson.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àTBI€Special€Agent€Raymond€DePriest€who€conducted€an€analysis€ofÏthe€crime€scene€determined€that€the€murders€occurred€while€the€victims€were€eatingÏdinner€and€watching€television.€€The€Anderson€residence€had€been€ransacked.€€NoÏDNA€evidence€was€obtained€from€the€scene€and€no€blood€evidence€linked€theÏdefendant€to€the€murders.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àDon€Carmen,€a€ballistics€expert€for€the€TBI,€found€a€box€of€.32€caliberÏH€&€R€magnum€cartridges€at€the€residence€which€were€consistent€with€the€bulletsÏremoved€from€Ms.€Anderson.€€Agent€Carmen€testified€that€this€ammunition€isÏtypically€used€in€a€.32€H€&€R€magnum€revolver€manufactured€by€New€EnglandÏFirearms.€€While€authorities€never€recovered€the€revolver€used€to€shoot€Ms.ÏAnderson,€Agent€Carmen€found€a€œ20„gauge›€Winchester€shotgun„shell€wad€on€theÏfloor€and€another€live€Winchester€shotgun€shell€in€Caldwell's€front€pants€pocket.€ÏAlthough€he€could€not€link€the€gun€to€the€murder€scene€through€forensic€evidence,€ÏAgent€Carmen€identified€a€œ20„gauge›€single€shot€shotgun€as€the€likely€murderÏweapon€and€determined€that€Caldwell€had€been€shot€from€a€distance€of€four€toÏtwelve€feet.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àDr.€Charles€Harlan,€medical€examiner€for€Robertson€County,€testifiedÏthat€Caldwell€died€as€the€result€of€a€shotgun€wound€to€the€chest€which€penetratedÏhis€lung.€€He€stated€that€Caldwell€would€have€been€able€to€move€and€speak€for€threeÏto€six€minutes.€€Dr.€Harlan€testified€that€Ms.€Anderson,€who€had€been€shot€three€orÏfour€times€in€the€head,€died€as€a€result€of€a€fatal€gunshot€to€the€back€of€her€head.€ÏAlcohol€and€Valium€was€detected€in€the€blood€of€both€victims.€Ìœñ$VñÐ 8¸.4 Ðñ$Vñ›œñ%VñÐ 8¸.4 Ðñ%Vñ›à Œ àà ä àTBI€investigator€Larry€Davis€testified€that€on€November€15,€1995,ÏWayne€Fults€turned€in€a€œ20„gauge›€shotgun€thought€to€be€the€Caldwell€murderÏweapon.€€He€also€found€a€handwritten€note€in€Ms.€Anderson's€kitchen€whichÏprovided€as€follows:€"B€knows€who€got€TV€and€T.€€Best€buddy€R.J.€and€M.N.€€YourÏPal."€€Agent€Davis€had€questioned€the€defendant€shortly€after€the€murders.€€TheÏdefendant€stated€that€he€and€Caldwell€had€been€friends€and€that€on€Sunday,ÏNovember€12,€1995,€Caldwell's€truck€had€been€stolen€and€his€house€robbed.€€TheÏdefendant€claimed€that,€while€he€was€at€Slatton's€pool€hall€in€Griffith's€Creek,€heÏlearned€where€the€truck€could€be€found€and€on€the€day€after€the€robbery,€he€hadÏasked€Freddie€Meeks,€a€wrecker€operator,€to€tow€the€truck€back€to€Caldwell's.€€TheÏdefendant€claimed€that€Caldwell€had€accused€Bob€Rollins€of€the€theft.€€TheÏdefendant€explained€the€handwritten€note€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[T]he€note€...€said€it€was€Michelle€Norris€[the€defendant'sÏformer€girlfriend]€and€either€Baby€John€or€me€one,€that€itÏhad€the€initials,€it€didn't€say€exactly€who.€€[Caldwell]€cameÏover€to€Freddie€Meeks'€and€I€was€[there]€and€he€showedÏme€the€note€and€he€said€read€this€Randy€and€I€read€itÏand€said€Buster€you€know€where€I€am€at,€I€am€downÏNeecie's€I€been€down€there€weeks,€he€said€Randy€I€knowÏyou€have,€he€said€whoever€done€this€is€trying€to€set€youÏup€....ÓÞ ÓÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐAfter€the€truck€was€towed€to€Caldwell's€residence,€the€defendant€went€to€theÏresidence€he€shared€with€his€girlfriend€Denise€"Neecie"€Laymon,€where€he€ate€andÏwent€to€sleep.€€The€defendant€said€that€on€the€next€morning,€November€14,€heÏphoned€Caldwell€but€received€a€busy€signal.€€He€claimed€that€during€the€afternoon,Ïhe€and€Fults€traveled€to€Whitwell€to€purchase€some€tires€from€Danny€Jones€and€thatÏwhen€he€returned€around€4:00€P.M.,€he€learned€that€Caldwell€and€Ms.€AndersonÏhad€been€killed.€€The€defendant€denied€any€part€in€the€murders€and€denied€owningÏany€weapons.€€When€asked€if€his€fingerprints€would€be€found€on€the€shotgun,€theÏdefendant€had€replied€in€the€negative.€ÌÐ 8¸.4 Ðà Œ àà ä àFreddie€Meeks,€a€wrecker€operator,€testified€the€defendant€employedÏhim€to€tow€Caldwell's€truck.€€The€defendant€was€accompanied€by€Caldwell€and€Ms.ÏAnderson.€€Meeks€stated€that€Caldwell's€truck€was€not€visible€from€the€road€but€thatÏthe€defendant€was€able€to€direct€him€to€its€location.€€Meeks€recalled€that€CaldwellÏhad€confronted€the€defendant€with€the€note€and€had€asked€him€how€he€knew€whereÏto€find€the€truck.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àWayne€Fults,€a€first€cousin€to€the€defendant,€acknowledged€a€priorÏconviction€for€burglary€and€other€charges€currently€pending€against€him€in€GrundyÏCounty.€€He€testified€that€three€days€before€the€murders€he€overheard€the€defendantÏthreaten€to€kill€Caldwell€because€he€had€been€"telling€his€mother€stuff€and€she€wasÏtelling€the€cops."€€Fults€stated€that€Tim€Jones,€the€defendant's€brother,€also€heardÏthe€defendant€make€the€threat.€€On€the€morning€of€November€14th,€before€theÏbodies€were€discovered,€Fults€found€a€shotgun€in€a€car€at€Whispering€Pines,€a€plotÏof€land€owned€by€the€defendant's€family.€€Fults€took€possession€of€the€weapon€andÏlater€that€morning,€when€he€and€his€wife,€Deborah,€met€the€defendant€and€Ms.ÏLaymon,€the€defendant€had€asked€him€if€he€had€found€a€gun.€€The€defendant€toldÏhim€that€the€gun€needed€to€be€"melted€down"€because€"he'd€shot€somebody€with€it"Ïand€Ms.€Laymon€confirmed,€"Yeah,€he€did,€he€really€did."€€That€afternoon,€theÏdefendant€told€Fults€that€he€shot€Caldwell€and€that€DeWayne€Asberry€shot€Ms.ÏAnderson.€€The€defendant€revealed€that€Ms.€Laymon€was€present€during€theÏmurders.€€Fults€recalled€that€the€defendant€also€made€incriminating€statements€whileÏvisiting€Dave€and€Charlotte€Fults.€€The€defendant€had€stated€that€"he€needed€to€findÏthat€gun.€€It€needed€to€be€got€rid€of."€€Fults€testified€that€he€turned€over€the€shotgunÏto€Agent€Davis€on€the€day€after€the€murders€and€that€for€several€days€after€theÏmurders,€the€defendant€had€called€ten€to€fifteen€times€per€day€to€ask€if€there€hadÏbeen€any€information€announced€on€the€police€scanner.€€Fults€denied€havingÐ 8¸.4 Ðcleaned€the€gun€before€giving€it€to€Agent€Davis€and€denied€having€tried€to€sell€theÏweapon€to€Donnie€Nolan.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àDeborah€Fults€testified€that€the€day€the€bodies€were€found,€herÏhusband€went€to€Whispering€Pines€and€returned€in€possession€of€a€shotgun.€€Ms.ÏFults€recalled€meeting€the€defendant€and€Ms.€Laymon€along€the€road€and€that€theÏdefendant€asked€whether€Fults€had€found€a€gun€at€Whispering€Pines€and€alsoÏremarked€that€"whoever€had€got€it€needed€to€know€that€he€had€shot€somebody€withÏit."€€Ms.€Fults€corroborated€her€husband's€testimony€regarding€the€phone€calls€fromÏthe€defendant€over€the€next€several€days.€€On€cross„examination,€Ms.€FultsÏestimated€when€her€husband€went€to€Whispering€Pines,€he€was€away€for€thirtyÏminutes.€€She€stated€that€Whispering€Pines€was€ten€miles€from€her€house.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àMary€Perry€testified€that€she€was€at€David€and€Charlotte€Fults'Ïresidence€on€the€date€of€the€murders€when€the€defendant€arrived.€€She€recalled€thatÏthe€defendant€warned€Wayne€Fults€that€"if€he€had€...€got€a€gun€out€of€there€that€heÏneeded€to€get€rid€of€it"€because€"it€could€be€caught€up€in€something."€€Apparently,Ïthe€state€expected€Ms.€Perry€to€repeat€a€prior€statement€she€made€to€Agent€DavisÏthat€the€defendant€had€said,€"it€could€be€caught€up€in€a€murder"€and€that€the€gunÏhad€been€used€as€"a€murder€weapon."€€When€the€state€was€permitted€to€confrontÏMs.€Perry€with€the€content€of€the€prior€inconsistent€statement,€she€maintained€thatÏher€in„court€testimony€was€accurate€and€that€the€defendant€had€simply€said€"theyÏhad€shot€a€gun€the€night€before."€€She€testified€that€the€defendant€had€appearedÏnervous€but€contended€that€he€had€never€admitted€to€committing€a€murder.€€SheÏalso€observed€that€Wayne€Fults'€reputation€for€truthfulness€"ain't€too€good."€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àCharlotte€Fults€overheard€the€defendant€using€the€telephone€the€dayÐ 8¸.4 ÐWayne€Fults€found€the€shotgun.€€She€testified€that€she€heard€the€defendant€say,Ï"You€better€get€rid€of€the€gun,€or€if,€if€you€get€caught€with€it,€you're€liable€to€be€caughtÏup€in€a€shooting€or€a€murder€or€something€to€that."€€She€recalled€that€the€defendantÏhad€indicated€that€the€gun€was€missing€from€Whispering€Pines.€€She€described€theÏdefendant€as€acting€"strange."€€On€cross„examination,€Charlotte€Fults€acknowledgedÏthat€she€never€heard€the€defendant€confess€that€he€had€committed€a€murder.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àDanny€Jones,€Jr.,€first€cousin€to€the€defendant,€testified€that€he€wasÏworking€in€Whitwell€on€the€afternoon€of€the€murders€when€the€defendantÏapproached€him€and€said,€"There's€some€people€killed€out€on€the€pipeline€atÏAltamont,"€or€"they€had€found€some€people€dead."€€While€œhe›€recalled€asking€theÏdefendant€what€had€happened,€œJones€"wasn't›€really€for€sure"€how€the€defendantÏresponded.€€The€state€had€expected€him€to€confirm€a€prior€statement€to€TBIÏinvestigators€that€the€defendant€œadmitted€"he›€had€killed€the€people."€€While€DannyÏJones€œacknowledged€ñVñadmitted›€ñVñthat›€he€might€have€told€investigators€that€the€defendant€hadÏœñVñconfessed€to€ñVññVñadmitted›€ñVñkilling›€the€victims,€he€œñVñcontended€ñVññ Vñstated›€ñ Vñthat›€his€prior€statement€was€notÏaccurate.€€Thereafter,€the€trial€court€refused€to€permit€the€state€to€question€himÏfurther€about€the€prior€statement€and€instructed€the€jury€œñ!Vñthañ!Vññ"Vññ!Vñqtñ!Vññ"Vññ#Vñt€ñ#Vñit›€could€not€considerÏany€testimony€regarding€the€prior€statement.€€Danny€Jones€went€on€to€testify€thatÏWayne€Fults€had€been€angry€with€Caldwell€because€Caldwell€had€"ragged€out"€hisÏMustang€and€then€reneged€on€their€agreement€to€trade€vehicles.€€Danny€Jones€alsoÏtestified€that€after€the€theft€of€Caldwell's€truck,€he€had€driven€the€defendant€toÏœSlatton's€pool€hall.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àJames€Caldwell,€the€victim's€uncle,€identified€the€shotgun€obtained€byÏAgent€Davis€as€being€"just€like"€the€one€he€shared€with€Buster€Caldwell.€€He€testifiedÏthe€on€that€night€before€the€murders,€Buster€Caldwell€had€borrowed€his€20„ñ%Vñ›ñ%VñgaugeÐ 8¸.4 Ðsingle„shot€shotgun€and€two€Winchester€shells.€€Ì€Ìà Œ àà ä àBradford€Meeks€testified€that€sometime€in€October€of€1995,€Ms.ÏAnderson€had€purchased€a€model€R€73€New€England€Firearms€.32€caliber€magnumÏrevolver€and€a€fifty„count€box€of€.32€caliber€shells€at€his€hunting€supply€store.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àJason€Slatton,€who€acknowledged€a€prior€conviction€for€attempted€theftÏfor€which€he€is€currently€serving€a€three„year€sentence€in€the€community€correctionsÏprogram,€testified€that€he€worked€at€a€pool€hall€in€Griffith's€Creek€and€knew€both€theÏdefendant€and€Caldwell.€€Slatton€recalled€that€on€the€day€before€the€bodies€wereÏdiscovered,€the€defendant€had€stopped€by€the€pool€hall€shortly€after€dark€and€hadÏdiscussed€the€location€of€a€pickup€truck€that€Slatton€had€seen€abandoned€nearby.€ÏHe€recalled€that€the€defendant€was€accompanied€by€two€women€and€did€notÏremember€seeing€Danny€Jones€at€the€pool€hall€that€night.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àBob€Rollins,€who€acknowledged€a€prior€felony€conviction€for€receivingÏstolen€property,€testified€that€he€had€loaned€Caldwell€one€hundred€dollars€severalÏdays€before€the€shootings€and€Caldwell€had€not€repaid€him.€€Rollins€stated€that€afterÏdark€on€the€evening€before€the€bodies€were€discovered,€Caldwell€and€Ms.€AndersonÏhad€stopped€by€his€residence.€€He€believed€both€had€been€drinking€and€were€armedÏwith€a€shotgun€and€a€pistol.€€Rollins€testified€that€Caldwell€informed€him€that€hisÏtelevision€and€truck€had€been€stolen.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àTeresa€Blubaugh,€Ms.€Anderson's€daughter,€testified€that€inÏSeptember€of€1995,€her€mother€had€separated€from€her€husband,€Bob€Anderson.€ÏMs.€Blubaugh€recalled€that€Bob€Anderson€had€threatened€to€kill€her€mother.€ÌÐ 8¸.4 Ðà Œ àà ä àDonnie€Nolan,€who€acknowledged€prior€felony€convictions€for€stealingÏcars€and€possession€of€marijuana,€claimed€that€on€the€night€before€he€heard€aboutÏthe€murders,€Wayne€Fults€came€to€his€house€and€offered€to€sell€him€a€12„gaugeÏshotgun.€€While€Nolan€conceded€that€he€never€saw€the€weapon,€he€observed€FultsÏ"duck€down"€when€a€car€passed,€as€though€he€"didn't€want€nobody€to€see€him."€ÏNolan€described€Fults€as€"acting€real€scared."€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àRegina€Hood€testified€that€she€went€to€Ms.€Laymon's€residence€on€theÏdate€of€the€murders€and€asked€her€to€go€shopping.€€She€recalled€that€Ms.€LaymonÏdirected€her€to€drive€to€Ms.€Anderson's€house.€€From€the€driveway,€Ms.€Hood€sawÏthe€front€door€open€and€the€bodies€of€the€victims€on€the€floor.€€She€left€immediately.€ÏMs.€Laymon€telephoned€the€sheriff's€department€from€a€nearby€house.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àDenise€Laymon€testified€that€she€and€the€defendant€were€notÏromantically€involved€at€the€time€of€trial€but€that,€in€the€fall€of€1995,€the€defendantÏwas€living€with€her€and€her€daughter.€€She€recalled€that€during€the€late€evening€ofÏNovember€13th,€the€defendant,€Caldwell,€and€Ms.€Anderson,€arrived€at€her€mobileÏhome.€€She€stated€that€the€victims€had€been€drinking€and€remembered€that€shortlyÏthereafter€DeWayne€Asberry€arrived.€€Sometime€after€midnight,€the€victims€left.€€Ms.ÏLaymon€testified€that€she€then€retired€to€her€bedroom€and€the€defendant€followed€aÏfew€minutes€later.€€Asberry€was€permitted€to€sleep€on€the€couch.€€Ms.€LaymonÏtestified€that€she€was€quite€sure€that€neither€the€defendant€nor€Asberry€left€her€trailerÏduring€the€night.€€She€acknowledged€that€the€next€morning,€she€and€the€defendantÏwent€to€Whispering€Pines€where€they€met€Wayne€and€Deborah€Fults€along€theÏroadway.€€Ms.€Laymon€recalled€that€she€was€driving€and€listening€to€the€radio€andÏthat€the€defendant€got€out€of€the€car€to€talk€to€Fults.€€She€denied€hearing€theÏdefendant€admit€that€the€he€had€shot€someone€and€denied€saying,€"Yeah,€he€did.€Ð 8¸.4 ÐYes,€he€did."€€She€stated€that€in€the€afternoon,€she€and€Ms.€Hood€decided€to€goÏshopping€and€she€intended€to€ask€Ms.€Anderson€to€accompany€them.€€Ms.€LaymonÏsuggested€they€"get€out€of€there"€when€they€arrived€at€the€Anderson€residence€andÏsaw€the€victims.€€She€telephoned€the€sheriff€at€a€nearby€house.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àTim€Jones,€the€defendant's€brother,€testified€that€he€did€not€recallÏriding€in€the€car€with€Wayne€Fults€or€hearing€the€defendant€threaten€anyone.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€thirty„year„old€defendant€testified€that€he€had€previously€pleadedÏguilty€to€several€offenses,€including€burglary€of€a€business,€auto€theft,€and€recklessÏendangerment.€€He€acknowledged€that€he€had€been€acquainted€with€Caldwell€for€sixÏmonths€and€Ms.€Anderson€for€a€few€weeks.€€The€defendant€recalled€that€onÏNovember€12,€1995,€he€had€given€them€some€furniture€from€Whispering€PinesÏbecause€Ms.€Anderson's€house€had€been€"cleaned€out."€€He€claimed€that€on€theÏnext€day,€he€and€the€victims€had€returned€to€Whispering€Pines€for€some€lamps€andÏCaldwell€had€informed€him€that€his€truck€and€television€had€been€stolen.€€TheÏdefendant€stated€that€he€met€Danny€Jones€later,€told€him€that€someone€had€stolenÏCaldwell's€truck€and€television,€and€asked€for€a€ride€to€Slatton's€pool€hall€and€pawnÏshop.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€he€thought€that€the€television€might€have€beenÏpawned€there.€€The€defendant€stated€that€he€spoke€with€Jason€Slatton,€who€directedÏhim€to€a€truck€that€had€been€abandoned€a€short€distance€away.€€The€defendantÏtestified€that€he€found€the€truck€as€he€returned€to€Ms.€Laymon's€trailer,€informed€theÏvictims,€and€arranged€for€Freddie€Meeks€to€"pull"€the€truck.€€While€he€conceded€thatÏthe€victims€followed€the€wrecker€to€the€stolen€truck,€the€defendant€denied€thatÏCaldwell€had€accused€him€of€the€theft€or€that€they€had€argued€about€how€he€hadÏlearned€where€the€truck€was€located.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€Caldwell€wasÏlaughing€when€he€approached€him€with€a€pistol€and€a€note€implicating€the€defendantÐ 8¸.4 Ðin€the€theft.€€The€defendant€testified€that€after€towing€the€truck,€he€and€the€victimsÏbought€some€beer€and€went€to€Ms.€Laymon's€trailer.€€He€stated€that€Asberry€arrivedÏunexpectedly€and,€shortly€past€midnight,€the€victims€left.€€The€defendant€claimedÏthat€was€the€last€time€he€saw€the€victims€alive.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€ate€a€can€of€soup€before€going€to€sleepÏand€denied€leaving€Ms.€Laymon's€trailer€that€night.€€Although€he€was€not€positive,€heÏstated€that€he€did€not€believe€that€Ms.€Laymon€or€Asberry€left€either.€€He€claimedÏthat€he€attempted€to€call€the€victims€several€times€the€next€morning€and€received€aÏbusy€signal.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€recalled€that€he€and€Ms.€Laymon€drove€to€WhisperingÏPines€and€met€Wayne€and€Deborah€Fults€along€the€roadway.€€The€defendant€statedÏthat€Fults€asked€him€if€he€had€been€down€to€Whispering€Pines€earlier€in€the€day€andÏthat€he€had€replied€in€the€negative.€€He€contended€that€Fults€admitted€that€he€hadÏrobbed€a€house€and€had€hidden€some€guns€at€Whispering€Pines€and€that€FultsÏasked€if€he€had€taken€the€guns,€to€which€the€defendant€said€no.€€He€claimed€thatÏshortly€after€noon,€Wayne€Fults€called€and€asked€him€whether€David€or€LeonardÏFults€had€been€to€Whispering€Pines€and€taken€the€guns.€€Later,€when€he€was€atÏDavid€Fults'€house,€the€defendant€called€Wayne€Fults€and€informed€him€that€neitherÏDavid€nor€Leonard€had€not€been€to€Whispering€Pines€and€knew€nothing€about€theÏguns.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€Wayne€Fults€then€directed€him€to€warn€them,€"ifÏanybody€gets€caught€with€[those€guns],€they'll€get€caught€with€a€charge."€€HeÏexplained€that€as€he€was€leaving€David€Fults'€residence,€he€did€remark,€"Oh,€yeah,€ifÏanybody€gets€caught€with€them€guns€they'll€catch€a€charge."ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€contended€that€later€that€afternoon,€while€he€andÐ 8¸.4 ÐWayne€Fults€drove€to€Whitwell€to€talk€to€Danny€Jones,€they€overheard€a€policeÏscanner€report€that€a€doctor€had€been€called€to€the€Company€Farm.€€The€defendantÏmaintained€that€Wayne€Fults€then€remarked,€"Well,€they€found€somebody€dead."€ÏThe€defendant€described€Fults€as€being€"in€a€panic."€€They€took€an€alternate€routeÏhome.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOn€cross„examination,€the€defendant€maintained€that€Wayne€FultsÏwas€a€"rogue€and€a€thief"€but€acknowledged€that€he€and€Fults€had€been€convicted€ofÏa€joint€burglary€in€the€past.€€The€defendant€contended€that€the€testimony€of€FreddieÏMeeks,€Jason€Slatton,€Danny€Jones,€and€Charlotte€Fults€was€mistaken€and€thatÏWayne€and€Deborah€Fults€had€lied.€€He€claimed€that€he€did€not€leave€Ms.€Laymon'sÏtrailer€on€the€night€the€victims€were€murdered€and€denied€either€going€to€Ms.ÏAnderson's€house€or€shooting€Caldwell€with€a€20„gauge€shotgun.€€He€also€deniedÏputting€the€shotgun€in€the€blue€Lincoln€Continental€at€Whispering€Pines€and€deniedÏtelling€Fults€that€he€was€angry€with€Caldwell€for€statements€Caldwell€made€to€hisÏmother€regarding€activities€of€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€acknowledged€that€heÏwas€on€parole€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àWayne€Fults,€who€was€recalled€by€the€defense,€testified€that€while€heÏand€the€defendant€were€in€Whitwell€to€see€Danny€Jones,€he€"thought"€that€he€heardÏover€the€police€scanner€that€Lana€Morrison,€a€former€girlfriend€of€the€defendant,€hadÏreported€to€the€sheriff's€department€that€someone€had€"taken€a€shot€at€her."€€WhenÏFults€told€the€defendant€the€news,€they€"hightailed€it"€out€of€Whitwell,€and€took€anÏalternate€route€home.€€Fults€denied€concocting€that€story€to€conceal€his€nervousnessÏabout€the€discovery€of€the€victims€at€Company€Farm.€€He€denied€having€stolen€theÏguns€and€hiding€them€at€Whispering€Pines.€€ÌÐ 8¸.4 Ðà Œ àà ä àLana€Morrison€testified€as€a€defense€witness€that€the€defendantÏreturned€to€live€with€her€on€the€day€after€the€murders.€€She€stated€that€she€had€aÏpolice€scanner€in€her€trailer€at€the€time€and€implied€that€there€would€have€been€noÏneed€for€the€defendant€to€call€Wayne€Fults€to€get€information€about€the€murderÏinvestigation.€€On€cross„examination€she€recalled€that,€during€the€evening€ofÏNovember€12th,€someone€shot€into€her€trailer€and€she€had€notified€the€sheriff€but€noÏone€had€investigated.€€There€were€no€records€in€the€sheriff's€department€of€aÏdispatch€for€a€shooting€incident€at€the€Morrison€residence€on€the€day€Wayne€FultsÏclaimed€to€have€heard€the€report.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àSheriff€Meeks,€called€by€the€state€in€response€to€Ms.€Morrison'sÏclaims,€disputed€the€veracity€of€her€testimony.€€He€testified€that€he€had€investigatedÏthe€shooting€incident€at€Ms.€Morrison's€trailer,€talked€with€Ms.€Morrison€and€herÏmother,€and€inspected€the€bullet€holes.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€parties€stipulated€that€on€November€10,€1995,€the€victim€AndersonÏsold€a€piece€of€real€estate€and€received€$241.28€in€cash€and€a€$3,000.00€check.€€OnÏSeptember€20,€1995,€she€sold€some€farm€equipment€and€was€paid€$3,200.00€inÏcash.€€On€September€19,€1995,€she€sold€some€livestock€for€$3,000.00,€paid€byÏcheck.€€On€September€15,€1995,€she€sold€livestock€for€$600.00€cash.€€ÌÌà@¾¾0ÚàIˆÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏverdicts.€€On€appeal,€of€course,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÏof€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€ÏòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€of€theÐ L6ì,2 Ðwitnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflictsÐ 8¸.4 Ðin€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575Ð `  ÐS.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€When€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏchallenged,€the€relevant€question€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€lightÏmost€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2dÐ 0 Ð405,€410€(Tenn.€1983);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€ÌÌÔ‡ XªŒXXXªŒÔà Œ àà ä àFirst€degree€murder€is€defined€as€a€"premeditated€and€intentionalÐ ô”  Ðkilling€of€another."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1).€€"'Premeditation'€is€an€actÏdone€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment"€and€requires€that€the€"intent€toÏkill€must€have€been€formed€prior€to€the€act€itself."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(d).€ÌÔ#†XªŒXX XªŒ§l#ÔA€Ô‡ XªŒXXXªŒÔ€person€"acts€intentionally€with€respect€to€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€to€a€result€ofÐ $Ä Ðthe€conduct€when€it€is€the€person's€conscious€objective€or€desire€to€engage€in€theÏconduct€or€cause€the€result."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(a).€€Ô#†XªŒXX XªŒ`n#ÔWhile€the€intent€toÐ ¼ \ Ðkill€must€have€been€formed€prior€to€the€act€itself,€"it€is€not€necessary€that€theÏpurpose€to€kill€pre„exist€in€the€mind€of€the€accused€for€any€definite€period€of€time."ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(d).€€One€respected€authority€provides€some€insightÏinto€the€nature€of€proof€required€before€a€jury€might€properly€infer€premeditation:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(1)€facts€about€how€and€what€the€defendant€did€prior€toÏthe€actual€killing€which€show€he€was€engaged€in€activityÏdirected€toward€the€killing,€that€is,€òòplanning€activityóó;Є+$"&ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(2)€facts€about€the€defendant's€prior€relationship€andÏconduct€with€the€victim€from€which€òòmotiveóó€may€beÐ 6.Ö$) Ðinferred;€andÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(3)€facts€about€the€òònature€of€the€killingóó€from€which€it€mayÐ è0ˆ', Ðbe€inferred€that€the€manner€of€the€killing€was€soÏparticular€and€exacting€that€the€defendant€must€haveÏintentionally€killed€according€to€a€preconceived€design.ÓqÓÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(quoting€2€W.Ð f5,1 ÐLaFave€and€A.€Scott,€Jr.,€òòSubstantive€Criminal€Lawóó€ðð€7.7€(1986)€(emphasis€inÐ 27Ò-3 Ðoriginal)€(footnote€omitted)).€€Premeditation€is€a€question€for€the€jury€and€may€beÐ þ8ž/5 Ðinferred€from€the€manner€and€circumstances€of€the€killing.€€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881Ð `  ÐS.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Still,€a€jury€may€not€engage€in€speculation.€€IfÏany€of€the€elements€for€first€degree€murder€are€absent,€a€lesser€grade€of€homicideÏmay€apply.€€òòBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€222.Ô‡ XªŒXXXªŒÔÐ Äd ÐÌÔ#†XªŒXX XªŒv#Ôà Œ àà ä àÔ‡ XªŒXXXªŒÔ€Ô#†XªŒXX XªŒ w#ÔThe€state's€theory€was€that€the€defendant€shot€Caldwell€and€an€Ð \ü  Ðaccomplice€shot€Ms.€Anderson.€Ô‡ XªŒXXXªŒÔ€The€verdict€accredited€the€witnesses€for€the€state.€Ð (È  ÐTaking€their€accounts€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€position€of€the€state,€theÏevidence,€in€our€view,€is€adequate€to€support€the€verdicts€of€first€degree€murder.€€Ô#†XªŒXX XªŒÂw#ÔÐ À` ÐThe€defendant€told€Wayne€Fults€days€before€the€murders€that€he€intended€to€killÏCaldwell€and,€afterwards,€he€admitted€to€Fults€that€he€shot€Caldwell€and€AsberryÏshot€Ms.€Anderson.€€The€defendant€had€warned,€"[the€gun]€needed€to€be€meltedÏdown€or€something,€he'd€shot€somebody€with€it."€€When€Fults€expressed€doubt,€Ms.ÏLaymon€had€exclaimed,€"Yeah,€he€did.€He€really€did."€€Ms.€Fults€corroborated€muchÏof€Wayne€Fults'€testimony.€€Furthermore,€the€defendant€made€additionalÏincriminating€statements€in€the€presence€of€Charlotte€Fults,€stating,€"[Y]ou€better€getÏrid€of€the€gun,€or€if,€if€you€get€caught€with€it,€you're€liable€to€be€caught€up€in€aÏshooting,€or€a€murder,€or€something€to€that."€€A€shotgun€blast€to€the€chest€at€closeÏrange€demonstrates€the€defendant's€intent€to€cause€death€and€the€jury€couldÏrationally€conclude€that€was€the€defendant's€conscious€objective.€€This€evidence,Ïaccredited€by€the€jury,€is€sufficient€to€prove€intent€and€premeditation€for€the€killing€ofÏCaldwell.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Terry€Lynn€Anthonyóó,€No.€02C01-9605-CC-00159€(Tenn.Ð /¼%* ÐCrim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€March€18),€òòapp.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.,Oct.€6,€1997)€(statementsÐ è0ˆ', Ðbefore€and€after€the€killing€indicated€planning€activity).ÌÌÔ‡ XªŒXXXªŒÔà Œ àà ä àThere€is€also€sufficient€evident€to€support€the€conviction€for€Ms.Ð L6ì,2 ÐAnderson's€death.€€The€defendant€may€be€found€criminally€responsible€for€theÐ 8¸.4 Ðconduct€of€another€if€"[a]cting€with€intent€to€promote€or€assist€the€commission€of€theÏoffense,€or€to€benefit€in€the€proceeds€or€results€of€the€offense,€[he]€solicits,€directs,Ïaids,€or€attempts€to€aid€another€person€to€commit€the€offense."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„11„402(2).€€ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àIn€a€prosecution€in€which€a€person's€criminalÏresponsibility€is€based€upon€the€conduct€of€another,€theÏperson€may€be€convicted€on€proof€of€commission€of€theÏoffense€and€that€the€person€was€a€party€to€or€facilitatedÏits€commission,€and€it€is€no€defense€that:€...€[t]he€personÏfor€whose€conduct€the€defendant€is€criminally€responsibleÏhas€been€acquitted,€has€not€been€prosecuted€orÏconvicted,€or€is€immune€from€prosecution.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓöÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„407.€€ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThis€section€reflects€a€policy€determination€that,€in€a€caseÏinvolving€multiple€offenders,€a€conviction€should€beÏsustained€where€there€is€sufficient€evidence€to€support€itÏ...€Thus,€the€defendant€may€be€convicted€whether€theÏother€parties€to€the€offense€are€convicted,€acquitted,€orÏincapable€of€criminal€responsibility.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓ‚ÓSentencing€Commission€Comments.€€Presence€and€companionship€with€theÏperpetrator€of€a€felony€before€and€after€the€commission€of€the€offense€areÏcircumstances€from€which€one's€participation€in€the€crime€may€be€inferred.€€NoÏparticular€act€need€be€shown.€€It€is€not€necessary€for€one€to€take€a€physical€part€inÏthe€crime.€€Encouragement€of€the€principal€is€sufficient.€€òòState€v.€McBeeóó,€644Ð ì'Œ" ÐS.W.2d€425€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€Ô#†XªŒXX XªŒð}#ÔÔ‡ XªŒXXXªŒÔMere€presence€during€the€commission€of€theÐ ¸)X $ Ðcrime€is€not€enough€to€convict.€€òòSeeóó€òòFlippen€v.€Stateóó,€365€S.W.2d€895,€899€(Tenn.Ð „+$"& Ð1963);€òòAnglin€v.€Stateóó,€553€S.W.2d€616,€619€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).Ô#†XªŒXX XªŒ¤…#ÔÐ P-ð#( ÐÌà Œ àà ä àWayne€Fults€testified€that€the€defendant€admitted€that€he€shot€CaldwellÏand€Asberry€shot€Ms.€Anderson.€€There€is€circumstantial€evidence€to€support€WayneÏFults'€testimony.€€The€victims€were€often€together€and€it€was€not€unusual€forÏCaldwell€to€stay€with€Ms.€Anderson.€€Hours€before€the€murder,€the€intoxicatedÏvictims€announced€they€were€going€to€Ms.€Anderson's€residence€and€left€theÐ 8¸.4 Ðdefendant€and€Asberry€at€Ms.€Laymon's.€€Sometime€thereafter,€the€defendantÏsought€out€Caldwell€at€Ms.€Anderson's€residence€with€an€intent€to€kill€him.€€TheÏdefendant€knew€Ms.€Anderson€would€also€be€present.€€The€murders€occurred€inÏclose€succession€and€in€close€proximity.€€That€the€defendant€planned€the€murder€ofÏCaldwell€under€these€circumstances€supports€an€inference€that€he€also€consideredÏthe€murder€of€Ms.€Anderson.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Antonio€M.€Byrdóó,€No.€02C01-9508-CR-Ð \ü  Ð00232€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Jan.€2),€òòapp.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.,€Sept.€22,€1997).€Ð (È  ÐThus,€the€jury€could€infer€that€Ms.€Anderson€was€killed€following€some€period€ofÏreflection.€€Ms.€Anderson,€who€suffered€at€least€three€gunshot€wounds€to€her€head,Ïwas€killed€by€a€fatal€shot€aimed€to€the€back€of€her€head,€which€demonstrates€anÏintent€to€kill€on€the€part€of€the€principal.€€This€evidence€demonstrates€that€the€murderÏof€Ms.€Anderson€was€an€intentional€and€premeditated€killing.€€Moreover,€any€rationalÏtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€that€the€defendant€was€a€party€to€Ms.€Anderson'sÏmurder.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„407.€€The€jury€accredited€the€testimony€ofÐ ¼ \ ÐWayne€Fults,€to€whom€the€defendant€admitted€his€and€Asberry's€roles€in€theÏmurders.€€This€proof€was€uncontested.€€Although€the€state€did€not€offer€furtherÏevidence€of€the€identity€of€the€Ms.€Anderson's€killer,€that€does€not€alleviate€theÏdefendant's€criminal€responsibility€for€Ms.€Anderson's€death.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,Ð ì'Œ" Ð920€S.W.2d€247,€255€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(although€rape€victim€could€notÏconclusively€identify€the€defendant€as€the€person€who€penetrated€her,€the€defendantÏinitiated€the€attack€and€"clearly€assisted"€the€person€who€did€penetrate€her).€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€contends,€however,€that€the€convictions€are€basedÏ"almost€entirely"€on€the€"almost€completely€uncorroborated"€testimony€of€Wayne€andÏDeborah€Fults€and€that€there€was€no€physical€evidence€linking€the€defendant€to€theÏcrimes.€€Ô‡ XªŒXXXªŒÔThe€òòcorpus€delictióó€of€a€crime€requires€a€showing€that€a€certain€result€hasÐ L6ì,2 Ðbeen€produced€and€the€result€was€created€through€a€criminal€agency.€€òòAshby€v.Ð 8¸.4 ÐStateóó,€139€S.W.€872€(Tenn.€1911);€òòState€v.€Ervinóó,€731€S.W.2d€70€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð `  Ð1986).€€Whether€the€state€has€sufficiently€established€the€òòcorpus€delictióó€is€primarily€aÐ , Ì Ðjury€question.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€552€S.W.2d€772€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€AllÐ ø ˜ Ðelements€of€the€òòcorpus€delictióó€may€be€established€by€circumstantial€evidence.€Ð Äd ÐòòClancy€v.€Stateóó,€521€S.W.2d€780€(Tenn.€1975).€€Only€slight€evidence€of€the€òòcorpusÐ 0 Ðdelictióó€is€necessary€to€corroborate€a€confession€and€thus€sustain€a€conviction.€Ð \ü  ÐòòRicketts€v.€Stateóó,€241€S.W.2d€604€(Tenn.€1951).€€Corroborative€findings€made€in€theÐ (È  Ðcourse€of€the€investigation€in€addition€to€the€confession€may€be€sufficient€to€supportÏthe€conviction.€€òòErvinóó,€731€S.W.2d€at€72.€€Ð À` ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€our€view,€the€state€met€its€burden€of€proof€as€to€the€òòcorpus€delictióó.€€Ð Xø Ð"A€confession€may€sustain€a€conviction€where€there€is€other€evidence€sufficient€toÏshow€the€commission€of€the€crime€by€someone."€€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€479€S.W.2d€659,Ð ð Ð661„62€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972).€€Here,€the€defendant€admitted€to€Wayne€andÏDeborah€Fults€that€he€had€shot€someone€the€night€before€and€left€the€gun€atÏWhispering€Pines.€€Wayne€Fults€found€a€shotgun€at€Whispering€Pines€that€morning.€ÏDr.€Harlan€testified€that€the€victims€had€died€as€a€result€of€lethal€gunshot€woundsÏfrom€a€shotgun€and€a€pistol.€€The€corroborative€evidence€necessary€to€support€theÏòòcorpus€delictióó€need€only€support€"the€essential€facts€...€to€justify€a€jury€inference€ofÐ ¸)X $ Ðtheir€truth."€€òòOpper€v.€United€Statesóó,€348€U.S.€84,€93€(1954).€€The€state€has€satisfiedÐ „+$"& Ðthat€standard.€€ÌÔ#†XªŒXX XªŒÉ#ÔÌà@††/ÚàII€ˆÌà Œ àà ä àNext,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€theÏstate€to€impeach€state€witnesses€Mary€Perry€with€a€prior€inconsistent€statement.€ÏThe€defendant€contends€that€Mary€Perry€was€merely€a€reluctant€witness€whoseÏtestimony€was€not€actually€prejudicial€to€the€state€and€therefore,€the€trial€court€erredÐ 8¸.4 Ðby€permitting€the€state€to€impeach€her.€€The€defendant€relies€upon€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,Ð `  Ð215€S.W.2d€813€(Tenn.€1948),€and€òòMays€v.€Stateóó,€495€S.W.2d€833€(Tenn.€App.Ð , Ì Ð1972).€€€The€state€argues€that€under€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€and€the€priorÏholdings€of€our€state's€courts,€a€party€is€permitted€to€impeach€its€own€witness€if€theÏwitness'€testimony€contradicts€his€or€her€prior€statement€to€the€surprise€of€the€partyÏcalling€the€witness.€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àRule€607,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€provides€that€"[t]he€credibilityÏof€a€witness€may€be€attacked€by€any€party,€including€the€party€calling€the€witness."ÏPrior€inconsistent€statements€may€be€used€to€impeach€the€credibility€of€a€witness.€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€613;€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€613.1€atÐ Xø Ð405„06€(3d€ed.€1995€&€Supp.€1998).€€An€inconsistent€statement€may€be€used€toÏimpeach€the€credibility€of€a€witness€who€denies€or€cannot€remember€having€made€aÏprior€statement.€€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€947€S.W.2d€875,€882€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€Ð ¼ \ ÐRule€607€"permits€impeachment€by€either€party€so€long€as€the€questioning€is€not€aÏpretext€for€putting€inadmissible€hearsay€before€the€jury."€€òòState€v.€Timmy€Fultonóó,€No.Ð T$ô Ð02C01„9706„CC„00223,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€April€21),€òòapp.Ð  &À  Ðdeniedóó,€(Tenn.,€Dec.€28,€1998).€€Ð ì'Œ" ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòKingóó,€our€supreme€court€adopted€the€rule€that€a€party€can€impeachÐ „+$"& Ðhis€or€her€own€witness€under€the€following€circumstances:€ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à"[A]€party€is€compelled€to€call€an€indispensable€witness,Ïor€a€witness€that€is€hostile€taking€the€party€by€surprise€....ÏThis€...€is€equally€applicable€to€the€prosecution,€becauseÏthe€state€must€bring€forward€all€witnesses€obtainable,Ïand€it€would€be€unfair€to€the€prosecution€where€it€couldÏnot€contradict€an€unexpectedly€hostile€witness.€€In€suchÏcase€the€hostility€may€be€shown€by€the€witness€himself€orÏotherwise,€and€he€then€may€be€examined€as€to€hisÏcontradictory€statements;€but€the€impeachment€of€one'sÏown€witness€is€limited€to€those€cases€where€hisÏtestimony€is€in€direct€contradiction€to€his€prior€statements,Ïand€he€cannot€be€impeached€where€he€is€merelyÐ þ8ž/5 Ðreluctant€to€give€testimony€or€unless€the€testimony€isÏactually€prejudicial."Ó4¡ÓÐ ä Ð ä Ð  Ð215€S.W.2d€at€815€(quoting€1€òòWharton's€Criminal€Evidenceóó€ðð€484a€(10th€ed.)).Ð  ² ÐIt€appears€that€a€witness€becomes€indispensable€when€the€party€calling€the€witnessÏhas€no€alternative€means€of€presenting€the€evidence€to€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòMaysóó,€495Ð ªJ ÐS.W.2d€at€833€(witness€indispensable€when€state€depended€entirely€on€the€witness'Ïtestimony€to€corroborate€the€accomplices'€testimony);€òòState€v.€Marlowóó,€665€S.W.2dÐ Bâ  Ð410,€412€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(witness€indispensable€where€she€was€the€"onlyÏwitness€who€could€lend€support€to€the€young€victim's€testimony");€òòWilson€v.Ð Úz  ÐTranbargeróó,€402€S.W.2d€449,€456€(Tenn.€1965)€(witness€not€indispensable€whereÐ ¦F Ðthere€were€three€additional€eyewitnesses€to€the€accident).€€A€hostile€witness€mayÏdisplay€hostility,€be€evasive€or€uncooperative,€or€contradict€pretrial€statements.€€òòSeeóóÐ >Þ ÐòòKirksey€v.€Overton€Pub,€Inc.óó,€804€S.W.2d€68,€76€(Tenn.€App.€1990);€òòState€v.Ð  ª ÐJohnsonóó,€685€S.W.2d€301,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984);€€òòFloyd€v.€Stateóó,€596Ð Öv ÐS.W.2d€836,€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€The€requirement€in€òòKingóó€that€there€be€aÐ ¢!B Ðdirect€contradiction€is€more€strict€than€the€traditional€posture€of€Rule€613,€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.,€which€requires€only€an€inconsistency.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòKingóó,€the€defendant€confessed€prior€to€trial€to€unlawful€sexualÐ Ò(r# Ðcontact€with€his€daughter.€€In€a€pretrial€statement,€his€daughter€had€corroborated€hisÏconfession.€€At€trial,€however,€she€refused€to€answer€questions€from€the€prosecutorÏuntil€the€trial€court€threatened€her€with€contempt.€€Then,€she€reluctantly€deniedÏhaving€had€any€sexual€contact€with€the€defendant.€€The€prosecutor,€surprised€by€herÏrepudiation,€impeached€her€with€her€pretrial€statement€and€the€trial€court€instructedÏthe€jury€that€the€evidence€served€only€to€test€her€credibility.€€Our€Supreme€CourtÏheld€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€permitting€the€prosecutor€to€impeach€its€ownÏwitness.€€òòId.óó,€215€S.W.2d€at€815.Ð 27Ò-3 ÐÐ þ8ž/5 Ðà Œ àà ä àIn€òòMaysóó,€two€witnesses€called€by€the€state€testified€that€they€knewÐ `  Ðnothing€to€connect€the€defendants€to€the€charged€offenses.€€495€S.W.2d€at€836.€ÏThe€prosecutor€then€questioned€them€about€their€pretrial€statements€and€theÏstatements€were€introduced€in€evidence.€€At€the€preliminary€hearing,€each€witnessÏhad€repudiated€his€pretrial€statement.€€One€claimed€he€had€not€made€the€statementÏand€the€other€stated€that,€although€he€gave€a€statement,€it€was€not€accurate.€€TheÏprosecutor€did€not€claim€surprise€but€maintained€that€the€witnesses€wereÏindispensable.€€This€court,€relying€on€òòKingóó,€held€that€a€witness€may€not€be€called€toÐ ô”  Ðtestify€for€the€primary€purpose€of€introducing€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€thatÏwould€otherwise€be€inadmissible.€€òòMaysóó,€495€S.W.2d€at€837.€€This€court€reasonedÐ Œ, Ðas€follows:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[I]f€the€witness'€testimony€is€not€prejudicial€to€the€partyÏcalling€him[,]€credibility€is€immaterial€and€there€is€noÏreason€for€impeachment.€€It€is€said€in€substance€that€toÏpermit€it€would€give€the€party€a€device€to€put€before€theÏjury€a€statement€having€all€of€the€effect€of€independentÏsubstantive€testimony.€...€However,€the€witnessesÏprofessed€to€know€nothing€about€the€crime,€were€merelyÏreluctant€to€give€testimony,€testified€to€nothing€prejudicialÏto€the€State.€€Under€these€circumstances€there€wasÏnothing€to€impeach.€€Impeachment€was€calculated€to€andÏdid€serve€only€one€purpose€which€was€to€put€before€theÏjury€the€out€of€court€statements.€€There€is€no€charge€byÏthe€Judge€in€the€record€that€the€statements€could€not€beÏused€as€substantive€evidence€and€such€a€charge€mightÏhave€been€ineffectual€if€it€had€been€given.€...€We€think€itÏwas€error€to€permit€the€State€to€impeach€the€witnessesÏand€introduce€their€out€of€court€statements.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓ»°ÓòòMaysóó,€495€S.W.2d€at€837.€€Implicit€in€the€court's€ruling€is€that€the€prosecutor€may€notÐ P-ð#( Ðcall€an€indispensable€witness€whom€the€state€knows€has€repudiated€his€or€herÏstatement€prior€to€trial.€€Impeachment€cannot€be€a€"mere€ruse"€to€present€to€the€juryÏprejudicial€or€improper€testimony.€€òòState€v.€Roy€L.€Payneóó,€No.€03C01„9202„CR„Ð ´2T). Ð00045,€slip€op.€at€€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Feb.€2,€1993).€€In€suchÏcircumstances,€striking€the€testimony€and€providing€a€curative€instruction€may€beÏinsufficient€to€render€the€error€harmless,€òòState€v.€Steve€Johnsonóó,€No.€02C01„9504„Ð 8¸.4 ÐCC„00097,€slip€op.€at€15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Feb.€27,€1997),€becauseÏthe€jury€is€unlikely€to€consider€the€prior€statement€for€credibility€purposes€only€andÏmay€view€it€as€substantive€evidence.€€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€613.1;€òòseeóóÐ ø ˜ ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€403.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€trial,€Ms.€Perry€testified€that€the€defendant€stated€he€had€warnedÏthat€the€gun€could€be€"caught€up€in€something."€€When€the€prosecutor€asked€her€ifÏshe€remembered€telling€Agent€Davis€that€the€defendant€said€"caught€up€in€aÏmurder,"€defense€counsel€requested€a€jury€out€hearing€and€argued€that€the€stateÏshould€not€be€permitted€to€impeach€Ms.€Perry€with€her€out„of„court€statement.€€TheÏtrial€court€ruled€that€the€state€could€inquire€about€the€prior€statement€but€that€theÏstatement€itself€was€not€admissible.€€The€prosecutor€then€questioned€Ms.€Perry€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àProsecutor:à0”ä Ð ä Ð à[D]o€you€remember€telling€[Agent]€DavisÐ ¼ \ Ðthat€[the€defendant]€said€the€gun€was€usedÏas€a€murder€weapon?Ð ”Ð ”Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àMs.€Perry:à0”ä Ð ä Ð àNo.€€He€said€that€they€had€shot€a€gun€theÐ n# Ðnight€before.Ð ”Ð ”Ð  ÐÌÓѺÓOn€cross„examination€by€defense€counsel,€Ms.€Perry€stated€that€she€had€recentlyÏinformed€defense€counsel€that€portions€of€the€statement€were€inaccurate.€€SheÏtestified€that€she€would€"stand€by"€her€in„court€testimony.€€The€trial€court€provided€noÏcontemporaneous€limiting€instruction.€€In€the€jury€charge,€however,€the€trial€courtÏinstructed€that€proof€of€prior€inconsistent€statements€was€probative€only€of€credibilityÏand€was€not€to€be€considered€as€substantive€evidence€of€the€matter€asserted€in€theÏstatement.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àMs.€Perry€was€not€an€indispensable€witness.€€Charlotte€Fults€offeredÏsimilar€testimony€of€the€defendant's€incriminating€statement€that€"you€better€get€ridÏof€the€gun,€or€if,€if€you€get€caught€with€it,€you're€liable€to€be€caught€up€in€a€shooting"Ð 8¸.4 Ðor€"a€murder."€€Ms.€Perry€did,€however,€surprise€the€prosecutor€and€her€testimonyÏdid€contradict€her€pretrial€statement.€€The€record€demonstrates€that,€while€defenseÏcounsel€was€on€notice€that€she€challenged€the€accuracy€of€her€pretrial€statement,Ïdefense€counsel€had€not€notified€the€state.€€Her€testimony€was€marginally€prejudicialÏto€the€state.€€Unlike€the€facts€in€òòMaysóó,€òòPayneóó,€and€òòJohnsonóó,€there€is€no€proof€hereÐ 0 Ðthat€the€prosecutor€called€Ms.€Perry€as€a€pretext€or€ruse€to€introduce€her€priorÏstatement.€€The€better€practice€would€have€been€for€the€trial€court€to€provide€aÏcontemporaneous€limiting€instruction.€€In€our€view,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€byÏpermitting€the€state€to€question€Ms.€Perry€about€her€prior€inconsistent€statement.€ñ&VñÌñ&VñÌà@††/ÚàIIIˆÌà Œ àà ä àIn€a€related€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€notÏgranting€a€mistrial€or€by€failing€to€provide€a€strongly„worded€curative€instruction€afterÏthe€state€was€permitted€to€impeach€Danny€Jones€with€a€prior€inconsistent€statement.€ÏAt€trial,€Danny€Jones€could€not€recall€"for€sure"€what€he€had€said€in€his€pretrialÏstatement:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àI€told€[the€TBI€agent]€something,€I€think€he€reworded€it,Ïbut,€because€my€words€about€saying€something€isn'tÏalways€accurate€with€what€should€have€been€said,€but€òòatÐ ì'Œ" Ðthat€time€I€said€that€[the€defendant]€said€he€had€killed€theÏpeopleóó.€€Ð¸)X $ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àAnd€if€you€want€me€to€read€[the€statement],€I'm€notÏvery€good€at€reading,€and€I€tried€to€read€it€about€an€hourÏago€and€a€lot€of€those€words€are€pulled€together€and€IÏdon't€have€my€glasses€on.Ó3ÄÓÐ ä Ð ä Ð  Ð(Emphasis€added).€€Defense€counsel€objected€and€asked€for€a€jury€out€hearing.€€ÏDanny€Jones€acknowledged€that€he€had€been€charged€with€a€felony€offense€and,Ïjust€prior€to€trial,€had€reached€a€plea€agreement€for€a€suspended€sentence€of€threeÏyears.€€The€trial€court€inquired€whether€the€witness€could€state€under€oath€that€theÏdefendant€had€admitted€killing€the€victims.€€Danny€Jones€replied,€"I€can't€state€underÏoath€that€he€said,€I€did€kill€them,€but€I€think€that€in€my€mind€I€did€come€up€with€itÐ 8¸.4 Ðsince€he€did€come€and€told€me€about€the€two€murders€that€he€just€heard€over€theÏscanner€...."€€€The€trial€court€recessed€to€review€the€case€law€governing€the€issue.€ÏThe€next€morning,€the€trial€court€determined€that,€under€òòMaysóó€and€òòKingóó,€the€stateÐ ø ˜ Ðcould€not€impeach€Danny€Jones€with€his€prior€statement€because€the€witness€hadÏonly€a€"foggy€memory"€and€had€not€prejudiced€the€state€by€his€testimony.€€The€trialÏcourt€provided€a€lengthy€curative€instruction€to€the€jury.€€When€Danny€JonesÏreturned€to€conclude€his€testimony,€the€state€requested€that€he€be€declared€a€hostileÏwitness€but€the€trial€court€refused.€€The€state€then€canceled€the€plea€agreement€withÏhim€and€questioned€him€about€his€involvement€in€the€burglary€of€the€Caldwell'sÏtruck.€€Danny€Jones€asserted€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€against€self„incrimination.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€purpose€of€a€mistrial€is€to€correct€the€damage€done€to€the€judicialÏprocess€when€some€event€has€occurred€which€would€preclude€an€impartial€verdict.€ÏòòArnold€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€792,€794€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€The€decisionÐ ¼ \ Ðwhether€to€grant€a€mistrial€is€within€the€trial€court's€discretion€and€will€not€beÏdisturbed€absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Millbrooksóó,€819€S.W.2d€441,Ð T$ô Ð443€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€"Generally€a€mistrial€will€be€declared€in€a€criminalÏcase€only€when€there€is€a€'manifest€necessity'€requiring€such€by€the€trial€judge.€€òòId.óó€Ð ì'Œ" ÐThe€authority€to€discharge€a€jury€is€to€be€exercised€only€when€there€is€a€cogentÏreason€or€manifest€necessity.€€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€403€S.W.2d€750,€754€(Tenn.€1966).€Ð „+$"& ÐIn€our€view,€the€error,€if€any,€in€the€testimony€of€Danny€Jones€that€the€defendant€hadÏadmitted€killing€the€victims€was€harmless€and€did€not€require€a€mistrial.€€Wayne€FultsÏdelivered€equally€damaging€testimony€as€to€similar€incriminating€statements€by€theÏdefendant.€€In€the€context€of€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€do€not€believe€that€a€mistrialÏwas€warranted.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€toÐ 8¸.4 Ðprovide€a€more€strongly€worded€curative€instruction.€€The€instruction,€which€spannedÏseveral€pages€of€transcript,€provided€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÓ"ÙÓ€à8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThe€last€witness€...€was€questioned€on€an€issue,€that€heÐ ø ˜ Ðclaimed€he€didn't€remember,€about€statements€made€byÏthe€defendant.€€He€claimed€he€didn't€remember€theÏdefendant€saying€anything€that€would€cause€theÏdefendant€to€be€admitting€that€he€was€involved€in€thisÏmurder,€or€that€he€committed€this€murder.€€The€state€thenÏ...€asked€him€some€questions€...€and€they€attempted€toÏimpeach€him€by€raising€a€matter€that€was€in€a€statementÏthat€he€supposedly€made€out€of€court.€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àAn€out€of€court€statement€of€this€nature€is€hearsayÏand€should€not€be€admitted€except€under€certainÏconditions€where€impeachment€possibly€is€proper€....€ÏThis€particular€conflict€did€not€fit€into€that€category.€€ThisÏwitness€either€had€a€failure€of€memory€or€did€not€agreeÏwith€what€was€in€that€out€of€court€statement€...€€and€byÏ[asking€him]€about€that,€it€could€have€put€in€your€mindÏthat€...€he€said€and€that€you€ought€to€weigh€as€evidence,Ïthat€the€Defendant€had€told€him€in€some€fashion€that€heÏwas€either€involved€or€committed€these€killings.€€Now,Ïthis€witness€has€not€testified€to€that,€and€that€out€of€courtÏstatement€is€not€evidence€and€should€not€be€considered.€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà@ee/Úà***ˆÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < à[Y]ou€are€instructed[]€not€...€to€consider€theÏstatements€or€questions€that€were€included€when€theÏwitness€was€asked€about€a€prior€statement€where€he€saidÏit's€possible€that€he€might€have€said€that€the€defendantÏadmitted€he€was€involved€....€That€was€not€evidence.€...Ï[C]redibility€has€not€even€been€called€into€play€...€and€youÏare€instructed€not€in€any€way€to€weigh€the€statement€ofÏMr.€[Jones]€....€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓÌÑÓThe€jury€is€presumed€to€follow€the€instructions€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910Ð Ò(r# ÐS.W.2d€381,€387€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€our€view,€this€instruction€was€sufficient,Ïparticularly€as€we€have€already€classified€any€error€as€harmless€in€the€entire€contextÏof€the€trial.€ÌÌà@{{/ÚàIVˆÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admittingÏevidence€of€two€prior€bad€acts€and€by€admitting€evidence€of€his€parole€status.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àRule€404(b)€provides€as€follows:Ð þ8ž/5 ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àOther€Crimes,€Wrongs,€or€Acts.€€Evidence€of€otherÏcrimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€theÏcharacter€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€inÏconformity€with€the€character€trait.€€It€may,€however,€beÏadmissible€for€other€purposes.€€The€conditions€whichÏmust€be€satisfied€before€allowing€such€evidence€are:Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à€€€(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outsideÏthe€jury's€presence;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à€€€(2)€The€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issueÏexists€other€than€conduct€conforming€with€a€characterÏtrait€and€must€upon€request€state€on€the€record€theÏmaterial€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€for€admittingÏthe€evidence;€andÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à€€€(3)€The€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probativeÏvalue€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓ#ÛÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àGenerally,€this€rule€is€one€of€exclusion€but€there€are,€as€stated,Ïexceptions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1985);€òòBunch€v.€Stateóó,Ð Öv Ð605€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€1980);€òòCarroll€v.€Stateóó,€370€S.W.2d€523€(Tenn.€1963);€òòseeÐ ¢!B Ðalsoóó€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824€(Tenn.€1994)€(favorably€citing€both€òòPartonóóÐ n# Ðand€€òòBunchóó).€€Most€authorities€suggest€trial€courts€take€a€"restrictive€approach€ofÐ :%Ú Ð404(b)€...€because€'other€act'€evidence€carries€a€significant€potential€for€unfairlyÏinfluencing€a€jury."€€€òòSeeóó€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€404.7€at€131.€€That€perhapsÐ Ò(r# Ðbest€explains€the€traditional€posture€of€the€courts€that€any€testimony€of€prior€badÏacts€by€a€defendant,€when€used€as€substantive€evidence€of€guilt€of€the€crime€onÏtrial,€is€not€usually€permissible.€€òòPartonóó,€694€S.W.2d€at€302-03.€€The€exceptions€toÐ 6.Ö$) Ðthe€rule€are€when€the€evidence€is€offered€to€prove€the€motive€of€the€defendant,€hisÏidentity,€his€intent,€the€absence€of€mistake,€opportunity,€or€as€a€part€of€a€commonÏscheme€or€plan.€€òòBunchóó,€605€S.W.2d€at€229.€€€Our€supreme€court€recently€spoke€onÐ š3:*/ Ðthe€procedure€used€to€determine€whether€a€prior€crime€or€bad€act€fell€within€anÏexception€to€the€rule:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[I]f€evidence€that€the€defendant€has€committed€a€crimeÐ þ8ž/5 Ðseparate€and€distinct€from€the€one€on€trial€is€relevant€toÏsome€matter€actually€in€issue€in€the€case€on€trial,€and€ifÏits€probative€value€as€evidence€is€not€outweighed€by€itsÏprejudicial€effect€upon€the€defendant,€then€such€evidenceÏmay€be€properly€admitted.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓ¥äÓòòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€254€(Tenn.€1993)€(citing€òòBunchóó,€605€S.W.2d€atÐ Äd Ð229).€€In€òòHowellóó,€the€court€applied€the€balancing€test€to€determine€whether€priorÐ 0 Ðconvictions€for€other€crimes€were€admissible,€as€an€exception€to€the€general€rule,€forÏpurposes€other€than€the€character€of€the€defendant.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701Ð (È  ÐS.W.2d€808€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€669€S.W.2d€694€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ô”  Ð1983).€When€the€trial€court€substantially€complies€with€the€requirements€of€RuleÏ404(b),€we€review€the€trial€court's€determination€for€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.Ð Œ, ÐDuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€652€(Tenn.€1997).Ð Xø ÐÌà@*ÚàòòParole€StatusóóˆÐ ð Ðà Œ àà ä àPrior€to€trial,€defense€counsel€sought€to€prohibit€testimony€by€WayneÏFults€that€the€defendant€told€him€that€he€was€going€to€kill€Caldwell€because€CaldwellÏhad€told€his€mother€about€the€defendant's€involvement€in€a€car€parts€ring€andÏCaldwell's€mother€informed€the€defendant's€parole€officer.€€The€state€argued€thatÏthis€testimony€was€"highly€relevant"€to€the€defendant's€motive€and€the€trial€courtÏagreed:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[The€defendant€has]€told€this€witness€that€he€intends€toÏkill€this€person€who€ultimately€is€killed€and€he€gives€theÏreason€why€...€a€bare€statement€that€I'm€going€to€kill€'emÏbecause€they're€talking€about€me.€€You€know€...€the€StateÏought€to€be€allowed€to€at€least€have€some€logicalÏexplanation€to€why€he€said€that€...€all€of€that€ought€toÏcome€in€...€in€a€general€fashion.ÓLëÓÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐThe€trial€court€ruled€that€specifics€regarding€the€car€parts€ring€and€the€nature€of€theÏconvictions€for€which€the€defendant€was€on€parole€were€inadmissible€but€that€theÏFults€could€testify€to€the€statement€by€the€defendant,€including€his€status€on€parole.€ÏBecause€the€trial€court€substantially€complied€with€the€requirements€of€Rule€404(b),Ð 8¸.4 ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.,€our€standard€of€review€of€the€trial€court's€determination€is€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòDuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€652.€€At€trial,€Wayne€Fults€did€not€revealÐ , Ì Ðthe€defendant's€parole€status€during€his€testimony€nor€did€he€mention€the€car€partsÏring.€€It€was€questioning€by€defense€counsel€that€elicited€the€defendant'sÏinvolvement€in€the€car€parts€ring€and€the€defendant€who€revealed€his€priorÏconvictions€during€direct€examination.€€Only€after€the€defendant€testified€regardingÏhis€prior€criminal€record€did€the€state€inquire€about€his€parole€status.€€The€trial€courtÏdid€not€abuse€it's€discretion€by€ruling€that€the€defendant's€statement€to€Fults,Ïincluding€the€reference€to€parole,€was€admissible€to€prove€his€motive.€€Any€error€thatÏmay€have€occurred€by€mention€of€the€car€parts€ring€is€not€attributable€to€the€trialÏcourt's€ruling.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).ÌÌà@  'Úàà@@ee,ÚàòòBurglary€and€TheftóóˆÐ ð Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€evidenceÏof€his€involvement€in€the€burglary€of€Caldwell's€residence€and€theft€of€his€truck€justÏtwo€days€before€the€murders.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€this€evidence€constitutedÏinadmissible€character€evidence.€€The€state€responds€that€it€did€not€presentÏevidence€of€the€defendant's€actual€involvement€in€the€burglary€and€theft.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€a€pretrial€hearing,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€this€evidence€wasÏinadmissible€unless€the€state€could€provide€at€trial€a€more€concrete€connectionÏlinking€the€burglary€and€theft€to€the€murders.€€The€state€had€contended€that€theÏburglary€and€theft€were€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan€to€deter€Caldwell€fromÏtalking€to€the€police.€€At€trial,€a€note€implicating€the€defendant€in€the€burglary€andÏtheft€was€admitted€into€evidence€and€passed€to€the€jury€without€objection€by€defenseÏcounsel.€€Defense€counsel€objected€later,€claiming€he€had€been€"momentarilyÏdistracted."€€The€state€offered€to€introduce€all€of€the€defendant's€pretrial€statement€inÐ 8¸.4 Ðorder€to€link€the€note€to€the€murders.€€The€trial€court,€observing€that€it€was€caught€inÏa€dilemma,€ultimately€ruled€that€if€the€state€placed€the€defendant's€entire€statementÏin€evidence,€the€note€would€be€admissible€because€it€would€serve€to€prove€a€motiveÏfor€the€defendant€to€kill€Caldwell:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[T]he€Court€does€believe€that€especially€in€light€of€theÏState's€willingness€now€to€put€in€the€Defendant's€fullÏstatement€about€these€matters,€which€shows€that€theÏDefendant€did,€in€fact,€know€about€the€note€and€what€theÏnote€said,€and€that€the€victim€knew€what€the€note€wasÏabout.€€I€mean,€obviously,€it€shows€he€knew€about€thisÏwhole€issue,€and€all€that€together€makes€it€a€matter€thatÏis€relevant€to€the€state€of€mind€of€the€Defendant€and€theÏrelationship€between€the€Defendant€and€the€victim,€fromÏwhich€the€jury€should€be€able€to€consider€that€with€all€theÏother€evidence,€whether€or€not€this€case€has€beenÏproven.€€I€think€it's€legitimate€evidence€on€that€issue€and€IÏdon't€think€that€the€prejudicial€value€outweighs€theÏprobative€value,€although€it€is€a€close€case.ÓÝ÷ÓÐ ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà Œ àà ä àÌà Œ àà ä àTechnically,€this€issue€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€UnderÐ Öv ÐRule€404(b),€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€requesting€a€jury€out€hearing.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¢!B ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€When€the€state€introduced€the€handwritten€note,€there€wasÏno€objection€from€defense€counsel€and€no€request€for€a€jury€out€hearing.€€Even€onÏthe€merits,€there€was€no€error.€€We€agree€that€the€evidence€was€probative€of€motive,Ïwhich€was€a€material€issue€at€trial.€€Given€the€lack€of€forensic€evidence€linking€theÏdefendant€to€the€murders,€the€probative€value€of€evidence€tending€to€prove€why€theÏdefendant€committed€the€crime€was€high.€€The€defendant€was€provided€anÏopportunity€to€explain€the€note€and€denied€any€involvement€in€the€burglary€and€theft.€ÏThe€state€presented€no€additional€proof€that€the€defendant€committed€these€crimes.€ÏIn€consequence,€the€probative€value€was€not€outweighed€by€a€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.ÌÌà@vv'ÚàòòAggravated€AssaultóóˆÐ 27Ò-3 Ðà Œ àà ä àLastly,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€permittingÐ þ8ž/5 Ðthe€state€to€question€Ms.€Morrison€about€shots€fired€at€her€trailer.€€The€stateÏresponds€that€the€defendant€opened€the€door€for€the€testimony,€that€the€testimonyÏwas€not€prejudicial€because€the€state€did€not€identify€the€defendant€as€theÏperpetrator,€and€that€the€proof€was€offered€to€rebut€evidence€presented€by€theÏdefense.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€a€pretrial€hearing,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€evidence€of€the€shootingÏincident€at€Ms.€Morrison's€trailer,€only€days€before€the€murder,€was€inadmissible€atÏtrial€because€it€was€irrelevant€to€the€murders€and€was€a€prior€bad€act€of€theÏdefendant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€The€defense€theory€at€trial€was€that€WayneÐ Œ, ÐFults€killed€the€victims€and€that€robbery€was€his€motive.€€The€defense€called€FultsÏand€questioned€him€about€a€statement€he€made€to€the€defendant€in€Whitwell€theÏafternoon€after€the€murders.€€Fults€testified€that€while€he€waited€for€the€defendant€inÏWhitwell,€he€"thought"€he€had€heard€a€report€over€the€police€scanner€that€someoneÏhad€"taken€a€shot"€at€Ms.€Morrison.€€Fults€denied€that€he€had€fabricated€the€report.ÏThe€defense€then€called€Ms.€Morrison€and€during€cross„examination,€the€prosecutorÏquestioned€her€about€the€November€12th€shooting€incident€at€her€trailer.€€DefenseÏcounsel€did€not€object€until€well€into€her€testimony.€€Defense€counsel€maintainedÏthat€this€evidence€had€been€ruled€inadmissible€at€the€pretrial€hearing.€€The€trialÏcourt,€however,€determined€that€the€defendant€had€opened€the€door€to€the€testimonyÏby€questioning€Wayne€Fults.€€Following€the€jury€out€hearing,€the€state€did€notÏquestion€Ms.€Morrison€further€about€the€incident.€€In€our€view,€defense€counselÏopened€the€door€for€the€state€to€question€Ms.€Morrison€about€shots€fired€at€herÏtrailer.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Fults€denied€fabricating€the€report€and€JerryÏHutchins,€supervisor€of€communications€at€the€sheriff's€department,€testified€that€aÏradio€call€between€officers€could€have€been€made€on€the€14th€although€he€had€noÏrecord€of€it.€€Prejudice,€if€any,€resulting€from€this€testimony€was€marginal€as€Ms.Ð 8¸.4 ÐMorrison€never€identified€the€defendant€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€incident.€€Finally,Ïthe€state€was€entitled€to€rebut€the€defense€theory€that€Wayne€Fults€had€fabricatedÏthe€incident.€€The€admission€of€rebuttal€evidence€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court€and€the€trial€court's€ruling€will€not€be€reversed€unless€there€is€aÏshowing€of€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€750,€760Ð 0 Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@——0ÚàVˆÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€all€of€theseÏerrors€requires€reversal.€€Because€we€have€found€no€merit€to€any€of€his€claims€ofÏerror.€€We€need€not€address€any€possible€cumulative€effect.ÌÌ€à@{{/ÚàVIˆÐ ð Ðà Œ àà ä àOn€January€11,€1997,€the€trial€court€imposed€concurrent€lifeÏsentences.€€The€defendant€was€ineligible€for€bail.€€On€January€27,€1997,€theÏdefendant€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€On€February€1,€1997,€the€state€filed€aÏmotion€to€set€aside€the€judgment€and€to€rehear€sentencing,€contending€that€the€trialÏcourt€should€have€imposed€consecutive€life€sentences.€€The€state€also€argued€thatÏthe€sentences€should€be€consecutive€to€a€prior€federal€sentence€for€which€theÏdefendant€had€been€on€parole.€€On€April€16,€1997,€following€the€new€trial€hearing,Ïthe€trial€court€heard€the€state's€argument€for€amending€the€manner€of€service€of€theÏsentences.€€On€the€next€day,€the€trial€court€entered€a€written€order€requiring€theÏdefendant€to€serve€the€life€sentences€consecutively€to€one€another€and€to€theÏfederal€sentence.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€sentence€is€excessive€and€that€the€trialÏcourt's€order€amending€the€manner€of€service€of€the€sentence€is€barred€by€principlesÐ 8¸.4 Ðof€double€jeopardy.€€An€early€opinion€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€beenÏinterpreted€by€this€court€as€barring€an€increase€in€sentence€once€the€defendant€hasÏbegun€to€serve€the€sentence.€€òòTinker€v.€Stateóó,€579€S.W.2d€905€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ø ˜ Ð1979);€òòEx€parte€Langeóó,€85€U.S.€163€(1874).€€In€òòLangeóó,€the€United€States€SupremeÐ Äd ÐCourt€reasoned€as€follows:€ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[I]f,€after€judgment€has€been€rendered€on€the€conviction,Ïand€the€sentence€of€that€judgment€executed€on€theÏcriminal,€he€can€be€again€sentenced€on€that€conviction€toÏanother€and€different€punishment,€or€to€endure€the€sameÏpunishment€a€second€time,€is€the€constitutional€restrictionÏ[against€double€jeopardy]€of€any€value?€...Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à...[W]e€do€not€doubt€that€the€Constitution€was€designedÏas€much€to€prevent€the€criminal€from€being€twiceÏpunished€for€the€same€offense€as€from€being€twice€triedÏfor€it.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓîÓ85€U.S.€at€173.€€Subsequent€to€the€decision€in€òòTinkeróó,€however,€the€United€StatesÐ >Þ ÐSupreme€Court€clarified,€in€dicta,€that€the€holding€in€òòLangeóó€had€been€largelyÐ  ª Ðmisinterpreted€by€courts.€€òòUnited€States€v.€DiFrancescoóó,€449€U.S.€117,€138€(1980).€Ð Öv ÐThe€Supreme€Court€limited€application€of€òòLangeóó€to€instances€in€which€a€defendantÐ ¢!B Ðhad€satisfied€one€of€two€alternative€punishments.€€òòId.óó;€Joseph€G.€Cook,Ð n# ÐòòConstitutional€Rights€of€the€Accusedóó€ðð€29:30€(3d€ed.€1996€&€Supp.€1998).€€InÐ :%Ú ÐòòDiFrancescoóó,€the€Supreme€Court€summarized€the€general€principles€that€hadÐ '¦! Ðemerged€from€state€and€federal€court€interpretations€of€the€double€jeopardy€clause,Ïin€particular€that€an€acquittal€following€a€trial€is€"accorded€special€weight."€€449€U.S.Ïat€127„32.€€The€high€court€held€that€neither€history,€nor€the€practice€of€courts€inÏsentencing,€nor€the€decisions€of€the€Supreme€Court€required€that€a€sentence€onceÏimposed€be€afforded€constitutional€finality€equal€to€that€of€an€acquittal.€€òòId.óó€at€132.€Ð 0¢&+ ÐHence,€we€conclude€òòTinkeróó€is€no€longer€persuasive€and€decline€to€apply€its€rule.€Ð Î1n(- ÐòòSee€generallyóó,€Lee€R.€Russ,€òòPower€of€State€Court,€During€Same€Term,€to€IncreaseÐ š3:*/ ÐSeverity€of€Lawful€Sentence„„Modern€Statusóó,€26€A.L.R.€4th€905€(1983€&€Supp.Ð f5,1 Ð1998);€òòbut€seeóó€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€987€S.W.2d€867,€871€n.4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€Ð 27Ò-3 ÐÐ þ8ž/5 Ðà Œ àà ä àIt€is€well€settled€that€when€the€length,€range€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence€is€disputed,€the€trial€court€is€required€to€conduct€a€sentencing€hearing.€Ï"Before€imposing€sentence€or€making€other€disposition€...€upon€a€verdict€or€finding€ofÏguilty,€the€court€òòshallóó€conduct€a€sentencing€hearing."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð Äd Ð209(a)€(emphasis€added).€€A€sentencing€hearing€is€"require[d]€in€all€felony€casesÏexcept€where€the€parties€have€agreed€to€the€sentence€and€in€capital€cases."€ÏSentencing€Commission€Comments.€€Here,€the€trial€court€did€not€conduct€aÏsentencing€hearing,€no€presentence€report€was€ordered€or€prepared,€the€state€didÏnot€submit€proof€to€provide€a€basis€for€consecutive€sentences,€and€the€defendantÏwas€denied€an€opportunity€to€present€witnesses.€€In€consequence,€we€must€remandÏthis€matter€for€resentencing.€€A€presentence€report€shall€be€prepared€and€a€hearingÏconducted€to€determine€the€manner€of€service€of€the€life€sentences,€according€to€theÏrequirements€and€principles€established€in€the€1989€Act.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€a€related€matter,€the€trial€court€ordered€the€defendant€to€serve€hisÏlife€sentences€consecutively€to€his€prior€felony€sentence€for€which€he€had€beenÏgranted€parole.€€While€we€have€remanded€for€a€sentencing€hearing,€we€haveÏconcluded€that,€as€a€matter€of€law,€the€life€sentences€must€be€served€consecutivelyÏto€the€sentence€for€which€the€defendant€was€on€parole.€€Rule€32(c)(3)(a),€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.,€provides€as€follows:€ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àMandatory€Consecutive€Sentences.€€Where€a€defendantÏis€convicted€of€multiple€offenses€from€one€trial€or€whereÏthe€defendant€has€additional€sentences€not€yet€fullyÏserved€as€the€result€of€the€convictions€in€the€same€orÏother€court€and€the€law€requires€consecutive€sentences,Ïthe€sentence€shall€be€consecutive€whether€the€judgmentÏexplicitly€so€orders€or€not.€€This€rule€shall€apply:Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à€€€(a)€To€a€sentence€for€a€felony€committed€while€onÏparole€for€a€felony.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓÐÓÌà Œ àà ä àAccordingly,€the€judgments€of€conviction€are€affirmed.€€We€remand€forÐ þ8ž/5 Ða€resentencing€determination€on€the€manner€of€service€of€the€life€sentences.€€ÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à_________________________________Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge