ÿWPCg" ˆht&N”dŠ™A® ›6ÏV+lMÈþý8‡, «h&ß L6 ú}“füÁ1K/^# D¯¸š€hÓ`”Wšç0n¨Œ¼[„üF¨>dQŒb ÐìTc{Ä•²UVµmt‡ߌâqCÒEíuå–Ù;PÐxÁÿëÛëæOBþ±j ¡’ W{ñ©m·¹_!”^±âvSBë=ð{Ò­ÒÏg·vbûþÙ#Ó‡“Xa»XÌ ³1Îé¶ÊT•jåaÀ.ê«…#Ï,¾Àf«"pl+ 8W¥/lÏU³ÎÞø˜ÒÑ4¾jäyÊÅ|·³žVÆHb5€x¶eéíÇÊûZ+]…>p•3}ÊäØûxˆ~W½àD|«h`¡t:À£XÛäD=îkßûT'F­\7Qœ·,Eº±ïêGe2†Ï|ø qË,r3 ÁÏí2}}3úHŽèMŸ7!©¼~µ3m*Ã¥n’òù´Úcù±i\|«cpXÍ/,7Õs)æÆòîâ¼ÓZ2uXÞ)&{­ÁøÜŒs¾štáW±=Q×] å¾Î»Ë>ÒFdT´—ÄÅÏÈ¢Œ·og¶üV~çn_)M–À‰Æþ™­Šç·÷&Ðö—œ·dCyŸu8U. %>bD AQHÆ™U:_™n­©V 0(^U:†w¸À4x 0DŒ 0™Ð 0Di U:­ ªç U:‘ BË &è À U:Î U:'ta«Õ D3€t³U:'U:a 0D› BßÀüª¼¼U:f  «« 0DV D/šâÉU:«âåU:Ç!Ç!Ç!Ç!Ç!Ç!Ç!Ç!Ç!f"<þ6X9`(CourierX ù!)*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular3|xæ4«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular¾4¿4DÀ4UÁ4Â4ceÃ4UÄ4DÅ4Æ4DÇ4DÈ4DÉ4DÊ4£Ë4DÌ4UÍ4Î4Ï4Ð4DÑ4DÒ4eÓ4DÔ4Õ4DÖ4×4[Ø4EÙ4Ú4DÛ4Ó€ø‚&((3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý(I(2d$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XYàXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular  Ý ƒ!ä$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X¿@XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý"The€crime€must€be€punishable€by€death€or€imprisonment€in€excess€ofÐ `  Ðone€year€.€.€.€or€must€have€involved€dishonesty€or€false€statement."€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€609(a)(2).€€Certain€time€limitations€and€procedural€prerequisites€may€barÏotherwise€admissible€convictions.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(b).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularüÿP Pd Ý ƒ¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ XYàXXXÔÔ€ 8]X XYàÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XYàX 8]ÔÐ  ÐÌò òApril€30,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ô7‹ôX XYàÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ¶Ý ƒ!ä$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X¿@XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Code€provisions€cited€in€òòMossóó,€sections€1723,€1724,€2902Ð `  Ð(Shannon's€Code€sections€3029,€3031,€4623)€were€codified€in€the€1955€Code€atÏsections€20„903,€39„4001€and€39„4002.€€Sections€39„4001€and€39„4002€wereÏrepealed€in€1981.€€Section€20„903€was€recodified€at€20„6„301€and€later€repealedÏin€1986.€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ!ä$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X’oXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝDebiasi€King€testified€that€Johnny€White€was€the€individual€with€the€bag.€Ð `  ÐHe€said€the€person€with€the€shotgun€looked€like€Greg€Dixon. Ý ƒ!ä$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X¿@XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòAccordóó€òòState€v.€Hurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57,€68€(Tenn.€1993)€(deliberationsÐ `  Ðtook€place€and€verdict€returned€on€Sunday).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular jÝ ƒ!ä$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€&X¿@XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝOnce€again,€this€appellant€has€failed€to€favor€the€court€with€adequateÐ `  Ðargument€addressing€the€issue,€citations€to€the€record€and€citations€to€authority.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô‡,X¿@XXX¿@ÔApp.€P.€27(a),€(g),€(h).€€Although€technically€the€issue€has€beenÐ @ à Ðwaived,€òòóóTenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b),€we€have€elected€to€address€it€because€ofÐ 0 Ð Ðits€potentially€dispositive€effect€as€to€Dewayne€King.Ô#†&X¿@XX X¿@2#Ô ¡Ý ƒ!ä$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X¿@XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòinfraóó€for€discussion€of€consent.€""""'ÿÿdxd jÝ ƒ!ä$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X’oXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝOnce€again,€this€appellant€has€failed€to€favor€the€court€with€adequateÐ `  Ðargument€addressing€the€issue,€citations€to€the€record€and€citations€to€authority.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô‡ X’oXXX’oÔApp.€P.€27(a),€(g),€(h).€€Although€technically€the€issue€has€beenÐ @ à Ðwaived,€òòóóTenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b),€we€have€elected€to€address€it€because€ofÐ 0 Ð Ðits€potentially€dispositive€effect€as€to€Dewayne€King.Ô#†X’oXX X’o2#Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý d ¶Ý ƒ!ä$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X’oXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Code€provisions€cited€in€òòMossóó,€sections€1723,€1724,€2902Ð `  Ð(Shannon's€Code€sections€3029,€3031,€4623)€were€codified€in€the€1955€Code€atÏsections€20„903,€39„4001€and€39„4002.€€Sections€39„4001€and€39„4002€wereÏrepealed€in€1981.€€Section€20„903€was€recodified€at€20„6„301€and€later€repealedÏin€1986.€  Ý ƒ!ä$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X’oXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý"The€crime€must€be€punishable€by€death€or€imprisonment€in€excess€ofÐ `  Ðone€year€.€.€.€or€must€have€involved€dishonesty€or€false€statement."€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€609(a)(2).€€Certain€time€limitations€and€procedural€prerequisites€may€barÏotherwise€admissible€convictions.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(b).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ!ä$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X’oXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòAccordóó€òòState€v.€Hurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57,€68€(Tenn.€1993)€(deliberationsÐ `  Ðtook€place€and€verdict€returned€on€Sunday). ¡Ý ƒ!ä$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X’oXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòinfraóó€for€discussion€of€consent.€($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'÷ÿ dxd ØÝ ƒ!ä$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X’oXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€not€essential€to€our€decision,€it€is€noteworthy€that€there€is€noÐ `  Ðindication€the€severance€was€necessary€for€"a€fair€determination€of€guilt€orÏinnocence"€of€any€defendant.€€Rather,€the€severance€was€a€means€by€which€toÏdecrease€the€risk€of€a€mistrial€as€to€all€three€defendants€if€one€or€more€jurorsÏwere€unable€to€complete€service., øð AZ"Arial Regular ØÝ ƒ!ä$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€.X¿@XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€not€essential€to€our€decision,€it€is€noteworthy€that€there€is€noÐ `  Ðindication€the€severance€was€necessary€for€"a€fair€determination€of€guilt€orÏinnocence"€of€any€defendant.€€Rather,€the€severance€was€a€means€by€which€toÏdecrease€the€risk€of€a€mistrial€as€to€all€three€defendants€if€one€or€more€jurorsÏwere€unable€to€complete€service.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\ÑÝ ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝñÒ4ñ›ñÒ4ññÒ4ññÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ññÒ4ññÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€ Xb:XXXÔÑ7€ b: XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑñÛ4ñœßr€<,(j 8` `€€@EÈf ` ttx$` ð Úrß›ñÛ4ñÌÑ€Ñò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ P ð ÐÌ€à@::'àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ 0 Ð ÐÌà@#àDECEMBER€1998€SESSIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à À àà  àó ó)Ð Ðp  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,à h àà À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9801„CR„00015Ð À`  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHamilton€Countyà x àÐ  @  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òDEBIASI€SIRNARD€KINGà h àà À àó óà  à)à p àHon.€Douglas€Meyer,€Judge€ò òÐ €  Ðandó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð p Ðò òDEWAYNE€KINGà  àà h àà À àà  àó ó)ò òà p àó ó(Second€Degree€Murder)ò òÐ ` Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àAppellants.à h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ Pð Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ @à Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANTà h àà À àà  àà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð   ÐDEBIASI€SIRNARD€KING:à À àà  àà p àò òJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÐ ð Ðò òJOHN€ALLEN€BROOKSà h àà À àà  àà p àó óAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÐ à€ Ðó óAttorney€at€Lawà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÐ Ð p Ð736€Georgia€Ave.,€Ste.€600à À àà  àà p àò òMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY,€IIó óÐ À!` ÐChattanooga,€TN€€37402à h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ °"P Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Ave.€N.,€2d€FloorÌFOR€THE€APPELLANTò òà h àà À àà  àà p àó óNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð $0 ÐDEWAYNE€KING:Ìò òLISA€M.€MACKó óà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òWILLIAM€H.€COX,€IIIó óÐ p& ÐAttorney€at€Lawà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ `'  Ð846€Oak€St.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÐ P(ð! ÐChattanooga,€TN€€37403à h àà À àà  àà p àò òC.€LELAND€DAVISÐ @)à" Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àYOLANDA€MITCHELLÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÐ  +À!$ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à600€Market€St.,€Courts€Bldg.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌò òÌOPINION€FILED:________________ÌÌREVERSED€&€REMANDEDÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEó óÐ 30*- ÐÐ  €4 +. ÐñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñÑ€7†ÑñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñà@qq*àò òòòOPINIONó óóóˆÐ `  ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendants,€Debiasi€Sirnard€King€and€Dewayne€King,€appeal€fromÏtheir€convictions€of€the€second€degree€murder€of€Fernandos€Hawkins.€€The€Kings,Ïwho€are€brothers,€were€indicted€and€tried€jointly€for€the€crime€of€first€degree€murderÏalong€with€their€younger€brother,€Devon€King.€€A€Hamilton€County€jury€found€DebiasiÏand€Dewayne€guilty€of€the€lesser€included€offense€of€second€degree€murder€andÏfound€Devon€guilty€of€the€lesser€included€offense€of€voluntary€manslaughter.€ÏDebiasi€is€presently€serving€a€25„year€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction,Ïand€Dewayne€is€serving€his€sentence€of€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñfifteenñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€years.€€In€this€appeal,€Debiasi€andÏDewayne€raise€numerous€issues€for€our€consideration:ÌÓÓà ` àJoint€issuesÌà8 ` à1.à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àWhether€they€were€denied€a€fair€trial€by€the€method€employedÐ ° Ðin€jury€selection.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà ` à2.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€court€on€Sunday.Ðð¸ (#¸ (# Ðà ` à3.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€during€trial€that€DewayneÐ à€ ÐKing€would€be€severed€from€the€case€unless€his€counselÏrecovered€from€illness€by€the€following€day.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà ` à4.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€Antoine€Coe'sÐ °"P Ðtestimony€regarding€Darrius€Malone's€prior€conduct.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` à5.à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€a€letter€containingÐ $0 Ðapparent€gang€references€which€was€found€in€the€vehicle€inÏwhich€the€Kings€were€riding€during€the€relevant€events.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÔ€XYàXX Xb:Ôà8 ` à6.à8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àWhether€a€separation€of€the€sequestered€jury€deprivedÐ `'  Ðthe€defendants€of€a€fair€trial.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà0 ` àDebiasi€King's€individual€issue:Ð ` (#` (# Ðà ` à1.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€sentence€imposed€is€excessive.Ðø*˜!$¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà0 ` àDewayne€King's€individual€issues:Ð ` (#` (# Ðà ` à1.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€evidence€sufficiently€supports€his€conviction.Ъ-J$'¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà ` à2.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€erroneously€instructed€the€jury€byÐ .0%( Ðinterjecting€information€outside€the€pattern€instructions€whichÏwas€favorable€to€the€state.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà ` à3.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€erroneously€excluded€evidence€aboutÐ B1â'+ ÐGreg€Kelsey's€prior€conviction€of€a€crime€involving€use€of€aÏgun.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓHaving€reviewed€the€briefs,€heard€oral€arguments,€and€considered€the€law,€weÏreverse€the€defendants'€convictions€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThis€case€is€the€result€of€the€senseless€confrontation€between€twoÐ >:Þ05 Ðgroups€of€young€men€on€the€streets€of€Chattanooga.€€Although€those€involvedÏdenied€gang€affiliation,€there€was€evidence€that€the€two€groups€were€members€ofÏthe€rival€"Bloods"€and€"Crips"€gangs€and€that€the€entire€incident€began€over€theÏexchange€of€disrespectful€hand€signs€used€by€gang€members.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àBy€all€accounts,€a€Nissan€Maxima€driven€by€Greg€Kelsey€and€occupiedÏby€Darius€Malone,€Johnny€White€and€Fernandos€Hawkins€was€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñparkedñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€off€the€roadÏat€the€intersection€of€Tunnel€and€Wilcox€on€June€25,€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñ1995,ñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€when€Debiasi,€DewayneÏand€Devon€King€drove€by€in€a€distinctive€white€Lincoln€convertible.€€The€evidenceÏis€conflicting€whether€Greg€Dixon€was€in€the€Maxima.€€Likewise,€there€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñisñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€conflictingÏevidence€whether€Ragounda€Peyton,€Dewayne€King's€girlfriend,€was€in€the€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñLincoln.ñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€ÏAccording€to€surviving€occupants€of€the€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñMaxima,ñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€occupants€of€the€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñLincolnñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€threw€upÏCrip€hand€signs€at€them.€€Occupants€of€the€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñMaximañÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€testified€they€did€not€respondÏwith€Blood€signs.€€In€contrast,€the€Kings'€evidence€was€that€the€individuals€in€theÏMaxima€threw€up€Blood€hand€signs,€but€the€Kings€did€not€respond€with€œCripñÓ4ñsñÓ4ñ›€signs.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àA€short€time€after€this€first€encounter,€the€two€groups€came€upon€eachÏother€in€another€location.€€Although€the€accounts€of€what€occurred€greatly€diverge,Ïthe€essential€points€are€that€the€state's€witnesses€claimed€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñthat€ñÂ4ñDewaybeñÂ4ññÂ4ñDewayneñÂ4ñ€andñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñÏDebiasi€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñKingñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€opened€fire€on€the€Maxima€with€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñ.380ñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñhandgun€and€an€AK„47,ñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñÏñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñrespectively,€and€theñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€Kings€œmaintainñÔ4ñedñÔ4ñ›€that€they€shot€in€self„defense€in€responseÏto€€Johnny€White€jumping€out€of€the€front€passenger€seat€with€his€hand€in€a€bag€soÏthat€it€looked€like€he€had€a€weapon€and€Greg€Dixon€getting€out€of€the€rearÏpassenger€seat€with€a€12„gauge€shotgun.׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Kings€claimed€that€Dewayne€shotÐ `6-0 Ðthe€.380€into€the€air€and€Debiasi€shot€at€the€ground,€and€the€Maxima's€occupantsÏclaimed€the€Kings'€weapons€were€pointed€at€the€Maxima.€€A€state's€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñwitness,ñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€whoÏlived€on€the€corner€where€these€events€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñtranspired,ñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€testified€she€saw€someone€standÏup€in€the€back€of€the€Lincoln€convertible€and€open€fire€up€into€the€air€with€a€long,Ïshotgun„type€weapon.€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñ€InñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€any€event,€a€bullet€from€the€AK„47€struck€the€trunk€lid€ofÏthe€Maxima€and€traveled€through€the€car€until€it€struck€Fernandos€Hawkins,€whoÏwas€in€the€back€seat.€€The€state's€expert€evidence€was€that€this€bullet€traveled€aÏstraight€path€into€the€Maxima€and€had€not€ricocheted.€€The€Kings€concede€that€noÏshots€were€ever€fired€at€them.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAfter€the€shots€were€fired,€both€cars€left€the€scene.€€The€Kings€wentÏto€their€father's€house.€€The€occupants€of€the€Maxima€claimed€they€drove€straightÏto€Erlanger€Hospital€without€stopping€for€red€lights.€€There€was€evidence,€however,Ïthat€the€shooting€took€place€considerably€earlier€than€the€hour€at€which€they€arrivedÏat€the€hospital.€€Additionally,€no€beer€bottles€were€recovered€from€the€Maxima,Ïwhich€was€secured€for€inventory€at€Erlanger,€even€though€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñthe€victim€and€hisÏcompanionsñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€had€been€drinking€bottled€beer€in€the€car€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€ÏThe€evidence€of€the€time€lapse€was€significant€to€the€defense,€as€it€provided€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñanÏexplanationñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€for€the€facts€that€no€firearms€were€recovered€from€the€Maxima€and€thatÏGreg€œñÕ4ñKelseyñÕ4ññÖ4ñDixonñÖ4ñ›€was€not€with€the€Maxima's€occupants€when€they€arrived€at€Erlanger.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFrom€this€evidence,€the€jury€found€the€defendants€Debiasi€andÏDewayne€King€guilty€of€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesser€included€offense€of€theÏcharged€crime€of€first€degree€murder.€€The€jury€found€Devon€King€guilty€of€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€as€a€lesser€included€offense€of€the€charged€crime€of€first€degreeÏmurder.€€Only€Debiasi€and€Dewayne€King€are€parties€to€this€appeal.ÌÐ  :À04 Ðà@õõ"àò òJoint€Appellate€Issuesó óˆÐ `  Ðà@üü-àò òIó óˆÐ @ à Ðà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendants'€first€joint€issue€is€whether€they€were€deprived€of€a€fairÏtrial€due€to€the€anomalous€method€of€jury€selection.€€The€process€by€which€the€juryÏwas€selected€was€complex.€€The€essence€of€it,€however,€is€that€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñfourteenñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€jurors,€aÏjury€of€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñtwelveñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€and€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñtwoñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€alternates,€were€selected€and€accepted€by€all€parties€at€theÏend€of€the€second€day€of€the€proceedings.€€The€panel€was€not€sworn€that€evening,Ïand€they€were€told€they€should€return€the€following€morning€with€the€personal€effectsÏnecessary€for€their€service€as€sequestered€jurors.€€The€next€morning,€however,€newÏcircumstances€came€to€light€which€caused€the€court€to€excuse€two€of€the€jurors,Ïleaving€a€total€of€twelve.€€The€court€announced€that€two€more€jurors€would€beÏselected€to€bring€the€total€back€up€to€fourteen.€€Extensive€òòvoir€direóó€was€conducted.Ð   ÐDuring€the€selection€process,€the€court€ruled€that€the€parties€could€not€"backstrike,"Ïthat€is,€exercise€remaining€peremptory€challenges€against€the€twelve€remainingÏjurors€accepted€the€previous€day,€and€defendants€Debiasi€and€Dewayne€KingÏñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñobjected.€ñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€When€it€became€doubtful€that€a€sufficient€jury€pool€was€available€to€seatÏtwo€additional€jurors,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€case€would€proceed€with€a€panelÏof€twelve€jurors€if€no€alternates€could€be€found,€thereby€reversing€a€previous€ruling.ÏDefense€counsel€conferred€off€the€record,€and€counsel€for€Debiasi€King€reported€onÏbehalf€of€all€three€defendants,€"Your€Honor,€we€still€couldn't€agree€[to€seat€any€ofÏthe€prospective€replacement€jurors],€so€per€your€orders,€we'll€go€with€the€twelve."€ÏÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provide€that€after€òòvoir€direÐ €4 +. Ðóóexamination€of€prospective€jurors,€counsel€shall€submit€written€peremptoryÐ `6-0 Ðchallenges€to€the€trial€court.€€Replacement€jurors€will€be€seated,€followed€by€òòvoir€direóóÐ @8à.2 Ðexamination€of€the€panel,€followed€by€written€peremptory€challenges.€€BackstrikingÐ  :À04 Ðis€allowed.€€The€procedure€continues€in€this€manner€"until€a€full€jury€has€beenÏselected€and€accepted€by€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñcounsel."ñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(c).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àRule€24(e)€provides€that€the€"trial€court€in€its€discretion€may€use€eitherÏ[of€two€methods€for€selection€of€alternate€jurors]."€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(e).€€First,Ïthe€court€could€direct€that€one€to€four€jurors€in€addition€to€the€first€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñtwelveñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€beÏselected.€€These€alternates€would,€in€the€order€of€selection,€replace€any€of€theÏoriginal€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñtwelveñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€who€were€unable€to€complete€their€service.€€For€each€alternateÏselected,€each€defendant€receives€one€peremptory€challenge,€and€the€peremptoryÏchallenge€for€each€additional€alternate€may€only€be€used€as€each€alternate€isÏñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñselected.€€TheñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€peremptory€challenges€allowed€for€selection€of€the€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñtwelveñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€originalÏjurors€may€not€be€used€against€alternate€jurors.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(e)(1)Ï(amended€1997).€€Alternatively,€the€court€may€direct€prior€to€the€start€of€juryÏselection€that€one€to€four€additional€jurors€be€selected€as€alternate€jurors.€€Each€sideÏreceives€one€additional€peremptory€challenge€per€alternate€for€each€defendant.€€NoÏdistinction€would€be€made€between€the€alternates€and€other€jurors€until€just€beforeÏdeliberation,€at€which€time€the€court€would€select€at€random€or€by€lot€the€twelveÏjurors€to€render€a€verdict.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(e)(2)€(amended€1997).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñRuleñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€24€does€not€òòrequireóó€that€alternate€jurors€be€selected.€€Moreover,Ð - #& Ðthe€trial€court€is€vested€with€the€discretion€to€choose€which€of€the€two€prescribedÏmethods€will€be€employed€for€selection€of€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñalternates,ñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€if€alternates€are€to€be€used.€ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(e).€€In€the€present€case,€the€court€chose€the€second€methodÏfor€alternate€selection,€but€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñthen€itñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€decided€not€to€use€alternates€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñwhen€faced€withñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€aÏmistrial€because€a€panel€of€fourteen€could€not€be€selected€from€the€jury€pool€thatÏwas€available.€€We€see€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€that€decision.ÌÐ  :À04 Ðà ` àà ¸ àFurther,€we€find€no€error€in€the€court's€ruling€on€the€use€of€backstrikes.€ÏA€virtually€identical€situation€occurred€in€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€728€S.W.2d€21€(Tenn.Ð @ à ÐCrim.€App.€1986).€€In€òòPhillipsóó,€the€jury€was€accepted€by€both€sides€but€had€not€yetÐ  À Ðbeen€sworn€when€one€of€the€defense€attorneys€requested€permission€to€conductÏfurther€òòvoir€direóó€of€a€juror€about€a€friendship€with€a€law€enforcement€official.€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñòòIdóó.ñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€at€25.€Ð à€ ÐThe€court€allowed€the€òòvoir€direóó€but€refused€to€excuse€the€juror€for€cause€and€refusedÐ À`  Ðto€allow€the€defense€to€exercise€a€peremptory€challenge€against€the€juror€after€sheÏrevealed€she€knew€the€sheriff€in€an€official€capacity.€€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñòòIdóó.€€On€appeal,€we€found€noÐ €  Ðerror€based€upon€Rule€24(c)'s€provision€that€the€right€to€exercise€peremptoryÏchallenges€ceases€once€the€jury€has€been€selected€and€accepted€by€the€parties.€Ð @à ÐñÒ4ñœñÒ4ñòòIdóó.ñÌ4ñÐ  À ÐñÌ4ññÃ4ñÌñÃ4ññÌ4ñ›ñÌ4ññË4ññÃ4ñÌñÃ4ñ›ñË4ññÆ4ññÃ4ñà ` àñÃ4ñ›ñÃ4ñà ` àñÃ4ññÆ4ññÄ4ñ›ÌñÄ4ññÆ4ñò òñÆ4ññÉ4ñÔ‡ X‚XXX‚ÔñÉ4ññÄ4ñ›Ð à€ ÐñÄ4ññÇ4ñ›Ð à€ ÐñÇ4ññÈ4ñ›Ð à€ ÐñÈ4ññÉ4ñ›Ð à€ ЛñÉ4ññË4ññÉ4ñÐ    ÐñÉ4ññË4ññÉ4ñÐ à€ ÐÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ#†X‚XX X‚jA#Ô›Ó  ÓñÉ4ñò òñÄ4ñIñÄ4ññÊ4ñÓ  ÓñÊ4ññÅ4ñIñÅ4ñIñÒ4ñ›ñÒ4ñ€&€IIIó óÐ à€ ÐñÒ4ñœñÒ4ññÉ4ñÓ  ÓñÉ4ññÒ4ñ›ñÒ4ññÊ4ñÓcDÓñÊ4ñà ` àà ¸ àñÒ4ñœñÒ4ññÆ4ñó óñÆ4ñTheñÒ4ñ›ñÒ4ñ€defendants'€second€and€third€joint€issues€are€interrelated.€€First,Ïthey€claim€that€their€convictions€are€infirm€because€the€trial€court€held€court€onÏSunday€in€contravention€of€the€common€law€prohibition€against€the€performance€ofÏhigh€judicial€functions€on€that€day.€€Second,€they€allege€that€Ô‡ X’oXXX’oÔthe€trial€court€erred€inÐ `'  Ðruling€ñÒ4ñœñÒ4ñmid„trialñÍ4ñ,ñÍ4ññÒ4ñ›ñÒ4ñ€on€Saturday,€that€Dewayne€King€would€be€severed€from€the€caseÏunless€his€counsel€recovered€from€illness€by€the€following€day.Ô#†X’oXX X’oUF#Ô€€The€state€countersÐ  +À!$ Ðthat€the€defendants€agreed€to€hold€court€on€Sunday€and€have€therefore€waived€anyÏcomplaint.€€Furthermore,€the€state€alleges€that€any€complaint€about€the€proposedÏseverance€is€moot€because€the€severance€never€took€effect.€€The€interplay€of€theseÏissues€is€complex.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€Tuesday,€the€second€day€of€trial,€the€court€mentioned€theÏpossibility€of€holding€court€on€Sunday.€€On€Friday,€the€fifth€day€of€trial,€the€courtÏinformed€counsel€that€the€sequestered€jury€had€expressed€interest€in€holding€courtÐ  :À04 Ðon€Sunday€and€inquired€about€the€parties'€amenability€to€accommodating€the€jury.€ÏCounsel€for€Debiasi€and€Dewayne€objected,€while€the€state€and€counsel€for€DevonÏdid€not.€€On€Saturday,€the€sixth€day€of€trial,€counsel€for€Dewayne€became€so€ill€thatÏshe€had€to€leave€the€courtroom€during€portions€of€the€proceedings.€€It€was€apparentÏthat€Dewayne's€counsel€was€unable€to€proceed€on€Saturday€afternoon,€and€theÏstate€moved€for€a€severance€of€Dewayne€King€so€that€the€trial€could€continue.€€TheÏstate€offered€use€immunity€to€Dewayne€if€his€testimony€was€necessary€for€theÏdefense€of€Debiasi€and€Devon.€€Counsel€for€all€three€defendants€voiced€theirÏobjection€to€a€severance.€€Counsel€for€Dewayne€informed€the€court€that€she€hadÏbeen€responsible€for€preparation€of€portions€of€the€joint€defense€with€which€the€co„¼defendants'€counsel€were€not€familiar.€€Expressing€concern€about€the€longevity€ofÏa€jury€without€alternates,€the€state€proposed€that€the€trial€proceed€on€Sunday€ratherÏthan€adjourning€until€Monday.€€Counsel€for€Devon€agreed€without€reservation.€ÏGiven€the€new€set€of€circumstances,€counsel€for€Debiasi€acquiesced€despite€hisÏprevious€objection.€€Counsel€for€Dewayne€memorialized€the€fact€that€she€feltÏpressured€and€indicated€that€holding€court€on€Sunday€was€not€as€undesirable€asÏhaving€her€client's€case€severed.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFrom€this€discussion,€the€court€found€that€all€three€defendants€hadÏconsented€to€holding€court€on€Sunday,€however,€"the€only€hesitation€I€have€is€onÏ[Dewayne's€counsel],€whether€or€not€she€could€freely€agree€when€she€is€obviouslyÏill€and€having€trouble€thinking."€€Accordingly,€the€court€ruled€that€Dewayne€KingÏwould€be€severed€from€the€case€unless€his€attorney€was€able€to€proceed€theÏfollowing€afternoon.€€With€respect€to€the€propriety€of€holding€court€on€Sunday,€theÏtrial€court€observed€that€in€the€thirty€years€since€the€last€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏdecision€prohibiting€Sunday€proceedings,€"Blue€Laws"€prohibiting€commercialÏactivities€on€Sunday€had€been€repealed€and€society€had€become€much€moreÐ  :À04 Ðtolerant€of€non„essential€functions€being€performed€on€Sunday.€€€In€fact,€the€courtÏnoted€that€every€type€of€commercial€activity,€other€than€the€sale€of€bottled€liquor,€isÏnow€legal€and€accepted€by€society€on€Sunday.€€Further,€the€court€noted€theÏsequestered€jury's€desire€to€work€on€Sunday.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWhen€the€appointed€hour€on€Sunday€arrived,€Dewayne's€attorneyÏappeared€and€indicated€she€was€no€longer€ill€and€was€able€to€proceed.€€Thus,€theÏseverance€never€took€effect,€and€the€trial€of€all€three€defendants€proceeded€with€theÏpresentation€of€defense€proof.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€Kings€are€correct€that€the€common€law€has€historically€prohibitedÏcourt€proceedings€from€taking€place€on€Sunday.€€òòSee€generallyóó€23€Tenn.€Juris.Ð   ÐòòSundays€and€Holidaysóó€ðð€4€(1998).€€In€òòMoss€v.€Stateóó,€131€Tenn.€94,€110„11,€173Ð à€ ÐS.W.€859,€863€(1915),€the€supreme€court€said€that€holding€court€on€Sunday€was€notÏa€mere€irregularity;€rather,€it€was€"as€fatal€as€performing€the€same€act€at€a€placeÏother€than€that€prescribed€by€law."€€Similarly,€in€òòStyles€v.€Harrisonóó,€99€Tenn.€128,Ð €%  Ð128,€41€S.W.€333,€333€(1897),€the€court€said€that€a€judgment€rendered€on€SundayÏ"is€not€simply€erroneous,€but€is€absolutely€void."€€€As€recently€as€1965,€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€reaffirmed€the€principle€of€òò"Dies€dominicus€non€estÐ  +À!$ Ðjuridicus."óó€€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€215€Tenn.€314,€317,€385€S.W.2d€748,€317€(1965).€€ThatÐ - #& Ðis€to€say,€"Sunday€is€not€a€court€day,€or€day€for€judicial€proceedings,€or€legalÏpurposes."€€Black's€Law€Dictionary€455€(6th€ed.€1990).€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àòòSmithóó€is€the€most€recent€decision€of€any€Tennessee€appellate€courtÐ €4 +. Ðwhich€directly€addresses€the€propriety€of€holding€court€on€Sunday.€€òòBut€cfóó.€òòState€v.Ð `6-0 ÐHurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57,€68€(Tenn.€1993)€(discussing€deliberations€and€return€ofÐ @8à.2 Ðverdict€on€Sunday€in€context€of€lateness€of€the€hour€but€not€day€of€the€week).€€InÐ  :À04 ÐòòSmithóó,€the€trial€began€on€a€Monday€and€continued€through€Saturday€night.€€òòSmithóó,Ð `  Ð215€Tenn.€at€316,€385€S.W.2d€at€749.€€The€jury€was€charged€Saturday€night,€andÏdeliberations€continued€into€Sunday€morning.€€òòIdóó.€at€316„17,€385€S.W.2d€at€749.€Ð  À ÐEarly€Sunday€morning,€the€jury€made€an€inquiry€of€the€court,€and€they€were€returnedÏto€the€courtroom€where€the€court€reread€a€portion€of€the€charge.€€òòIdóó.€at€317,€385Ð à€ ÐS.W.2d€at€749.€€Thereafter€on€Sunday€morning,€the€jury€returned€its€verdict.€€òòIdóó.€atÐ À`  Ð317,€385€S.W.2d€at€749.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€analyzing€the€propriety€of€the€foregoing€actions,€the€supreme€courtÏbegan€by€acknowledging€the€common€law€rule€that€judicial€acts€could€not€beÏperformed€on€Sunday,€and€a€statutory€abrogation€of€the€common€law€was€requiredÏto€confer€the€right€or€authority€to€perform€a€judicial€act.€€òòIdóó.€at€317,€385€S.W.2d€atÐ   Ð750.€€Moreover,€the€court€observed,€Tennessee€statutory€law€went€so€far€as€toÏ"prevent€the€exercise€of€any€unnecessary€secular€labor€on€the€Sabbath,"€therebyÏindicating€the€"unquestionable"€public€policy€of€this€state€against€performance€ofÏsecular€or€judicial€acts€on€Sunday.€€òòIdóó.€at€318„19,€385€S.W.2d€at€750€(citing€Tenn.Ð €%  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„4001);€òòaccordóó€òòMossóó,€131€Tenn.€at€107„08,€173€S.W.€at€862€(notingÐ `'  Ðstatutory€prohibitions€against€secular€and€certain€judicial€activities€on€Sunday).ñÂ4ñ׃#×ñÂ4ññÂ4ñ׃×ñÂ4ñÝ ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð @)à" ÐUltimately,€the€court€held€that€receiving€and€recording€a€verdict€on€Sunday€fellÏoutside€the€scope€of€the€rule;ñÂ4ñ׃'@×ñÂ4ññÂ4ñ׃@×ñÂ4ñÝ ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€however,€reinstructing€the€jury€was€a€"high€judicialÐ - #& Ðfunction"€not€lawfully€performed€on€Sunday€and€which€required€reversal€and€remandÏfor€a€new€trial.€€òòSmithóó,€215€Tenn.€at€315,€385€S.W.2d€at€751.Ð À0`'* Їà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€court€acknowledged€the€òòSmithóó€decision.€Ð `  ÐThe€trial€court€correctly€found€that€much€has€changed€since€the€supreme€court'sÏopinion€in€òòSmithóó.€€In€fact,€the€statute€which€the€òòSmithóó€court€found€indicative€of€theÐ  À Ð"unquestionable"€public€policy€against€holding€court€on€Sunday€was€repealed€manyÏyears€ago.€€òòSeeóó€1981€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€ch.€213,€ðð€1€(repealing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ à€ Ð39„4001).€€Likewise,€the€statutes€relied€upon€in€òòMossóó€,€an€opinion€upon€which€theÐ À`  ÐòòSmithóó€court€relied,€have€been€repealed.€€òòSeeóó€1986€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€ch.€538,€ðð€1Ð  @  Ð(repealing€ðð€20„6„301);€1981€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€ch.€213,€ðð€1€(repealing€ðð€39„4002).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àNotwithstanding€the€repeal€of€statutory€prohibitions€against€SundayÏactivities,€there€has€been€no€legislative€enactment€or€supreme€court€decision€whichÏspecifically€abrogates€the€common€law€rule€against€holding€court€on€Sunday.€€€Thus,Ïthe€question€becomes€whether€the€trial€court€properly€abandoned€the€common€lawÏrule€in€the€absence€of€legislative€enactment€or€high€court€decision.€€òòSeeóó€òòHanoverÐ À!` Ðv.€Ruchóó,€809€S.W.2d€893,€896€(Tenn.€1991)€(where€the€legislature€has€not€acted,Ð  #@ Ðit€is€the€duty€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€to€abolish€obsolete€common€lawÏdoctrines);€òòSmithóó,€215€Tenn.€at€317,€385€S.W.2d€at€750€("In€jurisdictions€where€theÐ `'  Ðcommon€law€prevails,€the€right€or€authority€to€perform€any€judicial€act€on€SundayÏmust€be€derived€from€a€statute€conferring€that€right€or€authority.")€(citing€50€Am.€Jur.Ð  +À!$ ÐòòSundays€and€Holidaysóó€ðð€73€(1944)).€€Ð - #& ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€this€state,€abandonment€of€the€common€law€by€judicial€action€is€theÏprovince€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€not€the€trial€and€intermediate€appellateÏcourts.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòCary€v.€Caryóó,€937€S.W.2d€777,€781€(Tenn.€1996)€(abolition€ofÐ €4 +. Ðobsolete€common€law€doctrines€is€"the€special€duty€of€this€Court");€òòJerome€HowardÐ `6-0 ÐHanover€v.€Robert€M.€Ruch,€M.D.óó,€No.€58€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.,€Western€Section,€MayÐ @8à.2 Ð1,€1990)€("Abolishment€[of€the€common€law€tort€of€criminal€conversation]€lies€withÐ  :À04 Ðthe€legislature€or€with€the€Supreme€Court.€.€.€.€It€is€the€duty€of€the€Court€of€AppealsÏto€apply€the€law€as€promulgated€[by]€the€legislature€or€as€announced€by€theÏSupreme€Court.")€(citation€and€internal€quote€omitted),€òòrev'dóó,€809€S.W.2d€893Ð  À Ð(Tenn.€1991);€òòLentz€v.€Bakeróó,€792€S.W.2d€71€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989)€(court€ofÐ   Ðappeals€without€authority€to€abolish€tort€of€alienation€of€affections€despite€itsÏinclination€to€do€so);€òòcfóó.€òòDavis€v.€Davisóó,€657€S.W.2d€753,€743€(Tenn.€1983)€(in€caseÐ À`  Ðabolishing€interspousal€immunity,€supreme€court€noted€court€of€appeals€hadÏadhered€to€doctrine€of€òòstare€decisisóó).Ð €  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIt€is€apparent€from€the€language€of€òòMossóó€and€òòStylesóó,€òòsupraóó,€thatÐ @à Ðholding€court€on€Sunday€results€in€a€void€proceeding.€€Thus,€the€state's€contentionÏthat€the€defendants€could€waive€any€objection€by€consenting€to€the€SundayÏproceedings€is€misplaced.ñÂ4ñ׃(×ñÂ4ññÂ4ñ׃×ñÂ4ñÝ ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€òòCfóó.€òòState€v.€Preston€Carteróó,€„„„€S.W.2d€„„„,€No.€02S01„Ð à€ Ð9705„CR„00045,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.,€Jackson,€Feb.€1,€1999)€(defendant€did€notÏwaive€claim€conviction€was€void€based€upon€insufficiency€of€charging€instrument€byÏfailing€to€raise€the€issue€before€pleading€guilty).€€It€is€equally€apparent€fromÏprecedent€that€the€trial€court€was€without€authority€to€abandon€the€common€law€ruleÏabsent€legislative€or€supreme€court€abrogation€of€it.€€At€first€blush,€this€case€mightÏappear€to€be€an€appropriate€"test"€case€for€supreme€court€reexamination€of€theÏpublic€policy€ñ×4ñòòñ×4ñpost„Smithñ×4ñóóñ×4ñ€and€consideration€of€whether€that€policy€will€support€a€ruleÐ - #& Ðof€voidable,€not€void,€Sunday€proceedings€in€which€the€parties€would€be€able€toÏwaive€objections€by€their€consent.€€However,€upon€careful€examination,€it€isÏapparent€that€this€is€not€such€a€case€because€Dewayne€King's€"consent"€to€SundayÏproceedings€was€illusory.ÌÐ `6-0 Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€pertinent€part,€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€14(c)(2)Ïprovides€that€upon€motion€of€the€state€for€severance€of€a€defendant€during€trial,€theÏstate€shall€grant€a€severance€if€(1)€the€defendant€to€be€severed€consents,€and€(2)Ïthe€severance€is€"necessary€to€achieve€a€fair€determination€of€the€guilt€or€innocenceÏof€one€or€more€defendants."€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€14(c)(2).€€In€the€present€case,€thisÏrule€was€not€followed.€€The€court€posed€the€alternatives€of€Sunday€proceedingsÏagainst€severance€of€Dewayne€King.€€Rule€14(c)(2)€allowed€counsel€for€DewayneÏto€prevent€the€severance€by€her€objection.€€The€rule€conferred€no€authority€on€theÏtrial€court€to€impose€the€severance€in€the€absence€of€Dewayne€King's€consent.€€ItÏis€apparent€from€the€record€that€Dewayne's€counsel€opposed€the€severance,€yet€theÏtrial€court€did€not€allow€her€the€unconditional€right€to€accept€or€prevent€theÏseverance€as€mandated€by€the€rule.ñÂ4ñ׃+×ñÂ4ññÂ4ñ׃-×ñÂ4ñÝ ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð   ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAdditionally,€upon€review€of€the€statements€made€on€the€record€byÏcounsel€and€the€court€about€Dewayne's€attorney's€illness,€it€is€apparent€that€sheÏwas€so€ill€that€her€ability€to€think€clearly€and€advocate€effectively€was€compromised.€ÏIt€is€also€apparent€that€counsel€felt€pressure€from€other€counsel€and€the€court€withÏregard€to€her€decision.€€With€counsel's€abilities€so€compromised,€her€"consent"€viaÏthe€choice€between€two€unattractive€alternatives,€neither€of€which€was€viable€underÏTennessee€law,€in€fairness€cannot€be€considered€consent€at€all.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAccordingly,€we€find€reversible€error.€€When€the€state€made€its€mid„¼trial€motion€for€severance€of€Dewayne€King,€he€was€not€afforded€the€protection€ofÐ  2@), ÐRule€14(c)(2)€to€freely€elect€between€severance€and€remaining€in€the€case.€ÏMoreover,€the€trial€proceedings€held€on€Sunday€were€absolutely€void.€€Debiasi€andÏDewayne€King's€convictions€must€be€reversed€and€the€matter€remanded€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€a€new€trial.ò òÐ   ÐÌÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔó óà@¹¹,àò òIVó óˆÐ À`  ÐÔ#†X’oXX X’o¸|#ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔà ` àà ¸ àIn€their€next€joint€issue,€the€defendants€claim€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ  @  Ðexcluding€Antoine€Coe's€proffered€testimony€regarding€Darrius€Malone's€priorÏconduct.€€Coe€testified€during€a€proffer€that€he€knew€Malone€from€attending€schoolÏand€serving€jail€time€with€him.€€Coe€testified€that€Malone€had€a€violent€reputation.€ÏCoe€said€he€had€seen€Malone€assault€others€"a€whole€bunch€of€times,"€and€MaloneÏwas€removed€from€school€due€to€his€violence.€€Ô#†X’oXX X’o-}#ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔCoe€further€testified€that€he€had€seenÐ   ÐMalone€driving€a€white€Cutlass€a€few€hours€before€the€crime€on€trial€took€place.€ÏMalone€yelled€a€phrase€which€would€be€derogatory€to€a€Crip,€and€Malone'sÏunidentified€passenger€yelled,€"What's€up,€Blood?€€What's€up,€Blood?"€andÏbrandished€a€pistol.Ô#†X’oXX X’oX#ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔ€€Coe€further€testified€that€Malone€had€shot€into€a€crowd€on€aÐ €%  Ðprevious€occasion.€Ô#†X’oXX X’o΀#ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔÐ `'  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àCuriously,€the€record€lacks€an€explicit€ruling€of€the€trial€court€on€theÏadmissibility€of€this€evidence.€€After€the€proffer€of€Coe's€testimony,€the€court€heardÏargument,€and€its€comments€clearly€indicate€its€inclination€to€exclude€the€bulk€of€thisÏevidence.€€After€hearing€argument€on€the€issue,€the€court€said€that€it€would€be€inÏrecess€for€lunch€and€would€resume€the€hearing€thereafter.€€The€court€admonishedÏMr.€Coe€to€return€after€lunch.€€When€court€resumed€after€the€lunch€break,€the€judgeÏimmediately€began€discussion€of€Dewayne€King's€attorney's€illness€and€determinedÏthat€court€would€be€in€recess€until€the€following€afternoon.€€When€court€resumed€theÏnext€day,€there€was€no€further€discussion€of€the€admissibility€of€Mr.€Coe's€testimony.Ð  :À04 Їà ` àà ¸ àOur€initial€impression€is€that€the€defendants€have€waived€ourÏconsideration€of€this€issue€for€two€reasons.€€First,€the€defendants€failed€to€bring€thisÏunfinished€business€to€the€court's€attention€once€the€proceedings€reconvened.€€òòSeeóóÐ  À ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a)€(appellate€court€not€required€to€grant€relief€when€a€partyÏ"failed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonably€available€to€prevent€or€nullify€theÏharmful€effect€of€an€error").€€Second,€neither€defendant€is€specific€in€his€brief€aboutÏwhich€portion€of€the€proffered€testimony€should€have€been€admitted.€€DefendantÏDebiasi€King's€argument€is€only€one€sentence€long€and€claims€simply,€"The€CourtÏerred€in€refusing€to€allow€Antone€[sic]€Coe€to€testify€about€the€bad€acts€of€DarriusÏMalone€under€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€405(b)."€€Defendant€Dewayne€King€isÏonly€slightly€more€specific,€claiming€the€testimony€of€Coe€"concerned€the€victim€andÏpersons€in€[the]€Maxima€who€had€a€gun"€and€that€this€evidence€was€relevant,Ïprobative€and€not€outweighed€by€prejudicial€effect.€€Both€arguments€are€woefullyÏdeficient€of€citation€to€the€record,€citation€to€authority,€statement€of€the€precise€issueÏto€be€reviewed,€and€adequate€argument€supporting€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.Ð  #@ ÐP.€27(a),€(g),€(h).€€As€such,€our€consideration€is€waived€on€this€basis,€as€well.€€€òòSeeóóÐ €%  ÐTenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b).€€Nevertheless,€for€the€purpose€of€assisting€the€trialÏcourt€upon€remand,€we€will€briefly€address€the€aspects€of€this€issue.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFirst,€we€consider€whether€Coe€should€have€been€allowed€to€testifyÏabout€Malone's€violent€reputation.€€Evidence€of€a€person's€character€or€trait€ofÏcharacter€is€generally€not€admissible€to€show€conduct€in€conformity€therewith.€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a).€€Notwithstanding,€evidence€of€a€òòvictimóó's€violent€character€mayÐ  2@), Ðbe€admitted€in€the€form€of€reputation€or€opinion€evidence€when€self€defense€isÏalleged€because€this€evidence€is€probative€of€whether€the€defendant€or€the€victimÏwas€the€first€aggressor.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a)(2),€405(a);€òòState€v.€JohnÐ @8à.2 ÐD.€Joslinóó,€No.€03C01„9510„CR„002999,€slip€op.€at€67„68€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð  :À04 ÐKnoxville,€Sept.€18,€1997),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Ruaneóó,€912Ð `  ÐS.W.2d€766,€779„82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€case€at€bar,€however,€Malone€was€not€the€victim€but€a€witness.€ÏWhen€the€person€with€the€violent€reputation€is€a€witness,€admissibility€of€hisÏcharacter€for€violence€is€governed€by€Rule€404(a)(3),€which€provides€that€characterÏevidence€may€be€admitted€as€provided€by€Rules€607,€608€and€609.€€Generally,ÏRules€607,€608€and€609€provide€for€impeachment€of€a€witness€based€upon€hisÏcharacter€for€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness,€specific€instances€of€conduct€probativeÏof€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness,€or€by€evidence€of€conviction€of€certain€crimes.€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€608(a),€(b),€609(a).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àUnder€these€rules,€Malone's€violent€reputation€is€not€admissible.€ÏMalone€was€not€the€victim,€so€the€evidence€does€not€pass€the€threshold€ofÏadmissibility€for€violent€reputation€evidence€via€Rules€404€or€405.€€The€evidence€isÏnot€probative€of€the€witness's€veracity€or€criminal€record,€so€it€likewise€does€not€gainÏadmission€via€Rules€607,€608€and€609.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àNext,€the€defendants€question€whether€the€trial€court€correctlyÏexcluded€evidence€regarding€Coe's€encounter€with€Malone€and€another€man€hoursÏbefore€the€crime€took€place€in€which€Malone€used€gang€slang€and€his€companionÏbrandished€a€weapon.€€Malone€testified€that€he€had€not€possessed€or€owned€a€gunÏsince€the€incident€at€the€"strut,"€a€previous€incident€when€he€fired€a€gun€amidst€aÏcrowd€of€people.€€Ô#†X’oXX X’ov#ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔHe€also€testified€he€was€not€a€gang€member,€although€heÐ €4 +. Ðadmitted€having€thrown€gang€signs€while€he€was€"locked€up"€and€was€familiar€withÏsome€gang€terminology.ÌÐ  :À04 Ðà ` àà ¸ àAt€trial,€the€defense€claimed€Coe's€testimony€in€this€regard€wasÏrelevant€to€show€Malone's€bad€character€and€lack€of€credibility.€€Admission€ofÏevidence€of€specific€instances€of€conduct€relative€to€character€of€a€witness€is€limited,Ïand€it€may€come€in€only€on€cross„examination€of€the€witness.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€EvidÐ   Ð405(a).€€Similarly,€"[s]pecific€instances€of€conduct€of€a€witness€for€the€purpose€ofÏattacking€or€supporting€the€witness's€credibility,€other€than€convictions€of€crime€asÏprovided€in€Rule€609,€may€not€be€proved€by€extrinsic€evidence,"€although€they€mayÏbe€inquired€into€on€cross„examination€regarding€the€witness's€character€for€veracity.€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid€608(b).€€Obviously,€Coe's€proffered€testimony€about€specific€instancesÏof€Malone's€conduct€was€not€admissible€to€illustrate€Malone's€bad€character€or€lackÏof€credibility.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€claims€about€Coeððs€testimony€also€implicateÏimpeachment€by€fact€contradiction.€€Not€only€were€Maloneððs€prior€bad€acts€offeredÏas€evidence,€òòipso€factoóó,€of€his€poor€credibility,€but€these€acts€as€described€by€CoeÐ  #@ Ðtend€to€contradict€Maloneððs€trial€testimony€about€his€avoidance€of€gang€involvement.€ÏHowever,€impeachment€of€a€witness€through€fact€contradiction€is€subject€to€theÏcollateral€evidence€rule.€€òòState€v.€Perkinsonóó,€867€S.W.2d€1,€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð @)à" Ð1992).€€ð ðAccording€to€this€rule,€there€can€be€no€extrinsic€proof€of€collateral€matters[,]Ï.€.€.€[and]€counsel€must€use€cross„examination€of€the€witness€being€impeached€toÏbring€out€the€contradictory€ñÂ4ñfactandñÂ4ññÂ4ñfact€andñÂ4ñ€must€accept€the€witnessðð€response,€even€if€it€isÏa€denial€that€counsel€could€disprove.ðððð€òòIdóó.€(quoting€N.€Cohen,€D.€Paine€&€S.Ð À0`'* ÐSheppeard,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€607.3€(2d€ed.€1990)).€€In€our€view,€theÐ  2@), Ðproffered€evidence€is€presentable€as€fact€contradiction€on€the€issue€of€MaloneððsÏalleged€gang€involvement,€and€the€trial€court€would€not€have€abused€its€discretionÏin€allowing€Coeððs€testimony€for€this€purpose.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€question€is€notÏclear„cut,€and€the€trial€courtððs€disallowance€of€Coeððs€testimony€would€likely€fall€withinÐ  :À04 Ðthe€range€of€its€discretion€as€well.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Blantonóó,€926€S.W.2d€953,€960Ð `  Ð(Tenn.€1996)€(ruling€on€impeachment€evidence€pursuant€to€rule€609,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,ÏñÒ4ñœñÒ4ñwithñÎ4ñinñÎ4ññÒ4ñ›ñÒ4ñ€trial€courtððs€discretion);€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€785€S.W.€2d€132,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð  À ÐApp.€1989)€(admission€or€exclusion€of€evidence€left€to€discretion€of€trial€court€andÏwill€not€be€revisited€on€appeal€short€of€ñÂ4ññ¦4ñabudñ¦4ññÂ4ññÂ4ñabuseñÂ4ñ€of€that€discretion).Ô#†X’oXX X’o”#ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔÐ à€ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àNext,€we€take€up€the€issue€of€whether€the€defense€should€have€beenÏallowed€to€question€Coe€about€the€underlying€facts€of€Malone's€prior€crime€involvingÏthe€use€of€a€gun.€€When€Malone€testified€during€the€state's€case„in„chief,€heÏadmitted€he€was€incarcerated€for€crimes€related€to€driving€under€the€influence,Ïmarijuana€and€crack€cocaine.€€He€admitted€he€had€juvenile€adjudications€forÏreckless€endangerment,€possession€of€a€firearm€and€aggravated€robbery.€€OnÏcross„examination,€he€admitted€he€had€previously€stolen€a€.22€or€.25€gun,€and€heÏhad€been€given€a€.22€by€someone€nicknamed€"Boo."€€He€admitted€that€the€recklessÏendangerment€situation€had€occurred€at€the€"strut"€about€one€year€earlier€andÏinvolved€the€.22€from€"Boo."€ÌÌÔ#†X’oXX X’oT #ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔà ` àà ¸ àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€609(a)€permits€a€party€to€attack€aÐ @)à" Ðwitness's€credibility€by€asking€the€witness€about€certain€criminal€convictions€onÏcross„examination.ñÂ4ñ׃$×ñÂ4ññÂ4ñ׃×ñÂ4ñÝ ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€If€the€witness€denies€the€conviction,€it€may€be€establishedÐ - #& Ðthrough€the€public€record.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(1).€€Under€the€rule,€juvenileÏadjudications€are€generally€not€admissible;€however,€they€may€be€admitted€"ifÏconviction€of€the€offense€would€be€admissible€to€attack€the€credibility€of€an€adult"Ïand€admission€is€necessary€for€a€fair€determination€of€the€matter€at€bar.€€Tenn.€R.Ð €4 +. ÐEvid.€609(d).€€In€this€case,€Malone€testified€on€direct€examination€about€his€priorÏconvictions€and€juvenile€adjudications.€€On€cross„examination,€he€testified€in€detailÏabout€two€weapons€he€had€possessed€in€the€past€and€the€fact€that€he€had€used€aÏgun€in€an€incident€a€year€earlier€at€the€"strut."€€The€evidence€elicited€from€AntoineÏCoe€was,€for€the€most€part,€cumulative€of€evidence€already€received€from€MaloneÏhimself.€€We€are€at€a€loss€to€see€how€any€further€details€of€Malone's€priorÏadjudication€involving€the€use€of€a€gun€were€of€value€to€the€jury€in€assessing€hisÏcredibility€and€necessary€for€a€"fair€determination"€of€the€criminal€case.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð €  ÐR.€Evid.€609(a),€(d).€€Moreover,€this€evidence€would€have€been€cumulative€ofÏMalone's€earlier€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403€(exclusion€of€cumulativeÐ @à Ðevidence).ÌÔ#†X’oXX X’oŸ£#ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔÌÔ#†X’oXX X’oBª#ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔà@ÕÕ-àò òVó óˆÐ à€ Ðà ` àà ¸ àNext,€the€defendants€question€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€rulingÏadmissible€a€letter€containing€apparent€gang€references€which€was€found€in€theÏLincoln€convertible.€€Ultimately,€however,€the€record€reflects€that€the€letter€was€notÏadmitted,€and€the€state€voluntarily€withdrew€its€request€to€cross„examine€DevonÏKing€about€it.€€Debiasi€King€was€not€cross„examined€about€the€letter,€and€there€isÏno€allegation€that€Dewayne€King€did€not€testify€in€order€to€avoid€cross„examinationÏabout€this€evidence.€€Thus,€the€ruling€did€not€affect€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€òòSeeóóÐ - #& ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€We€fail€to€see€that€the€issue€isÏcognizable€as€an€attack€on€the€convictions€before€us;€however,€we€will€brieflyÏaddress€the€issue€to€assist€the€trial€court€on€remand.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àMario€Brown€testified€during€a€jury„out€hearing€that€the€letter€containedÏa€rap€lyric€that€he€and€his€cousin€Robert€Smith€had€written.€€The€composition€isÏwritten€in€slang,€and€the€letter€contained€distinctive€characteristics,€such€as€lettersÐ  :À04 Ðof€the€alphabet€written€upside€down€or€with€a€pitchfork€drawn€through€them.€€TheÏwitness€denied€the€phrasing€of€the€song€and€the€distinctive€writing€had€any€gang„¼related€significance.€€He€denied€being€part€of€a€gang,€although€he€admitted€he€andÏthe€Kings€were€part€of€the€"Eighth€Street€Crew"€referenced€in€the€rap€lyric.€€BrownÏtestified€he€left€the€letter€in€the€white€Lincoln€sometime€prior€to€the€day€of€the€crimeÏwhen€Devon€King€had€given€him€a€ride.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€letter€would€beÏadmissible€on€cross„examination€of€the€defendants€regarding€whether€they€wereÏaffiliated€with€a€gang.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àDebiasi€King's€argument€to€this€court€consists€of€one€sentenceÏclaiming€without€explanation€that€the€evidence€is€irrelevant€and€prejudicial.€€NoÏcitation€to€the€record€or€decisional€authority€appears.€€Dewayne€King's€argument€isÏslightly€more€lengthy€at€four€sentences.€€No€authority€is€cited€for€the€claim€that€theÏevidence€is€prejudicial€and€irrelevant.€€The€inadequate€presentation€of€the€issue€byÏboth€defendants€constitutes€waiver.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b)Ô#†X’oXX X’o…ª#ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔ;€Tenn.€R.Ð  #@ ÐApp.€P.€27(a),€(g),€(h).€€However,€we€address€the€issue€briefly€to€provide€guidanceÏto€the€trial€court€on€remand.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àRelevant€evidence€is€that€"evidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€theÏexistence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€moreÏprobable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï401.€€Relevant€evidence€is€generally€admissible.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€Among€otherÏreasons,€relevant€evidence€may€be€excluded€"if€its€probative€value€is€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€.€.€.€."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€this€case,€the€state's€theory€was€that€the€defendants€were€promptedÏto€commit€this€crime€due€to€their€affiliation€with€the€Crips€gang.€€The€letter€was€foundÐ  :À04 Ðin€Devon€King's€vehicle.€€A€poster€found€in€Debiasi€King's€room€contained€some€ofÏthe€same€unique€lettering€as€the€letter.€€Clearly,€the€letter€was€relevant.€€It€is€alsoÏclear€that€the€letter,€if€it€does€in€fact€indicate€gang€affiliation,€is€prejudicial.€€This€trial,Ïhowever,€was€remarkable€for€significant€testimony€and€other€evidence€about€gangÏaffiliation€of€the€defendants,€the€occupants€of€the€Maxima,€and€some€of€the€otherÏwitnesses.€€We€fail€to€see€error€in€the€trial€court's€determination€that€the€probativeÏvalue€of€this€evidence€was€not€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.€€òòCfóó.€òòState€v.€Erika€Nelmsóó,€No.€02C01„9604„CR„00116,€slip€op.€at€8„9Ð €  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€May€23,€1997)€(evidence€about€Gangster€DisciplesÏgang€not€unfairly€prejudicial€and€admitted€to€show€motive€where€one€of€threeÏñÎ4ñÑ7†ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÎ4ññÂ4ñÑ7†ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÂ4ñdefendants€indicated€she€committed€the€crime€to€curry€favor€with€the€gang).Ô#†X’oXX X’o®³#ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔÐ  À ÐÌà@¹¹,àò òVIó óˆÐ à€ ÐÔ#†X’oXX X’oá½#ÔÔ‡X’oXXX’oÔà ` àà ¸ àBoth€defendants€claim€that€they€were€deprived€of€a€fair€trial€due€to€aÐ À!` Ðbrief€separation€of€the€sequestered€jury.€€Because€we€have€found€the€caseÏreversible€due€to€the€proceedings€which€took€place€on€a€Sunday€and€doubt€that€theÏunusual€facts€of€the€separation€will€repeat€themselves€on€remand,€lengthy€analysisÏof€this€issue€is€not€warranted.€€However,€we€note€that€the€state€sustained€its€burden€Ïof€demonstrating€that€the€jury€separation€was€not€prejudicial€to€the€defendants.€€òòSeeóóÐ  +À!$ ÐòòGonzales€v.€Stateóó,€593€S.W.2d€€288€(Tenn.€1980);€òòaccordóó€òòState€v.€Spadafinaóó,€952Ð - #& ÐS.W.2d€444,€452„53€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€There€was€no€error.ÌÌà@\\àò òDebiasi€King's€Individual€Issueó óˆÐ  2@), Ðà@,àñÒ4ñœñÒ4ñò òVIñÏ4ñIñÏ4ñó óñÒ4ñ›ñÒ4ñˆÐ €4 +. Ðà ` àà ¸ àDebiasi€King€claims€that€the€maximum€25„year€sentence€imposed€isÏexcessive.€€Due€to€the€necessity€of€a€reversal€and€remand€for€a€new€trial,€it€isÏunnecessary€that€we€review€the€propriety€of€the€sentence.€€òòAccordóó€òòState€v.€RomanÐ  :À04 ÐÑ7†ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÒ4ñÑ7†ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÒ4ññÏ4ñÑ7†ÑÑ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\ÑÑ  ÑñÏ4ñC.€Ballóó,€No.€Ô#†X’oXXX’oi¾#ÔÔ‡X’oXXX’oÔ03C01„9410„CR„00363,€slip€op.€at€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Mar.Ð `  Ð30,€1995),€òòapp.€dismissedóó€(Tenn.€1996);€òòcfóó.€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€905€S.W.2d€207,€213Ð @ à Ð(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1995)€(not€necessary€for€appellate€court€to€determine€factual€issueÏof€whether€defendant€received€notice€of€intent€to€seek€enhanced€punishmentÏbecause€case€reversed€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial),€òòoverruled€on€other€groundsóó,Ð à€ ÐòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€977€S.W.2d€101,€106€n.7€(1998).Ð À`  ÐÌà@ÖÖàò òDewayne€King's€Individual€Issuesó óˆÐ €  Ðà@+àò òVIIIó óˆÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àDewayne€King€alleges€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction€of€second€degree€murder.ñÂ4ñ׃×ñÂ4ññÂ4ñ׃×ñÂ4ñÝ ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô#†X’oXXX’o»Æ#ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔWÔ#†X’oXX X’oœÊ#Ôhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiencyÐ  À Ðof€the€evidence,€an€appellate€courtððs€standard€of€review€is€whether,€after€consideringÏthe€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€factÐ à€ Ðcould€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2791„92€(1979);€òòState€v.Ð  #@ ÐDuncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€appliesÐ €%  Ðto€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€aÏcombination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,Ð @)à" Ð253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€€Ô‡ X’oXXX’oÔÐ  +À!$ ÐÌÔ#†X’oXX X’oîÍ#Ôà ` àà ¸ àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€should€notÐ à.€%( Ðreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779Ð À0`'* Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€theÐ  2@), Ðweight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ð @ à Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÏtrier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2dÐ   Ð856,€859€(1956);€€òòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€OnÐ à€ Ðthe€contrary,€this€court€must€afford€the€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.Ð €  ÐÔ‡X’oXXX’oÔÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€relevant€to€this€case,€second€degree€murder€is€"[a]€knowing€killingÏof€another€.€.€.€."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210€(1997).ÌÌÔ#†X’oXXX’o€Ò#Ôà ` àà ¸ àIn€pertinent€part,€an€individual€is€criminally€responsible€for€another'sÐ à€ Ðconduct€if€"[a]cting€with€the€intent€to€promote€or€assist€the€commission€or€theÏoffense,€or€to€benefit€in€the€proceeds€or€results€of€the€offense,€the€person€solicits,Ïdirects,ñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€aids€or€attempts€to€aid€another€person€to€commit€the€offense."€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„11„402(2)€(1997).Ô‡X’oXXX’oÔÐ `'  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€demonstrates€thatÏgang€signs€were€exchanged€between€the€defendants€and€one€or€more€of€theÏindividuals€in€the€group€of€the€victim€and€his€friends.€€The€defendants€went€homeÏand€got€the€weapons,€then€they€went€out€riding€around€with€the€weapons.ñÂ4ññ¶4ñœñ¶4ññÂ4ñ€€ñº4ñÔ#†X’oXXX’oøÔ#ÔAlthoughÐ À0`'* ÐDebiasi€King€testified€the€defendants€were€going€to€their€aunt's€home€to€store€theÏweapons,€he€admitted€they€were€not€going€in€the€direction€of€their€aunt's€homeÏwhen€they€came€upon€the€victim€and€his€friends€the€second€timeñº4ññ»4ññº4ñ.ñº4ññ»4ññ¼4ñ.€€ñ¼4ññº4ñÔ‡X’oXXX’oÔñº4ññ½4ñ›€›€ñ½4ñWhenñÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€theÐ `6-0 Ðdefendants€and€the€occupants€of€the€Maxima€encountered€each€other€a€secondÏtime,€Dewayne€King€shot€his€brother€Debiasi's€.380€at€the€Maxima,€and€then€tappedÐ  :À04 Ðhis€brother€Debiasi€King€on€the€shoulder.€€Debiasi€King€shot€the€fatal€bullet€from€hisÏAK„47.€€Later,€when€Dewayne€King€learned€that€the€victim€had€died,€he€buried€theÏweapons€in€his€father's€back€yard.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€evidence€sufficiently€supports€a€finding€that€Dewayne€King,€byÏpromotion€of€and€assistance€in€his€brother's€knowing€killing€of€Fernandos€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñHawkinsñ¾4ñ,ñ¾4ññÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñÏis€criminally€responsible€for€the€ñÂ4ñœñÂ4ñcrimeñ¿4ñ,ñ¿4ññÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñ€and€thereby€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏof€second€degree€murder.ÌñÂ4ñœñÂ4ññÀ4ñÌñÀ4ññÒ4ññÀ4ñœñÀ4ññÒ4ññÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ññÐ4ñÌñÐ4ññÒ4ñ›ñÒ4ñà@¹¹,àò òIXó óˆÐ @à Ðà ` àà ¸ àDewayne€King€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€instructed€theÏjury€by€interjecting€information€outside€the€pattern€instructions€which€was€favorableÏto€the€state.€€His€entire€argument€is€one€sentence€long€and€fails€to€amplify€or€explainÏhis€position.€€There€is€no€citation€to€relevant€authority,€and€the€particular€portion€ofÏthe€instruction€which€the€defendant€finds€improper€is€not€identified.€€The€pageÏcitation€to€the€record€regarding€this€argument€is€to€a€portion€of€the€transcriptÏmemorializing€the€charge€conference€during€which€the€trial€court€discussed€theÏproposed€charge,€not€to€a€page€containing€any€offensive€portion€of€the€chargeÏactually€given.€€The€duty€of€this€court€is€one€of€review€of€issues€properly€presented,Ïnot€speculation€regarding€every€possible€variation€of€issues€improperly€presented.€ÏDewayne€King€has€waived€our€consideration€of€this€issue.€Ô#†X’oXXX’o××#ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔ€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.Ð à.€%( ÐApp.€10(b)Ô#†X’oXX X’o0ß#ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔ;€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a),€(g),€(h).Ô#†X’oXX X’o¯ß#ÔÔ‡X’oXXX’oÔÐ À0`'* ÐÌà@ÕÕ-àò òXó óˆÐ €4 +. Ðà ` àà ¸ àFinally,€Dewayne€King€questions€whether€the€trial€court€erroneouslyÏexcluded€evidence€about€Greg€Kelsey's€prior€conviction€of€a€crime€involving€use€ofÏa€gun.€€Kelsey€testified€for€the€state.€€On€cross„examination,€he€denied€having€everÐ  :À04 Ðpossessed€a€gun.€€The€defense€sought€to€impeach€him€on€this€declaration€withÏevidence€of€a€robbery€conviction€which€apparently€involved€the€use€of€a€gun.€€TheÏcourt€ruled€that€he€could€be€asked€the€date€of€the€conviction,€but€extrinsic€evidenceÏof€his€gun€possession€would€be€necessary€to€impeach€his€denial€of€having€everÏpossessed€a€gun.€€The€defense€never€presented€any€such€evidence.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€with€several€previous€issues,€the€defendant's€argument€on€thisÏissue€is€deficient€in€argument,€citations€to€authority€and€citations€to€the€record.€ÏAgain,€the€issue€has€been€waived.€€Ô#†X’oXXX’oà#ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b)Ô#†X’oXX X’o ä#ÔÔ‡ X’oXXX’oÔ;€Tenn.€R.Ð ` ÐApp.€P.€27(a),€(g),€(h).€€We€address€it€only€briefly€to€assist€the€trial€court€on€remand.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àEvidence€that€Kelsey€had€employed€a€gun€in€an€earlier€crime€wasÏrelevant€impeachment€evidence€on€the€material€issue€whether€Kelsey€had€a€gun€inÏthe€Maxima€on€June€25,€1995.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Impeachment€of€a€witnessÐ À!` Ðby€extrinsic€evidence€is€limited€in€Tennessee€by€the€collateral€evidence€rule.€€òòSee,Ð  #@ Ðe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Perkinsonóó,€867€S.W.2d€1,€6„7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Under€theÐ €%  Ðrule,€cross„examination€of€a€witness€about€facts€contradictory€to€the€witness'sÏtestimony€is€the€only€method€for€bringing€out€"collateral"€facts.€€òòIdóó.€at€6.€€So„calledÐ @)à" Ðcollateral€facts€are€those€whose€only€relevance€is€to€contradict€in„court€testimony.€ÏòòIdóó.€€In€this€case,€however,€the€fact€that€Kelsey€may€have€possessed€a€gun,€contraryÐ - #& Ðto€his€in„court€statement,€was€not€collateral;€therefore,€it€was€the€proper€subject€ofÏextrinsic€proof.€€The€trial€court€correctly€ruled,€and€the€defense€could€haveÏpresented€this€evidence€if€it€had€a€witness€or€other€proof€to€substantiate€its€claim.Ô#†X’oXX X’osä#ÔÔ‡X’oXXX’oÔÐ  2@), ÐÔ#†X’oXXX’ošé#ÔÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€conclusion,€we€reverse€and€remand€this€matter€for€a€new€œtrialñØ4ñ€ñØ4ññÚ4ñ›ñÚ4ññÙ4ñ.€ñÙ4ññÙ4ñ›ñÙ4ññØ4ñbasedñØ4ññÚ4ñ›€upon›€the›€void›Ïjudicial›Ïproceedings›Ïwhich›€took›Ïplace›€on›ÏSunday.ñÚ4ñ›ÌÌÐ  :À04 ÐÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌñÂ4ñœñÂ4ññÁ4ñCONCUR:ÌÌñÁ4ññÂ4ñ›ñÂ4ñÌÌ_______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌñÒ4ñœñÒ4ññÑ4ñÐ  0  ÐñÑ4ññÒ4ñ›ñÒ4ñ