ÿWPCç-  ¥+`õ?¨„ðp…|ìU\™ÌâVõðƇÎƲh©,rd…lkׯÄk>¤º|a™pšÌtºô!§—~›kÒ( £—ŒÎïÕz}Ï8Uæ7¼ªÇÅöFü…é}¾?ìÈ¢E zWR…}é¦V›7F–Ýu„‡rõðsëÑÅ­‰fíƒá7ó¹ñM³ ­ýe–å!ú}#tœŽØ÷Ky$v= Å-Hk:ÚOò?Éý8WnÐ¯Ý ‰¼ Ài %þfÈ´ØQåĨ‡®¢FPÞ:íÍL7:ÀÇèOm¢Ï7øÍ5ˆÞYÓèC.ü ME€#LÍÄâÂ@ªªô50$YÑÃö~Ü¢ÿ+ØRi1¯ýÖaã87c­ªK¢ó±à”“ÒƒªÜ¼O ˆÃNvI± ·ýhú4x-4²báRÌ©‚{’¿‘îQ,íH±^=³WÜ»}ÖMǨÖšÁ³ˆ¨s~ûäÀ0æEצ–ûÔÙÿËïW/ |.íVç“8| íéÆë°N{Êi'î}¬±{Ec ZV ™„fón‹ómá|Á(2Qe©ÿD?"cÅqä ¯_w‹4u1Â[D TK͸”5˜ ÿ!)'zëywûñ ௠,bU-N\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ# 0 DéN-U@/£oEž#²¿Õ¢”Ö66Î \Ú"õ6$6$6$¡+%Ì&Ì&Ì&Ô(Ô(Ô(Ô(Ô(Ô(Ô(Ô(bÜ(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü(Ü( 0 ëä(ä(ä(ä( BÏ)Ï) 0¤ì) D3* D-Ã* 0Kð*ð* AS;+ÆŽ+ 0¤T, 0Dø, A«<-(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó¸¦)â q\;'¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  ™Ý ƒRÊ5$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô´=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDetective€Alvarez€admitted€that€he€overheard€Captain€Burtt€tell€the€appellant,€ð ðHeððs€[Mikel]€is€giving€you€up.ðð€Ð ° ÐIt€was€undisputed€throughout€the€course€of€the€proceedings€that€Mikel€never€provided€such€a€statement€to€lawÐ xÈ Ðenforcement. ”Ý ƒRÊ5$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô´=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ô´=òòô´=ÔHowever,€once€Captain€Burtt€informed€the€appellant€that€he€had€been€implicated€in€the€crime,€he€was€inÐ ° Ðcustody€within€the€meaning€of€òòMirandaóó€and,€accordingly,€was€advised€of€his€constitutional€rights.€€A€person€is€in€custodyÐ xÈ Ðif€there€has€been€a€ð ðformal€arrest€or€restraint€on€freedom€of€movement€of€the€degree€associated€with€a€formal€arrest.ððÐ @ ÐòòSeeóó€òòBushóó,€942€S.W.2d€at€499€(Tenn)€(citing€òòStansbury€v.€Californiaóó,€511€U.S.€318,€323,€114€S.Ct.€1526,€1529€(1994)).Ð X ÐòòóóSpecifically,€the€inquiry€is€ð ðhow€a€reasonable€person€in€the€suspectððs€position€would€have€understood€his€position,ðð€€òòi.e.óó,Ð Ð  Ðwould€he€have€felt€that€he€was€not€free€to€leave€and,€thus,€in€custody.€€òòIdóó.€(citing€òòBerkemer€v.€McCartyóó,€468€U.S.€at€422,Ð ˜è Ð104€S.Ct.€at€3151;€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòStansburyóó,€511€U.S.€at€323,€114€S.Ct.€at€1529).€Ô#†ô´=òò ô´=~#Ô Ý ƒRÊ5$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô´=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô…Y òòô´=ÔThe€appellant€and€a€co„defendant,€Samuel€Ralph€Mikel,€were€charged€in€a€joint€indictment€with€conspiracyÐ °ý Ðto€commit€arson,€aggravated€arson€of€personal€property,€conspiracy€to€commit€insurance€fraud,€and€insurance€fraud.€€TheÐ ° Ðaggravated€arson€charge€was€dismissed.€€The€court€later€granted€co„defendant€Mikelððs€motion€for€a€severance. µÝ ƒRÊ5$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô´=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔNeither€was€Captain€Burtt€called€as€a€witness€at€trial. ˜Ý ƒRÊ5$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô´=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔConfessions€may€not€be€the€product€of€coercions.€ð ðThis€is€not€because€they€are€unlikely€to€be€true,€but€rather,Ð ° Ðthe€methods€employed€to€extract€them€offend€an€underlying€principle€that€ours€is€an€accusatorial€system€in€which€theÐ xÈ ÐState€must€establish€guilt€by€evidence€independently€and€freely€secured€and€may€not€by€coercion€provide€its€chargeÐ @ Ðagainst€an€accused€out€of€his€own€mouth.ðð€€òòSeeóó€€òòRogers€v.€Richmondóó,€365€U.S.€534,€540„41,€81€S.Ct.€735,€739€(1961). ÌÝ ƒRÊ5$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô´=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ô´=òòô´=ÔThe€test€for€voluntariness€in€relation€to€police€deception€is€whether€based€upon€the€totality€of€theÐ ° Ðcircumstances,€"the€conduct€of€the€law€enforcement€officers€was€such€to€undermine€the€accused's€free€will€and€criticallyÐ xÈ Ðimpair€his€capacity€for€self-determination€so€as€to€bring€about€an€involuntary€confession."€€òòCrumpóó,€834€S.W.2d€at€271€Ð @ Ð(citing€òòCulombe€v.€Connecticutóó,€367€U.S.€568,€602,€81€S.Ct.€1860,€1879€(1961);€òòKellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€at€728)Ô#†ô´=òò ô´=#Ô ÄÝ ƒRÊ5$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô´=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€trial,€the€following€colloquy€occurred:Ð ° Ðò òGENERAL€CRUMP:€€ó ó.€.€.€At€any€time€did€Mr.€Ledford€indicate€to€you€that€he€didnððt€want€to€give€you€a€statement?€Ð xÈ ÐDid€he€ever€ð"ðÐ @ Ðò òALVAREZ:€€ó óNo,€he€did€not.Ð X Ðò òGENERAL€CRUMP:ó ó€€Did€he€ever€tell€you€he€wanted€to€see€a€lawyer?Ð Ð  Ðò òALVAREZ:ó ó€€No,€he€did€not.Ð ˜è Ðò òGENERAL€CRUMP:ó ó€Did€he€ever€tell€you€that€he€didnððt€feel€comfortable€talking€about€this€with€you?Ð ` ° Ðò òALVAREZ:ó ó€€No,€he€didnððt.Ð ( x Ðò òGENERAL€CRUMP:ó ó€Did€he€ever€tell€you€that€what€youððd€put€down€on€that€piece€of€paper€wasnððt€the€truth?Ð ð @ Ðò òALVAREZ:ó ó€€He€did€not.Ð ¸   Ðò òGENERAL€CRUMP:€€ó óEver€say€he€wasnððt€going€to€sign€that€because€it€wasnððt€true?Ð € Ð  Ðò òALVAREZ:ó ó€€He€did€not.Ð H ˜  Ðò òGENERAL€CRUMP:ó ó€€Did€he€ever€act€hesitantly€about€signing€the€waiver€of€the€statement?Ð `  Ðò òALVAREZ:ó ó€€He€did€not. RÝ ƒRÊ5$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô´=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFinancial€documents€of€the€appellant€were€subpoenaed€from€First€American€Bank.€€The€records€revealed€aÐ ° Ðloan€for€a€1990€Malibu€Skier€boat,€which,€as€of€January€1998,€had€a€balance€of€$9,763.31. ëÝ ƒRÊ5$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô´=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔEn€route€to€the€location,€the€fire€truck€ran€off€the€road,€resulting€in€the€death€of€a€volunteer€firefighter. —Ý ƒRÊ5$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô´=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ô´=òòô´=ÔWe€note,€however,€that€had€the€record€not€been€sufficient€regarding€the€constitutional€issues€before€us,€itÐ ° Ðwould€be€necessary€to€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€level€for€entry€of€findings€of€fact.Ô#†ô´=òò ô´=~#Ô þÝ ƒRÊ5$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô´=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€appellantððs€argument€is€based€on€the€ð ðfruit€of€the€poisonous€treeðð€theory,€wherein,€the€State€cannot€relyÐ ° Ðon€a€legally€obtained€statement€if€the€appellantððs€initial€detention€or€seizure€was€unlawful.€€òòSeeóó€òòDanielóó,€12€S.W.3d€atÐ xÈ Ð428€(citing€òòWong€Sun€v.€United€Statesóó,€371€U.S.€471,€488,€83€S.Ct.€407,€417€(1963)). - ù-(|G2Ê5$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Í5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô´=ò»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Í5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Í5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Í5»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Í5»»»ÔÑ8€Ä¢XXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îŽÆÍ5ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Í5»îîŽÆ #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡XÄ¢X»¼Í5ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Í5»XXÄ¢#ÔState€of€Tennesseeòòóó€v.€James€Robert€Ô_ÔLedfordÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡XÄ¢X»¼Í5Ôó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Bradley€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€M98„088,€R.€Steven€Ô_ÔBebbÔ_Ô€and€Carroll€L.€Ross,€JudgesÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„00917„CCA„R3„CD€„€DecidedÐ ×'  ÐAugust€28,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ Ç  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ XÄ¢XXXÄ¢ÔA€Bradley€County€jury€found€the€appellant,€James€Robert€Ô_ÔLedfordÔ_Ô,€guilty€of€one€count€of€conspiringÐ ¶ Ðto€present€a€false€insurance€claim,€presenting€a€false€insurance€claim,€and€arson€of€personal€property.€Ð ¦ö ÐFor€these€offenses,€the€appellant€was€sentenced€to€five€years,€with€all€but€ninety€days€suspended.€Ð –æ ÐIn€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€appellant€contends€that€(1)€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€suppressionÐ †Ö Ðof€his€statement€to€the€police€which€was€obtained€in€violation€of€his€constitutional€rights€and€€(2)€Ð vÆ Ðthe€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction€for€conspiracy€to€present€a€false€insuranceÐ f¶ Ðclaim.€€After€review,€we€affirm.Ô#† ¼Í5»X XÄ¢«#ÔÔ‡ XÄ¢X» ¼Í5Ôò òÐ V¦ Ðó óÔ#†XÄ¢XX XÄ¢"#ÔÔ#†¼Í5»XXÄ¢~#ÔÔ‡XÄ¢X»¼Í5ÔÌÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€affirmed.ó óÐ &v ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Í5»àXÄ¢þ#ÔÔ‡XÄ¢X.¼Í5ÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó€andÐ V ÐòòNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€joined.Ð öF ÐÌJames€F.€Logan,€Jr.,€Cleveland,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€James€Robert€Ô_ÔLedfordÔ_Ô.Ð Ö& ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General,€Elizabeth€B.Ð ¶!  ÐÔ_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Jerry€N.€Ô_ÔEstesÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General,€and€Stephen€D.Ð ¦"ö! ÐCrump€and€Joseph€Ô_ÔHofferÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð –#æ" ÐÔ#†¼Í5»XXÄ¢¼ #ÔÔ‡XÄ¢X»¼Í5ÔÌÌÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Í5»XXÄ¢< #ÔÔ‡XÄ¢X»¼Í5ÔÐ V'¦"& ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Í5»XXÄ¢° #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÄ¢X»¼Í5ÔÔ‡XyÝ XXXÄ¢Ôà  àThe€appellant,€James€Robert€Ô_ÔLedfordÔ_Ô,€was€found€guilty€by€a€jury€of€one€count€of€conspiringÐ 6)†$( Ðto€present€a€false€insurance€claim,€presenting€a€false€insurance€claim,€and€arson€of€personal€property.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р"*r%)ý ÐÔ_ÔThe€Bradley€County€€Criminal€Court€imposed€a€split€confinement€sentence€of€five€years,€with€ninetyÐ ° Ðdays€to€be€served€in€periodic€confinement.€€The€jury€also€imposed€a€monetary€fine€in€the€amount€ofÐ œì Ð$8,500.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€contends€that€his€statement€to€law€enforcement€officials€shouldÐ ˆØ Ðhave€been€suppressed€and€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction€for€conspiracyÐ tÄ Ðto€present€a€false€insurance€claim.Ð `° ÐÌà  àAfter€review,€we€affirm.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÌà@ÛÛ%ìàò òBackgroundó óˆÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àOn€December€16,€1997,€the€appellant€reported€to€law€enforcement€officials€that€his€ski€boatÐ Ô$  Ðhad€been€stolen.€€Soon€thereafter,€the€appellant€reported€the€claim€to€his€insurance€carrier.׃à×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ À  Ðfollowing€day€a€grass€fire€was€reported€in€Bradley€County€and€the€fire€department€responded.׃8×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðappellantððs€boat€was€found€burning€at€the€site€of€the€reported€grass€fire.€€The€odor€of€ð ðkerosene€orÐ ˜è  Ðdiesel€fuelðð€was€prevalent€around€the€boat.€€The€presence€of€a€ð ðkerosene€range€distillantðð€was€laterÐ „Ô  Ðconfirmed€following€forensic€analysis€of€the€fire€debris.€€Investigators€at€the€scene€observed€thatÐ pÀ Ðð ð[t]he€engine€was€missing.€€The€only€thing€left€was€a€few€of€the€control€cables€and€the€wiring€thatÐ \¬ Ðran€to€the€boat,€to€the€engine€area.ðð€€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àOn€January€4,€1998,€police€officers€conducted€a€search€at€the€business/residence€of€co„Ð  p Ðdefendant€Mikel.€€During€the€search,€officers€discovered€an€engine€and€transmission€on€the€groundÐ  \ Ðbeside€the€door.€€ð ðThe€area€was€basically€littered€with€boat€parts.ðð€€The€transmission€number€and€theÐ øH Ðengine€serial€numbers€matched€those€of€the€boat€registered€in€the€appellantððs€name.€Ð ä4 Ðà  àÔ#†XÄ¢X XXyÝ9#ÔÔ‡ XÄ¢XXXÄ¢ÔÌà  àDetective€Tony€Alvarez€participated€in€the€search€of€Mikelððs€business.€€€After€the€search,€itÐ À Ðwas€agreed€that€the€appellant€should€be€located€to€identify€the€boat€parts.€€Detective€Alvarez,Ð ° Ðaccompanied€by€Sergeant€Blackwell,€contacted€the€appellant.€€The€officers€advised€the€appellant€thatÐ  ð Ðthey€had€located€some€boat€parts€that€were€believed€to€be€from€his€boat€and€asked€whether€he€couldÐ à Ðcome€to€the€Law€Enforcement€Operations€Center€(LEOC)€to€make€a€positive€identification€of€theseÐ €Ð Ðparts.€€Detective€Alvarez€testified€that€the€appellant€appeared€elated,€ð ð[h]e€was€very€happy€and€heÐ p À Ðsaid,€ððYeah€definitely.ðððð€€The€officers€then€asked€the€appellant€ð ðif€he€wanted€to€drive€his€vehicleÐ `!° Ðdown,€if€he€wanted€to€follow€us,€or€whether€he€wanted€to€ride€with€us.ðð€€The€appellant€elected€to€rideÐ P"   Ðwith€the€officers.€€They€then€proceeded€to€LEOC.€Ð @#! ÐÐ 0$€" Ðà  àOnce€at€the€LEOC,€the€appellant€was€met€by€€Captain€Burtt€who€directed€the€appellant€to€theÐ ° Ðoffice€of€Detective€Alvarez.€€Alvarezððs€office€was€divided€into€two€areas€by€a€partition.€€DetectiveÐ  ð ÐAlvarez€had€returned€to€his€desk€where€he€was€completing€some€paperwork.€€On€the€other€side€ofÐ à Ðthe€partition,€the€appellant€and€Captain€Burtt€were€seated€at€a€conference€table.€€At€this€time,€AlvarezÐ €Ð Ðoverheard€Burtt€advising€the€appellant€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€and€the€appellant€responding€that€heÐ pÀ Ðunderstood€these€rights.€€Alvarez€also€overheard€the€appellant€explain€that€he€was€having€financialÐ ` ° Ðproblems.€Notwithstanding€this€admission,€the€appellant€denied€having€any€involvement€in€theÐ P   Ðburning€of€the€boat.€€€Additionally,€the€appellant€admitted€to€knowing€Mr.€Mikel€but€denied€makingÐ @  Ðð ðany€type€of€arrangements€or€anything€like€that€to€have€that€boat€stolen€or€to€make€it€disappear€orÐ 0 € Ðanything€like€that.ðð€€Captain€Burtt€then€left€the€room.€€Ð  p  ÐÌà  àAt€this€point,€Alvarez€looked€over€the€divider€and€noticed€the€appellant€slumped€over.€€HeÐ P  Ðinquired€as€to€whether€he€was€ð ðokayðð€and€observed€that€the€appellantððs€eyes€ð ðwere€sort€of€watery.ðð€Ð ð@  ÐAlvarez€inquired€as€to€whether€the€appellant€had€been€advised€of€his€rights.€€The€appellant€respondedÐ à0  Ðthat€he€had€and€that€he€understood€those€rights.€€€€Alvarez€then€began€talking€with€the€appellant€andÐ Ð  Ðinformed€him€that€ð ðif€he€had€any€involvement€in€the€theft€and€arson€of€his€boat€that€the€best€thingÐ À Ðthat€he€could€do€for€himself€was€to€come€clean.ðð€€He€continued€to€advise€the€appellant€that€ð ðif€in€factÐ ° Ðhe€was€involved€and€he€had€dug€a€hole€for€himself€the€only€way€would€be€up,€and€that€by€lying€andÐ  ð Ðtrying€to€be€deceitful€about€what€happened€would€only€create€a€bigger€problem€for€him.ðð€€TheÐ à Ðappellant€then€began€posing€hypotheticals€to€Alvarez€regarding€the€theft€of€the€boat.€€€€Alvarez€thenÐ €Ð Ðasked€the€appellant€whether€his€hypotheticals€were,€in€fact,€reality.€€€The€appellant€started€crying€andÐ pÀ Ðtalking€about€his€family.€€He€then€admitted€that€the€hypothetical€statements€were€indeed€true.€Ð `° ÐAlvarez€asked€the€appellant€if€he€would€be€willing€to€put€in€writing€what€he€had€just€told€him€aboutÐ P  Ðhis€contact€with€Mikel.€€The€appellant€assented€but€asked€if€Alvarez€could€write€the€statementÐ @ Ðbecause€ð ðhe€was€too€nervous.ðð€€The€appellant€then€provided€the€following€statement:Ð 0€ ÐÌà8  àI€was€advised€of€my€constitutional€rights€and€fully€understood€what€they€were.Ð`Ð Ð  Ðà8  àThe€statements€I€made€to€Lieutenant€Alvarez€were€of€my€free€will.€€No€pressure€orÐ P Ðcoercion€of€any€kind€was€made€to€me€or€against€me.€€The€following€statement€is€theÐ ð@ Ðwhole€truth€and€nothing€but€the€truth€as€to€the€best€of€my€ability.Ðà0Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àDuring€the€month€of€November€1997,€I€went€over€to€Juniorððs€(Sammy€Ralph€Mikel)Ð À! Ðshop€on€Howard€Street.€€While€there€we€had€a€few€beers€and€at€one€point€I€casuallyÐ °"  Ðtalked€to€him€about€my€boat€and€its€financial€burden.€€Junior€then€mentioned€to€meÐ  #ð! Ðabout€making€the€boat€disappear.€€I€told€him€that€if€it€does,€whoever€has€it€can€keepÐ $à" Ðwhatððs€in€it.€€He€just€laughed.€It€was€a€casual€conversation.€€I€told€him€that€if€itÐ €%Ð # Ðanything€happen€I€didnððt€want€to€know€anything€about.€€Once€again,€he€just€laughed.€Ð p&À!$ ÐI€then€had€another€beer€or€two€and€then€left.€€Since€that€time€at€his€shop,€Iððve€had€noÐ `'°"% Ðcontact€with€Junior€until€today€when€I€was€brought€in€to€the€Justice€Center.ÐP( #&Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àOn€December€16,€1997,€when€I€got€home,€I€noticed€that€the€boat€was€missing.€€IÐ 0*€%( Ðthought€my€mom€had€taken€the€boat€to€get€it€serviced.€€I€was€hoping€that€Junior€hadÐ  +p&) Ðnot€taken€the€boat.€€When€my€mom€got€home,€I€asked€her€and€she€said€no.€€At€thatÐ ,`'* Ðtime€the€thought€of€Junior€taking€the€boat€crossed€my€mind.€€I€didnððt€call€him€orÐ ° Ðattempted€to€get€in€contact€him.€€At€that€time€I€called€the€Sheriffððs€Office€and€madeÐ  ð Ða€report€of€theft.ÐàÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àI€called€my€Insurance€Company€.€.€.€and€reported€the€theft.€€They€said€they€wouldÐ pÀ Ðsend€an€agent.Ð` °Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àOn€the€same€day€I€called€the€Insurance€Company,€an€Officer€Denney€pulled€up€in€myÐ @  Ðdriveway€and€told€me€they€believed€they€had€found€my€boat.€€He€told€me€where€theyÐ 0 € Ðhad€found€it.€€The€Insurance€man€pulled€in€which€time€we€went€to€see€the€boat.€Ð  p  ÐWhen€I€got€there€the€boat€had€already€burned€completely.€€I€was€able€to€see€a€fewÐ `  Ðthings€which€I€was€able€to€identify.€€The€boat€trailer€had€already€been€towed€prior€toÐ P  Ðmy€arrival.Ðð@ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€Insurance€man€gave€me€some€forms€to€fill€out€and€have€notarized.€€I€was€to€sendÐ Ð  Ðit€in€which€I€did€on€Friday,€January€2,€1998.ÐÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àI€have€no€knowledge€of€who€else€was€with€Junior€at€the€time€of€the€theft€and€burningÐ  ð Ðof€my€boat.ÐàÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àI€never€gave€him€any€money.€€His€payment€was€whatever€he€could€strip€from€theÐ pÀ Ðboat.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌÌà  àThe€appellant€confirmed€and€signed€the€transcribed€statement.€€Detective€Alvarez€testifiedÐ 0€ Ðthat€no€threats€or€intimidations€were€made€or€used€€towards€the€appellant€at€any€time€during€theÐ  p Ðinterview.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р` ÐÌà  àBased€upon€this€proof,€the€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€conspiring€to€present€a€falseÐ ð@ Ðinsurance€claim,€arson,€and€presenting€a€false€insurance€claim.Ð à0 ÐÌÌà@88ìàò òI.€€Motion€to€Suppressó óˆÐ °"  ÐÌà  àPrior€to€trial,€the€appellant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€his€written€statement€provided€to€police.€Ð $à" ЀÔ#†XÄ¢XX XÄ¢®#ÔÔ‡XyÝ XXXÄ¢ÔA€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress€was€held€on€August€31,€1998,€at€which€the€following€proof€wasÐ €%Ð # Ðdeveloped.Ð €&Ð!$ ÐÐ l'¼"% Ðà  àò òAppellant's€Testimonyó ó:€€Ð ° Ðà  àThe€appellant€testified€that€he€is€twenty„seven€years€old€and€was€employed€in€the€homeÐ  ð Ðimprovement/contracting€business.€€€On€December€16,€1997,€the€appellant€returned€to€his€residenceÐ ŒÜ Ðand€discovered€his€boat€was€missing.€He€then€notified€law€enforcement€officers.€€The€next€morning,Ð xÈ Ðhe€was€informed€that€his€boat€had€been€found€burning€off€the€side€of€a€road.€€Ð d´ ÐÌà  àOn€January€4,€1998,€the€appellant€was€working€at€a€job€site€when€he€was€approached€by€lawÐ < Œ Ðenforcement€officers.€€Detectives€Alvarez€and€Blackwell€asked€the€appellant€if€he€could€ð ðcome€andÐ ( x Ðidentify€some€boat€parts€that€they€had€found.ðð€€The€appellant€agreed€to€do€so.€€The€appellant€askedÐ  d Ðthe€officers€if€he€should€drive€his€own€vehicle;€Detective€Alvarez€told€the€appellant€to€ð ðjust€ride€withÐ  P  Ðus.ðð€€Upon€arriving€at€the€detectiveððs€office,€the€appellant€noticed€that€there€were€not€any€boat€partsÐ ì <  Ðpresent€for€him€to€examine.€€However,€Detective€Bill€Burtt€was€present.€€Detective€Burtt€took€theÐ Ø(  Ðappellant€by€the€arm€and€escorted€him€to€a€building€where€Burtt€ð ðpointed€outðð€the€co„defendant,Ð Ä  ÐMikel.€€Burtt€then€directed€the€appellant€to€a€house€next€to€the€building.€€Inside€the€house,€DetectiveÐ °  ÐBurtt€led€the€appellant€to€an€interview€room.Ð œì  ÐÌà  àInside€this€room,€Detective€Burtt€advised€the€appellant€that€ð ðthe€gig€was€up,ðð€relayingÐ tÄ Ðinformation€that€ð ðMr.€Mikel€and€also€another€person,€and€possibly€another€has€indicated€that€youÐ `° Ðwere€in€on€the€theft€and€burning€of€your€boat.ðð€€The€appellant€denied€any€such€involvement€andÐ Lœ Ðstated€that€he€had€no€knowledge€as€to€Mr.€Mikelððs€involvement.€€Detective€Burtt€became€irritatedÐ 8ˆ Ðand€ð ðslapped€the€table.ðð€€He€informed€the€appellant€that€he€was€not€cooperating€and€advised€theÐ $t Ðappellant€that€ð ðthey€knowðð€of€the€appellantððs€financial€situation.€€The€appellant€testified€that€heÐ ` Ðð ðmade€a€comment€about€maybe€needing€to€speak€to€a€lawyer.ðð€€Burtt€responded,€ð ðItððs€now€or€never.Ð üL ÐOnce€you€walk€out€that€door,€you€canððt€turn€back.ðð€€Burtt€continued,€ð ðIf€you€go€out€the€door,€youÐ è8 Ðcanððt€come€back.ðð€Youððre€going€to€jail€regardless.€€If€you€walk€out€that€door,€youððre€not€coming€backÐ Ô$ Ðin€here.€€Thereððs€no€turning€back.ðð€€Burtt€then€left€the€interview€room.Ð À ÐÌà  àDetective€Alvarez€then€approached€the€appellant€and€began€discussing€the€appellantððs€wifeÐ ˜è Ðand€family.€€The€appellant€testified€that€he€asked€Detective€Alvarez€about€the€possible€punishmentÐ „Ô Ðfor€the€arson€which€had€resulted€in€the€death€of€the€fireman.€€Alvarez€responded€ð ð.€.€.€aggravatedÐ pÀ Ðarson€and€it€means€that€you€.€.€.€go€to€jail€for€a€long€time.ðð€€€Alvarez€advised€the€appellant€that€if€heÐ \ ¬ Ðð ðwould€cooperate,€he€would€try€to€drop€that€charge€to€just€arson.ðð€€Alvarez€continued€to€discuss€theÐ H!˜ Ðappellantððs€family,€the€death€of€the€fireman,€and€possible€charges€and€punishments.€€Throughout€thisÐ 4"„  Ðdiscussion,€the€appellant€continued€to€deny€€any€involvement.€€The€appellant€testified€that,€at€someÐ  #p! Ðpoint,€he€informed€Alvarez,€ð ðI€donððt€want€to€talk€about€it€anymore.ðð€€Nonetheless,€the€appellantÐ  $\" Ðfinally€agreed€to€give€a€statement€which€was€transcribed€by€Detective€Alvarez.€€The€appellant€alsoÐ ø$H # Ðstated€that€he€signed€a€waiver€of€rights€form€after€making€his€statement.€Ð ä%4!$ ÐÌÌò òà  àDetective€Alvarez's€Testimony:ó óÐ ¨(ø#' Ðà  àDetective€Alvarez€testified€that€after€picking€up€the€appellant€at€his€place€of€work,€the€officersÐ ”)ä$( Ðtold€the€appellant€that€he€could€ride€with€them€or€he€could€take€his€own€car€to€the€Law€EnforcementÐ €*Ð%) ÐOperations€Center.€The€appellant€elected€to€ride€with€the€officers.€€Arriving€at€the€station,€CaptainÐ l+¼&* ÐBurtt€escorted€the€appellant€into€the€office€of€Detective€Alvarez.€€Although€Detective€Alvarez€wasÐ ° Ðnot€involved€in€the€conversation€between€Burtt€and€the€appellant,€he€overheard€Captain€Burtt€informÐ œì Ðthe€appellant€that€he€had€been€implicated€in€the€theft€and€the€arson.€€At€this€point,€the€appellantÐ ˆØ Ðdenied€any€involvement€in€the€offenses.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àAfter€Burtt€left€the€room,€Alvarez€talked€with€the€appellant€about€his€family.€€Alvarez€advisedÐ L œ Ðthe€appellant€that€if€he€cooperated€in€the€investigation,€the€District€Attorney€and€the€court€would€beÐ 8 ˆ Ðadvised€of€his€cooperation.€€No€other€promises€were€made€to€the€appellant.€€The€appellant€askedÐ $ t ÐAlvarez€about€the€possibility€of€charges€resulting€from€the€death€of€the€firefighter.€€Alvarez€informedÐ  ` Ðthe€appellant€that,€in€his€opinion,€he€could€not€be€charged€with€aggravated€arson€because€of€theÐ ü L  Ðdeath,€however,€the€District€Attorney€would€make€the€ultimate€determination€regarding€the€natureÐ è 8  Ðof€the€charges.€€Detective€Alvarez€testified€that€the€appellant€never€indicated€that€he€did€not€want€toÐ Ô$  Ðgive€a€statement,€never€indicated€that€he€wanted€a€lawyer,€and€never€indicated€that€he€feltÐ À  Ðuncomfortable€talking€with€Alvarez.€€Captain€Burtt€did€not€testify€at€the€hearing.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àBased€upon€this€proof,€the€trial€court€denied€the€appellantððs€motion€to€suppress€finding€theÐ „Ô  Ðstatement€to€be€voluntary.€€The€appellant€now€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€and€Ô#†XÄ¢X XXyÝ›7#ÔÔ‡XyÝ XXXÄ¢Ôthe€admissibilityÐ pÀ Ðof€the€statement.€€Precisely,€he€argues€(1)€the€ð ðseizureðð€of€his€person€by€police€officers€at€his€placeÐ \¬ Ðof€business€and€his€subsequent€transportation€to€the€Law€Enforcement€Operations€Center€wasÐ H˜ Ðinvoluntary€and€illegal,€therefore,€any€subsequent€statement€made€by€the€appellant€must€beÐ 4„ Ðsuppressed;€(2)€that€his€statement€was€obtained€absent€the€advice€of€òòMirandaóó€warnings;€(3)€theÐ  p Ðinterrogators€failed€to€heed€the€appellantððs€assertion€of€his€right€to€counsel€and€his€right€to€remainÐ  \ Ðsilent;€and€(4)€the€statement€was€the€result€of€coercion,€threats,€and€promises€of€leniency€and,Ð øH Ðtherefore,€is€not€voluntary.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€reviewing€the€denial€of€a€motion€to€suppress,€this€court€looks€to€the€facts€adduced€at€theÐ ¼  Ðsuppression€hearing€which€are€most€favorable€to€the€State€as€the€prevailing€party.€€òòState€v.€Danielóó,Ð ¨ø Ð12€S.W.3d€420,€423€(Tenn.€2000)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996)).€€InÐ ”ä Ðconsidering€the€evidence€presented€at€the€hearing,€this€court€extends€great€deference€to€the€fact„Ð €Ð Ðfinding€of€the€suppression€hearing€judge€with€respect€to€weighing€credibility,€determining€facts,€andÐ l¼ Ðresolving€conflicts€in€the€evidence.€€òòDanielóó,€12€S.W.3d€at€423.€€Indeed,€these€findings€will€be€upheldÐ X ¨ Ðunless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòIdóó.€€Furthermore,€this€court€may€consider€the€entireÐ D!” Ðrecord,€including€the€evidence€submitted€both€at€the€suppression€hearing€and€at€trial,€in€evaluatingÐ 0"€  Ðthe€correctness€of€the€trial€court's€ruling.€€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€975€S.W.2d€290,€297€(Tenn.1998).Ð #l! ÐÓ  ÓAlthough€deference€is€given€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact,€this€court€conducts€its€ownÐ $X" Ðappraisal€of€the€constitutional€questions€presented€by€reviewing€the€law€and€applying€it€to€theÐ ô$D # Ðspecific€facts€of€the€particular€case.€€òòIdóó.€€(citing€òòState€v.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629€(Tenn.Ð à%0!$ Ð1997);€òòBeare€v.€Tennessee€Dept.€of€Revenueóó,€858€S.W.2d€906,€907€(Tenn.€1993)).à Ð àÐ Ì&"% ÐÌÌÐ )à$( Ðà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€made€the€following€findings:€Ð ° ÐÌÔ#†XÄ¢X XXyÝâP#ÔÔ‡XyÝ XXXÄ¢Ô€à8  à.€.€.[T]he€statement€of€the€defendant€.€.€.€counsel€earlier€raised€some€question€aboutÐ ˆØ Ðthe€difference€between€the€time€the€original€waiver€was€signed€and€the€time€theÐ tÄ Ðstatement€was€given.€€We€donððt€have€a€€ð!ð€I€donððt€think€we€show€a€time€on€hisÐ `° Ðwaiver.€€We€show€a€date.€€But€the€statement€in€exhibit€two€reads,€signed€by€JamesÐ L œ ÐR€Ledford€and€each€paragraph€initialed,€ððI€was€advised€of€my€constitutional€rightsÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€fully€understood€what€they€were.ðð€€Initialed€by€the€defendant.€€ððThe€statementsÐ $ t ÐI€made€to€Lieutenant€Alvarez€were€of€my€free€will.€No€pressure€or€coercion€of€anyÐ  ` Ðkind€was€made€to€me€or€against€me.€.€.ðð€€€And€I€might€add€.€.€.€the€defendant€MikelÐ ü L  Ðclearly€refused€to€sign€anything€or€give€any€kind€of€statement,€and€his€statementÐ è 8  Ðindicates€that.€€And€thereððs€been€talk€about€€.€.€.€police€officers€making€certainÐ Ô$  Ðstatements€about€having€a€statement€from€co„defendant€Mikel.€€You€know,€theÐ À  Ðlawððs€clear;€theyððre€permitted€to€do€that.€€I€mean,€you€can€in€fact€trick€a€defendantÐ ¬ü  Ð.€.€.€.€Thatððs€the€old€Mutt€and€Jeff€routine,€good€guy,€bad€guy€kind€of€approach,Ð ˜è  Ðwhich€I€presume€every€officer€is€taught€at€every€training€school€they€go€to.€€SoÐ „Ô  Ðthereððs€nothing€in€those€things€that€would€rule€an€otherwise€valid€confessionÐ pÀ Ðinvalid.€€Defendant€alleges€that€there€were€certain€promises€made,€but€hisÐ \¬ Ðstatement€says€that€there€was€no€pressure€or€coercion€of€any€kind€used.€€ÐH˜Ð Ð  Ðà8  à.€.€.Ð4„Ð Ð  Ðà8  àAnd€itððs€admitted€by€the€police€officer€that€they€made€a€specific€promiseÐ  p Ðguaranteeing€a€lighter€sentence€and€preferential€treatment.€€The€officers€do€notÐ  \ Ðadmit€that€in€the€testimony€that€Iððve€heard.€€There€was€some€statements€that€they,Ð øH Ðthey€didnððt€think€they€could€charge€him€with€a€felony€murder€.€.€.€.€That€wasÐ ä4 Ðbrought€up.€.€€.€.€Based€upon€the€proof€here€today€.€.€.€the€Courtððs€just€not€willingÐ Ð  Ðto€rule€this€statement€invalid,€based€upon€the€proof€Iððve€heard.Ô#†XÄ¢X XXyÝ[#ÔÔ‡XyÝ XXXÄ¢Ôм Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€concluding€that€the€appellantððs€statement€was€voluntarily€made,€the€trial€courtððsÐ ”ä Ðfindings€of€fact€are,€at€best,€meager.€€Indeed,€the€trial€court€found€the€inculpatory€statement€to€beÐ €Ð Ðvoluntary€because€the€statement€contained€language€to€that€effect.€€The€trial€court€neglected€toÐ l¼ Ðmake€any€factual€findings€as€to€the€specific€issues€raised€by€the€appellant€at€the€suppressionÐ X ¨ Ðhearing,€òòi.e.óó,€(1)€the€legality€of€the€appellantððs€initial€seizure,€(2)€the€invocation€of€counsel€and/orÐ D!” Ðthe€right€to€remain€silent,€and€(3)€the€admonition€of€òòMirandaóó€warnings€preceding€custodialÐ 0"€  Ðinterrogation.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€presented€in€support€of€motions€to€suppress€are€generally€determined€by€theÐ ô$D # Ðfacts€and€circumstances€surrounding€the€challenged€event.€€In€other€words,€such€issues€areÐ à%0!$ Ðfactually€driven.€€Where€resolution€of€factual€issues€are€central€to€the€determinations€made€by€theÐ Ì&"% Ðtrial€court,€€Tenn.R.Crim.P.€12(e)€requires€the€trial€court€to€state€its€essential€findings€on€theÐ ¸'#& Ðrecord.€€This€court€lacks€the€jurisdiction€to€find€facts,€determine€credibility,€or€weigh€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðevidence.€Tenn.Code€Ann.€ðð€16-5-108€(1994).€€Thus,€we€are€constrained€in€reviewing,€òòde€novoóó,Ð )à$( Ðthe€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts,€while€we€accredit€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court,€if€such€rulingÐ |*Ì%) Ðis€supported€by€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Bridgesóó,€963€S.W.2d€487,€490€(Tenn.1997).€€òòSee€alsoÐ h+¸&* ÐOrnelas€v.€United€Statesóó,€517€U.S.€690,€699,€116€S.Ct.€1657,€1663€(1996)€("a€reviewing€courtÐ ° Ðshould€take€care€both€to€review€findings€of€historical€fact€only€for€clear€error€and€to€give€dueÐ œì Ðweight€to€inferences€drawn€from€those€facts€by€resident€judges....").€If€the€trial€court's€findings€ofÐ ˆØ Ðfact€are€not€precise€and€cannot€be€substantially€supplemented€by€the€record,€an€appellate€court€isÐ tÄ Ðprevented€from€completing€any€meaningful€review€of€the€law€applicable€to€those€pertinent€facts.€Ð `° ÐHowever,€we€find€that€the€evidence€introduced€at€the€suppression€hearing€and€at€the€subsequentÐ L œ Ðtrial€relative€to€the€issues€now€before€us€were€sufficiently€developed€to€permit€review€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðissues€raised€on€appeal.׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Accordingly,€we€proceed€with€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€law€applicable€toÐ $ t Ðthe€facts€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State.€Ð  ` ÐÌà@RRìàò òA.€€Seizure€of€the€Appellantó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àAlthough€not€explicitly€raised€in€his€brief,€it€appears€that€the€appellant€presents€theÐ À  Ðcorollary€argument€that,€since€his€transportation€to€the€LEOC€by€the€police€officers€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðinvoluntary€and€illegal,€any€subsequent€statement€made€by€the€appellant€must€be€suppressed€as€aÐ ˜è  Ðresult€of€the€taint€of€the€initial€seizure.€×ƒ# ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Specifically,€the€appellant€maintains€that,€on€January€4òòthóó,Ð „Ô  Ðlaw€enforcement€officers€took€him€into€custody€at€his€place€of€work€without€any€process€or€anyÐ pÀ Ðevidence€against€him.€€Again,€the€trial€court€did€not€make€a€specific€findings€as€to€this€issue,Ð \¬ Ðalthough€the€court€did€imply€that€the€appellant€was€not€ð ðseizedðð€when€the€officers€first€requestedÐ H˜ Ðthe€appellant€to€accompany€them€to€the€LEOC.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€that€the€people€shallÐ  \ Ðð ðbe€secure€in€their€persons€.€.€.€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€.€.€.ðð€€òòU.S.€Const.Ð øH Ðóóamend.€IV;€òòcfóó.€€òòTenn.€Const.€óó€art.€I,€ðð€7.€€This€constitutional€protection€is€most€often€implicatedÐ ä4 Ðwhen€a€police€officerððs€interaction€with€a€citizen€impermissibly€intrudes€upon€the€privacy€orÐ Ð  Ðpersonal€security€of€the€citizen.€€òòSeeóó€€òòDanielóó,€12€S.W.3d€at€424€(citing€4€òòWayne€R.€LaFave,Ð ¼  ÐóóòòSearch€&€Seizure,€ðð€9.3€óó€(3d€ed.€1996€&€Supp.€1999).€€ð ðWhile€arrests€and€investigatoryÐ ¨ø Ðdetentions€implicate€varying€degrees€of€constitutional€protection,€ð ðnot€all€personal€intercourseÐ ”ä Ðbetween€policeman€and€citizens€involves€ððseizuresðð€of€persons.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€(citing€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392Ð €Ð ÐU.S.€1,€19€n.€16,€88€S.Ct.€1868,€1879€n.€16€(1968)).€€Indeed,€even€when€police€have€no€basis€forÐ l¼ Ðsuspecting€that€an€individual€has€committed€.€.€.€a€crime,€the€officer€may€approach€an€individualÐ X ¨ Ðin€a€public€place€and€ask€questions€without€implicating€constitutional€protections.€€òòDanielóó,€12Ð D!” ÐS.W.3d€at€425€(citations€omitted).€€€A€person€is€ð ðseizedðð€in€violation€of€his€or€her€constitutionalÐ 0"€  Ðrights,€€if€ð ðin€view€of€all€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€incident,€a€reasonable€personÐ #l! Ðwould€have€believed€that€he€was€not€free€to€leave.ðð€€òòDanielóó,€12€S.W.3d€at€425€(citations€omitted);€Ð $X" Ðòòsee€alsoóó€€òòUnited€States€v.€Mendenhallóó,€446€U.S.€544,€554,€100€S.Ct.€1870,€1877€(1980);òòóó€òòState€v.Ð ô$D # ÐBraganóó,€920€S.W.2d€227,€243€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€the€absence€of€circumstancesÐ à%0!$ Ðindicating€a€seizure,€such€as€the€display€of€a€weapon€by€an€officer€or€the€use€of€coerciveÐ ° Ðlanguage,€no€ð ðseizureðð€under€the€Fourth€Amendment€has€occurred.€€òòSeeóó€€òòBraganóó,€920€S.W.2d€atÐ œì Ð243€(citing€òòMendenhallóó,€446€U.S.€at€554,€100€S.Ct.€at€1877).€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€law€enforcement€officers€approached€the€appellant,€the€recent€self„Ð `° Ðreported€victim€of€an€alleged€theft,€requesting€that€he€accompany€the€officers€to€the€LEOC€for€theÐ L œ Ðpurpose€of€identifying€items€believed€to€be€from€his€boat.€€Thus,€the€question€is€whether€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðappellantððs€consent€to€accompany€the€officers€was€voluntarily€given€or€€was€the€product€of€duressÐ $ t Ðor€coercion,€express€or€implied.€€òòSeeóó€€òòBraganóó,€920€S.W.2d€at€243;€òòState€v.€Joseph€MartinÐ  ` ÐThurmanóó,€No.€01C01„9706„CC„00231€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Mar.€31,€1999),€òòperm.€toÐ ü L  Ðappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Oct.€4,€1999).€€Relevant€factors€in€making€this€determination€include€theÐ è 8  Ðtime,€place€and€purpose€of€the€encounter;€the€words€used€by€the€officer;€the€officerððs€tone€ofÐ Ô$  Ðvoice€and€general€demeanor;€the€officerððs€statements€to€others€who€were€present€during€theÐ À  Ðencounter;€the€threatening€presence€of€several€officers;€the€display€of€a€weapon€by€an€officer;€andÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€physical€touching€of€the€person€of€the€citizen.€€òòDanielóó,€12€S.W.3d€at€425„426€(citationsÐ ˜è  Ðomitted).€€The€subjective€beliefs€of€law€enforcement€officers€regarding€the€suspectððs€culpabilityÐ „Ô  Ðare€irrelevant€to€the€determination€of€custody.€€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€499€(Tenn.),€òòcert,Ð pÀ Ðdeniedóó,€522€U.S.€953,€118€S.Ct.€376€(€1997).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€proof€reveals€that€the€appellant€agreed€to€accompany€the€officers€and€asked€theÐ 4„ Ðofficers€if€he€needed€to€drive€his€own€vehicle.€€The€officers€responded€that€the€appellant€couldÐ  p Ðdrive€his€own€vehicle€or€he€could€ride€with€them.€€The€appellant€elected€to€ride€with€the€officers.€€Ð  \ ÐOnce€at€the€LEOC,€Captain€Burtt€ð ðescorted€the€appellant€to€a€block€building,€ð ðpoint[ing]€out€Mr.Ð øH ÐMikels€[sic]ðð€and€then€escorted€the€appellant€to€the€house€beside€the€building.€€The€appellant€thenÐ ä4 Ðwas€directed€to€an€interview€room€where€Captain€Burtt€confronted€the€appellant€with€informationÐ Ð  Ðthat€he€had€been€implicated€in€the€theft€and€arson.€€The€appellant€was€then€informed€of€hisÐ ¼  ÐòòMirandaóó€rights.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àFrom€the€appellantððs€testimony€and€the€testimony€of€the€officers,€we€conclude€that€theÐ €Ð Ðofficersðð€initial€conduct€with€the€appellant€at€his€place€of€business€and€their€request€that€heÐ l¼ Ðaccompany€them€to€LEOC€would€not€have€communicated€to€the€reasonable€person€that€he€or€sheÐ X ¨ Ðwas€not€free€to€leave.€€The€initial€encounter€was€not€accompanied€by€physical€force€or€a€show€ofÐ D!” Ðauthority€sufficient€to€constitute€a€seizure.€€Rather,€the€record€overwhelmingly€demonstrates€thatÐ 0"€  Ðthe€appellant€voluntarily€accompanied€the€officers€to€LEOC.€€Thus,€the€appellant€was€notÐ #l! Ðð ðillegally€seizedðð€under€the€Fourth€Amendment.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€Ð $X" ÐÐ ô$D # Їà@  ìàò òB.€€Failure€to€provide€òòMirandaóó€Warningsó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€privilege€against€self„incrimination€prohibits€the€State€from€compelling€an€individualÐ ˆØ Ðto€incriminate€himself.€€òòU.S.€Const.€óóamend.€V.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòEstelle€v.€Smithóó,€451€U.S.€454,Ð tÄ Ð462„463,€101€S.Ct.€1866,€1872„1873€(1981).€€A€defendant€must€be€provided€warnings€about€theÐ `° Ðexercise€of€his€constitutional€rights€whenever€he€is€subjected€to€ð ðcustodial€interrogation.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Ð L œ ÐòòBerkemer€v.€McCartyóó,€468€U.S.€420,€434,€104€S.Ct.€3138,€3147€(1984);€òòUnited€States€v.€Murphyóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð107€F.3d€1199,€1204€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1997)€(citing€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€444,€86€S.Ct.Ð $ t Ð1602,€1612€(1966)).€€Absent€such€procedural€safeguards,€any€statement€subsequently€provided€isÐ  ` Ðnot€admissible€at€trial.€€òòMirandaóó,€384€U.S.€at€477„478,€86€S.Ct.€at€1629„1630.€€Consequently,Ð ü L  Ðunwarned€statements€that€are€otherwise€voluntary€within€the€meaning€of€the€Fifth€AmendmentÐ è 8  Ðmust€nevertheless€be€excluded€from€evidence€under€òòMirandaóó.€€òòOregon€v.€Elstadóó,€470€U.S.€298,Ð Ô$  Ð307,€105€S.Ct.€1285,€1292€(1985).Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that,€despite€the€appellantððs€assertions€that€he€was€not€provided€hisÐ ˜è  ÐòòMirandaóó€rights,€the€appellant€was€advised€of€his€rights€prior€to€making€his€statement.€€During€theÐ „Ô  Ðappellantððs€trial,€Detective€Alvarez€testified€that€he€overheard€Captain€Burtt€advise€the€appellantÐ pÀ Ðof€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€Likewise,€Detective€Alvarez,€prior€to€his€conversation€with€the€appellant,Ð \¬ Ðasked€the€appellant€if€he€had€been€advised€of€his€rights€and€whether€he€understood€those€rights.€Ð H˜ ÐThe€appellant€responded€affirmatively.€€We€cannot€conclude€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÐ 4„ Ðagainst€the€trial€courtððs€determination.€€This€challenge€is€without€merit.Ð  p ÐÌà@õõìàò òC.€€Invocation€of€Rightsó óòòòòóóóóˆÐ øH ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€next€asserts€that,€during€the€course€of€his€interrogation€by€Captain€Burtt,€heÐ Ð  Ðcommented€about€ð ðmaybe€needing€to€speak€to€a€lawyer.ðð€€Captain€Burtt€responded,€ð ðItððs€now€orÐ ¼  Ðnever.€€Once€you€walk€out€that€door,€you€canððt€turn€back.ðð€€Burtt€then€left€the€interview€room.€Ð ¨ø ÐThe€appellant€was€never€provided€counsel.€€After€being€approached€by€Detective€Alvarez,€theÐ ”ä Ðappellant€stated€that,€at€some€point,€he€informed€Alvarez€ð ðI€donððt€want€to€talk€about€it€anymore.ðð€Ð €Ð ÐAccording€to€the€appellant,€Alvarez€ignored€this€statement€and€continued€questioning€theÐ l¼ Ðappellant.€€Contrary€to€these€allegations,€Detective€Alvarez€€testified€that€the€appellant€neverÐ X ¨ Ðâ âindicated€that€he€did€not€want€to€give€a€statement,€that€he€wanted€a€lawyer€or€that€he€feltÐ D!” Ðuncomfortable€talking€with€Alvarez.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€failed€to€make€explicit€findings€of€fact€as€toÐ ° Ðthese€issues.Ð œì Ðâ âÌòò1.€€Right€to€Counsel€under€òòMirandaóóóóÐ tÄ Ðà  àThe€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€attaches€during€custodial€interrogation.€€òòEdwardsÐ `° Ðv.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.€477,€481„82,€101€S.Ct.1880€(1981).€€If€a€defendant€requests€counsel€whileÐ L œ Ðbeing€given€his€òòMirandaóó€warnings€or€during€custodial€interrogation,€the€interrogation€must€cease.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐòòEdwards€v.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.€at€482,€101€S.Ct.€at€1883;€€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€atÐ $ t Ð444-45,€86€S.Ct.€at€1612;€òòState€v.€Huddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€666,€669€(Tenn.€1996).€€AnyÐ  ` Ðsubsequent€statement€made€by€a€defendant€as€a€result€of€police„initiated€interrogation€must€beÐ ü L  Ðsuppressed.€€òòEdwards€v.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.€at€477,€101€S.Ct.€at€1880.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAlthough€there€is€no€bright-line€rule€concerning€when€an€accused€invokes€the€right€toÐ À  Ðcounsel,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€an€accused€must€articulate€his€desire€toÐ ¬ü  Ðhave€counsel€present€unambiguously€and€sufficiently€clearly€so€that€a€reasonable€police€officer€inÐ ˜è  Ðthe€circumstances€would€understand€the€statement€to€be€a€request€for€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€€òòDavis€v.Ð „Ô  ÐUnited€Statesóó,€512€U.S.€452,€459,€114€S.Ct.€2350,€2355€(1994);€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€669.€Ð pÀ ÐIf€the€suspect's€statement€is€not€an€unambiguous€or€unequivocal€request€for€counsel,€the€officersÐ \¬ Ðhave€no€obligation€to€stop€questioning€him.€€òòDavis€v.€United€Statesóó,€512€U.S.€at€€460,€114€S.Ct.Ð H˜ Ðat€2356.€€An€equivocal€or€ambiguous€request€for€counsel€does€not€trigger€the€òòEdwardsóóÐ 4„ Ðrequirement€under€the€Fifth€Amendment.€€òòDavis€v.€United€Statesóó,€512€U.S.€at€452,€114€S.Ct.€atÐ  p Ð2350;€€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€669-70.€€In€other€words,€"[u]nless€the€suspect€actually€requestsÐ  \ Ðan€attorney,€questioning€may€continue."€€òòDavisóó,€512€U.S.€at€462,€114€S.Ct.€at€2357.€€€In€order€toÐ øH Ðunequivocally€invoke€oneððs€right€to€counsel,€the€suspect€"must€articulate€his€desire€to€haveÐ ä4 Ðcounsel€present€sufficiently€clearly€that€a€reasonable€officer€would€understand€the€statement€to€beÐ Ð  Ða€request€for€an€attorney."€€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€669-70€(emphasis€added).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€determination€whether€the€appellant€made€a€request€for€an€attorney,€equivocal€orÐ ”ä Ðunequivocal,€is€a€question€of€fact€for€the€trial€court€to€determine.€€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,€927€S.W.2dÐ €Ð Ð582,€594€(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).€€In€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€neglected€to€enter€such€aÐ l¼ Ðfinding.€€Regardless,€the€appellantððs€assertion,€ð ðDonððt€I€need€to€talk€to€a€lawyer?ðð€does€notÐ ° Ðsuffice€to€invoke€his€right€to€counsel€under€òòMirandaóó.€€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€€òòState€v.€James€Clayton€YoungÐ œì ÐJr.óó,€No.€01C01„9605„CC„00208€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€May€22,€1998)€(defendantððsÐ ˆØ Ðstatement€ð ðIððm€sorry,€Iððm€just€wondering€if€I€should€have€a€lawyerðð€not€unambiguous€invocationÐ tÄ Ðof€right€to€counsel);€òòState€v.€John€M.€Akeóó,€No.€01C01„9603„CC„00094€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ `° ÐNashville,€June€6,€1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Mar.€9,€1998)€(defendantððs€statement,€ð ðIÐ L œ Ðprobably€need€to€get€a€lawyer,€donððt€I?ðð€not€unambiguous€invocation€of€right€to€counsel);€òòState€v.Ð 8 ˆ ÐJack€Jay€North,€Jr.óó,€No.€02C01„0512„CC„00369€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Dec.€12,€1996),Ð $ t Ðòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Jul.€7,€1997)€(defendantððs€question€to€detective€whether€he€neededÐ  ` Ðattorney€held€to€be€equivocal€and€not€clear€invocation€of€the€right).€€The€fact€that€the€appellantÐ ü L  Ðfailed€to€make€an€unambiguous€request€for€counsel€accompanied€by€his€subsequent€failure€toÐ è 8  Ðinvoke€the€right€after€being€re„òòMirandizedóó€by€Detective€Alvarez€supports€the€conclusion€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðappellant€never€invoked€his€right€to€counsel€and,€subsequently,€voluntarily€waived€his€right€toÐ À  Ðcounsel€under€òòMirandaóó.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌòò2.€€Right€against€Self„IncriminationóóòòÐ „Ô  Ðà  àóóWhen€a€suspect€clearly€articulates€during€custodial€interrogation€that€he€wishes€to€invokeÐ pÀ Ðthe€privilege€against€self„incrimination,€the€officers€conducting€the€interrogation€must€stopÐ \¬ Ðquestioning€the€suspect.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Crumpóó,€834€S.W.2d€265,€269€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€506Ð H˜ ÐU.S.€905,€113€S.Ct.€298€(1992)€(citing€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€at€473„74,€86€S.Ct.€atÐ 4„ Ð1627).€€à ` àÐ  p ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€failed€to€enter€specific€findings€regarding€the€appellantððs€allegedÐ øH Ðinvocation€of€his€right€against€self„incrimination.€€Notwithstanding,€the€record€preponderatesÐ ä4 Ðagainst€the€appellantððs€allegation€that€he€invoked€his€right€to€remain€silent.€€Detective€AlvarezÐ Ð  Ðwas€consistent€in€his€testimony€that€the€appellant€never€indicated€that€he€did€not€want€to€provideÐ ¼  Ða€statement.€€This€testimony€is€corroborated€by€the€undisputed€proof€that€the€appellant€questionedÐ ¨ø ÐDetective€Alvarez€regarding€the€possible€charges€and€penalties€and€continued€to€discuss€theÐ ”ä Ðmatter€by€using€hypothetical€scenarios.€€Accordingly,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€appellantÐ €Ð Ðinvoked€his€right€to€remain€silent.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð l¼ ÐÌòòóóÌà@ÑÑìàò òD.€€Voluntariness€of€Statementó óˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àInherent€in€the€admissibility€of€the€written€statement€is€that€the€statement€was€voluntarilyÐ $X" Ðgiven€by€a€defendant€knowledgeable€of€his€constitutional€rights€and€accompanied€by€a€valid€andÐ ô$D # Ðknowing€waiver€of€those€rights.€€òòSeeóó€€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€at€467,€86€S.Ct.€at€1624;Ð à%0!$ ÐòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€326€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€dismissedóó,€510€U.S.€124,€114Ð Ì&"% ÐS.Ct.€651€(1993).€€The€appellant€contends€that,€although€there€is€a€waiver€of€rights€form€signedÐ ¸'#& Ðby€himself,€neither€the€waiver€nor€the€inculpatory€statement€was€voluntarily€entered€as€he€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcompelled€to€do€so€by€coercive€police€tactics.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€argues€that,€under€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âtotality€of€the€circumstances,€including€the€officersðð€promises€of€leniency,€the€officersðð€use€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðfalse€evidence€against€him,€threats€that€the€appellant€only€had€one€opportunity€to€discuss€theÐ ° Ðmatter,€and€a€lengthy€€interrogation,€the€statements€should€have€been€suppressed.Ð œì Ðâ âà  àà ` àÌà  àIn€order€for€a€confession€to€be€admissible,€it€must€be€ð ðfreely€and€voluntarily€[made];€thatÐ tÄ Ðis,€[it]€must€not€be€extracted€by€any€sort€of€threats€or€violence,€nor€obtained€by€any€direct€orÐ `° Ðimplied€promises,€however€slight,€nor€by€the€exertion€of€any€improper€influence.€.€.€.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð L œ ÐSmithóó,€933€S.W.2d€450,€455€(Tenn.€1996)€(quoting€òòBram€v.€United€Statesóó,€168€U.S.€532,542„43,Ð 8 ˆ Ð18€S.Ct.€183,€187€(1897)).€€In€determining€the€admissibility€of€a€confession,€the€particularÐ $ t Ðcircumstances€of€each€case€must€be€examined€as€a€whole.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSmithóó,€933€S.W.2d€at€455.€€AÐ  ` Ðdefendantððs€subjective€perception€alone€is€not€sufficient€to€justify€a€conclusion€of€involuntarinessÐ ü L  Ðin€the€constitutional€sense.€€òòIdóó.€(citations€omitted).€€Rather,€ð ðcoercive€police€activity€is€aÐ è 8  Ðnecessary€predicate€to€finding€that€a€confession€is€not€voluntary.€.€.€.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€(citations€omitted).€Ð Ô$  ÐThe€focus€of€the€reviewing€court€should€be€ð ðwhether€the€behavior€of€the€Stateððs€law€enforcementÐ À  Ðofficials€was€such€as€to€overbear€petitionerððs€will€to€resist€and€bring€about€confessions€not€freelyÐ ¬ü  Ðself„determined€„€a€question€to€be€answered€with€complete€disregard€of€whether€or€not€petitionerÐ ˜è  Ðin€fact€spoke€the€truth.ðð׃°×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòState€v.€Kellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€726,€728(Tenn.€1980)€(quoting€òòRogers€v.Ð „Ô  ÐRichmondóó,€365€U.S.€at€534,€81€S.Ct.€at€739„41).€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€appellant€made€allegations€of€coercion€and€intimidation€by€his€interrogators,Ð H˜ Ðthe€trial€court€failed€to€accredit€his€claims.€€Instead,€in€finding€the€statement€voluntary,€the€courtÐ 4„ Ðrelied€upon€the€testimony€of€Detective€Alvarez€and€the€implied€waiver€contained€in€theÐ  p Ðappellantððs€inculpatory€statement.€€Moreover,€the€record€fails€to€establish€that€law€enforcementÐ  \ Ðexercised€any€compelling€influence€over€the€appellant€or€that€his€statements€were€induced€byÐ øH Ðpromises€of€leniency.€€Detective€Alvarez€testified€that€he€responded€ð ðto€the€best€of€hisÐ ä4 Ðknowledgeðð€regarding€the€appellantððs€inquiries€regarding€possible€charges€and€possible€penalties.€Ð Ð  Ðð ð[T]ruthful€statements€about€[a€defendantððs]€predicament€are€not€the€type€of€ððcoercionðð€thatÐ ¼  Ðthreatens€to€render€a€statement€involuntary.ðð€€òòSmithóó,€933€S.W.2d€at€456€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.Ð ¨ø ÐPeltonóó,€835€F.2d€1067.€1072„73€(4òòthóó€Cir.€1987)).€€Furthermore,€the€record€indicates€that€theÐ ”ä Ðappellant€was€advised€fully€and€completely€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€At€no€time€did€the€appellantÐ €Ð Ðindicate€that€he€did€not€understand€his€rights.€Although€the€appellant€signed€no€explicit€writtenÐ l¼ Ðwaiver,€a€waiver€properly€may€be€inferred€from€the€fact€that€appellant€acknowledgedÐ X ¨ Ðunderstanding€his€rights€and€then€gave€a€statement€which€he€both€initialed€and€signed.€€òòState€v.Ð D!” Ðâ âElrodóó,€721€S.W.2d€820,€823€(Tenn.Crim.App.1986).€€€The€trial€court€obviously€accredited€theÐ 0"€  Ðtestimony€of€Detective€Alvarez€in€finding€a€valid€and€knowing€waiver€of€rights€and€finding€aÐ ° Ðvoluntary€statement€made€from€the€free€will€of€the€appellant.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAs€stated€above,€the€trial€court's€determination€that€a€confession€was€given€knowingly€andÐ tÄ Ðvoluntarily€is€binding€on€the€appellate€courts€unless€the€appellant€can€show€that€the€evidenceÐ `° Ðpreponderates€against€the€trial€court's€ruling.€€òòState€v.€O'Guinnóó,€709€S.W.2d€561,€566€(Tenn),Ð L œ Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€479€U.S.€871,€107€S.Ct.€244€(1986);€òòsee€alsoòòóóóó€€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,Ð 8 ˆ Ð544€(Tenn.€1994).€€€€We€find€no€reason€to€disregard€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€with€respect€toÐ $ t Ðthe€voluntariness€of€the€defendant's€statement.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court's€denial€of€theÐ  ` Ðmotion€to€suppress€was€proper.€òòóóÐ ü L  ÐÌÌÌà@ÐÐìàò òòòII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àóóIn€his€final€issue,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÐ „Ô  Ðconviction€for€conspiring€to€present€a€false€insurance€claim€as€his€statement€fails€to€evidence€anyÐ pÀ Ðcriminal€intent€on€his€behalf.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€contends€that€there€is€ð ðabsolutely€noÐ \¬ Ðproof€of€a€prior€agreement€.€.€.ðð€to€support€the€theory€of€conspiracy.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àTenn.Code€Ann.€ðð€39-12-103€(1997)€€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð  p Ðà8  à(a)€The€offense€of€conspiracy€is€committed€if€two€(2)€or€more€people,€each€havingÐ  \ Ðthe€culpable€mental€state€required€for€the€offense€which€is€the€object€of€theÐ øH Ðconspiracy€and€each€acting€for€the€purpose€of€promoting€or€facilitatingÐ ä4 Ðcommission€of€an€offense,€agree€that€one€(1)€or€more€of€them€will€engage€inÐ Ð  Ðconduct€which€constitutes€such€offense.€€Ð¼ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(d)€No€person€may€be€convicted€of€conspiracy€to€commit€an€offense€unless€anÐ ”ä Ðovert€act€in€pursuance€of€such€conspiracy€is€alleged€and€proved€to€have€been€doneÐ €Ð Ðby€the€person€or€by€another€with€whom€the€person€conspired.€€Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌ"A€conspiracy€requires€knowing€involvement."€€òòState€v.€Shropshireóó,€874€S.W.2d€634,€641Ð D!” Ð(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).€€The€conspiracy€need€not€be€manifested€by€formal€words€or€an€expressÐ 0"€  Ðagreement.€€òòShropshireóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€641;€€òòState€v.€Gayloróó,€862€S.W.2d€546,€553Ð #l! Ð(Tenn.Crim.App.1992);€€òòState€v.€Cookóó,€749€S.W.2d€42,€44€(Tenn.Crim.App.1987).€€Moreover,Ð $X" Ðthe€existence€of€the€conspiracy€may€be€established€by€circumstantial€evidence€and€by€the€conductÐ ô$D # Ðof€the€parties€in€executing€the€object€of€their€agreement.€€òòShropshireóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€641;€òòCookóó,Ð à%0!$ Ð749€S.W.2d€at€44;€òòRandolph€v.€Stateóó,€570€S.W.2d€869,€871€(Tenn.€Crim€.App.€1978).€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€provided€a€statement€which€related€a€conversation€between€the€appellantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðand€co„defendant€Mikel€one€month€prior€to€the€offense.€€During€this€conversation,€the€appellantÐ )à$( Ðadvised€Mikel€of€his€desire€to€ð ðget€ridðð€of€his€boat€and€that€Mikel€had€discussed€with€him€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðpossibility€of€making€the€ð ðboat€disappear.ððà À àWhile€isolated€portions€of€the€appellantððs€statementÐ h+¸&* Ðcould€be€interpreted€as€equivocal€in€the€ð ðpromoti[on]€or€facilita[tion]ðð€of€the€offense,€theÐ ° Ðstatement€read€as€a€whole€and,€in€particular,€the€statement€ð ðHis€payment€was€whatever€he€couldÐ œì Ðstrip€from€the€boat,ðð€was€clearly€unambiguous.€€Considering€the€contents€of€the€discussion€andÐ ˆØ Ðcorroborating€proof€introduced€at€trial,€we€conclude€that€the€State€presented€sufficient€evidenceÐ tÄ Ðto€permit€a€jury€to€find€that€the€appellant€and€Mikel€formed€an€agreement€to€commit€insuranceÐ `° Ðfraud.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€€òòState€v.€Yasmond€Fendersonóó,€No.€03C01„9711„CR„00496€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ L œ ÐKnoxville,€Jan.€6,€1999),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Jun.€14,€1999)(despite€lack€of€directÐ 8 ˆ Ðproof,€evidence€of€agreement€between€conspirators€can€be€inferred€from€their€acts).€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€relevant€question€upon€a€sufficiency€review€of€a€criminal€conviction,€be€it€in€the€trialÐ ü L  Ðcourt€or€an€appellate€court,€is€whether,€"after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€toÐ è 8  Ðthe€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crimeÐ Ô$  Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€Ð À  ÐòòSee€alsoóó€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29(a).€€Applying€this€standard€to€the€facts€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€present€case,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€establish€the€elements€ofÐ ˜è  Ðconspiracy€to€commit€insurance€fraud.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„133€(1997);€Tenn.€CodeÐ „Ô  ÐAnn.€ðð€39„12„103.Ð pÀ ÐÌÌà  àÌà  àAfter€review,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð  p ÐÔ#†XÄ¢X XXyݹd#ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð œì Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE