’WPCž …# VU>a %Ÿ 0ķ„UB’ 4Ō č n­÷ ¤ w@¬ 0Jģ 0T6 0^Š 0hč 0rP 0|Ā 0†> 0Ä 1uTU,É 0dõU,YU6… B»U.ŲU*B)0DCY D3œ AMĻ€ 0@œfÜfBv~ØvÓ& AOłĘH 0D D/R B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTĄĢĄä䥥Ģ0 <čĄ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕŠ$””Ń  ŃŃ7€'CXXdČXXdČ7ŃŃ  ŃÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#€%Ų'0*ˆ,ą.813č5@8˜:š<H? A°œXiÓ<ž6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpią~| 3|xŁ«<ž6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxž6X@ÉJQX@ ÅĘEĒČEÉŹEĖĢeĶĪӀ2 ’’0Indent1Ō2ŌŌ3  Ō2" ’’0Indent2ą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2, ’’0Indent3ą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō26 ’’0Indent4ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2@ ’’0Indent5ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2J ’’0Indent6ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2T ’’0Indent7ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2^ ’’0Indent8ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō ’’?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ’’8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New d< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd%%%%'’’dxd€-)Cž’ << G’’ vŻ ƒ!ŻŃ  ŃŃ#€d#ŃŌ€ŌŌ€$ŌŃ  ŃŃ#€d#ŃŃ  ŃÓ` °˜XÓŻ  ŻŌ€'ŌŌ€'ŌÓ  ÓŌ YYY ŌFILEDŌ€'XŌĢĢņ ņApril€18,€1996ĢĢCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ĢŌ€'ōŌAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("’’$££Ņ  ŅŅ  Ņ \Ń\R AŲ'\Ń \Ń\R AŲ'\ŃPtPtHHŚ(’į’āłFG(üHHŚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆŠ ŠŠHHŠŠ  ŠŠ2ŠŠ’’øę$’ŠŠHHŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ  ŠŠ ŠŠ ŠŃŃŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŃ € ŃŃ<Px–ČŃŅŅŅ443!#4ŅŅ$ *$ŅŅ$*$ŅŅ ’KK ŅŅ  Geneva ŅŅ  Geneva ŅÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŃMonacoŃŃ ŃŅ  BA:Op Monaco ŅŅ  BA:Op Monaco Ņ€-‚ƒCž’<< C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó ó„„'÷’ dxdü’P PdŻ ƒ!ŻŌ . ŌŌ€ŌÓ&€##X„d&ÓŃ#€##Xd#ŃŌ€$ŌŃ  ŃŃ#€&&Xd#ŃŃ#€&&Xd#ŃŃ  ŃÓ` °˜XÓŻ  ŻŅ  ŅŅ X ŅŁ€€ŁŃ  ŃŃ Ü ŃÓÓŃ\R AŲ'\ŃŌ€'Ō›œßL€+,);+'h|` Å `€€Lߛą8 ąą@ ąIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALĻAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEĢą@ ąAT€KNOXVILLEą@ ą€€€€€€€€€Ģą ąą ą€€€€€€€€€€€€NOVEMBER€1995€SESSIONĢĢÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ą ąą ą)ą ąĢ€ą ąą ąą ąą ą)Ģą ąAppellee,€ą ąą ą)ą ąNo.€03C01„9502„CR„00050Ģą ą€€€€€ą ąą ą€€ą ą)Ģą ąą ąą ąą ą)ą ąSevier€CountyĢv.ą ąą ąą ąą ą)€€€€€€€€€Ģą ąą ąą ąą ą)ą ą€Hon.€Rex€Henry€Ogle,€Judge€€€€€Ģą ąą ąą ąą ą)ĢHUEY€MATTHEW€MOONEY,€III,ą ą)ą ą€(Aggravated€assault€and€Ģą ąą ąą ąą ą)ą ą€€€Driving€on€a€suspended€license)€€€€€€€€Ģą ąAppellant.ą ąą ą)Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąĢĢņņFor€the€Appellantóó:ą ąą ąą ąą ąņņFor€the€Appelleeóó:ĢĢRobert€J.€Lowe,€Jr.ą ąą ąą ąą ąCharles€W.€BursonĢ121€Court€Avenueą ąą ąą ąą ąAttorney€General€of€TennesseeĢSevierville,€TN€37862ą ąą ąą ąą ąandĢ(AT€TRIAL€AND€ON€APPEAL)ą ąą ąChristina€S.€ShevalierĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeĻDonna€J.€Orrą ąą ąą ąą ą450€James€Robertson€Parkwayą ąą ąĢ121€Court€Avenueą ąą ąą ąą ąNashville,€TN€37243„0493ĢSevierville,€TN€37862Ģ(ON€APPEAL)ą ąą ąą ąą ąAlfred€C.€Schmutzer,€Jr.Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąDistrict€Attorney€GeneralĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąandĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąSteven€R.€HawkinsĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą301€Sevier€County€CourthouseĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąSevierville,€TN€37862ĢĢĢĢĢOPINION€FILED:____________________ĢĢ̜CONVICTIONS€AFFIRMED;€SENTENCE€MODIFIED€IN€PART›ĢĢJoe€D.€Duncan€€€ĢSpecial€JudgeĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢą@ ąņņņ ņO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óĢĢĢĢÓÓą ąThe€defendant,€Huey€Matthew€Mooney,€III,€appeals€his€convictions€forĻaggravated€assault€and€driving€on€a€suspended€license.€€For€his€aggravated€assaultĻconviction,€the€defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I€offender€to€the€Department€ofĻCorrection€for€œsix›€years,€and€for€his€suspended€license€conviction,€he€received€aĻconcurrent€jail€sentence€of€œsix›€months.ĢĢą ąFor€clarification€purposes,€we€note€that€there€were€two€trials€in€this€cause.€ĻAt€the€first€trial€on€October€17,€1994,€the€defendant€was€tried€on€a€four„countĻindictment.€€Two€counts€charged€the€defendant€with€driving€a€motor€vehicle€while€hisĶdriverššs€license€was€revoked€or€suspended,€one€count€charged€a€motor€vehicleĻregistration€violation,€and€the€remaining€count€charged€aggravated€assault.€€All€the€Ļoffenses€were€alleged€to€have€occurred€on€September€21,€1993,€except€for€one€of€the€Ļsuspended€license€violations€œthat›€allegedly€occurred€on€September€29,€1993.€€At€theĻfirst€trial,€the€defendant€œwas€convicted€of€the€three€motor€vehicle€violations,€but€the€juryĻwas›€unable€to€agree€on€the€aggravated€assault€charge€and€a€mistrial€was€declared€asĻto€that€offense.ĢĢą ąSubsequently,€on€November€28,€1994,€another€trial€was€held€regardingĻthe€aggravated€assault€count€of€the€indictment.€€This€trial€resulted€in€the€jury€finding€theĻdefendant€guilty€of€aggravated€assault.ĢĢą ąThus,€we€have€before€us€for€review€the€defendantššs€aggravated€assaultĻconviction€from€the€second€trial€and€his€suspended€license€conviction€from€the€firstĻtrial.€€The€defendant€does€not€contest€in€this€appeal€his€other€two€misdemeanorĻconvictions€that€occurred€in€his€first€trial.ĢĢą ąIn€addition€to€his€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€regardingĻhis€aggravated€assault€conviction,€the€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€œjudge›Ļshould€have€recused€himself€œfrom›€these€proceedings,€and€raises€other€issuesĻregarding€various€rulings€made€by€the€trial€court.ĢĢą ąFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€reversible€error€and€theĻjudgments€are€affirmed,€with€œthe€defendantššs›€aggravated€assault€sentence€to€beĻmodified€by€reducing€this€sentence€from€six€years€to€five€years.ĢĢą ąThe€stateššs€theory€in€this€case€was€that€the€defendant€unlawfully€andĻunjustifiably€assaulted€the€victim,€Steven€B.€LaFollette,€by€beating€him€about€the€headĻand€eye,€causing€the€victim€to€sustain€serious€bodily€injuries.€€œFurther,›€the€victim€wasĻnot€the€aggressor€in€this€encounter,€and€in€fact,€neither€did€anything€to€provoke€theĻassault€on€him€nor€did€he€strike€any€blows€to€the€defendant.ĢĢą ąThe€defendantššs€theory€was€that€the€victim€was€the€initial€aggressor€inĻthis€affair,€that€the€defendant€first€struck€him,€and€that€his€actions€at€the€time€were€doneĻin€his€own€necessary€self„defense.€€Thus,€the€defendant€claimed€that€his€actions€wereĻjustified.ĢĢą ąIn€reviewing€an€issue€on€appeal€which€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theĻevidence,€the€evidence€must€be€reviewed€in€the€light€of€several€recognized€principlesĻof€law.ĢĢą ąFirst,€a€jury€verdict€of€guilty,€approved€by€the€trial€court,€accredits€theĻtestimony€in€favor€of€the€state€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€evidence€in€favor€of€theĻstateššs€theory.€€ņņState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€Further,€a€guiltyĻverdict€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€ņņIdóó.Ļ657€S.W.2d€at€410.€€Also,€on€appeal,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostĻfavorable€to€the€state,€the€relevant€question€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€couldĻhave€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€ņņJacksonĻv.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€ņņState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dĻ832,€835€(Tenn.€1978);€T.R.A.P.€13(e).€€Additionally,€the€issue€of€whether€a€defendantššsĻactions€are€justified€in€defense€of€self€is€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury.€€ņņState€v.ĻWilliamsóó,€784€S.W.2d€660€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).ĢĢą ąWe€will€review€the€evidence€in€some€detail,€as€such€will€be€helpful€notĻonly€in€answering€the€defendantššs€evidentiary€issue,€but€also€in€our€consideration€ofĻsome€of€his€other€issues.ĢĢą ąThe€evidence€in€this€case€showed€that€the€aggravated€assault€chargeĻagainst€the€defendant€arose€out€of€an€incident€that€occurred€on€September€21,€1993,Ļat€the€Pigeon€Forge€Park€in€Sevier€County.€€The€defendant€was€at€the€park€on€thatĻoccasion,€coaching€a€softball€game.€€The€victim,€Mr.€LaFollette,€was€the€Parks€andĻRecreation€Director€for€Pigeon€Forge,€and€he€was€at€the€park€at€the€time,€beingĶengaged€in€his€various€duties.€€The€defendant€was€twenty„nine€years€old,€five€feet,Ļeleven€and€a€half€inches€in€height,€and€weighed€two€hundred€thirty€pounds.€€The€victimĻwas€forty„two€years€of€age,€five€feet,€five€or€six€inches€tall,€and€weighed€one€hundredĻfifty„two€pounds.ĢĢą ąDuring€the€course€of€the€softball€game€that€was€taking€place€at€the€parkĻon€this€occasion,€the€defendant€disputed€one€of€the€decisions€made€by€one€of€theĻumpires.€€Rick€Wear€was€the€head€umpire€and€was€umpiring€behind€home€plate.€€œThe›Ļdefendant€became€very€upset€over€what€he€believed€was€a€wrong€call€by€one€of€theĻother€umpires.€€The€defendant€continued€to€argue€over€the€call€even€after€other€playersĻhad€completed€their€turn€at€bat.ĢĢą ąOn€two€occasions,€Rick€œWear›€told€the€defendant€to€go€to€the€dugout,€butĻthe€defendant€continued€to€argue,€and€Wear€told€him€once€more€to€go€to€the€dugout,Ļand€told€him€that€if€he€didnššt,€he€would€eject€him€from€the€game.€€According€to€WearššsĻtestimony,€the€defendant€told€him,€š šIššll€stand€where€the€œf„„„›€I€want€to.šš€€At€that€time,€WearĻordered€the€defendant€out€of€the€game.€€Wear€went€on€about€his€duties,€and€did€notĻsee€the€subsequent€encounter€that€took€place€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim.€€ĢĢą ąRoger€Whaley,€an€employee€of€the€Pigeon€Forge€Parks€and€RecreationĻDepartment,€was€engaged€in€his€duties€at€the€park€at€the€time,€and€the€defendantĶapproached€him,€complaining€about€being€thrown€out€of€the€game.€€Whaley€refusedĻthe€defendantššs€request€to€put€him€back€in€the€game.€€Whaley€heard€the€defendantĻcursing.€€Whaley€did€not€see€the€actual€encounter€that€led€to€the€victimššs€injuries,€butĻsoon€he€saw€the€victim€who€had€š šblood€all€over€his€head.šš€€Whaley€called€the€policeĻwho€arrived€soon€after€the€defendant€left€the€scene€in€his€car.€€The€police€pursued€theĻdefendant€and€soon€apprehended€him.ĢĢą ąThe€victim,€Steven€B.€LaFollette,€gave€this€version€of€the€incident:Ģą ąThe€defendant€came€up€to€him€at€the€park,€was€cursing,€and€wanted€himĻto€put€him€back€in€the€game.€€LaFollette€told€him€that€the€š šbest€thing€he€could€do€wasĻjust€go€on€home,šš€further€telling€him€that€š šwe€would€never€overrule€an€umpire.šš€ĻLaFollette€thought€the€defendant€had€left,€but€soon€saw€him€again.€€He€heard€theĻdefendant€say€he€was€going€to€kill€that€š šF„GD€Rick€œWear.šš€€LaFollette€told€theĻdefendant,€š šIf›€you€want€to€continue€to€play€ball€here€.€.€.€youššre€going€to€have€to€watchĻyour€mouth.ššĢĢą ąNext,€according€to€LaFollette,€he€turned€to€go€to€call€the€police,€at€whichĻtime€the€defendant€attacked€him€from€behind.€€He€felt€the€defendantššs€hands€on€hisĻshoulders,€and€then€the€defendant€pulled€his€head€back€and€began€administeringĻš šhard€blowsšš€to€the€area€around€his€right€eye.€€Someone€pulled€the€defendant€off€ofĶhim,€and€as€he€fell€the€defendant€hit€him€again€in€the€head,€which€blow€š šbustedšš€hisĻhead€open.ĢĢą ąLaFollette€claimed€that€he€landed€no€blows€on€the€defendant,€stating€thatĻhe€could€not€hit€him€even€if€he€had€wanted€to,€š šbecause€the€defendant€had€me€fromĻbehind.ššĢĢą ąAs€a€result€of€the€defendantššs€attack,€the€victim€testified€that€he€sustainedĻserious€bodily€injuries.€€He€was€taken€to€the€Sevier€Medical€Center€where€he€receivedĻthirteen€stitches€to€his€head.€€His€injuries€were€so€œserious€that›€he€had€to€be€taken€to€theϜUniversity€of€Tennessee›€Hospital€where€he€was€in€surgery€for€several€hours.€€His€eyeĻlid€had€to€be€stitched€down€for€several€days.€€His€sinus€cavities€were€crushed,€heĻsuffers€from€migraine€headaches,€and€it€is€necessary€to€take€daily€medications€toĻrelieve€his€ailments.ĢĢą ąAccording€to€the€victimššs€oral€surgeon,€Dr.€Jack€E.€Gotcher,€the€victim€hadĻš šfacial€swelling€and€bruising€as€well€as€obvious€bony€injuries€in€and€around€his€eyeĻand€cheek€bone.šš€€Reconstruction€work,€using€small€bone€plates,€had€to€be€done€onĻthe€victimššs€cheek€bone,€and€other€plates€were€used€during€the€surgical€procedures€š šinĻthe€floor€of€the€orbit€or€floor€of€the€eye€socket.šš€€Dr.€Gotcher€stated€that€the€victim€hadĶš špermanent€numbnessšš€on€the€right€side€of€his€face,€and€opined€that€š šprobablyššĻadditional€surgery€would€be€required.ĢŃ€.ŃĒą ąOther€evidence€by€the€state€included€the€testimony€of€two€women,ĻBrenda€Huskey€and€Addie€Reed.€€Both€worked€in€the€concession€stand€at€the€park€andĻheard€the€defendant€arguing€about€being€thrown€out€of€the€game.€€Ms.€Huskey€heardĻthe€defendant€say€he€was€going€to€š šF„ing€kill€somebody.šš€€Ms.€Reed€also€heard€theĻdefendant€cursing.€€She€stated€that€the€defendant€was€œš šmad,šš›€and€that€the€victim€wasĻš šcalm.šš€€Neither€saw€the€actual€encounter€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim,€butĻsaw€the€victim€afterwards€and€observed€that€he€was€š šall€bloody.ššĢĢą ąAnother€witness,€Howard€Stoffle,€testified€that€he€heard€the€defendantϜtalking€›to€others€about€the€umpireššs€call,€and€he€could€tell€from€the€tone€of€theĻdefendantššs€voice€that€he€was€upset.€€Stoffle€heard€someone€say,€š šgosh,€theyššreĻfighting,šš€at€which€time€he€turned€and€saw€that€the€defendant€had€the€victim€in€aĻheadlock€and€was€hitting€him€with€š šrapid€licks.šš€€Stoffle€described€the€force€being€usedĻby€the€defendant€as€š šhard,šš€and€š šyou€could€hear€it€crack.ššĢĢą ąStoffle€testified€that€he€got€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim€in€anĻeffort€to€stop€the€fight,€at€which€time€the€defendant€š šsquared€offšš€like€he€was€going€to€hitĻStoffle.€€Stoffle€added€that€the€victim€didnššt€do€anything€to€the€defendant,€because€heĻš šcouldnššt.ššĢĢą ąOn€cross„examination,€Stoffle€testified€that€he€was€an€š ševangelist,ššĻpreaching€mostly€in€jails€and€prisons.€€He€said€he€could€tell€the€defendant€was€angry,Ļbut€that€the€defendant€wasnššt€š šyelling€or€screaming€or€cussing,šš€and€added€that€he€didĻnot€see€the€beginning€of€the€fight.€€On€œredirect›€examination,€Stoffle€said€he€did€not€seeĻthe€victim€š šdoing€anything€at€all,šš€because€š šhe€was€in€a€position€with€a€headlock€andĻthat€there€was€no€way€he€could€defend€himself.ššĢĢą ąAnother€witness€for€the€state,€Lisa€Tant,€a€student€at€the€University€ofĻTennessee,€was€at€the€ball€park€with€her€boyfriend.€€Prior€to€that€occasion€she€did€notĻknow€the€victim€by€face€but€knew€his€name,€and€only€learned€later€that€he€was€aĻsecond€cousin€to€her€boyfriend.ĢĢą ąAccording€to€Ms.€Tant,€she€heard€the€defendant€talking€to€the€girl€in€theĻš šscore€box.šš€€The€defendant€was€very€upset€and€was€š šusing€cuss€words.šš€€She€saw€aĻš šcommotion€out€of€the€corneršš€of€her€eye,€turned€to€look€and€saw€the€victim€š šwalkingĻawayšš€from€the€œdefendant,›€at€which€time€the€defendant€grabbed€the€victimššs€arm€andĻš šturned€him€around€and€hit€him,šš€and€the€victim€went€š šdown€on€the€ground€and€Mr.ĻMooney€hit€him€again€while€Steve€was€still€on€the€ground.šš€€The€victim€was€not€able€toĻdefend€himself€or€hit€back,€because€he€was€š šwalking€awayšš€from€the€defendant€whenĻthe€defendant€grabbed€his€arm€and€swung€him€around€and€hit€him,€knocking€him€toĻthe€ground.ĢĢą ąThe€defendant€testified€in€his€own€defense.€€The€defense€also€offeredĻtestimony€from€the€defendantššs€mother,€his€wife€and€a€friend.€€Neither€the€defendantššsĻmother€nor€his€wife€witnessed€the€difficulty€at€the€ball€park€on€this€occasion.ĢĢą ąThe€defendantššs€mother€testified€that€the€defendant€was€blind€in€his€rightĻeye,€having€lost€the€sight€of€that€eye€when€he€was€hit€with€a€pole€at€the€age€of€sevenĻyears.€€She€described€the€defendant€as€being€š šjumpy,šš€because€when€something€isĻthrown€at€him,€š šheššs€got€to€adjust€himself€to€that€blind€spot.šš€€She€acknowledged€that€heĻhad€played€baseball€and€softball€all€his€life,€and€had€played€football€throughout€juniorĻhigh€and€high€school.ĢŃ€/ŃĒą ąThe€defendantššs€wife,€Jennifer€Mooney,€testified€that€the€defendant€wasĻš šprotective€over€that€eye.šš€€She€stated€that€it€was€obvious€to€her€that€since€š šhe€only€hasĻthat€one€eye,€he€needs€to€protect€it,€so€he€is€protective€against€it.šš€€She€stated€that€theĻdefendant€is€a€š šgood€sports€player€and€he€knows€what€to€expect,€knows€whatššsĻcoming.šš€€On€cross„examination,€she€acknowledged€that€the€defendant€hadĻparticipated€on€one€occasion€in€a€boxing€contest€in€Knoxville,€characterized€as€aĻš šTough€man€contest.šš€€On€œredirect›€examination,€she€stated€that€the€participants€in€thatĻboxing€contest€wore€protective€gear€and€boxed€with€gloves.ĢĢą ąThe€defendant€testified€that€he€was€presently€living€in€Louisiana€whereĻhe€was€engaged€as€a€cement€contractor,€but€that€in€September€of€1993€he€was€aĻcarpenter.ĢĢą ąAccording€to€the€defendantššs€testimony,€he€was€at€the€ball€park€on€theĻoccasion€in€question,€coaching€one€of€the€softball€teams.€€The€home€plate€umpireĻmade€what€the€defendant€believed€œwas›€a€bad€call,€and€the€defendant€was€upset€overĻthe€call,€but€he€was€not€š šyelling€or€screaming€over€the€call.šš€€He€told€the€umpire,€š šthatĻwas€a€bull„crap€call,šš€and€œthe€umpire›€said€š šyouššre€out€of€the€game.šš€€He€tried€to€talk€toĻLaFollette€and€Whaley€to€get€them€to€go€with€him€to€the€umpire€to€get€the€umpire€toĻgive€him€a€reason€for€throwing€him€out€of€the€game.€€The€only€foul€language€he€usedĶwas€the€word€š šbullshit.šš€€Even€though€he€was€upset,€he€never€threatened€anyoneššs€life,Ļand€did€not€curse€as€the€stateššs€witnesses€had€said.ĢĢą ąFurther,€the€defendant€testified€that€at€some€point,€the€victim€came€up€toĻhim,€raised€his€voice€at€the€defendant,€and€threatened€to€throw€him€out€of€the€league.€ĻThat€was€when€š ševerything€happened.šš€€The€defendant€said€that€the€victim€was€in€hisĻface,€and€that€the€victim€š šhit€me€with€his€hands€like€that€and€he€was€shaking€his€fingerĻat€me.€€And€thatššs€when€I€pushed€back€and€I€hit€him€and€then€I€grabbed€him€and€hit€himĻa€couple€more€times.ššĢĢą ąAdditionally,€the€defendant€stated€that€being€blind€in€one€eye,€he€had€toĻš šprotect€fingers€to€the€eye.šš€€He€said€the€victim€was€too€close€to€him,€that€the€victim€hitĻhim€in€the€chest,€and€he€had€to€defend€himself€because€he€was€scared€of€losing€hisĻsight.€€The€defendant€explained€that€when€he€was€in€the€š štough€manšš€contest,€he€wasĻnot€š šscared€to€get€hurt,šš€because€of€the€š šsixteen€ounce€glovesšš€and€the€š šprotectiveĻhead€gear.ššĢĢą ąOn€cross„examination,€the€defendant€acknowledged€that€his€eye€problemĻhad€not€kept€him€from€engaging€in€sports.€€He€had€been€a€š šlinebackeršš€in€football€whenĻhe€was€in€high€school€and€had€won€various€honors€for€his€football€prowess.€€He€hadĻplayed€baseball€and€softball€over€the€years.€€The€boxing€contest€in€Knoxville€was€š štheĶbad€man€contest,šš€rather€than€š šthe€tough€man€contest.šš€€It€is€an€elimination€contest,€andĻyou€box€three€one„minute€rounds,€a€prize€of€fifteen€hundred€dollars€is€given€to€theĻultimate€winner.€€He€participated€in€two€matches€on€two€successive€nights,€and€he€wasĻnot€afraid€of€injuring€his€eye€because€of€the€protective€œhead›€gear.ĢĢą ąThe€defendant€did€not€recall€using€any€curse€words€other€than€the€š šBSššĻword,€and€had€not€ever€had€any€problems€with€the€stateššs€witnesses€and€could€notĻunderstand€why€they€would€testify€as€they€did.€€He€reiterated€that€the€victim€was€in€hisĻface,€was€shaking€his€finger€at€him,€and€that€when€the€victim€pushed€him,€he€got€theĻvictim€in€a€headlock€and€hit€him€several€times.ĢĢą ąThe€defendantššs€other€witness,€David€Brian€Sutton,€testified€that€he€andĻthe€defendant€were€friends.€€He€stated€that€the€victim€walked€up€behind€the€defendant,Ļš šsaid€something€to€him,€tapped€him,€œMatt›€turned€around€and€they€started€talking€andĻgoing€on.€€Steve€was€throwing€his€hands€œaround›€.€.€.€.€€I€turned€back€around€and€SteveĻjust€went€up€real€fast€with€his€hands,€like€œthat€.€.€.€.€€He›€just€come€up,€he€hit€his€chest€ifĻhe€hit€œanything.€.€.€.€.š𛀀Then,€according€to€Sutton,€the€defendant€grabbed€the€victim,€hitĻhim€three€times,€and€when€Sutton€stepped€between€them,€the€defendant€š šswung€oneĻmore€time.šš€€When€Sutton€told€the€defendant€to€š šcalm€down,šš€the€defendant€startedĻwalking€off.ĢĢą ąOn€cross„examination,€Sutton€admitted€that€he€and€the€defendant€wereĻdrinking€buddies.€€He€conceded€that€he€did€not€actually€see€the€victim€hit€theĻdefendant€in€the€chest.€€He€just€saw€the€victim€throw€his€hands€up,€and€he€couldnššt€tellĻif€the€victim€hit€him€or€not.ĢĢą ąFrom€all€of€the€foregoing€evidence,€we€readily€conclude€that€the€evidenceĻis€overwhelming€to€support€the€juryššs€verdict€finding€the€defendant€guilty€of€aggravatedĻassault.€€The€only€question€for€the€jury€to€determine€was€whether€the€defendantššsĻactions€on€this€occasion€œwere›€done€in€his€own€necessary€self„defense.€€The€juryĻconcluded€that€the€defendant€did€not€act€in€self„defense.€€We€agree.ĢĢą ąUnquestionably,€the€evidence€is€clear€that€the€defendant€was€the€initial,Ļas€well€as€the€sole€aggressor€in€this€affair.€€The€evidence€leads€us€to€the€conclusionĻthat€the€victim€did€not€provoke€this€attack;€rather,€the€defendant,€being€upset€and€angryĻover€what€he€deemed€to€be€a€wrong€call€by€the€umpire,€lost€control€over€himself€and€inĻhis€rage,€administered€this€beating€to€the€victim.ĢĢą ąWe€find€no€merit€to€the€defendantššs€complaint€about€the€evidence.ĢĢą ąNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€œjudge,›€on€his€own€motion,Ļshould€have€recused€himself€from€these€proceedings.ĢĢą ąThe€defendant€first€raised€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€It€is€theĻdefendantššs€insistence€that€since€the€victim€in€this€case€was€employed€by€the€City€ofĻPigeon€Forge,€and€since€the€incident€occurred€on€the€property€of€that€city,€then€the€trialϜjudge›€should€have€recused€himself€from€the€proceedings€because,€prior€to€becomingĻa€œjudge,›€he€was€a€city€attorney€for€the€City€of€Pigeon€Forge.€€Also,€he€maintains€recusalĻwas€in€order€because€the€trial€œjudgeššs›€wife€was€a€city€attorney€for€Pigeon€Forge€duringĻthe€proceedings€in€question.€€Defense€counsel€explained€his€tardy€motion€to€recuseĻwas€due€to€his€lack€of€knowledge€of€these€facts€until€after€the€defendantššs€trial€hadĻbeen€held.ĢĢą ąThe€determination€of€whether€to€recuse€oneself€rests€within€the€soundĻdiscretion€of€the€trial€œjudge.›€€ņņState€v.€Hurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57,€64€(Tenn.€1993);ĻņņCaruthers€v.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€64,€67„68€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€ņņState€v.€Gallowayóó,Ļ696€S.W.2d€364,€367€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).ĢĢą ąThe€general€rule€is€that€a€trial€œjudge›€should€recuse€himself€whenever€hisĻor€her€impartiality€might€reasonably€be€questioned.€€ņņAlley€v.€Stateóó,€882€S.W.2d€810,Ļ820€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€ņņLackey€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.€2d€101,€104€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ļ1978);€Tenn.€œSup.›€œCt.€R.›€10,€Canon€3(C)(1).ĢĢą ąSupreme€Court€Rule€10,€Canon€3(C),€lists€the€various€criteria€forĻdisqualification€of€a€œjudge.›€€Canon€3(C)(1)€states,€in€part,€œthat:ą ą›ĢÓ  ÓÓÓą8 ąA€œjudge›€should€disqualify€himself€in€a€proceeding€in€whichĻhis€impartiality€might€reasonably€be€questioned,€includingĻbut€not€limited€to€instances€where:ĢĢą8 ąą8 ą(a)€He€has€a€personal€bias€or€prejudiceĻconcerning€a€party,€or€personal€knowledge€ofĻdisputed€evidentiary€facts€concerning€theĻproceeding.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ą(b)€He€served€as€a€lawyer€in€the€matter€inĻcontroversy,€or€a€lawyer€with€whom€heĻpreviously€practiced€served€during€suchĻassociation€as€a€lawyer€concerning€the€matter,Ļor€the€œjudge›€or€such€lawyer€has€been€aĻmaterial€witness€concerning€œit;›ĢĢą ąą ą.€.€.€.ĢĢĢĢą ąA€comment€under€œCanon€3(C)(1)(b)›€states,€as€follows:ĢĢą8 ąA€lawyer€in€a€governmental€agency€does€not€necessarilyĻhave€an€association€with€other€lawyers€employed€by€thatĻagency€within€the€meaning€of€this€subsection;€a€œjudge›Ļformerly€employed€by€a€governmental€agency,€however,Ļshould€disqualify€himself€in€a€proceeding€if€his€impartialityĻmight€be€reasonably€questioned€because€of€suchĻassociation.ĢĢÓ  ÓÓÓĢą ąThe€defendant€quotes€in€his€brief€the€last€sentence€quoted€in€the€aboveĻparagraph,€and€opines€that€it€š šappears€to€addressšš€the€present€situation.€€We€disagree,Ķfor€the€reason€that€we€find€nothing€in€this€record€that€would€indicate€in€any€manner€thatĻthe€trial€œjudgeššs›€š šimpartiality€might€be€reasonably€œquestioned,šš›€because€of€his€priorĻassociation€with€the€City€of€Pigeon€Forge,€or€of€his€wifeššs€association€with€that€city.€€WeĻdo€not€see€that€the€two€situations€alleged€here€for€recusal€meet€any€of€the€criteria€forĻdisqualification€listed€in€Canon€3.ĢĢą ąAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€trial€œjudge›€stated€that€priorĻto€becoming€a€œjudge,›€he€was€not€an€employee€of€the€City€of€Pigeon€Forge,€but€hadĻserved€as€a€contract€attorney,€prosecuting€traffic€offenses€in€city€court.€€He€stated€thatĻhe€did€not€consult€with€the€Pigeon€Forge€Police€Department€about€cases€that€wereĻpending€in€criminal€court.€€He€added€that€his€wife€presently€is€a€contract€attorney€forĻthe€city,€working€on€an€hourly€basis.€€She€does€not€prosecute€cases€in€criminal€court,Ļbut€only€prosecutes€traffic€cases€in€city€court.ĢĢą ąFurther,€it€was€developed€at€the€hearing€that€neither€the€trial€judge€nor€hisĻwife€were€involved€in€the€prosecution€of€the€present€case.€€The€trial€œjudgeššs›€soleĻparticipation€in€the€present€case€was€limited€to€his€duties€in€presiding€over€the€trial.€ĻThe€prosecuting€attorney€stated€that€he€had€never€spoken€to€the€trial€œjudgeššs›€wifeĻabout€the€case.€€The€victim€said€the€same€thing.€€The€trial€œjudge›€also€stated€that€no€oneĻfrom€the€City€of€Pigeon€Forge€had€tried€to€talk€to€him€about€the€case€and€that€he€had͜not›€consulted€with€his€wife€about€the€case,€and€she€had€never€talked€to€him€about€theĻcase.ĢĢą ąClearly,€there€is€nothing€in€this€record€to€show€any€bias€on€the€part€of€theĻtrial€judge€in€this€case,€and€from€what€we€have€said€above,€there€is€not€even€anĻappearance€of€impropriety.€€We€conclude€that€there€was€no€basis€for€the€trial€œjudge›€toĻrecuse€himself€in€this€case.€€This€issue€is€overruled.ĢĢą ąIn€another€issue,€the€defendant€says€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€overrulingĻhis€motion€to€strike€the€complete€jury€panel,€because€the€panel€had€learned€ofĻprevious€charges€against€the€defendant€and€about€his€previous€trial.ĢĢą ąThis€issue€concerns€a€development€that€occurred€before€the€entire€juryĻpanel.€€Prior€to€selecting€the€first€twelve€jurors€to€try€the€case,€the€trial€œjudge›€wasĻadvising€the€entire€panel€of€the€nature€of€the€case€that€was€before€the€court€for€trial.€ĻThe€trial€œjudge›€said:ĢÓ  ÓÓÓą8 ąThis€is€the€case€of€State€of€Tennessee€vs.€Huey€MatthewĻMooney.€€In€this€case,€Mr.€Mooney€is€charged€with€Driving€aĻMotor€Vehicle€Upon€a€Public€.€.ĢĢÓ  ÓÓÓĢą ąAt€this€juncture,€the€prosecuting€attorney€interrupted€and€said,€š šIf€the€courtĻplease,€just€Aggravated€Assault.šš€€The€trial€œjudge›€said,€š šIššm€sorry.šš€€The€prosecutingĶattorney€commented,€š šWeššve€already€handled€that€other.šš€€The€trial€œjudge›€thenĻremarked,€š šOkay,€Iššm€sorry.€€So€he€is€charged€with€the€offense€of€aggravated€assault.ššĢĢą ąAs€we€mentioned€in€the€early€part€of€this€opinion,€the€indictment€in€thisĻcase€charged€aggravated€assault,€and€two€offenses€of€driving€on€a€suspended€license,Ļas€well€as€a€registration€violation.€€Those€traffic€offenses€had€been€disposed€of€in€theĻfirst€trial.€€Obviously,€the€trial€court€was€referring€to€the€indictment,€and€just€mistakenlyĻbegan€to€state€one€of€the€traffic€charges€that€was€mentioned€in€the€indictment.ĢĢą ąApparently,€the€defendant€was€not€concerned€at€the€first€trial€that€theĻjurors€in€that€trial€would€be€prejudiced€by€their€knowledge€of€his€traffic€violationsĻbecause€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€show€that€any€objection€was€made€to€tryingĻthese€traffic€offenses€along€with€the€aggravated€assault€charge.€€We€do€not€see€in€theĻrecord€any€motion€for€severance€of€offenses€that€was€made€at€that€first€trial.ĢĢą ąAt€any€rate,€the€trial€œjudge›€was€quickly€advised€of€his€error,€and€heĻimmediately€corrected€himself€by€stating€the€correct€charge.€€Further,€the€jury€was€notĻeven€advised€of€the€name€of€the€traffic€offense€that€the€defendant€had€been€chargedĻwith.€€We€see€no€way€that€this€misstatement€by€the€trial€œjudge›€could€have€prejudicedĻthe€jury€against€the€defendant.€€At€best,€this€minor€error€was€harmless.ĢĢą ąNext,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€hearing€hisĻpretrial€motions€prior€to€conducting€voir€dire.€€The€defendant€specifically€contends€thatĻone€of€these€motions€concerned€his€motion€ņņinóó€ņņlimineóó,€asking€the€trial€court€to€excludeĻthe€evidence€about€his€prior€participation€in€the€š štough€man€contest.šš€€The€defendantĻargues€that€had€he€known€prior€to€voir€dire€that€œthe€trial›€court€would€have€allowed€thisĻevidence,€he€would€have€been€able€to€question€the€jurors€on€this€subject€to€determineĻif€they€would€be€prejudiced€by€reason€of€this€evidence.ĢĢą ąThis€motion€ņņinóó€ņņlimineóó€was€nothing€more€than€an€attempt€on€theĻdefendantššs€part€to€get€an€advance€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€certain€evidence.€€As€aĻgeneral€rule,€the€admissibility€of€this€particular€type€of€evidence€is€a€matter€to€beĻdetermined€at€the€time€the€evidence€is€offered€at€the€trial.ĢĢą ąNevertheless,€the€trial€court€should€have€made€a€ruling€on€this€matterĻbefore€the€trial.€€That€said,€it€should€have€been€clearly€evident€to€the€defense€that€thisĻevidence€was€proper€and€would€be€admissible€at€the€trial,€and€that€had€the€court€madeĻa€pretrial€ruling,€it€would€have€been€adverse€to€the€defendant.€€In€fact,€it€appears€thatĻthis€evidence€came€into€the€first€trial€without€objection€on€the€defendantššs€part.ĢĢą ąThe€defendant€claimed€that€one€of€the€reasons€he€acted€as€he€did€on€theĻoccasion€of€this€event€was€that€he€was€apprehensive€about€the€victim€doing€damage€toĶhis€good€eye€because€of€his€blindness€in€the€other€eye.€€Clearly,€evidence€about€hisĻprior€participation€in€this€type€of€boxing€contest,€as€well€as€his€participation€in€otherĻcontact€sports€over€the€years,€would€be€a€proper€subject€of€inquiry€for€impeachmentĻpurposes,€and€the€defense€should€have€been€cognizant€of€this€fact.ĢĢą ąWhile€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€not€ruling€on€this€motion,€as€well€asĻthe€defendantššs€other€pretrial€motions€prior€to€the€trial,€under€the€specific€facts€andĻcircumstances€here,€we€find€that€no€prejudice€resulted€to€the€defendant.€€Again,€weĻcaution€all€trial€judges€that€all€pretrial€motions€should€be€heard€and€ruled€upon€beforeĻthe€trial,€unless€the€trial€judge,€for€good€cause€shown,€directs€that€the€hearing€beĻdeferred€and€the€merits€of€the€motion€determined€at€a€later€date.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ļ12(e).€€The€phrase€š šbefore€trial,šš€used€in€the€rule,€means€sometime€earlier€than€the€dayĻthe€trial€is€to€commence.€€ņņState€v.€Aucoinóó,€756€S.W.2d€705,€709€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ļ1988).ĢĢą ąThe€defendant€raises€another€issue€that€is€somewhat€akin€to€the€priorĻissue,€concerning€the€evidence€relating€to€the€š štough€man€contest.šš€€In€this€issue,€theĻdefendant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€inadmissible€character€evidence,€and€alsoĻcontends€that€even€if€it€was€admissible€relevant€evidence,€it€should€have€beenĻexcluded€because€it€was€unfairly€prejudicial€to€him.€€Thus,€he€maintains€that€the€trialĻcourt€erred€in€overruling€his€motion€ņņinóó€ņņlimineóó€to€exclude€this€evidence.ĢĢą ąFor€some€of€the€same€reasons€stated€in€our€ruling€on€the€prior€issue,€asĻwell€as€other€reasons€stated€hereafter,€we€find€this€issue€to€be€meritless€also.ĢĢą ąAt€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€stated:ĢÓ  ÓÓÓą8 ąI€think€that€is€admissible.€€It€obviously€goes€to€the€weight€asĻopposed€to€the€admissibility€of€it,€but€at€the€previous€hearingĻhe€came€in€and€testified€about€his€fears€of€having€his€eyeĻput€out,€that€he€has€one€eye€that€I€think€heššs€legally€blind€inĻor€.€.€.€and€so€he€testified€that€based€upon€his€fears€of€certainĻalleged€movements€by€Mr.€œLaFollette€that€he€thought€Mr.ĻLaFollette›€was€going€to€try€to€hurt€him€and€thatššs€the€reasonĻhe€did€what€he€did.€€I€think€the€fact€that€he€has€engaged€inĻother€activities,€other,€you€know,€for€lack€of€a€better€term,Ļviolent€activities€certainly€can€be€used€to€show€that€heĻwasnššt€afraid.€€And€so€for€that€reason€the€Courtššs€going€to€letĻthat€in.ĢĢÓ  ÓÓÓĢą ąThe€defendant,€his€mother€and€his€wife,€all€testified€about€his€blindness€inĻone€eye,€and€about€how€he€was€always€protective€of€his€other€eye.€€One€of€theĻdefendantššs€main€theories€was€that€he€acted€on€this€occasion€as€he€did€because€of€hisĻapprehension€and€fear€of€losing€the€sight€in€his€other€good€eye.ĢĢą ąObviously,€as€we€have€indicated€in€ruling€on€the€previous€issue,€the€stateĻwas€entitled€to€cross„examine€the€witnesses€regarding€this€š štough€manšš€evidence€in€anĻattempt€to€discredit€the€testimony€about€the€defendantššs€concern€for€protecting€his€eye.€ĶThe€state€was€entitled€to€develop€the€evidence€to€show€that€it€was€inconsistent€for€theĻdefendant€to€be€concerned€about€protecting€his€eye,€yet€for€him€to€participate€in€boxingĻand€other€athletic€events€which€could€have€caused€damage€to€his€good€eye.ĢĢą ąThe€admission€of€this€evidence€was€for€the€above€purpose€and€was€notĻused€by€the€state€as€character€evidence€against€the€defendant.€€Also,€the€defendantššsĻparticipation€in€this€boxing€event€indicated€his€belief€in€his€ability€to€defend€himself.€€AsĻsuch,€it€was€an€indication€that€the€defendant,€a€much€larger€man€than€the€victim,€didĻnot€š šhave€a€reasonable€beliefšš€that€there€was€š šan€imminent€danger€of€death€or€seriousĻbodily€injuryšš€to€him,€as€well€as€being€an€indication€that€the€š šdanger€creating€the€beliefĻof€imminent€death€or€serious€bodily€injuryšš€was€not€real€or€honestly€believed€to€be€realĻat€the€time,€nor€was€it€š šfounded€upon€reasonable€grounds.šš€€T.C.A.€šš€39„11„611(a).€ĻThese€are€elements€which€must€be€established€when€a€defendant€relies€on€theĻdefense€of€self„defense.ĢĢą ąThe€evidence€was€clearly€admissible€and€its€admission€did€not€unfairlyĻprejudice€the€defendant.ĢĢą ąAnother€issue€by€the€defendant€challenges€the€admission€of€otherĻevidence€which€he€contends€should€have€been€excluded€because€it€was€irrelevant,Ļspeculative,€without€foundation€and€was€inadmissible€character€evidence.ĢĢą ąThis€evidence€concerned€some€of€the€testimony€given€by€the€umpire,ĻRick€Wear.€€Wear€had€testified€that€he€told€the€defendant€three€times€to€go€to€theĻdugout€or€he€would€eject€him€from€the€game.€€Wear€and€the€defendant€were€two€toĻthree€feet€apart€at€the€time.€€According€to€Wear,€the€defendant€said€to€him,€š šIššll€standĻwhere€œtheĢf„„„›€I€want€to,šš€at€which€time€Wear€š štossed€him€out€of€the€game.šš€€After€this€testimony,€theĻrecord€shows€the€following:ĢÓ  ÓÓÓą8 ąQ.€€Alright,€Sir.€€How€was€his€demeanor€as€he€said€that€toĻyou?ĢĢą8 ąA.€€Mr.€Mooney€was€extremely€mad.€€When€I€checked€himĻout€of€the€game,€you€know,€thereššs€a€particular€way€umpiresĻdo€that,€I€toss€my€hand€up€and€say€youššre€out€of€here.€€Mr.ĻMooney€at€œthat›€time€continued€to€argue.€€Iššve€dealt€withĻviolent€people,€I€was€a€police€officer€for€ten€years,€so€I€knowĻwhat€a€violent€person€is.€€I€know€how€to€deal€with€violentĻpeople.€€I€know€at€what€œpoint›€these€people€become€angry.ĢĢą8 ąMR.€LOWE€(defense€counsel):€Objection,€your€honor.€ĻIrrelevant.ĢĢą8 ąTHE€COURT:€He€can€obviously€say€that€he€was€a€policeĻofficer€and€has€dealt€with€situations€before,€so..ĢĢą8 ąA.€€Okay.€€I€was€a€police€officer€for€ten€years.€€Iššve€dealt€withĻsituations€where€I€have€to€talk€face€to€face€with€people€and€IĻknow€when€theyššre€violent,€at€what€point,€you€know,€weĻhave€to€do€something€to€either€defend€ourself,€arrest€theseĻpeople€or€whatever.€€Mr.€Mooney€was€to€the€point€where€IĻfelt€like€he€was€going€to€become€violent.€€At€that€point€IĻturned€and€walked€away.€€I€felt€like€if€I€hadnššt€walked€awayĶat€that€time,€there€would€have€been€some€type€of€physicalĻcontact.ĢĢą8 ąQ.€€What€happened€then?ĢĢą8 ąA.€€Mr.€Mooney€continued€to€argue.€€He€told€me€he€would€beĻback.ĢĢÓ  ÓÓÓĢą ąIn€Tennessee,€the€admissibility€and€relevance€of€evidence€is€within€theĻsound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€When€arriving€at€a€determination€to€admit€or€excludeĻeven€that€evidence€which€is€considered€relevant,€trial€courts€are€generally€accorded€aĻwide€degree€of€latitude€and€will€only€be€overturned€on€appeal€where€there€is€aĻshowing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€ņņState€v.€Westóó,€737€S.W.2d€790,€793€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ϝ1987);€ņņState€v.€Moffettóó,€729€S.W.2d€679,€682€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986);›€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ļ401.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€this€case.ĢĢą ąInitially,€we€note€that€at€the€trial,€the€defendantššs€only€objection€to€thisĻevidence€was€on€the€ground€that€it€was€irrelevant,€and€thus€this€is€the€only€ground€thatĻhas€been€properly€preserved€for€appellate€review.€€A€trial€œjudge›€will€not€be€put€in€errorĻon€grounds€raised€for€the€first€time€on€appeal€when€the€objection€at€trial€was€based€onĻanother€ground€which€was€declared€insufficient.€€ņņState€v.€Brockóó,€678€S.W.2d€486,€490Ļ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€In€any€event,€all€of€the€objections€raised€to€this€testimony€areĻwithout€merit.ĢĢą ąWhether€disputed€testimony€is€relevant€must€be€considered€in€the€contextĻin€which€it€is€given.€€Wearššs€testimony€about€his€experience€with€š šviolent€peoplešš€whileĻhe€was€a€police€officer€was€nothing€more€than€an€explanation€of€why€he€had€turnedĻand€walked€away€in€order€to€avoid€trouble€with€the€defendant.€€Wear€stated€that€š šI€feltĻlike€if€I€hadnššt€walked€away€at€that€time,€there€would€have€been€some€type€of€physicalĻcontact.šš€€Thus,€his€past€experience€as€a€police€officer€was€relevant€to€show€his€state€ofĻmind€at€the€time,€and€explained€the€actions€he€took€in€an€attempt€to€avoid€the€difficultyĻwhich€he€perceived€would€take€place,€had€he€not€walked€away.ĢĢą ąFor€the€same€reasons€expressed€above,€we€also€find€that€the€evidenceĻwas€not€speculative,€was€not€without€foundation,€nor€was€it€admitted€as€characterĻevidence.€€We€especially€point€out€that€the€witness€was€not€expressing€his€opinion€asĻto€whether€the€defendant€was€a€violent€person.€€He€was€merely€speaking€of€hisĻknowledge€of€š šviolent€peoplešš€in€the€abstract.€€Concerning€the€defendant,€the€witnessĻsaid€that€he€felt€like€the€defendant€š šwas€going€to€become€violent,šš€not€that€he€was€aĻviolent€person€at€that€time.ĢĢą ąWe€find€no€merit€to€this€issue.ĢĢą ąThe€defendant€also€claims€that€the€evidence€regarding€his€secondĻcharge€of€driving€on€a€suspended€license€should€have€been€excluded€by€the€trialĶcourt.€The€defendant€argues€that€the€stop€of€his€car€was€illegal,€and€therefore€theĻevidence€should€have€been€suppressed.ĢĢą ąThe€defendant€has€waived€this€issue€for€the€reason€that€he€did€not€file€aĻpretrial€motion€to€suppress€this€evidence.€€Motions€to€suppress€evidence€must€beĻraised€prior€to€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(3).ĢĢą ąOur€court€has€held€that€š š[f]ailure€to€timely€raise€objections€which€must€beĻmade€prior€to€trial€constitutes€a€waiver€of€those€objections,€but€the€Court€can€for€goodĻcause€grant€relief€from€the€waiver.šš€€ņņState€v.€McCrayóó,€614€S.W.2d€90,€94€(Tenn.€Crim.ĻApp.€1981);€ņņseeóó€ņņalsoóó€ņņState€v.€Randolphóó,€692€S.W.2d€37,€40€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€ĻNo€good€cause€was€shown€in€the€present€case.€ĢĢą ąIn€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inĻdenying€him€probation,€and€also€claims€that€his€sentence,€as€set€by€the€trial€court,€wasĻexcessive.ĢĢą ąIn€reviewing€sentencing€issues,€including€the€alleged€excessiveness€ofĻthe€sentence,€as€well€as€the€granting€or€denial€of€probation,€this€court€is€obligated€toĻconduct€a€ņņdeóó€ņņnovoóó€review€on€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinationsĻmade€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€T.C.A.€šš€40„35„401(d)€(1990);€ņņState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805ĶS.W.2d€785€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€We€have€interpreted€this€standard€of€review€toĻmean€that€if€the€trial€court€properly€considers€the€relevant€factors,€and€the€findings€ofĻfact€by€the€trial€court€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€must€affirm€evenĻif€we€as€the€reviewing€court€would€prefer€a€different€result.€€ņņIdóó.€€ĢĢą ąHowever,€š šthe€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trialĻcourtššs€action€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialĻcourt€considered€the€appropriate€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andĻcircumstances.šš€€ņņState€v.€œAshbyóó,›€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€burden€is€onĻthe€defendant€to€show€that€the€sentence€imposed€was€œimproper.Ģ›Ģą ąIn€fixing€a€particular€sentence,€if€the€trial€court€fails€š što€state€the€mitigatingĻand€enhancement€factors€relied€upon,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€onĻappeal,šš€and€in€that€event,€appellate€review€is€ņņdeóó€ņņnovoóó€upon€the€record.€€ņņState€v.ĻJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€600€(Tenn.€1994).ĢĢą ąRegarding€the€issue€of€probation,€especially€mitigated€or€standardĻoffenders€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony€are€presumed€to€be€favorableĻcandidates€š šfor€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€theĻcontrary.šš€€T.C.A.€šš€40„35„102(6).€€With€certain€statutory€exceptions,€none€of€whichĻapply€in€the€present€case,€probation€must€be€automatically€considered€by€the€trial€courtĶif€the€sentence€imposed€is€eight€years€or€less.€€Where€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€theĻstatutory€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing,€the€state€has€the€burden€ofĻovercoming€the€presumption€with€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€Conversely,€the€defendantĻhas€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€probation,€even€if€the€defendant€is€entitledĻto€the€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing.€€T.C.A.€šš€40„35„303(b)€(Supp.€1994).€ĻThe€obligation€rests€on€the€defendant€to€establish€that€probation€will€not€only€serve€œhis›Ļbest€interest€but€is€also€in€the€best€interest€of€society.€€ņņState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,Ļ259€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€ņņState€v.€Grearóó,€568€S.W.2d€285,€286€(Tenn.€1978).ĢĢą ąThe€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved€are€to€beĻconsidered€in€ruling€on€the€question€of€probation.€€Other€criteria€to€be€considered€areĻthe€defendantššs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation,€including€the€risks€thatĻduring€the€period€of€probation€the€defendant€will€commit€another€crime,€whether€aĻsentence€of€probation€would€unduly€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€andĻwhether€a€sentence€other€than€probation€would€provide€an€effective€deterrent€to€othersĻlikely€to€commit€similar€crimes.€€T.C.A.€šššš€40„35„103(1)(B),€(5);€40„35„210(b)(4).ĢĢą ąFurther,€one€factor€may€be€sufficient€for€the€trial€court€to€deny€probation.€ĻņņState€v.€Gentryóó,€656€S.W.2d€53,€55€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Also,€the€circumstancesĻof€the€offense,€especially€where€violence€is€employed,€may€be€appropriateĶconsiderations€in€the€denial€of€probation.€€ņņState€v.€Gennoeóó,€851€S.W.2d€833,€837Ļ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ĢĢą ąAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€pointed€out€the€seriousness€ofĻthe€defendantššs€offense€and€the€aggravating€circumstances€that€were€present€in€hisĻcommission€of€the€offense.€€Among€other€things,€the€court€said:ĢÓ  ÓÓÓą8 ąą ąI€must€say€that€except€for€murder€cases€that€this€courtĻhas€tried,€that€I€have€never€seen€a€more€heinous€attack€on€aĻfellow€human€being€thatššs€come€through€this€court.€€YouĻunmercifully€and€unprovoked,€out€of€control,€beat€and€like€toĻhave€killed€a€man€who€was€just€doing€his€job.€€You€left€theĻball€field€after€objecting€to€a€call€and€walked€all€around€theĻpark€up€there,€looking€to€find€somebody€to€fight.€€Now€thatššsĻwhat€the€court€thinks.€€Stated€that€you€were€going€to€š šf„„„ingššĻkill€somebody,€as€I€recall€the€testimony.ĢĢą8 ąą ąAnd€you€came€into€this€court€and€stated€that€you€didĻwhat€you€did€to€Mr.€LaFollette€because€you€were€afraid€ofĻyour€eye,€that€he€was€going€to€hit€you€in€the€eye.€€That€IĻtotally€reject;€find€it€totally€and€completely€without€any€meritĻwhatsoever.€€The€Jury€totally€rejected€that.ĢĢą8 ąą ąYou€are€a€strong,€powerfully€built€man€who€has€aĻhistory€of€engaging€in€strong€physical€labor€and€involved€inĻsports,€the€tough€man€contests.€€Nobody€in€this€courtroomĻbelieved€that€you€were€afraid€of€Steve€LaFollette.€€And€evenĻif€you€were,€and€as€I€say,€I€reject€that,€but€even€if€you€were,Ļyou€provoked€any€attack,€you€started€it.€€You€started€it.€ĢĢą8 ąą ąAnd€I€say€the€damage€that€you€did€to€this€man€is€soĻoutrageously€excessive,€his€eyeball€hanging€out€of€itsĻsocket,€you€shattered€his€eye€socket,€the€surgeries€that€thisĻman€has€gone€through,€the€damage€that€this€man€has€goneĻthrough,€that€he€will€have€to€go€through€for€the€rest€of€hisĶlife,€it€is€totally€and€completely€out€of€€proportion€to€anyĻsense€of€human€decency.ĢĢÓ  ӜĢÓӛą ąThe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€defendant€was€not€entitled€to€probation.€ĻWe€agree.€€The€trial€court€properly€exercised€its€discretion€in€denying€probation€to€theĻdefendant.ĢĢą ąThe€defendant€also€claims€that€the€sentence€imposed€was€excessive.€ĻFor€his€conviction€of€aggravated€assault,€a€Class€C€felony,€the€defendant€was€eligible,Ļas€a€Range€I€offender,€for€a€sentence€of€not€less€than€three€(3)€years,€nor€more€than€sixĻ(6)€years.€€T.C.A.€šš€40„35„112(a)(3).€€The€trial€court€imposed€upon€him€the€maximumĻsentence€of€six€years.ĢĢą ąRegarding€the€length€of€a€particular€sentence,€the€sentence€imposed€byĻthe€trial€court€is€presumptively€the€minimum€in€the€range€unless€there€areĻenhancement€factors€present.€€T.C.A.€šš€40„35„210(c).€€In€ņņState€v.€Jonesóó,€ņņsupraóó,€theĻcourt€said€the€following:ĢÓ  ÓÓÓą8 ąœThe›€sentence€imposed€cannot€exceed€the€minimumĻsentence€in€the€range€unless€the€state€proves€enhancementĻfactors.€€If€there€are€enhancement€but€no€mitigating€factors,Ļthen€the€court€š šmay€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€inĻthat€range€but€still€within€the€range.šš€€T.C.A.€šš€40„35„210(d).€ĻIf€there€are€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€œš šthe›€courtĻmust€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range,€enhanceĻthe€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€theĻenhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€withinĶthe€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.šš€€T.C.A.€ššĻ40„35„210(e).ĢĢą8 ąą ąHowever,€only€those€enhancement€factorsĻspecifically€authorized€by€statute€may€be€used€to€increase€aĻsentence.€€Further,€there€are€two€significant€limitations€onĻthe€use€of€enhancement€factors€that€may€be€established€byĻthe€proof€„„€enhancement€factors€€must€be€š šappropriate€forĻthe€offensešš€and€š šnot€themselves€essential€elements€of€theĻoffense.šš€€T.C.A.€šš€40„35„114.€€The€obvious€purpose€ofĻthese€limitations€is€to€exclude€enhancement€factors€whichĻare€not€relevant€to€the€offense€and€those€based€on€factsĻwhich€œare›€used€to€prove€the€offense.€€Facts€which€establishĻthe€elements€of€the€offense€charged€may€not€also€be€theĻbasis€of€an€enhancement€factor€increasing€œpunishment.Ģ›ĢÓ  ÓÓÓ883€S.W.2d€at€601.ĢĢą ąThe€appropriate€statutory€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors€are€set€forth€inĻT.C.A.€šššš€€40„35„113€and€„114.€€The€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductĻinvolved€are€to€be€considered€along€with€the€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors.€€T.C.A.Ļšš€40„35„210(4)€and€(5).ĢĢą ąIn€setting€the€maximum€sentence€of€six€years€for€the€defendant,€the€trialĻcourt€specifically€found€two€applicable€enhancing€factors,€one€being€that€the€defendantĻhad€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior,€and€the€other€beingĻthat€the€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€where€the€risk€to€humanĻlife€was€high.€€T.C.A.€šš€40„35„114(1)€and€(10).€€In€the€opinion€of€the€trial€court,€noĻapplicable€mitigating€factors€were€present.ĢĢą ąThe€factor€involving€the€defendantššs€previous€history€of€criminalĻconvictions€is€not€in€dispute.€€His€prior€convictions€were€for€misdemeanors.€€In€1985,Ļhe€was€found€guilty€of€disturbing€the€peace€and€was€fined€fifty€dollars€and€sentencedĻto€thirty€days.€€In€1986,€he€was€sentenced€to€thirty€days€and€fined€one€hundred€dollars€Ļupon€his€conviction€for€battery.€€In€1987,€he€was€convicted€of€driving€while€intoxicated,Ļand€received€a€fine€of€one€hundred€dollars€and€a€suspended€sentence€of€six€months,Ļand€in€1990,€he€was€convicted€of€a€battery,€and€he€was€placed€on€probation€for€two€Ļyears.€€Thus,€it€was€proper€for€the€trial€court€to€use€this€factor€in€considering€whether€toĻincrease€the€defendantššs€sentence€above€the€minimum€sentence.ĢĢą ąAlso,€enhancement€factor€(10),€listed€under€T.C.A.€šš€40„35„Ģ114€„„€that€the€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€where€the€risk€toĻhuman€life€was€high€„„€was€an€appropriate€factor€to€use€in€this€case.€€The€facts€andĻcircumstances€surrounding€the€commission€of€this€offense€of€aggravated€assault€showĻthat€this€factor€was€not€relevant€to€the€establishment€of€the€offense€of€aggravatedĻassault,€nor€was€it€an€element€of€aggravated€assault.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņState€v.€Jonesóó,€ņņsupraóó.ĢĢą ąIn€the€ņņJonesóó€case,€the€defendant€was€found€guilty€of€aggravated€assault.€ĻThat€case€involved€a€purse€snatching€incident€where€the€defendant€pushed€the€victimĻdown€causing€her€to€sustain€serious€bodily€injury.€€The€supreme€court€held€that€sinceĶš šhigh€ņņriskóó€to€human€life€obviously€is€not€required€to€establish€aggravated€assaultϜcausing€serious›€bodily€ņņinjuryóó,€enhancement€factor€(10)€is€not€an€element€of€the€offenseĻcharged€and€is€not€precluded€from€consideration€for€enhancement€purposes€.€.€.€.šš€€883ĻS.W.2d€at€602,€603.€€However,€in€ņņJonesóó,€the€court€declined€to€apply€this€factor€becauseĻš šthere€is€no€evidence€that€the€defendantššs€actions€created€a€high€risk€to€human€life.šš€€ņņIdóó.Ļat€603.ĢĢą ąNevertheless,€the€facts€in€the€present€case€are€far€different€from€the€factsĻin€the€ņņJonesóó€case.€€We€see€no€need€to€restate€the€aggravating€facts€in€this€case.€€TheĻevidence€we€have€set€out€in€this€opinion,€along€with€the€trial€œjudgeššs›€comments€andĻconclusions€set€forth€above,€well€demonstrate€that€the€defendantššs€actions€created€aĻhigh€risk€to€the€victimššs€life.€€Suffice€it€to€say,€the€defendant€gave€the€victim€a€brutal€andĻvicious€beating,€his€actions€being€far€in€excess€of€those€actions€that€constitute€theĻoffense€of€aggravated€assault.€€Except€for€the€intervention€of€others,€the€defendantĻcould€well€have€been€on€trial€for€a€higher€offense€than€aggravated€assault.€ĻEnhancement€factor€(10)€was€properly€utilized€in€this€case€to€increase€the€defendantššsĻpunishment.ĢĢą ąAlso,€while€it€does€not€appear€that€the€trial€œjudge›€used€it,€the€facts€in€thisĻcase€would€warrant€the€use€of€enhancement€factor€(5)€under€T.C.A.€šš€40„35„114.€€ThisĻfactor€is€applicable€where€š šThe€defendant€treated€or€allowed€a€victim€to€be€treated€withĶexceptional€cruelty€during€the€commission€of€the€offense.šš€€While€any€offense€ofĻaggravated€assault€involves€some€cruelty,€the€cruelty€in€this€case€far€exceeded€theĻrequisite€amount.ĢĢą ąThus,€we€find€that€enhancement€factors€(1),€(5),€and€(10)€are€applicableĻin€this€case.ĢĢą ąThe€trial€œjudge›€found€that€no€mitigating€factors€were€present.€ĻNotwithstanding€that€finding,€the€record€does€contain€some€facts€that€offer€someĻmitigation.ĢĢą ąThe€record€shows€that€the€defendant€was€twenty„nine€years€of€age,€hadĻbeen€married€for€five€years,€and€had€one€child.€€At€the€time€of€the€hearing,€he€wasĻliving€in€Louisiana,€and€was€gainfully€employed€as€a€crew€foreman€by€the€C.B.€KingĻConstruction€Company.€€The€defendant€had€no€prior€felony€convictions,€but€had€four€Ļprior€misdemeanor€convictions,€which€we€mentioned€earlier€in€this€opinion.ĢĢą ąThe€defendant€argues€that€he€was€entitled€to€some€consideration€on€hisĻsentence€for€several€reasons,€including€his€good€work€record,€his€social€history,€hisĻrepentance€and€remorse,€and€his€willingness€to€pay€restitution.€€The€state€suggestsĻthat€the€trial€œjudge›€should€have€given€some€consideration€to€these€factors€in€mitigation,Ķpursuant€to€the€š šcatch„allšš€mitigating€factor€in€T.C.A.€šš€40„35„113(13),€but€says€thatĻenhancement€factor€(10)€outweighs€the€mitigating€evidence€presented€by€theĻdefendant.ĢĢą ąIt€does€appear€that€the€defendant€had€a€favorable€work€record.€€HisĻLouisiana€employer€furnished€a€letter€to€the€court€favorably€recommending€him.€€OtherĻinformation€in€the€record€indicated€a€stable€family€situation.€€His€child€had€been€bornĻafter€the€trial€but€before€the€sentencing€hearing.€€He€had€stated€his€regret€for€theĻincident,€and€indicated€his€willingness€to€pay€restitution,€and€once€during€a€recess€atĻthe€last€trial€he€had€expressed€his€remorse€to€the€victim.€€Also,€in€his€favor,€as€indicatedĻheretofore,€the€defendant€had€no€prior€felony€œconvictions.›€€We€agree€with€the€stateššsĻsuggestion€that€the€trial€judge€should€have€given€some€consideration€to€these€factorsĻin€mitigation.œ›ĢĢą ąFrom€all€of€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€the€defendant€is€entitled€toĻsome€consideration€for€these€favorable€factors€in€mitigation,€but€nevertheless,€theĻaggravating€facts€and€circumstances€of€this€case,€when€considered€in€the€light€of€theĻenhancement€factors,€dictate€that€his€sentence€should€be€set€close€to€the€maximumĻsentence.€€For€all€the€reasons€stated,€we€hold€that€five€years€would€be€an€appropriateĻsentence€for€the€defendant,€and€the€judgment€shall€be€modified€to€reduce€his€sentenceĻfrom€six€years€to€five€years.ĢĢą ąIn€conclusion,€we€state€that€while€we€have€found€a€couple€of€minor€errorsĻin€this€case,€they€quite€clearly€do€not€rise€to€the€level€of€being€reversible€errors.€€TheĻrecord€affirmatively€demonstrates€that€the€defendant€received€a€fair€trial€by€the€jury.€ĻAccordingly,€the€defendantššs€conviction€of€aggravated€assault€is€affirmed,€as€modifiedĻabove.€€Also,€his€conviction€(in€the€first€trial)€of€driving€on€a€suspended€license€isĻaffirmed.ĢĢÓÓą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą____________________________Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąJoe€D.€Duncan,€Special€JudgeĢ̜ĢCONCUR:›ĢĢĢĢ_____________________________ĢJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeĢĢĢĢ______________________________ĢJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€Judge