ÿWPC. …# VUNa %¯ 0ñµw@¦ U:æ 4 4 C 0JK 0T• 0^é 0hG 0r¯ 0|! 0† 0# 1u³U,( 0dTU,¸U>äU*"B)L BuDC’ AMÕ£"v~Å D3CvÓv 0@I AO‰ÆØ 0Dž D/â B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(É‚$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€X•XXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓ Ó{ÔÕÖרÙ[Ú[ÛÓ€ç,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular»{s dö §B©3|xç2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ™Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÔ€#ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ28,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÔ€#ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ýš›à@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÙ€€ÙœßL€'(&;+'h|¼–` ´- `€€Lß›à@ àòòAT€JACKSON€óóÌà@ àœFEBRUARY€1996€SESSION›ÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àœ€€€€*€€€C.C.A.›€NO.€œ02C01›„9502„CC„00032€Ìà àAPPELLEE,à àà àà àœ€€€€*€€€FAYETTE›€COUNTYÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àœ€€€€*€€€Hon.›€Jon€KerryÏœBlackwood›,€JudgeÌÓÓTHOMAS€EDWARD€œMURPHY,€JR.,€*€€(Second›€DegreeÏMurder)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÓÓà àAPPELLANT.à àà àœ€€€€€*›à à€Ìà àà àÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÓÓœShana›€C.€œMcCoy›à àà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏœBurson›ÌœAssistant›€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€GeneralÏand€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€700à àà àà àà à450€James€RobertsonÏParkwayÌSomerville,€TN€€38068„0700à àà àNashville,€TN€Ï37243„0493Ì(on€appeal€and€at€trial)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœDarian›€B.€TaylorÌJulie€K.€Pillowà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌœAsst›.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌP.O.€Box€700à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌSomerville,€TN€€38068„0700à àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ì(at€trial)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€Walter€œFreeland›€&Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àChris€œMarshburn›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à302€Market€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSomerville,€TN€€38068à àà à€ÌÌà àà àà àÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€____________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÔ€#ôÔÇÓ  ÓÑ7€ö.XXdìXXdæ7Ñ€òòò òOPINIONó óóóÌÓ  ÓÔ€#XÔÌÓÓà àœà àThe›€defendant,€Thomas€E.€œMurphy,€Jr.,€›€was€convicted€of€the€secondÏdegree€murder€of€his€daughter,€œLatashia›€Murphy.€€The€trial€court€imposed€anÏœeighteen„year›€sentence.€€In€addition€to€his€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence,€the€defendant€submits€the€following€issues€for€review:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓœ(1)€€whether›€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€grant€aÏmistrial€because€of€the€juryððs€exposure€to€a€newspaperÏarticle€published€on€the€first€day€of€the€trial;ÌÌœ(2)€€whether›€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€grant€œa›Ïmistrial€œdue€to›€a€reference€to€a€prior€arrest€of€theÏdefendant;€and€ÌÌœ(3)€€whether›€the€sentence€was€excessive.ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÌÓÓœWe›€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àThe€partially„decomposed€body€of€the€œeighteen„year„old›€victim€wasÏdiscovered€on€February€6,€œ1994,›€in€an€abandoned€graveyard€in€œFayette›€œCounty.›€ÏThere€were€two€bullet€holes€through€her€chest€and€one€through€her€head.€€A€nineÏmillimeter€shell€casing€was€found€beside€her€body.€€At€trial,€the€pathologist€whoÏexamined€the€body€testified€that€any€of€these€three€wounds€would€have€caused€theÏœinstantaneous€death›€of€the€victim.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€œhalf„brother,›€Douglas€œMurphy€(referred€to€asÏMurphy),›€was€a€key€witness€for€the€œstate.›€€He€testified€that€the€defendant€hadÏlearned€œsome€six€years€earlier€that›€the€victim,€known€as€œTashia›,€was€his€œdaughter.›€ÏœMurphy›€related€œthat€he›€was€with€his€girlfriend,€œTonya›€Cornelius,€at€the€defendantððsÏresidence€in€œOakland,›€œTennessee,€on€December€23,€1993,€the€last€day€that€theÏvictim€was€seen€alive.›€€He€testified€that€the€victim€had€an€argument€with€theÏdefendant€about€her€boyfriend,€Mickey€œGansman,€and€threatened€her:€›€ððWell,€I€canÏjust€put€an€end€to€œthat[;]›€€I€can€take€care€of€Mickey€and€youððll€never€have€to€worryÏabout€going€to€his€house€œagain.ðð›ÌÌà àà àDuring€this€œargument›œ,›€the€defendant€and€his€daughter€pushed€eachÏother;€and€the€defendant€called€her€a€œwhore›€and€threatened€œher€life.€›€When€theÏdefendant€continued€his€threats,€the€victim,€visibly€upset,€locked€herself€in€theÏbathroom€and€responded,€ð ðWell€if€you€do,€Iððll€see€you€in€Hell.ðð€€Meanwhile,€theÏdefendant,€while€holding€his€nine€millimeter€gun€and€pulling€the€slide€back,€againÏthreatened€to€kill€the€victim.€€The€defendant€then€told€Murphy€and€Ms.€Cornelius,Ïð ðœ[Y]ððall›€havenððt€seen€and€œyððall›€donððt€know€œnothing.ðð›€ÌÌà àà àOn€their€ride€to€their€residence,€œMurphy›€and€Ms.€Cornelius€sawÏNathan€œBlackard›,€the€defendant's€stepson,€and€Nathanððs€stepbrother,€MarkÍœSeasongood›.€€They€told€Nathan€and€Mark€of€the€argument€and€warned€them€not€toÏgo€to€the€defendantððs€residence.€€All€four€then€proceeded€to€the€home€of€œMurphyððs›Ïex„wife,€œVickie›€Murphy,€in€Bartlett,€Tennessee.€œ€About›€forty„five€minutes€œlater,›€œtheÏdefendant€arrived;€he€was€armed›€with€the€nine€millimeter€œweapon€and›€had€mud€onÏhis€boots€and€pants€legs.€€œThe›€defendant€claimed€that€he€had€dropped€the€victim€offÏat€her€boyfriendððs€house€in€Memphis€and€then€returned€to€œBartlett.›€€œÌÌà àà àA›€few€days€later,€however,€during€a€trip€to€Florida,€the€defendantÏœacknowledged›€to€his€œhalf„brother›€that€he€had€killed€the€œvictim;›€œMurphy›€testified€thatÏthe€defendant,€who€had€been€drinking,€was€crying€as€he€confessed€the€crime.€ÏœMurphy€also€testified€about€another€prior€conversation€in€which€the€defendantÏasked€Murphy€and€his€stepson,€Nathan,€if›€they€had€ever€seen€a€decomposed€body;Ïthe€defendant€then€said,€€ð ðSomebody€œyððall›€know€and€that€œyððall›€love€and€will€neverÏsee€again€is€not€far€from€œhere.ðð›ÌÌà àà àPolice€recovered€the€Czechoslovakian„made€nine€millimeter€semi„automatic€gun€owned€by€the€œdefendant.›€€At€the€trial,€Mr.€George€œJeram›,€recalledÏthat€the€defendant€had€come€into€his€liquor€store€around€New€Yearððs€œDay,€shortlyÏafter€the€victimððs€disappearance,›€wanting€to€sell€the€gun€and€all€of€his€otherÏbelongings€so€that€he€would€have€cash€to€move€out€œwest.›ÌÌà àœà àSteve›€Scott,€a€forensic€scientist€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation,€conducted€tests€on€the€defendantððs€weapon€and€upon€the€cartridgesÏfound€near€the€body€and€just€outside€the€defendantððs€residence.€€Scott€concludedÏthat€a€number€of€these€cartridge€cases,€including€the€one€found€beside€the€body,Ïwere€fired€from€the€defendantððs€nine€millimeter€œgun.›ÌÌà àœà àTonya›€Cornelius€corroborated€Doug€Murphyððs€account€of€the€eventsÏof€December€23,€1993.€€She€added€that€the€defendant€appeared€to€œbe›€ð ðhyper,ðð€red,Ïand€sweaty€by€the€time€he€arrived€at€œVickie›€œMurphyððs›€œhouse.›€€œMs.›€Cornelius€testifiedÏthat€the€victimððs€belongings,€except€her€purse,€were€still€at€the€defendantððsÏresidence.€€She€specifically€recalled€seeing€the€victimððs€makeup,€because€theÏvictim€had€always€taken€her€makeup€when€she€left€home€on€earlier€occasions.ÌÌà àà àMs.€Cornelius€testified€that€the€defendant€and€victim€had€bickered€butÏthat€it€was€very€unusual€for€them€to€engage€in€a€physical€altercation.€€She€claimedÏthat€she€would€never€have€left€the€defendantððs€house€had€she€any€idea€that€€ð ðany€ofÏthis€would€œhappen[].ð𛀀Ms.€Cornelius€recalled€that€the€defendant€had€called€hisÏdaughter€ð ðœwhore›ðð€because€she€had€recently€slept€with€her€stepbrother,€NathanÍœBlackard›,€who€did€in€fact,€have€a€sexual€encounter€with€the€victim€a€week€beforeÏher€œdisappearance.›ÌÌà àœà àNathan›€œBlackard›€testified€that€he€had€left€the€defendantððs€residenceÏœearly€on›€the€morning€of€the€victimððs€disappearance.€€At€about€11:00€a.m.€he€sawÏMurphy€and€Ms.€œCornelius;€after›€some€œconversation,€he€decided›€not€to€go€back€toÏthe€defendantððs€house,€and€instead,€was€at€œVickie›€Murphyððs€house€when€theÏœdefendant€arrived.›ÌÌà àà àœBlackard›€also€testified€about€his€trip€to€Cocoa€Beach,€Florida,€with€theÏœdefendant.›€€During€that€month€and€a€half€to€two€months€period,€the€defendantÏexpressed€concern€about€his€daughter€being€missing.€€While€acting€normallyÏduring€most€of€the€Florida€trip,€the€defendant,€according€to€œBlackard›,€eventuallyÏbegan€to€act€paranoid€and€pick€fights.ÌÌà àà àœVickie›€Murphy€confirmed€that€on€December€23,€1992,€Doug€Murphy€Ïand€œTonya›€Cornelius€arrived€at€€her€house€with€Nathan€œBlackard›€and€MarkÏœSeasongood›.€She€testified€that€the€defendant€arrived€about€and€hour€or€so€laterÏand€tracked€mud€into€her€house;€the€defendant€then€œcontacted›€œMichael›€œGansman›,Ïtelling€him€that€he€had€left€the€victim€at€his€doorstep.€€Ms.€Murphy€claimed€that€theÍdefendant€had€a€nine€millimeter€Czechoslovakian€semi„automatic€in€hisÏpossession€and€œasserted€that›€he€always€carried€œthe›€œweapon.›€œ€She›€stated€thatÏseveral€days€later€the€defendant€told€her€that€the€victim€was€in€Florida.ÌÌà àà àœMichael€Gansman›€testified€that€the€victim€had€been€his€girlfriend€forÏabout€a€year€and€a€half€at€the€time€of€her€disappearance.€€He€claimed€that€he€lastÏsaw€her€on€December€œ21st›€or€œ22nd›€and€that,€on€December€23,€the€victim€wasÏsupposed€to€beep€him€at€his€job.€€œGansman›€testified€that€he€œreceived€three€or€fourÏbeeper›€œmessages›€at€about€1:00€p.m.€on€that€œdate.€€The€beeper€display€indicatedÏthe€calls€were€made€from€the€defendantððs€residence€and€also€contained€the€victimððsÏusual€message€followed€by€ð ð911.ð𛀀œGansman›€explained€that€he€could€not€answerÏthe€call€because€he€was€working€on€a€roof€at€that€time.€€œLater€in€the€day,€GansmanÏwas€beeped€again,€the€beeper€display€indicating€the€call€was€being€made€fromÏVickie€Murphyððs€house.€€Gansman€did€return€this€call€and€spoke€with€the€defendant,Ïwho€told€him€he€had€dropped€the€victim€off€at€Gansmanððs€residence.›€€œÌÌÓ  Ó›I.ÌÓ  Óà àœà àThe›€œdefendant›€first€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€toÏsupport€the€verdict€of€second€degree€murder.€€When€sufficiency€is€at€issue,€ofÏcourse,€this€court€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€atÍtrial€was€sufficient€"to€support€the€finding€of€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt."€œ€Tenn.›€R.€œApp›.€P.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€mayÏbe€drawn€œtherefrom.€€òòState›€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€ThisÏcourt€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€re„evaluate€the€evidence,€or€substitute€itsÏevidentiary€inferences€for€those€reached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Careyóó,€914€S.W.2dÏ93,€95€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1995).ÌÌà àœà àFurthermore,›€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€givenÏtheir€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€that€testimony€are€mattersÏentrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2dÏ542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€€òòœByrge›€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.Ï1978).€€The€relevant€question€for€this€œcourt›€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€inÏthe€light€most€favorable€to€the€œstate,›€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€determinedÏthat€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€were€established€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€314„24€(1979);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838ÏS.W.2d€185,€190„91€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€114€S.€Ct.€740€(1994).€€ÌÌà àœà àIn›€order€to€satisfy€the€elements€of€second€degree€murder,€the€œstate›Ïmust€have€proven€that€the€defendant€œ(1)€unlawfully›€killed€the€victim€and€(2)€that€theÍkilling€was€knowing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€œ39„13„210(a)(1).›€€Knowing€is€defined€as,Ïœð ð...€act[ing]›€knowingly€with€respect€to€the€conduct€or€to€circumstances€surroundingÏthe€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€of€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€that€theÏcircumstances€œexist."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(20).›€€In€our€assessment,€thatÏhas€been€shown.€€This€record€is€replete€with€evidence,€œprimarily€circumstantial,›€œthat›Ïthe€defendant€shot€and€killed€his€œdaughter›€and€that€he€did€so€in€a€knowing€manner.€ÏThe€two€witnesses€who€last€saw€the€victim€alive€testified€that€the€defendant€hadÏordered€them€to€leave€during€a€heated€argument€with€the€œvictim.€€›The€defendantÏwas€armed€with€a€cocked€gun€at€that€moment,€threatening€his€daughterððs€life.€€DougÏMurphy€and€œTonya›€Cornelius€testified€that€the€defendant€claimed€that€he€hadÏdropped€the€victim€off€at€Michael€œGansman›ððs€house;€œGansman›,€however,€neverÏfound€her€there€and€had€his€last€communication€from€her€in€a€beeper€message€atÏthe€same€time€the€defendant€had€argued€with€the€victim.€€Further,€the€defendantÏsold€his€gun€only€days€after€the€victim€disappeared€and€he€lied€about€his€reasonsÏfor€œdoing€it.›€€œThe€cartridge€found€near€the€body€matched€with€his€weapon.€€Finally,›Ïthe€defendant€confessed€his€crime€to€his€œhalf„brother.›€ÌÌà àœà àThe›€defendant€claims€that€the€conviction€was€based€upon€mereÏinference€from€circumstantial€evidence€only.€€In€this€state,€œhowever,€a›€crime€may€beÏestablished€by€the€use€of€circumstantial€evidence€only.€€òòState€v.€œTharpe›óó,€726ÍS.W.2d€896,€899„900€(Tenn.€1987);€€òòState€v.€œBordis›óó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€220€(Tenn.ÏœCrim›.€œApp›.€1995).€€If€based€entirely€upon€circumstantial€evidence€alone,€the€proofÏ"must€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€[beyond€a€reasonable€doubt]€everyÏother€reasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant."€€òòœBordis›óó,€905€S.W.2dÏat€220€(citing€òòState€v.€œCrawford›óó,€470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(Tenn.€1971)).€€Here€the€juryÏso€found.€€We€would€concur€in€that€assessment.€€In€our€œview,›€the€jury€had€sufficientÏevidence€to€conclude€that€the€proof€excluded€every€other€ð ðreasonable€hypothesisððÏexcepting€only€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€to€second€œdegree€murder.›ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  Óà àà àNext,€the€defendant€asserts€that€a€newspaper€article€which€appearedÏon€the€front€page€of€the€Metro€section€of€the€Commercial€Appeal€on€the€morningÏthat€the€trial€began€prejudiced€his€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€The€article€posed€as€a€motiveÏfor€the€crime€the€belief€of€œFayette›€County€investigators€that€the€victim€ð ðmay€haveÏthreatened€to€expose€her€father€as€a€drug€dealer€shortly€before€she€disappearedÏon€December€23.ðð€€Jennifer€œBiggs›,€òòDad€Goes€on€Trial€in€Teenððs€Slayingóó,ÏCommercial€Appeal,€August€1,€1994,€at€œB1›.€€The€article€claimed€that€the€defendantÏhad€œa€ð ðhistory›€of€drug„related€arrests€in€œShelby›€County.ðð€€œòòIdóó.€€The›€defendantÏcontends€that€law€enforcement€officers€who€cooperated€with€the€paper€intended€toÏprejudice€the€entire€jury€pool.ÌÌà àà àDuring€the€voir€dire,€several€prospective€jurors€acknowledged€thatÏthey€had€read€or€heard€information€about€the€case.€€One€juror€testified€that€hisÏexposure€was€limited€to€this€particular€œarticle;›€when€asked,€however,€whetherÏreading€the€article€had€ð ðcaused€[him]€to€form€an€opinion€about€the€guilt€orÏinnocence€of€the€accused,ðð€the€juror€answered€that€it€had.€€He€was€promptlyÏexcused.€€Five€other€prospective€jurors€had€read€œeither€the€headlines€or€the›€articleÏœthat›€morning.€€All€five€contended€that€they€had€not€formed€opinions€about€the€guiltÏor€innocence€of€the€defendant€based€upon€what€they€had€read.€€Each€agreed€toÏdetermine€the€merits€based€solely€upon€œtestimony›€œpresented›€during€the€trial.€€ThreeÏof€these€five€served€on€the€jury.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€statement€of€the€first€juror€prior€œtoÏ›being€excused€was€a€basis€for€the€others€in€the€jury€pool€to€infer€that€theÏnewspaper€article€was€negative.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€individual€voir€direÏwas€warranted.ÌÌà àà àThe€control€of€voir€dire€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏœjudge.€€òòState›€v.€œStephenson›óó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€540€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.ÏJeffersonóó,€529€S.W.2d€674,€682€(Tenn.€1975).€€While€the€trial€court€has€the€authorityÍto€question€the€prospective€jurors€individually,€Tenn.€R.€œCrim›.€P.€24(a),€this€is€onlyÏnecessary€when€there€is€a€significant€possibility€that€the€juror€has€been€exposed€toÏð ðpotentially€prejudicial€material.ðð€€òòState€v.€œClaybrook›óó,€736€S.W.2d€95,€100€(Tenn.Ï1987)€(quoting€òòœSommerville›€v.€Stateóó,€521€S.W.2d€792,€797€(Tenn.€1975)).€€Here€theÏdefendant€never€requested€individual€voir€dire;€that€typically€constitutes€aÏprocedural€bar€to€raising€the€issue€on€appeal.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€concedesÏthat€this€was€òònotóó€a€highly€publicized€case.€€This€single€article,€had€it€not€been€for€itsÏtiming,€would€not€likely€have€warranted€the€individual€examination€of€jurors.€€TheÏjudge€correctly€concluded€that€all€prospective€jurors,€except€the€one€who€had€beenÏexcluded,€could€base€their€verdicts€only€upon€what€they€were€to€hear€at€trial.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€œHowell›óó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€248€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€114€S.€Ct.€1339Ï(1994).€€The€contents€of€the€article€were€never€referred€to€in€front€of€the€other€jurors.€€€€ÌÌà àœà àThere›€was€no€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Comptonóó,€642€S.W.2dÏ745,€746€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1982);€€òòState€v.€œWitt›óó,€572€S.W.2d€913,€917€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€In€light€of€the€circumstances€here,€we€find€that€the€jury€was€not€prejudicedÏby€collective€voir€dire€and€€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€the€defendant'sÏmotion€for€a€mistrial.ÌÓ  Ӝ̛ÌIII.ÌÓ  Óà àà àNext,€the€defendant€claims€that€a€statement€by€a€state€witnessÏreferring€to€a€prior€arrest€of€the€defendant€should€have€resulted€in€a€mistrial.€€PriorÏto€trial,€defense€counsel€made€a€motion€to€exclude€any€reference€to€drug€activity€onÏthe€part€of€the€defendant.€€Trial€court€agreed€to€prohibit€such€references.€€During€theÏtestimony€of€Reed€œWestbrook›,€the€Memphis€police€officer€who€conducted€theÏmissing„person€report€on€the€victim,€he€referred€to€an€arrest€which€occurred€shortlyÏbefore€the€victimððs€death.€€When€asked€ð ð[œw]hat›€did€[defendant]€say€about€whatÏhappened€between€him€and€œTashia›,ðð€the€witness€responded,€ð ð[œt]hen›€a€day€or€soÏprior€to€that,€he€was€arrested€in€Memphis€and€he€felt€that€the€boyfriend€was€theÏcause€of€him€being€arrested.ðð€€Defense€counsel€immediately€sought€a€mistrial.ÌÌà àà àThe€state€concedes€that€the€statement€was€improper;€however,€weÏreject€Defendantððs€suggestion€that€the€State€somehow€was€responsible€for€thisÏtestimony.€€The€statement€was€neither€solicited€by€nor€responsive€to€the€StateððsÏquestion€by€the€prosecutor.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€923€(Tenn.Ï1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€116€S.€Ct.€99€(1995).€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€instructed€theÏjury€to€disregard€the€answer.€€The€law€presumes€that€the€jury€followed€theÏinstructions€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Greggóó,€874€S.W.2d€643,€644€(Tenn.€œCrim›.ÏœApp›.€1993).€€Moreover,€while€the€statement€should€have€been€excluded,€its€effect,Íin€the€context€of€the€entire€trial,€was€minimal.€€Tenn.€R.€œApp›.€P.€36(b).€€A€declarationÏof€mistrial€is€appropriate€only€when€absolutely€œnecessary.›€€òòSeeóó€œòòState€v.€Smithóó,›€893ÏS.W.2d€at€923€(upholding€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€mistrial€under€similarÏcircumstances).€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓIV.ÌÓ  Óœà à›à àFinally,€the€defendant€alleges€that€the€œeighteen„year›€sentence€isÏexcessive.€€When€an€appeal€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€ofÏa€sentence,€this€court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdetermination€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„401(d).›€€TheÏpresumption€of€correctness,€however,€œonly›€applies€when€the€record€demonstratesÏthat€the€trial€court€properly€considered€the€relevant€sentencing€principles€and€allÏrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€œAshby›óó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€In€conducting€a€review€of€the€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider€theÏevidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,€the€arguments€ofÏcounsel,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,€mitigating€and€enhancement€Ïfactors,€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant,€and€the€potential€for€rehabilitationÏor€treatment.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1993).€€TheÏdefendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence€imposed.€ÏòòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1993).ÌÌà àœà àAt›€the€time€that€the€defendant€committed€this€crime,€the€presumptiveÏlength€of€sentence€for€all€felonies€was€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€statutory€rangeÏabsent€any€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„210(c);Ïòòbut€seeóó›€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(œSupp›.€1995)€œ(amending€the€statute€toÏprovide›€that€the€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€A€felony€is€the€midpoint€of€theÏrange).€€Where€one€or€more€enhancement€factors€apply,€but€no€mitigating€factorsÏexist,€the€trial€court€may€properly€sentence€above€the€minimum€but€still€within€theÏrange.€€œTenn€Code€Ann.€ð𛀜40„35„210(d).›€€Where€both€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€apply,€the€trial€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range,Ïenhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€to€the€enhancement€factors,Ïand€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€to€the€mitigatingÏfactors.€€€œTenn.€Code€Ann.›€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€€The€weight€afforded€an€enhancementÏor€mitigating€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€so€long€as€the€trial€courtÏcomplies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€Tennessee€Criminal€SentencingÏReform€Act€of€1989€and€its€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,Ï899€S.W.2d€175,€185€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1995).€Ô€"ÔÌÌÔ€#Ôà àœà àThe›€defendant€was€convicted€of€second€degree€murder,€a€Class€AÏfelony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„13„210(b).›€€As€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€heÍwas€eligible€for€a€sentence€of€fifteen€to€twenty„five€years.€€œTenn.€Code€Ann.€›€ðð€œ40„35„112(a)(1).›€€The€trial€court€found€the€following€enhancement€factors:€€theÏdefendant€employed€a€firearm€during€the€commission€of€the€offense€and€theÏdefendant€allowed€the€victim€to€be€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty€in€theÏconcealment€of€the€body.€€òòSeeóó€œTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððð𛀜40„35„114(9)›€and€(5).€€The€trialÏcourt€found€no€mitigating€factors.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€takes€issue€only€with€the€application€of€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(5)€arguing€that€concealment€of€the€body€did€not€qualify€asÏð ðexceptional€cruelty.ðð€€We€must€agree€based€upon€our€prior€case€law.€€œòòSeeó󛀜òòState€v.ÏJohn€Dennis€Rushingóó,€No.€01C01„9501„CR„00020€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,ÏFebruary€13,€1996),€òòperm,€to€appeal€filedóó;€òòState›€v.€œRobert€Williams€Holmesóó,›€No.Ïœ01C01„9303„CC„00090›€œ(Tenn.›€œCrim›.€œApp.,€at€Nashville,€August€11,›€œ1994),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€òòconcurring€in€results€onlyóó,€(Tenn.€1995)›€(limiting€the€application€ofÏfactor€(5)€to€the€treatment€of€a€victim€during€the€commission€of€an€œoffense).›€€TheÏœstate›€insists,€however,€that€we€must€also€consider€the€repeated€threats€to€the€victimÏand€the€multiple€gunshot€wounds€found€in€her€body€as€additional€grounds€for€theÏapplication€of€this€enhancement€factor.€€We€disagree.€€The€expert€proof€was€thatÏany€one€of€the€shots€would€have€been€immediately€fatal€to€the€victim.€€Case€lawÏestablishes€that€ð ðexceptional€crueltyðð€requires€a€finding€of€cruelty€over€and€aboveÍthat€inherently€attendant€to€the€crime€of€which€a€defendant€is€convicted.€€òòState€v.ÏœEmbry›óó,€915€S.W.2d€451,€456€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1995).€€Moreover,€œthreats,›€whileÏundeniably€cruel,€are€not€always€exceptional.€€òòCompareóó€òòState€v.€œRobert€E.ÏSanderson›óó,€No.€œ01C019308CR„00269›€œ(Tenn.›€œCrim›.€œApp.,€at€Nashville,€SeptemberÏ27,›€œ1995),€òòperm.›€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€œ1996)€(finding€that€application€of€factorÏ(5)€was€justified).›ÌÌà àà àWhile€one€factor€was€misapplied,€another€factor,€not€considered€byÏthe€trial€court,€does.€€Clearly,€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„114(15).›€€Typically,€this€factor€is€used€to€enhance€theÏsentences€of€defendants€who€are€the€parents€or€relatives€of€the€child€victims€ofÏsexually€related€crimes.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€œDavid€E.€Walton,€Jr.óó,›€No.Ïœ02C01„9501„CC„00007€(Tenn.›€œCrim›.€œApp.,€at€Jackson,€August€9,›€1995);€€òòState€v.ÏœAndrew€Johnson,€Jr.óó,›€No.€œ02C01„9304„CR„00050›€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp.,€at€Jackson,ÏApril€20,›€1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,Ï864€S.W.2d€31,€34€(Tenn.€1993)€(applying€œfactor€(15)›€to€a€defendant€who€was€theÏlive„in€boyfriend€of€the€young€œvictimsðð›€mother€and€who€committed€the€sexualÏoffenses€while€living€with€the€victims).€€This€factor€would€also€apply€to€this€situation.ÌÌà àà àThis€factor€enhanced€the€sentence€of€a€defendant€convicted€of€theÏaggravated€assault€of€his€estranged€wife.€€òòState€v.€œLester€Bennettóó,›€No.Ïœ03C01„9403„CR„00104€(Tenn.›€œCrim›.€œApp.,€at€Knoxville,€December€8,›€1994).€€TheÏdefendant€owed€the€victim€a€duty€of€care.€€It€is€unlikely€that€witnesses€to€theÏargument€would€have€left€the€victim€with€the€defendant,€had€he€not€been€her€father.€ÏIn€our€view,€this€factor€applies.€€In€light€of€the€applicability€of€this€enhancementÏfactor,€the€eighteen„year€sentence€appears€to€be€entirely€appropriate.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓšà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge€(Not€Participating)