ÿWPC{  Z|‰N×LÞ—®;ŧi Ö|` ](9›%¬#ò啞n¬»#7- ŽŠ³ÁUÿS}ÕÏÌf¨ý$²¬ FXmládtÛ|íÌñJyÄHЇwçÎÿAçQpd¡De¶ìØøfáB FxŒaޏrÙÅðBw nŽ×œ"îWû“Íà O}ô†TßÜËiWr`ÏVƒ¬PÔÂèùßÖKÕ¤áµr OÌ£™|¯œ¨¸øÙ® 'd@Òö ¸Ûb|-üØÅ¡û@Ù¨²0†Lu—b€íòµVY”Ð4$:õ€™Â©ã»m½iˆ\h+7}ó¯dv´9f†1å ÷$‡—½¦—ª<óduq7e¡“òpû€h>š–W}m« JËVU-g¤OªVRÍ[¼0'M|R\«Ióˆ•xEªpÑÍj@–hšš|l‚Z±Œ`Øé#›_æ"¡N§«Œ¤D@‰ô@?w²ÆÄø%¤]Û݃ßå"p| žÜ2tV¤À¿ì ·uaØÂÜ.%›À/r˜úº!ȯ0ÄÍ^æÃ"?cDYÓYð¶6;íjÙ}ÄÑʾ¬Ü¯6¶4Ѿ0` B;Û5> O¹M†Py4þG²JégÑo«(Æ%âZ•,# hUNs %Á 0(ÇU:ïb)w@14q…”&œU: Büü 0D D3]]]] AQÆá 0D§ 0Dë D// B^ ˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÜÏ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,Ù¹6 AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- žDŸV D¡D¢£E¤¥¦D§Ó€V&3|x² Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ XkaXXXÔÔ€ ôAX XkaÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XkaX ôAÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€23,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ô»´ ôX XkaÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý'ÿÿdxd'(!)*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ŠAœŠXXÔÔ€ŠæùŠŠŠAœÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€%BXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñ§ñßr€& "<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` ttx$X` ð Úrßñ§ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌOCTOBER€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9711„CR„00520Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àó óÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,ò òà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àMcMINN€COUNTYÐ `  ÐV.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHON.€R.€STEVEN€BEBB,€JUDGEó óÐ ` Ðò òJOHNNY€MARTIN,€€€à h àà À àà  à)à p àó óÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò òà  à)ó óà p àÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À àò òà  à)à p à(SECOND€DEGREE€MURDER)Ð ` Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð Hè ÐÌò òCHARLES€M.€CORNà h à€à À àà  àà p àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ð 8 Ø Ðó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ 8!Ø ÐÌò òWILLIAM€C.€DONALDSON€ó ó€€à À àà  àà p àò òELIZABETH€B.€MARNEYÐ (#È Ðó óAssistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ ($È Ð10th€Judicial€District€à h àà À àà  àà p à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÐ  %À Ð110€ðð€Washington€Avenue€NEà  àà p à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ð &¸ ÐAthens,€TN€37303à h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243Ð '° ÐÌò òGERALD€L.€GULLEY,€JR.ó óà À àà  àà p àò òJERRY€N.€ESTES€Ð )   Ðó óAttorney€at€Lawà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ *  ! ÐP.O.€Box€1708à  àà h àà À àà  àà p à10th€Judicial€DistrictÐ ø*˜!" ÐKnoxville,€TN€37901„1708à À àà  àà p à130€Washington€Avenue€NEÐ ð+"# Ð(On€Appeal€Only)à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àP.O.€Box€647Ð è,ˆ#$ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAthens,€TN€37371„0647ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÐ  70./S ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°Ïó°ŠŠæùÔò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€Šæùа°ÏóÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà ` àThe€Defendant,€Johnny€Martin,€appeals€as€of€right€his€conviction€for€secondÏdegree€murder€following€a€jury€trial€in€the€McMinn›€County€Criminal€Court.€€DefendantÏwas€found€guilty€on€January€29,€1985.€€He€was€subsequently€sentenced€to€serveÏthirty€(30)€years€as€a€Range€I€Standard€Offender€on€March€1,€1985.€€He€also€filed€aÏMotion€for€New€Trial€on€that€same€date.€€For€reasons€totally€unexplained€in€theÏrecord,€the€trial€court€did€not€enter€an€Order€denying€the€Motion€for€New€Trial€untilÏJune€3,€1997.€€The€hearing€on€the€Motion€for€New€Trial€is€not€transcribed€in€theÏrecord.€€However,€the€trial€courtððs€Order€indicates€the€motion€was€not€heard€untilÏNovember€4,€1996.€€€ÌÌà ` àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€asked€defenseÏcounsel€if€he€was€ready€to€argue€the€Motion€for€New€Trial,€to€which€defense€counselÏresponded,€ð ð[œn]ot›€at€this€time.ðð€€After€the€Order€was€entered€denying€the€Motion€forÏNew€Trial,€the€court€appointed€the€public€defender€on€August€15,€1997,€to€representÏDefendant€on€appeal€of€his€conviction.€€On€November€14,€1997,€the€trial€courtÏentered€a€second€Order€denying€the€Motion€for€New€Trial.€€This€Order€instructed€theÏpublic€defender€to€file€a€Notice€of€Appeal€within€thirty€(30)€days.€€The€public€defenderÏfiled€a€Notice€of€Appeal€on€November€18,€1997.€€The€second€Order€of€the€trial€courtÏdenying€the€Motion€for€New€Trial€is€of€no€effect.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòState€v.€œPendergrass›óó,Ð þ0ž'( Ð937€S.W.2d€834€(Tenn.€1996).€€More€than€thirty€(30)€days€had€elapsed€between€theÏentry€date€of€the€first€Order€denying€the€Motion€for€New€Trial€and€the€date€the€NoticeÏof€Appeal€was€filed.€€Therefore,€the€Notice€of€Appeal€was€untimely.€€However,€in€theÏinterest€of€justice,€we€waive€the€requirement€of€a€Notice€of€Appeal€being€filed€withinÐ ¾8^/0 Ðthirty€(30)€days€of€an€Order€entered€denying€a€Motion€for€New€Trial,€and€we€willÏaddress€the€issues€Defendant€has€œpresented.€€Defendant›€sets€forth€three€issues€inÏhis€Motion€for€New€Trial,€two€of€which,€in€essence,€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€to€support€the€conviction.€€The€third€issue€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€its€charge€to€the€jury€concerning€aiding€and€abetting.€€Defendant€has€alsoÏpresented€two€(2)€additional€issues€in€his€brief€on€appeal€which€were€not€raised€inÏthe€Motion€for€New€Trial.€€Although€these€issues€should€be€deemed€waived,€we€willÏagain,€in€the€interest€of€justice,€address€those€issues€on€the€merits.€€The€first€oneÏchallenges€the€jury€instructions€on€malice€and€the€second€challenges€theÏadmissibility€of€certain€testimony€admitted€at€trial.€€After€a€careful€review€of€the€entireÏrecord,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà ` àOn€November€24,€1984,€between€5:30€and€6:00€p.m.,€Defendant€and€hisÏbrother€Danny€Martin€went€to€Wayneððs€Package€Store€which€was€owned€by€HughÏð ðSkunkðð€œTorbett›,€the€victim.€€Diane€Pierce,€an€employee€of€the€store,€sold€bothÏDefendant€and€his€brother€a€bottle€of€beer€that€evening,€and€each€man€also€paidÏPierce€a€two€dollar€cover€charge.€€Ms.€Pierce€testified€that€Defendant€appearedÏdrunk€because€he€was€staggering€and€was€very€ð ðglassy„eyed.ðð€€She€also€testifiedÏthat€he€had€a€ð ðbulgeðð€in€the€front€of€his€pants€that€looked€like€it€might€have€been€aÏgun.€€However,€she€said€she€wasnððt€positive€it€was€a€gun.€€After€about€fifteen€minutesÏin€the€store,€Ms.€Pierce€approached€Defendant€and€told€him€that€he€would€have€toÏleave€because€Defendant€had€been€barred€for€brawling€a€few€months€earlier.€ÏDefendant€and€his€brother€then€purchased€a€six€pack€of€beer€to€go€and€left€theÏestablishment€with€Sandy€Wells€and€Kim€Harris.€Ìâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðà ` àSandy€Wells€testified€that€the€four€of€them€left€Wayneððs€Package€Store€to€goÏâ âsmoke€marijuana.€€She€said€that€they€drove€to€the€411€Package€Store€whereÏDefendant€purchased€more€beer.€€She€also€said,€ð ðI€could€tell€they€[Defendant€andÏhis€brother]€had€been€drinking.€€I€wouldnððt€say€that€they€were€sloppy€drunk€but€theyÏwere€intoxicated.ðð€€Ms.€Wells€later€told€Defendant€and€his€brother€that€she€wantedÏto€go€back€to€Wayneððs€Package€Store€because€she€had€a€date.€€According€to€Ms.ÏWells,€Defendant€said,€ð ð[t]hereððs€going€to€be€trouble.€€I€know€there€will€be€trouble.ðð€Ï€Ms.€Wells€testified€that€she€did€not€see€a€weapon€on€either€Defendant€or€his€brother,Ïnor€did€she€see€a€ð ðbulgeðð€under€Defendantððs€pants.€€She€said€that€the€four€of€themÏwere€gone€from€Wayneððs€Package€Store€a€total€of€about€thirty€minutes.ÌÌà ` àWhen€they€returned€to€Wayneððs€Package€Store,€Ms.€Wells€met€her€boyfriendÏoutside€and€the€two€of€them€went€inside€to€get€a€beer.€€After€they€had€been€insideÏa€few€minutes,€Ms.€Wells€saw€Defendant€and€his€brother€come€inside.€€As€DefendantÏentered€the€bar,€the€owner/victim€came€over€and€told€him€that€he€would€have€toÏleave€because€he€had€been€barred.€€While€the€victim€and€Defendant€were€talking,Ïthe€victim€put€a€hand€on€each€of€Defendantððs€shoulders€and€backed€him€towards€theÏdoor.€€Danny€Martin€was€following€them.€€As€the€men€approached€the€door,€theÏvictim€reached€out€to€open€it€and€Defendant,€Danny,€and€the€victim€all€fell€down.€ÏDefendant€fell€straight€back€and€the€victim€fell€partially€to€the€left€of€him€and€partiallyÏon€top€of€him.€€Danny€fell€to€the€floor€on€his€hands€and€knees.€€Ms.€Wells,€along€withÏseveral€other€witnesses,€€testified€that€she€heard€a€gunshot€right€as€the€men€hit€theÏground,€but€no€one€saw€either€Defendant€or€Danny€with€a€gun€at€that€time.€€TheÏvictim€rolled€away€from€Defendant,€got€up,€and€ran€outside€the€building€withÏDefendant€and€Danny€following€behind€him.€€Witnesses€saw€Defendant€with€a€gunÏin€the€parking€lot€three€seconds€after€the€shooting.€€Although€one€witness€later€sawÐ Ð9p02 ÐDanny€Martin€shoot€at€the€victim€as€he€ran,€expert€testimony€showed€that€the€victimÏwas€wounded€and€killed€by€one€close„range€shot.€€ÌÌà ` àDiana€Konkoly,€a€criminalist€at€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,Ïtestified€that€she€analyzed€swabs€from€the€hands€of€Defendant€and€his€brother.€€SheÏtestified€that€the€results€of€the€analysis€led€her€to€believe€that€Defendant€could€haveÏfired€or€handled€a€gun€that€evening.€€The€results€of€the€analysis€of€the€swab€fromÏDanny€Martinððs€hands€were€inconclusive.€€Ms.€Konkoly€also€testified€that€theÏmaximum€distance€from€which€the€gun€was€fired€was€three€feet.ÌÌà ` àDr.€Bill€Foree€performed€the€autopsy€on€the€victim.€€He€testified€that€there€wasÏonly€one€gunshot€wound€on€the€victim€and€that€the€wound€was€created€by€the€bulletÏentering€at€an€upward€angle.€€He€also€said€that€the€wound€was€a€ð ðclose€gunshotÏwound,ðð€which€he€described€as€one€caused€by€a€shot€being€fired€from€three€feet€orÏless.ÌÌà ` àDetective€Gary€Robbins€testified€that€the€weapon€used€to€kill€the€victim€wasÏnever€found.ÌÓ  ÓÌòòI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceóóÐ 0.Ð$& ÐÓ,)ÓÌà ` àIn€the€first€issue,€Defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€toÏsupport€a€jury€verdict€of€second€degree€murder.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€theÏState€failed€to€prove€that€he€committed€the€murder€with€malice.Ìâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðà ` àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€theÏâ âstandard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosection,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÏcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€Ð 0Ð ÐThis€standard€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicated€upon€direct€evidence,Ïcircumstantial€evidence€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€ÏòòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€On€appeal,€theÐ    ÐState€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferencesÏtherefrom.€€òòState€œvñ£ñ.ñ£ññ¤ñ.€ñ¤ñóóñ¡ñ€ñ¡ññ£ññ¢ñ€ñ¢ññ£ñòòCabbageóó,›€571€S.W.2d€€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Because€aÐ à€ Ðverdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€aÏpresumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€why€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.Ð °P ÐTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476Ð   @ Ð(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà ` àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623Ð P*ð " Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€courtÐ @,à"$ Ðreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€A€jury€verdictÐ 0.Ð$& Ðapproved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflictsÏin€favor€of€the€State.€€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.€€Ð 2°(* ÐÌà ` àMoreover,€a€criminal€offense€may€be€established€exclusively€by€circumstantialÏevidence.€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€1973);€òòState€œv.ñ¢ñóóòòñ¢ñ€Jonesóó,›€œ901ñŸññŸññ¥ñÐ à7€.0 Ðñ¥ññ¦ññŸñÐ  à7€.0 ÐñŸññ¦ññ ñññ€ñññ ññžññ›ñÐ à7€.0 Ðñ›ññžñS.W.2d›€393,€396€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Lequireóó,€634€S.W.2d€608€(Tenn.Ð Ð9p02 ÐCrim.€App.€1981).€However,€before€an€accused€may€be€convicted€of€a€criminalÏoffense€based€upon€circumstantial€evidence€alone,€the€facts€and€circumstancesÏ"must€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€every€otherÏreasonable€hypothesis€save€guilt€of€the€defendant."€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€225€Tenn.Ð  À Ð478,€470€S.W.2d€610€(1971);€òòJonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€at€396.€In€other€words,€"[a]€web€ofÐ °  Ðguilt€must€be€woven€around€the€defendant€from€which€he€cannot€escape€and€fromÏwhich€facts€and€circumstances€the€jury€could€draw€no€other€reasonable€inferenceÏsave€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€òòCrawfordóó,€470€S.W.2dÐ à€ Ðat€613;€òòState€v.€McAfeeóó,€737€S.W.2d€304,€306€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€Ð Ðp ÐÌà ` àAt€the€time€of€the€offense,€second€degree€murder€was€defined€as€a€maliciousÏkilling.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„211€(repealed€1989).€€Defendant€challengesÐ   @ Ðthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€as€to€the€malice€requirement.€€However,€malice€mayÏbe€expressed€or€implied.€€Malice€may€be€inferred€from€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€killing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Gilbertóó,€612€S.W.2d€188,190€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð p& Ð1980),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1981);€òòWilson€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€52,€55Ð `(  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1978).€€Malice€may€also€beÐ P*ð " Ðimplied€from€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€resulting€in€death.€€òòWilsonóó,€574€S.W.2d€atÐ @,à"$ Ð55.€€Whether€the€facts€establish€such€malignity€as€to€establish€second€degreeÏmurder€is€a€factual€question€within€the€juryððs€province.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€541€S.W.2dÐ  0À&( Ð417€(Tenn.€1976).€€ÌÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€record€contains€sufficient€evidence€for€a€finding€thatÏDefendant€maliciously€killed€the€victim.€€Defendant€had€been€banned€from€WayneððsÏPackage€Store€three€months€earlier€for€brawling.€€When€Defendant€went€to€theÐ Ð9p02 Ðestablishment€on€the€day€of€the€murder,€he€was€told€by€Ms.€Pierce€that€he€was€notÏallowed€there€and€he€was€asked€to€leave.€€After€leaving€the€store€for€approximatelyÏthirty€minutes,€during€which€time€he€drank€beer€and€possibly€smoked€marijuana,€heÏtold€Ms.€Wells€that€ð ð[t]hereððs€going€to€be€trouble.€€I€know€there€will€be€trouble.ðð€€HeÏthen€went€back€inside€the€establishment€where€he€saw€the€victim.€€The€victimÏapproached€Defendant€and€asked€him€to€leave.€€Defendant€resisted€and€argued€withÏthe€victim€about€leaving.€€While€the€victim€was€attempting€to€remove€Defendant€fromÏthe€premises,€the€fatal€shot€was€fired.€€According€to€witnesses,€Defendant€had€a€gunÏin€his€hand€just€seconds€after€the€shooting.€€Residue€from€firing€or€handling€a€gunÏwas€later€found€on€his€hands.€€The€jury€could€have€inferred€from€the€evidenceÏpresented€that€Defendant€acted€with€malice€in€killing€the€victim.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.€Ìà ` àÌÓ  ÓòòII.€€Jury€InstructionsóóÐ Ð%p ÐÌÓòDÓòòA.€€Aiding€and€Abetting€InstructionóóÐ à)€  Ðà ` àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€judge€erred€by€instructing€the€jury€on€aidingÏand€abetting€where€Defendant€was€the€only€criminal€actor.€€He€argues€that€theÏinstruction€confused€the€jury€and€prejudiced€him.ÌÌà ` àAt€trial,€defense€counselððs€cross„examination€of€witnesses€elicited€responsesÏsuggesting€that€Defendant€was€not€seen€with€a€gun€before€the€killing.€€Mrs.€PierceÏsaid€that€she€saw€only€a€bulge€in€Defendantððs€waistband,€not€necessarily€a€gun.€ÏMrs.€Wells€testified€that€she€never€saw€a€bulge€under€Defendantððs€belt.€€The€defenseÐ  :À00 Ðelicited€testimony€that€Defendantððs€right€hand€was€not€visible€during€the€scuffle€andÏthat€no€one€actually€saw€Defendant€shoot€the€victim€when€the€two€of€them€fell€to€theÏfloor.€€One€witness€even€testified€that€he€saw€Defendantððs€brother,€Danny€Martin,€Ïfire€a€shot€at€the€victim€in€the€parking€lot€from€a€distance€of€approximately€30€feet.€ÏHowever,€as€Defendant€points€out,€the€scientific€evidence€presented€at€trialÏestablished€that€the€fatal€shot€to€the€victim€was€fired€from€a€distance€of€three€feet€orÏless.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€judge€did€state€to€counsel€that€ð ð[a]n€aiding€and€abetting€charge€mightÏbe€confusing€to€a€jury,€but,€gentlemen,€I€believe€an€aiding€and€abetting€chargeÏbelongs€there.ðð€œ€Nonetheless,›€the€defense€theory€that€there€was€not€enoughÏevidence€to€show€that€Defendant€was€the€one€who€actually€killed€the€victimÏwarranted€an€aiding„and„abetting€charge.€€However,€Defendant€has€failed€to€showÏhow€the€aiding„and„abetting€instruction€either€confused€the€jury€or€prejudiced€him.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌòòB.€€Presumption€of€MaliceóóÐ è+ˆ"" Ðà ` àDefendant€contends€that€it€was€a€violation€of€his€constitutional€rights€for€theÏtrial€court€to€charge€the€jury€that€malice€was€presumed€in€a€homicide€and€that€theÏuse€of€a€deadly€weapon€permitted€a€presumption€that€the€perpetrator€acted€withÏmalice.€€òòSeeóó€œòòSandstrom›€v.€Montanaóó,€442€U.S.€510,€99€S.€Ct.€2450,€61€L.€Ed.€œ2d›€39Ð 4¨** Ð(1979).€€Specifically,€Defendant€claims€that€the€evidence€of€malice€is€weak€in€theÏcase€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€and€this€issue€should€therefore€be€controlled€by€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€702Ð 8¸.. ÐS.W.2d€560€(Tenn.€1985).€Ð  :À00 Їà ` àAs€Defendant€concedes,€he€did€not€challenge€the€jury€instruction€on€the€basisÏof€malice€either€at€trial€or€in€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€The€record€shows€that€theÏonly€objection€Defendant€made€pertaining€to€the€instructions€was€based€on€theÏaiding€and€abetting€charge.€€Similarly,€the€motion€for€new€trial€did€not€challenge€theÏjury€instruction€on€malice.€€Accordingly,€Defendant€has€waived€the€challenge€to€theÏjury€instruction€on€malice.€€Tenn.€œR.›€App.€P.€3(e)€and€36(a).ÌÌà ` àHowever,€even€addressed€on€the€merits,€Defendantððs€claim€that€theÏinstructions€constituted€reversible€error€is€without€merit.€€The€pertinent€portions€of€theÏinstructions€complained€of€are€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àAll€homicides€are€presumed€to€be€malicious€in€theÏabsence€of€evidence€which€would€rebut€the€impliedÏpresumption,€but€this€does€not€shift€the€burden€of€proof.€ÏThe€[S]tate€still€must€prove€each€element€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€Thus,€if€the€[S]tate€has€proven€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt€that€a€killing€has€occurred,€then€it€isÏpresumed€that€the€killing€was€done€maliciously,€but€thisÏpresumption€may€be€rebutted€by€either€direct€orÏcircumstantial€evidence,€or€by€both,€regardless€of€whetherÏthe€same€be€offered€by€the€defendant,€or€exists€in€theÏevidence€of€the€[S]tate.€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓMQÓÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àÓÓLikewise,€if€a€deadly€weapon€is€handled€in€a€manner€so€asÏto€make€the€killing€a€natural€or€probable€result€of€suchÏconduct,€then€there€is€raised€a€presumption€of€maliceÏsufficient€to€support€a€conviction€of€murder€in€the€secondÏdegree€unless€it€is€rebutted€by€other€facts€andÏcircumstances.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓTÓññœññÌà ` àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€in€òòSandstrom€v.€Montanaóó€that€dueÐ 3¤)) Ðprocess€is€violated€by€instructing€a€jury€as€to€the€evidentiary€presumptions€toÏestablish€elements€of€a€crime€in€such€a€manner€that€relieves€the€State€of€its€burdenÏof€proof.€€442€U.S.€at€523„24,€99€S.€Ct.€2450,€œ2458„59,€61›€L.€Ed.€œ2d›€39.€€However,Ð 9¼// Ðviolations€of€the€òòSandstromóó€rule€are€subject€to€harmless€error€analysis.€€òòRose€v.Ð `  ÐClarkóó,€478€U.S.€570,€580,€106€S.€Ct.€3101,€œ3107,›€92€L.€Ed.€2d€460€(1986).€€Ð h  ÐÌà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Bolinóó,€a€decision€by€our€supreme€court€approximately€four€monthsÐ x Ðprior€to€the€Defendantððs€trial,€the€court€ruled€that€the€word€ð ðinferenceðð€should€beÏsubstituted€for€the€word€ð ðpresumptionðð€in€all€instructions€except€the€one€on€theÏpresumption€of€innocence.€€678€S.W.2d€40,€œ44„45›€(Tenn.€1984).€€€However,€the€courtÏin€òòBolinóó€also€held€that€the€jury€instruction€in€that€case€could€not€have€beenÐ ˜8 Ðinterpreted€by€a€reasonable€jury€as€mandatory€or€as€shifting€the€burden€ofÏpersuasion€to€the€defendant€on€the€element€of€malice.€€òòIdóó.€at€44.€€The€instructionsÐ ¨H Ðin€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€as€in€òòBolinóó,€clearly€and€repeatedly€emphasized€that€theÐ °P Ðpresumption€of€innocence€remained€with€the€Defendant€and€that€the€burden€ofÏproving€his€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€remained€on€the€State€throughout€theÏtrial.€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€explained:ÌÓÓÌà8 ` àThe€law€presumes€that€the€defendant€is€innocent€of€the€charges€againstÏhim.€€This€presumption€remains€with€the€defendant€throughout€everyÏstage€of€the€trial,€and€it€is€not€overcome€unless€from€all€the€evidence€inÏthe€case€you€are€convinced€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€theÏdefendant€is€guilty.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àThe€State€has€the€burden€of€proving€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt,€and€this€burden€never€shifts€but€remains€on€theÏState€through€the€trial€of€the€case.€€The€defendant€is€not€required€toÏprove€his€innocence.Ó§[ӀР` (#` (# ÐÌWe€find€that€the€court€made€it€quite€clear€that€there€was€no€shifting€of€any€burden.€ÏWhen€considering€the€propriety€of€such€jury€instructions,€the€United€States€SupremeÏâ âCourt€has€held€that€ð ða€single€instruction€to€a€jury€may€not€be€judged€in€artificialÐ 8¸.. Мisolation,›€but€must€be€viewed€in€the€context€of€the€overall€charge.ðð€€òòCupp€v.Ð `  ÐNaughtenóó,€414€U.S.€141,€146„47,€94€S.€Ct.€396,€400,€38€L.€Ed.€2d€œ368›€(1973).Ð h  Ðâ â€Ìà ` àThe€court€in€òòBolinóó€also€held€that€any€error€in€the€instructions€was€harmless€inÐ x Ðthat€case€given€the€overwhelming€evidence€against€the€defendant.€€òòBolinóó,€678Ð €  ÐS.W.2d€at€45.€€€The€court€instructed€that€the€entire€record€should€be€examined€toÏdetermine€whether€the€verdict€was€(or€could€have€been)€reached€without€resort€toÏthe€ð ðpresumptionðð€of€malice.€€òòIdóó.€at€45.€€Turning€to€the€facts€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,Ð ˜8 Ðon€the€night€of€the€shooting,€Defendant€was€asked€to€leave€Wayneððs€Package€StoreÏfrom€which€he€had€previously€been€barred€for€brawling.€€He€left€and€then€droveÏaround€in€a€car€during€which€time€he€drank€beer€and€smoked€marijuana.€€While€inÏthe€car,€he€told€the€other€passengers€that€if€they€went€back€to€Wayneððs€PackageÏStore€then€there€was€ð ðgoing€to€be€trouble.ðð€€Upon€his€return€to€WayneððsÏapproximately€thirty€minutes€later,€he€was€asked€to€leave€by€the€owner/victim.€ÏMoments€later€a€gun€went€off€as€Defendant€and€the€victim€fell€to€the€floor€whichÏproved€later€to€be€the€fatal€shot€to€the€victim.€€Although€no€witnesses€actually€sawÏthe€gun€in€Defendantððs€hand€at€the€time€it€went€off,€witnesses€did€testify€that€theyÏsaw€a€gun€in€Defendantððs€hand€three€second€after€the€shooting.€€Defendant€then€fledÏfrom€the€establishment.ÌÌà ` àIf€facts€independently€establish€the€element€of€malice,€ð ðpresumptiveððÏinstructions€do€not€have€a€harmful€effect€upon€the€fact„finding€process.€€òòSeeóó€òòAdkinsÐ 4¨** Ðv.€Stateóó,€œ911€S.W.2d€334,›€œ34ñ‡ñ5ñ‡ñññ›ñññˆñ6ñˆñ›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€dismissedóóÐ 6°,, Ð(Tenn.€1995).€€We€think€most€reasonable€jurors€would€readily€conclude€from€theseÏfacts€that€Defendant€acted€with€malice.€€òòSeeóó€òòBolinóó,€678€S.W.2d€at€45.€€The€existenceÐ  :À00 Ðof€malice€was€established€by€proof€of€Defendantððs€own€actions,€not€by€resort€to€aÏpresumption.€€Therefore,€the€instruction€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÌÌà ` àWe€note€that€the€instructions€in€the€case€before€us€differ€greatly€from€the€onesÏin€œòòñ‰ñState€›v.€ñ‰ñMartinóó,›€702€S.W.2d€œ560ñŠñ€ñŠñññ›ñññŠñ(Tenn.€›1985)ñŠñ.›€€In€that€case,€the€trial€court€did€not€explain€that€rebuttalÐ €  Ðproof€could€be€established€by€evidence€from€the€State€or€from€the€accused,€and€itÏdid€not€sufficiently€define€malice.€€œñŒñòòñŒññ‹ñIdñ‹ññŒñóóñŒññ‹ñ.€at€564.€€ñ‹ñConversely,›€in€the€present€case,€theÐ 0  Ðcourt€offered€three€paragraphs€on€malice€which€were€far€more€specific€and€detailedÏthan€those€found€in€òòMartinóó.€€Moreover,€the€instructions€specifically€explained€thatÐ  @ Ðrebuttal€could€be€established€by€evidence€from€either€the€State€or€from€the€accused,Ïcontrary€to€òòMartinóó.€€Even€though€the€trial€judge€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€charged€thatÐ °P Ðð ð[a]ll€homicides€are€presumed€to€be€malicious€in€the€absence€of€evidence€whichÏwould€rebut€the€implied€presumption,ðð€the€court€also€immediately€went€on€to€say€ð ðbutÏthis€presumption€may€be€rebutted€by€either€direct€or€circumstantial€evidence,€or€byÏboth,€regardless€of€whether€the€same€be€offered€by€the€defendant,€or€exists€in€theÏevidence€of€the€[S]tate.ðð€€Finally,€the€facts€of€òòMartinóó€did€not€sufficiently€establishÐ Ø'x Ðmalice€as€we€have€previously€found€they€did€here.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌòòÓ  ÓIII.€€Admissibility€of€Expert€TestimonyóóÐ ð-$$ ÐÓðmÓÌà ` àDefendant€argues€in€this€issue€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€expertÏtestimony€of€Ms.€Konkoly€because€her€testimony€did€not€substantially€assist€the€jury.ÌÌà ` àDefendant€did€not€object€to€Konkolyððs€testimony€at€trial€and€has€thereforeÏwaived€the€issue€of€whether€her€testimony€was€proper.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);Ð  :À00 ÐòòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€œññ235€ññ(Tenn.›€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Also,€DefendantÐ `  Ðdid€not€raise€the€issue€in€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Failure€to€include€an€issue€in€theÏmotion€for€a€new€trial€results€in€the€waiver€of€that€issue.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòStateÐ p  Ðv.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€416€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Furthermore,€even€afterÐ x Ðreviewing€Ms.€Konkolyððs€testimony,€we€do€not€believe€the€trial€judge€abused€hisÏdiscretion€in€allowing€the€expert€testimony.€€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€537Ð ˆ(  Ð(Tenn.€1993).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìœñ‘ñÌ›Ìñ‘ñ›Ìà ` àBased€on€all€the€foregoing,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìœòòñ’ñ̛̛̛Ìñ’ñóóñ’ñ›Ì›à@DD/Dà›Ì›Ì›Ìñ’ññ•ñ›Ó  Óñ•ñ›œñ’ñ̛̛à @` à›à @¸ à›à @ à›à @h à›à @À à›Ìñ’ññ“ñ›Ì›Ì›Ì›à @` à›Ì›Ì›Ìñ“ññ•ñ›ñ•ñÓÓñ”ñÌñ”ññ•ñ›ñ•ññ”ññ”ññ–ñÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€Judgeà0 À àñ–ññ—ññ”ñÐè+ˆ""À€%À€% Ðñ”ñ›à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ð  :À00 Ðñ—ñ