ÿWPCÀ9  °]ƒíl S;ÂÕ¶H xØPtÌÎÅlˆXg¢ÉÛ`·$ðt{Ã¥ ƒToçCÃc÷ÐÀ0QÊŸ>Õèì÷F˜5°5ê“–ãÅX²¥€ ;]gCÛs¾8B.Ëÿr4¬Èz‰xp qôkÖ¢0Äñà-4“úV†ãWJ -ïè{$Y_{ èSdD°6¯Ñÿ ´ÏŠ-ÉQy†Ü!e(•wg\GÚ'´amöËý*Ë%“Tžîÿß0Z2¼Ýý2¹fWk:Vî’tºî6{óµû´÷«&L9Õ„ï@ùv>o_ Z éÒ4kýƒ•yúô6R¥Qú좜 ]Ö»e“'²ìòŒÁ²¾§•„jJv§‹›µR È(rìåi…ÿ/Ïb>nòc„¡¤únTfºàôбŒG­,ÓÉ—¿ü˜p㨛æ;òõÞñD³4S ¯æ3 pœ‰V¹¦R’ÀÛÕ*ÀC²·nIÀTv^×±ƒ±®ÂãÀg\  Íü/®ã<ʵá‹åÆ—‘µÔ ðÓRàÎÁþ°_Î’ Æ8:së¸Qcˆ±øáåÓ«pîU؉Vµ)´߆$ÎîDˆè ŒÜ@àu‚­´Ÿ+Ê;…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í b w@ 4O c 0Ær 0D8 è| d ÝhU,:E<’»ÎM D3$Nr(‹U:³ƒíìp Ï\!y+#é¤$Û%œh( B,1!,U:R-R-R-Œ-Œ-Œ-œ.H)0Pq1òÁ3³5³5 0DÏ7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï7Ï788888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 AO8Æj8j8 0D09 D/t9 B£9˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- ÂÃDÄDÅÆDÇUÈDÉUÊÓ€ÔuM%FpÈ>Èd3|xÞ(v(2†$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XGXXXÔÔ€ôøëôXXGÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÞÔ€XGXXXÔÔ€/$ XXGÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XGX /$ÔÐ  ÐÌJanuary€14,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó úÝ ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€addition,€Don€also€had€a€life€insurance€policy€for€$30,000€through€his€employment.€€ò òó ó ÓÝ ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€addition,€the€record€indicates€that€after€she€was€listed€as€an€alibi€witness,€Woolums€moved€toÐ `  Ðan€unknown€address€with€no€telephone€and€trial€counsel€for€James€Murray€was€only€able€to€contactÏWoolums€through€the€efforts€of€the€Murraysðð€daughter,€Laderia.€€It€is€not€likely€that€Laderia€Murray€wouldÏhave€been€so€accommodating€to€the€State.€€Thus,€it€appears€that€not€only€was€Woolums€not€ð ðequallyÏavailableðð€as€that€phrase€in€used€as€a€term€of€art,€but€she€was€also€not€ð ðequally€availableðð€in€the€literalÏmeaning€of€the€phrase.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular 2Ý ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€instruction€read€as€follows:€Ð `  Ðà0 ` àYou€should€give€separate€consideration€to€each€defendant.€€Each€is€entitled€to€have€his€or€herÏcase€decided€on€the€evidence€and€the€law€which€is€applicable€to€that€particular€defendant.€€AnyÏevidence€which€was€limited€to€a€particular€defendant€should€not€be€considered€by€you€as€to€anyÏother€defendant.€€You€can€acquit€all€or€convict€all,€or€you€can€acquit€one€or€more€and€convict€theÏother€or€others.€€If€you€cannot€agree€upon€a€verdict€as€to€all€the€defendants,€but€do€agree€upon€aÏverdict€as€to€one€or€more€of€them,€you€must€render€a€verdict€as€to€the€one€or€more€upon€whichÏyou€agree.€ò òó ó ˆÝ ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€conspiracy€did€not€end€at€Don€Hurtððs€death,€as€Appellants€had€not€yet€obtained€the€insuranceÐ `  Ðproceeds.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161,€170€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(ð ð[A]€conspiracyÐ  ¾ Ðcontinues€until€the€conspiratorsðð€ultimate€goal€of€collecting€the€proceeds€of€the€crime€has€been€achieved€orÏabandoned.ðð).€€In€order€to€obtain€the€proceeds,€Ms.€Hurt€obviously€had€to€conceal€her€involvement€in€herÏhusbandððs€murder. ÄÝ ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝMs.€Murray€also€complains€that€she€was€not€provided€with€the€disciplinary€report€prior€toÐ `  ÐEnsworthððs€testimony.€€However,€any€error€in€this€failure€was€harmless€in€light€of€the€fact€that€the€reportÏwas€not€introduced€into€evidence€and€no€further€reference€was€made€to€it.'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝMr.€Murray€does€not€contest€the€legality€of€either€the€search€of€the€barn€or€the€seizure€of€hisÐ `  Ðvehicle. Ý ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€indicates€that€Mr.€Murray€spoke€to€Detective€John€Sparks€of€the€Kentucky€StateÐ `  ÐPolice,€whom€he€had€apparently€known€for€a€number€of€years.€€ò òó óHowever,€nothing€in€the€record€indicatesÐ  ¾ Ðwhat€was€said€during€this€conversation€and€the€parties€do€not€suggest€that€it€has€any€relevance€to€theÏdetermination€of€this€issue. Ý ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝMs.€Murrayððs€claim€that€she€was€entitled€to€a€limiting€instruction€that€Mr.€Murrayððs€statementsÐ `  Ðwere€not€to€be€considered€for€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted€is€without€merit.€€As€an€admission€of€a€party,Ïthese€statements€were€not€hearsay,€but€were€introduced€as€evidence€of€James€Murrayððs€guilt.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð Ü | ÐR.€Evid.€803(1.2)(A).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular yÝ ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝBecause€we€conclude€that€there€was€no€credible€evidence€that€Rowe€had€any€secret€agreementÐ `  Ðwith€the€State,€we€need€not€address€the€potential€consequences€of€purposefully€concealing€such€anÏagreement. âÝ ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝCotton€Murray€was€apparently€not€related€to€James€and€Marcie€Murray. ÅÝ ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€have€reviewed€Roweððs€affidavits€and€we€agree€that€the€unsupported€allegations€they€containÐ `  Ðare€simply€not€credible.€€This€is€especially€true€in€light€of€the€fact€that€both€Rowe€and€his€counsel€testifiedÏat€trial€that€there€was€no€secret€agreement€with€the€State.€ò òó ó oÝ ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝMs.€Murray€does€not€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€giving€this€instruction€and€for€the€reasonsÐ `  Ðstated€in€Part€XIV,€òòinfraóó,€we€hold€that€it€was€not€error€to€give€this€instruction. ßÔ€!XGXXXÔÔ€!/$ X!XGÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€!XGX !/$ÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó ÑÝ ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€are€unconvinced€by€Ms.€Murrayððs€argument€that€due€process€requires€disclosure€in€everyÐ `  Ðcase€because€the€State€has€a€monopoly€on€this€information.€€To€the€contrary,€Ms.€Murray€could€haveÏobtained€some€of€this€information€herself€with€the€exercise€of€reasonable€diligence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð Ü | Ððð€40„32„101(c)(3)€(Supp.€1998)€(ð ðRelease€of€arrest€histories€of€a€defendant€or€potential€witness€in€aÏcriminal€proceeding€to€an€attorney€of€record€in€the€proceeding€shall€be€made€to€such€attorney€onÏrequest.ðð). ’Ý ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝMarcie€Murray€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€enhanced€her€sentence€underÐ `  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„114(4)€based€on€a€finding€that€the€victim€was€particularly€vulnerable.€ÏShe€argues€that€this€is€unfair€because€the€court€based€its€finding€on€the€fact€that€Don€Hurt€had€beenÏdrugged€after€the€court€had€denied€her€the€funding€to€hire€an€expert€to€disprove€this€conclusion.€€However,Ïthe€record€reveals€that€the€courtððs€use€of€this€enhancement€factor€was€also€based€on€Don€Hurtððs€physicalÏdisabilities€that€were€caused€by€the€prior€attempt€on€his€life€on€June€11,€1991.€ò òó ó€In€any€case,€the€trial€courtððsÐ  ¶ Ðdenial€of€funding€for€an€expert€was€correct.€€òòSeeóó€Part€X,€òòsupraóó. d 'Ý ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€have€examined€Simsðð€sworn€statement€and,€if€anything,€it€is€even€less€credible€than€RoweððsÐ `  Ðsworn€statements.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÷Ý ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellants€Sharon€Hurt€and€Marcie€Murray€do€not€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence. ’Ý ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€1995€amendment€eliminated€deliberation€as€an€element€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð `  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(Supp.€1998)€(ð ðFirst€degree€murder€is:€A€premeditated€and€intentional€killingÏof€another.ðð). >Ý ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€found€as€a€matter€of€law€that€Leonard€Rowe€was€the€Appellantsðð€accomplice.€€ò òó óThatÐ `  Ðconclusion€has€not€been€challenged. FÝ ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝJames€Murrayððs€argument€that€Roweððs€testimony€that€Rowe€gave€him€the€.38€caliber€pistol€heÐ `  Ðused€to€kill€Don€Hurt€must€be€specifically€corroborated€is€without€merit.€€This€Court€has€previously€statedÏthat€ð ð[i]t€is€not€necessary€that€the€corroboration€extend€to€every€part€of€the€accompliceððs€evidence.ðð€€òòStateÐ Ü | Ðv.€Gayloróó,€862€S.W.2d€546,€552€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992). èÝ ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIt€does€not€appear€from€the€record,€and€it€is€not€argued,€that€this€statement€by€Moran€wasÐ `  Ðcalculated€to€elicit€incriminating€statements€or€induce€James€Murray€to€waive€his€asserted€rights.€€òòSeeóó€Ð  ¾ ÐòòRhode€Island€v.€Innisóó,€446€U.S.€291,€100€S.€Ct.€1682,€64€L.€Ed.€2d€297€(1980).€€€€ Ý ƒ ÷Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xg‰XXXÔÔ€ôØÕ ôXXg‰Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€authority€for€this€proposition,€Mr.€Murray€cites€two€federal€cases,€òòUnited€States€v.€Brooksóó,€536Ð `  ÐF.2d€1137€(6th€Cir.€1976)€and€òòUnited€States€v.€Hermanóó,€544€F.2d€791€(5th€Cir.€1977).€€Both€of€these€casesÐ  ¾ Ðhave€been€superseded€by€statute/rule.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Sebetichóó,€776€F.2d€412,€421€(3d€Cir.1985).(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñÊñ›ñÊñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š’©ŠXXÔÔ€ŠÃŠŠŠ’©ÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ö$XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñÔññÊñßr€ <,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rßñÊññÔññÔñßr€<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rßñÔññÊñ›ñÊñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9702„CR„00066Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€ANN€LACY€JOHNSó óÐ Xø  Ðò òJAMES€MURRAY,à h àà À à)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðò òMARCIE€MURRAY€andà h àà À à)ó óÐ Xø Ðò òSHARON€R.€HURTó óà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€First€Degree€MurderÐ Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àand€Conspiracy€to€Commit€First€à (# àœÐ Xø Ðà ` à›à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àDegree€Murder)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8!Ø ÐÌJOHN€E.€RODGERS,€JR.à À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ (#È ÐSuite€1230,€First€American€Centerà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  $À Ð315€Deaderick€StreetÌNashville,€TN€€37238„1230à À àà  àDARIAN€B.€TAYLORÐ &° Ð(Attorney€for€James€Murray)à À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ '¨ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌCHARLES€R.€RAYà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð ø(˜  Ð211€Third€Avenue€NorthÌP.€O.€Box€198288à  àà h àà À àà  àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSONÐ è*ˆ!" ÐNashville,€TN€€37219„8288à À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ à+€"# Ð(Attorney€for€Marcie€Murray)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTOM€THURMANÌPETER€J.€STRIANSEà h àà À àà  àROGER€MOOREÐ È.h%& Ð21st€Floor,€First€American€Centerà  àAssistant€District€AttorneysÐ À/`&' ÐNashville,€TN€€37238à h àà À àà  àWashington€Sq.,€Ste.€500Ð ¸0X'( Ð(Attorney€for€Sharon€Hurt)à À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37201„1649à Ð àà (# àÐ °1P() Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  h:12W ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°Še°ŠŠÃÔò òòòÔ‡„P× „°°ŠeÔOPINIONÔ#†°Še° „„P׃#Ôóóó óÔ€ŠÃа°ŠeÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÑ7€ö$XXdìXXdì7Ñà ` àOn€August€2,€1995,€a€Davidson€County€jury€convicted€Appellants€SharonÐ ´ T ÐHurt,€Marcie€Murray,€and€James€Murray€of€one€count€of€first€degree€murder€andÏone€count€of€conspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder.€€After€a€sentencingÏhearing€on€December€14,€1995,€Sharon€Hurt€was€given€consecutive€sentencesÏof€€life€imprisonment€and€twenty„four€years,€Marcie€Murray€was€given€consecutiveÏsentences€of€life€imprisonment€and€twenty€years,€and€James€Murray€was€givenÏconsecutive€sentences€of€life€imprisonment€and€twenty„two€years.€€AppellantsÏchallenge€both€their€convictions€and€their€sentences,€raising€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà0 ` à1)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€denied€Appellantsðð€motions€to€sever€theÏtrial€of€each€Appellant;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€Appellant€JamesÏMurrayððs€convictions;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€admitted€Appellant€James€MurrayððsÏstatements€made€to€law€enforcement€officials;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à4)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€denied€Appellant€Marcie€Murrayððs€motionÏfor€a€mistrial€after€testimony€about€an€investigation€regarding€her€conductÏat€work;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à5)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€admitted€testimony€about€the€seizure€ofÏAppellant€James€Murrayððs€automobile;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à6)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€admitted€a€shotgun€shell€into€evidenceÏas€a€demonstrative€aid;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à7)€whether€the€State€improperly€withheld€exculpatory€evidence€and€usedÏperjured€testimony€from€a€co„defendant;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à8)€whether€Appellants€were€entitled€to€a€new€trial€based€upon€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à9)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€denied€state€funds€for€Appellants€to€hireÏan€expert€in€the€field€of€pathology/toxicology;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à10)€whether€Appellant€Sharon€Hurt€was€entitled€to€a€mistrial€when€a€co„¼defendant€testified€that€ð ðthey€did€stuff€like€this€beforeðð;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à11)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€refused€to€allow€Appellants€to€impeachÏtheir€co„defendantððs€testimony€with€testimony€from€another€witness;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à12)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€order€the€State€to€provideÏthe€criminal€records€of€all€of€its€witnesses€to€Appellants;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à13)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€gave€a€missing€witness€instructionÏregarding€an€alibi€witness;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à14)€whether€the€jury€engaged€in€misconduct;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à15)€whether€Appellant€James€Murray€was€prejudiced€by€the€courtÏreporterððs€failure€to€record€certain€statements€made€during€various€benchÏâ âconferences;ÐD9ä/1` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à16)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€imposed€consecutive€sentences€onÏâ âeach€Appellant;€andÐ ` T$` T$ ÐÓÓà0 ` à17)€whether€there€was€cumulative€error€that€requires€reversal.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ÑÑ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ  À Ðà ` àAccording€to€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€Don€Hurt€married€his€secondÏwife,€Appellant€Sharon€Hurt,€in€February,€1988.€€Early€in€the€marriage,€the€coupleÏmoved€several€times€until€Don€Hurt€built€a€house€in€Goodlettsville,€TennesseeÏthat€was€financed€by€his€motherððs€$25,000€mortgage€on€her€home,€which€wasÏnever€repaid.€€In€March,€1990,€the€couple€took€out€two€insurance€policies€withÏFarmerððs€New€World€Life€Insurance,€one€for€Don€Hurt€and€one€for€Sharon€Hurt.€ÏDonððs€policy€was€for€$150,000€and€Sharonððs€policy€was€for€$100,000.€€BeginningÏin€June,€1990,€the€couple€separated€for€a€six€month€period,€during€which€timeÏDon€Hurt€filed€for€bankruptcy.€ÌÌà ` àLeonard€Rowe€testified€that€he€met€Sharon€Hurt€in€the€summer€of€1990,Ïand€the€two€soon€began€having€an€affair.€€Rowe€provided€Sharon€Hurt€withÏmoney,€a€condominium,€and€a€job€as€his€ð ðpersonal€secretaryðð.€€Sharon€HurtððsÏsalary€was€paid€in€cash€and€was€not€recorded€in€the€company€books.€€Rowe€alsoÏgave€Sharon€money€to€buy€a€pink€Cadillac.€€€When€Rowe€decided€to€return€to€hisÏwife€in€December€1990,€Sharon€became€angry€and€moved€back€in€with€Don€Hurt.€ÏThe€affair€continued,€however,€and€Sharon€continued€to€work€for€RoweððsÏCompany.ÌÌà ` àWanda€Hudgins€testified€that€in€January€1991,€she€had€a€conversation€withÏSharon€Hurt€about€Don€Hurt.€€Sharon€stated€that€she€was€ð ðsickðð€of€her€husbandÐ à9€02 Ðand€ð ðcouldnððt€stand€himðð€because€he€was€ð ðsmothering€her.ðð€€On€anotherÏoccasion,€Hudgins€went€with€Sharon€to€meet€with€Rowe€at€his€place€of€business.€ÏSharon€began€to€tell€Rowe€ð ðhow€much€troubleðð€Don€was€causing€her.€€Rowe€thenÏtook€some€letters€out€of€a€safe€and€Sharon€told€Hudgins€that€she€was€keepingÏthese€letters€for€ð ðammunitionðð€for€when€she€could€divorce€Don€because€she€wasÏð ðnot€leaving€with€nothing.€€Iððm€going€to€take€him€for€everything.ðð€€Rowe€thenÏreached€into€his€desk,€pulled€out€a€gun,€and€said€ð ðI€have€something€that€will€takeÏcare€of€Don€Hurt.ðð€€€Rowe€later€attributed€this€behavior€to€ð ðacting€machoðð€andÏð ðrunning€off€at€the€mouth.ðð€ÌÌà ` àRowe€testified€that€as€a€result€of€his€affair€with€Sharon€Hurt,€he€met€someÏof€her€family,€including€her€sister€and€brother„in„law,€Appellants€Marcie€andÏJames€Murray.€€In€February€1991,€the€Murrays€told€Rowe€that€Don€Hurt€hadÏborrowed€$15,000€from€them,€had€not€paid€any€of€it€back,€and€as€a€result,€theyÏwere€going€to€ð ðkill€the€son„of„a„bitch.ðð€€Rowe€also€testified€that€around€this€time,ÏSharon€Hurt€told€him€that€she€had€offered€James€and€Marcie€Murray€money€toÏshoot€her€husband.€€ÌÌà ` àHudgins€testified€that€Sharon€Hurt€called€her€in€May€1991€and€requestedÏsome€information.€€Sharon€knew€that€Hudginsðð€first€husband€had€been€killed€inÏan€accident€and€she€asked€Hudgins€how€to€determine€the€amount€of€lifeÏinsurance€she€should€have€on€Don.€€She€also€asked€questions€about€how€longÏit€took€to€receive€insurance€proceeds€after€a€person€died€and€how€to€make€aÏclaim.€€ò òÐ ð5,. Ðâ âœó óñÇñÐ à7€.0 ÐñÇññÈñ›Ð Ð9p02 ÐñÈñ›à ` àOn€May€31,€1991,€Don€and€Sharon€Hurt€applied€for€an€increase€on€theÏâ âvalue€of€their€life€insurance€by€$100,000€each,€to€bring€the€total€to€$250,000€forÏDon׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€$200,000€for€Sharon.€€€Alvie€Besch,€the€Hurtððs€insurance€agent,€testifiedÐ @ à Ðthat€although€the€increase€was€requested€at€the€end€of€May,€it€did€not€go€intoÏeffect€immediately,€but€was€held€in€abeyance€until€the€underwriting€cleared.€ÏBesch€never€actually€informed€Don€and€Sharon€Hurt€when€the€increase€went€intoÏeffect.€€œñÉñÌñÉñ›Ìà ` àOn€Friday,€June€8,€1991,€Don€Hurt€made€a€request€to€a€dispatcher€for€hisÏemployer,€Malone€&€Hyde€Trucking,€to€be€assigned€for€a€run€the€followingÏMonday.€€The€dispatcher,€Richard€Handley,€testified€that€he€complied€andÏscheduled€Don€Hurt€to€make€an€early€morning€pick„up€at€a€Nashville€Dairy€plantÏand€truck€the€goods€to€a€Memphis€suburb.€€Handley€testified€that€before€makingÏthis€run,€Don€would€have€had€to€go€to€the€Malone€&€Hyde€facility€to€get€his€cab.€ÏThe€Malone€&€Hyde€truck€terminal€was€located€off€Interstate€65€at€the€LongÏHollow€Pike€exit€in€Goodlettsville,€Tennessee.€€A€Shoneyððs€restaurant€was€alsoÏlocated€at€that€exit.€€On€Monday,€June€10,€1991,€at€11:28€p.m.,€a€call€was€placedÏfrom€a€phone€at€this€Shoneyððs€to€the€Murray€residence€in€Pigeon€Forge,ÏTennessee,€and€was€billed€to€the€Murray€residence€by€use€of€a€calling€card.€€AtÏ11:30€p.m.,€a€call€was€placed€from€a€different€telephone€at€Shoneyððs€to€BaptistÏHospital€in€Knoxville€where€Marcie€Murray€worked.€€This€call€was€also€billed€toÏthe€Murray€residence€by€use€of€a€calling€card.€€James€Murray€later€admitted€toÏthe€police€that€he€made€these€telephone€calls.€Ìâ âÐ ð5,. Ðà ` àDuring€the€early€morning€hours€of€June€11,€1991,€Don€Hurt€was€driving€hisÏâ âtruck€near€the€Tennessee€River€when€what€he€later€described€as€a€red€or€orangeÏ1979ð!ð81€Firebird€or€Camaro€type€vehicle€pulled€alongside€of€his€cab€andÏsomeone€in€the€car€fired€a€shotgun€at€him.€€The€slug€penetrated€the€side€of€theÏtruck€just€behind€the€driverððs€door,€passed€through€the€driverððs€seat,€went€throughÏDon€Hurt,€ricocheted€against€the€windshield,€and€landed€on€the€floorboards€nearÏthe€passenger€side€of€the€vehicle.€€Don€Hurt,€who€suffered€gunshot€wounds€to€hisÏleft€shoulder€and€neck,€was€transported€to€the€Camden€Emergency€Room€andÏfrom€there€was€taken€to€Columbia€HCA€Regional€Hospital€in€Jackson.€ÌÌà ` àPolice€investigators€arrived€at€the€scene€at€approximately€4:30€a.m.€andÏtook€photographs.€€They€located€the€shotgun€slug€and€wadding€inside€the€cabÏand€sent€the€slug€to€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€for€analysis.€€AÏfirearms€specialist€examined€the€slug€and€determined€that€it€was€a€unique€typeÏof€ð ðsabotðð€shell€which€is€typically€fired€from€a€12„gauge€shotgun.€€€No€arrestsÏresulted€from€the€police€investigation.€ò òÐ p& ÐÌà ` àó óRowe€testified€that€shortly€after€the€shooting,€he€had€a€conversation€withÐ `*!" ÐSharon€Hurt€during€which€she€said€that€ð ðMarcie€and€Jimmy€had€messed€the€jobÏup€and€she€would€have€to€take€care€of€it€herself.ðð€€Shortly€afterwards,€Rowe€sawÏall€three€Appellants€in€his€office.€€At€this€time,€Marcie€and€James€Murray€told€himÏthat€they€shot€Don€Hurt€with€a€12„gauge€shotgun€while€he€was€driving€on€theÏinterstate.€€Marcie€Murray€also€told€Rowe€that€they€were€going€to€go€to€theÏhospital€to€inject€air€into€the€tubes€that€fed€Don€intravenously.€€James€Murray€toldÏRowe€that€if€he€told€anyone€about€the€incident,€ð ðwe€donððt€mind€taking€your€life€andÏyour€whole€damn€family.ðð€€Ð à9€02 Їà ` àDon€Hurtððs€Mother,€Eva€Oden,€testified€that€at€one€point€when€she€wasÏsitting€in€Donððs€hospital€room,€Sharon€Hurt€and€James€and€Marcie€MurrayÏentered€the€room€and€walked€up€close€to€Don€with€Sharon€and€Marcie€at€DonððsÏleft€arm€and€James€at€his€right.€€When€Sharon€saw€that€Oden€was€in€the€room,Ïshe€stated€ð ðIf€I€was€the€nurse€in€here,€there€wouldnððt€nobody€be€here.ðð€€WhenÏOden€refused€to€leave€the€room,€Sharon€and€the€Murrays€left€the€room€withoutÏsaying€anything.€€Sharon€Hurt€told€Rowe€later€that€she€and€the€Murrays€had€beenÏunable€to€do€what€they€had€planned€to€do€at€the€hospital€because€she€had€gottenÏinto€a€fight€with€the€Hurt€family€and€because€there€were€television€monitors€in€theÏhallway.€ÌÌà ` àRick€Hurt€testified€that€while€he€was€visiting€his€father€in€the€hospital€theÏday€after€the€shooting,€Sharon€Hurt€stated€that€whoever€shot€Don€ð ðdidnððt€finishÏthe€job,€but€they€would€be€back€to€finish€it.ðð€€When€Rick€replied€that€ð ðsnipers€donððtÏcome€back,ðð€Sharon€responded€ð ðwell,€theyððll€be€back.ðð€ÌÌà ` àDon€Hurt€spent€a€total€of€seven€days€in€the€hospital€and€he€was€dischargedÏon€June€18,€1991.€€€After€Don€was€shot€on€June€11,€1991,€insurance€agent€BeschÏdealt€solely€with€Sharon€Hurt€regarding€the€coupleððs€insurance€policies.€ÌÌà ` àRowe€testified€that€some€time€in€September€or€October€1991,€Sharon€HurtÏand€the€Murrays€came€over€to€his€residence€in€Nashville.€€At€one€point,€theÏMurrays€began€laughing€about€how€fast€their€Trans€Am€was€and€they€stated€thatÏMarcie€had€driven€the€car€while€James€shot€Don€Hurt€through€the€window.€ÏRoweððs€son€Joey€testified€that€he€overheard€James€Murray€talking€to€MarcieÏMurray€and€Sharon€Hurt€and€that€James€stated€that€he€didnððt€understand€ð ðhowÐ Ð9p02 Ðit€didnððt€kill€him€from€a€shot€that€short€of€a€distance.ðð€€Joey€Rowe€also€stated€thatÏthe€Murrayððs€had€driven€to€his€fatherððs€residence€in€two€vehicles,€a€Bronco€andÏa€red€Firebird€or€Trans€Am.€€ÌÌà ` àDon€Hurtððs€daughter€Lisa€testified€that€around€Thanksgiving€1991,€Don€toldÏher€that€he€had€canceled€his€life€insurance€policy€because€he€and€Sharon€couldÏnot€afford€to€pay€their€bills.€€€Oden€also€testified€that€Don€told€her€that€he€hadÏcanceled€his€life€insurance€policy.€ÌÌà ` àLinda€Gurley€testified€that€she€spoke€to€Sharon€Hurt€on€the€telephone€inÏDecember€1991,€and€Sharon€told€her€that€she€was€ð ðfed€upðð€with€Don.€€SharonÏstated€that€she€was€ð ðtired€of€him€feeling€sorry€for€himselfðð€and€ð ðshe€was€tired€ofÏhaving€to€take€care€of€him,€and€she€œhad€had›€all€she€was€going€to€take€with€him.ðð€ÌÌà ` àJeanetta€Russell€testified€that€on€December€19,€1991,€Sharon€Hurt€told€herÏthat€her€husband€was€going€to€meet€a€man€that€night€about€a€gun€and€that€sheÏwas€very€concerned€that€he€might€be€killed.€ÌÌà ` àRowe€testified€that€on€the€morning€or€early€afternoon€of€December€19,Ï1991,€Sharon€Hurt€telephoned€him€and€asked€to€meet€with€him€at€a€restaurant.€ÏWhen€Rowe€arrived€at€the€restaurant€at€1:00€or€2:00€p.m.,€Sharon€Hurt€andÏJames€and€Marcie€Murray€were€outside€in€Sharonððs€car.€€Rowe€walked€up€to€theÏcar€and€James€Murray€asked€him€about€a€.38€pistol€that€Rowe€had€recentlyÏpurchased.€€Rowe€retrieved€the€gun€from€his€truck€and€James€Murray€asked€if€heÏcould€borrow€the€gun€for€a€few€days.€€Rowe€agreed€and€gave€the€gun€to€JamesÏMurray.ò ò€ó ó€Rowe€also€testified€that€Sharon€Hurt€knew€that€he€kept€this€gun€in€hisÐ Ð9p02 Ðtruck€at€all€times.€€Rowe€denied€having€any€knowledge€that€the€group€wasÏplanning€to€kill€Don€Hurt€at€this€time.€ÌÌà ` àMickey€Dalton€testified€that€on€December€19,€1991,€at€approximately€8:00Ïp.m.,€she€was€driving€down€Williamson€Road€near€the€intersection€of€OldÏSpringfield€Highway€in€Goodlettsville.€€Because€few€cars€ever€parked€on€the€sideÏof€the€busy€roads€in€that€area,€her€attention€was€drawn€to€two€cars€that€wereÏparked€on€the€side€of€the€road.€€The€car€in€the€rear€was€an€older€gold€colored€carÏwhile€the€car€in€the€front€was€a€newer€ð ðlight€pastel€funny€colored€kind€of€pastelÏcar,ðð€that€appeared€to€be€a€make€and€model€similar€to€a€Cadillac€Seville.€€SheÏnoticed€that€two€people€were€sitting€in€the€front€of€the€newer€looking€car.€ÌÌà ` àThe€police€discovered€Don€Hurtððs€body€sitting€on€the€passenger€side€of€hisÏgold€colored€vehicle€on€Williamson€Road€at€approximately€11:00€a.m.€onÏDecember€20,€1991.€€An€autopsy€revealed€that€Don€Hurt€had€sustained€twoÏgunshot€wounds€to€the€left€side€of€his€head,€one€at€near€contact€and€one€atÏcontact.€€Each€shot,€although€closely€placed€to€each€other,€was€fired€from€aÏdifferent€angle.€€Both€of€the€shots€were€fatal€and€Don€would€have€beenÏimmediately€unconscious.€The€autopsy€revealed€that€Donððs€time€of€death€wasÏbetween€7:30€and€8:00€p.m.€on€December€19,€1991.ò ò€€ó óFirearms€specialist€SteveÐ 0.Ð$& ÐScott€testified€that€a€bullet€fragment€retrieved€from€Don€Hurtððs€head€and€aÏfragment€found€lying€on€the€floor€of€Donððs€car€were€both€.38€caliber€bullets.€€€ò òÐ  2À(* Ðó óÌà ` àDoctor€Charles€Harlan€testified€that€an€examination€of€Don€Hurtððs€bloodÏrevealed€that€he€had€consumed€one€to€two€mixed€drinks€within€one€hour€of€hisÏdeath.€€In€addition,€his€blood€contained€quantities€of€the€antidepressant€Elavil€andÐ à9€02 Ðdiphenhydramine,€commonly€known€as€Benadryl.€€Doctor€Harlan€testified€thatÏBenadryl€can€be€used€as€a€sedative€as€it€has€the€side€effect€of€making€a€personÏfeel€sleepy.€€Donððs€blood€contained€an€amount€of€Benadryl€that€wasÏapproximately€twenty€times€greater€than€the€normally€accepted€therapeutic€level.€ÏBenadryl€is€fast€acting€and€will€reach€maximum€effectiveness€within€one€hour.€ÏDoctor€Harlan€testified€that€this€high€level€of€Benadryl€mixed€with€alcohol€wouldÏhave€made€Don€drowsy.€€Benadryl€could€be€obtained€in€capsule€form€or€in€liquidsÏeither€with€flavor€or€without.€ÌÌà ` àThe€only€items€of€jewelry€found€on€Don€Hurtððs€body€were€his€wedding€ringÏand€a€wrist€watch.€€According€to€Donððs€son€Rick,€Don€always€wore€a€horseshoeÏring,€a€cluster€ring,€and€a€gold€necklace€in€addition€to€his€watch,€but€these€itemsÏwere€never€found.€ÌÌà ` àInsurance€agent€Besch€testified€that€sometime€during€the€early€morningÏhours€of€December€21,€1991,€he€received€a€telephone€call€from€a€friend€ofÏSharon€Hurt€who€notified€him€that€Don€Hurt€had€been€murdered.€€Besch€testifiedÏthat€he€could€hear€Sharon€crying€on€the€other€end€of€the€phone.€€Besch€alsoÏstated€that€this€was€the€only€time€that€he€had€ever€been€awakened€in€the€middleÏof€the€night€to€be€notified€that€one€of€his€clients€had€died.€ÌÌà ` àRowe€testified€that€when€he€learned€of€Don€Hurtððs€death,€he€called€JamesÏMurray€to€ask€him€if€he€had€his€.38€pistol.€€James€told€him€that€he€hadÏdisassembled€it€and€strewn€it€along€the€interstate€on€the€way€back€to€Sevierville,ÏTennessee.€€James€also€stated€that€he€and€Marcie€had€thrown€their€blood€soakedÏclothes€off€a€bridge€into€a€river€on€their€way€home.€€Ð Ð9p02 Їà ` àJudy€Tankersley€testified€that€she€accompanied€Eva€Oden€and€SharonÏHurt€to€the€funeral€home€in€order€to€make€plans€for€Donððs€wake€and€funeralÏservice.€€Tankersley€testified€that€when€the€mortician€asked€Sharon€how€sheÏwould€pay€for€the€funeral,€she€took€out€some€papers€and€said€ð ðI€can€pay€for€itÏbecause€one€of€these€is€for€two„hundred„thousand€dollars.€€When€Oden€said€ð ðthatÏis€not€true.€€Don€canceled€that€insurance€policy,ðð€Sharon€responded,€ð ð[N]o,€heÏthought€he€did.€€I€had€some€friends€that€helped€me€keep€it€paid.ðð€€Oden€confirmedÏthat€this€conversation€took€place.€€Tankersley€and€Oden€both€testified€that€SharonÏsaid€that€she€was€a€ð ðrich€widow€now.ðð€€ÌÌà ` àRowe€testified€that€at€some€point€after€the€funeral,€Sharon€Hurt€told€himÏthat€ð ðShe€wouldnððt€have€went€along€with€them€to€murder€[Don]€if€she€had€knownÏthey€were€going€to€beat€him€up€like€that.ðð€€Sharon€later€told€him€that€she€wasÏangry€with€the€Murrays€because€they€had€taken€Donððs€gold€and€diamonds€andÏthat€she€was€going€to€deduct€that€from€the€amount€of€money€that€she€owed€them.€ÌÌà ` àLinda€Gurley€testified€that€shortly€after€Don€Hurtððs€murder,€she€had€aÏconversation€with€Sharon€Hurt€during€which€Sharon€discussed€the€investigationÏof€Donððs€death€and€stated€that€she€was€ð ðat€the€point€she€was€willing€to€buyÏsomeone.ðð€€When€Gurley€told€Sharon€that€she€had€been€out€of€town€when€DonÏwas€killed,€Sharon€said€ð ðOh€thatððs€right.€€I€forgot.ðð€€A€few€months€later,€SharonÏasked€Gurley€to€testify€that€Don€and€Rowe€had€settled€their€differences€and€wereÏfriends.€€Gurley€told€her€that€she€could€not€agree€because€it€was€not€true.ÌÌà ` àRowe€testified€that€in€July€1992,€he€asked€James€Murray€to€tell€himÏprecisely€what€happened€the€night€that€Don€Hurt€was€murdered.€€James€told€himÐ Ð9p02 Ðthat€they€had€put€ð ðmickeysðð€in€Donððs€drinks€and€then€the€three€of€them€walkedÏhim€through€the€front€door€and€out€to€the€car.€€James€and€Marcie€then€each€shotÏDon€in€the€head.€€They€then€took€jewelry€from€the€body€and€James€later€meltedÏit€down€at€a€place€where€he€worked.€€At€this€time€Marcie€stated€that€ð ðwe€still€wantÏyou€to€know€if€anything€is€ever€said€about€this€.€.€.€we€donððt€mind€taking€your€lifeÏand€your€whole€damn€family.ðð€ÌÌà ` àOn€March€5,€1993,€Captain€Randy€Parton€of€the€Sevier€County€SheriffððsÏDepartment€impounded€a€red€1982€Firebird€that€belonged€to€James€Murray.ÌÌà ` àRowe€and€Sharon€Hurt€were€arrested€in€Nashville€on€September€13,€1993.€Ï€Rowe€initially€lied€to€the€police€regarding€his€relationship€with€Sharon€Hurt€andÏhis€knowledge€of€the€plan€to€murder€Don€Hurt.€€However,€Rowe€eventuallyÏdecided€to€come€forward€and€provide€information€to€the€authorities€in€exchangeÏfor€having€his€bond€lowered.€€In€addition,€he€was€granted€use€immunity€forÏanything€that€he€told€the€authorities.€€Rowe€was€also€promised€ð ðconsiderationðð€atÏthe€time€he€entered€his€plea€and€he€acknowledged€that€the€only€reason€why€heÏwas€testifying€was€to€get€as€much€ð ðconsiderationðð€as€possible.€€Both€Rowe€andÏhis€attorney€testified€that€no€other€promises€had€been€made€in€exchange€for€hisÏtestimony.€ÌÌà ` àJames€and€Marcie€Murray€were€arrested€in€Franklin,€Kentucky€on€AugustÏ28,€1994.€€Detective€Ed€Moran€testified€that€after€James€Murray€was€placed€in€theÏpolice€car€for€transport,€he€told€Moran€ð ðI€knew€that€it€was€over€when€I€saw€the€twoÏ[Kentucky€State€Police]€cars€parked€down€the€street,€and€Iððm€glad€its€over€with.ðð€ÏAfter€Moran€read€the€indictment€to€James€and€advised€him€of€his€constitutionalÐ Ð9p02 Ðrights,€James€stated€that€he€ð ðknew€some€information€in€this€case,ðð€and€that€heÏð ðwanted€to€make€a€deal.ðð€€Moran€told€him€that€he€was€not€authorized€to€make€aÏdeal€and€that€James€would€have€to€speak€with€the€district€attorney€general.€ÏWhen€Moran€later€returned€to€transport€James€to€Tennessee,€James€stated€thatÏhe€had€some€information€and€he€wanted€to€make€a€deal.€€When€Moran€remindedÏhim€that€he€was€not€in€a€position€to€negotiate€a€deal,€James€lowered€his€head€andÏstated,€ð ðWell,€what€kind€of€deal€can€I€get€when€Iððm€going€to€plead€guilty.ðð€ÌÌ€à@"®àò òII.€€DENIAL€OF€SEVERANCEó óˆÐ à€ ÐÌà ` àAll€three€Appellants€contend€that€their€trials€should€have€been€severed€soÏthat€they€could€have€been€tried€separately.€€Each€Appellant€gives€various€reasonsÏfor€their€positions,€but€they€all€basically€contend€that€evidence€presented€againstÏthe€other€Appellants€ð ðspilled„overðð€onto€them€and€unfairly€prejudiced€their€abilityÏto€present€their€individual€defenses.€€Rules€14(c)(2)(i)€and€(ii)€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provide€that€the€trial€court€shall€grant€a€severanceÏof€defendants€if€deemed€appropriate€to€promote€or€achieve€a€fair€determinationÏof€a€defendantððs€guilt€or€innocence.€€ð ðWhether€to€grant€a€severance€is€within€theÏtrial€judgeððs€sound€discretion.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ensleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€502,€508€(Tenn.Ð P,ð"$ ÐCrim.€App.€1996).€€ð ðThe€exercise€of€that€discretion€will€not€be€reversed€absent€anÏaffirmative€showing€of€prejudice.ðð€€òòId.óó€€ð ðIn€other€words,€the€record€mustÐ 00Ð&( Ðdemonstrate€that€the€defendant€was€clearly€prejudiced€to€the€point€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€discretion€ended€and€the€granting€of€[a]€severance€became€a€judicialÏduty.ðð€€òòParham€v.€Stateóó,€885€S.W.2d€375,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(citationÐ 6 ,. Ðomitted).€€ð ðThe€trial€court,€however,€must€not€only€protect€the€rights€of€theÏaccused,€it€must€also€protect€the€rights€of€the€state€prosecution,€and€ððwhenÐ à9€02 Ðseveral€persons€are€charged€jointly€with€a€single€crime€.€.€.€the€state€is€entitled€toÏhave€the€fact€of€guilt€determined€and€punishment€assessed€in€a€single€trial,Ïunless€to€do€so€would€unfairly€prejudice€the€rights€of€the€defendants.ðððð€€òòState€v.Ð @ à ÐWisemanóó,€643€S.W.2d€354,€362€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982)€(citation€omitted).€€Ð 0Ð ÐÌà@44$®àò òA.€€Witness€Testimonyó óˆÐ °  ÐÌà ` àAppellantsðð€make€numerous€allegations€of€prejudicial€errors€that€theyÏbelieve€warranted€severance€of€their€trials€both€before€the€trial€began€and€duringÏthe€trial€itself.€€Many€of€these€allegations€relate€to€the€admission€of€statementsÏfrom€witnesses€about€one€Appellant€that€ð ðspilled„overðð€to€the€complainingÏAppellant.€€For€instance,€James€and€Marcie€Murray€contend€that€Don€HurtððsÏmother,€Eva€Oden,€should€not€have€been€allowed€to€testify€that€she€had€anÏaltercation€with€Sharon€Hurt€at€the€hospital€shortly€after€Don€was€shot€in€JuneÏ1991:ÌÓÓà0 ` àQ:€And€did€you€later€have€an€altercation€with€Sharon€Hurt€over€you€beingÏat€the€hospital?Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àA:€Yes,€sir.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àQ:€Okay.€€We€donððt€need€to€get€specific€there,€but€was€there€an€altercationÏabout€that?Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àA:€Well,€she€had€been€gone€several€days,€and€I€was€still€there.€€She€cameÏin€with€like€a€little€overnight€grip.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àQ:€Okay.€We€donððt€need€to€get€specific€and„„Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àA:€And€she€was€standing€at€the€little€table.€€She€took€this€chair€and€pickedÏthis€chair„„Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àQ:€Maððam,€please,€just€listen€to€my€question,€okay.€€We€donððt€need€to€getÏreal€specific.€€Would€you€acknowledge€there€was€an€altercation€without„„Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àA:€Yes,€there€were„„Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àQ:€„„getting€into€all€the€details?Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àA:€Yes,€there€were.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àQ:€Okay.€And€as€a€result€of€that,€did€you€leave€at€that€time?Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓÓà0 ` àA:€Yes,€I€did.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐThe€State€contends€that€James€and€Marcie€Murray€were€not€prejudiced€by€thisÏtestimony€because€it€would€have€been€admitted€even€if€they€had€been€triedÐ à9€02 Ðseparately.€€We€agree.€€In€òòState€v.€Littleóó,€854€S.W.2d€643€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð `  Ð1992),€this€Court€stated€that€ð ða€severance€need€not€be€granted€where€theÏevidence€which€was€introduced€could€have€been€admitted€against€[the€defendant]Ïin€a€separate€trial.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€648.€€Odenððs€testimony€would€have€been€admitted€evenÐ 0Ð Ðif€the€Appellants€had€been€tried€separately€in€order€to€establish€the€conspiracyÏoffense.€€Indeed,€there€was€evidence€that€the€three€Appellants€went€to€theÏhospital€to€kill€Don€Hurt€by€injecting€bubbles€into€his€intravenous€tubes.€€Proof€ofÏthe€altercation€helped€to€explain€why€they€left€before€accomplishing€their€goal.€ÏThus,€the€Murrays€have€not€shown€that€they€were€prejudiced€by€this€testimony.ÌÌà ` àJames€and€Marcie€Murray€also€contend€that€they€were€prejudiced€byÏOdenððs€testimony,€elicited€on€cross„examination€by€counsel€for€Sharon€Hurt,€thatÏOden€also€made€a€claim€on€Don€Hurtððs€insurance€policies€because€she€ð ðhad€aÏbad€feeling€that€[Sharon]€might€have€been€the€person€that€killed€[her]€son.ðð€€ThisÏstatement€was,€of€course,€directed€at€Sharon€Hurt€and€it€did€nothing€to€discreditÏthe€Murrayððs€alibi€defense.€€Further,€the€trial€court€noted€that€it€was€responsive€toÏcounselððs€question€about€whether€Oden€had€made€a€claim€on€the€policies.€€TheÏcourt€also€stated€that€its€instructions€at€the€end€of€trial€would€address€the€needÏto€keep€evidence€separate€as€to€each€Appellant.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Because€we€presume€that€theÐ @,à"$ Ðjury€followed€its€instructions,€we€hold€that€the€Murrays€have€not€shown€that€theyÏwere€prejudiced€by€this€statement.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lunatióó,€665€S.W.2d€739,€746Ð  0À&( Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(ð ðThe€trial€judge€instructed€the€jury€that€they€were€toÐ 2°(* Ðconsider€the€charges€against€each€defendant€individually.€€€It€is€presumed€thatÏthe€jury€followed€his€instructions.ðð).ÌÌà ` à€James€and€Marcie€Murray€also€make€a€general€contention€that€they€shouldÏhave€been€granted€a€severance€when€Tankersley€testified€that€she€heard€SharonÏHurt€say€that€she€was€a€ð ðrich€widow€now.ðð€€Again,€this€bare€contention€is€notÏsufficient€to€establish€prejudice€because€we€presume€that€the€jury€followed€theÏtrial€courtððs€instruction€to€consider€only€the€evidence€applicable€to€each€Appellant.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€880€S.W.2d€395,€399€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(ð ðIn€mostÐ à€ Ðcircumstances,€we€presume€that€a€jury€follows€limiting€instructions.ðð).ÌÌà ` àJames€and€Marcie€Murray€contend€that€they€should€have€been€granted€aÏseverance€when€Earl€Roberts,€the€Hurt€family€attorney,€testified€about€hisÏrepresentation€of€the€Hurt€family€in€a€civil€suit€against€Sharon€Hurt.€€The€MurraysÏcontend€that€Roberts'€testimony,€that€Sharon€stated€in€her€deposition€that€sheÏhad€never€been€romantically€involved€with€Rowe,€violated€the€hearsay€rules.€€WeÏdisagree.€€This€statement€was€obviously€not€offered€for€the€truth€of€the€matterÏasserted,€it€was€offered€to€show€that€Sharon€lied€in€an€attempt€to€cover€up€herÏparticipation€in€her€husbandððs€murder.€€Even€if€this€statement€could€beÏcharacterized€as€hearsay,€it€was€properly€admitted€as€a€statement€by€a€co„¼conspirator€in€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(1.2)(E).€€Ð  0À&( Ðâ âÐ 2°(* Ðà ` àMarcie€Murray€also€contends€that€Roberts€should€not€have€been€allowedÏâ âto€testify€that€ð ðwe€filed€a€lawsuit€back€in€January€of€1992,€to€prevent€Sharon€HurtÏfrom€receiving€insurance€proceeds.€€There€is€a€State€statute€that€says,€in€soÏmany€words,€that€the€person€cannot€profit€from€their€own€crime,€and„„.ðð€€The€trialÏcourt€ruled€that€this€statement€was€admissible€because€Roberts€was€merelyÏgiving€a€responsive€answer€by€stating€the€legal€basis€upon€which€he€filed€theÏlawsuit.€€Ms.€Murray€provides€no€authority€to€support€her€claim€that€admitting€thisÏstatement€was€error€and€we€hold€that,€at€most,€any€error€in€admitting€this€briefÏstatement€was€harmless€because€we€cannot€say€that€the€admission€of€thisÏstatement€ð ðmore€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.Ð Ðp ÐP.€36(b).ÌÌà ` àMarcie€Murray€also€contends€that€the€testimony€of€two€court€clerks,€RobertÏBradshaw€and€Susan€Murillo,€about€Sharon€Hurtððs€prior€civil€trial€testimonyÏviolated€the€hearsay€rules.€€We€disagree.€€First,€Sharon€Hurtððs€statements€andÏadmissions€made€in€the€civil€trial€were€made€in€an€attempt€to€cover€up€herÏparticipation€in€the€conspiracy€to€kill€Don€Hurt€in€order€to€obtain€insuranceÏproceeds.€€Thus,€the€statements€fall€under€the€statements€of€a€co„conspiratorÏexception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(1.2)(E).€Ð @,à"$ ÐÌà ` àMarcie€Murray€contends€that€she€should€have€been€granted€a€severanceÏbecause€Gurley€gave€testimony€about€Sharon€Hurt€that€had€a€prejudicial€spill„¼over€effect€on€her.€€However,€Ms.€Murray€has€failed€to€specify€which€parts€ofÏGurleyððs€testimony€were€prejudicial€or€to€explain€why€they€were€prejudicial.€ÏPresumably,€she€objects€to€Gurleyððs€testimony€that€Sharon€Hurt€told€her€that€theÏinvestigation€had€put€her€€ð ðat€the€point€[that]€she€was€willing€to€buy€someone.ððÐ Ð9p02 ÐHowever,€this€testimony€would€have€been€admissible€even€if€Ms.€Murray€hadÏbeen€tried€separately€because€it€was€a€statement€by€a€co„conspirator€inÏfurtherance€of€the€conspiracy€to€obtain€the€insurance€proceeds.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð @ à ÐEvid.€803(1.2)(E).ÌÌà ` àSharon€Hurt€contends€that€she€should€have€been€granted€a€severanceÏwhen€the€trial€court€admitted€taped€telephone€conversations€between€Rowe,€theÏMurrays,€and€Detective€Moran.€€Ms.€Hurt€does€not€specify€which€of€theseÏstatements€she€objects€to€or€exactly€how€these€statements€prejudiced€her.€ÏHowever,€these€statements€by€the€Murrays€were€basically€attempts€to€establishÏan€alibi€for€the€time€that€Don€Hurt€was€shot€and€ultimately€killed.€€As€such,€theÏstatements€were€properly€admitted€as€to€the€Murrays€as€admissions€of€a€party.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(1.2)(A).€€Because€we€presume€that€the€jury€followed€theÐ   @ Ðtrial€courtððs€limiting€instruction,€we€hold€that€Ms.€Hurt€has€not€shown€that€she€wasÏprejudiced€by€the€introduction€of€these€statements.ÌÌà ` àMarcie€Murray€contends€that€she€should€have€been€granted€a€severanceÏbecause€she€was€prejudiced€by€the€fact€that€members€of€Don€Hurtððs€family€beganÏto€cry€and€display€emotion€in€the€presence€of€the€jury.€€However,€the€recordÏreveals€that€trial€counsel€for€Ms.€Murray€noted€that€only€one€person,€DonððsÏdaughter€Lisa€Baker,€began€to€cry€at€a€certain€point.€€Apparently,€Bakerððs€actionsÏwere€quiet€enough€that€neither€the€trial€court€nor€the€prosecutor€were€aware€thatÏshe€had€been€crying.€€In€any€case,€the€record€reveals€that€the€trial€court€askedÏthe€court€officer€to€discreetly€take€Baker€out€of€the€courtroom€so€that€the€juryÏwould€not€notice€her.€€Ms.€Murrayððs€brief€is€unclear€about€why€this€occurrenceÏrequired€a€severance.€€Baker€may€well€have€cried€at€a€separate€trial.€€RegardlessÐ Ð9p02 Ðof€what€might€have€happened€at€a€separate€trial,€Ms.€Murray€has€failed€to€meetÏher€burden€of€showing€how€she€was€prejudiced€by€this€apparently€brief€incident.ÌÌà ` àMarcie€Murray€contends€that€she€should€have€been€granted€a€severanceÏbecause€the€trial€court€did€not€give€limiting€instructions€after€the€testimony€of€eachÏwitness,€but€rather,€gave€a€limiting€instruction€at€the€end€of€trial.€€As€authority€forÏthis€proposition,€she€cites€òòState€v.€Littleóó,€854€S.W.2d€643€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð    Ð1992).€€However,€òòLittleóó€does€not€contain€any€requirement€that€limiting€instructionsÐ ð  Ðmust€always€be€given€contemporaneously.€€Rather,€it€stands€for€the€propositionÏthat€the€jury€should€be€adequately€instructed€to€consider€evidence€separately€asÏto€each€defendant.€€Although€it€may€generally€be€a€better€practice€to€giveÏcontemporaneous€limiting€instructions,€Ms.€Murray€has€cited€no€TennesseeÏauthority,€and€we€are€unaware€of€any,€which€requires€this€to€be€done€in€everyÏsingle€case.€€Because€the€trial€court€gave€an€appropriate€limiting€instruction€at€theÏend€of€trial,€we€find€no€reversible€error€in€the€failure€to€give€contemporaneousÏinstructions.ÌÌà@†† ®àò òB.€€Statement€of€James€Murrayó óˆÐ P*ð " ÐÌà ` àSharon€Hurt€and€Marcie€Murray€both€contend€that€they€should€have€beenÏgranted€severance€when€the€trial€court€allowed€the€introduction€of€JamesÏMurrayððs€post„arrest€attempts€to€make€a€deal€with€Detective€Moran€and€hisÏstatement€that€he€was€going€to€plead€guilty.€€Specifically,€they€claim€that€theseÏstatements€were€tantamount€to€him€actually€pleading€guilty€which€prejudicedÏthem€in€the€eyes€of€the€jury.€€They€cite€the€cases€of€òòState€v.€Armesóó,€673€S.W.2dÐ ð7.0 Ð174€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)€and€òòBruton€v.€United€Statesóó,€391€U.S.€123,€88€S.€Ct.Ð à9€02 Ð1620,€20€L.€Ed.€2d€476€(1968),€in€support€of€their€claim.€€However,€neither€òòArmesóóÐ `  Ðnor€òòBurtonóó€is€applicable€to€this€case.€€In€òòArmesóó,€this€Court€held€that€it€wasÐ P ð Ðreversible€error€when€a€co„defendant€changed€his€plea€to€guilty€in€the€middle€ofÏthe€trial€and€the€trial€court€took€the€plea€in€front€of€the€jury.€€673€S.W.2d€at€178.€ÏIn€this€case,€however,€James€Murray€did€not€plead€guilty€and€the€trial€courtÏcertainly€did€not€question€him€about€this€statement€in€front€of€the€jury.€€Thus,€thisÏcase€is€distinguishable€from€òòArmesóó.€€This€case€is€also€distinguishable€fromÐ    ÐòòBrutonóó.€€In€òòBrutonóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€an€inculpatoryÐ ð  Ðconfession€of€a€non„testifying€co„defendant€cannot€be€admitted€in€a€joint€trial.€Ï391€U.S.€at€126,€88€S.€Ct.€at€1622.€€However,€òòBrutonóó€does€not€apply€toÐ Ðp Ðstatements€that€do€not€implicate€the€non„confessing€co„defendant.€€òòState€v.Ð À` ÐPersonóó,€781€S.W.2d€868,€872€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989);€òòDorsey€v.€Stateóó,€568Ð °P ÐS.W.2d€639,€642€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€In€this€case,€James€MurrayððsÏstatements€were€simply€his€own€admissions€that€did€not€even€mention,€much€lessÏimplicate,€the€other€Appellants.€€Thus,€òòBrutonóó€is€inapplicable€to€this€case€and€theÐ €$  Ðtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€Sharon€Hurtððs€and€MarcieÏMurrayððs€motions€for€severance€on€this€ground.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð `(  ÐÌà@õ õ ®àò òC.€€Potential€Testimony€of€Sharon€Hurtó óˆÐ @,à"$ ÐÌà ` àMarcie€Murray€contends€that€she€should€have€been€granted€a€severanceÏâ âso€that€she€could€have€had€the€benefit€of€what€she€characterizes€as€SharonÐ  2À(* ÐHurtððs€exculpatory€testimony.€€In€her€pre„trial€motion€to€sever,€Ms.€MurrayÏsubmitted€the€following€affidavit€from€Sharon€Hurt:Ìâ âÓÓà0 ` àà ¸ àBased€upon€the€advice€of€counsel€and€an€independent€decisionÏmade€by€me,€I€have€chosen€not€to€take€the€stand€as€a€witness,€but€instead,ÏI€will€be€exercising€my€rights€under€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution€not€to€testify€in€my€own€behalf.€€Should€I€have€chosenÏto€testify,€my€testimony€as€concerns€two€(2)€telephone€calls€made€fromÏShoneyððs€Restaurant€on€Long€Hollow€Pike€in€Goodlettsville,€Tennessee€onÏthe€night€of€June€10,€1991€would€be€as€follows:Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àMy€husband,€Don€Hurt,€and€I€stopped€off€at€Shoneyððs€Restaurant€toÏhave€coffee€and€he€had€become€aware€that€he€was€going€to€make€aÏspecial€run€for€Malone€&€Hyde,€his€employer,€wherein€he€would€be€leavingÏthe€terminal€around€12:00€AM€on€June€11,€1991.€€We€had€together€madeÏplans€to€visit€my€sister,€Marcie€Murray,€and€her€husband,€James€Murray,Ïin€Sevierville,€Tennessee€on€the€11th€day€of€June,€1991,€so€I€needed€toÏadvise€them€that€we€would€not€be€making€the€trip€to€Sevierville€becauseÏmy€husband€had€to€make€a€special€run€to€Memphis€for€his€employer.€€AtÏapproximately€11:28€PM€and€11:30€PM,€we€made€calls€from€ShoneyððsÏRestaurant€on€separate€telephones€to€my€sister,€Marcie€Murray,€inÏSevierville€and€to€Baptist€Hospital€in€Knoxville€where€I€thought€she€wouldÏbe€working.€€Don€Hurt€called€the€Sevierville€residence€and€spoke€toÏsomeone€for€approximately€three€(3)€minutes.€€I€called€Baptist€Hospital€andÏwas€advised€that€my€sister,€Marcie€Murray,€was€not€working€that€night,€andÏended€the€conversation.€€To€my€knowledge,€neither€Marcie€Murray€norÏJames€Murray€were€in€the€Nashville€area€on€June€10€or€11,€1991.€€Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓÓÌà ` àMarcie€Murray€contends€that€in€submitting€this€affidavit,€she€satisfied€theÏfollowing€four€part€test€for€determining€whether€to€grant€severance€based€onÏcalling€a€co„defendant€as€a€witness:ÌÓÓà0 ` àThe€defendant€must€demonstrate:€€(1)€a€bona€fide€need€for€the€testimony,Ï(2)€the€substance€of€the€testimony,€(3)€its€exculpatory€nature€and€effect,Ïand€(4)€that€the€codefendant€will€in€fact€testify€if€the€cases€are€severed.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓ¥ÓòòUnited€States€v.€Butleróó,€611€F.2d€1066,€1071€(5th€Cir.€1980).€€This€test€has€alsoÐ  0À&( Ðbeen€adopted€by€the€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Sixth€Circuit.€€òòSeeóóÐ 2°(* ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Causeyóó,€834€F.2d€1277,€1287€(6th€Cir.€1987).€€Although€this€testÐ 4 *, Ðhas€never€formerly€been€adopted€by€the€courts€of€Tennessee,€our€courts€haveÏapplied€a€similar€test:€the€defendant€must€present€the€co„defendantððs€proposedÏtestimony,€demonstrate€that€it€is€exculpatory,€and€show€that€the€co„defendant€willÐ Ð9p02 Ðtestify€at€trial€if€the€cases€are€severed.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ashóó,€729€S.W.2d€275,€279Ð `  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòState€v.€Hollidayóó,€No.€28,€1987€WL€9448,€at€*3€(Tenn.Ð P ð ÐCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€June€29,€1987);€òòState€v.€Wisemanóó,€643€S.W.2d€354,€362Ð @ à Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€In€this€case,€Ms.€Murray€has€presented€Ms.€HurtððsÏproposed€testimony.€€However,€neither€her€brief€nor€her€pre„trial€motion€containsÏany€argument€explaining€why€this€statement€is€exculpatory.€€Indeed,€even€ifÏSharon€and€Don€Hurt€were€the€ones€who€made€these€telephone€calls,€theÏMurrays€could€still€have€followed€Don€on€his€westerly€route€in€order€to€shoot€him.€ÏFurther,€this€statement€has€absolutely€nothing€to€do€with€the€actual€murder€of€DonÏHurt€six€months€later€in€December€1991.€€Regardless€of€whether€the€statementÏis€the€least€bit€exculpatory,€neither€the€affidavit€nor€anything€else€in€the€recordÏindicates€that€Ms.€Hurt€would€have€waived€her€Fifth€Amendment€privilege€againstÏself-incrimination€and€actually€testified€if€the€case€were€severed.€Therefore,€theÏtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€refusing€to€grant€the€motion.ÌÌà@~~®àò òD.€€Trial€Tactics€of€Sharon€Hurtó óˆÐ p& ÐÌà ` àMarcie€Murray€contends€that€she€should€have€been€granted€a€severanceÏbecause€counsel€for€Sharon€Hurt€advanced€a€defense€theory€that€Sharon€did€notÏcommit€the€crimes€for€money€because€she€never€made€a€claim€for€the€insuranceÏproceeds.€€Ms.€Murray€contends€that€she€should€have€been€granted€a€severanceÏbecause€this€theory€was€ð ðcompletely€destroyedðð€by€the€testimony€of€the€HurtsððÏinsurance€agent,€Alvie€Besch.€€However,€she€cites€no€relevant€authority€toÏsupport€her€proposition€that€this€was€a€basis€for€severance.€€Further,€she€fails€toÏindicate€which€part€of€the€record€contains€the€objectionable€tactics€of€SharonððsÏcounsel.€€It€does€not€appear€that€Sharon€Hurtððs€defense€theory€was€centered€onÐ à9€02 Ðwhether€she€made€a€claim€for€the€insurance€proceeds.€€Rather,€it€appears€thatÏher€counsel€merely€pointed€out€by€cross„examination€questions€that€Don€HurtððsÏfamily€did€not€know€for€a€fact€whether€Sharon€had€made€an€insurance€claim.€ò ò€ó óThisÐ @ à Ðline€of€questioning€appears€to€have€been€part€of€an€attempt€to€show€that€DonÏHurtððs€family€wanted€the€money€for€themselves.€€These€questions€may€not€haveÏbeen€the€most€prudent€in€light€of€the€fact€that€Besch€later€testified€that€Sharon€didÏput€in€an€insurance€claim,€however,€the€mere€fact€that€counsel€for€a€co„defendantÏasked€a€few€questions€on€cross„examination€that€were€later€rebutted€by€theÏStateððs€evidence€is€insufficient€to€show€prejudice€justifying€severance.ÌÌà@qq®àò òE.€€Missing€Witness€Instructionó óˆÐ Ðp ÐÌà ` àMarcie€Murray€contends€that€she€was€entitled€to€a€severance€based€on€theÏtrial€courtððs€decision€to€give€a€missing€witness€instruction€regarding€PamÏWoolums.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€She€claims€that€severance€was€the€proper€remedy€becauseÐ  $@ ÐWoolums€was€listed€as€an€alibi€witness€by€James€Murray€and€the€missing€witnessÏinstruction€was€thereby€directed€at€him.€€She€argues€that€she€should€not€beÏpenalized€for€relying€on€James€Murrayððs€assurances€that€Woolums€would€beÏpresent€at€the€trial,€which€caused€her€not€to€subpoena€Woolums€for€herself.€ÏHowever,€Ms.€Murray€fails€to€support€this€argument,€which€is€apparently€anÏattempt€to€appeal€to€overall€notions€of€fairness,€with€any€legal€authority.€ÏMoreover,€the€record€does€not€support€her€contention€that€only€James€listedÏWoolums€as€a€witness.€€The€record€does€not€contain€the€defense€alibi€notices,Ïand€therefore,€there€is€no€documentation€regarding€which€witnesses€were€listedÐ 6°,. Ðby€which€Appellant.€€Further,€the€prosecutorððs€statements€at€the€end€of€theÏhearing€on€this€jury€instruction€suggest€that€both€James€and€Marcie€Murray€mayÏhave€listed€Woolums€as€a€witness.€€In€fact,€Marcie€Murray€is€the€one€who€testifiedÏthat€she€and€James€were€eating€dinner€with€Woolums€in€Gatlinburg,€TennesseeÏwhen€Don€Hurt€was€murdered.€€Ms.€Murrayððs€trial€counsel€acknowledged€to€theÏcourt€that€he€simply€relied€on€the€assurances€of€counsel€for€James€that€WoolumsÏwould€be€available€to€testify€and€that€he€would€have€subpoenaed€her€himself€ifÏhe€had€known€that€she€had€not€been€properly€subpoenaed.€€Ms.€MurrayððsÏreliance€upon€the€actions€and€representations€of€counsel€for€Mr.€Murray€is€clearlyÏher€own€fault,€and€she€may€not€now€claim€that€she€was€entitled€to€severance€forÏa€problem€that€she€could€have€avoided€herself.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a)Ð À` Ð(ð ðNothing€in€this€rule€shall€be€construed€as€requiring€relief€be€granted€to€a€partyÏresponsible€for€an€error€or€who€failed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonablyÏavailable€to€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.ðð).ÌÌà@ÍÍ"®àò òF.€€Disparity€of€Evidenceó óˆÐ p& ÐÌà ` àMarcie€Murray€contends€that€she€should€have€been€granted€a€severanceÏbecause€she€was€prejudiced€by€the€fact€that€the€evidence€against€her€was€slightÏin€comparison€to€the€evidence€against€Sharon€Hurt.€€In€support€of€this€broadÏargument,€she€cites€to€òòZafiro€v.€United€Statesóó,€506€U.S.€534,€113€S.€Ct.€933,€122Ð 00Ð&( ÐL.€Ed.€2d€317€(1993).€€In€òòZafiroóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€stated€thatÐ  2À(* Ðð ð[w]hen€many€defendants€are€tried€together€in€a€complex€case€and€they€haveÏmarkedly€different€degrees€of€culpability,€th[e]€risk€of€prejudice€[from€joint€trials]Ïis€heightened.ðð€€òòId.óó€506€U.S.€at€539,€113€S.€Ct.€At€938.€€However,€this€Court€hasÐ ð7.0 Ðstated€that€where€the€charges€against€the€defendants€are€neither€numerous€norÐ à9€02 Ðcomplex€and€the€evidence€shows€that€the€defendant€played€a€central€role€in€theÏcommission€of€the€offense,€we€will€not€find€a€trial€courtððs€denial€of€severance€toÏbe€prejudicial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Steve€Ketronóó,€No.€955,€1991€WL€83363,€at€*2ð!ð3Ð @ à Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€May€22,€1991);€òòState€v.€Melvin€Alexanderóó,€No.€88„Ð 0Ð Ð290„III,€1990€WL€26769,€at€*4ð!ð5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€March€15,€1990).€ÏSuch€is€the€case€here.€€This€case€involved€only€three€defendants€and€a€sequenceÏof€events€that€was€fairly€easy€to€follow.€€Further,€the€evidence€revealed€that€Ms.ÏMurray€played€a€central€role€in€the€commission€of€the€offenses€at€issue€here.€€AsÏthis€Court€has€stated,€ð ða€disparity€of€incriminating€evidence€is€not€itself€sufficientÏto€establish€prejudiceðð€for€severance€purposes.€€òòKetronóó,€1991€WL€83363€at€*2;Ð Ðp ÐòòAlexanderóó,€1990€WL€26769€at€*4.€€Thus,€this€issue€has€no€merit.Ð À` ÐÌà@::®àò òIII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ   @ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€James€Murray€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€toÏsupport€his€convictions€for€first€degree€murder€and€conspiracy€to€commit€firstÏdegree€murder.׃$×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Specifically,€Mr.€Murray€contends€that:€a)€the€first€degreeÐ p(  Ðmurder€conviction€is€invalid€because€there€was€no€proof€of€deliberation,€b)€thatÏboth€convictions€were€based€on€uncorroborated€accomplice€testimony,€and€c)Ïthat€the€circumstantial€evidence€presented€was€too€tenuous€to€exclude€allÏreasonable€theories€besides€that€of€guilt.ÌÌà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÏis€obliged€to€review€that€challenge€according€to€certain€well-settled€principles.€€AÏverdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimonyÐ ð7.0 Ðof€the€State's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€theÏState.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839Ð P ð ÐS.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€Although€an€accused€is€originally€cloaked€with€aÏpresumption€of€innocence,€a€jury€verdict€removes€this€presumption€and€replacesÏit€with€one€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,Ð  À Ðon€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€with€Appellant€to€demonstrate€theÏinsufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€On€appeal,€ð ðthe€[S]tate€is€entitled€toÐ    Ðthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€andÏlegitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,Ð à€ Ð571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978)).€€Where€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏcontested€on€appeal,€the€relevant€question€for€the€reviewing€court€is€whether€anyÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€accused€guilty€of€every€element€of€theÏoffense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€75;€òòJackson€v.Ð   @ ÐVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€560€(1979).€€InÐ "0 Ðconducting€our€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€is€precluded€fromÏreweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929€S.W.2d€380,€383Ð p& Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð `(  ÐApp.€1990).€€Moreover,€this€Court€may€not€substitute€its€own€inferences€ð ðfor€thoseÏdrawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€779.€€Finally,€RuleÐ @,à"$ Ð13(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provides,€ð ðfindings€of€guiltÏin€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòMatthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€at€780.Ð 4 *, ÐÌà@™™&®àò òA.€€Deliberationó óˆÐ à7€.0 ÐÐ à9€02 Ðà ` àJames€Murray€claims€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€firstÏdegree€murder€conviction€because€there€was€no€proof€of€deliberation.€€WeÏdisagree.€€When€Don€Hurt€was€murdered€in€1991,€Tennesseeððs€first€degreeÏmurder€statute€provided€that€ð ð[f]irst€degree€murder€is:€[a]n€intentional,Ïpremeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202Ï(1991).׃'×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Deliberation€requires€that€the€offense€be€committed€with€cool€purpose,Ð °  Ðfree€of€the€passions€of€the€moment.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.Ð    Ð1992).€€In€addition,€deliberation€is€a€determination€for€the€jury€which€may€beÏinferred€from€the€manner€and€circumstances€of€the€killing.€€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905Ð à€ ÐS.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Facts€showing€the€defendantððsÏplanning€activity,€motive,€and€nature€of€the€killing€can€all€provide€evidence€fromÏwhich€deliberation€can€be€inferred.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€4ð!ð5Ð °P Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Leonard€Rowe€testified€that€Sharon€Hurt€told€him€inÏFebruary€1991€that€she€had€offered€to€pay€James€and€Marcie€Murray€for€killingÏher€husband€and€that€the€Murrays€told€him€that€Don€owed€them€money€and€€theyÏwere€going€to€ð ðkill€the€son„of„a„bitch.ðð€€Rowe€also€testified€that€on€the€day€of€theÏmurder,€James€Murray€had€borrowed€his€gun€and€had€subsequently€stated€thatÏhe€had€used€the€gun€to€kill€Don€Hurt€after€putting€ð ðmickeysðð€in€his€drinks€andÏplacing€him€in€his€car.€€Further,€the€State€presented€evidence€that€James€MurrayÏmurdered€Don€Hurt€after€he€had€already€attempted€to€kill€him€approximately€sixÏmonths€earlier€by€shooting€him€with€a€shotgun.€€The€jury€could€reasonably€inferÏfrom€this€evidence€that€James€Murray€had€a€motive€to€kill€Don€Hurt,€that€heÏâ âplanned€the€murder,€and€that€he€committed€the€murder€by€carrying€out€his€plan.€Ð 4 *, ÐThus,€there€was€sufficient€proof€of€deliberation€for€the€jury€to€conclude€that€JamesÏMurray€was€guilty€of€first€degree€murder.Ìâ âÌà@::!®àò òB.€€Corroborating€Evidenceó óˆÐ 0Ð ÐÌà ` àJames€Murray€contends€that€his€convictions€for€first€degree€murder€andÏconspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder€are€invalid€because€they€are€basedÏsolely€on€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€an€accomplice.׃(×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€disagree.€€TheÐ    Ðappellate€courts€have€addressed€the€nature,€quality,€and€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€required€to€corroborate€the€testimony€of€an€accomplice€on€numerousÏoccasions.€€€In€òòState€v.€Griffisóó,€964€S.W.2d€577€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997),€thisÐ Ðp ÐCourt€stated:ÌÓÓà0 ` àà ¸ àThe€rule€of€corroboration€as€applied€and€used€in€this€State€is€thatÏthere€must€be€some€evidence€independent€of€the€testimony€of€theÏaccomplice.€€The€corroborating€evidence€must€connect,€or€tend€to€connectÏthe€defendant€with€the€commission€of€the€crime€charged;€and,€furthermore,Ïthe€tendency€of€the€corroborative€evidence€to€connect€the€defendant€mustÏbe€independent€of€any€testimony€of€the€accomplice.€€The€corroborativeÏevidence€must€of€its€own€force,€independently€of€the€accompliceððsÏtestimony,€tend€to€connect€the€defendant€with€the€commission€of€the€crime.€Ð ` T$` T$ Ѐ€à0 ` àà ¸ à.€.€.€.Ðp( ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àThe€evidence€corroborating€the€testimony€of€an€accomplice€mayÏconsist€of€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€ofÏdirect€and€circumstantial€evidence.€The€quantum€of€evidence€necessaryÏto€corroborate€an€accompliceððs€testimony€is€not€required€to€be€sufficientÏenough€to€support€the€accusedððs€conviction€independent€of€theÏaccompliceððs€testimony€nor€is€it€required€to€extend€to€every€portion€of€theÏaccompliceððs€testimony.€To€the€contrary,€only€slight€circumstances€areÏrequired€to€corroborate€an€accompliceððs€testimony.€The€corroboratingÏevidence€is€sufficient€if€it€connects€the€accused€with€the€crime€in€question.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌòòÓÓId.óó€at€588ð!ð89€(citations€omitted).€€ð ðWhether€a€witnessðð€testimony€has€beenÐ 3¸)+ Ðâ âsufficiently€corroborated€is€a€matter€entrusted€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.ðð€€òòStateÐ 5¨+- Ðv.€Gayloróó,€862€S.W.2d€546,€552€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(citing€òòStanley€v.€Stateóó,Ð `  Ð189€Tenn.€110,€222€S.W.2d€384€(1949)).Ìâ â€Ìà ` àThe€evidence€in€this€case€clearly€established€at€least€the€ð ðslightÏcircumstancesðð€required€to€corroborate€Roweððs€accomplice€testimony.€€As€for€theÏfirst€degree€murder€conviction,€some€corroborating€evidence€came€from€JamesÏMurray€himself.€€Indeed,€we€he€was€arrested,€he€stated€that€he€was€ð ðglad€itððs€overÏwithðð€and€that€he€ð ðwanted€to€make€a€deal.ðð€€He€subsequently€stated,€ð ðWell,€whatÏkind€of€deal€can€I€get€when€Iððm€going€to€plead€guilty.ðð€€Roweððs€statement€thatÏJames€Murray€told€him€that€he€had€put€ð ðmickeysðð€in€Don€Hurtððs€drink€before€killingÏhim€was€corroborated€by€Doctor€Harlan€who€testified€that€when€Don€was€killed,Ïhe€had€a€high€level€of€Benadryl€in€his€blood€that€would€have€made€him€drowsy.€ÏRoweððs€statement€that€James€Murray€told€him€that€he€and€Marcie€both€shot€DonÏin€the€head€with€Roweððs€gun€was€corroborated€by€testimony€that€the€two€bulletsÏthat€penetrated€Donððs€brain€were€fired€from€a€.38€caliber€pistol€and€were€firedÏfrom€different€angles.€ò òÐ p& Ðó óÌà ` àThe€evidence€listed€above€also€corroborates€Roweððs€testimony€in€regardÏto€the€conspiracy€conviction.€€In€addition,€other€evidence€was€introduced€thatÏcorroborates€Roweððs€testimony.€€Roweððs€statement€that€James€Murray€told€himÏthat€he€shot€Don€Hurt€with€a€12„gauge€shotgun€in€June€1991,€was€corroboratedÏby€several€facts.€€First,€Don€told€the€police€that€he€had€been€shot€by€someone€inÏa€red€Camaro€or€Firebird€and€in€fact,€the€Murrays€owned€a€red€Firebird.€€Further,ÏJoey€Rowe€testified€that€in€Fall€1991,€he€heard€James€Murray€state€that€he€didÏnot€understand€ð ðHow€it€didnððt€kill€him€from€a€shot€that€short€of€distance.ðð€€InÏaddition,€James€told€Detective€Moran€in€a€taped€telephone€conversation€that€heÐ Ð9p02 Ðmade€the€phone€calls€from€the€restaurant€near€Malone€&€Hyde€Trucking€on€MayÏ10,€1991,€just€hours€before€Don€Hurt€was€shot.€€€Finally,€a€firearms€specialistÏexamined€the€slug€from€Donððs€truck€and€determined€that€it€was€a€unique€type€ofÏshell€which€is€typically€fired€from€a€12„gauge€shotgun.€ÌÌà ` àIn€short,€there€was€sufficient€evidence€before€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact€toÏdetermine€that€Roweððs€testimony€was€sufficiently€corroborated.׃)×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð    ÐÌà@""!®àò òC.€€Circumstantial€Evidenceó óˆÐ à€ ÐÌà ` àJames€Murray€contends€that€his€convictions€should€be€reversed€becauseÏthey€were€based€entirely€on€circumstantial€evidence.€€However,€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€has€stated€that€the€State€may€prove€a€criminal€offense€byÏcircumstantial€evidence€alone.€€òòState€v.€Mannóó,€959€S.W.2d€503,€518€(Tenn.€1997)Ð  "@ Ð(citing€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899ð!ð900€(Tenn.€1987)).€€This€includesÐ $0 Ðthe€offense€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€541€(Tenn.Ð €&  Ð1992).€€ð ðBefore€a€jury€may€convict€a€defendant€of€a€criminal€offense€based€uponÏcircumstantial€evidence€alone,€the€facts€and€circumstances€ððmust€be€so€strongÏand€cogent€as€to€exclude€every€other€reasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€theÏdefendant,€and€that€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðððð€€òòMannóó,€959€S.W.2d€at€518Ð @.à$& Ð(quoting€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€225€Tenn.€478,€470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(1971)).€€ð ðAs€inÐ 00Ð&( Ðthe€case€of€direct€evidence,€the€weight€to€be€given€circumstantial€evidence€andÏðð[t]he€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€such€evidence,€and€the€extent€to€which€theÐ 4°*, Ðcircumstances€are€consistent€with€guilt€and€inconsistent€with€innocence,€areÏquestions€primarily€for€the€jury.ðððð€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€203€Tenn.€440,Ð P ð Ð313€S.W.2d€451,€457€(1958)).ÌÌà ` àIn€this€case,€it€is€obvious€that€the€jury€believed€the€testimony€of€LeonardÏRowe.€€As€previously€stated,€Roweððs€testimony€established€that€Sharon€Hurt€hadÏoffered€to€pay€the€Murrays€for€killing€Don€Hurt;€that€James€Murray€shot€Don€HurtÏduring€the€failed€murder€attempt€of€June€11,€1991;€that€James€Murray€borrowedÏRoweððs€gun€on€December€19,€1991;€that€James€Murray€participated€in€druggingÏDon€Hurt€and€placing€him€in€the€gold€car;€and€that€James€Murray€shot€and€killedÏDon€Hurt€with€Roweððs€gun€on€December€19,€1991.€€In€addition,€other€evidenceÏestablished€that€James€Murray€had€been€near€Don€Hurtððs€place€of€business€justÏhours€before€he€was€shot€on€June€11,€1991;€that€James€Murray€owned€a€car€thatÏmatched€the€description€of€the€car€used€in€the€failed€murder€attempt;€and€thatÏJames€Murray€told€the€police€that€he€was€guilty€of€the€crimes€in€this€case.€€FromÏthis€evidence,€we€find€that€the€jury€acted€within€its€prerogative€in€determining€thatÏall€other€reasonable€hypotheses,€save€the€guilt€of€the€accused,€had€beenÏexcluded€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@Ú Ú ®àò òIV.€€STATEMENTS€OF€JAMES€MURRAYó óˆÐ 0.Ð$& ÐÌà ` àAppellant€James€Murray€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€admittedÏhis€post„arrest€statements€into€evidence.€€Specifically,€he€claims€that€this€wasÏerror€because€a)€the€police€failed€to€cease€questioning€him€after€giving€òòMirandaóóÐ 6 ,. Ðâ âwarnings,€b)€the€police€continued€to€question€him€after€he€invoked€his€right€toÐ ð7.0 Ðcounsel,€and€c)€the€statements€were€inadmissible€offers€to€enter€into€pleaÏnegotiations.Ìâ âÌà@jj)®àò òA.€€Mirandaó óˆÐ 0Ð ÐÌà ` àInitially,€James€Murray€argues€that€the€statements€he€made€to€DetectiveÏMoran€should€have€been€suppressed€because€Moran€continued€to€question€himÏafter€giving€him€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€In€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€479,Ð    Ð86€S.€Ct.€1602,€1630,€16€L.€Ed.€2d€694€(1966),€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏruled€that€the€Fifth€and€Fourteenth€Amendmentsðð€prohibition€against€compelledÏself-incrimination€requires€police€officers,€before€initiating€questioning,€to€adviseÏthe€putative€defendant€of€his€right€to€remain€silent€and€his€right€to€counsel.€€IfÏthese€warnings€are€not€given,€statements€elicited€from€the€individual€may€not€beÏadmitted€for€certain€purposes€in€a€criminal€trial.€€òòStansbury€v.€Californiaóó,€511€U.S.Ð  "@ Ð318,€322,€114€S.€Ct.€1526,€1528,€128€L.€Ed.€2d€293€(1994).€€€ÌÌà ` àMoran€testified€that€immediately€after€Mr.€Murray€was€arrested€and€readÏthe€charges€in€the€indictment,€he€told€Moran€ð ðI€knew€that€it€was€over€when€I€sawÏthe€two€[Kentucky€State€Police]€cars€parked€down€the€street,€and€Iððm€glad€its€overÏwith.ðð€€Mr.€Murray€apparently€made€this€statement€before€the€òòMirandaóó€warningsÐ @.à$& Ðwere€given.€€However,€there€is€no€indication€in€the€record,€and€it€is€not€evenÏargued,€that€this€statement€was€anything€other€than€a€spontaneous€declaration.€ÏAs€this€Court€has€stated,€spontaneous€statements€ð ðare€admissible€in€evidenceÏwhether€or€not€òòMirandaóó€warnings€were€first€given.ðð€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€664€S.W.2dÐ 6 ,. Ð318,€320€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Ensleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€502,Ð ð7.0 Ð511€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(ð ðstatements€which€are€spontaneous€andÐ à9€02 Ðvolunteered€are€admissible€in€the€absence€of€Miranda€warningsðð).€€Thus,€thisÏstatement€was€clearly€admissible.ÌÌà ` àMoran€testified€that€after€he€took€Mr.€Murray€to€the€Kentucky€State€PoliceÏheadquarters€and€advised€him€of€his€rights,€Mr.€Murray€stated€ð ðthat€he€knewÏsome€information€in€this€case,€that€he€wanted€to€help,€but€he€wanted€to€make€aÏdeal.ðð€€Moran€then€told€Mr.€Murray€that€he€could€not€make€any€deals€because€heÏwas€not€the€district€attorney€general.€€Mr.€Murray€then€asked€if€he€could€talk€toÏanother€detective€in€private.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€After€he€talked€to€the€other€detective,€Mr.€MurrayÐ à€ Ðcame€back€into€the€room€and€said€to€Moran,€ð ðIððve€got€some€information€in€thisÏcase€and€I€think€I€can€get€a€better€deal€if€I€had€a€lawyer.ðð€€At€his€point,€MoranÏterminated€the€interview.€€€Although€the€right€to€counsel€and€the€right€againstÏself-incrimination€are€constitutional€rights,€they€may€be€waived,€provided€theÏwaiver€is€made€ð ðvoluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently.ðð€€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,Ð "0 Ð840€S.W.2d€317,€326€(Tenn.€1992)€(citing€òòMirandaóó,€384€U.S.€at€444,€86€S.€Ct.€atÐ €$  Ð1612)).€€ð ðA€waiver€is€valid€if€the€suspect€is€aware€of€the€nature€of€the€right€beingÏabandoned€and€the€consequences€of€the€decision€to€abandon€the€right.ðð€€òòStateÐ `(  Ðv.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€547€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€totality€of€theÐ P*ð " Ðcircumstances€must€be€examined€to€determine€whether€the€choice€wasÏuncoerced€and€whether€the€person€understood€the€consequences€of€his€decision.€ÏòòId.óó€at€545.€€In€this€case,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record,€and€it€is€not€evenÐ  0À&( Ðargued,€that€Mr.€Murray€ever€invoked€his€right€to€remain€silent.€€Mr.€Murray€doesÏnot€argue€that€he€did€not€understand€either€his€rights€or€the€consequences€ofÐ 4 *, Ðwaiving€them.€€Further,€Mr.€Murray€has€failed€refer€to€anything€in€the€record€thatÏmight€indicate€that€he€was€coerced€into€waiving€his€right€to€remain€silent.€ÏAlthough€Detective€Moran€apparently€failed€to€obtain€a€written€waiver,€the€lawÏdoes€not€require€one.€€€òòState€v.€Mannóó,€959€S.W.2d€503,€529€(Tenn.€1997).€€InÐ 0Ð Ðshort,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€that€indicates€that€these€statements€wereÏanything€other€than€voluntary€and€spontaneous.€€Thus,€these€statements€wereÏproperly€admitted.ÌÌà@õ õ ®àò òB.€€Sixth€Amendment€Right€to€Counseló óˆÐ à€ ÐÌà ` àJames€Murray€argues€that€certain€statements€he€made€to€Detective€MoranÏwhen€he€was€being€transported€to€Tennessee€were€inadmissible€because€theyÏwere€obtained€in€violation€of€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel.€€The€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€held€in€òòEdwards€v.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.€477,€101€S.€Ct.Ð  "@ Ð1880,€68€L.€Ed.€2d€378€(1981)€that€ð ðan€accused€.€.€.€having€expressed€his€desireÏto€deal€with€the€police€only€through€counsel,€is€not€subject€to€further€interrogationÏby€the€authorities€until€counsel€has€been€made€available€to€him,€unless€theÏaccused€himself€initiates€further€communication,€exchanges,€or€conversation€withÏthe€police.ðð€€451€U.S.€at€485,€101€S.€Ct.€at€1888.€€If€an€accused€remains€silentÏand€cuts€off€questioning,€that€silence€must€be€ð ðscrupulously€honored.ðð€€òòMichiganÐ @.à$& Ðv.€Mosleyóó,€423€U.S.€96,€96€S.€Ct.€321,€46€L.€Ed.€2d€313€(1975).€€If,€on€the€otherÐ 00Ð&( Ðhand,€a€statement€is€made€after€the€invocation€of€the€right€to€counsel,€the€courtÏmust€consider€whether€the€accused€initiated€the€further€conversation,€andÏwhether,€given€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€the€waiver€of€counsel€wasÏknowing€and€intelligent.€òòOregon€v.€Bradshawóó,€462€U.S.€1039,€103€S.€Ct.€2830,Ð ð7.0 Ð77€L.€Ed.€2d€405€(1983).€€Ð à9€02 Їà ` àDetective€Moran€testified€that€after€James€Murray€told€him,€ð ðIððve€got€someÏinformation€in€this€case€and€I€think€I€can€get€a€better€deal€if€I€had€a€lawyer,ðð€MoranÏterminated€the€interview.€€The€next€time€Moran€saw€Mr.€Murray€was€when€MoranÏwent€to€Kentucky€in€order€to€transport€Mr.€Murray€back€to€Tennessee.€€MoranÏtestified€that€after€he€put€Mr.€Murray€in€the€police€vehicle,€he€told€Mr.€Murray€thatÏthey€had€a€long€trip€and€that€because€Mr.€Murray€had€previously€requested€anÏattorney,€he€would€honor€that€request€and€he€would€not€be€asking€any€moreÏquestions.׃*×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Mr.€Murray€then€stated€that€he€had€some€information€and€he€wantedÐ ð  Ðto€make€a€deal.€€At€this€point,€Moran€stated€ð ðJimmy,€I€cannot€negotiate€a€deal€withÏyou.€€Iððm€a€police€officer.€€Iððm€not€the€D.A.ðð€€Moran€testified€that€Mr.€Murray€thenÏlowered€his€head,€stared€off€into€space,€and€said,€ð ðWell,€what€kind€of€deal€can€IÏget€anyway€when€Iððm€going€to€plead€guilty.ðð€€Moran€testified€that€Mr.€Murray€wasÏnot€addressing€him€when€he€made€this€statement.€€It€is€apparent€that€theseÏstatements€were€not€obtained€in€violation€of€Mr.€Murrayððs€Sixth€Amendment€rightÏto€counsel.€€The€record€indicates€that€despite€being€told€several€times€thatÏDetective€Moran€could€not€make€any€deals,€Mr.€Murray€continued€to€try€to€makeÏone.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€which€indicates€that€Mr.€Murrayððs€statementÏthat€he€was€ð ðgoing€to€plead€guiltyðð€was€involuntary€or€coerced.€€In€fact,€the€recordÏindicates€that€this€statement€was€not€made€in€response€to€anything€done€byÏMoran.€€It€appears€that€this€statement€was€a€spontaneous€declaration€that€wasÏmade€while€Mr.€Murray€was€basically€talking€to€himself.€€In€short,€we€hold€thatÏthese€statements€were€made€after€James€Murray€validly€waived€his€right€toÏcounsel€and€thus,€the€statements€were€admissible.ÌÐ ð5,. Ðà@~~&®àò òC.€€Rule€11(e)(6)ó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àJames€Murray€contends€that€his€statements€were€inadmissible€under€RuleÏ11(e)(6)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€because€they€were€offersÏto€enter€into€œplea›€negotiations.׃+×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€disagree.€€Rule€11(e)(6)€states:Ð 0Ð ÐÓÓà0 ` àInadmissibility€of€Pleas,€Offers€of€Pleas,€and€Related€Statements.€€ExceptÏas€otherwise€provided€in€this€paragraph,€evidence€of€a€plea€of€guilty,€laterÏwithdrawn,€or€a€plea€of€nolo€contendere,€or€of€an€offer€to€plead€guilty€orÏnolo€contendere€to€the€crime€charged€or€any€other€crime,€or€of€statementsÏmade€in€connection€with,€and€relevant€to,€any€of€the€foregoing€pleas€orÏoffers,€is€not€admissible€in€any€civil€or€criminal€proceeding€against€theÏperson€who€made€the€plea€or€offer.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€11(e)(6).€€Before€Rule€11(e)(6)€can€be€invoked€to€excludeÏstatements€made€by€an€accused,€the€statements€must€be€ð ðmade€in€connectionÏwith,€and€relevant€toðð€a€plea€of€guilty€or€a€plea€of€nolo€contendere.€€Therefore,€thisÏRule€is€inapplicable€in€this€case€because,€as€a€police€officer,€Detective€MoranÏcould€not€have€entered€into€a€plea€bargain€agreement€with€Mr.€Murray.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ  "@ Ðv.€James€Wayne€Butleróó,€No.€01„C„01„9301„CR„00023,€1993€WL€345551,€at€*4Ð $0 Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.€9,€1993).€€This€issue€has€no€merit.€€ÌÌà@pp%®àò òV.€€PRIOR€BAD€ACTSó óˆÐ `*!" ÐÌà ` àAppellant€Marcie€Murray€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€grantedÏher€motion€for€a€mistrial€or€curative€instructions€when€Frank€Ensworth,€anÏadministrator€at€Baptist€Hospital,€briefly€mentioned€an€investigation€involving€Ms.Ïâ âMurray€and€alluded€to€a€ð ðdisciplinary€action.ðð€€She€claims€that€this€raised€aÐ  4À*, Ðð ðspectre€of€other€crimesðð€that€unfairly€prejudiced€her.€€The€disputed€testimonyÏwas€as€follows:Ìâ âÓÓà0 ` àQ:€And€the€record€of€Marcie€Murray,€do€you€show€her€address€and€phoneÏnumber€on€that€particular€record?Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àA:€on€several€of€the€documents,€there€are€phone€numbers;€yes.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àQ:€Okay.€€Would€you€tell€the€jury€what€the€address€is€reflected€on€yourÏrecords,€and€the€phone€number?Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àA:€Originally,€we€have€a€route€15,€Box€576,€Pigeon€Forge,€with€a€phoneÏnumber€of€429„0074,€and€later€on,€there€was€an€investigative€report„„Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àQ:€Thatððs€okay€sir.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓÓÌEnsworth€then€went€on€to€testify€that€Marcie€had€an€unexcused€absence€fromÏwork€on€June€10,€1991,€and€that€she€received€a€ð ðdisciplinary€letterðð€because€ofÏthis.€€Ms.€Murray€moved€for€a€mistrial€after€both€of€these€statements.€€ÌÌà ` à€The€decision€of€whether€to€grant€a€mistrial€is€within€the€sound€discretionÏof€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€McKinneyóó,€929€S.W.2d€404,€405€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð   @ Ð1996).€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€a€mistrial€was€not€required€in€thisÏsituation.€€As€acknowledged€by€defense€counsel€at€trial,€there€is€no€indication€thatÏthe€State€sought€to€evoke€testimony€about€the€investigative€report€or€disciplinaryÏaction.€€Rather,€it€appears€that€the€State€sought€to€have€Ensworth€testify€thatÏMarcie€had€taken€off€June€10th€without€any€notice€to€her€employer€and€had€takenÏJune€11th€off€as€well.€€It€appears€that€Ensworth€merely€mentioned€theÏinvestigative€report€in€response€to€questions€and€there€was€no€further€discussionÏof€the€report.€€Moreover,€the€mere€fact€that€Marcie€missed€work€and€was€writtenÏup€by€her€employer€did€not€constitute€a€prior€bad€act€under€Rule€404(b)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€which€states:€ð ðEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,Ïor€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€showÏaction€in€conformity€with€that€character€trait.ðð€€Being€written€up€for€missing€workÏis€simply€not€the€kind€of€prior€bad€act€that€Rule€404(b)€is€concerned€with.€€EvenÐ Ð9p02 Ðif€it€was,€the€State€introduced€this€evidence€to€show€that€Marcie€had€no€alibi€forÏJune€10€and€11,€1991.€€The€state€was€not€seeking€to€demonstrate€that€becauseÏMarcie€had€a€tendency€to€miss€work,€she€was€therefore€a€murderer.€€In€short,€Ms.ÏMurray€has€not€shown€that€she€was€prejudiced€by€the€very€limited€mention€of€theÏinvestigative€report€and€disciplinary€letter.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  À ÐÌà@" " ®àò òVI.€€SEIZURE€OF€THE€MURRAYððS€VEHICLEó óˆÐ    ÐÌà ` àAppellants€James€and€Marcie€Murray€contend€that€the€trial€court€erredÏwhen€it€admitted€evidence€regarding€the€seizure€of€their€red€Firebird€from€theÏproperty€of€a€third€party€in€March€1993.€€The€evidence€they€object€to€came€inÏthrough€the€testimony€of€Captain€Randy€Parton€of€the€Sevier€County€SheriffððsÏOffice.€€Parton€testified€that€in€March€1993,€he€impounded€James€Murrayððs€redÏ1982€Firebird,€which€he€discovered€in€the€barn€of€a€third€party€just€off€HighwayÏ139€in€Sevier€County.€€He€then€identified€a€few€photographs€of€the€car€that€wereÏentered€into€evidence.€€Marcie€Murray€claims€that€this€evidence€should€not€haveÏbeen€admitted€because€the€seizure€of€the€car€was€illegal€because€no€warrant€wasÏissued.€€James€Murray€argues€that€because€the€seizure€occurred€fourteenÏmonths€after€the€murder€and€because€the€car€was€only€driven€by€his€son,€thisÏevidence€was€more€prejudicial€than€it€was€probative.ÌÌà ` àAs€to€the€claim€of€Ms.€Murray,€it€is€evident€that€she€lacks€standing€toÏcontest€evidence€of€the€discovery€of€the€vehicle€in€the€barn.€€When€challengingÏthe€reasonableness€of€a€search€or€seizure,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€firstÐ 6 ,. Ðestablishing€a€legitimate€expectation€of€privacy€in€the€place€or€property€which€isÏsearched.€€òòRawlings€v.€Kentuckyóó,€448€U.S.€98,€104ð!ð05,€100€S.€Ct.€2556,€2561,Ð P ð Ð65€L.€Ed.€2d€633€(1980);€òòState€v.€Robergeóó,€642€S.W.2d€716,€718€(Tenn.€1982).€Ð @ à ÐThis€Court€has€held€that€the€following€seven€factors€are€applicable€to€the€standingÏinquiry:ÌÓÓà ` à(1)€property€ownership;Ìà ` à(2)€whether€the€defendant€has€a€possessory€interest€in€the€thing€seized;Ìà ` à(3)€whether€the€defendant€has€a€possessory€interest€in€the€place€searched;Ìà ` à(4)€whether€he€has€a€right€to€exclude€others€from€that€place;Ìà0 ` à(5)€whether€he€has€exhibited€a€subjective€expectation€that€the€place€wouldÏremain€free€from€governmental€invasion;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà ` à(6)€whether€he€took€normal€precautions€to€maintain€his€privacy;€€andÌà ` à(7)€whether€he€was€legitimately€on€the€premises.€ÌÓÓ€ÌòòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€560€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€In€this€case,Ð À` Ðalthough€the€car€was€seized,€no€evidence€was€introduced€about€whether€anythingÏwas€found€in€the€car€itself.€€Thus,€the€barn€was€the€thing€that€was€searched€andÏthe€only€evidence€introduced€about€the€car,€other€than€a€few€photographs,€wasÏthat€it€was€found€in€the€barn€and€it€belonged€to€James€Murray.€€Ms.€Murray€clearlyÏfails€the€above€test€for€determining€standing.€€The€barn€itself€was€on€the€propertyÏof€a€third€party€and€there€was€no€evidence€that€Ms.€Murray€had€any€possessoryÏinterest€in€the€barn.€€In€fact,€the€only€evidence€introduced€on€this€point€indicatesÏthat€the€car€had€been€left€in€the€barn€without€the€ownerððs€permission.€€Indeed,Ïthere€was€no€evidence€that€Ms.€Murray€exhibited€any€subjective€expectation€thatÏthe€barn€would€remain€free€of€government€intrusion€or€that€she€did€anything€toÏprevent€such€an€intrusion.€€Finally,€Ms.€Murray€did€not€own€the€car€and€sheÏclaimed€in€her€direct€testimony€that€her€son€was€the€only€one€who€drove€the€car.€ÏThus,€Ms.€Murray€does€not€have€standing€to€contest€the€search€of€the€barn€andÏthe€fact€that€Jamesðð€car€was€found€in€the€barn.ÌÐ Ð9p02 Ðà ` àJames€Murray€claims€that€because€the€car€was€found€fourteen€monthsÏafter€Don€Hurtððs€murder,€this€evidence€should€have€been€excluded€because€itÏwas€too€remote€and€thus,€its€admission€would€mislead€the€jury.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€disagree.€Ð @ à ÐEvidence€presented€at€trial€indicated€that€Don€Hurt€was€shot€on€June€11,€1991,Ïby€someone€in€a€red€or€orange€Firebird€or€Camaro€type€vehicle€and€that€theÏMurrays€were€driving€a€red€Firebird€or€Trans€Am€in€the€Fall€of€1991.€€ò ò€ó óTheÐ °  Ðevidence€that€James€Murray€did€in€fact€own€a€red€Firebird€is€directly€relevant€toÏestablishing€that€he€participated€in€the€June€11,€1991€shooting.€€It€is€difficult€toÏsee€how€the€fact€that€the€police€did€not€discover€this€car€and€photograph€it€untilÏMarch€1993€makes€the€photographs€and€the€testimony€about€its€discovery€tooÏremote€to€be€admissible.€€However,€even€if€this€evidence€was€slightly€remote,€anyÏprejudice€caused€by€its€remoteness€did€not€substantially€outweigh€its€obviousÏprobative€value.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€was€correct€whenÐ ° P Ðit€admitted€this€evidence.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@— — ®àò òVII.€€ADMISSION€OF€A€SHOTGUN€SHELLó óˆÐ €&  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€James€Murray€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€admittedÏa€ð ðsabotðð€shotgun€shell€into€evidence.€€However,€this€issue€is€waived€because€heÏfailed€to€object€to€the€admission€of€this€shell€at€the€time€it€was€offered€by€theÏState.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€However,€even€on€the€merits,€the€admissionÐ @0à&( Ðof€the€shell€was€not€improper.€€Mr.€Murray€contends€that€because€this€shotgunÏshell€was€found€in€the€possession€of€his€son€thirteen€months€after€Don€HurtððsÏmurder,€its€introduction€violated€Rule€403€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€EvidenceÐ 6°,. Ðby€misleading€the€jury€into€thinking€that€there€was€some€connection€between€Mr.ÏMurray€and€the€shell.€€The€record€reveals€that€the€shell€was€used€mainly€to€assistÏa€firearms€expert€in€describing€the€markings€placed€on€these€types€of€shells€byÏthe€manufacturer.€€There€was€absolutely€no€testimony€about€where€or€how€thisÏshell€was€obtained.€€Thus,€there€was€no€way€for€the€jury€to€connect€this€shell€toÏeither€Mr.€Murray€or€his€son.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@®àVIII.€€PROSECUTORIAL€MISCONDUCTó óˆÐ ð  ÐÌà ` àAppellants€Sharon€Hurt€and€Marcie€Murray€contend€that€their€due€processÏrights€to€a€fair€trial€were€violated€because€the€State€withheld€material€evidenceÏthat€was€favorable€to€their€case€and€knowingly€used€perjured€testimony.€ÏSpecifically,€they€allege€that€they€should€have€been€granted€a€new€trial€becauseÏthe€State€instructed€Rowe€not€to€reveal€the€full€extent€of€his€agreement€with€theÏState€when€he€testified€at€trial€and€because€the€State€knowingly€used€RoweððsÏperjured€testimony€about€the€agreement€he€had€with€the€State.ÌÌà ` àMs.€Hurt€and€Ms.€Murray€base€their€claims€on€two€sworn€statements€givenÏby€Leonard€Rowe€on€August€1€and€August€27,€1996,€over€one€year€after€the€trial.€ÏThe€statement€of€August€1st€was€given€to€counsel€for€Ms.€Hurt€and€the€statementÏof€August€27th€was€given€to€counsel€for€Ms.€Hurt€and€counsel€for€Ms.€Murray.€ÏThese€statements€were€given€in€the€presence€of€a€court€reporter,€but€noÏrepresentative€of€the€State€was€present€to€cross„examine€Rowe€during€eitherÏstatement.€€In€the€first€statement,€Rowe€claimed€that€during€the€trial,€he€ð ðwasÏunder€a€lot€of€pressure€on€the€witness€stand,€threats,€if€[he]€didnððt€convince€theÏjury€that€[Appellants]€were€guilty,€the€D.A.€was€going€to€burn€[his]€ass.ðð€€InÐ à9€02 Ðaddition,€he€said€that€the€prosecutor€promised€him€a€letter€of€recommendation€soÏthat€he€would€make€parole€at€the€earliest€possible€date.€€€Rowe€stated€that€heÏbelieved€that€this€meant€that€he€would€only€ð ðdo€a€little€bit€more€jail€time,ðð€althoughÏhe€admitted€that€there€was€never€any€discussion€of€how€much€time€he€wouldÏactually€serve.€€Rowe€also€claimed€that€he€was€ð ðtutoredðð€by€the€prosecutor€as€toÏwhat€to€say€at€trial€and€the€prosecutor€ð ðput€words€in€[his]€mouth.ðð€€Rowe€claimedÏthat€he€did€not€tell€the€truth€at€trial,€but€he€refused€to€specify€what€he€had€beenÏuntruthful€about.€€Rowe€also€stated€that€he€felt€that€the€State€had€not€lived€up€toÏits€promises,€but€he€refused€to€say€why€that€was€the€case.€€In€the€secondÏstatement,€Rowe€reiterated€these€claims€and€stated€that€the€prosecutorÏspecifically€told€him€not€to€reveal€the€fact€that€he€had€made€a€deal€with€the€State.€ÏDespite€making€these€allegations,€Rowe€invoked€his€Fifth€Amendment€privilegeÏagainst€self„incrimination€and€refused€to€testify€during€the€hearing€on€the€MotionÏfor€a€New€Trial.€ÌÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€refused€to€grant€the€Motion€for€aÏNew€Trial€based€on€Roweððs€affidavits.€€As€this€Court€has€previously€stated,€ÌÓÓà0 ` àA€motion€for€a€new€trial€is€only€a€pleading.€An€affidavit,€such€as€the€one€inÏthis€case,€is€merely€an€exhibit€to€such€motion.€To€show€the€existence€ofÏthis€evidence,€proof€must€be€offered€by€the€moving€party.€To€grant€relief€onÏaffidavits€only€would€deny€the€opposing€party€an€opportunity€to€test€theÏaccuracy€or€veracity€of€the€information€contained€therein€by€confrontationÏor€by€evidence€contrary€to€this€assertion.€The€trial€judge€properly€deniedÏthe€motion€for€a€new€trial€on€this€ground.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓÓÌòòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€571€S.W.2d€849,€852€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.Ð 3¨)+ ÐHartóó,€911€S.W.2d€371,€375€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1995)€(citing€òòHicksóó,€571€S.W.2d€atÐ ø4˜+- Ð852)€(ð ðthe€trial€court€should€not€determine€the€merits€of€the€petition€on€theÏstrength€of€the€affidavits€aloneðð).€€Further,€under€Rule€33€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÐ Ø8x/1 Ðof€Criminal€Procedure,€the€mere€incredibility€of€an€affidavit€is€sufficient€for€a€trialÏcourt€to€disregard€it€and€require€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€matter.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð P ð ÐR.€Crim.€P.€33€(comment)€(ð ðThe€judge€is€not€required€to€believe€an€incredibleÏaffidavit€and€may€always€require€an€evidentiary€hearing€with€witnesses.ðð).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€InÐ 0Ð Ðthis€case,€Appellants€were€granted€an€evidentiary€hearing,€but€Rowe€refused€toÏtestify.€€Thus,€the€only€evidence€presented€to€the€court€on€this€claim€wasÏcontained€in€the€affidavits€which€were€made€without€the€presence€of€the€StateððsÏattorney.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€properly€refused€to€grant€Appellants€a€new€trialÏbased€on€the€allegations€made€in€the€affidavits.׃Ê×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð à€ ÐÌà@::®àò òIX.€€NEWLY€DISCOVERED€EVIDENCEó óà@@ìì*ìàˆÐ À` ÐÌà ` àAppellants€Sharon€Hurt€and€Marcie€Murray€contend€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€when€it€refused€to€grant€them€a€new€trial€based€on€what€they€characterizeÏas€newly€discovered€evidence.€€They€base€their€claim€on€a€sworn€statement€givenÏby€Carrie€Sims€on€March€1,€1996.€€In€her€statement,€Sims€asserted€that€herÏhusband€had€confided€in€her€that€he€had€killed€Don€Hurt€as€a€favor€to€a€manÏnamed€ð ðCowboyðð€after€he€had€shot€and€wounded€Don€Hurt€six€months€earlier.€ÏSims€stated€that€she€decided€to€come€forward€with€this€story€after€she€met€Ms.ÏHurt€and€Ms.€Murray€while€she€was€incarcerated€and€she€ð ðput€two€and€twoÏtogether.ðð€ÌÐ  2À(* Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€properly€refused€to€grant€a€new€trial€based€on€this€statementÏfor€the€same€reason€that€it€properly€refused€to€grant€a€new€trial€based€on€RoweððsÏsworn€statements.€€Simsðð€sworn€statement€was€also€taken€without€the€presenceÏof€an€attorney€for€the€State€and€Sims€also€refused€to€testify€at€the€hearing€on€theÏMotion€for€a€New€Trial.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€court€decided€not€to€consider€theÏstatement€because€there€was€no€way€to€test€its€veracity€without€Simsðð€testimony.€ÏThis€was€clearly€within€the€courtððs€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòHicksóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€852;Ð    ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€33€(comment).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòHartóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€852€(ð ðIf€the€trialÐ ð  Ðcourt€does€not€believe€that€the€witnesses€presented€by€the€accused€are€credible,Ïthe€court€should€deny€[relief].ðð).׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ð Ðp ÐÌà@' ' ®àò òX.€€DENIAL€OF€FUNDS€FOR€EXPERT€SERVICESó óˆÐ °P ÐÌà ` àAppellants€Sharon€Hurt€and€Marcie€Murray€contend€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€denying€their€motion€for€state€funds€to€employ€the€services€of€an€expertÏin€the€field€of€pathology/toxicology.€€Specifically,€they€argue€that€this€denialÏviolated€their€due€process€rights€to€a€fair€trial€because€they€were€unable€toÏcontest€the€Stateððs€proof€that€the€level€of€Benadryl€in€Don€Hurtððs€system€at€theÏtime€he€was€killed€was€many€times€higher€than€the€normal€therapeutic€level.ÌÌà ` àAt€the€time€of€Appellantsðð€motion€in€December€1994,€Tennessee€law€didÏnot€provide€for€such€expert€assistance€in€non-capital€cases,€and€the€trial€courtÏproperly€denied€the€motion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-14-207(b)€(1997)Ð 4°*, Ð(allowing€for€authorization€of€funds€for€expert€services€only€in€capital€cases);€€òòseeÐ 6 ,. Ðalsoóó€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€411€(Tenn.€1983);òò€State€v.€Harrisóó,€866Ð `  ÐS.W.2d€583,€585€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€On€appeal,€however,€Appellant€reliesÏupon€òòState€v.€Barnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€423€(Tenn.€1995),€a€Tennessee€SupremeÐ @ à ÐCourt€case€which€post-dates€the€trial€court's€ruling.€€In€òòBarnettóó,€the€supreme€courtÐ 0Ð Ðheld€that,€where€an€indigent€defendantððs€need€for€a€state-paid€psychiatric€expertÏtouches€upon€a€due€process€concern,€a€trial€court€may€order€such€services€evenÏin€non-capital€cases,€provided€the€defendant€can€demonstrate€a€ð ðparticularizedÏneed.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€431.€€€While€òòBarnettóó€dealt€with€a€psychiatric€expert,€this€Court€hasÐ ð  Ðpreviously€extended€the€reasoning€of€òòBarnettóó€to€other€forms€of€expert€assistance.€Ð à€ ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€James€W.€Jacobsóó,€No.€01C01„9601„CC„00048,€1997€WL€576493,Ð Ðp Ðat€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept€18,€1997)€(citations€omitted).€€BecauseÐ À` ÐòòBarnettóó€constitutes€a€new€constitutional€rule,€it€must€be€applied€retroactively€toÐ °P ÐAppellantsðð€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Ð   @ ÐÌà ` àMs.€Hurt€and€Ms.€Murray€rely€on€a€motion€of€December€15,€1994,€whichÏwas€supported€by€an€affidavit€of€counsel,€to€show€that€they€met€the€òòBarnettóóÐ p& Ðrequirement€of€demonstrating€ð ðparticularized€need.ðð€€€Although€the€motion€andÏaffidavit€are€included,€the€record€does€not€contain€a€transcript€of€the€proceedings€Ïor€an€order€of€the€trial€court€denying€the€motion.€€It€is€the€duty€of€the€party€seekingÏappellate€review€to€prepare€a€record€which€conveys€a€fair,€accurate€and€completeÏaccount€of€what€transpired€with€respect€to€the€issues€raised€by€the€party.€€òòStateÐ  0À&( Ðv.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€560ð!ð61€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€755€S.W.2dÐ 2°(* Ð833,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€When€the€record€is€incomplete,€and€does€notÏcontain€a€transcript€of€the€proceedings€relevant€to€an€issue€presented€for€review,Ïthis€Court€is€precluded€from€considering€the€issue.€€òòState€v.€Grosecloseóó,€615Ð à7€.0 ÐS.W.2d€142,€147€(Tenn.€1981).€€Instead,€this€Court€must€conclusively€presumeÐ Ð9p02 Ðthe€ruling€of€the€trial€court€denying€a€motion€was€correct.€€òòBallardóó,€855€S.W.2d€atÐ `  Ð560ð!ð61;€òòRobertsóó,€755€S.W.2d€at€836.€€Even€on€the€merits,€it€appears€thatÐ P ð ÐAppellants€could€not€have€œestablished›€a€ð ðparticularized€need.ðð€€Appellants€argueÏon€appeal€that€they€had€a€ð ðparticularized€needðð€because€a€lab€report€from€theÏTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€indicated€that€the€level€of€Benadryl€in€DonÏHurtððs€system€was€therapeutic,€which€contradicted€Doctor€Harlanððs€testimony€thatÏthe€level€was€many€times€greater€than€the€therapeutic€level.€€However,ÏAppellantsðð€counsel€could€have€called€either€the€analyst€who€prepared€the€report,Ïthe€analyst€who€told€him€that€the€report€indicated€a€therapeutic€level€of€Benadryl,Ïor€their€supervisor.€€It€appears€that€counsel€merely€elected€not€to,€fearing€thatÏtheir€testimony€would€be€more€damaging€than€helpful.€€It€appears€that€whatÏAppellants€œare€really›€œcontendñÀñing€ñÀññÁñ›€ñÁñis›€that€they€needed€expert€assistance€œñÂñto€ñÂññÃñinñÃññÆñ›€ñÆññÉñ›ñÉñrefutñÄñing›ÏñÄññÅñeÏñÅñthe›€Stateððs€proof.€However,€when€a€motion€for€expert€assistance€is€ð ðaccompaniedÏby€little€more€than€undeveloped€assertions€that€the€services€[are]€needed€toÏattempt€to€counter€the€State's€proof,ðð€the€trial€court€is€within€its€discretion€inÏdenying€the€request.€€òòBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€430.€Thus,€this€issue€has€no€merit.Ð p& ÐÌà@  ®àò òXI.€€ð ðTHEY€DID€STUFF€LIKE€THIS€BEFOREððó óˆÐ P*ð " ÐÌà ` àAppellant€Sharon€Hurt€contends€that€the€trial€erred€when€it€refused€to€grantÏa€mistrial€after€Rowe€testified€that€ð ðthey€did€stuff€like€this€before.ðð€€Specifically,Ïshe€argues€that€this€reference€to€ð ðtheyðð€made€it€seem€as€if€she€had€killedÏsomeone€before.ÌÌà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€prior€to€Roweððs€testimony,€the€State€agreed€toÏquestion€Rowe€only€generally€as€to€why€he€did€not€testify€truthfully€in€priorÐ à9€02 Ðproceedings€and€not€to€question€Rowe€as€to€the€specifics€behind€the€reason.€ÏDuring€Roweððs€direct€examination,€the€following€colloquy€occurred:ÌÓÓà0 ` àQ:€Mr.€Rowe,€Iððll€ask€you,€while€you€were€in€Tallahassee,€Florida,€did€youÏhave€an€occasion€to€discuss€the€murder€of€Don€Hurt?Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àA:€Sharon€and€I,€one€afternoon€we€went€to€a€seafood€restaurant€and€hadÏdinner,€and€when€we€finished€dinner€and€got€back€out€in€the€car,€and€IÏasked€Jimmy€Murray€directly€what€happened€and€he€told€me€how€they€hadÏput€mickeys€in€Don€Hurtððs€drinks€and€how€the€three€of€them€walked€him€toÏthe€front€door€and€he€shot€Mr.€Hurt€in€the€head€and€Marcie€shot€him€in€theÏhead,€and€he€said€the€reason€both€of€them€shot€him€was€where€theyÏcouldnððt€tell€on€one€another.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à.€.€.€.Ð ¸ T$¸ T$ Ðà0 ` àQ:€Were€any€statements€made€to€you€about€what€would€happen€to€you€ifÏyou€told€anybody?Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àA:€Yes,€sir.€€They€said€that€they€did€stuff€like€this€before„„Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àQ:€No,€if€Your€Honor€please„„Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓÓÌThe€prosecutor€then€told€the€court€in€a€bench€conference€that€he€had€repeatedlyÏgone€over€the€parameters€of€Roweððs€testimony€with€him€and€that€he€had€givenÏthis€answer€despite€these€admonitions.€€Ms.€Hurt€then€moved€for€a€mistrial,€whichÏwas€denied.€€The€court€then€gave€the€following€instruction,€ð ðThe€last€response€ofÏthe€witness€is€to€be€stricken€from€the€record€and€stricken€from€the€juryððsÏconsideration.ðð€€The€court€then€told€the€prosecutor€to€leave€that€question€andÏmove€on€to€something€else,€which€he€did.€ÌÌà ` à€The€decision€of€whether€to€grant€a€mistrial€is€within€the€sound€discretionÏof€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€McKinneyóó,€929€S.W.2d€404,€405€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð 0.Ð$& Ð1996).€€This€court€will€not€disturb€that€decision€absent€a€finding€of€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€642,€644€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,Ð 2°(* Ð929€S.W.2d€385,€388€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Furthermore,€we€presume€thatÏthe€jury€followed€the€trial€courtððs€explicit€instruction€not€to€consider€theÏinappropriate€comment.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€923€(Tenn.€1994).€€InÐ à7€.0 Ðfact,€although€Roweððs€statement€was€somewhat€ambiguous,€the€logical€inferenceÐ Ð9p02 Ðwhen€the€statement€is€taken€in€context€is€that€he€was€referring€to€the€Murrays,€notÏto€Ms.€Hurt.€€In€light€of€the€limited€nature€of€the€offending€testimony€and€the€trialÏcourt's€prompt€curative€instruction,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÏrefusing€to€grant€a€mistrial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dickóó,€872€S.W.2d€938,€944€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 0Ð ÐApp.€1993).€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌÌÌà@!®àò òXII.€€IMPEACHMENT€TESTIMONYó óˆÐ à€ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€Marcie€Murray€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ruledÏthat€she€could€not€impeach€Rowe€with€the€testimony€of€Lanny€Clark.€€Specifically,ÏMs.€Murray€contends€that€Clark€should€have€been€allowed€to€testify€that€RoweÏhad€offered€him€$2,500€to€either€shoot€or€find€someone€else€to€shoot€a€manÏnamed€Cotton€Murray.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Ð $0 ÐÌà ` àDuring€a€jury„out€hearing,€Rowe€was€cross„examined€about€whether€heÏever€attempted€to€hire€Clark€to€shoot€Cotton€Murray.€€Rowe€denied€theÏallegations.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€defense€counsel€could€cross„examine€RoweÏabout€the€allegations,€but€that€no€extrinsic€evidence€would€be€permitted.€€RoweÏwas€subsequently€cross„examined€about€the€allegation,€and€he€once€againÏdenied€it.€€Later,€defense€counsel€proffered€Clarkððs€testimony,€but€the€courtÏreiterated€its€finding€that€this€evidence€was€not€admissible€because€it€related€toÏa€collateral€matter.€ò òÐ 6 ,. Їà ` àó óMs.€Murray€contends€that€Clarkððs€testimony€did€not€concern€a€collateralÐ `  Ðmatter€because€it€went€to€Roweððs€knowledge€and€ability€to€employ€someone€toÏmaim€or€kill€another€person.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€this€evidence€wasÏpurely€collateral.€€There€was€absolutely€no€proof€that€Rowe€had€hired€orÏattempted€to€hire€someone€to€kill€Don€Hurt.€€Thus,€the€only€relevance€of€ClarkððsÏtestimony€would€be€to€show€that€Rowe€had€lied€about€trying€to€hire€Clark€to€shootÏCotton€Murray.€€Essentially,€Ms.€Murray€is€arguing€for€what€Rule€608(b)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€was€designed€to€prohibit.€€Rule€608(b)€states:ÌÓÓà0 ` àSpecific€instances€of€conduct€of€a€witness€for€the€purpose€of€attacking€orÏsupporting€the€witnessððs€credibility,€other€than€convictions€of€crime€asÏprovided€in€Rule€609,€may€not€be€proved€by€extrinsic€evidence.€€They€may,Ïhowever,€if€probative€of€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness€and€under€theÏfollowing€conditions,€be€inquired€into€on€cross-examination€of€the€witnessÏconcerning€the€witnessððs€character€for€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness€orÏconcerning€the€character€for€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness€of€anotherÏwitness€as€to€which€the€character€witness€being€cross-examined€hasÏtestified.€€€Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓÓÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€608(b).€€Thus,€Clarkððs€testimony€regarding€this€collateral€matterÏwas€clearly€inadmissible€under€Rule€608(b).€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@uu®àò òXIII.€€FAILURE€TO€PROVIDE€CRIMINAL€RECORDS€OF€WITNESSESó óˆÐ X)ø! ÐÌà ` àAppellant€Marcie€Murray€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€deniedÏher€motion€requesting€that€the€State€be€required€to€produce€the€criminal€recordsÏof€all€of€its€witnesses.€€Ms.€Murray€acknowledges€that€under€òòState€v.€Workmanóó,Ð (1È') Ð667€S.W.2d€44,€51€(Tenn.€1984),€the€State€has€ð ðno€duty,€either€under€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€or€by€decisional€law€in€this€state,ðð€toÏprovide€such€disclosure.€€She€contends,€however,€that€this€disclosure€is€requiredÏby€federal€constitutional€law.Ð è8ˆ/1 Їà ` àAs€support€for€her€proposition,€Ms.€Murray€cites€òòWardis€v.€Oregonóó,€412Ð `  ÐU.S.€470,€93€S.€Ct.€2208,€37€L.€Ed.€2d€82€(1973)€and€òòUnited€States€v.€Agursóó,€427Ð P ð ÐU.S.€97,€96€S.€Ct.€2392,€49€L.€Ed.€2d€342€(1976).€€However,€neither€of€theseÏcases€holds€that€the€prosecution€has€an€absolute€duty€to€disclose€the€criminalÏrecords€of€its€witnesses€to€the€defense.€€òòWardisóó€stands€for€the€proposition€thatÐ  À Ðdiscovery€rules€must€be€reciprocal.€€412€U.S.€at€472,€93€S.€Ct.€at€2211.€€Thus,Ïthat€case€is€inapplicable€here€because€Tennessee€law€does€not€require€theÏdefense€to€divulge€the€criminal€records€of€its€witnesses€while€exempting€the€StateÏfrom€doing€the€same.€€òòAgursóó€stands€for€the€proposition€that€criminal€records€of€aÐ à€ Ðwitness€or€victim€must€be€disclosed€when€they€are€material.€€427€U.S.€at€111ð!ð12,Ï96€S.€Ct.€at€2401ð!ð02.€€However,€the€Court€specifically€noted€that€ð ð[t]he€mereÏpossibility€that€an€item€of€undisclosed€information€might€have€helped€the€defense,Ïor€might€have€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial,€does€not€establish€ððmaterialityðð€inÏthe€constitutional€sense.ðð€€427€U.S.€at€109ð!ð10,€96€S.€Ct.€at€2400.€ÌÌà ` àThe€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€ð ðthe€suppression€by€the€prosecution€ofÏevidence€favorable€to€an€accused€upon€request€violates€due€process€where€theÏevidence€is€material€either€to€guilt€or€to€punishment.ðð€€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373Ð P*ð " ÐU.S.€83,€87,€83€S.€Ct.€1194,€1196ð!ð97,€10€L.€Ed.€2d€215€(1963).€€In€addition,€theÏCourt€has€stated€that€ð ð[w]hen€the€reliability€of€a€given€witness€may€well€beÏdeterminative€of€guilt€or€innocence,€nondisclosure€of€evidence€affecting€credibilityÏfalls€within€this€general€rule.ðð€€òòGiglio€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150,€154,€92€S.Ð 2°(* ÐCt.€763,€766,€31€L.€Ed.€2d€104€(1972)€(citation€omitted).€€ð ðSuch€evidence€isÏððevidence€favorable€to€an€accused,ðð€òòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87[,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1196],€soÐ ð5,. Ðthat,€if€disclosed€and€used€effectively,€it€may€make€the€difference€betweenÏconviction€and€acquittal.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.€667,€676,€105€S.€Ct.Ð Ð9p02 Ð3375,€3380,€87€L.€Ed.€2d€481€(1985).€€However,€€before€an€accused€is€entitled€toÏrelief€under€this€theory,€he€must€establish€several€prerequisites:€€a)€theÏprosecution€must€have€suppressed€the€evidence;€b)€the€evidence€suppressedÏmust€have€been€favorable€to€the€accused;€and€c)€the€evidence€must€have€beenÏmaterial.€€òòSeeóó€òòBagleyóó,€473€U.S.€at€674ð!ð75,€105€S.€Ct.€at€3379ð!ð80;€òòAgursóó,€427Ð  À ÐU.S.€at€104,€96€S.€Ct.€at€2397;€òòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1196ð!ð97.€€InÐ °  ÐòòState€v.€Spurlockóó,€this€Court€recognized€a€fourth€prerequisite€to€relief:€€ð ðtheÐ    Ðaccused€must€make€a€proper€request€for€the€production€of€the€evidence,€unlessÏthe€evidence,€when€viewed€by€the€prosecution,€is€obviously€exculpatory€in€natureÏand€will€be€helpful€to€the€accused.ðð€€874€S.W.2d€602,€609€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993)€(citations€omitted).€€Moreover,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€proving€aÏconstitutional€violation€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòId.óó€at€610.€Ð °P ÐÌà ` àIn€this€case,€Marcie€Murray€has€shown€that€she€made€a€request€for€theÏwitnessesðð€criminal€records.€€However,€she€has€not€presented€any€evidence,€orÏeven€argued,€that€any€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€actually€had€criminal€records€forÏthe€State€to€suppress.€€Further,€she€has€failed€to€explain€how€such€records€wouldÏhave€been€material.€€Thus,€even€if€the€trial€court€had€erred€in€denying€her€motion,ÏMs.€Murray€has€failed€to€establish€how€she€was€prejudiced€by€the€denial.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€InÐ @,à"$ Ðshort,€Ms.€Murray€has€failed€to€establish€that€her€due€process€right€to€a€fair€trialÏwas€violated€by€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€her€motion€for€the€disclosure€of€theÏwitnessesðð€criminal€records.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÐ 4 *, Ðà@Ó Ó ®àò òXIV.€€MISSING€WITNESS€INSTRUCTIONó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€James€Murray€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€gave€theÏmissing€witness€instruction€regarding€Pam€Woolums.€€We€disagree.€€ð ðUnder€theÏmissing€witness€rule,€a€party€is€entitled€to€argue,€and€have€the€jury€instructed,€thatÏif€the€other€party€has€it€peculiarly€within€his€power€to€produce€a€witness€whoseÏtestimony€would€naturally€be€favorable€to€him,€the€failure€to€call€that€witnessÏcreates€an€adverse€inference€that€the€testimony€would€not€favor€his€contentions.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€334€(Tenn.€1992)€(citations€omitted).€Ð ð Ðð ðBefore€the€missing€witness€rule€can€be€invoked,€however,€the€evidence€mustÏshow€that€ððthe€witness€had€knowledge€of€material€facts,€that€a€relationship€existsÏbetween€the€witness€and€the€party€that€would€naturally€incline€the€witness€to€favorÏthe€party€and€that€the€missing€witness€was€available€to€the€process€of€the€CourtÏfor€trial.ðððð€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòDelk€v.€Stateóó,€590€S.W.2d€435,€440€(Tenn.€1979)).€€It€hasÐ  "@ Ðfrequently€been€noted€that€the€missing€witness€rule€cannot€be€invoked€absent€aÏshowing€that€the€witness€was€not€equally€available€to€both€parties.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð €&  ÐBoydóó,€867€S.W.2d€330,€337€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€This€last€requirementÐ p(  Ðmeans€that€it€must€not€be€likely€that€the€witness€will€be€as€favorable€to€one€partyÏas€to€the€other.€€òòDavid€Louis€Raybin,€Tennessee€Criminal€Law€&€Procedure,€óóððÐ P,ð"$ Ð30.64€at€142€(1985)€(citing€òòMcCormick,€Evidenceóó€ðð€272€(3d€ed.€1984)).Ð @.à$& ÐÌà ` àIn€this€case,€Woolums€clearly€had€knowledge€of€material€facts€in€this€case.€ÏThe€Murrays€claimed€that€they€were€with€Woolums€in€Gatlinburg,€TennesseeÏwhen€Don€Hurt€was€murdered.€€Obviously,€Woolums€could€have€testified€aboutÏwhether€this€was€true€or€not,€thus,€either€crediting€or€discrediting€the€alibi.€€InÏaddition,€Woolums€is€Ms.€Murrayððs€half„sister€and€thus,€clearly€has€a€relationshipÐ à9€02 Ðwith€the€Murrays€that€would€naturally€incline€her€to€favor€them.€Further,€WoolumsÏwas€available€to€the€process€of€the€court.€€In€fact,€James€Murrayððs€trial€counselÏacknowledged€that€even€though€Woolums€was€living€in€Kentucky,€he€could€haveÏdeclared€her€to€be€a€material€witness€and€followed€the€procedures€to€have€herÏproperly€subpoenaed,€but€he€simply€failed€to€do€so€because€he€did€not€think€thatÏit€was€necessary.€€Finally,€it€is€not€likely€that€Woolums€would€have€been€inclinedÏto€be€as€favorable€to€the€State€as€she€would€be€to€the€Murrays.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,€the€trialÐ    Ðcourt€properly€gave€the€missing€witness€instruction.ÌÌà@©©$®àò òXV.€€JURY€MISCONDUCTó óˆÐ Ðp ÐÌà ` àAppellant€James€Murray€contends€that€the€jury€engaged€in€misconductÏbecause€it€only€deliberated€for€two€hours€and€ten€minutes€before€returning€aÏverdict.€€Mr.€Murray€acknowledges,€however,€that€his€position€is€directly€contraryÏto€the€established€law€of€this€state.€€Indeed,€this€Court€has€stated€numerous€timesÏthat€ð ð[t]he€length€of€a€juryððs€deliberation€has€no€bearing€on€the€strength€orÏcorrectness€of€[its]€verdict€or€the€validity€of€[its]€verdict.ðð€€òòState€v.€Grayóó,€960Ð p(  ÐS.W.2d€598,€605€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(finding€no€misconduct€when€juryÏdeliberated€for€only€one€hour).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Spafadinaóó,€952€S.W.2d€444,Ð P,ð"$ Ð451€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(forty„nine€minute€deliberation);€òòState€v.€Caldwellóó,Ð @.à$& Ð656€S.W.2d€894,€897€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(twenty„six€minute€deliberation);Ð 00Ð&( ÐòòAnglin€v.€Stateóó,€553€S.W.2d€616,€620€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977)€(ten€minuteÐ  2À(* Ðdeliberation).€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ð 4°*, Їà@ÏÏ ®àò òXVI.€€OMISSIONS€IN€THE€RECORDó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€James€Murray€complains€that€there€are€twenty„nine€separateÏinstances€in€the€record€where€the€court€reporter€indicated€that€she€could€not€hearÏwhat€was€occurring€during€a€bench€conference€because€of€the€position€of€theÏmicrophone.€€As€a€result,€Mr.€Murray€agues€that€he€was€not€able€to€prepare€aÏrecord€that€is€a€ð ðfair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€withÏrespect€to€the€issues€forming€the€basis€of€the€appeal.ððÌÌà ` àIt€is€not€clear€from€his€brief€whether€Mr.€Murray€is€claiming€that€he€isÏentitled€to€relief€because€of€these€omissions,€whether€he€feels€the€need€to€justifyÏhis€failure€to€provide€this€Court€with€a€complete€record,€or€whether€he€simplyÏwants€to€bring€these€omissions€to€the€attention€of€this€Court.€€In€any€case,€it€isÏapparent€that€the€omissions€are€not€lengthy€and€at€times€they€appear€to€consistÏof€only€a€few€words€or€a€sentence.€€It€does€not€appear€that€any€of€the€omissionsÏaffected€the€recording€of€the€nature€of€Mr.€Murrayððs€objections€or€the€outcomesÏof€the€bench€conferences.€€Further,€Mr.€Murray€has€failed€to€indicate€how,€or€evenÏif,€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€omissions.€€In€short,€Mr.€Murray€is€not€entitled€to€reliefÏsimply€because€these€omissions€occurred.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blaine€M.€Wrightóó,€No.Ð P,ð"$ Ð03C01„9410„CR„00388,€1995€WL€728535,€at€*10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,ÏDec.€11,€1995)€(stating€that€defendant€was€not€entitled€to€relief€when€he€failed€toÏshow€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€thirteen€unintelligible€portions€of€the€record).ÌÌà@ÄÄ&®àò òXVII.€€SENTENCINGó óˆÐ 6 ,. Ðâ âÐ 8 .0 Ðà ` àAll€three€Appellants€contend€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€sentencedÏâ âthem€to€longer€terms€than€they€deserve.€€Specifically,€they€argue€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€when€it€imposed€consecutive€sentences€based€on€a€finding€that€theyÏwere€dangerous€offenders.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Under€Tennessee€law,€ð ð[w]hen€reviewingÐ 0Ð Ðsentencing€issues€.€.€.€including€the€granting€or€denial€of€probation€and€the€lengthÏof€sentence,€the€appellate€court€shall€conduct€a€de€novo€review€on€the€record€ofÏsuch€issues.€€Such€review€shall€be€conducted€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdeterminations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€ð ðHowever,€the€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€which€accompanies€the€trial€court's€action€is€conditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÐ °P Ð166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€conducting€our€review,€we€must€consider€all€theÏevidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,€the€enhancing€andÏmitigating€factors,€arguments€of€counsel,€the€appellantððs€statements,€the€natureÏand€character€of€the€offense,€and€the€appellantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-103(5),€-210(b)€(1997€&€Supp.€1998);€òòAshbyóó,€823Ð `(  ÐS.W.2d€at€169.€€ð ðThe€defendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€theÏsentence€is€improper.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ @,à"$ ÐÌà ` àConsecutive€sentencing€is€governed€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ððÏ40-35-115.€€The€trial€court€has€the€discretion€to€order€consecutive€sentencing€ifÐ 2°(* Ðit€finds€that€one€or€more€of€the€required€statutory€criteria€exist.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,Ð `  Ð924€S.W.2d€912,€917€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Further,€the€court€is€required€toÏdetermine€whether€the€consecutive€sentences€(1)€are€reasonably€related€to€theÏseverity€of€the€offenses€committed;€€(2)€serve€to€protect€the€public€from€furtherÏcriminal€conduct€by€the€offender;€€and€(3)€are€congruent€with€general€principlesÏof€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€1995).€€BecauseÐ °  Ðthe€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances,€our€review€of€Appellantsðð€sentences€is€deÏnovo€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€based€its€decision€to€order€all€three€Appellants€to€serve€theirÏsentences€for€conspiracy€consecutively€to€their€sentences€for€first€degree€murderÏon€a€finding€that€they€were€all€dangerous€offenders.€€Specifically,€the€trial€courtÏmade€the€following€findings:ÌÓÓà0 ` àEach€is€properly€characterized€as€a€dangerous€offender.€€Iððve€looked€bothÏat€the€statutory€definition€and€find€it€to€be€applicable,€but€Iððve€lookedÏbeyond€that€and€make€a€finding€based€upon€the€facts,€all€the€facts€beforeÏthe€Court,€first€of€all,€just€all€the€facts€of€the€offense€itself;€the€murder,€theÏsustained,€very€sustained€intent,€elaborate€planning,€multiple€efforts,Ïobviously€once€the€design€was€formed€to€kill€the€victim€in€the€case,€theÏthree€perpetrators€were€just€going€to€continue€that€effort€until€they€finallyÏsucceeded,€which€they€ultimately€did.€€Very€cold„blooded,€very€calculated,Ïand€when€youððve€got€greed€as€the€motive,€then€youððve€got€a€situationÏwhere€there€is€always€the€potential€for€recurrence,€and€therein€comes€theÏprotections,€the€need€to€protect€the€community€or€to€protect€the€public€fromÏfurther€offenses.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓÓÌThe€court€also€found€that€consecutive€sentences€were€appropriate€based€onÏevidence€that€Mr.€Murray€had€secreted€a€razor€blade€in€his€prison€cell€in€anÏapparent€attempt€to€escape,€that€Ms.€Murray€had€written€a€letter€to€her€son€tellingÏhim€to€assault€Sharon€Hurtððs€son€and€telling€him€how€he€could€locate€LeonardÏRowe,€that€Ms.€Murray€had€committed€perjury€during€the€trial,€that€Ms.€Hurt€hadÐ Ð9p02 Ðcommitted€perjury€in€her€civil€trial,€and€that€Ms.€Hurt€had€been€in€unlawfulÏpossession€of€a€weapon€on€numerous€occasions.€€In€short,€the€court€found€that,Ïwith€respect€to€all€three€Appellants,€ð ðthat€anything€would€have€been€done€andÏwould€be€done€again€by€them€for€money.ðð€ÌÌà ` àBased€on€our€de€novo€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€didÏnot€abuse€its€discretion€when€it€imposed€consecutive€sentences.€€First,€we€agreeÏwith€the€trial€court€that€Appellants€are€dangerous€offenders.€€Their€elaborateÏplanning€and€multiple€attempts€to€kill€Don€Hurt€clearly€indicate€that€they€have€noÏregard€for€human€life€and€they€have€no€hesitation€in€taking€human€life.€€Second,Ïwe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€there€is€evidence€in€the€record€which€indicatesÏthat€consecutive€sentences€are€necessary€in€this€case€to€protect€the€public€fromÏfurther€criminal€conduct.€€In€addition€to€killing€Don€Hurt€out€of€greed,€AppellantsÏhave€demonstrated€an€almost€total€disregard€for€the€law€by€threatening€the€lifeÏof€Rowe€and€his€family,€offering€to€bribe€Gurley€to€testify€falsely,€and€committingÏperjury.€Further,€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€indicates€that€rather€than€everÏshowing€any€remorse€for€what€they€had€done,€Appellants€merely€laughed€aboutÏthe€murder.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€finding€that€the€publicÏneeded€protection€from€these€people€who€would€perform€even€the€most€cold„¼blooded€acts€for€money.€€Third,€even€though€the€trial€court€made€no€expressÏfinding,€we€conclude€in€our€de€novo€review€that€given€the€egregious€nature€ofÏAppellantsðð€offenses,€the€aggregate€sentences€are€reasonably€related€to€theÏseverity€of€the€crimes€involved.€€As€this€Court€has€previously€stated,€if€our€reviewÏreflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€imposedÏa€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€theÏfactors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððsÐ Ð9p02 Ðfindings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modifyÏthe€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,Ð P ð Ð805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€In€short,€Appellants€have€failedÏto€demonstrate€that€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€was€anÏabuse€of€discretion.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@"®àò òXVIII.€€CUMULATIVE€ERRORó óˆÐ    ÐÌà ` àAppellant€Marcie€Murray€contends€that€she€was€denied€a€fair€trial€basedÏon€the€cumulative€error€in€this€case.à  à€Ms.€Murray€is€correct€that€the€combinationÐ à€ Ðof€multiple€errors€may€necessitate€the€reversal€of€a€conviction€even€if€individualÏerrors€do€not€require€relief.€€òòSee€State€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€28€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð À` ÐApp.€1996).€€However,€we€have€carefully€reviewed€the€record€in€this€case€andÏconsidered€the€errors€assigned€by€Ms.€Murray,€both€individually€and€cumulatively,Ïand€have€determined€that€none€constitute€prejudicial€error€requiring€a€reversal.€ÏThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgement€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌ̜Р  2À(* ÐCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE