ÿWPC¿ vä­Šë²Ä@m°cpò%ŽÅ]Cz€ý›&çøÉ­J Ï ‘ð¨ \ëÏDÑB­Ìö±>Öèª4™•iÑ#ãA>!§eT€¯ÓŽKQñ=ÑéX“¿2“V–~+}›ÍüÌÿk"’M@þg¨ ÜmèMÃud.@\YuÌ’Ö:<9ÚˆBSò¶+‹ª×˜ 䟌ý~íÔ0lÃüwŽøÌ-3‚xèÍ¥.¨)KþOý%Ug"$ؽU:×å®:H;ß±}Ý5-ÃêógêçWÙÜf[kßOH —Ié‹nŽ€a„…±6 á"þX ˆØ|¼WìDm—;«6¸%½TËü5ÄL{:¶B—„¬Ûù,û@joÞ6Þ·›)“B^ÊMoƒúÁjö:ä·ÜÚe… ÊF憃p«rTWnéÎ;‡bå¹{us4áèNˆ´ kç>š©Ûd¡ž[·Žd_&¦±õd&©èB9ô./¹wÜC 'lqcËÐBD·PÍvÄOón°ÕzØ,ÝK'­% ²'ýÏ» ­¹– ëc6=ñÿ¬žœ[ë’9ìµ!©ï½N÷~Ý•9°Ñ%¤#÷žó]"¿üyÜÛÓ£ÃdÏ, ögÌ¿à¼-â„,# hUNs %Á 0(ÇLïU:;buw@}4½Ñ 0Æà 0D¦UNêÜ8E U:Y UN“ %á U: B@@ 0D] D3¡¡¡¡ AQÔÆ% 0Dë 0D/ D/s B¢˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- NDOUPDQRESTUEVWÓ€V&3|xb(v(2^ $¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xh÷XXXÔÔ€ôWùôXXh÷Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ÒÝ ƒ “$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XxƒXXXÔÔ€ôÇ× ôXXxƒÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€In€his€motion€for€new€trial,€Norris€alleges€ð ð[o]ther›€grounds€which€will€be€supplied€by€theÐ `  ÐDefendant.ðð€œò òó 󛀀Such€an€allegation€is€insufficient€to€preserve€the€issue€on€appeal.€€ð ð[œN]o›€issue€presented€forÐ  ¾ Ðreview€shall€be€predicated€upon€error€.€.€.€unless€the€same€was€òòspecificallyóó€stated€in€a€motion€for€newÐ Ü | Ðtrial.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e)€(emphasis€added).€€No€written€amendment€to€the€motion€is€in€the€recordÏbefore€this€Court,€nor€did€Norris€attempt€to€orally€amend€the€motion. ;Ý ƒ “$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XxƒXXXÔÔ€ôÇ× ôXXxƒÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Meadowsðð€motion€for€new€trial€also€contains€an€allegation€of€ð ð[o]ther›€grounds€which€will€beÐ `  Ðsupplied€by€the€œDefendant.ððò òó ó›,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xh÷XXXÔÔ€«" XXh÷ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xh÷X «"ÔÐ  ÐÌò òApril€9,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôWùôXXh÷ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý'ÿÿdxd'(!)*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ŠQ‰ŠXXÔÔ€Š ŠŠŠQ‰ÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€_XXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñWñßr€&"<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` ttx$,` ð ÚrßñWñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9704„CR„00137Ð ` 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  àCUMBERLAND€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€LEON€C.€BURNS,€JR.ó óÐ Xø  Ðò òJACK€THOMAS€NORRIS,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðò ò&€ERNEST€RAY€MEADOWSó óà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€Attempted€First€Ð Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ 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 8Ø ÐÌLARRY€M.€WARNERà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ (!È ÐAttorney€for€Jack€Thomas€Norrisà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  "À ÐP.€O.€Box€601ÌCrossville,€€TN€€38557à h àà À àà  àMARVIN€E.€CLEMENTS,€JR.Ð $° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌMARGARET€JANE€POWERSà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ &  ÐAttorney€for€Ernest€Ray€Meadowsà  àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð ø&˜ Ð79€North€Main€StreetÌCrossville,€TN€€38555„4576à À àà  àBILL€GIBSONÐ è(ˆ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àANTHONY€J.€CRAIGHEADÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à145€South€Jefferson€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCookeville,€TN€€38501ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€PATTERSONÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à206€East€Second€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCrossville,€TN€€38555ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  P;ð13S ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°Éb°ŠŠ Ôò òòòÔ‡„Ó¡ „°°ÉbÔOPINIONÔ#†°Éb° „„Ó¡…#Ôóóó óÔ€Š Š°°ÉbÔÐ `  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà ` àThe€appellants,€Jack€Thomas€Norris€and€Earnest€Ray€Meadows,€wereÏconvicted€by€a€Cumberland€County€jury€of€attempted€first€degree€murder.€NorrisÏreceived€a€sentence€of€24€years€for€his€conviction,€and€Meadows€was€sentencedÏto€22€years.€€On€appeal,€Norris€and€Meadows€raise€several€joint€issues€for€ourÏconsideration:ÌÓÓà8 ` à1)€whether€the€evidence€presented€by€the€state€was€sufficient€toÏsupport€the€juryððs€verdict;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€a€motion€for€aÏcontinuance;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à3)€whether€the€prosecution€improperly€used€the€ð ðmissing€witnessððÏargument€in€its€closing;€andÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€grant€a€new€trial€afterÏa€juror€attempted€to€impeach€its€own€verdict.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÓpÓÌAdditionally,€Meadows€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€inÏlimine€regarding€expert€testimony.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€beforeÏthis€Court,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€as€to€both€Appellants.ÌÌò òà@II,®àòòFACTSóóó óˆÐ ´+T"# ÐÌà ` àAppellant€Norris€owned€and€operated€a€salvage€yard€located€at€theÏentrance€to€the€subdivision€where€James€Yates,€the€victim,€lived.€€Norris€lived€inÏa€mobile€home€adjacent€to€the€salvage€yard.€€Mr.€Yates€did€not€like€theÏappearance€of€the€junkyard€and€made€inquiries€to€state€officials€as€to€whetherÏâ âNorris€was€violating€any€governmental€regulations.Ð d7./ Ðà ` àOn€April€18,€1995,€Mr.€Yates€and€his€wife€drove€past€Norrisðð€home€on€theirÏâ âway€to€dinner.€€As€their€car€passed,€Danny€Wiggins,€an€employee€of€Norris,€madeÏan€offensive€hand€gesture€toward€the€couple.€€Mr.€Yates€stopped€the€car€andÏattempted€to€speak€with€Wiggins.€€Wiggins€returned€to€the€trailer,€but€Norris€cameÏoutside.€€Norris€and€Yates€quickly€got€into€an€argument,€and€during€the€courseÏof€the€argument,€Norris€told€Yates€that€he€had€ð ðmessed€with€the€wrong€.€.€.€Mòò€€€€Ð °  Ðóó€Fòò€€€€€óó.ðð€€€Norris€also€threatened€to€blow€Yatesðð€head€off.€€€As€Norris€came€off€theÐ    Ðporch€toward€the€Yatesðð€car,€Yates€drove€away.Ìà ` àInstead€of€going€to€the€restaurant,€the€Yates€attempted€to€find€Sheriff€LeonÏTollett.€€When€they€located€him€at€his€residence,€Yates€told€the€Sheriff€about€theÏanimosity€between€Norris€and€him€and€that€he€was€frightened.€€The€couple€thenÏreturned€home.€Ìà ` àMrs.€Yates€left€to€pick€up€dinner€from€a€local€restaurant.€€While€he€wasÏwaiting€for€his€wife€to€return,€Mr.€Yates€heard€a€loud€car€drive€past,€racing€itsÏengine.€€€He€noticed€that€the€car€was€an€older€model€brown€Toyota.€€The€carÏfrightened€him,€so€Yates€retrieved€his€unloaded€.12€gauge€shotgun€and€placedÏit€by€the€front€door.€Ìà ` àAfter€Mrs.€Yates€returned,€Mr.€Yates€heard€the€same€car€stop€in€front€of€hisÏhome.€€€Yates€turned€on€his€porch€light,€picked€up€the€shotgun,€and€stepped€ontoÏthe€front€porch.€€He€observed€Norris€standing€on€the€passenger€side€of€the€brownÏToyota€he€had€seen€earlier.€€He€could€not€see€and€did€not€identify€the€driver€ofÏthe€vehicle.€€Yates€saw€a€flash€of€light€next€to€Norrisðð€head€and€realized€that€heÏhad€been€shot.€€He€dropped€his€gun€and€went€inside€the€house.€Mrs.€Yates€thenÏdrove€him€to€the€hospital€where€he€was€treated€for€shotgun€wounds€to€his€face,Ïâ âneck,€and€torso.€Ð à7€.0 Ðà ` àShortly€after€the€shooting,€an€investigator€for€the€Cumberland€CountyÏâ âSheriffððs€Department€observed€a€car€matching€the€description€given€by€Yates.€ÏHe€and€a€fellow€officer€stopped€the€car,€which€was€driven€by€Appellant€Meadows.€ÏThe€license€plate€on€the€car€was€registered€to€a€Plymouth€in€Meadowsðð€name.€ÏAfter€obtaining€Meadowsðð€consent€to€search€the€car,€the€officers€discovered€aÏyellow€.20€gauge€shotgun€shell€in€the€back€floorboard.€€The€officers€had€theÏvehicle€towed€to€the€justice€center€and€later€recovered€another€.20€gauge€shotÏshell€from€a€coat€which€was€found€in€the€car.€€€The€shells€were€manufactured€byÏWinchester€and€contained€number€6€bird€shot€pellets.€Ìà ` àSpecial€Agent€Donald€Carman€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€InvestigationÏ(TBI)€analyzed€the€shot€wad€and€shotgun€pellets€found€at€the€scene€of€the€crime.€ÏCarman€concluded€that€the€wadding€was€consistent€with€a€.20€gauge€filler€shotÏwad€manufactured€by€Winchester.€€€He€further€determined€that€the€pellets€wereÏconsistent€with€Number€6€bird€shot.€€€He€also€compared€one€of€the€shells€takenÏfrom€Meadowsðð€car€with€the€physical€evidence€recovered€from€the€victimððs€homeÏand€found€that€all€components€of€the€shell€were€consistent€with€the€wadding€andÏpellets€taken€from€the€scene.Ìà ` àRussell€Davis,€another€special€agent€with€the€TBI,€testified€that€heÏconducted€gunshot€residue€tests€on€Meadowsðð€Toyota.€€€He€found€chemicalÏcompounds€consistent€with€gunshot€residue€on€the€roof,€rear€driverððs€sideÏwindow,€passenger€door,€and€dashboard€of€the€vehicle.€Ìà ` àAt€trial,€Danny€Wiggins€testified€for€the€state€and€stated€that€he€wasÏpresent€at€Norrisðð€residence€throughout€the€day€on€April€18.€€€Wiggins€testifiedÏthat€after€Yates€and€Norris€got€into€the€argument€that€day,€Norris€becameÏincreasingly€angry.€€€Norris€stated€that€he€ð ðought€to€kill€the€mòò€€€€€óó€fòò€€€€€óó.ðð€€€AroundÐ à7€.0 Ðthe€time€of€the€crime,€Wiggins€saw€Norris€and€Meadows€leave€Norrisðð€home€inÐ Ð9p02 ÐMeadowsðð€brown€older€model€Toyota.€€They€stated€that€they€were€going€to€ð ðtakeÏcare€of€some€business.ðð€€€Wiggins€testified€that€after€Norris€and€Meadows€left,€heÏheard€the€car€drive€around€the€subdivision€and€stop.€€He€then€heard€a€loud€bang,Ïwhich€sounded€like€a€shotgun€blast.€€When€Norris€returned€home,€he€stated€thatÏMeadows€had€left€to€ð ðget€ridðð€of€the€gun.€€Meadows€later€returned€with€JohnnyÏand€Naomi€Boles€and€told€Wiggins€that€the€Boles€would€give€him€an€alibi.€Ìà ` àNorma€Harris€testified€that€she€was€dating€Meadows€in€April€of€1995.€€€SheÏstated€that€she€and€Meadows€owned€a€shotgun€together€at€the€time€of€theÏshooting.€€€On€April€18,€Meadows€came€to€her€home€asking€to€borrow€the€gun,Ïand€she€gave€him€the€gun€along€with€three€(3)€yellow€shot€shells.€€Meadows€wasÏdriving€a€brown€car€that€night.€€€Meadows€did€not€return€the€shotgun,€and€whenÏHarris€asked€him€to€return€it,€Meadows€told€her€to€ð ðforget€the€gunðð€and€ð ðforgetÏ[she]€ever€saw€it.ðð€Ìà ` àEach€Appellant€testified€in€his€own€behalf€€at€trial.€€Both€denied€shootingÏthe€victim€and€being€with€anyone€who€shot€the€victim.€€€Norris€insisted€that€he€wasÏat€home€during€the€shooting,€and€Meadows€claimed€that€he€was€at€Naomi€andÏJohnny€Bolesðð€residence€at€the€time€of€the€incident.€€€Meadows€further€attemptedÏto€explain€the€presence€of€gunshot€residue€on€his€vehicle.€€He€€testified€thatÏBobby€Cumby€came€by€the€salvage€yard€on€April€18€and€asked€to€shoot€at€oldÏcars€in€order€to€set€the€scope€on€a€rifle.€€Meadows€stated€that€Cumby€placed€theÏgun€on€the€top€of€Meadowsðð€car€in€order€to€steady€the€rifle€while€shooting.€€Ìà ` àNaomi€and€Johnny€Boles€testified€that€Meadows€was€at€the€Bolesðð€homeÏwhen€the€call€came€over€the€police€scanner€that€a€shooting€had€occurred€inÏNorrisðð€neighborhood.€€€Austin€Lewis,€a€relative€of€Norris,€testified€that€he€was€inÏNorrisðð€trailer€with€Norris€on€the€night€of€the€shooting€from€approximately€8:00Ïuntil€9:10€p.m.€Ð Ð9p02 Ðà ` àIn€rebuttal,€the€state€called€Investigator€Bradley€Nealon€with€theÏCumberland€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€€€Nealon€testified€that€he€spoke€withÏAustin€Lewis€on€the€night€of€the€incident,€and€Lewis€stated€that€he€had€been€atÏhis€residence€all€evening.€Ìà ` àThe€jury€convicted€both€Appellants€of€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€FromÏtheir€convictions,€Norris€and€Meadows€bring€this€appeal.ÌÌò òà@‰ ‰ ®àòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCE€„€NORRIS€AND€MEADOWSóóó óˆÐ ð  ÐÌà ` àBoth€Appellants€argue€that€the€evidence€presented€by€the€State€at€trial€isÏinsufficient€to€sustain€the€jury€verdict€of€attempted€murder€in€the€first€degree.€ÏThey€claim€that€due€to€various€inconsistencies€in€the€evidence,€no€rational€trierÏof€fact€could€have€found€them€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ìà@EE-®àò òA.ó óˆÐ  "@ Ðà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÏis€obliged€to€review€that€challenge€according€to€certain€well„settled€principles.€ÏWhere€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€contested€on€appeal,€the€relevantÏquestion€for€the€reviewing€court€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€accused€guilty€of€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€Ð P.ð$& ÐOn€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidenceÏas€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€ÏòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€In€conducting€ourÐ  4À*, Ðevaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€is€precluded€from€reweighing€orÏreconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929€S.W.2d€380,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 8 .0 ÐApp.€1996);€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€Ð ð902 ÐMoreover,€this€Court€may€not€substitute€its€own€inferences€ð ðfor€those€drawn€byÏthe€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.ðð€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€atÐ P ð Ð779.Ìà ` àA€verdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€theÏtestimony€of€the€stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€inÏfavor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.Ð °  ÐHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€75.€€Although€an€accused€is€originally€cloaked€with€aÐ    Ðpresumption€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.óóÐ À` Ðà@BB-®àò òB.ˆÐ °P Ðó óà ` àBoth€Appellants€were€convicted€of€attempted€first€degree€murder,€which€isÐ ° P Ðdescribed€as€acting€with€intent€to€ð ðengage[]€in€actionðð€or€to€ð ðcomplete€a€course€ofÏactionðð€which€would€constitute€the€offense€of€first€degree€murder.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„12„101(a)(1),€(3)€(1991).€€First€degree€murder€is€the€ð ðintentional,Ïpremeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„¼202(a)(1)€(1991).ò òÐ `*!" Ðà@BB-®àC.ó óˆÐ P,ð"$ Ðà ` àYates€testified€that€he€observed€Norris€standing€by€an€older€model€brownÏToyota,€saw€a€flash€next€to€Norrisðð€head€and€then€realized€that€he€had€been€shot.€ÏYates€positively€identified€Norris€as€the€shooter.€€The€testimony€of€a€victimÏidentifying€the€defendant€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime€is€sufficient,€in€and€ofÏitself,€to€support€a€conviction.€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€87€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 6°,. Ðâ âApp.€1993).Ð 8 .0 Ðà ` àFurthermore,€several€witnesses,€including€Norris€himself,€testified€thatÏâ âNorris€threatened€to€blow€Yatesðð€head€off€within€hours€of€the€shooting.€€WigginsÏtestified€that€Norris€and€Meadows€left€Norrisðð€home€in€Meadowsðð€car€shortlyÏbefore€the€crime,€both€claiming€that€they€were€going€to€ð ðtake€care€of€someÏbusiness.ðð€€Although€Yates€could€not€positively€identify€Meadows€as€the€driver€ofÏthe€car,€he€was€able€to€identify€Meadowsðð€vehicle.€€Harris€testified€that€MeadowsÏborrowed€her€shotgun€and€some€ammunition€on€the€evening€of€April€18.€€LawÏenforcement€authorities€recovered€ammunition€from€Meadowsðð€vehicle€which€wasÏconsistent€with€the€physical€evidence€found€at€the€crime€scene.€€Moreover,Ïgunshot€residue€was€discovered€on€Meadowsðð€vehicle.Ìà ` àThe€evidence€against€the€Appellants€was€overwhelming.€€Although€bothÏAppellants€presented€evidence€of€an€alibi€at€the€time€of€the€shooting,€the€jury,€asÏtrier€of€fact,€was€free€to€disregard€that€testimony.€€Additionally,€any€conflicts€inÏproof€were€resolved€by€the€jury.€€The€weight€and€credibility€of€witnessesððÏtestimony€are€matters€entrusted€solely€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€òòState€v.Ð €$  ÐSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542€(Tenn.€1984);€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292€(Tenn.Ð p& ÐCrim.€App.€1978).Ìà@BB-®àò òD.ó óˆÐ P*ð " Ðà ` àMeadows€also€claims€that€there€was€insufficient€evidence€to€establish€thatÏAppellants€intended€to€kill€the€victim,€due€to€the€lack€of€evidence€that€Yates€couldÏhave€died€from€a€single€shot€of€bird€shot.€€To€the€contrary,€Dr.€Roberto€Baylosis,Ïan€emergency€room€physician€at€Cumberland€Medical€Center,€testified€that€theÏgunshot€wounds€inflicted€upon€the€victim€could€have€caused€him€to€bleed€toÏdeath€had€the€pellets€punctured€his€arterial€vessels.€€€In€any€event,€there€isÏsubstantial€evidence€of€the€Appellantsðð€intent€to€kill,€in€light€of€Norrisðð€multipleÏthreats€to€kill€Yates€within€hours€of€the€shooting.Ð à9€02 Ðà@HH-®àò òE.ó óˆÐ `  Ðà ` àThis€Court€concludes€that€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€determined€thatÏAppellants€intended€to€ð ðengage[]€in€actionðð€or€to€ð ðcomplete€a€course€of€actionððÏwhich€would€constitute€€the€offense€of€first€degree€murder.€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌò òà@] ] ®àòòMOTION€FOR€CONTINUANCE€„€NORRIS€AND€MEADOWSóóó óˆÐ °  ÐÌà ` àIn€the€second€allegation€of€error,€Appellants€claim€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€denying€their€respective€motions€for€a€continuance€in€order€to€secure€BobbyÏCumbyððs€presence€at€trial.€€They€contend€that€Cumbyððs€testimony€would€haveÏcorroborated€Meadowsðð€testimony€by€explaining€the€presence€of€gunshot€residueÏon€Meadowsðð€car.Ìà ` àOn€the€first€day€of€trial,€Appellants€filed€a€motion€for€continuance,€on€theÏbasis€that€Bobby€Cumby€could€not€be€located.€€Meadows€wished€to€call€CumbyÏas€a€witness€to€testify€that,€on€the€day€of€the€incident,€Cumby€had€propped€a€rifleÏon€the€hood€of€Meadowsðð€vehicle€while€shooting€at€old€cars€in€the€junkyard.€ÏAccording€to€Meadows,€this€testimony€would€explain€the€presence€of€gunshotÏresidue€on€his€vehicle.€€The€Sheriffððs€Department€had€attempted€to€serve€aÏsubpoena€on€Cumby€to€secure€his€presence€at€trial,€but€was€unsuccessfulÏbecause€Cumby€was€on€vacation€in€Florida.€€Apparently,€the€trial€had€previouslyÏbeen€rescheduled€from€a€prior€date€due€to€inclement€weather.€€However,€theÏSheriffððs€Department€was€unable€to€locate€Cumby€for€service€of€the€priorÏâ âsubpoena€as€well.Ð 6°,. Ðà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€Norris€failed€to€include€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€newÏtrial.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Therefore,€as€to€him,€the€issue€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòState€v.Ð P ð Ðâ âMaddoxóó,€957€S.W.2d€547,€553€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).ñGññ<ñÔ‡Š &ŠŠŠ±RÔñ<ññGñÐ @ à Ðà ` àNevertheless,€because€the€issue€was€properly€raised€by€Meadows,€we€willÏaddress€it€on€its€merits.€€The€procedure€for€requesting€a€continuance€in€order€toÏsecure€the€presence€of€a€witness€is€well„settled:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àWhen€requesting€a€continuance€to€accommodate€a€missingÏwitness,€the€grounds€must€be€set€out€in€an€affidavit€which€alleges€(a)Ïthe€substance€of€the€facts€the€defendant€expects€to€prove€throughÏthe€unavailable€witness;€€(b)€sufficient€facts€to€establish€theÏrelevance€and€materiality€of€the€testimony;€€(c)€the€admissibility€ofÏthe€testimony,€if€the€witness€was€available;€€(d)€the€non-cumulativeÏnature€of€the€testimony;€€(e)€the€witnessðð€availability€at€a€later€date;€Ïand€(f)€due€diligence€in€attempting€to€obtain€the€presence€of€theÏwitness.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€256-57€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð À` Ð1990);€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€19-1-110(a).€€Failure€to€file€the€motion€inÏproper€form€may€be€a€ground€for€denial.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803Ð °P ÐS.W.2d€at€257.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌòòÓÓState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€884€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð ˜!8 Ðà ` àA€motion€for€a€continuance€is€addressed€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏjudge€and€his€ruling€on€the€motion€will€not€be€disturbed€in€the€absence€of€anÏabuse€of€discretion€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2dÐ h' Ð573,€579€(Tenn.€1995).€€An€abuse€of€discretion€is€demonstrated€by€showing€thatÏthe€failure€to€grant€a€continuance€denied€defendant€a€fair€trial€or€that€it€could€beÏreasonably€concluded€that€a€different€result€would€have€followed€had€theÏcontinuance€been€granted.€€òòIdóó.€at€579.Ð (/È%' Ðà ` à€Under€the€record€before€this€Court,€there€is€no€indication€that€CumbyÏwould€be€available€at€a€later€date.€€The€Sheriffððs€Department€attempted€on€twoÏoccasions€to€serve€Cumby€with€a€subpoena€to€appear€in€court.€€Those€attemptsÐ ø4˜+- Ðwere€unsuccessful€due€to€the€inability€to€locate€Cumby.€€Although€AppellantsÏattribute€this€to€Cumbyððs€being€on€vacation€in€Florida€during€the€second€attemptÏat€service,€no€explanation€is€offered€as€to€why€Cumby€could€not€be€located€on€theÏfirst€attempt.€€Because€Appellants€have€not€established€that€Cumby€would€haveÏbeen€available€at€a€later€date,€we€conclude€there€was€no€abuse€of€discretion€inÏdenying€a€continuance.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€884.Ð °  Ðà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌò òà@ËË!®àòòEXPERT€TESTIMONY€„€MEADOWSóóó óˆÐ à€ ÐÌà ` àMeadows€additionally€insists€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€TBIÏSpecial€Agent€Russell€Davis€to€testify.€€Davisðð€testimony€concerned€the€presenceÏof€gunshot€residue€on€the€top€of€Meadowsðð€car.€€Meadows€claims€that€DavisððÏtestimony€was€prejudicial.€€Further,€he€argues€that€this€testimony,€coupled€withÏthe€denial€of€a€continuance,€had€the€effect€of€compelling€Meadows€to€testify€atÏtrial.ÌñGññ<ñÔ#†Š±RŠŠŠ &>M#Ôñ<ññGññIñÔ‡ Š£ŠŠŠ±RÔñIñà ` àBecause€Meadows€failed€to€include€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial,Ïthe€issue€is€waived.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòState€v.€Spadafinaóó,€952€S.W.2d€444,Ð `*!" Ð451€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€In€any€event,€the€evidence€of€gunshot€residue€onÏMeadowsðð€car€was€ñIñÔ#†Š±RŠŠ Š£Z#ÔñIññHñÔ‡Š &ŠŠŠ±RÔñHñcertainly€relevant€at€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Furthermore,ÏMeadows€has€cited€no€grounds€for€excluding€the€evidence,€other€than€that€it€hadÏa€prejudicial€effect.€€Meadowsðð€right€to€refrain€from€testifying€does€not€include€theÏright€to€be€free€of€any€prejudicial€testimony€against€him.Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð 6 ,. Їà@ê ê ®àò òòòMISSING€WITNESS€ARGUMENT€„€NORRIS€AND€MEADOWSóóó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àNorris€and€Meadows€further€assert€that€the€prosecution€made€improper€useÏof€the€ð ðmissing€witnessðð€argument€during€its€closing€argument.€€They€argue€thatÏthe€state€was€precluded€from€mentioning€Bobby€Cumby€in€its€closing,€becauseÏCumby€could€not€be€located€to€testify€at€trial.€€They€contend€that€the€prosecutionððsÏargument€overly€emphasized€the€absence€of€Cumbyððs€testimony€and,€therefore,Ïcaused€the€jury€to€discredit€Meadowsðð€testimony.Ìà ` àIn€its€closing€argument,€the€prosecution€made€the€following€remarks:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àNow,€Mr.€Meadows€came€here€today€and€told€you€that€byÏsome€sheer€coincidence,€on€the€same€day€this€happened,€his€goodÏfriend€Mr.€Cumby,€his€real€good€friend€Mr.€Cumby,€was€out€thereÏtaking€target€practice.€And€not€only€was€he€taking€target€practice,Ïbut€by€sheer€coincidence,€he€was€using€his€Toyota€to€sight€thisÏbarrel€over.€What€are€the€odds?€Then€they€take€„„€and€thatððs€all€youÏhave€to€go€by,€by€the€way,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€is€Mr.€MeadowsððÏword.€.€.€.€What€are€the€odds?Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓà ` àð ð[A]€party€is€entitled€to€argue,€and€have€the€jury€instructed,€that€if€the€otherÏparty€has€it€peculiarly€within€his€power€to€produce€a€witness€whose€testimonyÏwould€naturally€be€favorable€to€him,€the€failure€to€call€that€witness€creates€anÏadverse€inference€that€the€testimony€would€not€favor€his€contentions.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð h) ! ÐMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€334€(Tenn.€1992)€(citations€omitted).€€However,Ð X+ø!# Ðin€order€to€invoke€the€ð ðmissing€witnessðð€rule,€the€evidence€must€show€that€ð ðtheÏwitness€had€knowledge€of€material€facts,€that€a€relationship€exists€between€theÏwitness€and€the€party€that€would€naturally€incline€the€witness€to€favor€the€partyÏand€that€the€missing€witness€was€available€to€the€process€of€the€Court€for€trial.ððÐ 3¸)+ ÐòòDelk€v.€Stateóó,€590€S.W.2d€435,€440€(Tenn.€1979).Ð 5¨+- Ðà ` àIn€reviewing€a€claim€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€during€closing€argument,Ïwe€are€guided€by€such€factors€as:Ð è8ˆ/1 ÐÓÓà8 ` à1.€€The€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€context€and€in€light€of€theÏfacts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.Ð ` ü!` ü! Ѐ€Ìà ` à2.€The€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution.€€ÌÌà ` à3.€The€intent€of€the€prosecution€in€making€the€improper€statement.€€ÌÌà ` à4.€The€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€inÏthe€record.€€ÌÌà ` à5.€The€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.ÌÌÓÓòòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).Ð    ÐñHñÔ#†Š±RŠŠŠ &Y[#ÔñHññJñÔ‡ Š£ŠŠŠ±RÔñJñà ` àWe€must€initially€note€that€neither€Appellant€objected€to€the€allegedlyÏimproper€argument.€€Therefore,€both€have€waived€this€issue.€€òòState€v.€Greenóó,€947Ð à€ ÐS.W.2d€186,€188€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Seayóó,€945€S.W.2d€755,€762Ð Ðp Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Littleóó,€854€S.W.2d€643,€651€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð À` Ð1992);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Additionally,€this€issue€was€not€included€in€NorrisððÏmotion€for€new€trial€and€is€waived,€as€to€him,€€for€this€reason€as€well.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€3(e);€òòState€v.€Maddoxóó,€957€S.W.2d€at€553.ñJñÔ#†Š±RŠŠ Š£³h#ÔñJññKñÔ‡ Š£ŠŠŠ±RÔñKñÐ "0 Ðà ` àRegardless,€from€a€reading€of€the€stateððs€entire€closing€argument,€it€doesÏnot€appear€that€the€prosecution€was€asking€the€jury€to€draw€an€adverse€inferenceÏfrom€Cumbyððs€absence.€€The€prosecution€was€merely€exploring€the€credibility€ofÏMeadowsðð€explanation€for€the€presence€of€gunshot€residue€on€his€vehicle.€€ñKñÔ#†Š±RŠŠ Š£zk#ÔñKññLñÔ‡Š &ŠŠŠ±RÔñLñIn€lightÏof€the€overwhelming€evidence€of€guilt,€we€do€not€believe€that€any€reference€toÏCumby€during€closing€argument€affected€the€verdict.€€òòSeeóó€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539Ð 0.Ð$& ÐS.W.2d€at€346.Ìà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌò òà@íí®àòòJUROR€TESTIMONY€AS€BASIS€FOR€NEW€TRIAL€€„€NORRIS€ANDˆÐ ð5,. ÐMEADOWSóóó óÐ ð7.0 ÐÐ ð902 Ðà ` àIn€their€final€issue,€Appellants€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denyingÏtheir€respective€motions€for€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€a€jurorððs€testimony€that€sheÏwas€uncomfortable€with€the€verdict.Ìà ` àAt€the€beginning€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€defense€counsel€called€KathyÏJan€Burns€to€testify€concerning€her€dissatisfaction€with€the€juryððs€verdict.€€SheÏstated€that€she€was€a€member€of€the€jury€which€found€Norris€and€Meadows€guiltyÏof€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€She€testified€that€she€felt€that€the€verdict€wasÏð ðrushed,ðð€and€the€jury€did€not€fully€deliberate€on€the€evidence€presented€at€trial.€ÏShe€further€stated€that€she€ð ðhad€serious€doubts€within€five€minutesðð€after€theÏverdict.€Ìà ` àAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€defense€presented€anÏaffidavit€signed€by€James€Morgan€indicating€that€he€heard€Wayne€Findley,€aÏjuror,€state€that€three€jurors€were€going€to€ð ðhang€Jackððs€ass.ðð€€€However,€the€stateÏcalled€Findley€to€testify€at€the€hearing,€and€Findley€denied€making€such€aÏstatement.€ÌñLñÔ#†Š±RŠŠŠ &¨l#ÔñLññMñÔ‡ Š£ŠŠŠ±RÔñMñà ` àNorris€failed€to€include€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Therefore,€asÏto€him,€the€issue€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòState€v.€Maddoxóó,€957€S.W.2dÐ `(  Ðat€553.€€Nevertheless,€we€will€address€the€issue€with€regard€to€Meadows.ñMñÔ#†Š±RŠŠ Š£Fs#ÔñMññNñÔ‡Š &ŠŠŠ±RÔñNñÌà ` àTenn.€R.€Evid.€606(b)€provides:Ìà8 ` àà ¸ àÓÓUpon€an€inquiry€into€the€validity€of€a€verdict€or€indictment,€aÏjuror€may€not€testify€as€to€any€matter€or€statement€occurring€duringÏthe€course€of€the€juryððs€deliberations€or€to€the€effect€of€anythingÏupon€any€jurorððs€mind€or€emotion€as€influencing€that€juror€to€assentÏto€or€dissent€from€the€verdict€or€indictment€or€concerning€the€jurorððsÏmental€processes,€except€that€a€juror€may€testify€on€the€question€ofÏwhether€extraneous€prejudicial€information€was€improperly€broughtÏto€the€juryððs€attention,€whether€any€outside€influence€was€improperlyÏbrought€to€bear€upon€any€juror,€or€whether€the€jurors€agreed€inÏadvance€to€be€bound€by€a€quotient€or€gambling€verdict€withoutÏfurther€discussion;€nor€may€a€jurorððs€affidavit€or€evidence€of€anyÏstatement€by€the€juror€concerning€a€matter€about€which€the€jurorÏwould€be€precluded€from€testifying€be€received€for€these€purposes.ÐÐ9p02` ü!` ü! ЇÓÓA€juror€may€testify€or€submit€an€affidavit€in€connection€with€a€motion€for€new€trial,Ïin€the€limited€circumstances€of:ÌÓÓà8 ` à(1)€ð ðextraneous€prejudicial€informationðð€finding€its€way€into€the€juryÏroom,Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà ` à(2)€improper€outside€pressure€on€a€juror,€orÌÌà ` à(3)€a€quotient€or€gambling€verdict.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€606(b),€Advisory€Commission€Comments.Ìà ` àJuror€Burnsðð€testimony€concerning€her€personal€dissatisfaction€with€theÏjuryððs€verdict€was€inadmissible€evidence€in€support€of€the€Appellantsðð€motion€forÏnew€trial.€€Clearly,€her€testimony€did€not€indicate€that€she€was€subjected€toÏimproper€outside€pressure€or€that€ð ðextraneous€prejudicial€informationðð€came€intoÏthe€jury€room.€€Nor€did€she€testify€that€the€juryððs€verdict€was€a€quotient€orÏgambling€verdict.Ìà ` àThis€same€is€true€for€the€information€contained€in€Morganððs€affidavit.€ÏAlthough€Findley€testified€that€he€never€made€the€statement€that€three€jurorsÏwere€going€to€ð ðhang€Jackððs€ass,ðð€such€a€statement€would€not€be€admissibleÏevidence€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€606(b).Ìà ` àBecause€the€trial€court€was€presented€with€no€competent€evidenceÏconcerning€the€validity€of€the€juryððs€verdict,€there€was€no€error€in€failing€to€grantÏa€new€trial€on€this€basis.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌñOñÌÌÌÌÌñOñÐ Ø8x/1 Ðà@ØØ)®àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€before€this€Court,€we€find€noÏreversible€error.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ñNñÔ#†Š±RŠŠŠ &$t#ÔñNñÌñPñÌà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àÌÌÌÌÓ  Óà ` àÌÌñPñÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌñTñTHOMAS€T.€WOODAñTññUññTñ.ñTññUññVñLL,€JUDGEñVññTñJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌñTñÌÌ___________________________________ÌñQñWñQññRññQñilliamñQññRññSñILLIAM€B.€ACREE,€JUDGEñSññQñTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEñQñ