ÿWPCú  uRz*Âë³»ë4²E‹êصÚyœ¹Š÷šRÙ?ÚŸ_]Ìt:ž7회FzÆ|Þ{£ï õ…¤–BD„Ãï—Ó%ÊÉíø`Á/Ã:•¯€Bñó$Úõ´pa©㊫hÇÏg ä’co$Ý s~?êkWˆO…¬ªaIñí›iŠ\Úœj!'¬ÉÈh¢‹ëˆá+Á%j)Ί>÷eµÒ Î¿W͉ë£WS­š×ÐFFû‘ãµ7žšWC úŠé†O20¿°Šó•­ãIØ0œ6T.Aæ'ZŽ ‰”§Ý›Ñt¤ˆéWOÅ,d÷X¢.S0ŒZ¢háÎÔ6ã)¡”ekR˜ÊŠ;[³= |An~)†1Ã{“”ÅGä°Ú^ÜW¾ñ[Mv²˜’%„"z‰4韓7ŠxÐ’»€9 ½ äá1«™C9؆…®3¼Õ8ÿ¦ºˆBÃýÑ€>ü’FVÂóNY©lÍ0‹b”¨fÎu‚šüÌh”>0ç»+Hò¿:¸í=ªÜ>:dc9þ³ª=öXR¯éãÞ ð{’ëôŒÀŸ†bý@sªŠAŸ_¤2ŸMè<=R.øjÌô±­ó'”šß_w¡h€Ò a2Ÿ-…Áª*# LU>W %• 0í›UBˆ4ÊÞn­íU :šfÔ:"Bw@dU:¤U:Þ) U:A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AQ{ ÆÌ 0D’ 0DÖ 0D  D/^ B Bª D3Ç ˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiWj‰%3|xÖ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ ÂDÃ/Ä/ÅÆDÇÈDÉÊHËÓ€, øð AZ"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xl¤XXXÔÔ€‰8XXl¤ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xl¤X‰8ÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€10,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÆ›ôXXl¤ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ ôXXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ݛѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ Xl¤XXXÔÑ7€ l¤ XXdæXXdÈ7ÑñËñœßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` ttx$Xð Õrß›ñËñ€€€€€€€€€€€€€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@~~%DàAT€KNOXVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€FEBRUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellee,€à h àà À à)à  à€No.€03C01„9603„CC„00134Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Blount€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Honorable€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€Judge€€€€€€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌJUAN€PEREZ,à  àà h à€€€à À à)à  à€(Second€degree€murder)Ð h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À à)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð æÞ ÐÌRobert€M.€Cohen€à  àà h àà À àà  àCharles€W.€BursonÐ ²ª Ð303€High€Streetà  àà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ˜ ÐMaryville,€TN€37804à h àà À àà  àà p àandà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ ~v Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTimothy€F.€BehanÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€¼à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà Ð àà (# àÐ 0 ( Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMichael€L.€FlynnÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àEdward€P.€Bailey,€Jr.Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à363€High€StreetÌ€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMaryville,€TN€37804Ð F(>!% ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ >:639 ЇÓÓà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóˆÐ  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Juan€Perez,€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€convictionÏfollowing€a€jury€trial€in€the€Blount€County€Circuit€Court€for€second€degree€murder,€aÏClass€A€felony.€€As€a€Range€I,€standard€offender,€the€defendant€was€sentenced€toÏtwenty„two€years€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction,€and€he€was€finedÏtwenty„five€thousand€dollars.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€contends€that:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(1)€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(2)€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€toÏsuppress€the€defendantððs€statement€he€gave€to€police;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(3)€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€state€to€introduceÏtwo€photographs€of€the€victim;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(4)€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€allow€theÏtestimony€of€Barry€Rice,€a€defense€witness;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(5)€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€grant€a€new€trialÏbecause€the€defendant€was€unfairly€prejudiced€duringÏhis€cross„examination€by€the€state;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(6)€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€grant€a€new€trialÏbased€on€newly€discovered€evidence;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(7)€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€enhancement€factorsÏand€by€not€sentencing€the€defendant€to€a€sentenceÏwithin€the€lower€part€of€Range€I.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€conviction.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€March€19,€1994,€Grant€Spires,€Gayann€Tucker€and€Elizabeth€LeeÏdiscovered€Kimberly€Bauer,€the€estranged€girlfriend€of€the€defendant,€lying€on€her€sideÏin€the€living€room€of€her€home.€€She€had€suffered€numerous€stab€wounds€to€the€chestÏand€the€upper€left€side€of€her€body.€€The€victim€died€œlater›€as€a€result€of€the€stabbing.ÌÌà ¸ àMelissa€Henry,€a€friend€of€the€victim,€testified€that€around€7:00€p.m.€on€theÏevening€of€the€offense,€she€called€the€victim€at€Krystal€Restaurant€where€the€victim€wasÏworking,€and€they€planned€to€meet€at€8:30€p.m.€€She€stated€that€she€drove€by€theÐ ˜706 Ðvictimððs€house€without€stopping€at€about€7:30€p.m.,€and€she€saw€the€defendantððs€late„¼model€Camaro€parked€at€the€victimððs€house.€€She€said€that€she€returned€around€8:30€orÏ8:45€p.m.€and€saw€police€cars€and€an€ambulance.€€On€cross„examination,€she€deniedÏthat€she€told€anyone€that€she€saw€a€dark„colored€car€or€an€Impala.€€She€also€deniedÏtelling€Officer€Lowell€Ridings€that€she€had€seen€the€defendant€wear€a€knife€on€his€beltÏon€earlier€occasions.ÌÌà ¸ àSharon€Fields,€an€assistant€manager€at€Krystal€Restaurant,€testified€thatÏthe€victim€logged€out€at€7:13€p.m.€€She€stated€that€she€saw€the€victim€leave€work€atÏñ¾ñœñ¾ñaboutñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€7:15€p.m.€€Audie€Holloway,€a€coworker€of€the€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñvictim,ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€testified€that€she€worked€withÏthe€victim€on€the€night€of€the€offense.€€She€said€that€the€victim€received€two€or€threeÏtelephone€calls,€one€around€2:00€or€3:00€p.m.€and€the€others€shortly€before€the€victimÏñ¾ñœñ¾ñleft€work.ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€€She€stated€that€two€calls€were€from€an€unidentified€man.€€She€testified€thatÏthe€victim€was€very€upset€when€she€talked€to€the€man€and€appeared€to€be€in€a€hurry€toÏleave.€€She€stated€that€the€victim€left€the€restaurant€at€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñaboutñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€7:15€p.m.,€appearingÏdistracted.€€Another€coworker€testified€that€the€victim€received€a€call€around€lunchtimeÏfrom€an€unidentified€man,€and€she€said€that€the€victim€spoke€very€fast€on€the€telephone.€Ï€à ¸ àÐ ˆ,€%( Ðà ¸ àThe€victimððs€mother€testified€that€the€victim€called€her€at€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñaboutñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€7:30€p.m.€ÏThelma€Martin,€the€victimððs€neighbor,€testified€that€she€saw€the€victim€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñcome€homeñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñÏaround€7:30€p.m.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€drove€up€shortly€afterwards€and€parkedÏhis€car€in€the€road.€€She€stated€that€she€recognized€the€defendantððs€car€because€of€itsÏloud€muffler€and€its€multi„colored€paint.€€She€said€that€she€saw€the€defendant€get€out€ofÏthe€car.€€She€testified€that€the€defendant€left€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñaboutñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€ten€minutes€later,€squealing€the€tiresÐ È7À04 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ñas€he€left.€€Ms.€Martin€testified€that€she€was€not€aware€of€anyone€being€at€the€victimððsÏhouse€before€the€defendant€arrived.€€On€cross„examination,€Ms.€Martin€stated€that€itÏwas€not€uncommon€for€the€defendant€to€be€at€the€victimððs€house.€€Ìñ¿ñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ¿ñà ¸ àMorris€Keaton,€a€neighbor€of€the€victim,€testified€that€he€saw€a€black€carÏarrive€at€the€victimððs€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouseñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€œñÅñbefore€ñÅñthe›€victim€came€home€around€7:30€p.m.€€He€said€thatÏhe€heard€two€womenððs€voices.€€He€stated€that€after€the€black€car€left,€the€victim€arrived,Ïand€the€defendant€arrived€shortly€afterwards.€€He€said€that€after€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñaboutñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€fifteen€minutes,Ïthe€defendant€drove€away€quickly.€€On€cross„examination,€Mr.€Keaton€admitted€that€heÏwas€unsure€whether€the€black€car€arrived€before€or€after€the€victim€came€home.€€HeÏstated€that€the€defendant€arrived€after€the€black€car.€ÌÌà ¸ àGayann€Tucker,€a€friend€of€the€victim€and€an€acquaintance€of€theÏdefendant,€testified€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñthat€theñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€victim€had€stopped€dating€the€defendant€and€had€begunÏdating€Grant€Spires.€€She€said€that€two€days€before€the€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñoffense,ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€while€she,€Spires,€andÏElizabeth€Lee€were€at€the€victimððs€house,€the€defendant€arrived€unexpectedly€in€his€car.€ÏMs.€Tucker€stated€that€two€weeks€earlier,€she€had€told€the€defendant€that€Spires€wasÏher€boyfriend€in€order€to€avoid€any€conflict€with€the€defendant.€€She€testified€that€theÏdefendant€put€his€arm€around€her,€told€her€that€he€knew€that€the€victim€was€datingÏSpires,€and€threatened€to€kill€the€victim€if€she€continued€to€see€him.€€She€believed€thatÏthe€defendant€was€serious.€€ÌÌà ¸ àTucker,€Spires€and€Lee€testified€that€they€planned€to€meet€the€victim€afterÏshe€came€home€from€work.€€They€said€that€the€victim€had€told€them€not€to€come€untilÏ8:00€p.m.€because€the€victim€was€going€to€have€the€defendant€over€to€her€house€to€talkÏto€him.€€Lee€and€Spires€testified€that€they€drove€by€the€victimððs€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouseñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€around€7:40€p.m.Ïand€saw€the€defendantððs€car€parked€at€the€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouse.ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€€They€arrived€at€the€victimððs€houseÏaround€8:05€or€8:15€p.m.€€They€stated€that€the€victimððs€car€was€the€only€one€in€theÐ È7À04 Ðdriveway.€€Tucker€knocked€on€the€door,€and€the€door€opened,€revealing€the€victim€lyingÏin€a€fetal€position€on€her€left€side€in€the€living€room€with€her€head€slightly€under€theÏcoffee€table.€€A€lot€of€blood€surrounded€the€victim.€€Tucker€called€9„1„1.€€Following€theÏ9„1„1€operatorððs€instructions,€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñSpiresñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€turned€the€victim€over,€removed€her€shirt€and€bra,Ïand€began€performing€CPR.€€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñSpiresñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€said€that€the€victim€was€bleeding€slightly€and€had€aÏfaint€pulse.€€€€ò òÐ h`  ÐÌà ¸ àó óOfficer€Larry€Kauker€of€the€Alcoa€Police€Department€testified€that€theÐ (  Ðvictim€was€dead€when€he€arrived€and€that€Grant€Spires€was€standing€near€the€door€ofÏthe€victimððs€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouse.ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€€Sergeant€Dale€Boring€of€the€Alcoa€Police€Department€testified€thatÏhe€found€the€victim€lying€on€her€back€with€her€shirt€torn€open€and€her€bra€cut.€€He€saidÏthat€the€victim€had€numerous€stab€wounds€to€the€chest€area,€and€he€stated€that€thereÏwas€no€sign€of€a€struggle.€€He€stated€that€a€couple€of€butcher€knives€were€found€in€theÏkitchen€area,€but€none€of€the€knives€appeared€to€have€blood€on€them.€€Sergeant€BoringÏtestified€that€he€later€went€to€the€defendantððs€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouse,ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€but€the€defendant€was€not€atÏhome.€€He€said€that€he€then€obtained€a€search€warrant€to€search€the€defendantððsÏñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouse.ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€€He€stated€that€a€search€of€the€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouseñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€did€not€reveal€any€evidence.€€SergeantÏBoring€testified€that€he€later€learned€that€the€defendant€had€surrendered€to€the€police,Ïand€he€met€Detective€Ridings€to€conduct€an€interview€of€the€defendant.€€He€stated€thatÏthe€defendant€gave€inconsistent€statements,€first€telling€them€that€he€had€visited€theÏvictim€and€that€she€was€alive€when€he€left€and€then€telling€them€that€he€discovered€theÏvictim€injured€when€he€arrived.€€ÌÌà ¸ àGary€Hamilton,€a€crime€scene€technician€for€the€Blount€County€SheriffððsÏDepartment,€testified€that€the€only€identifiable€prints€he€found€at€the€victimððs€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouseñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€wereÏfrom€the€victim€and€Gayann€Tucker.€€He€said€that€there€were€no€signs€of€a€struggle.€€HeÏstated€that€an€examination€of€the€victimððs€hands€did€not€reveal€any€hair€or€skinÐ È7À04 Ðunderneath€her€nails.€€He€testified€that€he€examined€the€defendantððs€car€but€found€noÏblood,€knives,€or€bloody€clothing€inside€the€car.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€use€Luminol€toÏdetect€the€presence€of€blood€because€it€destroys€other€potential€evidence.€€On€cross„¼examination,€he€stated€that€an€examination€of€the€defendantððs€hands€revealed€no€cuts.€ÏHe€conceded€that€given€the€nature€of€the€crime,€it€was€probable€that€blood€would€haveÏbeen€on€the€perpetratorððs€shoes,€clothing€or€hands.€€He€acknowledged€that€it€wasÏpossible€to€send€parts€of€the€car€to€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€Crime€Lab€inÏNashville€for€a€more€thorough€examination.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€William€Elliot,€a€pathologist,€testified€that€he€conducted€an€autopsy€ofÏthe€victim.€€He€stated€that€the€victim€suffered€multiple€stab€wounds€measuring€betweenÏsix€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñandñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€eight€inches€in€depth.€€He€stated€that€eleven€stab€wounds€were€to€the€left€sideÏof€the€breast€and€extended€from€above€the€breast€to€the€rib€area.€€Dr.€Elliot€testified€thatÏthe€victim€also€suffered€twelve€stab€wounds€to€the€left€side€extending€from€the€lowerÏpart€of€the€shoulder€blade€to€the€hip.€€The€victim€had€five€stab€wounds€to€the€left€armÏalong€with€four€superficial€wounds.€€Dr.€Elliot€stated€that€the€victim€also€had€defensiveÏwounds€on€her€hands.€€He€said€that€the€victim€could€have€died€as€a€result€of€one€stabÏwound€to€a€large€vein€in€the€neck€and€another€that€severed€the€covering€of€the€heart.€ÏHe€stated€that€the€victimððs€death€could€also€have€been€caused€by€three€stab€woundsÏthat€perforated€the€victimððs€lung,€causing€the€collapse€of€the€lung.€€He€believed€that€theÏvictim€was€conscious€during€most€of€the€attack,€stating€that€the€wounds€would€not€haveÏcaused€a€rapid€death.€€Dr.€Elliot€testified€that€the€wounds€would€have€been€painful.€€OnÏcross„examination,€Dr.€Elliot€testified€that€it€was€possible€but€not€likely€to€feel€a€pulseÏforty„five€to€fifty€minutes€after€the€stabbing.€€He€said€that€the€victim€most€likely€died€as€aÏresult€of€the€cut€vein€but€that€the€other€wounds€were€potentially€fatal.Ìâ âÐ è5à.2 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[¬ AØ'ÿ Legal[¬ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ñà ¸ àAgent€Samera€Zavaro€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€testifiedÏâ âthat€he€tested€a€towel€found€in€the€victimððs€bathroom€for€the€presence€of€blood€andÏfound€none.€€He€said€that€he€also€found€no€blood€on€the€knives€taken€from€the€victimððsÏkitchen.€€He€stated€that€swabbings€of€the€defendantððs€car€showed€no€presence€of€bloodÏor€human€tissue.€€He€testified€that€he€also€found€no€blood€on€the€defendantððs€clothing.€ÏAgent€Zavaro€testified€that€a€washcloth€taken€from€the€victimððs€sink€revealed€theÏpresence€of€blood.€€On€cross„examination,€he€testified€that€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏñÅñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÅññ¿ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ¿ññ¾ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ¾ñInvestigation€could€examine€an€entire€car,€ñ¾ñœñ¾ña€preferredñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñprocedure,ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€although€it€was€notÏuncommon€to€use€swabbings.€€ÌÌà ¸ àMargaret€Bash,€a€forensic€scientist€for€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation,€testified€that€DNA€testing€of€the€washcloth€containing€blood€wasÏunsuccessful€in€determining€the€source€of€the€blood.€€She€said€that€testing€of€theÏvictimððs€clothing€reflected€that€the€blood€came€from€a€single€source,€the€victim.ÌÌà ¸ àKenneth€McKee€testified€that€he€was€in€jail€in€1994€and€that€he€was€aÏcellmate€of€the€defendant.€€He€said€that€a€few€days€after€the€defendant€arrived,€theÏdefendant€talked€to€him€a€couple€of€times€about€the€offense.€€He€said€that€theÏdefendant€told€him€contradictory€statements€regarding€when€he€arrived€at€the€victimððsÏhouse,€initially€stating€that€he€arrived€between€7:05€and€7:15€p.m.€and€later€stating€thatÏhe€arrived€at€8:00€p.m.€€McKee€testified€that€the€defendant€told€him€that€he€and€theÏvictim€argued€over€a€truck€that€belonged€to€the€victimððs€parents€because€the€defendantÏhad€wrecked€the€truck€and€the€victimððs€parents€were€being€sued.€€The€defendant€saidÏthat€he€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhadñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€been€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñdrinking€earlierñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€and€had€planned€to€go€to€a€bar.€€McKee€stated€thatÏthe€defendant€told€him€that€he€had€blacked€out€during€the€argument€and€that€the€nextÏthing€he€remembered€was€standing€over€the€victimððs€body€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñwhich€was€curledñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€in€a€fetalÏposition.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€touched€the€victimððs€hair€and€forehead.€€TheÐ È7À04 Ðdefendant€also€told€McKee€that€he€became€scared,€went€to€the€bathroom€to€urinate,Ïand€then€left€in€his€car.€€The€defendant€told€McKee€that€he€surrendered€to€the€police€theÏnext€day€because€he€believed€that€it€would€look€less€suspicious.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€McKee€admitted€that€he€was€allowed€work€releaseÏand€was€sent€for€drug€and€alcohol€treatment,€but€he€denied€that€the€release€was€relatedÏto€giving€information€to€the€police.€€He€also€admitted€that€he€did€not€report€back€to€jailÏwhen€released,€resulting€in€felony€escape€charges.€€He€denied€that€the€felony€escapeÏcharges€were€dismissed€because€he€agreed€to€testify€against€the€defendant.€€He€saidÏthat€the€charges€were€dismissed€because€he€entered€guilty€pleas€to€four€counts€ofÏviolating€the€Habitual€Motor€Vehicle€Offender€statute.€€He€said€that€he€was€not€promisedÏanything€in€exchange€for€his€testimony€against€the€defendant.€€Another€prisoner€whoÏwas€incarcerated€with€the€defendant€testified€similarly€regarding€the€defendantððsÏstatements€about€the€offense.ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Lowell€Ridings€testified€that€he€went€to€the€victimððs€house€at€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñaboutñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñÏ8:45€or€9:00€p.m.€€He€stated€that€he€took€three€kitchen€utility€knives€located€near€theÏkitchen€sink.€€He€testified€that€dirty€dishes€were€in€the€sink€but€that€he€did€not€see€anyÏblood.€€He€said€that€he€interviewed€Gayann€Tucker,€Elizabeth€Lee€and€Grant€Spires,Ïand€based€on€the€information€he€received,€he€looked€for€the€defendant€at€his€home.€ÏOfficer€Ridings€testified€that€he€obtained€an€arrest€warrant€for€the€defendant,€but€heÏlearned€the€following€day€that€the€defendant€had€surrendered€to€the€police.€€He€statedÏthat€he€interviewed€the€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñdefendant€andñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñtape„recordedñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€the€questioning,€which€lasted€Ïñ¾ñœñ¾ñaboutñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€one€hour€and€fifty€minutes.€€ÌÌà ¸ àA€redacted€tape€of€the€interview€was€played€for€the€jury.€€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñTheñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€defendantÏinitially€told€police€that€he€arrived€at€the€victimððs€house€at€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñaboutñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€7:40€p.m.€€TheÐ È7À04 Ðdefendant€said€that€he€and€the€victim€talked€and€smoked€a€marijuana€cigarette.€€HeÏstated€that€he€left€after€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñaboutñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€ten€or€fifteen€minutes€and€that€the€victim€was€alive€andÏwell€when€he€left.€€He€said€that€he€went€to€the€house€of€Frank€Courier,€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhisñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€friend€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñandñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñÏñ¾ñœñ¾ñcoworker,ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€after€leaving€the€victimððs€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouse.ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€€After€further€questioning,€the€defendant€toldÏthe€police€that€when€he€arrived€at€the€victimððs€house,€he€found€the€victim€injured.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€had€lied€about€talking€to€the€victim€and€smoking€a€marijuana€cigarette€withÏher.€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Ridings€testified€that€he€drove€from€the€defendantððs€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouseñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€to€theÏvictimððs€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouseñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€and€stated€that€it€took€eighteen€minutes€and€fifty„seven€seconds€drivingÏñ¾ñœñ¾ñaboutñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€fifty„five€miles€per€hour€in€normal€traffic.€€He€said€that€it€took€around€ten€minutesÏto€drive€from€the€victimððs€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouseñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€to€the€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouseñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€of€Frank€Courier.€€On€cross„examination,ÏOfficer€Ridings€testified€that€a€thermometer€was€placed€under€the€armpit€of€the€victim€atÏñ¾ñœñ¾ñaboutñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€9:00€or€9:10€p.m,€revealing€a€temperature€of€98.8.€€He€conceded€that€he€did€notÏorder€the€defendantððs€car€to€be€sent€to€the€crime€lab€in€Nashville,€explaining€that€noÏbloody€footprints€were€found€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñinside€the€car.ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€€He€also€admitted€that€he€chose€not€to€useÏother€investigative€means€to€determine€the€presence€of€blood.€€He€said€that€when€heÏinterviewed€Melissa€Henry,€she€told€him€that€the€defendant€wore€a€knife€on€his€belt€onÏseveral€occasions.€ÌÌà ¸ àFrank€Courier,€a€coworker€and€friend€of€the€defendant,€testified€that€heÏhad€never€seen€the€defendant€wear€a€knife€on€his€belt.€€He€stated€that€their€job€requiredÏthem€to€cut€wrapping€off€pallets.€€He€said€that€they€generally€used€a€paring€knife€with€aÏtwo€and€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñone„half€inch€blade.€€He€stated€that€the€victim€called€the€defendant€at€work€andÏthat€he€had€never€heard€the€defendant€say€anything€mean€to€the€victim.€€Mr.€CourierÏtestified€that€on€the€night€of€the€offense,€the€defendant€arrived€unexpectedly€at€hisÏhouse€at€aboutñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€8:30€or€8:45€p.m.€and€stayed€the€night.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€didÐ È7À04 Ðnot€have€blood€on€his€clothing.€€On€cross„examination,€Mr.€Courier€conceded€that€it€wasÏunusual€for€the€defendant€to€spend€the€night.€€He€stated€that€he€had€not€seen€theÏdefendant€earlier€in€the€day.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€did€not€appear€to€have€beenÏdrinking€and€that€the€defendant€was€not€nervous,€upset€or€crying.€€Mr.€Courier€testifiedÏthat€the€defendant€did€not€mention€the€victim.€€€à È àÐ ˆ€ ÐÌà ¸ àOther€coworkers€of€the€defendant€testified€that€the€defendant€ordinarilyÏwore€jogging€pants€and€that€when€the€defendant€wore€jeans,€he€did€not€wear€a€belt.€ÏThey€said€that€the€defendant€never€carried€a€knife€with€him€at€work,€usually€borrowing€aÏparing€knife€from€someone€else.€€The€coworkers€stated€that€they€saw€the€defendantÏand€the€victim€together€during€the€week€before€the€offense€and€on€other€occasions,€andÏthey€appeared€to€be€in€love.€€One€coworker€stated€that€the€defendant€was€a€strongÏman.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified€that€most€people€called€him€John.€€He€stated€thatÏhe€met€the€victim€in€Wichita,€Kansas,€in€1989.€€He€said€that€he€and€the€victim€livedÏtogether€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñperiodically€atñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€different€locations.€€He€testified€that€after€the€victimððs€parentsÏmoved€to€Maryville,€he€and€the€victim€moved€to€the€area€and€rented€a€house€together.€ÏThe€defendant€stated€that€around€Thanksgiving€in€1993,€the€victim€moved€out€of€theÏhouse€and€moved€to€her€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñparentsððñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouse.ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€€He€said€that€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñaboutñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€two€or€three€weeks€later,Ïthe€victim€came€by€his€house€and€gave€him€her€new€address€and€telephone€number.€ÏHe€stated€that€he€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñoccasionallyñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€spent€the€night€with€the€victim,€and€the€victimÏoccasionally€spent€the€night€with€him.€€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñHe€said€heñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€considered€the€victim€to€be€hisÏgirlfriend.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€had€a€torn€groin€muscle€at€the€time€of€theÏoffense.€€He€said€that€around€5:30€p.m.€on€the€day€of€the€offense,€he€called€the€victim€atÐ È7À04 Ðwork€regarding€money€he€owed€her,€and€they€planned€to€meet€at€the€victimððs€houseÏaround€8:00€p.m.€€He€said€the€victim€told€him€that€she€had€plans€with€Grant€Spires€andÏsome€other€friends€later€that€evening.€€He€stated€that€he€left€his€house€at€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñaboutñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€7:25€orÏ7:30€p.m.,€arriving€at€the€victimððs€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouseñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€around€7:40€or€7:45€p.m.€€He€testified€that€theÏdoor€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñtoñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€the€victimððs€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouseñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€was€partly€open.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€walked€insideÏand€that€the€house€was€not€well€lit€except€for€a€light€in€the€bedroom€and€bathroom.€€HeÏstated€that€he€went€to€the€victimððs€bedroom€and€bathroom€to€look€for€the€victim.€€TheÏdefendant€testified€that€when€he€returned€to€the€living€room,€he€discovered€the€victimÏlying€on€her€side€in€a€fetal€position€in€a€pool€of€blood.€€He€said€€the€victim€wasÏunderneath€the€coffee€table.€€He€testified€that€the€victim€was€no€longer€bleeding.€€HeÏstated€he€went€to€the€bathroom€and€urinated€and€vomited.€€He€said€he€rubbed€hisÏhands€over€the€victimððs€forehead€and€across€her€hair,€but€the€victim€did€not€respond.€ÏHe€said€he€then€sat€on€the€couch€and€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñcried€forñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€a€couple€of€minutes.€€The€defendantÏtestified€that€he€stayed€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñaboutñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€ten€minutes€before€leaving€the€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouse.ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified€that€after€leaving€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñthe€victimððs€house,ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€he€stopped€atÏa€gas€station,€purchased€gas€and€a€drink,€and€then€started€to€call€for€help€but€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñcould€notñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñÏbecause€he€was€very€weak.€€He€stated€that€instead,€he€went€to€Frank€Courierððs€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouse,ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñÏarriving€around€8:30€p.m.,€and€stayed€the€night.€€He€said€that€his€mental€condition€wasÏnot€good€and€that€he€was€not€himself,€but€he€conceded€that€he€did€not€tell€Courier€orÏTim€Vann,€who€was€at€Courierððs€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhouse,ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€about€what€he€had€found.€€The€defendantÏtestified€that€he€went€home€around€8:00€or€8:30€p.m.€and€found€a€search€warrant€and€aÏñ¾ñœñ¾ñnote€statingñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€that€the€police€wanted€to€interview€him€about€the€victimððs€death.€€He€saidÏthat€he€called€the€police€and€was€then€taken€to€the€jail€for€an€interview.€€He€explainedÏthat€he€gave€two€different€versions€of€the€facts€to€the€police€because€he€was€scared€andÏnot€involved€in€the€murder.ÌÐ È7À04 Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€denied€stabbing€and€killing€the€victim.€€He€conceded€thatÏhe€did€not€try€to€take€the€victimððs€pulse€or€determine€the€nature€of€her€injuries.€€He€alsoÏadmitted€that€he€did€not€call€9„1„1€or€ask€a€neighbor€for€ñ¾ñœñ¾ñhelp,ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ€explaining€that€he€wasÏafraid.€€He€said€that€he€held€his€hand€over€the€victimððs€mouth€and€nose€but€did€not€feelÏany€air.€€He€stated€that€he€also€did€not€see€the€victimððs€chest€move.€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€the€defendant€testified€that€during€the€interviewÏwith€police,€he€made€up€a€story,€but€he€denied€œñÆñthat›€also›€ñÆñlñÇñyingñÇññÈñiedñÈñ›€about€not€killing€the€victim.€€He€saidÏhe€lied€when€he€told€Detective€Ridings€that€he€had€talked€to€the€victim€for€about€fifteenÏminutes€and€had€smoked€a€marijuana€cigarette€with€her.€€He€conceded€that€he€had€toldÏthe€police€that€he€was€telling€the€truth.€€He€admitted€that€he€had€never€stayed€overnightÏat€Courierððs€house€before,€although€he€had€stayed€late.€€The€defendant€testified€that€heÏwas€about€six€feet€three€inches€tall€and€weighed€about€two€hundred€and€forty„fiveÏpounds,€and€the€victim€was€about€five€feet€three€inches€and€weighed€about€oneÏhundred€and€thirty„five€pounds.€€ÌÌà ¸ àWilliam€Boddy,€a€private€investigator,€testified€that€he€interviewed€MorrisÏKeaton€regarding€the€two€vehicles€he€observed€at€the€victimððs€house.€€He€said€thatÏKeaton€told€him€that€he€saw€a€black€car€appearing€to€be€a€Firebird€or€a€Camaro€andÏthat€two€people€were€in€the€car€because€he€heard€two€car€doors€shut.€€Keaton€told€himÏthat€the€black€car€stayed€about€ten€minutes.€€Mr.€Boddy€testified€that€Keaton€said€thatÏthe€second€vehicle€was€a€black€Jeep€Cherokee€or€Bronco.€€€€€€ò òÐ h.`'* ÐÌà@’’ DàI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ (2 +. Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction€for€second€degree€murder.€€He€argues€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€his€guiltÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€because€it€did€not€introduce€any€physical€evidence€directlyÐ È7À04 Ðlinking€the€defendant€to€the€murder.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€given€theÏdiscrepancies€in€the€record€and€the€defendantððs€testimony,€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€ÏThe€defendant€also€contends€that€there€is€no€proof€that€the€killing€was€done€knowinglyÏas€required€by€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„210(a)(1).€€The€state€responds€that€the€defendantððs€guiltÏwas€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€We€agree.€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questionedÏon€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÐ  Ðcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.Ð èà Ð2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€do€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€but€presume€thatÏthe€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€all€reasonable€inferencesÏfrom€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547Ð ˆ€ Ð(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ð h` ÐÌà ¸ àFor€circumstantial€evidence€to€constitute€the€sole€basis€for€a€conviction,Ïthe€facts€must€be€ð ðso€closely€interwoven€and€connected€that€the€finger€of€guilt€is€pointedÏunerringly€at€the€defendant€and€the€defendant€alone.ðð€€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€225€Tenn.Ð è&à" Ð478,€484,€470€S.W.2d€610,€613€(1971).€€The€evidence€must€be€both€consistent€with€theÏdefendantððs€guilt€and€inconsistent€with€the€defendantððs€innocence,€exclude€all€otherÏreasonable€theories€except€that€of€guilt,€and€establish€the€defendantððs€guilt€so€as€toÏconvince€the€mind€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€he€or€she€committed€the€crime.€ÏòòPatterson€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€657,€661,€475€S.W.2d€201,€203€(1971).Ð H0@), ÐÌà ¸ àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€shows€that€theÏdefendant€called€the€victim€at€work€on€the€day€of€the€offense.€€The€victim€was€upsetÏafter€receiving€the€phone€calls.€€At€about€7:15€p.m.,€the€victim€left€work€hurriedly.€Ð È7À04 ÐShortly€after€the€victim€arrived€at€her€home€at€7:30€p.m.,€the€defendant€arrived.€€œñÃñApproximately›ñÃññÃñAboutñÃñ›Ïten€minutes€later,€the€defendant€sped€away€from€the€house.€€Shortly€after€8:00€p.m.,€theÏvictim€was€found€near€death€by€her€friends.€€Two€days€before€the€killing,€the€defendantÏtold€Gayann€Tucker€that€he€knew€the€victim€was€dating€Grant€Spires€and€threatened€toÏkill€the€victim€if€she€continued€to€date€him.€€The€defendant€told€two€of€his€cellmates€thatÏon€the€night€of€the€offense,€he€had€gone€to€the€victimððs€house.€€He€defendant€admittedÏthat€he€argued€with€the€victim€regarding€a€truck€the€defendant€had€wrecked,€and€heÏsaid€that€he€blacked€out€during€the€argument€and€was€standing€over€the€victimððs€bodyÏwhen€he€became€conscious.€€We€believe€that€this€evidence€satisfies€the€requirementsÏfor€guilt€based€solely€on€circumstantial€evidence.€€A€rational€juror€could€find€theÏdefendant€guilty€of€second€degree€murder€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€€€ÌÌà@  Dàò òII.€€DENIAL€OF€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESSó óˆÐ ˆ€ Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€toÏsuppress€the€statement€he€gave€to€police.€€He€argues€that€the€statement€should€haveÏbeen€suppressed€as€the€fruit€of€an€illegal€arrest€because€(1)€the€arrest€warrant€wasÏissued€without€the€requisite€determination€of€probable€cause€by€the€issuing€magistrateÏand€(2)€the€arrest€warrant€was€issued€for€a€person€other€than€the€defendant.€€The€stateÏresponds€that€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€motion€to€suppress.€€We€agree.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€the€defendant€testified€that€he€occasionallyÏsigns€his€name€ð ðJohn€Perez.ðð€€The€defendant€identified€his€birth€certificate€reflectingÏthat€he€was€born€on€October€9,€1962.€€He€said€that€on€March€19,€1994,€he€returnedÏhome€and€discovered€a€warrant€pinned€to€the€door€stating€that€the€police€had€searchedÏhis€home€and€wanted€the€defendant€to€contact€them€to€answer€a€few€questions.€€TheÏdefendant€testified€that€he€went€to€a€gas€station€and€called€the€police€to€come€and€takeÏhim€for€questioning.€€He€said€he€was€arrested€when€the€police€arrived€and€was€taken€toÐ È7À04 Ðthe€county€jail€about€8:30€or€9:00€a.m.€€The€defendant€was€then€questioned€at€theÏpolice€station€around€3:00€p.m.€for€about€an€hour€or€an€hour€and€a€half.€€He€said€he€wasÏnot€shown€a€copy€of€the€warrant€until€about€ten€days€later.€€The€defendant€testified€thatÏhe€had€never€used€the€aliases€ð ðJohnny€Victor€Perezðð€or€ð ðJohnny€V.€Perez.ðð€€ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Lowell€Ridings€testified€that€he€obtained€the€arrest€warrant€for€theÏdefendant.€€The€affidavit€of€complaint€and€the€arrest€warrant€reflect€that€the€name€of€theÏperson€to€be€arrested€for€criminal€homicide€of€the€victim€is€ð ðJohnny€Vicktor€Perez€AKA:ÏJUAN€PEREZ.ðð€€The€words€ð ðòòAKAóó:€JUAN€PEREZðð€also€appear€beside€the€reference€toÐ  Ðð ðJohnny€Vicktor€Perezðð€on€the€back€side€of€the€warrant.€€The€back€side€of€the€warrantÏreflects€that€ð ðJohnny€Vicktor€Perez€òòAKAóó:€JUAN€PEREZðð€lived€at€ð ð2204€Sanderson,€AveÐ ÈÀ ÐKnoxville€„€Tenn.ðð€€Below€the€address€is€a€blank€for€the€driverððs€license€number€and€theÏdate€of€birth€of€the€person€for€which€the€arrest€warrant€was€issued.€€The€back€side€ofÏthe€warrant€shows€that€each€of€the€blanks€were€filled€in,€then€marked€out,€and€theÏdriverððs€license€number€ð ð79474258"€and€the€birthday€ð ð10/9/62"€was€written€above€theÏmarked€out€numbers.€€A€copy€of€the€defendantððs€driverððs€license€reflects€that€the€name,Ïaddress,€and€driverððs€license€number€provided€on€the€back€side€of€the€warrant€wereÏthose€of€the€defendant.€€A€copy€of€Johnny€Vicktor€Perezððs€driverððs€license€was€alsoÏintroduced,€reflecting€a€different€driverððs€license€number,€different€birth€date,€and€theÏKnoxville€address.Ì€€Ìà ¸ àOfficer€Ridings€testified€that€he€initially€filled€out€the€warrant€betweenÏ12:00€and€2:00€a.m.€believing€that€the€defendant€used€the€name€Johnny€Perez€withÏseveral€middle€names€and€initials,€including€ð ðVicktor,ðð€ð ðSalazar,ðð€and€ð ðN,ðð€as€a€result€of€aÏcriminal€history€check€on€the€defendant€and€a€check€of€a€motor€vehicle€accident€inÏwhich€the€defendant€was€involved.€€He€stated€that€he€later€learned€after€talking€toÏwitnesses€and€checking€the€defendantððs€driverððs€license€through€NCIC€records€that€theÐ È7À04 Ðdefendantððs€name€was€Juan€Perez€with€a€date€of€birth€of€October€9,€1962.€€OfficerÏRidings€testified€that€some€people€called€the€defendant€ð ðJohn€Perezðð€or€ð ðJohnny€Perez,ððÏgiven€the€fact€that€Juan€is€Spanish€for€John.€€He€stated€that€after€learning€that€he€hadÏwritten€the€wrong€name€and€birthday€on€the€warrant,€he€marked€out€the€birthday€andÏwrote€in€ð ðOctober€9,€1962"€and€wrote€in€ð ðAKA€JUAN€PEREZðð€beside€each€reference€toÏð ðJohnny€Vicktor€Perez.ðð€€He€stated€that€he€made€all€of€the€corrections€personally€beforeÏthe€warrant€was€issued€by€Judicial€Commissioner€George€Allison.€€Officer€RidingsÏtestified€that€he€swore€to€the€correctness€of€the€information€contained€in€the€affidavit.€ÏHe€said€that€he€also€verbally€identified€the€witnesses€that€were€interviewed€pursuant€toÏthe€investigation.€ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Ridings€testified€that€he€was€not€sure€whether€he€had€both€theÏdefendantððs€driverððs€license€and€Johnny€Vicktor€Perezððs€address€at€the€time€he€filled€outÏthe€warrant.€€He€could€not€explain€why€he€did€not€redraft€the€warrant€deleting€theÏreferences€to€Johnny€Vicktor€Perez.€€On€cross„examination,€Officer€Ridings€admittedÏthat€some€of€the€officers€may€have€looked€for€the€defendant€at€the€Knoxville€address.€ÏHe€denied€making€any€changes€after€the€warrant€was€issued.€€He€said€that€the€warrantÏwas€intended€for€the€defendant€who€was€the€boyfriend€of€the€victim€and€had€a€birthdayÏof€October€9,€1962.€€ÌÌà ¸ àJudicial€Commissioner€George€Allison€testified€that€when€he€initially€readÏthe€warrant,€Officer€Ridings€had€not€signed€the€affidavit€of€complaint€because€OfficerÏRidings€was€still€investigating€the€facts.€€He€said€that€Officer€Ridings€made€someÏchanges€to€the€warrant€before€he€read€it€over€a€second€time.€€He€stated€that€OfficerÏRidings€swore€to€the€affidavit€of€complaint.€€He€believed€that€Officer€Ridings€explainedÏthe€circumstances€surrounding€the€allegations.€€Judicial€Commissioner€Allison€did€notÏremember€if€Officer€Ridings€named€the€witnesses€interviewed,€but€he€said€that€heÐ È7À04 Ðnormally€asked€questions€before€signing€an€arrest€warrant.€€Judicial€CommissionerÏAllison€said€that€Officer€Ridings€made€the€changes€before€he€issued€the€arrest€warrant.€ÏHe€believed€the€warrant€was€sufficient.€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Scott€Johnson€of€the€Blount€County€Sheriffððs€Department€testifiedÏthat€he€arrested€the€defendant€at€the€gas€station.€€He€said€that€the€arrest€warrant€was€atÏthe€county€jail€when€he€arrived.€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€remember€if€any€changes€hadÏbeen€made€to€the€arrest€warrant€when€he€filled€out€the€officerððs€return€portion€of€theÏarrest€warrant.€€Tony€Rayburn,€a€correctional€officer€for€the€Blount€County€SheriffððsÏDepartment,€testified€that€he€saw€the€arrest€warrant€at€the€county€jail.€€He€said€that€theÏdefendant€told€him€that€his€middle€name€was€not€Vicktor.€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððsÏmotion€to€suppress€based€upon€the€alleged€defects€in€the€arrest€warrant.€€It€held€thatÏthe€corrections€on€the€arrest€warrant€were€made€before€the€warrant€was€issued.€€ItÏfound€that€the€warrant€for€ð ðJohnny€Vicktor€Perez€AKA€JUAN€PEREZðð€referred€to€theÏdefendant€because€the€driverððs€license€number€and€birthday€were€that€of€the€defendant.€ÏThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€defendant€was€not€arrested€based€on€an€arrestÏwarrant€issued€for€another€person.€€The€court€also€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€toÏsuppress€on€grounds€that€the€arrest€warrant€was€not€issued€based€upon€probableÏcause.€€It€concluded€that€the€judicial€commissioner€did€not€rely€solely€upon€theÏconclusions€of€Officer€Ridings.€€It€stated€that€although€the€proof€was€not€clear€regardingÏthe€questions€asked€of€Officer€Ridings€relative€to€the€witnesses,€the€affidavit€ofÏcomplaint€set€forth€that€independent€witnesses€placed€the€defendant€at€the€scene€andÏone€witness€heard€the€defendant€threaten€to€kill€the€victim.€€It€also€found€that€the€namesÏof€the€witnesses€were€orally€revealed€to€the€judicial€commissioner.€€€€ÌÐ È7À04 Ðà ¸ àA€trial€court's€factual€findings€on€a€motion€to€suppress€are€conclusive€onÏappeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2dÐ èà Ð18,€23€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€802€S.W.2d€221,€223€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€Ð È À ÐThe€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts€as€determined€by€the€trial€court€is€a€question€ofÏlaw€which€is€reviewed€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629Ð ˆ€ Ð(Tenn.€1997).€€ÌÌà ¸ àFirst,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€arrest€warrant€was€not€based€uponÏprobable€cause,€and€therefore,€the€statement€he€gave€following€his€arrest€should€beÏsuppressed€as€fruit€of€an€illegal€arrest.€€He€argues€that€the€affidavit€of€complaint€wasÏbased€upon€hearsay€and€did€not€provide€the€basis€for€the€credibility€of€the€informantÏwho€gave€the€information€used€for€the€arrest€warrant€as€required€by€the€AdvisoryÏCommittee€Comments€to€Rule€3,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€€He€also€asserts€that€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€properly€examine€Officer€Ridings€under€oath€to€determine€the€reliability€of€theÏhearsay€evidence€given€by€the€informant.€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àRule€4(a),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€provides€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àòòISSUANCEóó.€€If€it€appears€from€the€affidavit€of€complaintÐ è&à" Ðor€supporting€affidavits€filed€with€the€affidavit€ofÏcomplaint€€that€there€is€probable€cause€to€believe€thatÏan€offense€has€been€committed€and€that€the€defendantÏhas€committed€it,€a€warrant€for€the€arrest€of€theÏdefendant€shall€be€issued€by€the€magistrate€or€clerk€toÏany€officer€authorized€by€law€to€execute€it€.€.€.€.€€BeforeÏruling€on€a€request€for€a€warrant,€the€magistrate€or€clerkÏmay€examine€under€oath€the€complainant€and€anyÏwitnesses€the€complainant€may€produce.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓProbable€cause€must€be€ð ðbased€upon€evidence,€which€may€be€hearsay€in€whole€or€inÏpart€provided€there€is€a€substantial€basis€for€believing€the€source€of€the€hearsay€to€beÏcredible€and€for€believing€that€there€is€a€factual€basis€for€the€information€furnished.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€4(b).€€The€probable€cause€determination€for€Rule€4(b)€is€the€same€asÏthat€necessary€for€a€determination€that€probable€cause€exists€for€a€warrantless€arrestÐ ¸8°15 Ðand€for€a€search€warrant.€€òòState€v.€Taysóó,€836€S.W.2d€596,€600€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€Ð  ÐThe€probable€cause€requirement€under€Rule€4(b)€essentially€encompasses€the€òòAguilar„Ð èà ÐSpinellióó€two„pronged€test€adopted€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð È À ÐÌà ¸ àInitially,€we€address€the€defendantððs€contention€that€the€affidavit€ofÏcomplaint€based€upon€hearsay€must€show€the€informantððs€basis€of€knowledge€and€theÏcredibility€of€the€information€provided.€€The€state€notes€that€the€defendant€has€providedÏno€law€that€requires€that€probable€cause€must€be€provided€in€the€affidavit€and€assertsÏthat€the€magistrate€could€rely€on€what€he€was€told€by€Officer€Ridings.€€However,€weÏconclude€that€the€probable€cause€must€exist€within€the€affidavit(s)€of€complaint€beforeÏan€arrest€warrant€may€issue.€€Rule€3,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€defines€an€affidavit€ofÏcomplaint€as€ð ða€written€statement€alleging€that€a€person€has€committed€an€offense€andÏalleging€the€essential€facts€constituting€the€offense€charged.ðð€€The€AdvisoryÏCommission€Comments€to€Rule€3€state€the€following:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àIt€must€be€emphasized€that€before€a€valid€arrest€warrantÏcan€issue,€the€judicial€officer€issuing€the€warrant€mustÏbe€supplied€with€sufficient€information€to€support€anÏindependent€judgment€that€probable€cause€exists€forÏthe€warrant.€€òòWhiteley€v.€Wardenóó,€401€U.S.€560€(1971).€Ð %  ÐA€factually€sufficient€basis€for€the€probable€causeÏjudgment€must€appear€within€the€affidavit€of€theÏcomplaint.€€If€hearsay€evidence€is€relied€upon,€the€basisÏfor€the€credibility€of€both€the€informant€and€theÏinformantððs€information€must€also€appear€in€the€affidavit.€ÏòòSpinelli€v.€U.S.óó,€393€U.S.€410€(1969).òòШ* #&¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  Óóó€Also,€any€evidence€the€magistrate€obtains€by€examination€of€a€witness€must€beÐ ˆ,€%( Ðreduced€to€writing€and€signed€by€the€witness.€€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„6„203€and€„204.€€InÐ h.`'* Ðthis€respect,€issuance€of€the€arrest€warrant€must€be€based€upon€probable€cause€asÏestablished€in€the€written€examination€conducted€by€the€magistrate.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„6„Ð (2 +. Ð205.€€Thus,€an€arrest€warrant€can€only€be€validly€issued€upon€probable€cause€beingÏshown€by€written€affidavit€pursuant€to€Rule€4€and€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„6„203€through€205.ÌÐ È7À04 Ðà ¸ àIn€material€part,€the€affidavit€provides€the€following,€with€the€underlyingÏtext€being€the€portion€handwritten€by€Officer€Ridings€and€the€remaining€portion€being€aÏprinted€form:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àPersonally€appeared€before€me,€the€undersigned€JudgeÏof€the€Court€of€General€Sessions€of€Blount€County,ÏTennessee,€the€undersigned€affiant,€and€made€oath€inÏdue€form€of€law,€that€on€or€about€òòMarch€19óó[,]€19òò94óó,€theÐ xp  Ðoffense€of€òòcriminal€homicide:€T.C.A.€„€39„13„201€to€wit:Ð h`  Ðon€March€19,€1994[,]€Mr.€Johnny€Vicktor€Perez€AKA:ÏJUAN€PEREZ€did€go€to€a€residence€located€at€107ÏBelfore€Circle,€where€with€premeditation,€didÏdeliberately€and€unlawfully€kill€Ms.€Kimberly€Jean€BauerÏby€stabbing€her€to€death.€€Information€pursuant€to€all€theÏabove€was€obtained€by€witness€who€verified€theÏsuspect€was€at€the€scene€at€the€approximate€time€ofÏdeath€and€had€made€statements€to€the€affect€heÏ(PEREZ)€was€going€to€kill€Ms.€Bauer.€€All€of€the€aboveÏoccurred€in€the€City€of€Alcoa,€County€of€Blount,€State€ofÏTennesseeóó€€has€been€committed€in€the€State€andÐ ¸° ÐCounty€aforesaid€and€charging€òòJohnny€Vicktor€PerezÐ ¨  ÐAKA:€JUAN€PEREZóó€€thereof.€€Ð˜¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ¸ àÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€neither€the€informant€nor€the€informantððsÏinformation€are€shown€by€the€affidavit€to€be€reliable.€€The€state€responds€that€becauseÏthe€statements€were€made€by€ð ðwitnesses,€not€informants,ðð€they€should€be€deemedÏreliable.€€Citizens€who€witness€crimes€or€relevant€events€are€presumed€to€be€reliable€forÏprobable€cause€purposes.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€354„56€(Tenn.€1982);Ð è&à" ÐòòState€v.€Smithóó,€867€S.W.2d€343,€346„48€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€We€believe€that€theÐ È(À!$ Ðword€ð ðwitnessðð€as€used€in€the€affidavit€reasonably€means€a€person€with€personalÏknowledge€„„€whether€by€sight,€hearing,€or€other€experience€„„€of€the€events€recountedÏin€the€affidavit.€€This€also€leads€to€a€rational€inference€that€the€source€of€Officer€RidingsððÏinformation€was€a€bystander.€€Obviously,€the€affidavit€of€complaint€could€have€beenÏmore€detailed,€but€we€believe€that€it€provided€probable€cause€to€arrest€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà ¸ àSecond,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€arrest€warrant€was€issued€for€Ïanother€person,€rendering€his€subsequent€arrest€illegal€and€his€statement€to€policeÐ È7À04 Ðinadmissible€as€fruit€of€the€illegal€arrest.€€In€support€of€his€argument,€the€defendantÏrelies€upon€òòState€v.€Hughesóó,€31€Tenn.€261,€262€(1851),€in€which€our€supreme€courtÐ èà Ðheld€that€the€name€of€the€defendant€must€be€correctly€stated€in€the€indictment,Ïotherwise€it€will€be€fatal.€€The€state€responds€that€the€trial€court€correctly€determinedÏthat€the€warrant€was€issued€for€the€arrest€of€the€defendant,€given€the€fact€that€the€arrestÏwarrant€contains€the€defendantððs€correct€name,€birthday€and€address.€€We€agree.€ÏThere€is€no€merit€to€this€issue.ÌÌà@“ “ Dàò òIII.€€ADMISSION€OF€TWO€PHOTOGRAPHS€OF€THE€VICTIMó óˆÐ  Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€twoÏphotographs€of€the€victim.€€He€argues€that€the€photographs€should€have€been€excludedÏbecause€they€had€minimal€probative€value,€and€any€probative€value€was€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€because€the€photographs€were€likely€toÏinflame€or€mislead€the€jury.€€òòÔ‡XJ"XX XJ"ÔSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401€and€403.€€Ô#† XJ"XXXJ"DÅ#ÔThe€state€responds€thatÐ h` Ðthe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€admitting€the€photographs€during€the€cross„¼examination€of€the€defendant.€€It€argues€that€the€photographs€were€particularly€relevantÏto€impeach€the€defendantððs€testimony€that€he€did€not€see€the€victim€when€he€walkedÏinside€the€victimððs€house.€€€€€€€ÌÌÔ‡XJ"XX XJ"Ôà ¸ àThe€leading€case€in€Tennessee€regarding€the€admissibility€of€photographsÐ ¨* #& Ðof€murder€victims€is€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947€(Tenn.€1978),€in€which€ourÐ ˆ,€%( Ðsupreme€court€held€that€the€determination€of€admissibility€is€within€the€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court€after€considering€the€relevance,€probative€value€and€potential€unfairÏprejudicial€effect€of€such€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€The€general€rule,€asÐ (2 +. Ðstated€in€òòBanksóó,€is€that€ð ðphotographs€of€the€corpse€are€admissible€in€murderÐ 4-0 Ðprosecutions€if€they€are€relevant€to€the€issues€on€trial,€notwithstanding€their€gruesomeÏand€horrifying€character.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€950„51.€€On€the€other€hand,€ð ðif€they€are€not€relevant€toÐ È7À04 Ðprove€some€part€of€the€prosecutionððs€case,€they€may€not€be€admitted€solely€to€inflameÏthe€jury€and€prejudice€them€against€the€defendant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€951.€€Ð èà ÐÌà ¸ àThus,€even€relevant€evidence€should€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€isÏsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€òòIdóó.;€òòseeóóÐ ˆ€ Ðòòalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€In€òòBanksóó,€the€court€stated,€ð ðThe€more€gruesome€theÐ h`  Ðphotographs,€the€more€difficult€it€is€to€establish€that€their€probative€value€and€relevanceÏoutweigh€their€prejudicial€effect.ðð€€564€S.W.2d€at€951.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€state€first€introduced€a€black€and€white€photograph€of€the€victim,Ïabout€eleven€by€thirteen€and€one„half€inches€in€size.€€Ô#† XJ"XXXJ"Ç#ÔThe€photograph€depicts€the€victimÐ ÈÀ Ðfrom€her€knees€upward€lying€on€her€back€in€the€middle€of€the€living€room€floor.€€Only€theÏlower€right€portion€of€the€side€of€the€victimððs€face€is€showing.€€The€photograph€reflectsÏthat€the€front€of€the€victimððs€shirt€and€bra€had€been€cut,€revealing€the€victimððs€bareÏchest.€€Several€towels€are€lying€beside€the€victim€on€each€side€of€her€upper€body.€€AÏcoffee€table€is€above€the€victimððs€head€directly€in€front€of€the€window.€€It€is€not€a€closeupÏshot,€and€the€black€and€white€photograph€has€a€dull€quality.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€state€also€introduced€a€three€and€one„half€by€five€inch€colorÏphotograph€of€the€victim€lying€in€the€same€position,€but€the€photograph€is€taken€from€aÏdifferent€angle,€showing€the€entire€body€of€the€victim.€€Most€of€the€victimððs€face€isÏshowing.€€Blood€is€on€the€victimððs€bra€and€shirt,€and€a€large€blood€spot€and€severalÏsmaller€blood€spots€are€on€the€carpet€to€the€left€of€the€victimððs€body€and€in€front€of€theÏcoffee€table.€The€photograph€is€a€relatively€close€shot.€€ÌÌà ¸ àÔ‡XJ"XX XJ"ÔThe€black€and€white€photograph€was€initially€introduced€during€theÐ è5à.2 Ðtestimony€of€Officer€Kauker€to€show€what€he€observed€on€the€night€of€the€offense.€€ItÐ È7À04 Ðwas€shown€to€the€jury€during€the€cross„examination€of€the€defendant€following€theÏdefendantððs€testimony€regarding€the€location€of€the€victim€when€he€walked€into€theÏhouse€on€the€night€of€the€offense.€€Ô#† XJ"XXXJ"ÊÑ#ÔThe€defendant€claimed€that€he€did€not€see€the€victimÐ È À Ðwhen€he€first€entered€the€house€because€most€of€the€victimððs€body€was€underneath€theÏcoffee€table.€€He€said€that€the€victim€was€curled€on€her€side€in€a€fetal€position€with€theÏblood€spot€in€front€of€the€victim.€€On€redirect€examination,€the€defendant€said€that€theÏdiagram€of€the€scene€contained€a€discrepancy€in€that€the€large€blood€spot€was€directlyÏin€front€of€the€coffee€table.€€On€recross„examination,€the€state€sought€to€introduce€theÏcolor€photograph€to€show€the€location€of€the€large€blood€spot€and€to€show€that€theÏvictim€could€not€have€been€under€the€coffee€table€given€the€size€of€the€coffee€table.€ÏThe€trial€court€agreed€that€the€photograph€was€probative€for€such€purposes€and€allowedÏits€admission.€€€€€€€Ô‡XJ"XX XJ"Ô€€Ô#† XJ"XXXJ"´Ö#ÔÐ ¨  ÐÔ‡XJ"XX XJ"ÔÌà ¸ àInitially,€we€note€that€the€admitted€photograph€depicted€the€victim€in€aÏdifferent€position€than€when€she€was€discovered.€€This€factor€weighs€againstÏadmissibility.€€òòSeeóó€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€951.€€Ô#† XJ"XXXJ" ×#ÔÔ‡XJ"XX XJ"ÔIn€the€present€case,€the€location€of€theÐ (#  Ðvictimððs€body€was€material€given€the€defendantððs€testimony€that€he€was€unable€to€seeÏthe€victim€when€he€initially€walked€into€the€house€because€most€of€her€body€wasÏunderneath€the€coffee€table.€€Although€not€depicted€in€the€same€location€as€whenÏdiscovered,€the€photographs€show€the€victimððs€body€in€relation€to€the€coffee€table.€€WeÏbelieve€that€the€photographs€are€relevant€because€they€show€that€given€the€size€of€theÏcoffee€table,€it€was€unlikely€that€the€victimððs€body€was€in€the€location€asserted€by€theÏdefendant.€€Although€the€color€photograph€is€more€gruesome€than€the€black€and€whiteÏphotograph,€the€color€depicts€better€the€location€of€the€large€blood€spot.€€The€trial€courtÏexcluded€other€photographs€that€were€more€gruesome€and€graphic€in€nature.€€In€ourÏreview,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€photographsðð€probative€value€wasÏsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€risk€of€unfair€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Ô#† XJ"XXXJ"-Ø#ÔÔ‡XJ"XX XJ"ÔGivenÐ È7À04 Ðthe€trial€courtððs€full€consideration€of€this€issue,€we€conclude€that€it€exercised€dueÏdiscretion€in€admitting€the€photographs.€€ÌÔ#† XJ"XXXJ"aÜ#ÔÌà@á á Dàò òIV.€€DENIAL€OF€TESTIMONY€OF€BARRY€RICEó óˆÐ ¨   Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€allowÏBarry€Rice€to€testify€to€statements€made€by€Morris€Keaton€that€a€black€car€with€at€leastÏtwo€occupants€was€at€the€victimððs€house€for€œñÄñapproximatelyñÄññÈñ›ñÈññÄñaboutñÄñ›€ten€minutes,€not€a€minute€and€a€halfÏas€Keaton€testified€to€on€direct€examination.€€He€argues€that€Riceððs€testimony€wasÏadmissible€as€extrinsic€evidence€of€Keatonððs€prior€inconsistent€statement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð  ÐEvid.€613(b).€€He€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€determining€that€the€evidence€wasÏnot€admissible€because€Keaton€was€not€given€an€opportunity€to€explain€or€deny€theÏstatement.€€The€defendant€contends€that€Rule€613(b)€does€not€require€that€the€witnessÏexplain€or€deny€the€prior€inconsistent€statement€before€extrinsic€evidence€of€theÏstatement€may€be€offered,€arguing€that€Mr.€Keaton€could€have€been€recalled€by€theÏstate.€€òòSeeóó€N.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€613.4,€at€412€(3d€ed.€1995).€Ð H!@ ÐThe€state€responds€that€the€testimony€was€properly€excluded€because€Keaton€was€notÏgiven€the€opportunity€to€explain€or€deny€the€statement€made€to€Rice.€€We€agree.ÌÌà ¸ àDuring€direct€examination,€Keaton€testified€that€before€the€victim€cameÏhome,€a€black€car€with€at€least€two€female€passengers€arrived,€knocked€on€the€victimððsÏdoor,€returned€to€the€car€about€a€minute€and€one„half€later,€and€left.€€On€cross„¼examination,€Keaton€was€asked€if€he€had€earlier€told€defense€counsel€or€William€BoddyÏwhether€he€had€said€that€the€black€car€had€stayed€at€the€house€about€ten€minutes.€ÏKeaton€answered€that€he€had€not€made€the€statement,€and€he€also€said€that€he€did€notÏtell€anyone€that€the€car€left€the€house€after€ten€minutes,€asserting€that€the€car€stayedÏonly€a€minute€and€a€half.€€Keaton€was€excused€after€his€testimony.€€The€defendantÏpresented€the€testimony€of€William€Boddy€that€Keaton€had€told€him€that€the€carÐ È7À04 Ðremained€for€ten€minutes.€€When€the€defendant€tried€to€present€similar€testimony€fromÏBarry€Rice,€the€state€objected€on€the€grounds€that€Keaton€had€not€been€afforded€theÏopportunity€to€explain€or€deny€the€statement€to€Rice.€€The€trial€court€sustained€theÏobjection.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€argues€that€Riceððs€testimony€should€have€been€admittedÏas€extrinsic€evidence€of€Keatonððs€prior€inconsistent€statement€under€Rule€613(b),€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.,€which€states:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àò òExtrinsic€Evidence€of€Prior€InconsistentÐ  ÐStatement€of€Witness.€€ó óExtrinsic€evidence€of€a€priorÐ øð Ðinconsistent€statement€by€a€witness€is€not€admissibleÏunless€the€witness€is€afforded€an€opportunity€to€explainÏor€deny€the€same€and€the€opposite€party€is€afforded€anÏopportunity€to€interrogate€the€witness€thereon,€or€theÏinterests€of€justice€otherwise€require.€€This€provisionÏdoes€not€apply€to€admissions€of€a€party„opponent€asÏdefined€in€Rule€803(1.2).Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓRecently,€our€supreme€court€ruled€that€extrinsic€evidence€is€inadmissible€under€RuleÏ613(b)€unless€(1)€the€witness€is€asked€whether€the€witness€made€the€prior€inconsistentÏstatement€and€(2)€the€witness€denies€or€equivocates€as€to€having€made€the€priorÏinconsistent€statement.€€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€964€S.W.2d€564,€565,€567€(Tenn.€1998).€Ð %  ÐHowever,€Rule€613(b)€permits€the€trial€court€to€depart€from€the€foundationalÏrequirements€when€ð ðthe€interests€of€justice€otherwise€require.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€568.Ð È(À!$ ÐÌà ¸ àIn€òòMartinóó,€the€witness,€the€defendantððs€girlfriend,€testified€that€theÐ ˆ,€%( Ðdefendant€was€with€her€at€their€apartment€at€the€time€of€the€robbery€in€issue.€€òòIdóó.€at€566.€Ð h.`'* ÐOn€cross„examination,€the€witness€admitted€speaking€to€an€officer€shortly€after€theÏrobbery,€and€she€said€that€she€did€not€tell€the€officer€that€the€defendant€was€with€herÏwhen€the€robbery€occurred.€€òòIdóó.€€On€rebuttal,€the€state€called€the€officer€who€testifiedÐ 4-0 Ðthat€when€told€the€date€of€the€robbery,€the€witness€said€to€the€defendant,€ð ðI€donððt€knowÏwhere€you€were,€I€was€in€the€motel.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Because€the€extrinsic€evidence€of€the€priorÐ È7À04 Ðinconsistent€statement€was€introduced€without€first€asking€the€witness€whether€she€hadÏmade€the€statement€to€the€defendant€or€to€anyone€else,€the€supreme€court€held€that€theÏextrinsic€evidence€should€not€have€been€admitted.€€òòIdóó.€at€568.Ð È À ÐÌà ¸ àIn€discussing€the€proper€foundation€for€admission€of€extrinsic€evidence€ofÏa€prior€inconsistent€statement,€the€supreme€court€cited€with€approval€the€proceduresÏtraditionally€used€in€Tennessee€before€the€implementation€of€Rule€613:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àThis€practice€required€that€a€witnessðð€attention€beÏdrawn€to€the€place,€persons€present,€time€of€theÏstatement,€and€to€the€substance€of€the€statement€beforeÏextrinsic€evidence€of€the€prior€inconsistent€statementÏcould€be€used€to€impeach€the€witnessðð€credibility.€€TheÏfoundational€requirements€were€to:€(1)€provide€theÏwitness€an€opportunity€to€admit,€deny,€or€explain€theÏprior€inconsistent€statement;€(2)€refresh€the€witnessððÏmemory;€and€(3)€allow€the€witness€to€respondÏintelligently€to€the€impeachment€attempt.€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓIdóó.€at€567€(citations€omitted).€€We€believe€that€these€requirements€must€be€met€for€theÐ xp Ðadmission€of€extrinsic€evidence€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€of€a€witness€underÏRule€613(b).ÌÌà ¸ àApplying€these€standards€to€the€present€case,€we€hold€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€excluded€Riceððs€testimony.€€Keaton€was€not€afforded€an€opportunity€to€explainÏor€deny€the€statement€to€Rice€before€the€defendant€sought€to€admit€the€extrinsicÏevidence€of€the€statement€through€the€testimony€of€Rice.€€We€acknowledge€that€whenÏquestioned€about€the€prior€statements€to€defense€counsel€and€Boddy,€Keaton€testifiedÏthat€he€not€only€did€not€make€the€statements€to€them€but€also€did€not€make€theÏstatements€to€anyone€else.€€However,€Keatonððs€attention€was€never€drawn€to€the€place,Ïpersons€present,€time€of€the€statement,€and€the€substance€of€the€prior€statement€toÏRice.€€Accordingly,€Keaton€was€not€provided€an€opportunity€to€admit€or€deny€theÏâ âstatement.€€Also,€the€case€before€us€is€not€an€extraordinary€case€warranting€theÐ Ø6Ð/3 Ðflexibility€to€deal€with€the€strict€requirements€of€Rule€613(b).€€Therefore,€RiceððsÏtestimony€was€properly€excluded.Ìâ  €€€€€Ìà@] ] Dàò òV.€€CROSS„EXAMINATION€OF€THE€DEFENDANTó óˆÐ ¨   Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€asserts€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€that€heÏwas€unfairly€prejudiced€during€the€cross„examination.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€courtÏseverely€admonished€him€in€front€of€the€jury.€€He€argues€that€he€was€ð ðimproperly€baitedÏby€the€Stateððs€attorney€and€should€not€have€been€admonished€so€severely€by€the€trialÏcourt,€especially€when€the€trial€court€could€not€see€what€the€Stateððs€attorney€(throughÏhis€gestures)€was€asking€the€defendant.ðð€€He€asserts€that€the€trial€courtððs€frustration€withÏand€hostility€towards€him€deprived€him€of€a€fair€trial€as€required€by€the€Fifth,€Sixth€andÏFourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.€€The€state€responds€that€the€defendant€has€waived€the€issue€by€failing€toÏcite€any€authority€in€support€of€the€position.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€27(a)(7);€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.Ð h` ÐApp.€R.€10(b).€€It€argues€that€in€any€event,€the€trial€court€acted€within€its€discretion€inÏcontrolling€the€conduct€of€the€trial,€and€it€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€ordering€theÏdefendant€to€answer€the€prosecutorððs€questions.€€It€also€argues€that€any€error€wasÏharmless€given€the€briefness€of€the€admonishment€during€the€lengthy€trial.€€òòSeeóóÐ è&à" ÐT.R.A.P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€ÌÌà ¸ àFailure€to€cite€to€authorities€in€support€of€an€issue€constitutes€a€waiver€ofÏthe€issue.€€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b).€€The€defendantððs€brief€cites€no€authority€otherÏthan€the€general€claim€that€the€trial€courtððs€conduct€violated€his€rights€under€the€Fifth,ÏSixth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€We€do€not€believe€that€the€brief€suffices€regarding€the€need€toÏcite€authority.€€In€any€event,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€newÏtrial.Ð È7À04 Їà ¸ àDuring€direct€examination,€the€defendant€testified€that€he€did€not€see€theÏvictimððs€body€when€he€first€walked€into€the€house.€€The€defendant€was€cross„examinedÏabout€this€testimony€in€an€attempt€to€show€that€it€was€likely€that€the€defendant€wouldÏhave€seen€the€victimððs€body€because€it€was€in€plain€view.€€The€prosecutor€showed€aÏphotograph€depicting€the€view€of€the€victimððs€house€when€entering€the€house,€and€heÏasked€the€defendant€to€show€the€route€he€used€to€walk€to€the€bedroom.€€When€theÏdefendant€began€to€explain€the€reason€for€walking€to€the€bedroom€toward€the€lightÏrather€than€explaining€the€direction€he€took€to€get€to€the€bedroom,€the€prosecutor€askedÏthe€defendant€to€answer€the€question€by€telling€the€jury€where€he€went€and€told€him€heÏwould€then€be€given€an€opportunity€to€explain€the€reasons€for€his€action.€€The€defendantÏthen€responded,€ð ðIn€that€direction.ðð€€The€prosecutor€tried€to€clarify€the€direction€theÏdefendant€took€by€asking€specific€questions.€€When€the€defendant€did€not€respond€toÏone€of€the€questions€asked,€the€trial€court€told€the€defendant€to€listen€to€the€questionÏand€answer€the€question,€and€the€defendant€replied€that€he€had€answered€the€question.€ÏThe€trial€court€told€the€defendant€to€listen€to€him,€but€the€defendant€interrupted€theÏcourt,€resulting€in€the€court€admonishing€the€defendant€not€to€interrupt€the€court.€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€then€told€the€defendant:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àThis€will€help€your€testimony€and€it€will€help€theÏJury€understand€your€testimony.€€And€anything€that€youÏwant€to€explain€afterward,€you€can€do€that.€€And€yourÏlawyer€is€going€to€be€given€a€chance€to€question€youÏagain.€€€€€€€€€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€prosecutor€asked€the€defendant€whether€he€walked€between€a€heater€and€theÏrefrigerator,€and€the€defendant€responded€by€asking€whether€he€would€be€allowed€toÏexplain€after€answering€the€question.€€The€following€colloquy€took€place:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à[òòGENERAL€BAILEYóó]:€€If€you€will€answer€the€question,Ð 4-0 ÐMr.€Perez.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòTHE€COURT:óó€€Do€you€understand€the€question,€Mr.Ð Ø6Ð/3 ÐPerez.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÐ ¸8°15 Ðà8 ¸ àòòMR.€COHEN:óó€Your€honor€„„и x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòTHE€WITNESS:óó€I€understand€the€question,€.€.€.€what€heÐ èà Ðdoesnððt€comprehend€is€that€the€space€is€not€as€itððsÏshown€in€that€picture.€The€space€„„Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòMR.€COHEN:óó€Excuse€me,€your€Honor,€may€I€interrupt.Ш  ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòTHE€WITNESS:ó󀄄€is€a€lot€wider.Ј€¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòMR.€COHEN:óó€Mr.€Perez,€be€quiet..Ðh` ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòTHE€COURT:óó€I€want€everybody€to€be€quiet,€includingÐ H@  Ðthe€lawyers€and€the€witness.€€The€question€was€did€youÏwalk€between€a€refrigerator€and€a€heater.€€Thatððs€aÏsimple€question.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòTHE€WITNESS:óó€Which€I€answered€yes.Ðøð¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòTHE€COURT:óó€No,€you€didnððt.ÐØÐ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòTHE€WITNESS:óó€Yes,€I€did.и°¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòTHE€COURT:óó€Donððt€argue€with€me.€€The€first€words€outÐ ˜ Ðof€your€mouth€was,€can€I€explain€something€and€whatÏhe€doesnððt€comprehend.€€Now,€ask€the€question€again,Ïplease,€and€then€when€heððs€answered€„„Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòMR.€COHEN:óó€Your€honor€„„€Iððm€sorry.€€I€didnððt€mean€toÐ H!@ Ðinterrupt.€€I€thought€you€were€through.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòTHE€COURT:óó€When€he€answers€the€question,€then€ifÐ $ Ðthere€is€something€about€that€question€that€needs€to€beÏexplained,€you€can€explain€it.€€But€just€because€youÏmight€want€to€explain€something€else€doesnððt€mean€youÏcan€go€into€a€speech€after€a€specific€question€has€beenÏasked.€€Now,€do€you€understand€that,€Mr.€Perez?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòTHE€WITNESS:óó€Yes,€sir.€€I€asked€you€if€I€could€go€„„Ш* #&¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòTHE€COURT:óó€Then€you€do€it.Ј,€%(¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòTHE€WITNESS:ó󀀄„€into€an€explanation€after€„„Ðh.`'*¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòTHE€COURT:óó€There€was€nothing€that€needed€to€beÐ H0@), Ðexplained.€€If€your€lawyer€wants€to€get€up€and€startÏasking€you€about€the€distances€from€somewhere€toÏsomewhere€else,€then€he€can€do€that.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòTHE€WITNESS:óó€Well,€isnððt€that€what€he€just€asked€me?Ðø4ð-1¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àòòTHE€COURT:óó€No,€sir.€€Ask€the€question€again.ÐØ6Ð/3¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ӀР¸8°15 Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€then€objected€on€the€ground€that€the€prosecutor€was€usingÏan€ink€pen€to€ask€the€question,€causing€the€defendant€to€be€confused€because€theÏprosecutor€was€asking€one€question€verbally€and€another€question€through€hisÏgestures.€€He€said€that€the€jury€could€see€the€gestures,€although€he€did€not€explain€theÏnature€of€the€gestures.€€The€judge€stated€that€he€could€not€see€the€gestures€made€byÏthe€prosecutor€and€overruled€the€objection.€ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€stated€that€itÏadmonished€the€defendant€for€two€reasons:€(1)€to€control€the€trial€and€(2)€to€prevent€theÏdefendant€from€talking€over€the€prosecutor€such€that€he€alienated€the€jury.€€The€courtÏstated€that€it€did€not€yell€at€the€defendant.€€It€also€found€that€the€admonishment€did€notÏhave€an€effect€on€the€jury.ÌÌà ¸ àA€trial€court€has€the€inherent€power€to€supervise€and€control€its€own€courtÏproceedings.€€òòAndrews€v.€Bibleóó,€812€S.W.2d€284,€291€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Braganóó,Ð H!@ Ð920€S.W.2d€227,€239€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€control€and€scope€of€cross„¼examination€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòReece€v.€Stateóó,€555€S.W.2dÐ %  Ð733,€735€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€However,€the€trial€court€must€take€care€not€toÏconvey€to€the€jury€an€appearance€of€taking€sides.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Suttlesóó,€767€S.W.2dÐ È(À!$ Ð403,€407€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€576,€588€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð ¨* #& ÐÌà ¸ àWe€hold€that€the€trial€court€acted€within€its€discretion.€€A€review€of€theÏrecord,€including€the€audio€cassette€tape€recording€of€the€defendantððs€cross„¼examination,€reflects€that€the€defendant€did€not€first€answer€the€question€asked€beforeÏtrying€to€explain.€€The€defendant€interrupted€the€trial€court€on€several€occasions.€€WeÏalso€note€that€defense€counsel€on€one€occasion€had€to€tell€the€defendant€to€be€quiet.€ÏThe€trial€court€had€the€authority€to€control€the€proceedings€as€it€did.€€€Ð È7À04 Ðà@DD/Dàò òˆÌà@ZZ DàVI.€€NEWLY€DISCOVERED€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ èà Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€claims€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€ofÏnewly€discovered€evidence€that€the€victim€was€seen€at€a€bar€near€her€house€on€theÏnight€of€the€offense.€€He€asserts€that€the€evidence€is€material€and€would€likely€haveÏresulted€in€a€different€outcome€because€it€increases€the€possibility€of€the€existence€ofÏother€suspects,€creating€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€the€defendantððs€guilt.€€The€stateÏresponds€that€the€trial€court€properly€refused€to€order€a€new€trial€based€on€the€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence.€€We€agree.ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€defendant€presentedÏtestimony€from€two€employees€who€worked€for€a€bar€located€near€the€victimððs€house.€ÏThe€employees€said€that€they€remembered€the€victim€coming€into€the€bar€on€theÏevening€of€the€offense.€€Both€employees€stated€that€they€were€not€sure€that€they€sawÏthe€victim€on€the€night€of€the€offense€until€another€person€told€them.€€One€employeeÏsaid€that€the€victim€came€into€the€bar€about€4:30€or€5:00€p.m.,€ordered€a€beer,€drankÏhalf€of€it,€and€then€left.€€She€said€that€the€victim€arrived€and€left€alone.€€On€cross„¼examination,€she€testified€that€the€victim€was€not€wearing€a€Krystal€uniform,€and€sheÏconceded€that€it€could€have€been€the€day€before€the€offense€that€she€saw€the€victim€inÏthe€bar.ÌÌà ¸ àDefense€counselððs€legal€secretary€testified€that€one€of€the€employees€whoÏsaw€the€victim€at€the€bar€was€formerly€her€mother„in„law.€€She€said€that€about€one€andÏa€half€to€two€weeks€after€the€trial,€she€gave€defense€counsel€both€of€the€employeesððÏnames€and€one€of€the€employeesðð€addresses.€€Ìâ âÐ è5à.2 Ðà ¸ àBarry€Rice,€a€private€investigator,€testified€that€two€to€three€weeks€afterÏâ âthe€trial,€defense€counsel€gave€him€one€of€the€employeesðð€addresses.€€He€said€that€heÏinterviewed€the€two€employees.€€He€testified€that€the€employees€told€him€that€they€sawÏthe€victim€in€the€bar€on€the€night€of€the€offense€and€that€they€remembered€peopleÏtalking€about€the€victimððs€presence€in€the€bar€that€night.ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Ridings€testified€that€he€measured€the€distance€from€the€bar€to€theÏKrystal€and€from€the€bar€to€the€victimððs€house.€€He€stated€that€the€distances€were€aboutÏthe€same,€six€tenths€of€a€mile.€€He€said€that€it€took€about€seven€minutes€and€twoÏseconds€to€walk€the€distance€between€the€locations.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€denied€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€newly€discoveredÏevidence.€€It€found€that€it€was€arguable€whether€the€evidence€would€be€harmful€to€theÏstate€or€helpful€to€the€defendant.€€It€concluded€that€the€defendant€acted€diligently€inÏdiscovering€the€evidence€after€trial,€although€there€was€little€to€show€that€the€defendantÏacted€diligently€before€trial.€€The€trial€court€determined€that€the€evidence€was€not€strongÏand€that€a€new€trial€was€not€justified.€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€decision€to€grant€or€deny€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€newly€discoveredÏevidence€is€a€matter€that€rests€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.Ð ¨* #& ÐGoswickóó,€656€S.W.2d€355,€358€(Tenn.€1983).€€However,€a€new€trial€is€a€matter€of€rightÐ ˆ,€%( Ðwhen€the€defendant€establishes€(1)€reasonable€diligence€in€seeking€newly€discoveredÏevidence,€(2)€materiality€of€the€evidence,€and€(3)€that€the€new€evidence€will€likelyÏchange€the€result€of€the€trial€to€one€more€favorable€for€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.Ð (2 +. ÐSingletonóó,€853€S.W.2d€490,€496€(Tenn.€1993);€òòGoswickóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€359;€òòTaylor€v.Ð 4-0 ÐStateóó,€180€Tenn.€62,€67,€171€S.W.2d€403,€405€(1943).Ð è5à.2 ÐÐ È7À04 Ðà ¸ àIn€this€case,€the€state€does€not€contest€the€defendantððs€reasonableÏdiligence€in€discovering€the€evidence.€€Rather,€it€argues€that€the€evidence€was€neitherÏmaterial€nor€likely€to€produce€a€more€favorable€result€for€the€defendant.Ô‡XJ"XX XJ"Ô€€Evidence€isÐ È À Ðconsidered€material€if€it€would€be€likely€to€change€the€result.€€òòEvans€v.€Stateóó,€557Ð ¨   ÐS.W.2d€927,€938€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€When€newly€discovered€evidence€merelyÏtends€to€contradict€or€to€impeach€the€trial€evidence,€a€new€trial€is€not€always€warranted.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€544€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Lequireóó,€634Ð H@  ÐS.W.2d€608,€615€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€In€other€words,€a€new€trial€will€not€beÏgranted€when€it€appears€that€such€newly€discovered€evidence€merely€discredits€theÏtestimony€of€a€witness€at€the€original€trial,€contradicts€a€witness'€statements,€orÏimpeaches€a€witness,€unless€the€testimony€of€the€witness€being€impeached€was€soÏimportant€to€the€issue€and€the€evidence€impeaching€the€witness€so€convincing€that€aÏdifferent€result€must€follow.€€òòRosenthal€v.€Stateóó,€200€Tenn.€178,€186,€292€S.W.2d€1,€4„5Ð ˆ€ Ð(1956).ÌÌà ¸ àThe€conviction€in€this€case€was€based€upon€both€direct€and€circumstantialÏevidence.€€During€the€trial,€the€defendant€sought€to€establish€the€discrepancies€in€theÏtime€of€events.€€The€defendant€alleged€that€the€newly€discovered€evidence€showedÏadditional€discrepancies,€creating€reasonable€doubt€as€to€his€guilt.€€However,€theÏevidence€presented€by€the€defendant€was€not€certain€either€as€to€the€time€or€the€dateÏthat€the€victim€was€seen€at€the€bar.€€Moreover,€the€employees€testified€that€theyÏremembered€that€the€victim€was€in€the€bar€on€the€night€of€the€offense€after€talking€toÏother€people.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€evidence€is€not€strong€that€the€victimÏwas€in€fact€in€the€bar€before€the€offense€took€place.€€As€a€result,€we€cannot€say€that€theÏnew€evidence€would€likely€change€the€result€of€the€trial.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€court€didÏnot€abuse€its€discretion€by€denying€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€newly€discoveredÏevidence.€Ð È7À04 ЀÔ#† XJ"XXXJ"y*#Ôà@DD/Dàœò òñÀñˆÐ  Ðà@DD/DàñÀññÁñˆÐ  èà Ðà@(((DàñÁññÁñVñÁñII.›€€SENTENCINGó óˆÐ  Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€sentencing€him€in€theÏupper€part€of€Range€I.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€enhancementÏfactors.€€However,€the€defendant€does€not€specify€which€enhancement€factors€wereÏinappropriately€applied.€€Rather,€the€defendant€merely€ð ðadopt[s]€by€reference€the€pre„¼sentence€report€and€the€evidence€and€argument€at€the€sentencing€hearing€.€.€.€.ðð€€TheÏstate€argues€that€the€defendant€waived€the€issue€by€failing€to€present€any€argumentÏwith€citation€to€authorities€as€required€by€Rule€27(a)(7),€T.R.A.P.€€We€agree€that€theÏdefendant€failed€to€follow€the€requirements€of€Rule€27(a)(7).€€The€defendantððsÏcontention€tells€us€nothing.€€The€burden€on€appeal€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€that€theÏsentence€imposed€is€improper.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d),€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments.€€ð ðWith€the€trial€courtððs€determinations€being€presumptively€correct,€it€is€notÏour€function€to€rummage€through€the€record€to€glean€support€for€a€defendantððs€generalÏclaim€of€excessive€sentencing€and€such€a€claim€runs€a€high€risk€of€the€sentence€beingÏsummarily€affirmed.ðð€€òòState€v.€Richard€J.€Crossmanóó,€No.€01C01„9311„CR„00394,Ð H!@ ÐWilson€County,€slip€op.€at€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct.€6,€1994),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Jan.Ð (#  Ð3,€1995).€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€any€event,€the€record€supports€the€œñÉñsentence€ñÉññÊñrecord›€ñÊñimposed›€by€the€trial€court.€ÏThe€presentence€report€shows€that€the€then€thirty„two„year„old€defendant€has€a€priorÏconviction€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€(D.U.I.)€in€1993.€€It€reflects€thatÏthe€defendant€committed€the€present€crime€while€on€probation€for€the€D.U.I.€conviction.€ÏThe€report€states€that€the€defendant€is€a€high€school€graduate€who€attended€college€forÏa€period€of€time,€leaving€for€financial€reasons.€€It€shows€that€the€defendant€hadÏmaintained€gainful€employment€but€that€he€had€been€involved€in€altercations€withÏseveral€coworkers€at€his€most€recent€job.€€The€defendant€denied€that€he€used€alcohol€orÏdrugs€at€the€time€of€the€presentence€interview.€€€€Ð È7À04 Їà ¸ àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€theÏfollowing€enhancement€factors€applicable€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(1)€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌ€€€€à8 ¸ à(5)€the€defendant€treated€the€victim€with€exceptionalÐ 80 Ðcruelty€during€the€commission€of€the€offense;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(8)€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÏunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€aÏsentence€involving€release€in€the€community;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(9)€the€defendant€possessed€or€employed€a€deadlyÏweapon€during€the€commission€of€the€offense;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(15)€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€trial€court€gave€greater€weight€to€enhancement€factors€(5)€and€(9).€€In€mitigation,Ïthe€court€considered€the€defendantððs€lack€of€a€prior€felony€record€and€his€history€ofÏbeing€gainfully€employed€and€supporting€himself,€stating€that€the€mitigating€factors€wereÏð ðsignificant.ðð€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€The€court€stated€that€a€twenty„five€yearÐ d\ Ðsentence€was€appropriate€based€upon€the€applicable€enhancement€factors,€but€itÏreduced€the€sentence€to€twenty„two€years€given€the€applicable€mitigating€factors.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€properly€followed€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€considered€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823Ð `'X $ ÐS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€sentencingÏdecision.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€theÏtrial€courtððs€judgment€of€conviction.ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ô3ì,2 Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àóóJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€Ð Ú4Ò-3 ÐÌÌÌÐ r8j17 М‡ñÂñÌ›ÌñÂññ¾ñœñ¾ñCONCUR:ñ¾ñ›ñ¾ñ›ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð   ˜ ÐóóJerry€L.€Smith,€JudgeÐ † ~ ÐÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð   ÐóóThomas€T.€Woodall,€Judge€€Ð ü  Ѐò ò€ó óÐ êâ  ÐÌà8 ¸ à