ÿWPC + Q‹“0¯“-{%'¢]Ü}ù\äÇçú$[ªg®¨ZY¯yw}pÚëÎ_°<‚ÉyQž¶}•èÔ¬ì$‰õ|ÒŽT(«Ú™-KÎ…{ÕéîMFþùí/ÙËŽF3ë Ø*®œ Ë&YÈWS)eÛbòÿ*2÷Â{¹á/æÜQÒËÄÿ'û¨_¨p ¡[2ʇ4Ï(E7 BC"4†í=%`|Xµã ƒ°èŽçÜÁd†à3´ˆ/œwy‹1 «‹&`F;Íèã+"Ú<©‹’à?Þå‹„Ç›ÒÏmõÆrޏ$ª¦_þ§bTêâ Ô–1þbh°è•àÄm$)#\ÂmTl K3mê?¾”åE°s}†ý 8E®äõ`ÙKe–âôtaÇþpÑ Íº4!b15ƒUO27ïáUØHï“óÖ+ÿ>+?ƇòN§×Â7Ì!ß,u—È#@¬ƒŸ-µ‹'De ÊÇŒqË ¢påŠde ¬ øL%|ÃãEVV·2—ùûŒ³ãµ•ó§Øl! å*GÞôîÕJo¥"+ªÙ“ú` óïšGm7„škMp§ÌØAóÝK´2ο^0 å¨J›4‘M£Éà+¸.) ³…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ LÍ U: bS w@[ 4› ¯ 0 ƾ 0 D„ U:È ‡ Y‰0â_Nq#¿©â"ñ‹%U:|'¶'¶'¶'¶'¶'¶'¶'¶' BÓ(Ó(Ó(Ó(Ó(Ó(Ó(Ó(Ó(Ó(Ó( D3ð(ð(ð( 0D#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#)#) AOg)ƶ)¶) 0D|* D/À* Bï*˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MSÈðððÈð0nLÐ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- :D;D?@UAUBUCDDDEDFÓ€ýhµ&3|xQ(v(2¸p$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X>ÞXXXÔÔ€ôÑþôXX>ÞÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular }Ý ƒ ¸p$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X>ÞXXXÔÔ€ôÑþôXX>ÞÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝDuring€the€approximately€eight€years€between€the€notice€of€appeal€and€the€filing€of€the€record€andÐ `  Ðbriefs€in€this€case,€the€tapes€of€Appellantððs€trial,€the€hearing€on€his€motion€for€a€new€trial,€and€theÏsentencing€hearing€were€lost€and€thus,€no€transcript€of€the€evidence€could€be€prepared.€€Therefore,ÏAppellant€filed€a€statement€of€the€evidence€and€an€amended€statement€of€the€evidence€pursuant€to€RuleÏ24(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure. OÝ ƒ *($ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X \ XXXÔÔ€ôQÛô XX \Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€contends€that€the€Stateððs€introduction€of€pre„trial€statement€did€not€rebut€his€claim€ofÐ `  Ðself„defense€because€the€statement€was€entirely€consistent€with€his€testimony€at€trial.€€While€it€true€thatÏthe€jury€was€entitled€to€conclude€that€the€two€statements€were€consistent,€the€jury€was€also€entitled€toÏconclude€that€the€two€statemetns€were€contradictory€and€that€the€pre„trial€statement€was€the€one€whichÏwas€worthy€of€belief.€€Indeed,€the€determination€of€whether€the€two€statements€were€consistent€orÏcontradictory€and€whether€Appellant€had€been€untruthful€when€he€gave€either€of€the€statements€wasÏstrictly€for€the€jury.€€It€is€well„established€that€ð ð[t]he€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€theirÏtestimony,€and€the€recondiliation€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€excusively€to€the€jury€atÏthe€triers€of€fact.ðð€òòState€v.€Cribbsóó,€967€S.W.2d€773,€793€(Tenn.€1998). &Ý ƒ *($ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X \ XXXÔÔ€ôQÛô XX \Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€State€retains€this€burden€under€current€law.€€See,€òòState€v.€Belseróó,€945€S.W.2d€776€(Tenn.Ð `  ÐCrim.€App.€1996). UÝ ƒ *($ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X \ XXXÔÔ€ôQÛô XX \Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€the€amended€statement€of€the€evidence,€Appellant€states€that€the€trial€court€apparently€gaveÐ `  Ðmitigating€weight€to€Appellantððs€age€at€the€time€of€the€offense€and€to€Appellantððs€contention€that€he€wasÏacting€under€strong€provocation€when€he€committed€the€offense.€€However,€the€amended€statement€of€theÏevidence€contains€no€information€about€what€enhancement€factors€were€applied€to€Appellantððs€sentence.ò òó ó DÝ ƒ *($ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X \ XXXÔÔ€ôQÛô XX \Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€also€contends,€for€the€same€reasons€that€he€contends€that€the€evidence€wasÐ `  Ðinsufficient€to€support€his€conviction,€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€his€motion€for€judgment€ofÏacquittal.€€ð ðWhen€the€trial€court€is€presented€with€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal,€the€only€concern€is€theÏlegal€sufficiency,€as€opposed€to€the€weight,€of€the€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Blantonóó,€926€S.W.2d€953,€957Ð š : Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(citation€omitted).€€ð ðTo€determine€whether€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€sustainÏthe€conviction,€the€trial€court€must€consider€the€evidence€introduced€by€both€parties,€disregard€anyÏevidence€introduced€by€the€accused€that€conflicts€with€the€evidence€adduced€by€the€State,€and€afford€theÏState€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence,€including€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€beÏdrawn€from€the€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€957ð!ð58€(citation€and€internal€quotations€omitted).€€For€the€same€reasonsÐ Pð Ðthat€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€Appellantððs€conviction,€we€conclude€that€theÏtrial€court€properly€denied€the€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal. Ý ƒ *($ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X \ XXXÔÔ€ôQÛô XX \Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€contends€that€he€should€not€be€penalized€for€failure€to€prepare€a€complete€recordÐ `  Ðbecause€the€tapes€of€his€trial,€the€hearing€on€his€motion€for€a€new€trial,€and€the€sentencing€hearing€wereÏlost€through€no€fault€of€his€own.€€However,€the€record€indicates€that€after€Appellant€filed€notice€of€appealÏon€October€22,€1990,€no€effort€was€made€to€obtain€transcripts€for€approximately€seven€to€eight€years€whileÏhe€remained€free€on€bond.€€In€fact,€in€the€affidavit€of€the€court€reporter€who€was€at€Appellantððs€trial,€theÏhearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€and€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€court€reporter€stated€that€she€has€noÏrecord€or€recollection€of€the€transcripts€ever€having€been€ordered€until€late€1997€or€early€1998.€€ð ðWhen€theÏappellant€is€unable€to€prepare€or€have€prepared€a€transcript€of€the€evidence€and€proceedings,€the€burdenÏis€on€the€appellant€to€show€.€.€.€[his€or€her]€inability€to€prepare€a€transcript,€the€reasons€for€the€inability,€andÏthat€the€inability€was€brought€about€by€matters€outside€.€.€.€[his€or€her]€control€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòState€v.€Rhodenóó,€739Ð ®  ÐS.W.2d€6,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)€(citation€and€internal€quotations€omitted).€€Having€waited€for€sevenÏto€eight€years€while€free€on€bond€before€requesting€the€transcripts,€Appellant€cannot€now€claim€that€he€isÏwithout€fault€in€failing€to€have€a€complete€record€prepared. ŸÝ ƒ ¸p$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X>ÞXXXÔÔ€ôÑþôXX>ÞÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€delay€in€this€homicide€case€of€approximately€nine€years€between€conviction€and€the€hearingÐ `  Ðof€this€appeal€is€nothing€short€of€disgraceful.€€It€is€beyond€belief€that€the€Cocke€County€Circuit€CourtÏClerkððs€office€did€not€monitor€this€appeal€as€it€should€have.€€What€is€even€more€incredible€and€disturbing€isÏthat€the€Office€of€the€District€Attorney€failed€to€take€action€to€revoke€Appellantððs€bond€in€a€homicide€caseÏuntil€six€years€after€the€time€for€perfecting€an€appeal€had€elapsed.€ çÝ ƒ *($ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X \ XXXÔÔ€ôQÛô XX \Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€Appellantððs€statement€of€the€issue€refers€to€alternative€sentencing,€the€subsequentÐ `  Ðargument€and€citation€to€authorities€relates€only€to€the€denial€of€probation.€€Our€resolution€of€this€issue€isÏthe€same€regardless€of€the€distinction€between€probation€and€the€other€forms€of€alternative€sentencing.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€ X>ÞXXXÔÔ€ îü§ îX X>ÞÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ ‚ý  î îü§ÔÐ  ÐÌò òJuly€7,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÑþô  ‚ýÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ŠrËŠXXÔÔ€ŠÐXŠŠŠrËÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÆmXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñFñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E<f  tt0"t` ¨ØrßñFñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌDECEMBER€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9807„CC„00243Ð ` 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  àCOCKE€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€J.€KENNETH€PORTERó óÐ Xø  Ðò òJAMIE€DWAYNE€REED,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€Voluntary€à Ð àà (# àÐ Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àManslaughter)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌCARL€R.€OGLE,€JR.à h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ (!È ÐP.€O.€Box€129à  àà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  "À ÐJefferson€City,€TN€€37760Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àERIK€W.€DAABÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAL€SCHMUTZER,€JR.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àW.€BROWLOW€MARSHÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à339€East€Main€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNewport,€TN€€37821ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  x6-.S ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„sÕ„ŠŠÐXÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†ŠÐXŠ„„sÕ #ÔÐ `  ÐÓ  ÓÓÓñ:ññ7ñÔ‡X \ XŠŠ±cÔñ7ññ:ñÑ7€ÆmXXdìXXdì7Ñà@®®.®àñ;ññ7ñÌñ7ññ;ñˆÌà ` àOn€September€25,€1990,€a€Cocke€County€jury€convicted€Appellant€JamieÏDwayne€Reed€of€voluntary€manslaughter.€€That€same€day,€the€trial€courtÏsentenced€Appellant€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€to€a€term€of€five€years€in€theÏTennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€Appellant€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€onÏOctober€19,€1990,€and€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion€on€October€22,€1990.€ÏAppellant€filed€notice€of€appeal€on€October€22,€1990.€€Apparently,€no€furtherÏactivity€occurred€in€this€case€until€September€25,€1997,€when€the€State€filed€aÏmotion€to€revoke€Appellantððs€bond€because€he€had€failed€to€file€notice€or€perfectÏan€appeal€in€this€Court׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×.€€Appellant€filed€a€motion€to€reinstate€his€bond€onÐ 4Ô ÐFebruary€18,€1998,€and€the€trial€court€reinstated€bond€on€April€8,€1998.€€OnÏappeal,€Appellant€challenges€both€his€conviction€and€his€sentence,€raising€theÏfollowing€issues:Ìñ?ñÓÓñ?ñà0 ` à1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€his€conviction;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€jury€was€prejudiced€by€a€comment€made€by€a€bailiff;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€whether€the€trial€court€imposed€an€excessive€sentence;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à4)€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€imposed€probation.ñ@ñÐ ` T$` T$ Ðñ@ñÌñ?ñÓÓñ?ñAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌñAñÌñAññAñÌñAññAñÌâ âñAñÐ Œ0,'( Ðà@­­)®àò òI.€€FACTSó ó׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׈Ð `  Ðâ âÌà ` àOfficer€Lynn€Shults€of€the€Newport€Police€Department€testified€that€he€wasÏcalled€to€the€scene€of€a€wreck€at€the€Eastport€Exxon€Station€on€October€4,€1989.€ÏWhen€Shults€arrived,€he€received€information€that€someone€had€been€shot.€ÏShults€subsequently€entered€the€Eastport€Market€and€found€the€victim,€JonathanÏHicks,€lying€on€his€back.€€After€determining€that€Hicks€had€no€pulse,€Shults€sawÏthat€Hicks€had€car€keys€in€his€hand€and€that€there€was€a€trail€of€blood€betweenÏHicks€and€a€car.€ÌÌà ` àEd€Thompson€testified€that€while€he€was€at€the€Eastport€Market,€a€car€spedÏthrough€the€car€wash,€made€a€u„turn,€and€hit€a€white€car,€making€a€lot€of€racket.€ÏShortly€thereafter,€Thompson€heard€what€sounded€like€three€firecrackers€goingÏoff.€€Thompson€then€saw€a€man€with€blood€coming€out€of€his€mouth€run€into€theÏstore,€grab€a€candy€rack,€and€fall€to€the€floor.ÌÌà ` àAccording€to€the€autopsy€report€of€Doctor€Cleland€Blake,€Hicks€died€fromÏinternal€hemorrhaging€caused€by€a€single€gunshot€wound€to€the€chest.€€At€theÏtime€of€death,€Hicks€had€an€ethyl€blood€alcohol€level€of€ð ð0.10€gms€90ðð€and€hadÏtrace€amounts€of€diazepam€and€nordiazepan€in€his€system.€Ìâ âÐ 2 (( Ðà ` àDetective€Jimmy€Gregg€of€the€Newport€Police€Department€testified€thatÏâ âwhen€he€arrived€at€the€scene€at€9:18€p.m.,€he€only€found€Hickððs€car.€€Gregg€thenÏwent€to€Cocke€County€Baptist€Hospital€where€Appellant€had€been€transported€byÏOfficer€James€Holt.€€After€Appellant€received€treatment€for€two€stab€wounds€to€hisÏleft€arm,€Appellant€signed€a€waiver€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€Appellant€subsequentlyÐ €  Ðgave€a€statement€to€the€police€that€was€introduced€into€evidence€along€with€hisÏwaiver€of€rights€form.€€A€knife€that€was€recovered€from€Appellantððs€car€was€alsoÏapparently€introduced€through€the€testimony€of€Detective€Gregg.€ÌÌà ` àIn€the€statement€that€he€gave€to€police,€Appellant€said€that€while€he€wasÏat€the€service€station,€Hicks€drove€up€and€crashed€into€Appellantððs€car.€€AppellantÏthen€demanded€that€Hicks€pay€for€the€damage€and€when€Hicks€refused,€the€twoÏbegan€fighting.€€At€some€point,€Hicks€stabbed€Appellant€in€the€arm.€€AppellantÏsubsequently€went€back€to€his€vehicle,€opened€the€door,€pulled€a€gun€out€fromÏunder€the€driverððs€seat,€and€then€shot€Hicks.€€Appellant€then€left€the€scene€andÏthrew€the€gun€in€a€river.€€Appellant€later€turned€himself€in€to€the€police.€ÌÌà ` àAt€trial,€Appellant€testified€that€he€was€parked€at€the€car€wash€when€HicksÏcrashed€into€his€car.€€The€two€men€got€into€an€argument€about€the€damage€andÏthey€eventually€began€fighting.€€Hicks€subsequently€stabbed€Appellant€twice,€andÏAppellantñEñ€theñEñ€retrieved€a€gun€from€his€car.€€Appellant€then€fired€two€warning€shotsÏinto€the€air.€€Hicks€then€opened€the€passenger€door€of€his€car,€and€Appellant€shotÏHicks€in€order€to€disable€him€because€Appellant€believed€that€Hicks€wasÏattempting€to€get€a€gun.€€Appellant€then€left€the€scene,€threw€the€gun€into€a€river,Ïand€then€turned€himself€in€to€the€police.€Ð  :À00 ÐñBñ‡ñBññBñÌñBñÌà@XX®àò òII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction.€€When€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€thisÏCourt€is€obliged€to€review€that€challenge€according€to€certain€well-settledÏprinciples.€€A€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).€€AlthoughÐ    Ðan€accused€is€originally€cloaked€with€a€presumption€of€innocence,€a€jury€verdictÏremoves€this€presumption€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639Ð à€ ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,€on€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€withÏAppellant€to€demonstrate€the€insufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€OnÐ À` Ðappeal,€ð ðthe€[S]tate€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€ÏòòId.óó€€Where€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€contested€on€appeal,€the€relevantÐ $0 Ðquestion€for€the€reviewing€court€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€accused€guilty€of€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.Ð `*!" Ð2d€560€(1979).€€In€conducting€our€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏCourt€is€precluded€from€reweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.Ð @.à$& ÐMorganóó,€929€S.W.2d€380,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Moreover,€this€CourtÐ 00Ð&( Ðmay€not€substitute€its€own€inferences€ð ðfor€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€fromÏcircumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 4°*, ÐApp.€1990).€€Finally,€Rule€13(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€ProcedureÏâ âprovides,€ð ðfindings€of€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€juryÐ ð7.0 Ðshall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trierÏof€fact€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ððÌâ âÌà ` àIn€this€case,€Appellant€was€convicted€of€voluntary€manslaughter.€€At€theÏtime€of€the€shooting,€manslaughter€was€defined€as€ð ðthe€unlawful€killing€of€anotherÏwithout€malice,€either€express€or€implied,€which€may€be€voluntary€upon€a€suddenÏheat,€or€involuntary,€but€in€the€commission€of€some€unlawful€act.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39-2-221€(1989).€€ð ð[V]oluntary€manslaughter€is€when€one€kills€anotherÏupon€a€sudden€heat,€produced€by€adequate€provocation€without€malice,€and€isÏan€act€of€passion€rather€than€judgment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€541€S.W.2d€385,€390Ð Ðp Ð(Tenn.€1976).€€Furthermore,€a€homicide€that€results€from€mutual€combat€has€alsoÏbeen€recognized€as€voluntary€manslaughter€by€Tennessee€courts.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð °P ÐJohnsonóó,€909€S.W.2d€461,€464€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€497Ð   @ ÐS.W.2d€588,€592€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).ÌÌà ` àIt€is€clear€that€the€elements€of€the€offense€of€voluntary€manslaughter€wereÏproven€by€the€State.€€Indeed,€the€evidence€showed€that€after€a€car€wreck,ÏAppellant€and€Hicks€engaged€in€a€heated€argument,€Appellant€and€Hicks€beganÏfighting,€Hicks€stabbed€Appellant€in€the€arm,€Appellant€returned€to€his€car€andÏretrieved€a€gun,€and€Appellant€then€shot€and€killed€Hicks.€€Appellant€does€notÏchallenge€these€facts.€€Rather,€Appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€to€support€his€conviction€because€the€State€failed€to€negate€his€claimÏthat€he€acted€in€self„defense.€ÌÌà ` àAt€the€time€of€the€shooting,€the€applicable€self„defense€statute€providedÏthat€a€party€could€prevent€an€offense€against€his€person€by€employing€ð ðresistanceÐ Ð9p02 Ðsufficient€to€prevent€the€offense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€38-2-102€(1989).€€Further,Ïin€order€to€excuse€a€homicide€on€the€ground€of€self-defense,€the€defendant€mustÏshow€that€at€the€time€of€the€killing€he€or€she€was€acting€upon€a€well-founded€fearÏof€death€or€great€bodily€harm,€and€that€the€actions€taken€were€necessary€inÏself-defense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Wilsonóó,€556€S.W.2d€232,€234€(Tenn.€1977).€€TheÐ  À ÐState€had€the€burden€of€negating€the€claim€that€the€accused€acted€inÏself-defense.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€520€S.W.2d€361,€363€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð    Ð1974).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Whether€the€defendant€acted€in€self-defense€is€a€factual€determinationÐ ð  Ðto€be€made€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Goodeóó,€956€S.W.2d€521,€527€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð à€ Ð1997);€òòState€v.€Ivyóó,€868€S.W.2d€724,€727€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€juryÐ Ðp Ðobviously€rejected€Appellantððs€claim€of€self„defense.ÌÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€State€failed€to€introduce€any€evidence€thatÏcontradicted€his€testimony€that€he€only€shot€Hicks€because€Hicks€was€acting€inÏa€way€that€caused€him€to€believe€that€Hicks€was€attempting€to€obtain€a€gun€toÏshoot€him.€€However,€the€State€introduced€Appellantððs€signed€statement€that€heÏgave€to€police€in€which€he€admitted€shooting€Hicks€after€arguing€and€fighting€withÏhim.€€In€this€statement,€Appellant€did€not€claim€that€he€shot€Hicks€in€self„defenseÏand€he€made€no€mention€of€any€belief€that€Hicks€was€attempting€to€retrieve€a€gunÏto€shoot€him.€€Appellant€also€made€no€mention€of€firing€any€warning€shots€atÏHicks.€€Instead,€Appellant€stated€that€he€had€shot€Hicks€and€he€was€not€sure€howÏmany€times€he€had€shot€him.€€This€statement€in€which€Appellant€made€noÏâ âmention€of€self„defense€or€the€belief€that€Hicks€was€attempting€to€retrieve€a€gun,Ð 4 *, Ðprovides€a€sufficient€basis€for€a€rational€juror€to€conclude€that€Appellant€did€notÏact€in€self„defense.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð P ð Ðâ âñCñÌñCñà ` àÌà ` àIn€summary,€the€evidence€established€that€Appellant€shot€and€killed€HicksÏafter€arguing€and€fighting€with€him€about€the€damage€to€his€car.€€Thus,€weÏconclude€that€when€the€evidence€is€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏState,€a€rational€jury€could€find€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Appellant€hadÏcommitted€the€offense€of€voluntary€manslaughter.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.׃>×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рð  ÐÌà@¾¾®àò òIII.€€COMMENT€FROM€THE€BAILIFFó óˆÐ Ðp ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€jury€was€prejudiced€as€a€result€of€a€commentÏfrom€the€bailiff.€ÌÌà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€during€deliberations,€the€jury€advised€the€bailiffÏthat€it€had€a€legal€question€for€the€court.€€When€the€bailiff€was€asked€whether€oneÏjuror€could€go€in€and€ask€the€court€the€question,€the€bailiff€responded€that€all€ofÐ p(  Ðthe€jurors€must€go€into€open€court€to€ask€the€question.€€The€bailiff€was€then€askedÏwhat€would€happen€if€the€jury€could€not€agree€on€a€verdict,€and€the€bailiffÏresponded€that€there€was€a€possibility€that€the€jury€could€be€sequesteredÏovernight.€€The€bailiff€then€left€to€inform€the€court€that€the€jury€had€a€question.€ÏFive€minutes€later€when€the€bailiff€had€gathered€the€jury€into€the€court€room,€theÏjury€informed€the€court€that€it€had€reached€a€verdict.€ÌÌà ` àIn€its€order€denying€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€trial€court€found€thatÏalthough€the€bailiffððs€comment€was€improper,€the€error€was€harmless.€€The€trialÏcourt€based€this€determination€on€its€findings€of€fact€that€the€jury€had€only€beenÏdeliberating€for€forty„five€minutes€when€the€comment€was€made,€that€theÏcomment€was€made€one€and€one„half€hours€before€the€courtððs€usual€adjournmentÏtime,€and€that€the€jury€already€knew€that€it€could€be€sequestered€before€the€bailiffÏmade€the€comment.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€verdict€was€not€made€inÏresponse€to€any€apprehension€of€overnight€sequestration.€ÌÌà ` àWe€agree€with€Appellant€that€the€bailiff€should€not€have€made€theÏcomment.€€However,€we€conclude€that€it€was€harmless€error.€€In€òòState€v.€HowardÐ P*ð " ÐBarnwellóó,€No.€935,€1986€WL€4491€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€April€14,€1986),€theÐ @,à"$ Ðdefendant€alleged€that€the€trial€court€improperly€influenced€the€jury€and€coercedÏthe€jury€into€reaching€a€verdict€when€the€court€informed€the€jury€that€if€it€could€notÏreach€a€verdict,€it€would€be€sequestered€until€the€next€day.€€The€defendantÏcontended€that€because€the€jury€returned€with€a€verdict€only€forty„five€minutesÏlater,€the€verdict€had€been€coerced.€€This€Court€rejected€the€defendantððsÏargument€and€held€that€the€verdict€was€not€forced€by€threats€or€coercion.€€òòId.óó€atÐ à7€.0 Ð*8.€€This€Court€concluded€that€the€trial€courtððs€comment€was€ð ðmerely€a€commentÐ Ð9p02 Ðupon€the€schedule€for€deliberations,€not€coercion€to€influence€a€hung€jury.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ð `  ÐThis€Court€noted€that€there€was€no€evidence€that€the€jury€had€reached€anÏimpasse€and€could€not€agree€on€a€verdict€before€the€trial€court€made€theÏcomment.€€òòId.óóÐ 0Ð ÐÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€in€this€case,€as€in€òòBarnwellóó,€the€verdict€was€not€coercedÐ °  Ðby€a€comment€about€possible€sequestration.€€Nothing€in€the€record€indicates€thatÏthe€jury€had€reached€an€impasse€and€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€factÏthat€the€jury€had€only€been€deliberating€for€a€relatively€short€time€supports€theÏinference€that€they€had€not€reached€an€impasse.€€Further,€contrary€to€AppellantððsÏassertion,€there€is€absolutely€nothing€in€the€record€that€indicates€that€the€jury€wasÏevenly€divided,€or€even€divided€at€all,€when€the€bailiff€made€the€comment.€€Finally,Ïthe€fact€that€the€jury€already€knew€about€the€possibility€of€sequestration€and€thatÏthey€jury€reached€a€verdict€one€and€one„half€hours€before€deliberations€wouldÏhave€been€adjourned€indicates€that€the€verdict€was€not€reached€in€response€toÏthe€comment€about€sequestration.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€bailiffððs€commentÏwas€harmless€error.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ð `(  ÐÌà@#®àò òIV.€€LENGTH€OF€SENTENCEó óˆÐ @,à"$ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€imposed€a€longerÏsentence€than€he€deserves.€ÌÌà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€the€offense€in€this€case€occurred€on€October€4,€1989,Ïbefore€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€went€into€effect€on€November€1,€1989.€€However,ÏAppellant€was€tried€and€sentenced€after€the€effective€date€of€the€Act€onÐ à9€02 ÐSeptember€25,€1990.€€Thus,€ð ðthe€trial€court€was€required€to€calculate€the€properÏsentence€under€both€the€1982€and€the€1989€sentencing€acts€and€then€impose€theÏleast€severe€sentence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Caricoóó,€968€S.W.2d€280,€286€(Tenn.€1998).€Ð @ à ÐUnder€the€1982€Sentencing€Act,€the€sentence€for€a€Range€I€offender€convictedÏof€voluntary€manslaughter€was€between€two€and€six€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÏ39„2„222,€40„35„109(a)€(1982).€€Under€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€the€pre„1989Ïversion€of€voluntary€manslaughter€is€considered€to€be€a€Class€C€felony.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„118€(1989).€€The€sentence€for€a€Range€I€offender€convictedÏof€a€Class€C€felony€is€between€three€and€six€years.€€Tenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„¼112(a)(3)€(1989).€€ÌÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€sentencing€hearing€becauseÏthe€record€does€not€indicate€whether€the€trial€court€sentenced€him€under€the€1982Ïor€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€does€not€indicate€what€enhancement€or€mitigatingÏfactors€the€court€applied€to€his€sentence.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€Appellant€had€the€duty€toÐ €$  Ðprepare€a€record€which€conveys€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€whatÏtranspired€in€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€the€issues€which€form€the€basis€of€hisÏappeal.€€òòState€v.€Gibsonóó,€973€S.W.2d€231,€244€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòStateÐ P*ð " Ðv.€Griffisóó;€964€S.W.2d€577,€592€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891Ð @,à"$ ÐS.W.2d€922,€932€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€When€the€record€is€incomplete,€orÏdoes€not€contain€the€proceedings€relevant€to€an€issue,€this€Court€is€precludedÏfrom€considering€the€issue.€€òòGibsonóó,€973€S.W.2d€at€244;€òòGriffisóó;€964€S.W.2d€atÐ 2°(* Ð592ð!ð93;€òòSmithóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€932.€€Furthermore,€this€Court€must€conclusivelyÐ 4 *, Ðpresume€that€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€all€particulars.€€òòGibsonóó,Ð `  Ð973€S.W.2d€at€244;€òòSmithóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€932.€€In€this€case,€Appellant€has€failedÐ P ð Ðto€fulfill€his€duty€of€preparing€a€record€that€is€a€fair,€accurate€and€completeÏaccount€of€what€transpired€in€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€sentencing.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р0Ð ÐTherefore,€this€Court€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€a€five€yearÏsentence€was€correct.€€òòSeeóó€òòGibsonóó,€973€S.W.2d€at€244;€òòSmithóó,€891€S.W.2d€atÐ °  Ð932.€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@&&#®àò òV.€€DENIAL€OF€PROBATIONó óˆÐ à€ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€imposeÏprobation.׃6 ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À` ÐÌà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€Appellant€was€eligible€for€probation€under€the€1982ÏSentencing€Act€because€he€received€a€sentence€of€ten€years€or€less€and€he€wasÏnot€convicted€of€certain€enumerated€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð €&  Ð303(a)€(1982).€€Appellant€was€also€eligible€for€probation€under€the€1989ÏSentencing€Act€because€he€received€a€sentence€of€eight€years€or€less€and€heÐ `*!" Ðwas€not€convicted€of€certain€enumerated€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð `  Ð35„303(a)€(1989).€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€was€required€to€consider€probationÏas€an€alternative€to€confinement€under€both€the€1982€and€1989€Sentencing€Acts.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„303(b)€(1982),€40„35„303(b)€(1989).Ð 0Ð ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€sentencing€hearing€becauseÏthe€record€does€not€indicate€whether€the€trial€court€considered€probation€and€ifÏit€did,€what€factors€it€relied€on€in€denying€probation.€€However,€as€previouslyÏstated,€Appellant€had€the€duty€to€prepare€a€record€which€conveys€a€fair,€accurateÏand€complete€account€of€what€transpired€in€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€theÏissues€on€appeal.€€òòGibsonóó,€973€S.W.2d€at€244;€òòGriffisóó;€964€S.W.2d€at€592;€òòSmithóó,Ð À` Ð891€S.W.2d€at€932.€€Because€Appellant€has€failed€to€fulfil€this€duty,€this€Court€isÏprecluded€from€considering€this€issue€and€we€must€conclusively€presume€that€theÏtrial€court€properly€denied€probation.€€òòSeeóó€òòGibsonóó,€973€S.W.2d€at€244;€òòSmithóó,€891Ð "0 ÐS.W.2d€at€932.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ñ9ññ7ñÔ#†X \ XX X;+#Ôñ7ññ9ññ:ññ7ñÔ#†Š±cŠ XX \ø #Ôñ7ññ:ñÌÌñDñà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àÌÌÌÌñDñÓ  ÓñDñà ` àÌÌÌñDñÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE