ÿWPC+! …# VU>a %Ÿ 0ñ¥U:– w@Ð 4 $ 053 0Dh ¬ ´ 0Jº 0T 0^X 0h¶ 0r 0| 0†  0’ 1u" 0d— BûU6U *NB)xDC¡ D3ä AM‘d 0@õ5v~5vÓ³ AO†ÆÕ 0D› D/ß B!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <@ˆÐ9Z &Courier RegularX(ÉÞÍ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€XíèXXXÔÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular 9:;D<=>?@DAÓ€M»{s 3|xM(å(31$¤¤Ý ƒÞÍ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€X ûXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóHm2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ‡Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÔ€'ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ31,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò öÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÔ€'ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓIt€is€unclear€whether€the€trial€court€actually€used€this€factor€to€enhance€theÏsentence.€€The€trial€judge€determined€that€the€ð ðdefendant€had€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime,€and€the€risk€to€human€life€was€there.€€Of€course,€thatððs€there,€butÏit€is€always€there.ðð€€The€trial€judge€clearly€found€the€presence€of€this€factor,€but€it€isÏunclear€whether€he€used€to€factor€to€increase€the€sentence.€€€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÔ€'ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ý›œ›à@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÙ€€ÙœßL€+,);+'h|e0` ´- `€€Lß›à@ àòòAT€JACKSON€óóÌà@ àFEBRUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€œ02C01›„9503„CC„00095€Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà à*à àMADISONÏCOUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€John€FranklinÏMurchison,€JudgeÌÓÓJAMES€CECIL€œSELLERS,›à àà à*à à(Agg.€Assault,€Esp.ÏAgg.€œKidnapping,›€Agg.€à àà àà àà àà àà àÏBurglary,€Poss.€Deadly€Weapon)ÌÓÓà àAppellant.à àà àà à*ÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÓÓGeorge€Morton€œGooge›à àà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏœBurson›ÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏœGeneral€&€Reporter›Ìœ26th›€€Judicial€DistrictÌœ(on€appeal)›à àà àà àà àà àà àChristina€S.ÏœShevalier›Ìœà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€GeneralÌPamela›€J.€œDrewery›à àà àà àà àà àœ450€James€Robertson€Parkway›ÌœAsst›.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àœNashville,€TN€€37243„0493›Ì227€W.€Baltimore€Streetà àà àà àà àÌJackson,€TN€œ€38301à àà àà àà àDon€Allen›Ìœ(on€appeal€and€at€trial)›à àà àà àà àœAsst.€District€Attorney€General›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœP.O.€Box€2825›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœJackson,›€TN€œ€38301›ÌÌÌÌœÌOPINION›€FILED€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌœÌAFFIRMED›€AS€MODIFIEDÌÌÌÌœÌGARY›€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ7€%XXdÈXXdæ7ÑÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòò òOPINIONó óóóÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant,€James€Cecil€Sellers,€was€convicted€of€aggravatedÏassault,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€aggravated€burglary,€and€possession€ofÏa€deadly€weapon€during€the€commission€of€an€offense.€€The€trial€court€imposed€theÏfollowing€concurrent€sentences:ÌÓÓà àà àaggravated€assaultà àà à5€yearsà àà àRange€IÌÌà àà àespecially€aggravated€€à à18€yearsà àà àRange€IÌà àà àà àkidnappingÌÌà àà àaggravated€burglaryà à6€yearsà àà àRange€IÌÌà àà àpossession€of€a€deadlyà à2€yearsà àà àRange€IÌà àà àà àweapon€during€Ìà àà àà àcommission€of€Ìà àà àà àan€offenseÓÓÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issuesÏfor€review:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€evidence€ofÏprior€domestic€disputes€between€the€victim€and€theÏdefendant;ÌÌ(2)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€as€rebuttalÏa€tape€recording€of€a€telephone€call€the€victim€made€toÏpolice;ÌÌ(3)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€a€motion€toÏstrike€a€juror€for€cause;ÌÌœ(4)›€œwhether€the€weapon€count€should€merge€with€theÏconviction€for€aggravated€assault;›ÌÌœ(5)›€œwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€chargeÏkidnapping€as€a€lesser€included€offense;€and›ÌÌ(6)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€the€imposition€ofÏsentence.Ì€Ò 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓIn€our€view,€the€weapon€count€should€merge€with€the€conviction€for€aggravatedÏassault;€the€sentence€for€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€is€modified€to€sixteenÏyears.€€Otherwise,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€and€his€wife,€Kelly€Lynn€Sellers,€were€married€on€JuneÏ16,€1993.€€Soon€afterwards,€problems€arose.€€According€to€the€victim,€Ms.€Sellers,Ïthe€defendant€ð ðjust€liked€to€beat€on€me€[and]€would€come€in€from€work€in€a€badÏmood€and€take€it€out€on€me.ðð€€ÌÌà àà àMs.€Sellers€testified€that€in€mid„July€of€1993€the€defendant€pinned€herÏagainst€a€bathtub€and€kicked€her€in€the€head€while€wearing€cowboy€boots,€beatingÏher€for€about€ð ð20€minutes.ðð€€The€victim€suffered€a€displaced€jaw,€several€bruises,Ïand€a€ð ðbustedðð€lip.€€€€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àThe€victim€then€described€the€events€occurring€on€July€28€of€the€sameÏyear.€€She€testified€that€the€defendant€struck€her€across€the€face€with€a€telephone.€ÏWhile€the€victim€reported€the€incident€to€œsheriffððs›€deputies€who€helped€her€move€herÍbelongings€into€her€œparentsðð›€residence,€the€victim€did€not€immediately€swear€out€aÏwarrant.€€The€defendant€followed€the€victim€to€her€parentsðð€house,€insisted€that€sheÏreturn,€and€threatened€to€kill€the€victim€and€her€father.€€After€his€departure,€theÏvictim€signed€an€arrest€warrant.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€next€day,€œboth€the›€victim€and€her€father€sought€orders€ofÏprotection.€€In€the€early€morning€hours€of€August€2,€1993,€the€defendant€went€to€theÏvictimððs€œparentsðð›€house€and€hid€in€the€utility€room€near€the€carport.€€When€theÏvictimððs€father€and€mother€both€left€for€work€at€about€7:00€a.m.,€the€defendant€brokeÏinto€the€house.€€Carrying€a€.20€shotgun,€he€said€to€the€victim,€ð ðI€come€to€kill€you€andÏme.ðð€€When€the€victim€asked€how€he€gained€entrance€to€the€house,€the€defendantÏreplied€that€he€broke€the€glass€in€the€door€and€unlocked€it€from€the€outside.€€HeÏinformed€the€victim€that€he€had€cut€the€phone€lines.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€ordered€the€victim€to€get€dressed€and€threatened€to€killÏher€five„year€old€daughter,€who€was€present.€€He€then€directed€the€two€to€theÏvictimððs€car,€drove€the€child€to€his€sisterððs€œhouse,›€and€then€transported€the€victimÏœsouthward›€toward€the€Alabama€state€line.€€Although€the€victim€was€allowed€to€mailÏa€hospital€bill,€she€testified€that€she€was€unable€to€escape.€€Eventually,€sheÏconvinced€the€defendant€to€let€her€check€on€her€daughter.€€When€they€stopped€atÍCox€Bar„b„œque›,€the€victim€informed€the€cashier€that€she€had€been€kidnapped.€€SheÏthen€called€the€Madison€County€Sheriffððs€department€and€spoke€with€OfficerÏFitzgerald,€who€stayed€on€the€phone€until€another€officer€arrived€at€the€scene.€ÏMeanwhile,€the€defendant,€who€tried€and€failed€to€get€the€victim€off€the€phone,Ïdrove€away€in€the€victimððs€car.€€The€episode€lasted€approximately€two€to€threeÏhours.€€Soon€after€this€incident,€the€victim€filed€a€divorce€petition;€she€included€a€tortÏclaim€and€sought€money€damages.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€victimððs€father,€Jackie€Attaway,€corroborated€much€of€the€victimððsÏtestimony.€€He€admitted€that€he€had€not€approved€of€his€daughterððs€marriage€to€theÏdefendant.€€ÌÌà àà àElizabeth€Attaway,€the€defendantððs€sister,€and€the€wife€of€the€victimððsÏbrother,€testified€that€she€had€previously€heard€her€brother€threaten€to€kill€JackieÏAttaway.€€She€described€the€threat€as€a€ð ðfigure€of€speech.ðð€€ÌÌà àà àœLandis›€Wilkes,€a€retired€œstate›€œtrooper,›€related€that€he€was€the€firstÏofficer€to€arrive€at€the€œbarbecue€restautant.›€€He€described€the€victim€as€ð ðgoing€into€aÏstate€of€shock.ðð€€Russell€Lambert,€who€lives€about€one€mile€from€Cox€Bar„b„que,€Ïtestified€that€he€found€parts€of€a€gun€near€his€house€and€notified€authorities.€€InÍearlier€testimony,€the€victim€identified€the€parts€of€the€gun€as€being€the€gun€theÏdefendant€used€to€threaten€her.€ÌÌà àà àJudy€Clite,€the€defendantððs€mother,€testified€for€the€defendant.€€SheÏrelated€that€the€defendant€had€advised€her€that€the€source€of€their€marital€strife€wasÏthat€the€victim€had€ð ðslept€with€two€Mexicans€...€just€before€they€were€married€....ðð€ÏShe€also€acknowledged€that€her€family€and€the€victimððs€family€were€on€veryÏunfriendly€terms.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€and€the€victim€fought€continuously€afterÏtheir€marriage.€€He€reiterated€the€claim€that€a€major€source€of€their€conflict€was€thatÏthe€victim€had€previously€had€sexual€relations€with€ð ðtwo€œMexicans.ðð€›€He€contendedÏthat€the€victim€had€a€temper€and€ð ðdid€stuff€to€me€as€much€as€I€have€her.ðð€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€admitted€going€to€the€victimððs€parentsðð€house€on€theÏday€of€the€assault.€€His€version€of€the€events,€however,€œdiffered›€dramatically€fromÏthat€of€the€victim.€€First,€he€claimed€his€visit€was€an€attempt€to€reconcile.€€HeÏexplained€that€he€took€the€shotgun€for€protection€from€the€victimððs€father,€who€œhad›Ïnever€liked€him€and€œhad›€made€death€threats€against€him.€€The€defendant€insistedÏthat€the€gun€was€unloaded,€although€the€victim€never€knew€that.€€He€testified€thatÍhe€never€meant€to€harm€anyone.€€He€denied€that€he€cut€the€phone€lines€andÏasserted€that€the€glass€in€the€door€broke€when€the€door€slammed€as€he€left€theÏresidence€with€the€victim.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€maintained€that€the€victim€invited€him€into€the€AttawayÏresidence.€€He€contended€that€he€later€left€the€victim€at€Cox€Bar„b„que€at€herÏinsistence.€€He€claimed€that€the€reason€the€victim€was€upset€at€the€end€of€their€roadÏtrip€was€that€they€were€arguing€about€the€defendantððs€former€girlfriend.€€HeÏotherwise€described€the€morningððs€events€as€without€incident„„€ð ðjust€driving€around,Ïtalking„„no€problems€at€all.ðð€€He€conceded€that€€he€had€thrown€the€gun€away€butÏclaimed€that€he€had€done€so€only€because€he€knew€the€victim€would€ð ðcall€the€lawÏon€[him].ðð€ÌÌà àà àIn€rebuttal,€the€state€played€the€tape€recorded€telephone€complaintÏthe€victim€made€to€the€officer€on€duty.€€The€trial€judge€allowed€the€introduction€of€the€Ïtape€into€evidence€to€rebut€the€defendantððs€contentions€that€the€victim€told€him€toÏleave€her€there€and€that€œthe›€only€reason€the€victim€was€upset€was€because€of€anÏargument€over€a€former€girlfriend.€€Nothing€on€the€tape€recording€indicated€that€theÏvictim€asked€to€be€left€at€the€barbecue€restaurant.ÌÌÓ  ÓIÌÓ  Óà àà àInitially,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admittingÏevidence€of€his€prior€domestic€disputes€with€the€victim.€€Specifically€he€argues€thatÏevidence€of€prior€incidents€of€violence€occurring€the€few€weeks€and€days€before€theÏkidnapping€should€have€been€excluded.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€state€submits€that€the€issue€has€been€waived€by€the€defendantððsÏfailure€to€request€a€jury„out€hearing,€as€required€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b),€€andÏby€œfailure›€to€include€the€issue€as€a€ground€for€relief€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€In€our€view,€the€waiver€rule€applies.€€The€ground€shouldÏhave€been€presented€in€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Had€the€issue€been€properlyÏpreserved,€however,€we€would€have€likely€found€for€the€state€as€to€the€secondÏincident€of€abuse.ÌÌà àà àRule€œ401,›€œTenn.›€œR.›€œEvid.,›€defines€relevant€evidence€as€that€ð ðhavingÏany€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€theÏdetermination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€withoutÏthe€evidence.ðð€€Rule€402€declares€that€ð ðall€relevant€evidence€is€admissible,ðð€unlessÏspecifically€excepted,€and€that€ð ð[e]vidence€which€is€not€relevant€is€inadmissible.ðð€ÍThe€procedure€for€determining€whether€prior€misconduct€is€admissible,€even€whenÏrelevant,€is€found€in€Tenn.€R.€œEvid.›€404(b):€€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€notÏadmissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€toÏshow€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait.€€It€may,Ïhowever,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.€€TheÏconditions€which€must€be€satisfied€before€allowing€suchÏevidence€are:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(1)€€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearingÏoutside€the€jury's€presence;ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(2)€€The€court€must€determine€that€a€materialÏissue€exists€other€than€conduct€conforming€with€aÏcharacter€trait€and€must€upon€request€state€on€the€recordÏthe€material€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€forÏadmitting€the€evidence;€andÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(3)€€The€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€itsÏprobative€value€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àGenerally,€this€rule€is€one€of€exclusion.€€As€stated,€there€areÏexceptions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1985);€òòBunch€v.€Stateóó,Ï605€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€1980);€òòCarroll€v.€Stateóó,€212€Tenn.€464,€370€S.W.2d€523Ï(1963);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824€(Tenn.€œ1994)€(favorably›€citingÏboth€òòPartonóó€and€òòBunchóó).€€Most€authorities€suggest€that€trial€courts€take€a€"restrictiveÏapproach€œto›€404(b)€...€because€'other€act'€evidence€carries€a€significant€potential€forÏunfairly€influencing€a€jury."€€òòSeeóó€Cohen,€Paine€and€Sheppeard,€òòTennessee€Law€ofÍEvidenceóó,€ðð€404.7€at€131.€€That€perhaps€best€explains€the€traditional€posture€of€theÏcourts€that€any€testimony€of€prior€bad€acts€by€a€defendant,€when€used€asÏsubstantive€evidence€of€guilt€of€the€crime€on€trial,€is€not€usually€permissible.€ÏòòPartonóó,€694€S.W.2d€at€302„03.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€exceptions€to€the€rule€are€when€the€evidence€is€offered€to€proveÏthe€motive€of€the€defendant,€his€identity,€his€intent,€the€absence€of€mistake,Ïopportunity,€or€as€a€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan.€€òòBunchóó,€605€S.W.2d€at€229.€ÏOur€supreme€court€recently€spoke€on€the€procedure€used€to€determine€whether€aÏprior€crime€or€bad€act€fell€within€an€exception€to€the€rule:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[I]f€evidence€that€the€defendant€has€committed€a€crimeÏseparate€and€distinct€from€the€one€on€trial€is€relevant€toÏsome€matter€actually€in€issue€in€the€case€on€trial,€and€ifÏits€probative€value€as€evidence€is€not€outweighed€by€itsÏprejudicial€effect€upon€the€defendant,€then€suchÏevidence€may€be€properly€admitted.ÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€254€(Tenn.€œ1993)€(citing›€òòBunchóó,€605€S.W.2d€atÏ229),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€510€U.S.€1215€(1994).€€In€òòHowellóó,€the€court€applied€theÏbalancing€test€to€determine€whether€prior€convictions€for€other€crimes€wereÏadmissible,€as€an€exception€to€the€general€rule,€for€purposes€other€than€theÏcharacter€of€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€808€(Tenn.Í1985),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€478€U.S.€1010€(1986);€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€669€S.W.2d€694€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1983).€Ô€&ÔÌÌÔ€'Ôà àà àIn€our€view,€this€evidence€was€intended€to€show€the€defendantððsÏmotive€for€the€crime.€€Here,€the€incidents€of€prior€domestic€violence€qualifiedÏperhaps€as€a€reason€for€the€kidnapping.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€evidence€alsoÏshowed€the€defendant€had€a€history€of€attempting€to€control€and€dominate€his€wife.€ÏIn€that€regard,€the€prior€bad€acts€established€propensity„„usually€a€significantÏprejudicial€effect€worth€avoiding.€€In€either€event,€however,€the€evidence,Ïparticularly€the€second€altercation,€showed€that€the€victim€would€have€had€littleÏreason€to€voluntarily€travel€with€the€defendant.€€The€July€œ28›€incident€was€especiallyÏprobative€because€of€its€temporal€relationship€to€the€crimes.€€That€the€victim€hadÏsworn€out€a€warrant€against€the€defendant€may€have€served€as€the€chief€motivationÏfor€his€subsequent€criminal€conduct.€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€did€not€make€an€explicit€finding€that€the€probative€valueÏoutweighed€the€prejudicial€effect.€€There€was,€however,€a€sidebar€conference.€ÏThus,€the€ruling€in€favor€of€the€state€was€implicit.€€In€our€view,€this€was€substantialÏcompliance€with€the€procedures€set€out€in€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€Because€theÍprobative€value€of€the€testimony€on€prior€incidents€outweighed€any€prejudicialÏeffect,€the€trial€court€properly€admitted€evidence€of€the€July€œ28›€incident.Ìà àà àÓ  ÓII€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÓ  Óà àà àNext,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€theÏtape€recorded€telephone€call€the€victim€made€to€police€as€rebuttal€evidence.€€TheÏdefendant€first€argues€the€œviolation€of›€Rule€œ16,€Tenn.›€œR.€Crim.›€œP.,€mandatesÏexclusion;›€his€second€argument€is€that€the€evidence€was€not€rebuttal,€but€was€Ïcase„in„chief€evidence.€€œWe€cannot€agree€with€either€contention.›€€ÌÌà àà àDefense€counsel€did€not€learn€of€the€tape€until€œthe›€state€attempted€toÏœintroduce€it›€as€part€of€the€œcase€in€chief.›€€The€trial€court€originally€denied€œtheÏadmission›€of€the€tape€based€upon€a€violation€of€Rule€œ16.›€€The€court€did,€however,Ïreserve€ruling€on€whether€the€tape€could€be€played€œduring›€œrebuttal.€€At€theÏconclusion€of€the€defense€proof,€the€trial€court€ruled€the€tape€admissible€to€rebut€theÏdefendantððs€version€of€events.›ÌÌà àà àœRule€16,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€provides€for€limited€pretrial€discovery.€ÏDiscovery€of€the€defendantððs€statements,€his€prior€record,€documents€and€tangibleÏobjects,€and€reports€of€tests€and€examinations€are€all€permitted.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï16€(a)(1).€€Statements€made€by€state€witnesses,€however,€are€explicitly€excludedÍfrom€discovery.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(2).€€An€interesting€question€arises€as€toÏwhether€a€911€tape€is€more€appropriately€described€as€a€tangible€object€and,Ïtherefore€discoverable€pretrial,€or€as€a€statement€by€a€state€witness€and,€therefore,Ïnot€discoverable€before€trial.ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€the€tape€is€better€characterized€as€a€tangible€object.€ÏSubpart(a)(2)€of€the€rule€excludes€statements€by€state€witnesses.€€The€CommitteeÏComment€is€that€discovery€of€such€statements€is€governed€by€Rule€26.2(g),€Tenn.ÏR.€Crim.€P.€€The€rule€defines€ð ðstatementðð€as€follows:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€a€written€statement€made€by€the€witness€that€isÏsigned€or€otherwise€adopted€or€approved€by€theÏwitness;€ÌÌorÌÌ(2)€a€substantially€verbatim€recital€of€an€oral€statementÏmade€by€the€witness€that€is€recordedÏcontemporaneously€with€the€making€of€the€oralÏstatement€and€that€is€contained€in€a€stenographic,Ïmechanical,€electrical,€or€other€recording€or€aÏtranscription€thereof.€Ò 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€26.2(g).à à€The€tape€is€clearly€not€a€written€statement.€€Also,€it€is€notÏa€ð ðrecital€of€an€oral€statement.ðð€€A€ð ðrecitalðð€is€ð ða€telling€in€detail[;]€...€the€account,Ïstory,€etc.€told.ðð€€òòWebsterððs€New€World€Dictionaryóó€(1976).€€The€tape€is€not€a€ð ðtellingÏin€detailðð€or€accounting€of€a€911€call.€€It€is€an€exact€duplication€of€the€conversation.ÌÌà àà àCase€law€also€supports€treating€the€cassette€tape€as€a€tangible€object.€ÏIn€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€736€S.W.2d€125€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987),€€this€court€reviewedÏthe€discoverability€of€audio€tapes€of€conversations€between€the€defendant€and€anÏinformant.€€òòIdóó.€at€131.€€The€court€treated€the€tapes€as€tangible€objects€and€found€theÏdefendant€was€not€entitled€to€discover€the€tapes€because€they€were€not€ð ðmaterialððÏand€were€not€ð ðintended€for€use€by€the€State€as€evidence€in€chief.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€132;€òòseeóóÏòòalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(C).€€It€is€important€to€note€the€court€did€not€treat€theÏtapes€as€a€statement€of€the€defendant€and€provide€it€was€discoverable€under€Tenn.ÏR.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(A);€that€provision€allows€the€defendant€to€discover€ð ðanyÏrelevant€written€or€recorded€statements€made€by€the€defendant€....ðð€€òòIdóó.€€If€aÏrecording€of€a€conversation€in€which€the€defendant€participates€is€not€a€defendantððsÏstatement,€a€recording€of€a€conversation€in€which€a€stateððs€witness€participatesÏlikewise€cannot€be€a€statement.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€the€tape€should€not€have€been€allowedÏbecause€of€the€Rule€16€violation.€€The€state€submits€that€Rule€16€only€applies€toÏevidence€used€in€the€case€in€chief.€€In€our€view,€a€Rule€16€violation€does€notÏrequire€the€exclusion€of€evidence€in€every€case.€€The€rule€does,€however,€requireÏthe€state€to€provide€the€defendant€with€any€necessary€items€for€the€defenseÍpreparation€and€provides€procedures€should€the€state€fail€to€do€so.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.€16(a)(1)(C)€and€(d)(2).ÌÌà àà àThe€rule€contains€the€following€language:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓUpon€request€of€the€defendant,€the€State€shall€permit€theÏdefendant€to€inspect€and€copy€or€photograph€books,Ïpapers,€documents,€photographs,€tangible€objects,Ïbuildings,€or€places,€or€copies€or€portions€thereof,€whichÏare€within€the€possession,€custody€or€control€of€theÏState,€and€òòwhich€are€material€to€the€preparations€of€theÏdefense€oróó€are€intended€for€use€by€the€State€asÏevidence€in€chief€at€trial.ÌÌÓ  Ó***ÌÓ  ÓÌIf€at€any€time€during€the€course€of€the€proceedings€it€isÏbrought€to€the€attention€of€the€court€that€a€party€hasÏfailed€to€comply€with€this€rule,€the€court€òòmayóó€...€prohibitÏthe€party€from€introducing€evidence€not€disclosed.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(C)€and€(d)(2)€(emphasis€added).€€Even€though€there€wasÏa€Rule€16€violation,€whether€to€admit€the€evidence€was€a€discretionary€call€for€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€tape€did€not€qualify€as€rebuttalÏevidence.€€The€state€argued€the€recorded€conversation€on€the€tape€would€rebut€theÏdefendantððs€contention€that€the€victim€told€him€to€leave€her€at€the€barbecueÍrestaurant,€reasoning€that›€if€the€victim€had,€in€fact,€asked€the€defendant€to€leaveÏher,€the€recording€would€have€contained€that€œstatement.€€The›€trial€court€made€theÏfollowing€œcomment€about€the€tape:›ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓœWell,€she€[the€victim]€has€testified.€€It€is€not€anythingÏnew....€€No.€€There€is€not€anything€new,€but€he€[theÏdefendant]€said€that€it€didnððt€occur....€€Well,€this€tape€isÏjust,€in€the€opinion€of€the€Court,€very€inconsistent€withÏthe€testimony€that€he€has€given.›ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àRebuttal€evidence,€defined€as€that€ð ðwhich€tends€to€explain€orÏcontrovert€evidence€produced€by€an€adverse€party,ðð€is€admissible€within€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòœCozzolino›€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€765,€768€(Tenn.€œ1979);›ÏòòState€v.€œYarbro›óó,€618€S.W.2d€521,€525€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€€ð ðWhetherÏ[evidence]€is€rebuttal€[evidence]€is€not€determined€by€the€order€in€which€[it€isÏpresented].€€This€determination€is€based€upon€the€content€of€the€evidence€œoffered.ðð›€ÏòòState€v.€Westóó,€825€S.W.2d€695,€698€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€ð ðThe€rationale€behindÏ[the€rule]€is€ðð[œs]ince›€the€state€does€not€and€cannot€know€what€evidence€the€defenseÏwill€use€until€it€is€presented€at€trial,€the€state€is€given€the€right€of€rebuttal.ðððð€€òòState€v.ÏCyrus€œDeville›€Wilsonóó,€slip€op.€at€9,€No.€œ01C01›„9408„CR„00266€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ïat€Nashville,€November€15,€œ1995)€(quoting›€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€445€So.œ2d›€1171,Ï1181€(La.€1984)),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(1996).€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà à€€The€scope€of€rebuttal€testimony€usually€lies€within€the€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€òòœBeasley›€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€820,€824€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€ð ð[œI]t›Ïis€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€to€permit€the€state,€in€a€criminal€case,€toÏintroduce€testimony€in€rebuttal€which€should€have€been€introduced€in€chief.ðð€€òòStateÏv.€Cyrus€œDeville›€œWilsonóó,€slip€op.›€at€9,€œ(citing›€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€469€S.W.2d€529,€530Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971)).€€€ÌÌà àà àAs€observed€by€the€trial€judge,€the€tape€adds€little€to€œthe›€œvictim'sÏprevious€testimonyÔ% € Ô.€€The€tape€recorded€the€victimððs€assertion€that€she€had€beenÏkidnapped€by€her€husband,€that€he€had€a€gun,€and€that€he€had€threatened€to€killÏher.€€The€victim€sobbed€throughout€most€of€the€tape€and€repeatedly€asked€theÏofficer€to€help€her.€€She€also€asked€about€the€safety€of€her€child.€€€At€no€point€did€theÏtape€suggest€the€victim€had€asked€the€defendant€to€leave€her€at€the€restaurant.€ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€the€evidence€qualified€as€rebuttal,€at€least€in€the€broaderÏsense.€€The€content€of€the€tape€conflicts€with€the€defendantððs€version€of€events.€€WeÏacknowledge€that€there€is€often€a€thin€line€between€bolstering€testimony€from€theÏcase€in€chief€and€rebutting€the€defendantððs€testimony.€€That€is€likely€the€case€here.€ÏYet€the€defendant€has€not€shown€the€trial€court€had€abused€its€discretion€inÏallowing€the€evidence.€ÌÌÓ  ÓIII€€ÌÓ  Óà àà àNext,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€hisÏmotion€to€strike€a€juror€for€cause.€€During€voir€dire,€defense€counsel€learned€thatÏJamie€Darrel€King,€a€member€of€the€jury€pool,€attended€the€same€church€as€theÏprosecuting€assistant€district€attorney€and€coached€his›€step„daughter€in€churchÏbasketball.€€King€testified€that€he€could€be€fair€and€impartial€and€would€not€beÏinfluenced€by€this€relationship.€€When€counsel€for€the€defense€sought€to€have€KingÏremoved€for€cause,€the€trial€judge€denied€the€motion,€finding€King€to€ð ðbe€a€man€ofÏsufficient€integrity€that€he€wouldnððt€decide€a€case€in€favor€of€[the€prosecutor]Ïbecause€he€knows€[him].ðð€ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€defendant€argues€that€because€of€the€personalÏrelationship€between€the€juror€and€the€prosecutor,€the€juror€ð ðcould€not€help€butÏhave€some€built€in€bias€toward€the€prosecutor,€however€unconscious€on€the€part€ofÏ[the€juror].ðð€€Further,€this€bias€was€prejudicial€because€the€juror€was€eventuallyÏelected€foreman.€€The€state€argues€that€the€defendant€waived€this€issue€becauseÏthe€record€does€not€establish€the€defendant€had€exhausted€his€peremptoryÏchallenges.€€Also,€even€if€the€defendant€had€exhausted€his€peremptory€challenges,Íthere€was€no€error€because€a€trial€courtððs€finding€of€a€juror€to€be€qualified€is€notÏreversible,€unless€there€was€an€abuse€of€discretion.ÌÌà àà àOnly€a€portion€of€voir€dire€is€included€in€the€record.€€In€a€sidebarÏconference,€defense€counsel€claimed€that€he€had€exhausted€his€peremptoryÏchallenges.€€The€portion€of€the€record€which€would€support€that€assertion,€however,Ïis€not€included€in€the€record.€€ð ðIt€is€a€long„settled€principle€that€a€defendant€whoÏdisagrees€with€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€for€cause€challenges€must,€in€order€toÏpreserve€the€claim€that€the€ruling€deprived€him€of€a€fair€trial,€exercise€peremptoryÏchallenges€to€remove€the€jurors.ðð€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€248€(Tenn.Ï1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€510€U.S.€1215€(1994).€€€We€will€nevertheless€address€theÏissue.ÌÌà àà àArt€œI.›€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€assures€the€accused€in€aÏcriminal€prosecution€ð ðthe€right,€among€other€rights,€to€a€speedy€public€trial€...€[by]€anÏimpartial€jury.ðð€€€€ð ð[œT]he›€challenge€for€cause€was€designed€to€exclude€from€the€juryÏœtriers›€whose€bias€or€prejudice€rendered€them€unfit€....ðð€€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€155€Tenn.Ï266,€292€œS.W.›€451,€455€(1927).€€€ð ðThe€qualification€of€a€juror€is€within€the€trialÏjudgeððs€discretion€and€his€finding€a€juror€to€be€qualified€will€not€be€disturbed€onÍreview€except€on€the€clear€showing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.ðð€€òòBurns€v.€Stateóó,€591ÏS.W.2d€780,€782€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).ÌÌà àà àThe€facts€of€this€case€are€similar€to€the€situation€in€òòBowman€v.€Stateóó,Ï598€S.W.2d€œ809›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€In€òòBowmanóó,€the€juror€responded€in€voirÏdire€that€she€personally€knew€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€and€that€theyÏhad€visited€each€other€in€their€homes€several€times€over€the€years.€€òòIdóó.€œat›€812.€€œThe›Ïburden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€the€juror€was€biased€or€prejudiced.€€òòIdóó.€€InÏòòBowmanóó,€the€defendant€presented€no€evidence€that€the€juror€had€been€prejudicedÏor€biased.€€Accordingly,€no€reversible€error€was€found.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àà àThe€record€establishes€that€juror€King€claimed€that€he€could€be€fairÏand€impartial€in€this€case,€despite€his€relationship€with€the€assistant€districtÏattorney.€€Certainly,€the€defendant€has€presented€no€proof€that€the€juror€was€biasedÏor€prejudiced.€€In€our€view,€the€trial€judge€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€refusing€toÏexcuse€King€for€cause.€€œòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó›€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€914„15€(Tenn.Ï1994)(no€error€to€refuse€to€excuse€for€cause€juror€who€stopped€working€for€sheriffððsÏdepartment€only€two€months€before€trial,€where€juror€indicated€he€could€be€fair€andÏimpartial),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€_____€U.S.€_____,€116€œS.Ct›.€99€(1995).€€€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓIVÌÓ  Óà àà àAs€his€fourth€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€weapons€convictionÏshould€have€been€merged€with€the€conviction€for€aggravated€assault.€€The€stateÏconcedes€that€there€cannot€be€separate€offenses€under€these€circumstances.Ô€&ÔÌÌà àà àÔ€'ÔThe€double€jeopardy€clauses€of€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÏœConstitutions›€protect€against€multiple€convictions€or€punishments€for€the€sameÏoffense.€€Multiple€convictions€for€the€same€offense€cannot€stand€unless€the€offensesÏsupporting€the€convictions€are€"wholly€separate€and€distinct."€€òòState€v.€œGoins›óó,€705ÏS.W.2d€648,€650€(Tenn.€1986)(citations€omitted);€òòState€v.€œPelayo›óó,€881€S.W.2d€7,€10Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Double€jeopardy€principles€require€an€analysis€of€theÏfollowing€factors€in€order€to€determine€whether€separate€convictions€can€be€upheldÏfor€offenses€occurring€in€a€related€transaction:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€€whether€the€event€is€a€violation€of€two€distinctÏstatutory€œprovisions;›ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€whether€either€offense€is€necessarily€included€in€theÏœother;›Ìà àÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€whether€the€offenses€require€proof€of€differentÏœelements;›ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€€whether€each€offense€requires€proof€of€additionalÏfacts€not€required€by€the€œother;›€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€€whether€the€legislative€intent€suggests€that€one€orÏseveral€offenses€were€intended.ÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Blackóó,€524€S.W.2d€913,€919„20€(Tenn.€1975);€òòState€v.€œPelayo›óó,€881€S.W.2dÏat€10.€ÌÌà àà àThe€most€relevant€factor€in€this€case€is€ð ðwhether€either€offense€isÏnecessarily€included€in€the€other.ðð€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€524€S.W.2d€at€919.€€ð ðGenerally,Ïan€offense€qualifies€as€a€lesser€included€offense€only€if€the€elements€of€theÏincluded€offense€are€a€subset€of€the€elements€of€the€charged€offense€and€only€if€theÏgreater€offense€cannot€be€committed€without€also€committing€the€lesser€offense.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€310€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòœSchmuck›€v.€United€Stateóó,Ï489€U.S.€705,€716€(1989)).€€In€determining€whether€an€offense€is€necessarilyÏincluded€in€another,€one€must€look€to€the€ð ðððelements€[of€the€offense],€as€thoseÏelements€are€set€forth€in€the€indictment.ðððð€€œòòTrustyóó,›€919€S.W.2d€at€310„311€(citingÏòòHoward€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.2d€83,€85€(Tenn.€1979)).€€€€ÌÔ€&ÔÌÔ€'Ôà àà àPossession€of€a€deadly€weapon€with€intent€to€commit€a€felony€isÏnecessarily€included€in€aggravated€assault,€as€it€is€alleged€in€the€indictment.€€TheÏindictment€alleges,€the€defendant€ð ðdid€...by€displaying€and/or€using€a€deadlyÏweapon,€to€wit:€a€shotgun€...€cause€Kelly€Sellers€to€reasonably€fear€imminent€bodilyÍinjury€....ðð€€Because€the€indictment€charges€the€use€œor›€display€of€a€deadly€weaponÏas€the€only€œaggravator›€for€the€offense,€we€hold€that€the€separate€conviction€forÏpossession€of€a€deadly€weapon€is€barred€by€the€conviction€for€aggravated€assault.€ÏœòòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó›€òòState€v.€Hudsonóó,€562€S.W.2d€416,€417„18€€(Tenn.€1978)€(holdingÏthat€a€conviction€for€using€a€firearms€as€a€means€of€committing€a€felony€was€voidÏwhen€the€accused€was€also€convicted€of€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon€andÏassault€with€attempt€to€commit€murder€in€the€second€degree);€œòòCarr›€v.€Stateóó,€455ÏS.W.2d€619,€620€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1970)€(ð ðthe€conviction€for€carrying€a€weaponÏmust€merge€with€the€greater€offense€of€robbery€by€the€use€of€a€deadly€œweaponðð);›ÏòòState€v.€Mario€Lamont€Wilsonóó,€No.€œ02C01›„9404„CC„00078€(Tenn.€€Crim.€œApp.,›€atÏJackson,€Jan.€18,€1995),€òòœaffððd›óó,€924€S.W.2d€648€(Tenn.€1996)€(reviewing€andÏaffirming€an€unrelated€issue);€œand€òòState›€v.€John€Michael€Dentonóó,€No.€œ01C01›„9310„CC„00345€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€March€30,€1995)€òòperm.€to€œapp›.€grantedóóÏ(1995).€€Ìà àà àÓ  Ó€VÌÓ  Óà àà àAs€his€next€issue,€the€defendant€insists€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusingÏto€charge€kidnapping€as€a€lesser€offense.€€The€defendant€was€indicted€forÏespecially€aggravated€kidnapping;€the€jury€was€so€charged.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„305.€€The€trial€judge€also€instructed€on€aggravated€kidnapping.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„304.€€The€defendant€complains€that€the€evidence€also€warranted€anÍinstruction€on€simple€kidnapping.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„303.€€The€defendantÏargues€the€jury€could€have€found€the€victim€knew€the€gun€was€unloaded€and€thusÏno€deadly€weapon€was€involved.€€In€response,€the€state€submits€that€because€theÏdefendant€admitted€having€a€gun€in€his€possession,€there€was€simply€no€evidenceÏof€anything€less€than€aggravated€kidnapping.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€our€supreme€court€observed€that€ð ðTennessee€lawÏrecognizes€two€types€of€lesser€offenses€...€:€€a€lesser€grade€or€class€of€the€chargedÏoffense€and€a€lesser€included€offense.ðð€€919€S.W.2d€305,€310€(Tenn.€1996).€€TheÏtrial€judge€has€a€statutory€duty€to€charge€the€jury€ð ðon€lesser€grades€or€classes€of€theÏcharged€offense€supported€by€the€evidence.ðð€€òòIdóó.;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110.€ÏThe€trial€judge€also€has€a€duty€grounded€in€case€law€to€instruct€the€jury€on€lesserÏincluded€offenses.€€òòTrustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€311.ÌÌà àà àA€lesser€grade€or€class€of€the€charged€offense€is€determined€byÏreference€to€the€statutory€scheme.€€òòIdóó.€€For€example,€the€varying€grades€or€classesÏof€kidnapping€and€false€imprisonment€crimes€are€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€œðððð›Ï39„13„101€through€œ„106.›ÌÌà àà àThe€other€type€of€lesser€offense€is€one€ð ðnecessarily€included€in€theÏindictment.ðð€€òòTrustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€311.€€In€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€549€S.W.2d€682€(Tenn.Ï1977),€our€supreme€court€outlined€the€test€to€determine€whether€an€offense€isÏlesser€and€included€in€the€greater€offense.€€Quoting€the€late€Justice€œWeldon›€WhiteÏin€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€217€Tenn.€234,€243,€397€S.W.2d€170,€174€(1965),€the€courtÏruled€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€true€test€of€which€is€a€lesser€and€which€is€a€greaterÏcrime€is€whether€the€elements€of€the€former€areÏcompletely€contained€within€the€latter,€so€that€to€proveÏthe€greater€the€State€must€first€prove€the€elements€of€theÏlesser.€€ÌÌòòWright€v.€Stateóó,€549€S.W.2d€at€685„86.€€ÌÌÌÌà àà àTwo€years€later,€the€supreme€court€again€addressed€the€subject:€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àWe€believe€that€the€better€rule,€and€the€one€to€beÏfollowed€henceforth€in€this€State,€is€the€rule€adoptedÏimplicitly€by€this€court€in€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó,€that,€inÏthis€context,€an€offense€is€necessarily€included€inÏanother€if€the€elements€of€the€greater€offense,€as€thoseÏelements€are€set€forth€in€the€indictment,€include,€but€areÏnot€congruent€with,€all€the€elements€of€the€lesser.€€IfÏthere€is€evidence€to€support€a€conviction€for€such€aÏlesser€offense,€it€must€be€charged€by€the€trial€judge.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„2519€[now€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„118(a)];€òòœWhitwell›€v.€Stateóó,€520€S.W.2d€338€(Tenn.€1975).€€ÌÌòòHoward€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.2d€83,€85€(Tenn.€1979).€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà à€€€The€trial€judge€has€a€duty€to€give€a€complete€charge€of€the€lawÏapplicable€to€the€facts€of€the€case.€€òòState€v.€œHarbison›óó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€319€(Tenn.),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó,€476€U.S.€1153€(1986).€€It€is€settled€law€that€when€"there€are€any€factsÏthat€are€susceptible€of€inferring€guilt€of€any€lesser€included€offense€or€offenses,Ïthen€there€is€a€mandatory€duty€upon€the€trial€judge€to€charge€on€such€offense€orÏoffenses.€€Failure€to€do€so€denies€a€defendant€his€constitutional€right€of€trial€by€aÏjury."€€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€618€S.W.2d€310,€315€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€(citationsÏomitted);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110(a).€€When€there€is€a€trial€on€a€single€chargeÏof€a€felony,€there€is€also€a€trial€on€all€lesser€included€offenses,€"as€the€facts€may€be."€ÏòòœStrader›€v.€Stateóó,€210€Tenn.€669,€675,€362€S.W.2d€224,€227€(1962).€€ÌÌà àà àTrial€courts,€however,€are€not€required€to€charge€the€jury€on€a€lesserÏincluded€offense€when€the€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€to€support€an€inference€ofÏguilt€of€the€lesser€offense.€€òòState€v.€œStephenson›óó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€549„50€(Tenn.Ï1994);€€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589,€593€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€498€U.S.Ï1074€(1991);€€òòState€v.€œDulsworth›óó,€781€S.W.2d€277,€287€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping.€€The€lesser€grade€offenses€as€provided€by€statute€include€aggravatedÏkidnapping€and€simple€kidnapping.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€311Ï(Tenn.€1996).€€The€court€in€òòTrustyóó€held€that€"if€the€evidence€would€support€aÏconviction€for€the€offense,€defendants€are€entitled€to€jury€instructions€...€on€allÏoffenses€which€are€a€lesser€grade€or€class€of€the€charged€offense."€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,Ï919€S.W.2d€at€311.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€there€was€evidence€to€support€a€convictionÏfor€simple€kidnapping.€€We€cannot€agree.€€The€record€is€truly€devoid€of€anyÏevidence€which€would€suggest€the€kidnapping€occurred€without€a€deadly€weapon.€ÏThe€defendant€admits€carrying€the€gun.€€Whether€it€was€loaded€was€largelyÏirrelevant.€€Because€there€is€absolutely€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€suggest€theÏkidnapping€was€accomplished€without€the€presence€of€a€weapon,€the€convictionÏmust€stand.€Ìà àà àÌÓ  ÓVIÌÓ  Óà àà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€impositionÏof€a€Range€I€eighteen„year€sentence€for€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€a€ClassÏA€œfelony.›€œ€Tenn.›€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„305.€€When€a€challenge€is€made€to€the€length,Írange,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€"deÏnovo€review€...€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€court€fromÏwhich€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35œ„40l›(d).€€TheÏSentencing€Commission€Comments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€toÏshow€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence.€€ÌÌà àà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(l)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€atÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors;Ï(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÏdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„œl02›,Ï„œl03›,€and„210.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€this€offense,€the€presumptive€sentence€was€theÏminimum€in€the€range€if€there€were€no€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€(amended€in€1995€changing€the€presumptive€sentence€forÏa€Class€A€felony€to€the€midpoint€in€the€range).€€Should€the€trial€court€find€mitigatingÏand€enhancement€factors,€it€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€andÏenhance€the€sentence€based€upon€any€applicable€enhancement€factors,€thenÍreduce€the€sentence€based€upon€any€appropriate€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€within€the€trial€court'sÏdiscretion€provided€that€the€record€supports€its€findings€and€it€complies€with€theÏSentencing€Act.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€œAshby›óó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€trialÏcourt,€however,€should€make€specific€findings€on€the€record€which€indicate€hisÏapplication€of€the€sentencing€principles.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„209€and€„210.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€the€followingÏenhancement€factors€applicable:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1);ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€The€offense€involved€more€than€one€victim.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3);€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€The€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€aÏcrime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(10).× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌThe€trial€judge€also€found€several€nonstatutory€factors€which€appeared€to€beÌ€Ìconsidered€in€the€imposition€of€the€term€of€œsentence:›ÌÌÒ ä ÒÒ  Ò(1)€The€defendant€apparently€had€no€hesitation€aboutÏusing€the€weapon€against€Mr.€Attaway,€were€he€to€beÏhome€when€the€defendant€committed€the€burglary;€ÌÌ(2)€The€defendant€perjured€himself€on€the€witness€stand;ÏandÌÌ(3)€The€charges€arose€from€a€œmulticount›€indictment.€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÌÓÓThe€defendant€does€not€challenge€the€application€€of€the€first€statutory€factor€(theÏhistory€of€criminal€behavior);€he€does,€however,€dispute€the€other€two€statutoryÏfactors,€as€well€as€the€use€of€nonstatutory€enhancement€factors.€ÌÌà àà àWhile€nonstatutory€mitigating€factors€may€be€considered,€nonstatutoryÏenhancement€factors€are€irrelevant€and€impermissible€in€determining€the€length€orÏthe€range€of€the€sentence.€€òòState€v.€œStrickland›óó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€89€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(1994);€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€259Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp.€1990),›€òòperm.€to€app.€œdeniedóó.›€€Thus€the€trial€court€had€no€authorityÏto€utilize€additional€factors.€€ÌÌà àà àThat€the€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€whenÏthe€risk€to€human€life€was€high€is€also€inapplicable.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883ÏS.W.2d€597,€603€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€òòJonesóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€ð ð[œt]he›Ídeterminative€language€of€this€factor€is€ððthe€risk€to€human€life€was€high.ðððð€òòIdóó.€œat›€602.€€ÏTo€justify€using€this€factor,€the€state€must€prove€the€defendant€"demonstrated€aÏculpability€distinct€from€and€appreciably€greater€than€that€incident€to€the€offense€forÏwhich€he€was€convicted."€€òòId.óó€at€603.€€The€œstate›€has€failed€to€prove€that€theÏdefendant€demonstrated€this€type€of€culpability.€€Accordingly,€application€of€theÏfactor€was€erroneous.ÌÌà àà àNext,€there€was€not€more€than€one€victim€œof›€the€œcrimes.›€€The€trial€courtÏfound€Ms.€Sellersðð€five„year„old€daughter€to€be€an€additional€victim€of€the€crimes.€ÏThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€the€aggravated€assault€and€the€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping€of€the€child;€but€the€jury€acquitted€him€of€those€charges.€€InÏòòState€v.€Lambertóó,€741€S.W.2d€127,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987),€this€court€held€thatÏwhere€a€defendant€receives€a€separate€sentence€for€each€victim,€use€of€the€moreÏthan€one€victim€factor€is€inappropriate.€€The€òòLambertóó€rule€has€been€extended€to€barÏuse€of€this€factor€when€the€jury€acquits€the€defendant€of€the€charges€against€theÏadditional€victims.€òòState€v.€John€L.€Smithóó,€No.€œ01C01›„9309„CR„00308,€slip€op.€atÏ10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Oct.€20,€1994);€€òòState€v.€Greg€Pattersonóó,€No.Ïœ03C01›„9106„CR„180,€slip€op.€at€9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€May€19,€1992).€ÏThus,€the€rule€in€òòLambertóó€bars€use€of€this€factor€in€this€case.€€€€€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€œby€incorrectly€›Ïanalyzing€mitigating€factors.€€The€trial€court€found€the€following€in€mitigation:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€€that€the€defendant€ð ðhas€had€a€tough€life;ðð€andÌÌ(2)€that€the€defendant€released€the€victim€unharmed.€€òòÓÓÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒSeeóó€39„13„305(4)(b)(2).€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€also€consideredÏthe€following:€€that€the€defendant€has€no€prior€felony€convictions;€that€he€wasÏremorseful;€that€he€was€cooperative€with€the€presentence€report€writer;€that€heÏprovided€for€his€girlfriend€who€was€pregnant€with€his€child;€that€he€pays€childÏsupport€on€another€child€who€lives€out„of„state;€and€that€he€was€a€conscientiousÏemployee.€€ÌÌà àà àOur€review€of€the€record€suggests€that€all€of€these€factors,€except€forÏthe€defendantððs€claim€of€being€remorseful,€should€have€been€applied,€even€if€to€aÏlimited€degree.€€During€cross„examination€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendantÏsaid,€ð ðI€think€it€was€just€blown€way€out€of€proportion....ðð€€When€asked€if€theÏdefendant€believed€he€did€anything€wrong,€he€answered,€€ð ðMarrying€[the€victim].ðð€ÏThat€answer€most€assuredly€undermined€his€claim€of€remorse.€€€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€balancing€all€of€these€factors,€the€trial€court€sentenced€theÏdefendant€to€18€years€for€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€charge,€aÏœmidrange›€sentence.€€The€trial€court€placed€great€emphasis€on€a€nonstatutory€factor,Ïthe€defendantððs€going€to€the€victimððs€fatherððs€house€with€the€intention€to€use€theÏgun.€€The€trial€court€characterized€this€as€an€ð ðextremely€aggravating€situation.ðð€€TheÏtrial€judge€also€observed€ð ð[you]€canððt€give€a€person€the€minimum€sentence€whenÏthey€have€four€convictions€....ððÌÌà àà àNormally,€the€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€within€the€trial€courtððsÏdiscretion,€provided€that€the€record€supports€its€findings€and€it€complies€with€theÏSentencing€Act.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€œAshby›óó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Here,Ïhowever,€the€trial€courtððs€use€of€the€enhancement€factors€deviated€significantly€fromÏthe€requirements€of€the€Sentencing€Act.€€The€trial€court€placed€emphasis€onÏenhancement€factors€that€are€not€provided€for€in€the€statute.€€Other€enhancement€Ïfactors€were€misapplied.€€The€defendant€had€no€prior€felony€convictions€andÏrelatively€few€misdemeanors.€€Thus€there€is€œlimited€prior›€criminal€history.€€TheÏdefendantððs€youth€(twenty„one€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€sentencing),€hisÏconscientiousness€as€an€employee,€and€his€willingness€to€meet€his€financialÏobligations€warrant€some€favorable€consideration.€€Because€the€trial€courtððsÍsentence€has€lost€its€presumption€of€correctness€and€because€our€review€must€beÏon€a€de€novo€basis,€discounting€the€improperly€applied€factors,€we€conclude€that€aÏsentence€of€sixteen€years€is€warranted€by€the€record.€ÌÌà àà àAs€modified,€the€convictions€are€affirmed.€€The€effective€sentence€isÏmodified€to€16€years.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€œJudgeÌÌCONCUR:›Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌÌœ_____________________________›ÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌœ______________________________›ÌÓÓJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge