ÿWPC! …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝ4åùU . 6 w@> 0J~ 0TÈ 0^ 0hz 0râ 0|T 0†Ð 0V 1uæ U,[ 0d‡ U,ë U>B)UDC~ AOÁ-v~=vÓ» BŽ AM«Æø 0@¾ 0Kþ D3I AO|ÆË 0D‘ D/Õ B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-»{s 3|x3 %ä2¼A`ArialTT  U D U" # D$ % & D' Ó€3 2 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€12$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òApril€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò d0123A<< CÿÿLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++++'ÿÿdxd€1‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€†2XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€%&$;+'h|Æf` Å `€€Lß›ÌAT€œJACKSON›ÌÌœNOVEMBER›€SESSION,€œ1995›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à àà à)à àC.C.A.ÏNO.€œ02C01„9503„CC„00066›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœMADISON›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œFRANKLIN€MURCHISONó ó›Ìò òœTHOMAS€SINCLAIR,ó ó›à àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà àœ(Second€Degree€Murder)›ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€œFROM›€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCIRCUIT›€COURT€OF€œMADISON€COUNTYó ó›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœGEORGE€MORTON€GOOGE›à àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ26th€Judicial€DistrictÌ227€W.€Baltimore€Streetà àà àà àELLEN€H.€POLLACKÌJackson,€TN€38301à àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€WOODALLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDONALD€ALLENÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€38302›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœCONVICTIONS€AFFIRMED;€SENTENCE€MODIFIED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€ °Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ XÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àThe€Defendant,€Thomas€Sinclair,€appeals€as€of€right€from€a€jury€verdictÏconvicting€him€of€œsecond›€degree€murder€and€possession€of€a€weapon€with€theÏintent€to€use€it€in€the€commission€of€a€felony.€€For€these€œcrimes,›€the€Defendant€wasÏsentenced€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€to€serve€concurrent€sentences€of€twenty„five€years€and€two€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€TheÏDefendant€appeals€the€verdict€and€his€sentence.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€in€part€and€modify€the€sentence.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€presents€seven€issues€on€appeal:€€(1)€That€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€to€support€a€verdict€of€guilt€on€the€second€degree€murder€charge;€(2)Ïthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€district€attorney€to€lead€œwitnesses›€on€directÏexamination;€(3)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€prosecutor€to€interruptÏdefense€counsel's€closing€argument€with€an€objection€and€by€sustaining€thatÏobjection;€(4)€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€allowed€the€State€to€call€witnessÏMary€Hall€as€a€rebuttal€witness€because€her€eyewitness€testimony€was€directÏevidence;€(5)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€grant€the€Defendant's€motion€inÏlimine€requesting€that€the€State€not€be€allowed€to€ask€witness€Frank€Trice€about€hisÍindictment€œas€an›€accessory€after€the€fact€in€this€case;€(6)€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏcharging€flight;€and€(7)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€the€maximum€sentence.€ÌÌà àIn€the€early€morning€hours€of€March€6,€1993,€the€victim,€William€Reid€and€hisÏfriend,€Joe€Jones,€went€to€a€local€bar€called€Syd's€Cafe,€also€known€as€œT„Roy's.›€ÏJones€testified€that€they€arrived€at€the€bar€sometime€after€midnight.€€Jones€said€thatÏhe€was€sitting€on€a€barstool€at€the€counter€when€he€heard€somebody€call€Mr.€Reid'sÏname.€€He€œheard›€three€or€four€shots,€then€saw€the€victim€on€the€floor.€€Jones€did€notÏsee€who€fired€the€shots.€€ÌÌà àBenjamin€Lewis,€the€assistant€manager€at€Syd's€Cafe,€testified€that€œhe›€wasÏœin€the›€back€part€of€the€bar€by€a€pool€table.€€œHe›€looked€up€towards€the€front€of€the€barÏthrough€the€hallway€and€saw€someone€with€a€gun.€€Because€a€crowd€of€peopleÏwere€running€through€the€hallway€to€the€back€room,€Lewis€went€through€the€kitchenÏto€get€to€the€front€of€the€bar.€€Lewis€testified€that€he€then€saw€the€Defendant€shootÏthe€victim€from€a€distance€of€two€to€three€feet.€€The€Defendant€then€turned€andÏwalked€out€the€front€door.€€Lewis€testified€that€he€was€the€closest€person€to€theÏvictim€at€the€time€the€Defendant€walked€away.€€He€said€that€he€and€his€father,€theÏmanager€of€Syd's€Cafe,€kept€the€crowd€away€from€the€body.€€Lewis€said€that€heÏthen€left€the€bar€and€drove€to€a€nearby€service€station€to€call€the€police.ÌÌà àThe€police€arrived€at€the€œbar€a€few€minutes€later›€at€approximately€3:00€a.m.Ïand€immediately€secured€the€crime€scene.€€œThey›€found€a€knife€in€the€victim's€pocketÏwith€two€blades,€one€two€inches€long,€and€the€other€an€inch€and€a€half€long.€€TheÏknife€was€in€a€closed€position€and€did€not€have€any€blood€on€it.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€that€he€and€the€victim€had€gotten€into€an€altercationÏearlier€in€the€evening.€€œHe›€said€that€he€had€been€at€another€nearby€bar€during€theÏearly€evening,€where€he€played€a€game€of€pool€and€then€sat€talking€to€two€womenÏœwhom›€he€knew.€€He€testified€that€the€victim€came€into€the€bar,€waved€œa›€knife€œat›€him,Ïthen€chased€him€into€the€parking€lot.€€The€Defendant€said€that€he€tried€to€leave€inÏhis€friend's€vehicle,€but€could€not€because€they€were€blocked€in€by€the€surroundingÏcars.€€He€said€that€he€then€ran€from€the€parking€lot€with€the€victim€chasing€him€forÏœsome›€distance€œbefore€the€victim›€œstopped€his€pursuit.›ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€that€he€was€very€upset€after€the€shooting.€€He€saidÏthat€he€left€the€bar€and€tried€to€contact€his€brother€to€come€get€him.€€He€eventuallyÏfound€his€brother,€who€took€him€to€a€nearby€town€where€the€Defendant€got€hisÏvehicle€and€a€change€of€clothes.€€The€Defendant€then€returned€to€Jackson€andÏturned€himself€in€to€the€police€later€that€morning.ÌÌà àDr.€O'Brien€Clary€Smith,€the€doctor€who€performed€the€autopsy€on€the€body,Ïtestified€that€the€victim€sustained€three€bullet€wounds€to€his€neck,€chest,€and€head,Ïfrom€a€distance€of€more€than€two€feet€away.€€The€neck€wound€severed€the€spinalÏcord,€causing€paralysis€from€the€armpits€down.€€The€head€shot€was€immediatelyÏfatal,€and€the€doctor€testified€that€this€shot€was€probably€the€last€one€fired.€€Dr.ÏSmith€also€testified€that€the€victim€tested€negative€for€drugs,€but€had€a€bloodÏalcohol€level€of€.17€at€the€time€of€his€death.€€€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òœI.ó óÌ›ÌÓ  Óà àWe€will€first€address€the€Defendant's€contention€that€the€evidence€was€notÏsufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€second€degree€murder€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€ÌÌà à€When€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏcourt€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€during€the€trialÏwas€sufficient€"to€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt."€€T.R.A.P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guiltÏpredicated€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€ofÍdirect€and€circumstantial€evidence.€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€orÏreevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€ÏNor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€fromÏcircumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859Ï(Tenn.€1956).€€This€court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonableÏand€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Herrodóó,Ï754€S.W.2d€627,€632€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€valueÏto€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€In€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474€(Tenn.€1973),€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€said,€"A€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trialÏjudge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€allÏconflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."€€òòIdóó.€at€476.Ì€€à àà àÌà àBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÏreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€òòidóó.,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€courtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€theÏtrier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€court€will€notÏdisturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€factsÏcontained€in€the€record€and€the€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€facts€areÏinsufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€accused€guiltyÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòMatthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€at€780.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€presents€a€conclusory€argument€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€because€of€conflicting€evidence€presented€in€the€case€and€because€theÏtestimony€of€some€of€the€witnesses€at€trial€differed€from€their€prior€testimony€at€theÏpreliminary€hearing.€€Although€this€issue€has€technically€been€waived€because€ofÏthe€Defendant's€failure€to€make€appropriate€references€to€the€record,€Tenn.€Ct.€ofÏCrim.€App.€R.€10(b);€T.R.A.P.€27(a)(7);€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€231Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€we€will€address€the€issue€on€the€merits.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€admittedly€shot€and€killed€the€victim€on€the€morning€of€MarchÏ6,€1993,€and€later€turned€himself€in€to€the€police.€€Although€the€DefendantÏpresented€his€case€as€one€of€self„defense,€the€œjury,›€within€their€province€as€the€trierÍof€fact,€found€the€Defendant€guilty€of€second€degree€murder€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€The€Defendant€said€that€he€shot€the€victim€out€of€fear€because€theÏDefendant€was€threatening€him€with€a€knife€and€had€chased€him€with€a€large€knifeÏduring€an€altercation€earlier€that€evening.€€The€record€indicates€that€the€onlyÏweapon€on€the€victim€was€a€knife€found€in€a€closed€position€in€his€œpants›€pocket.€€NoÏother€weapons€were€found€near€the€body.€€One€witness€testified€that€shortly€beforeÏthe€shooting,€he€heard€the€Defendant€say,€"Wait,€let€me€get€my€gun€ready."€ÏViewing€this€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€œState,€it›€supports€aÏconviction€for€second€degree€murder.€€ÌÌà àAlthough€the€Defendant€contends€that€conflicting€testimony€was€presented€atÏtrial,€such€factual€issues€and€issues€regarding€witness€credibility€are€resolved€byÏthe€jury.€€Here,€the€jury€resolved€the€factual€questions€against€the€Defendant.€€TheÏDefendant€has€not€met€his€burden€of€overcoming€the€presumption€of€guilt€andÏshowing€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€a€conviction.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€is€sufficient€to€uphold€the€jury'sÏverdict€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€This€issue€has€no€œmerit.Ì›€ÌÓ  Óò òœII.ó óÌ›ÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€refused€toÏgrant€his€motion€in€limine€requesting€that€the€prosecution€be€restrained€fromÏquestioning€witness€Frank€Trice€about€his€indictment€for€accessory€after€the€factÏarising€from€this€same€case.€€The€Defendant€wanted€Trice€to€testify€about€theÏaltercation€earlier€in€the€evening€between€the€Defendant€and€the€victim€and€toÏtestify€that€he€had€heard€the€victim€say€that€he€was€going€to€kill€the€Defendant.€€TheÏDefendant€argues€that€because€the€trial€court€ruled€the€State€could€ask€about€theÏindictment,€he€could€not€present€Frank€Trice€as€a€witness.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€premised€œits›€ruling€on€the€assumption€that€the€witness€had€aÏvested€interest€in€the€outcome€of€the€case,€thus€the€State€should€be€allowed€toÏimpeach€this€witness's€testimony€by€showing€prejudice€or€bias€under€TennesseeÏRule€of€Evidence€616.€€The€œjudge›€said€that€the€jury€should€be€allowed€to€considerÏthat€the€witness€was€indicted€in€the€same€case€as€the€Defendant€when€evaluatingÏthe€witness's€credibility.€€The€trial€œjudge›€told€the€defense€that€he€would€give€the€juryÏprecautionary€instructions€not€to€presume€the€witness€was€guilty.€€€ÌÌà àIn€òòPique€v.€Stateóó,€499€S.W.2d€4,€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.Ïœ1973),€this€court›€held€that€"[a]€witness€in€a€criminal€prosecution€may€be€asked€if€heÍis€not€under€indictment€for€a€crime€growing€out€of€the€same€transaction€as€the€caseÏin€which€he€is€a€witness,€for€the€reason€that€the€questions€are€designed€to€show€theÏinterest€or€bias€of€the€witness€in€the€case€on€trial."€€As€in€the€case€at€bar,€theÏdefendant€in€òòPiqueóó€argued€that€the€court€erred€in€permitting€the€State€to€cross„examine€the€witness€about€his€indictment€for€accessory€after€the€fact€œof›€œthe€crime›€forÏwhich€the€defendant€was€on€trial.€€This€court€reasoned€that€the€indictment€wasÏoffered€to€show€the€witness's€interest€in€the€prosecution;€if€the€defendant€wasÏacquitted,€then€the€witness€could€not€be€convicted€as€an€accessory€after€the€fact.€ÏòòIdóó.€at€6.€€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€Defendant€asserted€that€the€investigating€officer€had€no€proof€ofÏthe€witness's€involvement€in€the€case,€nor€did€the€State€have€a€valid€reason€toÏindict€the€witness€except€to€gain€control€of€the€witness€and€prevent€the€defenseÏfrom€calling€him.€€Apparently,€the€Defendant€is€specifically€arguing€that€the€State'sÏaction€in€indicting€the€witness€constituted€substantial€government€interferenceÏwhich€infringed€on€the€Defendant's€right€to€establish€a€defense.€€œÌÌà àThe›€Defendant€cites€a€North€Carolina€case,€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€293€S.E.2d€617Ï(N.C.€Ct.€App.€1982),€in€support€of€œhis›€œcontention.€€In›€òòMackeyóó,€a€witness€œtestifiedÏfavorably›€for€the€defense.€€Immediately€after€giving€his€testimony,€he€wasÍapproached€by€a€police€investigator€and€threatened€with€perjury€charges€if€he€didÏnot€tell€the€truth€in€the€case.€€òòId.óó€€The€appellate€court€found€that€the€policeÏinvestigator€and€the€district€attorney's€office€put€undue€pressure€on€the€witness€untilÏhe€later€retook€the€stand€and€recanted€his€prior€testimony.€€òòId.óó€at€618„19.€€òòMackeyóó,€Ïhowever,€is€distinguishable€from€the€case€at€bar€because€here€no€evidence€hasÏbeen€presented€to€show€that€governmental€interference€kept€the€defense€witnessÏfrom€testifying.€€To€the€contrary,€the€defense€decided€not€to€call€the€witness€whenÏthe€trial€court€ruled€that€his€pending€indictment€stemming€from€the€same€case€couldÏbe€brought€out€on€œcross„examination.€€No€evidence€has€been€presented€to€showÏthat€the€witness€was€indicted€solely€to€prevent€him€from€testifying€for€the€defense.›ÌÌà àThis€situation€is€the€same€as€that€found€in€òòPiqueóó.€€Trice€had€a€significantÏstake€in€the€outcome€of€the€case,€and€the€Defendant's€acquittal€would€likely€meanÏthe€dismissal€of€the€accessory€charge€against€him.€€The€jury€should€have€been€ableÏto€consider€the€witness's€interest€in€the€outcome€of€the€case€when€determining€hisÏcredibility.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€err€in€ruling€that€the€State€couldÏcross„examine€the€witness€about€his€pending€indictment.ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.ó ó€œÌ›ÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€to€askÏleading€questions€on€direct€examination.€€The€Defendant€specifically€points€to€threeÏœinstances€in›€which€he€claims€the€State€impermissibly€asked€leading€œquestions.€ÏThe›€Defendant€argues€that€the€State€œwas€improperly›€œallowed›€to€ask€"continualÏleading€questions"€of€three€witnesses€during€the€trial.€€The€Defendant€contends€thatÏthe€trial€court€continued€to€allow€the€œprosecution›€to€lead€its€witnesses€despiteÏobjections€by€the€defense.€€ÌÌà àGenerally,€a€leading€question€is€one€which€"suggests€the€specific€answerÏdesired."€€Neil€Cohen,€et.€al,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€€ðð€611.6€(1990€&€Supp.Ïœ1993).›€€Leading€questions€are€only€allowed€on€direct€examination€to€developÏtestimony,€such€as€to€elicit€preliminary€matters€including€name,€age€or€address,€toÏrefresh€recollection€of€a€œwitness,€or›€to€shorten€the€time€needed€for€the€witness€toÏtestify.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€611(c).€€Leading€questions€are€also€allowed€on€directÏexamination€of€a€"hostile€witness,"€provided€the€witness€is€declared€so€by€the€œcourt.€ÏFinally,€leading€questions€are€appropriate›€when€a€party€in€a€civil€case€calls€anÏadverse€party.€òòId.óó;€Cohen,€òòsupraóó.Ìà àÌà àAfter€examining€the€record,€we€do€not€find€that€the€State€continually€led€theÏwitnesses.€€While€questioning€two€of€the€witnesses,€the€State€merely€summarizedÍthe€witnesses'€testimony€in€preparation€of€asking€the€next€question.€€The€State€inÏthis€instance€was€doing€no€more€than€developing€each€witness's€own€testimony.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€611(c).€€In€the€third€instance€of€which€the€Defendant€complains,Ïhe€objected€œonce€to›€the€State's€leading€of€a€rebuttal€witness.€€Because€the€witnessÏwas€apparently€having€difficulty€understanding€the€State's€questions€and€testifyingÏto€the€sequence€of€events,€the€trial€court€allowed€the€leading€question€to€be€asked.€ÏAgain,€the€State€in€this€instance€was€not€suggesting€"the€specific€answer€desired,"Ïbut€rather€was€minimally€leading€the€witness€to€develop€testimony.€€œIn€eachÏinstance,€the›€testimony€introduced€on€examination€by€the€State€through€leadingÏquestions€had€already€been€established.€ÌÌà àUnder€Tennessee€law,€the€trial€judge€has€wide€discretion€in€controllingÏleading€questions,€and€unless€the€question€was€not€only€clearly€leading,€but€alsoÏclearly€prejudicial,€this€court€will€not€interfere€with€the€action€of€the€trial€court.€ÏòòMothershed€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.2d€96,€99€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€The€Defendant€has€not€shown€that€the€State's€use€of€leading€questions€inÏthese€three€instances€œwas›€improper€or€constituted€prejudicial€error.€€Although€weÏdo€not€believe€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€questions,€we€conclude€thatÏany€error€was€harmless.€€T.R.A.P.€36(b).ÌÌœÌÌÌÓ  Óò ò›IV.ó ó€€ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€toÏpresent€Mary€Hall€as€a€rebuttal€witness€when€her€testimony€could€only€be€deemedÏdirect€evidence€that€should€have€been€presented€in€the€State's€case„in„chief.ÌÌà àThe€allowing€of€rebuttal€evidence€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏjudge.€€òòState€v.€Greenóó,€613€S.W.2d€229,€234€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1981).€€Rebuttal€evidence€is€"any€competent€evidenceÏwhich€explains€or€is€in€direct€reply€to€or€a€contradiction€of€material€evidenceÏintroduced€by€the€accused€or€which€is€brought€out€on€his€cross„examination."€€òòId.óó€atÏ234.€€The€determination€of€whether€one€is€a€rebuttal€witness€is€based€upon€theÏcontent€of€the€evidence€offered,€not€the€order€in€which€the€witness€is€presented.€ÏòòState€v.€Westóó,€825€S.W.2d€695,€698€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).ÌÌà àDuring€his€testimony€at€trial,€the€Defendant€argued€that€the€victim€wasÏwielding€a€large€knife€at€him,€and€he€shot€the€victim€in€self„defense.€€Mary€HallÍtestified€that€she€was€sitting€beside€the€victim€at€the€bar€immediately€before€theÏshooting€and€that€the€victim€had€no€weapon€in€his€hand€when€the€DefendantÏœapproached.›€€The€Defendant€contends€that€the€State€knew€from€the€outset€of€theÏtrial€that€œthe›€defense€would€be€one€of€œself„defense;›€œtherefore,›€the€State€should€haveÏcalled€Mary€Hall€in€œits›€œcase„in„chief.€›€He€argues€that€the€State€had€œthe€Defendantððs›Ïœstatement›€made€to€œpolice€which›€said€the€victim€had€a€knife,€and€that€the€State'sÏquestioning€of€three€œwitnesses›€during€œits›€case„in„chief€indicates€that€the€State€knewÏthe€Defendant€would€argue€self„defense.€€Thus,€to€allow€the€testimony€of€Hall€inÏrebuttal€was€error.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€œprosecutors›€told€the€court€that€they€did€not€find€out€that€Hall€was€aÏwitness€until€the€night€before€they€called€her€to€the€stand.€€Moreover,€the€StateÏargued€that€Hall's€testimony€was€properly€admitted€to€refute€the€Defendant's€proofÏof€self„defense.€€The€trial€court€agreed€that€although€the€State€may€have€had€someÏindication€that€self„defense€was€the€theory€on€which€the€Defendant€was€going€toÏrely,€self„defense€was€not€actually€raised€until€the€Defendant€testified.€€Thus,Ïevidence€to€refute€the€theory€of€self„defense€was€properly€allowed€in€rebuttal.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€relies€on€òòState€v.€œWestóó,€825€S.W.2d€695€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1992),›€in€which€this€court€reversed€a€œdefendant's›€conviction€for€murder€because€theÍtrial€court€had€improperly€allowed€the€œState's›€witness€to€testify€on€rebuttal€that€theÏœdefendant›€had€shot€the€victim€for€no€cause€when€this€testimony€was€direct€evidenceÏthat€should€have€been€proffered€during€the€State's€case„in„chief.€€However,€unlikeÏthe€case€at€bar,€the€rebuttal€witness€called€in€òòWestóó€was€the€State's€strongestÏœwitness.€€òòId.óó€At€698.›€€Furthermore,€the€State€in€that€case€knew€of€this€witness€longÏbefore€œtrial,›€but€did€not€reveal€her€existence€to€the€œdefense.€€òòId.ó󀛀€ÌÌà àHere,€the€witness€was€not€called€to€recount€eyewitness€testimony;€she€wasÏcalled€to€directly€refute€the€Defendant's€testimony€that€the€victim€had€a€weapon€inÏhis€hand.€€We,€therefore,€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€œjudge›€erred€or€abused€hisÏdiscretion€in€allowing€the€State€to€call€Mary€Hall€as€a€rebuttal€witness.€€This€issueÏhas€no€merit.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òV.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€theÏprosecutor€to€interrupt€the€defense€counsel's€closing€argument€without€stating€theÏbasis€for€the€objection€and€by€sustaining€the€State's€objection.€€ÌÌà àDuring€defense€counsel's€closing€argument,€he€said,€"The€real€kicker€is€theÏState€calls€a€surprise€witness,€Ms.€Hall."€€The€State€objected,€stating€that€such€aÏstatement€was€"not€proper€jury€argument."€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€objection.€ÏDefense€counsel€œthen€again›€referred€to€Ms.€Hall€as€a€surprise€witness,€to€which€theÏState€again€objected.€€Defense€counsel€explained€to€the€court€that€he€did€notÏunderstand€that€he€could€not€refer€to€Hall€as€a€surprise€witness,€but€that€he€thoughtÏthe€State's€previous€objection€referred€to€the€word€"kicker."€€The€trial€courtÏinstructed€defense€counsel€to€simply€refer€to€Ms.€Hall€as€a€witness€or€a€rebuttalÏwitness,€and€to€proceed€on€with€Ms.€Hall's€testimony€rather€than€spending€timeÏcharacterizing€her€status€as€a€witness.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€facts€in€the€record€support€theÏcharacterization€of€Hall€as€a€surprise€witness,€thus€œdefense€counselððs€reference€toÏher€as›€a€œsurprise›€witness€was€relevant€and€a€fair€comment€on€the€evidence.€ÏApparently,€the€Defendant's€primary€contention€is€that€the€State€objected€to€theÏDefendant's€closing€œargument€only›€for€the€purpose€of€interrupting€his€presentation,Ïand€to€sustain€the€State's€groundless€objection€constituted€prejudicial€œerror€on€theÏpart€of€the€court.›€€€Additionally,€by€sustaining€the€prosecution's€objection,€the€courtÏeffectively€diminished€the€Defendant's€right€to€be€heard€under€Article€One,€SectionÏNine€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant's€argument€is€without€merit.€€The€control€of€closing€argumentÏrests€largely€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€œcourt,›€and€this€court€will€notÏinterfere€with€that€discretion€absent€clear€abuse.€€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,Ï843€(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1988);›€òòState€v.€Coeóó,€655ÏS.W.2d€903,€912€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€464€U.S.€1063€(1984).€€We€seeÏnothing€improper€about€the€prosecutor€objecting€to€the€characterization€of€theÏwitness€as€a€"surprise€witness,"€nor€does€the€record€indicate€that€the€prosecutionÏused€this€objection€merely€to€interrupt€the€flow€of€the€Defendant's€argument.€ÏNeither€do€we€œfind€that›€the€trial€œjudge›€abused€his€discretion€in€sustaining€theÏobjection.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€Defendant's€argument€is€without€merit.ÌœÌÓ  Óò òVI.ó óÌ›ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` °œXÓà àThe€Defendant€argues€œthat€the›€trial€court€erred€in€charging€the€jury€on€flight.€ÏœHe€contends›€that€the€flight€instruction€was€inappropriate€and€unwarranted€becauseÏhe€turned€himself€in€voluntarily€to€the€police€within€hours€of€the€murder.€€TheÍDefendant€argues€that€because€of€the€trial€court's€error€in€giving€the€charge,€thisÏcourt€should€grant€a€new€trial.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court's€instruction€conformed€with€the€language€used€in€theÏTennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instructions,€section€37.16.€€Tennessee€allows€the€court€toÏgive€an€instruction€as€to€the€inference€to€be€drawn€from€flight.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839ÏS.W.2d€54,€74€(Tenn.€œ1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€113€S.Ct.€1368€(19).›€€The€court€instructedÏthe€jury€that€whether€the€Defendant€fled€was€a€question€solely€for€their€decision,Ïthat€they€were€not€required€to€infer€flight,€and€that€flight€alone€was€insufficient€toÏprove€guilt.€€The€trial€court€also€explained€that€the€jury€could€consider€the€flight€asÏan€inference€of€guilt,€but€the€reasons€for€the€flight€and€the€weight€to€be€given€theÏflight€were€for€their€own€consideration.ÌÌà àIn€construing€the€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€instruction€for€flight,€this€court€inÏòòState€v.€Paytonóó,€782€S.W.2d€490,€497€(Tenn€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ïòòid.óó€(Tenn.€1989),€held€that€it€takes€"òòbothóó€a€leaving€of€the€scene€of€the€difficulty€òòandóó€aÏsubsequent€hiding€out,€evasion€or€concealment€in€the€community,€or€a€leaving€ofÏthe€community€to€constitute€flight."€€The€Defendant€argues€that€a€flight€charge€wasÏunwarranted€because€he€left€the€scene€of€the€crime€out€of€fear€of€reprisal€ratherÏthan€a€guilty€mind,€and€he€subsequently€turned€himself€in€to€the€police.€€œThe›€recordÍreflects€that€the€Defendant€immediately€left€the€crime€scene€after€the€shooting€andÏtook€several€hours,€during€which€he€drove€to€another€town,€before€reporting€to€theÏpolice.€€Flight€from€the€crime€scene€may€be€taken€in€any€manner,€whether€it€beÏopen,€hurried€or€concealed.€€òòState€v.€œHillóó,›€875€S.W.2d€œ278,€284›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1994);€òòRogers€v.€Stateóó,€455€S.W.2d€182,Ï187€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1970).€€ÌÌà àThe€record€contains€sufficient€evidence€from€which€a€reasonable€personÏcould€infer€that€the€Defendant€was€attempting€to€conceal€himself€or€evade€police€inÏthe€hours€after€the€shooting€in€order€to€evade€arrest.€€The€jury€was€entitled€toÏconsider€this€evidence€and€determine€whether€flight€was€established,€and,€if€so,Ïwhether€an€inference€of€consciousness€of€guilt€arose.€€òòHillóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€œ284.›€€TheÏtrial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€on€flight,€and€it€was€within€their€province€asÏtrier€of€fact€to€determine€whether€the€Defendant€did€in€fact€flee€the€scene€andÏwhether€the€flight€supported€an€inference€of€guilt.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€err€in€giving€this€instruction€to€the€jury.€€€€€€€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òœVII.ó óÌ›ÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant's€final€argument€concerns€the€propriety€of€the€sentenceÏimposed.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€the€maximumÏsentence€of€twenty„five€œyears€for€the€second€degree€murder€conviction.›ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€ofÏa€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€aÏpresumption€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€Ô€"ÔððÔ€ Ô€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:€€(a)€Ïthe€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statement€thatÏthe€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÏrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€"Ôðððð€Ô€ Ô40„35„102,€„103,€and€„210;€òòseeóóÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€andÏthat€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€weÏmay€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€ÏòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defense€presented€several€witnesses€to€œtestifyÏabout›€the€Defendant's€good€character€and€his€background€as€a€working,€law„abiding€citizen€œwho›€provided€for€his€family.€€The€court€found€the€Defendant's€priorÏhistory€as€a€hard„working,€generous€man€to€be€a€mitigating€factor€in€determiningÏthe€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„113(13).›€€ÌÌà àThe€court€found€several€enhancement€factors€to€be€œapplicable:€€(5)›€theÏdefendant€treated€the€victim€with€exceptional€cruelty€during€the€commission€of€theÏoffense;€(9)€the€defendant€possessed€or€employed€a€firearm€during€the€commissionÏof€the€œoffense;€(10)›€the€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€whenÏthe€risk€to€human€life€was€œhigh;€and€(13)€the€Defendant€committed€the€crime€whileÏon€release€status€for€two€previous€crimes.›€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.€€ÌÌà àAfter€considering€the€applicable€mitigating€and€enhancing€factors,€the€trialÏcourt€sentenced€the€Defendant€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€for€second€degreeÏmurder.€€This€Class€A€felony€has€a€sentencing€range€of€fifteen€to€twenty„five€years,Ïand€the€court€imposed€the€maximum€sentence€of€twenty„five€œyears€to€be€served›€inÏthe€Department€of€Correction.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€sentence€was€excessive€because€the€trialÏcourt€erroneously€found€non„statutory€enhancement€factors€and€improperly€appliedÏthe€permissible€statutory€factors.€€Contrary€to€the€Defendantððs€assertions,€we€do€notÏfind€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€used€non„statutory€factors€to€enhance€theÏsentence.€€We€will€address€the€Defendantððs€arguments€that€the€trial€courtÏimproperly€applied€the€statutory€enhancement€factors.€€ÌÌà àThe€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€Defendant€had€only€a€few€years€ofÏformal€education.€€He€has€a€steady€work€history€and€had€worked€at€a€sheet€metalÏbusiness€for€approximately€ten€years€until€the€time€of€his€conviction.€€TheÏDefendant€had€a€prior€felony€conviction€in€1979€for€larceny,€a€1989€arrest€forÏdisturbing€the€peace,€and€at€the€time€of€œthe€killing,›€had€œpending€misdemeanor›Ïcharges€for€driving€under€the€influence€and€carrying€a€concealed€weapon.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€first€contends€that€the€œapplication€of›€factor€five,€that€theÏDefendant€ð ðtreated€or€allowed€a€victim€to€be€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty€duringÏthe€commission€of€the€offense,ðð€was€error.€€We€agree€that€this€factor€should€notÏhave€been€applied.€€ÌÌà àThe€court€found€this€factor€to€be€applicable€because€the€Defendant€shot€œthe›Ïvictim€numerous€times.€€Although€the€Defendant€undoubtedly€acted€with€cruelty€inÏshooting€and€killing€the€victim,€to€be€applicable€this€factor€requires€a€showing€ofÏð ðexceptionalðð€cruelty.€€Exceptional€cruelty€is€usually€found€in€cases€of€abuse€orÏtorture.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€825€S.W.2d€109,€113€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Haynesóó,€720€S.W.2d€76,€86€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1986).€€In€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€883€S.W.2d€635,€639€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),Ïthis€court€found€the€exceptional€cruelty€factor€was€not€applicable€in€a€case€in€whichÏthe€defendant€abducted€the€victim€and€forced€her€to€participate€in€four€sexual€actsÏwhile€holding€a€knife€to€her€person,€using€abusive€language€toward€her,€andÏmaking€threats€to€harm€her.ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€facts€did€not€show€that€the€Defendant€tortured€orÏbeat€the€victim€for€an€extended€period€of€time,€nor€did€the€killing€involve€anyÍunusual€type€of€abuse.€€The€entire€shooting€took€place€within€a€matter€of€seconds.€ÏThe€physician€who€performed€the€autopsy€testified€that€the€third€shot€œwasÏimmediately›€fatal,€thus€the€victim€was€not€consciously€suffering€for€an€extendedÏlength€of€time.€€Beyond€the€cruelty€inherent€in€every€shooting,€we€find€no€evidenceÏin€the€record€to€support€a€finding€of€exceptional€cruelty.ÌÌà à€€€€€€€€€à àà àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€enhanced€theÏsentence€because€the€Defendant€was€out€on€bond€for€prior€misdemeanorÏconvictions€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(13).€€TheÏDefendant€was€on€bond€for€the€charges€of€driving€under€the€influence€and€carryingÏa€concealed€weapon.€€The€Defendant€correctly€argues€that€the€trial€courtÏerroneously€enhanced€the€sentence€based€on€pending€misdemeanor€chargesÏwhen€the€factor€requires€that€the€Defendant€be€on€bond€for€a€felony€conviction.€€TheÏstatute€specifically€requires€that€the€felony€for€which€a€defendant€is€beingÏsentenced€ð ðwas€committed€while€on€.€.€.€release€status€if€such€release€is€from€a€priorÏòòfelonyóó€conviction.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(13)€(emphasis€added).€€Thus,Ïœwe€must›€conclude€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€this€factor.ÌÌà àWe€œconclude›€that€the€record€supports€the€application€of€enhancementÏfactors€(9)€and€(10).€€The€carrying€of€a€firearm€was€not€an€element€of€secondÍdegree€murder€and€could€properly€be€used€to€enhance€the€sentence.€€The€trialÏjudge€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€finding€factor€(10),€that€the€Defendant€had€noÏhesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€œbecause›Ïœthe€Defendant€repeatedly›€fired€a€weapon€in€a€busy€public€place€while€numerousÏpeople€were€œnearby.€€Additionally,€we€find€enhancement€factor€(1),€that€theÏDefendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€inÏaddition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€range,€to€be€applicable.€€TheÏDefendant,€while€not€having€an€extensive€record,€had€a€previous€felony€convictionÏand€two€misdemeanor€charges€pending.›ÌÌà àThe€sentence€to€be€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€presumptively€the€minimumÏsentence€in€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€Procedurally,€the€trialÏcourt€is€to€increase€the€sentence€within€the€range€based€upon€the€enhancementÏfactors,€œthen›€reduce€the€sentence€as€required€by€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„210(d),€(e).€€The€weight€given€to€any€existing€factor€is€within€the€trialÏcourtððs€discretion,€so€long€as€it€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€courtððs€findings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record.€ÌÌà àBecause€we€find€the€court€erroneously€applied€two€of€the€enhancementÏfactors,€we€conclude€that€the€record€does€not€support€the€imposition€of€theÍmaximum€sentence.€€In€finding€œthree›€applicable€enhancement€factors€and€oneÏmitigating€factor,€we€conclude€that€the€sentence€œfor€second€degree€murder€should›Ïbe€modified€to€a€mid„range€sentence€of€twenty€(20)€years.€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€œpart,›€and€the€sentence€isÏmodified.€ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGE›