ÿWPCª" 7# U> %[ 0ñaU:R 05Œ 0DÁw@ 4E Y 0Jh 0T² 0^ 0hd 0rÌ 0|> º 0†Â H 0 H ÆU AO 0Dj 0@® 0îU@~e¾ 1u¿ 0d4Ƙ B^ D3{ D/® BÝU6úU *0B)ZDCƒ AMÆ‚2•’Çv~YvÓטHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÜÏ<@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(å(3° $¤¤Ý ƒÞÍ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€X-´XXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó "#Ïe$%D&D'(*+Ó€,@1d@0ÿÿÿÿÿ3|x,2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(å3æJ$¢¢Ý ƒÞÍ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€X-´XXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  ݃Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô É¸·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d$$$$'ÿÿdxd**'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ xÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÔ€.ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔó óÌò òÔ€.¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€.XÔÌÌò òCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€.ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔ (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÔ€.ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔÓÓ€To€avoid€confusion€between€the€defendant€and€his€brother,€Eugene€Townes,€theÏdefendant€will€be€referred€to€as€ð ðdefendantðð€and€Eugene€Townes€will€be€referred€to€as€ð ðTownes.ððÌ ˆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÔ€.ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€.ôÔ€The€first€four€criteria€are€found€in€òòGrayóó.€€A€fifth€category€in€òòGrayóó,€based€on€a€specific€numberÏof€prior€felony€convictions,€may€enhance€the€sentence€range€but€is€no€longer€a€listed€criterion.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.ÌPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® 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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÔ€.ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ýòò›Ñ7€@–XXdÈdÈ7ќـÙßL€120;+'h| º- `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÏOF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSONóóÌà@ àFEBRUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€02C01„9505„CC„00140€€Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà à*à àCARROLL€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Julian€P.€Guinn,ÏJudgeÌÓÓLEE€RUSSELL€TOWNES,à àà à*à à(Felony€Murder,ÏBurglary€andÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Theft€of€PropertyÏunder€$500)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà à*ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€Appelleeóó:ÌÌGuy€T.€Wilkinsonà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&ÏReporterÌ€à àà àà àÌBilly€Roeà àà àà àà àà àClinton€J.€MorganÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralÌP.O.€Box€663à àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌCamden,€Tennessee€€38320à àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà à€à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€RadfordÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àEleanor€CahillÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€686Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à111€West€Paris€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHuntingdon,€Tennessee€€38344Ìà àÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:___________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓÑ7€l^XXdÈXXdÈ7Ñà@ àòòOPINIONóóÌà àà àThe€defendant,€Lee€Russell€Townes,€was€convicted€of€felony€murder,Ïburglary€and€theft€of€property€under€$500.00.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€Range€I,Ïfour„year€sentence€for€the€burglary€conviction€and€an€eleven„month,€twenty„nineÏday€sentence€for€the€theft€conviction.€€The€sentences€are€concurrent.€€The€lifeÏsentence€for€the€felony€murder€is€to€be€served€consecutive€to€the€other€two€terms.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€ourÏreview:€òòÌÓÓà8 àà8 àóó(1)€€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€theÏconviction€for€first€degree€murder€during€the€commissionÏof€a€felony;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€theÏprosecutor€to€exercise€his€peremptory€challenge€toÏexcuse€an€African„American€juror;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€whether€during€closing€argument€the€prosecutorÏimproperly€argued€facts€not€in€evidence;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€€whether€the€state€failed€to€prove€venue;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€theÏintroduction€of€a€photograph€of€the€victim;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€imposing€aÏconsecutive€sentence.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àWe€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àà àÌà àà àVera€Gilbert,€county€service€manager€for€the€Northwest€DevelopmentÏCounsel€operated€a€community€center€in€Carroll€County.€€On€December€11,€1993,Ïthe€building€was€to€be€used€for€a€fashion€and€talent€show.€€Alvin€Fields,€the€victimÏwho€was€a€sixty„five„year€old€retired€school€teacher€who€acted€as€the€roadÏmanager€for€a€gospel€band,€had€scheduled€a€band€performance€at€the€event.€ÏFields€stopped€at€Ms.€Gilbertððs€residence€at€approximately€7:00€a.m.€to€pick€up€theÏkeys€to€the€center.€€Gilbert€approximated€that€it€would€take€two€to€three€minutes€toÏdrive€to€the€school.€ÌÌà àà àArgel€Reynolds,€owner€of€a€recording€studio,€and€Patrick€Steele,€aÏband€member,€planned€to€meet€Fields€at€the€center€at€7:00€a.m.€to€set€up€musicÏequipment.€€When€the€two€arrived€at€approximately€7:05€a.m.,€they€saw€Fieldsðð€carÏin€the€parking€lot.€€After€inspecting€the€center€for€about€eight€to€ten€minutes€to€makeÏsure€there€would€be€enough€electrical€outlets,€they€discovered€Fieldsðð€body€lyingÏon€a€landing€half„way€down€a€flight€of€stairs.€€Steele,€who€saw€ð ðquite€a€bit€of€blood,ððÏchecked€on€the€victim€ð ðto€see€if€he€was€breathing.ðð€€When€the€victim€showed€noÏsigns€of€life,€Reynolds€and€Steele€notified€the€police.€€Reynolds€showed€the€policeÍð ðtracksðð€imprinted€in€the€blood€on€the€left€side€of€the€stairwell.€€A€coat,€a€televisionÏand€a€refrigerator€were€taken€from€the€office€area€of€the€center.€€€ÌÌà àà àJerry€Thomas€Francisco,€Chief€Medical€Examiner€for€the€state,€helpedÏperform€the€autopsy.€€He€found€stab€wounds€to€the€neck,€chest,€upper€arm,€leg,€earÏand€defensive€wounds€to€the€right€hand€and€fingers.€€The€wound€to€the€left€side€ofÏthe€victimððs€neck€severed€both€the€jugular€vein€and€the€carotid€artery.€€Dr.€FranciscoÏdescribed€the€wound€to€the€chest€as€penetrating€the€heart€and€lungs.€ÌÌà àà àLinda€Littlejohn,€a€forensic€scientist€for€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation,€examined€the€shoes€of€both€the€victim€and€defendant€and€comparedÏthem€to€the€shoe€impressions€at€the€scene.€€She€testified€that€three€photographs€ofÏshoe€prints€at€the€scene€were€impressions€from€the€defendantððs€shoes;€two€of€theÏprints€were€left€by€a€third€person;€and€one€other€could€possibly€have€been€from€theÏdefendantððs€shoes.€ÌÌà àà àSamera€Zavaro,€a€forensic€scientist€for€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation,€analyzed€a€pair€of€work€boots,€four€knives,€a€rag,€a€work€jacket,€a€pairÏof€the€defendantððs€pants,€and€blood€samples€taken€from€the€scene€and€from€theÏvictim.€€She€testified€that€one€of€the€knives€had€human€blood€on€it€but€that€she€wasÍunable€to€determine€the€blood€type.€€Agent€Zavaro€found€no€blood€on€the€boot€orÏthe€rag.€€She€testified€that€blood€matching€the€victimððs€type€was€on€the€jacket€andÏthe€defendantððs€pants.€ÌÌà àà àChristopher€Carpenter,€a€special€TBI€agent,€investigated€the€crimeÏscene€and€found€that€a€clock€in€the€office€had€been€unplugged€at€5:15.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€received€information€from€Corporal€Virgil€Bush€of€the€McKenzie€PoliceÏDepartment€that€the€defendant€had€sold€a€refrigerator€to€Danny€Johnson€betweenÏ5:00€and€5:30€a.m.€on€the€morning€of€the€murder.€€Special€Agent€Carpenter€andÏtwo€other€officers€questioned€the€defendant.€€While€he€initially€denied€anyÏinvolvement,€he€later€confessed€to€the€crime€when€the€officers€showed€him€a€pieceÏof€glass€found€in€the€sole€of€the€his€boot.€€The€officers€saw€what€appeared€to€beÏblood€on€the€defendantððs€shoes.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€signed€a€written€statement€detailing€his€participation€inÏthe€crimes.€€He€stated€that€he€went€for€a€walk€between€3:30€and€4:00€a.m.,€noticedÏthat€a€door€at€the€center€was€open,€and€walked€inside.€€He€claimed€that€there€wasÏglass€already€on€the€floor.€€He€acknowledged€that€he€carried€a€small€refrigeratorÏdown€the€street,€put€it€down,€and€started€to€walk€away.€€He€claimed€that€a€friend,ÍDanny€Johnson,€happened€to€drive€by€in€a€truck€and€agreed€to€buy€the€refrigerator.€ÏThe€refrigerator€was€taken€to€Johnsonððs€house.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€told€the€officers€that€he€returned€to€the€center€aboutÏ7:00€a.m.€after€having€reservations€about€his€conduct.€€He€claimed€that€the€victimÏarrived€later,€sought€an€explanation,€and€picked€up€a€knife€that€was€lying€on€a€desk.€ÏAfter€denying€that€he€had€broken€into€the€center,€the€defendant€struggled€with€theÏvictim€over€the€knife;€he€claimed€that€when€they€stumbled€down€the€stairs,€the€victimÏsuffered€a€knife€wound€to€the€neck.€€The€defendant€asserted€that€he€tried€to€stop€theÏbleeding€but€eventually€ran€from€the€premises.€€He€said€that€ð ð[he]€did€not€mean€toÏkill€[the€victim].ðð€€The€defendant€did,€however,€acknowledge€that€he€hid€his€blueÏwork€pants€and€blue€work€shirt€in€an€outbuilding€near€Olivet€Baptist€Church;€heÏdenied€having€worn€a€jacket€or€hat.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€knife,€located€in€a€ditch,€was€wrapped€in€a€rag.€€A€pair€of€pantsÏand€a€coat€were€found€inside€an€old€shed.€€Agent€Carpenter€testified€that€he€initiallyÏsuspected€that€the€defendantððs€brother,€Eugene€œTownes,›× ƒ3 ××  ל€was›€involved€in€theÏcrime.€€When€cross„examined,€Agent€Carpenter€acknowledge€that€seven€monthsÍafter€his€arrest,€the€defendant€gave€him€a€copy€of€an€anonymous€letter€which€led€toÏthe€discovery€of€the€victimððs€billfold€at€the€residence€of€John€David€Wallace.€€HeÏconceded€that€he€had€not€taken€any€shoe€prints€from€the€defendantððs€brother,€otherÏsuspects,€or€the€police€officers€who€were€involved€in€the€investigation€of€the€crimeÏscene.€€He€did€testify€the€defendant€never€claimed€that€his€brother€was€involved€inÏthe€offense.ÌÌà àà àTBI€Agent€Tommy€Heflin€assisted€in€the€investigation€of€the€scene.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€observed€eight€bloody€shoe€prints€on€the€landing€where€the€victimÏlay€and€on€five€of€the€steps€going€upstairs.€He€concluded€that€three€of€the€prints€onÏthe€steps€were€from€the€defendantððs€shoes€and€one€print€on€the€landing€was€similarÏto€that€of€the€defendant.€€One€partial€print€was€found€on€the€landing€between€theÏvictimððs€legs;€his€analysis€established€that€the€print€came€from€a€person€other€thanÏthe€defendant.€€Another€shoe€print€belonging€to€a€third€person€was€found€on€theÏlanding€near€the€victim.€€Several€partial€prints€were€also€discovered€in€the€dust€inÏthe€lobby€located€close€to€the€stairs.€€Testifying€that€he€was€very€careful€not€to€stepÏin€any€blood€as€he€took€photographs€of€the€scene,€Agent€Heflin€discovered€brokenÏglass€down€the€hall€from€the€stairs€where€someone€had€broken€into€an€office.€ÏBecause€no€bloody€shoe€prints€were€found€in€the€office€area,€Agent€Heflin€believedÏthat€the€office€had€been€broken€into€before€the€victim€was€killed.€€The€impressionsÍof€two€sets€of€tires€were€discovered€in€front€of€the€building.€€Agent€Heflin€testifiedÏthat€the€prints€did€not€match€a€set€of€tire€impressions€taken€from€a€WilliamsÏFurniture€truck.€€During€the€course€of€his€investigation,€Agent€Heflin€found€unlockedÏentrances€at€the€end€of€the€building€where€the€tire€tracks€were€located€and€at€theÏfront€of€the€center.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àRussell€Davis,€II,€a€TBI€forensic€scientist,€analyzed€the€broken€glassÏsamples€taken€from€the€school€building€and€compared€the€samples€to€the€brokenÏglass€removed€from€the€defendantððs€shoes.€€He€found€ð ðno€differences€between€[the]Ïtwo€sets€of€glass.ðð€€Agent€Davis€conceded€that€he€did€not€perform€blood€typing€onÏthe€glass€particles.€€He€also€stated€that€he€found€no€pieces€of€glass€on€the€soles€ofÏthe€victimððs€shoes.€ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Virgil€Bush,€Jr.,€of€the€McKenzie€Police€Department€testifiedÏthat€he€and€Sergeant€Nolan€went€to€the€center€before€the€removal€of€the€body.€€HeÏtestified€that€neither€he€nor€Sergeant€Nolan€stepped€in€the€blood.€€Officer€BushÏtestified€that€Johnson€admitted€that€he€bought€a€refrigerator€and€also€claimed€that€aÏtelevision€set€had€been€taken.€€The€television€was€never€found,€however.€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àDetective€Joe€Walker€of€the€McKenzie€Police€DepartmentÏacknowledged€at€trial€that€there€had€been€ð ðrumorsðð€after€the€defendantððs€arrest€thatÏEugene€Townes€had€committed€the€crimes.€€He€also€testified€that€there€wereÏð ðunsubstantiatedðð€reports€that€a€Williams€Furniture€Company€truck€had€been€to€theÏcenter€on€the€morning€of€the€crime;€Townes,€an€employee€of€Williams€FurnitureÏCompany,€drove€the€truck€on€occasions.€€Detective€Walker€acted€on€the€tip€that€theÏvictimððs€wallet€was€at€the€residence€of€John€David€Wallace,€Sr.€€Detective€WalkerÏdiscovered€that€Eugene€Townes€had€visited€frequently€and€stayed€overnight€thereÏon€more€than€one€occasion;€however,€Eugene€Townes€denied€knowing€anythingÏabout€the€television€set€or€coat€taken€from€the€center.€€Conceding€the€defendantððsÏbrother€was€on€his€initial€list€of€suspects,€Detective€Walker€testified€that€otherÏmembers€of€the€defendantððs€family€reported€that€the€defendant€knew€whoÏcommitted€the€crime.€ÌÌà àà àDanny€Johnson€testified€that€the€defendant€sold€him€the€refrigeratorÏfor€twenty€dollars€at€about€5:30€or€6:00€a.m.€on€the€day€of€the€offense.€€€He€claimedÏthat€he€dropped€the€defendant€off€down€the€street€from€the€center€at€about€6:35€a.m.€ÏAt€that€point,€the€defendant€said€that€he€intended€to€visit€James€Hoyt€who€livedÏnearby.ÌÌà àà àJohn€David€Wallace,€Sr.,€testified€for€the€defense.€€He€claimed€that€onÏthe€weekend€of€the€murder,€the€defendant€had€not€visited€his€home€but€EugeneÏTownes€had.€€Seven€months€later,€the€wallet€was€found€underneath€the€residence.ÌÌà àà àWillie€Joe€Gilbert,€who€lived€one€and€a€half€blocks€from€the€center,Ïtestified€that€the€defendant€and€his€brother€played€cards€at€his€house€on€the€nightÏbefore€the€murder.€€He€stated€that€the€two€left€sometime€before€5:00€a.m€but€he€wasÏunsure€of€whether€they€left€together.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àCarol€Townes,€the€defendantððs€cousin,€resided€with€Danny€JohnsonÏat€the€time€of€the€murder.€€She€testified€that€she€came€in€between€6:30€and€7:00Ïa.m€and€saw€Johnson€and€the€defendant€walking€out€of€the€house.€€The€threeÏdecided€to€go€out€for€a€beer€but€changed€their€minds€and€dropped€the€defendant€offÏnear€a€friendððs€house€located€about€three€to€four€minutes€away€from€the€center.€ÏShe€testified€that€she€saw€the€defendant,€who€was€unarmed,€walk€in€a€directionÏaway€from€the€center.€€She€conceded€that€the€defendant€had€told€her€he€had€stolenÏthe€refrigerator€around€5:30€a.m.€€ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€the€defendant€admitted€stealing€the€refrigerator€but€denied€anyÏparticipation€in€the€murder.€€He€claimed€that€his€brother€killed€the€victim€and€that€heÍhad€lied€to€the€police€in€order€ð ðto€protectðð€him.€€He€contended€that€he€entered€anÏopen€door€and€saw€the€glass€to€an€office€had€been€broken€into€when€he€took€theÏrefrigerator.€€He€conceded€that€he€sold€the€refrigerator.€€The€defendant€testified€thatÏJohnson€and€Ms.€Townes€argued€as€they€were€on€their€way€to€buy€beer€so€heÏdecided€to€drop€in€on€James€Hoyt.€€Hoyt€was€not€at€home,€however.€€The€defendantÏclaimed€that€he€then€saw€his€brother€drive€by€in€the€Williams€Furniture€CompanyÏtruck.€€He€contended€that€the€furniture€truck€and€the€victimððs€car€were€parked€at€theÏcenter.€€He€looked€inside€the€center€and€found€the€body.€€The€defendant€claimedÏthat€he€then€saw€his€brother€running€down€the€hallway;€he€testified€that€he€got€a€ragÏto€try€to€stop€the€victimððs€bleeding€and€tried€to€pick€him€up.€€The€defendantÏcontended€that€he€then€picked€up€the€knife€and€wrapped€it€in€the€rag.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€knew€his€brother€had€killed€the€victim€and€ran;€he€claimed€that€he€put€theÏknife€in€a€ditch€and€returned€home.€€On€cross„examination,€the€defendant€wasÏunable€to€explain€why€the€rag€did€not€have€blood€on€it.€€Ìà àà àÌà@ àIÌà àà àThe€defendant€first€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€toÏsupport€the€verdict€of€felony€murder.€€He€does€not€contest€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€for€his€other€two€convictions.€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€sufficiency€is€at€issue,€of€course,€this€court€must€review€theÏrecord€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€was€sufficient€ð ðto€support€theÏfinding€of€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.ÏCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€€This€court€may€not€reweigh€theÏevidence,€re„evaluate€the€evidence,€or€substitute€its€evidentiary€inferences€forÏthose€reached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Careyóó,€914€S.W.2d€93,€95€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995).€€A€verdict€against€the€defendant€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÏraises€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476Ï(Tenn.€1973).€€The€defendant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption€ofÏguilt.€ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€givenÏtheir€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€their€testimony€are€mattersÏentrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2dÏ542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1978).€€The€relevant€question€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€lightÏmost€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÍelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2dÏ405,€410€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073€(1984);€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€the€offense,€felony€murder€was€defined€as€the€ð ðrecklessÏkilling€of€another€committed€in€the€perpetration€of,€or€attempt€to€perpetrate€any€firstÏdegree€murder,€arson,€rape,€robbery,€burglary,€theft,€kidnapping€or€aircraft€piracy.ðð€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(3).€€In€order€ð ðto€sustain€a€conviction€of€first„degree„felony„murder,€the€killing€must€have€been€in€pursuance€of,€rather€than€collateral€to€theÏunlawful€act€described€by€the€statute.ðð€€òòState€v.€Seversóó,€759€S.W.2d€935,€938Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€The€death€of€the€victim€ð ðmust€have€had€an€intimateÏrelation€and€close€connection€with€the€felony,€...€and€not€be€separate,€distinct,€andÏindependent€from€it€....ðð€€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,€201€Tenn.€107,€116,€296€S.W.2d€879,€883Ï(1956).€€In€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€756€S.W.2d€700,€703€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€this€courtÏruled€that€ð ð[t]he€fact€that€the€murder€occurred€after€the€robbery€was€completed€doesÏnot€make€the€murder€collateral€to€the€robbery.€€The€jury€reasonably€could€concludeÏ.€.€.€that€the€murder€was€accomplished€in€order€to€prevent€identification€of€theÏdefendants€by€the€victim.ðð€€ÌÌà àà àIn€our€assessment,€the€proof€is€adequate.€€This€record€is€replete€withÏevidence,€primarily€circumstantial,€that€the€defendant€recklessly€killed€the€victimÍafter€an€unlawful€entry€with€the€intent€to€commit€a€theft.€€A€crime€may€be€establishedÏby€the€use€of€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899„900Ï(Tenn.€1987);€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€200€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€victimððs€blood€was€found€on€the€defendantððs€clothing.€€AnÏanalysis€of€the€glass€taken€from€the€defendantððs€boots€established€that€the€glassÏcame€from€the€office€door€where€the€refrigerator€had€been€located.€€Moreover,€theÏdefendant€confessed€his€crime€in€a€signed€statement;€that€the€jury€chose€not€toÏaccept€his€recantation€was€well€within€their€prerogative.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€presence€of€shoe€prints€not€madeÏby€the€defendant€supports€a€finding€that€the€defendant€did€not€commit€the€crime;Ïhowever,€some€prints€matched.€€Again€it€was€the€prerogative€of€the€jury€toÏdetermine€the€value€of€this€evidence;€they€had€a€basis€for€their€conclusions.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€claims€that€his€felony€murder€conviction€cannotÏstand€because€the€crimes€of€burglary€and€theft€are€ð ðseparate€and€distinct€offensesÏ[occurring]€prior€in€timeðð€to€the€murder.€€He€contends€that€he€had€no€criminal€intentÏto€commit€burglary€or€theft€during€his€second€entry€and€cannot,€therefore,€be€guiltyÏof€felony€murder.€€The€stateððs€theory€at€trial€was€that€the€defendant€intended€to€stealÍmore€items€during€the€second€unlawful€entry€but€was€surprised€by€the€victim.€€TheÏstate€argued€that€the€defendant€killed€the€victim€in€order€to€cover€up€his€crime.€€TheÏjury€convicted€the€defendant€based€on€the€theory€of€the€state.€€The€evidenceÏpresented€at€trial€supported€their€decision.€€In€our€opinion,€a€rational€trier€of€factÏcould€have€found€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€toÏsupport€a€conviction€of€first€degree€murder€during€the€commission€of€a€felony.€€òòSeeóóÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307€(1979).€€€€ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€theÏstate€to€exercise€a€peremptory€challenge€to€dismiss€a€black€juror€in€violation€of€theÏrule€in€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€79€(1986).€€The€state€argues€that€noÏconstitutional€violation€occurred€because€the€prosecutor€provided€several€neutralÏreasons€for€its€challenge.€€We€agree€that€the€evidence€does€not€support€a€claim€ofÏpurposeful€discrimination€in€the€use€of€the€peremptory€challenges.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòBatsonóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€prosecutorððsÏuse€of€peremptory€challenges€to€intentionally€exclude€jurors€of€the€defendantððs€raceÏviolated€his€right€to€equal€protection€under€the€fourteenth€amendment€to€the€U.S.ÏConstitution.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€art.€1,€ðð€9,€Tenn.€Const.€€In€òòPowers€v.€Ohioóó,€499€U.S.€400Í(1991),€the€Supreme€Court€upheld€the€principles€in€òòBatsonóó€but€eliminated€theÏrequirement€that€the€defendant€and€the€wrongfully€excluded€juror€be€of€the€sameÏrace€in€order€for€there€to€be€an€equal€protection€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ellisonóó,€841ÏS.W.2d€824,€826€(Tenn.€1992).€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€the€defendant€is€able€to€establish€a€òòprimaóó€òòfacieóó€case€ofÏpurposeful€discrimination€against€a€prospective€juror€from€a€cognizable€racialÏgroup,€the€prosecution€must€come€forward€with€a€neutral€explanation€for€theÏchallenge€of€these€jurors.€€òòState€v.€Ellisonóó,€841€S.W.2d€at€827;€òòseeóó€òòBatson€v.ÏKentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€at€97.€€The€explanation€must€be€more€than€an€assumption€thatÏblack€jurors€will€be€biased€simply€because€the€defendant€is€black.€€On€the€otherÏhand,€the€explanation€does€not€have€to€rise€to€the€level€of€justifying€a€challenge€forÏcause.€€It€is€the€trial€courtððs€responsibility€to€determine€whether€there€has€been€aÏpurposeful€discrimination€on€the€part€of€the€state.€€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€atÏ98;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Bellóó,€745€S.W.2d€858,€òòafter€remandóó,€759€S.W.2d€651€(1988).€Ïð ð[T]he€exercise€of€even€one€peremptory€challenge€in€a€purposefully€discriminatoryÏmanner€would€violate€equal€protection.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ellisonóó,€841€S.W.2d€at€827.€€If€theÏcourt€were€to€determine€a€neutral€reason€does€not€exist,€the€conviction€must€beÏreversed.€€òòState€v.€Ellisonóó,€841€S.W.2d€at€826;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476ÏU.S.€at€100.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€must€show€that€ð ðthese€facts€and€any€other€relevantÏcircumstances€raise€an€inference€that€the€prosecutor€used€that€practice€to€excludeÏ[certain€of]€the€venireman€from€the€petit€jury€on€account€of€their€race.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€96.€€AÏtrial€court€must€look€to€the€ð ðtotality€of€the€relevant€factsðð€to€determine€whether€theÏstateððs€use€of€peremptory€challenges€gives€rise€to€an€inference€of€discriminatoryÏpurpose.€€òòBellóó,€759€S.W.2d€at€653.€€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€defendant€and€the€victim€are€black.€€The€record€reflects€thatÏthe€state€exercised€three€of€its€four€peremptory€challenges.€€One€of€the€threeÏchallenges€was€used€to€remove€an€African„American.€€The€jury€ultimately€chosen€toÏconsider€the€evidence€was€composed€of€one€black€and€eleven€white€members.ÌÌà àà àThe€prosecutor€made€the€following€comment€to€the€venireman€thatÏwas€eventually€excused:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIððm€not€picking€on€you€because€youððre€black€but€itððsÏobvious€to€me€you€are.€€And€the€defendant€is€black€andÏthe€victim€is€black.€€And,€consequently,€I€might€think€thatÏyou€might€have€some€more€interest€in€it€than€maybeÏsome€other€people,€that€it€could€be€somebody€that€youÏknew.€€ÌÌÓÓThe€venireman€responded€that€he€had€ð ðheard€a€right€smart€aboutðð€the€offense€andÏthat€he€knew€three€or€four€of€the€witnesses.€€In€response€to€a€question€of€whetherÏhe€knew€the€defendant,€he€replied,€ð ðI€think€I€do.€€If€I€donððt,€I€believe€„„€if€Carl€TownesÏis€his€brother€I€know€him,€because€I€know€the€whole€family.ðð€€The€prospective€jurorÏdid€state,€however,€that€he€could€be€fair€despite€the€relationship.€€Later,€theÏprosecutor€submitted€a€peremptory€challenge.€€A€bench€conference€was€held,€andÏthe€trial€court€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€required€the€prosecutor€to€state€the€reasons€for€hisÏchallenge.€€The€prosecutor€gave€the€following€reasons:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€€that€the€juror€knew€the€defendantððs€brother€and€that€Ïthe€defendant€and€his€brother€were€known€to€the€stateÏand€police€officers€as€crack€and€cocaine€dealers;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€that€the€juror€was€evasive€because€he€would€notÏlook€the€prosecutor€in€the€eye€and€kept€his€hands€overÏhis€face;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€that€because€the€juror€wore€an€earring€and€goldÏchain€he€would€ð ðhave€less€interest€in€the€systemðð€andÏwould€not€ð ðmake€a€good€juror€for€the€[s]tate€and€[would]Ïlean€to€the€defendantðð;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€€that€the€prosecutor€believed€the€juror€had€aÏfriendship€with€the€defendant€which€he€had€notÏrevealed.ÌÌÓÓThe€prosecutor€also€stated€that€a€named€African„American€from€Carroll€CountyÏstated€a€belief€that€the€challenged€juror€would€not€likely€be€supportive€of€the€state.€€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€bench€conference,€the€trial€court€made€noÏspecific€findings€about€the€prosecutorððs€discriminatory€intent.€€Later,€the€prosecutorÏinformed€the€trial€judge€that€he€preferred€to€have€an€African„American€juror€so€thatÏthere€would€be€no€perception€that€the€gravity€of€the€offense€was€lessened€by€theÏfact€that€there€was€a€black€defendant€and€a€black€victim.€€Another€African„AmericanÏwas€eventually€selected€to€serve€on€the€jury;€the€prosecutor€had€a€peremptoryÏchallenge€available€but€did€not€use€it.€€Again,€the€trial€court€made€no€specificÏfindings€but€instead€impaneled€the€jury€consisting€of€one€black€and€eleven€whiteÏmembers.ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€the€record€does€not€support€the€defendantððs€claim€ofÏpurposeful€discrimination€in€the€use€of€peremptory€challenges.€€On€appeal,€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€of€intentional€discrimination€is€entitled€to€appropriate€deference€by€aÏreviewing€court.ðð€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€914€(Tenn.€1994).€€Implied€in€theÏruling€of€the€trial€court€is€that€there€was€no€discrimination.€€The€defendant€argues€onÏappeal€that€the€venireman€did€not€in€fact€know€the€defendant€because€he€statedÏthat€he€knew€the€family€of€Carl€Townes,€who€is€not€related€to€the€defendant.€€TheÏrecord,€however,€does€not€suggest€that€this€fact€was€brought€to€the€attention€of€theÏprosecutor€or€the€trial€court.€€When€the€venireman€stated€that€he€knew€the€victim,Íseveral€witnesses,€and€the€circumstances€of€the€crime,€he€provided€the€state€withÏracially€neutral€reasons€for€excusing€the€prospective€juror.€€€ÌÌà@ àIIIÌà àà àAs€his€third€issue,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€prosecutorÏimproperly€argued€facts€not€in€evidence€during€closing€argument.€€He€contends€thatÏthe€prosecutorððs€misconduct€misled€the€jury€and€deprived€him€of€a€fair€trial.ÌÌà àà àTrial€courts€have€substantial€discretionary€authority€in€determining€theÏpropriety€of€final€argument.€€Although€counsel€is€generally€given€wide€latitude,Ïcourts€must€restrict€any€improper€argument.€€òòSparks€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€564Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Closing€argument€must€be€temperate,€must€be€basedÏupon€evidence€introduced€during€trial,€and€must€be€relevant€to€the€issues€at€trial.€ÏòòState€v.€Suttonóó,€562€S.W.2d€820€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€The€bounds€of€properÏargument€largely€depend€upon€the€facts€in€evidence,€the€character€of€the€trial,€andÏthe€conduct€of€opposing€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Byerleyóó,€658€S.W.2d€134€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1983);€òòEvans€v.€Stateóó€557€S.W.2d€927€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977);€òòGastonÏv.€Stateóó,€506€S.W.2d€802€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).ÌÌà àà àThe€test€to€be€applied€in€reviewing€prosecutorial€misconduct€isÏwhether€ð ðthe€improper€conduct€could€have€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€ofÏthe€defendant.ðð€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€215€Tenn.€338,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(1965).€ÏThe€factors€are€set€out€in€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1976),€as€adopted€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2dÏ600,€609€(Tenn.€1984):ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€€the€conduct€complained€of,€viewed€in€light€of€theÏfacts€and€circumstances€of€the€case,ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€the€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€andÏthe€prosecutor,ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improperÏargument,ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€andÏany€other€errors€in€the€record,€andÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(5)€€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.ÌÌà àà àBoth€the€state€and€the€defense€must€be€given€the€opportunity€to€argueÏnot€only€the€facts€in€the€record€but€any€reasonable€inferences€drawn€therefrom.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòRussell€v.€Stateóó,€532€S.W.2d€268€(Tenn.€1976).€€Confusing€or€irrelevantÏarguments€should€not€be€permitted.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurns€v.€Stateóó,€591€S.W.2d€780€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1979);€òòBrazelton€v.€Stateóó,€550€S.W.2d€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).ÌÌà àà àThe€argument€challenged€by€the€defendant€consisted€of€a€statementÏmade€by€the€prosecutor,€ð ðIððm€going€to€submit€...€one€other€possibility.€€Exhibit€12€isÏthe€shoe€print€that€[Agent€Littlejohn]€says€was€between€the€[victimððs]€legs€[and€was]Ïnot€consistent€with€that€tread.€€Look€at€that€print€and€tell€me€if€that€is€not€possibleÏthat€is€a€footprint€on€top€of€a€footprint.ðð€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€defendantððsÏobjection€because€the€assertion€qualified€as€argument€based€upon€the€evidence€inÏthe€record;€no€curative€instructions€were€given.€€ÌÌà àThe€exhibit€was€clearly€admitted€into€evidence;€it€was€not,€however,€includedÏin€the€record€on€appeal.€€It€is€the€defendantððs€burden€to€prepare€a€record€whichÏconveys€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transcribed€in€the€trial€courtÏwith€respect€to€the€issues€which€form€the€basis€of€the€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï24(b);€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€560„61€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Bolingóó,€840ÏS.W.2d€944,€951€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Because€he€did€not€do€so,€this€courtÏmust€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€determination€is€correct.€€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855ÏS.W.2d€at€561;€òòState€v.€Bolingóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€951.ÌÌà àà àIn€any€event,€the€prosecutorððs€statement€was€well€within€the€scope€ofÏproper€argument.€€There€was€a€legitimate€factual€issue€over€whose€shoe€printsÍwere€at€the€scene.€€Evidence€was€introduced€that€the€shoe€prints€were€made€by€aÏthird€person.€€In€our€view,€the€prosecutor€made€an€arguable€inference€from€theÏevidence€presented€at€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòRussell€v.€Stateóó,€532€S.W.2d€at€271.€€That€isÏpermissible.€€ÌÌà@ àVÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€venue€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€He€argues€that€because€two€officers€testifiedÏdifferently,€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€establish€that€the€crime€took€place€inÏCarroll€County.€€ÌÌà àà àArticle€I,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides€that€in€all€criminalÏprosecutions€by€indictment€or€presentment,€the€accused€has€a€right€to€a€trial€by€anÏimpartial€jury€chosen€from€the€county€in€which€the€crime€was€committed.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€18.€€Thus€founded€in€the€constitution,€proof€of€venue€is€necessaryÏto€establish€jurisdiction.€€òòHopson€v.€Stateóó,€201€Tenn.€337,€299€S.W.2d€11,€14Ï(1957).€€Venue€may€be€shown€only€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€TheÏburden€is€on€the€state.€€òòHarvey€v.€Stateóó,€213€Tenn.€608,€376€S.W.2d€497,€498Ï(1964);€òòHopper€v.€Stateóó,€205€Tenn.€246,€326€S.W.2d€448,€451€(1959).€€SlightÏevidence,€including€circumstantial€evidence,€will€be€sufficient€if€the€evidence€isÍuncontradicted.€€òòState€v.€Bennettóó,€549€S.W.2d€949€(Tenn.€1977).€€Further,€a€juryÏmay€infer€that€a€murder€was€committed€in€the€county€where€the€body€was€found.€ÏòòReynolds€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€349,€287€S.W.2d€15,€16€(1956);€òòCagle€v.€Stateóó,€507ÏS.W.2d€121€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€three€witnesses€testified€about€the€location€of€the€crime.€€InÏresponse€to€the€prosecutorððs€question€as€to€whether€the€crime€took€place€in€CarrollÏCounty,€Officer€Bush€stated,€ð ðNo,€sir,€itððs€in€Weakley€County.ðð€€He€then€followed€hisÏanswer€with€the€statement€that€he€ð ðbelieve[d]ðð€that€the€center€was€in€WeakleyÏCounty.€€The€prosecutor€then€stated,€ð ðI€donððt€think€so.ðð€€Officer€Bush€then€replied,Ïð ðWell,€I€donððt€know€about€that.€€Itððs€not?ðð€€The€prosecutor€then€called€another€officerÏto€clarify€the€issue.€€Detective€Walker€testified€that€during€his€investigation€he€ð ðfoundÏout€for€sureðð€that€the€center€was€in€Carroll€County.€€Juanita€Johnson€also€testifiedÏthat€the€crime€scene€was€in€Carroll€County.ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€the€state€met€its€burden.€€There€is€no€merit€to€theÏdefendantððs€claim.€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àVÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€challenges€the€admission€of€a€color€photographÏof€the€victimððs€body.€€The€state€argues€that€it€introduced€the€picture€to€show€theÏlocation€of€the€body€and€the€quantity€of€blood€surrounding€the€victim.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€admissibility€of€photographs€from€the€scene€of€the€crime€isÏgoverned€by€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€403€and€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947Ï(Tenn.€1978).€€The€evidence€must€be€relevant€and€its€probative€value€mustÏoutweigh€any€prejudicial€effect.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403;€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€atÏ950„51.€€Whether€to€admit€the€photographs€is€within€the€discretionary€authority€ofÏthe€trial€court€and€will€not€be€reversed€absent€a€clear€showing€of€an€abuse.€€òòState€v.ÏAllenóó,€692€S.W.2d€651,€654€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).òòÌóóÌà àà àHere,€the€state€sought€to€introduce€a€color€photograph€of€the€victimÏportraying€the€victim€lying€on€his€back€with€his€head€tilted€backwards.€€The€pictureÏdoes€not€show€the€victimððs€face€but€does€reflect€a€substantial€amount€of€blood€closeÏto€the€victimððs€body€and€splatters€of€blood€on€the€floor€and€the€wall.€€A€blue€hat€isÏalso€shown€lying€next€to€the€victim.€€The€state€argued€at€trial€that€the€photographÏshould€be€admitted€because€the€defendant€made€an€issue€of€the€blood€andÏbecause€it€was€relevant€to€show€that€anyone€who€walked€near€the€victim€wouldÏprobably€get€blood€on€his€or€her€feet.€ÌÌà àà àWhile€the€photograph€of€the€victim€was€unpleasant,€it€demonstratedÏthe€large€amount€of€blood€surrounding€the€victim.€€In€this€context,€the€photographÏhad€substantial€probative€value€in€showing€the€likelihood€of€leaving€a€shoe€imprintÏin€the€blood€if€a€person€walked€near€the€victim.€€Identity€of€the€person€whoÏcommitted€the€crime€was€a€key€issue€at€trial.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€holdÏthat€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€admitting€the€single€photograph€ofÏthe€victim.ÌÌà@ àVIÌà àà àThe€defendant's€final€contention€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏordering€a€life€sentence€for€his€felony€murder€conviction€to€be€served€consecutivelyÏto€the€concurrent€sentences€imposed€for€his€convictions€of€burglary€and€theft.€€TheÏstate€argues€that€because€the€defendant€did€not€include€the€presentence€report,€theÏdefendant€failed€to€properly€preserve€the€issue€for€appellate€review€under€theÏstandard€set€forth€in€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€560„561€(Tenn.€1993);€òòStateÏv.€Bolingóó,€840€S.W.2d€944,€951€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€A€motion€to€correct€andÏmodify€the€record€to€add€the€presentence€report,€however,€was€permitted€after€theÏstate€submitted€its€brief.€€òòState€v.€Lee€Russell€Townesóó,€No.€02C01„9505„CC„00140Í(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€August€17,€1995).€€Therefore,€we€will€address€theÏmerits€of€the€claims€made€by€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€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);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€SentencingÏCommission€Comments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€theÏimpropriety€of€the€sentence.€€ÌÌà àà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any€received€atÏthe€trial€and€the€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„102,€„103,€and€„210;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àà àPrior€to€the€enactment€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,Ïthe€limited€classifications€for€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€were€set€outÏin€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1976).€€In€that€case€our€supreme€courtÏruled€that€aggravating€circumstances€must€be€present€before€placement€in€any€oneÏof€the€classifications.€€Later,€in€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€1987),€theÏcourt€established€an€additional€category€for€those€defendants€convicted€of€two€orÏmore€statutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€minors.€€There€were,€however,Ïadditional€words€of€caution:€€"[C]onsecutive€sentences€should€not€routinely€beÏimposed€.€.€.€and€.€.€.€the€aggregate€maximum€of€consecutive€terms€must€beÏreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€involved."€€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739ÏS.W.2d€at€230.€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€adopted€the€cautionaryÏlanguage.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115.€€The€1989€Act€is,€in€essence,€theÏcodification€of€the€holdings€in€òòGrayóó€and€òòTayloróó;€consecutive€sentences€may€beÏimposed€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€only€upon€a€determination€that€one€orÏmore€of€the€following€criteria× ƒ4 ××  ×€exist:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€hasÏknowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€majorÏsource€of€livelihood;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€is€extensive;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormalÏperson€so€declared€by€a€competent€psychiatrist€whoÏconcludes€as€a€result€of€an€investigation€prior€toÏsentencing€that€the€defendant's€criminal€conduct€hasÏbeen€characterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitive€orÏcompulsive€behavior€with€heedless€indifference€toÏconsequences;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€andÏno€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€riskÏto€human€life€is€high;€€€€à à€€€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€moreÏstatutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€withÏconsideration€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€arisingÏfrom€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€victimÏor€victims,€the€time€span€of€defendant's€undetectedÏsexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€actsÏand€the€extent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mentalÏdamage€to€the€victim€or€victims;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offenseÏcommitted€while€on€probation;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(7)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).ÌÌà àà àIn€òòGrayóó,€our€supreme€court€ruled€that€before€consecutive€sentencingÏcould€be€imposed€upon€the€dangerous€offender,€as€now€defined€by€subsectionÏ(b)(4)€in€the€statute,€other€conditions€must€be€present:€€(a)€that€the€crimes€involvedÏaggravating€circumstances;€(b)€that€consecutive€sentences€are€a€necessary€meansÏto€protect€the€public€from€the€defendant;€and€(c)€that€the€term€reasonably€relates€toÏthe€severity€of€the€offenses.ÌÌà àà àMore€recently,€in€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.Ï1995),€our€high€court€reaffirmed€those€principles,€holding€that€consecutiveÏsentences€cannot€be€required€of€the€dangerous€offender€"unless€the€termsÏreasonably€relate[]€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€necessary€inÏorder€to€protect€the€public€(society)€from€further€criminal€acts€by€those€persons€whoÏresort€to€aggravated€criminal€conduct."€€The€òòWilkersonóó€decision,€which€modifiedÏsomewhat€the€strict€factual€guidelines€for€consecutive€sentencing€adopted€in€òòStateÏv.€Woodsóó,€814€S.W.2d€378,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€described€sentencing€asÏa€"human€process€that€neither€can€nor€should€be€reduced€to€a€set€of€fixed€andÏmechanical€rules."€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938.ÌÌà àà àTo€summarize,€in€addition€to€fitting€into€one€of€the€seven€statutorilyÏmandated€classifications,€the€record€must€also€establish€that€the€aggregateÍsentence€reasonably€relates€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€and€the€total€sentence€isÏnecessary€for€the€protection€of€the€public€from€further€crimes€by€the€defendant.€ÏòòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938;€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€at€392.€€TheÏrecord€must€show€that€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances€were€considered€before€the€presumption€of€correctness€applies.€€€€ÌÌà àà àWe€first€address€the€issue€of€whether€the€defendant€may€properly€beÏplaced€in€one€of€the€seven€statutorily€mandated€classifications.€€The€trial€judgeÏfound€the€defendant€to€be€a€dangerous€offender.€€We€agree€with€the€determinationÏthat€the€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€toÏhuman€life€was€high.€€The€record€establishes€that€the€defendant€knew€the€victimÏand€committed€the€murder€out€of€fear€of€the€victim€calling€the€police€to€report€theÏdefendantððs€crimes.€€When€a€defendant€falls€within€the€statutory€classifications€forÏeligibility€to€be€considered€for€consecutive€sentencing,€the€only€remainingÏconsiderations€are€whether€(1)€the€sentences€are€necessary€in€order€to€protect€theÏpublic€from€further€misconduct€by€the€defendant€and€(2)€"the€terms€are€reasonablyÏrelated€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses."€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938.€ÏHere,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€sentences€imposed€were€necessary€to€protectÏsociety€and€were€proportionate€to€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€Because€the€trialÏcourt€followed€the€mandates€of€òòWilkersonóó,€the€presumption€that€the€trial€courtÍimposed€a€lawful€sentence€prevails€in€this€instance.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€at€169.€€In€our€view,€there€is€a€reasonable€relationship€between€theÏsentence€and€the€gravity€of€the€crime.€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ìà àà àà àÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge€