ÿWPC! …U:V %–nX¦ 04þ42 F w@N 0JŽ 0TØ 0^, 0hŠ 0rò 0|d 0†à 0f 1uö 0dk B)Ï DCø AM;U*ˆé²v~›vÓ Bì D3  0@< AO|ÆË 0D‘ D/Õ B<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX|x£«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT¼¼Œþ6X@ÉDQ¼@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó ƒØ"ÿÿÿÿ [e‘’“D”•U–—˜Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ßÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òJune€25,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X Òò ò›Ñ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€6¨XXdÖdÈ7ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àÔ€¼ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE€ÌœÙ€€ÙßR€!A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Ìà@ àAT€€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àDECEMBER€1994€SESSIONÌÔ€XÔÌó óÌÌÌÌÌÔˆˆÔð#ðÌÔˆˆÔðð€€€€Ìò òÔ€¼ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,Ô$$ÔÔ€XÔððÌ€€€€€€€€€€€AppelleeÔ  Ôðð€€No.€œ03C01›„9404„CR„00144ÔÐóÐóÔÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÔÀÀÔððÌà àà àà àà àà à€vs.ÔP P Ôð*ð€€œSULLIVAN›€COUNTYÌÔˆˆÔððÌÔˆˆÔðð€€Hon.€œEdgar€P.€Calhoun›,€JudgeÌœò òÔ€¼ÔCLYDE€DEWAYNE›€œWESEMANN›,€€€€€€€€€ó óÔýýÔÔ€XÔððÌ€€€€€€€€€€€AppellantÔ((Ôðð€€œ(1st€Degree€Murder)›ÌÔˆˆÔð$ðÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:€€ÌÌœStephan€M.€Wallace›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Charles€W.€œBurson›ÌœDistrict›€Public€Defender€€€œ€€›€€€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÌœP.O.€Box€839ÌBlountville›,€TN.€37617€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œMerrilyn›€œFeirman›€€Ìœ€€€€€€›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à€€€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÌœGreg€L€Lauderback›€€€€€€€€€€à àà à€€€Criminal€Justice€DivisionÌœAttorney€at€Law€€€€€€€€€€€€›à àà à€€€450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌœLauderback›€&€œLauderback›à àà àà àà àà à€€€Nashville,€TN€37243„0493Ìœ434€Shelby›€StreetÌœKingsport›,€TN.€37660à àà àà àà àà à€€€œH.›€œGreeley›€Wells,€Jr.Ìœ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€›à àœ€›à àà àà àà àà à€€€District€Attorney€GeneralÌœ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€›Ìœ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€›à àà àà à€€€œRebecca€H.€Davenport›Ìœ€€€€€€€€€€€€›à àà àà àà àà à€€€œAsst›€œDist›.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€à àà à€€€œBlountville›,€TN.€œ37617›ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_______________________ÌÌÌÌÌœò òÔ€¼ÔAFFIRMEDÔ€XÔó óÌÌÌRobert›€E.€Burchò òÌó óSpecial€œJudgeÌÌÌ›ÌÌÑ7€6¨XXdÖXXdÖ7Ñà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌœÌÓÓà àFollowing€a€jury€trial,€Appellant€was€found€guilty€of€MurderÏin€the€First€Degree,€Aggravated€Burglary€and€Theft€of€less€thanÏfive€hundred€($500)Dollars.€€The€jury€sentenced€Appellant€to€lifeÏfor€the€murder€and€the€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€ten€years€forÏthe€burglary€and€eleven€months€twenty„nine€days€for€the€theft.€ÏThe€trial€court€ruled€that€the€burglary€sentence€shall€be€servedÏconsecutively€to€the€murder€sentence.€€He€appeals€of€right€to€thisÏCourt€assigning€four€issues€for€review:Ìà àà à1).€Whether€the€proof€of€deliberation€was€insufficientÏto€sustain€a€conviction€of€murder€in€the€first€degree.Ìà àà à2).€Whether€evidence€of€a€prior€theft€from€the€victim€byÏthe€appellant€was€improperly€admitted.Ìà àà à3).€Whether€the€confession€of€the€appellant€wasÏimproperly€admitted.Ìà àà à4).€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€theÏappellant€in€that€mitigating€factors€not€listed€in€the€statuteÏwere€not€considered€and€whether€consecutive€sentencing€was€proper.Ìà àWe€find€that€none€of€these€issues€constitute€prejudicialÍerror€and€affirm€the€conviction.Ì›à@ àò òFACTSó óÌœà àOn€June€11,€1992,€at€approximately€eight€p.m.,€Mrs.€VirginiaÏTrusley€was€found€dead€in€the€living€room€of€her€home€in€ruralÏSullivan€County.€€The€house€had€been€ransacked€and€Mrs.€TrusleyÏhad€apparently€been€shot€as€she€dozed€in€front€of€the€televisionÏwith€her€Bible€open€on€her€lap.Ìà àVery€quickly,€suspicion€centered€upon€Appellant,€who€hadÏmowed€Mrs.€Trusleyððs€yard.€€Appellantððs€girlfriend€led€police€toÏan€out„of„the„way€bridge€under€which€she€had€watched€AppellantÏhide€the€murder€weapon,€which€had€been€stolen€from€the€home€of€theÏdeceased.€€When€brought€in€for€questioning,€Appellant€confessed€toÏthis€crime.Ìà àIn€his€confession,€Appellant€stated€that€he€entered€the€houseÏabout€five€a.m.€on€the€day€that€the€body€was€discovered€byÏbreaking€the€glass€in€a€back€door.€€He€searched€the€kitchen€butÏfound€nothing€which€he€considered€worth€taking.€€Appellant€thenÏwalked€down€the€hall€to€the€bedroom.€€First€searching€the€closet,Ïhe€found€a€.410€shotgun.€€Upon€discovering€the€shotgun,€AppellantÏwalked€back€up€the€hall€to€the€living€room€where€Mrs.€Trusley€wasÏsleeping.€€He€aimed€the€shotgun€at€her€and€pulled€the€trigger.€ÏThe€shot€entered€Mrs.€Trusleyððs€temple,€instantly€killing€her.€€ÏAppellant€stated€that€the€shot€surprised€him€because€he€ð ðdidnððtÏknow€for€sureðð€that€the€gun€was€loaded.€€Appellant€stated€that€heÏimmediately€regretted€what€he€had€done.à àAfter€killing€Mrs.ÏTrusley€in€her€sleep,€Appellant€resumed€searching€the€house.€ÍAfter€the€search,€he€left€with€the€only€possession€of€the€deceasedÏwhich€he€considered€valuable,€the€shotgun.Ìà àAfter€leaving€the€house,€Appellant€then€went€home€and€went€toÏbed.€€The€following€day,€Appellant€talked€to€several€people€aboutÏselling€the€shotgun.€€The€police€questioned€Appellant€briefly€butÏhe€denied€any€knowledge€of€the€murder.€€The€following€day,ÏAppellant€learned€that€the€police€were€again€searching€for€him.€ÏSince€Appellantððs€car€would€not€start,€he€called€his€girlfriendÏwho€drove€him€to€the€Sensabaugh›€Hollow€bridge€where€he€hid€theÏshotgun.Ìà@ àò òSUFFICIENCY€OF€PROOF€OF€DELIBERATIONÌà àó óIn€his€first€issue€presented€for€review,€Appellant€insistsÏthat€the€evidence€introduced€at€his€trial€is€not€sufficient€as€aÏmatter€of€law€to€sustain€a€conviction€of€murder€in€the€firstÏdegree.ò òÌà@ àStandard€of€Reviewó óÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimateÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó€571ÏS.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€1978).€€A€verdict€of€guilt,€approved€by€theÏtrial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€State's€witnesses€andÏresolves€all€conflicts€in€testimony€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòStateÏv.€œTownsend›óó€525€S.W.2d€842€(Tenn.€1975).€€The€presumption€ofÏinnocence€is€thereby€removed€and€a€presumption€on€guilt€exists€onÏappeal.€òòœAnglin›€v.€Stateóó€553€œS.W.›€2d€616€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€ÏThe€defendant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption.€ÍòòState€v.€Brown€óó551€S.W.€2d€329€(Tenn.€1977).Ìà àWhen€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged€on€appeal,Ïthe€test€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÏhave€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€òòState€v.€Duncan€óó698€S.W.€2d€63€(Tenn.€1985);€òòRule€13(e),ÏT.R.A.P.Ìò òóóà@ àAnalysisó ó€ò òÌà àó óIn€this€appeal,€able€counsel€for€Appellant€have€sagelyÏnarrowed€the€focus€of€their€evidentiary€sufficiency€attack€uponÏthe€single€element€of€deliberation.€€œUnder€the€law€as€it€existedÏat€the€time€of€this€crime,€if›€this€essential€element€of€the€crimeÏof€murder€in€the€first€degree€œwas€not›€established€by€the€proof,€aÏconviction€of€first€degree€murder€œcould€not›€stand.Ìà àAt€the€time€of€the€commission€of€this€crime,€first€degreeÏmurder€not€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€a€specific€felonyÏrequired€the€"intentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€ofÏanother."€T.C.A.ðð€39„13„202€(a)(1)€(1992€Supp.).€A€death€caused€byÏthe€intentional€act€of€another€was€then€and€is€now€presumed€to€beÏsecond€degree€murder.€òòState€v.€Brownóó€836€S.W.2d€530,€543€(Tenn.Ï1992).€Thus,€at€the€time€of€the€trial€of€this€case,€the€State€mustÏhave€proven€premeditation€and€deliberation€to€raise€the€offense€toÏfirst€degree€murder.€Id.€Premeditation€necessitates€"the€exerciseÏof€reflection€and€judgment,"€T.C.A.ðð€39„13„201(b)(2)€(1992€Supp.),Ïrequiring€"a€previously€formed€design€or€intent€to€kill."€òòState€v.ÏWestóó€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992).€Deliberation,€on€the€otherÍhand,€was€defined€as€a€"cool€purpose€.€.€.€formed€in€the€absenceÏof€passion."òò€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€œ538.›€€It€involved€the€process€ofÏweighing€matters€such€as€the€wisdom€of€proceeding€with€theÏkilling,€the€manner€in€which€it€will€be€accomplished,€and€theÏlikely€consequences€if€apprehended.€òòBrownóó€836€S.W.2d€at€540„41.òò€ÏóóDeliberation€also€required€"some€period€of€reflection,€duringÏwhich€the€mind€is€free€from€the€influence€of€excitement."€Id.€TheÏdeliberation€and€premeditation€must€be€akin€to€the€deliberationÏand€premeditation€shown€for€a€murder€performed€by€poisoning€orÏlying€in€wait.€òòBrownóó€836€S.W.2d€at€539€(quoting€òòœRader›€v.€Stateóó€73ÏTenn.€610,€619„620€(1880))ò òÌó óà àNo€specific€time€is€required€to€form€the€requisiteÏdeliberation.€òòState€v.€Gentryóó€881€S.W.2d€1(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€ÏDeliberation€is€present€when€the€circumstances€suggest€that€theÏmurderer€contemplated€the€manner€and€consequences€of€his€act.€òòWestóóÏ844€S.W.2d€at€147.€Though€similar,€deliberation€and€premeditationÏare€defined€separately€and€are€distinct€œelements€of€the€crime€ofÏmurder€in€the€first€degree.›€See€òòState€v.€Brooksóó€880€S.W.2d€390,Ï392„93€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€œEach€may›€be€inferred€from€theÏcircumstances€where€those€circumstances€affirmatively€establishÏthat€the€defendant€premeditated€his€assault€and€then€deliberatelyÏperformed€the€act.€òòState€v.€Richard€Nelsonóó€(unreported)€1993€Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€No.€œ02C01›„9211„CR„00251€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,ÏOct.€13,€1993).€This€court€has€previously€held€that€the€holding€inÏòòBrownóó€requires€"proof€that€the€offense€was€committed€uponÏreflection,€'without€passion€or€provocation,'€and€otherwise€freeÍfrom€the€influence€of€excitement"€before€a€second€degree,Ïintentional€murder€can€be€elevated€to€murder€in€the€first€degree.ÏòòState€v.€David€L.€œHassell›óó€(unreported)€1992€Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€No.Ïœ02C01›„9202„CR„00038,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,ÏDec.€30,€1992).€€The€circumstances€must€suggest€that€the€murdererÏreflected€on€the€consequences€of€the€act€and€that€the€thoughtÏprocess€took€place€in€a€cool€mental€state.€òòState€v.€David€œHassell›óó,Ïsupra.Ìà àThe€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€were€questionsÏfor€the€jury€and€may€have€been€inferred€from€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€killing.€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€supra.€€Still,€a€juryÏmay€not€engage€in€speculation.€€òòState€v.€œBordis›óó€905€S.W.2d€214,Ï222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1995).Ìà àPremeditation€and€deliberation,€like€intent€to€kill,€areÏsubjective€states€of€mind.€Often€there€is€no€witness€to€theÏkilling;€and€even€if€there€is€a€witness,€the€killer€does€notÏalways€speak€aloud€what€is€in€his€mind.€œTherefore,€the›€existenceÏof€the€facts€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€must€be€determinedÏfrom€the€defendant's€conduct€(so€far€as€we€can€learn€of€it,Ïusually€from€circumstantial€evidence)€in€the€light€of€theÏsurrounding€circumstances.€òòSubstantive€Criminal€Lawóó,€2nd,€œLaFave›Ïand€Scott€(1986)€at€Section€7.7.Ìà àWe€now€examine€the€facts€of€this€case€in€light€of€the€aboveÏauthorities.Ìà àThe€only€proof€of€deliberation€in€this€case€comes€from€theÏphysical€evidence€found€in€the€house€of€the€deceased€and€from€theÍconfession€of€the€appellant.Ìà àAppellantððs€statement€indicated€that€he€approached€DeceasedððsÏhome€about€five€a.m.€and€found€her€asleep€in€a€chair€in€the€livingÏroom(she€could€be€seen€from€the€door).€Entry€was€accomplished€byÏforcing€a€screen€door€and€breaking€the€glass€in€the€door.€€In€hisÏsigned€statement,€Appellant€states€that€he€does€not€remember€whatÏhe€used€to€break€the€glass€but€police€notes€of€the€statementÏreflect€that€Appellant€said€a€garden€tool€container€was€used.€€TheÏphysical€evidence€indicates€that€it€may€have€been€a€can€of€paint,Ïthe€top€of€which€came€loose€during€the€process.€€After€entry,ÏAppellant€determined€that€the€deceased€remained€asleep.Ìà àAlthough€not€in€his€signed€statement,€police€notes€indicateÏthat€Appellant€stated€that€as€soon€as€he€ð ðpulled€the€screen€doorðð,Ïhe€ð ðwent€berserkðð.€€In€his€signed€statement,€Appellant€indicatedÏthat€he€was€ð ðvery€anxiousðð€that€the€deceased€would€wake€up.Ìà àThe€signed€statement€then€reflects€that€Appellant€opened€theÏback€door€and€went€into€the€kitchen.€€He€then€searched€all€of€theÏkitchen€cabinets€but€failed€to€find€anything€which€he€consideredÏworth€taking.€€Appellant€then€walked€past€the€deceased€into€theÏbedroom.€€He€looked€into€the€closet€and€found€the€.410€shotgun.€ÏAppellant€took€the€shotgun,€walked€back€up€the€hall€to€the€livingÏroom€where€the€deceased€was€asleep,€aimed€the€shotgun€at€her€andÏpulled€the€trigger.€€In€his€signed€statement,€Appellant€statedÏboth€that€he€did€not€know€ð ðfor€sure€that€the€gun€was€loadedðð€andÏthat€he€ð ðfigured€the€gun€was€loadedðð€because€county€people€oftenÏkeep€a€gun€loaded€so€that€it€may€be€used€quickly,€if€needed.€œInÍhis€statement,€Appellant€stated€that€he€ð ðimmediately€regrettedÏshooting€herðð.€€If€this€is€true,€subsequent€facts€give€noÏindication€of€it.€€›€After€killing€the€deceased€in€her€sleep,ÏAppellant€searched€the€living€room,€then€returned€to€the€kitchenÏœwhere›€he€searched€a€hutch.€€He€then€returned€to€the€bedroom€fromÏwhence€he€had€taken€the€shotgun€and€searched€that€room,€includingÏthe€closet€where€he€had€found€the€gun.€€Upon€concluding€his€searchÏand€finding€nothing€which€he€considered€valuable,€AppellantÏreturned€to€the€kitchen€and€used€a€towel€to€wipe€the€house€forÏfingerprints.€€He€then€took€the€shotgun€and€left€the€house.€€AfterÏtrying€to€sell€the€shotgun,€Appellant€disposed€of€it€under€aÏculvert€when€he€heard€that€the€police€had€asked€about€him.Ìà àExhibits€##€24€through€42€(pictures€of€the€entry€and€insideÏof€the€house)€are€instructive.€€From€these€pictures,€it€can€beÏdetermined€that€œthe€deceased›€kept€a€neat€house,€with€everything€inÏits€place€with€the€possible€exception€of€some€personal€papers€onÏthe€kitchen€table.€€It€can€also€be€determined€that€AppellantÏmethodically€searched€the€house€looking€for€items€of€value.€€HeÏthrew€the€contents€of€the€dresser€drawers€on€the€floor€butÏotherwise€disturbed€very€little€other€than€he€left€the€drawersÏopen.€€We€note€that€nothing€has€been€knocked€over€in€spite€ofÏthere€being€numerous€small€items€on€the€kitchen€counter€and€theÏend€table€in€the€living€room.Ìà àIn€looking€at€the€evidence€to€determine€Appellantððs€state€ofÏmind€at€the€time€of€the€killing,€we€initially€note€that€he€said€heÏwent€ð ðberserkðð€as€soon€as€œhe›€entered€the€residence.€€We€do€notÍknow€what€meaning€Appellant€ascribes€to€that€word,€but€it€seemsÏunlikely€to€be€the€dictionary€definition.€€The€word€ð ðberserkððÏmeans€ð ðdestructively€or€frenetically€violent;€derangedðð.€òòAmericanÏHeritage€Dictionary€of€the€English€Languageóó€American€HeritageÏPublishing€Co.,Inc.€New€York€1969.€€In€fact,€the€word€has€itsÏderivations€in€Norse€mythology€and€describes€warriors€who€wereÏconsidered€to€be€so€uncontrollably€inflamed€with€the€fury€ofÏfighting€that€they€were€dangerous€to€friend€and€foe€alike.€€TheseÏwarriors€shunned€coats€of€chain€mail€armor€in€favor€of€a€bear€skinÏfastened€over€one€shoulder.€€They€were€thus€called€ð ðberserkersðð,Ïfrom€the€Norse€words€for€ð ðbearðð€and€ð ðshirtðð.€òòFunk,€Charles€E.,ÏLitt.D.€Thereby€Hangs€a€Tale,€Stories€of€Curious€Word€Originsóó,ÏHarper€&€Row€New€York€1950.€€The€word€connotes€uncontrollableÏfrenzy.€€We€see€no€evidence€of€any€such€frenzy€in€the€photographsÏof€the€crime€scene€nor€do€we€detect€any€indication€of€it€inÏAppellantððs€narrative€of€the€killing.€€In€the€only€other€mentionÏof€his€mental€state€prior€to€the€killing,€Appellant€said€he€wasÏð ðvery€anxiousðð.€€This€is€certainly€an€œunderstandable›€state€of€mindÏon€the€part€œof›€one€who€is€burglarizing€the€occupied€house€ofÏanother€but€it€is€certainly€not€berserk.€€We€must€conclude,Ïtherefore,€that€Appellantððs€meaning€of€berserk€is€not€that€sharedÏby€the€population€in€general€or€that€he€was€being€untruthful.Ìà àThe€events€narrated€by€Appellant€and€the€photographs€in€factÏpaint€quite€a€different€story.€€The€appellant€entered€the€house,Ïmethodically€searched€the€kitchen€then€proceeded€to€the€bedroomÏwhere€he€found€the€shotgun€in€a€closet.€€Up€until€this€point,€weÍhave€no€difficulty€accepting€the€fact€that€Appellant€had€noÏintention€to€kill€the€deceased€but€only€to€steal€her€belongings.€ÏWe€note,€however,€that€it€was€at€this€point€that€AppellantÏtemporarily€abandoned€his€methodical€search€of€the€house€for€itemsÏto€steal€and€walked€back€down€the€hall€with€the€shotgun.€€The€onlyÏmotive€for€this€action€which€can€be€derived€from€the€proof€is€thatÏAppellant€left€the€bedroom€with€the€intention€of€shooting€theÏdeceased.€€In€light€of€subsequent€events,€there€could€have€been€noÏother€reason€for€his€action.€€Therefore,€Appellant€had€formed€theÏintention€to€kill€before€he€left€the€bedroom€and€walked€up€theÏhall€to€the€living€room.€€He€certainly€had€an€opportunity€forÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.ÌThese€circumstances€ð ðaffirmatively€establish€that€the€defendantÏpremeditated€his€assault€and€then€deliberately€performed€the€actðð.ÏòòState€v.€Richard€Nelsonóó,€supra.€€For€these€circumstances€to€failÏto€establish€deliberation,€one€would€have€to€assume€that€AppellantÏwas€simply€passing€the€vicinity€of€the€deceased€on€another€errandÏwhen€he€spontaneously€decided€to€shoot€her.€€This€explanationÏdefies€logic.€€There€is€absolutely€no€indication€of€any€mentalÏstate€except€that€of€calm€deliberation.€€The€pictorial€exhibitsÏshow€that€Appellant€methodically€searched€the€house€both€beforeÏand€after€the€shooting.€€Nothing€was€knocked€over€nor€displaced,Ïonly€the€contents€of€drawers€and€cabinets€examined.€€The€onlyÏindications€of€the€search€of€the€house€were€the€cabinets€andÏdrawers€having€been€left€open€and€the€contents€thereof€having€beenÏthrown€to€the€floor.€€The€facts€negate€any€agitation€on€the€partÍof€Appellant.€The€term€ð ðin€cold€bloodðð€aptly€describes€theÏcircumstances€of€this€killing.€€The€circumstances€affirmativelyÏestablish€that€the€murderer€reflected€on€the€consequences€of€theÏact€and€that€the€thought€process€took€place€in€a€cool€mentalÏstate.€See€òòState€v.€David€œHassell›óó,€supra.Ìà àIn€his€signed€statement,€Appellant€stated€that€he€pulled€theÏtrigger,€ò ònot€knowing€for€sure€that€the€gun€was€loadedó óÏ(emphasis€supplied).€€He€stated€that€it€surprised€him€when€the€gunÏwent€off.€€Appellant€gave€as€the€reason€for€his€action,€ð ðI€shotÏher€because€I€never€killed€anyone€beforeðð.€€A€note€to€hisÏstatement,€which€was€not€signed€by€Appellant€but€was€presented€toÏthe€jury€added€the€phrase,€ð ð...and€I€wanted€to€know€what€it€feltÏlikeðð.€€Apparently,€this€was€the€ð ðconsequencesðð€of€the€act€uponÏwhich€he€reflected€before€œhe›€killed€the€deceased.€€In€another€partÏof€Appellantððs€unsigned€statements€to€the€police,€he€admitted€thatÏhe€expected€the€gun€to€be€loaded€because€country€people€who€keepÏguns€for€protection€usually€do€keep€them€loaded.€€Certainly€theÏfact€that€Appellant€stated€that€he€did€not€ð ðknow€for€sure€that€theÏgun€was€loadedðð€is€not€indicative€of€a€lack€of€deliberation.€€IfÏhe€actually€thought€the€gun€might€not€be€loaded,€we€cannot€imagineÏany€reason€at€all€for€his€trip€back€up€the€hall.Ìà àFor€the€reasons€above€stated,€we€are€convinced€that€the€factsÏaffirmatively€establish€that€œthis›€murder€was€accomplished€onlyÏafter€both€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€The€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.Ìà@ àò òADMISSION€OF€STATEMENTó óÌà àWe€next€deal€with€Appellantððs€third€issue€because€it€isÏnecessary€to€our€examination€of€his€second€issue.Ìà àAppellant€submits€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€refusedÏto€suppress€Appellantððs€statement€or,€at€least,€redact€same.Ìà@ àà@ àò òStandard€of€Reviewó óÌà àA€determination€by€the€trial€court€that€a€confession€has€beenÏgiven€voluntarily€and€without€coercion€is€binding€upon€theÏappellate€court€in€the€absence€of€a€showing€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€ruling.€€òòœLowe›€v€State€óó584€S.W.2d€239Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€has€the€burdenÏof€showing€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€òòœBrasiel›€v€Stateóó€529€S.W.2d€501(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1975).€With€regard€to€the€claim€that€a€confession€was€œinvoluntary,Ïa€trial€court's€determination€at€a€suppression€hearing€isÏpresumptively€correct€on€appeal.€This€presumption€of€correctnessÏmay€only€be€overcome€on€appeal€if€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€court's€findings.€òòState€v.€KellyóóÏ603€S.W.2d€726,€729€€(Tenn.€1980).€€The€appellate€courts€of€thisÏstate€are€bound€to€accept€that€determination€by€the€trial€courtÏthat€a€confession€was€freely€and€voluntarily€given€unless€theÏevidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€that€finding.€òòStateÏv.€Adamsóó€859€S.W.2d€359,€362€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€Findings€ofÏfact€made€by€the€trial€judge€after€an€evidentiary€hearing€of€aÏmotion€to€suppress€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€andÏan€appellate€court€will€not€set€aside€the€trial€court's€judgmentÏunless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€againstÍthe€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v€Odomóó€928€S.W.2d€18Ï(Tenn.€1996).›Ìà àThe€determination€of€whether€a€confession€has€been€obtainedÏimproperly,€by€coercive€or€improper€inducement,€can€only€be€madeÏby€examining€all€the€surrounding€circumstances€involving€theÏinterrogation€leading€to€the€confession.€òòœMonts›€v€Stateóó€400€S.W.2dÏ722(Tenn.€1966).€€The€question€in€each€case€is€whether€the€conductÏof€the€law€enforcement€officers€was€such€to€undermine€theÏaccused's€free€will€and€critically€impair€his€capacity€forÏself„determination€so€as€to€bring€about€an€involuntary€confession.ÏòòœColumbe›€v.€Connecticutóó€367€U.S.€568,€602,€81€S.€Ct.€1860,€1879,€6ÏL€Ed.€2d€1037,€1057„58€(1961);€òòState€v.€Kellyóó€603€S.W.2d€726,Ï728(Tenn.€1980).€Ìò òà@ àAnalysisó ó€Ìà àAppellant€insists€that€his€interrogation€for€four€hours€byÏtwo€detectives€in€a€five€foot€by€ten€foot€room€constituted€aÏcoercive€environment€and€that€his€interrogators€used€coerciveÏtactics,€including€shouting€at€the€appellant€to€overpower€his€willÏand€bring€about€the€confession.€€In€addition,€Appellant€submitsÏthat€his€interrogators€made€a€promise€to€him€that€his€girlfriendÏwould€not€be€charged€if€he€confessed€to€this€crime,€thus€inducingÏhim€to€confess.Ìà àAppellant€agrees€that€he€was€read€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€and€didÏsign€a€waiver€of€them.€€He€does€not€contest€the€validity€of€theÏwaiver,€but€focuses€upon€the€actions€which€followed€the€waiver.Ìà àThe€trial€court,€after€a€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress,Ífound€that€the€confession€had€been€voluntary.€€In€the€ruling€onÏthe€motion,€the€trial€court€stated,€ð ðThere€was€no€threat€or€undueÏpressure€placed€on€him.€€There€was€never€any€threat€to€chargeÏMarlene€Waters€(Appellantððs€girlfriend)€or€to€hold€her€until€heÏconfessed...€ð ð.Ìà àObviously,€the€trial€court€accepted€the€testimony€of€theÏofficers€present€at€the€interrogation€that€they€were€notÏoppressive€in€their€manner.€€It€was€also€accepted€by€the€trialÏcourt€that€the€officer€ignored€the€advice,€passed€to€him€in€theÏform€of€a€note,€to€ð ðinvade€his€(Appellantððs)€spaceðð€and€to€ð ðbearÏdown€on€himðð.€€The€trial€court€likewise€found€that€the€confessionÏwas€not€induced€by€any€promises€with€respect€to€AppellantððsÏgirlfriend.€€From€an€examination€of€the€record,€we€find€no€reasonÏto€disagree€with€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€with€respect€toÏthe€voluntariness€of€the€confession.Ìà àAppellant€argues€in€the€alternative€that€the€confessionÏshould€have€been€redacted€because€additions€were€made€toÏAppellantððs€signed€statement€after€he€had€signed€it.€€He€cites€noÏauthority€for€this€proposition.Ìà àAt€the€beginning€of€the€interrogation,€Appellant€deniedÏcommitting€the€crime,€mentioning€as€possible€suspects€ð ðWaldoðð€andÏð ðJohnðð.€€After€about€an€hour€and€a€half,€Appellant€admittedÏcommitting€the€crime.€€Obviously,€the€œfour€hour›€conversationÏincluded€many€subjects,€including€inquiries€concerning€AppellantððsÏcomfort.€€One€of€the€officers€wrote€a€three€page€statementÏcontaining€the€pertinent€facts€and€Appellant€signed€it.€ÍThereafter,€the€officer€discovered€that€he€had€omitted€some€factsÏwhich€he€considered€important€and€œinterlineated›€them€into€theÏconfession.€€Appellant€refused€to€initial€the€changes€becauseÏð ðthey€were€incriminatingðð.€€The€Sheriff€then€questioned€AppellantÏabout€his€statement€and€had€him€sign€the€same€again,€this€timeÏusing€his€full€name.€€When€asked€by€the€Sheriff€whether€he€hadÏmade€the€statements€contained€in€the€interlineations,€AppellantÏadmitted€that€he€had.Ìà àAt€the€hearing€of€the€motion€to€suppress,€the€trial€œcourtÏruled›€the€additions€to€the€original€statement€to€be€an€accurateÏreflection€of€what€Appellant€actually€said.€€We€cannot€disagree.Ìà àThe€œinterlineations›€were€explained€to€the€jury€and€it€wasÏtold€to€them€that€they€were€added€after€Appellant€had€signed€theÏstatement.€€The€procedure€was€not€misleading.Ìà àThe€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà@ àò òEVIDENCE€OF€EARLIER€THEFTó óÌà àAppellant€insists€that€it€was€error€to€admit€evidence€ofÏAppellant€having€stolen€some€rings€from€the€deceased€and€aÏconfrontation€some€ten€days€before€the€killing€between€theÏdeceased€and€the€appellant€concerning€this€theft.€€There€are€twoÏclosely€related€questions€presented€in€this€issue:Ìà àà à1).€The€admissibility€of€evidence€of€the€confrontation;€Ìà àà à2).€The€admissibility€of€evidence€of€the€theft.Ìà àWith€regard€to€the€confrontation,€Beverly€œJones,€the›€daughterÏof€the€deceased,€testified€that€the€deceased€told€her€that€she€hadÏconfronted€Appellant€and€accused€him€of€stealing€four€rings€fromÍher€house.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€this€evidenceÏcould€only€be€considered€by€them€to€show€the€Appellantððs€ð ðstate€ofÏmind€and€his€intentðð.€€The€trial€court€had€previously€ruled€thatÏthis€evidence€was€admissible€to€establish€the€motive€of€theÏappellant€to€premeditate€and€deliberate€to€kill€the€deceased.€€Ìà àThere€are€two€principal€problems€with€this€evidence.€€First,Ïalthough€the€accusation€itself€was€not€hearsay,€the€testimony€ofÏthe€witness€to€the€accusation€was€hearsay,€œsecond,€the›€evidenceÏwas€not€relevant.Ìà à€The€testimony€of€Ms.€Jones€was€not€that€she€heard€her€motherÏmake€the€statement,€but€that€her€mother€ò òtoldó ó€her€that€she€made€theÏstatement.€€Thus€the€œout„of„court›€declarant€(the€deceased)€toldÏthe€witness€that€the€declarant€had€made€the€statement.€€TheÏwitness€was€not€present€when€the€accusation€was€made.€€Ms.€JonesððÏtestimony€was€hearsay.€€It€was€offered€to€show€that€the€statementÏfrom€the€deceased€declarant€to€the€witness€was€true€(the€deceasedÏhad€accused€the€appellant).€€The€statement€testified€to€œby›€Ms.ÏJones€was€not€an€expression€of€a€state€of€mind€but€a€narrative€ofÏevents€which€did€not€occur€in€her€presence.€€Rule€802,€Tenn.€R.ÏœEvid›.€provides€that€hearsay€is€not€admissible€unless€it€comesÏœwithin›€a€recognized€exception€to€the€rule.€€This€statement€doesÏnot.€€The€testimony€was€improperly€admitted.Ìà àAppellant€submits€that€the€hearsay€exception€of€Rule€803(3)ÏTenn.€R.€œEvid›.(generally€known€as€the€ð ðstate€of€mindðð€exception)Ïdoes€not€allow€the€introduction€of€the€accusation.€€The€StateÏconcedes€that€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Jones€does€not€fit€thisÍexception€but€correctly€points€out€that€the€accusation€was€notÏhearsay.€€We€would€also€add€that€the€trial€court€did€not€rule€atÏthe€trial€that€the€accusation€fit€within€the€803(3)€exception.€ÏThe€trial€court€ruled€that€it€was€not€hearsay.€€The€statement€isÏnot€hearsay.€€It€was€not€admitted€for€the€proof€of€the€factÏcontained€in€the€accusation€but€rather€that€the€deceased€hadÏaccused€Appellant€of€the€theft€and€that€accusation€was€a€motiveÏfor€the€murder.€€It€should€also€be€noted€that€AppellantððsÏassertion€that€the€accusation€does€not€fit€within€the€Rule€803(3)Ïexception€would€be€correct€if€the€statement€were€hearsay.€€RuleÏ803(3)€does€not€allow€the€admission€of€a€statement€to€show€a€non„declarantððs€state€of€mind.€òòœDarron›€Keith€Daniel€vs.€The€AtlantaÏCasualty€Co.óó€(unreported)€Tenn.€App.(W/S)€No.œ02A01›„9508„CV„00167Ïopinion€filed€December€31,€1996.Ìà àEven€if€the€accusation€had€been€properly€admitted,€it€wasÏirrelevant.€€œThere›€exists€no€other€evidence€in€the€record€thatÏAppellant€was€motivated€by€this€accusation€to€kill€the€deceased.€ÏAs€has€been€pointed€out€with€respect€to€the€first€issue€presentedÏfor€appeal,€Appellant€was€unarmed€when€he€broke€into€the€home€ofÏthe€deceased€and€did€not€initially€harm€her.€€His€intention€whenÏhe€entered€the€house€was€burglary,€not€homicide.€€For€the€jury€toÏfind€that€this€accusation€was€a€motive€for€murder€in€this€caseÏwould€have€required€rank€speculation.€€This€evidence€was€notÏœrelevant.€€No›€objection€upon€this€ground€was€made€by€Appellant.€ÏœWithout›€such€an€objection€and€subsequent€inquiry€by€the€trialÏjudge,€there€is€no€way€that€the€trial€judge€can€know€whetherÍevidence€is€relevant.€€The€trial€judge€is€not€privy€to€the€plannedÏtestimony€in€a€case€and€must€rely€upon€counsel€to€insure€thatÏevidence€is€relevant€or€to€object€when€it€is€not€so€that€inquiryÏcan€be€made€as€to€its€relevance.Ìà àThe€error€in€this€case€was€compounded€when€AppellantððsÏstatement€admitting€the€theft€of€the€rings€was€introduced€intoÏevidence.€€The€trial€court€recognized€that€this€was€proof€of€otherÏcrimes€and€allowed€its€introduction€to€establish€intent€andÏmotive.€€An€additional€basis€for€the€ruling€by€the€trial€court€wasÏthat€it€established€that€the€allegations€of€the€deceasedÏ(mentioned€above)€were€true.€€It€was€also€ruled€that€the€probativeÏvalue€of€the€proof€of€the€prior€theft€outweighed€its€prejudicialÏeffect.Ìà àThe€procedure€to€be€followed€in€this€situation€is€controlledÏby€Tenn.€R.€œEvid›.€404(b).ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓӀ̀€€Other€Crimes,€Wrongs,€or€œActs.€€Evidence›€ofÏother€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€notÏadmissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€personÏin€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€theÏcharacter€trait.€It€may,€however,€beÏadmissible€for€other€purposes.€The€conditionsÏwhich€must€be€satisfied€before€allowing€suchÏevidence€are:€ÌÌ€€€€€€€(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€aÏhearing€outside€the€jury's€presence;€ÌÌ€€€€€€€(2)€The€court€must€determine€that€aÏmaterial€issue€exists€other€than€conductÏconforming€with€a€character€trait€and€mustÏupon€request€state€on€the€record€the€materialÏissue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€forÏadmitting€the€evidence;€and€ÌÌ€€€€€€€(3)€The€court€must€exclude€the€evidenceÍif€its€probative€value€is€outweighed€by€theÏdanger€of€unfair€prejudice.€ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àThe€œtrial›€court€basically€complied€with€the€proceduralÏrequirements€of€Rule€404€(b).€€The€question€now€becomes€whetherÏthe€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€prior€theft€wasÏadmissible€to€establish€Appellantððs€motive€and€intent€and€to€showÏthat€the€deceasedððs€accusation€was€accurate€was€proper.Ìà à€Evidence€of€other€crimes€is€excluded€unless€it€falls€withinÏcertain€well„defined€exceptions.€òòState€v.€œRickman›óó€876€S.W.2d€824,Ï827€(Tenn.€1994).€Even€if€other€crimes€evidence€is€relevant€to€aÏdisputed€material€issue,€it€is€still€excluded€"if€its€probativeÏvalue€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice."€Tenn.€R.ÏœEvid›.€404(b)(3).€After€hearing€the€evidence€and€arguments€ofÏcounsel€outside€of€the€presence€of€the€jury,€a€trial€court€mustÏdetermine€whether€the€proffered€evidence€is€relevant€to€aÏdisputed,€material€issue€in€the€case€(other€than€the€propensity€ofÏœa€defendant›€to€commit€crimes)€and€whether€the€state€hasÏestablished€that€relevance€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€IfÏrelevant,€the€court€must€then€weigh€the€probative€value€of€theÏevidence€against€its€potential€for€unfair€prejudice€by€consideringÏthe€unique€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.€TheseÏcircumstances€include€(1)€the€similarities€between€the€otherÏconduct€and€that€charged,€(2)€the€time€that€has€elapsed€betweenÏthe€two€events,€(3)€the€strength€of€other€evidence€in€the€state'sÏcase€to€prove€the€disputed€issue,€and€(4)€the€strength€of€theÏevidence€of€and€connecting€œthe€defendant›€to€the€other€crime.€IfÍthe€probative€value€of€the€other€crimes€evidence€and€theÏlegitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom€œare›Ïsufficiently€strong€to€outweigh€its€prejudicial€effect,€theÏevidence€may€be€admitted.€If€the€unfair€prejudice€is€"dangerouslyÏclose€to€tipping€the€scales,"€the€court€must€exclude€the€evidenceÏdespite€its€relevance€to€some€material€issue.òò€State€v.€œLuellen›óó€867ÏS.W.2d€736,€741.€Ìà àTennessee€recognizes€three€instances€in€which€evidence€ofÏuncharged€crimes€may€be€admissible:€(1)€to€prove€identityÏ(including€motive€and€common€scheme€or€plan);€(2)€to€prove€intent;Ïand€(3)€to€rebut€a€claim€of€mistake€or€accident€if€asserted€as€aÏdefense.€òòState€v€œMcCary›€óó922€S.W.2d€511€(Tenn.€1996).Ìà àAccording€to€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court,€admission€of€thisÏstatement€in€order€to€show€that€the€accusation€of€the€deceased€wasÏtrue€was€indicative€of€motive€on€the€part€of€the€appellant.Ìà àAlthough€there€is€ample€evidence€that€Appellant€is€the€oneÏwho€perpetrated€this€crime,€it€can€be€argued€that€motive€(normallyÏan€identity€issue)€and€intent€are€contested€issues€in€the€trial€ofÏAppellant€because€they€could€establish€the€elements€ofÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.€€The€problem€is€that€they€do€not.€ÏThe€theft€of€the€rings€and€subsequent€accusation€are€not€connectedÏby€other€evidence€in€any€way€to€the€crime€for€which€Appellant€isÏon€trial.€€In€another€murder€case,€evidence€such€as€this€may€beÏadmissible€but€in€the€case€before€us€there€is€simply€no€evidenceÏfrom€which€a€reasonable€person€could€infer€that€the€appellant€wentÏto€the€home€of€the€deceased€that€morning€in€order€to€murder€herÍbecause€of€her€accusation.€€In€fact,€the€evidence€in€the€caseÏrefutes€such€a€theory.€€It€is€highly€unlikely€that€Appellant€wouldÏhave€gone€unarmed€to€the€house€that€morning€if€he€had€intendedÏhomicide.€€Even€if€he€had€done€so,€Appellantððs€actions€once€in€theÏhouse€are€those€of€one€who€came€to€steal,€not€those€of€one€whoÏcame€to€murder.€€From€the€evidence,€it€can€only€be€inferred€thatÏAppellant€only€decided€to€kill€the€deceased€after€he€had€enteredÏthe€house.€€The€accusations€of€ten€days€œearlier›€had€no€bearingÏupon€his€decision.€€To€infer€homicidal€intent€from€the€accusationÏof€theft€would€have€required€the€jury€to€engage€in€rankÏspeculation.Ìà àAdmission€of€the€statement€of€the€appellant€in€which€heÏadmitted€stealing€the€rings€was€error.Ìà àThe€question€now€becomes€whether€œthese›€œerrors›€œwere›Ïprejudicial€to€a€fair€trial€of€the€appellant€in€this€case.€€WeÏhold€that€œthey€were›€not.Ìà àThere€is€ample€evidence€of€Appellantððs€guilt.€€His€detailedÏconfession€is€corroborated€by€the€physical€evidence.€€AppellantððsÏgirlfriend€led€police€to€the€bridge€under€which€Appellant€hadÏhidden€the€murder€weapon.€€Several€people€saw€Appellant€with€theÏstolen€shotgun€after€the€crime.€€Likewise,€the€evidence€ofÏAppellantððs€premeditation€and€deliberation€are€strong.€€As€notedÏwith€respect€to€Appellantððs€first€issue€presented€for€review,Ïthere€can€be€no€other€explanation€for€Appellantððs€walk€up€the€hallÏwith€the€shotgun€except€that€he€did€so€intending€to€kill€theÏdeceased€when€he€finished€his€travel.€€The€prejudicial€effect€ofÍproof€that€Appellant€stole€four€rings€from€the€deceased€prior€toÏthe€homicide€is€slight€especially€when€the€proof€of€the€homicideÏinvolved€proof€that€the€appellant€was€stealing€from€the€deceasedÏwhen€he€committed€the€murder.€€We€further€find€that€the€proof€ofÏother€crimes€added€no€"new€dimension€to€the€jurors'€view€of€œtheÏdefendant".›€See€òòState€v.€Carteróó€714€S.W.2d€241,€247,€248€(Tenn.Ï1986).€€The€situation€in€this€case€is€not€unlike€the€one€dealtÏwith€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Harrisóó€839€S.W.2d€54€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€In€theòò€Harrisóó€case€(a€murder€prosecution),€admission€ofÏevidence€that€a€few€days€before€the€œkillings,›€defendant€andÏcodefendant€stole€credit€cards€and€jewelry€was€harmless€errorÏunder€Rule€36(b),€T.R.A.P.€€This€rule€states:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌ(b)€Effect€of€Error.€A€final€judgment€fromÏwhich€relief€is€available€and€otherwiseÏappropriate€shall€not€be€set€aside€unless,Ïconsidering€the€whole€record,€error€involvingÏa€substantial€right€more€probably€than€notÏaffected€the€judgment€or€would€result€inÏprejudice€to€the€judicial€process.ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àWe€have€considered€the€whole€record€and€are€of€the€certainÏopinion€that€the€error€did€not€rise€to€the€level€required€by€RuleÏ36(b).Ìà àThe€error€is€harmless.Ìà@ àò òSENTENCINGó óÌà àAs€his€last€issue€presented€for€review,€Appellant€insistsÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€the€defendant.€€AppellantÏdoes€not€quarrel€with€the€sentence€of€life€as€the€result€of€theÏfirst€degree€murder€conviction.€€He€does€cite€two€alleged€errorsÍin€sentencing€by€the€trial€judge€on€the€burglary€and€theftÏconvictions:Ìà àà à1).€That€the€trial€court€did€not€give€proper€weight€toÏthe€non„statutory€mitigating€factors€presented€at€the€sentencingÏphase€of€the€murder€trial€in€setting€the€sentence€for€the€burglaryÏand€theft.Ìà àà à2).€That€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€the€sentencesÏto€be€served€consecutively€to€the€life€sentence€for€murder.Ìà@ àò òStandard€of€Reviewó óÌà àThe€standard€of€review€in€sentencing€in€criminal€cases€is€aÏòòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€sentence€set€by€theÏtrial€court€is€correct€if€the€record€shows€that€the€trial€courtÏfollowed€the€principles€of€the€Sentencing€Act€of€1989,€consideredÏthe€relevant€factors€and€made€proper€findings€of€fact€in€theÏrecord.€òòState€v€Fletcheróó€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1981).€€If€this€is€done,€then€œwe›€must€affirm€even€if€we€would€haveÏpreferred€a€different€result.€Id.€€The€burden€of€showing€that€theÏsentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€Appellant.€Id.Ìà àA€portion€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€atÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210,€established€a€number€of€specific€procedures€toÏbe€followed€in€sentencing.€This€section€mandates€the€court'sÏconsideration€of€the€following:€Ìà àà à(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€à àà à€€€Ïsentencing€hearing;Ìà àà à(2)€the€presentence€report;€à àÌà àà à(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€à àà à€€€Ísentencing€alternatives;Ìà àà à(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€à àà à€€€Ïconduct€involved;Ìà àà à(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€à àà à€€€Ïthe€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ðððð€à àà àà à€€€Ï40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€Ìà àà à(6)€any€statement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€à àà à€€€Ïown€behalf€about€sentencing.€Ìà àThe€record€before€us€indicates€that€the€trial€judgeÏconsidered€all€of€the€above€factors€which€applied€to€this€case.€€Ìà@ àò òAnalysisó óÌà àAppellant€insists€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€giveÏsufficient€weight€to€the€non„statutory€mitigating€factors€in€hisÏdetermination€of€his€sentence.Ìà àT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210€provides€that€if€there€are€enhancing€andÏmitigating€factors€in€the€record,€the€court€must€start€at€theÏminimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€asÏappropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€theÏsentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigatingÏfactors.Ìà àThe€Act€further€provides€that€"whenever€the€court€imposes€aÏsentence,€it€shall€place€on€the€record€either€orally€or€inÏwriting,€what€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors€it€found,€if€any,Ïas€well€as€findings€of€fact€as€required€by€ðð€40„35„209."€T.C.A.€ððÏ40„35„210(f).€€This€was€done.Ìà à€The€weight,€if€any,€to€be€afforded€to€enhancement€andÍmitigating€factors€is€left€to€the€trial€judge's€discretion.€òòStateÏv.€Mossóó€727€S.W.2d€229,€237€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€œShelton›óó€854ÏS.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€judge€found€four€enhancing€factors:Ìà àà à1).€A€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€andÏbehavior€beyond€that€necessary€to€establish€the€sentencing€range.€ÏAppellant€had€two€felony€and€numerous€misdemeanor€convictionsÏabove€and€beyond€that€required€to€enhance€his€sentencing€range€toÏRange€II.Ìà àà à2).€The€victim€was€particularly€vulnerable€because€ofÏher€age€and€physical€disability.€€Ìà àà à3).€Appellant€had€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€toÏcomply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€intoÏthe€community.Ìà àà à4).€The€crime€was€committed€while€Appellant€was€onÏprobation€for€another€crime.Ìà àAfter€rejecting€the€mitigating€factor€of€the€appellantððs€ageÏ(24),€the€trial€court€found€two€mitigating€factors:Ìà àà à1).€At€the€time€of€the€crime,€Appellant€was€sufferingÏfrom€a€mental€condition€which€significantly€reduced€hisÏœculpability›€of€the€offences.Ìà àà à2).€The€crime€did€not€involve€violence€or€injury.Ìà àAs€to€the€last€mitigating€factor,€the€trial€judge€obviouslyÏtreated€the€burglary€and€theft€entirely€separately€from€theÏmurder.€€This€he€is€required€to€do.€€The€trial€judge€reasoned€thatÏthe€burglary€was€complete€upon€entering€the€house€and€found€thatÍAppellant€entered€the€house€with€the€intent€to€commit€theft.€€ThisÏis€entirely€supported€by€the€record€as€has€been€discussed€above.€ÏFrom€his€comments€on€the€record,€we€can€easily€determine€that€theÏtrial€judge€gave€this€factor€little,€if€any,€weight.€€We€agree.Ìà àAppellant€insists€that€the€trial€judge€gave€insufficientÏweight€to€the€mitigating€factor€of€the€appellantððs€unfortunateÏchildhood.€€We€disagree.€€The€record€affirmatively€shows€that€theÏtrial€judge€considered€in€detail€the€childhood€of€the€appellant€œin›Ïhis€determination€of€Appellantððs€mental€state€which€reduced€hisÏculpability€for€the€offense.€€The€proof€showed,€and€the€trialÏjudge€recognized,€that€Appellantððs€childhood€had€caused€hisÏpresent€mental€state.€The€record€œshows›€that€the€trial€judgeÏconsidered€this€factor.Ìà àIt€might€be€argued€that€the€trial€judge€gave€no€weight€to€theÏmitigating€factor€of€mental€condition€because€he€œassessed›€theÏmaximum€sentence.€€This€is€not€true.€€This€mitigating€factor€wasÏsimply€outweighed€and€overwhelmed€by€the€enhancing€factors.€ÏAppellant€had€an€extensive€criminal€history€and€this€historyÏestablished€that€Appellant€was€unwilling€to€comply€with€theÏrequirements€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community.€ÏIn€fact,€this€crime€was€committed€while€Appellant€was€on€probationÏfor€another€crime.€€The€facts€of€this€case€establish€a€need€toÏprotect€the€citizens€of€Sullivan€County€from€Appellant€and€thatÏthis€can€only€be€done€by€removing€him€from€society€for€a€longÏperiod€of€time.Ìà àIn€the€case€of€òòState€v€James€Tayloróó€(unreported)€Tenn.€Crim.ÍApp.€at€Nashville€No.€89„93„III,€opinion€filed€April€25,€1990,€weÏconsidered€a€very€similar€factual€situation.€€After€a€òòde€novoóóÏœreview€(as›€required€by€the€law€at€that€time),€we€considered€theÏcase€of€a€defendant€who€had€a€criminal€history€similar€to€that€ofÏAppellant€and€affirmed€a€maximum€sentence€for€burglary€duringÏwhich€a€murder€was€œcommitted.›€€Admittedly,€in€the€òòTayloróó€case,Ïthere€were€no€mitigating€factors€found.€€Again€we€point€out€thatÏthe€enhancing€factors€in€this€case€simply€inundated€the€mitigatingÏfactor.€€Although€the€mitigating€factor€existed,€in€view€of€theÏenhancing€factors,€no€reduction€from€the€maximum€sentence€wasÏcalled€for.Ìà àWe€agree€with€the€sentence€of€the€trial€judge.Ìà àNext,€Appellant€insists€that€the€trial€judge€erred€inÏordering€the€sentences€for€burglary€and€theft€to€be€servedÏconsecutively€to€the€life€sentence€for€murder€but€fails€to€citeÏany€authority€therefor.Ìà àT.C.A.ðð€40„35„115€(b)€allows€consecutive€sentencing€if,€òòinterÏaliaóó:Ìà à(2)€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€à à€€€Ïactivity€is€extensive.à àÌà à(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€à à€€€Ïindicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€à à€€€Ïhesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€à à€€€Ïhuman€life€is€high.€Ìà à(6)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offense€committed€à à€€€Ïwhile€on€probation.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€these€three€factors€in€AppellantððsÏcase.€In€addition,€the€trial€court€found€it€necessary€toÏincarcerate€Appellant€for€the€protection€of€the€public.€€We€cannotÏdisagree.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ìà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€E.€Burch,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSpecial€œJudge̛̜ò òÔ€¼ÔÌCONCUR:Ìó óÔ€Xԛ̜Ì_________________________›Ì€Gary€R.€Wade,€œJudgeÌ̛̜_________________________›Ì€Joseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge