ÿWPC« …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° U,% 0dQ U,µ U>á U*B)IDCr AMµ# B%v~BvÓÀ D3“ 0@Æ AOÆU 0D D/_ BŽ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- µE¶·¸¹Dº»E¼½D¾Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|xÇ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌAugust€1,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚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€FOXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€#$";+'h|` ç `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMARCH€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9507„CR„00217Ìà 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 àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€J.€RANDALL€WYATT,€JR.ó óÌò òJOHN€V.€WOODRUFF,ó óà àà àò ò)à àPRESIDING€JUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌMARK€FISHBURNà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌNashville,€TN€€37201Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCHRISTINA€SHEVALIERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€THURMANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue€SouthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37201ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  Óò òòòÔ€ „ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ XÔÌÌÓÓÌÓ  ÓÔ€ ŠÔà àA€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court€jury€found€Appellant€John€V.€WoodruffÏguilty€of€felony€murder,€especially€aggravated€robbery,€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping,€and€first€degree€murder.€€Appellant€received€a€life€sentence€for€eachÏmurder€conviction€and€a€twenty€year€sentence€for€both€the€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€conviction€and€the€especially€aggravated€kidnappingÏconviction.€€The€life€sentences€were€ordered€to€run€consecutive€to€each€other,Ïand€the€sentences€for€robbery€and€kidnapping€were€ordered€to€run€concurrentÏwith€each€other€and€with€the€life€sentence€for€first€degree€murder.€€In€this€appealÏas€of€right,€Appellant€presents€the€following€issues€for€review:€(1)€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€introduction€of€evidence€of€sexual€assault€uponÏone€of€the€victims;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€a€request€for€a€juryÏinstruction€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€criminal€attempt€to€commit€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery;€(3)€whether€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€legallyÏsufficient€to€sustain€convictions€for€especially€aggravated€robbery€and€firstÏdegree€murder;€and€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€consecutive€lifeÏsentences.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDÌÓ  Óà àó óAs€accredited€by€the€juryððs€verdict,€the€record€reflects€that€the€facts€of€thisÏcase€are€as€follows.€€At€approximately€midnight€on€March€9,€1992,€AppellantÏreceived€a€phone€call€from€Walter€Kendricks,€during€which€Kendricks€asked€himÏif€he€would€like€to€participate€in€a€robbery.€€Kendricks€stated€that€the€robbery€didÏnot€involve€a€store€but€an€individual.€€Appellant€agreed€to€participate€in€theÏrobbery,€borrowed€his€girlfriendððs€car,€and€drove€to€Kendricksðð€home.€€AppellantÏthen€drove€Kendricks€and€himself€to€the€home€of€John€Rucker,€AppellantððsÏbrother„in„law.€€Appellant€asked€Rucker€if€he€could€borrow€his€gun,€explainingÏthat€they€intended€to€rob€an€individual€of€ten€to€fifteen€thousand€dollars.€€RuckerÏagreed€to€the€use€of€his€gun€and€stated€that€he€wanted€to€participate€in€theÏrobbery.€€Before€leaving,€Jermaine€Ferguson€arrived€and€stated€that€he€tooÏwanted€to€participate€in€the€robbery.€€The€four€men€then€left€Ruckerððs€home€andÏproceeded€to€the€Twelve€Oaks€Motel€in€Berry€Hill.€€As€instructed€by€Kendricks,ÏAppellant€drove€around€the€motel€twice,€parked€the€car,€and€turned€off€theÏheadlights.€€According€to€plan,€Kendricks€and€Ferguson€entered€one€of€the€motelÏrooms,€and€Appellant€and€Rucker€followed€a€few€minutes€later.ÌÌà àWhen€Appellant€and€Rucker€entered€the€room,€Ferguson€was€standingÏover€one€of€the€beds€pointing€a€gun€at€Mr.€Derrick€Grant.€€Ms.€Reba€BenfordÏwas€also€present€in€the€room€and€was€positioned€on€the€other€bed.€€KendricksÍasked€Mr.€Grant€where€the€money€was,€and€Mr.€Grant€responded€that€it€wasÏno€longer€there.€€Ms.€Benford€was€then€taken€into€the€bathroom€upon€KendricksððÏinstruction.€€Appellant€and€Kendricks€began€searching€the€room€for€the€money.€ÏAt€some€point,€Appellant€entered€the€bathroom€and€spoke€to€Ms.€Benford,Ïpromising€her€that€she€would€not€be€hurt.€€While€Appellant€was€in€the€bathroom,ÏKendricks€found€and€took€possession€of€three€hundred€dollars.ÌÌà àHaving€discovered€the€three€hundred€dollars,€Kendricksðð€told€AppellantÏthat€they€had€to€kill€Mr.€Grant.€€In€response€to€Kendricksðð€statement,€AppellantÏtold€Rucker€that€it€was€time€for€them€to€go;€however,€neither€man€left€the€motelÏroom.€€As€Mr.€Grant€lay€on€his€stomach,€Kendricks€bound€his€wrists€with€aÏshoelace€and€his€ankles€with€telephone€cord.€€Kendricks€then€injected€anÏunidentified€substance€into€Mr.€Grantððs€arm,€maintaining€that€the€injection€wouldÏnot€kill€him€but€only€put€him€to€sleep.€€Soon€thereafter,€Kendricks€determined€thatÏthe€injection€was€not€going€to€achieve€the€desired€result€and€began€searchingÏfor€something€else€to€inject.€€Appellant€returned€to€the€bathroom€where€Ms.ÏBenford€remained.€€By€this€point,€both€Kendricks€and€Ferguson€had€stated€thatÏthey€wanted€to€have€sexual€intercourse€with€Ms.€Benford.ÌÌà àWhen€Appellant€came€out€of€the€bathroom,€Mr.€Grant€was€still€on€theÏbed€but€was€now€covered€with€a€blanket.€€The€four€men€agreed€that€it€wasÍtime€to€leave,€and€Appellant€suggested€that€they€tie€up€Ms.€Benford€and€leaveÏher€in€the€motel€room€for€someone€to€find.€€Kendricks€however€wanted€to€takeÏher€with€them€and€instructed€Appellant€to€retrieve€her€from€the€bathroom.€ÏAppellant€did€so,€and€the€group€left€the€motel.ÌÌà àAt€approximately€2:30€a.m.,€Officer€John€Parks€of€the€Berry€Hill€PoliceÏDepartment€noticed€two€black€males€sitting€in€a€dark€blue,€four„door€sedanÏparked€to€the€side€of€the€Twelve€Oaks€Motel.€€After€observing€the€ð ðsuspiciousððÏvehicle€from€a€distance€for€a€period€of€time,€Officer€Parks€witnessed€three€or€fourÏblack€males€and€a€black€female€get€into€the€vehicle€and€leave€the€motel.€€TheÏfemale€did€not€appear€to€be€held€against€her€will.€€Officer€Parks€followed€theÏvehicle€for€a€while€but€made€no€effort€to€stop€it€due€to€a€lack€of€probable€causeÏto€warrant€such€action.€€Eventually,€he€returned€to€his€regular€patrol.ÌÌà àMs.€Benford€was€eventually€dropped€off€on€a€street€near€Reservoir€Park.€ÏAs€Appellant€drove€away,€Kendricks€stated,€ð ðwe€gotta€get€her,€we€gotta€getÏher.ðð€€Appellant€then€pulled€over,€and€Kendricks€and€Ferguson€exited€theÏvehicle.€€After€a€ð ðlongðð€period€of€time€had€passed,€Appellant€and€Rucker,€stillÏsitting€in€the€car,€heard€gun€shots.€€At€Ruckerððs€behest,€Appellant€started€the€carÏand€began€turning€it€around€so€that€they€could€leave.€€While€doing€so,€KendricksÏand€Ferguson€returned€and€got€in€the€car.€€Ferguson€told€Appellant€thatÍKendricks€had€engaged€in€sexual€intercourse€with€Ms.€Benford.€€AppellantÏdrove€away€from€the€park,€eventually€dropping€the€other€three€men€off€andÏreturning€home.€ÌÌà àBetween€the€hours€of€2:00€and€3:30€a.m.€on€March€9,€1992,€twoÏindividuals€in€separate€residences€near€Reservoir€Park€were€awakened€byÏnoises€coming€from€the€park.€€Ms.€Stacey€Berry€heard€a€female€voice€calling€outÏfor€help€followed€by€gunshots.€€Ms.€Kate€Muir€heard€an€initial,€ð ðunusually€loudððÏgunshot€followed€by€three€or€four€more€gunshots.€€Neither€saw€anything.ÌÌà àAt€approximately€6:00€a.m€on€that€same€day,€the€fire€department€receivedÏa€911€call€regarding€a€possible€shooting€in€the€park.€€An€emergency€medicalÏtechnician€from€the€fire€department€found€the€body€of€Ms.€Benford€lying€in€theÏmiddle€of€the€park€with€a€gunshot€wound€to€the€head.€€Medical€evidence€laterÏshowed€that€Ms.€Benford€had€been€shot€twice,€suffering€two€entrance€woundsÏand€two€exit€wounds.€€No€bullets€were€recovered€from€the€body.€€One€of€theÏwounds€was€a€near€gunshot€wound€toò ò€ó óthe€left€temple.€€The€other€wound€wasÏa€distant€gunshot€wound€behind€the€left€ear.€€According€to€medical€evidence,Ïboth€wounds€would€have€been€fatal,€but€an€examination€of€the€body€did€notÏreveal€which€shot€occurred€first.€€The€time€of€death€was€established€to€beÏbetween€2:30€and€3:00€a.m.ÌÌà àLaw€enforcement€authorities€arrived€at€the€park€soon€after€the€fireÏdepartment€and€secured€the€crime€scene.€€Authorities€found€Derrick€GrantððsÏdriver€license€approximately€thirty€yards€from€the€body.€€Authorities€also€foundÏand€collected€as€evidence€three€.45€caliber€shell€casings,€a€bullet,€and€aÏcigarette€lighter.€€Between€5:00€and€6:00€p.m.€that€same€day,€authorities€foundÏMr.€Grantððs€car€in€the€parking€lot€of€the€Twelve€Oaks€Motel.€€Believing€him€to€beÏa€possible€suspect,€authorities€entered€his€motel€room€and€found€his€body€onÏone€of€the€beds,€covered€with€a€bedspread.€€His€ankles€and€right€arm€wereÏbound€with€telephone€cord,€and€his€wrists€were€bound€with€a€shoelace.€ÏAnother€piece€of€shoelace€was€tied€around€his€neck.€€Medical€evidence€laterÏrevealed€that€the€cause€of€death€was€ligature€strangulation.€€He€appeared€toÏhave€been€dead€for€more€than€twenty„four€hours€from€the€time€he€was€foundÏand€probably€died€a€short€time€before€Ms.€Benford.€€He€tested€positive€for€traceÏamounts€of€cocaine€as€well€as€for€trace€amounts€of€cold€remedy.€€Except€forÏtwo€superficial€incisions€on€the€left€side€of€the€front€of€his€neck,€there€was€noÏevidence€of€an€injection€having€been€administered.ÌÌà àBased€on€the€observations€of€Officer€Parks€at€the€Twelve€Oaks€Motel,Ïlaw€enforcement€authorities€were€advised€to€be€on€the€lookout€for€a€damaged,Ïdark„colored€Ford.€€At€approximately€2:00€a.m.€on€March€12,€1992,€Officer€RickÍLemance€of€the€Metropolitan€Police€Department€observed€a€vehicle€matchingÏthis€description.€€He€stopped€the€car€and€ascertained€the€occupants€to€be€Ms.ÏMarlena€Buford,€Rucker,€and€Appellant.€€Officer€Lemance€patted€each€of€theÏoccupants€down€but€did€not€detain€them€any€further.€€He€reported€the€stop€toÏthe€officers€investigating€the€murders.€€Subsequent€to€the€stop,€Appellant€andÏRucker€were€interviewed€separately€regarding€their€possible€involvement€in€theÏcrimes.€€Appellant€stated€that,€on€the€night€in€question,€he€borrowed€a€car,Ïpurchased€two„and„a„half€pints€of€gin,€and€drove€around€east€Nashville.€€As€aÏresult€of€the€interview€with€Rucker,€authorities€developed€Kendricks€as€aÏsuspect€and€eventually€recovered€a€.45€caliber€automatic€handgun,€laterÏidentified€as€the€weapon€used€to€kill€Ms.€Benford.€€Appellant€was€interviewedÏagain€and,€this€time,€gave€authorities€a€statement€detailing€his€involvement€in€theÏoffenses.€€He€was€subsequently€arrested€and€indicted€on€two€counts€of€firstÏdegree€murder,€two€counts€of€felony€murder,€one€count€of€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery,€and€one€count€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.ÌÓ  Óò òÌII.€€ADMISSION€OF€SEXUAL€ASSAULT€EVIDENCEÌÓ  Óó óà àAppellant€first€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€introduction€ofÏevidence€of€sexual€assault€upon€Ms.€Benford.€€In€a€pre„trial€motion,€AppellantÏobjected€to€the€introduction€of€any€evidence€suggesting€that€Ms.€Benford€wasÏsexually€assaulted€on€the€night€that€she€was€murdered.€€The€trial€court€deniedÍthe€motion,€concluding€that€the€evidence€corroborated€Appellantððs€ownÏstatement€regarding€the€incident.€€At€trial,€Dr.€Mona€Gretel€Case€Harlan,€medicalÏexaminer€and€witness€for€the€State,€testified€that€she€found€sperm€on€the€anal,Ïoral,€and€vaginal€swabs€taken€from€Ms.€Benford€during€the€course€of€herÏautopsy.€€Appellant€argues€that€evidence€of€a€sexual€assault€upon€Ms.ÏBenford€should€have€been€excluded€because€it€was€irrelevant.€€AppellantÏfurther€argues€that,€even€if€this€evidence€was€relevant,€it€should€have€beenÏexcluded€because€its€probative€value€was€substantially€outweighed€by€itsÏprejudicial€impact€and€its€tendency€to€mislead€the€jury.ÌÌà àAppellant€was€charged€with€the€first€degree€murder€of€Ms.€Benford€underÏthe€theory€that€he€was€criminally€responsible€for€the€actions€of€Kendricks€andÏFerguson.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(2).€€In€establishing€that€AppellantÏacted€with€intent€to€assist€or€promote€the€killing,€the€State€relied€upon€AppellantððsÏown€inculpatory€statement€to€authorities.€€However,€as€argued€by€Appellant€inÏanother€issue,€the€òòcorpus€delictióó€of€a€crime€cannot€be€established€by€anÏinculpatory€statement€alone.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ervinóó,€731€S.W.2d€70,€71€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1986).€€Some€independent€evidence€of€the€òòcorpus€delictióó€isÏnecessary€to€corroborate€the€inculpatory€statement.€€òòId.óó€€During€his€interviewÏwith€authorities,€Appellant€stated€that€Kendricks€wanted€to€have€sexualÏintercourse€with€Ms.€Benford,€that€Kendricks€and€Ferguson€exited€the€car€afterÍreleasing€Ms.€Benford€in€the€park,€and€that€Ferguson€reported€that€KendricksÏhad€engaged€in€sexual€intercourse€with€Ms.€Benford€before€the€shooting.€ÏTestimony€from€the€medical€examiner€that€semen€was€found€in€the€victim€tendsÏto€corroborate€Appellantððs€inculpatory€statement.€€ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€provide€the€following:ÌÓÓà à€€€€€ð ðRelevant€evidenceðð€means€evidence€having€any€tendency€to€makeÏthe€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€theÏaction€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ÌÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€401.ÌÌà à€€€€€All€relevant€evidence€is€admissible€except€as€provided€by€theÏConstitution€of€the€United€States,€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee,€these€rules,€orÏother€rules€or€lawsof€general€application€in€the€courts€of€Tennessee.€€EvidenceÏwhich€is€not€relevant€is€not€admissible.ÌÌòòId.óó€402.Ìà àAlthough€relevant,€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€isÏsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€theÏissues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€ofÏtime,€or€needless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence.ÌÌòòId.óó€403.€€ÌÌÓÓà àAs€Appellant€seems€to€concede€in€his€brief,€evidence€of€a€sexual€assaultÏupon€Ms.€Benford€is€relevant€to€the€juryððs€determination€of€the€premeditated€firstÏdegree€murder€charge.€€The€medical€examinerððs€testimony€makes€more€probableÏthe€fact€that€the€killing€was€premeditated,€intentional,€and€deliberate.€ÏFurthermore,€in€light€of€what€the€jury€already€knew€about€the€sexual€assaultÍupon€Ms.€Benford€from€the€introduction€of€Appellantððs€statement,€it€could€notÏhave€come€as€a€shock€that€semen€was€found€in€the€victim.€€As€a€result,€we€areÏnot€persuaded€that€the€prejudicial€impact€of€this€testimony€is€sufficient€toÏoutweigh€its€probity.€€Therefore,€the€admission€of€this€evidence€does€not€warrantÏreversal.€Ìò òÌÌÓ  ÓIII.€€JURY€INSTRUCTIONÌÓ  Óà àó óAppellant€also€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€request€for€aÏjury€instruction€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€criminal€attempt€to€commitÏespecially€aggravated€robbery.€€Appellant€argues€that€the€intended€robberyÏfailed,€resulting€only€in€an€attempted€robbery.€€Appellant€concedes€thatÏKendricks€had€three€hundred€dollars€in€his€possession€while€at€the€motel€andÏthat€authorities€recovered€a€lionððs€head€ring,€later€identified€as€belonging€to€Mr.ÏGrant,€from€Kendricksðð€apartment;€however,€he€submits€that€the€State€presentedÏno€direct€evidence€that€any€money€or€any€jewelry€was€actually€taken€from€eitherÏvictim€on€the€morning€in€question.€€As€a€result,€he€contends€that€the€jury€couldÏhave€reasonably€inferred€that€nothing€was€taken€from€either€of€the€victims.€ÏAppellant€maintains€that,€based€on€the€fact€that€the€jury€could€have€concludedÏthat€no€robbery€occurred,€the€trial€court€should€have€given€a€jury€instruction€onÏthe€offense€of€criminal€attempt€to€commit€especially€aggravated€robbery.ÌÌà àWhere€two€or€more€grades€or€classes€of€offense€may€be€included€in€theÏindictment,€it€is€the€duty€of€the€trial€court€ð ðto€charge€the€jury€as€to€all€of€the€law€ofÏeach€offense€included€in€the€indictment€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110(a)Ï(1990).€€The€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provide€that€a€"defendantÏmay€be€found€guilty€of€an€offense€necessarily€included€in€the€offense€charged€orÏof€an€attempt€to€commit€either€the€offense€charged€or€an€offense€necessarilyÏincluded€therein€if€the€attempt€is€an€offense."€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€31(c).€ÏAdditionally,€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€jury€instruction€on€all€lesser€includedÏoffenses€where€"any€facts€.€.€.€are€susceptible€of€inferring€guilt€of€any€lesserÏincluded€offense."€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€618€S.W.2d€310,315€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€ÏIn€light€of€the€foregoing,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€recently€concludedÏas€follows:ÌÓÓà à[P]ursuant€to€our€statute,€rule,€and€case€law€interpretations,€defendantsÏare€entitled€to€jury€instructions€on€all€lesser€included€offenses€.€.€.€and€on€allÏoffenses€which€are€a€lesser€grade€or€class€of€the€charged€offense,€if€theÏevidence€would€support€a€conviction€for€the€offense.€The€authorizing€statute€andÏrule€ensure€that€each€defendant€has€fair€and€reasonable€notice€of€the€chargesÏand€an€opportunity€to€defend€against€them.€It€preserves€a€defendant's€right€toÏan€instruction€on€all€lesser€offenses€necessarily€included€in€the€offense€chargedÏin€the€indictment€unless€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€which€would€support€theÏinstruction.€It€allows€the€jury€to€consider€all€relevant€offenses€in€determining€theÏappropriate€offense,€if€any,€for€conviction.€ÌÌòòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€30,€311€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌÓÓà àHere,€the€evidence€fails€to€support€a€conviction€for€attempted€robbery.€ÏCommenting€on€their€search€of€the€motel€room€for€money,€Appellant€stated€that,Ïwhile€he€was€not€sure€where€the€money€had€been€located,€ð ð[Kendricks]€foundÏthe€three€hundred€dollars.ðð€€Appellant€further€stated€that€it€made€no€sense€thatÏthe€victims€were€killed€for€such€a€small€amount€of€money.€€Additionally,Ïauthorities€recovered€a€lionððs€head€ring€from€Kendricksðð€apartment.€€At€trial,€bothÏMs.€Nina€Grant,€Mr.€Grantððs€sister,€and€Ms.€Lesha€Owens,€Mr.€GrantððsÏgirlfriend,€identified€the€ring€as€belonging€to€Mr.€Grant.€€The€record€clearly€showsÏthat€Appellant€was€criminally€responsible€for€taking,€by€force,€at€least€threeÏhundred€dollars€and€a€lionððs€head€ring€from€Mr.€Grant.€€Whether€classified€as€aÏlesser€included€offense€or€a€lesser€grade€of€the€charged€offense,€no€evidenceÏexists€in€the€record€permitting€an€inference€that€Appellant€was€guilty€of€onlyÏcriminal€attempt€to€commit€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€Therefore,€the€trialÏcourt€properly€refused€to€charge€the€jury€as€to€criminal€attempt€to€commitÏespecially€aggravated€robbery.Ìò òÌÓ  ÓIV.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌÓ  Óó óà àAppellant€also€alleges€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€legallyÏinsufficient€to€sustain€his€convictions€for€first€degree€murder€and€for€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery.€€When€an€appeal€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence,€the€standard€of€review€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€theÍlight€most€favorable€to€the€State,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€318€(1979);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€190„91Ï(Tenn.€1992);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimateÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÏ832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€Court€will€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€re„evaluate€theÏevidence,€or€substitute€its€evidentiary€inferences€for€those€reached€by€the€jury.€ÏòòState€v.€Careyóó,€914€S.W.2d€93,€95€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€a€criminal€trial,Ïgreat€weight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€910ÏS.W.2d€897,€899€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àOnce€approved€by€the€trial€court,€a€jury€verdict€accredits€the€witnessesÏpresented€by€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€The€credibility€of€witnesses,€theÏweight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proofÏare€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€A€juryððs€guilty€verdict€removes€theÏpresumption€of€innocence€enjoyed€by€the€defendant€at€trial€and€raises€aÏpresumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€TheÍdefendant€then€bears€the€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption€of€guilt€onÏappeal.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€175€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌÓ  Óò òA.€€FIRST€DEGREE€MURDERÌÓ  Óó óà àFirst€degree€murder€is€defined€as€ð ð[a]n€intentional,€premeditated€andÏdeliberate€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1).€€In€order€toÏhold€Appellant€criminally€responsible€for€first€degree€murder€based€upon€theÏactions€of€Kendricks€and€Ferguson,€the€State€must€prove€that,€acting€with€theÏintent€to€promote€or€assist€the€commission€of€the€offense,€Appellant€solicited,Ïdirected,€aided,€or€attempted€to€aid€Kendricks€and€Ferguson€in€the€killing€of€Ms.ÏBenford.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€39„11„402(2).€€Appellant€argues€that€the€State€failed€toÏestablish€the€requisite€intent€to€hold€him€criminally€responsible€for€first€degreeÏmurder.€€He€contends€that,€as€he€sat€in€the€car,€he€was€unaware€that€KendricksÏand€Ferguson€intended€to€kill€Ms.€Benford.€ÌÌà àBy€his€own€admission,€Appellant€provided€both€the€transportation€andÏthe€weapon€used€on€the€night€in€question.€€Furthermore,€he€drove€the€vehicleÏthat€carried€Ms.€Benford€from€the€motel€to€the€park€where€she€was€killed.€ÏAccording€to€Appellantððs€statement€to€authorities,€Ms.€Benford€was€initiallyÏreleased€near€the€park;€however,€as€Appellant€drove€away,€Kendricks€stated,Ïð ðwe€gotta€get€her,€we€gotta€get€her.ðð€€In€response€to€this€statement,€AppellantÍpulled€over,€and€Kendricks€and€Ferguson€exited€the€vehicle.€€Appellant€andÏRucker€sat€in€the€car€and€waited€for€the€other€two€men€to€return.€€It€was€withinÏthe€province€of€the€jury€to€conclude€that,€in€taking€Ms.€Benford€from€the€motel€inÏthe€first€place€and,€by€pulling€over€in€response€to€Kendricksðð€statement,ÏAppellant€intended€to€promote€or€assist€in€the€murder€of€Ms.€Benford.€€As€statedÏpreviously,€this€Court€is€not€free€to€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€reached€byÏthe€jury.€€After€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€weÏconclude€that,€based€on€his€response€to€Kendricksðð€statement€as€well€as€hisÏinvolvement€in€the€events€leading€up€to€the€murder,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÏhave€found€that€Appellant€possessed€the€requisite€mental€state€to€be€foundÏguilty€of€first€degree€murder€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ò òÌÌÓ  ÓB.€€ESPECIALLY€AGGRAVATED€ROBBERYÌÓ  Óà àó óRobbery€is€defined€as€ð ðthe€intentional€and€knowing€theft€of€property€fromÏthe€person€of€another€by€violence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„401(a)€(1990).€€Especially€aggravated€robberyò ò€ó óis€defined€asÏrobbery€accomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon,€where€the€victim€suffers€seriousÏbodily€injury.€€òòId.óó€€ðð€39„13„403(a)€(1990).€€Appellant€argues€that€the€State€failedÏto€sufficiently€corroborate€his€inculpatory€statements€with€independent€evidenceÏof€the€òòcorpus€delictióó.ÌÌà àAs€noted€earlier,€it€is€long„standing€and€well„settled€law€in€Tennessee€thatÏthe€òòcorpus€delictióó€of€a€crime€cannot€be€established€by€inculpatory€statementsÏalone.€€òòSeeóó€òòAshby€v.€Stateóó,€139€S.W.€872,€875€(Tenn.€1911).€€However,€onlyÏslight€evidence€of€the€òòcorpus€delictióó€is€necessary€to€corroborate€an€inculpatoryÏstatement.€€òòState€v.€Ervinóó,€731€S.W.2d€70,€71€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1986).€€ToÏestablish€the€òòcorpus€delictióó€of€a€crime,€the€State€must€prove€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€a€certain€result€has€been€produced€and€that€the€resultÏwas€created€through€criminal€agency.€€òòId.óó€71„72.€€Whether€the€State€hasÏsufficiently€established€the€òòcorpus€delictióó€is€primarily€a€jury€question.€€òòId.óó€at€71.€€€AÏconviction€resting€primarily€on€the€inculpatory€statements€of€the€accused€must€beÏaffirmed€where€the€record€contains€"substantial€independent€evidence€tending€toÏestablish€the€trustworthiness€of€the€defendantððs€statements."€òòId.óó€(citing€òòOpper€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€348€U.S.€84,€93€(1954)).ÌÌà àHere,€as€previously€stated,€the€State€introduced€a€lionððs€head€ring€found€inÏKendricksðð€apartment€shortly€after€the€murders.€€Both€Ms.€Grant€and€Ms.ÏOwens€identified€the€ring€as€belonging€to€Mr.€Grant.€€Furthermore,€during€hisÏinterview€with€authorities,€Appellant€stated€that,€soon€after€the€murders,ÏKendricks€had€requested€his€help€in€selling€some€rings.€€The€record€reflects€noÏreasonable€explanation€for€the€presence€of€Mr.€Grantððs€ring€in€KendricksððÏapartment€other€than€the€Stateððs€theory€that€it€was€taken€from€Mr.€Grant€justÍbefore€his€murder.€€Therefore,€the€State€has€met€its€burden€of€corroboratingÏAppellantððs€inculpatory€statements€with€independent€evidence.€€€ò òÌÌÓ  ÓV.€€SENTENCINGÌÓ  Óó óà àFinally,€Appellant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€consecutiveÏsentences€for€his€first€degree€murder€conviction€and€his€felony€murder€conviction.€ÏWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€this€Court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdetermination€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)Ï(1990).€€However,€the€presumption€of€correctness€only€applies€when€the€recordÏdemonstrates€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€the€relevant€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€In€conducting€a€review€of€a€sentence,€this€CourtÏmust€consider€the€evidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,Ïthe€arguments€of€counsel,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,€mitigating€andÏenhancement€€factors,€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant,€and€theÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€If€appellate€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏconsidered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supportedÏby€the€record,€this€Court€must€affirm€the€sentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€would€haveÏpreferred€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.ÍApp.€1991).€The€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€the€impropriety€of€theÏsentence€imposed.€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).ÌÌà à€The€trial€court€has€the€discretion€to€impose€sentences€concurrently€orÏconsecutively.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„20„111(a)€(1990).€€The€imposition€ofÏconsecutive€sentences€is€appropriate€if€the€defendant€has€been€convicted€ofÏmore€than€one€offense€and€the€trial€court€finds,€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence,€one€or€more€of€the€following€criteria:Ìà0 à(1)€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€has€knowingly€devotedÏhimself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood;€Ìà0 à(2)€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€isÏextensive;€Ìà0 à(3)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormal€person€so€declaredÏby€a€competent€psychiatrist€who€concludes€as€a€result€of€anÏinvestigation€prior€to€sentencing€that€the€defendant's€criminal€conduct€hasÏbeen€characterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitive€or€compulsive€behavior€withÏheedless€indifference€to€consequences;€Ìà0 à(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€littleÏor€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€inÏwhich€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high;€Ìà0 à(5)€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutory€offensesÏinvolving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€.€.€.€;Ìà0 à(6)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offense€committed€while€onÏprobation;€or€Ìà0 à(7)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.ÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115€(1990).ÌÌÓ  Óò òA.€€RECORD€OF€EXTENSIVE€CRIMINAL€ACTIVITYÌÓ  Óó óà àIn€imposing€consecutive€sentences,€the€trial€court€noted€Appellantððs€recordÏof€extensive€criminal€activity.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2).€€Because€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€principles,€purposes,€and€goals€of€the€Criminal€SentencingÏReform€Act€of€1989,€the€presumption€of€correctness€applies€to€the€imposition€ofÏconsecutive€sentences€on€this€ground.€€According€to€the€proof€presented€at€theÏsentencing€hearing,€Appellant€had€six€prior€felony€convictions.€€TheseÏconvictions€include€two€counts€of€grand€larceny,€two€counts€of€third€degreeÏburglary,€and€two€counts€of€burglary€of€a€motor€vehicle.€€This€Court€hasÏpreviously€held€that€proof€of€two€drug€offense€convictions,€two€weapons€offenseÏconvictions,€and€numerous€misdemeanor€driving€offenses€was€sufficient€toÏsupport€a€finding€that€the€defendant€had€an€extensive€criminal€record,€giving€theÏtrial€court€the€discretion€to€impose€consecutive€sentences.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏChrismanóó,€885€S.W.2d€834,€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).ò ò€€ó óThe€proof€here€isÍsimilarly€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€that€Appellantððs€criminal€activity€has€beenÏextensive.€€Based€on€this€finding,€the€trial€court€properly€imposed€consecutiveÏsentences.€ò òÌÌÓ  ÓB.€€DANGEROUS€OFFENDER€FINDINGÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€trial€court€also€found€that€Appellant€was€a€dangerous€offender€as€aÏground€for€imposing€consecutive€sentences.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115Ï(b)(4)€(1990).€€However,€this€finding,€standing€alone€does€not€justify€consecutiveÏsentences.€€A€trial€court€may€not€impose€consecutive€sentences€based€uponÏthe€defendantððs€dangerous€offender€status€unless€the€record€establishes€that:€ÌÓÓà0 à(a)€the€defendant's€behavior€indicated€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€andÏno€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€isÏhigh;ÌÌà0 à(b)€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€commission€of€the€offense€wereÏaggravated;€ÌÌà0 à(c)€consecutive€sentences€are€necessary€to€protect€society€from€furtherÏcriminal€conduct€by€the€defendant;Ìà àÌà0 à(d)€consecutive€sentences€reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€theÏoffenses€committed;€andÌà àÌà0 à(e)€the€sentence€is€in€accord€with€the€principles€set€forth€in€the€SentencingÏreform€Act.€à àÌÓÓà àÌòòà àState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938„39€(Tenn.€1995);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòStateÏv.€Rossóó,€No.€03C01„9404„CR„00153,€1996€WL€167723,€*9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.ÍApr.€10,€1996).€€It€is€not€entirely€clear€from€the€record€that€the€trial€court€consideredÏwhether€consecutive€sentences€were€necessary€to€protect€society€from€furtherÏcriminal€conduct€by€Appellant€and€whether€consecutive€sentences€reasonablyÏrelated€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed.€€As€a€result,€we€make€ourÏreview€of€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€on€this€ground€under€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115€(b)(4)€òòde€novoóó.ÌÌà àClearly,€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€finding€that€Appellantððs€behaviorÏindicated€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€aÏcrime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.€€Both€victims€were€held€against€theirÏwill€while€Appellant€and€the€other€offenders€ransacked€the€motel€room€searchingÏfor€money.€€Mr.€Grant€was€then€bound€and€injected€with€some€unknownÏsubstance.€€When€he€remained€conscious,€his€captors€began€searching€forÏsomething€else€to€inject.€€Eventually,€he€was€strangled€with€a€shoelace.€€TheÏrecord€reflects€that€these€events€occurred€over€some€extended€period€of€time.€ÏMs.€Benford€was€then€carried€away€from€the€motel€to€a€park.€€It€appears€fromÏAppellantððs€statement€as€well€as€from€circumstantial€evidence€that€KendricksÏhad€sexual€intercourse€with€Ms.€Benford€before€shooting€her€twice€in€the€head.€ÏBy€shooting€Ms.€Benford,€the€offenders€eliminated€a€potential€witness€againstÏthem.€€We€find€that€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€offenses€wereÏaggravated.€€Furthermore,€having€established€that€Appellant€participated€in€theÍtorture€and€strangulation€of€one€victim,€followed€by€the€kidnapping€and€shootingÏof€another€victim,€we€also€find€that€consecutive€sentences€reasonably€relate€toÏthe€severity€of€the€offenses€committed.€€Lastly,€in€light€of€the€seriousness€ofÏthese€offenses€and€the€fact€that€incarceration€has€failed€to€have€an€impactÏupon€Appellant€in€the€past,€we€find€that€consecutive€sentences€are€necessaryÏto€protect€society€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€Appellant.€€Based€on€theseÏfindings€and€in€accord€with€the€principles€and€purposes€of€the€SentencingÏReform€Act,€we€conclude€that€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€on€theÏground€that€Appellant€is€a€dangerous€offender€was€proper.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÔ€ XÔà àÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGE