WPC ! U:V % 0w@ 4   0. 0D {] 0J9 0T 0^ 0h5 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d BzU*B)DC AM-zq0v~v D3 0@% AOe 0Dz D/ B ,cAZ"Arial RegularX(%?$;TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT79XXdXXd7  IDJKDLeMQURDSvTUӀԡ !"#$3|x^((3($ %?!;TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7    `   0  (#$  0  (`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd-#C << G  !  #d#!   !   ; \RA'\#d#   !   YYY FILED!XAugust15,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   g !  #d#!      ; \RA'\#d#   !\RA'\7XXdd7     Inthisregarditisnotedthatthetrialcourtimproperlychargedthejurythatvenuemustbeproven"beyondareasonabledoubt."PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva 'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . !      ; \RA'\#Xd##Xd#   T  R$%#A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE@ FEBRUARYSESSION,1997STATEOFTENNESSEE,  )     ) No.01C019605CC00195 Appellee   )     ) WHITECOUNTYvs.     )     ) Hon.LEONBURNS,JR.,JudgeCHARLESCLAYYOUNG, )     ) (SolicitationtoCommitFirstDegree Appellant   ) MurderTwoCounts) @ SEPARATECONCURRINGOPINION  WhileIconcurintheaffirmanceoftheappellant'sconvictions,Idosoforreasonsotherthanthoseannouncedbythemajority.Iwriteseparatelytoaddresstheissuesofvenue,authenticationoftheaudiotapeandimpeachmentbypriorconviction. First,IfindthelawdispositiveoftheissueofvenuetobeTenn.CodeAnn.3911103(d)(1991)whichprovidesinpertinentpart:"[i]foneormoreelementsofanoffensearecommittedinonecountyandoneormoreelementsinanother,theoffensemaybeprosecutedineithercounty."Theproofisundisputedthatallorpartoftheappellant'ssolicitationstomurderhisexwifeandsonoccurredinWhiteCounty.Thisproofissufficienttoestablishvenuebyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911201(e)(1991). &   ׀ Next,theappellantarguesthatintroductionoftheaudiotapeintoevidencewaserror.Specifically,hecontendsthat"nowitnesstestifiedthatanyvoiceonthetaperecordingwasthatoftheDefendant."Ifindtheappellant'sargumenttobecorrect.ThemajorityconcludesthattheaudiotapewasproperlyadmittedcitingasauthorityTenn.R.Evid.901(a)andcaselawwhichholdsthatproperlyauthenticatedevidenceislefttothediscretionofthetrialcourt.IfindthatthecontrollinglawonthisissuerestsnotuponthediscretionofthetrialcourtbutuponcompliancewithRule901(a)(5)whichdealsspecificallywiththeissueofvoiceidentification.Inessencethisrulerequiresthat,asa"conditionprecedenttoadmissibility,"thevoiceonthetaperecordingmustbeidentified"byopinionbaseduponhearingthevoiceatanytimeundercircumstancesconnectingittotheallegedspeaker."Tenn.R.Evid.901(b)(5).SeealsoStatev.Parker,No.02C019606CR00188(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,Apr.23,1997). Inthepresentcase,theappellant'svoicewasnotidentifiedpriortothetape'sadmission,therefore,thetapewasnotproperlyauthenticated,and,thus,wasimproperlyadmitted.Parker,No.02C019606CR00188(citingStatev.Smith,868S.W.2d561,577(Tenn.1993)).Notwithstandingerror,whichIfindtobeharmless,theappellant'sclaimisprocedurallydefaultedforfailingtoraiseacontemporaneousobjectiontoitsadmissibilityuponthisgroundanduponfailuretoincludetheissueinhismotionfornewtrial.SeeTenn.R.Evid.R.103(a)andTenn.R.App.P.3(e). Finally,themajorityconcludesthatevidenceoftheappellant'spriorconvictionforarsonwasmoreprejudicialthanprobativeabsentanyevidenceoftheattendantfacts.Irespectfullydisagree.Theappellant'scredibilitywasverymuchanissueinthiscase.Apriorconvictionforarson,afelony,wasrelevanttocounterthatcontention,andwascertainlymoreprobativethanprejudicialinvalue.SeeStatev.Hunter,No.30(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,Feb.8,1989).̜ Basedupontheforegoingreasons,Iwouldaffirmtheappellant'sconvictions.     ____________________________________     DAVIDG.HAYES,Judge