ÿWPCo6 …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ Ý&ãU: 0DC w@‡ 4Ç Û U:ê $ 0Æ2 0Òø 0:Ê 0dîh 1mV {dà 0Ä' 0Xë 0LC {Ê {RY {¾«ÆiÆ/ 0dõ 0zYÆÓÆ™ 0_ 0˜wÆZÕ B/ 0DL 0@ 0LÐ D3 0LO D+› 0JÆ 0T 0^d 0h 0r* A©œ 0KE 0| 0† ! 0’! 1u"" 0d—"U>û"B)9#DCb#U*¥# AOÏ#á$U6ÿ$ 5%A'v~A)vÓ¿* 0’0 0Š!1 0 «1 0´K2 0Çÿ2 0ÛÆ3 0ï¡4 AO5 0Dß5 D/#6 BR6˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡HHubbardtriersByrgeact[ingRaybinSwaffordRicky Gofft]hese I]nSimmonsAshbyC]onsecutiveHerbisonCookevilleCraigheadHopsonHarringtonWilkersonmeritlessVS3dBolen TBI W]eFergusonsubpartFincher02C01,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó [DE[DD Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|x,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularBursonBehanMillsapsBallardFortneyCaricoAstro DyleS.W.2d CrimtriersByrge AppHatchettRuffin(v(2†$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X;×XXXÔÔ€ôçôXX;×Ôà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóZ<< KY.quotesindentions for quotesÓ °ÓÓ XÓÓ °ÓÓÓÓ °ÓÓ XÓÓ °ÓÓÓZpp ?·2opinionsopinions text styleÓ °ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ‡X )XX XÔÔ‡X )XX X )ÔÓ °ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ‡X )XX XÔÔ‡X )XX X )Ô(Wf|$ÄÄò òòòà@ìì*ìàÔ  ÔÔ AÔó óóóFlanaryBlountvilleBurson HarrS.W.2dtriersByrge Crim App03C01MedlineTiptonMedlin tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(Wf|$ÄÄò òòòà@ìì*ìàÔ  ÔÔ AÔó óóó^1$F¯$Ånumber headings for opinionsÓ  ÓÓ ÓòòÔ  ÔòòÔ !ÔÓ  ÓÓ Óóóóó(_¸Ç$ÈÈà0  àòòÔ  ÔÔ 8Ôóó(WV $ÆÆò òÔ  ÔÔ Ôó ó^4'FÚâ$Ånumber headings for opinionsÓ ÓÓ  ÓòòÔ  Ôòòò òÔ !ÔÓ ÓÓ  Óóóóóó ó(WÙë$ÅÅò òòòÔ  ÔÔ Ôó óóó^.!FšÐ$Ånumber headings for opinionsÓ  ÓÓ ÓòòÔ  ÔÔ !ÔÓ  ÓÓ ÓóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à6"" U 4cite-caseÔ‡XIXXXIÔòòÔ‡XIXXXIÔóóƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5|NN T2statutesquoted material no indent first lineÓ ÓÓ ÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓÓÓ ÓÓ ÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓÓX  ÏÁ23 inchesindent 3 inches inÓ ¸ ÓÓÓÓ ¸ ÓÓÓ…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 TDOCw]hereBomarH]abeas t]he d(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò>c$"Small Circleð"ðà0 à(((('ÿÿdxd> ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à'ÈÈÈÈdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô*;3›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô45789<=> ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 dHHHH7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial"*;ICþÿ << Gÿÿ ×Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€GÔÝ  ÝÔ€JÔÔ€JÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€JXÔÌÌAugust€15,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó< Œ 9p`(Courier New Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€GÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÔ€JÔÔ€JôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý›The€first€four€criteria€are€found€in€òòGrayóó.€€A€fifth€category€in€òòGrayóó,€based€on€a€specific€number€ofÏprior€felony€convictions,€may€enhance€the€sentence€range€but€is€no€longer€a€listed€criterion.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ô€MÔÌ öÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€GÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÔ€JÔÔ€JôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý›At€the€sentencing€hearing€the€state€presented€part€of€the€defendant's€conversation€withÏRicky€Young.€€This€part€had€been€redacted€when€played€for€the€jury.€€In€this€dialogue,€the€defendantÏbrags€that€he€assaulted,€with€the€intention€to€kill,€another€ex„wife€as€well€as€several€other€women.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à"*‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€GÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓòòÙ€"ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€JÔßR€KLIA1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLEÌóóà@ àFEBRUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓ€ÓÌÓÓÓÓÒ€X€ÒÓ ` <ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à*ÌÌà àAppellee,à à*ÌÌVS.à àà à*ÌÌCHARLES€CLAY€YOUNG,à à*Ìà àà àÌà àAppellant.à àÓ ` hÜÓ*Ìà àà àÌÓ ` °œXÓà àÌÌÌÉC.C.A.€#€01C01„9605„CC„00195ÌÌWHITE€COUNTY€ÌÌHon.€Leon€Burns,€Jr.,€Judge€ÌÌ(Solicitation€to€Commit€First€DegreeÏMurder„„Two€Counts)òòÉÒ/z„Ñ…ÒFor€Appellant:óóÌÌJohn€E.€HerbisonÌ2016€Eight€Avenue€SouthÌNashville,€TN€37204Ì(on€appeal)ÌÌDavid€N.€BradyÌDistrict€Public€DefenderÌ215€Reagan€StreetÌCookeville,€TN€38501ÌandÌJoe€L.€Finley,€Jr.ÌAssistant€Public€DefenderÌ215€Reagan€StreetÌCookeville,€TN€38501Ì(at€trial)ÉòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÌCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌRuth€A.€ThompsonÌCounsel€for€the€State€Ì450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌAnthony€CraigheadÌAssistant€District€AttorneyÌ145€South€Jefferson€AvenueÌCookeville,€TN€38501ÌÌÌÉÒÒÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÑ7€üÒXXdðXXdð7Ñà@ àòòò òOPINIONó óóóÌòòò òÌÓÓà àà àóóó óThe€defendant,€Charles€Clay€Young,€was€convicted€of€two€counts€ofÏsolicitation€to€commit€first€degree€murder,€a€Class€B€felony.€€The€trial€court€imposedÏtwo€Range€I€sentences€of€ten„year€terms.€€The€sentences€are€consecutive€to€eachÏother€and€consecutive€to€an€unexpired€sentence€for€arson.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€forÏour€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€€whether€the€state€proved€venue;ÌÌà àà8 à(2)€€whether€the€state€failed€to€properly€authenticateÏaudio€tapes€played€for€the€jury,€and€if€so,€whether€theÏadmission€of€the€tapes€qualified€as€plain€error;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€whether€failure€of€the€state€to€present€originals€of€theÏlife€insurance€policies€qualified€as€plain€error;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€€whether€the€admission€of€his€prior€convictions€forÏarson€and€bail€jumping€constituted€plain€error;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€€whether€the€sentences€were€excessive.ÌÌÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€September€of€1993,€the€defendant€arrived€at€the€home€of€his€adultÍnephew,€Ricky€Young€(Ricky),€and€asked€for€help€in€finding€a€.222€rifle.€€On€the€nextÏday,€tÔ% € Ôhe€defendant€told€Ricky€that€he€was€having€problems€with€his€ex„wife,€SylviaÏJean€Young€(Jean),€from€whom€he€had€recently€been€divorced.€€He€explained€thatÏthe€settlement€awarded€her€the€majority€of€the€property€and€the€custody€andÏsupport€of€their€small€child.€€The€defendant,€who€had€a€$5,000€life€insurance€policyÏon€Jean,€asked€Ricky€if€he€or€someone€else€he€knew€would€be€willing€to€kill€JeanÏfor€$2,500.€€Later€that€same€evening,€the€defendant€returned€to€Ricky's€house€toÏinform€him€that€he€was€also€the€beneficiary€of€a€$20,000€insurance€policy€on€hisÏolder€son's€life€and€that€he€would€be€willing€to€pay€Ricky€$15,000€of€the€deathÏbenefits.€€In€order€to€collect€the€death€benefits€from€this€policy,€Randy,€who€was€theÏproduct€of€a€marriage€prior€to€that€of€the€defendant€and€Jean€Young,€would€alsoÏhave€to€be€killed.€€Afterward,€the€defendant€drove€Ricky€to€a€residence€in€theÏcountry€where€Jean€dropped€off€their€child€for€visitation€every€Friday€at€6:00€a.m.€ÏThe€defendant€suggested€that€Ricky€should€hide€behind€a€tree€by€5:45€a.m.€andÏthen€shoot€Jean€Young€as€she€walked€around€the€car€to€remove€her€child€from€theÏcar€seat.€€He€reasoned€that€it€did€not€matter€what€the€child€saw€because€he€"don'tÏknow€nothing,€no€way."€€The€defendant€suggested€that€Ricky€could€escape€on€footÏthrough€the€woods€in€order€to€avoid€detection.€€ÌÌà àà àRicky€Young,€who€was€on€probation€for€arson€at€the€time€of€hisÍencounter€with€the€defendant,€informed€officers€with€the€White€County€Sheriff'sÏDepartment€of€the€proposal.€€At€their€request,€he€agreed€to€wear€a€tape€recorder,Ïtransmitter,€and€microphone€to€an€arranged€meeting€with€the€defendant.€€Deputies,Ïapproximately€one„fourth€of€a€mile€away,€monitored.€€During€a€meeting€at€theÏ"county€house"€in€White€County,€the€defendant€and€Ricky€Young€discussed€plansÏfor€the€two€killings€over€a€two€to€three€hour€interval.€€The€defendant€wanted€JeanÏshot€the€following€Friday€morning€as€she€dropped€off€their€child.€€Randy€was€to€beÏkilled€about€a€week€later€in€a€planned€"accident."€€The€defendant€gave€Ricky€aÏphotograph€of€Jean€Young€and€provided€him€with€her€license€plate€number.ÌÌà àà àWhen€Ricky€Young€made€inquiry€about€the€method€of€payment,€theÏdefendant€assured€him€that€he€would€be€paid€as€soon€as€the€insurance€benefitsÏwere€collected.€€The€defendant€gave€Ricky€the€title€to€his€van€as€collateral.€ÌÌà@ àIÌà àà àThe€defendant€initially€claims€that€the€state€did€not€prove€venue€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€Article€I,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏprovides€that€in€all€criminal€prosecutions€by€indictment€or€presentment,€the€accusedÏhas€a€right€to€a€trial€by€an€impartial€jury€chosen€from€the€county€in€which€the€crimeÏwas€committed.€€òòSee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€18.€€Thus€founded€in€the€constitution,Íproof€of€venue€is€necessary€to€establish€jurisdiction.€€òòHopson€v.€Stateóó,€299€S.W.2dÏ11,14€(Tenn.€1957).€€Venue€may€be€shown€only€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.€€The€burden€is€on€the€state.€€òòHarvey€v.€Stateóó,€376€S.W.2d€497,€498Ï(Tenn.€1964);€òòHooper€v.€Stateóó,€326€S.W.2d€448,€451€(Tenn.€1959).€€SlightÏevidence,€including€circumstantial€evidence,€will€be€sufficient€if€the€evidence€isÏuncontradicted.€€òòState€v.€Bennettóó,€549€S.W.2d€949€(Tenn.€1977).€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€Ricky€Young€testified€that€he€met€with€the€defendant€on€OldÏCounty€House€Road€in€White€County€where€the€two€planned€the€murders€of€JeanÏand€Randy€Young.€€A€White€County€deputy€testified€that€he€saw€the€defendant€withÏRicky€within€the€White€County€boundaries€just€as€the€two€men€concluded€theirÏconversation.€€Because€the€defendant€did€not€offer€any€proof€to€contest€thisÏevidence,€the€state,€in€our€view,€was€successful€in€establishing€venue€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€claims€that€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€allowÏaudio€tapes€of€his€conversation€with€Ricky€because€the€police€officer€did€not€identifyÏthe€defendant's€voice.€€At€trial,€the€defendant€objected€to€the€admission€of€the€tapesÏfor€failure€of€the€state€to€lay€a€proper€foundation.€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendantÍargues€that€admission€was€improper€because€the€police€officer€never€identified€theÏdefendant's€voice€as€being€the€voice€on€the€tape.€€The€state€presented€two€sets€ofÏtapes€into€evidence,€one€of€which€was€the€original€and€the€other€of€which€had€beenÏelectronically€enhanced€by€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation.€€The€officer€whoÏmonitored€the€conversation€identified€the€enhanced€tapes,€testifying€that€they€wereÏa€recording€of€the€conversation€he€had€overheard€between€the€defendant€andÏRicky€Young.€€The€defense€objected,€arguing€that€the€enhanced€versions€"aren'tÏthe€tapes."€€When€the€original€tapes€were€offered€as€proof,€the€defense€claimed€theÏchain€of€custody€had€not€been€adequately€established.€€Later,€during€his€cross„examination€by€the€state,€the€defendant€acknowledged€his€own€voice€on€the€tape.€€ÌÌà àà àUnfortunately,€the€defense€failed€to€raise€the€issue€in€the€motion€for€aÏnew€trial.€€"[I]n€all€cases€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€for€review€[to€anÏappellate€court]€shall€be€predicated€upon€error€in€the€admission€or€exclusion€ofÏevidence€....€unless€the€same€was€specifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial;Ïotherwise€such€issues€will€be€treated€as€waived."€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€Thus,€theÏissue€has€been€waived.€€Had€we€otherwise€reached€the€merits€of€the€claim,Ïhowever,€we€would€have€ruled€in€favor€of€the€state.€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€order€to€lay€the€proper€foundation€for€the€entry€of€audio€tapes,€theÍmoving€party€must€establish€either€an€unbroken€chain€of€custody€or€positivelyÏidentify€the€very€evidence€presented.€€òòBolen€v.€Stateóó,€544€S.W.2d€918,€920€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1976).€€Only€one€of€the€conditions€must€be€met.€€òòId.óó€€In€this€case,€OfficerÏGoff€identified€the€first€set€of€tapes€as€those€that€were€enhanced€by€the€TBI.€€HeÏfurther€stated€that€he€had€listened€to€the€enhanced€tapes€and€they€were€anÏaccurate€reflection€of€the€conversation€he€recorded€on€the€day€in€question.€€Thus,Ïthe€tapes€had€been€positively€identified€by€Officer€Goff€as€being€an€accurateÏreflection€of€the€conversation€he€monitored;€it€is€not,€therefore,€necessary€toÏestablish€an€unbroken€chain€of€custody.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€also€argues€that€the€tapes€should€notÏhave€been€admitted€because€Officer€Goff€failed€to€positively€identify€the€voice€onÏthe€tape€as€that€of€the€defendant.€€In€support€of€his€argument,€he€cites€to€òòState€v.ÏJonesóó,€598€S.W.2d€209,€222€(Tenn.€1980),€asserting€that€the€holding€requires€aÏwitness€to€identify€the€voices€before€the€tape€recording€is€admitted€into€evidence.€€ÏWe€disagree€with€the€defendant's€interpretation€of€the€rule€in€òòJonesóó.€€The€caseÏprovides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[W]e€hold€that€the€tape€recordings€and€comparedÏtranscripts€are€admissible€and€may€be€presented€inÏevidence€by€any€witness€who€was€present€during€theirÏrecording€or€who€monitored€the€conversations,€if€he€wasÍso€situated€and€circumstanced€that€he€was€in€a€positionÏto€identify€the€declarant€with€certainty,€and€provided€hisÏtestimony€in€whole,€or€in€part,€comports€with€other€rulesÏof€evidence.€€€€€€ÌÌòòId.óó€at€223.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àHere,€Ricky€Young€had€already€testified€that€he€met€with€theÏdefendant€on€September€27,€1993€at€Old€County€House€Road.€€He€stated€that€atÏthat€time€he€wore€a€microphone,€transmitter€and€tape€recorder€for€the€purpose€ofÏtaping€the€defendant.€€He€recalled€that€he€spoke€to€the€defendant€from€two€to€threeÏhours.€€Ricky€testified€that€he€returned€to€where€Officer€Goff€and€the€other€officersÏwere€monitoring€the€conversation€as€soon€as€the€defendant€left.€€ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Goff€testified€that€he€was€present€when€Ricky€Young€wasÏequipped€with€recording€equipment€for€the€purpose€of€recording€a€conversationÏbetween€them.€€He€stated€that€he€recorded€a€leader€on€the€tape,€which€included€theÏdate,€place€and€purpose€of€the€recording,€before€Ricky€left€to€meet€with€theÏdefendant.€€Officer€Goff€then€parked€about€one€quarter€of€a€mile€up€the€road€fromÏthe€meeting€point.€€From€that€point,€he€monitored€the€conversation€between€hisÏinformant€and€the€defendant.€€As€the€meeting€drew€to€a€close,€the€officers€drove€byÏso€as€to€observe€Ricky€sitting€in€the€defendant's€van.€€Later,€the€defendantÍacknowledged€that€it€was€his€voice€recorded€on€the€tape.€€ÌÌà àà àRule€901(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€requires€tangibleÏevidence€to€be€authenticated€and€further€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€requirement€of€authentication€or€identification€as€aÏcondition€precedent€to€admissibility€is€satisfied€byÏevidence€sufficient€to€the€court€to€support€a€finding€byÏthe€trier€of€fact€that€the€matter€in€question€is€what€itsÏproponent€claims.€€ÌÌÓÓòòJonesóó,€the€opinion€relied€upon€by€the€defendant,€preceded€the€adoption€of€this€ruleÏby€almost€ten€years.€€While€our€supreme€court€has€since€cited€òòJonesóó€as€a€guidelineÏfor€the€admission€of€tapes,€none€of€our€courts€have€held€that€the€procedureÏapproved€in€òòJonesóó€is€the€exclusive€method€for€the€authentication€of€audio€tapes.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€577€(Tenn.€1993)€(relying€on€òòJonesóó€to€upholdÏadmission€of€audio€tapes).€€ÌÌà àà àIdentification€of€an€object€need€not€be€absolutely€certain.€€òòState€v.ÏWoodsóó,€806€S.W.2d€205,€212€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€òòState€v.€Fergusonóó,€741ÏS.W.2d€125,€127€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Whether€tangible€evidence€has€beenÏproperly€authenticated€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï901(a);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòRitter€v.€Stateóó,€462€S.W.2d€247€(Tenn.€1970).€€The€trial€court'sÍdecision€will€not€be€disturbed€absent€a€clearly€mistaken€exercise€of€that€discretion.€ÏòòState€v.€Baldwinóó,€867€S.W.2d€358,€361€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€this€case,€thereÏwas€substantial€evidence€that€the€tapes€were€of€the€recorded€conversationÏbetween€the€defendant€and€Ricky€Young.€€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€trialÏcourt€was€correct€in€finding€that€the€tapes€had€been€sufficiently€identified€for€theÏpurpose€of€admission€into€evidence.ÌÌà@ àIIIÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€state€violated€the€best€evidence€ruleÏwhen€it€failed€to€present€the€original€insurance€policies,€instead€offering€oralÏtestimony€and€a€report.€€We€disagree.€€Ìà àÌà àà àTenn.€R.€Evid.€1002€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àTo€prove€the€content€of€a€writing,€recording,€orÏphotograph,€the€original€writing,€recording€orÏphotograph€is€required,€except€as€otherwise€provided€inÏthese€rules€or€by€Act€of€Congress€or€the€TennesseeÏLegislature.ÌÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€1004€offers€several€exceptions€to€the€rule;€subpart€4€is€pertinent€to€ÌÌthis€case:ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€original€is€not€required,€and€other€evidence€of€aÏwriting,€recording€or€photograph€is€admissible€if„„ÌÌà8 àà8 à(1)€€Originals€Lost€or€Destroyed.€€All€originals€are€lost€orÏdestroyed,€unless€the€proponent€lost€or€destroyed€themÏin€bad€faith;€orÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€Original€Not€Obtainable.€€No€original€can€beÏobtained€by€any€available€judicial€process€or€procedure;ÏorÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€Original€in€Possession€of€Opponent.€€At€a€time€whenÏan€original€was€under€the€control€of€the€party€againstÏwhom€€offered,€that€party€was€put€on€notice€by€theÏpleadings€or€otherwise€that€the€contents€would€be€aÏsubject€of€proof€at€the€hearing€but€does€not€produce€theÏoriginal€at€the€hearing;€orÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€€Collateral€matters.€€The€writing,€recording,€orÏphotograph€is€not€closely€related€to€a€controlling€issue.ÌÌòòÓÓTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€Neil€P.€Cohen,€et€al.€(3d€ed.€1995),€provides:€€"[T]heÏbest€evidence€rule€is€inapplicable€if€the€writing,€recording€or€photograph€is€notÏclosely€related€to€a€controlling€issue.€€The€facts€of€each€case€are€critical€inÏassessing€whether€a€writing€is€collateral."€€òòId.óó€ðð€1004.2.ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€J.€R.€Simmons,€a€marketing€supervisor€at€Commonwealth€LifeÏInsurance€Company,€testified€about€the€status€of€two€life€insurance€policies€as€ofÏOctober€1,€1993.€€He€stated€that€Jean€Young's€$5,000€policy€lapsed€in€June,€1993;Ïbut€that€on€the€first€of€October€of€that€year,€there€was€residual€value€in€the€policyÏwhich€would€have€resulted€in€payment€of€the€death€benefit€less€only€the€unpaidÍpremiums.€€Simmons€also€testified€that€the€defendant€purchased€a€$50,000€lifeÏinsurance€policy€on€his€son,€Randy,€which€was€in€full€force€and€effect€on€October€1,Ï1993.€€He€acknowledged€that€the€defendant€was€the€beneficiary€of€both€policies.€€ÌÌà àà àAfter€Simmons€testified,€the€court€admitted€as€evidence€two€companyÏreports€showing€the€status€and€history€of€the€policies.€€Because€the€defendant€didÏnot€object€to€the€evidence€and€the€issue€was€not€raised€in€the€motion€for€new€trial,Ïthe€issue€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòState€v.€Harringtonóó,€627€S.W.2d€345Ï(Tenn.€1981).€ÌÌà àà àIn€any€event,€the€insurance€policies,€in€our€view,€qualified€as€collateralÏmatters€and€within€the€exception€to€the€rule.€€While€the€evidence€indicated€a€motiveÏfor€the€murders,€the€policies€were€not€essential€elements€of€the€offenses.€ÏMoreover,€there€was€no€material€question€on€the€content€of€the€life€insuranceÏcontracts.€€The€more€important€determination€was€whether€the€defendant€was€theÏbeneficiary€and€whether€the€policy€was€in€force€on€October€1,€1993.€€Because€theÏstatus€of€the€policy€as€to€these€factors€could€not€be€determined€from€the€originalÏpolicies,€we€believe€the€reports€offered€qualified€as€"collateral"€and€the€premiumÏpayment€status€was€the€most€important€question.€€Because€there€was€no€error,€anyÏanalysis€under€the€plain€error€doctrine,€as€the€defendant€suggests,€would€not€beÍhelpful.ÌÌà@ àIVÌà àà àAs€his€fourth€issue,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€committedÏerror€when€it€allowed€in€evidence€of€two€of€the€defendant's€past€crimes:€€arson€andÏbail€jumping.€€Because€the€defendant€failed€to€raise€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€newÏtrial,€the€issue€has€been€waived.€€Our€analysis€must,€therefore,€be€predicated€uponÏthe€assertion€of€€plain€error.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).€€ÌÌà àà àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€609€allows€for€the€admission€of€a€pastÏconviction€for€a€crime€for€the€purpose€of€attacking€a€witness's€credibility.€€There€areÏseveral€criteria€that€must€be€met€before€the€evidence€can€be€produced.€€The€crimeÏmust€either€be€a€felony€or€a€misdemeanor€showing€dishonesty€or€false€statement.€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(2).€€When€the€witness€is€the€defendant€in€a€criminalÏprosecution,€the€state€must€give€advanced€written€notice.€€œòòId.óó,€609(a)(3).€€The›Ïprobative€value€must€outweigh€the€prejudicial€effect.€€òòId.óó€€The€trial€court€shall€rule€onÏthe€propriety€of€such€evidence€before€the€witness€takes€the€stand€to€testify.€€œòòId.óó€ÏHere,›€the€trial€court€did€not€rule€on€the€admissibility€of€such€evidence€until€after€theÏdefendant€had€taken€the€stand.€€The€defense€lodged€an€objection€based€onÏirrelevancy€and€prejudicial€effect,€but€did€not€object€to€the€procedure€used€by€theÍtrial€court.ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€the€defendant's€conviction€for€bail€jumping€would€beÏadmissible.€€The€defendant€was€released€on€bail€upon€his€promise€to€return€toÏcourt€at€a€specific€time.€€That€he€failed€to€appear€as€represented€reflects€upon€hisÏcredibility.€€ÌÌà àà àEvidence€of€the€defendant's€past€arson€conviction€was€prejudicial.€ÏThere€were€no€specific€facts€presented€to€show€the€relevance€of€the€arsonÏconviction€as€to€the€defendant's€credibility.€€Even€so,€the€evidence€of€theÏdefendant's€guilt,€both€direct€and€circumstantial,€was€overwhelming.€€TheÏadmission€of€the€prior€arson€conviction€did€not,€in€our€view,€have€any€effect€uponÏthe€verdicts.€€ÌÌà@ àVÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€claims€the€length€of€his€sentences€was€excessiveÏand€should€not€have€been€ordered€to€be€served€consecutively.€€When€there€is€aÏchallenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€ofÏthis€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinationsÏmade€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€ThisÍpresumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.ÏJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÏprovide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€the€impropriety€of€theÏsentence.€€Ìà àà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€atÏthe€trial€and€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;€Ç(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 àAt€the€time€of€this€offense,€the€presumptive€sentence€was€theÏminimum€in€the€range€absent€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„210.€€Should€the€trial€court€find€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€it€mustÏstart€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€based€uponÏany€applicable€enhancement€factors,€then€reduce€the€sentence€based€upon€anyÏappropriate€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€weight€givenÏto€each€factor€is€within€the€trial€court's€discretion€provided€that€the€record€supportsÏits€findings€and€it€complies€with€the€Sentencing€Act.€€òòSeeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€atÏ169.€€The€trial€court,€however,€should€make€specific€findings€on€the€record€whichÏindicate€his€application€of€the€sentencing€principles.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„209€and€„210.€€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€oneÍof€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."€€òòTayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€atÏ230.€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€adopted€the€cautionary€language.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€1989€Act€is,€in€essence,€the€codification€of€the€holdings€in€òòGrayóóÏand€òòTayloróó;€consecutive€sentences€may€be€imposed€in€the€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt€only€upon€a€determination€that€one€or€more€of€the€following€criteria× ƒN ××  ×€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€toÍsentencing€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€toÍthe€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."€€òòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938.Ìà àÌà àà àThe€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors€applicable.€€Because€theseÏoffenses€were€committed€while€the€defendant€was€on€probation€for€another€crime,Ïthe€trial€court€observed€that€the€defendant€had€a€prior€record€of€felony€convictions,Ïarson€and€bail€jumping,€and€had€been€unwilling€to€comply€with€conditions€involvingÏrelease€in€the€community.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(8).€€BecauseÏeach€of€these€enhancement€factors€were€applicable,€mid„range€sentences€of€tenÏyears€for€each€of€the€Class€B€felonies€were€appropriate.ÌÌà àà àAlso,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€was€a€dangerousÏoffender€and€on€probation€at€the€time€the€crimes€were€committed.€€After€carefulÏreview,€we€have€determined€that€was€a€proper€basis€for€the€consecutiveÏsentencing.€€The€trial€court€found€that€defendant's€crimes€were€particularlyÏegregious€because€they€were€against€his€own€family.€€It€found€that€the€defendant× ƒO ××  ×Ïhad€maintained€a€willingness€and€likelihood€to€kill€the€victims.€€In€our€view,€aÏlengthy€incarceration€was€warranted€to€protect€society.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€theÏtwo€ten„year€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively€to€a€prior€unserved€sentence.€ÏThe€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€was€on€probation€when€he€committed€theÏsolicitations.€€Rule€32(c)(3),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€makes€consecutive€sentencesÏmandatory€if€the€defendant€is€convicted€of€a€crime€committed€while€on€parole,€bail,Ïor€on€escape;€it€does€not€make€consecutive€sentences€mandatory€if€the€crime€isÏcommitted€while€the€defendant€is€on€probation.€€There€is,€however,€a€statutory€basisÏfor€ordering€consecutive€sentencing€in€this€situation:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[I]n€any€case€of€revocation€of€suspension€[of€probation]Ïon€account€of€conduct€by€the€defendant€which€hasÏresulted€in€a€judgment€of€conviction€against€him€duringÏhis€period€of€probation,€the€trial€judge€may€order€that€theÏterm€of€imprisonment€imposed€by€the€original€judgmentÏbe€served€consecutively€to€any€sentence€which€wasÏimposed€upon€such€conviction.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„310.€ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àConsecutive€sentences€may€be€imposed€when€the€"defendant€isÏsentenced€for€an€offense€committed€while€on€probation."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(6).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€œ942›€S.W.2d€570€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(rulingÏthat€both€of€these€statutory€provisions€allow€for€consecutive€service€of€the€priorÏunexpired€sentence).€€ÌÌà àà àWe€cannot€conclude€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€the€priorÏunexpired€sentence€to€be€served€consecutively.€€We€do,€however,€conclude€thatÏthe€aggregate€length€of€all€three€sentences€is€appropriate€under€the€òòWilkersonóóÏrequirements.€€Thus,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€€€€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCurwood€Witt,€Judge€