ÿWPCï ”"m»²8E¿CÙ]”Ù5+R[•0º¾ë[ñ|‡Ë2Á<%Ã!Y ÒS£øRηùDÑÕèÕ¡\߉…¼þñ—a­/”Yð@›üànhË}h´Õú Þ sgèÌik%ù_ˆ½°c¡|¼Ë+ÜCðÆðñ ¦¿LeÌŽ±1©Qëÿ¹QsbÃ0B@íœÑšô¯„ÀС_¹!úÅ®¬Åî-òéMê+]& ô46Ò6È1ë½™ûæ ·qNÉ ëüDZ]C‹…ÏÈ} ÇxjÅÊJJÁ3é$ –pS&e‹¶¯pÖ‚ÖC¥»:_ó¦Ja3‚V—ÊðBšÌy*v®|RÆsŽ’k Îb°÷=™ìŸ“Ódë5ÅYˆc›OI×ð!­×Ö ¥ˆ1»;J5N±–bÄ:Û ßJ¥ü3ˆs‚mÁækMܾ€ãí;wÎ;PàêŸB,6e÷ºøm+LîŽSê³±ÞPrCͧ®n±Uk†ÅÉùmˆKYžøõŒn†µ!ÿræ˜ÙGCh™õÍ–O5×ñ P¦(m¨³Qÿ™jq-é”4|p=Ñ{£×;à¥øãtºŠ?D;ý9A¦ñÕß× _T\øßH„\Àg‡L¹ÊOb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ# 0DéN---E// A«1111ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜbääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääää 0ëìììì B×× 0¤ô D3˜ D-Ë 0Køø ASCÆ– 0¤\ 0D A«D»”+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*ê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK - ù-(|G2©Ø$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô«mò»»Ô d(|3f$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3f$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€5»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼5»»»ÔÑ8€\XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îD5ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼5»îîD #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€25,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X\X»¼5ÔÌò òÔ#†¼5»XX\#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€òòóóv.€JOHN€A.€Ô_ÔBOATFIELDÔ_ÔÔ‡X\X»¼5Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌò òDirect€ó óà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNos.€222129€and€222131€€Rebecca€J.€Stern,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„01500„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€20,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼5»XX\“#ÔÔ‡X\X»¼5ÔThe€defendant€appeals€his€premeditated€first€degree€murder€and€abuse€of€a€corpse€convictions€forÐ xÈ  Ðwhich€he€received€concurrent€sentences€of€life€imprisonment€and€two€years,€respectively,€arguing:Ð d´ Ð(1)€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€enforcing€a€plea€agreement;€(2)€the€evidence€was€not€sufficient€toÐ P  Ðsupport€his€convictions;€(3)€hearsay€evidence€of€the€victimððs€statements€was€erroneously€admitted;€Ð <Œ Ð(4)€evidence€obtained€via€wiretaps€was€erroneously€admitted;€(5)€evidence€regarding€defendantððsÐ (x Ðalleged€romantic€relationship€with€a€woman€other€than€his€wife€was€erroneously€admitted;€and€(6)Ð d Ðthe€trial€court€should€have€charged€the€jury€regarding€alibi.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÐ P Ðcourt.€€Ð ì< ÐÓÕÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓJoe€G.€Riley,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€joined.€€òòJoseph€M.Ð œì ÐÔ_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€J.,€óófiled€a€concurring€opinion.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌJerry€H.€Summers,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€John€A.€Ô_ÔBoatfieldÔ_Ô.€€Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Mark€A.€Ô_ÔFulksÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð 8!ˆ  ÐWilliam€H.€Cox,€€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€David€Wayne€Denny€and€Ô_ÔLilaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔStatomÔ_Ô,€AssistantÐ $"t! ÐDistrict€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ð #`" ÐÓÿÓÌò òÌOPINIONó óÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌÓ  Óà  àOn€March€12,€1998,€firemen€responded€to€a€fire€at€the€home€of€the€defendant€and€discovered€Ð ¬'ü"' Ðthe€defendantððs€wife,€Emily€Denise€ð ðÔ_ÔNicyÔ_Ôðð€Ô_ÔBoatfieldÔ_Ô,€dead€in€her€bed€with€bedclothes€€piled€overÐ ˜(è#( Ðher.€€A€fire€had€been€set€beneath€the€bed€using€gasoline.€€Kitchen€matches,€a€.22€caliber€shell€casing,Ð „)Ô$) Ðand€the€defendantððs€.22€€caliber€rifle€were€in€the€charred€debris.€€The€rifle€was€cocked€with€a€roundÐ p*À%* Ðin€the€firing€chamber.€€Arson€investigator€Alec€Conner€opined€that€the€fire€was€typical€of€a€fire€setÐ \+¬&+ Ðto€conceal€a€crime.€€The€fire€was€confined€to€the€master€bedroom.€€Ð H,˜', Ðà  àÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà  àThe€victim€was€shot€in€the€head€and€stabbed€twice€in€the€abdomen.€€Her€right€leg€and€footÐ ° Ðwere€burned€and€charred€black.€€Dr.€Frank€King,€Hamilton€County€medical€examiner,€testified€theÐ œì Ðvictim€was€first€shot€and€then€stabbed.€€According€to€Dr.€King,€the€gunshot€killed€her€withinÐ ˆØ Ðseconds;€she€was€then€stabbed€as€she€died€or€soon€thereafter;€and€she€died€before€the€fire€started.€Ð tÄ ÐHe€said€the€victimððs€right€hand€was€not€injured,€nor€did€she€have€any€defensive€wounds.€€HeÐ `° Ðestimated€she€died€between€8:00€a.m.€and€10:00€a.m.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àDr.€King€opined€she€was€probably€shot€in€bed,€and€it€was€highly€improbable€she€was€shotÐ $ t Ðelsewhere€and€moved€to€the€bed.€€Thick€blood€and€tissue€were€around€the€pillow€on€the€bed.€€HeÐ  ` Ðtestified€blood€found€elsewhere€in€the€master€bedroom€and€hall€was€disbursed€from€the€bed€after€theÐ ü L  Ðvictimððs€death,€probably€by€the€firemen.€€No€foreign€genetic€material€was€found€underneath€theÐ è 8  Ðvictimððs€fingernails.€€Forensic€tests€revealed€the€shell€casing€found€was€fired€from€the€defendantððsÐ Ô$  Ðrifle.€€Dr.€King€stated€the€victimððs€stab€wounds€were€consistent€with€the€use€of€a€single„edge€knifeÐ À  Ðblade.€€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€home€showed€signs€of€an€apparent€burglary.€€In€the€living€room,€the€gun€cabinet€wasÐ „Ô  Ðopened€by€force,€and€a€container€of€.22€caliber€bullets,€bearing€the€defendantððs€fingerprints,€wasÐ pÀ Ðspilled€on€the€floor.€€A€tire€tool€was€found€in€the€floor.€€Tommy€McMillin,€the€defendantððs€son„in„Ð \¬ Ðlaw,€identified€the€tire€tool€as€one€he€had€been€using€to€repair€a€car€in€the€Boatfieldsðð€backyard€theÐ H˜ Ðday€before€the€murder.€€McMillan€said€he€left€the€tool€in€the€backyard€by€an€outbuilding.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àBoth€the€master€bedroom€and€the€bedroom€belonging€to€the€Boatfieldsðð€teenage€daughterÐ  \ Ðwere€ransacked.€€Jewelry€boxes€were€open€and€their€contents€strewn.€€The€back€door,€which€had€anÐ øH ÐADT€Security€sticker€on€the€window,€appeared€to€have€been€forced€open€using€the€tire€tool.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àWhen€officers€arrived€at€the€crime€scene,€they€found€televisions€and€a€stereo€in€the€home.€€Ð ¼  ÐThree€guns€were€in€the€gun€cabinet.€€The€victimððs€jewelry,€including€diamond€rings,€a€watch,Ð ¨ø Ðnecklace€and€earrings,€were€still€on€her€body.€€A€purse,€pager,€cellular€telephone€and€keys€were€onÐ ”ä Ðthe€kitchen€table.€€The€defendant€told€insurance€investigator€Danny€Walker€that€jewelry,€silver€bars,Ð €Ð Ðmoney€and€old€coins€were€taken.€He€told€Walker€and€the€police€that€no€guns€were€missing.€€He€alsoÐ l¼ Ðtold€the€police€he€had€loaded€the€.22€caliber€rifle€to€shoot€at€dogs,€and€it€possibly€had€five€rounds€inÐ X ¨ Ðit.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àOfficer€Rick€Phillips,€who€lived€in€the€neighborhood,€testified€it€was€a€safe€neighborhood€andÐ #l! Ð20€to€30€officers€resided€within€four€miles€of€the€Boatfield€home.€€The€neighborhood€is€a€high€trafficÐ $X" Ðarea€with€homes€adjacent€to€the€Boatfield€home€located€only€75€to€100€feet€away.€€One€belonged€toÐ ô$D # ÐDee€Newellòòóó,€who€kept€three€dogs€in€a€fence€close€to€the€Boatfieldsðð€driveway.€€Officer€Phillips€andÐ à%0!$ ÐInspector€Michael€Mathis€testified€that€Newellððs€òòóódogs€barked€most€of€the€time€they€were€present€atÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€crime€scene.€€Newell€testified€one€of€her€dogs€barked€at€strangers,€but€on€the€morning€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðmurder,€she€did€not€hear€the€dogs€bark€until€the€fire€trucks€arrived.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThere€was€a€sign€in€the€front€yard€of€the€Boatfield€home€indicating€it€was€monitored€by€ADTÐ |*Ì%) ÐSecurity.€€The€house€and€all€of€the€yard€are€visible€from€the€road.€€Two€of€the€Boatfieldsðð€vehicles,Ð h+¸&* Ðthe€defendantððs€red€truck€and€a€Saturn,€were€parked€in€the€driveway.€€The€Boatfieldsðð€dog,€aÐ ° ÐChihuahua€named€Chico,€would€bark€when€someone€entered€the€home€and€was€protective€of€theÐ œì Ðvictim.€€The€defendant€told€insurance€investigator€Walker,€his€father„in„law€Ray€Smith,€and€theÐ ˆØ Ðpolice€that€Chico€was€in€the€house.€€€After€the€murder,€Chico€was€found€unharmed€outside€the€house.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àOn€the€morning€of€the€murder,€the€defendant€and€Candace€Boatfield,€the€teenage€daughterÐ L œ Ðof€the€defendant€and€the€victim,€left€home€in€the€victimððs€new€purple€truck€just€before€7:00€a.m.Ð 8 ˆ ÐThey€made€a€brief€stop€at€the€defendantððs€business,€Nursery€Brokers,€and€arrived€at€a€restaurant€forÐ $ t Ðbreakfast€by€7:00€a.m.€€The€defendant€told€Detective€Charles€Dudley€that€his€wife€was€asleep€whenÐ  ` Ðthey€left.€€Candace€Boatfield€testified€they€remained€at€the€restaurant€for€an€hour€or€less.€€Then€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendant€took€her€to€school,€where€they€arrived€at€approximately€8:05€or€8:10€a.m.€€During€the€driveÐ è 8  Ðto€school,€the€defendant€told€his€daughter€he€was€going€to€wash€the€truck,€pick€up€parts€for€his€duneÐ Ô$  Ðbuggy€and€go€to€work.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€told€Detective€Dudley€he€returned€home,€where€his€wife€was€awake€andÐ ˜è  Ðwatching€television.€€He€said€she€asked€him€to€spend€the€day€with€her,€but€he€declined€because€heÐ „Ô  Ðhad€work€to€do.€€The€defendant€said€he€told€her€he€would€wash€her€truck.€€€€He€also€called€his€brotherÐ pÀ Ðat€Nursery€Brokers.€€Ð \¬ Ѐ€€€Ð H˜ Ðà  àAccording€to€telephone€company€records,€a€one€minute€phone€call€was€placed€from€theÐ 4„ ÐBoatfield€residence€to€Nursery€Brokers€at€8:57€a.m.€€Tommy€McMillin€testified€the€defendant€calledÐ  p ÐNursery€Brokers€between€9:00€and€9:05€a.m.€and€then€arrived€at€the€business€15€to€20€minutes€later.€Ð  \ ЀThe€defendant€told€Detective€Dudley€he€left€home€some€time€after€9:00€a.m.€€In€a€recorded€interviewÐ øH Ðwith€insurance€investigator€Walker,€the€defendant€said€his€wife€was€watching€television€when€he€leftÐ ä4 Ðthe€house€at€9:15.€€After€the€defendant€arrived€at€Nursery€Brokers,€he€left€in€the€purple€truck,€statingÐ Ð  Ðhe€was€going€to€wash€the€truck€and€pick€up€parts.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌÒe°Òà  àADT€Security€Services€received€a€fire€alarm€call€from€the€Boatfield€residence€at€9:22€a.m.€€Ð ”ä ÐAt€9:27€a.m.,€ADT€called€the€defendantððs€business€and€a€man€stated€the€defendant€was€not€there.€€Ð €Ð ÐMcMillin€testified€he€answered€the€telephone€when€ADT€called€and€told€them€the€defendant€wouldÐ l¼ Ðreturn€in€30€minutes.€€Ð X ¨ ЀÌà  àThe€defendant€told€Detective€Dudley€he€arrived€at€the€carwash€approximately€15€minutes€afterÐ 0"€  Ðhe€left€Nursery€Brokers.€€Betty€Grant€and€Virgil€Garner,€East€Ridge€Carwash€employees,€recalled€theÐ #l! Ðdefendant€arriving€at€the€carwash€at€approximately€10:00€a.m.€driving€a€purple€truck.€€The€defendantÐ $X" Ðtold€Detective€Dudley€he€was€at€the€carwash€for€about€five€to€ten€minutes.€€According€to€theÐ ô$D # Ðdefendantððs€statement€to€Detective€Dudley,€he€put€gas€in€the€truck€and€went€to€Capital€Toyota€whereÐ à%0!$ Ðhe€stayed€about€20€minutes.€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àHe€said€he€then€went€to€Advance€Auto€Parts,€where€he€spent€about€30€minutes.€€Stephen€JohnsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðand€Robert€Massengale,€employees€of€Advanced€Auto€Parts,€recalled€the€defendant€coming€into€theÐ )à$( Ðstore€that€morning€to€pick€up€dune€buggy€parts.€€Johns€said€he€offered€to€sell€the€defendant€some€oldÐ |*Ì%) ÐVolkswagen€parts€at€a€reduced€price,€and,€after€a€ten€to€fifteen„minute€discussion,€the€defendantÐ h+¸&* Ðpurchased€them€as€well.€€He€did€not€recall€the€defendantððs€request€to€use€the€telephone.€€MassengaleÐ ° Ðrecalled€giving€the€defendant€permission€to€use€the€telephone.€€The€defendant€told€Inspector€MichaelÐ œì ÐMathis€he€tried€to€call€home€and€Nursery€Brokers,€but€got€no€answer.€€€Telephone€records€show€noÐ ˆØ Ðphone€calls€were€placed€from€Advance€Auto€to€the€Boatfield€residence€or€Nursery€Brokers.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðdefendant€completed€his€purchases€at€Advanced€Auto€at€10:55.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€told€insurance€investigator€Walker€he€proceeded€to€the€car€dealership€after€heÐ 8 ˆ Ðleft€Advanced€Auto€and€then€went€to€the€home€of€Alvin€Walker,€Jr.,€who€was€repairing€theÐ $ t Ðdefendantððs€dune€buggy.€€According€to€stipulated€statements€by€Alvin€Walker,€Jr.€and€his€father,Ð  ` ÐAlvin€Walker,€Sr.,€Walker,€Sr.€answered€the€door€and€told€the€defendant€there€had€been€a€fire€at€hisÐ ü L  Ðhouse.€€The€defendant€replied€that€Walker,€Sr.€should€not€joke€about€things€like€that.€€When€Walker,Ð è 8  ÐSr.€told€the€defendant€his€wife€was€found€inside€the€house,€the€defendant€fell€to€the€ground€screamingÐ Ô$  Ðand€crying.€€Walker,€Jr.€drove€the€defendant€to€his€home,€where€the€defendant€refused€to€get€out€ofÐ À  Ðthe€vehicle€and€asked€Walker,€Jr.€to€take€him€to€his€motherððs€home.€€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIn€the€defendantððs€statement€to€Detective€Dudley,€he€stated€Walker,€Sr.€said€he€was€sorry€toÐ „Ô  Ðhear€about€his€wife.€€The€defendant€said€he€asked€Walker,€Sr.€what€he€was€talking€about€and€Walker,Ð pÀ ÐSr.€told€him€his€house€had€caught€fire€and€his€wife€had€died.€€€Ð \¬ Ðà  àÌà  àMartha€McNabb,€the€victimððs€mother,€testified€that€in€January€or€February€1998,€the€victimÐ 4„ Ðcalled€her€after€awaking€to€a€suspicious€fire€in€her€bedroom,€which€apparently€was€started€by€a€litÐ  p Ðcandle.€€She€said€the€victim€suspected€the€defendant€or€their€daughter,€Candace€Boatfield,€set€the€fire.€Ð  \ ÐÌÒ°eÒà  àInspector€Mathis€testified€he€interviewed€the€defendant€in€a€car€outside€the€defendantððsÐ ä4 Ðresidence€at€approximately€11:45€a.m.€on€the€day€of€the€murder.€€Mathis€said€the€defendant€held€hisÐ Ð  Ðhead€down€and€moaned€with€his€hands€covering€his€face.€€He€observed€others€helping€the€defendantÐ ¼  Ðwalk€and€get€in€and€out€of€the€vehicle€as€if€he€could€not€stand€on€his€own.€€Mathis€stated€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant€was€aware€his€wife€was€dead.€€Mathis€explained€to€him€the€police€were€investigating€herÐ ”ä Ðdeath.€€€Though€the€defendantððs€hands€were€covering€his€face,€his€eyes€were€darting€to€look€at€MathisÐ €Ð Ðand€to€look€out€the€window€of€the€car.€€Mathis€also€noticed€that€although€the€defendant€was€makingÐ l¼ Ðcrying€sounds,€he€was€not€shedding€any€tears.€€The€defendant€made€comments€indicating€his€wifeÐ X ¨ Ðwas€dead,€such€as,€ð ðShe€was€my€best€friend.ðð€€After€Mathis€ended€the€interview€and€as€theÐ D!” Ðdefendantððs€sister€helped€the€defendant€out€of€the€car,€the€sister€told€the€defendant,€ð ðSheððs€dead.ðð€Ð 0"€  ÐThe€defendant€responded,€ð ðI€didnððt€know€she€was€gone.ðð€€Mathis€testified€he€found€it€unusual€theÐ #l! Ðdefendant€never€asked€him€what€had€happened€to€his€wife,€how€she€had€died,€or€where€she€was.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àMelody€Jones,€the€victimððs€sister,€testified€that€when€the€family€gathered€following€theÐ à%0!$ Ðmurder,€she€observed€the€defendant€sitting€down,€leaning€with€his€hands€over€his€face,€but€lookingÐ Ì&"% Ðat€the€victimððs€family€through€his€fingers.€€She€said€while€the€defendant€wailed€and€made€noises,€sheÐ ¸'#& Ðdid€not€see€any€tears.€€Jones€said€the€defendant€made€inconsistent€statements€about€his€and€his€wifeððsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðactivities€on€the€day€of€the€murder.€€She€testified€he€initially€said€the€victim€was€asleep€when€he€leftÐ )à$( Ðthe€house,€but€later€said€she€was€watching€television€and€it€was€playing€so€loudly€he€told€her€to€turnÐ |*Ì%) Ðit€down€because€she€would€not€hear€if€anyone€entered€the€house.€€The€defendant€told€Jones€he€tookÐ h+¸&* ÐCandace€to€school€in€his€red€truck.€€He€said€he€later€returned€home,€and€without€going€in,€picked€upÐ ° Ðthe€purple€truck€in€order€to€clean€it.€€Jones€also€testified€she€did€not€know€of€any€injury€to€theÐ œì Ðvictimððs€hand.€€Ð ˆØ Ðà  àÌà  àThe€victimððs€father,€Ray€Smith,€said€he€asked€the€defendant€if€he€killed€his€daughter.€€TheÐ `° Ðdefendant€replied€that€he€ð ðnever€laid€a€hand€on€her.ðð€€Smith€said€the€defendant€became€extremelyÐ L œ Ðnervous,€began€shaking,€and€left.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àOn€March€13,€1998,€Detective€Dudley€and€other€officers€made€a€videotape€as€they€walkedÐ  ` Ðthrough€the€house€with€the€defendant€and€interviewed€him.€€Detective€Dudley€testified€that€to€hisÐ ü L  Ðknowledge,€the€defendant€was€not€told€about€the€stab€wounds€to€the€victimððs€abdomen€at€the€timeÐ è 8  Ðthe€tape€was€made.€€As€the€officers€and€defendant€reviewed€the€contents€of€the€gun€cabinet,€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€pointed€out€that€a€knife€was€missing.€€The€defendant€drew€a€picture€of€the€knife,€showingÐ À  Ðthat€it€had€a€single„edge€blade.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àInsurance€agency€employee,€Gina€Hembree,€testified€the€defendant€came€by€her€office€onÐ „Ô  ÐMarch€18,€1998,€before€the€agency€received€the€fire€report.€€When€Hembree€inquired€as€to€how€theÐ pÀ Ðfire€began,€the€defendant€told€her€he€thought€urethane€on€a€jewelry€box€was€ignited€by€a€lighter€orÐ \¬ Ða€candle.€€He€also€stated€he€had€only€been€gone€fifteen€minutes€when€the€fire€began.€€On€March€27,Ð H˜ Ð1998,€the€defendant€visited€Hembreeððs€office€again€and€told€Hembree€police€had€located€a€witness,Ð 4„ Ðwho€was€ð ðdern€[sic]€near€beat€to€death€and€in€a€coma.ðð€€As€the€defendant€made€this€statement,€heÐ  p Ðlooked€Hembree€ð ðdead€in€the€eye,ðð€giving€her€pause€because€he€had€also€asked€her€if€the€police€hadÐ  \ Ðspoken€with€her.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€the€police€ever€located€a€witness€who€hadÐ øH Ðbeen€beaten.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àOn€March€20,€1998,€insurance€investigator€Walker€interviewed€the€defendant.€€WalkerÐ ¼  Ðquestioned€the€defendant€regarding€whether€he€kept€flammable€liquids€such€as€gasoline,€kerosene,Ð ¨ø Ðcharcoal€lighter€fluid,€or€paint€thinner.€€The€defendant€replied€he€did€not.€€On€July€1,€1998,€WalkerÐ ”ä Ðwas€present€when€the€defendant€stated€he€kept€paint€thinner€under€the€sink€and€an€empty€can€ofÐ €Ð ÐColeman€fuel€in€an€outbuilding.€€The€defendant€told€Inspector€Michael€Mathis€that€there€might€haveÐ l¼ Ðbeen€charcoal€lighter€fluid€under€the€kitchen€sink,€and€matches€were€kept€in€the€kitchen€drawer.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àWhen€Detective€Dudley€questioned€the€defendant€regarding€his€financial€condition,€he€saidÐ 0"€  Ðhe€was€financially€stable€and€owed€nothing€on€his€home.€€In€May€1993òòóó,€the€defendant€was€injuredÐ #l! Ðwhile€working€at€a€foundry€and€lost€his€job.€€Ray€Smith,€the€victimððs€father,€testified€he€assisted€theÐ $X" Ðdefendant€in€establishing€the€business,€Nursery€Brokers,€so€the€defendant€could€support€his€family.€Ð ô$D # ÐSmith€stated€the€business€ð ðtook€offðð€and€did€better€than€he€expected.€€When€Smith€turned€theÐ à%0!$ Ðbusiness€over€to€the€defendant€in€January€1997òòóó,€the€business€owed€little€debt.€€Smith€described€theÐ Ì&"% Ðdefendant€as€a€poor€businessman.€€Smith€testified€that€in€November€1997,€€the€businessððs€checks€toÐ ¸'#& Ða€supplier€and€for€rent€were€returned€for€insufficient€funds.€€Other€proof€established€the€defendantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhad€difficulty€paying€for€telephone€services€and€insurance.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àIn€1997,€the€Boatfields€obtained€an€equity€line€of€credit€in€the€amount€of€$44,000€secured€byÐ ° Ðâ âtheir€home.€€Wayne€Upchurch,€the€bankððs€branch€manager,€testified€that€ð ðNicyðð€Boatfield€was€veryÐ œì Ðreluctant€to€enter€into€the€loan€agreement€and€wanted€safeguards€to€ensure€no€funds€could€beÐ ˆØ Ðwithdrawn€without€both€signatures.€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Boatfield€signed€a€written€agreement€requiringÐ tÄ Ðboth€of€them€to€sign€before€funds€could€be€withdrawn€on€the€line€of€credit.€€The€Boatfields€purchasedÐ `° Ðcredit€life€insurance€€to€pay€the€loan€in€the€event€either€of€them€died.€€As€of€March€12,€1998,€theÐ L œ Ðbalance€due€on€the€line€of€credit€was€approximately€$50,000.€€On€March€20,€1998,€the€defendantÐ 8 ˆ Ðasked€to€file€a€claim€on€the€credit€life€insurance.€€The€defendantððs€claim€was€denied€because€theÐ $ t Ðpremium€payments€were€delinquent€at€the€time€of€the€victimððs€death,€which€displeased€the€defendant.€Ð  ` ÐLater,€the€bank€began€foreclosure€on€the€house.€€In€addition€to€the€credit€life€insurance,€the€defendantÐ ü L  Ðhad€insurance€coverage€on€the€house€and€its€contents.€€The€defendant€told€Walker€during€the€MarchÐ è 8  Ð20,€1998,€interview€his€house€payments€were€current,€and€he€had€just€learned€that€they€had€credit€lifeÐ Ô$  Ðinsurance€to€pay€the€outstanding€balance.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àShortly€before€the€murder,€the€Boatfields€purchased€a€purple€truck€from€Capital€Toyota.€€Ð ˜è  ÐEdward€Virgil€Emerson,€a€finance€manager€at€the€dealership,€testified€he€assisted€them€with€theÐ „Ô  Ðfinancing.€€Emerson€stated€the€victim€was€vehement€about€having€the€vehicle€solely€in€her€nameÐ pÀ Ðbecause€she€would€be€making€the€payments€and€was€upset€when€she€learned€that€the€only€wayÐ \¬ Ðfinancing€could€be€obtained€was€to€include€the€defendant.€€Emerson€offered€them€credit€life€andÐ H˜ Ðdisability€insurance.€€The€defendant€asked€if€such€insurance€would€pay€for€the€vehicle€if€somethingÐ 4„ Ðhappened€to€either€of€them.€€Emerson€advised€that€coverage€for€both€of€them€would€be€moreÐ  p Ðexpensive.€€The€victim€did€not€want€to€pay€the€extra€expense€for€joint€coverage,€but€the€defendantÐ  \ Ðagreed€to€pay€for€the€additional€expense.€€The€insurance€would€have€paid€the€debt€on€the€vehicleÐ øH Ðupon€the€victimððs€death.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€victim€was€employed€by€the€Dialysis€Clinic,€Inc.€€David€Hagwood,€director€of€humanÐ ¼  Ðresources€for€the€Dialysis€Clinic,€testified€the€defendant€would€have€been€entitled€to€benefits€totalingÐ ¨ø Ð$87,700.€€On€June€10,€1998,€the€defendant€applied€only€for€her€retirement€benefits,€which€wereÐ ”ä Ðapproximately€$15,700.€€Ð €Ð Ðà  àÌà  àThe€Boatfield€family€members€were€close€friends€with€Lonnie€and€Brenda€Tripp€and€theirÐ X ¨ Ðchildren.€€They€attended€the€same€church€and€had€vacationed€together.€€Brenda€Tripp€also€workedÐ D!” Ðat€the€Dialysis€Clinic.€€The€Trippsðð€sons€had€worked€at€the€defendantððs€business.€€In€1997,€the€TrippsÐ 0"€  Ðbegan€having€marital€problems,€and€at€the€time€of€the€murder,€they€were€divorcing.€€In€August€1997,Ð #l! Ðòòóóthe€defendant€and€Brenda€Tripp€traveled€to€Alabama€òòóóto€assist€the€Trippsðð€oldest€son,€whose€car€wasÐ $X" Ðdisabled.€€In€the€months€preceding€the€victimððs€death,€numerous€calls€were€made€from€theÐ ô$D # Ðdefendantððs€cellular€telephone€to€Brenda€Trippððs€pager,€home,€place€of€employment,€and€cellularÐ à%0!$ Ðtelephone.€€Likewise,€numerous€calls€were€made€from€Brenda€Trippððs€cellular€telephone€to€NurseryÐ Ì&"% ÐBrokers,€the€defendantððs€cellular€telephone,€his€pager€and€his€home.€€The€phone€calls€continued€afterÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€victimððs€death.€€The€defendant€repeatedly€told€Inspector€Michael€Mathis€he€did€not€know€BrendaÐ ¤(ô#' ÐTrippððs€cellular€telephone€and€pager€numbers.€€Hours€after€Inspector€Mathis€interviewed€BrendaÐ )à$( ÐTripp€on€March€27,€calls€were€placed€between€the€defendant€and€Brenda€Tripp.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€defendant€was€openly€involved€in€a€romantic€relationship€with€Brenda€Tripp€after€theÐ ° Ðvictimððs€death.€€Inspector€Michael€Mathis€testified€that€in€June€1998,€police€intercepted€telephoneÐ œì Ðcalls€between€the€defendant€and€Brenda€Tripp€in€which€it€was€apparent€they€were€physicallyÐ ˆØ Ðintimate.€€The€state€presented€a€tape€recording€of€a€conversation€between€the€defendant€and€TrippÐ tÄ Ðfrom€June€19,€1998,€indicating€the€two€were€having€sexual€relations.€€In€February€1999,€theÐ `° Ðdefendant€sent€a€letter€to€Lonnie€Tripp€claiming€he€was€not€involved€with€Brenda€Tripp€before€theÐ L œ ÐTrippsðð€separation,€but€apologized€to€Tripp€for€betraying€his€friendship.€€In€the€letter,€the€defendantÐ 8 ˆ Ðalso€stated€he€had€prayed€for€God€and€the€victim€to€forgive€him.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àMelody€Jones,€the€victimððs€sister,€testified€the€Boatfields€had€marital€problems€for€years.€Ð ü L  ÐJones€stated€the€victim€suspected€the€defendant€was€having€an€affair€with€Brenda€Tripp.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€defense€presented€the€testimony€of€Candace€Boatfield€and€Eddie€Boatfield,€theÐ À  Ðdefendantððs€brother,€who€testified€the€victimððs€hand€appeared€swollen€after€her€death.€€EddieÐ ¬ü  ÐBoatfield€testified€the€defendant€screamed€and€cried€hysterically€after€his€wifeððs€death.€€Officers€alsoÐ ˜è  Ðtestified€the€defendant€cooperated€in€the€investigation€by€giving€fingerprints,€blood€samples,Ð „Ô  Ðinterviews,€and€was€willing€to€take€a€polygraph.€€Terry€D.€Traylor€testified€the€defendant€was€notÐ pÀ Ðable€to€do€lifting.€€The€defense€submitted€medical€records€showing€the€defendant€had€undergone€fourÐ \¬ Ðsurgeries€on€his€cervical€spine€since€his€injury€at€work€in€1993.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àTommy€McMillin€testified€during€cross„examination€that€when€he€saw€the€defendant€atÐ  p ÐNursery€Brokers€on€the€morning€of€the€murder,€there€was€no€blood€on€the€defendantððs€jacket;€theÐ  \ Ðdefendant€did€not€smell€like€gasoline;€he€did€not€appear€to€have€been€in€a€struggle;€and€he€wasÐ øH Ðbehaving€normally.€€The€defendantððs€brothers€testified€for€the€defense€that€they€found€footprintsÐ ä4 Ðapproximately€100€feet€behind€the€house€at€the€back€of€the€yard€near€the€woods.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àCandace€Boatfield€testified€her€mother€knew€the€defendant€went€with€Brenda€Tripp€toÐ ¨ø ÐAlabama€to€assist€Durand€Tripp€and€was€not€upset.€€Candace€Boatfield€and€Sharon€Beaver€testifiedÐ ”ä ÐBrenda€Tripp€and€the€victim€slept€in€the€same€bed€during€a€church€trip€to€Gatlinburg€two€weeksÐ €Ð Ðbefore€the€murder.€€Witnesses€testified€the€defendantððs€cellular€telephone€was€used€by€many€people,Ð l¼ Ðincluding€Brenda€Trippððs€sons,€who€worked€at€Nursery€Brokers.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àSabrina€McMillin,€the€defendantððs€daughter€from€a€prior€marriage,€testified€for€the€defenseÐ 0"€  Ðthat€she€listened€to€the€tapes€of€the€phone€calls€intercepted€by€the€police€from€her€fatherððs€and€BrendaÐ #l! ÐTrippððs€phones€and€prepared€a€summary€showing€most€of€the€phone€calls€were€not€between€theÐ $X" Ðdefendant€and€Tripp.€€McMillin€said€she€was€never€aware€of€any€romantic€relationship€betweenÐ ô$D # ÐBrenda€Tripp€and€her€father€prior€to€the€victimððs€death.€€Lonnie€Tripp€testified€he€did€not€accuse€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendant€of€being€involved€with€his€wife€prior€to€the€victimððs€death.€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àCandace€Boatfield€testified€her€parents€continued€to€live€together€after€the€incident€in€whichÐ ¤(ô#' Ðher€mother€found€a€candle€burning€by€her€bed,€and€her€parents€did€not€have€any€major€arguments.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âShe€stated€her€mother€joked€about€the€candle€incident.€€Officer€Charles€Russell€testified€he€took€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðstatement€from€the€victimððs€mother,€Martha€McNabb,€who€said€the€victim€did€not€name€either€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€or€Candace€Boatfield€as€a€suspect€who€lit€the€candle€in€her€bedroom.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àJohn€Hilhoit,€administrator€of€the€Dialysis€Clinic,€testified€the€victim€earned€over€$28,000Ð tÄ Ðin€1997€and€over€$26,000€in€1996.€€He€confirmed€the€victim€was€being€considered€for€a€promotionÐ `° Ðat€the€time€of€her€death.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àBased€on€this€evidence,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€premeditated€first€degreeÐ $ t Ðmurder€and€abuse€of€a€corpse.€€Ð  ` ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òà @½ àI.€PLEA€AGREEMENTó ó€Ð Ô$  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€maintains€he€was€entitled€to€specific€performance€of€a€plea€offer€made€to€himÐ °  Ðby€the€state€prior€to€trial.€€He€argues€the€trial€court€erred€in€rejecting€the€agreement€and€in€failing€toÐ œì  Ðorder€specific€performance€of€the€agreement.€€He€further€submits€that€the€district€attorney€general€Ð ˆØ  Ðillegally€granted€authority€to€the€victimððs€family€to€revoke€the€plea€agreement€and,€in€doing€so,Ð tÄ Ðviolated€his€constitutional€rights.€€We€€disagree.€€Ð `° ÐÌò òA.€€Factual€Backgroundó óÐ 8ˆ ÐÌà  àOn€April€17,€2000,€an€assistant€district€attorney€and€defense€counsel€discussed€a€potentialÐ ` Ðplea€agreement€in€which€the€defendant€would€plead€guilty€to€voluntary€manslaughter€for€a€five„yearÐ üL Ðsentence€with€appropriate€credit€for€almost€two€years€for€time€served.€€The€assistant€district€attorneyÐ è8 Ðreviewed€the€agreement€with€members€of€the€victimððs€family,€and€they€were€satisfied€with€it.€€TheÐ Ô$ Ðfollowing€day,€both€counsel€approached€the€trial€judge€to€advise€her€of€the€potential€agreement.€€TheÐ À Ðtrial€judge€indicated€her€ð ðacceptance€of€it€upon€the€victimððs€family€members€being€satisfied€with€it.ðð€Ð ¬ü ÐDefense€counsel€was€interested€in€finding€a€means€by€which€the€defendant€could€avoid€being€sentÐ ˜è Ðto€the€Department€of€Correction€for€classification€and€instead€be€eligible€for€prompt€release.€€At€theÐ „Ô Ðsuggestion€of€the€judge,€the€attorneys€conferred€with€the€coordinator€for€the€felony€communityÐ pÀ Ðcorrections€program€regarding€the€defendantððs€eligibility€for€alternative€sentencing€under€thatÐ \ ¬ Ðprogram€and€awaited€his€response.€€Ð H!˜ ÐÌà  àDefense€counsel€reviewed€the€proposed€agreement€with€the€defendant,€who€found€itÐ  #p! Ðacceptable.€€Defense€counsel€advised€the€state€of€the€defendantððs€acceptance€and€a€plea€hearing€wasÐ  $\" Ðscheduled€for€the€next€day.€€Later,€the€assistant€district€attorney€learned€of€the€victimððs€familyððsÐ ø$H # Ðobjection€to€the€plea€agreement,€apparently€since€they€ð ðhad€never€been€informed€about€CommunityÐ ä%4!$ ÐCorrections€as€an€option€to€[penitentiary]€classification.ðð€€When€defense€counsel€arrived€for€theÐ Ð& "% Ðhearing,€the€assistant€district€attorney€advised€him€he€was€withdrawing€the€offer€due€to€the€familyððsÐ ¼' #& Ðobjection.€€The€defendant€moved€the€trial€court€to€specifically€enforce€the€plea€agreement,€and€theÐ ¨(ø#' Ðtrial€court€denied€the€motion.€€Ð ”)ä$( ÐÌò òÐ l+¼&* ÐB.€€Plea€Agreementsó óÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€making€of€a€plea€offer€is€a€matter€which€lies€entirely€within€the€prosecutorððs€discretion.€Ð ˆØ ЀòòState€v.€Headóó,€971€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€The€state€is€under€no€obligation€to€offerÐ tÄ Ðany€benefit€to€the€accused€in€exchange€for€his€plea€of€guilt.€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€666Ð `° Ð(Tenn.€1994).€òòóó€If€the€state€elects€to€extend€a€€plea€offer,€it€is€revocable€until€it€is€accepted€by€the€trialÐ L œ Ðcourt.€òòId.€€òòóóóóWhile€a€defendant€may€seek€to€have€a€plea€agreement€specifically€enforced,€this€relief€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðavailable€only€when€the€trial€court€has€accepted€the€plea€and€the€agreement.€€òòóóòòIdóó.€€òòóóÐ $ t ÐÌà  àFurther,€there€is€no€absolute€right€to€have€a€plea€agreement€accepted€by€the€trial€court.€€òòStateÐ ü L  Ðv.€Burrisóó,€40€S.W.3d€520,€523€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000)€(citing€òòSantobello€v.€New€Yorkóó,€404€U.S.Ð è 8  Ð257,€92€S.€Ct.€495,€30€L.€Ed.€2d€427€(1971)).€€òòóóThe€trial€court€may,€in€the€exercise€of€its€discretion,Ð Ô$  Ðeither€accept€or€reject€a€plea€agreement.€€òòParham€v.€State,óó€885€òòóóòòóóS.W.2d€375,€382€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð À  Ð1994).€€The€plea€agreement€is€not€enforceable€by€either€party€until€it€is€accepted€by€the€trial€court.€Ð ¬ü  ÐòòIdóó.€€òòóóòòóóÐ ˜è  ÐÌò òC.€€Analysisó óÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€òòsub€judice,óó€it€is€clear€that€while€the€trial€court€was€tentatively€satisfied€with€theÐ H˜ Ðplea€agreement,€it€had€not€yet€been€ð ðacceptedðð€by€the€trial€court.€€There€was€never€a€hearing€in€openÐ 4„ Ðcourt€during€which€the€defendant€entered€a€formal€plea€of€guilty€pursuant€to€the€proposed€pleaÐ  p Ðagreement.€€Therefore,€the€state€remained€at€liberty€to€withdraw€the€offer€it€had€previously€made,Ð  \ Ðdespite€the€defendantððs€expressions€of€willingness€to€enter€a€guilty€plea€pursuant€to€the€plea€offer.€Ð øH ÐThe€stateððs€revocation€based€on€the€familyððs€objection€to€the€proposed€plea€agreement€was€withinÐ ä4 Ðits€discretion.€Regardless,€it€was€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€to€reject€the€proposed€plea,€whichÐ Ð  Ðit€indicated€it€would€do€absent€the€agreement€of€the€victimððs€family.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€òòState€v.€Howingtonóó,€907€S.W.2d€403€(Tenn.€1995),€and€òòState€v.Ð ”ä ÐSpradlinóó,€12€S.W.3d€432€(Tenn.€2000),€control€this€courtððs€decision€in€the€instant€case.€€However,Ð €Ð Ðboth€òòHowingtonóó€and€òòSpradlinóó€involved€situations€where€the€defendants€were€promised€a€form€ofÐ l¼ Ðimmunity€in€exchange€for€their€cooperation€with€law€enforcement,€but€the€agreements€were€notÐ X ¨ Ðformalized€by€the€trial€courts.€€The€òòHowingtonóó€court€recognized€the€enforceability€of€pleaÐ D!” Ðagreements,€but€clearly€stated€plea€agreements€were€only€enforceable€once€the€condition€precedentÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€trial€courtððs€acceptance€of€the€agreement€is€met.€€€907€S.W.2d€at€407.€€In€òòSpradlinóó,€lawÐ #l! Ðenforcement€officers€promised€the€defendant€that€if€he€would€work€as€a€confidential€informant,€heÐ $X" Ðwould€avoid€prosecution€on€uncharged€offenses.€€12€S.W.3d€at€434.€€The€supreme€court€ruled€theÐ ô$D # Ðagreement€between€Spradlin€and€the€officers€was€not€enforceable€because€it€was€not€authorized€byÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€district€attorney.€€òòIdóó.€at€437„38.€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€defendant€and€the€state€had€an€informal€plea€agreement€rather€than€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcontract€for€immunity€conditioned€upon€the€defendantððs€cooperation€in€the€prosecution€of€anotherÐ )à$( Ðparty.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€the€defendant€gave€up€any€of€his€rights€in€consideration€of€the€offerÐ |*Ì%) Ðmade€by€the€state.€€Therefore,€the€holdings€of€òòHowingtonóó€and€òòSpradlinóó€are€inapplicable.€€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àFurther,€the€trial€judge€did€not€abuse€her€discretion€in€failing€to€accept€a€plea€agreement€thatÐ ° Ðhad€been€permissibly€revoked€by€the€state.€€For€these€reasons,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€òòòòóóóóÐ œì ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òII.€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÐ `° ÐÌÓS“Óò òA.€Standard€of€ReviewÐ 8 ˆ Ðó óÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€the€circumstantial€evidence€presented€by€the€state€was€insufficient€toÐ  ` Ðsupport€his€conviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€Ô‡ X\XXX\ÔAlthough€the€evidence€of€defendantððs€guilt€isÐ ü L  Ðcircumstantial€in€nature,€circumstantial€evidence€alone€may€be€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction.€Ð è 8  ÐòòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899„900€(Tenn.€1987);€€òòState€v.€Buttreyóó,€756€S.W.2d€718,€721Ð Ô$  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€However,€for€this€to€occur,€the€circumstantial€evidence€must€be€consistentÐ À  Ðwith€guilt€of€the€accused,€inconsistent€with€innocence,€and€must€exclude€every€other€reasonableÐ ¬ü  Ðtheory€or€hypothesis€except€that€of€guilt.€€òòTharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€at€900.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àGreat€weight€is€given€to€the€jury€verdict€in€a€criminal€trial;€it€accredits€the€stateððs€witnessesÐ pÀ Ðand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994);Ð \¬ ÐòòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€Therefore,€while€following€the€above€guidelines,Ð H˜ Ðthis€court€must€remember€that€the€jury€decides€the€weight€to€be€given€to€circumstantial€evidence.€Ð 4„ Ðð ðThe€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€such€evidence,€and€the€extent€to€which€the€circumstances€areÐ  p Ðconsistent€with€guilt€and€inconsistent€with€innocence€are€questions€.€.€.€for€the€jury.ðð€€òòMarable€v.Ð  \ ÐStateóó,€313€S.W.2d€451,€457€(Tenn.€1958)€(citation€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2dÐ øH Ð574,€577€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àWhere€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€for€an€appellate€courtÐ ¼  Ðis€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trierÐ ¨ø Ðof€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€or€crimes€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð ”ä ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.€2dÐ €Ð Ð560€(1979);€€òòState€v.€Abramsóó,€935€S.W.2d€399,€401€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€weight€and€credibility€of€theÐ l¼ Ðwitnesses'€testimony€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€€òòState€v.Ð X ¨ ÐSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð D!” Ð1996).Ô#†X\XX X\ˆ”#ÔÔ‡ X\XXX\ÔÔ#† ¼5»X X\#ÔÔ‡ X\X» ¼5Ô€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌò òB.€Statutory€RequirementsÐ $X" Ðó óÌà  àÔ#†X\XX X\mž#ÔÔ‡ X\XXX\ÔThe€applicable€definition€of€first€degree€murder€is€ð ð[a]€premeditated€and€intentional€killingÐ à%0!$ Ðof€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1).€€Premeditation€necessitates€ð ða€previously€formedÐ Ì&"% Ðdesign€or€intent€to€kill,ðð€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992)€(citations€omitted),€andÐ ¸'#& Ðð ðan€act€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment€.€.€.€[meaning]€that€the€intent€to€kill€mustÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhave€been€formed€prior€to€the€act€itself.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(d).€€It€also€requires€that€theÐ )à$( Ðaccused€be€ð ðsufficiently€free€from€excitement€and€passion€as€to€be€capable€of€premeditation.ðð€òòIdóó.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€element€of€premeditation€is€a€question€of€fact€to€be€determined€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.Ð ° ÐSuttlesóó,€30€S.W.3d€252,€261€(Tenn.€2000).€€Although€the€jury€may€not€engage€in€speculation,€it€mayÐ œì Ðinfer€premeditation€from€the€manner€and€circumstances€of€the€killing.€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2dÐ ˆØ Ð651,€660€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€OurÐ tÄ Ðsupreme€court€delineated€several€circumstances€that€may€be€indicative€of€premeditation,€includingÐ `° Ðthe€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim,€the€fact€that€the€killing€was€particularly€cruel,Ð L œ Ðdeclarations€of€the€intent€to€kill€the€victim€by€the€defendant,€the€making€of€preparations€before€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðkilling€for€the€purpose€of€concealing€the€crime,€and€calmness€immediately€after€the€killing.€€òòSeeóóÐ $ t ÐòòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€660.€€Ô#†X\XX X\JŸ#ÔÐ  ` ÐÌà  àA€person€commits€the€offense€of€abuse€of€a€corpse€by€physically€mistreating€a€corpse€in€aÐ è 8  Ðmanner€offensive€to€the€sensibilities€of€an€ordinary€person.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„312(a)(1).€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌò òC.€€Analysisó óÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€state€presented€proof€the€victim€was€shot€in€the€head€and€then€stabbed€twiceÐ „Ô  Ðwhile€she€was€unarmed€in€her€bed.€€A€fire€was€then€set€in€an€apparent€effort€to€conceal€the€crime.€€Ð pÀ ÐThe€facts€are€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€murder€was€premeditated.€€The€proofÐ \¬ Ðalso€established€the€defendant€was€present€in€the€home€minutes€before€an€alarm€notified€the€securityÐ H˜ Ðservice€of€the€fire;€the€defendantððs€weapon€was€used€to€kill€the€victim;€and€his€fingerprints€wereÐ 4„ Ðfound€on€the€canister€of€ammunition.€€The€defendant€made€numerous€inconsistent€and€falseÐ  p Ðstatements€subsequent€to€the€murder.€€Though€the€Boatfield€home€appeared€to€be€the€site€of€aÐ  \ Ðburglary,€weapons€and€other€valuables€in€plain€view€remained€in€the€home.€€Viewing€the€evidenceÐ øH Ðin€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€state€also€established€the€defendant€had€financial€andÐ ä4 Ðromantic€motives€to€kill€the€victim.€€The€proof€was€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendant€premeditatedly€and€intentionally€perpetrated€his€wifeððs€murder.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àWe€further€conclude€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€establish€that€the€defendant,€by€burningÐ ”ä Ðthe€victimððs€body,€physically€mistreated€the€corpse€in€a€manner€offensive€to€the€sensibilities€of€anÐ €Ð Ðordinary€person.€€Thus,€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€establish€abuse€of€a€corpse.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌÌà@¥ ¥ ìàò òIII.€VICTIMððS€HEARSAY€STATEMENTSó óˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€early€1998,€a€few€weeks€prior€to€her€death,€the€victim€called€her€mother,€Martha€McNabb,Ð $X" Ðand€in€a€frantic€voice€said,€ð ðI€should€be€dead€right€now.ðð€€The€victim€explained€she€awoke€thatÐ ô$D # Ðmorning€to€find€a€fire€in€her€bedroom,€with€a€candle€burning€next€to€her€pillow€and€the€waste€basketÐ à%0!$ Ðbeside€her€bed€melted€to€the€floor.€€She€also€stated,€ð ðSomeone€is€trying€to€kill€me.ðð€€McNabbÐ Ì&"% Ðtestified€the€victim€said€she€suspected€the€defendant€or€Candace€Boatfield€was€trying€to€kill€her.€Ð ¸'#& ÐMcNabb€described€the€victim€as€ð ðscared€to€deathðð€and€indicated€her€daughter€screamed.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àPrior€to€trial,€the€defendant€objected€to€the€admissibility€of€the€victimððs€statements€to€herÐ |*Ì%) Ðmother,€arguing€they€were€inadmissible€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401,€402€and€403.€€The€trial€court€ruledÐ h+¸&* Ðthat€the€statements€were€admissible€as€an€excited€utterance€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(2).€€TheÐ ° Ðdefendant€also€argues€that€the€probative€value€of€this€evidence€is€substantially€outweighed€by€theÐ œì Ðdanger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Ô#†¼5»XX\¯ž#ÔÔ€X\X»¼5Ô€We€confine€our€analysis€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401,Ð ˆØ Ð402,€403€and€803(2).€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àA€declarantððs€out„of„court€statement€used€in€court€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€assertedÐ L œ Ðin€the€statement€is€hearsay.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c).€€One€of€the€exceptions€to€the€hearsay€rule€is€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðexcited€utterance,€ð ð[a]€statement€relating€to€a€startling€event€or€condition€made€while€the€declarantÐ $ t Ðwas€under€the€stress€of€excitement€caused€by€the€event€or€condition.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(2).€€ThreeÐ  ` Ðrequirements€must€be€met€before€a€statement€will€qualify€as€an€excited€utterance:€first,€there€mustÐ ü L  Ðbe€a€startling€event€or€condition;€second,€the€statement€must€relate€to€the€startling€event€or€condition;Ð è 8  Ðand€third,€the€declarant€must€still€be€under€the€stress€of€excitement€from€the€event€or€condition€whenÐ Ô$  Ðthe€statement€is€made.€€òòState€v.€Gordonóó,€952€S.W.2d€817,€820€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857Ð À  ÐS.W.2d€1,€9€(Tenn.€1993).€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àApplying€this€analysis€to€the€victimððs€statements€to€her€mother,€we€conclude€awakening€toÐ „Ô  Ða€fire€would€be€startling€and€the€statements€relate€to€the€fire€the€victim€found€near€her€bed.€€Further,Ð pÀ Ðthe€victimððs€statements€were€made€while€she€was€under€the€stress€of€excitement€caused€by€the€event.€Ð \¬ ÐThe€witness€testified€the€victim€screamed€and€was€€ð ðscared€to€death.ðð€€Therefore,€we€hold€theseÐ H˜ Ðstatements€qualified€as€an€excited€utterance€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(2).€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€argues€this€evidence€was€not€relevant,€and€the€probative€value€of€theÐ  \ Ðvictimððs€statements€was€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð øH ÐEvid.€401,€402€and€403.€€The€victimððs€statements€to€her€mother€are€relevant€to€the€issues€of€theÐ ä4 Ðidentity€of€the€perpetrator€and€premeditation.€€The€statements€establish€that€weeks€prior€to€theÐ Ð  Ðmurder,€someone€within€the€victimððs€home€attempted€to€set€a€fire€near€the€victimððs€bed.€€The€onlyÐ ¼  Ðpersons€living€in€the€home€were€the€victim,€the€defendant€and€the€coupleððs€teenage€daughter.€€AtÐ ¨ø Ðtrial,€neither€the€state€nor€the€defendant€implicated€the€daughter,€and€the€facts€establish€she€was€atÐ ”ä Ðschool€at€the€time€her€mother€was€killed.€€The€previous€fire€in€the€bedroom,€set€in€a€similar€fashionÐ €Ð Ðto€the€fire€on€March€12,€1998,€was€probative€of€the€identity€of€the€murderer€as€the€defendant€arguedÐ l¼ Ðthe€victim€was€killed€by€a€burglar.€€Furthermore,€this€evidence€was€probative€of€premeditation.€€AÐ X ¨ Ðprior€attempt€to€burn€the€victim€is€indicative€of€the€premeditated€nature€of€the€second€effort.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€relevance€of€evidence€under€Rule€402€and€the€determination€under€Rule€403€of€whetherÐ #l! Ðthe€probative€value€of€evidence€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€are€leftÐ $X" Ðto€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Kennedyóó,€7€S.W.3d€58,€68€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ô$D # Ð1999).€€The€trial€courtððs€determination€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€absent€a€showing€of€abuse€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€806€(Tenn.€1994).€€We€are€unable€to€conclude€the€trialÐ Ì&"% Ðcourt€strayed€from€its€discretionary€authority€in€its€ruling.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð ¸'#& Ѐ€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÓ  Óò òÌÌÐ h+¸&* ÐIV.€WIRETAPSó óÐ ° ÐÌÓ°ÂÓà  àThe€defendant€argues€the€state€failed€to€comply€with€the€Wiretapping€and€ElectronicÐ ˆØ ÐSurveillance€Act€of€1994,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„6„301€òòet€seqóó.,€and€that€evidence€obtained€by€lawÐ tÄ Ðenforcement€through€electronic€interception€of€the€defendantððs€telephone€calls€should€have€beenÐ `° Ðsuppressed.€€We€disagree.€€Ð L œ ÐÌò òA.€Statutory€RequirementsÐ $ t Ðó óÌà  àThe€act€allows€certain€judges€to€issue€orders€authorizing€interception€of€wire,€oral,€orÐ ü L  Ðelectronic€communicationòò€óóupon€the€application€of€law€enforcement.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„304.€Ð è 8  ÐThe€application€must€include€the€identity€of€the€applicant€officer€and€the€district€attorney€generalÐ Ô$  Ðauthorizing€the€application,€a€full€and€complete€statement€of€the€facts€relied€upon€by€the€applicant,Ð À  Ðdetails€of€the€offense,€a€description€of€the€facilities€from€which€the€communication€is€to€beÐ ¬ü  Ðintercepted,€a€description€of€the€type€of€communication€sought€to€be€intercepted,€the€identity€of€allÐ ˜è  Ðknown€persons€committing€the€offense€and€whose€communications€may€be€intercepted,€a€full€andÐ „Ô  Ðcomplete€statement€as€to€whether€or€not€other€investigative€procedures€have€been€tried€and€failed€orÐ pÀ Ðwhy€they€reasonably€appear€to€be€unlikely€to€succeed€if€tried€or€to€be€too€dangerous,€a€statement€ofÐ \¬ Ðthe€time€period€for€which€the€interception€is€required€to€be€maintained,€and€a€statement€of€factsÐ H˜ Ðconcerning€previous€applications.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„304(a).€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àA€judge€may€issue€an€òòex€parteóó€order€authorizing€the€interception€upon€finding€(1)€probableÐ  \ Ðcause€that€the€individual€committed€the€offense;€(2)€probable€cause€that€communications€regardingÐ øH Ðthe€offense€will€be€obtained;€(3)€normal€investigative€procedures€have€been€or€will€be€unsuccessfulÐ ä4 Ðor€are€too€dangerous;€and€(4)€probable€cause€that€the€facilities€are€or€will€be€used€in€connection€withÐ Ð  Ðthe€commission€of€the€offense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„304(c).€€The€authorization€order€may€notÐ ¼  Ðallow€interception€for€a€period€longer€than€30€days,€although€extensions€may€be€granted.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ ¨ø ÐAnn.€ðð€40„6„304(e).€€The€30„day€period€begins€on€the€date€law€enforcement€initiates€interception€orÐ ”ä Ðten€days€after€the€order€is€issued,€whichever€is€earlier.€€òòIdóó.€€The€order€shall€also€require€reports€to€beÐ €Ð Ðmade€to€the€issuing€judge€at€ten„day€intervals,€with€the€first€report€required€on€the€tenth€day€after€theÐ l¼ Ðorder€is€entered.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„308(c).€€The€reports€must€show€what€progress€had€beenÐ X ¨ Ðmade€toward€achievement€of€the€authorized€objective€and€the€need€for€continued€interception.€€òòIdóó.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àWithin€30€days€after€the€expiration€of€the€order,€the€judge€issuing€an€order€of€authorizationÐ #l! Ðshall€report€to€the€attorney€general€and€reporter.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„308(a).€€In€turn,€theÐ $X" Ðattorney€general€and€reporter€shall€make€reports€each€January€to€the€administrative€office€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðfederal€courts€and€the€speakers€of€the€senate€and€house€regarding€the€orders€of€authorization€madeÐ à%0!$ Ðduring€the€preceding€year.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„308(b).€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌò òB.€Pertinent€Factsó óÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àOn€June€12,€1998,€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€Judge€Stephen€M.€Bevil€signed€threeÐ |*Ì%) Ðorders€authorizing€the€interception€of€calls€from€the€defendantððs€cellular€and€business€telephones€asÐ h+¸&* Ðwell€as€from€Brenda€Trippððs€cellular€phone€for€a€period€of€30€days.€€Interception€began€on€June€17Ð ° Ðand€ended€on€June€25.€€Inspector€Michael€Mathis€of€the€Chattanooga€Police€Department€gave€JudgeÐ œì ÐBevil€verbal€updates€regarding€the€progress€of€the€interceptions€and€provided€him€with€a€writtenÐ ˆØ Ðreport€on€June€22.€€Defense€counsel€requested€the€state€attorney€general€to€send€him€copies€of€reportsÐ tÄ Ðmade€by€Judge€Bevil€as€well€as€copies€of€any€reports€made€by€the€attorney€general€to€theÐ `° Ðadministrative€office€of€the€federal€courts€and€to€the€speakers€of€the€senate€and€the€house€ofÐ L œ Ðrepresentatives€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„308(b).€€He€received€no€response€from€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðattorney€general.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€filed€a€pre„trial€motion€requesting€the€trial€court€to€suppress€evidence€obtainedÐ ü L  Ðas€a€result€of€the€interceptions.€€The€motion€was€overruled€by€the€trial€court€prior€to€trial.€€Ð è 8  Ѐ€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àAt€trial,€the€state€presented€tapes€of€three€of€the€defendantððs€phone€calls€intercepted€on€JuneÐ À  Ð19,€1998.€€In€the€first€phone€call,€the€defendant€requested€a€loan€for€$1,500€from€an€unknown€man.€Ð ¬ü  ÐThe€defendant€advised€the€man€he€was€expecting€a€payment€from€a€customer€who€was€an€evangelistÐ ˜è  Ðwhose€flight€from€Washington,€D.C.€had€been€delayed.€€The€defendant€made€the€second€phone€callÐ „Ô  Ðfifteen€minutes€later€to€his€brother,€Eddie€Boatfield,€in€which€he€requested€a€loan€for€$4,500.€€DuringÐ pÀ Ðthis€phone€call,€he€told€his€brother€he€was€expecting€payment€from€a€customer€whose€flight€fromÐ \¬ ÐArizona€had€been€delayed.€€The€third€phone€call€was€between€the€defendant€and€Brenda€Tripp€inÐ H˜ Ðwhich€they€indicated€they€were€engaged€in€physical€intimacy€and€a€romantic€relationship€at€that€time.€Ð 4„ ЀÌò òC.€Analysisó óÐ  \ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€maintains€that€the€order€of€authorization€was€insufficient€on€its€face;€theÐ ä4 Ðinterceptions€were€not€made€in€conformity€with€the€order€of€authorization;€and€the€communicationsÐ Ð  Ðwere€unlawfully€intercepted.€€However,€our€review€of€the€affidavits€and€orders€in€question€reveals€Ð ¼  Ðthey€meet€the€statutory€requirements€of€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„304(a)€in€all€respects.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€further€argues€the€affidavit€of€Inspector€Mathis€failed€to€establish€theÐ €Ð Ðreliability€of€witnesses€named€in€the€affidavit.€€Our€review€of€the€affidavit€does€not€reveal€that€itÐ l¼ Ðmade€any€reference€to€any€information€provided€by€unnamed€or€confidential€informants.€€ReliabilityÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€source€and€information€is€judged€from€the€entirety€of€the€affidavit.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638Ð D!” ÐS.W.2d€342,€356€(Tenn.€1982)€(relating€to€search€warrant€affidavits).€€The€affidavit€was€sufficient.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€maintains€law€enforcement€failed€to€comply€with€the€reportingÐ $X" Ðrequirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„308(c).€€Judge€Bevil€signed€the€orders€of€authorization€onÐ ô$D # ÐJune€12,€1998.€€Oral€reports€were€made€to€Judge€Bevil€prior€to€June€22,€and€Inspector€Mathis€madeÐ à%0!$ Ða€written€report€to€Judge€Bevil€on€June€22.€€We,€therefore,€conclude€that€Inspector€€Mathis€compliedÐ Ì&"% Ðwith€the€reporting€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„308(c).€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€further€submits€the€state€violated€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„308(c)€by€notÐ )à$( Ðproviding€Judge€Bevil€with€ð ðextension€reportsðð€from€June€22€until€the€interceptions€were€completedÐ |*Ì%) Ðon€June€25.€€No€further€ten„day€reports€were€necessary€after€June€22€because€the€interceptions€endedÐ h+¸&* Ðthree€days€later.€€While€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„304(e)€does€mandate€applications€and€courtÐ ° Ðapproval€before€interceptions€can€continue€past€the€expiration€of€an€order€of€authorization,€it€is€clearÐ œì Ðin€the€instant€case€the€state€discontinued€the€interceptions€well€before€the€expiration€of€the€30„dayÐ ˆØ Ðperiod€allowed€by€the€order.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€the€state€failed€to€comply€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„308(a)Ð L œ Ðand€(b),€requiring€the€issuing€judge€to€report€to€the€state€attorney€general€and€the€state€attorneyÐ 8 ˆ Ðgeneral€to€report€to€the€federal€courts€and€the€legislature.€€His€argument€is€based€on€the€state€attorneyÐ $ t Ðgeneralððs€failure€to€supply€him€òòóówith€copies€of€the€reports.€€From€this€proof€alone,€it€is€unclearÐ  ` Ðwhether€there€was€a€failure€to€make€the€required€reports.€€Regardless,€we€conclude€that€suppressionÐ ü L  Ðof€the€contents€of€intercepted€communications€is€not€the€proper€remedy€available€for€violation€of€theÐ è 8  Ðissuing€judgeððs€and€state€attorney€generalððs€reporting€requirements.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€Wiretapping€and€Electronic€Surveillance€Act€of€1994€does€provide€for€suppression€asÐ ¬ü  Ða€remedy€for€certain€violations.€€The€contents€of€intercepted€communication€or€evidence€derivedÐ ˜è  Ðtherefrom€may€be€suppressed€when€(1)€the€interception€was€unlawful;€(2)€the€order€of€authorizationÐ „Ô  Ðwas€insufficient€on€its€face;€or€(3)€the€interception€was€not€made€in€conformity€with€the€order€ofÐ pÀ Ðauthorization.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„304(h)(1).€€Further,€contents€of€interceptedÐ \¬ Ðcommunications€or€evidence€derived€from€them€are€inadmissible€if€the€disclosure€violated€the€actÐ H˜ Ðor€if€the€interception€was€illegal.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„6„304(h)(1),€„307.€€However,€the€failureÐ 4„ Ðof€the€issuing€judgeððs€and€the€state€attorney€generalððs€requirements€to€make€administrative€reportsÐ  p Ðwas€not€included€as€a€violation€sanctionable€by€suppression.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àFor€these€reasons,€we€hold€that€the€evidence€obtained€by€the€state€through€electronicÐ ä4 Ðinterception€was€admissible€into€evidence.€€We€further€conclude€that€even€if€the€recordings€wereÐ Ð  Ðerroneously€admitted,€the€error€was€harmless.€€As€stated,€only€three€conversations€were€admitted€intoÐ ¼  Ðevidence.€€Two€calls€revealed€the€defendantððs€attempts€to€secure€funds€while€giving€inconsistentÐ ¨ø Ðexplanations.€€The€third€call€related€to€his€relationship€with€Brenda€Tripp€following€the€victimððsÐ ”ä Ðdeath.€€In€view€of€the€other€evidence€in€this€case,€we€conclude€the€admission€of€these€threeÐ €Ð Ðconversations€did€not€affect€the€judgment€and,€if€error,€was€harmless.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€Ð l¼ ÐÌÌà@‘‘ìàò òV.€EVIDENCE€OF€DEFENDANTððS€RELATIONSHIP€WITH€BRENDA€TRIPPó óˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€his€alleged€romantic€relationship€with€Brenda€Tripp€was€erroneouslyÐ $X" Ðadmitted€into€evidence€to€his€prejudice.€€The€state€contends€this€evidence€was€relevant€to€the€issueÐ ô$D # Ðof€motive.€€We€agree€with€the€state.€€Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àÌò òA.€Before€Victimððs€Deathó óÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àBetween€April€1997€and€the€victimððs€death€on€March€12,€1998,€ninety„four€calls€were€madeÐ )à$( Ðfrom€the€defendantððs€cellular€telephone€to€Brenda€Trippððs€pager,€home,€place€of€employment€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðcellular€telephone.€€€€Between€June€1997€and€the€victimððs€death,€thirty„seven€calls€were€made€fromÐ h+¸&* ÐBrenda€Trippððs€cellular€telephone€to€Nursery€Brokers,€the€defendantððs€cellular€telephone,€theÐ ° Ðdefendantððs€pager€and€his€residence.€€Ð œì Ðò òÌB.€After€Victimððs€Deathó óÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àIt€was€undisputed€that€the€defendant€and€Brenda€Tripp€had€a€romantic€relationship€after€hisÐ L œ Ðwifeððs€death.€€The€stateððs€proof€established€there€were€numerous€calls€from€Brenda€Trippððs€cellularÐ 8 ˆ Ðphone€to€the€defendantððs€phones€and€from€the€defendantððs€cellular€telephone€to€Brenda€TrippððsÐ $ t Ðphones€following€his€wifeððs€death.€€The€state€also€presented€a€tape€of€the€June€19,€1998,€telephoneÐ  ` Ðconversation€between€the€defendant€and€Tripp,€which€clearly€revealed€their€romantic€relationshipÐ ü L  Ðat€that€time.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌò òC.€€AnalysisÐ À  Ðó óÌà  àPrior€to€trial,€the€defendant€moved€the€trial€court€to€rule€evidence€of€this€alleged€romanticÐ ˜è  Ðrelationship,€both€before€and€after€the€victimððs€death,€inadmissible€under€Tenn.€Rule€Evid.€403.€€TheÐ „Ô  Ðtrial€court€denied€the€motion,€and€the€defendant€now€submits€the€trial€court€erred.€€Ð pÀ Ðà  àÌà  àThe€trial€courtððs€admission€of€evidence€under€Rule€403€will€not€be€disturbed€absent€an€abuseÐ H˜ Ðof€discretion.€€òòState€v.€McCary,óó€922€S.W.2d€511,€515€(Tenn.€1996.)€€If€there€is€material€evidence€toÐ 4„ Ðsupport€the€trial€courtððs€decision,€this€court€will€affirm€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€52€S.W.3dÐ  p Ð661,€668€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).€€Evidence€will€be€excluded€under€Rule€403€only€where€theÐ  \ Ðprobative€value€of€the€evidence€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,Ð øH Ðconfusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,Ð ä4 Ðor€needless€presentation€of€the€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Unfair€prejudice€is€ð ðan€undueÐ Ð  Ðtendency€to€suggest€decision€on€an€improper€basis,€commonly,€though€not€necessarily,€an€emotionalÐ ¼  Ðone.ðð€€òòState€v.€DuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€654€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€relies€upon€our€unreported€case€of€òòState€v.€Frankie€E.€Casteelóó,€No.€E1999„Ð €Ð Ð00076„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€329538€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€Apr.€5,€2001,€at€Knoxville),€òòperm.Ð l¼ Ðto€app.€denied€óó(Tenn.€Sept.€17,€2001).€€In€òòCasteelóó,€there€were€exhaustive€references€to€theÐ X ¨ Ðdefendantððs€adulterous€affair€and€other€prior€bad€acts€which€constituted€irrelevant€character€evidence.€Ð D!” ÐWe€found€prejudicial€error.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€state€contended€at€trial€the€defendant€and€TrippÐ 0"€  Ðhad€an€adulterous€affair€before€the€victimððs€death,€and€this€was€a€motive€for€the€homicide.€€òòCasteelóóÐ #l! Ðis€distinguishable.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€evidence€indicating€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€a€romanticÐ à%0!$ Ðrelationship€with€a€family€friend€before€the€victimððs€death€was€relevant€to€establish€a€motive€forÐ Ì&"% Ðcommitting€murder.€€The€fact€that€it€was€ongoing€shortly€after€the€victimððs€death,€in€light€of€all€theÐ ¸'#& Ðother€evidence€in€this€case,€was€probative€as€to€whether€the€relationship€began€prior€to€the€victimððsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdeath.€€We€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€admitting€this€evidence.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âThe€probative€value€of€this€evidence€was€not€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÐ |*Ì%) Ðprejudice€or€by€any€of€the€other€dangers€or€considerations€set€forth€in€Rule€403.€€Therefore,€this€issueÐ ° Ðis€without€merit.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌòòóóÌà@//&ìàò òVI.€ALIBIó óˆÐ `° ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€the€trial€court€should€have€given€a€jury€instruction€on€alibi.€€Ô‡ X\XXX\ÔOrdinarily,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthis€issue€would€be€deemed€waived€because€the€defendant€has€failed€to€make€appropriate€referencesÐ $ t Ðto€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b);€òòState€v.€Schalleróó,€975€S.W.2d€313,€318€(Tenn.Ð  ` ÐCrim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Turneróó,€919€S.W.2d€346,€358€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.Ð ü L  ÐR.€App.€P.€27(a)(7)€and€(g).€€Ô#†X\XX X\À#ÔÔ‡ X\XXX\Ô€Ô#†X\XX X\¶#ÔÔ‡ X\XXX\ÔòòóóòòóóFurthermore,€Ô#†X\XX X\ù#Ôdefense€counsel,€in€his€opening€statement,€specificallyÐ è 8  Ðsaid€the€defendant€was€not€asserting€an€alibi€defense.€€However,€we€elect€to€address€the€issue.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAlibi€is€a€defense€that€places€the€defendant€at€the€relevant€time€of€the€crime€in€a€differentÐ ¬ü  Ðplace€than€the€crime€scene€and€so€removed€therefrom€as€to€render€it€impossible€for€him€to€be€theÐ ˜è  Ðguilty€party.€€Blackððs€Law€Dictionary€71€(6òòthóó€ed.€1990).€€When€the€credible€evidence€fairly€raises€anÐ „Ô  Ðalibi€issue,€the€trial€court€is€required€to€give€an€alibi€instruction€whether€requested€or€not.€€òòMoffittÐ pÀ Ðv.€Stateóó,€29€S.W.3d€51,€57€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€The€failure€to€do€so€is€reversible€error.€€òòPoeÐ \¬ Ðv.€Stateóó,€212€Tenn.€413,€370€S.W.2d€488,€491€(1963).€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€there€was€no€proof€the€defendant€was€so€removed€from€the€scene€that€itÐ  p Ðwas€impossible€for€him€to€have€been€the€perpetrator.€€Instead,€the€only€proof€submitted€showed€theÐ  \ Ðdefendant€could€have€been€present€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€As€defense€counselÐ øH Ðstated€during€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€defendant€never€contended€it€wasÐ ä4 Ðimpossible€for€him€to€have€committed€the€offense.€€Instead,€he€argued€ð ðhe€might€not€have€done€itÐ Ð  Ðbecause€of€the€many€things€that€took€place.ðð€€We€conclude€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€failing€to€giveÐ ¼  Ða€charge€regarding€alibi.€€Ð ¨ø Ðò òÌÌà@oo(ìà€€€€€ˆà  ààH-àˆàHrr(àCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð D!” ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEòòóó