ÿWPC MWT#EC¨Q©\o 8ﺞQ&ùv8÷q ÊB$[%@eAt3¤vݺ䢧žØIÕÆuyöƒ¦îú^g!@)}Á¦yù¹ó¿è.ýË”óB&ÍÚAbô'c_–¦¢%ÂÀ„,$7Õ§ìØ%‰¦k:‘±_¥ a0{Jm<³ßöq]¦„Â)2Œ2êAàS…;2ùuyúœÊr8w¡!"9ÂÍ„wÃ^ô¨ü$èÎ$”Dú‡ØJû…™jÝ@ µ;ѬCÁÜ_¸ÜaŽ«íHà>«"Hè¥{Æ+cd²™O­3Wôy4¿õÏ„lë(÷¯G"\ =Y•uËí_»h‚ãHŸƒÕt8E ‰¶±¶Ò»ƒñc7›H/›áOU_Ý"\Çó_0EAôkBa¯‚B6–#¹ˆ]ÇÊüQM…~†)DÙ%`¬IØoƒ²((«Û“„ƒ«TªpoñŸtowƒp·±¨¾d»TóH/@ÃW/Îþ¾>ë)‰›Ÿ*^m_´¸Xoaåí7ö‰b-ë:|¡,’nwÁAÛBÑ}.¾å¡6f!…ccò XTÇ §}úœDµ;¹¾û¹¯ÿ+ n± ’ןé9 ¶á·œ.öŽo°b %\U @b 0ˆ¢U N*^ xw„4ˆ zœÒ è ÷ mù #Á ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#éNñññEóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóbõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõ 0ëýýýý Bèè 0¤ D3© D-Ü 0K   ASTƧ 0¤m 0D A«U»(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular)©H-s üPH,1'¯¡ ¡ ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 - ù-(|G2¾¬$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô·õò»»Ô d(|3þï$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3þï$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ »»»ÔÑ8€SqXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ »»¼ Ôà@ttìàÔ‡îÕ ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ »îîÕ+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€August€14,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XSqX»¼ ÔÌò òÔ#†¼ »XXSq'#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€CHARLES€BERRY€BOURNE,€JR.Ô‡XSqX»¼ Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Montgomery€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€40000008€€€€€€Michael€R.€Jones,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„00196„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€7,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓDefendant€appeals€his€conviction€by€a€jury€for€the€offense€of€arson€and€the€resulting€five„yearÐ xÈ  Ðsentence.€€The€issues€presented€for€our€review€are:€€(1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€toÐ d´ Ðsupport€the€verdict;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€an€investigator€to€testify€as€an€expertÐ P  Ðin€arson€investigation;€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€dismissing€the€indictment€based€uponÐ <Œ Ðthe€state's€failure€to€provide€proper€discovery;€and€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€aÐ (x Ðsentencing€enhancement€factor.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð d ÐÓÍÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ »àXSq¢#ÔÔ‡XSqX.¼ ÔJoe€G.€Riley,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòNorma€McGeeÐ Ä ÐOgleóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌCarrie€W.€Ô_ÔKershÔ_Ô,€Clarksville,€Tennessee€(at€trial);€Roger€Eric€Nell,€District€Public€Defender;€andÐ ˆØ ÐCollier€W.€Ô_ÔGoodlettÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Public€Defender€(on€appeal),€for€the€appellant,€Charles€BerryÐ tÄ ÐBourne,€Jr.Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð 8!ˆ  ÐJohn€Wesley€Ô_ÔCarneyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Arthur€F.€Ô_ÔBieberÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ $"t! ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ð #`" ÐÌÓÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ »XXSq@#ÔÔ‡XSqX»¼ ÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ »XXSq0 #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XSqX»¼ Ôà  àWe€summarize€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state.€€The€defendant€did€notÐ ¬'ü"' Ðtestify€at€trial.€€Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌà  àWilliam€Johnson€and€his€wife€were€residing€in€a€large€tobacco€barn€on€his€property€withÐ p*À%* Ðplans€to€convert€the€barn€into€a€residence.€€They€were€actually€residing€in€a€truck€camper€and€travelÐ \+¬&+ Ðtrailer€located€inside€the€barn.€€When€Johnson€returned€from€work€on€September€17,€1999,€atÐ H,˜', Ðapproximately€11:00€p.m.,€the€barn€had€been€burned€and€reduced€to€ashes.€€No€one€had€permissionÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôto€burn€the€barn,€and€the€barn€was€uninsured.€€Johnson€knew€the€defendant,€who€lived€next€door€onlyÐ ° Ð200€yards€from€the€barn.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àRyan€Springer€resided€in€the€residence€just€north€of€Johnson's€barn.€€At€approximately€7:00Ð tÄ Ðor€8:00€p.m.€on€September€17òòthóó,€Springer€saw€the€defendant€in€the€defendant's€blue€ChevroletÐ `° ÐSuburban€on€the€Johnson€property.€€The€defendant€left€but€returned€in€fifteen€minutes€and€parkedÐ L œ Ðon€the€north€side€of€the€barn.€€Springer€observed€the€defendant€get€out€of€his€vehicle,€walk€aroundÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€the€west€side€of€the€barn€where€he€stayed€two€or€three€minutes,€return€to€his€vehicle,€and€driveÐ $ t Ðaway.€€As€the€defendant€was€driving€away,€Springer€immediately€noticed€flames€coming€from€theÐ  ` Ðbarn.€€Springer€called€911.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àDeputy€Sheriff€Randy€Bruso€was€dispatched€to€the€scene.€€Upon€his€arrival,€he€observed€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€in€his€blue€Chevrolet€Suburban€doing€"large€donuts"€in€the€field€behind€the€barn.€€WhenÐ À  Ðthe€officer€was€finally€able€to€get€the€defendant€to€stop,€the€defendant€stated,€"Just€go€ahead€andÐ ¬ü  Ðshoot€me€and€put€me€out€of€my€misery."€€Deputy€Bruso€took€the€defendant€into€custody.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àArson€Investigator€Brian€Prentice€investigated€the€fire.€€He€opined€that€the€fire€started€on€theÐ pÀ Ðwest€side€of€the€barn.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌÌà@Š Š ìàò òSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEˆÐ  p ÐÌó óà  àDefendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€Where€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÐ øH Ðchallenged,€the€relevant€question€for€an€appellate€court€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€theÐ ä4 Ðlight€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÐ Ð  Ðelements€of€the€crime€or€crimes€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.Ð ¼  ÐVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€560€(1979);€€òòState€v.€Abramsóó,€935Ð ¨ø ÐS.W.2d€399,€401€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€weight€and€credibility€of€the€witnesses'€testimony€are€mattersÐ ”ä Ðentrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.Ð €Ð Ð1984);€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).òòóóÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€evidence€of€defendantððs€guilt€is€circumstantial€in€nature,€circumstantialÐ D!” Ðevidence€alone€may€be€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899„900Ð 0"€  Ð(Tenn.€1987);€òòState€v.€Buttreyóó,€756€S.W.2d€718,€721€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€However,€for€thisÐ #l! Ðto€occur,€the€circumstantial€evidence€must€be€consistent€with€guilt€of€the€accused,€inconsistent€withÐ $X" Ðinnocence,€and€must€exclude€every€other€reasonable€theory€or€hypothesis€except€that€of€guilt.€Ð ô$D # ÐòòTharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€at€900.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àArson€is€committed€by€one€who€knowingly€damages€any€structure€by€means€of€a€fire€withoutÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€consent€of€all€persons€who€have€a€possessory,€proprietary€or€security€interest€therein.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ ¤(ô#' ÐAnn.€ðð€39„14„301(a)(1).€€Viewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidenceÐ )à$( Ðwas€more€than€sufficient€to€support€the€arson€conviction.€€Immediately€prior€to€the€fire,€the€defendantÐ |*Ì%) Ðwas€seen€exiting€his€truck€beside€the€barn€and€walking€around€to€its€west€side.€€Immediately€afterÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€defendant€returned€to€his€vehicle,€flames€were€observed.€€Defendant's€vehicle€was€positivelyÐ ° Ðidentified,€and€the€defendant€was€taken€into€custody€in€that€vehicle€in€a€field€near€the€barn.€€ThisÐ œì Ðissue€is€without€merit.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌÌà@ÚÚ"ìàò òEXPERT€TESTIMONYó óˆÐ L œ ÐÌà  àDefendant€contends€Investigator€Brian€Prentice€was€not€qualified€to€testify€as€an€expert€inÐ $ t Ðthe€investigation€of€fires.€€We€respectfully€disagree.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àA€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€mayÐ è 8  Ðtestify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise,€provided€the€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specializedÐ Ô$  Ðknowledge€will€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€factÐ À  Ðin€issue.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€An€expert€may€base€an€opinion€upon€facts€or€data€imparted€to€orÐ ¬ü  Ðperceived€by€the€expert€prior€to€or€at€the€hearing;€the€facts€or€data€need€not€be€admissible€if€they€areÐ ˜è  Ðthe€type€of€facts€or€data€reasonably€relied€upon€by€experts.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€703.€€If€the€underlyingÐ „Ô  Ðfacts€or€data€lack€trustworthiness,€the€court€shall€disallow€expert€testimony€based€upon€them.€€òòIdóó.€Ð pÀ ÐEvidence€and€expert€testimony€regarding€scientific€theory€must€be€both€relevant€and€reliable€beforeÐ \¬ Ðit€may€be€admitted.€€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transportation,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257,€265€(Tenn.€1997).€€TheÐ H˜ Ðtrial€court€has€broad€discretion€in€resolving€questions€concerning€the€qualifications,€admissibility,Ð 4„ Ðrelevance,€and€competency€of€expert€testimony.€€òòState€v.€Stevensóó,€78€S.W.3d€817,€832€(Tenn.€2002).€Ð  p ÐAn€appellate€court€should€not€overturn€a€trial€court's€decision€in€admitting€or€excluding€a€proposedÐ  \ Ðexpert's€testimony€unless€it€finds€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2dÐ øH Ð557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àInvestigator€Prentice€testified€that€he€had€been€with€the€sheriff's€department€forÐ ¼  Ðapproximately€twenty€years€and€had€attended€three€separate€courses€relating€to€the€investigation€ofÐ ¨ø Ðarson.€€He€had€investigated€from€fifty€to€eighty€fires€and€had€testified€as€an€expert€in€general€sessionsÐ ”ä Ðcourt€on€several€occasions.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€allowing€the€investigatorÐ €Ð Ðto€testify€as€an€expert€in€the€investigation€of€fires.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àDefendant€further€contends€his€testimony€was€irrelevant€because€his€testimony€that€the€fireÐ D!” Ðstarted€on€the€west€side€of€the€barn€was€of€no€consequence.€€We€disagree;€this€testimony€wasÐ 0"€  Ðcorroborative€of€the€testimony€of€Ryan€Springer,€who€testified€the€defendant€went€to€the€west€sideÐ #l! Ðof€the€barn€where€flames€were€observed€immediately€thereafter.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àDefendant€finally€contends€the€data€upon€which€the€expert€relied€was€untrustworthy.€€On€theÐ à%0!$ Ðcontrary,€the€investigator€testified€that€he€utilized€a€nail€by€sticking€it€into€various€pieces€of€woodÐ Ì&"% Ðto€ascertain€the€point€of€origin.€€He€further€considered€Springer's€statement€that€he€saw€the€defendantÐ ¸'#& Ðon€the€west€side€of€the€barn€just€prior€to€the€fire.€€We€conclude€the€facts€and€data€relied€upon€by€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðexpert€were€trustworthy.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà@33!ìàò òDISCOVERY€VIOLATIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€should€have€dismissed€the€indictment€after€the€state€failedÐ ˆØ Ðto€comply€with€an€agreed€order€for€discovery,€which€required€the€state€to€provide€exculpatoryÐ tÄ Ðinformation.€€Defendant€has€not€cited€to€the€record;€therefore,€this€issue€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Ct.Ð `° ÐCrim.€App.€R€10(b);€òòState€v.€Schalleróó,€975€S.W.2d€313,€318€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Furthermore,Ð L œ Ðwe€find€no€indication€in€the€record€that€the€state€possessed€any€exculpatory€information.€€This€issueÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€without€merit.€€Ð $ t ÐÌÌà@WW%ìàò òSENTENCINGó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àDefendant's€final€contention€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€sentencing€enhancementÐ À  Ðfactor€(6),€the€amount€of€damage€to€property€sustained€by€the€victim€was€particularly€great.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¬ü  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6).€€Again,€we€disagree.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€relied€upon€enhancement€factor€(1),€prior€historyÐ pÀ Ðof€criminal€convictions.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€Defendant€had€twenty€priorÐ \¬ Ðmisdemeanor€convictions;€this€enhancement€factor€was€clearly€applicable.€€In€addition,€the€trial€courtÐ H˜ Ðapplied€enhancement€factor€(6),€the€amount€of€damage€to€property€was€particularly€great.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð 4„ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6).€€The€trial€court€also€mitigated€the€sentence€based€upon€the€defendant'sÐ  p Ðphysical€disability.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€The€defendant€only€challenges€the€trialÐ  \ Ðcourt's€application€of€enhancement€factor€(6).€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àThis€courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumptionÐ Ð  Ðof€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€conditioned€upon€anÐ ¼  Ðaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€judge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ ¨ø Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Pettusóó,€986€S.W.2d€540,€543€(Tenn.€1999).€€If€the€trialÐ ”ä Ðcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€and€ourÐ €Ð Ðreview€is€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIf€no€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors€for€sentencing€are€present,€Tennessee€CodeÐ D!” ÐAnnotated€section€40„35„210(c)€provides€that€the€presumptive€sentence€for€most€offenses€shall€beÐ 0"€  Ðthe€minimum€sentence€within€the€applicable€range.€€òòóóòòState€v.€Lavenderóó,€967€S.W.2d€803,€806€(Tenn.Ð #l! Ð1998);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€788€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€if€such€factorsÐ $X" Ðdo€exist,€a€trial€court€should€enhance€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€for€enhancementÐ ô$D # Ðfactors€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð à%0!$ Ððð€40„35„210(e);€òòState€v.€Arnettóó,€49€S.W.3d€250,€257€(Tenn.€2001).€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€its€application€of€enhancement€factor€(6).€€TheÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpresentence€report€contained€a€comprehensive€listing€of€the€items€destroyed€by€the€fire.€€The€totalÐ )à$( Ðestimated€loss€was€over€$101,000€and€included€not€only€the€barn,€but€also€a€travel€trailer,€truckÐ |*Ì%) Ðcamper,€pets,€and€various€antiques€of€unknown€value.€€The€amount€of€damages€sustained€by€an€arsonÐ h+¸&* Ðvictim€is€not€an€element€of€the€offense€and€may€be€considered€as€an€enhancement€factor.€€The€victimÐ ° Ðlost€not€only€a€barn,€but€a€place€of€residence€which€included€all€of€his€and€his€wife's€personalÐ œì Ðbelongings.€€It€cannot€be€argued€that€the€damages€were€not€particularly€great.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àWe€further€note€that€defendant€was€on€probation€when€some€of€his€prior€misdemeanorÐ `° Ðoffenses€were€committed.€€The€trial€court€could€have€applied€enhancement€factor€(8),€defendant€hasÐ L œ Ða€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€community.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8).€€The€fact€that€the€defendant€was€onÐ $ t Ðmisdemeanor€probation,€as€opposed€to€felony€probation,€does€not€bar€the€application€of€thisÐ  ` Ðenhancement€factor.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€range€of€punishment€for€arson,€a€Class€C€felony,€is€three€to€six€years€as€a€standardÐ Ô$  Ðoffender.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3).€€The€five„year€sentence€as€determined€by€the€trialÐ À  Ðcourt€is€certainly€justified€by€the€record.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àAfter€conducting€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð H˜ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE