ÿWPC‹ ;IÈ-v‡S»œÂ ‚€­ïµsÍœAŸÜÑ­žþÞÎ$KÚD¢ôƒŸˆ½Œ¥1ÒJ¨²^tÃ\•Zã‹‘q4®ÆÌׇ/·] ``ùÑà§þqj ¸¬¿·7YÕ¯QNÝøëmൢ 2 ΀DCÈÜZoC‘"a%M« …7m9R޾ü‰0<˜{ÁÐóNà¶±ÈÁ®›vÞ¾ -ø,Ð¶ÍÆâ-l7¬W·,;nf }Î7ø…fèØ!«|'ì°ß‘»Œhiˆß¹C´Öi¼%RÆnô’5Úë#- ¶º)UuÜ·‹b¦v1žÐ} £Ymˆ<¦r$´ê°+2itjÜ„ÜèÝ!Å)1.ðq0ÖꦛéävS7=T YDÛcÓW$YŒŒuvŇûbÌ,SÀ‰=F°˜ªøAd†ê'RƒèÅ‚E_ Ð‘Û Å"7 SÜÃÈР?ÊÉ)# >UNI %— 0(U:Åbÿw@4G[U:j¤ 0‚¬ 0Ô.U:Æ<m )o U:˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ AQÒ B# 0D@ 0D„ 0DÈ È D/   B; D3X˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- ‚Dƒ„…P†‡Pˆ‰Ó€•n~<$LN"|x•, øð AZ"Arial Regular(AÀ?$Ô€ X?¨XXXÔÔ€ Šð ŠX X?¨ÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(‚*2ã$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X×jXXXÔÔ€&ü&XX×jÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú€€óó, øð AZ"Arial RegularƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 cÝ ƒ †Ü$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XÓKXXXÔÔ€ &›¥&X XÓKÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú€€óóÝ  Ý€€In€the€briefs€submitted€on€behalf€of€the€Defendant,€counsel€inaccurately€quotes€fromÐ `  Ðthe€trial€courtððs€jury€instruction€and€adds€language€which€is€not€contained€in€the€instructionÏprovided€in€the€record.€€Further,€counselððs€citation€to€the€record€on€this€issue€is€incorrect€andÏinaccurate€as€to€both€volume€and€page€of€the€record.€€Counsel€is€advised€to€exercise€more€careÏin€the€preparation€of€appellate€briefs. Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xu%XXXÔÔ€êeXXu%ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xu%XêeÔÐ  ÐÌò òNovember€24,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôeÆ ôXXu%ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ d(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ‰ñ›ñ‰ñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š ŠXXÔÔ€ŠcDŠŠŠ ÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÑ7€ àÐ ˆˆddÈ7Ññ•ññ‰ñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` ttx$,` ð Úrßñ‰ññ•ññ•ññ•ññ•ññ‰ñ›ñ‰ññ•ññ•ññ•ññ•ñ›ñ•ññ•ñ›ñ•ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌñ•ñœßt€(>.*jx2B` `€€@E&¢ ` ttx$^` N  tß›ñ•ñAT€JACKSONÌÌAUGUST€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9604„CR„00119Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àSHELBY€COUNTYÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€W.€FRED€AXLEYó óÐ `  Ðò òDERRICK€C.€BROOKS,à h àà À à)à  àJUDGEó óÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  àó ó(Felony„Murder)ò òÐ ` Ðó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÐ Pð ÐCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYó óÐ Pð ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð @ à ÐÌœñ„ñBRETT€B.€STEINñ„ññ„ñ›MARK›€S.›€MCDANIELñ„ñ›à  àà h àà À àœñ…ñà  àñ…ñJOHN›€KNOX€WALKUPÐ 0"Ð Мñ†ñ236€Adams€Avenueñ†ññ†ñ›243›€Exchange›€Avenue›à h àñ†ññ‡ñà h àñ‡ñ›à À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ (#È ÐMemphis,€TN€œ3810ñˆñ3ñˆññˆñ5ñˆñ›Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMARVIN€E.€CLEMENTS,€JR.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€GIBBONSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àEDGAR€A.€PETERSON,€IVÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCriminal€Justice€Complex,€Suite€301Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à201€Poplar€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÐ  ˆ6(-.9 ÐÓ  ÓÔ€° 1°ŠŠcDÔò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠcDа° 1ÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àThe€Defendant€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€conviction€of€first€degreeÏmurder.€€His€conviction€was€entered€upon€a€jury€verdict€finding€him€guilty€ofÏmurder€committed€during€the€perpetration€of€an€aggravated€burglary.€€He€wasÏsentenced€to€imprisonment€for€life.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà ` àIn€this€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€three€issues:€(1)€that€the€evidenceÏpresented€was€insufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€of€guilt€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€to€introduceÏas€evidence€a€picture€of€the€victim€at€the€scene€of€the€crime;€and€(3)€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€its€instruction€to€the€jury€concerning€the€definition€of€reasonableÏdoubt.ÌÌà ` àWe€first€review€the€basic€facts.€€Andrew€Ewing,€who€was€a€friend€of€theÏDefendant,€had€been€involved€in€an€altercation€with€a€man€named€Willie€Fifer.€ÏThe€two€men€had€fought€and€Ewing€apparently€believed€he€had€a€score€to€settleÏwith€Fifer.€€At€about€2:30€a.m.€on€March€21,€1994,€Ewing€went€to€FiferððsÏresidence.€€The€Defendant€accompanied€him.€€Ewing€was€armed€with€a€stick€andÏthe€Defendant€was€armed€with€a€pistol.€€The€two€men€approached€the€front€doorÏof€Fiferððs€œresidence,›€and€Ewing€kicked€in€the€door.€€As€the€Defendant€and€EwingÏentered€the€residence,€Fifer€ran€down€a€hall€and,€after€being€struck€in€the€headÏwith€the€stick€by€Ewing,€Fifer€was€able€to€gain€entrance€into€a€bedroom€occupiedÏby€Marlo€Terry€and€Terryððs€girlfriend.€€Terry€leaned€against€the€bedroom€door€inÏorder€to€try€to€keep€Ewing€or€the€Defendant€from€entering€the€bedroom.€€As€heÐ ¾8^/0 Ðdid€so,€the€Defendant€fired€four€shots€from€the€pistol€through€the€closed€bedroomÏdoor.€€One€of€the€shots€struck€and€killed€the€victim,€Marlo€Terry.€€Both€theÏDefendant€and€Ewing€were€charged€with€felony€murder€for€the€killing€of€the€victimÏduring€the€perpetration€of€an€aggravated€burglary.€€The€State€charged€that€theÏDefendant€and€Ewing€had€entered€the€residence€of€Fifer€with€the€intention€toÏcommit€an€aggravated€assault.€€The€jury€found€both€the€Defendant€and€EwingÏguilty€of€felony€murder€as€charged.ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendant€first€argues€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€aÏfinding€that€at€the€time€he€entered€the€dwelling,€he€intended€to€commit€anÏaggravated€assault€as€charged€in€the€indictment.€€When€an€accused€challengesÏthe€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€the€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewingÏthe€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€ofÏfact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€Questions€concerning€theÐ €$  Ðcredibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€wellÏas€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€notÏthis€œCourt.›€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€NorÐ P*ð " Ðmay€this€œCourt›€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð @,à"$ ÐS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€ÌÌà ` àA€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnessesÏand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,Ð 4 *, Ð476€(Tenn.€1973).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€Ð à7€.0 ÐBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replacesÐ Ð9p02 Ðit€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€ofÏillustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€theÏtrier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòGraceóó,€493Ð @ à ÐS.W.2d€at€476.ÌÌà ` àAn€assault€occurs€if€a€person€intentionally,€knowingly,€or€recklessly€causesÏbodily€injury€to€another,€intentionally€or€knowingly€causes€another€to€reasonablyÏfear€imminent€bodily€injury,€or€intentionally€or€knowingly€causes€physical€contactÏwith€another€and€a€reasonable€person€would€regard€the€contact€as€extremelyÏoffensive€or€provocative.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„101.€€The€assault€is€anÏaggravated€assault€if€it€causes€serious€bodily€injury€to€another€person€or€if€theÏperson€committing€the€assault€uses€or€displays€a€deadly€weapon.€œ€òòId.óó€ðð€39„13„Ð °P Ð102(a)(1).›ÌÌà ` àWe€believe€that€the€evidence€introduced€by€the€State€is€sufficient€toÏsupport€the€finding€of€the€jury€that€the€Defendant€entered€the€residence€where€theÏvictim€was€killed€with€the€intention€of€participating€in€an€aggravated€assault.€ÏAndrew€Ewing€had€an€altercation€with€Willie€Fifer.€€Ewingððs€girlfriend€testified€thatÏEwing€had€said€he€was€going€to€get€back€at€Fifer€because€of€their€previousÏaltercation.€€Ewingððs€uncle€rode€with€Ewing€œto›€Fiferððs€house.€€On€the€way€œñzñover€ñzñto›€theÏhouse,€Ewing€stopped€the€vehicle€at€a€house,€honked€the€horn,€and€theÏDefendant€came€out€and€got€in€the€car.€€They€drove€œfurtherñ{ñ,ñ{ñ›€and€Ewing€stoppedÏthe€car€and€said€œð ðñ|ñtñ|ññ}ñTñ}ñhere›€the€house€is€right€there.ðð€€Andrew€Ewing€and€theÏDefendant€got€out€of€the€car€and€together€walked€up€to€the€Fifer€house.€€EwingÏwas€armed€with€a€large€œstickñ~ñ,ñ~ñ›€and€the€Defendant€was€armed€with€a€loaded€pistol.€ÏEwing€kicked€in€the€œdoorññ,ññ›€and€both€Ewing€and€the€Defendant€entered€theÐ Ð9p02 Ðresidence.€€As€Fifer€retreated€down€a€hallway,€he€was€struck€with€the€stick€byÏEwing.€€He€gained€entrance€into€a€œbedroomñ€ñ,ñ€ñ›€and€Marlo€Terry€tried€to€keep€theÏdoor€to€the€bedroom€closed€so€that€the€intruders€could€not€get€in.€€The€DefendantÏfired€four€rounds€from€the€pistol€through€the€œdoorññ,ññ›€and€one€of€the€shots€struck€andÏkilled€Marlo€Terry.€€In€his€statement,€the€Defendant€said€that€he€shot€the€gunÏthrough€the€door€because€ð ðI€thought€somebody€in€there€was€going€to€get€a€gunÏand€shoot€at€me€with€it.ðð€€He€said€that€he€did€not€mean€to€kill€anybody€and€did€notÏeven€know€the€name€of€the€individual€he€killed.ÌÌà ` àFrom€this€evidence,€we€believe€the€jury€could€have€found€either€that€theÏDefendant€entered€the€residence€for€the€purpose€of€aiding€Andrew€Ewing€inÏcommitting€an€aggravated€œassaultñƒñ,ñƒñ›€œñ‚ñor›€ñ‚ñthat›€the€Defendant€entered€the€dwelling€for€theÏpurpose€of€committing€an€aggravated€assault€himself,€or€that€the€DefendantÏentered€both€for€the€purpose€of€assisting€Ewing€and€committing€the€aggravatedÏassault€himself.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€theÏintroduction€of€a€photograph€of€the€victimððs€body€as€it€lay€at€the€scene€of€theÏcrime.€€The€photograph€was€offered€to€show€the€position€of€the€body€in€relation€Ïto€the€door€and€other€objects€in€the€room.€€The€photograph€was€clearly€relevant.€ÏBecause€all€relevant€evidence€is€generally€admissible,€this€photograph€wasÏadmissible€unless€it€should€have€been€excluded€because€its€probative€value€wasÏsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564Ð 4 *, ÐS.W.2d€947,€951€(Tenn.€1978).€€While€some€blood€is€shown€on€the€victimððsÏâ âclothing€in€the€photograph,€the€photograph€is€not€such€that€we€consider€it€to€beÐ à7€.0 Ðgruesome€or€horrifying.€€The€trial€judge€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€admittingÏthe€photograph.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìâ âÌà ` àAs€his€final€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€inÏinstructing€the€jury€concerning€the€definition€of€ð ðreasonable€doubt.ðð€€We€first€noteÏthat€the€Defendant€neither€objected€to€this€portion€of€the€charge€nor€requestedÏadditional€instructions€concerning€the€meaning€of€ð ðreasonable€doubt.ðð€€AlthoughÏwe€agree€with€the€State€that€the€Defendant€has€waived€this€issue€for€failure€toÏrequest€a€particular€jury€instruction€and€failure€to€object€to€the€instruction€given,Ïwe€elect€to€proceed€and€consider€the€merits€of€this€claim.׃×Ý ƒ À?ÝÔ€ а¹ ŠŠŠ3+ÔÔ€ а¹ РРа¹ÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ðp ÐÌà ` àThe€trial€courtððs€instruction€concerning€the€meaning€of€ð ðreasonable€doubtððÏwas€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àA€reasonable€doubt€is€a€doubt€based€upon€reason€andÏcommon€sense€after€careful€and€impartial€consideration€of€all€theÏevidence€in€this€case.Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àIt€is€not€necessary€that€the€defendantððs€guilt€be€proved€beyondÏall€possible€doubt,€as€absolute€certainty€of€guilt€is€not€demanded€byÏthe€law€to€convict€of€any€criminal€charge.Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àA€reasonable€doubt€is€just€that€„„€a€doubt€that€is€reasonableÏafter€an€examination€of€all€the€facts€of€this€case.Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àIf€you€find€the€State€has€not€proven€every€element€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt,€then€you€should€find€the€defendant€not€guilty.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÌÓÓà ` àThe€Defendant€argues€that€these€instructions€are€so€confusing€andÏcontradictory€that€the€jury€could€have€ð ðeasily€applied€a€lesser€burden€of€proof€asÏthat€which€is€required€in€order€to€convict.ðð€€The€Defendant€acknowledges€that€thisÐ 3¸)* ÐCourt€has€upheld€virtually€identical€jury€instructions€concerning€reasonable€doubtÏbut€ð ðrespectfully€disagreesðð€with€these€decisions€of€this€Court.ÌÌà ` àWe€do€not€find€the€jury€instruction€to€be€constitutionally€deficient.€€We€findÏno€reasonable€likelihood€that€the€jury€understood€this€instruction€to€permit€themÏto€convict€the€Defendant€after€anything€but€a€process€of€careful€deliberation€orÏupon€anything€less€than€proof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€JamesÐ 0  ÐEarl€Somervilleóó,€No.€02C01„9608„CC„00289,€1997€WL€627630,€at€*3€(Tenn.Ð ˜8 ÐCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€Oct.€13,€œ1997)ñƒñ›ñƒñ,›€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€œ1998)ñƒñ›ñƒñ;›€òòStateÐ  @ Ðv.€Derek€Dentonóó,€No.€02C01„9409„CR„00186,€1996€WL€œ432338,›€at€*7„9€(Tenn.Ð ¨H ÐCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€Aug.€2,€1996);€òòState€v.€Jose€Holmesóó,€No.€02C01„9505„CR„Ð °P Ð00154,€1997€WL€759429,€at€*3„4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Dec.€10,€œ1997),›Ïœòòperm.›€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€œ1998);›€òòState€v.€Melvin€Edward€Henningóó,€No.Ð À!` Ð02C01„9703„CR„00126,€œ1997›€WL€661455,€at€*7„9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,ÏOct.€24,€1997).ÌÌà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€accordingly€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÐ  6°,, ÐCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGE