ÿWPC %z~@‡šcH‰:jÛk‡L6Í.'w:CÐŽÂíÓàúN#â¼%È]‘õRhQ_à)»{X¼ê‚³ò„SI^ñNSÚ©ìhNÛKk`ž£»‚… éÙ‰Z (›d®‰l¨£Ó µD:µÔN#DÎu\[$îàÕƒÚ.®}²Á tšó~Œ*ùô½Â°+•”~Å,;c˜ïáV˜@¢ää÷Öbã}Ûª™óY7ý¸>ŽRñæ°Vç| °Ï"éîJɶÚ#Ť5£ÚaáÀÙÅ1Î߉.r<@c§²/P*z5Se¡€G’é±A¤Û¥‘0„Ž€ž»0#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%ÔÐ )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€Defendant€testified€that€after€Billy€Webb€left€with€his€son,€he€told€Presswood€to€take€aÐ ° Ðâ ârifle€and€go€up€in€the€woods,€and€he€loaded€his€.357€after€Presswood€went€outside€with€the€rifle.€€HeÐ œì Ðhad€just€finished€loading€the€gun€when€Crumley€came€in.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€it€was€justÐ ˆØ ÐCrumley€and€the€Defendant€€in€the€house;€Presswood€was€in€the€woods€with€the€rifle.€€The€DefendantÐ tÄ Ðkept€Crumley€at€bay€with€the€gun.€€A€pool€table€was€between€them.€€The€Defendant€insisted€that€heÐ `° Ðwas€afraid€of€Crumley€because€Crumley€was€a€big€man,€was€violent,€and€had€repeatedly€threatenedÐ L œ Ðto€kill€him.€€They€talked€in€that€room€for€thirty€or€forty€minutes.€€Crumley€told€the€Defendant€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðhe€needed€money€for€a€lawyer,€and€he€suggested€that€he€and€the€Defendant€go€rob€some€place.€€TheÐ $ t ÐDefendant€said€he€declined€the€offer.€€Crumley€got€both€the€Defendant€and€himself€a€beer.€€TheÐ  ` ÐDefendant€said€he€drank€a€beer€with€Crumley,€but€he€still€had€the€gun€and€would€not€let€Crumley€getÐ ü L  Ðclose€to€him.€€He€said€that€he€repeatedly€asked€Crumley€to€leave,€but€Crumley€would€not€leave.€Ð è 8  ÐFinally,€Crumley€agreed€to€leave,€and€he€started€out€the€door.€€However,€once€he€got€outside,€he€satÐ Ô$  Ðdown€on€the€picnic€table.€€When€the€Defendant€again€asked€Crumley€to€leave,€Crumley€replied,€ð ðNo,Ð À  Ðno,€weððve€got€to€get€this€worked€out.€.€.€Iððve€just€got€to€get€it€worked€out.€€Iððve€got€to€have€anÐ ¬ü  Ðattorney.ðð€€They€started€talking€about€Danny€Jones,€and€Crumley€said€that€Jones€deserved€the€beatingÐ ˜è  Ðhe€had€given€Jones€two€days€before,€and€he€would€have€killed€Jones€if€he€had€had€a€bullet.€€TheÐ „Ô  ÐDefendant€then€brought€up€Crumleyððs€telephone€call€the€night€before€where€Crumley€had€talked€toÐ pÀ ÐPresswood€and€threatened€to€come€up€there€shooting€everybody.€€Crumley€denied€making€the€phoneÐ \¬ Ðcall€and€called€Presswood€a€liar.€€The€Defendant€yelled€for€Presswood,€who€walked€around€from€theÐ H˜ Ðback€of€the€shed€and€leaned€against€the€four„wheeler.€€Presswood€then€told€Crumley€that€he€knewÐ 4„ Ðit€was€Crumley€who€called.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€Crumley€continued€to€deny€calling€and€thatÐ  p Ðhe€went€ð ðfrom€mad€to€furious.ðð€€The€Defendant€said,Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àThe€second€time€that€Jack€[Presswood]€told€him€that€he,€he€knew€it€was€him,€that€heÐ ä4 Ðdid€call,€about€the€last€and€the€closest€to€the€exact€same€thing€that€Billy€said,€as€IÐ Ð  Ðrecall€it,€was,€ð ðIf€youððre€going€to€kill€me,€youððd€better€do€it€quick.ðð€€And€as€he€wasÐ ¼  Ðsaying€that,€he€put€both€hands€beside€him€and€he€just€had€started€to€move.€€He€neverÐ ¨ø Ðgot€stood€up.€€He€just€had€put€his€hands€down€and€had€straightened€up.€€His€„„€Iððll€sayÐ ”ä Ðhis€ass€had€done€cleared€the€picnic€table,€but€he€didnððt€have€his€knees€straightened.€Ð €Ð ÐI€was€sitting€down€and€did€right€like€that€(indicating),€shot€that€quick.€€Immediately,Ð l¼ ÐI€jumped€up€and€run€over€to€him.€€He€fell.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€testified€that€after€shooting€Crumley,€he€panicked.€€Presswood€grabbed€oneÐ 0"€  Ðof€Crumleyððs€legs€and€started€dragging€the€body,€leaving€a€trail€of€blood.€€The€Defendant€claimedÐ #l! Ðthat€Presswood€ordered€him€to€help€move€the€body,€so€he€and€Presswood€drug€the€body€around€theÐ $X" Ðhouse.€€They€discussed€what€to€do€and€decided€to€bury€the€body.€€They€loaded€the€body€onto€theÐ ô$D # Ðfour„wheeler€and€took€it€into€the€woods,€where€the€Defendant€ultimately€buried€it€in€a€hole.€€BeforeÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€Defendant€buried€the€body,€Presswood€looked€at€the€hole€and€agreed€that€it€was€the€best€placeÐ Ì&"% Ðto€bury€Crumley.€€The€Defendant€said€that€Presswood€rinsed€the€blood€stains€away.€€They€then€droveÐ ¸'#& ÐCrumleyððs€car€to€another€location.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÐ  |*Ì%) Ðà@ÀÀ ìàI.€€THIRTEENTH€JURORˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€first€argues€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€properly€function€as€the€thirteenthÐ ˆØ Ðjuror€in€considering€his€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€and€a€new€trial.€€The€Defendantððs€trial€wasÐ tÄ Ða€four€day€jury€trial€in€early€June€1996,€with€Judge€Mayo€L.€Mashburn€presiding.€€After€the€trial,€theÐ `° ÐDefendant€filed€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€and€a€new€trial,€which€was€scheduled€to€be€heardÐ L œ Ðby€Judge€Mashburn€on€July€15,€1996.€€Unfortunately,€Judge€Mashburn€passed€away€on€July€11,Ð 8 ˆ Ð1996.€€Judge€Carroll€Ross€was€appointed€as€Judge€Mashburnððs€successor,€but€he€recused€himselfÐ $ t Ðfrom€this€case€due€to€a€conflict.€€Subsequently,€Judge€R.€Steven€Bebb€was€assigned€to€rule€on€theÐ  ` ÐDefendantððs€motion€and€to€sentence€the€Defendant.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àOn€July€9,€1999,€Judge€Bebb€heard€argument€on€the€Defendantððs€motion.€€The€defenseÐ Ô$  Ðattorney€specifically€requested€that€Judge€Bebb€consider€the€evidence€as€the€thirteenth€juror.€€He€thenÐ À  Ðbegan€to€discuss€the€evidence€and€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€at€which€point€he€was€interruptedÐ ¬ü  Ðby€Judge€Bebb,€who€said,Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àLet€me€interrupt€just€a€minute.€€One€of€the€reasons€Iððm€not€an€appellate€judge€isÐ pÀ Ðbecause€it€makes€me€very€uncomfortable€to€think€of€being€a€13th€juror€in€a€trial€thatÐ \¬ ÐI€did€not€see€based€upon€the€record.€€Iððve€read€records€of€trials€that€Iððve€tried€and€IÐ H˜ Ðfind€that€it€supplements€me€in€making€a€decision€having€heard€those€witnessesÐ 4„ Ðmyself,€and€so€Iððm€going€to€leave€that€part€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€and€theÐ  p ÐSupreme€Court€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€defense€attorney€then€ceased€arguing€about€the€weight€of€the€evidence.€€After€hearing€argumentÐ ä4 Ðregarding€the€other€issues,€Judge€Bebb€stated,Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àAnd€I€donððt€want€to€cut€anybody€off€but€let€me€say€this:€€number€one,€I€feel€again€atÐ ¨ø Ðan€extreme€disadvantage€not€having€heard€the€witnesses€in€the€trial.€€I€have€read€theÐ ”ä Ðrecord€on€four€separate€occasions€to€try€to€get€ready€for€this€hearing.€€In€a€way,€well,Ð €Ð ÐI€donððt€ever€wish€work€on€myself,€but€in€a€way€I€wish,€it€was€an€interesting€transcriptÐ l¼ Ðto€read.€€But€I€feel€at€this€time€the€proper€thing€is€Mr.€Brown€needs€to€get€his€appealÐ X ¨ Ðunder€way€and€Iððm€going€to€overrule€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€Defendant€asserts€that€these€statements€by€the€trial€judge€indicate€that€he€did€not€properlyÐ #l! Ðperform€his€function€as€the€thirteenth€juror.€€We€agree.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€33(f)€provides€that€ð ð[t]he€trial€court€may€grant€a€newÐ à%0!$ Ðtrial€following€a€verdict€of€guilty€if€it€disagrees€with€the€jury€about€the€weight€of€the€evidence.ðð€€OurÐ Ì&"% Ðsupreme€court€has€stated€that€this€rule€ð ðimposes€upon€a€trial€court€judge€the€mandatory€duty€to€serveÐ ¸'#& Ðas€the€thirteenth€juror€in€every€criminal€case,€and€that€approval€by€the€trial€judge€of€the€juryððs€verdictÐ ¤(ô#' Ðas€the€thirteenth€juror€is€a€necessary€prerequisite€to€imposition€of€a€valid€judgment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Carteróó,Ð )à$( Ð896€S.W.2d€119,€122€(Tenn.€1995).€€Notwithstanding,€this€rule€does€not€require€an€explicit€statementÐ |*Ì%) Ðon€the€record€that€the€trial€court€performed€its€duty.€€òòId.óó€€Compliance€with€the€rule€is€presumed€whenÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€trial€court€simply€overrules€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€without€comment;€however,€ð ðwhere€theÐ ° Ðrecord€contains€statements€by€the€trial€judge€expressing€dissatisfaction€or€disagreement€with€theÐ œì Ðweight€of€the€evidence€or€the€juryððs€verdict,€or€statements€indicating€that€the€trial€court€absolvedÐ ˆØ Ðitself€of€its€responsibility€to€act€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€an€appellate€court€may€reverse€the€trial€courtððsÐ tÄ Ðjudgment.ðð€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHelton€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2d€564,€566„67€(Tenn.€1977)Ô#†¼%»XXMiUV#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%Ô;€òòState€v.€Dankworthóó,Ð `° Ð919€S.W.2d€52,€57„58€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)òòóó.€€This€Court€ð ðhas€no€independent€authority€to€actÐ L œ Ðas€a€thirteenth€jurorðð;€thus,€the€remedy€for€the€trial€judgeððs€failure€to€properly€function€as€thirteenthÐ 8 ˆ Ðjuror€is€to€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.€€òòState€v.€Burlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€713,€719€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð $ t ÐApp.€1993);€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòDankworthóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€59.€€Ô#†¼%»XXMizy#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%ԀР ` ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Moatsóó,€906€S.W.2d€431€(Tenn.€1995),€our€supreme€court€explained€the€reasoningÐ è 8  Ðfor€the€thirteenth€juror€rule€as€follows:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àThe€purpose€of€the€thirteenth€juror€rule€is€to€be€a€ð ðsafeguard€.€.€.€against€a€miscarriageÐ ¬ü  Ðof€justice€by€the€jury.ðð€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€692€S.W.2d€412,€415€(Tenn.€1985)Ð ˜è  Ð(Drowota,€J.,€dissenting).€€Immediately€after€the€trial,€the€trial€court€judge€is€in€theÐ „Ô  Ðsame€position€as€the€jury€to€evaluate€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€assess€the€weightÐ pÀ Ðof€the€evidence,€based€upon€the€live€trial€proceedings.€€Indeed,€this€Court€hasÐ \¬ Ðrecognized€that€ð ðthe€trial€judge€and€jury€are€the€primary€instrumentality€of€justice€toÐ H˜ Ðdetermine€the€weight€and€credibility€to€be€given€to€the€testimony€of€witnesses.€€In€theÐ 4„ Ðtrial€forum€alone€is€there€human€atmosphere€and€the€totality€of€the€evidence€cannotÐ  p Ðbe€reproduced€with€a€written€record€in€this€Court.ðð€€òòBolin€v.€Stateóó,€219€Tenn.€4,€11,Ð  \ Ð405€S.W.2d€768,€771€(1966).ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€434„35.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àGiven€the€statements€made€by€our€supreme€court€regarding€the€purpose€of€the€thirteenth€jurorÐ ¨ø ÐruleÔ#†¼%»XXMi¨{#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%Ô,€it€is€difficult€to€see€how€a€trial€judge€who€has€not€heard€the€evidence€and€who€has€not€seen€theÐ ”ä Ðwitnesses€can€act€as€the€thirteenth€juror€when€weight€and€credibility€are€issues.€€As€the€supreme€courtÐ €Ð Ðhas€asserted,€appellate€courts€are€ð ðill„suited€.€.€.€to€assess€whether€the€verdict€is€supported€by€theÐ l¼ Ðweight€and€credibility€of€the€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€435.€€When€a€trial€judge€is€asked€to€review€the€weightÐ X ¨ Ðand€credibility€of€the€evidence€as€the€thirteenth€juror€based€upon€a€written€record,€the€trial€judge€ð ðisÐ D!” Ðin€no€better€position€to€evaluate€the€weight€of€the€evidence€than€an€appellate€court.ðð€€òòId.óó€€€€Ô#†¼%»XXMi‚#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%ÔHowever,Ð 0"€  Ðin€some€instances,€a€judge€who€has€not€presided€over€the€trial€may€be€called€upon€to€act€as€theÐ #l! Ðthirteenth€juror.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€25(b)€provides:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àIf€by€reason€of€absence,€death,€sickness€or€other€disability€the€judge€before€whom€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendant€has€been€tried€is€unable€to€perform€the€duties€to€be€performed€by€the€courtÐ Ì&"% Ðafter€a€verdict€of€guilty,€any€other€judge€regularly€sitting€in€or€who€may€be€assignedÐ ¸'#& Ðto€the€court€may€perform€those€duties.€€òòIf€the€successor€judge€is€satisfied€that€he€orÐ ¤(ô#' Ðshe€cannot€perform€those€duties€because€he€or€she€did€not€preside€at€the€trialóó€or€forÐ )à$( Ðany€other€reason,€òòthe€successor€judge€may€exercise€the€discretion€to€grant€a€new€trialóó.Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* Ð(Emphasis€added).€€In€addressing€this€rule,€we€have€maintained€that€ð ða€successor€judgeððsÐ ° Ðconsideration,€pursuant€to€Rule€25(b),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€of€whether€the€duties€of€the€original€judgeÐ œì Ðcan€be€met€must€include€an€assessment€of€his€or€her€ability€to€act€as€a€thirteenth€juror,€includingÐ ˆØ Ðwitness€credibility.ðð€€òòState€v.€Nail,óó€963€S.W.2d€761,€765€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€In€assessingÐ tÄ Ðwhether€the€successor€judge€can€act€as€thirteenth€juror,€Ô#†¼%»XXMi¢„#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%Ôthe€judgeÐ `° ÐÌà8  àwould€need€to€determine€the€extent€to€which€witness€credibility€was€a€factor€in€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcase€and€the€extent€to€which€he€had€sufficient€knowledge€or€records€before€him€inÐ $ t Ðorder€to€decide€whether€the€credible€evidence,€as€viewed€by€the€judge,€adequatelyÐ  ` Ðsupported€the€verdict.€€If€these€determinations€could€not€be€made€by€the€successorÐ ü L  Ðjudge,€the€verdict€could€not€be€approved€and€a€new€trial€should€have€been€granted.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌ€òòId.óó€at€766€(citing€òòState€v.€Bilbreyóó,€858€S.W.2d€911,€915€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)).€€In€òòState€v.Ð À  ÐGillonóó,€15€S.W.3d€492€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997),€we€stated,€ð ðImplicit€in€the€òòNailóó€ruling€is€that€aÐ ¬ü  Ðjudge€whose€first€exposure€to€the€case€was€presiding€over€the€motion€for€new€trial€could€rule€on€theÐ ˜è  Ðmotion€if€the€record€was€available€so€long€as€witness€credibility€was€not€an€overriding€issue.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ „Ô  Ðat€502.€€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAlthough€Judge€Bebb€overruled€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial,€we€believe€that€hisÐ H˜ Ðstatements€on€the€record€indicate€his€thoughts€that€witness€credibility€was€an€issue€and€that€he€couldÐ 4„ Ðnot€perform€his€duty€as€thirteenth€juror€based€on€the€written€record€of€the€case.€€Judge€Bebb€statedÐ  p Ðthat€he€read€the€record€four€times€to€prepare€for€the€hearing,€but€he€maintained€that€he€wasÐ  \ Ðð ðuncomfortableðð€acting€as€thirteenth€juror€because€he€did€not€preside€over€the€trial,€and€he€was€ð ðatÐ øH Ðan€extreme€disadvantageðð€because€he€did€not€hear€the€witnesses.€€Instead€of€acting€as€the€thirteenthÐ ä4 Ðjuror,€Judge€Bebb€stated€that€he€was€ð ðgoing€to€leave€that€part€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€andÐ Ð  Ðthe€Supreme€Courtðð€and€that€ð ðthe€proper€thing€is€Mr.€Brown€needs€to€get€his€appeal€under€way.ðð€€AsÐ ¼  Ðwe€have€previously€stated,€we€do€not€have€the€authority€to€act€as€the€thirteenth€juror.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurlisonóó,Ð ¨ø Ð686€S.W.2d€at€719.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€Judge€Bebb€did€not€properly€perform€his€functionÐ ”ä Ðas€thirteenth€juror€because€of€his€inability€to€do€so,€and€we€must€reverse€the€Defendantððs€convictionsÐ €Ð Ðand€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.Ð l¼ ÐÌà@‹‹ìàII.€€FAILURE€TO€RECUSEˆÐ D!” ÐÌà  àAlthough€our€resolution€of€the€Defendantððs€first€issue€is€dispositive,€we€will€consider€hisÐ #l! Ðother€issues€as€well.€€In€his€second€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€Judge€Bebb€erred€by€failing€toÐ $X" Ðrecuse€himself€upon€the€grounds€that€only€Judge€Carroll€Ross,€the€successor€in€office€to€the€lateÐ ô$D # ÐJudge€Mashburn,€could€rule€on€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ à%0!$ Ðsection€17„1„305€provides:Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà8  àWhen€a€vacancy€in€the€office€of€trial€judge€exists€by€reason€of€death€.€.€.€after€verdict,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðbut€before€the€hearing€of€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€judgeððs€successor€shallÐ )à$( Ðrule€on€the€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial€after€the€successor€judge€has€reviewedÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€transcript€and€the€entire€record€of€the€trial.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  ЇTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„1„305€(Supp.€1999).€€This€statute€was€enacted€in€1996,€and€it€replaced€theÐ ° Ðprevious€statue€which€provided€that€in€the€event€of€the€death€of€the€trial€judge€after€the€verdict€butÐ œì Ðbefore€the€ruling€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€losing€party€was€automatically€granted€a€new€trial.€Ð ˆØ ÐòòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€17„1„305€(repealed€1996).€€The€Defendant€asserts€that€the€current€statute€should€be€strictlyÐ tÄ Ðconstrued€to€allow€only€the€successor€judge€to€rule€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€because€it€deniesÐ `° Ðthe€defendant€the€right€to€have€his€entire€case€heard€by€the€same€judge.€€We€disagree.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAs€previously€discussed,€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€25(b)€allows€ð ðany€otherÐ $ t Ðjudge€regularly€sitting€in€or€who€may€be€assigned€to€the€courtðð€to€rule€on€a€motion€for€a€new€trialÐ  ` Ðafter€the€death€of€the€trial€judge.€€That€rule,€along€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€17„1„305,Ð ü L  Ðallows€another€judge€to€rule€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€after€the€death€of€the€trial€judge;€thus,€aÐ è 8  Ðdefendant€does€not€have€the€absolute€right€to€have€his€entire€case€heard€by€the€same€judge.€€WeÐ Ô$  Ðbelieve€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€17„1„305€must€be€read€together€with€other€statutes,Ð À  Ðwhich€allow€a€different€judge€to€sit€by€interchange€over€a€case€when€the€regular€trial€judge€isÐ ¬ü  Ðincompetent€to€hear€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðððð€17„2„101,€„202.€€Ô#†¼%»XXMi¦Š#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%ÔIt€would€not€be€logical€to€limit€theÐ ˜è  Ðauthority€to€rule€on€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€to€the€successor€in€office€to€the€late€trial€judge€becauseÐ „Ô  Ðthe€successor€would€be€in€no€better€position€to€rule€on€the€motion€than€any€other€judge€who€couldÐ pÀ Ðsit€by€interchange.€€In€this€case,€Judge€Ross€was€the€successor€to€Judge€Mashburn€and€would€haveÐ \¬ Ðbeen€the€judge€to€hear€the€case€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€17„1„305.€€However,Ð H˜ ÐJudge€Ross€recused€himself€because€he€had€previously€consulted€with€the€family€of€the€victim€aboutÐ 4„ Ðthe€possibility€of€suing€the€Defendant.€€Accordingly,€it€was€proper€for€Judge€Bebb€to€hear€the€caseÐ  p Ðby€interchange.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€We€find€no€error.€Ð  \ ÐÌà@H H ìàIII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àNext,€the€Defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€He€argues€that€there€wasÐ ¼  Ðinsufficient€evidence€of€guilt€and€that€there€was€insufficient€evidence€that€the€offense€was€committedÐ ¨ø Ðprior€to€the€return€of€the€indictment.€€We€will€address€these€contentions€separately.Ð ”ä ÐÌòòA.€€Evidence€of€guiltóóÐ l¼ Ðà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€State€failed€to€prove€that€he€acted€with€premeditation€in€the€Ð X ¨ Ðkilling€of€Billy€Crumley.€€Ô‡XMiXXXMiÔTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(e)€prescribes€that€ð ð[f]indingsÐ D!” Ðof€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€isÐ 0"€  Ðinsufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€€EvidenceÐ #l! Ðis€sufficient€if,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€anyÐ $X" Ðrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð ô$D # ÐòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€In€addition,€because€conviction€by€a€trier€of€factÐ à%0!$ Ðdestroys€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€imposes€a€presumption€of€guilt,€a€convicted€criminalÐ Ì&"% Ðdefendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient.€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€372Ð ¸'#& ÐS.W.2d€173,€176€(Tenn.€1963);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992)€(citingÐ ¤(ô#' ÐòòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1976),€and€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329,€331€(Tenn.Ð )à$( Ð1977));€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòHolt€v.€Stateóó,€357€S.W.2d€57,€61€(Tenn.Ð |*Ì%) Ð1962).Ð h+¸&* Їà  àIn€its€review€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court€must€afford€the€State€ð ðthe€strongest€legitimateÐ ° Ðview€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawnÐ œì Ðtherefrom.ðð€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914€(citing€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ð ˆØ Ð1978)).€€The€court€may€not€ð ðre„weigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidenceðð€in€the€record€below.€€òòEvansóó,€838Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€at€191€(citing€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€836).€€Likewise,€should€the€reviewing€court€findÐ `° Ðparticular€conflicts€in€the€trial€testimony,€the€court€must€resolve€them€in€favor€of€the€jury€verdict€orÐ L œ Ðtrial€court€judgment.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.€€All€questions€involving€the€credibility€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðwitnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€and€all€factual€issues€are€resolved€by€theÐ $ t Ðtrier€of€fact,€not€the€appellate€courts.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  ` Ð1987).Ô#†XMiXXXMi ¥#Ô€€€Ô#†¼%»XXMi<Ÿ#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%ÔÐ ü L  ЀÌà  àLooking€at€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€the€proof€established€€that€Ð Ô$  ÐCrumley€and€the€Defendant€had€previously€threatened€to€kill€each€other.€€On€the€day€of€the€killing,Ð À  Ðthe€Defendant€stated€to€Jack€Presswood€that€if€Crumley€came€to€his€house,€he€would€kill€Crumley.€Ð ¬ü  ÐKnowing€that€Crumley€might€arrive,€the€Defendant€loaded€his€gun.€€Crumley€was€not€armed.€€TheÐ ˜è  ÐDefendant€shot€Crumley€from€a€distance€of€ten€to€fifteen€feet.€€According€to€Jack€Presswood,Ð „Ô  ÐCrumley€had€made€no€threatening€movements,€and€the€shooting€ð ðwas€not€self„defense.ðð€€From€thisÐ pÀ Ðevidence,€a€rational€jury€could€have€concluded€that€the€Defendant€shot€Crumley€ð ðafter€the€exerciseÐ \¬ Ðof€reflection€and€judgment,ðð€thereby€finding€that€the€act€was€premeditated.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð H˜ Ððð€39„13„202(d).€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€convictionÐ 4„ Ðfor€first€degree€murder.׃×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  p ÐÌòòB.€€Evidence€of€commission€of€offense€prior€to€indictmentóóÐ øH Ðà  àIn€this€issue,€the€Defendant€presents€a€unique€and€compelling€argument.€€He€asserts€that€hisÐ ä4 Ðconviction€must€be€reversed€because€the€State€did€not€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€theÐ Ð  Ðoffense€was€committed€before€the€return€of€the€indictment.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€his€argumentÐ ¼  Ðand€the€applicable€law,€we€agree.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„201€sets€forth€the€Stateððs€burden€of€proof€inÐ €Ð Ðcriminal€cases€as€follows:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  à(a)€No€person€may€be€convicted€of€an€offense€unless€each€of€the€following€is€provenÐ D!” Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt:Ð0"€ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(1)€The€conduct,€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct,€or€a€result€of€the€conductÐ #l! Ðdescribed€in€the€definition€of€the€offense;Ð$X"Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€The€culpable€mental€state€required;Ðô$D #Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€The€negation€of€any€defense€to€an€offense€defined€in€this€title€if€admissibleÐ à%0!$ Ðevidence€is€introduced€supporting€the€defense;€and€ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  Ðâ âà8  à(4)€òòThe€offense€was€committed€prior€to€the€return€of€the€formal€chargeóó.и'#&Ð Ð  Ð(Emphasis€added).€€Thus,€it€appears€that€Ô#†¼%»XXMi;¯#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%Ôour€legislature€has€mandated€that€before€a€person€can€beÐ ° Ðâ âconvicted€of€a€criminal€offense,€the€State€must€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€personÐ œì Ðcommitted€the€offense€prior€to€the€time€he€or€she€was€formally€charged€with€the€offense.€€While€itÐ ˆØ Ðseems€obvious€that€no€person€would€be€indicted€or€otherwise€formally€charged€with€the€commissionÐ tÄ Ðof€the€offense€of€murder€before€the€victim€was€actually€killed,€the€legislature€has€chosen€to€requireÐ `° Ðthe€State€to€prove€that€fact€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Our€research€has€revealed€no€explicitÐ L œ Ðrationale€for€such€a€rule,€but€we€believe€it€may€have€arisen€from€the€requirements€concerning€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcontent€of€indictments.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„13„207,€entitled€ð ðTime€of€offense,ðð€provides,€ð ðTheÐ ü L  Ðtime€at€which€the€offense€was€committed€need€not€be€stated€in€the€indictment,€but€the€offense€mayÐ è 8  Ðbe€alleged€to€have€been€committed€on€any€day€before€the€finding€thereof,€or€generally€before€theÐ Ô$  Ðfinding€of€the€indictment,€unless€the€time€is€a€material€ingredient€in€the€offense.ðð€€Thus,€unless€theÐ À  Ðtime€of€the€offense€is€material,€it€does€not€have€to€be€specifically€stated€in€the€indictment;€anÐ ¬ü  Ðindictment€is€sufficient€if€it€alleges€that€the€offense€occurred€sometime€prior€to€the€return€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðindictment.Ô#†¼%»XXMiº#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%Ô€€In€òòState€v.€Shawóó,€82€S.W.€480€(Tenn.€1904),€our€supreme€court€explained€the€rule€asÐ „Ô  Ðfollows:Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àThe€rule€to€be€deduced€from€our€cases€is€that,€where€there€is€no€statute€of€limitationsÐ H˜ Ðbarring€the€offense,€it€is€unnecessary€to€state€the€day,€or€even€the€year,€òòbut€it€isÐ 4„ Ðsufficient€to€aver€generally€that€the€offense€was€committed€before€the€finding€of€theÐ  p Ðindictmentóó;€that€it€is€not€necessary€to€state€in€any€case€the€day€on€which€the€offenseÐ  \ Ðwas€committed,€unless€the€date€itself€is€of€the€essence€of€the€offense,€as€of€offensesÐ øH Ðcommitted€against€laws€passed€for€the€preservation€of€the€Sabbath,€or€unless€the€timeÐ ä4 Ðis€important€to€bring€the€offense€within€the€operation€of€new€or€amended€statutes€orÐ Ð  Ðthe€like;€but€where€there€is€a€statute€of€limitations€that€bars€the€offense€there€shouldÐ ¼  Ðbe€a€sufficiently€definite€averment€of€time€in€the€indictment€to€show€that€the€offenseÐ ¨ø Ðwas€committed€within€the€statutory€limit;€and,€finally,€that€where€an€impossible€dateÐ ”ä Ðis€given,€as€in€the€present€indictment,€it€will€be€disregarded€if€the€offense€is€one€asÐ €Ð Ðto€which€there€is€no€statute€of€limitations,€or€as€to€which€the€date€itself€is€notÐ l¼ Ðimportant.Ô#†¼%»XXMi‚À#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%ÔÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€Ô#†¼%»XXMikÆ#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%Ô480€(emphasis€added).€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIt€is€not€clear€how€this€rule€regarding€the€allegation€of€the€time€of€the€offense€in€theÐ $X" Ðindictment€became€a€matter€of€proof€at€trial,€but€cases€addressing€this€rule€have€stated,€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àThe€rule€is€that€the€offense€must€be€proved€to€have€been€committed€prior€to€theÐ Ì&"% Ðfinding€of€the€indictment€and€within€the€time€specified€by€any€applicable€statute€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðlimitation;€and,€except€where€a€special€date€is€essential€or€time€is€of€the€essence€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€offense,€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offense€averred€in€the€indictment€is€notÐ )à$( Ðmaterial€and€proof€is€not€confined€to€the€time€charged.€€òòÐ|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐState€v.€Westóó,€737€S.W.2d€790,€792€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòPrince€v.€Stateóó,€529€S.W.2d€729,€733Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€The€Court€of€Appeals€of€Georgia,€in€addressing€a€similar€rule€in€Georgia,Ð œì Ðhas€stated,€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àFrom€the€earliest€times,€both€in€England€and€in€Georgia,€it€has€been€held€that€unlessÐ `° Ðtime€is€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€charged,€the€time€of€the€commission€of€theÐ L œ Ðoffense€alleged€in€the€indictment,€presentment,€accusation,€information,€or€affidavit,Ð 8 ˆ Ðis€immaterial;€and,€proof€of€the€commission€of€the€offense€at€any€time€prior€to€theÐ $ t Ðfinding€of€the€indictment€or€presentment,€the€filing€of€the€accusation€or€information,Ð  ` Ðor€the€swearing€of€the€affidavit€where€made€the€foundation€of€the€accusation,€willÐ ü L  Ðsustain€a€conviction€if€the€proof€also€establish€the€commission€of€the€offense€withinÐ è 8  Ðthe€statute€of€limitations.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€62€S.E.2d€732,€733„34€(Ga.€App.€1950).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àFrom€these€cases,€we€surmise€that€the€rule€requiring€the€State€to€prove€that€the€offenseÐ „Ô  Ðoccurred€prior€to€the€return€of€the€indictment€was€a€result€of€the€rule€that€the€exact€time€of€theÐ pÀ Ðoffense€is€not€material€and€an€indictment€need€only€allege€that€the€offense€occurred€prior€to€theÐ \¬ Ðindictment.€€We€question,€however,€the€necessity€of€making€this€rule€a€matter€for€the€determinationÐ H˜ Ðof€the€trier€of€fact.€€If€the€indictment€alleged€an€impossible€date,€the€indictment€could€be€challengedÐ 4„ Ðprior€to€trial€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€12(b)(2).€€If€the€proof€at€trialÐ  p Ðestablished€that€the€offense€charged€was€not€committed€until€after€the€return€of€the€indictment,€theÐ  \ Ðtrial€court€could€take€appropriate€action€at€that€time€to€dismiss€the€proceedings€against€the€defendant.€Ð øH ÐIt€appears€unnecessary€to€ask€a€jury€to€determine€whether€a€defendant€committed€an€offense€beforeÐ ä4 Ðhe€or€she€was€charged€with€the€commission€of€that€offense.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àNevertheless,€our€legislature€has€required€the€State€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thatÐ ¨ø Ðthe€offense€was€committed€prior€to€the€return€of€the€formal€charge.€€Granted,€this€is€an€easy€matterÐ ”ä Ðto€prove.€€Generally,€the€first€thing€to€happen€in€a€trial€after€the€jury€is€sworn€is€that€the€indictmentÐ €Ð Ðis€read€to€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€Raybin,€òòTennessee€Criminal€Practice€and€Procedureóó,€ðð€26.10.€€Our€supremeÐ l¼ Ðcourt€has€stated€that€the€reading€of€the€indictment€ð ðis€an€appropriate€and€proper€procedure.€€TheÐ X ¨ Ðindictment€at€best€is€a€mere€accusation€to€inform€the€jury€of€the€charges€against€the€defendant.ðð€€òòStateÐ D!” Ðv.€Baneóó,€853€S.W.2d€483,€484€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€indictment€is€not€to€be€considered€evidence€of€aÐ 0"€  Ðdefendantððs€guilt,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó,€but€we€do€believe€the€indictment€itself€can€establish€the€date€upon€whichÐ #l! Ðit€was€returned.€€Thus,€the€reading€of€the€indictment€to€the€jury,€coupled€with€evidence€of€when€theÐ $X" Ðoffense€was€committed,€would€establish€that€the€offense€was€committed€prior€to€the€return€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðindictment.€€Also,€the€State€could€merely€ask€an€appropriate€witness€whether€the€actions€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendant€constituting€the€offense€occurred€before€the€defendant€was€charged€with€that€offense.€€ThisÐ Ì&"% Ðwould€satisfy€the€requirements€of€the€statute€as€well.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€problem€with€this€case€is€that€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€indictment€was€ever€read€toÐ )à$( Ðthe€jury€or€shown€to€the€jury,€and€no€witness€was€asked€whether€the€offense€occurred€prior€to€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðreturn€of€the€indictment.€€Before€the€presentation€of€proof,€the€trial€judge€stated,€ð ðAll€right.€€Mr.Ð h+¸&* ÐBrown,€youððre€charged€with€the€offense€of€murder€of€Billy€Ray€Crumley,€and€abuse€of€a€corpse.€Ð ° ÐHow€do€you€plead€to€those€charges?ðð€€The€Defendant€replied,€ð ðNot€guilty,ðð€and€the€trial€commenced.€Ð œì ÐAt€the€end€of€the€trial,€the€trial€judge€instructed€the€jury€that€the€ð ðindictment€in€this€case€charges€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant€with€the€crime€of€first€degree€murder€.€.€.€and€the€crime€of€abuse€of€a€corpse.ðð€€He€alsoÐ tÄ Ðinstructed€the€jury€that€the€ð ðindictment€in€this€case€is€the€formal€written€accusation€charging€theÐ `° Ðdefendant€with€a€crimeðð€and€that€the€ð ðstate€must€have€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€all€of€theÐ L œ Ðelements€of€the€crime€charged,€that€the€crime,€if€in€fact€committed,€was€committed€by€this€defendantÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€McMinn€County,€Tennessee,€and€that€it€was€committed€before€the€finding€and€returning€of€theÐ $ t Ðindictment€in€this€case.ðð€€Although€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€regarding€the€indictment,€thereÐ  ` Ðis€no€evidence€contained€in€the€record€that€he€gave€the€jury€the€indictment.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWe€realize€that€it€is€obvious€that€the€murder€was€committed€prior€to€the€return€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðindictment.€€Nevertheless,€this€fact€must€be€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Because€theÐ À  Ðindictment€was€not€read€to€the€jury€and€because€the€State€did€not€otherwise€offer€proof€of€the€dateÐ ¬ü  Ðof€the€indictment€or€proof€that€the€offense€was€committed€before€the€return€of€the€indictment,€theÐ ˜è  ÐState€did€not€prove€this€fact€at€all.€Accordingly,€we€have€no€choice€but€to€reverse€the€DefendantððsÐ „Ô  Ðconvictions€due€to€this€lack€of€proof.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àWe€do,€however,€conclude€that€this€lack€of€proof€will€not€prevent€the€retrial€of€the€Defendant.€Ð H˜ ÐIn€òòState€v.€Hutchersonóó,€790€S.W.2d€532€(Tenn.€1990),€our€supreme€court€noted€that€ð ðwhere€theÐ 4„ Ðreversal€is€for€trial€error,€the€case€may€be€remanded€for€a€new€trial€without€violating€the€DoubleÐ  p ÐJeopardy€Clause,€but€where€an€appellate€court€finds€the€prosecutionððs€proof€on€the€issue€of€guilt€orÐ  \ Ðinnocence€of€defendant€was€insufficient€to€convict,€Double€Jeopardy€commands€a€dismissal.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ øH Ðat€534.€€The€court€stated€that€ð ðthe€basic€distinction€is€whether€the€defect€that€requires€reversalÐ ä4 Ðinvolved€the€guilt€or€innocenceðð€of€the€defendant,€and€it€determined€that€the€failure€to€establishÐ Ð  Ðvenue,€which€must€also€be€proven€before€a€defendant€can€be€convicted,€did€not€involve€the€guilt€orÐ ¼  Ðinnocence€of€the€defendant.€€òòId.óó€at€535.€€We€believe€that€establishing€that€the€offense€was€committedÐ ¨ø Ðprior€to€the€return€of€the€indictment€is€similar€to€establishing€venue;€it€does€not€involve€the€guilt€orÐ ”ä Ðinnocence€of€the€defendant.€€Here,€the€guilt€of€the€Defendant€was€clearly€proven.€€Therefore,€weÐ €Ð Ðreverse€the€Defendantððs€convictions€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.€€Ô#†¼%»XXMiÚÆ#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%ԀРl¼ Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà@ ìàIV.€€SPECIAL€JURY€INSTRUCTION€REQUESTˆÐ D!” ÐÌà  àNext,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€his€special€juryÐ #l! Ðinstruction€request.€€The€Stateððs€primary€witness€against€the€Defendant€was€Neil€Jack€Presswood,Ð $X" Ðwho€had€been€indicted€for€accessory€after€the€fact€in€the€same€indictment€as€the€Defendant€and€whoÐ ô$D # Ðhad€been€convicted,€along€with€the€Defendant,€of€federal€drug€charges.€€Presswood€admittedÐ à%0!$ Ðtestifying€against€the€Defendant€in€the€federal€drug€trial€as€part€of€his€plea€agreement,€and€heÐ Ì&"% Ðadmitted€that€he€had€agreed€with€the€State€to€testify€against€the€Defendant€in€the€murder€trial.€€AsÐ ¸'#& Ða€result,€the€Defendant€requested€the€following€special€jury€instruction€based€in€part€on€the€patternÐ ¤(ô#' Ðjury€instructions€for€the€Sixth€Circuit€of€the€United€States€Court€of€Appeals,€which€was€denied€byÐ )à$( Ðâ âthe€trial€court:Ð |*Ì%) Ðà8  àYou€have€also€heard€that€the€government€has€promised€certain€witnesses€that€theyÐ ° Ðâ âmay€receive€a€recommendation€of€leniency€which€might€include€a€substantiallyÐ œì Ðreduced€sentence€in€exchange€for€truthful€cooperation€and€testimony€against€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant,€or€that€the€witness€will€be€immune€from€prosecution€for€certain€crimes.€Ð tÄ ÐIt€is€permissible€for€the€government€to€make€such€promises.€€However,€you€shouldÐ `° Ðconsider€the€testimony€of€such€a€witness€with€more€caution€than€the€testimony€ofÐ L œ Ðother€witnesses.€€Consider€whether€such€testimony€may€have€been€influenced€by€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðgovernmentððs€promises.€€Do€not€convict€the€defendant€based€on€the€unsupportedÐ $ t Ðtestimony€of€such€a€witness,€standing€alone,€unless€you€believe€their€testimonyÐ  ` Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€fact€that€another€person€has€been€convicted€of€aÐ ü L  Ðcrime€is€not€itself€evidence€that€the€defendant€is€guilty,€and€you€cannot€consider€thisÐ è 8  Ðagainst€the€defendant€in€any€way.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àYou€have€also€heard€testimony€from€a€witness€who€may€have€an€addiction€to€drugs.€Ð ¬ü  ÐAn€addict€may€have€a€constant€need€for€drugs,€and€for€money€to€buy€drugs,€and€mayÐ ˜è  Ðalso€have€a€greater€fear€of€imprisonment€because€the€supply€of€drugs€may€be€cut€off.€Ð „Ô  ÐThink€about€these€things€and€consider€whether€this€testimony€may€have€beenÐ pÀ Ðinfluenced€by€the€governmentððs€promise.€€Again,€do€not€convict€a€defendant€basedÐ \¬ Ðon€the€unsupported€testimony€of€such€a€witness,€standing€alone,€unless€you€believeÐ H˜ Ðit€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌInstead€of€giving€the€requested€instruction,€the€trial€court€gave€the€following€standard€instructionÐ  \ Ðconcerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àYou€are€the€exclusive€judges€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses€and€the€weight€to€beÐ Ð  Ðgiven€to€their€testimony.€€If€there€are€conflicts€in€the€testimony€of€the€differentÐ ¼  Ðwitnesses€you€must€reconcile€them,€if€you€can,€without€hastily€or€rashly€concludingÐ ¨ø Ðthat€any€witness€has€sworn€falsely,€for€the€law€presumes€that€all€witnesses€areÐ ”ä Ðtruthful.€€In€forming€your€opinion€as€to€the€credibility€of€a€witness,€you€may€look€toÐ €Ð Ðthe€proof,€if€any,€of€(1)€his€or€her€general€character,€(2)€the€evidence,€if€any,€of€theÐ l¼ Ðwitnessðð€reputation€for€truth€and€veracity,€(3)€the€intelligence€and€respectability€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðwitness,€(4)€his€or€her€interest€or€lack€of€interest€in€the€outcome€of€the€trial,€(5)€hisÐ D!” Ðor€her€feelings,€(6)€his€or€her€apparent€fairness€or€bias,€(7)€his€or€her€means€ofÐ 0"€  Ðknowledge,€(8)€the€reasonableness€of€his€or€her€statements,€(9)€his€or€her€appearanceÐ #l! Ðand€demeanor€while€testifying,€(10)€his€or€her€contradictory€statements€as€to€materialÐ $X" Ðmatters,€if€any€are€shown,€and€all€the€evidence€in€the€case€tending€to€corroborate€orÐ ô$D # Ðto€contradict€him€or€her.€€Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àA€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€a€complete€and€correct€charge€of€the€law.€€òòState€v.Ð ¸'#& ÐTeelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.€1990).€€In€determining€whether€jury€instructions€are€erroneous,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðthis€Court€must€read€the€entire€charge€and€only€invalidate€it€if,€when€read€as€a€whole,€it€fails€to€fairlyÐ )à$( Ðsubmit€the€legal€issues€or€misleads€the€jury€as€to€the€applicable€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Vannóó,€976€S.W.2dÐ |*Ì%) Ð93,€101€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Phippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,€142€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€When€theÐ h+¸&* Ðinstructions€given€by€the€trial€judge€correctly,€fully,€and€fairly€set€forth€the€applicable€law,€it€is€notÐ ° Ðerror€to€refuse€to€give€a€special€instruction€requested€by€a€party.€€òòState€v.€Bohananóó,€745€S.W.2d€892,Ð œì Ð897€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€instruction€regarding€witness€credibility€given€by€the€trial€judge€correctly,€fully,€andÐ `° Ðfairly€set€forth€the€applicable€law€in€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€The€jury€was€informed€that€it€shouldÐ L œ Ðconsider€a€witnessðð€bias€and€interest€in€the€case€in€addressing€witness€credibility,€as€well€as€anyÐ 8 ˆ Ðcontradictory€statements€made€by€the€witness.€€On€cross„examination€of€Jack€Presswood,€theÐ $ t ÐDefendant€was€able€to€bring€Presswoodððs€plea€agreements€to€the€attention€of€the€jury,€as€well€asÐ  ` ÐPresswoodððs€contradictory€statements€in€the€statements€he€gave€to€police€and€in€the€letter€he€wroteÐ ü L  Ðto€the€Defendant€in€jail.€€While€the€closing€arguments€were€not€included€in€the€record,€we€have€noÐ è 8  Ðdoubt€that€the€defense€argued€that€these€factors€affected€Presswoodððs€credibility.€€Accordingly,€weÐ Ô$  Ðfind€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€give€the€special€instruction€to€the€jury.Ð À  ÐÌà@V V ìàV.€€TESTIMONY€OF€JUDGE€FRANK€HAMMONDSˆÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€allow€Judge€Frank€Hammonds,Ð pÀ Ðthe€Polk€County€General€Sessions€Judge,€to€testify€concerning€Billy€Crumleyððs€reputation€forÐ \¬ Ðviolence€and€a€specific€threat€of€violence€on€the€part€of€Billy€Crumley.€€Prior€to€bringing€in€the€juryÐ H˜ Ðon€the€third€day€of€the€trial,€the€trial€judge€stated,€Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àI€have€previously€ruled€that€I€will€not€permit€any€further€testimony€of€the€allegedÐ  \ Ðviolence€of€the€victim,€Billy€Ray€Crumley,€on€the€grounds€that€it€is€cumulative.€€IÐ øH Ðhave€further€ruled€that€no€further€evidence€of€any€specific€acts€of€violence€on€the€partÐ ä4 Ðof€Crumley€will€be€permitted,€nor€any€further€evidence€of€the€victimððs€alleged€threatsÐ Ð  Ðto€kill€the€defendant€will€be€permitted.м Ð Ð  ÐÌIn€response,€the€Defendant€made€several€offers€of€proof,€one€of€which€was€the€testimony€of€JudgeÐ ”ä ÐHammonds.€€Judge€Hammonds€testified€that€he€knew€the€victim,€Billy€Crumley,€and€that€BillyÐ €Ð ÐCrumley€ð ðdid€have€a€reputation€of€violence€when€he€was€drinking€or€on€drugs.ðð€€Judge€HammondsÐ l¼ Ðsaid€that€Crumley€appeared€before€him€in€general€sessions€court€a€number€of€times.€€One€time,€JudgeÐ X ¨ ÐHammonds€saw€Crumley€get€ð ðreal€loud€with€the€clerk€over€some€costs,ðð€so€he€asked€Crumley€toÐ D!” Ðcome€back€into€his€chambers€so€that€he€could€calm€Crumley€down.€€Once€Crumley€was€back€there,Ð 0"€  ÐCrumley€ð ðflew€off€the€handle,€started€to€strike€me€Iððm€sure.€€But€Officer€Burris€was€in€there€and€heÐ #l! Ðstopped€him.ðð€€Although€Crumley€did€not€hit€the€judge,€he€did€pull€back€his€fist€and€say,€ð ðIððll€knockÐ $X" Ðthe€hell€out€of€you.ðð€€On€appeal,€the€Defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€should€have€admitted€thisÐ ô$D # Ðtestimony€because€it€was€relevant€to€show€a€pertinent€character€trait€of€the€victim,€ð ðnamely€hisÐ à%0!$ Ðreputation€for€violence.ðð€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€admissibility€of€evidence€is€a€matter€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthis€Court€will€not€disturb€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€absent€a€clear€showing€of€an€abuse€of€thatÐ )à$( Ðdiscretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€726,€743€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2dÐ |*Ì%) Ð947,€949€(Tenn.€1978).€€Ô#†¼%»XXMiâç#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%ÔTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€403€allows€a€trial€court€to€exclude€evidence€ð ðifÐ h+¸&* Ðits€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€€.€.€.€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,Ð ° Ðor€needless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence.ðð€€€€Ð œì Ðòòóó€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ˆØ Ðà  àBased€on€our€review€of€the€evidence,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretionÐ tÄ Ðby€excluding€Judge€Hammondððs€testimony€because€it€was€cumulative.€€The€Defendant€was€givenÐ `° Ðample€opportunity€to€present€evidence€tending€to€show€that€the€victim€had€a€reputation€for€violence.€Ð L œ ÐVirtually€every€witness€who€testified€and€who€knew€the€victim€said€that€the€victim€was€violent.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐEven€the€victimððs€mother€testified€that€the€victim€had€been€arrested€ð ð40„some€oddðð€times€forÐ $ t Ðð ðfighting€and€drinking.ðð€€Several€witnesses€testified€regarding€the€victimððs€brutal€beating€of€DannyÐ  ` ÐJones€and€the€victimððs€repeated€threats€to€kill€the€Defendant.€€Accordingly,€we€find€no€error€in€theÐ ü L  Ðexclusion€of€this€evidence.Ð è 8  ÐÌà@1 1 ìàVI.€€MEDICAL€RECORDS€OF€DANNY€JONESˆÐ À  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€admit€Danny€Jonesðð€hospitalÐ ˜è  Ðrecords.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€the€records€would€have€shown€that€Jones€had€multiple€bruisesÐ „Ô  Ðabout€his€body,€as€well€as€a€strong€odor€of€gasoline,€which€would€corroborate€Jonesðð€testimonyÐ pÀ Ðregarding€his€beating€by€the€victim.€€In€refusing€to€admit€the€medical€records,€the€trial€court€stated,€Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àI€will€not€permit€the€medical€records€of€Mr.€Jones€to€go€into€evidence.€€He€has,€bothÐ 4„ Ðhe€and€his€wife€have€testified€concerning€his€affray€with€Mr.€Crumley.€€No€one€hasÐ  p Ðcontested€that.€€They€have€both€testified€as€to€his€medical€treatment,€and€as€far€as€IððmÐ  \ Ðconcerned,€all€youððre€doing€is€cluttering€up€the€record€with€medical€records€toÐ øH Ðcorroborate€testimony€of€both€Jones€and€his€wife,€none€of€which€has€been€contested.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAs€stated€previously,€the€admissibility€of€evidence€is€a€matter€within€the€sound€discretion€ofÐ ¼  Ðthe€trial€court,€and€this€Court€will€not€disturb€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€absent€a€clear€showing€of€anÐ ¨ø Ðabuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòCauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€at€743;€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€949.€€We€see€noÐ ”ä Ðabuse€of€discretion€in€refusing€to€allow€the€medical€records€into€evidence.€€Evidence€may€beÐ €Ð Ðexcluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needlessÐ l¼ Ðpresentation€of€cumulative€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Here,€both€Danny€Jones€and€his€wife,Ð X ¨ ÐTammy€Jones,€testified€regarding€the€victimððs€attack€of€Danny€Jones.€€While€the€State€attempted€toÐ D!” Ðattack€the€testimony€of€Mr.€and€Ms.€Jones€regarding€their€relationship€and€dealings€with€theÐ 0"€  ÐDefendant,€the€State€never€attempted€to€refute€the€Jonesðð€testimony€that€Danny€Jones€was€attackedÐ #l! Ðand€beaten€by€Billy€Crumley.€€Therefore,€the€admission€of€the€medical€records€showing€that€DannyÐ $X" ÐJones€was€bruised€and€smelled€of€gasoline€would€have€merely€ð ðcluttered€up€the€record,ðð€as€statedÐ ô$D # Ðby€the€trial€court.€€There€was€no€need€to€present€that€evidence,€as€it€was€cumulative.€€This€issue€isÐ à%0!$ Ðwithout€merit.€€Ô#†¼%»XXMiJ #ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%Ô€€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà@  ìàVII.€€FAILURE€TO€GRANT€A€MISTRIALˆÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àNext,€the€Defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€a€mistrial€after€T.J.Ð |*Ì%) ÐJordan,€a€witness€for€the€State,€volunteered€information€to€the€jury€that€a€certain€four„wheel€landÐ h+¸&* Ðvehicle€found€on€the€Defendantððs€property€was€ð ðstolen.ðð€€Mr.€Jordan€was€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÐ ° ÐInvestigation€agent€who€coordinated€the€raid€on€the€Defendantððs€home€on€July€27,€1994.€€During€hisÐ œì Ðtestimony,€he€identified€a€picture€of€a€red€four„wheel€land€vehicle€as€the€one€which€was€found€on€theÐ ˆØ ÐDefendantððs€property,€and€then€he€volunteered€information€that€the€vehicle€was€stolen.€€He€testified,Ð tÄ Ðð ðAnd€in€fact,€this€four,€four„wheeler€was€then€determined€to€be€stolen.ðð€€The€Defendant€did€notÐ `° Ðobject€and€questioning€continued.€€During€the€next€recess,€the€trial€judge€asked€the€attorneys€if€Mr.Ð L œ ÐJordan€had€said€the€vehicle€was€stolen.€€The€State€confirmed€that€he€had€indeed€said€that,€and€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐDefendant€requested€that€it€be€stricken.€€After€more€discussion,€the€Defendant€moved€for€a€mistrial,Ð $ t Ðwhich€the€trial€court€denied.€€The€trial€court€then€called€the€jury€in€and€gave€the€jury€the€followingÐ  ` Ðinstruction:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àLadies€and€gentlemen,€before€you€leave,€let€me€tell€you€something€here.€€If€youððllÐ Ô$  Ðrecall,€during€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Jordan,€T.J.€Jordan,€he€identified€a€photograph€ofÐ À  Ð.€.€.€what€do€they€call€that€thing,€a€four„wheeler?€€Do€you€all€remember€his€testimony?€Ð ¬ü  ÐThe€four„wheeler,€which€he,€he€said€something€to€the€effect€that€it€was€laterÐ ˜è  Ðdetermined€that€it€was€stolen.€€Now€let€me€tell€you€folks€something.€€We€haveÐ „Ô  Ðabsolutely€no€evidence€that€that€thing€was€stolen,€or€if€it€was€stolen,€we€haveÐ pÀ Ðabsolutely€no€evidence€that€Mr.€Brown€stole€it€or€knew€anything€about€it,€or€knew€itÐ \¬ Ðwas€stolen.€€So,€my€instruction€to€you€is€that€you€will€totally€disregard€that.€.€.€partÐ H˜ Ðof€this€testimony,€and€not€under€any€circumstances€hold€it€against€this€defendant€inÐ 4„ Ðany€way.€€Now€can€you€all€represent€to€me€that€you€will€follow€my€instruction€withÐ  p Ðrespect€to€that?Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌAll€of€the€jurors€responded€affirmatively.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€argues€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€a€mistrial€because€the€improperÐ ¼  Ðstatement€by€Mr.€Jordan€ð ðpoisonedðð€the€minds€of€the€jury€ð ðwith€the€idea€that€Defendant€wasÐ ¨ø Ðinvolved€in€some€sort€of€dishonest€criminal€activity€(i.e.,€theft€of€a€four„wheel€land€vehicle)€and€noÐ ”ä Ðmatter€how€strongly€the€trial€court€admonishes€the€witness€and€sustains€the€objection€the€jurorððsÐ €Ð Ðminds€were€irreversibly€poisoned.ðð€€We€disagree.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€decision€of€whether€to€grant€a€mistrial€is€a€matter€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court,Ð D!” Ðand€we€will€not€disturb€the€trial€courtððs€action€on€appeal€absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.Ð 0"€  ÐMillbrooksóó,€819€S.W.2d€441,€443€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Generally,€a€mistrial€will€only€beÐ #l! Ðdeclared€ð ðif€there€is€a€manifest€necessity€requiring€such€action€by€the€trial€judge.ðð€€òòArnold€v.€Stateóó,Ð $X" Ð563€S.W.2d€792,€794€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€ð ðIf€it€appears€that€some€matter€has€occurred€whichÐ ô$D # Ðwould€prevent€an€impartial€verdict€from€being€reached,€a€mistrial€may€be€declared.ðð€€òòId.óó€€€€€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àWe€find€no€ð ðmanifest€necessityðð€for€a€mistrial€in€this€case.€€While€Mr.€Jordan€did€offerÐ ¸'#& Ðimproper€testimony,€the€jury€was€instructed€to€disregard€his€statements.€€A€jury€is€presumed€to€followÐ ¤(ô#' Ða€trial€courtððs€instructions€not€to€consider€inadmissible€evidence.€€òòMillbrooksóó,€819€S.W.2d€at€443.€Ð )à$( ÐMoreover,€the€jury€heard€a€multitude€of€evidence€regarding€criminal€activity€on€the€part€of€theÐ |*Ì%) ÐDefendant.€€Several€witnesses,€including€the€Defendant,€testified€that€the€Defendant€regularly€soldÐ h+¸&* Ðmethamphetamine€from€his€home.€€We€do€not€believe€that€testimony€regarding€a€stolen€four„wheelerÐ ° Ðwould€have€greatly€altered€the€jurorsðð€opinions€regarding€the€Defendantððs€character€or€his€illegalÐ œì Ðactivity.€€It€certainly€would€not€have€ð ðpoisonedðð€the€minds€of€the€jurors€such€that€the€jury€could€notÐ ˆØ Ðreturn€an€impartial€verdict.€€We€find€no€error.Ð tÄ ÐÌà@a a ìàVIII.€€ANTI„SHUTTLING€PROVISIONSˆÐ L œ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€overruling€his€motion€to€dismissÐ $ t Ðthe€criminal€charges€because€the€State€violated€the€anti„shuttling€provisions€of€the€InterstateÐ  ` ÐAgreement€on€Detainers€Act.€€The€Interstate€Agreement€on€Detainers€is€a€compact€between€theÐ ü L  Ðstates,€the€District€of€Columbia,€Puerto€Rico,€the€Virgin€Islands,€and€the€United€States.€€òòSeeóóÐ è 8  ÐòòCarchman€v.€Nashóó,€473€U.S.€716,€719€(1985).€€Tennessee€has€adopted€the€Agreement,€which€isÐ Ô$  Ðcodified€at€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„31„101.€€The€Agreement€is€designed€to€ð ðencourageÐ À  Ðthe€expeditious€and€orderly€disposition€of€.€.€.€charges€[outstanding€against€a€prisoner]€andÐ ¬ü  Ðdetermination€of€the€proper€status€of€any€and€all€detainers€based€on€untried€indictments,€informationsÐ ˜è  Ðor€complaints.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„31„101,€art.€I.€€The€provisions€of€the€Agreement€are€triggeredÐ „Ô  Ðonly€when€a€ð ðdetainerðð€is€filed€with€the€custodial€or€sending€state,€which€includes€the€United€States,Ð pÀ Ðby€another€state€which€has€untried€charges€pending€against€the€prisoner.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Mauroóó,€436Ð \¬ ÐU.S.€340,€343€(1978).€€ð ðA€detainer€is€a€request€filed€by€a€criminal€justice€agency€with€the€institutionÐ H˜ Ðin€which€a€prisoner€is€incarcerated,€asking€the€institution€either€to€hold€the€prisoner€for€the€agencyÐ 4„ Ðor€to€notify€the€agency€when€release€of€the€prisoner€is€imminent.ðð€€òòNashóó,€473€U.S.€at€719.€€Once€aÐ  p Ðdetainer€has€been€filed€against€a€prisoner,€the€Agreement€provides€two€methods€by€which€theÐ  \ Ðprisoner€may€be€brought€to€trial€in€the€receiving€state.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„31„101,€art.€III„art.Ð øH ÐIV.€€Once€a€prisoner€is€brought€to€the€receiving€state,€article€IV(e)€of€the€Agreement€provides,€ð ðIfÐ ä4 Ðtrial€is€not€had€on€any€indictment,€information€or€complaint€contemplated€hereby€prior€to€theÐ Ð  Ðprisonerððs€being€returned€to€the€original€place€of€imprisonment€pursuant€to€article€V(e)€hereof,€suchÐ ¼  Ðindictment,€information€or€complaint€shall€not€be€of€any€further€force€or€effect,€and€the€court€shallÐ ¨ø Ðenter€an€order€dismissing€the€same€with€prejudice.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„31„101,€art.€IV(e).€€Relying€on€thisÐ ”ä Ðprovision,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€McMinn€County€Criminal€Court€lost€jurisdiction€to€try€himÐ €Ð Ðbecause€prior€to€trial€he€was€transferred€back€and€forth€between€federal€and€state€custody€in€violationÐ l¼ Ðof€the€Agreement,€and€he€asserts€that€the€McMinn€County€Criminal€Court€lost€jurisdiction€toÐ X ¨ Ðsentence€him€because€he€was€transferred€back€and€forth€between€federal€and€state€custody€prior€toÐ D!” Ðsentencing.Ô#†¼%»XXMiƒ#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%Ô€€He€therefore€requests€that€the€criminal€proceeding€against€him€be€dismissed.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àWe€first€note€that€our€review€of€the€record€does€not€reveal€the€filing€of€a€detainer€against€theÐ $X" ÐDefendant.€€Although€the€Defendant€was€transferred€between€state€and€federal€custody€on€severalÐ ô$D # Ðoccasions,€the€State€obtained€custody€of€the€Defendant€on€each€occasion€through€a€writ€of€habeasÐ à%0!$ Ðcorpus€ad€prosequendum.€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€explicitly€held€that€a€writ€of€habeasÐ Ì&"% Ðcorpus€ad€prosequendum,€ð ðdirecting€the€production€of€a€.€.€.€prisoner€for€trial€on€criminal€charges,Ð ¸'#& Ðis€not€a€detainer€within€the€meaning€of€the€Agreement€and€thus€does€not€trigger€the€application€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€Agreement.ðð€€òòMauroóó,€436€U.S.€at€349.€€We€have€also€recognized€that€the€Agreement€ð ðis€not€theÐ )à$( Ðexclusive€means€of€transfer€of€prisoners€between€jurisdictionsðð€and€have€held€that€ð ðthe€writ€of€habeasÐ |*Ì%) Ðcorpus€ad€prosequendum€[is]€not€.€.€.€a€detainer€within€the€meaning€of€the€agreement€and€thus€doesÐ h+¸&* Ðnot€trigger€the€application€of€the€agreement.ðð€€òòMetheny€v.€Stateóó,€589€S.W.2d€943,€945€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ° ÐApp.€1979).€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€the€provisions€of€the€Agreement€were€never€triggered€becauseÐ œì Ða€detainer€was€not€filed€against€the€Defendant.€€Because€the€Agreement€was€never€triggered,€theÐ ˆØ Ðtransfer€of€the€Defendant€between€federal€and€state€custody€before€the€final€disposition€of€the€chargesÐ tÄ Ðagainst€him€did€not€violate€the€Agreement.€€òòSeeóó€òòMauroóó,€436€U.S.€at€360„61;€òòMethenyóó,€589€S.W.2dÐ `° Ðat€945.€€€€€€€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àFurthermore,€even€if€the€provisions€of€the€Agreement€had€been€triggered,€we€find€that€theÐ $ t ÐState€did€not€violate€the€provisions.€€The€Agreement€applies€only€to€prisoners€who€are€alreadyÐ  ` Ðserving€a€sentence€of€imprisonment€in€another€jurisdiction.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„31„101€art.Ð ü L  ÐIII(a),€art.€IV(a)€(referring€to€a€prisoner€who€ð ðhas€entered€uponðð€and€who€ð ðis€serving€a€term€ofÐ è 8  Ðimprisonmentðð).€€Although€the€Defendant€was€held€in€federal€custody€while€he€was€awaiting€trialÐ Ô$  Ðon€federal€drug€charges,€he€was€not€tried€on€those€charges€until€December€of€1995.€€He€wasÐ À  Ðsentenced€to€life€plus€sixty€months,€or€five€years,€on€March€4,€1996.€€Thus,€the€Agreement€wouldÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€have€been€triggered€until€the€Defendant€had€begun€to€serve€his€federal€sentence€after€conviction.€Ð ˜è  ÐAfter€trial€and€sentencing€on€the€federal€charges,€the€Defendant€remained€in€federal€custody€untilÐ „Ô  Ðcustody€was€transferred€to€the€State€of€Tennessee€pursuant€to€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€adÐ pÀ Ðprosequendum€issued€on€April€16,€1996.€€After€custody€was€transferred€pursuant€to€that€writ,€theÐ \¬ ÐDefendant€was€tried€on€first€degree€murder€and€abuse€of€a€corpse€charges€in€McMinn€CountyÐ H˜ Ðbetween€June€3,€1996€and€June€6,€1996,€and€the€trial€resulted€in€guilty€verdicts€on€both€charges.€Ð 4„ ÐAfter€trial,€the€Defendant€remained€in€state€custody€until€September€1996,€when€he€was€returned€toÐ  p Ðfederal€custody.€€Because€the€Defendant€was€tried€on€the€indictments€prior€to€being€returned€toÐ  \ Ðfederal€custody,€the€State€could€not€have€violated€the€Agreement.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„31„101,€art.€IV(e).€Ð øH ÐLikewise,€when€the€Defendant€was€again€returned€to€state€custody€from€federal€custody€in€1999€forÐ ä4 Ðsentencing,€he€had€already€been€tried€and€convicted€on€the€charges.€€Because€he€had€already€beenÐ Ð  Ðtried€on€the€indictments,€the€provision€mandating€dismissal€of€the€charges€ð ð[i]f€trial€is€not€had€on€anyÐ ¼  Ðindictment€.€.€.€prior€to€the€prisonerððs€being€returned€to€the€original€place€of€imprisonmentðð€wasÐ ¨ø Ðinapplicable.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòNashóó,€473€U.S.€at€725„26;€òòState€v.€Evittsóó,€915€S.W.2d€468,€769„70Ð ”ä Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€875€S.W.2d€278,€281„82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€Ð €Ð ÐAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€State€did€not€violate€the€anti„shuttling€provisions€of€the€InterstateÐ l¼ ÐAgreement€on€Detainers.Ð X ¨ Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð D!” Ðà@ÉÉ#ìàIX.€€SENTENCINGˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€his€life€sentence€for€firstÐ $X" Ðdegree€murder€to€run€consecutively€to€his€federal€sentence€of€life€plus€five€years.€€He€asserts€that€itÐ ô$D # Ðis€ð ðcruel€and€unusual€punishmentðð€to€give€him€consecutive€life€sentences€when€the€first€sentence€isÐ à%0!$ Ða€mandatory€life€sentence€without€the€possibility€of€parole.€€He€also€argues€that€to€do€so€defies€logic.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÔ‡XMiXXXMiÔà  àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€CourtÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhas€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinationsÐ )à$( Ðmade€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€isÐ |*Ì%) Ðð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÐ h+¸&* Ðprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ð ° Ð1991).Ð œì ÐÌà  àWhen€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider:€(a)€the€evidence,Ð tÄ Ðif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€the€presentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€ofÐ `° Ðsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€theÐ L œ Ðcriminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÐ 8 ˆ Ðmade€by€the€defendant€regarding€sentencing;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÐ $ t Ðrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,€844€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€Tenn.Ð  ` ÐCode€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€theÐ À  Ðfactors€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€areÐ ¬ü  Ðadequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€haveÐ ˜è  Ðpreferred€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð „Ô  ÐÔ#†XMiXXXMiVP#ÔÔ#†¼%»XXMi™;#ÔÔ‡XMiX»¼%Ôà  àÌà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€32(c)(2)€provides€that€when€the€defendant€hasÐ \¬ Ðð ðadditional€sentences€or€portions€thereof€to€serve,€as€the€result€of€conviction€in€other€states€or€òòinÐ H˜ Ðfederal€courtóó,€the€sentence€imposed€òòshall€be€consecutiveóó€thereto€unless€the€court€shall€determine€inÐ 4„ Ðthe€exercise€of€its€discretion€that€good€cause€exists€to€run€the€sentences€concurrently€and€explicitlyÐ  p Ðso€orders.ðð€€(Emphasis€added).€€A€trial€court€may€also€sentence€a€defendant€to€consecutive€sentencesÐ  \ Ðif€the€court€determines€that€the€defendant€has€a€record€of€criminal€activity€which€is€extensive.€€Tenn.Ð øH ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2).€€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àWhen€sentencing€the€Defendant€to€a€consecutive€sentence,€the€trial€court€mentioned€theÐ ¼  Ðpositive€things€the€Defendant€had€done€since€being€incarcerated€in€federal€prison,€such€as€becomingÐ ¨ø Ða€Christian€and€taking€classes€offered€by€the€prison.€€The€court,€however,€placed€great€emphasis€onÐ ”ä Ðthe€Defendantððs€extensive€prior€criminal€activity€involving€drugs.€€The€court€stated,€ð ðI€think€in€theÐ €Ð Ðexercise€of€my€duty€.€.€.€based€on€that€extensive€record€and€Rule€32€.€.€.€that€I€would€be€derelict€inÐ l¼ Ðmy€duties€if€I€did€not€run€this€consecutive.ðð€€Under€our€sentencing€statute€and€Rule€32€of€theÐ X ¨ ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€lawful€sentence.€€It€appears€thatÐ D!” Ðthe€court€considered€the€relevant€sentencing€principles.€€Accordingly,€we€cannot€find€error€in€theÐ 0"€  Ðorder€of€consecutive€sentencing.€Ð #l! Ѐ€€€Ô#†¼%»XXMi¾X#ÔÔ€XMiX»¼%ÔÐ $X" Ðà@ll%ìàCONCLUSIONˆÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àWe€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€properly€function€as€the€thirteenth€juror€andÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€the€State€failed€to€prove€that€the€offense€was€committed€prior€to€the€return€of€the€formal€charge.€Ð ¸'#& ÐAccordingly,€we€reverse€the€Defendantððs€convictions€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÌÐ  h+¸&* ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð `° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE