ÿWPCy| …U:V % 0&Ü–w@r 4² Æ TÕ 0 ) 0DI 0J 0T× 0^+ 0h‰ 0rñ 0|c 0@ß 0† B¥ 0 1uR 0dÇUG*+ D3UB)ˆDC± AMô­ACî1'²ƒÙé\®E"ýó$ð'- *7,áR.ó31&4+6=8rD:õ¶<„«?·/BcæE II°SL¡Ož¤RáBUÍ#X ðY3û^©.b+×døgµúi¯lÀÃnv~ƒsvÓu AOÔzÆ#{ 0Dé{ D/-| B\|,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ ŒVDŽVD‘’D“D”U•Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|xž MS1 MS31 MS43G3kidnapping(Ð(3y‰$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€Ù¸XXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd€,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌSep…temberÏ30,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€proof€at€trial€revealed€that€a€motorist€traveling€between€the€Pit€Stop€South€and€theÏPhiladelphia€Cemetery€would€take€Highway€55€to€108,€108€to€127,€127€to€56,€56€to€the€GrundyÏCounty€line,€then€to€the€cemetery.€The€total€distance€of€this€trip€is€approximately€16.2€miles.€€AtÏthe€posted€speed€rate,€this€distance€takes€an€average€of€twenty€minutes€to€travel.Ì wÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóEvidence€of€the€crimes€against€Vicky€Metzger€and€Pamela€Sue€Back,€the€second€victimÏat€the€I„24€eastbound€Rest€Area,€was€developed€during€pre„trial€suppression€hearings.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„304(a)€(1989)€defines€aggravated€kidnapping€as€"falseÏimprisonment€committed€.€.€.€(3)€with€the€intent€to€inflict€serious€bodily€injury.€.€.€."€€FalseÏimprisonment€is€the€knowing€removal€or€confinement€of€another€unlawfully€so€as€to€interfere€withÏthe€other's€liberty.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„302€(1989).Ì yÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€does€not€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€as€to€theÏoffense€of€first€degree€murder€other€than€to€the€issue€of€the€perpetrator's€identity.Ì ßÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWithin€this€issue,€the€appellant,€again,€contends€that€the€òòindictmentóó€fails€to€allege€thatÏ"any€removal€or€confinement€substantially€interfered€with€the€victim's€liberty."€This€contention€hasÏpreviously€been€addressed€in€Section€I,€and,€was€found€to€be€without€merit.Ì ¤Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€contests€the€admissibility€of€the€DNA€opinion€evidence.€€This€allegation€isÏaddressed€as€a€separate€issue€by€the€appellant€and€will€be€so€addressed€by€this€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòinfraóóÏSection€III.€€Ì óÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAlthough€less€than€positive€identification€was€provided€by€either,€Ed€Martin€testified,€"IÏthink€I€can€identify€the€person€in€the€truck,"€and€pointed€to€the€appellant.€€Fults€testified€that€theÏappellant€looked€like€the€man€she€saw€at€the€Pit€Stop€South€ð ðexcept€for€the€hair€and€weight.ððÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€frequency€of€the€binding€pattern€in€Caucasians€is€1€in€19,000.Ì #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóEthidium€bromide€is€a€florescent€dye€that€binds€to€DNA,€allowing€it€to€be€visualized.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€note€that€identical€twins€have€all€three€billion€pairs€the€same.Ì ×Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€following€procedure€explained€herein€summarizes€the€RFLP€procedure€utilized€byÏCellmark€Diagnostic€in€the€present€case.€€We€acknowledge,€however,€that€other€variations€of€theÏRFLP€method€of€DNA€analysis€exist€and€are€employed€successfully€by€other€laboratories.Ì éÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóQuestions€have€arisen€concerning€the€use€of€ethidium€bromide€at€the€beginning€of€theÏprocess.€€Using€ethidium€bromide€prior€to€electrophoresis€has€been€shown€to€alter€the€mobility€ofÏfragments€at€high€DNA€concentrations,€thus€decreasing€the€reliability€of€fragment€sizeÏmeasurements.Ì ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThis€process€is€known€as€"Southern€Blotting."Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€probes€utilized€in€this€case€were€MS1,€MS31,€MS43,€G3.Ì ýÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThis€process€is€referred€to€as€autoradiography.Ì hÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIt€is€the€length€of€the€DNA€fragments€that€individualizes€each€living€thing,€thus,€theÏposition€of€the€bands€on€a€DNA€print€can€differentiate€individuals.Ì ëÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€alleles€which€comprise€the€loci€consist€of€multiple€pairs€of€the€nucleotide€bases€A,€T,ÏG,€and€C,€òòsupraóó,€which€bond€according€to€the€base€pair€rule.€€In€order€to€generate€a€profile€that€isÏunique,€Cellmark€studies€four€highly€variable€sites€referred€to€as€polymorphic€loci.€€Ì zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€the€present€case,€the€six€bands€that€were€obtained€from€the€DNA€sample€(semen)Ïrecovered€from€the€victim€match€the€six€bands€obtained€from€the€DNA€labeled€John€Chapman.€Ì ­Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€the€present€case,€a€combination€of€two€bands€was€necessary€in€order€to€calculate€theÏfrequency.€€Cooper€used€the€analysis€specific€to€probes€MS1€and€MS31€because€they€could€beÏidentified€in€the€evidence€as€well€as€in€the€blood.€€However,€the€remaining€three€bands€were€eitherÏMS43€or€G3.€€So,€a€combined€analysis€was€completed€on€the€final€three€bands.€€Cooper€testifiedÏthat€the€combination€of€data€in€determining€a€frequency€statistic€results€in€a€more€conservativeÏnumber.€Ì YÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóBecause€the€bands€generated€at€each€locus€depend€on€whether€the€individual€isÏhomozygous€or€heterozygous€for€those€particular€alleles,€the€formula€varies€depending€on€theÏallele€form.€€The€frequency€for€a€homozygous€allele€is€computed€using€the€formula€p(al)2;€theÏfrequency€for€a€heterozygous€allele€is€computed€using€2(p(al1)p(al2));€where€p€denotesÏprobability,€and€al€represents€each€allele.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóHardy„Weinberg€principles€derive€from€an€algebraic€equation€that€describes€the€geneticÏequilibrium€within€a€population.€€The€principle€states€that€gene€frequencies€will€remain€constantÏfrom€generation€to€generation€within€a€population€unless€outside€forces€act€to€change€it,€providedÏmating€remains€random.Ì ¦Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThis€hypothesis€is€the€basis€of€the€appellant's€challenge€of€Cellmark's€results.€€HeÏargues€that,€since€an€Appalachian€subgroup€was€not€employed€by€Cellmark,€the€ratio€produced€inÏthe€instant€case€cannot€be€accurate.Ì —Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€correctly€states€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„7„117€(1991)€(admissibility€ofÏthe€results€of€DNA€analysis€in€civil€or€criminal€trials)€is€inconsequential€to€the€present€case€as€it€onlyÏapplies€"to€persons€committing€or€attempting€to€commit€one€of€the€offenses€set€out€in€ðð€40„35„321€on€or€after€July€1,€1991."€€òòSeeóó€€Compiler's€Notes,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„7„117.€€TheÏoffenses€in€the€present€case€occurred€on€or€about€April€19,€1990.Ì ”Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€procedures€and€protocols€employed€by€Cellmark€in€the€present€case€areÏsubstantially€in€compliance€with€the€recommended€procedures€of€the€Technical€Working€GroupÏon€DNA€Analysis€Methods€(TWGDAM).Ì ×Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔOn€July€17,€1990,€at€least€seven€additional€TBI€subpoenas€were€issued€to€areaÏhospitals€requiring€them€to€produce€names€and€other€personal€information€on€white€male€patientsÏwith€blood€type€B.€€We€reject€the€appellantððs€argument€that€this€alleged€dragnet€approach€violatedÏhis€constitutional€rights€under€the€holding€of€òòDavis€v.€Mississippióó,€394€U.S.€721,€89€S.Ct.€1394Ï(1969).Ì ÃÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€38„6„102€provides€that€"criminal€investigators€shallÏhave€full€power€to€issue€subpoenas€for€witnesses€.€.€.€."Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€subpoena€received€by€the€appellant€was€captioned€"Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation€Subpoena"€and€provided,€in€pertinent€part:Ìà8 àYou€are€hereby€commanded€to€summon€òòJohn€Chapmanóó€to€personally€appearÏbefore€the€undersigned€Special€Agent€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€InvestigationÏon€òòJuly€13thóó€,€19€òò92óó,€at€òò1:00€póó€m€at€òòGrundy€Co.€Jail,€Altamontóó,€Tennessee€andÏfrom€day€to€day€hereafter€until€discharged€and€bring€all€papers,€books,€records,Ïagreements,€documents€and€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€to€be€sworn€and€questioned€by€theÏundersigned€Special€Agent€for€the€purpose€of€giving€a€written€statement,Ïdelivering€aforementioned€items€and€obtaining€evidence€by€said€agent€in€anÏinvestigation€conducted€by€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€pertaining€toÏòòTBI€File€5A„530óó.Ì )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant's€trial€began€on€March€21,€1994,€concluding€on€April€2,€1994,€over€oneÏyear€prior€to€our€supreme€court's€opinion€in€òòDyleóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€612,€which€was€released€on€MayÏ15,€1995.€€However,€òòDyleóó€is€applicable€both€to€those€cases€on€appeal€when€the€opinion€wasÏreleased€and€to€those€cases€tried€after€that€date.€€òòIdóó.€€€Ì ŸÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóCooper€testified€that,€unlike€routine€forensic€testing,€serological€testing€had€not€beenÏperformed€on€the€test€samples.€€Therefore,€Cellmark€was€not€informed€as€to€whether€the€samplesÏwere€blood,€ketchup,€etc.Ì !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÛXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóCooper€testified€that€"there€was€one€erroneous€match€made€out€of€those€50€samples."Ì îÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀéÞXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€Confrontation€Clause€only€guarantees€"an€opportunity€for€effective€cross„examination,€not€cross„examination€that€is€effective€in€whatever€way,€and€to€whatever€extent,€theÏdefense€might€wish."€€òòDelaware€v.€Fenstereróó,€474€U.S.€18,€20,€106€S.Ct.€292,€294€(1985)€(citationÏomitted).Ì «Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀéÞXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTo€be€qualified€as€an€expert,€one€must€be€particularly€skilled,€learned,€or€experienced€inÏa€science,€art,€trade,€business,€profession€or€vocation.€€òòOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.óó,€850ÏS.W.2d€439€(Tenn.€1992).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀéÞXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93€(Tenn.€1997).Ì ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀéÞXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóOur€supreme€court€held,€in€òòJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€602„603,€that€enhancement€factorÏ(10)€is€not€inherent€in€offenses€where€serious€bodily€injury€is€an€element€of€the€offense€charged.€ÏFactor€(10)€is€appropriate€where€the€conduct€of€the€person€has€caused€or€increased€risk€either€toÏhuman€life€in€general€or€to€the€victim€in€particular€and€risk€to€human€life€is€not€an€element€of€theÏoffense.€€òòState€v.€Foxóó,€No.€03C01„9503„CR„00061€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€June€21,Ï1996)€(citations€omitted).€€We€conclude€that€stabbing€the€victim€multiple€times,€resulting€in€herÏdeath,€and€attempting€to€strangle€her€created€a€risk€above€and€beyond€that€necessarily€inherent€inÏthe€crimes€of€aggravated€kidnapping€and€aggravated€sexual€battery.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò òÙ€€ÙßR€-.,A1-j|` ß `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ àFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9604„CC„00137Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àGRUNDY€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€THOMAS€W.€GRAHAM,ÏJudgeÌJOHN€ALLEN€CHAPMAN,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(First€Degree€Murder;€Aggravated€Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)à àKidnapping;€Aggravated€SexualÏà àà àà àà àà à)à àBattery)ÌÌó óÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òPHILLIP€A.€CONDRAó óà àà àò òà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONó óÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.€O.€Box€220à àÌ204€Betsy€Pack€Driveà àà àà àò òMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY,€IIó óÌJasper,€TN€€37347à àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌ(AT€TRIAL€AND€ON€APPEAL)à àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌò òROBERT€S.€PETERSó óà àà àà àà àà àà àÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àò òJ.€MICHAEL€TAYLORó óà àà àÌ3rd€National€Bank€Buildingà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌ100€1st.€Avenue,€S.W.à àà àà à1st€American€National€Bank€BuildingÌWinchester,€TN€€37398à àà àà àDayton,€TN€€37321ÌÌ(AT€TRIAL€ONLY)à àà àà àà àò òTHOMAS€D.ÏHEMBREEó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€DistrictÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLawyer's€Buildingà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJasper,€TN€€37347ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇà@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellant,€John€Allen€Chapman,€appeals€from€the€April€2,€1994,ÏGrundy€County€jury€verdict€finding€him€guilty€of€first€degree€murder,€aggravatedÏkidnapping,€and€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€The€jury€fixed€the€appellantððsÏsentence€at€life€imprisonment€for€first€degree€murder€and€the€trial€court€imposedÏmaximum€sentences€of€twelve€years€each€for€the€remaining€offenses€andÏordered€all€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€On€appeal,€the€appellantÏchallenges:ÌÓÓà8 àI.€€The€sufficiency€of€the€indictment€charging€aggravatedÏkidnapping;ÌÌà8 àII.€€The€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€for€all€three€convictions;ÌÌà8 àIII.€€The€admission€of€DNA€evidence;ÌÌà8 àIV.€€Denial€of€the€appellant's€motion€to€suppress€blood€samplesÏobtained€during€the€investigation;ÌÌà8 àV.€€Failure€of€the€trial€court€to€properly€instruct€the€jury€regardingÏidentity;ÌÌà8 àVI.€€The€scope€of€cross„examination€of€Stateððs€witnesses;€andÌÌà8 àVII.€Sentencing:€length€of€sentences€and€imposition€of€consecutiveÏsentences.ÌÌÓÓÌà àAfter€review,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌà@ àò òBACKGROUNDó óÌÌà@ àò òGuilt€Phaseó óÌà àOn€April€19,€1990,€Michelle€Blake,€the€victim€in€this€case,€was€employedÏas€a€clerk€at€the€Pit€Stop€South,€a€gas€and€convenience€store€in€McMinnville.€ÏMrs.€Blake€was€twenty„six€years€old,€married€and€the€mother€of€a€four„year„oldÏdaughter.€€€On€this€date,€she€was€scheduled€to€work€the€3:00€p.m.€to€11:00€p.m.Ïshift.€€At€5:15€p.m.,€Mrs.€Blake's€husband,€William€Blake,€arrived€at€the€Pit€StopÏSouth€to€pick€up€the€couple's€vehicle,€a€Ford€Bobcat.€€He€left€the€business,Ïtraveled€to€a€video€store,€and€then€went€home.€€As€was€customary,€Blake€was€toÏreturn€to€the€Pit€Stop€later€that€evening€with€his€wifeððs€dinner.ÌÌà àAround€8:30€p.m.,€Ed€Martin€stopped€at€the€store€to€purchase€gasoline.€ÏMartin€pumped€three€dollars€worth€of€gasoline€and€went€inside€the€store€to€pay.€ÏAs€Martin€was€leaving€the€store,€Mrs.€Blake€remarked,€"I€wish€he'd€go€aheadÏand€leave.€€I've€already€pumped€his€gas,"€referring€to€a€man€sitting€outside€theÏfront€of€the€store€in€an€older€model€gray€Chevrolet€pick€up€truck€which€displayedÏGrundy€County€license€plates.ÌÌà àFifteen€minutes€later,€around€8:45€p.m.,€Sylvia€Fults€and€her€husbandÏpulled€into€the€drive„through€window€of€the€Pit€Stop€South€to€purchaseÍcigarettes.€€Although€she€depressed€the€customer€assistance€button,€no€clerkÏappeared.€€She€then€noticed€Mrs.€Blake€at€the€full€service€pump€with€a€jug€in€herÏhand.€€€Mrs.€Blake€re„entered€the€store€to€wait€on€Fults.€€While€waiting€on€Fults,ÏMrs.€Blake€ÌÓÓà8 àtalked€about€this€guy€being€there€before€getting€gas€and€talkingÏabout€him€being€so€weird.€€She€said€he€had€been€there€earlier€andÏgot€gas€in€his€truck€and€he€had€left€or€started€to€leave,€and€cameÏback€and€had€her€put€gas€in€a€can,€and€she€said,€'Now€he's€backÏwanting€it€in€a€jug.'ÌÌÓÓMrs.€Blake€also€told€Fults€that€this€man€had€asked€her€if€she€had€wanted€anyÏhelp€since€she€was€at€the€store€by€herself.€€During€this€conversation,€FultsÏnoticed€a€man€in€the€store€who€looked€like€he€was€trying€to€scare€Mrs.€Blake.ÏWhen€she€was€leaving€the€parking€lot,€she€observed€a€"gray€primer€color"€pickÏup€truck€with€chrome€parked€in€front€of€the€store.ÌÌÌà àMary€Jones€lives€across€the€street€from€the€Pit€Stop€South.€€Around€8:55Ïp.m.€on€April€19,€1990,€she€heard€what€she€thought€to€be€a€scream€coming€fromÏthe€front€of€her€house.€€After€hearing€an€apparent€second€scream,€she€went€toÏher€front€porch€where€she€observed€a€truck€on€the€Pit€Stopððs€parking€lot.€€SheÏstated€that€the€truck€was€a€"gray€primer€color"€and€had€a€Chevrolet€logo€acrossÏthe€back€of€the€tailgate.€€She€noticed€a€man€and€a€woman€in€the€truck.€€Ms.ÏJones€related€that€ð ðat€one€time€it€looked€like€she€pulled€away€from€him.ðð€€SheÍassumed€that,€more€than€likely,€it€was€simply€a€ð ðdomestic€problem."€€The€truckÏthen€pulled€out€of€the€parking€lot€and€onto€Highway€55.€€She€commented€that,Ïas€the€truck€left€the€parking€lot,€it€was€going€very€fast€and€that€it€made€loudÏsounds.ÌÌà àAt€9:05€p.m.,€as€planned,€William€Blake€returned€to€the€Pit€Stop€SouthÏwith€his€wife's,€dinner.€€When€he€arrived€at€the€Pit€Stop,€he€noticed€two€vehiclesÏin€the€parking€lot.€€Two€customers€approached€him€and€inquired€as€to€"what€wasÏgoing€on"€as€there€was€no€attendant€on€duty.€€Immediately,€Blake€began€toÏsearch€the€premises€for€his€wife.€€During€this€search,€one€of€the€customersÏdiscovered€Mrs.€Blake's€eyeglasses€in€the€parking€lot.€€At€this€point,€the€policeÏwere€called€and€the€owner€of€the€station,€Mr.€Stanton,€arrived.€€After€inspectingÏthe€premises,€Mr.€Stanton€stated€that€no€money€had€been€taken€from€the€cashÏregister,€although€the€key€that€functioned€as€the€"on„off"€switch€was€missing.€€AÏsearch€then€began€in€Warren€County€for€Michelle€Blake.ÌÌà àJoe€Roper€informed€law€enforcement€officials€that,€while€traveling€homeÏon€the€evening€of€April€19,€1990,€on€route€108,€a€vehicle€came€up€behind€him€atÏan€excessive€rate€of€speed€and€passed€him€on€a€double€yellow€line.€€HeÏdescribed€the€vehicle€as€being€a€gray€Chevrolet€pick€up€truck€with€large€tiresÏand€Grundy€County€license€plates.€€Roper€also€stated€that€there€were€twoÏpeople€in€the€truck.€€€Dale€Winton€reported€that,€at€9:05€p.m.,€he€was€traveling€onÍhighway€127€when€a€vehicle€came€up€behind€him€"real€fast"€and€swervedÏaround€him,€almost€running€him€off€the€road.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€He€described€the€vehicle€asÏbeing€a€dark€colored€1979€or€1980€Chevrolet€pick€up€truck€with€"cherry€bombÏmufflers"€and€chrome€on€the€side€of€the€truck.ÌÌà àDanny€Wannamaker,€whose€residence€is€directly€adjacent€to€theÏPhiladelphia€Cemetery€in€Grundy€County,€testified€that,€at€around€9:20€p.m.€onÏApril€19,€1990,€he€took€a€shower€and€prepared€for€bed.€€Around€9:50€p.m.,€heÏheard€a€vehicle€that€sounded€like€it€did€not€have€a€muffler.€€He€looked€out€theÏwindow,€but€did€not€see€anything.€€Again,€he€heard€the€vehicle€stop€for€a€fewÏminutes,€then€"the€motor€was€turned€off,€cranked€back€up€and€took€off,€againÏapproaching€the€house."€€Herbert€Lewis,€who€also€lives€behind€the€PhiladelphiaÏCemetery,€was€at€home€alone€on€the€evening€of€April€19,€1990.€€Shortly€afterÏ9:30€p.m.,€he€heard€what€appeared€to€be€a€female€screaming€for€help,€followedÏshortly€thereafter,€by€a€loud€vehicle€coming€around€the€bend€from€behind€theÏgraveyard.€€He€explained€that€he€was€not€alarmed€by€the€screams€because€heÏwas€ð ðuse€(sic)€to€hearing€people€screaming,€raising€cane€(sic)€at€the€volleyballÏcourt."ÌÌà àThe€next€morning€between€7:00€and€7:30€a.m.,€Sharon€Shannon,€theÏdaughter€of€Herbert€and€Melba€Lewis,€dropped€her€six„month„old€son€off€at€herÏparents'€home.€€As€she€was€leaving,€she€spotted€what€at€first€appeared€to€her€toÏbe€shoes,€however,€she€soon€realized€it€was€a€body.€€Because€her€eleven€yearÏold€daughter€was€in€the€vehicle€with€her,€she€did€not€stop,€but€returned€to€herÏparents'€home€instead.€€After€leaving€her€daughter€with€her€parents,€ShannonÏreturned€to€the€cemetery€to€verify€the€presence€of€the€body€and€then€contactedÏthe€authorities.€€The€body€was€identified€as€that€of€Michelle€Blake.ÌÌà àAn€investigative€team€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€arrivedÏat€the€scene.€€The€victim€was€found€fully€clothed€with€her€blouse€partiallyÏunbuttoned.€€Her€brassiere€was€missing.€€The€victim's€body€was€examined€forÏthe€presence€of€hair,€fibers,€and€fingerprints.€€Joe€Minor,€a€member€of€theÏinvestigative€team,€testified€that€a€whitish€stain€which€appeared€to€be€semenÏwas€discovered€on€the€left€breast€of€the€victimððs€body.€€The€whitish€stainÏextended€from€the€victimððs€breast€to€her€stomach.€€Examination€of€the€stainÏrevealed€that€the€substance€did€contain€spermatozoa,€and€further€testingÏindicated€that€the€source€of€the€semen€was€a€Type€B€secretor.€€Ì€€Ìà àDr.€Charles€Harlan,€the€chief€medical€examiner€for€the€State€ofÏTennessee,€performed€an€autopsy€upon€the€body€of€Michelle€Blake€on€April€21,Ï1990.€€His€report€identified€a€total€of€seven€stab€wounds,€one€to€the€left€side€ofÍthe€neck,€four€to€the€left€breast,€and€two€to€the€mid„line€of€the€back.€€He€indicatedÏthat€the€wounds€were€caused€by€a€single€sided€instrument,€three€to€three€andÏone„half€inches€in€length.€€Three€of€the€wounds€caused€damage€to€main€organsÏwhich€resulted€in€the€victim's€death,€i.e.,€damage€to€the€carotid€artery,€damageÏto€the€heart,€and€damage€to€the€right€lung.€€He€opined€that€death€occurred€withinÏthree€to€ten€minutes€of€the€injuries.€€The€medical€examiner€further€explained€thatÏa€sharp€line€of€demarcation€existed€on€the€victim's€neck,€indicative€of€ligatureÏstrangulation.€€He€noted€there€were€no€defensive€wounds€and€no€evidence€ofÏforcible€vaginal€intercourse.€€He€also€determined€that€the€victim's€blood€was€€Ïtype€O.€€€Ì̛̜à à€Ìà àDespite€descriptions€of€the€perpetrator,€his€truck,€and€available€scientificÏevidence,€the€case€remained€unsolved€for€over€two€years.€€In€July,€1992,ÏSpecial€Agent€Larry€Davis€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,€wasÏcalled€to€assist€Grundy€County€officials€in€the€investigation€of€the€June€7€murderÏof€Vicky€Sue€Metzger,€whose€body€was€discovered€at€the€I„24€Eastbound€RestÏArea€near€Monteagle.€€On€July€13,€Davis€interviewed€the€appellant€who€was€theÏattendant€on€duty€at€the€rest€area€on€the€date€of€the€murder.€€The€attendant€atÏthe€westbound€rest€area€was€also€interviewed.€€Neither€man€was€placed€underÏarrest,€although€both€men€were€asked€to€submit€blood€samples€for€DNAÍcomparison€analysis€on€semen€found€on€the€victim.€€On€November€5,€1992,ÏDavis€was€requested€to€assist€in€the€investigation€of€an€assault€on€anotherÏvictim€at€the€I„24€Eastbound€Rest€Area.€€On€this€occasion,€the€appellant€wasÏidentified€as€the€assailant€and€was€in€custody€at€the€Monteagle€police€stationÏwhen€interviewed€by€Agent€Davis.€€The€appellant€"stated€that€he€had€assaultedÏthe€victim€because€he€had€been€drinking€and€smoking€marijuana."€€Again,€theÏappellant€submitted€to€blood€testing.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àFrom€these€tests,€it€was€determined€that€the€appellant€has€Type€B€blood.€ÏReview€of€the€case€file€at€this€point€led€authorities€to€the€belief€that€the€appellantÏmay€have€been€involved€in€the€1990€death€of€Michelle€Blake.€€DNA€comparisonÏanalysis€was€then€requested€on€the€appellant's€blood€sample€and€the€semenÏsample€recovered€from€Mrs.€Blake's€body.€€The€results€from€the€tests€revealedÏthat€the€DNA€binding€pattern€on€each€sample€matched.€€Additional€forensic€testsÏestablished€that€fibers€found€on€the€victim's€clothing€were€consistent€with€theÏfibers€found€in€the€carpet€of€the€appellantððs€Chevrolet€pick€up€truck.€€The€proof€atÏtrial€established€that,€in€April,€1990,€the€appellant€lived€in€Grundy€County€andÏwas€employed€by€a€nursery€in€Warren€County.€€On€occasion,€after€regularÏworking€hours€at€the€nursery,€he€would€work€for€his€supervisor,€FloydÏHardcastle,€who€lived€in€Warren€County.€€When€working€for€Mr.€Hardcastle,€hisÍcommute€to€and€from€home€would€take€him€by€the€Pit€Stop€South.€€€TheÏappellant€admitted€that€he€had,€on€occasion,€purchased€gas€at€the€Pit€StopÏSouth.€€However,€when€showed€the€photograph€of€Michelle€Blake€at€trial,€heÏstated€that€he€did€not€recognize€her.€€On€cross„examination,€the€StateÏintroduced€a€payroll€check€from€Hardcastle€to€the€appellant,€dated€March€3,Ï1990,€which€was€cashed€at€the€Pit€Stop€South,€bearing€the€initials€ð ðM.B.ðð€€TheÏinitials€were€identified€as€being€those€of€Michelle€Blake.€€The€appellant€alsoÏadmitted€that,€in€April,€1990,€he€owned€a€1977€gray€Chevrolet€short„bed€pickupÏtruck€which€displayed€Grundy€County€license€plates.€€He€stated€that€he€sold€theÏtruck€in€the€spring€of€1991.€€Additionally,€the€proof€established€that,€in€April€ofÏ1990,€the€appellantððs€truck€had€other€matching€characteristics€to€that€of€the€truckÏdriven€by€the€abductor€of€Michelle€Blake.ÌÌà àBased€upon€the€evidence€introduced,€the€jury€convicted€the€appellant€ofÏfirst€degree€murder,€aggravated€kidnapping,€and€aggravated€sexual€battery.ÌÌà àFollowing€the€testimony€of€various€defense€witnesses€and€the€proofÏintroduced€at€the€guilt€phase,€the€jury€fixed€the€appellantððs€sentence€for€firstÏdegree€murder€at€life€imprisonment.ÌÌÌà@ àò òSentencing€Phase:€Aggravated€Kidnapping€and€Aggravated€SexualÍBatteryòòÌà àóóó óThe€hearing€to€determine€the€appropriate€sentences€for€the€appellant'sÏremaining€convictions€was€held€on€May€12,€1994.€The€presentence€reportÏrevealed€that,€at€the€time€the€report€was€prepared,€the€appellant€was€a€twenty„six€year€old€Caucasian€male,€married,€and€the€father€of€a€three€year€old€son.€€HeÏhas€a€tenth€grade€education.€€After€dropping€out€of€school,€he€joined€theÏTennessee€National€Guard.€€He€received€an€honorable€discharge€in€1992Ïattaining€the€rank€of€E„4.€€He€admits€to€being€an€alcoholic€and€to€occasionalÏmarijuana€use.€€Since€1987,€the€appellant€has€worked€for€various€employers€inÏthe€nursery€business€and,€briefly,€as€a€rest€area€attendant.€€Regarding€theÏappellant's€prior€record,€the€report€indicated€that€the€appellant,€on€the€date€ofÏthe€sentencing€hearing€in€this€case,€€had€one€count€of€first€degree€murder,€oneÏcount€of€aggravated€rape€and€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery€pending€in€theÏGrundy€County€Circuit€Court.€€Additionally,€the€appellant€has€three€priorÏconvictions€for€driving€while€intoxicated,€one€conviction€for€possession€ofÏmarijuana,€and€one€conviction€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€€He€wasÏarrested€for€possession€of€a€weapon€for€purposes€of€going€armed,€however,€thisÏcharge€was€dismissed€upon€payment€of€costs€and€confiscation€of€the€firearm.ÌÌà àLarry€Davis,€a€special€agent€with€the€TBI,€testified€regarding€hisÏinvestigation€of€the€murder€of€Vicky€Sue€Metzger€and€the€assault€of€Pamela€SueÏBack.€€He€explained€that,€through€his€investigation€of€these€two€cases,€the€TBIÍwas€able€to€target€the€appellant€as€a€suspect€in€the€present€case.€€He€alsoÏrecounted€the€appellant's€confession€to€the€assault€on€Pamela€Sue€Back.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€three€non„statutory€mitigating€factors€and€fiveÏstatutory€enhancement€factors€applicable.€€In€doing€so,€the€court€imposed€theÏmaximum€sentence€of€twelve€years€for€each€conviction€within€the€range.ÏMoreover,€based€upon€the€allegations€of€the€pending€indictments,€the€courtÏconcluded€that€the€appellant€was€a€dangerous€offender€and€ordered€that€allÏsentences€be€served€consecutively.ÌÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Indictmentó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€first€contends€that€the€indictment€for€aggravatedÏkidnapping€is€void€because€it€fails€to€set€forth€the€essential€elements€of€theÏoffense.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€the€indictment€fails€to€allege€the€elementsÏof€false€imprisonment,€which€is€an€essential€element€of€aggravated€kidnapping.€ÏCount€two€of€the€indictment,€which€charged€the€offense€of€aggravatedÏkidnapping,€alleged€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àJOHN€ALLEN€CHAPMAN€.€.€.€did€unlawfully,€(intentionally),€.€.€.Ïòòremove€and€confineóó€one€Michelle€Darlene€Blake€with€theòò€intent€toÏinflict€serious€bodily€injuryóó€upon€the€person€of€the€said€MichelleÏDarlene€Blake,€in€violation€of€.€.€.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„301.€.€.Í.× ƒ1 ××  ×ÌÌ(Emphasis€added)ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant€acknowledges€that€the€charging€instrument€includes€theÏstatutory€language€ð ðdid€unlawfully€.€.€.€remove€and€confineðð€one€MichelleÏDarlene€Blake.€€He€argues,€however,€that€the€failure€of€the€indictment€to€includeÏthe€remaining€statutory€language€ð ðso€as€to€interfere€substantially€with€the€otherððsÏlibertyðð€renders€the€indictment€void.€€ÌÌà àAn€indictment€should€state€the€facts€constituting€the€offense€in€ordinaryÏand€concise€language€in€such€a€manner€as€to€enable€a€person€of€commonÏunderstanding€to€know€what€is€intended,€and€with€that€degree€of€certainty€whichÏwill€enable€the€court,€on€conviction,€to€pronounce€the€proper€judgment.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„13„202€(1990);€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€537€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€€€This€court€recently€held€that€ð ð[i]f€an€offense€is€alleged€in€suchÏa€way€that€the€defendant€cannot€fail€to€be€apprised€of€the€elements€of€theÏoffense,€the€indictment€is€sufficient,€notwithstanding€the€fact€that€an€element€mayÏnot€be€specifically€alleged.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€John€Haws€Burrellóó,€No.€03C01„9404„CR„00157,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Feb.€11,€1997)€(Rule€11€applicationÍfiled,€April€10,€1997).ÌÌà àThe€indictment€in€this€case€alleges€that€the€appellant€removed€andÏconfined€Michelle€Darlene€Blake€with€the€intent€to€inflict€serious€bodily€injury.€ÏWe€find€the€language€of€the€indictment€provides€constitutionally€sufficient€noticeÏof€the€offense€charged€as€well€as€suitable€protection€against€double€jeopardy.ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÌÌà àNext,€the€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidenceÏas€to€each€count€of€the€indictment.€€Within€this€challenge,€he€alleges€(1)€that€theÏevidence€fails€to€prove,€in€regards€to€the€aggravated€kidnapping€conviction,€thatÏ"any€removal€or€confinement€substantially€interfered€with€the€victim's€liberty;"€Ï(2)€that,€concerning€the€aggravated€sexual€battery€conviction,€there€was€noÏproof€of€unlawful€sexual€contact€with€the€victim;€and€(3)€that€the€State€failed€toÏestablish,€by€either€lay€or€expert€testimony,€that€the€appellant€was,€indeed,€theÏperpetrator€of€the€offenses€committed€against€Ms.€Blake.× ƒ2 ××  ×€ÌÌà àWhen€a€challenge€is€made€on€appeal€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÍevidence,€this€court€must€adhere€to€certain€well„established€principles.€€First,€aÏjury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€isÏinitially€cloaked€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal€a€convictedÏdefendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€ÏòòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Next,€the€State€is€entitledÏto€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimateÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€Moreover,€this€court€may€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€ÏòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Viewing€the€evidenceÏunder€these€criteria,€it€is€this€court's€responsibility€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€theÏproof€was€sufficient€for€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307,€317,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,Ï259€(Tenn.€1994);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€ofÏguilt€predicated€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combinationÏof€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,Ï779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€à àÌÌà@ àò òA.€€Aggravated€Kidnappingó óÌà àThe€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€aggravated€kidnapping€pursuant€toÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„304(a).€€In€order€to€obtain€a€conviction€under€thisÏstatute,€the€State€must€prove€that€the€defendant€committed€the€act€of€falseÍimprisonment,€as€defined€in€ðð39„13„302,€òòsupraóó€note€5,€with€the€intent€to€inflictÏserious€bodily€injury.€.€.€."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„304.€€The€proof€establishesÏthat€Mrs.€Blake€disappeared€from€the€Pit€Stop€South€during€her€scheduled€shift,Ïleaving€behind€her€eyeglasses,€which€were€later€found€in€the€parking€lot.€€HerÏdisappearance€coincided€with€the€appearance€of€the€appellant€at€theÏconvenience€store.€€Mrs.€Blake€did€not€know€the€appellant.€€Various€witnessesÏthought€they€heard€the€victim's€screams.€€The€following€morning,€the€victim€wasÏfound€brutally€murdered.€€We€find€nothing€from€these€facts€to€suggest€that€theÏdeparture€of€the€victim€from€her€place€of€employment€was€occasioned€by€anyÏthing€other€than€removal€and€confinement€by€force,€ultimately€resulting€in€herÏdeath.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€ÌÌà@ àò òB.€€Aggravated€Sexual€Batteryó óÌà àNext,€the€appellant€challenges€his€conviction€for€the€aggravated€sexualÏbattery€committed€against€Michelle€Blake.€€Although€he€concedes€that€the€proofÏestablishes€serious€bodily€injury,€i.e.,€multiple€stab€wounds,€he€contends€thatÏthere€is€"no€proof€of€any€sexual€contact€with€Mrs.€Blake's€body€either€before€orÏafter€her€death.€€The€entire€proof€on€this€issue€consisted€of€the€testimony€that.€.€.Ïa€semen€stain€was€recovered€from€the€left€portion€off€her€body€extending€fromÍher€left€breast€to€her€abdominal€area."€€He€argues€that€the€"record€discloses€noÏevidence€whatsoever€that€the€victim's€intimate€parts€were€touched€as€part€andÏparcel€of€a€sexual€act."ÌÌà àIn€order€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€aggravated€sexual€battery,€this€courtÏmust€find€that€the€proof€establishes€that€the€appellant€made€unlawful€sexualÏcontact€with€the€victim€and€caused€bodily€injury€to€the€victim.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„504€(a)(2)€(1989).€€"'Sexual€contact'€includes€the€intentional€touching€ofÏthe€victim's,€the€defendant's,€or€any€other€person's€intimate€parts,€or€theÏintentional€touching€of€the€clothing€covering€the€immediate€area€of€the€victim's,Ïdefendant's,€or€any€other€person's€intimate€parts,€if€that€intentional€touching€canÏbeòò€reasonably€construedóó€as€being€for€the€purpose€of€sexual€arousal€orÏgratification."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(6)€(1989)€(emphasis€added).€Ï"'Intimate€parts'€includes€the€.€.€.€breast€of€a€human€being."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„501(2).€€Again,€as€the€appellant€concedes,€the€proof€showed€semenÏstains€on€Michelle€Blake's€left€breast€and€abdomen.€€DNA€evidence,€identityÏtestimony,€and€other€circumstantial€evidence€linked€the€appellant€to€the€crimesÏcommitted€against€Mrs.€Blake.€€Clearly,€from€the€proof€introduced,€the€jury€couldÏhave€rationally€inferred€that€it€was€the€appellant€who€deposited€the€semen€onÏthe€victim's€breast.€€This€fact€is€sufficient€to€establish€sexual€contact.€€Our€statuteÏdoes€not€require€that€ð ðintentional€touchingðð€of€the€victimððs€intimate€part€resultÏfrom€direct€contact€with€the€defendantððs€hand€or€any€other€part€of€theÍdefendantððs€body.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€€ÌÌà@ àò òC.€€Identity€of€the€Perpetratoró óÌà àThe€appellant's€main€contention€regarding€his€challenge€to€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€that€the€proof€fails€to€establish€that€he€is€theÏperpetrator€of€the€offenses.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€questions€the€reliability€ofÏeyewitness€testimony€identifying€him€"as€the€individual€at€the€Pit€Stop€South€atÏor€near€8:50€p.m.€or€thereafter€on€April€19,"€and,€he€attacks€the€accuracy€of€theÏscientific€evidence€due€to€deficient€collection€of€evidence€and€inappropriateÏscientific€procedures.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€The€State€responds€that€both€the€direct€andÏcircumstantial€proof€establish€the€appellant€as€the€offender€in€this€case.ÌÌà àEd€Martin€and€Sylvia€Fults€provided€identification€testimony€at€trial.× ƒ5 ××  ×€ÏMoreover,€the€proof€at€trial€revealed€numerous€matching€characteristicsÏbetween€the€appellantððs€truck€and€the€truck€driven€by€the€abductor€of€MichelleÏBlake.€€Both€trucks€were€described€as€older€model€trucks,€both€short„wheeledÏbase,€both€gray€in€color,€both€displayed€Grundy€County€license€plates,€both€hadÍloud€mufflers,€both€had€chrome€on€the€side,€and€both€had€the€name€ð ðChevroletððÏon€the€tailgate.€€Fibers€later€obtained€from€the€appellant's€truck€were€consistentÏwith€those€obtained€from€Michelle€Blake's€clothing.€€Other€proof€revealed€thatÏtesting€of€the€semen€found€on€Michelle€Blake's€body€indicated€that€theÏperpetrator€has€Type€B€blood.€€The€appellant€has€Type€B€blood.€€Moreover,€theÏDNA€binding€patterns€obtained€from€the€two€samples€matched.× ƒ6 ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€State€must€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€accused€is€theÏperson€who€committed€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€€òòWhite€v.€Stateóó,€533€S.W.2d€735,€744Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1976).€€Identity€of€theÏaccused€may€be€accomplished€by€either€direct€or€circumstantial€evidence,€orÏboth.€€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€519€S.W.2d€789,€793€(Tenn.€1975).€€TheÏdetermination€of€identity€is€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury€after€a€consideration€ofÏall€competent€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€€òòBiggers€v.€Stateóó,€411€S.W.2d€696,€697€(Tenn.),Ïòòcert.€grantedóó,€390€U.S.€404,€88€S.Ct.€979€(1968)€(affirmed€on€other€grounds);ÏòòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€313€S.W.2d€451€(Tenn.€1958);€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€635€S.W.2dÏ704€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòState€v.€Hodgeóó,€No.€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏJackson,€June€30,€1987).€€Likewise,€the€determination€of€whether€all€reasonableÏtheories€are€excluded€by€the€circumstantial€evidence€presented€is€primarily€aÏquestion€of€fact€for€the€jury.€€òòPruitt€v.€Stateóó,€460€S.W.2d€385€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Í1970);€òòHodgeóó,€No.€6.€€This€case€is€based€entirely€upon€circumstantial€evidence.€€ÏBefore€an€accused€may€be€convicted€upon€circumstantial€evidence€alone,€theÏfacts€must€be€ð ðso€clearly€interwoven€and€connected€that€the€finger€of€guilt€isÏpointed€unerringly€at€the€defendant€and€the€defendant€alone.ðð€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,Ï868€S.W.2d€238,€253„254€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€„€„€U.S.€„€„,€114€S.Ct.€1339Ï(1993).ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€proof€in€the€record€points€the€finger€of€guiltÏunerringly€at€the€appellant€and€the€appellant€alone,€and€that€the€proof€wasÏsufficient€for€a€jury€to€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offenses€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt.̛̜Ìà@ àò òIII.€€DNA€Opinion€Evidenceó óÌÌà àPrior€to€trial,€the€appellant€filed€a€motion€òòin€limineóó€seeking€to€exclude€theÏresults€of€a€DNA€profiling€analysis€performed€by€Cellmark€Diagnostics,€a€privateÏMaryland€laboratory€contracted€by€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€in€theÏpresent€case.€€These€results€revealed€that€the€appellant's€DNA€matched€DNAÏsamples€(semen)€recovered€from€the€victim.€€At€the€conclusion€of€a€lengthyÏhearing€on€the€appellant's€motion,€the€trial€court,€after€considering€the€testimonyÏof€Dr.€Lisa€Forman,€a€Cellmark€representative,€ruled€that€the€expert€testimonyÍconcerning€the€DNA€analysis€was€admissible.€ÌÌà à€At€trial,€Dr.€Forman€and€Julie€Cooper,€a€senior€molecular€biologist€withÏCellmark,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€State€regarding€Cellmark's€testingÏprocedures€and€the€results€attained€in€the€present€case.€€To€rebut€this€testimony,Ïthe€defense€presented€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Marvin€Shapiro,€a€professor€atÏEmory€University,€and€Dr.€Ronald€T.€Acton,€a€professor€at€the€University€ofÏAlabama.€€Dr.€Shapiro€opined€that€Cellmark€used€an€insufficient€database€byÏfailing€to€employ€an€Appalachian€subgroup€database,€in€determining€theirÏfrequency€calculation,€and,€as€such,€their€results€cannot€be€deemed€accurate€orÏreliable.€€Dr.€Acton€commented€on€the€ongoing€concerns€in€the€scientificÏcommunity€with€the€use€of€ethidium€bromide€at€the€beginning€of€the€analysisÏprocedure.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€He€further€noted€that€Cellmark's€combination€of€probes€furnishedÏresults€which€were€ÌÌjust€an€estimate€at€best€and€that€Cellmark's€method€of€combining€probes€hasÏnot€been€scientifically€validated.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€properlyÏapply€Tenn.R.Evid.€702,€703,€and€403€in€reaching€its€decision€to€allow€the€StateÍto€introduce€DNA€opinion€testimony.€€Specifically,€he€asserts€that€the€testimonyÏintroduced€by€representatives€of€Cellmark€Diagnostic,€the€testing€laboratory,€isÏinadmissible€because€Cellmark's€testing€procedure€indicates€a€"lack€ofÏtrustworthiness."€€In€this€regard,€the€appellant€contests:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€Cellmark's€use€of€ethidium€bromide€in€the€agarose€gel€beforeÏelectrophoresis;ÌÌà8 à(2)€Cellmark's€selection€and€use€of€a€Caucasian€database€fromÏDelaware€and€failure€to€use€a€database€exclusively€fromÏAppalachia;€andÌÌà8 à(3)€€Cellmark's€statistical€analysis€of€the€population€frequencies.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellant€challenges€specific€techniques€employed€by€Cellmark€inÏthe€DNA€analysis€performed€in€this€case.€€Due€to€the€complex€nature€of€theÏsubject€matter,€an€understanding€of€the€structure€of€the€DNA€molecule€and€theÏprecise€procedures€utilized€is€helpful€to€our€review.ÌÌà@ àò òA.€€Scientific€Background̛̜à@ àI.€€DNA€Structureó óÌà àThe€DNA€molecule€is€a€double€helix,€shaped€like€a€twisted€ladder.€ÏPhosphate€and€deoxyribose€sugar€form€the€rails€of€the€ladder.€€Four€chemicalÏbases€„„€Adenine€(A),€Cytosine€(C),€Guanine€(G),€and€Thymine€(T)€„€lie€next€toÏeach€other€on€the€sugar€links€along€the€sides€of€the€ladder.€€Each€A€alwaysÍbonds€with€a€T€on€the€other€side€of€the€ladder,€and€each€C€always€bonds€with€aÏG€on€the€other€side€of€the€ladder,€so€that€the€possible€base€pairs€on€the€ladderÏare€A„T,€T„A,€C„G,€and€G„C.€€The€base€pairs,€e.g.,€A„T,€C„G,€are€connected€by€aÏhydrogen€bond,€such€that€the€bonds€form€the€rungs€of€the€ladder.€€There€areÏapproximately€three€billion€base€pairs€in€one€DNA€molecule.€€The€sequence€ofÏthe€base€pairs€is€the€same€in€every€cell€of€a€person's€body.€ÌÌà àOf€the€three€billion€base€pairs,€ninety„nine€and€nine„tenths€percent€areÏidentical€among€all€human€beings.€€It€is€this€identity€that€makes€humans€look€likeÏhumans.€€Thus,€only€the€remaining€one„tenth€of€one€percent€of€a€person's€baseÏpairs€vary€from€person€to€person.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€These€sequences€of€variation€from€personÏto€person€are€known€as€polymorphisms.€€Polymorphisms€are€the€key€to€DNAÏidentification€because€they€create€the€individual€characteristics€of€each€humanÏbeing€and€they€are€detectable€in€laboratory€testing.ÌÌà@ àò òii.€€Generating€DNA€Profilesó óÌà àTesting€for€DNA€identification€involves€disassembling€the€ladder€(DNAÏmolecule)€in€one€of€several€ways.€€Cellmark€Diagnostics,€the€testing€laboratoryÏin€this€case,€employs€the€Restriction€Fragment€Length€Polymorphism€(RFLP)Ïmethod€of€analysis.€€The€RFLP€method€determines€if€there€is€a€"match."€€AÍ"match"€does€not€mean€that€the€suspect€is€with€certainty€the€source€of€theÏgenetic€material€found€at€the€crime€scene€or€on€the€victim,€but€only€that€theÏsuspect€cannot€be€eliminated€as€a€potential€source.€€RFLP€analysis€involvesÏextracting€and€isolating€small€portions€of€the€DNA€molecule€to€examine€sites€onÏthe€DNA€that€exhibit€highly€variable€characteristics.× ƒ9 ××  ×ÌÌÌà àThe€preliminary€procedure€is€to€extract€a€DNA€molecule€from€a€sample€ofÏcertain€tissue€or€bodily€fluid€by€using€chemical€enzymes€and€then€to€purify€thatÏsample.€€The€DNA€molecule€is€"cut"€into€smaller€fragments€with€chemicalÏscissors€called€restriction€enzymes.€€These€enzymes€recognize€certain€baseÏpairs€and€sever€the€DNA€molecule€at€specifically€targeted€base€pair€sites€toÏproduce€RFLPs.€€The€cut€fragments€of€DNA€molecules€(RFLPs)€are€next€placedÏin€an€agarose€gel€and€ethidium€bromide€is€incorporated€into€the€gel.× ƒ: ××  ×€€The€gelÏis€then€electrically€charged€to€sort€the€fragments€by€length.€€This€process€isÏknown€as€electrophoresis.€€The€electric€current€causes€the€fragments€to€migrateÏthrough€the€gel.€€The€distance€traveled€depends€upon€the€length€of€theÍfragments;€the€shorter€fragments,€because€they€are€lighter,€will€travel€further€inÏthe€gel.€€Once€migration€has€ceased,€the€fragments€of€known€base€pair€lengthsÏare€placed€in€separate€lanes€to€allow€the€measurement€of€RFLPs€in€units€ofÏbase€pairs.€€A€nylon€membrane€is€placed€over€the€gel,€permanently€transferringÏthe€RFLPs€to€this€more€functional€surface.× ƒ; ××  ×€€A€denaturization€process€occursÏduring€this€step,€severing€each€double„stranded€DNA€fragment€into€two€singleÏstrands.€€This€facilitates€detection€of€specific€RFLPs€and€Variable€NumberÏTandem€Repeats€(VNTRs),€i.e.,€the€number€of€repeat€core€sequences€of€baseÏpairs€which€determine€the€length€of€each€RFLP.ÌÌà àRFLPs€that€are€defined€by€specific€sequences€are€detected€byÏhybridization€with€a€genetic€probe,€a€single€stranded€segment€of€DNA€taggedÏwith€a€radioactive€reporter€molecule€designed€to€detect€a€complementary€singleÏstrand€base€sequence.× ƒ< ××  ×€The€membrane€is€placed€in€a€bath€that€contains€theÏprobe,€and€the€probe€hybridizes€to€the€target€denatured€RFLP.€€ÌÌà àNext,€the€nylon€membrane€is€placed€in€contact€with€a€piece€of€x„ray€filmÏwhere€the€radioactive€probes€expose€the€film€at€their€respective€locations.× ƒ= ××  ×€ÍBlack€bands€appear€where€the€radioactive€probes€have€bonded€to€the€RFLPs,Ïproducing€a€DNA€"print,"€or€autorad.€€The€position€of€each€band€indicates€theÏlocation€of€a€polymorphic€segment€on€the€blot.€€Location,€in€turn,€indicates€theÏlength€of€the€DNA€fragment€that€contains€the€polymorphic€DNA€segment.× ƒ> ××  ×€€€TheÏparticular€region€on€the€DNA€where€a€specific€VNTR€occurs€is€called€a€locus.€€AÏlocus€is€considered€polymorphic€when€the€number€of€VNTRs€varies€fromÏindividual€to€individual.€€Each€locus€consists€of€variant€forms€of€genes€known€asÏalleles.€€Two€allele€forms€occupy€each€locus,€one€on€a€chromosome€inheritedÏfrom€the€mother,€and€one€on€a€chromosome€inherited€from€the€father.€€When€theÏsame€form€of€allele€occupies€both€loci€on€the€chromosomes€the€individual€isÏhomozygous€for€that€allele,€and€when€different€alleles€occupy€the€loci,€theÏindividual€is€heterozygous€for€both€alleles.× ƒ? ××  ×€€Typically,€this€process€is€repeatedÏwith€four€or€five€different€probes.€€Several€probes€are€necessary€because,Ïalthough€the€degree€of€individualization€for€the€two€alleles€that€occur€on€oneÏlocus€is€not€high,€it€is€extremely€rare€for€two€people€to€have€eight€or€tenÏmatching€alleles€across€four€or€five€different€loci.€€ÌÌà àThe€last€step€in€the€RFLP€process€is€to€determine€if€a€match€exists€in€theÍtwo€lanes€of€the€autorad€between€the€DNA€sample€from€the€suspect€and€theÏforensic€sample€taken€from€the€crime€scene€or€the€victim.× ƒ@ ××  ×€€If€it€matches,€theÏanalyst€must€determine€the€likelihood€that€someone€other€than€the€suspectÏmight€have€the€same€DNA€pattern.€€This€calculation€of€the€probability€of€aÏrandom€match€generates€a€ratio€to€accompany€a€match,€the€purpose€of€which€isÏto€express€the€statistical€likelihood€that€an€unrelated€person€chosen€at€randomÏfrom€a€particular€population€could€have€the€same€DNA€profile€as€the€suspect.ÌÌà@ àò òiii.€€Frequency€Calculationsó óÌà àThe€initial€process€in€generating€this€ratio€involves€the€creation€of€anÏautorad€database.€€In€the€present€case,€Cellmark's€database€was€comprised€ofÏDNA€autorads€from€Caucasian€individuals€who€donated€blood€at€a€DelawareÏblood€bank,€along€with€an€African„American€database,€and€a€HispanicÏdatabase.€€Racially€similar€databases€are€used€to€create€a€greater€likelihood€ofÏa€DNA€profile€match,€which€safeguards€against€understating€the€probability€of€aÏrandom€match.€€ÌÌà àOnce€a€database€is€constructed,€autorad€band€frequencies€areÏcalculated€by€comparing€the€known€bands€with€the€database€bands€toÏdetermine€how€frequently€bands€match.€€Scientists€use€either€fixed€or€floatingÍbin€analysis€to€calculate€match€frequencies.€€Binning€helps€to€account€forÏvariables€in€recording€autorads,€and€provides€confidence€limits€on€frequencyÏestimates.€€Cellmark€employs€a€floating€bin€analysis.€€Floating€bin€analysisÏfocuses€on€the€autorads€obtained€from€the€evidence€sample,€around€whichÏindividual€bins€are€constructed.€€Typically,€floating€bins€are€constructed€with€aÏresolution€tolerance€of€a€certain€number€of€standard€deviations€centered€aroundÏthe€evidence€band.€€Database€bands€which€fall€within€the€bin€created€from€theÏevidence€band€are€then€assigned€to€the€evidence€band's€floating€bin€toÏcalculate€band€frequencies.€€Binning€typically€results€in€higher€probable€matchÏfrequencies.€€The€higher€match€frequencies€weigh€in€a€suspect's€favor€becauseÏthe€probability€calculations€will€yield€a€greater€chance€of€a€random€match.× ƒA ××  ×€€ÌÌà àAfter€individual€band€frequencies€are€calculated,€the€likelihood€that€theÏcomplete€autorad€would€be€duplicated€in€a€randomly€selected€individual€isÏcalculated€using€the€product€rule.€€The€product€rule€is€simply€the€mathematicalÏformula€used€to€determine€the€probability€that€two€independent€events€wouldÏoccur€simultaneously,€calculated€by€multiplying€the€probability€of€each€event.€ÏTwo€product€rule€calculations€are€required€to€determine€the€likelihood€of€aÍrandom€profile€match.€€First,€the€frequency€of€a€match€at€each€locus€isÏcalculated.× ƒB ××  ×€€After€the€frequency€for€each€locus€is€calculated,€the€frequency€ofÏthe€complete€genotype€(genetic€makeup€of€an€organism)€is€calculated€byÏmultiplying€together€the€four€loci€frequencies.ÌÌà àProduct€rule€probabilities€are€only€accurate€estimates€if€the€eventsÏunderlying€the€calculations€are€truly€independent€and€random.€€IndependenceÏmeans€the€probability€of€finding€one€allele€is€not€affected€by€having€found€anyÏother€allele.€€For€each€locus,€event€independence€occurs€when€there€is€noÏcorrelation€between€the€allele€inherited€from€an€individual's€mother€and€theÏallele€inherited€from€that€individual's€father.€€When€no€correlation€between€theÏtwo€parental€alleles€exists€the€population€sample€is€considered€in€Hardy„Weinberg€equilibrium.× ƒC ××  ×€€Several€critics€have€noted€that€there€is€a€problem€inÏthat€the€product€rule€method€is€based€on€incorrect€assumptions€that€(1)Ïmembers€of€the€racial€groups€represented€by€the€broad€data€bases,ÏCaucasians,€Black,€Hispanic,€etc.,€mate€within€their€groups€at€random,€withoutÍregard€to€religion,€ethnicity,€and€geography,€and€(2)€the€DNA€fragments,Ïidentified€by€DNA€processing€behave€independently€and€they€are€independentÏin€a€statistical€sense.€€Contrary€to€the€assumption€of€random€mating,€ethnicÏsubgroups€within€each€random€data€base,€tend€to€mate€within€a€specificÏsubgroup,€e.g.,€the€Appalachian€subgroup,€Jewish€subgroup.€€SuchÏendogamous€mating€tends€to€maintain€genetic€differences€between€subgroups,Ïas€a€result,€the€subgroups€may€have€substantial€differences€in€the€frequency€ofÏa€given€DNA€fragment,€or€VNTR€allele,€identified€in€the€processing€step€of€DNAÏanalysis.× ƒD ××  ×€€A€given€VNTR€allele€may€be€relatively€common€in€some€subgroupsÏbut€not€in€the€broader€database.€€Thus,€some€critics€argue€that€the€currentÏmethod,€using€the€Hardy„Weinberg€equation€and€the€product€rule,€will€beÏreliable€only€if€there€is€extensive€study€of€VNTR€allele€frequencies€in€a€wideÏvariety€of€ethnic€subgroups.€€However,€the€National€Research€Academy€remarksÏthat€"[t]he€goal€is€not€to€ensure€that€the€ethnic€background€of€every€particularÏdefendant€is€represented,€but€rather€to€define€the€likely€range€of€alleleÏfrequency€variation."€€òòNational€Research€Counsel,€DNA€Technology€in€ForensicÏScience€óó82„85€(1992).€€Moreover,€to€overcome€the€problem€of€allele€frequencyÏwithin€a€genetic€subgroup,€the€National€Research€Academy€recommendsÏemploying€the€ceiling€principal€in€determining€frequency€statistics.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àWhen€requested,€as€in€the€present€case,€Cellmark€also€employs€what€isÏknown€as€the€"ceiling€principle"€to€calculate€statistical€frequencies.€€The€ceilingÏmethod€also€uses€the€product€rule.€€This€method€obtains€the€most€conservativeÏbin€for€every€band€and€then€multiplies€it€together,€generally€resulting€in€a€moreÏconservative€number.€Using€the€aforementioned€procedures,€CellmarkÏdetermined€that€the€frequency€reported,€in€the€present€case,€as€far€as€theÏCaucasian€race,€was€one€in€nineteen€thousand.ÌÌà@ àò òB.€€Standard€of€Admissibilityó óÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€866€S.W.2d€583,€586€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€thisÏcourt€addressed€the€proper€standard€for€determining€the€admissibility€ofÏscientific€evidence€and€testimony.× ƒE ××  ×€€The€court€acknowledged€the€òòFryeóó€test,€òòseeóóÏòòFrye€v.€United€Statesóó,€293€F.€1013€(D.C.€Cir.€1923),€which€requires€that€theÏscientific€analysis€from€which€the€ultimate€deduction€is€made€must€beÏ"sufficiently€established€to€have€gained€general€acceptance€in€the€particularÏfield€in€which€it€belongs."€€òòIdóó.€at€1014.€€Additionally,€the€court€recognized€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€which€provide:ÌÓÓà8 àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€willÏsubstantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€toÏdetermine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€byÏknowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€may€testify€inÏthe€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.ÌÌÓÓTenn.R.Evid.€702.€€However,€the€rule€adds€that€the€court€"shall€disallowÏtestimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€inference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€dataÏòòlack€trustworthinessóó."€€Tenn.R.Evid.€703€(emphasis€added).ÌÌÌà àThe€court€in€òòHarrisóó€chose€not€to€accredit€one€standard€over€the€other,€asÏthe€evidence€at€issue€satisfied€both€requirements.€€òòSeeóó€òò€Harrisóó,€866€S.W.2d€atÏ587.€€Subsequently,€however,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòDaubert€v.ÏMerrell€Dow€Pharmaceuticals,€Incóó.,€509€U.S.€579,€587,€113€S.Ct.€2786,€2793Ï(1993),€held€that€the€òòFryeóó€test,€"absent€from€and€incompatible€with€the€FederalÏRules€of€Evidence,€should€not€be€applied€in€federal€trials."€€òòDaubertóó€does€not€byÏits€terms,€however,€apply€to€state€court€proceedings.€€Although€Tenn.R.Evid.€703Ïand€Fed.R.Evid.€703€are€identical,€€Tenn.R.Evid.€adds€the€sentence:€"The€courtÏshall€disallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€an€inference€if€theÏunderlying€facts€or€data€indicate€a€lack€of€trustworthiness."€€In€this€respect,€theÏTennessee€rule€expresses€a€greater€concern€with€the€bases€of€expert€testimonyÏthan€its€federal€counterpart.€€òòOmni€Aviation€v.€Perryóó,€807€S.W.2d€276,€281Ï(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€Moreover,€our€supreme€court€has€held€that€the€requisiteÍfoundations€which€must€be€established€prior€to€the€admission€of€scientificÏevidence€are€that€(1)€the€facts€underlying€the€testimony€must€be€reasonablyÏrelied€upon€by€experts€in€the€particular€field€and€(2)€the€facts€must€beÏtrustworthy.€€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993);€òòsee€alsoóó€ÏAdvisory€Commission€Comments,€Tenn.R.Evid.€703.€€We€conclude€that€theÏ"general€acceptance€standard"€espoused€in€òòFryeóó€is€necessarily€implicit€withinÏthe€requirements€of€Tenn.R.Evid.€703.€€òòSeeóó€€Advisory€Commission€Comments,ÏTenn.R.Evid.€702€(Tennessee€law€is€consistent€with€the€òòFryeóó€test).€€Accordingly,Ïbefore€expert€testimony€regarding€DNA€analysis€may€be€admitted€inÏTennessee,€the€proposed€testimony€and€evidence€must€meet€the€standardsÏpromulgated€by€Tenn.R.Evid.€702€and€703.ÌÌà@ àò òC.€€Application€of€Standardó óÌà à€The€trial€court€concluded€that€Cellmark's€techniques€in€generating€aÏDNA€profile€and€formulating€a€statistical€frequency€were€based€on€acceptedÏœscientific€practice›€and€are€trustworthy.× ƒF ××  ×€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€€òòHarrisóó,€866€S.W.2d€at€586Ï(approving€RFLP€analysis);€òòaccordóó€€òòState€v.€Begleyóó,€No.€01C01„9411„CR„00381Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Jan.€11,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó,€(Tenn.ÏJuly€1,€1996).€Generally,€the€qualifications,€admissibility,€relevancy,€andÍcompetency€of€expert€testimony€are€matters€which€largely€rest€within€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court,€unless€such€discretion€is€arbitrarily€imposed.€ÏòòBallardóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€562;€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Schimpfóó,€782€S.W.2d€186,€191Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€Without€evidence€that€Cellmark's€standards€wereÏsomehow€deficient,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretionÏor€that€the€laboratory's€conclusion€was€unreliable.ÌÌà àOnce€evidence€is€properly€admitted,€disputes€over€its€reliability€go€to€itsÏweight.€€Here,€much€of€the€appellant's€attack€focused€on€Cellmark'sÏimplementation€of€DNA€frequency€analysis€and€specifics€of€Cellmark'sÏprocedures,€including€the€size€of€Cellmark's€database,€whether€the€sampling€ofÏœa€Delaware›€blood€bank€was€truly€random,€and€alleged€problems€with€theÏelectrophoresis€process.€€This€attack€was€presented€to€the€jury€through€theÏtestimony€of€Drs.€Shapiro€and€Acton.€€Differences€in€the€opinions€of€experts€areÏinevitable€in€the€application€of€science€to€the€law.€€In€our€opinion,€these€issuesÏwere€questions€properly€decided€by€the€jury.€€The€jury€was€free€to€reject€theÏDNA€evidence€if€it€concluded€that€the€evidence€was€unreliable€or€misleading.€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€the€evidence€should€have€been€excludedÏbecause€œits›€probative€value€was€outweighed€by€its€prejudicial€effect.€ÏTenn.R.Evid.€403.€€The€appellant€makes€no€argument€in€support€of€thisÏcontention.€€As€such,€this€claim€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7).€œÇNonetheless,›€the€testimony,€in€sum,€was€that€the€appellant€could€not€beÏexcluded€as€a€source€of€the€semen€found€on€the€victim,€but€could€not€beÏidentified€as€the€source€with€absolute€certainty.€€Clearly,€the€probative€value€ofÏthe€expert€testimony€outweighed€any€prejudicial€effect.€ÌÌà àIn€summary,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€analyzed€the€DNAÏtyping€evidence€according€to€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€Furthermore,Ïwe€find€that€the€existence€of€scientific€debate€does€not,€by€itself,€requireÏexclusion€of€evidence.€€The€DNA€statistical€frequency€analysis€was€generallyÏaccepted€by€the€scientific€community€at€all€times€relevant€to€the€trial€court'sÏdecision.€€Thus,€the€evidence€exhibited€both€reliability€and€trustworthiness.€€TheÏtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€admitting€the€calculations€as€toÏfrequency€probability,€and€it€was€for€the€jury€to€determine€what€weight,€if€any,€toÏgive€such€evidence.€€Additionally,€we€note€that€the€State€did€not€rely€exclusivelyÏon€the€DNA€evidence€to€prove€its€case.€€Sufficient€evidence€existed€apart€fromÏthe€DNA€analysis€from€which€the€jury€could€have€concluded€the€appellant's€Ïguilt.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌÌà@ àò òIV.€€Motion€to€Suppressó óÌÌà àA€hearing€was€held€on€March€1,€1994,€regarding€the€appellant's€motionÍto€suppress€blood€samples€obtained€from€his€person.€€At€the€hearing,€the€StateÏpresented€the€testimony€of€only€one€witness,€Larry€Davis,€a€special€agent€withÏthe€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation.€€Agent€Davis€explained€that€on€June€7,Ï1990,€the€body€of€Vicky€Sue€Metzger€was€found€in€a€wooded€area€adjacent€toÏthe€eastbound€I„24€rest€area€near€Monteagle.€€Davis€was€assigned€toÏinvestigate€the€Metzger€murder.€€During€the€early€stages€of€the€murderÏinvestigation,€Davis€talked€with€the€appellant,€who€was€the€attendant€at€theÏeastbound€rest€area,€and€Johnny€Hood,€the€attendant€at€the€westbound€restÏarea.€€On€this€occasion,€Davis€informed€both€men€that€they€would€be€contactedÏin€the€future€for€additional€statements.€€On€July€11,€Davis€issued€subpoenas€forÏboth€men€setting€a€July€13€interview.ÌÌà àOn€July€13,€1990,€Agent€Davis€met€the€appellant€and€Hood€at€the€GrundyÏCounty€Jail.€€Both€men€gave€sworn€statements€and€both€men€consented€toÏprovide€a€blood€sample€for€DNA€comparison€analysis€with€the€semen€found€onÏthe€victim's€body.€€The€appellant€and€Hood€were€taken€to€Dr.€Horbolt's€officeÏand€the€samples€were€drawn.€€At€no€time€did€the€appellant€voice€an€objection€toÏthe€procedure.€€After€the€sample€was€drawn,€the€appellant€left€the€doctorððs€office.ÌÌà àSubsequently,€on€November€5,€1992,€Agent€Davis€was€again€called€toÏthe€eastbound€I„24€rest€area€to€investigate€an€assault€on€Pamela€Sue€Back.€ÏWhen€Davis€reached€the€Monteagle€Police€Station,€the€appellant€was€inÍcustody€and€had€been€provided€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€Upon€questioning€by€AgentÏDavis,€the€appellant€confessed€that€he€had€assaulted€Back€because€he€hadÏbeen€drinking€and€smoking€marijuana.€€Davis€asked€the€appellant€if€he€wouldÏprovide€a€blood€sample€for€a€drug€screen.€€The€appellant€again€consented.€€TheÏappellant€was€then€transported€to€the€Emerald„Hodgson€Hospital€in€SewaneeÏwhere€the€blood€sample€was€taken.× ƒG ××  ×ÌÌà àSeveral€days€later,€Davis€reviewed€the€I„24€incidents€and€the€murder€ofÏMichelle€Blake€with€Agent€Danny€Wix€and€Investigator€Bouldin.€€The€œofficersÏrecalled›€that€the€perpetrator€of€the€Blake€murder€had€type€B€blood,€the€sameÏtype€possessed€by€the€appellant.€€€Agent€Wix€inquired€about€obtaining€anotherÏblood€sample€from€the€appellant.€€Agent€Davis€responded€that€he€had€a€bloodÏsample€from€the€appellant€drawn€on€November€5€at€his€office.€€This€sample€wasÏsent€to€Cellmark€Diagnostics€for€DNA€analysis€in€the€Blake€case.€€No€alcohol€orÏdrug€screen€was€performed€on€this€sample.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€denied€his€motionÏto€suppress€the€evidence€stemming€from€blood€samples€taken€from€him€onÍthese€two€separate€occasions.€€In€denying€the€motion,€the€trial€court€concludedÏthat€"the€blood€samples€provided€by€the€appellant€were€done€so€consensuallyÏand€voluntarily."€€ÌÌà àThe€initial€inquiry€before€us€is€whether€the€TBI€subpoena€issued€to€theÏappellant€on€July€11,€1990,€constituted€a€significant€intrusion€upon€interestsÏprotected€by€the€Fourth€Amendment.× ƒH ××  ×€€Fourth€Amendment€protections€againstÏunlawful€seizures€are€designed€to€"prevent€arbitrary€and€oppressiveÏinterference€by€officials€with€the€privacy€and€personal€security€of€individuals."€ÏòòINS€v.€Delgadoóó,€466€U.S.€210,€215,€104€S.Ct.€1758,€1762€(1984)€(internalÏquotations€omitted).€€Therefore,€"not€all€.€.€.€intercourse€between€policemen€andÏcitizens€œinvolves›€seizures€of€persons.€€Only€when€an€officer,€by€means€of€forceÏor€show€of€authority,€has€restrained€the€liberty€of€a€citizen€may€we€conclude€thatÏa€seizure€has€occurred."€€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€19,€88€S.Ct.€1868,€1879,€n.Ï16€(1968).€€Although€the€appellant,€in€the€instant€case,€received€a€subpoena€toÏappear€for€further€questioning,€we€cannot€conclude€that€this€amounted€to€moreÏthan€a€request€to€respond€to€police€questioning.€€First,€no€sanctions€exist€forÏfailure€to€comply€with€the€request€in€the€subpoena.× ƒI ××  ×€€Moreover,€although€mostÍpeople€œwill€comply›€with€a€police€request,€the€fact€that€people€do€so,€and€do€soÏwithout€being€told€they€are€free€not€to€respond,€does€not€eliminate€theÏconsensual€nature€of€the€response.€€òòINS€v.€Delgadoóó,€466€U.S.€at€216,€104€S.Ct.Ïat€1762.€€Unless€the€circumstances€of€the€encounter€at€issue€are€so€intimidatingÏas€to€demonstrate€that€a€reasonable€person€would€have€believed€he€was€notÏfree€to€refuse€the€officer's€request,€one€cannot€say€that€the€questioning€resultedÏin€a€detention€under€the€Fourth€Amendment.€€òòIdóó.€€Thus,€although€we€concedeÏthe€question€is€perilously€close,€we€conclude€that€the€issuance€of€a€TBIÏsubpoena€does€not,€òòper€seóó,€constitute€a€seizure€within€the€meaning€of€theÏFourth€Amendment.€€However,€this€consensual€encounter€may€escalate€into€aÏseizure€as€a€consequence€of€police€behavior,€e.g.,€threatening€presence€ofÏseveral€officers,€the€display€of€a€weapon€by€the€officer,€physical€touching€of€theÏperson,€or€the€use€of€language€or€tone€of€voice€indicating€that€compliance€withÏthe€officer's€request€might€be€compelled.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Mendenhallóó,€446ÏU.S.€544,€554„55,€100€S.Ct.€1870,€1877€(1980).€€In€the€present€case,€AgentÏDavis€testified€that€the€appellant€came€to€the€police€station€of€his€own€free€will.€ÏIn€fact,€Davis€had€previously€informed€the€appellant€of€his€intent€to€contact€himÍfor€a€subsequent€statement,€at€which€time€the€appellant€was€cooperative.€€And,Ïalthough€the€appellant€bears€the€initial€burden€of€showing€that€there€was€aÏviolation€of€some€constitutionally€protected€area€to€trigger€further€inquiry,€thereÏis€no€evidence€indicating€that€the€appellant€would€have€refused€the€subsequentÏinterview€notwithstanding€service€of€the€subpoena.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Burtonóó,€751ÏS.W.2d€440€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Absent€any€evidence€indicating€force€orÏcoercion€on€the€part€of€law€enforcement€officials,€the€inoffensive€contact,€i.e.,€theÏquestioning€of€the€appellant€at€the€jail,€cannot€amount€to€an€unconstitutionalÏseizure.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àAlthough€we€have€determined€that€the€appellant's€presence€at€the€jail€didÏnot€constitute€an€illegal€seizure,€we€must€next€determine€whether€theÏsubsequent€taking€of€blood€samples€constituted€an€illegal€search€of€theÏappellant's€person.€€The€withdrawal€of€blood€from€a€subject€for€purposes€ofÏserological€typing€and€DNA€analysis€constitutes€a€search€within€the€constraintsÏof€the€Fourth€Amendment€and,€therefore,€a€search€warrant€is€generally€required.€ÏòòSeeóó€€òòSchmerber€v.€Californiaóó,€384€U.S.€757,€767„72,€86€S.Ct.€1826,€1833„37Ï(1966);€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€889€S.W.2d€219,€221€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).€€€Unless€it€falls€within€a€specificallyÏestablished€and€well„delineated€exception,€€a€search€conducted€without€aÏwarrant€is€òòper€seóó€unreasonable.€€òòSchneckloth€v.€Bustamonteóó,€412€U.S.€218,Ï219,€93€S.Ct.€2041,€2043€(1973)€(citations€omitted).€€"One€of€the€specificallyÍestablished€exceptions€to€both€a€warrant€and€probable€cause€is€a€search€that€isÏconducted€pursuant€to€a€voluntarily€given€consent."€€òòIdóó.€at€219,€93€S.Ct.€at€2043,Ï2044€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Bartramóó,€925€S.W.2d€227,€230€(Tenn.Ï1996).€€The€burden€of€proof€rests€upon€the€State€to€show,€by€a€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence,€that€the€consent€to€a€warrantless€search€was€given€freely€andÏvoluntarily.€€òòSchnecklothóó,€412€U.S.€at€248„49,€93€S.Ct.€at€2059;€€òòBumper€v.ÏNorth€Carolinaóó,€391€U.S.€543,€548,€88€S.Ct.€1788,€1792€(1968);€€òòBartramóó,€925ÏS.W.2d€at€230.€€The€question€of€whether€the€appellant€voluntarily€consented€toÏthe€search€is€a€question€of€fact€which€focuses€upon€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances.€€òòSchnecklothóó,€412€U.S.€at€248„249,€93€S.Ct.€at€2059.€€€€ÌÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€accredited€Agent€Davis'€testimony€thatÏthe€appellant€voluntarily€consented€to€providing€both€blood€samples.€€ThereÏwas€no€indication€that€the€appellant's€acquiescence€to€the€"search"€was€theÏresult€of€force€or€coercion.€€In€fact,€the€defense€presented€no€proof€to€refuteÏAgent€Davis'€testimony.€€A€trial€court's€finding€that€a€search€is€consensual€isÏpresumed€correct€and€is€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€ruling.€€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€806€S.W.2d€205,€208€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1990),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1991),€òòcert.deniedóó,€502€U.S.Ï1079,€112€S.Ct.€986€(1992);€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Doughertyóó,€930€S.W.2d€85,€86Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Tuttleóó,€914€S.W.2d€926,€931€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Í1995).€€We€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€supports€the€trial€court'sÏfinding.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.̛̜Ìà@ àò òV.€€Instruction€on€Identityó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€byÏfailing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€issue€of€identity€as€provided€in€òòState€v.€Dyleóó,Ï899€S.W.2d€607€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€appellant€concedes€that,€because€his€trialÏoccurred€prior€to€the€òòDyleóó€opinion,€no€special€instruction€regarding€identity€wasÏrequested.× ƒJ ××  ×€€In€òòDyleóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€the€identity€instruction,Ïpromulgated€within€that€decision,€must€be€given€when€identification€is€a€materialÏissue.€€òòDyleóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€612.€€"Identity€will€be€a€material€issue€when€theÏdefendant€puts€it€at€issue€or€the€eyewitness€testimony€is€uncorroborated€byÏcircumstantial€evidence."€€òòIdóó.€€at€note€4.€€In€our€opinion,€the€trial€court's€failure€toÏinstruct€on€identity€in€the€present€case€was€harmless.€€The€proof€regardingÏidentification€was€more€than€sufficient.€€The€descriptions€of€the€appellant€and€hisÏvehicle€by€numerous€witnesses€were€generally€consistent.€€Fibers€from€theÏvictim's€clothing€were€determined€to€be€consistent€with€fibers€from€the€carpetingÍof€the€appellant's€truck.€€Most€notably,€the€results€of€the€DNA€profile€analysisÏreveal€that€the€appellant's€DNA€matched€the€DNA€obtained€from€the€semenÏstain€on€the€victim's€body.€€It€was€within€the€jury's€prerogative€to€assess€theÏcredibility€of€those€who€testified.€€Any€error€created€by€the€failure€to€provide€theÏòòDyleóó€instruction€was€harmless.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€No.€01C01„9505„CR„00146Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Nov.€12,€1996).€€This€contention€of€the€appellantÏis€without€merit.Ì€€€€€€€à àÌò òœÌ›à@ àVI.€€Scope€of€Cross„Examinationó óÌÌà àNext,€the€appellant€makes€two€arguments€regarding€the€examination€ofÏthe€DNA€experts€from€Cellmark€Diagnostics.€€Julie€Cooper,€a€senior€molecularÏbiologist€with€Cellmark,€testified€for€the€State.€€In€response€to€defense€counsel'sÏquestions€on€cross„examination,€Cooper€testified€that,€in€1988,€CellmarkÏresponded€to€an€invitation€extended€by€the€California€Association€of€Crime€LabÏDirectors€to€bid€for€services€to€complete€forensic€DNA€analysis€for€the€State€ofÏCalifornia.€€Prior€to€being€awarded€the€contract,€Cellmark€was€required€toÏsubmit€analysis€on€unknown€controlled€random€samples.× ƒK ××  ×€€During€furtherÍcross„examination,€defense€counsel€questioned€Cooper€concerning€allegedÏerrors€made€by€Cellmark€on€the€sample€tests.× ƒL ××  ×€€€On€re„direct,€Cooper€testifiedÏthat€œforty€percent›€of€Cellmark's€cases€originate€from€the€State€of€California.€€SheÏfurther€explained€that,€in€regard€to€the€1988€test,€"California€was€interested€inÏseeing€how€well€Cellmark,€as€a€laboratory,€function[ed]€on€their€test."€€€TheÏappellant€argues€this€re„direct€testimony€was€error.€€He€contends€that€theseÏstatements€constitute€inadmissible€hearsay,€were€made€outside€the€scope€ofÏcross„examination,€and€are€self„serving€statements€offered€in€an€attempt€toÏbolster€the€credibility€of€Cellmark.Ìœ›œÌ›à à"The€right€to€cross„examination€is€fundamental,€thus,€the€denial€of€thisÏright€to€apprise€the€accused€a€fair€trial€is€'constitutional€error€of€the€firstÏmagnitude.'"€€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€No.€02C01„9504„CC„00115€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ïat€Jackson,€Jan.€9,€1997)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€598€S.W.2d€815,€819€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1980)).€€Yet,€the€propriety,€scope,€manner€and€control€of€testimonyÏand€other€evidence,€including€the€scope€of€cross€and€re„direct€examination,€isÏwithin€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€which€will€not€be€reversed€absentÏan€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Barnardóó,€899€S.W.2d€617,€624€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994)€(citing€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564ÏS.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€œ1978));›€òòState€v.€Elrodóó,€721€S.W.2d€820,€823€(Tenn.ÍCrim.€App.€1986);€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€611(a).€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€scope€of€cross„examination€extends€to€"any€matter€relevant€to€anyÏissue€in€the€case,€including€credibility."€€Tenn.R.Evid.€611(b).€€The€scope€of€re„direct€examination€is€generally€limited€to€matters€brought€out€during€cross„examination,€however,€new€matters€may€be€introduced.€€òòBouchard€v.€Stateóó,€554ÏS.W.2d€654,€658„659€(Tenn,€Crim.€App.€1977);€òòLundy€v.€Stateóó,€521€S.W.2d€591,Ï594€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).€€It€is€within€the€trial€court's€discretion€to€allow€aÏparty,€on€redirect€examination,€to€supply€testimony€omitted€by€oversight,€or€toÏclarify€testimony€given€on€direct€examination,€or,€where€the€facts€thus€œdevelopedÇare›€not€inconsistent€with€his€previous€answers€to€ask€a€witness€to€expand€hisÏtestimony.€€òòBarnardóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€624€(citing€98€òòC.J.S.€óóòòWitnessesóó€ðð€419Ï(1955));€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Owenóó,€No.€1209€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€MayÏ26,€1989),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Oct.€2,€1989)€(citing€òòC.€Torciaóó,ÏòòWharton's€Criminal€Evidenceóó€ðð€416€(4th€ed.)).€€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€byÏthe€trial€court€in€permitting€the€introduction€of€Cooperððs€testimony€on€redirectÏexamination.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àNext,€the€appellant€challenges€the€trial€court's€ruling€which€limited€hisÏcross„examination€of€State's€witness,€Dr.€Lisa€Forman,€an€expert€in€the€field€ofÏDNA€analysis.€€Forman€testified€that,€in€the€present€case,€a€SouthernÏAppalachian€database€was€not€used€in€determining€a€frequency€ratio.€ÏMoreover,€in€response€to€the€challenge€of€"genetic€inbreeding"€in€theÏAppalachian€area,€€she€testified€that€she€doubted€the€veracity€of€the€stereotypeÏassociated€with€the€region€and€that,€although€"it€would€not€be€inappropriate€toÏscreen€people€from€this€area",€she€does€not€believe€that€inclusion€of€such€aÏdatabase€would€change€the€results€of€Cellmark's€calculations.€€The€appellantÏasserts€that€another€Cellmark€employee,€Dr.€Charlotte€Word,€testified€as€anÏexpert€witness€in€an€Ohio€courtroom€that€Cellmark€did€not€employ€anÏAppalachian€database€and,€therefore,€she€would€be€very€concerned€about€theÏreliability€of€any€projections€using€Cellmark's€existing€databases.€€He€arguesÏthat€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€by€not€permitting€him€to€impeachÍDr.€Forman€with€the€testimony€of€her€co„employee,€Dr.€Word.€€In€support€of€hisÏposition,€the€appellant€contends€that€"[Cellmark]€was€the€witness€and€that€theÏonly€authority€Forman€or€Cooper€had€was€to€speak€about€what€the€labÏcollectively€produced."ÌÌà àImpeachment€of€an€expert€witness€is€governed,€generally,€byÏTenn.R.Evid.€616€(bias€or€prejudice),€Tenn.R.Evid.€618€(learned€treatise),€andÏTenn.R.Evid.€613€(prior€inconsistent€statement).€€However,€the€appellantÏattempts€to€create€a€right€of€impeachment€based€upon€alleged€conflictingÏpositions€of€experts€within€the€scope€of€their€common€employment.€€ThisÏargument€is€misplaced.€€Again,€the€trial€court€has€the€discretion€to€imposeÏreasonable€limits€on€cross„examination€and,€we€will€only€find€error€when€thatÏdiscretion€has€been€abused.€€òòSeeóó€€òòBarnardóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€624.€€In€determiningÏwhether€limitations€on€cross„examination€of€government€witnesses€are€soÏsevere€as€to€amount€to€a€violation€of€the€Confrontation€Clause,€the€reviewingÏcourt€must€ascertain€"whether€the€jury€was€already€in€possession€of€sufficientÏinformation€to€make€a€discriminating€appraisal€of€the€particular€witness'Ïpossible€motives€for€testifying€falsely€in€favor€of€the€government."× ƒM ××  ×€€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Christianóó,€786€F.2d€203,€213€(6th€Cir.€1986)€(citation€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóóÍòòUnited€States€v.€Harrisóó,€No.€95„4356€(6th€Cir.€July€1,€1997).€€From€the€factsÏbefore€us,€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€or€infringement€of€the€appellant's€rightÏto€confrontation.€€The€proffered€statements€of€the€non„testifying€witness,€Dr.ÏWord,€were€clearly€inadmissible€hearsay.€€Moreover,€the€expert,€in€this€case,Ïwas€Dr.€Forman,€not€Cellmark€Diagnostic.€€A€business€entity€cannot€be€qualifiedÏas€an€expert,€rather€an€individual€may€be€qualified€as€an€expert€through€his€orÏher€employment€with€that€entity.× ƒN ××  ×€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.R.Evid.€702.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.€ÌœÌ›Ìà@ àò òVII.€€Sentencingó óÌÌà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€appellant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€Ïimposing€the€maximum€sentences€for€his€convictions€for€aggravated€kidnappingÏand€aggravated€sexual€battery€and€by€ordering€that€all€three€sentences€beÏserved€consecutively.ÌÌà àReview,€by€this€court,€of€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€that€the€determination€made€by€the€trialÍcourt€is€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)(1990).€€This€presumption€onlyÏapplies,€however,€if€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏconsidered€relevant€sentencing€principles.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€making€our€review,€this€court€must€consider€the€evidenceÏheard€at€trial€and€at€sentencing,€the€presentence€report,€the€arguments€ofÏcounsel,€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€any€mitigating€andÏenhancement€factors,€the€appellant's€statements,€and€the€appellant's€potentialÏfor€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103(5),€„210(b)€(1990);€òòseeÏalsoóó€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€379€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citing€òòAshbyóó,Ï923€S.W.2d€at€168).€€The€burden€is€on€the€appellant€to€show€that€the€sentenceÏimposed€was€improper.€€Sentencing€Commission€Comments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„401(d).€€ÌÌà@ àò òòòA.€€Enhancement€and€Mitigating€FactorsóóÌÌà àó óAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€fiveÏenhancement€factors€and€three€non„statutory€mitigating€factors€applicable€andÏimposed€the€maximum€twelve€year€sentences€for€each€conviction.€€TheÏenhancing€factors€found€are€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 à(a)€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(5)€€„€The€appellant€treated€theÏvictim€with€exceptional€cruelty;ÌÌà8 à(b)€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6)€„€The€personal€injuriesÏinflicted€upon€the€victim€were€particularly€great;ÌÌà8 à(c)€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7)€„€the€offense€involved€a€victimÏand€was€committed€to€gratify€the€appellantððs€desire€for€pleasure€orÏexcitement;ÌÌà8 à(d)€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9)€„€The€appellant€possessedÏand€employed€a€deadly€weapon€during€the€commission€of€theÏoffense;€andÌÌà8 à(e)€Tenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10)€„€The€appellant€had€noÏhesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€lifeÏwas€high.ÌÌThe€trial€court€applied€all€five€factors€to€both€offenses.ÌÌÌÌà àThe€following€mitigating€factors€were€found:ÌÌà8 àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13):ÌÌà8 à1.€€The€appellant€did€not€have€a€significant€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€at€the€time€of€the€present€offenses;€ÌÌà8 à2.€€The€appellant€had€obligations€to€his€child;€and€ÌÌà à3.€€The€appellant€served€in€the€National€Guard.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant€contends€that€any€factor€involving€bodily€injury€is€notÏapplicable€to€the€aggravated€kidnapping€conviction€since€that€element€wasÏnecessarily€included€within€the€offense.€€Additionally,€he€argues€that€factor€(7)Ïalso€is€not€applicable€to€the€aggravated€kidnapping€conviction.€€The€StateÍconcedes€that€factor€(7),€committed€to€satisfy€the€appellant's€desire€for€pleasureÏor€excitement,€is€inapplicable€to€either€offense.€€We€agree.€€Ì€Ìà àInitially,€we€note€that€enhancement€factors€cannot€be€elements€of€theÏoffense€charged.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.€€The€trial€court€applied€factorÏ(6),€that€the€victim's€injuries€were€particularly€great,€to€the€appellant's€convictionÏfor€aggravated€kidnapping€and€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€The€appellant€nowÏargues€that€the€court€erred€in€applying€this€factor.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Nixóó,€No.€03C01„9406„CR„00211(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Nov.€21,€1995);€òòState€v.€Nunleyóó,ÏNo.€01C01„9309„CC„00316€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Feb.€2,€1995),€òòperm.Ïto€appeal€denied€concurring€in€results€onlyóó,€(Tenn.€May€8,€1995).€€AggravatedÏkidnapping,€in€the€present€case,€requires€that€the€defendant€committed€the€actÏof€"false€imprisonment,€as€defined€in€œðð39„13„302,›€with€the€intent€to€inflict€seriousÏbodily€injury.€.€.€."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„304.€€"Proof€of€serious€bodily€injuryÏwill€always€constitute€proof€of€particularly€great€injury."€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883ÏS.W.2d€597,€602€(Tenn.€1994).€€Thus,€factor€(6)€may€not€be€used€to€enhance€theÏappellant's€sentence€for€aggravated€kidnapping.€€€However,€aggravated€sexualÏbattery€requires€that€the€defendant€made€unlawful€sexual€contact€with€the€victimÏand€caused€only€òòbodily€injuryóó€to€the€victim.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504Ï(a)(2).€€If€the€proof€supports€a€finding€that€the€personal€injuries€were€particularlyÏgreat,€factor€(6)€is€applicable€to€sexual€battery€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,Ï922€S.W.2d€482,€488€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€evidence€establishes€that€the€physicalÍinjuries€to€the€victim€were€particularly€great.€€The€trial€court€properly€appliedÏfactor€(6)€in€enhancing€the€appellant's€sentence€for€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€€€€Ìà àÌà àAccordingly,€upon€òòde€novo€óóreview,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€applied€factors€(5),€the€appellant€treated€the€victim€with€exceptionalÏcruelty,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(5)× ƒO ××  ×;€(9),€the€appellant€possessed€andÏemployed€a€deadly€weapon€during€the€commission€of€the€offense,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(9);€and€(10),€the€appellant€had€no€hesitation€about€committingÏa€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10),× ƒP ××  ×€to€both€offenses.€€However,€factor€(6)€is€only€applicable€to€theÏconviction€for€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€ÌœÌ›Ìà àAdditionally,€upon€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€find€factor€(1),€that€the€defendantÏhas€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€and€factor€(8),€that€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÍunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€inÏthe€community,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8),€applicable€to€both€offenses.€ÏThe€appellant€was€convicted€of€driving€under€the€influence€in€1988.€€€HeÏadmitted€to€the€use€of€marijuana,€although€he€denied€he€had€a€drugÏdependency.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Masseyóó,€757€S.W.2d€350,€352€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988).€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Parsonsóó,€No.€01C01„9601„CC„00043€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€at€Nashville,€Jan.€30,€1997)€(criminal€behavior€based€upon€use€ofÏmarijuana).€€€After€the€commission€of€the€instant€offenses€but€prior€to€sentencing,Ïthe€appellant€committed€and€was€convicted€of€driving€under€the€influence,Ïdriving€on€a€revoked€license,€and€possession€of€marijuana.€€€The€appellantÏadmitted€to€criminal€behavior€in€the€assault€of€Pamela€Back.€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,Ï870€S.W.2d€532,€542€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€This€court€has€previously€heldÏthat€a€sentencing€court€"can€consider€criminal€convictions€or€any€other€criminalÏbehavior€òòwhich€occurred€prior€to€the€sentencing€hearingóó€as€constituting€aÏprevious€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior,€regardless€ofÏwhether€the€convictions€or€behavior€occurred€before€or€after€the€criminalÏconduct€under€consideration."€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€No.€02C01„9506„CC„00178Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Jan.€31,€1996),€òòaffirmed€byóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€93Ï(Tenn.€May€12,€1997)€(citing€òòState€v.€Watersóó,€No.€01C01„9106„CR„00158€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Feb.€20,€1992),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€June€22,Ï1992)).€€The€evidence€supports€application€of€factor€(1).€€Consequently,€implicitÏwithin€our€finding€that€the€appellant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÍconvictions€and€behavior€is€our€rejection€of€the€trial€court's€finding,€as€aÏmitigating€factor,€that€the€appellant€does€not€have€a€significant€history€of€criminalÏconvictions.€€Moreover,€the€record€indicates€that€the€appellant€receivedÏsuspended€sentences€for€driving€under€the€influence€and€driving€on€revokedÏlicense€convictions€occurring€after€the€instant€offenses.€€Approximately€fiveÏmonths€after€being€placed€on€probation,€the€appellant€was€charged€withÏcriminal€attempt€to€commit€aggravated€burglary.€€Subsequently,€his€probationÏwas€revoked.€€Accordingly,€factor€(8)€is€also€applicable.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,Ï899€S.W.2d€175€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àIn€reference€to€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€the€non€enumerated€mitigatingÏfactor€(13),€ð ðthe€appellantððs€obligation€to€his€child,ðð€we€hold€this€factorÏinapplicable€as€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€it€is€ð ðconsistent€with€the€purposeÏof€this€chapter.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€We€find€no€nexus€betweenÏpaternityship€and€mitigation€of€punishment.€€Moreover,€support€of€a€dependentÏis€by€law€an€obligation€and€a€duty.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€34„11„102(a)Ï(1996).€€We€find€it€inappropriate€to€reward€someone€for€that€which€they€areÏalready€under€a€moral€and€legal€obligation€to€perform.€€We€agree€with€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€the€appellantððs€service€in€the€National€Guard€is€a€properÏmitigating€factor.€€In€sum,€we€find€enhancing€factors€(1),€(5),€(8),€(9),€and€(10)Ïand€one€mitigating€factor€applicable€to€both€offenses.€€Regarding€theÏaggravated€sexual€battery€conviction,€we€find€the€additional€enhancing€factorÍthat€the€injuries€to€the€victim€were€particularly€great,€40„35„114(6),€applicable.ÌÌÌà@ àò òB.€€Length€of€Sentenceó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€was€convicted,€as€a€range€I€offender,€of€aggravatedÏkidnapping€and€aggravated€sexual€battery,€both€class€B€felonies.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„304(b)(1);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504(b).€€Accordingly,Ïhe€was€subject€to€a€sentence€"not€less€than€eight€nor€more€than€twelve€years."€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(2)€(1990).€€The€trial€court€imposed€theÏmaximum€sentence,€twelve€years,€for€each€offense.€€The€appellant€nowÏcontends€that,€considering€the€trial€court's€misapplication€of€enhancementÏfactors,€the€court€erred€in€imposing€the€maximum€sentence€within€the€range€toÏhis€two€convictions.€€ÌÌ€€à àRegarding€the€length€of€a€sentence,€the€presumptive€sentence€shall€beÏthe€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€if€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigatingÏfactors.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€Thus,€the€presumptive€sentence€forÏthe€instant€offenses€is€eight€years.€€€However,€if€there€are€both€enhancementÏfactors€and€mitigating€factors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€inÏthe€range,€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€theÏenhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€asÍappropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„210(e).€€ÌÌà à"The€weight€to€be€afforded€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€derivesÏfrom€balancing€relative€degrees€of€culpability€within€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€of€the€case€involved."€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€238Ï(Tenn.€1986).€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€541€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).€€There€is€no€particular€value€"vis„a„vis€how€many€years€should€beÏadded€or€subtracted€based€on€the€presence€of€any€of€these€factors."€€òòMossóó,€727ÏS.W.2d€at€238.€€Thus,€with€the€purposes€of€the€Sentencing€Act€in€mind,€theÏsentencing€court€retains€the€discretion€in€determining€the€weight€afforded€to€theÏapplicable€factors.€€òòIdóó.€at€273.€€Upon€òòde€novo€óóreview,€with€full€consideration€ofÏthe€applicable€enhancers€and€single€mitigator,€the€presumptive€sentence€at€theÏminimum€of€the€range,€and€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€these€offenses,€weÏconclude€that€the€maximum€sentences€of€twelve€years€are€justified€for€bothÏoffenses.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òC.€€Consecutive€Sentencesó óÌÌà àFinally,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€hisÍsentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencingÏhearing,€the€court€determined€that,€based€upon€the€appellant's€pending€chargesÏfor€the€murder€of€Vicky€Sue€Metzger€and€the€assault€of€Pamela€Sue€Back,€theÏappellant€qualified€as€a€"dangerous€offender,"€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4)€(1990),€and€imposed€consecutive€sentences.€€The€appellant€contendsÏthat€the€trial€courtððs€consideration€of€the€pending€criminal€charges€for€purposesÏof€imposing€consecutive€sentences€was€error.ÌÌà àIf€a€defendant€is€convicted€of€more€than€one€criminal€offense,€the€courtÏmay€order€the€sentences€to€run€consecutively€provided€that€the€defendantÏmeets€at€least€one€of€the€criteria€enumerated€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115.€ÏIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€imposed€consecutive€sentences€based€uponÏthe€appellant's€classification€as€a€dangerous€offender.€€Thus,€we€mustÏdetermine€whether€the€appellant€qualifies€as€a€"dangerous€offender."€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4).ÌÌà àIn€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1976),€our€supreme€courtÏheld€that€"[a]€defendant€may€be€classified€as€a€dangerous€offender€if€the€crimesÏòòòòfor€which€he€is€convictedóóóó€indicate€that€he€has€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,Ïand€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€isÏhigh."€€(emphasis€added).€€òòSee€alsoóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4);€€òòStateÏv.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€937€(Tenn.€1995).€Again,€the€trial€court€reliedÍexclusively€upon€the€charges€pending€against€the€appellant€in€classifying€himÏas€a€"dangerous€offender."€€The€mere€fact€that€a€charge€is€pending,€withoutÏmore,€furnishes€neither€evidence€of€criminal€conduct€nor€proof€that€theÏdefendant€is€a€dangerous€offender.€€Thus,€consideration€of€the€pending€murderÏindictment€and€the€related€charges€for€purposes€of€consecutive€sentencing€wasÏimproper.€Rather,€the€focus€remains€upon€the€inherently€dangerous€nature€ofÏthe€òòinstant€offensesóó.€€òòGrayóó,€538€S.W.2d€at€393.ÌÌà àNotwithstanding€the€trial€court's€improper€consideration€of€the€pendingÏcharges,€upon€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant€is€a€"dangerousÏoffender."€€òòSeeóó€€òòGrayóó,€538€S.W.2d€at€393.€€€The€appellant€forcibly€abducted€theÏvictim€from€her€employment,€transporting€her€into€the€adjoining€county.€€HeÏcommitted€a€sexual€battery€upon€his€victim.€€The€medical€report€indicatesÏevidence€of€ligature€strangulation€in€addition€to€seven€stab€wounds€to€her€torso,Ïresulting€in€death.€€From€these€facts,€it€is€obvious€that€the€appellantððs€ð ðbehaviorÏindicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€aÏcrime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€40„35„115(b)(4).ÌÌà àHowever,€this€classification€alone€will€not€justify€consecutive€sentencing.€ÏòòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938.€€"The€proof€must€also€establish€that€the€termsÏimposed€are€òòreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committedóó€andÏare€òònecessary€in€order€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€acts€by€theÍoffenderóó."€€òòIdóó.€€In€the€present€case,€we€find€that€the€aggregate€sentences€areÏreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€and€are€necessary€to€protectÏthe€public€from€further€criminal€acts€by€the€appellant.€€Accordingly,€theÏappellant's€sentences€are€ordered€to€run€consecutively.€€Ìò òÌÌà@ àVIII.€€Conclusionó óÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€convictions€and€theÏsentences€imposed€for€the€offenses€of€first€degree€murder,€aggravatedÏkidnapping,€and€aggravated€sexual€battery.ÌœÌÌ›œÌ›ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCURWOOD€WITT,€Judge