ÿWPCï ¦u¶„¢•1£×<ÝÓȉ‚TŒ`'+‹Ú°Ô-‹³„Þf¢§¼jñbzUï$ƒmÑw°Nô„qµ¼ 6ä<™Ñ_Vè.g¯Ûh µO‹ˆ9‰ýßS2}_Vb‘°6 ûU ÷[ r)·]Bƒº|'#Ae“.ðFrtô0O¯ü;Þ…èür0½4kW>‡„Š‚¹]2šöxÝÿÀç¿êÈtÞ]°$ux£«_¼¬D¾L €+Ï84,ìËï «>BýtC¸H][qÒòw0f‚¹Í;ÌÅÍ–Ö‡ãæ—ß­ÐU¤¿œcWãöñ—ÿÅXIgãB<òÛe”o¢b‡ªqÚ0TvøœC ù®HÇHIG3É -í-i™Ê‰÷ÆŸÙ¤SÄíËÐÛãÁ3ð%@G= Êc"P:bÄõpCµì…Ô]«ÓIdpßOïÓ¯ô qü}p :ˆ5x{°cÇÊçŠýMïñw—.¬x*ZúÃF¼£ÏÍMþ«Ïû¥Îè{µÊÖÓ.gÀ9š­~Š¬ñ«,ÀÕÐ}ÈÁ~4¨o¥@ÞsØ¢Ôp+nÓà 3†´Hän™_8{¯95xÉÙìrv©KHgóÖÇd®“½Çê5ƒ‹Abþ?$ i´›Àh’AKæL¢HbU"N\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N;U@=H}EÅÇÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏbääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääää 0ëìììì B×× 0¤ô D3˜ D-Ë 0Køø ASCÆ– 0¤\ 0D A«D(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó<§*+â Yo†)ø8¢´­¥3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  >Ý ƒR›G$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôüò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOn€this€occasion,€approximately€seven€months€after€the€Butts€Foods€robbery€and€murder,€the€Appellant€wasÐ ° Ða€passenger€in€a€vehicle€in€which€weapons€and€cocaine€were€found.€€  Ý ƒR›G$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôüò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€trial,€the€parties€stipulated€that€the€TBI€Crime€Laboratory€tests€established€that€the€ð ðshell€casings€and€bulletsÐ ° Ðrecovered€from€the€scene€of€Butts€Foods€.€.€.€determined€that€the€casings€were€from€a€.380,€and€one€bullet€was€from€aÐ tÄ Ð.38/.357€.€.€.€[T]hat€a€.380€and€a€.38/.357€are€different€caliber€weapons€and€could€not€be€fired€from€the€same€gun.ðð- ù-(|G2›G$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€6t»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôüò»»Ô d(|3j$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€6t»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3j$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€6t»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€6t»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼6t»»»ÔÑ8€lXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î6U6tÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼6t»îî6U #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€7,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XlX»¼6tÔÌò òÔ#†¼6t»XXl#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€GABRIEL€ANTONIO€CLARKòòóóÔ‡XlX»¼6tÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Madison€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„528€€€€€€Roy€B.€Morgan,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„02595„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€September€7,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ XlXXXlÔThe€Appellant,€Gabriel€Antonio€Clark,€was€convicted€by€a€Madison€County€jury€for€one€count€ofÐ xÈ  Ðfelony€murder€and€one€count€of€aggravated€robbery.€€Clark€was€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment€forÐ d´ Ðthe€murder€conviction€and,€following€a€sentencing€hearing,€received€a€twelve„year€sentence€forÐ P  Ðaggravated€robbery.€€The€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€served€consecutively.€€On€appeal,€Clark€raisesÐ <Œ Ðthe€following€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€Whether€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€sufficient€toÐ (x Ðsupport€his€convictions;€and€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€exclude€or€redact€a€portionÐ d Ðof€Clarkððs€statement€to€police€which€he€contends€was€highly€prejudicial€and€in€violation€of€Tenn.€R.Ð P ÐEvid.€403.€€After€review,€we€find€no€reversible€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ô#†XlXX XlÏ#ÔÔ#†¼6t»XXlš#ÔÔ‡XlX»¼6tÔÐ ì< ÐÓÃÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼6t»àXlÙ#ÔÔ‡XlX.¼6tÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòAlan€E.€Glennóó,Ð œì ÐJJ.,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌDaniel€J.€Taylor,€Jackson,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Gabriel€Antonio€Clark.Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€LauraÐ 8!ˆ  ÐMcMullen€Ford,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€James€G.€(Jerry)€Woodall,€District€Attorney€General;Ð $"t! Ðand€Al€Earls,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð #`" ÐÔ#†¼6t»XXlª #ÔÔ‡XlX»¼6tÔÌÓ{ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼6t»XXlD #ÔÔ‡XlX»¼6tÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼6t»XXl· #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XlX»¼6tÔò òÔ‡ XlXXXlÔà@!ìàFactual€BackgroundˆÐ ¬'ü"' Ðó óÌà  àAntonio€Womack€was€employed€at€Butts€Foods,€a€meat€and€poultry€distributor,€in€JacksonÐ „)Ô$) Ðfor€approximately€two€and€one„half€years.€€In€November€of€1998,€Womack,€who€was€a€forkliftÐ p*À%* Ðoperator€in€the€warehouse,€was€fired€for€habitually€arriving€late€to€work.€€Two€days€after€hisÐ \+¬&+ Ðtermination,€during€the€early€morning€hours€of€November€11,€1998,€Womack€drove€to€KiawaunaÐ H,˜', ÐWynnððs€house€to€socialize,€play€cards€and€smoke€marijuana€with€Wynn€and€the€Appellant.€€WhileÐ 4-„(-ý Ðat€Wynnððs€residence,€Womack€overheard€the€Appellant€and€Wynn€discuss€plans€to€commit€aÐ ° Ðrobbery.€€At€the€same€time,€Womack€mentioned€to€the€two€that€he€needed€to€retrieve€a€sweater€thatÐ œì Ðhe€had€left€at€Butts€Foods€two€days€earlier.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àSometime€later€that€morning,€the€Appellant€left€Wynnððs€residence,€but€came€back€twentyÐ `° Ðminutes€later€with€ð ðeither€a€nine€[millimeter]€or€a€.380"€pistol.€€Wynn€was€carrying€a€.357€pistol.€Ð L œ ÐAt€approximately€4:00€a.m.,€all€three€men€got€into€Wynnððs€Nissan€and€drove€to€Butts€Foods.€€WhenÐ 8 ˆ Ðthey€arrived,€the€three€men€parked€across€the€street€at€Floydððs€Tavern.€€Womack€knocked€on€the€frontÐ $ t Ðglass€door€while€Wynn€and€the€Appellant€waited€in€the€car.€€The€victim,€Billy€Ledbetter,€worked€asÐ  ` Ðnight€manager€for€Butts€Foods€and€unlocked€the€door€for€Womack.€€After€Womack€retrieved€hisÐ ü L  Ðsweater,€the€victim€walked€Womack€back€to€the€front€door€and€told€him€to€ð ðhave€a€good€night.ðð€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAccording€to€Womack,€the€Appellant€and€Wynn€came€through€the€door€as€the€victim€wasÐ À  Ðletting€him€out€of€the€building.€Womack€stayed€outside€and€shortly€thereafter€heard€numerousÐ ¬ü  Ðgunshots.€€After€hearing€the€shots,€Womack€fled€a€short€distance€on€foot.€€Wynn€and€the€AppellantÐ ˜è  Ðlater€drove€by€and€picked€him€up.€€Although€Womackððs€testimony€was€equivocal€as€to€whether€heÐ „Ô  Ðknew€that€Butts€Foods€was€going€to€be€robbed€that€night,€he€maintained€that€he€accompanied€theÐ pÀ ÐAppellant€and€Wynn€only€to€retrieve€his€sweater€and€only€left€with€them€ð ðbecause€[he]€could€haveÐ \¬ Ðbeen€next.ððÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€three€men€returned€to€Wynnððs€house€where€the€money€was€counted.€€ApproximatelyÐ  p Ð$7,187€in€cash€and€$17,122€in€checks€were€taken€from€the€business.€€Womack€testified€that€WynnÐ  \ Ðand€the€Appellant€split€the€cash€before€the€Appellant€burned€the€checks€and€keys.€€While€dividingÐ øH Ðthe€money,€the€Appellant€told€Wynn,€ð ðLook€like€you€got€that€m„„„„„r€f„„„„r€brains€on€your€pants€leg.ðð€Ð ä4 ÐAlthough€Womack€initially€denied€telling€Wynn€and€the€Appellant€where€the€money€was€located,Ð Ð  Ðhe€later€admitted€at€trial€that€he€did,€in€fact,€tell€them€that€the€money€could€be€found€in€a€desk.€Ð ¼  ÐWomack€testified€that€he€did€not€share€in€the€proceeds€of€the€robbery€because€the€Appellant€told€himÐ ¨ø Ðð ðhe€[didnððt]€think€[he]€deserved€any€money€cause€[he]€didnððt€do€[any]thing.ðð€€Two€days€later,€whenÐ ”ä ÐWomack€returned€to€Butts€Foods€to€obtain€his€paycheck,€police€arrested€him€and€took€him€intoÐ €Ð Ðcustody.€€Womack€initially€denied€any€involvement€in€the€crime.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àOn€June€14,€1999,€the€Appellant€was€taken€into€custody€on€an€unrelated€charge.€€WhenÐ D!” Ðofficers€indicated€that€they€wanted€to€talk€to€the€Appellant€about€the€Butts€Foods€robbery€andÐ 0"€  Ðmurder,€he€stated€that€he€would€only€speak€with€Sergeant€Leslee€Hallenback.€€At€approximately€1:00Ð #l! Ðp.m.,€after€being€òòMirandized€óóand€having€signed€a€waiver€of€rights€form,€the€Appellant,€althoughÐ $X" Ðagreeing€to€talk,€refused€to€allow€Sergeant€Hallenback€to€record€or€write€any€of€the€conversationÐ ô$D # Ðdown€or€allow€any€other€officers€in€the€room.€€In€his€statement€to€Sergeant€Hallenback,€the€AppellantÐ à%0!$ Ðrelated€that€he,€Womack,€and€Wynn€had€all€discussed€the€robbery€two€to€three€weeks€prior€to€theÐ Ì&"% Ðincident.€€However,€the€Appellant€stated€that€he€was€not€aware€of€Wynn€and€Womackððs€plans€toÐ ¸'#& Ðcommit€a€robbery€at€the€time€he€got€into€the€vehicle.€€The€Appellant€also€stated,€ð ðthe€last€time€he€sawÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€guns,€Womack€had€them,€and€that€the€two€guns€he€[Appellant]€was€arrested€with€were€not€anyÐ )à$( Ðof€the€murder€weapons.ðð€€The€Appellant€further€stated,€ð ðWhat€if€I€was€the€shooter?€€Iððm€looking€atÐ |*Ì%) Ð51€years.ðð€€This€interview€lasted€approximately€one€hour€before€the€Appellant€told€SergeantÐ h+¸&* ÐHallenback€that€he€needed€ð ðsome€time€to€thinkðð€before€continuing€the€interview.€SergeantÐ ° ÐHallenback€ceased€further€questioning€and€immediately€reduced€the€Appellantððs€statement€to€writingÐ œì Ðoutside€the€presence€of€the€Appellant.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àAt€approximately€6:00€p.m.€that€same€night,€Sergeant€Hallenback€spoke€with€the€AppellantÐ `° Ða€second€time.€€Again,€the€Appellant€stated€that€the€discussions€about€robbing€Butts€Foods€beganÐ L œ Ðwhile€Womack€was€still€employed€there.€€The€Appellant€also€stated€that€Womack€had€explained€howÐ 8 ˆ Ðthey€could€get€inside€the€building€to€commit€the€robbery€if€he€left€a€sweater€and€then€went€back€toÐ $ t Ðretrieve€it.€€The€Appellant€claimed€he€was€not€present€when€the€actual€robbery€occurred,€but€statedÐ  ` Ðthat€Womack€did€have€a€nine€millimeter€pistol€with€him€that€day.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àRoger€Harwell,€a€truck€driver€for€Butts€Foods,€also€testified€at€trial.€€Harwell€testified€thatÐ Ô$  Ðduring€the€early€morning€hours€of€November€11òòthóó,€he€recalled€seeing€three€people,€all€wearingÐ À  ÐtoboggansÔ#†XlXX XlC #ÔÔ‡ XlXXXlÔ,€in€a€small€dark„colored€car€parked€beside€a€trailer€near€Butts€Foods.€€He€observed€the€carÐ ¬ü  Ðleave€and€come€back€several€times€while€he€was€at€Butts€Foods.€€He€also€informed€Ledbetter€thatÐ ˜è  Ðthe€car€was€outside€the€building.€Harwell€last€saw€the€car€parked€at€Floydððs€Tavern€when€he€left€forÐ „Ô  Ðhis€route€at€4:00€a.m.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àLeon€Breathette€was€incarcerated€with€the€Appellant€in€the€Madison€County€Jail.€€At€trial,Ð H˜ Ðhe€testified€that€the€Appellant€told€him€that€he€[the€Appellant]€and€two€others€had€been€involved€inÐ 4„ Ða€ð ðwarehouse€robberyðð€that€ð ðhad€went€bad.ðð€€Breathette€explained€that€the€Appellant€told€him,€ð ðtheÐ  p Ðguy€was€supposed€to€have€been€gone€[but]€came€back€unexpectedly,€surprised€them,€and€he€[theÐ  \ ÐAppellant]€shot€him.ððÐ øH ÐÌà  àDr.€O.C.€Smith,€a€forensic€pathologist,€performed€an€autopsy€on€the€victim.€€At€trial,€Dr.Ð Ð  ÐSmith€testified€that€the€cause€of€death€was€multiple€gunshot€wounds.€€He€testified€that€the€victimÐ ¼  Ðreceived€a€total€of€five€gunshot€wounds,€including€one€superficial€graze€and€four€that€penetrated€theÐ ¨ø Ðvictimððs€body.€€The€victim€received€a€gunshot€wound€to€the€right€forehead,€a€gunshot€wound€to€theÐ ”ä Ðright€cheek,€and€two€gunshot€wounds€to€the€abdomen.€€Dr.€Smith€opined€that€none€of€the€woundsÐ €Ð Ðwould€have€been€immediately€fatal.€€The€pathologistððs€testimony€indicated€that€the€gunshot€woundsÐ l¼ Ðto€the€head€and€the€wounds€to€the€abdomen€were€produced€by€two€different€weapons.€€The€gunshotÐ X ¨ Ðwounds€to€the€head€were€consistent€with€those€being€produced€by€a€.38/.357€caliber€weapon€whileÐ D!” Ðthe€wounds€to€the€abdomen€were€consistent€with€those€being€produced€by€a€.380€caliber€weapon.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р0"€  ÐÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÐ ô$D # ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€asserts€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÐ Ì&"% Ðconvictions€for€felony€murder€and€aggravated€robbery.€€€He€argues€that€the€proof,€viewed€as€a€whole,Ð ¸'#& Ðfails€to€support€his€convictions€and€furtherÔ#†XlXX XlM&#ÔÔ‡XlXXXlÔ€argues€that€Womack€ð ðwas€not€a€credible€witness€basedÐ ° Ðupon€the€various€contradictory€statements€that€he€gave€regarding€his€involvement€or€lack€ofÐ œì Ðinvolvement€in€this€crime.ððÐ ˆØ Ðà  àÌà  àA€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€is€cloakedÐ `° Ðand€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal,€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÐ L œ Ðdemonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€Ð 8 ˆ ÐIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÐ $ t Ðevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Likewise,€it€is€not€the€duty€of€thisÐ  ` Ðcourt€to€revisit€questions€of€witness€credibility€on€appeal,€that€function€being€within€the€province€ofÐ ü L  Ðthe€trier€of€€fact.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€642,€646€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.Ð è 8  ÐBurlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€713,€718„19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Instead,€the€defendant€must€establishÐ Ô$  Ðthat€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€so€deficient€that€no€reasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€foundÐ À  Ðthe€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,Ð ¬ü  Ð319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ð ˜è  Ð513€U.S.€1086,€115€S.€Ct.€743€(1995);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€Moreover,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÐ „Ô  Ðstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÐ pÀ Ðtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert€denied,óó€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.€Ct.Ð \¬ Ð1368€(1993).Ô#†XlXXXl&0#ÔÔ‡ XlXXXlÔà ` àÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àòòÔ#†XlXX Xl,8#ÔÔ‡XlXXXlÔJackson€v.€VirginiaóóÔ#†XlXXXlŸ8#ÔÔ‡ XlXXXlÔ€addresses€two€important€aspects€of€a€sufficiency€review:€(1)€the€mannerÐ  p Ðof€review€of€the€convicting€evidence;€and€(2)€the€standard€of€review€for€legal€sufficiency.€€The€scopeÐ  \ Ðof€our€examination€of€the€evidence€is€not€equivalent€to€that€of€the€jury.€€In€a€challenge€to€theÐ øH Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€retry€the€defendant.€We€emphasize€that€ourÐ ä4 Ðexamination€in€a€sufficiency€review€is€not€to€revisit€inconsistent,€contradicting,€implausible€or€non„Ð Ð  Ðcredible€proof,€as€these€issues€are€resolved€solely€by€the€jury.€€Rather,€we€look€to€the€record€toÐ ¼  Ðdetermine€whether€there€was€substantive€probative€evidence€to€support€the€verdict.€€The€secondÐ ¨ø Ðinquiry,€the€question€of€legal€sufficiency,€then€follows:€whether€the€record€contains€evidence€fromÐ ”ä Ðwhich€the€jury€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð €Ð ÐEvery€reasonable€hypothesis€of€innocence€need€not€be€dispelled;€it€is€only€necessary€that€there€existsÐ l¼ Ðproof€which€supports€the€elements€of€the€crime.€€Again,€we€emphasize€our€inquiry€is€not€upon€theÐ X ¨ Ðweight€of€the€evidence€or€its€inconsistencies€but,€rather,€if€there€is€proof€of€the€crime€beyond€aÐ D!” Ðreasonable€doubt.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€Appellant€was€convicted€of€felony€murder€and€aggravated€robbery.€Ð $X" ÐThe€Appellant€was€prosecuted€for€felony€murder€based€upon€the€allegations€in€the€indictment€thatÐ ô$D # Ðthe€victim€was€killed€ð ðduring€the€perpetration€of€aggravated€robbery€in€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð à%0!$ Ððð€39„13„202€.€.€.ðð€Additionally,€aggravated€robbery€is€ð ðthe€intentional€or€knowing€theft€of€propertyÐ Ì&"% Ðfrom€the€person€of€another€by€violence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear€.€.€.€accomplished€with€a€deadlyÐ ¸'#& Ðweapon€or€by€display€of€any€article€used€or€fashioned€to€lead€the€victim€to€reasonably€believe€it€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbe€a€deadly€weapon€or€where€the€victim€suffers€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð )à$( Ðâ â402(a)(1)(2).€€à ` àà ¸ àÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€proof€at€trial€established€that€the€Appellant€admitted€to€Sergeant€Hallenback€that€heÐ ° Ðâ âdiscussed€committing€the€Butts€Foods€robbery€with€Womack€and€Wynn€prior€to€the€robbery.€€TheÐ œì Ðproof€additionally€established€that€the€Appellant€was€present€during€the€robbery€and€murder€of€BillyÐ ˆØ ÐLedbetter.€€Furthermore,€the€proof€demonstrated€that€the€Appellant€was€armed€with€a€.380€or€nineÐ tÄ Ðmillimeter€weapon,€the€.380€caliber€weapon€being€a€caliber€consistent€with€the€wounds€sustained€byÐ `° Ðthe€victim.€€The€Appellant€participated€in€counting€the€stolen€money€and€sharing€in€the€proceeds.Ð L œ ÐFinally,€he€admitted€to€an€inmate€that€he€was€involved€in€a€warehouse€robbery€that€ð ðhad€went€bad.ðð€Ð 8 ˆ ÐClearly€from€these€facts,€a€jury€could€have€concluded,€based€upon€this€conduct€or€by€the€conduct€ofÐ $ t Ðothers€for€which€he€was€criminally€responsible€or€by€both,€that€he€was€guilty€of€felony€murder€andÐ  ` Ðaggravated€robbery.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„401.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWe€acknowledge€that€Womackððs€testimony€at€trial€was€conflicting€and€on€occasionÐ Ô$  Ðcontradicted€his€previous€statements€to€police.€€However,€such€inconsistencies€and€questions€ofÐ À  Ðcredibility€were€placed€before€the€jury.€€Questions€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses€are€for€the€jury.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐSee€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€Ð ˜è  ÐAfter€reviewing€the€facts€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€we€find€the€evidence€presented€atÐ „Ô  Ðtrial€sufficient€to€support€his€convictions€for€first€degree€murder€and€aggravated€robbery.Ð pÀ ÐÔ#†XlXX Xl÷8#ÔÔ‡ XlXXXlÔÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Admission€of€Appellantððs€StatementÐ 4„ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€into€evidence€a€portion€ofÐ  \ Ðhis€statement€given€to€Sergeant€Ô_ÔHallenbackÔ_Ô.€€At€the€Appellantððs€request,€Sergeant€HallenbackÐ øH Ðinterviewed€the€Appellant€twice€on€June€14,€1999.€€Although€the€Appellant€refused€to€let€her€recordÐ ä4 Ðor€write€anything€down€during€the€interview€itself,€Sergeant€Hallenback€immediately€reduced€theÐ Ð  ÐAppellantððs€statements€to€writing€following€each€interview.€€On€May€22,€2000,€the€trial€court€heardÐ ¼  Ðthe€Appellantððs€motion€in€limine€which€sought€redaction€of€the€following€portion€of€his€statement:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[The€Appellant]€told€me€that€the€last€time€he€saw€the€guns,€WomackÐ €Ð Ðhad€them,€and€that€the€two€guns€he€was€arrested€with€were€not€any€ofÐ l¼ Ðthe€murder€weapons.ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌAfter€hearing€arguments,€the€trial€court€denied€the€Appellantððs€motion,€ruling€the€challenged€€portionÐ 0"€  Ðwas€admissible€because€it€was€substantive€evidence.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€record€suggests€that€the€Appellantððs€arrest€at€the€time€that€he€gave€the€statement€toÐ ô$D # ÐSergeant€Hallenback€was€for€a€charge€unrelated€to€the€current€offenses.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,€in€this€context,€theÐ à%0!$ ÐAppellant€related€to€Sergeant€Hallenback€that€ð ðthe€two€guns€he€was€arrested€with€[on€this€occasion]Ð Ì&"% Ðwere€not€any€of€the€murder€weapons€[used€in€the€Butts€Foods€murder].ðð€€Accordingly,€the€AppellantÐ ¸'#& Ðargues€that€evidence€of€this€subsequent€arrest,€implying€additional€unlawful€activity,€was€highlyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðprejudicial€and€irrelevant.€€We€agree€that€this€evidence€was€irrelevant€and€improperly€admittedÐ ° Ðbecause€the€Appellantððs€possession€of€these€weapons€had€no€connection€to€the€murder€or€robberyÐ œì Ðof€the€victim€in€this€case.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Nonetheless,€we€note€that€prior€to€the€introductionÐ ˆØ Ðof€this€portion€of€the€Appellantððs€statement,€trial€counsel€stipulated€to€the€same€facts€which€he€nowÐ tÄ Ðcontends€were€irrelevant.€€At€trial,€the€following€stipulation€was€admitted€into€evidence:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIt€is€stipulated€that€the€weapons€recovered€at€the€time€of€[theÐ 8 ˆ ÐAppellantððs]€arrest€were€from€the€trunk€of€Joe€Bondððs€car€which€JoeÐ $ t ÐBond€was€driving€at€the€time.€€These€weapons€were€tested€andÐ  ` Ðdetermined€to€not€be€the€murder€weapon€by€a€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÐ ü L  ÐInvestigation€agent€in€a€report€dated€November€the€10òòthóó,€1999.€€Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌTrial€counsel€prefaced€this€stipulation€by€stating,€ð ðsince€the€Court€has€overruled€me€and€this€evidenceÐ À  Ðis€coming€in€anyway,€Iððve€agreed€[to€the€stipulation],€without€waiving€my€clientððs€right€to€appeal€thisÐ ¬ü  Ðissue€.€.€.€Iððm€not€waiving€my€clientððs€objection.ðð€€As€the€trial€court€correctly€charged€during€juryÐ ˜è  Ðinstructions,€ð ðA€stipulation€is€an€agreement.€€The€State€and€the€Defendant€have€stipulated€that€certainÐ „Ô  Ðmatters€of€fact€are€true.€€They€are€bound€by€this€agreement,€and€in€your€consideration€of€theÐ pÀ Ðevidence,€you€are€to€treat€those€facts€as€proved.ðð€€Trial€counsel€cannot€stipulate€to€a€fact€and€thenÐ \¬ Ðlater€argue€the€facts€stipulated€to€were€error.€€For€this€reason,€we€find€that€any€error€in€its€introductionÐ H˜ Ðwas€negated€by€trial€counselððs€stipulation,€thereby€nullifying€any€harmful€effects€of€the€error.€€Tenn.Ð 4„ ÐR.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Moreover,€while€we€conclude€that€the€introduction€of€the€portion€of€the€statementÐ  p Ðobjected€to€was€error,€we€additionally€find€its€admission€did€not€affect€the€results€of€the€trial€and€wasÐ  \ Ðclearly€harmless.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).Ð øH ÐÌÌÓ  Óà @ à€ò òCONCLUSIONÐ ¼  ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àAfter€review,€we€find€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€sufficient€to€support€the€AppellantððsÐ ˜è Ðconvictions€for€first€degree€murder€and€aggravated€robbery.€€Finding€no€reversible€error,€we€affirmÐ „Ô Ðthe€judgment€of€the€Madison€County€Circuit€Court.Ô#†XlXX XlÊI#ÔÐ pÀ ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ø$H # Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE