ÿWPCµ `ósY©åNèNúÓ'ú‚ϵpMð‚¬ãŽ+ôR`OÝé¿zbÅ6«íØh½©pê­G›íî²%VcŒÀ M€5êŠþ6˜ßÊ]$\½oâL¯ð~„—̔ذoåD¯Áÿ×Ǧb‘O³ÝÚ»k4¥×Ë!5Ci¶^õ×w ù[·h”~¢PÊsN—sôlÂ?¶Ý ,3ÃIÙÖÀ¤8%µç=üd“W)%Ù‚ãM…ÓÛÍý]ñt ñÍÊ,uÅØ '+Á'Õ/€ŒiB)ɧWÓý¸UÒ¤â9(óO9õ°Ç‹<€(¯T{5ì â4ZÿõÞµ¸±þ“qç)ËŠBÛ7xOè«°x™1RÿEì\8¹“KîÜCâ¼ðCY‚©4ß„È0„?  `ÉfWí„‘¨¤Ñòâñôèv-3ZêÒ Ë˜-_˜îͳ‚FËÎÚ­2ÄRlS|˜ìN¾—˜„L„¡ÎÚ͈jC¤o–¸ U',µ¹'Å æ!¿Üã7ýÆ%é[²°„üº³N6o«ëKú]ׂ&ëÛûŸûd–x$U+édw|ÚÍ(Œ£Y„^QT:åguF¦Ó‰L­NÔt›\mòC÷i8G >e„PËÀ&VÙ©¸ £ÈŸuñXTgÕb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U,N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U @‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#UNéN7 0D9Ù}EVVXX 0¤` 0¤b¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨ 0ë°°°° B›› 0¤¸ D5\ D-‘ 0K¾¾ AS Æ\ 0¤" 0DÆ A« ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»v~l-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularYo†)='Œ¥Backup ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÏÝ ƒRû•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôä½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPrior€to€1989,€confinement€was€unlawful€if€it€was€ð ðinduced€by€force,€threat€or€òòdeceptionóó.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ° Ððð€39„2„301(b)(3)€(1982)€(emphasis€added).€€However,€at€present,€removal€or€confinement€is€unlawful€if€ð ðaccomplishedÐ tÄ Ðby€force,€threat€or€òòfraudóó.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„301(2)€(1997)€(emphasis€added).€€Although€the€trial€courtððs€juryÐ 8ˆ Ðcharge€correctly€stated€the€elements€of€ð ðforce,€threat€or€òòfraudóó,ðð€the€word€ð ðfraudðð€was€not€defined.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð üL Ð39„11„106(a)(13)€(1997).€€Instead,€the€jury€instruction€defined€the€word€ð ðdeception,ðð€which€was€not€charged€as€anÐ À Ðelement€of€the€offense.€€The€trial€court€defined€ð ðdeceptionðð€as€ð ðthe€act€of€deceiving;€intentional€misleading€by€falsehoodÐ „Ô Ðspoken€or€acted.ðð€€This€definition€came€from€a€previous€edition€of€the€pattern€charge,€òòseeóó€Ô_ÔT.P.I.Ô_Ô„CRIM.€8.03€(4th€ed.Ð H ˜ Ð1995),€and€is€not€included€in€the€current€pattern€charge,€òòseeóó€Ô_ÔT.P.I.Ô_Ô„CRIM.€8.03€(5th€ed.€2000).€€Regardless,€we€concludeÐ  \ Ðthe€evidence€does€not€support€a€finding€of€ð ðfraudðð€with€regard€to€the€victimððs€removal€or€confinement. (|3‰i$§§Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÕ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý(|3‰i$©©Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÕ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý- ù-(|G2û•$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÕ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôä½ò»»Ô d(|3‰i$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÕ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰i$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÕ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÕ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼VÕ»»»ÔÑ8€™XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îDdVÕÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼VÕ»îîDd#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€10,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X™X»¼VÕÔÌò òÔ#†¼VÕ»XX™#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€EDWARD€COLEMAN€AND€SEAN€WILLIAMSÔ‡X™X»¼VÕÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNos.€99„11607,€99„11608€€€€€€Joseph€B.€Dailey,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„01021„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€7,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓA€Shelby€County€jury€convicted€the€defendants,€Edward€Coleman€and€Sean€Williams,€ofÐ xÈ  Ðpremeditated€murder,€felony€murder,€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô,€and€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô.€Ð d´ ÐThe€trial€court€merged€the€two€murder€convictions€and€sentenced€the€defendants€to€life.€€The€trialÐ P  Ðcourt€merged€the€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€convictions€and€sentenced€Coleman€and€Williams€to€twenty„two€yearsÐ <Œ Ðand€eighteen€years,€respectively,€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€life€sentence.€€In€this€appeal€ofÐ (x Ðright,€both€defendants€raise€the€following€issues:€(1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€supportÐ d Ðthe€convictions;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€defendantsðð€motion€to€sever;€(3)Ð P Ðwhether€the€state€failed€to€provide€the€defendants€with€timely€discovery;€and€(4)€Ô#†¼VÕ»XX™#ÔÔ‡X™X»¼VÕÔwhether€the€trialÐ ì< Ðcourt€erred€in€permitting€testimony€that€Williams€shot€a€witness€in€this€case€on€a€prior€occasion.€€InÐ Ø( Ðaddition,€Coleman€raises€the€following€issues:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€permittingÐ Ä Ðtestimony€regarding€the€loss€of€Colemanððs€leg,€allegedly€caused€by€the€victim;€and€(2)€Ô#†¼VÕ»XX™Ú#ÔÔ‡X™X»¼VÕÔwhether€theÐ ° Ðstate€knowingly€presented€perjured€and€conflicting€testimonyÔ#†¼VÕ»XX™Š #ÔÔ‡X™X»¼VÕÔ.€€Williams€also€raises€the€followingÐ œì Ðissues:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€photographs€of€the€victimððs€body;€and€(2)Ð ˆØ ÐwhetherÔ#†¼VÕ»XX™( #ÔÔ‡X™X»¼VÕÔ€the€state€during€closing€argumentÔ#†¼VÕ»XX™# #ÔÔ‡X™X»¼VÕÔ€violated€the€òòÔ_ÔBrutonÔ_Ôóó€rule€by€referring€to€ColemanððsÐ tÄ Ðincriminating€statement€regarding€Williams.€€After€reviewing€the€record,€we€affirm€the€convictionsÐ `° Ðfor€premeditated€first€degree€murder€but€reverse€and€dismiss€the€other€charges€based€uponÐ L œ Ðinsufficiency€of€the€evidence.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓÃÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed€in€Part;Ð #`" ÐReversed€and€Dismissed€in€Partó óÐ ü#L# ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼VÕ»àX™‡ #ÔÔ‡X™X.¼VÕÔJoe€G.€Riley,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€and€òòDavid€G.Ð Ô%$!% ÐHayes,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð À&"& ÐÌC.€Anne€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Edward€Coleman.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌMark€Ô_ÔMeslerÔ_Ô€(on€appeal)€and€Howard€Manis€(at€trial),€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€SeanÐ p*À%* ÐWilliams.Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ý ÐÔ_ÔPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Braden€H.€Boucek,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ° Ðâ âWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Stephen€P.€Jones€and€Amy€P.€Weirich,€AssistantÐ œì ÐDistrict€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ˆØ ÐÌÓéÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼VÕ»XX™#ÔÔ‡X™X»¼VÕÔÐ L œ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼VÕ»XX™ì#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X™X»¼VÕÔà  àOrlando€Gates,€the€sixteen„year„old€victim,€died€from€multiple€gunshot€wounds€inflicted€onÐ $ t ÐJanuary€11,€1999.€€In€1998,€Gates€and€the€defendant,€Edward€Coleman,€were€involved€in€anÐ  ` Ðautomobile€accident,€in€which€Coleman€lost€one€of€his€legs.€€Sid€Rhodes,€a€co„defendant,€testifiedÐ ü L  Ðthat€while€he€was€visiting€Coleman€in€the€hospital€following€the€accident,€Coleman€said,€ð ðIððm€goingÐ è 8  Ðto€kill€him,ðð€referring€to€Gates.€€Ocassieo€Johnson,€a€friend€of€the€defendants,€testified€Coleman€onceÐ Ô$  Ðsaid€he€wanted€to€get€someone€to€ð ðjumpðð€Gates.€€Johnson€also€testified€the€defendant,€SeanÐ À  ÐWilliams,€once€said€he€wanted€to€shoot€Gates€due€to€the€injury€to€Colemanððs€leg.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àAround€8:00€p.m.€on€January€11,€1999,€Williams€picked€up€Coleman,€Rhodes,€and€MarioÐ „Ô  ÐMeans€in€a€stolen€Nissan€Altima.€€Coleman€removed€a€.25€automatic€pistol€from€the€trunk€of€the€car.€Ð pÀ ÐBoth€Johnson€and€George€Gates,€the€victimððs€brother,€testified€they€saw€Coleman€with€the€gunÐ \¬ Ðearlier€in€the€day.€€Rhodes€testified€that€when€they€entered€the€car,€Williams€asked,€ð ðDo€you€knowÐ H˜ Ðwhat€we€fixinðð€to€do?ðð€€When€Rhodes€indicated€he€did€not€know,€Williams€answered,€ð ðWe€fixinððÐ 4„ Ðto€kill€him.ðð€€When€Rhodes€asked€who€they€intended€to€kill,€Williams€answered,€ð ðOrlando€Gates.ðð€Ð  p ÐÌà  àWilliams,€Coleman,€Rhodes,€and€Means€then€went€to€Williamsðð€house,€and€Williams€askedÐ øH ÐRhodes€to€get€the€victim,€who€was€inside€the€house.€€When€Rhodes€knocked€on€the€door,€Gates€cameÐ ä4 Ðout€of€the€house.€€Gates€got€into€the€car,€and€Rhodes€went€inside€Williamsðð€house.€€Gates€then€cameÐ Ð  Ðback€inside€Williamsðð€house€and€told€Rhodes€ð ðCome€on,€weððre€leaving.ðð€€Rhodes€then€got€into€theÐ ¼  Ðcar€with€Williams,€Coleman,€Means,€and€Gates.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àMeans€testified€that€while€Rhodes€was€inside€Williamsðð€house,€Williams€and€Coleman€beganÐ €Ð Ðto€whisper€to€each€other.€€Williams€asked,€ð ðDo€they€know€what€we€fixinðð€to€do?ðð€€Coleman€said,Ð l¼ Ðð ðNo.ðð€€Williams€then€asked,€ð ðDo€they€know€we€fixinðð€to€kill€him?ðð€€Williams€and€Coleman€thenÐ X ¨ Ðlaughed.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àWilliams€was€driving€the€Altima,€and€Coleman€sat€in€the€front€passenger€seat.€€Rhodes,Ð #l! ÐMeans,€and€Gates€sat€in€the€back€seat€with€Gates€sitting€between€Rhodes€and€Means.€€WilliamsÐ $X" Ðdrove€to€the€ð ðwaterfall,ðð€an€isolated,€wooded€area€at€the€south€end€of€Prospect€Street€in€Memphis.€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àWhen€they€arrived€at€the€ð ðwaterfall,ðð€Williams€pulled€the€car€into€a€ditch€and€told€everyoneÐ Ì&"% Ðto€get€out€because€the€car€was€stuck.€€Rhodes€and€Means€testified€they€all€tried€to€push€the€car,€butÐ ¸'#& ÐWilliams€had€his€foot€on€the€brake.€€Means€told€Williams€to€get€his€foot€off€the€brake,€and€when€heÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdid,€they€pushed€the€car€up€the€hill.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àRhodes€testified€that€Coleman€then€cocked€his€pistol€and€fired€three€shots€at€Gates,€who€fellÐ ° Ðâ âto€the€ground.€€€Rhodes€testified€Williams€took€the€gun€from€Coleman€and€shot€Gates€in€the€head,Ð œì Ðand€Gates€stopped€moving.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àRhodes€and€Means€testified€that€after€Williams€shot€the€victim,€he€told€them€to€shoot€Gates,Ð `° Ðand€if€they€did€not,€he€would€kill€them.€€Rhodes€testified€Williams€gave€the€gun€to€Means,€who€shotÐ L œ Ðthe€gun€once€toward€Gates.€€Rhodes€testified€that€after€Means€shot€the€gun,€Means€gave€it€to€Rhodes,Ð 8 ˆ Ðwho€fired€two€shots€beside€Gatesðð€body.€€Coleman€said€Gates€was€not€dead,€so€Williams€took€theÐ $ t Ðgun€from€Rhodes€and€shot€Gates€once€more€in€the€head.€€Acting€upon€Colemanððs€instructions,Ð  ` ÐWilliams€hid€the€victimððs€body€in€the€bushes.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àMeans,€however,€testified€Coleman€first€shot€Gates€several€times.€€Williams€then€took€theÐ Ô$  Ðgun€and€threatened€Means€and€Rhodes€with€it.€€Means€further€testified€he€took€the€gun,€held€itÐ À  Ðbehind€his€back,€and€shot€the€gun€once€without€hitting€Gates.€€Williams€and€Coleman€laughed€atÐ ¬ü  ÐMeans€for€missing€Gates,€and€Means€ran€back€to€the€car.€€Means€testified€Williams€then€shot€GatesÐ ˜è  Ðtwice€in€the€head,€but€Rhodes€never€shot€Gates.€€When€Williams€got€into€the€car,€Means€asked€himÐ „Ô  Ðif€he€shot€Gates€in€the€head.€€Williams€responded,€ð ðWhere€you€think€I€shot€him€at,€his€ear?ðð€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àColeman,€Williams,€Means,€and€Rhodes€then€drove€to€Williamsðð€house.€€Johnson€testifiedÐ H˜ Ðhe€saw€the€Altima€coming€down€Prospect€Street,€but€because€the€windows€were€tinted,€he€could€notÐ 4„ Ðsee€who€was€inside€the€car.€€Johnson€followed€the€car€to€a€parking€lot€near€Williamsðð€house.€€WhileÐ  p Ðstanding€in€the€front€yard,€Williamsðð€mother€yelled,€ð ðIf€I€go€up€there€and€anything€is€wrong€with€thatÐ  \ Ðboy,€everybody€that€was€in€the€car€is€going€to€jail.ðð€€Coleman€then€told€Johnson€to€take€the€car€outÐ øH Ðof€the€neighborhood,€so€Johnson€left€with€the€car.€€Means€went€home€and€Coleman,€Williams,€andÐ ä4 ÐRhodes€went€inside€Williamsðð€house.€€Rhodes€testified€Williamsðð€mother€asked,€ð ðWhy€you€do€it?ðð;Ð Ð  Ðno€one€responded.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àTiffany€Pride,€a€neighbor,€testified€Williams€came€to€her€house€on€the€night€of€January€11thÐ ”ä Ðlooking€for€his€grandmother.€€She€testified€Williams€looked€scared€and€had€spots€of€blood€on€hisÐ €Ð Ðclothes.€€She€said€she€overheard€Williams€tell€his€grandmother€he€needed€her€to€wash€some€of€hisÐ l¼ Ðclothes.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àJohnson€testified€he€called€Coleman€on€January€12th,€and€Coleman€said€he€shot€Gates€at€theÐ 0"€  Ðð ðwaterfallðð€the€previous€day.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àRhodes€and€Means€were€charged€with€facilitation€of€first€degree€murder€and€were€not€triedÐ ô$D # Ðwith€Coleman€and€Williams.€€A€jury€found€Coleman€and€Williams€guilty€of€premeditated€murder,Ð à%0!$ Ðmurder€in€perpetration€of€kidnapping,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€and€aggravated€kidnapping.€Ð Ì&"% ÐThe€trial€court€merged€the€premeditated€first€degree€murders€and€felony€murders€into€a€singleÐ ¸'#& Ðconviction€and€further€merged€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€convictions€and€aggravatedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðkidnapping€convictions€into€a€single€conviction.Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* ЇÓ  Óò òSUFFICIENCYó óÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€defendants€argue€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€convictions.€€Ô‡ X™XXX™ÔInÐ ˆØ Ðdetermining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€Ð tÄ ÐòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€A€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judgeÐ `° Ðaccredits€the€state's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885Ð L œ ÐS.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€evidence€and€all€legitimate€or€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòId.óó€ThisÐ $ t Ðcourt€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€defendantÐ  ` Ðdemonstrates€that€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€the€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefromÐ ü L  Ðare€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€accused€guilty€beyond€aÐ è 8  Ðreasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Accordingly,€it€isÐ Ô$  Ðthe€appellate€court's€duty€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€the€evidence,€viewed€under€these€standards,€wasÐ À  Ðsufficient€for€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€aÐ ¬ü  Ðreasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,Ð ˜è  Ð2789,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€560€(1979);€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).€€Ô#†X™XX X™0#ÔÐ „Ô  ÐÌò òA.€€Premeditated€Murderó óÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àÔ‡ X™XXX™ÔThe€applicable€definition€of€first€degree€murder€is€ð ð[a]€premeditated€and€intentional€killingÐ 4„ Ðof€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1).€€Premeditation€necessitates€ð ða€previously€formedÐ  p Ðdesign€or€intent€to€kill,ðð€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992)€(citations€omitted),€andÐ  \ Ðð ðan€act€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment€.€.€.€[meaning]€that€the€intent€to€kill€mustÐ øH Ðhave€been€formed€prior€to€the€act€itself.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(d).€€It€also€requires€that€theÐ ä4 Ðaccused€be€ð ðsufficiently€free€from€excitement€and€passion€as€to€be€capable€of€premeditation.ðð€òòId.óóÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€element€of€premeditation€is€a€question€of€fact€to€be€determined€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.Ð ¨ø ÐSuttlesóó,€30€S.W.3d€252,€261€(Tenn.€2000).€€Although€the€jury€may€not€engage€in€speculation,€it€mayÐ ”ä Ðinfer€premeditation€from€the€manner€and€circumstances€of€the€killing.€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2dÐ €Ð Ð651,€660€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€OurÐ l¼ Ðsupreme€court€delineated€several€circumstances€that€may€be€indicative€of€premeditation,€includingÐ X ¨ Ðthe€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim,€the€fact€that€the€killing€was€particularly€cruel,Ð D!” Ðdeclarations€of€the€intent€to€kill€the€victim€by€the€defendant,€the€making€of€preparations€before€theÐ 0"€  Ðkilling€for€the€purpose€of€concealing€the€crime,€and€calmness€immediately€after€the€killing.€€òòóóòòBlandóó,Ð #l! Ð958€S.W.2d€at€660.€€Ô#†X™XX X™Ô6#ÔÐ $X" ÐÌÓ  Óò ò1.€€Premeditationó óÐ à%0!$ ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€defendants€made€several€declarations€of€their€intent€to€kill€the€victim.€Ð ¸'#& ÐPrior€to€the€victimððs€death,€Coleman€stated€he€was€ð ðgoing€to€kill€him,ðð€and€he€wanted€someone€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðð ðjumpðð€the€victim.€€Williams€stated€he€wanted€to€shoot€the€victim€for€what€he€did€to€Colemanððs€leg.Ð )à$( ÐWhile€waiting€on€Gates€to€enter€the€car,€Williams€told€Rhodes€and€Means€they€were€ð ðfixinðð€to€killððÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€victim.€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àThe€proof€showed€the€defendants€also€made€preparations€prior€to€shooting€the€victim.€€First,Ð ° ÐColeman€obtained€a€.25€automatic€pistol,€and€Williams€obtained€a€stolen€car.€€They€drove€the€victimÐ œì Ðto€a€remote€area€and€pretended€the€car€was€stuck€in€order€to€get€the€victim€out€of€the€car€so€theyÐ ˆØ Ðcould€shoot€him.€€The€victim€was€unarmed€and€defenseless.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€defendants€were€calm€immediately€after€shooting€the€victim.€€They€laughed€whenÐ L œ ÐMeans€shot€the€gun€and€missed€the€victimððs€body.€€After€killing€the€victim,€Williams,€acting€uponÐ 8 ˆ ÐColemanððs€instructions,€hid€the€victim€in€the€bushes.€€When€Johnson€retrieved€the€Altima,€ColemanÐ $ t Ðtold€him€to€take€it€out€of€the€neighborhood.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€there€was€ample€proof€the€defendantsðð€actions€were€premeditated€and€Ð è 8  Ðintentional;€the€evidence€supports€the€convictions€for€premeditated€first€degree€murder.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÓ  Óò ò2.€€Corroborating€Evidenceó óÐ ¬ü  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€defendants€contend€the€prosecution€failed€to€present€sufficient€corroborating€evidenceÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€accomplicesðð€testimony€to€support€a€conviction.€€We€disagree.Ð pÀ ÐÌÔ‡ X™XXX™Ôà  àIn€Tennessee€a€conviction€may€not€be€based€solely€upon€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€anÐ H˜ Ðaccomplice.€€òòState€v.€Baneóó,€57€S.W.3d€411,€419€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€976€S.W.2d€661,€666Ð 4„ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Furthermore,€accomplices€cannot€corroborate€each€other.€€òòState€v.€Boxleyóó,Ð  p Ð76€S.W.3d€381,€386€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).€€However,€corroboration€is€sufficient€even€though€theÐ  \ Ðevidence€is€slight€and€entitled,€when€standing€alone,€to€but€little€consideration.€€òòState€v.€Caldwellóó,Ð øH Ð977€S.W.2d€110,€116€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€The€issue€of€whether€an€accompliceððs€testimony€hasÐ ä4 Ðbeen€sufficiently€corroborated€becomes€a€matter€entrusted€to€the€jury,€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.Ð Ð  ÐBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994).€€Ô#†X™XX X™îE#ÔÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€prosecution€presented€sufficient€evidence€corroborating€the€testimony€of€Rhodes€andÐ ”ä ÐMeans,€who€identified€the€defendants€as€the€perpetrators.€€Prior€to€the€shooting,€both€Coleman€andÐ €Ð ÐWilliams€made€several€statements€to€Johnson€declaring€their€intent€to€kill€the€victim.€€In€addition,Ð l¼ ÐPride€testified€that€later€that€night,€Williams€had€spots€of€blood€on€his€clothing,€and€he€lookedÐ X ¨ Ðfrightened.€€Finally,€Johnson€testified€Coleman€admitted€to€shooting€the€victim.€€After€reviewing€theÐ D!” Ðrecord,€we€conclude€this€corroborating€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€convictions€forÐ 0"€  Ðpremeditated€murder.Ð #l! ÐÌò òB.€€Murder€in€Perpetration€of€Kidnappingó óÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àOur€statute€defines€first€degree€murder,€in€part,€as€ð ð[a]€killing€of€another€committed€in€theÐ Ì&"% Ðperpetration€of€or€attempt€to€perpetrate€any€.€.€.€kidnapping€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð ¸'#& Ð202(a)(2).€€The€code€further€states€ð ð[n]o€culpable€mental€state€is€required€.€.€.€except€the€intent€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcommit€the€enumerated€offenses€or€acts€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€(b).€€Additionally,€the€death€must€occur€ð ðin€theÐ )à$( Ðperpetration€of€ðð€the€enumerated€felony.€€òòState€v.€Hintonóó,€42€S.W.3d€113,€119€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð |*Ì%) Ð2000)€(citations€omitted).€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àAs€applicable€to€the€present€case,€ð ðkidnappingðð€is€defined€as€ð ðfalse€imprisonment...[u]nderÐ ° Ðcircumstances€exposing€the€other€person€to€substantial€risk€of€bodily€injury€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð œì Ððð€39„13„303(a)(1).€€ð ðFalse€imprisonmentðð€is€committed€when€one€ð ðknowingly€removes€or€confinesÐ ˆØ Ðanother€unlawfully€so€as€to€interfere€substantially€with€the€otherððs€liberty.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„Ð tÄ Ð13„302(a).€€Unlawful€removal€or€confinement€may€be€accomplished€through€either€ð ðforce,€threat,Ð `° Ðor€òòfraud€óó.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„301(2)€(emphasis€added).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€contend€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€convictions€for€murderÐ $ t Ðin€perpetration€of€a€kidnapping€because€the€victim€was€not€unlawfully€removed€or€confined.€€TheÐ  ` Ðstate€argues€the€victim€was€removed€and€confined€by€ð ðfraud.ðð€€We€agree€with€the€defendants.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWe€have€examined€the€stateððs€argument€to€the€trial€court€in€response€to€the€defendantsððÐ Ô$  Ðmotion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€with€regard€to€the€alleged€kidnapping.€€The€defendants€argued€theÐ À  Ðvictim€voluntarily€got€into€the€car,€voluntarily€got€out€of€the€car,€and€was€shot€moments€later,€whichÐ ¬ü  Ðwould€not€constitute€kidnapping.€€The€state€argued€the€victim€may€well€have€gotten€into€the€car€andÐ ˜è  Ðgone€to€the€scene€voluntarily,€but€the€kidnapping€occurred€at€the€point€when€the€victim€got€out€ofÐ „Ô  Ðthe€car€because€of€the€defendantsðð€ploy€that€the€car€was€stuck.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€final€argument,€the€state€contended€the€victim€got€into€the€car€voluntarily,€but€he€wouldÐ H˜ Ðnot€have€done€so€if€he€had€known€what€was€about€to€occur.€€The€state€further€argued€that€when€theÐ 4„ Ðdefendants€took€the€victim€to€the€ð ðwaterfall,ðð€he€was€not€going€home,€but€rather€was€removed€orÐ  p Ðconfined€by€the€defendants.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€state€contends€the€victim€was€ð ðfraudulently€inducedðð€to€get€into€the€vehicleÐ ä4 Ðand€go€to€the€scene€of€his€murder.€€The€state€has€changed€theories€from€the€trial€court€to€the€appellateÐ Ð  Ðcourt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Alderóó,€71€S.W.3d€299,€303€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001)€(holding€issue€is€waivedÐ ¼  Ðwhen€a€party€changes€theories).€€Regardless,€we€conclude€the€evidence€does€not€support€theÐ ¨ø Ðconvictions€for€felony€murder.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAs€stated,€our€kidnapping€statutes€provide€that€the€unlawful€removal€or€confinement€may€beÐ l¼ Ðaccomplished€not€only€by€ð ðforceðð€or€ð ðthreat,ðð€but€also€by€ð ðfraud.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„301(2).€Ð X ¨ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€use€of€fraud€as€a€substitute€for€force€in€effectingÐ 0"€  Ðkidnapping€implies€false€and€fraudulent€representations€amountingÐ #l! Ðsubstantially€to€a€coercion€of€the€will€of€the€kidnapped€person.€€InÐ $X" Ðdetermining€whether€the€person€was€coerced€by€fraud€andÐ ô$D # Ðinveiglement,€the€nature€of€the€artifice€employed€and€the€age,Ð à%0!$ Ðeducation,€and€condition€of€mind€must€be€taken€into€consideration,Ð Ì&"% Ðand€ordinarily€a€false€statement€or€representation€is€not€of€itselfÐ ¸'#& Ðsufficient€to€constitute€fraud.Ф(ô#'` x` x Ðâ âÓÓÐ )à$( ÐÓÓ51€C.J.S.€òòKidnappingóó€ðð€1,€p.€498€(1967).€€Here,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€defendantsÐ ° Ðâ âthemselves,€or€through€others,€made€false€and€fraudulent€representations€in€order€to€entice€the€victimÐ œì Ðto€get€into€the€car.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€state€relies€upon€the€case€of€òòState€v.€John€Charles€Johnsonóó€in€contending€the€defendantsÐ `° Ðunlawfully€removed€and€confined€the€victim€through€ð ðfraud.ðð€€€No.€M2000„00529„CCA„R3„CD,Ð L œ Ð2001€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€193€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€March€1,€2001,€at€Nashville),€òòperm.€to€app.Ð 8 ˆ Ðdeniedóó€(Tenn.€July€9,€2001).€€In€òòJohnsonóó,€the€defendant€and€the€co„defendant€fabricated€a€story€inÐ $ t Ðorder€to€lure€the€victim€to€a€secluded€area€where€they€would€kill€him.€€òòIdóó.€at€*4.€€After€obtaining€aÐ  ` Ðgun,€they€went€to€the€victimððs€house€and€told€him€people€who€were€interested€in€selling€a€stolen€carÐ ü L  Ðwere€waiting€for€them€at€a€lake.€€òòIdóó.€at€*5.€€They€told€the€victim€to€come€with€them€if€he€wasÐ è 8  Ðinterested,€and€the€victim€agreed.€€òòIdóó.€€The€defendant€drove€them€to€the€lake€where€he€then€killed€theÐ Ô$  Ðvictim.€€òòIdóó.€at€**5„6.€€This€court€held€the€defendant€ð ðknowingly€and€unlawfully€removed€[the€victim]Ð À  Ðfrom€his€home€by€fraud.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€*34.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àAlthough€we€do€not€disagree€with€the€holding€in€òòJohnsonóó,€its€facts€are€distinguishable€fromÐ „Ô  Ðthe€case€at€bar.€€In€support€of€its€argument,€the€state€relies€upon€the€following€testimony€of€Rhodes:Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àQ:€Youððre€all€in€the€car,€what€happened?€€What€happened€next?ÐH˜Ð Ð  Ðà8  àA:€We€left€and€went€around€to€Sean€Williamsðð€house.€€He€said,€ððGo€knock€on€theÐ 4„ Ðdoor€and€tell€Orlando€to€come€onðð.€.€.€.Ð pÐ Ð  Ðà8  àQ:€€ð"ðWhat€happened?Ð \Ð Ð  Ðà8  àA:€He€come€outð"ðOrlando€comes€out€the€house.€€I€goes€in€the€house.€€Orlando€getsÐ øH Ðin€the€car.€€And€I€was€in€Seanððs€living€room.€€I€come€back€and€look€out€the€door.€Ð ä4 ÐThey€were€backing€out.€€And,€Sean€Williamsð"ðOrlando€opened€the€door€and€said,Ð Ð  ÐððCome€on,€Manie€Manie€[Rhodes].ðð€€So€I€jumped€in€the€car.м Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€the€victim€was€fraudulently€inducedÐ ”ä Ðto€get€into€the€car.€€We€agree€the€evidence€established€the€defendantsðð€previously€formed€intent€toÐ €Ð Ðmurder€the€victim€and€further€agree€with€the€stateððs€argument€that€the€victim€would€not€haveÐ l¼ Ðvoluntarily€gotten€into€the€car€had€he€known€he€would€be€killed;€however,€we€do€not€believe€thisÐ X ¨ Ðconstitutes€fraud€as€contemplated€by€the€statute.€€In€addition,€the€record€does€not€reveal€what,€ifÐ D!” Ðanything,€the€defendants€previously€told€the€victim€about€where€they€were€going.€€We€are€unable€toÐ 0"€  Ðspeculate€on€such€matters.€€We€only€know€from€the€record€that€defendant€Williams€told€Rhodes€toÐ #l! Ðtell€the€victim€to€ð ðcome€on,ðð€and€the€victim€voluntarily€got€into€the€car.€€Under€these€circumstances,Ð $X" Ðwe€are€unable€to€conclude€the€victim€was€removed€or€confined€by€fraud.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àWe€recognize€that€removal€or€confinement€may€initially€be€with€the€consent€of€a€victim,€yetÐ Ì&"% Ðsubsequently€become€unlawful€and€against€the€will€of€a€victim.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€656€S.W.2d€406,Ð ¸'#& Ð409€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€€1983).€€However,€the€record€in€this€case€does€not€show€the€victim€ever€triedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€leave€the€car€or€presence€of€the€defendants€and€was€prohibited€from€doing€so.€€Thus,€there€was€noÐ )à$( Ðshowing€he€was€confined€against€his€will€prior€to€being€shot.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àWe,€therefore,€hold€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€convictions€for€felonyÐ ° Ðmurder.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì ÐÌò òC.€€Especially€Aggravated€Kidnapping€and€Aggravated€Kidnappingó ó€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€jury€convicted€the€defendants€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€and€aggravatedÐ P   Ðkidnapping.€€The€trial€court€merged€the€aggravated€kidnapping€convictions€into€the€especiallyÐ < Œ Ðaggravated€kidnapping€convictions.€Ð ( x ÐÌà  àAs€applicable€to€this€case,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€is€ð ðfalse€imprisonment...[w]hereÐ  P  Ðthe€victim€suffers€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„302(a),€„305(a)(4).€€AsÐ ì <  Ðdiscussed€above,€the€evidence€does€not€support€kidnapping.€€Accordingly,€the€convictions€forÐ Ø(  Ðespecially€aggravated€kidnapping€and€aggravated€kidnapping€are€reversed,€and€these€charges€areÐ Ä  Ðdismissed.Ð °  ÐÌÌò òÓ  ÓMOTION€FOR€SEVERANCE€OF€DEFENDANTSó óÐ tÄ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àPrior€to€trial,€the€trial€court€denied€the€defendantsðð€motions€for€severance.€€The€defendantsÐ Lœ Ðargue€they€were€unduly€prejudiced€by€the€denial.€€We€disagree.Ð 8ˆ ÐÌÔ‡ X™XXX™Ôà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€14(c)(1)€addresses€a€òòBrutonóó€problem.€€In€a€joint€trial,Ð ` Ðthe€admission€of€a€co„defendantððs€confession€implicating€the€defendant,€which€would€beÐ üL Ðinadmissible€against€the€defendant€if€tried€alone,€creates€a€ð ðsubstantial€riskðð€that€the€jury€willÐ è8 Ðconsider€the€confession€in€determining€the€defendantððs€guilt.€€òòBruton€v.€United€Statesóó,€391€U.S.€123,Ð Ô$ Ð126,€88€S.€Ct.€1620,€20€L.€Ed.€2d€476€(1968).€€If€a€defendant€moves€for€severance€based€upon€aÐ À ÐòòBrutonóó€problem,€the€trial€court€shall€first€determine€whether€the€prosecution€intends€to€offer€theÐ ¬ü Ðconfession€into€evidence€at€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€14(c)(1).€€If€the€state€intends€to€do€so,€the€courtÐ ˜è Ðshall€require€the€state€to€elect€among€several€options.€€òòIdóó.€€First,€the€state€may€elect€to€hold€a€jointÐ „Ô Ðtrial€where€the€court€would€not€admit€the€statement€into€evidence€or€where€the€statement€would€notÐ pÀ Ðbe€error€if€admitted.€€òòIdóó.€at€(c)(1)(i).€€Second,€the€state€may€elect€to€hold€a€joint€trial€where€the€courtÐ \ ¬ Ðwould€admit€the€statement€into€evidence€after€redacting€all€references€to€the€moving€defendant,€ifÐ H!˜ Ðthe€redacted€confession€would€not€prejudice€the€defendant.€€òòIdóó.€at€(c)(1)(ii);òò€seeóó€òòDenton€v.€Stateóó,€945Ð 4"„  ÐS.W.2d€793,€801„02€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(noting€court€cannot€redact€a€statement€ð ðððin€fairnessððððÐ  #p! Ðif€the€redaction€ð ðalters€its€substance€or€deletes€therefrom€substantially€exculpatory€informationðð).Ð ° ÐFinally,€the€state€may€elect€to€sever€the€moving€defendant.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€14òòóó(c)(1)(iii).Ô#†X™XX X™št#ÔÐ œì ÐÌà  àÔ‡ X™XXX™ÔTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€14(c)(2)€provides€that€the€trial€court€shall€sever€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendants€under€the€appropriate€circumstances€upon€a€motion€by€either€the€state€or€the€defendant.Ð `° ÐThe€court€shall€sever€the€defendants€before€trial€if€such€a€severance€is€ð ðnecessary€to€protect€aÐ L œ Ðdefendantððs€right€to€a€speedy€trialðð€or€is€ð ðappropriate€to€promote€a€fair€determination€of€the€guilt€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðinnocence€of€one€or€more€defendants€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€(c)(2)(i).€€A€trial€court€shall€grant€a€severanceÐ $ t Ðduring€trial€if€it€is€ð ðnecessary€to€achieve€a€fair€determinationðð€of€a€defendantððs€guilt€or€innocence.€Ð  ` ÐòòIdóó.€at€(c)(2)(ii).€€However,€in€order€to€grant€a€severance€during€trial,€the€court€must€have€the€consentÐ ü L  Ðof€the€defendant€to€be€severed.€€òòIdóó.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€decision€as€to€whether€or€not€to€grant€a€severance€is€left€to€the€sound€discretion€of€theÐ À  Ðtrial€judge,€and€this€decision€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€the€defendant€is€unfairly€or€undulyÐ ¬ü  Ðprejudiced.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€619€S.W.2d€112,€116€(Tenn.€1981);€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€806€S.W.2dÐ ˜è  Ð205,€211€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Stated€in€another€manner,€a€trial€court€will€not€be€found€to€haveÐ „Ô  Ðabused€its€discretion€in€denying€a€severance€unless€ð ðððthe€defendant€was€clearly€prejudiced€to€theÐ pÀ Ðpoint€that€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€ended€and€the€granting€of€[a]€severance€became€a€judicialÐ \¬ Ðduty.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Burtonóó,€751€S.W.2d€440,€447€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)€(quoting€òòHunter€v.€Stateóó,€440Ð H˜ ÐS.W.2d€1,€6€(Tenn.€1969)).Ô#†X™XX X™G|#Ôà  àÐ 4„ ÐÌò òA.€€Defendant€Colemanó óÐ  \ ÐÌà  àColeman€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€for€severance€becauseÐ ä4 ÐJohnsonððs€testimony€that€Williams€said€he€wanted€to€shoot€the€victim€due€to€the€injury€to€ColemanððsÐ Ð  Ðleg€would€have€been€inadmissible€against€Coleman.€€Coleman€contends€this€statement€was€the€onlyÐ ¼  Ðevidence€of€motive,€and€he€was€unduly€prejudiced€by€its€admission.€€We€disagree.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àFirstly,€Johnsonððs€challenged€testimony€only€implicated€Williams,€not€Coleman;€therefore,Ð €Ð Ðthere€is€no€òòBrutonóó€problem.€€Furthermore,€Williamsðð€statement€was€not€the€only€evidence€ofÐ l¼ Ðð ðmotiveðð€presented€at€trial.€€Both€Johnson€and€Rhodes€testified€that€Coleman€stated€he€wanted€toÐ X ¨ Ðð ðkillðð€the€victim€and€wanted€someone€to€ð ðjumpðð€the€victim€because€of€the€injury€to€his€leg.€Ð D!” ÐRegardless€of€the€admissibility€of€this€evidence€as€it€relates€to€Coleman,€this€evidence€did€not€undulyÐ 0"€  Ðprejudice€Coleman€in€light€of€the€other€evidence€presented€at€trial.à È àÐ #l! ÐÌà  àColeman€also€contends€that€Meansðð€testimony€as€to€the€reason€he€was€frightened€of€WilliamsÐ ô$D # Ðwas€inadmissible€against€him€and€resulted€in€undue€prejudice.€€Means€testified€he€took€seriouslyÐ à%0!$ ÐWilliamsðð€threats€to€kill€him€if€he€did€not€shoot€the€victim€because€in€1997€or€1998,€Williams€shotÐ Ì&"% ÐMeans€in€his€shoulder€during€an€argument.€€Testimony€as€to€this€prior€incident€does€not€implicateÐ ¸'#& ÐColeman€in€any€way.€€Only€when€examined€with€other€evidence€presented€at€trial€does€it€shed€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnegative€light€upon€Coleman.€€òòSeeóó€òòRichardson€v.€Marshóó,€481€U.S.€200,€208„09,€107€S.€Ct.€1702,€95Ð )à$( ÐL.€Ed.€2d€176€(1987).€€Therefore,€we€conclude€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€severance€did€not€undulyÐ |*Ì%) Ðprejudice€Coleman.Ð h+¸&* Їò òB.€€Defendant€Williamsó óÐ ° ÐÌà  àJohnson€testified€he€called€Coleman€the€day€after€the€shooting,€and€Coleman€stated€he€shotÐ ˆØ Ðthe€victim.€€Prior€to€Johnsonððs€testimony,€the€trial€court€redacted€portions€of€the€conversation€inÐ tÄ Ðwhich€Coleman€stated€he€òòand€Williamsóó€shot€the€victim.€€The€trial€court€also€instructed€the€jury€thatÐ `° Ðð ð[a]ny€evidence€which€was€limited€to€a€particular€defendant€should€not€be€considered€by€you€as€toÐ L œ Ðthe€other€defendant.ðð€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAs€noted€above,€if€a€defendant€moves€for€a€severance€based€upon€a€co„defendantððsÐ  ` Ðconfession,€the€trial€court€may€instead€choose€to€redact€all€references€to€the€defendant€and€admit€theÐ ü L  Ðconfession€if€it€will€not€prejudice€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€14(c)(1)(ii).€€A€òòBrutonóó€problemÐ è 8  Ðis€generally€not€created€when€a€trial€court€redacts€any€references€to€the€defendant€from€a€co„Ð Ô$  Ðdefendantððs€confession,€and€other€evidence€implicates€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòRichardsonóó,€481€U.S.€atÐ À  Ð208.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àColeman€did€not€testify€at€trial.€€Williams€contends€the€redaction€of€Colemanððs€confessionÐ „Ô  Ðwas€insufficient€to€protect€him€from€the€dangers€expressed€in€òòBrutonóó.€€However,€Colemanððs€redactedÐ pÀ Ðconfession€does€not€implicate€Williams€on€its€face.€€Only€by€considering€other€evidence€could€theÐ \¬ Ðjury€conclude€Williams€participated€in€the€shooting€with€Coleman.€€The€redaction€of€ColemanððsÐ H˜ Ðconfession€by€the€trial€court€sufficiently€protected€Williams€from€the€risks€expressed€in€òòBrutonóó.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€the€defendantsðð€motions€for€severance.Ð  \ ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òDISCOVERY€VIOLATIONó óÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àBoth€defendants€allege€they€were€prejudiced€by€the€stateððs€untimely€revelation€of€an€oralÐ ¨ø Ðstatement€made€by€defendant€Williams€to€law€enforcement€officers.€€The€revelation€was€made€onÐ ”ä Ðthe€original€trial€date,€and€the€trial€court€granted€a€30„day€continuance€due€to€this€late€revelation.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àDefendant€Williams€contends€the€untimely€revelation€was€excessive€and€inexcusable.€Ð X ¨ ÐDefendant€Coleman€contends€the€discovery€violation€prevented€the€trial€court€from€consideringÐ D!” ÐWilliamsðð€statement€to€the€police€when€ruling€on€Colemanððs€pre„trial€motion€for€severance.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€record€reflects€both€the€motion€for€a€continuance€and€the€motion€to€suppress€theÐ $X" Ðstatement€were€argued,€but€neither€was€transcribed.€€€Ô‡ X™XXX™ÔIt€is€the€duty€of€the€accused€to€provide€a€recordÐ ô$D # Ðwhich€conveys€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€with€regard€to€the€issuesÐ à%0!$ Ðwhich€form€the€basis€of€the€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€992€S.W.2d€941,Ð Ì&"% Ð944€(Tenn.€1999).€€Ô#†X™XX X™—#ÔBecause€the€defendants€have€failed€to€provide€a€complete€record€as€to€the€relevantÐ ¸'#& Ðevents,€this€issue€is€waived.€€Furthermore,€we€note€the€trial€court€granted€a€30„day€continuance.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐNeither€defendant€has€demonstrated€any€prejudice.€€The€issue€is€without€merit.Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* ЇÓ  Óò òPRIOR€BAD€ACTSó óÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àMeans€testified€he€believed€Williamsðð€threats€to€kill€him€and€Rhodes€if€they€did€not€shootÐ ˆØ Ðthe€victim€because€Williams€once€shot€him€in€the€shoulder€during€an€argument.€€Coleman€argues€theÐ tÄ Ðtestimony€is€irrelevant€and€hearsay€as€offered€against€him.€€Williams€contends€the€testimony€violatesÐ `° ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(b)€as€evidence€of€a€prior€bad€act€in€that€no€material€issue€relevantÐ L œ Ðto€this€testimony€exists,€and€its€probative€value€is€outweighed€by€its€prejudicial€effect.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€prosecution€filed€a€notice€of€intent€to€use€this€evidence€at€trial.€€The€defendants€filed€aÐ  ` Ðmotion€in€limine€to€exclude€the€evidence.€€Motions€in€limine€were€heard€by€the€trial€court,€but€theyÐ ü L  Ðwere€not€transcribed€in€the€record.€€Therefore,€this€issue€has€been€waived.€€Furthermore,€based€uponÐ è 8  Ðthe€limited€record€before€us,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€thisÐ Ô$  Ðevidence.Ð À  ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òTESTIMONY€REGARDING€THE€LOSS€OF€COLEMANððS€LEGó óÐ „Ô  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àColeman€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€testimony€regarding€the€loss€of€his€leg.Ð \¬ ÐColeman€maintains€the€evidence€is€irrelevant,€and€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€byÐ H˜ Ðits€prejudicial€effect.€€Coleman€also€argues€Williamsðð€statement€that€he€wanted€to€shoot€the€victimÐ 4„ Ðdue€to€the€injury€to€Colemanððs€leg€is€inadmissible€hearsay€as€offered€against€him.Ð  p ÐÌò òA.€€Relevanceó óÐ øH ÐÌà  àEvidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€ð ðany€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofÐ Ð  Ðconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€beÐ ¼  Ðwithout€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Once€the€court€concludes€the€evidence€is€relevant,€theÐ ¨ø Ðcourt€should€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€its€prejudicialÐ ”ä Ðeffect.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403;€òòState€v.€Jamesóó,€81€S.W.3d€751,€757€(Tenn.€2002).€€A€trial€courtððsÐ €Ð Ðdecision€as€to€the€relevance€of€evidence€under€Rule€401€will€be€reversed€only€upon€a€showing€ofÐ l¼ Ðabuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Duboseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€652€(Tenn.€1997).Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€evidence€regarding€the€loss€of€Colemanððs€leg€is€relevant€to€motive.€Ð 0"€  ÐThe€defendantsðð€statements€in€which€they€blame€the€victim€for€Colemanððs€injury€also€rebut€theirÐ #l! Ðcontention€that€they€were€good€friends€with€the€victim.€€As€a€result,€we€conclude€the€trial€court€didÐ $X" Ðnot€abuse€its€discretion€in€admitting€this€evidence.Ð ô$D # ÐÌò òB.€€Hearsayó óÐ Ì&"% ÐÌà  àJohnson€testified€Williams€said€he€wanted€to€shoot€the€victim€because€of€the€injury€toÐ ¤(ô#' ÐColemanððs€leg.€€This€statement€is€admissible€against€Williams€under€the€party„opponent€admissionÐ )à$( Ðexception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(1.2).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àDefendant€Coleman€argues€this€statement€by€Williams€was€inadmissible€hearsay€as€it€relatesÐ ° Ðto€him.€€However,€this€statement€did€not€implicate€Coleman€and,€thus,€was€not€admitted€againstÐ œì ÐColeman;€it€was€admitted€only€as€to€Williams.€€As€previously€stated,€the€trial€court€instructed€theÐ ˆØ Ðjury€that€evidence€limited€to€a€particular€defendant€should€not€be€considered€against€the€otherÐ tÄ Ðdefendant.€€Furthermore,€the€record€does€not€reveal€any€objection€by€Coleman€to€this€evidence.€€òòSeeóóÐ `° ÐòòÔ‡X™XXX™ÔState€v.€Thompsonóó,€36€S.W.3d€102,€108€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000)€(noting€the€failure€to€make€aÐ L œ Ðcontemporaneous€objection€to€testimony€waives€the€issue).€€Ô#†X™XXX™fª#ÔIn€addition,€Johnson€also€testifiedÐ 8 ˆ ÐColeman€said€he€wanted€to€get€someone€to€ð ðjumpðð€the€victim,€and€Rhodes€testified€Coleman€saidÐ $ t Ðhe€was€ð ðgoing€to€killðð€the€victim.€€Coleman€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€introduction€of€this€evidence.€Ð  ` ÐThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ü L  ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òPERJURED€AND€CONFLICTING€TESTIMONYó óÐ À  ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ X™XXX™Ôà  àColeman€maintains€the€prosecution€knowingly€presented€perjured€and€conflicting€testimonyÐ ˜è  Ðthrough€witnesses€Rhodes€and€Means,€which€warrants€a€reversal.€€We€disagree.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àKnowingly€presenting€false€evidence€or€failing€to€correct€false€testimony€is€incompatible€withÐ \¬ Ðð ðrudimentary€demands€of€justice.ðð€€òòGiglio€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150,€153,€92€S.€Ct.€763,€31€L.Ð H˜ ÐEd.€2d€104€(1972)€(citations€omitted).€€The€nondisclosure€of€material€evidence€affecting€theÐ 4„ Ðcredibility€of€a€witness€may€justify€a€new€trial€if€the€reliability€of€the€witness€is€determinative€of€theÐ  p Ðguilt€or€innocence€of€the€defendant.€€òòIdóó.€at€154;€òòseeóó€òòóóòòIrick€v.€Stateóó,€973€S.W.2d€643,€657€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð  \ ÐApp.€1998)€(noting€the€state€must€disclose€evidence€the€defendant€can€use€to€impeach€a€witness).€Ð øH ÐPlea€agreements€are€considered€evidence€that€affect€the€credibility€of€a€witness.€€òòState€v.€Boldenóó,€979Ð ä4 ÐS.W.2d€587,€590€(Tenn.€1998).€€Ô#†X™XX X™­#ÔIn€addition,€if€the€false€testimony€could€have€reasonably€affectedÐ Ð  Ðthe€verdict,€a€new€trial€is€required.€€òòGiglioóó,€405€U.S.€at€154.Ð ¼  Ðà  àÌà  àColeman€identifies€two€specific€instances€in€which€the€prosecutionððs€evidence€allegedlyÐ ”ä Ðconflicts.€€First,€he€alleges€Rhodes€and€Means€testified€they€had€not€received€nor€expected€to€receiveÐ €Ð Ðreduced€sentences€in€exchange€for€their€testimony,€while€Detective€Charles€Scheel€testified€they€wereÐ l¼ Ðoriginally€booked€for€first€degree€murder,€which€was€reduced€to€facilitation€of€first€degree€murderÐ X ¨ Ðafter€they€gave€their€statements.€€Second,€he€alleges€either€Means€or€Rhodes€committed€perjury€whileÐ D!” Ðon€the€stand€because€their€testimony€directly€conflicts€as€to€the€events€which€occurred€during€theÐ 0"€  Ðshooting.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àInitially,€we€note€Coleman€has€cited€no€authority€to€support€his€position.€€Thus,€the€issue€isÐ ô$D # Ðwaived.€€Regardless,€the€argument€is€without€merit.€€There€is€no€showing€in€the€record€the€witnessesÐ à%0!$ Ðtestified€falsely€by€stating€they€had€ð ðno€deal€with€the€state.ðð€€Furthermore,€even€though€there€wereÐ Ì&"% Ðconflicts€in€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€as€to€various€details€surrounding€the€shooting,€theÐ ¸'#& Ðconflicts€do€not€relate€to€the€identity€of€the€defendants€as€the€perpetrators.€€Most€importantly,€we€findÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnothing€to€suggest€that€the€state€engaged€in€deception€by€knowingly€presenting€false€testimony.€€ThisÐ )à$( Ðissue€is€without€merit.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ЇÓ  Óò òPHOTOGRAPHSó óÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àDefendant€Williams€maintains€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€certain€photographs€intoÐ ˆØ Ðevidence.€€We€disagree.Ð tÄ ÐÌÔ‡ X™XXX™Ôà  àThe€admissibility€of€photographs€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€whoseÐ L œ Ðruling€will€not€be€overturned€on€appeal€except€upon€a€clear€showing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòStateÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978);€òòState€v.€Lacyóó,€983€S.W.2d€686,€694€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð $ t Ð1997).€€Nevertheless,€the€photograph€must€be€relevant€to€an€issue€at€trial€with€its€probative€valueÐ  ` Ðoutweighing€any€prejudicial€effect€that€it€may€have€upon€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867Ð ü L  ÐS.W.2d€750,€758€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àÔ#†X™XX X™‰¹#ÔThe€first€photograph€in€which€Williams€takes€issue€is€Exhibit€3,€a€view€of€the€victimððs€bodyÐ À  Ðas€the€police€found€it.€€The€photograph€shows€the€victim€lying€face€down€in€a€hole€surrounded€byÐ ¬ü  Ðbushes.€€The€photograph€is€relevant€to€show€the€location€and€position€of€the€body€as€it€was€found€andÐ ˜è  Ðto€corroborate€the€testimony€of€Means€and€Rhodes.€€Means€and€Rhodes€both€testified€Williams€hidÐ „Ô  Ðthe€victimððs€body€in€the€bushes,€which€is€consistent€with€the€illustration€in€the€photograph.Ð pÀ ÐFurthermore,€the€photograph€has€little€prejudicial€effect.€€The€photograph€does€not€show€any€bloodÐ \¬ Ðor€wounds€and€is€not€otherwise€inflammatory.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€admitting€thisÐ H˜ Ðphotograph€into€evidence.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àWilliams€also€maintains€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€Exhibit€17,€which€is€a€view€of€theÐ  \ Ðvictimððs€body€facing€upward.€€The€photograph€is€relevant€to€illustrate€the€nature€of€the€wounds€andÐ øH Ðthe€brutality€of€the€attack,€although€we€consider€its€relevance€marginal.€€The€photograph€does€showÐ ä4 Ðsome€blood€and€the€victimððs€wounds;€however,€it€is€not€particularly€inflammatory.€€This€photographÐ Ð  Ðis€similar€to€another€photograph€entered€without€objection.€€The€defendant€was€not€prejudiced€by€theÐ ¼  Ðadmission€of€this€photograph€into€evidence.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òCLOSING€ARGUMENTSó óÐ l¼ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àWilliams€contends€the€prosecution€made€improper€remarks€during€closing€argument€byÐ D!” Ðreferring€to€Colemanððs€statement€to€Johnson,€which€included€a€reference€to€Williams€that€had€beenÐ 0"€  Ðredacted€by€the€trial€court.€€He€maintains€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€grant€a€mistrial.€Ð #l! ÐÌÔ‡ X™XXX™Ôà  àÔ#†X™XX X™=Ä#ÔÔ‡ X™XXX™ÔIf€we€conclude€that€the€prosecutor's€remarks€constituted€error,€then€we€must€determineÐ ô$D # Ðwhether€that€error€prejudiced€the€defendant.€€This€court€has€set€out€five€factors€which€must€beÐ à%0!$ Ðconsidered€in€making€the€determination€of€whether€a€prosecutor's€improper€conduct€could€haveÐ Ì&"% Ðaffected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.€€These€factors€are€as€follows:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  à1.à8` Ð Ð àthe€conduct€complained€of€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€ofÐ )à$( Ðthe€case;Ð|*Ì%)` x` x ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  à2.à ` àthe€curative€measures€undertaken;аРР ÐÌà8  à3.à ` àthe€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improper€remarks;ЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à4.à8` Ð Ð àthe€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€inÐ `° Ðthe€record;€andÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà8  à5.à ` àthe€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌòòÓÓState€v.€Philpottóó,€882€S.W.2d€394,€408€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ð ü L  ÐÓÓà  àòòóóIn€addition,€the€reviewing€court€may€consider€whether€the€remarks€were€lengthy,€repeated,Ð Ô$  Ðsingle€or€isolated.€€òòState€v.€Norrisóó,€874€S.W.2d€590,€599€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Cases€should€beÐ À  Ðreversed€only€when€the€prosecutorial€remarks€"so€inflict€the€trial€with€unfairness€as€to€make€theÐ ¬ü  Ðresulting€convictions€a€denial€of€due€process."€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòDonnelly€v.€DeChristoforoóó,€416€U.S.Ð ˜è  Ð637,€643,€94€S.€Ct.€1868,€1871,€40€L.€Ed.€2d€431€(1974)).Ô#†X™XX X™‹Ä#ÔÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àDuring€the€stateððs€rebuttal€closing€argument,€the€prosecutor€referred€to€Colemanððs€telephoneÐ \¬ Ðconversation€with€Johnson.€€The€prosecutor€stated€Johnson€testified€he€called€Coleman€the€morningÐ H˜ Ðafter€the€murder€and€said,€ð ðWhatððs€going€on?€€Weððre€hearing€all€this€stuff€on€the€street.€€EverybodyÐ 4„ Ðis€talking.ðð€€The€prosecutor€then€stated€the€following:Ð  p ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIððll€tell€you€whatððs€going€onð"ðIððll€tell€you€exactly€whatððs€going€onÐ øH ÐCasieo,€I€had€a€big€night€last€nightð"ðbig€night.€€I€finally€hadÐ ä4 Ðeverything€in€place€to€get€my€revenge€on€Orlando€Gates.€€I€had€myÐ Ð  Ðbig,€bad€buddy€Sean€Williams€with€með"ðм ` x` x ÐÌDefense€counsel€objected€and€moved€for€a€mistrial,€which€the€trial€court€denied.€€The€prosecution,Ð ”ä Ðnevertheless,€did€not€mention€again€that€Coleman€also€referred€to€Williams€in€the€conversation.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àDuring€closing€arguments,€the€prosecutor€acted€out€the€telephone€conversation€betweenÐ X ¨ ÐJohnson€and€Coleman,€referring€to€a€statement€made€by€Coleman€which€implicated€Williams.€€AsÐ D!” Ðpreviously€described,€during€Johnsonððs€testimony,€the€trial€court€determined€the€statement€createdÐ 0"€  Ða€òòBrutonóó€problem€and€redacted€the€statement€to€exclude€the€reference€to€Williams.€€The€prosecutorÐ #l! Ðimproperly,€though€very€briefly,€referred€to€the€portion€of€Colemanððs€conversation€which€implicatedÐ $X" ÐWilliams.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àEven€though€the€prosecutorððs€remarks€were€improper,€we€conclude€the€remarks€wereÐ Ì&"% Ðharmless.€€The€prosecutor€made€this€reference€once,€ceased€this€type€of€portrayal€of€the€telephoneÐ ¸'#& Ðconversation€once€the€defendant€objected,€and€made€no€further€mention€of€it.€€Furthermore,€we€areÐ ¤(ô#' Ðunable€to€attribute€an€evil€intent€to€the€prosecutorððs€isolated€remark€in€this€lengthy€trial.€€In€addition,Ð )à$( Ðâ âthe€state€presented€extremely€damning€evidence€at€trial€from€which€the€jury€could€find€WilliamsÐ |*Ì%) Ðguilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€This€error€did€not€ð ðaffect€the€judgment€to€the€prejudice€of€theÐ ° Ðdefendant.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).Ð œì Ðâ âÌÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÐ `° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àFor€these€reasons,€we€affirm€the€premeditated€first€degree€murder€conviction€of€eachÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant€and€reverse€and€dismiss€the€other€charges.Ð $ t ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð À  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE