ÿWPC^ Œg1¡¶˜¸gâK¹gâaÝù.k\P6zº‹ì³é~³w îÊD‹lµÀ¤®¸¦¿rl£HÝ«ìÁýk†Ä­¾ñϱßÄͲ‚1ªË¼úÇ[Ñ*×ü ôX¿£®:_”ÍT3ùzôºÿ™ÁDÜ׿ýTgù£å+ÒAäÖ•ßò ú~÷äAÞMRMn´”¶ÎS‚Ѓò{4ä¬Â4_ŠáÍs-ù°hOÇâ¸vi—£€ýX‚ âŽÓiá‹ï¯ Ι¨;î-Ls[Æö oVH"ÌRéÓíü2HAhÝý¢TY.^ UÐ=Q)üjCý{d_̉JOt)ÞÝMÊÜu3(ù'˜n`ˆâ·@ÿM&öQºCð†_Êô‹²Ÿ»]htzÐgv*1Ï‚~ˆC‰ÓeæÞV¥ìšFÄ>'Ùôjãë"Ϋªùüß”MÇwhR´ûçœZħ%Ò.åo8¿JLÙî0³·€0…S8û×¢B­¾œÊ¬ |#V¶M52v}ê|ïÊÂ2‡ À¯+£Ç/Ç®D¡02FÒ˜j ²yÚŸi/øëa”ÉzØ>ù±¨ýŽm ÚZ‰áÎøÉOßRßÊævKÕ5:‰ (WM[v׈ӑ‚_t³‡j%}XÏtTíØlÿU¡#ÉÎ %— N 0ˆŸ U$N'u 0U‹ zàÒZ z,Ò¦Nx 0ãzÆ]Æ#ÆéƯ 0ÅuN: z<Ò¶Nˆ 0¿Š 0¹I zÒ| 0³NEN 0­ 0§² zYÒÓN¥ 0¡§ 0ÅH z Ò‡NY 0Ñ[ 0³,! 0­ß! zŒ"Ò#NØ#bÚ# 0§â# 0¡‰$ z*%Ò¤%Nv& 0›x& 0•' z¨'Ò"(Nô( 0ö( 0ƒ) zE*Ò¿*N‘+ 0Γ+ 0°a, z-Ò‹-N]. 0ª_. 0¤ / z­/Ò'0Nù0 0žû0 0˜™1 z12Ò«2N}3 0’3 0Š4 z›4Ò5Nç5 0ëé5 0²Ô6 0¾†7 zD8 B¾8ÒÛ8 0¤­9 D5Q: D-†: 0K³:Nþ: AS;ÆS; 0¤< 0D½< A«= 0¾¬= 0>j> z¨>Ò"?Nô? 0øö? 0âî@ zÐAÒJBNC 0âC 0âD zâDÒ\EN.F 0â0F 0âG zôGÒnHN@I 0ºBI 0ÒüI zÎJÒHKNL 02L 0üNL zJMÒÄMN–N 0:˜N 0YÒN z+OÒ¥ONwP 0_yP 0 ØP zâQÒ\R^ .Sw:S4>SRSaS mcS 0‚zS 0üT B*W D/,W 0[W D/aY 0ÎY 06^Z 0”Z 0:œ[ 0^Ö[ 0<4\ 1ep\U6Õ\U> ]U*I] 1us] 72è]˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»!(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular Ñ ° Ñ*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à ˜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.wpt ˜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.wpt*G+G ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*8+8 ÿÿ(_24Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó˜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.wpt*5+5 ÿÿ(_23Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*2+2 ÿÿ(_22Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó˜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.wpt*/+/ ÿÿ(_21Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,+, ÿÿ(_20Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)+) ÿÿ(_19Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó!˜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.wpt*&+& ÿÿ(_18Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó*AA ÿÿ(_17Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó&˜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.wpt*GG ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*88 ÿÿ(_15Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*55 ÿÿ(_14Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó,˜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.wpt- ù-*22 ÿÿ(_13Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*// ÿÿ(_12Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó2˜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.wpt*,, ÿÿ(_11Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)) ÿÿ(_10Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó7˜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.wpt(&& ÿÿ&_9Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó(AA ÿÿ&_8Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<˜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.wpt(GG ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó(88 ÿÿ&_6Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  ÓA˜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.wpt(55 ÿÿ&_5Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó(22 ÿÿ&_4Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ ÓF˜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.wpt(// ÿÿ&_3Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó(,, ÿÿ&_2Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h ÓK˜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.wpt()) ÿÿ&_1Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó&&& ÿÿ$_Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  ÓP˜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.wpt(|G2Ê$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùÙò»»Ô0AAÿÿ.NormalÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<AAÿÿ:Definition TÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓW˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT dC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(|3‡†$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡†$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóóe˜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.wpt(hhÿÿ&H1Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H2Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ój˜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.wpt(]]ÿÿ&H3Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H4Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Óo˜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.wpt(]]ÿÿ&H5Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔ(]]ÿÿ&H6Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ót˜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.wpt2DDÿÿ0AddressÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓòòóóÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óy˜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.wpt,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡œ<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ~˜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.wpt4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ôƒ˜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.wpt<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡œ<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó óˆ˜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.wptó©o1Þ óbï.Y>ê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ<Ÿ§ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ  ÓÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡œ<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÓ  Ó<Ûïÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€’(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡ž%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó&ÿÿ  d d‘)1dxd<Ûïÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€”(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡ž%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó‘)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡œ<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡œ<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô$()*/045 ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ÿi)Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_u»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼_u»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÑ€OaÑà@ttìàÔ‡î^È_uÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼_u»îî^È#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€15,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼_uÔÌò òÔ#†¼_u»XX$#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€JEREMY€TUCKER€DAVIS,€Ð úJ ÐALIAS€JERRY€TUCKER€DAVISÔ‡XX»¼_uÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNos.€239457,€240681,€240682,€&€240919€€€€€€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€JudgeÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„02214„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€15,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓA€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€the€attempted€first€degree€murderÐ ŒÜ Ðof€a€police€officer,€and€the€defendant€pled€guilty€to€twenty„nine€charges,€including€multiple€countsÐ xÈ Ðof€car€burglary,€felony€theft,€and€misdemeanor€theft.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€as€a€Range€I,Ð d´ Ðstandard€offender€to€twenty„five€years€for€the€attempted€murder€conviction€and€as€a€Range€II,Ð P  Ðmultiple€offender€to€an€effective€sentence€of€six€years€for€the€remaining€convictions.€€The€trial€courtÐ <Œ Ðordered€that€the€twenty„five„year€and€six„year€sentences€be€served€consecutively€to€each€other€andÐ (x Ðconsecutively€to€a€six„year€revoked€probation€sentence.€€The€defendant€appeals,€claiming€that€theÐ d Ðtrial€court€erred€(1)€by€refusing€to€dismiss€a€juror€for€causeÔ#†¼_u»XXÂ#ÔÔ‡XX»¼_uÔ;€(2)€by€refusing€to€compel€the€state€toÐ P Ðprovide€the€defense€with€the€police€departmentððs€written€use„of„force€policyÔ#†¼_u»XX¯#ÔÔ‡XX»¼_uÔ;€(3)€by€refusing€to€allowÐ ì< Ðthe€defense€to€cross„examine€police€officers€about€the€use„of„force€policy;€(4)€by€refusing€to€allowÐ Ø( Ðan€expert€to€testify€about€the€victimððs€excessive€use€of€force€against€the€defendant;€(5)€by€refusingÐ Ä Ðto€instruct€the€jury€on€deadly€force;€and€(6)€by€ordering€consecutive€sentencing.€€We€affirm€theÐ ° Ðjudgments€of€the€trial€court.€Ð œì ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgments€of€the€Criminal€Courtó ó€ò òAffirmedó óÐ t Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼_u»àX} #ÔÔ‡XX.¼_uÔJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ôóó€and€òòJohnÐ P" ! ÐEverett€Williams,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌWilliam€M.€Ô_ÔSpeekÔ_Ô,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Jeremy€Tucker€Davis,€alias€JerryÐ %d $ ÐTucker€Davis.Ð &P!% ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Renee€W.€Turner,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð Ø'(#' ÐWilliam€H.€Cox,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Barry€A.€Steelman,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ Ä($( ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð °)%) Ðâ âÓî ÓÐ œ*ì%*ýÿ ÐÔ_!ÔÔ& ° Ôâ âò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼_u»XX #ÔÔ‡XX»¼_uÔÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThis€case€relates€to€the€defendantððs€shooting€Chattanooga€Police€Officer€David€W.€Mays.€Ð ˆØ ÐThomas€Ô_!!ÔManghaneÔ_!!Ô€testified€that€on€January€8,€2002Ô#†¼_u»XXš#ÔÔ‡XX»¼_uÔ,€he€lived€on€North€Joiner€Road€in€the€EastÔ'°°TÔÐ tÄ ÐÔ_!!ÔBrainerdÔ_!!Ô€area€of€Chattanooga€and€Ô#†¼_u»XXË#ÔÔ‡XX»¼_uÔwent€outside€about€4:30€a.m.Ô#†¼_u»XX¡#ÔÔ‡XX»¼_uÔ€to€warm€up€his€and€his€wifeððs€cars.€Ð `° ÐHe€found€that€someone€had€broken€into€both€cars€and€taken€items€from€them.€€His€wife€telephonedÐ L œ Ðthe€police,€and€when€the€police€arrived,€Mr.€Ô_!!ÔManghaneÔ_!!Ô€discovered€that€someone€also€had€broken€intoÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€storage€building€behind€his€house€and€had€taken€his€work€jacket.€€Tony€Cabrera,€who€lived€onÐ $ t ÐLenny€Lane,€and€Misty€Jackson,€who€lived€on€Eric€Drive,€testified€that€they€also€lived€in€the€EastÐ  ` ÐÔ_!!ÔBrainerdÔ_!!Ô€area€and€that€someone€broke€into€their€cars€on€January€8th.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àOfficer€Craig€Allen€Ô_!!ÔNaborsÔ_!!Ô€of€the€Chattanooga€Police€Department€testified€that€he€wasÐ Ô$  Ðworking€in€the€East€Ô_!!ÔBrainerdÔ_!!Ô€area€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€January€8,€2002,€that€the€policeÐ À  Ðdepartment€received€reports€of€burglaries€in€the€area,€and€that€the€department€dispatched€a€ð ðbe„on„Ð ¬ü  Ðthe„lookoutðð€(BOLO)€for€two€suspicious€males€wearing€dark€clothing€and€riding€bicycles.€€OfficerÐ ˜è  ÐÔ_!!ÔNaborsÔ_!!Ô€responded€to€the€burglary€call€at€Mr.€Ô_!!ÔManghaneÔ_!!Ôððs€home€and€then€went€to€the€Maxi€MufflerÐ „Ô  Ðparking€lot€on€North€Joiner€Road€to€complete€his€report.€€While€parked€in€the€lot,€Officer€Ô_!!ÔNaborsÔ_!!Ô€sawÐ pÀ Ðtwo€white€males€who€were€riding€bicycles€and€matched€the€BOLO€description.€€Officer€Ô_!!ÔNaborsÔ_!!ÔÐ \¬ Ðpulled€out€of€the€parking€lot€and€began€following€the€suspects.€€At€some€point,€the€suspects€lookedÐ H˜ Ðback,€saw€Officer€Ô_!!ÔNaborsÔ_!!Ô,€and€began€pedaling€faster.€€Officer€Ô_!!ÔNaborsÔ_!!Ô€followed€the€suspects€behindÐ 4„ Ða€grocery€store,€got€out€of€his€patrol€car,€and€ordered€them€to€stop.€€However,€the€suspects€rode€offÐ  p Ðin€different€directions.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àOne€of€the€suspects€rode€through€a€wooded€area€to€John€Henry€Road€and€turned€west.€Ð ä4 ÐOfficer€Ô_!!ÔNaborsÔ_!!Ô€chased€the€suspect,€who€was€the€defendant,€on€foot€but€lost€sight€of€him.€€As€OfficerÐ Ð  ÐÔ_!!ÔNaborsÔ_!!Ô€chased€the€defendant,€the€defendant€turned€around€repeatedly,€looked€at€the€officer,€and€actedÐ ¼  Ðlike€he€was€reaching€for€something€in€his€jacket.€€At€the€corner€of€North€Joiner€and€John€Henry,€anÐ ¨ø Ðofficer€in€a€patrol€car€met€Officer€Ô_!!ÔNaborsÔ_!!Ô.€€Officer€Ô_!!ÔNaborsÔ_!!Ô€heard€Officer€Mays€over€the€police€radioÐ ”ä Ðand€saw€Maysðð€patrol€car€in€a€ditch€on€North€Joiner€Road.€€Officer€Ô_!!ÔNaborsÔ_!!Ô€and€the€other€officerÐ €Ð Ðbegan€looking€for€Mays€and€found€him€at€the€end€of€a€driveway.€€Officer€Mays€was€confused€andÐ l¼ Ðtold€them€that€he€had€been€shot.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àOfficer€David€W.€Mays€of€the€Chattanooga€Police€Department€testified€that€on€January€8,Ð 0"€  Ð2002,€he€was€on€patrol€in€the€East€Ô_!!ÔBrainerdÔ_!!Ô€area€and€heard€the€BOLO.€€Later,€Officer€Mays€heardÐ #l! ÐOfficer€Ô_!!ÔNaborsÔ_!!Ô€say€over€the€police€radio€that€he€was€in€a€foot€pursuit,€and€Officer€Mays€drove€inÐ $X" ÐÔ_!!ÔNaborsÔ_!!Ôðð€direction.€€Officer€Mays€saw€the€defendant€riding€a€bicycle€and€followed€him.€€TheÐ ô$D # Ðdefendant€turned€into€a€wooded€driveway,€and€Officer€Mays€continued€following€the€defendant€inÐ à%0!$ Ðhis€patrol€car.€€Officer€Mays€bumped€the€defendantððs€bicycle€with€the€car,€and€the€defendant€jumpedÐ Ì&"% Ðor€fell€off€the€bicycle.€€Officer€Mays€got€out€of€the€car€and€told€the€defendant,€ð ðCome€here.ðð€€TheÐ ¸'#& Ðdefendant€tried€to€run,€Officer€Mays€caught€him,€and€they€struggled.€€Officer€Mays€threw€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendant€onto€the€ground,€and€the€defendant,€who€was€on€his€back,€began€flailing€his€arms€and€legs.€Ð )à$( ÐUsing€a€ð ðclosed€hand€technique,ðð€Officer€Mays€struck€the€defendant€twice€on€the€side€of€the€face.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐThe€defendant€rolled€onto€his€stomach,€and€Officer€Mays€tried€to€pull€back€the€defendantððs€right€armÐ h+¸&* Ðin€order€to€handcuff€him.€€Officer€Mays€also€put€his€knee€on€the€back€of€the€defendantððs€head€andÐ ° Ðtold€him,€ð ðGive€me€your€hands.ðð€€When€the€defendant€refused€to€be€handcuffed,€Officer€MaysÐ œì ÐÔ_!!Ôsprayed€the€defendant€with€pepper€spray,€and€the€defendant€yelled€for€help.€€Officer€Mays€decidedÐ ˆØ Ðto€stop€struggling€with€the€defendant€and€to€hold€him€at€gunpoint€until€backup€officers€arrived.€€AsÐ tÄ ÐOfficer€Mays€stepped€away€from€the€defendant€and€began€to€unsnap€his€gun€holster,€the€defendantÐ `° Ðshot€him€in€the€face.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àOfficer€Mays€testified€that€he€did€not€see€the€defendantððs€gun€but€heard€a€gunshot€and€feltÐ $ t Ðgunpowder.€€He€fell,€began€crawling€away€from€the€defendant,€and€felt€another€shot€in€his€back.€Ð  ` ÐOfficer€Mays€fell€down€an€embankment€and€into€some€water.€€He€called€over€his€police€radio€thatÐ ü L  Ðhe€had€been€shot€and€fired€two€shots€in€the€defendantððs€direction.€€He€then€heard€the€defendant€openÐ è 8  Ðhis€patrol€carððs€door€and€heard€the€car€back€up.€€As€the€defendant€backed€up€the€car,€Officer€MaysÐ Ô$  Ðstood€up€and€fired€a€shot€above€the€driverððs€side€headlight.€€The€carððs€back€tires€went€into€a€ditch,Ð À  Ðand€the€car€stopped€moving.€€The€defendant€got€out€of€the€car€and€fled,€and€Officer€Mays€hid€behindÐ ¬ü  Ða€tree€and€reloaded€his€gun.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€Officer€Mays€testified€that€before€chasing€the€defendant,€he€had€notÐ pÀ Ðheard€any€reports€that€the€suspects€were€violent.€€He€said€that€after€he€heard€Officer€Nabors€reportÐ \¬ Ðthe€foot€pursuit,€he€drove€to€Joiner€Road€because€he€thought€the€suspects€would€come€out€of€theÐ H˜ Ðwoods€and€onto€the€road.€€He€said€that€he€hit€the€defendantððs€bicycle€in€order€to€end€the€pursuit€andÐ 4„ Ðacknowledged€that€he€may€have€flipped€the€defendant€off€the€bicycle.€€He€denied€striking€theÐ  p Ðdefendant€more€than€twice€but€acknowledged€that€in€a€statement€to€Sergeant€Tim€Carroll€shortly€afterÐ  \ Ðthe€shooting,€he€may€have€said€he€hit€the€defendant€ð ða€whole€bunch€of€times.ðð€€He€said,€though,€thatÐ øH Ðhe€was€still€in€shock€when€he€gave€the€statement.€€Officer€Mays€acknowledged€that€he€was€trainedÐ ä4 Ðto€stop€fleeing€suspects€but€said€that€he€was€not€trained€on€how€to€use€a€car€to€stop€them.€€He€saidÐ Ð  Ðthat€a€bullet€did€not€strike€him€in€the€face€but€that€his€face€suffered€gunpowder€burns.€€He€said€thatÐ ¼  Ðhis€bulletproof€vest€prevented€a€bullet€from€going€into€his€back€but€that€his€back€was€injured.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àConnie€Butler€testified€that€she€lived€on€North€Joiner€Road€in€East€Brainerd€and€that€she€wentÐ €Ð Ðoutside€about€5:30€a.m.€on€January€8€to€feed€her€cats.€€It€was€dark€outside,€and€Ms.€Butler€heardÐ l¼ Ðgunshots€and€saw€blue€lights€on€a€police€car,€which€backed€up€quickly.€€Ms.€Butler€entered€her€home,Ð X ¨ Ðlooked€out€her€window,€saw€the€police€car€in€a€ditÔ#†¼_u»XXÿ#ÔÔ‡XX»¼_uÔch,€and€telephoned€9„1„1.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àChristopher€Long€testified€that€he€lived€on€Jenkins€Road€in€the€East€Brainerd€area.€€AroundÐ #l! Ðlunchtime€on€January€8,€he€was€working€in€his€home€and€heard€a€muffled€cough.€€He€wentÐ $X" Ðdownstairs€to€investigate€and€looked€outside€but€did€not€see€anyone.€€Mr.€Long€went€upstairs€andÐ ô$D # Ðheard€someone€cough€again.€€He€went€downstairs,€opened€his€basement€door,€turned€on€the€light,Ð à%0!$ Ðand€saw€someone€standing€in€his€basement.€€The€person€had€a€hood€over€his€head€and€was€staringÐ Ì&"% Ðat€the€floor,€and€Mr.€Long€could€not€see€the€personððs€face.€€He€turned€off€the€light,€dead„bolted€theÐ ¸'#& Ðdoor,€and€telephoned€the€police.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àSergeant€David€Roddy€of€the€Chattanooga€Police€Department€testified€that€he€was€a€SWATÐ |*Ì%) Ðteam€leader€and€responded€to€the€call€at€Mr.€Longððs€house.€€The€police€believed€that€the€defendantÐ h+¸&* Ðwas€locked€in€Mr.€Longððs€basement,€and€SWAT€team€members€surrounded€the€home.€€A€policeÐ ° Ðofficer€opened€the€basement€door€and€told€the€defendant€that€he€was€going€to€send€in€a€police€dog.€Ð œì ÐWhen€the€defendant€did€not€respond,€the€officers€released€the€dog€into€the€basement.€€SergeantÐ ˆØ ÐRoddy€heard€the€dog€growling,€indicating€that€the€dog€had€apprehended€the€defendant.€€SergeantÐ tÄ ÐRoddy€and€the€other€officers€went€into€the€basement€and€saw€that€the€dog€had€grabbed€theÐ `° Ðdefendantððs€left€forearm.€€The€defendant€had€his€right€hand€in€his€right€jacket€pocket,€and€the€officersÐ L œ Ðtold€him€to€show€them€his€hand.€€The€defendant€refused,€and€another€officer€pinned€the€defendantÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€the€ground.€€The€defendant€began€to€resist,€and€an€officer€held€the€defendantððs€head€in€order€toÐ $ t Ðprevent€him€from€thrashing.€€Sergeant€Roddy€said€that€he€tried€to€pull€the€defendantððs€right€hand€outÐ  ` Ðof€the€pocket€and€that€he€hit€the€defendant€across€the€noseÔ#†¼_u»XXD1#ÔÔ‡XX»¼_uÔ€with€a€ð ðpalm„heelðð€strike,€which€he€saidÐ ü L  Ðwas€a€good€stunning€technique.€€Sergeant€Roddy€pulled€the€defendantððs€hand€out€of€his€pocket,€andÐ è 8  Ðthe€officers€handcuffed€him.€€The€officers€began€patting€down€the€defendant€and€found€a€.38€revolverÐ Ô$  Ðin€his€right€jacket€pocket.€€On€cross„examination,€Sergeant€Roddy€testified€that€the€palm„heel€strikeÐ À  Ðdoes€not€cause€serious€injury€and€that€he€did€not€recall€anyone€else€hitting€the€defendant.€€He€deniedÐ ¬ü  Ðhitting€the€defendant€on€the€side€of€his€head,€around€his€lips,€or€in€his€eye.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àOfficer€Todd€Royval€of€the€Chattanooga€Police€Department€testified€that€he€was€a€memberÐ pÀ Ðof€the€SWAT€team€on€January€8€and€remained€outside€while€other€officers€went€into€the€basement.€Ð \¬ ÐWhen€the€officers€brought€the€defendant€outside,€the€defendant€was€struggling€and€the€officers€wereÐ H˜ Ðhaving€to€drag€him.€€Officer€Royval€searched€the€defendant€and€found€a€revolver€in€his€right€coatÐ 4„ Ðpocket.€€Later,€Officer€Royval€learned€the€coat€belonged€to€Thomas€Manghane.€€Officer€Royval€alsoÐ  p Ðfound€a€Leatherman„type€tool,€a€mini€flashlight,€a€Swiss€army€knife,€a€corkscrew,€a€file,€keys,€andÐ  \ Ða€coin€purse€in€the€defendantððs€pockets.Ð øH ÐÌà  àSergeant€Mike€Mathis,€a€detective€in€the€Chattanooga€Police€Departmentððs€Major€CrimesÐ Ð  ÐDivision,€testified€that€he€was€the€lead€investigator€in€the€shooting€of€Officer€Mays€and€talked€withÐ ¼  Ðthe€defendant€at€the€police€department€a€few€hours€after€the€defendant€was€arrested.€€The€defendantÐ ¨ø Ðtold€Sergeant€Mathis€that€he€did€not€know€why€he€was€there€and€that€he€had€not€done€anything.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àTimothy€Commers€of€the€Chattanooga€Police€Department€testified€that€he€examined€theÐ l¼ Ðevidence€in€the€case,€including€Officer€Maysðð€bullet€proof€vest.€€The€vest€had€a€bullet€hole€in€the€rearÐ X ¨ Ðpanel,€and€Mr.€Commers€recovered€a€bullet€from€the€vest.€€Shelly€Betts,€a€special€agent€forensicÐ D!” Ðscientist€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,€testified€that€she€examined€the€gun€recoveredÐ 0"€  Ðfrom€the€defendant€and€the€bullet€recovered€from€the€vest.€€She€concluded€that€the€defendantððs€gunÐ #l! Ðfired€the€bullet.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àTischia€Watts,€the€defendantððs€sister„in„law,€testified€for€the€defendant€that€a€day€or€twoÐ à%0!$ Ðbefore€this€incident,€she€and€the€defendant€went€to€her€grandmotherððs€house€in€order€to€steal€a€gun.€Ð Ì&"% ÐShe€and€the€defendant€were€addicted€to€methamphetamine€and€needed€the€gun€in€order€to€trade€it€forÐ ¸'#& Ðdrugs.€€Ms.€Watts€took€the€gun€from€her€grandmotherððs€bedroom€and€gave€it€to€the€defendant.€€OnÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€night€of€January€7,€Ms.€Watts€saw€the€defendant€at€a€friendððs€house.€€She€asked€the€defendantÐ )à$( Ðâ âif€he€had€traded€the€gun,€and€he€said€that€he€had€not€traded€it€because€he€needed€to€get€more€Ô_!!ÔitemsÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€trade€for€drugs.€€The€defendant€left€the€friendððs€house€shortly€thereafter.€€On€cross„examination,Ð ° ÐMs.€Watts€said€the€defendant€had€stolen€items€before€in€order€to€trade€them€for€drugs.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àBrenda€Ô_!!ÔWeekleyÔ_!!Ô€testified€that€she€lived€on€Joiner€Road€and€heard€a€commotion€in€front€ofÐ tÄ Ðher€house€on€January€8.€€When€she€looked€out€her€window,€she€saw€a€man€standing€in€the€street€andÐ `° Ðtalking€loudly€to€another€man€in€a€car.€€It€was€dark€outside,€but€Ms.€Ô_!!ÔWeekleyÔ_!!Ô€thought€that€the€car€wasÐ L œ Ða€police€cruiser.€€She€then€heard€three€to€five€gunshots,€a€pause,€and€five€to€six€more€gunshots.€€SoonÐ 8 ˆ Ðafter€she€heard€the€shots,€police€cars€arrived.€€On€cross„examination,€Ms.€Ô_!!ÔWeekleyÔ_!!Ô€acknowledgedÐ $ t Ðthat€what€she€saw€was€consistent€with€one€police€officer€stopping€his€patrol€car€to€pick€up€anotherÐ  ` Ðofficer,€who€was€on€foot.€€The€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€the€attempted€first€degree€murder€ofÐ ü L  ÐOfficer€Mays.Ð è 8  ÐÌÓ  Óò òI.€€DISMISSAL€OF€JURORÐ À  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óThe€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€dismiss€a€potential€juror€forÐ ˜è  ÐcauseÔ#†¼_u»XX:#ÔÔ‡XX»¼_uÔ€because€the€potential€juror€had€a€prior€relationship€with€Officer€Mays.€€He€contends€that€heÐ „Ô  Ðwas€prejudiced€by€the€error€because€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€forced€him€to€use€a€peremptory€challengeÐ pÀ Ðto€remove€the€potential€juror€from€the€panel€and€because€he€used€all€of€his€peremptory€strikes.€€TheÐ \¬ Ðstate€claims€that€the€trial€court€correctly€determined€that€dismissing€the€potential€juror€for€cause€wasÐ H˜ Ðunnecessary.€€We€agree€with€the€state€and€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€byÐ 4„ Ðrefusing€to€dismiss€the€potential€juror€for€cause.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àRule€24(b),€Tenn.€R.€Ô_!!ÔCrimÔ_!!Ô.€P.,€governs€challenges€to€potential€jurors€for€cause€and€states,€inÐ øH Ðpertinent€part,€thatÐ ä4 ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[any]€party€may€challenge€a€prospective€juror€for€cause€if:м ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(1)€there€exists€any€ground€for€challenge€for€cause€providedÐ ”ä Ðby€law;ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(2)€the€prospective€jurorððs€exposure€to€potentially€prejudicialÐ X ¨ Ðinformation€makes€the€person€unacceptable€as€a€juror.€€Both€theÐ D!” Ðdegree€of€exposure€and€the€prospective€jurorððs€testimony€as€to€his€orÐ 0"€  Ðher€state€of€mind€shall€be€considered€in€determining€acceptability.€€AÐ #l! Ðprospective€juror€who€states€that€he€or€she€will€be€unable€to€overcomeÐ $X" Ðpreconceptions€shall€be€subject€to€challenge€for€cause€no€matter€howÐ ô$D # Ðslight€the€exposure.€€If€the€prospective€juror€has€seen€or€heard€andÐ à%0!$ Ðremembers€information€that€will€be€developed€in€the€course€of€trial,Ð Ì&"% Ðor€that€may€be€inadmissible€but€is€not€so€prejudicial€as€to€create€aÐ ¸'#& Ðsubstantial€risk€that€his€or€her€judgment€will€be€affected,€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðprospective€jurorððs€acceptability€shall€depend€on€whether€theÐ )à$( Ðtestimony€as€to€impartiality€is€believed.€€If€the€prospective€jurorÐ |*Ì%) Ðadmits€to€having€formed€an€opinion,€he€or€she€shall€be€subject€toÐ h+¸&* Ðchallenge€for€cause€unless€the€examination€shows€unequivocally€thatÐ ° Ðthe€prospective€juror€can€be€impartial.Мì` x` x ÐÌÔ_!!ÔÔ#†¼_u»XX¾L#ÔòòóóÔ€XX»¼_uÔAÔ_!!Ô€trial€court€has€wide€discretion€in€ruling€on€the€qualifications€of€jurors.€€òòState€v.€Ô_!!ÔKilburnÔ_!!Ôóó,€782Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€199,€203€(Tenn.€Ô_!!ÔCrimÔ_!!Ô.€App.€1989).€€Even€ð ðthe€formation€of€an€opinion€on€the€merits€willÐ `° Ðnot€disqualify€a€juror€if€she€can€lay€aside€her€opinion€and€render€a€verdict€based€on€the€evidenceÐ L œ Ðpresented€in€court.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ô_!!ÔSammonsÔ_!!Ôóó,€656€S.W.2d€862,€869€(Tenn.€Ô_!!ÔCrimÔ_!!Ô.€App.€1982).€€The€ð ðfailureÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€correctly€exclude€a€juror€for€cause€is€grounds€for€reversal€only€if€the€defendant€exhausts€all€of€hisÐ $ t Ðperemptory€challenges€and€an€incompetent€juror€is€forced€upon€him.ðð€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2dÐ  ` Ð238,€248€(Tenn.€1993).€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àDuring€voir€dire,€the€trial€court€asked€the€prospective€jurors€if€any€of€them€knew€the€partiesÐ Ô$  Ðinvolved€in€the€case€or€knew€of€any€reason€why€they€could€not€be€impartial.€€Juror€Ô_!!ÔBaumgardnerÔ_!!Ô€toldÐ À  Ðthe€trial€court€that€the€victim€was€her€former€student.€€Upon€further€questioning€by€the€state,€Ms.Ð ¬ü  ÐÔ_!!ÔBaumgardnerÔ_!!Ô€said€that€she€had€been€a€librarian€at€East€Ridge€High€School€for€many€years€and€thatÐ ˜è  Ðthe€victim€had€worked€for€her€in€the€library.€€Upon€questioning€by€the€defendant,€Ms.€Ô_!!ÔBaumgardnerÔ_!!ÔÐ „Ô  Ðsaid€that€she€had€liked€most€of€the€students€who€had€worked€for€her,€that€she€could€not€say€she€hadÐ pÀ Ðliked€the€victim€more€than€her€other€students,€that€she€had€not€seen€the€victim€in€a€long€time,€and€thatÐ \¬ Ðshe€had€read€in€the€newspaper€about€his€being€shot.€€Ms.€Ô_!!ÔBaumgardnerÔ_!!Ô€also€stated€that€she€could€beÐ H˜ Ðfair€and€that€her€relationship€with€the€victim€would€not€ð ðget€in€the€wayðð€of€the€trial.€€The€defenseÐ 4„ Ðmoved€to€strike€Ms.€Ô_!!ÔBaumgardnerÔ_!!Ô€for€cause€based€upon€her€ð ðpersonal€relationshipðð€with€the€victim.€Ð  p ÐThe€trial€court€stated€that€it€did€not€believe€Ms.€Ô_!!ÔBaumgardnerÔ_!!Ô€and€the€victim€had€a€personalÐ  \ ÐÔ_!!Ôrelationship€and€refused€to€strike€her€from€the€panel.€€Later,€a€peremptory€challenge€was€used€toÐ øH Ðdismiss€Ms.€Baumgardner€from€the€jury.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àWe€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€refusing€to€excuse€Ms.Ð ¼  ÐBaumgardner€for€cause.€€Ms.€Baumgardner€testified€that€although€the€victim€was€her€former€student,Ð ¨ø Ðshe€could€be€fair.€€Moreover,€although€the€defendant€may€have€had€to€use€a€peremptory€challengeÐ ”ä Ðto€remove€her€and€may€have€exhausted€all€of€his€peremptory€challenges,€he€has€failed€to€make€anyÐ €Ð Ðshowing€that€his€having€to€use€a€peremptory€challenge€to€strike€her€from€the€panel€resulted€in€anÐ l¼ Ðincompetent€juror€serving€on€the€jury.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌÓ  Óò òII.€€USE„OF„FORCE€POLICYÐ 0"€  ÐÌÓ  Óó óà  àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€compel€the€state€to€turn€over€theÐ $X" ÐChattanooga€Police€Departmentððs€written€use„of„force€policyò ò€ó óthat€was€in€effect€at€the€time€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðshooting.ò ò€€ó óHe€contends€that€the€policy€was€relevant€to€his€theory€of€self„defense€and€that€he€wasÐ ä%4!$ Ðentitled€to€the€policy€pursuant€to€Rule€16(a)(1)(C),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€€The€state€argues€that€the€trialÐ Ô&$"% Ðcourt€properly€determined€that€Rule€16€did€not€require€the€state€to€turn€over€the€policy€and€that€theÐ À'#& Ðdefendant€has€failed€to€show€that€the€policy€was€relevant€or€helpful€to€his€self„defense€theory.€€In€hisÐ ¬(ü#' Ðreply€brief,€the€defendant€argues€that€he€could€not€show€the€policyððs€relevance€because€he€neverÐ ˜)è$( Ðreceived€the€policy.€€We€agree€with€the€state€that€the€defendant€has€failed€to€show€that€he€wasÐ „*Ô%) Ðharmed€by€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.Ð p+À&* Їà  àBefore€trial,€the€defendant€asked€the€trial€court€to€compel€the€state€to€turn€over€the€policeÐ ° Ðdepartmentððs€use„of„force€policy€that€was€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€In€a€hearing,€theÐ œì Ðdefense€told€the€trial€court€that€the€state€had€turned€over€a€use„of„force€policy€but€that€it€was€not€theÐ ˆØ Ðpolicy€that€was€in€effect€on€January€8,€2002.€€The€state€argued€that€although€it€had€turned€over€a€use„Ð tÄ Ðof„force€policy€that€was€in€effect€after€the€shooting,€it€did€not€want€to€give€the€defense€the€policy€thatÐ `° Ðwas€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€shooting€because€the€state€did€not€want€the€jury€to€ð ðfollow€a€redÐ L œ Ðherring€and€find€that€the€officer€is€guilty€of€not€following€departmental€policy.ðð€€The€defense€arguedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€if€the€policy€revealed€Officer€Mays€had€acted€with€more€force€than€the€policy€allowed,€then€theÐ $ t Ðpolicy€would€be€relevant€to€show€that€the€defendant€was€justified€in€shooting€the€officer.€€The€trialÐ  ` Ðcourt€disagreed,€holding€that€the€policy€was€irrelevant.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àDuring€a€second€pretrial€hearing,€the€defense€again€claimed€that€it€was€entitled€to€the€policy.€Ð Ô$  ÐThe€state€argued€that€the€defendant€could€testify€at€trial€about€his€belief€that€he€needed€to€defendÐ À  Ðhimself€from€Officer€Mays.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€policy€would€confuse€the€jury€and€deniedÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€defendantððs€request.ò ò€€ó óDuring€the€hearing€on€the€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€the€defenseÐ ˜è  Ðargued€that€the€trial€court€had€erred€by€refusing€to€compel€the€state€to€turn€over€the€policy.€€TheÐ ˆØ  Ðdefense€told€the€trial€court€that€the€state€had€turned€over€a€second€policy€during€the€trial€but€that€theÐ tÄ Ðsecond€policy€was€older€than€the€first€policy€and€still€was€not€the€policy€that€was€in€effect€at€the€timeÐ `° Ðof€the€shooting.€€In€its€order€denying€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€noted€that€although€theÐ Lœ Ðtwo€policies€turned€over€by€the€state€were€not€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€shooting,€they€did€notÐ 8ˆ Ðappear€to€differ€from€the€policy€that€was€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€crimes.€€The€trial€court€held€thatÐ $t Ðbecause€the€ð ðpolicy€in€question€did€not€reveal€any€less€forceful€method€of€arrest€.€.€.€that€the€prior€andÐ ` Ðsubsequent€policies€did€not€reveal,ðð€any€error€in€not€forcing€the€state€to€turn€over€the€policy€inÐ üL Ðquestion€was€harmless.ò òÐ è8 ÐÌà  àó óOur€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€the€policy€given€to€the€defense€by€the€state€before€trialÐ À Ðis€titled€ð ðADM„5€„€USE€OF€FORCEðð€and€has€a€ð ðDate€of€Issueðð€as€February€6,€2002,€almost€a€monthÐ ¬ü Ðafter€the€shooting.€€The€policy€also€provides€that€it€ð ðAmends/Supersedes:€ADM„5€(04/01/01).ðð€€TheÐ ˜è Ðpolicy€given€to€the€defense€by€the€state€during€the€trial€is€titled€ð ðADM„5€„€USE€OF€FORCEðð€and€hasÐ „Ô Ða€ð ðDate€of€Issueðð€as€September€9,€2000.€€The€parties€agree€that€a€third€policy,€which€was€not€turnedÐ pÀ Ðover€to€the€defense€and€is€not€in€the€record€before€us,€was€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€crimes.Ð \ ¬ ÐÌà  àUnder€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(C),€the€state€is€required€to€ð ðpermit€the€defendant€to€inspectÐ 4"„  Ðand€copy€or€photograph€.€.€.€documents€.€.€.€which€are€within€the€possession,€custody€or€control€ofÐ  #p! Ðthe€State,ðð€and€material€to€the€defendantððs€preparation€of€his€defense,€intended€for€use€by€the€state,Ð  $\" Ðor€were€obtained€from€the€defendant.€€If€a€party€fails€to€comply€with€a€discovery€request,€ð ðthe€courtÐ ø$H # Ðmay€order€such€party€to€permit€the€discovery€or€inspection,€grant€a€continuance,€or€prohibit€the€partyÐ ä%4!$ Ðfrom€introducing€evidence€not€disclosed,€or€it€may€enter€such€other€order€as€it€deems€just€under€theÐ Ð& "% Ðcircumstances.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(d)(2).€€Whether€a€defendant€has€been€prejudiced€by€the€stateððsÐ ¼' #& Ðfailure€to€disclose€information€is€a€significant€factor€in€determining€an€appropriate€remedy.€€òòState€v.Ð ¨(ø#' ÐSmithóó,€926€S.W.2d€267,€270€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€When€arguing€that€the€state€violated€RuleÐ ”)ä$( Ð16,€the€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€ð ðthe€degree€to€which€the€impediments€to€discoveryÐ €*Ð%) Ðhindered€trial€preparation€and€defense€at€trial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€548€(Tenn.€Ô_!!Ô1992).Ð l+¼&* Їà  à€The€state€contends€that€the€defendant€has€failed€to€show€that€he€was€harmed€by€not€receivingÐ ° Ðthe€policy€that€was€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€The€defendant€argues€that€showing€harm€isÐ œì Ðimpossible€because€he€never€received€the€policy.€€We€disagree€with€the€defendant.€€We€haveÐ ˆØ Ðreviewed€the€two€policies€that€the€state€turned€over€to€the€defense,€and€they€are€almost€identical.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðonly€difference€between€the€two€policies€is€that€a€brief€paragraph€on€the€use€of€police€dogs€asÐ `° Ðweapons€is€in€the€February€2,€2002€policy€but€absent€from€the€September€9,€2000€policy.€€In€lightÐ L œ Ðof€the€fact€that€the€defendant€had€these€two€policies€and€that€these€policies€are€obviously€similar€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€policy€in€question,€we€agree€with€the€state€that€the€defendant€could€have€shown€how€he€wasÐ $ t Ðharmed€by€the€trial€courtððs€refusing€to€compel€the€state€to€turn€over€the€policy€in€effect€at€the€timeÐ  ` Ðof€the€shooting.€€Because€he€has€failed€to€demonstrate€prejudice,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€notÐ ü L  Ðerr€by€refusing€to€compel€the€state€to€produce€the€withheld€policy.Ð è 8  ÐÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€CROSS„EXAMINATION€OF€POLICE€OFFICERSÐ À  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€allow€him€to€cross„examineÐ ˜è  Ðthe€stateððs€witnesses€about€Officer€Maysðð€use€of€force€against€him.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€heÐ „Ô  Ðshould€have€been€allowed€to€ask€Officer€Mays€and€Officer€Ô_!!ÔNaborsÔ_!!Ô€as€to€whether€Maysðð€using€theÐ pÀ Ðpatrol€car€to€knock€him€off€his€bicycle€violated€the€police€departmentððs€use„of„force€policy€andÐ \¬ Ðconstituted€deadly€force.€€He€contends€that€showing€Mays€violated€the€policy€would€have€supportedÐ H˜ Ðhis€claim€that€Mays€used€excessive€force,€that€he€feared€for€his€life,€and€that€he€shot€Mays€in€self„Ð 4„ Ðdefense.€€The€state€argues€that€the€policy€was€not€relevant€to€the€defendantððs€claim€of€self„defense.€Ð  p ÐWe€agree€with€the€state.Ð  \ Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àEvidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€ð ðany€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofÐ ä4 Ðconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€beÐ Ð  Ðwithout€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Ô_!!ÔEvidÔ_!!Ô.€401.€€Pursuant€to€Ô_!!ÔT.C.A.Ô_!!Ô€ðð€39-11-611(a),€a€person€can€act€inÐ ¼  Ðself„defense€under€the€following€circumstances:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àA€person€is€justified€in€threatening€or€using€force€againstÐ €Ð Ðanother€person€when€and€to€the€degree€the€person€reasonably€believesÐ l¼ Ðthe€force€is€immediately€necessary€to€protect€against€the€otherððs€useÐ X ¨ Ðor€attempted€use€of€unlawful€force.€€The€person€must€have€aÐ D!” Ðreasonable€belief€that€there€is€an€imminent€danger€of€death€or€seriousÐ 0"€  Ðbodily€injury.€€The€danger€creating€the€belief€of€imminent€death€orÐ #l! Ðserious€bodily€injury€must€be€real,€or€honestly€believed€to€be€real€atÐ $X" Ðthe€time,€and€must€be€founded€upon€reasonable€grounds.€€There€is€noÐ ô$D # Ðduty€to€retreat€before€a€person€threatens€or€uses€force.Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌÔ_!!ÔRegardingÔ_!!Ô€a€personððs€use€of€self„defense€against€a€police€officer,€the€self„defense€statute€providesÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€the€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âÔ_!!ÔÔ_!!ÔÐ )à$( ÐÑOa Ñâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  Ñà8  àà8` Ð Ð àthreat€or€use€of€force€against€another€is€not€justified€to€resist€a€halt€atÐ ° Ða€roadblock,€arrest,€search,€or€stop€and€frisk€that€the€person€knows€isÐ œì Ðbeing€made€by€a€law€enforcement€officer,€unless:ЈØ` x` x Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(1)€The€law€enforcement€officer€uses€or€attempts€to€useÐ `° Ðgreater€force€than€necessary€to€make€the€arrest,€search,€stop€and€frisk,Ð L œ Ðor€halt;€€andÐ8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(2)€The€person€reasonably€believes€that€the€force€isÐ  ` Ðimmediately€necessary€to€protect€against€the€law€enforcementÐ ü L  Ðofficerððs€use€or€attempted€use€of€greater€force€than€necessary.Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌÔ_!!ÔT.C.A.Ô_!!Ô€ðð€39-11-611(e).€€According€to€the€Sentencing€Commission€Comments,€self„defense€not€onlyÐ À  Ðentails€what€a€defendant€actually€believes,€but€also€entails€what€is€a€reasonable€belief€under€theÐ ¬ü  Ðcircumstances.€€€As€stated€in€òòState€v.€Ô_!!ÔBultÔ_!!Ôóó,€989€S.W.2d€730,€732€(Tenn.€Ô_!!ÔCrimÔ_!!Ô.€App.€1998),€ð ðThisÐ ˜è  Ðmeans€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€and€mental€state€must€meet€an€objective€standard€ofÐ „Ô  Ðreasonableness€for€the€conduct€to€be€justified€under€these€statutory€defenses.€€Thus,€the€mere€fact€thatÐ pÀ Ðthe€defendant€believes€that€his€conduct€is€justified€would€not€suffice€to€justify€his€conduct.ðð€€InÐ \¬ ÐòòGraham€v.€Connoróó,€490€U.S.€386,€396„97,€109€S.€Ct.€1865,€1872€(1989),€a€case€involving€excessiveÐ H˜ Ðforce€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€explained€that€the€FourthÐ 4„ ÐAmendmentððs€objective€reasonableness€standard€must€be€evaluated€ð ðfrom€the€perspective€of€aÐ  p Ðreasonable€officer€on€the€scene,€rather€than€with€the€20/20€vision€of€hindsightðð€and€ð ðmust€embodyÐ  \ Ðthe€allowance€for€the€fact€that€police€officers€are€often€forced€to€make€split-second€judgments€„„€inÐ øH Ðcircumstances€that€are€tense,€uncertain€and€rapidly€evolving€„„€about€the€amount€of€force€that€isÐ ä4 Ðnecessary€in€a€particular€situation.ðð€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àSome€federal€and€state€courts€have€held€that€police€department€use„of„force€policies€areÐ ¨ø Ðrelevant€when€evaluating€excessive€use„of„force€claims.€€For€example,€in€òòScott€v.€Ô_!!ÔHenrichÔ_!!Ôóó,€39€F.3dÐ ”ä ÐÔ_!!Ô912€(9th€Cir.€1994),€a€wife€sued€police€officers€for€excessive€force€after€they€shot€and€killed€herÐ €Ð Ðhusband,€who€had€barricaded€himself€in€an€apartment€building.€€The€plaintiff€tried€to€argue€that€theÐ l¼ Ðofficers€had€violated€police€department€guidelines€when€they€shot€her€husband€without€first€callingÐ X ¨ Ðfor€assistance€or€negotiating€with€him.€€The€appellate€court€stated€that€the€guidelines€were€relevantÐ D!” Ðð ðwhen€one€of€their€purposes€is€to€protect€the€individual€against€whom€force€is€used.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€915„16.€Ð 0"€  ÐConcluding€that€the€purpose€of€the€guidelines€in€question€was€to€protect€police€officers€and€innocentÐ #l! Ðbystanders,€not€suspects,€the€appellate€court€held€that€the€guidelines€were€irrelevant.€€In€òòDrummondÐ $X" Ðv.€City€of€Anaheimóó,€343€F.3d€1052€(9th€Cir.€2003),€the€victimððs€guardian€sued€police€officers€andÐ ô$D # Ðthe€city€after€the€officersðð€use€of€force€against€the€victim€during€an€arrest€left€the€victim€in€a€coma.€Ð à%0!$ ÐIn€reversing€summary€judgment€for€the€defendants,€the€appellate€court€considered€the€officersðð€use„Ð Ì&"% Ðof„force€guidelines,€stating€that€òòóóð ðððit€may€be€difficult€to€conclude€that€the€officers€acted€reasonablyÐ ¸'#& Ðif€they€performed€an€action€that€had€been€banned€by€their€department€or€of€whose€dangers€in€theseÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcircumstances€they€had€been€warned.ðððð€òòId.óó€at€1059€(quoting€òòGutierrez€v.€City€of€San€Antonioóó,€139Ð )à$( ÐF.3d€441,€449€(5th€Cir.€1998)).€€òòóóIn€òòLudwig€v.€Andersonóó,€54€F.3d€465,€472€(8th€Cir.€1995),€a€motherÐ |*Ì%) Ðsued€two€police€officers€after€they€shot€and€killed€her€emotionally€disturbed€son.€€òòId.óó€at€916.€€InÐ h+¸&* Ðdetermining€whether€the€officersðð€use€of€deadly€force€against€the€victim€was€objectively€reasonable,Ð ° Ðthe€appellate€court€looked€to€the€police€departmentððs€manual,€which€specifically€addressed€howÐ œì Ðofficers€were€to€handle€emotionally€disturbed€persons.€€The€court€stated€that€while€these€ð ðððpoliceÐ ˆØ Ðdepartment€guidelines€do€not€create€a€constitutional€right,ðð€they€are€relevant€to€the€analysis€ofÐ tÄ Ðconstitutionally€excessive€force.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€472€(quoting€òòCole€v.€Boneóó,€993€F.2d€1328,€1334€(8th€Cir.Ð `° Ð1995)).€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àRelying€on€òòLudwigóó,€the€Indiana€Court€of€Appeals€also€held€that€a€police€department€policyÐ $ t Ðwas€relevant€to€a€defendantððs€excessive€use„of„force€and€self„defense€claims.€€In€òòShoultz€v.€Stateóó,Ð  ` Ð735€N.E.2d€818€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€2000),€an€officer€hit€the€defendant€on€the€head€with€a€flashlight€whileÐ ü L  Ðtrying€to€arrest€him€for€disorderly€conduct€and€resisting€arrest.€€Although€the€trial€court€had€affirmedÐ è 8  Ðthe€defendantððs€convictions€for€those€offenses,€the€appellate€court€reversed,€holding€that€the€officerÐ Ô$  Ðused€excessive€force€against€the€defendant.€€In€analyzing€whether€the€officerððs€use€of€force€wasÐ À  Ðobjectively€reasonable,€the€court€looked€to€the€police€departmentððs€guidelines,€which€specificallyÐ ¬ü  Ðprohibited€officers€from€using€flashlights€to€hit€suspects€unless€ð ðabsolutely€necessary.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€824.€Ð ˜è  ÐFinally,€in€òòBedley€v.€Stateóó,€374€S.E.2d€841€(Ga.€Ct.€App.€1988),€the€defendant€police€officer€wasÐ „Ô  Ðconvicted€of€simple€battery€for€striking€a€jail€inmate.€€In€contesting€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÐ pÀ Ðon€appeal,€the€defendant€claimed€that€the€trial€court€had€erred€by€allowing€into€evidence€a€policeÐ \¬ Ðdepartment€manual€outlining€procedures€on€use€of€force.€€The€appellate€court€ruled€that€because€theÐ H˜ Ðdefendantððs€defense€had€been€ð ðthat€his€use€of€force€was€justified,€and€the€manual€directly€related€toÐ 4„ Ðthe€defense€of€justification,€it€was€therefore€admissible.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€842.Ð  p ÐÌà  àOn€the€other€hand,€some€federal€and€state€cases€have€held€that€police€department€policies€areÐ øH Ðirrelevant€to€excessive€use„of„force€claims.€€For€example,€in€òòSmith€v.€Freland,óó€954€F.2d€343,€347Ð ä4 Ð(6th€Cir.€1992),€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€stated,€Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àUnder€ðð€1983,€the€issue€is€whether€[the€officer]€violated€theÐ ¨ø ÐConstitution,€not€whether€he€should€be€disciplined€by€the€local€policeÐ ”ä Ðforce.€A€city€can€certainly€choose€to€hold€its€officers€to€a€higherÐ €Ð Ðstandard€than€that€required€by€the€Constitution€without€beingÐ l¼ Ðsubjected€to€increased€liability€under€ðð€1983.ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌIn€òòScott€v.€Edinburgóó,€346€F.3d€752€(7th€Cir.€2003),€an€off„duty€police€officer€shot€and€killed€a€manÐ 0"€  Ðwho€was€trying€to€steal€the€officerððs€personal€car.€€The€victimððs€family€sued€the€officer€and€the€city,Ð #l! Ðclaiming€that€the€officer€used€excessive€force.€€Finding€that€the€officerððs€use€of€force€had€beenÐ $X" Ðobjectively€reasonable,€the€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment.€€On€appeal,€the€plaintiffs€arguedÐ ô$D # Ðthat€an€expertððs€testifying€that€the€officer€had€violated€police€department€policies€precluded€summaryÐ à%0!$ Ðjudgment.€€However,€in€upholding€the€lower€court,€the€appellate€court€stated€that€ð ð42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983Ð Ì&"% Ðprotects€plaintiffs€from€constitutional€violations,€not€violations€of€state€laws€or,€in€this€case,Ð ¸'#& Ðdepartmental€regulations€and€police€practices.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€760.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àSimilarly,€in€òòMace€v.€City€of€Palestineóó,€213€F.€Supp.€2d€691€(E.D.€Tex.€2002),€a€police€officerÐ |*Ì%) Ðshot€and€killed€a€man€who€had€wielded€a€sword.€€A€representative€for€the€manððs€estate€sued€the€cityÐ h+¸&* Ðunder€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983,€claiming€that€the€officer€used€excessive€force.€€In€support€of€her€argument,Ð ° Ðthe€plaintiff€noted€that€the€officerððs€actions€during€the€confrontation€had€violated€the€policeÐ œì Ðdepartmentððs€use„of„force€policy.€€However,€the€district€court€held€that€the€officerððs€violation€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðpolicy€was€irrelevant€ð ðif€his€use€of€deadly€force€against€an€intoxicated,€disturbed,€threatening,Ð tÄ Ðindividual€in€close€proximity€to€him€and€his€other€officers,€armed€with€a€sword€was€reasonable.ðð€Ð `° ÐòòId.óó€at€697.€€In€òòWoods€v.€Jefferson€Countyóó,€2003€U.S.€Dist.€LEXIS€605€(W.D.€Ky.€Jan.€8,€2003),€theÐ L œ Ðplaintiff€sued€the€police€department€under€42€U.S.C€ðð€1983€after€he€was€injured€during€his€arrest.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐThe€defendant€claimed€that€the€arresting€officerððs€written€reprimand€for€violating€police€policyÐ $ t Ðduring€the€arrest€supported€his€excessive€force€claim.€€However,€the€court€disagreed,€stating,€Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIn€evaluating€whether€an€officerððs€use€of€force€is€constitutionalÐ è 8  Ðunder€òòGrahamóó,€the€issue€is€whether€it€was€objectively€reasonableÐ Ô$  Ðunder€all€of€the€circumstances€confronting€the€officer,€not€whether€theÐ À  Ðofficer€violated€a€city€or€departmental€policy.€€Whether€an€officerÐ ¬ü  Ðfollowed€or€violated€police€department€policy€and€guidelines€is€notÐ ˜è  Ðrelevant€under€òòGrahamóó.Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€*10€(citation€omitted).€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€òòLozano€v.€Stateóó,€584€So.€2d€19€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1991),€the€defendant€officer€wasÐ 4„ Ðconvicted€of€manslaughter€for€shooting€and€killing€a€suspect€during€a€high„speed€chase.€€Over€theÐ  p Ðdefendantððs€objection,€the€trial€court€admitted€into€evidence€the€fact€that€the€defendant€had€violatedÐ  \ Ðthe€police€departmentððs€policy€regarding€deadly€force€and€shooting€at€a€moving€vehicle.€€TheÐ øH Ðappellate€court€ruled€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€the€policy€and€cited€other€cases€holdingÐ ä4 Ðthe€same.€€òòId.óó€at€24€(citing€òòPitts€v.€Stateóó,€473€So.€2d€1370,€1373„74€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1985)Ð Ð  Ð(reversing€a€police€officerððs€conviction€for€vehicular€homicide€when€police€policy€manuals€wereÐ ¼  Ðadmitted€as€evidence€that€he€had€operated€his€police€vehicle€in€a€reckless€manner),€òòapp.€deniedóó€(Fla.Ð ¨ø Ð1986);€òòCity€of€St.€Petersburg€v.€Reedóó,€330€So.€2d€256,€258€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1976)€(stating€thatÐ ”ä Ðð ðstatewide€standards€for€the€use€of€deadly€force€must€be€controllingðð€and€that€ð ðintroduction€intoÐ €Ð Ðevidence€of€the€safety€order€was€errorðð),€òòapp.€deniedóó€(Fla.€1976);€òòChastain€v.€Civil€Serv.€Bd.óó,€327Ð l¼ ÐSo.€2d€230,€232€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1976)€(stating€that€a€police€departmentððs€deadly€force€policyÐ X ¨ Ðð ðwould€not€affect€the€standard€by€which€the€officersðð€criminal€or€civil€liability€is€measuredðð)).€€InÐ D!” ÐòòState€v.€Leslie€Ann€Hebeleróó,€2001€Iowa€App.€LEXIS€363€(Iowa€Ct.€App.€June€13,€2001),€a€policeÐ 0"€  Ðofficer€stopped€the€defendant€for€speeding€and€arrested€her€when€she€refused€to€sign€the€speedingÐ #l! Ðcitation.€€The€defendant€was€convicted€of€interference€of€official€acts€resulting€in€bodily€harm.€€OnÐ $X" Ðappeal,€she€claimed€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€admit€into€evidence€the€police€departmentððsÐ ô$D # Ðmanual,€which€provided€that€officers€were€to€treat€the€public€in€a€positive€and€respective€manner.€Ð à%0!$ ÐThe€appellate€court€disagreed,€stating€that€it€was€the€officerððs€conduct€at€issue,€ð ðnot€the€comparisonÐ Ì&"% Ðof€that€conduct€to€policies€that€are€not€claimed€or€shown€to€have€legally€binding€affect.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€*19„Ð ¸'#& Ð20.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àTurning€to€the€present€case,€the€issues€that€the€jury€had€to€resolve€were€(1)€whether€OfficerÐ |*Ì%) ÐMaysðð€conduct€violated€statutory€standards€concerning€use€of€reasonable€force€to€arrest€the€defendantÐ h+¸&* Ðand€(2)€whether€the€defendantððs€use€of€force€against€Mays€fell€within€statutory€standards€that€allowÐ ° Ðthe€use€of€reasonable€force€to€resist€unlawful€force.€€The€defendant€claims€that€being€able€to€showÐ œì ÐMays€violated€the€use„of„force€policy€would€have€demonstrated€that€the€officer€used€excessive€force.€Ð ˆØ ÐHowever,€we€conclude€that€federal€and€state€cases€holding€such€police€department€policies€to€be€Ð tÄ Ðirrelevant€take€the€more€reasoned€approach.€€In€resolving€excessive€use„of„force€claims,€juries€areÐ `° Ðto€use€an€objectively€reasonable€standard€that€must€be€based€on€the€circumstances€that€occurred€atÐ L œ Ðthe€time€of€the€arrest.€€Whether€an€officer€violated€a€police€department€policy,€which€has€no€legallyÐ 8 ˆ Ðbinding€effect,€will€be€irrelevant€to€whether€the€officer€was€acting€appropriately€under€theÐ $ t Ðcircumstances.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€refusing€to€allow€the€defendant€toÐ  ` Ðquestion€the€officers€about€the€policy.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€any€event,€even€if€the€trial€court€erred,€such€error€was€harmless.€€After€Officer€Mays€struckÐ Ô$  Ðthe€defendant€with€the€patrol€car€and€knocked€the€defendant€off€his€bicycle,€the€defendant€was€ableÐ À  Ðto€resist€Officer€Maysðð€use€of€force€and€pull€a€gun.€€The€defendant€shot€Officer€Mays€twice,€once€inÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€face€and€once€in€the€back€after€the€officer€had€fallen€to€the€ground€and€was€crawling€away€fromÐ ˜è  Ðhim.€€In€light€of€these€facts,€we€hold€that€any€error€regarding€the€defendantððs€inability€to€question€theÐ „Ô  Ðofficers€about€the€police€departmentððs€policy€was€harmless.Ð pÀ ÐÌÓ  Óò òIV.€€EXPERT€TESTIMONYÐ H˜ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óNext,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€allow€an€expert€to€testifyÐ  p Ðthat€Officer€Mays€used€excessive€force€against€him.€€He€argues€that€the€expertððs€opinion,€which€wasÐ  \ Ðbased€in€part€upon€the€Chattanaooga€Police€Departmentððs€use„of„force€policy,€was€necessary€to€showÐ øH Ðthat€he€was€justified€in€shooting€Officer€Mays.€€He€contends€that€the€expert€had€specializedÐ ä4 Ðexperience€in€police€training€and€tactics€and€would€have€been€able€to€explain€to€the€jury€that€OfficerÐ Ð  ÐMaysðð€using€a€patrol€car€to€knock€him€off€his€bicycle,€hitting€him,€and€spraying€him€with€pepperÐ ¼  Ðspray€amounted€to€excessive€force.€€The€state€claims€that€the€trial€court€properly€excluded€theÐ ¨ø Ðexpertððs€testimony.€€We€conclude€that€any€error€was€harmless.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€record€reflects€that€after€the€defense€received€the€February€6,€2002€use„of„force€policy,Ð l¼ Ðit€forwarded€the€policy€to€Phillip€L.€Davidson,€a€former€police€officer€and€purported€expert€onÐ X ¨ Ðexcessive€use„of„force.€€Using€the€policy,€the€preliminary€hearing€transcript,€and€the€ChattanoogaÐ D!” ÐPolice€Departmentððs€interview€with€Officer€Mays,€Mr.€Davidson€prepared€a€written€report€in€whichÐ 0"€  Ðhe€concluded€that€Officer€Mays€had€used€deadly€force€against€the€defendant€when€Officer€MaysÐ #l! Ðstruck€the€defendantððs€bicycle€with€the€patrol€car.€€He€also€concluded€that€the€officer€had€usedÐ $X" Ðexcessive€force€against€the€defendant€when€the€officer€hit€the€defendant€with€his€fists€and€sprayedÐ ô$D # Ðthe€defendant€with€pepper€spray.€€In€his€opinion,€the€defendant€ð ðquite€justifiably€began€to€defendÐ à%0!$ Ðhimself.ðð€€The€trial€court€refused€to€let€Mr.€Davidson€testify,€stating€that€Mr.€Davidson€was€notÐ Ì&"% Ðqualified€to€give€an€opinion€and€that€Mr.€Davidson€was€ð ðtaking€the€position€of€sitting€as€a€juror.ðð€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€admissibility€of€expert€testimony€is€a€matter€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€and€willÐ )à$( Ðnot€be€reversed€on€appeal€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Tizardóó,€897€S.W.2d€732,€748€(Tenn.Ð |*Ì%) ÐCrim.€App.€1994).€€Rule€702,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€states,€ð ðIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specializedÐ h+¸&* Ðknowledge€will€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€factÐ ° Ðin€issue,€a€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€mayÐ œì Ðtestify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.ðð€€Rule€703,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€states,€ð ðThe€court€shallÐ ˆØ Ðdisallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€inference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€data€indicate€lackÐ tÄ Ðof€trustworthiness.ðð€€Determinations€concerning€the€admissibility€of€expert€testimony,€including€theÐ `° Ðbasis€of€the€expert€opinion,€are€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2dÐ L œ Ð557,€562€(Tenn.€1993);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,€689€(Tenn.€1997).€€However,€the€juryÐ 8 ˆ Ðdetermines€the€weight€and€credibility€of€the€expertððs€testimony.€€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€880€S.W.2d€720,Ð $ t Ð732€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ð  ` ÐÌà  à€Initially,€we€note€that€although€Mr.€Davidsonððs€written€report€is€in€the€appellate€record,€Mr.Ð è 8  ÐDavidsonððs€curriculum€vitae€is€not€attached€to€the€report€and€the€defense€made€no€offer€of€proofÐ Ô$  Ðregarding€his€credentials.€€Therefore,€we€are€unable€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€itsÐ À  Ðruling€that€Mr.€Davidson€was€not€qualified€to€testify.€€In€any€event,€even€if€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ ¬ü  Ðrefusing€to€let€Mr.€Davidson€testify,€we€hold€that€the€error€was€harmless.€€The€defense€questionedÐ ˜è  ÐOfficer€Mays€extensively€during€cross„examination€about€his€using€the€patrol€car€to€knock€theÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant€off€the€bicycle,€about€his€hitting€the€defendant€in€the€face,€and€about€his€spraying€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€with€pepper€spray.€€Officer€Mays€acknowledged€that€he€had€not€been€trained€on€how€toÐ \¬ Ðuse€a€patrol€car€to€stop€a€suspect€from€fleeing€on€a€bicycle€and€that€his€using€the€patrol€car€to€knockÐ H˜ Ðthe€defendant€off€the€bicycle€could€have€caused€the€defendant€to€break€his€neck€or€suffer€a€brainÐ 4„ Ðinjury.€€He€also€testified€that€he€hit€the€defendant€in€the€face€and€sprayed€the€defendant€with€pepperÐ  p Ðspray€despite€having€no€indication€that€the€defendant€had€a€gun.€€The€jury€was€well€aware€of€OfficerÐ  \ ÐMaysðð€actions€against€the€defendant.Ð øH ÐÌà  àMoreover,€as€previously€noted€by€this€court,€the€evidence€revealed€that€after€the€defendantÐ Ð  Ðfell€off€the€bicycle,€he€jumped€up,€tried€to€run€from€Officer€Mays,€and€struggled€violently€againstÐ ¼  ÐOfficer€Maysðð€attempts€to€handcuff€him.€€When€Officer€Mays€stopped€struggling€with€the€defendant,Ð ¨ø Ðthe€defendant€pulled€a€gun€and€shot€Officer€Mays€twice.€€The€defendant€fired€one€of€those€shots€intoÐ ”ä ÐOfficer€Maysðð€back€as€Mays€crawled€away€from€him.€€In€light€of€the€evidence,€we€hold€that€even€ifÐ €Ð ÐMr.€Davidson€had€testified€favorably€for€the€defense,€no€jury€would€have€concluded€that€theÐ l¼ Ðdefendant€acted€in€self„defense.€€Thus,€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.Ð X ¨ ÐÌÓ  Óò òV.€€DEADLY€FORCE€INSTRUCTIONÐ 0"€  ÐÌÓ  Óó óà  àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€deadly€force.€Ð $X" ÐHe€argues€that€in€light€of€Officer€Maysðð€testimony€that€the€defendant€could€have€been€severelyÐ ô$D # Ðinjured€when€Mays€struck€him€with€the€patrol€car,€such€an€instruction€was€warranted.€€The€stateÐ à%0!$ Ðcontends€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€refusing€to€give€the€instruction.€€We€hold€that€the€trialÐ Ì&"% Ðcourtððs€refusal€was€harmless€error.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àA€defendant€has€a€right€to€have€each€issue€of€fact€raised€by€the€evidence€and€material€to€hisÐ )à$( Ðdefense€submitted€to€the€jury€upon€proper€instructions€by€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2dÐ |*Ì%) Ð530,€553€(Tenn.€1992).€€A€trial€court€should€give€a€requested€instruction€if€(1)€it€is€supported€by€Ô_!!ÔtheÐ h+¸&* Ðevidence,€(2)€it€embodies€the€partyððs€theory€of€the€case,€(3)€it€is€a€correct€statement€of€the€law,€andÐ ° Ð(4)€its€substance€has€not€already€been€included€in€other€portions€of€the€charge.€€òòSeeóó€òòMitchell€v.Ð œì ÐSmithóó,€779€S.W.2d€384,€390-91€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€A€ð ðdeadly€weaponðð€has€been€defined€asÐ ˆØ Ðð ð[Ô_!!Ôa]nythingÔ_!!Ô€that€in€the€manner€of€its€use€or€intended€use€is€capable€of€causing€death€or€serious€bodilyÐ tÄ Ðinjury.ðð€€Ô_!!ÔT.C.A.Ô_!!Ô€ðð€39„11„106(a)(5)(B).€€This€court€has€held€that€a€car€can€be€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòSeeóóÐ `° ÐòòState€v.€Tateóó,€912€S.W.2d€785,€787„88€(Tenn.€Ô_!!ÔCrimÔ_!!Ô.€App.€1995).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€record€reflects€that€the€defense€submitted€to€the€trial€court€the€following€writtenÐ $ t Ðinstruction:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àDeadly€force€means€anything€that€in€the€manner€of€its€use€or€intendedÐ è 8  Ðuse€is€capable€of€causing€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.€€A€motorÐ Ô$  Ðvehicle€can€constitute€a€deadly€weapon.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌThe€trial€court€refused€to€give€the€instruction,€stating€that€the€instruction€was€not€warranted€in€thisÐ ˜è  Ðcase€because€Officer€Mays€did€not€use€his€patrol€car€as€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€trial€court€did€agree,Ð „Ô  Ðhowever,€to€give€a€self„defense€instruction.€€The€trial€court€gave,€in€pertinent€part,€the€followingÐ pÀ Ðinstruction:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àSelf€defense:€Included€in€the€defendantððs€plea€of€not€guilty€isÐ 4„ Ðhis€plea€of€self€defense.€€When€a€person€is€assaulted€by€the€use€ofÐ  p Ðforce€or€attempted€use€of€force€in€such€a€way€as€to€create€in€his€mindÐ  \ Ða€reasonable€belief€that€he€is€in€imminent€or€actual€danger€of€death€orÐ øH Ðserious€bodily€injury,€he€will€be€justified€in€using€force€to€defendÐ ä4 Ðhimself,€even€to€the€extent€of€killing€another€human€being.ÐÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€use€of€force€can€only€be€to€the€degree€reasonably€believedÐ ¼  Ðto€be€immediately€necessary€to€protect€against€the€otherððs€use€ofÐ ¨ø Ðattempted€„€„€otherððs€use€or€attempted€use€of€unlawful€force.€€TheÐ ”ä Ðdanger€creating€the€belief€of€imminent€death€or€serious€bodily€injuryÐ €Ð Ðmust€be€real€or€honestly€believed€to€be€real€at€the€time,€and€must€beÐ l¼ Ðfounded€upon€reasonable€grounds.ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à.€.€.€.Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIn€determining€whether€a€defendantððs€use€of€force€inÐ $X" Ðdefending€himself€was€reasonable,€you€may€consider€not€only€his€useÐ ô$D # Ðof€force€but€also€all€the€facts€and€circumstances€surrounding€andÐ à%0!$ Ðleading€up€to€it.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à.€.€.€.Ф(ô#'` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€use€of€force€against€another€to€resist€or€evade€an€arrestÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€the€defendant€knows€is€being€made€by€a€law€enforcement€officerÐ h+¸&* Ðis€justified€only€if€the€law€enforcement€officer€uses€or€attempts€to€useÐ ° Ðgreater€force€than€necessary€to€make€the€arrest,€and€the€defendantÐ œì Ðreasonably€believes€that€the€force€is€immediately€necessary€to€protectÐ ˆØ Ðagainst€the€law€enforcement€officerððs€use€or€attempted€use€of€a€greaterÐ tÄ Ðforce€than€necessary.Ð`°` x` x ÐÌÔ_!!ÔÔ_!!Ôà  àWe€believe€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€give€the€instruction.€€Whether€or€not€OfficerÐ 8 ˆ ÐMays€used€his€patrol€car€as€deadly€force€was€for€the€jury€to€decide,€not€the€trial€court.€€Nevertheless,Ð $ t Ðwe€hold€that€the€error€was€harmless.€€Although€the€trial€court€did€not€specifically€instruct€the€juryÐ  ` Ðon€deadly€force,€the€court€did€instruct€the€jury€that€in€considering€the€defendantððs€self„defense€claim,Ð ü L  Ðit€could€consider€all€of€the€facts€leading€up€to€the€shooting,€which€included€Officerððs€Maysðð€knockingÐ è 8  Ðthe€defendant€off€the€bicycle.€€We€note€that€after€Officer€Mays€hit€the€defendant€with€his€patrol€car,Ð Ô$  Ðthe€defendant€jumped€up,€tried€to€run,€and€struggled€with€Officer€Mays€so€violently€that€OfficerÐ À  ÐMays€could€not€handcuff€him€even€after€Officer€Mays€struck€the€defendant€with€his€fists€and€sprayedÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€defendant€with€pepper€spray.€€In€light€of€the€thorough€self„defense€instruction€given€by€the€trialÐ ˜è  Ðcourt€and€in€light€of€the€facts€of€the€case,€we€hold€that€the€trial€courtððs€error€in€refusing€to€instructÐ „Ô  Ðthe€jury€on€the€requested€special€instruction€was€harmless.Ð pÀ ÐÌÓ  Óò òVI.€€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGÐ H˜ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óFinally,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€him€to€serve€the€effectiveÐ  p Ðsix„year€sentence€he€received€for€the€multiple€burglary€and€theft€convictions€consecutively€to€theÐ  \ Ðtwenty„five„year€sentence€he€received€for€the€attempted€first€degree€murder€conviction.€€HeÐ øH Ðacknowledges€that€pursuant€to€Ô_!!ÔT.C.A.Ô_!!Ô€ðð€40„35„115(b)(6),€the€trial€court€could€order€the€sentencesÐ ä4 Ðin€the€present€case€to€run€consecutively€to€a€prior€revoked€probation€sentence€because€he€committedÐ Ð  Ðthe€crimes€in€this€case€while€on€probation.€€òòSeeóó€Ô_!!ÔT.C.A.Ô_!!Ô€ðð€40„35„115(b)(6)€(providing€for€consecutiveÐ ¼  Ðsentencing€if€the€trial€court€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€committedÐ ¨ø Ðthe€offenses€while€on€probation€for€a€prior€crime).€€However,€he€claims€that€the€trial€courtÐ ”ä Ðmisinterpreted€Ô_!!ÔT.C.A.Ô_!!Ô€ðð€40„35„115(b)(6)€as€allowing€for€the€six„year€and€twenty„five„year€sentencesÐ €Ð Ðto€run€consecutively€to€each€other.€€The€state€argues€that€the€trial€court€properly€sentenced€theÐ l¼ Ðdefendant.€€We€agree€with€the€state.€€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àWhen€a€defendant€appeals€the€length€of€service€of€a€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court,€thisÐ 0"€  Ðcourt€conducts€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€trial€courtððsÐ #l! Ðdeterminations€are€correct.€€Ô_!!ÔT.C.A.Ô_!!Ô€ðð€40-35-401(d).€€The€presumption€of€correctness€is€ð ðconditionedÐ $X" Ðupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principlesÐ ô$D # Ðand€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ô_!!ÔAshbyÔ_!!Ôóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€TheÐ à%0!$ Ðburden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€€Ô_!!ÔT.C.A.Ô_!!Ô€ðð€40-35-401(d),Ð Ì&"% ÐSentencing€Commission€Comments.€€However,€if€the€record€shows€that€the€trial€court€failed€toÐ ¸'#& Ðconsider€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances,€then€review€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsentence€is€purely€òòdeóó€òònovoóó.€€òòÔ_!!ÔAshbyÔ_!!Ôóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€Concurrent€or€consecutive€sentencing€is€leftÐ )à$( ÐÔ_!!Ôto€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Hastingsóó,€25€S.W.3d€178,€181€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÔ_!!Ô1999).Ð h+¸&* Їà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„115(a)€provides€that€if€a€defendant€is€convicted€of€moreÐ ° Ðthan€one€criminal€offense,€the€trial€court€may€order€the€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€any€of€theÐ œì Ðcriteria€listed€under€subpart€(b)€exists.€€One€of€those€criteria€is€that€the€defendant€is€sentenced€for€anÐ ˆØ Ðoffense€while€on€probation.€€òòóóÔ_!!ÔT.C.A.Ô_!!Ô€ðð€40„35„116(b)(6).€€The€defendant€does€not€contest€the€fact€thatÐ tÄ Ðhe€committed€the€crimes€in€this€case€while€he€was€on€probation€for€prior€offenses.€€Thus,€by€the€plainÐ `° Ðlanguage€of€the€statute,€the€trial€court€could€order€him€to€serve€his€twenty„five„year€and€six„yearÐ L œ Ðsentences€consecutively€to€each€other.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€could€order€that€the€defendant€serveÐ 8 ˆ Ðthose€sentences€consecutively€to€his€revoked€probation€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_!!ÔCrimÔ_!!Ô.€P.€32(c)(2)Ð $ t Ð(providing€that€a€trial€court€may€order€a€defendant€to€serve€sentences€for€new€convictionsÐ  ` Ðconsecutively€to€ð ðadditional€sentences€not€yet€fully€servedðð).€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÐ ü L  Ðdiscretion€by€ordering€consecutive€sentencing€in€this€case.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€the€judgments€of€the€trialÐ À  Ðcourt.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÌÌò òó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOSEPH€M.€Ô_!!ÔTIPTONÔ_!!Ô,€JUDGE