ÿWPC Ö¥~0ðâgG\˜yaÄy‚À¦+PÕ~Üzj—þ;"|AšwÏ«m h¾×›%™J·Ù}Ù'T¼Ñê0Võ…®T7âÙï€3âãSØ×"A$kš"Ä:÷…^¸aÆdž¦¯Bm&‹èFÕj§¿!¿A¤H%nN˜´Œ*C4‘àð,òÄ:-ÐaCÝ 9ɇ‹A/v¶ù6Bù¥c4p+éa' + Ζ·)Ñ9²ã1²¼ù²…-_íMÿ¤a–ó_þ=á–tm3¬z8öw¨$B÷D™¾ÔeMÙ.Çk^t5¦ ‰¶3”’§»æ_Õ&G ¼0ã1.s­Û]ÅÀ—)ïŽ)ÒÖN#­Lº[çªU©ì@&´„Ô“gÓkIEtÛ¢V,vV1^À«!q‘UÅ"9It;ÓÅjœ½—Ì‹?ÛmÐà*#`Ì(Uà<|ûl¨:­%YâÌ‘cb†-—ûÓ؈tæ@™î˜U⃷Ûk|m5„OEÅ~ú›>ñʈráWš7Û¾YÉž¹Ì0Ó[’\C Ê„øltsóüªÑ4ÿ£/` %@U:F 0(€UN¨U:öw044HW#!_ 0l€ 0Dì N0 (2 ^ Z f mh U                BÔ Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô AQñ ÆB 0D 0DL 0D D3ÔX, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular($¡¡(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular, øð AZ"Arial RegulartpO'3|x˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ò°ÒÒ8°ÒÓ  ÓÝ ƒ úÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝOrdinarily,€a€motion€to€suppress€a€pre„trial€statement€should€be€filed€pre„trial.€òò€SeeóóÐ ° ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(3).€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€jury„out€hearing€duringÐ œì Ðtrial€to€determine€the€admissibility€of€this€evidence,€apparently€due€to€defense€counselððsÐ ˆØ Ðcontention€that€he€was€not€aware€of€the€full€content€of€defendantððs€pre„trial€statement.€€‚¢d'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ KÝ ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X¦XXXÔÔ€è&çXX¦ÔÓ  ÓÔ_Ôò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ÜÇçè&ÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€4,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Ô_ÔClerkÔdAxÔó óÔ_Ô dZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó""""'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ°ÒÔ€X¦XXXÔÓ  ÓÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ_Ôßv€Y_@0,j: `€€@ÿE˜±Žtt¨¦Ð° WvßÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà@˜ ˜ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐÌà@=='àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌÌà@CC%àJULY€1999€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆÐ  ` Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òNO.€03C01„9806„CC„00215ó óÐ ü L  Ðà ` àAppellee,à@÷÷-à)ˆÐ è 8  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òANDERSON€COUNTYó óÐ Î  Ðò òVS.ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆÐ º  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òHON.€JAMES€B.€SCOTT,Ð ¦ö  ÐCURTIS€J.€ELY,ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òJUDGEó óÐ ’â  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆÌà ` àAppellant.à@÷÷-à)ˆà p à(Felony€Murder€„€Life€SentenceÔ€X¦XXX¦Ô)Ð d´ ÐÌÌÌÒ(ä „¸ @(#(#(Òò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:Ð üL ÐÌJ.€THOMAS€MARSHALL,€JR.Ìó óDistrict€Public€DefenderÐ À Ð101€South€Main€Street,€Ste.€450ÌClinton,€TN€37716ÌÌò òÌó óÌÐ *z Ðò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð üL ÐÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERSó óÐ Ô$ ÐAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òMARVIN€S.€BLAIR,€JR.ó óÐ ŒÜ" ÐAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCordell€Hull€Building,€2nd€FloorÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òJAMES€N.€RAMSEYó óÐ ö F( ÐDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òJANICE€G.€HICKSó óÐ ®#þ+ ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ127€Anderson€County€CourthouseÌClinton,€TN€37716€€ÌÐ L'œ"/ ÐÒ(ä „¸ @ìì(ÒÐ )h$/ ÐÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ |.Ì)5 ÐÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÐ  Ü5,1= ÐÔ_Ôó óÑ8€,yXdìdÈ8Ñà@ÉÉ'àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌÌÓÓà ` àDefendant,€Curtis€J.€Ely,€was€convicted€by€an€Anderson€County€jury€of€firstÐ €Ð Ðdegree€murder€in€perpetration€of€robbery€and€received€a€life€sentence.€€In€thisÐ ` ° Ðappeal€as€of€right,€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€€Ð @  ÐÓÓà ` à1.à8 ¸ àwhether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€theÐ  p  Ðverdict;Ð` ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà ` à2.à8 ¸ àwhether€evidence€in€violation€of€the€rules€of€discoveryÐ ð@  Ðwas€à  àimproperly€admitted;€Ðà0 ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà ` à3.à8 ¸ àwhether€defendantððs€pre„trial€statements€wereÐ À Ðimproperly€admitted;€Ð°¸ x¸ x ÐÌà ` à4.à8 ¸ àwhether€the€state€was€improperly€allowed€to€reopen€its€Ð à Ðà  àproof;€Ð€Ð¸ x¸ x ÐÌà ` à5.à8 ¸ àwhether€the€trial€court€improperly€commented€upon€theÐ `° Ðevidence;€ÐP ¸ x¸ x Ðà ` àÌà ` à6.à8 ¸ àwhether€gang€affiliation€testimony€was€improperlyÐ 0€ Ðadmitted;€Ð p¸ x¸ x ÐÌà ` à7.à8 ¸ àwhether€the€stateððs€dismissal€of€the€premeditated€firstÐ P Ðdegree€murder€count€at€the€conclusion€of€its€proof€wasÐ ð@ Ðimproper;€Ðà0¸ x¸ x ÐÌà ` à8.à8 ¸ àwhether€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€charge€lesser€offensesÐ À! Ðwas€error;а" ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà ` à9.à8 ¸ àwhether€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€thatÐ $à" Ðaccomplices€cannot€corroborate€each€other€was€error;Ð €%Ð # Ðand€Ðp&À!$¸ x¸ x ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€10.à8 ¸ àwhether€defendant€was€denied€a€fair€trial€due€toÐ P( #& Ðcumulative€errors.€€Ð@)$'¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓOur€review€of€the€record€reveals€no€reversible€error;€therefore,€we€ò òAFFIRMó ó€theÐ  +p&) Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð -P(+ ÐÌà@ËË+àò òòòFACTSó óóóˆÐ À0,/ ÐÌà ` àThe€seventy„year„old€victim,€William€C.€Bond,€was€robbed€and€brutallyÐ €4Ð/3 Ðmurdered€in€his€home€during€the€early€morning€hours€of€December€3,€1996.€€TheÐ `6°15 Ðcause€of€death€was€numerous€blows€to€the€head€with€a€brick.€€The€brick€was€foundÐ @837 Ðnear€the€victimððs€body€inside€the€residence.€€Among€the€items€stolen€from€Ô_ÔtheÐ  :p59 Ðresidence€were€a€television,€VCR€and€CD€player.€€Ð ° ÐÌÌà ` àÔ_ÔTrinidyÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ô,€the€former€step„grandson€of€the€victim,€was€linked€to€theÐ P   Ðcrime€when€he€tried€to€sell€some€of€the€stolen€property€several€days€later.€€HeÐ 0 € Ðeventually€pled€guilty€to€second€degree€murder€pursuant€to€a€plea€agreement€andÐ `  Ðreceived€a€sentence€of€20€years.€€Ð ð@  ÐÌà ` àUpon€his€arrest,€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ô€advised€the€authorities€that€the€defendantÐ ° Ðparticipated€in€the€crime€and€was€the€person€who€actually€murdered€the€victim.€Ð à ÐDefendant€was€then€arrested.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà ` àUpon€being€questioned€by€the€authorities€at€the€Clinton€Police€Department,Ð 0€ Ðdefendant€acknowledged€that€he€spent€the€night€with€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ô;€however,€he€did€notÐ ` Ðconfess€his€involvement€in€the€crime.€€After€formal€interrogation,€he€was€transportedÐ ð@ Ðto€the€county€jail.€€While€en€route,€defendant€asked€the€officers€to€stop€the€vehicleÐ Ð  Ðsince€he€wanted€to€talk.€€The€defendant€then€told€the€officers€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôm]eÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔTrinidyÔ_ÔÐ °"  Ðwent€up€to€the€Bond€house€that€night.€€We€knocked€on€the€door.€€No€one€was€home.€Ð $à" ÐTake€me€to€jail.ðð€€Ð p&À!$ ÐÌà ` àThe€state€called€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ô€as€its€witness.€€To€the€surprise€of€the€state,€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_ÔÐ 0*€%( Ðdenied€that€defendant€was€implicated€in€the€crime.€€He€testified€that€his€priorÐ ,`'* Ðstatements€to€the€authorities€implicating€defendant€were€untrue.€€Ð ð-@), ÐÌà ` àMartha€Wine€testified€that€the€defendant,€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ô€and€a€third€person€namedÐ °1-0 Ðð ðWesðð€came€to€her€residence€in€Knoxville€at€approximately€5:00€a.m.€on€the€morningÐ 3à.2 Ðof€the€homicide.€€They€had€a€TV,€VCR€and€CD€player.€€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ô€told€Wine€that€heÐ p5À04 Ðand€the€defendant€had€beaten€the€victim€with€a€brick.€€Ð P7 26 ÐÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àWes€Powers€testified€that€around€3:00€a.m.€on€the€night€of€the€homicide,€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€called€him€and€asked€Powers€to€carry€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ô€and€him€to€Knoxville.€Ð à ÐPowers€testified€that€defendant€stated€they€had€broken€into€a€house€and€ð ðknockedÐ pÀ Ðsomebody€unconscious.ðð€€Powers€declined€to€carry€them€to€Knoxville€at€that€time;Ð P   Ðhowever,€he€did€take€them€to€Wineððs€residence€the€next€evening€where€he€saw€theÐ 0 € ÐTV€and€VCR.€€The€defendant€told€Powers€that€he€hit€the€victim€with€a€brick.€€Ð `  ÐÌà ` àJason€Johnson,€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ôððs€cousin,€testified€that€the€defendant€told€him€he€hitÐ Ð  Ðthe€victim€with€a€brick.€€Johnson€denied€any€involvement€in€the€crime.€€Ð ° ÐÌà ` àThe€defense€presented€witnesses€who€testified€that€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ô€admitted€that€heÐ pÀ Ðwas€the€person€who€hit€the€victim€with€the€brick.€€Two€of€the€witnesses€implicatedÐ P  ÐJason€Johnson€as€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ôððs€accomplice.Ð 0€ ÐÌà ` àThe€defendant€did€not€testify€at€trial.€€à p àÐ ð@ ÐÌà ` àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€state€secured€permission€of€the€trial€courtÐ °"  Ðto€reopen€its€proof€and€allow€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ô€to€testify€again.€€When€the€state€asked€himÐ $à" Ðwhether€he€told€the€truth€in€the€previous€dayððs€testimony,€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ô€stated€he€wasÐ p&À!$ Ðunder€too€much€pressure€and€declined€to€answer€the€question.€€Upon€continuedÐ P( #& Ðquestioning,€he€stated€that€he€had€told€the€truth€in€his€testimony€the€previous€day.€Ð 0*€%( ÐÌà ` àBased€upon€this€proof,€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€murder€inÐ ð-@), Ðperpetration€of€robbery.Ð Ð/ +. ÐÌà@ffàò òI.€€òòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEóóó óˆÐ 3à.2 ÐÌà ` àDefendant€contends€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€felony€murder€onÐ P7 26 Ðtwo€primary€grounds:€€(1)€the€jury€was€allowed€to€consider€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ôððs€priorÐ 09€48 Ðinconsistent€statements€as€substantive€evidence;€and€(2)€the€statements€of€Ð ° Ðdefendantððs€alleged€accomplices€were€not€sufficiently€corroborated.€€We€rejectÐ à Ðdefendantððs€argument.€€Ð pÀ ÐÔ_Ôà@' ' àò òA.€€Cardenððs€Prior€Inconsistent€StatementsˆÐ P   Ðó óà ` àWhen€Carden€was€called€as€a€state€witness,€he€testified€that€the€defendantÐ 0 € Ðwas€not€involved€in€the€offense.€€This€testimony€was€contrary€to€his€pre„trialÐ `  Ðstatements€to€the€authorities.€€Surprised€by€this€testimony,€the€prosecutorÐ ð@  Ðendeavored€to€impeach€Carden€by€making€detailed€references€to€his€priorÐ Ð  Ðinconsistent€statements.€€In€those€prior€statements,€Carden€implicated€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€as€his€accomplice,€and€as€the€person€who€actually€committed€the€murder.€Ð à ÐDefendant€contends€the€jury€was€not€adequately€instructed€that€these€statementsÐ pÀ Ðcould€be€considered€only€for€impeachment€purposes€and€not€as€substantiveÐ P  Ðevidence.€€Ð 0€ ÐÌà ` àPrior€inconsistent€statements€are€admissible€to€impeach€a€witness€but€are€notÐ ð@ Ðadmissible€as€substantive€evidence.€€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,€215€S.W.2d€813,€815€(Tenn.Ð Ð  Ð1948).€€The€credibility€of€a€witness€may€be€attacked€even€by€the€party€calling€theÐ °"  Ðwitness.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€607.€€However,€such€impeachment€testimony€can€be€highlyÐ $à" Ðprejudicial€and€improper.€òò€Seeóó€òòState€v.€Roy€L.€Payneóó,€C.€C.€A.€No.€03C01„9202„CR„Ð p&À!$ Ð45,€Washington€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€February€2,€1993,€at€Knoxville).€Ð P( #& ÐCertainly,€the€prosecutor€should€not€call€a€witness€for€the€sole€purpose€ofÐ 0*€%( Ðintroducing€prior€inconsistent€statements€under€the€guise€of€impeachment.€€òòSeeóó€N.Ð ,`'* ÐCohen€òòet€alóó.,€ò òTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceó ó€ðð€613.1€(3d€ed.€1995).€€The€failure€toÐ ð-@), Ðinstruct€the€jury€that€prior€inconsistent€statements€may€be€considered€only€for€theÐ Ð/ +. Ðpurpose€of€impeachment,€and€not€as€substantive€evidence,€is€error.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,Ð °1-0 Ð767€S.W.2d€387,€396€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.€Reeceóó,€637€S.W.2d€858,€861€(Tenn.Ð 3à.2 Ð1982).€€Ð p5À04 ÐÌà ` àAt€a€bench€conference€during€Cardenððs€testimony,€defense€counselÐ 09€48 Ðrequested€that€the€trial€judge€advise€the€jury€that€prior€inconsistent€statements€couldÐ ° Ðnot€be€considered€as€substantive€evidence.€€The€trial€court€then€advised€the€juryÐ à Ðthat€it€could€consider€prior€statements€for€the€purpose€of€weighing€the€witnessððsÐ pÀ Ðtestimony€in€court.€€The€trial€court€further€advised€the€jury€that€prior€statements€areÐ P   Ðð ðfor€the€purpose€of€testing€his€credibility€here,€that€heððs€ask€(sic)€about€„€and€if€thereÐ 0 € Ðis€an€explanation,€itððs€up€to€you€to€weigh€that€explanation.ðð€€No€further€objection€orÐ `  Ðrequest€was€made€by€defense€counsel.€€We€conclude€the€jury€was€sufficientlyÐ ð@  Ðadvised€as€to€how€it€should€view€prior€inconsistent€statements.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àDefendant€further€contends€the€trial€court€compounded€this€error€by€notÐ à Ðincorporating€T.P.I.€„€CRIM.€42.06€(4th€ed.€1995)€into€the€final€jury€charge.€€We€noteÐ pÀ Ðthere€was€no€objection€to€the€jury€charge,€nor€was€the€failure€to€give€this€chargeÐ P  Ðincluded€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€issue€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð 0€ Ð3(e).€€Although€this€Court€has€a€right€to€consider€whether€this€omission€was€ð ðplainÐ ` Ðerror,ðð€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b),€we€find€no€plain€error€in€light€of€theÐ ð@ Ðcontemporaneous€instructions€given€the€jury.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà@  àò òB.€€Corroboration€of€Accomplice€Testimonyó óˆÐ $à" Ðà ` àThe€testimony€of€Martha€Wine,€Wes€Powers,€and€Jason€Johnson€implicatedÐ p&À!$ Ðthe€defendant€in€the€commission€of€this€crime.€€Defendant€contends€these€witnessesÐ P( #& Ðwere€accomplices€as€a€matter€of€law,€and€their€testimony€was€not€sufficientlyÐ 0*€%( Ðcorroborated.€€The€testimony€of€these€witnesses€does€not€indicate€that€they,€in€fact,Ð ,`'* Ðwere€accomplices.€€An€accomplice€is€one€who€ð ðknowingly,€voluntarily,€and€withÐ ð-@), Ðcommon€intent€participates€with€the€principal€offender€in€the€commission€of€theÐ Ð/ +. Ðcrime€alleged€in€the€charging€instrument.ðð€€òòState€v.€Griffisóó,€964€S.W.2d€577,€588Ð °1-0 Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€An€accessory€after€the€fact€is€not€an€accomplice€to€the€Ð 3à.2 Ðmurder.€€òòSeeóó€òòMonts€v.€Stateóó,€379€S.W.2d€34,€43€(Tenn.€1964);€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€976Ð p5À04 ÐS.W.2d€661,€666€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Ð P7 26 ÐÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àIn€this€case€the€trial€court€charged€the€jury€that€it€was€for€their€determinationÐ ° Ðas€to€whether€or€not€these€witnesses€were€accomplices.€€Under€the€proof,€this€was€Ð à ÐÌthe€proper€charge.€€Assuming€the€jury€found€they€were€not€accomplices,€which€wasÐ P   Ðthe€juryððs€prerogative,€their€testimony€need€not€be€corroborated.€€Ð 0 € ÐÌà@Ò Ò àò òC.€€General€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óˆÐ ð@  ÐÔ‡XãXXX®kÔà ` àWhen€reviewing€the€trial€court's€judgment,€this€Court€will€not€disturb€a€verdictÐ Ð  Ðof€guilt€unless€the€facts€of€the€record€and€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€it€areÐ œì Ðinsufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guiltyÐ h¸ Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,Ð 4„ Ð2789,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2dÐ P Ð913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€In€other€words,€this€Court€will€not€reevaluate€or€reweigh€theÐ Ì Ðevidence€brought€out€at€trial.€€It€is€presumed€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflictsÐ ˜è Ðin€the€testimony€and€drawn€all€reasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€ofÐ d´ Ðthe€state.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992);€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð 0 € ÐS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978);€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€Ð ü!L  ÐSince€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€a€defendant's€innocence€andÐ È#" Ðreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€proof€on€theÐ ”%ä $ Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€at€the€appellate€level.€€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.Ô#†X®kXXXã@>#Ô€€Ð `'°"& ÐÌà ` àViewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€as€we€must,€theÐ $+t&* Ðevidence€is€more€than€sufficient€to€sustain€the€verdict.€€The€victim€wasÐ -T(, Ðunquestionably€beaten€to€death€with€a€brick€and€robbed,€thereby€establishing€theÐ ä.4*. Ðoffense€of€felony€murder.€€The€only€issue€was€identity.€€The€defendantððs€admissionÐ Ä0,0 Ðplaces€him€at€the€scene€of€the€crime.€€Other€witnesses€place€the€defendant€inÐ ¤2ô-2 Ðpossession€of€the€stolen€property€shortly€after€the€homicide.€€Two€witnesses€stated€Ð „4Ô/4 Ðthat€the€defendant€confessed€to€beating€the€victim.€€It€was€for€the€jury€to€determine€Ð d6´16 Ðthe€credibility€of€the€witnesses.€€The€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€verdict.€€Ð D8”38 ÐÐ $:t5: Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð ° ÐÌÌà@àò òII.€€òòALLEGED€DISCOVERY€VIOLATIONó óóóˆÐ P   ÐÌà ` àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€two€officers€to€testify€thatÐ `  Ðthe€defendant€told€them€ð ð[m]e€and€Trinidy€went€up€to€the€Bond€house€that€night.€€WeÐ ð@  Ðknocked€on€the€door.€€No€one€was€home.€€Take€me€to€jail.ðð€€The€full€context€of€thisÐ Ð  Ðstatement€was€never€reduced€to€writing€and€was€not€furnished€to€defense€counselÐ ° Ðprior€to€trial.€€However,€the€police€report€furnished€defense€counsel€related€thatÐ à Ðð ðdefendant€did€verbally€state€to€[the€officers]€that€he€did€go€to€the€residence€withÐ pÀ ÐTrinidy€Carden...€on€the€day€of€the€homicide.ððÐ P  ÐÌà ` àAt€trial€the€prosecutor€explained€that€she€was€unaware€of€the€full€substanceÐ ` Ðof€the€defendantððs€statement€until€a€week€prior€to€trial,€at€which€time€she€advisedÐ ð@ Ðdefense€counsel.€€Defense€counsel€insisted€he€was€unaware€of€this€statement.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðtrial€court€concluded€defense€counsel€had€the€ð ðsubstanceðð€of€the€oral€statementÐ °"  Ðsince€the€police€report€included€defendantððs€admission€that€he€was€at€the€residenceÐ $à" Ðð ðon€the€day€of€the€homicide.ðð€€Defense€counsel€contends€the€testimony€of€theÐ p&À!$ Ðofficers€indicates€that€defendant€was€there€on€the€ð ðnightðð€of€the€murder€and€notÐ P( #& Ðduring€the€ð ðday;ðð€thus,€their€testimony€was€more€incriminatory.€€€€€€Ð 0*€%( ÐÌà ` àWe€sympathize€with€defense€counsel€since€he€apparently€felt€the€fullÐ ð-@), Ðstatement€was€more€incriminating€than€the€summary€he€had€been€given.€Ð Ð/ +. ÐNevertheless,€we€are€constrained€to€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€ð ðsubstanceððÐ °1-0 Ðof€defendantððs€admission€was€furnished.€òò€Seeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(A).€Ð 3à.2 ÐFurthermore,€even€if€the€state€did€violate€the€discovery€rule,€the€defendant€has€theÐ p5À04 Ðburden€of€showing€actual€prejudice€in€order€to€exclude€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.Ð P7 26 ÐCaughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€535€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,Ð 09€48 Ð548€(Tenn.€1992).€€Defendant€has€not€met€this€burden.€€Ð ° ÐÌà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð pÀ ÐÌà@ù ù àò òIII.€€òòDEFENDANTððS€PRE„TRIAL€STATEMENTóóˆÐ 0 € ÐÌó óà ` àDefendant€also€attacks€the€admissibility€of€his€pre„trial€statement€on€anotherÐ ð@  Ðground.€€He€contends€that€he€had€earlier€invoked€his€right€to€silence,€therebyÐ Ð  Ðforeclosing€any€further€interrogation.€€We€conclude€defendant€is€entitled€to€no€relief.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р° ÐÌà ` àAfter€his€arrest,€defendant€was€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€at€the€ClintonÐ pÀ ÐPolice€Department.€€He€signed€a€waiver€of€rights€and,€after€two€hours€ofÐ P  Ðquestioning,€stated€ð ðI€donððt€have€anything€else€to€say.ðð€€The€officers€then€ceased€theÐ 0€ Ðinterrogation,€and€defendant€was€transported€to€the€county€jail.€€While€en€route,Ð ` Ðdefendant€asked€the€officers€to€ð ðpull€over,€that€he€wanted€to€talk.ðð€€The€officers€didÐ ð@ Ðso€and,€according€to€the€testimony€of€one€of€the€officers,€defendant€was€re„advisedÐ Ð  Ðof€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€Defendant€subsequently€made€the€incriminating€statement.€Ð °"  ÐÌà ` àIf€an€individual€indicates€in€any€manner€during€questioning€that€he€wishes€toÐ p&À!$ Ðremain€silent,€the€interrogation€must€cease.€€òòState€v.€Crumpóó,€834€S.W.2d€265,€269Ð P( #& Ð(Tenn.€1992).€€However,€interrogation€may€resume€provided€the€defendantððs€right€Ð 0*€%( Ðto€cut€off€questioning€is€ð ðscrupulously€honored.ðð€€òòMichigan€v.€Mosleyóó,€423€U.S.€96,Ð ,`'* Ð104,€96€S.Ct.€321,€326,€46€L.Ed.2d€313,€321€(1975);€òòCrumpóó,€834€S.W.2d€at€269.€€Ð ð-@), ÐÌà ` àIn€this€instance€we€find€no€violation€of€defendantððs€right€against€self„Ð °1-0 Ðincrimination.€€The€interrogation€at€the€police€department€ceased€upon€defendantððsÐ 3à.2 Ðstatement€that€he€had€nothing€further€to€say.€€During€his€transport€to€the€county€jail,Ð ° Ðthe€defendant€himself€initiated€the€conversation€with€the€officers.€€òòSeeóó€òòEdwards€v.Ð à ÐArizonaóó,€451€U.S.€477,€484„85,€101€S.Ct.€1880,€68€L.Ed.2d€378,€386€(1981)(holdingÐ pÀ Ðthe€defendantððs€initiation€of€conversation€with€authorities€after€a€previous€invocationÐ P   Ðof€the€right€to€counsel€allows€the€authorities€to€resume€interrogation).€€Under€theseÐ 0 € Ðcircumstances,€we€find€no€constitutional€violation.€€Ð `  ÐÌà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð Ð  ÐÌà@Ú Ú àò òIV.€€òòREOPENING€OF€PROOF€BY€STATEóóˆÐ à ÐÌó óà ` àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€state€to€reopen€itsÐ P  Ðproof€by€recalling€Carden€as€a€witness.€€We€disagree.€€Ð 0€ ÐÌà ` àWhether€to€allow€the€reopening€of€proof€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trialÐ ð@ Ðcourt€whose€decision€will€not€be€overturned€unless€there€is€a€showing€that€anÐ Ð  Ðinjustice€has€been€done.€€òòState€v.€Brockóó,€940€S.W.2d€577,€580€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð °"  Ð1996).€€There€has€been€no€showing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€this€instance.€€Ð $à" ÐÌà ` àFurthermore,€defendant€has€made€no€showing€of€prejudice.€òò€Seeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð P( #& ÐApp.€P.€36(b).€€Upon€being€recalled€as€a€witness,€Carden€again€declined€toÐ 0*€%( Ðimplicate€the€defendant€in€the€crime.€€Ð ,`'* ÐÌà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð Ð/ +. ÐÌà@Ñ Ñ àò òV.€€òòALLEGED€COMMENT€ON€THE€EVIDENCEóóó óˆÐ 3à.2 ÐÌà ` àPrior€to€recalling€Carden€as€a€witness,€the€state€was€under€the€impressionÐ P7 26 Ðthat€Carden€would€recant€his€prior€testimony€and€implicate€the€defendant€as€he€hadÐ 09€48 Ðin€his€pre„trial€statements.€€The€trial€court€told€the€jury:Ð ° ÐÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àÐ ¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà  à[T]he€State,€back€in€chambers,€along€withÐ €Ð Ð[defense€counsel],€had€informed€me€that€there€wasÐ pÀ Ðtestimony€that€they€felt€material€to€the€investigation€inÐ ` ° Ðthis€matter,€had€changed;€and€they€wanted€me€toÐ P   Ðreopen€the€proof...€to€see€if€they€couldnððt€get€thatÐ @  Ðtestimony€before€the€Court€and€(sic)€what€they€considerÐ 0 € Ðto€be€a€forthright€manner,€honest€way.€€Ð p ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÌà ` àThe€state€then€recalled€Carden€as€a€witness€expecting€him€to€recant€his€priorÐ à0  Ðtestimony.€€The€state€asked€Carden€if€his€previous€testimony€about€how€the€victimÐ À Ðdied€was€truthful.€€Camden€responded€that€he€could€not€answer€the€question€dueÐ  ð Ðto€ð ðsignificant€amounts€of€pressure€here€coming€from€all€different€sources.€€OneÐ €Ð Ðkeep€wanting€me€to€do€this;€one€wanting€me€to€do€the€other.ðð€€At€that€point€the€trialÐ `° Ðjudge€òòsua€sponteóó€advised€the€witness,€ð ðI€want€you€to€tell€the€truth.€€Can€you€doÐ @ Ðthat?ðð€€Carden€then€stated€that€his€prior€testimony€was€correct.€€Ð  p ÐÌà ` àDefendant€contends€these€statements€to,€and€in€the€presence€of,€the€juryÐ à0 Ðwere€impermissible€comments€on€the€evidence€indicating€the€trial€judgeððs€opinionÐ À! Ðas€to€the€credibility€of€the€witness.€€We€note€there€was€no€contemporaneousÐ  #ð! Ðobjection€to€these€statements.€€Accordingly,€the€issue€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.Ð €%Ð # ÐP.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Robinsonóó,€971€S.W.2d€30,€42„43€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€Ð `'°"% ÐRegardless,€we€find€no€error.€€Ð @)$' ÐÌà ` àArticle€6,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€prohibits€judges€fromÐ -P(+ Ðcommenting€on€the€evidence.€€The€trial€judge€must€be€careful€not€to€give€the€juryÐ à.0*- Ðany€impression€as€to€the€trial€judgeððs€feelings,€or€make€any€statement€reflectingÐ À0,/ Ðupon€the€weight€or€credibility€of€evidence€which€might€sway€the€jury.€€òòState€v.Ð  2ð-1 ÐSuttlesóó,€767€S.W.2d€403,€406„07€(Tenn.€1989).€€Ð €4Ð/3 ÐÌà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar€the€trial€judge€simply€advised€the€jury€as€to€why€he€wasÐ @837 Ðallowing€the€state€to€reopen€its€proof.€€When€the€witness€declined€to€respond€to€theÐ  :p59 Ðprosecutorððs€question,€the€trial€judge€simply€advised€the€witness€to€tell€the€truth.€Ð ° ÐThe€witness€continued€to€adhere€to€his€prior€testimony.€€We€do€not€view€the€actions€Ð à ÐÌÔ_ÔÌof€the€trial€judge€as€evidencing€any€bias€or€indication€of€opinion€as€to€the€credibilityÐ 0 € Ðof€the€witness.€€Ð `  ÐÌà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð Ð  ÐÌò òà@‰ ‰ àVI.€€òòTESTIMONY€RELATING€TO€GANG€AFFILIATIONó óóóˆÐ à ÐÌà ` àPrior€to€trial,€the€state€indicated€it€had€no€intent€of€introducing€evidenceÐ P  Ðrelating€to€defendantððs€gang€affiliation.€€When€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ô,€for€the€first€time€in€his€trialÐ 0€ Ðtestimony,€indicated€that€defendant€was€not€implicated€in€the€crime,€the€stateÐ ` Ðsecured€permission€of€the€trial€court€to€ask€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ô€about€his€and€defendantððs€gangÐ ð@ Ðaffiliation.€€Defendant€contends€such€evidence€was€highly€prejudicial€and€improperlyÐ Ð  Ðadmitted.€€We€disagree.Ð °"  ÐÌà ` àOnce€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ô€testified€that€the€defendant€was€not€implicated€in€the€crime,€theÐ p&À!$ Ðstate€had€every€right€to€impeach€him.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€607.€€The€state€askedÐ P( #& ÐÔ_ÔCardenÔ_Ô€about€numerous€letters€he€had€received€from€the€defendant€in€whichÐ 0*€%( Ðdefendant€reminded€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ô€of€their€affiliation€with€A„Town€Mafia€Ô_ÔGangstaÔ_Ô.€€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_ÔÐ ,`'* Ðacknowledged€the€following€in€his€testimony:€€Ð ð-@), ÐÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà  àWhen€you€join€a€(sic)€organization,€you€have€aÐ Ð/ +. Ðresponsibility,€sort€of€like€an€oath,€you€know.€€Itððs€likeÐ À0,/ Ðyour€second;€but€itððs€your€family,€more€or€less,€yourÐ °1-0 Ðsecond€family...€€You€treat€them€just€as€you€would€yourÐ  2ð-1 Ðown€family.€€You€donððt€traitor€them;€you€donððt€traitor€à8@¢er€Cardeàà8@¢` Ð ` Ð àÐ3à.2¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àthem;€and€you€donððt€expect€them€to€do€the€same€to€you.€Ð €4Ð/3 ÐItððs€just€unheard€of.€€Ðp5À04¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÌà ` àDefendantððs€contention€that€this€evidence€was€introduced€under€Tenn.€R.Ð 09€48 ÐÔ_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€608(b)€as€evidence€of€prior€bad€acts€is€misguided.€€The€evidence€wasÐ ° Ðintroduced€to€reveal€the€motive€for€Ô_ÔCardenÔ_Ô€testifying€in€the€manner€he€did.€€Thus,Ð à Ðthe€evidence€was€relevant€to€bias€or€prejudice€of€the€witness.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€Ð pÀ ÐÌ616.€€The€trial€court€correctly€ruled€that€the€evidence€was€admissible,€and€thatÐ 0 € Ðprobative€value€outweighed€any€unfair€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€403.Ð `  ÐÌà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð Ð  ÐÌà@ÿÿàò òVII.€€òòDISMISSAL€OF€PREMEDITATED€FIRST€DEGREE€MURDER€COUNTó óóóˆÐ à ÐÌà ` àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€both€premeditated€first€degree€murder€andÐ P  Ðfelony€murder.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€stateððs€proof,€the€prosecutor€requested€aÐ 0€ Ðð ðòònolle€prosequióóðð€of€the€premeditated€first€degree€murder€count.€€Defendant€arguedÐ ` Ðthe€dismissal€was€requested€in€bad€faith€so€as€to€eliminate€second€degree€murderÐ ð@ Ðas€a€lesser€offense.€€The€trial€court€allowed€the€òònolle€prosequióó.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àA€òònolle€prosequióó€is€a€formal€entry€upon€the€record€by€the€prosecuting€officerÐ $à" Ðin€which€the€officer€declares€that€there€will€be€no€further€prosecution€of€the€case.€Ð p&À!$ ÐòòState€ex€rel.€Underwood€v.€Brownóó,€244€S.W.2d€168,€171€(Tenn.€1951).€€AlthoughÐ P( #& Ðthe€prosecution€terminates,€it€is€ordinarily€not€a€bar€to€a€subsequent€prosecution.€Ð 0*€%( ÐòòÔ_ÔScheiblerÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔSteinburgÔ_Ôóó,€167€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€866€(Tenn.€1914);€22A€€Ô_ÔC.J.S.Ô_Ô€ò òCriminal€Lawó ó€ððÐ ,`'* Ð419,€p.€2€(1989).€€However,€a€dismissal€without€the€consent€of€the€defendant€afterÐ ð-@), Ðthe€jury€has€been€impaneled€and€sworn€would€prohibit€further€prosecution€on€theÐ Ð/ +. Ðdismissed€charge.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€48(a).€€Ð °1-0 ÐÌ€à ` àRegardless€of€whether€the€dismissal€was€truly€a€òònolle€prosequióó€in€the€instantÐ p5À04 Ðcase,€it€is€the€stateððs€prerogative€to€dismiss€a€count€of€the€indictment€and€proceedÐ P7 26 Ðunder€another€count.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Harringtonóó,€627€S.W.2d€345,€348€(Tenn.€1981).€Ð 09€48 Їà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð ° ÐÌ€à@) ) àò òVIII.€€òòFAILURE€TO€INSTRUCT€ON€LESSER€OFFENSESó óóóˆÐ pÀ ÐÌà ` àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€theÐ 0 € Ðlesser€offenses€of€second€degree€murder,€reckless€homicide,€criminally€negligentÐ `  Ðhomicide,€facilitation€of€felony€murder€and€accessory€after€the€fact.€€We€find€noÐ ð@  Ðreversible€error.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àAccessory€after€the€fact€is€neither€a€lesser€grade€nor€lesser€included€offenseÐ à Ðof€felony€murder.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔHodgkinsonÔ_Ôóó,€778€S.W.2d€54,€63€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1989);Ð pÀ Ðòòsee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€310„11€(Tenn.€1996).€€Assuming€theÐ P  Ðother€listed€offenses€are€either€lesser€included€or€lesser€grade€offenses€of€felonyÐ 0€ Ðmurder,€we€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€on€them.€€Failure€toÐ ` Ðinstruct€on€a€lesser€offense€is€not€error€where€the€record€clearly€shows€that€theÐ ð@ Ðdefendant€was€guilty€of€the€greater€offense,€and€the€record€is€devoid€of€anyÐ Ð  Ðevidence€permitting€an€inference€of€guilt€of€the€lesser€offenses.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔLangfordÔ_Ôóó,Ð °"  Ð994€S.W.2d€126,€126„28€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€550Ð $à" Ð(Tenn.€1994).€€Ð p&À!$ ÐÌà ` àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€holding€in€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔVannÔ_Ôóó,€976€S.W.2d€93,Ð 0*€%( Ð100„01€(Tenn.€1998),€is€instructive.€€Just€as€in€the€instant€case,€the€state€dismissedÐ ,`'* Ða€premeditated€murder€count€and€proceeded€on€the€felony€murder€count.€€The€trialÐ ð-@), Ðcourt€only€instructed€as€to€felony€murder,€and€defendant€argued€the€instructionsÐ Ð/ +. Ðshould€have€included€second€degree€murder€and€facilitation€of€a€felony.€€DefendantÐ °1-0 Ðargued€the€jury€could€have€concluded€that€someone€other€than€the€defendantÐ 3à.2 Ðactually€committed€the€murder,€while€the€defendant€furnished€substantialÐ p5À04 Ðassistance.€€The€Court€concluded€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€established€thatÐ P7 26 Ðthe€victim€was€killed€during€the€perpetration€of€the€felony,€died€from€an€accidentalÐ 09€48 Ðchoking,€or€committed€suicide.€€òòIdóó.€€The€court€concluded€that€the€record€was€devoidÐ ° Ðof€evidence€to€support€a€charge€on€lesser€offenses.€€òòIdóó.€at€101.€€Ð à ÐÌà ` àWe€reach€the€same€conclusion€in€the€case€at€bar.€€The€victim€wasÐ P   Ðundisputedly€robbed€and€brutally€murdered€by€being€struck€at€least€eight€times€inÐ 0 € Ðthe€head€with€a€brick.€€The€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€permitting€an€inference€ofÐ `  Ðguilt€on€any€lesser€offense.€€Ð ð@  ÐÌà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ° ÐÌà@ÑÑ àò òIX.€€òòACCOMPLICE€JURY€CHARGEó óóóˆÐ pÀ ÐÌà ` àDefendant€contends€that€witnesses€Martha€Wine,€Wes€Powers€and€JasonÐ 0€ ÐJohnson€were€accomplices€as€a€matter€of€law;€their€testimony€could€not€be€used€toÐ ` Ðcorroborate€each€other;€and€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€so€instructing€the€jury.€€Again,Ð ð@ Ðwe€disagree.Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àAll€three€witnesses€denied€any€criminal€involvement.€€There€is€no€indicationÐ $à" Ðthat€any€of€these€witnesses€were€indicted€for€this€crime.€€Where€a€witness€deniesÐ p&À!$ Ðinvolvement€in€the€crime,€the€question€of€whether€he€or€she€is€an€accomplice,Ð P( #& Ðwhose€testimony€must€be€corroborated,€is€one€of€fact€to€be€submitted€to€the€juryÐ 0*€%( Ðwith€proper€instructions€from€the€court€on€how€to€consider€such€testimony.€€òòState€v.Ð ,`'* ÐAndersonóó,€985€S.W.2d€9,€16€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1997).€€òòóóThe€trial€court€instructed€theÐ ð-@), Ðjury€that€if€they€found€any€of€these€witnesses€to€be€an€accomplice,€then€theÐ Ð/ +. Ðdefendant€could€not€be€convicted€upon€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€thatÐ °1-0 Ðwitness.€€This€instruction€was€correct.€€Ð 3à.2 ÐÌà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð P7 26 ÐÐ 09€48 ЇÌÌà@mm#àò òX.€€òòCUMULATIVE€ERRORó óóóˆÐ pÀ ÐÌà ` àFinally,€defendant€contends€he€was€deprived€of€a€fair€trial€due€to€cumulativeÐ 0 € Ðerrors.€€Having€examined€all€issues€raised€by€defendant€and€having€found€noÐ `  Ðreversible€error,€we€likewise€find€this€claim€to€be€without€merit.€€Ð ð@  ÐÌà@xx(àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àAfter€a€careful€consideration€of€the€evidence,€we€conclude€the€judgment€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€trial€court€should€be€ò òAFFIRMEDó ó.€€Ð P  ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à____________________________Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEó óÐ P ÐÌÌÌÌÌò òCONCUR:Ð  #ð! ÐÌÌÔ_Ôòò(SeeÔ_Ô€Dissenting€Opinion)óóÐ p&À!$ ÐGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ `'°"% ÐÌÌÌòò(See€Concurring€Opinion)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ  +p&) ÐDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEó óÐ ,`'* ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ  :p59 ЇÌÌ