ÿWPCf ¾Ô[ýö¸*óì+sòbྰå%ÙpX½n²*ñ¾2XÖ²Õ„„:Q¾™á:B|‡3Ûü ’f—õaªìÇGàÅP·de J¯DÄj·(d$áÖÿ©NXmNë ¡½áÙÔk Y“c5-6Àîæ #ýk•l¤}E¥c¬i£ðìxÀm‰ÝWQô½ÂUû6kU¡ $«FyÚ‡ÞòX>d ,38‘ñň¢×ù ¸®¼<ð‘i%/ÃÑ6™€+c±çe_5®û±‹Dõ©n‡rƒâKGõÛÏ%²5þpCS¡)Gâº&ïl÷4ô¼hÖºëâ–”þ것jégÊóqvõ!%H#w‘<Ù}c~w*I<:òó캅²lûô¾¢+üíΦ÷·2®pwL)lJÓACfyrpzèÏ´U,TÄTxÇJŽ[îÈ­á+øbÚn‰3çœì¯ç )¯Š ©u³®þ#Îño?U½ä\Uýíâ_ÔNLZ~%ÑŸªX‚:†RCÀ“¤ÂíŠJóE‡¸|/Þ·g€pOšTšô9e`¶ØT NwýTGÏQÿþÚºêU$P®meœ± [€í¿v@ñ·"âb %\U Nb 0ˆ°U$N8†çŽŽ zu Òï ^ Á wÍ 4Ñ å Æô ƺ Æ€ÆF N m#É'Eð÷òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò 1‡é 0Dpppp 1u´b) 7211111111111111111111111111111111111 0ëcccc BNN 0¤k D3 D-B 0Koo ASºÆ  0¤Ó 0Dw A«»»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular  ÝÝ ƒRu{$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôë$ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Tennessee€criminal€statutes€define€the€culpability€standard€of€ð ðknowingðð€as:€ð ðÔ_Ôrefer[ingÔ_Ô]€to€a€person€who€actsÐ ° Ðknowingly€with€respect€to€the€conduct€or€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€of€the€natureÐ qÁ Ðof€the€conduct€or€that€the€circumstances€exist.€€A€person€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€a€result€of€the€personððs€conductÐ 2‚ Ðwhen€the€person€is€aware€that€the€conduct€is€reasonably€certain€to€cause€the€result.ðð€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(b).€Ð óC Ð ˜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.wptWªD1Ï h_B0ê:i¢Ø+003|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0 íÝ ƒRu{$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôë$ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€But,€ð ðwithout€the€intent€required€for€criminal€responsibility€under€ðð€39„11„402(2).ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„Ð ° Ð403(a).€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„402(2)€states€that€a€person€is€criminally€responsible€for€the€offenseÐ qÁ Ðof€another€if€€ð ð[Ô_Ôa]ctingÔ_Ô€with€intent€to€promote€or€assist€the€commission€of€the€offense,€or€to€Ô_ÔbenifitÔ_Ô€in€the€proceeds€orÐ 2‚ Ðresults€of€the€offense,€the€person€solicits,€directs,€aids,€or€attempts€to€aid€another€person€to€commit€the€offense.ðð€òòIdóó.€€(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)- ù--i)(|G2u{$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Öq»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôë$ò»»Ô d(|3·$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Öq»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3·$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Öq»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Öq»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Öq»»»ÔÑ8€†XXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î?Æî»¼ÖqÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Öq»îî?Æ #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€11,€2004Ð öF ÐÔ‡X†X»¼ÖqÔÌò òÔ#†¼Öq»XX† #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€Ô_ÔZINAÔ_Ô€BETH€Ô_ÔFINNELLÔ_ÔÔ‡X†X»¼ÖqÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€2001„D„2342€€€€€€Seth€Norman,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„01997„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€September€30,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XlvXXX†ÔThis€is€a€direct€appeal€from€a€conviction€of€facilitation€to€commit€felony€murder.€€The€Defendant,Ð V¦  ÐÔ_ÔZinaÔ_Ô€Beth€Ô_ÔFinnellÔ_Ô,€was€indicted€for€felony€murder€by€a€Davidson€County€Grand€Jury€in€connectionÐ ? Ðwith€the€murder€of€her€step„father€during€the€commission€of€an€aggravated€burglaryÔ#†X†XXXlv#ÔÔ‡XlvXXX†ÔÔ#†¼1ø»XXlvÍ#ÔÔ‡XlvX»¼1øÔ.€€€A€juryÐ (x Ðconvicted€the€Defendant€of€facilitation€to€commit€felony€murder,€and€the€trial€court€sentenced€herÐ a Ðto€21€years.€Ô#†X†XXXlvÂ#ÔÔ#†¼Öq»XX†#ÔÔ‡X†X»¼ÖqÔ€Ô‡XlvXXX†ÔOn€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€two€issues:€(1)€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€theÐ úJ ÐDefendantððs€motion€to€suppress€her€statement€to€the€police,€and€(2)€there€was€insufficient€evidenceÐ ã3 Ðto€find€the€Defendant€guilty€of€facilitation€to€commit€felony€murder.Ô#†X†XXXlv,#ÔÔ#†¼Öq»XX† #ÔÔ‡X†X»¼ÖqÔ€€Ô‡XlvXXX†ÔWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÐ Ì Ðtrial€court.Ô#†X†XXXlvÛ #ÔÔ#†¼Öq»XX†º #ÔÔ‡X†X»¼ÖqÔÐ µ ÐÓ÷ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ‡× ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Öq»àX†~ #ÔÔ‡X†X.¼ÖqÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòNorma€McGee€Ogleóó€andÐ Zª ÐòòRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð C“ ÐÌDwight€Scott,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ô_ÔZinaÔ_Ô€Beth€Ô_ÔFinnellÔ_Ô.Ð e ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Richard€H.€Ô_ÔDunavantÔ_Ô,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ ç 7  ÐGeneral;€Victor€S.€Johnson,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Dan€Hamm,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ Ð! ! ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¹" " ÐÓ0 ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Öq»XX†_ #ÔòòóóÔ‡X†X»¼ÖqÔÔ_ÔÐ ¥-õ(.ý ÐÔ_ÔÓ  ÓÓÓÔ#†¼Öq»XX†•#ÔÔ€X†X»¼ÖqÔòòóóò òÔ‡XlvXXX†ÔÓ€ ((5h83-ÓÓ  Óó óÌÓöÓò òÓ  ÓFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÐ ‚Ò ÐÓÓÓÓà  àThe€victim,€a€71„year„old€retired€state€worker,€was€shot€three€times€during€the€course€of€aÐ V¦ Ðburglary€at€his€home€in€Nashville€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€April€7,€2001.€€His€wife€of€17€yearsÐ ?  Ðwitnessed€the€home€invasion,€the€ensuing€gun€battle€between€her€husband€and€an€armed€intruder,Ð ( x Ðand€the€infliction€of€her€husbandððs€fatal€gun€shot€wounds.€€The€victim€was€transported€by€emergencyÐ  a Ðresponse€personnel€to€Vanderbilt€University€Hospital€where€life€saving€measures€ultimately€provedÐ ú J Ðunsuccessful.€€Investigation€of€the€case€was€assigned€to€Detective€Bill€Pridemore€of€the€NashvilleÐ ã 3  ÐMetropolitan€Police€Department.Ð Ì   ÐÌà  àWithin€a€few€hours€of€the€crime,€Detective€Pridemore€interviewed€the€victimððs€wife€andÐ žî  Ðobserved€the€crime€scene.€€Detective€Pridemoreððs€first€observations€focused€on€the€probable€pointÐ ‡×  Ðof€entry,€an€outside€door€leading€into€the€kitchen€which€was€forcibly€opened,€and€more€notably€aÐ pÀ  Ðroom€filled€with€firearms.€€Responding€police€officers€estimated€over€200€firearms€of€various€typesÐ Y©  Ðalong€with€ammunition.€€The€official€police€inventory€accounts€for€109€guns.€€€The€door€to€this€ð ðgunÐ B’ Ðroomðð€was€equipped€with€an€alarm€that€had€been€tripped€during€the€home€invasion.Ð +{ ÐÌà  à€Detective€Pridemoreððs€investigation€revealed€that€the€victim€supplemented€his€retirementÐ ýM Ðincome€by€selling€dogs,€lawn€mowers€and€guns€out€of€his€home.€€The€victim€often€ran€classifiedÐ æ6 Ðadvertisements€in€the€local€newspaper€advertising€the€various€items€he€had€for€sale.€€TheseÐ Ï Ðadvertisements€contained€his€home€phone€number,€but€not€his€street€address.€€Because€there€wereÐ ¸ Ðno€immediately€obvious€suspects€in€the€case,€Detective€Pridemore€initially€began€his€investigationÐ ¡ñ Ðby€obtaining€telephone€records€and€talking€to€people€who€had€recently€responded€to€the€victimððsÐ ŠÚ Ðnewspaper€ads€as€well€as€the€victimððs€neighbors€and€family.€€The€detective€talked€to€the€Defendant,Ð sà Ðwho€is€also€the€victimððs€step„daughter,€for€the€first€time€the€day€of€the€homicide.€€During€this€firstÐ \¬ Ðinterview,€the€Defendant€informed€the€detective€that€she€knew€nothing€about€the€crime.€€€Ð E• ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€had€a€rocky€relationship€with€her€mother€and€step„father€prior€to€the€victimððsÐ g Ðhomicide.€€Due€to€her€own€health€concerns,€the€Defendantððs€mother€gave€the€Defendant€up€forÐ  P Ðadoption€at€age€seven.€€The€Defendantððs€paternal€grandparents€adopted€her,€but€she€was€allegedlyÐ é 9 Ðmolested€by€her€grandfather€and€later€transferred€to€state€custody€at€age€thirteen.€€The€DefendantððsÐ Ò!"  Ðmother€said€she€was€not€allowed€to€make€any€contact€with€the€Defendant€until€she€was€nineteen.€Ð »" ! ÐAs€an€adult,€the€Defendant€lived€briefly€with€her€mother€and€step„father€on€several€differentÐ ¤#ô" Ðoccasions.€€She€had€stolen€guns€and€money€from€them€in€the€past.€The€Defendant€had€receivedÐ $Ý# Ðseveral€prior€criminal€convictions€in€recent€years€ranging€from€theft€to€prostitution,€was€a€paroleÐ v%Æ $ Ðviolator,€and€admitted€to€having€a€marijuana€habit.Ð _&¯!% ÐÌà  àSeveral€weeks€after€the€homicide,€Detective€Pridemoreððs€investigation€was,€by€his€ownÐ 1(#' Ðadmission,€stalled€with€no€strong€suspects€and€few€leads.€€€He€decided€to€backtrack€and€re„interviewÐ )j$( Ðmany€of€the€same€people€again€with€the€hope€that€they€may€have€heard€something€of€interest€in€theÐ *S%) Ðweeks€since€the€homicide„„a€standard€investigative€technique.€€He€contacted€the€Defendant€andÐ ì*<&* Ðasked€for€a€second€interview€with€her€to€be€conducted€at€the€police€station.€€The€Defendant€agreedÐ Õ+%'+ Ðto€an€interview€the€morning€of€April€30,€2001.€€At€this€second€interview,€the€Defendant€initiallyÐ ° Ðmaintained€her€original€statements€that€she€did€not€know€anything€about€the€burglary€or€homicide.€Ð ™é ÐHowever,€when€Detective€Pridemore€mentioned€that€some€of€her€earlier€statements€did€not€matchÐ ‚Ò Ðwith€information€provided€by€other€parties€he€had€interviewed,€the€Defendant€informed€him€sheÐ k» Ðwanted€to€make€a€statement€describing€what€ð ðreally€happened.ðð€€The€detective€turned€on€a€videoÐ T¤ Ðrecording€device€and€taped€this€statement,€which€later€became€the€subject€of€a€motion€to€suppress.Ð =  ÐÌà  àIn€her€video„taped€statement€to€Detective€Pridemore,€the€Defendant€described€a€group€of€fourÐ  _ Ðindividuals€who€came€to€her€and€her€roommateððs€house€either€late€evening€of€April€6th€or€earlyÐ ø H Ðmorning€of€April€7,€2001,€to€inquire€about€the€Defendantððs€mother€and€step„fatherððs€house,€whichÐ á 1  Ðwas€known€to€contain€a€large€collection€of€guns.€€The€Defendant€personally€knew€two€individualsÐ Ê   Ðin€this€€group,€Alicia€Burke€and€Barry€Brown,€but€had€never€met€the€other€two€men,€later€identifiedÐ ³  Ðas€Justin€Mills€and€Travis€Barton.€€At€least€two€of€the€individuals€carried€firearms,€one€of€which€wasÐ œì  Ðdescribed€as€an€AK„47€assault„style€weapon€and€the€other€a€handgun.€€The€group€declared€they€hadÐ …Õ  Ðjust€returned€from€robbing€Hispanics€but€were€unhappy€because€they€believed€they€were€not€gettingÐ n¾  Ðenough€money€through€this€venture.€€Ð W§  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€testified€that€Alicia€Burke€and€Barry€Brown€already€knew€that€theÐ )y ÐDefendantððs€step„father€had€a€large€and€valuable€gun€collection,€and€had€apparently€informed€theÐ b Ðother€two€members€of€their€group€of€this€fact.€€The€Defendant€claims€the€group€already€knew€whereÐ ûK Ðthe€victimððs€house€was€when€they€came€to€see€her,€however€the€record€€is€unclear€as€to€this€point.€Ð ä4 ÐRegardless,€the€Defendant€gave€the€group€the€victimððs€street€address€and€a€description€of€the€houseÐ Í Ðand€vehicles€owned€by€the€victim.€€According€to€the€Defendant,€the€group€was€at€her€house€for€aboutÐ ¶ Ðfive€minutes.€€The€Defendant€also€claims€she€thought€the€group€might€be€going€home€when€they€leftÐ Ÿï Ðher€house,€because€no€one€in€the€group€expressly€said€they€were€going€directly€to€the€victimððs€house.€Ð ˆØ ÐHowever,€the€Defendantððs€roommate,€Ms.€CJ€Jones,€testified€that€as€the€group€was€leaving€theÐ qÁ ÐDefendant€stated,€ð ðjust€donððt€hurt€my€mother,ðð€and€also€later€said€ð ðI€think€they€are€going€to€doÐ Zª Ðsomething,€I€hope€and€pray€they€donððt.ðð€€€Ms.€Alicia€Burke€later€testified€that€the€Defendant€had€toldÐ C“ Ðthe€group€she€did€not€care€if€they€went€to€her€mother€and€step„fatherððs€house€but€she€ð ðdidnððt€wantÐ ,| Ðanything€to€do€with€it.ðð€€Ð e ÐÌà  àAs€a€result€of€the€Defendantððs€statement,€Detective€Pridemore€was€able€to€gather€sufficientÐ ç 7 Ðevidence€for€a€grand€jury€to€indict€the€Defendant€and€all€four€members€of€the€group€who€participatedÐ Ð!   Ðin€the€burglary€for€felony€murder.€€Before€trial,€the€Defendant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€her€secondÐ ¹" ! Ðstatement€to€Detective€Pridemore,€alleging€it€was€involuntarily€induced€by€promises€not€toÐ ¢#ò" Ðprosecute.€€A€suppression€hearing€was€conducted€and€the€trial€court€subsequently€overruled€theÐ ‹$Û# Ðmotion€to€suppress.€€A€two„day€jury€trial€was€conducted€at€the€conclusion€of€which€the€DefendantÐ t%Ä $ Ðwas€convicted€of€the€lesser„included€offense€of€facilitation€to€commit€felony€murder.€€At€a€separateÐ ]&­!% Ðsentencing€hearing€the€Defendant€received€a€21€year€sentence€as€a€Standard,€Range€I€offender.€Ð F'–"& ÐDefendant€timely€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€and€notice€of€appeal.€€The€Defendant€now€argues€onÐ /(#' Ðappeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€her€motion€to€suppress€and€that€the€evidence€presentedÐ )h$( Ðat€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€a€finding€of€guilty€of€facilitation€to€commit€felony€murder€beyondÐ *Q%) Ða€reasonable€doubt.€€€Ð ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ Ðò òÓ  ÓI.€€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESS€STATEMENTó óÐ ° ÐÓ¼2Óà  àThe€Defendantððs€first€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€her€motionÐ šê Ðto€suppress€the€statement€she€made€to€the€police€detective.€€The€Defendant€asserts€that€herÐ ƒÓ Ðinculpating€statement€was€the€product€of€coercion€because€it€was€induced€by€the€police€interrogatorÐ l¼ Ðthrough€promises€that€she€either€ð ðcouldðð€not€or€ð ðwouldðð€not€be€prosecuted.€€Thus,€the€DefendantÐ U¥ Ðcontends,€the€statement€was€involuntary€and€should€have€been€suppressed.€€We€disagree.Ð > Ž ÐÌà  àBecause€the€issue€of€whether€a€confession€was€given€voluntarily€is€primarily€an€issue€of€fact,Ð  ` Ðreview€of€the€grant€or€denial€of€a€motion€to€suppress€is€conducted€using€the€following€standards:€Ð ù I ÐÌÒe°Òà0 ½ à[q]uestions€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€andÐ Ë   Ðresolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€trier€of€fact.Ð ´  ÐThe€party€prevailing€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÐ í  Ðevidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÐ †Ö  Ðinferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€that€evidence.€€So€long€as€the€greater€weight€of€evidenceÐ o¿  Ðsupports€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€those€findings€shall€be€upheld.€€In€other€words,€a€trialÐ X¨  Ðcourtððs€findings€of€fact€in€a€suppression€hearing€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidenceÐ A‘ Ðpreponderates€otherwise.Ð*z½(#½(# ÐÌòòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Waltonóó,€41€S.W.3d€75,€81€n.3€Ð üL Ð(Tenn.€2001)(ð ðTo€be€clear,€the€standard€of€appellate€review€for€findings€of€fact€at€a€suppressionÐ å5 Ðhearing€is€that€articulated€by€this€Court€in€òòOdomóó.ðð€€However,€the€"[t]estimony€presented€at€trial€mayÐ Î Ðbe€considered€by€an€appellate€court€in€deciding€the€propriety€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€a€motionÐ · Ðto€suppress.ðð€òòState€v.€Perryóó,€13€S.W.3d€724,€737€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1999).€€Furthermore,€our€reviewÐ  ð Ðof€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts€is€a€question€of€law€which€we€conduct€under€aÐ ‰Ù Ðòòde€novoóó€standard€of€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòSate€v.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629€(Tenn.€1997).€€On€appeal,Ð r Ðthe€Defendant€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÐ [« Ðpreponderates€against€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court.€òòSeeóó€òòBraziel€v.€Stateóó,€529€S.W.2dÐ D” Ð501,€506€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€Ð -} ÐÌà ½ àThe€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€states€Constitution€provides€that€ð ð[n]o€person€.€.€.€shallÐ ÿO Ðbe€compelled€in€any€criminal€case€to€be€a€witness€against€himself.ðð€€U.S.€Const.€Amend.€V.€€TheÐ è 8 Ðcorresponding€provision€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€states€ð ð[t]hat€in€all€criminal€prosecutions,€theÐ Ñ!!  Ðaccused€shall€not€be€compelled€to€give€evidence€against€himself.ðð€€Tenn.€Const€art.€I,€ðð€9.€€While€ourÐ º" ! Ðsupreme€court€has€ð ðtraditionally€interpreted€article€I,€ðð€9€to€be€no€broader€than€the€Fifth€Amendment,ððòòóóÐ £#ó" ÐòòState€v.€Martinóó,€950€S.W.2d€20,€23€(Tenn.€1997),€it€has€also€held€that€one€ð ðsignificant€differenceÐ Œ$Ü# Ðbetween€these€two€provisions€is€that€the€test€of€voluntariness€for€confessions€under€Article€1,€ðð€9€isÐ u%Å $ Ðbroader€and€more€protective€of€individual€rights€than€the€test€of€voluntariness€under€the€FifthÐ ^&®!% ÐAmendment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Crumpóó,€834€S.W.2d€265,€268€(Tenn.€1992).€Ð G'—"& ÐÌà ½ àEven€though€a€statement€was€not€given€as€a€result€of€custodial€interrogation,€the€statementÐ )i$( Ðmust€still€be€voluntary€in€order€to€be€admissible.€€òòSeeóó€òòArizona€v.€Fulminanteóó,€499€U.S.€279,€286„88Ð *R%) Ð(1991).€€€In€order€to€be€considered€voluntary,€the€statement€must€not€be€extracted€by€ð ðany€sort€ofÐ ë*;&* Ðthreats€or€violence,€nor€obtained€by€any€direct€or€implied€promises,€however€slight,€nor€by€theÐ Ô+$'+ Ðexertion€of€any€improper€influence.ðð€€òòBram€v.€United€Statesóó,€168€U.S.€532,€542„43€(1897).€€Ð ° ÐHowever,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€emphasized:€ð ð[b]ut,€not€all€promises€by€state€officers€ofÐ ™é Ðleniency€render€involuntary€confessions€thereby€induced.ðð€€òòState€v.€Kellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€726,€727Ð ‚Ò Ð(Tenn.€1980).€€Ð k» ÐÌà ½ àIn€Tennessee,€ð ð[p]romises€of€leniency€by€state€officers€do€not€render€subsequent€confessionsÐ =  Ðinvoluntary€per€se:€ððThe€Fifth€Amendment€does€not€condemn€all€promise„induced€admissions€andÐ & v Ðconfessions;€it€condemns€only€those€which€are€òòcompelledóó€by€promises€of€leniency.ðððð€òòState€v.€Smithóó,Ð  _ Ð933€S.W.2d€450,€455€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing,€òòKellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€at€729)€((quoting€òòHunter€v.€Swensonóó,Ð ø H Ð372€F.Supp.€287,€300„01€(D.C.€Mo.€1974)€(emphasis€added)).€€€In€determining€whether€or€not€aÐ á 1  Ðpromise€of€leniency€has€ð ðcompelledðð€a€statement,€Tennessee€courts€must€examine€ð ðwhether€theÐ Ê   Ðbehavior€of€the€stateððs€law€enforcement€officials€was€such€as€to€overbear€[the€accusedððs]€will€to€resistÐ ³  Ðand€bring€about€confessions€not€freely€self„determined.ðð€€òòKellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€at€728€(quoting€òòRogersÐ œì  Ðv.€Richmondóó,€365€U.S.€534,€544€(1961).€€€Additionally,€ð ð[a]€defendantððs€subjective€perception€aloneÐ …Õ  Ðis€not€sufficient€to€justify€a€conclusion€of€involuntariness€in€the€constitutional€sense.ðð€€òòSmithóó,€933Ð n¾  ÐS.W.2d€at€455.€€Rather,€ð ðcoercive€police€activity€is€a€necessary€predicate€to€finding€that€a€confessionÐ W§  Ðis€not€voluntary.ðð€òòIdóó.€€Ð @ ÐÌà ½ àWhen€a€defendant€claims€that€a€statement€was€compelled€by€the€coercive€police€tactic€ofÐ b Ðpromises€of€leniency,€the€pertinent€inquiry€is€not€merely€whether€the€statement€was€made€only€as€aÐ ûK Ðresult€of€such€promises.€€òòSeeóó€òòKellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€at€729.€€Rather€the€standard€is€ð ðwhether€the€accusedÐ ä4 Ðwas€so€gripped€by€the€hope€of€leniency€that€he€did€not€or€could€not€freely€and€rationally€chooseÐ Í Ðamong€the€available€courses€of€action.ðð€òòIdóó.€(quotingòòóó€òòHunter€v.€Swensonóó,€372€F.Supp.€287,€300„01Ð ¶ Ð(D.C.€Mo.€1974òòóó);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòSmithóó,€933€S.W.2d€at€455.€€Ð Ÿï ÐÌà ½ àIn€determining€issues€of€voluntariness,€the€particular€circumstances€surrounding€eachÐ qÁ Ðconfession€or€statement€must€be€examined.€€òòSeeóó€òòMonts€v.€Stateóó,€400€S.W.2d€722,€733€(Tenn.€1966).€Ð Zª ÐWhether€a€statement€was€voluntarily€given€is€determined€by€examining€the€totality€of€theÐ C“ Ðcircumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òòKellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€at€728„29.€€Ð ,| ÐÌà ½ àIn€the€case€presented,€the€Defendant€claims€that€at€her€first€interview€the€police€detective,€Mr.Ð þN ÐPridemore,€assured€her€that€he€ð ðsaw€no€reason€as€to€why€there€would€be€any€prosecutionðð€andÐ ç 7 Ðinformed€her€that€she€ð ð.€.€.€couldnððt€get€in€trouble€for€talking€and€giving€information.ðð€€The€DefendantÐ Ð!   Ðfurther€claims€that€at€the€second€interviewð!ðthe€fruits€of€which€she€desires€suppressedð!ðDetectiveÐ ¹" ! ÐPridemore€told€her€ð ðas€long€as€I€told€him€the€truth,€and€thatð!ðdo€not€lie€to€him€about€whether€or€notÐ ¢#ò" ÐI€was€with€them,€that€it€would€help€me€more€than€hurt€me.ðð€€The€Defendant€further€testified€at€theÐ ‹$Û# Ðsuppression€hearing€that€she€understood€she€would€not€be€prosecuted€if€she€told€the€truth,€stating:€ð ðheÐ t%Ä $ Ð[Detective€Pridemore]€told€me€that€I€could€not€get€in€trouble€for€talking.ðð€Finally,€the€DefendantÐ ]&­!% Ðtestified€that€if€she€had€known€she€could€be€prosecuted,€she€would€not€have€made€her€inculpatingÐ F'–"& Ðstatement€to€the€police.€€€€Ð /(#' ÐÌà ½ àThe€State€argues€that€during€the€suppression€hearing€the€Defendant€herself€admitted€thatÐ *Q%) Ðâ âDetective€Pridemore€advised€her€that€the€decision€to€prosecute€ð ðwould€fall€to€the€D.A.ðð€€Furthermore,Ð ê*:&* Ðthe€State€asserts€that€the€evidence€on€record€shows€that€the€Defendant€knew€at€the€time€of€theÐ ° Ðinterview€she€was€not€under€arrest,€and€that€the€Defendant€provided€her€statement€voluntarily.€€Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà ½ àAfter€considering€the€evidence€presented€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress,€the€trialÐ k» Ðcourt€made€several€written€findings€of€fact.€€The€trial€judge€found€that€the€police€detective€had€noÐ T¤ Ðreason€to€suspect€the€Defendant€of€any€involvement€with€the€crime€until€after€she€came€forward€ð ðwithÐ =  Ðthe€information€which€implicated€her€in€the€felony„murder€of€her€stepfather.ðð€€He€further€noted€theÐ & v ÐDetective€credibly€testified€that€ð ðthe€Defendantððs€statements€were€made€totally€voluntarily€and€[he]Ð  _ Ðwas,€in€fact,€surprised€by€what€she€[the€Defendant]€had€to€say.ðð€€The€trial€court€noted€that€during€theÐ ø H Ðhearing€ð ðdefense€counsel€attempted€to€elicit€testimony€from€the€defendant€that€Detective€PridemoreÐ á 1  Ðððpromisedðð€her€she€could€not€be€prosecuted€if€she€made€these€statements,€but€it€was€clear€that€whatÐ Ê   Ðhe€may€have€said€in€the€interview€did€not€amount€to€such.ðð€€The€trial€court€found€it€significant€thatÐ ³  Ðwhen€asked€if€the€detective€ever€promised€her€she€ð ðcouldnððtðð€be€prosecuted€if€she€made€a€statement,Ð œì  Ðthe€most€the€Defendant€would€testify€to€was€that€the€detective€told€her€she€ð ðwouldnððtðð€be€prosecutedÐ …Õ  Ðif€she€came€forward€with€information.€€Labeling€the€distinction€between€the€two€words€important,Ð n¾  Ðthe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€Defendant€was€never€compelled€by€absolute€certainty€that€she€wouldÐ W§  Ðnot€be€prosecuted.€€Rather,€the€Defendant€admitted€that€while€she€was€under€the€impression€sheÐ @ Ðwould€not€be€prosecuted,€she€ð ðalso€understood€that€the€issue€was€not€within€Detective€PridemoreððsÐ )y Ðcontrol.ðð€€Thus,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€Detective€never€induced€statements€from€the€DefendantÐ b Ðthrough€a€promise€not€to€prosecute,€and€overruled€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.€€Ð ûK Ðà ½ àÌà ½ àUpon€review€of€the€record€preserved€for€appeal,€we€find€no€evidence€of€coercive€policeÐ Í Ðactivity,€€no€law€enforcement€behavior€such€as€would€overbear€the€Defendantððs€will€to€resist€givingÐ ¶ Ða€statement,€nor€do€we€find€the€Defendant€so€ð ðgripped€by€the€hope€of€leniencyðð€that€she€could€notÐ Ÿï Ðfreely€and€rationally€choose€not€to€give€the€statement€she€did.€€€It€is€noteworthy€that€the€transcript€ofÐ ˆØ Ðthe€second€interview€between€Detective€Pridemore€and€the€Defendant„„the€object€of€the€suppressionÐ qÁ Ðmotion„„€is€completely€void€of€any€statement€even€resembling€inducements€to€testify€or€promises€ofÐ Zª Ðleniency.€€Rather,€as€the€following€excerpts€from€the€beginning€of€the€interview€suggest,€the€transcriptÐ C“ Ðreveals€a€suspect€who€wanted€to€make€a€statement€of€her€own€volition:Ð ,| ÐÌà ½ àDETECTIVE:à Å àNow,€you€say€you€want€to€tell€me€about€the€incident,€tell€me€what€youÐ þN Ðà ½ àà  àà m àknow,€right?€Ð ç 7 Ðà ½ àFINNELL:à0 m àYes,€sir.ÐÐ!  m (#m (# Ðà ½ àDETECTIVE:à0 Å àAnd,€I€explained€to€you€earlier,€youððre€not€under€arrest.й" !Å (#Å (# Ðà ½ àFINNELL:€à0 m àYes,€sir.Т#ò"m (#m (# Ðà ½ àDETECTIVE:à0 Å àNow,€what€I€wantð!ðyou€say€you€have€some€information€about€whatÐ ‹$Û# Ðhappened.€€And€we€talked€about€being€Truthful.Ðt%Ä $Å (#Å (# Ðà ½ àFINNELL:€à0 m àYes,€sir.€€Ð]&­!%m (#m (# Ðà ½ àò ò€€€€€.€€€.€€€.€€ó óÐ F'–"& ÐÌà ½ àDETECTIVE:à0 Å àAll€right.€€Okay,€Zina.€€Now,€what€I€want€you€to€do€.€.€.€youððve€had€aÐ )i$( Ðcigarette€break.€€And,€you€said€you€wanted€to€tell€me€about€what€youÐ *R%) Ðknow.Ðë*;&*Å (#Å (# Ðà ½ àFINNELL:€à0 m àRight.ÐÔ+$'+m (#m (# Їà ½ àThe€suppression€hearing€transcript€also€fails€to€reveal€any€oppressive€police€conduct€orÐ ° Ðcoercive€promises€of€leniency.€€Detective€Pridemore€testified€that€he€never€told€the€Defendant€sheÐ ™é Ðwould€not€be€prosecuted€prior€to€turning€on€the€video€recorder€and€questioning€her.€€To€the€contrary,Ð ‚Ò Ðhe€informed€the€Defendant€that€her€statement€would€be€reviewed€by€the€District€Attorneyððs€OfficeÐ k» Ðfor€determination€as€to€whether€it€warranted€presentment€to€a€grand€jury.€€He€further€testified€thatÐ T¤ Ðtoward€the€end€of€their€discussions€the€Defendant€stated€ð ðWell€I€hope€that€Iððm€not€ð!ð€that€it€is€notÐ =  Ðpresented€to€the€grand€jury,€but€if€it€is,€then,€I€will€deal€with€it.ðð€€Detective€Pridemore€also€testifiedÐ & v Ðthat€he€believed€the€Defendantððs€statement€was€voluntary,€and€he€in€no€way€desired€to€trick€theÐ  _ ÐDefendant€into€giving€a€confession.€€The€trial€court€found€Detective€Pridemoreððs€testimony€credible.€Ð ø H ÐÌÌà ½ àThe€Defendantððs€own€testimony€at€the€suppression€hearing€fails€to€support€her€claim€of€an€Ð ³  Ðinduced€confession€through€promises€of€leniency.€€At€the€hearing€the€Defendantððs€counsel€asked€herÐ œì  Ðon€direct€if€Detective€Pridemore€made€ð ðany€promisesðð€that€he€was€not€going€to€prosecute,€to€whichÐ …Õ  Ðthe€Defendant€did€not€respond€affirmatively,€but€rather€stated€that€the€Detective€simply€told€her€heÐ n¾  Ðsaw€no€reason€why€there€would€be€prosecution,€but€that€it€was€ultimately€up€to€the€D.A.€€€TheÐ W§  ÐDefendantððs€counsel€then€asked€her€if€Detective€Pridemore€made€any€ð ðdefinite€statementsðð€regardingÐ @ Ðwhether€he€would€seek€to€prosecute,€to€which€the€Defendant€again€failed€to€affirmatively€reply,Ð )y Ðclaiming€only€that€the€Detective€told€her€telling€the€truth€would€help€her€more€than€it€would€hurt€her.€Ð b ÐThe€Defendantððs€counsel€finally€received€an€affirmative€answer€on€his€next€question,€when€he€askedÐ ûK Ðthe€Defendant:€ð ðDid€you€make€the€statement€to€him€voluntarily?ðð€€The€Defendant€replied€ð ðYes,€sir.ðð€Ð ä4 Ѐ€ÌÌà ½ àLater€in€the€suppression€hearing€the€Defendant€did€state€that€she€ð ðunderstoodðð€she€would€notÐ Ÿï Ðbe€prosecuted€if€she€told€the€truth,€and€that€if€she€had€known€she€could€be€prosecuted€she€would€haveÐ ˆØ Ðð ðasked€for€an€attorney,ðð€(apparently€instead€of€making€the€statement).€€However,€the€Defendant€failedÐ qÁ Ðto€allege€anything€resembling€a€promise€not€to€prosecute€and€furthermore€admitted€that€the€DetectiveÐ Zª Ðinformed€her€such€decisions€were€ultimately€out€of€his€control.€€Ð C“ Ѐ€Ð ,| Ðà ½ àUpon€considering€the€facts€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€we€must€conclude€that€theÐ e ÐDefendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÐ þN Ðdetermination€that€her€statement€was€voluntary€and€not€induced€by€the€police€through€promises€ofÐ ç 7 Ðleniency.€Ô#†X†XXXlvV#ÔÔ‡XlvXXX†ÔÐ Ð!   ÐÌà ½ àThe€Defendant€testified€that€she€understood€she€would€not€be€prosecuted€if€she€simply€toldÐ ¢#ò" Ðthe€truth.€€However,€it€is€well€settled€law€that€a€ð ðdefendantððs€subjective€perception€alone€is€notÐ ‹$Û# Ðsufficient€to€justify€a€conclusion€of€involuntariness€in€the€constitutional€sense.€€òòSmithóó,€933€S.W.2dÐ t%Ä $ Ðat€455.€€The€record€clearly€reveals€that€Detective€Pridemore€did€not€promise€the€Defendant€she€couldÐ ]&­!% Ðnot€be€prosecuted,€but€rather€correctly€stated€that€such€decisions€were€made€by€the€District€AttorneyððsÐ F'–"& ÐOffice.€€This€objective€evidence€is€of€substantially€more€significance€than€the€Defendantððs€ownÐ /(#' Ðsubjective€inferences€and€perceptions.€€Additionally,€the€Defendant€bears€the€burden€of€establishingÐ )h$( Ðð ðcoercive€police€activityðð€in€order€to€show€a€confession€was€not€voluntary,€and€none€of€the€statementsÐ *Q%) Ðmade€by€Detective€Pridemore€even€approach€what€could€be€considered€coercion.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€€à Ý" àÐ ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ Ðà ½ àHere,€the€Defendant€admitted€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€she€voluntarily€accompanied€theÐ ° Ðdetective€to€the€Police€Station,€she€fully€understood€she€was€not€under€arrest,€and€gave€her€unsolicitedÐ ™é Ðstatement.€€On€appellate€review,€we€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÐ ‚Ò Ðcourtððs€determination€that€her€statement€was€made€voluntarily.€€Thus,€this€issue€has€no€merit.€€€€€Ð k» ÐÌÌÌò òÓ  Ó€II.€€INSUFFICIENT€EVIDENCEó óÐ  _ ÐÓÿzÓà ½ àThe€Defendantððs€second€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€there€was€sufficient€evidence€for€anyÐ ù I Ðreasonable€trier€of€fact€to€find€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€Defendant€was€guilty€of€facilitationÐ â 2  Ðto€commit€felony€murder.€€The€Defendant€maintains€that€because€she€was€not€sure€the€group€wasÐ Ë   Ðgoing€to€the€victimððs€house€after€they€left€her€presence,€and€because€some€of€the€perpetrators€of€theÐ ´  Ðaggravated€burglary€and€murder€already€knew€the€general€location€of€the€victimððs€house€and€itsÐ í  Ðcontents,€the€Defendantððs€provision€of€the€address€and€other€details€failed€to€rise€to€the€level€ofÐ †Ö  Ðknowingly€furnishing€substantial€assistance€as€required€by€the€criminal€statutes.€€We€disagree.€€Ð o¿  ÐÌà ½ àTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(e)€prescribes€that€ð ð[f]indings€of€guilt€in€criminalÐ A‘ Ðactions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€supportÐ *z Ðthe€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€A€convicted€criminal€defendantÐ c Ðwho€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€appeal€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€why€theÐ üL Ðevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict,€because€a€verdict€of€guilt€destroys€the€presumption€ofÐ å5 Ðinnocence€and€imposes€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€108€S.W.3d€231,€237€(Tenn.Ð Î Ð2003);€òòState€v.€Carruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€516,€557„58€(Tenn.€2000);€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,Ð · Ð914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€Court€must€reject€a€convicted€criminal€defendantððs€challenge€to€theÐ  ð Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€if,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ ‰Ù Ðprosecution,€we€determine€that€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€ofÐ r Ðthe€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979);€òòState€v.Ð [« ÐHallóó,€8€S.W.3d€593,€599€(Tenn.€1999).Ð D” ÐÌà ½ àOn€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÐ f Ðreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòSeeóó€òòCarruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€atÐ ÿO Ð558;€òòHallóó,€8€S.W.3d€at€599.€€A€guilty€verdict€by€the€trier€of€fact€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€StateððsÐ è 8 Ðwitnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€prosecutionððs€theory.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ Ñ!!  Ðv.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€659€(Tenn.€1997).€€Questions€about€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weightÐ º" ! Ðand€value€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trierÐ £#ó" Ðof€fact,€and€this€Court€will€not€re„weigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóóòòEvansóó,€108€S.W.3d€at€236;Ð Œ$Ü# ÐòòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€659.€€Nor€will€this€Court€substitute€its€own€inferences€drawn€fromÐ u%Å $ Ðcircumstantial€evidence€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòEvansóó,€108€S.W.3d€at€236„37;Ð ^&®!% ÐòòCarruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€at€557.Ð G'—"& ÐÌà ½ àThe€Defendant€was€indicted€for€felony€murder€and€convicted€by€a€jury€of€the€lesser„includedÐ )i$( Ðcharge€of€€facilitation€to€commit€felony€murder.€€Felony€murder€is€a€killing€committed€during€theÐ *R%) Ðperpetration€of€a€felony,€such€as€aggravated€burglary€as€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð ë*;&* Ð202(a)(2).€€Burglary€is€the€entry€of€a€building€other€than€a€habitation€with€the€intent€to€commit€aÐ Ô+$'+ Ðfelony,€theft€or€assault€therein.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„402(a)(1).€€Aggravated€burglary€is€theÐ ° Ðburglary€of€a€habitation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„403(a).€€Facilitation€of€a€felony€is€knowingÐ ™é Ðthat€another€person€intends€to€commit€a€felony,€and€knowingly€furnishing€substantial€assistance€inÐ ‚Ò Ðthe€commission€of€the€felony.׃×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X†XXXlv`t#ÔÔ‡XlvXXX†Ô€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„403(a).€Ð k» ÐÌà ½ àIn€the€present€case€the€facts€are€undisputed€that€there€was€a€killing€committed€during€theÐ =  Ðperpetration€of€the€felony€of€aggravated€burglary.€€However,€the€Defendant€challenges€the€juryÐ & v Ðdetermination€that€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€both,€(1)€thatÐ  _ Ðthe€Defendant€knew€that€another€person€was€going€to€commit€a€felony,€and€(2)€that€the€informationÐ ø H Ðprovided€by€the€Defendant€constituted€ð ðsubstantial€assistanceðð€toward€the€commission€of€the€felony.€Ð á 1  ÐSpecifically,€the€Defendant€asserts€she€disclaimed€all€involvement€by€stating€she€wanted€nothing€toÐ Ê   Ðdo€with€it,€ð ðitðð€being€the€planned€burglary€of€her€mother€and€step„fatherððs€house.€Second,€theÐ ³  ÐDefendant€claims€she€had€no€knowledge€that€a€felony€was€about€to€be€committed€because€afterÐ œì  Ðproviding€the€group€with€information€about€her€step„fatherððs€house,€the€group€left€and€she€did€notÐ …Õ  Ðknow€where€they€went€or€what€they€were€about€to€do.€€Finally,€the€Defendant€claims€that€theÐ n¾  Ðinformation€she€gave€the€group€did€not€amount€to€ð ðsubstantial€assistanceðð€because€they€already€knewÐ W§  Ðthat€the€victim€owned€a€large€collection€of€guns,€and€more€significantly,€they€already€knew€where€theÐ @ Ðvictimððs€house€was€located.€€Ð )y ÐÌà ½ àThe€Defendantððs€claim€of€error€based€on€the€fact€that€she€wanted€nothing€to€do€with€theÐ ûK Ðburglary€fails€€because€facilitation€does€not€require€direct€participation€in€the€crime.€€Indeed,€theÐ ä4 ÐDefendantððs€statement€that€she€wanted€nothing€to€do€with€the€planned€burglary€is€evidence€that€theÐ Í ÐDefendant€did€in€fact€ð ðknowðð€that€other€persons€were€intent€on€committing€a€felony.€€Ð ¶ ÐÌà ½ àThe€Defendantððs€second€claim€is€that€she€had€no€knowledge€a€felony€was€about€to€beÐ ˆØ Ðcommitted€because€after€the€groupððs€departure€from€her€house€she€was€unsure€as€to€where€they€wereÐ qÁ Ðgoing€or€what€they€planned€to€do.€€However,€given€the€entirety€of€the€circumstances,€we€find€thisÐ Zª Ðassertion€to€be€without€merit.€€The€group€of€four€individuals€came€to€her€house€late€at€night€carryingÐ C“ Ðan€AK„47€assault€weapon€and€a€handgun.€€They€bragged€that€they€just€returned€from€robbingÐ ,| ÐHispanics,€but€were€displeased€with€the€amount€of€money€they€collected.€€They€told€the€DefendantÐ e Ðthey€wanted€more€guns€and€a€bigger€score€in€their€next€robbery.€€They€told€the€Defendant€they€knewÐ þN Ðher€step„father€had€a€large€collection€of€guns€at€his€house.€€They€asked€for€details€about€the€house€andÐ ç 7 Ðthe€Defendant€supplied€them€with€this€information.€€Co„defendant€Alicia€Burke€testified€that€theÐ Ð!   ÐDefendant€stated€she€did€not€mind€if€they€robbed€her€step„father,€but€she€did€not€want€to€haveÐ ¹" ! Ðanything€to€do€with€it.€€The€Defendant€admitted€she€stated€ð ðjust€donððt€kill€my€mammaðð€as€the€groupÐ ¢#ò" Ðâ âdeparted€from€her€house.€€Taken€as€a€whole€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€the€recordÐ ‹$Û# Ðsupports€the€juryððs€conclusion€that€the€Defendant€did€indeed€know׃×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€that€a€felony€was€about€to€beÐ ° Ðâ âcommitted.€€She€was€herself€involved€in€the€planning€of€the€burglary€and€was€assured€enough€of€itsÐ ™é Ðimmediate€commission€that€she€pleaded€with€the€group€as€they€departed€her€presence€not€to€hurt€herÐ ‚Ò Ðmother,€whom€she€knew€was€an€occupant€in€the€house€of€the€planned€burglary.€€Ð k» ÐÌà ½ àThe€Defendantððs€third€claim€that€the€information€she€provided€was€not€substantial€also€fails.€Ð =  ÐThe€Defendant€maintains€that€because€the€group€already€knew€her€step„father€had€guns€and€had€someÐ & v Ðidea€where€the€house€was,€the€information€she€supplied€did€not€rise€to€the€level€of€ð ðsubstantialÐ  _ Ðassistanceðð€as€required€by€the€facilitation€statute.€€€Despite€the€Defendantððs€contentions,€it€isÐ ø H Ðnoteworthy€that€the€group€did€not€transition€directly€from€their€activities€of€robbing€Hispanics€toÐ á 1  Ðburglarizing€the€victimððs€house.€€Rather,€the€group€went€to€the€Defendant€and€asked€for€specificÐ Ê   Ðinformation€about€the€victimððs€house€relevant€for€planning€a€burglary.€€The€Defendant€gave€them€theÐ ³  Ðstreet€address€for€the€victimððs€home.€€The€Defendant€also€provided€the€group€with€directions€on€howÐ œì  Ðto€get€to€the€victimððs€house,€a€description€of€the€house€itself,€the€yard,€cars€potentially€parked€there,Ð …Õ  Ðand€other€details€pertinent€to€planning€a€burglary.€€Accordingly,€we€find€the€Defendantððs€provisionÐ n¾  Ðof€essential€information€to€the€burglary€to€satisfy€the€requirement€of€ð ðsubstantial€assistanceðð€asÐ W§  Ðmandated€by€the€facilitation€statute.€€Ð @ ÐÌà ½ àGiven€the€evidence€in€the€record€as€interpreted€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€theÐ b ÐDefendantððs€participation€in€the€planning€activities€of€a€burglary€and€provision€of€essentialÐ ûK Ðinformation€pertaining€to€that€planned€burglary€amounted€to€knowledge€of€an€impending€felony€andÐ ä4 Ðsubstantial€assistance€in€the€commission€of€that€felony.€€Accordingly,€we€find€the€Defendant€hasÐ Í Ðfailed€to€demonstrate€that€the€jury€was€presented€insufficient€evidence€at€trial€for€any€rational€trierÐ ¶ Ðof€fact€to€find€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€Defendant€was€guilty€of€facilitation€to€commitÐ Ÿï Ðfelony€murder.€Therefore€this€issue€has€no€merit.Ð ˆØ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€€€SENTENCING€UNDER€òòBLAKELYà@@ÆÆ*Æàó óóóÐ Zª ÐÓX¥Óà ½ àWhile€not€raised€on€appeal,€we€are€obligated€to€address€the€Defendantððs€sentence€in€light€ofÐ D” Ðthe€United€States€Supreme€Courtððs€recent€ruling€in€òòBlakely€v.€Washingtonóó,€542€U.S.€òò€€€€óó,€124€S.Ct.Ð -} Ð2531€(2004),€òòrehððg€deniedóó,€2004€WL€1872712€(U.S.€Wash.€Aug€23,€2004).€€In€òòBlakelyóó,€the€high€courtÐ f Ðstruck€down€a€provision€of€the€Washington€state€sentencing€guideline„„very€similar€to€the€one€in€Ð ÿO ÐTennessee„„that€permitted€the€trial€judge€to€impose€an€ð ðexceptional€sentenceðð€after€the€court€madeÐ è 8 Ða€post„trial€determination€that€certain€statutory€enhancement€factors€existed.€€The€Supreme€CourtÐ Ñ!!  Ðdetermined€that€the€protections€in€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€federal€Constitution€would€allow€aÐ º" ! Ðdefendantððs€sentence€to€be€increased€only€if€the€enhancement€factors€relied€upon€by€the€judge€wereÐ £#ó" Ðbased€on€facts€reflected€in€the€jury€verdict€or€admitted€by€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó,€124€S.Ct.€at€2537.€Ð Œ$Ü# ÐThe€Court€concluded€that€ð ðevery€defendant€has€the€òòrightóó€to€insist€that€the€prosecutor€prove€to€a€juryÐ u%Å $ Ðall€facts€legally€essential€to€the€punishment.ðð€€òòId.óó,€at€2543.€€Ð ^&®!% Їà ½ àThe€òòBlakelyóó€decision€calls€into€question€the€validity€of€Tennesseeððs€sentencing€statutes,Ð ° Ðinsofar€as€they€permit€trial€courts€to€increase€a€defendantððs€presumptive€sentence€based€uponÐ ™é Ðenhancement€factors€found€by€a€trial€judge€as€opposed€to€findings€made€by€a€jury.€€In€this€case€theÐ ‚Ò ÐDefendant€was€convicted€of€a€Class€A€Felony€with€a€sentencing€range€of€15€to€25€years.€€She€wasÐ k» Ðsentenced€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€with€a€presumptive€sentence€of€20€years.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ T¤ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€Ô#†X†XXXlvÛŒ#Ô.€Ô‡XlvXXX†ÔAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€the€Defendant€qualified€forÐ =  Ðmitigating€consideration€since€she€assisted€the€police€in€a€homicide€investigation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ & v ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„113(9).€€However,€the€trial€court€also€found€that€two€enhancement€factors€should€alsoÐ  _ Ðapply,€because€the€Defendant€had€a€previous€criminal€history,€and€had€failed€to€comply€withÐ ø H Ðconditions€of€community€release€in€the€past.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(2),€(9).€€The€courtÐ á 1  Ðthen€declared€that€ð ðthe€enhancement€factors€would€outweigh€the€mitigating€factorsðð€and€sentencedÐ Ê   Ðthe€Defendant€to€a€term€of€21€years.€€Ð ³  ÐÌà ½ àIt€is€unclear€whether€these€particular€enhancement€factors,€which€can€be€objectively€verifiedÐ …Õ  Ðby€the€record,€€raise€a€òòBlakelyóó€issue.€€However,€in€this€case€we€need€not€address€this€point€becauseÐ n¾  Ðalthough€neither€of€these€enhancement€factors€was€reflected€in€the€juryððs€verdict,€both€factors€wereÐ W§  Ðindeed€admitted€by€the€Defendant€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Upon€questioning€by€the€State,€theÐ @ ÐDefendant€admitted€she€had€a€prior€conviction€for€a€felony,€and€that€she€violated€the€conditions€ofÐ )y Ðher€probation€in€connection€with€this€past€felony€conviction.€€Additionally,€submitted€at€theÐ b Ðsentencing€hearing€was€a€Board€of€Probation€and€Parole€Investigative€Report€dated€June,€13,€2003,Ð ûK Ðwhich€contained€the€Defendantððs€prior€criminal€record€listing€six€prior€convictions€and€the€probationÐ ä4 Ðviolation.€€Accordingly,€because€the€Defendant€admitted€the€facts€used€to€determine€the€applicabilityÐ Í Ðof€both€of€the€enhancement€factors€actually€applied,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€one€yearÐ ¶ Ðenhancement€of€the€Defendantððs€sentence€was€not€error.€€Ð Ÿï ÐÌà ½ àFor€the€foregoing€reasons€we€find€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€suppressing€the€DefendantððsÐ qÁ Ðstatement€to€the€police€and€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€Defendantððs€convictionÐ Zª Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Therefore,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð C“ ÐÌÌÌÔ#†X†XXXlv®­#ÔÌà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à___________________________________€Ð Ð!   Ðà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE