ÿWPC:  :# < %G 0ñMU:>Bxw@º4ú 05 0DR 0D– Ú UNâ 0J0 0Tz 0^Î 0h, 0r” 0| 0†‚ 0 1u˜ AQ Æ^ 0D$ 0@h B¨ 0dÅ D/) BX D3uU>¨U *æB)DC9 AM|§ÉpU6 ¦Cv~évÓg˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏX(ÉÞÍ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€XíèXXXÔÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT ÿ/0D000D00D000Ó€UÃ$Â3|x0(å(36!$¤¤Ý ƒÞÍ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€XíçXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑÜ°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)!"#&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd!#2Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€/ÔÑ  ÑÔ€0ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ4,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€0ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó “Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÑ  ÑÔ€0ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔÓÓThe€law€in€effect€when€the€òòAtkinsóó€homicide€occurred€defined€manslaughter€as€"the€unlawfulÏkilling€of€another€without€malice€...€which€may€be€either€voluntary€upon€a€sudden€heat,€or€involuntary,Ïbut€in€the€commission€of€some€unlawful€act."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„221€(repealed€1989).Ì< Œ 9p`(Courier New œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÑ  ÑÔ€0ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€0ôÔThe€first€four€criteria€are€found€in€òòGrayóó.€€A€fifth€category€in€òòGrayóó,€based€on€a€specific€number€ofÏprior€felony€convictions,€may€enhance€the€sentence€range€but€is€no€longer€a€listed€criterion.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ô€6ÔÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€/ÔÑ  ÑÔ€0ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÙ€!Ù›œßR€342A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLEóóÌà@ àJANUARY€1998€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9704„CR„00144€Ìà àAPPELLEE,à àà àà à*à àHAMILTON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Stephen€M.€Bevil,€JudgeÌÓÓHARVEY€PHILLIP€HESTER,à à*à à(Second€Degree€Murder„„Two€Counts;Ïà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAttempted€Second€Degree€Murder)Ìà àAPPELLANT.à àà à*à à€Ìà àà àÌòòÌÌFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÌLeonard€M.€Caputoà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ312€Vine€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌChattanooga,€TN€€37403à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ(on€appeal€and€at€trial)à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌLeroy€Phillips,€Jr.à àà àà àà àMichael€J.€Fahey,€IIÌ312€Vine€Streetà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌChattanooga,€TN€€37403à àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue,€NorthÌ(at€trial)à àà àà àà àà àSecond€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0488ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBates€BryanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCourts€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€€37402à àà à€ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€____________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€AND€REMANDED€IN€PARTÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÑ7€‡qXXdìXXdæ7ÑÓÓÓ  Óò òòòOPINIONóóó óÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant,€Harvey€Phillip€Hester,€was€convicted€of€two€counts€ofÏsecond€degree€murder€and€one€count€of€attempted€second€degree€murder.€€TheÏtrial€court€imposed€twenty„five„year€terms€for€each€murder€conviction€and€a€twelve„year€term€for€the€attempted€second€degree€murder€conviction.€€Because€the€threeÏsentences€are€to€be€served€consecutively,€the€effective€sentence€is€sixty„two€years.€ÏIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(I)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€theÏconvictions;€ÌÌÒ ä ÒÒ  Ò(II)€€whether€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€byÏrefusing€to€charge€vehicular€homicide€as€a€lesser€gradeÏoffense€of€first€degree€murder;€ÌÌ(III)€whether€prosecutorial€misconduct€occurring€duringÏthe€trial€requires€reversal;€ÌÌ(IV)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€bloodÏalcohol€test€results€of€two€of€the€victims€to€be€admitted,Ïwhere€the€individuals€who€conducted€the€tests€were€notÏcalled€as€witnesses;€andÌÌ(V)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€imposing€theÏmaximum€sentence€for€each€conviction€and€by€orderingÏthe€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively.ÌÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÌÓÓà àà àThe€trial€court€committed€error€by€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€theÏlesser€offense€of€vehicular€homicide;€thus,€the€second€degree€murder€convictionsÍare€reversed€and€new€trials€ordered.€€The€conviction€and€sentence€for€attemptedÏsecond€degree€murder€is€affirmed.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€August€8,€1994,€Richard€Serna€(Richard),€his€daughter,€Angela,Ïand€his€brother,€Paul€Serna€(Paul),€drove€to€the€"blue€hole"€on€Suck€Creek€Road€at€ÏSignal€Mountain€to€swim.€€Upon€their€arrival,€the€defendant€was€in€the€parking€lot.€ÏRichard€Serna€briefly€engaged€in€friendly€conversation€with€the€defendant€afterÏwhich€the€Sernas€walked€to€the€swimming€area.€€Sometime€later,€the€defendantÏapproached€them€and€asked€if€they€had€seen€his€wallet.€€The€defendant€searchedÏunsuccessfully€for€his€wallet€and€then€left.€€Angela€described€this€exchange€asÏ"pleasant."€€ÌÌà àà àAbout€five€minutes€later,€the€defendant€returned€and€again€inquiredÏabout€his€wallet.€€He€pointed€out€that€the€Sernas€were€the€only€others€in€the€areaÏand€explained€that€his€wallet€contained€around€$2,200.€€The€defendant€left€butÏsoon€returned€and€insisted€his€wallet€had€to€"be€here€somewhere."€€When€heÏmentioned€that€he€had€a€gun€in€his€car,€the€Sernas€were€surprised.€€Paul€placed€aÏknife€in€his€pocket€but€made€no€threats€to€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àà àAfter€the€defendant€left,€the€Sernas€gathered€their€belongings€andÏreturned€to€their€car.€€When€they€reached€the€parking€lot,€the€defendant€askedÏpermission€to€search.€€While€the€Sernas€allowed€a€search,€the€defendant€did€notÏfind€his€wallet.€€The€Sernas€then€drove€away.€€After€driving€on€a€short€distance,€theÏSernas€noted€the€defendant€was€following€them.€€He€rammed€the€back€of€their€carÏseveral€times€and,€at€one€point,€€the€Sernas'€car€"fishtailed"€around€a€bigger€truck.€€ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€Angela€testified€that€the€defendant€struck€their€vehicle€in€theÏrear€"over€and€over€again€...€continuously€the€whole€way€down€the€mountain."€€SheÏestimated€that€their€vehicle€was€struck€more€than€twenty€times.€€As€their€car€passedÏby€the€Suck€Creek€Boat€Ramp,€Angela€yelled€out€the€window€asking€for€someoneÏto€call€the€police.€€ÌÌà àà àShe€recalled€that€at€the€bottom€of€the€mountain,€Suck€Creek€RoadÏterminates€at€its€intersection€with€Signal€Mountain€Boulevard,€a€four„lane€road.€ÏShe€remembered€that€the€defendant€rammed€their€car€into€the€four„lane€road.€€AtÏanother€intersection,€only€a€short€distance€away,€Richard€and€Paul€Serna€stoppedÏtheir€vehicle€and€confronted€the€defendant.€€Paul€drew€his€knife€from€his€pocket€butÏheld€it€to€his€side.€€Angela€testified€that€an€argument€ensued€about€the€wallet€butÏthat€her€next€memory€was€waking€up€in€the€hospital.€€Initially€unable€to€recognizeÍher€mother,€Angela€Serna€had€suffered€a€broken€pelvic€bone€and€a€broken€leg.€€AllÏof€her€facial€bones€were€broken.€€She€required€bone€graft€surgery€on€her€nose.€€ÌÌà àà àJames€Pilkington,€who€observed€the€confrontation€at€the€intersectionÏof€Mountain€Creek€Road€and€Signal€Mountain€Boulevard,€testified€that€the€SernasÏappeared€to€be€frightened.€€When€Pilkington€stopped€at€a€nearby€Conoco€to€callÏthe€police,€he€noticed€the€Sernas'€vehicle€drive€by€and€thought€the€altercationÏmight€have€ended.€€When€he€drove€around€a€curve,€however,€he€saw€that€theÏSernas€had€been€involved€in€a€wreck.€€ÌÌà àà àMark€Payne,€who€also€saw€the€confrontation€between€the€Sernas€andÏthe€defendant€at€the€intersection€of€Signal€Mountain€Boulevard€and€MountainÏCreek€Road,€testified€that€either€Richard€or€Paul€was€standing€on€the€side€of€theÏroad€with€a€terrified€look€on€his€face.€€He€saw€that€individual€run€and€then€observedÏthe€driver€of€the€Serna€vehicle€stop€to€allow€him€to€enter.€€The€defendant's€vehicleÏ"shot€right€through€the€light€and€started€chasing€[the€Sernas']€Nissan."€€PayneÏdescribed€the€defendant€as€"chasing€[the€victims]€down."€€Michael€Eugene€Hood,Ïwho€also€witnessed€the€confrontation€at€the€intersection,€corroborated€Payne'sÏversion€of€the€events.€€€€ÌÌà àà àJames€DeSha,€who€was€traveling€on€Signal€Mountain€Boulevard€onÏthe€day€of€the€wreck,€testified€that€he€saw€a€white€Cutlass€ram€a€red€Nissan€PulsarÏon€two€occasions.€€He€also€saw€the€Cutlass€move€to€the€outside€lane€to€the€rightÏside€of€the€Nissan€and€"turned€in€on€him,"€ramming€into€the€back€bumper€of€theÏNissan,€spinning€it€sideways.€€He€recalled€that€the€Sernas'€Nissan€slid€sideways,Ïbecame€airborne,€flew€across€a€red€Thunderbird,€and€onto€the€hood€of€a€greenÏDodge.€€DeSha€claimed€that€the€defendant,€who€was€driving€the€Cutlass,€grinnedÏas€he€drove€away€at€a€high€rate€of€speed.€€DeSha€was€able€to€get€the€license€plateÏnumber€of€the€Cutlass.€€ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Charles€Russell€of€the€Chattanooga€Police€DepartmentÏinvestigated€the€accident.€€He€found€three€cars€with€"a€considerable€amount€ofÏdamage."€€The€victims'€car€contained€several€beer€cans.€€At€approximately€1:00ÏA.M.€the€day€after€the€wreck,€he€located€the€Cutlass€driven€by€the€defendant.€€TheÏlicense€tags€had€been€removed.€€While€there€were€no€dents€to€the€front€of€theÏdefendant's€car,€the€front€right€fender€did€have€a€presence€of€red€paint,€the€color€ofÏthe€Serna€vehicle.€€The€defendant,€who€had€suffered€a€black€eye,€voluntarily€turnedÏhimself€in€to€police.€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Charles€Harlan€performed€an€autopsy€on€Paul€Serna.€€DeathÏresulted€from€a€ring€fracture€of€C„1€and€C„2€cervical€vertebrae,€which€is€the€areaÏwhere€the€skull€fits€on€to€the€vertebral€column.€€His€blood€alcohol€content€was€.03Ïpercent,€which€indicated€he€had€consumed€less€than€two€units€of€alcohol.€€ÌÌà àà àRichard€Serna,€who€had€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€.032€percent,€wasÏa€quadriplegic€due€to€the€brain€injuries€suffered€in€the€accident.€€He€died€onÏJanuary€20,€1995,€several€months€after€the€car€wreck.€€According€to€Dr.€Frank€King,Ïthe€Hamilton€County€Medical€Examiner,€the€cause€of€death€was€"acute€bronchialÏpneumonia€due€to€chronic€medical€debilitation€due€to€head€injury."ÌÌà àà àAttorney€Joe€McBrien,€who€represented€the€defendant€in€a€civil€case,Ïappeared€as€a€defense€witness.€€He€testified€that€the€defendant€had€received€aÏsettlement€award€of€$3518.75€six€days€before€this€incident.€€He€recalled€that€theÏdefendant€received€cash€in€that€amount.€€ÌÌà àà àJohn€Hackney,€who€lived€at€the€foot€of€Suck€Creek€Mountain,€wasÏtraveling€to€his€residence€on€the€day€of€the€wreck,€when€he€passed€a€car€and€thenÏsaw€a€billfold€"blow€up€in€the€air."€€He€stopped€his€vehicle€and€found€the€billfold€andÏlarge€denominations€of€cash€lying€on€the€ground.€€He€testified€that€he€pickedÍeverything€up€and€left.€€The€identification€in€the€billfold€was€that€of€the€defendant.€ÏHackney€admitted€that€he€kept€the€money.€€He€burned€the€wallet.€€He€concededÏthat€he€had€bragged€to€his€co„workers€about€finding€the€cash,€which€is€how€theÏdefense€attorneys€eventually€located€him.€€He€acknowledged€that€he€never€notifiedÏthe€police€about€finding€the€wallet.€€ÌÌà àà àTerry€Thurman,€who€testified€through€an€interpreter,€recalled€that€sheÏsaw€the€defendant€and€the€victims€in€a€confrontation€at€an€intersection€on€SignalÏMountain€Boulevard.€€She€observed€one€of€the€Serna€men€holding€a€knife€up€in€theÏair.€€ÌÌà àà àDavid€Blackburn€testified€that€he€was€with€the€defendant€at€the€time€ofÏthe€wreck.€€An€individual€named€John€and€a€girl€whose€name€he€could€not€recallÏwere€also€present.€€Blackburn€recalled€that€the€defendant€had€a€large€amount€ofÏmoney€in€his€possession€before€they€went€to€the€swimming€hole.€€BlackburnÏtestified€that€he€separated€from€the€defendant€and€then€saw€him€in€the€parking€lot.€ÏHis€eye€was€swelling€shut€and€his€nose€or€mouth€was€"busted."€€The€defendantÏclaimed€that€the€people€pulling€away€in€another€car€had€just€robbed€him.€€ÌÌà àà àBlackburn€testified€that€the€defendant€followed€the€Sernas€down€theÏmountain€and€bumped€their€car€several€times.€€When€they€reached€SignalÏMountain€Boulevard,€the€defendant€and€John€got€out€of€their€vehicle.€€He€saw€oneÏof€the€Sernas€approach€waving€a€knife;€when€the€Sernas€returned€to€their€vehicle,Ïthe€defendant€continued€to€follow€them.€€Blackburn€testified€that€he€suggested€thatÏthe€defendant€continue€to€follow€so€they€could€eventually€call€the€police.€€BlackburnÏclaimed€that€the€driver€of€the€Nissan€kept€swerving€in€and€out€in€an€attempt€to€keepÏthe€defendant€from€driving€alongside.€€He€testified€that€after€the€accident,€theÏdefendant€drove€him€to€his€car.€€Blackburn€was€charged€with€"accessory€after€theÏfact"€but€the€charges€were€dismissed.€€He€acknowledged€prior€convictions€for€theft,Ïrobbery,€and€drug„related€offenses.ÌÌÓ  ÓIÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€first€argues€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏverdict.€€He€argues€the€proof€would€at€most€establish€vehicular€homicide€orÏvehicular€assault.€ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏtrial€testimony€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€ÏòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€¢S.W.2d£€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€of€theÍwitnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflictsÏin€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€jury€as€¢trier£€of€fact.€€òò¢Byrge£€v.€Stateóó,€575Ï¢S.W.2d£€292,€295€(¢Tenn.€Crim.€App£.€1978).€€The€relevant€question€is€whether,€afterÏreviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€ofÏfact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€¢S.W.2d£€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983);€¢Tenn.€R.€App.€P.£Ï13(e).€ÌÌà àà àSecond€degree€murder€is€defined€as€a€"knowing€killing€of€another."€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210(a)(1).€€Our€code€defines€"knowing"€conduct€asÏfollows:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ"Knowing"€refers€to€a€person€who€acts€knowingly€withÏrespect€to€the€conduct€or€to€circumstances€surroundingÏthe€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€of€the€nature€ofÏthe€conduct€or€that€the€circumstances€exist.€€A€personÏacts€knowingly€with€respect€to€the€result€of€the€person'sÏconduct€when€the€person€is€aware€that€the€conduct€isÏreasonably€certain€to€cause€the€result.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(b).ÌÌà àà à€A€person€engages€in€criminal€attempt€when€he€acts€with€the€degreeÏof€culpability€otherwise€required€and€"[a]cts€with€intent€to€complete€a€course€ofÍaction€or€cause€a€result€that€would€constitute€the€offense,€under€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€conduct€as€the€person€believes€them€to€be,€and€the€conductÏconstitutes€a€substantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€the€offense."€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„12„101(a)(3).ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€there€is€sufficient€evidence€to€support€both€of€the€secondÏdegree€murder€convictions€as€well€as€the€attempted€second€degree€murderÏconviction.€€Angela€Serna€testified€the€defendant€rammed€their€vehicle€more€thanÏtwenty€times.€€At€one€point,€the€defendant€rammed€the€Serna€vehicle,€causing€it€toÏfishtail€around€an€on„coming€truck.€€DeSha€testified€that€the€defendant€forced€theÏSerna€vehicle€to€slide€into€the€path€of€a€Thunderbird,€thereby€causing€the€injuries€toÏits€occupants.€€There€was€evidence€that€the€defendant€then€fled€the€scene€travelingÏat€a€high€rate€of€speed.€€Obviously,€the€jury€accredited€the€testimony€of€the€stateÏwitnesses.€€€€ÌÌà àà àSecond€degree€murder€does€not€require€an€intentional€killing.€€All€thatÏis€required€is€that€the€defendant€"is€aware€that€the€conduct€is€reasonably€certain€toÏcause€the€result."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(b).€€Here,€the€defendant€was€ableÏto€appreciate€the€dangers€caused€by€his€conduct.€€Even€though€the€Sernas'€vehicleÍhad€almost€collided€with€a€truck€just€before€the€fatal€wreck,€the€defendant€continuedÏto€ram€the€victims'€vehicle€from€the€rear€and€the€side.€€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓIIÌÓ  Óà àà àA€significant€question€is€whether€the€trial€court€committed€reversibleÏerror€by€refusing€to€charge€vehicular€homicide€as€a€lesser€offense€of€first€degreeÏmurder.€€First€degree€murder,€second€degree€murder,€voluntary€manslaughter,Ïreckless€homicide,€and€criminally€negligent€homicide€were€all€charged€to€the€jury.€ÏThe€defendant€requested€an€instruction€on€vehicular€homicide.€€The€trial€court€ruledÏas€follows:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[A]lthough€I€think€the€facts€in€this€case€could€possiblyÏsupport€a€charge€to€the€jury€on€vehicular€homicide,€thereÏis€nothing,€no€language€in€the€indictment€which€chargesÏthe€offense€of€vehicular€homicide,€and€it€is€a€separateÏoffense,€this€Court€is€not€going€to€charge€vehicularÏhomicide.€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThe€state€argues€any€error€by€failing€to€charge€vehicular€homicide€qualifies€asÏharmless€error.€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€judge€has€a€duty€to€give€a€complete€charge€of€the€lawÏapplicable€to€the€facts€of€the€case.€€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€319€(Tenn.Ï1986).€€It€is€settled€law€that€when€"there€are€any€facts€that€are€susceptible€ofÍinferring€guilt€of€any€lesser€included€offense€or€offenses,€then€there€is€a€mandatoryÏduty€upon€the€trial€judge€to€charge€on€such€offense€or€offenses.€€Failure€to€do€soÏdenies€a€defendant€his€constitutional€right€of€trial€by€a€jury."€€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€618ÏS.W.2d€310,€315€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€(citations€omitted);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„18„110(a).€€When€there€is€a€trial€on€a€single€charge€of€a€felony,€there€is€also€aÏtrial€on€all€lesser€offenses,€"as€the€facts€may€be."€€òòStrader€v.€Stateóó,€362€S.W.2d€224,Ï227€(Tenn.€1962).€€Trial€courts,€however,€are€not€required€to€charge€the€jury€on€aÏlesser€included€offense€when€the€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€to€support€anÏinference€of€guilt€of€the€lesser€offense.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€549„50€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589,€593€(Tenn.€1990);€€òòState€v.ÏDulsworthóó,€781€S.W.2d€277,€287€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).ÌÌà àà àTrial€judges€should€instruct€on€lesser€offenses€charged€in€theÏindictment€whether€requested€to€do€so€or€not.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110(a).€ÏFailure€to€instruct€on€a€lesser€offense€denies€a€defendant€his€constitutional€right€toÏtrial€by€jury.€€òòWrightóó,€618€S.W.2d€at€315.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€310€(Tenn.€1996),€our€supremeÏcourt€ruled€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àTennessee€law€recognizes€two€types€of€lesser€offensesÏthat€may€be€included€in€the€offense€charged€in€theÏindictment:€offenses€necessarily€included€in€theÏindictment€and€offenses€that€are€lesser€grades€of€theÏcharged€offense.€€An€offense€is€"necessarily€included€inÏthe€indictment€...€only€if€the€elements€of€the€includedÏoffense€are€a€subset€of€the€elements€of€the€chargedÏoffense€and€only€if€the€greater€offense€cannot€beÏcommitted€without€also€committing€the€lesser€offense."€ÌÌ€òòId.óó€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àOur€supreme€court€also€provided€guidance€on€how€to€determineÏwhether€an€offense€is€a€lesser€grade€or€class€of€the€offense€charged:€€"[o]ne€needÏonly€look€to€the€statutes€to€determine€whether€a€given€offense€is€a€lesser€grade€orÏclass€of€the€crime€charged."€€òòId.óó€at€310.€€The€court€observed€that€the€legislature€hasÏdivided€criminal€homicide€"into€the€grades€of€first„degree€murder,€second„degreeÏmurder,€voluntary€manslaughter,€criminally€negligent€homicide,€and€vehicularÏhomicide."€€òòId.óó€€Our€statutory€law,€section€39„13„201,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.,€establishedÏthe€grades€of€homicide€recognized€when€the€defendant€committed€these€crimes:Ï"criminal€homicide€is€the€unlawful€killing€of€another€person€which€may€be€firstÏdegree€murder,€second€degree€murder,€voluntary€manslaughter,€criminallyÏnegligent€homicide€or€vehicular€homicide."€€ÌÌà àà àVoluntary€manslaughter€is€a€lesser€grade€of€first€degree€murder.€€It€isÏnot€a€lesser€included€offense€because€manslaughter€contains€elements€that€are€notÏfound€in€first€degree€murder.€€It€is€a€lesser€grade€offense,€however,€pursuant€toÏstatute.€€òòTrustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€311.€ÌÌà àà àVehicular€homicide,€like€manslaughter,€is€not€an€offense€necessarilyÏincluded€in€the€indictment€charging€premeditated€first€degree€murder;€however,Ïunder€the€guidelines€established€by€our€supreme€court,€we€are€compelled€toÏrecognize€that€vehicular€homicide€is€a€lesser€grade€offense€of€first„degree€murder.€ÏIn€òòTrustyóó,€our€supreme€court€held€unequivocally€that€"defendants€are€entitled€to€juryÏinstructions€on€all€lesser€included€offenses€...€and€on€all€offenses€which€are€a€lesserÏgrade€or€class€of€the€charged€offense."€€òòId.óó€at€311.Ì€€€€Ìà àà àHere,€the€defendant€was€charged€with€first€degree€murder.€€The€lesserÏoffenses€of€second€degree€murder,€voluntary€manslaughter,€reckless€homicide,Ïand€negligent€homicide€were€properly€included€in€the€jury€charge.€€VehicularÏhomicide,€a€lesser€grade€of€first€degree€murder,€was€not.€€A€Class€C€felony,€it€isÏdefined€as€"a€reckless€killing€of€another€by€the€operation€of€an€automobile€...:€[a]sÏthe€proximate€result€of€conduct€creating€a€substantial€risk€of€death€or€serious€bodilyÏinjury€to€a€person."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„213(a).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€the€"facts€in€this€case€clearly€required€the€CourtÏto€charge€the€jury€as€to€the€issue€of€vehicular€homicide."€€He€also€submits€that€"theÏentire€State's€case€[]€was€based€upon€the€fact€that€[the€defendant]€killed€...€two€menÏ...€and€injured€the€young€lady€...€by€the€use€of€his€automobile€in€a€manner€such€as€toÏcreate€a€substantial€risk€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury€to€the€victims."€€Under€theÏfacts€presented€at€trial,€it€is€plausible€that€the€jury€could€have€determined€theÏvictims'€deaths€resulted€from€the€substantial,€unjustified€risks€taken€by€theÏdefendant.€€The€defense€theory€was€that€the€Sernas€had€committed€a€robbery€andÏthe€defendant€was€attempting€to€force€them€to€stop€their€vehicle.€€The€defendantÏclaimed€that€his€collision€with€the€Serna€vehicle€was€minor.€€ÌÌà àà àAlthough€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€second€degreeÏmurder€convictions,€there€were€facts€that€could€have€been€classified€as€a€recklessÏkilling€of€another€by€the€operation€of€an€automobile€as€the€result€of€"conductÏcreating€a€substantial€risk€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„213(a).€€Those€facts€might€have€warranted€a€conviction€for€vehicular€homicide.€ÏAs€the€trial€judge€acknowledged,€the€facts€of€this€case€warranted€an€instruction€onÏvehicular€homicide.€€His€concern€about€the€form€of€the€indictment€was€withoutÏbasis.€€Because€vehicular€homicide€is€a€lesser€grade€offense€of€first„degreeÍmurder,€the€jury€should€have€been€allowed€to€consider€that€option.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„18„110;€òòTrustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€310.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€now€address€the€state's€argument€that€the€court's€failure€to€chargeÏvehicular€homicide€was€harmless€error.€€The€state€makes€the€following€argumentÏas€to€why€the€error€is€harmless:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àError€associated€with€a€trial€court's€failure€toÏcharge€a€lesser€offense€is€harmless€when€the€jury€findsÏthe€defendant€guilty€of€the€greater€offense€and€rejectsÏother€lesser€offenses€that€are€greater€offenses€than€theÏone€requested€and€were€included€in€the€instructions.€€InÏthis€case,€the€jury€rejected€the€offense€of€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€which€is€a€greater€offense€than€vehicularÏhomicide.€€Thus,€the€failure€to€instruct€on€vehicularÏhomicide€is€harmless.ÌÌÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àà àIt€is€true€that€failure€to€instruct€a€lesser€offense€may€be€harmless€whenÏthe€jury€finds€the€defendant€guilty€of€the€greater€offense€and€rejects€other€lesserÏincluded€offenses€that€are€greater€offenses€than€the€one€requested.€€òòState€v.€Atkinsóó,Ï681€S.W.2d€571,€577€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€That€is€not,€however,€the€case€inÏthis€instance.€€Voluntary€manslaughter€is€not€a€greater€offense€than€vehicularÏhomicide;€both€offenses€are€Class€C€felonies.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„211,€€Í„213.€€Each€offense€is€of€an€equal€grade€and€includes€a€Range€I€sentence€of€threeÏto€six€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3).€ÌÌà àà àThat€the€jury€rejected€voluntary€manslaughter€does€not€lead€to€theÏinevitable€conclusion€that€the€jury€would€have€also€rejected€vehicular€homicide.€€ItÏis€likely€that€the€jury€concluded€there€was€not€adequate€provocation€on€the€part€ofÏthe€victims€to€return€a€verdict€of€voluntary€manslaughter.€€The€state€made€aÏcompelling€argument€that€there€was€no€justification€for€the€defendant's€conduct€andÏthat€his€claim€that€he€was€robbed€and€assaulted€by€the€Sernas€was€not€credible.€ÏThe€prosecution€asked,€"Are€these€lives€worth€more€than€...€$2,200?€€That's€whatÏthis€trial€is€about."€€The€state€contended€that€a€robbery,€if€one€occurred,€would€notÏjustify€the€actions€of€the€defendant.€€A€determination€that€there€was€not€provocationÏwould€not€have€foreclosed€a€vehicular€homicide€verdict.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThat€the€jury€convicted€of€second€degree€murder€suggests€the€jury€didÏnot€wholeheartedly€embrace€the€first€degree€murder€theory€of€the€state.€€TheÏharmless€error€analysis€approved€in€òòAtkinsóó€was€applied€to€an€indictment€for€firstÏdegree€murder,€a€conviction€for€first€degree€murder,€and€the€failure€of€the€trial€judgeÍto€charge€voluntary€or€involuntary€manslaughter.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€òòAtkinsóó,€681€S.W.2d€at€572.€€ThisÏcourt€ruled€first,€there€was€no€evidence€to€support€a€manslaughter€instruction,€andÏsecondly,€the€rejection€of€second€degree€murder€would€foreclose€the€possibility€ofÏa€lesser€grade€offense.€€òòId.óó€at€577.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòWhitmoreóó,€the€defendant€was€indicted€in€separate€counts€withÏpremeditated€murder€and€felony€murder.€€The€jury€convicted€on€both€counts€andÏdeclined€to€return€a€verdict€on€second€degree€murder€or€voluntary€manslaughter.€ÏThis€court€found€that€the€failure€to€charge€criminally€negligent€homicide€wasÏharmless.€€òòState€v.€Frank€Whitmoreóó,€No.€03C01„9404„CR„00141,€slip€op.€at€33Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€June€19,€1997),€òòperm.€to€app.€filedóó,€Aug.€20,€1997.€ÏIn€each€of€these€cases,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€the€highest€offense€chargedÏand€the€jury€rejected€a€lesser€offense€that€was€higher€than€the€requestedÏinstruction.€ÌÌà àà àThe€state€also€argues€that€the€error€was€harmless€because€the€juryÏwas€instructed€on€reckless€homicide,€a€Class€D€felony.€€The€state€contends€the€juryÍwas€allowed€to€consider€but€rejected€the€defendant's€theory€that€the€killings€wereÏreckless.€€Again,€we€cannot€agree.€€The€instruction€on€reckless€homicide€made€noÏreference€to€the€operation€of€a€vehicle€in€a€reckless€manner.€€Vehicular€homicideÏnecessarily€requires€the€reckless€use€of€a€vehicle.€€That€the€jury€did€not€find€aÏreckless€homicide€does€not€mean€that€the€jury€would€not€have€found€a€recklessÏkilling€òòby€the€use€of€a€vehicleóó.€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€guiding€principle€is€that€if€there€is€evidence€in€the€record€fromÏwhich€the€jury€could€have€concluded€that€the€lesser€included€or€grade€of€offenseÏwas€committed,€there€must€be€an€instruction€for€the€lesser€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòJohnson€v.ÏStateóó,€531€S.W.2d€558,€559€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€rule€otherwise€would€effectivelyÏdeprive€any€defendant€of€a€jury€trial€on€the€lesser€offense.€€That€is€a€constitutionalÏentitlement.€ÌÌà àà àRecently,€Judge€Welles€spoke€for€this€court€in€its€determination€that€anÏomission€of€a€lesser€included€offense€from€the€charge€to€the€jury€always€requires€aÏnew€trial.€€òòState€v.€Boyceóó,€920€S.W.2d€224,€227€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€TheÏopinion€included€a€quote€from€òòPoole€v.€Stateóó,€61€Tenn.€288,€294€(1872):€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àHowever€plain€it€may€be€to€the€mind€of€the€Court€thatÏone€certain€offense€has€been€committed€and€none€other,Íhe€must€not€confine€himself€in€his€charge€to€that€offense.€ÏWhen€he€does€so€he€invades€the€province€of€the€jury,Ïwhose€peculiar€duty€it€is€to€ascertain€the€grade€of€theÏoffense.€€However€clear€it€may€be,€the€Court€shouldÏnever€decide€the€facts,€but€must€leave€themÏunembarrassed€to€the€jury.ÌÌòòBoyceóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€227.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àBy€refusing€to€charge€the€jury€on€vehicular€homicide,€the€courtÏinvaded€the€province€of€the€jury.€€The€grade€of€homicide€was€a€jury€question.€€WeÏcannot€conclude€the€failure€to€charge€it€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏIn€consequence,€the€murder€convictions€must€be€reversed€and€remanded€for€a€newÏtrial.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€jury€could€have€reasonably€foundÏthat€the€defendant€committed€vehicular€assault€on€Angela€Serna.€€He€implies€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€charge€vehicular€assault€as€a€lesser€offense€ofÏattempted€first„degree€murder.€€Yet,€vehicular€assault€is€not€a€lesser€grade€ofÏattempted€first„degree€murder.€€òòTrustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€307.€€Nor€is€it€a€lesser€offenseÏnecessarily€included€in€the€indictment.€€òòId.óó€€The€attempted€second€degree€murderÏconviction€is€affirmed.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓIIIÌÓ  Óà àà àAs€his€third€issue,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€prosecutor€was€guiltyÏof€misconduct€during€the€trial.€€The€defendant€complains€that€the€prosecutorÏimproperly€"branded"€a€defense€witness€"as€a€thief€and€implied€a€totally€false€andÏimproper€theory"€of€the€case.€€The€defendant€also€argues€the€prosecutor€improperlyÏargued€the€jury€was€"to€determine€the€value€of€life€in€this€community."€€ÌÌà àà àOne€of€the€defense€witnesses,€David€Blackburn,€claimed€that€he€wasÏpresent€during€the€incident€and€testified€that€he€had€seen€the€defendant€with€aÏlarge€amount€of€cash€in€his€wallet€earlier€in€the€day.€€On€cross„examination,ÏBlackburn€admitted€to€having€prior€convictions€for€possession€of€marijuana€forÏresale,€theft€under€$500,€and€robbery.€€In€a€jury„out€hearing,€the€trial€court€ruled€thatÏthese€prior€convictions€could€be€used€only€to€"impeach[]€his€credibility."ÌÌà àà àIn€closing€argument,€however,€the€following€exchange€took€place:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓProsecutor:€What€would€be€more€reasonable?€€Would€itÏbe€more€reasonable€that,€let's€say,€someone€who€is€aÏthief,€a€robber,€a€drug€dealer€who€is€out€of€work,€andÏknows€that€his€friend€has€some€money€to€buy€tires„„ÌÌDefense€Counsel:€Excuse€me.€€I€object€to€his€use€of€thatÏin€that€manner.€€It€was€only€admitted€for€credibilityÏpurposes,€not€for€the€purposes€he's€using€it€for.€€ÌÌÓ  Ó***ÌÓ  ÓÌCourt:€I'll€sustain€the€objection€to€the€term€drug€dealer.ÌÌProsecutor:€Is€it€more€reasonable€that€thief€friend€of€Mr.ÏHester,€who€had€access€to€the€wallet,€took€the€wallet.ÌÌÓ  Ó***ÌÓ  ÓÌProsecutor:€Are€these€lives€worth€more€than€...€$2,200?€ÏThat's€what€this€trial€is€about.€€This€trial€is€about€do€youÏwant€the€kind€of€trials€Mr.€Hester€offers?€€If€everybody€gotÏthat€trial,€Mr.€Blackburn€would€have€been€killed€yearsÏago€for€his€theft€convictions.ÌÌDefense€Counsel:€Objection,€Judge.ÌÌCourt:€Sustained.€€I'll€sustain€that€objection.€€Ask€the€juryÏto€disregard€that€last€statement.ÌÌÓ  Ó***ÌÓ  ÓÌProsecutor:€Also,€...€if€you€believe€that€the€Sernas€areÏtraveling€down€the€mountain€and€they€throw€that€walletÏout€of€their€car,€and€behind€this€is€Mr.€Hester€and€hisÏbuddy€Blackburn,€who€is€out€of€work,€and€with€his€kind€ofÏrecord,€and€they€don't€stop€and€grab€that€wallet„„ÌÌDefense€Counsel:€Objection.€€Again€I€object.€€He's€usingÏthe€record€in€an€improper€manner.€€It's€only€beenÏadmitted€for€one€purpose.ÌÌCourt:€Sustain€the€objection.ÌÌÓ  Ó***ÌÓ  ÓÌProsecutor:€What€is€a€human€life€worth€in€this€county?ÌÌDefense€counsel:€Objection.€€That€is€totally€improper.ÌÌCourt:€Sustained.€€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àOur€supreme€court€recently€reaffirmed€several€well„establishedÏguidelines€which€control€closing€argument:€€ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àWe€have€recognized€that€closing€argument€is€aÏvaluable€privilege€for€both€the€State€and€the€defenseÏand€have€allowed€wide€latitude€to€counsel€in€arguingÏtheir€cases€to€the€jury.€€Nonetheless,€closing€argument€isÏsubject€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€and€must€beÏtemperate,€predicated€on€evidence€introduced€duringÏthe€trial,€and€relevant€to€the€issues€being€tried.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòState€v.€Ronnie€Michael€Cauthernóó,€_____€S.W.2d€_____,€No.€œ02S01„9612„CC„00108,›€slip€op.€at€18€(Tenn.,€at€Jackson,€Mar.€23,€1998)€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àà àThe€state's€argument€that€Blackburn€was€a€thief€who€took€the€walletÏviolated€the€trial€court's€admonishment€that€the€prior€convictions€be€used€only€forÏimpeachment.€€The€prosecutor€argued€that€Blackburn,€as€a€convicted€felon,€had€aÏgreater€propensity€to€have€committed€the€theft.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404.ÌÌà àà àThe€prosecutor's€argument€about€the€value€of€"human€life€in€thisÏcounty"€was€also€improper.€€œAppeals›€for€the€jury€"to€act€as€the€communityÍconscience€are€not€necessarily€impermissible."€€òòState€v.€Pulliamóó,€950€S.W.2d€360,Ï368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996),€òòapp.€deniedóó,€œ(Tenn.›€œ1997).›€€In€òòPulliamóó,€the€courtÏestablished€the€following€guideline:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThe€fairness€or€unfairness€of€comments€appealing€to€theÏnational€or€local€community€interests€of€jurors€in€a€givenÏinstance€will€depend€in€great€part€on€the€nature€of€theÏcommunity€interest€appealed€to,€and€its€relationship€to,Ïand€the€nature€of,€the€wider€social„political€context€toÏwhich€it€refers.€€The€correlation€between€the€communityÏinterest€comments€and€the€wider€social„political€contextÏto€a€large€extent€controls€the€determination€of€whetherÏan€appeal€is€deemed€impermissible€because€it€isÏcalculated€to€inflame€passion€and€prejudice.€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòId.óó€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Solivanóó,€937€F.2d€1146,€1154€(6th€Cir.1991)).€ÏBecause€the€œarguments›€for€the€state€about€the€value€of€a€human€life€were€designedÏto€"inflame€passion€and€prejudice,"€it€exceeds€the€bounds€of€propriety.ÌÌà àà àIn€our€assessment,€however,€any€misconduct€on€the€œstate's›€part€didÏnot€affect€the€jury's€verdict€in€this€case.€€The€test€to€be€applied€in€reviewing€a€claimÏof€prosecutorial€misconduct€is€"whether€the€improper€conduct€could€have€affectedÏthe€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant."€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,Ï759€(Tenn.€1965).€€The€factors,€set€out€in€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976),€and€adopted€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.ÏBuckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€609€(Tenn.€1984),€are€as€follows:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€the€conduct€complained€of,€viewed€in€light€of€the€factsÏand€circumstances€of€the€case;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€the€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€andÏthe€prosecution;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improperÏstatement;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€andÏany€other€errors€in€the€record;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€€ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àWhile€the€conduct€was€inappropriate,€the€trial€court€sustainedÏobjections€made€by€the€defense€and€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€certain€of€theÏcomments.€€For€the€most€part,€the€prosecutor€disregarded€the€ruling€limiting€theÏconvictions€to€impeachment€purposes.€€Because€of€his€repeated€refusal€to€complyÏwith€the€trial€court's€orders,€this€factor€weighs€heavily€for€the€defense.€€TheÏcumulative€effect€of€the€misconduct€was€minimal.€€The€final€argument€is€a€veryÏsmall€part€of€the€record,€only€two€pages€out€of€a€seven„hundred€page€transcript.€ÏFinally,€the€state€presented€a€compelling€case€against€the€defendant.€€RegardlessÏof€whether€there€had€been€a€theft,€the€defendant€either€recklessly€or€intentionallyÏmisused€his€vehicle€in€a€manner€that€caused€the€death€of€two€of€the€victims€andÏserious€injuries€to€a€third.€€In€our€view,€the€misconduct€had€no€effect€on€the€verdict.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓIVÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€the€trial€judge€erred€by€allowingÏmedical€examiners,€who€had€not€administered€the€tests,€to€testify€about€the€victims'Ïblood€alcohol€content€at€the€time€of€the€wreck.€€He€complains€this€amounts€toÏinadmissible€hearsay€and€violates€his€right€to€confront€adverse€witnesses.€€ÌÌà àà àDuring€the€cross„examination€of€Officer€Russell,€defense€counselÏestablished€that€a€twelve„pack€of€beer€may€have€been€in€the€victims'€automobile.€ÏPictures€of€empty€beer€cans€were€also€admitted€into€evidence.€€The€state€sought€toÏadmit€medical€records€of€the€autopsy€which€indicated€fairly€low€blood€alcoholÏcontents€at€the€time€of€the€wreck.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€defense€counsel,€by€itsÏreference€to€the€victims'€possession€of€alcohol,€made€the€blood€alcohol€contentÏrelevant€and€that€the€test€results€were€admissible€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(6),€theÏ"business€records"€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€King,€who€performed€an€autopsy€on€Richard€Serna€severalÏmonths€after€the€car€wreck,€testified€that€when€he€performs€an€autopsy,€he€reviewsÏall€medical€records€to€determine€the€cause€of€death.€€Emergency€room€recordsÏindicated€a€.032€percent€blood€alcohol€content.€€Dr.€King€admitted,€however,€thatÍthe€victim's€blood€alcohol€level€at€the€time€of€the€accident€"played€no€role"€in€hisÏdetermination€of€the€cause€of€death.€€€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Harlan€testified€that€when€he€began€performing€the€autopsy€onÏPaul€Serna,€on€August€9,€1994,€he€withdrew€a€sample€of€the€victim's€blood€andÏarranged€for€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€to€conduct€a€blood€alcoholÏanalysis.€€The€test€registered€a€.03.€€ÌÌà àà àHearsay,€of€course,€is€generally€not€admissible.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€802.€€ItÏis€defined€as€"a€statement,€other€that€one€made€by€the€declarant€while€testifying€atÏthe€trial€or€hearing,€offered€in€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted."€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c).€€The€"business€records"€exception€to€the€hearsay€ruleÏprovides€as€follows:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓRecords€of€Regularly€Conducted€Activity.„„AÏmemorandum,€report,€record,€or€data€compilation€in€anyÏform€of€acts,€events,€conditions,€opinions,€or€diagnosesÏmade€at€or€near€the€time€by€or€from€informationÏtransmitted€by€a€person€with€knowledge€and€a€businessÏduty€to€record€or€transmit€if€kept€in€the€course€of€aÏregularly€conducted€business€activity€and€if€it€was€theÏregular€practice€of€that€business€activity€to€œmake›€theÏmemorandum,€report,€record,€or€data€compilation,€all€asÏshown€by€the€testimony€of€the€custodian€or€otherÏqualified€witness,€unless€the€source€of€information€or€theÏmethod€or€circumstances€of€preparation€indicate€lack€ofÍtrustworthiness.€€The€term€"business"€as€used€in€thisÏparagraph€includes€every€kind€of€business,€institution,Ïassociation,€profession,€occupation,€and€calling,Ïwhether€or€not€conducted€for€profit.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€803(6).€€ÌÌà àà àMedical€records€may€fall€within€the€business€records€exception,€asÏlong€as€the€appropriate€foundation€is€established.€€òòWitter€v.€Nesbitóó,€878€S.W.2dÏ116,€122€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€One€authority€states€the€rule€as€follows:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓTheir€declarations€are€admissible€insofar€as€pertinent€toÏthe€regular€course€of€hospital€business.€€The€jury€canÏassume€the€nurse€recorded€[the€patient's]€wordsÏaccurately.€€Likewise,€the€jury€can€take€the€doctor'sÏdiagnostic€opinion€as€true€....€€The€jury€may€alsoÏconsider€the€lab€test€results€as€true.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓNeil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€803(6).11,€at€566€(3d€ed.Ï1995).€ÌÌà àà àHere,€there€was€an€inadequate€foundation€for€Dr.€King's€testimony.€ÏThe€rule€requires€the€"custodian€[of€the€records]€or€other€qualified€witness."€€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€803(6).€€A€witness€is€not€qualified€to€lay€the€foundation€unless€he€or€she€isÏ"òòpersonallyóó€familiar€with€the€business's€record„keeping€systems."€€òòAlexander€v.ÍInmanóó,€903€S.W.2d€686,€700€(Tenn.€App.€1995)€(emphasis€added).€€The€witnessÏshould€also€be€"able€to€explain€the€record€keeping€procedures."€€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€King€was€not€an€employee€of€Erlanger€Hospital,€where€the€bloodÏalcohol€examinations€on€Richard€Serna€took€place.€€No€effort€was€made€to€showÏthat€he€had€any€first„hand€knowledge€of€the€record„keeping€procedures€at€theÏhospital.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€Dr.€King€to€testify€to€the€test€resultsÏunder€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(6).€€òòSeeóó€òòCobble€v.€McCameyóó,€790€S.W.2d€279,€283Ï(Tenn.€App.€1989)€("[T]he€purported€business€records€cannot€prove€themselves").€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Harlan's€testimony€should€not€have€been€admitted€for€differentÏreasons.€€The€test€performed€by€the€TBI€was€apparently€conducted€in€anticipation€ofÏlitigation.€€Generally,€business€records€are€reliable€because€"they€are€'prepared€forÏother€use€and€only€incidentally€found€pertinent€to€œlitigation.'"€›€òòState€v.€Hendersonóó,Ï554€S.W.2d€117,€120€(Tenn.€1977)€(quoting€òòPeople€v.€Hobsonóó,€119€N.W.2d€581,Ï588€(Mich.€1963)).€€That€does€not€appear€to€be€the€case€here.€€Moreover,€the€stateÏmade€no€effort€to€establish€a€foundation€for€the€admission€of€the€record.€€Finally,ÏRule€803(3),€which€provides€that€public€records€are€admissible,€excludes€"mattersÏobserved€by€police€officers€and€other€law€enforcement€personnel."€€€Ì€€€Ìà àà àThe€United€States€Constitution€provides€the€right€"to€be€confrontedÏwith€witnesses."€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€VI.€€The€Tennessee€Constitution€provides€theÏright€"to€meet€witnesses€face€to€face."€€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€9.€€If€interpreted€literally,Ïthese€clauses€would€bar€admission€of€several€different€types€of€evidence€which€areÏexceptions€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€òòOhio€v.€Robertsóó,€448€U.S.€56,€63€(1980).€€TheÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€has€ruled,€however,€that€the€clause€does€not€barÏadmission€of€evidence€that€"falls€within€a€firmly€rooted€hearsay€exception."€€òòId.óó€atÏ66.€€In€òòRobertsóó,€the€court€allowed€an€exception€only€upon€a€showing€of€(1)Ïunavailability€of€the€witness€and€(2)€reliability.€€òòId.óó€€Later,€however,€the€SupremeÏCourt€ruled€that€"where€the€proffered€hearsay€has€sufficient€guarantees€of€reliabilityÏto€come€within€a€firmly€rooted€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule,€the€ConfrontationÏClause€is€satisfied."€€òòWhite€v.€Illinoisóó,€502€U.S.€346,€356€(1992).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òò€Hendersonóó,€554€S.W.2d€at€119„20,€our€supreme€court€ruled€thatÏtoxicology€reports€indicating€the€presence€of€illegal€drugs€could€not€be€admittedÏthrough€a€witness€other€than€the€one€that€performed€the€test.€€Our€supreme€courtÏruled€that€hearsay€is€inadmissible€in€a€criminal€trial€unless€(1)€€the€evidence€is€notÏcrucial€to€proving€the€state's€case;€(2)€€the€witness€is€unavailable;€and€(3)€€theÏevidence€has€its€own€indicia€of€reliability.€€In€òòHendersonóó,€the€court€concluded€theÏtoxicologist's€report€could€not€be€considered€a€business€record€because€it€wasÍprepared€in€anticipation€of€litigation.€€òòId.óó€at€120.€€The€court€emphasized€that€theÏreport€was€the€only€trial€evidence€establishing€that€the€drugs€were€illegal.€€€ÌÌà àà àThis€court€has€held€that€the€òòHendersonóó€test€does€not€apply€toÏstatements€that€fall€within€a€firmly€rooted€hearsay€exception.€€òòState€v.€Joseph€T.ÏAlleyóó,€No.€02C01„9405„CC„00100,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€JuneÏ18,€1997),€òòapp.€deniedóó€œ(Tenn.,€Mar.›€2,€1998).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Kenneth€AntonioÏLillardóó,€No.€01C01„9602„CC„00051€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Feb.€12,€1997).€€€€ÌÌà àà àAs€early€as€1874,€the€United€State€Supreme€Court€made€mention€ofÏthe€"rule€which€governs€the€admissibility€of€entries€made€by€private€parties€in€theÏordinary€course€of€their€business."€€òòChaffee€v.€United€Statesóó,€85€U.S.€516,€541Ï(1873).€€Federal€courts€have€held€the€"business€records"€exception€is€firmlyÏestablished.€€òòUnited€State€v.€Nortonóó,€867€F.2d€1354,€1363€(11th€Cir.€1989).€€InÏòòNortonóó,€the€Eleventh€Circuit€Court€made€the€following€ruling:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[W]e€find€the€business€records€exception€to€the€hearsayÏrule€to€be€"firmly€enough€rooted€in€our€jurisprudence"€toÏsatisfy€the€requirements€of€the€Confrontation€ClauseÏwhere,€as€here,€the€document€was€properly€admittedÏunder€the€exception.€€"Properly€administered€theÏbusiness€and€public€records€exceptions€would€seem€toÏbe€among€the€safest€of€the€hearsay€exceptions."€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòId.óó€(citations€omitted).€€Other€federal€courts€have€followed€suit:€"The€businessÏrecords€exception€is€a€firmly€rooted€hearsay€exception€....€€Therefore,€if€the€recordsÏare€admissible€under€the€business€records€exception,€no€violation€of€theÏConfrontation€Clause€occurred."€€òòUnited€States€v.€Ismoilaóó,€100€F.3d€380,€392€(5thÏCir.€1996).€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àÌÌà àà àTennessee€courts€have€long€recognized€the€business€recordsÏexception.€€òòBolden€v.€Stateóó,€203€S.W.€755€(Tenn.€1918).€€In€òòBoldenóó,€our€supremeÏcourt€explained€the€rationale€for€the€"business€records"€exception:€"They€areÏreceivable€as€original€evidence,€because€they€import€trustworthiness,€in€that€aÏmotive€to€make€the€entries€falsely€is€excluded."€€In€òòLillardóó,€this€court€ruled€theÏ"business€records€exception€as€set€forth€in€T.R.E.€803(6)€is€a€firmly€rooted€exceptionÏto€the€hearsay€rule."€€Slip€op.€at€5.€€ÌÌà àà àHad€a€proper€foundation€been€laid,€the€results€could€have€beenÏadmissible€as€business€records€without€violating€the€defendant's€right€ofÏconfrontation.€€As€long€as€the€records€are€"properly€admitted,"€there€is€no€violation.€ÏòòNortonóó,€867€F.2d€at€1363.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€failure€on€the€part€of€the€state€to€establish€a€proper€foundation€forÏthe€evidence€would€not€require€reversal.€€There€was€substantial€evidence€of€theÏdefendant's€guilt.€€The€blood€alcohol€content€of€the€victims€was€not€a€significantÏpoint.€€There€was€no€indication€œthat€that›€contributed€to€the€car€wreck.€€The€error,€inÏour€view,€qualified€as€harmless.€€€€ÇÓ  ÓVÌÓ  Óà àà àAs€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€complains€that€twenty„five€(25)€yearÏsentences,€the€maximum€possible,€for€each€second€degree€murder,€and€theÏsentence€of€twelve€years,€the€maximum,€for€the€attempted€second€degree€murder,Ïwere€excessive.€€He€also€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€all€threeÏsentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€challenge€is€made€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€"de€novo€review€...€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€isÏtaken€are€correct."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„401(d).›€€The€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€the€impropriety€ofÏthe€sentence.€€ÌÌà àà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€atÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors;Ï(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÍdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€and€€„210.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€this€offense,€the€presumptive€sentence€was€theÏminimum€in€the€range€if€there€were€no€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€(amended€in€1995€changing€the€presumptive€sentence€forÏa€Class€A€felony€to€the€midpoint€in€the€range).€€Should€the€trial€court€find€mitigatingÏand€enhancement€factors,€it€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€andÏenhance€the€sentence€based€upon€any€applicable€enhancement€factors,€thenÏreduce€the€sentence€based€upon€any€appropriate€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€within€the€trial€court'sÏdiscretion€provided€that€the€record€supports€its€findings€and€it€complies€with€theÏSentencing€Act.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€trialÏcourt,€however,€should€make€specific€findings€on€the€record€which€indicate€itsÏapplication€of€the€sentencing€principles.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„209€and€„210.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€Michael€Scott€Serna,€the€brother€ofÏRichard€and€Paul€Serna,€testified€that€anything€less€than€the€"maximum€sentenceÏran€consecutive€would€be€less€than€justice."€€He€recalled€that€Richard€weighedÏabout€one„hundred€seventy€pounds€prior€to€the€wreck€and€had€dropped€to€eighty€orÍninety€pounds€as€a€result.€€He€described€his€brother's€pain€as€excruciating.€€He€hadÏto€file€bankruptcy€because€the€medical€bills€amounted€to€"hundreds€of€thousands€ofÏdollars."€€He€also€asked€the€court€to€consider€that€Angela€Serna€would€never€beÏable€to€have€children€because€of€her€injuries.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€presentence€report€established€that€the€defendant,€age€twenty„four€at€the€time€of€sentencing,€completed€eighth€grade€and€acquired€his€G.E.D.€€AÏlaborer,€he€has€three€children,€ages€four,€three,€and€one.€€His€prior€criminal€historyÏincluded€several€thefts,€simple€assault,€reckless€driving,€and€failure€to€appear.€€HeÏwas€on€probation€for€theft€at€the€time€of€these€offenses.ÌÌ€à àà àThe€trial€court€found€the€following€enhancement€factors€applicable€toÏeach€offense:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€The€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victim€wereÏgreat.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6).ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€The€defendant€possessed€or€employed€a€deadlyÏweapon€during€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„119(9).ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€€The€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€aÏcrime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(10).ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€€The€felony€was€committed€while€the€defendant€wasÏon€a€form€of€release€from€a€prior€conviction.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(13).ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€enhancement€factor€(10),€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€is€an€essential€element€ofÏthe€offenses.€€The€trial€judge€commented€that€he€was€applying€this€factor€becauseÏthe€defendant€endangered€the€lives€of€persons€other€than€the€victims.€€For€thatÏreason,€we€agree€that€this€factor€is€applicable.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€providesÏthat€an€enhancement€factor€may€be€applied€if€it€is€not€an€"essential€element"€of€theÏoffense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.€€The€test€for€determining€if€anÏenhancement€factor€is€an€essential€element€of€an€offense€is€whether€the€sameÏproof€necessary€to€establish€the€enhancement€factor€would€also€establish€anÏelement€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€601€œ(Tenn.€1994).›ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448€(Tenn.€1995),€our€supreme€courtÏruled€that€factor€(10)€may€be€used€"where€the€defendant€creates€a€high€risk€to€theÏlife€of€a€person€other€than€the€victim."€€In€òòBinghamóó,€our€supreme€court€upheld€use€ofÏthe€factor€in€a€vehicular€homicide€case,€where€the€trial€court€found€the€defendantÏhad€driven€recklessly€on€a€busy€four„lane€road.€€Because€the€defendant's€conductÏcreated€a€substantial€risk€of€death€to€other€drivers,€the€factor€was€appropriatelyÏapplied.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€proof€established€that€when€the€victims'€vehicleÏwrecked,€two€other€vehicles€were€involved€and€those€drivers€were€placed€directlyÏin€danger.€€Prior€to€the€wreck,€the€defendant€caused€the€victims'€vehicle€to€"fishtail"Ïaround€an€oncoming€truck.€€Clearly,€others€besides€the€victims€were€in€danger€dueÏto€the€defendant's€driving.€€This€factor€was€appropriately€applied.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€enhancement€factor€(6),€the€personalÏinjuries€suffered€by€the€victim,€is€inapplicable€because€it€is€an€essential€element€ofÏthe€offenses€charged.€€Because€this€factor€was€an€essential€element€of€the€crime,€itÏshould€not€have€been€applied€to€the€murder€convictions.€€òòState€v.€Lambertóó,€741ÏS.W.2d€127,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€It€was,€however,€appropriately€appliedÏto€the€attempted€second€degree€murder€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Nixóó,€922€S.W.2d€894,Í903€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€"Particularly€great€injuries€are€not€essential€to€theÏcommission€of€this€offense,€but€prove€greater€culpability."€€òòId.óó€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€toÏapply€the€mitigating€factor€that€"[s]ubstantial€grounds€exist€tending€to€excuse€orÏjustify€the€defendantððs€criminal€conduct,€though€failing€to€establish€a€defense."€€€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(3).€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€madeÏno€findings€on€any€mitigating€circumstances.€€In€our€view,€this€mitigating€factor€isÏentitled€to€little€or€no€weight.€€Even€if€the€Sernas€assaulted€the€defendant€and€stoleÏhis€wallet,€that€would€not€excuse€the€defendant's€extended€criminal€conduct€inÏchasing€the€victims€for€several€miles€and€repeatedly€ramming€their€vehicle.€€Ì€Ìà àà àEven€if€some€evidence€of€mitigation€did€exist,€enhancement€factorsÏpresent€so€strongly€outweigh€the€mitigating€factors€that€the€maximum€sentence€onÏeach€offense€would€have€been€warranted.€€€ÌÌà àà àWe€now€turn€to€the€appropriateness€of€consecutive€sentencing.€€PriorÏto€the€enactment€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€the€limitedÏclassifications€for€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€were€set€out€in€òòGray€v.ÏStateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1976).€€In€that€case€our€supreme€court€ruled€thatÍaggravating€circumstances€must€be€present€before€placement€in€any€one€of€theÏclassifications.€€Later,€in€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€1987),€the€courtÏestablished€an€additional€category€for€those€defendants€convicted€of€two€or€moreÏstatutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€minors.€€There€were,€however,Ïadditional€words€of€caution:€€"[C]onsecutive€sentences€should€not€routinely€beÏimposed€.€.€.€and€.€.€.€the€aggregate€maximum€of€consecutive€terms€must€beÏreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€involved."€€òòTayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€atÏ230.€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€adopted€the€cautionary€language.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115.€€The€1989€Act€is,€in€essence,€the€codification€of€theÏholdings€in€òòGrayóó€and€òòTayloróó;€consecutive€sentences€may€be€imposed€in€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€only€upon€a€determination€that€one€or€more€of€theÏfollowing€criteria× ƒ7 ××  ×€exist:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€hasÏknowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€majorÏsource€of€livelihood;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€is€extensive;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormalÏperson€so€declared€by€a€competent€psychiatrist€whoÏconcludes€as€a€result€of€an€investigation€prior€toÍsentencing€that€the€defendant's€criminal€conduct€hasÏbeen€characterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitive€orÏcompulsive€behavior€with€heedless€indifference€toÏconsequences;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€andÏno€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€riskÏto€human€life€is€high;€€€€à à€€€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€moreÏstatutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€withÏconsideration€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€arisingÏfrom€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€victimÏor€victims,€the€time€span€of€defendant's€undetectedÏsexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€actsÏand€the€extent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mentalÏdamage€to€the€victim€or€victims;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offenseÏcommitted€while€on€probation;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(7)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).ÌÌà àà àIn€òòGrayóó,€our€supreme€court€ruled€that€before€consecutive€sentencingÏcould€be€imposed€upon€the€dangerous€offender,€as€now€defined€by€subsectionÏ(b)(4)€in€the€statute,€other€conditions€must€be€present:€€(a)€that€the€crimes€involvedÏaggravating€circumstances;€(b)€that€consecutive€sentences€are€a€necessary€meansÍto€protect€the€public€from€the€defendant;€and€(c)€that€the€term€reasonably€relates€toÏthe€severity€of€the€offenses.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995),€our€highÏcourt€reaffirmed€those€principles,€holding€that€consecutive€sentences€cannot€beÏrequired€of€the€dangerous€offender€"unless€the€terms€reasonably€relate[]€to€theÏseverity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€necessary€in€order€to€protect€the€publicÏ(society)€from€further€criminal€acts€by€those€persons€who€resort€to€aggravatedÏcriminal€conduct."€€The€òòWilkersonóó€decision,€which€modified€somewhat€the€strictÏfactual€guidelines€for€consecutive€sentencing€adopted€in€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€814ÏS.W.2d€378,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€described€sentencing€as€a€"humanÏprocess€that€neither€can€nor€should€be€reduced€to€a€set€of€fixed€and€mechanicalÏrules."€€òòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938.€€The€record€must€show€that€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances€were€considered€before€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€applies.€€€€Ô€6ÔÌÌÔ€0Ôà àà àThe€trial€court€found€consecutive€sentences€were€appropriateÏbecause€the€defendant€was€a€dangerous€offender.€€We€agree.€€A€reasonableÏinference€from€the€proof€is€that€the€defendant€purposefully€followed€the€victims€andÏrammed€their€vehicle€repeatedly,€fully€aware€that€the€conduct€endangered€not€onlyÍthe€victims€but€the€occupants€of€the€other€vehicles€on€the€road.€€Moreover,€theÏdefendant's€prior€criminal€record€indicates€an€escalating€pattern€of€criminalÏbehavior.€€The€defendant€was€on€probation€at€the€time€he€committed€the€presentÏoffenses.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(6).€€Consecutive€sentences€areÏnecessary€to€protect€society€from€further€misdeeds€by€the€defendant.Ì€€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àBecause€the€trial€court€failed€to€instruct€the€jury€on€all€the€possibleÏlesser€grades€of€offenses€as€required€by€law,€we€must€reverse€the€second€degreeÏmurder€convictions€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.€€Otherwise,€the€judgment€isÏaffirmed.€€œ›ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌœÇCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________à àÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌCurwood€Witt,€JudgeÌà àÓ  Óà à