ÿWPCŒ' ˜WÜh„ù¶+«îì%ê±¾ò3ÉS*¥+ Ró´È)œ n*ÈÂIQwˆ±ò:"Â7¡œ]v¢?ÜmëØzëãuUIñ"Òö™~¿ò{G@Á¼.ƒvé²!*¼1|°o‰<›ÑaëÚL†â¦f’7\åÀš»Q/æ“áìpj—‡J©ÀÞyì¨kªþé!ó€O‡–º¬ãB2A˜ó áöQdO£ãM¦!/†ñ­šùPÛ$r¨Å(”|@þ{÷Yºq¤'ã©¡öf¯ÃE¢\½/ö~nR3ÆÝ=~z£å¢Æ“oÆâ½ÓÙ;Ø\ÉY=%Ú¤{˜WãÛçØ´.̯ø>é‰[­;†¥`’á:-bªÇèøT‘†8’ ëúB&0cNovoYª?çnýìŸÂif­9N¨»h’\!Smqýô`9¬0 ‘³VFÉWqµ8Ô'=÷—Œè„A#šû=ÌÙjÛlƒüªhöÅ ž8_ôéFÆûìÍÄVÁñ‚©œ®ŒYº"½£^¤P1œnÄ­õúºžò©TlÕi׈×n1Ù½Àî'ðáFvƒ¿S‰­¸ü[0/¥† ‰*˜Ú`d« C#ÎÎ ß3ÆL6Ê‘¶H¶”™K䤄b#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ N™ Æ› Æa Æ'Æí 1u³N( 72* 0c\E¿fÁf'ffófYf¿f%f‹fñV W 0D­•ñ‰† N"f"""""""w"w"b"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 0ë‡"‡"‡"‡" Br#r# 0¤# D53$ D-h$ 0K•$•$ ASà$Æ3% 0¤ù% 0D& A«á&˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»x€~1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ~‰/ê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à \Ñ\R3Ø'Letter\Ñ \Ñ\R3Ø'Letter\Ñ \Ñ\R3Ø'Letter\Ñ \Ñ\R3Ø'Letter\Ñ \Ñ\R3Ø'Letter\Ñ \Ñ\R3Ø'Letter\Ñ \Ñ\R3Ø'Letter\Ñ \Ñ\R3Ø'Letter\Ñ \Ñ\R3Ø'Letter\Ñ L Ý ƒRƒ¶$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô°Lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBecause€we€view€the€introduction€of€Wilsonððs€extrajudicial€accusations€of€the€defendant€to€be€irrelevant€or,Ð ° Ðin€any€event,€inadmissible€pursuant€to€Rule€403,€we€do€not€analyze€the€issue€whether€the€Sixth€Amendment€allows€anÐ qÁ Ðð ðother€purposeðð€exception€to€the€general€rule€of€excluding€extrajudicial,€testimonial€statements€made€by€an€availableÐ 2‚ Ðdeclarant€or€made€in€the€absence€of€a€cross„examination€opportunity.€€òòSee€Crawford€v.€Washingtonóó,€541€U.S.€___,€___,Ð óC Ð124€S.€Ct.€1354,€1374€(2004).€€We€simply€note€that,€although€the€hearsay€rule€would€not€be€violated€when€the€statementÐ ´ Ðis€not€offered€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c),€the€Sixth€Amendmentððs€ambit€ofÐ uÅ Ðprotection€is€not€necessarily€coterminous€with€evidence€law€when€the€proposed€extrajudicial€statement€is€testimonial€inÐ 6 † Ðnature,€such€as€prior€testimony€at€a€preliminary€hearing,€before€a€grand€jury,€in€a€former€trial,€or€resulting€from€policeÐ ÷ G Ðinterrogations.€€òòSee€generally€Crawfordóó,€541€U.S.€at€___,€124€S.€Ct.€at€1374.€€We€question€whether€the€non„hearsay€useÐ ¸  Ðof€Wilsonððs€statement€places€the€evidence€beyond€the€reach€of€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€Likewise,€although€TennesseeÐ y É  ÐRule€of€Evidence€404(b)€authorizes€the€use€of€evidence€besmirching€the€defendantððs€character€when€the€evidence€isÐ : Š  Ðoffered€for€a€relevant€purpose€other€than€showing€the€defendantððs€propensity€to€offend,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€404,€weÐ û K  Ðquestion€whether€the€rigors€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€are€satisfied€merely€because€those€of€Rule€404(b)€have€been€met.€Ð ¼  ÐòòSee€Crawford,óó€541€U.S.€at€___,€124€S.€Ct.€at€1369€(ð ðmalleable€[evidence„law]€standard€often€fails€to€protect€againstÐ }Í  Ðparadigmatic€confrontation€violationsðð).€€In€the€present€case,€the€defendantððs€claim€of€error€is€neither€based€upon€theÐ >Ž  Ðhearsay€rule€nor€Rule€404;€rather,€it€is€based€upon€the€Confrontation€Clause€embodied€in€the€Sixth€Amendment.€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ‹Ý ƒRƒ¶$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô°Lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€addition€to€illustrating€examples€of€€ð ðtestimonialðð€evidence€(testimony€given€at€prior€judicial€proceedingsÐ ° Ðand€statements€resulting€from€police€interrogation)òòóó,ò ò€ó óòòCrawfordóó€defines€a€ð ðtestimonialðð€statement€as€one€ð ðmade€underÐ qÁ Ðcircumstances€which€would€lead€an€objective€witness€reasonably€to€believe€that€the€statement€would€be€available€for€useÐ 6† Ðat€a€later€trial.ðð€€òòCrawfordóó,€541€U.S.€at€__,€òòóó124€S.€Ct.€at€1364,€1374. Ý ƒRƒ¶$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô°Lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€includes€a€òòvoir€direóó€examination€of€the€defendant€wherein€he€acknowledged€the€advice€of€counselÐ ° Ðnot€to€call€Wilson€and€the€Sharkeys€as€witnesses€and€affirmed€his€desire€to€call€them,€despite€counselððs€contrary€advice. \Ñ\R3Ø'Letter\Ñ - ù-(|G2ƒ¶$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Žé»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô°Lò»»Ô d(|3º$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Žé»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3º$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Žé»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Žé»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Žé»»»ÔÑ8€ß'XXdé»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@hhìàÔ‡îq¶î»¼ŽéÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼Žé»îîq¶#ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€May€4,€2004Ð öF ÐÔ‡Xß'X»¼ŽéÔÌò òÔ#†¼Žé»XXß'#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€FRANKLIN€HOWARDòòóóÔ‡Xß'X»¼ŽéÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€95„07822€€€€€€Joseph€B.€Dailey,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2002„01680„CCA„R3„CD€€„€Filed€November€18,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓFollowing€a€remand€for€a€new€trial€on€the€charge€of€first„degree€premeditated€murder,€òòsee€State€v.Ð V¦  ÐHowardóó,€30€S.W.3d€271€(Tenn.€2000),€the€defendant,€Franklin€Howard,€was€again€convicted€of€first„Ð ? Ðdegree€premeditated€murder€and€was€also€convicted€of€felony€murder€and€sentenced€to€life€in€prison.€Ð (x ÐNow€on€appeal,€he€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€the€admission€of€a€co„Ð a Ðdefendantððs€statement,€the€failure€of€the€trial€court€to€bar€the€second€trial€based€upon€principles€ofÐ úJ Ðdouble€jeopardy,€the€trial€courtððs€jury€instructions,€the€failure€to€transfer€the€case€to€another€trialÐ ã3 Ðjudge€for€retrial,€and€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencing.€€Ô#†¼Žé»XXß'‰#ÔÔ‡Xß'X»¼ŽéÔWe€reverse€the€felony„murderÐ Ì Ðconvictions€and€dismiss€those€charges€but€otherwise€affirm€the€defendantððs€first„degree€murderÐ µ Ðconviction€and€sentence.Ð žî ÐÓ¬ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgments€of€the€Criminal€Court€are€Affirmed€in€Part;€Reversed€inÐ pÀ ÐPart.ó óÐ Zª ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Žé»àXß'ú#ÔÔ‡Xß'X.¼ŽéÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€óóJ.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€andÐ -} ÐòòJerry€L.€Smith,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð f ÐÌJoseph€S.€Ô_ÔOzmentÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Franklin€Howard.Ð è 8  ÐÌMichael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€J.€Ross€Dyer,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€William€L.€Gibbons,Ð º" " ÐDistrict€Attorney€General;€and€Robert€C.€Carter€and€Jennifer€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneysÐ £#ó# ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Œ$Ü$ ÐÓŒ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Žé»XXß'» #ÔÔ‡Xß'X»¼ŽéÔÐ ^&®!& ÐòòóóÔ#†¼Žé»XXß'ÿ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xß'X»¼ŽéÔà0  àà0` (#(#àÑ€²ÏÑÑ€²ÏÑÑ€²Ï ÑÑ€²Ï ÑÑ€²ÏÑÑ€²ÏÑÑ€²ÏÑÑ€²ÏÑÑ€²ÏÑÐ ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àThe€evidence€at€retrial€established,€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€theÐ 1(#( Ðfollowing€facts.€€The€homicide€victim,€Gene€Ô_ÔFrielingÔ_Ô,€was€an€employee€of€Ô_ÔTGIÔ_Ô€Fridays€(TGIF)Ð )j$) Ðrestaurant€chain€and€was€transferred€to€Memphis€to€participate€in€the€management€of€a€TGIFÐ *S%* Ðlocation.€€€In€the€early€morning€hours€of€January€28,€1995,€a€9„1„1€emergency€call€alerted€police€ofÐ ì*<&+ Ðð ðshots€firedðð€at€the€TGIF€location.€€Upon€arriving€at€the€scene,€officers€discovered€the€deceasedÐ Õ+%', Ðvictim,€sitting€in€the€floor€near€the€office.€€He€had€suffered€a€gunshot€wound€in€his€shoulder€thatÐ ¾,(- Ðpenetrated€his€lungs€and€heart.€€A€second€man,€Preston€Shea,€was€beneath€a€counter€in€the€office.€Ð §-÷(.ý  ÐÔ_ÔMr.€Shea,€the€TGIF€bartender€on€duty€when€the€restaurant€closed,€had€been€shot€multiple€times,Ð ° Ðalthough€he€ultimately€survived€the€shooting.€Ð ™é ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€restaurantððs€office€was€accessed€from€the€rear€of€the€restaurant€by€a€door€and€aÐ k» Ðshort€hallway.€€The€door€could€be€opened€from€the€inside€via€an€ð ðalarm€typeðð€handle€but,€whenÐ T¤ Ðclosed,€could€not€be€opened€from€the€outside.€€Officers€recovered€nine„millimeter€shell€casings€andÐ =  Ðtwo€.380€shell€casings€from€the€office€area.€€They€also€recovered€a€bullet€fragment€from€the€personÐ & v Ðof€Mr.€Shea.€€The€officers€were€unable€to€extract€fingerprints€from€the€crime€scene.€€A€regionalÐ  _ ÐTGIF€executive€came€to€the€scene€and€determined€that,€at€the€time€of€the€assault,€the€victim€had€beenÐ ø H Ðpreparing€to€deposit€the€dayððs€receipts€and€that,€based€upon€cash€register€records,€approximatelyÐ á 1  Ð$5,400€was€missing.€€Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àà ` àJohn€Paul€Wong€testified€that€he€was€working€as€a€dishwasher€at€TGIF€during€theÐ œì  Ðevening€of€January€27€and€early€morning€hours€of€January€28,€1995.€€His€duties€entailed€takingÐ …Õ  Ðrefuse€to€the€dumpster€behind€the€restaurant€after€closing€and€just€before€the€restaurant€was€securedÐ n¾  Ðfor€the€night.€€He€exited€the€rear€of€the€building€via€the€hallway€and€the€one„way€door.€€In€makingÐ W§  Ðhis€first€trip€to€the€dumpster,€he€propped€open€the€door€with€a€broom,€a€common€practice€amongÐ @ Ðemployees€who€went€outside,€intending€to€re„enter€the€building.€€As€he€started€out€the€door€with€theÐ )y Ðsecond€haul€of€refuse,€he€was€ð ðpounced€uponðð€by€four€dark„clothed€intruders€wearing€ski€masks.€Ð b ÐSomeone€shoved€a€gun€in€his€face,€threatened€to€shoot€him,€and€pushed€him€back€into€the€hall€whereÐ ûK Ðhe€was€placed€face„down€on€the€floor.€€Shortly€thereafter,€a€waitress,€Jessica€Hoard,€was€placed€onÐ ä4 Ðthe€floor€near€Mr.€Wong.€€Then,€Mr.€Wong€heard€shots€and€people€running.€€After€the€intruders€left,Ð Í ÐMr.€Wong€found€the€homicide€victim€and€Mr.€Shea€wounded€and€lying€on€the€floor.€€He€proppedÐ ¶ Ðup€the€homicide€victim.Ð Ÿï ÐÌà  àà ` àJessica€Hoard€testified€the€restaurant€closed€at€1:00€a.m.€€She€was€waiting€for€theÐ qÁ Ðvictim,€who€had€to€balance€the€account€and€prepare€the€bank€deposit.€€At€approximately€2:00€a.m.,Ð Zª Ða€man€in€dark€clothes€and€a€ski€mask€and€brandishing€a€gun€appeared€in€the€rear€doorway.€€A€secondÐ C“ Ðman€threatened€to€shoot€Ms.€Hoard€and€ordered€her€to€lie€on€the€floor.€€She€saw€a€third€man€standingÐ ,| Ðat€the€rear€door.€€Soon,€she€heard€shots€and€screaming.€€€Ð e ÐÌà  àà ` àPreston€Shea€testified€that,€as€the€head€bartender€when€the€restaurant€closed,€he€wasÐ ç 7 Ðhelping€the€manager,€Mr.€Frieling,€account€for€the€receipts.€€Upon€walking€out€of€the€office,€heÐ Ð!   Ðencountered€four€masked,€armed€men€in€the€hall.€€One€of€them€hit€Mr.€Shea€in€the€head€with€anÐ ¹" ! Ðobject,€and€he€fell€to€the€floor€near€the€rear€door.€€The€men€demanded€money,€and€Mr.€Shea€gaveÐ ¢#ò" Ðthem€his€wallet.€€Some€of€the€men€went€into€the€office€and€passed€the€restaurant€money€out€to€theÐ ‹$Û# Ðother€men€in€the€hall.€€Someone€said,€ð ðShoot€the€m€„€„€„€„€„€f€„€„€„€„€„,ðð€and€then€a€shot€was€fired.€€AsÐ t%Ä $ Ðthe€intruders€left€through€the€hall,€Mr.€Shea€was€shot.€€He€testified,€ð ðI€got€shot€three€times€for€lyingÐ ]&­!% Ðthere€in€a€pool€of€kitchen€slop€doing€exactly€what€they€asked.ðð€€When€the€men€left,€Mr.€SheaÐ F'–"& Ðcrawled€into€the€office€and€called€9„1„1.€€Ð /(#' ÐÌà  àà ` àDarrick€Jones€testified€that€he€worked€at€TGIF€on€the€evening€of€January€27€until€theÐ *Q%) Ðâ ârestaurant€closed€at€1:00€a.m.€€When€he€went€to€his€car€parked€in€the€rear€about€1:30€a.m.,€he€sawÐ ê*:&* Ða€white€Pontiac€Bonneville€or€Parisian€with€a€dark€top€pass€through€the€parking€area.€€The€carÐ ° Ðcontained€at€least€four€people.€€Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àOn€February€7,€1995,€based€upon€Mr.€Jonesððs€information€and€a€Crime€Stoppers€tip,Ð k» Ðofficers€stopped€a€white€Pontiac€driven€by€Claude€Sharkey.€€A€young€man€named€Anthony€Moore,Ð T¤ Ðalso€known€as€Anthony€Morgan,€was€riding€in€the€Pontiac.€€The€officers€found€a€.380€automaticÐ =  Ðpistol€containing€seven€live€rounds€hidden€under€the€Pontiacððs€dash€board.€€Within€a€short€time,Ð & v Ðofficers€apprehended€Claushaun€Sharkey€and€Kevin€Wilson,€and€pursuant€to€statements€given€byÐ  _ Ðthese€men,€they€went€to€the€defendantððs€residence.€€Upon€finding€the€defendant€at€home€and€afterÐ ø H Ðobtaining€permission€to€search€the€house,€the€officers€found€a€.32€revolver€in€a€box€under€theÐ á 1  Ðdefendantððs€motherððs€bed,€a€black€leather€jacket,€and€a€ski€mask.€€Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àà ` àApparently€prompted€by€being€shown€Wilsonððs€prior€statement€wherein€he€implicatedÐ œì  Ðthe€defendant,€the€defendant€told€the€officers,€ð ðI€was€there,€but€I€didnððt€go€inside.ðð€€He€gave€a€writtenÐ …Õ  Ðstatement€in€which€he€recounted€that€the€Sharkeys€and€Wilson€were€responsible€for€the€TGIFÐ n¾  Ðrobbery€and€homicide.€€He€admitted€that,€although€he€had€been€asleep€in€the€car,€after€the€other€threeÐ W§  Ðmen€discussed€robbing€TGIF,€he€ð ðwalked€up€thereðð€with€them.€€He€stated,€ð ðI€stayed€all€the€way€inÐ @ Ðthe€back€and€they€ran€in€the€restaurant€and€I€heard€some€shots€fired€so€I€ran€to€the€car€.€.€.€.ðð€€TheÐ )y Ðdefendant€recounted€that,€after€returning€to€the€Sharkeysðð€house,€the€men€gave€him€$200.Ð b ÐÌà  àà ` àA€forensics€analyst€testified€that€he€could€discern€no€identifiable€fingerprints€on€theÐ ä4 Ð.32€revolver.€€He€analyzed€a€.380€bullet€recovered€from€the€victim€and€a€.380€shell€casing€found€atÐ Í Ðthe€crime€scene€and€determined€that€they€were€fired€from€the€.380€pistol€recovered€from€theÐ ¶ ÐSharkeysðð€Pontiac.€€The€officers€had€also€recovered€a€nine€millimeter€bullet€fragment€but€found€noÐ Ÿï Ðevidence€of€projectiles€being€fired€by€a€.32€pistol.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€his€defense,€the€defendant€called€his€mother,€who€testified€that€the€.32€revolverÐ Zª Ðbelonged€to€her€and€that€she€never€knew€of€the€defendant€taking€it.€€He€also€called€Claude€SharkeyððsÐ C“ Ðex„girlfriend,€who€testified€that€she€had€never€known€the€defendant€to€have€been€a€part€of€the€groupÐ ,| Ðof€the€Sharkeys,€Kevin€Wilson,€and€Anthony€Morgan,€the€four€of€whom€were€ð ðrunning€buddies.ðð€Ð e ЀÌà  àà ` àAnthony€Morgan,€Kevin€Wilson,€and€the€two€Sharkeys€testified€for€the€defendant.€Ð ç 7 ЀMorgan€testified€that€the€defendant€was€not€a€ð ðrunning€buddyðð€of€the€Sharkeys.€€He€denied€the€truthÐ Ð!   Ðof€his€prior€statement€that,€on€Saturday,€January€28,€1995,€the€defendant€was€at€the€Sharkeysðð€homeÐ ¹" ! Ðwhen€Morgan€arrived.€€Ð ¢#ò" ÐÌà  àà ` àWilson€testified€that€he,€the€two€Sharkeys,€Morgan,€and€the€defendant€were€all€in€theÐ t%Ä $ ÐPontiac€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€January€28,€1995.€€Claude€Sharkey€suggested€robbing€TGIF.€Ð ]&­!% ÐThe€defendant€and€Morgan€stayed€in€the€car,€and€Wilson€testified€that€the€defendant€stated€that€heÐ F'–"& Ðwould€having€nothing€to€do€with€the€robbery.€€Wilson€testified€that€he€and€Claude€Sharkey€had€guns.€Ð /(#' ÐHe€heard€Claude€Sharkeyððs€gun€fire€but€did€not€see€him€shoot€the€manager.€€Wilson€did€not€shootÐ )h$( Ðthe€manager€but€did€shoot€the€bartender,€although€he€claimed€he€did€so€unintentionally.€€WilsonÐ *Q%) Ðadmitted€that€his€prior€statement€was€contradictory€to€his€trial€testimony€but€maintained€that€he€wasÐ ê*:&* Ðscared€when€he€made€the€false€statements€in€his€pretrial€statement.€€Wilson€acknowledged€that€hisÐ Ó+#'+ Ðprior€statement€said€that€the€defendant€entered€TGIF€with€the€other€men,€that€the€defendant€had€aÐ ° Ðpistol,€that€the€pistol€resembled€the€one€removed€from€the€defendantððs€house,€and€that€the€defendantÐ ™é Ðand€Claude€Sharkey€told€Wilson€to€shoot€the€bartender;€however,€Wilson€testified€that€theseÐ ‚Ò Ðstatements€were€untrue€and€that€the€defendant€never€left€the€car.€€Ð k» ÐÌà  àà ` àClaushaun€Sharkey€testified€that€he€and€Claude€Sharkey,€the€defendant,€KevinÐ =  ÐWilson,€and€ð ðLittle€Anthonyðð€Morgan€had€been€together€during€the€day€and€evening€of€January€27,Ð & v Ð1995,€smoking€marijuana,€drinking,€and€playing€video€games.€€Claude€suggested€that€they€rob€TGIF.€Ð  _ ÐThe€five€of€them€traveled€to€the€location,€but€the€defendant€was€too€drunk€to€get€out€of€the€car.€Ð ø H ÐWilson,€Claude€Sharkey,€and€ð ðLittle€Anthonyðð€had€guns;€Claushaun€Sharkey€did€not.€€ClaushaunÐ á 1  ÐSharkey€acknowedged€that€his€pretrial€statement€said€that€the€defendant,€rather€than€ð ðLittleÐ Ê   ÐAnthonyðð€Morgan,€entered€TGIF€with€the€other€three€men,€but€he€attributed€the€statement€toÐ ³  Ðpressure€from€the€police.€€He€further€acknowledged€that€his€statement€claimed€that€the€defendantÐ œì  Ðstood€over€Preston€Shea€and€took€his€wallet€and€that€the€robbery€had€been€discussed€among€theÐ …Õ  Ðgroup€before€going€to€the€TGIF.€€In€his€trial€testimony,€he€denied€the€truth€of€these€statements.€€Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àà ` àClaude€Sharkey€testified€that€he€spent€time€drinking€and€smoking€marijuana€with€theÐ @ Ðother€four€men€on€January€27,€1995.€€Although€he€had€been€thinking€about€robbing€TGIF,€he€hadÐ )y Ðnot€discussed€the€idea€with€anyone€prior€to€everyone€getting€into€the€Pontiac€that€night.€€AlthoughÐ b Ðhe€was€supposed€to€be€taking€everyone€home,€he€intentionally€took€an€expressway€exit€that€led€toÐ ûK ÐTGIF.€€Once€there,€he€parked,€told€the€others€of€his€plans,€produced€a€few€ski€masks,€and€asked€whoÐ ä4 Ðwanted€to€go.€€ð ðLittle€Anthony,ðð€Wilson,€and€Claushaun€Sharkey€opted€to€go,€but€the€defendant€wasÐ Í Ðð ðtoo€drunk.ðð€€He€never€saw€the€defendant€leave€the€car.€€€Claude€Sharkey€testified€that€he€andÐ ¶ ÐWilson€entered€the€office.€€He€said,€ð ðI€went€in.€€I€asked€for€money.€€[The€victim]€gave€it€to€me,€andÐ Ÿï ÐI€still€shot€him.ðð€€He€testified€that€he€had€told€no€one€that€he€was€going€to€shoot€anyone€during€theÐ ˆØ Ðrobbery.€€Sharkey€then€testified€that€he€and€Wilson€both€shot€the€bartender.€€He€acknowedged€thatÐ qÁ Ðin€his€pretrial€statement,€he€said€that€the€defendant€came€into€TGIF€and€took€the€money€and€that€heÐ Zª Ðtestified€in€a€previous€trial€that€the€defendant€carried€a€gun.€€€He€testified€that€these€statements€wereÐ C“ Ðuntrue€and€that€he€made€them€in€consideration€of€the€stateððs€promise€to€provide€a€helpful€letter€toÐ ,| Ðthe€parole€board.€€€Ð e ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€testified€that,€although€he€spent€time€with€the€Sharkeys,€Wilson,€andÐ ç 7 ÐMorgan€on€January€27,€1995,€there€had€been€no€plan€to€commit€a€robbery.€€Although€he€thought€theyÐ Ð!   Ðwere€driving€him€home€that€night,€he€was€drunk€and€fell€asleep.€€The€Pontiac€took€the€ð ðwrong€exitððÐ ¹" ! Ðand€arrived€at€TGIF.€€When€the€robbery€plan€was€discussed€at€TGIF,€€the€group€rebuffed€his€attemptsÐ ¢#ò" Ðto€get€them€to€take€him€home.€€He€testified€that€they€told€him€to€stay€in€the€car€until€they€came€back.€Ð ‹$Û# ÐWhen€the€men€returned,€Wilson€admitted€shooting€someone.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€hadÐ t%Ä $ Ðnever€removed€his€motherððs€.32€pistol€from€their€house.€€He€claimed€his€pretrial€statement€was€theÐ ]&­!% Ðresult€of€being€scared€when€the€officers€ð ðput[]€their€hands€on€[him].ðð€€€He€testified€that,€followingÐ F'–"& Ðthe€robbery,€he€received€$200€in€ð ðhushðð€money.€€Ð /(#' ÐÌà  àà ` àBased€upon€this€evidence,€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€premeditated€first„Ð *Q%) Ðdegree€murder€and€of€two€modes€of€felony€first„degree€murder.€€The€trial€court€merged€all€verdictsÐ ê*:&* Ðinto€one€first„degree€murder€conviction€and€imposed€a€life€sentence.€€Ð Ó+#'+ Їà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€I.€€Evidence€Sufficiency.Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€his€first€issue€on€appeal,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÐ ‚Ò Ðestablish€that€the€victim€was€killed€premeditatedly€and€deliberately.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð k» Ð202(a)€(1991)€(first„degree€murder€is€an€ð ðintentional,€premeditated€and€òòdeliberateóó€killing€ofÐ T¤ Ðanotherðð)€(emphasis€added)€(amended,€Acts€1995,€ch.€460€(effective€July€1,€1995)).€€Ð =  ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€courtððsÐ  _ Ðstandard€of€review€is€whether,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ ø H Ðprosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÐ á 1  Ða€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,Ð Ê   Ð2791„92€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985).€€This€rule€applies€to€findings€ofÐ ³  Ðguilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€andÐ œì  Ðcircumstantial€evidence.€òò€State€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),òò€overruledÐ …Õ  Ðon€other€grounds€by€State€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1€(Tenn.€2000).€€In€determining€the€sufficiency€ofÐ n¾  Ðthe€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€òò€State€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2dÐ W§  Ð776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weightÐ @ Ðand€value€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trierÐ )y Ðof€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€court€does€not€substitute€itsÐ b Ðinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,Ð ûK Ð305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956);€òòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€Ð ä4 ÐOn€the€contrary,€this€court€must€afford€the€state€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidenceÐ Í Ðcontained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€fromÐ ¶ Ðthe€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.Ð Ÿï ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€time€of€the€offense€in€question,€January€28,€1995,€the€premeditated€form€ofÐ qÁ Ðfirst„degree€murder€was€defined€as€the€ð ðintentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another.ðð€Ð Zª ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„202(a)€(1991)€(amended,€Acts€1995,€ch.€460€(effective€July€1,€1995)).€Ð C“ ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒThe€element€of€premeditation€requires€a€previously€formed€design€orÐ e Ðintent€to€kill.€€Deliberation,€on€the€other€hand,€requires€that€the€killingÐ þN Ðbe€done€with€a€cool€purpose€„€„€in€other€words,€that€the€killer€be€freeÐ ç 7 Ðfrom€the€passions€of€the€moment.€€Moreover,€as€indicated€in€ourÐ Ð!   Ðrecent€opinion€in€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€[836€S.W.2d€530,€543€(Tenn.Ð ¹" ! Ð1992),]€the€fact€that€ð ðpremeditation€can€be€formed€in€an€instantðð€mustÐ ¢#ò" Ðbe€viewed€in€contrast€to€the€element€of€deliberation,€which€obviouslyÐ ‹$Û# Ðcannot€be€formed€ð ðinstantaneously.ðð€€€While€it€remains€true€that€noÐ t%Ä $ Ðspecific€length€of€time€is€required€for€the€formation€of€a€cool,Ð ]&­!% Ðdispassionate€intent€to€kill,€òòBrownóó€requires€more€than€aÐ F'–"& Ðð ðsplit-secondðð€of€reflection€in€order€to€satisfy€the€elements€ofÐ /(#' Ðpremeditation€and€deliberation.€Ð )h$( ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒòòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992)€(citations€omitted).Ð ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ Ðà  àà ` àIn€bidding€to€overturn€his€premeditated€murder€conviction,€the€defendant€argues€inÐ ° Ðhis€brief€that€ð ð[t]here€is€simply€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€premeditation,€deliberation€orÐ ™é Ðintent€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€to€commit€the€offense€of€[p]remeditated€[f]irst€[d]egree€[m]urder.Ð ‚Ò Ð.€.€.€[T]here€is€no€evidence€.€.€.€that€[the€defendant]€fired€a€gun€or€even€had€one€with€him.ðð€€As€such,Ð k» Ðthe€defendantððs€argument€fails€to€account€for€a€statutory€complicity€theory€of€the€defendantððsÐ T¤ Ðvicarious€liability€for€the€premeditated€homicide€of€the€victim.€€ð ðA€person€is€criminally€responsibleÐ =  Ðfor€an€offense€committed€by€the€conduct€of€another€if€.€.€.€[a]cting€with€intent€to€promote€or€assistÐ & v Ðthe€commission€of€the€offense,€or€to€benefit€in€the€proceeds€or€results€of€the€offense,€the€personÐ  _ Ðsolicits,€directs,€aids,€or€attempts€to€aid€another€person€to€commit€the€offense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ø H Ððð€39„11„402€(2003).€€If€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€show€that€the€active€perpetrator€premeditatedlyÐ á 1  Ðand€deliberately€killed€the€victim€and€that€the€defendant€was€criminally€responsible€for€his€actÐ Ê   Ðpursuant€to€Code€section€39„11„402,€then€that€evidence€establishes€the€defendantððs€guilt€ofÐ ³  Ðpremeditated€murder.€€òòSee€State€v.€Berryóó,€141€S.W.3d€549,€565€(Tenn.€2004)€(ð ðA€person€foundÐ œì  Ðcriminally€responsible€for€an€offense€committed€by€another€is€guilty€to€the€same€degree€as€theÐ …Õ  Ðprincipal€offender.ðð).€€Indeed,€our€supreme€court,€in€the€defendantððs€appeal€from€his€original€juryÐ n¾  Ðconviction€of€premeditated€first„degree€murder,€held€ð ðthat€the€natural€and€probable€consequencesÐ W§  Ðrule€can€be€used€to€sustain€a€defendantððs€conviction€for€first-degree€premeditated€murder€based€uponÐ @ Ðcriminal€responsibility€for€the€conduct€of€a€co-defendant.ðð€€òòState€v.€Howardóó,€30€S.W.3d€271,€273Ð )y Ð(Tenn.€2000).Ð b ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€intentional,€premeditated,€and€deliberate€nature€of€Claude€Sharkeyððs€actions€inÐ ä4 Ðshooting€the€victim€are€best€illustrated€by€his€own€testimony:€ð ðI€asked€for€the€money.€€[The€victim]Ð Í Ðgave€it€to€me,€and€I€still€shot€him.ðð€€òòSee€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€147€(although€ð ðdispassionate€intent€toÐ ¶ Ðkill€.€.€.€€requires€more€than€a€ððsplit-secondðð€of€reflection,ðð€€no€specific€length€of€time€is€required€forÐ Ÿï Ðthe€formation€of€a€ð ðcool,€dispassionate€intent€to€killðð).€€Sharkey€procured€a€firearm€and€used€it€to€killÐ ˆØ Ðan€unarmed,€subdued€victim.€€òòSee€State€v.€Bland,€óó958€S.W.2d€651,€660€(Tenn.€1997)€(procurementÐ qÁ Ðof€weapon€and€use€of€deadly€weapon€upon€unarmed€victim€mentioned€as€circumstantial€indicia€ofÐ Zª Ðpremeditation).€€€Claude€Sharkey,€who€testified€that€the€robbery€of€the€TGIF€was€his€idea,€evincedÐ C“ Ðcalmness€immediately€after€the€murder€by€returning€to€his€house€and€playing€video€games€with€hisÐ ,| Ðfriends.€òòSee€id.óó€(a€defendantððs€calmness€after€a€homicide€may€reflect€that€the€act€was€doneÐ e Ðpremeditatedly).€€Also€significant€as€a€reflection€upon€Sharkeyððs€murderous€intent€is€his€testimonyÐ þN Ðthat,€as€he€was€leaving€TGIF,€he€along€with€Wilson€fired€shots€into€a€prone€Preston€Shea.€€Thus,€weÐ ç 7 Ðare€able€upon€our€review€of€the€evidence€to€discern€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Claude€SharkeyÐ Ð!   Ðpremeditatedly€and€deliberately€killed€Mr.€Frieling.€€Ð ¹" ! ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€next€issue€is€whether€the€defendant€is€guilty€via€a€theory€of€criminalÐ ‹$Û# Ðresponsibility.€€Although€the€defendant,€Wilson,€and€the€Sharkeys€testified€that€the€defendant€neverÐ t%Ä $ Ðleft€the€car€during€the€robbery,€the€jury€heard€eyewitness€testimony€that€four€intruders€wereÐ ]&­!% Ðinvolved.€€The€defendantððs€pretrial€statement,€admitted€as€evidence€against€him,€articulates€that€theÐ F'–"& Ðfour€persons€who€went€to€TGIF€that€night€were€Wilson,€the€two€Sharkeys,€and€himself.€€Moreover,Ð /(#' Ðin€his€statement,€the€defendant€said€that€the€robbery€was€discussed€among€the€men€and€that€the€gunsÐ )h$( Ðwere€present€in€the€car€before€they€arrived€at€TGIF.€€The€defendant€stated€that,€after€parking€the€car,Ð *Q%) Ðð ðòòwe€óówent€on€and€òòwalked€up€thereóó.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€He€stated€that€he€stayed€in€the€back.€€In€hisÐ ê*:&* Ðstatement,€he€neither€admitted€nor€denied€that€he€possessed€a€weapon.€€He€admitted€that€after€theÐ Ó+#'+ Ðrobbery,€€he€returned€to€the€Sharkeysðð€house€and€€received€$200€from€the€TGIF€money,€although€aÐ ° Ðtotal€of€approximately€$5,400€was€stolen.€€Ð ™é ÐÌà  àà ` àTo€be€sure,€the€defendant€offered€evidence€that€he€was€either€unaware€of€or€a€non„Ð k» Ðparticipant€in€the€robbery€and€resulting€crimes,€but€the€jury,€within€its€province€as€trier€of€fact€andÐ T¤ Ðfinal€arbiter€of€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€to€be€assigned€to€their€testimony,€was€freeÐ =  Ðto€reject€the€in„court€claims€of€the€Sharkeys,€Wilson,€and€the€defendant.€€Indeed,€from€the€recordÐ & v Ðbefore€us,€impeachment€of€the€Sharkeys€and€Wilson€via€their€prior€inconsistent€statements,€òòseeóó€Tenn.Ð  _ ÐR.€Evid.€613(b),€was€palpable.€€Likewise,€the€jury€was€free€to€accredit€the€defendantððs€pretrialÐ ø H Ðstatement€that€he€was€the€fourth€intruder€at€TGIF€on€January€28,€1995.€€As€such,€in€the€light€mostÐ á 1  Ðfavorable€to€the€state,€this€evidence€evinces€the€defendantððs€intent€to€promote€or€assist€theÐ Ê   Ðcommission€of€the€robbery,€the€target€crime,€and€that€he€aided€or€attempted€to€aid€the€others€inÐ ³  Ðcommitting€the€robbery.€€Based€upon€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€on€criminal€responsibility€for€theÐ œì  Ðconduct€of€another,€including€instructions€on€the€necessity€of€a€finding€that€the€resulting€crime€wasÐ …Õ  Ða€natural€and€probable€consequence€of€the€target€crime,€the€jury€obviously€accredited€the€evidenceÐ n¾  Ðinculpating€the€defendant€and€found€that€the€homicide€was€a€natural€and€probable€consequence€ofÐ W§  Ðthe€robbery.€€The€evidence€supports€such€findings.€€The€defendantððs€conviction€of€premeditated€first„Ð @ Ðdegree€murder€is€affirmed.€Ð )y ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ à€€€€€II.€€Violation€of€Right€of€Confrontation.Ð ûK ÐÌà  àà ` àBased€upon€òòBrutonóó€òòv.€United€Statesóó,€391€U.S.€123,€88€S.€Ct.€1620€(1968),€theÐ Í Ðdefendant€challenges€as€plain€error€the€propriety€of€a€police€officerððs€testimony€about€KevinÐ ¶ ÐWilsonððs€pretrial€statement.€€In€òòBrutonóó,€the€Supreme€Court€established€that€a€defendantððsÐ Ÿï Ðconstitutional€right€to€confront€witnesses€is€violated€when€a€co„defendantððs€pretrial€statement€whichÐ ˆØ Ðincriminates€the€defendant€is€introduced€at€a€joint€trial.€€òòIdóó.€at€126,€88€S.€Ct.€at€1622.Ð qÁ ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€the€officer€in€this€case€testified€about€the€interrogation€of€the€defendant,€whichÐ C“ Ðled€to€a€written,€inculpatory€statement,€the€officer€mentioned€that€the€defendantððs€statement€wasÐ ,| Ðprompted€by€telling€the€defendant€that€Wilson€had€given€a€statement€implicating€the€defendant.€€TheÐ e Ðofficer€then€testified€that€the€defendant€asked€to€see€Wilsonððs€statement.€€The€court€allowed€theÐ þN Ðofficer€to€read€portions€of€Wilsonððs€statement€in€which€Wilson€implicated€the€defendant€in€theÐ ç 7 Ðcrimes.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€Wilsonððs€statement€should€not€be€used€to€determineÐ Ð!   Ðthe€truth€of€Wilsonððs€accusation€of€the€defendant;€rather,€it€could€be€used€to€ð ðdemonstrate€whatÐ ¹" ! Ðactions€were€taken€by€this€officer€to€satisfy€the€questions€of€this€defendant.ððÐ ¢#ò" ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€now€argues€that€this€procedure€violated€his€right€to€confront€WilsonÐ t%Ä $ Ðas€a€witness€against€him.€€He€asks€this€court€to€address€the€issue€by€noticing€plain€error€because,€atÐ ]&­!% Ðtrial,€he€failed€to€object€to€the€introduction€of€Wilsonððs€statement€until€after€a€substantial€portion€ofÐ F'–"& Ðthe€statement€had€already€been€admitted€into€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a)€(error€may€notÐ /(#' Ðbe€predicated€upon€a€ruling€admitting€evidence€unless€a€substantial€right€of€the€party€is€affected€andÐ )h$( Ðð ðtimely€objection€or€motion€to€strike€appears€of€recordðð).€€Ð *Q%) Ðâ âÐ ê*:&* ÐѲÏÑâ âÑTRXì3Ø'LetterXà3Ø' Letter3Ø'Letterthe€parole€board.€€€Ð e ÐÌà  àà ÿ3Ø'LetterTÑâ âÑ  Ñà  àà ` àThe€state€advances€the€arguments€that€theòòóó€claim€is€indeed€waived€because€of€the€lackÐ ° Ðâ âof€a€timely€objection€and€that,€in€any€event,€òòBrutonóó€òòóówas€not€violated€where€the€extrajudicialÐ ™é Ðstatement€was€not€offered€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€therein€asserted.€€The€state€cites€as€theÐ ‚Ò Ðpurpose€of€admitting€Wilsonððs€statement€the€objective€of€demonstrating€what€prompted€theÐ k» Ðdefendantððs€own€statement.€€Adding€interest€to€the€issue€is€the€defendantððs€calling€as€trial€witnessesÐ T¤ Ðnot€only€Wilson,€but€also€Morgan€and€the€two€Sharkeys.€€In€his€appellate€brief,€the€defendant€claimsÐ =  Ðthat€he€was€forced€to€call€Wilson€as€a€witness€after€the€trial€court€admitted€Wilsonððs€statement€in€theÐ & v Ðstateððs€case„in„chief.Ð  _ ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€noted,€the€defendant€did€not€timely€object€to€the€introduction€of€WilsonððsÐ á 1  Ðstatement;€however,€Tennessee€Rule€of€€Criminal€€Procedure€52(b)€authorizes€the€appellate€courtÐ Ê   Ðto€notice€at€any€time€an€error€affecting€the€defendantððs€substantial€rights,€though€not€properly€raisedÐ ³  Ðon€appeal,€in€the€discretion€of€the€appellate€court€ð ðwhere€necessary€to€do€substantial€justice.ðð€òò€SeeóóÐ œì  ÐòòState€v.€Brooksóó,€909€S.W.2d€854,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€€App.€1995)€(double€jeopardy€issue€recognizedÐ …Õ  Ðas€plain€error€even€though€technically€waived€by€procedural€default);€òòState€v.€Thomas€J.€Faulkner,Ð n¾  ÐJr.óó,€òò€óóNo.€E2000-00309-CCA-R3-CD,€slip€op.€at€11„13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Apr.€17,€2001)òòóóÐ W§  Ð(appellate€court€declines€to€notice€òòBrutonóó€claims€as€plain€òòóóerror),€òòperm.€app.€denied€óó(Tenn.€2001).€€Ð @ ÐThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€adopted€€standards€for€evaluating€whether€an€alleged€error€isÐ )y Ðproper€for€notice€as€plain€error:Ð b ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Ò(a)€the€record€must€clearly€establish€what€occurred€in€the€trial€court;Ð ä4 ÐÌ(b)€a€clear€and€unequivocal€rule€of€law€must€have€been€breached;Ð ¶ ÐÌ(c)€a€substantial€right€of€the€accused€must€have€been€adverselyÐ ˆØ Ðaffected;Ð qÁ ÐÌ(d)€the€accused€did€not€waive€the€issue€for€tactical€reasons;€andÐ C“ ÐÌ(e)€consideration€of€the€error€is€ð ðnecessary€to€do€substantial€justice.ððÐ e ЀÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒòòState€v.€Smithóó,€24€S.W.3d€274,€282-83€(Tenn.€2000)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Adkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626,€Ð ç 7 Ð641-42€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)).€€€In€òòSmithóó,€the€supreme€court€emphasized€that€ð ðall€five€factorsÐ Ð!   Ðmust€be€established€by€the€record€before€this€Court€will€recognize€the€existence€of€plain€error,€andÐ ¹" ! Ðcomplete€consideration€of€all€the€factors€is€not€necessary€when€it€is€clear€from€the€record€that€at€leastÐ ¢#ò" Ðone€of€the€factors€cannot€be€established.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€283.Ð ‹$Û# Ðà  àà ` àThe€law€has€long€recognized€that€ð ðthe€right€of€cross„examination€is€included€in€theÐ t%Ä $ Ð[Sixth€Amendment]€right€of€an€accused€in€a€criminal€case€to€confront€the€witnesses€against€him.ðð€Ð ]&­!% ÐòòPointer€v.€Texasóó,€380€U.S.€400,€404,€85€S.€Ct.€1065,€1069€(1965).€€Thus,€in€òòBrutonóó,€the€High€CourtÐ F'–"& Ðheld€that,€in€a€joint€trial€where€a€co„defendant€does€not€„„€and€cannot€be€compelled€to€„„€testify,€theÐ /(#' Ðprosecutionððs€introduction€of€the€co„defendantððs€extrajudicial€statement€which€incriminates€theÐ )h$( Ðdefendant€violates€the€defendantððs€ð ðright€of€cross„examination€secured€by€the€Confrontation€ClauseÐ *Q%) Ðâ âof€the€Sixth€Amendment.ðð€€òòBrutonóó,€391€U.S.€at€126,€88€S.€Ct.€at€1622.€€The€òòBrutonóó€Court€foundÐ ê*:&* ÐÑ²Ï Ñâ âÑTRXì3Ø'LetterXì3Ø'Letter3Ø'Letterthe€parole€board.€€€Ð e ÐÌà  àà 3Ø'Letterthe€parole€board.€€€Ð e ÐÌà  àà TÑâ âÑ  Ñconstitutional€error€despite€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€to€the€jury€not€to€consider€the€co„defendantððsÐ ° Ðstatement€in€determining€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€defendant.€€òòId.€óóat€136,€88€S.€Ct.€at€1628.€€Ð ™é Ðâ âà  àÐ ‚Ò Ðà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€we€are€underwhelmed€by€the€stateððs€asserted€justification€forÐ k» Ðintroducing€Wilsonððs€statement,€which€was€that€the€state€wished€to€explain€the€officerððs€actions€inÐ T¤ Ðeliciting€the€defendantððs€pretrial€statement.€€We€fail€to€see€the€materiality€and€relevance€ofÐ =  Ðexplaining€the€officerððs€actions€to€the€point€of€revealing€the€details€of€Wilsonððs€statement.€€òòSee€óóTenn.Ð & v ÐR.€Evid.€402€(ð ðEvidence€which€is€not€relevant€is€not€admissible.ðð).€€At€any€rate,€assuming€thatÐ  _ ÐWilsonððs€confession€engendering€the€defendantððs€pretrial€statement€was€a€relevant€and€material€fact,Ð ø H Ðit€had€been€established€by€the€officerððs€testimony€to€that€effect;€there€was€no€apparent€need€to€delveÐ á 1  Ðinto€the€substance€of€the€statement.€€òòSee€id.€óó403€(relevant€evidence€may€be€excluded€when€theÐ Ê   Ðð ðprobative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€theÐ ³  Ðissues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needlessÐ œì  Ðpresentation€of€cumulative€evidenceðð).׃ ×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òó óÐ …Õ  ÐÌà  àà ` àThus,€having€rejected€an€ð ðother€purposeðð€rationale€for€admitting€WilsonððsÐ W§  Ðextradjudicial€statement,€we€move€to€a€Confrontation€Clause€analysis€of€the€issue.€€In€òòCrawford€v.Ð @ ÐWashingtonóó,€541€U.S.€___,€124€S.€Ct.€1354€(2004),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held,€ð ðWhereÐ )y Ðtestimonial€evidence[,€such€as€statements€resulting€from€police€interrogation,]€is€at€issue,€.€.€.€theÐ b ÐSixth€Amendment€demands€what€the€common€law€required:€€unavailability€and€a€prior€opportunityÐ ûK Ðfor€cross„examination.ðð€€òòId.€óóat€___,€124€S.€Ct.€at€1374.ò òó ó׃"  ×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Thus,€our€analysis€is€directed€by€the€twoÐ ä4 Ðelements€required€for€admitting€against€a€defendant€in€a€criminal€trial€a€police€interrogativeÐ Í Ðstatement:€(1)€that€the€extrajudicial€declarant€was€unavailable€at€the€time€of€trial,€and€(2)€that€theÐ ¶ Ðdefendant€on€trial€had€a€prior€opportunity€to€cross„examine€the€declarant.€€Ð Ÿï ÐÐ ˆØ ÐòòÓ  Óa.€€Unavailabilityóó.Ð ° ÐÓ›™ÓÌ€€à0  àà0` (#(#àIn€the€present€case,€Wilson€was€obviously€physically€available;€he€appeared€at€trialЂÒ` (#` (# Ðand€testified€on€behalf€of€the€defendant.€€The€question€that€arises€is€whether€he€was€renderedÐ k» Ðunavailable€because€of€the€possibility€that€he€might€assert€his€privilege€against€self„incrimination.€Ð T¤ ÐòòSee€óóU.S.€Const.€amend.€V;€òòBreeden€v.€Independent€Fire€Ins.€Co.óó,€530€S.W.2d€769,€775€(Tenn.€1975)Ð =  Ð(for€purposes€of€applying€the€hearsay€rule€exception€for€statements€made€against€pecuniary€or€penalÐ & v Ðinterests,€court€ruled€that€an€extrajudicial€declarant€is€unavailable€who€ð ðis€present€in€court€andÐ  _ Ðrefuses€to€testify€on€the€ground€of€self„incriminationðð).€€€We€know€that,€in€the€classic€òòBrutonóóÐ ø H Ðscenario,€the€co„defendant/declarant€is€unavailable€because€he€is€a€defendant€in€a€joint€trial,€aÐ á 1  Ðcircumstance€whereby€the€state€is€forbidden€to€force€him€to€testify.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Schmerber€v.Ð Ê   ÐCaliforniaóó,€384€U.S.€757,€761,€86€S.€Ct.€1826€(1966)€(stating€that€the€Fifth€Amendment€privilegeÐ ³  Ðagainst€self-incrimination€under€our€United€States€Constitution€ð ðprotects€an€accused€only€from€beingÐ œì  Ðcompelled€to€testify€against€himself,€or€otherwise€provide€the€State€with€evidence€of€a€testimonialÐ …Õ  Ðor€communicative€natureðð);€òòState€v.€McAlisteróó,€751€S.W.2d€436,€440€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòseeÐ n¾  Ðalso€State€v.€Gilbertóó,€751€S.W.2d€454,€463€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)€(defendant€electing€to€testifyÐ W§  Ðin€support€of€his€defense€and€taking€the€witness€stand€€waives€his€ð ðconstitutional€rights,€federal€andÐ @ Ðstate,€against€self€incrimination€as€to€matters€which€were€relevant,€material€and€germane€to€the€issuesÐ )y Ðwhich€the€jury€would€be€required€to€resolveðð).Ð b ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€state€could€have€compelled€Wilson€to€take€the€witness€stand.€Ð ä4 ÐòòSee€State€v.€Dooleyóó,€29€S.W.3d€542,€551€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000)€(witness€who€is€not€criminalÐ Í Ðdefendant€may€not€assert€privilege€against€self„incrimination€to€defeat€compulsory€process€to€testifyÐ ¶ Ðbut€is€relegated€to€asserting€the€privilege€in€response€to€specific€questions).€€Had€he€testified€for€theÐ Ÿï Ðstate,€Wilson€would€not€have€enjoyed€the€privilege€against€self„incrimination€with€respect€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðhomicide€on€trial€because,€according€to€his€testimony,€he€had€been€convicted€of€first„degree€murderÐ qÁ Ðin€the€killing€of€Mr.€Frieling.€€€It€also€appears€that€his€conviction€was€the€result€of€a€guilty€plea.€€òòSeeÐ Zª ÐHowardóó,€30€S.W.3d€at€275€n.5.€€The€upshot€is€that,€having€been€finally€convicted€of€the€murder,€heÐ C“ Ðapparently€had€no€basis€for€a€claim€of€privilege€against€self„incrimination.€€òòSee€State€v.€Baroneóó,€€329Ð ,| ÐOr.€210,€986€P.2d€5,€20„21€(Or.€1999).Ð e ÐÌà  àà ` àMoreover,€the€burden€of€showing€the€unavailability€of€a€witness€typically€rests€uponÐ ç 7 Ðthe€proponent€of€the€witness€„„€in€this€case,€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€James€Roy€McCoy,€óóNo.€01-C„01„Ð Ð!   Ð9103„CR„00090€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Nov.€21,€1991).€€All€in€all,€the€record€fails€toÐ ¹" ! Ðestablish€that€Wilson€was€unavailable,€and€as€such,€the€stateððs€use€of€his€statement€accusing€theÐ ¢#ò" Ðdefendant€of€the€crimes€on€trial€was€òòa€priorióó€a€violation€of€the€defendantððs€Sixth€Amendment€rights.Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌòòÓ  Ób.€€Cross„examination€opportunityóó.€€Ð ]&­!% ÐÓø¨ÓÌà  àà ` àIn€òòCrawfordóó,€the€Supreme€Court€said€that€the€use€of€extrajudicial,€testimonialÐ /(#' Ðstatements,€is€dependent€not€only€upon€the€unavailability€of€the€declarant,€but€also€upon€theÐ )h$( Ðexistence€of€ð ða€òòprioróó€opportunity€for€cross„examination.ðð€€òòCrawfordóó,€541€U.S.€at€___,€124€S.€Ct.€atÐ *Q%) Ð1374€(emphasis€added).€€Despite€the€requirement€of€a€ð ðpriorðð€opportunity€to€cross„examine,€weÐ ê*:&* Ðrecognize€that,€for€nearly€as€long€as€òòBrutonóó€has€been€on€the€books,€òòóóthe€declarantððs€ultimate€liveÐ Ó+#'+ Ðtestimony€in€the€case€on€trial€cures€any€possible€Sixth€Amendment€violation.€€òòSee€generally€NelsonÐ ° Ðv.€OððNeilóó,€402€U.S.€622,€91€S.€Ct.€1723€(1971).Ð ™é ÐÌà  àà ` àòòóóInòò€OððNeilóó,€òòóóa€federal€òòhabeas€corpusóó€action,€the€petitioner€had€been€tried€jointly€withÐ k» Ða€co„defendant€whose€extrajudicial€confession€was€introduced€by€a€police€officer.€€The€confessionÐ T¤ Ðincriminated€the€petitioner.€€òòId.óó€at€623„25,€91€S.€Ct.€at€1724„25.€€After€the€state€closed€its€case„in„Ð =  Ðchief€at€trial,€the€co„defendant€testified€in€his€own€defense;€he€denied€making€the€extrajudicialÐ & v Ðstatement€and€denied€the€truth€of€the€matters€asserted€therein.€€òòId.óó€at€625,€91€S.€Ct.€at€1725.€€InÐ  _ Ðrejecting€the€petitionerððs€bid€to€overturn€his€conviction€based€upon€òòBrutonóó,€the€Court€held€thatÐ ø H Ðð ðwhere€a€codefendant€takes€the€stand€in€his€own€defense,€denies€making€an€alleged€out„of„courtÐ á 1  Ðstatement€implicating€the€defendant,€and€proceeds€to€testify€favorably€to€the€defendant€concerningÐ Ê   Ðthe€underlying€facts,€the€defendant€has€been€denied€no€rights€protected€by€the€Sixth€and€FourteenthÐ ³  ÐAmendments.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€629„30,€91€S.€Ct.€at€1727.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòMcCracken€v.€Stateóó,€548€S.W.2d€340òò,€óó343òòÐ œì  Ðóó(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976)€(òòBruton€óóð ðnot€applicable€when€the€confessing€defendant€testifies€and€theÐ …Õ  Ðnon-confessing€defendant€has€an€opportunity€to€cross-examine€himðð);€òòState€v.€Eakins,óó€776€S.W.2dÐ n¾  Ð134,€135€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)€(òòBruton€óóð ðapplicable€only€to€joint€trials€in€which€there€is€admittedÐ W§  Ðinto€evidence€a€non-testifying€co-defendantððs€confession€inculpating€the€defendantðð).€€Ð @ ÐÌòòà  àà ` àOððNeilóó€demonstrates€that€the€appellate€courts€should€evaluate€the€confrontationÐ b Ðproblem€from€a€perspective€of€the€entire€trial,€viewing€what€transpired€after€the€extrajudicialÐ ûK Ðstatement€was€introduced€and€not€merely€analyzing€the€introduction€of€the€statement€in€isolation.€Ð ä4 ÐIn€òòOððNeilóó,€the€state€had€closed€its€case„in„chief,€and€although€OððNeil€had€no€power€to€command€hisÐ Í Ðco„defendant€to€testify,€his€cross„examination€and€confrontation€interests€were€nevertheless€servedÐ ¶ Ðby€the€co„defendant€ultimately€taking€the€stand€and€denying€the€truth€of€the€statement€attributed€toÐ Ÿï Ðhim,€coupled€with€OððNeilððs€opportunity€to€cross„examine€the€co„defendant.€The€co„defendantððsÐ ˆØ Ðtestimony€as€described€above€removed€his€privilege€against€self„incrimination€as€a€bar€to€OððNeilððsÐ qÁ Ðcross„examination€of€him€and€allowed€him€to€be€cross„examined€by€OððNeil.€€Ð Zª ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€same€is€true€in€the€present€case.€€Even€though€the€state€had€closed€its€case„in„Ð ,| Ðchief€that€included€evidence€that€might€have€flowered€into€a€òòBrutonóó€violation,€the€defendant€calledÐ e Ðand€questioned€the€obviously€available€Wilson,€as€well€as€Morgan€and€the€two€Sharkeys.€€On€directÐ þN Ðexamination,€Wilson€(and€the€Sharkeys)€testified€favorably€to€the€defendant€and€maintained€that€theÐ ç 7 Ðdefendant€did€not€join€in€the€scheme€to€rob€TGIF.€€Although€Wilson€generally€admitted€making€theÐ Ð!   Ðpretrial€statement€that€had€placed€the€defendant€inside€TGIF€during€the€robbery€and€assaults,€heÐ ¹" ! Ðdenied€the€truth€of€the€statement.€The€defendant€attempted€to€buttress€Wilsonððs€trial€testimony€withÐ ¢#ò" Ðthe€strikingly€similar€testimony€of€the€Sharkeys.€€Based€upon€òòOððNeilóó,€the€defendantððs€interest€inÐ ‹$Û# Ðconfronting€Wilson,€as€the€author€of€the€complained„of€pretrial€statement,€was€to€elicit€testimonyÐ t%Ä $ Ðfavorable€to€the€defendant€and€in€contradiction€of€the€extrajudicial€statement.€€Ð ]&­!% ÐòòóóÌòòóóà  àà ` àThus,€based€upon€òòOððNeilóó,€we€hold€that€the€defendantððs€calling€and€use€of€Wilson€asÐ /(#' Ða€favorable€witness€cured€the€pending€Sixth€Amendment€violation.€€Alternatively,€the€admission€ofÐ )h$( ÐWilsonððs€statement€was€harmless€error€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€òò€See€óóTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a);€Ð *Q%) ÐòòCruz€v.€New€York,óó€481€U.S.€186,€193,€107€S.€Ct.€1714,€1719€(1987)€(confrontation€violation€subjectÐ ê*:&* Ðto€harmless„error€analysis).€€Wilson€and€the€Sharkeys€testified€and€variously€denied€making€portionsÐ Ó+#'+ ÐÑ²Ï Ñâ âÑTRXì3Ø'LetterXì3Ø'Letter3Ø'Letteroted,€the€defendant€did€not€timely€object€to€the€introduct3Ø'Letterthe€parole€board.€€€Ð e ÐÌà  àà TÑâ âÑ  Ñof€their€respective€statements€and/or€advanced€the€claim€that€Morgan€was€the€fourth€intruder€inÐ ° ÐTGIF,€not€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€affirmatively€chose€to€insert€this€testimony€as€substantiveÐ ™é Ðevidence€of€his€innocence.׃#×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò ò€ó ó€In€this€situation,€the€use€of€Wilsonððs€pretrial€statement€in€the€stateððsÐ ‚Ò Ðcase„in„chief€constitutes€harmless€error€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€As€such,€we€decline€to€noticeÐ n¾ Ðplain€error.Ð W§ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€passing,€we€are€unpersuaded€by€the€defendantððs€claim€in€his€appellate€brief€thatÐ ) y Ðhe€was€compelled€to€call€Wilson€and€the€Sharkeys€to€testify€because€the€trial€court€had€erroneouslyÐ  b Ðadmitted€Wilsonððs€statement.€€òòSee€State€v.€Kerleyóó,€820€S.W.2d€753,€757€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)Ð û K Ð(ð ðconclusory€statements€made€by€counsel€in€petitionerððs€brief€are€not€evidenceðð).€€Even€though€theÐ ä 4  Ðtactic€to€call€these€witnesses€may€have€been€disastrous,€the€witnesses€were€called€amidst€the€òòBruton„Ð Í   ÐOððNeilóó€legal€context€above€described.€€The€officerððs€testimony€would€not€be€reviewed€in€isolation,Ð ¶  Ðand€regardless€of€the€defendantððs€motive€for€calling€the€witnesses,€the€substance€and€effect€ofÐ Ÿï  ÐWilsonððs€live€testimony,€in€particular,€was€destined€to€contribute€to€the€òòBruton€óóanalysis.€€AgainstÐ ˆØ  Ðthis€context,€the€defendantððs€motive€for€calling€Wilson€and€the€Sharkeys€is€not€dispositive.€€At€anyÐ qÁ  Ðrate,€the€record€does€not€establish€the€motive€for€calling€Wilson€as€a€defense€witness.Ð Zª  ÐÌÓ  Ó€€à @ àà @` àà @¸ à€€€III.€€Principles€of€Double€Jeopardy€As€a€Bar€to€RetrialÐ ,| ÐÓ±ÇÓÓ  Óof€the€Counts€of€Felony€Murder.Ð e ÐÓBÈÓÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€claims€that€principles€of€double€jeopardy€bar€his€retrial€for€andÐ ç7 Ðconvictions€of€felony€murder.€€In€the€defendantððs€original€trial,€he€was€indicted€on€three€differentÐ Ð  Ðcounts€of€first„degree€murder€for€the€killing€of€Mr.€Frieling:€€premeditated€murder€in€the€first€count,Ð ¹  Ðfelony€murder€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€a€robbery€in€the€second€count,€and€felony€murderÐ ¢ò Ðin€the€perpetration€of€burglary€in€the€third€count.€€He€was€also€charged€with€especially€aggravatedÐ ‹Û Ðrobbery€and€conspiracy€to€commit€aggravated€robbery.€òò€See€generally€Howardóó,€30€S.W.3d€271.€€€òòóóÐ tÄ ÐIn€òòHowardóó,€the€supreme€court€explained€the€trial€courtððs€treatment€of€the€homicide€charges€in€theÐ ]­ Ðoriginal€trial:Ð F– ÐÐ / ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òòòóóà ¸ àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€evidence,€with€regard€to€the€countsÐ h Ðof€premeditated€murder€and€felony€murder,€the€court€instructed€theÐ  Q Ðjury€to€consider€the€charges€in€the€following€sequence:€(1)Ð ê : Ðfirst-degree€premeditated€murder;€€(2)€first-degree€murder€during€theÐ Ó!#  Ðperpetration€of€a€robbery;€(3)€first-degree€murder€during€theÐ ¼" ! Ðperpetration€of€a€burglary;€(4)€facilitation€of€first-degree€premeditatedÐ ¥#õ" Ðmurder;€(5)€facilitation€of€first-degree€murder€during€the€perpetrationÐ Ž$Þ# Ðof€robbery;€€and€(6)€facilitation€of€first-degree€murder€during€theÐ w%Ç $ Ðperpetration€of€burglary.€€The€court€instructed€the€jury€that€after€itÐ `&°!% Ðreached€a€verdict€with€regard€to€first-degree€murder€on€any€of€theÐ I'™"& Ðabove€theories,€it€should€proceed€directly€to€deliberate€on€theÐ 2(‚#' Ðremaining€charges€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€and€conspiracy.€Ð )k$( ÐÑ²Ï Ñâ âÑTRXì3Ø'LetterXì3Ø'Letter3Ø'Letterpp.€1988)€(defendant€electing€to€testifyÐ W§  3Ø'Letteroted,€the€defendant€did€not€timely€object€to€the€introductTÑâ âÑ  ÑThus,€if€the€jury€convicted€Howard€of€premeditated€first-degreeÐ ° Ðmurder,€they€were€not€to€consider€felony€murder€or€facilitation€ofÐ ™é Ðfirst-degree€or€felony€murder.€.€.€.€Ð ‚Ò Ðà ¸ à.€.€.€.Ð k» Ðòòóóà ¸ àThe€jury€convicted€Howard€of€premeditated€murder,Ð T¤ Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery,€and€conspiracy€to€commit€aggravatedÐ =  Ðrobbery.€€Ð & v ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒòòId.óó€at€274„75.Ð ø H ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€remand,€despite€the€absence€of€verdicts€on€the€felony„murder€charges€in€theÐ Ê   Ðoriginal€trial,€the€defendant€was€again€tried€on€the€three€first„degree€murder€charges,€and€the€juryÐ ³  Ðin€the€second€trial€returned€guilty€verdicts€in€all€three€first„degree€murder€counts.€€Ð œì  ÐÌà  àà ` àDouble€jeopardy€principles€embodied€in€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÐ n¾  ÐConstitution€protect€defendants€from€twice€being€placed€in€jeopardy€for€the€same€offense€by€barringÐ W§  Ð(1)€a€second€prosecution€for€the€same€offense€following€acquittal,€(2)€a€second€prosecution€for€theÐ @ Ðsame€offense€after€conviction,€and€(3)€multiple€punishments€for€the€same€offense.€€òòNorth€CarolinaÐ )y Ðv.€Pearceóó,€395€U.S.€711,€717,€89€S.€Ct.€2072,€2076€(1969);€òòBenton€v.€Marylandóó,€395€U.S.€784,€89Ð b ÐS.€Ct.€2056€(1969);€òòsee€also€óóTenn.€Const.€art.€1,€ðð€10;€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373,€378€(Tenn.Ð ûK Ð1996).€€Moreover,€a€trial€proceeding€that€is€terminated€without€an€acquittal€or€conviction€may€barÐ ä4 Ða€subsequent€prosecution€for€the€same€offense.€€For€instance,€when€a€mistrial€is€declared€without€theÐ Í Ðconsent€of€the€accused€and€without€the€manifest€necessity€of€a€mistrial,€retrial€is€barred.€€òòState€v.Ð ¶ ÐSkeltonóó,€77€S.W.3d€791,€798„99€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).€€Ð Ÿï Ðà  à€€Ð ˆØ Ðà  àà ` àòòSkeltonóó€adjudicated€a€double€jeopardy€issue€very€similar€to€the€one€at€bar.€€DefendantÐ qÁ ÐSkelton€was€tried€on€charges€of€attempted€first„degree€murder€and€aggravated€assault,€the€chargesÐ Zª Ðgrowing€out€of€one€assault€committed€upon€one€victim.€€Based€upon€Skeltonððs€guilty€plea€toÐ C“ Ðaggravated€assault,€the€jury€convicted€him€of€that€offense€but€reported€that€it€had€reached€no€verdictÐ ,| Ðon€the€attempt€to€commit€first„degree€murder€charge.€€òòId.óó€at€794„95.€€Hearing€that€report,€the€trialÐ e Ðcourt€òòsua€sponteóó€discharged€the€jury.€€òòIdóó.€at€795.€€Subsequently,€the€state€sought€to€bring€theÐ þN Ðdefendant€to€trial€again€for€attempt€to€commit€first„degree€murder,€and€the€defendant€obtained€anÐ ç 7 Ðinterlocutory€appeal€to€have€the€retrial€barred€on€principles€of€double€jeopardy.€€òòId.€óóat€796.€€ThisÐ Ð!   Ðcourt€held€that€ð ðthe€termination€of€[the€original]€trial€proceedings,€without€a€finding€that€a€manifestÐ ¹" ! Ðnecessity€existed€to€do€so,€and€without€the€defendantððs€request€or€consent,€was€improper€[and€was]Ð ¢#ò" Ðan€acquittal€for€purposes€of€double€jeopardy.ðð€€òòId.€óóat€797.€€The€court€barred€Skeltonððs€retrial€forÐ ‹$Û# Ðattempt€to€commit€first„degree€murder.Ð t%Ä $ ÐÌà  àà ` àòòSkeltonóó€controls€the€present€case.€€The€defendant€suffered€the€attachment€of€jeopardyÐ F'–"& Ðon€the€charges€of€felony€murder€in€the€first€trial,€and€that€proceeding€ended€upon€the€discharge€ofÐ /(#' Ðthe€jury€without€verdicts€being€rendered.€€As€in€òòSkeltonóó,€the€defendant€had€ð ðvirtually€nothing€toÐ )h$( Ðobject€toðð€and€cannot€be€deemed€to€have€consented€to€the€termination€of€the€trial€on€the€felony„Ð *Q%) Ðâ âmurder€charges.€€òòSee€id.óó,€77€S.W.3d€at€800€(accused€must€have€ð ðrealistic€opportunity€to€object,€priorÐ ê*:&* Ðto€a€trial€courtððs€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€declaration€of€a€mistrialðð;€appellate€court€will€not€presume€a€realisticÐ ° Ðopportunity€to€object€in€the€face€of€a€record€that€inadequately€reflects€the€original€proceedings).€€Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àFurthermore,€we€discern€in€the€record€no€hint€of€a€manifest€necessity€to€discharge€theÐ k» Ðoriginal€jury€without€verdicts€on€the€felony„murder€charges.€€We€point€out€that€in€òòHowardóó,€theÐ T¤ Ðdefendantððs€appeal€from€his€original€trial,€our€supreme€court€commented€that€the€trial€court€shouldÐ =  Ðhave€allowed€the€jury€to€consider€ð ðall€theories€of€first„degree€murder.ðð€€òòHowardóó,€30€S.W.3d€at€274Ð & v Ðn.4.€€The€court€said€that€when€a€jury€returns€guilty€verdicts€on€more€than€one€theory€of€a€single€first„Ð  _ Ðdegree€murder,€the€trial€court€should€then€resolve€the€double€jeopardy€issue€by€merging€the€offensesÐ ø H Ðand€imposing€ð ða€single€judgment€of€conviction.ðð€€òòId.€óó€The€court€noted€that€such€a€procedureÐ á 1  Ðeliminates€ð ðthe€òòdouble€jeopardy€problem€óóof€retrying€a€defendant€after€a€subsequent€appellate€opinionÐ Ê   Ðreverses€[the€imposed€conviction].ðð€€òòId.óó€(emphasis€added).€€Essentially,€on€direct€appeal€from€theÐ ³  Ðoriginal€trial,€the€supreme€court€saw€no€reason€for€discharging€the€jury€without€verdicts€on€theÐ œì  Ðfelony„€murder€charges,€and€neither€do€we€see€a€reason€„„€much€less€a€necessity€„„€in€the€recordÐ …Õ  Ðbefore€us.€€€Thus,€in€the€present€case,€the€double€jeopardy€ð ðproblemðð€must€now€be€solved€byÐ n¾  Ðvacating€the€convictions€of€felony€murder€and€dismissing€those€charges.Ð W§  ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ à€€€€€€€€IV.€€Jury€Instructions.Ð )y ÐÓžéÓÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€instructing€the€jury€on€the€lesser„Ð ûK Ðincluded€offense€of€second„degree€murder.€€He€argues€that€the€court€should€have€given€the€€second„Ð ä4 Ðdegree€murder€charge€suggested€by€this€court€in€òòState€v.€Pageóó,€81€S.W.3d€781€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Í Ð2002).€€In€òòPageóó,€this€court€reversed€a€conviction€of€second„degree€murder,€a€result„of„conduct€crime,Ð ¶ Ðbecause€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€a€person€acts€knowingly€if€the€person€acts€with€merelyÐ Ÿï Ðan€awareness€that€his€conduct€is€of€a€particular€nature€or€that€particular€circumstances€exist€ratherÐ ˆØ Ðthan€instructing€that€the€person€acts€knowingly,€for€purposes€of€a€result„of„conduct€crime,€only€whenÐ qÁ Ðthe€person€is€aware€that€the€conduct€is€reasonably€certain€to€cause€the€result.€€òòId.óó€at€788.€€The€òòPageóóÐ Zª Ðcourt€suggested€the€following€jury€charge€regarding€the€offense€of€second„degree€murder:Ð C“ ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òòò€óóAny€person€who€commits€second„degree€murder€is€guilty€of€a€crime.Ð e ÐÌà ¸ àFor€you€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€this€offense,€the€stateÐ ç 7 Ðmust€have€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€theÐ Ð!   Ðfollowing€essential€elements:Ð ¹" ! ÐÌà ¸ à(1)€that€the€defendant€unlawfully€killed€the€alleged€victim;Ð ‹$Û# ÐandÐ t%Ä $ ÐÌà ¸ à(2)€that€the€defendant€acted€knowingly.Ð F'–"& ÐÌà ¸ àð ðKnowinglyðð€means€that€a€person€acts€with€an€awareness€thatÐ )h$( Ð[his][her]€conduct€is€reasonably€certain€to€cause€the€death€of€theÐ *Q%) Ðalleged€victim.Ð ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ Ðà ¸ àThe€requirement€of€ð ðknowinglyðð€is€also€established€if€it€isÐ ° Ðshown€that€the€defendant€acted€ð ðintentionally.ððÐ ™é ÐÌà ¸ àð ðIntentionallyðð€means€that€a€person€acts€intentionally€when€itÐ k» Ðis€the€personððs€conscious€objective€or€desire€to€cause€the€death€of€theÐ T¤ Ðalleged€victim.Ð =  ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒòòId.€óóÐ  _ ЀÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€seems€to€argue€not€that€the€holding€in€òòPageóó€was€violated€by€the€trialÐ ß /  Ðcourtððs€then„conventional,€briefer€charge€on€second„degree€murder,€but€that€the€use€of€the€òòPageóóÐ È   Ðsecond„degree„murder€charge€would€have€facilitated€a€better€chance€of€a€diminished€capacityÐ ±  Ðargument€with€respect€to€second„degree€murder.€€Ð šê  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€need€not€fathom€the€argument€too€deeply,€however,€because€the€claim€is€moot.€Ð l¼  ÐThe€trial€court€rendered€sequential€jury€instructions;€the€jury€was€instructed€to€consider€first„degreeÐ U¥  Ðmurder€before€considering€the€lesser„included€offenses€and€that€a€conviction€of€first„degree€murderÐ >Ž Ðpretermitted€consideration€of€any€lesser„included€offense.€€The€jury€is€presumed€to€have€followedÐ 'w Ðthe€courtððs€instruction.€€òòSee€State€v.€Shawóó,€37€S.W.3d€900,€904€(Tenn.€2001).€€In€this€situation,€whenÐ ` Ðthe€jury€did€not€consider€the€offense€of€second„degree€murder,€any€instructional€error€is€harmlessÐ ùI Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSee€State€v.€Douglas€Marshall€Mathisóó,€òòóóNo.€M2002-02291-CCA-R3-CD,Ð â2 Ðslip€op.€at€6„7òò€óó(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Mar.€3,€€2004),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2004);òò€StateÐ Ë Ðv.€Robert€Faulkneróó,€No.€W2001„02614„CCA„R3„DD,€slip€op.€at€30„33òòóó€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,Ð ´ ÐSept.€26,€2003).€€Thus,€we€reject€the€defendantððs€claim€of€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€onÐ í Ðsecond„degree€murder.Ð †Ö ÐÌÑ€%²ÏÑÓ  Óà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àV.€€Failure€to€Recuse.Ð X¨ ÐÓ1úÓÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€claims€the€trial€judge€erred€in€failing€to€grant€his€pretrial€motion€forÐ *z Ðthe€judge€to€disqualify€himself€from€presiding€over€the€defendantððs€second€trial.€€The€defendantÐ c Ðbases€his€claim€for€disqualification€merely€upon€the€fact€that€the€judge€presided€over€the€defendantððsÐ üL Ðfirst€trial.€€He€cites€no€authority€to€support€the€claim€that€a€judgeððs€presiding€over€a€previous€trialÐ å 5 Ðthat€resulted€in€a€reversal€on€appeal€òòipso€factoóó€disqualifies€the€judge€from€presiding€over€the€newÐ Î!  Ðtrial.€€Ð ·"! Ðà  àà ` àRecusal€is€appropriate€whenever€a€trial€judgeððs€impartiality€can€be€reasonablyÐ  #ð" Ðquestioned.€€Tenn€R.€Sup.€Ct.€10,€Code€of€Judicial€Conduct,€Canon€3(E)(1);€òòState€v.€Cashóó,€867Ð ‰$Ù# ÐS.W.2d€741,€749€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€A€trial€judgeððs€denial€of€a€motion€to€recuse€will€beÐ r% $ Ðupheld€absent€a€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòCashóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€749.€€Reasons€which€warrantÐ [&«!% Ðrecusal€include:Ð D'”"& ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ à(a)€the€judge€has€a€personal€bias€or€prejudice€concerning€aÐ )f$( Ðparty€or€a€partyððs€lawyer,€or€personal€knowledge€of€disputedÐ ÿ)O%) Ðevidentiary€facts€concerning€the€proceeding;Ð è*8&* ÐÐ Ñ+!'+ ÐÑ%²ÏÑâ %âÑTRXì3Ø'LetterXì3Ø'Letter3Ø'LetterâÑ  Ñof€their€respective€statements€and/or3Ø'Letterpp.€1988)€(defendant€electing€to€testifyÐ W§  TÑâ %âÑ  Ñà ¸ à(b)€the€judge€served€as€a€lawyer€in€the€matter€in€controversy,Ð ° Ðor€a€lawyer€with€whom€the€judge€previously€practiced€law€servedÐ ™é Ðduring€such€association€as€a€lawyer€concerning€the€matter,€or€theÐ ‚Ò Ðjudge€has€been€a€material€witness€concerning€it.Ð k» ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒTenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€10,€Code€of€Judicial€Conduct,€Canon€3E(1)(a),€(b).€€Ð =  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€find€nothing€in€the€record€that€suggests€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretionÐ  _ Ðin€overruling€the€motion€to€recuse.€€We€know€of€no€rule€of€law€that€compels€the€recusal€of€orÐ ø H Ðdisqualifies€a€trial€judge€merely€because€the€judge€presided€over€a€previous€trial€in€the€same€case,Ð á 1  Ðand€the€defendant€has€cited€no€law€to€that€effect.€€Therefore,€this€claim€of€error€is€unsupported€bothÐ Ê   Ðfactually€and€legally.€€Ð ³  ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ à€€€€€€VI.€€Cumulative€Errors.Ð …Õ  ÐÓÔÓÌà  àà ` àIn€the€defendantððs€next€argument€for€reversal,€he€claims€that€cumulative€errors€requireÐ W§  Ðreversal€of€his€convictions.€€We€have€already€reversed€his€convictions€of€felony€murder€based€uponÐ @ Ðprinciples€of€double€jeopardy.€€Those€principles€in€no€way€impugn€the€conviction€of€premeditatedÐ )y Ðmurder.€€Moreover,€we€have€discerned€no€reversible€Confrontation€Clause€error€or€other€error.€Ð b ÐThus,€there€exist€no€errors€to€accumulate.€€Ð ûK ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àVII.€€Sentencing.Ð Í ÐÌÓ{Óà  àà ` àIn€the€defendantððs€final€issue,€he€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€his€first„Ð Ÿï Ðdegree€murder€sentence€to€run€consecutively€to€his€previous€sentences€for€especially€aggravatedÐ ˆØ Ðrobbery€and€conspiracy€to€commit€aggravated€robbery.òò€óóÐ qÁ ЀÌà  àà ` àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,Ð C“ Ðit€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novo€óóreview€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ ,| Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€€Tenn.€Code€€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d)€(2003).€€ThisÐ e Ðpresumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÐ þN Ðconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823Ð ç 7 ÐS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ð ðThe€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€theÐ Ð!   Ðappellant.ðð€€òòId.€óó€In€the€event€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€the€required€consideration€by€the€trialÐ ¹" ! Ðcourt,€review€of€the€sentence€is€purely€òòdeóó€òònovoóó.€€òòId.€óó€If€appellate€review€reflects€the€trial€courtÐ ¢#ò" Ðproperly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€theÐ ‹$Û# Ðrecord,€this€court€must€affirm€the€sentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€Ð t%Ä $ ÐòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð ]&­!% ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€making€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court,€at€the€conclusion€of€theÐ /(#' Ðsentencing€hearing€and€after€determining€the€range€of€sentence€and€the€specific€sentence,€thenÐ )h$( Ðdetermines€the€propriety€of€sentencing€alternatives€by€considering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€receivedÐ *Q%) Ðat€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€€(2)€the€presentence€report;€€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencingÐ ê*:&* Ðand€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminalÐ Ó+#'+ Ðconduct€involved;€€(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€andÐ ° Ðmitigating€factors;€€(6)€any€statements€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendantððs€behalf€aboutÐ ™é Ðsentencing;€€and€(7)€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€€Tenn.€Code€€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-210(a),Ð ‚Ò Ð(b)€(2003);€òòidóó.€òòóóðð€40-35-103(5)€(2003);€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð k» ÐÌà  àà ` àConsecutive€sentencing€may€be€imposed€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€upon€aÐ =  Ðdetermination€that€one€or€more€statutory€criteria€exist,€and€the€criterion€used€in€the€present€case€isÐ & v Ðthat€the€ð ðdefendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€humanÐ  _ Ðlife,€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.ðð€€€Tenn.Ð ø H ÐCode€€Ann.€ðð€40-35-115(b)(4)€(2003).€€€In€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€937-38€(Tenn.€1995),Ð á 1  Ðòòlimited€by€State€v.€Laneóó,€3€S.W.3d€456€(Tenn.€1999),€the€supreme€court€imposed€two€additionalÐ Ê   Ðrequirements€for€consecutive€sentencing€under€the€dangerous„offender€category€„„€the€court€mustÐ ³  Ðfind€consecutive€sentences€are€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€areÐ œì  Ðnecessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct.Ð …Õ  ÐÌà  àà ` à€€The€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€dangerous„offender€category€to€the€defendant€wasÐ W§  Ðexpressed€in€terms€of€a€strong€denunciation€of€the€actions€of€Claude€Sharkey€and€Kevin€Wilson,€theÐ @ Ðpersons€who€shot€the€victims€during€the€robbery.€€The€trial€judge€spoke€eloquently€of€these€two€menÐ )y Ðappearing€in€court€to€testify€and€showing€no€remorse€upon€seeing€Mr.€Shea€present€in€the€courtroom.€Ð b ÐIndeed,€Sharkeyððs€and€Wilsonððs€actions€define€them€as€dangerous€offenders.€€€The€trial€court,Ð ûK Ðhowever,€did€not€differentiate€between€the€defendant€as€an€accomplice,€on€the€one€hand,€and€WilsonÐ ä4 Ðand€Sharkey,€on€the€other.€€à  àÐ Í ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€court€has€previously€upheld€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencing€based€uponÐ Ÿï Ðthe€following€facts.€€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒEach€of€the€robberies€was€committed€at€a€retail€store€open€to€theÐ Zª Ðpublic.€€The€Defendant€provided€the€gun€for€six€robberies€and€oneÐ C“ Ðattempted€robbery.€€The€Defendant€himself€pointed€the€gun€at€one€ofÐ ,| Ðthe€convenience€store€clerks€who€was€robbed.€€òòThe€same€gun€wasÐ e Ðused€in€the€final€attempted€robbery€by€the€Defendantððs€accomplice,Ð þN Ðduring€which€shots€were€fired€and€the€accomplice€was€shot.óó€€ThereÐ å 5 Ðis€no€question€that€armed€robberies€of€convenience€stores€frequentlyÐ Î!  Ðresult€in€loss€of€life.€€The€Defendantððs€òòrepeatedóó€participation€in€theseÐ ·"! Ðcrimes€earned€him€the€sobriquet,€ð ðdangerous€offender.ððÐ  #ð" ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒòòState€v.óó€Kòòenny€Carson€Cockrell,€Jr.,€óó€No.€W2002-00545-CCA-R3-CD,€slip€op.€at€4„5€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð r% $ ÐApp.,€Jackson,€Apr.€2,€2003)€(emphasis€added);€òòsee€also€State€v.€Barry€F.€Bradenóó,€No.Ð [&«!% ÐM2001-00226-CCA„R3-CD,€slip€op.€at€16„17€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jul.€26,€2002)€(althoughÐ D'”"& Ðthe€defendant€had€no€prior€adult€criminal€record,€dangerous„offender€classification€upheld€when,Ð -(}#' Ðduring€a€five„day€period,€defendant€and€accomplices€perpetrated€two€robberies,€both€of€multipleÐ )f$( Ðvictims,€with€the€use€of€a€gun)€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2002).€€In€the€present€case,€however,€evenÐ ÿ)O%) Ðin€the€version€of€events€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€defendant€participated€in€only€one€robberyÐ è*8&* Ðand€his€role,€compared€to€that€of€Claude€Sharkey€and€Wilson,€was€relatively€passive.€€Ð Ñ+!'+ Їà  àà ` àThe€presentence€report€in€this€case€reveals€that€the€eighteen„year„old€defendantÐ ° Ðpossessed€a€criminal€conviction€record€of€aggravated€burglary€and€a€juvenile€record€of€twoÐ ™é Ðadjudications€of€aggravated€burglary,€two€adjudications€of€theft,€and€an€adjudication€of€possessionÐ ‚Ò Ðof€marijuana€with€intent€to€sell.€€Thus,€prior€to€the€invasion€of€TGIF,€the€defendant€had€beenÐ k» Ðpreviously€convicted€or€adjudicated€guilty€of€four€aggravated€burglaries€ð!ð€burglaries€of€ð ðbuildingsÐ T¤ Ð.€.€.€designed€or€adapted€for€the€overnight€accommodation€of€persons.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„Ð =  Ð14„401(1)(A)€(2003)€(defining€habitation);€òòid.óó€ðð€39„14„103(a)€(2003)€(proscribing€aggravatedÐ & v Ðburglary€as€burglary€of€a€habitation).€€This€court€has€characterized€burglaries€of€habitations€asÐ  _ Ðð ðparticularly€dangerous,ðð€òòsee,€e.g.,óó€òòErnest€Lee€Lands€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01-9404-CR-00145,€slip€op.Ð ø H Ðat€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€May€19,€1995),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995),€and€hasÐ á 1  Ðð ðrecognized€that€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€the€victim€is€great€when€[aggravated€burglaries]Ð Ê   Ðare€committed,ðð€òòState€v.€David€Scarbroughóó,€No.€E1998-00931-CCA-R3-CD,€slip€op.€at€25€(Tenn.Ð ³  ÐCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Jul.€11,€2001),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2002).€€The€defendantððs€fourÐ œì  Ðprevious€aggravated€burglary€offenses€bespeak€a€lack€of€regard€for€human€life.€€Ð …Õ  ÐÌà  àà ` àMoreover,€this€court€has€previously€upheld€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencesÐ W§  Ðdespite€the€defendantððs€guilt€via€a€theory€of€criminal€responsibility.€€òòState€v.€Carl€Preston€Durhamóó,Ð @ ÐNo.€E1999-02640-CCA-R3-CD,€slip€op.€at€39€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Apr.€12,€2001)Ð )y Ð(consecutive€sentences€of€life€and€fifteen€years€not€excessive,€disproportionate,€or€cruel€and€unusualÐ b Ðpunishment,€despite€defendantððs€passive€role€in€the€homicide),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2001).€Ð ûK ÐGiven€the€defendantððs€penchant€for€committing€aggravated€burglaries€and€the€nature€andÐ ä4 Ðcircumstances€of€the€conviction€offense€in€the€present€case,€we€are€loath€to€conclude€that€the€trialÐ Í Ðcourt€abused€its€discretion€in€imposing€consecutive€sentencing.€€We€hold€that€the€record€supportsÐ ¶ Ðthe€sentencing€determination.Ð Ÿï ÐÌÌÌÓ  Óà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àVIII.€€Conclusion.Ð C“ ÐÓf-ÓÌà  àà ` àWe€reverse€the€defendantððs€convictions€of€felony€murder€and€dismiss€those€charges.€Ð e ÐWe€affirm€his€conviction€of€premeditated€murder€and€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencing.Ð þN Ðà  à€Ð ç 7 ÐÌÌÌà  àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð t%Ä $ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE