WPC YZ]N\Rdpʧ#$6IozANЈF ԄOߕ cJ& )aN[Qlo(t p_VvEB-pn&$bND!NBy{Ĕ;_S8\_nHnIJQM4kfUdµz-X^rx?2V6dS?iRmJ|:M=dgwk7;q j]p'p,bmɐM~qg=h~0|=dRuJRh CfP,vh&Ʊ}#U9>R므|݃:; {hDH*-n$hؿ$;W}%9SeE0%,JIsOv(L4wOP\mqcDӑ3]W 3* Ôv{=kQ)c} smȟ}mŅiɾuT7:3b#\ % U,# 0O UN U@% e z b 4 ^  0D8wPNT4VjEy{ m}b 0 B 0 D3P D- 0K ASN 0 0D AHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 60,yAZArial (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z(Times New Roman  y R$      1  5d  _Thetrialcourtgavethedefendanttheoptionofeitherignoringthetestimonyorhavingthejuryinstructedthat  thechargewasaminormisdemeanorandthatthejurywastodisregardit.Obviously,thedefendantchosethelatter. C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt R$      2  5d  _Indeed,itisunclearfromthewitnessstestimonythathewasevenreferringtothedefendant. R$      3  5d  _Tenn.CodeAnn.4035114(1),114(6),114(9),114(17).լq) (#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5J~'Ik2H3|xU - -(|G2$ !.8RPdd8         0  5d d(|3~$ !.8RPdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3~$ !.8RPdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8RPdd8     _   RP8:XXdd8@tt~RPINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#RP~ #Ԉ      @  @` January19,2000Session @ X:XRP #RPXX:#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.MICHAELP.INLOWX:XRP  4 @@ AppealasofRightfromtheCriminalCourtforWilliamsonCounty  ( @@No.II19424TimothyEaster,Judge   @@*AV) ` dE<o` A p  @@TTNo.M199900092CCAR3CDFiledNovember17,_2000_ e  AV) ` dE<0` A 1     X:XXX:OnDecember18,1998,aWilliamsonCountyJuryconvictedMichaelInlow,thedefendantand &v  appellant,ofattemptingtocommitseconddegreemurder.Followingasentencinghearing,thecourt  \ sentencedthedefendanttoservetwelve(12)yearsincarceration.Onappeal,thedefendantclaims B (1)thattheevidencewasinsufficienttoconvicthim;(2)thatthetrialcourtshouldhavedeclareda ( mistrialafterawitnessreferredtothedefendantspriorcriminalhistory;(3)thatthetrialcourt  improperlyallowedthejurytoconsiderhearsaytestimony; (4)thatthetrialcourtimproperly  instructedthejuryregardingselfdefense;and(5)thathissentencewasexcessive.Afterathorough  reviewoftherecord,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.#RPXX:#X:XRP p  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtisAffirmed.  <   #RPX:#X:X.RPJerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.Welles,J.,andL.T. X Lafferty,Sr.J.,joined. > ErnestW.Williams,Franklin,Tennessee,attorneyfortheappellant,MichaelP.Inlow.   PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MarvinE.Clements,Jr.,andRonDavis,District    AttorneyGeneralandDerekK.Smith,AssistantDistrictAttorney,attorneysfortheappellee,State l!! ofTennessee. R"" L @@OO& OPINION #RPXX:{ #X:XRP $n$ #RPXX: #X:XRP  X XXX:@!#X:X XX #FACTUALBACKGROUND#RPXX:w #X:XRPԈ %:!&    AfeudbeganbetweenthedefendantandMr.McDougal,twoBrentwoodHighSchool & "' students,thatlastedseveralweeks. Duringthattime,ColinBain,anacquaintanceofthetwomen, '#( askedthedefendantaboutthefeud,andthedefendantreplied [McDougalis]dead. Severaldays (#) later,thedefendantandMr.McDougalalmostfoughtintheBrentwoodHighSchoolparkinglot,but )$* aschoolofficialintervenedbeforetheconfrontationescalated. Followingthatincident,the h*%+ defendanttoldanacquaintance,JimmySullivan, Ivegotsomethingfor[McDougal].Youllsee.  N+&, Thedayafterthatstatement,thedefendantandthevictimsaweachotherintheBrentwoodHigh 4,'- Schoolparkinglot.AlthoughMr.McDougalinitiallyhadametalbarinhishands,hediscardedit -j(. asacrowdgatheredaroundthepair. ThedefendantandMr._McDougal_Ԁbegantofight. Duringthe  fight,thedefendantpulledaknifefromhisjacketandstabbedMr._McDougal_Ԁonceinthegroinarea  andonceintheabdomen. Mr._McDougal_Ԁscreamed,andonlookerspulledthedefendantawayfrom | Mr._McDougal_. Thedefendantpickeduptheknifeandleftthescene, butturnedhimselfintopolice b later. Mr._McDougal_Ԁwastreatedforextensiveinjuriesatalocalhospital.Heispermanently H disabled.  . ~   Thestatechargedthedefendantwithattemptedfirstdegreemurderandaggravatedassault.  d  Beforetrial,thedefendantmadeamotionin_limine_Ԁtoprecludeanymentionofanyothercharges  J pendingagainstthedefendant,andthecourtgrantedthemotion. However,whenMr._Bain_Ԁtestified,  0 hementionedthatthedefendantalsofaced anothercharge. Thedefendantimmediatelymoved    foramistrial,butthecourtdeniedthedefendantsmotion. Mr._Bain_Ԁthentoldthejury,over    objection,aboutthestatementthatthedefendantmadetoJimmySullivan. JimmySullivanhad   alreadytestifiedaboutthestatement.  x    Afterthetrial,thedefendantmovedthecourttoinstructthejurythattheymustconsider ^  whethertheStatehadnegatedselfdefensebeyondareasonabledoubtbeforetheyconsideredthe D  defendantsguilt. Instead,thetrialcourtinstructedthejuryonselfdefenseaccordingtothepattern *z  instruction. Thejuryconvictedthedefendantofattemptedseconddegreemurder,alesserincluded ` offenseofattemptedfirstdegreemurder. Thecourtsentencedthedefendantto(12)years F incarceration.  ,    @ SUFFICIENCY       Thedefendantfirstchallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidence.Specifically,thedefendant  arguesthatnoevidencewasintroducedattrialshowingthatheintendedtokillthevictim.When t anappealchallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidence,thestandardofreviewiswhether,afterviewing Z theevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheState,anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundthe @ essentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.Jacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,318, &v 99S.Ct.2781,61L.Ed.2d560(1979);Statev.Evans,838S.W.2d185,190-91(Tenn.1992),cert.  \ denied,510U.S.1064,114S.Ct.740,126L.Ed.2d702(1994);Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).On B appeal,theStateisentitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceandallreasonableor ( legitimateinferenceswhichmaybedrawntherefrom.Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.  1978).Thiscourtwillnot_reweigh_Ԁtheevidence,re-evaluatetheevidence,orsubstituteits  evidentiaryinferencesforthosereachedbythejury.Statev.Grace,493S.W.2d474,476(Tenn.   1973). p!    Onceapprovedbythetrialcourt,ajuryverdictaccreditsthewitnessespresentedbytheState V"! andresolvesallconflictsinfavoroftheState.Statev._Hatchett_,560S.W.2d627(Tenn.1978); <#" Statev.Townsend,525S.W.2d842(Tenn.1975).Thecredibilityofthewitnesses,theweightto "$r# begiventheirtestimony,andthereconciliationofconflictsintheproofaremattersentrusted %X $ exclusivelytothejuryasthetrieroffact.Statev.Sheffield,676S.W.2d542,547(Tenn.1984).V XX: %>!%   #X:X V"#  Ӏ  Inordertoconvictadefendantofattemptedseconddegreemurder,thestateisrequiredto &$"& provethatthedefendantactedwiththeintenttocausetheknowingkillingofanother,believinghis ' #' conductwouldcausetheresultwithoutfurtherconductonhispart.Tenn.CodeAnn. (#( 39-12-101(a)(2)and_39-13-210(a)._ԀWhethertheappellant"knowingly"attemptedtokillhisvictim )$) isaquestionoffactforthejury.Intent,whichcanseldombeprovenbydirectevidence,maybe l*%*  deducedorinferredbythetrieroffactfromthecharacteroftheassault,thenatureoftheactand R+&+ fromallthecircumstancesofthecaseinevidence.Statev.Holland,860S.W.2d53,59(Tenn.  _Crim_.App.1993).     Inthiscase,therewasevidencethatthedefendantandthevictimhadbeeninvolvedinafeud | forsometimebeforethestabbing.Indeed,thestatepresentedtestimonythat,beforethedayofthe b stabbing,thedefendantmadestatementsthatcouldeasilyhavebeeninterpretedasthreats. H Furthermore,immediatelybeforethefight,thevictimwasunarmedandthedefendanthadaknife . ~ inhispocket.Afteronlyabriefstruggle,thedefendantwasontopofthevictim,andthedefendant  d stabbedthevictimfromthisposition.Itisuncontestedthatthewoundsweresevere.Thejurycould  J havefoundthatthedefendant'sconductwasreasonablycertaintocausethevictim'sdeath,thathe  0 wasnotactinginselfdefense,andthatheintendedtokillthevictimbasedupontheuseofadeadly    weapon,theseriousnessofthewoundsinflictedandtheappellant'sstatements.Statev.Elder,982    S.W.2d871,87576(Tenn._Crim_.App.1998).Inshort,wefindtheevidencesufficienttosupport   thejury'sverdictofattemptedseconddegreemurder. x  Thisissueiswithoutmerit. ^  M#  V XX:#X:X V,#MISTRIAL  >      Thedefendantalsoclaimsthatthetrialcourterredbyrefusingtograntamistrialafterone $t ofthestateswitnessesmadeareferencetothedefendantscriminalhistory.Duringthestates  Z directexaminationofColin_Bain_,anacquaintanceofboththevictimandthedefendant,the @ prosecutoraskedMr._Bain_ԀwhetherhehadspokentotheprosecutoraboutMr.Sullivan,another & witnessinthecase.Mr._Bain_Ԁrespondedthathehad.TheprosecutorthenaskedMr._Bain_Ԁwhyhe   hadbeendiscussingJimmySullivan,andMr._Bain_Ԁresponded  ` ` Imnotquitesure.Ithinkhewasincourtforanothercharge,andthe  namegotbroughtupandIstartedtalkingtoyouaboutthestabbing n case,andIwastellingyouwhatexactlyIknew,andJimmysname T gotbroughtintoit. : Ѐ  p ` ` Thedefendantimmediatelyobjectedthatthewitnesssreferenceto anotherchargebothviolated V thetrialcourtsrulingexcludingevidenceofthedefendantspriorcriminalhistoryandsoprejudiced < thejurythatamistrialwasrequired.Afterexcusingthejuryandhearingarguments,thecourtdenied " thedefendantsmotion.      Ӏ  Thelawiswellsettledthatthedecisionofwhetherornottoenteramistrialrestswithinthe   sounddiscretionofthetrialcourt.Thiscourtwillnotinterferewiththetrialcourt'sdecisionabsent !  aclearabuseofdiscretionontherecord.Statev._Adkins_,786S.W.2d642,644(Tenn.1990);State j"! v.Allen,976S.W.2d661,668(Tenn._Crim_.App.1997).Theentryofamistrialisappropriatewhen P#" thetrialofanaccusedcannotcontinue,or,ifthetrialweretocontinue,amiscarriageofjustice 6$# wouldoccur.Statev.McPherson,882S.W.2d365,370(Tenn._Crim_.App.1994).Amistrialshould %l $ bedeclaredinacriminalcaseonlywhenthereisa"manifestnecessity"requiringsuchactionbythe &R!% trialjudge.Statev._Millbrooks_,819S.W.2d441,443(Tenn._Crim_.App.1991).Onlywhenthere &8"& is"nofeasiblealternativetohaltingtheproceedings"canamanifestnecessitybeshown.Statev. '#' Knight,616S.W.2d593,596(Tenn._Crim_.App.1981).Theappellanthastheburdenofestablishing ($( theexistenceofamanifestnecessity.Statev.Arnold,563S.W.2d792,794(Tenn._Crim_.App. )$) 1977). *%* 3    Inthiscase,thetrialcourthadgrantedthedefendantsmotionin_limine_seekingtoprevent f+&+ thestatefromelicitinganytestimonythat,atthetimeoftrialthedefendanthadanassaultcharge L,', pendingagainsthim.AfterMr._Bain_Ԁtestifiedthathisconversationwiththeprosecutorarosebecause  thedefendantwasincourtfacing anothercharge,theprosecutorinformedthecourtthattheother  chargetowhichMr._Bain_Ԁreferredwasnotthependingassaultcharge,butwas,instead,aDriving | UndertheInfluencechargethathadbeenreducedtoDrivingWhileImpaired.Neitherthetrialcourt b northedefenseattorneywasawareofthe_D.W.I._Ԁcharge.Theprosecutoralsoapologizedand H admittedthatMr._Bain_Ԁmayhavebeenabsentwhenheinstructedtheotherwitnessesnottoreferto . ~ thependingassaultcharge.Thetrialcourtthendeniedthedefendantsmotionforamistrial.After  d refusingtograntthedefendantsmotionforamistrial,thecourtinstructedthejurythattheother  J chargeaboutwhichMr._Bain_Ԁspokewasa minormisdemeanorandthatthejurywastodisregard  0 Mr._Bain_sreferencetoit.  #  1          :    Mr._Bain_sbriefandsomewhatconfusingreferenceto anotherchargedidnotnecessitate    amistrial,becausethetrialcourtsimmediateinstructionlikelycuredanyprejudicialeffectthe   defendantmayhavesufferedasaresultofthetestimony.   #  2      ׀ Itisanelementaryprincipleoflawthat x  jurorsarepresumedtofollowtheinstructionsofthetrialcourt.Statev.Williams,977S.W.2d101, ^  106(Tenn.1998).Thisissueiswithoutmerit. D  @  HEARSAY $XX: ` #X:X$C#    Next,thedefendantcomplainsthatthetrialcourterredbyallowingthestatetoofferhearsay F testimonyattrial.Thenightbeforethestabbing,thedefendanttoldJimmySullivan, Ivegot , somethingfor[Mr._McDougal_].Youllsee.Mr.Sullivantestifiedaboutthestatementondirect  examination.Oncrossexamination,thedefensequestionedtheveracityofMr.Sullivans  testimony.Next,Mr._Bain_Ԁtestifiedaboutthestatement,andthedefenseobjectedthatthestatement  washearsay.TheprosecutorrespondedthatMr._Bain_stestimonywasofferedonlytorebutthe t defendantscrossexaminationofMr.SullivanwhichsuggestedthatMr.Sullivanliedaboutthe Z statement.Thetrialcourtagreedandoverruledtheobjection. @       Ordinarily,priorconsistentstatementsofawitnessarenotadmissibletobolsterthewitness' &v credibility.Statev.Braggs,604S.W.2d883,885(Tenn.Crim.App.1980).However,"prior  \ consistentstatementsmaybeadmissible...torehabilitateawitnesswheninsinuationsofrecent B fabricationhavebeenmade,orwhendeliberatefalsehoodhasbeenimplied.Statev.Benton,759 ( S.W.2d427,433(Tenn.Crim.App.1988).Beforepriorconsistentstatementsmaybeadmissible,  thewitness'testimonymusthavebeenassailedorattackedtotheextentthatthewitness'testimony  needsrehabilitating.Id.at434.Inthiscase,thedefenserepeatedlyaskedMr.Sullivanwhetherhe   hadreportedthedefendantsstatementtopolice,insinuatingthatMr.Sullivanfailedtodoso p!  becausethedefendantnevermadethestatement.Mr._Bain_stestimonymerelyservedtorehabilitate V"! Mr.Sullivanscredibilitywhichhadjustbeenattacked.SeeStatev._Livingston_,907S.W.2d392, <#" 398(Tenn.1995).Thus,therewasnoerrorintheadmissionofthetestimony. "$r# ?HThisissueiswithoutmerit. %X $    JURYINSTRUCTIONS$XX: &$"&  #X:X$4N#N    Attrial,thedefendantrequestedthatthejurybeinstructedthatitmustfirstconsiderwhether  thedefendantactedinselfdefensebeforeconsideringwhetherhewasguiltyofthechargedoffense.  Instead,thetrialcourtinstructedthejuryconcerningselfdefenseaccordingto_T.P.I._Ԁ_Crim_.40.06. | Theinstructionwasgivenbeforethecourtinstructedthejuryaboutthesubstantivecharges,butafter b thecourtinstructedthejuryaboutcircumstantialevidence,theburdenofproof,andthecredibility H ofthewitnesses.Here,theappellantclaimsthattheorderandthecontentoftheinstructionsgiven . ~ bythetrialcourtwereerroneous.  d   Whenthetrialjudgegivesinstructionsthatcorrectly,fully,andfairlysetforththeapplicable  J law,itisnoterrortorefusetogiveaspecialrequestedinstruction.Statev.Forbes,918S.W.2d431,  0 447(Tenn._Crim_.App.1995).Wemustreviewtheentirechargeandinvalidateitonlyif,whenread    asawhole,itfailstofairlysubmitthelegalissuesormisleadsthejuryastotheapplicablelaw.State    v._Phipps_,883S.W.2d138,142(Tenn._Crim_.App.1994)._T.P.I._Ԁ_Crim_.40.06isanaccurate   statementofthelawregardingselfdefense.SeeTenn.CodeAnn3911611.Thus,thetrialcourt x  didnoterrinitsselfdefenseinstruction.Thisissuehasnomerit. ^  0   (#(# N  SENTENCING$XX: *z  #X:X$WV# ;V    Intheappellant'slastissue,hecontendsthatthetrialcourterredinitsimpositionofatwelve ` (12)yearsentence.Review,bythiscourt,ofthelength,range,ormannerofserviceofasentence F isdenovowithapresumptionthatthedeterminationmadebythetrialcourtiscorrect.Tenn.Code , Ann.40-35-401(d).Thispresumptiononlyapplies,however,iftherecorddemonstratesthatthe  trialcourtproperlyconsideredallrelevantsentencingprinciples.Statev._Ashby_,823S.W.2d166,  169(Tenn.1991).Inmakingourreview,thiscourtmustconsidertheevidenceheardattrialandat  sentencing,the_presentence_Ԁreport,theargumentsofcounsel,thenatureandcharacteristicsofthe t offense,anymitigatingandenhancementfactors,theappellant'sstatements,andtheappellant's Z potentialforrehabilitation.Tenn.CodeAnn.40-35-102,-103(5),-210(b).However,theburden @ isontheappellanttoshowthatthesentenceimposedwasimproper.SentencingCommission &v Comments,Tenn.CodeAnn.40-35-401(d).  \   First,thedefendantclaimsthatthetrialcourterredbyrejectingseveralmitigatingfactors B offeredbythedefendant.Thedefendantsoughtmitigationbasedonthefollowingfive(5)factors: ( V` `   Thatthedefendantactedunderstrongprovocation.Tenn.CodeAnn.  4035113(2);  Thatsubstantialgroundsexistedtendingtoexcuseorjustifythe p!  defendantscriminalconduct,thoughfailingtoestablishadefense. V"! Tenn.CodeAnn.4035113(3); <#" Ѐ  Thatbecauseofthedefendantsyouth,helackedsubstantial %X $ judgmentincommittingtheoffense.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035 %>!% 113(6); &$"& Thatthedefendant,althoughguiltyofthecrime,committedthe (#( offenseundersuchunusualcircumstancesthatitisunlikelythata )$) sustainedintenttoviolatethelawmotivatedthecriminalconduct. l*%* Tenn.CodeAnn.4035113(11);and R+&+  8,', Thatthedefendantactedunderduressorunderthedominationof  anotherperson,eventhoughtheduressordominationofanother  personisnotsufficienttoconstituteadefensetothecrime.Tenn. | Code.Ann.4035113(12). b 0   x x ` ` Thecourtfoundthatthedefendantsyouthwasmitigatingbutrejectedtheotherfourproposed . ~ factorsbecauseMr._Bain_sandMr.Sullivanstestimonyconvincedthecourtthatthedefendantwas  d notprovokedoractingunderduressatthetimeoftheoffense.Thedefendantnowclaimsthatthe  J courtsrejectionofthesefactorswasimpermissiblybasedonthetestimonyofMr._Bain_ԀandMr.  0 Sullivan.Asstatedabove,however,Mr._Bain_sandMrSullivanstestimonywasproperlyadmitted.    Thus,thetrialcourtsrelianceonthattestimonywasproper.      Thedefendantalsoclaimsthatthesentencewasexcessive.Thecourtproperlyfoundthe   existenceoffour(4)enhancementfactors   #  3      ׀andonemitigatingfactor.Thecourtfurtherfoundthat x  theeffectoftheenhancementfactors substantiallyoutweighedthemitigatingcircumstancesand ^  sentencedthedefendanttotwelve(12)yearsintheDepartmentofCorrections,themaximumwithin D  thesentencingrange.Finally,afternotingthecavalierattitudeofthedefendantandtheother *z  witnessesregardingviolence,thecourtfoundthatthesentencewasnecessarytoavoiddepreciating ` theseriousnessoftheoffenseandtodeterothers.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035102(3)(A).The F defendanthasnotovercomethepresumptionofcorrectnessapplicablethetrialcourtssentencein , thiscase.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.    Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED.  6]   `     h        `     h     ___________________________________ Z    `     h     JERRYSMITH,JUDGE