ÿWPCê …UBV %˜žnX® 0P 4V 0”j 0Dþ B w@H ˆ 0J 0TÚ 0^. 0hŒ 0rô 0|f 0†â 0h 1uø 0dm BÑU6îU*$B)NDCw AMº D34:Fn 0@´v~ôvÓr AOEÆ” 0DZ D/ž BÍ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX3|Xÿ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ó©U!(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóHM ëìDíaîaïaðPñDòEóEôÓ€2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òSeptemberÏ25,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÔ€&ÔWe€note€that€Officer€Sims'€testimony€would€have€been€admissible€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613Ïonly€to€impeach€Officer€Miller's€testimony,€and€that€the€trial€court€would€have€been€required€to€instructÏthe€jury€to€consider€this€testimony€only€for€impeachment€purposes€and€not€as€substantive€evidence.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Reeceóó,€637€S.W.2d€858,€861€(Tenn.€1982).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€×ËXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€&ÔÙ€€ÙßL€)+(;+'h|` 81 `€€Lß›à àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àMAY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€03C01„9510„CR„00336ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏRUSSELL€C.€HINSON,ÌEDWARD€THOMAS€KENDRICKS,ÏIII,à à)à àJUDGEÌaliasà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌEDWARD€THOMAS€KENDRICK,€IIIà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó ó(First„Degree€Murder)ò òÌà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òJERRY€H.ÏSUMMERSà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONÌó ó500€Lindsay€St.à àà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌó óChattanooga,€TN€€€37402ò òÌó ó€€€€€€€(On€Appeal)à àà àà àò òà àà àHUNT€S.ÏBROWNó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.ÏAttorney€GeneralÌò òà àà àó óà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìò òARDENA€GARTHó óà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€€37243„0493ÌPublic€Defender€à àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌò òHIRAM€G.€HILLó óà àà àò òà àà àà àWILLIAM€H.€COX,€IIIó óÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌ701€CherryÌChattanooga,€TN€37402à àà àò òà àà àC.€LELAND€DAVISÌó ó€€€€€€€(At€Trial)à àà àà àà àà àò òDEE€ANNE€IRWINó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCourts€Bldg.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ ¸ ÑÑ  Ñœ›œ›à@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€and€convicted€by€a€jury€of€first„degreeÏmurder.€€He€was€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€€He€now€appeals€as€of€right€raisingÏthe€following€issues:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ Ò1.à àThe€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction;ÌÌ2.à àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€found€a€child€witness€to€have€beenÏproperly€qualified€to€testify;ÌÌ3.à àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€limited€the€defendantððs€attempt€toÏintroduce€prior€statements€of€a€witness;ÌÌ4.à àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€allowed€the€prosecution€to€cross„examine€the€defendant€about€prior€convictions;ÌÌ5.à àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€allowed€the€State€to€produce€aÏwitness€whose€identity€had€not€been€disclosed€to€the€defendant;ÌÌ6.à àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€allowed€hearsay€testimony€under€theÏexcited€utterance€exception;ÌÌ7.à àThe€State€violated€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó€when€it€failed€to€discloseÏexculpatory€information€to€the€defendant;€ÌÌ8.à àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€did€not€give€a€limiting€instruction€onÏthe€use€of€an€ð ðexcited€utterance;ðð€andÌÌ9.à àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€included€an€instruction€on€flight€in€itsÏcharge€to€the€jury.ÌÌÓÓÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒœBecause›€we€find€œno€merit›€œin›€œthe›€defendantððs€grounds€for€this€appeal,€we€œaffirm€theÏjudgment€below.›ÌÌà àà àOn€March€6,€1994,€at€approximately€10:00€p.m.,€the€defendant€drove€toÏthe€gas€station€at€which€Lisa€Kendrick,€his€wife€and€the€victim,€worked.€€With€him€inÏthe€car€œwere›€their€four„year„old€daughter€and€three„year„old€son.€€These€childrenÏwere€sitting€in€Ñ ` Ñcar€seats€in€the€back€seat€of€the€station€wagon€the€defendant€wasÏdriving.€€Also€in€the€car,€on€the€front€passenger€floorboard,€was€the€defendantððsÏloaded€30.06€hunting€rifle.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€pulled€into€the€station,€parked,€and€went€into€the€marketÏportion€of€the€station€where€his€wife€worked€as€a€cashier.€€He€asked€her€to€comeÏoutside,€which€she€did.€€She€and€the€defendant€went€to€the€car€where€she€spokeÏbriefly€to€the€children.€€The€defendant€retrieved€the€rifle€from€the€front€passengerÏfloorboard€and€carried€it€to€the€back€of€the€car.€€At€that€point,€the€weapon€fired€once,Ïthe€bullet€striking€the€victim€in€her€chest€and€killing€her€almost€instantly.€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àAfter€the€victim€fell€to€the€parking€lot,€the€defendant€briefly€bent€over€herÏbody,€put€the€gun€back€in€the€car,€and€drove€toward€the€airport€a€short€distance€away.€ÏOn€the€way,€he€threw€the€rifle€out€of€the€car.€€Once€he€arrived€at€the€airport,€he€calledÏ911€and€reported€that€he€had€shot€his€wife.€€Before€the€defendant€left€the€gas€station,Ïhe€took€no€action€to€assist€the€victim€in€any€way.Ìà àà àÌà àà àTimothy€Shurd€Benton,€a€customer,€was€in€the€market€when€theÏdefendant€entered.€€He€testified€that€the€defendant€had€asked€the€cashier€ð ðto€stepÏoutside,€he€had€something€to€show€her.ðð€€Benton€left€the€market,€got€in€his€car€andÏstarted€to€leave€the€parking€lot.€€He€testified€that,€as€he€had€begun€to€leave,€he€heardÏan€ð ðexplosion.ðð€€He€looked€over€his€shoulder€out€the€window€of€his€car€and€saw€theÏdefendant€holding€a€rifle€ð ðpointed€straight€up€in€the€air.ðð€€He€also€saw€the€victim€lyingÏon€her€back€on€the€parking€lot.€€After€deciding€that€another€person€in€the€market€wasÏaware€of€the€situation€and€would€call€for€help,€Benton€followed€the€defendant€to€theÏairport,€where€he€contacted€an€airport€police€officer.ÌÌà àà àLennell€Shepheard€was€also€in€the€market€at€the€time€the€defendantÏentered.€€He€testified€that€he€had€seen€the€defendant€and€his€wife€leave€the€store,Íthat€the€defendant€had€not€appeared€angry€or€hostile,€and€that€the€victim€had€shownÏno€signs€of€fear€when€she€went€outside€at€the€defendantððs€request.€€ShepheardÏremained€in€the€store€until€he€heard€the€rifle€shot.€€At€that€point,€he€opened€theÏmarket€door€and€looked€outside€to€see€what€had€happened.€€He€testified€that€he€hadÏseen€the€defendant€shut€the€back€passenger€door€and€then€lean€over€the€victimððsÏbody€and€state,€ð ðI€told€you€soðð€approximately€six€times.ÌÌà àà àEndia€Kendrick,€the€defendantððs€four„year„old€daughter,€testified€onÏdirect€examination€that€she€had€seen€her€father€shoot€her€mother€and€that€her€motherÏœhad€had›€her€arms€up€at€the€time.€€However,€on€cross„examination,€Endia€admittedÏthat€she€hadnððt€actually€seen€the€shooting.€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Frank€King,€the€Hamilton€County€Medical€Examiner,€testified€that€theÏvictim€had€died€of€a€single€gunshot€wound€to€the€chest€that€entered€her€body€in€theÏleft€chest€at€forty„nine€inches€above€the€heel€and€exited€her€body€at€the€left€back€atÏforty„nine€and€one„half€inches€above€the€heel.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€had€been€moving€the€rifle€from€the€frontÏof€the€car€to€the€back€at€the€request€of€the€victim€and€that€it€had€discharged€acciden…tally.€€He€testified€that€he€had€been€shifting€it€from€one€hand€to€the€other€when€it€wentÏoff.€€He€testified€that€he€had€not€pulled€the€trigger.€€He€steadfastly€denied€that€he€hadÏintended€to€shoot€the€victim,€and€claimed€that€he€had€been€carrying€the€rifle€in€the€carÏbecause€he€sometimes€cleaned€apartments€near€an€area€where€he€felt€a€gun€wasÏnecessary€for€personal€protection.€€He€also€denied€making€any€statements€as€heÏbent€over€the€victim,€and€testified€that€he€had€taken€no€action€to€assist€her€becauseÏhe€knew€she€was€dead.€€The€defendant€also€testified€that€he€and€the€victim€hadÏagreed€on€an€irreconcilable€differences€divorce,€that€an€attempted€reconciliation€hadÏrecently€failed,€and€that€he€suspected€that€she€œhad€had›€or€was€having€an€affair.€€HeÏdenied€that€he€was€upset€or€angry€at€his€wife€about€the€status€of€their€relationship.ÌÌà àà àIn€support€of€his€contention€that€the€rifle€fired€accidentally,€the€defen…dant€relied€on€the€testimony€of€Officer€Steve€W.€Miller.€€Officer€Miller€testified€that€heÏhad€shot€himself€in€the€foot€with€the€rifle€when€he€was€removing€it€from€the€trunk€ofÏhis€car€after€recovering€it€from€where€the€defendant€had€thrown€it.€€Officer€MillerÏtestified€that€he€had€shot€himself€accidentally.€€He€further€testified€that€he€could€notÏrecall€whether€or€not€his€finger€had€been€on€the€trigger€of€the€gun€when€it€fired.ÌÌà àà àKelly€Fite,€a€firearms€examiner,€testified€that€he€had€examined€andÍtested€the€rifle€and€that,€in€his€opinion,€ð ð[t]he€only€way€that€you€can€fire€this€rifleÏwithout€breaking€it€is€by€pulling€the€trigger.ððÌÌà àà àAfter€the€defense€closed€its€proof,€the€State€called€Martha€Kay€MastonÏas€a€ð ðrebuttalðð€witness.€€Maston€testified€that€she€had€been€working€as€a€public€safetyÏofficer€for€the€Chattanooga€Metropolitan€Airport€Police€on€the€night€of€the€shooting.€ÏOn€finding€the€defendant€at€the€airport,€she€saw€the€two€children€in€the€back€seat€ofÏthe€car.€€She€testified€that€she€had€gotten€the€children€out€and€that€they€were€bothÏð ðvery€upset€and€hysterical.ðð€€She€further€testified€that€ð ðwhen€I€got€[the€little€girl]€out€ofÏthe€car,€she€just€put€her€arms€around€me€and€she€stated€that€she€had€told€daddy€notÏto€shoot€mommy€but€he€did€and€she€fell.ðð€€Maston€testified€that€the€defendantððsÏdaughter€had€not€made€any€other€statements€and€that€his€son€had€not€said€anything.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€first€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof,€arguing€thatÏit€is€not€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€of€first„degree€murder.€€In€conjunction€withÏthis€argument,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€first,€when€it€did€notÏdirect€a€verdict€of€acquittal,€and€second,€when€it€did€not€set€aside€the€convictionÏunder€its€duty€as€thirteenth€juror.€€We€disagree€with€the€defendant€in€this€regard€andÏfind€the€evidence€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction.ÌÌ€à àà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evi…dence,€we€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€inÏdetermining€whether€"òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluateÏthe€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏproof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€infer‚encesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€ÌÌà àà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€valueÏto€be€given€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835.€€A€guiltyÏverdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€witnesses€for€the€State,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€It€is€the€defendantððsÏburden€to€illustrate€to€this€Court€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€guiltyÏverdict€in€favor€of€his€or€her€innocence.€€òòIdóó.à àÌÌà àà àTo€support€a€conviction€of€first„degree€murder,€the€State€must€haveÏproven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€killing€was€ð ðintentional,€premeditatedÏand€deliberate.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„202€(1991€Repl.).€€A€person€kills€intentionally€ð ðwhenÏit€is€the€personððs€conscious€objective€or€desire€to€engage€in€the€[killing]€conduct€orÏ[to]€cause€the€[death].ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„302€(1991€Repl.).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€State€argues€that€the€defendantððs€intent€to€kill€the€victim€is€provedÏby€the€defendantððs€actions€in€bringing€the€gun€to€the€station,€calmly€requesting€hisÏwife€to€come€outside,€repeatedly€stating€ð ðI€told€you€soðð€while€standing€over€her€body,Ïand€failing€to€render€any€assistance€following€the€shooting.€€The€State€also€points€outÏthat€the€defendant€and€the€victim€had€been€in€the€midst€of€divorce€proceedings€andÏthat€the€defendant€had€suspected€his€wife€of€having€an€affair.€€While€the€defendantÏdenied€that€he€had€been€angry€at€his€wife,€denied€that€he€had€brought€the€gun€to€theÏstation€with€the€intent€of€shooting€her€with€it,€and€denied€that€he€had€said€ð ðI€told€youÏsoðð€to€her€as€she€lay€on€the€parking€lot,€€the€jury€chose€not€to€believe€the€defendantððsÏversion€of€the€facts.€€This,€the€jury€had€the€right€to€do.€€Giving€the€State€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€this€evidence,€as€we€must,€these€facts€are€sufficient€to€prove€theÏelement€of€intent.€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€require€that€the€StateÏprove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€had€thought€about€committingÏthe€homicide€for€some€period€of€time€before€killing€the€victim€and€that€this€thoughtÏprocess€was€engaged€in€while€the€defendant€was€in€a€ð ð€ððcool€mental€state,€underÏsuch€circumstances,€and€for€such€a€period€of€time€as€to€permit€a€ð ðcareful€weighingðð€ofÏthe€proposed€decision.€ðð€ðð€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€541€(Tenn.€1992)Ï(quoting€with€approval€C.€Torcia,€òòWhartonððs€Criminal€Lawóó€ðð€140€(14th€ed.€1979)).ÌÌà àà àIn€support€of€these€elements,€the€State€again€points€to€the€fact€that€theÏdefendant€drove€to€the€gas€station€with€the€loaded€rifle€in€his€car,€asked€the€victim€toÏcome€outside€ð ðin€a€calm€fashion€so€as€not€to€scare€her€away€or€draw€attention€to€hisÏtrue€purpose,ðð€shot€her€in€spite€of€his€daughterððs€plea,€and€then€left€the€scene€withoutÏtaking€any€steps€to€assist€her.€€Obviously,€all€of€this€evidence€is€circumstantial€as€toÏthe€defendantððs€state€of€mind.€€However,€Tennessee€courts€have€long€recognizedÏthat€first„degree€murder€may€be€proved€through€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.ÏBrownóó,€836€S.W.€2d€at€541.€€The€defendantððs€driving€around€all€day€with€a€loadedÏgun€in€his€car,€the€calm€with€which€he€approached€his€wife€at€her€place€of€employ…ment,€and€the€fact€that€he€requested€her€to€leave€her€work€station€and€come€outside,Ícertainly€give€rise€to€the€inference€that€the€defendant€had€thought€about€killing€hisÏwife€and€that€he€had€done€so€while€in€a€ð ðcoolðð€state€of€mind.€€The€jury€rejected€theÏdefendantððs€explanation€of€these€circumstances.€€The€defendantððs€contention€that€theÏevidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€intent,€premeditation€and€deliberation€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€when€it€refused€toÏdirect€a€verdict€of€acquittal€and€when€it€refused€to€set€aside€the€verdict€in€its€capacityÏas€thirteenth€juror.ÌÌ€€à àà àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€foundÏthe€defendantððs€daughter,€four„year„old€Endia€Kendrick,€qualified€to€testify.€€When€theÏState€was€attempting€to€qualify€this€witness,€it€first€demonstrated€the€childððs€knowl…edge€of€the€difference€between€the€truth€and€a€lie.€€To€the€subsequent€question,€ð ðIs€itÏa€good€thing€to€tell€a€lie?ðð€she€answered,€ð ðNo.ðð€€However,€when€the€State€then€asked,Ïð ðWhat€happens€if€you€tell€a€lie?ðð€she€answered,€ð ðI€donððt€know.ðð€€The€defendant€arguesÏthat€the€trial€court€should€have€disqualified€this€witness€based€on€this€response.ÌÌà àà àHowever,€following€this€response€the€State€asked,€ð ðWhat€do€you€thinkÍwould€happen€if€you€did€tell€a€lie?ðð€and€the€child€answered,€ð ðYou€get€a€whipping.ðð€ÏShe€also€answered€in€the€affirmative€when€the€State€asked€if€she€was€ð ðgoing€to€tellÏus€the€truth€here€today?ðð€€Over€the€defendantððs€objection,€the€trial€court€found€theÏchild€qualified€to€testify€ð ðwith€some€trepidation.ððÌÌà àà àUnder€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€601,€ð ðEvery€person€is€presumedÏcompetent€to€be€a€witness€except€as€otherwise€provided€in€these€rules€or€by€statute.ðð€ÏThere€is€no€general€exception€based€on€age.€€However,€ð ð[b]efore€testifying,€everyÏwitness€shall€be€required€to€declare€that€the€witness€will€testify€truthfully€by€oath€orÏaffirmation.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€603.€€Thus,€before€she€could€testify,€the€trial€court€mustÏhave€determined€that€Endia€understood€the€concept€of€the€ð ðtruthðð€and€that€she€wouldÏtestify€ð ðtruthfully.ðð€€Our€standard€of€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€decision€in€this€regard€isÏabuse€of€discretion.€òòState€v.€Hallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€285,€293€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€ÏHere,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€finding€Endia€competent€to€testify.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àœà àThe›€defendant€next€complains€about€the€trial€court's€refusal€to€allowÏhim€to€introduce€extrinsic€evidence€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€made€by€OfficerÏMiller€about€how€he€shot€himself€in€the€foot€with€the€defendant's€rifle.€€On€directÍexamination€by€the€State,€Officer€Miller€testified€that€he€had€"no€recollection€of€howÏthe€weapon€discharged."€€On€further€direct€examination,€he€testified€as€follows:ÌÓÓà àÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒQ.€€Do€you€have€a€memory€of€where€exactly€your€hand€was€or€whereÏexactly€your€fingers€were€precisely€on€the€weapon?ÌÌA.€€No,€sir.ÌÌQ.€€Okay.€€Do€you€have€a€memory€as€to€whether€or€not€your€finger€wasÏon€the€trigger€or€not€on€the€trigger?ÌÌA.€€No,€sir.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓOn€cross„examination,€the€officer€recalled€making€a€statement€while€in€the€hospital€inÏconjunction€with€the€preparation€of€an€"œEOF›."€€According€to€Officer€Miller,€an€EOF€isÏan€internal€report€generated€when€a€police€officer€is€injured€while€on€duty.€€However,Ïon€being€presented€with€copies€of€the€incident€report€and€supplemental€reportÏprepared,€apparently,€by€Officers€Michael€Holbrook€and€Glen€Sims,€respectively,ÏOfficer€Miller€testified€that€he€did€not€recall€making€the€statements€that€had€beenÏrecorded.€€Defense€counsel€then€attempted€to€introduce€the€statements€throughÏOfficer€Sims,€to€which€the€State€objected.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€objection.ÌÌà àà àIn€an€offer€of€proof,€defense€counsel€read€into€the€record€from€one€of€theÏreports:ÌÒ D ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒThe€victim,€Inspector€Steve€Miller,€states€he€was€removing€a€30„06€caliber€from€the€trunk€of€his€police€car.€€He€states€that€heÏpicked€the€gun€up€with€both€hands€and€that€his€finger€was€notÏnear€the€trigger,€as€he€lifted€the€weapon€out,€the€rifle€went€off.€.€.€.ÏThe€round€struck€him€in€the€left€foot.€€Also€Mr.€Miller€said€that€heÏwas€handling€the€rifle€with€care€because€it€was€to€be€[finger]print…ed.€.€.€.€He€said€that€he€was€taking€the€rifle€out€by€its€stock€when€itÏfired.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓIn€essence,€then,€Officer€Miller€repeatedly€testified€at€trial€that€he€couldn't€rememberÏwhere€his€fingers€were€on€the€gun€when€it€fired.€€His€prior€statement€that€defenseÏcounsel€attempted€to€introduce€through€Officer€Sims€was,€in€essence,€that€his€fingersÏwere€not€near€the€trigger€when€it€fired.€€ÌÌà àà àExtrinsic€evidence€of€prior€inconsistent€statements€is€admissible€if€theÏwitness€"is€afforded€an€opportunity€to€explain€or€deny€the€same€and€the€oppositeÏparty€is€afforded€an€opportunity€to€interrogate€the€witness€thereon[.]"€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï613(b).€€Here,€defense€counsel€offered€Officer€Miller€the€opportunity€to€explain€orÏdeny€his€prior€statements€to€Officer€Sims,€and€Officer€Miller€responded€that€he€didn'tÏremember€making€the€statements.€€The€State€was€also€given€an€opportunity€toÏconduct€further€examination€of€Officer€Miller.€€Therefore,€the€only€issue€is€whether€theÏprior€statement€was€"inconsistent"€with€Officer€Miller's€trial€testimony.ÌÌà àà àOur€rules€of€evidence€do€not€define€"inconsistent."€€However,€this€CourtÏhas€previously€ruled€that€"[i]f€the€witness€denies€or€does€not€recall€making€theÏstatement,€then€it€can€be€used€to€impeach€the€witness'€testimony."€€òòState€v.€TyroneÏMontgomeryóó,€No.€999,€Hamilton€County€(Ct.€Crim.€App.€filed€April€16,€1987,€atÏKnoxville).€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613€does€not€change€this€holding.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Ricky€ÏThompsonóó,€No.€03C01„9406„CR„00198,€McMinn€County€(Ct.€Crim.€App.€filedÏJanuary€24,€1996,€at€Knoxville)€(where€witness€neither€admitted€nor€denied€allegedÏprior€statement,€but€rather€stated€that€he€"might€have.€I€do€not€remember,"€trial€courtÏerred€in€precluding€evidence€of€prior€statement).€€Therefore,€we€think€that€OfficerÏSims'€testimony€about€Officer€Miller's€prior€statement€should€have€been€admitted,€butÏwe€also€find€the€trial€court's€error€in€excluding€this€testimony€to€have€been€harmlessÏerror.× ƒ, ××  ×€€The€jury€had€before€it€a€thorough€cross„examination€of€Officer€Miller,€includ…ing€the€following€exchanges:ÌÓÓà àà àÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒQ.€€When€you€picked€up€the€gun€and€you€showed€the€jury€how€youÏturned,€you€had€your€hand€just€like€that?ÌÌA.€€Right.ÌÌQ.€€You€don't€put€your€finger€on€the€trigger,€do€you?ÌÌA.€€No,€sir.ÌÌ.€.€.€.€ÌÌQ.€€Well,€in€22€years€as€a€police€officer,€have€you€ever€discharged€a€gunÏbefore€accidentally€into€your€foot?ÌÌA.€€No,€sir.ÌÌQ.€€Okay.€€Or€in€any€other€part€of€your€body?ÌÌA.€€No,€sir.ÌÌ.€.€.€.€ÌÌQ.€€Have€you€ever€had€a€gun€accidentally€discharge€as€you€„„€at€theÏcrime€scene€or€anything€else?Ìà àà àÌA.€€No,€sir.ÌÌQ.€€Okay.€€How€many€times€a€day€is€it€drilled€into€you€at€the€policeÏacademy€don't€ever€put€your€hand€on€the€trigger€unless€you're€going€toÏshoot€the€gun,€that's€pretty€standard,€isn't€it?ÌÌA.€€Yes,€sir.ÌÌQ.€€Would€you€ever€put€your€finger€on€the€trigger€of€a€gun€you're€liftingÏout€of€your€car,€especially€when,€as€you€say,€you€knew€the€gun€wasÏloaded?ÌÌA.€€Not€knowingly,€no.ÌÌ.€.€.€.€Ìà àÌQ.€€Well,€you€told€them€that€you€never€had€your€finger€on€the€trigger,€youÏdidn't€shoot€the€gun,€did€you€not€tell€them€that?ÌÌA.€€I€didn't€intentionally€shoot€the€gun,€no.ÌÌQ.€€Okay.€€And€you€know€not€to€put€your€finger€on€the€trigger€of€a€loadedÏgun€unless€you€want€to€shoot€it,€don't€you?ÌÌA.€€That's€correct.ÌÌQ.€€And€you've€practiced€that€rule€for€the€past€22€years,€have€you€not?ÌÌA.€€Yes.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓThis€testimony€provided€the€jury€ample€evidence€from€which€it€could€have€concludedÏthat€Officer€Miller's€memory€was€faulty€and€that€he€knew€he€had€not€caused€the€gunÏto€fire€by€pulling€the€trigger.€€The€exclusion€of€Officer€Sims'€testimony€was€thereforeÏharmless.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àIn€his€next€issue,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erredÏwhen€it€allowed€the€prosecution€to€cross„examine€him€about€prior€convictions.€€OnÏdirect€examination,€the€defendantððs€lawyer€asked€him,€ð ðdo€you€have€any€history€ofÏany€convictions€for€any€kind€of€crime?ðð€€The€defendant€responded,€ð ðReturnedÏchecks.ðð€€A€short€colloquy€about€the€bad€check€convictions€followed;€no€mention€wasÍmade€on€direct€about€any€other€convictions.ÌÌà àà àOn€cross„examination,€the€State€inquired€about€an€additionalÏconviction€for€drunk€driving,€which€the€defendant€admitted.€€In€conjunction€with€thisÏquestioning,€the€defendant€also€admitted€to€a€conviction€for€possession€of€marijuana.€ÏThis€questioning€occurred€after€vigorous€objection€from€defense€counsel€which€theÏtrial€court€overruled.€€The€defendant€now€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏallowing€the€State€to€introduce€this€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€misdemeanorÏconvictions.ÌÌà àà àWe€disagree.€€The€State€was€not€introducing€this€proof€as€a€means€ofÏshowing€character.€€Nor€was€it€trying€to€impeach€the€defendantððs€credibility€byÏshowing€that€he€had€previously€engaged€in€crimes€of€dishonesty.€€Rather,€the€StateÏwas€impeaching€the€defendantððs€testimony€on€direct€as€being€less€than€forthright.€ÏThis€is€proper.€€ð ðIrrespective€of€admissibility€under€Rule€609€[of€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏEvidence],€a€conviction€may€be€used€to€contradict€a€witness€who€ððopens€the€doorððÏand€testifies€on€direct€examination€that€he€or€she€has€never€been€convicted€of€aÏcrime,€or€to€counter€some€other€facet€of€direct€testimony.ðð€€Cohen,€Sheppeard€&ÏPaine,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€€ðð€609.1€(3d€ed.€1995).€€Here,€the€defendantÍð ðopened€the€doorðð€when€he€testified€about€only€some€of€his€prior€convictions€inÏresponse€to€a€question€on€direct€examination€about€ð ðanyðð€convictions€for€ð ðanyðð€typeÏof€crime.€€The€defendantððs€less€than€candid€response€left€the€clear€impression€thatÏthe€bad€check€convictions€comprised€the€total€of€his€prior€convictions.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€next€issue,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏallowing€undisclosed€witness€Martha€Maston,€the€airport€police€public€safety€officer,Ïto€testify.€€The€defendant€filed€a€pretrial€motion€requesting€a€list€of€the€StateððsÏwitnesses,€and€Mastonððs€name€was€not€provided.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€argues,Ïher€name€was€not€included€in€the€indictment€as€required€by€statute.€€The€prosecutingÏattorneys€contended€at€trial€that€they€had€not€become€aware€of€the€substance€of€thisÏwitnessðð€testimony€until€during€the€trial,€and€that€they€notified€defense€counsel€asÏsoon€as€they€determined€that€she€should€be€called€as€a€witness.ÌÌà àà àThe€State€is€directed€to€list€ð ðthe€names€of€such€witnesses€as€[it]€intendsÏshall€be€summoned€in€the€causeðð€on€the€charging€indictment.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„17„106Ï(1990€Repl.).€€The€purpose€of€this€statute€is€to€prevent€surprise€to€the€defendant€atÏtrial€and€to€permit€the€defendant€to€prepare€his€or€her€defense€to€the€Stateððs€proof.€ÍHowever,€this€duty€is€merely€directory,€not€mandatory.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2dÏ54,€69€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€Stateððs€failure€to€include€a€witnessðð€name€on€the€indictmentÏwill€not€automatically€disqualify€the€witness€from€testifying.€€òòIdóó.€€A€defendant€will€beÏentitled€to€relief€for€nondisclosure€only€if€he€or€she€can€demonstrate€prejudice,€badÏfaith,€or€undue€advantage.€€òòIdóó.€€The€determination€of€whether€to€allow€the€witness€toÏtestify€is€left€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Underwoodóó,€669ÏS.W.2d€700,€703€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€concedes€that€Mastonððs€testimony€ð ðwas€devastatingÏproof€which€was€highly€prejudicial€to€the€defense.ðð€€From€the€record,€however,€whatÏappears€to€have€been€devastating€was€the€substance€of€Mastonððs€testimony;€not€theÏfact€that€her€identity€was€not€disclosed€to€the€defendant€until€after€he€had€closed€hisÏcase.€€ð ðIn€this€context,€it€is€not€the€prejudice€which€resulted€from€the€witnessesððÏtestimony€but€the€prejudice€which€resulted€from€the€defendantððs€lack€of€notice€whichÏis€relevant€to€establish€prejudice.ðð€€òòState€v.€Jesse€Eugene€Harrisóó,€No.€88„188„III,ÏDavidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€June€7,€1989,€at€Nashville).€€The€defendantÏhere€has€simply€failed€to€show€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€late€notice€of€MastonððsÏidentity.€€His€trial€counsel€ably€cross„examined€Maston.€€The€defendant€has€failed€toÏshow€what€more€he€could€or€would€have€done€had€he€known€about€Maston€earlier.ÌÌà àà àNor€has€the€defendant€demonstrated€bad€faith€or€undue€advantage€onÏthe€Stateððs€part.€€Rather,€it€appears€that€the€State€was€somewhat€less€than€diligent€inÏfollowing€up€on€all€of€its€investigatory€leads.€€Officer€Rawlston€knew€about€MastonÏand€her€encounter€with€Endia€within€a€week€of€the€incident,€and€apparently€failed€toÏbring€it€to€the€prosecuting€attorneysðð€attention.€€We€do€not€think€that€this€rises€to€theÏlevel€of€bad€faith.€€Nor€do€we€think€that€the€State€deliberately€withheld€MastonððsÏidentity€in€an€effort€to€gain€undue€advantage.€€Rather,€we€suspect€that€the€assistantÏdistrict€attorneys€would€have€liked€to€have€known€about€Mastonððs€testimony€farÏsooner€than€they€did.€€We€see€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€judge€in€rulingÏMaston€qualified€to€testify.ÌÌà àà àIn€conjunction€with€this€argument,€the€defendant€also€complains€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€by€allowing€Maston€to€be€called€as€a€rebuttal€witness.€€We€agree€withÏthe€defendant€that€Mastonððs€testimony€should€have€been€introduced€during€theÏStateððs€case€in€chief.€€The€Stateððs€argument€that€her€testimony€was€used€for€theÏpurpose€of€rebutting€the€defendantððs€attack€on€Endiaððs€credibility€is€disingenuous.€ÏThe€point€of€producing€Maston€to€testify€was€to€get€before€the€jury€Endiaððs€statement,Ïð ðI€told€daddy€not€to€shoot€mommy€but€he€did€and€she€fell.ðð€€This€statement€is€helpful€toÍthe€Stateððs€case€because€it€goes€to€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind€at€the€time€of€theÏshooting,€not€because€it€bolsters€Endiaððs€prior€testimony€that€she€had€seen€her€fatherÏshoot€her€mother.€€ÌÌà àà àNevertheless,ÌÓÓà àà àÌÒ  ÒÒ ° Òthe€determination€of€the€admissibility€of€rebuttal€evidenceÏlies€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€This€court€will€notÏinterfere€with€the€exercise€of€this€discretion€unless€there€hasÏbeen€clear€abuse€of€discretion€appearing€on€the€face€of€theÏrecord.ÌÌIndeed,€we€have€observed€that€it€is€within€the€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court€to€permit€the€state,€in€a€criminal€case,€toÏintroduce€in€rebuttal€even€testimony€which€òòshouldóó€haveÏbeen€introduced€in€chief.€€Clearly,€in€the€instant€case,€theÏbetter€practice€would€have€been€to€introduce€[the€rebuttalÏwitnessðð]€testimony€during€the€stateððs€case€in€chief,€whenÏthe€issue€of€[the€stateððs€witnessðð]€credibility€was€first€raisedÏby€defense€counsel€[on€cross€examination].€ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓòòState€v.€Cyrus€Deville€Wilsonóó,€No.€01C01„9408„CR„00266,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€filed€November€15,€1995,€at€Nashville)€(emphasis€in€original)€(citationsÏomitted).€€In€òòWilsonóó,€we€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€allow€the€rebuttal€witnessÏto€testify,€finding€no€error.€€Here,€we€find€ourselves€constrained€to€do€the€same.€€WeÏsimply€fail€to€see€how€the€defendant€was€prejudiced€by€the€order€in€which€MastonððsÍtestimony€was€produced.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€attacks€Mastonððs€testimony€on€the€grounds€that€itÏcontained€hearsay€that€should€not€have€been€admitted€under€the€excited€utteranceÏexception.€€The€excited€utterance€hearsay€exception€provides€for€the€admissibility€ofÏð ð[a]€statement€relating€to€a€startling€event€or€condition€made€while€the€declarant€wasÏunder€the€stress€of€excitement€caused€by€the€event€or€condition.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï803(2).€€The€statement€about€which€the€defendant€complains€is,€of€course,€theÏstatement€of€his€daughter€testified€to€by€Maston.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€contends€that€his€daughter€was€not€still€sufficiently€underÏthe€ð ðstress€of€excitement€caused€by€the€event€or€conditionðð€at€the€time€that€MastonÏrecovered€her€from€the€car.€€We€find€this€argument€untenable.€€The€childððs€motherÏhad€just€been€killed€within€a€few€feet€of€where€she€was€sitting.€€The€stress€of€thisÏparticular€ð ðexcitementðð€can€properly€be€expected€to€continue€for€a€significant€time.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àRelated€to€this€issue€is€the€defendantððs€complaint€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€when€it€did€not€give€a€limiting€instruction€with€respect€to€Mastonððs€testimonyÍabout€Endiaððs€statement.€€Apparently,€the€defendant€is€arguing€that,€since€the€StateÏcontended€that€Maston€was€a€rebuttal€witness,€evidence€introduced€through€herÏshould€have€been€limited€in€its€use€to€issues€of€credibility.€€The€trial€court€did€not€giveÏsuch€a€limiting€instruction€either€contemporaneously€with€Mastonððs€testimony€or€in€itsÏcharge€to€the€jury.ÌÌà àà àAs€set€forth€above,€regardless€of€the€Stateððs€arguments€at€trial€as€to€whyÏthis€evidence€was€properly€considered€ð ðrebuttal,ðð€Mastonððs€testimony€should€haveÏbeen€tendered€as€part€of€the€Stateððs€case€in€chief.€€As€such,€Endiaððs€statement€wasÏproperly€considered€as€substantive€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind€at€theÏtime€he€shot€his€wife.€€No€limiting€instruction€was€therefore€necessary.€€Furthermore,Ïthe€defendant€waived€his€right€to€raise€this€issue€because€he€failed€to€request€anyÏlimiting€instruction€at€trial,€did€not€object€to€its€omission,€and€did€not€include€thisÏspecific€ground€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€151Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àAs€to€the€defendantððs€contention€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÏallowed€Maston€to€repeat€Endiaððs€statement€on€redirect,€we€find€this€issue€alsoÏwithout€merit.€€After€Maston€had€already€testified€about€Endiaððs€statement€on€direct,Íthe€State€asked€€on€redirect,€ð ðWhat€did€[Endia]€tell€you?ðð€€The€defendant€did€notÏobject.€€Accordingly,€the€defendant€waived€any€objection€to€the€witnessðð€answer€toÏthe€question.€€òòState€v.€Hopperóó,€695€S.W.2d€530,€536€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€Ìà àà à€€Ìà àà àWe€also€find€without€merit€the€defendantððs€contention€that€MastonððsÏtestimony€contained€a€component€of€exculpatory€information€and€that€the€StateÏviolated€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963),€when€it€failed€to€inform€him€aboutÏEndiaððs€statement€before€trial.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€argues€that€EndiaððsÏstatement€to€Maston€is€exculpatory€because€it€includes€no€mention€of€having€seenÏher€motherððs€arms€in€a€raised€position€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€We€disagree€thatÏan€hysterical€four„year„oldððs€silence€to€a€complete€stranger€on€the€exact€position€inÏwhich€her€mother€was€standing€at€the€time€she€was€shot€is€ð ðexculpatory.ðð€€ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€before€the€State€has€any€duty€to€disclose€exculpatoryÏevidence€to€the€defendant€under€òòBradyóó,€the€evidence€must€be€material€in€the€senseÏthat€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€had€the€evidence€been€disclosed€to€theÏdefense,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.ðð€òòUnited€States€v.ÏBagleyóó,€473€U.S.€667,€682€(1985).€€Clearly,€Endiaððs€silence€to€Maston€on€the€positionÏof€her€motherððs€arms€does€not€meet€this€test.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€gave€theÏjury€an€instruction€on€flight.€€We€disagree.€€There€is€no€dispute€that€the€defendant€leftÏthe€scene€of€the€shooting€immediately€after€it€occurred.€€It€is€the€òòpurposeóó€for€which€heÏleft€that€is€at€issue.€€The€State€points€to€the€defendant's€actions€in€throwing€the€gunÏout€of€the€window€of€his€car€as€he€drove€away€as€support€for€its€argument€that€theÏdefendant€was€attempting€to€evade€arrest€or€prosecution.€€However,€the€defendantÏtestified€that€he€had€left€the€scene€out€of€concern€for€his€two€very€young€children€andÏthat€he€tossed€the€gun€because€he€was€"scared."ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€issue€of€flight,€the€trial€court€charged€the€jury€as€Ìfollows:ÌÓÓà àà8 àÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒFlight€is€the€voluntary€withdrawal€of€oneself€òòfor€the€purpose€ofÏevading€arrest€or€prosecution€for€the€crime€charged.óóÌÌThe€flight€of€a€person€accused€of€crime€is€a€circumstance€which,Ïwhen€considered€together€with€all€the€facts€in€the€case,€may€justifyÏan€inference€of€guilt.€€It€is€a€circumstance€which€may€tend€in€someÏdegree€to€prove€a€consciousness€of€guilt,€and€is€entitled€to€moreÏor€less€weight€according€to€the€circumstances€of€the€particularÏœcase.›ÌÌThe€law€makes€no€nice€or€refined€distinction€as€to€the€manner€orÏmethod€of€a€flight.€€It€may€be€open€or€it€may€be€a€hurried€orÍconcealed€departure,€or€it€may€be€a€concealment€within€theÏjurisdiction.€€However,€it€takes€both€a€leaving€of€the€scene€of€theÏdifficulty€and€a€subsequent€hiding€out,€evasion,€or€concealment€inÏthe€community,€or€a€leaving€of€the€community€for€parts€unknown,Ïto€constitute€flight.ÌÌIf€flight€is€proved,€it€is€not€sufficient€in€itself€to€establish€the€guilt€ofÏthe€defendant.€€However,€since€flight€by€a€defendant€may€beÏcaused€by€a€consciousness€of€guilt,€you€may€consider€the€fact€ofÏflight,€if€so€proven,€together€with€all€of€the€other€evidence€whenÏyou€decide€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€defendant.€€On€the€otherÏhand,€an€entirely€innocent€person€may€take€flight€and€such€flightÏmay€be€explained€by€proof€offered,€or€by€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€the€case.ÌÌWhether€the€evidence€presented€proves€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€the€defendant€fled,€the€reasons€for€it,€and€the€weight€toÏbe€given€it,€are€questions€for€you€to€determine.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€This€instruction€is€in€substantial€accord€with€our€pattern€juryÏinstruction,€T.Ô% € ÔP.I.€„„€Crim.€42.18,€which€has€been€cited€with€approval€by€our€Court.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Paytonóó,€782€S.W.2d€490€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989);€òòState€v.€Whittenmeiróó,Ï725€S.W.2d€686,€688€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).ÌÌà àà àWe€think€that€the€defendant's€actions€in€fleeing€the€scene€andÏsubsequently€throwing€the€gun€out€of€his€car€window€are€sufficient€evidence€ofÏattempting€to€evade€prosecution€as€to€render€the€instruction€proper.€€The€jury€hadÍbefore€it€the€defendant's€explanation€of€his€actions€and€was€not€bound€to€find€that€hisÏdeparture€equaled€guilt.€€Nor,€however,€would€it€have€been€error€for€the€jury€to€haveÏinferred€the€defendant's€guilt€from€his€flight€when€combined€with€the€other€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€this€case.€€This€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.Ìà àÌà àà àThe€defendant's€contentions€being€without€merit,€the€judgment€below€isÏaffirmed.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€Senior€Judge