ÿWPC†F .íAdëÙ›½×ã—ôn¸¶×oÍT¯?ƒŒÂ…PP_ÜK ×OGÛ_»bñêÏ3 n¦;—¼IÓ„;d¥½eß \2EàöJ4ÌÎVÞÒmûåå¢ãÖIn aªõ\Kø‚ø3äþfqò¥“¨8¸BØ-î´q霜 ¦Ô]yj¥cJÃ*÷ýÜ #°§ëk¯mI­6¤D< #@q3ß ZTó7×?³Ÿõ9/q¡È¤•Z/Úé»0l­»LŸào^g¸LØ ×qµðÖ®e{†wµÚZ4­m3QÑσ2¦]•äÔ´„ÉÞe`Ú}éÌ܉Éèí1ÄÎ]¹yž6ØeŽ" Q×øŠÔ®ÂÐNà«IFK¼cí|ÇÅh; x™<Êwzq>½N·ªµ§£1|2U®«t*ü¡mvR¦Ÿ’ÐÏ”•ìm#Áö %· N½ 0ˆ¿ U‰NG U\@• 0UÕ z* Ò¤ zv Òð ^  wÎ ÆÒ ƘÆ^Æ$4êNþE m* 0D<€–›U >1Ho· 0é¿ 0æ¨ 0㎠0àq 0ÝQ 0Ú. 0× 0Ôß 0C³ 0×ö 0ÔÍ 0Ñ¡! 0Îr" 0Ë@# 0È $bÓ$ 0ÅÛ$ 0À % 0@`& 0Ô & 0Ñt' 0ÎE( 0Ë) 0ÈÞ) 0Ŧ* 0Âk+ 0½-, 00ê, 0<- 0¾V- 0>. 0vR. 0`È. 0`(/ 0`ˆ/ 08è/ 0` 0 0`€0 0Òà0 02²1 0\ä1 0ü@2 0:<3 0_v3 0 Õ3 0jß4 0„I6 B*Í7 D/÷7 0„&8 D/ª9 0ëÙ9 0ÎÄ: 06’; 0È; BÐ< 0:í< 0¤'= D3Ë= D-þ= 0K+> 0^v> ASÔ>Æ'? 0¤í? 0D‘@ A«Õ@ 0<€A AM¼A 0N B2WBU6‰CU*¿CVéCU>?E?EUN}E»ËE˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman *+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptpu-s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5üPH,.bk\³¯3|x(ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒRÎ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôã•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDr.€Dyer€explained€that€decidua€is€found€in€the€uterus€during€pregnancy€and€forms€the€bed€upon€which€aÐ ° Ðplacenta€rests.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒRÎ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôã•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendant€does€not€contest€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€with€regard€to€his€convictions€for€first€degreeÐ ° Ðmurder€or€theft. ŒÝ ƒRÎ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôã•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Section€39„11„106(20)€defines€ð ðknowingðð€as€follows:Ð ° Ðà8  àð ðKnowingðð€refers€to€a€person€who€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€the€conduct€or€to€circumstancesÐ tÄ Ðsurrounding€the€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€of€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€that€theÐ 8ˆ Ðcircumstances€exist.€€A€person€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€a€result€of€the€personððs€conduct€whenÐ üL Ðthe€person€is€aware€that€the€conduct€is€reasonably€certain€to€cause€the€result.ô\  `‹&Times New Roman >Ý ƒRÎ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôã•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôã•òòôã•ÔÔ‡òã•òòôã•ÔThe€first€four€criteria€are€found€in€òòGrayóó.€€A€fifth€category€in€òòGrayóó,€based€on€a€specific€number€of€prior€felonyÐ ° Ðconvictions,€may€enhance€the€sentence€range€but€is€no€longer€a€listed€criterion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115,Ð tÄ ÐSentencing€Commission€Comments.Ô#†òã•òòòã•~#ÔÔ‡iò—È òòòã•Ô *G+M ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*D+M ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+M ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡ôôôÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó6BV4HyperlinkòòÔÿÔóóÔÿÔ,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡f<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡f<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡f<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€O(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡g%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dN)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€Q(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡g%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓN)2dxd(|G2Î$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôã•ò»»Ô0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡f<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡f<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ d4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó(|3‡Ž$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡Ž$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  ÔX[ZA<< cÿÿ(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ (Ý ƒRÎ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôã•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Because€of€the€relationship€between€the€issues,€we€choose€to€address€them€in€an€order€different€from€that€inÐ ° Ðwhich€they€were€presented€in€the€briefs.<þ6X9`(‹Courier New%ä2¼A`‹Arial LÝ ƒRÎ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôã•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€the€time€of€the€shooting,€the€witnessðð€name€was€LaQuita€Denise€Slate.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€however,€theÐ ° Ðwitness€testified€that€her€surname€changed€to€Stagner€in€November€of€1998.<@ˆÐ9Z &Courier Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ±Ý ƒRÎ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôã•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€This€is€a€slang€term€for€an€army€issued€back€pack.Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[½»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼[½»»»ÔÑ8€qXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îDÜ[½ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼[½»îîDÜ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJuly€18,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XqX»¼[½ÔÌò òÔ#†¼[½»XXq#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€TRACY€F.€LEONARDòòóóÔ‡XqX»¼[½Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Montgomery€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€40494€€€€€€Robert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„00368„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€August€28,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Tracy€Frank€Leonard,€was€convicted€of€first€degree€premeditated€murder,€felonyÐ xÈ  Ðmurder,€two€counts€of€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô,€rape,€and€theft€over€$1,000.€€€The€trial€courtÐ d´ Ðmerged€the€convictions€for€first€degree€premeditated€murder€and€felony€murder€and€also€merged€theÐ P  Ðconvictions€for€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€into€a€single€conviction.€€The€defendant€receivedÐ <Œ Ða€life€sentence€for€the€first€degree€murder,€twenty„five€years€for€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô,Ð (x Ðeight€years€for€rape,€and€two€years€for€theft€over€$1,000.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€the€sentencesÐ d Ðfor€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€and€rape€be€served€consecutively€to€the€life€sentence€andÐ P Ðconsecutively€to€each€other.€€The€sentence€for€the€theft€is€to€be€served€concurrent€with€the€sentenceÐ ì< Ðfor€rape.€€Ô#†¼[½»XXq‹#ÔÔ‡XqX»¼[½ÔThe€effective€sentence€isÔ#†¼[½»XXqJ #ÔÔ‡XqX»¼[½Ô,€therefore,€life€plus€thirty„three€years.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,Ð Ø( Ðthe€defendant€alleges€(1)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€the€testimony€of€several€witnesses;Ð Ä Ð(2)€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions€for€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðand€rape;€(3)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€restricting€his€right€to€cross„examination€of€witnesses;Ô#†¼[½»XXq¥ #ÔÔ‡XqX»¼[½Ô€(4)Ð œì Ðthat€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€a€new€trial€based€on€the€Stateððs€failure€to€discloseÐ ˆØ Ðexculpatory€evidence;€(5)Ô#†¼[½»XXq» #ÔÔ‡XqX»¼[½Ô€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€a€mistrial;€(6)€Ô#†¼[½»XXqª #ÔÔ‡XqX»¼[½Ôthat€the€trial€erredÐ tÄ Ðin€its€instructions€to€the€jury;€(7)€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€certain€enhancement€factors€to€hisÐ `° Ðsentences€for€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€and€rape;€and€(8)€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€theÐ L œ Ðtrial€courtððs€errors€denied€him€the€right€to€a€fair€trial.׃e×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€affirm€the€convictions€and€judgments€forÐ 8!ˆ  Ðfirst€degree€murder,€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€where€the€victim€suffers€serious€bodily€injury,Ð $"t! Ðrape,€and€theft€over€$1,000.€€We€conclude€the€sentences€imposed€were€proper.€€The€defendantððsÐ #`" Ðconviction€for€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€accomplished€by€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€isÐ ü#L# Ðreversed€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial€because€of€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€as€toÐ è$8 $ Ðlesser„included€offenses.€€Ð Ô%$!% ÐÓÕÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€in€Part;€Reversed€andÐ ¬'ü"' ÐRemanded€in€Partó óÐ ˜(è#( Ðâ âÐ „)Ô$)ýà ÐÔ_ÔòòÓ  ÓJohn€Everett€Williams,€J.Ô#†¼[½»àXq, #ÔÔ‡XqX.¼[½Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòòóó€òòJoseph€M.€Tipton,€J.óó,Ð ° Ðâ âjoined.€€òòGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.,óó€not€participating.Ð œì ÐÔ#†¼[½»XXqÆ#ÔÔ‡XqX»¼[½ÔÌCarrie€Kersh,€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Tracy€F.€Leonard.Ð tÄ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€David€H.€Findley,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð L œ ÐJohn€Wesley€Carney,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€C.€Daniel€Broiller,€Jr.,€Assistant€DistrictÐ 8 ˆ ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ð $ t ÐÓ~ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼[½»XXqÄ#ÔÔ‡XqX»¼[½ÔÐ ü L  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼[½»XXqÑ#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XqX»¼[½Ôà  àOn€November€19,€1996,€Crystal€Jarrett,€who€was€working€at€the€Econo€Lodge€motel€locatedÐ Ô$  Ðat€201€Holiday€Road€in€Clarksville,€observed€the€victim,€Cherilyn€Leonard,€enter€the€motel€lobbyÐ À  Ðat€approximately€8:30€a.m.€and€sit€in€a€chair.€€Seconds€later,€the€defendant€entered€the€lobby€and€satÐ ¬ü  Ðnext€to€the€victim.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€victim€approached€the€front€desk€and€asked€whether€thereÐ ˜è  Ðwas€a€pay€telephone€in€the€motel.€€Ms.€Jarrett€informed€the€victim€that€there€was€no€pay€telephone,Ð „Ô  Ðbut€permitted€her€to€use€the€house€telephone€located€near€the€public€restrooms.€€The€victim€walkedÐ pÀ Ðtoward€the€phone€and€the€defendant€ð ðfollowed€right€on€her€tail.ðð€€According€to€Ms.€Jarrett,€theÐ \¬ Ðdefendant€ð ðstood€about€eight€inchesðð€from€the€victim€as€she€made€a€telephone€call.€€Ms.€JarrettÐ H˜ Ðrecalled€that€ð ðthe€phone€slammed€on€the€hookðð€and€the€defendant€then€dragged€the€victim€out€of€theÐ 4„ Ðlobby.€€While€being€pulled€from€the€lobby€area,€the€victim€remarked€to€Ms.€Jarrett€that€she€and€theÐ  p Ðdefendant€ð ðwould€be€checking€out,ðð€giving€her€room€number€as€211.€€The€victim€added€that€Ms.Ð  \ ÐJarrett€ð ðcould€call€the€police€now.ðð€€After€the€victim€and€defendant€exited€the€lobby,€Ms.€JarrettÐ øH Ðheard€a€woman€shouting.€€Before€Ms.€Jarrett€could€telephone€the€police,€she€heard€a€gunshot.€Ð ä4 ÐAccording€to€Ms.€Jarrett,€the€victim€ran€into€the€motel€vestibule€then€ð ðher€arm€hit€the€glass€door€andÐ Ð  Ðshe€fell€backward€against€the€bookcase€and€then€[the€defendant]€was€right€there€on€her€and€then€heÐ ¼  Ðshot€her.ðð€€Ms.€Jarrett€heard€the€victim€scream€once.€€Ms.€Jarrett€conceded€that€she€did€not€observeÐ ¨ø Ðthe€first€gunshot,€but€had€watched€as€the€defendant€ð ðhovered€overðð€the€victim.€€Ms.€Jarrett€testifiedÐ ”ä Ðthat€after€the€defendant€shot€the€victim,€he€looked€at€her€ð ðvery€angry.ðð€€His€expression€then€turnedÐ €Ð Ðto€one€of€fear€and€he€ran€out€the€door.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àJerry€Tams,€a€resident€of€Florida€who€was€staying€at€the€Econo€Lodge€on€the€morning€of€theÐ D!” Ðshooting,€stated€that€he€was€preparing€to€leave€the€motel€when€he€heard€ð ða€little€bit€of€noiseðð€comingÐ 0"€  Ðfrom€the€lobby.€€When€he€turned€to€look,€he€saw€ð ða€gentleman€with€his€arms€around€a€girl.ðð€€Mr.Ð #l! ÐTams€overheard€the€girl€say€ð ðsomething€to€the€effect€of€oh,€no€please€stopðð€before€the€couple€fell€toÐ $X" Ðthe€ground.€€Mr.€Tams€recalled€the€subsequent€events€as€follows:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àShe€broke€his€hold.€€He€was€able€to€get€his€left€knee€on€her€and€hold€her€down€withÐ Ì&"% Ðhis€left€hand€and€as€that€was€going€on,€she€was€still€screaming,€please€stop,€pleaseÐ ¸'#& Ðstop,€or€something€like€that.€€And€I€saw€him€reach€into€his€right€pocket€and€pull€outÐ ¤(ô#' Ða€black€semi„automatic€weapon€and€shoot€her€with€it.€.€.€.€€As€he€got€the€weapon€outÐ )à$( Ðâ âof€his€pocket,€he€chambered€the€bullet€into€the€barrel€and€held€the€gun€down€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðpulled€the€trigger€once.€€I€believe€he€tried€to€pull€the€trigger€again€and€[the€gun]Ð ° Ðmisfired€because€he€rechambered€another€bullet.МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌAfter€Mr.€Tams€saw€the€victim€run€into€the€lobby€followed€by€the€defendant,€he€heard€more€gunshotsÐ tÄ Ðfrom€inside€the€lobby.€€Fearful€for€his€family,€Mr.€Tams€hurried€his€wife€and€son€into€their€camper.€Ð `° ÐShortly€thereafter,€the€defendant€exited€the€motel,€looked€around,€and€walked€very€quickly€awayÐ L œ Ðfrom€the€motel.€€Mr.€Tams€recalled€that,€prior€to€the€shooting,€he€had€seen€the€victim€and€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant€sitting€together€in€the€motel€lobby.€€He€testified€that€the€victim€was€ð ðsmiling€andÐ $ t Ðlaughing.ðð€€Deborah€Jean€Tams€provided€essentially€the€same€account€as€her€husband€Jerry.€€SheÐ  ` Ðadded€that€the€defendant€appeared€angry,€but€not€nervous,€during€the€incident.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àClarksville€Police€Officer€John€Douglas€testified€that€he€was€parked€at€a€Texaco€StationÐ Ô$  Ðapproximately€one€hundred€yards€away€from€the€motel€when€he€received€a€report€of€the€shooting.€Ð À  ÐUpon€arriving€at€the€motel,€he€checked€its€perimeter€to€determine€if€the€defendant€was€still€on€theÐ ¬ü  Ðpremises€but€discovered€no€one.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àOfficer€Timothy€Saunders,€who€was€working€for€the€Clarksville€Police€Department,Ð pÀ Ðparticipated€in€a€search€of€room€211.€€No€personal€property€belonging€to€either€the€defendant€or€theÐ \¬ Ðvictim€was€found€during€the€search.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àLuigi€Agostini,€a€United€States€Army€Criminal€Investigation€Agent,€testified€that€theÐ  p Ðdefendant€surrendered€to€authorities€at€Fort€Campbell€two€days€after€the€shooting.€€According€toÐ  \ ÐAgostini,€the€defendant€ð ðlooked€like€he€had€been€out€for€quite€a€while,€he€was€dirty€and€he€was€alsoÐ øH Ðinjured.ðð€€At€the€time€of€his€surrender,€the€defendant€was€driving€a€red€Honda€automobile.€€A€searchÐ ä4 Ðof€the€vehicle€yielded€a€Glock€.45€caliber€handgun,€two€plastic€bags€containing€.45€caliberÐ Ð  Ðammunition,€and€seven€magazines€loaded€with€.45€caliber€ammunition€in€the€front€passenger€seat.€Ð ¼  ÐAdditionally,€the€vehicle€contained€camping€gear,€fishing€line€and€hooks,€plastic€flex„type€handcuffs,Ð ¨ø Ða€roll€of€duct€tape,€eleven€condoms,€and€a€jar€of€Vaseline.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àDetective€Robert€Miller€of€the€Clarksville€Police€Department€was€in€charge€of€theÐ l¼ Ðinvestigation€into€the€victimððs€death.€€During€his€investigation,€he€learned€from€Merlyn€Moore,€whoÐ X ¨ Ðworked€as€a€desk€clerk€at€the€Econo€Lodge€on€the€night€before€the€shooting,€that€the€defendant€wasÐ D!” Ðalone€when€he€checked€into€room€211€at€9:38€p.m.€€The€address€listed€on€the€registration€card€forÐ 0"€  Ðroom€211€was€the€defendantððs€home€address.€€The€vehicle€was€described€on€the€card€as€a€ð ðpinkishÐ #l! Ðcoloredðð€Honda€Prelude.€€Miller€later€determined€that€the€title€registration€of€the€vehicle€was€in€theÐ $X" Ðname€of€Roderick€Smith,€the€defendantððs€roommate.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àDr.€Joseph€Eugene€Dyer,€a€forensic€pathologist€at€Blanchfield€Army€Community€Hospital,Ð Ì&"% Ðtestified€that€the€victim€sustained€three€gunshot€wounds€to€the€chest€and€one€gunshot€wound€to€theÐ ¸'#& Ðarm.€€He€explained€that,€while€all€three€wounds€to€the€chest€were€potentially€fatal,€two€of€the€woundsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwould€have€caused€immediate€death.€€Dr.€Dyer€stated€that€because€he€was€not€provided€with€theÐ )à$( Ðclothing€that€the€victim€was€wearing€at€the€time€of€the€shooting,€he€was€unable€to€determine€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðdistance€from€which€the€shots€were€fired.€€He€noted,€however,€that€the€presence€of€soot,€stippling,Ð h+¸&* Ðand€an€area€of€scorch€on€the€victimððs€forearm€indicated€that€one€shot€was€fired€from€a€distance€ofÐ ° Ðless€than€one€foot.€€Dr.€Dyer€testified€that€a€sexual€assault€examination€was€performed€on€the€victimÐ œì Ðand€specimens€obtained€during€the€examination€were€given€to€the€Clarksville€Police€Department.€Ð ˆØ ÐTesting€later€revealed€the€presence€of€sperm€in€the€victimððs€vaginal€and€anal€cavities€that€had€beenÐ tÄ Ðdeposited€only€six€to€ten€hours€prior€to€the€victimððs€death.€€On€cross„examination,€Dr.€Dyer€relatedÐ `° Ðthat€there€were€no€physical€signs€of€restraint,€such€as€ligature€marks,€on€the€victimððs€body.€Ð L œ ÐAdditionally,€he€testified€that€the€presence€of€ð ðnecrotic€deciduaðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€in€the€victimððs€uterus€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðconsistent€with€the€victim€having€had€an€abortion€one€and€one„€half€months€prior€to€her€death€inÐ $ t ÐNovember€of€1996.€€Ô‡XqXXXqÔOther€evidence€established€that€the€victim€had€an€abortion€in€October€of€thatÐ  ` Ðyear.Ô#†XqXXXqÜ7#ÔÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àAgent€Samera€Zavara€of€the€TBI€obtained€DNA€profiles€from€samples€of€the€victimððs€blood,Ð Ô$  Ðthe€defendantððs€blood,€and€the€specimens€taken€from€the€sexual€assault€examination.€€She€concludedÐ À  Ðthat€the€DNA€profile€of€the€sperm€present€in€the€victimððs€vagina€and€anus€was€consistent€with€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðof€the€defendant.€€Agent€Zamara€testified€that€ð ðin€the€Caucasian€population,€approximately€one€inÐ ˜è  Ðsix€thousand€two€hundred€individuals€that€are€unrelated€would€have€this€combination,€this€DNAÐ „Ô  Ðprofile.ððÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àAttorney€Christine€Zellar„Church€represented€the€victim€in€her€divorce€from€the€defendantÐ H˜ Ðin€the€summer€of€1996.€€Ms.€Zellar„Church€testified€that€the€victim€told€her€that€domestic€violenceÐ 4„ Ðð ðhad€been€a€problem€between€her€and€the€defendant€for€some€time.ðð€€€Ms.€Zellar„Church€recalledÐ  p Ðthat€they€had€discussed€the€possibility€of€obtaining€an€order€of€protection€but€the€victim€related€thatÐ  \ Ðshe€had€moved€to€a€different€town€and€no€longer€felt€threatened€by€the€defendant.€€The€maritalÐ øH Ðdissolution€agreement€entered€into€by€the€parties€provided€that€the€defendant€ð ðwould€not€interfereÐ ä4 Ðwith€[the€victim]€and€her€new€life,€that€he€would€leave€her€alone.ðð€€The€divorce€became€final€in€JulyÐ Ð  Ðof€1996.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àLarry€E.€Reeb,€the€defendantððs€commanding€officer€at€Fort€Campbell,€recalled€that€theÐ ”ä Ðdefendant,€who€was€trained€as€a€Special€Forces€soldier,€purchased€a€gun€in€November€of€1996.€€ReebÐ €Ð Ðalso€recalled€that€the€defendant€told€him€he€was€experiencing€financial€difficulties.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àNancy€Leonard€testified€that€she€was€married€to€the€defendant€twice.€€According€to€Ms.Ð D!” ÐLeonard,€the€couple€met€and€married€in€1990€while€serving€in€the€military.€€While€on€duty€in€NorthÐ 0"€  ÐCarolina,€the€defendant€became€romantically€involved€with€the€victim.€€He€divorced€Ms.€LeonardÐ #l! Ðshortly€before€the€birth€of€their€second€child€and€married€the€victim.€€While€married€to€the€victim,Ð $X" Ðthe€defendant€rekindled€his€romance€with€Ms.€Leonard.€€After€divorcing€the€victim,€the€defendantÐ ô$D # Ðremarried€Ms.€Leonard.€€After€she€was€sent€to€North€Carolina€for€training,€Ms.€Leonard€returnedÐ à%0!$ Ðhome€to€Clarksville€on€a€weekend€pass€and€discovered€the€defendant€and€victim€in€a€compromisingÐ Ì&"% Ðâ âposition.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€defendant€divorced€Ms.€Leonard€and€remarried€the€victim.€€Ms.Ð ¸'#& ÐLeonard€testified€that€the€victim€did€not€like€the€defendantððs€children€from€his€first€marriage€andÐ ° Ðconsidered€them€a€burden€on€her€relationship€with€the€defendant.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àMs.€Leonard€recalled€that€three€months€before€the€shooting,€the€defendant€told€her€that€theÐ tÄ Ðvictim€had€ruined€his€life€and€destroyed€him€financially.€€Additionally,€he€admitted€that€he€ð ðhad€tiedÐ `° Ð[the€victim]€up€and€tortured€her€for€hours€in€March€of€that€year.ðð€€The€defendant€informed€Ms.Ð L œ ÐLeonard€that€ð ðhe€had€to€finish€it.ðð€€Ms.€Leonard€stated€that€the€victim,€who€confirmed€the€MarchÐ 8 ˆ Ðincident,€was€not€surprised€when€Ms.€Leonard€told€her€of€the€defendantððs€statements.€€The€victimÐ $ t Ðremarked€to€Ms.€Leonard€that€she€was€protected€by€the€ð ðguidelinesðð€of€her€divorce€agreement.€€WhenÐ  ` ÐMs.€Leonard€spoke€with€the€victim€in€October€of€1996,€the€victim€expressed€her€belief€that€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendant€would€kill€her.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àSteven€Hinson,€who€worked€with€the€victim,€testified€that€in€March€of€1996,€about€eightÐ À  Ðmonths€before€the€shooting,€the€victim€arrived€at€his€apartment€unannounced€and€claimed€that€sheÐ ¬ü  Ðhad€been€raped€by€the€defendant.€€The€victim€showed€him€rope€burns€on€her€wrists€and€legs€and,Ð ˜è  Ðbecause€of€her€fear€of€the€defendant,€asked€to€stay€at€Hinsonððs€apartment.€€The€victim€refused€toÐ „Ô  Ðreport€the€incident€to€police.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAngela€Murphy,€a€friend€of€the€victim,€testified€that€during€the€summer€before€the€shooting,Ð H˜ Ðthe€victim€often€commented€that€she€no€longer€cared€for€the€defendant€and€wanted€the€marriage€toÐ 4„ Ðend.€€The€victim€informed€Ms.€Murphy€that€the€defendant€had€hurt€her€in€May€of€1996€and€that€sheÐ  p Ðwas€going€to€leave€him.€€The€victim€also€told€Ms.€Murphy€that€she€would€file€a€restraining€orderÐ  \ Ðagainst€the€defendant€if€he€ever€hurt€her€again.€€Ms.€Murphy€testified€that€she€helped€the€victim€leaveÐ øH Ðthe€defendant.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àGeorge€Elliot€Matthews,€a€co„worker,€testified€that€he€began€dating€the€victim€approximatelyÐ ¼  Ðthree€weeks€before€her€murder.€€He€stated€that€he€last€spoke€with€her€on€the€night€before€the€shootingÐ ¨ø Ðshortly€before€she€was€scheduled€to€begin€her€shift€at€8:30€p.m.€€He€telephoned€her€apartment€atÐ ”ä Ðapproximately€8:00€p.m.,€got€no€answer,€and€left€a€message€on€her€answering€machine.Ô‡XqXXXqÔ€€The€victimÐ €Ð Ðreturned€the€phone€call€approximately€five€minutes€later,€explaining€that€she€had€been€drying€her€hairÐ l¼ Ðand€indicating€that€she€would€report€to€work€as€scheduled.€€According€to€Matthews,€the€victim€hadÐ X ¨ Ðtold€him€that€ð ðit€would€suit€her€perfectly€fine€if€she€never€had€any€dealings€with€[the€defendant]Ð D!” Ðagain.ððÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àJerry€White,€the€victimððs€supervisor€at€the€Postal€Service,€testified€that€she€was€given€severalÐ $X" Ðwarnings€because€of€excessive€absences€from€work.€€White€recalled€that€the€victim€was€eventuallyÐ ô$D # Ðsuspended€for€seven€days€due€to€the€unexcused€absences.€€The€victim€blamed€her€absences€onÐ à%0!$ Ðpersonal€problems,€claiming€that€she€feared€the€defendant€and€believed€that€he€had€been€followingÐ Ì&"% Ðher.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àPatricia€Brantley,€a€friend€of€the€defendant,€testified€that€on€the€day€before€the€shooting,€theÐ )à$( Ðdefendant€asked€to€borrow€her€vehicle,€a€red€Honda€Civic,€explaining€he€needed€to€run€errands€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðneeded€a€vehicle€bigger€than€the€Honda€Prelude€which€belonged€to€his€roommate.€€Ms.€Brantley,Ð h+¸&* Ðwho€worked€at€a€McDonaldððs€restaurant,€loaned€her€car€only€after€the€defendant€agreed€to€return€theÐ ° Ðvehicle€before€her€shift€ended€at€2:00€a.m.€the€next€morning.€€The€defendant€never€returned€theÐ œì Ðvehicle,€which€was€valued€at€approximately€$3,500.00.€€This€testimony€provided€the€basis€for€theÐ ˆØ Ðtheft€conviction.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àMerlyn€Moore,€who€was€working€as€a€desk€clerk€at€the€Econo€Lodge€on€the€evening€beforeÐ L œ Ðthe€shooting,€testified€that€the€defendant€checked€into€the€motel€at€9:38€p.m.€€€Moore€recalled€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€defendant€appeared€to€be€in€a€hurry.Ô#†XqXXXqAN#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ $ t ÐÌà  àLaQuita€Denise€Stagner׃h×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×,€the€victimððs€neighbor,€testified€that€she€observed€the€victim€fightingÔ#†XqXXXq3V#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ ü L  Ðwith€a€man€in€the€parking€lot€outside€of€her€apartment€at€approximately€8:00€p.m.€the€night€beforeÐ è 8  Ðthe€shootingÔ#†XqXXXqKW#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ.€€Although€unable€to€hear€their€conversation,€Ms.€Stagner€recalled€that€the€two€arguedÐ Ô$  Ðloudly€andÔ#†XqXXXq%X#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€were€involved€in€physical€contact.Ô#†XqXXXqÝX#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€€Ms.€Stagner€stated€that€during€the€argument,€€theÐ À  Ðvictim€remained€seated€in€the€driverððs€side€of€her€Jeep€with€the€door€open€and€the€man€stood€ð ðin€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdoor.ðð€€According€to€Ms.€Stagner,€the€man€ð ðmove[d]€[the€victim]€over€into€the€passenger€sideððÐ ˜è  Ðbefore€he€entered€the€Jeep€and€sat€in€the€driverððs€seat.€€Ms.€Stagner€recalled€that€she€left€for€work€andÐ „Ô  Ðwhen€she€returned€to€her€apartment€at€approximately€10:00€p.m.,€the€Jeep€was€parked€on€the€oppositeÐ pÀ Ðside€of€the€parking€lot€from€the€victimððs€usual€parking€space.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àTia€Ayers,€who€worked€with€the€victim,€received€a€telephone€call€from€the€victim€on€theÐ 4„ Ðmorning€of€the€shooting.€€The€victim€asked€Ms.€Ayers€to€feed€her€cat,€explaining€that€she€was€withÐ  p Ðthe€defendant,€who€had€kidnapped€her.€€She€then€told€Ms.€Ayers€to€call€the€police.€€The€telephoneÐ  \ Ðwent€deadÔ#†XqXXXqBY#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€as€Ms.€Ayers€asked€the€victim€questions€in€an€attempt€to€ascertain€her€whereabouts.€€Ms.Ð øH ÐAyers€immediately€informed€Metro€Police€that€the€victim€had€been€kidnapped€and€that€she€wasÐ ä4 Ðunaware€of€the€victimððs€location.€€After€she€spoke€with€police,€Ms.€Ayers€dialed€ð ð*69ðð€and€learnedÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€victim€had€called€from€the€Econo€Lodge€in€Clarksville.€€Ms.€Ayers€testified€that€in€theÐ ¼  Ðmonths€prior€to€the€shooting,€the€victim€had€confided€to€her€that€she€believed€the€defendant€wasÐ ¨ø Ðstalking€her€and€expressed€her€desire€to€be€left€alone.€€Ms.€Ayers€acknowledged€that€the€victim€hadÐ ”ä Ðmet€with€the€defendant€on€previous€occasions€since€their€divorce,€but€explained€that€the€victim€hadÐ €Ð Ðinstructed€Ms.€Ayers€to€call€her€house€to€check€on€her€well„beingÔ#†XqXXXq„]#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€one€hour€after€any€meeting€theÐ l¼ Ðvictim€had€with€the€defendant.€€According€to€Ms.€Ayers,€the€victim€said€she€should€call€the€policeÐ X ¨ Ðif€she€was€not€home€an€hour€after€meeting€with€the€defendant.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àDetective€Cheryl€Anderson€of€the€Metro€Police€Department€visited€the€victimððs€apartmentÐ #l! Ðon€the€morning€of€the€murder€and€observed€no€evidence€that€a€struggle€had€occurred€inside€theÐ $X" Ðapartment.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€defendant,€who€testified€in€his€own€behalf,€met€the€victim€while€deployed€in€NorthÐ Ì&"% ÐCarolinaÔ#†XqXXXq?a#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€in€the€early€spring€or€summer€of€1992.€€While€still€married€to€Nancy€Leonard,€the€defendantÐ ¸'#& Ðbecame€romantically€involved€with€the€victim.€€Soon€after€the€defendant€returned€to€Fort€CampbellÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€be€with€his€wife€and€childrenÔ#†XqXXXq d#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ,€the€victim€began€calling€his€home.€€The€defendant€then€obtainedÐ ° Ða€divorce€from€Nancy€Leonard€and€married€the€victim.€€Later,€the€defendant€rekindled€hisÐ œì Ðrelationship€with€his€first€wife,€after€which€the€victim€volunteered€to€go€to€Somalia€as€part€of€herÐ ˆØ Ðmilitary€duty.€€When€she€returned€from€Somalia,€the€defendant€divorced€the€victim€and€€remarriedÐ tÄ ÐNancy€Leonard.€€During€his€second€marriage€to€Nancy€Leonard,Ô#†XqXXXqTe#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€the€defendant€again€becameÐ `° Ðromantically€involved€with€the€victim.€€A€divorce€ensued,€and€the€defendant€began€living€with€theÐ L œ Ðvictim€in€her€apartment.€€The€victim€ultimately€moved€into€the€defendantððs€residence€and€they€wereÐ 8 ˆ Ðremarried€in€December€of€1995.€€The€defendant€denied€having€attacked€the€victim€in€March€1996,Ð $ t Ðclaiming€that€he€was€in€Fort€Bragg,€North€Carolina,€where€he€had€been€sent€for€language€training.Ô#†XqXXXqƒg#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqԀР ` ÐTelephone€records€established€that€telephone€calls€were€made€from€the€defendantððs€residence€inÐ ü L  ÐClarksville€to€Fort€Bragg€on€March€22,€24,€25,€and€27,€and€Ô#†XqXXXq¹i#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔcalls€were€made€on€the€defendantððsÐ è 8  Ðcalling€card€from€Fort€Bragg€to€his€home€on€March€21,€24,€25,€26,€27,€28,€and€31.€€In€May€of€1996,Ð Ô$  Ðthe€victim€left€the€defendant€and€moved€to€Antioch€where€she€filed€for€divorce.€€According€to€theÐ À  Ðdefendant,€the€victim€continued€to€meet€with€him€after€she€moved€and€they€would€ð ðusually€go€to€aÐ ¬ü  Ðrestaurant€and€go€to€a€motel€afterwards.ððÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€purchased€a€.45€caliber€gun€in€November€of€1996€from€a€manÐ pÀ Ðin€Columbia,€Tennessee€in€order€to€be€better€prepared€for€Special€Forces€qualification.€€The€weaponÐ \¬ Ðwas€registered€ð ðon€post€at€the€gate€four€MP€Station.ðð€€The€defendant€claimed€that€he€planned€to€goÐ H˜ Ðon€leave€on€November€19,€1996€to€take€a€canoe€trip.€€Because€his€plans€were€uncertain,€however,Ð 4„ Ðhe€also€prepared€to€work€on€November€19.€€The€defendant€borrowed€Samuel€Kamachoððs€MitsubishiÐ  p ÐtruckÔ#†XqXXXqÂj#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€on€November€18€and€returned€it€the€same€day.Ô#†XqXXXqBo#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€€Later,€he€borrowed€Patricia€Brantleyððs€HondaÐ  \ ÐCivic€vehicleÔ#†XqXXXq±o#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€because€he€was€meeting€the€victim€that€evening€and€she€would€not€ride€in€hisÐ øH Ðroommateððs€ð ðpink,€low„rider,€Honda€Prelude.ððÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àAccording€to€the€defendant,€when€he€arrived€at€the€victimððs€apartment,€the€victim€initiallyÐ ¼  Ðinsisted€on€driving€her€Jeep,€but€they€eventually€left€in€Ms.€Brantleyððs€Honda€Civic.€€The€defendantÐ ¨ø Ðclaimed€that€the€victim€asked€to€go€to€a€motel.€€While€the€defendant€checked€into€the€Econo€LodgeÐ ”ä Ðin€Clarksville,€the€victim€remained€in€the€vehicle.€€After€securing€a€room,€the€defendant€and€theÐ €Ð Ðvictim€talked€and€watched€television€before€having€sexual€intercourse.€€The€defendant€testified€thatÐ l¼ Ðduring€the€evening,€the€victim€expressed€her€continued€love€for€him.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àAccording€to€the€defendant,€onÔ#†XqXXXqFp#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€the€next€morning,€the€victim€told€him€that€she€was€worriedÐ 0"€  Ðabout€getting€pregnant€and€informed€him€that€she€had€been€pregnant€before.€€After€the€defendantÐ #l! Ðasked€what€she€meant,€the€victim€ð ðsmirkedðð€and€walked€out€of€the€room.€€He€persisted€in€his€inquiryÐ $X" Ðas€they€walked€across€the€parking€lot€and,€according€to€the€defendant,€the€victim€ignored€him.€€AtÐ ô$D # Ðthat€point,€the€defendant€retrieved€his€gun€from€his€ruck€sack,׃l×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#†XqXXXqt#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔwhich€was€in€the€vehicle€they€hadÐ à%0!$ Ðdriven€to€the€motel.€€The€defendant€found€the€victim€in€the€lobbyÔ#†XqXXXq§v#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€sitting€on€a€couch.€€According€toÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€defendant,€the€victim€continued€to€smirk€when€he€asked€her€questions€about€the€previousÐ ¸'#& Ðpregnancy.€€Eventually,€the€victim€admitted€that€she€had€been€pregnant€recently€and€that€she€did€notÐ ¤(ô#' Ðknow€who€fathered€the€baby.€€The€victim€then€walked€to€the€front€desk€and€asked€the€clerk€about€aÐ )à$( Ðphone.€€When€she€walked€to€the€house€telephone,€the€defendant€followed,€still€questioning€her€aboutÐ ° Ðthe€pregnancy.€€He€admitted€that€he€hung€up€the€phone€and,€when€the€victim€attempted€to€walk€away,Ð œì Ðgrabbed€her.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€after€they€went€outside,€ð ðeverything€happened€real€fast.ðð€Ð ˆØ ÐAccording€to€the€defendant,€they€fell€to€the€ground,€and€he€shot€her.€€While€admitting€responsibilityÐ tÄ Ðfor€the€shooting,€the€defendant€claimed€that€he€had€not€planned€to€kill€the€victim.Ô#†XqXXXq`w#Ô€€The€defendantÐ `° Ðtestified€that€after€shooting€the€victim,€he€drove€to€Kentucky€and€stayed€for€approximately€two€andÐ L œ Ðone„half€days€before€calling€his€mother€to€make€arrangements€to€surrender€to€authorities.€€Later,€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant€surrendered€to€authorities€at€Fort€Campbell.Ð $ t ÐÌÌÌÓ  Óò òI.ó óÐ Ô$  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€alleges€numerous€procedural€and€evidentiary€errors€in€the€admission€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðtestimony€of€several€witnesses.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€victimððs€divorce€attorney,Ð ˜è  ÐChristine€Zellar„Church,€was€permitted€to€testify€in€violation€of€the€attorney„client€privilege;€thatÐ „Ô  Ðseveral€witnesses€were€allowed€to€testify€about€his€prior€bad€acts€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Rule€ofÐ pÀ ÐEvidence€404(b);€and€that€testimony€offered€by€Nancy€Leonard€and€the€victimððs€co„workers€andÐ \¬ Ðfriends€was€inadmissible€hearsay.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àÔ‡XqXXXqÔTestimony€offered€by€Christine€Zellar„Church€indicated€that€the€victim€feared€the€defendant,Ð  p Ðdid€not€want€to€have€a€relationship€with€him,€and€would€not€have€gone€to€the€motel€with€theÐ  \ Ðdefendant€voluntarily.€€Citing€òòSwidler€&€Berlin€v.€United€Statesóó,€524€U.S.€399€(1998),€the€defendantÐ øH Ðargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€Ms.€Zellar„Church€to€testify€about€conversations€she€hadÐ ä4 Ðwith€the€victim€during€the€pendency€of€her€divorce.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Ô#†XqXXXq¯#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔthe€defendant€lackedÐ Ð  Ðstanding€to€assert€the€attorney„client€privilege€on€behalf€of€the€victim€and€also€ruled€that€the€privilegeÐ ¼  Ðhad€been€waived€by€the€victimððs€mother,€who€served€as€the€executrix€of€the€victimððs€estate.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àBy€statute€and€common€law,€Tennessee€recognizes€an€evidentiary€privilege€by€which€anÐ €Ð Ðattorney€may€not€disclose€confidential€client€communications.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ#†XqXXXq‚#ÔBryan€v.€Stateóó,€848€S.W.2d€72,Ð l¼ Ð79€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)Ô‡XqXXXqÔòòóó.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€23-3-105€provides:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àNo€attorney,€solicitor€or€counselor€shall€be€permitted,€in€giving€testimony€against€aÐ 0"€  Ðclient,€or€person€who€consulted€the€attorney,€solicitor€or€counselor€professionally,€toÐ #l! Ðdisclose€any€communication€made€to€the€attorney,€solicitor€or€counselor€as€such€byÐ $X" Ðsuch€person,€during€the€pendency€of€the€suit,€before€or€afterwards,€to€the€personððsÐ ô$D # Ðinjury.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌIn€òòBryanóó,€a€panel€of€this€Court€confirmed€that€the€purpose€of€the€privilege€is€to€shelter€clientÔ#†XqXXXqŽ„#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ ¸'#& Ðconfidences€and€thus€protect€both€the€client€and€a€relationship€which€is€a€mainstay€of€our€system€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðjustice€and€quoted€the€following€from€òòMcMannus€v.€Stateóó,€39€Tenn.€213,€215„16€(1858)Ô#†XqXXXqc‡#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ:Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àð ðSound€public€policy€seems€to€have€required€the€establishment€of€the€rule€that€factsÐ ° Ðâ âcommunicated€by€a€client€to€his€counsel€are€under€the€seal€of€confidence,€and€cannotÐ œì Ðbe€disclosed€in€proof.€€It€is€a€rule€of€protection€to€the€client,€more€than€a€privilege€toÐ ˆØ Ðthe€attorney.€€The€latter€is€not€allowed,€if€he€would,€to€break€this€[s]eal€of€secrecy€andÐ tÄ Ðconfidence.€€It€is€supposed€to€be€necessary€to€the€administration€of€justice,€and€theÐ `° Ðprosecution€and€defence€of€rights,€that€the€communications€between€client€and€theirÐ L œ Ðattorneys€should€be€free€and€unembarrassed€by€any€apprehensions€of€disclosure,€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðbetrayal.€€The€object€of€the€rule€is,€that€the€professional€intercourse€between€attorneyÐ $ t Ðand€client€should€be€protected€by€profound€secrecy.ððÐ `Ð Ð  ÐòòóóÌ848€S.W.2d€at€79.Ð è 8  ÐÔ#†XqXXXqˆ#ÔÌà  àBecause€of€public€policy€and€judicial€administration€concerns,€several€exceptions€to€theÐ À  Ðprivilege€have€been€fashioned,€demonstrating€that€the€privilege€is€not€absolute.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòHazlettÐ ¬ü  Ðv.€Bryantóó,€241€S.W.2d€121,€123€(Tenn.€1951);€òòBryanóó,€848€S.W.2d€at€79.€€Because€the€privilege€isÐ ˜è  ÐÔ‡XqXXXqÔnot€absolute,€four€factors€must€be€established€before€it€can€be€applied:Ð „Ô  ÐÓ$°–, X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÌ1.€€The€asserted€holder€of€the€privilege€is€or€sought€to€become€a€client;Ð \¬ Ðà0 4 àà  à2.€€The€person€to€whom€the€communication€was€made€is€a€member€of€the€bar€of€aÐ H˜ Ðcourt,€or€his€subordinate€and€in€connection€with€this€communication€is€acting€asÐ 4„ Ða€lawyer;Ð p4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à3.€€The€communication€relates€to€a€fact€of€which€the€attorney€was€informed€by€hisÐ  \ Ðclient€without€the€presence€of€strangers€for€the€purpose€of€securing€primarilyÐ øH Ðeither€an€opinion€on€law€or€legal€services€or€assistance€in€some€legal€proceedingÐ ä4 Ðand€not€for€the€purpose€of€committing€a€crime€or€tort;€and€ÐÐ 4Ð 4Ð  ÐÓ( °œX°–, XíŽ(Ó4.€€The€privilege€has€been€claimed€and€not€waived€by€the€client.Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓòòSeeóó€òòRoyal€Surplus€Lines€Ins.€Co.€v.€Sofamor€Danek€Groupóó,€190€F.R.D.€463,€468„69€(W.D.€Tenn.Ð ”ä Ð1998)€(quoting€òòHumphreys,€Hutcheson€&€Mosley€v.€Donovanóó,€568€F.€Supp.€161,€175€(M.D.€Tenn.Ð €Ð Ð1983)€(construing€Tennessee€statute));€òòsee€alsoóó€òòJohnson€v.€Pattersonóó,€81€Tenn.€626,€649€(1884).€€InÐ l¼ Ðthe€present€case,€the€first€three€requirements€are€easily€met.€€The€existence€of€the€fourth€factor,Ð X ¨ Ðhowever,€is€less€certain€because€the€victimððs€death€prevents€her€from€either€waiving€or€claiming€theÐ D!” Ðprivilege.Ô#†XqXXXqqŽ#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ 0"€  ÐÔ#†XqXXXql•#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÌà  àIn€òòSwidler€&€Berlinóó,€the€Supreme€Court,€finding€that€the€purposes€underlying€the€attorney„Ð $X" Ðclient€privilege€endure€after€the€death€of€the€client,€held€that€the€privilege€survives€even€after€theÐ ô$D # Ðclientððs€death.€€524€U.S.€at€405„06.€€The€Court€concluded€that€ð ð[k]nowing€communications€willÐ à%0!$ Ðremain€confidential€even€after€death€encourages€the€client€to€communicate€fully€and€frankly€withÐ Ì&"% Ðcounsel.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€407.€€Finally,€the€court€opined€that€ð ð[w]ithout€assurance€of€the€privilegeððsÐ ¸'#& Ðposthumous€application,€the€client€may€very€well€not€have€made€disclosures€to€his€attorney€at€all,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðso€the€loss€of€evidence€[associated€with€application€of€the€privilege]€is€more€apparent€than€real.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ )à$( Ðat€408.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÔ#†XqXXXqÕ#ÔòòóóÐ h+¸&* ÐÔ‡XqXXXqÔà  àHere,€the€trial€court€permitted€the€victimððs€mother,€who€was€serving€as€the€executrix€of€herÐ ° Ðestate,€to€waive€the€privilege€on€the€victimððs€behalf.€€Although€an€issue€of€first€impression€inÐ œì ÐTennessee,€other€jurisdictions€have€adopted€the€common€law€provision€that€the€attorney„clientÐ ˆØ Ðprivilege€may€be€waived€by€the€client,€his€guardian€or€conservator,€the€personal€representative€of€theÐ tÄ Ðdeceased€client,€or€the€successor,€trustee,€or€similar€representative€of€a€corporation,€association€orÐ `° Ðother€organization€whether€or€not€in€existence.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€E.€S.€Stephens,€Annotation,€òòAttorneyÐ L œ ÐClient€Privilegeð!ðWaiveróó,€67€A.L.R.2d€1268,€1269€(1959).€€ð ðAfter€the€death€of€a€client,€the€privilegeÐ 8 ˆ Ðprotecting€communications€between€him€and€his€attorney€may€be€waived,€under€certainÐ $ t Ðcircumstances,€by€the€executor€.€.€.€of€the€clientððs€estate,€especially€when€the€waiver€benefits€theÐ  ` Ðclient,€his€estate,€or€persons€claiming€under€him,€and€does€not€damage€his€reputation.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€1271.€Ð ü L  ÐThose€jurisdictions€adopting€this€provision,€however,€have€done€so€in€the€limited€circumstancesÐ è 8  Ðinvolving€the€recovery€of€real€property€and€will€contests.€€òòSee,óó€òòe.g.óó,€òòIn€re€Estate€of€Curtisóó,€394€P.2dÐ Ô$  Ð59€(Kan.€1964);€òòScott€v.€Grinnellóó,€161€A.2d€179€(N.H.€1960);€òòNorfolk€Dist.€v.€Magrawóó,€628€N.E.2dÐ À  Ð24€(Mass.€1994);€òòTaylor€v.€Sheldonóó,€173€N.E.2d€892€(Ohio€1961).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIt€is€not€necessary€in€this€case,€however,€to€determine€whether€the€executor€of€an€estate€mayÐ „Ô  Ðwaive€the€attorney„client€privilege€on€behalf€of€the€decedent€for€the€purposes€of€prosecuting€theÐ pÀ Ðaccused€killer.€€As€indicated,€the€attorney„client€privilege€exists€to€protect€the€client€and€to€foster€fullÐ \¬ Ðcommunication€with€the€attorney.€€Because€the€privilege€exists€to€protect€the€client,€it€belongs€onlyÐ H˜ Ðto€the€client€and€thus€may€not€be€asserted€by€a€third€party.€€Consequently,€the€trial€court€properlyÐ 4„ Ðfound€that€the€defendant€lacked€standing€to€assert€the€privilege€to€bar€Ms.€Zellar„Churchððs€testimony.€Ð  p ÐThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð  \ ÐÌÔ#†XqXXXq¥™#Ôà  àThe€defendant€also€challenges€the€admissibility€of€(1)€the€testimony€of€Steven€Hinson,Ð ä4 ÐAngela€Murphy,€and€Nancy€Leonard€concerning€the€defendantððs€March€1996€attack€on€the€victim;Ð Ð  Ð(2)€the€testimony€of€Jerry€White€that€the€victim€believed€the€defendant€was€following€her;€(3)€theÐ ¼  Ðtestimony€of€Ms.€Zellar„Church€that€the€victim€indicated€that€she€was€a€victim€of€domestic€violenceÐ ¨ø Ðduring€her€marriage€to€the€defendant;€and€(4)€the€testimony€of€Scott€Peelman€and€Charles€Palmer€thatÐ ”ä Ðthe€defendant€told€them€he€was€taking€leave€to€attend€to€legal€matters€in€Illinois.€€He€argues€thatÐ €Ð Ðbecause€the€testimony€of€these€witnesses€related€to€his€prior€bad€acts,€it€was€inadmissible€underÐ l¼ ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(b).€€Generally,€the€admissibility€of€evidence€under€Rule€404(b)€isÐ X ¨ Ðwithin€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Duboseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€652€(Tenn.€1997).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àÔ‡XqXXXqÔUsually,€€ð ð[e]vidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€characterÐ #l! Ðof€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€Ð $X" ÐRule€404(b)€provides€as€follows:Ð ô$D # ÐÌÓ$°–, X°œX$Óà8 Ü àà0Üü!Üü!àà Ü à(b)€Other€Crimes,€Wrongs,€or€Acts.€€Evidence€of€other€crimes€wrongs,€or€acts€is€notÐ Ì&"% Ðadmissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€withÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€character€trait.€€It€may,€however,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.€€The€conditionsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwhich€must€be€satisfied€before€allowing€such€evidence€are:Ð)à$(ü!ü! Ðâ âà8 Ü àà  à(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€juryððs€presence;Ð|*Ì%)Üü!Üü! Ðà8 Ü àà0Üü!Üü!àà04ü!ü!àà  à(2)€The€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€other€than€conduct€conformingÐ ° Ðâ âwith€a€character€trait€and€must€upon€request€state€on€the€record€the€material€issue,€theÐ œì Ðruling,€and€the€reasons€for€admitting€the€evidence;€andЈØ4ü!4ü! Ðà8 Ü àà0Üü!Üü!àà04ü!ü!àà  à(3)€The€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€is€outweighed€by€theÐ tÄ Ðdanger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Ð`°4ü!4ü! ÐÓ( °œX°–, X>©(ÓÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).Ô#†XqXXXqõ§#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€general€rule€excluding€evidence€of€other€crimes€is€based€on€the€recognition€that€suchÐ  ` Ðevidence€invites€the€jury€to€improperly€convict€the€defendant€based€upon€his€bad€character€orÐ ü L  Ðapparent€propensity€to€commit€a€crime,€regardless€of€the€strength€of€the€evidence€concerning€theÐ è 8  Ðoffense€on€trial.€€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824,€828€(Tenn.€1994);€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòAnderson€v.€Stateóó,Ð Ô$  Ð56€S.W.2d€731€(Tenn.€1933).Ô#†XqXXXqw®#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€€Unlike€the€Federal€rule€barring€such€evidence,€our€rule€does€notÐ À  Ðspecifically€enumerate€the€purposes€for€which€such€evidence€may€be€offered.€€€òòState€v.€Gillilandóó,€22Ð ¬ü  ÐS.W.3d€266,€271€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€€Advisory€CommissionÔ#†XqXXXqÕ°#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€specifically€omitted€such€a€list€so€thatÐ ˜è  Ðlawyers€and€judges€would€ð ðððuse€care€in€identifying€the€issues€to€be€addressed€by€the€Rule€404(b)Ð „Ô  Ðevidence.ðððð€€òòGillilandóó,€22€S.W.3d€at€271€(quoting€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€EvidenceóóÐ pÀ Ððð€404.6,€at€169€n.457€[3d€ed.]€1995)).€€Therefore,€in€every€case€in€which€evidence€of€other€crimes,Ð \¬ Ðwrongs,€or€acts€is€offered,€the€trial€court€should€carefully€scrutinize€the€relevance€of€the€evidence€andÐ H˜ Ðthe€reasons€for€which€it€is€being€offered.€€òòGillilandóó,€22€S.W.3d€at€271.€€òòóóAlthough€Rule€404(b)€doesÐ 4„ Ðnot€explicitly€list€these€exceptions,€case€law€has€held€that€evidence€of€other€crimes€may€beÐ  p Ðadmissible€to€show€(1)€motive;€(2)€intent;€(3)€guilty€knowledge;€(4)€identity€of€the€defendant;€(5)Ð  \ Ðabsence€of€mistake;€or€(6)€a€common€scheme€or€plan€for€commission€of€two€or€more€crimes€soÐ øH Ðrelated€to€each€other€that€proof€of€one€tends€to€establish€the€other.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòCollard€v.€State,óó€526Ð ä4 ÐS.W.2d€112,€114€(Tenn.€1975);€òòsee€alsoóó€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidence€òòóóóóat€ðð€404.6.Ô#†XqXXXq$²#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€Steven€Hinson,€Angela€Murphy,€and€Nancy€Leonard€testified€that€the€defendantÐ ¨ø Ðraped€the€victim€in€March€of€1996.€€Hinson€testified€that€the€victim€had€shown€him€rope€burns€andÐ ”ä Ðclaimed€that€she€received€them€when€the€defendant€bound€her€before€raping€her.€€Ms.€LeonardÐ €Ð Ðtestified€that€the€defendant€admitted€attacking€the€victim€and€that€the€victim€confirmed€theÐ l¼ Ðtruthfulness€of€the€defendantððs€admission.€€Ms.€Murphy€stated€that€the€victim€told€her€that€she€wasÐ X ¨ Ðraped€by€the€defendant.€€Ms.€Zellar„Church€testified€that€the€victim€admitted€having€been€a€victimÐ D!” Ðof€domestic€violence€during€her€marriage€to€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€he€and€theÐ 0"€  Ðvictim€continued€their€relationship€even€after€their€divorce€in€July€of€1996.òòóóÐ #l! ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€prior€assaultsÐ ô$D # Ðagainst€the€victim€were€admissible€because€such€acts€were€relevant€to€establish€the€relationshipÐ à%0!$ Ðbetween€the€parties,€thus€providing€a€motive€for€the€killings,€and€that€their€probative€value€was€notÐ Ì&"% Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€òòóó€868€S.W.2d€561,€574€(Tenn.€1993);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€€òòStateÐ ¸'#& Ðv.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,€708€(Tenn.€1997).€€While€we€acknowledge€that€òòSmithóó€did€not€create€a€òòperÐ ¤(ô#' Ðseóó€rule€of€admissibility€regarding€prior€bad€acts€against€the€victim,€in€our€view€the€trial€court€properlyÐ )à$( Ðfound€that€the€testimony€relating€to€prior€domestic€violence€toward€the€victim€and€the€March€1996Ð |*Ì%) Ðattack€on€the€victim€was€relevant€to€establish€the€relationship€between€the€parties,€the€defendantððsÐ h+¸&* Ðhostility€toward€the€victim,€and€his€motive€to€kill€the€victim.€€Further,€it€is€our€view€that€the€probativeÐ ° Ðvalue€of€this€testimony€is€not€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Under€theseÐ œì Ðcircumstances,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€admitting€such€evidence.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€there€is€not€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€defendantÐ `° Ðcommitted€the€prior€acts€of€violence€against€the€victim,€as€required€for€admission.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð L œ ÐEvid.€404(b),€Advisory€Commððn€Comment;€òòHallóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€708;€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2dÐ 8 ˆ Ð299,€303€(Tenn.€1985).€€Here,€several€witnesses€testified€that€the€victim€related€the€story€of€theÐ $ t ÐMarch€1996€attack€while€expressing€her€fear€of€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€admitted€the€earlierÐ  ` Ðattack€to€Nancy€Leonard€and,€when€Ms.€Leonard€telephoned€the€victim€to€warn€her€of€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendantððs€animosity,€the€victim€confirmed€the€defendantððs€version€of€events.€€Moreover,€StevenÐ è 8  ÐHinson€testified€that€he€had€seen€the€rope€burns€on€the€victimððs€wrists€and€ankles€when€she€came€toÐ Ô$  Ðhis€apartment€seeking€refuge.€€In€our€view,€the€State€established€by€clear€and€convincing€evidenceÐ À  Ðthat€the€defendant€had€attacked€the€victim€in€March€of€1996.Ô#†XqXXXq{·#ÔÐ ¬ü  ÐÌÔ‡XqXXXqÔà  àWith€regard€to€the€testimony€of€Peelman€and€Palmer,€we€cannot€quarrel€much€with€the€trialÐ „Ô  Ðcourtððs€finding€that€the€testimony€regarding€the€defendant€needing€leave€to€attend€to€a€court€or€legalÐ pÀ Ðmatter€did€not€necessarily€implicate€a€prior€bad€act.€€òòSee,óó€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€James€Willisóó,€No.€03C01„Ð \¬ Ð9412„CR„00444€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€May€15,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€atÐ H˜ ÐKnoxville,€Nov.€12,€1996)€(testimony€that€defendant,€charged€with€shoplifting,€had€been€in€storeÐ 4„ Ðbefore,€followed€by€testimony€that€security€cameras€were€turned€on€when€he€entered€this€time,€didÐ  p Ðnot€implicate€a€prior€bad€act).€€In€any€event,€we€see€no€prejudice€arising€from€their€testimony.Ô#†XqXXXqQÅ#ÔÐ  \ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€testimony€regarding€the€March€1996€attack€and€theÐ ä4 Ðvictimððs€fear€of€the€defendant€offered€by€Ms.€Leonard€and€the€victimððs€friends€and€co„workersÐ Ð  Ðconstituted€inadmissible€hearsay.€€Ô‡XqXXXqÔHearsay€is€a€statement,€other€than€one€made€by€the€declarant€whileÐ ¼  Ðtestifying€at€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€in€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.€€Tenn.Ð ¨ø ÐR.€Evid.€801(c).€€Generally,€hearsay€is€not€admissible;€numerous€exceptionsÔ#†XqXXXqÊ#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€exist,Ô#†XqXXXqcË#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€however,€to€thisÐ ”ä Ðgeneral€ruleÔ#†XqXXXq¬Ë#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€802.€€Here,€the€State€asserts€that€the€testimony€is€admissible€underÐ €Ð ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€Rule€803(3),€which€allows€admission€of€testimony€indicating€theÐ l¼ Ðdeclarantððs€ð ðthen€existing€state€of€mind,€emotion,€sensation,€or€physical€condition€(such€as€intent,Ð X ¨ Ðplan,€motive,€design,€mental€feeling,€pain,€and€bodily€health).ððÔ#†XqXXXq Ì#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€€The€victimððs€fear€of€the€defendantÐ D!” Ðmay€be€admitted€under€this€exception€if€relevant€to€a€fact€at€issue€in€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lemingóó,Ð 0"€  Ð3€S.W.3d€7,€18€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998);€òòState€v.€John€Parker€Roeóó,€No.€02C01„9702„CR„00054Ð #l! Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Jan.€12,€1998),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€at€Jackson,€€Jan.€4,Ð $X" Ð1999).Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€a€primary€issue€was€whether€the€victim€accompanied€the€defendant€voluntarily€orÐ Ì&"% Ðwas€abducted€against€her€will.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€he€had€maintained€a€romantic€relationshipÐ ¸'#& Ðwith€the€victim€after€their€divorce€and€denied€abducting€her€against€her€will€or€planning€to€kill€her.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐOur€supreme€court€has€held€that€statements€made€by€a€victim€expressing€her€fear€of€the€defendantÐ )à$( Ðduring€the€period€of€their€separation€could€be€admitted€to€rebut€the€defendantððs€assertions€that€he€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€victim€were€reconciling.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmithóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€573.€€Similarly,€this€Court€has€stated€that€aÐ h+¸&* Ðvictimððs€statement€that€her€husband€had€abused€her€and€threatened€to€kill€her€were€admissible€toÐ ° Ðrebut€the€defendantððs€assertion€that€he€and€the€victim€ð ðhad€a€good€marriage€and€a€happy€marriage.ðð€Ð œì ÐòòSee€Roeóó,€slip€op.€at€18„21.€€Here,€testimony€offered€by€several€witnesses€that€the€victim€hadÐ ˆØ Ðexpressed€her€fear€of€the€defendant€and€her€desire€to€be€free€of€him€was€admissible€to€rebut€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendantððs€assertion€that€he€and€the€victim€continued€an€amorous€relationship€after€their€divorceÐ `° Ðand€that€the€victim€voluntarily€accompanied€the€defendant€to€the€motel.€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€permitted€Ms.€Leonard€to€testify€that€the€defendant€told€her€that€he€felt€likeÐ $ t Ðthe€victim€had€ruined€his€life€financially€in€the€divorce€and€that€he€had€previously€bound€and€rapedÐ  ` Ðthe€victim.€€The€trial€court€correctly€found€such€testimony€admissible€under€the€ð ðstate€of€mindððÐ ü L  Ðexception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€òòSeeòòóó€óóTenn.€R.€Evid.€803(3);€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€ofÐ è 8  ÐEvidenceóó€ðð€803(3).€€This€testimony€demonstrates€the€defendantððs€animosity€toward€the€victim€andÐ Ô$  Ðhis€settled€purpose€to€harm€her.€€Moreover,€we€cannot€conclude€that,€under€the€circumstances,Ð À  Ðintroduction€of€this€evidence€was€more€prejudicial€than€probative.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendant€urges€that€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€835€S.W.2d€32€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€places€a€temporalÐ ˜è  Ðlimitation€on€such€statements;€it€is€our€opinion,€however,€that€no€specific€temporal€limitation€exists.€Ð „Ô  ÐIn€òòSmithóó,€our€high€court€held€that,€given€the€relevance€of€the€defendantððs€threats€toward€the€victimÐ pÀ Ðbetween€two€and€five€months€before€the€killings,€any€evidence€of€remoteness€went€to€the€weight€ofÐ \¬ Ðthe€evidence,€not€its€admissibility.€€868€S.W.2d€at€575;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Haunóó,€695€S.W.2d€546,€550Ð H˜ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985)€(holding€that€while€ð ða€lapse€of€time€may,€of€course,€affect€[the€relevanceÐ 4„ Ðof€evidence],€it€is€the€rational€connection€between€events,€not€the€temporal€one,€that€determinesÐ  p Ðwhether€the€evidence€has€probative€value.ðð)òòóó.€€In€our€view,€€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretionÐ  \ Ðin€admitting€these€statements.Ð øH ÐÔ#†XqXXXqÎ#ÔÌÓ  Óò òII.ó óÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XqXXXqÔà  àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€for€judgmentÐ ¨ø Ðof€acquittal.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÐ ”ä Ðconvictions€for€rapeÔ#†XqXXXqtÝ#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€andÔ#†XqXXXq¼Þ#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€aggravatedÔ#†XqXXXqß#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€kidnapping.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€The€standard€by€which€a€trial€court€determinesÐ €Ð Ða€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€at€the€end€of€all€the€proof€is,€in€essence,€the€same€standard€whichÐ l¼ Ðapplies€on€appeal€in€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€after€a€conviction;€that€is,€whetherÐ X ¨ Ðð ðððany€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÐ D!” Ðdoubt.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Gillonóó,€15€S.W.3d€492,€496€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ð 0"€  Ð(Tenn.€1998)€(quoting€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781€(1979));€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€€òòStateÐ #l! Ðv.€Ballóó,€973€S.W.2d€288,€292€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€To€determine€whether€the€evidence€isÐ $X" Ðsufficient€to€sustain€the€conviction,€the€trial€court€must€consider€ð ðthe€evidence€introduced€by€bothÐ ô$D # Ðparties,€disregard€any€evidence€introduced€by€the€accused€that€conflicts€with€the€evidence€adducedÐ à%0!$ Ðby€the€State,€and€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence,€including€allÐ Ì&"% Ðâ âreasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Campbellóó,€904€S.W.2d€608,Ð ¸'#& Ð611€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citing€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€656€S.W.2d€60,€61€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)).€Ð ° Ðò òó óÌâ âà  àAlthough€charged€with€aggravated€rape,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€the€lesser„includedÐ ˆØ Ðoffense€of€rape.€€In€order€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€rape,€the€State€must€prove€beyond€a€reasonableÐ tÄ Ðdoubt€that€the€defendant€used€force€or€coercion€to€accomplish€the€unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€theÐ `° Ðvictim.€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„503(a)(1).€€Here,€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€establishedÐ L œ Ðthat€the€DNA€profile€of€sperm€found€in€the€vagina€and€anus€of€the€victim€matched€that€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant.€€Such€evidence€overwhelmingly€establishes€penetration€of€the€victim€by€the€defendant.€Ð $ t ÐNo€direct€evidence,€however,€exists€as€to€the€defendantððs€use€of€force€or€coercion€at€the€time€of€theÐ  ` Ðsexual€penetration.€€Indeed,€there€was€no€medical€evidence€of€trauma€or€force€at€the€time€of€theÐ ü L  Ðpenetration.Ô#†XqXXXqOß#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€law€is€well€settled€that€a€criminal€offense,€or€any€element€thereof,€may€be€proven€entirelyÐ À  Ðby€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.Ð ¬ü  ÐCrawfordóó,€470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(Tenn.€1971).Ô#†XqXXXq~é#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€€A€conviction€may€not,€however,€be€based€uponÐ ˜è  Ðconjecture,€guess,€or€speculation.€òòóó€òòState€v.€Jenkinsóó,€733€S.W.2d€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)Ô#†XqXXXqüê#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ.Ô#†XqXXXqéë#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€€WhenÐ „Ô  Ða€conviction€is€based€upon€circumstantial€evidence,€the€facts€and€circumstances€must€be€soÐ pÀ Ðoverwhelming€as€to€exclude€any€other€explanation€except€for€the€defendantððs€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,Ð \¬ Ð815€S.W.2d€166,€175€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€900€(Tenn.€1987).Ô#†XqXXXq,ì#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€€While€ourÐ H˜ Ðstandard€of€review€is€the€same€whether€a€conviction€is€based€upon€direct€or€circumstantial€evidence,Ð 4„ Ðwhen€the€State€seeks€to€prove€the€existence€of€an€element€entirely€through€circumstantial€evidence,Ð  p Ðas€it€does€with€regard€to€the€elements€of€force€and€coercion€is€this€case,€such€evidence€must€excludeÐ  \ Ðevery€other€reasonable€theory€except€that€of€guilt.€€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€313€S.W.2d€451€(Tenn.€1958);Ð øH Ðòòseeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329€(Tenn.€1977).Ð ä4 ÐÔ#†XqXXXqÓí#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÌÔ#†XqXXXqoð#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔà  àThe€testimony€of€Ms.€Stagner,€the€victimððs€neighbor,€established€that€the€defendant€and€theÐ ¼  Ðvictim€were€arguing€outside€the€victimððs€apartment€complex€on€the€evening€before€the€shooting.€Ð ¨ø ÐTestimony€offered€by€the€victimððs€co„workers,€friends,€and€her€attorney€established€that€the€victimÐ ”ä Ðfeared€the€defendant€and€did€not€want€to€continue€their€relationship.€€Finally,€the€testimony€of€NancyÐ €Ð ÐLeonard€confirmed€that€the€defendant€had€attacked€the€victim€in€the€past€and€that€the€victim,€in€fact,Ð l¼ Ðbelieved€that€the€defendant€would€kill€her.€€This€evidence€served€to€show€that€the€victim€would€notÐ X ¨ Ðhave€voluntarily€accompanied€the€defendant€from€her€apartment€and€certainly€would€not€haveÐ D!” Ðvoluntarily€consented€to€sexual€intercourse€with€him.€€Because€this€testimony€was€properly€admitted,Ð 0"€  Ðas€indicated€above,€and€was€rebutted€only€by€the€defendantððs€claim€that€he€maintained€a€social€andÐ #l! Ðsexual€relationship€with€the€victim€even€after€their€divorce,€the€issue€is€essentially€one€of€credibility.€Ð $X" ÐThis€Court€will€not€resolve€questions€of€witness€credibility€on€appeal,€that€function€being€solelyÐ ô$D # Ðwithin€the€province€of€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòState€v.€Careyóó,€914€S.W.2d€93,€95€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð à%0!$ ÐApp.€1995).€€We€decline€the€defendantððs€invitation€to€overturn€his€conviction€by€making€a€choiceÐ Ì&"% Ðdifferent€from€that€of€the€jury.€€In€our€view,€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€defendantððsÐ ¸'#& Ðconviction€for€rape.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€one€count€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€accomplishedÐ |*Ì%) Ðby€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€and€one€count€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€because€the€victimÐ h+¸&* Ðsuffered€serious€bodily€injury.€€He€asserts€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theseÐ ° Ðconvictions€because€testimony€establishing€the€victimððs€unwillingness€to€voluntarily€accompany€himÐ œì Ðshould€not€have€been€admitted.€€As€stated€above,€this€testimony€was€properly€admitted.€Ð ˆØ ÐAdditionally,€he€contends€that€testimony€offered€by€Ms.€Stagner€that€the€defendant€moved€the€victimÐ tÄ Ðinto€the€passenger€side€of€her€Jeep€while€they€were€arguing€in€the€parking€lot€of€the€apartmentÐ `° Ðcomplex€should€have€been€stricken€pursuant€to€the€cancellation€rule.€€Finally,€he€claims€that€theÐ L œ Ðconviction€for€removing€the€victim€from€the€lobby€of€the€Econo€Lodge€is€barred€by€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991).Ô#†XqXXXq²ð#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ $ t ÐÌà  àTo€obtain€a€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€the€State€must€prove€that€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendant€knowingly€removed€or€confined€the€victim€unlawfully€so€as€to€interfere€substantially€withÐ è 8  Ðher€liberty€and€that€the€removal€or€confinement€was€accomplished€by€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€orÐ Ô$  Ðthat€the€victim€suffered€serious€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39-13-302(a),€„305(a).€€TheÐ À  Ðtheory€advanced€by€the€State€at€trial€was€that€the€defendant€kidnapped€the€victim€when€he€removedÐ ¬ü  Ðher€from€the€parking€lot€of€her€apartment€complex.€€Additionally,€the€State€contended€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðremoval€and€confinement€were€accomplished€by€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€and€that€the€victimÐ „Ô  Ðsuffered€serious€bodily€injury.Ð pÀ ÐÔ#†XqXXXqü#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÌà  àThe€defendant€asserts€that€because€she€gave€differing€accounts€of€what€took€place,€theÐ H˜ Ðtestimony€of€Ms.€Stagner€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€defendant€removed€or€confined€the€victim€atÐ 4„ Ðher€apartment€complexÔ#†XqXXXqÝÿ#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€is€subject€to€exclusion€pursuant€to€the€rule€of€cancellation.€€Without€thisÐ  p Ðtestimony,€the€defendant€contends,€there€is€no€evidence€to€prove€that€a€kidnapping€occurred€at€theÐ  \ Ðapartment€complex.Ô#†XqXXXq!#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€€The€rule€of€cancellation€provides€that€contradictory€statements€by€the€sameÐ øH Ðwitness€regarding€a€single€fact€cancel€each€other€out.€€òòSeeóó€òòChurch€v.€Peralesóó,€39€S.W.3d€149,€169„70Ð ä4 Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000)€(citing€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€888€S.W.2d€446,€449€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993));Ð Ð  ÐòòGambill€v.€Middle€Tenn.€Med.€Ctr.óó,€751€S.W.2d€145,€149„50€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€€Our€supremeÐ ¼  Ðcourt€has€characterized€mutually€contradictory€statements€by€the€same€witness€as€ð ðno€evidenceðð€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthe€fact€sought€to€be€proved.€€€òòJohnston€v.€Cincinnati€N.O.€&€T.P.€Ry.óó,€146€Tenn.€135,€160,€240€S.W.Ð ”ä Ð429,€436€(1922);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€24€S.W.3d€274,€282€(Tenn.€2000).€€Testimony€may€beÐ €Ð Ðdisregarded€under€the€rule€of€cancellation€only€when€the€allegedly€contradictory€statements€areÐ l¼ Ðunexplained€and€neither€statement€is€corroborated€by€other€competent€evidence.€€òòChurchóó,€39€S.W.3dÐ X ¨ Ðat€170€(citations€omitted).€€Explanation€of€inconsistent€testimony€or€corroboration€defeats€theÐ D!” Ðcancellation€effect.€€òòSeeóó€òòMatthewsóó,€888€S.W.2d€at€449.€€Ms.€Stagner€testified€on€direct€examinationÐ 0"€  Ðthat€she€ð ðsaw€[the€defendant]€move€[the€victim]€over€into€the€passenger€side€and€him€get€in€theÐ #l! Ðdriverððs€side.ðð€€When€Ms.€Stagner€was€recalled€as€a€witness,€the€following€exchange€took€place:Ð $X" ÐÓ$°–, X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÌà0 4 àà  àQ:€Ms.€Stagner,€you€testified€yesterday€and€you€told€us€that€you€saw€the€defendantÐ à%0!$ Ðmove€Cherilyn€Leonard€from€the€driverððs€side€of€the€Jeep€over€into€the€passengerÐ Ì&"% Ðseat;€do€you€recall€saying€that?и'#&4Ð 4Ð  ÐA:€He€didnððt€physically€move€her.€€She€moved€over.Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà0 4 àà  àQ:€Okay,€so€if€that€is€what€I€thought€I€heard€you€say€yesterday€that€he€moved€herÐ )à$( Ðâ âover,€that€would€be€incorrect,€wouldnððt€it?Ð|*Ì%)4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  àA:€Well,€he€didnððt€physically€like€pick€her€up€and€move€her€over,€but€he€gets€in€andÐ ° Ðâ âyou€know,€she€has€to€move€over,€otherwise,€he€is€going€to€sit€on€top€of€her.Мì4Ð 4Ð  ÐQ:€Well,€she€moved€over€on€her€own,€didnððt€she?Ð ˆØ ÐA:€Yeah.Ô#†XqXXXqM#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ tÄ ÐÌÓ( °œX°–, X›(ÓÓ X¿ÓÓ XÍÓHere,€Ms.€Stagnerððs€testimony€presented€no€inconsistency.€€To€the€contrary,€her€second€statementÐ L œ Ðwas€offeredÔ#†XqXXXqŒ #ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€to€clarify€and€explain€her€original€testimony.€Thus,€the€rule€of€cancellation€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðinapplicable,€and€the€testimony€could€properly€be€considered€by€the€jury.Ô#†XqXXXq³ #ÔÐ $ t ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€adduced€at€trial€established€that€on€the€evening€before€the€shooting,€the€victimÐ ü L  Ðwas€seen€arguing€with€the€defendant€in€the€parking€lot€of€her€apartment€complex.€€The€defendant€Ð è 8  Ðgot€into€the€driverððs€side€of€the€victimððs€vehicle.€€Later,€the€vehicle€was€seen€parked€on€the€oppositeÐ Ô$  Ðside€of€the€parking€lot€from€the€victimððs€usual€space.€€The€victim€failed€to€report€to€work€thatÐ À  Ðevening,€even€after€she€told€George€Matthews€that€she€would€be€there€at€8:30€p.m.€as€scheduled.Ô‡kXqXXXqԀР¬ü  ÐSeveral€witnesses€testified€that€the€victim€had,€on€more€than€one€occasion,€expressed€fear€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefendant.€€Furthermore,€moments€before€the€shooting,€the€defendant€and€victim€were€seen€in€theÐ „Ô  Ðlobby€of€the€Econo€Lodge€Motel.€€A€motel€employee€stated€that€as€the€victim€walked€toward€theÐ pÀ Ðphone,€the€defendant€ð ðfollowed€right€on€her€tail.ðð€€€There€the€defendant€stood€about€eight€inchesÐ \¬ Ðaway€from€the€victim.€€When€the€victim€told€her€friend€on€the€phone€that€the€defendant€hadÐ H˜ Ðkidnapped€her,€the€defendant€slammed€the€phone€on€the€hook€and€dragged€the€victim€outside.€€WhileÐ 4„ Ðbeing€dragged€from€the€motel€lobby,€the€victim€told€the€motelò ò€ó óemployee€that€she€ð ðcould€call€theÐ  p Ðpolice€now.ðð€€From€these€facts,€a€jury€could€properly€conclude€that€the€victim€was€abducted€againstÐ ` Ðher€will.€ò òÐ üL Ðó óÌà  àAfter€the€victim€was€dragged€from€the€motel€lobby€out€to€the€parking€lot,€a€struggle€betweenÐ Ô$ Ðthe€defendant€and€the€victim€was€witnessed€by€a€patron€of€the€motel.€€At€this€point,€the€defendantÐ À Ðpulled€out€€a€gun€and€shot€the€victim.€€The€victim€then€managed€to€break€free€of€the€defendant€andÐ ¬ü Ðattempted€to€re„enter€the€motel€lobby.€€The€injured€victim€had€made€her€way€from€the€parking€lot€Ð ˜è Ðthrough€one€lobby€door€when€the€defendant€entered€and€fatally€shot€the€victim.€€From€these€facts,Ð „Ô Ða€jury€could€properly€conclude€that€the€victim€tried€to€escape€from€the€defendant,€her€kidnapper.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌò òà  àó óThe€question€these€facts€present€is€whether€or€not€the€kidnapping€was€accomplished€by€useÐ H!˜ Ðof€a€deadly€weapon.€€We€note€that€kidnapping€is€a€continuing€offense.€€òòState€v.€Leggóó,€9€S.W.3d€111,Ð 4"„  Ð117€(Tenn.€1999).€€ð ðSo€long€as€the€removal€or€confinement€of€the€victim€lasts,€the€offense€of€falseÐ  #p! Ðimprisonment€continues.ðð€€It€is€true,€no€evidence€exists€that€the€defendant€employed€a€deadly€weaponÐ  $\" Ðduring€the€removal.€€It€is€also€true,€no€evidence€exists€that€the€defendant€employed€a€deadly€weaponÐ ø$H # Ðduring€the€confinement€of€the€victim€in€the€motel€room.€€However,€there€is€sufficient€evidence€toÐ ä%4!$ Ðconclude€that€the€defendant€did€employ€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€to€wit:€€a€gun€to€prevent€orÐ Ð& "% Ðdiscourage€the€victimððs€escape.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€a€kidnapping€accomplished€by€the€useÐ ¼' #& Ðof€a€deadly€weapon€is€sufficiently€established€by€the€proof.Ô#†XqXXkXq#Ô€€€Ð ¨(ø#' ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€remaining€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€conviction,€there€is€evidenceÐ €*Ð%) Ðthat€during€the€unlawful€confinement€the€victim€suffered€four€gunshot€wounds€which€€resulted€in€herÐ l+¼&* Ðdeath,€fulfilling€the€element€of€serious€bodily€injury.€€Thus,€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€theÐ ° Ðdefendantððs€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€claims€that€because€Ô‡XqXXXqÔthe€restraint€of€the€victim€in€the€parking€lot€of€the€EconoÐ tÄ ÐLodge€was€ð ðessentially€incidentalðð€to€her€murderÔ#†XqXXXq##Ô,€his€convictions€for€especially€aggravatedÐ `° Ðkidnapping€are€barred€by€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991).Ô‡XqXXXqÔ€€In€òòAnthonyóó,€our€supremeÐ L œ Ðcourt€held€that€dual€convictions€for€kidnapping€and€robbery€violate€due€process€when€the€detentionÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€the€victim€resulting€in€the€kidnapping€conviction€is€incidental€to€the€robbery.€€The€appellate€courtsÐ $ t Ðof€this€state€have€recognized€that€a€period€of€confinement€or€restraintÔ#†XqXXXqx#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€is€inherent€in€certain€offenses,Ð  ` Ðsuch€as€rape€and€robbery.€€The€paramount€question,€therefore,€is€ð ðwhether€the€confinement,Ð ü L  Ðmovement,€or€detention€is€essentially€incidental€to€the€accompanying€felony€and€is€not€.€.€.€sufficientÐ è 8  Ðto€support€a€separate€conviction€for€kidnapping.ðð€€€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306€(citation€omitted).€Ð Ô$  ÐOur€supreme€court€has€held€that€the€focus€of€an€òòAnthonyóó€inquiry€is€upon€the€ð ðpurpose€of€the€removalÐ À  Ðor€confinement€and€not€the€distance€or€duration.ðð€€òòState€v.€Dixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€532,€535€(Tenn.Ð ¬ü  Ð1997).€€If€the€purpose€of€the€removal€or€confinement€is€ð ðnot€necessary€for€the€commission€of€theÐ ˜è  Ð[underlying€felony],ðð€the€kidnapping€is€not€incidental€to€the€other€offense.€€òòId.óó€€If€the€ð ðmovement€orÐ „Ô  Ðconfinement€is€beyond€that€necessary€to€consummate€the€[underlying€offense],ðð€the€next€inquiry€isÐ pÀ Ðð ðwhether€the€additional€movement€or€confinement:€€(1)€prevented€the€victim€from€summoning€help;€Ð \¬ Ð(2)€lessened€the€defendantððs€risk€of€detection;€or€(3)€created€a€significant€danger€or€increased€theÐ H˜ Ðvictimððs€risk€of€harm.ðð€€òòDixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€at€535€(citing€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306).€€AffirmativeÐ 4„ Ðanswers€to€these€inquiries€support€affirmance€of€a€contemporaneous€kidnapping.€€òòDixonóó,€957€S.W.2dÐ  p Ðat€535.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIn€òòAnthonyóó,Ô#†XqXXXq)!#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€the€courtòòóó€was€concerned€that€the€kidnapping€statute€ð ðbe€applied€so€as€to€protectÐ ä4 Ðthe€due€process€rights€of€those€accused€of€both€kidnapping€and€other€offenses€that€necessarilyÐ Ð  Ðinvolve€the€detention€of€a€victim.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Zongeóó,€973€S.W.2d€250,€256€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¼  Ð1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€the€instant€case,€the€defendantððs€own€testimonyÐ ¨ø Ðbelies€his€argument€that€the€detention€of€the€victim€was€essentially€incidental€to€her€murder.€€TheÐ ”ä Ðdefendant€testified€that€he€did€not€intend,€at€any€time,€to€kill€the€victim.€€Thus,€because€the€purposeÐ €Ð Ðof€the€detention€was€not€to€commit€the€murder,€the€òòAnthonyóó€rationale€is€inapplicable.€€This€issue€isÐ l¼ Ðwithout€merit.Ð X ¨ ÐÌÓ  Óò òIII.ó óÐ 0"€  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€prohibiting€the€use€of€the€victimððsÐ $X" Ðtelephone€records€to€impeach€the€testimony€of€Nancy€Leonard€and€Tia€Ayers.€€As€indicated€above,Ð ô$D # ÐNancy€Leonard€and€Tia€Ayers€testified€that€the€victim€expressed€her€desire€to€avoid€any€contact€withÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€defendant€in€the€future.€€During€cross„examination€of€these€witnesses,€the€defendant€sought€toÐ Ì&"% Ðquestion€them€about€the€victimððs€telephone€records,€which€show€a€number€of€phone€calls€placedÐ ¸'#& Ðfrom€the€victimððs€residence€to€either€the€defendantððs€residence€in€Clarksville€or€to€Fort€Bragg,€whereÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€defendant€was€briefly€stationed.€€Defense€counsel€also€sought€to€specifically€question€Tia€AyersÐ )à$( Ðregarding€a€telephone€call€placed€to€the€defendantððs€home€on€August€31,€1996,€when€the€defendantÐ |*Ì%) Ðwas€incarcerated€in€Illinois.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€it€would€allow€counsel€to€question€theÐ h+¸&* Ðwitnesses€about€whether€they€would€be€surprised€to€learn€that€the€victim€had€called€the€defendantÐ ° Ðon€several€occasions€but€that€counsel€would€not€be€permitted€to€ask€about€each€call€individually.€€Ð œì ÐThe€defendant€asserts€that,€because€he€was€not€permitted€to€question€Ms.€Leonard€and€Ms.€AyersÐ ˆØ Ðabout€each€specific€telephone€call,€his€right€to€cross„examination€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€theÐ tÄ ÐUnited€States€Constitution€was€impermissibly€limited.Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€Sixth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€that€a€criminal€defendantÐ 8 ˆ Ðhas€the€right€ð ðto€be€confronted€with€the€witnesses€against€himðð€and€this€substantial€right€is€madeÐ $ t Ðapplicable€to€the€States€under€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€€òòSeeóó€òòPointer€v.€Texasóó,€380€U.S.€400Ð  ` Ð(1965).€€The€right€of€confrontation€encompasses€the€right€to€cross„examine.€€òòSeeóó€òòBarber€v.€Pageóó,€390Ð ü L  ÐU.S.€719€(1968).€€It€is€the€principal€means€by€which€the€believability€of€a€witness€and€the€truth€ofÐ è 8  Ðhis€testimony€are€tested.€€òòSeeòòóó€óóòòDavis€v.€Alaskaóóòò,€óó415€U.S.€308€(1974);€òòHoffa€v.€United€Statesóó,€385€U.S.Ð Ô$  Ð293€(1966),€òòrehððgóó€òòdeniedóó,€386€U.S.€940€(1967).Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€is€not€absolute€however,€and€may,€in€appropriateÐ ˜è  Ðcases,€bow€to€accommodate€other€legitimate€interests€in€the€criminal€trial€process.€€òòSeeóó€òòChambersÐ „Ô  Ðv.€Mississippióó,€410€U.S.€284,€295€(1973).€€In€the€present€case,€the€defendant€sought€introduction€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€telephone€records€of€the€victim€to€contradict€the€testimony€of€Nancy€Leonard€and€Tia€Ayers.€òòóó€ItÐ \¬ Ðis€proper€for€a€party€to€contradict€and€discredit€an€adverse€witness€by€showing€the€facts€to€be€otherÐ H˜ Ðthan€as€testified€to€by€such€witness.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€EvidenceóóÐ 4„ Ððð€6.07[4][d]€(4òòthóó€ed.€2000).€€This€method€of€impeachment€is€quite€restricted.€€First,€impeachment€isÐ  p Ðnot€allowed€as€to€ð ðcollateralðð€matters,€so€only€if€the€point€on€which€the€witnessðð€testimony€is€beingÐ  \ Ðcontradicted€is€material€to€the€issues€in€the€case€or€is€relevant€to€the€witnessðð€credibility€apart€fromÐ øH Ðthe€contradiction€may€the€contradiction€be€shown€by€the€use€of€extrinsic€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€If€the€factÐ ä4 Ðbeing€contradicted€is€deemed€collateral,€counsel€must€use€cross„examination€of€the€witness€beingÐ Ð  Ðimpeached€to€bring€out€the€contradictory€fact€and€must€accept€the€witnessðð€response,€even€if€it€is€aÐ ¼  Ðdenial€that€counsel€could€disprove.€€òòId.óóÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€propriety,€scope,€manner€and€control€of€testimony€and€other€evidence,€including€theÐ €Ð Ðscope€of€cross-examination,€remains€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€which€will€not€beÐ l¼ Ðreversed€absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Barnardóó,€899€S.W.2d€617,€624€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð X ¨ ÐApp.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994)€(citing€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.Ð D!” Ð1978));€òòState€v.€Elrodóó,€721€S.W.2d€820,€823€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986);€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€611(a).Ô#†XqXXXq¸'#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àHere,€Nancy€Leonard€and€Tia€Ayers€testified€that€the€victim€was€no€longer€involved€with€theÐ $X" Ðdefendant.€€The€defendant€asserted€at€trial€that€he€and€the€victim€had€maintained€a€relationship€evenÐ ô$D # Ðafter€their€divorce.€€Evidence€of€the€telephone€calls€was€therefore€relevant€on€the€issue€of€whetherÐ à%0!$ Ðthere€was€contact€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim€during€the€same€period€in€which€the€victimÐ Ì&"% Ðtold€witnesses€she€was€afraid€of€the€defendant€and€claimed€to€have€no€contact€with€him.€€Thus,€theÐ ¸'#& Ðtrial€court€properly€found€that€the€defendant€could€question€the€witnesses€regarding€the€telephoneÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcalls€made€by€the€victim€to€the€defendant.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€correctly€concluded€that€thisÐ )à$( Ðissue€was€material€and€that€the€existence€of€the€telephone€calls€could€be€proven€by€extrinsicÐ |*Ì%) Ðevidence.€€Notwithstanding€its€finding€that€the€issue€was€material€and€that€extrinsic€evidence€couldÐ h+¸&* Ðbe€used€to€prove€that€the€victim€had€telephoned€the€defendant,€the€trial€court€acted€within€itsÐ ° Ðdiscretion€€when€it€limited€counselððs€cross„examination€of€the€witnesses€to€whether€they€would€òòóóbeÐ œì Ðsurprised€to€learn€that€the€victim€had€made€numerous€telephone€calls€to€the€defendant.€€To€permitÐ ˆØ Ðcounsel€to€question€the€witnesses€as€to€each€and€every€telephone€call€made€by€the€victim€could€haveÐ tÄ Ðbeen€unnecessarily€time€consuming€and€cumulative.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€This€issueÐ `° Ðis€without€merit.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIn€a€related€issue,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€questions€basedÐ $ t Ðupon€a€collect€call€that€the€victim€accepted€from€the€defendant,€placed€while€he€was€incarcerated€inÐ  ` ÐEdwardsville,€Illinois,€might€ð ðopen€the€doorðð€for€the€State€to€inquire€about€the€defendantððsÐ ü L  Ðincarceration€was€an€impermissible€restriction€on€his€right€to€cross„examination.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€record€indicates€that€after€the€trial€court€ruled€that€questions€about€the€telephone€callÐ À  Ðmight€permit€the€State€to€inquire€into€the€reasons€for€the€defendantððs€incarceration,€defense€counselÐ ¬ü  Ðagreed€not€to€cross„examine€the€witness€about€the€call.€€Subsequently,€during€cross„examination€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthe€defendant,€the€State€utilized€the€telephone€records€to€emphasize€that€no€telephone€calls€wereÐ „Ô  Ðmade€from€the€victimððs€residence€to€the€defendantððs€residence€after€September€1,€1996.€€DefenseÐ pÀ Ðcounsel€objected€and€the€following€colloquy€occurred:Ð \¬ ÐÓ$°–, X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÌà0 4 àà  àMS.€KERSH:€€Your€Honor,€this€is€improper.€€Heððs€trying€to€open€the€door€to€theÐ 4„ ÐIllinois€material.€€Heððs€going€to€ask€my€client€that€there€arenððt€any€phone€calls€onÐ  p Ðthere€for€all€these€months,€and€he€knows€that€he€was€in€jail,€but€my€client€canððtÐ  \ Ðexplain€it.ÐøH4Ð 4Ð  Ðà 4 à*à0 ` àà0Œ ` Ð ` Ð àà0¸ Œ Ð Œ Ð à*à0ä ¸ Ð ¸ Ð àà0ä Ð ä Ð àà0<Ð Ð à*Ðä4<Ð <Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  àGENERAL€BROLLIER:€€Your€Honor,€Iððm€not€trying€to€open€the€door.€€The€phoneÐ Ð  Ðrecords€speak€for€themselves.€€I€believe€that€he€will€have€to€review€those€andÐ ¼  Ðtestify€that€there€are€no€phone€calls€from€her€apartment€or€her€phone€number€toÐ ¨ø Ðhis€house€after€September€1,€1996.€€Thatððs€all€I€intend€to€ask€him€about.€€NotÐ ”ä Ðwhere€he€was€in€that€time€frame.ЀÐ4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  àMS.€KERSH:€€Thatððs€not€fair,€Your€Honor,€because€he€canððt€explain€it€withoutÐ l¼ Ðopening€the€door€to€the€Illinois€material.€€I€didnððt€go€into€the€August€31òòstóó€òòóó€phoneÐ X ¨ Ðcall€specifically€to€keep€from€doing€that.€€Ô#†XqXXXqõ=#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔMr.€Brollier€can€argue€that€to€the€juryÐ D!” Ðin€his€closing€argument€just€like€I€have€to€do.€€I€just€think€itððs€improper.Ð0"€ 4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  àTHE€COURT:€€Werenððt€these€records€introduced€by€his€own€testimony€a€minuteÐ #l! Ðago?Ð$X"4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  àMS.€KERSH:€€No,€sir.€€These€are€her€phone€records.€€They€were€introduced€the€otherÐ ô$D # Ðday.Ðà%0!$4Ð 4Ð  ÐTHE€COURT:€€Oh,€okay.Ð Ì&"% Ðà0 4 àà  àGENERAL€BROLLIER:€€Theyððve€made€it€a€central€theory€in€this€case€that€she€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðin€touch€with€him€and€calling€him€all€the€time,€and€I€believe€I€am€entitled€toð!ðФ(ô#'4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  àTHE€COURT:€€Okay.€€As€long€as€you€donððt€say€anything€about€jail€or€Illinois.€€YouÐ )à$( Ðcan€go€ahead.Ð|*Ì%)4Ð 4Ð  ÐMS.€KERSH:€€Your€Honor,€I€just€want€my€objection€noted€that€he€canððt€explain.Ð h+¸&* ЇÓ( °œX°–, XqI(ÓÓ X•IÓÓ X£IÓà  àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€prevented€him€from€developing€the€factÐ ° Ðthat,€while€incarcerated€in€Illinois,€he€conversed€with€the€victim€by€placing€a€collect€telephone€callÐ œì Ðto€her€residence.€€In€essence,€the€defendant€sought€to€reveal€each€specific€telephone€call€madeÐ ˆØ Ðbetween€the€defendant€and€the€victim,€but€conceal€the€location€from€which€each€telephone€call€wasÐ tÄ Ðmade.€€Additionally,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€exclusion€of€the€specific€reference€to€telephoneÐ `° Ðcalls€made€between€the€victim€and€the€defendant€during€the€period€of€his€incarceration€allowed€theÐ L œ Ðjury€to€infer€incorrectly€that€the€victim€had€no€contact€with€the€defendant€from€September€1,€1996,Ð 8 ˆ Ðuntil€the€time€of€the€offenses€in€the€instant€case.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àHere,€the€trial€court€permitted€both€the€State€and€the€defendant€to€question€the€witnessesÐ ü L  Ðabout€the€total€number€of€calls€made€by€each€party€to€the€other€during€the€months€preceding€theÐ è 8  Ðmurder.€€Further,€the€trial€court€specifically€instructed€the€prosecutor€that€he€could€question€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€regarding€the€telephone€records€ð ðas€long€as€you€donððt€say€anything€about€jail€or€Illinois.ðð€Ð À  ÐAny€discrepancies€inferred€through€the€Stateððs€questioning€of€the€defendant€and€the€defendantððsÐ ¬ü  Ðintroduction€of€the€telephone€records€were€for€resolution€by€the€jury.€We€cannot€conclude€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðtrial€court€abused€its€discretion.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà@dd)ìàò òIV.ˆÐ \¬ Ðó óÌà  àThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€State€failed€to€disclose€exculpatory€evidence,€as€required€byÐ 4„ ÐòòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.€Ct.1194€(1963).€€Specifically,€the€defendant€argues€that€theÐ  p ÐStateÔ#†XqXXXqûN#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔòòóó€failed€to€disclose€the€contents€of€an€interview€with€Tia€Ayers€that€occurred€on€February€16,Ð  \ Ð1999;€failed€to€turn€over€the€statement€of€Denise€Stagner€until€the€next€to€the€last€day€of€trial;€andÐ øH Ðfailed€to€turn€over€notes€taken€by€Detective€West€during€an€interview€of€Denise€Stagner.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€òòBradyóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that,€in€a€criminal€case,€the€prosecution€hasÐ ¼  Ða€compelling€duty€to€furnish€the€accused€with€exculpatory€evidence€pertaining€either€to€the€accusedððsÐ ¨ø Ðguilt€or€innocence€or€to€the€potential€punishment€that€may€be€imposed.€òòóó€373€Ô#†XqXXXqy[#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔU.S.€at€87,€83€S.€Ct.€atÐ ”ä Ð1196.€€Exculpatory€evidence€under€òòBradyóó€includes€information€or€statements€of€witnesses€which€areÐ €Ð Ðfavorable€to€the€accused.€€òòSee,óó€òòe.g.óó,òòóó€òòState€v.€Goodmanóó,€643€S.W.2d€375,€379-80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð l¼ Ð1982).€€Moreover,€exculpatory€evidence€under€òòBradyóó€includes€information€which€can€be€used€onlyÐ X ¨ Ðfor€impeachment€purposes.€€òòSeeóó€òòGiglio€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150,€154-55€(1972);€òòWorkman€v.Ð D!” ÐStateóó,€868€S.W.2d€705,€509€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Failure€to€reveal€exculpatory€evidenceÐ 0"€  Ðviolates€due€process€where€the€evidence€is€material€either€to€guilt€or€to€punishment,€irrespective€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution.€€òòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87.€€In€order€to€determine€theÐ $X" Ðmateriality€of€undisclosed€information,€the€reviewing€court€must€ascertain€whether€ð ðin€[the]€absenceÐ ô$D # Ð[of€the€information]€[the€defendant]€received€a€fair€trial,€understood€as€a€trial€resulting€in€a€verdictÐ à%0!$ Ðworthy€of€confidence.ðð€€òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,€431€(1995);€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Edginóó,€902Ð Ì&"% ÐS.W.2d€387,€390€(Tenn.),€òòas€amended€on€rehððgóó,€(1995).€€Thus,€in€order€to€prove€a€òòBradyóó€violation,Ð ¸'#& Ða€defendant€must€show€that€ð ðthe€favorable€evidence€could€reasonably€be€taken€to€put€the€whole€caseÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€such€a€different€light€as€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€verdict.ðð€€òòEdginóó,€90€S.W.2d€at€390.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àBefore€a€reviewing€court€may€find€a€due€process€violation€under€òòBradyóó,€four€prerequisitesÐ ° Ðâ âmust€be€satisfied:Ð œì ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ$”,È’X°œX$Óà0 4 àà  à(1)€The€defendant€must€have€requested€the€information€(unless€the€evidence€isÐ tÄ Ðobviously€exculpatory,€in€which€case€the€State€is€bound€to€release€the€informationÐ `° Ðwhether€requested€or€not);ÐL œ4Ð 4Ð  Ð(2)€The€State€must€have€suppressed€the€information;Ð 8 ˆ Ð(3)€The€information€must€have€been€favorable€to€the€accused;€andÐ $ t Ð(4)€The€information€must€have€been€material.Ð  ` ÐÓ XúeÓÓ XfÓÓ( °œX”,È’Xf(ÓòòÌId.óó€€The€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€the€elements€of€this€claim€by€a€preponderanceÐ è 8  Ðof€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€757€S.W.2d€14,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€ð ðThe€òòBradyóó€ruleÐ Ô$  Ðdoes€not€require€a€prosecutor€to€deliver€his€entire€file€to€defense€counsel,€but€only€to€discloseÐ À  Ðevidence€favorable€to€the€accused€that,€if€suppressed,€would€deprive€him€of€a€fair€trial€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòStateÐ ¬ü  Ðv.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381,€389€(Tenn.€1995).Ô#†XqXXXqn^#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ ˜è  ÐÔ#†XqXXXqÒj#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÌà  àOn€March€29,€1999,€some€nine€days€after€the€conclusion€of€the€defendantððs€trial,€the€StateÐ pÀ Ðfiled€with€the€trial€court€a€tape€recorded€interview€of€Tia€Ayers€taken€in€February€of€1999.€€The€StateÐ \¬ Ðalso€filed€a€transcription€of€the€statement.€€At€the€time€of€filing,€the€State€claimed€that€AssistantÐ H˜ ÐDistrict€Attorney€General€Daniel€Broiller€received€the€tape€from€Detective€Miller€shortly€after€theÐ 4„ Ðinterview€but€had€simply€forgotten€about€it€after€Ms.€Ayers€testified€at€the€preliminary€hearing.€€InÐ  p Ðaddition,€the€State€asserted€that€General€Broiller€had€not€listened€to€the€tape€nor€had€he€provided€aÐ  \ Ðcopy€of€the€tape€to€the€defendant.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Ð øH ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÌthe€statement€was€not€exculpatory€nor€favorable€to€the€Defendant€and€that€it€did€notÐ Ð  Ðcontain€any€material€information€which€had€not€been€otherwise€disclosed€in€Ms.Ð ¼  ÐAyers[ðð]€other€statements€and€pretrial€testimony.€€Furthermore,€Ms.€Ayers€wasÐ ¨ø Ðquestioned€thoroughly€at€trial€concerning€the€victimððs€relationship€with€theÐ ”ä ÐDefendant€in€1996€in€an€effort€to€show€that€they€had€an€ongoing€romanticÐ €Ð Ðrelationship€and€the€Court€does€not€find€that€the€defendant€was€hampered€in€any€wayÐ l¼ Ðby€the€Stateððs€failure€to€turn€over€the€February€16thòòóó€statement.Ð X ¨ ÐÓ X}nÓÓ X‹nÓÌà  àThe€defendant€asserts€that€this€statement€is€exculpatory€because€he€ð ðcould€have€used€it€toÐ 0"€  Ðshow€that€the€decedent€represented€to€friends€and€acquaintances€that€the€decedent€claimed€to€beÐ #l! Ðrepulsed€by€the€defendant€while€carrying€on€a€relationship€with€him€in€secret.ðð€€The€defendant€alsoÐ $X" Ðasserts€that€had€the€statement€been€disclosed,€he€could€have€investigated€who€the€people€were€thatÐ ô$D # ÐMs.€Ayers€was€referring€to€when€she€used€the€pronoun€ð ðwe.ððÔ#†XqXXXq)k#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€record€establishes€that€the€information€was€requested€and€was€in€€possession€of€the€State.€Ð ¸'#& ÐThe€defendant€argues€that€Ms.€Ayersðð€statement€indicates€the€victimððs€desire€to€maintain€a€secretÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrelationship€with€the€defendant,€thereby€rebutting€Ms.€Ayersðð€claims€that€the€victim€feared€theÐ )à$( Ðdefendant.€€We€believe€that€the€inference€derived€by€the€defendant€from€Ms.€Ayersðð€statement€canÐ |*Ì%) Ðbe€viewed€as€exculpatory€to€a€degree.€€€However,€given€the€evidence€in€the€record,€we€fail€to€see€howÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€statement€was€material€in€terms€of€undermining€our€confidence€in€the€verdict.€€We€conclude€thatÐ ° Ðthe€defendantððs€due€process€right€to€a€fair€trial€was€not€violated€by€the€failure€to€disclose€theÐ œì Ðstatement.€Ô#†XqXXXq¾s#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€trial€court€should€have€declared€a€mistrial€when€theÐ `° ÐState€failed€to€provide€a€copy€of€an€August€22,€1997€interview€with€Ms.€Stagner€until€one€day€beforeÐ L œ Ðthe€conclusion€of€the€trial.€€During€cross„examination€by€the€defense,€Detective€Miller€mentionedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€in€an€interview€by€Metro€Police€Officer€West,€Ms.€Stagner€stated€that€she€had€seen€the€defendantÐ $ t Ðget€into€the€driverððs€seat€and€the€victim€move€over€to€the€passenger€seat.€€At€the€conclusion€ofÐ  ` ÐDetective€Millerððs€testimony,€the€defendant€requested€and€received€a€copy€of€the€interview€sheet.€Ð ü L  ÐThe€State€conceded€that€the€failure€to€disclose€the€interview€sheet€was€an€oversight€and€offered€theÐ è 8  Ðdefendant€the€opportunity€to€introduce€the€interview€sheet€into€evidence.€€After€being€recalled€as€aÐ Ô$  ÐwitnessÔ#†XqXXXqww#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ,€Ms.€Stagner€was€questioned€about€the€actions€in€the€Jeep€and€clarified€her€earlier€testimonyÐ À  Ðby€stating€that€when€she€said€the€defendant€moved€the€victim€to€the€passenger€seat,€she€meant€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€victim€had€to€move€overÔ#†XqXXXqž{#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€because€the€defendant€got€into€the€driverððs€seat.€€The€trial€courtÐ ˜è  Ðdetermined€that€Ð „Ô  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÌsaid€statement€was€given€to€the€Defendant€during€the€trial,€that€the€Defendant€wasÐ \¬ Ðallowed€to€use€it€to€cross„exam[ine]€Ms.€[Stagner]€at€trial,€and€that€the€statement€wasÐ H˜ Ðread€to€the€jury.€€The€Court€therefore€finds€that€the€[d]efendant€has€not€shown€thatÐ 4„ Ðthe€State€suppressed€any€material€information€which€was€exculpatory€or€otherwiseÐ  p Ðfavorable€to€the€defendant.€€Nor€has€the€[d]efendant€shown€that€there€[is]€aÐ  \ Ðreasonable€probability€that€the€results€of€the€trial€would€have€been€different€had€theÐ øH ÐDefense€had€the€[Stagner]€statement€earlier.Ð ä4 ÐÓ X„}ÓÓ X’}ÓÌHere,€the€statement€does€not€fall€within€the€parameters€of€òòBradyóó€because€the€information,€althoughÐ ¼  Ðdelayed,Ô#†XqXXXqå|#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€was€disclosed.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Bencsóó,€28€F.3d€555,€56l€(6th€Cir.€1994).€€òòBradyóó€onlyÐ ¨ø Ðapplies€to€a€complete€failure€to€disclose€exculpatory€information€and€does€not€apply€to€delayedÐ ”ä Ðdisclosure€unless€the€delay€itself€causes€prejudice.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Wordóó,€806€F.2dÐ €Ð Ð658,€665€(6th€Cir.€1986).€€In€this€case,€because€disclosure€was€delayed€and€not€denied,€the€defendantÐ l¼ Ðmust€demonstrate€prejudice€to€establish€a€violation.€€We€conclude,€as€did€the€trial€court,€that€theÐ X ¨ Ðdefendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€he€was€prejudiced,€in€any€way,€by€the€delayed€disclosureÐ D!” Ðof€this€statement.Ð 0"€  Ðò òó óÌà  àFinally,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€failure€to€turn€over€notes€taken€by€Detective€WestÐ $X" Ðduring€the€investigationÔ#†XqXXXq#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€was€a€violation€of€the€òòBradyóó€rule.€€Detective€West€interviewed€Ms.€StagnerÐ ô$D # Ðwithin€hours€of€the€shooting€and€transmitted€the€information€gleaned€from€the€interview€to€DetectiveÐ à%0!$ ÐMiller,€who€recorded€the€information€on€a€follow„up€sheet.€€The€State€provided€a€copy€of€the€follow„Ð Ì&"% Ðup€sheet€prepared€by€Detective€Miller,€but€did€not€disclose€the€notes€taken€by€Detective€West.€€WhileÐ ¸'#& Ðalleging€that€the€failure€to€disclose€the€notes€was€a€violation€of€òòBradyóó,€the€defendant€has€failed€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðprovide€any€evidence€that€the€notes€contained€exculpatory€material.€€Thus,€the€defendant€has€failedÐ )à$( Ðto€meet€the€burden€of€proof€with€regard€to€this€claim.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ  Óò òV.Ð ° ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€next€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€declare€a€mistrial€afterÐ ˆØ ÐCrystal€Jarrett,€a€witness€for€the€State,€erupted€several€times€on€the€witness€stand,€gave€unresponsiveÐ tÄ Ðanswers€to€questions,€and€called€defense€counsel€ð ðmean.ðð€€The€following€exchange€took€place€duringÐ `° ÐMs.€Jarrettððs€testimony:Ð L œ ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ$”,È’X°œX$Óà0 4 àà  à[GENERAL€BROLLIER]:€€[D]id€you€notice€something€unusual€happening€thatÐ $ t Ðmorning?Ð `4Ð 4Ð  Ð[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€€That€man€murdered€his€wife.Ð ü L  Ðà0 4 àà  àMS.€KERSH:€€Objection,€Your€Honor,€move€to€strike€and€instruct€the€jury€toÐ è 8  Ðdisregard€the€witnessðð€use€of€that€word.ÐÔ$ 4Ð 4Ð  Ð[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€€Murder?€€Well,€thatððs€what€happened.Ð À  ÐMS.€KERSH:€€Your€Honorð"ðÐ ¬ü  Ðà0 4 àà  àTHE€COURT:€€Ms.€Jarrett,€if€the€lawyer€makes€an€objection€at€any€time€while€youÐ ˜è  Ðare€being€asked€a€question,€just€wait€for€a€minute€and€let€me€rule€on€it€ð!ðÐ„Ô 4Ð 4Ð  ÐÓ( °œX”,È’XbŠ(ÓÓ XFŠÓÓ XTŠÓÓ$°–, X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓà0 4 àà  à[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€€Iððm€sorry,€I€just€donððt€know€how€else€to€describe€whatÐ pÀ Ðhappened[.]€€Thatððs€what€it€is,€and€thatððs€how€I€have€always€known€ð!ð€when€youÐ \¬ Ðkill€somebody,€itððs€murder.ÐH˜4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  àMS.€KERSH:€€Your€Honor,€I€object€to€her€conclusion€and€ask€that€the€jury€beÐ 4„ Ðinstructed€to€disregard€it.Ð p4Ð 4Ð  ÐTHE€COURT:€€Ms.€Jarrett,€let€me€just€tell€you€the€situation€here.Ð  \ Ð[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€What€word€should€I€use,€Judge?Ð øH ÐTHE€COURT:€€Well€ð!ð€you€can€just€use€like€ð"ðÐ ä4 Ð[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€€The€fourth€commandment?Ð Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  àTHE€COURT:€€No€ð!ð€hang€on€just€a€second.€€First€of€all,€the€General€is€going€to€askÐ ¼  Ðyou€a€lot€of€specific€questions€.€.€.€you€can€just€tell€factually€what€happened€.€.€itððsÐ ¨ø Ðimportant€that€you€have€an€opportunity€to€give€your€testimony€to€these€folks€here.€Ð ”ä ЀSo,€if€you€need€to€take€a€break€ð"ðà8ì4Ð 4Ð àЀÐìì Ð[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€€Iððm€fine.à8 À àÐl¼ÀÀ Ðà0 4 àà  àTHE€COURT:€€Just€for€example,€if€what€you€saw€was€him€ð!ð€the€defendant€shootingÐ X ¨ Ðsomeone,€just€say€shooting€as€opposed€to€murder.€€The€problem€is€that€murder€isÐ D!” Ða€legal€word€ð!ð€it€is€a€common€word€that€we€hear€everyday,€but€it€also€hasÐ 0"€  Ðsignificance€from€a€legal€standpoint,€so€if€you€will€just€say€shooting,€thatððs€fine.Ð#l!4Ð 4Ð  Ð[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€€Shoot€and€killed€her?à8 @ð àÐ $X" ÐTHE€COURT:€€Well,€yes€.€.€.€those€words€are€fine€if€thatððs€what€you€saw.Ð ô$D # Ðà8 4 àà ` àMembers€of€the€jury,€let€me€just€tell€you€I€think€itððs€pretty€clear€in€thisÐ à%0!$ Ðcase,€and€I€am€not€commenting€on€the€evidence€and€I€donððt€have€any€opinionÐ Ì&"% Ðabout€it,€but€based€on€the€plea€to€voluntary€manslaughter€of€the€defendant,€IÐ ¸'#& Ðthink€that€it€is€going€to€be€pretty€apparent€that€the€defendant€shot€the€victimÐ ¤(ô#' Ðand€that€she€died€as€a€result€of€the€shooting.€€It€is€going€to€be€up€to€you€folksÐ )à$( Ðwhat€classification,€if€any€that€ð!ð€not,€if€any€because€there€has€been€a€plea€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðvoluntary€manslaughter,€so€you€folks€are€going€to€have€to€decide€whether€itððsÐ h+¸&* Ðfirst€degree€murder,€second€degree€murder,€or€voluntary€manslaughter€is€whatÐ ° Ðit€amounts€to.€€Thatððs€why€I€am€asking€the€witness€not€to€use€the€wordÐ œì Ðð ðmurderðð€because€from€a€legal€standpoint,€itððs€up€to€you€folks€to€decideÐ ˆØ Ðwhether€this€killing€was€a€murder,€first€degree,€second€degree€or€voluntaryÐ tÄ Ðmanslaughter.€€Thatððs€my€response€to€Ms.€Kershððs€objection,€which€is€a€goodÐ `° Ðobjection€and€it€is€sustained€and€just€disregard€Ms.€Jarrettððs€use€of€the€wordÐ L œ Ðð ðmurder.ðð€€She€is€not€trying€to€use€it€in€a€legal€sense,€but€it€is€important€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðyou€folks€make€ð!ð€distinguish€between€that€word,€when€you€get€to€theÐ $ t Ðinstructions,€it€will€be€more€clear€to€you.Ð `4¤4¤ ÐÓ( °œX°–, XØ(ÓÓ XüÓÓ X ŽÓÌAfter€this€admonition€by€the€trial€court,€the€State€resumed€direct€examination€of€Ms.€Jarrett€and€theÐ è 8  Ðfollowing€colloquy€took€place:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  à[GENERAL€BROLLIER]:€€All€that€you€saw€directly?Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÓ$”,È’X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓà0 4 àà  à[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€€Right.€It€was€worse€than€a€horror€flick.€€I€thought€it€was€aÐ ˜è  ÐHollywood€movie.Ð„Ô 4Ð 4Ð  ÐMS.€KERSH:€€Objection,€Your€Honor,€to€the€witnessðð€commentary.Ð pÀ Ðà0 4 àà  àTHE€COURT:€€I€will€sustain€the€objection.€€What€the€rules€say€is€that€you€have€to€tellÐ \¬ Ðthe€jury€what€you€actually€saw€or€heard€and€that€ð"ðÐH˜4Ð 4Ð  Ð[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€€I€am€not€experienced€at€it€ð!ðÐ 4„ ÐTHE€COURT:€€I€understand€ð"ðÐ  p Ðà0 4 àà  à[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€€This€is€my€first€time.€€I€never€asked€to€be€here.€€I€canððt€helpÐ  \ Ðit.ÐøH4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  àTHE€COURT:€€Well,€you€are€doing€fine.€€Just€keep€doing€what€you€are€doing€andÐ ä4 Ðyou€will€get€through€just€fine.€€General?ÐÐ 4Ð 4Ð  ÐÓ X ÓÓ X.ÓÓ( °œX”,È’Xüœ(ÓÓ$”,È’X°œX$Óà Ü àà  àà 4 àà ` àà Œ àà ¸ àà ä àà  à*à0 < àà0h<(#<(#àà0”h(#h(#àà0À”(#”(#àà0ìÀ(#À(#àà0ì(#ì(#à*à0D(#(#àà0pD(#D(#àà0Èp(#p(#àà0 È(#È(#à*м  (# (# ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓGENERAL€BROLLIER:€€Did€Mr.€Leonard€ever€say€anything€ð!ðÐ ¨ø ÐTHE€COURT:€€Do€you€need€a€break?Ð ”ä Ðà0 4 àà  à[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€No,€but€[defense€counsel]€is€being€mean.€€It€is€not€my€faultÐ €Ð ÐI€have€to€be€here€ð!ðÐl¼4Ð 4Ð  ÐMS.€KERSH:€€Your€Honor,€I€object€to€that.€€I€ask€the€jury€to€be€instructedð!ð€Ð X ¨ Ð[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€€Oh,€Lord€have€mercy,€God€bless€your€heart.Ð D!” Ðà0 4 àà  àMS.€KERSH:€€Your€Honor,€I€will€ask€that€the€witness€be€taken€from€the€courtroomÐ 0"€  Ðif€she€cannot€control€herself.Ð#l!4Ð 4Ð  Ð[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€€You€are€a€woman.€€How€can€you€defend€a€ð!ðÐ $X" ÐMS.€KERSH:€€Your€Honor?Ð ô$D # Ð[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€€ð!ð€a€wife€killer?Ð à%0!$ ÐTHE€COURT:€€Ms.€Jarrett€ð!ð€all€right,€„„€Ms.€Jarrett.Ð Ì&"% Ð[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€€I€need€a€break[.]Ð ¸'#& Ðà0 4 àà  àTHE€COURT:€€Okay.€€Now,€let€me€just€tell€you,€I€know€that€you€donððt€want€to€beÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhere.€€But€you€are€doing€fine€on€your€testimony,€but€the€key€is,€you€need€to€waitÐ )à$( Ðuntil€a€question€is€asked,€listen€to€the€question€and€answer€it.€€It€is€not€ð!ð€Ms.Ð |*Ì%) ÐKersh€doesnððt€have€anything€personal€against€you€ð!ðÐh+¸&*4Ð 4Ð  ÐÓ( °œX”,È’XB¡(ÓÓ(”,È’X礰œX(Ó[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€€If€she€would€have€a€little€bit€more€feeling€towards€me.Ð ° ÐMS.€KERSH:€€Your€Honorð!ðÐ œì Ðà0 4 àà  àTHE€COURT:€€Well,€thatððs€not€the€way€it€has€to€work,€Ms.€Jarrett,€so€I€am€going€toÐ ˆØ Ðgive€you€about€a€ten€minute€break€and€you€will€get€through€this.€€Just€answer€theÐ tÄ Ðquestions,€okay.Ð`°4Ð 4Ð  ÐÓ X¨¢ÓÓ X¶¢ÓÓ( °œX”,È’Xv¨(Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  à*à0 h àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à*à0p(#(#àà0Èp(#p(#àà0 È(#È(#à*ÐL œ (# (# Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà  àCOURT:€Just€step€down€and€relax€and€you€can€step€outside€and€weððll€start€back€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðabout€ten€minutes.Ð$ t` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à[CRYSTAL€JARRETT]:€€Jeremy,€come€here.€€(inaudible)€husbandsð"ðÐ `Ð Ð  Ðà8  àMS.€KERSH:€€Your€Honor?Ðü L Ð Ð  Ðà8  àTHE€COURT:€Just€go€on€outside€Ms.€Jarrett.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌAfter€Ms.€Jarrett€was€excused,€the€defendant€asked€that€the€jury€be€instructed€to€disregard€herÐ À  Ðunresponsive€remarks.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:Ð ¬ü  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ$”,È’X°œX$ÓÌà 4 àMembers€of€the€jury,€let€me€just€say€this.€€When€a€witness€testifies€.€.€it€can€beÐ „Ô  Ðemotional€.€.€.€€What€you€need€to€do€is€listen€to€the€factual€questions€that€are€askedÐ pÀ Ðby€the€attorneys€from€both€sides€and€the€factual€answers€and€disregard€extra€thingsÐ \¬ Ðthat€a€witness€might€throw€in€and€I€will€instruct€you€to€disregard€that€type€of€thing.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà 4 àYou€are€basically€limited€to€considering€evidence€that€ð!ð€of€things€that€a€personÐ  p Ðsaw€without€them€injecting€their€opinion€about€the€significance€of€what€happened€orÐ  \ Ðtheir€opinion€of€the€attorney.€€None€of€that€is€relevant€and€you€need€to€disregard€thatÐ øH Ðand€just€consider€basically€factual€ð!ð€now€when€I€say€facts,€it€is€up€to€you€to€decideÐ ä4 Ðwhether€what€the€witness€is€saying€is€true€or€not.€€Thatððs€totally€up€to€you,€but€whatÐ Ð  ÐI€am€trying€to€tell€you€is€sheððs€going€to€be€ð!ð€a€witness€that€should€be€here€to€tell€youÐ ¼  Ðsomething€that€they€think€they€saw€or€heard€or€otherwise€sensed,€without€injectingÐ ¨ø Ðtheir€commentary€is€what€it€amounts€to.€€We€had€a€little€difficulty€with€Ms.€Jarrett,Ð ”ä Ðwho€is€obviously€emotionally€distraught€and€I€am€sure€you€can€sort€out€what€she€saysÐ €Ð Ðabout€what€happened€as€opposed€to€what€her€opinions€about€it€or€about€anybodyÐ l¼ Ðinvolved€in€the€case.€€I€think€thatððs€about€as€clear€as€I€can€make€it.€€Let€me€emphasizeÐ X ¨ Ðagain€that€her€credibility€and€whether€you€believe€what€she€said€is€true€is€totally€upÐ D!” Ðto€you€and€you€can€be€able€to€make€that€determination€during€your€deliberations,Ð 0"€  Ðalong€with€the€assessment€of€the€credibility€of€all€the€other€witnesses€in€this€case€andÐ #l! Ðall€the€other€evidence,€and€I€will€give€you€a€very€specific€instruction€about€that€at€theÐ $X" Ðend€of€the€case.€€I€guess€thatððs€about€as€ð!ð€all€I€know€to€say.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÓ Xé­ÓÓ X÷­ÓÓ( °œX”,È’X®(ÓThe€defendant€indicated€to€the€trial€court€that€the€instruction€was€sufficient€to€remedy€the€problem.€Ð Ì&"% ÐThe€defendant€then,€after€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Jarrett€and€four€other€witnesses,Ô#†XqXXXq…#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€movedÔ#†XqXXXq¾·#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€for€a€mistrialÐ ¸'#& Ðbased€upon€Ms.€JarrettÔ#†XqXXXq¸#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔððs€conductÔ#†XqXXXq‚¸#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€concluding€that€although€Ms.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐJarrett€provided€unresponsive€and€legally€inappropriate€answers€to€questions€posed€during€herÐ )à$( Ðâ âexamination,€the€curative€instruction€given€was€adequate€to€protect€the€rights€of€the€defendant.€€InÐ |*Ì%) Ðaddition,€the€trial€court€opined€that€it€was€clear€to€the€jury€that€Ms.€Jarrettððs€ð ðhostility€toward€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€and€toward€Ms.€Kersh€.€.€.€should€not€be€considered€.€.€.€as€evidence€in€this€case.ððÐ œì Ðâ âÔ#†XqXXXqѸ#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÌà  àInitially,€we€conclude€that€the€defendant€has€waived€this€issue€by€failing€to€cite€any€authorityÐ tÄ Ðin€support€of€his€arguments.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7);€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÐ `° ÐòòState€v.€Chanceóó,€778€S.W.2d€457,€462€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989);€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,Ð L œ Ð231€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Additionally,€counsel€acquiesced€to€the€trial€courtððs€curativeÐ 8 ˆ Ðinstruction€and€declined€the€opportunity€to€suggest€amendments€to€the€courtððs€curative€charge.€Ð $ t ÐHaving€failed€to€contest€the€sufficiency€of€the€curative€instruction€given€by€the€court,€the€defendantÐ  ` Ðcannot€now€complain€that€such€an€instruction€was€insufficient.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€Ð ü L  ÐNotwithstanding€waiver€of€this€claim,€the€defendant€would€not€have€prevailed€on€the€merits.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àð ðThe€entry€of€a€mistrial€is€appropriate€when€the€trial€cannot€continue€for€some€reason,€or€ifÐ À  Ðthe€trial€does€continue,€a€miscarriage€of€justice€will€occur.ðð€òòóó€òòState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,Ð ¬ü  Ð370€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€The€decision€to€grant€a€mistrial€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðtrial€court,€and€this€Court€will€not€disturb€the€trial€courtððs€determination€unless€a€clear€abuse€ofÐ „Ô  Ðdiscretion€appears€on€the€record.€€òòId.óó€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€Ms.€Jarrettððs€comments€were€spontaneous€and€unsolicited.€€The€trial€courtÐ H˜ Ðproperly€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€her€statements.€€We€presume€that€the€jury€followed€theseÐ 4„ Ðinstructions.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€806€S.W.2d€205,€211€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)òòóó.€Ð  p ÐAccordingly,€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€motion€for€mistrial.Ð  \ ÐÌÓ  Óò òVI.Ð ä4 ÐÓ  Óó óà  àÌà  àThe€defendant€makes€numerous€challenges€to€the€trial€courtððs€charge€to€the€jury.€€Under€theÐ ¼  ÐUnited€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions,€a€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€trial€by€jury.€Ð ¨ø ÐòòóóU.S.€Const.€amend.€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€Art.€I,€ðð€6;€òòsee€alsoóó€Ô#†XqXXXqa»#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔòòState€v.€Garrisonóó,€40€S.W.3d€426,€432Ð ”ä Ð(Tenn.€2000).€€In€Tennessee,€the€right€to€trial€by€jury€demands€that€ð ðall€issues€of€fact€be€tried€andÐ €Ð Ðdetermined€by€twelve€jurors.ðð€€òòGarrisonóó,€40€S.W.3d€at€432.€€Thus,€a€defendant€has€a€right€to€a€correctÐ l¼ Ðand€complete€charge€of€the€law€so€that€each€issue€of€fact€raised€by€the€evidence€will€be€submittedÐ X ¨ Ðto€the€jury€on€proper€instructions.€€òòId.óóÐ D!” ÐÌà  àJury€instructions€given€at€trial€should€not€be€measured€against€a€ð ðstandard€of€perfection.ðð€Ð #l! ÐòòCity€of€Johnson€City€v.€Outdoor€West,€Inc.óó,€947€S.W.2d€855,€858€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€InÐ $X" Ðevaluating€claims€of€error€in€jury€instructions,€courts€must€remember€that€ð ððð[j]urors€do€not€sit€inÐ ô$D # Ðsolitary€isolation€booths€parsing€instructions€for€subtle€shades€of€meaningðððð€but€instead€may€beÐ à%0!$ Ðpresumed€to€utilize€ð ðððcommonsense€understanding€of€the€instructions[.]ðððð€€òòState€v.€Vannóó,€976Ð Ì&"% ÐS.W.2d€93,€101€(Tenn.€1998)€(quoting€òòBoyde€v.€Californiaóó,€494€U.S.€370,€380„81€(1990)).€Ð ¸'#& ÐTherefore,€we€review€each€jury€instruction€to€determine€if€it€fairly€submitted€the€legal€issuesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðinvolved€and€did€not€mislead€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,€696€(Tenn.€1997)€(citingÐ )à$( ÐòòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€346,€352€(Tenn.€1997)).ò òó óÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€defendant,€citing€òòState€v.€Cravensóó,€764€S.W.2d€754,€756€(Tenn.€1989),€complains€thatÐ ° Ðthe€courtððs€failure€to€clearly€define€the€required€culpable€mental€state€following€each€count€of€theÐ œì ÐindictmentÔ#†XqXXXq;Å#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€constitutes€reversibleÔ#†XqXXXqÆÌ#Ô€error.€€In€its€order€denying€the€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€theÐ ˆØ Ðtrial€court€found€that€each€culpable€mental€state€was€defined€in€the€instructions€given€to€the€jury€andÐ tÄ Ðnoted€that€ð ðthe€[d]efendant€did€not€object€to€the€form€of€the€Courtððs€instructions€and€that€theÐ `° Ðinstructions€fairly€submitted€the€legal€issues€to€the€jury.ððÐ L œ ÐÌà  àInitially,€we€note€that,€because€the€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€form€or€fullness€of€theÐ $ t Ðinstructions,€the€issue€is€not€appropriate€for€appellate€review.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòCravensóó,€764€S.W.2dÐ  ` Ðat€756.€€Nevertheless,€we€choose€to€address€the€merits€of€the€defendantððs€claim.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€òòCravensóó,€our€supreme€court€concluded€that€ð ðall€of€the€elements€of€each€offense€should€beÐ Ô$  Ðdescribed€and€defined€in€connection€with€that€offense,€although€.€.€.€there€could€be€cross„referencingÐ À  Ðor€repetition€in€connection€with€the€lesser€offenses€since€jury€instructions€in€felony€cases€are€requiredÐ ¬ü  Ðby€statute€to€be€written€and€physically€delivered€to€the€jurors€for€use€in€their€deliberations.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ð ˜è  ÐFurther,€our€high€court€held€that€combining€the€charge€regarding€two€different€degrees€of€murder€wasÐ „Ô  Ðnot€generally€approved€of,€but€did€not€constitute€reversible€error.€€òòId.óó€€Here,€the€court€defined€theÐ pÀ Ðterms€intentionally,€knowingly,€and€recklessly€after€it€finished€defining€each€of€the€crimes€withÐ \¬ Ðwhich€the€defendant€was€charged.€€While€the€defendant€argues€that€this€method€left€the€jury€with€theÐ H˜ Ðimpression€that€those€definitions€applied€only€to€the€rape€charge€that€immediately€preceded€them,Ð 4„ Ðthere€is€nothing€to€suggest€that€this€is€true.€€Generally,€the€failure€to€repeat€a€definition€is€deemedÐ  p Ðharmless€error.€€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€735€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€756€S.W.2dÐ  \ Ð669,€675€(Tenn.€1988);€òòState€v.€Laneyóó,€654€S.W.2d€383,€388-89€(Tenn.€1983).€€Accordingly,€anyÐ øH Ðerror€resulting€from€the€failure€to€repeat€the€definitions€of€the€culpable€mental€states€is€harmless.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€definition€of€the€knowing€mental€state€provided€by€theÐ ¼  Ðtrial€court€ð ðinaccurately€states€the€law.ðð€€The€trial€court€defined€the€knowing€mental€state€as€follows:Ð ¨ø ÐÓ$°–, X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÌA€person€acts€ððknowinglyðð€if€that€person€acts€with€an€awareness€either:Ð €Ð Ðà8 4 à(1)€that€his€or€her€conduct€is€of€a€particular€nature;€orÐl¼4¤4¤ Ðà8 4 à(2)€that€a€particular€circumstance€exists.ÐX ¨4¤4¤ ÐÌÓ( °œX°–, Xˆ×(ÓÓ X¬×ÓÓ Xº×ÓÝ‚BÿÿÿÝòòÝ  ÝóóÝ‚Bÿÿ1ÙÝÝ  ÝThe€defendant€asserts€that€this€definition,€adopted€from€the€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instructions,€isÐ 0"€  Ðerroneous€because€it€omits€the€part€of€the€instruction€which€states€that€a€person€acts€knowingly€if€thatÐ #l! Ðperson€acts€with€an€awareness€that€the€conduct€was€reasonably€certain€to€cause€the€result.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð $X" ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(20).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€defendant€contends€that€by€providing€a€blanket€definition€ofÐ ô$D # Ðð ðknowing,ðð€the€trial€court€erroneously€provided€the€jury€with€the€choice€of€determining€whichÐ à%0!$ Ðdefinition€of€knowing€to€apply€to€the€crime€charged.€€He€claims€that€the€statute€defining€the€crimeÐ Ì&"% Ðdictates€which€of€the€three€possible€definitions€is€appropriate.€€Accordingly,€the€defendant€asserts,Ð ° Ðthe€blanket€instruction€provided€with€regard€to€the€offenses€of€theft€of€property,€unauthorized€useÐ œì Ðof€a€vehicle,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€premeditated€first€degree€murder,€second€degreeÐ ˆØ Ðmurder,€voluntary€manslaughter,€first€degree€felony€murder,€aggravated€rape,€and€rape€lessened€theÐ tÄ ÐStateððs€burden€of€proof€and€constitutes€reversible€error.òò݃Bÿÿ1ÙRÙ݌Р`° ÐŒóóÝ  ÝÌà  àRecently,€in€òòState€v.€Duckeróó,€27€S.W.3d€889€(Tenn.€2000),€our€supreme€court€dealt€with€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðsimilar€issue.€€There,€our€high€court€ruled€as€follows:Ð $ t ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÌA€result€of€conduct€offense€requires€that€the€culpable€mental€state€accompany€theÐ ü L  Ðresult€as€opposed€to€the€nature€of€the€conduct.€€The€focus€is€on€whether€the€actorÐ è 8  Ðpossessed€the€required€culpability€to€effectuate€the€result€that€the€legislature€hasÐ Ô$  Ðspecified.€€Generally,€an€offense€may€be€classified€as€a€result€of€conduct€offenseÐ À  Ðwhen€the€result€of€the€conduct€is€the€only€element€contained€in€the€offense.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓ XÁßÓÓ XÏßÓòòId.óó€at€896.€€Further,€the€court€noted€that€ð ða€result€of€conduct€crime€does€not€require€as€an€element€thatÐ „Ô  Ðan€actor€engage€in€a€specified€course€of€conduct€to€accomplish€the€specified€result.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ pÀ ÐÌò òó óà  àUsing€these€guidelines,€theftò ò€ó óof€property€is€not€a€result€of€conduct€offense€because€theÐ H˜ Ðconduct€proscribed€is€not€criminalized€because€of€its€result,€but€instead€the€conduct€is€criminalÐ 8ˆ Ðbecause€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€taking€of€the€property€of€another.€€Accordingly,€theÐ $t Ðtrial€courtððs€failure€to€include€the€result€of€conduct€language€in€its€definition€of€knowing€was€notÐ ` Ðerror€with€regard€to€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€theft€of€property.€€Additionally,€we€note€that€anyÐ üL Ðerror€which€may€have€occurred€with€regard€to€the€instruction€on€the€culpable€mental€state€for€theÐ è8 Ðcharge€ofò ò€ó óunauthorized€use€of€a€motor€vehicle€would€be€harmless€because€the€defendant€was€notÐ Ô$ Ðconvicted€of€this€offense.Ð Ä ÐÌà  àIn€much€the€same€respect,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€is€not€a€result€of€conduct€offense.€Ð œì ÐEspecially€aggravated€kidnapping€is€established€when€the€proof€shows€that€the€defendant€knowinglyÐ ˆØ Ðremoved€or€confined€another€unlawfully€so€as€to€interfere€substantially€with€the€otherððs€liberty€andÐ tÄ Ðthe€victim€suffered€serious€bodily€injury€or€that€the€defendant€knowingly€removed€or€confinedÐ ` ° Ðanother€unlawfully€so€as€to€interfere€substantially€with€the€otherððs€liberty€and€the€confinement€orÐ L!œ Ðremoval€was€accomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„305.€€TheÐ 8"ˆ  Ðword€ð ðknowinglyðð€clearly€modifies€the€words€removed€or€confined.€€Thus,€the€State€was€requiredÐ $#t! Ðto€show,€and€the€court€was€required€to€instruct,€that€the€defendant€committed€especially€aggravatedÐ $`" Ðkidnapping€if€he€removed€or€confined€the€victim€and€did€so€knowing€that€the€removal€orÐ ü$L # Ðconfinement€was€unlawful.€€The€defendant€did€not€have€to€know€his€actions€would€cause€seriousÐ è%8!$ Ðbodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòDuckeróó,€27€S.W.2d€at€897.€€In€our€view,€there€was€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððsÐ Ô&$"% Ðdefinition€of€knowing€provided€to€the€jury.€€Ð À'#& ÐÌà  àGenerally,€all€homicides€are€€result€of€conduct€offenses.€€Clearly,€first€degree€premeditatedÐ ˜)è$( Ðmurder€is€a€result€of€conduct€offense,€as€is€second€degree€murder.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Keith€T.Ð „*Ô%) ÐDupreeóó,€No.€W1999„01019„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Jan.€30,€2001)€(citingòò€Ð p+À&* ÐDuckeróó,€27€S.W.3d€at€896).€€Firstò ò€ó ódegree€felony€murder,€however,€combines€the€result€of€the€conductÐ ° Ðand€the€nature€of€the€conduct€because€the€killing€must€be€committed€during€the€commission€of€anÐ  ð Ðenumerated€criminal€offense.€òòóó€Similarly,€voluntary€manslaughter€involves€not€only€the€result€of€theÐ ŒÜ Ðconduct€(the€death€of€the€victim)€but€also€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€(state€of€passionÐ xÈ Ðof€defendant).€€Here€the€defendant€was€found€guilty€of€first€degree€premeditated€murder.€€The€mensÐ d´ Ðrea€required€is€intentional.€€The€instruction€concerning€the€intentional€mens€rea€was€correct.€€TheÐ P   Ðdefendant,€having€been€found€guilty€of€the€greater€offense,€requiring€an€intentional€element,€rendersÐ < Œ Ðany€errors€concerning€the€knowing€instruction€on€the€lesser„included€offenses€harmless.€€Ð ( x ÐÌà  àThe€offense€of€rape,€as€defined€in€the€present€case,€is€established€when€the€proof€establishesÐ  P  Ðthe€unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€a€victim€by€the€defendant€or€the€defendant€by€a€victim€and€suchÐ ì <  Ðpenetration€is€accomplished€by€one€of€the€three€factors€enumerated€in€the€statute.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ Ø(  ÐAnn.€ðð€39„13„503(a).€€No€mens€rea€is€set€forth€in€the€statute.€€When€the€definition€of€an€offense€doesÐ Ä  Ðnot€specify€a€culpable€mental€state,€intent,€knowledge,€or€recklessness€is€sufficient€to€establish€theÐ °  Ðrequired€mens€rea.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„301(c).€€In€consequence,€any€error€in€the€trialÐ œì  Ðcourtððs€definition€of€ð ðknowinglyðð€would€be€harmless.Ð ˆØ  ÐÌà  àò òó óThe€defendant€next€asserts€that€the€trial€court€omitted€the€word€ð ðandðð€between€subsectionsÐ `° Ðtwo€and€three€of€its€instruction€on€the€elements€of€unauthorized€use€of€an€automobile€and€that€suchÐ Lœ Ðomission€was€reversible€error.€€As€noted€above,€the€defendant€was€not€convicted€of€this€offense,€thusÐ 8ˆ Ðany€error€with€regard€to€the€instruction€would€be€harmless.€€Moreover,€in€our€view,€the€omission€wasÐ $t Ðnot€error.€€The€trial€court€provided€the€following€instruction:Ð ` ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ$”,È’X°œX$ÓÌAny€person€who€commits€the€offense€of€unauthorized€use€of€an€automobile€or€otherÐ è8 Ðvehicle€is€guilty€of€a€crime.Ð Ô$ ÐFor€you€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€this€offense,€the€State€must€have€provenÐ À Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€the€following€essential€elements:Ð ¬ü Ðà 4 à(1)€that€the€defendant€took€anotherððs€automobile;Ð ˜è Ðà8 4 àà ` àà Œ àà ¸ àandЄÔ4¤4¤ Ðà8 4 à(2)€that€the€taking€was€without€the€consent€of€the€owner;ÐpÀ4¤4¤ Ðà8 4 à(3)€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€the€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€thereof;Ð\ ¬4¤4¤ Ðà8 4 àà ` àà Œ àà ¸ àandÐH!˜4¤4¤ Ðà8 4 à(4)€that€the€defendant€acted€either€intentionally,€knowingly€or€recklessly.Ð4"„ 4¤4¤ ÐÌÓ XÉöÓÓ X×öÓÓ( °œX”,È’Xåö(ÓThe€trial€court€found€its€charge€was€correct€and€not€misleading.€€In€our€view,€the€instruction€clearlyÐ  $\" Ðindicates€that€all€of€the€elements€are€required€and€thus,€that€the€instruction€was€proper.Ð ø$H # ÐÌò òó óà  àThe€defendant€additionally€complains€that€the€court€failed€to€instruct€that€a€removal€orÐ Ð& "% Ðconfinement€is€unlawful€if€it€is€accomplished€by€force,€threat€or€deception.€€The€trial€court€providedÐ ¼' #& Ðthe€above€language€in€its€charge€for€false€imprisonment€and€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€ThusÐ ¨(ø#' Ðthere€is€no€error.Ð ”)ä$( Ðâ âÐ €*Ð%) Ðà  àThe€defendant€next€asserts€that€the€court€erroneously€instructed€the€jury€that€they€could€findÐ ° Ðâ âthe€defendant€guilty€of€rape€under€the€theory€that€ð ðthe€sexual€penetration€was€accomplished€withoutÐ œì Ðthe€consent€of€the€alleged€victim€and€the€defendant€knew,€or€had€reason€to€know,€at€the€time€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðpenetration€that€the€alleged€victim€did€not€consent.ðð€€The€defendant€has€failed€to€cite€any€authorityÐ tÄ Ðin€support€of€his€position€that€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€was€error€and€has,€thus,€waived€the€issue.€Ð `° ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€cites€as€error€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€define€ð ðsexual€penetration,ððÐ $ t Ðð ðcunnilingus,ðð€ð ðfellatio,ðð€ð ðforce,ðð€ð ðcoercion,ðð€and€ð ðvictim.ðð€€The€trial€court€defined€each€of€theseÐ  ` Ðterms€in€conjunction€with€its€charge€on€aggravated€rape.€€As€indicated€above,€failure€to€repeat€aÐ ü L  Ðdefinition€that€has€already€been€provided€results€in€harmless€error.€€òòSeeóó€òòNicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€735.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€additionally€alleges€that€the€trial€court€should€have€provided€a€limitingÐ À  Ðinstruction€on€the€use€of€other€bad€acts€evidence€in€a€witness€specific€manner€rather€than€onlyÐ ¬ü  Ðproviding€such€an€instruction€during€its€final€charge€to€the€jury.€€With€regard€to€the€prior€bad€acts€orÐ ˜è  Ðuncharged€conduct€of€the€defendant,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:Ð „Ô  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÌIf€from€the€proof€you€find€that€the€defendant€has€committed€a€crime€other€than€thatÐ \¬ Ðfor€which€he€is€on€trial,€you€may€not€consider€such€evidence€to€prove€his€dispositionÐ H˜ Ðto€commit€such€a€crime€as€that€on€trial.Ð 4„ ÐThis€evidence€may€only€be€considered€by€you€for€the€limited€purpose€of€determiningÐ  p Ðwhether€it€provides€evidence€of€the€State€of€mind€of€[the€victim]€toward€theÐ  \ Ðdefendant€and€the€State€of€mind€of€the€defendant€toward€[the€victim].€€Ð øH ÐSuch€evidence€of€other€crime[s],€if€considered€by€you€for€any€purpose,€must€not€beÐ ä4 Ðconsidered€for€any€purpose€other€than€that€specifically€stated.Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ X9ÓÓ XGÓThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€purpose€enumerated€by€the€court,€the€state€of€mind€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðvictim€and€the€defendant,€is€not€a€purpose€for€which€this€state€has€permitted€the€introduction€of€other€Ð ”ä Ðacts€evidence.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€jury€was€properly€instructed€as€to€the€use€of€the€prior€badÐ X ¨ Ðact€evidence.€€Initially,€we€note€that€the€defendant€did€not€at€any€time€ask€the€court€to€provide€aÐ D!” Ðlimiting€instruction€and€specifically€did€not€request€such€an€instruction€during€the€testimony€of€eachÐ 0"€  Ðwitness€who€provided€other€acts€evidence.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€105€states€that€ð ð[t]he€courtÐ #l! Ðupon€request€shall€restrict€the€evidence€to€its€proper€scope€and€instruct€the€jury€accordingly.ðð€€€Tenn.Ð $X" ÐR.€Evid.€105.€€Thus,€the€burden€of€triggering€a€request€for€a€limiting€instruction€is€upon€the€partyÐ ô$D # Ðwho€seeks€or€is€entitled€to€the€instruction.€€The€failure€to€request€a€limiting€instruction€results€in€theÐ à%0!$ Ðwaiver€of€the€issue.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Gibsonóó€973€S.W.2d€231,€244€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Ì&"% Ð1997).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€requested€juryÐ )à$( Ðinstruction€that€multiple€gunshots€were€not€sufficient€by€themselves€to€establish€the€element€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðpremeditation.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€requested€that€the€trial€court€instruct€the€jury€as€follows:Ð h+¸&* ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÌRepeated€gunshots€inflicted€on€the€victim€is€not€sufficient,€by€itself,€to€establish€firstÐ œì Ðdegree€murder.€€Repeated€gunshots€can€be€delivered€in€the€heat€of€passion,€with€noÐ ˆØ Ðdesign€or€reflection.Ð tÄ ÐÌÓ Xä ÓÓ Xò ÓÔ‡kXqXXXqÔOn€this€issue€we€find€guidance€from€Judge€Kochððs€opinion€in€òòMitchell€v.€Smithóó,€779€S.W.2d€384Ð L œ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€òòMitchellóó€stands€for€the€proposition€that€trial€courts€should€give€a€requestedÐ 8 ˆ Ðinstruction€if€it€satisfies€three€requirements:€(1)€it€is€supported€by€the€evidence,€(2)€it€embodies€theÐ $ t Ðpartyððs€theory,€and€(3)€it€is€a€correct€statement€of€the€law.€€In€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€deniedÐ  ` Ðthe€defendant€requested€instruction€and€proceeded€to€instruct€the€jury€from€the€Tennessee€PatternÐ ü L  ÐJury€Instruction€Crim.€7.01.€€This€Court€has€approved€the€contents€of€this€pattern€instruction€asÐ è 8  Ðcontaining€an€adequate€definition€of€premeditation.€€€òòState€v.€Kenneth€Lamont€Anthonyóó,€No.€M2000„Ð Ô$  Ð00839„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€filed€Apr.€27,€2001,€at€Nashville).€€After€a€thorough€review,Ð À  Ðwe€conclude€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€give€the€requested€instruction.€€However,€the€error€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðharmless.Ô#†XqXXkXq&#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ ˜è  ÐÔ#†XqXXXqÆ#ÔÌò òó óà  àThe€defendant€also€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€theÐ pÀ Ðlesser„included€offenses€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€and€first€degree€murder.€€In€òòState€v.Ð \¬ ÐBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453€(Tenn.€1999),€our€supreme€court€revised€the€standards€for€the€determinationÐ H˜ Ðof€lesser„included€offenses.€€In€a€companion€case,€òòState€v.€Dominyóó,€6€S.W.3d€472€(Tenn.€1999),€ourÐ 4„ Ðhigh€court€confirmed€that€it€had€overruled€that€portion€of€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305€(Tenn.Ð  p Ð1996)€which€had€established€a€distinction€between€lesser€grades€or€classes€of€offenses€and€lesser„Ð  \ Ðincluded€offenses.€€In€òòBurnsóó,€the€court€adopted€a€modified€version€of€the€Model€Penal€Code€in€orderÐ øH Ðto€determine€what€constitutes€a€lesser„included€offense:Ð ä4 ÐÓ$°–, X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÌAn€offense€is€a€lesser„included€offense€if:Ð ¼  Ðà8 4 àà0` 4¤4¤àà 4 à(a)€all€of€its€statutory€elements€are€included€within€the€statutory€elements€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthe€offense€charged;€orДä` ¤` ¤ Ðà8 4 àà0` 4¤4¤àà 4 à(b)€it€fails€to€meet€the€definition€in€part€(a)€only€in€the€respect€that€it€containsÐ €Ð Ða€statutory€element€or€elements€establishingÐl¼` ¤` ¤ Ðà8 4 àà ` à(1)€a€different€mental€state€indicating€a€lesser€kind€of€culpability;€and/orÐX ¨4¤4¤ Ðà8 4 àà0` 4¤4¤àà0Œ ` ¤` ¤àà ` à(2)€a€less€serious€harm€or€risk€of€harm€to€the€same€person,€property€orÐ D!” Ðpublic€interest,€orÐ0"€ Œ ¤Œ ¤ Ðà8 4 à(c)€it€consists€ofÐ#l!4¤4¤ Ðà8 4 àà0` 4¤4¤àà0Œ ` ¤` ¤àà ` à(1)€facilitation€of€the€offense€charged€or€of€an€offense€that€otherwiseÐ $X" Ðmeets€the€definition€of€lesser-included€offense€in€part€(a)€or€(b);€orÐô$D #Œ ¤Œ ¤ Ðà8 4 àà0` 4¤4¤àà0Œ ` ¤` ¤àà ` à(2)€an€attempt€to€commit€the€offense€charged€or€an€offense€that€otherwiseÐ à%0!$ Ðmeets€the€definition€of€lesser„included€offense€in€part€(a)€or€(b);€orÐÌ&"%Œ ¤Œ ¤ Ðà8 4 àà0` 4¤4¤àà0Œ ` ¤` ¤àà ` à(3)€solicitation€to€commit€the€offense€charged€or€an€offense€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðotherwise€meets€the€definition€of€lesser-included€offense€in€part€(a)Ð ¤(ô#' Ðor€(b).Ð)à$(Œ ¤Œ ¤ Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐÓ( °œX°–, XÏ(ÓÓ XóÓÓ XÓòòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€466-67.€€Using€this€analysis,€aggravated€kidnapping€is€a€lesser„included€offenseÐ ° Ðâ âof€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€Additionally,€reckless€homicide€is€a€lesser„included€offenseÐ œì Ðof€first€degree€murder.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àHaving€determined€that€aggravated€kidnapping€is€a€lesser„included€offense€of€especiallyÐ `° Ðaggravated€kidnapping€and€that€reckless€homicide€is€a€lesser„included€offense€of€first€degree€murder,Ð L œ Ðthe€next€inquiry€is€whether€the€evidence€justified€an€instruction€on€those€offenses.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3dÐ 8 ˆ Ðat€467.€€The€guiding€principle€is€that€if€there€is€evidence€in€the€record€from€which€the€jury€couldÐ $ t Ðconclude€that€a€lesser„included€offense€was€committed,€there€must€be€an€instruction€for€the€lesserÐ  ` Ðoffense.€€òòSeeóó€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€531€S.W.2d€558,€559€(Tenn.€1975).€€In€òòBurnsóó,€our€supreme€courtÐ ü L  Ðadopted€a€two-step€process€for€determining€whether€the€evidence€justifies€a€jury€instruction€on€aÐ è 8  Ðlesser„included€offense:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àFirst,€the€trial€court€must€determine€whether€any€evidence€exists€that€reasonableÐ ¬ü  Ðminds€could€accept€as€to€the€lesser-included€offense.€€In€making€this€determination,Ð ˜è  Ðthe€trial€court€must€view€the€evidence€liberally€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ „Ô  Ðexistence€of€the€lesser-included€offense€without€making€any€judgments€on€theÐ pÀ Ðcredibility€of€such€evidence.€€Second,€the€trial€court€must€determine€if€the€evidence,Ð \¬ Ðviewed€in€this€light,€is€legally€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€theÐ H˜ Ðlesser-included€offense.€Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐòòÌBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€469.€€In€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€69€S.W.3d€181€(Tenn.€2002),€our€high€court€ruled€that€Ð  \ Ðtrial€courts€ð ðmust€provide€an€instruction€on€a€lesser„included€offense€supported€by€the€evidence€evenÐ øH Ðif€such€instruction€is€not€consistent€with€the€theory€of€the€State€or€of€the€defense.€€The€evidence,€notÐ ä4 Ðthe€parties,€controls€whether€an€instruction€is€required.ðð€€€òòId.óó€at€188.€€Our€supreme€court€observedÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€ð ðjury€is€not€required€to€believe€any€evidence€offered€by€the€State,ðð€and€held€that€the€authorityÐ ¼  Ðof€the€jury€to€convict€on€a€lesser„included€offense€may€not€be€taken€away,€even€when€proofÐ ¨ø Ðsupporting€the€element€distinguishing€the€greater€offense€from€the€lesser€offense€is€uncontroverted.€Ð ”ä ÐòòId.óó€at€189.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€adduced€at€trial€established€that€the€defendant€was€observed€arguing€with€theÐ X ¨ Ðvictim€in€the€parking€lot€of€the€apartment€where€she€lived€on€the€evening€before€the€shooting.€Ð D!” ÐNumerous€acquaintances€and€co„workers€of€the€victim€testified€that€the€victim€feared€the€defendantÐ 0"€  Ðand€would€not€have€gone€anywhere€with€him€voluntarily.€€There€was€evidence€that€the€defendantÐ #l! Ðpossessed€a€weapon€from€the€time€he€left€Fort€Campbell€earlier€in€the€day.€€Witnesses€at€the€EconoÐ $X" ÐLodge€observed€the€defendant€drag€the€victim€from€the€lobby,€wrestle€her€to€the€ground,€and€thenÐ ô$D # Ðshoot€her.€€When€the€victim€was€able€to€get€free€from€the€defendant,€he€chased€her€back€into€theÐ à%0!$ Ðlobby€of€the€hotel,€where€he€shot€her€three€more€times.€€Under€these€circumstances,€instructions€onÐ Ì&"% Ðaggravated€kidnapping€and€reckless€homicide€were€supported€by€the€evidence.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àBecause€the€evidence€supported€instructions€on€both€aggravated€kidnapping€and€recklessÐ )à$( Ðhomicide,€the€trial€court€erred€by€omitting€these€instructions.€€Our€next€inquiry€is€whether€the€errorÐ |*Ì%) Ðwas€harmless.€€€In€òòAllenóó,€our€supreme€confirmed€that€ð ð[a]n€erroneous€failure€to€give€a€lesser„includedÐ h+¸&* Ðoffense€instruction€will€result€in€reversal€unless€a€reviewing€court€concludes€beyond€a€reasonableÐ ° Ðdoubt€that€the€error€did€not€affect€the€outcome€of€the€trial.ðð€€òòAllenóó,€69€S.W.3d€at€189€(citing€òòStateÐ œì Ðv.€Bowlesóó,€52€S.W.3d€69,€77€(Tenn.€2001)).€€Our€high€court€observed€that€ð ð[t]he€improper€omissionÐ ˆØ Ðof€a€lesser„included€offense€is€analogous€to€the€improper€omission€of€an€element€of€an€offense.€Ð tÄ ÐOmitting€an€instruction€on€a€lesser„included€offense€denies€the€jury€the€option€of€rejecting€a€greaterÐ `° Ðoffense€in€favor€of€a€lesser€offense.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Moreover,€the€court€ruled€as€follows:Ð L œ ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÌConstitutional€harmless€error€analysis€does€not€require€harmlessness€to€be€necessarilyÐ $ t Ðdemonstrated€by€the€juryððs€verdict.€€The€same€reasoning€applies€to€the€improperÐ  ` Ðomission€of€a€lesser„included€offense.€€The€error€may€be€harmless€when€the€juryÐ ü L  Ðð ðnecessarily€rejectedðð€all€the€lesser„included€offenses€by€rejecting€an€intermediateÐ è 8  Ðoffense.€€This€analysis€does€not,€however,€limit€harmless€error€to€cases€in€which€the€Ð Ô$  Ðjury€necessarily€rejected€all€other€lesser„included€offenses.Ð À  ÐÌÓ X[2ÓÓ Xi2ÓòòId.óó€at€190€(citation€omitted).€€Our€supreme€court€directed€that€in€determining€whether€the€improperÐ ˜è  Ðomission€of€a€lesser„included€offense€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€ð ða€reviewing€courtÐ „Ô  Ðshould€conduct€a€thorough€examination€of€the€record,€including€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendantððs€theory€of€defense,€and€the€verdict€returned€by€the€jury.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€191.Ð \¬ ÐÌÔ‡XqXXXqÔà  àThe€State€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€no€error€by€failing€to€provide€an€instructionÐ 4„ Ðon€reckless€homicide€because€there€was€no€evidence€that€the€defendant€acted€other€than€intentionallyÐ  p Ðin€shooting€the€victim.€€As€indicated€above,€our€supreme€court€has€held€that€the€trial€court€mustÐ  \ Ðprovide€an€instruction€on€any€lesser„included€offense€supported€by€the€evidence,€even€when€proofÐ øH Ðof€the€element€supporting€the€greater€offense€is€uncontroverted.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€189.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€the€alternative,€the€State€asserts€that€any€error€in€failing€to€instruct€on€the€lesser„includedÐ ¼  Ðoffense€of€reckless€homicide€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€because€the€trial€courtÐ ¨ø Ðprovided€instruction€on€the€intermediate€lesser„included€offenses€of€second€degree€murder€andÐ ”ä Ðvoluntary€manslaughter,€each€of€which€was€rejected€by€the€jury.€€We€agree.€€Here,€the€defendant€wasÐ €Ð Ðconvicted€of€the€highest€crime€with€which€he€was€charged,€first€degree€murder.€€Therefore,€the€juryÐ l¼ Ðwas€presented€with€and€declined€to€exercise€its€option€of€convicting€on€either€of€the€two€intermediateÐ X ¨ Ðoffenses.€€The€jury€chose€to€reject€the€defendantððs€theory€that€he€shot€the€victim€only€after€adequateÐ D!” Ðprovocation,€as€was€its€prerogative.€€The€proof€was€overwhelming€that€the€defendant€shot€the€victimÐ 0"€  Ðfour€times€either€in€the€lobby€or€the€parking€lot€of€the€Econo€Lodge.€€Two€of€the€shots€were€fired€asÐ #l! Ðthe€victim€lay€on€the€ground,€motionless.€€In€our€view,€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€onÐ $X" Ðthe€lesser„included€offense€of€reckless€homicide€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÔ#†XqXXXqá6#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔà  àWe€also€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser„includedÐ Ì&"% Ðoffense€of€aggravated€kidnapping€as€a€lesser€offense€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€where€theÐ ¸'#& Ðvictim€suffers€serious€bodily€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€In€the€instant€case,€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendant€pled€guilty€to€manslaughter.€€Overwhelming€evidence€existed€that€the€defendant€possessedÐ )à$( Ða€gun€and€used€it€to€kill€the€victim.€€The€defendant€admitted€as€much.€€The€only€element€of€especiallyÐ |*Ì%) Ðaggravated€kidnapping€where€the€victim€suffers€serious€bodily€injury€contested€by€the€defendant€Ô#†XqXXXq©>#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔisÐ h+¸&* Ðfalse€imprisonment€of€the€victim.€€All€relevant€lesser„included€offenses€of€especially€aggravatedÐ ° Ðkidnapping€contain€the€common€element€of€false€imprisonment.€€The€juryððs€verdicts€in€this€caseÐ œì Ðreflect€that€it€found€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€falsely€imprisoned€the€victim.€€AsÐ ˆØ Ðnoted,€the€evidence€of€every€element€in€aggravation€of€the€kidnapping€where€the€victim€suffersÐ tÄ Ðserious€bodily€injury€was€overwhelming.€€There€simplyò ò€ó óis€no€basis€for€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€theÐ `° Ðjury€finding€the€defendant€guilty€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€where€the€victim€suffersÐ P   Ðserious€bodily€injury,€even€in€the€jury€knew€of€the€lesser„included€offenses.€€Ð < Œ ÐÌà  àAs€such,€we€affirm€the€conviction€for€especially€aggravating€kidnapping€where€the€victimÐ  d Ðsuffered€serious€bodily€injury€because€the€error€in€failing€to€charge€lesser„included€offenses€wasÐ  P  Ðharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€69€S.W.3d€181,€189„90€(Tenn.€2002).€€Ð ì <  ÐÌà  àAs€relates€to€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€an€aggravated€kidnapping€as€a€lesser„includedÐ Ä  Ðoffense€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€accomplished€by€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€we€cannotÐ °  Ðfind€the€error€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€We€remand€this€cause€for€a€new€trial.€€TheÐ œì  Ðquestion€here€is€the€difference€between€ð ðaccomplished€byðð€and€ð ðdisplay€or€use€ofðð€languageÐ ˆØ  Ðcontained€in€the€respective€statute.€€Especially€aggravated€kidnapping€contains€the€language€of€€falseÐ tÄ Ðimprisonment€ð ðaccomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€.€.€.ðð€€Aggravated€kidnapping€contains€theÐ `° Ðlanguage€ð ðwhile€the€defendant€is€in€possession€of€a€deadly€weapon€.€.€.€ðð€€€€This€subtle€difference€inÐ Lœ Ðlanguage€leads€us€to€conclude€that€a€question€of€fact€was€taken€from€the€jury.€€Stated€in€a€differentÐ 8ˆ Ðfashion,€did€this€defendant€ð ðaccomplishðð€false€imprisonment€with€a€deadly€weapon€or,€during€theÐ $t Ðfalse€imprisonment,€did€the€defendant€possess€or€threaten€to€use€a€deadly€weapon.€€As€earlier€stated,€Ð ` Ðfollowing€the€analysis€required€by€our€supreme€court,€we€concluded€that€it€was€error€not€to€instructÐ üL Ðthe€jury€on€aggravated€kidnapping.€€We€recognized€that€while€the€defendant€in€this€case€might€haveÐ è8 Ðbeen€convicted€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€even€had€an€instruction€on€aggravatedÐ Ô$ Ðkidnapping€been€given,€ð ðððthe€decision€to€convict€on€[the€lesser„included€offense]€was€taken€awayÐ À Ðfrom€the€jury.ðððð€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòElyóó,€48€S.W.3d€at€727).€€It€is€our€view€that€the€State€has€been€unableÐ ¬ü Ðto€establish€that€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€theÐ ˜è Ðdefendantððs€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€accomplished€with€a€deadly€weaponÐ „Ô Ðand€remand€for€a€new€trial.Ô#†XqXXXq§A#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ pÀ ÐÔ#†XqXXXqÐN#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÌà  àThe€defendant€also€asserts€that,€by€instructing€the€jury€to€impose€a€sentence€only€for€hisÐ H!˜ Ðconviction€for€first€degree€premeditated€murder,€the€trial€courtòòóóÔ#†XqXXXq'O#Ô€ð ðeffectively€vacatedðð€the€convictionÐ 4"„  Ðfor€first€degree€felony€murder,€barring€retrial€in€the€event€the€defendant€is€granted€a€new€trial.€€TheÐ  #p! Ðtrial€court€determined€that€it€erred€by€originally€instructing€the€jury€to€impose€a€sentence€for€both€firstÐ  $\" Ðdegree€murder€convictions,€but€ruled€that€the€error€was€harmless€because€it€later€corrected€theÐ ø$H # Ðinstruction€and€told€the€jury€to€impose€only€one€sentence.€€The€judgment€form€clearly€reflects€thatÐ ä%4!$ Ðthe€convictions€were€merged€and€that€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€first€degree€felony€murder€wasÐ Ð& "% Ðnot€vacated€by€the€trial€court.€€Further,€the€trial€court€indicated€to€counsel€throughout€the€sentencingÐ ¼' #& Ðhearing€that€the€convictions€would€be€merged.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€granted€the€defendant€a€newÐ ¨(ø#' Ðsentencing€hearing€because€of€an€unrelated€error€and,€after€the€State€elected€to€withdraw€its€intentÐ ”)ä$( Ðâ âto€seek€a€sentence€of€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole,€the€defendant€was€automatically€sentencedÐ €*Ð%) Ðto€life€imprisonment.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„208(b)„(c)€(Supp.€1994).€€This€issue€is€withoutÐ ° Ðmerit.Ð œì Ðâ âÌÓ  Óò òVII.ó óÐ tÄ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àÔ‡XqXXXqÔA€sentencing€hearing€was€held€at€which€the€trial€court€imposed€the€following€sentences:Ð L œ Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà  àTheft€of€propertyà0  àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à2€yearsÐ$ tÀ(#À(# Ðà8  àEspecially€aggravated€kidnappingà0ÀÐ Ð à25€yearsÐ `ÀÐ ÀÐ  Ðà8  àRapeà0` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àà0hÐ Ð àà0ÀhÐ hÐ à8€yearsÐü L ÀÐ ÀÐ  ÐÌThe€trial€court€merged€the€convictions€for€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€and€ordered€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðeight„year€sentence€for€rape€be€served€consecutively€to€the€twenty„five€year€sentence€for€especiallyÐ À  Ðaggravated€kidnapping.€€The€sentences€for€rape€and€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€were€orderedÐ ¬ü  Ðto€be€served€consecutively€to€the€life€sentence€the€defendant€received€for€his€first€degree€murderÐ ˜è  Ðconviction.€€The€effective€sentence€was,€therefore,€life€plus€thirty„three€years.€€The€defendantÐ „Ô  Ðcontends€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€enhancement€factors€in€sentencing€him€for€especiallyÐ pÀ Ðaggravated€kidnapping€and€that€the€trial€court€improperly€imposed€consecutive€sentences.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€theÐ 4„ Ðduty€of€this€Court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€byÐ  p Ðthe€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€uponÐ  \ Ðthe€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ øH Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.Ð ä4 ÐJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€600€(Tenn.€1994).€€ð ðIf€the€trial€court€applies€inappropriate€factors€orÐ Ð  Ðotherwise€fails€to€follow€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€the€presumption€of€correctness€falls.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð ¼  ÐSheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€The€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÐ ¨ø Ðprovide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ ”ä ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„401,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencingÐ X ¨ Ðhearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counselÐ D!” Ðrelative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigatingÐ 0"€  Ðor€enhancing€factors;€(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÐ #l! Ðdefendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210;Ð $X" ÐòòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€of€the€offense,€the€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€A€felony€was€at€the€midpointÐ Ì&"% Ðwithin€the€range€if€there€were€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ¸'#& Ð40-35-210(c)€(1996).€€If€there€were€enhancement€factors€but€no€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€courtÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcould€set€the€sentence€above€the€presumptive€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(d)€(1996).€Ð )à$( ÐA€sentence€involving€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€required€an€assignment€of€relativeÐ |*Ì%) Ðweight€for€the€enhancement€factors€as€a€means€of€increasing€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ h+¸&* Ð40-35-210(e)€(1996).€€The€sentence€would€then€be€reduced€within€the€range€by€any€weight€assignedÐ ° Ðto€the€mitigating€factors€present.€€òòId.óóÐ œì ÐÌà  àHere,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€twenty„five€years€for€each€count€of€especiallyÐ tÄ Ðaggravated€kidnapping,€the€maximum€sentence€provided.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112€(1990).€Ð `° ÐIn€arriving€at€this€sentence,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€following€enhancement€factors€wereÐ L œ Ðapplicable:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ$”,È’X°œX$ÓÌà0 4 àà  à1)€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behaviorÐ  ` Ðin€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;Ðü L 4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à2)€The€defendant€treated€or€allowed€a€victim€to€be€treated€with€exceptional€crueltyÐ è 8  Ðduring€the€commission€of€the€offense;ÐÔ$ 4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à3)€The€defendant€possessed€or€employed€a€firearm,€explosive€device€or€other€deadlyÐ À  Ðweapon€during€the€commission€of€the€offense;Ьü 4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à4)€The€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€humanÐ ˜è  Ðlife€was€high;€andÐ„Ô 4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à5)€The€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€the€potential€forÐ pÀ Ðbodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.Ð\¬4Ð 4Ð  ÐÌÓ XƒgÓÓ X‘gÓÓ( °œX”,È’XŸg(ÓòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(5),€(9),€(10),€and€(16).€€In€mitigation,€the€trial€court€found€that€Ð 4„ Ðthe€defendant€(1)€had€no€prior€criminal€convictions;€(2)€had€maintained€employment;€(3)€had€servedÐ  p Ðin€the€military€for€ten€years;€(4)€turned€himself€in€to€the€authorities;€and€(5)€had€some€potential€forÐ  \ Ðrehabilitation.€€Beginning€at€the€midpoint€in€the€range,€the€trial€court€determined€that€theÐ øH Ðenhancement€factors€greatly€outweighed€the€mitigating€factors€and€set€the€sentence€at€the€maximumÐ ä4 Ðwithin€the€range.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€all€of€the€enhancement€factors.€Ð ¨ø ÐSpecifically,€the€defendant€claims€that€enhancement€factor€(1),€pertaining€to€the€defendantððs€previousÐ ”ä Ðcriminal€behavior,€should€not€apply€because€the€evidence€relied€on€by€the€trial€court€was€adducedÐ €Ð Ðduring€a€hearing€on€pretrial€motions€and€not€at€trial€or€sentencing.€€The€defendant€contends€thatÐ l¼ Ðenhancement€factors€(9),€relating€to€the€use€of€a€firearm,€and€(16),€relating€to€the€potential€for€bodilyÐ X ¨ Ðinjury,€should€not€apply€because€each€is€inherent€in€the€offense€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€Ð D!” ÐHe€asserts€that€enhancement€factor€(5),€that€the€victim€was€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty,€was€notÐ 0"€  Ðborne€out€by€the€proof€at€trial.€€Finally,€he€argues€that€enhancement€factor€(10)€is€inapplicableÐ #l! Ðbecause€there€was€no€proof€that€there€was€any€risk€to€human€life.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€based€its€application€of€enhancement€factor€(1)€on€the€testimony€of€NancyÐ à%0!$ ÐLeonard€at€a€hearing€on€pretrial€motions.€€Nancy€Leonard€testified€that€the€defendant€kidnapped€andÐ Ì&"% Ðraped€her€in€the€summer€of€1996.€€Additionally,€it€was€established€that€the€defendant€was€arrestedÐ ¸'#& Ðand€charged€in€Illinois€for€the€kidnapping€and€rape€of€Nancy€Leonard.€€The€defendant€contends€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€trial€court€should€not€have€considered€this€evidence€in€sentencing€the€defendant€becauseÐ )à$( ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„210(b)€limits€the€trial€courtððs€consideration€to€evidenceÐ |*Ì%) Ðadduced€at€trial€or€sentencing.€€The€sentencing€commission€comments€state€that€subsection€(b)€isÐ h+¸&* Ðintended€to€permit€ð ðthe€court€the€greatest€latitude€in€considering€all€available€information€inÐ ° Ðimposing€the€appropriate€sentence€and€sentence€alternative.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b),Ð œì ÐSentencing€Commððn€Comments.€In€our€view,€the€trial€court€was€permitted€to€consider€allÐ ˆØ Ðinformation€available,€including€information€presented€at€pretrial€hearings.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àTo€support€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(5),€the€State€must€prove€ð ðexceptionalððÐ L œ Ðcruelty,€normally€found€in€cases€of€abuse€or€torture,€ð ðdemonstrating€a€culpability€distinct€from€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðappreciably€greater€than€that€incident€toðð€the€crime.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€98€(Tenn.Ð $ t Ð1997).€€We€acknowledge€the€inherently€cruel€nature€of€both€the€rape€and€kidnapping€of€the€victimÐ  ` Ðand€do€not€wish€to€minimize€the€anguish€she€suffered.€€We€are€unable€to€conclude,€however,€that€theÐ ü L  Ðrecord€supports€application€of€the€exceptional€cruelty€enhancement€factor€for€especially€aggravatedÐ è 8  Ðkidnapping.€€òòPooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€98;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Manningóó,€883€S.W.2d€635,€639€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð Ô$  ÐApp.€1994)€(rejecting€this€factor€where€victim€abducted€and€forced€to€perform€four€sexual€acts€atÐ À  Ðknife€point€while€verbally€abused€and€threatened);€òòState€v.€Edwardsóó,€868€S.W.2d€682€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ¬ü  ÐApp.€1993)€(rejecting€this€factor€where€victim€was€gagged,€threatened,€and€struck€during€commissionÐ ˜è  Ðof€offense).Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16),€we€observe€that€this€Court,€in€òòState€v.Ð \¬ ÐKernóó,€determined€those€factors€generally€should€not€be€considered€when€a€defendant€is€convictedÐ H˜ Ðof€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€909€S.W.2d€5,€7-8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ô#†XqXXXq¬U#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€€In€òòKernóó,€thisÐ 4„ ÐCourt€held€those€enhancement€factors€were€inherent€in€the€offense€of€especially€aggravatedÐ  p Ðkidnapping.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€This€Court€has€held,€however,€that€factor€(10)€may€still€be€applied€where€theÐ  \ Ðdefendant€creates€a€high€risk€to€the€life€of€a€person€other€than€the€victim.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910Ð øH ÐS.W.2d€448,€452€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Here,€the€trial€court€based€its€application€of€factor€(10)Ð ä4 Ðupon€the€presence€of€the€Tams€family€in€the€parking€lot€where€the€initial€shot€was€fired€and€theÐ Ð  Ðpresence€of€Crystal€Jarrett€in€the€lobby€of€the€Econo€Lodge.Ô#†XqXXXqõ}#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€€With€regard€to€factor€(16),€however,Ð ¼  Ðthe€express€language€of€the€statute€indicates€that€it€can€only€be€applied€when€the€risk€of€bodily€injuryÐ ¨ø Ðis€to€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-114(16).€€Recently,€in€òòState€v.€Imfeldóó,€70€S.W.3d€698Ð ”ä Ð(Tenn.€2002)òòóó,€our€high€court€held€that€enhancement€factor€(16)€applies€only€when€the€defendantÐ €Ð Ðcreates€a€great€risk€of€injury€to€a€victim€and€does€not€apply€when€there€is€a€risk€of€injury€to€othersÐ l¼ Ðwho€are€simply€present€at€the€scene€of€the€crime.€€òòId.óó€at€706.€€Our€supreme€court€ruled€thatÐ X ¨ Ðenhancement€factor€(10)€is€the€appropriate€factor€to€be€applied€when€there€is€a€risk€to€the€life€ofÐ D!” Ðsomeone€other€than€the€victim,€as€is€the€case€here.€€òòId.óó€at€707.Ô#†XqXXXqü€#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔ€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ 0"€  Ðutilizing€factor€(16)€to€increase€the€defendantððs€sentence.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àIn€concluding€that€enhancement€factor€(9)€was€applicable,€the€trial€court€stated€that€itÐ ô$D # Ðaccredited€the€juryððs€determination€that€the€defendant€employed€a€firearm€during€the€commission€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€There€was€no€evidence€that€the€defendant€employed€theÐ Ì&"% Ðfirearm€at€any€time€before€removing€it€from€his€pocket€to€shoot€the€victim.€€Nevertheless,€theÐ ¸'#& Ðdefendant€himself€admitted€that€he€possessed€the€firearm€from€the€time€he€left€Fort€Campbell€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðafternoon€before€the€shooting.€€Moreover,€the€evidence€established€that€the€defendant€was€ready€toÐ )à$( Ðâ âuse€the€weapon€if€necessary.€€Finally,€the€defendant€was€a€Special€Forces€officer€whose€trainingÐ |*Ì%) Ðmade€him€particularly€proficient€with€a€weapon.€€Under€these€circumstances,€enhancement€factorÐ ° Ð(9)€is€applicable.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àNotwithstanding€our€determination€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€enhancement€factorsÐ tÄ Ð(5)€and€(16),€in€our€view,€the€sentence€of€twenty„five€years€is€warranted.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€isÐ `° Ðwithout€merit.Ð L œ ÐÔ#†XqXXXq§„#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÌÔ#†XqXXXq{Š#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔà  àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€his€sentences€for€rape€andÐ $ t Ðespecially€aggravated€kidnapping€to€be€served€consecutively€to€each€other€and€to€his€life€sentence.€Ð  ` ÐPrior€to€the€enactment€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€the€limited€classificationsÐ ü L  Ðfor€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€were€set€out€in€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393Ð è 8  Ð(Tenn.€1976).€€In€that€case,€our€supreme€court€ruled€that€aggravating€circumstances€must€be€presentÐ Ô$  Ðbefore€placement€in€any€one€of€the€classifications.€€Later,€in€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.Ð À  Ð1987),€the€court€established€an€additional€category€for€those€defendants€convicted€of€two€or€moreÐ ¬ü  Ðstatutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€minors.€€There€were,€however,€additional€words€ofÐ ˜è  Ðcaution:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  à[C]onsecutive€sentences€should€not€routinely€be€imposed€.€.€.€and€.€.€.€the€aggregateÐ \¬ Ðmaximum€of€consecutive€terms€must€be€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€theÐ H˜ Ðoffenses€involved.òòÐ4„Ð Ð  ÐÌTayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€at€230.€€The€Sentencing€Commððn€Comments€adopted€the€cautionary€language.€Ð  \ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€The€1989€Act€is,€in€essence,Ð øH Ðthe€codification€of€the€holdings€in€òòGrayóó€and€òòTayloróó;€consecutive€sentences€may€be€imposed€in€theÐ ä4 Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€only€upon€a€determination€that€one€or€more€of€the€following€criteria׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ð  Ðexist:Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ$°–, X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓà0 4 àà  à(1)€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€has€knowingly€devoted€himself€toÐ ”ä Ðcriminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood;ЀÐ4Ð 4Ð  Ð(2)€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive;Ð l¼ Ðà0 4 àà  à(3)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormal€person€so€declared€by€aÐ X ¨ Ðcompetent€psychiatrist€who€concludes€as€a€result€of€an€investigation€prior€toÐ D!” Ðsentencing€that€the€defendantððs€criminal€conduct€has€been€characterized€by€aÐ 0"€  Ðpattern€of€repetitive€or€compulsive€behavior€with€heedless€indifference€toÐ #l! Ðconsequences;Ð$X"4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€noÐ ô$D # Ðregard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€theÐ à%0!$ Ðâ ârisk€to€human€life€is€high;ÐÌ&"%4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à(5)€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutory€offenses€involving€sexualÐ ° Ðâ âabuse€of€a€minor€with€consideration€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€arisingÐ œì Ðfrom€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€victim€or€victims,€the€time€spanÐ ˆØ Ðof€defendantððs€undetected€sexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€actsÐ tÄ Ðand€the€extent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mental€damage€to€the€victim€orÐ `° Ðvictims;€orÐL œ4Ð 4Ð  Ð(6)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offense€committed€while€on€probation;Ð 8 ˆ Ð(7)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.Ð $ t ÐÓ( °œX°–, X!’(ÓÓ XE’ÓÓ XS’ÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).€€The€length€of€the€sentence,€when€consecutive€in€nature,€must€beÐ ü L  Ðð ðjustly€deserved€in€relation€to€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„102(1),€andÐ è 8  Ðð ðno€greater€than€that€deservedðð€under€the€circumstances,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(2);€òòState€v.Ð Ô$  ÐLaneóó,€3€S.W.3d€456€(Tenn.€1999).Ô#†XqXXXq¾Š#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ À  ÐÔ#†XqXXXqz›#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÌà  àThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€defendant€was€ð ða€dangerous€offender€whose€behaviorÐ ˜è  Ðindicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€theÐ „Ô  Ðrisk€to€human€life€is€high.ðð€€Further,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€consecutive€sentences€wereÐ pÀ Ðwarranted€ð ðto€protect€the€public€from€further€misconduct€by€this€defendant.ðð€€The€trial€court€foundÐ \¬ Ðthat€ð ð[e]ven€if€[the€defendant€posed€no€danger]€to€the€general€public€he€certainly€is€a€serious€dangerÐ H˜ Ðto€any€person€he€might€become€involved€in€a€relationship€with€that€doesnððt€work€out€the€way€heÐ 4„ Ðthinks€it€should.ðð€€In€our€view,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€ordering€consecutiveÐ  p Ðsentencing.Ð  \ Ðòòò òóóÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌVIII.ó óÐ ¨ø ÐÌÓtŸÓà  àAs€his€final€challenge,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€trial€courtððsÐ €Ð Ðerrors€denied€him€a€fair€trial.€€While€we€have€determined€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversibleÐ l¼ Ðerror€with€regard€to€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€accomplishedÐ X ¨ Ðwith€a€deadly€weapon,€this€alone€does€not€require€that€the€defendant€receive€a€new€trial€on€all€of€hisÐ D!” Ðconvictions.€€Further,€we€have€determined€that€any€other€errors€committed€by€the€trial€court€wereÐ 0"€  Ðharmless.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð #l! ÐÓ  Óò òÌCONCLUSIONÐ ô$D # ÐÌÓ  Óó óà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€defendantððs€conviction€on€especially€aggravated€kidnappingÐ Ì&"% Ðaccomplished€by€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€is€reversed€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial€because€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðfailure€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€lesser„included€offenses.€€We€affirm€the€convictions€and€judgmentsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfor€first€degree€murder,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€where€the€victim€suffers€serious€bodilyÐ )à$( Ðinjury,€rape,€and€theft€over€$1,000.€€We€conclude€that€the€sentences€imposed€were€proper€and€remainÐ |*Ì%) Ðundisturbed.Ô#†XqXXXqÑ›#ÔÔ‡XqXXXqÔÐ h+¸&* ЇÌÌò òó óÔ#†XqXXXq¥#Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð tÄ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€JOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE