ÿWPC€ `â¯eÆt!|¯~!~¯2û‹åváiÆ]RÑ*¼/B?~ÆŠrò¢[©£WÞ:”#PšxÐ MYB² `ÏþöÊP†ïöä®û H& mÔUqµy•$ p†÷ÌGÚ(ð\eÔlJ Óæàn^Ó¾@'‡RÖצ;¢~3Kµ€)4‡ˆ¿‹¼žïÞ|Íê˜8²ØCÅô—K8~K6Ô¶!c¸»®þ‡JBÎ1¤ù~$œžÊ"É›Bæ;q¡$V%ǬދQ£ø-tΞîì…[}Vk9Ìâ ¢¥¿Ôl(ÞZØLŠS¨m¬ Âý¨ºIÌQùN0[T¬.¡¼¼tÊv2EÁèhùl¹Kú5ý u8·ñÅ]še}WF’"3]CbxÆÕúàÝc†VS3ß“yˆÚ…Ý‘þj›:ÊkÉÝ­…ÌMP ®òl19ÙÆü±º£hCId|ܲ~ ÷4Šæ“‘ï/-uðe/ ôORi{¾xd–w•Ûåþ4lTÉ¿Ú7†ÆQ¸í¼N0e-­ Ï™Îi¤*P¹_˜ý$n†I–3!…§ýµùûþÁÓ£mF8õj¢_ e¢¨îŠŽYjVÍÉr,:b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ U@™ ÆÙ ÆŸ ÆeÆ+øñNé 0DëUN/E}Ì(KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKbssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss 0ë{{{{ Bff 0¤ƒ D5' D-\ 0K‰‰ ASÔÆ' 0¤í 0D‘ A«Õ»ÀU/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularlk.ê:i¢×+003|x ˜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 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 îÝ ƒR¾Â$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôøDò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€defendantððs€brief€refers€to€Rule€803(1.2)(D);€however,€the€argument€clearly€pertains€to€subdivision€(E).(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular TurnbullCrossvilleMarneyChelsieaccelerantsMcMinnvilleDonnieGrundy MabeTharpePruitt t]heMarableCourypossessoryMiliaaccelerant EviddeclarantEldridgeCantrelldispositiveMRDeloresMcDaniel CSXBallardAshbyPettusGosnellHumphreysKabotaTrombettaelapsationarsonous Ý ƒR¾Â$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôøDò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€indictment€spells€the€name€as€ð ðChelsieðð€and€such€will€be€used€herein,€although€the€transcript€uses€theÐ ° Ðspelling,€ð ðChelsea.ðð- ù-(|G2¾Â$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Üù»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôøDò»»Ô d(|370$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Üù»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|370$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Üù»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Üù»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Üù»»»ÔÑ8€‡XXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î!ÜùÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Üù»îî! #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€June€17,€2003Ð öF ÐÔ‡X‡X»¼ÜùÔÌò òÔ#†¼Üù»XX‡#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JOHNNY€LEE€LEWISòòóóÔ‡X‡X»¼ÜùÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Putnam€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€01„0401B€€€€€€John€A.€Turnbull,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„01350„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€21,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€appealed€his€convictions€on€two€counts€of€facilitation€of€second€degree€murder€andÐ V¦  Ðone€count€of€aggravated€arson,€as€well€as€the€effective€65„year€sentence.€€The€defendantððs€appealÐ ? Ðraised€the€following€issues:€insufficiency€of€evidence€to€support€the€convictions;€error€in€allowingÐ (x Ðhearsay€testimony€under€the€conspiracy€exception;€error€in€allowing€cross„examination€of€theÐ a Ðdefendant€during€limited€purpose€jury„out€hearing;€error€in€allowing€a€medical€expert€to€testifyÐ úJ Ðoutside€his€area€of€expertise;€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€inadequate€crime€scene€investigation;€andÐ ã3 Ðerror€in€application€of€ð ðparticularly€vulnerableðð€enhancement€factor€during€the€sentencing€phase.€Ð Ì ÐWe€conclude€that€the€defendantððs€issues€are€without€merit€and€affirm€the€convictions€and€sentenceÐ µ Ðas€imposed€by€the€trial€court.Ð žî ÐÓ¾ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgments€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ pÀ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Üù»àX‡–#ÔÔ‡X‡X.¼ÜùÔJohn€Everett€Williams,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€andÐ C“ ÐòòRobert€W.€Wedemeyer,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ,| ÐÌLarry€M.€Warner,€Crossville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Johnny€Lee€Lewis.Ð þN ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Marney,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð Ð! ! ÐClement€Dale€Potter,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Larry€G.€Bryant,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ ¹" " ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€Ð ¢#ò# ÐÓ< ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Üù»XX‡k #ÔÔ‡X‡X»¼ÜùÔÐ t%Ä % ÐÌÔ#†¼Üù»XX‡# #ÔÔ€X‡X»¼ÜùÔò òÓ  ÓÓ XÓó óThis€case€involves€the€murder€of€Delores€Diane€Watts;€her€ten„year„old€daughter,€JessicaÐ G'—"' ÐWatts;€and€her€daughterððs€overnight€guest,€thirteen„year„old€Chelsie€Smith.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€murder€occurredÐ 0(€#( Ðin€Ms.€Wattsðð€residence.€€The€three€victims€were€beaten€with€a€baseball€bat€and/or€a€torque€wrench.€Ð )i$) ÐThe€house€was€then€intentionally€set€ablaze€with€the€use€of€gasoline.€€Diane€Watts€died€from€theÐ *R%*ý Ðblunt€force€trauma,€but€the€two€minorsðð€death€was€from€smoke€inhalation.€€The€defendant,€JohnnyÐ ° ÐLee€Lewis,€and€co„defendants€were€indicted€on€the€following€counts:Ð ™é ÐÐ ‚Ò ÐÓ$”,È’X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓ1.€€Doug€Myers€and€the€defendant€for€the€first€degree€murder€of€Diane€Watts;Ð k» Ð2.€€Doug€Myers€and€the€defendant€for€the€first€degree€murder€of€Jessica€Watts;Ð T¤ Ð3.€€Doug€Myers€and€the€defendant€for€the€first€degree€murder€of€Chelsie€Smith;Ð =  Ð4.€€Doug€Myers€and€the€defendant€for€the€felony€murder€of€Jessica€Watts;Ð & v Ð5.€€Doug€Myers€and€the€defendant€for€the€felony€murder€of€Chelsie€Smith;Ð  _ Ð6.€€Doug€Myers€and€the€defendant€for€aggravated€arson;€andÐ ø H Ðà0 4 àà  à7.€Clementine€Myers€and€Gary€Myers€for€criminal€responsibility€of€first€degreeÐ á 1  Ðmurder.ÐÊ  4Ð 4Ð  ÐÓ X ÓÓ XýÓÓ XïÓÐ ³  ÐAfter€a€lengthy€trial€that€began€August€27,€2001,€and€concluded€September€5,€2001,€the€juryÐ œì  Ðannounced€the€following€verdicts:Ð …Õ  ÐÐ n¾  ÐÓ( °œX”,È’XË(ÓÓ$”,È’X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓCount€one€„€not€guilty;Ð W§  Ðà0 4 àà  àCount€two€„€guilty€of€the€lesser€included€offense€of€facilitation€of€second€degreeÐ @ Ðmurder;Ð)y4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  àCount€three€„€guilty€of€the€lesser€included€offense€of€facilitation€of€second€degreeÐ b Ðmurder;ÐûK4Ð 4Ð  ÐCounts€four€and€five€„€not€guilty;Ð ä4 ÐCount€six€„€guilty;€andÐ Í ÐCount€seven€„€the€defendant€was€not€charged€in€this€count.Ð ¶ ÐÓ XXÓÓ XJÓÓ X<ÓÓ( °œX”,È’X(ÓÓ(”,È’Xü °œX(ÓÐ Ÿï ÐThe€defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender€on€counts€two€and€three€toÐ ˆØ Ðtwenty€years€on€each€count.€€The€defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II,€multiple,€violent€offenderÐ qÁ Ðon€count€six€to€25€years€at€100%.€€The€sentences€were€consecutive€with€the€result€of€an€effectiveÐ Zª Ðsentence€of€65€years€with€25€years€at€100%.€Ð C“ ЀÌThe€defendant€raises€six€issues€on€this€direct€appeal:Ð e ÐÐ þN ÐÓ( °œX”,È’Xî(ÓÓ$”,È’X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓ1.€€The€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€convictions;Ð ç 7 Ðà0 4 àà  à2.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€hearsay€testimony€under€the€conspiracyÐ Ð!   Ðexception;й" !4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à3.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€cross„examination€of€the€defendant€beyond€theÐ ¢#ò" Ðpurpose€of€the€hearing€regarding€the€existence€of€a€conspiracy;Ћ$Û#4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à4.€€The€forensic€pathologist€was€allowed€to€testify€to€matters€beyond€his€area€ofÐ t%Ä $ Ðexpertise;€Ð]&­!%4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à5.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€its€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€regarding€inadequate€crimeÐ F'–"& Ðscene€investigation;€andÐ/(#'4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à6.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€applying€the€particularly€vulnerable€enhancement€factorÐ )h$( Ðin€sentencing.Ð*Q%)4Ð 4Ð  ÐÓ XÓÓ XsÓÓ( °œX”,È’XO(ÓÓ XÓÓ(”,È’X¤ °œX(ÓÓ XÓ€ÌÐ Ó+#'+ ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôò òÔ_ÔÓ  ÓFactsÐ ° Ðó óÓoÓÌÓ XÓThe€defendant,€Johnny€Lee€Lewis,€testified€he€was€at€the€victimððs€residence€from€aroundÐ ƒÓ Ðmidnight€on€July€29,€1999.€€His€testimony€at€trial€pegged€his€departure€between€4:00€to€4:30€a.m.€Ð l¼ ÐHis€claimed€time€of€departure€the€morning€of€July€30€varied€in€his€pre„trial€statements€from€4:00€toÐ U¥ Ð5:15.€€The€defendant€said€he€had€gone€to€visit€the€victim,€at€her€request,€to€discuss€information€sheÐ > Ž Ðintended€to€divulge€to€authorities€concerning€criminal€activities€of€the€Myers€family,€including€drugÐ ' w Ðdealing,€stolen€property,€and€alleged€fraud€involving€Gary€Myersðð€bankruptcy€and€social€securityÐ  ` Ðapplication.€€The€victim€had€expressed€her€intention€to€reveal€this€information€on€July€30,€1999.Ð ù I ÐÐ â 2  ÐThe€victim,€Diane€Watts,€lived€at€the€residence€at€246€Myers€Lane€in€McMinnville€with€herÐ Ë   Ðdaughter,€Jessica,€and€a€co„defendant,€Doug€Myers.€€The€other€victim,€Chelsie€Smith,€was€anÐ ´  Ðovernight€guest€of€Jessicaððs.€€A€business€owner€near€the€Wattsðð€residence€testified€he€reported€theÐ í  Ðfire€to€9„1„1€at€5:37.€€The€log€at€the€fire€station€noted€a€report€of€the€fire€at€5:45.Ð †Ö  ÐÐ o¿  ÐThe€responding€firemen€suppressed€the€remaining€flames.€€The€bodies€of€Diane€Watts€andÐ X¨  Ðher€daughter€were€found€in€the€rear€bedroom.€€Chelsie€Smithððs€body€was€in€another€bedroom.€€AllÐ A‘ Ðthree€victims€bodies€were€removed€from€the€residence.€€A€baseball€bat€and€a€torque€wrench€wereÐ *z Ðfound€in€the€house€and€sent€for€lab€analysis.€€Subsequent€investigation€and€analysis€of€samplesÐ c Ðrevealed€that€gasoline€had€been€poured€in€a€ð ðYðð€pattern€from€both€bedrooms€extending€down€theÐ üL Ðhallway,€where€it€was€ignited.€€A€pocket€knife,€Old€Timer€brand,€was€found€outside€the€residence.€Ð å5 ÐDiane€Wattsðð€purse€was€found€inside,€and€it€contained€$1113.Ð Î ÐÐ · ÐGary€Myers,€a€co„defendant,€testified€that€he€had€suffered€a€burglary€at€his€home€in€June€ofÐ  ð Ð1999.€€Among€the€items€taken€was€a€lockbox,€which€was€later€recovered,€in€a€damaged€condition,Ð ‰Ù Ðby€a€third€party.€€Law€enforcement€returned€it€to€Gary€Myers.€€The€lockbox€was€given€to€DougÐ r ÐMyers€in€the€company€of€Donnie€Myers,€another€brother,€and€Raymond€Hicks,€son€of€Doug€Myers.€Ð [« ÐThe€defendant€admitted€in€one€of€his€statements€that€he€and€Doug€Myers€put€the€damaged€box€underÐ D” Ðthe€deck€at€Diane€Wattððs€residence€prior€to€July€29th.€€He€further€stated€they€took€precautions€toÐ -} Ðprevent€their€fingerprints€from€being€placed€on€the€box.€€The€significance€of€these€actions€involvingÐ f Ðthe€lockbox€are€not€entirely€clear€from€the€record,€other€than€the€implication€that€the€victim€wasÐ ÿO Ðconsidered€a€suspect€by€Clementine€Myers€of€being€the€burglary€culprit.€€In€this€light,€theÐ è 8 Ðclandestine€placement€might€serve€as€a€setup€of€the€victim.€€Ð Ñ!!  ÐÐ º" ! ÐVicky€Fleming,€sister€of€the€victim€Diane€Watts,€was€at€the€victimððs€house€on€WednesdayÐ £#ó" Ðpreceding€the€murders.€€Ms.€Fleming€overheard€Clementine€Myers,€a€co„defendant€and€the€motherÐ Œ$Ü# Ðof€Doug,€Donnie,€&€Gary€Myers,€in€a€phone€conversation.€€Clementine€stated€that€a€ð ðbunchðð€fromÐ u%Å $ ÐGrundy€County€were€coming€to€take€care€of€those€who€burglarized€Garyððs€home.€€According€toÐ ^&®!% ÐClementine,€this€only€cost€$5000,€and€she€could€get€rid€of€anybody.€€She€also€stated€that€ð ðtheyððÐ G'—"& Ðknew€the€whereabouts€of€the€victim€Diane€Watts,€her€daughter€Jessica,€and€other€family€membersÐ 0(€#' Ðat€all€times.Ð )i$( Ðâ âÐ *R%) ÐJames€Allen€Holt€testified€that€the€defendant€told€him€on€the€day€before€the€fire€andÐ ° Ðhomicides€that€he€had€been€watching€a€house€that€night.€€The€defendant€further€stated,€ð ðThereððs€aÐ ™é Ðbitch€weððre€going€to€burn€out.ððÐ ‚Ò Ðâ âÐ k» ÐJeff€Mabe€called€the€defendant€on€the€morning€of€the€fire.€€The€defendant€told€Mabe€he€hadÐ T¤ Ðbeen€at€the€victimððs€residence€about€4:30€or€5:00€a.m.€€A€few€days€later,€the€two€men€discussed€theÐ =  Ðdeaths€of€the€victims.€€The€defendant€stated€that€had€he€been€there,€he€would€have€had€to€stop€DougÐ & v Ðbefore€he€hurt€the€children.Ð  _ ÐÐ ø H ÐShirley€Humphrey€was€married€to€Doug€Myers,€but€the€defendant€lived€with€her.€€Ms.Ð á 1  ÐHumphrey€was€told€by€the€defendant,€prior€to€the€murders,€that€the€victim€Diane€Watts€wasÐ Ê   Ðð ðstepping€on€toesðð€and€making€some€people€mad.€€During€the€week€before€the€murders,€sheÐ ³  Ðoverheard€the€defendant€talking€with€Doug€Myers€on€the€telephone.€€The€defendant€said€that€anÐ œì  Ðunnamed€ð ðsheðð€needed€to€be€got€rid€of,€but€to€make€sure€the€little€girl€was€not€there.€€The€defendantÐ …Õ  Ðtold€Ms.€Humphrey€that€Clementine€Myers€wanted€something€done€to€ð ðshut€the€victimððs€mouth.ððÐ n¾  ÐÐ W§  ÐThe€week€prior€to€July€30,€the€defendant€had€purchased€several€containers€of€gas.€€TheseÐ @ Ðcontainers€were€in€his€truck€on€July€29òòóó.€€After€the€homicides€had€occurred,€the€defendant€told€Ms.Ð )y ÐHumphrey€that€the€victim€was€supposed€to€have€been€killed€the€night€of€July€28€or€29,€due€to€theÐ b Ðdaughter€being€absent.€€The€defendant€stated€that€his€job€had€been€to€go€in€and€clean€up€the€crimeÐ ûK Ðscene.€€He€was€also€concerned€over€the€loss€of€his€knife€either€at€the€victimððs€residence€or€in€aÐ ä4 Ðvehicle.€€On€the€Saturday€following€the€day€of€the€homicides,€the€defendant€instructed€Ms.Ð Í ÐHumphrey€to€burn€some€items€of€clothing,€being€a€pair€of€pants,€t„shirt,€shirt,€and€pair€of€shoes.€€SheÐ ¶ Ðfollowed€his€directions.Ð Ÿï ÐÐ ˆØ ÐDuring€the€week€following€July€30òòóó,€Ms.€Humphrey€drove€the€defendant€to€Winchester€whereÐ qÁ Ðhe€met€Doug€Myers€at€a€department€store.€€The€defendant€returned€with€$900€that€he€claimed€cameÐ Zª Ðfrom€Clementine€Myers,€but€was€$500€short.€€Ð C“ ÐÐ ,| ÐKevin€Lawrence,€the€fire€chief€of€McMinnville,€was€involved€in€seizing€a€vehicle€from€theÐ e Ðdefendant€on€August€2,€1999.€€The€defendant€inquired€whether€an€Old€Time€pocketknife€was€in€theÐ þN Ðvehicle.Ð ç 7 ÐÐ Ð!   ÐDavid€Campbell,€a€fire€consultant,€was€called€by€the€State€as€a€witness.€€Mr.€CampbellÐ ¹" ! Ðestimated€that€the€fire€in€the€crime€scene€burned€from€its€inception,€through€its€various€stages,€untilÐ ¢#ò" Ðit€was€extinguished€for€a€total€of€one€hour€and€fifteen€minutes,€plus€or€minus€fifteen€minutes.Ð ‹$Û# ÐÐ t%Ä $ ÐTelephone€records€of€the€defendantððs€cell€phone€revealed€calls€to€Clementine€MyersððÐ ]&­!% Ðresidence€on€the€morning€of€July€30,€1999,€at€5:45,€6:04,€and€6:05.Ð F'–"& ÐÐ /(#' ÐMarilyn€Myers,€Garyððs€wife,€testified€that€she€and€Gary€were€at€the€home€of€his€mother,Ð )h$( ÐClementine€Myers,€on€either€July€30òòóó€or€the€following€day.€€The€defendant€was€there,€seated€in€theÐ *Q%) Ðâ âden.€€Clementine€Myers€was€in€the€kitchen€counting€$100€bills€and€wearing€ð ðrubber€gloves€likeÐ ê*:&* Ðdoctors€wear.ðð€€Clementine€Myers€stated€ð ðthis€will€be€the€last€damn€money€that€the€son€of€a€bitchÐ ° Ðgets.ðð€€Marilyn€Myers€had€never€known€of€the€defendant€to€visit€at€Clementine€Myersðð€home.Ð ™é Ðâ âÐ ‚Ò ÐÓ  ÓÓ XÓò òAnalysisÐ k» ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ XÓó óThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions€forÐ ?  Ðfacilitation€of€the€second€degree€murders€of€Jessica€Watts€and€Chelsie€Smith€and€aggravated€arson.€Ð ( x ÐÐ  a ÐAlthough€the€defendantððs€appellate€brief€merely€makes€the€assertion€that€the€evidenceÐ ú J Ðpreponderates€against€the€verdict€without€a€supporting€argument,€we€feel€obliged€to€review€theÐ ã 3  Ðchallenge€in€accordance€with€established€principles.€€Ô‡ X£¥ XXX‡ÔAlthough€the€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€guiltÐ Ì   Ðmay€be€partly€circumstantial€in€nature,€circumstantial€evidence€alone€may€be€sufficient€to€supportÐ µ  Ða€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899„900€(Tenn.€1987);€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862Ð žî  ÐS.W.2d€574,€577€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€However,€in€order€for€this€to€occur,€the€circumstantialÐ ‡×  Ðevidence€must€be€not€only€consistent€with€the€guilt€of€the€accused,€but€it€must€also€be€inconsistentÐ pÀ  Ðwith€innocence€and€must€exclude€every€other€reasonable€theory€or€hypothesis€except€that€of€guilt.€Ð Y©  ÐòòTharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€at€900.€€€In€addition,€ð ðit€must€establish€such€a€certainty€of€guilt€of€the€accusedÐ B’ Ðas€to€convince€the€mind€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€[the€defendant]€is€the€one€who€committedÐ +{ Ðthe€crime.ðð€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòPruitt€v.€Stateóó,€460€S.W.2d€385,€390€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1970)).Ð d ÐÐ ýM ÐWhile€following€the€above€guidelines,€this€Court€must€remember€that€the€jury€decides€theÐ æ6 Ðweight€to€be€given€to€circumstantial€evidence€and€ð ð[t]he€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€such€evidence,Ð Ï Ðand€the€extent€to€which€the€circumstances€are€consistent€with€guilt€and€inconsistent€with€innocenceÐ ¸ Ðare€questions€primarily€for€the€jury.ðð€€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€313€S.W.2d€451,€457€(Tenn.€1958);€òòsee€also€óóÐ ¡ñ ÐòòGregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€at€577;€òòState€v.€Couryóó,€697€S.W.2d€373,€377€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985);€òòPruittóó,Ð ŠÚ Ð460€S.W.2d€at€391.Ô#†X‡X X X£¥+A#ÔÐ sà ÐÐ \¬ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„403€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:Ð E• ÐÐ .~ ÐÓ( °œX”,È’Xß(ÓÓ$°”,È’X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓCriminal€responsibility€for€facilitation€of€felonyÐ g Ðà 4 à(a)€A€person€is€criminally€responsible€for€the€facilitation€of€a€felony€if,€knowingÐ  P Ðthat€another€intends€to€commit€a€specific€felony,€but€without€the€intent€required€forÐ é 9 Ðcriminal€responsibility€under€ðð€39„11„402(2),€the€person€knowingly€furnishesÐ Ò!"  Ðsubstantial€assistance€in€the€commission€of€the€felony.Ð »" ! Ðà 4 à(b)€The€facilitation€of€the€commission€of€a€felony€is€an€offense€of€the€class€nextÐ ¤#ô" Ðbelow€the€felony€facilitated€by€the€person€so€charged.Ð $Ý# ÐÌSecond€degree€murder,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210€applicable€partÐ _&¯!% ÐÓ X$IÓÓ XIÓÓ XIÓÓ( °œX°”,È’XäH(ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ$°”,È’X°œX$Óà Ü àà  àà 4 à(a)€Second€degree€murder€is:Ð H'˜"& Ðà 4 àà ` à(1)€A€knowing€killing€of€another.Ð 1(#' ÐÌÌÌÐ Õ+%'+ ÐÓ X}LÓÓ X‹LÓÓ X™LÓÓ( °œX°”,È’X§L(ÓÓ(°”,È’XHB°œX(ÓThe€applicable€arson€statutes€are€as€follows:Ð ° ÐÐ ™é ÐÓ XÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„301€„€Ð ‚Ò ÐÓ XcNÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ( °œX°”,È’XäM(ÓÓ$°”,È’X°œX$ÓArsonÐ k» Ðà0 4 àà  à(a)€A€person€commits€an€offense€who€knowingly€damages€any€structure€by€meansÐ T¤ Ðof€a€fire€or€explosion:Ð= 4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà0` 4Ð 4Ð àà 4 à(1)€Without€the€consent€of€all€persons€who€have€a€possessory,€proprietary€orÐ & v Ðsecurity€interest€therein;€orÐ _` Ð ` Ð  Ðà0 4 àà0` 4Ð 4Ð àà 4 à(2)€With€intent€to€destroy€or€damage€any€structure€to€collect€insurance€for€theÐ ø H Ðdamage€or€destruction€or€for€any€unlawful€purpose.Ðá 1 ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓ XÇNÓÓ( °œX°”,È’X O(ÓÓ XÕNÓÓ X¹NÓÓ(”,È’X °œX(ÓÓ XÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„302€„Ð ³  ÐÓ X)RÓAggravated€arsonÐ œì  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ( °œX”,È’XR(ÓÓ$°”,È’X°œX$Óà0 4 àà  à(a)€A€person€commits€aggravated€arson€who€commits€arson€as€defined€in€ðð€39„14„Ð …Õ  Ð301€or€ðð€39„14„303;Ðn¾ 4Ð 4Ð  Ðà 4 à(1)€When€one€(1)€or€more€persons€are€present€therein;€orÐ W§  Ðà0 4 àà0` 4Ð 4Ð àà 4 à(2)€When€any€person,€including€firefighters€and€law€enforcement€officials,Ð @ Ðsuffers€serious€bodily€injury€as€a€result€of€the€fire€or€explosion.Ð)y` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓ X¿RÓÓ X±RÓÓ X£RÓAs€we€must,€we€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State€and€concludeÐ ûK Ðthat€the€evidence€was€clearly€sufficient€for€a€rational€jury€to€find€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendant€facilitated€the€second€degree€murders€of€Jessica€Watts€and€Chelsie€Milia€Smith€andÐ Í Ðcommitted€aggravated€arson€of€an€occupied€residence.Ð ¶ ÐÐ Ÿï ÐStatements€by€the€defendant€to€James€Allen€Holt€and€Shirley€Humphrey€prior€to€the€offensesÐ ˆØ Ðindicated€his€involvement€in€preventing€Diane€Watts€from€carrying€through€her€threat€to€divulgeÐ qÁ Ðinformation€of€criminal€activities.€€In€the€defendantððs€statement€to€Holt,€the€defendant€professed€toÐ Zª Ðhave€been€watching€a€house€the€night€before€the€offenses€and€his€intent€to€ð ðburn€a€bitch€out.ðð€€€TheÐ C“ Ðdefendant€made€statements€to€Humphreys€that€the€victim€was€causing€trouble.€€Humphreys€alsoÐ ,| Ðoverheard€the€defendant€telling€Doug€Myers€that€ð ðsheðð€needed€to€be€eliminated.€€The€defendantÐ e Ðstocked€several€containers€of€gasoline,€the€type€of€accelerant€used€in€the€arson.€€The€defendantÐ þN Ðacknowledged€in€numerous€statements€that€he€was€present€at€the€victimððs€residence€on€the€morningÐ ç 7 Ðof€the€murders.€€The€defendant€placed€three€calls€to€the€residence€of€Clementine€Myers€after€leavingÐ Ð!   Ðthe€victimððs€residence€and€then€drove€to€Clementineððs€house.€€The€defendant€later€claimed€to€haveÐ ¹" ! Ðreceived€$900€from€Doug€Myers€that€originated€with€Clementine€Myers.€€The€defendant€was€alsoÐ ¢#ò" Ðseen€within€two€days€of€the€offenses€at€Clementine€Myersðð€residence€under€circumstances€fromÐ ‹$Û# Ðwhich€a€jury€could€infer€she€was€paying€him€additional€money.Ð t%Ä $ ÐÐ ]&­!% ÐAfter€the€events€of€July€30,€the€defendant€directed€Ms.€Humphrey€to€burn€some€of€hisÐ F'–"& Ðclothing€and€shoes€that€she€described€as€perfectly€usable.€€The€defendant€also€indicated€to€Ms.Ð /(#' ÐHumphrey€that€it€was€his€job€to€ð ðclean€upðð€the€crime€scene€at€the€victimððs€residence.Ð )h$( ÐÐ *Q%) ÐThe€examining€pathologist€ascribed€the€ultimate€cause€of€death€for€Jessica€Watts€and€ChelsieÐ ê*:&* ÐSmith€as€smoke€inhalation.€€The€jury,€having€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€aggravated€arson,€wouldÐ Ó+#'+ Ðhave€been€fully€justified€in€finding€the€defendant€guilty€of€a€greater€degree€of€culpability€thanÐ ° Ðfacilitation€of€second€degree€murder.€€The€evidence,€direct€and€circumstantial,€point€unerringly€toÐ ™é Ðthe€defendant€and,€we€conclude,€is€sufficient€to€support€the€convictions.Ð ‚Ò ÐÐ k» ÐIn€his€second€issue,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€hearsayÐ T¤ Ðtestimony€pursuant€to€the€co„conspirator€exception€of€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€803€(1.2)(E).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð =  ÐÐ & v ÐA€jury„out€hearing€was€conducted€prior€to€trial€to€determine€the€existence€of€a€conspiracyÐ  _ Ðfor€purposes€of€proof€at€trial.€€The€State€presented€three€witnesses,€and€the€defendant€testified€forÐ ø H Ðthe€limited€purpose€of€denying€a€conspiracy€and€his€involvement.€€At€the€conclusion,€the€trial€judgeÐ á 1  Ðmade€this€finding:Ð Ê   ÐÐ ³  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓMy€determination€right€now€is€to€determine€whether€or€not€statements€were€madeÐ œì  Ðduring€the€course€of€the€conspiracy,€promoting€or€facilitating€a€criminal€act€by€aÐ …Õ  Ðcriminal€or€unlawful€means,€in€which€one€or€more€people€agree€to€engage€in€criminalÐ n¾  Ðconduct,€and€that€the€statements€are€made€in€furtherance€of€that€conspiracy,€and€thatÐ W§  ÐMr.€Lewis€was€a€party€to€the€conspiracy.€€All€of€those€would€have€to€be€answered€inÐ @ Ðthe€affirmative.Ð )y ÐÌFrom€the€evidence€the€Court€would€find€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€andÐ ûK Ðcertainly€not€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€but€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€thatÐ ä4 Ða€conspiracy€existed€to€conceal€stolen€property,€a€conspiracy€existed€to€cover€upÐ Í Ðillegal€conduct,€and€that€Mr.€Lewis€was€part€of€those€conspiracies.€€I€canððt€make€aÐ ¶ Ðdetermination€at€this€time€as€to€whether€or€not€Mr.€Lewis€was€the€conspirator€in€theÐ Ÿï Ðtheft€of€the€victims,€but€I€donððt€think€thatððs€necessary€to€get€most€of€these€statementsÐ ˆØ Ðin.€€€So€we€will€have€that€finding€on€the€record.Ð qÁ ÐÌÓ X«cÓÓ XcÓÓ XcÓA€statement€by€a€co„conspirator€of€a€party€during€the€course€of€and€in€furtherance€of€theÐ C“ Ðconspiracy€is€admissible€even€if€hearsay.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803€(1.2)(E).€€This€exception€originatedÐ ,| Ðin€the€law€of€agency€wherein€ð ð€.€.€.€each€conspirator€is€bound€by€the€actions€and€statements€made€byÐ e Ðother€conspirators€during€the€course€of€and€in€furtherance€of€a€common€purpose.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð þN ÐHenryóó,€33€S.W.3d€797,€801€(Tenn.€2000).€€To€establish€admissibility,€the€prosecution€must€prove:€Ð ç 7 Ð1)€that€there€is€evidence€of€the€existence€of€a€conspiracy€and€the€connection€of€the€declarant€andÐ Ð!   Ðdefendant€to€that€conspiracy;€2)€the€declaration€was€made€during€the€pendency€of€the€conspiracy;Ð ¹" ! Ðand€3)€the€declaration€was€made€in€the€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy.€€òòSeeóó€òòId.óó€at€801,€802;€TennesseeÐ ¢#ò" ÐLaw€of€Evidence€ðð€803(1.2).6€at€521€„22€(Cohen,€Ô_ÔSheppeardÔ_Ô,€Paine,€4òòthóó€ed.€2000).€€Proof€isÐ ‹$Û# Ðestablished€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòóóòòò òó óHenryóó,€33€S.W.3d€at€802;€òòState€v.€Stamperóó,€863Ð t%Ä $ ÐS.W.2d€404,€406€(Tenn.€1993).Ð ]&­!% ÐÐ F'–"& ÐWe€address€this€issue€by€summarizing€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€at€the€jury„outÐ /(#' Ðconspiracy€hearing.€€€Jason€Rowland,€an€investigator€with€the€District€Attorneyððs€office,€testified€thatÐ )h$( Ðhe€had€interviewed€the€defendant€on€numerous€occasions.€€The€defendant€had€discussed€a€motiveÐ ° Ðfor€the€murder€of€Diane€Watts.€€The€defendant€stated€the€victim€had€threatened€to€divulge€certainÐ ™é Ðcriminal€activity,€including€drug€dealing.€€This€information€was€to€have€been€revealed€to€authoritiesÐ ‚Ò Ðon€the€day€the€Ô_ÔvictimsððÔ_Ô€bodies€were€discovered.Ð k» ÐÐ T¤ ÐShirley€Humphrey€testified€that€the€defendant€lived€with€her€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€SheÐ =  Ðrelated€that€the€defendant€had€told€her€prior€to€the€murders€that€the€victim€was€ð ðstepping€on€toesððÐ & v Ðand€Clementine€Myers,€a€co„defendant,€wanted€something€done.€€In€particular,€the€victim€wasÐ  _ Ðthreatening€to€cause€problems€for€Gary€Myers,€a€co„defendant,€and€his€wife€relating€to€theirÐ ø H Ðbankruptcy€and€a€social€security€claim.Ð á 1  ÐÐ Ê   ÐMs.€Humphreys€stated€the€defendant€told€her€his€role€in€the€offense€was€to€ð ðclean€up,ðð€whichÐ ³  Ðshe€inferred€to€mean€the€arson.€€She€had€observed€the€defendant€store€gasoline€in€his€truck€prior€toÐ œì  Ðthe€murders.€€The€defendant€told€her€he€may€have€lost€a€knife€at€the€victimððs€house.Ð …Õ  ÐÐ n¾  ÐAfter€the€murders,€the€defendant€told€Ms.€Humphrey€the€little€girls€were€not€supposed€toÐ W§  Ðhave€been€present€at€the€victimððs€home.€€On€July€21,€he€requested€Ms.€Humphrey€burn€some€of€hisÐ @ Ðclothing;€jeans,€a€shirt,€and€shoes.€€Approximately€a€week€after€the€murders,€the€defendant€had€herÐ )y Ðtake€him€to€Winchester€and€met€co„defendant€Doug€Myers€at€a€department€store.€€The€defendantÐ b Ðreturned€from€the€meeting€with€$900€that€he€said€came€from€co„defendant€Clementine€Myers.Ð ûK ÐÐ ä4 ÐMs.€Humphrey€had€owned€a€store€that€was€run€by€Donna€Eldridge.€€A€tractor€was€taken€fromÐ Í Ðher€store€by€Doug€Myers€and€Doris€Cantrell€and€disposed€of€in€Grundy€County.€€Later,€a€smallÐ ¶ ÐÔ_ÔKubotaÔ_Ô€€tractor€appeared€which€she€learned€was€stolen.€€The€defendant€removed€the€tractor.€€SheÐ Ÿï Ðalso€discovered€that€the€defendant€had,€with€Donna€Eldridge,€conducted€drug€transactions€at€theÐ ˆØ Ðstore.Ð qÁ ÐÐ Zª ÐVicky€Fleming,€the€victimððs€sister,€also€testified.€€She€said€prior€to€the€murders€she€was€withÐ C“ Ðthe€victim€when€a€phone€call€was€received€from€co„defendant€Clementine€Myers.€€She€overheardÐ ,| ÐClementine€Myers€say€that€some€group€from€Grundy€County€was€coming€to€take€care€of€whoeverÐ e Ðbroke€into€co„defendant€Gary€Myersðð€home.€€The€cost€for€this€was€$5000.€€Also€during€thisÐ þN Ðconversation,€the€victim€was€told€the€group€knew€where€she,€her€daughter,€and€other€familyÐ ç 7 Ðmembers€were€at€all€times.Ð Ð!   ÐÐ ¹" ! ÐThe€defendant€testified€on€his€own€behalf,€and€the€trial€judge€issued€findings€as€set€forthÐ ¢#ò" Ðpreviously.Ð ‹$Û# ÐÐ t%Ä $ ÐThe€defendantððs€brief€asserts€that€the€court€found€a€conspiracy€existed€to€conceal€stolenÐ ]&­!% Ðproperty.€€The€defendant€then€disputes€whether€the€lockbox€was€actually€stolen€property€andÐ F'–"& Ðsufficiency€of€the€proof€that€the€Ô_ÔKubotaÔ_Ô€tractor€was€stolen.€€We€need€not€address€this€argument.€€ThisÐ /(#' Ðis€not€the€dispositive€question.€€The€trial€courtððs€findings€were€broader€and€more€inclusive€in€findingÐ )h$( Ða€conspiracy€to€cover€up€other€illegal€activities.Ð *Q%) Ðâ âÐ ê*:&* ÐTo€establish€a€conspiracy,€the€State€may€show€an€implied€understanding€between€the€partiesÐ ° Ðâ âand€the€conspiracy€may€be€proven€by€circumstantial€evidence€or€the€conduct€of€the€parties€in€theÐ ™é Ðexecution€of€the€criminal€act.€€No€formal€words€or€written€agreement€are€required.€€òòState€v.€Alleyóó,Ð ‚Ò Ð968€S.W.2d€314,€316€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).Ð k» ÐÐ T¤ ÐThe€testimony€adduced€was€sufficient€for€the€trial€court€to€find,€by€a€preponderance€of€theÐ =  Ðevidence,€that€the€defendant€was€engaged€with€other€co„defendants€in€a€conspiracy€to€silence€theÐ & v Ðvictim,€€Diane€Watts,€€and€an€attempt€to€conceal€the€crime€scene€by€means€of€arson.Ð  _ ÐÐ ø H ÐThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€cross„examination€of€theÐ á 1  Ðdefendant€beyond€the€scope€of€the€hearing.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€cross„examinationÐ Ê   Ðviolated€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€104(d).€€The€defendant€voluntarily€testified€at€the€jury„outÐ ³  Ðhearing€to€determine€the€existence€of€a€conspiracy.€€€The€objection€to€the€Stateððs€cross„examinationÐ œì  Ðcame€during€questioning€of€the€defendant€concerning€the€time€he€left€the€victimððs€house€the€day€ofÐ …Õ  Ðthe€offense.€€The€exchange€was€as€follows:Ð n¾  ÐÐ W§  ÐÓ( °œX°”,È’XõR(ÓÓ$X”, ’X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓQUESTION:à ¸ àYou€told€them€it€was€daylight?Ð @ ÐÌANSWER:à0 ¸ àI€think€that€might€have€been€15€until€5:00€maybe.Ðb¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà0 4 àà  àMR.€WARNER€[Attorney€for€the€defendant]:ò ò€ó ó€Your€Honor,€heððs€testifying€for€the€à0@¾ ó€òòGreàÐ ä4 Ðlimited€purpose€to€see€if€there€is€a€conspiracy,€not€to€shore€up€a€time€problem€heÐ Ð  Ðhas€in€his€case€in€chief.€€Irregardless€of€what€time€he€left€would€have€nothing€toÐ ¹  Ðdo€with€the€conspiracy.€€Itððs€totally€irrelevant€for€the€purpose€of€this€hearing.Тò4Ð 4Ð  ÐÌà0 4 àà  àMR.€POTTER€[District€Attorney€General]:€€Your€Honor,€this€is€cross€and€I€think€thatÐ tÄ Ðwhat€Iððm€building€up€to€has€nothing€to€do€with€the€case€in€chief,€but€the€steps€heÐ ]­ Ðtook€after€he€left€there€and€where€he€went€and€what€he€did,€and€that€is€part€of€thisÐ F– Ðconspiracy.à0ä 4Ð 4Ð àÐ/ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÓ X…„ÓÓ Xw„ÓÓ Xi„ÓÓ( °œXX”, ’XE„(ÓÓ(°”,È’X¢@°œX(ÓÐ h ÐThe€defendant€contends€the€scope€of€the€questioning€violated€his€right€to€remain€silent€underÐ  Q Ðthe€Fifth€Amendment.€€The€entire€purpose€of€this€limited€preliminary€hearing€was€to€establishÐ ê : Ðwhether€a€conspiracy€existed€for€purpose€of€later€admissibility€of€evidence€during€the€trial.€€TheÐ Ó!#  Ðdefendant€voluntarily€testified€to€rebut€allegations€of€the€conspiracy€and€thus€subjected€himself€toÐ ¼" ! Ðcross„examination€concerning€factors€that€were€relevant€to€or€consistent€with€the€existence€of€aÐ ¥#õ" Ðconspiracy.€€Contrary€to€the€defendantððs€assertion,€his€actions€after€leaving€the€victimððs€residenceÐ Ž$Þ# Ðwere€not€irrelevant€as€to€whether€a€conspiracy€existed.€€The€commission€of€the€offense€that€was€theÐ w%Ç $ Ðgoal€of€the€conspiracy€does€not€necessarily€end€the€conspiracy.€€òòState€v.€Henryóó,€33€S.W.3d€797,€803Ð `&°!% Ð(Tenn.€2000).€€His€subsequent€actions€would€be€relevant€toward€possibly€establishing€a€continuingÐ I'™"& Ðconspiracy€of€concealment.€€Furthermore,€the€defendantððs€answers€were€neither€enlightening€to€theÐ 2(‚#' ÐStateððs€case€or€inconsistent€with€the€defendantððs€contentions.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð )k$( ÐÐ *T%) ÐThe€defendant€next€assigns€error€to€the€admission€into€evidence€of€the€forensic€pathologistððsÐ í*=&* Ðopinion€that€two€or€more€people€were€involved€in€the€offense.€€The€specific€testimony€was:Ð Ö+&'+ ЇÓ( °œX°”,È’X ‰(ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ$”,È’X°œX$Óà0 4 àà  àQUESTION:€€Dr.€Levy,€again,€based€on€the€photographs€that€youððve€reviewed,€theÐ ° Ðinjuries€to€the€victims€that€youððve€seen€„„€and€I€believe€you€indicated€earlier€thatÐ ™é Ðyou€had€also€observed€two€possible€weapons€„„€did€you€form€an€opinion€as€to€theÐ ‚Ò Ðnumber€of€perpetrators€of€the€particular€assaults€weððre€dealing€with€here€today?Ðk»4Ð 4Ð  ÐÌANSWER:€€I€did.Ð =  ÐÌà0 4 àà  àQUESTION:€Okay.€€And€would€you€tell€the€Jury€how€many€people€you€believe€wereÐ  _ Ðinvolved€and€why€you€came€to€that€conclusion?Ðø H4Ð 4Ð  ÐÌà0 4 àà  àANSWER:€Well,€based€upon€my€review€of€the€photographs€from€the€scene;€whereÐ Ê   Ðthe€bodies€were€located;€the€pattern€of€injuries€to€the€three€victims,€specificallyÐ ³  ÐChelsie€Smith€and€her€mother,€[sic]€Delores;€how€the€blows€were€received€inÐ œì  Ðdirection€of€blows,€the€location€they€were€found;€the€fact€that€two€separateÐ …Õ  Ðweapons€were€used€in€this€case,€both€baseball€bat€and€this€torque€wrench,€itððs€myÐ n¾  Ðopinion€that€there€should€have€been€or€needed€to€be€more€than€one€personÐ W§  Ðpresent.€€So€there€probably€were€two€or€more€people€involved€in€this€incident.Ð@4Ð 4Ð  ÐÌÓ X¨ÓÓ XšÓÓ XŒÓÓ( °œX”,È’X¶(ÓÓ(”,È’X–°œX(ÓÔ‡X£¥ XXX‡ÔA€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€mayÐ b Ðtestify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise,€provided€the€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specializedÐ ûK Ðknowledge€will€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€factÐ ä4 Ðin€issue.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€An€expert€may€base€his€or€her€opinion€upon€facts€or€data€imparted€toÐ Í Ðor€perceived€by€the€expert€prior€to€or€at€a€hearing;€the€facts€or€data€need€not€be€admissible€if€theyÐ ¶ Ðare€the€type€of€facts€or€data€reasonably€relied€upon€by€experts.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€703.€€If€the€underlyingÐ Ÿï Ðfacts€or€data€lack€trustworthiness,€the€court€shall€disallow€expert€testimony€based€upon€them.€€òòId.óó€Ð ˆØ ÐEvidence€and€expert€testimony€regarding€scientific€theory€must€be€both€relevant€and€reliable€beforeÐ qÁ Ðit€may€be€admitted.€€€òòòòóóMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transp.,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257,€265€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð Zª ÐÐ C“ ÐThe€trial€court€has€broad€discretion€in€resolving€questions€concerning€the€qualifications,Ð ,| Ðadmissibility,€relevance,€and€competency€of€expert€testimony.€€òòState€v.€Stevensóó,€òòóó78€S.W.3d€òòóó817,€832Ð e Ð(Tenn.€2002).€€An€appellate€court€should€not€overturn€a€trial€courtððs€decision€in€admitting€orÐ þN Ðexcluding€a€proposed€expertððs€testimony€unless€it€finds€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòStateÐ ç 7 Ðv.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€òòóó557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).Ô#†X‡X XX£¥â•#ÔÐ Ð!   ÐÐ ¹" ! ÐThe€same€issue€was€addressed€in€òòState€v.€Westóó,€767€S.W.2d€387,€401„02€(Tenn.€1989).€Ð ¢#ò" ÐUnder€a€similar€factual€scenario,€the€Court€characterized€the€forensic€pathologistððs€opinion€asÐ ‹$Û# Ðarguably€within€his€realm€of€expertise.€€The€òòWestóó€Court€observed€that€even€if€technically€outsideÐ t%Ä $ Ðthe€forensic€pathologistððs€expertise,€the€error€was€harmless€when€he€was€subject€to€crossÐ ]&­!% Ðexamination€and€the€jury€was€correctly€instructed€on€expert€testimony.€€This€is€dispositive€of€theÐ F'–"& Ðissue€at€hand.Ð /(#' ÐÐ )h$( ÐTherefore,€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€on€behalf€of€the€trial€court€in€allowing€thisÐ *Q%) Ðâ âtestimony.€€Parenthetically,€we€note€that€it€ill€serves€the€defendant€to€object€to€testimony€thatÐ ê*:&* Ðbuttressed€his€own€theory€of€two€assailants.€€This€theory€was€urged€upon€the€jury€on€two€separateÐ ° Ðoccasions€during€the€defendantððs€opening€argument.€€Ð ™é Ðâ âÐ ‚Ò ÐThe€defendant€next€assigns€as€error€the€failure€of€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€regardingÐ k» Ðan€inadequate€crime€scene€investigation,€which€could€infer€that€the€missing€evidence€was€favorableÐ T¤ Ðto€the€defendant.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€contends€that€removal€of€the€bodies€from€the€houseÐ =  Ðprior€to€arrival€of€law€enforcement€tainted€the€crime€scene.Ð & v ÐÐ  _ ÐWe€agree€with€the€defendant€that€the€appropriate€standard€of€review€is€provided€by€òòState€v.Ð ø H ÐFergusonóó,€2€S.W.3d€912,€917€(Tenn.€1999).€€We€are€also€mindful€that€it€is€difficult€to€define€theÐ á 1  Ðboundaries€of€the€Stateððs€duty€to€preserve€evidence.€€òòId.óó€at€917€(quoting€òòCalifornia€v.€Trombettaóó,€467Ð Ê   ÐU.S.€479,€488„89,€104€S.€Ct.€2528,€2533„34,€81€L.€Ed.€413€(1984)).€€The€evidence€must€be€ofÐ ³  Ðsufficient€value€to€play€a€significant€role€in€the€accusedððs€defense,€and€its€exculpatory€value€mustÐ œì  Ðhave€been€apparent€before€the€evidence€is€destroyed.€€In€addition,€the€destroyed€evidence€must€beÐ …Õ  Ðof€a€nature€that€the€defendant€could€not€obtain€comparable€evidence€by€other€reasonably€availableÐ n¾  Ðmeans.€€òòFergusonóó€at€917.€€Only€after€this€initial€inquiry€demonstrates€the€existence€of€a€duty€by€theÐ W§  ÐState€and€failure€in€that€duty€does€the€òòFergusonóó€analysis€apply.Ð @ ÐÐ )y ÐThe€removal€of€the€bodies€was€pursuant€to€a€policy€then€in€effect€in€the€McMinnville€FireÐ b ÐDepartment.€€That€alone€would€not€excuse€a€duty€to€preserve€evidence.€€However,€under€these€factsÐ ûK Ðwe€do€not€agree€that€the€removal€of€the€bodies€served€to€destroy€evidence.€€There€was€abundantÐ ä4 Ðtestimony€from€the€firemen€performing€the€removal€as€to€the€bodiesðð€respective€original€locationsÐ Í Ðand€their€positions.€€Their€removal€did€not€prevent€a€subsequent€autopsy€and€the€detailed€findingsÐ ¶ Ðby€the€forensic€pathologist.€€The€defendant€fails€to€suggest€any€specific€defense€that€was€lost€by€himÐ Ÿï Ðdue€to€the€bodies€removal.€€Likewise,€we€do€not€consider€the€removal€as€ð ðdestructionðð€ofÐ ˆØ Ðexculpatory€evidence€or€as€an€impediment€to€the€accusedððs€defense.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð qÁ ÐÐ Zª ÐThe€defendantððs€last€issue€alleges€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€sentencing€factorÐ C“ Ðthat€the€victims€were€especially€vulnerable.€€Ô‡X£¥ XXX‡ÔA€defendant€who€challenges€his€or€her€sentence€has€theÐ ,| Ðburden€of€proving€the€sentence€€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€improper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð e Ð401,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments;€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€It€isÐ þN Ðthis€Courtððs€duty€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€the€trial€courtððsÐ ç 7 Ðdeterminations€are€correct€when€€a€defendant€appeals€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€hisÐ Ð!   Ðor€her€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€presumption€of€correctness€is€conditionedÐ ¹" ! Ðupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principlesÐ ¢#ò" Ðand€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Pettusóó,€986€S.W.2d€540,€543„44€(Tenn.€1999).Ô#†X‡X XX£¥•«#ÔÐ ‹$Û# ÐÐ t%Ä $ ÐÔ‡X£¥ XXX‡ÔThe€weight€given€to€each€enhancement€or€mitigating€factor€is€in€the€discretion€of€the€trialÐ ]&­!% Ðcourt,€assuming€the€trial€court€has€complied€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€sentencing€actÐ F'–"& Ðand€its€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Maddenóó,€99€S.W.3d€127,€138€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð /(#' ÐApp.€2002).€€The€statutes€prescribe€no€particular€weight€for€an€enhancement€or€mitigating€factor.€Ð )h$( ÐòòState€v.€Gosnellóó,€62€S.W.3d€740,€750€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).€€A€defendantððs€sentence€ð ðis€notÐ *Q%) Ðdetermined€by€the€mathematical€process€of€adding€the€sum€total€of€enhancing€factors€present€thenÐ ê*:&* Ðsubtracting€from€this€figure€the€mitigating€factors€present€for€a€net€number€of€years.ðð€€òòState€v.€Alderóó,Ð Ó+#'+ Ð71€S.W.3d€299,€306€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,€475€(Tenn.Ð ° ÐCrim.€App.€1996)).Ô#†X‡X XX£¥¯#ÔÐ ™é ÐÐ ‚Ò ÐA€sentence€may€be€enhanced€if€a€victim€of€the€offense€was€particularly€vulnerable€becauseÐ k» Ðof€age€or€physical€or€mental€disability.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(4).€€The€vulnerabilityÐ T¤ Ðenhancement€relates€more€to€the€natural€physical€and€mental€limitations€of€the€victim€than€merelyÐ =  Ðto€the€victimððs€age.€€The€factor€can€be€used€if€the€circumstances€show€that€the€victim,€because€of€hisÐ & v Ðage€or€physical€or€mental€condition€was€in€fact€particularly€vulnerable,€i.e.,€incapable€of€resisting,Ð  _ Ðsummoning€help,€or€testifying€against€the€perpetrator.€€The€determination€of€whether€the€factorÐ ø H Ðapplied€is€a€factual€issue€is€to€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact€on€a€case€by€case€basis.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,Ð á 1  Ð945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).Ð Ê   ÐÐ ³  ÐProof€of€age,€standing€alone,€may€be€insufficient€to€establish€particular€vulnerability.€€òòStateÐ œì  Ðv.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€A€victim€is€particularly€vulnerable€withinÐ …Õ  Ðthe€meaning€of€this€enhancement€factor€when€the€victim€lacks€the€ability€to€resist€the€commissionÐ n¾  Ðof€the€crime€due€to€age,€a€physical€condition,€or€a€mental€condition.€€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2dÐ W§  Ð467,€€473€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1966).Ð @ ÐÐ )y ÐIn€the€case€at€hand,€the€trial€judge€applied€the€vulnerability€enhancement€to€the€sentences€forÐ b Ðfacilitation€of€second€degree€murder€of€Chelsea€Smith,€age€13,€and€Jessica€Watts,€age€10,€as€wellÐ ûK Ðas€the€aggravated€arson€conviction.€€Medical€proof€showed€that€both€minors€had€suffered€seriousÐ ä4 Ðhead€injuries€from€blunt€trauma,€but€died€of€smoke€inhalation.€€The€forensic€pathologist€opined€thatÐ Í Ðthe€girls€might€have€survived€the€beatings€with€medical€attention,€but€died€from€the€results€of€theÐ ¶ Ðfire.Ð Ÿï ÐÐ ˆØ ÐThe€trial€judge€articulated€his€use€of€vulnerability€as€an€enhancement€as€follows:Ð qÁ ÐÐ Zª ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓThe€next€enhancing€factor€the€State€urges€is€that€the€victim€was€particularlyÐ C“ Ðvulnerable€because€of€age.€€This€enhancement€factor€also€indicates€particularÐ ,| Ðvulnerability€because€of€physical€disabilities.€€I€think€this€one€can€be€applied.€€If€notÐ e Ðbecause€of€age,€then€because€of€the€vulnerability€because€of€their€being€in€a€beatenÐ þN Ðcondition€at€the€time€the€fire€was€started.Ð ç 7 ÐÓ X¡¼ÓÓ X“¼ÓÓ X¯¼ÓÐ Ð!   ÐThere€was€evidence€in€this€case€that€the€beatings€rendered€these€minors€particularlyÐ ¹" ! Ðvulnerable€to€the€ultimate€cause€of€their€demise,€smoke€inhalation.€€Dr.€Levy,€the€forensicÐ ¢#ò" Ðpathologist,€testified€that€his€autopsy€revealed€Chelsie€Smith€received€a€minimum€of€five€blows€toÐ ‹$Û# Ðthe€head€and€one€in€the€groin€area.€€Jessica€Watts€was€the€recipient€of€a€minimum€of€three€blows€toÐ t%Ä $ Ðthe€head.€€Both€of€these€victims€had€developed€swelling€of€the€brain.€€Dr.€Levy€explained€that€thisÐ ]&­!% Ðindicates€their€survival€for€at€least€twenty€minutes€until€they€both€succumbed€to€smoke€inhalation.€Ð F'–"& ÐDr.€Levy€elaborated€that€twenty€minutes€is€the€minimum€elapsation€for€brain€swelling€to€becomeÐ /(#' Ðvisible€and€that€after€death,€swelling€would€not€occur.€€This€would€indicate€that€these€two€victimsÐ )h$( Ðwere€either€unconscious€or€incapacitated€due€to€the€beatings€and€rendered€particularly€vulnerableÐ *Q%) Ðto€the€arsonous€attack€that€followed.Ð ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ ÐWe€conclude€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€justify€the€application€of€the€particularlyÐ ° Ðvulnerable€enhancement€factor€in€this€case.€€The€trial€court€was€aware€of€the€age€and€size€of€the€twoÐ ™é Ðminors€and€their€susceptibility€to€attack€from€an€adult€armed€with€a€torque€wrench€and/or€baseballÐ ‚Ò Ðbat.€€With€equal€insight,€the€trial€judge€appropriately€observed€that€these€two€victims,€in€their€beatenÐ k» Ðcondition,€were€particularly€vulnerable€in€their€inability€to€resist,€summon€help,€or€escape€the€fireÐ T¤ Ðthat€was€the€ultimate€cause€of€their€demise.€Ð =  ÐÐ & v ÐAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€convictions€and€sentence€of€the€defendant€in€all€respects.ò òó ó€Ð  _ ÐÐ ø H ÐÐ á 1  ÐÐ Ê   ÐÐ ³  ÐÐ œì  ÐÓ( °œX”,È’Xº•(Óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð …Õ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€JOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE