ÿWPC3 …U:V % 0 Ü–w@r 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u© B 0d;U*ŸB)ÉDCò D35 AMh«µ 0@`Ÿ ?2?ˆq÷ù sð"¼c%v~*vÓ+ AOp1Æ¿1 0D…2 D/É2 Bø2,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ `aEbcdEefEgh iÓ€Ô¡¨ ø,3|xr(Ð(30™$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€™ïXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌOcto…berÏ24,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò •Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À™ïXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€seven€outstanding€felony€convictions€were€committed€by€the€appellant€over€aÏtwenty„month€period€occurring€after€the€death€of€Bobby€McBride,€but€before€the€return€of€theÏindictment€for€his€murder.Ì öÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€victim's€death€certificate€indicated€the€cause€of€death€as€"cardiac€arrest,€causeÏunknown."Ì (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(c)€provides:Ìà8 àAfter€òòtwelveóó€prospective€jurors€have€been€passed€for€cause,€counsel€will€submitÏsimultaneously€and€in€writing,€to€the€trial€judge,€the€name€of€any€juror€eitherÏcounsel€elects€to€challenge€peremptorily.€€Upon€each€submission€each€counselÏshall€submit€either€a€challenge€or€a€blank€sheet€of€paper.€€Neither€party€shall€makeÏknown€the€fact€that€the€party€has€not€challenged.€€Replacement€jurors€will€then€beÏexamined€for€cause€and,€after€passed,€counsel€will€again€submit€simultaneously,Ïand€in€writing,€to€the€trial€judge€the€name€of€any€juror€counsel€elects€to€challengeÏperemptorily.€€This€procedure€will€be€followed€until€a€full€jury€has€been€selectedÏand€accepted€by€counsel.€€peremptory€challenges€may€be€directed€to€anyÏmember€of€the€jury€and€counsel€shall€not€be€limited€to€replacement€jurors.€ÏAlternate€jurors€will€be€selected€in€the€same€manner.€€The€trial€judge€will€keep€a€listÏof€those€challenged€and,€if€the€same€juror€is€challenged€by€both€parties,€each€willÏbe€charged€with€the€challenge.€€The€trial€judge€shall€not€disclose€to€any€juror€theÏidentity€of€the€party€challenging€the€juror.ÌÌ(Emphasis€added).Ì ~Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€note€that,€effective€July€1,€1997,€Rule€24(c)€was€amended,€dispensing€with€theÏrequirement€of€"twelve"€prospective€jurors.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€No.€02C01„9605„CC„00159Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Mar.€18,€1997).Ì íÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€record€reflects€that€of€the€twelve€jurors€selected,€three€were€replacement€jurors.Ì iÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„402(c)€grants€the€reviewing€court€the€authority€to€"affirm,Ïvacate,€set€aside,€increase€or€reduce€the€sentence€imposed€or€remand€the€case€or€direct€the€entryÏof€an€appropriate€order."Ì ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€presentence€report€revealed€that€the€appellant€has€seven€felony€convictions€forÏwhich€she€is€serving€an€effective€sentence€of€fourteen€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏCorrection;€all€of€these€offenses€occurred€after€Bobby€McBride's€death.€€These€convictionsÏinvolve€arson;€insurance€fraud€over€$60,000;€insurance€fraud€over€$1,000;€three€counts€of€theftÏover€$1,000;€and€passing€a€worthless€check€over€$1,000.€€The€record€indicates€misdemeanorÏconvictions€for€passing€a€worthless€check;€three€traffic€offenses;€and€theft€under€$500.€ÏMoreover,€the€appellant€was€charged€with€the€following€crimes:€theft€of€two€telephones€from€K„Mart;€theft€of€a€Black€Angus€bull€calf;€sale€of€an€untested€cow;€and€trading€livestock€without€aÏlicense;€however,€these€charges€were€subsequently€dismissed.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›ò òÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙßR€+,)A1-j|` õ `€€@ÿRß›à@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ àMAY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9606„CC„00269Ìà àAppellee/à àà àà à)Ìà àCross„Appellantà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àRUTHERFORD€COUNTYÌœvs.›à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€JAMES€K.€CLAYTON,€JR.,ÏJudgeÌœPHYLISS›€ANN€McBRIDE,à àœ)›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(First€Degree€Murder)Ìà àAppellant/à àà àà à)Ìà àCross„Appelleeà àà à)Ìó óÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òLANCE€H.€SELVAó óà àà àò òà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONó óÌ214€West€Main€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130Ìà àà àà àò òà àà àà àLISA€A.€NAYLORà àà àà àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€WHITESELLó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àThird€Floor€Judicial€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌœCONVICTION€AFFIRMED;ÌREMANDED€FOR€SENTENCING€MODIFICATION›ÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Phyliss€Ann€McBride,€appeals€her€conviction,€by€aÏRutherford€County€jury,€for€the€first€degree€murder€of€her€husband,€BobbyÏMcBride.€The€jury€fixed€the€appellant's€sentence€at€imprisonment€for€life.€€At€aÏseparate€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€ordered€the€life€sentence€to€runÏconcurrently€with€seven€prior€unserved€felony€sentences.œ× ƒ. ××  ×›€€In€this€appeal,€theÏappellant€contends€that€(1)€the€trial€court€failed€to€comply€with€the€mandatoryÏjury€selection€procedure€set€forth€in€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(c);€and€(2)€the€trialÏcourt€improperly€restricted€cross„examination€of€a€State's€witness.€€Additionally,Ïthe€State€cross„appeals€challenging€the€trial€court's€decision€that€theÏappellant's€life€sentence€should€be€served€concurrently€with€her€seven€felonyÏsentences.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€conviction€is€affirmed.€€Upon€òòde€novoóó€review€of€theÏrecord,€however,€we€find€that€consecutive€sentences€are€warranted€and€remandÏthis€case€to€the€trial€court€for€entry€of€an€appropriate€order.ÌÌÌà@ àò òBackgroundó óÌÌà àIn€November€1989,€the€victim,€Bobby€McBride,€began€experiencingÏvision€disturbances,€shortness€of€breath,€hallucinations,€dizziness,€andÏsleeplessness.€€As€a€result€of€his€deteriorating€condition,€Mr.€McBride€was€takenÏto€the€emergency€room€where€he€was€treated€for€"a€urinary€tract€infection€and€aÏthroat€infection."€€On€November€13,€1989,€approximately€one€week€later,€Mr.ÏMcBride€was€examined€by€his€family€physician,€Dr.€Polk.€€Dr.€Polk€testified€that,Ïdespite€a€history€of€high€blood€pressure,€Mr.€McBride's€blood€pressure€was€veryÏlow€and€he€appeared€very€confused.€€Moreover,€the€victim€was€bloated€and€hadÏ"this€gray,€ashen€look.€.€.€.€€He€was€washed€down€in€perspiration.€.€.€.€€His€faceÏwas€discolored.€€His€eyes€looked€.€.€.like€they€were€ready€to€pop€out.€.€.€."€ÏBecause€of€his€condition,€Mr.€McBride€was€admitted€to€the€hospital€for€furtherÏobservation€and€tests.€€During€the€day,€Mr.€McBride's€condition€continued€toÏdeteriorate€despite€numerous€medications€and€medical€procedures.€€Later€thatÏevening,€Mr.€McBride€died,€the€cause€of€death€being€undetermined€by€theÏattending€physicians.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€Due€to€the€peculiar€circumstances€and€unknown€causeÏof€Mr.€McBride's€death,€the€attending€physicians€and€the€county€coronerÏrequested,€on€several€occasions,€that€an€autopsy€be€performed.€€However,€theÏappellant€was€opposed,€stating€that€her€husband€would€not€have€wanted€anÍautopsy.€€Accordingly,€no€autopsy€was€performed€and€no€further€inquiry€wasÏmade€as€to€the€victim's€cause€of€death.ÌÌà àIn€July€1990,€the€appellant€filed€a€complaint€with€the€Sheriff's€DepartmentÏalleging€that€her€father,€Don€Tiffin,€Sr.,€had€sexually€abused€her€daughters.€€AsÏa€result€of€these€allegations,€deputies€ordered€Tiffin€out€of€the€appellant'sÏhouse.€€A€few€days€after€these€allegations€were€made,€Tiffin€volunteered€to€lawÏenforcement€officials€that€Bobby€McBride's€body€should€be€exhumed,Ïimplicating€the€appellant€in€his€death.€€In€November€1990,€an€autopsy€wasÏperformed€on€the€victim's€body.€€The€autopsy€report€established€the€cause€ofÏdeath€as€"acute€and€chronic€arsenic€poisoning."̛̜Ìà àTestimony€at€trial€connected€the€appellant€to€the€murder€of€her€husband.€ÏDon€Tiffin,€Sr.€testified€that,€prior€to€the€victim's€death,€the€appellant€had€inquiredÏas€to€the€effects€of€rat€poison€on€a€person.€€He€further€stated€that€the€appellantÏreceived€a€life€insurance€check€in€the€amount€of€$43,000,€in€addition€to€theÏvictim's€retirement€benefits€of€$500.64€per€month€for€the€remainder€of€her€life.€ÏKim€Bess,€one€of€the€appellant's€daughters,€testified€that,€prior€to€the€victim'sÏdeath,€the€appellant€had€asked€her€to€put€an€electrical€wire€in€the€shower€withÏthe€victim€in€order€to€kill€him€because€she€needed€the€money.€€Bess€added€that,Ïon€one€occasion,€she€had€observed€the€appellant€"set€[a€can€of€drain€opener]Íbeside€the€refrigerator€as€she€fixed€[the€victim]€a€glass€of€tea."ÌÌà àCarol€Burgeson,€an€admitted€informant€for€law€enforcement€agencies,Ïtestified€that€she€was€acquainted€with€the€appellant€through€her€management€ofÏa€children's€shop€in€Smyrna.€€She€recalled€that€she€was€at€the€hospital€on€theÏday€the€victim€was€admitted€and€had€spoken€with€the€appellant€concerning€theÏvictim's€condition.€€The€appellant€related€to€her€that€the€victim€had€"gotten€a€holdÏof€some€bad€dope."€€Burgeson€suggested€that€the€police€be€notified,€however,Ïthe€appellant€refused€explaining€that€the€police€"would€find€out€that€he€had€beenÏgiven€too€much€cough€medicine,"€over€ten€different€types.€€The€appellant€furtherÏstated€that€"she€did€not€want€[the€victim]€to€be€all€right,€that€she€had€given€himÏtoo€much€.€.€.€and€that€she€wanted€him€to€die;€he€was€mean€and€bad,€and€he€hadÏto€die."€€Based€upon€these€facts,€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€first€degreeÏmurder.€€€Ì̛̜à@ àò òI.€€Jury€Selectionó ớ̜à àThe€appellant€first€contends€that€the€jury€selection€procedure€employedÍby€the€trial€court€violated€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(c).× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Both€parties€agree€that€theÏtrial€court€deviated€from€the€Rule€in€that€thirty„one€jurors€were€selected€for€voirÏdire€rather€than€the€twelve€designated€by€the€Rule.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€The€trial€court€seatedÏtwelve€jurors€in€the€jury€box€and€four€jurors€in€seats€that€were€placed€in€front€ofÏthe€jury€box.€€The€remaining€fifteen€jurors€were€seated€along€the€railing€behindÏthe€actual€trial€area.€€Prior€to€implementing€this€procedure,€however,€defenseÏcounsel€and€the€State€met€in€the€judge's€chambers€and€discussed€theÏmechanics€of€the€jury€selection€process€that€would€be€utilized€by€the€court.€€NoÏobjection€was€made€by€either€the€State€or€the€defense€as€to€the€proposedÏmethod€of€jury€selection.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€asserts€that€defense€counsel€examined€only€those€twelveÏjurors€seated€in€the€jury€box€and€the€four€seated€immediately€in€front€of€the€box.€ÏShe€argues€that€there€was€no€examination€of€those€seated€along€the€railing.€ÏDuring€voir€dire,€defense€counsel,€recognizing€his€inadvertence,€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àBy€the€way,€I€didn't€mean€to€neglect€you,€but€all€the€questions€I'veÏasked,€if€any€of€you€happen€to€replace€people€up€here,€all€thoseÏquestions€will€apply€to€you.ÌÌÓÓFollowing€jury€selection,€written€challenges€were€submitted€to€the€trial€court.€ÏTwo€jurors€were€excused€and€replaced.€€However,€after€exercising€theÏappellant's€peremptory€challenges,€defense€counsel€asked€to€approach€theÏbench,€where€the€following€colloquy€occurred:ÌÓÓà8 àMR.€œSELVA:à0 àWe›€were€under€the€impression€that,€really,€we€wereÏà àà àquestioning€the€jurors,€and€as€theyÏwould€œbe€replaced,›€we€would€be€able€to€ask€specificÏœquestions€to›€the€jurors€that€took€their€seats.ÌÌà àœCOURT:à0 àI›€explained€that€to€you€this€morning,€and€you've€seen€usÏà àà àœoperate›€under€that€procedure.ÌÌà àMR.€SELVA:à àOkay.€€That's€fine.ÌÌà àMR.€SHULMAN:€€Judge,€there's€only€one€question,€I€think,€has€not€beenÏà àà àà àasked€that€I€think€is€important.€€Maybe€you€could€do€that.€Ïà àà àà àSomebody€should€have€read€the€list€of€witnesses,€both€theÏà àà àà àState's€and€the€defense,€because€we€don't€know€whetherÏà àà àà àany€of€these€people€are€related€to€the€witnesses€or€haveÏany€à àà àà àassociation€with€them,€and€I€think€that's€fairly€significant.ÌÌà àCOURT:à àIt's€a€little€bit€late€to€start€reasking€questions.ÌÌÓÓWritten€challenges€were€again€submitted.€€One€juror€was€replaced.€€The€courtÏannounced€that€a€jury€was€selected€and€drew€two€names€for€alternate€jurors.€ÍOne€of€the€alternates€was€excused€for€cause.€€Another€alternate€was€selectedÏand€the€trial€proceeded.€€The€appellant€argues€that,€because€she€was€deniedÏthe€opportunity€to€examine€any€replacement€jurors,€she€was€effectively€deniedÏher€right€to€exercise€any€meaningful€or€intelligent€challenge.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€The€appellantÏcontends€that€the€trial€court's€non„compliance€with€Rule€24(c)€compromises€theÏintegrity€of€the€jury€selection€process.€€She€urges€that€we€find€that€"òòanyóóÏdeparture€[from]€Rule€24€constitutes€plain€error€and€[is]€prejudicial€òòper€seóó."€€TheÏappellant€cites€no€legal€authority€in€support€of€her€argument,€as€such,€weÏdecline€the€invitation€to€so€rule€and€rely€instead€upon€the€standard€of€reviewÏannounced€in€previous€decisions.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€particular€procedure€employed€by€the€trial€court€deviatedÏfrom€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(c),€the€burden€is€on€the€appellant€to€prove€prejudice€orÏpurposeful€discrimination€in€the€selection€of€a€jury.€€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€865ÏS.W.2d€455,€458€(Tenn.€1993).€€Prejudice€will€not€be€presumed.€€òòIdóó.€(citingÏòòSwain€v.€Alabamaóó,€380€U.S.€202,€85€S.Ct.€824€(1965)).€€Moreover,€while€theÏ"adherence€to€the€procedure€prescribed€by€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(c)€isÏmandatory,"€deviation€from€the€rule€may€qualify€as€harmless€error.€€òòSeeóó€ÏòòAnthonyóó,€No.€02C01„9605„CC„00159.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€fails€to€show€how€she€was€prejudiced€by€the€procedureÏemployed€by€the€trial€court.€€Equally€important,€we€note€that€not€only€did€defenseÏcounsel€not€object€to€the€method€of€jury€selection,€but€also€agreed€to€the€methodÏof€selection€prior€to€voir€dire.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a)€(A€party€is€not€entitledÏto€relief€if€the€party€invited€error,€waived€an€error,€or€failed€to€take€whatever€stepsÏwere€reasonably€available€to€cure€an€error).€€Defense€counsel€commented€thatÏthe€only€question€that€should€have€been€asked€was€whether€any€member€of€theÏjury€knew€any€of€the€trial€witnesses.€€Although€the€appellant€alleges€that€he€wasÏdenied€the€opportunity€to€question€the€three€replacement€jurors,€the€recordÏindicates€that€all€three€jurors€were€present€throughout€the€entire€voir€dire.€ÏDefense€counsel€informed€òòallóó€the€prospective€jurors€that€the€questions€appliedÏto€òòthemóó.€€None€of€the€prospective€jurors€indicated€that€they€had€any€problemÏwith€the€questions€posed€by€either€party.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€absentÏa€showing€of€prejudice,€the€deviation€from€the€mandatory€procedure€of€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€24(c)€was€harmless.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Cross„Examination€of€Carol€Burgesonó óÌÌà àNext,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€restricted€herÏcross„examination€of€State's€witness€Carol€Burgeson,€thereby,€violating€herÏSixth€Amendment€right€of€confrontation.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€sought€toÍcross„examine€this€witness€about€various€criminal€charges€against€her€whichÏhad€previously€been€dismissed€by€the€State.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€defenseÏcounsel€could€ask€Burgeson€about€a€prior€conviction€for€theft,€but€could€notÏquestion€the€witness€about€any€charges€that€had€been€dismissed.€The€appellantÏcontends€that€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€616€permits€cross„examination€as€to€the€priorÏcharges€to€establish€the€witness's€bias€in€favor€of€the€State.€€€Ìà àÌà àThe€Confrontation€Clause€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€guarantees€the€rightÏof€an€accused€in€a€criminal€prosecution€to€"be€confronted€with€the€witnessesÏagainst€him."€€òòDelaware€v.€Van€Arsdallóó,€475€U.S.€673,€678,€106€S.Ct.€1431,Ï1435€(1986).€€However,€the€right€of€confrontation€"means€more€than€beingÏallowed€to€confront€the€witness€physically."€€òòIdóó.€(citation€omitted).€€"[T]he€mainÏand€essential€purpose€of€confrontation€is€to€òòsecure€for€the€opponent€theÏopportunity€of€cross„examinationóó."€€òòIdóó.€(citations€omitted)€(internal€quotationsÏomitted)€(emphasis€in€original).€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€No.€02C01„9504„CC„00115€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Jan.€9,€1997).€The€exposure€of€aÏwitness's€motivation€in€testifying€is€a€proper€and€important€function€of€cross„examination.€€òòIdóó.€at€678„679,€106€S.Ct.€at€1435.€€Indeed,€although€limited€toÏwhat€is€actually€relevant€evidence,€an€accused€has€the€right€to€explore€òòpromisesóóÏof€leniency€made€to€a€prosecution€witness€or€òòexpectationsóó€of€leniency,€both€realÏand€imagined,€by€that€same€witness€to€show€a€motive€for€testifying€falsely€for€theÏState.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€824€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Scottóó,ÍNo.€01C01„9202„CR„00053€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Feb.€11,€1993);ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€616.€€òòSee€alsoóó€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€However,€the€ConfrontationÏClause€does€not€prevent€a€trial€court€from€imposing€reasonable€limits€onÏdefense€counsel's€inquiry€into€the€potential€bias€of€a€prosecution€witness.€€òòVanÏArsdallóó,€475€U.S.€at€679,€106€S.Ct.€at€1435.€€The€propriety,€scope,€manner€andÏcontrol€of€testimony€and€other€evidence,€including€the€scope€of€cross„examination,€remains€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€which€will€notÏbe€reversed€absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Barnardóó,€899ÏS.W.2d€617,€624€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994)Ï(citing€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978);€òòState€v.€Elrodóó,€721ÏS.W.2d€820,€823€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986));€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€611(a).€€Thus,€so€longÏas€a€reasonably€complete€picture€of€the€witness's€veracity,€bias,€and€motivationÏis€developed€on€direct,€the€trial€court€enjoys€the€power€and€discretion€to€setÏreasonable€boundaries€to€cross„examination.€€ÌÌà àThere€is€no€indication€from€the€record€that€Burgeson€had€an€incentive€toÏtestify€falsely€against€the€appellant.€€She€was€not€being€paid€for€her€testimony,Ïnor€did€she€testify€in€exchange€for€immunity€or€prosecutorial€leniency€since€theÏproof€fails€to€reveal€any€charges€pending€against€her.€€Indeed,€with€theÏexception€of€one€misdemeanor€arrest€for€a€worthless€check,€the€charges€atÏissue€were€dismissed€prior€to€the€return€of€the€indictment€in€the€instant€case,Ïand,€in€some€instances,€were€dismissed€prior€to€Bobby€McBride's€murder.€ÍMoreover,€the€credibility€of€this€witness€was€not€vital€to€the€State's€case€asÏsubstantial€circumstantial€evidence€was€elicited€from€other€witnesses.€€AlthoughÏthe€trial€court's€ruling€was€based€on€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€608€and€609€rather€than€RuleÏ616,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€prohibiting€cross„examination€of€Burgeson's€previously€dismissed€charges.€€We€are€unable€toÏrationalize€how€proof€of€previously€dismissed€charges€would€show€anyÏòòpromisesóó€of€leniency€by€the€State€in€exchange€for€Burgeson's€€testimony€at€theÏappellant's€trial,€nor€can€we€conclude€that€the€appellant€òòexpectedóó€futureÏleniency€from€the€State€arising€from€her€testimony€in€the€present€case.€€òòSeeóó€ÏòòPeople€v.€Tomesóó,€672€N.E.2d€289,€293€(Ill.€App.€1€Dist.€1996)€("[W]here€there€isÏno€expectation€of€leniency€from€the€State,€the€trial€court€may€prohibit€cross„examination€regarding€the€charge.");€€òòsee€alsoóó€€98€òòC.J.S.€òòóóWitnessesóó€ðð€560(h)Ï(1957).€€Again,€evidence€of€the€witness's€activity€as€a€paid€informant€wasÏrevealed€during€direct€examination.€€Thus,€the€jury€was€presented€with€theÏpossibility€of€her€bias€in€favor€of€the€State.€€The€law€is€well„settled€that€theÏcredibility€of€witnesses€is€a€jury€question.€€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€Sentencingó óÌÌà àThe€State€cross„appeals,€challenging€the€trial€court's€order€that€theÍappellant's€life€sentence€is€to€be€served€concurrently€with€seven€outstandingÏfelony€sentences.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115€(1990).€€In€support€of€itsÏposition,€the€State€contends€that€the€appellant€(a)€is€a€professional€criminal,€(b)Ïhas€an€extensive€history€of€criminal€activity,€and€(c)€is€a€dangerous€offender.€ÏTenn.Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„115(b)(1),€(b)(2),€and€(b)(4).€€After€review€of€thisÏissue,€we€agree€that€the€appellant€has€an€extensive€history€of€criminal€activityÏand€that€consecutive€sentences€are€warranted€in€this€case.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€€€œÌ›Ìà àWhen€the€State€challenges€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court,€thisÏcourt€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinationsÏmade€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„402(d)€(1990).€ÏHowever,€this€presumption€is€only€applied€if€there€is€an€"affirmative€showing€inÏthe€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€relevant€sentencing€principles€and€allÏrelevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€The€record€before€this€court€is€absent€such€a€showing,€thus,€theÏpresumption€does€not€apply.€However,€the€party€challenging€the€sentence,€inÏthis€case€the€State,€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€impropriety€of€saidÏsentence.€€Sentencing€Commission€Comments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„402.€€ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115€sets€forth€classifications€under€whichÏconsecutive€sentencing€òòmayóó€be€imposed.€€òòBut€seeóó€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32Ï(mandatory€consecutive€sentences).€€If€one€of€these€classifications€is€not€met,Ïthe€court€must€order€the€sentences€to€run€concurrently.€€However,€a€finding€byÏthe€trial€court€that€one€of€these€factors€exists€is€not€alone€sufficient€to€justify€theÏimposition€of€consecutive€sentences.€"The€proof€must€also€establish€that€theÏterms€imposed€are€òòreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committedóóÏand€are€òònecessary€in€order€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€acts€by€theÏoffenderóó."€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995).€ÏNotwithstanding€proof€of€these€three€criterion,€a€sentencing€court€retains€theÏdiscretion€of€imposing€consecutive€sentences.€€On€appeal,€the€exercise€of€theÏtrial€court's€discretion€is€afforded€great€weight,€òòprovidedóó€the€court€correctlyÏapplied€the€principles€of€consecutive€sentencing.€ÌÌà àUpon€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€conclude€that€the€State's€argument€has€merit.€€€ÏThe€appellant's€prior€record€includes€seven€felony€convictions€and€numerousÏmisdemeanor€convictions.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€This€is€more€than€sufficient€to€establish€that€theÍappellant€has€an€extensive€history€of€criminal€activity.€€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„115(b)(2).€€Moreover,€we€find€that€the€appellant€committed€the€instantÏoffense€while€on€probation€from€a€June€30,€1989,€conviction€for€passing€aÏworthless€check.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(6);€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.ÏFranklinóó,€No.€01C01„9405„CC„00172€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Oct.€31,Ï1995).€€While€a€statutory€classification€for€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€isÏpresent,€consecutive€sentences€should€not€be€imposed€unless€such€a€sentenceÏwould€reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offense€and€are€necessary€toÏprotect€the€public€from€further€criminal€acts€by€the€appellant.€€òòWilkersonóó,€905ÏS.W.2d€at€938.€€In€addition€to€her€conviction€for€the€premeditated€murder€of€herÏhusband,€the€appellant€has€burned€her€house,€and€has€committed€numerousÏoffenses€of€insurance€fraud,€theft,€and€passing€worthless€checks.€€We€find€thatÏthe€aggregate€sentences€are€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offensesÏand€that€an€extended€sentence€is€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€furtherÏcriminal€acts€of€the€appellant.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€consecutive€sentencesÏare€warranted€in€the€present€case.€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€conviction€is€affirmed.€€The€appellant's€sentence€of€lifeÏimprisonment€is€ordered€to€run€consecutively€to€her€effective€sentence€ofÏfourteen€years€stemming€from€her€seven€felony€convictions.€€This€case€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€entry€of€an€order€reflecting€a€sentence€of€lifeÏimprisonment€plus€fourteen€years.Ìà à€€€€€€ÌÓÓœÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€Judge›Ìà àÌÌ