ÿWPC&? Gµ¸1ÿHƒ> šÃè–€j‚yî´´uÿ6¨ÈdPC_jQ\Ý‹Ÿ\7ÁüÙ.±-¼héóº1¡2ÒêÐÇ¢:øyÕª0wfüÀ!=ty] ón¿]…aû?Ï d̵ žZBS=ûø;¬è#§ák°ü:€èkw (Å=·˜§p5ßÜÚÐY 6ñ,„EîUÿ¸Ü1õškckÂã0`Ê]âÓBñÞ„!!÷ÎÚéH‰‚)Þ }fÎݯ®Z«Ø²—ôÙø€‚'f«È›{N«!U5ffS Øúi‘jdÔÄ-1Ðêù’Ji`@I®ZŽv;p€ _C«™xÖ£C‰Q‘NrN2#6eQ&:•º¸ ÔJ0Á@Û¶¥f7ö_tMâI#Ì qV‘—«N‰zë¹µWWïð™ÈÐÒÎ™Š ã@ÍÃÚâCÊ/¶½Ú˜ˆê©¢ÅÎÅ„9U. %LbRôVJ¼i%n­5â 0(êU : w¸L 4  0™2 0 DË U: cI U:¬ŸæU:…u¿4M<M‰U:ÖÊ U:Ú!ª"¾#ŸÍ$¾l'*( B1)U:N)U:ˆ)U:Â){ü)U:w0U:±0uë0U:`7U:š7 AQÔ7Æ%8 0Dë8 0D/9 0Ds9 D/·9Êæ9 B°;)Í; D3ö<U:)=)=Ãc=<þ6X9`(CourierX ù êÝ ƒ6¤$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€Xé’XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€victim's€name€is€spelled€inconsistently€in€the€record.€€We€use€it€as€itÐ `  Ðappears€in€the€indictment. Ý ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X‚wXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝLater€in€his€testimony,€the€defendant€claimed€that€he€and€the€victim€wereÐ `  Ðgoing€to€Ohio€together€in€January€to€see€his€mother€and€to€get€married. ²Ý ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X‚wXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€court€judicially€knows€that€December€29,€1994€was€a€Thursday.3|x&«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regularå%Eæ%ç%è%é%Dê%ë%Dì%Ceí%Dî%ï%Eð%ñ%ò%Eó%ô%Eõ%ö%E÷%ø%Eù%ú%ÿ% &&&&D&&e&Ó€Ìqæ$ Ý ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X‚wXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€court€judicially€knows€that€the€Monday€prior€to€December€21,€1994Ð `  Ð(the€date€on€which€the€victim's€body€was€discovered)€was€December€19.(I(26¤$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€Xé’XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular YÝ ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X2,XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X2,XXX2,ÔOn€the€other€hand,€we€find€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€court'sÐ `  Ðdetermination€that€the€evidence€was€admissible€on€the€issue€of€identity.ÏEvidence€is€admissible€under€Rule€404(b)€only€where€it€is€probative€of€"someÏmatter€actually€in€issue."€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€254€(Tenn.€1993)Ð 0 Ð Ð(citation€omitted).€€There€was€no€material€issue€of€identity€at€trial.€€The€defendantÏgave€a€pre„trial€statement€in€which€he€admitted€killing€the€victim.€€The€contestedÏissue€was€whether€he€did€so€in€self€defense.€€However,€there€is€no€harm€in€theÏtrial€court's€erroneous€ruling€because€the€evidence€was€otherwise€admissible€€toÏshow€motive€and€intent.ÌÌà ` àAdditionally,€we€question€whether€the€evidence€of€the€defendant's€allegedÏprior€abuse€of€the€victim€was€admissible€to€a€claim€of€absence€of€mistake€orÏaccident.€€We€do€not€perceive€the€defendant's€position€to€have€been€that€heÏmistakenly€or€accidentally€killed€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McCaryóó,€922€S.W.2dÐ 0  Ð511,€514€(Tenn.€1996)€(prior€bad€acts€of€defendant€not€admissible€to€rebut€claimÏof€accident€where€defendant€has€not€asserted€such€as€a€defense).€€At€most,€hisÏevidence€is€that€he€did€not€intend€to€kill€the€victim.€€On€appeal,€the€state€has€notÏdefended€this€ground€for€admission,€and€we€find€it€unnecessary€to€resolve€theÏissue€because€the€evidence€is€otherwise€admissible€to€show€motive€and€intent.ÌÔ#†X2,XX X2,p#Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular •Ý ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X‚wXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defendant€also€claims€the€admission€of€the€alleged€rape€deprivedÐ `  Ðhim€of€a€fair€trial€under€the€federal€and€state€constitutions.€€We€find€this€issueÏwaived€for€failure€to€cite€relevant€authority€addressing€the€alleged€constitutionalÏdeprivation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7);€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b).€Ð 0 Ð ÐHowever,€had€the€defendant€properly€presented€a€question€of€constitutionalÏmagnitude,€we€would€find€the€error€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€for€theÏreasons€discussed€in€the€text€above., øð AZ"Arial Regular kÝ ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X‚wXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ X‚wXXX‚wÔOn€the€other€hand,€we€find€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€court'sÐ `  Ðdetermination€that€the€evidence€was€admissible€on€the€issue€of€identity.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð P ð ÷ ÐEvidence€is€admissible€under€Rule€404(b)€only€where€it€is€probative€of€"someÏmatter€actually€in€issue."€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€254€(Tenn.€1993)Ð P ð Ð(citation€omitted).€€There€was€no€material€issue€of€identity€at€trial.€€The€defendantÏgave€a€pre„trial€statement€in€which€he€admitted€killing€the€victim.€€The€contestedÏissue€was€whether€he€did€so€in€self€defense.€€However,€there€is€no€harm€in€theÏtrial€court's€erroneous€ruling€because€the€evidence€was€otherwise€admissible€€toÏshow€intent.ÌÌà ` àAdditionally,€we€question€whether€the€evidence€of€the€defendant's€allegedÏprior€abuse€of€the€victim€was€admissible€to€a€claim€of€absence€of€mistake€orÏaccident.€€We€do€not€perceive€the€defendant's€position€to€have€been€that€heÏmistakenly€or€accidentally€killed€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McCaryóó,€922€S.W.2dÐ °P  Ð511,€514€(Tenn.€1996)€(prior€bad€acts€of€defendant€not€admissible€to€rebut€claimÏof€accident€where€defendant€has€not€asserted€such€as€a€defense).€€At€most,€hisÏevidence€is€that€he€did€not€intend€to€kill€the€victim.€€On€appeal,€the€state€has€notÏdefended€this€ground€for€admission,€and€we€find€it€unnecessary€to€resolve€theÏissue€because€the€evidence€is€otherwise€admissible€to€show€intent.ÌÔ#†X‚wXX X‚wp#Ô þÝ ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X2,XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝFor€the€reasons€stated€in€section€II.A.€above,€we€find€evidence€of€thisÐ `  Ðincident€material€to€show€the€defendant's€intent. CÝ ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€$X2,XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡%X2,XXX2,ÔThe€defendant€did€not€testify€at€the€sentencing€hearing;€therefore,€theÐ `  Ðevidence€of€his€alleged€remorse€came€from€the€trial.Ô#†$X2,XX X2,q#Ô CÝ ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X‚wXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ X‚wXXX‚wÔThe€defendant€did€not€testify€at€the€sentencing€hearing;€therefore,€theÐ `  Ðevidence€of€his€alleged€remorse€came€from€the€trial.Ô#†X‚wXX X‚wq#Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÀÝ ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X2,XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€documentary€evidence€consisted€of€the€medical€and€shelter€recordsÐ `  Ðrelevant€to€the€alleged€pipe€rape.€€Unlike€the€copies€of€these€same€recordsÏadmitted€during€the€state's€case„in„chief,€the€records€the€court€ruled€admissibleÏat€this€juncture€of€the€trial€did€not€have€the€references€to€the€alleged€rapeÏredacted.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular  Ý ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X‚wXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThere€are€records€from€other€service€providers€documenting€reports€ofÐ `  Ðabusive€injuries€to€which€the€defendant€voiced€no€specific€objection.€€In€fact,€theÏdefendant€requested,€"[I]f€the€State€is€allowed€to€present€certain€records€I€wouldÏrequest€that€all€of€the€records€be€introduced." Ý ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X‚wXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€contrast,€in€at€least€some€of€the€records€from€the€Battered€Women'sÐ `  ÐShelter,€the€victim€identified€her€abuser€as€"Ray€Nelson." •Ý ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€#X²VXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defendant€also€claims€the€admission€of€the€alleged€rape€deprivedÐ `  Ðhim€of€a€fair€trial€under€the€federal€and€state€constitutions.€€We€find€this€issueÏwaived€for€failure€to€cite€relevant€authority€addressing€the€alleged€constitutionalÏdeprivation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7);€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b).€Ð 0 Ð ÐHowever,€had€the€defendant€properly€presented€a€question€of€constitutionalÏmagnitude,€we€would€find€the€error€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€for€theÏreasons€discussed€in€the€text€above. ´Ý ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X‚wXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€alleged€beating€and€alleged€rape€were€part€of€the€same€incident. ýÝ ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X‚wXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝFor€the€reasons€stated€in€section€II.A.€above,€we€find€evidence€of€thisÐ `  Ðincident€material€to€show€the€defendant's€intent. d,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular qÝ ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€'X‚wXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡(X‚wXXX‚wÔOn€the€other€hand,€we€find€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€court'sÐ `  Ðdetermination€that€the€evidence€was€admissible€on€the€issue€of€identity.Ð P ð  ÐEvidence€is€admissible€under€Rule€404(b)€only€where€it€is€probative€of€"someÏmatter€actually€in€issue."€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€254€(Tenn.€1993)Ð P ð Ð(citation€omitted).€€There€was€no€material€issue€of€identity€at€trial.€€The€defendantÏgave€a€pre„trial€statement€in€which€he€admitted€killing€the€victim.€€The€contestedÏissue€was€whether€he€did€so€in€self€defense.€€However,€there€is€no€harm€in€theÏtrial€court's€erroneous€ruling€because€the€evidence€was€otherwise€admissible€€toÏshow€motive€and€intent.ÌÌà ` àAdditionally,€we€question€whether€the€evidence€of€the€defendant's€allegedÏprior€abuse€of€the€victim€was€admissible€to€a€claim€of€absence€of€mistake€orÏaccident.€€We€do€not€perceive€the€defendant's€position€to€have€been€that€heÏmistakenly€or€accidentally€killed€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McCaryóó,€922€S.W.2dÐ °P  Ð511,€514€(Tenn.€1996)€(prior€bad€acts€of€defendant€not€admissible€to€rebut€claimÏof€accident€where€defendant€has€not€asserted€such€as€a€defense).€€At€most,€hisÏevidence€is€that€he€did€not€intend€to€kill€the€victim.€€On€appeal,€the€state€has€notÏdefended€this€ground€for€admission,€and€we€find€it€unnecessary€to€resolve€theÏissue€because€the€evidence€is€otherwise€admissible€to€show€motive€and€intent.ÌÔ#†'X‚wXX X‚wp#Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular kÝ ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€*X‚wXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡+X‚wXXX‚wÔOn€the€other€hand,€we€find€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€court'sÐ `  Ðdetermination€that€the€evidence€was€admissible€on€the€issue€of€identity.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð P ð  ÐEvidence€is€admissible€under€Rule€404(b)€only€where€it€is€probative€of€"someÏmatter€actually€in€issue."€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€254€(Tenn.€1993)Ð P ð Ð(citation€omitted).€€There€was€no€material€issue€of€identity€at€trial.€€The€defendantÏgave€a€pre„trial€statement€in€which€he€admitted€killing€the€victim.€€The€contestedÏissue€was€whether€he€did€so€in€self€defense.€€However,€there€is€no€harm€in€theÏtrial€court's€erroneous€ruling€because€the€evidence€was€otherwise€admissible€€toÏshow€intent.ÌÌà ` àAdditionally,€we€question€whether€the€evidence€of€the€defendant's€allegedÏprior€abuse€of€the€victim€was€admissible€to€a€claim€of€absence€of€mistake€orÏaccident.€€We€do€not€perceive€the€defendant's€position€to€have€been€that€heÏmistakenly€or€accidentally€killed€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McCaryóó,€922€S.W.2dÐ °P  Ð511,€514€(Tenn.€1996)€(prior€bad€acts€of€defendant€not€admissible€to€rebut€claimÏof€accident€where€defendant€has€not€asserted€such€as€a€defense).€€At€most,€hisÏevidence€is€that€he€did€not€intend€to€kill€the€victim.€€On€appeal,€the€state€has€notÏdefended€this€ground€for€admission,€and€we€find€it€unnecessary€to€resolve€theÏissue€because€the€evidence€is€otherwise€admissible€to€show€intent.ÌÔ#†*X‚wXX X‚wp#Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular-./01Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó33'÷ÿ dxd ÀÝ ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X‚wXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€documentary€evidence€consisted€of€the€medical€and€shelter€recordsÐ `  Ðrelevant€to€the€alleged€pipe€rape.€€Unlike€the€copies€of€these€same€recordsÏadmitted€during€the€state's€case„in„chief,€the€records€the€court€ruled€admissibleÏat€this€juncture€of€the€trial€did€not€have€the€references€to€the€alleged€rapeÏredacted.üÿP Pd Ý ƒ.¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€6Xé’XXXÔÔ€6>IX6Xé’ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€6Xé’X6>IÔÐ  ÐÌò òSeptember€9,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€6ôâ ôX6Xé’ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó""""'ÿÿdxd,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ¹Ý ƒ$$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X‚wXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€state€introduced€these€records€during€the€defendant's€case„in„chief;Ð `  Ðhowever,€it€is€apparent€from€the€record€they€are€being€offered€as€rebuttalÏevidence€of€the€defendant's€claim€that€the€domestic€violence€between€the€victimÏand€him€was€mutual€and€that€the€victim€initiated€it€as€much€as€did€the€defendant.Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ýñ&ñ›ñ&ññ&ññì%ñ›ñì%ññ&ññì%ñ›ñì%ñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'redlineÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€ XòwXXXÔÑ7€ òw XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ññ&ñœßr€,45<,(j 8` `€€@EÈf ` ttx$` ð Úrß›ñ&ñÌÑ€Ñò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ P ð ÐÌ€à@::'àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ 0 Ð ÐÌà@$àAPRIL€1998€SESSIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à À àà  àó ó)Ð Ðp  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ À`  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,à h àà À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9706„CR„00197Ð °P  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHamilton€Countyà x àÐ 0  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òRAY€ANTHONY€NELSON,à À àó óà  à)à p àHon.€Stephen€M.€Bevil,€Judge€ò òÐ p Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À àà  à)à p à(Second€Degree€Murder)Ð Pð Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  àà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð   ÐÌò òARDENA€J.€GARTHà h àà À àà  àà p àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ à€ Ðó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ Ð p ÐÌò òDONNA€ROBINSON€MILLERó ó€(on€appeal)à p àò òELLEN€H.€POLLACKó óÐ °"P Ðò òKARLA€M.€GOTHARD€ó ó(at€trial)à À àà  àà p àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÐ  #@ ÐAsst.€District€Public€Defendersò òà À àà  àà p àó ó425€Fifth€Ave.€N.,€2d€Floorò òÐ $0 Ðó ó701€Cherry€St.,€Ste.€300à h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð €%  ÐChattanooga,€TN€€37402Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òWILLIAM€H.€COX,€IIIó óÐ `'  Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ P(ð! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òREBECCA€A.€STERNÐ 0*Ð # Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àBATES€BRYANÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÐ ,°"% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à600€Market€St.,€Ste.€310Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àChattanooga,€TN€€37402ÌÌò òÌOPINION€FILED:________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEó óÐ €4 +. ÐÐ  p5,/ï Ðà@qq*àò òòòOPINIONó óóóˆÐ `  ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Ray€Anthony€Nelson,€appeals€his€conviction€of€theÏsecond€degree€murder€of€Ester€L.€Williams.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€received€his€conviction€in€theÐ  À ÐHamilton€County€Criminal€Court€at€the€conclusion€of€a€trial€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€ÏIn€this€direct€appeal,€he€raises€the€following€issues€for€our€review:Ìà8 ` à1.à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àWhether€the€evidence€sufficiently€supports€his€conviction.ÐÀ` ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓÓà8 ` à2.à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€evidence€of€his€prior€Ð  @  Ðabuse€of€the€victim.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à3.à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€Sister€SuzanneÐ p ÐRepasky€to€testify€as€an€expert€witness€on€domestic€violence.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à4.à0 ¸ àWhether€his€sentence€of€25€years€is€excessive.Ð@ภ(#¸ (# ÐÌÓÓFollowing€a€review€of€the€record€and€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€we€affirm€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€and€the€victim€were€not€married€and€lived€together€inÏan€apartment€in€a€Chattanooga€housing€project.€€Their€relationship€of€approximatelyÏñì%ñœñì%ñthirteenñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€years€was€marred€by€domestic€violence,€which€culminated€with€the€victim'sÏdeath€at€the€hands€of€the€defendant€in€December€1994.€€Following€the€victim'sÏdeath,€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€first€degree€murder€and€ultimately€convictedÏof€second€degree€murder.€€This€appeal€followed.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àñì%ñœñì%ñThe€stateððs€proof€showed€that€the€victim€and€the€defendant€livedÏtogether€ñ&ñœñ&ññí%ñ€ñí%ñforñ&ñ›ñ&ññ&ññ&ñ€several€years,€part€of€the€time€in€Ohio€and€part€of€the€time€inÏTennessee.€€The€victimððs€two€adult€daughters€both€testified€to€having€witnessedÏprior€instances€of€the€defendantððs€physical€abuse€of€the€victim.€€A€ChattanoogaÏmental€health€worker€testified€to€a€history€of€domestic€violence€in€the€victimððs€andÐ `6-0 Ðthe€defendantððs€home.€€A€neighbor,€Mack€Smith,€testified€that€he€regularly€heardÏnoises€from€the€victimððs€and€the€defendantððs€apartment€that€sounded€like€theÏdefendant€beating€the€victim€and€that€he€heard€screaming€and€crying€every€nightÏsince€the€defendantððs€arrival€at€the€apartment.€€He€testified€the€defendant€was€ð ðanÏawfully€strong€fellow.ððñì%ñ›ñì%ñÌÌà ` àà ¸ àSister€Suzanne€Repasky,€a€Catholic€nun,€testified€that€she€works€asÏa€counselor€at€the€Battered€Women€Shelter€in€Akron,€Ohio.€€Sister€Repasky€cameÏinto€contact€with€the€victim€through€the€shelter.€When€the€victim€came€to€the€shelterÏin€October€1992,€her€face€was€scarred€and€bruised€and€she€had€trouble€walking.€ÏShe€told€one€of€the€counselors€that€she€had€been€beaten€with€a€pipe€by€herÏboyfriend.€€Someone€found€her€lying€in€a€parking€lot€and€took€her€to€the€hospital.€ÏHospital€personnel€referred€the€victim€to€the€shelter.€€Sister€Repasky€testified€thatÏthe€victim€came€back€to€the€shelter€on€two€occasions.€€When€she€left€the€last€time,Ïshe€reported€that€she€was€going€to€Tennessee.€€A€follow€up€call€was€made€threeÏmonths€later,€and€the€victim's€mother€reported€that€the€victim€was€doing€well.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àSister€Repasky€testified€that€according€ñì%ñœñì%ñto€F.B.I.ñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€statistics,€50€percentÏof€women€in€relationships€will€be€hit€at€least€one€time.€€Additionally,€there€is€abuseÏin€25€percent€of€American€households.€€According€to€research€in€the€field,€90€to€95Ïpercent€of€abused€individuals€are€women.€€Sister€Repasky€also€said€that€it€isÏsomewhat€typical€for€abused€women€to€make€up€reasons€other€than€abuse€for€theirÏinjuries.€€They€are€embarrassed,€feel€guilty€and€blame€themselves€for€their€plight.€ÏWhen€asked€whether€this€proposition€applied€to€abused€men,€as€well,€SisterÏRepasky€said€that€she€did€not€have€enough€knowledge€of€abused€men€to€sayÏwhether€they€make€up€reasons€for€their€injuries.€ÌÐ  :À04 Ðà ` àà ¸ àDetective€Mike€Mathis€of€the€Chattanooga€Police€Department€wasÏdispatched€to€the€victim's€home€on€December€21,€1994.€€He€narrated€a€video€of€theÏcrime€scene€for€the€jury.€€He€found€no€sign€of€forced€entry.€€The€victim's€body€wasÏin€the€bedroom€in€a€chair.€€She€was€on€top€of€some€newspapers,€which€had€noÏblood€on€them.€€However,€there€was€blood€under€the€newspapers€on€the€seat€of€theÏchair.€€Detective€Mathis€admitted,€however,€that€to€his€knowledge€the€"blood"€wasÏnever€tested.€€€The€body€was€not€very€stiff,€and€Det.€Mathis€opined€that€it€was€in€theÏlate€stages€of€rigor€mortis.€€Men's€clothes€with€what€appeared€to€be€blood€on€themÏwere€found€lying€on€a€closet€floor.€€Additionally,€a€pillow,€sheet,€towel€and€washclothÏhad€a€red€substance€on€them.€€There€was€a€clipboard€on€the€dresser€with€notesÏwritten€to€various€individuals.€€Ô‡X‚wXX X‚wÔApparently,€these€notes€were€written€to€members€ofÐ  À Ðthe€victim's€and€the€defendant's€families€by€the€defendant€to€apologize€for€and/orÏexplain€the€victim's€death.Ô#† X‚wXXX‚w†!#Ô€€The€notes€were€signed€"Ray."€Ð à€ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€a€result€of€the€investigation,€the€police€ñì%ñœñì%ñsuspectedñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€the€defendant€Ïand€had€an€arrest€warrant€issued.€€Thereafter,€Det.€Mathis€learned€that€theÏdefendant€had€turned€himself€in€to€authorities€in€Birmingham,€Alabama.€€DetectiveÏMathis€and€Sgt.€Jeff€Francis€interviewed€the€defendant€in€the€Jefferson€County,ÏAlabama€jail€on€Friday,€December€29,€1994.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€defendant€told€the€officers€thatÐ  +À!$ Ðhe€came€home€from€work€on€Monday€evening׃€×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€had€an€argument€with€the€victimÐ - #& Ðbecause€he€wanted€a€dollar€to€buy€some€cigarettes.€€The€defendant€asked€theÏvictim€to€get€some€money€from€relatives€who€owed€her€money€so€he€could€buy€theÏcigarettes.€€They€went€to€see€the€relatives€but€were€unsuccessful€in€getting€anyÏmoney.€€Ð €4 +. Їà ` àà ¸ àAn€argument€ensued€when€they€got€home.€€There€had€been€a€lot€ofÏarguing€recently€over€money.€€The€argument€escalated€to€yelling€and€screaming.€€ÏDuring€the€argument,€both€the€victim€and€the€defendant€claimed€to€have€other€loveÏinterests.€€The€victim€started€to€pick€up€a€television€set€to€throw€at€the€defendant,Ïbut€the€defendant€was€able€to€get€it€away€from€the€victim.€€The€defendant€snapped,Ïand€a€physical€fight€ensued,€although€the€victim€did€not€really€fight€back.€€The€victimÏwas€"meaner"€than€usual.€€Although€the€defendant€had€been€able€to€control€hisÏanger€in€the€past,€he€was€unable€to€do€so€on€this€occasion.€€He€had€the€victim€onÏthe€floor€next€to€the€bed,€and€he€was€on€top€of€her€using€his€knee€and€placing€it€onÏdifferent€parts€of€her€torso.€€There€was€blood€coming€from€her€face,€mouth€andÏnose.€€The€defendant€realized€the€victim€was€not€able€to€breathe.€€He€stopped€theÏassault€and€began€to€hold€her.€€He€said€first€he€thought€she€was€unconscious,€andÏlater,€he€said€he€thought€she€was€dead.€€The€defendant€implied€to€the€officers€thatÏhe€did€not€realize€how€seriously€the€victim€was€hurt€until€he€saw€her€bleeding€andÏnot€breathing.€€In€the€statement,€the€defendant€said€he€cleaned€the€victim's€bodyÏand€took€off€her€clothing.€€He€placed€the€body€in€a€recliner.€€He€sat€in€the€chair€withÏthe€body€during€the€night€and€held€it.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€next€morning,€the€defendant€decided€to€leave.€€He€covered€theÏvictim's€body€with€blankets€and€placed€newspapers€under€it.€€He€started€out€on€footÏin€Chattanooga,€and€he€eventually€caught€a€ride€with€an€elderly€gentleman€whoÏbought€him€a€bus€ticket€to€Birmingham.€€He€stayed€in€shelters€in€Birmingham€andÏdisposed€of€some€clothing€and€his€key€to€the€victim's€apartment.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€told€the€officers€that€he€had€lived€with€the€victim€off€andÏon€since€1982.€€Their€relationship€had€been€riddled€with€fights€and€problems.€€HeÏshowed€the€officers€scars€from€altercations€in€which€the€victim€stabbed€and€cut€him.€Ð  :À04 ÐNevertheless,€the€defendant€claimed€to€have€loved€the€victim€and€put€up€with€this.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€made€it€clear€to€the€officers€that€he€was€the€only€oneÏinvolved€in€the€victim's€death.€€He€cried€at€times€during€the€interview€and€said€heÏnever€meant€to€kill€her.€€He€did€not€mention€a€"code€word"€the€victim€used€whichÏindicated€she€was€going€to€get€a€knife.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àñì%ñœñì%ñDoctorñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€Frank€King,€the€Hamilton€County€Medical€Examiner,€performedÏan€autopsy€of€the€victim's€body€and€determined€that€she€died€as€a€result€of€bloodÏloss€and€respiratory€insufficiency€from€multiple€blunt€trauma€injuries.€€These€injuriesÏincluded€contusions,€abrasions,€lacerations,€internal€hemorrhages€and€boneÏfractures.€€Doctor€King€described€the€overall€pattern€as€one€of€a€beating.€€TheÏvictim's€body€had€signs€of€defensive€injuries.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€contusions€were€well€developed,€which€means€that€the€victim€mayÏhave€had€a€period€of€survival€between€the€infliction€of€the€injury€and€the€time€ofÏdeath.€€However,€the€development€of€the€contusions€could€also€result€fromÏcontinuing€hemorrhaging€after€death.€€Doctor€King€opined€that€a€person€could€liveÏhours€or€even€a€day€or€so€with€these€injuries,€provided€the€individual€had€the€will€toÏcontinue€breathing€and€the€body€maintained€blood€pressure.€€He€further€opined€thatÏthe€victim€would€have€had€"a€good€chance€for€recovery"€if€she€had€been€taken€to€anÏemergency€room.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àñì%ñœñì%ñInñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€his€case„in„chief,€the€defendant€took€the€stand.€€He€testified€that€heÏwas€41€years€old.€€He€met€the€victim€in€1981,€and€he€began€living€with€the€victimÏand€her€daughters€that€year.€€Their€relationship€became€troubled€a€few€years€laterÏwhen€the€victim's€daughters€got€older€and€left€home.€€The€defendant€fought€with€theÐ  :À04 Ðvictim€about€moral€issues€related€to€the€victim's€daughters€and€what€they€should€beÏallowed€to€ñì%ñœñì%ñdo.€€He€testified€the€victim€suffered€from€phlebitis€and€had€a€history€ofÏpsychiatric€problems.€€He€admitted€he€had€abused€the€victim€but€testified€that€theyÏwere€both€violent€at€times.€€The€trial€court€admitted€photographs€of€between€17€andÏ30€scars€which€the€defendant€testified€were€the€results€of€cutting€and€stabbingÏinjuries€inflicted€on€him€over€time€by€the€victim.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAfter€the€victim€left€Ohio€the€last€time,€the€defendant€remained€in€Ohio€Ïfor€seven€months€but€came€to€Chattanooga€at€the€victimððs€request€to€resumeÏcohabitation€with€her€in€July€1994.€€The€couple€argued€frequently€about€the€victimððsÏirresponsible€use€of€money.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€the€day€of€the€victimððs€death,€which€the€defendant€testified€wasÏDecember€19,€she€and€the€defendant€argued€about€money€owed€the€victim€by€herÏfamily€members.€€Heñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€told€her€he€was€going€to€leave€her€after€the€holiday.€€The€victimÏsaid€she€did€not€care€because€she€had€another€boyfriend,€and€the€defendantÏresponded€that€he€had€two€girlfriends€in€Ohio€and€a€house€in€which€to€put€them.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р`'  ÐThe€argument€escalated€into€a€physical€confrontation,€with€the€victim€moving€to€pickÏup€a€television€set.€€The€defendant€thought€the€victim€was€going€to€throw€theÏtelevision€at€him,€and€he€was€able€to€take€it€away€from€her.€€The€victim€called€theÏdefendant€a€name.€€The€defendant€claimed€the€victim€used€this€name€when€sheÏwas€about€to€assault€him€with€a€knife.€€The€victim€started€toward€the€direction€ofÏkitchen,€and€the€defendant€thought€she€was€going€to€get€a€knife.€€He€grabbed€herÏfrom€behind€and€began€beating€her.€€He€claimed€to€remember€hitting€her€two€times,Ïthen€losing€his€memory€till€he€looked€in€her€eyes€and€saw€that€she€was€"gone."€€HeÐ `6-0 Ðwas€sure€she€was€dead.€€The€defendant€placed€the€victim€in€a€chair.€€He€held€herÏin€his€arms,€rocked€her,€and€talked€to€her€all€night.€€The€defendant€denied€intendingÏto€kill€the€victim€when€he€hit€her.€€He€claimed€to€be€very€remorseful€over€her€ñì%ñœñì%ñdeath.€ÏThe€defendant€went€to€Birmingham€where€he€essentiallyñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€lived€on€the€streets€andÏslept€at€a€shelter.€€He€decided€to€turn€himself€in€and€went€to€a€municipal€buildingÏand€talked€to€the€authorities.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€admitted€that€the€victim€had€been€in€a€batteredÏwomen's€shelter€in€Ohio€in€the€past.€€He€also€admitted€he€had€probably€hit€her€firstÏon€at€least€one€of€those€occasions€when€she€wound€up€in€the€shelter.€€He€admittedÏhe€was€in€a€position€to€get€out€of€the€bedroom€when€the€victim€reached€for€theÏtelevision€set,€but€he€did€not€leave.€€He€denied€ever€hitting€or€raping€the€victim€withÏa€metal€pipe€as€reported€in€the€victim's€medical€and€shelter€records.€€He€claimedÏany€injury€from€the€alleged€rape€with€the€pipe€actually€resulted€from€consensual€sexÏafter€a€fight.€€He€said€no€one€from€the€shelter€or€hospital€had€ever€talked€to€himÏabout€these€allegations.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€jury€found€the€defendant€not€guilty€of€first€degree€murder,€but€itÏfound€him€guilty€of€the€lesser€offense€of€second€degree€murder.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThereafter,€the€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing,€at€which€theÏvictim's€daughters€testified€they€both€were€unable€to€work€due€to€their€distress€overÏtheir€mother's€murder.€€Both€daughters€had€children€who€were€scared€and€upsetÏsince€the€victim's€death.€€The€defendant€offered€character€references€in€letter€formÏfrom€a€fellow€inmate,€a€childhood€Sunday€school€teacher,€two€long„time€friends,€andÏa€widow€for€whom€the€defendant€had€done€home€repairs.€€Generally,€these€lettersÏattested€to€the€defendant's€uncharacteristic€behavior€in€killing€the€victim,€hisÐ  :À04 ÐChristian€background€and€his€willingness€to€help€others.€€The€trial€court€found€twoÏenhancement€factors,€(1)€that€the€defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior,€and€(2)€that€he€treated€the€victim€with€exceptionalÏcruelty€during€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(5)€(1997).€€TheÐ   Ðcourt€found€no€mitigating€factors.€€Accordingly,€it€imposed€a€sentence€of€25€years.ÌÌà@üü-àò òIó óˆÐ  @  Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€first€issue,€the€defendant€attacks€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence.€€Essentially,€he€argues€that€he€acted€in€self€defense.€€WÔ‡X‚wXX X‚wÔhen€a€defendantÐ ` Ðchallenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€courtððs€standard€of€reviewÏis,€whether€after€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÐ   Ðcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.€Ct.Ð à€ Ð2781,€2791„92€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.Ð À!` ÐApp.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,Ïcircumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€ÏòòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€€Ô#† X‚wXXX‚w°G#ÔÐ `'  ÐÌÔ‡X‚wXX X‚wÔà ` àà ¸ àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€should€notÐ  +À!$ Ðreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779Ð - #& Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€theÏweight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ð  2@), Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÏtrier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2dÐ `6-0 Ð856,859€(1956);€€òòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€OnÐ @8à.2 Ðthe€contrary,€this€court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongestÐ  :À04 Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€andÏlegitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571Ð @ à ÐS.W.2d€at€835.Ô#† X‚wXXX‚w K#ÔÐ  À ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€pertinent€part,€second€degree€murder€is€"[a]€knowing€killing€ofÏanother."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210(a)€(1997).€€ñì%ñœñì%ñTheñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€defendant€freely€admittedÏthat€he€and€he€alone€killed€the€victim.€€Thus,€we€must€determine€whether€there€isÏsufficient€evidence€that€the€defendant€acted€knowingly€but€not€in€self„defense.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€strongly€supportsÏthat€the€defendant€acted€knowingly.€€He€engaged€the€victim€in€an€argument€thatÏescalated€from€words€to€physical€force.€€Rather€than€walk€away€when€he€had€theÏchance,€he€stayed€in€the€apartment€and€brutally€assaulted€the€victim.€€He€continuedÏthe€assault€even€though€the€victim€was€not€really€fighting€back.€€It€is€apparent€fromÏthe€number€and€severity€of€the€injuries€described€by€Dr.€King€that€the€assault€wasÏviolent€and€of€some€duration.€€The€injuries€included€blows€to€the€head€and€crushing„¼type€injuries€to€the€chest.€€After€the€defendant€incapacitated€the€victim,€he€failed€toÏsummon€medical€assistance€which€might€have€saved€her€life.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWith€respect€to€the€defendant's€self„defense€claim,€we€begin€ourÏanalysis€by€noting€that€Ô‡X‚wXX X‚wÔself„defense€is€a€general€defense€under€the€Criminal€Code.€Ð à.€%( ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„11„203(a),€„601,€„611€(1997).€€òòBut€seeóó€òòState€v.€RichardÐ À0`'* ÐEdward€Brownóó,€No.€01C01„9301„CC„00027,€slip€op.€at€ñì%ñœñì%ñ4ñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð  2@), ÐNashville,€Aug.€26,€1993)€(characterizing€self€defense€as€an€affirmative€ñì%ñœñì%ñdefense),Ð €4 +. Ðòòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).ñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€€When€a€general€defense€is€"fairly€raised,"€theÐ `6-0 Ðstate€must€disprove€its€applicability€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðððð€39„11„203(c),€(d),€„201(a)(3)€(1997);€òòState€v.€Culpóó,€900€S.W.2d€707,€710€(Tenn.Ð  :À04 ÐCrim.€App.€1994).€Clearly,Ô#† X‚wXXX‚wbT#Ô€the€jury€found€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€stateÐ `  Ðhad€met€its€burden.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Fugateóó,€776€S.W.2d€541,€545€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð @ à Ð1988)€("Whether€a€homicide€is€excusable€because€done€in€defense€of€personÏpresents€a€classic€question€for€jury€determination.")€(citations€omitted).€€The€recordÏstrongly€supports€the€jury's€conclusion.€€The€defendant€testified€that€the€victim€didÏnot€really€fight€back.€€The€defendant€was€physically€strong,€and€the€victim€had€bothÏphysical€and€mental€ñì%ñœñì%ñfrailties.ñì%ñ›ñì%ñÌà ` àÌà ` àà ¸ àñì%ñœñì%ñIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€proof€fails€to€justify€theÏkilling€of€the€victim€and€supports€a€conviction€of€murder€in€the€second€degree.ñì%ñ›ñì%ñÌÌà@àà,àò òIIó óˆÐ   Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€second€issue€before€the€court,€the€defendant€complains€of€theÏtrial€court's€admission€of€evidence€during€the€state's€case„in„chief€of€alleged€priorÏabuse€the€defendant€inflicted€on€the€victim.€€He€generally€attacks€the€evidence€asÏbeing€far€more€prejudicial€than€probative.€€Second,€he€attacks€the€court's€rulingÏallowing€the€state€to€cross„examine€him€about€his€alleged€vaginal€and€anal€rape€ofÏthe€victim€with€a€metal€pipe€and€further€allowing€the€state€to€offer€corroborativeÏmedical€and€shelter€ñì%ñœñì%ñrecords€asñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€rebuttal€evidence.€He€claims€this€was€a€collateralÏissue€and€its€admission€was€violative€of€his€right€to€due€process.€€The€state€defendsÏadmission€of€the€alleged€prior€instances€of€non„sexual€abuse€during€the€state'sÏcase„in„chief€to€show€motive€and€intent.€€The€state€also€argues€that€cross„examiningÏthe€defendant€about€the€alleged€rape€was€proper€impeachment€evidence€to€rebutÏthe€defendant's€claims€of€self„defense,€lack€of€intent€to€harm€the€victim€and€mistakeÏor€accident.€€Further,€the€state€argues,€even€if€the€sexual€assault€evidence€wasÏadmitted€in€error,€it€was€harmless€error.ÌÐ  :À04 Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€issue€ofÏadmissibility€of€the€prior€abuse€evidence€ñì%ñœñì%ñbefore€the€court€seatedñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€the€jury.€€TheÏproposed€evidence€took€two€forms.€€First,€the€state€planned€to€offer€testimony€of€theÏvictim's€daughters€and€Sister€Repasky.€€The€daughters€would€testify€about€theirÏeyewitness€observations€of€the€defendant€abusing€the€victim€and€the€efforts€theÏdaughters€exerted€to€assist€their€mother€in€moving€from€Ohio€to€Chattanooga€onÏmultiple€occasions€to€get€away€from€the€defendant.€€Sister€Repasky€would€testifyÏabout€her€observations€of€the€victim's€injuries€while€the€victim€was€at€the€women'sÏshelter.€€Second,€the€state€proposed€to€offer€the€records€from€the€victim's€medicalÏtreatment€and€women's€shelter€stays€which€contained€the€victim's€hearsayÏdeclarations€about€the€defendant's€abuse€of€her.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defense€specifically€objected€to€the€admission€of€two€sets€ofÏrecords€from€Akron€(Ohio)€General€Medical€Center€and€the€Battered€Women'sÏShelter€as€proof€that€the€defendant€had€abused€the€victim.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€defense€contendedÐ  #@ Ðthe€documentary€evidence€should€not€be€admitted€because€(1)€the€defendant€couldÏnot€cross„examine€the€declarant/victim,€(2)€the€medical€records€reflect€the€victim'sÏstatement€that€her€assailant€was€"her€boyfriend"€without€specifically€naming€theÏdefendant,€although€"Ray€Nelson,€boyfriend"€is€listed€as€the€victim's€next€of€kinÏelsewhere€in€the€medical€records,€and€the€victim€may€have€had€more€than€oneÏboyfriend,׃P×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€(3)€the€victim's€alleged€statements€in€the€records€did€not€fall€intoÐ à.€%( Ðrecognized€hearsay€exceptions,€and€(4)€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€wasÐ À0`'* Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Notably,€the€defense€neverÏspecifically€contended€at€the€pretrial€hearing€that€the€victim's€reports€wereÏinaccurate€as€to€the€nature€of€the€injuries€inflicted.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€determined€the€evidence€was€relevant€and€probative€ofÏintent,€identity€and€absence€of€accident.€€It€found€the€medical€records€documentingÏthe€victim's€reports€of€the€abuse€admissible€under€three€hearsay€exceptions€„„Ïexcited€utterance,€then€existing€mental,€emotional€or€physical€condition,€andÏstatement€for€purposes€of€medical€diagnosis€and€treatment.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð ` Ð803(2),€(3),€(4).€€€On€the€other€hand,€the€court€found€the€alleged€rape€with€the€metalÏpipe€"extremely€prejudicial."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403,€404(b)(3).€€The€court€ruledÐ  À Ðthat€all€of€the€evidence€except€the€alleged€òòrapeóó€with€the€metal€pipe€would€beÐ   Ðallowed.€€The€court€specifically€allowed€evidence€of€an€alleged€òòbeatingóó€with€a€metalÐ à€ Ðpipe.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€order€to€allow€admission€of€the€documentary€evidence€in€conformity€withÐ À!` Ðits€ruling,€the€court€ordered€redaction€of€references€to€the€alleged€rape.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àDuring€the€defendant's€cross„examination,€he€testified€that€many€of€theÏsituations€of€domestic€abuse€which€occurred€through€the€years€were€"mutual„type"Ïoccurrences.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€denied€ever€striking€the€victim€with€a€pipe.€ÏHe€said€the€victim€would€provoke€him€by€ñì%ñœñì%ñurinatingñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€on€the€floor€and€then€come€at€himÏwith€a€knife€when€he€said€something€about€it.€€Immediately€following€this€testimony,Ïthe€state€asked€the€court€to€revisit€its€ruling€about€the€alleged€pipe€rape.€€The€courtÏdecided€to€allow€admission€of€this€evidence€in€"light€of€[the€defendant's]€responseÏthat€this€.€.€.€was€a€mutual€thing€and€she€started€it€as€much€as€he€did."€ÌÐ `6-0 Ðà ` àà ¸ àWhen€asked€about€the€sexual€assault€on€further€cross„examination,Ïthe€defendant€denied€the€event.€€He€explained€the€victim's€physical€findingsÏdocumented€in€the€medical€records€as€resulting€from€consensual€sex,€rather€thanÏrape€with€a€pipe.€€On€redirect€examination,€the€defendant€said€that€no€one€from€theÏhospital€or€shelter€had€ever€asked€his€side€of€the€story€regarding€the€alleged€rape.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFollowing€ñ&ñœñ&ñthisñî%ñ€testñî%ññï%ññî%ñomony€ñî%ññï%ññð%ñimony€and€añð%ññ&ñ›ñ&ññ&ññ&ñ€ruling€by€the€trial€court,€the€stateÏñ&ñœñ&ñenteredññ%ñ€into€evidence,€in€unredacted€form,ññ%ññ&ñ›ñ&ñ€the€medical€and€shelter€records€of€theÏalleged€rape€ñ&ñœñ&ññò%ñinto€evidence.׃8×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñò%ññó%ñwhich€had€previoñó%ññô%ññó%ñlñó%ññô%ññõ%ñusly€been€introduñõ%ññö%ññõ%ñtñõ%ññö%ññ÷%ñcñ÷%ññø%ññ÷%ñtedñ÷%ññø%ññù%ñed€in€redacted€form.ñù%ññ&ñ›ñ&ññ&ññ&ñÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€will€consider€the€evidence€in€three€categories€„„€(a)€evidence€ofÏnon„sexual€abuse€about€which€the€defendant€did€not€challenge€veracity,€(2)Ïevidence€of€non„sexual€abuse€about€which€the€defendant€challenged€the€veracity,Ïand€(2)€evidence€of€sexual€abuse.ÌÌà@ÐÐ-àò òAó óˆÐ €%  Ðà ` àà ¸ àFirst,€we€must€consider€the€admissibility€ñì%ñœñì%ñof€theñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€ñì%ñœñì%ñstateððsñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€ñì%ñœñì%ñcase„in„chiefÏevidenceñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€of€abuse€of€a€non„sexual€nature€for€which€the€defendant€made€no€veracityÏchallenge.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€a€general€proposition,€evidence€of€a€defendant's€character€or€a€traitÏof€his€character€is€not€admissible€to€prove€that€he€committed€the€crime€in€question.€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€404.€€However,€evidence€of€a€defendant's€prior€crimes,€wrongs€orÏacts€may€be€admissible€to€show€such€other€things€as€ñì%ñœñì%ñintent,ñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€knowledge,€ñì%ñœñì%ñidentity,ñì%ñ›ñì%ñÏcompletion€of€the€story,€opportunity€and€preparation.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b);€Neil€P.ÏCohen,€Sarah€Y.€Sheppeard,€and€Donald€F.€Paine,€Tennessee€Law€of€Evidence€ððÏ404.6€(3d€ed.€1995).€€In€order€for€€a€defendant's€prior€crimes,€wrongs€or€acts€to€beÐ  :À04 Ðadmitted,€the€rule€specifies€three€prerequisites:ÌÓÓà8 ` à(1)à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àThe€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€jury'sÐ @ à Ðpresence;Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` à(2)à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àThe€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€otherÐ  À Ðthan€conduct€conforming€with€a€character€trait€and€must€uponÏrequest€state€on€the€record€the€material€issue,€the€ruling,€andÏthe€reasons€for€admitting€the€evidence;€and,Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` à(3)à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àThe€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€isÐ à€ Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€€404(b).€€A€fourth€prerequisite€to€admission€is€that€the€court€find€byÏclear€and€convincing€evidence€the€defendant€committed€ñì%ñœñì%ñthe€priorñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€crime.€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€404,€Advisory€Comm'n€Comment;€òòState€v.€DuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€ñì%ñœñì%ñ654ñì%ñ›ñì%ñÐ p Ð(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299,€ñì%ñœñì%ñ303ñì%ñ›ñì%ñ€(Tenn.€1985).Ð Pð ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€reviewing€a€trial€court's€decision€to€admit€or€exclude€evidence,€anÏappellate€court€may€disturb€the€lower€court's€ruling€only€if€there€has€been€an€abuseÏof€discretion.€€òòDuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€ñì%ñœñì%ñ652;€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€785€S.W.2d€132,€134Ð Ð p Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€Where,€as€here,€the€trial€court€has€been€called€to€passÏupon€the€admissibility€of€evidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs€or€acts€under€RuleÏ404(b),€its€determination€is€entitled€to€deference€only€if€it€has€substantially€compliedÏwith€the€procedural€requisites€of€Rule€404(b).€€òòDuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€652.€Ð P(ð! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIt€is€apparent€from€the€record€that€the€trial€court€held€hearings€outsideÏthe€jury's€presence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)(1).€€Likewise,€it€determined€that€aÏmaterial€issue€other€than€conduct€conforming€with€a€character€trait€of€the€defendantÏexisted,€and€it€stated€the€material€issues,€its€ruling,€and€its€reasons€for€admitting€theÏevidence€on€the€record.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)(2).€€The€court€also€assessed,€weÏbelieve€correctly,€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€versus€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice€from€its€admission.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)(3).€€However,€we€see€noÏevidence€of€record€that€the€trial€court€determined€by€clear€and€convincing€evidenceÐ 09Ð/3 Ðthat€the€defendant€committed€the€prior€assaults€against€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð `  ÐEvid.€404,€Advisory€Comm'n€Comment;€òòDuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€654;€òòPartonóó,€694Ð @ à ÐS.W.2d€at€303.€€Therefore,€the€first€question€becomes€whether€there€has€beenÏ"substantial€compliance"€with€the€procedural€prerequisites€of€the€rule.€€òòSeeóó€òòDuBoseóó,Ð   Ð953€S.W.2d€at€652.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€hold€that€there€was€substantial€compliance.€€Although€the€trialÏcourt€failed€to€make€a€finding€that€the€evidence€clearly€and€convincingly€showed€thatÏthe€alleged€events€occurred,€it€appears€there€was€no€real€question€in€that€regard.€ÏThe€defendant€did€not€contest€the€veracity€of€the€eyewitnesses'€proposed€testimonyÏand€voiced€no€specific€objection€to€the€accuracy€of€victim's€injuries€as€recorded€inÏthe€documentary€evidence.€€He€admitted€to€years€of€abusing€the€victim€during€hisÏtestimony.€€He€further€admitted€some€of€this€abuse€had€caused€the€victim€to€seekÏhospital€treatment€and€admission€to€a€shelter.€€His€only€denial€was€that€he€ever€hitÏor€sexually€assaulted€the€victim€with€a€metal€pipe.€€There€being€no€real€issue€thatÏthe€events€other€than€the€alleged€metal€pipe€incident€actually€occurred,€we€believeÏthe€trial€court's€findings€substantially€comply€with€the€procedural€prerequisites.ÏAccordingly,€our€review€of€the€admission€of€this€evidence€is€subject€to€theÏdeferential€abuse€of€discretion€standard.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àMoreover,€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€court's€admissionÏof€the€evidence.€€The€testimony€during€the€state's€case„in„chief€of€witnesses€whoÏhad€seen€the€defendant€physically€abuse€the€victim€and€who€had€observed€theÏvictim's€physical€injuries€was€relevant€and€probative€of€the€defendant's€intent€toÏcommit€the€crime€of€murder.ñì%ññ&ññú%ñœñú%ññ&ññú%ññ&ñ׃×ñ&ññ&ñ׃)×ñ&ññú%ññú%ñ׃&×ñú%ññì%ññì%ñ׃×ñì%ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñ&ñ›ñ&ñ€€€Likewise,€the€records€further€documenting€these€priorÐ `6-0 Ðinstances€of€abuse€were€highly€probative.€€"[V]iolent€acts€indicating€the€relationshipÏbetween€the€victim€of€a€violent€crime€and€the€defendant€prior€to€the€commission€ofÏthe€offense€are€relevant€to€show€the€defendantððs€hostility€toward€the€victim,€malice,Ïintent,€and€a€settled€purpose€to€harm€the€victim."€€ñ&ñœñ&ññù%ñòòóóñù%ñòòStateñ&ñ›ñ&ñ€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,Ð   Ð574€(Tenn.€1993);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Leon€Barnett€Collieróó,€No.€03C01„9602„CR„Ð à€ Ð00072,€slip€op.€at€18€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Jan.€13,€1997)€(defendant's€priorÏviolent€acts€toward€murder€victim€relevant€and€probative€of€motive€and€intent),€òòperm.Ð  @  Ðapp.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð €  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€high€probative€value€of€this€evidence€was€not€outweighed€by€theÏdanger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€The€jury€was€properly€instructed€not€to€consider€theÏevidence€as€indicative€that€the€defendant€acted€in€conformity€with€a€character€traitÏor€his€propensity€for€such€action.€€Significantly,€this€was€not€a€case€in€which€theÏpresentation€of€prior€bad€act€evidence€posed€the€danger€that€the€jury€mightÏimproperly€conclude€that€the€defendant€was€the€person€who€committed€the€crimeÏin€question€because€he€had€committed€a€similar€wrong€against€the€victim€in€theÏpast.€€Here€the€defendant€admitted€he€killed€the€victim.€€€Moreover,€the€trial€courtÐ `'  Ðcorrectly€found€the€evidence€admissible€under€exceptions€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€TheÏtrial€court€acted€within€its€discretion€in€admitting€this€evidence.ÌÌà@ÐÐ-àò òBó óˆÐ   Ðà ` àà ¸ àNext,€we€consider€the€evidence€of€prior€abuse€about€which€theÏdefendant€mounted€a€veracity€challenge€at€the€pretrial€hearing.€€The€evidence€toÏwhich€the€defendant€did€mount€a€veracity€challenge€was€that€of€the€alleged€assaultÏwith€a€pipe,€both€sexual€and€non„sexual.€€However,€the€trial€court€allowed€only€the€Ïevidence€of€the€non„sexual€pipe€assault€as€part€of€the€state's€case„in„chief,€and€weÏconsider€only€the€propriety€of€that€evidence€in€this€section€of€this€opinion.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€pretrial€hearing,€the€defense€objected€to€the€admission€of€theÏtwo€sets€of€medical€records€from€Akron€General€Medical€Center€and€the€BatteredÏWomen's€Shelter.€€The€trial€court€found€the€evidence€material€on€an€issue€otherÏthan€conduct€conforming€with€a€character€trait€of€the€defendant,€and€it€found€the€Ïprobative€value€greater€than€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€However,€the€courtÏmade€no€finding€that€the€evidence€clearly€and€convincingly€established€that€thisÏabuse€occurred.€€In€the€pretrial€hearing€the€defense€contended€the€victim€may€haveÏbeen€referring€to€a€boyfriend€other€than€the€defendant€when€she€reported€to€hospitalÏand€shelter€personnel€that€her€boyfriend€inflicted€these€injuries.€€At€trial,€theÏdefendant€denied€inflicting€injuries€with€a€metal€pipe.€€Thus,€the€determination€thatÏthe€defendant€committed€the€prior€acts€documented€in€the€medical€records€was€aÏcontested€issue.€€Given€this€situation,€we€do€not€see€substantial€compliance€with€theÏprocedural€prerequisites€of€Rule€404(b)€and€òòDuBoseóó€in€determining€whether€theÐ €4 +. Ðevidence€was€admissible€during€the€state's€case„in„chief.€€The€question€becomes,Ïthen,€whether€the€trial€court€nevertheless€reached€the€proper€conclusion.ÌÐ  :À04 Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€reviewing€the€medical€records€from€Akron€General€Medical€CenterÏand€the€Battered€Women's€Shelter€for€the€time€period€relevant€to€the€alleged€assaultÏwith€the€pipe,€we€find€it€noteworthy€that€the€victim€identified€her€assailant€as€herÏboyfriend€in€the€hospital€records.€€In€another€place€in€the€hospital€records,€sheÏidentified€the€defendant€as€her€boyfriend.€€She€reported€at€the€Battered€Women'sÏShelter€that€she€was€abused€by€her€boyfriend,€with€whom€she€had€been€involvedÏfor€ten€years.€€The€information€about€the€length€of€the€victim's€relationship€with€herÏboyfriend€is€inconsistent€with€her€long„term€romantic€relationship€with€the€defendant.€ÏWe€also€find€it€noteworthy€that€the€trial€court€admitted€portions€of€this€evidenceÏunder€€hearsay€exceptions€for€excited€utterance,€then€existing€mental,€emotional€orÏphysical€condition,€and€statement€for€purposes€of€medical€diagnosis€and€treatment.€ÏA€common€thread€among€these€three€hearsay€exceptions€is€the€belief€that€theseÏtypes€of€statements€are€trustworthy€because€of€the€declarant's€frame€of€mind€orÏmotive€in€speaking.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Neil€P.€Cohen,€Sarah€Y.€Sheppeard,€and€DonaldÐ À!` ÐF.€Paine,€Tennessee€Law€of€Evidence€ðððð€803(2).1,€803(3).2,€803(4).1€(3d€ed.Ï1995).€€We€believe€that€the€trial€court's€finding€that€these€statements€fit€within€theseÏhearsay€exceptions€affords€them€an€enhanced€level€of€reliability.€€When€thisÏenhanced€reliability€in€the€victim's€declarations€that€she€received€certain€injuries€atÏthe€hands€of€her€boyfriend€is€coupled€with€the€strong€circumstantial€evidence€thatÏthe€defendant€is€the€boyfriend€to€whom€the€victim€was€referring,€the€result€is€clearÏand€convincing€evidence€that€the€defendant€committed€the€prior€assault€of€theÏvictim.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àHad€the€trial€court€made€an€appropriate€finding€that€the€defendant'sÏprior€pipe€assault€of€the€victim€was€established€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence,Ïthis€would€only€buttress€its€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€the€pipe€assault€incident.€ÏThe€trial€court€found€the€evidence€of€this€incident€material€on€an€issue€other€thanÐ  :À04 Ðconduct€conforming€with€a€character€trait€of€the€defendantñì%ñ׃!×ñì%ññì%ñ׃×ñì%ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€its€probative€value€Ð `  Ðwas€not€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€We€agree.€€This€was€but€oneÏother€incident€in€a€long€history€of€violent,€abusive€behavior€by€the€defendant€againstÏthe€victim.€€We€fail€to€see€how€the€evidence€of€one€additional€incident€of€the€non„¼sexual€portion€of€this€alleged€assault€prejudiced€the€defendant.ÌÌà@ÐÐ-àò òCó óˆÐ  @  Ðà ` àà ¸ àFinally,€we€must€consider€the€court's€ruling€allowing€the€state€to€cross„¼examine€the€defendant€about€the€alleged€pipe€rape€and€offer€documentary€evidence€Ïin€rebuttal.ñì%ñ׃2p×ñì%ññì%ñ׃p×ñì%ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€rationalized€that€this€evidence€should€be€admitted€inÐ @à Ð"light€of€[the€defendant's]€response€that€this€.€.€.€was€a€mutual€thing€and€she€startedÏit€as€much€as€he€did."€ò òÐ   ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àó óWe€disagree€with€the€trial€court's€decision€to€allow€the€cross„Ð À!` Ðexamination€and€admit€the€unredacted€records.ò ò€€ó ó"Relevant€evidence"€is€thatÐ  #@ Ðevidence€which€has€"any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofÏconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€thanÏit€would€be€without€the€evidence."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€401.€€Only€relevant€evidence€isÏadmissible.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€The€defendant's€alleged€rape€of€the€victim€with€aÏforeign€object€does€nothing€to€make€it€more€probable€or€less€probable€that€the€victimÏengaged€in€mutual€combat€with€the€defendant€or€that€the€victim€was€the€firstÏaggressor€in€such€confrontations.Ð À0`'* Їà ` àà ¸ àMoreover,€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€victim€was€the€first€ñì%ñagressorñì%ññì%ñaggressorñì%ñÏat€the€time€of€the€fatal€conflict,€the€evidence€of€the€specific€incident€of€rape€was€notÏindependently€admissible€when€offered€by€the€state€to€rebut€ñä%ñdefenñä%ññå%ññä%ñeñä%ññå%ñsñæ%ñeñæ%ñ€claims€ñç%ñthatñç%ññè%ñ€ñè%ññç%ñÏñç%ñthe€victim€was€the€first€ñì%ñagressorñì%ññì%ñaggressorñì%ñ.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a)(2),€405;€òòState€v.€Ruaneóó,Ð   Ð912€S.W.2d€766,€781€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(evidence€of€prior€violence€involvingÏthe€victim€ñé%ñheld€ñé%ñinadmissible€under€rules€404(a)(2)€and€405€ð ðif€offered€for€anything€moreÏthan€mere€corroborationðð€of€the€defendantððs€claim€that€the€victim€was€the€firstÏñì%ñagressorñì%ññì%ñaggressorñì%ñ);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€885€S.W.2d€357,€362€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);Ð €  ÐòòState€v.€Rayóó,€880€S.W.2d€700,€705„06€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Nor€was€theÐ ` Ðevidence€independently€admissible€as€impeachment€by€contradiction€of€theÏdefendant€as€a€witness,€as€the€trial€court€in€itñê%ñsñê%ñ€comments€seems€to€suggest.€ÏòòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€403,€607;€Neil€P.€ñ&ñœñ&ñCohen,ñ&ñ€ñ&ññ&ñ€Sarah€Y.€Sheppeardñ&ññ&ñ€&ñ&ññ&ñ›ñ&ñ€Donald€F.Ð   ÐPaine,€ñ&ñœñ&ññ&ñ&ñ&ññÿ%ñ€Sarah€Y.Ð   ÐSheppeardñÿ%ññ&ñ,›€ñ&ñòòTennesseeñ&ñ›ñ&ññ&ññ&ñ€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðððð€607.3ñë%ñ,€613.5ñë%ñ€(1995)€(discussing€the€TennesseeÐ à€ Ðð ðcollateral€evidenceðð€rule€that€limits€impeachment€by€fact€contradiction€on€collateralÏissues€to€cross„examination€of€the€witness);€òòState€v.€Perkinsonóó,€867€S.W.2d€1,€6„7Ð  #@ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€òòState€v.€Terry€Bowenóó,€No.€01C01„9505„CC„00158€(Tenn.Ð €%  ÐCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€Aug.€1,€1996).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àHowever,€we€are€convinced€that€the€admission€of€this€evidence€wasÏharmless€error.€The€defendant€admitted€he€killed€the€victim.€€The€question€for€theÏjury€was€not€the€identity€of€the€killer,€but€the€defendant's€mental€state€at€the€time€ofÏthe€crime.€€The€evidence€that€the€defendant's€acts€were,€at€a€minimum,€"knowing"Ïwas€overwhelming.€€The€victim's€daughters€testified€about€the€years€of€abuse€theyÏwitnessed€the€defendant€inflict€on€the€victim.€€Furthermore,€the€defendant€wasÏcharged€with€first€degree€murder,€but€the€jury€convicted€him€of€second€degreeÏâ âmurder,€which€undercuts€any€argument€that€the€jury€was€so€inflamed€by€thisÐ @8à.2 Ðevidence€that€it€failed€to€weigh€the€evidence€and€return€a€just€verdict.ñì%ñ׃×ñì%ññì%ñ׃×ñì%ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð `  Ðâ âÌà ` àà@ÄÄ,àò òIIIó óˆÐ  À Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€third€issue,€the€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€improperlyÏallowed€Sister€Repasky€to€testify€as€an€expert€witness€on€domestic€violence.€€WeÏfind€both€parties'€contention€that€Sister€Repasky€was€allowed€to€testify€as€an€expertÏsomewhat€mystifying.€€Extensive€òòvoir€direóóò ò€ó ówas€conducted,€culminating€in€the€courtÐ  @  Ðruling€that€Sister€Repasky€could€testify€as€an€expert€on€domestic€violence€but€notÏbattered€woman€syndrome.€€However,€when€the€jury€returned,€the€state€neverÏoffered€Sister€Repasky€as€an€expert€witness.€€Moreover,€the€bulk€of€SisterÏRepasky's€testimony€concerned€factual€matters€such€as€the€contents€of€the€victim'sÏshelter€records€and€the€witness'€recollection€of€the€victim's€stays€at€the€shelter.€€TheÏstate€elicited€statistical€evidence€about€domestic€abuse,€and€the€defense€offered€noÏobjection.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€the€defense€established€that€Sister€RepaskyÏcould€not€cite€to€the€source€of€some€of€the€statistical€evidence€given€during€herÏdirect€examination.€€The€defense€also€asked€Sister€Repasky€questions€based€uponÏher€years€of€experience€in€dealing€with€the€victims€of€domestic€abuse.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAfter€Sister€Repasky€testified,€the€court€went€so€far€as€to€remind€theÏprosecutor€that€she€had€not€qualified€the€witness€as€an€expert,€and€the€prosecutorÐ À0`'* Ðindicated€she€had€abandoned€more€extensive€examination€of€Sister€RepaskyÏbecause€the€jury€looked€tired.ÌÌò òà ` àà ¸ àó óAlthough€the€trial€court€òòallowedóó€the€state€to€offer€Sister€Repasky€as€anÐ   Ðexpert€witness,€the€state€never€did€so.€Because€Sister€Repasky€was€never€tenderedÏas€an€expert€witness,€we€find€no€justiciable€issue€in€the€defendant's€claim€that€theÏtrial€court€improperly€allowed€her€to€testify€as€an€expert€witness.€€Additionally,€weÏfind€it€noteworthy€that€the€only€evidence€which€arguably€might€require€expertÏqualification€(i.e.€the€statistical€evidence€and€the€testimony€based€upon€the€witness'Ïexperience)€was€either€not€objected€to€or€elicited€by€the€defense.€ò òÐ @à ÐÌó óà@¹¹,àò òIVó óˆÐ   Ðà ` àà ¸ àThe€final€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€imposed€an€excessiveÏsentence€of€25€years,€the€maximum€sentence€for€second€degree€murder.€Ô‡X‚wXX X‚wÔ€InÐ À!` Ðdetermining€whether€the€trial€court€has€properly€sentenced€an€individual,€this€courtÏengages€in€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€trial€court'sÐ €%  Ðdeterminations€were€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€ThisÏpresumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€conductingÐ - #& Ðour€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€must€consider€the€evidence€at€sentencing,€the€presentenceÐ à.€%( Ðreport,€the€sentencing€principles,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€the€statements€of€theÏdefendant,€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€any€mitigating€andÏenhancement€factors,€and€the€defendantððs€amenability€to€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðððð€40„35„210(b),€40„35„103(5)€(1997);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168.€€Ô#† X‚wXXX‚w£»#ÔÔ‡X‚wXX X‚wÔOn€appeal,Ð `6-0 Ðthe€appellant€has€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€imposed€is€improper.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d),€Sentencing€Comm'n€Comments€(1997);€òòAshbyóó,Ð  :À04 Ð823€S.W.2d€at€169.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€find€that€the€trial€court€conducted€its€sentencing€determinationÏunder€the€statutory€framework;€therefore,€its€determination€is€entitled€to€theÏpresumption€of€correctness.Ô#† X‚wXXX‚wÍ¿#ÔÔ‡X‚wXX X‚wÔÐ à€ ÐÌÔ#† X‚wXXX‚w¿Á#Ôà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€find€anyÐ  @  Ðmitigating€factors.€€In€his€brief,€the€defendant€recites€many€factors€he€believesÏshould€have€been€applied.€€First,€the€defendant€turned€himself€in,€gave€a€voluntaryÏstatement,€and€cooperated€fully€with€the€authorities.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð @à Ð113(13)€(1997).€€The€defendant€had€tremendous€remorse€and€potential€forÏrehabilitation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13)€(1997).€€The€defendant€hadÐ   Ðreceived€significant€prior€injury€from€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð à€ Ð114(3),€(4)€(1997).€€The€defendant€had€positive€aspects€to€his€life€as€evidenced€byÏthe€character€reference€letters€introduced€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð  #@ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13)€(1997).€€We€fail€to€find€merit€in€any€of€these€arguments.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFirst,€we€disagree€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€decision€not€toÏmitigate€the€defendant's€sentence€because€he€assisted€the€authorities.€€TheÏdefendant's€actions€came€far€too€late€to€help€the€victim.€€By€the€time€he€turnedÏhimself€in,€the€victim€had€been€dead€for€well€over€a€week.€€The€defendant€hadÏalready€been€identified€as€the€perpetrator,€and€an€arrest€warrant€had€been€issued.€ÏThus,€his€"cooperation"€was€of€limited€assistance€to€the€authorities.€€òòCfóó.€òòState€v.Ð  2@), ÐAaron€V.€Yelloweyesóó,€No.€01C01„9407„CC„00256,€slip€op.€at€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð €4 +. ÐNashville,€May€11,€1995)€(mitigating€factor€that€defendant€assisted€authorities€inÏlocating€or€recovering€person€or€property€involved€in€crime€of€slight€value€whereÏthere€was€delay€in€defendant's€assistance€in€leading€authorities€to€site€whereÐ  :À04 Ðvictim's€body€was€buried),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).€€òòBut€seeóó€òòState€v.€Gilboyóó,Ð `  Ð857€S.W.2d€884,€889€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(sentence€mitigated€becauseÏdefendant€assisted€authorities).€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€rejected€the€defendant's€bid€for€mitigation€based€onÏremorse€and€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€The€court€found€the€evidence€of€remorseÏincredible.ñì%ñ׃×ñì%ññì%ñ׃×ñì%ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Likewise,€the€court€found€the€defendant's€crime€was€"totallyÐ  @  Ðñ&ñœñ&ñunnecessary,ñ&ñððñ&ññ&ñ›ñ&ñ€that€the€defendant€was€a€violent€man,€and€there€was€a€lengthyÏhistory€of€abuse€by€the€defendant€against€the€victim.€€The€trial€court€is€in€a€positionÏsuperior€to€that€of€this€court€to€observe€the€defendant's€mood€and€mannerisms.€ÏòòState€v.€Michael€Robinsonóó,€No.€03C01„9510„CC„00303,€slip€op.€at€24€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð  À ÐApp.,€Knoxville,€June€24,€1997),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998).€€We€decline€toÐ   Ðdisturb€the€trial€court's€finding.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€also€rejected€the€defendant's€contention€that€hisÏsentence€should€be€mitigated€because€he€had€received€previous€serious€injury€fromÏthe€victim.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€was€a€strong€man€and€simplyÏcould€have€chosen€to€walk€away€from€the€victim.€€The€defendant€has€failed€toÏovercome€the€presumed€correctness€of€this€finding.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFinally,€it€is€apparent€that€the€trial€court€was€unpersuaded€by€theÏdefendant's€character€references.€€As€previously€stated,€he€found€that€there€was€noÏreason€for€the€defendant€to€have€killed€the€victim.€€The€defendant€had€abused€theÏvictim€for€years.€€The€defendant€had€serious€character€flaws,€and€the€trial€court€didÏnot€err€in€failing€to€apply€this€mitigating€factor.Ð `6-0 Їà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€gave€great€weight€to€the€two€enhancement€factors€itÏfound,€the€defendant's€past€history€of€criminal€behavior€and€the€exceptional€crueltyÏwith€which€the€defendant€treated€the€victim€during€the€commission€of€her€murder.€ÏConsidering€the€heavy€weight€afforded€these€factors€and€the€absence€of€mitigatingÏfactors,€we€find€that€the€presumed€correctness€of€the€maximum€sentence€imposedÏby€the€trial€court€has€not€been€overcome€by€evidence€to€the€contrary.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€summary,€we€find€no€error€requiring€reversal€and€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ