WPCn  @1&CQifWR$ڼj Z-U dg># }l;öOK!RK]^ZppNRl'@Na-]jǪ$EA*<4N̟M vl{bk\f ΤtAVᾺ1MXj+|~J;bvI[aŏ шkԟłMP}ql) L>FVP.8z!ܸmH&#DL Kp_`<2]@zœ:9'f(u(Jb~AcHO@R'fxsL6U=fO-e&5C˭"v+-s۹g{Xojg]r:5&~;dl"Wt i(6kpΆ$q$VTkQ99,Y)# >UNI % 0(4U :U:"b\Ed(w@U:KU:S(U: AQ @ 0D 0DJ 0D D/ B B D3; HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($n~<$ @ d3|x ,cAZ"Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular- - ;  #Xd#    !"  XXXX XX   Ad FILEDXX    October26,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.hXXAppellateCourtClerk  D e D  U U Ӏ  ,cAZ"Arial Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular  !"  XXXX XX   Ad FILEDXX    October23,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.hXXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd !     4XXXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T H     r (<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$, r   r(<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$, r       @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE t(>.*jx` `@E@` ttx$& x tߛ *,XXXX* @ Q@(ATJACKSON34XDX,XXX3SEPTEMBER1998SESSION  `  ' 44XDX' 474STATEOFTENNESSEE, 7 )    4 747  7 )C.C.A.No.02C019801CC00030 Appellee, 7 )     7 )HenryCountyV. 7 ) n    7 )HonorableJulianP.Guinn,Judge   7 )  : DARRENLEEPARSONS,  7 )(AggravatedBurglary,Theft)  p   7 ) Appellant. 7 ) B 4c4 FORTHEAPPELLANT: c FORTHEAPPELLEE: p JimL.Fields c JohnKnoxWalkup < #XXXXM#XXXXAttorneyatLaw c AttorneyGeneral&Reporter "r 111  EWood  Street#XXXX#XXXX X   P.O.Box248   c PeterM.    Coughlan    >   Paris,TN3 8242  4018    c AssistantAttorneyGeneral $  c 425FifthAvenueNorth c Nashville,TN372430493 c Robert Gus    Radford    c DistrictAttorneyGeneral c 111ChurchStreet,P.O.Box686 c Huntingdon,TN383440686 c  StevenL.  Garrett    c AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral c P.O.Box94 c Paris,TN38242 c  c John  C.Sorrels   c AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral c P.O.Box503 c Camden,TN38320OPINIONFILED:___________________ AFFIRMED J617  PAULG.SUMMERS,  9R4: Judge  H  7XXdXXd7    H  #Xd#     44c ; 7=  H  7XXdXXd7    H  7&0XXdXXd7    #XXXX# XXXX   4 D4 Q(DOPINION    XXXX4 4 D  Theappellant,DarrenLeeParsons,wasconvictedbyajuryofaggravatedburglaryandtheft.Heappeals,challengingthesufficiencyoftheevidenceandtheproprietyofanevidentiaryrulingexcludingcertaindefensetestimony.Wefindnoerrorandaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.  Theproofattrialshowedthattheappellantandanaccomplice,EverettDanielLamb,brokeintothehomeofTimothyandJudyWalkerofParis,Tennessee.Thetwomenvandalizedthepropertyandstolestereoequipment,compactdisks,andothermiscellaneousitems.Lamblateradmittedhispartintheburglaryandbecameoneofthestateskeywitnesses#XXX XM#XXXXattheappellantstrial.#XXXXx# XXXXԀ z Ѐ  F  Theappellantfirstarguesthattheevidencewasinsufficienttoconvicthim.Thetestimonyattrial,hecontends,establishedatimelinewithinwhichitwouldnothavebeenpossiblefortheappellanttohavecommittedthesequenceofeventsdescribedbyvarioustrialwitnesses.Whenanappellantchallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidence,thisCourtmustdeterminewhether,afterviewingtheevidenceinalightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofacrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.SeeJacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,319(1979);Statev.Duncan,698S.W.2d (#( 63,67(Tenn.1985);Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).#XXX X#XXXXTheappelleeisentitledtoboththe r*%* strongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceandallreasonableinferencesthatmaybedrawntherefrom.SeeStatev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978).#XXXX.# XXXXԀ  .Z). Theweightandcredibilityofawitnessstestimonyaremattersentrustedexclusivelytothetrieroffact.SeeStatev.Sheffield,676S.W.2d542,547 1,2 (Tenn.1984).#XXX XR#XXXXԀ#XXXXt# XXXXAjuryverdictforthestateaccreditsthetestimonyofthestates n3.4 witnessesandresolvesallconflictsinfavorofthestate.SeeStatev.Williams, :506 657S.W.2d405,410(Tenn.1983).Moreover,guiltyverdictsremovethepresumptionofinnocenceenjoyedbydefendantsattrialandreplaceitwitha 8"4: presumptionofguilt.SeeStatev.Grace,493S.W.2d474,476(Tenn.1973).  Theappellantcarriestheburdenofovercomingthispresumptionofguilt.Seeid. | #XXX X,#XXXXԀ#XXXX# XXXX H  Throughthetestimonyofvariouswitnesses,evidencewaspresentedattrialastothesequenceandtimingofeventsonthenightoftheappellantscrime.Sometimebetweennineandtenoclockp.m.,theappellantandLamblefttheappellantshometocommittheburglary.Thedrivefromtheappellantshometothevictimshometakesbetweentenandfifteenminutes.Ontheway,thetwomenstoppedforanunspecifiedtimeatalocalhospitaltostealsomerubbergloves.Theyspentapproximatelythirtyminutesinsidethevictimshomeduringtheirinitialbreakinandthenreturnedtothehometwice,takingbetweentenandtwentyminuteseachtime.ThetwomenthenmadeatwentytotwentyfiveminutedrivetoLambsfathershometounloadsomeofthestolenproperty,arrivingthereatapproximately10:30p.m. Viewingthisevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothestateand,accordingly,takingthelowerendofeachoftheestimatedtimes,theentirecrimewouldhavetakenapproximatelyonehourandtwentyminutes.Theevidencewas,therefore,sufficientforthejurytohaveconcludedthattheappellantlefthishomeatorshortlyafternineoclockp.m.,completedthesequenceofeventsinvolvedintheburglary,andarrivedatthehomeofLambsfatherbyapproximately10:30p.m.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. Theappellantnextarguesthatthetrialcourterredinrefusingtopermittheappellantsmother,JoyceAnnKelley,totestifytoastatementallegedlymadebyLamb.Attrial,thetheoryoftheappellantsdefensewas,inpart,thathedidnotparticipateintheburglarybut,rather,onlyhelpedLambunloadsome  84:  ofthestolengoodsafterLambalonehadcommittedtheburglary.Butforthestatessustainedhearsayobjection,Ms.Kelleyapparentlywouldhavetestifiedthat,duringaphoneconversationwiththeappellantonthenightoftheburglary,sheoverheardLambasktheappellanttohelphimunloadastereo.Lambhadtestifiedoncrossexaminationduringthestatescasethathedidnotremembermakingsuchastatementbutthathe mighthave. TheappellantarguesthattheexclusionofMs.KelleysaccountofLambsallegedstatementviolatedtheappellantsrighttoconfrontthewitnessagainsthim,aswellashisrighttoputonwitnessesinhisdefense.Thusframed,thisissueiswithoutmerit.#XXX X #XXXXLamb,thedeclarantoftheexcludedstatement,testifiedat  theappellantstrialandwascrossexaminedbytheappellant.Theappellant,therefore,hadtheopportunitytoconfrontthewitnessagainsthim,aswellastheopportunitytobringoutfavorabletestimonyinhisdefense.#XXXX2## XXXXԀ (  Althoughnotdirectlyargued,eithertothisCourtorattrial,theappellantsuggeststhattheprofferedtestimonyshouldhavebeenadmittedasapriorinconsistentstatementforthelimitedpurposeofimpeachingLambsprevioustestimony.ThestatesobjectiontoMs.Kelleystestimonywassustainedonthebasisofthehearsayrule.#XXX X$#XXXXHearsayisdefinedas astatement,otherthanone &$"& madebythedeclarantwhiletestifyingatthetrialorhearing,offeredinevidencetoprovethetruthofthematterasserted.Tenn.R.Evid.801.Here,theprofferedevidencewasclearlyhearsayifofferedassubstantivepro ve  of thatLambdidinfactasktheappellanttohelphimunloadastereoandthus,inferentially,toprovethattheappellantdidnotparticipateintheburglary.Theappellantoffersnoexceptiontothehearsayrule,andnoneisapparenttotheCourt. Ontheotherhand,ifofferedforthelimitedpurposeofimpeachingthe declarant,extrinsicevidenceofapriorinconsistentstatementmaybe  7P28  admissible.SeeTenn.R.Evid.613(b).Inthepresentcase,thereissome   questionwhethertheexcludedtestimonythatLambaskedtheappellantforhelpwas inconsistentwithLambsprevioustestimonythathe mighthavemadesucharequest.#XXXXi&#XXXXNevertheless,weneednotdecidethisissue.Even  d assumingthattheexcludedtestimonyqualifiesasapriorinconsistentstatement,#XXXX*#XXXX theadmissibilityofevidencerestswithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt,    anditsdecisionsinthatregardwillbereversedonlybyashowingofanabuseofthatdiscretion.Inmanv.AluminumCo.ofAmerica,697S.W.2d350,354 D  (Tenn.Ct.App.1985).Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,weconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretion.Thestatementwashearsayonitsface,andappellantdidnotargueotherwiseattrial.Further,whileweconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnoterr,anyhypotheticalerrorwouldnotbeprejudicialgiventheevidencereviewed.#XXXX+# XXXX @  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.         4 cD4     c  ! 4 c4 cD!    4 4      __________________________ 95;  4 4 N    PAULG.SUMMERS,Judge 95; ЇCONCUR: 95; _____________________________DAVIDH.    WELLES   ,Judge_____________________________JOEG.    RILEY   ,Judge#X9XX X9.#