ÿWPCx% …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µLÝUB) U .k w@™ 4Ù í 0ˆü 0D„ È Î 0DÖ e  B$ A G 0JO 0T™ 0^í 0hK 0r³ 0|% D3¡ 0†Ô 0Z 0@ê 1u* 0dŸU>B)ADCj AM­ú²Æ„c$ç´ ´¿sv~‚vÓ AOÓ#Æ"$ 0Dè$ D/,% B[%˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi%ä2¼A`ArialTT íPîDïPðEñEòPó™ôÓ€UîÚƒç"\O3|x(8(2ç…$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°Òà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(+Ã$òòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÈ (3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý  dH2 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  Ô'ÿÿdxd2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$%&'()+, ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d77777Border 1dd€-8Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òOctober€24,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ¨Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ D ÒÒ ¦ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€6ôÔÔ€ÔOffered€for€this€purpose,€the€defendantððs€prior€statement€was€not€hearsay€because€it€was€notÏbeing€offered€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted€(or€not€asserted)€therein.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï801(c).Ì “Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ D ÒÒ ¦ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€6ôÔÔ€ÔThis€section€was€amended€in€1995€to€require€trial€judges€to€consider€the€presumptiveÏsentence€for€a€Class€A€felony€to€be€the€mid„point€range.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(Supp›.€1995).€ÏBecause€these€offenses€occurred€in€1993,€however,€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€be€sentenced€underÏprior€law€which€provided€that€the€presumptive€sentence€was€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€for€allÏclasses€of€felonies.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(1990).Ì zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ D ÒÒ ¦ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€6ôÔÔ€ÔThe€trial€court€appeared€to€recognize€that€factor€(12)€could€not€apply€to€the€conviction€forÏsecond„degree€murder.€€The€courtððs€verbal€ruling€is€not€entirely€clear.€€It€is€clear,€however,€that€in€theÏStateððs€notice€of€enhancement€factors,€it€requested€that€factors€(1),€(8),€(9),€(10)€and€(16)€apply€to€bothÏconvictions€and€that€the€additional€factor€(12)€be€applied€to€the€attempted€second„degree€murderÏconviction.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ D ÒÒ ¦ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€6ôÔÔ€ÔHe€was€convicted€of€this€charge€while€on€bond€for€the€current€charges.Ì ªÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÔ.(ƒPORTERFR.OPN(ÔPORTERFR.OPNÔ/  Ô ªÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÔ.(ƒPORTERFR.OPN(ÔPORTERFR.OPNÔ/  Ô Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òOctober€24,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€6ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÒ D ÒÒ ° ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÑ7€õ4XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßR€9:8A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àSEPTEMBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€œ03C01›„9606„CC„00238ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àANDERSON€COUNTYó óÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JAMES€B.€SCOTT,€JR.,ÌFREDERICK€R.€PORTER,à àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Attempted€second„degree€murder;Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€second„degree€murder)ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òCHARLES€L.€BEACHà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌó ó365€Market€St.à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÌó óClinton,€TN€€œ37716ò ò›Ìó ó(At€trial€and€on€appeal)à àò òà àà àà àMARVIN€E.€œCLEMENTS›,€JR.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAsst›.€Attorney€GeneralÌò òDEBORAH€MURPHY€BEACHó óà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ì365€Market€St.à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌClinton,€TN€€œ37716›à àà àà àà àÌœà à(At›€trial)à àà àà àò òà àà àœROBERT›€L.€œJOLLEY›,ÏJR.à àœó óà àà à›à àà àà àà àà àà àSpecial€ProsecutorÌò òDAVID€HILLà àà àà àà àà àà àœó óP.€O.›€Box€1468Ìœ301€E.€Broadwayà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€€37901„1468ÌNewport,€TN€€37821„3105Ìà à(At€trial)›à àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€œPEAY›,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ Ü ÑœÓ  Ó›à@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€charged€with€the€premeditated€murder€of€GeraldÏBrown,€the€felony€murder€of€Gerald€Brown,€and€the€attempted€premeditated€murderÏof€Jerome€Anderson.€€After€a€jury€trial,€he€was€convicted€of€the€second„degreeÏmurder€of€Gerald€Brown€and€attempted€second„degree€murder€of€Jerome€Anderson;Ïfollowing€the€verdict,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€charge€of€felony€murder.€€After€aÏhearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€toÏtwenty„five€years€incarceration€for€the€murder€offense€and€twelve€years€incarcerationÏon€the€attempted€murder€offense.€€The€sentences€were€run€consecutively.€€In€thisÏdirect€appeal,€the€defendant€raises€the€following€issues:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ Òœ1.à àThe›€sufficiency€of€the€evidence;ÌÓÓœ2.à àWhether›€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€defendantððsÏstatement;ÌÌœ3.à àWhether›€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€a€mistrial€afterÏhearing€€€€€€œà àtwo›€jurors€discussing€a€weapon;ÌÌœ4.à àImproper›€prosecutorial€argument€to€the€jury;ÌÌœ5.à àWhether›€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€admit€profferedÏdefense€œà àevidence›€which€would€have€ð ðimpeached€the€integrity€ofÏthe€à àœà àprosecution;ðð›€andÌÌœ6.à àThe›€propriety€of€his€sentence.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓUpon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€merit€to€any€of€the€defendantððs€issues€andÏaffirm€the€judgment€below.ÌÌà àà àOn€the€evening€of€February€26,€1993,€numerous€persons€had€gatheredÏin€an€area€near€the€œScarboro›€Community€œCenter€in€Oak€Ridge,€Tennessee.›€€AnÏargument€broke€out€œbetween›€Jerome€Anderson,€Andre€Porter€and€Robert€Smith.€ÏDuring€the€course€of€the€argument,€Anderson€pulled€out€a€pistol€and€shot€three€orÏfour€times€at€Andre€Porter,€causing€a€single€bullet€wound€to€Porterððs€neck.€€FollowingÏthese€shots,€Anderson€and€Smith€began€running€from€the€scene€toward€theÏCommunity€Center.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€was€in€the€vicinity€of€the€argument;€Porter€was€hisÏcousin.€€Several€eyewitnesses€testified€that,€after€Anderson€shot€Porter,€theÏdefendant€pulled€a€pistol€and€began€shooting€toward€the€direction€in€whichÏAnderson€and€Smith€were€running.€€Anderson€testified€that€he€had€looked€back€andÏseen€the€defendant€shooting€at€him.€€Gerald€Brown€was€proceeding€in€the€sameÏdirection€as€Anderson€and€Smith,€but€on€a€path€that€put€him€between€them€and€theÏdefendant.€€He€was€killed€by€a€single€gunshot€wound€with€a€nine€millimeter€bullet.€ÏWitnesses€testified€that€the€defendant€had€shot€numerous€times;€the€police€laterÏfound€ten€nine€millimeter€shell€casings€in€the€area€in€which€the€defendant€wasÍalleged€to€have€been€standing€while€he€was€shooting.€€The€weapon€from€which€theÏfatal€bullet€was€fired€was€not€recovered.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€did€not€testify.€€However,€during€the€investigation€ofÏBrownððs€death,€he€made€a€voluntary€statement€œto€the€police€which›€was€admitted€intoÏevidence.€€This€statement€included€the€defendantððs€assertion€œthat,›€ð ðWhen€I€heard€andÏsaw€the€two€shots€fired€at€my€cousin,€I€looked€and€saw€that€[Anderson]€was€fixing€toÏtry€and€shoot€me.€€So€when€I€proceeded€to€run€he€shot€once€at€me€and€then€I€heardÏmany€other€shots€as€I€was€running.ðð€€Nowhere€in€his€statement€to€the€police€did€theÏdefendant€admit€that€he€had€fired€any€shots.€€However,€Angela€Brown,€the€murderÏvictimððs€sister,€testified€that€she€had€spoken€with€the€defendant€over€the€phone€afterÏher€brother€was€killed,€and€that€he€had€told€her€that€he€hadnððt€shot€at€her€brother€butÏhad€been€ð ðshooting€up€in€the€air.ðð€€€Derrick€Smith€testified€that€the€defendant€hadÏoffered€him€money€to€change€his€statement€in€which€he€reported€having€seen€theÏdefendant€pull€a€gun.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€first€contends€that€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€toÏsupport€his€convictions€for€attempted€second„degree€murder€and€second„degreeÏmurder€because€the€weapon€was€never€recovered€(and€was,€accordingly,€neverÏlinked€to€him)€and€because€there€was€proof€that€other€people€in€the€same€vicinityÍwere€or€may€have€been€armed.€€He€further€contends€that€the€proof€demonstrates,€atÏmost,€that€€he€is€guilty€of€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter€and€voluntaryÏmanslaughter.€€We€disagree.ÌÌ€à àà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence,€we€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecutionÏin€determining€whether€ð ðòòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€319,€99€œS.Ct›.€2781,€61€œL.Ed›.œ2d›€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluateÏthe€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏproof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€infer‚encesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€ÌÌà àà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€valueÏto€be€given€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835.€€A€guiltyÏverdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€witnesses€for€the€State,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà àà àThe€State€adduced€testimony€from€numerous€eyewitnesses€that€theyÏhad€seen€the€defendant€shooting€multiple€times€toward€the€direction€in€whichÏAnderson€and€Smith€were€running.€€Anderson€himself€testified€that€he€had€seen€theÏdefendant€shooting€at€him€as€he€ran.€€Additional€testimony€and€physical€evidence,Ïincluding€blood€splatters€and€the€location€of€Brownððs€body,€placed€Brown€betweenÏthe€defendant€and€his€target,€in€the€line€of€fire.€€Brown€was€killed€by€a€gunshotÏwound.€€That€the€police€never€recovered€the€murder€weapon€is€not€fatal€to€the€StateððsÏcase.€€That€others€in€the€area€may€have€been€armed€is€not€fatal€to€the€Stateððs€case.€ÏThe€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€a€jury€finding€that€the€defendant€shot€andÏkilled€Gerald€Brown€in€his€attempts€to€shoot€and€kill€Anderson.ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€Brownððs€homicide,€the€jury€was€instructed€on€first„degree€murder€(both€premeditated€and€felony€murder)€and€the€lesser€offenses€ofÏsecond„degree€murder,€voluntary€manslaughter€and€criminally€negligent€homicide.€ÏIt€returned€a€verdict€of€second„degree€murder.€€Similarly,€with€respect€to€the€attemptÏcrime€Ô% € Ôagainst€Anderson,€the€jury€was€instructed€on€attempted€premeditated€murderÏand€the€lesser€offenses€of€attempted€second„degree€murder,€attempted€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€and€attempted€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€It€returned€a€verdict€ofÏattempted€second„degree€murder.ÌÌà àà à€Second„degree€murder€is€defined€as€ð ðA€knowing€killing€of€another.ðð€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„210(a)(1)€(1991).€€ð ðKnowingðð€is€in€turn€defined€as€referring€ð ðto€aÏperson€who€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€the€conduct€or€to€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€conduct€œ[and]›€the€person€is€aware€of€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€thatÏthe€circumstances€exist.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„302(b).€€A€person€commits€an€attemptedÏsecond„degree€murder€when€he€knowingly€acts€with€the€intent€to€kill€his€target€andÏhis€actions€constitute€ð ða€substantial€step€toward€the€commissionðð€of€the€murder.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„12„101(a)(3).€€Proof€that€a€person€has€deliberately€aimed€a€pistol€andÏshot€several€times€at€his€intended€victim€is€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€forÏattempted€second„degree€murder.€€In€this€case,€Anderson€testified€that,€as€he€hadÏrun€away€from€his€confrontation€with€Porter,€he€looked€back€and€saw€the€defendantÏshooting€at€him.€€œJamman›€T.€Booker€also€testified€that€he€had€seen€the€defendantÏshooting€ð ðtoward€the€way€that€[Anderson]€and€[Smith]€was€running.ðð€€Two€otherÏeyewitnesses€also€testified€that€they€had€seen€the€defendant€shooting€his€pistol€inÏthe€direction€toward€which€Anderson€had€been€running.€€This€was€sufficient€evidenceÏon€which€to€support€a€conviction€for€the€attempted€second„degree€murder€ofÏAnderson.ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€defendantððs€contention€that€the€evidence€supportsÍonly€a€conviction€of€the€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter€of€Anderson,€we€first€noteÏthat€voluntary€manslaughter€is€the€ð ðintentional€or€knowing€killing€of€another€in€a€stateÏof€passion€produced€by€adequate€provocation€sufficient€to€lead€a€reasonable€personÏto€act€in€an€irrational€manner.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„211(a).€€Although€the€defendant€didÏnot€testify,€there€was€proof€that€œhe›€œwas›€Andre€Porterððs€cousin,€and€Anderson€testifiedÏthat€he€thought€the€defendant€was€shooting€at€him€ð ðBecause€[he]€shot€his€cousin.ðð€€€ÏTherefore,€the€defendant€now€argues,€any€shots€he€took€at€Anderson€were€the€resultÏof€Andersonððs€attack€on€his€cousin€and€he€was€therefore€shooting€ð ðin€a€state€ofÏpassion€produced€by€adequate€provocation€sufficient€to€lead€a€reasonable€person€toÏact€in€an€irrational€manner.ððÌÌà àà àAs€this€Court€has€previously€stated,€however,€ð ðWhether€theÏ[defendantððs]€acts€constitute€a€ððknowing€killingðð€(second€degree€murder)€or€a€killingÏdue€to€ððadequate€provocationðð€(voluntary€manslaughter)€is€a€question€for€the€jury.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€909€S.W.2d€461,€464€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€this€case,€theÏjury€obviously€determined€that€the€defendant€had€attempted€to€commit€a€knowingÏkilling€which€was€not€the€result€of€adequate€provocation€and/or€did€not€involve€suchÏprovocation€as€to€lead€a€reasonable€person€to€act€in€an€irrational€manner.€€This€wasÏthe€juryððs€prerogative.€€The€evidence€being€sufficient€to€support€its€verdict€that€theÏdefendant€attempted€to€commit€a€knowing€killing,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àWith€respect€to€his€conviction€for€second„degree€murder,€we€first€noteÏthat€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€Brownððs€homicide€on€the€basis€of€the€doctrine€ofÏtransferred€intent.€€That€is,€the€level€of€culpability€which€the€defendant€demonstratedÏin€his€attempt€to€kill€Anderson€is€transferred€to€his€actual€killing€of€Brown.€€œòòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Summerallóó,€926€S.W.2d€272,€275€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Because›€the€juryÏconvicted€the€defendant€of€knowingly€attempting€to€kill€Anderson,€the€doctrine€ofÏtransferred€intent€permits€a€finding€that€the€defendant€knowingly€killed€Brown€andÏtherefore€committed€second„degree€murder.€€The€evidence€is€sufficient€to€supportÏthis€verdict.€€As€set€forth€above,€the€Stateððs€proof€demonstrated€that€the€defendantÏfired€his€gun€numerous€times€in€Andersonððs€direction.€€The€proof€furtherÏdemonstrated€that€Brown€was€located€in€the€line€of€fire€between€the€defendant€andÏAnderson.€€The€logical€inference€supported€by€the€proof€was€that€a€bullet€intendedÏfor€Anderson€struck€and€killed€Brown.€€The€jury€determined€that€the€defendantððsÏactions€were€not€committed€in€a€state€of€passion€produced€by€adequate€provocationÏsufficient€to€lead€a€reasonable€person€to€act€in€an€irrational€manner.€€The€juryððsÏverdict€of€second„degree€murder€being€supported€by€the€proof,€this€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€his€next€issue,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÍallowed€the€State€to€introduce€into€evidence€the€voluntary€statement€€he€made€to€theÏpolice€prior€to€his€arrest.€€The€defendant€bases€his€assertion€on€the€grounds€that€hisÏstatement€was€ð ðentirely€exculpatory.ðð€€As€authority,€the€defendant€cites€us€to€a€singleÏcase,€òòState€v.€Robert€Brian€œChaffin›óó,€No.€œ01C01›„9001„CR„00001,€œOverton›€CountyÏ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€March€21,€œ1991,›€at€Nashville).€€We€find€this€œcase›€to€beÏinapposite,€however,€because€it€dealt€with€the€defendantððs€attempt€to€introduce€hisÏown€prior€and€Ñ ` Ñself„serving€statement.€€Here,€the€statement€was€being€offered€by€theÏState€against€the€defendant.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€statement,€the€defendant€told€the€police€that€he€had€been€presentÏat€the€argument€between€Anderson€and€Porter,€that€Anderson€had€subsequently€shotÏat€him€œand›€that€he€had€run€away.€€To€the€extent€that€this€statement€was€offered€toÏprove€that€the€defendant€had€been€at€the€scene€of€the€crimes,€it€is€an€admission€by€aÏparty„opponent€and€therefore€admissible€as€an€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€803(1.2).ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€while€his€statement€contains€no€explicit€denial€of€having€shotÏa€gun€himself,€the€defendantððs€explanation€to€the€police€of€what€happened€containsÍno€reference€to€his€having€œfired€shots›€and€paints€a€picture€of€himself€as€victim€ratherÏthan€aggressor.€€œIn€minimizing€his€role€in€the€crimes,€the€statement›€œis€consistent€withÏAngela›€Brownððs€testimony€that€the€defendant€had€told€her€he€had€shot€into€the€air,Ïand€with€Derrick€Smithððs€testimony€that€the€defendant€had€offered€him€money€toÏchange€his€statement.€€Thus,€in€addition€to€being€offered€in€order€to€prove€theÏdefendantððs€presence€at€the€scene€of€the€crime,€œthe€statement€was›€also€offered€asÏœproof›€that€the€defendant€had€tried€to€cover€up€the€extent€of€his€involvement€in€theÏshootings.€€In€that€respect,€the€proof€was€relevant€and€therefore€œadmissible.›× ƒ; ××  ×€€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€402.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€à àà àà àÌà àà àIn€his€third€issue,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€shouldÏhave€Ñ  Ñœgranted›€a€mistrial€after€hearing€two€jurors€discussing€a€weapon€prior€to€theÏcase€being€submitted€to€the€jury.€€The€record€reveals€that,€during€a€recess,€the€trialÏœjudge›€overheard€two€jurors€conversing€with€something€being€said€about€a€ð ðnineÏmillimeter.ðð€€Because€a€nine€millimeter€weapon€had€been€introduced€into€evidenceÏearlier€in€the€trial,€the€court€was€concerned€that€the€jurors€were€discussing€the€caseÏprematurely.€€Accordingly,€the€court€questioned€the€two€jurors€about€theirÏconversation,€out€of€the€presence€of€the€remainder€of€the€jury,€asking€them€if€they€hadÍbeen€discussing€ð ðanything€about€the€evidence€in€this€case?ðð€€One€of€the€jurorsÏresponded,€ð ðJust€trying€to€clarify€a€point.€€He€misunderstood€a€point.€€I€apologize€forÏthat.ðð€€Defense€counsel€then€moved€for€a€mistrial.€€The€court€continued€to€questionÏthe€two€jurors,€asking€if€ð ðanything€[had€been]€concluded€in€that€respect?ðð€€Both€jurorsÏsaid€ð ðnoðð€and€one€of€the€jurors€stated€that€he€ð ðwas€trying€to€explain€that,€you€know,Ïwe€couldnððt€discuss€that€part.ðð€€The€court€then€asked€the€other€juror€if€they€had€beenÏð ðsaying€we€canððt€discuss€about€a€9€millimeter€gun€or€something?ðð€€The€jurorÏanswered,€ð ðYes,€sir.ðð€€The€court€then€asked,€ð ðAnd€no€discussion€was€taking,€hadÏtaken€place?ðð€and€the€other€juror€said,€ð ðNo.ðð€€The€court€then€stated€to€both€jurors,Ïð ðYou€can€go€forward€without€violating€your€oaths,€is€that€what€youððre€telling€me?ðð€toÏwhich€both€jurors€answered€in€the€affirmative.€€The€court€overruled€the€motion€forÏmistrial.€ÌÌà àà à€As€this€Court€recently€stated€in€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,ÌÓÓà àà8 àThe€decision€to€grant€a€mistrial€is€within€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€and€such€decision€will€not€beÏoverturned€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€A€mistrial€isÏusually€appropriate€in€a€criminal€case€only€where€there€isÏa€ððmanifest€necessity.ðð€€The€purpose€for€declaring€aÏmistrial€is€to€correct€damage€done€to€the€judicial€processÏwhen€some€event€has€occurred€which€precludes€anÏimpartial€verdict.€€The€burden€of€establishing€a€ððmanifestÏnecessityðð€lies€with€the€appellant.ÌÌÓÓ929€œS.W.›€œ2d›€385,€388€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(citations€omitted).€€The€defendantÏhas€failed€utterly€to€demonstrate€a€manifest€necessity€for€a€new€trial€arising€from€whatÏthe€record€demonstrates€to€have€been€a€rebuffed€inquiry€from€one€juror€to€anotherÏabout€an€item€of€evidence.€€We€see€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court€in€thisÏcase€in€its€denial€of€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€mistrial.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial€as€a€resultÏof€prosecutorial€misconduct€during€closing€argument.€€Specifically,€he€claims€that€theÏprosecuting€attorney€stated€during€closing€argument€that€he€was€a€liar€and€that€theÏjury€had€to€find€him€guilty€in€order€for€our€justice€system€to€work.€€The€defendantÏfurther€claims€that€the€prosecuting€attorney€made€statements€not€based€on€theÏevidence.ÌÌà àà àWe€have€carefully€examined€the€prosecuting€attorneyððs€closingÏarguments€as€well€as€defense€counselððs€objections€thereto€and€the€trial€courtððsÏrulings€and€instructions€following€objections.€€The€trial€judge€has€wide€discretion€inÏcontrolling€the€argument€of€counsel.€€That€discretion€will€not€be€interfered€with€onÏappeal€in€the€absence€of€an€abuse€thereof.€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€527€S.W.2d€737,€739Í(Tenn.€1975).€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€this€matter,€nor€do€we€find€any€errorsÏstemming€from€the€Stateððs€argument€by€which€the€defendant€was€denied€a€fair€trial.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.̛̜à àà àFor€his€fifth€issue,€the€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÏrefused€to€allow€him€to€introduce€ð ðevidence€that€District€Attorney€General€JamesÏœRamsey›€had€information€that€there€were€problems€with€the€handling€of€evidence€andÏharassment€by€the€Oak€œRidge›€Police€Department.ðð€€The€record€contains€a€copy€of€aÏletter€from€General€œRamsey›€to€the€Deputy€œDirector›€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation€which€refers€to€certain€complaints€voiced€by€the€community€of€which€theÏdefendant€was€a€member€against€the€local€police€department,€includingÏð ðharassment,€fabrication€of€evidence€[and]€theft€of€evidence.ðð€€This€letter€wasÏincluded€in€the€record€as€an€offer€of€proof.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€it€was€notÏadmissible€into€evidence€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€616.€€The€trial€courtÏwas€correct.ÌÌà àà àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€616€provides€œthat,›€ð ðA€party€may€offerÏevidence€by€cross„examination,€extrinsic€evidence,€or€both,€that€a€witness€is€biasedÏin€favor€of€or€prejudiced€against€a€party€or€another€witness.ðð€€The€letter€does€notÍestablish€that€any€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€in€this€case€were€either€biased€in€favor€ofÏthe€State€(or€any€of€its€other€witnesses)€or€prejudiced€against€the€defendant€or€any€ofÏhis€witnesses.€€Nor€did€the€defendant€develop€any€proof€that€the€police€departmentÏharassed€him€with€respect€to€this€case,€or€that€it€or€any€of€its€officers€fabricated€orÏstole€any€evidence€relevant€to€this€case.€€Thus,€not€only€is€the€letter€not€admissibleÏunder€Rule€616,€it€appears€not€to€have€any€relevance€with€respect€to€this€particularÏcase.€€Evidence€that€is€not€relevant€is€not€admissible.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€This€issueÏis€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€complains€about€his€sentences.€€HeÏwas€sentenced€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€to€twenty„five€years€for€the€second„degree€murder€conviction,€a€Class€A€felony,€and€to€twelve€years€for€the€attemptedÏsecond„degree€murder€conviction,€a€Class€B€felony.€€These€were€the€maximumÏsentences€for€both€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(1)€&€(2).€€The€trial€court€alsoÏordered€the€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€The€defendant€now€contends€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€in€finding€no€mitigating€factors,€in€applying€certain€enhancementÏfactors,€and€in€ordering€consecutive€sentences.ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€must€conduct€aÍòòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€TheÏburden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,€however,€ð ðisÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€consideredÏthe€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€œAshby›óó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àà àA€portion€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€at€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„210,€established€a€number€of€specific€procedures€to€be€followed€inÏsentencing.€€This€section€mandates€the€courtððs€consideration€of€the€following:ÌÓÓÌà àà8 àÓ ` ¸ ŒX¸)Ó(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÏsentencing€hearing;€(2)€[œt]he›€presentence€report;€(3)€[œt]he›Ïprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÏalternatives;€(4)€[œt]he›€nature€and€characteris‚tics€of€theÏcriminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€[œe]vidence›€and€informationÏoffered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[œa]ny›Ïstatement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalfÏabout€sen‚tencing.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¢ ÒÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ Òà àà àIn€addition,€this€section€provides€that€the€minimum€sentence€within€theÍœrange›€is€the€presumptive€sentence.œ× ƒ< ××  ×›€€If€there€are€enhanc‚ing€and€mitigating€factors,Ïthe€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentenceÏas€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sen‚tence€within€theÏrange€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€If€there€are€no€mitigating€factors,€theÏcourt€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€that€range€but€still€within€theÏrange.€€The€weight€to€be€given€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€ÏòòState€v.€œShelton›óó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àThe€Act€further€provides€that€ð ð[œw]henever›€the€court€imposes€a€sentence,Ïit€òòshall€place€on€the€recordóó€either€orally€or€in€writing,€what€enhance‚ment€or€mitigatingÏfactors€it€found,€if€any,€as€well€as€findings€of€fact€as€required€by€ðð€40„35„209.ðð€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„210(f)€(emphasis€added).€€Because€of€the€importance€of€enhancing€andÏmitigating€factors€under€the€sentencing€guide‚lines,€even€the€absence€of€these€factorsÏmust€be€recorded€if€none€are€found.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210€comment.€€These€findingsÏby€the€trial€judge€must€be€recorded€in€order€to€allow€an€adequate€review€on€appeal.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€found€twoÏmitigating€factors.€€He€argues€that€he€acted€under€strong€provocation€and€thatÏsubstantial€grounds€existed€which€tended€to€excuse€or€justify€his€criminal€conduct.€ÏT.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„113(2)€&€(3).€€The€trial€judge€refused€to€apply€these€factors,€asking,€ð ðWhatÏwas€the€provocation€to€take€a€life?€€What€was€the€provocation€to€take€a€gun€andÏspray€it€across€a€parking€lot?€€How€could€that€possibly€be€a€justification€for€whatÏoccurred€here?ððÌÌà àà àIn€his€appellate€brief,€the€defendant€fails€to€offer€any€reasons€as€to€whyÏthese€mitigating€factors€should€have€been€applied.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€has€beenÏwaived.€€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b).€€Furthermore,€although€the€record€indicates€thatÏthe€defendant€was€Andre€Porterððs€cousin,€and€therefore€supports€the€inference€thatÏhe€was€shooting€at€Anderson€in€retaliation€for€Andersonððs€having€shot€Porter,€we€doÏnot€think€this€is€an€appropriate€reason€to€apply€either€of€these€two€mitigating€factors.€ÏTo€do€so€would€simply€encourage€future€vigilante€acts€of€this€nature.€€We€think€thatÏthe€trial€court€was€correct€in€refusing€to€apply€these€mitigating€factors.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€application€ofÏtwo€enhancement€factors.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€following€enhancementÏfactors€applied€to€each€conviction:€that€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÏcriminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establishÏthe€appropriate€range;€that€he€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€withÏthe€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community;€that€he€possessedÏor€employed€a€firearm€during€the€commission€of€the€crime;€that€he€had€no€hesitationÏabout€committing€the€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high;€and€that€the€crimeÏwas€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€aÏvictim€was€great.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(8),€(9),€(10)€and€(16).€€Factor€(12),€thatÏduring€the€commission€of€the€offense,€the€defendant€willfully€inflicted€bodily€injuryÏupon€another€person,€or€the€actions€of€the€defendant€resulted€in€the€death€or€seriousÏbodily€injury€to€a€victim€or€a€person€other€than€the€intended€victim,€was€also€appliedÏto€the€attempted€second„degree€murder€conviction.œ× ƒ= ××  ×›€€Of€these€factors,€the€defendantÏargues€only€that€factors€(12)€and€(16)€were€improperly€applied.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€œMakoka›óó,€885€S.W.2d€366,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€thisÏCourt€ruled€that€œthe€sentence€for€an€attempted€murder€conviction€was€properlyÏenhanced€by€the€factor€for€no€hesitation€about€committing€the€crime€when€the€risk€toÏhuman€life€was€high,€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(10).€€The€Court€recognized€that€this€factorÏshould€not€be€applied€when€the€only€person€subjected€to€the€risk€is€the€intendedÏvictim,€but€distinguished€those€situations€where€other€people€present€are€subjectedÏto€this€risk.€€In€those€situations,€the€factor€is€not€ð ðinherentðð€and€may€properly€beÏapplied.€€òòMakokaóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€373.€€Similarly,€we€find€the€same€reasoning€isÏappropriate€and€supports€the€application€of€factor€(16)€to€both€of€the€defendantððsÏconvictions€in€this€case;€that€is,€the€crimes€were€committed€under€circumstances€inÏwhich€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.€€Although€all€murders€andÏattempted€murders€involve€this€potential€for€the€intended€victim,€Ñ , ÑÑ 5 ÑÑ  ÑÑ€7 §u` Ñthey€do€not€allÏinvolve€this€potential€for€other€persons.€€In€this€case,€there€was€great€potential€forÏbodily€injury€to€at€least€Smith€in€addition€to€Anderson,€the€intended€target.€ÌÌà àà àNor€do€we€find€any€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€factor€(12)€„„Ïthat€the€defendantððs€actions€resulted€in€the€death€or€serious€bodily€injury€to€a€victimÏor€person€other€than€the€intended€victim€„„€to€the€attempted€second„degree€murderÏconviction.€€Not€every€attempted€second„degree€murder€results€in€the€death€of€anÍinnocent€bystander.€€Thus,€this€factor€is€not€an€essential€element€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Freemanóó,€943€S.W.2d€25,€32€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(ð ðbecause€bodilyÏinjury€is€not€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€of€attempted€second„degree€murder,Ïthe€trial€court€properly€enhanced€the€defendantððs€sentence€for€that€offense€withÏregard€to€the€victim€who€was€actually€wounded.ðð)€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThese€multiple€enhancement€factors,€combined€with€the€absence€ofÏany€mitigating€factors,€are€more€than€sufficient€to€sentence€the€defendant€at€the€top€ofÏthe€range€for€each€conviction.€€It€is€well„settled€that€the€weight€given€to€enhancementÏfactors€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Shelton›óó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Finding€no€abuse€of€discretion,€we€affirm€the€length€of€theÏdefendantððs€sentences.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€final€argument,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erredÏwhen€it€ordered€him€to€serve€his€sentences€consecutively.€€Our€Code€provides€for€theÏimposition€of€consecutive€sentences€where,€among€other€things,€the€defendant€is€ð ðanÏoffender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensiveðð€or€where€the€defendant€is€ð ðaÏdangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€andÏno€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.ðð€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„115(b)(2)€&€(4).€€This€defendant,€who€was€twenty„four€years€old€at€the€time€ofÏsentencing,€has€a€criminal€history€including€convictions€for€a€federal€drug€offense,× ƒ> ××  ×Ïtwo€assaults,€two€resisting€arrest€offenses,€one€assault€and€battery,€and€oneÏweapons€offense.€€He€has€also€been€convicted€of€twelve€traffic€offenses€and€severalÏother€misdemeanors.€€These€numerous€convictions€lead€us€to€conclude€that€theÏdefendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive.€€The€instantÏcrimes€also€lead€us€to€conclude€that€the€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.€€In€other€words,€theÏdefendant€meets€the€statutory€criteria€for€consecutive€sentences.ÌÌà àà àIn€addition€to€considering€the€statute,€however,€we€must€consider€theÏtwo€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€opinions€which€the€consecutive€sentencing€statuteÏessentially€codified:€œ€òòGray›€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391€(Tenn.€1976)€and€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,Ï739€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€1987).€€In€òòGrayóó,€our€Supreme€Court€stated€that€ð ðaÏconsecutive€sentence€should€be€imposed€only€after€a€finding€by€the€trial€judge€thatÏconfinement€for€such€a€term€is€necessary€in€order€to€protect€the€public€from€furtherÏcriminal€conduct€by€the€defendant.ðð€€œòòGrayóó,€538›€S.W.2d€at€393.€€Thus,€the€defendantððsÍpotential€for€rehabilitation€is€a€significant€factor€under€the€òòGrayóó€rationale.€€òòId.óó€ÏSimilarly,€in€òòTayloróó,€our€Supreme€Court€stated€that€consecutive€sentences€should€notÏbe€routinely€imposed€and€that€the€aggregate€sentence€ð ðmust€be€reasonably€relatedÏto€the€severity€of€the€offenses€involved.ðð€€òòTayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€at€230.€€Taken€together,Ïthese€two€cases€establish€ð ðthat€consecutive€sentences€cannot€be€imposed€unless€theÏterms€reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€necessaryÏin€order€to€protect€the€public€from€further€serious€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendant.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€œWilkerson›óó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case€the€trial€court€found€the€defendant€to€be€ð ða€threat€to€societyððÏand€determined€that€he€should€serve€his€sentences€consecutively.€€Given€theÏdefendantððs€criminal€history€and€his€behavior€in€committing€the€instant€crimes,€weÏagree€with€the€trial€court€and€find€that€these€sentences€should€be€run€consecutivelyÏin€order€to€protect€the€public€from€further€serious€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendant.€ÏMoreover,€we€note€that€the€offenses€of€second„degree€murder€and€attemptedÏsecond„degree€murder€are€among€the€most€severe€offenses€that€can€be€committed.€ÏWe€find€therefore€that€the€terms€of€imprisonment€reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€ofÏthe€defendantððs€crimes.€€The€facts€and€circumstances€of€these€crimes€and€theÏdefendantððs€past€and€instant€behavior€satisfy€the€criteria€for€consecutive€sentencingÍset€forth€in€both€the€statute€and€the€case€law.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€having€committed€no€reversible€error,€the€judgmentÏbelow€is€œaffirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌœÌ______________________________›ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌœÌÌ______________________________›ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€Judge€€€Ì€€€œÔ€6ÔÔ% €! ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ›Ò D ÒÒ z Òò òÖ€?֜ր@ÖßJ€9A;+'b|` Å `€@ÿJß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àSEPTEMBER€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9606„CC„00238Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àANDERSON€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€JAMES€B.€SCOTT,€JR.,€JudgeÌFREDERICK€R.€PORTER,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Attempted€œsecond„degree€murder;›Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àœ)à àsecond„degree€murder)›Ìó óÌÌÌÓÓò òòòà@ àSEPARATE€CONCURRINGóóÌÌà àó óAlthough€I€concur€with€the€majority€in€affirming€the€appellantððs€conviction,€I€write€separatelyÏto€note€my€concern€with€the€opinionððs€application€of€the€doctrine€of€ð ðtransferred€intent.ðð€€TheÏmajority€opines€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€a€verdict€of€second€degree€murder€basedÏupon€transferred€intent.€€First,€I€find€that€application€of€ð ðtransferred€intentðð€to€this€case€isÏunnecessary.€€€Although€not€having€an€actual€intent€to€kill€another,€one€may€be€found€guilty€ofÏsecond€degree€murder,€a€knowing€killing€of€another,€if€that€person€is€consciously€aware€of€the€natureÏof€his€conduct€and€that€the€conduct€is€reasonably€certain€to€cause€death.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(b).€€Clearly,€a€rational€jury€could€infer€that€the€appellantððs€conduct€in€repeatedly€firing€a€nineÏmillimeter€weapon€into€a€crowd€of€people€is€reasonably€certain€to€cause€death.€The€proof€establishesÏthe€essential€elements€of€second€degree€murder€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€No€further€analysis€isÏnecessary.ÌÌà àAlso€of€concern€is€the€question€of€whether€ð ðtransferred€intentðð€is€a€recognizable€doctrineÏunder€this€stateððs€current€law.€€In€òòSullivan€v.€Stateóó,€121€S.W.2d€535,€537€(Tenn.€1938),€ourÏsupreme€court€held€that€the€doctrine€of€ð ðtransferred€intentðð€applies€òòonlyóó€to€cases€involving€firstÏdegree€felony€murder.€€The€court€noted€that€Tennessee,€representing€the€minority€view,€has€neverÏacknowledged€the€doctrine€of€ð ðtransferred€intent.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòBrattonóó,€29€Tenn.€103€10€Humph.Ï103€(1849)€(holding€that€the€doctrine€of€ð ðtransferred€intentðð€is€not€compatible€with€the€plain€terms€ofÏthe€statuteðð).€òòC.fóó.€€òòState€v.€Harperóó,€334€S.W.2d€933,€936€(Tenn.€1960)€(affirming€a€second€degreeÏmurder€conviction€upon€a€finding€of€malice€and,€òòin€dictumóó,€announced€that€the€holding€would€haveÏbeen€the€same€under€transferred€œintent.);€›€òòBurton€v.€Stateóó,€394€S.W.2d€873€(Tenn.€1965).ÌÌà àMoreover,€it€is€noted€that,€since€the€adoption€of€the€1989€òòcriminal€codeóó,€no€supreme€courtÏdecision€has€addressed€the€issue€of€whether€this€state€recognizes€the€doctrine€of€ð ðtransferred€intentððÏunder€the€current€code.€€Our€Criminal€Code,€in€large€part€an€adoption€of€the€òòmodel€penal€codeóó,€didÏnot€explicitly€adopt€the€òòmodel€codeððsóó€approach€which€would€have,€in€effect,€incorporatedÏœð ðtransferred›€intent.ðð€€òòSeeóó€€òòmodel€penal€codeóó€€ðð€2.03.€€Generally,€it€is€presumed€that€where€theÏlegislature€includes€language€in€one€section,€but€omits€it€in€another€section€of€the€same€act,€theÏlegislature€acted€purposefully€in€the€subject€excluded.€€Additionally,€the€majority€cites€as€authorityÏthis€courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Summerallóó,€926€S.W.2d€272,€275€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€I€doÏnot€find€òòSummerallóó€dispositive€of€this€issue€as€the€opinion€merely€summarily€adopts€transferredÏintent€without€discussion€of€our€supreme€courtððs€conflicting€decision€in€òòSullivanóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏMillenóó,€(No.€02C01„9602„CR„00049€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Mar.€7,€1996).ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€I€find€application€of€the€doctrine€of€transferred€intent€unnecessary.̛̜ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeœÔ€6ÔÌ