ÿWPCR …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ U *Ç B)ñ bDC" Be AM‚Ïv~évÓg D3: 0@m AO­Æü 0D D/ B5˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ?@DADBDCDDEIFDGHÓ€Úƒç"3|xS2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d- ù-""""7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òOctober€28,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ ŠÔÔ€!ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€#ÑÑ7€E-XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€&'$A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)€€€€€€€C.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9606„CC„00222Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellee,ò òà àà àà à)€€€€€€€SULLIVAN€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€HON.€R.€JERRY€BECK,€JUDGEó óÌò òERNEST€LEON€POWERS,€JR.à à)€€€€€€€ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)ó ó€€€€€€€ò ò(ESPECIALLY€AGGRAVATEDó óÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àò òà à)€€€€€€€ROBBERY;€FELONY€MURDER)€Ìó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àòòà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òLYNN€DOUGHERTYà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌó óHUDSON€&€DOUGHERTYà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ131€Eighth€StreetÌP.O.€Box€189€€à àà àà àò òà àà àKENNETH€W.€RUCKERÌó óBristol,€TN€37621à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òà àH.€GREELEY€WELLS,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òà àPHYLLIS€H.€MILLERó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òBARRY€P.€STAUBUSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€526€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€€37617„0526ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€!°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€!ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant,€Ernest€Leon€Powers,€Jr.,€was€convicted€of€felony€murder,Ïin€the€perpetration€of€robbery,€and€especially€aggravated€robbery€following€aÏjury€trial€in€the€Sullivan€County€Criminal€Court.€€Defendant€was€sentenced€to€lifeÏimprisonment€on€the€felony€murder€conviction,€and€the€trial€court€sentenced€him€toÏtwenty€(20)€years€for€the€conviction€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€TheÏsentences€were€ordered€€to€be€served€consecutively.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€rightÏpursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€DefendantÏpresents€five€issues:€€(1)€The€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€to€suppressÏstatements€taken€from€Defendant€by€law€enforcement€officers€in€violation€of€hisÏprotection€against€self„incrimination€and€his€right€to€counsel;€(2)€the€evidenceÏwas€insufficient€to€sustain€the€convictions€of€felony€murder€and€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery;€(3)€the€trial€court€erred€by€overruling€his€objection€to€theÏadmissibility€of€a€photograph€of€the€victim€which€the€Defendant€argues€theÏprobative€value€was€far€outweighed€by€the€prejudicial€effect;€(4)€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€denying€his€motion€for€new€trial€based€upon€an€alternate€juror€falselyÏswearing€during€voir€dire;€and€(5)€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€the€sentences€toÏbe€served€consecutively.€€Finding€the€evidence€to€be€sufficient€and€no€reversibleÏerror,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓI.€€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESS€STATEMENTÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant€gave€two€statements€to€Detectives€Dale€Boyd€and€RickÏHodges€of€the€Sullivan€County€Sheriffððs€Department,€one€on€September€21,Ï1994€and€another€on€September€22,€1994.€€Both€statements€were€taken€whileÏDefendant€was€in€custody.€€On€each€occasion,€Defendant€was€advised€of€hisÏrights€according€to€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436€(1966),€and€the€DefendantÏsigned€a€waiver€of€those€rights€on€each€occasion€prior€to€giving€the€written€andÏsigned€statements.€€Recently,€in€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996),Ïthe€supreme€court€held€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€party€prevailing€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€suppressionÏhearing€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€thatÏmay€be€drawn€from€that€evidence.€€So€long€as€the€greater€weightÏof€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€those€findingsÏshall€be€upheld.€€In€other€words,€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€aÏsuppression€hearing€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€otherwise.€€ÌÌÌòòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€23.ÌÌÓÓÌà àDetective€Boyd€and€Detective€Hodges€testified€at€the€suppressionÏhearing.€€Each€stated€that€the€Defendant€understood€everything.€€He€wasÏcoherent€and€understood€his€rights.€€The€Defendant€did€not€request€an€attorney.€ÏBoth€officers€confirmed€that€there€was€no€coercion€of€the€Defendant.€€ÌÌà àDefendant€testified€that€he€requested€an€attorney€during€the€secondÏinterview€when€the€officers€described€all€of€the€evidence€they€had€gatheredÏsubsequent€to€the€first€interrogation.€€He€claimed€to€have€asked€the€officers€threeÏdifferent€times€for€an€attorney.€€He€also€claimed€that€the€officers€told€him€theÏpunishment€for€first€degree€murder€was€the€death€penalty.€€He€claimed€thatÏDetective€Hodges€made€promises€to€him€regarding€the€charges€and€punishmentÏif€he€would€just€ð ðcome€clean.ðð€€ÌÌà àIn€its€findings€of€fact,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€had€considered€all€of€theÏproof,€and€the€demeanor€of€the€witnesses,€and€came€to€the€conclusion€that€theÏstatements€were€freely,€voluntarily,€and€knowingly€given€by€the€Defendant.ÌÌà àOur€review€of€the€record€indicates€that€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€finding€of€the€trial€court.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌÓ  ÓÌà àOn€the€night€of€September€16,€1994,€the€victim,€Jimmy€Lee€Cullop,€Sr.,Ïwas€found€dead€on€the€bedroom€floor€of€his€trailer€located€in€Sullivan€County,ÏTennessee.€€The€victim€lived€alone.€€He€was€found€by€one€of€his€daughters€andÏa€friend,€Eddie€McElyea.€€The€body€was€in€an€advanced€state€ofÏdecomposition.€€On€the€preceding€day,€Mr.€McElyea€had€gone€by€the€house€toÏsee€the€victim€but€noted€his€vehicle€was€gone€and€assumed€that€the€victim€wasÏnot€at€home.€€However,€Mr.€McElyea€had€noticed€flies€in€the€bedroom€windowÏand€through€a€partially€opened€curtain,€observed€the€victimððs€television€in€hisÏbedroom€was€turned€on.€€Ìà àThe€last€time€that€any€friend€or€family€member€had€seen€the€victim€aliveÏwas€Monday€night,€September€12,€1994.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€his€death,€the€victim€owned€a€van,€a€Malibu€vehicle,€aÏChevy€Blazer€truck,€and€a€Buick€Electra€automobile.€€It€was€well€known€that€theÏvictim€€would€not€loan€to€anyone€his€Buick€Electra,€which€was€yellow€in€colorÏwith€a€dark€vinyl€top.€€He€owned€two€handguns,€including€a€silver„colored€.22Ïcaliber€nine„€shot€revolver.€€A€nine„shot€.22€caliber€pistol€with€its€serial€numbersÏhaving€been€ground€off€was€identified€by€family€members€and€friends€as€eitherÍdefinitely€being,€or€very€similar€to,€the€same€type€of€gun€owned€by€the€victim€atÏthe€time€of€his€death.€€This€pistol€was€found€in€the€possession€of€the€DefendantÏat€the€time€of€his€arrest€on€September€21,€1994.€ÌÌà àTestimony€of€witnesses€and€photographs€introduced€into€evidenceÏindicated€that€various€items€of€personal€property€located€on€dressers,Ïnightstands,€and€a€filing€cabinet€in€the€victimððs€home€were€arranged€and€locatedÏon€the€furniture€in€a€normal€fashion€and€had€not€been€knocked€over€or€otherwiseÏdisturbed.€€The€Stateððs€theory€was€that€this€indicated€that€there€had€been€noÏstruggle€between€the€victim€and€the€Defendant€prior€to€the€homicide.€€ÌÌà àAccording€to€witnesses,€the€Buick€Electra€automobile€was€missing€fromÏthe€€victimððs€home€as€early€as€Tuesday,€September€13,€1994.€€One€witness,Ïan€acquaintance€of€the€Defendant,€œstated›€that€a€vehicle€meeting€the€descriptionÏof€the€Buick€Electra€was€parked€at€a€motel€in€Nashville,€Tennessee€where€theÏDefendant€was€staying€following€the€homicide.€€Three€glasses€and€two€€platesÏwhich€had€been€used€by€the€victim,€his€daughter,€and€her€child,€on€the€night€ofÏSeptember€12,€1994,€were€found€on€the€kitchen€counter€on€the€night€that€theÏvictimððs€body€was€discovered.€ÌÌà àVarious€witnesses€who€observed€the€Defendant€on€the€days€followingÏthe€homicide€did€not€see€any€cuts,€bruises,€or€abrasions€on€the€Defendant,€andÏhe€did€not€mention€the€existence€of€any€such€injuries€at€the€time€he€gave€hisÏstatements€to€law€enforcement€officers.€€ÌÌà àThe€forensic€pathologist€who€performed€the€autopsy€testified€that€theÏvictim€had€six€ð ðsharp€forceðð€wounds€on€the€front€of€his€body€and€one€on€theÏback.€€Death€was€due€to€excessive€blood€loss€into€the€right€side€of€his€chestÏcaused€by€one€of€the€stab€sounds.€€There€were€no€defensive€wounds€on€theÏvictimððs€body.€€The€pathologist€also€testified€that€a€knife€which€was€introducedÏinto€evidence€and€had€been€taken€from€the€Defendantððs€personal€effectsÏfollowing€a€search€of€his€motel€room,€could€have€caused€the€wounds€to€theÏvictim.ÌÌà àOne€of€the€victimððs€daughters€testified€that€he€had€between€$130.00€andÏ$140.00€cash€in€his€possession€on€Saturday,€September€10,€1997,€which€heÏkept€in€his€wallet.€€Neither€the€victimððs€wallet€nor€the€missing€Buick€ElectraÏautomobile€were€ever€recovered€by€law€enforcement€officers.€€Also,€theÏDefendantððs€compound€bow€was€missing€following€the€discovery€of€the€body,Ïœand€was›€never€recovered.€ÌÌà àAlso€recovered€during€a€search€of€the€Defendantððs€personal€effects€wasÏa€pair€of€tennis€shoes.€€When€one€of€the€shoes€was€compared€by€a€forensicÏscientist€from€the€T.B.I.€Lab€with€blood€stains€from€a€portion€of€the€floor€of€theÏvictimððs€mobile€home,€this€shoeððs€tread€was€found€to€be€consistent€with€respectÏto€size,€shape,€and€design€to€a€foot€print€in€the€blood€stains.€€ÌÌà àThe€victimððs€driverððs€license€was€found€in€the€bathroom€trash€can€at€theÏvictimððs€home.€€A€woman€from€Nashville,€Tennessee€with€whom€Defendant€hadÏresided€in€motel€rooms€for€a€short€period€of€time€prior€to€the€homicide€testified€thatÏthe€Defendant€left€for€a€few€days€and€came€back,€indicating€that€he€had€beenÏto€Bristol,€Tennessee.€€When€he€returned,€the€witness€observed€Defendant€withÏa€gun€identified€as€the€one€belonging€to€the€victim.ÌÌà àAn€acquaintance€of€the€Defendant,€William€Greg€Beavers,€who€had€seen€Ïa€car€fitting€the€description€of€the€Buick€Electra€at€the€motel,€also€testified€thatÏfollowing€the€homicide,€he€told€the€Defendant€that€he€had€heard€what€theÏDefendant€had€done.€€Defendant€responded€that€he€was€sorry€for€what€he€hadÏdone.€€The€witness€testified€that€he€and€Defendant€both€understood€theÏconversation€concerned€the€victimððs€death.ÌÌà àAfter€his€arrest,€the€Defendant€called€Mr.€Beavers€from€the€jail€and€askedÏhim€to€go€to€his€motel€room,€recover€a€red€bag€and€dispose€of€everything€in€it.€ÏThe€Defendant€stated€a€knife€was€in€the€bag.€€€He€also€requested€the€witnessÏto€tell€anyone€who€asked,€that€Mr.€Beavers€had€gone€to€Bristol€and€picked€upÏthe€Defendant.€€Mr.€Beavers€told€the€Defendant€that€he€would€not€get€involvedÏand€subsequently€gave€a€statement€to€police.€€Mr.€Beavers€testified€that€he€didÏhave€two€€prior€felony€convictions€for€robbery€and€burglary,€and€he€had€pendingÏcharges€in€another€county€from€an€incident€which€occurred€in€January€1995.€€Ìà àÌà àIn€his€first€statement€to€police€on€September€21,€1994,€DefendantÏindicated€that€he€was€in€Nashville€the€week€of€September€12,€1994,€until€he€leftÏon€Friday€night€to€go€to€Bristol,€arriving€between€4:00€and€5:00€a.m.€SaturdayÏmorning,€September€17.€€He€gave€a€brief€summary€of€his€activities€while€inÏBristol€over€the€weekend,€none€of€which€incriminated€him€regarding€the€homicideÏof€Mr.€Cullop.€€He€explained€possession€of€the€gun€by€saying€that€a€friend€ofÏhis€in€Bristol€named€ð ðJim€Cullopðð€with€whom€he€had€worked€at€Georgia„Pacific,Ïhad€given€him€the€gun€sometime€before.€€He€claimed€the€serial€numbers€wereÏfiled€off€when€the€gun€was€given€to€him.€€The€Defendant€claimed€to€be€a€friendÏand€ð ðdrinking€buddyðð€with€the€victim.€€ÌÌà àIn€his€second€statement€on€the€next€evening,€the€Defendant€claimed€thatÏhe€was€in€Sullivan€County€on€September€13,€1994€and€went€to€the€victimððsÏhouse€at€approximately€10:00€p.m.€to€ask€the€victim€to€loan€him€a€car.€€HeÏclaimed€that€the€victim€invited€him€inside€and€offered€the€Defendant€a€beer.€ÏThey€talked€for€€approximately€two€hours.€€When€the€Defendant€asked€theÏvictim€why€Defendant€had€been€laid€off€from€work,€he€stated€the€victimÏimmediately€changed€his€attitude€and€acted€like€he€wanted€to€fight.€€DefendantÏclaimed€€that€the€victim€started€pushing€him€and€when€the€Defendant€began€toÏwalk€toward€the€front€door,€the€victim€went€into€his€bedroom€and€retrieved€a€.22Ïcaliber€ð ðnickel€platedðð€pistol.€€Defendant€claimed€that€he€grabbed€the€gun€andÏbegan€wrestling€over€it€with€the€victim.€€After€wrestling€into€the€bedroom,ÏDefendant€observed€a€long€knife€lying€on€the€dresser.€€Defendant€stated€that€heÏpicked€up€the€knife€with€his€right€hand€and€started€ð ðsticking€him,ðð€referring€to€theÏvictim.€€When€the€victim€fell,€the€gun€dropped€from€his€hand.€€Defendant€pickedÏup€the€gun,€found€the€sheath€for€the€knife€and€placed€the€knife€inside€it.€ÏClaiming€that€the€€victimððs€billfold€was€lying€on€the€dresser,€Defendant€statedÏthat€he€took€$110.00€from€the€billfold€and€threw€it€back€onto€the€bed.€€HeÏadmitted€to€taking€the€knife,€the€gun,€and€$110.00€cash€with€him€when€he€leftÏthe€victimððs€home.€€Defendant€stated€that€he€went€to€his€sisterððs€house€and€thenÏhitchhiked€to€the€outskirts€of€Nashville€where€he€walked€back€to€a€friendððsÏhouse.€€ÌÌà àNone€of€the€family€members€or€friends€of€the€victim€who€were€asked,€hadÏever€seen€a€knife€in€the€possession€of€the€victim€which€resembled€the€knifeÏfound€in€possession€of€the€Defendant.ÌÌà àThere€was€proof€of€blood€splatters€on€the€ceiling€and€furniture€in€theÏvictimððs€bedroom,€along€with€a€large€quantity€of€blood€upon€the€bed€and€floor.€ÏOnly€one€witness€was€called€on€behalf€of€the€defense,€a€neighborððs€daughter,Ïwho€testified€that€she€observed€the€victim€standing€at€his€mailbox€atÏapproximately€9:20€a.m.€on€the€morning€of€September€13,€1994.€€She€stated€theÏvictim€was€wearing€clothing€which€was€not€the€same€type€of€clothing€he€wasÏwearing€at€the€time€of€discovery€of€his€body.€€ÌÌà àThere€was€also€testimony€which€showed€that€Defendant€was€inÏpossession€of€the€knife€prior€to€the€homicide.€ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïthe€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorableÏto€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€theÍweight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raisedÏby€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.ÏPappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.Ï(Tenn.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€court€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.ÏCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€ÌÌà àA€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnessesÏand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,Ï476€(Tenn.€1973).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€atÏ835.€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÏreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€courtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€byÏthe€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòGraceóó,€493ÏS.W.2d€at€476.ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€commission€of€this€offense,€ð ðrobberyðð€was€defined€asÏthe€intentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€a€person€by€violence€or€puttingÏthat€person€in€fear.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401.€€ð ðFelony€murderðð€wasÏdefined€as€ð ða€reckless€killing€of€another€committed€in€the€perpetration€of,€orÏattempt€to€perpetrate€any€.€.€.€robbery€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202.€€ÌÌà àFrom€the€proof€at€trial,€the€jury€could€easily€find€that€the€Defendant€leftÏNashville,€armed€with€a€deadly€weapon,€being€a€knife,€and€went€to€the€victimððsÏmobile€home€late€at€night.€€There€was€no€physical€evidence€of€a€struggle,€noÏdefensive€wounds€upon€the€body€of€œthe›€victim,€and€there€were€various€items€ofÏpersonal€property€missing€from€the€victimððs€home.€€This€evidence,€in€addition€toÏproof€of€the€Defendantððs€flight€back€to€Nashville,€along€with€no€apparent€injuriesÏto€the€Defendant,€and€his€conflicting€statements,€could€easily€be€found€by€aÏrational€trier€of€fact€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€offense€of€felonyÏmurder€in€the€perpetration€of€a€robbery.€€ÌÌà àð ðEspecially€aggravated€robberyðð€is€robbery€accomplished€with€a€deadlyÏweapon€where€the€victim€suffers€serious€bodily€injury.€€Again,€there€wasÏoverwhelming€proof€of€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€and€obvious€proof€ofÏserious€bodily€injury€to€the€victim.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendantððs€statement€clearly€proved€that€Defendant€had€killed€theÏvictim.€€The€jury€was€entitled€to€reject€the€Defendantððs€claims€of€self€defense€inÏhis€statement€to€law€enforcement€officers€in€light€of€the€physical€evidence,€andÏthe€conflicting€statements€given€by€the€Defendant.€€The€proof€in€this€case,€bothÏdirect€and€circumstantial,€is€sufficient€to€show€that€the€killing€was€in€theÍpursuance€of€the€felony€of€robbery€rather€than€collateral€to€it.€€òòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,Ï201€Tenn.€107,€296€S.W.2d€879€(1956);€òòState€v.€Seversóó,€759€S.W.2d€935,€938Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).ÌÌà àAccordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.€€ADMISSIBILITY€OF€PHOTOGRAPHÌÓ  ÓÌà àDefendant€objected€at€trial€to€the€admissibility€of€a€photograph€whichÏdepicted€the€victimððs€bedroom€as€it€appeared€when€his€body€was€discovered.€ÏIn€the€photograph,€the€victimððs€body€is€lying€face„up€on€the€floor€to€the€left€of,Ïand€parallel€to€the€head€of€the€bed.€€The€photograph€is€taken€by€someoneÏstanding€at€the€foot€of€the€bed.€€The€picture€also€includes€the€chest€of€drawers,Ïnightstand,€and€portions€of€other€furniture€upon€which€various€items€of€personalÏproperty€had€been€placed€and€were€apparently€undisturbed.€€There€is€bloodÏdepicted€on€the€bed,€on€the€floor,€the€chest€of€drawers€and€on€portions€of€theÏvictimððs€body.€€The€upper€portion€of€the€victimððs€body€is€somewhat€obscured€byÏshadows€in€the€photograph.€€ÌÌà àAfter€a€hearing€out€of€the€presence€of€the€jury,€the€trial€court€overruledÏDefendantððs€objection€and€ruled€that€the€probative€value€of€the€picture€was€notÏoutweighed€by€any€prejudicial€effect.ÌÌà àAt€trial€and€on€appeal,€Defendant€argues€that€the€prejudicial€effect€of€theÏphotograph€far€outweighed€its€probative€value.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947€(Tenn.€1978),€the€supreme€court€held:ÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ ` ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓÌThe€matters€to€be€taken€into€consideration€include€the€value€ofÏphotographs€as€evidence,€that€is,€their€accuracy€and€clarity,€andÏwhether€they€were€taken€before€the€corpse€was€moved,€if€theÏposition€and€location€of€the€body€when€found€is€material;€theÏinadequacy€of€testimonial€evidence€in€relating€the€facts€to€the€jury;Ïand€the€need€for€the€evidence€to€establish€a€òòprimaóó€òòfacieóó€case€ofÏguilt€or€to€rebut€the€defendantððs€contentions.€€If€the€inflammatoryÏnature€of€the€photograph€is€thus€outweighed,€it€is€admissible.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€951.€€ÌÌà àThe€photograph€not€only€shows€that€items€of€personal€property€were€notÏdisturbed€in€the€victimððs€bedroom,€but€that€the€bedroom€was€apparently€smallÏas€the€items€of€furniture€were€close€together,€therefore€reinforcing€the€StateððsÏtheory€that€no€struggle€had€occurred.€€This€proof€was€relevant€to€rebut€theÏDefendantððs€self€defense€claims€asserted€in€his€statement€to€law€enforcementÍofficers.€€The€photograph€does€show€some€bloating€of€the€body€as€a€result€ofÏdecomposition,€but€it€is€a€distant€photographic€shot€which€is€not€particularlyÏgruesome.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€the€bloated€nature€of€the€victimððs€body€wasÏrelevant€to€establish€a€time€frame€for€the€death.€€ÌÌà àFollowing€the€hearing€out€of€the€presence€of€the€jury,€the€trial€court€madeÏfindings€of€fact€that€any€prejudicial€effect€did€not€outweigh€the€probative€value€ofÏthe€photograph.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€allÏfactors€and€there€was€no€error€in€admission€of€the€photograph€into€evidence.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓIV.€€ALTERNATE€JURORððS€RESPONSES€DURING€VOIR€DIREÌÓ  ÓÌà àTwo€alternate€jurors€were€initially€picked€at€the€beginning€of€the€trial.€€OneÏof€the€alternates€had€to€be€dismissed€due€to€health€problems.€€During€the€juryÏselection€process,€the€other€alternate€juror€responded€to€the€Assistant€DistrictÏAttorneyððs€questioning€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 à[Assistant€DistrictÏAttorney]:à8 àMs.€[alternate€juror],€have€you€or€a€closeÏfriend€or€relative€ever€been€charged€withÏa€crime€other€than€a€speeding€ticket,€or€aÏparking€ticket?ÌÌà8 à[AlternateÏJuror]:à8 àà8 àà8 àNo.ÌÌÓÓÌà àAfter€the€trial€had€concluded,€it€came€to€the€attention€of€the€Defendant€thatÏthe€alternate€juror,€at€the€time€she€answered€the€above€question€during€voir€dire,Ïhad€an€adopted€brother€who€had€been€convicted€of€a€serious€felony€in€anotherÏstate,€and€that€she€was€aware€of€this€situation€at€the€time€she€answered€theÏquestion.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€alternate€jurorððs€brother€testified€that€hisÏsister€had€visited€with€him€at€his€place€of€incarceration€prior€to€her€selection€forÏjury€service.€€He€further€stated€that€he€had€never€spoken€with€his€sisterÏconcerning€the€Defendantððs€case.€€Even€though€he€knew€the€Defendant,€he€didÏnot€meet€him€until€after€the€trial€had€concluded.€€ÌÌà àThe€State€offered€into€evidence,€and€the€trial€court€admitted,€withoutÏobjection€from€the€Defendant,€affidavits€of€the€twelve€jurors€who€served,Ïdeliberated,€and€rendered€the€verdicts.€€In€each€of€these€affidavits,€each€jurorÏstated€that€he€or€she€followed€the€trial€courtððs€admonitions€and€did€not€discuss€orÏbegin€deliberations€in€the€Defendantððs€trial€until€after€receiving€jury€instructionsÏfrom€the€trial€court.€€Furthermore,€each€juror€stated€in€the€affidavit€that€he€or€sheÍhad€no€conversations€with€the€alternate€juror€concerning€the€merits€of€theÏDefendantððs€case€or€any€conversations€with€the€alternate€juror€that€would€haveÏinfluenced€or€affected€that€jurorððs€deliberations€in€the€Defendantððs€case.€€òòÌÌóóà àIt€was€undisputed€that€the€alternate€juror€was€dismissed€prior€to€theÏbeginning€of€deliberations€and€took€no€part€in€the€deliberations.€€The€alternateÏjuror€was€sequestered€in€the€multi„day€trial€along€with€the€other€jurors.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€false€swearing€by€the€alternate€jurorÏraised€a€presumption€of€bias€and€œpartiality›€on€the€part€of€the€alternate,€and€thatÏhe€is€thus€entitled€to€a€new€trial.€€He€also€argues€that€the€State€failed€to€rebutÏthe€presumption€of€bias€and€œpartiality.›ÌÌà àAn€affidavit€of€the€alternate€juror€was€also€admitted€into€evidence€at€theÏhearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€and€in€part€the€affidavit€states€that€theÏalternate€juror€did€not€discuss€the€merits€of€the€Defendantððs€case€whileÏsequestered€with€the€other€jurors.€€ÌÌà àWe€agree€that€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€fair€and€impartial€trial€under€ourÏstate€constitution€and€the€United€States€Constitution,€and€that€this€right€includesÍthat€a€jury€be€free€from€any€reasonable€suspicion€of€bias€or€prejudice.€€òòHyatt€v.ÏStateóó,€221€Tenn.€644,€430€S.W.2d€129,€130€(1967).€€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Akinsóó,€867€S.W.2d€350€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€theÏdefendant€was€convicted€of€vehicular€homicide€by€intoxication€following€a€juryÏtrial.€€During€the€jury€selection€process,€a€potential€juror€who€ultimately€served€onÏthe€jury€which€reached€the€verdict€failed€to€disclose€information€that€she€hadÏbeen€a€probation€officer,€a€DUI€probation€counselor€and€had€worked€in€anÏadolescent€alcohol€and€drug€rehabilitation€program.€€This€silence€was€despiteÏpersistent,€straightforward€questioning€by€both€counsel€which€should€haveÏcaused€her€to€disclose€the€information.€€Our€court€in€that€case€found€actualÏprejudice€to€the€defendant€and€reversed€the€conviction€and€remanded€the€caseÏfor€œa€new›€trial.€€In€doing€so,€the€court€recognized€that€when€a€juror€wilfullyÏconceals€or€fails€to€disclose€any€information€on€voir€dire€which€would€reflect€onÏthe€jurorððs€lack€of€impartiality,€a€presumption€of€prejudice€arises.€€òòAkinsóó,€867ÏS.W.2d€at€355.€€However,€our€court€also€recognized€that€a€presumption€of€biasÏin€some€cases€can€be€dispelled€by€the€absence€of€actual€partiality.€€òòAkinsóó,€867ÏS.W.2d€at€357.€€ÌÌà àUpon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€conclusionsÏthat€the€State€was€able€to€overcome€any€presumption€of€bias€or€œpartiality›Íœbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€overwhelming€proof€was€that€the€alternateÏjuror€did€not€discuss€the€Defendantððs€case€with€any€of€the€jurors€who€reached€aÏdecision€during€the€time€she€was€sequestered€with€the€other€jurors.€€She€did€notÏparticipate€in€the€deliberations,€and€even€if€the€Defendant€was€able€to€concludeÏconclusively€that€the€alternate€juror€would€have€been€partial€or€biased€inÏreaching€a€decision,€there€is€no€proof€that€this€affected€the€juryððs€verdict€in€thisÏcase.€€While€our€conclusions€might€be€different€if€the€alternate€juror€hadÏparticipated€in€the€deliberations€and€rendering€of€the€verdict,€in€the€situationÏbefore€us,€we€find€no€reversible€error.€Ìà àÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓV.€€SENTENCINGÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant€does€not€challenge€the€length€of€his€sentence€forÏespecially€aggravated€robbery,€but€does€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏordering€this€sentence€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€life€imprisonmentÏsentence€for€felony€murder.€€When€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€orÏthe€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€de€novoÏreview€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€theÏtrial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€isÍ"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€!XÔððððÔ€!ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€that€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€three€factors€that€support€the€decision€that€theÏDefendantððs€twenty€year€sentence€for€especially€aggravated€robbery€should€runÏconsecutively€to€his€life€sentence€for€first€degree€felony€murder.€€The€three€factorsÏare:€(1)€The€Defendant€has€an€extensive€record€of€criminal€activity,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2);€(2)€the€Defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4);€and€(3)€the€Defendant€was€on€probation€at€the€time€ofÏsentencing,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(6).€€ÌÌà àProof€of€the€existence€of€the€factors€necessary€to€justify€consecutiveÏsentencing€must€only€be€established€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).€€Only€one€factor€need€be€proven€to€support€aÏconsecutive€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).€ÌÔ€ ÔÔ€ XÔÌÔ€!ÔÔ€!ŠÔ€à àWe€are€able€to€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€ordering€consecutiveÏsentencing€based€upon€the€uncontradicted€proof€that€Defendant€was€onÏprobation€for€a€felony€conviction€at€the€time€he€committed€the€present€offenses.€ÏBecause€only€one€ground€is€required€to€justify€consecutive€sentencing,€as€longÏas€that€ground€is€proven€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€we€are€able€toÏaffirm€the€trial€courtððs€order€of€consecutive€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„115.€€We€also€find€that€from€the€entire€record€that€consecutive€sentencingÏis€necessary€to€protect€the€public€against€further€criminal€conduct€by€theÍDefendant,€and€the€consecutive€sentencing€reasonably€relates€to€the€severity€ofÏthe€offenses€committed€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,Ï939€(Tenn.€1995).€€ÌÌà àFinding€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€conviction€and€that€noÏreversible€error€occurred,€we€affirm€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court.ÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€Judge