ÿWPCœ N’Ô•Ä„ç>ÈÜ:úihrî»ñ> 9"ÌU¨öÓæ²fý>îâK,ÌV ÷ñ÷¡Õ8Ìÿ¶ÝøD±x°×j!4ÝJÏÑ,éùLl`émwW…D®[øI2önUÐn„ê ÈT­ÎÔl%o´+í%=ÕëèxÒë2BJâk ¼¶re¯I9™²¿X6p8Á 2’$¤FU„мÉS9\š#kì}@+ù§Ñ"ß’©ßóX‘Q3þ˜®[LDÕ}±FÿYçëâˆ-½Ü¿œD¥Œ,Y]ú“l¢‚e*²H$,,'*ëWCiXÈe=/Ièóë䩃(ÆÎ’úÀWe¼ÝŠ¥'FV`›Ìé#H+/±âÀñ§£ »Ö%,&Nýæ}£°Œ‰â3l>-ºÜ}Ñ-ŸXT!ÉÞˆ¾ –ô/™¦ÙÇØ#:d“g P@ÅcæíKPïhbþ­C ´eæ\]!˜çË6¤.^FI¿]U ƒFJÙ§#ƒÕê©gŸêˤk¨Èí} %£û9ý¾CÁØR O ñ/î ¯^¯^“Ë«Š;<†cÞb¤³‰OÉŸ0*U«PDC¦†áËlcý_HCÙŽ£Eé.̹s¾$Ü-x\{@*>M°vÞŠb#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% U N­ UNû I zQ ÒË z Ò ^ é wõ Æù Æ¿ Æ…ÆK4N%'6E8 m:U@QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQb‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ 0ë™™™™ B„„ 0¤¡ D3E D-x 0K¥¥ ASðÆC 0¤  0D­ A«ñ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt„yœ+ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÖJ~' ¡bk躥3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2ôê$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôôMò»»Ô d(|3G|$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G|$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^%»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼^%»»»ÔÑ8€9XXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼^%»»¼^%Ôà@ttìàÔ‡îW£î»¼^%ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼^%»îîW£+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€October€17,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X9X»¼^%ÔÌò òÔ#†¼^%»XX9@#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€RONALD€PRENTICEÔ‡X9X»¼^%Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNos.€98„D„2523,€99„A„13€€€€€€Seth€Norman,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„02937„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€December€28,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Ronald€Prentice,€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€assault.€€The€trial€courtÐ xÈ  Ðimposed€a€sentence€of€four€years€on€each€count,€with€a€concurrent€one€year€sentence€of€incarcerationÐ d´ Ðand€consecutive€sentences€of€three€years€probation.€€In€this€appeal€of€right,€he€argues€that€the€trialÐ P  Ðcourt€erred€(1)€by€Ô#†¼^%»XX9±#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼^%Ôimproperly€joining€the€offenses,€(2)€by€excluding€testimony€regarding€his€divorceÐ <Œ Ðfrom€the€victim,€and€(3)€by€prohibiting€a€hypothetical€question€to€an€expert€witness€for€the€state.€€TheÐ (x Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court€in€case€number€98„D„2523€is€affirmed.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÐ d Ðin€case€number€99„A„13€is€reversed€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial.Ð P ÐÓÛÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgments€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmed€in€Part,€Reversed€in€Partó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼^%»àX9‰#ÔÔ‡X9X.¼^%ÔGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Welles€óóand€òòJerry€L.Ð ° ÐSmith,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌCraig€Ô_ÔMyrickÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee€(at€trial),€and€Bruce€Ô_ÔPoagÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee€(on€appeal),€forÐ tÄ Ðthe€appellant,€Ronald€Prentice.Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Renee€W.€Turner,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð 8!ˆ  Ðand€Carrie€Ô_ÔDaughtreyÔ_Ô€and€Christopher€Ô_ÔBufordÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,Ð $"t! Ðthe€State€of€Tennessee.Ð #`" ÐÓÚÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼^%»XX9 #ÔÔ‡X9X»¼^%ÔÐ è$8 $ ÐòòóóÔ#†¼^%»XX9‰ #ÔÔ‡X9X»¼^%ÔÓ  ÓÌà  àIn€March€of€1998,€the€defendant€and€his€wife,€Willie€Prentice,€were€experiencing€maritalÐ À&"& Ðdifficulties.€€On€March€8,€Ms.€Prentice,€the€58„year„old€victim,€met€the€defendant€at€his€place€ofÐ ¬'ü"' Ðemployment,€Clover€Bottom€Development€Center.€€When€she€arrived€sometime€between€11:30€P.M.Ð ˜(è#( Ðand€midnight,€however,€the€defendant€locked€her€inside€the€facility€and€forced€her€to€remain€thereÐ „)Ô$) Ðfor€approximately€seven€and€a€half€hours.€€During€the€time€she€was€held,€the€defendant€struck€theÐ p*À%* Ðvictim€repeatedlyÔ#†¼^%»XX9æ #ÔÔ‡X9X»¼^%Ô€with€an€iron€pipe,€causing€severe€bruising€to€heÔ#†¼^%»XX9“#ÔÔ€X9X»¼^%Ôr€legs,€abdomen,€and€buttocks€andÐ \+¬&+ Ðcausing€a€laceration€to€her€forehead.€€When€his€work€shift€ended,€the€defendant€walked€the€victimÐ H,˜', Ðto€her€car€and€she€waited€in€the€parking€lot€at€his€request,€while€he€briefly€went€back€into€theÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôbuilding.€€When€he€returned,€he€directed€her€to€drive€herself€home€and€told€her€that€he€would€checkÐ ° Ðon€her€when€he€got€there.€€He€also€threatened€to€kill€her€if€she€reported€the€incident.€€The€victim€thenÐ œì Ðdrove€straight€home.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àApproximately€one€week€later,€the€victim€told€her€daughter,€Sandra€Williamson,€about€theÐ `° Ðbeating.€€Ms.€Williamson€took€the€victim€to€the€hospital€for€medical€treatment.€€Hospital€employeesÐ L œ Ðalerted€the€police.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAfter€questioning€the€victim€about€the€incident,€the€police€interviewed€the€defendant.€€WhileÐ  ` Ðbeing€questioned€by€police,€the€defendant€admitted€striking€the€victim€but€insisted€that€he€hit€herÐ ü L  Ðonly€on€the€legs.€€As€a€result€of€the€investigation,€the€defendant€was€indicted€on€two€counts€ofÐ è 8  Ðespecially€aggravated€kidnapping€and€two€counts€of€aggravated€assault.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àWhen€she€was€released€from€the€hospital,€the€victim€moved€into€a€hotel,€initiated€divorceÐ ¬ü  Ðproceedings€against€the€defendant,€and€obtained€a€restraining€order.€€While€their€divorce€wasÐ ˜è  Ðpending,€the€court€ordered€the€victim€and€the€defendant€to€alternate€months€residing€in€the€maritalÐ „Ô  Ðhome.€€The€victim€was€scheduled€to€reside€in€the€house€during€the€entire€month€of€August€in€1998.€Ð pÀ ÐOn€August€28,€1998,€the€defendant€entered€the€residence,€went€into€the€bedroom,€and€got€into€bedÐ \¬ Ðwith€the€victim.€€According€to€the€victim,€the€defendant€forced€his€tongue€into€her€mouth€and€bit€herÐ H˜ Ðbreast.€€When€the€victim€threatened€to€call€the€police,€the€defendant€asked€for€five€minutes€to€talk,Ð 4„ Ðasking€for€reconciliation.€€They€moved€into€the€kitchen€to€talk.€€When€the€victim€was€unresponsiveÐ  p Ðto€the€defendantððs€efforts,€he€grabbed€her€by€the€throat€and€ordered€her€to€listen.€€He€then€demandedÐ  \ Ða€loan€to€pay€off€his€credit€card€debt.€€When€the€victim€refused,€the€defendant€threatened€her€withÐ øH Ða€knife€sharpener.€€Eventually,€he€agreed€to€leave€on€the€condition€that€she€give€him€$2€for€gas.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðvictim€refused€to€give€the€defendant€any€money,€but€promised€she€would€not€call€the€police€if€he€left.€Ð Ð  ÐShortly€thereafter,€the€defendant€complied€with€her€request.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€victim€reported€the€incident€to€police.€€A€few€days€later,€the€victim€filed€a€written€reportÐ ”ä Ðin€the€domestic€violence€division.€€She€also€obtained€a€warrant€against€the€defendant€for€aggravatedÐ €Ð Ðassault.€€In€January€of€1999,€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€aggravated€assault€and€sexual€battery.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àAt€the€stateððs€request€and€over€objections€by€the€defendant,€the€trial€court€joined€all€offensesÐ D!” Ðfor€trial.€€The€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€three€counts€of€aggravated€assault.€€The€trial€courtÐ 0"€  Ðmerged€two€of€the€counts€and€sentenced€the€defendant€to€concurrent€four„year€sentences;€one€yearÐ #l! Ðto€be€served€at€100%€in€the€Davidson€County€Workhouse€and€the€balance€to€be€served€on€probation.€Ð $X" ÐÌÓ  ÓIÐ à%0!$ ÐÓ  Óà  àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€initially€claims€that€the€trial€court€improperly€joined€the€offensesÐ Ì&"% Ðfor€trial.€€ð ð[D]ecisions€to€consolidate€or€sever€offenses€pursuant€to€Rules€8(b)€and€14(b)(1)€are€to€beÐ ¸'#& Ðreviewed€for€an€abuse€of€discretion.ðð€€òòState€v.€Shirleyóó,€6€S.W.3d€243,€247€(Tenn.€1999).€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐAdditionally,€ð ða€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€sever€offenses€will€be€reversed€only€when€the€ððcourt€appliedÐ )à$( Ðan€incorrect€legal€standard,€or€reached€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€that€caused€anÐ |*Ì%) Ðinjustice€to€the€party€complaining.ðððð€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòState€v.€Shuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€662,€669€(Tenn.Ð h+¸&* Ð1997)).€€ð ð[W]hen€a€defendant€objects€to€a€pre„trial€consolidation€motion€by€the€state,€the€trial€courtÐ ° Ðmust€consider€the€motion€by€the€severance€provisions€of€Rule€14(b)(1),€not€the€ððsame€or€similarÐ œì Ðcharacterðð€standard€of€Rule€8(b).ðð€€òòSpicer€v.€Stateóó,€12€S.W.3d€438,€443€(Tenn.€2000).Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àRule€14€(b)(1)€provides€as€follows:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà ` àIf€two€or€more€offenses€have€been€joined€or€consolidated€for€trial€pursuant€toÐ 8 ˆ ÐRule€8(b),€the€defendant€shall€have€a€right€to€a€severance€of€the€offenses€unless€theÐ $ t Ðoffenses€are€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan€and€the€evidence€of€one€would€beÐ  ` Ðadmissible€upon€the€trial€of€the€others.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€14(b)(1).€€The€ð ðprimary€inquiry€into€whether€a€severance€should€have€been€grantedÐ Ô$  Ðunder€Rule€14€is€whether€the€evidence€of€one€crime€would€be€admissible€in€the€trial€of€the€other€ifÐ À  Ðthe€two€counts€of€indictment€had€been€severed.ðð€€òòState€v.€Burchfieldóó,€664€S.W.2d€284,€286€(Tenn.Ð ¬ü  Ð1984).€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(b)€prohibits€the€admission€of€ð ðother€crimes,€wrongs,€orÐ ˜è  Ðactsðð€of€the€defendant€when€admitted€only€to€show€the€defendantððs€propensity€to€commit€the€crimeÐ „Ô  Ðcharged.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€Rule€404(b)€does€not,€however,€bar€the€admission€of€actsÐ pÀ Ðalleged€to€be€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan€when€relevant€to€a€material€issue€at€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòBunchÐ \¬ Ðv.€Stateóó,€605€S.W.2d€227,€229€(Tenn.€1980).€€Before€a€trial€court€may€deny€a€severance€request,€itÐ H˜ Ðmust€€hold€a€hearing€on€the€motion€and€òòóóconclude€from€the€evidence€and€argument€presented€at€theÐ 4„ Ðhearing€€that€(1)€the€multiple€offenses€constitute€parts€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan;€(2)€evidence€ofÐ  p Ðeach€offense€is€relevant€to€some€material€issue€in€the€trial€of€all€the€other€offenses;€and€(3)€theÐ  \ Ðprobative€value€of€the€evidence€of€other€offenses€is€not€outweighed€by€the€prejudicial€effect€thatÐ øH Ðadmission€of€the€evidence€would€have€on€the€defendant.€€òòSpiceróó,€12€S.W.3d€at€445;€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.Ð ä4 ÐR.€Evid.€404(b)(3).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àð ð[A]€common€scheme€or€plan€for€severance€purposes€is€the€same€as€a€common€scheme€orÐ ¨ø Ðplan€for€evidentiary€purposes.ðð€€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€6€S.W.3d€235,€239€n.7€(Tenn.€1999).€€Three€typesÐ ”ä Ðof€common€scheme€or€plan€evidence€are€recognized€in€Tennessee:€(1)€offenses€that€reveal€aÐ €Ð Ðdistinctive€design€or€are€so€similar€as€to€constitute€ð ðsignatureðð€crimes;€(2)€offenses€that€are€part€ofÐ l¼ Ða€larger,€continuing€plan€or€conspiracy;€and€(3)€offenses€that€are€all€part€of€the€same€criminalÐ X ¨ Ðtransaction.€€Ô‡X9XXX9Ôð ðððIn€order€to€be€'parts€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan'€as€contemplated€by€Rules€8(b)€andÐ D!” Ð14(b)(1),€two€or€more€sets€of€offenses€must€be€so€similar€in€modus€operandi€and€occur€within€suchÐ 0"€  Ða€relatively€close€proximity€of€time€and€location€to€each€other€that€there€can€be€little€doubt€that€theÐ #l! Ðoffenses€were€committed€by€the€same€person(s).ðððð€€òòState€v.€Woodenóó,€658€S.W.2d€553,€557€(Tenn.Ð $X" Ð1983)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Peacockóó,€638€S.W.2d€837,€840€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982)).€€Ô#†X9XXX9å-#ÔMoreover,€thisÐ ô$D # Ðcourt€ruled€in€òòState€v.€Hallockóó€that:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  à[T]he€mere€existence€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan€is€not€a€proper€justification€forÐ ¸'#& Ðadmitting€evidence€of€other€crimes.€€Rather,€admission€of€evidence€of€other€crimesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwhich€tends€to€show€a€common€scheme€or€plan€is€proper€to€show€identity,€guiltyÐ )à$( Ðknowledge,€intent,€motive,€to€rebut€a€defense€of€mistake€or€accident,€or€to€establishÐ |*Ì%) Ðsome€other€relevant€issue.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Ð875€S.W.2d€285,€292€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ð ° ÐÌà  àHere,€the€state€concedes€that€the€offenses€were€not€ð ðsignature€crimes,ðð€and€were€not€part€ofÐ ˆØ Ðthe€same€transaction.€€Instead,€the€state€argues€that€the€offenses€were€part€of€a€ð ðlarger€continuing€planÐ tÄ Ðto€intimidate€and€terrorize€the€victim.ðð€€This€category€of€continuing€plan€or€conspiracy€requires€proofÐ `° Ðof€€ð ða€working€plan,€operating€towards€the€future€with€such€force€as€to€make€probable€the€crime€forÐ L œ Ðwhich€the€defendant€is€on€trial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€935,€943€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àNeither€the€trial€courtððs€order€consolidating€the€offenses€nor€a€transcript€of€the€pretrialÐ  ` Ðhearing,€if€any,€€was€included€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€Nevertheless,€the€record€demonstrates€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€state€moved€to€consolidate€and€the€trial€court€granted€the€motion.€€Additionally,€the€defendantÐ è 8  Ðpresented€the€issue€as€a€ground€for€new€trial.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€adduced€at€trial€may€be€a€basis€for€our€analysis.€€òòCf.óó€òòSpiceróó,€12€S.W.3d€at€445Ð ¬ü  Ð(stating€that€an€appellate€court€should€usually€restrict€its€review€of€joinder€to€the€evidence€producedÐ ˜è  Ðduring€the€pretrial€hearing€on€consolidation);€òòHoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€945.€€The€initial€question€isÐ „Ô  Ðwhether€the€offenses€constituted€a€common€scheme€or€plan.€€òòWebster€v.€Stateóó,€425€S.W.2d€799,€811Ð pÀ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1967).€€The€proof€established€that,€in€March€of€1998,€the€defendant€held€theÐ \¬ Ðvictim€against€her€will€for€some€seven€and€one„half€hours€and€beat€her€with€an€iron€bar.€€Over€fiveÐ H˜ Ðmonths€later,€on€August€28,€1998,€the€defendant€entered€the€victimððs€bedroom,€assaulted€her,€andÐ 4„ Ðthen€threatened€her€with€a€knife€sharpener€when€she€refused€to€loan€him€money.€€The€offenses€areÐ  p Ðsimilar€only€in€that€they€involve€the€same€defendant€and€victim;€otherwise€they€are€wholly€unrelatedÐ  \ Ðin€time,€location,€and€character.€€Even€if,€as€the€state€suggests,€the€defendantððs€motive€in€bothÐ øH Ðoffenses€was€to€terrorize€and€intimidate€the€victim,€shared€motivation€for€two€otherwise€unrelatedÐ ä4 Ðcrimes€is€not€sufficient€to€establish€a€ð ðcommon€scheme€or€plan.ðð€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€859€S.W.2d€359,Ð Ð  Ð362.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Before€trial,€the€state€agreed€to€limit€its€proof€to€conduct€occurringÐ ¼  Ðon€certain€dates.€€That€militates€against€the€argument€that€the€offenses€were€part€of€a€larger,Ð ¨ø Ðcontinuing€plan.€€In€our€view,€the€evidence€does€not€establish€that€the€offenses€were€part€of€aÐ ”ä Ðcommon€scheme€or€plan.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àMoreover,€the€evidence€of€the€March€offenses€would€not€be€admissible€at€the€trial€of€theÐ X ¨ ÐAugust€offenses€as€required€by€the€second€prong€of€Rule€14(b)(1).€€Likewise,€evidence€of€the€AugustÐ D!” Ðoffenses€would€not€be€admissible€at€the€trial€of€the€March€offenses.Ô‡X9XXX9Ô€€This€state€recognizes€threeÐ 0"€  Ðinstances€when€such€evidence€is€admissible:€(1)€to€prove€identity,€(2)€to€prove€intent,€and€(3)€to€rebutÐ #l! Ða€defense€of€mistake€of€fact€or€accident.€€òòState€v.€McCraryóó,€922€S.W.2d€511,€514€(Tenn.€1996).€Ð $X" ÐHere,€intent€and€identity€were€not€at€issue.€€While€the€state€argues€that€evidence€of€the€March€8,Ð ô$D # Ð1998,€incident€would€be€admissible€at€trial€of€the€August€28,€1998,€incident€to€prove€absence€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðmistake€or€accident,€the€defendant€never€relied€on€either€as€a€defense.€€Ô#†X9XXX9‘?#ÔThe€state€makes€no€argumentÐ Ì&"% Ðwith€regard€to€the€admissibility€of€the€August€incident€at€the€trial€of€the€March€incident€and€we€knowÐ ¸'#& Ðof€none.€€In€our€view,€the€trial€court€erred€by€consolidating€the€offenses.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àOur€next€inquiry€is€what,€if€any,€prejudice€the€defendant€suffered€as€a€result€of€the€improperÐ |*Ì%) Ðjoinder.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€52€states€that€ð ð[n]o€judgment€of€conviction€shall€beÐ h+¸&* Ðreversed€on€appeal€except€for€errors€which€affirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€the€result€of€the€trialÐ ° Ðon€the€merits.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€ð ðIn€most€severance€cases,€ððthe€line€between€harmless€andÐ œì Ðprejudicial€error€is€in€direct€proportion€to€the€degree€.€.€.€by€which€proof€exceeds€the€standardÐ ˆØ Ðrequired€to€convict.€.€.€.ðððð€€òòSpiceróó,€12€S.W.3d€at€447„48€(quoting€òòDelk€v.€Stateóó,€590€S.W.2d€435,€442Ð tÄ Ð(Tenn.€1979)).€€Our€supreme€court€has€held€that€the€error€is€harmful€when,€because€the€evidence€ofÐ `° Ðguilt€was€not€overwhelming,€the€failure€to€sever€offenses€invited€the€jury€to€infer€guilt€from€theÐ L œ Ðpropensity€of€the€accused€to€commit€crime.€€òòShirleyóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€250„51.€€In€òòSpiceróó,€€our€high€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðconcluded€that,€because€the€evidence€of€guilt€was€sufficient€but€not€overwhelming,€the€failure€toÐ $ t Ðsever€offenses€required€reversal.€€12€S.W.3d€at€447.€€This€court,€in€òòState€v.€Michelle€Fergusonóó,€No.Ð  ` ÐE1999„01302„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Aug.€3,€2000),€held€that€the€trialÐ ü L  Ðcourtððs€failure€to€sever€was€reversible€error€because€ð ð[a]lthough€the€evidence€.€.€.€was€legallyÐ è 8  Ðsufficient€to€support€all€three€of€[d]efendantððs€convictions,€the€evidence€was€far€fromÐ Ô$  Ðoverwhelming.ðð€€òòCf.óó€òòState€v.€Michael€Anderson€Peekóó,€No.€E1998„00038„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð À  ÐApp.€May€3,€2000)€(finding€that€the€failure€to€sever€was€harmless€where€the€evidence€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendantððs€guilt€was€overwhelming).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àAs€to€case€number€98„D„2523,€the€March€incident,€the€evidence€was€overwhelming.€€TheÐ pÀ Ðvictim€testified€that€the€defendant€beat€her€with€an€iron€bar€for€several€hours,€resulting€in€seriousÐ \¬ Ðinjuries€which€were€documented€through€photographs€and€attested€to€by€her€treating€physician.€Ð H˜ ÐAdditionally,€the€defendant€confessed€to€officers€that€he€hit€his€wife€in€the€legs€with€an€iron€bar.€€InÐ 4„ Ðconsequence,€the€improper€joinder€of€offenses€was€harmless€as€to€this€conviction.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThis€analysis,€however,€does€not€lead€to€the€same€conclusion€with€regard€to€case€number€99„Ð øH ÐA„13,€the€August€1998€incident.€€The€proof€of€this€offense€consisted€entirely€of€the€victimððsÐ ä4 Ðtestimony€that€the€defendant€kissed€her,€bit€her€breast,€and€threatened€her€with€a€knife€sharpenerÐ Ð  Ðwhen€she€refused€to€loan€him€money.€€While€this€would€be€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction,€itÐ ¼  Ðwas€not€overwhelming.€€In€our€view,€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€sever€the€offenses€allowed€the€juryÐ ¨ø Ðto€infer€the€defendantððs€guilt€from€his€propensity€to€commit€acts€of€violence€against€the€victim.€Ð ”ä ÐThus,€a€new€trial€on€this€offense€is€required.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lucius€Macineo€Mossóó,€No.€03C01„9501„Ð €Ð ÐCR„00002€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€May€2,€1996)€(affirming€in€part€and€reversing€in€partÐ l¼ Ðwhere€the€failure€to€sever€was€harmful€as€to€defendantððs€murder€conviction€and€harmless€as€to€hisÐ X ¨ Ðconvictions€for€aggravated€robbery€and€reckless€endangerment);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHackney€v.Ð D!” ÐCommonwealthóó,€504€S.E.2d€385,€389€(Va.€Ct.€App.€1998)€(affirming€defendantððs€firearm€convictionÐ 0"€  Ðand€reversing€his€conviction€for€grand€larceny€where€the€trial€court€erroneously€failed€to€sever);Ð #l! ÐòòElerson€v.€Stateóó,€732€P.2d€192,€195„96€(Alaska€Ct.€App.€1987)€(affirming€one€out€of€two€convictionsÐ $X" Ðwhere€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€sever€was€erroneous);€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€455€So.2d€562,€565€(Fla.€Dist.Ð ô$D # ÐCt.€App.€1984)€(holding€that€trial€courtððs€failure€to€sever€was€error,€but€required€reversal€only€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðsexual€battery€conviction€because€evidence€as€to€defendantððs€conviction€for€possession€of€a€weaponÐ Ì&"% Ðwas€overwhelming).Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ  ¤(ô#' ÐÓ  ÓIIÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€admit€testimonyÐ œì Ðregarding€the€circumstances€of€the€divorce.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€sought€to€show,€through€theÐ ˆØ Ðcross„examination€of€the€victimððs€daughter,€that€the€victim€fabricated€the€incidents€in€order€to€obtainÐ tÄ Ða€more€favorable€property€settlement.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€evidence€was€not€relevantÐ `° Ðbecause€the€offenses€preceded€the€divorce€settlement.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àð ðRelevant€evidenceðð€is€evidence€ð ðhaving€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€thatÐ $ t Ðis€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€wouldÐ  ` Ðhave€been€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€In€òòState€v.€Forbesóó,€this€court€discussed€theÐ ü L  Ðstandard€of€review€of€a€trial€court's€determination€of€relevancy:€Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  à"Because€an€assessment€of€whether€a€piece€of€evidence€is€relevant€requires€anÐ À  Ðunderstanding€of€the€caseððs€theory€and€other€evidence€as€well€as€a€familiarity€with€theÐ ¬ü  Ðevidence€in€question,€appellate€courts€give€great€deference€to€a€trial€judge's€decisionÐ ˜è  Ðon€relevance€issues.€€Often€it€is€stated€that€a€trial€court's€decision€on€relevance€willÐ „Ô  Ðbe€reversed€only€for€an€abuse€of€discretion.€.€.€."€ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌòòóó918€S.W.2d€431,€449€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)òòóó(quoting€Neil€P.€Cohen,€òòTennessee€Law€of€EvidenceóóÐ H˜ Ððð€401.5€(2d€ed.€1990)).Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€this€instance,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€details€of€the€victimððs€divorce€from€theÐ  \ Ðdefendant,€which€occurred€some€time€after€the€August€1998€offense,€were€not€relevant€to€anyÐ øH Ðmaterial€issue€at€trial.€€The€defendant€contends€that€this€evidence€would€have€been€relevant€to€showÐ ä4 Ðthat€the€victim€had€a€motive€to€manufacture€the€evidence.€€The€defendant€was€allowed€to€presentÐ Ð  Ðevidence€indicating€a€motive€to€lie€through€cross„examination€of€both€the€victim€and€the€physicianÐ ¼  Ðwho€treated€her€after€the€March€1998€offense.€€Any€questioning€of€the€victimððs€daughter€in€this€area,Ð ¨ø Ðwhile€marginally€relevant,€would€have€been€cumulative.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Thus,€any€errorÐ ”ä Ðwould€have€been€harmless.Ð €Ð ÐÌÓ  ÓIIIÐ X ¨ ÐÓ  Óà  àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€permitted€him€to€pose€aÐ D!” Ðhypothetical€question€to€the€stateððs€expert.€€The€specific€rules€of€evidence€that€govern€the€issue€ofÐ 0"€  Ðadmissibility€of€scientific€proof€in€Tennessee€are€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€702€and€703.€€RuleÐ #l! Ð702€provides€as€follows:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àà ` àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€will€substantially€assistÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witnessÐ Ì&"% Ðqualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€mayÐ ¸'#& Ðtestify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐÌâ âTenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€Rule€703€states€that:Ð |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà ` àThe€facts€or€data€in€the€particular€case€upon€which€an€expert€bases€an€opinionÐ ° Ðâ âor€inference€may€be€those€perceived€by€or€made€known€to€the€expert€at€or€before€theÐ œì Ðhearing.€€If€a€type€reasonably€relied€upon€by€experts€in€the€particular€field€in€formingÐ ˆØ Ðopinions€or€inferences€upon€the€subject,€the€facts€à8@zÐ Ð àor€data€need€not€be€admissible€in€evidence.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðcourt€shall€disallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€inference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€dataÐ `° Ðindicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.Ð L œ ÐÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€703.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àIn€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transportation,€Inc.óó,€our€supreme€court€concluded€that€to€determine€ð ðtheÐ ü L  Ðstandard€of€admissibility€of€scientific€evidence€requires€an€analysis€of€the€unique€language€found€inÐ è 8  ÐRules€702€and€703€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.ðð€€955€S.W.2d€257,€264€(Tenn.€1997).€€RuleÐ Ô$  Ð702,€the€court€noted,€requires€that€the€evidence€ð ðsubstantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact,ðð€while€theÐ À  Ðfederal€rule€requires€only€that€the€evidence€ð ðassist€the€trier€of€fact.ðð€€òòId.óó€€The€court,€therefore,Ð ¬ü  Ðconcluded€that€the€probative€force€of€expert€testimony€must€be€stronger€in€this€stateððs€courts€thanÐ ˜è  Ðunder€the€federal€rules.€€òòId.óó€€Similarly,€according€to€Rule€703,€a€Tennessee€court€ð ðððshall€disallowÐ „Ô  Ðtestimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€inference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€data€indicate€a€lack€ofÐ pÀ Ðtrustworthiness.ðððð€€òòId.óó€(quoting€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€703).€€Even€if€expert€testimony€tends€to€provideÐ \¬ Ðsubstantial€assistance€to€the€jury,€the€testimony€is€admissible€only€if€it€is€based€upon€reliable€factsÐ H˜ Ðor€data.€€òòShuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€668.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àGenerally,€the€admission€of€expert€testimony€is€largely€entrusted€to€the€sound€discretion€ofÐ  \ Ðthe€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€mayÐ øH Ðbe€overturned€on€appeal€upon€a€showing€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòId.óó€€As€notedÐ ä4 Ðabove,€ð ðan€appellate€court€should€find€an€abuse€of€discretion€when€it€appears€that€a€trial€court€appliedÐ Ð  Ðan€incorrect€legal€standard€or€reached€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€that€caused€anÐ ¼  Ðinjustice€to€the€party€complaining.ðð€€òòShuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€669€(citing€òòBallardóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€661).Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àIt€has€long€been€the€law€in€Tennessee€that€it€is€not€proper€for€hypothetical€questions€toÐ €Ð Ðassume€facts€that€are€not€supported€by€the€evidence.€€òòPentecost€v.€Anchor€Wire€Corpóó.,€662€S.W.2dÐ l¼ Ð327,€328€(Tenn.€1983);€òòNix€v.€Stateóó,€530€S.W.2d€524,€530€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975);€òòBailey€v.€Stateóó,Ð X ¨ Ð479€S.W.2d€829,€835€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972).€An€appellate€court,€however,€is€not€required€toÐ D!” Ðsearch€the€entire€record€to€determine€whether€every€possible€fact€is€listed€in€the€question€or€whetherÐ 0"€  Ðevery€hypothetical€fact€is€supported€by€the€evidence€presented€by€the€opposing€party.€€òòPentecostóó,€662Ð #l! ÐS.W.2d€at€329.€€The€issue€is€resolved€ð ðby€determining€whether€the€question€contained€enough€facts,Ð $X" Ðsupported€by€evidence,€to€permit€an€expert€to€give€a€reasonable€opinion€which€is€not€based€on€mereÐ ô$D # Ðspeculation€or€conjecture€and€which€is€not€misleading€to€the€trier€of€fact.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àAlthough€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€705€abolishes€the€requirement€of€using€hypotheticalÐ ¸'#& Ðquestions,€the€rule€does€not€disallow€them.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€705,€Advisory€Commission€Comments.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐRule€703€allows€an€expert€to€base€an€opinion€on€facts€not€in€evidence€if€they€are€of€a€ð ðtypeÐ )à$( Ðreasonably€relied€upon€by€experts€in€the€particular€fieldðð€and€are€trustworthy.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€703.Ð |*Ì%) ÐOf€course,€an€expert's€response€to€a€hypothetical€question€ð ðmust€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€factÐ h+¸&* Ðto€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€A€questionÐ ° Ðbased€on€untrustworthy€or€incomplete€data€or€that€is€misleading€will€not€be€of€any€assistance€to€theÐ œì Ðtrier€of€fact.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àAfter€the€victimððs€treating€physician€testified€that€the€injury€to€the€victimððs€head€was€a€minorÐ `° Ðcut,€defense€counsel€asked€the€following€question:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àIf€you€were€working€in€ER€and€you€got€the€information€that€a€case€was€ð!ð€that€aÐ $ t Ðpatient€was€coming€in€on€an€ambulance,€whatever,€and€the€information€you€had€wasÐ  ` Ðthat€they€had€been€hit€in€the€head€with€a€one€and€a€half€to€two€inch€iron€bar,€is€thatÐ ü L  Ðð!ð€this€kind€of€injury€the€picture€you€would€have€in€your€head€that€you€would€beÐ è 8  Ðpreparing€for€as€they€come€in?ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€state€objected€on€the€basis€that€the€question€required€the€doctor€to€speculate.€€The€doctor€did€notÐ ¬ü  Ðobserve€the€victim€when€the€injury€to€her€head€was€fresh,€as€contemplated€by€the€hypothetical,Ð ˜è  Ðbecause€the€victim€waited€a€week€before€she€sought€treatment€for€her€injuries.€€Because€theÐ „Ô  Ðhypothetical€was€not€based€on€the€facts€adduced€at€trial,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretionÐ pÀ Ðin€disallowing€the€question.Ð \¬ ÐÌò òó óà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€case€number€98„D„2523€is€affirmed.€€TheÐ 4„ Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court€in€case€number€99„A„13€is€reversed€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial.Ð  p ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE