ÿWPC ½mÔ—O:»LEÌv‹Ê(émºŒÀƒU:KÄÕÈÒ®±¬.©£<ðǧcÎÒ£ƒ•ö¥ÝuVR‚€Òëp0÷]áLR¾ëi£÷c#ñç;‡fÇBàBM§nªûc ü´æ"ÌY¦o=N=‚\Å ÊT²„Aů_kdMØ‚‘Å>ì9üL>§óÿTíÆåG<6÷ê»È ‡­ÂŒ‰Òö{úõçn]ÒLŒB€…£OÇ‹¿ m~»L¥yéI'ñQ ÄÁppÑÉpÍB%˜ ãeÛ| `ÚnŸmêºl®‚9MƇˆÁdþºqã§ÇÕö(ô8Jñg%"B~w/‚¿+æei”Ï…þš´=›‰ĺ#Õ†x¸Á”’@‰Š´¡5Ú+ƒ{†7Y÷N+ëIþ÷=aˆ˜QßçJ†‡ÅƒËkZ®–g ul#}}Õç4zÜ+½øjŽÑ6ÛåÞ•~“ɬ-Š}tBû,Ëó«ÃO'âàzÏôxÇ…4h/xËB}ROðr–Ôžnrˆ†Xóosá•…çÛÊP+ç9Äë:û·°€=`‡ZÏœŽ&mW Pì"ÕU‰3êhµ-×¢AÙ@3=¬ËcéW~ã|MNbUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ# 0DéN-W/ †Eb’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ 0ëšššš B…… 0¤¢ D3F D-y 0K¦¦ ASñÆD 0¤  0D® A«ò(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó8²œ) ÖJ~'bk3lÚ¦3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó MÝ ƒR&Ÿ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô[õò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ô[õòòô[õÔAny€review€of€the€Appellantððs€misdemeanor€conviction€for€criminal€impersonation€is€waived€for€failure€toÐ ° Ðbrief€the€issue.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€27. Ý ƒR&Ÿ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô[õò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ô[õòòô[õÔThe€Appellant€identified€himself€as€Wade€Hampton€Skinner€IV.€€At€the€police€station,€the€Appellant€producedÐ ° Ða€driverððs€license€bearing€his€picture€and€the€fake€name.€€Upon€searching€the€van,€police€discovered€a€grocery€list€writtenÐ n¾ Ðon€the€back€of€an€envelope€bearing€the€Appellantððs€true€identity€and€address.- ù-(|G2&Ÿ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€31»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô[õò»»Ô d(|3Ö`$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€31»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ö`$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€31»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€31»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼31»»»ÔÑ8€FXXdæ»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î’31ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼31»îî’ #ԈРР ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€November€15,€2000Ð ð@ ÐÔ‡XFX»¼31ÔÌò òÔ#†¼31»XXF"#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€GREGORY€LYNN€REDDENòòóóÔ‡XFX»¼31Ôó óÐ ä4 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Robertson€CountyÐ Ø ( Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„0479€€€€€€Robert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<o` AßÐ pÀ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„00988„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€December€28,€2000Ð eµ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<0` AßÐ 1  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ XFXXXFÔThe€Appellant,€Gregory€Lynn€Redden,€was€convicted€by€a€Robertson€County€jury€of€burglary,€theftÐ &v  Ðof€property€over€$1,000,€and€criminal€impersonation.€€He€received€concurrent€sentences€of€twelveÐ  \ Ðyears€for€burglary,€twelve€years€for€theft€of€property,€and€six€months€for€criminal€impersonation.€Ð òB ÐOn€appeal,€the€Appellant€raises€the€following€three€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€the€evidenceÐ Ø( Ðwas€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€excusing€two€jurors€forÐ ¾ Ðcause€during€voir€dire;€and€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€statement€of€theÐ ¤ô ÐAppellantððs€confession€into€evidence.€€After€review,€we€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment.Ô#†XFXX XFÖ#ÔÔ#†¼31»XXF#ÔÔ‡XFX»¼31ÔÐ ŠÚ ÐÓÊÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ V¦ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼31»àXFd#ÔÔ‡XFX.¼31ÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòNormaÐ "r ÐMcGee€Ogleóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð X ÐÌJoe€R.€(Jay)€Johnson,€Springfield,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Gregory€Lynn€Redden.Ð Ô$ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General,€Marvin€E.Ð  ð ÐClements,€Jr.,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€John€Wesley€Ô_ÔCarneyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General,€andÐ † Ö  ÐJoel€Perry,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð l!¼! ÐÔ#†¼31»XXF2 #ÔÔ‡XFX»¼31ÔÌÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼31»XXFü #ÔÔ‡XFX»¼31ÔÐ $n$ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼31»XXFo #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XFX»¼31ÔÌÔ‡ XFXXXFÔà  àOn€October€27,€1998,€the€Appellant,€Gregory€Lynn€Redden,€was€indicted€by€a€RobertsonÐ Ð& "' ÐCounty€Grand€Jury€on€the€offenses€of€burglary,€theft€of€property€over€$1,000,€and€criminalÐ ¶'#( Ðimpersonation.€€Following€a€jury€trial,€the€Appellant€was€found€guilty€as€charged€and€received€anÐ œ(ì#) Ðâ âeffective€sentence€of€twelve€years.€€On€appeal,€the€Appellant€raises€the€following€issues€for€ourÐ ‚)Ò$*ý3 Ðreview:€€(1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict;׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€(2)€whether€the€trial€courtÐ ° Ðâ âerred€in€not€excusing€two€jurors€for€cause€during€voir€dire;€and€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ –æ Ðallowing€the€statement€of€the€Appellantððs€confession€into€evidence.€€Upon€review,€we€find€no€error.€Ð |Ì ÐTherefore,€the€judgment€of€the€Robertson€County€Criminal€Court€is€affirmed.Ð b² ÐÌò òÓ  ÓBackgroundÐ . ~ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àOn€December€16,€1997,€officers€from€the€Springfield€Police€Department€received€a€dispatch€Ð ú J Ðthat€a€burglar€alarm€was€sounding€at€the€Bank€of€Ô_ÔGoodlettsvilleÔ_Ô.ò ò€€ó óUpon€arriving€at€the€bank,€OfficerÐ à 0 ÐJoe€Ô_ÔMcLeodÔ_Ô€noticed€that€a€window€on€the€back€side€of€the€bank€was€broken€and€called€for€back„upÐ Æ   Ðassistance.€€Upon€further€investigation,€Officer€Troy€Ô_ÔSabieÔ_Ô€noticed€someone€moving€around€insideÐ ¬ ü  Ðof€the€bank.€€Although€Officer€Ô_ÔSabieÔ_Ô€did€not€actually€see€the€Appellant€exit€the€bank,€he€did€see€theÐ ’â  ÐAppellant€jump€over€a€brick€wall€and€crouch€down€to€hide€behind€the€bankððs€air„conditioning€unit.€Ð xÈ  ÐSeveral€officers€surrounded€the€area€and€arrested€the€Appellant.€€A€screwdriver€and€gloves€wereÐ ^®  Ðfound€next€to€the€air„conditioning€unit.€€After€the€Appellant€was€arrested,€a€woman€approachedÐ D”  ÐOfficer€Ô_ÔSabieÔ_Ô€and€identified€herself€as€a€companion€of€the€Appellant.€€She€informed€the€officers€ofÐ *z  Ðthe€Appellantððs€true€name€and€stated€that€the€van€they€were€traveling€in€belonged€to€the€AppellantððsÐ ` Ðsister.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò ò€Ð öF ÐÌó óà  àUpon€entering€the€bank,€the€officers€discovered€that€the€cash€drawers€and€coin€vaults€at€theÐ Â Ðteller€windows€had€been€broken€into€and€approximately€$2,245€had€been€removed.€€A€duffle€bagÐ ¨ø Ðcontaining€the€money€was€discovered€inside€the€bank.€€€Brent€Browning,€the€branch€manager€of€theÐ ŽÞ Ðbank,€testified€that€it€was€not€bank€policy€to€leave€money€out€and€that€the€duffle€bag€and€flashlightÐ tÄ Ðfound€inside€the€bank€were€not€bank€property.Ð Zª ÐÌà  àAt€the€police€department,€the€Appellant€gave€a€statement€wherein€he€stated€that€his€name€wasÐ &v ÐWade€Skinner€and€that€he€borrowed€the€van€from€his€sister.€€He€further€stated€that€he€decided€to€ð ðhitððÐ  \ Ðthe€bank€because€he€needed€some€money€and€acknowledged€ownership€of€the€gloves€andÐ òB Ðscrewdriver€found€near€the€air„conditioning€unit.€€After€giving€the€statement,€the€Appellant€refusedÐ Ø( Ðto€sign€it.Ð ¾ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÐ Š Ú ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€set€forth€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€the€guiltyÐ V"¦! Ðverdicts€for€both€burglary€and€theft.€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€contends€that€the€State€failed€toÐ <#Œ" Ðprove€that€he€ever€entered€the€bank€and€that€he€ever€exercised€control€over€the€money.€€We€disagreeÐ "$r# Ðâ âand€find€the€evidence€sufficient€to€sustain€the€verdict.Ð %X $ Ðà  àA€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€is€cloakedÐ ° Ðâ âand€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÐ –æ Ðdemonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔTuggleÔ_Ôóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€Ð |Ì ÐIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€does€not€Ô_ÔreweighÔ_Ô€or€reevaluate€theÐ b² Ðevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Likewise,€it€is€not€the€duty€of€thisÐ H˜ ÐCourt€to€revisit€questions€of€witness€credibility€on€appeal,€that€function€being€within€the€provinceÐ . ~ Ðof€the€trier€of€€fact.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔAdkinsÔ_Ôóó,€786€S.W.2d€642,€646€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.Ð  d ÐÔ_ÔBurlisonÔ_Ôóó,€868€S.W.2d€713,€718„19€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1993).€€Instead,€the€defendant€must€establishÐ ú J Ðthat€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€so€deficient€that€no€reasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€foundÐ à 0 Ðthe€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,Ð Æ   Ð319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔCazesÔ_Ôóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ð ¬ ü  Ð513€U.S.€1086,€115€S.Ct.€743€(1995);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€Moreover,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÐ ’â  Ðstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÐ xÈ  Ðtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert€denied,óó€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.Ct.Ð ^®  Ð1368€(1993).Ð D”  ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€be€found€guilty€of€burglary,€it€must€be€shown€that€a€person,€without€the€effectiveÐ ` Ðconsent€of€the€property€owner,€enters€a€building€and€commits€or€attempts€to€commit€a€felony,€theft,Ð öF Ðor€assault.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€óó39„14„402€(1997€Repl.).€€Likewise,€a€person€commits€theft€ofÐ Ü, Ðproperty€who€ð ðwith€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€property,€the€person€knowingly€obtains€orÐ Â Ðexercises€control€over€the€property€without€the€ownerððs€effective€consent.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€39„Ð ¨ø Ð14„103€(1997€Repl.).€€Thus,€in€the€present€case,€the€burden€was€upon€the€State€to€prove€that€theÐ ŽÞ Ðdefendant€entered€the€bank€with€the€intention€of€committing€a€theft.€€After€reviewing€the€record,€weÐ tÄ Ðfind€the€State€met€this€burden.Ð Zª ÐÌà  àUpon€arriving€at€the€bank,€officers€observed€that€the€burglar€alarm€was€sounding€because€aÐ &v Ðbank€window€had€been€broken.€€Furthermore,€they€noticed€a€person€moving€around€inside€the€bank.€Ð  \ ÐShortly€thereafter,€the€officers€observed€a€man€jump€a€brick€wall€adjacent€to€the€bank€and€crouchÐ òB Ðdown€to€hide€behind€the€bankððs€air„conditioning€unit.€€Upon€his€arrest,€the€tools€used€to€break€intoÐ Ø( Ðthe€vaults€were€found€on€the€ground€nearby.€€Approximately€$2,245€had€been€removed€from€theÐ ¾ Ðvaults€and€placed€in€duffle€bags.€€Notwithstanding€that€these€bags€were€left€inside€the€bank€when€theÐ ¤ô ÐAppellant€fled,€the€removal€of€the€money€from€the€vaults€revealed€that€the€Appellant€exercisedÐ Š Ú Ðcontrol€over€the€money€without€the€bankððs€consent.€€This€exercise€of€control€was€sufficient€to€satisfyÐ p!À  Ðthe€statutory€definition€of€theft.Ð V"¦! ÐÌà  àMoreover,€the€Appellant€confessed€to€being€the€person€who€broke€into€the€bank€and€theÐ "$r# Ðstatement€of€the€woman€accompanying€the€Appellant€on€this€particular€night€corroborated€theÐ %X $ ÐAppellantððs€confession.€€Considering€these€facts,€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€weÐ î%>!% Ðconclude€that€a€reasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyondÐ Ô&$"& Ða€reasonable€doubt.€€Therefore,€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€a€verdict€of€guilty.€€€This€issueÐ º' #' Ðis€without€merit.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Jury€Voir€Dire€and€Challenges€for€CauseÐ 8,ˆ', Їó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€next€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€strike€from€the€jury€panel€twoÐ ° Ðprospective€jurors€for€cause.€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€contends€that€he€had€to€exhaust€hisÐ –æ Ðperemptory€challenges€on€jurors€that€should€have€been€excused€for€causeò ò€ó óbased€on€their€initialÐ |Ì Ðresponse€that€it€would€be€difficult€for€them€to€ð ðstand€aloneðð€in€their€belief€as€to€the€defendantððsÐ b² Ðinnocence€if€the€other€eleven€jurors€disagreed€and€felt€the€defendant€was€guilty.€€Since€he€had€toÐ H˜ Ðexhaust€his€peremptory€challenges€on€those€jurors,€the€Appellant€argues€that€he€was€deprived€of€theÐ . ~ Ðopportunity€ð ðto€have€a€fair€and€impartial€jury€decide€his€caseðð€in€violation€of€the€Sixth€AmendmentÐ  d Ðof€the€United€States€Constitution.Ð ú J Ѐ€Ð à 0 Ðà  àIrrespective€of€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€excluded€the€two€jurors€for€cause,€anyÐ Æ   Ðerror€in€this€respect€is€harmless€unless€the€jury€who€heard€the€case€was€not€fair€and€impartial.€€òòStateÐ ¬ ü  Ðv.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239,€246€(Tenn.€1989).€€In€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó,€our€supreme€courtÐ ’â  Ðheld:Ð xÈ  ÐÌà8  àIt€is€a€long„settled€principle€that€a€defendant€who€disagrees€with€a€trial€courtððs€rulingÐ D”  Ðon€for€cause€challenges€must,€in€order€to€preserve€the€claim€that€the€ruling€deprivedÐ *z  Ðhim€of€a€fair€trial,€exercise€peremptory€challenges€to€remove€the€jurors.€€Even€then,Ð ` Ðhowever,€the€failure€to€correctly€exclude€a€juror€for€cause€is€grounds€for€reversal€onlyÐ öF Ðif€the€defendant€exhausts€all€of€his€peremptory€challenges€and€an€incompetent€jurorÐ Ü, Ðis€forced€upon€him.€€ÐÂÐ Ð  ÐÌòòState€v.€Ô_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€329€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcriticized€on€other€groundsóó,€òòState€v.Ð ŽÞ ÐÔ_ÔBigbeeÔ_Ôóó,€885€S.W.2d€797€(Tenn.€1994)€and€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€980€S.W.2d€359€(Tenn.€1998)(òòciting€óóòòRossÐ tÄ Ðv.€Oklahomaóó,€487€U.S.€81,€89,€108€S.Ct.€2273,€2279€(1988)).Ð Zª ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€as€in€òòÔ_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó,€there€is€no€claim,€and€the€record€does€not€show,€thatÐ &v Ðan€incompetent€juror€was€forced€upon€the€Appellant.€€Although€the€Appellant€argues€that€defenseÐ  \ Ðcounsel€was€ð ðforcedðð€to€use€its€peremptory€challenges€on€two€jurors€which€should€have€beenÐ òB Ðexcused€for€cause,€he€does€not€tell€us€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€not€being€able€to€peremptorilyÐ Ø( Ðchallenge€any€of€the€jurors€who€actually€heard€the€case.€€The€record€demonstrates€that€each€juror€whoÐ ¾ Ðheard€the€case€was€competent.€€As€such,€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€Appellant€was€denied€a€fair€andÐ ¤ô Ðimpartial€trial.Ð Š Ú ÐÌà  àMoreover,€the€trial€court€individually€voir€Ô_ÔdiredÔ_Ô€the€two€jurors€regarding€their€responses€andÐ V"¦! Ðexplained€to€the€jurors€that€they€should€not€change€their€mind€simply€to€reach€a€unanimous€verdict.€Ð <#Œ" ÐAfter€this€discussion,€the€trial€court€once€again€asked€the€two€jurors€if€they€would€be€able€to€ð ðstandÐ "$r# Ðaloneðð€if€needed€and€each€responded€that€they€could.€€Since€both€jurors€indicated€that€they€couldÐ %X $ Ðfollow€these€instructions,€the€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€to€exclude€for€cause.€A€trialÐ î%>!% Ðcourt€has€wide€discretion€in€ruling€on€the€qualifications€of€a€juror.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔKilburnÔ_Ôóó,€782€S.W.2d€199,Ð Ô&$"& Ð203€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.1989).€€After€reviewing€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€notÐ º' #' Ðabuse€its€discretion€in€refusing€to€excuse€either€of€the€two€jurors€for€cause.€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€€Unsigned€ConfessionÐ l*¼%* Ðâ âÐ R+¢&+ Ðó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€suppressing€his€statement€to€DetectiveÐ ° Ðâ âWilliam€Watkins€wherein€he€confessed€to€being€the€person€who€broke€into€the€bank.€€Specifically,Ð –æ Ðthe€Appellant€alleges€that€his€statement€was€ð ðinvoluntary€and€unreliableðð€and€that€the€trial€courtððsÐ |Ì Ðfailure€to€suppress€the€statement€ð ðwas€a€violation€of€[his]€constitutional€rights€under€the€Due€ProcessÐ b² ÐClause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.ðð€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àAt€the€police€station,€the€Appellant€was€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€and€signed€anÐ  d Ðð ðadmonition€and€waiver€of€rightsðð€form€indicating€he€was€willing€to€make€a€statement€and€answerÐ ú J Ðquestions.€€Thereafter,€the€Appellant€and€Detective€Watkins€engaged€in€an€approximately€twenty„Ð à 0 Ðfive€minute€conversation€wherein€the€Appellant€falsely€stated€he€was€ð ðWade€Hampton€Skinnerðð€andÐ Æ   Ðadmitted€that€he€broke€into€the€bank.€€Detective€Watkins€summarized€the€Appellantððs€statement€andÐ ¬ ü  Ðreduced€it€to€writing.€€The€Appellant€then€refused€to€sign€the€statement€and€requested€an€attorney.€Ð ’â  ÐDetective€Watkins€immediately€ceased€questioning.€€Ð xÈ  ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€Ô_Ôð ðhadÔ_Ô€he€agreed€with€the€detectiveððs€version€of€the€story,€theÐ D”  Ðstatement€would€have€been€signed.ðð€€The€primary€consideration€in€determining€the€admissibility€ofÐ *z  Ðthe€evidence€is€whether€the€confession€is€an€act€of€free€will.€€òòState€v.€Chandleróó,€547€S.W.2d€918,€920Ð ` Ð(Tenn.€1977).€€A€confession€is€not€voluntary€when€"the€behavior€of€the€state's€law€enforcementÐ öF Ðofficials€was€such€as€to€overbearðð€the€will€of€an€accused€and€"bring€about€confessions€not€freelyÐ Ü, Ðself-determined."€€òòKellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€at€728.€€With€regard€to€the€claim€that€a€confession€isÐ Â Ðinvoluntary,€a€trial€courtððs€determination€at€a€suppression€hearing€is€presumptively€correct€on€appealÐ ¨ø Ðand€such€presumption€of€correctness€may€only€be€overcome€on€appeal€if€the€evidence€in€the€recordÐ ŽÞ Ðpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€òòState€v.€Kellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€726,€729€(Tenn.€1980).€Ð tÄ ÐFurthermore,€the€appellate€courts€of€this€state€are€bound€to€accept€that€determination€by€a€trial€courtÐ Zª Ðthat€a€confession€was€freely€and€voluntarily€given€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderatesÐ @ Ðagainst€that€finding.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€859€S.W.2d€359,€362€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1992).€€Findings€ofÐ &v Ðfact€made€by€the€trial€court€after€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€a€motion€to€suppress€are€afforded€theÐ  \ Ðweight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€an€appellate€court€will€not€set€aside€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€unlessÐ òB Ðthe€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.Ð Ø( ÐÔ_ÔOdomÔ_Ôóó,€928€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996).Ð ¾ ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€Appellant€agrees€that€he€was€read€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€and€that€he€didÐ Š Ú Ðsign€a€waiver€of€rights€form.€€After€hearing€the€motion€to€suppress,€the€trial€court€found€the€statementÐ p!À  Ðto€ð ðhave€no€constitutional€infirmitiesðð€and€ruled€that€it€was€admissible.€€We€agree.€€The€fact€that€theÐ V"¦! ÐAppellant€did€not€sign€the€statement€is€of€no€effect.€€An€oral€confession€is€just€as€binding€as€a€writtenÐ <#Œ" Ðconfession.€€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€384€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1964).€€It€is€natural€for€human€beings€to€giveÐ "$r# Ða€written€signed€confession€more€weight€and€credit€than€they€do€the€testimony€of€certain€witnessesÐ %X $ Ðwho€say€the€man€confessed€to€them.€€òòId.óó€€However,€the€weight€to€be€given€an€oral€confession€asÐ î%>!% Ðopposed€to€a€signed€written€confession€is€for€the€juryððs€determination€and€not€the€appellate€courts.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐMoreover,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€show€that€the€statement€made€was€involuntary€or€takenÐ º' #' Ðagainst€the€Appellantððs€will.€€As€such,€the€trial€court€properly€admitted€the€Appellantððs€statement€intoÐ  (ð#( Ðevidence.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð †)Ö$) Ðò òÓ  ÓÌÌCONCLUSIONÐ 8,ˆ', Їó óÓ  Óà  àWe€find€that€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€was€sufficient€to€support€the€guilty€verdicts€forÐ ° Ðburglary€and€theft€of€property€over€$1,000.€€Likewise,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€inÐ –æ Ðfailing€to€excuse€two€jurors€for€cause€and€did€not€err€in€admitting€into€evidence€the€AppellantððsÐ |Ì Ðunsigned€confession.€€Therefore,€the€judgment€of€the€Robertson€County€Criminal€Court€is€affirmed.ò òÐ b² Ðó óÔ#†XFXX XFù #ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¬ ü  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE