ÿWPC) 3o¬+*‡±ú½aì¿Mí ‹ýŸA`“#ìMä1i;ijê)v> qW äºÿ ;~šc\KÛ‡çnJÜ8¹Ì  ´ópxô²Žl @ч;•vöÍ\}¼rš`ß¿5®œ 醢’* U¯>ΉoŸ(—ÿSƒ–YF¬Ç¥6tSr S§8W)š«JÆcíCÓ9† »œòN7^ >kœ„ºönàÞ*"_éQÂ`Ùæ‚Ns¢AŽZx¼þܨÂÃù‹Q;®LR@™&-x6qGó»(-½¦òyòùpû+ÎIž0$˜ÍðSp«wäžû•àÕ:aPvMvcuiæàŠ|kTÐÇ1o]&EâCUtšÿÊîE}„®³?Ç.r¼wùäœ(¿…/!ÉÜ9FoªS­³Â«°$ÌGjû¶R£Îzrÿ{mR"@éSò¡!è^´¦3XD ì)sÇ.qÍ>4:Çæ¡‘3 aÖ\ÔBÅ=ˆ…«ûÆÊ“jÌYN_#jÇÎÖª+° ¿B;J”U7ƅľCîA ÃWyî!¡²?çj)7ÈùIÎM¬Ð‰™ÝÄ™ìA³öï 2ÕQ\xpred¹ä-±ZìõðaÔÑÝÀ=:Ö1ö½åÑ]ÇÆ©Ç zkô©)# >UNI %— 0(U:Åbÿ 0‚U:‰ 0ÈÃU:‹w@Å4(, j« Ž i£ 1ÆG) U:6666666 AQp BÁ 0DÞ 0D" 0Dff D/ªª BÙ D3ö˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-(AªA$Ô€X‹ÈXXXÔÔ€Šâå ŠXX‹ÈÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular(…2ì$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XszXXXÔÔ€ &ûŽ&X XszÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó€€, øð AZ"Arial Regular £'D¤'¥'¦'§'D¨'©'Dª'»e«'Ó€·'n~<$3|x·' úÝ ƒ ì$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XƒXXXÔÔ€ &ËÅ&X XƒÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝIn€the€interest€of€clarity,€we€address€these€points€of€alleged€error€in€a€different€order.€ uÝ ƒ ù¬$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XSPXXXÔÔ€ &¹&X XSPÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ‡&¹&& &¹ÔThe€State€joined€all€five€men€in€the€same€indictment€but€tried€them€separately.€Ô‡Š¶[Š&&¹Ô€€Ô#† ж[ŠŠŠ¶[Ÿ#ÔÔ#† &¹&Рж[#Ô `Ý ƒ ù¬$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XSPXXXÔÔ€ &¹&X XSPÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝDefendant€Howard€denied€entering€the€restaurant€and€denied€being€armed;€however,€it€isÐ `  Ðundisputed€that€no€one€else€drove€to€the€scene€with€Claude,€Shaun,€Wilson,€and€Howard. „Ý ƒ ù¬$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XSPXXXÔÔ€ &¹&X XSPÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝNor,€however,€can€we€agree€that€Saulsberry›€cannot€be€retried€for€felony€murder,€although€thisÐ `  Ðissue€is€not€before€us.€€The€jury€was€strictly€instructed€to€cease€deliberations€upon€findingÏDefendants€guilty€of€premeditated€murder.€€When€the€jury€found€them€guilty€of€premeditatedÏmurder,€it€did€not€render€any€further€verdicts€on€homicide€charges.€€This€does€not€equate€to€anÏacquittal.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€òò€€€€€óó€œS.W.2d›€òò€€€€€óó€Appendix€(Tenn.€1998). _Ý ƒ ù¬$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XSPXXXÔÔ€ &¹&X XSPÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝTennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instruction€7.01(a)€is€the€proper€instruction€for€offenses€committedÐ `  Ðprior€to€July€1,€1995,€the€effective€date€of€legislative€changes€to€the€statute. Ý ƒ ù¬$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XSPXXXÔÔ€ &¹&X XSPÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝWe€also€note€that€the€single€case€used€by€Defendants€to€show€error€by€the€trial€court,€òòStateÐ `  Ðv.€Derek€Dentonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01›„9409„CR„00186,€œShelby›€County€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.,Ð : Ú ÐJackson,€Aug.€2,€1996),€actually€òòheldóó€that€giving€an€instruction€identical€to€the€one€in€this€caseÐ  ´ Ðwas€not€error.€€€€€ Ñ ` уLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X/3 XXXÔÔ€@N  XX/3ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X/3 X @NÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€21,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôO£ô XX/3ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ d(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š zŠXXÔÔ€Š“JŠŠŠ zÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€,øXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óœò òñ·'ññ·'ññ·'ññ«'ñœñ«'ñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` ttx$,°ð Õrßñ·'ññ«'ññ«'ññ·'ññ·'ñIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐÌAT€JACKSONÌñ·'ñœßt€(>.*jx?ó` `€€@E3£` ttx$kÛA œ tß›ñ·'ñÌJUNE€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9710„CR„00406Ð °  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ó óÐ °  Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð °  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àSHELBY€COUNTYÐ °  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ °  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€JOSEPH€B.€DAILEYó óÐ °  Ðò òANTONIO€L.€SAULSBERRYà À à)à  àJUDGEó óÐ ° Ðò ò&€FRANKLIN€C.€HOWARD,ó óà À àò ò)ó óÐ ° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ ° Ðà ` àAppellants.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(First€ñª'ñœñª'ññ¦'ñDñ¦'ññ§'ñdñ§'ñegreeñª'ñ›ñª'ñ€ñª'ñœñª'ññ¨'ñMñ¨'ññ©'ñmñ©'ñurder;ñª'ñ›ñª'ñ€Aggravated€à (# àÐ ° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àRobbery)Ð ° Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð €Ð ÐÌñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñSTEFFENñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ€G.€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñSCHREINERñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ pÀ ÐAttorney€for€Appellant€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñSaulsberryñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ h ¸ Ð295€Washington€Avenue,€Suite€3à  àÐ `!° ÐMemphis,€TN€38103à h àà À àà  àPETER€M.€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñCOUGHLANñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñÐ X"¨ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌJOSEPH€S.€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñOZMENTñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñà h àà À àà  à425€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñ5thñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ€Avenue€NorthÐ H$˜  ÐAttorney€for€Appellant€Howardà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243Ð @% ! Ð217€Exchange€AvenueÌMemphis,€TN€38103à h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€L.€GIBBONSÐ 0'€"# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌJAMES€V.€BALLà  àà h àà À àÐ  )p$% ÐAttorney€for€Appellant€Howardà À àà  àñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñTERRELLñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ€L.€HARRISÐ *h%& Ð217€Exchange€Avenueà h àà À àà  àJ.€ROBERT€CARTERÐ +`&' ÐMemphis,€TN€38103à h àà À àà  àPHILLIP€GERALD€HARRISÐ ,X'( Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCriminal€Justice€Complex,€Suite€301Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à201€Poplar€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€IN€PART;€REMANDEDÌÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÐ  °6239 ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°j°ŠŠ“JÔò òòòÑ7€RœˆˆdXXdð7ÑÑ€ŸOÑOPINIONóóó óÔ€Š“Jа°jÔÐ ° ÐÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àThe€Defendants,€Antonio€L.€Saulsberry€and€Franklin€C.€Howard,€pursuantÏto€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€3(b),€appeal€as€of€right€theirÏconvictions€for€first€degree€premeditated€murder,€especially€aggravated€robbery,Ïand€conspiracy€to€commit€aggravated€robbery.€€In€addition,€Defendants€appealÏthe€trial€courtððs€application€of€consecutive€sentencing.€€These€convictions€aroseÏfrom€the€robbery€of€a€Memphis€T.G.I.€Fridayððs€restaurant€and€the€murder€of€itsÏmanager,€Gene€Frieling.€ÌÌà ` àDefendants€present€ten€assignments€of€error:€(1)€the€trial€court€erroneouslyÏadmitted€a€photograph€of€the€deceased€victim;€(2)€the€evidence€was€insufficientÏto€show€premeditation€or€intent€for€first€degree€murder;€(3)€criminal€responsibilityÏfor€first€degree€premeditated€murder€is€not€supported€by€the€proof€and€the€trialÏcourt€erroneously€charged€the€jury€on€criminal€responsibility;€(4)€the€trial€courtÏerroneously€charged€the€jury€on€the€elements€of€first€degree€premeditatedÏmurder;€(5)€the€trial€court€failed€to€charge€the€jury€of€the€need€for€moral€certaintyÏto€convict;€(6)€the€trial€court€failed€to€instruct€the€jury€that€a€prior€inconsistentÏstatement€could€be€considered€for€impeachment€purposes€only;€(7)€the€trial€courtÏerroneously€admitted€a€videotape€of€the€crime€scene€and€commented€on€theÏportion€of€tape€not€shown€to€the€jury;€(8)€the€errors€made€by€the€trial€court€amountÏto€cumulative€error,€requiring€a€new€trial;€(9)€the€trial€court€erroneously€imposedÏconsecutive€sentences;€and€(10)€the€trial€court€failed€to€grant€a€necessary€mistrialÏbased€upon€an€alleged€discovery€violation€by€the€State.׃×Ý ƒªAÝÔ€ŠR ŠŠŠ“JÔÔ€ŠR Š ŠŠRÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р2n-. Ðâ âÐ .4~/0 ÐÑŸOÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ññ«'ñÑŸOÑÑ` °ÑÑ  ÑÑŸOÑÑ` °ÑÑ  ÑÑŸOÑÑ` °ÑÑ  ÑÑŸOÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ññ«'ñà ` àDefendants€were€indicted€by€the€Shelby€County€Grand€Jury€in€July€of€1995Ïâ âon€charges€of€premeditated€murder€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ððÏ39„13„202(a)(1),€murder€committed€during€the€perpetration€of€a€robbery€inÏviolation€of€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2),€murder€committed€in€perpetration€of€a€burglary€inÏviolation€of€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2),€especially€aggravated€robbery€in€violation€of€ðð€39„¼13„403,€and€conspiracy€to€commit€a€felony€in€violation€of€ðð€39„12„103.€ÏDefendants€were€convicted€by€a€jury€on€February€14,€1997,€of€first€degreeÏpremeditated€murder,€especially€aggravated€robbery,€and€conspiracy€to€commitÏaggravated€robbery.€€ÌÌà ` àFollowing€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€DefendantÏSaulsberry€as€a€Range€II€offender€to€forty€years€for€especially€aggravated€robberyÏand€ten€years€for€conspiracy.€€Defendant€Howard€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€IÏoffender€to€twenty„five€years€for€especially€aggravated€robbery€and€six€years€forÏconspiracy.€€The€trial€court€ordered€all€sentences,€including€life€imprisonment,€toÏrun€consecutively.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à À àà  àà p àà È àà  àÐ Ø'x ÐÌà@””®àI.€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEˆÌà ` àIn€their€second€and€third€issues,€Defendants€maintain€that€the€evidenceÏpresented€was€insufficient€to€convict€them€of€first€degree€premeditated€murder,Ïby€either€a€theory€of€direct€liability€or€a€theory€of€criminal€responsibility€for€theÏconduct€of€another.€€In€particular,€Defendants€claim€that€the€ð ðrecord€is€devoid€ofÏany€evidence€indicating€premeditation€or€deliberation.ðð€€Following€a€carefulÏâ âexamination€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€State€did€not€present€evidenceÐ 8¸.. Ðsufficient€to€permit€a€jury€to€convict€Saulsberry€of€premeditated€murder,€but€weÏaffirm€the€premeditated€murder€conviction€of€Howard.Ìâ âÌà ` àTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(e)€prescribes€that€ð ð[f]indingsÏof€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€In€addition,€because€conviction€byÏa€trier€of€fact€destroys€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€imposes€a€presumptionÏof€guilt,€a€convicted€criminal€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€theÏevidence€was€insufficient.€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€372€S.W.2d€173,€176€(Tenn.€1963);Ð ¨H Ðòòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992)€(citing€òòState€v.Ð °P ÐGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1976),€and€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329,Ð ¸X Ð331€(Tenn.€1977));€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòHolt€v.Ð À!` ÐStateóó,€357€S.W.2d€57,€61€(Tenn.€1962).Ð È#h ÐÌà ` àIn€its€review€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court€must€afford€the€State€ð ðtheÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÏinferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914€(citingÐ è+ˆ"" ÐòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978)).€€The€court€may€not€ð ðre„Ð ð-$$ Ðweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidenceðð€in€the€record€below.€€òòEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€atÐ ø/˜&& Ð191€(citing€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€836)).€€Likewise,€should€the€reviewing€courtÐ 2 (( Ðfind€particular€conflicts€in€the€trial€testimony,€the€court€must€resolve€them€in€favorÏof€the€jury€verdict€or€trial€court€judgment.€€òòSeeóó€òòñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñTuggleñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.Ð 6°,, Ðâ âÐ 8¸.. Ðà ` àThe€record€in€this€case€reveals€a€cast€of€five€criminal€actors:€ClaudeÏâ âSharkey,€Clashaun€(ð ðShaunðð)€Sharkey,€Kevin€Wilson,€Defendant€FranklinÏHoward,€and€Defendant€Antonio€Saulsberry.׃×Ý ƒªAÝÔ€Š¶[ŠŠŠ¶[ÔÔ€Š¶[ŠŠŠ¶[ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô‡Š¶[ŠŠŠ¶[ÔDefendant€Saulsberry€wasÐ p  Ðemployed€at€the€restaurant€prior€to€January€28,€1995,€the€date€of€this€incident.€ÏÔ#†Š¶[ŠŠŠ¶[n(#ÔAccording€to€the€proof€at€trial,€Claude,€Shaun,€Wilson,€and€Saulsberry€discussedÐ €  Ðrobbing€T.G.I.€Fridayððs€restaurant€(ð ðFridayððsðð)€the€day€before€the€crime.€€In€theÏearly€morning€hours€of€January€28,€1995,€after€the€restaurant€closed€business€forÏthe€prior€night,€Claude,€Shaun,€Wilson,€and€Howard€drove€to€Fridayððs€and€waitedÏin€the€back€parking€lot.€€ÌÌà ` àFridayððs€dishwasher€John€Wong€exited€the€restaurant€through€its€back€doorÏto€dispose€of€the€nightððs€garbage,€and€the€perpetrators€used€this€opportunity€toÏenter€the€building.€€Wong€heard€one€man€say,€ð ðShoot€the€mother€.€.€.€,ðð€referringÏto€Wong.€€He€was€pushed€from€behind€with€a€gun€and€ordered€to€lie€down€on€theÏground,€and€he€complied.€ÌÌà ` àClaude,€Shaun,€Wilson,€and€Howard€continued€through€the€back€area€ofÏthe€restaurant€toward€the€managerððs€office,€where€they€encountered€bartenderÏPreston€Shea.€€Shea€saw€four€armed€men׃”×Ý ƒªAÝÔ€Š¶[ŠŠŠ¶[ÔÔ€Š¶[ŠŠŠ¶[ÔòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€with€ski€masks€walking€toward€himÐ ð-$$ Ðand€screaming.€€He€was€knocked€to€the€ground€by€one€perpetrator€outside€theÏmanagerððs€office.€€At€least€two€men€entered€the€office€and€screamed,€ð ðGive€meÏthe€money,ðð€and€ð ðWhereððs€the€f__king€money.ðð€€Shea€responded€by€holding€upÐ 4¨** Ðhis€wallet€and€pleading,€ð ðPlease,€God,€take€the€money€and€go.ðð€€He€heard€bagsÏof€money€being€passed€from€person€to€person€above€his€head€and€heard€oneÏman€say,€ð ðShoot€his€ass.ðð€€Shea€then€heard€a€shot€from€the€managerððs€office,Ïwhere€the€perpetrators€had€already€taken€the€money€from€the€victim,€GeneÏFrieling.€€ÌÌà ` àWong,€remaining€on€the€floor€during€the€disturbance,€also€heard€one€of€theÏperpetrators€demand,€ð ðGive€me€the€moneyð"ðgive€me€the€money,ðð€and€he€heardÏFrieling€say,€ð ðTake€it,€take€it,€take€it.ðð€€Wong€heard€ð ð[o]ne€explosion€then€twoð"ðtheÏtwo€that€I€heard,€it€was€like€two€in€oneð"ðthe€swiftness€of€it€that€followedÏbehindð"ðone€behind€the€other.ðð€€Then€Frieling€said,€ð ðJesus€Christ,€he€shot€me,€heÏshot€me.ðð€ÌÌà ` àShea€had€been€repeatedly€kicked€during€this€episode,€and€as€the€men€leftÏthe€office,€he€was€shot€three€timesð"ðtwice€in€the€leg€and€once€in€his€lower€back,Ïthrough€his€bladder€and€intestines.€€He€then€crawled€into€the€office€and€calledÏ911,€but€he€was€too€injured€to€stay€with€the€telephone.€€As€he€fell€back€to€theÏfloor,€Wong€took€the€telephone€and€finished€the€911€call.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà ` àJessica€Hoard,€a€server€at€Fridayððs,€also€testified€for€the€State.€€Hoard€wasÏthe€only€other€employee€still€present€on€the€morning€of€January€28,€and€she€wasÏin€the€dining€room€of€the€restaurant€when€the€perpetrators€arrived.€€One€of€theÏmen€ordered€her€to€walk€into€the€kitchen€and€commanded,€ð ðGet€on€the€floorÏbefore€I€shoot€you.ðð€€She€heard€one€person€say,€ð ðWhereððs€the€money,ðð€a€coupleÏof€times,€and€she€then€heard€at€least€two€gunshots.€€When€she€believed€theÐ  :À00 Ðperpetrators€were€gone€and€she€could€safely€stand€up,€Hoard€helped€John€WongÏattend€to€the€wounded€Frieling€and€Shea.€€Because€Frieling€was€only€barelyÏbreathing,€the€two€uninjured€employees€decided€to€lift€him€from€a€prone€positionÏto€an€upright€position.€€Frieling€remained€in€this€sitting,€slumped€posture€until€heÏwas€found€by€police€and€determined€dead.€€An€autopsy€revealed€that€the€causeÏof€death€was€a€gunshot€wound€to€the€heart.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà ` àOn€February€9,€1995,€Defendant€Saulsberry€made€a€statement€to€policeÏrecounting€his€involvement€in€the€events€preceding€the€robbery:ÌÓÓà8 ` àIt€was€first€brought€up€on€my€way€home€a€day€before€the€robbery.€ÏMe,€Claude,€Shaun,€and€Kevin€[Wilson]€were€in€Claudeððs€car.€€HeÏwas€taking€me€home€from€the€neighborhood.€€And,€we€wereÏsmoking€ð ðbudðð€(marijuana)€on€our€way€home.€€And,€ah,€Claude€said,Ïð ðHey,€whatððs€up€with€Fridayððsðð?€€I€said,€what€do€you€mean€whatððs€upÏ„€youððre€ready€to€start€working€there?€€Then,€he€said,€ð ðNall,€man,Ïnall,€man,€Iððm€talking€about€hitting€that€joint.ðð€€I€said,€man,€youððreÏcrazy€than€a€motherf__ker.€€Then,€he€said,€ð ðNall,€nigger,€IððmÏserious!ðð.€€So,€we€didnððt€say€anything€else€about€that.€€When€we€gotÏto€my€house,€we€sat€in€the€car€on€the€parking€lot€outside€my€house.€ÏThen,€ð ðLittle€Kevinðð€said,€ð ðWhat€time€the€joint€closesðð?€And,€I€said,Ïat€one€(1)€oððclock€A.M.€€Then,€Claude€had€showed€me€a€silver€gun.€ÏAnd,€I€said,€hurry€up€and€get€me€out€of€here.€€I€got€out€of€the€car€andÏShaun€got€out€with€me.€€Then,€I€said,€Shaun,€man,€is€that€boyÏserious?€€Shaun€said,€ð ðYes,€man,€heððs€broke,€manðð.€€I€said,€man,Ïyððall€can€try€that€dumb€shit€if€you€want€too€[sic],€but€I€ainððt€got€nothingÏto€do€with€it.€€Basically,€thatððs€it,€really.€€€Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓ¼7ÓÌà ` àSaulsberry€denied€telling€anyone€where€the€safe€was€located€within€theÏrestaurant€or€how€much€money€would€be€available€there,€but€he€admittedÏinforming€Claude,€Shaun,€and€Wilson€how€to€gain€entry€from€the€back€of€theÏrestaurant.€€The€State€introduced€testimony€that€Saulsberry€was€ultimately€paidÏ$50€for€his€role€in€the€robbery€and€that€he€was€dissatisfied€with€thisÏamountð"ðfacts€that€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñSaulsberryñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ€disputed€in€his€statement.€€It€is€undisputed,Ð  :À00 Ðhowever,€that€Saulsberry€was€not€present€at€T.G.I.€Fridayððs€the€night€of€theÏrobbery€and€murder.€€ÌÌà ` àDefendant€Howard€was€present€at€the€crime€scene,€and€his€statement€toÏpolice€on€February€7,€1995,€related€events€at€the€restaurant:ÌÓÓà8 ` àI€was€riding€with€them€[Claude,€Shaun,€and€Wilson].€€Claude€said€heÏsaid€man€we€need€to€go€on€and€do€that.€€I€was€sleeping€in€the€backÏseat€and€I€heard€him€say€we€need€to€go€on€and€do€this€right.€€So€weÏrode€up€to€T.G.I.€Fridayððs€and€sat€up€there€in€the€back€part€behindÏthe€Steakhouse€Restaurant€and€we€went€on€and€walked€up€there.€ÏI€stayed€all€the€way€in€the€back€and€they€ran€in€the€restaruant€[sic]Ïand€I€heard€some€shots€fired€so€I€ran€to€the€car€and€they€ran€to€theÏcar€and€Kevin€[Wilson]€said€I€shot€him€man€I€shot€him.€€So€we€leftÏand€went€back€to€Claudeððs€house€and€then€we€just€stayed€over€thereÏuntil€the€morning€came€and€I€told€him€to€take€me€home.€€Ó¼?ÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐAccording€to€Howardððs€statement,€Claude,€Shaun,€and€Wilson€were€armed€whenÏthey€entered€the€restaurant.€€After€the€robbery,€Howard€received€a€portion€of€theÏproceeds,€although€the€amount€is€disputed.€€ÌÌà ` àWhile€we€agree€with€both€the€State€and€Defendants€that€this€is€quite€aÏtypical€felony€murder€prosecution,€we€cannot€agree€with€the€State€that€theÏevidence€supports€a€verdict€of€premeditated€murder€against€Saulsberry.׃×Ý ƒªAÝÔ€Š¶[ŠŠŠ¶[ÔÔ€Š¶[ŠŠŠ¶[ÔòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ToÐ ä*„!! Ðsupport€findings€of€premeditation€and€deliberation,€the€State€relies€onÏcircumstantial€evidence,€specifically:€ÌÓÓà8 ` àGiven€the€perpetratorsðð€commands€to€each€other€to€shoot€theÏemployees,€the€murder€of€the€manager€after€he€had€done€everythingÏasked€of€him,€and€Sheaððs€testimony€that€they€came€back,€stood€overÏhim€and€shot€him€three€times€after€he€had€given€them€his€wallet,€aÐ 4¨** Ðrational€jury€could€find€that€the€perpetrators€deliberately€went€intoÏthe€restaurant€with€a€plan.ÓpEÓñª'ñœñª'ñÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐÌñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ññª'ñà ` àIn€our€view,€more€is€required€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€first€degreeÏpremeditated€murder€rather€than€felony€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñS.W.2dñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñÐ | Ð144,€147„48€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€540„43€(Tenn.€1992);Ð „$  ÐòòState€v.€Boydóó,€909€S.W.2d€50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€òòñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñCfñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ.óó€òòState€v.€Leroy€Hallóó,Ð Œ,  ÐC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9303„CR„00065,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€Dec.€30,€1996),€òòaffððd€by€partial€incorporationóó,€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2dÐ œ< Ð679,€703„06€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Frank€Whitmoreóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9404„CR„Ð ¤D Ð00141,€Blount€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€19,€1997).€€BecauseÏthis€crime€was€committed€prior€to€our€legislatureððs€modification€of€the€elementsÏof€premeditated€murder,€we€must€analyze€these€facts€under€prior€law€requiringÏdeliberation€as€an€element€of€the€offense.€€€ÌÌà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€our€supreme€court€re„examined€premeditation€andÐ Ô&t Ðdeliberation,€recognizing€that€over€time,€ð ðprosecutors€and€judges€had€apparentlyÏfallen€into€the€error€of€commingling€these€two€elements€by€using€the€termsÏinterchangeably.ðð€€836€S.W.2d€at€539.€€According€to€the€òòBrownóó€court,€thisÐ ì,Œ## Ðperception€constituted€a€ð ðsubstantial€departure€from€the€traditional€law€ofÏhomicideððð"ða€departure€which€prompted€the€legislature€to€redraft€the€first€degreeÏmurder€statute€to€define€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€òòId.óó€at€542.€€As€definedÐ 3¤)) Ðby€statute,€a€premeditated€act€was€ð ðone€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€andÏjudgment,ðð€and€a€deliberate€act€was€ð ðone€performed€with€a€cool€purpose.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ 7´-- Ð(quoting€former€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)).€€Ð 9¼// Їà ` àIn€light€of€this€legislative€clarification€and€what€the€òòBrownóó€court€perceivedÐ `  Ðto€be€persistent€infidelity€to€the€historical€foundation€of€first€degree€murder,€theÏcourt€emphatically€rejected€an€amalgamation€of€the€two€formerly€distinct€mentalÏstates.€€òòId.óó€at€543.€€In€addition,€the€court€stated:Ð x ÐÓÓà8 ` à[W]e€think€it€is€time€to€recognize€.€.€.€that€ð ð[m]ore€than€a€split„secondÏintention€to€kill€is€required€to€constitute€premeditation,ðð€which€ð ðby€itsÏvery€nature€is€not€instantaneous,€but€requires€some€time€interval.ðð€Ïà ¸ à.€.€.€[I]t€is€now€abundantly€clear€that€the€deliberation€necessaryÏto€establish€first„degree€murder€cannot€be€formed€in€an€instant.€€ItÏrequires€proof€.€.€.€that€the€homicide€was€ð ðcommitted€with€a€ððcoolÏpurposeðð€and€without€passion€or€provocation€.€.€.€.ððÓŒPÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐòòId.óó€(quoting€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€former€ðð€39„13„201(b))Ð  @ Ð(alterations€in€originals).€€In€òòBrownóó,€the€defendantððs€premeditated€murderÐ ¨H Ðconviction€could€not€stand€where€the€State€offered€circumstantial€proof€ð ðthat€theÏdefendant€acted€maliciously€toward€the€child,€in€the€heat€of€passion€or€anger,€andÏwithout€adequate€provocation.ðð€€òòId.óó€(footnote€omitted).€€Furthermore,€the€courtÐ À!` Ðrefused€to€find€that€repeated€blows€to€the€victim€can€alone€support€an€inferenceÏof€premeditation€or€deliberation.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€€Ð Ð%p ÐÌà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Westóó,€decided€just€six€months€after€òòBrownóó,€the€supreme€courtÐ à)€  Ðconsidered€a€case€much€like€the€one€at€bar.€€844€S.W.2d€144€(Tenn.€1992).€€TheÏState€argued€that€the€defendantððs€emotional€state€and€actions€after€theÏcrimeð"ðcalmness,€failure€to€tell€others€about€the€crime,€and€concealment€of€theÏmurder€weaponð"ðindicated€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€òòId.óó€at€148.€€RejectingÐ 2 (( Ðthis€argument,€the€court€explained,€ð ðThe€element€of€premeditation€requires€aÏpreviously€formed€design€or€intent€to€kill.€.€.€.€Deliberation,€on€the€other€hand,Ïâ ârequires€that€the€killing€be€done€with€a€cool€purposeð"ðin€other€words,€that€theÐ 8¸.. Ðkiller€be€free€from€the€passions€of€the€moment.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€147€(citations€omitted);€òòseeóóÐ `  ÐòòState€v.€Boydóó,€909€S.W.2d€50,€54„55€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Ð h  Ðâ âÌà ` àThe€òòWestóó€court€declined€to€recognize€concealment€of€evidence€after€aÐ x Ðcrime€as€probative€of€intent€held€òòprioróó€to€the€crime,€stating,€ð ðOne€who€kills€anotherÐ €  Ðin€a€passionate€rage€may€dispose€of€the€weapon€when€reason€returns€just€asÏreadily€as€the€cool,€dispassionate€killer.ðð€€844€S.W.2d€at€148.€€While€the€courtÏacknowledged€that€proof€of€calmness€after€a€crime€may€be€plausible€evidence€ofÏpremeditation€and€deliberation,€it€failed€to€find€any€evidence€material€to€show€aÏcalm€emotional€state€and€noted€that€the€defendantððs€behavior€indicated€simplyÏð ðindifference€to€the€victim€and€fear€of€detection.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Finally,€the€court€rejectedÐ °P Ðthe€Stateððs€theory€that€the€defendant€left€the€scene€of€a€heated€argument€with€theÏvictim,€obtained€his€gun€at€home,€and€went€back€to€the€scene€to€kill€the€victim:€ÌÓÓà8 ` àWhile€the€stateððs€theory€may€be€true,€it€remains€only€a€theory,Ïbecause€the€prosecution€has€no€evidence€to€support€it.€€No€oneÏwitnessed€the€defendantððs€retrieval€of€a€gun,€nor€does€anyÏcircumstantial€evidence€exist€to€support€this€theory.€.€.€.€Thus,€a€juryÏwould€have€to€engage€in€pure€speculation€to€conclude€that€theÏdefendant€had€returned€to€his€house€in€order€to€get€a€gun€with€whichÏto€shoot€[the€victim].€€Although€the€jury€is€permitted€to€disbelieve€theÏdefendantððs€testimony,€it€may€not€construct€a€theory€based€on€noÏevidence€at€all.Ó\ÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐòòId.óó€Ð ð-$$ ÐÌà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar,€we€find€no€evidenceð"ðdirect€or€circumstantialð"ðsufficientÏto€permit€a€jury€to€find€premeditation€and€deliberation€on€the€part€of€AntonioÏSaulsberry,€who€was€not€even€present€when€the€murder€was€committed.€€TheÏâ ârecord€clearly€reveals€that€Antonio€Saulsberry€did€not€participate€in€the€actualÐ 8¸.. Ðrobbery;€therefore,€his€conviction€must€be€based€upon€criminal€responsibility€forÏthe€conduct€of€the€shooter,€rather€than€direct€liability.€€Ìâ âÌà ` àBy€statute,€criminal€responsibility€requires€that€a€defendant,€ð ð[ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ña]ctingñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ€withÏintent€to€promote€or€assist€the€commission€of€the€offense,€or€to€benefit€in€theÏproceeds€or€results€of€the€offense,€.€.€.€solicits,€directs,€aids,€or€attempts€to€aidÏanother€person€to€commit€the€offense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(2).€€TheÏrecord€contains€some€evidence€which,€if€believed€by€the€jury,€would€at€bestÏsupport€an€inference€that€Saulsberry€(1)€aided€a€òòrobberyóó,€with€the€intent€that€aÐ  @ Ðòòrobberyóó€be€committed;€and€(2)€intended€or€expected€to€receive€some€proceedsÐ ¨H Ðfrom€the€òòrobberyóó.€€The€record€does€not,€however,€contain€any€evidence€thatÐ °P ÐSaulsberry€intended€to€assist€in€the€commission€of€a€murder,€intended€that€aÏmurder€take€place,€or€intended€to€benefit€in€the€proceeds€or€results€of€a€murder,Ïwhatever€they€may€be.€€There€is€no€evidence€tending€to€show€an€intention,€orÏeven€an€expectation,€prior€to€the€robbery,€that€murder€would€facilitate€the€robbery.ÌÌà ` àAlthough€the€State€directs€our€attention€to€Saulsberryððs€statement,€in€whichÏhe€recalls€that€Claude€Sharkey€showed€him€a€silver€gun,€to€demonstrate€ÏSaulsberry€knew€and€intended€that€a€murder€occur;€we€believe€this€evidenceÏtends€to€show€only€that€Saulsberry€knew€an€armed€robbery€could€occur.€€Next,Ïthe€State€points€to€Claudeððs€statement€to€Saulsberry,€ð ðIððm€talking€about€hittingÏthat€joint.ðð€€Here€again,€we€find€no€evidence€to€support€òòknowledgeóó€of€any€actÐ 4¨** Ðother€than€robbery,€much€less€intent€for€any€other€act€to€occur.€€Though€murderÏis€a€consequence€of€many€armed€robberies,€a€finding€of€intent€in€this€caseÏrequires€ð ðpure€speculationðð€of€the€type€warned€against€in€òòWestóó.€€We€againÐ  :À00 Ðemphasize€that€our€focus€is€on€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€supportÏconvictions€for€premeditated€first€degree€murder,€rather€than€felony€murder.€Ïñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñSaulsberryñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñððs€premeditated€murder€conviction€is€reversed.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà ` àLikewise,€with€respect€to€Franklin€Howard,€the€Defendant€argues€that€allÏcircumstantial€evidence€presented€by€the€State€to€show€premeditation€andÏdeliberation€is€probative€only€of€an€intent€to€rob.€€The€State€produced€evidenceÏsufficient€to€permit€a€jury€to€find€that€Howard€participated€in€the€robbery€byÏentering€Fridayððs€restaurant€carrying€a€weapon,€though€this€testimony€wasÏdisputed.€€The€State€offered€no€proof,€however,€that€Howard€murdered€the€victimÏin€this€case,€Gene€Frieling.€€In€fact,€the€only€gun€found€in€Howardððs€possessionÏwas€conclusively€determined€òònotóó€to€match€shells€and€bullet€fragments€recovered.€Ð ¸X ÐTherefore,€Howardððs€conviction€must€also€be€based€upon€his€criminalÏresponsibility€for€the€conduct€of€the€shooter.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€State€argues€that€intent€can€be€inferred€from€the€general€conduct€ofÏthe€perpetrators:€commands€by€one€to€shoot€the€employees€of€the€restaurant,€theÏfact€that€the€victim€was€killed€despite€compliance€with€the€robbery,€and€the€factÏthat€Shea€was€shot€despite€giving€them€his€wallet.€€Evidence€regarding€theÏseverity€or€cruelty€of€the€act€can€be€relevant€to€premeditation€and€deliberation€onÏthe€part€of€the€principal€actor.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€541„42Ð 2 (( Ð(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Leroy€Hallóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9303„CR„00065,€HamiltonÐ 4¨** ÐCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Dec.€30,€1996),€òòaffððd€by€partialÐ 6°,, Ðincorporationóó,€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,€705€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð 8¸.. ÐÐ  :À00 Ðà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Frank€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñWhitmoreñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñóó,€a€principalððs€actions€cast€a€circumstantialÐ `  Ðshadow€of€intent€onto€a€companion,€in€the€absence€of€direct€evidence€of€theÏcompanionððs€intent€prior€to€the€murderð"ðevidence€such€as€an€agreement€to€kill,Ïwords€of€encouragement,€or€assistance€in€preparatory€operations€with€knowledgeÏthat€a€murder€would€occur.€€C.C.A.€No.€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñ03C01ñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ„9404„CR„00141,€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñBlountñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ€CountyÏ(Tenn.€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñCrimñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ.€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñAppñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ.,€Knoxville,€June€19,€1997).€€In€òòWhitmoreóó,€a€panel€of€this€CourtÐ ˆ(  Ðaffirmed€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€premeditated€murder€based€upon€criminalÏresponsibility€where€the€evidence€showed€that€the€defendant€drove€with€Williams,Ïthe€principal€in€the€murder,€to€the€victimððs€home€for€the€purpose€of€committing€aÏburglary€and€theft.€€The€testimony€indicated€that€the€defendant€and€WilliamsÏintended€only€to€scare€the€victim€with€a€knife€carried€by€Williamsð"ðin€fact,€theyÏwaited€until€they€thought€he€had€gone€to€bed€before€entering.€€However,€theÏevidence€also€revealed€that,€once€inside€the€house,€they€encountered€the€victim,Ïand€Williams€began€to€fight€with€him.€€As€the€armed€Williams€wrestled€for€severalÏminutes€with€the€victim,€who€was€vigorously€fighting€back,€the€defendant€movedÏthrough€the€house€searching€for€money.€€The€defendant€made€no€attempts€toÏstop€the€struggle€or€disassociate€himself€from€the€enterprise€at€that€point.€€FromÏthis€evidence,€we€believed€the€jury€could€have€reasonably€concluded€that,€onceÏthe€struggle€began€within€the€home,€the€defendant€formed€or€shared€orÏacquiesced€in€the€intent€that€a€murder€occur.€€€ÌÌà ` àWe€think€the€resolution€of€Defendant€Howardððs€criminal€liability€forÏpremeditated€murder€is€governed€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€1997€caseÏof€òòState€v.€Carsonóó,€950€S.W.2d€951€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€òòCarsonóó,€the€defendant,Ð 8¸.. ÐGary,€and€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñStoverñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ€met€to€discuss€robbing€a€TV€repair€store€in€Knoxville.€€TheÐ  :À00 Ðdefendant€Carson€had€been€in€the€store€before.€€He€described€the€layout€andÏwhere€money€could€be€found.€€Carson€gave€a€weapon€to€each€of€his€cohorts.€ÏThe€trio€drove€to€the€store.€€Carson€waited€in€the€car€while€Gary€and€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñStoverñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñÏentered€the€store€under€a€ruse€that€they€needed€to€have€a€stereo€repaired.ÌÌà ` àGary€and€Stover€held€two€employees,€Adams€and€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñMcGahañª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ,€at€gunpoint.€ÏThey€forced€the€victims€into€a€rear€room,€searched€them,€and€stole€$130€fromÏAdams.€€Gary€and€Stover€bound€the€victims€with€telephone€cord,€closed€the€door,Ïand€told€the€victims€not€to€attempt€to€escape.€€They€then€fired€three€shots€throughÏthe€door€and€almost€hit€the€victims.ÌÌà ` àUpon€leaving€the€store,€Gary€and€Stover€were€surprised€to€find€the€car€andÏCarson€gone.€€They€exchanged€gunfire€with€police,€and€they€fled.€€All€threeÏculprits€were€later€found€and€arrested.ÌÌà ` àCarson€was€charged€like€his€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñcodefendantsñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ.€€Gary€and€Stover€pled€guiltyÏand€testified€against€Carson.€€Although€Carson€did€not€testify,€his€policeÏstatement€admitted€driving€his€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñcodefendantsñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ€to€the€scene€but€denied€knowledgeÏthat€a€robbery€would€occur.€€He€said€he€believed€Gary€and€Stover€were€going€toÏthe€store€to€sell€the€guns€they€brought.ÌÌà ` àThe€jury€found€Carson€guilty€of€aggravated€robbery,€aggravated€assaultÏ(two€counts),€and€felony€reckless€endangerment.€€Carson€argued€on€appeal€thatÏhe€lacked€the€culpable€mental€state€for€the€offenses€committed€by€his€partnersÏin€crime.Ð  :À00 Їà ` àòòCarsonóó€adopted€the€ð ðnatural€and€probable€consequenceðð€rule.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€atÐ `  Ð955.€€This€rule€is€based€on€the€premise€that€criminal€aiders€and€abettors€shouldÏbe€responsible€for€crimes€ð ðthey€have€naturally,€probably€and€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñforeseeablyñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ€put€inÏmotion.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Carsonððs€convictions€were€all€affirmed.€€The€Court€opined€ð ðthat€theÐ x Ðevidence€was€sufficient€to€find€that€the€defendant,€having€directed€and€aided€inÏthe€aggravated€robbery€with€the€intent€to€promote€or€benefit€from€its€commission,Ïwas€criminally€responsible€for€all€of€the€offenses€committed€by€his€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñcodefendantsñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ,Ïto€wit:€aggravated€assault€and€felony€reckless€endangerment.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€956.Ð ˜8 ÐÌà ` àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€òòCarsonóó€dictates€Howardððs€criminal€responsibilityÐ ¨H Ðfor€premeditated€murder.€€While€in€the€parking€lot€and€before€entering€theÏrestaurant,€one€of€the€perpetrators€stated,€ð ðShoot€the€mother€.€.€.,ðð€referring€toÏñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñWongñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ.€€All€four€perpetrators€then€entered€the€restaurant€armed,€acted€with€aÏcommon€purpose,€committed€acts€of€violence€against€various€employees,€shotÏand€wounded€one€employee,€and€shot€and€killed€another.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€Howard€cannot€escape€criminal€responsibility€for€premeditatedÏmurder€by€claiming€he€did€not€share€the€criminal€intent€or€premeditation€with€theÏactual€triggerman.€€Hence,€we€find€the€evidence€sufficient€to€find€Howard€guiltyÏof€premeditated€murder.€€Ìà ` à€€Ìà@ÞÞ"®àII.€ADMISSION€OF€EVIDENCEˆÌà ` àIn€their€first€and€seventh€issues,€Defendants€contest€the€decision€of€the€trialÏcourt€to€admit€a€photograph€of€the€deceased€victim€and€a€videotape€of€the€crimeÏâ âscene€made€by€police.€€They€allege€that€admission€of€these€pieces€of€evidenceÐ 8¸.. Ðwas€error,€prejudicing€their€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€to€admit€this€evidence.€€ñª'ñœñª'ñÌâ âÌòòñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ññª'ñÓ  ÓA.€Photograph€of€the€Deceased€VictimóóÐ x ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€photograph€to€which€Defendants€object€depicts€the€victim€after€hisÏdeath,€seated€on€the€floor€of€the€restaurant€office.€€The€photograph€was€taken€byÏpolice€at€the€scene€and€introduced€as€an€exhibit€to€testimony.€€Defendants€argueÏboth€that€the€probative€value€was€substantially€outweighed€by€its€prejudicial€valueÏand€that€its€admission€constituted€the€needless€presentation€of€cumulativeÏevidence.€€Defendants€claim€that€the€only€possible€function€of€the€evidence€wasÏto€inflame€the€jury.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€403€governs€Defendantsðð€claim:€ð ðAlthoughÏrelevant,€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€orÏmisleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€orÏneedless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€InÏTennessee,€we€have€long€ð ðfollowed€a€policy€of€liberality€in€the€admission€ofÏevidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€OdellÐ ð-$$ ÐSmithóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9707„CR„00259,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð ø/˜&& ÐJackson,€Aug.€10,€1998).€€In€this€respect,€the€trial€court€is€entrusted€with€wideÏdiscretion€to€admit€or€refuse€a€tendered€piece€of€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð 4¨** Ðñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñHarbisonñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñóó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€317€(Tenn.€1986);€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€949.€€Ð 6°,, Ðâ âÐ 8¸.. Ðà ` àOur€supreme€court€has€prescribed€factors€for€a€trial€judge€to€consider€whenÏâ âdeciding€whether€to€admit€a€certain€photograph,€including:€ÌÓÓà8 ` àthe€value€of€photographs€as€evidence,€that€is,€their€accuracy€andÏclarity,€and€whether€they€were€taken€before€the€corpse€was€moved,Ïif€the€position€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€prima€facie€case€of€guiltÏor€to€rebut€the€defendantððs€contentions.Ó´ŽÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐòòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€951.€€Here,€the€photograph€was€accurate€and€clear;€andÐ Œ,  Ðalthough€the€victim€had€been€moved,€the€photograph€correctly€depicted€theÏposition€in€which€he€died€and€was€found€by€policeð"ðhe€was€still€breathing€whenÏmoved.€€Furthermore,€the€photograph€was€not€inflammatory€or€gruesome.€€NoÏblood€was€evident,€and€no€wounds€were€exposed.€€ÌÌà ` àDefendantsðð€claim€that€the€value€of€the€photograph€could€only€be€to€inflameÏthe€jury€is€incorrect.€€The€State€presented€three€witnesses€to€this€crime,€all€ofÏwhom€testified€extensively€to€the€manner€in€which€the€events€happened,€includingÏthe€shooting€of€the€victim€in€his€office€and€the€moving€of€his€body€to€permit€himÏto€breathe.€€The€introduced€photograph€served€to€corroborate€this€testimony€andÏto€bolster€the€credibility€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses.€€For€this€reason,€the€photographÏwas€relevant€yet€not€needlessly€cumulative.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Robinsonóó,€930€S.W.2dÐ ì,Œ## Ð78,€84€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€€€€€€ÌÌà@((®àòòB.€Videotape€of€Crime€Scene€and€VictimóóˆÐ 3¤)) Ðà ` àThe€same€general€policies€should€be€considered€by€the€trial€court€ruling€onÏadmissibility€of€a€videotape.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€807€(Tenn.Ð 7´-- Ð1994);€òòState€v.€Ronnie€Michael€Cauthernóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9506„CC„00164,Ð 9¼// ÐGibson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Dec.€2,€1996),€òòaffððd€by€partialÐ `  Ðincorporationóó,€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€726,€743€(Tenn.€1998).€€OurÐ h  Ðsupreme€court€has€stated€that€ð ðthe€admissibility€of€authentic,€relevant€videotapesÏof€the€crime€scene€or€victim€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€andÏhis€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€such€evidence€will€not€be€overturned€without€aÏclear€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.ðð€€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€477Ð ˆ(  Ð(Tenn.€1993);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€McCaryóó,€922€S.W.2d€511,€515€(Tenn.€1996)€(in€dicta).Ð 0  ÐÌà ` àAlthough€Defendant€Saulsberry€failed€to€raise€this€assignment€of€error€inÏhis€motion€for€new€trial,€we€will€address€the€issue€with€respect€to€bothÏDefendants.€€At€trial,€the€State€played€a€videotape€for€the€jury€containing€scenesÏof€the€restaurant€shortly€after€the€police€arrived.€€Defendants€present€noÏargument€for€exclusion€of€the€videotape,€and€we€find€no€reason€why€the€tapeÏwould€fail€to€satisfy€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€401€for€relevancy.€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€401€(ð ðððRelevant€evidenceðð€means€evidence€having€any€tendency€to€makeÏthe€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€actionÏmore€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð).€€InÏaddition,€we€find€no€prejudice€that€would€substantially€outweigh€the€probativeÏvalue€of€the€videotape.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Ð ð-$$ ÐÌà ` àDefendants€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€announcing€to€the€jury€thatÏportions€of€the€tape€displaying€removal€of€the€victimððs€body€would€not€be€shownÏto€them.€€Defendants€claim€that€by€informing€the€jury€exactly€what€it€would€òònotóóÐ 6°,, Ðsee,€the€trial€judge€prejudiced€their€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€We€disagree€and€find€noÏerror.€€The€trial€judgeððs€simple€statement€that€the€videotape€showed€removal€ofÐ  :À00 Ðthe€deceasedððs€body€could€not€have€communicated€information€of€a€prejudicialÏnature€to€the€jury.€€òòCf.óó€òòCauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€at€744€(affirming€by€incorporationÐ h  Ðthis€Courtððs€decision€that€a€videotape€of€police€removing€the€defendantððs€bodyÏfrom€the€scene€was€admissible€when€it€was€relevant€and€when€the€probativeÏvalue€did€not€outweigh€the€prejudicial€value).€€Therefore,€Defendantsðð€claim€ofÏerror€regarding€admission€of€the€photograph€and€videotape€are€without€merit.ÌÌà@¶¶#®àIII.€JURY€INSTRUCTIONSˆÌà ` àIn€issues€three€through€six,€Defendants€charge€error€in€the€instructionsÏgiven€by€the€trial€court€to€the€jury.€€Because€Defendants€presented€only€the€sixthÏissue€in€their€motions€for€new€trial,€we€are€permitted€to€consider€the€othersÏwaived€as€a€matter€of€procedure.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€However,€in€theÐ ¸X Ðinterest€of€facilitating€further€review€of€this€case,€and€because€the€State€did€notÏobject,€we€have€examined€all€alleged€errors.€€We€conclude€that€DefendantsððÏclaims€are€without€merit.ÌÌà ` àGenerally,€a€jury€charge€ð ðshould€be€considered€prejudicially€erroneous€ifÏit€fails€to€fairly€submit€the€legal€issues€or€if€it€misleads€the€jury€as€to€the€applicableÏlaw.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€346,€352€(Tenn.€1997)€(citing€òòGraham€v.Ð ð-$$ ÐStateóó,€547€S.W.2d€531€(Tenn.€1977),€and€òòState€v.€Forbesóó,€918€S.W.2d€431,€447Ð ø/˜&& Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)).€€In€addition,€ð ð[i]t€is€the€duty€of€a€trial€judge€to€give€aÏcomplete€charge€of€the€law€applicable€to€the€facts€of€a€case.ðð€€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,Ð 4¨** Ð704€S.W.2d€314,€319€(Tenn.€1986)€(citing€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€519€S.W.2d€789,Ð 6°,, Ð792€(Tenn.€1975));€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Burkleyóó,€804€S.W.2d€458,€461€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð 8¸.. Ð1990).€€This€Court€also€stated€in€òòBurkleyóó,€ð ðIn€delivering€its€charge,€a€court€shouldÐ  :À00 Ðguard€against€an€instruction€which€would€withdraw€from€the€juryððs€considerationÏany€issue€or€evidence€which€they€are€entitled€to€consider.ðð€€804€S.W.2d€at€461.€ñª'ñœñª'ñÌÌñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ññª'ñà@XX®àòòA.€Instructions€on€Premeditated€MurderóóˆÐ x Ðà ` àDefendantsðð€fourth€issue€assigns€error€to€the€trial€courtððs€charge€on€firstÏdegree€premeditated€murder€for€two€reasons:€(1)€because€the€judge€used€theÏphrase,€ð ðthat€the€killing€was€intentional,ðð€rather€than€ð ðthat€the€defendant€actedÏintentionallyðð;€and€(2)€because€the€element€of€deliberation€was€separated€on€theÏpage€from€the€other€elements€of€the€offense.€€We€find€no€prejudicial€error.ÌÌà ` àTennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instruction€7.01(a),€the€proper€instruction€for€thisÏcase,׃×Ý ƒªAÝÔ€Š¶[ŠŠŠ¶[ÔÔ€Š¶[ŠŠŠ¶[ÔòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€reads,€in€relevant€part:Ð ¸X ÐÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àFor€you€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€this€offense,€the€stateÏmust€have€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€theÏfollowing€essential€elements:Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à(1)€that€the€defendant€unlawfully€killed€the€alleged€victim;€Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà@úú-®àandˆÌà8 ` àà ¸ à(2)€that€the€defendant€acted€intentionally.€€A€person€actsÏintentionally€with€respect€to€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€to€a€resultÏof€the€conduct€when€it€is€the€personððs€conscious€objective€or€desireÏto€engage€in€the€conduct€or€cause€the€result;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà@úú-®àandˆÌà8 ` àà ¸ à(3)€that€the€killing€was€deliberate.€€A€deliberate€act€is€oneÏperformed€with€a€cool€purpose;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà@úú-®àandˆÌà8 ` àà ¸ à(4)€that€the€killing€was€premeditated.€Ó¦©Ó€€Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐTenn.€Pattern€Jury€Instructions€7.01(a)€(4th€ed.€1995).€€Because€DefendantsððÏlatter€argument€concerns€the€visual€impact€of€the€instructions€on€the€jury,€weÏreprint€the€relevant€portion€as€written€in€this€case:Ð  5¬++ ÐÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àFor€you€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€this€offense,€the€stateÏmust€have€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€theÏfollowing€essential€elements:Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà0¸ ` ü!` ü!àthat€the€defendant€unlawfully€killed€the€alleged€victim;€andÏthat€the€killing€was€intentional.€€A€person€acts€intentionallyÏwith€respect€to€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€to€a€result€of€theÏconduct€when€it€is€the€personððs€conscious€objective€or€desireÏto€engage€in€the€conduct€or€cause€the€result;€and€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïthat€the€killing€was€deliberate.€€A€deliberate€act€is€oneÏperformed€with€cool€purpose;€ñª'ñœñª'ñandÐ ¸ ü!¸ ü! Ðà ` àà ¸ àthatñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ññª'ñ€the€killing€was€premeditated.Ó=®ÓÌà ` àÌà ` àAlthough€the€elements€ð ðthat€the€killing€was€intentionalðð€and€ð ðthat€theÏdefendant€acted€intentionallyðð€do€convey€different€meanings,€we€decline€to€findÏthe€distinction€substantial€enough€to€mislead€the€jury€to€Defendantsðð€prejudice.€ÏConsideration€of€the€first€element,€ð ðthat€òòthe€defendantóó€unlawfully€killed€the€allegedÐ °P Ðvictim,ðð€should€have€eliminated€any€confusion€in€the€minds€of€the€jurors.€Ï(Emphasis€added.)€€Clearly,€conviction€upon€this€particular€instruction,€asÏopposed€to€criminal€responsibility,€requires€a€finding€that€the€defendant€himselfÏwas€the€ð ðtriggerman.ðð€€€€€ÌÌà ` àSecond,€we€find€no€error€in€the€visual€appearance€of€the€elements.€ÏThough€the€second€elementð"ðintentð"ðcontains€a€period€prior€to€its€explanation,Ïso€does€the€third€element€of€deliberation.€€At€a€mere€glance,€the€instruction€couldÏbe€slightly€confusing€to€the€jury;€but€we€find€that€even€a€careful€reading€isÏunnecessary€to€clearly€understand€the€instruction.ÌÌà@¨¨®àòòB.€Instruction€on€Moral€CertaintyóóˆÐ 6°,, Ðà ` àDefendants€next€complain€that€the€jury€instruction€on€reasonable€doubtÏviolated€due€process€protections.€€In€their€fifth€issue,€briefly€consisting€of€a€singleÐ  :À00 Ðquote,€Defendants€contest€the€trial€courtððs€use€of€Tennessee€Pattern€JuryÏInstructionð"ðCriminal€(T.P.I.)€2.03(a).׃×Ý ƒªAÝÔ€Š¶[ŠŠŠ¶[ÔÔ€Š¶[ŠŠŠ¶[ÔòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Specifically,€they€argue€that€omission€ofÐ h  Ðthe€term€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€reduced€the€juryððs€perception€of€the€degree€of€certaintyÏrequired€to€convict€to€a€point€less€than€that€required€by€the€Due€Process€Clause.€ÏWe€find€no€violation€of€Defendantsðð€due€process€rights.ÌÌà ` àð ð[T]he€Constitution€neither€prohibits€trial€courts€from€defining€reasonableÏdoubt€nor€requires€them€to€do€so€as€a€matter€of€course.ðð€€òòVictor€v.€Nebraskaóó,€511Ð ˜8 ÐU.S.€1,€5€(1994).€€Furthermore,€ð ðso€long€as€the€court€instructs€the€jury€on€theÏnecessity€that€the€defendantððs€guilt€be€proved€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€theÏConstitution€does€not€require€that€any€particular€form€of€words€be€used€inÏadvising€the€jury€of€the€governmentððs€burden€of€proof.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citations€omitted).€Ð ¸X ÐTherefore,€it€seems€that,€with€respect€to€reasonable€doubt,€a€trial€courtððs€errorÏmust€typically€be€one€of€commission,€rather€than€omission.€€There€can€be€noÏmistake€in€failing€to€employ€distinctive€words€or€phrases,€so€long€as€the€chargeÏgiven€is€complete€and€accurate.€€Because€we€find€that€T.P.I.€2.03(a)ð"ðcurrentlyÏthe€alternate€reasonable€doubt€jury€instruction€for€this€stateð"ðaccurately€conveysÏthe€level€of€certainty€mandated€by€òòIn€re€Winshipóó,€397€U.S.€358,€364€(1970),€weÐ è+ˆ"" Ðconclude€that€absence€of€the€term€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€is€of€no€consequence.ÌÌà ` àOur€supreme€court€has€expressly€permitted€the€use€of€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€inÏthis€stateððs€jury€instructions.€€òòSeeóó€òòCarter€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€620,€626€(Tenn.Ð 4¨** Ð1997)€(ð ðThe€phrase€is€permissible€if€the€context€in€which€the€instruction€is€givenÏððclearly€convey[s]€the€jury's€responsibility€to€decide€the€verdict€based€on€the€factsÏand€law.ðððð)€(quoting€òòState€v.€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñNicholsñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€734€(Tenn.€1994)).€€òòñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñCfñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ.óóÐ p  ÐòòAustin€v.€Bellóó,€126€F.3d€843,€847€(6th€Cir.€1997),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€118€S.€Ct.€1526Ð x Ð(1998)€(also€accepting€a€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€instruction).€€We€note€carefully€andÏexplicitly,€however,€that€our€supreme€court€has€allowed€use€of€the€term,€notÏencouraged€its€use.€€òòBut€cf.óó€òòState€v.€Jose€Holmesóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9505„CR„Ð 0  Ð00154,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Dec.€10,€1997);€òòState€v.Ð ˜8 ÐDerek€Dentonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñ02C01ñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ„9409„CR„00186,€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñShelbyñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ€County€(Tenn.€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñCrimñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ.Ð  @ Ðñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñAppñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ.,€Jackson,€Aug.€2,€1996)€(both€expressing€a€preference€for€T.P.I.€2.03,€ratherÏthan€T.P.I.€2.03(a)).ÌÌà ` àOur€courts€have€upheld€a€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€jury€instruction€when€confrontedÏwith€defendantsðð€arguments€that€the€instruction€itself,€when€given,€permits€a€levelÏof€proof€lower€than€that€constitutionally€required€for€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€òòCarteróó,€958Ð Ð%p ÐS.W.2d€at€625„26;€òòñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñNicholsñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€734€(use€of€ð ðmoral€certaintyððÐ Ø'x Ðpermissible€when€context€further€explained€reasonable€doubt€and€properlyÏreflected€evidentiary€certainty);€òòPettyjohn€v.€Stateóó,€885€S.W.2d€364,€365„66Ð è+ˆ"" Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Hallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€285,€294€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ð-$$ ÐApp.€1993);€òòsee€alsoóó€Amy€K.€Collignon,€Note,€òòSearching€for€an€AcceptableÐ ø/˜&& ÐReasonable€Doubt€Jury€Instruction€in€Light€ofóó€Victor€v.€Nebraska,€40€St.€Louis€U.Ð 2 (( ÐL.J.€145,€171€(1996)€(ð ð[A]lthough€the€Supreme€Court€hesitated€upon€theÏacceptability€of€phrases€such€as€ððmoral€certaintyðð€.€.€.€,€interpreting€courts€haveÏgleaned€only€that€the€instruction€must€pass€constitutional€muster€having€beenÏread€as€a€whole.ðð).€€€€€€€€€€Ð  :À00 Їà ` àNow,€however,€these€particular€Defendants€complain€that€òòfailureóó€to€provideÐ `  Ða€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€instruction€also€encourages€conviction€upon€a€reduced€degreeÏof€proof.€€We€recently€addressed€this€very€issue€with€respect€to€T.P.I.€2.03(a)€inÐ p  ÐòòState€v.€Henningóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9703„CC„00126,€Madison€County€(Tenn.Ð x ÐCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€Oct.€24,€1997);€and€we€find€no€reason€to€deviate€from€ourÏconclusion€in€that€case€that€the€instruction€is€not€constitutionally€deficient.€€òòSeeóóÐ ˆ(  Ðòòid.óó€at€9;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòDentonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9409„CR„00186,€slip€op.€at€8€(ð ð[W]eÐ 0  Ðcannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€include€the€phrase€ððmoralÐ ˜8 Ðcertaintyðð€in€its€charge.ðð).€€ÌÌà ` àIn€òòHenningóó,€we€noted€that€T.P.I.€2.03(a)€ð ðtracks€virtually€identical€languageÐ °P Ðof€pattern€reasonable€doubt€instructions€approved€by€a€majority€of€the€federalÏcircuits.ðð€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€Collignon,€òòsupraóó,€at€171€(ð ðClearly,€the€instruction€with€theÐ À!` Ðmost€support€comes€from€the€Federal€Judicial€Center.€€That€charge€excludes€allÏreference€to€ððmoral€certaintyðð€or€ððsubstantial€doubt.ðððð)€(footnote€omitted).€€Ìà ` àÌà ` àReasonable€doubt€instructions€not€including€the€term€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€haveÏbeen€more€widely€used€since€the€Supreme€Courtððs€opinion€in€òòVictor€v.€Nebraskaóó,Ð è+ˆ"" Ð511€U.S.€1€(1994),€in€which€the€Court€expressed€concern€that€the€term€couldÏhave€ð ðlost€its€historical€meaning.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€13.€€There,€the€Court€held€ð ðmoralÐ ø/˜&& Ðcertaintyðð€constitutional€within€an€instruction€that€ð ðlends€content€to€the€phrase.ðð€ÏòòId.óó€at€14,€16€(ð ðThe€instruction€thus€explicitly€told€the€jurors€that€their€conclusionÐ 4¨** Ðhad€to€be€based€on€the€evidence€in€the€case.€€Other€instructions€reinforced€thisÏmessage.ðð).€€Because€of€the€changing€nature€of€the€phrase€over€time,€however,Ïthe€òòVictoróó€Court€clearly€stated€that€it€did€not€condone€use€of€the€phrase€inÐ  :À00 Ðreasonable€doubt€jury€instructions.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€16.€€As€the€Court€noted,€ð ðtheÐ `  Ðdefinitions€of€reasonable€doubt€most€widely€used€in€the€federal€courts€do€notÏcontain€any€reference€to€moral€certainty.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€16„17;€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€at€24€(Ginsburg€J.,Ð p  Ðconcurring€in€part€and€concurring€in€the€judgment)€(ð ðI€agree€.€.€.€with€the€CourtððsÏsuggestion€that€the€term€ððmoral€certainty,ðð€while€not€in€itself€so€misleading€as€toÐ €  Ðrender€the€instructions€unconstitutional,€should€be€avoided€as€an€unhelpful€wayÏof€explaining€what€reasonable€doubt€means.ðð).€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar,€we€are€convinced€that€T.P.I.€2.03(a)€is€notÏconstitutionally€deficient€for€lack€of€the€phrase€ð ðmoral€certainty.ðð€€Therefore,€weÏfind€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€use€of€this€alternative€jury€instruction.€€ÌÌà@ü ü ®àòòC.€Instruction€on€Prior€Inconsistent€StatementsóóˆÐ À!` Ðà ` àDefendantsðð€sixth€assignment€of€error€concerns€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€toÏissue€a€contemporaneous€curative€instruction€to€the€jury€when€the€priorÏinconsistent€statements€of€Claude€Sharkey€were€introduced€for€impeachmentÏpurposes.€€Defendants€claim€that€the€judge€should€have€instructed€the€jury€thatÏthe€statement€could€be€used€only€for€impeachment,€not€as€substantive€evidence.Ì€€€€Ìà ` àDefendants€correctly€assert€that€failure€by€a€trial€court€to€issue€aÏcontemporaneous€curative€instruction€for€prior€inconsistent€statements€could,Ïunder€some€circumstances,€constitute€reversible€error.€€According€to€òòState€v.Ð 4¨** ÐReeceóó,€637€S.W.2d€858€(Tenn.€1982),€failure€to€give€a€limiting€instruction€createsÐ 6°,, Ðâ âreversible€error€when€ð ðthe€impeaching€testimony€is€extremely€damaging,€the€needÐ 8¸.. Ðfor€the€limiting€instruction€is€apparent,€and€the€failure€to€give€it€results€inÏsubstantial€prejudice€to€the€rights€of€the€accused.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€861.€€Ð h  Ðâ âÌà ` àThis€case€is€readily€distinguishable€from€òòReeceóó,€however.€€In€òòReeceóó,€theÐ x Ðlimiting€instruction€was€never€given,€not€even€as€part€of€the€general€jury€charge.€ÏIn€this€case,€the€jury€was€instructed€at€the€end€of€testimony€that€it€could€considerÏimpeaching€prior€inconsistent€statements€only€for€purposes€of€assessingÏcredibility.€€ÌÌà ` àAlthough€we€are€aware€of€cases€in€which€federal€courts€have€held€a€limitingÏinstruction€as€part€of€the€general€jury€charge€insufficient€where€the€impeachingÏtestimony€is€extremely€damaging,€we€need€not€determine€whether€this€issue€isÏa€matter€of€constitutional€or€evidentiary€import,€because€Defendants€have€failedÏto€properly€cite€to€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(g)€(ð ð[R]eference€in€theÐ È#h Ðbriefs€to€the€record€shall€be€to€the€pages€of€the€record€involved.ðð).€€In€their€brief,ÏDefendants€inform€the€Court€that€the€impeached€witnessðð€testimony€can€be€foundÏbetween€pages€422€and€450€of€the€record,€but€they€do€not€identify€which€portionsÏof€the€testimony€they€consider€damaging€and€do€not€establish€how€improper€useÏof€the€testimony€prejudiced€them.€€The€only€guidance€provided€by€Defendants€isÏthis:ÌÓÓà8 ` àThe€testimony€of€Claude€Sharkey€can€be€found€in€the€trial€transcriptÏfrom€pages€422€thru€[sic]€450.€€(Vol.€VII€and€VIII)€€The€testimony€ofÏSharkey€occurred€on€February€13,€1997.€€A€review€of€that€testimonyÏclearly€leaves€room€for€confusion€by€the€jury€as€to€what€they€couldÏconsider€for€guilt€or€innocence€versus€impeachment€especiallyÏwhere€the€jury€was€not€charged€with€the€proper€use€of€suchÏtestimony€until€the€afternoon€of€February€14,€1997,€during€theÏâ âcourtððs€regular€charge€to€the€jury.€€It€is€also€clear€that€certainÐ 9¼// Ðstatements€in€Sharkeyððs€previous€statement€if€taken€as€substantiveÏevidence€would€be€extremely€damaging€to€both€Appellants.Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðâ âà8 ` àà ¸ à.€.€.Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àIn€the€present€case€if€the€jury€took€Sharkeyððs€statements€asÏsubstantive€evidence,€which€Appellants€submit€they€did,€it€is€anÏunderstatement€to€say€that€it€resulted€in€substantial€prejudice.Ó9ÝÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐThe€whole€of€Claude€Sharkeyððs€testimony€consists€of€impeachment€by€priorÏinconsistent€statements.€€Where€Defendants€fail€to€meaningfully€cite€to€the€recordÏsuch€that€alleged€prejudicial€error€can€be€identified,€we€decline€to€search€theÏrecord€for€it.€ÌÌà@::®àòòD.€Instruction€on€Criminal€ResponsibilityóóˆÐ ¤D Ðà ` àDefendantsðð€third€issue€for€review€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failingÏto€specifically€instruct€the€jury€that€it€must€reach€a€unanimous€decision€on€theÏtheory€behind€their€verdict.€€For€example,€if€a€portion€of€the€jury€convicted€themÏas€directly€liable€for€the€murder,€a€portion€of€the€jury€convicted€based€uponÏcriminal€responsibility€for€the€conduct€of€Claude€Sharkey,€and€a€portion€of€the€juryÏconvicted€based€upon€criminal€responsibility€for€the€conduct€of€Kevin€Wilson,€Ïthen€Defendants€claim€the€decision€would€have€violated€their€constitutional€rightÏto€a€unanimous€verdict.€€ÌÌà ` àThis€issue€is€moot€as€to€Defendant€Saulsberry.€€As€to€Defendant€Howard,Ïwe€find€the€argument€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñmeritlessñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ.€€In€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€920€S.W.2d€247€(Tenn.Ð ü0œ'' Ðñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñCrimñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ.€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñAppñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ.€1995),€this€Court€did€not€accept€a€similar€argument.€€In€òòWilliamsóó,€theÐ 3¤)) Ðvictim€could€not€pinpoint€which€criminal€held€her€down€and€which€one€of€the€twoÏactually€raped€her.€€The€defendant€argued€the€possibility€of€a€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñnonunanimousñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ€juryÏverdict€because€the€State€could€not€prove€if€he€was€the€actual€rapist€or€an€aider.€Ð 9¼// ÐOur€Court€found€that€in€Tennessee,€under€our€criminal€responsibility€statute,€itÏmakes€no€difference.€€A€defendant€criminally€responsible€for€a€principalððs€acts€isÏjust€as€guilty€as€the€principal€actor.ÌÌà@!®àIV.€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGˆÌà ` àIn€their€ninth€issue,€Defendants€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposingÏconsecutive€sentences,€contending€that€the€evidence€does€not€indicateÏDefendants€are€dangerous€offenders€with€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life.€€WeÏfind€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€consideration€or€decision.ÌÌà ` àThis€Court€reviews€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€sentenceÏimposed€by€the€trial€court€based€upon€a€de€novo€standard.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ¸X Ððð€40„35„401(d).€€However,€we€owe€the€trial€courtððs€determination€a€presumptionÏof€correctness,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó,€so€long€as€the€trial€court€ð ðplace[s]€on€the€record€itsÐ È#h Ðreasons€for€arriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decisionðð€and€exhibits€compliance€withÏthe€statutory€sentencing€guidelines€and€principles.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905Ð Ø'x ÐS.W.2d€933,€934€(Tenn.€1995).€€Here,€the€record€contains€a€lengthy€andÏcomprehensive€deliberation€by€the€trial€court€regarding€Defendantsðð€sentencing,Ïand€we€therefore€accord€the€sentence€a€presumption€of€correctness.€ÌÌà ` àDefendants€bear€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€òòSeeóóÐ 2 (( ÐòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Defendants€allege€that€theÐ 4¨** Ðaggregate€term€of€life€imprisonment€ð ðis€quite€reasonably€sufficient€in€the€terms€ofÏlength€to€adequately€punish€[Defendants]€and€to€adequately€protect€society,ðð€butÏthey€have€nowhere€identified€any€errors€committed€by€the€trial€court€or€òòwhyóóÐ  :À00 Ðconsecutive€sentencing€is€not€appropriate€in€this€case.€€They€have€failed€to€carryÏtheir€burden.ÌÌà ` àIn€the€interest€of€justice,€however,€we€have€examined€the€sentencingÏtranscript€and€are€satisfied€that€consecutive€sentencing€is€appropriate€in€thisÏcase.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„115€governs€our€analysis:€ÌÒ` ÒÒÜ„ÒÓÓ(a)€If€a€defendant€is€convicted€of€more€than€one€(1)€criminal€offense,Ïthe€court€shall€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€or€concurrentlyÏas€provided€by€the€criteria€in€this€section.Ì(b)€The€court€may€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€the€courtÏfinds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that:Ì.€.€.Ì(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicatesÏlittle€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committingÏa€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.ÓŠðÓÌÒ` nðÒÒ„Ü|ðÒòòId.óó€ðð€40„35„115(a),€(b)(4).€€Moreover,€Ð ¸X ÐÓÓà8 ` àThe€proof€must€also€establish€that€the€terms€imposed€areÏreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€areÏnecessary€in€order€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€acts€byÏthe€offender.€€In€addition,€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€requires€theÏapplication€of€the€sentencing€principles€set€forth€in€the€Act€applicableÏin€all€cases.€€The€Act€requires€a€principled€justification€for€everyÏsentence,€including,€of€course,€consecutive€sentencing.ÓóÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐòòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Dale€Nolanóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„Ð à)€  Ð9511„CC„00387,€Sequatchie€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€26,Ï1997),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998).€€Ð ð-$$ ÐÌà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€court€explicitly€found€that€Defendants€satisfiedÏthe€requirements€of€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4):€ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àAs€to€the€consecutive€request,€Mr.€Howard€does€have€anÏextensive€record.€€And€in€my€judgment,€he€is€clearly€a€dangerousÏoffender.€€He€has€shown€no€hesitation€to€commit€a€crime€when€theÏrisk€to€human€life€was€high.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà ¸ àThe€facts€of€this€case€were€so€shocking€and€appalling€that€itÐ  :À00 Ðis€inconceivable€to€me€that€under€any€interpretation€of€theÏdangerous€offender€category€these€individuals€would€not€beÏconsidered€to€be€dangerous€offenders.€€The€facts€that€are€in€theÏrecord€with€regard€to€all€four€of€them€being€armed,€all€four€of€themÏshowing€up€at€that€back€door,€single€file,€marching€into€the€store,Ïeach€one€having€his€own€responsibility€with€regard€to€the€completionÏof€this€robbery.€€The€shootings€that€occurred€with€Mr.€Frieling€andÏMr.€Shea.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÒÜ„ÒÒ` Ò€€€€€€€€€à ¸ àTheir€absolute€and€total€lack€of€remorse€after€this€is€over,€asÐ €  Ðevidenced€by€testimony€from€several€individuals€of€the€fact€that€theyÏwent€back€to€the€home€of€the€one€individual€and€played€Nintendo€forÏthe€rest€of€the€night.€€Thatððs€just€pretty€amazing€testimony€that€weÏheard€during€the€course€of€this€trial.€€That€individuals€after€havingÏparticipated€in€a€crime€of€this€sort€would€go€back€to€a€house€andÏplay€Nintendo€for€several€hours€until,€I€guess,€they€got€sleepy€andÏwent€to€sleep.€€It€is€just€„„€itððs€unbelievable.€€Clearly€dangerousÏoffenders.Ó©öÓÌÒ` =úÒÒ„Ü/úÒWith€respect€to€Defendant€Saulsberry,€the€court€stated,ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àIn€my€judgment,€for€the€same€reasons€as€those€I€indicatedÏwith€regard€to€Mr.€Howard,€I€think€that€consecutive€sentencing€isÏappropriate€in€this€case€as€well.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà ¸ àThe€offense€is€so€reprehensible€and€so€atrocious,€soÏunfathomable,€that€it€is€hard€for€me€to€imagine€anyone€defining€this,Ïthese€individuals,€as€anything€other€than€dangerous€offenders.ÓýÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà ` àThe€court€also€found€no€hesitation€to€commit€an€offense€when€the€risk€toÏhuman€life€was€high:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àI€think€thatððs€clearly€established.€€And€I€think€the€case€lawÏsupports€it.€€I€think€there€were€„„€well,€I€know€that€the€record€reflectsÏthat€there€were€other€individuals€in€the€restaurant,€the€dishwasher,Ïthe€waitress,€others€who€were€all€put€at€risk.€€The€potential€to€„„€orÏthe€risk€to€their€life€was€high.€€They€were€very€much€endangeredÏduring€this€whole€episode,€even€though€they€were€fortunate€enoughÏto€have€been€spared.€€So€I€think€that€factor€clearly€applies.ÓrÿÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐFinally,€the€trial€court€specifically€addressed€whether€an€aggregate€sentenceÏreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€involved.€€The€court€stated,ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àYou€have€a€robbery€that€was€taking€place,€and€a€storeÏmanager€who€is€saying,€here,€take€the€money,€doing€everything€toÏcomply€with€what€the€robbers€were€asking,€and€yet€was€shot.€€AndÏthen€beyond€that,€the€assistant€manager,€lying€on€the€ground,€doingÐ  :À00 Ðeverything€he€could€to€comply€with€what€was€being€demanded,€whoÏwas€then€gratuitously€shot€and€left€to€die.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà ¸ àI€mean,€I€think€it€is€a€situation€where€it€is€clearlyÏdistinguishable€from,€for€example,€a€holdup€where€in€the€process€ofÏstruggling€over€the€money,€somebody€gets€shot€or€something€of€thatÏsort.€[That]€is€all€part€and€parcel€of€the€robbery€itself.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà ¸ àThese€events€were€all€separate,€independent,€inexplicable,Ïinexcusable,€outrageous,€unconscionable€acts€that€are€clearlyÏdistinguishable,€I€think.Ó>ÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà ` àWe€also€find€in€the€sentencing€transcript€ample€evidence€to€show€that€theÏterm€imposed€was€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€crimes€committedÏby€these€Defendants.€€At€the€time€of€sentencing,€each€Defendant€had€anÏextensive€history€of€criminal€behavior.€€In€addition,€the€court€found,€for€both,€atÏleast€a€limited€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentenceÏinvolving€release€into€the€community.€€Our€review€of€the€above€evidence€is€notÏaffected€by€our€finding€of€insufficient€evidence€to€support€premeditation€andÏdeliberation€on€the€part€of€Defendant€Saulsberry.€€We€are€convinced€the€trialÏjudge€fulfilled€his€duty€in€sentencing€as€to€both€Defendants.ÌÌà@àà%®àV.€DISCOVERY€MOTIONˆÌà ` àDefendantsðð€ninth€issue€assigns€error€to€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€grant€aÏmistrial€based€upon€an€alleged€discovery€violation€by€the€State.€€DefendantsÏargue€that€the€State€did€not€comply€with€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€ProcedureÏ16,€which€requires€disclosure€of€certain€evidence€by€the€State:ÌÓÓà8 ` àUpon€request€of€the€defendant,€the€state€shall€permit€the€defendantÏto€inspect€and€copy€or€photograph€any€results€or€reports€of€.€.€.Ïscientific€tests€or€experiments,€or€copies€thereof,€which€are€withinÏthe€possession,€custody€or€control€of€the€state,€the€existence€ofÏwhich€is€known,€or€by€the€exercise€of€due€diligence€may€becomeÏâ âknown,€to€the€district€attorney€general€and€which€are€material€to€theÐ 9¼// Ðpreparation€of€the€defense€or€are€intended€for€use€by€the€state€asÏevidence€in€chief€at€the€trial.Ó ÓÐ ` ü!` ü! Ðâ âTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(D).€€Specifically,€Defendants€argue€that€the€StateÏshould€have€produced,€in€response€to€their€Rule€16€discovery€request,€a€reportÏof€tests€performed€on€the€.32€caliber€revolver€seized€from€Defendant€HowardððsÏresidence.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€State€replies€first€that€Rule€16€is€inapplicable€because€the€testÏperformed€on€the€weapon€was€not€a€ð ðscientific€testðð€and€because€the€expertÏmade€no€ð ðreport.ðð€€Rather,€the€State€argues,€the€expert€simply€observed€whetherÏthe€barrel€of€the€gun€contained€residue,€to€determine€whether€it€had€been€cleanedÏsince€last€fired,€and€he€made€only€handwritten€notes€of€the€result.€€Although€weÏdo€not€accept€the€Stateððs€argument,€we€need€not€find€this€test€within€Rule€16Ïbecause€we€conclude€that€even€if€there€was€a€violation,€Defendants€were€notÏprejudiced.ÌÌà ` àRule€16€prescribes€the€remedies€for€violation€of€its€provisions:€ð ðthe€courtÏmay€order€such€party€to€permit€the€discovery€or€inspection,€grant€a€continuance,Ïor€prohibit€the€party€from€introducing€evidence€not€disclosed,€or€it€may€enter€suchÏother€order€as€it€deems€just€under€the€circumstances.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï16(d)(2).€€Here,€the€trial€court€offered€to€allow€Defendantsðð€counsel€an€opportunityÏto€inspect€the€notes,€which€he€declined€to€do.€€The€record€reflects€that€counselÏobjected€to€the€existence€of€the€alleged€violation,€but€that€he€did€not,€in€fact,€moveÏâ âfor€a€mistrial€at€this€point.€€Although€Defendants€assert€that€they€moved€for€aÐ 7´-- Ðmistrial,€they€have€not€provided€a€citation€to€the€record€to€permit€meaningfulÏappellate€review.€€Ìâ âÌà ` àFurthermore,€the€evidence€not€disclosed€to€Defendants€revealed€only€thatÏthe€gun€found€in€Defendant€Howardððs€home€had€not€been€cleaned€since€lastÏfired;€the€evidence€did€not€reveal€when€the€gun€òòhadóó€been€last€fired.€€DefendantsÐ ˆ(  Ðhave€identified€no€prejudiceð"ðthey€have€simply€asserted€that€prejudiceÏresultedð"ðand€we€cannot€ourselves€identify€any€prejudice.€€The€trial€judge€wasÏwithin€his€discretion€in€refusing€any€request€for€a€mistrial.€€ÌÌà@°°$®àVI.€CUMULATIVE€ERRORˆÌà ` àWe€have€concluded€that€only€one€error€occurred€and€have€remedied€thatÏerror€by€reversing€one€ñª'ñœñª'ñDefendantððñ¡'ñs€ñ¡'ñconvictionñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ññª'ñ€for€first€degree€premeditatedÏmurder.€€We€find€no€cumulative€error€warranting€further€modification.ÌÌà@'®àVII.€CONCLUSIONˆÌà ` àIn€conclusion,€Defendant€Saulsberryððs€conviction€for€first€degreeÏpremeditated€murder€is€not€supported€by€sufficient€evidence,€and€such€convictionÏis€therefore€reversed€and€his€case€is€remanded€for€a€new€trial€on€the€charge€ofÏfelony€murder€as€alleged€in€Counts€2€and€3€of€the€indictment.€€We€conclude€thatÏthe€trial€court€committed€no€other€ñª'ñœñª'ñerrorñ¢'ñ.€€Weñ¢'ññ£'ñ,›€and›€we›€ñ£'ññ¤'ñ€ñ¤'ñaffirmñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ññª'ñ€convictions€for€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€ñª'ñœñª'ññ¥'ñand€conspiracy€ñ¥'ñasñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ññª'ñ€to€both€Defendants.€€We€affirm€DefendantÏHowardððs€murder€conviction.€€Consecutive€sentencing€is€affirmed.€€This€case€isÏremanded€for€such€other€proceedings€as€may€be€warranted€and€consistent€withÏthis€opinion.€€Ð  :À00 ЇÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌDAVID€H.€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñWELLESñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJOE€G.€ñª'ñœñª'ññª'ñœñª'ñRILEYñª'ñ›ñª'ññª'ñ›ñª'ñ,€JUDGEÌ