ÿWPC  0# °UN» %  0(b7w@?4“¢ 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡U>ë 0@) D3i Bœ U*¹ B)ã DC AMO 3œ v~Ï AQM Æž 0Dd 0D¨ D/ì BvÓ8˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- f[ghDijDkPlmnÓ€zŒƒ*#3|xz2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd* %Cþÿ << Gÿÿ )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òOctober€2,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌ̜ـ*ÙßR€&'%A1-j|s&` Å `€€@ÿRß›DECEMBER€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9601„CR„00013Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOHN€P.€COLTON,€JR.ó óÌœò òTELLY›€œM.€SLAYON,ó ó›à àœò òà à)›à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœ(First€Degree€Murder)›Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌWALKER€GWINNà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ201€Poplar€Suite€2„01à àÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY,€IIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDENIELLE€V.€YOUNGÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLegal€AssistantÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€L.€GIBBONSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€KITCHENÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar,€Third€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€#„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àOn€February€10,€1995,€Appellant€Telly€Slayton€was€found€guilty€by€aÏShelby€County€Criminal€Court€jury€of€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€robbery€inÏviolation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„13„202(2)€(Supp.€1996).€ÏThe€trial€court€ordered€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment.€€On€appeal,€œAppellant›Ïœraises›€three€issues€for€review:€(1)€whether€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€wasÏsufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€sustain€the€conviction;€(2)€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€overruling€Appellantððs€motion€to€suppress€his€statement€given€to€policeÏofficers;€and€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting,€over€AppellantððsÏobjection,€a€photograph€of€the€victim€taken€while€the€victim€was€alive.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓFactual€Backgroundó óÌÓ  Óà àOn€the€afternoon€of€August€6,€1992,€the€victim,€Danny€White,€and€hisÏfriend,€Tom€Smith,€entered€the€B€&€B€Grocery€in€Shelby€County€to€play€pool€inÏthe€grocery€storeððs€œpoolroom€located€in€the€back€of€the€store.€€€On€his€way€toÏthe€poolroom,€the€victim€stopped€at€the€cash€register€and€purchased€someÏcigarettes.€€€The€cash€register€attendant€noticed€that€the€victim€had€at€least€twoÏhundred€dollars€with€him.€€While€the€victim€and€Mr.€Smith€were€in€the€poolroom,ÍAppellant€was€seen€entering€the€poolroom.€€Minutes€later€while€Mr.€Smith€wasÏin€the€bathroom,€he€overheard€a€demand€for€money,€the€victimððs€refusal,€and€aÏgunshot.€€Upon€exiting€the€bathroom,€Mr.€Smith€found€his€friend€dead.€€The€victimÏhad€been€shot€in€the€chest€with€a€.38€caliber€gun.€€Immediately€after€theÏshooting,€Appellant€was€seen€wearing€a€ski€mask€running€out€of€the€store.€ÏOnly€sixty„five€cents€in€change€was€found€on€the€victimððs€body.€Ìà à€€On€August€7,€1995,€Appellant,€a€juvenile€and€his€mother€agreed€to€goÏwith€the€police€to€the€police€homicide€department€for€questioning.€€Upon€arrivingÏat€the€police€station,€Appellant€and€his€mother€were€taken€to€an€interview€room.€ÏAppellant€was€advised€of€his€Miranda€rights€and€signed€a€waiver€of€rights€form.€ÏAt€some€point€during€the€questioning,€Appellantððs€mother€was€asked€to€leave,Ïand€she€left€voluntarily.›€€After€questioning,€Appellant€indicated€that€he€wanted€toÏmake€a€statement.€€Before€giving€his€statement,€Appellantððs€mother€came€backÏinto€the€interview€room€and€the€police€investigators€again€read€Appellant€hisÏrights.€€Appellant€then€admitted€to€killing€the€victim€because€the€victim€hadÏrobbed€him€the€day€before€the€incident.€€The€investigating€officer€testified€that€noÏthreats€or€intimidation€was€used€to€obtain€Appellantððs€statement.€€After€aÏhearing€on€Appellantððs€motion€to€suppress,€the€trial€court€found€that€AppellantððsÏconfession€was€voluntary€and€admissible.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€first€claims€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,Ïto€sustain€the€conviction€for€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€robbery.€€When€anÏappeal€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€standard€of€review€isÏwhether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€anyÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginia,óó€443€U.S.€307,€318€(1979);€òòState€v.ÏEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€190„91€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€114€S.€Ct.€740Ï(1994);€œT.›œR.A›€P.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimate€inferences€whichÏmay€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€This€Court€will€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€re„evaluate€the€evidence,€orÏsubstitute€its€evidentiary€inferences€for€those€reached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€€(Tenn.€1973).€€As€the€Supreme€Court€ofÏTennessee€said€in€òòBolin€v.€Stateóó:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà8 àThis€well„settled€rule€rests€on€a€sound€foundation.€€TheÏtrial€judge€and€the€jury€see€the€witnesses€face€to€face,Ïhear€their€testimony€and€observe€their€demeanor€on€theÏstand.€€Thus€the€trial€judge€and€jury€are€the€primaryÏinstrumentality€of€justice€to€determine€the€weight€andÏcredibility€to€be€given€to€the€testimony€of€witnesses.€€InÏthe€trial€forum€alone€is€there€human€atmosphere€and€theÏtotality€of€the€evidence€cannot€be€reproduced€with€aÏwritten€record€in€this€Court.€€ÌÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ „ Ò405€S.W.2d€768€(1966).€€Thus,€a€jury€verdict€is€entitled€to€great€weight.Ìà àOnce€approved€by€the€trial€court,€a€jury€verdict€accredits€the€witnessesÏpresented€by€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.ÏHatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627€(Tenn.€1978);€òòState€v.€Townsendóó,€525€S.W.2d€842Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€The€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,Ïand€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€toÏthe€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€AÏjuryððs€guilty€verdict€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€enjoyed€by€theÏdefendant€at€trial€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639ÏS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€defendant€then€bears€the€burden€ofÏovercoming€this€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2dÏ329,€331€(Tenn.€1977).Ìà àFirst„degree€murder€includes€ð ð[a]€killing€of€another€committed€in€theÏperpetration€of€or€attempt€to€perpetrate€any€.€.€.€robbery€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€39„13„202(2).€€Appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€submitted€at€trial€isÏinsufficient€to€support€œhis›€conviction€because€there€was€no€ð ðclearðð€evidence€thatÏœhe›€intended€to€rob€the€victim.€€Counsel€for€Appellant€suggests€the€possibility€thatÏthe€victim€lost€the€money€he€brought€into€the€poolroom€while€gambling.€ÏAppellant€also€argues€that€Mr.€Smithððs€testimony€that€he€overheard€someoneÏdemand€money€from€the€victim€should€not€be€believed€because€Mr.€Smith€wasÏsmoking€crack€in€the€bathroom€when€he€supposedly€overheard€the€demand.€ÍFurthermore,€Appellant€claims€that€no€one€identified€the€voices€of€either€theÏperson€making€the€alleged€demand€for€money€or€the€victimððs€voice.Ìà àWhile€Appellantððs€speculation€about€what€could€have€happened€to€theÏvictimððs€money€is€possible,€the€jury€apparently€believed€Appellant€took€theÏmoney.€€In€addition,€the€credibility€of€witnesses€is€entirely€within€the€province€ofÏthe€jury.€€The€fact€that€Mr.€Smith€was€high€on€cocaine€when€he€heard€theÏdemand€for€money€was€considered€by€the€jury€which€nevertheless€found€SmithÏcredible.€€€òòSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€at€547.€€Finally,€Appellant€is€incorrect€in€hisÏassertion€that€no€one€identified€the€voice€of€the€victim.€€Mr.€Smith€testified€thatÏwhile€he€was€in€the€bathroom€he€heard€the€victim€refuse€a€demand€for€money.€ÏAlthough€no€one€identified€Appellantððs€voice,€Appellant€was€positively€identifiedÏentering€the€poolroom€minutes€before€the€fatal€shot€was€fired€and€immediatelyÏthereafter.€€Appellant€admitted€shooting€the€victim€because€the€victim€hadÏallegedly€robbed€Appellant€the€day€before€the€incident.€€The€victim€was€seenÏwith€at€least€two€hundred€dollars€before€the€shooting,€and€only€sixty„five€centsÏwas€found€on€the€victim€after€the€shooting.€€Clearly,€the€evidence€was€sufficientÏas€a€matter€of€law€to€support€Appellantððs€conviction.à àÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Denial€of€Appellantððs€Motion€to€Suppressó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€denying€his€motion€toÏsuppress€his€statement€given€to€the€police.€€Appellant€claims€that€the€statementÍwas€not€œgiven€voluntarily›€œbecause›€he€was€only€sixteen€at€the€time€of€theÏstatement,€the€police€excluded€his€mother€from€questioning,€and€the€policeÏthreatened€him€with€the€electric€chair.€€The€question€before€us€is€whether,€underÏthe€totality€of€the€circumstances,€Appellantððs€confession€was€the€result€of€aÏknowing€and€intelligent€waiver€of€constitutional€rights.€€òòState€v.€Gordanóó,€642ÏS.W.2d€742,€744€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€In€making€that€determination,€we€areÏmindful€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€on€a€motion€to€suppress€are€conclusive€onÏappeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòBraziel€v.ÏStateóó,€529€S.W.2d€501,€506€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€Ìà àIn€the€instant€case,€the€record€reveals€that€Appellant€was€informed€of€hisÏMiranda€rights€before€being€questioned.€€òòSeeóó€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€86€S.Ct.€1602Ï(1966).€€After€being€informed€of€his€Miranda€rights,€he€signed€a€waiver€of€rightsÏform.€€Appellant€was€asked€if€he€understood€these€rights€to€which€heÏresponded€affirmatively.€€Before€Appellant€gave€his€statement€admitting€to€killingÏthe€victim€he€was€again€explained€his€Miranda€rights.€€While€Appellant€claimsÏthat€the€investigating€officer€threatened€him€with€the€electric€chair,€theÏinvestigating€officer€denied€ever€making€such€a€comment.€€Although€AppellantððsÏmother€was€not€present€throughout€questioning,€the€voluntariness€andÏadmissibility€of€a€juvenileððs€confession€is€not€dependent€upon€the€presence€ofÏhis€parents€or€an€attorney€at€interrogation€when€full€Miranda€warnings€haveÏbeen€given€and€understood.€€òòBrazielóó,€529€S.W.2d€at€506.€€We€find€nothing€in€theÍrecord€that€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€that€AppellantððsÏstatement€was€knowingly€and€voluntarily€entered.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€Admissibility€of€Photograph€of€the€Victimó óÌÓ  Óà àNext€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€allowing€the€State€toÏintroduce€a€photograph€of€the€victim€taken€while€he€was€alive.€€The€picture€ofÏthe€victim€depicts€the€victim€in€his€military€uniform.€€Appellant€contends€that€theÏphotograph€was€not€relevant€and€was€overly€prejudicial.Ìà àThe€admissibility€of€photographs€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏjudge€and€will€not€be€overturned€on€appeal€except€upon€a€clear€showing€of€anÏabuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978).€€OurÏcourts€have€held€that€pictures€of€a€homicide€victim€should€not€be€admitted€at€trialÏbecause€they€are€of€tenuous€relevancy.€€œòòSee,ó󛀜òòe.g.óó,›€òòState€v.€Dicksóó,€615€S.W.2dÏ126,€128€(Tenn.€1981);€òòState€v.€Strouthóó,€620€S.W.2d€467,€472€(Tenn.€1981);ÏòòState€v.€Richardsonóó,€697€S.W.2d€594,€597€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€As€theÏcourt€said€in€òòState€v.€Dicksóó,€ð ðit€would€have€been€better€had€the€ððbeforeðð€picture€ofÏ[the€victim]€been€excluded€since€it€added€little€or€nothing€to€the€sum€total€ofÏknowledge€of€the€jury.ðð€€615€S.W.2d€at€128.Ìà àHere,€the€relevance€of€the€photograph€of€the€victim€taken€while€he€wasÏalive€was€minimal.€€However,€in€view€of€the€overwhelming€evidence€thatÍAppellant€shot€the€victim,€admission€of€this€photograph€was€at€most€harmlessÏerror.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€toÏsustain€Appellantððs€conviction,€that€Appellantððs€statement€to€the€police€admittingÏto€the€shooting€was€voluntary,€and€that€the€admission€of€the€photograph€takenÏof€the€victim€while€he€was€alive€did€not€constitute€prejudicial€error.€€The€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€therefore€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE