ÿWPCo …UNV %¤ 0(ªFÒw44L` 0ˆo 0D÷; 0JC 0T 0^á 0h? 0r§ 0| 0†•  0# 1u³ 0d( BŒ U>© U*ç B)DC: D3} AM° ý 0@ /Jv~yvÓ÷ AOÊÆ 0Dß D/# BR(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡c:\office\wpwin\template\draft.wptÃDÄÅDÆUÇDÍVÎDÏÓ€³†;$C3|xØ(8(2§ã$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd%%%%'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌJuly€29,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔThe€defendant€originally€attempted€to€suppress€a€tape„recorded€statement€he€gave€to€theÏauthorities€at€1:15€A.M.€on€November€8,€1995,€but€withdrew€the€motion€at€the€March€22,€1996,€Ïsuppression€hearing;€however,€the€defendant€continued€to€object€to€officers'€recollections€ofÏstatements€he€purportedly€made€at€the€scene€of€the€shooting.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ßáXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€'ÔÙ€€ÙßR€+,)A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àDECEMBER€1997€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€€APPELLEE,à à)à àNo.€01„C„01„9612„CC„00499€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDonald€P.€Harris,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌJERRY€TAYLOR,à àà àà àà à)à à(Second€Degree€Murder)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLANT.à à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌJohn€H.€Hendersonà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€68à àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue,€NorthÌFranklin,€TN€€37065„0068à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0497ÌÌVanessa€P.€Bryanà àà àà àà àà àKaren€M.€YacuzzoÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€68à àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue,€NorthÌFranklin,€TN€€37065„0068à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0497ÌÌLarry€D.€Drolsumà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€D.€BaughÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€68à àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937ÌFranklin,€TN€€37065„0068à àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€€37065„0937ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€BarringerÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€€37065„0937ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJeff€P.€BurksÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€€37065„0937ÌÌOPINION€FILED:_________________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÇÓ  Óò òà@ àòòOPINION€óóó óÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant,€Jerry€Taylor,€was€convicted€of€second€degree€murder,Ïa€Class€A€felony.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€twenty„one€years€and€finedÏthe€defendant€$5,000.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€four€issues€for€review.€ÏHe€contends€that€(1)€the€evidence€is€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€support€theÏconviction;€(2)€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€a€defense€motion€to€suppress;Ï(3)€the€jury€instruction€for€second€degree€murder€was€incorrect€and€the€statute€isÏunconstitutional;€and€(4)€the€sentence€is€excessive.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€conviction€and€sentence€shouldÏbe€affirmed.€ÌÌà àà àThe€victim,€Christopher€Harvey,€and€the€defendant€lived€together€in€aÏsmall€trailer€in€the€Nolensville€Trailer€Park€in€Williamson€County.€€The€victim€wasÏemployed.€€The€defendant€was€not.€€Those€who€knew€both€men€testified€that€theÏtwo€often€argued€over€the€payment€of€rent€and€food.€€A€young€neighbor€in€the€trailerÏpark,€Cory€Ford,€testified€that€one€week€before€the€shooting,€the€defendantÍremarked€that€he€was€too€old€to€be€a€match€for€the€victim€in€a€fight.€€The€defendantÏexplained€that€if€the€victim€threatened€him,€he€would€"just€shoot"€him.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€the€afternoon€of€November€7,€1995,€the€two€men€had€beenÏdrinking.€€The€victim€became€angry€when€Ford€and€a€friend€refused€to€take€theÏdefendant€to€buy€more€beer.€€After€supper,€the€victim,€according€to€the€defendant,Ïthreatened€the€defendant€with€a€knife€and€ordered€him€to€leave€the€trailer.€€TheÏdefendant€left€for€a€time€and€when€he€came€back,€the€victim€was€not€there.€€WhenÏthe€victim€returned,€the€two€men€argued€and€the€defendant€claimed€that€the€victimÏstruck€him€on€the€arm€with€a€.22€caliber€rifle.€€He€said€the€victim€then€slammed€theÏrifle€over€a€chair,€breaking€off€the€stock.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€left€again,€walked€to€a€nearby€market€to€telephone€aÏfriend,€and€sought€permission€to€stay€overnight.€€When€his€friend€failed€to€come€byÏand€when€he€saw€the€victim€leave,€the€defendant€returned€to€the€trailer€and€layÏdown€on€the€couch€where€he€usually€slept.ÌÌà àà àThe€victim€returned€and€the€two€men€argued€again.€€The€defendantÏclaimed€that€the€victim€put€a€knife€to€the€defendantððs€throat€and€told€him€that€he€hadÏbeen€in€the€Navy€and€that€killing€œhim›€would€be€easy.€€The€defendant€testified€thatÍhe€kicked€the€victim€away€into€an€adjoining€bedroom,€picked€up€the€remains€of€theÏbroken€rifle,€entered€the€bedroom,€and€fired€the€fatal€shot.€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€explained€to€the€investigating€officer€that€he€was€"justÏgoing€to€try€to€scare"€the€victim€or€"hit€him"€with€the€rifle.€€He€also€claimed€that€heÏwanted€to€make€sure€the€victim€did€not€fall€onto€the€knife.€ÌÌà àà àIn€his€recorded€statement€to€police,€the€defendant€contended€that€heÏfired€the€shot€only€after€the€victim,€knife€in€hand,€arose€from€the€floor,€saying:€€"YouÏf„„„„„€up."€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhen€I€shot€him€the€first€time,€he€said,€"Jerry,€No"€andÏthat€was,€I€mean€and€then€he€got€up€with€the€knife.€IÏmean,€you€know,€he€was€on,€he€was€done€laying€down.€IÏdonððt€know€where€I€shot.€I€couldnððt€tell€you€where€I€shotÏhim.€How€many€times€I€shot€him€and€he€hollered,€"Jerry"Ïand€that€is€the€last€thing€I€think€he€said€was,€"Jerry,€No"Ïand€then€he€rolled€over€and€was€getting€back€up,€which€IÏknew€I€had€shot€him€with€a€little€low€powered€rifle.€I€knewÏI€shot€him€low,€I€did€aim€low€and€when€he€rolled€over,€IÏknew€with€his€temper,€with€the€knife.€I€shot€him€againÏand€again.ÌÌÓÓThe€defendant€contended€that€the€rifle€was€old€and€that€he€did€not€think€it€wouldÏshoot.€€ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€the€defendant€emphasized€that€he€followed€the€victim€into€theÏbedroom€only€to€make€sure€the€victim€did€not€fall€onto€the€knife.€€The€defendantÏalso€testified€that€he€planned€to€strike€the€victim€with€the€rifle€and€that€he€acted€inÏself„defense.€The€defendant€contended€that€the€victim€was€a€heavy€drinker€andÏbecame€angry€when€he€drank.€€He€insisted€that€he€feared€for€his€life.€€SeveralÏdefense€witnesses€testified€that€the€victim€had€a€reputation€for€violence.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€victim€was€shot€nine€times.€€Two€of€the€shots€were€into€his€back.€ÏThe€fatal€shot€entered€the€back,€penetrated€the€left€lung,€aorta,€and€part€of€the€heart.€ÏThere€were€four€gunshot€wounds€to€the€right€arm€and€others€to€the€left€thigh€and€theÏleft€arm.€€The€defendant,€who€placed€the€victim€onto€the€bed€and€then€went€toÏFordððs€trailer€to€call€911,€claimed€that€he€did€not€know€what€became€of€the€knifeÏafter€the€victim€was€shot.€€ÌÌà àà àOther€witnesses€remember€seeing€the€knife€in€the€victimððs€hand€or€onÏthe€floor€next€to€one€of€his€hands.€€Cory€Ford,€his€mother€Phyllis€Ford,€and€friendÏJohn€Irwin€went€to€the€trailer€with€the€defendant.€€They€said€they€saw€a€knife€in€theÏvictimððs€open€hand.€€Phyliss€Ford€said€the€knife€was€in€the€victimððs€left€hand.€€CoryÏFord€remembered€a€knife€in€the€victimððs€open€palm€but€did€not€say€which€hand.€ÏJohn€Irwin€said€he€saw€a€knife€in€the€victimððs€hand€but€could€not€remember€whichÍone.€€Irwin€said€the€victim€was€right„handed.€€œCorporal€Mark›€Lee€said€he€found€theÏknife€near€the€victimððs€right€hand.ÌÌà àà àWhen€Deputy€Jeff€Carter€arrived,€he€immediately€took€the€defendantÏinto€custody,€advised€him€of€his€rights,€and€placed€him€in€the€back€of€the€patrol€car.€ÏThe€defendant€provided€a€tape„recorded€statement€to€officers€at€the€sheriffððs€office.€ÏA€breathalyzer€test€indicated€the€defendant€had€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€.07Ïpercent.€€Other€officers€testified€that€the€defendant€admitted€to€shooting€the€victimÏbut€claimed€self„defense.€€Several€rounds€of€ammunition€were€left€in€the€rifle.ÌÌà àà àThree€bullets€were€found€on€the€bed€and€another€from€inside€theÏmattress.€€Four€shells€were€located€beside€the€bed€and€a€fifth€next€to€a€dresser€inÏthe€bedroom.€€Three€more€shells€were€found€in€the€living€room.€€A€firearms€expertÏfrom€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,€who€examined€the€rifle,€testified€that€aÏpull€of€the€trigger€was€required€for€each€shot.€€The€defendant€attempted€to€explainÏthe€presence€of€the€shells€by€testifying€that€sometime€earlier,€visitors€had€shot€theÏrifle€inside€the€trailer.ÌÌà@ àIÌà àà àThe€defendant€first€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€toÍsupport€a€verdict€of€second€degree€murder.€€He€argues€that€the€proof€at€trialÏestablished€that€he€acted€in€self„defense€because€he€feared€death€or€seriousÏbodily€injury.ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.ÏCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€verdict€of€guilt€removes€theÏpresumption€of€innocence€and€gives€rise€to€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,Ï493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€This€court,€in€reviewing€the€evidence€in€theÏlight€most€favorable€to€the€state,€concludes€that€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏœfound€the€essential›€elements€of€second€degree€murder€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€œ307›€(1979);€œTenn.€R.›€App.€P.€13(e).à àÌÌà àà àSecond€degree€murder€requires€proof€that€the€defendant€committedÏan€unlawful,€knowing€killing€of€another.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„210(a)(1).ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à"Knowing"€refers€to€a€person€who€acts€knowingly€withÏrespect€to€the€conduct€or€to€circumstances€surroundingÏthe€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€of€the€nature€ofÏthe€conduct€or€that€the€circumstances€exist.€A€personÏacts€knowingly€with€respect€to€a€result€of€the€personððsÏconduct€when€the€person€is€aware€that€the€conduct€isÏreasonably€certain€to€cause€the€œresult[.]›ÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(20).€ÌÌà àà àA€person€is€justified€in€using€force€against€another€person€when€he€orÏshe€reasonably€believes€(1)€that€death€or€serious€bodily€injury€is€imminent€and€(2)Ïthat€the€force€used€is€immediately€necessary€to€protect€against€the€other€personððsÏuse€or€attempted€use€of€unlawful€force.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„611(a).€€TheÏstate€has€the€burden€of€negating€any€defense€raised€by€the€supporting€evidenceÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„201(a)(3).€ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€the€jury€could€have€reasonably€concluded€that€theÏseverity€and€the€degree€of€the€defendant's€act€were€unnecessary€to€save€his€lifeÏand€disproportionate€to€the€threat€presented€by€the€victim.€€The€defendantÏacknowledged€following€the€victim,€who€had€fallen€to€the€floor,€into€the€bedroomÏcarrying€a€loaded€rifle.€€He€shot€the€victim€nine€times.€€Each€shot€required€aÏseparate€pull€of€the€trigger.€€Not€all€of€the€bullets€in€the€rifle€were€fired.€€The€victimÏwas€shot€twice€from€behind.€€One€of€those€shots€caused€his€death.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€claimed€that€he€did€not€know€what€happened€to€theÏknife.€€Other€witnesses€said€the€knife€was€in€the€victim's€open€palm€or€on€the€floor.€ÏThese€and€other€inconsistencies€in€the€evidence€were€not€necessarily€helpful€to€theÍclaim€of€self„defense.€€€ÌÌà àà àWe€conclude€that€ample€proof€existed€to€allow€a€rational€trier€of€fact€toÏconclude€that€the€defendant€unlawfully€and€intentionally€killed€the€victim.€€The€juryÏacted€within€its€prerogative€in€rejecting€the€self„defense€claim€or€in€refusing€toÏconsider€lesser€offenses.€ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àà àBefore€trial,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€the€statement€heÏmade€to€the€police.œ× ƒ. ××  ×›€€On€March€22,€1996,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€suppressionÏhearing€to€determine€the€admissibility€of€statements€the€defendant€made€at€theÏscene€of€the€crime€on€the€night€of€the€shooting.€€The€defendant€contends€that€theÏstatements€were€elicited€in€violation€of€his€rights€under€the€United€States€andÏTennessee€Constitutions.€€He€claims€that€because€he€was€intoxicated€and€in€shock,Ïhe€never€voluntarily€waived€his€right€to€remain€silent.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€did€not€testify€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€Deputy€JeffÍCarter€testified€that€after€receiving€the€report€of€the€shooting,€he€went€to€the€trailerÏpark.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant,€who€was€leaving€the€trailer€when€CarterÏarrived,€was€taken€into€custody€and€placed€into€the€patrol€car.€€"He€was€talking€theÏwhole€time€this€was€going€on.€€And€I€walked€him€back€to€my€patrol€car.€€At€that€pointÏI€sat€him€down€.€.€.€I€had€him€listen€and€I€gave€the€Miranda€warning€to€him."€€CarterÏacknowledged€that€the€defendant€smelled€of€alcohol,€that€his€speech€was€ð ðthickÏtongued,"€and€œthat€he›€talked€a€lot.€€Deputy€Carter€said€that€the€defendant€wasÏcooperative€and€stopped€talking€during€the€Miranda€warning.€€"He€even€replied€thatÏhe€understood€them€after€I€was€finished."€€Deputy€Carter€testified€that€he€did€notÏquestion€the€defendant€at€that€time,€choosing€instead€to€process€the€crime€scene.€ÌÌà àà àCorporal€Mark€Lee€arrived€as€the€defendant€was€being€placed€intoÏthe€car.€€Lee€also€went€into€the€trailer€and€later€entered€Deputy€Carterððs€patrol€car€toÏuse€the€phone.€€Lee€testified€that€he€did€not€question€the€defendant€but€was€awareÏthat€Deputy€Carter€had€Mirandized€the€defendant.€€Lee€recalled€that€the€defendantÏvolunteered€his€version€of€the€altercation.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€claimed€theÏvictim€broke€the€butt€of€a€rifle€over€his€back€and€then€threatened€him€with€a€knife.€Ï"He€volunteered€he€had€shot€him....€€He€said,€'I€shot€him,€what€else€could€I€do?€YouÏknow€he€had€a€knife€and€he€was€œwaving›€the€knife€in€my€face.'"€€Lee€described€theÏdefendant€as€smelling€of€alcohol,€as€talking€excitedly,€and€as€trying€to€cooperateÍwith€the€investigation.€€à àÌÌà àà àAfter€sitting€in€the€patrol€car€for€approximately€one€hour,€the€defendantÏwas€taken€to€the€trailer€to€use€the€bathroom€and€to€speak€with€the€detectives.€€AtÏthat€point,€Deputy€Carter€recalled€that€Detective€Beard€asked€if€Miranda€warningsÏhad€been€provided.€€Detective€Beard€revealed€that€the€defendant€had€no€troubleÏwalking€up€the€stairs€to€the€trailer€and€reenacted€the€events€leading€to€the€shooting.€ÏDetective€Beard€remembered€the€defendant's€claim€that€he€left€the€trailer€after€theÏvictim€had€threatened€him€with€a€knife€and€that€when€he€returned,€the€victim€struckÏhim€with€a€rifle€and€broke€the€rifle€over€a€chair.€€He€recalled€the€defendant€sayingÏthat€he€left€a€second€time€and€returned€later€when€the€victim€was€gone;€and€thatÏwhen€the€victim€returned€and€threatened€him€with€a€knife,€he€pushed€the€victimÏaway,€grabbed€the€remains€of€the€rifle,€followed€œhim€into›€the€bedroom,€and€firedÏone€shot.€€He€recalled€the€defendant's€claim€that€he€fired€the€weapon€only€after€theÏvictim€advanced€toward€him.€€Eight€more€shots€followed.€€€ÌÌ€à àà àThe€breathalyzer€test€indicated€a€blood€alcohol€level€of€.07€percent€atÏ12:50€A.M.€€Detective€Beard€testified€that€twenty„five€minutes€later,€the€defendantÏreceived€Miranda€warnings,€signed€a€waiver,€and€gave€a€tape„recorded€interview.€ÏDetective€Beard€described€the€defendant€as€a€fairly€educated€man,€having€been€aÍformer€bar€manager€and€as€having€some€common€sense.Ì€Ìà àà àThe€trial€court€initially€determined€that€the€defendant's€pre„trialÏstatements€were€knowingly€and€voluntarily€made.€€òòState€v.€Pursleyóó,€550€S.W.2dÏ949,€950€(Tenn.€1977).€€When€the€trial€court€makes€œfindings›€of€œfact›€at€œthe›€conclusionÏof€a€suppression€hearing,€the€facts€are€accorded€the€weight€of€the€jury€verdict.€ÏòòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994).€€These€facts€are€bindingÏupon€this€court€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€theÏfindings€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996);€òòsee€alsoóóÏòòStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€544.ÌÌà àà àQuestions€of€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€theÏevidence€and€the€resolution€of€conflicts€in€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€to€theÏtrial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€The€party€prevailing€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€to€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€So€long€as€the€greater€weight€of€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððsÏfindings,€those€findings€shall€be€upheld.€€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€23.ÌÌà àà àThe€state€relies€upon€this€Courtððs€opinion€in€òòState€v.€Jack€Jay€Northóó,ÍHardin€County€No.€02„C„01„9512„CC„00369€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,ÏDecember€12,€œ1996),€òòapp.€deniedóó€(Tenn.,€July€7,€1997).›€€North€was€arrested€forÏdriving€under€the€influence€following€an€accident.€€€He€became€a€suspect€in€aÏmurder€and€was€questioned€by€authorities.€€He€claimed€that€he€did€not€voluntarilyÏwaive€his€rights€because€he€was€intoxicated,€injured,€medicated,€sleepy,€hungry,Ïand€cold€at€the€time€of€his€statements.€€As€in€this€case,€the€trial€court€in€òòNorthóó€foundÏthe€defendant€had€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waived€his€constitutional€rights.€€OnÏdirect€appeal,€this€court€agreed.€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€the€defendant's€constitutional€rights€were€not€violated.€ÏThe€evidence€supports€the€trial€court's€conclusion.€€Moreover,€the€statements€atÏissue€are€largely€self„serving€and€were€consistent€with€the€defense€offered€at€trial.€ÏThere€was€no€prejudicial€error€by€the€admission€of€the€statements.€€ÌÌà@ àIIIÌà àà àAs€his€third€issue,€the€defendant€challenges€the€trial€court'sÏinstructions€to€the€jury€as€to€second€degree€murder,€voluntary€manslaughter,€andÏprovocation.€€The€defendant€also€contends€the€second€degree€murder€statute€is€Ïunconstitutional.€€ÌÌà àà àDuring€the€course€of€the€trial,€the€trial€judge€observed€that€the€patternÏjury€instructions€for€second€degree€murder€did€not€address€"heat€of€passionÏbrought€on€by€adequate€provocation."€€In€consequence,€the€trial€judge€advised€theÏjury€that€a€killing€committed€in€a€heat€of€passion€did€not€rise€to€second€degreeÏmurder.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAny€person€who€commits€second€degree€murder€isÏguilty€of€a€crime.€For€you€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€ofÏthis€offense,€the€state€must€have€proven€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€the€followingÏessential€elements:Ìà8 àà8 àà8 à(1)€that€the€defendant€unlawfully€killed€theÏalleged€victim;Ìà8 àà8 àà8 à(2)€that€the€defendant€acted€intentionally€orÏknowingly;€and€Ìà8 àà8 àà8 à(3)€òòthat€the€killing€did€not€result€from€a€stateÏof€passion€produced€by€adequateÏprovocation€sufficient€to€lead€a€reasonableÏperson€to€act€in€an€irrational€manner.óóÌà8 àà8 àà àThe€distinction€between€voluntary€manslaughterÏand€second€degree€murder€is€that€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€requires€that€the€killing€result€from€a€stateÏof€passion€produced€by€adequate€provocation€sufficientÏto€lead€a€reasonable€person€to€act€in€an€irrationalÏmanner.€Bear€in€mind€that€if€you€find€a€knowing€killingÏwith€adequate€provocation,€that€is€voluntaryÏmanslaughter.Ìà8 àà8 àà àIf€you€find€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€theÏdefendant€is€guilty€of€this€offense,€you€will€convict€himÏand€your€verdict€will€be,€ð ðWe€the€Jury€find€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€the€defendant€is€guilty€of€murder€in€theÏsecond€degree.ðð€If€this€is€your€verdict,€you€may€alsoÏassess€a€fine€in€some€amount€not€to€exceed€$50,000.00ÏSuch€fine€would€be€in€addition€to€any€other€punishmentÍprovided€by€law€and€must€be€reported€with€your€verdict€ifÏyou€find€it€warranted.€Ìà8 àà8 àà àIf€you€find€the€defendant€not€guilty€of€this€offenseÏor€if€you€have€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€his€guilt,€you€willÏacquit€him€and€you€must€then€proceed€to€consider€theÏdefendantððs€guilt€œor›€innocence€of€the€offense€of€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€which€is€a€lesser€included€offense.ÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€The€trial€judge€then€instructed€fully€on€voluntary€manslaughter,Ïcriminally€negligent€homicide,€and€œself„defense.›€ÌÌà àà àInitially,€defense€counsel€expressed€satisfaction€with€the€trial€judge'sÏinstructions.€€There€was€no€objection€either€before€or€after€the€charge€to€the€jury.€ÏThe€defendant€did€not€contest€the€jury€charge€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€althoughÏhe€did€attack€the€constitutionality€of€œthe€second›€degree€murder€statute.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€characterizes€the€third€issue€as€"whether€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€failing€to€declare€the€second€degree€murder€statute€unconstitutional."€ÏHe€cites€several€reasons€for€his€claim.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€statute€isÏvague€and€over€broad.€€œòòSeeóó€U.€S.€Const.€amend.€V,€XIV.›€€He€contends€a€violation€ofÏthe€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€U.S.€Constitution,€requiring€that€the€defendant€beÏ"informed€of€the€nature€and€cause€of€the€œaccusations,"›€and€Article€9€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution,€"to€demand€the€nature€and€cause€of€the€accusation."€€HeÍalso€asserts€that€the€"patchwork"€instructions€on€second€degree€murder,€whichÏwere€not€objected€to€at€trial,€œqualify€as›€plain€error.€€The€defendant€attacks€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210,€the€second€degree€murder€statute,€for€failing€to€properlyÏdifferentiate€the€varying€degrees€of€homicide.€€He€contends€that€the€murder€statutesÏare€"so€conflicted"€that€the€trial€judge€had€to€give€supplemental€instructions€in€orderÏfor€the€jury€to€properly€consider€the€charges.€€He€argues€that€this€raises€a€questionÏas€to€"whether€the€jury€verdict€was€unanimous€considering€the€'combined€charge.'"ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€the€defendant€challenges€the€statute€on€equal€œprotectionÏgrounds,€arguing›€the€legislature€has€failed€to€differentiate€between€second€degreeÏmurder€and€other€homicide€statutes.€The€defendant€reasons€that€"since€the€secondÏdegree€murder€statute€did€not€address€the€elements€of€voluntary€manslaughter,€theÏstate€was€remiss€in€not€electing€one€statute€or€the€other.€€By€failing€to€elect,€theÏconviction€in€this€cause€violates€the€Fourteenth€Amendment."ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€objects€to€the€jury€instructions€requiringÏconsideration€of€the€second€degree€charge€first€and,€œthereafter,€in›€order,€the€lesserÏoffenses.€€œHe€makes€the€following€argument:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIf›€the€jury€rejects€that€the€killing€of€another€in€a€state€ofÏpassion€produced€œby€adequate›€provocation,€the€verdictÍautomatically€becomes€œ"Second›€œDegree›€œMurder,"€there›Ïis€no€consideration€for€criminally€negligent€homicide€andÏlittle€emphasis€is€placed€on€self„defense.€€When€the€juryÏwas€given€a€pieced€together€charge€.€.€.€there€becomes€aÏquestion€whether€their€verdict€was€œunanimous.›€€œÌÌÓÓThe›€defendant€contends€the€jury€was€not€allowed€to€consider€state€of€passion€orÏadequate€provocation.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€rare€for€this€court€to€have€the€opportunity€to€review€so€manyÏissues,€constitutional€and€otherwise,€in€a€single€allegation€of€error.€€Nevertheless,Ïwe€will€attempt€to€address€the€questions€presented.€€ÌÌà@ à(A)Ìà àà àGenerally,€the€failure€to€raise€an€issue€in€motion€for€new€trial€results€inÏwaiver.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€3(e)€provides€that€for€appeals€€"inÏall€cases€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€for€review€shall€be€predicated€uponÏerror€in€the€admission€or€exclusion€of€evidence,€jury€instructions,€granted€or€refusedÏ...€or€other€grounds€upon€which€a€new€trial€is€sought,€unless€the€same€wasÏspecifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€new€trial;€otherwise€such€issues€will€be€treated€asÏwaived."ÌÌà àà àThis€rule€embodies€the€common€law€practice€of€Tennessee,€underÏwhich€an€objection€to€a€particular€jury€instruction€is€deemed€waived€in€the€absenceÏof€contemporaneous€objection€unless€the€instruction€contains€plain€error.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.góó.,ÏòòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€793€S.W.2d€650,€651€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€òòState€v.€Cravensóó,Ï764€S.W.2d€754,€756„57€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€defendant€in€this€case€did€not€make€aÏcontemporaneous€objection€to€the€court's€charge.€€Further,€he€did€not€raise€theÏissue€of€an€improper€jury€instruction€in€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Clearly€waiverÏwould€preclude€a€€portion€of€the€claims€raised.€€Because,€however,€the€defendantÏalleges€plain€error,€we€must€at€least€address€whether€we€can€consider€the€merits€ofÏthe€issue.€€ÌÌà@ à(B)Ìò òà àà àó óBefore€an€error€may€be€recognized€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï52(b),€the€error€must€be€"plain"€and€it€must€affect€a€"substantial€right"€of€theÏaccused.€The€word€"plain"€is€synonymous€with€"clear"€or€equivalently€"obvious."€ÏòòUnited€States€v.€Olanoóó,€507€U.S.€725,€œ732›€œ(1993).›€€A€"substantial€right"€is€a€right€ofÏ"fundamental€proportions€in€the€indictment€process,€a€right€to€the€proof€of€everyÏelement€of€the€offense€and€is€constitutional€in€nature."€€òòState€v.€Adkissonóó,€899ÏS.W.2d€626,€639€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€A€plain€error€is€not€merely€error€that€isÏconspicuous.€€Plain€error€is€especially€egregious€error€that€strikes€at€the€"fairness,Íintegrity€or€public€reputation€of€judicial€proceedings."€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Woodenóó,€658ÏS.W.2d€553,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp.),›€œòòappóó.›€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1983).ÌÌà àà àThe€jury€instruction€in€this€case€informed€the€jury€that€second€degreeÏmurder€is€a€€knowing€killing.€€The€trial€judge€added€that€if€the€jury€found€the€killingÏwas€brought€about€by€œprovocation,›€the€offense€would€be€voluntary€manslaughter.ÏThe€jury€was€made€aware€of€the€differences€between€second€degree€murder€andÏvoluntary€manslaughter.€€The€addition€to€the€instruction€made€by€the€trial€judge€wasÏto€the€defendantððs€favor.€€Because€the€defendant€could€not€have€been€harmed€byÏthe€trial€judge's€amendments€to€the€pattern€instruction,€there€was€no€reversibleÏerror,€plain€or€otherwise.€€€Ìà àÌà àà àThe€challenges€to€the€instructions€are€without€merit.€ÌÌà@ à(C)Ìà àà àThe€gravamen€of€the€defendant's€constitutional€claim€is€that€theÏsecond€degree€murder€statute€violates€due€process€and€equal€protection.€€It€is€aÏbasic€principle€of€due€process€that€an€enactment€is€void€for€vagueness€if€itsÏprohibitions€are€not€clearly€defined.€€òòGrayned€v.€City€of€Rockfordóó,€408€U.S.€104,€œ108›Ïœ(1972).›€€The€fair€warning€requirement€embodied€in€the€due€process€clauseÍprohibits€the€states€from€holding€an€individual€criminally€responsible€for€conductÏwhich€he€could€not€have€reasonably€understood€to€be€proscribed.€€òòUnited€States€v.ÏHarrissóó,€347€U.S.€612,€œ617€(1954).›€€Due€process€requires€that€the€law€giveÏsufficient€warning€so€that€people€may€avoid€conduct€which€is€forbidden.€€òòRose€v.ÏœLockeóó,›€423€U.S.€48,€œ49„50›€(1975).€€The€words€of€a€statute€are€to€be€taken€in€theirÏnatural€and€ordinary€sense€without€a€forced€construction€to€limit€or€extend€theirÏmeaning.€€òòEllenburg€v.€Stateóó,€œ384›€S.W.2d€29,€30€œ(Tenn.€1964).›€€Initially,€trial€courtsÏare€charged€with€upholding€the€constitutionality€of€statutes€where€possible.€€òòDykesÏv.€Hamilton€Countyóó,€191€S.W.2d€155,€159€(Tenn.€1945);€òòState€v.€Joyneróó,€759ÏS.W.2d€422,€425€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€The€constitutional€test€for€vagueness€isÏwhether€a€statute's€prohibitions€are€not€clearly€defined€and€are€thus€susceptible€toÏdifferent€interpretations€as€to€what€conduct€the€statute€actually€proscribes.€òòState€v.ÏForbesóó,€918€S.W.2d€431,€447„48€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòseeóó€òòGrayned€v.€City€ofÏRockfordóó,€408€U.S.€œat€108;›€òòBaggett€v.€Bullittóó,€377€U.S.€360,€œ367›€(1964).€€œÌÌà àà àIn›€contrast,€the€constitutional€test€for€overbreadth€is€whether€theÏstatute's€language€overreaches€unlawful€conduct€and€encompasses€activity€that€isÏconstitutionally€protected.€€òòForbesóó,€918€S.W.2d€at€448;€òòGraynedóó,€408€U.S.€atÏœ114„15.›€€Under€our€principles€of€due€process,€an€over€broad€or€vague€statute€isÏvulnerable€to€a€constitutional€challenge€because€it€(1)€fails€to€provide€fair€noticeÍthat€certain€activities€are€unlawful;€and€(2)€fails€to€establish€reasonably€clearÏguidelines€for€law€enforcement€officials€and€courts,€which€in€turn€invites€arbitraryÏand€discriminatory€enforcement.€€òòForbesóó,€918€S.W.2d€448;€òòseeóó€òòRose€v.€Lockeóó,€423ÏU.S.€œat€49„50;›€òòSmith€v.€Goguenóó,€415€U.S.€566,€œ572„73€(1974).›€€In€our€view,€theÏwords€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210€are€sufficiently€precise€to€put€an€individualÏon€notice€of€prohibited€activities.€€The€language€sets€out€boundaries€sufficientlyÏdistinct€for€the€courts€to€fairly€administer€the€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€635€S.W.2dÏ114,€116€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€challenges€the€second€degree€murder€statute€onÏequal€protection€grounds.€€He€asserts€that€the€legislature€has€failed€to€differentiateÏbetween€second€degree€murder€and€other€homicide€statutes.ÌÌà àà à€Second€degree€murder€is€the€only€œhomicide€offense›€defined€in€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210.€€Killing€in€the€heat€of€passion€after€provocation€isÏaddressed€in€the€voluntary€manslaughter€charge€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„211.€€Criminally€negligent€homicide€is€defined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„212.€ÏHere,€the€evidence€supports€a€finding€that€the€defendant€committed€"a€knowingÏkilling"€after€following€the€victim€into€his€bedroom€and€shooting€the€victim€nineÏtimes.€The€fatal€shot€hit€the€victim€from€behind.€€This€conduct€falls€within€the€conductÍproscribed€by€the€second€degree€murder€statute.€€The€jury€was€aware€of€theÏvarying€degrees€of€offenses€based€upon€the€trial€œcourt's›€instructions€and€theÏarguments€made€by€counsel.€€The€jury€simply€found€the€evidence€supported€theÏgreater€charge.ÌÌà àà àEven€if€these€statutes€were€overlapping,€there€is€no€constitutionalÏviolation.€€In€òòUnited€States€v.€Batchelderóó,€442€U.S.€114,€œ123„24›€(1979),€when€facedÏwith€a€similar€challenge€to€two€federal€statutes,€the€court€ruled€that€when€an€actÏviolates€more€than€one€criminal€statute,€the€government€may€prosecute€underÏeither,€so€long€as€it€does€not€discriminate€against€any€class€of€defendants.€€TheÏdecision€to€prosecute€and€what€charge€to€bring€before€a€grand€jury€are€decisionsÏthat€generally€rest€in€the€prosecutor's€discretion.€€œòòId.óó,€442›€U.S.€at€œ123„24.›€€BecauseÏthe€conduct€of€the€defendant€clearly€caused€the€death€of€the€victim,€there€is€noÏequal€protection€violation.€ÌÌà@ à(D)Ìà àà àThe€defendant€objects€to€the€sequence€of€the€jury€charge€which€firstÏdefined€second€degree€murder€and€then€proceeded€to€define€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€and€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€Sequential€jury€instructions€suchÏas€these€have€been€upheld€by€this€court€on€a€number€of€occasions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÍRainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€381„82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€œòòappóó.›€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€ÏòòState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,€375„76€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€œòòappóó.›€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Rutherfordóó,€876€S.W.2d€118,€119„20€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993),€œòòappóó.›€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).€ÌÌà àà àThe€jury€was€given€instructions€on€second€degree€murder€as€well€asò òÏó óthe€lesser€crimes€of€voluntary€manslaughter€and€criminally€negligent€homicide.€ÏThe€jury€knew€there€were€several€options€available.€€Under€our€law,€it€is€presumedÏthat€juries€follow€the€instructions€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Laneyóó,€654€S.W.2d€383,Ï389€œ(Tenn.),›€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€464€U.S.€œ1003›€(1983).Ì€€Ìà@ à(E)Ìà àà àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€jury€was€not€allowed€to€consider€stateÏof€passion€or€adequate€provocation.€€There€is€simply€nothing€in€the€record€toÏsupport€this€allegation.€€The€record€clearly€demonstrates€that€the€judge€instructedÏthe€jury€on€lack€of€passion€and€provocation€as€part€of€second€degree€murder.€€TheÏjury€is€presumed€to€follow€the€instructions€given.€€œòòLaneyóó,›€654€S.W.2d€œat›€œ389.›€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ à(F)Ìà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€state€failed€to€make€an€election€ofÏoffenses.€€Election€was€not€required€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€851€S.W.2dÏ134€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€defendant€did€not€deny€shooting€the€victim€on€Nov.€7,€1995.ÏThe€only€question€for€the€jury€was€whether€the€shooting€was€a€knowing€killingÏ(second€degree€murder),€a€killing€in€a€state€of€passion€(voluntary€manslaughter)€orÏa€killing€which€was€the€result€of€criminally€negligent€conduct€(criminally€negligentÏhomicide).€€There€was€only€one€incident.€€It€was€for€the€jury€to€determine€the€gravityÏof€the€offense.€€There€was€no€risk€of€a€non„unanimous€verdict€since€jurors€wereÏdeciding€only€one€of€three€possible€crimes.€€The€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€ofÏsecond€degree€murder,€concluding€there€was€either€no€provocation€or€inadequateÏprovocation€to€warrant€voluntary€manslaughter.€€In€our€view,€there€was€no€risk€of€aÏ"patchwork€verdict."ÌÌà àà àIn€summary,€we€find€no€merit€to€any€of€the€claims€embodied€in€theÏthird€issue.€€ÌÌà@ àIVÌà àà àAs€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€complains€that€his€twenty„one„yearÏsentence€was€excessive.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€(a)€by€failing€toÏconsider€two€mitigating€factors€and€(b)€by€improperly€weighing€the€mitigating€andÍenhancing€factors€present.ÌÌà àà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€theÏdefendant€to€show€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence.ÌÌà àà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€atÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors;Ï(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÏdefendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€œðððð›€40„35„102,€„103,€and€Ì„210;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€the€offense,€the€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€AÏfelony€was€the€midpoint€of€the€range€if€there€were€no€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€Should€the€trial€court€find€mitigating€andÏenhancement€factors,€it€must€start€at€the€middle€of€the€range,€enhance€the€sentenceÏbased€upon€any€applicable€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentenceÏbased€upon€any€appropriate€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).ÏThe€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€discretionary€with€the€trial€court€so€long€as€theÏrecord€supports€its€findings€and€it€complies€with€the€1989€Sentencing€Act.€€òòSeeóóÏòòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€The€trial€court€must,€however,€make€specific€findings€onÏthe€record€which€indicate€its€application€of€the€sentencing€principles.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€œðððð€40„35„209,€„210.›ÌÌà àà àThe€presentence€report€established€that€the€defendant,€age€forty„fourÏat€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€completed€the€ninth€grade.€€He€had€workedÏas€a€truck€driver€and€manager€of€a€business€but€was€unemployed€at€the€time€of€theÏshooting.€€He€has€three€children.€€His€prior€criminal€history€includes€convictions€forÏbreach€of€the€peace,€assault,€receiving€stolen€property€and€two€convictions€forÏdriving€under€the€influence.€€He€was€on€judicial€diversion€for€a€charge€of€theft€overÏ$10,000€when€the€shooting€occurred.€€He€was€also€on€probation€for€DUI€when€theÏshooting€occurred.Ìà àà àThe€trial€court€found€the€following€enhancement€factors€applicable:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).ÌÌà8 àà8 à(8)€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÏunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€aÏsentence€involving€release€into€the€community.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(8).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€trial€court€found€the€following€mitigating€factors€applicable:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(2)€The€defendant€acted€under€strong€provocation.€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(2).ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€Substantial€grounds€exist€tending€to€excuse€or€justifyÏthe€defendantððs€criminal€conduct,€though€failing€toÏestablish€a€defense.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(3).ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àThe€defendant€concedes€the€presence€of€enhancement€factors€(1)Ïand€(8)€and€yet€contends€that€he€lacked€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(11),€and€that€he€acted€under€duress€or€domination€ofÏanother€person,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(12).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€told€a€neighbor€a€week€before€the€shooting€that€heÏwas€too€old€to€fight€the€victim€and€that€he€would€shoot€the€victim€if€threatened.€€AfterÍsuccessfully€pushing€the€victim€away€on€the€night€of€the€shooting,€the€defendantÏfollowed€the€victim€into€the€bedroom,€taking€a€loaded€rifle€with€him.€€He€testified€thatÏhe€planned€to€hit€the€œvictim€with›€the€rifle.€€Instead,€the€defendant€shot€the€victim€nineÏtimes.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€continued€to€shoot€the€victim€even€after€theÏvictim€pleaded,€"Jerry,€No."€€All€of€this€supports€the€trial€court's€rejection€of€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(11).€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€909€S.W.2d€461,€465€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€œòòappóó.›€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà à€à àSection€40„35„113(12)€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€provides€as€follows:€€"TheÏdefendant€acted€under€duress€or€under€the€domination€of€another€person,€evenÏthough€the€duress€or€the€domination€of€another€person€is€not€sufficient€to€constituteÏa€defense€to€the€crime."€€Duress€is€defined€as€a€threat€of€"such€a€character€as€toÏovercome€the€mind€and€will€and€destroy€the€free€agency€of€a€person€of€ordinaryÏfirmness."€€òòJohnson€v.€Rolandóó,€61€Tenn.€(2€Baxt.)€203,€206€(1872).€€The€defendantÏtestified€that€he€twice€left€the€trailer€after€threats€made€by€the€victim.€€During€the€thirdÏconfrontation,€the€defendant€had€the€opportunity€to€leave€again,€but€he€did€not.€€InÏour€view,€there€was€evidence€to€support€the€trial€court's€rejection€of€the€defendant'sÏclaim€that€he€acted€under€"duress€or€domination."€€òòState€v.€John€D.€Joslinóó,€KnoxÏCounty€No.€03„C„01„9510„CR„00299€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Knoxville,€September€18,Ï1997).€€No€one€forced€the€defendant€to€fire€the€first€shot€or€any€of€the€several€shotsÍthereafter.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€was€eligible€for€a€sentence€ranging€from€fifteen€toÏtwenty„five€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(1).€The€judge€started€at€theÏmid„range€of€twenty€years,€determined€that€the€enhancing€factors€slightlyÏoutweighed€the€mitigating€factors,€and€added€one€year.€€That€the€defendant€hadÏprevious€convictions€and€was€serving€probation€and€judicial€diversion€when€heÏshot€the€victim€warranted€significant€weight.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€Ìà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€œÌÇ›CONCUR:ÌÌÌÌœ______________________________________›ÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌœ______________________________________›ÌCurwood€Witt,€Judge€ÌÌà à